Skip to main content
Log in

On Horn’s Problem and Its Volume Function

  • Published:
Communications in Mathematical Physics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We consider an extended version of Horn’s problem: given two orbits \( {{\mathcal {O}}}_\alpha \) and \( {{\mathcal {O}}}_\beta \) of a linear representation of a compact Lie group, let \(A\in {\mathcal O}_\alpha \), \(B\in {{\mathcal {O}}}_\beta \) be independent and invariantly distributed random elements of the two orbits. The problem is to describe the probability distribution of the orbit of the sum \(A+B\). We study in particular the familiar case of coadjoint orbits, and also the orbits of self-adjoint real, complex and quaternionic matrices under the conjugation actions of \(\mathrm{SO}(n)\), \(\mathrm{SU}(n)\) and \(\mathrm {USp}(n)\) respectively. The probability density can be expressed in terms of a function that we call the volume function. In this paper, (i) we relate this function to the symplectic or Riemannian geometry of the orbits, depending on the case; (ii) we discuss its non-analyticities and possible vanishing; (iii) in the coadjoint case, we study its relation to tensor product multiplicities (generalized Littlewood–Richardson coefficients) and show that it computes the volume of a family of convex polytopes introduced by Berenstein and Zelevinsky. These considerations are illustrated by a detailed study of the volume function for the coadjoint orbits of \(B_2=\mathfrak {so}(5)\).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In most cases this distinction is immaterial because the spectrum of \(A+B\) uniquely determines its orbit. The only exceptions are the even special orthogonal groups \(G = SO(2n)\), in which case \(\mathrm{diag \,}(x_1, \ldots , x_n)\) and \(\mathrm{diag \,}(x_{w(1)}, \ldots , x_{w(n)})\) lie in different orbits whenever \(w \in S_n\) is an odd permutation.

  2. In the language of \(\beta \)-ensembles appearing in random matrix theory, our \(\theta \) is equal to \(\beta /2\). We opted for this notation, which is more common in symmetric function theory, to avoid overloading the symbol \(\beta \).

  3. In the following, we use boldface \(\pmb {\alpha }\) to denote roots, not to confuse them with eigenvalues \(\alpha _i\).

  4. The r.h.s. of (30), interpreted as a volume as we shall see in the next section, can be read, for instance, from the (stretched) LR polynomial defined by the triples that appear as arguments of \({{\mathcal {J}}}\), or, for low rank, computed from explicit expressions such as those in [39] or below in Sect. 5.1.

  5. One may use this relation and the dimensions \(\text {dim}\, (V_\kappa )\), \(\kappa \in K\), to check the weights \({r}_\kappa \). In the above examples of \(B_2\) and \(B_3\), the dimensions \(\text {dim}\, (V_\kappa )\) for the representations with \(\kappa \in K\) are respectively \(\{1, 5\}\) and \(\{1, 7, 21, 27, 35, 105, 189\}\).

  6. Actually the BZ-polytope is the image of the hive polytope under an injective lattice-preserving linear map [32], so that one can identify them for the purpose of counting arguments; however the Euclidean volumes of the two polytopes differ by an r-dependent constant.

  7. For instance, as noted in the previous section, for some algebras if a triple is compatible then the corresponding Weyl shifted triple is not. This occurs for example in the case of \(B_2\).

  8. For example, by inspection of the BZ inequalities for \(B_2\) (see (53) below), it is easy to see that in this case \(H_{\lambda \mu }^\nu \) may have corners at integer or half-integer points, hence \(P_{\lambda \mu }^{\nu }(s)\) is a quasi-polynomial of period 2. In fact it is well known that in the \(B_r,\, C_r\) and \(D_r\) cases, the period of \(P_{\lambda \mu }^{\nu }(s)\) is at most 2 [9].

  9. There is an unfortunate misprint in Sect. 5 of [39]: the function \({{\mathcal {J}}}\) of \(B_r=\mathfrak {so}(2r+1)\) is of class \(C^{2r-3}\), again as a consequence of the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma.

  10. Note however that when counting integer solutions to the BZ inequalities, we must make sure that the eliminated parameters are also integers.

  11. In the \(A_r\) cases we prefer to use our own version of an algorithm using Ocneanu-blades (or O-blades, see [8]), because it has an easy interpretation and because it is fast.

References

  1. Berenstein, A., Zelevinsky, A.: Tensor product multiplicities and convex polytopes in partition space. J. Geom. Phys. 5, 453–472 (1988)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Berenstein, A., Zelevinsky, A.: Triple multiplicities for \(s\ell (r+1)\) and the spectrum of the exterior algebra of the adjoint representation. J. Algebr. Combin. 1, 7–22 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Berenstein, A., Zelevinsky, A.: Tensor product multiplicities, canonical bases and totally positive varieties. Invent. Math. 143, 77–128 (2001). arXiv:math/9912012

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Capparelli, S.: Calcolo della funzione di partizione di Kostant. Bolletino dell’Unione Matematica Italiana 8, 89–110 (2003)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Coquereaux, R.: Quantum McKay correspondence and global dimensions for fusion and module-categories associated with Lie groups. arXiv:1209.6621

  6. Coquereaux, R., Zuber, J.-B.: From orbital measures to Littlewood-Richardson coefficients and hive polytopes. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Comb. Phys. Interact. 5, 339–386 (2018). arXiv:1706.02793

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Coquereaux, R., Zuber, J.-B.: The Horn problem for real symmetric and quaternionic self-dual matrices. SIGMA15, 029 (2019). http://www.emis.de/journals/SIGMA/2019/029/sigma19-029.pdf, arXiv:1809.03394

  8. Coquereaux, R., Zuber, J.-B.: Conjugation properties of tensor product multiplicities. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, 455202 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/47/45/455202. arXiv:1405.4887

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. De Loera, J.A., McAllister, T.B.: On the computation of Clebsch-Gordan coefficients and the dilation effect. Exp. Math. 15, 7–19 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1080/10586458.2006.10128948

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Derksen, H., Weyman, J.: On the Littlewood–Richardson polynomials. J. Algebra 255, 247–257 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Dooley, A.H., Repka, J., Wildberger, N.: Sums of adjoint orbits. Linear Multilinear Algebra 36, 79–101 (1993)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Duistermaat, J.J., Heckman, G.J.: On the variation in the cohomology of the symplectic form of the reduced phase space. Invent. Math. 69, 259–268 (1982)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Etingof, P., Rains, E.: Mittag–Leffler type sums associated with root systems. arXiv:1811.05293

  14. Fulton, W.: Eigenvalues, invariant factors, highest weights, and Schubert calculus. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 37, 209–249 (2000). arXiv:math/9908012

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Guillemin, V., Lerman, E., Sternberg, S.: Symplectic Fibrations and Multiplicity Diagrams. Cambridge Unversity Press, Cambridge (1996)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Heckman, G.J.: Projections of orbits and asymptotic behavior of multiplicities for compact connected lie groups. Invent. Math. 67, 333–356 (1982)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Horn, A.: Eigenvalues of sums of Hermitian matrices. Pac. J. Math. 12, 225–241 (1962)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Kirillov, A.A.: Lectures on the Orbit Method. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2004)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Klyachko, A.A.: Stable bundles, representation theory and Hermitian operators. Selecta Math. (N.S.) 4, 419–445 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Knutson, A.: The symplectic and algebraic geometry of Horn’s problem. Linear Algebra Appl. 319, 61–81 (2000)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Knutson, A., Tao, T.: Honeycombs and sums of Hermitian matrices. Notices Am. Math. Soc. 48, 175–186 (2001). arXiv:math/0009048

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Knutson, A., Tao, T.: The honeycomb model of GL(n) tensor products I: proof of the saturation conjecture. J. Am. Math. Soc. 12, 1055–1090 (1999). arXiv:math/9807160

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Knutson, A., Tao, T., Woodward, C.: The honeycomb model of GL(n) tensor products II: puzzles determine facets of the Littlewood–Richardson cone. J. Am. Math. Soc. 17, 19–48 (2004). arXiv:math/0107011

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee, J.: Smooth Manifolds. Springer, New York (2003)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Lie Package, van Leeuwen, M.A.A., Cohen, A.M., Lisser, B.: Computer Algebra Nederland, Amsterdam. ISBN 90-74116-02-7 (1992)

  26. Macdonald, I.G.: Some conjectures for root systems. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 13, 988–1007 (1982)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Opdam, E.M.: Some applications of hypergeometric shift operators. Invent. Math. 98, 1–18 (1989)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Mathematica, Wolfram Research, Inc., Champaign, IL (2012). http://www.wolfram.com/

  29. McMullen, P.: Lattice invariant valuations on rational polytopes. Arch. Math. (Basel) 31, 509–516 (1978/1979)

  30. McSwiggen, C.: A new proof of Harish–Chandra’s integral formula. Commun. Math. Phys. 365, 239–253 (2019). arXiv:1712.03995

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Mehta, M.L., Dyson, F.J.: Statistical theory of the energy levels of complex systems. V. J. Math. Phys 4, 713–719 (1963)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Pak, I., Vallejo, E.: Combinatorics and geometry of Littlewood–Richardson cones. Eur. J. Comb. 6, 995–1008 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejc.2004.06.008. arXiv:math/0407170

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Racah, G.: In: Gürsey, F. (ed.) Group Theoretical Concepts and Methods in Elementary Particle Physics, p. 1. Gordon and Breach, New York; D. Speiser, ibid., p. 237 (1964)

  34. Shiga, K.: Some aspects of real-analytic manifolds and differentiable manifolds. J. Math. Soc. Jpn. 16, 128–142 (1964)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Stanley, R.P.: Enumerative Combinatorics. Volume 1, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 49. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. Steinberg, R.: A general Clebsch–Gordan theorem. Bull. AMS 67, 406–407 (1961)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Tarski, J.: Partition function for certain simple Lie algebras. J. Math. Phys. 4, 569–574 (1963)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Vergne, M.: private communication

  39. Zuber, J.-B.: Horn’s problem and Harish–Chandra’s integrals. Probability distribution functions. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré Comb. Phys. Interact. 5, 309–338 (2018). arXiv:1705.01186

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge fruitful discussions with P. Di Francesco, P. Etingof, V. Gorin, R. Kedem, S. Sam and M. Vergne. The work of Colin McSwiggen is partially supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMS 1714187, as well as by the Chateaubriand Fellowship of the Embassy of France in the United States.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Bernard Zuber.

Additional information

Communicated by J. Marklof

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Covolumes

Appendix: Covolumes

Let us sketch how the covolume \(c_{{\mathfrak {g}}}\) may be determined for the lattice \(\Lambda \) of integer points of \(\mathrm {aff}(H_{\lambda \mu }^\nu )\), in the case that \(\dim H_{\lambda \mu }^\nu = d_r\) so that \(\mathrm {aff}(H_{\lambda \mu }^\nu ) = \mathrm {aff}(\mathrm {Part}_{{\mathfrak {g}}}(\sigma ))\), see (33). This affine span has codimension r in the Euclidean space \(\mathbb {R}^{N_r}\) generated as the formal span of the positive roots, which are taken to form a canonical basis, i.e. \(\langle \pmb {\alpha }_a, \pmb {\alpha }_b\rangle = \delta _{ab}\), \(a,b=1,\cdots , N_r\). Since the covolume of \(\Lambda \) is independent of the value of \(\sigma \), we may take \(\sigma =0\). Thus we consider the lattice of integer combinations of the positive roots \(\pmb {\alpha }_a\) subject to the condition

$$\begin{aligned} \sum _{a=1}^{N_r} u_a \pmb {\alpha }_a =0\in {\mathfrak {t}}^*. \end{aligned}$$
(58)

Suppose that the first r of the \(\pmb {\alpha }\)’s are the simple roots, and denote by A the \((N_r-r) \times r\) matrix that expresses the non-simple roots in terms of the simple ones:

$$\begin{aligned} \pmb {\alpha }_a=\sum _{i=1}^r A_{ai}\pmb {\alpha }_i, \quad a=r+1,\ldots , N_r. \end{aligned}$$

Then eliminate the parameters \(u_i\) for \(i=1,\ldots ,r\) in the condition (58), using the relation \(u_i= - \sum _{a=r+1}^{N_r} u_a A_{ai}\). The lattice is thus generated by the linear combinations \(\sum _{a=r+1}^{N_r} u_a (-\sum A_{ai} \pmb {\alpha }_i +\pmb {\alpha }_a)\). Under the assumption that its fundamental domain is generated by the \(N_r-r\) vectors \( w_a= (-\sum A_{ai} \pmb {\alpha }_i +\pmb {\alpha }_a)\), we can compute the volume of this fundamental domain, i.e. the covolume, as follows. The Gram matrix of the vectors \(w_a\) in the Euclidean space \(\mathbb {R}^{N_r}\) reads

$$\begin{aligned} G_{ab}=\langle w_a, w_b\rangle = \delta _{ab}+ \sum _{i=1}^r A_{ai}A_{bi}\,. \end{aligned}$$

The covolume is then the square root of the determinant \(\delta _r\) of G, \(c_{{\mathfrak {g}}}=\delta _r^\frac{1}{2}\). We have computed these determinants for the classical algebras \(A_r,\ B_r,\ C_r\) and \(D_r\) up to \(r=8\) and the values of \(\delta _r\) listed in Table 1 are extrapolations of these numbers. The values for the exceptional algebras are also included in Table 1. A last observation is that for all the simple algebras, a single formula encompasses the expressions found in the table:

$$\begin{aligned} \delta _r= \frac{(h^\vee )^r}{\det C} \, \prod _{i=1}^r \frac{\langle \pmb {\theta }, \pmb {\theta } \rangle }{\langle \pmb {\alpha }_i,\pmb {\alpha }_i\rangle } \,, \end{aligned}$$
(59)

where C is the Cartan matrix, \(h^\vee \) is the dual Coxeter number and the product runs over the simple roots.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coquereaux, R., McSwiggen, C. & Zuber, JB. On Horn’s Problem and Its Volume Function. Commun. Math. Phys. 376, 2409–2439 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03646-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-019-03646-7

Navigation