Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 361–390 | Cite as

Bases for certain cohomology representations of the symmetric group



We give a combinatorial description (including explicit differential-form bases) for the cohomology groups of the space of n distinct nonzero complex numbers, with coefficients in rank-one local systems which are of finite monodromy around the coordinate hyperplanes and trivial monodromy around all other hyperplanes. In the case where the local system is equivariant for the symmetric group, we write the cohomology groups as direct sums of inductions of one-dimensional characters of subgroups. This relies on an equivariant description of the Orlik-Solomon algebras of full monomial reflection groups (wreath products of the symmetric group with a cyclic group). The combinatorial models involved are certain representations of these wreath products which possess bases indexed by labelled trees.


Hyperplane complement Cohomology Representation Symmetric group 


  1. 1.
    H. Barcelo, “On the action of the symmetric group on the free Lie algebra and the partition lattice,” J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 55 (1990), 93–129.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D.C. Cohen, “Triples of arrangements and local systems,” Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 130(10) (2002), 3025–3031.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.M. Douglass, “On the cohomology of an arrangement of type B l,” J. Algebra 147 (1992), 265–282.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Hanlon, “The characters of the wreath product group acting on the homology groups of the Dowling lattices,” J. Algebra 91 (1984), 430–463.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Henderson, “Representations of wreath products on cohomology of De Concini-Procesi compactifications,” Int. Math. Res. Not. 20 (2004), 983–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Henderson, “The symmetric group representation on cohomology of the regular elements of a maximal torus of the special linear group,” math.RT/0312006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Kawahara, “Vanishing and bases for cohomology of partially trivial local systems on hyperplane arrangements,” Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 133(7) (2005), 1907–1915.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    G.I. Lehrer, “On the Poincaré series associated with Coxeter group actions on complements of hyperplanes,” J. London Math. Soc. 36(2) (1987), 275–294.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G.I. Lehrer, “On hyperoctahedral hyperplane complements,” in The Arcata Conference on Representations of Finite Groups (Arcata, Calif., 1986), Vol. 47 of Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1987, pp. 219–234.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G.I. Lehrer, “Poincaré polynomials for unitary reflection groups,” Invent. Math. 120 (1995), 411–425.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G.I. Lehrer and L. Solomon, “On the action of the symmetric group on the cohomology of the complement of its reflecting hyperplanes,” J. Algebra 104 (1986), 410–424.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. Libgober and S. Yuzvinsky, “Cohomology of local systems,” in Arrangements—Tokyo 1998, Vol. 27 of Adv. Stud. Pure Math., Kinokuniya, Tokyo, 2000, pp. 169–184.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Orlik and H. Terao, Arrangements of Hyperplanes. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    V. Schechtman, H. Terao, and A. Varchenko, “Local systems over complements of hyperplanes and the Kac-Kazhdan conditions for singular vectors,” J. Pure Appl. Algebra 100(1–3) (1995), 93–102.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Yuzvinsky, “Orlik-Solomon algebras in algebra and topology,” Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 56(2) (2001), (338), pp. 87–166, translation in Russian Math. Surveys 56(2) (2001), 293–364.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations