text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The AdS/CFT correspondence (for a review see  and references therein) relates gauged supergravity in a background geometry $`AdS_5\times H`$ to a superconformal field theory (SCFT) in a four-dimensional Minkowski space living on the the boundary of $`AdS_5`$. The Kaluza-Klein excitations of the supergravity are identified with gauge invariant operators in the SCFT. $`H`$ is called the horizon manifold and its isometries are related to the R-symmetry of the superconformal algebra. The original example of  considered $`H=S^5`$ whose isometry group $`SO(6)`$ corresponds to the R-symmetry of the dual $`N=4`$ SCFT. Examples with less supersymmetry and different $`H`$-manifolds have been constructed for example in .

It is possible to perturb the SCFT by adding an operator $`O_h`$ to the action

$$SS+hd^4xO_h(x).$$
(1.1)
In general this breaks the conformal symmetry and if the perturbation is relevant a renormalization group (RG) flow for the coupling $`h`$ is induced. The resulting infrared (IR) theory can be free, confining or have a non-trivial fixed point where the $`\beta `$-function vanishes. In the latter case the RG-flow connects two different CFT, the original ultra-violet (UV) theory with the IR theory.

In the dual supergravity description the coupling $`h`$ is identified with a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the RG-flow corresponds to a domain wall (DW) solution which interpolates between two different extrema of the scalar potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ . If the UV-theory and the IR-theory are both conformal the two extrema necessarily have to be $`AdS_5`$ vacua of $`V`$. The DW solution requires that the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has a non-trivial dependence on the the radial coordinate of $`AdS_5`$ which can be identified with the energy scale $`\mu `$ of the RG-flow .

A particular example of such an RG-flow has been presented in  and further discussed in . It is a flow from an $`N=4`$ SCFT in the UV to an $`N=1`$ SCFT in the IR which preserves $`N=1`$ supersymmetry along the flow. In the dual supergravity description this was identified with a DW solution of five-dimensional gauged $`N=8`$ supergravity connecting two $`AdS_5`$ vacua. The solution preserves four supercharges (it is a BPS solution) and interpolates between two extrema one of which preserves the full $`N=8`$ supersymmetry and is identified with the UV SCFT while the second extremum only preserves $`N=2`$ supersymmetry and is identified with the IR SCFT. The BPS property corresponds to the fact that $`N=1`$ supersymmetry is preserved along the RG-flow.

The purpose of this paper is to study BPS domain wall solutions of five-dimensional $`N=2`$ gauged supergravity which preserve half of the supercharges ($`N=1`$).555We use the convention of $`D=4`$ to count supercharges. The minimal supersymmetry in $`D=5`$ has 8 supercharges which we call $`N=2`$ throughout this paper. This establishes the framework for generalized RG-flows which start from an UV theory with less ($`N=1,2`$) supersymmetry. It also simplifies the analysis since the $`N=2`$ scalar potential is somewhat less involved than its $`N=8`$ counterpart.

An additional motivation arises from the fact that such DW solutions are closely related to a supersymmetric version of the Randall-Sundrum scenario . In this scenario gravity is localized near the wall through exponential suppression and therefore requires a DW which asymptotes to IR fixed points on both sides. It has been shown in  that there are no such fixed points for theories containing vector/tensor multiplets, but we will argue that this does not necessarily apply if charged hypermultiplets are present.

BPS domain wall solutions of five-dimensional $`N=2`$ supergravity have been studied previously. In refs.  the DW solutions arising from compactification of 11-dimensional Horǎva–Witten M-theory on Calabi-Yau threefolds were derived. In this case the necessity of non-trivial four-form flux results in the gauging of an axionic shift symmetry which is an isometry of the universal hypermultiplet. Refs.  considered DW solution with non-trivial vector multiplets and showed that within this setup no IR fixed point can arise. As an immediate corollary also supersymmetric RS domain walls can not be obtained with only vector multiplets . Non-trivial tensor multiplets were considered in refs.  but this does not alter the conclusion about possible IR fixed points. Finally ref.  derived the five-dimensional gauged $`N=2`$ supergravity including vector-, tensor- and hypermultiplets. Many aspects of these discussions go in parallel to domain walls in 4-dimensional gauged supergravity .

In this paper we consider both vector- and hypermultiplets and derive the condition for a BPS domain wall solution including charged hypermultiplets. Such a solution is only possible for Abelian gauge symmetries. We argue that in this case the previous ‘no-go’ theorems do not apply. Specifically, in section 2 we recall a few facts about $`N=2`$ gauged supergravity with particular emphasis on gauged isometries in the hypermultiplet sector. It turns out that we have to allow for more general gaugings of the $`SU(2)_R`$ symmetry than have previously been considered. In section 3 we study BPS domain wall solutions with both non-trivial vector- and hypermultiplets. We derive the supersymmetric flow equations for the scalar fields and show that the corresponding c-theorem is satisfied. As an application of the formalism we discuss in section 4 the RG-flow of ref. . Section 5 presents our conclusions and contains a preliminary discussion of a smooth supersymmetric RS domain wall.

## 2 $`N=2`$ gauged supergravity

A generic spectrum of five-dimensional $`N=2`$ supergravity contains the gravitational multiplet, $`n_v`$ vector multiplets in the adjoint representation of some gauge group $`G`$, $`n_h`$ hypermultiplets which can be charged under $`G`$ and tensor multiplets. The gravitational multiplet contains the graviton $`g_{mn}`$, two gravitini $`\psi _m^A,A=1,2`$ which are symplectic-Majorana spinors666For conventions and notations see . and the graviphoton $`A_m^0`$. A vector multiplet contains a vector $`A_m`$, two gaugini $`\lambda ^A`$ and a real scalar $`\varphi `$ while the hypermultiplet features two hyperini $`\zeta ^\alpha `$ and four real scalars $`q^u`$.

A tensor multiplet has the same field content as a vector multiplet but with the vector replaced by a tensor. In $`D=5`$ vector and tensor are dual to each other and this duality can be performed as long as the tensor fields are neutral under $`G`$ . In this paper we consider this case and thus only keep $`n_v`$ vector and $`n_h`$ hypermultiplets in the spectrum.

The action for scalar fields coupled to supergravity is given by

$$S=d^5x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}RV(\mathrm{\Phi })\frac{1}{2}g_{MN}_m\mathrm{\Phi }^M^m\mathrm{\Phi }^N\right],$$
(2.1)
where we have omitted gauge fields and fermions. The $`\mathrm{\Phi }^M`$ collectively denote the scalar fields $`\varphi ^i,i=1,\mathrm{},n_v`$ in the vector multiplets and the scalar fields $`q^u,u=1,\mathrm{},4n_h`$ in the hypermultiplets, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }^M=(\varphi ^i,q^u)`$. Supersymmetry forces the metric to be block diagonal

$$g_{MN}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{ij}& 0\\ 0& g_{uv}\end{array}\right),$$
(2.2)
where the metric for the vector multiplets $`(g_{ij})`$ has to be very special Kähler  and the metric for the hypermultiplets $`(g_{uv})`$ has to be quaternionic.

The very special Kähler geometry is best described by introducing $`n_v+1`$ functions $`X^I(\varphi ^i),I=0,\mathrm{},n_v`$ which satisfy one contraint equation

$$𝒱\frac{1}{6}C_{IJK}X^IX^JX^K=1,$$
(2.3)
where the $`C_{IJK}`$ are arbitrary constants determining the scalar manifold. The metric $`g_{ij}`$ is then obtained via

$$g_{ij}=_iX^I_jX^JG_{IJ}|_{𝒱=1},G_{IJ}=\frac{1}{2}_I_J\mathrm{ln}𝒱|_{𝒱=1}.$$
(2.4)
The $`4n_h`$ scalars in the hypermultiplets are coordinates on a quaternionic manifold . This implies the existence of three (almost) complex structures $`(J^x)_v^w,x=1,2,3`$ which satisfy the quaternionic algebra. Associated with the complex structures is a triplet of Kähler forms $`K_{uv}^x=g_{uw}(J^x)_v^w`$ where $`g_{uw}`$ is the quaternionic metric. The holonomy group of a quaternionic manifold is $`Sp(2)\times Sp(2n_h)`$ and $`K^x`$ is identified with the field strength of the $`Sp(2)SU(2)`$ connection $`\omega _v^x`$ i.e.

$$K^x=d\omega ^x+\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{xyz}\omega ^y\omega ^z.$$
(2.5)
As a consequence the $`K^x`$ are covariantly closed with respect to the $`SU(2)`$ connection $`\omega ^x`$

$$dK^x+ϵ^{xyz}\omega ^yK^z=0.$$
(2.6)
For later use we need to introduce the quaternionic vielbeins $`V_u^{A\alpha }`$ defined via

$$g_{uw}=V_u^{A\alpha }V_w^{B\beta }ϵ_{AB}C_{\alpha \beta },$$
(2.7)
where $`\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{},2n_h`$ and $`C_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the flat $`Sp(2n_h)`$ metric.

The isometries on the scalar manifold are generated by a set of $`n_v+1`$ Killing vectors $`k_I^u(q),k_I^i(\varphi )`$

$$\delta q^u=ϵ^Ik_I^u(q),\delta \varphi ^i=ϵ^Ik_I^i(\varphi ).$$
(2.8)
The $`k_I^u`$ are determined by a triplet of Killing prepotentials $`P_I^x(q)`$ via777For $`SU(2)`$ valued matrices, we adopt the convention $`Y_B^A=iY^x(\sigma ^x)_B^A`$.

$$k_I^uK_{uvB}^A=_vP_{IB}^A+[\omega _v,P_I]_B^A.$$
(2.9)
Furthermore, the $`P_I`$ satisfy a Poisson bracket relation :

$$\{P_I,P_J\}_B^Ak_I^uk_J^vK_{uvB}^A[P_I,P_J]_B^A=\frac{1}{2}f_{IJ}^KP_{KB}^A,$$
(2.10)
where $`f_{IJ}^K`$ is the structure constant of the isometry algebra. It is possible to gauge (part of) these isometries by modifying the covariant derivatives of the scalars, gaugini and hyperini, their supersymmetry transformation and the Lagrangian. Furthermore it is possible to (independently) gauge the $`SU(2)_R`$ symmetry of the $`N=2`$ supergravity. This modifies the covariant derivatives of the gravitino and the gaugino but not the hyperino. Finally, it is also possible to simultaneously gauge the isometries and the R-symmetry. We do not recall the details of this somewhat technical enterprise here but refer the reader to the literature .

However, for the purpose of this paper, we are lead to consider more general gaugings of the R-symmetry. We modify the procedure outlined in , in that we shift the space-time pullback of the $`SU(2)`$ connection by the following linear combination of the vector fields

$$\omega _B^A\widehat{\omega }_B^A\omega _B^A+A^I\widehat{P}_{IB}^A(q),$$
(2.11)
where $`\widehat{P}_{IB}^A`$ is an $`SU(2)`$ valued matrix. This differs from the procedure of ref.  by the choice of the matrix $`\widehat{P}_{IB}^A`$. In  the Killing prepotential was used i.e. $`\widehat{P}_{IB}^A=P_{IB}^A`$ while we allow for the possibility of having a slightly more general $`\widehat{P}_{IB}^A`$ which differs from $`P_I`$ by a $`q`$-dependent scalar (i.e. $`SU(2)`$ invariant) function

$$\widehat{P}_{IB}^A=\widehat{\gamma }_I(q)P_{IB}^A\text{(no sum on }I\text{)}.$$
(2.12)
A rigorous proof of the consistency of this ansatz is beyond the scope of this paper and we leave it for future investigation. However, as a first check we verified that the new $`SU(2)`$ curvature $`\widehat{K}`$ defined analogously to (2.5) with $`\omega `$ replaced with $`\widehat{\omega }`$ satisfies

$$\widehat{K}_B^A=K_{uvB}^A𝒟q^u𝒟q^v+\widehat{F}^IP_{IB}^A.$$
(2.13)
Eq. (2.13) holds in virtue of (2.9) and (2.10), with the definitions

$$𝒟q^u=dq^u\frac{1}{2}\widehat{A}^Ik_I^u,\widehat{F}^I=d\widehat{A}^I+\frac{1}{4}f_{KL}^I\widehat{A}^K\widehat{A}^L,\widehat{A}^I=\widehat{\gamma }^I(q)A^I.$$
(2.14)
$`\widehat{K}`$ still satisfies eq. (2.6) with $`\omega `$ replaced with $`\widehat{\omega }`$.

Thus the only modification following from (2.11) is to replace the gauge fields $`A^I`$ and their field strength with their hatted counterparts in terms arising from the R-symmetry gauging. As these terms are supersymmetric by themselves , this suggests the consistency of our ansatz.888We thank A. Ceresole and G. Dall’Agata for discussions on this point. For $`\widehat{P}_I=P_I`$ the consistency has been shown in  while for $`\widehat{P}_IP_I`$ this has not been firmly established yet. The interpretation of the field dependent vector fields $`\widehat{A}^I`$ in the light of the AdS/CFT correspondence will be given at the end of section 3.

Finally, gauging the isometries and the R-symmetry also requires the presence of a scalar potential . Using the modified $`SU(2)`$ connection, one obtains

$$V=(2G^{IJ}+4X^IX^J)Tr(\widehat{P}_I\widehat{P}_J)+X^IX^J(g_{uv}k_I^uk_J^v+g_{ij}k_I^ik_J^j),$$
(2.15)
where the first term can be traced back to the gauging of the $`SU(2)_R`$ symmetry and the second term to the gauging of the isometries of the scalar manifold. For $`\widehat{P}_I=P_I`$, this potential coincides with the potential of refs. .

## 3 BPS domain wall solutions

In this section we derive BPS domain wall solutions which preserve half of the eight supercharges. As an Ansatz for a metric which respects 4-d Poincare invariance we use

$$ds^2g_{mn}dx^mdx^n=\mu ^2(dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2)+\frac{d\mu ^2}{\mu ^2W^2(\mu )}.$$
(3.1)
For constant $`W`$ this is the metric of $`AdS_5`$. In the AdS/CFT correspondence the fifth coordinate $`\mu `$ will be identified with an energy scale in the dual four-dimensional field theory . The UV region (= large length scale in supergravity) corresponds to $`\mu \mathrm{}`$, while the IR is approached for $`\mu 0`$. For later use we also record that for this metric the vielbeins and the non–vanishing spin connections are given by

$$e_t{}_{}{}^{0}=e_x{}_{}{}^{a}=\mu ,e_\mu {}_{}{}^{4}=(\mu W)^1,\omega _{t\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}04}}=\omega _{xa4}=\mu W,$$
(3.2)
where $`(0,a,4)`$ are the tangent space indices.

We require that the DW solutions preserves four supercharges and as a consequence we have to demand that the supersymmetry variations of the two gravitini $`\psi _\mu ^A,A=1,2`$, the $`2n_v`$ gaugini $`\lambda _i^A`$ and the $`2n_h`$ hyperini $`\zeta ^\alpha `$ admit four Killing spinors in the bosonic background specified by the metric (3.1) and vanishing gauge fields. Specifically we demand

$`\delta \psi _m^A`$ $`=`$ $`D_mϵ^A{\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}X^I\widehat{P}_{IB}^A\mathrm{\Gamma }_mϵ^B=0,`$ (3.3)
$`\delta \lambda ^{Ai}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^m_m\varphi ^iϵ^A+g^{ij}(_jX^I)\widehat{P}_{IB}^Aϵ^B+X^Ik_I^iϵ^A=0,`$ (3.4)
$`\delta \zeta ^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}V_u^{A\alpha }\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^m_mq^u+iX^Ik_I^u\right)ϵ_A=0.`$ (3.5)
We are mainly interested in the dependence of the scalar fields on the fifth coordinate or, in terms of the dual field theory, on the energy scale $`\mu `$. Hence we ignore the 4-d spacetime dependence and consider the scalars $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mu )`$ only as functions of $`\mu `$.

Let us first consider the $`(t,x)`$ components of eq. (3.3). They imply a projection on the supersymmetry parameters $`ϵ^B`$

$$\left(W\mathrm{\Gamma }^4\delta _B^A\frac{2i}{3}X^I\widehat{P}_{IB}^A\right)ϵ^B=0.$$
(3.6)
For this to be a consistent projector one learns from $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^4)^2=1`$ that

$$W^2\delta _B^A=\frac{4}{9}(X^I\widehat{P}_IX^J\widehat{P}_J)_B^A.$$
(3.7)
An additional constraint arises if one demands that (3.6) admits four Killing spinors. This is the case if all $`SU(2)`$ matrices $`\widehat{P}_I`$ can simultaneously be rotated in the direction of $`\sigma ^3`$ or equivalently if

$$[\widehat{P}_I,\widehat{P}_J]=0$$
(3.8)
holds.999One could consider $`X^I\widehat{P}_I`$ as a single $`q`$ and $`\varphi `$ dependent $`SU(2)`$ matrix. However, diagonalizing this matrix is not a covariant operation in this formalism.

In the rotated basis (denoted by the primed quantities) the projector (3.6) reads

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^4ϵ^A+(\sigma ^3)_B^Aϵ^B=0,$$
(3.9)
while $`W`$ simplifies to

$$W=\frac{2}{3}X^I\widehat{P}_I^3.$$
(3.10)
The $`\mu `$ component of eq. (3.3) leads to a first order differential equation which determines the $`\mu `$ dependence of $`ϵ^A`$

$$2\mu D_\mu ϵ^A=ϵ^A,$$
(3.11)
where we used (3.6),(3.7). The compatibility of this equation with the projector (3.6) will be discussed after solving (3.4) and (3.5) which we turn to now.

Inserting the projector (3.6) into (3.4) yields

$$\left(\frac{1}{3}\mu \frac{d\varphi ^i}{d\mu }X^I+^iX^I\right)\widehat{P}_{IB}^Aϵ^B+X^Ik_I^iϵ^A=0.$$
(3.12)
Since $`\widehat{P}_{IB}^A`$ can be rotated into the $`\sigma ^3`$ direction the two terms of eq. (3.12) have to vanish independently (unless all supercharges are broken). Thus with our choice of projector the isometries of the vector multiplets cannot be gauged, that is we have to demand $`X^Ik_I^i=0`$. The vanishing of the first term in (3.12) imposes a first order differential equation for the scalar fields

$$\mu \frac{d\varphi ^i}{d\mu }=3g^{ij}_j\mathrm{log}W.$$
(3.13)
Finally, inserting the projector (3.6) into the hyperino variation (3.5) yields

$$\mu \frac{dq^u}{d\mu }=\frac{2}{3W^2}Tr(X^I\widehat{P}_IX^Jk_J^vJ_v{}_{}{}^{u}),$$
(3.14)
where we have used (3.7) and the fact that the quaternionic complex structures are given by

$$(J_u{}_{}{}^{v})_B^A=g^{wv}(K_{uw})_B^A=iV_u^{A\alpha }V_{B\alpha }^v.$$
(3.15)
Rewriting eq. (2.9) as

$$X^Ik_I^u(J)_u{}_{}{}^{v}=g^{vu}D_u(X^IP_I),$$
(3.16)
can be used to recast (3.14) in the form

$$\mu \frac{dq^u}{d\mu }=\frac{2}{3W^2}g^{uv}Tr\left(X^I\widehat{P}_ID_v(X^JP_J)\right).$$
(3.17)
Eq. (3.17) can also be written as a gradient flow

$$\mu \frac{dq^u}{d\mu }=3g^{uv}_v\mathrm{log}W$$
(3.18)
with the same $`W`$ as in (3.13), provided

$$Tr\left(X^I\widehat{P}_ID_v(X^JP_J)\right)=Tr\left(X^I\widehat{P}_ID_v(X^J\widehat{P}_J)\right)$$
(3.19)
holds. This is a non-trivial constraint on the scalar function $`\widehat{\gamma }_I(q)`$ of eq. (2.12) and is solved by

$$\widehat{\gamma }_I(q)=1\lambda _I(detP_I)^{1/2},\text{(no sum on }I\text{)},$$
(3.20)
where the $`\lambda _I`$ are arbitrary constants. For $`\lambda _I=0`$ one has $`\widehat{P}_I=P_I`$ and (3.18) holds without any further condition. However, eq. (3.20) shows that also for non-trivial $`\widehat{\gamma }_I`$ or in other words for a $`\widehat{P}_I`$ which differs from $`P_I`$ the differential constraint on the hyper-scalars is of the form (3.18). We will see in the next section that non-trivial $`\widehat{\gamma }_I`$ are crucial in order to recover the RG-flow of ref. .

Finally the compatibility of eq. (3.6) with (3.11) imposes the additional condition

$$D_\mu (W^1X^I\widehat{P}_{IB}^A)=0.$$
(3.21)
Using (2.10), (3.8) and (3.18) this equation is satisfied if $`f_{IJ}^K=0`$, i.e. for Abelian isometries.

It is known  that for scalar fields which obey eqs. (3.13), (3.18) the Einstein equations corresponding to the the action (2.1) imply that the scalar potential $`V`$ has to take the form

$$V=6\left(\frac{3}{4}g^{MN}_MW_NWW^2\right).$$
(3.22)
Indeed, inserting the special geometry relation $`G^{IJ}=_iX^I_jX^Jg^{ij}+\frac{2}{3}X^IX^J`$, as well as eqs. (2.9),(3.8), the relations (2.12), (3.19) and the definition (3.7) of $`W`$ into (2.15) results in (3.22). Thus the special form of the potential (3.22) does not hold for an arbitrary $`N=2`$ potential as given in (2.15) but requires precisely the same conditions that we needed to derive the flow equations.101010Strictly speaking eq. (3.22) does not need (3.8) but already holds for the weaker condition $`[_iX^I\widehat{P}_I,X^J\widehat{P}_J]=0`$. This relation is certainly satisfied for (3.8) but one could imagine a situation where the $`\widehat{P}_I`$ not all commute but still satisfy $`[_iX^I\widehat{P}_I,X^J\widehat{P}_J]=0`$. However, this would put strong constraints on $`W`$, following from the very special geometry in 5-d which are not satisfied for standard choices of vector scalar manifolds. This can be viewed as a consistency check on our procedure.

After this somewhat technical derivation let us summarize the results and discuss the physical implications. We solved the supersymmetric variations (3.3)–(3.5) in the background (3.1) and demanded four unbroken supersymmetries. This implies that only Abelian isometries of the hypermultiplet geometry can be gauged, i.e. $`f_{IJ}^K=0,X^Ik_I^i=0`$ with the further requirement $`[\widehat{P}_I,\widehat{P}_J]=0`$. For the scalar fields a set of first order differential equations follows. Provided (3.19) holds they can be written as gradient flow equations

$$\beta ^M\mu \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }^M}{d\mu }=3g^{MN}_N\mathrm{log}W,$$
(3.23)
where

$$W=\frac{2}{3}\left(X^IX^J\widehat{P}_I^x\widehat{P}_J^x\right)^{1/2}=\frac{2}{3}X^I\widehat{P}_I^3.$$
(3.24)
Eq. (3.23) combines eqs. (3.13) and (3.18) while the last equation in (3.24) uses the fact that the $`\widehat{P}_I`$ can always be chosen to point in the $`\sigma ^3`$ direction.

The AdS/CFT correspondence suggests identifying the $`\mu `$-derivative of the scalar fields with the $`\beta `$-function in the dual conformal field theory . The fixed points of the RG-flow occur for $`_NW=0`$ which are also the extrema of the scalar potential $`V`$ as can be seen from eq. (3.22). For $`W|_{W=0}0`$ the extremum corresponds to an $`AdS_5`$ background with $`W`$ being the cosmological constant. $`W|_{W=0}=0`$ on the other hand corresponds to a flat space-time background.

The nature of the fixed point is determined by the derivatives of the $`\beta `$-functions or more precisely by the eigenvalues of the matrix

$$_N\beta ^M|_{\beta =0}=3g^{MK}\frac{_N_KW}{W}|_{\beta =0}$$
(3.25)
where we assume that the fixed point is non-singular, i.e. the metric non-degenerate. Negative eigenvalues correspond to fixed points that are UV stable, while positive eigenvalues imply IR stable fixed points. A RG–flow configuration corresponds to a domain wall interpolating between a UV and a IR point, whereas a Randall–Sundrum type configuration interpolates between two IR fixed points, as we will discuss in the conclusions.

Let us briefly discuss a few generic cases. If there are no hypermultiplets in the spectrum the Killing prepotentials are constants, i.e. $`P_I=\widehat{P}_IV_I=const.`$ corresponding to Fayet–Illiopoulos terms. In this case eq. (3.24) implies

$$W=\frac{2}{3}X^I(\varphi )V_I.$$
(3.26)
This form of $`W`$ and the corresponding eqs. (3.22), (3.23) reproduce the results derived previously in . The very special geometry implies $`_i_jW=\frac{2}{3}g_{ij}W`$ and hence $`_i\beta ^j|_{\beta =0}=2\delta _i^j`$. Thus all fixed points are necessarily ultraviolet . In other words, neither RG-flows nor the RS scenario can be reproduced with only vector multiplets.111111As shown in  this is also the case if some of the vectors are dualized into tensor multiplets.

If there are no vector multiplets but only hypermultiplets in the spectrum only the graviphoton can be used as a gauge field and the superpotential reduces to

$$W=\frac{2}{3}X^0\widehat{P}_0^3(q).$$
(3.27)
Its second derivative does not have a fixed sign and thus $`_u\beta ^v|_{\beta =0}`$ can have positive and/or negative eigenvalues.

In the case that vector- and hypermultiplets are present the matrix $`_N\beta ^M|_{\beta =0}`$ can have positive and negative eigenvalues. Negative eigenvalues are necessarily present since the submatrix $`_i\beta ^j|_{\beta =0}`$ always has negative eigenvalues. Thus any fixed point can be either a maximum or a saddle point but not a local minimum. Positive eigenvalues can arise from the derivatives $`_u\beta ^v|_{\beta =0}`$ but also from mixed derivatives of the form $`_i\beta ^v|_{\beta =0}`$. Finally, note that for a superpotential that factorizes $`W(q,\varphi )=X(\varphi )P(q)`$ the mixed derivatives $`_i\beta ^v|_{\beta =0}`$ necessarily vanish. However, the possibility of $`_u\beta ^v|_{\beta =0}`$ having positive eigenvalues still remains and thus non–trivial DW solutions are also possible in this case.

In ref.  it was shown that whenever the scalar fields obey gradient flow equations of the type (3.23) the Einstein equations of the Lagrangian (2.1) imply a c-theorem  and that

$$C(\mu )=\frac{C_0}{|W|^3},C_0=const.$$
(3.28)
is a natural candidate for the c-function. This also holds in the setup here and eqs. (3.23) imply

$$\mu \frac{d}{d\mu }C=\frac{1}{|W|}g_{MN}\beta ^M\beta ^N>0.$$
(3.29)
Thus $`C`$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`\mu `$ and corresponds to the central charge at the conformal fixed points.

Before we turn to a specific example let us discuss the implications of the condition (3.8). The vanishing commutator together with (2.12) implies that all $`P_I(q)`$ are proportional to each other, i.e. $`P_I(q)=\alpha _I(q)P(q)`$. From eq. (2.12) we learn that also

$$\widehat{P}_{IB}^A=\widehat{\gamma }_I\alpha _IP_B^A\gamma _I(q)P_B^A(q)$$
(3.30)
holds. This in turn says that only a $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the $`SU(2)_R`$ is gauged with a gauge field which is the ($`q`$-dependent) linear combination

$$A_m=\underset{I}{}\gamma _I(q)A_m^I,$$
(3.31)
Similarly, a $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the isometry group is gauged – albeit with a linear combination of gauge fields that differs in the $`q`$-dependent coefficients.

For constant $`\gamma _I`$, we recover precisely the case considered in refs.  where only vector (and tensor) multiplets are present. With hypermultiplets we have the additional possibilty that the linear combination of gauge fields is $`q`$-dependent and thus can ‘rotate’ along an RG-flow. From the dual $`N=1`$ field theory perspective this can be understood from the fact that the non-anomalous $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry also changes along an RG-flow . Classically one has a $`U(1)_R`$ (often denoted as the ‘standard’ $`U(1)_R`$) which assigns zero $`R`$-charge to a chiral superfield and $`R`$-charge $`1`$ to the field strength $`W_\alpha `$ of the vector multiplet. In addition, one generically has a flavour symmetry $`U(1)_K`$ generated by the Konishi current which does transform the chiral multiplets but leaves $`W_\alpha `$ invariant . Quantum mechanically the situation changes in that the anomaly free $`U(1)_R`$ is in general a linear combination of the standard $`U(1)_R`$ with the $`U(1)_K`$. The coefficents of this linear combination are related to the anomalous dimensions of certain operators and hence they change along an RG-flow. In the supergravity description this fact is captured by eq. (3.31). We return to this point in the next section.

## 4 Example of a BPS domain wall

In this section we discuss a specific BPS domain wall and show to what extend the solution of ref.  can be recovered. In  a DW of gauged $`N=8`$ supergravity is given which interpolates between two $`AdS_5`$ vacua of the scalar potential $`V`$. One of the extrema preserves $`N=8`$ supersymmetry while the second extrema only has $`N=2`$ supersymmetry and the interpolating kink solution preserves $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. In the AdS/CFT correspondence this BPS-solution is identified with a RG-flow from an $`N=4`$ SCFT in the UV to an $`N=1`$ SCFT in the IR which preserves $`N=1`$ supersymmetry throughout the flow .

The gauge group of the $`N=8`$ supergravity is $`SO(6)SU(4)`$ which is identified with the R-symmetry of the $`N=4`$ SCFT. This gauging introduces a scalar potential $`V`$ which depends on the 42 scalars of the $`N=8`$ gravitational multiplet spanning the coset $`E_{6(6)}/USp(8)`$.

In order to simplify the analysis the authors of  decompose the gauge group according to $`SU(4)SU(2)_I\times SU(2)_G\times U(1)_G`$ and keep only $`SU(2)_I`$ singlets. This corresponds to the breaking $`N=8N=4`$ since 4 gravitini are projected out and $`SU(2)_G\times U(1)_G`$ becomes the gauged R-symmetry of the $`N=4`$ supergravity. In the scalar sector 11 scalars which are the singlets of $`SU(2)_I`$ survive this projection. It is shown that these 11 scalars span the coset

$$=\frac{SO(5,2)}{SO(5)\times SO(2)}\times SO(1,1),$$
(4.1)
which is precisely the scalar manifold of two $`N=4`$ tensor multiplets coupled to $`N=4`$ supergravity . An $`N=4`$ tensor multiplet contains an antisymmetric tensor, four fermions and five scalars while the $`N=4`$ gravitational multiplet contains the gravition, four gravitini, six graviphotons, four fermions and one scalar. This scalar spans the $`SO(1,1)`$ component of $``$.

In order to make contact with the previous section we need to do a further truncation to $`N=2`$ along the lines of ref. . This can be done by decomposing the gauge group further and again projecting onto invariant states. More precisely we decompose

$$SU(2)_G\times U(1)_GU(1)_3\times U(1)_G$$
(4.2)
where $`U(1)_3`$ is the $`U(1)`$ generated by $`\sigma ^3`$ inside $`SU(2)_G`$. We only keep states which are invariant under the diagonal subgroup of $`U(1)_3\times U(1)_G`$. This leaves one $`U(1)_R`$ (with the other combination of charges) intact.

The 8 gravitini of $`N=8`$ supergravity transform as a $`\mathrm{𝟒}\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}}`$ of $`SU(4)`$. In the decomposition $`SU(4)SU(2)_I\times SU(2)_G\times U(1)_G`$ the 4 $`SU(2)_I`$ invariant gravitini transform according to the $`\mathrm{𝟐}_{1/2}\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}}_{1/2}`$ of $`SU(2)_G\times U(1)_G`$. The $`U(1)_3\times U(1)_G`$ invariance projects out two more gravitini leaving two complex conjugate gravitini transforming under $`U(1)_R`$. The rest of the $`N=4`$ spectrum can be similiarly truncated. Out of the four vectors of $`SU(2)_G\times U(1)_G`$ two Abelian vectors of $`U(1)_3\times U(1)_G`$ survive. The two tensors are both projected out while out of the 11 scalars 5 survive. The 5 scalars in the tensor multiplet reside in the representation $`\mathrm{𝟑}_1\mathrm{𝟏}_2\mathrm{𝟏}_0`$ while the second tensor multiplet carries the complex conjugate representation. Thus after projection one is left with two singlets and two $`U(1)_R`$ charged scalars. The 5th scalar comes out of the gravitational multiplet and is a singlet of $`SU(2)_G\times U(1)_G`$ and thus also of $`U(1)_R`$. Out of the 12 fermions which reside in the $`\mathrm{𝟐}_{3/2}\mathrm{𝟐}_{+3/2}2\times (\mathrm{𝟐}_{1/2}\mathrm{𝟐}_{+1/2})`$ of $`SU(2)_G\times U(1)_G`$ four survive the projection. The surviving states fit precisely into one gravitational multiplet, one vector multiplet $`V`$ and one hypermultiplet $`H`$ of $`N=2`$ supergravity. The scalar in $`V`$ is neutral under $`U(1)_R`$ while the hypermultiplet hosts the two neutral and the two charged scalars. The two neutral scalars of the hypermultiplet can be identified with the dilaton and axion of type IIB supergravity.

The AdS/CFT correspondence relates these five scalars to gauge invariant operators in the dual CFT. The UV theory is an $`N=4`$ SCFT with Yang-Mills gauge group $`G=SU(n)`$. Written in terms of $`N=1`$ superfields this theory has one vector multiplet, three chiral multiplet in the adjoint representation of $`G`$ and a superpotential $`W=TrA_1[A_2,A_3]`$. The RG-flow is induced by adding the operator $`mTrA_3^2`$ to $`W`$ . The non–anomalous $`U(1)`$ symmetry discussed at the end of section 3 is a linear combination of the $`U(1)_R`$ at $`m=0`$ which assign zero R-charge to all three superfields $`A`$ and the Konishi $`U(1)_K`$ symmetry which assigns $`A_3`$ a $`U(1)_K`$ charge $`1`$. In the dual supergravity the dilaton and axion play the role of the gauge coupling and the $`\theta `$-angle, respectively. The charged scalar $`C`$ couples to the operator $`TrA_3^2`$ and the five-dimensional vector couples to the Konishi current.

The resulting scalar manifold of the supergravity can be derived by truncating $``$ given in eq. (4.1). The $`SO(1,1)`$ factor of $``$ survives the projection since its scalar is invariant. This component is a one-dimensional very special Kähler manifold characterized by

$$𝒱=X^0(X^1)^2=1.$$
(4.3)
The coset space $`\frac{SO(5,2)}{SO(5)\times SO(2)}`$ is a Kähler manifold with a Kähler potential

$$K=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[(S+\overline{S})(T+\overline{T})\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(C+\overline{C})_i^2\right].$$
(4.4)
The three $`C_i`$ are the triplet while $`S`$ and $`T`$ are singlets of $`SU(2)_G`$. In addition one has $`SL(2,𝐑)\times SL(2,𝐑)`$ acting as fractional linear transformations on all fields. One $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ is the symmetry associated with the dilaton while the other $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ hosts the $`U(1)_G`$ as its compact subgroup . Thus projecting onto $`U(1)_3\times U(1)_G`$ invariant fields leaves $`S`$ (or $`T`$) and one of the three $`C_i`$ which we denote by $`C`$ henceforth. The Kähler potential becomes

$$K=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[(S+\overline{S})\frac{1}{2}(C+\overline{C})^2\right],$$
(4.5)
which is the Kähler potential of the coset space $`\frac{SU(2,1)}{U(2)}`$. This is indeed a quaternionic manifold known as the “universal hypermultiplet” . Hence, the combined scalar manifold of the $`N=2`$ supergravity is found to be

$$=SO(1,1)\times \frac{SU(2,1)}{U(2)}.$$
(4.6)
In the following we use a more convenient parameterization by shifting $`SS+\frac{1}{2}C^2`$ which results in

$$K=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left[(S+\overline{S})C\overline{C}\right],$$
(4.7)
In these variables the $`U(1)_R`$ acts as

$$Ce^{i\theta }C,SS.$$
(4.8)
The next step is to gauge the isometry (4.8).121212In ref.  the same quaternionic geometry was considered but a different isometry corresponding the shift $`SS+\alpha ,CC`$ was gauged. This leads to a different potential which does not correspond to a RG-type domain wall. To do so we need to briefly recall the quaternionic quantities of $`\frac{SU(2,1)}{U(2)}`$ . We use as quaternionic coordinates $`q^u=(S,\overline{S},C,\overline{C})`$. In these coordinates the $`SU(2)`$ connection reads

$`\omega _S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{2K}\sigma ^3,\omega _{\overline{S}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{2K}\sigma ^3,`$ (4.9)
$`\omega _C`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{4}e^{2K}\overline{C}& e^K\\ 0& \frac{1}{4}e^{2K}\overline{C}\end{array}\right),\omega _{\overline{C}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{4}e^{2K}C& 0\\ e^K& \frac{1}{4}e^{2K}C\end{array}\right).`$ (4.14)
The matrix of hyper Kählerforms $`(K_{uv})_B^A`$ is given by

$`K_{S\overline{S}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{4K}\sigma ^3,K_{C\overline{C}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}e^{2K}(1e^{2K}C\overline{C})& e^{3K}C\\ e^{3K}\overline{C}& \frac{1}{2}e^{2K}(1e^{2K}C\overline{C})\end{array}\right)`$ (4.17)
$`K_{S\overline{C}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}e^{4K}C& 0\\ e^{3K}& \frac{1}{2}e^{4K}C\end{array}\right),K_{\overline{S}C}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}e^{4K}\overline{C}& e^{3K}\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}e^{4K}\overline{C}\end{array}\right),`$ (4.22)
while all other components are zero. The Killing vector for the symmetry (4.8) is

$$k^u=(0,0,iC,i\overline{C}).$$
(4.23)
Using (4.9)–(4.23) the solution of eq. (2.9) is found to be

$$P_B^A=\frac{i}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1e^{2K}C\overline{C}& 2e^KC\\ 2e^K\overline{C}& (1e^{2K}C\overline{C})\end{array}\right).$$
(4.24)
As we stated above the $`U(1)_R`$ is a linear combination of the $`U(1)_3`$ and the $`U(1)_G`$ and therefore both gauge fields appear in the covariant derivatives. Using (3.31) we allow this linear combination to be $`q`$-dependent and from (3.30) we infer that the $`\widehat{P}`$ obey

$$\widehat{P}_0=\gamma _0P,\widehat{P}_1=\gamma _1P,$$
(4.25)
where $`P`$ is given by (4.24) and the $`\gamma _I`$ satisfy (3.20). Inserted into (3.24) the resulting superpotential is

$$W=\frac{1}{3}(\gamma _0X^0+\gamma _1X^1)\frac{S+\overline{S}}{S+\overline{S}C\overline{C}}.$$
(4.26)
Using the constraint (4.3) and introducing new variables

$$X^1\rho ^2,\frac{C\overline{C}}{S+\overline{S}}\mathrm{tanh}^2(\chi ),$$
(4.27)
yields

$$W=\frac{1}{3\rho ^2}(\gamma _0\rho ^6+\gamma _1)\mathrm{cosh}^2(\chi ).$$
(4.28)
For the choice

$$\gamma _0=\frac{3}{2}(2\mathrm{tanh}^2(\chi )1),\gamma _1=3,$$
(4.29)
one obtains

$$W=\frac{1}{4\rho ^2}\left[(\rho ^62)\mathrm{cosh}(2\chi )(3\rho ^6+2)\right],$$
(4.30)
which precisely coincides with the superpotential of ref. . The RG-flow governed by this superpotential has a UV fixed point at $`\rho =1,\chi =0`$ and an IR fixed point at $`\rho ^6=2,2\chi =\mathrm{log}3`$. It is important to note that with constant $`\gamma _0`$, $`W`$ factorizes as can be seen from (4.28) and it is not possible to recover (4.30). Thus it is crucial to allow for $`q`$-dependent $`\gamma _0`$ and this is the main motivation for introducing $`\widehat{\gamma }_I`$ in eq. (2.12). The specific $`\gamma _0`$ of (4.29) indeed satisfies the constraint (3.20) for $`\alpha _0=3/2,\alpha _1=3`$.

Finally let us note that the dilaton $`S`$ automatically stays constant along this flow. Using (3.23), (4.5), (4.26) and (4.29) one finds

$$\mu \frac{d}{d\mu }S=\frac{3}{W}(g^{S\overline{S}}_{\overline{S}}W+g^{S\overline{C}}_{\overline{C}}W)=0.$$
(4.31)
This can be viewed as a consistency check of our solution. Note that for the universal hypermultiplet a constant dilaton along the RG-trajectory is not a special feature of (4.30) but holds for any superpotential $`W`$ which is a function of $`\frac{C\overline{C}}{S+\overline{S}}`$ only as can be easily verified from eq. (4.31).

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we derived $`N=1`$ BPS domain wall solutions of gauged five-dimensional $`N=2`$ supergravity. Our main result are the supersymmetric flow equations (3.23), (3.24) which include scalars from vector and hypermultiplets. The presence of charged hypermultiplets turns out to be crucial in recovering IR-fixed points in RG-flows of a dual (perturbed) superconformal field theory. In order to recover the specific flow of ref.  it is necessary to modify the standard gauging of the R-symmetry. The validity of this modification remains to be rigorously proven. However, the fact that we do recover the flow of  can also be viewed as a consistency check.

The necessity of IR fixed points in order to construct a smooth supersymmetric domain-wall solution of the Randall-Sundrum type has been stressed in ref. . Let us briefly recall the argument. It is convenient to first change coordinates and replace the $`\mu `$ of the Ansatz (3.1) by

$$\mu =e^{A(z)},W=_zA(z).$$
(5.1)
In these coordinates the metric (3.1) reads

$$ds^2=e^{2A(z)}\left(dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}^2\right)+dz^2,$$
(5.2)
which is the metric of $`AdS_5`$ for $`A=\pm kz,k=const.`$. In these coordinates the UV fixed point ($`\mu \mathrm{}`$) of an RG-flow is located at $`z\mathrm{}`$ where $`Az+\mathrm{}`$ while the IR fixed point ($`\mu =0`$) sits at $`z\mathrm{}`$ where $`Az\mathrm{}`$. The DW solution interpolates between the two asymptotic regions at $`z=\pm \mathrm{}`$.

A smooth DW solution corresponding to the RS-setup needs to have a different asymptotic behavior. In that case one has a $`𝐙_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ symmetric solution with $`Ak|z|`$ for $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$ . That is one has a decreasing warp factor at both ends $`z\pm \mathrm{}`$ or in the language of the RG-flow a DW solution connecting two IR-fixed points . Obviously, such a solution cannot be interpreted as an RG-flow. $`A(z)`$ has at least one maximum where $`W=A(z)=0`$. At that point the $`\beta `$-functions of eqs. (3.23) as well as the c-function of (3.28) become singular . However, even if such DW solutions do not make sense as RG-flows there is no obvious reason why they should not exist. The previous no-go theorems merely stated that they cannot be found with only non-trivial vector and tensor multiplets. Adding charged hypermultiplets changes the story and we are optimistic that supersymmetric RS-domain walls do exist . They should be smooth generalizations of the constructions presented in refs. .

Finally, IR-fixed points have also been recently studied by wrapping M5-branes on a Riemann surface of constant negative curvature in the presence of a non-trivial gauge field . Following this procedure, one obtains after compactification to 5 dimensions a 3-brane solution with an $`AdS_5`$ vacuum, which is IR attractive (near the AdS horizon). But in the UV limit this solution decompactifies into $`AdS_7`$, i.e. is singular from the 5-dimensional perspective. It would be interesting to study this situation within the formalism of this paper.

Acknowledgments

The work of K.B. is supported by a Heisenberg grant of the DFG. The work of C.H. and J.L. is supported by GIF – the German–Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and the DAAD – the German Academic Exchange Service. The work of S.T. was funded by the British-German ARC programme.

We thank H. Günther, R. Kallosh, T. Mohaupt, S. Pokorski, L. Randall, L. Thorlacius, D. Waldram, N. Warner and especially A. Ceresole and G. Dall’Agata for discussions and correspondence. C.H. thanks P. di Vecchia for an invitation to the Nils Bohr Institute at an early stage of this project. J.L. would like to thank the Erwin Schrödinger Institute for hospitality and financial support during part of this work.


format: text

text:
# Quasi-Commuting Families of Quantum Minors

## 1. Introduction

Let $`_q[Mat_{k\times m}]`$ be the $`q`$-deformation of the coordinate ring of the space of $`k\times m`$ complex matrices where $`km`$. This is the $`(q)`$-algebra with unity generated by indeterminates $`x_{i,j}`$ for $`i[1\mathrm{}k]`$ and $`j[1\mathrm{}m]`$ subject to the Faddeev-Reshetikhin-Takhtadzhyan relations :

(1) $`x_{s,t}x_{i,j}=qx_{i,j}x_{s,t}`$ $`\text{if either}s>i\text{and}t=j`$
$`\text{or}s=i\text{and}t>j`$
$`x_{s,t}x_{i,j}=x_{i,j}x_{s,t}`$ $`\text{if}s>i\text{and}t<j`$
$`x_{s,t}x_{i,j}=x_{i,j}x_{s,t}+(qq^1)x_{i,t}x_{s,j}`$ $`\text{if}s>i\text{and}t>j`$
In this paper we shall be concerned with a special family of elements $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{I,J}_q[Mat_{k\times m}]`$ indexed by pairs of non-empty subsets $`I`$ and $`J`$ of $`[1\mathrm{}k]`$ and $`[1\mathrm{}m]`$ respectively with $`|I|=|J|=l`$. They are defined by:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{I,J}:=\underset{\sigma S_l}{}(q)^{l(\sigma )}x_{i_1,j_{\sigma (1)}}\mathrm{}x_{i_l,j_{\sigma (l)}},$$

where $`I=\{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_l\}`$, $`J=\{j_1<\mathrm{}<j_l\}`$, and $`l(\sigma )`$ is the length of the $`l`$-permutation $`\sigma `$. The element $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{I,J}`$ is the $`q`$-deformation of the classical determinant and for this reason we call the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{I,J}`$’s quantum minors.

###### Definition 1.

Two quantums minors $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{C,D}`$ quasi-commute if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{C,D}\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}=q^c\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}\mathrm{\Delta }_{C,D}`$ for some integer $`c`$. The integer $`c`$ is uniquely determined by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{C,D}`$ and we will denote its value by the symbol $`c\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{C,D}\right)`$. Note that $`c\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{C,D}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}\right)=c\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{C,D}\right)`$ for any quasi-commuting pair.

We can now state the central problems we will address is this paper, namely:

###### Problem 1.

Find necessary and sufficient conditions for two quantum minors $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{C,D}`$ to quasi-commute. In addition, explicitly compute $`c\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{C,D}\right)`$ in terms of $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$, and $`D`$.

###### Problem 2.

Find a combinatorial mechanism which will describe and produce all maximal (by inclusion) families of pairwise quasi-commuting quantum minors.

Problems 1 and 2 are motivated by the study of dual canonical bases for quantum groups of type $`A`$. It is conjectured in , and partially proved in , that products of quasi-commuting quantum minors constitute a part of the dual canonical basis for the quantum group $`_q[GL(n,)]`$. Problem 2 is also motivated by the study of total positivity as described in  and .

Problem 1 is resolved using techniques developed in . Ostensibly Problem 1 is more general than its counterpart in  which only addresses the quantum flag variety. Nevertheless we demonstrate in this paper that Problem 1 can be reduced to a special case of the problem treated in  - namely the problem of determining when two quantum Plücker coordinates of the corresponding quantum Grassmannian quasi-commute. The criterion for quasi-commutativity is described in terms of the notion of ”weak separability” as put forth in .

###### Definition 2.

Given two subsets $`I`$ and $`J`$ of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ we write $`IJ`$ if $`i<j`$ for all $`iI`$ and all $`jJ`$. We say $`I`$ and $`J`$ are weakly separated if at least one of the following two conditions holds:

1. $`|I||J|`$ and $`JI`$ can be partitioned into a disjoint union $`JI=J^{}J^{\prime \prime }`$

so that $`J^{}IJJ^{\prime \prime }`$.

2. $`|J||I|`$ and $`IJ`$ can be partitioned into a disjoint union $`IJ=I^{}I^{\prime \prime }`$

so that $`I^{}JII^{\prime \prime }`$.

We associate to any pair of subsets $`A[1\mathrm{}k]`$ and $`B[1\mathrm{}m]`$ of equal size the subset $`S(A,B)[1\mathrm{}k+m]`$ of size $`k`$ defined as follows:

$$S(A,B)=\{b+kbB\}[1\mathrm{}k]w_0(A)$$

where $`w_0`$ is the order reversing permutation of $`[1\mathrm{}k]`$. Problem 1 is settled by the following two Theorems:

###### Theorem 1.

The quantum minors $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{C,D}`$ in $`_q[Mat_{k,m}]`$ quasi-commute if and only if $`S(A,B)`$ and $`S(C,D)`$ are weakly separated subsets of $`[1\mathrm{}m+k]`$.

###### Theorem 2.

Suppose $`I=S(A,B)`$ and $`J=S(C,D)`$ are weakly separated subsets of $`[1\mathrm{}m+k]`$ satisfying case 1 in Definition 2. Then

$$c\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}|\mathrm{\Delta }_{C,D}\right)=|J^{\prime \prime }||J^{}|+|A||C|.$$

In proving Theorems 1 and 2 we use a quantum analogue of the well known embedding of $`Mat_{k\times m}`$ as an affine chart in the Grassmannian $`𝔾_{k,k+m}`$; this embedding sends a $`k\times m`$ matrix $`(x_{i,j})`$ to the row space of the $`k\times (k+m)`$ matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}0& & & & & 1& x_{1,1}& & & & & x_{1,m}\\ & & & & 1& & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & & \\ (1)^{k1}& & & & & 0& x_{k,1}& & & & & x_{k,m}\end{array}\right)$$

The corresponding quantum analogue is an embedding of $`_q[Mat_{k\times m}]`$ into the quantized coordinate ring $`_q[𝔾_{k,k+m}]`$ \- the so called quantum Grassmannian as defined in . This embedding allows us to reduce questions about quantum minors to corresponding questions about quantum Plücker coordinates.

Theorem 1 implies that $`𝒞=\{\mathrm{\Delta }_{A_1,B_1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_{A_s,B_s}\}`$ is a maximal collection of pairwise quasi-commuting quantum minors in $`_q[Mat_{k,m}]`$ if and only if $`\{S(A_1,B_1),\mathrm{},S(A_s,B_s)\}\left\{[1\mathrm{}k]\right\}`$ is a maximal collection of pairwise weakly separated $`k`$-subsets of $`[1\mathrm{}k+m]`$. This identification is a central component in our attempt to resolve Problem 2. Theorem 1.3 of  asserts that the size of any maximal collection of pairwise weakly separated $`k`$-subsets of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ is sharply bounded by $`k(nk)+1`$. Setting $`n=k+m`$ we obtain:

###### Proposition 1.

The size of any maximal collection of pairwise quasi-commuting quantum minors in $`_q[Mat_{k\times m}]`$ is sharply bounded by $`km`$.

In  the following purity property is conjectured: all maximal collections of pairwise weakly separated subsets (not neccessarily $`k`$-subsets) of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ have size $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)+1`$. The analogue of this purity conjecture for $`k`$-subsets is given by:

###### Conjecture 1 (Purity).

All maximal collections of pairwise weakly separated $`k`$-subsets of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ have size $`k(nk)+1`$. Equivalently, all maximal collections of pairwise quasi-commuting quantum minors in $`_q[Mat_{k\times m}]`$ have size $`km`$.

In Sections 5 and 6 we prove this assertion for the cases $`k=2`$ and $`k=3`$ respectively.

In Section 3 we expose a new feature specific to the quantum Grassmannian: quasi-commutativity of the quantum Plücker coordinates in $`_q[𝔾_{k,n}]`$ is preserved under the natural action of the dihedral group $`D_n`$. More precisely, we show that the natural $`D_n`$-action on $`k`$-subsets of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ preserves weak separbility. We do not know of an analogue of this action for the full quantum flag variety. Let $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$ be the set of all maximal collections of pairwise weakly separated $`k`$-subsets in $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$. The induced $`D_n`$-action on $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$ is instrumental in proving several assertions in this paper.

For a set $`I`$ and elements $`x`$ and $`y`$ let $`Ixy`$ denote $`I\{x,y\}`$. The set $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$ possesses the following interesting structure.

###### Theorem 3.

Let $`𝒞`$ be a maximal collection of pairwise weakly separated $`k`$-subsets of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$. Suppose that $`Iij`$, $`Iit`$, $`Ijs`$, $`Ist𝒞`$ for some $`i<s<j<t`$ and for some $`I[1\mathrm{}n]\{i,j,s,t\}`$ with $`|I|=k2`$. Then $`𝒞`$ contains either $`Iij`$ or $`Ist`$ and not both. Moreover, the transformation

(2)
$$𝒞\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒞\{Iij\}\{Ist\}\hfill & \text{if}Iij𝒞\hfill \\ 𝒞\{Ist\}\{Iij\}\hfill & \text{if}Ist𝒞\hfill \end{array}$$

preserves weak separability and maximality.

This transformation is an analogue of the Yang-Baxter “flip” introduced in ; here we refer to these transformations as $`(2,4)`$-moves due to the fact that they originate on $`_q[𝔾_{2,4}]`$.

###### Conjecture 2 (Transitivity).

Let $`𝒞`$ and $``$ be any collections in $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$. Then there is a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves transforming $`𝒞`$ into $``$.

If true the conjecture effectively settles Problem 2. In addition it provides a method to obtain all collections in $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$: simply propagate a given maximal collection by all possible $`(2,4)`$-moves. In Section 3 we explain why the validity of Conjecture 2 implies the validity of Conjecture 1. In Sections 5 and 6 we prove this Conjecture 2 for the cases $`k=2`$ and $`k=3`$. In Section 8 we explore applications of this conjecture to total positivity.

In Section 4 we describe certain maximal collections in $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$ arrising from double wiring arrangements. In Section 7 we present a construction that recursively generates all collections in $`\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$ by lifting collections from $`\mathrm{W}(3,n1)`$. In principle this construction should provide a method to compute the size of $`\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$.

## 2.  The Quantum Grassmannian and Proofs of Theorems 1 and 2

###### Definition 3.

The quantum Grassmannian $`_q[𝔾_{k,n}]`$, as defined in , is the $`(q)`$-algebra with unity generated by all quantum Plücker coordinates $`\mathrm{\Delta }^K`$ where $`K`$ is a $`k`$-subset of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ subject to the relations:

$$\underset{iIJ}{}(q)^{\mathrm{inv}(i,I)\mathrm{inv}(i,J)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{I\{i\}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{J\{i\}}=0$$

for any $`(k+1)`$-subset $`I`$ and $`(k1)`$-subset $`J`$. Here $`\mathrm{inv}(i,X)`$ is the number of $`xX`$ such that $`i>x`$.

###### Proposition 2 (Quantum Stieffel-Plücker Correspondence).

There exists a unique $`(q)`$-algebra embedding $`\phi :_q[Mat_{k\times m}]_q[𝔾_{k,k+m}]`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{I,J}q^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l}{2}\right)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{l1}\mathrm{\Delta }^{S(I,J)}$$

where $`l=|I|=|J|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }^{[1\mathrm{}k]}`$.

###### Proof.

The proof that the Faddeev-Reshetikhin-Takhtadzhyan relations are preserved under the correspondence $`x_{i,j}\mathrm{\Delta }^{S(\{i\},\{j\})}`$ and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{I,J}`$ is sent to $`q^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l}{2}\right)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{l1}\mathrm{\Delta }^{S(I,J)}`$ is a simple modification of the proof of the quantum analogue of Bazin’s theorem presented in Theorem 3.8 of .

The classical analogue of $`\phi `$, obtained by specializing $`q`$ to $`1`$, is easily seen to be injective. This taken together with Theorem 3.5(c) of  and the fact that the monomials consisting of products of lexicographically ordered generators $`x_{i,j}`$ form a basis for $`_q[Mat_{k\times m}]`$ over $`(q)`$ proves injectivity of $`\phi `$.

It is well known that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{[1\mathrm{}k]}`$ is quasi-central. Thus Proposition 2 tells us that two quantum minors $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{C,D}`$ will quasi-commute exactly when the corresponding quantum Plücker coordinates $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{S(A,B)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{S(C,D)}`$ quasi-commute. In turn, the conditions for two quantum Plücker coordinates to quasi-commute are explained by the following proposition of :

###### Proposition 3.

Two quantum Plücker coordinates $`\mathrm{\Delta }^I`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^J`$ in $`_q[𝔾_{k,n}]`$ quasi-commute if and only if $`I`$ and $`J`$ are weakly separated. If $`I`$ and $`J`$ satisfy case 1 of Definition 2 then $`c\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^I|\mathrm{\Delta }^J\right)=|J^{\prime \prime }||J^{}|`$.

Theorem 1 now follows from Propositions 2 and 3. Theorem 2 also follows from Propositions 2 and 3 along with the fact that $`c\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{|A|1}|\mathrm{\Delta }^{S(C,D)}\right)=|C|(|A|1)`$ and $`c\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^{S(A,B)}|\mathrm{\Delta }^{|C|1}\right)=|A|(1|C|)`$.

## 3. Proof of Theorem 3

It is convenient to visualize a $`k`$-subset of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ as a subpolygon of the regular polygon with $`n`$ vertices labeled counter-clockwise by the indices $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$. Represent the dihedral group $`D_n`$ as the group of symmetries of the $`n`$-gon. Clearly $`D_n`$ acts on the set of $`k`$-subsets of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ under this realization.

###### Proposition 4.

If two $`k`$-subsets $`I`$ and $`J`$ of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ are weakly separated then $`g(I)`$ and $`g(J)`$ are weakly separated for any $`gD_n`$.

###### Proof.

In  it is shown that $`I`$ and $`J`$ are weakly separated precisely when, after interchanging $`I`$ and $`J`$ if neccessary, either:

a) $`|I|<|J|`$ and there do not exist three indices $`a<b<c`$ such that

$`I\{a,b,c\}=\{b\}`$ and $`J\{a,b,c\}=\{a,c\}`$ or

b) $`|I|=|J|`$ and there do not exist four indices $`a<b<c<d`$ such that

$`I\{a,b,c,d\}=\{a,c\}`$ and $`J\{a,b,c,d\}=\{b,d\}`$

Part b) above indicates that two $`k`$-subsets $`I`$ and $`J`$ are weakly separated precisely, when viewed as subpolygons, no diagonal of the subpolygon $`I`$ disjoint from $`J`$ crosses a diagonal of $`J`$ disjoint from $`I`$. This property is clearly preserved under any dihedral symmetry of the $`n`$-gon.

A $`k`$-subset $`I`$ is called boundary if it consists of $`k`$ consecutive indices of the $`n`$-gon; i.e. any $`k`$-subset of the form $`g([1\mathrm{}k])`$ for $`gD_n`$. Since $`[1\mathrm{}k]`$ is weakly separated with every $`k`$-subset it follows that the set of all $`k`$-boundary subsets is common to every maximal collection of pairwise weakly separated $`k`$-subsets.

Proof of Theorem 3:

To prove the first part of the theorem notice that since $`Iij`$ and $`Ist`$ are not weakly separated it is clear that both can not be in $`𝒞`$. So we need only demonstrate that one of them is present in $`𝒞`$. Given a $`k`$-subset $`J`$ of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ such that $`J`$ is weakly separated from $`Iis`$, $`Isj`$, $`Ijt`$, $`Iit`$ and different from $`Iij`$ and $`Ist`$ we need to show that $`J`$ is weakly separated from both $`Iij`$ and $`Ist`$.

Proposition 4 shows that we may reduce the proof to the case of $`t=n`$ after suitably translating the collection $`𝒞`$ by the dihedral action. Assume that $`t=n`$. Let $`J^{}=J\{n\}`$. Since $`|J|=k`$ and $`J`$ is different from $`Iij`$ and $`Ist`$, it follows that $`J^{}`$ is different from both $`Iij`$ and $`Is`$. By Lemma 3.2 of , $`J^{}`$ is weakly separated from $`Iis`$, $`Isj`$, $`Ij`$, $`Ii`$. By Lemma 5.2 of , it follows that $`J^{}`$ is weakly separated from both $`Iij`$ and $`Is`$ and, after an easy application of part b) above, that $`J`$ is weakly separated from both $`Iij`$ and $`Isn`$, as claimed.

The above argument also shows that the transformation (1) preserves weak separability and maximality, thus concluding the proof of Theorem 3. $`\mathrm{}`$

Returning to Conjecture 2, notice that if it is true and if we can find a collection $`𝒜`$ in $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$ for which $`|𝒜|=k(nk)+1`$ then Conjecture 1 will follow. One can easily verify that the collection $`𝒜=𝒜_n`$ whose non-boundary sets are

$$\{[1\mathrm{}i][j\mathrm{}k+ji1]1i<k\text{and}i+1<j<n+ik\}$$

has the desired properties.

## 4. Wiring Arrangements

In  a recursive procedure is described through which all maximal families of pairwise weakly separated subsets (not neccessarily $`k`$-subsets) of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ are obtained. In principle this recursion can be restricted to produce all families in $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$. Nevertheless, the process is not very practical. In this section we explore a non-recursive combinatorial device which parametrizes a large portion of the collections in $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$. This device is a modification of a construction in .

Recall that the symmetric group $`S_n`$ is generated by the simple reflections $`s_i=(i,i+1)`$ satisfying the Coxeter relations. A reduced word for an element $`gS_n`$ is sequence of indices $`i_1,\mathrm{}i_l`$ such that $`g=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_l}`$ with $`l`$ minimal. For the group $`S_k\times S_m`$ we will use the indices $`[\overline{1},\mathrm{},\overline{k1}]`$ to label the simple reflections corresponding to the $`S_k`$ component and the indices $`[1\mathrm{}m1]`$ to label the simple reflections for the $`S_m`$ component. Under this convention a reduced word for an element $`(u,v)S_k\times S_m`$ can be identified with a shuffle of a reduced word for $`u`$, written with indices in $`[\overline{1},\mathrm{},\overline{k1}]`$, and a reduced word for $`v`$ written with indices $`[1\mathrm{}m1]`$.

Let $`w_0^{\left(k\right)}`$ and $`w_0^{\left(m\right)}`$ denote the longest elements in $`S_k`$ and $`S_m`$ respectively. We say a reduced word for $`(w_0^{\left(k\right)},w_0^{\left(m\right)})S_k\times S_m`$ is optimal if the associated reduced word for $`w_0^{\left(m\right)}S_m`$ has a total of only $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{mk}{2}\right)`$ occurrences of the indices $`[k+1,\mathrm{}m1]`$. Given an opitimal reduced word $`𝐢`$ of $`(w_0^{\left(k\right)},w_0^{\left(m\right)})S_k\times S_m`$ we will manufacture a maximal collection $`𝒞(𝐢)`$ of pairwise quasi-commuting quantum minors. This collection is obtained by means of the double wiring arrangement $`\mathrm{Arr}(𝐢)`$ attached to $`𝐢`$, as introduced in .

Recall first the definition of a single wiring arrangement attached to a reduced word. It is easiest to understand this definition with an example. Consider the reduced word $`1231`$ of the permutation $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 2& 3& 4\\ 3& 2& 4& 1\end{array}\right)S_4`$. The corresponding single wiring arrangement is:

We associate a crossing at the $`i`$th level (counting from the bottom up) for each $`i`$ in the reduced word. To obtain the double wiring arrangement for $`(u,v)S_k\times S_m`$ we superimpose the single wiring arrangements for the reduced words of $`u`$ and $`v`$ respectively aligning them closely in the vertical direction (starting at the bottom) and intertwining their respective crossings as dictated by the shuffle. To distinguish the two wiring arrangements we colour the diagram for $`u`$ red. For example, the double wiring arrangement corresponding to the reduced word

$$𝐢=2\overline{1}\mathrm{1\; 2\; 3}\overline{2}\mathrm{2\; 1\; 4}\overline{1}\mathrm{3\; 2\; 1}\text{for}(w_0^{\left(3\right)},w_0^{\left(5\right)})S_3\times S_5\text{is:}$$

To obtain the collection $`𝒞(𝐢)`$ label the black wires $`1`$ through $`m`$ bottom-up at the left hand side of the arrangement and label the red wires $`1`$ through $`k`$ bottom-up at the right hand side of the arrangement. Label each chamber $`C`$ in the first $`k`$ strips of the arrangement with $`I(C)`$ \- the set of labels of red lines passing beneath the chamber - and $`J(C)`$ \- the set of black line labels passing beneath the chamber. For example the above double wiring arrangement is labeled

Let $`𝒞(𝐢)=\{\mathrm{\Delta }_{I(C),J(C)}C\text{a chamber of }\mathrm{Arr}(𝐢)\text{ of level }k\text{ }\}`$.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`𝐢`$ be an optimal reduced word for $`(w_0^{\left(k\right)},w_0^{\left(m\right)})S_k\times S_m`$. Then the size of $`𝒞(𝐢)`$ is $`km`$.

###### Proof.

Given $`𝐢`$, the number of chambers in the first $`k`$ strips of the corresponding double wiring arrangement is equal to the number of red and black crossings in the first $`k`$ strips plus $`k`$ \- corresponding to the $`k`$ far right chambers . The number of black (respectively red) crossings in the first $`k`$ strips in turn is given by the number of simple reflections $`j`$ (respectively $`\overline{j}`$) occurring in the reduced word $`𝐢`$ with $`1jk`$. The number of $`\overline{j}`$ in $`𝐢`$ with $`1jk`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{2}\right)`$. The number of of $`j`$ in $`𝐢`$ with $`1jk`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{2}\right)\mathrm{\#}\{j\text{occurring in }𝐢k+1jm1\}`$; if $`𝐢`$ is optimal this will be $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{2}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{mk}{2}\right)`$. Consequently the number of chambers occurring in the first $`k`$ strips of the double wiring arrangement for $`𝐢`$ optimal ( or equivalently the size of $`𝒞(𝐢)`$ ) is:

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{2}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{2}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{mk}{2}\right)+k=mk$$

###### Proposition 5.

If $`𝐢`$ is an optimal reduced word for $`(w_0^{\left(k\right)},w_0^{\left(m\right)})S_k\times S_m`$ then $`𝒞(𝐢)`$ is a maximal collection of pairwise quasi-commuting quantum minors in $`_q[Mat_{k\times m}]`$. Moreover, given $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{I,J}`$ in $`𝒞(𝐢)`$ either

(3)
$$AIIA\text{and}JBBJ\text{or}$$

(4)
$$IAAI\text{and}BJJB\text{ }$$

###### Proof.

Take any quantum minors $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{I,J}`$ in $`𝒞(𝐢)`$. Lemma 4.1 of  proves that if $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are chamber sets of a single wiring arrangement then either $`XYYX`$ or $`YXXY`$. This, taken together with the fact that the single wiring arrangements for the $`S_k`$ and $`S_m`$ components of $`𝐢`$ are oppositely labeled, proves the second part of the proposition.

To prove that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{I,J}`$ quasi-commute we must show that $`S(A,B)`$ and $`S(I,J)`$ are weakly separated. We may assume, after exchanging $`A`$ with $`I`$ and $`B`$ with $`J`$ if neccessary, that $`AIIA`$ and $`JBBJ`$. This in turn is equivalent to

$$\left(S(A,B)S(I,J)\right)[1\mathrm{}k]S(I,J)S(A,B)\left(S(A,B)S(I,J)\right)[1\mathrm{}k]$$

which demonstrates that $`S(A,B)`$ and $`S(I,J)`$ are weakly separated. The fact that $`𝒞(𝐢)`$ is maximal follows from Lemma 1 and Proposition 1.

It is possible to prove the converse of Proposition 5, namely: If $`𝒞`$ is a collection of quantum minors $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{A,B}`$ whose indices pairwise satisfy either condition 2 or 3, and if $`𝒞`$ is maximal with respect to this property, then $`𝒞`$ is of the form $`𝒞(𝐢)`$ for some optimal reduced word $`𝐢`$.

Given an optimal reduced word $`𝐢`$ the following collection is in $`\mathrm{W}(k,k+m)`$:

$$\{S(I(C),J(C))C\text{a chamber of}\mathrm{Arr}(𝐢)\text{of level}k\}\left\{[1\mathrm{}k]\right\}$$

In the case of $`\mathrm{W}(3,6)`$ all collections are obtained via double wiring arrangements. There are $`34`$ in total and they are explicitly described in  and . Every maximal family in $`\mathrm{W}(3,6)`$ is dihedrally equivalent to one of the following five collections (we omit boundary sets):

$$\{\{124\},\{125\},\{134\},\{145\}\}\{\{124\},\{125\},\{145\},\{245\}\}$$

$$\{\{124\},\{134\},\{145\},\{146\}\}\{\{125\},\{134\},\{135\},\{145\}\}$$

$$\{\{135\},\{136\},\{145\},\{235\}\}$$

In general it is not the case that every maximal collection in $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$ corresponds to some double wiring arrangement, even after dihedral translation. This is evidenced already in the case of $`_q[𝔾_{2,n}]`$. In Section 5 we shall demonstrate such a maximal collection.

## 5. The case of $`_q[𝔾_{2,n}]`$

We identify the 2-subsets of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ with chords inscribed in a regular $`n`$-gon. Clearly two 2-subsets of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ are weakly separated if and only if the corresponding chords do not cross in the interior of the polygon. Under this identification collections $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(2,n)`$ correspond to maximal collections of non-crossing chords - i.e. triangulations of an $`n`$-gon.

###### Theorem 4 (Transitivity).

Let $`𝒞,\mathrm{W}(2,n)`$. Then there is a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves transforming $`𝒞`$ into $``$.

###### Proof.

This theorem follows from the well known fact that the any two triangulations are connected by a series of chord exchanges where the diagonal chord of an inscribed quadralateral is ”flipped” to its crossing pair. The diagonal ”flips” correspond to $`(2,4)`$-moves. ∎

###### Corollary 1 (Purity).

Let $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(2,n)`$. Then $`|C|=2(n2)+1`$.

###### Proof.

Immediate corollary of Theorem 4.

Since $`\mathrm{W}(2,n)`$ is identified with the set of triangulations of an $`n`$-gon it follows that $`|\mathrm{W}(2,n)|`$ is the Catalan number $`\frac{1}{n1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n4}{n2}\right)`$. For $`k>2`$ the size of $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$ is not known.

In  it is shown that the coordinate ring $`[𝔾_{2\times n}]`$ has a basis consisting of all monomials of Plücker coordinates whose indices are pairwise weakly separated. Using the quantum short Plücker relation given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{Iij}\mathrm{\Delta }^{Ist}=q\mathrm{\Delta }^{Iis}\mathrm{\Delta }^{Ijt}+q^1\mathrm{\Delta }^{Iit}\mathrm{\Delta }^{Isj}$$

for $`i<s<j<t`$ as a straightening rule, we obtain the following quantum analogue of this result:

###### Proposition 6.

The set of all monomials consisting of lexicographically ordered pairwise quasi-commuting quantum Plücker coordinates is a basis for $`_q[𝔾_{2,n}]`$.

Using Proposition 5 and the identification of maximal collections in $`\mathrm{W}(2,n)`$ with triangulations of an $`n`$-gon we can characterize those maximal collections which can be parametrized, up to the dihedral action, by double wiring arrangements. Given $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(2,n)`$ there exists $`gD_n`$ for which $`g𝒞`$ is parametrized by a double wiring arrangement if and only if there exists an external edge of the polygon (i.e. a boundary $`2`$-set) such that for any other external edge there is no chord in the associated triangulation, which separates both the edges and is disjoint from both. The following collection in $`\mathrm{W}(2,9)`$, represented as a triangulation, is an example of a collection which is not parametrized, up to the dihedral action, by a double wiring arrangement:

## 6. The case of $`_q[𝔾_{3,n}]`$

In this section we prove the Transitivity and Purity Conjectures for $`k=3`$.

###### Theorem 5 (Transitivity).

Let $`𝒞,\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$. Then there is a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves transforming $`𝒞`$ into $``$.

###### Corollary 2 (Purity).

Let $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$ then $`|𝒞|=3(n3)+1`$.

Proof of Transitivity:

The essential strategy is to show that any collection $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$ can be reduced by a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves to the ”base” collection $`𝒜_n`$ whose non-boundary $`3`$-sets are

$$\{\{1,s,s+1\}2<s<n1\}\{\{1,2,s\}3<s<n\}$$

We first prove that whenever a collection $`𝒞`$ can be $`(2,4)`$-reduced to $`𝒜_n`$ then so can any of its dihedral translations $`g𝒞`$ for $`gD_n`$. In Lemma 3 we then show that any maximal collection can be translated dihedrally to a maximal collection containing the $`3`$-set $`\{1,n2,n1\}`$. We conclude the proof by showing that any such collection can be reduced by a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves to the collection $`𝒜_n`$.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$. If $`𝒞`$ can be reduced by a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves to $`𝒜_n`$ then so can the collection $`g𝒞`$ for any $`gD_n`$.

###### Proof.

Since the $`D_n`$-action preserves $`(2,4)`$-moves it is enough to verify this assertion in the case where $`𝒞=𝒜_n`$.

Proceed by induction on $`n`$. For $`n4`$ the statement is evident. Assume $`n>4`$. It is enough to verify the claim for the group elements $`\rho _n`$ and $`\sigma _n`$, which generate $`D_n`$, given by

$$\rho _n=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 2& \mathrm{}& n1& n\\ 2& 3& \mathrm{}& n& 1\end{array}\right)\sigma _n=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& 2& 3& 4& 5& \mathrm{}\\ 2& 1& n& n1& n2& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)$$

This follows from the observation that if $`g𝒞`$ can be reduced by a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves to $``$ then $`hg𝒞`$ can be reduced to $`h`$.

The collection $`\sigma _n𝒜_n`$ contains the $`3`$-sets $`\{1,2,n1\}`$, $`\{2,n2,n1\}`$, $`\{n2,n1,n\}`$, $`\{1,n1,n\}`$, and $`\{2,n1,n\}`$. Applying the $`(2,4)`$-move which replaces $`\{2,n1,n\}`$ with $`\{1,n2,n1\}`$ we obtain $`\sigma _{n1}𝒜_{n1}\{\{1,2,n\},\{1,n1,n\},\{n2,n1,n\}\}`$. By induction $`\sigma _{n1}𝒜_{n1}`$ can be reduced by a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves to $`𝒜_{n1}`$. Thus $`\sigma _n𝒜_n`$ can be reduced to $`𝒜_{n1}\{\{1,2,n\},\{1,n1,n\},\{n2,n1,n\}\}=𝒜_n`$.

To deal with $`\rho _n`$, notice that $`\rho _n𝒜_n`$ contains the 3-sets $`\{1,2,n\}`$, $`\{1,2,3\}`$, $`\{2,3,n1\}`$, $`\{2,n1,n\}`$, and $`\{2,3,n\}`$. We apply the $`(2,4)`$-move which replaces $`\{2,3,n\}`$ with $`\{1,2,n1\}`$. This new collection contains the 3-sets $`\{1,n1,n\}`$ , $`\{1,2,n1\}`$, $`\{2,n2,n1\}`$, $`\{n2,n1,n\}`$, and $`\{2,n1,n\}`$. We may apply the $`(2,4)`$-move which replaces $`\{2,n1,n\}`$ with $`\{1,n1,n2\}`$. The resulting collection is exactly $`\rho _{n1}𝒜_{n1}\{\{1,2,n\},\{1,n1,n\},\{n2,n1,n\}\}`$. By the induction hypothesis $`\rho _{n1}𝒜_{n1}`$ can be reduced by a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves to $`𝒜_{n1}`$. Consequenlty $`\rho _n𝒜_n`$ can be reduced to $`𝒜_{n1}\{\{1,2,n\},\{1,n1,n\},\{n2,n1,n\}\}=𝒜_n`$.

###### Lemma 3.

Given $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$ there exists $`gD_n`$ such that $`g𝒞`$ contains the $`3`$-set $`\{1,n2,n1\}`$.

###### Proof.

For a $`3`$-subset $`I`$ of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ define the diameter of $`I`$ to be the minimal cardinality of a boundary $`k`$-subset of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ that contains $`I`$. Thus the boundary $`3`$-subsets are precisely those of diameter $`3`$. Let us call $`3`$-subsets of diameter $`4`$ almost boundary subsets. It suffices to prove that every maximal collection $`𝒞`$ contains an almost boundary subset.

Assume by contradiction that $`𝒞`$ does not contain an almost boundary $`3`$-subset. We make the following easy observation:

###### Remark 1.

Let $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`d`$ be four consecutive vertices in $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$; then the $`3`$-subsets that are not weakly separated with an almost boundary subset $`\{a,c,d\}`$ are precisely the non-boundary $`3`$-subsets containing $`b`$ but not $`a`$.

Therefore our assumption and maximality of $`𝒞`$ imply that for every two consecutive vertices $`a`$ and $`b`$ in $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$, there is a non-boundary $`3`$-subset in $`𝒞`$ which contains $`b`$ but not $`a`$.

Choose a non-boundary $`3`$-subset $`\{a,c,d\}`$ in $`𝒞`$ of minimal possible diameter. Without loss of generality, we can assume that a boundary subset of minimal cardinality that contains $`\{a,c,d\}`$ has $`a`$ and $`d`$ as its endpoints; let us denote this boundary subset by $`[a,d]`$. We can also assume that $`c`$ is not a neighbor of $`a`$. Let $`b`$ be the neighbor of $`a`$ in $`[a,d]`$. Consider a $`3`$-subset $`I`$ in $`𝒞`$ such that $`I`$ contains $`b`$ but not $`a`$. Since $`I`$ is weakly separated from $`\{a,c,d\}`$ it must be contained in $`[b,d]=[a,d]\{a\}`$. But then $`I`$ has smaller diameter than $`\{a,c,d\}`$ which contradicts our choice of $`\{a,c,d\}`$. This proves the claim and hence the lemma as well.

For any collection $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$ we define its height $`H(𝒞)`$ to be the number of non-boundary $`3`$-sets containing $`n`$. An immediate consequence of Remark 1 is that $`H(𝒞)=0`$ if and only if both $`\{1,2,n1\}`$ and $`\{1,n2,n1\}`$ are in $`𝒞`$.

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$ with $`\{1,n2,n1\}𝒞`$. Then $`𝒞`$ can be reduced by a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves to a collection of height $`H=0`$.

###### Proof.

We proceed by induction on the height. If $`H(𝒞)=0`$ then we are already done. Assume inductively that the assertion is true for collections of height $`H=k0`$ and let $`𝒞`$ be a collection of height $`H(𝒞)=k+1`$. We need the following:

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$ and suppose that $`\{1,n2,n1\}𝒞`$. Then there exists a unique index $`b>1`$ such that both $`\{1,b,n1\}`$ and $`\{1,b,n\}`$ are in $`𝒞`$. We call $`b`$ the pinch point over $`n`$ and $`n1`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`b`$ be the maximal index with the property that $`\{1,b,n\}𝒞`$. Suppose, by contradiction, that $`\{1,b,n1\}𝒞`$. By maximality of $`𝒞`$ this means there exists a non-boundary set $`I𝒞`$ which is not weakly separated with $`\{1,b,n1\}`$. Therefore there exist indices $`s,tI`$ such that one of the following holds:

1. $`1<s<b<t<n1`$

2. $`1<s<b`$ and $`t=n`$

3. $`b<s<n1`$ and $`t=n`$

Case 1: Since $`I`$ and $`\{1,b,n\}`$ are weakly separated it follows that $`bI`$. But then $`I`$ will be weakly separated with $`\{1,b,n1\}`$.

Case 2: Since $`\{1,n2,n1\}𝒞`$ and since $`I`$ is a non-boundary set containing $`n`$ it follows that $`1I`$. But then $`I`$ will be weakly separated with $`\{1,b,n1\}`$.

Case 3: Once again it must be the case that $`1I`$. So $`I=\{1,s,n\}`$ where $`b<s`$ violating the maximalitly of $`b`$.

Hence $`\{1,b,n1\}𝒞`$. Suppose there was another pinch point $`b^{}b`$. Either $`b^{}<b`$ or $`b^{}>b`$. If $`b^{}<b`$ then $`\{1,b^{},n1\}`$ will not be weakly separated from $`\{1,b,n\}`$. If $`b^{}>b`$ then $`\{1,b^{},n\}`$ will not be weakly separated from $`\{1,b,n1\}`$. Both possibilities violate that fact that $`𝒞`$ consists of only pairwise weakly separated $`3`$-sets. Uniqueness follows.

###### Lemma 6.

Let $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$ and assume $`\{1,n2,n1\}𝒞`$. Let $`b`$ be the pinch point over $`n`$ and $`n1`$. Assume in addition that $`b>2`$. Then there exists $`a`$ with $`1<a<b`$ such that both $`\{1,a,b\}`$ and $`\{1,a,n\}`$ are in $`𝒞`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the set of all $`x`$ with the property that $`x<b`$ and $`\{1,x,n\}𝒞`$. This set is clearly non-empty since $`2<b`$ and $`\{1,2,n\}𝒞`$. Let $`a`$ be the maximal index with this property. Suppose $`\{1,a,b\}𝒞`$. Then there exists $`I𝒞`$ with $`s,tI`$ such that one of the following holds:

1. $`1<s<a<t<b`$

2. $`1<s<a<b<t`$

3. $`a<s<b<t`$

Case 1: Since $`\{1,a,n\}𝒞`$ it follows that $`I`$ and $`\{1,a,n\}`$ must be weakly separated. The only way this can happen is that $`aI`$. But then $`I`$ and $`\{1,a,b\}`$ will be weakly separated.

Case 2: Since $`I`$ and $`\{1,a,n\}`$ are weakly separated it must be the case that $`t=n`$. Since $`\{1,n2,n1\}𝒞`$ it follows that $`I`$ and $`\{1,n2,n1\}`$ are weakly separated. The only way this can be resolved is that $`1I`$. But then $`I`$ and $`\{1,a,b\}`$ are weakly separated.

Case 3: Either $`t=n`$ or not. Suppose $`tn`$. Since $`\{1,b,n\}𝒞`$, and hence weakly separated from $`I`$, it follows that $`bI`$ in which case $`I`$ and $`\{1,a,b\}`$ will be weakly separated. Thus $`t=n`$. Since $`\{1,b,n1\}𝒞`$ we know that $`I`$ and $`\{1,b,n1\}`$ are weakly separated. The only way this can happen is that $`1I`$ and hence $`I=\{1,s,n\}`$. But this violates the maximality of $`a`$ since $`a<s<b`$.

Thus $`\{1,a,b\}`$ and $`\{1,a,n\}`$ are in $`𝒞`$ as required.

Returning to Lemma 4, let $`b`$ be the pinch point of $`𝒞`$ \- i.e. the unique index $`b`$ such that both $`\{1,b,n1\}`$ and $`\{1,b,n\}`$ are in $`𝒞`$. If $`b=2`$ it follows that $`\{1,2,n1\}𝒞`$. This, taken together with the fact that $`\{1,n2,n1\}𝒞`$, violates the hypothesis that $`H(𝒞)>0`$. Therefore $`b>2`$.

Since $`b>2`$ Lemma 6 implies that there exists $`a`$ with $`1<a<b`$ such that both $`\{1,a,b\}`$ and $`\{1,a,n\}`$ are in $`𝒞`$. Thus $`𝒞`$ contains $`\{1,a,b\}`$, $`\{1,a,n\}`$, $`\{1,b,n1\}`$, $`\{1,b,n\}`$, and $`\{1,n1,n\}`$. The associated $`(2,4)`$-move for this quintuple replaces $`\{1,b,n\}`$ with $`\{1,a,n1\}`$. Let $``$ be the resulting collection. Notice that $``$ contains $`\{1,n2,n1\}`$ and that $`H()=H(𝒞)1=k`$. By induction $``$ can be further reduced by a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves into a collection of height $`H=0`$. Concantenating this $`(2,4)`$-reduction with the $`(2,4)`$-move transforming $`𝒞`$ to $``$ we obtain the desired reduction for $`𝒞`$.

Now we are ready to finish the proof of Transitivity. Let $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$. By Lemma 3 there is $`gD_n`$ such that $`g𝒞`$ contains the $`3`$-set $`\{1,n2,n1\}`$. By Lemma 4 the collection $`g𝒞`$ can be reduced by a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves to a collection $``$ with height $`H()=0`$. The collection $`\{\{1,2,n\},\{1,n1,n\},\{n2,n1,n\}\}`$ is in $`\mathrm{W}(3,n1)`$ and by induction on $`n`$ we can assume that it can be reduced by a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves to $`𝒜_{n1}`$. Equivalently $``$ can be reduced by a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves to $`𝒜_n`$. Consequently $`g𝒞`$ can be reduced to $`𝒜_n`$ and applying Lemma 2 we conclude that $`𝒞`$ can be reduced to $`𝒜_n`$ as required.

## 7. Reduction

In this section we present a recursive procedure to generate collections in $`\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$.

Given a $`3`$-subset $`I`$ of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$, we define

$$I^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}I\{n1\}\{n\}\hfill & \text{if}nI\text{and}n1I\hfill \\ \varphi \hfill & \text{if}nI\text{and}n1I\hfill \\ I\hfill & \text{if}nI\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$ let $`𝒞^{}=\{I^{}|I𝒞\}`$, and define $`F_𝒞`$ to be the set of indices $`b[2\mathrm{}n1]`$ with $`\{1,b,n\}𝒞`$ such that $`\{1,b\}\{s,t\}\{s,t\}\{1,b\}`$ whenever $`\{s,t,n\}𝒞`$ for $`1<s<t`$. If $`𝒞`$ contains $`\{1,n2,n1\}`$, let $`b_𝒞`$ be the pinch point of $`𝒞`$ (see Lemma 5), that is, the unique index such that both $`\{1,b_𝒞,n1\}`$ and $`\{1,b_𝒞,n\}`$ are in $`𝒞`$.

###### Theorem 6 (Reduction).

Let $`n4`$. The mapping $`𝒞(𝒞^{},b_𝒞)`$ defines a bijection between collections in $`\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$ containing $`\{1,n2,n1\}`$ and the set

$$\{(,b)\mathrm{W}(3,n1)\times [2\mathrm{}n2]bF_{}\}$$

The inverse bijection sends a pair $`(,b)`$ to the collection $`\widehat{}_b:=\{I_bI\}\{\{1,b,n1\},\{1,n1,n\},\{n2,n1,n\}\}`$ where

$$I_b=\{\begin{array}{cc}I\{n1\}\{n\}\hfill & \text{if}n1I\text{and}I\{1,b,n1\}\{1,b\}I\hfill \\ I\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

Since by Lemma 3, every collection in $`\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$ is dihedrally equivalent to one containing the near boundary subset $`\{1,n2,n1\}`$, it follows from Theorem 6 that all collections in $`\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$ can be obtained by first lifting collections in $`\mathrm{W}(3,n1)`$ by the inverse of the reduction procedure and then translating them suitably by the dihedral action.

Proof of Reduction Theorem:

The following lemma shows that the mapping $`𝒞(𝒞^{},b_𝒞)`$ is well defined.

###### Lemma 7.

Let $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$. Then $`𝒞^{}\mathrm{W}(3,n1)`$, and $`b_𝒞F_𝒞^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Momentary consideration reveals that $`𝒞^{}`$ consists of pairwise weakly separated $`3`$-subsets of $`[1\mathrm{}n1]`$. In virtue of Corollary 2 we know that $`𝒞^{}`$ will be maximal if and only if $`|𝒞^{}|=3(n4)+1`$. Since $`\{1,n2,n1\}𝒞`$ it follows that if $`I𝒞`$ and $`I^{}=\varphi `$ then either $`I=\{1,n1,n\}`$ or $`I=\{n2,n1,n\}`$. Consequently $`|𝒞^{}||𝒞|2`$. For $`I,J𝒞`$ if $`I^{}=J^{}`$ then either $`I=J`$ or else there exists $`b[2\mathrm{}n2]`$ such that, after interchanging $`I`$ and $`J`$ if neccessary, $`I=\{1,b,n1\}`$ and $`J=\{1,b,n\}`$. By Lemma 5, $`b`$ is unique. Hence $`|𝒞^{}|=|𝒞|3=3(n4)+1`$ as required. The inclusion $`b_𝒞F_𝒞^{}`$ is also clear from the definitions.

To prove that the inverse correspondence is well defined, we need to show that $`\widehat{}_b\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$ and $`\{1,n2,n1\}\widehat{}_b`$ for any $`\mathrm{W}(3,n1)`$ and $`bF_{}`$. Simple consideration shows that all $`3`$-subsets in $`\widehat{}_b`$ are weakly separated because $`bF_{}`$. Since $``$ is maximal we know by Corollary 2 that $`||=3(n4)+1`$ and thus $`|\widehat{}_b|=||+3=3(n3)+1`$. Corollary 2 implies that $`\widehat{}_b\mathrm{W}(3,n)`$. Notice also that $`\{1,n2,n1\}\widehat{}_b`$ since $`bn2`$.

It remains to show that the mappings $`𝒞(𝒞^{},b_𝒞)`$ and $`(,b)\widehat{}_b`$ are inverse to each other. First suppose that $`𝒞=\widehat{}_b`$. Since both $`\{1,b,n\}`$ and $`\{1,b,n1\}`$ are in $`\widehat{}_b`$, the desired equality $`(𝒞^{},b_𝒞)=(,b)`$ follows from Lemma 5. Finally, the equality $`\widehat{𝒞_b^{}}=𝒞`$ for $`b=b_𝒞`$ is clear from the definitions. $`\mathrm{}`$

Example: Let $`𝒞`$ be the collection in $`\mathrm{W}(3,6)`$ whose non-boundary $`3`$-sets are

$$\{\{136\},\{146\},\{236\},\{346\}\}$$

Here $`F_𝒞=\{2,3\}`$. Notice that $`4F_𝒞`$ because $`\{1,4\}\{23\}\{2,3\}\{1,4\}`$. The index $`5`$ is not present for the same reason. The two possible lifts of $`𝒞`$ (omitting boundaries) are:

$$\widehat{𝒞}_2=\{\{126\},\{136\},\{146\},\{156\},\{236\},\{346\}\}$$

$$\widehat{𝒞}_3=\{\{137\},\{136\},\{146\},\{156\},\{236\},\{346\}\}$$

## 8. Positivity

Let $`𝔾_{k,n}()`$ be the Grassmannian of $`k`$-subspaces in $`^n`$. Recall that any $`k`$-subspace in $`𝔾_{k,n}()`$ can be represented by a $`k\times n`$ matrix whose rows span the $`k`$-subspace. The Plücker coordinates are the maximal minors of this $`k\times n`$ matrix. We say a point $`p𝔾_{k,n}()`$ is positive if it can be represented by a $`k\times n`$ matrix whose Plücker coordinates $`\mathrm{\Delta }^I(p)`$ are positive real numbers.

###### Definition 4.

Let $`𝒞`$ be a collection of $`k`$-subsets of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$. We say that $`𝒞`$ is a positivity test if $`p𝔾_{k,n}()`$ is positive if and only if all $`\mathrm{\Delta }^I(p)`$ are real and positive for each $`I𝒞`$.

In  it is conjectured that maximal families of pairwise weakly separated subsets (not necessarily $`k`$-subsets) of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ give rise to positivity tests for the flag variety of type $`A_n`$. The analogue of this result for the Grassmannian $`𝔾_{k,n}()`$ is:

###### Theorem 7.

Let $`k=2`$ or $`k=3`$. If $`𝒞`$ is a maximal collection of pairwise weakly separated $`k`$-subsets of $`[1\mathrm{}n]`$ then the associated collection of Plücker coordinates $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }^I|I𝒞\}`$ is a positivity test.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒞\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$ and suppose that all $`\mathrm{\Delta }^I(p)`$ are real and positive for $`I𝒞`$. We need to show that all other Plücker coordinates $`\mathrm{\Delta }^J(p)`$ are real and positive. Take any $`J𝒞`$. Take any maximal collection $``$ containing $`J`$. Since $`k`$ is either $`2`$ or $`3`$ we know that Conjecture 2 holds and thus $`𝒞`$ and $``$ are connected by a sequence of $`(2,4)`$-moves.

Claim: Suppose $`𝒜`$ is in $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$ and is a positivity test. Let $``$ be in $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$ and assume that $``$ is obtained from $`𝒜`$ by a single $`(2,4)`$-move. Then $``$ is a positivity test.

Indeed, since $`𝒜`$ and $``$ differ by a single $`(2,4)`$-move there exist $`i<s<j<t`$ and $`I`$, where $`I`$ is empty if $`k=2`$ and $`|I|=1`$ if $`k=3`$, such that $`Iis`$, $`Isj`$, $`Ijt`$, and $`Iit`$ are in both $`𝒜`$ and $``$ and such that, without loss of generality, $``$ is obtained from $`𝒜`$ by replacing $`Iij`$ with $`Ist`$. The fact that $``$ is a positivity test is an immediate consequence of the short Plücker relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{Iij}\mathrm{\Delta }^{Ist}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{Iis}\mathrm{\Delta }^{Ijt}+\mathrm{\Delta }^{Iit}\mathrm{\Delta }^{Isj}$$

Let $`l`$ be the minimal number of $`(2,4)`$-moves required to join $``$ and $`𝒞`$. To prove the theorem proceed by induction on $`l`$ and use the claim.

A positivity test $`𝒞`$ is minimal if it has no proper subset which is also a positivity test. We conjecture that $`𝒞`$ is a minimal positivity test for $`𝔾_{k,n}()`$ if and only if $`𝒞`$ is in $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$. In addition, A. Zelevinsky and S. Fomin conjecture that collections $`𝒞`$ in $`\mathrm{W}(k,n)`$ have the property that any Plücker coordinate $`\mathrm{\Delta }^J`$ can be uniquely expressed as a positive Laurent polynomial in the Plücker coordinates $`\mathrm{\Delta }^I`$ for $`I𝒞`$. The author intends to investigate these issues related to positivity in a forthcoming article.

Acknowledgements: Many thanks to my advisor A. Zelevinsky for numerous detailed conversations and suggestions. Thanks also to my wife E. Machkasova for help in writing GAP code for computations.