text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There has been considerable interest in Anti de–Sitter (AdS) black holes since the discovery of the AdS/CFT correspondence, relating the physics of AdS in $`n+1`$ dimensions to a strongly coupled conformal (gauge) field theory (CFT) in one dimension fewer. This interest was triggered by Witten , who in formulating a precise statement of the duality, (see also ref.) found the dual interpretation of the thermodynamical properties of Schwarzchild AdS black holes (Sch–AdS) in terms of the dual field theory at a non–zero temperature related to the mass of the black hole. An example of this remarkable connections is the interpretation of the Hawking–Page phase transition from AdS to Sch–AdS at finite temperature, as terms of a transition between phases of the dual strongly coupled field theory.

Since then many new works have been presented on AdS black holes with the three simplest properties of mass, charge and rotation, in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence. Reissner–Nordstrom AdS (RN–AdS) black holes were studied in this context in ref.. There are again remarkable interpretations of the black holes’ properties in terms of the dual gauge field theory. There is a beautiful family of phase transitions as a function of temperature and charge, (also temperature and potential). These are interpreted in the gauge theory as a family of transitions at finite temperature and a chemical potential for a global charge under the R–symmetry of the (broken) supersymmetry of the gauge theory. This latter is especially interesting, since for the appropriate choice of R–current, the chemical potential in the dual gauge theory would be a close cousin of the baryon density operator in QCD. Therefore quite remarkably, studies of such charged black holes might give a window on the phase structure of gauge theory (and perhaps ultimately, QCD) at finite temperature and density, which is of great experimental interest. Further work on this is of great interest.

Kerr–AdS black holes were studied for the first time in the AdS/CFT context in ref., where the authors studied three, four and five dimensional Kerr–AdS black holes and some features of their dual field theories. Several important contributions have been subsequently presented on Kerr–AdS black holes , addressing the subject of AdS/CFT duality.

Asymptotically AdS black holes enjoy many interesting properties distinct from black holes which are asymptotically Minkowskian. For example, the presence of a negative cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$, allows more geometries for black holes horizons than in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case. These horizons can be spherical, planar and hyperbolic surfaces. Another interesting property that is not shared with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ solutions is that AdS black holes are thermodynamically stable, in the canonical ensemble, for certain ranges of their parameters. Schawrzchild–AdS black holes which are large compared with the scale, $`l|\mathrm{\Lambda }|^{1/2}`$, set by the cosmological constant, have positive specific heat, which is roughly attributable to the fact that AdS effectively acts as a box with reflecting walls supplied by its natural boundary at infinity. Kerr–AdS black holes are also stable in this way, and again this is not the case for ordinary Kerr. Kerr–AdS solutions have Killing vectors which are rotating with respect to time–translation Killing vectors, and time–like everywhere. This allows thermal radiation to rotate with the black hole’s angular velocity all the way to infinity. As a result, superradiance is not allowed, and the black hole is in thermal equilibrium with the thermal radiation around it .

In this paper we present the results of continued studies of Kerr–AdS black holes, using the counterterm subtraction method recalled in the next section. We calculate stress–energy tensors as well as gravitational actions of Kerr–AdSn+1 spaces, for $`n=4,5`$ and $`6`$, where the five dimensional case is for the general solution with two rotation parameters, while we consider only the one–parameter solutions for higher dimensions.

In the general Kerr–AdS5 case we find that the stress–energy tensor, for zero mass parameter, exactly matches that of the weakly coupled dual field theory (four dimensional large $`N`$ $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory on a rotating spacetime –see below) at zero temperature. Consequently, the Casimir energies and conformal anomalies of the dual theory exactly match their Kerr–AdS5 counterparts. This happens as a consequence of a non–renormalization theorem which protects anomaly coefficients from higher loop corrections, specifically for this dual field theory. In Kerr-AdS7 the situation is a little different, since there is no non–renormalization theorem that protects “type-A” anomaly coefficients (reviewed below) from higher loop corrections. As a result, we find that the conformal anomalies on both sides of the correspondence (the dual field theory is the six dimensional “$`(0,2)`$” tensor multiplet field theory at large $`N`$) are not exactly equal, (see ref. for the field theory result) there is a factor of 4/7 difference between them, presumably corresponding to a renormalisation in going from weak to strong coupling. We believe that the same factor will show up in comparing a perturbative Casimir energy calculation to the dual energy computed for Kerr–AdS7. We compute and display the latter here, although there is no field theory calculation on the market to compare to yet. In Kerr–AdS5 and Kerr-AdS7 cases we find, by examining the form of the trace of the energy–momentum tenor, that the rotation parameters break conformal but not scale invariance. We also argue that at high temperature, the dual stress–energy tensors are equal up to the usual 3/4 factor encountered in comparing such unprotected things across the weak/strong coupling divide.

We completed these calculations and announced them in ref., where we used the stress tensors as examples of the scale/conformal invariance issue mentioned in the previous paragraph. We suppressed some of the computational details there, promising to display them later. This is the main purpose of this paper. We have learned that a recent paper has appeared with computations which overlap with some of those presented here.

## 2 Computing the Action and Stress Tensor

The gravity action on a region of spacetime $``$, with boundary $``$ has the form,

$`I_{\mathrm{bulk}}+I_{\mathrm{surf}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _{}}d^{n+1}x\sqrt{g}\left(R+{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{l^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle _{}}d^nx\sqrt{h}K.`$ (1)
The first term is the Einstein–Hilbert action with negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which defines a natural length scale as follows: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=n(n1)/2l^2`$. The second term is the Gibbons–Hawking boundary term. Here, $`h_{ab}`$ is the boundary metric and $`K`$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature $`K^{ab}`$ of the boundary. We of course wish to consider the case where $``$ is a complete spacetime which is asymptotically AdS, therefore having infinite volume.

To deal with the divergences which appear in the gravitational action (arising from integrating over the infinite volume), we shall use the “counterterm subtraction” method. The method regulates the action by the addition of certain boundary counterterms which depend upon the geometrical properties of the boundary of the spacetime. They are chosen to diverge at the boundary in such a way as to cancel the bulk divergences (see also ):

$`I_{\mathrm{ct}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle _{}}d^nx\sqrt{h}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)}{l}}{\displaystyle \frac{l}{2(n2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l^3}{2(n4)(n2)^2}}\left(_{ab}^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{4(n1)}}^2\right)\right].`$ (2)
Here $``$ and $`_{ab}`$ are the Ricci scalar and tensor for the boundary metric $`h`$. Using these counterterms one can construct a divergence–free stress–energy tensor from the total action $`I=I_{\mathrm{bulk}}+I_{\mathrm{surf}}+I_{\mathrm{ct}}`$ by defining (see e.g. ):

$`T^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{h}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I}{\delta h_{ab}}}.`$ (3)
The metric restricted to the boundary, $`h_{ab}`$, diverges due to an infinite conformal factor, which will turn out to be $`r^2/l^2`$ in coordinates we will introduce later.

We will be interested in comparing quantities computed for $``$ to a strongly coupled dual field theory, which resides on a spacetime with a metric conformal to $`h_{ab}`$.111Sometimes this is just referred to as “the theory on the boundary”, which is only roughly true. We take the background metric upon which the dual field theory resides as

$$\gamma _{ab}=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{l^2}{r^2}h_{ab}.$$
(4)
and so the dual strongly coupled field theory’s stress–tensor, $`\widehat{T}^{ab}`$ 222The expression for $`\widehat{T}^{ab}`$ has been computed for arbitrary background manifold in ref.., is related to the one in equation (3) by the rescaling:

$$\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma _{ab}\widehat{T}^{bc}=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\sqrt{h}h_{ab}T^{bc}.$$
(5)
This amounts to multiplying all expressions for $`T^{ab}`$ displayed later by $`(r/l)^{n2}`$ before taking the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$.

## 3 The General Kerr–AdS5 Solution

The rotation group in $`n+1`$ dimensions is $`SO(n)`$. The number of independent rotation parameters for a localized object is equal to the number of Casimir operators, which is the integer part of $`n/2`$. This means that general Kerr–AdS5 has two parameters. Its metric is given by :

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}{\rho ^2}}\left(dt{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }_a}}d\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{b\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }_b}}d\psi \right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta }}d\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\rho ^2}}\left(adt{\displaystyle \frac{(r^2+a^2)}{\mathrm{\Xi }_a}}d\varphi \right)^2`$ (6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+r^2/l^2)}{r^2\rho ^2}}\left(abdt{\displaystyle \frac{b(r^2+a^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }_a}}d\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{a(r^2+b^2)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }_b}}d\psi \right)^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}dr^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\rho ^2}}\left(bdt{\displaystyle \frac{(r^2+b^2)}{\mathrm{\Xi }_b}}d\psi \right)^2,`$
where

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +b^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_a`$ $`=`$ $`1a^2/l^2,\mathrm{\Xi }_b=1b^2/l^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}(r^2+a^2)(r^2+b^2)(1+r^2/l^2)2MG,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`1a^2/l^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta b^2/l^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .`$ (7)
The inverse temperature, computed by requiring regularity of the Euclidean section, is:

$$\beta =\frac{2\pi r_+(r_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+a^2)(r_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+b^2)l^2}{2r_+^6+r_+^4(l^2+b^2+a^2)a^2b^2l^2}.$$
(8)
The stress energy tensor components calculated for general Kerr–AdS5 are considerably long expressions. We found that once we performed the procedures outlined in the previous section, the resulting stress–energy tensor, proposed to be that for the strongly coupled dual field theory, can be written in the following compact form:

$$\widehat{T}_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}=\frac{M}{8\pi l^3}\left[4u_au^b+\delta _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\right]\frac{l^3}{64\pi G}\left[\frac{1}{12}\delta _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}R^2R^{cd}R_{cad}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\right],$$
(9)
where $`R`$, $`R_{ab}`$ and $`R_{abcd}`$ are the Ricci scalar, Ricci tensor and Riemann tensor of the background metric $`\gamma _{ab}`$. Here, $`u^a=(1,0,0,0)`$ is a unit time–like vector and $`M`$ is the mass parameter. We shall discuss in more detail the above form of the stress–energy tensor by the end of the subsection 3.2, where there and in the next subsection we test whether this is indeed related to the stress tensor of the large $`N`$ $`SU(N)`$ Yang–Mills theory.

The mass and angular momenta calculated from this tensor are given by:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi l^2}{96G\mathrm{\Xi }_a\mathrm{\Xi }_b}}[7\mathrm{\Xi }_a\mathrm{\Xi }_b+\mathrm{\Xi }_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Xi }_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+72GM/l^2],`$ (10)
and

$$𝒥_\varphi =\frac{\pi Ma}{2\mathrm{\Xi }_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Xi }_b},𝒥_\psi =\frac{\pi Mb}{2\mathrm{\Xi }_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Xi }_a}.$$
(11)
The angular velocities on the horizon have the form:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =a\frac{\mathrm{\Xi }_a}{r_+^2+a^2},\mathrm{\Omega }_\psi =b\frac{\mathrm{\Xi }_b}{r_+^2+b^2}.$$
(12)
The action is given by

$`I_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \beta l^2}{96\mathrm{\Xi }_a\mathrm{\Xi }_bG}}[12(r_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/l^2)(1\mathrm{\Xi }_a\mathrm{\Xi }_b)+\mathrm{\Xi }_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Xi }_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Xi }_b\mathrm{\Xi }_a+12r_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}/l^42(a^4+b^4)/l^4`$ (13)
$`12(a^2b^2/l^4)(r_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}l^21/3)12].`$
while the area of the horizon is

$$𝒜=\frac{2\pi ^2G(r_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+a^2)(r_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+b^2)}{r_+\mathrm{\Xi }_a\mathrm{\Xi }_b}.$$
(14)
We note that the above quantities satisfy the following thermodynamical relation for $`n=4`$

$`S=\beta \left(\mathrm{\Omega }_i𝒥_i\right)I_{n+1}={\displaystyle \frac{𝒜}{4G}},`$ (15)
which is a highly non–trivial check of our calculations. (Note that the expressions for angular momenta (11) are different from those given in ref., where there is a missing factor of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ in their expressions. The angular momenta and the other quantities calculated in that reference therefore do not satisfy the above thermodynamical relation, but with the expressions presented here, they do.)

### 3.1 The Conformal Anomaly

The dual field theory is proposed to be strongly coupled $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ Yang–Mills theory with the supersymmetry broken by the rotation and the finite temperature (mass of the black hole). The spacetime metric on which the dual field theory resides is found, using the definitions in section 2, to be:

$$ds^2=\left[dt^2+\frac{2a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }_a}dtd\varphi +\frac{2b\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }_b}dtd\psi +l^2\frac{d\theta ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta }+l^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }_a}d\varphi ^2+\frac{l^2\mathrm{cos}^2}{\mathrm{\Xi }_b}\theta d\psi ^2\right].$$
(16)
It is important to note that this generalized rotating Einstein universe is conformally flat. This will be of great use later.

Now we would like to compare some of the results we have found on the AdS side of the correspondence with their dual on the field theory side. It is difficult to calculate physical quantities in the strongly coupled field theory in order to make the comparison directly. Sometimes, however, there is a non–renormalization theorem which protects anomaly coefficients from higher loop corrections.

When this is true, the Casimir energy and the anomaly coefficients for both strongly coupled and weakly coupled limits of the theory should be the same. These anomaly coefficients are protected because the trace of the stress–energy tensor and the divergence of the $`SU(4)`$ R–symmetry current are in the same supermultiplet, which is called anomaly multiplet. The divergence of the R–current is just the chiral anomaly, which is one loop exact by Adler–Bardeen theorem. (See e.g. refs. for relevant discussions.)

Unfortunately, our treatment does not include any supersymmetry, as it is broken by the rotation, and therefore we should not expect that we have any right to protection from a non–renormalisation theorem. Fortunately, higher loop corrections (corrections beyond planar diagrams) are of order $`O(1)`$ and $`O(\frac{1}{N})`$  and so will not change the one loop results as long as we study the large $`N`$ limit, which is precisely where the duality holds (at least if we stay in pure supergravity). This is the main reason that the conformal anomaly and Casimir energy for weakly coupled fields will be exactly equal to their duals on the gravity side, we will see in the following.

The definition of the stress tensor for the dual field theory that we shall use for weak coupling is the one introduced by Brown and Cassidy . They calculated the renormalized stress tensor for free fields (conformally coupled scalar, Weyl spinor and $`U(1)`$ gauge field). Their expression is given by:

$`<\widehat{T}_{}^{s}{}_{ab}{}^{}>=H_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\alpha ^sH_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{(1)}+2\delta ^sH_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{(3)}\right],`$ (17)
where $`H_{a}^{b}{}_{}{}^{(1)}`$, $`H_{a}^{b}{}_{}{}^{(3)}`$, $`\alpha ^s`$ and $`\delta ^s`$ are defined in ref.. (Note that they use spacetime indices $`(\mu ,\nu )`$ for the field theory and $`\beta ^s`$ for the coefficient of $`H_{a}^{b}{}_{}{}^{(3)}`$ while here we use $`(a,b)`$ for the indices and $`\delta ^s`$ for the coefficient.) If the expectation value is over vacuum state, $`H_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{(4)}`$ will be zero, since it is identified with the vev of the stress–energy tensor in Minkowski space. We will use this fact in section 3.2. The label $`s\{0,1/2,1\}`$ distinguishes the spin of the field for which the labelled coefficients $`\alpha ^s`$ and $`\delta ^s`$ are computed. We can now compare this to the the non–thermal (i.e., the $`M`$–independent) part of the tensor which we have computed on the gravity side, inserting the spins appropriate to the content of the dual theory: a gauge field, six scalars and four Weyl spinors.

According to the AdS/CFT relation, one should define the Casimir energy for the field theory dual to the Kerr–AdS spacetime as the contribution to the total energy of the spacetime which is independent of the black hole’s mass. We find that the two energies exactly match and they are given by:

$$=\frac{N^2}{48l\mathrm{\Xi }_a\mathrm{\Xi }_b}(7\mathrm{\Xi }_a\mathrm{\Xi }_b+\mathrm{\Xi }_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{\Xi }_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}).$$
(18)
where we used the standard entry in the AdS/CFT dictionary

$$\frac{1}{G}=\frac{2N^2}{\pi l^3}.$$
(19)
This Casimir energy agrees with the one calculated in ref. for one parameter Kerr–AdS5 case as $`b0`$.

Furthermore the two stress–energy tensors at zero mass parameter limit, are equal. This is not surprising, since conformal anomaly fixes the whole stress tensor in conformally flat background, once the quantum state is determined.

Let us now investigate conformal anomaly for dual field theory, on the boundary. The general form of Weyl anomaly in arbitrary dimension $`n`$ is given by (see e.g. the discussions in refs.):

$$T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=c_0E_n+\mathrm{\Sigma }c_iI_i+_iJ^i$$
(20)
where $`E_n`$ is Euler density in $`n`$ dimensions, $`I_i`$ are invariants which contain the Weyl tensor and its derivatives, and the last term is a collection of total derivative terms that can be removed by adding suitable local couterterms.333This term is the generalization of the familiar $`\mathrm{}R`$ in four dimensions. The first type of term is called “type A”, the second “type B”, and the last “type D”. It is important to note that the coefficients of all terms are regularisation scheme independent except the type D anomaly.

In the two non–trivial cases of spherical Kerr–AdS5 and Kerr–AdS7, the boundary metric is conformally flat which means that the Weyl invariant terms vanish. The only surviving non–trivial term is the Euler density which is locally a total derivative. The Euler density integral is a topological invariant which vanishes for the boundaries of Kerr–AdS5 and Kerr–AdS7 spaces. In special cases the Euler density is proportional to a combination of terms in in the type D anomaly. This doesn’t make the type A anomaly a type D anomaly, since the coefficient $`c_0`$ is scheme independent. Attempting to add counterterms to remove the type A anomaly will change the anomaly coefficient $`c_0`$, which means that we have moved to a different theory, instead of merely changing scheme.

We find that this special situation is just what happens for the Kerr–AdS5 and Kerr–AdS7 solutions. The conformal anomaly for two parameters Kerr–AdS5 has the following form:

$`T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}={\displaystyle \frac{(a^2b^2)N^2}{4\pi ^2l^6}}\left[a^2/l^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 2)+b^2/l^2(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +4)1)\mathrm{cos}2\theta \right],`$ (21)
which matches exactly the general form of the trace anomaly in four dimensions. In terms of the Euler density, it can be written simply as

$$T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=c_0E_n$$
(22)
where $`c_0=N^2/\pi ^2`$. The integrated anomaly is zero as in the one–parameter case

$$𝑑x^4\sqrt{\gamma }T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=0.$$
(23)
Since the energy–momentum tensor is traceful, but the trace is an irremovable total derivative, we see that for arbitrary rotation parameters we have broken conformal invariance but preserved scale invariance. This is discussed at length in ref.. It is interesting to note that when the rotation parameters are equal, the anomaly vanishes identically.

### 3.2 The Stress–Energy Tensor at High Temperature

We show in this section that at high temperature the stress–energy tensor we computed for the general Kerr-AdS5 case matches that of the dual field theory, up to the usual 3/4 factor encountered in going from weak to strong coupling.

Let us start with the renormalized stress–energy tensor of Brown and Cassidy for the field theory given in equation (17). Replacing the vacuum expectation value by the ensemble average $`<>_\beta `$ one obtains the thermal stress–energy tensor:

$`<T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(\gamma )>_\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^4<T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(\eta )>_\beta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\alpha H_{}^{(1)}{}_{a}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}+2\delta H_{}^{(3)}{}_{a}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\right].`$ (24)
Here $`\gamma _{ab}`$ is the spacetime metric of the theory, $`\eta _{ab}`$ is that of Minkowski spacetime, and $`\omega `$ is the conformal factor relating the two metrics (i.e., $`\gamma _{ab}=\omega ^2\eta _{ab}`$). The boundary metric (i.e., rotating Einstein universe) is conformal to Minkowski space, since rotating Einstein universe after a change of variables is conformal to Einstein universe, which is known to be conformal to Minkowski space. Notice that upon thermalizing the Brown–Cassidy expression, the coefficients $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$ will not depend on $`\beta `$ (i.e., the temperature), since the same coefficients appear in the trace which is non–thermal.444The reason is that, the boundary metric does not depend on the mass parameter since the mass term vanishes at the boundary. But trace anomaly is a local geometric expression which depends only on the metric and its derivatives, hence it will not depend on $`\beta `$. Notice that the first term on the right hand side of the above expression vanishes at zero temperature if the manifold is conformally related to the whole Minkowiski space.

One way to understand the above expression is to think of it as the quantum version of the classical stress-energy tensor transformation law under conformal transformation $`\gamma _{ab}=\omega ^2\eta _{ab}`$. If a classical action is invariant under conformal transformation, then the stress-energy tensor will transform as

$$T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(\gamma )=\omega ^4T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(\eta )$$
(25)
provided that $`T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(\eta )`$ is conserved. The existence of the last two terms in the right hand side of the expression is due to pure quantum effects (one loop corrections). This follows from realizing that they are the source of both the Casimir energy and the trace anomalies, which are pure quantum effects.

In ref. we argued that in the limit $`M0`$ the two stress–energy tensors on both sides of the duality are identical. The reason is that the field theory stress-energy tensor is protected from higher loop corrections as we mentioned earlier. Furthermore, and as we also already mentioned, once we have matched the conformal anomaly, it determines the entire tensor (at zero temperature) in the case we have here that the spacetime the field theory is defined on is conformally flat.

Now let us try to probe another aspect of this duality by going to another limit —the high temperature limit— checking the relation between the stress-energy tensors at weak and strong coupling (the latter defined by the AdS computation). At high $`T=\beta ^1`$, we can ignore quantum corrections in the field theory, since these quantum corrections do not depend on temperature, while the Minkowiski stress-energy tensor (the first term in the right hand side of equation (24)) goes as $`T^4`$. So in this limit we have:

$$<T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(\gamma )>_{(\mathrm{FT})}=\omega ^4<T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(\eta )>$$
(26)
The previous relation is just the transformation law of stress-energy tensor under conformal transformation for a conformally invariant effective action. $`<T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(\eta )>`$ is traceless and has the form

$$<T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(\eta )>=\frac{\rho ^\mathrm{M}}{3}\left[4u_au^b+\delta _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\right]$$
(27)
where the density is:

$$\rho ^\mathrm{M}=\frac{\pi ^2N^2}{2\beta _{\mathrm{M}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}},$$
(28)
(the label “M”, is for “Minkowski”), and again, $`u_a`$ is a time–like unit vector. The stress–energy tensor of our field theory is given by

$$<T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(\gamma )>_{(\mathrm{FT})}=\frac{\rho ^\gamma }{3}\left[4u_au^b+\delta _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\right],\text{where}\rho ^\gamma =\frac{\pi ^2N^2}{2\beta _{\gamma }^{}{}_{}{}^{4}},$$
(29)
with the label “$`\gamma `$” for the spacetime of our field theory. Notice that density gets scaled under conformal transformation

$$\rho ^\gamma =\omega ^4\rho ^M.$$
(30)
Then the field theory stress–energy tensor after dropping the label $`\gamma `$ is given by

$$<T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(\gamma )>_{(\mathrm{FT})}=\frac{\pi ^2N^2}{6\beta ^4}\left[4u_au^b+\delta _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\right].$$
(31)
On the gravity side one can express the mass parameter of Kerr–AdS5 black hole as a function of $`\beta `$. For small $`\beta `$ we get

$$M=\frac{\pi ^4l^6}{2G\beta ^4}.$$
(32)
Substituting this value of $`M`$ in the expression of stress–energy tensor in equation (9), and using equation (19), the stress–energy tensor on the gravity side is

$$<T_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}(\gamma )>_{(\mathrm{AdS})}=\frac{\pi ^2N^2}{8\beta ^4}\left[4u_au^b+\delta _{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\right]$$
(33)
The two expressions for the stress-energy tensors are the same up to the usual 3/4 factor, which is now familiar ratio between energetic quantities from the strong and weak coupling regime of the theory.

The above argument can be used for rotating solutions with charge, as well with spherical or flat horizons, since after a change of coordinates, the boundary metric for these cases are also conformal to the whole Minkowiski space. In these cases we have temperature dependence similar to the Kerr–AdS case, because the mass as a function of temperature, contains other terms that depend on charges but which can be ignored at high temperature. The boundary metric of rotating charged black holes will be the same as the one for rotating black hole case, since terms that contain charges will vanish at the boundary. We expect that one can do the same for black holes with hyperbolic horizons. The only difference is that hyperbolic black holes boundaries are conformal to Rindler space, but this can be chosen as a part of Minkowiski space.

## 4 The Kerr–AdS6 Solution

The general Kerr–AdS6 has two rotation parameters, but we will consider only one parameter solution. The metric for Kerr–AdS6 with one rotation parameter is given by

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}{\rho ^2}}\left(dt{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }}}d\varphi \right)^2+r^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta }}d\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}dr^2`$ (34)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\rho ^2}}\left(adt{\displaystyle \frac{(r^2+a^2)}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}d\varphi \right)^2+r^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,`$
where

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`r^2+a^2cos^2(\theta ),\mathrm{\Xi }=1a^2/l^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ $`=`$ $`(r^2+a^2)(1+r^2/l^2)2MG/r,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`1a^2/l^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ).`$ (35)
$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ is the metric on the two–sphere

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2=d\psi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\psi d\eta ^2.$$
(36)
The inverse temperature is given by

$$\beta =\frac{4\pi (r_+^2+a^2)r_+}{5r_+^4/l^2+3r_+^2(1+a^2/l^2)+a^2},$$
(37)
the angular velocity has the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=a\frac{\mathrm{\Xi }}{r_+^2+a^2}.$$
(38)
Here, $`r_+`$ is the location of the horizon, the largest root of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$.

The non–vanishing components of the stress–energy tensor at large $`r`$ are given by,

$`T_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{lG2\pi r^3}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^4}}\right),`$
$`T_{t\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Ma\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{lG2\pi \mathrm{\Xi }r^3}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^4}}\right),`$
$`T_{\varphi \varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Ml}{\mathrm{\Xi }^28\pi Gr^3}}(4\mathrm{\Xi }5\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta )+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^4}}\right),`$
$`T_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Ml}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta 8\pi Gr^3}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^4}}\right),`$
$`T_{\psi \psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l\mathrm{cos}^2\theta M}{8\pi Gr^3}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^4}}\right)`$
$`T_{\eta \eta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\theta lM}{8\pi Gr^3}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^4}}\right)`$ (39)
Using the definition for a conserved charge, one can calculate the mass and angular momentum of the solution:

$`={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3\mathrm{\Xi }}}M,𝒥={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3\mathrm{\Xi }^2}}aM.`$ (40)
Also the action is

$`I_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2(r_+^2+a^2)r_+\left[r_+^5/l^2+r_+^3/l^2a^2MG\right]}{\mathrm{\Xi }G\left(5r_+^4/l^2+3r_+^2(1+a^2/l^2)+a^2\right)}}.`$ (41)
The area of the horizon is given by

$`𝒜=8\pi ^2G{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^2(r_+^2+a^2)}{3\mathrm{\Xi }}}.`$ (42)
The above quantities satisfy the thermodynamical relation (15) for $`n=5`$.

The boundary metric is given by

$$ds^2=\left[dt^2+\frac{2a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }}dtd\varphi +l^2\frac{d\theta ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta }+l^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }}d\varphi ^2+l^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right].$$
(43)
Defining the tress tensor of the dual field theory by removing the conformal factor, one can put it in the compact form:

$$T_{ab}=\frac{M}{2\pi l^4}\left[5u_au_b+\gamma _{ab}\right]$$
(44)
where $`u^a=(1,0,0,0,0)`$ and $`\gamma _{ab}`$ is the boundary metric. It is interesting to notice that the tensor can be put in the standard form even in the presence of non–vanishing rotation parameter. We noticed this for Kerr–AdS4 in ref.. Conformal invariance together with conservation of the stress–energy tensor seems to constrain the form of the tensor. This property is likely shared by all odd dimensional field theory stress–energy tensor of this sort.

## 5 The Kerr–AdS7 Solution

The general solution for Kerr–AdS7 contains three rotation parameters, but we are going to consider only one parameter solution. The metric for the Kerr–AdS7 is

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}{\rho ^2}}\left(dt{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }}}d\varphi \right)^2+r^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta }}d\theta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}dr^2+`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\rho ^2}}\left(adt{\displaystyle \frac{(r^2+a^2)}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}d\varphi \right)^2+r^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2,`$
where the functions in the metric are the same except

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_r=(r^2+a^2)(1+r^2/l^2)2MG/r^2,$$
(46)
and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ is the metric on a three–sphere

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2=d\psi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\psi d\eta ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\psi d\beta ^2.$$
(47)
The inverse temperature is

$$\beta =\frac{2\pi (r_+^2+a^2)r_+}{3r_+^4/l^2+2r_+^2(1+a^2/l^2)+a^2},$$
(48)
and the angular velocity is the same as in the previous section. Once again $`r_+`$ is the location of the horizon, the largest root of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$. The non–vanishing components for the stress–energy tensor at large $`r`$ are given by,

$`T_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^3}{640\pi Gr^4}}[(1+a^2/l^2)(131a^2/l^2423(a^4/l^4)\mathrm{cos}^4\theta )+219(1+a^4/l^4)(a^2/l^2)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$
$`+25(1+a^6/l^6)+235(a^6/l^6)\mathrm{cos}^6\theta +400MG/l^4+492(a^4/l^4)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ]+O(r^5),`$
$`T_{t\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^3a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{640\pi Gr^4\mathrm{\Xi }}}[231(a^6/l^6)\mathrm{cos}^4\theta +5+a^2/l^2+55(a^6/l^6)\mathrm{cos}^6\theta 101a^4/l^4+400MG/l^4`$
$`+189(a^6/l^6)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 25a^6/l^6+168(a^4/l^4)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 51(a^4/l^4)\mathrm{cos}^4\theta 3(a^2/l^2)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ]+O(r^5),`$
$`T_{\varphi \varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{al^5\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{640\pi Gr^4\mathrm{\Xi }^2}}[102a^4/l^4+51(a^4/l^4)\mathrm{cos}^4\theta 55(a^6/l^6)\mathrm{cos}^6\theta \mathrm{\Xi }171(a^4/l^4)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +80MG/l^4`$
$`+189(a^8/l^8)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +3(a^2/l^2)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +4a^2/l^2231(a^8/l^8)\mathrm{cos}^4\theta +180(a^6/l^6)\mathrm{cos}^4\theta 5`$
$`+480MG(a^2/l^6)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 21(a^6/l^6)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 76a^6/l^625a^8/l^8+400(a^2/l^6)MG]+Or^5),`$
$`T_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^5}{640\pi G\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta r^4}}[5(a^2/l^2)\mathrm{\Xi }80MG/l^4+3(a^2/l^2)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (1+a^4/l^4)`$
$`+66(a^4/l^4)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 45(a^4/l^4)\mathrm{cos}^4\theta (1+a^2/l^2)+25(a^6/l^6)\mathrm{cos}^6]+O(r^5),`$
$`T_{\psi \psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^5\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{640\pi Gr^4}}[5\mathrm{\Xi }(1a^4/l^4)80MG/l^451(a^4/l^4)\mathrm{cos}^4\theta (1+a^2/l^2)`$
$`3(a^2/l^2)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (1+a^4/l^4)+46(a^4/l^4)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ]+O(r^5),`$
$`T_{\eta \eta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\psi T_{\psi \psi },`$
$`T_{\beta \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\psi T_{\psi \psi }.`$ (49)
The mass and angular momentum of the solution are:

$$=\frac{\pi ^2l^4\left[a^6/l^6+5a^4/l^4+50\mathrm{\Xi }800MG/l^4\right]}{1280G\mathrm{\Xi }},𝒥=\frac{\pi ^2}{4\mathrm{\Xi }^2}aM.$$
(50)
The energy dual to the Casimir energy of the field theory is given by setting $`M=0`$ in the above, to give:

$$=\frac{\pi ^2l^4\left[a^6/l^6+5a^4/l^4+50\mathrm{\Xi }\right]}{1280\mathrm{\Xi }G}.$$
(51)
The action is

$`I_7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3(r_+^2+a^2)r_+l^4}{640\mathrm{\Xi }G\left(3r_+^4/l^2+2r_+^2(1+a^2/l^2)+a^2\right)}}\times `$ (52)
$`\left[160(r_+^6/l^6+r_+^4/l^6a^2MG/l^4)+5a^4/l^4+50\mathrm{\Xi }+a^6/l^6\right].`$
The area of the horizon is

$`𝒜=\pi ^3G{\displaystyle \frac{r_+^3(r_+^2+a^2)}{\mathrm{\Xi }}}.`$ (53)
The above quantities satisfy the thermodynamical relation (15) for $`n=6`$.

### 5.1 The Conformal Anomaly

The field theory to which the AdS7 theory is supposed to be dual is the “$`(0,2)`$” supersymmetric tensor field theory at large $`N`$. (See ref. for a review.)

The metric on which the dual field theory resides is given using the procedure of section 2 by

$$ds^2=\left[dt^2+\frac{2a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }}dtd\varphi +l^2\frac{d\theta ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta }+l^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Xi }}d\varphi ^2+l^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right],$$
(54)
a higher dimensional generalization of the rotating Einstein universe. Taking the trace of the stress–energy tensor given in the previous section yields, after taking the limits in section 2:

$`\widehat{T}_a^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2N^3}{2\pi ^3l^8}}[5a^4/l^4\mathrm{cos}^6\theta 8\mathrm{cos}^4\theta a^2/l^2(1+a^2/l^2)2(1+a^2/l^2)`$ (55)
$`+3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta (1+a^4/l^4+3a^2/l^2)]`$
where we used the relation $`N^3=3\pi ^2l^5/16G`$ between the field theory and the gravitational parameters.

Just as we saw for the case of Kerr–AdS5, we see that this trace is a total derivative. Furthermore, we note that it can be written in terms of the Euler density:

$$\widehat{T}_a^a=\frac{N^3}{4508\pi ^3}E_6.$$
(56)
The Euler density $`E_6`$ is displayed in e.g. ref., where the field theory is discussed at weak coupling. The coefficient matches the results in ref.. Just as in the four dimensional case, we see that for this special situation, the Euler density can be written in terms of type D quantities. In the notation of ref., it is of the form $`_{i=1}^7d_iC_i`$, with $`d_5`$ and $`d_7`$ zero, since they depend on the Weyl tensor, and $`\{d_1,d_2,d_3,d_4,d_6\}=\{0,1/9,1/72,5/12,1/72\}`$. (This is a useful parameterization, but of course, not unique.)

The conformal anomaly of the free field theory has been calculated in ref. and the results are similar to the anomaly we computed on the AdS side, up to a factor of 4/7. The discrepancy between the two results is due to the fact that the coefficient in front of the Euler density in six dimensions is not controlled by a non–renormalization theorem as in the four–dimensional case. Consequently this coefficient will be different from the weakly coupled theory which may explain the 4/7 factor. Unfortunately there is no Casimir energy calculation for the free theory, and so we cannot compare it with our results. Nevertheless, we expect that the Casimir energy for the free theory will be different from the one calculated on the gravity side by exactly the same factor, since the conformal anomaly and the Casimir energy depend on the same coefficient, $`c_0`$, defined in equation (20).

## 6 Concluding Remarks

In closing, we note that overall, as stated in the introduction for other AdS black holes, the properties of the action and stress tensor of the Kerr–AdS solution in various dimensions seem to be consistent with a dual interpretation as those of a field theory in one dimension fewer. This is a quite satisfyingly successful examination of aspects of the AdS/CFT correspondence. This work is also an extensive demonstration of the usefulness of the counterterm subtraction method for computing intrinsic properties of quite complicated asymptotically AdS spacetimes.

It would be interesting to study the full thermodynamic phase structure of these higher dimensional rotating black holes, as done in four dimensions in ref.. We expect that the properties of AdS will endow these thermodynamics with the physical properties required by the duality, in contrast to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case.

While the dual field theories to Kerr–AdS reside on rotating spacetimes —generalizations of the rotating Einstein universe— which are situations of less immediate concern than, e.g., gauge field theory at high density (to which the Reissner–Nordstrom black holes seem to be relevant), it is nevertheless an interesting arena in which to study the AdS/CFT correspondence and its generalizations.

We expect that there is more to be learned by further study of these systems. Particularly interesting would be further information from the pertubrative field theory side in the Kerr–AdS7 case: The Casimir energy of the (0,2) tensor multiplet on the (rotating) six dimensional Einstein universe is an example of a quantity which would be nice to compare with the result we have presented here.

An obvious extension to study, for completeness, is the inclusion of all of the rotation parameters for AdS6 and AdS7, and comparison to the corresponding field theory quantities. As the two–parameter Kerr–AdS5 case and the one parameter Kerr–AdS7 case were both rather computationally intensive, we have not yet made serious attempts to progress beyond that level of complexity. We hope that progress on this can be made, in order to complete the story.

## Acknowledgements

AA’s work was supported by an NSF Career grant, #PHY–9733173.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Let $`U=U_q(sl_{n+1}())`$ be the quantum group associated to the simple Lie algebra $`𝔤=sl_{n+1}()`$ of type $`A_n`$. The negative part $`U^{}`$ of $`U`$ has a canonical basis with favourable properties (see Kashiwara  and Lusztig \[9, §14.4.6\]). For example, via action on highest weight vectors it gives rise to bases for all the finite-dimensional irreducible highest weight $`U`$-modules.

The Lusztig cones first appeared in a paper  of Lusztig, where he proved that, if $`𝐢=(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)`$ is a reduced expression for the longest word $`w_0`$ in the Weyl group of $`𝔤`$ (i.e. $`s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\mathrm{}s_{i_k}`$ is reduced), and $`𝐚=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k)`$ satisfies certain linear inequalities, then the monomial

$$F_{i_1}^{(a_1)}F_{i_2}^{(a_2)}\mathrm{}F_{i_k}^{(a_k)}$$

lies in the canonical basis of $`U^{}`$, provided $`𝔤`$ is of type $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$ or $`A_3`$. We call the set of points associated to $`𝐢`$ satisfying these linear equalities the Lusztig cone associated to $`𝐢`$. This result was extended to type $`A_4`$ in , but has been shown to fail for larger $`n`$ by Reineke  and Xi . However, in the crystal limit of Kashiwara, this cone plays an important role. This role will be explored in , and the joint paper  with Roger Carter, where a link is made with the regions of linearity of Lusztig’s reparametrization functions. Indeed, it may be that the Lusztig cones are regions of linearity for reparametrization functions arising from a change of reduced expression for $`w_0`$ in the string parametrization of the canonical basis.

The Lusztig cones have also arisen in other contexts. For example, let $`G=SL_n()`$, and let $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n`$ be a choice of one-parameter simple root subgroups of $`G`$. Zelevinsky  shows that a generic element $`xL^{e,w_0}`$, a reduced real double Bruhat cell of $`G`$, has form $`x=x_{i_1}(t_1)x_{i_2}(t_2)\mathrm{}x_{i_k}(t_k)`$, where $`𝐢`$ is any fixed reduced expression for $`w_0`$. The parameters $`t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_k`$ can be regarded as functions on $`L^{e,w_0}`$, and Zelevinsky shows that the Laurent monomial $`t_1^{a_1}t_2^{a_2}\mathrm{}t_k^{a_k}`$ is regular if and only if $`𝐚=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k)`$ satisfies the defining inequalities of the Lusztig cone corresponding to $`𝐢`$. Lusztig cones also play a role in the paper  investigating the string cones — cones which arise from the string parametrization of the canonical basis of $`U^{}`$ (which also depends on a choice of reduced expression $`𝐢`$ for $`w_0`$).

In this paper, we investigate the Lusztig cones and show that they possess a beautiful combinatorial structure. We prove that each Lusztig cone is the set of integral points of a simplicial cone and give an explicit description of spanning vectors for it, in terms of the corresponding reduced expression for $`w_0`$. Provided we label points in a Lusztig cone in the correct way, in this description there are $`n`$ spanning vectors common to each Lusztig cone. The other vectors correspond to the bounded chambers of the ‘chamber ansatz’ for the corresponding reduced expression (see \[2, §§1.4, 2.3\]), and each vector depends only on the set of braids which pass below the corresponding chamber.

We give an explicit description of these spanning vectors, for an arbitrary reduced expression for $`w_0`$, using a relabelling of the bounded chambers with ‘partial quivers’ — certain graphs with a mixture of oriented and unoriented edges such that the subgraph of oriented edges is connected. These allow us to give a natural description of the spanning vectors (Theorem 3.8), and also enable us to use the quiver-compatible reduced expressions for $`w_0`$ as a way of approaching all reduced expressions.

In the case where $`𝐢`$ is quiver-compatible, for simply-laced type, these vectors have now also been studied by Bedard in . Bedard describes these vectors using the Auslander-Reiten quiver of the quiver and homological algebra, showing they are closely connected to the representation theory of the quiver.

The description of the Lusztig cones given here should be of use in understanding the canonical basis. It is known that the Lusztig cone is contained in the corresponding string cone — this is shown by Premat  (a proof which holds for all symmetrizable Kac-Moody Lie algebras) and also in  for type $`A_n`$ using the results derived here. This means that there is a subset of the canonical basis corresponding to each Lusztig cone and therefore a canonical basis element corresponding to each spanning vector described here. In types $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$, the corresponding dual canonical basis element is known to be primitive — that is, it cannot be factorized as a product of dual canonical basis elements (this can be seen using ). These primitive elements, and whether they quasi-commute, play a key role in current understanding of the dual canonical basis (see  and ), and also in the structure of the module categories of affine Hecke algebras (see ).

## 2 Lusztig cones are simplicial

For positive integers $`p<q`$ we denote by $`[p,q]`$ the set $`\{p,p+1,\mathrm{},q\}`$, and for a rational number $`x`$ we denote by $`x`$ the smallest element of $`\{y:xy\}`$. Let $`𝔤`$ be the simple Lie algebra $`sl_{n+1}()`$, with root system $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and simple roots $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _n`$. We use the following numbering of the Dynkin diagram (and its edges):

$``$$``$$``$$``$         $`n`$$`n1`$$`2`$$`1`$$`n`$$`2`$

Let $`W`$ be the Weyl group of $`𝔤`$. Recall that $`W`$ can be presented with generators $`s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_n`$, subject to relations:

$`s_i^2`$ $`=`$ $`e,`$ (1)
$`s_is_j`$ $`=`$ $`s_js_i\text{ if }|ij|>1,`$ (2)
$`s_is_js_i`$ $`=`$ $`s_js_is_j\text{ if }|ij|=1.`$ (3)
We recall also that relations of type (2) are called short braid relations, and relations of type (3) are called long braid relations. Two reduced expressions $`w_0`$ are said to be commutation equivalent if there exists a sequence of short braid relations taking the first to the second; the equivalence classes of this equivalence relation are called commutation classes. Let $`w_0`$ be the longest element in $`W`$. We shall identify a reduced expression for $`s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\mathrm{}s_{i_k}`$ for $`w_0`$ with the corresponding $`k`$-tuple $`𝐢=(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)`$. The Lusztig cone, $`C_𝐢`$, corresponding to $`𝐢`$ is defined to be the set of points $`𝐚^k`$ satisfying the following condition:
For every pair $`i_s,i_s^{}`$, with $`s,s^{}[1,k]`$, $`i_s=i_s^{}=i`$ and such that $`i_pi`$ whenever $`s<p<s^{}`$, we have

$$(\underset{p}{}a_p)a_sa_s^{}0,$$
(4)
where the sum is over all $`p`$ with $`s<p<s^{}`$ such that $`i_p`$ is joined to $`i`$ in the Dynkin diagram.

In this section, we show that the Lusztig cone corresponding to any reduced expression for the longest word $`w_0`$ is simplicial. We can regard $`C_𝐢`$ as the subset of $`^k`$ defined by the $`kn`$ inequalities (4) above, together with the $`k`$ inequalities $`a_j0`$ for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$. We will show that only $`n`$ of the inequalities $`a_j0`$ are necessary to define $`C_𝐢`$.

The reduced expression $`𝐢`$ defines an ordering on the set $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ of positive roots of the root system associated to $`W`$. If we write $`\alpha ^j=s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\mathrm{}s_{i_{j1}}(\alpha _{i_j})`$ for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+=\{\alpha ^1,\alpha ^2,\mathrm{}\alpha ^k\}`$ (and there are no repetitions in this list). For $`𝐚=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k)^k`$, write $`a_{\alpha ^j}=a_j`$. We shall use this relabelling of $`𝐚`$ throughout.

We shall need the chamber ansatz for $`𝐢`$ defined in \[2, §§1.4, 2.3\]. We take $`n+1`$ strings, numbered from top to bottom, and write $`𝐢`$ from left to right along the bottom of the diagram. Above a letter $`i_j`$ in $`𝐢`$, the $`i_j`$th and $`(i_j+1)`$st strings from the top above $`i_j`$ cross. Thus, for example, in the case $`n=3`$ with $`𝐢=(1,3,2,1,3,2)`$, the chamber ansatz is shown in Figure 1.

We denote the chamber ansatz of $`𝐢`$ by CD($`𝐢`$). A chamber will be regarded as a pair $`(c,𝐢)`$, where $`c`$ is a component of the complement of CD($`𝐢`$). We shall deal only with bounded chambers, so in the sequel, ‘chamber’ will always mean bounded chamber. Each chamber $`(c,𝐢)`$ can be labelled with the numbers of the strings passing below it, denoted $`l(c,𝐢)`$. Following , we call such a label a chamber set. For example, the chamber sets corresponding to the $`3`$ chambers in Figure 1 are $`134,3,13`$. Note that the set of chamber sets of $`𝐢`$ is independent of its commutation class (so we can talk also of the chamber sets of such a commutation class). Every non-empty subset of $`[1,n+1]`$ can arise as a chamber set for some $`𝐢`$, except for subsets of the form $`[1,j]`$ and $`[j,n+1]`$ for $`1jn+1`$; this is observed in the proof of \[2, Theorem 2.7.1\].

Since the crossings of strings correspond to letters in $`𝐢`$, and the horizontal height of a crossing is the value of the corresponding letter, the chambers $`(c,𝐢)`$ correspond precisely to pairs of equal letters in $`𝐢`$ which have no further occurrence of that letter between them. We call such a pair minimal. Next, label the crossing point of strings $`i`$ and $`j`$ with the pair $`(i,j)`$. If we identify $`(i,j)`$ with the positive root $`\alpha _{ij}=\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{j1}`$ then the labels of the crossings will be precisely the positive roots in the ordering defined (above) by $`𝐢`$. We will write $`a_{ij}`$ for $`a_{\alpha _{ij}}`$.

The key to understanding $`C_𝐢`$ is the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 2.1

Suppose $`𝐚C_𝐢`$, and that $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\alpha +\beta `$ are all positive roots. Then $`a_{\alpha +\beta }a_\alpha +a_\beta `$.

Proof: We note that each chamber $`(c,𝐢)`$ determines a minimal pair in $`𝐢`$ and thus a defining inequality of $`C_𝐢`$. Such an inequality can be written

$$(a_\gamma )a_{\gamma _1}a_{\gamma _2}0$$

where $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ are the labels of the crossings at the left and right hand ends of $`c`$, respectively, and the sum is over the positive roots $`\gamma `$ labelling the other crossings on the boundary of $`(c,𝐢)`$.

Suppose that $`\alpha =\alpha _{ij}`$, and $`\beta =\alpha _{jk}`$ for some $`1i<j<kn+1`$, so that $`\alpha +\beta =\alpha _{ik}`$. By inspection, it can be seen that the sum of the defining inequalities of $`C_𝐢`$ corresponding to chambers inside the triangle formed by the pseudolines $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`k`$ gives precisely the inequality $`a_{ik}a_{ij}+a_{jk}`$$`\mathrm{}`$

It follows from Lemma 2.1 that $`C_𝐢`$ can be described as the set of points in $`^k`$ satisfying the inequalities (4), together with the inequalities $`a_\alpha 0`$ for $`\alpha `$ a simple root. This is a total of $`kn+n=k`$ inequalities. We thus have:

###### Corollary 2.2

Let $`𝐢`$ be a reduced expression for the longest word $`w_0`$ in type $`A_n`$. Then the corresponding Lusztig cone $`C_𝐢`$ is simplicial.

It follows that there is a $`k\times k`$ matrix $`P_𝐢M_k()`$ such that

$$C_𝐢=\{𝐚^k:P_𝐢𝐚0\},$$

where for $`𝐳^k,`$ $`𝐳0`$ means that each entry in $`𝐳`$ is nonnegative. To write down $`P_𝐢`$ we fix an ordering on the set of $`k`$ inequalities defining $`C_𝐢`$ — they are indexed by the simple roots and the chambers of $`𝐢`$. We do this for each $`𝐢`$. We also have:

###### Lemma 2.3

The matrix $`P_𝐢M_k()`$ has an inverse in $`M_k()`$.

Proof: Let $`\alpha =\alpha _{ij}`$ be any positive root. By the proof of Lemma 2.1, we know that a sum of rows of $`P_𝐢`$ gives us a row with corresponding inequality $`a_{ij}a_{i,i+1}a_{i+1,i+2}\mathrm{}a_{j1,j}0`$. But we also have rows of $`P_𝐢`$ corresponding to $`a_{i,i+1}0`$, $`a_{i+1,i+2}0`$,…,$`a_{j1,j}0`$ (as $`\alpha _{i,i+1}`$, etc., are all simple roots). Adding together all of these rows thus gives us a row with corresponding inequality $`a_{ij}0`$, i.e. a row $`(0,0,\mathrm{},0,1,0,0,\mathrm{},0)`$, where the $`1`$ appears in the position corresponding to $`a_{ij}`$ (that is, in the $`l`$th position, where $`\alpha ^l=\alpha _{ij}`$ in the ordering defined by $`𝐢`$). We can do this for any $`l`$, so if we write the coefficients of the $`l`$th linear combination as the $`l`$th row of a matrix $`Q_𝐢`$ then $`Q_𝐢P_𝐢`$ is the identity matrix and we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now let $`v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_k`$ be the columns of $`Q_𝐢`$. Because $`Q_𝐢`$ and $`P_𝐢`$ are inverses we have that $`𝐚^k`$ lies in $`C_𝐢`$ if and only if $`P_𝐢𝐚0`$, if and only if $`𝐚`$ is a nonnegative integer linear combination of $`v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_k`$. It is now clear that $`C_𝐢`$ is the set of integral points of the simplicial cone in $`^k`$ defined by the same inequalities as $`C_𝐢`$. Our next step in understanding $`C_𝐢`$ is to describe the ‘spanning vectors’ $`v_j`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$, for each $`𝐢`$. It will turn out that these spanning vectors can be neatly described in terms of ‘partial quivers’, which we define below, together with some vectors common to every $`C_𝐢`$. Firstly, we investigate chambers and chamber sets further.

###### Definitions 2.4

It is well-known that the graph with vertices $`\chi _n`$, the set of reduced expressions for $`w_0`$, where $`𝐢,𝐢^{}\chi _n`$ are linked by an edge whenever there is a braid relation taking $`𝐢`$ to $`𝐢^{}`$, is connected. Note also that, applying a braid relation to a reduced expression $`𝐢`$ has a corresponding effect on the chamber ansatz for $`𝐢`$. If this is a short braid relation $`s_is_j=s_js_i`$ with $`A_{ij}=0`$ then the only effect on the chamber ansatz for $`𝐢`$ is to reorder two crossings which do not interfere with each other. The chambers of $`𝐢`$ are clearly mapped bijectively onto the chambers of $`𝐢^{}`$ by this operation, and if $`(c,𝐢)`$ is a chamber, with corresponding chamber $`(c^{},𝐢^{})`$ (under this mapping), we set $`(c,𝐢)(c^{},𝐢^{})`$. If we have a long braid relation $`B:s_is_js_i=s_js_is_j`$ with $`A_{ij}=A_{ji}=1`$, then this determines a chamber in $`CD(𝐢)`$, with ends given by the crossings corresponding to the two $`s_i`$’s in $`s_is_js_i`$. If $`(c,𝐢)`$ is any other chamber of $`𝐢`$ then there is a corresponding pair of letters in $`𝐢`$ (from the crossings at either end of $`c`$) which is left unchanged by $`B`$ and thus determines a chamber $`(c^{},𝐢^{})`$ in $`𝐢^{}`$. In this situation we also set $`(c,𝐢)(c^{},𝐢^{})`$.

We extend this to a relation on chambers for arbitrary elements of $`\chi _n`$ by specifying that $`(c,𝐢)(c^{},𝐢^{})`$ if there is a sequence

$$(c,𝐢)=(c_0,𝐢_0),(c_1,𝐢_1),\mathrm{},(c_m,𝐢_m)=(c^{},𝐢^{})$$

with $`(c_j,𝐢_j)(c_{j+1},𝐢_{j+1})`$ for $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},m1`$. It is easy to see that $``$ is an equivalence relation. This relation has an alternative description:

###### Lemma 2.5

Suppose $`(c,𝐢)`$ and $`(c^{},𝐢^{})`$ are chambers. Then $`(c,𝐢)(c^{},𝐢^{})`$ if and only if $`l(c,𝐢)=l(c^{},𝐢^{})`$. In other words, two chambers are in the same equivalence class if and only if they have the same chamber set.

Proof: First, suppose that $`(c,𝐢)(c^{},𝐢^{})`$, and that $`𝐢`$ and $`𝐢^{}`$ are related by a single braid relation. By the definition of $``$ and the structure of the chamber ansatz, it is clear that $`l(c,𝐢)=l(c^{},𝐢^{})`$. It follows that this is true for arbitrary $`𝐢`$ and $`𝐢^{}`$. The reverse implication is \[2, Lemma 2.7.2\]$`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Partial Quivers and Spanning Vectors

In order to describe the spanning vectors of the Lusztig cones (that is, the columns of the inverses of their defining matrices, $`P_𝐢`$), we use the quiver-compatible reduced expressions. These reduced expressions are spread sufficiently evenly throughout the set of all reduced expressions that we can use them to obtain properties for arbitrary reduced expressions.

This approach leads to an alternative way of labelling the chambers in a chamber ansatz, by ‘partial quivers’, which we shall now describe. We shall then use this together with a detailed analysis of the chamber ansatz of a quiver-compatible reduced expression in order to give an explicit description of the spanning vectors of an arbitrary Lusztig cone.

Thanks are due to R. W. Carter, who realised that it is often natural to label a spanning vector (or chamber) by the set of quiver-compatible reduced expressions for the longest word for which it appears; this led to the idea of a partial quiver given below.

A partial quiver $`P`$ of type $`A_n`$ is a copy of the Dynkin graph of type $`A_n`$ with some of the edges directed (at least one, and possibly all), in such a way that the subgraph consisting of the directed edges and vertices incident with them is connected. We number the edges of a partial quiver from $`2`$ to $`n`$, starting at the right hand end. We write $`P`$ as a sequence of $`n1`$ symbols, $`L`$, $`R`$ or $``$, where $`L`$ denotes a leftward arrow, $`R`$ a rightward arrow, and $``$ an undirected edge. Thus any partial quiver will be of form $``$, where the $``$’s denote $`L`$’s or $`R`$’s.

If $`P,P^{}`$ are partial quivers we write $`P^{}P`$ (or $`PP^{}`$) if every edge which is directed in $`P`$ is directed in $`P^{}`$ and is oriented in the same way, and say that $`P`$ is a sub partial quiver of $`P^{}`$. For example, $`LRLLRLRLRLLL`$.

It is known that if $`𝐢`$ is compatible with a quiver $`Q`$ (in the sense of \[8, §4.7\]) then the set of reduced expressions for $`w_0`$ compatible with $`Q`$ is precisely the commutation class of $`\chi _n`$ containing $`𝐢`$. We say that this commutation class is compatible with $`Q`$. Berenstein, Fomin and Zelevinsky (see \[2, §4.4\]) describe a method for constructing $`𝐢\chi _𝐧`$ compatible with any given quiver $`Q`$, as follows.

Suppose $`Q`$ is a quiver of type $`A_n`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }[2,n]`$ be the set of all edges of $`Q`$ pointing to the left. Berenstein, Fomin and Zelevinsky construct an arrangement Arr$`(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Consider a square in the plane, with horizontal and vertical sides. Put $`n+1`$ points onto the left-hand edge of the square, equally spaced, numbered $`1`$ to $`n+1`$ from top to bottom, and do the same for the right-hand edge, but number the points from bottom to top. $`\mathrm{Line}_h`$ joins point $`h`$ on the left with point $`h`$ on the right. For $`h=1,n+1`$, $`\mathrm{Line}_h`$ is a diagonal of the square. For $`h[2,n]`$, $`\mathrm{Line}_h`$ is a union of two line segments of slopes $`1`$ and $`1`$. There are precisely two possibilities for $`\text{Line}_h`$. If $`h\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the left segment has slope $`1`$, while the right one has slope $`1`$; for $`h[2,n]\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, it goes the other way round. Berenstein, Fomin and Zelevinsky give the example of the arrangement for $`n=5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{2,4\}`$, which we show in Figure 2 (points corresponding to elements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are indicated by filled circles). They show that $`𝐢\chi _𝐧`$ is compatible with the quiver $`Q`$ if and only if the chamber ansatz CD($`𝐢`$) is isotopic to Arr$`(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

They also calculate the chamber sets of such a reduced expression \[2, §4.4.5\].

###### Proposition 3.1

(Berenstein, Fomin and Zelevinsky.)
Let $`𝐢`$ be a reduced expression compatible with a quiver $`Q`$. Suppose that $`(c,𝐢)`$ is a chamber, and that strings $`i`$ and $`j`$ ($`i<j`$) cross immediately above it in CD$`(𝐢)`$. Then $`l(ij):=l(c,𝐢)`$ is given in the following way: Write out $`Q`$ and label the edges from $`2`$ to $`n`$, starting at the right hand end. Define $`X`$ to be the subset of $`[2,n]`$ corresponding to the $`L`$’s in $`Q`$. Then $`l(ij)=Y_1Y_2Y_3`$, where $`Y_1=[i+1,j1]X`$, $`Y_2=[1,i1]`$ if $`i[2,n]`$ and $`iX`$, and is otherwise empty, and $`Y_3=[j+1,n+1]`$ if $`j[2,n]`$ and $`jX`$, and is otherwise empty.$`\mathrm{}`$

Any given chamber set will arise in the chamber ansatz of a number of reduced expressions. We now give a description of the quiver-compatible reduced expressions whose chamber ansatz includes a fixed chamber set. Suppose $`(c,𝐢)`$ is a chamber. We denote by $`Q(c,𝐢)`$ the set of quivers $`Q`$ for which $`l(c,𝐢)`$ occurs as the chamber set of a chamber $`(c^{},𝐢^{})`$, where $`𝐢^{}`$ is compatible with $`Q`$. If $`P`$ is a partial quiver, we define a subset $`l(P)`$ of $`[1,n+1]`$ in the following way. Let $`l_1(P)=\{j[2,n]:\text{edge }j\text{ of }P\text{ is an }L\}`$. If the rightmost directed edge of $`P`$ is an $`R`$, and this is in position $`i`$, then let $`l_2(P)=[1,i1]`$, otherwise the empty set. If the leftmost directed edge of $`P`$ is an $`R`$, and this is in position $`j`$, then let $`l_3(P)=[j+1,n+1]`$, otherwise the empty set. Then put $`l(P)=l_1(P)l_2(P)l_3(P)`$. Note that for any partial quiver $`P`$, $`l(P)`$ is always a chamber set, that is, it is a subset of $`[1,n+1]`$ not of the form $`[1,j]`$ or $`[j,n+1]`$ for some $`1jn+1`$. Thus $`l`$ is a map from chamber sets to partial quivers.

###### Lemma 3.2

The map $`l`$ is a bijection.

Proof: First of all, note that the number of partial quivers is the same as the number of chamber sets, i.e., $`2^{n+1}2(n+1)`$, so it is enough to show that $`l`$ is surjective. Let $`S`$ be a chamber set. If $`1S`$, let $`a`$ be the minimal element of $`[1,n+1]S`$; otherwise let $`a`$ be the minimal element of $`S`$. If $`n+1S`$, let $`b`$ be the maximal element of $`[1,n+1]S`$; otherwise let $`b`$ be the maximal element of $`S`$. Let $`P`$ be a partial quiver with the edges $`j`$, $`ajb`$ directed and the others undirected. For $`ajb`$, let edge $`j`$ of $`P`$ be an $`L`$ if $`jS`$ and let it be an $`R`$ if not. Then it can be seen from the definition of the map $`l`$ above that $`l(P)=S`$ and we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 3.3

Let $`(c,𝐢)`$ be a chamber. Then there is a unique partial quiver $`P=P(c,𝐢)`$ such that $`Q(c,𝐢)=\{Q:Q\text{ is a quiver and }QP\}.`$ Furthermore, if $`(c,𝐢)`$ and $`(c^{},𝐢^{})`$ are two chambers, then $`l(c,𝐢)=l(c^{},𝐢^{})`$ if and only if $`P(c,𝐢)=P(c^{},𝐢^{})`$. That is to say, their chamber sets are equal if and only if their partial quivers are equal. We have $`l(P(c,𝐢))=l(c,𝐢)`$, and that every partial quiver arises as $`P(c,𝐢)`$ for some chamber $`(c,𝐢)`$. Thus the equivalence classes of chambers are in one-to-one correspondence with the partial quivers.

Proof: We firstly claim that if we take a quiver $`Q`$, a reduced expression $`𝐢`$ compatible with $`Q`$ and a partial quiver $`PQ`$ then $`l(P)=l(c,𝐢)`$ for some chamber $`(c,𝐢)`$. Fix a quiver $`Q`$ and let $`P`$ be a partial quiver with $`PQ`$. Suppose $`P`$ is of the form $`YX`$, where $`X`$, $`Y`$ and the $``$’s are $`L`$’s or $`R`$’s and the $`X`$ appears in position $`a`$ and the $`Y`$ appears in position $`b`$ ($`a<b`$), with the usual numbering. If $`X=L`$ let $`i`$ be the position of the first $`L`$ in $`Q`$ strictly to the right of $`X`$ (or $`1`$ if this doesn’t exist). If $`X=R`$ let $`i=a`$. If $`Y=L`$ let $`j`$ be the position of the first $`L`$ in $`Q`$ strictly to the left of $`Y`$ (or $`n+1`$ if this doesn’t exist). If $`Y=R`$ let $`j=b`$. It is easy to check using Proposition 3.1 that $`l(ij)=l(P)`$; in fact the three components of $`l(ij)`$ and $`l(P)`$ coincide.

This deals with all of the cases except when $`P`$ is of the form $`R`$, where edge $`i`$ is an $`R`$. Here $`l(P)=[1,i1][i+1,n+1]`$. But note that in the chamber ansatz for $`Q`$ string $`i`$ (corresponding to an R) goes first up to the top of the diagram and then downwards (by the description of Berenstein, Fomin and Zelevinsky). So at some point it bounces off the top of the diagram. Therefore the chamber where it bounces will have chamber set precisely $`[1,i1][i+1,n+1]`$. Thus the claim is shown.

Since chambers of a reduced expression $`𝐢`$ correspond to minimal pairs of equal letters, the chamber ansatz for $`𝐢`$ must have precisely $`\frac{1}{2}n(n1)`$ chambers. This is also the number of partial quivers $`PQ`$. Thus the chamber sets of $`𝐢`$ are precisely the $`l(P)`$ for $`PQ`$, $`P`$ a partial quiver (since $`l`$ is bijective).

Next, suppose that $`(c,𝐢)`$ is a chamber, with chamber set $`l=l(c,𝐢)`$. Let $`P`$ be the partial quiver such that $`l(P)=l`$. Then $`l`$ is a chamber set of a reduced expression compatible with a quiver $`Q`$ if and only if $`PQ`$. Thus $`Q(c,𝐢)=\{Q:Q\text{ is a quiver and }QP\},`$ as required. It is clear that $`P`$ is unique with this property. Also, we see that $`l(P(c,𝐢))=l(c,𝐢)`$. Furthermore, if $`l(c,𝐢)=l(c^{},𝐢^{})`$, then since $`P(c,𝐢)`$ is defined in terms of $`l(c,𝐢)`$ it is clear that $`P(c,𝐢)=P(c^{},𝐢^{})`$. Conversely, if $`P(c,𝐢)=P(c^{},𝐢^{})=P`$ then applying $`l`$ to both sides gives $`l(c,𝐢)=l(c^{},𝐢^{})`$, and we are done. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3.4

Let $`Q`$ be a quiver, and $`𝐢`$ a reduced expression compatible with $`Q`$. Then the labels $`P(c,𝐢)`$, for $`(c,𝐢)`$ a chamber for $`𝐢`$, are precisely the partial quivers $`PQ`$.

We next need to understand which crossings surround a chamber labelled by a given partial quiver. We start with the following Lemma, which is easily checked:

###### Lemma 3.5

Suppose $`X=(c,𝐢)`$ is a chamber in CD$`(𝐢)`$. Then let $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ be the positive roots labelling the crossings at the left and right ends of $`X`$, and $`\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\mathrm{},\gamma _t`$ the positive roots labelling the crossings above and below $`X`$. Then $`\alpha +\beta =_{i=1}^t\gamma _i`$$`\mathrm{}`$

In order to describe these crossings, we shall use the following definition.

###### Definition 3.6

Let $`2abn`$, and let $`Q`$ be a quiver. We define the $`(a,b)`$-sub partial quiver of $`Q`$ to be the partial quiver $`P`$ with $`PQ`$, leftmost directed edge numbered $`b`$ and rightmost directed edge numbered $`a`$.

###### Lemma 3.7

Let $`Q`$ be a quiver and $`𝐢\chi _n`$ a reduced expression compatible with $`Q`$. Let $`X=(c,𝐢)`$ be a chamber in CD$`(𝐢)`$, with $`P=P(c,𝐢)`$. Let $`a`$ be the position of the rightmost directed edge of $`P`$, and $`b`$ the position of the leftmost directed edge. We divide the possibilities for $`P`$ into four cases, depending on the orientation of these edges of $`P`$:

$`(1)\begin{array}{c}q\\ L\end{array}RR\mathrm{}R\begin{array}{c}r\\ L\\ b\end{array}\mathrm{}\begin{array}{c}s\\ L\\ a\end{array}RR\mathrm{}R\begin{array}{c}p\\ L\end{array}`$

$`(2)\begin{array}{c}q\\ L\end{array}RR\mathrm{}R\begin{array}{c}r\\ L\\ b\end{array}\mathrm{}\begin{array}{c}p\\ R\\ a\end{array}LL\mathrm{}L\begin{array}{c}s\\ R\end{array}`$

$`(3)\begin{array}{c}r\\ R\end{array}LL\mathrm{}L\begin{array}{c}q\\ R\\ b\end{array}\mathrm{}\begin{array}{c}s\\ L\\ a\end{array}RR\mathrm{}R\begin{array}{c}p\\ L\end{array}`$

$`(4)\begin{array}{c}r\\ R\end{array}LL\mathrm{}L\begin{array}{c}q\\ R\\ b\end{array}\mathrm{}\begin{array}{c}p\\ R\\ a\end{array}LL\mathrm{}L\begin{array}{c}s\\ R\end{array}`$

In each case we define $`4`$ numbers, $`p,q,r,s`$, which number edges of $`Q`$, defined by the above diagrams. For example, in the first case, the leftmost and rightmost edges of $`P`$ are both $`L`$’s. In this case, we define $`r=b`$, $`s=a`$, $`q`$ to be the position of the first $`L`$ in $`Q`$ appearing strictly to the left of the leftmost edge in $`P`$ and $`p`$ to be the position of the first $`L`$ in $`Q`$ appearing strictly to the right of the rightmost edge in $`P`$. The other cases are similar. We use the convention that $`Q`$ has an edge in position $`1`$ with the same orientation as its edge in position $`a`$, and that it has an edge in position $`n+1`$ with the same orientation as its edge in position $`b`$ (thus $`p,q,r,s`$ are always well-defined). Write $`p(c,𝐢)=p,`$ $`q(c,𝐢)=q,`$ $`r(c,𝐢)=r`$ and $`s(c,𝐢)=s`$.

Make the convention that a crossing involving two equal strings means no crossing. Then strings $`p`$ and $`q`$ cross immediately above $`X`$, strings $`q`$ and $`s`$ cross to the left of $`X`$, strings $`p`$ and $`r`$ cross to the right of $`X`$ and strings $`r`$ and $`s`$ cross below $`X`$.

Proof: First of all, note that each chamber in CD$`(𝐢)`$ has at most one crossing bounding it on each side, left, right, above or below. If $`pq`$, the result is an easy consequence of Proposition 3.1 and the construction of Berenstein, Fomin and Zelevinsky of quiver compatible reduced expressions. If not, the result is easy to see, as the partial quiver is a single $`R`$ in the $`a`$th position, so $`\mathrm{}(P)=[1,n+1]\{a\}`$$`\mathrm{}`$

Now we shall see how partial quivers can be used to describe the spanning vectors of a Lusztig cone. Firstly, let us set up some notation. Fix $`𝐢\chi _n`$. Then we know that

$$C_𝐢=\{𝐚^k:P_𝐢𝐚0\},$$

where $`P_𝐢`$ is a $`k\times k`$ matrix as defined after Lemma 2.1, with inverse $`Q_𝐢`$ (over $``$). Note that $`n(n1)/2`$ of the rows of $`P_𝐢`$ correspond to inequalities arising from minimal pairs in $`𝐢`$. Each such minimal pair corresponds naturally to a chamber $`(c,𝐢)`$. Thus, given a chamber $`(c,𝐢)`$, there is a corresponding row of $`P_𝐢`$ and therefore a corresponding column of $`Q_𝐢`$, that is, a spanning vector of $`C_𝐢`$. We denote this spanning vector by $`v(c,𝐢)`$. Similarly, the other $`n`$ rows of $`P_𝐢`$ correspond to inequalities of the form $`a_{\alpha _j}0`$ for $`\alpha _j`$ a simple root, $`1jn`$. We denote the corresponding spanning vectors by $`v(j,𝐢)`$.

We shall usually regard elements $`v`$ of $`C_𝐢`$ as being indexed by the positive roots (and thus by pairs of integers $`p,q`$ with $`1p<qn+1`$). We shall occasionally need to consider such vectors in the usual way, as elements of $`^k`$; we shall indicate this by writing $`v_𝐢`$.

Suppose that $`P`$ is a quiver. We define a sub partial quiver $`Y`$ of a quiver $`P`$ to be a component of $`P`$ if all of its edges are oriented the same way and $`Y`$ is maximal in length with this property. We say $`Y`$ has type $`L`$ if its edges are oriented to the left, and type $`R`$ if its edges are oriented to the right. For each component $`Y`$ of $`P`$, let $`a(Y)`$ be the position of the rightmost directed edge of $`Y`$, and let $`b(Y)`$ be the position of the leftmost directed edge of $`Y`$. Let $`v(Y)`$ be the vector defined by setting, for $`1p<qn+1`$, $`v(Y)_{pq}=1`$ if $`1p<a(Y)b(Y)<qn+1`$ and $`v(Y)_{pq}=0`$, otherwise.

###### Theorem 3.8

(a) Let $`(c,𝐢)`$ be a chamber. The spanning vector $`v(c,𝐢)`$ depends only upon $`P(c,𝐢)`$ (equivalently, upon the chamber set, $`\mathrm{}(c,𝐢)`$). For a partial quiver $`P`$ we choose a chamber $`(c,𝐢)`$ such that $`P(c,𝐢)=P`$ and write $`v(P)=v(c,𝐢)`$.
(b) For $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, the spanning vector $`v(j,𝐢)`$ depends only upon $`j`$; we denote it $`v(j)`$.
(c) For a partial quiver $`P`$, let

$$w(P)=\underset{Y\text{ a component of }P}{}v(Y).$$

Then, for each $`1p<qn+1`$, $`v(P)_{pq}=\frac{1}{2}w(P)_{pq}`$ (recall that $``$ rounds to the nearest integer, rounding $`\frac{1}{2}`$ upwards). Furthermore, for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}n`$, $`v(j)_{pq}=1`$ if $`1pjj+1qn+1`$ and $`v(j)_{pq}=0`$ otherwise.

Remark: Note that the theorem describes the columns of $`P_𝐢^1`$, i.e. the spanning vectors of $`C_𝐢`$, which is the problem we have set out to solve.

Proof: We start by showing (a) and (b), i.e. that $`v(c,𝐢)`$ (when its components are indexed by the positive roots) depends only on the equivalence class of the chamber $`(c,𝐢)`$ for the relation $``$ defined in 2.4, and that $`v(j,𝐢)`$ (when its components are indexed by the positive roots), depends only on $`j`$. This reduces the question to quiver-compatible reduced words, which are easier to deal with.

We start with two reduced expressions $`𝐢,𝐢^{}\chi _n`$, such that there is a short braid relation $`(i,j)(j,i)`$ taking $`𝐢`$ to $`𝐢^{}`$. Thus $`𝐢^{}`$ is obtained from $`𝐢`$ by exchanging two of its entries. From the definition of the Lusztig cone, it is clear that $`P_𝐢^{}`$ can be obtained from $`P_𝐢`$ by exchanging the corresponding columns. Thus $`Q_𝐢^{}`$ can be obtained from $`Q_𝐢`$ by exchanging the corresponding rows. This means that the spanning vectors for $`𝐢^{}`$ are obtained from those for $`𝐢`$ by exchanging the corresponding elements in the vectors, which means that the spanning vectors for $`𝐢^{}`$, when labelled by the positive roots, are the same as those for $`𝐢`$ (as the effect of the short braid relation on the ordering of the positive roots defined by $`𝐢`$ is to exchange the roots corresponding to the $`i`$ and the $`j`$).

Now suppose that $`𝐢^{}`$ is obtained from $`𝐢`$ by applying a long braid relation $`B:(i,j,i)(j,i,j)`$. Since the pair of $`i`$’s in $`𝐢`$ is minimal, there is a corresponding chamber $`X=(c,𝐢)`$ in CD$`(𝐢)`$. Let $`P_𝐢^{}^{}`$ be the matrix obtained from $`P_𝐢^{}`$ by exchanging the columns corresponding to the pair of $`j`$’s in the long braid relation in $`𝐢^{}`$. Recall (see Definitions 2.4), that the effect of the long braid relation on CD$`(𝐢)`$ is to map every chamber except $`X`$ onto a chamber of CD$`(𝐢^{})`$ with the same label; the chamber $`X`$ corresponds to a chamber $`X^{}`$ of CD$`(𝐢^{})`$ with a label not equal to any of the labels of the chambers of CD$`(𝐢)`$. We thus have a correspondence between the chambers of CD$`(𝐢)`$ and the chambers of CD$`(𝐢^{})`$. If $`(c,𝐢)`$ is a chamber in CD$`(𝐢)`$ we denote the corresponding chamber of CD$`(𝐢^{})`$ by $`(c,𝐢)^{}`$. We denote the row of $`P_𝐢`$ corresponding to a chamber $`Y`$ of CD$`(𝐢)`$ by $`r_Y`$, and the row of $`P_𝐢^{}^{}`$ corresponding to the corresponding chamber $`Y^{}`$ of CD$`(𝐢^{})`$ by $`s_Y^{}`$. We now prove the following claim.

Claim: $`P_𝐢^{}^{}`$ can be obtained from $`P_𝐢`$ by applying row operations which add or subtract $`r_X`$ to rows other than $`r_X`$.

From the definition of the Lusztig cone we get that $`s_X^{}=r_X`$. Let $`YX`$ be a chamber of CD$`(𝐢)`$ with corresponding minimal pair of letters $`p,\mathrm{},p`$ in $`𝐢`$. If this pair of letters is to the left of the $`(i,j,i)`$ of $`B`$, or to the right of $`B`$, then we have $`s_Y^{}=r_Y`$. The following can be checked easily. Suppose first that the $`(i,j,i)`$ of $`B`$ lies between the pair of $`p`$’s. If $`|ip|>1`$ and $`|jp|>1`$, then $`s_Y^{}=r_Y`$. If $`|ip|=1`$ and $`|jp|>1`$ then $`s_Y^{}=r_Y+r_X`$. If $`|ip|>1`$ and $`|jp|=1`$ then $`s_Y^{}=r_Yr_X`$. Finally, if $`p=i`$ then $`s_Y^{}=r_Yr_X`$, and if $`p=j`$ then $`s_Y^{}=r_Y+r_X`$. Note also, that the rows corresponding to simple roots are the same in $`P_𝐢`$ and in $`P_𝐢^{}^{}`$, since the $`j`$ in $`(i,j,i)`$ can never correspond to a simple root in the ordering defined by $`𝐢`$. Thus we see that the claim is proved.

It follows that there is a column operation on $`Q_𝐢`$ which changes only the column corresponding to $`X`$ and which takes $`Q_𝐢`$ to the inverse $`Q_𝐢^{}^{}`$ of $`P_𝐢^{}^{}`$. Now $`Q_𝐢^{}^{}`$ is the same matrix as $`Q_𝐢^{}`$ except that the rows corresponding to the $`i`$’s in $`B`$ have been exchanged. Since the effect of $`B`$ on the ordering of the positive roots defined by $`𝐢`$ is to exchange the roots corresponding to the $`i`$’s in $`B`$, it follows that if $`YX`$ is a chamber of CD$`(𝐢)`$ then the spanning vector corresponding to $`Y`$ is the same as the spanning vector corresponding to $`Y^{}`$ (if both vectors are labelled by the positive roots), and also, if $`1jn`$, then the spanning vector corresponding to $`(j,𝐢)`$ is the same as that for $`(j,𝐢^{})`$.

Thus statements (a) and (b) are true. Note that every partial quiver $`P`$ satisfies $`PQ`$ for some quiver $`Q`$. So it is now enough to calculate the spanning vectors for a reduced word $`𝐢`$ compatible with a quiver $`Q`$. We fix such a $`Q`$ and $`𝐢`$.

Fix $`1jn`$, and let $`v`$ be the vector defined by $`v_{pq}=1`$ when $`1pjj+1qn+1`$ and $`v_{pq}=0`$ otherwise. We shall show that $`v(j)=v`$. Let $`P_𝐢`$ be the defining matrix of $`C_𝐢`$ and let $`r_l`$, $`1ln`$, be the rows of $`P_𝐢`$ corresponding to the inequalities $`v_{\alpha _l}0`$ (where $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _l`$ are the simple roots). For each chamber $`X`$ in CD$`(𝐢)`$, let $`r_X`$ be the corresponding row of $`P_𝐢`$.

It is clear that the product of $`v`$ with $`r_l`$ is $`\delta _{jl}`$ for $`1ln`$, because $`v_{l,l+1}=\delta _{jl}`$. Now let $`X`$ be a chamber of CD$`(𝐢)`$. To calculate the product of $`v`$ with $`r_X`$ we have to calculate $`_{i=1}^tv_{\gamma _i}v_\alpha v_\beta `$, where the $`\gamma _i`$ are the positive roots labelling the crossings immediately above and below $`X`$, and $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are the crossings at the right and left ends of $`X`$. But we know from Lemma 3.5 that $`_{i=1}^t\gamma _i=\alpha +\beta `$ from which we get that the product of $`r_X`$ with $`v`$ is zero. We conclude that $`v(j)=v`$ as required (as the spanning vectors of $`C_𝐢`$ are the columns of the inverse of $`P_𝐢`$).

Suppose now that $`P`$ is a partial quiver with $`PQ`$. We know there is a chamber $`Y`$ of CD$`(𝐢)`$ such that $`P(Y)=P`$. We have to show $`v(P)=v`$ where $`v`$ is the vector as described in the Theorem. It is clear that $`v_\alpha =0`$ if $`\alpha `$ is simple, so we see that the product of $`r_l`$ with $`v`$ is zero for $`1ln`$. So let $`X`$ be any chamber of CD$`(𝐢)`$. We need to calculate $`f(X,Y):=_{i=1}^tv_{\gamma _i}v_\alpha v_\beta `$ (with $`\gamma _i`$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ as above), and show this is $`\delta _{XY}`$. Let $`P^{}=P(X)`$ be the partial quiver label of $`X`$.

We have already calculated which crossings surround $`X`$, in Lemma 3.7. Let $`p^{}=p(X)`$, $`q^{}=q(X)`$, $`r^{}=r(X)`$ and $`s^{}=s(X)`$. We must calculate $`f(X,Y)=v_{p^{}q^{}}+v_{s^{}r^{}}v_{s^{}q^{}}v_{p^{}r^{}}`$. Note that $`v_{ij}=w_{ij}/2`$ where $`w_{ij}`$ is the number of components of $`P`$ entirely contained in the $`(i+1,j1)`$-sub partial quiver of $`Q`$. Let $`a`$ be the position of the rightmost directed edge of $`P`$, and let $`b`$ be the position of the leftmost directed edge of $`P`$, so that $`P`$ is the $`(a,b)`$-sub partial quiver of $`Q`$. Simlarly, let $`a^{}`$ be the position of the rightmost directed edge of $`P^{}`$, and let $`b^{}`$ be the position of the leftmost directed edge of $`P^{}`$, so that $`P^{}`$ is the $`(a^{},b^{})`$-sub partial quiver of $`Q`$.

We consider the four cases of Lemma 3.7 for the partial quiver $`P^{}`$. We consider first case (1), where the leftmost and rightmost edges of $`P^{}`$ are oriented to the left. The diagram in the Lemma indicates how to work out the values of $`p^{},q^{},r^{}`$ and $`s^{}`$. Let us recall it here:

$`(1)\begin{array}{c}q^{}\\ L\end{array}RR\mathrm{}R\begin{array}{c}r^{}\\ L\\ b^{}\end{array}\mathrm{}\begin{array}{c}s^{}\\ L\\ a^{}\end{array}RR\mathrm{}R\begin{array}{c}p^{}\\ L\end{array}`$

The first and last sequence of $`R`$’s may be empty, the other groupings not. (This may happen, for example, if the leftmost edge of $`P^{}`$ and the edge immediately to the left of it are both oriented to the left).

We note that:

(a) If $`a>a^{}`$, then $`w_{s^{}r^{}}=w_{p^{}r^{}}`$ and $`w_{s^{}q^{}}=w_{p^{}q^{}}`$.
(b) If $`b<b^{}`$, then $`w_{s^{}r^{}}=w_{s^{}q^{}}`$ and $`w_{p^{}r^{}}=w_{p^{}q^{}}`$.

In these cases, $`f(X,Y)=0`$ follows immediately from the definition, so we can assume that $`aa^{}`$ and $`bb^{}`$. Let us now consider the case where both the first and last sequences of $`R`$’s occur.

It can be seen from the picture and the definition of $`w_{ij}`$ that:

(c) If $`a=a^{}`$, then $`w_{s^{}r^{}}+1=w_{p^{}r^{}}`$ and $`w_{s^{}q^{}}+1=w_{p^{}q^{}}`$.
(d) If $`a<a^{}`$, then $`w_{s^{}r^{}}+2=w_{p^{}r^{}}`$ and $`w_{s^{}q^{}}+2=w_{p^{}q^{}}`$.
(e) If $`b>b^{}`$, then $`w_{s^{}r^{}}+2=w_{s^{}q^{}}`$ and $`w_{p^{}r^{}}+2=w_{p^{}q^{}}`$.
(f) If $`b=b^{}`$, then $`w_{s^{}r^{}}+1=w_{s^{}q^{}}`$ and $`w_{p^{}r^{}}+1=w_{p^{}q^{}}`$.

We consider all possibilities, in each case computing $`w_{p^{}q^{}}`$, $`w_{s^{}r^{}}`$, $`w_{s^{}q^{}}`$ and $`w_{p^{}r^{}}`$ in terms of $`w_{s^{}r^{}}`$ and computing $`f(X,Y)=w_{p^{}q^{}}/2+w_{s^{}r^{}}/2w_{s^{}q^{}}/2w_{p^{}r^{}}/2`$. We use the fact that $`w_{s^{}r^{}}`$ is odd.

Case (I) $`a=a^{}`$ and $`b=b^{}`$: We have, by (c) and (f) above, that $`w_{p^{}q^{}}=w_{s^{}r^{}}+2`$, $`w_{s^{}q^{}}=w_{s^{}r^{}}+1`$ and $`w_{p^{}r^{}}=w_{s^{}r^{}}+1`$. Thus $`f(X,Y)=(w_{s^{}r^{}}+2)/2+w_{s^{}r^{}}/2(w_{s^{}r^{}}+1)/2(w_{s^{}r^{}}+1)/2=1`$.

Case (II) $`a<a^{}`$ and $`b=b^{}`$: We have, by (d) and (f) above, that $`w_{p^{}q^{}}=w_{s^{}r^{}}+3`$, $`w_{s^{}q^{}}=w_{s^{}r^{}}+1`$ and $`w_{p^{}r^{}}=w_{s^{}r^{}}+2`$. Thus $`f(X,Y)=(w_{s^{}r^{}}+3)/2+w_{s^{}r^{}}/2(w_{s^{}r^{}}+1)/2(w_{s^{}r^{}}+2)/2=0`$.

Case (III) $`a=a^{}`$ and $`b>b^{}`$: We have, by (c) and (e) above, that $`w_{p^{}q^{}}=w_{s^{}r^{}}+3`$, $`w_{s^{}q^{}}=w_{s^{}r^{}}+2`$ and $`w_{p^{}r^{}}=w_{s^{}r^{}}+1`$. Thus $`f(X,Y)=(w_{s^{}r^{}}+3)/2+w_{s^{}r^{}}/2(w_{s^{}r^{}}+2)/2(w_{s^{}r^{}}+1)/2=0`$.

Case (IV) $`a<a^{}`$ and $`b>b^{}`$: We have, by (d) and (e) above, that $`w_{p^{}q^{}}=w_{s^{}r^{}}+4`$, $`w_{s^{}q^{}}=w_{s^{}r^{}}+2`$ and $`w_{p^{}r^{}}=w_{s^{}r^{}}+2`$. Thus $`f(X,Y)=(w_{s^{}r^{}}+4)/2+w_{s^{}r^{}}/2(w_{s^{}r^{}}+2)/2(w_{s^{}r^{}}+2)/2=0`$.

We next consider the possibility that the leftmost and rightmost sequences of $`R^{}s`$ do not occur, i.e. that $`q^{}=r^{}+1`$ or $`p^{}=s^{}1`$. We note that:

(g) If $`q^{}=r^{}+1`$ and $`b=b^{}`$ then (f) above still holds.
(h) If $`q^{}=r^{}+1`$ and $`b>b^{}`$ then $`w_{s^{}r^{}}=w_{s^{}q^{}}`$ and $`w_{p^{}r^{}}=w_{p^{}q^{}}`$.
(i) If $`p^{}=s^{}1`$ and $`a=a^{}`$ then (c) above still holds.
(j) If $`p^{}=s^{}1`$ and $`a<a^{}`$ then $`w_{s^{}r^{}}=w_{p^{}r^{}}`$ and $`w_{s^{}q^{}}=w_{p^{}q^{}}`$.

As before, it follows immediately from the definition that $`f(X,Y)=0`$ in cases $`(h)`$ and $`(j)`$.

Case (V) $`q^{}=r^{}+1`$ and $`p^{}s^{}1`$. The case $`b>b^{}`$ is dealt with by (h) above. If $`b=b^{}`$, then, by (g), the arguments in cases (I) and (II) can be used to show $`f(X,Y)=\delta _{XY}`$.

Case (VI) $`q^{}r^{}+1`$ and $`p^{}=s^{}1`$. The case $`a<a^{}`$ is dealt with by (j) above. If $`a=a^{}`$, then, by (i), the arguments in cases (I) and (III) can be used to show $`f(X,Y)=\delta _{XY}`$.

Case (VII) $`q^{}=r^{}+1`$ and $`p^{}=s^{}1`$. If $`a<a^{}`$ or $`b>b^{}`$, then by (h) or (j) above, we can see that $`f(X,Y)=\delta _{XY}`$. We are left with the case where $`a=a^{}`$ and $`b=b^{}`$, in which, by (g) and (i), the argument in case (I) can be used to show $`f(X,Y)=\delta _{XY}`$.

We have thus covered all possibilities where the leftmost and rightmost edges of $`P^{}`$ are oriented to the left — case (1) of Lemma 3.7. Computation of $`f(X,Y)`$ in case (2) of Lemma 3.7 can be obtained from that in case (1) by exchanging the roles of $`p^{}`$ and $`s^{}`$. The arguments are exactly the same, except that in this case, $`w_{p^{}r^{}}`$ (playing the role of $`w_{s^{}r^{}}`$) is even; also, it is the first sequence of R’s or the final sequence of L’s which may or may not occur (i.e. we may have $`q^{}=r^{}+1`$ or $`s^{}=p^{}1`$). The argument for case (1) shows that $`v_{s^{}q^{}}+v_{p^{}r^{}}v_{p^{}q^{}}v_{s^{}r^{}}=\delta _{XY}`$ (note that $`p`$ and $`s`$ are swapped). The minus sign arises because $`w_{p^{}r^{}}`$ is even. It follows that $`f(X,Y)=v_{p^{}q^{}}+v_{s^{}r^{}}v_{s^{}q^{}}v_{p^{}r^{}}=\delta _{XY}`$. Similarly, case (3) is obtained by swapping $`q`$ and $`r`$ in case (1), and case (4) is obtained by swapping both $`q`$ and $`r`$ and $`p`$ and $`s`$ (in this last case, the argument for case (1) shows directly that $`f(X,Y)=\delta _{XY}`$; here $`w_{p^{}q^{}}`$, playing the role of $`w_{s^{}r^{}}`$, is again odd).

Thus, in all cases, we have seen that $`f(X,Y)=\delta _{XY}`$. We see that this holds for any pair of chambers $`X`$ and $`Y`$, and thus the Theorem is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Professor R. W. Carter of the University of Warwick, whose help, ideas and discussions were invaluable. This paper was written while the author was an EPSRC research assistant of Professor K. A. Brown at the University of Glasgow, Scotland. Part of the work was completed while the author was attending the programme ‘Representation Theory of Algebraic Groups and Related Finite Groups’ at the Isaac Newton Institute, Cambridge, in 1997. The author would like to thank the referee for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.