text:
# A special case of 𝒔𝒍(𝒏)-fusion coefficients

## 1. Introduction

Fusion coefficients first appeared in the literature as the structure constants of the Verlinde (fusion) algebra associated to an affine Kac-Moody algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ in the Wess-Zumino-Witten model of conformal field theory. Since then, many equivalent interpretations have been found in other contexts such as quantum groups and Hecke algebras at root of unity , quantum cohomology of the grassmannian , spaces of generalized theta functions, spaces of intertwiners in vertex operator algebras , knot invariants for 3-manifolds  and others.

If $`𝔤`$ is a semi-simple finite dimensional Lie algebra and $`L(\lambda )`$ is the integrable representation of $`𝔤`$ with highest weight $`\lambda `$, the tensor product coefficients $`N_{\lambda \mu }^\nu `$ are defined by the relation $`L(\lambda )L(\mu )=N_{\lambda \mu }^\nu L(\nu )`$. For $`𝔤=sl(n)`$ the integrable representations are indexed by partitions and the tensor product coefficients are the well-known Littlewood-Richardson coefficients $`c_{\lambda \mu }^\nu `$. Given a positive level $`k`$, the fusion coefficients $`N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }`$ are defined by

$$L(\lambda )_kL(\mu )=N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }L(\nu )$$

where the fusion product $`_k`$ is the reduction of the tensor product via the representation at level $`k`$ of the algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$. A more detailed approach to fusion coefficients arising in conformal field theory is given in . For our purposes we will give in Section 3 an equivalent definition for the case $`𝔤=sl(n)`$.

By some representation theoretic arguments it is known that these coefficients are non-negative but a general combinatorial description is still lacking even for type $`A`$. Only some particular cases are known: the cases $`n=2`$ and $`n=3`$  where the combinatorial objects used are the Berenstein-Zelevinski triangles, and more recently the case where all partitions in the product are rectangles  in which affine crystal theory for perfect crystals was used. In addition, a $`q`$-analogue of fusion coefficients has also been introduced .

To date, the most effective algorithm for computing fusion coefficients for any type is the Kac-Walton algorithm . In this algorithm, the fusion coefficients are expressed in terms of the tensor product coefficients

$$N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }=\underset{\stackrel{w\widehat{W}_k}{w.\nu P^+}}{}det(w)N_{\lambda \mu }^{w.\nu }$$

where $`\widehat{W_k}`$ is the affine Weyl group, $`w.\nu =w(\nu +\rho )\rho `$, $`P^+`$ is the set of dominant weights and $`\rho `$ is the sum of fundamental weights. In this notation the affine Weyl groups are isomorphic, and only the action of the reflection $`s_0`$ on the weight lattice of the algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ is different with respect to the level $`k`$ i.e.

$$s_0(\widehat{\lambda })=\widehat{\lambda }(k(\lambda ,\theta ))\widehat{\alpha }_0$$

where $`\theta `$ is the highest root of $`𝔤`$, $`\{\widehat{\alpha }_i,i=0,1,\mathrm{}n1\}`$ are the simple roots, and $`(|)`$ is the symmetric billinear form on the Cartan subalgebra of $`\widehat{𝔤}`$.

In this paper we use the interpretation given by Goodman and Wenzl  to give a combinatorial description for $`sl(n)`$ fusion coefficients where the partition $`\mu `$ has two columns.

Our main result is Theorem 12 where we show that the fusion coefficients count paths in the Young’s lattice with some extra conditions. An equivalent interpretation in terms of Littlewood-Richardson tableaux is given in Remark 13. The tool for finding this description is the pairing technique for proving the classical Littlewood-Richardson rule by means of a sign-reversing involution. Therefore we include in Section 2 a proof of the classical rule so that in Section 3 we can construct the involution for fusion coefficients. In Section 4 we establish some interesting properties of these coefficients in our specific case. Some of these confirm known properties such as positivity and the inequality $`N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }N_{\lambda \mu }^\nu `$, but most importantly we confirm the increasing property as function of $`k`$ conjectured in  i.e. $`N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k+1)\nu }`$. We conclude our paper with Section 5 where we propose another avenue for approaching the problem.

## 2.  Proof of the Littlewood-Richardson rule

The proof of the LR-rule is based on the Jacobi-Trudi determinantal identities and uses a sign reversing involution which yields a combinatorial characterization of the LR-coefficients in terms of paths in the Young’s lattice. The involution is an adaptation of the involution constructed by Remmel and Shimozono .

The LR-coefficients are the structure constants $`c_{\lambda \mu }^\nu `$ for the ring of symmetric polynomials with respect to the basis of Schur functions:

(1)
$$s_\lambda s_\mu =\underset{\nu }{}c_{\lambda \mu }^\nu s_\nu .$$

We intend to give a characterization of these coefficients of the form

$$c_{\lambda \mu }^\nu =\mathrm{}\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{paths in the Young’s lattice from }\lambda \text{ to }\nu \hfill & \\ \text{ satisfying conditions imposed by }\mu \hfill & \end{array}\right\}.$$

There are many ways of getting to this result depending on which determinantal formula we use. We shall choose the one expressing the Schur functions in terms of the elementary symmetric polynomials $`e_k`$. The reason for this choice is accounted for in the proof of the rule for fusion coefficients.

In order to prove the LR-rule we first need some definitions. Most of those not given here and results concerning symmetric functions that we use can be found in . For a partition $`\lambda `$ we consider its diagram to be the set of points $`(i,j)^2`$ such that $`1i\lambda _j`$, where $`1jlength(\lambda )`$.

We denote a path $`P`$ in the Young’s lattice from $`\lambda `$ to $`\nu `$ by a chain of partitions

$$P:\lambda ^{(0)}=\lambda \lambda ^{(1)}\mathrm{}\lambda ^{(n)}=\nu $$

where each partition $`\lambda ^{(k)}`$ differs from the previous one $`\lambda ^{(k1)}`$ by exactly one box. We also denote by $`|P|=n`$ the length of the path $`P`$.

Sometimes we need paths from $`\lambda `$ to $`\nu `$ made from successive paths i.e. $`P=P_1P_2\mathrm{}P_m`$, where each $`P_i`$ is a path from $`\lambda ^{(i)}`$ to $`\lambda ^{(j)}`$ with $`ij`$, and $``$ denotes the concatenation of the paths.

$$\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{}$$

$$\lambda ^{(0)}\lambda ^{(1)}\lambda ^{(2)}\lambda ^{(3)}$$

Figure 1.  $`P:\lambda ^{(0)}\lambda ^{(1)}\lambda ^{(2)}\lambda ^{(3)}`$ and we can also write, say

$$P=P_1P_2,\text{where }P_1=\lambda ^{(0)}\lambda ^{(1)}\lambda ^{(2)}\text{and }P_2=\lambda ^{(2)}\lambda ^{(3)}.$$

Next we introduce a labeling of each box in a partition in order to define a 1-1 correspondence between the paths and the sequence of labels such that the boxes on the diagonals $`xy=i`$ are indexed by $`i`$.

Figure 2. Labeling of $`\lambda =(5,4,3,2,1)`$.

Using this labeling we identify the path $`P=\lambda \lambda ^{(1)}\mathrm{}\lambda ^{(n)}`$ with the sequence of boxes added in each step. From here we shall write the labels of these boxes as

$$l(P)=(l_1,l_2,\mathrm{}l_n),$$

where $`l_i`$ is the label of $`\lambda ^{(i)}/\lambda ^{(i1)}`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. We say that $`P`$ is a decreasing path  if $`l(P)`$ is decreasing. If $`\alpha `$ is a sequence of integers $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{}\alpha _k)`$ with $`\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\mathrm{}\alpha _k=|P|`$ we say that $`P`$ has ascents included in positions $`\alpha `$ if

$$(l_{\alpha _0+\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _i+1},l_{\alpha _0+\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _i+2},\mathrm{},l_{\alpha _0+\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i+1}})$$

is a decreasing sequence for every $`i\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},k1\}`$, where $`l_j`$ is the $`j^{th}`$ component of $`l(P)`$ and $`\alpha _0=0`$.

We make the convention that if $`\alpha `$ contains negative integers the set of paths with ascents included in positions $`\alpha `$ is the empty set. We also note that a path $`P`$ can have ascents included in different $`\alpha `$’s.

Example 1: $`P`$ in Figure 1 has $`l(P)=(3,1,2)`$ and $`P`$ has ascents in $`\alpha =(2,1)`$ and also ascents included in positions $`(1,1,1)`$.

For each general path $`P`$ and a sequence $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _k)`$ such that $`P`$ has ascents included in positions $`\alpha `$, we cut the path $`P`$ into $`k`$ consecutive paths each of length $`\alpha _i`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}k`$; then we associate a tableau $`T_P`$ whose columns $`i`$ are made from the sequence of labels of $`P_i`$ written top-to-bottom. Sometimes when $`\alpha `$ is understood we will make no distinction between $`P`$ and $`T_P`$. We say that a path $`P`$ fits a partition $`\mu `$, if $`T_PCS(\mu )`$, where $`CS(\mu )`$ represents the Young tableaux of shape $`\mu `$, strictly increasing in columns and weakly increasing in rows.

###### Theorem 1.

(Littlewood-Richardson rule)

(2)
$$c_{\lambda \mu }^\nu =\mathrm{}\{\text{paths }P\text{ from }\lambda \text{ to }\nu \text{ that fit }\mu \}.$$

Proof.

Let $`\mu ^{}`$ denote the conjugate partition of $`\mu `$.

Using the Jacobi-Trudi identity to express $`s_\mu `$ in terms of the elementary symmetric functions given in Equation (1) we get

$$s_\lambda s_\mu =s_\lambda det(e_{\mu _i^{}i+j})_{1i,jn}=\underset{\nu }{}c_{\lambda \mu }^\nu s_\nu \text{where }nl(\mu ^{})$$

and when we expand the determinant we have

(3)
$$s_\lambda \underset{\sigma 𝒮_n}{}(1)^\sigma e_{\sigma .\mu ^{}}=\underset{\nu }{}c_{\lambda \mu }^\nu s_\nu $$

where $`\sigma .\mu ^{}=\sigma (\rho +\mu ^{})\rho `$ and $`\rho =(n1,n2,\mathrm{},1,0).`$ On the other hand multiplying a Schur function with an elementary symmetric function we get

$$s_\lambda e_k=\underset{\nu /\lambda =kcolumnstrip}{}s_\nu .$$

We can also view this equality in terms of paths in the Young’s lattice as

(4)
$$s_\lambda e_k=\underset{\nu }{}a_{\lambda (k)}^\nu s_\nu $$

where $`a_{\lambda (k)}^\nu =\mathrm{}\{\text{decreasing paths from }\lambda \text{ to }\nu \text{ of length }k\}.`$ It is not difficult to see that, indeed

$$a_{\lambda (k)}^\nu =\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{ if }\nu \text{/}\lambda \text{ is a }k\text{ column strip }\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Using rule (4) repeatedly, the left-hand side of Equation (3) becomes

$$\underset{\sigma 𝒮_n}{}(1)^\sigma \underset{\nu }{}s_\nu e_{\sigma .\mu ^{}}=\underset{\sigma 𝒮_n}{}\underset{\nu }{}(1)^\sigma a_{\lambda (\sigma .\mu ^{})}^\nu s_\nu $$

where

$$a_{\lambda (\sigma .\mu ^{})}^\nu =\mathrm{}\{\text{paths from }\lambda \text{ to }\nu \text{ with ascents in positions }\sigma .\mu ^{}\}\text{.}$$

Hence

(5)
$$c_{\lambda \mu }^\nu =\underset{\sigma 𝒮_n}{}(1)^\sigma a_{\lambda (\sigma .\mu ^{})}^\nu =\underset{(\sigma ,P)\mathrm{\Omega }}{}(1)^\sigma $$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the set of pairs $`(\sigma ,P)`$, $`\sigma 𝒮_n`$ and $`P`$ is a path from $`\lambda `$ to $`\nu `$ with ascents in positions $`\sigma .\mu ^{}`$. Since $`P`$ has ascents included in positions $`\sigma .\mu ^{}`$, we can write $`P=P_1\mathrm{}P_n`$ in which $`P_i`$ is a decreasing path of length $`|P_i|=(\sigma .\mu ^{})_i`$.

The next step is to construct a sign reversing involution on the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The involution uses the crystal operators defined by a pairing and was constructed in  which also contains further details.

Suppose that a path $`P`$ is made from two successive paths $`P=P_1P_2`$ of lengths $`p`$ and $`q`$. The word of $`P`$ denoted by $`w`$ is the sequence of all labels in $`P`$ sorted in increasing order. A label can appear at most twice, i.e. once in each column and if this happens we consider the first occurrence corresponding to the first column in $`T_P`$ and the second occurrence corresponding to the second column.

We construct $`\widehat{w}`$ in the following way

— Replace every letter in $`w`$ which is a label in $`l(P_1)`$ by a left parenthesis

— Replace every letter in $`w`$ which is a label in $`l(P_2)`$ by a right parenthesis.

Example 2: The path $`P`$ with $`T_P`$ =  has the word $`w=\overline{3}\overline{2}\overline{1}\overline{1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0\hspace{0.17em}1\hspace{0.17em}2\hspace{0.17em}3\hspace{0.17em}4}`$, where $`\overline{n}=n`$. The parentheses structure is

$$\widehat{w}=)(()()(().$$

We say that a letter is paired  if it corresponds to a parenthesis that is matched under the usual rule of parenthesization. Otherwise we call it unpaired. We say that a word $`w`$ has $`type(l,r)`$ if there are $`l`$ unpaired left parenthesis and $`r`$ unpaired right parenthesis.

Next we define two operators on words which will be partial functions, the raising operator $`e`$ and the lowering operator $`f`$ where

$`e`$ changes the rightmost unpaired right parenthesis into a left one.

$`f`$ changes the leftmost unpaired left parenthesis into a right one.

It is clear that for $`e`$ or $`f`$ to be applied we need $`r>0`$ (resp. $`l>0`$). We shall also write $`e(P)`$ or $`f(P)`$ and understand that $`e`$ or $`f`$ is applied to the word of $`P`$ with $`e(P)=P_1^{}P_2^{}`$, where $`|P_1^{}|=|P_1|+1,|P_2^{}|=|P_2|1`$ and also $`f(P)=P_1^{\prime \prime }P_2^{\prime \prime }`$ with $`|P_1^{\prime \prime }|=|P_1|1,|P_2^{\prime \prime }|=|P_2|+1`$.

Example 3: For $`P`$ in Example 2, $`e(w),f(w)`$ have the parentheses structure

$$\widehat{e(w)}=((()()(()and\widehat{f(w)}=))()()(()$$

and the results of these operators on the tableau of $`P`$ are

$$T_{e(P)}=\text{}\text{and}T_{f(P)}=\text{}.$$

The next result helps us to establish that $`e`$ and $`f`$ define an involution.

###### Proposition 2 (Proposition 3 of ).

If $`\eta `$ is any of the operators $`e,f`$, then the unpaired subwords of $`\eta (w)`$ and of $`w`$ occupy the same positions (assuming $`\eta `$ is defined) and if $`w`$ has at least $`m`$ unpaired left parentheses then $`f^me^m(w)=w`$. A similar property holds for the unpaired right parentheses.

Therefore we can consider that $`e^1=f`$ and $`f^1=e`$ where they are defined. The following useful result is a reformulation of Proposition 5 of .

###### Proposition 3.

A path $`P`$ fits $`\mu `$ ( i.e. $`T_PCS(\mu )`$ ) if and only if there are no unpaired right parentheses for every two columns $`(P_i,P_{i+1})`$ in $`\mu `$, where $`i=1,\mathrm{}\mu _11`$.

###### Remark 4.

If $`P`$ does not fit a partition then there exists two consecutive columns $`P_i`$ and $`P_{i+1}`$ for which we have

–at least $`|P_{i+1}||P_i|1`$ unpaired right parentheses, if $`|P_{i+1}||P_i|1>0`$

–at least $`(|P_{i+1}||P_i|1)`$ unpaired left parentheses, if $`|P_{i+1}||P_i|1<0`$.

It is an easy consequence of the expansion of the determinant in (3) that $`|P_{i+1}||P_i|10`$.

We use Proposition 3 to construct the involution $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ on the right-hand side of (5) as follows.

1. If $`T_PCS(\mu )`$ then $`\sigma =id`$ and define $`\mathrm{\Psi }(id,P)=(id,P)`$.
2. If $`T_PCS(\mu )`$ then let $`(r,r+1)`$ be the pair of consecutive columns where a violation of the column-strict tableau property occurs while reading $`T_P`$ from right to left, bottom to top, row-wise. We call this position canonical. Define

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\sigma ,P):=((r,r+1).\sigma ,P_1\mathrm{}P_{r1}e^{|P_{r+1}||P_r|1}(P_rP_{r+1})\mathrm{}P_m).$$

We must show that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a well-defined involution. We first check that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\sigma ,P)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This is trivial when $`T_PCS(\mu )`$, so we shall assume that $`T_PCS(\mu )`$. From Proposition 3 and the Remark 4, it is clear that we can define the operator $`e^{|P_{r+1}||P_r|1}(P_rP_{r+1})`$. If $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\sigma ,P)=(\sigma ^{},P^{})`$, then $`P^{}=P_1\mathrm{}P_r^{}P_{r+1}^{}\mathrm{}P_m`$ is indeed a path with ascents included in positions $`\sigma ^{}.\mu ^{}`$, since both $`P_r^{}`$ and $`P_{r+1}^{}`$ are decreasing paths and $`|P_i^{}|=(\sigma ^{}.\mu ^{})_i`$, for any $`i`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is well-defined.

Next we shall show that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an involution. This is again obvious for $`P`$ a partition that fits $`\mu `$. Let $`P`$ be a path such that $`T_PCS(\mu )`$ and let $`(\sigma ^{},P^{})=\mathrm{\Psi }(\sigma ,P)`$. To see that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\sigma ^{},P^{})=(\sigma ,P)`$ it is necessary to show that the violation of the column-strict tableau property occurs in the same place for both $`T_P`$ and $`T_P^{}`$. This violation can be either a non-increasing pair on a row $`k`$ and columns $`r`$ and $`r+1`$, or the associated tableau is not a shape.

If $`T_P`$ satisfies first situation, then all the $`i^{th}`$ columns, $`ir,r+1`$ in $`T_{\mathrm{\Psi }(P)}`$ remain unchanged. For the columns $`r`$ and $`r+1`$

everything under the $`k^{th}`$ row is also unchanged since all these labels are paired parentheses in the word of $`P_rP_{r+1}`$. For this row the only change that can occur is of the type

which is a violation of the shape property. Thus the canonical position for $`T_{\mathrm{\Psi }(P)}`$ is the same as for $`T_P`$.

If $`T_P`$ satisfies second situation, i.e. a violation of the shape property occurs on the $`k^{th}`$ row and the columns $`r`$ and $`r+1`$, we have the reverse of the above situation and as a result the same canonical position for both the tableau and the image.

Therefore $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a well-defined involution, is sign-reversing and by definition, its only fixed points are $`(id,P)`$, where $`PCS(\mu )`$. This proves the characterization given in Theorem 1.

###### Remark 5.

The characterization of LR-coefficients given here is equivalent to the characterization where $`c_{\lambda \mu }^\nu `$ counts the number of row-strict tableaux of shape $`\nu /\lambda `$, content $`\mu ^{}`$ whose word is lattice (read column-wise). We say that a word is lattice if every initial subword has (the number of $`i`$’s) $``$ (the number of $`(i+1)`$’s), for every $`i`$. To see the equivalence we note the 1-1 correspondence obtained by labeling all boxes from $`P_i`$ with $`i`$, for any $`i`$.

## 3. The LR-rule for fusion coefficients where one partition has at most two columns

The fusion coefficients we consider are the structure constants for the fusion algebra of WZW conformal field theories associated to $`\widehat{sl(n)}`$ at level $`k`$. This algebra $`^{(n,k)}`$ is isomorphic to the algebra of symmetric polynomials $`(x_1,\mathrm{}x_n)^{𝒮_n}/^{(n,k)}`$ where $`^{(n,k)}`$ is the ideal of $`(x_1,\mathrm{}x_n)^{𝒮_n}`$ generated by the Schur functions $`s_\lambda `$ for which $`\lambda _1\lambda _n=k+1`$, and $`s_{(1^n)}1`$. The interpretation of the fusion algebra and many results that we will use here rely on the paper of Goodman and Wenzl .

Before we proceed we require some more notation and definitions most of which can also be found in  or . In fact the interpretation of the fusion algebra we use is taken from  as are many results which we will manipulate.

We say that a partition $`\lambda `$ is $`(n,k)`$-restricted, if $`l(\lambda )n`$ and $`0<\lambda _1\lambda _nk`$. We denote the set of $`(n,k)`$-restricted partitions by $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}`$. If $`\lambda `$ is such that $`l(\lambda )n`$ and $`\lambda _1\lambda _n=k+1`$ we call it a border diagram and if $`\lambda `$ is such that $`l(\lambda )n`$ and $`\lambda _1\lambda _n=k`$ we call it an edge diagram.

We say that a row-strict tableau $`T`$ is $`(n,k)`$-restricted if the shape of $`T`$ is a $`(n,k)`$-restricted partition and the row-strict property is preserved when we align the $`n^{th}`$ row and the first row on the right of $`k`$ boxes. We denote by $`RS\mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}(\lambda ,\mu )`$ the set of row-strict $`(n,k)`$-restricted tableaux of shape $`\lambda `$ and content $`\mu `$. Similarly, we define the column-strict $`(n,k)`$-restricted tableaux and denote their set by $`CS\mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}(\lambda ,\mu )`$.

Example: A row-strict $`(4,4)`$-restricted tableau

$$\text{}.$$

The fusion algebra $`^{(n,k)}`$ has a linear basis indexed by the set $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{(n,k)}=\{\lambda ,l(\lambda )n1,\lambda _1k\}`$. We can define the quotient map in the following way

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{(n,k)}$$

$$\lambda \overline{\lambda }=(\lambda _1\lambda _n,\mathrm{},\lambda _{n1}\lambda _n).$$

The product of two Schur functions indexed by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{(n,k)}`$ can be recovered from the product of Schur functions indexed by $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}`$ . Therefore we can instead work with the basis $`\{s_\lambda \}_{\lambda \mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}}`$.

The structure constants of the fusion algebra are defined by

(6)
$$s_\lambda s_\mu =\underset{\nu }{}N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }s_\nu \text{where }s_\lambda ,s_\mu ,s_\nu \mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}.$$

By their equivalent interpretation to the Hecke algebras at root of unity  it is known that these coefficients are nonnegative. Here we are able to give a combinatorial characterization for them in the case $`\mu _12`$ and in addition prove some properties one of which was conjectured in . Using the notations from Lie algebras this means that the weight $`\mu `$ has the form $`\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$, where $`1i,jn1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ are the fundamental weights of $`sl(n)`$. In order to proceed we need the following result from .

###### Proposition 6 (Corollary 3.3 of ).

If $`\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}`$, then $`s_\mu =det(e_{\mu _i^{}i+j})_{1i,jm}`$ where $`ml(\mu ^{})`$ and $`e_r=0`$ for $`r>n`$ or $`r<0`$.

Multiplying a Schur function by an elementary symmetric function within the fusion algebra (Proposition 2.6 of ) we get

(7)
$$s_\lambda e_r=\underset{\stackrel{\nu /\lambda =rcolumnstrip}{\nu \mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}}}{}s_\nu .$$

If in Equation (6) we have $`\mu _1=1`$ and hence $`s_\mu =e_r`$, then the above expression gives the fusion coefficients to be

$$N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{ if }\nu \text{/}\lambda \text{ is a }r\text{-column strip and }\nu \mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise }.\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`\mu _1>1`$, using Proposition 6 on the left-hand side of Equation (6) we obtain

(8)
$$s_\lambda s_\mu =s_\lambda det(e_{\mu _i^{}i+j})_{1i,jm}.$$

By expanding the determinant and using Equation (7) we get

(9)
$$\underset{\sigma S_m}{}(1)^\sigma \underset{\nu \mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}}{}s_\nu e_{\sigma .\mu ^{}}=\underset{\sigma S_m}{}\underset{\nu \mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}}{}(1)^\sigma a_{\lambda _(\sigma .\mu ^{})}^{(k)\nu }s_\nu ,$$

where $`a_{\lambda (\sigma .\mu ^{})}^{(k)\nu }=\mathrm{}\{`$ paths in the Young’s lattice from $`\lambda `$ to $`\nu `$ with ascents included in positions $`(\sigma .\mu ^{})`$ and for which the partitions corresponding to these positions are $`(n,k)`$-restricted$`\}`$.

We denote by $`𝒫_{(\sigma .\mu ^{})}^{(n,k)}`$ the set of all such paths.

If we equate the coefficient of $`s_\nu `$ in both Equations (6) and (9) we get

(10)
$$N_{\lambda \mu }^{\nu (k)}=\underset{(\sigma ,P)\mathrm{\Omega }_k}{}(1)^\sigma $$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ is the set of pairs $`(\sigma ,P)`$ , $`\sigma 𝒮_m`$ and $`P𝒫_{(\sigma .\mu ^{})}^{(n,k)}`$.

Our aim is to construct an involution $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ that cancels the negative terms on the right-hand side of Equation (10) and that will yield a combinatorial description for the coefficients $`N_{\lambda \mu }^{\nu (k)}`$.

In this paper we consider $`\mu _1=m=2`$.

###### Remark 7.

We exclude here the case $`l(\mu )=\mu _1^{}=n`$. In this case $`s_\mu =e_ne_{\mu _2^{}}`$, so $`N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }=a_{\lambda (\sigma .\mu ^{})}^{(k)\nu }=cardP_{(n,\mu _2^{})}^{(n,k)}`$.

We may assume in what follows that $`l(\mu )<n`$.

Let $`\lambda `$ and $`\nu `$ be two $`(n,k)`$-restricted partitions and $`P`$ a decreasing path from $`\lambda `$ to $`\nu `$ with labels $`l(P)=(l_1,\mathrm{}l_t)`$ , where $`l_1>l_2\mathrm{}>l_t`$, so that $`\nu /\lambda `$ is a column strip. We say that $`P`$ has $``$-label if $`P`$ has a label corresponding to the first row of the diagram $`\lambda `$ and $`P`$ has a $``$-label if there is a label corresponding to the $`n^{th}`$ row of the diagram $`\lambda `$, where $`n`$ is given by the definition of $`(n,k)`$-restricted partition. We will denote these labels simply by $``$ and $``$.

Example 1: Suppose $`\nu /\lambda `$ , where $`n=6`$ and $`l(P)=(3,2,1,\overline{1},\overline{4},\overline{5})`$, so $`3`$ represents the $``$-label and $`\overline{5}`$ represents the $``$-label.

We shall write these labels in the tableau of $`P`$ as

(11)
$$\text{}\text{ }\text{ }.$$

Since $``$ is the largest label and $``$ is the smallest, in figures where we do not specify the filling, we omit the symbols and we just use grey boxes to indicate their presence. The four possible situations are

(12)
$$\text{}.$$

The involution that we construct primarily uses the crystal operators introduced in the previous section, however when this is not possible we define a new modified operator.

Let $`P`$ be a path $`P=P_1P_2`$ from $`\lambda `$ to $`\nu `$ with the intermediate diagram $`\eta `$ such that all $`\lambda ,\eta ,\nu `$ are $`(n,k)`$-restricted partitions, that is

(13)
$$\lambda \stackrel{P_1}{}\eta \stackrel{P_2}{}\nu .$$

Consider the following sets:

$`𝒜=\{\text{paths }P=P_1P_2𝒫_{((21).\mu ^{})}^{(n,k)}\text{, such that }|P_1|<|P_2|\}`$

$`=\{\text{paths }P=P_1P_2𝒫_{(\mu ^{})}^{(n,k)}\text{, such that }|P_1||P_2|\}`$.

It is not difficult to see that the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ of Equation (10) is in fact

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_k=\{((21),P),P𝒜\}\{(id,P),P\}$$

and by an abuse of notation we will write $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=𝒜`$. The involution $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that we will construct will have the property that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒜)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }()𝒜`$. We will start be defining $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on the set $`𝒜`$.

If $`P𝒜`$ is a path as in (13) the image $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=P_1^{}P_2^{}`$ will be

$$\lambda \stackrel{P_1^{}}{}\eta ^{}\stackrel{P_2^{}}{}\nu .$$

Since we want $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)`$ we must ensure that $`\eta ^{}`$ is a restricted partition. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ the involution for the classical LR-rule constructed previously. We consider the following two cases.

Case 1.  Suppose $`\nu `$ is not an edge diagram i.e. $`\nu _1\nu _n<k`$.

In this case let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\mathrm{\Psi }(P)`$. To show that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is well-defined recall that the rightmost $`|P_2||P_1|1`$ unpaired right parentheses from the word of $`P`$ must change into left parentheses and hence this number of labels from the column $`P_2`$ move into the first column. We note that if the largest label of $`P_2`$ corresponds to an unpaired parenthesis, then this is the first to move. We must therefore check that if this unpaired label is $``$ we still obtain a partition $`\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}`$. When the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$-operator is applied to $`P`$, the image of the intermediate partition denoted by $`\eta ^{}`$ satisfies $`\eta _1^{}\eta _n^{}=\eta _1\eta _n+\{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\}`$. Now since $`\nu _1\nu _n<k`$ we only need to see what happens when $`\nu _1\nu _n=k1`$ and $`\eta _1\eta _n=k`$. In other words we have $`P_2`$, and $`P_2`$ i.e.

$$T_{P_2}=\text{}.$$

In this case the length of the first row of the diagram $`\eta ^{}`$ will be equal to the length of the first row of the diagram $`\eta `$, so $`\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}`$, too. Regardless of the presence of $``$ or $``$ in $`P_1`$, the image

$$T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(P)}=\text{}$$

is not a column strict tableau because it belongs to the image of the operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

Case 2.  The partition $`\nu `$ is an edge diagram i.e. $`\nu _1\nu _n=k`$.

From (12) it follows that there are $`16`$ cases to be studied depending on whether $``$ or $``$ appears in $`P_1`$ or $`P_2`$.

A. $`P_2`$ contains both $``$ and $``$:

$$T_{P_2}=\text{}.$$

A-I. $`P_1`$ has also contains $``$ and $``$:

$$T_P=T_{P_1P_2}=\text{}$$

so $`\nu _1\nu _n=k`$ and $`\eta _1\eta _n=k`$. In this case define $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\mathrm{\Psi }(P)`$. Again $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is well-defined because the $``$-labels in $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ will actually be consecutive letters in the word of $`P=P_1P_2`$, so they will be paired with each other. As a result the $``$-label of the second column will not move into the first column. This means that the first row of $`\eta ^{}`$ has the same length as the first row of $`\eta `$ and therefore $`\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}`$. The image has the form

$$T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(P)}=\text{}$$

which is not a column strict tableau.

A-II. $`P_1`$ only contains $``$:

$$T_P=\text{}$$

so $`\nu _1\nu _n=k,\eta _1\eta _n=k`$ and $`\lambda _1\lambda _n=k1`$. Using the same argument as before $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\mathrm{\Psi }(P)`$ is well-defined. Since $``$ in $`P_2`$ will not move it follows that the image

$$T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(P)}=\text{}$$

is not a column strict tableau.

A-III. The case when $`P_1`$ only contains $``$:

$$T_P=\text{}$$

is not possible as we have $`\nu _1\nu _n=k,\eta _1\eta _n=k`$ and $`\lambda _1\lambda _n=k+1`$, so $`\lambda \mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}`$.

A-IV. $`P_1`$ does not contain either $``$ or $``$:

(14)
$$T_P=\text{}$$

This is a case when, by applying the operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, it is possible that $``$ from the second column will move into the first column, and hence the possibility that $`\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}`$. The operator that we therefore need to construct here will be a modification of the operator $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. There are two subcases to consider depending on whether $``$ is a paired parenthesis in the word of $`P`$ or not.

a).  If $``$ is paired then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\mathrm{\Psi }(P)`$ is well defined since the pairing of this $``$-label means that it remains in the second column i.e. the intermediate image partition $`\eta ^{}`$ will have $`\eta _1^{}=\eta _1`$, and hence $`\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}`$.

Example 2: If $`\nu /\lambda `$ = , $`n=6`$, $`k=2`$, and the tableau $`T_P`$ , then $`w=\overline{5}\overline{4}\overline{3}\overline{1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0\hspace{0.17em}2}`$, and its parentheses structure is $`\widehat{w}=)))(()`$. Thus $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }(w)}=))((()`$ and

$$T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(P)}=\text{}.$$

The image has the form

$$T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(P)}=\text{}$$

and $`T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(P)}`$ is not a column strict tableau.

b).  The $``$-label is not a paired parenthesis in the word of $`P`$. This is a case when $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ cannot be applied since $``$ would move into the first column, which means that $`\eta _1^{}=\eta _1+1`$ and $`\eta _n^{}=\eta _n`$, so $`\eta _1^{}\eta _n^{}=k+1`$. For this case we will define a new operator.

We denote by $`𝒟_1𝒜`$ the subset of paths satisfying

1. $`\nu `$ is an edge diagram ($`\nu _1\nu _n=k`$)
2. the $`(,)`$-structure as described by (14)
3. $``$ is not a paired parenthesis.

We write the word of $`P`$ in the same manner as before and assign parentheses. The first letter in this word is actually $``$ from $`P_2`$ and the last letter is $``$ from $`P_2`$, since these numbers are the smallest and the largest of all labels, respectively i.e.

$$w=\text{………… }\text{ }.$$

Suppose that in this word we have $`w=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}a_1\mathrm{}a_2\mathrm{}a_s`$, where $`a_s=`$, and the sequence $`a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_s`$ represents the labels corresponding to the last column of $`\nu /\lambda `$.

Example 3:

$$\nu /\lambda =\text{}\text{ }a_1\text{ }a_2\text{ }a_3$$

where  represents boxes in $`P_1`$ and  represents boxes in $`P_2`$.

Let $`i_0=min\{i|a_i\text{ is unpaired letter}\}`$. We note that in this case all left parentheses will be paired, since the first and last letter in the word $`w`$ are right unpaired parentheses. Thus $`w`$ has the following parentheses structure.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\widehat{w}\hfill & =& \hfill ))())()\mathrm{}.(())\mathbf{)})& \\ w\hfill & =& \hfill a_1a_2a_{i_0}& .\hfill \end{array}$$

In the above description of the word $`w`$, we highlighted the parenthesis associated to label $`a_{i_0}`$. Since all left parentheses (in $`P_1`$) are paired, the number of unpaired (right) parentheses is $`|P_2||P_1|`$.

We define the operator $`\varphi _1:𝒟_1`$ on $`w`$ by specifying the changes with respect to the parentheses structure so $`\widehat{\varphi _1(w)}`$=changes all right unpaired parentheses into left parentheses except the label $`a_{i_0}`$:

(15)
$$\widehat{\varphi _1(w)}=((()(()\mathrm{}(())\mathbf{)}(.$$

Example 4:

For $`\nu /\lambda `$= , $`n=4`$, $`k=3`$ and $`T_P`$=  we have $`w=\overline{3}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0\hspace{0.17em}1\hspace{0.17em}2\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ and the parentheses structure is $`\widehat{w}=)()\mathbf{)})`$. Thus $`\widehat{\varphi _1(w)}=(()\mathbf{)}(`$ and $`T_{\varphi _1(P)}`$ .

In the case when $`a_{i_0}=a_s=`$ the situation is slightly different.

Example 5:

For $`\nu /\lambda `$= , $`n=3`$, $`k=2`$ and $`T_P`$=  we have $`w=\overline{2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ and the parentheses structure is $`\widehat{w}=))\mathbf{)}`$. Thus $`\widehat{\varphi _1(w)}=((\mathbf{)}`$ and $`T_{\varphi _1(P)}`$ .

As we have seen in Example 4 and 5 the image has the form

(16)
$$T_{\varphi _1(P)}=\text{}.$$

###### Proposition 8.

The operator $`\varphi _1`$ is well defined.

Proof.

There are two things that we need to check. Given that $`\varphi _1(P)=P_1^{}P_2^{}`$ with intermediate diagram $`\eta ^{}`$, so $`\lambda \stackrel{P_1^{}}{}\eta ^{}\stackrel{P_2^{}}{}\nu `$, we have to see that

* $`\eta ^{}`$ is a partition
* the skew shapes $`\eta ^{}/\lambda `$ and $`\nu /\eta ^{}`$ are column-strips.

We show first that $`\eta ^{}`$ is a partition. Assume that $`\eta ^{}`$ is not, that is there exists $`l`$ such that $`\eta _l^{}<\eta _{l+1}^{}`$. Since the operator $`\varphi _1`$ removes labels from a column strip we must have

$$\eta _{l+1}^{}=\eta _l^{}+1$$

$$\text{}.$$

For simplicity let us denote the labels in the first column of $`P`$ and $`\varphi _1(P)`$ by $`1`$ and the ones in the second column by $`2`$. Generically $`\varphi _1`$ transforms some “$`21`$”.

We obtain the above situation only if

$$\text{}\stackrel{\varphi _1}{}\text{}.$$

This means that the label $`a`$ is not a paired parenthesis in $`w`$ and the label $`b`$, which is a right parenthesis, is paired or is the label $`a_{i_0}`$. Let us consider these two situations.

–If $`b(2)`$ is paired, then its pair, a label $`b^{}(1)`$, must be to its left in $`w`$. Two situations may occur

1). $`b^{}a`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{w}=\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}\hfill & )& )\mathrm{}\hfill \\ w=\mathrm{}b^{}\hfill & a& b\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

which shows that the label $`a`$ would be paired. This is not possible since $`a`$ is assumed to be unpaired.

2). $`b^{}>b`$. Since $`b^{}`$ must be on $`b`$’s left we have $`b^{}=b`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{w}=\mathrm{})\hfill & (& )\mathrm{}\hfill \\ w=\mathrm{}a\hfill & b^{}& b\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In the shape $`\nu /\lambda `$ this corresponds to

$$\text{}.$$

In the figure we also indicated the pairing. The pairing that we illustrated above is a consequence of the fact that labels on the same diagonal are in fact equal so they are consecutive letters in the word. In this case we note that there must exist a label from the first path ($`1`$) that is above $`b^{}`$. But since this label and $`a`$ are on the same diagonal (equal) they will pair, a contradiction.

–Therefore assume $`b`$ is $`a_{i_0}`$ (the special label). In this case the labels $`a`$ and $`b`$ are part of the last column of $`\nu `$, and $`a=a_{i_0}1,b=a_{i_0}`$. Since $`a_{i_0}`$ was defined to be the smallest label in the last column to be unpaired, the smaller labels in this column $`a_i<a_{i_0}`$ are paired parentheses. Thus, in particular $`a`$ would be paired and we again obtain a contradiction. Hence $`\eta ^{}`$ is indeed a partition.

We now prove that $`\eta ^{}/\lambda `$ and $`\nu /\eta ^{}`$ are column strips.

Since $`\varphi _1`$ moves labels from the second path into the first path we have

$$\nu /\eta ^{}\nu /\eta $$

and because $`\nu /\eta `$ was a column strip, $`\nu /\eta ^{}`$ is a column strip as well.

Next we show that $`\eta ^{}/\lambda `$ is a column strip. Assume it is not. This occurs when in two consecutive columns and the same row in $`T_P`$ we have first a label $`a(1)`$ followed by $`b(2)`$ changed by $`\varphi _1`$ into two $`1`$’s i.e.

$$\text{}\stackrel{\varphi _1}{}\text{}.$$

Let us study the situation in $`T_P`$. We note that in $`\widehat{w}`$ the label $`a`$ is paired (since it is a left parenthesis and all of them are paired) but the label $`b`$ is not a paired parenthesis and it is not $`a_{i_0}`$. The situation above has the following features.

–There is no other label $`1`$ (in the first path) underneath the label $`a`$. If there were any, say

the label $`c(1)`$ just below $`a`$ would pair with $`b`$.

–There must be other labels from the second path, ($`2`$’s) above the label $`b`$. If there were none, then $`a`$ would be paired with $`b`$ in $`\widehat{w}`$ since $`b`$ is the first right parenthesis on the right of $`a`$ i.e.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\widehat{w}=\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{}.(& )\mathrm{}\hfill & \\ w=\hfill & \hfill a& b\hfill & .\hfill \end{array}$$

We observe that the number of $`1`$’s in the first column above the label $`a`$ exceeds or is equal to the number of $`2`$’s in the second column above $`b`$ i.e.

$$\text{}.$$

Now since the labels on diagonals are the first to pair, the label $`b`$ will pair with the label $`1`$ in the first column situated on the same row as the last $`2`$ in the second column. This again contradicts our requirement that $`b`$ is not paired. Thus $`\eta ^{}/\lambda `$ is a column strip.

This concludes the proof of Proposition 8. $`\mathrm{}`$

Our next task is to find a complete characterization of the image inside $``$ and to define $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in this case. Consider $`w`$ to be the word of $`T_P`$, for $`P`$ and let $`w^{}=a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_s`$ be the subword of $`w`$ made with the labels in the last column of the partition $`\nu `$ so

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\widehat{w}\hfill & =& \hfill ((\mathrm{}(()())))(((& \\ \widehat{w^{}}\hfill & =& \hfill )))))(((& \\ w^{}\hfill & =& \hfill a_1a_2\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.a_s& .\hfill \end{array}$$

This subword $`w^{}`$ might contain labels from both $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$. Since this is a word of a column we must first have the boxes from $`P_1`$ on top of which are the boxes from $`P_2`$.

Example 6: Consider

$$\nu =\text{}\text{ }\}\text{ in }P_2\text{ }\}\text{ in }P_1$$

Thus the parentheses structure is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{w^{}}=& ))\mathrm{}.)\mathbf{)}((\mathrm{}.(\hfill \\ \hfill w=& a_1\mathrm{}..a_{i_0}\hfill \end{array}$$

i.e. the right are followed by the left parentheses. We denote by $`a_{i_0}`$ the rightmost right parenthesis of $`w^{}`$. We also identify the label $`(a_11)`$ (if it exists in $`w`$) which will play a role in the next definition. This is the label situated on the penultimate column and on the same row as the last box in the last column, i.e. the label $`a_1`$.

Example 7:

$$\nu /\lambda =\text{}\text{(}a_11\text{)}\text{ }a_1\text{ }a_2\text{ }a_3$$

Figure 3. The label $`(a_11)`$.

Definition. The subset $`𝒟_2`$ of paths $`P=P_1P_2`$ is defined by the paths satisfying

1. $`T_P`$ is a column strict tableaux
2. the ($`,`$)-label structure of $`T_P`$ is described by (16)
3. the last column contains labels from $`P_2`$ and the label $`a_{i_0}`$ is not paired with $`(a_11)`$ (if the latter exists in $`w`$)
4. the smallest label $``$ in $`w`$, is either an unpaired left parenthesis or paired with the label $`a_{i_0}`$.

The operator $`\varphi _2:𝒟_2𝒜`$ applied to $`w`$ is defined via

$`\widehat{\varphi _2(w)}`$ which changes all unpaired left parentheses into right ones including the left parenthesis $`b_{i_0}`$ paired with $`a_{i_0}`$ i.e.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}w\hfill & =& \hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{}.b_{i_0}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.a_{i_0}\mathrm{}& \\ \widehat{w}\hfill & =& \hfill ((()((()()))((& \\ \widehat{\varphi _2(w)}\hfill & =& \hfill ))())(()()))))& .\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Remark 9.

The following properties of the image $`T_{\varphi _2(P)}`$ are easy consequences of the above definition.

1. The number of parenthesis to be changed is now $`|P_1||P_2|1`$. If $`|P_1|=p`$, $`|P_2|=q`$ then $`T_{\varphi _2(P)}=P_1^{\prime \prime }P_2^{\prime \prime }`$ with the intermediate diagram $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }`$: $`\lambda \stackrel{P_1^{\prime \prime }}{}\eta ^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{P_2^{\prime \prime }}{}\nu `$ and $`|P_1^{\prime \prime }|=p(pq+1)=q1`$, $`|P_2|=q+pq+1=p+1`$.
2. The first letter $``$ in $`w`$, is moved by the operator $`\varphi _2`$ in $`P_2^{\prime \prime }`$.
3. The biggest letter $``$ in $`w`$, is either an unpaired label or is the label $`a_{i_0}`$. In both cases this label is in $`P_2^{\prime \prime }`$ and is unpaired in $`\varphi _2(w)`$.

These characteristics prove that $`\text{Im}(\varphi _2)\text{Dom}(\varphi _1)=𝒟_1`$.

###### Proposition 10.

The operator $`\varphi _2`$ is well defined.

Proof.

As in Proposition 8 we have to check that the intermediate diagram $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }`$ is a partition and that both skew diagrams $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }/\lambda `$ and $`\nu /\eta ^{\prime \prime }`$ are column strips. The proof that $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }`$ is a partition is similar to the one in Proposition 8 and we leave it to the reader.

We shall prove that $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }/\lambda `$ and $`\nu /\eta ^{\prime \prime }`$ are column-strips. Since $`\varphi _2`$ moves labels from the first path into the second path we have that $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }/\lambda \eta /\lambda `$ so $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }/\lambda `$ is a column strip.

We now show that $`\nu /\eta ^{\prime \prime }`$ is a column strip. Assume it is not. This occurs when in two consecutive columns and the same row in $`T_P`$ we first have a label $`a(1)`$ followed by $`b(2)`$ changed by $`\varphi _2`$ into two $`2`$’s i.e.

$$\text{}\stackrel{\varphi _2}{}\text{}.$$

This means the label $`a`$ is either an unpaired left parenthesis or is the label $`b_{i_0}`$.

–Assume that $`a`$ is an unpaired left parenthesis. We first note that there are no other $`2`$’s above the label $`b`$ (if there were any, the first label $`2`$ above $`b`$ would be on the same diagonal with $`a`$, so it would pair with it). Another useful observation is that the number of $`2`$’s in the second column must exceed or be equal to the number of $`1`$’s in the first column below the label $`a`$ i.e.

$$\text{}.$$

In this case the label $`a`$ pairs with the label $`2`$ in the second column situated on the same row as the first $`1`$ in the first column.

–Assume that $`a`$ is the label $`b_{i_0}`$, i.e. the label paired with $`a_{i_0}`$. As before we claim that there are no labels $`2`$ in the second column above $`b`$. If there were any, the first one above $`b`$ would pair with $`a`$, so this label must be $`a_{i_0}`$. This is not possible since there are no labels $`2`$ below $`a_{i_0}`$, by the definition of $`a_{i_0}`$. As above we also have that the number of $`2`$’s in the second column must exceed or be equal to the number of $`1`$’s in the first column below the label $`a`$. We note that $`a=b_{i_0}`$ pairs with the label $`a_{i_0}`$ ($`2`$) in the second column situated on the same row as the first label $`1`$ in the first column. This shows that the value of the label $`a=b_{i_0}`$ is $`a_11`$, where $`a_1`$ is the last label in the last column of $`\nu `$, which is also the label $`b`$.

This situation contradicts condition (3) in the definition of $`𝒟_2`$.

This concludes the proof of Proposition 10. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following result shows that the operators $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are inverse to each other.

###### Proposition 11.

a). Im($`\varphi _1)𝒟_2`$ and Im($`\varphi _2)𝒟_1`$.

b). $`\varphi _1\varphi _2=id_{𝒟_2}`$ and $`\varphi _2\varphi _1=id_{𝒟_1}`$.

Proof.

a). In Remark 9 we showed that Im($`\varphi _2)𝒟_1`$. We next show that Im($`\varphi _1)𝒟_2`$.

1. In $`\varphi _1(w)`$ all right parentheses will be paired (including $`a_{i_0}`$) so $`T_{\varphi _1(P)}`$ is a column strict tableau.
2. We also establish in description (16) the ($`,`$)-label structure.
3. The label $`a_{i_0}`$ in $`\varphi _1(w)`$ cannot pair with the label $`(a_11)`$ (see Figure 3). If this happens, then in $`w`$ the label $`(a_11)`$ was a right parenthesis i.e in the second path. However in $`w`$ the label $`a_1`$, which is situated on the same row, is also in the second path. This cannot be possible since the second path must represent a column-strip.
4. The $``$-label, which is the first letter in $`w`$ (or $`\varphi _1(w)`$) is unpaired or it pairs with $`a_{i_0}`$ if there were no other unpaired right parentheses between $``$ and $`a_{i_0}`$.

Hence Im($`\varphi _1)𝒟_2`$.

b). The relation $`\varphi _2\varphi _1=id_{𝒟_1}`$ is obvious by the definition of the operators $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$. We illustrate this by the following example. Let $`T_P𝒟_1`$ and $`w`$ be its word with the parentheses structure

$$\widehat{w}=)))()(())))(()()))))$$

where $`a_{i_0}`$ is highlighted. Applying $`\varphi _1`$ we get.

$$\widehat{\varphi _1(w)}=(((()(())(((()()))((.$$

Since we showed that $`T_{\varphi _1(P)}𝒟_2`$ we can apply the operator $`\varphi _2`$ to $`\varphi _1(w)`$ to get

$$\widehat{\varphi _2(\varphi _1(w))}=)))()(())))(()())))).$$

Therefore we have $`\varphi _2(\varphi _1(w))=w`$. Similarly we have that $`\varphi _1\varphi _2=id_{𝒟_2}`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

We define all column strict tableaux of shape $`\mu `$ that do not belong to the set $`𝒟_2`$ to be $`k`$-fusion and we denote their set by $`CSF_k(\mu )=CS(\mu )𝒟_2`$.

We finish the case that we studied (A-IV,b) by letting $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi _1`$.

B. $`P_2`$ contains the $``$-label but not the $``$-label:

$$T_{P_2}=\text{}.$$

B-I. $`P_1`$ contains both labels:

$$T_P=\text{}.$$

In this case $`\eta _1\eta _n=k1`$ and $`\lambda _1\lambda _n=k1`$ so define $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\mathrm{\Psi }(P)`$ which is again well defined by a similar argument to the one in A–I. Therefore the tableau of the image:

$$T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(P)}=\text{}$$

is not a column strict tableau.

B-II. $`P_1`$ contains the $``$-label but not the $``$-label:

$$T_P=\text{}.$$

Here it is clear that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\mathrm{\Psi }(P)`$ is well-defined and the image

$$T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(P)}=\text{}$$

is again not a column strict tableau.

B-III. $`P_1`$ contains the $``$-label but not the $``$-label:

$$T_P=\text{}.$$

In this case $`\eta _1\eta _n=k1`$ and $`\lambda _1\lambda _n=k`$. Define $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\mathrm{\Psi }(P)`$. Here it is possible that the $``$-label will move into the first column if it is not a paired parenthesis, which means that the length of the first row of $`\eta ^{}`$ will increase by one, so $`\eta _1^{}\eta _n^{}=(k1)+1=k`$, and $`\eta ^{}`$ is still a $`(n,k)`$-restricted partition. In this case the image can be

$$T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(P)}=\text{}.$$

In both cases the image is not a column strict tableau.

B-IV. $`P_1`$ does not contain either labels:

$$T_P=\text{}.$$

This is a case similar to the previous one, so $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ will be defined in the same way. The image can be

$$T_{\mathrm{\Phi }(P)}=\text{}$$

but, again, in both cases the image is not a column strict tableau.

For the remaining cases C where $`P_2`$ has the $``$-label but not the $``$-label and D when $`P_2`$ does not have either labels, since the $``$-label is not present there is no danger in increasing the first row of the diagram $`\eta ^{}`$, so in all these cases we define $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\mathrm{\Psi }(P)`$. The structure of the ($`,`$)-label of the images will look the same as for $`P`$ and the associated tableaux are not column strict.

Observation: As we have seen in A–I, many of these 8 remaining cases will not be possible. To conclude we have found only one case where we introduce a new operator.

To finish this analysis we must also consider the situation $`P=P_1P_2`$ for which $`|P_1||P_2|`$. Since we have already seen the structure of the image of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we have the following.

i) If there is a violation of the $`CS`$-property for $`T_P`$ and $`P𝒟_1`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\mathrm{\Psi }(P)`$.

ii) If $`P𝒟_1`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\varphi _1(P)`$.

iii) If $`T_PCS(\mu )CSF_k(\mu )`$, i.e. $`P𝒟_2`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=\varphi _2(P)`$.

iv) In any other case, i.e. $`T_PCSF_k(\mu )`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=P`$.

In fact we also proved that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an involution on the set of paths made from two decreasing paths whose intermediate partitions are $`(n,k)`$-restricted.

The fusion coefficients, which are the number of fixed points of the involution $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, count the number of $`k`$-fusion tableaux. Therefore we have:

###### Theorem 12.

For $`\mu `$ a two-column partition and any level $`k`$ we have

(17)
$$N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }=\mathrm{}\{\text{paths }P\text{ from }\lambda \text{ to }\nu \text{ in }𝒫_{(\mu ^{})}^{(n,k)}\text{ that fit }\mu \text{ and }T_PCSF_k(\mu )\}.$$

###### Remark 13.

By replacing every label from $`P_1`$ by $`1`$ and the labels from $`P_2`$ by $`2`$ in the partition $`\nu `$ and reinterpreting the conditions in the definition of $`𝒟_2`$ we get the following characterization for fusion coefficients in the case $`\mu `$ has two columns.

The coefficient $`N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }`$ counts the number tableaux in $`RS\mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}(\nu /\lambda ,\mu )`$ whose word (read column-wise) is lattice, except the tableaux for which

* $`\nu _1\nu _n=k`$,
* the first row contains exactly one of $`1`$ or $`2`$ and the last row contains exactly a $`1`$,
* the last column contains $`2`$’s,
* the number of $`1`$’s in the penultimate column under the height of the last column is strictly less than the number of $`2`$’s in the last column (see Figure 4 under the thick line),
* the number of $`1`$’s in the reading word is always strictly bigger than the number of $`2`$’s except (perhaps) when the last $`2`$ is counted.

Figure 4. Example of a tableau described above for $`n=5`$ and $`k=3`$.

## 4.  Applications

We shall now give some consequences of the last theorem.

###### Corollary 14 (part of Prop(2.2) of ).

For any level $`k`$, if $`\mu `$ is a one or two-column partition, we have

a). $`N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }c_{\lambda \mu }^\nu `$, where the latter are the classical Littlewood-Richardson coefficients.

b). If all the paths in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ are only passing through $`(n,k)`$-restricted partitions (e.g. $`\lambda _1\lambda _nk1`$), then $`N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }=c_{\lambda \mu }^\nu `$.

Proof.

a). This is an obvious consequence of Theorem 12.

b). With this condition, the case where $`T_PCSF_k(\mu )`$ cannot occur, so $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The next result proves the conjecture (2.4) in , in our special case.

###### Theorem 15.

If $`\mu `$ is a one or two-column partition, then we have

$$N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k+1)\nu }.$$

Proof.

From the way we constructed the involution $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ we know that

$$N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }=\mathrm{}\{P𝒫_{(\mu ^{})}^{(n,k)},\text{ from }\lambda \text{ to }\nu \text{ such that }\mathrm{\Phi }(P)=P\}.$$

In order to prove the inequality it suffices to see that if $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(k)}(P)=P`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(k+1)}(P)=P`$ as well. Note we index the operators by the levels that we consider.

Suppose this is not the case. Since $`T_PCSF_k(\mu )CS(\mu )`$, it is possible that $`P`$ is not $`(k+1)`$-fusion. In this case the partition $`\nu `$ must be an edge diagram for level $`(k+1)`$ i.e. $`\nu _1\nu _n=k+1`$. This cannot happen since $`\nu `$ is also a $`(n,k)`$-restricted partition i.e. $`\nu _1\nu _nk`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We yield another application by using the rank-level duality. Recall  that we can define a bijection between $`(n,k)`$-restricted partitions and $`(k,n)`$-restricted partitions as follows.

For $`\lambda \mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}`$, cut the rectangle $`\lambda _1\times n`$ into rectangles of sides $`k\times n`$. Conjugate each rectangle separately and then glue the resulting partitions back together.

Example:

$$\text{}\text{}.$$

It is clear that the resulting partition $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ constructed in this way is a $`(k,n)`$-restricted partition. Goodman and Wenzl  showed that the fusion coefficients are invariant under this bijection i.e. $`N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }=N_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^{(n)\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ and as a result we have the following theorem.

###### Theorem 16.

For any level $`k`$ if $`n3`$, and $`\mu `$ is a partition with one or two rows, then the fusion coefficients $`N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }=N_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^{(n)\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ are given in Theorem 12.

Proof. If $`n3`$ then $`\mu _1k`$. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu ^{}`$, where $`\mu ^{}`$ is the conjugate of $`\mu `$. It is now clear that we are in the setting of Theorem 12 and as a result we can determine the coefficients $`N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 17.

For $`n=2`$ the fusion coefficients are given by the Gepner-Witten formula

(18)
$$N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }=\{\begin{array}{cc}c_{\lambda \mu }^\nu \hfill & \text{ if }k\lambda _1\lambda _2+\mu _1\mu _2+\nu _1\nu _2\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise }.\hfill \end{array}$$

## 5. Conclusions

The goal of this paper was to find an appropriate involution, in the same manner as for the Littlewood-Richardson rule, which would give a much desired combinatorial description for the fusion coefficients. As for the LR-rule we started by defining the involution in the case where one partition has at most two columns. We were able to prove that except in one case, the involution remained the same. In this special case we argued that we must construct a different operator, somehow similar with the classical one, and we were successful in doing so. The obstruction in defining the involution in the general case is the fact that we could not find a canonical position in the partition where the operator for the $`2`$-column case is to be applied. A reason for this is that it seems there is no specific area in the $`2`$-column part that remained unchanged by the involution.

Another question one can ask about fusion coefficients is does there exist an equivalent Robinson-Schensted correspondence? This question seems legitimate since we can establish a result similar to the following equality .

###### Proposition 18.

If $`\lambda \nu `$ are two partitions then

(19)
$$\mathrm{}\{\text{ paths from }\lambda \text{to}\nu \}=\underset{\mu |\nu /\lambda |}{}c_{\lambda \mu }^\nu f^\lambda $$

where $`f^\lambda `$ denotes the number of standard tableaux of shape $`\lambda `$.

We extend some of the definitions given previously. We say that a path is $`(n,k)`$-restricted if it only passes through $`(n,k)`$-restricted partitions. Let $`T_\lambda `$ be a standard tableau of shape $`\lambda `$. We can identify the standard tableau with a path from $`Ø`$ to $`\lambda `$. The $`i^{th}`$ partition in the path is obtained obtained from the previous one by adding the box indexed $`i`$ in the tableau $`T_\lambda `$.

Example: The tableau $`T_\lambda `$=  represents the path

$$\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{}\text{}.$$

We say that a standard tableau is $`(n,k)`$-restricted if the associated path is $`(n,k)`$-restricted. We note that this definition is consistent with the definition of a column-strict restricted tableau. We denote by $`f_k^\lambda `$ the number of $`(n,k)`$-restricted standard tableaux of shape $`\lambda `$. A future task is to find some sort of expression for these numbers. We have the following result.

###### Theorem 19.

For $`\lambda \nu `$, partitions in $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}`$ we have

(20)
$$\mathrm{}\{\text{restricted paths from }\lambda \text{to}\nu \}=\underset{\stackrel{\mu \left|\nu /\lambda \right|}{\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}}}{}N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }f_k^\mu .$$

Proof.

First we prove by induction that

(21)
$$(e_1)^m=\underset{\mu m}{}s_\mu f_k^\mu .$$

We stress here that all equalities take place in the fusion algebra $`^{(n,k)}`$ and all partitions involved are $`(n,k)`$-restricted.

If $`m=1`$ the right hand side of Equation (21) is $`s_{(1)}f_k^{(1)}=e_11`$.

Assume that the equality is true for $`m`$ and we shall prove it for $`m+1`$. First observe

$$(e_1)^{m+1}=(\underset{\mu m}{}s_\mu f_k^\mu )e_1=\underset{\mu m}{}(s_\mu e_1)f_k^\mu =\underset{\mu m}{}(\underset{|\nu /\lambda |=1}{}s_\nu )f_k^\mu =\underset{\nu m+1}{}s_\nu (\underset{|\nu /\mu |=1}{}f_k^\mu ).$$

To show that $`_{|\nu /\mu |=1}f_k^\mu =f_k^\nu `$ we note that each $`(n,k)`$-restricted standard tableau of shape $`\mu `$ determines a unique $`(n,k)`$-restricted standard tableau of shape $`\nu `$ by adding the corresponding box with the entry $`(m+1)`$. This process is reversible since the box filled with $`(m+1)`$, which is the largest number of the standard tableau, is an exterior corner of the shape $`\nu `$.

Therefore we get that $`(e_1)^{m+1}=s_\nu f_k^\nu `$.

Now we proceed to prove Equation (20). If we multiply $`s_\lambda `$ successively with $`e_1`$ in the fusion algebra we get

(22)
$$s_\lambda (e_1)^m=\underset{|\nu /\lambda |=m}{}\mathrm{}\{\text{restricted paths from }\lambda \text{to}\nu \}s_\nu .$$

Using (21), the left-hand side of this equality becomes

$$s_\lambda (e_1)^m=s_\lambda \underset{\mu m}{}s_\mu f_k^\mu =\underset{\mu m}{}s_\lambda s_\mu f_k^\mu =\underset{\mu m}{}(\underset{|\nu /\lambda |=m}{}N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }s_\nu )f_k^\mu =\underset{\nu }{}(\underset{\mu m}{}N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }f_k^\mu )s_\nu .$$

Equating the coefficient of $`s_\nu `$ in the right-hand side of Equation (22) and the line above we get

$$\mathrm{}\{\text{restricted paths from }\lambda \text{to}\nu \}=\underset{\stackrel{\mu \left|\nu /\lambda \right|}{\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^{(n,k)}}}{}N_{\lambda \mu }^{(k)\nu }f_k^\mu .$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

In view of the last equation one could hope to define fusion-Knuth relations among the words of the restricted paths. This might happen since in the classical case, the Knuth relations and Equation (19) determine the Littlewood-Richardson coefficients as the number of equivalence classes. In a similar way, fusion coefficients would count equivalence classes under fusion-Knuth relations. This, however, remains to be the subject of further investigation.

## Acknowledgments

I am indebted to Nantel Bergeron for constant guidance and advice throughout this work and Terry Gannon who first suggested the project and gave insights into fusion theory. I am also grateful to Mark Shimozono and Stephanie van Willigenburg for helpful comments.


format: text

text:
# Dynamical Masses of T Tauri Stars and Calibration of PMS Evolution

## 1 Introduction

Nearly all of our knowledge about the masses and ages of low mass young stars comes from their location in the HR diagram relative to theoretical calculations of stellar evolution to the main sequence. Despite considerable advances over the past 5-10 years in understanding the structure and atmospheres of stars of mass M$`<1`$ M, comparison of the currently available predicted evolutionary paths of young stars shows obvious differences. Empirical tests of the calculations have not been possible until recently because astronomers have not had independent measurements of either the mass or age of a young star. This situation is changing rapidly. One way to test the calculated tracks is to investigate whether they yield the same ages for stars expected to be coeval on physical grounds. Hartigan et al. (1994), Casey et al. (1998), and White et al. (1999) have applied this test to wide binaries, the TY CrA system, and the GG Tau system, respectively, using tracks available at the time. Over a mass range extending down to the brown dwarfs, they found significant differences in the extent to which the several theoretical calculations satisfy the coevality requirement.

The capability of mm-wave interferometers to resolve the spectral line emission of the outer disks of PMS stars offers the possibility to map their rotation. Since the disk mass is usually very small compared to the mass of the star, this provides the means to measure the stellar mass dynamically (e.g. Dutrey et al. 1994, DGS94; Guilloteau and Dutrey 1998, GD98). We use this technique to obtain new measurements of the mass of 5 single PMS stars and one PMS binary. Combined with our previous measurements of the PMS single GM Aur and the binary GG Tau (Dutrey et al. 1998, Guilloteau, Dutrey and Simon 1999) the measured stellar masses span the range $`2`$ to 0.5 M. We use the results to test the theoretical calculations of PMS evolution. Sect. 2 describes the sample of stars and the interferometric observations. Sect. 3 summarizes the analysis and presents the measured masses and related parameters. Sect. 4 compares the measured masses with those implied by location of the stars in the HR diagram relative to the tracks calculated by D’Antona and Mazzitelli (1997, DM97), Baraffe et al. (1998, BCAH), Palla and Stahler (1999, PS99), and Siess et al. (2000, SDF).

## 2 Sample of Stars and Interferometer Observations

### 2.1 Sample of Stars

All the stars studied are in Taurus-Auriga (Table 1). We obtained new interferometric observations in the 12CO J= 2-1 line of the singles CY Tau, DL Tau, DM Tau, Lk Ca 15, and MWC 480 (HD 31648), and the spectroscopic binary UZ Tau E (Mathieu et al. 1996). They were selected because earlier interferometric observations (Table 1, Col. 5) indicated that they were, or were likely to be, associated with resolvable circumstellar disks. BP Tau was observed because its HIPPARCOS distance, 56$`\pm 14`$ pc (Favata et al. 1998), is very different from the 140 pc average distance to the Taurus star forming region (Kenyon et al. 1994), suggesting that it is much older than previously thought (see also Bertout et al. 1999). Mass measurements of the single GM Aur and the binary GG Tau Aa by 12CO J= 2-1 line interferometric mapping have already been reported (Dutrey et al. 1998 and Guilloteau et al. 1999). We included DM Tau in our program because new data at 3 times better angular resolution would provide an independent check on the method and earlier results (GD98).

Table 1 provides spectral types, luminosities, and effective temperatures for our sample. Most of the spectral types and stellar luminosities, L, in Cols. 2 and 3 of Table 1 are taken from Kenyon and Hartmann (1995). The luminosities are the LJ in their Table A4. All the luminosities in Col. 3 are evaluated at 140 pc distance. The actual distances to the individual stars are important for our analysis but are presently unknown; we will discuss this problem in Sect. 4. The effective temperatures in Col. 4, Teff, corresponding to the spectral types, for all the stars, are obtained using Table A1 of Kenyon and Hartmann (1995) for main sequence stars; we discuss the spectral-type to Teff conversion further in Sect. 4.

### 2.2 Interferometer Observations

Our IRAM interferometer observations used 5 antennas operating in snapshot mode (Guilloteau et al. 1992, Dutrey et al. 1996) and were carried out in winter 1997/1998. For BP Tau, the full synthesis mapping was obtained in winter 1998/1999. We observed all the sources simultaneously at 89.2 (HCO+ J= 1-0) GHz and 230.5 GHz (12CO J= 2-1). The spectra were analyzed using a correlator with one band of 10 MHz centered on the HCO+ J= 1-0 line, one band of 20 MHz centered on the 12CO J= 2-1 line, 2 bands of 160 MHz for the 1.3 mm and 3.4 mm continuum, respectively. The spectral resolution was 0.23 and 0.18 km/s in the narrow bands at 3.4 and 1.3mm, respectively. The phase calibrators were 0415+379 (3C 111) and PKS 0528+134. The rms phase noise was 8 to 25 and 15 to 50 at 3.4 mm and 1.3 mm, respectively, which introduced position errors of $`<0.1^{\prime \prime }`$. The seeing, estimated from observations of the calibrators, was $`0.3^{\prime \prime }`$. Baselines up to 400 m provided $`0.7^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution for the 1.3 mm continuum data and 1.8′′ at 3.4 mm. The flux scale was checked by observation of MWC349 which has been used as calibrator at IRAM since 1996. Its flux is given by $`S_\nu =0.93\times (\nu /87)^{0.6}`$ Jy, following Altenhoff et al. (1981), and subsequent measurements of the planets made at IRAM (IRAM Flux report 13).

The GILDAS software package was used to reduce the data. At 1.3 mm, the continuum images are the results of summing the lower and the upper side-band data. At 3.4 mm, the tuning was purely in the lower side band. The continuum and line maps were produced using natural weighting of the visibilities. For clarity, tapering to about $`1^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution was used on line maps presented in Figs.1 and 2, but the full angular resolution was used in the fitting of models by the $`\chi ^2`$ technique. We did not subtract the continuum emission from the CO map because its contribution is small, but included it in the analysis.

## 3 Analysis and Results

The essential inputs are the angularly resolved maps of the CO line emission at each velocity channel and the “standard” model of a rotating disk in hydrostatic equilibrium (e.g. DGS94). We use the procedure developed by GD98 to derive the parameters of the model by the method of $`\chi ^2`$ minimization. In order to avoid nonlinear effects arising from deconvolution, the $`\chi ^2`$ minimization is performed in the u,v plane. The derived parameters divide naturally into those relevant for the determination of the central mass and those that pertain mostly to the properties of the disk. Here, with the exception of DM Tau, for which we summarize the complete analysis, we will concentrate on the parameters required to determine the central mass - the disk inclination $`i`$ and position angle $`PA`$, $`V_{}`$ sin$`i`$ at $`r_{}`$ = 100 AU, the exponent $`v`$ of the rotation curve $`V_{}(r/r_{})^v`$ and the outer disk radius $`R_{out}`$. A paper describing the disk parameters (e.g. the temperature radial distribution, the 12CO abundance and spectral line turbulence width) is in preparation.

GD98 demonstrated the $`\chi ^2`$ parameter fitting procedure by applying it to 12CO J= 1-0 data for the single star DM Tau. They used D=150 pc for the distance to DM Tau. Since we now adopt 140 pc as the reference distance, we scale GD98’s results to this value. On this basis, GD98’s value for DM Tau’s mass is $`(0.47\pm 0.06)\times (D/140`$pc) M (Table 3). Fig. 1 shows 7 of the velocity channel maps measured in the 12CO J=2-1 line for all the sources in our sample. Fig. 1 also presents velocity gradient maps which show on the red and blue shifted sides of the systemic velocity, the characteristic CO emission pattern attributable to rotation of a tilted disk.

Fig. 1a shows that DM Tau, GM Aur, Lk Ca 15 and MWC 480 appear to have no CO emission from the parent cloud. UZ Tau E and DL Tau (Fig. 1b) suffer some confusion with the CO emission of the cloud. Confusion is maximum at the cloud systemic velocity, which is usually (but not always, see DL Tau) the stellar velocity. Hence it preferentially affects the disk emission which is elongated along the projected disk minor axis. This results in an incorrect estimate of the disk inclination. In the case of CY Tau, we cannot be sure about the level of confusion because of the weakness of its CO emission. For UZ Tau E and DL Tau, the velocity channels hidden by the foreground CO cloud have been removed from the $`\chi ^2`$ analysis. In the case of UZ Tau E, 4 out of 36 significant channels were removed. In the case of DL Tau, 5 out of 18 significant channels had to be removed because of confusion. This increased the uncertainty in the disk inclination quite significantly.

The first step of the model fitting procedure is to measure the coordinates of the mm-wave continuum source in order to recenter the $`u,v`$ plane visibilities on it. Table 2 lists these source coordinates for DM Tau and for the other stars newly observed for this program. The UZ Tau E spectroscopic binary cannot be resolved by our observations; its continuum source coordinates must be effectively centered on the binary.

Table 3 compares the results of the full analysis of DM Tau obtained by GD98 from their analysis of the 12CO 1-0 data at $`3^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution with that derived from our new 12CO J=2-1 data. Only the fitted parameters are shown; the gas density and 12CO abundance are the same in the two analyses and do not affect the stellar mass determination because the 12CO J= 1-0 and J= 2-1 lines are optically thick. We scaled GD98’s values of the parameters that depend on physical size, and hence distance, from 150 pc distance to the 140 pc distance used here. The uncertainties are the formal 2$`\sigma `$ values from the $`\chi ^2`$ fit. The position angles in Table 3 refer to the major axis of the disk; the PA listed in GD98 is that for the disk rotation axis so differs by 90 from the PACO given here. The agreement between GD98 and the new results is excellent for all the parameters except for the inclination which now has the opposite sign. It is not surprising that the higher resolution data better define the sense of the inclination. Its sign does not affect the mass determination.

Table 4 lists the parameters most relevant for determination of the central mass derived from our new observations and also from our previously published observations. Columns 2 and 3 are described below. Columns 4 and 5 list the disk PA and $`i`$ derived from the CO line maps. The disk outer radius, Rout, in Col. 5 is included here because its determination and that of $`i`$ are coupled (see, for example, GD98 Sect.4.4). Col. 6 lists the value of Vsin$`i`$ at the reference radius 100 AU and col. 7 the exponent of the radial power law dependence of the velocity. Within the uncertainties, the rotation is Keplerian. The stellar masses in col. 8 are derived using

$$M=\left\{\frac{(V_{100}sini)}{2.98sini}\right\}^2\text{M}\text{}$$
(1)
where 2.98 km/s is the circular velocity at 100 AU radius from a 1 M star. The derived masses scale as $`M_{}v^2(r)r`$ and hence depend on distance to the star as $`M_{}D`$. The main source of uncertainty in the measured stellar mass is the inclination; the two objects in our sample with the lowest inclinations, CY Tau and BP Tau, have the highest uncertainties in their derived masses. This approach ignores the mass of the disk because it is usually only a few per cent that of the star. Even in GG Tau A, which probably has the most massive disk of the stars in our sample, the mass of the circumbinary is only $`10\%`$ that of the stars within it (Guilloteau et al. 1999). It is interesting that UZ Tau E has a circumbinary ring like GG Tau A and UY Aur (Duvert et al. 1998), although the central hole is as yet unresolved.

The 1.3 mm continuum emission is detected by a separate back-end (§2.2) and the detected continuum emission arises mostly from the innermost regions of the disk (see below). The continuum images can therefore provide independent measurements of the disk orientation. Cols. 2-3 of Table 4 give the position angle, PAcont of the major axis of the disk, and its inclination, $`i_{cont}`$, measured from the 1.3 mm wavelength continuum image. To derive the inclination from the ratio of apparent major and minor axes, we used an effective seeing of 0.3′′. We did not include uncertainty in the seeing in the error estimate. The agreement between the orientations and inclinations derived from 1.3 mm continuum data and 12CO J=2-1 data is excellent for most of the targets. The uncertainties of the values derived from the continuum images are larger, in most cases, than those from the CO data because the measured sizes of the disks in the continuum are generally smaller than in CO, specially when the inclinations are low. The sizes measured in the continuum are smaller because the dust continuum opacity is much smaller than in the CO line. The detected continuum emission therefore arises mostly in the dense inner regions of the disks (see, for example, D96). The values for CY Tau suffer from low signal to noise. In the case DL Tau, significant confusion from the molecular cloud seems to have affected the determination of the inclination from the CO emission (§3). The confusion affects the channels near the systemic velocity, which are the most important to determine the inclination. Accordingly, pending better measurements (e.g. 13CO), we prefer to use the inclination determined from the continuum emission, $`45^{}`$, to derive the mass for DL Tau. With this inclination, the stellar mass is $`0.72\pm 0.11`$M, rather than $`1.23\pm 0.11`$M when using the CO derived inclination.

## 4 Comparison of the Measured Masses and Theoretical Tracks

### 4.1 The Theoretical Tracks

The observational measure of the stellar photospheric temperature is its spectral type while the parameter provided by the models is usually $`T_{eff}`$. The surface gravities of the PMS stars lie between those of the main sequence stars and giants so the conversion between spectral type and Teff determined for the giants and dwarfs may not apply. White et al. (1999) and Luhman (1999), in addition to others, have investigated this problem and demonstrate that the differences in temperature scales become apparent for the lowest mass stars, and below the hydrogen-burning limit. Luhman (1999) proposed an “intermediate” temperature scale for the M stars. Its differences from Kenyon and Hartmann’s (1995) temperature scale become significant for stars cooler than about M6. Since our sample does not include stars as cool as this, we use the Kenyon and Hartmann scale in the present work without modification.

The HR diagram in Fig. 2a shows excerpts from PMS tracks calculated by DM97, BCAH, PS99 and SDF. In this and subsequent figures, the BCAH tracks for $`M/\text{M}\text{}<0.7`$ are for mixing length parameter (mixing length/pressure scale height)= 1.0 and 1.9 for $`M/\text{M}\text{}0.7`$ (BCAH98 and Baraffe, priv. comm.). Differences among the theoretical calculations for a star of given age and mass are obvious. For example, the DM97 tracks are hotter than those of BCAH for $`M_{}0.2\text{M}\text{}`$. SDF’s models at 0.2 and 0.1 M appear to contract more slowly than those of DM97, BCAH, and PS99. Since the different treatments of stellar convection, the equation of state, opacities, and stellar atmospheres become important in specific regions of the HR diagram, tests of the theoretical tracks require accurate measurements of mass over as wide a range of mass and age as possible.

The dependence of $`M_{}`$ on distance (§3) is important because while the average distance to the Taurus star forming region (SFR) is reasonably well known, the actual distance to a given star in it is not. The Taurus SFR extends for at least $`15^{}`$ on the sky. If its depth is comparable to its width, the distance to a specific member may scatter by $`\pm 20`$ pc around the 140 pc mean, a relative error of $`\pm 14\%`$. Only CY Tau and BP Tau (Table 4) have a larger uncertainty of their mass measurement. For most of the stars in Table 4 the uncertainty in their actual mass is therefore dominated by the uncertainty in their distance. The distance of course also determines the star’s location in the HR diagram because $`L_{}D^2`$. We will therefore present most of our results in §4 on modified HR diagrams in which the distance-independent parameter $`L/M^2`$ is plotted versus $`T_{eff}`$. For reference, Fig. 2b compares the tracks on this basis.

### 4.2 Measured Masses on Theoretical HR Diagrams: The Single Stars

Fig. 3 plots the single T Tauris in our sample on modified HR diagrams using PMS tracks calculated by DM97, BCAH, PS99, and SDF. The uncertainties displayed along the horizontal axis are $`\pm 1`$ spectral type sub-class. Along the vertical axis, the uncertainties are the propagated internal uncertainties in stellar mass (Table 4) and an assumed $`\pm 10\%`$ uncertainty in the luminosity given in Table 1. We discuss the fit of each star to the theoretical tracks separately.

#### Lk Ca 15:

The $`L/M^2`$ value for Lk Ca 15 lies near the 1.0 M tracks calculated by BCAH, PS99, and SDF (Fig. 3) consistent with its mass $`0.97\pm 0.03`$ M at the nominal 140 pc distance (Table 4). These tracks yield a consistent age estimate of 3-5 MY. Lk Ca 15’s $`L/M^2`$ values lies on the 0.8 M track calculated by DM97. Agreement with the DM97 track would require a distance of $`115`$ pc but would not affect the age estimate.

#### DL Tau:

The position of DL Tau’s $`L/M^2`$ in the diagrams is within one spectral type uncertainty of the 0.8 M track for each of the calculations. This is in good agreement with the mass derived using the continuum inclination, $`0.72\pm 0.11`$ M. The theoretical tracks yield a consistent age estimate of $`2`$ MY.

#### GM Aur:

The position of the $`L/M^2`$ value relative to the BCAH, PS99, and SDF tracks is consistent with its mass $`0.84\pm 0.05`$ M at 140 pc. The tracks provide an age estimate of $`3`$ MY. The $`L/M^2`$ value lies close to DM97’s 0.6 M track which would require a distance of 103 pc to force agreement with the dynamical mass.

#### BP Tau:

BP Tau’s $`L/M^2`$ values lies between DM97’s 0.6 and 0.8 M tracks, and close to BCAH, PS99, and SDF’s 0.8 M tracks, while our measured mass at 140 pc is in the range 0.92 to 1.49 M. This suggests that the distance to BP Tau may be closer than 140 pc but not as extreme as the HIPPARCOS value, 53$`{}_{11}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+17}`$ pc (Favata et al. 1998). The large uncertainty in the mass produces a large spread in the age estimate, 2-10 MY.

#### DM Tau:

Its dynamical mass at 140 pc, $`0.55\pm 0.03`$ M, is consistent with its $`L/M^2`$ value relative to four sets of tracks. The tracks yield a consistent age estimate $`5`$ MY.

#### CY Tau:

The nominal value 0.55 M is consistent with its $`L/M^2`$ relative to the four sets of tracks with an age in the range 2-5 MY. However, the uncertainty in its mass is so large that this agreement is not significant, and we cannot plot it meaningfully in Fig. 3.

#### MWC480 (=HD 31648):

Fig. 4 provides a similar comparisons of the dynamical mass of the HAeBe star MWC480. We calculated its stellar luminosity (Table 1) for a distance of 140 pc using the spectral energy distribution, corrected for extinction and circumstellar emission, derived by Malfait et al. (1998). This value, 11.5 L, is about half that calculated by Mannings and Sargent (1997) from photometry available at the time. Table 1 also lists Grady’s (1999) spectral type estimate, A4, from HST spectra, which is cooler than Thé et al’s (1994) earlier value, A2-A3. BCAH PMS models do not extend to $`M>1.2\text{M}\text{}`$, so we make the comparisons only with DM97, PS99, and SDF’s tracks. MWC480’s $`L/M^2`$ value lies close to the 2.0 M tracks for the three calculations at an age $`7`$ MY. The mass at 140 pc distance $`1.65\pm 0.07\text{M}\text{}`$ suggests that MWC 480 lies at a somewhat greater distance. A distance of 170 pc would yield a dynamical mass of 2.0 Mand would be within $`2\sigma `$ of the HIPPARCOS measurement of $`131_{18}^{+24}`$ pc (van den Ancker et al 1998).

### 4.3 The Binaries

The results for the binaries cannot be plotted on $`L/M^2vsT_{eff}`$ diagrams because the component luminosities of UZ Tau E or component masses of GG Tau are not known. We discuss the binaries using conventional HR diagrams.

#### UZ Tau E:

Mathieu et al (1996) discovered that UZ Tau E is a single-lined spectroscopic binary with period 19.1 days and projected semi-major axis of the primary $`a_1sini_{}=0.03`$ AU in which $`i_{}`$ is the inclination of the orbit.

Our measurement of the total binary mass $`(M_1+M_2)`$ (Table 4) and the period determine $`(a_1+a_2)=(0.153\pm 0.003)(D(pc)/140)^{1/3}`$ AU. We can solve for $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$, and hence $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ if we assume that the circumbinary disk and binary orbit are coplanar, $`i_{CO}=i_{}`$. This assumption yields $`M_1=(1.00\pm 0.08)(D(pc)/140)`$M and $`M_2=(0.31\pm 0.02)(D(pc)/140)`$ M. We plot the primary in the HR diagram (Fig. 5) assuming that the system spectral type M1 (Table 1) applies to the primary, assigning, as before, an uncertainty of $`\pm 1`$ one sub-class, and luminosity in the range 0.5 to 1 times the total system luminosity, 1.6 L. Fig. 5 shows that, with these assumptions, the primary lies in the $`0.6`$ M region of the HR diagram for all the tracks, clearly discrepant with the derived mass, $`1`$ M. It seems very unlikely that the distance to UZ Tau E could be $`60\%`$ of the nominal 140 pc. Rather, the assumption that $`i_{}=i_{CO}`$ is probably wrong; the circumbinary disk and binary star orbits appear not to be coplanar. The spectroscopic binary orbit will be resolvable by the next generation space-borne astrometric missions so a precision measurement of the orbital parameters should be possible within a decade.

#### GG Tau:

White et al. (1999) compared the (L,Teff) positions of GG Tau Aa and Ab, the components of the $`0.25^{\prime \prime }`$ separation binary at the center of the circumbinary ring we observed, with PMS evolutionary tracks calculated by Swenson et al. (1994), D’Antona and Mazzitelli (1994), DM 97, and BCAH. They used the effective temperature scales for main sequence dwarfs drawn from the works of Bessel (1991), Leggett (1996), and Luhman and Rieke (1998). They found that the tracks calculated by BCAH were the most consistent with the total dynamical system we have measured and the expected coevality of the components. The BCAH indicated an age between 1 and 2 MY.

Fig. 6 shows a similar comparison with the tracks of DM97, BCAH, PS99, and SDF. The difference between the temperature scale used by White et al and Kenyon and Hartmann’s (1995) temperature scale is unimportant at the effective temperatures of GG Tau Aa and Ab. The BCAH tracks suggest primary and secondary masses of $`0.8`$ and $`0.7`$ M, and age 1-2 MY, in agreement with White et al’s finding. The PS99 and SDF tracks suggest similar masses and age. The DM97 tracks also indicate a young age for the components, in this case less than 1 MY. The total mass indicated by DM97’s tracks, $`0.95`$ M, is significantly lower than our measured value. To reconcile it with the measured mass would require that the GG Tau system lie at distance $`103`$ pc which seems unlikely.

## 5 Summary and Suggestions for Future Work

Our results indicate that:

1) Stellar masses can be measured dynamically by the rotation of their circumstellar disks with high enough precision, $`<5\%`$, that meaningful tests of calculations of pre-main sequence evolution are possible.

2) The BCAH, PS99, and SDF models in general are in reasonable agreement with the measured dynamical masses at the average distance to the Taurus SFR. To force agreement between the DM97 models and mass measurements for stars in the $`0.7`$ to 1 M range (Lk Ca 15, GM Aur, and the components of GG Tau) would require that these stars lie at distances 100-115 pc which seem unacceptably near. This is a consequence of the apparently warmer photospheres of DM97’s models for stars close to 1 M.

3) Consistency of the position of the HAeBe star MWC 480 with respect to DM97, PS99, and SDF’s tracks suggest it lies on the far side of the Taurus SFR at $`170`$pc.

Our tests of the pre-ms tracks are limited by our present ignorance of actual distances to individual stars. We anticipate that this limitation will be overcome by precision distances that will be measured by the astrometric observatories currently under construction (e.g. FAME, GAIA, and SIM). All our measurements at present pertain to stars with $`M>0.5\text{M}\text{}`$ so we have been unable to test the models at the lowest end of the stellar mass spectrum. This is a serious limitation and results, at least in part, from the range of masses of stars formed in the Taurus SFR. We look forward to the capabilities of the ALMA mm-wave interferometric array which will open the rich Orion SFR to investigation. Conversion of the observationally derived parameter, spectral type, to that provided by the models, $`T_{eff}`$, is a lingering source of uncertainty, particularly at the lowest masses. Since stars contracting to the main sequence represent a range of surface gravities, the conversion may depend on the stars age. Relief from this problem should become available soon as the model calculations which include stellar atmospheres provide diagnostics such as color indices and model spectra, for closer comparison with the observations. We look forward to a fruitful decade ahead.

We thank I. Baraffe, J. Bouvier, G. Chabrier, C. Dougados, M. Forestini, F. Palla, S. Stahler, and L. Siess for helpful conversations and communicating results before publication. This work began as a collaboration with G. Duvert and F. Ménard; we thank them for their advice and help in its early stages. We thank the referee for a prompt and helpful report. This paper was begun during M.S.’s sabbatical visit at the Observatoire de Grenoble; M.S. thanks G. Duvert and C. Perrier for making it possible and for their hospitality. The work of M.S. was supported in part by NSF Grants 94-17191 and 98-19694. In memoriam: The Plateau de Bure interferometer was affected by two transportation tragedies in 1999. These caused the death of 25 individuals including six members of the IRAM staff and two from INSU-CNRS. We dedicate this work to the memory of the victims, especially our colleagues B.Aubeuf, F.Gillet, H.Gontard, D.Lazaro, R.Prayer and P.Vibert.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There are not so many results concerning non-compact real quantum groups. Naturally a major attention has been paid to groups with some physical interpretation (see, for example, ). Even in the case of real groups of low dimension the treatment seems to be quite complicated . Recently the quantum group $`SL_q(2,\text{})`$ attracted some attention; particular efforts have been made to describe and classify its quantum homogeneous spaces . In this contribution we focus on a possible generalization of the method of orbits to $`𝒰_q(\text{sl}(2,\text{}))`$.

In the paper  there was described a construction of representations for a Hopf algebra $`𝒰`$ which may be considered as a generalization of the method of orbits due to Kostant and Kirillov. In fact, the construction concentrates on just one step of the method of orbits. It is already supposed that there is given a left $`𝒰`$-module algebra $`𝒞`$ with the action denoted by $`\xi `$ and fulfilling two conditions: $`\xi (X)1=\epsilon (X)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ and Leibniz rule

$$\xi (X)(fg)=(\xi (X_{(1)})f)(\xi (X_{(2)})g),X𝒰,f,g𝒞.$$
(1)
We use Sweedler’s notation: $`\mathrm{\Delta }X=X_{(1)}X_{(2)}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes the comultiplication.

Classically, $`𝒰`$ is the universal enveloping algebra of a Lie algebra g, $`𝒞`$ is an algebra of functions living on a coadjoint orbit, or a reduction of such an algebra via a polarization, and $`\xi `$ is nothing but the infinitesimal action. So $`\xi (X)`$, $`X\text{g}`$, are vector fields. A critical step of the method of orbits is a replacement of vector fields $`\xi (X)`$ by first order differential operators of the form $`(\xi (X))+2\pi ı\lambda (X)`$ where $``$ is an appropriate covariant derivative and $`\lambda (X)`$ is a function depending linearly on $`X`$. And this is where the construction attempts a generalization applicable also to quantum groups. It results in a modification of the left action $`\xi `$. The new action will be denoted simply by a dot.

The construction is also known in somewhat different form as the twisted adjoint action .

The simplest example is $`𝒰_q(\text{sl}(2,\text{}))`$ ($`q`$ is not a root of unity) with the generators $`K,K^1,E`$ and $`F`$, and the defining relations

$`KK^1=K^1K=1,KE=qEK,KF=q^1FK,`$
$`[E,F]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{qq^1}}(K^2K^2).`$ (2)
The comultiplication, the counite and the antipode are the usual ones.

Let $`𝒜=𝒜_q(SL(2,\text{}))`$ be the dual Hopf algebra of quantum functions on $`SL(2,\text{})`$ with the generators $`a,b,c,d`$, and set $`𝒞=\text{}[z]`$. Then

$$L:𝒞𝒜𝒞,L(z)=(c1+dz)(a1+bz)^1,$$
(3)
is a left coaction (defined in fact rather formally). Using the standard pairing between $`𝒰_q(\text{sl}(2,\text{}))`$ and $`𝒜_q(SL(2,\text{}))`$ one introduces a right action, and with the aid of the antipode $`S`$ one can pass to a left action,

$$\xi (x)f=SX,f_{(1)}f_{(2)},X𝒰,f𝒞.$$
(4)
After some rescaling of the complex variable $`z`$ one arrives at the action

$$\xi (K)z^j=q^jz^j,\xi (E)z^j=[j]_qz^{j+1},\xi (F)z^j=[j]_qz^{j1},$$
(5)
where

$$[x]_q=\frac{q^xq^x}{qq^1}.$$
(6)
The mentioned construction is applicable to this case and yields a one-parameter family of modified actions

$$Kz^j=q^{(2j\sigma )/2}z^j,Ez^j=q^{\sigma /2}[j\sigma ]_qz^{j+1},Fz^j=q^{\sigma /2}[j]_qz^{j1}.$$
(7)
The action can be restricted to the two real forms of $`𝒰_q(\text{sl}(2,\text{}))`$, namely $`𝒰_q(\text{su}(2))`$ and $`𝒰_q(\text{sl}(2,\text{}))`$. The latter one is determined by the involution

$$K^{}=K,E^{}=q^1E,F^{}=qF,$$
(8)
with $`q`$ being a complex unite ($`q^{}=q^1`$).

As shown in , the construction is applicable to any compact simple Lie group from the four principal series and yields all irreducible representations. In the present paper we concentrate, however, on the non-compact real form $`𝒰_q(\text{sl}(2,\text{}))`$.

## 2 Classical method of orbits for $`\text{sl}(2,\text{})`$

Let us identify $`\text{sl}(2,\text{})`$ with $`\text{}^3`$:

$$\text{}^3(x_1,x_2,x_3)\left(\begin{array}{cc}x_3& x_1+x_2\\ x_1+x_2& x_3\end{array}\right)\text{sl}(2,\text{}).$$
(9)
Relating to every matrix $`X\text{sl}(2,\text{})`$ a functional $`f_X`$, $`f_X,Y=\text{Tr}X^tY`$, we identify $`\text{sl}(2,\text{})`$ with its dual. The coadjoint orbits are either the origin or the quadrics

$$x_1^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}x_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}x_3^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=c=\text{const}.$$
(10)
The orbits contributing to the discrete series are characterized by $`c=k^2,k>0`$. We choose the leaf with $`\text{sgn}x_1>0`$. Then it is natural to use $`(x_2,x_3)`$ as coordinates on the orbit, with $`x_1=(k^2+x_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+x_3^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}})^{1/2}`$.

However it is more convenient to introduce complex coordinates $`(z,\overline{z})`$ as follows:

$$z=\frac{x_1+x_2}{x_3ık}.$$
(11)
Then the orbit is identified with the upper complex half-plane, $`\text{Im}z>0`$, and the coadjoint action takes the form

$$gz=\frac{c+dz}{a+bz}\text{where }g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)SL(2,\text{}).$$
(12)
The infinitesimal action reads ($`E,F,H`$ is the usual basis)

$$\xi _E=z^2_z+\text{c}.\text{c}.,\xi _F=_z+\text{c}.\text{c}.,\xi _H=2z_z+\text{c}.\text{c}.$$
(13)
There exist two polarizations which are nothing but the mutually conjugate complex structures $`_{\overline{z}}`$ and $`_z`$. We choose the former one and so the constructed representation should act in a space of holomorphic functions on the upper complex half-plane.

The method of orbits leads to the following modification of the infinitesimal action (13):

$$\varrho (E)=z^2_z+4\pi k,\varrho (F)=_z,\varrho (H)=2z_z+4\pi k.$$
(14)
This representation of the Lie algebra can be integrated to a representation of the Lie group, and the result reads

$$\varrho (g)f(z)=(dbz)^{4\pi k}f\left(\frac{c+az}{dbz}\right)\text{where }g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right).$$
(15)
The representation $`\varrho `$ depends on $`g`$ continuously and unambiguously if and only if

$$4\pi k=n\text{}.$$
(16)
This constraint is caused by the nontrivial topology of $`SL(2,\text{})`$. Moreover, the representation $`\varrho `$ is unitary with respect to the $`L^2`$-norm

$$f^2=_{\text{}\times \text{}_+}|f(u,v)|^2v^{n2}𝑑u𝑑v$$
(17)
where $`z=u+ıv`$. Because of the divergence at $`v=0`$ we have to impose another constraint, namely $`n2`$.

The restriction of $`\varrho `$ to the compact subgroup $`SO(2)SL(2,\text{})`$ can be diagonalized and the eigen-functions form an orthogonal basis in the carrier Hilbert space. The element $`EF`$ is a basis element in so(2). Fix $`n\text{}`$, $`n2`$, and set

$$\psi _m(z)=(zı)^m(z+ı)^{mn},m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(18)
Then

$$\varrho (EF)\psi _m=ı(2m+n)\psi _m$$
(19)
and

$`\varrho (E)\psi _m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ım\psi _{m1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ı(2m+n)\psi _m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ı(m+n)\psi _{m+1},`$ (20)
$`\varrho (F)\psi _m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ım\psi _{m1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ı(2m+n)\psi _m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ı(m+n)\psi _{m+1},`$ (21)
$`\varrho (H)\psi _m=m\psi _{m1}(m+n)\psi _{m+1}.`$ (22)
Note, however, that the eigen-functions $`\psi _m`$ are not normalized. The norm is

$$\psi =2^{n+1}\left(\pi \frac{m!(n2)!}{(m+n1)!}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(23)
## 3 $`q`$-deformation of the discrete series

Here we come to the main goal of the present paper, namely to a $`q`$-deformation of the discrete series of representations of $`SL(2,\text{})`$. Fix $`n\text{}_+`$ and set $`\sigma =n`$ in (7). The relations (7) imply that

$`Kf(z)=q^{n/2}f(qz),`$
$`Ef(z)={\displaystyle \frac{z}{qq^1}}(q^nKf(z)K^1f(z)),`$ (24)
$`Ff(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(qq^1)z}}(q^nKf(z)K^1f(z)).`$
Introduce the functions

$$\psi _m(z)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{m1}{}}(q^{2(j+n)}zı)/\underset{j=0}{\overset{m+n1}{}}(q^{2(jm)}z+ı).$$
(25)
Then it holds

$$(q^{2n}EKFK)\psi _m=ıq^n[2m+n]_q\psi _m$$
(26)
and

$`EK^1\psi _m`$ $`=`$ $`ı{\displaystyle \frac{q^{4m+n1}(1+q^2)}{(1+q^{4m+2n2})(1+q^{4m+2n})}}[m]_{q^2}\psi _{m1}`$
$`+ı{\displaystyle \frac{q^{4m+2}(1+q^{2(n1)})}{(1+q^{4m+2n2})(1+q^{4m+2n+2})}}[2m+n]_q\psi _m`$
$`+ı{\displaystyle \frac{q^{4m+n+1}(1+q^2)}{(1+q^{4m+2n})(1+q^{4m+2n+2})}}[m+n]_{q^2}\psi _{m+1},`$
$`FK^1\psi _m`$ $`=`$ $`ı{\displaystyle \frac{q^{8m+5n5}(1+q^2)}{(1+q^{4m+2n2})(1+q^{4m+2n})}}[m]_{q^2}\psi _{m1}`$
$`ı{\displaystyle \frac{q^{4m+2n}(1+q^{2(n1)})}{(1+q^{4m+2n2})(1+q^{4m+2n+2})}}[2m+n]_q\psi _m`$
$`+ı{\displaystyle \frac{q^{n3}(1+q^2)}{(1+q^{4m+2n})(1+q^{4m+2n+2})}}[m+n]_{q^2}\psi _{m+1},`$
$`K^2\psi _m`$ $`=`$ $`(q^2q^2){\displaystyle \frac{q^{6m+3n2}}{(1+q^{4m+2n2})(1+q^{4m+2n})}}[m]_{q^2}\psi _{m1}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{q^{4m+2}(1+q^{2(n1)})(1+q^2)}{(1+q^{4m+2n2})(1+q^{4m+2n+2})}}\psi _m`$
$`+(q^2q^2){\displaystyle \frac{q^{2m+n}}{(1+q^{4m+2n})(1+q^{4m+2n+2})}}[m+n]_{q^2}\psi _{m+1}.`$
Actually, relations (25-3) can be considered as $`q`$-deformations of relations (18-22).