text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Let $`U=U_q(𝐠)`$ be the quantum group associated to a semisimple Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ of rank $`n`$. The negative part $`U^{}`$ of $`U`$ has a canonical basis $`𝐁`$ with favourable properties (see Kashiwara  and Lusztig \[11, §14.4.6\]). For example, via action on highest weight vectors it gives rise to bases for all the finite-dimensional irreducible highest weight $`U`$-modules.

Let $`W`$ be the Weyl group of $`𝐠`$, with Coxeter generators $`s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_n`$, and let $`w_0`$ be the element of maximal length in $`W`$. Let $`𝐢`$ be a reduced expression for $`w_0`$, i.e. $`w_0=s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\mathrm{}s_{i_k}`$ is reduced. Lusztig obtains a parametrization of the canonical basis $`𝐁`$ for each such reduced expression $`𝐢`$, via a correspondence between a basis of PBW-type associated to $`𝐢`$ and the canonical basis. This gives a bijection $`\phi _𝐢:𝐁^k,`$ where $`=\{0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$.

Kashiwara, in his approach to the canonical basis (which he calls the global crystal basis), defines certain root operators $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ on the canonical basis (see \[7, §3.5\]) which lead to a parametrization of the canonical basis for each reduced expression $`𝐢`$ by a certain subset $`Y_𝐢`$ of $`^k`$. This gives a bijection $`\psi _𝐢:𝐁Y_𝐢`$. The subset $`Y_𝐢`$ is called the string cone.

There is no simple way to express the elements of $`𝐁`$ in terms of the natural generators $`F_1,F_2,\mathrm{},F_n`$ of $`U^{}`$. This has been done for all of $`𝐁`$ only in types $`A_1,A_2,A_3`$ and $`B_2`$ (see \[9, §3.4\]\[12, §13\] and ) and appears to become arbitrarily complicated in general.

A monomial $`F_{i_1}^{(a_1)}F_{i_2}^{(a_2)}\mathrm{}F_{i_k}^{(a_k)}`$, where $`F_i^{(a)}=F_i^a/[a]!`$, is said to be tight if it belongs to $`𝐁`$. Lusztig  described a method which in low rank cases leads to the construction of tight monomials. He defined, for each reduced expression $`𝐢`$ of $`w_0`$, a certain cone $`C_𝐢`$ in $`^k`$ which we shall call the Lusztig cone. Let

$$M_𝐢=\{F_{i_1}^{(a_1)}F_{i_2}^{(a_2)}\mathrm{}F_{i_k}^{(a_k)}:𝐚C_𝐢\}$$

be the set of monomials obtained from elements of $`C_𝐢`$. Lusztig showed that, in types $`A_1,A_2`$ and $`A_3`$, $`M_𝐢𝐁`$. The author  has extended this to type $`A_4`$. However, counter-examples of Xi  and Reineke  show that this fails for higher rank.

Instead, one can consider monomials in Kashiwara’s operators $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$. Define, for a reduced expression $`𝐢`$ for $`w_0`$,

$$𝐁_𝐢=\{b𝐁:b\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_1}^{a_1}\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_2}^{a_2}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_k}^{a_k}1,𝐚C_𝐢\}.$$

It has been shown by Premat  that $`C_𝐢Y_𝐢`$, so we have $`𝐁_𝐢=\psi _𝐢^1(C_𝐢)`$. Then it is known that $`𝐁_𝐢=M_𝐢`$ in types $`A_1,A_2,A_3`$ (using Lusztig’s work  and direct calculation); it will be seen in  that this is also true in type $`A_4`$. This breaks down in higher ranks because of the above counter-examples. Thus $`B_𝐢`$ can be regarded as a generalisation of $`M_𝐢`$ for higher ranks, and it is likely that canonical basis elements in $`B_𝐢`$ will have a common form.

Furthermore, the cones $`C_𝐢`$ play a role with respect to various reparametrization functions of the canonical basis. Let $`𝐢,𝐣`$ be reduced expressions for $`w_0`$. There is a reparametrization function, $`R_𝐢^𝐣=\phi _𝐣\phi _𝐢^1:^k^k`$ (see \[9, §2\]); a reparametrization function $`T_𝐢^𝐣=\psi _𝐣\psi _𝐢^1:Y_𝐢Y_𝐣`$ (see \[3, §§2.6, 2.7\] and also the remark at the end of Section 2 of ). We also define a reparametrization function $`S_𝐢^𝐣=\phi _𝐣\psi _𝐢^1:Y_𝐢𝐍^k`$ linking the approaches of Lusztig and Kashiwara. The functions $`R_𝐢^𝐣`$ and $`T_𝐢^𝐣`$ are known to be piecewise-linear, and it follows that $`S_𝐢^𝐣`$ is also piecewise-linear. These functions are very difficult to understand; they have recently been described by Zelevinsky in , but their regions of linearity are only known in types $`A_1`$$`A_5`$, $`B_2`$, $`C_3`$, $`D_4`$ and $`G_2`$ (see  and references therein).

Suppose now that $`𝐠`$ is of type $`A_n`$. In , it was shown that $`C_𝐢`$ could be expressed as the set of nonnegative integral combinations of a certain set of $`k`$ spanning vectors, $`v_j(𝐢)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, $`v_P(𝐢)`$, $`P`$ a partial quiver of type $`A_n`$ associated to $`𝐢`$ (as described in ). A partial quiver of type $`A_n`$ is a quiver of type $`A_n`$ with some directed edges replaced by undirected edges in such a way that the subgraph of directed edges is connected.

If an element $`𝐚=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k)C_𝐢`$ is written $`𝐚=(a_\alpha )_{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ is the set of positive roots of $`𝐠`$ and $`a_\alpha =a_j`$ where $`\alpha `$ is the $`j`$th root in the ordering on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ induced by $`𝐢`$, then the $`v_j(𝐢)`$ and the $`v_P(𝐢)`$ do not depend on $`𝐢`$ and are described in . These vectors have also been studied by Bédard  in terms of the representation theory of quivers. Here we show that if $`𝐚=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k)`$ is one of these vectors then the corresponding monomial of Kashiwara’s operators $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_1}^{a_1}\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_2}^{a_2}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_k}^{a_k}1`$ can be described using a remarkable rectangle combinatorics.

For $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`P`$ a partial quiver associated to $`𝐢`$, let $`b_j(𝐢)=\psi _𝐢^1(v_j(𝐢))`$ and $`b_P(𝐢)=\psi _𝐢^1(v_P(𝐢))`$ be the corresponding canonical basis elements. We will show that these elements are independent of the reduced expression $`𝐢`$. Thus the canonical basis elements arising in this way for at least one reduced expression $`𝐢`$ can be labelled $`b_j`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, $`b_P`$, $`P`$ a partial quiver of type $`A_n`$.

The following conjecture, which will be shown in type $`A_4`$ in , suggests that these elements are important in understanding the canonical basis. For a reduced expression $`𝐣`$ for $`w_0`$, let $`c_j(𝐣)=\varphi _𝐣(b_j)`$ and let $`c_P(𝐣)=\varphi _𝐣(b_P)`$ be the parametrizations of these canonical basis elements arising from Lusztig’s approach.

###### Conjecture 1.1

(Carter and Marsh)
Let $`𝐢`$ be a reduced expression for $`w_0`$ and let $`𝐤=(1,3,5,\mathrm{}2,4,6,\mathrm{})`$ and$`𝐤^{}=(2,4,6,\mathrm{},1,3,5,\mathrm{})`$, the opposite reduced expressions for $`w_0`$ arising in . Then the vectors $`c_j(𝐤)`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, $`c_P(𝐤)`$, $`P`$ a partial quiver associated with $`𝐢`$ as above form a simplicial region of linearity $`X_𝐢`$ of Lusztig’s piecewise-linear function $`R_𝐤^𝐤^{}`$. Furthermore, all such simplicial regions arise in this way, and the map $`𝐢X_𝐢`$ from the graph of commutation classes of reduced expressions for $`w_0`$ (with edges given by the long braid relation) to the graph of simplicial regions of linearity of $`R`$ (with edges given by adjacency) is a graph isomorphism.

In this paper we shall use the above rectangle combinatorics to calculate the vectors $`c_j(𝐣)`$, $`c_P(𝐣)`$ for the reduced expression $`𝐣=(n,n1,n,n2,n1,n,\mathrm{},1,2,\mathrm{},n)`$ for $`w_0`$. This will be used in a future paper of Carter in order to calculate the vectors $`c_j(𝐤)`$, $`c_P(𝐤)`$, and thus the conjectural simplicial regions of linearity of $`R_𝐤^𝐤^{}`$. It is also possible that the above conjecture is true for any pair of opposite reduced expressions $`𝐤,𝐤^{}`$ for $`w_0`$; in particular for $`𝐣`$ and its opposite $`𝐣^{}`$, i.e. that the vectors $`c_j(𝐣)`$ and $`c_P^𝐣`$ span simplicial regions of linearity of $`R_𝐣^𝐣^{}`$.

## 2 Parametrizations of the canonical basis

For positive integers $`p<q`$ we denote by $`[p,q]`$ the set $`\{p,p+1,\mathrm{},q\}`$, and for a rational number $`x`$ we denote by $`x`$ the smallest element of $`\{y:xy\}`$.

Let $`𝐠`$ be the simple Lie algebra over $``$ of type $`A_n`$ and $`U`$ be the quantized enveloping algebra of $`𝐠`$. Then $`U`$ is a $`(v)`$-algebra generated by the elements $`E_i`$, $`F_i`$, $`K_\mu `$, $`i\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$, $`\mu Q`$, the root lattice of $`𝐠`$. Let $`U^+`$ be the subalgebra generated by the $`E_i`$ and $`U^{}`$ the subalgebra generated by the $`F_i`$.

Let $`W`$ be the Weyl group of $`𝐠`$ with Coxeter generators $`s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_n`$. It has a unique element $`w_0`$ of maximal length $`k`$. We shall identify a reduced expression $`s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\mathrm{}s_{i_k}`$ for $`w_0`$ with the $`k`$-tuple $`𝐢=(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)`$. We shall denote by $`\chi _n`$ the set of all reduced expressions $`𝐢=(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)`$ for $`w_0`$. Given $`𝐢,𝐢^{}\chi _n`$, we say that $`𝐢𝐢^{}`$ if there is a sequence of commutations (of the form $`s_is_j=s_js_i`$ with $`|ij|>1`$) which, when applied to $`𝐢`$, give $`𝐢^{}`$. This is an equivalence relation on $`\chi _n`$, and the equivalence classes are called commutation classes.

For each $`𝐢\chi _n`$ there are two parametrizations of the canonical basis $`𝐁`$ for $`U^{}`$. The first arises from Lusztig’s approach to the canonical basis \[11, §14.4.6\], and the second arises from Kashiwara’s approach .

Lusztig’s Approach
There is a $``$-algebra automorphism of $`U`$ which takes each $`E_i`$ to $`F_i`$, $`F_i`$ to $`E_i`$, $`K_\mu `$ to $`K_\mu `$ and $`v`$ to $`v^1`$. We use this automorphism to transfer Lusztig’s definition of the canonical basis in \[9, §3\] to $`U^{}`$.

Let $`T_{i,1}^{\prime \prime }`$ be the automorphism of $`U`$ as in \[11, §37.1.3\]. For $`𝐜^k`$ and $`𝐢\chi _n`$, let

$$F_𝐢^𝐜:=F_{i_1}^{(c_1)}T_{i_1,1}^{\prime \prime }(F_{i_2}^{(c_2)})\mathrm{}T_{i_1,1}^{\prime \prime }T_{i_2,1}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}T_{i_{k1},1}^{\prime \prime }(F_{i_k}^{(c_k)}),$$

and define $`B_𝐢=\{F_𝐢^𝐜:𝐜^k\}`$. Then $`B_𝐢`$ is the basis of PBW-type for $`U^{}`$ corresponding to $`𝐢`$. Let $`\overline{}`$ be the $``$-algebra automorphism of $`U`$ taking $`E_i`$ to $`E_i`$, $`F_i`$ to $`F_i`$, and $`K_\mu `$ to $`K_\mu `$, for each $`i[1,n]`$ and $`\mu Q`$, and $`v`$ to $`v^1`$. Lusztig proves the following result in \[9, §§2.3, 3.2\].

###### Theorem 2.1

(Lusztig)
The $`[v]`$-span $``$ of $`B_𝐢`$ is independent of $`𝐢`$. Let $`\pi :/v`$ be the natural projection. The image $`\pi (B_𝐢)`$ is also independent of $`𝐢`$; we denote it by $`B`$. The restriction of $`\pi `$ to $`\overline{}`$ is an isomorphism of $``$-modules $`\pi _1:\overline{}/v`$, and $`𝐁=\pi _1^1(B)`$ is a $`(v)`$-basis of $`U^{}`$, called the canonical basis.

Lusztig’s theorem provides us with a parametrization of $`𝐁`$, dependent on $`𝐢`$. If $`b𝐁`$, we write $`\phi _𝐢(b)=𝐜`$, where $`𝐜^k`$ satisfies $`bF_𝐢^𝐜modv`$. Note that $`\phi _𝐢`$ is a bijection.

Given any pair $`𝐢,𝐣\chi _n`$, Lusztig defines in \[9, §2.6\] a function $`R_𝐢^𝐣=\phi _𝐣\phi _𝐢^1:^k^k`$, which he shows is piecewise-linear. He further shows that its regions of linearity are significant for the canonical basis, in the sense that elements $`b`$ of the canonical basis with $`\phi _𝐢(b)`$ in the same region of linearity of $`R_𝐢^𝐣`$ often have similar form.

Kashiwara’s approach

Let $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ be the Kashiwara operators on $`U^{}`$ as defined in \[7, §3.5\]. Let $`𝒜(v)`$ be the subring of elements regular at $`v=0`$, and let $`^{}`$ be the $`𝒜`$-lattice spanned by the set $`S`$ of arbitrary products $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{j_1}\stackrel{~}{F}_{j_2}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{j_m}1`$ in $`U^{}`$. The following results were proved by Kashiwara in .

###### Theorem 2.2

(Kashiwara)
(i) Let $`\pi ^{}:^{}^{}/v^{}`$ be the natural projection, and let $`B^{}=\pi ^{}(S)`$. Then $`B^{}`$ is a $``$-basis of $`^{}/v^{}`$ (the crystal basis).
(ii) The operators $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ each preserve $`^{}`$ and thus act on $`^{}/v^{}`$. They satisfy $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i(B^{})B^{}\{0\}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i(B^{})B^{}`$. For $`b,b^{}B^{}`$ we have $`\stackrel{~}{F}_ib=b^{}`$ if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{E}_ib^{}=b`$.
(iii) For each $`bB^{}`$, there is a unique element $`\stackrel{~}{b}^{}\overline{^{}}`$ such that $`\pi ^{}(\stackrel{~}{b})=b`$. The set of elements $`\{\stackrel{~}{b}:bB^{}\}`$ forms a basis of $`U^{}`$, the global crystal basis of $`U^{}`$.

It was shown by Lusztig \[10, 2.3\] that the global crystal basis of Kashiwara coincides with the canonical basis. There is a parametrization of $`𝐁`$ arising from Kashiwara’s approach, again dependent on $`𝐢\chi _n`$. Let $`𝐢=(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k)`$ and $`bB`$. Let $`a_1`$ be maximal such that $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{i_1}^{a_1}b0modv^{}`$; let $`a_2`$ be maximal such that $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{i_2}^{a_2}\stackrel{~}{E}_{i_1}^{a_1}b0modv^{}`$, and so on, so that $`a_k`$ is maximal such that $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{i_k}^{a_k}\stackrel{~}{E}_{i_{k1}}^{a_{k1}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{E}_{i_2}^{a_2}\stackrel{~}{E}_{i_1}^{a_1}b0modv^{}`$. We write $`\psi _𝐢(b)=𝐚=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k)`$ and we have $`b\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_1}^{a_1}\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_2}^{a_2}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_k}^{a_k}1modv^{}`$. This is the crystal string of $`b`$ — see \[3, §2\]\[15, §2\] and . The map $`\psi _𝐢`$ is injective (see \[15, §2.5\]). Its image is a cone, which we shall call the string cone associated to $`𝐢`$, $`Y_𝐢=\psi _𝐢(𝐁)`$. We define a function which compares Kashiwara’s approach with Lusztig’s approach. For $`𝐢`$, $`𝐣\chi _n`$, let $`S_𝐢^𝐣=\phi _𝐣\psi _𝐢^1:Y_𝐢^k`$.

## 3 The Lusztig cones and their spanning vectors

Lusztig  introduced certain regions which, in low rank, give rise to canonical basis elements of a particularly simple form. The Lusztig cone, $`C_𝐢`$, corresponding to $`𝐢\chi _n`$, is defined to be the set of points $`𝐚^k`$ satisfying the following inequalities:
(\*) For every pair $`s,s^{}[1,k]`$ with $`s<s^{}`$, $`i_s=i_s^{}=i`$ and $`i_pi`$ whenever $`s<p<s^{}`$, we have

$$(\underset{p}{}a_p)a_sa_s^{}0,$$

where the sum is over all $`p`$ with $`s<p<s^{}`$ such that $`i_p`$ is joined to $`i`$ in the Dynkin diagram (we call such a pair $`s,s^{}`$ a minimal pair).

It was shown by Lusztig  that if $`𝐚C_𝐢`$ then the monomial $`F_{i_1}^{(a_1)}F_{i_2}^{(a_2)}\mathrm{}F_{i_k}^{(a_k)}`$ lies in the canonical basis $`𝐁`$, provided $`n=1,2,3`$. The author  showed that this remains true if $`n=4`$. Counter-examples of Xi  and Reineke  show that this is not true in general.

Remark: It can be shown that, for any $`𝐢\chi _n`$, we have $`C_𝐢Y_𝐢`$, i.e., the Lusztig cone is contained in the Kashiwara cone. The methods of this paper could be used to do this in type $`A_n`$, but the author has recently learnt that A. Premat  has a more succinct proof for all simply-laced cases.

The reduced expression $`𝐢`$ defines an ordering on the set $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ of positive roots of the root system associated to $`W`$. We write $`\alpha ^j=s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\mathrm{}s_{i_{j1}}(\alpha _{i_j})`$ for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+=\{\alpha ^1,\alpha ^2,\mathrm{}\alpha ^k\}`$. For $`𝐚=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k)^k`$, write $`a_{\alpha ^j}=a_j`$. If $`\alpha =\alpha _{ij}:=\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{j1}`$ with $`i<j`$, we also write $`a_{ij}`$ for $`a_{\alpha _{ij}}`$.

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

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

We now recall some of the results from  that we shall need. We have by \[13, §4\] that there is a matrix $`P_𝐢GL_k()`$ such that $`C_𝐢=\{𝐚^k:P_𝐢𝐚0\},`$ where, for $`𝐳^k`$, $`𝐳0`$ means that each entry in $`𝐳`$ is nonnegative. It follows that $`C_𝐢`$ is the set of nonnegative linear combinations of the columns of $`Q_𝐢=P_𝐢^1`$. These columns were described in , using the concept of a partial quiver.

A partial quiver $`P`$ of type $`A_n`$ is a quiver of type $`A_n`$ which has some (or none) of its arrows replaced by undirected edges, in such a way that the subgraph obtained by deleting undirected edges and any vertex incident only with undirected edges is connected. We number the edges of a partial quiver from $`2`$ to $`n`$, starting at the right hand end. We write $`P`$ as a sequence of $`n1`$ symbols, $`L`$, $`R`$ or $``$, where $`L`$ denotes a leftward arrow, $`R`$ a rightward arrow, and $``$ an undirected edge. Thus any partial quiver will be of form $``$, where the $``$’s denote $`L`$’s or $`R`$’s.

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

It is known that if $`𝐢`$ is compatible with a quiver $`Q`$ (in the sense of \[9, §4.7\]) then the set of reduced expressions for $`w_0`$ compatible with $`Q`$ is precisely the commutation class of $`\chi _n`$ containing $`𝐢`$. We say that this commutation class is compatible with $`Q`$. Berenstein, Fomin and Zelevinsky (see \[2, §4.4\]) describe a method for constructing $`𝐢\chi _𝐧`$ compatible with any given quiver $`Q`$, as follows.

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

If $`P`$ is a partial quiver, let $`l(P)`$ be the subset of $`[1,n+1]`$ defined in the following way. Put $`l_1(P)=\{j[2,n]:\text{edge }j\text{ of }P\text{ is an }L\}`$. If the rightmost directed edge of $`P`$ is an $`R`$, and this is in position $`i`$, then let $`l_2(P)=[1,i1]`$, otherwise the empty set. If the leftmost directed edge of $`P`$ is an $`R`$, and this is in position $`j`$, then let $`l_3(P)=[j+1,n+1]`$, otherwise the empty set. Then put $`l(P)=l_1(P)l_2(P)l_3(P)`$. We know from \[13, §5.4\] that $`l`$ sets up a one-to-one correspondence between chamber sets and partial quivers; for a chamber $`(c,𝐢)`$, we denote by $`P(c,𝐢)`$ the partial quiver corresponding to $`l(c,𝐢)`$. Also, if $`𝐢`$ is compatible with a quiver $`Q`$, then the partial quivers corresponding to its chambers are precisely those $`PQ`$.

Each minimal pair in $`𝐢`$ corresponds naturally to a chamber $`(c,𝐢)`$. Thus, given a chamber $`(c,𝐢)`$, there is a corresponding row of $`P_𝐢`$ and therefore a corresponding column of $`Q_𝐢`$, that is, a spanning vector of $`C_𝐢`$. We denote this spanning vector by $`a(c,𝐢)`$. Similarly, the other $`n`$ rows of $`P_𝐢`$ correspond to inequalities of the form $`a_{\alpha _j}0`$ for $`\alpha _j`$ a simple root, $`1jn`$. We denote the corresponding spanning vectors by $`a(j,𝐢)`$.

We consider $`a(c,𝐢)=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k)`$ as a multiset $`M(c,𝐢)`$ of positive roots, where each positive root $`\alpha _{ij}`$ occurs with multiplicity, $`a_{ij}`$. Similarly we write $`M(j,𝐢)`$ for the multiset corresponding to $`a(j,𝐢)`$, for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$. These multisets have been described in .

###### Theorem 3.1

(See \[13, §5.12\]).
(a) The multiset spanning vector $`M(c,𝐢)`$ depends only upon $`P(c,𝐢)`$. For a partial quiver $`P`$ we choose a chamber $`(c,𝐢)`$ such that $`P(c,𝐢)=P`$ and write $`M(P)=M(c,𝐢)`$.
(b) The multiset spanning vector $`M(j,𝐢)`$ depends only upon $`j`$; we denote it by $`M(j)`$.
(c) For a partial quiver $`P`$, $`M(P)`$ is given by the following construction. We say that a sub partial quiver $`Y`$ of $`P`$ is a component of $`P`$ if all of its edges are oriented in the same way and it is maximal in length with this property. We say $`Y`$ has type $`L`$ if its edges are oriented to the left, and type $`R`$ if its edges are oriented to the right. For such a component $`Y`$ of $`P`$, let $`a(Y)`$ be the number of the leftmost edge to the right of the component, and let $`b(Y)`$ be the number of the rightmost edge to the left of the component. Let $`M(Y)`$ be the set of positive roots $`\alpha _{ij}`$ satisfying $`1ia(Y)b(Y)jn+1`$. Then $`M(P)`$ is the multiset union (i.e. adding multiplicities) of the $`M(Y)`$, where $`Y`$ varies over all components of $`P`$, with the multiplicity $`m_{ij}`$ of $`\alpha _{ij}`$ replaced by $`n_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}m_{ij}`$. Furthermore, for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{}n`$, $`M(j)`$ is the set of positive roots $`\alpha _{pq}`$ satisfying $`1pjj+1qn+1`$.

## 4 Canonical basis elements corresponding to spanning vectors

Recall that for $`𝐢,𝐢^{}\chi _n`$, the map $`T_𝐢^𝐢^{}`$ is defined by $`T_𝐢^𝐢^{}(𝐚)=\psi _𝐢^{}\psi _𝐢^1(𝐚)`$, for $`𝐚Y_𝐢`$. Define $`T_2:^2^2`$ by $`T_2(a,b):=(b,a)`$, and $`T_3:^3^3`$ by $`T_3(a,b,c):=(\mathrm{max}(c,ba),a+c,\mathrm{min}(a,bc))`$. The maps $`T_𝐢^𝐢^{}`$ satisfy the following:

###### Proposition 4.1

(Berenstein and Zelevinsky)
(a) Suppose $`𝐢,𝐢^{}\chi _n`$ and that $`𝐢=𝐢^{}`$ except that $`(i_s,i_{s+1})=(i,j)`$ and $`(i_s^{},i_{s+1}^{})=(j,i)`$ for some index $`s`$ and $`i,j[1,n]`$ with $`|ij|>1`$. Let $`𝐚^k`$ and write $`𝐚^{}=T_𝐢^𝐢^{}(𝐚)`$. Then we have $`a_r^{}=a_r`$ for $`r<s`$ or $`r>s+1`$ and $`(a_s^{},a_{s+1}^{})=T_2(a_s,a_{s+1})`$.
(b) Suppose $`𝐢,𝐢^{}\chi _n`$, and that $`𝐢=𝐢^{}`$ except that $`(i_s,i_{s+1},i_{s+2})=(i,j,i)`$ and $`(i_s^{},i_{s+1}^{},i_{s+2}^{})=(j,i,j)`$ for some index $`s`$ and $`i,j[1,n]`$ with $`|ij|=1`$. Let $`𝐚^k`$ and write $`𝐚^{}=T_𝐢^𝐢^{}(𝐚)`$. Then we have $`a_r^{}=a_r`$ for $`r<s`$ or $`r>s+2`$ and $`(a_s^{},a_{s+1}^{},a_{s+2}^{})=T_3(a_s,a_{s+1},a_{s+2})`$.

Proof: See \[3, §§2.6, 2.7\]$`\mathrm{}`$

We need the following Lemma, which will help us to understand how spanning vectors of Lusztig cones are related.

###### Lemma 4.2

(a) Suppose $`𝐢,𝐢^{}\chi _n`$ and that $`𝐢=𝐢^{}`$ except that $`(i_s,i_{s+1})=(i,j)`$ and $`(i_s^{},i_{s+1}^{})=(j,i)`$ for some index $`s`$ and $`i,j[1,n]`$ with $`|ij|>1`$. Let $`𝐚=a(c,𝐢)`$, respectively $`a(j,𝐢)`$, be a spanning vector of $`C_𝐢`$, and let $`𝐚^{}=a(c^{},𝐢^{})`$, respectively $`(j,𝐢^{})`$, be the corresponding spanning vector of $`C_𝐢^{}`$. Here $`(c^{},𝐢^{})`$ is the chamber that $`(c,𝐢)`$ becomes when the commutation relation $`(i,j)(j,i)`$ is applied to $`𝐢`$. Then $`a_r^{}=a_r`$ for all $`r<s`$ or $`r>s+1`$, while $`(a_s^{},a_{s+1}^{})=T_2(a_s,a_{s+1})`$.
(b) Suppose $`𝐢,𝐢^{}\chi _n`$ and that $`𝐢=𝐢^{}`$ except that $`(i_s,i_{s+1},i_{s+2})=(i,j,i)`$ and $`(i_s^{},i_{s+1}^{},i_{s+2}^{})=(j,i,j)`$ for some index $`s`$ and $`i,j[1,n]`$ with $`|ij|=1`$. Let $`𝐚=a(c,𝐢)`$, respectively $`a(j,𝐢)`$, be a spanning vector of $`C_𝐢`$. In this case, we suppose further that $`(c,𝐢)`$ is not the chamber of $`CD(𝐢)`$ involving the substring $`(i,j,i)`$, so that there is a chamber $`(c^{},𝐢^{})`$ with $`P(c,𝐢)=P(c^{},𝐢^{})`$. Let $`𝐚^{}=a(c^{},𝐢^{})`$, respectively $`(j,𝐢^{})`$. Then $`a_r^{}=a_r`$ for all $`r<s`$ or $`r>s+1`$, while $`(a_s^{},a_{s+1}^{},a_{s+2}^{})=T_3(a_s,a_{s+1},a_{s+2})`$.

Proof: Recall that the spanning vectors of $`C_𝐢`$ are obtained by inverting the defining matrix $`P_𝐢`$ of $`C_𝐢`$. Part (a) follows immediately from the definition of $`P_𝐢`$. Suppose we are in situation (b). Consider the case where $`𝐚=a(c,𝐢)`$. Since $`(c,𝐢)`$ is not the chamber corresponding to $`(i,j,i)=(i_s,i_{s+1},i_{s+2})`$, we must have that $`𝐚`$ is perpendicular to the row of $`P_𝐢`$ corresponding to this chamber. In the case where $`𝐚=a(j,𝐢)`$, this is also true. So, in either case, we see that $`a_{s+1}=a_s+a_{s+2}`$. It follows from the definition of $`T_3`$ that $`T_3(a_s,a_{s+1},a_{s+2})=(a_{s+2},a_{s+1},a_s)`$. Since the ordering on the positive roots induced by $`𝐢`$ agrees with that induced by $`𝐢^{}`$ except that the roots in positions $`s`$ and $`s+2`$ are exchanged, the fact that $`𝐚^{}`$ is as claimed in the statement above follows from Theorem 3.1 (a) and (b). $`\mathrm{}`$

Using Proposition 4.1 and Lemma 4.2 we have:

###### Corollary 4.3

Let $`𝐢,𝐢^{}\chi _n`$, and let $`(c,𝐢),(c^{},𝐢^{})`$ be chambers with $`P(c,𝐢)=P(c^{},𝐢^{})`$. Then $`T_𝐢^𝐢^{}(a(c,𝐢))=a(c^{},𝐢^{})`$. Also, for $`j[1,n]`$, $`T_𝐢^𝐢^{}(a(j,𝐢))=a(j,𝐢^{})`$.

We therefore have:

###### Theorem 4.4

Let $`𝐢\chi _n`$. For $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`P`$ a partial quiver associated to $`𝐢`$, let $`b_j(𝐢)=\psi _𝐢^1(v_j(𝐢))`$ and $`b_P(𝐢)=\psi _𝐢^1(v_P(𝐢))`$ be the corresponding canonical basis elements. Then these elements are independent of the reduced expression $`𝐢`$. Thus the canonical basis elements arising in this way for at least one reduced expression $`𝐢`$ can be labelled $`b_j`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, $`b_P`$, $`P`$ a partial quiver of type $`A_n`$.

## 5 Rectangles

The above provides us with a description of the spanning vectors of a Lusztig cone as multisets of positive roots. We would also like a description of the monomial of Kashiwara operators corresponding to such a vector. We will use this in the next section to calculate Lusztig parametrizations $`c_j(𝐣)`$, $`c_P(𝐣)`$ of the canonical basis elements arising in Theorem 4.4. We shall show that these monomials can be described by a remarkable ‘rectangle combinatorics’ (invented by R. W. Carter) which we shall now describe.

###### Definition 5.1

Let $`P`$ be a partial quiver, and $`Y`$ a component of $`P`$. Let $`a=a(Y)`$ and let $`b=b(Y)`$ (see Theorem 3.1). We define the rectangle $`\rho (Y)`$ of $`Y`$, as follows. If $`Y`$ is of type $`L`$, then $`\rho (Y)`$ is as in the left hand diagram in Figure 3; if $`Y`$ is of type $`R`$ then $`\rho (Y)`$ is as in the right hand diagram in Figure 3. We also define, for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, $`\rho (j)`$ to be the type $`L`$ rectangle with $`a=j`$ and $`b=j+1`$ (for these values of $`a`$ and $`b`$, both diagrams in Figure 3 coincide).

In each case, the rectangle is filled in with numbers in diagonal rows, with the numbers along a diagonal row from top right to bottom left increasing by 1 at each step and similarly from top left to bottom right. We define the diagram $`D(P)`$ of $`P`$ in the following way. Go through the components $`Y`$ of $`P`$ one by one, from left to right. Fit the corresponding rectangles $`\rho (Y)`$ together, so that if a component of type $`L`$ is followed by one of type $`R`$, the rectangles share leftmost corners, and if one of type $`R`$ is followed by one of type $`L`$, they share rightmost corners. In each case, it is easy to see that the overlapping numbers agree. We associate a multiplicity $`m(s)`$ to each position in $`D(P)`$ where a number $`s`$ is placed; if $`t`$ is the number of rectangles $`\rho (Y)`$ that $`s`$ lies in, then $`m(s)`$ is defined to be $`t/2`$. We label each rectangle with the corresponding component $`Y`$ of $`P`$; on the left hand corner if $`Y`$ is of type $`R`$, and on the right hand corner if $`Y`$ is of type $`L`$. We define, for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, $`D(j)`$ to be the diagram $`\rho (j)`$, with each position given multiplicity $`1`$.

Example
We consider the case when $`n=5`$ and $`P=LRL`$. Then $`P`$ has three components, $`L_1=L`$, $`R_1=R`$ and $`L_2=L`$. The diagrams $`\rho (Y)`$ are as in Figure 4.

We put them together, so that the $`4`$ in $`\rho (L)`$ matches the leftmost $`4`$ in $`\rho (R)`$ and so that the rightmost $`3`$ in $`\rho (R)`$ matches the rightmost $`3`$ in $`\rho (L)`$, to get the complete diagram $`D(LRL)`$; see Figure 5. The numbers $`2`$ and $`3`$ in the middle of the diagram each have multiplicity $`2`$.

###### Definition 5.2

Suppose $`P`$ is a partial quiver or $`P=j`$ for some $`j[1,n]`$. We define a diagonal row of $`D(P)`$ to be a diagonal row of numbers in $`D(P)`$ running from top left to bottom right. Such a diagram $`D(P)`$ defines a sequence $`\mu (P)`$ which is obtained by reading off the digits in the diagonal rows in the diagram, starting with the bottom left row. Each digit is repeated according to its multiplicity. In our example, $`\mu (LRL)=(4,5,2,3,3,4,1,2,2,3,1)`$. There is a corresponding monomial $`F(P)`$ in $`U^{}`$, obtained by replacing each digit, $`s`$, occurring with multiplicity $`m(s)`$, by the divided power $`F_s^{(m(s))}`$. In our example, $`F(LRL)=F_4F_5F_2F_3^{(2)}F_4F_1F_2^{(2)}F_3F_1`$. Similarly, there is a corresponding monomial in the Kashiwara operators which we denote $`\stackrel{~}{F}(P)`$. So in our example, $`\stackrel{~}{F}(LRL)=\stackrel{~}{F}_4\stackrel{~}{F}_5\stackrel{~}{F}_2\stackrel{~}{F}_3^2\stackrel{~}{F}_4\stackrel{~}{F}_1\stackrel{~}{F}_2^2\stackrel{~}{F}_3\stackrel{~}{F}_11`$.

The following theorem was conjectured by Carter:

###### Theorem 5.3

Suppose $`𝐢\chi _𝐧`$ is compatible with a quiver $`Q`$, and let $`(c,𝐢)`$ be a chamber in CD$`(𝐢)`$. Let $`P=P(c,𝐢)`$ be the corresponding partial quiver (so $`PQ`$), with $`𝐚=a(c,𝐢)=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k)`$. Alternatively, let $`P=j[1,n]`$. In either case,

$$F_{i_1}^{(a_1)}F_{i_2}^{(a_2)}\mathrm{}F_{i_k}^{(a_k)}=F(P).$$

In particular, the left hand side depends only upon $`P`$.

Proof: Suppose first that $`P`$ is a partial quiver, and let $`Y`$ be a component of $`P`$. Our first step will be to understand where the roots in $`M(Y)`$ occur in CD$`(𝐢)`$ (as labels of crossings). Let us suppose in the first case that $`Y`$ is of type $`L`$, with $`a=a(Y)`$ and $`b=b(Y)`$. We draw the diagram for the arrangement corresponding to $`Q`$, defined by Berenstein, Fomin and Zelevinsky. We mark the crossing of strings $`i`$ and $`j`$, $`ij`$ by the root $`\alpha _{ij}=\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{j1}`$, and we write the quiver $`Q`$ up the left hand side, so that edge $`j`$ of $`Q`$ appears next to the left hand end of string $`j`$, for each $`j`$. We write $`Q`$ down the right hand side also.

Draw $`4`$ dashed lines on the diagram. The first, $`A`$, should intersect the left vertical boundary between strings $`a`$ and $`a+1`$, and go down and to the right at an angle of $`\pi /4`$ (to the horizontal). The next, $`B`$, should intersect the left vertical boundary between strings $`b`$ and $`b1`$ and go up and to the right at an angle of $`\pi /4`$. Line $`C`$ should intersect the right vertical boundary between strings $`a`$ and $`a+1`$ and go up and to the left at an angle of $`3\pi /4`$. Finally, line $`D`$ should intersect the right vertical boundary between strings $`b`$ and $`b1`$, and go down and to the left, at an angle of $`3\pi /4`$. For an example, in type $`A_7`$, where $`Q=RRLLRL`$ and $`Y=LL`$, with $`a(Y)=3`$ and $`b(Y)=6`$, see Figure 6.

These four dashed lines bound a rectangle in the diagram; we shall see that the crossings inside it form a rectangle, $`\rho `$, and that their labels are precisely the positive roots in $`M(Y)`$. (In the example, these crossings are marked by filled circles.)

By construction, the lines crossing $`\rho `$ parallel to $`A`$ and $`C`$ are parts of the strings $`c`$ with $`ca`$, and the lines crossing $`\rho `$ parallel to $`B`$ and $`D`$ are parts of the strings $`d`$ with $`bd`$. Thus the crossings appearing inside $`\rho `$ are those labelled with roots $`\alpha _{cd}`$ with $`1cabdn+1`$, that is, the roots in $`M(Y)`$.

Let $`E`$ be the line in the rectangle we are interested in which is parallel to $`C`$ and closest to $`C`$, and suppose it is part of string $`x`$ and that this corresponds to an $`R`$ in $`Q`$. Let $`y`$ be the first string that $`x`$ intersects with after changing direction at the top of the diagram. By the construction of the diagram, the strings corresponding to the $`L`$’s of $`Y`$ are below the rectangle, so $`y`$ cannot be one of these strings. Similarly, if $`y`$ were a string corresponding to an $`L`$ to the right of $`Y`$, it would be parallel to $`E`$ initially (i.e. in the left part of the diagram) and then would only be perpendicular to $`E`$ below $`\rho `$. Also, if $`y`$ corresponded to an $`R`$ to the right of $`Y`$ in $`Q`$, $`x`$ and $`y`$ would intersect to the left of the point where $`x`$ changed direction. We conclude that $`x`$ and $`y`$ intersect inside $`\rho `$.

Thus in the corresponding chamber diagram, the top crossing of the rectangle is on row $`1`$ (so the corresponding simple reflection is $`s_1`$). Suppose next that $`x`$ corresponds to an $`L`$ in $`Q`$. Let $`y`$ be the first string that $`x`$ intersects. Since there can in this case be no $`R`$’s to the right of $`Y`$ in $`Q`$, $`x`$ intersects every string corresponding to an arrow of $`Q`$ to the right of $`Y`$ below the rectangle $`\rho `$; similarly with the $`L`$’s in $`Y`$. Thus $`y`$ is to the left of $`P`$ and $`x`$ and $`y`$ intersect in the rectangle.

Thus in both cases the top corner of the rectangle $`\rho `$ is in row $`1`$. Let us write the row of each crossing in $`\rho `$ next to it. The number of crossings in a side of the rectangle parallel to $`A`$ or $`C`$ (equal to the number of crossings involving $`E`$ inside $`\rho `$) is equal to $`n+2b`$, and the number in a side parallel to $`B`$ or $`D`$ is $`a`$. Thus the labels of the crossings inside $`\rho `$ are the same and in the same configuration as the numbers in $`\rho (Y)`$.

The case when $`Y`$ is of type $`R`$ is similar; in this case the bottom corner of the rectangle in the arrangement diagram is labelled $`n`$.

Now suppose that $`Y`$ is of type $`L`$ and immediately to the right of $`Y`$ in $`P`$ is a component $`Z`$ of type $`R`$. By the construction of the rectangles, the leftmost crossings inside them coincide. Similarly, if $`Y`$ is of type $`R`$ and $`Z`$ is of type $`L`$, the rightmost crossings in the rectangles coincide.

Thus the structure of the rectangles corresponding to components of $`P`$ in the arrangement diagram, or the chamber diagram, corresponding to $`𝐢`$, is the same as in $`D(P)`$. The result follows by Theorem 3.1.

In the case where $`P=j[1,n]`$, let $`Y=j`$; here we consider $`Y`$ to be the vertex $`j`$ of $`Q`$, with no edges. We then argue as in the above proof for $`Y`$ of type $`L`$$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 5.4

Suppose we are in the situation of the Theorem, and let $`\stackrel{~}{F}(P)`$ be the monomial in the root operators as defined in 5.2. Then $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_1}^{a_1}\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_2}^{a_2}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_k}^{a_k}1=\stackrel{~}{F}(P)`$.

Proof: This follows immediately from the Theorem, since the only relations in $`U^{}`$ that are used are commutations, which the root operators $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ also satisfy. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 A Reparametrization

We will now use the rectangle combinatorics from the previous section to calculate the Lusztig parametrizations $`c_j(𝐣)`$, $`c_P(𝐣)`$ of the canonical basis elements arising in Theorem 4.4; here $`𝐣`$ is fixed as the reduced expression $`(n,n1,n,n2,n1,n,\mathrm{},1,2,\mathrm{},n)`$ for $`w_0`$.

###### Definition 6.1

Suppose $`P`$ is a partial quiver and $`D(P)`$ is the diagram for $`P`$ as defined above. The rectangles $`\rho (Y)`$ for $`Y`$ a component of $`P`$ divide $`D(P)`$ into smaller rectangles, which we shall call boxes. (In the example near the start of Section 5, there are $`6`$ boxes). We regard these boxes as appearing in diagonal rows, from top left to bottom right As we work our way down the diagonal rows of boxes, starting from the top right of $`D(P)`$, the number of boxes in each diagonal is at first odd, and then even, or is at first even, and then odd. We draw a central line $`Z`$ on $`D(P)`$ dividing these two sets of diagonal rows of boxes. In our example, the number of boxes in each row is $`1`$,$`3`$,$`2`$, so the central line is indicated by the dashed line in Figure 7.

Let $`Y`$ be a component of $`P`$, and define a set $`S(Y)`$ of positive roots as follows. The rectangle $`\rho (Y)`$ for $`Y`$ is divided into two parts by the central line. Let $`\rho ^{}(Y)`$ be the part of $`\rho (Y)`$ which is labelled. The root $`\alpha _{ij}`$ lies in $`S(Y)`$ if and only if the intersection of a diagonal row of $`D(P)`$ (see Definition 5.2) with $`\rho ^{}(Y)`$ contains the numbers $`i,i+1,\mathrm{},j1,`$ in order, reading from top left to bottom right. Then $`S(P)`$ is defined to be the union of the sets $`S(Y)`$ for $`Y`$ a component of $`P`$. In our example, $`S(L_1)=\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3\}`$, $`S(R_1)=\{\alpha _4+\alpha _5\}`$ and $`S(L_2)=\{\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _2+\alpha _3+\alpha _4\}`$, so $`S(P)=\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3,\alpha _4+\alpha _5,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3,\alpha _2+\alpha _3+\alpha _4\}`$.

Let $`v(P)^k`$ be defined as follows. The reduced expression $`𝐣`$ defines an ordering on the positive roots; we write $`\beta ^l=s_{j_1}s_{j_2}\mathrm{}s_{j_{l1}}(\alpha _{j_l})`$, for $`l=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$. Then let $`v(P)_l`$ be equal to $`1`$ if $`\beta ^lS(P)`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. So in the example above, $`v(P)=(0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,0,1)`$.

If $`j[1,n]`$, we define $`S(j)`$ by specifying that the root $`\alpha _{ij}`$ lies in $`S(j)`$ if and only if there is a diagonal row of $`D(j)`$ containing the numbers $`i,i+1,\mathrm{},j1,`$ in order, reading from top left to bottom right. We define $`v(j)`$ in the same way as $`v(P)`$ is defined using $`S(P)`$.

We know that, if $`b𝐁`$ and $`i[1,n]`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{F}_ibb^{}(\mathrm{mod}vL^{})`$ for some unique $`b^{}𝐁`$. With respect to our fixed reduced expression $`𝐣`$, this defines an action on $`^k`$, defined by $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i(\phi _𝐣(b))=\phi _𝐣(b^{})`$. Using the identification in the last paragraph, this also induces an action on sets of positive roots, which we also denote by $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$. Reineke, in \[17, §1\], describes the action of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ on $`^k`$:

###### Proposition 6.2

(Reineke)
Suppose $`𝐯=(v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_k)^k`$. Write, for $`1i<jn+1`$, $`v_{ij}=v_l`$, where $`\beta ^l=\alpha _{ij}`$. For such $`i<j`$, define

$$f_{ij}=\underset{l=j}{\overset{n+1}{}}v_{il}\underset{l=j+1}{\overset{n+1}{}}v_{i+1,l}.$$

Let $`j_0`$ be minimal so that $`f_{ij_0}=\mathrm{max}_jf_{ij}`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ increases $`v_{ij_0}`$ by $`1`$, decreases $`v_{i+1,j_0}`$ by $`1`$ (unless $`i+1=j_0`$, when this latter effect does not occur), and leaves the other $`v_{ij}`$’s unchanged.

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

As conjectured by Carter, we have:

###### Theorem 6.3

Let $`Q`$ be a quiver, with $`𝐢\chi _n`$ compatible with $`Q`$. Suppose that $`(c,𝐢)`$ is a chamber of $`Q`$, with $`P=P(c,𝐢)`$. Let $`𝐣=(n,n1,n,n2,n1,n,\mathrm{},1,2,\mathrm{},n)`$. Let $`b_P`$ be the canonical basis element arising in Theorem 4.4. Then the Lusztig parametrization $`c_P(𝐣)`$ of $`b_P`$ is given by $`v(P)`$. Similarly the Lusztig parametrization $`c_j(𝐣)`$ of $`b_j`$ is given by $`v(j)`$.

Proof: We have to calculate $`S_𝐢^𝐣(a(c,𝐢))`$ or $`S_𝐢^𝐣(a(j,𝐢))`$, and thus we consider the corresponding monomial of root operators acting on $`1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{F}(P)=\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_1}^{a_1}\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_2}^{a_2}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{i_k}^{a_k}1`$. Here $`P=P(c,𝐢)`$ in the first case and $`j`$ in the second. Theorem 5.3 gives a description of $`\stackrel{~}{F}(P)`$ in terms of $`D(P)`$. Recall that $`D(P)`$ consists of a number of diagonal rows (see Definition 5.2), where diagonal row number $`1`$ is the one which is at the top right of $`D(P)`$, diagonal row number $`2`$ is below this (down and to the left), and so on. We now make a claim.

Let $`x`$ be a position in $`D(P)`$ containing a number, $`i`$. Suppose $`x`$ is in (diagonal) row $`a`$. Let $`r`$ be the total number of rows in $`D(P)`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{F}(s)`$, $`s=1,2,\mathrm{},r`$, be the part of $`\stackrel{~}{F}(P)`$ arising from the $`s`$th row. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{F}(P)=\stackrel{~}{F}(r)\stackrel{~}{F}(r1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{F}(1)1`$. For $`s=1,2,\mathrm{},r`$, let $`d_s`$ be the number at the rightmost end of the $`s`$th row. Define $`\stackrel{~}{F}[x]:=\stackrel{~}{F}_i^{\lambda _i}\stackrel{~}{F}_{i+1}^{\lambda _{i+1}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{d_a}^{\lambda _{d_a}}\stackrel{~}{F}(a1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{F}(2)\stackrel{~}{F}(1)1`$, where, if $`j`$ appears in row $`a`$, $`\lambda _j`$ is the multiplicity associated to it.

So $`\stackrel{~}{F}[x]`$ is a final segment of $`\stackrel{~}{F}(P)`$, arising from the first $`a1`$ rows of the diagram, together with the part of the $`a`$th row to the right of $`x`$, including $`x`$. Let $`𝐜^k`$ be defined by $`\stackrel{~}{F}[x]F_𝐢^𝐜(\mathrm{mod}v^{})`$. Note that there is no problem working here modulo $`v^{}`$. We shall have $`\stackrel{~}{F}[x]b(\mathrm{mod}v^{})`$ for a unique $`b𝐁`$ from Kashiwara’s approach, and $`bF_𝐢^𝐜(\mathrm{mod}v^{})`$ for a unique $`𝐜^k`$ by Lusztig’s approach and the comparison theorem \[10, §2.3\].

Let $`S(x)`$ be the corresponding multiset of positive roots, obtained by using the ordering on the set of positive roots induced by $`𝐣`$. We claim that $`S(x)`$ is given by the union of the following two sets: The first, $`S_1(x)`$ is defined to be those roots in $`S(P)`$ arising from rows $`1,2,\mathrm{},a1`$, together with those roots in $`S(P)`$ arising from row $`a`$ of the form $`\alpha _s+\alpha _{s+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _t`$ where $`si`$. The second, $`S_2(x)`$, is defined to be the set of roots of form $`\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _t`$, where $`\alpha _s+\alpha _{s+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _t`$ is a root in $`S(P)`$ arising from row $`a`$ with $`s<i`$ (we call this procedure of passing from $`\alpha _s+\alpha _{s+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _t`$ to $`\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _t`$, ‘cutting off’).

We will prove the claim by induction on $`x`$. Let us assume that for a given $`x`$ in $`D(P)`$, $`S(x)`$ is as described. Let $`𝐜`$ be as above, corresponding to $`x`$. Let $`y`$ be one position to the left of $`x`$ in the $`a`$th row of $`D(P)`$. We understand this to mean the rightmost element of the $`(a+1)`$st row of $`D(P)`$ if $`x`$ is the leftmost element of the $`a`$th row. In this case for the purposes of the argument below we actually take $`x`$ to be in the same row as $`y`$, immediately down and to the right of $`y`$, with corresponding (fictitious) label $`1`$ more than that of $`y`$ (i.e. actually just outside the diagram $`D(P)`$). Note that in this case, as we are assuming the claim to be true for $`x`$, we have $`S_2(x)=\varphi `$. Suppose there is an $`i`$ in position $`y`$. Then there is an $`i+1`$ in position $`x`$. Suppose that $`x`$ and $`y`$ both lie in the $`a`$th row of $`D(P)`$. We will show that the claim is also true for $`y`$. The base case, when $`x`$ is taken to be one position to the right of (and below) the rightmost position of the first row, with $`S(x)=\varphi `$, is trivially true. The Theorem will follow from the induction argument, as it is the claim for the case when $`x`$ is the leftmost position of the last row of the diagram.

We must show that the set of positive roots (defined by $`𝐣`$) corresponding to $`𝐜^{}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{F}[y]=\stackrel{~}{F}_i^{\lambda _i}\stackrel{~}{F}[x]F_𝐢^𝐜^{}(\mathrm{mod}v^{})`$ is given by $`S_1(y)S_2(y)`$, where $`i`$ is the number labelling position $`y`$. In the case where $`y`$ is the rightmost element of its row (numbered $`a`$), we take $`\stackrel{~}{F}[x]`$ to be $`\stackrel{~}{F}(a1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{F}(2)\stackrel{~}{F}(1)1`$. We define $`𝐜^k`$ by writing $`c_{ij}=1`$ if $`\alpha _{ij}S(x)`$ and $`c_{ij}=0`$ otherwise. We start with an important

###### Lemma 6.4

If $`l>i+1`$ then we cannot have both $`c_{il}=1`$ and $`c_{i+1,l}=1`$.

Proof: (of Lemma). First of all note that if $`P=j[1,n]`$, the Lemma is obvious, following easily from the structure of $`D(P)`$. So we can assume that $`P`$ is a partial quiver. Suppose, for a contradiction, that $`c_{il}=c_{i+1,l}=1`$. So $`\beta _1:=\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{l1}`$ and $`\beta _2:=\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{l1}`$ both lie in $`S(x)`$. We are assuming the claim to be true for $`x`$, so $`S(x)=S_1(x)S_2(x)`$. We shall see that the structure of $`D(P)`$ leads to a contradiction; to do this we consider various cases:
Case (a) For $`i=1,2`$, if $`\beta _iS_2(x)`$, let $`\gamma _i`$ be the root in $`S(P)`$ which is ‘cut off’ to give $`\beta _i`$. Otherwise, let $`\gamma _i=\beta _i`$. Suppose that $`\gamma _1,\gamma _2`$ both come a rectangle for a component $`Y`$ of $`P`$ of type $`L`$ which is the $`(a_1,b_1)`$-sub partial quiver of $`Q`$. The set of positive roots in $`S(P)`$ arising from $`Y`$ is $`\{\alpha _{1,nb_1},\alpha _{2,n+1b_1},\mathrm{},\alpha _{s,n+s1+b_1}\}`$ (where the central line passes through the rectangle corresponding to $`Y`$ immediately below the row with leftmost number $`s`$). If $`\alpha =\alpha _{pq}`$ is any positive root, write $`r(\alpha )=q1`$ and $`l(\alpha )=p`$. For each $`\gamma `$ in this list, $`r(\gamma )`$ is distinct, and since ‘cutting off’ a root $`\gamma `$ does not affect $`r(\gamma )`$, we conclude that this case cannot occur, since $`r(\beta _1)=r(\beta _2)`$.
Case (b) Suppose that $`\beta _1,\beta _2`$ both come from a component of $`P`$ of type $`R`$, as in (a). We argue as in case (a) to see that this case cannot occur.
Case (c) Suppose that $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ arise from distinct components of $`P`$ and that $`\beta _1,\beta _2S_1(x)`$. Let $`h`$ be the height of the roots in $`S(P)`$ arising from a component $`Y`$ of $`P`$. Then the height of the roots in $`S(P)`$ arising from the component of $`P`$ immediately to the right of $`Y`$ (if such exists) is $`h+t`$, where $`t`$ is the number of directed edges in $`Y`$. Thus, since $`\text{ht}(\beta _1)=1+\text{ht}(\beta _2)`$ (ht denotes height), for this case to occur, we must be in the situation where we have two components $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ of $`P`$, where $`Z`$ immediately follows $`Y`$, and $`Y`$ has precisely one directed edge. We assume that $`Y`$ is of type $`L`$ and $`Z`$ is of type $`R`$ (the argument in the other case is very similar). Suppose that $`Z`$ is the $`(a_1,b_1)`$-sub partial quiver of $`Q`$. The two rectangles $`\rho (Y)`$ and $`\rho (Z)`$ will appear in $`D(P)`$ as in Figure 8,

where as usual, the dashed line indicates the central line in $`D(P)`$. Then the roots for $`Y`$ will be taken from above this line, and the roots for $`Z`$ from below, such roots $`\alpha `$ will have differing values of $`r(\alpha )`$ so we see that this case cannot occur.
Case (d) Suppose we have $`\beta _1,\beta _2S_2(x)`$. Suppose first that $`x`$ lies above the central line. We know that the lines in $`D(P)`$ which are the bottom right edges of rectangles $`\rho (Y)`$ where $`Y`$ is a component of $`P`$ of type $`L`$ are all distinct and parallel. It follows that $`r(\beta _1)r(\beta _2)`$, a contradiction. A similar argument holds if $`x`$ lies below the central line.
Case (e) Suppose that $`\beta _1S_1(x)`$ and $`\beta _2S_2(x)`$. If $`\beta _1`$ arises from the $`a`$th row of $`D(P)`$, we can argue as in (d) (we will have again $`r(\beta _1)r(\beta _2)`$, a contradiction). So assume that $`\beta _1`$ arises from the $`b`$th row, where $`1b<a`$. We know that $`\beta _2`$ arises via cutting off from a root $`\gamma _2S(P)`$ which comes from the $`a`$th row of $`D(P)`$. Since $`\text{ht}(\beta _2)<\text{ht}(\gamma _2)`$ and $`\text{ht}(\beta _1)=1+\text{ht}(\beta _2)`$, we have $`\text{ht}(\beta _1)<\text{ht}(\gamma _2)`$. Therefore, arguing as in (c), we see that $`\beta _1`$ comes from a component $`X_1`$ occurring to the left of that giving rise to $`\gamma _2`$ (and thus $`\beta _2`$). We call the latter $`X_2`$. Suppose that $`X_1`$ does not occur immediately to the left of $`X_2`$, or that $`X_2`$ is of type $`R`$. Then by the structure of $`D(P)`$, the bottom right lines $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$ delimiting the rectangles $`\rho (X_1)`$ and $`\rho (X_2)`$ are distinct. Indeed, the line for $`\rho (X_2)`$ occurs below and to the right of $`\rho (X_1)`$.

We know that there is an $`l1`$ in the intersection of the $`b`$th row with $`\rho (X_1)`$, immediately to the left and above the line $`T_1`$. Similarly, there is an $`l1`$ in the intersection of the $`a`$th row with $`\rho (X_2)`$, immediately to the left and above the line $`T_2`$, by the construction of $`\beta _1,\beta _2`$. The relative position of lines $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ tells us that the former $`l1`$ lies strictly to the left of the latter, while the fact that $`b<a`$ tells us that the latter $`l1`$ lies strictly to the left of the former, a contradiction. We are left with the case when $`X_1`$ immediately precedes $`X_2`$ and $`X_2`$ is of type $`L`$. In this case $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ coincide along part of their lengths. Now $`X_1`$ is of type $`R`$, so $`\beta _1`$ arises from a row below the central line, and $`X_2`$ is of type $`L`$, so $`\beta _2`$ arises from a row above the central line. It follows that $`r(\beta _1)r(\beta _2)`$, a contradiction.
Case (f) Suppose that $`\beta _1S_2(x)`$, $`\beta _2S_1(x)`$, and $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ arise from different components. If $`\beta _2`$ arises from the $`a`$th row, we can argue as in (d). So assume $`\beta `$ arises from the $`b`$th row, where $`1b<a`$. Then $`\beta _1`$ arises via cutting off from a root $`\gamma _1S(P)`$ which comes from the $`a`$th row. Since $`\text{ht}(\beta _1)<\text{ht}(\gamma _1)`$ and $`\text{ht}(\beta _1)=1+\text{ht}(\beta _2)`$, we have $`\text{ht}(\beta _2)<\text{ht}(\gamma _1)`$, and we can argue as in (e).

We have now covered all possible cases for $`\beta _1,\beta _2S(x)`$, and we see that the Lemma is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

We now investigate further the structure of $`𝐜`$. By assumption, for each $`j,k`$, $`c_{jk}`$ is equal to $`0`$ or $`1`$. The above shows that we cannot have both $`c_{il}=c_{i+1,l}=1`$ for $`l>i+1`$. We shall now pin down further the possible values for $`c_{il}`$ and $`c_{i+1,l}`$. We know that, for each $`l>i+1`$, $`(c_{il},c_{i+1,l})=(0,0)`$, $`(0,1)`$ or $`(1,0)`$. If we let $`c_{i+1,i+1}:=1c_{i,i+1},`$ then this is also true for $`l=i+1`$. For $`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}ni`$, write $`a_m=c_{i,i+m+1}`$ and $`b_m=c_{i+1,i+m+1}`$, so the pairs we are interested in are of form $`𝐱_m=(a_m,b_m)`$, $`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}ni`$. We first need a Lemma describing the action of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ in terms of these pairs, using Proposition 6.2:

###### Lemma 6.5

Suppose $`𝐜`$ is as in the above, and we have written the pairs $`𝐱_0,𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_{ni}`$ as above, with each $`𝐱_m`$ equal to $`(0,0)`$, $`(0,1)`$ or $`(1,0)`$. Rewrite this sequence, replacing pairs of these types with $`0`$, ‘$``$’ and ‘$`+`$’, respectively. Cross out all $`0`$’s, except initial $`0`$’s. Cross out all non-initial pairs of symbols of form $`+`$, and repeat until there are no such pairs of symbols in the sequence left. Use the following table of possible sequences to determine a symbol in the resulting sequence of symbols. This is defined to be the symbol that is indicated by a line above it. Every time a sequence of symbols appears in the list, as in $`,,\mathrm{},`$, this means that the symbol concerned must occur at least once.

(i) $`0,,,\mathrm{},\overline{},+,+,\mathrm{},+,`$
(ii) $`0,,,\mathrm{},\overline{},`$
(iii) $`\overline{0},+,+,\mathrm{},+,`$
(iv) $`\overline{0},`$
(v) $`(+,),,,\mathrm{},\overline{},+,+,\mathrm{},+,`$
(vi) $`(+,),,,\mathrm{},\overline{},`$
(vii) $`(\overline{+},),+,+,\mathrm{},+,`$
(viii) $`\overline{+},,`$
(ix) $`,,\mathrm{},\overline{},+,+,\mathrm{},+,`$
(x) $`,,\mathrm{},\overline{},`$
(xi) $`\overline{+},+,\mathrm{},+`$.

In this way, a symbol in the original sequence is determined, and therefore an $`𝐱_m`$. Then acting $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ has the following effect on $`𝐜`$. If $`𝐱_m=(0,1)`$ (i.e. a ‘$``$’), then $`c_{i+1,i+m+1}=1`$. This is changed to zero (having no effect if $`m=0`$), and $`c_{i,i+m+1}`$ is changed from zero to $`1`$, thus changing the corresponding symbol in the sequence from a ‘$``$’ to a ‘$`+`$’. If $`𝐱_m=(1,0)`$ or $`(0,0)`$, then we must have $`m=0`$ (as no initial symbols are crossed out), and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ has the effect of increasing $`c_{i,i+1}`$ by $`1`$.

Proof: We consider how the $`f_{ij}`$’s are related to the $`𝐱_p`$’s (see Proposition 6.2 for the definition of the $`f_{ij}`$’s). For each $`0pni`$, write $`\delta _p:=f_{i,i+p+2}f_{i,i+p+1}`$. A simple calculation shows us that $`\delta _p=1`$ if $`(𝐱_p,𝐱_{p+1})=(0,)`$ or $`(,)`$, that $`\delta _p=1`$ if $`(𝐱_p,𝐱_{p+1})=(+,+)`$ or $`(+,0)`$, and is zero in all other cases. Thus the sequence in the Lemma enables us to calculate the value of the $`f_{ij}`$’s, given the value of $`f_{i,i+1}`$ (for our fixed $`i`$). Recall that Proposition 6.2 tells us that, in order to see how $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ acts, we need to calculate the smallest $`j`$ for which $`f_{ij}`$ is maximal; write $`j_0`$ for this value of $`j`$. It is easy to check that the crossing out routines described above never cross out the symbol corresponding to $`𝐱_p`$ where $`i+p+1=j_0`$. Thus recalculating this after doing the crossing out does not affect the final result. After crossing out is done, the only possible sequences are those as listed in the Lemma. It is then easy to check that $`j_0`$ is given by $`j_0=i+p+1`$ where $`p`$ is given by the rules in the Lemma in each case (i)-(xi). $`\mathrm{}`$

Example: To illustrate this Lemma we go back to our example (see Definition 5.1 and Definition 6.1). So $`P=LRL`$ and $`D(P)`$ is as in Figure 7. Suppose $`x`$ is the position of the rightmost $`4`$ in $`D(P)`$, the last element in the third diagonal row of $`D(P)`$. Then $`y`$ is the leftmost $`3`$ in $`D(P)`$, the second element in the third diagonal row, so $`i=3`$. The set $`S_1(x)`$ is by assumption $`\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3\}`$, and $`S_2(x)`$ is $`\{\alpha _4\}`$. Thus $`S(x)`$ is the union of these two sets and $`𝐜=(0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,0,1)`$. We can write $`𝐜`$ as in Figure 9.

We have $`𝐱_0=(c_{34},c_{44})=(0,1)`$, $`𝐱_1=(c_{35},c_{45})=(0,1)`$, and $`𝐱_2=(c_{36},c_{46})=(0,0)`$ — these are indicated by underlining in Figure 9 (note that $`c_{44}`$ does not appear in the diagram). Thus the sequence of symbols as in Lemma 6.5 is $`(,,0)`$. In the reduction step, we remove the final zero to get $`(,)`$ and see we are in case (x) of the Lemma, and that the final ‘$``$’ is marked. This corresponds to $`𝐱_1`$ and the Lemma tells us that applying $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ changes $`c_{35}`$ from $`0`$ to $`1`$ and $`c_{45}`$ from $`1`$ to $`0`$. As a more complicated example, consider the sequence of symbols $`(0,0,+,+,,,+,+,+,0,,0,,,+,,,,,0,0)`$. We first of all remove non-initial zeros to get $`(0,+,+,,,+,+,+,,,,+,,,,)`$ and then remove $`+,`$ pairs to get $`(0,,,)`$ — which is case (ii) of the Lemma. Thus the last ‘$``$’ is indicated, corresponding to the last ‘$``$’ of the original sequence.

We now begin the investigation as promised.

###### Lemma 6.6

Suppose that $`𝐱_j=(1,0)`$. Then $`c_{i,i+j+1}=1`$, so that $`\alpha _{i,i+j+1}S(x)`$. Suppose that in fact $`\alpha _{i,i+j+1}S_1(x)`$. Then there is $`m>j`$ so that $`𝐱_{j+1}=𝐱_{j+2}=\mathrm{}=𝐱_{m1}=(0,0)`$ and $`𝐱_m=(0,1)`$. Thus $`c_{i+1,i+m+1}=1`$, so $`\alpha _{i+1,i+m+1}S(x)`$; in fact $`\alpha _{i+1,i+m+1}S_1(x)`$.

Proof: Let $`l=i+j+2`$; we know that $`\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _lS_1(x)`$. So $`\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _lS(P)`$ and arises from the intersection of row $`b`$ of $`D(P)`$ with a rectangle $`\rho `$, where $`b<a`$ (since $`\alpha _i`$ appears in it). Thus if $`P=j[1,n]`$, we have a contradiction by the structure of $`D(P)`$ (which consists of only one rectangle); $`i`$ can appear at the start of one row in $`D(P)`$ only. So in this case the circumstances of the Lemma cannot occur. Therefore we can assume $`P`$ is a partial quiver and we define $`X`$ to be the component of $`P`$ corresponding to $`\rho `$. Suppose that row $`b`$ is not immediately above the central line in $`D(P)`$. Then row $`b+1`$ of $`D(P)`$ intersects $`\rho ,`$ the rectangle for $`X`$. This is because $`i`$ occurs in row $`a`$, in position $`y`$, where $`a>b`$. If row $`b`$ were the bottom row in the rectangle for $`X`$, $`i`$ would appear in the left hand corner of this rectangle, and therefore in no later row in $`D(P)`$ (by the structure of $`D(P)`$), a contradiction. Thus the intersection of row $`b+1`$ with the rectangle for $`X`$ gives a root $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{l+1}S(P)`$. Since $`b+1a`$ and the label at position $`x`$ in $`D(P)`$ is $`i+1`$, this root lies in $`S_1(x)`$ (i.e. is not cut off), as required (with $`m=j+1`$).

So we are left in the case where row $`b`$ does lie immediately above the central line of $`D(P)`$. Then $`X`$ must be of type $`L`$. Suppose first that $`X`$ is the rightmost component of $`P`$. Then $`i`$ appears in the leftmost column (where a column is perpendicular to what we are calling a row) of $`D(P)`$, and also is immediately above the central line. The central line coincides with the bottom left delimiting line of the rectangle for $`X`$. Consider now the rectangle for the component $`Y`$ immediately to the left of $`X`$. This has bottom right delimiting line parallel to that for $`X`$, but length (from top left to bottom right) less than that for $`X`$. Thus its upper left delimiting line is down and to the right of that for $`X`$, and $`i`$ is in the left hand corner of the rectangle for $`X`$. Then all of the upper left delimiting lines for components other than $`X`$ appear down and to the right of that for $`X`$, so $`i`$ cannot appear below the central line. But as $`b<a`$, $`x`$ is below the central line, and therefore so is $`y`$, which is labelled $`i`$, and we have a contradiction. Thus there is a component immediately to the right of $`X`$ in $`P`$; we call this $`Y`$. Let $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _t`$ (some $`t>l+1`$) in $`S(P)`$ be the root arising from the intersection of the $`(b+1)`$st row of $`D(P)`$ with the rectangle for $`Y`$. Then as before $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _tS_1(x)`$. Put $`m=ti`$, and we have $`(a_m,b_m)=(c_{i,i+m+1},c_{i+1,i+m+1})=(0,1)`$, as required. We now have to show that $`𝐱_{j+1}=𝐱_{j+2}=\mathrm{}=𝐱_{m1}=(0,0)`$. That is, we have to show that
(a) $`\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _uS(x)`$ for $`l+1u<t`$, and
(b) $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _uS(x)`$ for $`l+1u<t`$.

We start with (a), and take $`l+1u<t`$. Since all roots $`\beta S_2(x)`$ satisfy $`l(\beta )=i+1`$, we have $`\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _uS_2(x)`$. Therefore, it is enough to show that $`\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _uS(P)`$. But $`\text{ht}(\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _u)`$ is strictly between the heights of the roots in $`S(P)`$ arising from $`X`$ and $`Y`$, and so by our description of the heights of the roots in $`S(P)`$ in case (c) of the proof of Lemma 6.4, we see that $`\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _uS(P)`$ and (a) holds.

For (b), we consider again $`l+1u<t`$. If $`ul+1`$, the argument used for (a) shows that $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _uS(P)`$. But if $`u=l+1`$, then this root has the same height as roots in $`S(P)`$ arising from $`X`$. So if it were in $`S(P)`$, it would have arisen from the intersection of the rectangle for $`X`$ with row $`b+1`$ of $`D(P)`$. But this row is below the central line of $`D(P)`$, whence $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{l+1}`$ does not arise in this way, and so does not lie in $`S(P)`$. Next, suppose that we had $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _uS_2(x)`$. Then, since $`x`$ must be below the central line, $`u`$ must be immediately to the upper left of the bottom right line delimiting a rectangle corresponding to a component $`Z`$ of $`P`$ of type $`R`$. Since $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _u`$ is assumed to be in $`S_2(x)`$, it must be the ‘cut off’ from a root $`\gamma =\alpha _p+\alpha _{p+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _uS(P)`$, $`pi`$, where $`\gamma `$ arises from the rectangle corresponding to $`Z`$. Since $`\text{ht}(\gamma )>\text{ht}(\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{l+1}),`$ $`Z`$ must lie strictly to the right of $`X`$ in $`P`$. We know that $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _t`$ corresponds to the first line of the rectangle for $`Y`$ below the central line in $`D(P)`$, so $`Z`$ is strictly to the right of $`Y`$, as $`u<t`$. Thus the bottom right delimiting line for $`Z`$ is strictly down to the right of that for $`Y`$. Thus this $`u`$ lies to the right of the $`u`$ corresponding to the $`\alpha _u`$ in $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _t`$ (in the $`(b+1)`$st row of $`D(P)`$), and this $`u`$ lies below the central line. This is impossible, as all $`u`$’s in $`D(P)`$ to the right of the $`u`$ in the $`(b+1)`$st row (which is immediately below the central line), lie above the central line. Thus $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _uS_2(x)`$ and so it is not in $`S`$ for $`l+1u<t`$. So we see (b) also holds, and the Lemma is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark Note that all roots in $`S_2(x)`$ have a corresponding $`𝐱_j`$ of form $`(0,1)`$. All roots in $`S_1(x)`$ arising from the $`a`$th row of $`D(P)`$ will be of form $`\alpha _p+\alpha _{p+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _l`$, for $`lpi+1`$, so only if $`p=i+1`$ will they contribute to an $`𝐱_j`$; in this case we shall get a corresponding $`𝐱_j`$ of form $`(0,1)`$.

We can now apply Lemma 6.5 in our situation. By Lemma 6.5, after the crossing out process, our sequence looks like $`((+,),,,\mathrm{},),`$ $`((0),,,\mathrm{},)`$ or $`((),,\mathrm{},)`$. By Lemma 6.5, applying $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ will change the last minus to a plus, and repeated applications will change the final $`\lambda _i`$ minuses to pluses. By the proof of Lemma 6.6, it is clear that all of the $``$’s in the sequence, except for those in brackets, correspond to precisely those $`𝐱_p`$’s which correspond to roots of form $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _lS_2(x)`$. Suppose first that there is no edge of a rectangle between $`x`$ and $`y`$. By structure of $`D(P)`$, $`\lambda _i`$ is the number of roots in $`S_2(x)`$. Applying $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ $`\lambda _i`$ times thus replaces each root $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _lS_2(x)`$ by $`\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _l`$ (see Lemma 6.5). Next, suppose that there is an edge which is the bottom right edge of a rectangle between $`x`$ and $`y`$. By the structure of $`D(P)`$, $`\lambda _i`$ is $`1`$ more than the number of roots in $`S_2(x)`$. Applying $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ $`\lambda _i1`$ times thus replaces each root $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _lS_2(x)`$ by $`\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _l`$ (see Lemma 6.5). We must have $`c_{i,i+1}=0`$, so that the initial symbol in our sequence is a ‘$``$’, and we must have a sequence of form $`(),,,\mathrm{},`$. From this we can conclude that applying $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ one more time changes this initial ‘$``$’ (in brackets) into a ‘$`+`$’, introducing the root $`\alpha _i`$ into $`S(x)`$. Finally, suppose there is an edge which is the top left edge of a rectangle between $`x`$ and $`y`$. By the structure of $`D(P)`$, $`\lambda _i`$ is $`1`$ less than the number of roots in $`S_2(x)`$. Applying $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ $`\lambda _i`$ times thus replaces each root $`\alpha _{i+1}+\alpha _{i+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _lS_2(x)`$ by $`\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _l`$ (see Lemma 6.5), except for the one with minimal value of $`l`$. Thus we see that in each case, applying $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ $`\lambda _i`$ times replaces $`S(x)`$ with $`S(y)`$, proving that our claim is also true for $`y`$, and we see it is true for all points in the diagram. It follows that Theorem 6.3 is true. $`\mathrm{}`$

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


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Over the past years there have been a lot of activities on the low energy decoupling limits of string theory involving D$`p`$-branes. Initially, Maldacena  found that in a certain low energy limit (SYM limit) the closed strings and massive modes of open strings ending on the D$`p`$-branes decouple, one is left with a field theory (super Yang-Mills theory) and such a low energy field theory with strong ’t Hooft coupling has a weak coupling dual description: supergravity. In particular, string/M theory on an anti-de Sitter space (AdS) with a compact space is conjectured to be dual to a certain large $`N`$ conformal field theory (CFT) which lives on the boundary of AdS .

Later it was found that when the D$`p`$-brane is put in a background with a non-zero NS $`B`$ field, the worldvolume coordinates become noncommutative . For a D$`p`$-brane with only spatial component $`B`$ field, one can also find a limit (NCSYM limit), in which the closed strings and massive modes of open strings are decoupled, and ends up with a SYM in a space-space noncommutative spacetime, which is called noncommutative SYM (NCSYM) . There also exists a supergravity dual description for such spatial NCSYM’s -, from which one can investigate a lot of properties of NCSYM’s. In contrast to the case of spatial component NS $`B`$ field, if the D$`p`$-brane is put in a non-zero NS $`B`$ field with only a time-like component, it was found that one cannot define a low energy field theory limit . Instead one can find a decoupling limit (NCOS limit), in which the closed strings decouple and one is left with a open string theory in a space-time noncommutative spacetime (NCOS). Since then, there have been a lot of papers appearing on the net, including -, in which supergravity duals, the relation to the NCSYM and other related topics have been discussed.

It is argued that field theories with space-time noncommutativity may exhibit acausal behavior , and quantum field theories on such a spacetime are not unitary . However, most recently, Aharony, Gomis and Mehen  have shown that quantum field theories with light-like noncommutativity are unitary and they can be achieved through a certain low energy limit of string theory. Subsequently Alishahiha, Oz, and Russo (AOR) have constructed the dual supergravity description of field theories with light-like noncommutativity.

In this paper we will further consider quantum field theories with light-like noncommutativity and their dual supergravity description. In order to get supergravity duals for the SYM with light-like noncommutativity, AOR first constructed D$`p`$-brane solutions with a non-zero light-like background NS $`B`$ field and then took a usual SYM limit for that goal. To clearly see the relation of light-like NCSYM to the spatial commutative SYM and to the NCOS, we get the light-like NCSYM limit by combining the Lorentz transformation and the NCSYM decoupling limit or the NCOS decoupling limit. In sect. 2 we consider the Lorentz transformation, the NCSYM limit and the NCOS limit, and show that a well-behaved light-like NCSYM limit is obtained. The case for the finite boost velocity is also discussed. Along this line, in sect. 3 we re-derive the supergravity dual for the light-like NCSYM. In sect. 4 we consider the Lorentz transformation, along other directions, of the supergravity duals for the ordinary SYM (OSYM), the spatial NCSYM and the NCOS, thereby we obtain the supergravity duals for the OSYM, the spatial NCSYM and the NCOS in an infinitely-boosted frame with finite momentum density. The conclusion is included in sect. 5.

## 2 Lorentz transformation and decoupling limits

To discuss a low energy decoupling limit of string theory involving D$`p`$-branes, a good starting point is the Seiberg-Witten relation connecting the open and closed string moduli :

$`G_{ij}=g_{ij}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(Bg^1B)_{ij},`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}=2\pi \alpha ^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g+2\pi \alpha ^{}B}}\right)_A^{ij},`$
$`G^{ij}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g+2\pi \alpha ^{}B}}\right)_S^{ij},`$
$`G_s=g_s\left({\displaystyle \frac{detG_{ij}}{det(g_{ij}+2\pi \alpha ^{}B_{ij})}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (2.1)
where $`()_A`$ and $`()_S`$ denote the antisymmetric and symmetric parts, respectively. The open string moduli occur in the disk correlators on the open string worksheet boundaries

$$<X^i(\tau )X^j(0)>=\alpha ^{}G^{ij}\mathrm{ln}(\tau )^2+\frac{i}{2}\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}ϵ(\tau ).$$
(2.2)
For simplicity of notation, we restrict ourselves here to the case of D3-branes. It is straightforward to extend to other dimensions. Suppose we have the following closed string metric:

$$ds^2=dx_0^2+dx_1^2+g(dx_2^2+dx_3^2).$$
(2.3)
Here we have written down only the worldvolume coordinate part.

### 2.1 From the spatial NCSYM to the light-like NCSYM

When the NS $`B`$ field has only nonvanishing spatial component, one has a well-defined decoupling limit, and the resulting theory is the spatial NCSYM. For example, suppose the $`B`$ field has only constant component along $`x_2x_3`$ directions,

$$B_{ij}=Bdx_2dx_3.$$
(2.4)
Rescaling the closed string metric $`g`$ and the closed string coupling constant $`g_s`$ by

$$g=(2\pi \alpha ^{}B)^2,g_s=2\pi \alpha ^{}BG_s,$$
(2.5)
and keeping $`B`$ as a finite constant, in the decoupling limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$, we have

$$G^{ij}=\eta ^{ij},\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}=B^1(\delta _2^i\delta _3^j+\delta _3^i\delta _2^j).$$
(2.6)
Thus we obtain a 3+1 dimensional SYM in a spacetime with space-space noncommutativity $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{23}=B^1`$. This field theory is shown to be unitary .

Now we perform a Lorentz transformation for the coordinate (2.3)

$`x_0=\mathrm{cosh}\gamma x_0^{}\mathrm{sinh}\gamma x_2^{},`$
$`x_2=\mathrm{sinh}\gamma x_0^{}+\mathrm{cosh}\gamma x_2^{}.`$ (2.7)
Using the Seiberg-Witten relation, we have

$`G^{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2+4\pi ^2\alpha ^2B^2}}\times `$
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\left(g^2+4\pi ^2\alpha ^2B^2\right)\mathrm{cosh}^2\gamma +g\mathrm{sinh}^2\gamma & 0& \left(gg^24\pi ^2\alpha ^2B^2\right)\mathrm{cosh}\gamma \mathrm{sinh}\gamma & 0\\ 0& g^2+4\pi ^2\alpha ^2B^2& 0& 0\\ \left(gg^24\pi ^2\alpha ^2B^2\right)\mathrm{cosh}\gamma \mathrm{sinh}\gamma & 0& g\mathrm{cosh}^2\gamma \left(g^2+4\pi ^2\alpha ^2B^2\right)\mathrm{sinh}^2\gamma & 0\\ 0& 0& 0& g\end{array}\right)`$ (2.12)
and the noncommutativity matrix

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}=\frac{2\pi \alpha ^{}}{g^2+4\pi ^2\alpha ^2B^2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 2\pi \alpha ^{}B\mathrm{sinh}\gamma \\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 2\pi \alpha ^{}B\mathrm{cosh}\gamma \\ 2\pi \alpha ^{}B\mathrm{sinh}\gamma & 0& 2\pi \alpha ^{}B\mathrm{cosh}\gamma & 0\end{array}\right).$$
(2.13)
Taking the same NCSYM limit (2.5), we reach

$$G^{ij}=\eta ^{ij},$$
(2.14)
and

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& B^1\mathrm{sinh}\gamma \\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& B^1\mathrm{cosh}\gamma \\ B^1\mathrm{sinh}\gamma & 0& B^1\mathrm{cosh}\gamma & 0\end{array}\right).$$
(2.15)
Obviously, this is a low-energy field theory limit with space-time noncommutativity when $`\gamma `$ is finite. We will argue that field theory thus defined is unitary even though the space-time coordinates are noncommutative.

On the other hand, when the boost velocity approaches the speed of light, that is, $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, the Lorentz transformation (2.7) is singular and some components of the noncommutativity matrix (2.15) are divergent. But we notice that rescaling the constant $`B`$ as

$$e^\gamma /B=b,$$
(2.16)
where $`b`$ is a finite constant, yields a well-behaved noncommutativity matrix with space-time component,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& b\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& b\\ b& 0& b& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(2.17)
Actually, this limit is just the low energy field theory limit with light-like noncommutativity discussed in . There it is shown that this theory is unitary despite the nonlocality in the time coordinate. This result is reasonable since this low-energy field theory is an infinitely-boosted limit of a unitary theory.

### 2.2 From the NCOS to the light-like NCSYM

Now it is clear that when the NS $`B`$ field has a nonvanishing time-like component, one can define a limit, in which the closed strings are decoupled and one ends up with a noncommutative open string theory . For example, suppose the $`B`$ field has, in the coordinate (2.3), the time-like component as

$$B_{ij}=Edx_0dx_1.$$
(2.18)
Rescaling the electric field $`E`$, the closed string metric $`g`$ and the closed string coupling constant $`g_s`$ as

$$2\pi \alpha ^{}E=1\frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha _{eff}^{}},g=\frac{\alpha ^{}}{\alpha _{eff}^{}},g_s=G_s\sqrt{\frac{\alpha _{eff}^{}}{\alpha ^{}}},$$
(2.19)
where $`\alpha _{eff}^{}`$ is a finite constant, in the decoupling limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$, one has

$$\alpha ^{}G^{ij}=\alpha _{eff}^{}\eta ^{ij},\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}=2\pi \alpha _{eff}^{}(\delta _0^i\delta _1^j\delta _1\delta _0^j).$$
(2.20)
This is a NCOS limit with the open string tension $`1/4\pi \alpha _{eff}^{}`$, the coupling constant $`G_s`$ and the space-time noncommutativity $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{01}=2\pi \alpha _{eff}^{}`$.

Now we make also the same Lorentz transformation (2.7). In this case, we find

$$G^{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{g\mathrm{cosh}^2\gamma (1e^2)\mathrm{sinh}^2\gamma }{g(1e^2)}& 0& \frac{(g1+e^2)\mathrm{sinh}\gamma \mathrm{cosh}\gamma }{g(1e^2)}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{1e^2}& 0& 0\\ \frac{(g1+e^2)\mathrm{sinh}\gamma \mathrm{cosh}\gamma }{g(1e^2)}& 0& \frac{(1e^2)\mathrm{cosh}^2\gamma g\mathrm{sinh}\gamma }{g(1e^2)}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{1}{g}\end{array}\right),$$
(2.21)
where $`e=2\pi \alpha ^{}E`$, and the noncommutativity matrix

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}=\frac{2\pi \alpha ^{}e}{1e^2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \mathrm{cosh}\gamma & 0& 0\\ \mathrm{cosh}\gamma & 0& \mathrm{sinh}\gamma & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sinh}\gamma & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(2.22)
Taking the same NCOS decoupling limit (2.19), we obtain

$$\alpha ^{}G^{ij}=\alpha _{eff}^{}\eta ^{ij},$$
(2.23)
and

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}=2\pi \alpha _{eff}^{}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \mathrm{cosh}\gamma & 0& 0\\ \mathrm{cosh}\gamma & 0& \mathrm{sinh}\gamma & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sinh}\gamma & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(2.24)
Obviously, when the boost velocity is finite, this is a well-behaved NCOS limit. It means that the NCOS is still a NCOS with both the space-time and space-space noncommutativities after the Lorentz transformation . Of course, the space-space noncommutativity can be removed using a coordinate transformation. However, when the boost velocity approaches the speed of light, $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, from the noncommutativity matrix (2.24) one can see that in order to have a finite noncommutativity value, one has to rescale the constant $`\alpha _{eff}^{}`$ as

$$\alpha _{eff}^{}e^\gamma =b^{},$$
(2.25)
where $`b^{}`$ is another finite constant. In this case, we see from (2.23) that $`\alpha ^{}G^{ij}=0`$. It means that when the boost velocity approaches the speed of light, from the NCOS limit we can define a well-behaved low energy field theory limit. Actually, this limit is also the field theory limit with light-like noncommutativity. Furthermore, equations (2.23) and (2.25) implies that in order to have a well-defined open string metric, one has to further rescale all coordinates as

$$x_ie^{\gamma /2}x_i.$$
(2.26)
This will be used later when we discuss the supergravity dual.

### 2.3 Unitarity

In  the unitarity of quantum fields has been studied in a noncommutative spacetime. It has been found that space-like noncommutative quantum field theories are always unitary while time-like noncommutative quantum theories are not unitary. In  it was shown that quantum theories with light-like noncommutativity are unitary as well.

The unitarity of quantum field theories requires that the inner product $`pp`$ be never negative , where $`p`$ is some external momentum and

$$ppp_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \rho }G_{\rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Theta }^{\sigma \nu }p_\nu p_\mu g_\theta ^{\mu \nu }p_\nu 0,$$
(2.27)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ is the noncommutativity matrix and $`G_{\rho \sigma }`$ is the background metric of quantum fields. Let us first consider the spatial NCSYM in 3+1 dimensions discussed above. In that case, we have

$$pp=B^2(p_2^2+p_3^2),$$
(2.28)
which clearly indicates that the spatial NCSYM satisfies the requirement of unitarity. Therefore this theory is unitary . For the finite Lorentz boost, we find

$$pp=B^2(p_0\mathrm{sinh}\gamma +p_2\mathrm{cosh}\gamma )^2+B^2p_3^2.$$
(2.29)
Again, the unitarity constraint is satisfied. Therefore we can conclude that the SYM with time-space noncommutativity, coming from the spatial NCSYM after Lorentz transformation, is unitary as well. This seems reasonable because the physics should be invariant after a regular coordinate transformation. Actually, the two theories are equivalent. The space-time noncommutativity in the former can be removed using the Lorentz transformation. Therefore we cannot say in general that quantum field theories with space-time noncommutativity are not unitary. Of course, the description in terms of the spatial NCSYM is simpler.

When the boost velocity approaches the speed of light, we have

$$pp=b^2(p_0+p_2)^2,$$
(2.30)
which always satisfies $`pp0`$. Thus the SYM with light-like noncommutativity is unitary. Similarly, the SYM with light-like noncommutativity coming from the NCOS limit can be proved to be unitary.

## 3 Supergravity duals

In the previous section we have shown that the low energy SYM with light-like noncommutativity can be obtained through combining the NCSYM limit and Lorentz transformation, or the NCOS limit and Lorentz transformation. In this section we further give evidence to support that point of view. We “derive” the supergravity duals of light-like NCSYM’s through the supergravity duals of spatial NCSYM’s or of NCOS’s.

Let us first consider the D3-brane case. The supergravity dual of spatial NCSYM in 3+1 dimensions has been given in , which is

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{R^2}}\left(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+\stackrel{~}{h}(dx_2^2+dx_3^2)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{u^2}}\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\right)\right],`$
$`e^{2\varphi }=\widehat{g}_s^2\stackrel{~}{h},B_{23}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\stackrel{~}{b}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(au)^4}{1+(au)^4}},`$ (3.1)
where $`R^4=4\pi \widehat{g}_sN`$, $`a^4=\stackrel{~}{b}^2/R^4`$, $`\stackrel{~}{h}^1=1+(au)^4`$, and $`N`$ denotes the number of D3-branes. The spatial NCSYM has the coupling constant $`g_{YM}^2=2\pi \widehat{g}_s`$. Performing the coordinate transformation (2.7) for coordinates $`x_0`$ and $`x_3`$, we have

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}[{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{R^2}}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+\stackrel{~}{h}dx_2^2+dx_3^2+(\stackrel{~}{h}1)(\mathrm{cosh}\gamma dx_3^2\mathrm{sinh}\gamma dx_0)^2)`$ (3.2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{u^2}}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2)].`$
This supergravity solution is supposed to be the supergravity dual of the spatial NCSYM after a finite Lorentz boost considered in the previous section. In this coordinate, space-time coordinates are noncommutative. When $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, rescaling the constant $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{b}e^\gamma =b,$$
(3.3)
we have

$$ds^2=\alpha ^{}\left[\frac{u^2}{R^2}\left(dx_+dx_{}+dx_1^2+dx_2^2\frac{b^2u^4}{R^4}dx_{}^2\right)+\frac{R^2}{u^2}\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\right)\right],$$
(3.4)
where $`x_\pm =x_3\pm x_0`$. The dilaton and $`B`$ field become

$$e^{2\varphi }=\widehat{g}_s^2,B_2=\alpha ^{}\frac{bu^4}{R^4}.$$
(3.5)
We see that this supergravity solution is just the supergravity dual of light-like NCSYM found in . The light-like NCSYM has the coupling constant $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2=2\pi \widehat{g}_s`$, the same as the one for the spatial NCSYM.

It is rather easy to extend this to other dimensions. The supergravity dual of the spatial NCSYM in $`p+1`$ dimensions is

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{R}}\right)^{(7p)/2}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{p2}^2+\stackrel{~}{h}(dx_{p1}^2+dx_p^2))`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}}\right)^{(7p)/2}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2)],`$
$`e^{2\varphi }=\widehat{g}_s^2\stackrel{~}{h}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}}\right)^{(7p)(3p)/2},B_{p1,p}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\stackrel{~}{b}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(au)^{7p}}{1+(au)^{7p}}},`$ (3.6)
where the corresponding RR fields are not exposed explicitly,

$$\stackrel{~}{h}=\frac{1}{1+(au)^{7p}},a^{7p}=\stackrel{~}{b}^2/R^{7p},R^{7p}=\frac{1}{2}(2\pi )^{6p}\pi ^{(7p)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }[(7p)/2]\widehat{g}_sN.$$
(3.7)
Making a similar Lorentz transformation as (2.7) for the coordinates $`x_0`$ and $`x_p`$, taking the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ and rescaling $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ as (3.3), we obtain

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{R}}\right)^{(7p)/2}(dx_+dx_{}+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{p1}^2{\displaystyle \frac{b^2u^{7p}}{R^{7p}}}dx_{}^2)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}}\right)^{(7p)/2}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2)],`$
$`e^{2\varphi }=\widehat{g}_s^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}}\right)^{(7p)(3p)/2},B_{(p1)}=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{bu^{7p}}{R^{7p}}}.`$ (3.8)
Here $`x_\pm =x_p\pm x_0`$. This solution gives the supergravity dual description of light-like NCSYM in $`p+1`$ dimensions with coupling constant $`g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2=(2\pi )^{p2}\widehat{g}_s`$.

On the other hand, from the previous section we see that the light-like NCSYM limit can also be achieved from the NCOS limit combining the Lorentz transformation. Now we also get the supergravity duals of the light-like NCSYM’s along this line.

The supergravity dual for the 3+1 dimensional NCOS has been given in . It can be described as

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}F^{1/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{R^4}}\left(dx_0^2+dx_1^2\right)+F^1\left(dx_2^2+dx_3^2\right)+du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\right],`$
$`F=1+{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{u^4}},e^{2\varphi }=\widehat{g}_s^2F{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{R^4}},B_{01}=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{R^4}},`$ (3.9)
where $`R`$ is the same as the corresponding one above. Performing a Lorentz transformation (2.7) for the coordinates $`x_0`$ and $`x_3`$, one has

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}F^{1/2}[{\displaystyle \frac{u^4}{R^4}}(dx_0^2+dx_1^2+dx_3^2)+F^1dx_2^2`$ (3.10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u^8}{R^4(R^4+u^4)}}(\mathrm{cosh}\gamma dx_3\mathrm{sinh}\gamma dx_0)^2+du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2].`$
Taking the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ and rescaling coordinates as

$$uue^{\gamma /2},x_ix_ie^{\gamma /2},$$
(3.11)
we reach

$$ds^2=\alpha ^{}\left[\frac{u^2}{R^2}\left(dx_+dx_{}+dx_1^2+dx_2^2\frac{u^4}{R^4}dx_{}^2\right)+\frac{R^2}{u^2}\left(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\right)\right],$$
(3.12)
and the dilaton and $`B`$ field

$$e^{2\varphi }=\widehat{g}_s^2,B_1=\alpha ^{}\frac{u^4}{R^4}.$$
(3.13)
This solution is the same as (3.4) up to a constant $`b`$. The constant $`b`$ is not important since it can be produced by rescaling $`x_\pm `$ as was pointed out in .

For other dimensions, the supergravity dual of NCOS is

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}\left[H^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{u^{7p}}{R^{7p}}}\left(dx_0^2+dx_1^2\right)+H^{1/2}(dx_2^2+\mathrm{}+dx_p^2)+H^{1/2}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2)\right],`$
$`e^{2\varphi }=\widehat{g}_s^2H^{(3p)/2}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u^{7p}}{R^{7p}}}\right),B_{01}=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{u^{7p}}{R^{7p}}},H=1+{\displaystyle \frac{R^{7p}}{u^{7p}}},`$ (3.14)
Performing a Lorentz transformation on coordinates $`x_0`$ and $`x_p`$, taking the infinite boost limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ and rescaling as (3.11), we finally obtain

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{R}}\right)^{(7p)/2}(dx_+dx_{}+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{p1}^2{\displaystyle \frac{u^{7p}}{R^{7p}}}dx_{}^2)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}}\right)^{(7p)/2}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2)],`$
$`e^{2\varphi }=\widehat{g}_s^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}}\right)^{(7p)(3p)/2},B_1=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{u^{7p}}{R^{7p}}}.`$ (3.15)
Thus we arrive at again the supergravity dual of light-like NCSYM, combining the supergravity dual of NCOS and the Lorentz transformation.

## 4 NCSYM, OSYM and NCOS in the infinite-momentum frame

In order to get the supergravity dual of light-like NCSYM, we have used the Lorentz transformation along the nonisotropic direction coordinates, such as $`x_0`$ and $`x_3`$, or $`x_0`$ and $`x_p`$. In this section we consider the Lorentz transformation along the isotropic directions. For generality, we start with the supergravity dual (3.6) of spatial NCSYM in $`p+1`$ dimensions. Obviously, the solution (3.6) is Lorentz invariant if one performs a Lorentz coordinate transformation along one of directions $`x_1`$ to $`x_{p2}`$. To produce a nontrivial effect, we make a Lorentz transformation along one of those directions, say $`x_1`$, for the supergravity dual of finite temperature NCSYM. The latter is

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}[\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{R}}\right)^{(7p)/2}(fdx_0^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{p2}^2+\stackrel{~}{h}(dx_{p1}^2+dx_p^2))`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}}\right)^{(7p)/2}(f^1du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2)],`$
$`e^{2\varphi }=\widehat{g}_s^2\stackrel{~}{h}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}}\right)^{(7p)(3p)/2},B_{p1,p}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{\stackrel{~}{b}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(au)^{7p}}{1+(au)^{7p}}},`$ (4.1)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{h}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+(au)^{7p}}},a^{7p}=\stackrel{~}{b}^2/R^{7p},`$
$`f=1{\displaystyle \frac{u_0^{7p}}{u^{7p}}},R^{7p}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\pi )^{6p}\pi ^{(7p)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }[(7p)/2]\widehat{g}_sN.`$ (4.2)
We now make a Lorentz transformation for coordinates $`x_0`$ and $`x_1`$ and rescale the non-extremal parameter $`u_0`$ as

$$u_0^{7p}e^{2\gamma }=P,$$
(4.3)
where $`P`$ is a finite constant. When $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, we have

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{R}}\right)^{(7p)/2}(dx_+dx_{}+dx_2^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{p2}^2+\stackrel{~}{h}(dx_{p1}^2+dx_p^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{P}{u^{7p}}}dx_{}^2)\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}}\right)^{(7p)/2}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2)],`$ (4.4)
and the dilaton and $`B`$ fields are kept unchanged, where $`x_\pm =x_1\pm x_0`$. This is a supergravity solution with a $`pp`$-wave, and $`P`$ has an interpretation as the momentum density of the wave. Let us notice that when the $`B`$ field vanishes, that is $`\stackrel{~}{h}=1`$, the solution (4.4) reduces to

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{u}{R}}\right)^{(7p)/2}(dx_+dx_{}+dx_2^2+\mathrm{}+dx_{p2}^2+dx_{p1}^2+dx_p^2+{\displaystyle \frac{P}{u^{7p}}}dx_{}^2)\right)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{u}}\right)^{(7p)/2}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2)],`$ (4.5)
and the dilaton and NS $`B`$ field

$$e^{2\varphi }=\widehat{g}_s^2\left(\frac{R}{u}\right)^{(7p)(3p)/2},B=0.$$
(4.6)
Furthermore, when $`p=3`$ the above solution (4.5) goes to the one obtained in , there the authors of  have studied the decoupling limit and near-horizon geometry of D3-branes (M2- and M5-branes) with a $`pp`$-wave. They got the solution (4.5) with $`p=3`$, (in this case the metric is of the Kaigorodov-type and preserves 1/4 supersymmetries), and argued that this is the supergravity dual of the ordinary (3+1)-dimensional SYM in an infinitely-boosted frame with constant momentum density. In this sense, the solution (4.5) gives a generalization of , which describes the supergravity dual of the ordinary $`(p+1)`$-dimensional SYM in an infinitely-boosted frame. It is easy to show that the solution (4.5) can also be obtained by taking the decoupling limit for the (D$`p`$, W) bound states, where W denotes a $`pp`$-wave.

Thus it is natural to regard the solution (4.4) as the supergravity dual of spatial NCSYM in an infinitely-boosted frame and such a solution (4.4) can be achieved through considering the NCSYM limit for the (D$`(p2)`$, W, D$`p`$) bound states .

Next let us consider the finite temperature picture for the supergravity dual of NCOS in $`p+1`$ dimensions

$`ds^2=\alpha ^{}\left[H^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{u^{7p}}{R^{7p}}}\left(fdx_0^2+dx_1^2\right)+H^{1/2}(dx_2^2+\mathrm{}+dx_p^2)+H^{1/2}(f^1du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2)\right],`$
$`e^{2\varphi }=\widehat{g}_s^2H^{(3p)/2}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{u^{7p}}{R^{7p}}}\right),B_{01}=\alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{u^{7p}}{R^{7p}}},H=1+{\displaystyle \frac{R^{7p}}{u^{7p}}}.`$ (4.7)
Again, making a Lorentz transformation for coordinates $`x_0`$ and $`x_1`$, and rescaling as (4.3), we have

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{}[H^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{u^{7p}}{R^{7p}}}(dx_+dx_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{P}{u^{7p}}}dx_{}^2)+H^{1/2}(dx_2^2+\mathrm{}+dx_p^2)`$ (4.8)
$`+H^{1/2}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2)],`$
and the dilaton and NS $`B`$ field unchanged. This supergravity solution has a good interpretation as the gravity dual of NCOS in an infinitely-boosted frame. Of course, this solution can also be reached by considering the NCOS limit for (F1, W, D$`p`$) bound states .

Thus we have given the supergravity duals for the OSYM, spatial NCSYM, and the NCOS in an infinitely-boosted frame by combining the SYM, NCSYM, and NCOS limits, and the Lorentz transformation, respectively. We note that these supergravity duals look like the one for light-like NCSYM in the sense that they all have the $`pp`$-wave component in solutions, but actually they are quite different.

## 5 Conclusions

Combining the Lorentz transformation and the spatial NCSYM limit, or the space-time NCOS limit, we have “derived” the light-like NCSYM limit. The light-like NCSYM is unitary. We have argued that the SYM with space-time noncommutativity, which comes from the Lorentz transformation of the spatial NCSYM, is unitary as well. Actually, the two theories connected through the Lorentz transformation are equivalent. Perhaps the spatial NCSYM gives a better description. Along the consideration of light-like NCSYM limit, we obtain the supergravity dual of the light-like NCSYM using the Lorentz transformation and the gravity dual of spatial NCSYM or of the NCOS, both giving the same result. These supergravity duals are the same as those given by AOR , where the authors first constructed the D$`p`$-brane solution with light-like NS $`B`$ field and then took a usual SYM decoupling limit.

In addition, as a comparison, we have given supergravity duals for the OSYM, spatial NCSYM, and the NCOS in an infinitely-boosted frame with finite momentum density, by using the Lorentz transformation and a certain rescaling. These supergravity duals can also be obtained through considering certain decoupling limits for the (D$`p`$, W), (D$`(p2)`$, W, D$`p`$) and (F1, W, D$`p`$) bound states, respectively.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research Nos. 99020, 12640270 and in part by Grant-in-Aid on the Priority Area: Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary particles.