text:
# Multi-dimensional Weyl Modules and Symmetric Functions

## Introduction

Let $`M`$ be a complex affine variety, let $`𝔤`$ be a semisimple Lie algebra. By $`𝔤^M`$ denote the Lie algebra of currents on $`M`$. For any point $`𝒵M`$ we have the evaluation homomorphism $`𝔤^M𝔤`$ taking value at $`𝒵`$. So for any representation $`\pi `$ of $`𝔤`$ we can define the evaluation representation $`\pi (𝒵)`$ of $`𝔤^M`$.

Now let $`\pi _1,\mathrm{},\pi _n`$ be irreducible representations of $`𝔤`$ and let $`𝒵_1,\mathrm{},𝒵_n`$ be points on $`M`$. Suppose that the points $`𝒵_i`$ are pairwise distinct. Then $`\pi _1(𝒵_1)\mathrm{}\pi _n(𝒵_n)`$ is an irreducible representation of $`𝔤^M`$. Fix the highest weight vectors $`v_i\pi _i`$. Then the vector $`v=v_1\mathrm{}v_n`$ is cyclic, therefore

$$\pi _1(𝒵_1)\mathrm{}\pi _n(𝒵_n)U(𝔤^M)/I(\pi _1,\mathrm{},\pi _n;𝒵_1,\mathrm{},𝒵_n),$$

where $`I(\pi _1,\mathrm{},\pi _n;𝒵_1,\mathrm{},𝒵_n)`$ is the left ideal annihilating $`v`$. So we have a family $`𝒩`$ of ideals labeled by $`M\times \mathrm{}\times M`$ without diagonals.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ be the closure of $`𝒩`$ in the space of all left ideals in $`U(𝔤^M)`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ is an algebraic variety (in most cases singular). Quotients of $`U(𝔤^M)`$ by the corresponding ideals form a bundle $`\xi `$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ of dimension $`dim(\pi _1)\mathrm{}dim(\pi _n)`$.

The case $`M=`$, $`𝔤=sl_2`$ is completely studied in \[FF\]. Here the limits of ideals are unique and the fiber over $`(0,\mathrm{},0)`$ is isomorphic to the fusion product introduced in \[FL\]. Now suppose that all the representations are 2-dimensional. Then $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ is just the $`n`$-th symmetric power of $``$ and the fusion product is universal in the following sense. It is the maximal finite-dimensional module generated by the vector $`v`$ such that

$$(eP)v=0,(hP)v=nP(0)v,$$

where $`P`$ is a polynomial, and $`e`$, $`h`$, $`f`$ constitute the standard basis in $`sl_2`$. Following \[CP\] we call such representations Weyl modules.

We expect that for $`M=^d`$, $`𝔤=sl_2`$ and 2-dimensional representations the variety $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ is a general locus in the Hilbert scheme of $`n`$-points on $`^d`$. So there is the canonical projection $`\theta :\stackrel{~}{𝒩}S^n(^d)`$. By $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_0`$ denote the special fiber $`\theta ^1(0,\mathrm{},0)`$. Then we expect that the space of sections of the $`2^d`$-dimensional bundle $`\xi `$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_0`$ has the same universality property.

Note that both facts can be derived for $`d=2`$ from the recent results of M. Haiman (\[H\]). It gives a very powerful instrument to study fusion and Weyl modules over two-dimensional currents.

In this paper we concentrate on the Weyl module side of this picture. In Section 1 we extend the notion of Weyl modules. Namely we define the global Weyl module corresponding to a commutative algebra with unit, a semisimple Lie algebra and a weight, as well as the local Weyl module corresponding to the data above and a set of points on $`\mathrm{Spec}A`$. We show that local Weyl modules are finite-dimensional and generalize the tensor product theorem (\[CP\]) for them. In Section 2 we generalize the symmetric power construction proposed in \[CP\]. In Section 3 we apply the results of \[H\] to investigation of Weyl modules over two-dimensional currents and state a conjecture for the general case.

### Acknowledgments

This consideration is inspired by discussions with Vyjayanthi Chari at UC Riverside and MSRI. SL thanks V. Chari for the hospitality at UC Riverside. We are also grateful to V. V. Dotsenko, A. N. Kirillov and I. N. Nikokoshev for useful and stimulating discussions.

BF is partially supported by the grants RFBR-02-01-01015, RFBR-01-01-00906 and INTAS-00-00055.

SL is partially supported by the grants RFBR-02-01-01015, RFBR-01-01-00546 and CRDF RM1-2545-MO-03.

## 1. Some generalities

### 1.1. Notation and integrability

Let $`𝔤`$ be a semisimple Lie algebra of rank $`r`$. Choose a Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ and Borel subalgebras $`𝔟=𝔟_+`$ and $`𝔟_{}`$. Denote their nilpotent radicals by $`𝔫_+`$ and $`𝔫_{}`$ respectively.

By $`Q𝔥^{}`$ denote the root lattice, by $`P𝔥^{}`$ denote the weight lattice. Let $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _rQ`$ be the simple roots, let $`\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _rP`$ be the simple weights. Denote the correspondent Chevalley generators by $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_r𝔫_+`$, $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_r𝔥`$ and $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_r𝔫_{}`$. Let $`Q_+Q`$ be the cone of positive roots, that is the set of linear combination of simple roots $`\alpha _i`$ with non-negative integer coefficients.

###### Definition 1.

We say that a $`𝔤`$-module $`V`$ is integrable if there exists a finite subset $`DP`$ such that

$$V=\underset{\mu D}{}V^\mu ,$$

where any $`h𝔥`$ acts on $`V^\mu `$ by the scalar $`\mu (h)`$.

Note that for our purposes we do not require $`V^\mu `$ to be finite-dimensional. Similar to the case of finite-dimensional weight spaces (see \[K\]) it actually implies that $`V`$ is a possibly infinite sum of finite-dimensional representations.

###### Proposition 1.

There is the action of the Weyl group on the weights of integrable representations.

###### Proof.

It is enough (see \[K\]) to introduce the action of the operators

$$s_i=\mathrm{exp}(f_i)\mathrm{exp}(e_i)\mathrm{exp}(f_i)$$

corresponding to simple reflections. These operators are well-defined on an integrable representation because the action of $`e_i`$ and $`f_i`$ is nilpotent. So similar to the case of finite-dimensional representations it defines the action of the Weyl group on the weights. ∎

Also we consider the following class of representation.

###### Definition 2.

Given a weight $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ we say that a $`𝔤`$-module $`V`$ is $`\lambda `$-bounded if

$$V=\underset{\mu \lambda Q_+}{}V^\mu ,$$

where any $`h𝔥`$ acts on $`V^\mu `$ by the scalar $`\mu (h)`$.

This definition is related to the definition of the category $`𝒪`$ (see \[K\]). Namely any representation from the category $`𝒪`$ is by definition a direct sum of $`\lambda ^i`$-bounded modules for some $`\lambda ^1,\mathrm{},\lambda ^N𝔥^{}`$ with finite-dimensional weight spaces.

###### Proposition 2.

Any $`\lambda `$-bounded $`𝔤`$-module has the maximal integrable quotient.

###### Proof.

Suppose that a module $`V=V^\mu `$ is $`\lambda `$-bounded. By $`w_0W`$ denote the highest length element, so $`w_0(Q_+)=Q_+`$. Let $`V^{}`$ be the submodule of $`V`$ generated by $`V^\mu `$ such that $`\mu w_0(\lambda )+Q_+`$. Introduce the module $`V^{int}=V/V^{}`$. As the intersection of $`\lambda Q_+`$ and $`w_0(\lambda )+Q_+`$ is finite, the module $`V^{int}`$ is integrable.

Now let $`U`$ be an integrable quotient of $`V`$. Let us show that $`U`$ is indeed a quotient of $`V^{int}`$.

As $`U`$ is a quotient of $`V`$ we have $`U^\mu =0`$ if $`\mu \lambda Q_+`$. Then Proposition 1 implies that $`U^\mu =0`$ if $`\mu w_0(\lambda Q_+)=w_0(\lambda )+Q_+`$. Therefore the image of $`V^{}`$ in $`U`$ is zero, so $`U`$ is a quotient of $`V^{int}`$. ∎

Let us say that a module with a certain property is maximal if any other module with this property is a quotient of the given one.

### 1.2. Weyl modules

Let $`A`$ be a commutative algebra with unit. Generalizing \[CP\] we define a family of representations of the Lie algebra $`𝔤A`$.

###### Definition 3.

For $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ define the global Weyl module $`W_A(\lambda )`$ as the maximal $`𝔤1`$-integrable module generated by the vector $`v_\lambda `$ such that

(1)
$$(𝔫_+P)v_\lambda =0,(h1)v_\lambda =\lambda (h)v_\lambda \text{for}h𝔥,PA.$$

In particular if $`A=[x,x^1]`$ then $`W_A(\lambda )W(\lambda )`$ in the terms of \[CP\].

###### Proposition 3.

The global Weyl module $`W_A(\lambda )`$ exists.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝔟_A𝔤A`$ be the subalgebra spanned by $`𝔫_+A`$ and $`𝔥1`$. Then the induced module

$$M_A(\lambda )=\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔟_A}^{𝔤A}v_\lambda $$

is the maximal module generated by $`v_\lambda `$.

As $`M_A(\lambda )`$ is generated by $`v_\lambda `$ under the action of $`U(𝔟_{}A)`$, the module $`M_A(\lambda )`$ is $`\lambda `$-bounded. So we can define $`W_A(\lambda )`$ as the maximal integrable quotient of $`M_A(\lambda )`$.

Concerning the universality property, any integrable module generated by $`v_\lambda `$ is an integrable quotient of $`M_A(\lambda )`$ and therefore a quotient of the constructed module $`W_A(\lambda )`$. ∎

###### Lemma 1.

We have $`W_A(\lambda )0`$ if and only if $`\lambda `$ is dominant.

###### Proof.

Note that $`v_\lambda `$ can generate an integrable module only for a dominant $`\lambda `$.

On the other hand, suppose $`\lambda `$ is dominant. Let $`\pi _\lambda `$ be the irreducible representation of $`𝔤`$ with highest weight $`\lambda `$, let $`v`$ be its highest weight vector. Then $`\pi _\lambda A`$ is an integrable module over $`𝔤A`$ and $`v1`$ satisfies the conditions (1). So $`W_A(\lambda )`$ has a non-trivial quotient $`\pi _\lambda A`$, therefore $`W_A(\lambda )0`$. ∎

Now regard $`A`$ as the algebra of functions on an affine variety $`M`$ (possibly singular). Actually points on $`M`$ are just ideals in $`A`$ of codimension one.

Now suppose that $`\lambda `$ is dominant. Then the coordinates $`\lambda _i=\lambda (h_i)`$ are non-negative integers. A set of points $`𝒵_j^{(i)}M`$ (not necessarily distinct) indexed as follows:

$$\{𝒵\}_\lambda =(\{𝒵_j^{(1)}\}_{j=1\mathrm{}\lambda _1},\mathrm{},\{𝒵_j^{(r)}\}_{j=1\mathrm{}\lambda _r})$$

we call a $`\lambda `$-multiset.

###### Definition 4.

Let $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r)𝔥^{}`$ be a dominant weight, let $`\{𝒵\}_\lambda `$ be a $`\lambda `$-multiset. Define the local Weyl module $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ as the maximal $`𝔤1`$-integrable module generated by the vector $`v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }`$ such that

(2)
$$(𝔫_+P)v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }=0,(h_iP)v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\lambda _i}{}}P\left(𝒵_j^{(i)}\right)v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }\text{for}i=1\mathrm{}r,PA.$$

In particular if $`M=^{}`$, $`A=[x,x^1]`$ then $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )W(\pi )`$ in the terms of \[CP\] for $`\pi _i(u)=_j\left(1u/𝒵_j^{(i)}\right)`$. In general case this definition is motivated by Theorem 5 from Section 2.

###### Proposition 4.

The local Weyl module $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ exists and can be obtained as a quotient of the global Weyl module $`W_A(\lambda )`$.

###### Proof.

Similarly to Proposition 3 one can define $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ as the maximal integrable quotient of the induced module

$$M_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )=\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔟A}^{𝔤A}v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }.$$

As $`𝔟_A`$ acts on $`v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }`$ in the same way as on $`v_\lambda `$, the universality property implies that $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ is a quotient of $`W_A(\lambda )`$. ∎

###### Proposition 5.

We have $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )0`$.

###### Proof.

With any $`𝒵\{𝒵\}_\lambda `$ we associate the weight $`\lambda _𝒵`$ such that $`h_i(\lambda _𝒵)`$ is the multiplicity of $`𝒵`$ in $`\{𝒵_j^{(i)}\}_{j=1\mathrm{}\lambda _i}`$.

For $`𝒵M`$ and a representation $`\pi `$ of $`𝔤`$ let $`\pi (𝒵)`$ be the evaluation representation of $`𝔤A`$ at $`𝒵`$. Namely $`\pi (𝒵)=\pi (A/I(𝒵))`$, where $`I(𝒵)`$ is the maximal ideal corresponding to the point $`𝒵`$.

By $`\pi _\mu `$ denote the irreducible representation with highest weight $`\mu `$. Then the representation

$$\underset{𝒵\{𝒵\}_\lambda }{}\pi _{\lambda _𝒵}(𝒵)$$

is integrable and the product of highest weight vectors satisfies (2). So $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ has a non-trivial quotient, therefore $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )0`$. ∎

At last note that the action of the Weyl group restricts weights of the Weyl modules as follows.

###### Lemma 2.

We have $`W_A(\lambda )^\mu 0`$ only for $`\mu \underset{wW}{}w(\lambda Q_+)`$, and the same statement for $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$.

###### Proof.

We just combine the observation that $`W_A(\lambda )`$ and $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ are $`\lambda `$-bounded and the action of the Weyl group on their weights. ∎

### 1.3. The Local Weyl modules are finite-dimensional

###### Lemma 3.

We have $`W_A(\lambda )^{\lambda N\alpha _i}0`$ only for $`0N\lambda _i`$, and the same statement for $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from Lemma 2. For $`N<0`$ we have $`\lambda N\alpha _i\lambda Q_+`$, for $`N>\lambda _i`$ we have $`\lambda N\alpha _is_i(\lambda Q_+)`$, where $`s_i`$ is the simple reflection. ∎

Let $`I(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ be the ideal in $`A`$ of functions with zeroes at all $`𝒵_j^{(i)}`$. In order to get multiple zeroes we consider the powers $`I^s(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$.

###### Proposition 6.

Elements of $`f_iI^{\lambda _i}(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ act on $`v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }`$ by zero.

###### Proof.

The ideal $`I^{\lambda _i}(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ is spanned by decomposable elements, that is by products of $`\lambda _i`$ elements of $`I(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$. So it is enough to prove that if $`P=P_1\mathrm{}P_{\lambda _i}`$ for $`P_iI(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ then $`(f_iP)v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }=0`$.

From Lemma 3 it follows that $`(f_i1)^{\lambda _i+1}v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }=0`$. Then using Proposition 16 (see Appendix) we have

$$0=(e_iP_1)\mathrm{}(e_iP_{\lambda _i})(f_i1)^{\lambda _i+1}v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }=C(f_iP)v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda },$$

where the coefficient $`C0`$. ∎

###### Proposition 7.

For a large enough integer $`N`$ the ideal $`𝔤I^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ acts on $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ by zero.

###### Proof.

Note that the Lie subalgebra $`𝔫_{}`$ is generated by $`f_i`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}r`$. So $`𝔫_{}`$ is spanned by a finite number of elements $`x_{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_s)}=\mathrm{ad}(f_{i_1})\mathrm{}\mathrm{ad}(f_{i_{s1}})f_{i_s}`$. Let us take

$$N\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_s)}{x_{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_s)}0}}{\mathrm{max}}(\lambda _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{i_s}).$$

Then for a decomposable $`PI^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ and $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_s)`$ such that $`x_{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_s)}0`$ we have $`P=P_1\mathrm{}P_s`$, where $`P_jI^{\lambda _{i_j}}(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$. From Proposition 6 we have $`(f_{i_j}P_j)v\{𝒵\}_\lambda `$ =0, so

$$(x_{(i_1,\mathrm{},i_s)}P)v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }=\left(\mathrm{ad}(f_{i_1}P_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{ad}(f_{i_{s1}}P_{s1})(f_{i_s}P_s)\right)v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }=0.$$

It means that $`𝔫_{}I^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ acts on $`v\{𝒵\}_\lambda `$ by zero.

As $`𝔟_+I(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ acts on $`v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }`$ by zero and $`𝔤`$ = $`𝔟_+𝔫_{}`$, we have $`(𝔤I^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda ))v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }=0`$. Finally note that $`𝔤I^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ is an ideal in the Lie algebra $`𝔤A`$, so we have the statement of the proposition. ∎

###### Theorem 1.

The local Weyl module $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ is finite-dimensional.

###### Proof.

Recall that $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ is generated by $`v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }`$ under the action of $`𝔫_{}A`$, in other words we have $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )=U(𝔫_{}A)v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }`$. From Proposition 7 we have that $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )=U\left(𝔫_{}A/I^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )\right)v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }`$ for a certain $`N`$.

Now let us deduce from integrability that there exists an integer $`n`$ such that $`x_1\mathrm{}x_sv_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }=0`$ in $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ for $`s>n`$ and any $`x_i𝔫_{}A`$.

Let $`\rho ^{}`$ be the element of $`𝔥`$ such that $`\rho ^{}(\alpha _i)=1`$ for $`i=1\mathrm{}r`$. As $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ is integrable, the set of values of $`\rho ^{}`$ on weights of $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ is finite. Suppose that $`x_1\mathrm{}x_sv_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }0`$, let $`\mu `$ be its weight. Then $`\rho ^{}(\mu )<\rho ^{}(\lambda )s`$. So $`s`$ is not greater than the maximal difference between $`\rho ^{}(\lambda )`$ and $`\rho ^{}(\mu )`$, where $`\mu `$ is a weight of $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$.

Now we have

$$W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )=U^n\left(𝔫_{}A/I^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )\right)v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }.$$

As the Lie algebra $`𝔫_{}A/I^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ is finite-dimensional, this space is also finite-dimensional. ∎

### 1.4. Tensor product decomposition

For two multisets $`\{𝒵\}_\lambda `$ and $`\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{}`$ define the union multiset

$$\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}}=(\{𝒵_j^{(1)}\}\{(𝒵^{})_j^{(1)}\},\mathrm{},\{𝒵_j^{(r)}\}\{(𝒵^{})_j^{(r)}\}).$$

###### Lemma 4.

We have an isomorphism of 1-dimensional representations of $`𝔟A`$

$$v_{\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}}}v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }v_{\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{}}.$$

###### Proof.

It follows from the definition (2). ∎

###### Proposition 8.

Let $`A_{N\{𝒵\}_\lambda }=A/I_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }^N`$. Suppose that $`𝒵_j^{(i)}(𝒵^{})_j^{}^{(i^{})}`$ for all $`i`$, $`j`$, $`i^{}`$, $`j^{}`$. Then we have an isomorphism of algebras

$$A_{N\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}}}A_{N\{𝒵\}_\lambda }A_{N\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{}}.$$

###### Proof.

From the Hilbert Nullstellensatz we have that $`I_{\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}}}^N=I_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }^NI_{\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{}}^N`$ and that $`I_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }^N+I_{\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{}}^N=A`$. Then the direct sum of the natural projections

$$AA_{N\{𝒵\}_\lambda }A_{N\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{}}$$

is surjective and its kernel is equal to $`I_{\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}}}^N`$. ∎

###### Theorem 2.

Suppose that $`𝒵_j^{(i)}(𝒵^{})_j^{}^{(i^{})}`$ for all $`i`$, $`j`$, $`i^{}`$, $`j^{}`$. Then we have an isomorphism of $`𝔤A`$-modules

$$W_M(\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}})W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )W_M(\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{}).$$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 4 we have that the product $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )W_M(\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{})`$ is a quotient of $`W_M(\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}})`$. Let us show the equality of their dimensions.

Right now we know that the dimension of $`W_M(\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}})`$ is not less than the dimension of the tensor product. Let us obtain the opposite inequality.

Recall the notation $`A_{N\{𝒵\}_\lambda }=A/I_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }^N`$ and consider the corresponding induced module

$$M_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )=\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔟A_{N\{𝒵\}_\lambda }}^{𝔤A_{N\{𝒵\}_\lambda }}v_{\{𝒵\}_\lambda }.$$

From Proposition 7 we know that $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ is a quotient of $`M_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ for a sufficiently large $`N`$. Moreover as $`M_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ is a quotient of $`M_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$, we have that $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ is its maximal integrable quotient.

Lemma 4 with Proposition 8 implies that for any positive integer $`N`$ we have

$$M_M^N(\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}})M_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )M_M^N(\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{}).$$

Here the right hand side is the external tensor product of a $`𝔤A_{N\{𝒵\}_\lambda }`$-module and a $`𝔤A_{N\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{}}`$-module.

Now take a sufficiently large $`N`$ so three our $`W_M`$-s are quotients of the corresponding $`M_M^N`$-s. Then the module $`W_M(\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}})`$ is a quotient of the tensor product $`M_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )M_M^N(\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{})`$.

Concerning the weight subspaces, let us show that the image of $`M_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )^\mu M_M^N(\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{})^\mu ^{}`$ in the quotient $`W_M(\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}})`$ is zero except a finite number of $`\mu `$ and $`\mu ^{}`$.

Let $`D`$ be the set of weights of the module $`W_M(\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}})`$. As this module is integrable, $`D`$ is finite. Then the sets

$$D_1=(\lambda Q_+)(\lambda ^{}+D+Q_+),D_2=(\lambda ^{}Q_+)(\lambda +D+Q_+)$$

are also finite. As the module $`M_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ is $`\lambda `$-bounded and $`M_M^N(\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{})`$ is $`\lambda ^{}`$-bounded, the image of $`M_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )^\mu M_M^N(\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{})^\mu ^{}`$ in $`W_M(\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}})`$ is zero unless $`\lambda \mu Q_+`$, $`\lambda ^{}\mu ^{}Q_+`$ and, of course, $`\mu +\mu ^{}D`$. So it is not zero only if $`\mu D_1`$ and $`\mu ^{}D_2`$.

Let $`M_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )^{}`$ be the submodule of $`M_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ generated by weight subspaces $`M_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )^\mu `$ with $`\mu D_1`$. Consider the quotient $`W_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )=M_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )/M_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )^{}`$. Let $`W_M^N(\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{})`$ be the similar quotient of $`M_M^N(\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{})`$ with weights in $`D_2`$. Then we know that the module $`W_M(\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}})`$ is a quotient of $`W_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )W_M^N(\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{})`$.

Because the sets $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are finite, the modules $`W_M^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ and $`W_M^N(\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{})`$ are integrable. Then the universality property implies that the module $`W_M(\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}})`$ is indeed a quotient of $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )W_M(\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{})`$. So

$$dim\left(W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )W_M(\{𝒵^{}\}_\lambda ^{})\right)dimW_M(\{𝒵𝒵^{}\}_{\lambda +\lambda ^{}}),$$

that completes the proof. ∎

###### Corollary 1.

Suppose that $`M`$ is non-singular of dimension $`d`$. Then any local Weyl module is isomorphic as a vector space to the tensor product of modules $`W_^d(\{0\}_{\lambda ^i})`$ for some dominant $`\lambda ^1,\mathrm{},\lambda ^s`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2 it is enough to describe $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ when $`\{𝒵\}_\lambda `$ contains only one point $`ZM`$. In this case $`I(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ is the ideal $`I_Z`$ of functions with zero at $`Z`$. By Proposition 7 we know that starting from a certain $`N`$ $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ depends only on $`A/I^N(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$. And the algebra $`A/I_Z^N`$ is the same for any non-singular point on any affine variety of given dimension. ∎

To proceed with a singular variety $`M`$ we need also to describe local Weyl modules at singular points.

## 2. The symmetric power construction

Here we generalize the results of Section 6 in \[CP\]. Our proofs are based on the following lemma.

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`X`$ be a vector space with a basis $`v_i`$, $`iI`$. Suppose that the set $`I`$ is partially ordered such that any chain $`i_1>i_2>i_3>`$ is finite.

1. Let $`\{u_i\}`$, $`iI`$, be a set of vectors such that each $`u_j`$ is the sum of $`v_j`$ and a linear combination of $`v_i`$ with $`i<j`$. Then the set $`\{u_i\}`$ is a basis of $`X`$.
2. Let $`YX`$ be a subspace. Suppose we have a subset $`JI`$ such that for any $`jJ`$ the vector $`v_j`$ plus a linear combination of $`v_i`$ with $`i<j`$ belongs to $`Y`$. Then the images of vectors $`v_i`$ for $`iJ`$ span $`X/Y`$.

###### Proof.

To prove (i) it is enough to show that each $`v_j`$ is a linear combination of $`u_i`$ as well. The vector $`v_j`$ is equal to $`u_j`$ plus (maybe) a linear combination of some $`v_{j_a^{}}`$ with $`j_a^{}<j`$. Similarly each $`v_{j_a^{}}`$ is equal to $`u_{j_a^{}}`$ plus (maybe) a linear combination of some $`v_{j_{ab}^{\prime \prime }}`$ with $`j_{ab}^{\prime \prime }<j_a^{}`$ and so on. As any decreasing chain is finite, this procedure is also finite, and the result is a linear combination of $`u_i`$.

To show (ii) let us take $`u_i=v_i`$ for $`iJ`$ and $`u_i=v_i+\mathrm{}Y`$ for $`iJ`$. Then by (i) the set $`\{u_i\}`$ is a basis, so any vector from $`X`$ is a linear combination of some $`v_i`$ for $`iJ`$ and a vector from $`Y`$. ∎

### 2.1. The $`sl_2`$ case

For $`𝔤=sl_2`$ let us write $`e`$, $`h`$, $`f`$ instead of $`e_1`$, $`h_1`$, $`f_1`$.

Let $`V`$ be the vector (2-dimensional) representation of $`sl_2`$. Then the vector space $`L_A(V)=VA`$ inherits the action of $`sl_2A`$. Following \[CP\] we consider the symmetric powers $`S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)`$.

Choose a basis $`\{u,v\}`$ in $`V`$ such that $`hv=v`$, $`hu=u`$. Then we can decompose $`S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)`$ into eigenspaces of $`h1`$.

###### Proposition 9.

We have

$$S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)^{n2i},\text{where}S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)^{n2i}S^i(A)S^{ni}(A)\text{for}i=0\mathrm{}n$$

and $`h1`$ acts on $`S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)^s`$ by the scalar $`s`$.

###### Proof.

We have

$$S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)S^n\left((uA)(vA)\right)\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}S^i(uA)S^{ni}(vA)\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}S^i(A)S^{ni}(A).$$

Let

$$v^{(n)}=(v1)\mathrm{}(v1).$$

This vector is cyclic in the module $`S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)`$. Now choose a basis $`\{P_i\}`$ in $`A`$ such that $`P_1=1`$. To avoid cumbersome notation let us write $`gP_i`$ instead of $`gP_i`$ and $`g`$ instead of $`g1`$ for $`gsl_2`$.

###### Proposition 10.

Monomials

$$fP_{j_1}\mathrm{}fP_{j_i}hP_{j_{i+1}}\mathrm{}hP_{j_n}v^{(n)},j_1\mathrm{}j_i,j_{i+1}\mathrm{}j_n,i=0\mathrm{}n$$

form a basis in $`S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)`$.

###### Proof.

By definition the elements

$$s_{j_1,\mathrm{},j_n}^i=\mathrm{Sym}\left((uP_{j_1})\mathrm{}(uP_{j_i})(vP_{j_{i+1}})\mathrm{}(vP_{j_n})\right)$$

for $`j_1\mathrm{}j_i`$, $`j_{i+1}\mathrm{}j_n`$ and $`i=0\mathrm{}n`$ form a basis of $`S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)`$.

Introduce the partial order on the vectors $`(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)`$ that compares the number of $`j_k`$ equal to one for $`k>i`$:

$$(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)>(j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_n^{})\text{if}\left|\{k>i|j_k=1\}\right|<\left|\{k>i|j_k^{}=1\}\right|.$$

Clearly it satisfies the condition of Lemma 5.

Then we have

$$fP_{j_1}\mathrm{}fP_{j_i}hP_{j_{i+1}}\mathrm{}hP_{j_n}v^{(n)}=n!s_{j_1,\mathrm{},j_n}^i+\text{lower terms},$$

where lower terms are given by a linear combination of $`s_{j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_n^{}}^i`$ with $`(j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_n^{})<(j_1,\mathrm{},j_n)`$. Namely the main term appears when the factors in the left hand side are applied to pairwise distinct factors of $`v^{(n)}`$, and lower terms appear when some factors in the left hand side are applied to the same factor of $`v^{(n)}`$.

By Lemma 5 (i) we have the statement of the proposition. ∎

###### Proposition 11.

The global Weyl module $`W_A(n\omega )`$ is spanned by elements

(3)
$$fP_{j_1}\mathrm{}fP_{j_i}hP_{j_{i+1}}\mathrm{}hP_{j_n}v_{n\omega },j_1\mathrm{}j_i,j_{i+1}\mathrm{}j_n,i=0\mathrm{}n.$$

###### Proof.

The PBW Theorem and Lemma 3 imply that $`W_A(n\omega )`$ is spanned by elements

(4)
$$m_{j_1,\mathrm{},j_s}^i=fP_{j_1}\mathrm{}fP_{j_i}hP_{j_{i+1}}\mathrm{}hP_{j_s}v_{n\omega },j_1\mathrm{}j_i,j_{i+1}\mathrm{}j_s,in.$$

We need to show that this is still true under the restriction $`sn`$. Then by setting $`j_{s+1}=\mathrm{}=j_n=1`$ (that is $`P_j=1`$ for $`j>s`$) we obtain the statement of the proposition.

Now fix the grading, that is fix the integer $`i`$. Introduce the partial order

$$(j_1,\mathrm{},j_s)>(j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_s^{}^{})\text{if}s>s^{}\text{or}\left(s=s^{}\text{and}\left|\{ki|j_k=1\}\right|<\left|\{ki|j_k^{}=1\}\right|\right).$$

Clearly it satisfies the condition of Lemma 5.

To show that the monomials (3) span $`W_A(n\omega )`$ let us just obtain the monomials (4) with $`s>n`$ as the highest terms of some relations in $`W_A(n\omega )`$.

As $`ePv_{n\omega }=0`$ for all $`PA`$, we have

$$ePm_{j_1,\mathrm{},j_s}^i=\underset{k=1}{\overset{i}{}}fP_{j_1}\mathrm{}fP_{j_{k1}}fP_{j_{k+1}}\mathrm{}fP_{j_i}h(PP_{j_k})hP_{j_{i+1}}\mathrm{}hP_sv_{n\omega }+\text{lower length terms},$$

where lower length terms are given by a linear combination of $`m_{j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_s^{}^{}}^i^{}`$ with $`s^{}<s`$. Therefore we have

(5)
$$eP_{j_{i+1}}\mathrm{}eP_{j_s}f^{si}fP_{j_1}\mathrm{}fP_{j_i}v_{n\omega }=(si)!m_{j_1,\mathrm{},j_s}^i+\text{lower terms},$$

where lower terms are given by a linear combination of $`m_{j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_s^{}^{}}^i^{}`$ with $`(j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_s^{}^{})<(j_1,\mathrm{},j_s)`$.

Now let $`s>n`$. Then from Lemma 3 we have $`f^{si}fP_{j_1}\mathrm{}fP_{j_i}v_{n\omega }=0`$, therefore the left hand side of (5) is a relation in $`W_A(n\omega )`$ and $`m_{j_1,\mathrm{},j_s}^i`$ is the highest term of this relation.

Let $`X`$ be the formal span of monomials (4) and let $`Y`$ be the kernel of the natural map $`XW_A(n\omega )`$. Then Lemma 5 (ii) implies the statement of the proposition. ∎

###### Theorem 3.

We have the natural isomorphism of $`sl_2A`$-modules

$$W_A(n\omega )S^n\left(L_A(V)\right).$$

###### Proof.

Note that $`v^{(n)}`$ satisfies (1), and that $`S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)`$ is generated by $`v^{(n)}`$. Then from the universality property we have the surjective map $`W_A(n\omega )S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)`$ sending $`v_{n\omega }`$ to $`v^{(n)}`$. Propositions 10 and 11 imply that this map is an isomorphism. ∎

Note that the action of $`A`$ on itself gives us the action of $`S^n(A)`$ on $`S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)`$ commuting with the action of $`sl_2A`$. For a multiset $`\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }`$ define the ideal

$$J_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}=\left\{RS^n(A)\right|R(𝒵_1^{(1)},\mathrm{},𝒵_n^{(1)})=0\}.$$

###### Theorem 4.

For any $`n\omega `$-multiset $`\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }`$ we have the natural isomorphism of $`sl_2A`$-modules

$$W_M(\{𝒵\}_{n\omega })S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)/J_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}S^n\left(L_A(V)\right).$$

###### Proof.

From Theorem 3 and the universality property we have a surjective map $`S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)W_M(\{𝒵\}_{n\omega })`$ sending $`v^{(n)}`$ to $`v_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}`$.

First let us show that the image of $`J_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)`$ under this map is zero. As the action of $`S^n(A)`$ commutes with the action of $`𝔤A`$, it is enough to show that the image of $`J_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}v^{(n)}`$ is zero.

Note that the tensor algebra $`T^{}(A)U(hA)`$ acts on $`v^{(n)}`$. It defines the surjective map

$$T^{}(A)S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)^\lambda S^n(A):P_1\mathrm{}P_shP_1\mathrm{}hP_sv^{(n)}.$$

As the action of $`U(hA)`$ commutes with the action of $`S^n(A)`$, this map is a homomorphism of algebras. Then we can describe it explicitly observing that the generators $`PA=T^1(A)`$ are mapped to $`\mathrm{Sym}(P1\mathrm{}1)`$.

Now consider the augmentation $`\epsilon _{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}`$ of $`S^n(A)`$ defined by

$$\epsilon _{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}(R)=R(𝒵_1^{(1)},\mathrm{},𝒵_n^{(1)}).$$

We can pull it back to the augmentation $`ϵ_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}`$ of $`T^{}(A)`$. Then for the generators $`PA`$ we have

(6)
$$ϵ_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}(P)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}P\left(𝒵_j^{(1)}\right).$$

As this is exactly the action of $`hPhA`$ on $`v_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}`$, the augmentation ideal $`J_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}`$ acts on the image of $`v^{(n)}`$ in $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_{n\omega })`$ by zero.

Now we have the surjective map $`\varphi :S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)/J_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)W_M(\{𝒵\}_{n\omega })`$. The module in the left hand side is generated by the image $`v^{}`$ of $`v^{(n)}S^n\left(L_A(V)\right)`$. Note that $`v^{}`$ satisfies the same conditions (2) as $`v_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}`$, namely $`eA`$ acts on $`v^{(n)}`$ and therefore on $`v^{}`$ by zero, and $`hA`$ acts on $`v^{}`$ by the augmentation (6). As $`\varphi (v^{})=v_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}`$, the universality property of $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_{n\omega })`$ implies that $`\varphi `$ is an isomorphism. ∎

###### Proposition 12.

Any quotient $`W`$ of $`W_A(n\omega )`$ such that $`dimW^{𝔫\omega }=1`$ is indeed a quotient of $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_{n\omega })`$ for a certain $`n\omega `$-multiset $`\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`v`$ be the image of $`v_{n\omega }`$ in $`W`$. We know that $`hA`$ acts on $`v`$ by a certain functional on $`A`$, so the tensor algebra $`T^{}(A)U(hA)`$ acts on $`v`$ by a certain augmentation $`ϵ`$.

Note that the defined above map $`T^{}(A)S^n(A)`$ is surjective and that its kernel is contained in the augmentation ideal of $`ϵ`$. Therefore $`ϵ`$ is the pull back of a certain augmentation $`\epsilon `$ of $`S^n(A)`$. It means that $`S^n(A)`$ acts on $`v`$ by $`\epsilon `$. We have $`\epsilon 0`$ as the action of $`1S^n(A)`$ on $`v`$ is not zero.

So the kernel of $`\epsilon `$ is a maximal ideal in $`S^n(A)`$, i.e. a point on $`S^n(M)`$, that is a set of $`n`$ points on $`M`$ (not necessarily distinct). Denote them by $`𝒵_j^{(1)}`$, $`j=1\mathrm{}n`$. Then the vector $`v`$ satisfies the same conditions (2) as $`v_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega }}`$. Universality property implies the proposition. ∎

###### Theorem 5.

Let $`𝔤`$ be an arbitrary semisimple Lie algebra. Then any quotient $`W`$ of $`W_A(\lambda )`$ such that $`dimW^\lambda =1`$ is indeed a quotient of $`W_M(\{𝒵\}_\lambda )`$ for a certain $`\lambda `$-multiset $`\{𝒵\}_\lambda `$.

###### Proof.

Let $`v`$ be the image of $`v_\lambda `$ in $`W`$. For $`i=1\mathrm{}r`$ by $`sl_2^{(i)}`$ denote the subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ generated by $`e_i`$, $`h_i`$, $`f_i`$.

Let $`W^{(i)}`$ be the subspace of $`W`$ generated by $`v`$ under the action of $`sl_2^{(i)}A`$. Then $`W^{(i)}`$ satisfies the conditions of Proposition 12. So $`h_iA`$ acts on $`v`$ according to (2) for a certain set $`\{𝒵_j^{(i)}\}_{j=1\mathrm{}\lambda _i}`$. Combining these sets for $`i=1\mathrm{}r`$ into a $`\lambda `$-multiset, we obtain the statement of the theorem. ∎

### 2.2. Beyond $`sl_2`$

Let us first consider the case $`𝔤=sl_{r+1}`$. By $`e_{ij}`$, $`f_{ij}`$, $`1i<jr+1`$ denote the matrix units corresponding to positive and negative roots respectively.

Let $`V_{r+1}`$ be the vector representation. We can similarly define $`L_N(V_{r+1})=V_{r+1}A`$ and consider the symmetric powers.

###### Proposition 13.

We have

$$S^n\left(L_A(V_{r+1})\right)\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_0+i_1+\mathrm{}+i_r=n}{i_j0}}{}S^n\left(L_A(V_{r+1})\right)^{(i_0i_1,i_1i_2,\mathrm{},i_{r1}i_r)},\text{where}$$

$$S^n\left(L_A(V_{r+1})\right)^{(i_0i_1,i_1i_2,\mathrm{},i_{r1}i_r)}S^{i_0}(A)\mathrm{}S^{i_r}(A)$$

and $`h_j1`$ acts on $`S^n\left(L_A(V_{r+1})\right)^{(s_1,\mathrm{},s_r)}`$ by the scalar $`s_j`$.

###### Proof.

Similar to Proposition 9. ∎

###### Theorem 6.

We have the natural isomorphism of $`sl_{r+1}A`$-modules

$$W_A(n\omega _1)S^n\left(L_A(V_{r+1})\right).$$

###### Proof.

Similar to Theorem 3. The basis is formed by monomials

(7)
$$(f_{12}P_{j_1^1}\mathrm{}f_{12}P_{j_{i_1}^1})\mathrm{}(f_{1,r+1}P_{j_1^r}\mathrm{}f_{1,r+1}P_{j_{i_r}^r})(h_1P_{j_1^0}\mathrm{}h_1P_{j_{i_0}^0})v^{(n)},j_1^m\mathrm{}j_{i_m}^m,$$

with $`i_0+\mathrm{}+i_r=n`$.

The analog of Proposition 10 is straightforwardly similar. Repeating the proof of Proposition 11, let us show that these monomials span the Weyl module.

By Lemma 2 we have the restriction $`i_1+\mathrm{}+i_rn`$. Let us fix the grading, that is fix the integers $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_r`$ (but not $`i_0`$). Similarly introduce the partial order comparing $`i_0`$, and then the number of $`j_k^r`$ equal to one.

Then each monomial (7) can be obtained as the highest monomial in

$$(e_{1,r+1}P_{j_1^0}\mathrm{}e_{1,r+1}P_{j_{i_0}^0})f_{1,r+1}^{i_0}(f_{12}P_{j_1^1}\mathrm{}f_{12}P_{j_{i_1}^1})\mathrm{}(f_{1,r+1}P_{j_1^r}\mathrm{}f_{1,r+1}P_{j_{i_r}^r})v^{(n)}$$

with respect to this order. So for $`i_0+i_1+\mathrm{}+i_n>n`$ each monomial (7) is the highest monomial of a relation, therefore by Lemma 5 (ii) the other monomials (7) span the module. For $`i_0+i_1+\mathrm{}+i_n<n`$ we just set the additional indexes $`j_s^0`$ equal to one. ∎

Define the action of $`S^n(A)`$ and the ideal $`J_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega _1}}`$ as above.

###### Theorem 7.

For any $`\{𝒵\}_{n\omega _1}`$ we have the natural isomorphism of $`sl_{r+1}A`$-modules

$$W_M(\{𝒵\}_{n\omega _1})S^n\left(L_A(V_{r+1})\right)/J_{\{𝒵\}_{n\omega _1}}S^n\left(L_A(V_{r+1})\right)$$

###### Proof.

Straightforwardly similar to Theorem 4. ∎

In the case of an arbitrary Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ the following analog of the conjecture \[CP\] about global Weyl modules looks reasonable.

###### Conjecture 1.

Let $`V^{(i)}`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}r`$ be the fundamental representations of $`𝔤`$. By $`v^{(i)}V^{(i)}`$ denote the highest weight vectors. Then the module $`W_A(\lambda )`$ over the algebra $`𝔤A`$ is isomorphic to the submodule of

$$\left(V^{(1)}A\right)^{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}\left(V^{(r)}A\right)^{\lambda _r}$$

generated by $`\left(v^{(1)}1\right)^{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}\left(v^{(r)}1\right)^{\lambda _r}`$.

We also expect some results similar to \[CK\].

## 3. Case of polynomial algebra

### 3.1. General case

Recall that by Corollary 1 any local Weyl module on a non-singular variety of dimension $`d`$ is isomorphic to the tensor product of some modules $`W_^d(\{0\}_{\lambda ^i})`$. Let us describe them for $`𝔤=sl_{r+1}`$ and the weight equal to $`n\omega _1`$ in more detail.

Let $`M=^d`$, then $`A=[x^1,\mathrm{},x^d]`$. We will write it as $`A=[𝐱]`$, where $`𝐱=(x^1,\mathrm{},x^d)^d`$. Also fix the notation $`[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]`$ for the algebra of polynomials in $`n`$ multivariables (that is in $`dn`$ usual variables) and the notation $`[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]_+`$ for the ideal of polynomials with zero at the origin.

Note that the symmetric group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ acts on $`[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]`$ by permutation of multivariables. Then the space of invariants $`[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}`$ generalizes the notion of symmetric polynomials.

Introduce the Frobenius transformation $`_n^{r+1}`$ from the Grothendieck ring of the symmetric group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ to the Grothendieck ring of $`sl_{r+1}`$ mapping any $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$-module $`\pi `$ to the $`sl_{r+1}`$-module $`(V_{r+1}^n\pi )^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}`$. Here $`sl_{r+1}`$ acts on the factors $`V_{r+1}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ acts on $`V_{r+1}^n`$ by permuting the factors as well as on $`\pi `$.

To be explicit, $`_n^{r+1}`$ maps the irreducible representation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ corresponding to a partition $`\xi `$ to the irreducible representation of $`sl_{r+1}`$ with highest weight $`(\xi _1\xi _2,\mathrm{},\xi _r\xi _{r+1})`$ if $`\xi _{r+2}=0`$ and to zero otherwise.

For an algebra $`A`$ and a subalgebra $`B`$ introduce the notation $`A/B=A/(BA)`$.

###### Corollary 2.

For $`𝔤=sl_{r+1}`$ we have an isomorphism of $`sl_{r+1}`$-modules

$$W_^d(\{0\}_{n\omega _1})_n^{r+1}([𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]/[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]_+^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}).$$

###### Proof.

Note that $`A^n[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]`$ and $`S^n(A)[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}`$. Therefore

$$S^n\left(L_A(V_{r+1})\right)\left(V_{r+1}^n[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]\right)^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}$$

and $`J_{\{0\}_{𝔫\omega _1}}[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]_+^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}`$. So by Theorem 7 the quotient $`W_^d(\{0\}_{n\omega _1})`$ is exactly as proposed. ∎

Also let us calculate weights multiplicities of this module.

###### Corollary 3.

For $`𝔤=sl_{r+1}`$ we have

$$W_^d(\{0\}_{n\omega _1})^{(i_0i_1,i_1i_2,\mathrm{},i_{r1}i_r)}[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i_0}\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{i_r}}/[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]_+^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n},$$

where $`i_0+\mathrm{}+i_r=n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i_0}\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{i_r}`$ acts as a subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$.

###### Proof.

It follows in the similar way from Theorem 7 and Proposition 13. ∎

So investigation of Weyl modules in this case is reduced to a question about the multi-variable analog of symmetric functions.

### 3.2. One-dimensional case

This calculation is based on the following statement.

###### Theorem 8.

(Chevalley) The representation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ in the quotient $`[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]/[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]_+^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}`$ is isomorphic to the regular one.

In \[CP\] it is shown that in $`sl_2`$ case we have

$$dimW_{}(\{0\}_{n\omega })=2^n,dimW_{}(\{0\}_{n\omega })^{n2i}=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{i}\right].$$

Let us slightly generalize this statement.

###### Proposition 14.

For $`𝔤=sl_{r+1}`$ we have

$$dimW_{}(\{0\}_{n\omega _1})=(r+1)^n,dimW_{}(\{0\}_{n\omega _1})^{(i_0i_1,i_1i_2,\mathrm{},i_{r1}i_r)}=\frac{n!}{i_0!i_1!\mathrm{}i_r!}$$

for all $`i_0+\mathrm{}+i_r=n`$.

###### Proof.

Let us prove the second formula, then the first one follows. By Corollary 3 we have

$$W_{}(\{0\}_{n\omega _1})^{(i_0i_1,i_1i_2,\mathrm{},i_{r1}i_r)}[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i_0}\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{i_r}}/[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]_+^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}$$

So we have the subspace of invariants in the regular representation $`[\mathrm{\Sigma }_n]`$ with respect to the subgroup $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i_0}\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{i_r}`$. Then the dimension is equal to the index of the subgroup. ∎

### 3.3. Two-dimensional case

This calculation is based on the following result from \[H\].

Recall that a function $`f:\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ is called a parking function if $`|f^1(\{1,\mathrm{},k\})|k`$ for $`k=1\mathrm{}n`$.

The group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ acts on the set $`PF_n`$ of parking functions by permutation on the domain. Let $`PF_n`$ be the permutation representation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ on parking functions.

###### Theorem 9.

(See \[H\], Theorem 3.10 together with Proposition 3.13) Let $`𝐱_i^2`$. Then the representation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ in the quotient $`[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]/[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]_+^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}`$ is isomorphic to the product $`PF_n\epsilon `$, where $`\epsilon `$ is the sign representation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$.

To describe $`PF_n`$ more explicitly introduce the class of integer sequences

$$𝒜_n=\{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)|a_i0,a_1+\mathrm{}+a_n=n,a_1+\mathrm{}+a_kk\text{for}k=1\mathrm{}n\}.$$

###### Proposition 15.

We have

$$PF_n=\underset{𝒜_n}{}\mathrm{Ind}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{a_1}\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{a_n}}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}.$$

###### Proof.

For a sequence $`(a_1,\mathrm{}a_n)`$ with $`a_i0`$, $`a_1+\mathrm{}+a_n=n`$ consider the set of functions $`f:\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that $`|f^1(\{i\})|=a_i`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}n`$. This set admits the action of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ by permutation on the domain and forms the permutation representation isomorphic to

$$[\mathrm{\Sigma }_n/\mathrm{\Sigma }_{a_1}\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{a_n}]\mathrm{Ind}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{a_1}\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{a_n}}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}.$$

To complete the proof note that parking functions just correspond to $`(a_1,\mathrm{}a_n)𝒜_n`$. ∎

By $`_n^s`$ denote the set of subsets $`H\{1\mathrm{}sn\}`$ such that

$$|H|=n,|H\{1,\mathrm{},k\}|\frac{k}{s}.$$

Such subsets are usually called Raney sequences (see \[GKP\], \[S\]).

###### Theorem 10.

Let $`𝔤=sl_{r+1}`$.

1. The dimension of the space $`W_^2(\{0\}_{n\omega _1})`$ is equal to the number of elements in $`_{n+1}^{r+1}`$.
2. The dimension of the space $`W_^2(\{0\}_{n\omega _1})^{(i_0i_1,i_1i_2,\mathrm{},i_{r1}i_r)}`$ is equal to the number of elements $`H_{n+1}^{r+1}`$ such that

$$|\{iH|ij+1\mathrm{mod}(r+1)\}|=i_j,j=1\mathrm{}r.$$

###### Proof.

By Corollary 2 and Theorem 9 we have

$$W_^2(\{0\}_{n\omega _1})_n^{r+1}([𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]/[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_n]_+^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n})_n^{r+1}(PF_n\epsilon ),$$

so the Frobenius duality and Proposition 15 imply

$`W_^2(\{0\}_{n\omega _1})\left(V_{r+1}^nPF_n\epsilon \right)^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}(\epsilon (V_{r+1}^{})^n,PF_n)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝒜_n}{}}\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n}(\epsilon (V_{r+1}^{})^n,\mathrm{Ind}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{a_1}\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{a_n}}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝒜_n}{}}\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{a_1}\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_{a_n}}(\epsilon (V_{r+1}^{})^n,){\displaystyle \underset{𝒜_n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(^{a_i}V_{r+1}\right).`$
Let $`v`$ be the highest weight vector of $`V_{r+1}`$. Choose the graded basis $`v_jV_{r+1}`$, $`j=1\mathrm{}r+1`$, by setting $`v_j=f_{1,j+1}v`$ for $`jr`$ and $`v_{r+1}=v`$. Then the graded monomials spanning $`W_^2(\{0\}_{n\omega _1})`$ look like

$$(v_{j_1^1}\mathrm{}v_{j_{a_1}^1})\mathrm{}(v_{j_1^n}\mathrm{}v_{j_{a_n}^n}),1j_t^sr+1,(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)𝒜_n.$$

With this element we associate the set

$$H=\{1,(r+1)(s1)+j_t^s+1|t=1\mathrm{}a_s,s=1\mathrm{}n\}.$$

Then the condition $`H_{n+1}^{r+1}`$ is equivalent to $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)𝒜_n`$. So we have a bijection between $`_{n+1}^{r+1}`$ and graded monomials. Concerning the grading note that the number of factors $`v_j`$ for $`j=1\mathrm{}r`$ in a graded monomial is equal to the number of elements in the corresponding set $`H`$ equivalent to $`j+1`$ modulo $`r+1`$. ∎

###### Corollary 4.

For $`𝔤=sl_2`$ we have

$$dimW_^2(\{0\}_{n\omega })=\frac{(2n+2)!}{(n+1)!(n+2)!},$$

that is the Catalan numbers and

$$dimW_^2(\{0\}_{n\omega })^{n2i}=\frac{(n+1)!n!}{(ni+1)!(ni)!(i+1)!i!},i=0\mathrm{}n,$$

that is the Narayana numbers.

###### Proof.

Let $`C_0(z)=z^1`$ and

$$C_{n+1}(z)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}z^{n2i}\frac{(n+1)!n!}{(ni+1)!(ni)!(i+1)!i!}.$$

Then we have (see \[S\], Section 6)

$$C_{n+1}(z)=\underset{s=0}{\overset{n}{}}C_s(z^1)C_{ns}(z).$$

To prove the corollary it is enough to check this relation for

$$\mathrm{ch}W_^2(\{0\}_{n\omega })=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}z^{n2i}dimW_^2(\{0\}_{n\omega })^{n2i}.$$

By Theorem 10 we can work with Raney sequences, namely let $`R_n^{(i)}`$ be the number of sets $`H_n^2`$ such that $`H`$ has exactly $`i`$ even elements. Let $`R_0(z)=z^1`$ and

$$R_{n+1}(z)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}z^{n2i}R_{n+1}^{(i)}.$$

Then it is enough to show that $`R_{n+1}(z)=_{s=0}^nR_s(z^1)R_{ns}(z)`$.

Take $`H_{n+1}^2`$. Let $`s`$ be the first non-negative integer such that $`|H\{1,\mathrm{},2s+2\}|=s+1`$. Then we can split $`H`$ into

$$H_1=\{i1\mathrm{}2s|i+1H\},H_2=\{i1\mathrm{}2n2s|i+2s+2H\}.$$

Clearly $`H_1_s^2`$ and $`H_2_{ns}^2`$. On the other hand, if $`H_1_s^2`$ and $`H_2_{ns}^2`$ then we can glue them into the set

$$H=\{1\}\{i+1|iH_1\}\{i+2s+2|iH_2\}_{n+1}^2$$

Concerning the grading note that the set of even elements in $`H`$ is formed by odd elements in $`H_1`$ and even elements in $`H_2`$. And the inversion of the formal variable $`z`$ in the recurrence relation means exactly that we count odd elements instead of even ones. ∎

###### Corollary 5.

For $`𝔤=sl_{r+1}`$ we have

$$dimW_^2(\{0\}_{n\omega _1})=\frac{((r+1)(n+1))!}{(n+1)!(r(n+1)+1)!}.$$

That is the higher Catalan numbers.

###### Proof.

Similar to $`sl_2`$ case. See \[GKP\], Section 7.5 concerning Raney sequences. ∎

So the weight multiplicities of these modules can be considered as higher Narayana numbers.

### 3.4. A conjecture for higher dimensions

###### Conjecture 2.

For $`𝔤=sl_2`$ we have

$$dimW_^d(\{0\}_{n\omega })^{n2i}=\frac{(d+n1)!\mathrm{}(d+ni)!}{(n1)!\mathrm{}(ni)!}\frac{2!\mathrm{}(i1)!}{d!\mathrm{}(d+i1)!},i=0\mathrm{}n,$$

that equal to the dimension of the irreducible representation of $`sl_n`$ with highest weight $`d\omega _i`$ for $`i=1\mathrm{}n1`$ (and equal to one for $`i=0,n`$).

Then the dimensions of Weyl modules $`W_^d(\{0\}_{n\omega })`$ form so called Hoggatt sequences (see \[FA\]).

## Appendix

Here we perform a formal computation used in this paper. We take a commutative algebra $`A`$ with unit and consider the Lie algebra $`sl_2A`$. Let $`P_1,\mathrm{}P_nA`$, and suppose that the vector $`v`$ is such that $`(eP_i)v=(hP_i)v=0`$ for all $`i`$. Let us write $`f`$ instead of $`f1`$. Our aim is to calculate

$$(eP_1)\mathrm{}(eP_n)f^mv.$$

Suppose we have $`m`$ indistinguishable glasses (set $`𝒢_m`$) and $`n`$ distinguishable ingredients ($`I_1`$, …, $`I_n`$). By cocktail serving denote a way $`S`$ to distribute ingredients between glasses (each ingredient into only one glass). By $`𝒮(m,n)`$ denote the set of all possible cocktail serving.

We now associate an element of $`U(sl_2A)`$ with a set of elements $`P_1`$ …, $`P_nA`$ and a cocktail serving $`S`$. First for each glass $`G𝒢_m`$ we take $`P(G)A`$ equal to the product of $`P_i`$ for all $`I_i`$ from the glass $`G`$. Then we set $`f(S)=_{G𝒢_m}(fP(G))`$.

###### Proposition 16.

We have

(8)
$$(eP_1)\mathrm{}(eP_n)f^{n+m}v=\underset{S𝒮(m,n)}{}c(S)f(S)v,$$

where $`c(S)`$ are integers and $`(1)^nc(S)>0`$ for $`m>0`$.

###### Proof.

Induction on $`n`$. For $`n=0`$ we have empty glasses and the only constant equal to one. Concerning the step, note that

$`(eP)(fQ_1)\mathrm{}(fQ_n)v={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(fQ_1)\mathrm{}(fQ_{i1})(hPQ_i)(fQ_{i+1})\mathrm{}(fQ_n)v=`$
$`=2{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}(fPQ_iQ_j){\displaystyle \underset{ki,j}{}}(fQ_k)v={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(fPQ_iQ_j){\displaystyle \underset{ki,j}{}}(fQ_k)v.`$
For $`G_1,G_2𝒢_m`$ introduce the mixing map $`\mathrm{Mix}_{n+1}^{G_1,G_2}:𝒮(m,n)𝒮(m1,n+1)`$ that identifies the glass $`G_1`$ with the glass $`G_2`$, puts there all their ingredients and finally adds there the ingredient $`I_{n+1}`$. Then for any $`S𝒮(m,n1)`$ we have

$$(eP_n)f(S)v=\underset{G_1G_2𝒢_m}{}f(\mathrm{Mix}_n^{G_1,G_2}(S))v.$$

By induction we have (8), but it remains to show that $`(1)^nc(S)>0`$. Note that $`c(S)`$ is the sum of $`c(S^{})`$ such that $`S^{}𝒮(m+1,n1)`$ and $`S`$ is obtained from $`S^{}`$ by mixing. Therefore $`(1)^nc(S)0`$ and we have to show that the mixing map is surjective. Consider $`S^{}`$ obtained from $`S`$ as follows. We remove the glass $`G`$ containing $`I_n`$ and instead take the glasses $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ containing the other (excluding $`I_n`$) ingredients from $`G`$. Then we have $`S=\mathrm{Mix}_n^{G_1,G_2}(S^{})`$. ∎


format: text

text:
# Self-Assembling of Networks in an Agent-Based Model

## I Introduction

The *emergence* of network structures, i.e. the *self-organized* formation of links between a set of nodes is of crucial importance in many different fields. In electronic engineering, for instance, one is interested in the *self-assembling* and *self-repairing* of electronic circuits (wang-01, ; cui-lieber-01, ; mange-stauffer-94, ), while in biology models for the self-wiring of *neuronal networks* are investigated (segev-physlett-98, ; segev-00, ). On the social level, the self-organization of human trail networks between different destinations is a similar problem (helbing-fs-et-97, ). Also the establishment of connections on demand in telecommunication or logistics is related to the problem discussed here.

A desirable feature of self-organized networks is their *adaptivity*. This means that new nodes can be linked to the existing network or linked nodes can be disconnected from the network if this is required, e.g. by the change of some external conditions. Noteworthy, such a behavior should be not governed by a “supervisor” or “dispatcher”, it should rather result from the adaptive capabilities of the network itself.

Such problems become even more complicated if no *a priori* information about the network structure is provided, i.e. the network has to self-organize itself not only regarding the links but also regarding the nodes. This is the case for instance if the nodes to be linked to the network are “unknown” in the sense, that they *first* have to be *discovered* and only *then* can be *connected*. A common biological example is the formation of a trail system in ants to connect a nest to a set of food sources that first have to be found (crist-haefner-94, ; fs-lao-family-97, ). Such networks are known to be rather flexible and adaptive. After food sources are exhausted, they are “disconnected” from the existing network, because they are no longer visited and the respective trail is no longer maintained, but newly found food sources can be linked to the existing network as well.

Another important example for this kind of phenomena can be found in the self-wiring of neural structures. A neuron that grows from the retina of the eye towards the optic tectum (or superior colliculus) of the brain, does not “know” from the outset about its destination node in the brain, hence it has to navigate through an unknown environment in order to detect and to reach the appropriate area. Neural growth cones appear to be guided by at least four different mechanisms: contact attraction, chemoattraction, contact repulsion, and chemorepulsion (tessier-goodman-96, ). These mechanisms seem to act simultaneously and in a coordinated manner to direct pathfinding. Once these specific pathways are established, neuronal growth cones can navigate over long distances to find their correct targets.

It is known that gradients of different chemical cues play a considerable role in this navigation process. They provide a kind of *positional information* for the navigation of the growth cones (gierer-83, ). Already in 1963 Sperry (sperry-63, ) proposed that positional information might be encoded in the form of gradients of signaling molecules that could be detected by the axons. I.e. axons could read positional information at every point on the tectum. Noteworthy, such an explanation assumes that the positional information resulting from the different gradients preexists in the environment. It may then provide a kind of long-range attraction or repulsion for the growth cones, which act together with other short-range mechanismis.

This points to the question that shall be answered in this paper: Is it possible to link a set of nodes without using preexisting positional information or any kind of long-range attraction of the nodes? Can the process of generating positional information, i.e. the detection of “unknown” nodes and the estabishment of chemical gradients, *and* the process of network formation, i.e. the establishment of links between nodes, occur in parallel, on a comparable time scale, as a process of co-evolution?

In order to show this, in Sect. II we introduce a model of Brownian agents that are capable of producing different local (chemical) information and respond to it in a non-linear manner. In Sect. III, this model is applied to the formation of a network between a set of nodes. We present results of computer simulations that demonstrate the emergence of network structures. In Sect. IV, we investigate the network connectivity as a particular quantitative feature of the network by means of both analytical estimations and computer simulations. In Sect. V, we conclude the results and comment also on the agent-based method used in this paper.

## II Model of Brownian Agents

The self-organization of a network is, in the considered case, based on two different kind of *activities*: (i) the generation of positional information in terms of chemical gradients, (ii) the nonlinear response to the existing information in order to link the different nodes. These rather complex processes are not performed by usual physical particles, therefore we have introduced the concept of *Brownian agents* (fs-book-01, ) as a simple way to consider certain activities within the framework of statistical physics.

A Brownian agent $`i`$ is characterized by different state variables that could be either external variables such as its position $`𝒓_i`$ or its velocity $`𝒗_i`$, or *internal degrees of freedom*. $`\theta _i`$ for example is assumed a discrete valued parameter that allows to describe different responses of agent $`i`$ to external signals, or different changes of its environment. Because all kind of activities need energy, the agent’s energy depot, $`e_i`$ is another important internal degree of freedom (fs-eb-tilch-98-let, ). These state variables may change in the course of time, either or both by deterministic and stochastic influences. Similar to the description of Brownian motion, we will use a generalized Langevin equation for the Brownian agent (which also justifies its denotation). For the change of the agent’s position we may assume an overdamped Langevin equation:

$$\frac{d𝒓_i}{dt}=\alpha _i\frac{h^e(𝒓,t)}{𝒓}|_{𝒓_i,\theta _i}+\sqrt{2\epsilon _i}\xi _i(t)$$
(1)
The second term denotes the stochastic influences, where $`\xi _i(t)`$ is white noise with $`\xi _i(t)=0`$ and $`\xi _i(t)\xi _j(t^{})=\delta _{ij}\delta (tt^{})`$. The strength of the stochastic force $`\epsilon _i`$ could be in general an individual parameter to weight the stochastic influences, this way it can for example measure the individual sensitivity $`\omega _i1/\epsilon _i`$ of the agent. The first term denotes the deterministic influences that are in the considered case assumed to result from the *gradient* of an *effective field* $`h^e(𝒓,t)`$. This field contains the positional information provided by different chemical cues as specified below. The parameter $`\alpha _i`$ describes the strength of the individual response of the agent to the field and weights the deterministic influences. $`\alpha _i`$ can be used to describe different responses to the field, e.g.

* attraction to the field, $`\alpha _i>0`$, or repulsion, $`\alpha _i<0`$
* response only if the local value of the field is above a certain threshold $`h_0`$: $`\alpha _i=\mathrm{\Theta }[h^e(𝒓,t)h_0]`$, with $`\mathrm{\Theta }[y]`$ being the Heavyside function: $`\mathrm{\Theta }=1`$, if $`y>0`$, otherwise $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$.
* response only if the agent has a specific internal value $`\theta `$: $`\alpha _i=\delta _{\theta _i,\theta }`$.

Throughout this paper, we assume the two individual parameters as constants: $`\alpha _i\alpha =1`$ and $`\epsilon _i=D_n`$ where $`D_n`$ is the spatial diffusion coefficient, but we want to mention that the idea of an adjustable sensitivity has been successfully applied to model search problems with Brownian agents (fs-lao-family-97, ; fs-97-agent, ).

In addition to the movement of the Brownian agents, i.e. changes of their state variables $`𝒓_i`$, we also have to consider changes of their internal degree of freedom $`\theta _i(t)`$ that in this application should have one of the following values: $`\theta _i\{0,1,+1\}`$. Initially, $`\theta _i(t_0)=0`$ holds for every agent. The parameter $`\theta _i`$ can be changed in the course of time by an interaction between the moving agents and the nodes. To be specific, we consider a two-dimensional surface, where a number of $`j=1,\mathrm{},z`$ nodes are located at the positions $`𝒓_j^z`$ (cf. Fig. 1). A number of $`z_+`$ nodes should be characterized by a positive potential, $`V_j=+1`$, while $`z_{}=zz_+`$ nodes have a negative potential, $`V_j=1`$. We note explicitely, that the nodes do *not* have any *long-range effect* on the agents, such as attraction or repulsion. Their effect is restricted to their location, $`𝒓_j^z`$.

It is the (twofold) task of the Brownian agents, first to *discover* the nodes and then to *link* nodes with an opposite potential, this way forming a self-organized network between the set of nodes. If an agent hits one of the nodes, its internal degree of freedom is changed due to the following equation:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _i(t)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{z}{}}(V_j\theta _i)\frac{1}{A}_A\delta \left(𝒓_j^z𝒓_i(t)\right)𝑑𝒓$$
(2)
The delta function is equal to $`1`$ only for $`𝒓_j^z=𝒓_i`$ and zero otherwise. So, eq. (2) indicates, that a agent changes its internal state, $`\theta _i`$, only if it hits one of the nodes. Then it takes over the value of the potential of the respecting node, $`V_j`$, which means $`\theta _i`$ remains constant if $`V_j=\theta _i`$, and $`\theta _iV_j`$, if $`V_j\theta _i`$. We note that the probability for a (pointlike) agent to hit a (pointlike) node is almost vanishing. However, the computer simulations discussed in the following section are carried out on a discrete lattice, so the agent and the node both have a finite extension, in which case eq. (2) makes sense.

If the Brownian agent hits one of the nodes, this impact may result in an active state of the agent - a kick, originated by the potential, which may change the internal parameter, $`\theta _i`$, due to eq. (2). In the active state, it is assumed that the agent is able to produce a chemical, either component $`(1)`$ or $`(+1)`$, in dependence on the actual value of the internal parameter. We note that the agent’s ability to produce the chemical in general depends on another internal parameter, namely the internal energy depot that may set limits to the agent’s activities. In this model however it is assumed that the internal energy depot is always sufficiently balanced, thus its influence shall be neglected here. The agent’s chemical production rate, $`s_i(\theta _i,t)`$, is assumed as follows:

$`s_i(\theta _i,t)={\displaystyle \frac{\theta _i}{2}}[`$ $`(1+\theta _i)s_{+1}^0\mathrm{exp}\{\beta _{+1}(tt_{n+}^i)\}`$ (3)
$``$ $`(1\theta _i)s_1^0\mathrm{exp}\{\beta _1(tt_n^i)\}]`$
Eq. (3) means that the agent is not active, as long as $`\theta _i=0`$, which means before it hits one of the nodes the first time. After that event, the agent begins to produce either component $`(+1)`$ if $`\theta _i=+1`$, or component $`(1)`$ if $`\theta _i=1`$. This activity, however, goes down with time, expressed in an exponential decrease of the production rate. Here, $`s_{+1}^0,s_1^0`$ are the initial production rates and $`\beta _{+1},\beta _1`$ are the decay parameters for the production of the chemical components $`(+1)`$ or $`(1)`$. Respectively, $`t_{n+}^i,t_n^i`$ are the times, when the agent $`i`$ hits either a node with a positive or a negative potential.

The spatio-temporal concentration of the chemicals shall be described by a *chemical field* $`h_\theta (𝒓,t)`$ consisting either of component $`(+1)`$ or $`(1)`$, which obeys the following equation:

$$\frac{h_\theta (𝒓,t)}{t}=k_\theta h_\theta (𝒓,t)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}s_i(\theta _i,t)\delta _{\theta ;\theta _i}\delta \left(𝒓𝒓_i(t)\right)$$
(4)
The first term describes the exponential decay of the existing concentration due to spontaneous decomposition of the chemical, where $`k_\theta `$ is the decomposition rate. The second term denotes the production of the field by the agents. Here, $`\delta _{\theta ;\theta _i}`$ means the Kronecker Delta used for discrete variables, indicating that the agents only contribute to the field component that matches their internal parameter $`\theta _i`$. The Delta function $`\delta (𝒓𝒓_i(t))`$ means that the agents contribute to the field only *locally*, at their current position, $`𝒓_i`$. Diffusion of the chemical substances is not considered here.

The *effective* field, $`h^e(𝒓,t)`$, is a specific function of the different components of the field, eq. (4). It should influence the movement of the agents according to the overdamped Langevin eq. (1) and dependent on their current internal parameter, $`\theta _i`$, as follows:

$$\frac{h^e(𝒓,t)}{𝒓}=\frac{\theta _i}{2}\left[(1+\theta _i)\frac{h_1(𝒓,t)}{𝒓}(1\theta _i)\frac{h_{+1}(𝒓,t)}{𝒓}\right]$$
(5)
Eq. (6) summarize the non-linear feedback between the field and the agents, as given by the eqs. (3), (4), (5):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\theta _i& \mathbf{}_ih^e(𝒓,t)& s_i(\theta _i,t)\\ & & \\ 0& 0& 0\\ +1& \mathbf{}_ih_1(𝒓,t)& s_i(+1,t)\\ 1& \mathbf{}_ih_{+1}(𝒓,t)& s_i(1,t)\end{array}$$
(6)
Before presenting computer simulations, we would like to summarize our model of network formation that is introduced here in terms of a *agent-based* approach. Each agent is active in the sense that it can (i) move, (ii) produce locally one out of two different chemical cues and (iii) respond to local gradients of these different chemicals. The actions of all agents are coupled indirectly via an effective field that is comprised of the two different chemical components. The agent activities further depend on an internal parameter $`\theta _i`$ that allows to describe a different “behavior”: Our model assumes, that agents with an internal state $`\theta _i=0`$ do not contribute to the field and are not affected by the field. They simply move like Brownian particles. Agents with an internal state $`\theta _i=+1`$ contribute to the field by producing the chemical cue $`(+1)`$, while they are affected by the part of the field that is determined by chemical $`(1)`$. On the other hand, agents with an internal state $`\theta _i=1`$ contribute to the field by producing chemical $`(1)`$ and are affected by the part of the field, which is determined by component $`(+1)`$. Moreover, if the agent hits one of the nodes, the internal state can be switched due to eq. (2). Hence, the agent begins to produce a different chemical while beeing affected by the opposite potential. Precisely, at one time the agent does *not* respond to the gradient of the same field component, which it contributes to via producing a chemical.

As the result of this non-linear feedback between the Brownian agents and the effective field generated by them, we can observe the formation of macroscopic structures shown in the following section.

## III Simulation Results of Network Formation

For the computer simulations, a triangular lattice with periodic boundary conditions was used. Further, we have assumed that the parameters describing the production and decay of the chemical, are the same for both components:

$$s_{+1}^0=s_1^0=s_0;k_{+1}=k_1=k_h;\beta _{+1}=\beta _1=\beta $$
(7)
The agents start initially at random positions and with the internal parameter $`\theta _i(t=0)=0`$. For the evolution of the network, we evaluate the sum $`\widehat{h}(𝒓,t)`$ of the two field components generated by the agents. For the plots, however, we have to match these values with a *grey scale* of 256 values, which is defined as follows:

$`c(𝒓,t)`$ $`=`$ $`255\left[1\mathrm{log}\left(1+9{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{h}(𝒓,t)\widehat{h}_{min}(t)}{\widehat{h}_{max}(t)\widehat{h}_{min}(t)}}\right)\right]`$
$`\widehat{h}(𝒓,t)`$ $`=`$ $`h_{+1}(𝒓,t)+h_1(𝒓,t)`$ (8)
This means that the highest actual value, $`\widehat{h}_{max}(t)`$, always refers to *black* ($`c=0`$ in PostScript), whereas the actual minimum value, $`\widehat{h}_{min}(t)`$ encodes *white* ($`c=255`$). Both extreme values change of course in time, therefore each snapshot of the time series presented has its own value mapping.

As a first example, we show the evolution of the connections between four nodes (Fig. 2). In the course of time agents that have by chance discovered a node (this way going over into an active state) begin to perform a *directed motion* between the different nodes. Eventually, a link appears which can be clearly distinguished from the surrounding.

Fig. 2 would suggest that in the course of time all nodes with an opposite potential should be connected. This however is not the case because the existing connections cause a *screening effect* that forces the agents to move along existing connections rather than making up new ones. This screening effect becomes more obvious, when the number of nodes is increased. Fig. 3 shows the time evolution of a network, which should connect 40 nodes (cf. also Fig. 1). We see 111A video of these computer simulations can be found at http://www.ais.fhg.de/~frank/network.html. that in the course of time the agents aggregate along the connections, which results in higher agent concentrations and in higher fields along the connections. The self-assembling network is created very fast and remains stable in the long run.

The time series of Fig. 3 indicates that for the formation of the network a *transient stage* exists, during which new nodes are discovered and new connections appear. After the transient time $`t_{tr}`$ however the existing links are only stabilized, with small possible fluctuations. In order to get an estimate of the transient time, we have evaluated the total fraction $`x_\theta (t)=N_\theta (t)/N`$ of agents that currently have the internal parameter $`\theta `$. The result shown in Fig. 4 is based on the simulations of Fig. 3. It indicates that after $`t1500`$ simulation steps every agent has found at least one node by chance, thus changing its internal parameter either to $`(+1)`$ or to $`(1)`$. Further, after this time the share between these internal parameters is almost equally balanced, with slight fluctuations around $`x_\theta =0.5`$, dependent on the actual position of the agents.

In (fs-tilch-02-b, ), we have shown that the equations for $`x_\theta (t)`$ read explicitely:

$`x_0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{exp}\left\{D_n{\displaystyle \frac{z_++z_{}}{A}}t\right\}`$ (9)
$`x_\theta (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z_\theta }{z_++z_{}}}\left(1\mathrm{exp}\left\{D_n{\displaystyle \frac{z_++z_{}}{A}}t\right\}\right)`$
$`\theta \{1,+1\}`$
In the asymptotic limit, the fraction $`x_\theta `$ is determined by the appropriate number of nodes, which change the internal state of the agents into $`\theta `$. The transient time $`t_{tr}`$ can be estimated by assuming that the difference between $`x_\theta (t)`$ and the stationary value $`x_\theta ^{stat}`$ should be smaller than a certain value, $`\kappa `$:

$$t_{tr}\frac{A}{D_nz}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{\kappa }\right)$$
(10)
For $`D_n=1`$, we find for $`\kappa =10^2`$ a transient time of $`t_{tr}=1150`$, and for $`\kappa =10^3`$ $`t_{tr}=1700`$, which is in good agreement with the results of the computer simulations. After that time, the assembled network should remain almost stable.

Patterns like the network shown are intrinsically determined by the history of their creation. It means that irreversibility and early symmetry breaks play a considerable role in the determination of the final structure. The location of the different nodes acts more or less as a boundary condition for the structure formation which sets limits to the achievable structures, but does not determine the way of connecting the different nodes.

Despite the fact, that in Fig. 3 almost all nodes are connected by at least one link, only some out of all possible connections have been realized. In particular, only nearest neighbour nodes with opposite potentials are connected. This is partly due to the screening effect that makes longer connections an unlikely event, but also indicates that a maximum distance $`L^{}`$ between two nodes exists, which can only be connected by the agents. An approximation for this critical distance is given in (fs-tilch-02-c, ).

Eventually, we note that the network formation is not restricted to regular or symmetric distributions of nodes. Fig. 5 shows a simulation, where different nodes are connected with a center.

In (fs-lao-family-97, ) we have also discussed a different variant of the model to demonstrate its flexibility in connecting additional nodes to the network, or disconnecting obsolete ones. Further, in (fs-tilch-02-c, ) we have shown that the switching behavior between a connected and a disconneced state can be very short, which would allow the construction of a dynamic switch.

## IV Estimation of the Network Connectivity

### IV.1 Definition of Connectivity

In order to characterize a network, one of the most important questions is whether two nodes $`k`$ and $`l`$ are connected or not. In the model considered a connection is defined in terms of the chemical field $`\widehat{h}(𝒓,t)`$ produced by the agents. During the first stage of the network formation, the agents have randomly visited almost every lattice site before their motion turned into a bound motion between the nodes. Therefore, the field $`\widehat{h}(𝒓,t)`$ has a non-zero value for almost every $`𝒓`$, which exponentially decays, but never vanishes. Hence, in order to *define a connection* in terms of $`\widehat{h}(𝒓,t)`$, we have to introduce a *threshold value* $`h_{thr}`$, which is the minimum value considered for a link. More precisely, a *connection* between two nodes $`k`$ and $`l`$ should only exist if there is a path $`aA`$ between $`k`$ and $`l`$ along which the actual value of the field is larger than the threshold value:

$$\widehat{h}(a,t)>h_{thr}\text{for }aA$$
(11)
Such a definition does not necessarely assumes that the connection has to be a *direct link*. Instead, it could be any path $`a`$, which may also include other nodes, as long as the value $`\widehat{h}(a,t)`$ along the path is above the threshold.

We want to define the *local connectivity* $`E_{lk}`$ as follows:

$$E_{lk}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }k\text{ and }l\text{ are connected by a path }aA\text{,}\hfill \\ & \text{along which }\widehat{h}(a,t)>h_{thr}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
We note that the connectivity $`E_{lk}`$ does not change if two nodes $`k`$ and $`l`$ are connected by more than one path.

If we consider a number of $`z`$ nodes, then the *global connectivity* $`E`$ that refers to the whole network is defined as follows:

$$E=\frac{\underset{k=1}{\overset{z}{}}\underset{l>k}{\overset{z}{}}E_{lk}}{\underset{k=1}{\overset{z}{}}\underset{l>k}{\overset{z}{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}=\frac{2}{z(z1)}\underset{k=1}{\overset{z}{}}\underset{l>k}{\overset{z}{}}E_{lk}$$
(13)
Dependent on the configuration of nodes, there may be numerous different realizations for the connections, which result in the same connectivity $`E`$.

### IV.2 Estimation of the Theshold Value

In order to use the definition for the connectivity to evaluate the simulated networks, we first have to define the threshold value $`h_{thr}`$. This should be the *minimum value* of $`\widehat{h}(𝒓,t)`$ along a *stable connection* between two nodes. For our estimations, we treat the connection between two nearest neighbor nodes $`k`$ and $`l`$ as an *one-dimensional* structure, where $`x`$ is now the space coordinate, and $`L`$ the linear distance between the two nodes $`k`$ and $`l`$. The node at $`x=0`$ should have a positive potential $`V=+1`$, while the node at $`x=L`$ has a negative potential $`V=1`$:

$$0xL;V(0)=+1;V(L)=1$$
(14)
We assume that a stable connection exists if both field components $`h_\theta (x,t)`$ have reached their stationary values:

$$\frac{h_\theta (x,t)}{t}=k_\theta h_\theta (x,t)+\underset{i}{}s_i(\theta ,t)\delta (xx_i)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}$$
(15)
Of course, we do not know, how many agents are actually on the connection between $`k`$ and $`l`$. For our estimations we have to bear in mind that $`h_{thr}`$ should determine the *lower limit* of the possible values of $`\widehat{h}`$, therefore it is justified to assume the worst case, which means that the local number of agents at a specific location is just given by the *average agent density* $`\overline{n}=N/A`$, where $`N`$ is the total agent number and $`A`$ is the surface size. Further, we found in the computer simulations (cf. Fig. 4), that in the long-time limit the agents are equally distributed between the two internal states, $`\theta \{+1,1\}`$. Hence, we assume that on any location along the connection there are $`n_\theta =\overline{n}/2`$ agents in state $`\theta `$. Using this lower limit for the agent number, the delta function in eq. (15) can be replaced by $`\overline{n}/2=N/2A`$ in the continuous limit.

Further, we consider that the agents move along the $`x`$ coordinate with a constant velocity (which also matches with the assumption $`\dot{v}0`$ of the overdamped Langevin equation):

$$v=|𝒗|=\frac{|x|}{t};\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}xL$$
(16)
This allows us to replace $`t`$ in the time dependent production rate, $`s_i(\theta ,t)`$. With these simplified assumptions and the conventions, eq. (7), eq. (15) reads for component $`\theta =+1`$:

$$\frac{h_{+1}(x,t)}{t}=k_hh_{+1}(x,t)+\frac{\overline{n}}{2}s_0\mathrm{exp}\left\{\beta \frac{x}{v}\right\}$$
(17)
Integration of eq. (17) yields with $`h_{+1}(x,t=0)=0`$:

$$h_{+1}(x,t)=\frac{\overline{n}}{2}\frac{s_0}{k_h}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\beta \frac{x}{v}\right\}\left(1\mathrm{exp}\{k_ht\}\right)$$
(18)
Eventually, for $`t\mathrm{}`$ we find from eq. (18) the stationary solution:

$$h_{+1}(x)=\frac{\overline{n}}{2}\frac{s_0}{k_h}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta }{v}x\right\}$$
(19)
The remaining field component $`h_1(x^{},t)`$ should have the same stationary solution as eq. (19), with $`x^{}=Lx`$. The resulting total field $`\widehat{h}(x,t)`$ reads in the stationary limit (cf. Fig. 6):

$`\widehat{h}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`h_{+1}(x)+h_1(Lx)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_0}{k_h}}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{v}}x\right\}+\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{v}}(Lx)\right\}\right]`$
$`0xL`$
The threshold $`h_{thr}`$ should be defined as the minimum of $`\widehat{h}(x)`$, which yields for $`L/2`$. As the result, we find:

$$h_{thr}=\widehat{h}\left(\frac{L}{2}\right)=\frac{N}{A}\frac{s_0}{k_h}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\beta }{v}\frac{L}{2}\right\}$$
(21)
Here, the threshold value is a function of the mean agent density $`\overline{n}`$, the parameters $`s_0`$, $`k_h`$ and $`\beta `$ and the distance between the two nodes, $`L`$. However, due to the decay of the field ($`k_h`$) and the decreasing production rate with time ($`\beta `$), the agents are only able to link nodes that are in a distance closer than a critical distance $`L^{}`$, i.e. eq. (21) makes sense only for $`L<L^{}`$.

In order to get an estimation for $`L^{}`$, we assume that a minimum production rate $`s_{min}`$ exists, which is in the given model the smallest possible amount of chemical released by the agent (naturally, it could be a molecule, if $`s`$ is measured in molecule numbers). With $`t_0`$ being the time when the agent hits the node, we get from

$$s_{min}=s_0\mathrm{exp}\left\{\beta (tt_0)\right\}$$
(22)
the maximum time $`t_{max}`$ after which the production is *negligible*:

$$t_{max}=\frac{1}{\beta }\mathrm{ln}\left\{\frac{s_0}{s_{min}}\right\}$$
(23)
We can now discuss the case, that the agent moves straight with a constant velocity, without changing its direction. Then the maximum distance crossed before the contribution to the field is negligible, would be:

$$L_{max}=vt_{max}=\frac{v}{\beta }\mathrm{ln}\left\{\frac{s_0}{s_{min}}\right\}$$
(24)
Contrary, if we assume that the agent moves like a random walker, the average distance reached after $`t`$ simulation steps, is given by the mean displacement, $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=\sqrt{2dD_nt}`$, which yields for $`d=2`$:

$$L_{av}=\sqrt{2D_nt_{max}}=\sqrt{\frac{2D_n}{\beta }\mathrm{ln}\left\{\frac{s_0}{s_{min}}\right\}}$$
(25)
The real maximum distance that can be connected by one agent in the considered model, is of course between these limits. We have found (fs-tilch-02-c, ) that $`L_{max}/2`$ is a reasonable estimate for $`L^{}`$:

$$\sqrt{\frac{2D_n}{v}L_{max}}<L^{}\frac{L_{max}}{2}<L_{max}$$
(26)
Using this approximation, we find with eq. (21) and eq. (24) eventually the estimate for the threshold:

$$h_{thr}=\frac{N}{A}\frac{s_0}{k_h}\left(\frac{s_{min}}{s_0}\right)^{1/4}$$
(27)
Provided the set of parameters used for the simulations, we find for the threshold the value $`h_{thr}=1.7\times 10^4`$, which is approximately $`h_{thr}2s_0`$. We note again, that this is an estimate that might give a rather high value because of the assumed worse conditions. On the other hand, it ensures that values for $`\widehat{h}(a,t)`$ above the threshold *really* represent a *stable* connection $`a`$.

### IV.3 Results of Computer Simulations

After these theoretical considerations, we are now able to calculate the connectivity $`E`$, eq. (13), for the network simulated in Fig. 3. Fig. 7 shows the increase of the connectivity in the course of time. In agreement with the visible evolution of the network presented in Fig. 3, three different stages can be clearly distinguished:

1. an *initial* period ($`t<10^2`$), where no connections yet exist,
2. a *transient* period ($`10^2<t<10^4`$), where the network establishes,
3. a *saturation* period ($`t>10^4`$), where almost all nodes are connected, and only small fluctuations in the connectivity occur.

Fig. 7 results from the single realization of the network shown in Fig. 3, in the average we find certain fluctuations in the connectivity due to stochastic influences that affect the formation of the network during the transient period. This leads us to the question on what parameters the connectivity of the network depends. There are of course the parameters affecting the production and decay of the two different chemical cues, $`s_0/k_h,\beta `$, and thus the positional information available to the agents. Another important parameter is the average agent density $`\overline{n}=N/A`$. If it is too low, the links will not be established properly, either because not all nodes have been detected during the transient period or because there are not enough agents to maintain the links sufficiently. Fig. 8 shows the average connectivity $`E`$ dependent on the density of agents, $`\overline{n}`$.

Here, we clearly see that below a critical density the connectivity is almost zero because not enough agents are available to establish the connections. On the other hand, above a certain density the connectivity reaches a saturation value that could be also below $`1`$, as Fig. 8 shows. Hence, at this point an increase of the number of agents does not necessarily results in the establishment of more links. This is caused by the *screening effect* already mentioned in Sect. III, which eventually concentrates all agents to move along the established links.

A third important impact on the establishment of the network results from parameter relation between $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\epsilon _i`$ which influence the agent’s motion according to eq. (1). If both the response to the field, $`\alpha _i`$, and the sensitivity $`\omega _i1/\epsilon _i`$ are low, the agent nearly behaves as a random particle. On the other hand, a strong response or a high sensitivity may result in a decrease of stochastic influences, and the agent pays more attention to the effective field that guides its motion. This in turn increases the screening effect and may prevent the agent from discovering unknown nodes, thus we can expect an optimal range of these parameters for an efficient network formation. This has been investigated in more detail in a subsequent paper (fs-tilch-02-b, ).

## V Conclusions

In this paper, we have proposed an agent-based model that shows the *self-assembling* of network-like structures between arbitrary nodes. Different from network models that start with the assumtion of a known set of nodes to be linked in a straightforward manner, we have addressed in our model the question of how to connect a set of nodes *without* using prior information about their spatial locations or preexisting long-range attraction forces. This would need to solve two problems in parallel: (i) the detection of the appropriate nodes, and (ii) the establishment of one (or many) stable links between them.

As we have noted in the introduction, this is a scientific problem of relevance in different areas, including the emergence of neural connections. In the latter case, positional information in terms of chemical gradients plays an important role in guiding the neural axons to their destinations. In our model, we have assumed that the positional information about the existence of the nodes does not preexist, but is generated “on the fly” by means of Brownian agents while they are moving on the surface. Due to the non-linear feedback between the detected positional information and the creation of new one, we find the emergence of links between different nodes, along which the Brownian agents perform a directed motion – this way reinforcing and “maintaining” the links.

Different from a *circuitry* for instance, for which the links between the nodes are determined in a *top-down* approach of hierarchical planning, the connections here are created by the agents *bottom-up*, in a process of self-organization. As the computer simulations have shown, the model turns out to be very flexible regarding the geometry of the nodes to be connected. Further, the networks created this way are rather *robust* against disturbances. If for example a particular link breaks down, the agents would be able to *repair* it by re-establishing the field, or by creating a new one.

The basic feedback mechanism in our model is given by the agent’s generation of (two) different kind of chemical information and the agent’s response to gradients of these chemicals dependent on their internal state. This is also known as *chemotaxis*, i.e. the response to (gradients of) chemical substances and is widely found on different levels of biological organization. However, different from other self-wiring models (segev-physlett-98, ; segev-00, ) we have not assumed that these substances due to their diffusion may have a long-range effect on the moving agents, or may generate attractive *and* repulsive forces. In our model, the chemical information acts only locally. It is stored in an effective field that is sometimes also denoted as a *self-consistent field*, because it is generated by the agents and at the same time also influences their further behavior. From a more general perspective, the effective field plays the role of a communication medium among the agents, i.e. it stores information (external to the agents) for a certain time (determined by the decay rate $`k_h`$) and allows access to it under certain conditions - for instance, in the current model an agent can only access information that is at its current position and is labeled differently from the value of the agent’s internal parameter. But the agents do not just respond to the information provided in a purely reactive manner, they also actively change it dependent on their internal parameter.

The Brownian agent concept has proven its use in a number of applications where (positive and negative) local feedback processes play a considerable role, but an internal *evolution* of the agents can be neglected (fs-book-01, ). The concept does not deny its inspiration from statistical physics, using e.g. generalized Langevin equations for the agents or reaction-diffusion equations for the effective field. Moreover, it purposefully stretches these analogies, in order to apply methods from statistical physics to derive pieces for a formal approach to *multi-agent systems* (MAS). This should also include the derivation of a macroscopic dynamics of the MAS based on the agents (*microscopic*) dynamics, to allow some predictions of the collective behavior and the derivation of critical parameters, etc.

On the first glimpse, agent-based approaches seem to be outside of the realms of physics. Therefore, at the end we would like to comment on this. First of all, “agent” or particle-based models are also useful in physics if continuous approximations are not appropriate, for example in cases where only small particle numbers govern the process (e.g. in dielectrical breakdown or filamentary pattern formation). Here deterministic approaches or mean-field equations are not sufficient to describe the behavior of the system, because the influence of history, i.e. stochastic fluctuations, early symmetry breaks, path dependence, etc. play a considerable role – which can be appropriately captured in particle-based models. Moreover, these models also provide a very efficient way to simulate structure formation processes by solving a large number of coupled “particle” equations (such as Langevin equations) instead of integrating a complicated set of coupled partial differential equations (lsg-mieth-rose-malch-95, ; lsg-fs-mieth-97, )

In many interdisciplinary applications physics nowadays deals with, for example in biological physics or econophysics, the basic system entities do not just respond to interaction forces, but also perform certain types of activities, such as active motion or changes of the “environment” and further have internal degrees of freedom that allow them to act differently. Therefore, the “physical” particle-based approach has been extended towards an *agent-based approach*, where the agents already have an intermediate complexity to allow for certain non-trivial actions or responses. In the model discussed in this paper, the generation of two different chemical cues and the complex response to them are just two examples for such an extension. In addition to the Browian agent model, other agent-based approaches have been developed based on physical principles, which focus on particular aspects of the complex agent behavior. We just mention here *active walker models* (kayser-et-92, ; fs-lsg-94, ; lam-95, ; helbing-fs-et-97, ; sheu-et-99, ), where a potential can be locally changed by the walker, or *active Brownian particles* (lsg-mieth-rose-malch-95, ; fs-97-agent, ) that deal also with the energetic aspects of active motion. With respect to specific biological phenomena, there are the *communicating walker model* used in the study of complex patterning of bacterial colonies (ben-jacob-et-94-a, ), or the *bions model* used in the study of amoebae aggregation (kessler-levine-93, ), or the many models of self-driven particles to describe swarming behavior (mikhailov-zanette-99, ; czirok-vicsek-00, ; levine-00, ; fs-eb-tilch-01, ). They jointly demonstrate, that agent-based models can indeed profit from the methodology and the tools derived in statistical physics.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank L. Schimansky-Geier (Berlin) for discussions. This manuscript was completed during a stay at the Centro de Ciencias Matematicas (CCM) of the Universidade da Madeira (Portugal). F.S. would like to thank L. Streit for the kind hospitality.