text:
# Constructing homomorphisms between Verma modules

## 1 Preliminaries

Let $`𝔤`$ be a semisimple Lie algebra, with root system $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, relative to a Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$. We let $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _l\}`$ be a fixed set of simple roots. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+=\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _s\}`$ be the set of positive roots (note that here the simple roots are listed first). Then there are root vectors $`y_i=x_{\alpha _i}`$, $`x_i=x_{\alpha _i}`$ (for $`1is`$), and basis vectors $`h_i𝔥`$ (for $`1il`$), such that the set $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_s,y_1,\mathrm{},y_s,h_1,\mathrm{},h_l\}`$ forms a Chevalley basis of $`𝔤`$ (cf. ). We have that $`𝔤=𝔫^{}𝔥𝔫^+`$, where $`𝔫^{}`$, $`𝔫^+`$ are the subalgebras spanned by the $`y_i`$, $`x_i`$ respectively.

In the sequel, if $`\beta =\alpha _i\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$, then we also write $`y_\beta `$ in place of $`y_i`$.

We let $`P`$ denote the integral weight lattice spanned by the fundamental weights $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _l`$. Also $`P=\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _l`$. For $`\lambda ,\mu P`$ we write $`\mu \lambda `$ if $`\mu =\lambda _{i=1}^lk_i\alpha _i`$, where $`k_i_0`$. Then $``$ is a partial order on $`P`$.

For $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }`$ we have the reflection $`s_\alpha :PP`$, given by $`s_\alpha (\lambda )=\lambda \lambda ,\alpha ^{}\alpha `$.

Let $`U(𝔤)`$ denote the universal enveloping algebra of $`𝔤`$. We consider $`U(𝔤)`$ as a $`𝔤`$-module by left multiplication. Let $`\lambda =a_i\lambda _iP`$, and let $`J(\lambda )`$ be the $`𝔤`$-submodule of $`U(𝔤)`$ generated by $`h_ia_i+1`$ for $`1il`$ and $`x_i`$ for $`1is`$. Then $`M(\lambda )=U(𝔤)/J(\lambda )`$ is a $`𝔤`$-module. It is called a Verma module. As $`U(𝔤)=U(𝔫^{})J(\lambda )`$ we see that $`U(𝔫^{})M(\lambda )`$ (as $`U(𝔫^{})`$-modules). Let $`v_\lambda `$ denote the image of $`1`$ under this isomorphism. Then $`h_iv_\lambda =(a_i1)v_\lambda `$, and $`x_iv_\lambda =0`$. Furthermore, all other elements of $`M(\lambda )`$ can be written as $`Yv_\lambda `$, where $`YU(𝔫^{})`$.

Let $`\nu =_{i=1}^lk_i\alpha _i`$, where $`k_i_0`$. Then we let $`U(𝔫^{})_\nu `$ be the span of all $`y_{i_1}\mathrm{}y_{i_r}`$ such that $`\alpha _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{i_r}=\nu `$.

For a proof of the following theorem we refer to , .

###### Theorem 1 (Verma, Bernstein-Gel’fand-Gel’fand)

Let $`\lambda ,\mu P`$, and set

$$R_{\mu ,\lambda }=\mathrm{Hom}_{U(𝔤)}(M(\mu ),M(\lambda )).$$

Then

1. $`dimR_{\mu ,\lambda }1`$,
2. non-trivial elements of $`R_{\mu ,\lambda }`$ are injective,
3. $`dimR_{\mu ,\lambda }=1`$ if and only if there are positive roots $`\alpha _{i_1},\mathrm{},\alpha _{i_k}`$ such that

$$\mu s_{\alpha _{i_1}}(\mu )s_{\alpha _{i_2}}s_{\alpha _{i_1}}(\mu )\mathrm{}s_{\alpha _{i_k}}\mathrm{}s_{\alpha _{i_1}}(\mu )=\lambda .$$

The problem we consider is to construct a non-trivial element in $`R_{\mu ,\lambda }`$ if $`dimR_{\mu ,\lambda }=1`$. By Theorem 1, this boils down to finding an element in $`R_{\mu ,\lambda }`$ if $`\mu =s_\alpha (\lambda )=\lambda \lambda ,\alpha ^{}\alpha `$ and $`\lambda ,\alpha ^{}_{>0}`$. Suppose that we are in this situation, and set $`h=\lambda ,\alpha ^{}`$. An element $`Yv_\lambda M(\lambda )`$, where $`YU(𝔫^{})`$ is said to be singular if $`x_\alpha (Yv_\lambda )=0`$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+`$. Let $`\psi R_{\mu ,\lambda }`$ be a non-trivial $`U(𝔤)`$-homomorphism. Then $`\psi (v_\mu )=Yv_\lambda `$ for some $`YU(𝔫^{})`$ with $`Yv_\lambda `$ singular. We have $`h_iy=yh_i\nu ,\alpha _i^{}y`$ for all $`yU(𝔫^{})_\nu `$. Hence $`h_i(yv_\lambda )=(\lambda \nu ,\alpha _i^{}1)yv_\lambda `$. So, as $`h_i(Yv_\lambda )=(\mu ,\alpha _i^{}1)Yv_\lambda `$ we see that $`YU(𝔫^{})_{h\alpha }`$. Conversely, if we have a $`YU(𝔫^{})_{h\alpha }`$ such that $`Yv_\lambda `$ is singular, then $`\psi :M(\mu )M(\lambda )`$ defined by $`\psi (Y^{}v_\mu )=Y^{}Yv_\lambda `$ will be a non-trivial element of $`R_{\mu ,\lambda }`$. So the problem reduces to finding a $`YU(𝔫^{})_{h\alpha }`$ such that $`Yv_\lambda `$ is singular. Note that this can be done by writing down a basis for $`U(𝔫^{})_{h\alpha }`$ and computing a set of linear equations for $`Y`$. However, this algorithm becomes rather cumbersome if $`dimU(𝔫^{})_{h\alpha }`$ gets large. We will describe a more direct method.

## 2 The field of fractions

From , §3.6 we recall that $`U(𝔫^{})`$ has a (non-commutative) field of fractions, denoted by $`K(𝔫^{})`$. It consists of all elements $`ab^1`$ for $`aU(𝔫^{})`$, $`bU(𝔫^{})\{0\}`$. For the definitions of addition and multiplication in $`K(𝔫^{})`$ we refer to , §3.6. They imply $`aa^1=a^1a=1`$.

Let $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+`$. If $`\alpha +\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ then we let $`N_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ be the scalar such that $`[y_\alpha ,y_\beta ]=N_{\alpha ,\beta }y_{\alpha +\beta }`$. Also set $`P_{\alpha ,\beta }=\{i\alpha +j\beta i,j0\}\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$. Then there are seven possibilities for $`P_{\alpha ,\beta }`$:

* $`P_{\alpha ,\beta }=\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$,
* $`P_{\alpha ,\beta }=\{\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta \}`$
* $`P_{\alpha ,\beta }=\{\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta ,\alpha +2\beta \}`$,
* $`P_{\alpha ,\beta }=\{\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta ,2\alpha +\beta \}`$,
* $`P_{\alpha ,\beta }=\{\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta ,2\alpha +\beta ,3\alpha +\beta ,3\alpha +2\beta \}`$
* $`P_{\alpha ,\beta }=\{\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta ,\alpha +2\beta ,\alpha +3\beta ,2\alpha +3\beta \}`$,
* $`P_{\alpha ,\beta }=\{\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta ,2\alpha +\beta ,\alpha +2\beta \}`$.

###### Lemma 2

In case (I) we have $`y_\beta ^my_\alpha ^n=y_\alpha ^ny_\beta ^m`$ for all $`m,n`$.

Proof. If $`n>0`$ then $`y_\beta y_\alpha ^n=y_\alpha ^ny_\beta `$. Multiplying this relation on the left and on the right by $`y_\alpha ^n`$ we get $`y_\beta y_\alpha ^n=y_\alpha ^ny_\beta `$. So we have $`y_\beta y_\alpha ^n=y_\alpha ^ny_\beta `$ for all $`n`$. From this it follows that $`y_\beta ^my_\alpha ^n=y_\alpha ^ny_\beta ^m`$ for $`m>0`$, $`n`$. If we now multiply this from the left and the right by $`y_\beta ^m`$ we get the result for $`m<0`$ as well.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Since

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)=\frac{n(n1)\mathrm{}(nk+1)}{k!},$$

these binomial coefficients are defined for arbitrary $`n`$, and $`k_0`$. In fact, we see that $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`k`$ in $`n`$. Note also that if $`n`$ and $`0n<k`$ then the coefficient is $`0`$.

###### Lemma 3

In case (II) we have for $`m0`$, $`n`$,

$$y_\beta ^my_\alpha ^n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}N_{\alpha ,\beta }^k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)k!y_\alpha ^{nk}y_\beta ^{mk}y_{\alpha +\beta }^k.$$

Proof. First of all, this formula is known for $`m,n0`$ (see, e.g., ). In particular, for $`n>0`$ we have $`y_\beta y_\alpha ^n=y_\alpha ^ny_\beta +N_{\alpha ,\beta }ny_\alpha ^{n1}y_{\alpha +\beta }`$. If we multiply this relation on the left and the right with $`y_\alpha ^n`$, and use Lemma 2, then we get it for all $`n`$. Now the formula for $`m>1`$ is proved by induction.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4

In case (III) we have for $`m0`$, $`n`$,

$$y_\beta ^my_\alpha ^n=\underset{\begin{array}{c}k,l0\\ k+2lm\end{array}}{}c_{k,l}^{m,n}y_\alpha ^{nkl}y_\beta ^{mk2l}y_{\alpha +\beta }^ky_{\alpha +2\beta }^l,$$

where

$$c_{k,l}^{m,n}=N_{\alpha ,\beta }^{k+l}(\frac{1}{2}N_{\beta ,\alpha +\beta })^l\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k+l}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k+2l}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+l}{l}\right)(k+2l)!.$$

Proof. This goes in exactly the same way as the proof of Lemma 3.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 5

In case (IV) we have for $`m0`$, $`n`$,

$$y_\beta ^my_\alpha ^n=\underset{\begin{array}{c}k,l0\\ k+lm\end{array}}{}c_{k,l}^{m,n}y_\alpha ^{nk2l}y_\beta ^{mkl}y_{\alpha +\beta }^ky_{2\alpha +\beta }^l,$$

where

$$c_{k,l}^{m,n}=N_{\alpha ,\beta }^{k+l}(\frac{1}{2}N_{\alpha ,\alpha +\beta })^l\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k+2l}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k+l}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+l}{l}\right)(k+2l)!.$$

Proof. Again we get the formula for $`m,n0`$ from . In this case the formula for $`m=1`$, $`n0`$ reads

$$y_\beta y_\alpha ^n=y_\alpha ^ny_\beta +N_{\alpha ,\beta }ny_\alpha ^{n1}y_{\alpha +\beta }+N_{\alpha ,\beta }N_{\alpha ,\alpha +\beta }\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)y_\alpha ^{n2}y_{2\alpha +\beta }.$$

If we multiply this on the left and the right by $`y_\alpha ^n`$, and use Lemmas 2, 3 we get the same relation with $`n`$ replaced by $`n`$. So the case $`m=1`$, $`n`$ follows. The formula for $`m>1`$ now follows by induction.  $`\mathrm{}`$

The cases (V), (VI), (VII) can only occur when the root system has a component of type $`G_2`$. We omit the formulas for these cases; they can easily be derived from those given in .

Now let $`a=y_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}y_s^{n_s}`$ be a monomial in $`U(𝔫^{})`$. For $`\beta \mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ and $`m,n`$ consider the element $`y_\beta ^may_\beta ^n`$. By repeatedly applying Lemmas 2, 3, 4, 5 we see that

$$y_\beta ^may_\beta ^n=\underset{(k_1,\mathrm{},k_t)I}{}c(k_1,\mathrm{},k_t)y_\beta ^{mnp_1k_1\mathrm{}p_tk_t}a(k_1,\mathrm{},k_t).$$
(1)
Here the $`a(k_1,\mathrm{},k_t)U(𝔫^{})`$, the (finite) index set $`I`$, the $`p_i_{>0}`$ are all independent of $`n`$, they only depend on $`a`$. Only the exponents of $`y_\beta `$ and the coefficients $`c(k_1,\mathrm{},k_t)`$ (which are polynomials in $`n`$) depend on $`n`$.

Now we take $`m,n`$ such that $`mn`$. Then we define $`y_\beta ^may_\beta ^n`$ to be the right-hand side of (1), and we say that $`y_\beta ^may_\beta ^n`$ is an element of $`K(𝔫^{})`$. More generally, if $`Y`$ is a linear combination of monomials, and $`m,n`$ such that $`mn`$ then $`y_\beta ^mYy_\beta ^n`$ is an element of $`K(𝔫^{})`$.

## 3 Constructing singular vectors

Here we suppose that we are given a $`\lambda P`$ and $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ with $`\lambda ,\alpha ^{}=h_{>0}`$. The problem is to find a $`YU(𝔫^{})_{h\alpha }`$ such that $`Yv_\lambda `$ is a singular vector.

We recall that $`l=|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ is the rank of the root system. Let $`1il`$, then

$$x_iy_i^rv_\lambda =r(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{}r)y_i^{r1}v_\lambda .$$
(2)
###### Lemma 6

Suppose that $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$, i.e., $`\alpha =\alpha _i`$, $`1il`$. Then $`y_i^hv_\lambda `$ is a singular vector.

Proof. This follows from (2), cf. the proof of , Lemma 2.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that this solves the problem when $`𝔤=𝔰𝔩_2`$. So in the remainder we will assume that the rank of the root system is at least $`2`$. By an embedding $`\varphi :M(\mu )M(\lambda )`$ we will always mean an injective $`U(𝔤)`$-homomorphism.

###### Lemma 7

Suppose that $`\nu ,\eta P`$, and $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is such that $`m=\nu ,\beta ^{}`$ is a non-negative integer. Suppose further that we have an embedding $`\psi :M(\nu )M(\eta )`$ given by $`\psi (v_\nu )=Yv_\eta `$. Set $`n=\eta ,\beta ^{}`$. Then $`y_\beta ^mYy_\beta ^n`$ is an element of $`U(𝔫^{})`$ and we have an embedding $`\varphi :M(s_\beta \nu )M(s_\beta \eta )`$ given by $`\varphi (v_{s_\beta \nu })=y_\beta ^mYy_\beta ^nv_{s_\beta \eta }`$.

Proof. If $`n0`$ then the first statement is clear. The embedding $`\varphi `$ is the composition $`M(s_\beta \nu )M(\nu )M(\eta )M(s_\beta \eta )`$, where the first and the third maps follow from Lemma 6.

If $`n>0`$, then we view $`M(s_\beta \eta )`$ as a submodule of $`M(\eta )`$. We have $`v_{s_\beta \eta }=y_\beta ^nv_\eta `$ (Lemma 6). Set $`v=y_\beta ^mYv_\eta `$; then $`v`$ is a singular vector (being the image of $`v_{s_\beta \nu }`$ under $`M(s_\beta \nu )M(\nu )M(\eta )`$). We claim that $`vM(s_\beta \eta )`$. Suppose that this claim is proved. Then there is a $`Y^{}U(𝔫^{})`$ such that $`v=Y^{}v_{s_\beta \eta }`$. But that means that $`y_\beta ^mY=Y^{}y_\beta ^n`$, and the lemma follows.

The claim above is proved in . For the sake of completeness we transcribe the argument. Set $`V=M(\eta )/M(s_\beta \eta )`$, and let $`\overline{v}_\nu `$ denote the image of $`\psi (v_\nu )`$ in $`V`$; then $`\overline{v}_\nu =X\overline{v}_\eta `$, for some $`XU(𝔫^{})`$. For $`k0`$ write $`y_\beta ^kX=X_1y_\beta ^{k_1}`$. By increasing $`k`$ we can get $`k_1`$ arbitrarily large (cf. , Lemma 7.6.9; it also follows by straightforward weight considerations). By Lemma 6 we know that $`y_\beta ^nv_\eta M(s_\beta \eta )`$. Therefore there is a $`k>0`$ such that $`y_\beta ^k\overline{v}_\nu =0`$. Then by using (2) we see that the smallest such $`k`$ must be equal to $`m`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 8

Let $`\nu ,\eta P`$ be such that $`\nu =s_\gamma (\eta )=\eta k\gamma `$, where $`\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ and $`k_{>0}`$. Let $`YU(𝔫^{})_{k\gamma }`$ be such that $`Yv_\eta `$ is singular. Let $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\beta \gamma `$. Set $`m=\nu ,\beta ^{}`$, $`n=\eta ,\beta ^{}`$. Then $`y_\beta ^mYy_\beta ^n`$ is an element of $`K(𝔫^{})`$; it is even an element of $`U(𝔫^{})`$. Secondly, we have an embedding $`\varphi :M(s_\beta \nu )M(s_\beta \eta )`$ given by $`\varphi (v_{s_\beta \nu })=y_\beta ^mYy_\beta ^nv_{s_\beta \eta }`$.

Proof. We have that $`mn=k\gamma ,\beta ^{}`$, so $`y_\beta ^mYy_\beta ^n`$ is an element of $`K(𝔫^{})`$.

Set $`V=\{\mu P\mu ,\gamma ^{}=k\}`$, which is a hyperplane in $`P`$, containing $`\eta `$. Let $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_t\}`$ be a basis of $`U(𝔫^{})_{k\gamma }`$. Take $`\mu =_{i=1}^lr_i\lambda _iV`$ and set $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=s_\gamma (\mu )=\mu k\gamma `$. Then by Theorem 1 there is a $`Y_\mu =_{i=1}^t\zeta _ia_i`$ such that $`Y_\mu v_\mu `$ is singular. Here the $`\zeta _i`$ are polynomial functions of the $`r_i`$. (Indeed, if we write linear equations for the $`Y_\mu `$, then the coefficients depend linearly on the $`r_i`$. Hence the coefficients of a solution are polynomial functions of the $`r_i`$.)

Set $`p=\stackrel{~}{\mu },\beta ^{}`$, $`q=\mu ,\beta ^{}`$. Then $`Y^{}=y_\beta ^pY_\mu y_\beta ^q=_jc_jb_j`$, where the $`b_j`$ are linearly independent elements of $`K(𝔫^{})`$, and the $`c_j`$ are coefficients that depend polynomially on the $`r_i`$. Now Lemma 7 implies that if the $`r_i`$ and $`p0`$, then $`Y^{}U(𝔫^{})`$. Let now $`j`$ be such that $`b_jU(𝔫^{})`$. If the $`r_i`$ and $`p0`$, then $`c_j=0`$. Suppose that $`\beta =\alpha _{i_0}`$, the $`i_0`$-th simple root. Then the condition $`p0`$ amounts to $`r_{i_0}k\gamma ,\beta ^{}`$. We have that $`\mu V`$ if and only if $`_{i=1}^lu_ir_i=k`$, where the $`u_i`$ are certain elements of $``$. Also, since $`\beta \gamma `$ at least one $`u_i0`$ with $`ii_0`$. We see that the requirement $`r_{i_0}k\gamma ,\beta ^{}`$ cuts a half space $`W`$ off $`V`$. Furthermore $`VP`$ is an $`(l1)`$-dimensional lattice in $`V`$ (cf. ). The conclusion is that $`c_j=0`$ if $`\mu WP`$. Since the $`c_j`$ are polynomials in the $`r_i`$, it follows that $`c_j=0`$ if $`\mu V`$. In particular, $`y_\beta ^mYy_\beta ^n`$ lies in $`U(𝔫^{})`$.

Finally we note that $`Y^{}v_{s_\beta \mu }`$ is singular, by the same arguments. (Indeed, $`x_i(Y^{}v_{s_\beta \mu })=_jf_jz_jv_{s_\beta \mu }`$ where the $`f_j`$ are polynomials in the $`r_i`$, and the $`z_j`$ are elements of $`U(𝔫^{})`$. Since the $`f_j`$ are zero when $`\mu WP`$ we have that $`f_j=0`$ when $`\mu V`$.) In particular, $`y_\beta ^mYy_\beta ^nv_{s_\beta \eta }`$ is singular.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 9

To illustrate the argument in the preceding proof, consider the Lie algebra of type $`A_3`$, with simple roots $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ (with $`\beta `$ corresponding to the middle node of the Dynkin diagram). Then it is possible to choose a Chevalley basis such that $`[y_\alpha ,y_\beta ]=y_{\alpha +\beta }`$, $`[y_\alpha ,y_{\beta +\gamma }]=y_{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }`$, $`[y_\beta ,y_\gamma ]=y_{\beta +\gamma }`$, $`[y_\gamma ,y_{\alpha +\beta }]=y_{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }`$. Set $`a_1=y_\alpha y_\beta y_\gamma `$, $`a_2=y_\gamma y_{\alpha +\beta }`$, $`a_3=y_\alpha y_{\beta +\gamma }`$, $`a_4=y_{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }`$. Then $`\{a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4\}`$ is a basis of $`U(𝔫^{})_{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }`$.

We abbreviate a weight $`r_1\lambda _1+r_2\lambda _2+r_3\lambda _3`$ by $`(r_1,r_2,r_3)`$. Let $`V`$ be the hyperplane in $`P`$ consisting of all weights $`\mu `$ such that $`\mu ,(\alpha +\beta +\gamma )^{}=1`$, i.e., $`V=\{(r_1,r_2,r_3)r_1+r_2+r_3=1\}`$. Let $`\mu =(r_1,r_2,r_3)V`$ and set $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=s_{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }(\mu )=(r_11,r_2,r_31)`$. Set $`Y_\mu =a_1r_1a_2(r_1+r_2)a_3r_1r_3a_4`$; then $`Y_\mu v_\mu `$ is singular. Set $`p=\stackrel{~}{\mu },\alpha ^{}=r_11`$ and $`q=\mu ,\alpha ^{}=r_1`$. Now $`Y^{}=y_\alpha ^pY_\mu y_\alpha ^q=y_\beta y_\gamma (r_1+r_2)y_{\beta +\gamma }+r_1(1r_1r_2r_3)y_\alpha ^1y_{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }`$. According to Lemma 7 this is an element of $`U(𝔫^{})`$ whenever $`(r_1,r_2,r_3)V`$ with the $`r_i`$ integral and $`p0`$. Therefore the coefficient of $`y_\alpha ^1y_{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }`$ has to vanish, which is indeed the case. We see that $`Y^{}`$ lies in $`U(𝔫^{})`$ for all $`(r_1,r_2,r_3)V`$.

Now we return to the situation of the beginning of the section. We have $`\lambda P`$, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ with $`\lambda ,\alpha ^{}=h_{>0}`$. Set $`\mu =s_\alpha (\lambda )=\lambda h\alpha `$. To obtain an embedding $`M(\mu )M(\lambda )`$, we perform the following steps:

1. Select $`\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _r\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and positive roots $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _r`$ in the following way. Set $`\alpha _0=\alpha `$, and $`k=0`$. Then:

1. If $`\alpha _k\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then set $`r=k`$ and go to step 2.
    2. Otherwise, let $`\beta _{k+1}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be such that $`\alpha _k,\beta _{k+1}^{}>0`$, and set $`\alpha _{k+1}=s_{\beta _{k+1}}(\alpha _k)`$, and $`k:=k+1`$. Return to (a).
2. Set $`\beta =\alpha _r\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For $`1kr`$ set $`a_k=\mu ,s_{\beta _1}\mathrm{}s_{\beta _{k1}}(\beta _k)^{}`$, and $`b_k=\lambda ,s_{\beta _1}\mathrm{}s_{\beta _{k1}}(\beta _k)^{}`$.
3. Set $`Y_0=y_\beta ^h`$, and for $`0kr1`$:

$$Y_{k+1}=y_{\beta _{rk}}^{a_{rk}}Y_ky_{\beta _{rk}}^{b_{rk}}.$$

Remark. Note that the $`\beta _{k+1}`$ in step 1 (b) exists because otherwise $`\alpha _k,\gamma ^{}0`$ for all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$, and this implies that the set $`\mathrm{\Delta }\{\alpha _k\}`$ is linearly independent (cf. , Chapter IV, Lemma 1), which is not possible since $`\alpha _k\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Also, all $`\alpha _k`$ must be positive roots because $`s_\gamma `$ permutes the positive roots other than $`\gamma `$, for $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then the loop in 1. must terminate because the height of $`\alpha _k`$ decreases every step.

###### Proposition 10

All $`Y_k`$ are elements of $`U(𝔫^{})`$ and we have an embedding $`M(\mu )M(\lambda )`$ given by $`v_\mu Y_rv_\lambda `$.

Proof. We write $`s_i=s_{\beta _i}`$. For $`0kr`$ we set $`w_k=s_{rk}\mathrm{}s_1`$ (so $`w_r=1`$), and $`\mu _k=w_k\mu `$, $`\lambda _k=w_k\lambda `$. We claim that there is an embedding $`M(\mu _k)M(\lambda _k)`$ given by $`v_{\mu _k}Y_kv_{\lambda _k}`$. First we look at the case $`k=0`$. Note that $`s_r\mathrm{}s_1(\alpha )=\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Since for $`w`$ in the Weyl group we have $`ws_\beta w^1=s_{w\beta }`$ we get $`s_\alpha =s_1\mathrm{}s_rs_\beta s_r\mathrm{}s_1=w_0^1s_\beta w_0`$. Therefore $`\mu _0=w_0s_\alpha (\lambda )=s_\beta (\lambda _0)`$, and $`\lambda _0,\beta ^{}=\lambda ,s_1\mathrm{}s_r(\beta )^{}=\lambda ,\alpha ^{}=h`$. The case $`k=0`$ now follows by Lemma 6.

Now suppose we have an embedding $`M(\mu _k)M(\lambda _k)`$ as above. Note that $`w_{k+1}=s_{rk}w_k`$ and $`\alpha _k=w_k\alpha `$. Also $`\mu _k=w_k\mu =\lambda _kh\alpha _k`$, and $`\lambda _k,\alpha _k^{}=h`$, so that $`\mu _k=s_{\alpha _k}(\lambda _k)`$. We now apply Proposition 8 (with $`\nu :=\mu _k`$, $`\eta :=\lambda _k`$, $`\beta :=\beta _{rk}`$). We have $`\beta _{rk}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\beta _{rk}\alpha _k`$ as $`\alpha _k\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Furthermore, $`m=s_{rk}\mathrm{}s_1\mu ,\beta _{rk}^{}=\mu ,s_1\mathrm{}s_{rk1}(\beta _{rk})^{}=a_{rk}`$. In the same way $`n=\lambda _k,\beta _{rk}^{}=b_{rk}`$. So by Proposition 8, if we set

$$Y_{k+1}=y_{\beta _{rk}}^{a_{rk}}Y_ky_{\beta _{rk}}^{b_{rk}},$$

then we have an embedding $`M(\mu _{k+1})=M(s_{\beta _{rk}}\mu _k)M(s_{\beta _{rk}}\lambda _k)=M(\lambda _{k+1})`$ by $`v_{\mu _{k+1}}Y_{k+1}v_{\lambda _{k+1}}`$.

Finally we note that $`\lambda _r=\lambda `$, $`\mu _r=\mu `$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

It is possible to reformulate the algorithm in such a way that it looks more like the method from . The construction described in  works as follows. Write $`s_\alpha =s_{\alpha _{i_1}}\mathrm{}s_{\alpha _{i_t}}`$, as a product of simple reflections. For $`1kt`$ set $`m_k=s_{\alpha _{i_{k+1}}}\mathrm{}s_{\alpha _{i_t}}\lambda ,\alpha _{i_k}^{}`$. Then $`Y=y_{i_1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}y_{i_t}^{m_t}`$ is an element of $`U(𝔫^{})`$ and we have an embedding $`M(\mu )M(\lambda )`$ by $`v_\mu Yv_\lambda `$. Now, using the same notation as in the description of the algorithm, the expression we get is

$$y_{\beta _1}^{a_1}\mathrm{}y_{\beta _r}^{a_r}y_\beta ^hy_{\beta _r}^{b_r}\mathrm{}y_{\beta _1}^{b_1}.$$

As remarked in the proof of Proposition 10, $`s_\alpha =s_1\mathrm{}s_rs_\beta s_r\mathrm{}s_1`$ (where again we write $`s_i=s_{\beta _i}`$). Furthermore, $`b_k=s_{k1}\mathrm{}s_1\lambda ,\beta _k^{}`$, $`h=\lambda ,\alpha ^{}=s_r\mathrm{}s_1\lambda ,\beta ^{}`$, $`a_k=s_{k+1}\mathrm{}s_rs_\beta s_r\mathrm{}s_1\lambda ,\beta _k^{}`$. So we see that our method is a special case of the construction in . However, the difference is that we have an explicit method to rewrite the element above to an element of $`U(𝔫^{})`$. By the next lemma the expression we use for $`s_\alpha `$ is the shortest possible (so we cannot do essentially better by taking a different reduced expression).

###### Lemma 11

The expression $`s_\alpha =s_1\mathrm{}s_rs_\beta s_r\mathrm{}s_1`$ obtained by the first step of the algorithm, is reduced.

Proof. Set $`\gamma =s_1(\alpha )=\alpha m\beta _1`$, where $`m>0`$. Then $`s_\alpha =s_{s_1(\gamma )}=s_1s_\gamma s_1`$. By induction, the expression $`s_\gamma =s_2\mathrm{}s_rs_\beta s_r\mathrm{}s_2`$ is reduced. We show that $`\mathrm{}(s_\alpha )=\mathrm{}(s_\gamma )+2`$. For this we use the fact that the length of an element $`w`$ of the Weyl group is equal to the number of positive roots that are mapped to negative roots by $`w`$. Write $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+=A\{\beta _1\}`$, where $`A=\mathrm{\Phi }^+\{\beta _1\}`$. There is a positive root $`\delta _0\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with $`s_\gamma s_1\delta _0=\beta _1`$. Set $`S=\{\delta As_\gamma s_1\delta <0\}\{\delta _0,\beta _1\}`$. Then $`s_\alpha `$ maps all elements of $`S`$ to negative roots. Since $`\gamma ,\beta _1^{}=m<0`$, also $`\beta _1,\gamma ^{}<0`$, and hence $`s_\gamma (\beta _1)>0`$. So all roots that are mapped to negative roots by $`s_\gamma `$ are in $`A`$. Therefore, since $`s_1`$ permutes $`A`$, there are $`\mathrm{}(\gamma )`$ roots $`\delta A`$ with $`s_\gamma s_1(\delta )<0`$. We conclude that the cardinality of $`S`$ is $`\mathrm{}(\gamma )+2`$. So $`\mathrm{}(\alpha )\mathrm{}(\gamma )+2`$, but that means that $`\mathrm{}(\alpha )=\mathrm{}(\gamma )+2`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

We can use the algorithm described in this section to construct general formulas for singular elements. More precisely, let $`\gamma `$ be a fixed root in the root system of $`𝔤`$. Then by applying the formulas of Section 2 symbolically we can derive a formula that given arbitrary weights $`\lambda ,\mu `$ such that $`\lambda ,\gamma ^{}_{>0}`$ and $`\mu =s_\gamma (\lambda )`$ produces an element $`YU(𝔫^{})_{\lambda \mu }`$ such that $`Yv_\lambda `$ is singular. We illustrate this with an example.

###### Example 12

Suppose that $`𝔤`$ is of type $`A_3`$. We use the same basis of $`𝔫^{}`$ as in Example 9. We consider the root $`\alpha +\beta +\gamma `$. Let $`\lambda =(r_1,r_2,r_3)`$ be such that $`h=r_1+r_2+r_3`$ is a positive integer. A reduced expression of $`s_{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }`$ is $`s_\alpha s_\beta s_\gamma s_\beta s_\alpha `$. The corresponding element of $`U(𝔫^{})`$ is

$$Y=y_\alpha ^{r_2+r_3}y_\beta ^{r_3}y_\gamma ^hy_\beta ^{r_1+r_2}y_\alpha ^{r_1}.$$

First we have

$$y_\beta ^{r_3}y_\gamma ^hy_\beta ^{r_1+r_2}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{h}{}}(1)^k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{h}{k}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r_1+r_2}{k}\right)k!y_\beta ^{hk}y_\gamma ^{hk}y_{\beta +\gamma }^k.$$

Now to obtain the formula for $`Y`$ we have to apply Lemma 3 three times (and Lemma 2 a few times), to obtain

$`Y={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{h}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_0}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{hk}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{t=0}{\overset{s}{}}}`$ $`(1)^{k+l+s}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{h}{k}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r_1+r_2}{k}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{l}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r_1}{l}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{hk}{s}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r_1l}{s}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s}{t}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{hk}{t}}\right)`$
$`k!l!s!t!y_\alpha ^{hls}y_\beta ^{hks}y_\gamma ^{hkt}y_{\alpha +\beta }^{st}y_{\beta +\gamma }^{kl}y_{\alpha +\beta +\gamma }^{l+t}.`$
Table 1 contains a few running times of the implementation of this algorithm in GAP4.

The root $`\gamma `$ is in each case the highest root of the root system. The length of a formula is the number of summations it contains (so the length of the above formula for $`A_3`$ is $`4`$). The computation for $`E_8`$ did not terminate in the available amount of memory (100M). When the program exceeded the memory, the expression contained $`10556`$ summations.

Remark. It is also possible to use this method to obtain formulas for a fixed type, but variable rank. However, for that a convenient Chevalley basis needs to be chosen. We refer to , Section 5, for the formula for $`A_n`$.

Remark. We have chosen $``$ as the ground field, because it is easy to work with. However, from the algorithm it is clear that instead we can choose any field $`F`$ of characteristic zero and construct embeddings of Verma modules with highest weights from $`FP`$.

## 4 Composition of embeddings

In this section we consider the problem of obtaining an embedding $`M(\nu )M(\lambda )`$, where $`\nu =s_\alpha s_\beta (\lambda )<s_\beta (\lambda )<\lambda `$. The obvious way of doing this is to set $`\mu =s_\beta (\lambda )`$ and obtain the embeddings $`M(\nu )M(\mu )`$, $`M(\mu )M(\lambda )`$ and composing them. This amounts to multiplying two elements of $`U(𝔫^{})`$. This then corresponds to an expression for $`s_\alpha s_\beta `$, which is not necessarily reduced. The question arises whether in this case it is possible to do better, i.e., to start with a reduced expression for $`s_\alpha s_\beta =s_{\alpha _{i_1}}\mathrm{}s_{\alpha _{i_r}}`$, set $`m_k=s_{\alpha _{i_{k+1}}}\mathrm{}s_{\alpha _{i_t}}\lambda ,\alpha _{i_k}^{}`$, and rewrite $`Y=y_{i_1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}y_{i_t}^{m_t}`$ to an element of $`U(𝔫^{})`$. The next example shows that this does not always work.

###### Example 13

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be of type $`F_4`$, with simple roots $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _4`$ and Cartan matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}2& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 2& 2& 0\\ 0& 1& 2& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 2\end{array}\right).$$

Let $`\alpha =\alpha _1+\alpha _2+2\alpha _3`$ and $`\beta =\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+2\alpha _3+\alpha _4`$. We abbreviate a weight $`a_1\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+a_4\lambda _4`$ by $`(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)`$. Set $`\lambda =(\frac{5}{6},\frac{1}{2},\frac{2}{3},0)`$ and $`\nu =(\frac{1}{6},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{3},2)`$. Then $`\nu =s_\alpha s_\beta (\lambda )`$. Write $`s_i=s_{\alpha _i}`$. Then a reduced expression of $`s_\alpha s_\beta `$ is

$$s_1s_2s_1s_3s_2s_1s_3s_2s_4s_3s_2s_1s_3s_2.$$

We get

$$Y=y_1^{\frac{1}{6}}y_2^{\frac{2}{3}}y_1^{\frac{1}{2}}y_3^{\frac{5}{3}}y_2^{\frac{3}{2}}y_1y_3^{\frac{4}{3}}y_2^{\frac{5}{6}}y_4y_3^{\frac{4}{3}}y_2^{\frac{1}{2}}y_1^{\frac{1}{3}}y_3^{\frac{1}{3}}y_2^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

And I do not see any direct way to rewrite this as an element of $`U(𝔫^{})`$.

In general we have to obtain the embedding by composition. In this example set $`\mu =s_\beta (\lambda )=\lambda \beta =(\frac{5}{6},\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{3},0)`$. Then for the embedding $`M(\mu )M(\lambda )`$ we get

$$Y_1=y_2^{\frac{2}{3}}y_3^{\frac{4}{3}}y_1^{\frac{2}{3}}y_2^{\frac{1}{2}}y_3^{\frac{1}{3}}y_4y_3^{\frac{4}{3}}y_2^{\frac{1}{2}}y_1^{\frac{1}{3}}y_3^{\frac{1}{3}}y_2^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

For the embedding $`M(\nu )M(\mu )`$ we get

$$Y_2=y_1^{\frac{1}{6}}y_3^{\frac{1}{3}}y_2y_3^{\frac{5}{3}}y_1^{\frac{5}{6}}.$$

Then the product $`Y_2Y_1`$ will provide the embedding $`M(\nu )M(\lambda )`$.

## 5 Affine algebras

In this section we comment on finding embeddings of Verma modules of affine Kac-Moody algebras. First we fix some notation and recall some facts. Our main reference for this is .

We let $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ be the (untwisted) affine Lie algebra corresponding to $`𝔤`$, i.e.,

$$\widehat{𝔤}=[t,t^1]𝔤Kd$$

with multiplication

$$[t^mx+a_1K+b_1d,t^ny+a_2K+b_2d]=(t^{m+n}[x,y]+b_1nt^nyb_2mt^mx)+m\delta _{m,n}\kappa (x,y)K,$$

where $`m,n`$, $`x,y𝔤`$, $`a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2`$ and $`\kappa (,)`$ is the Killing form on $`𝔤`$.

The Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ has a triangular decomposition $`\widehat{𝔤}=\widehat{𝔫}^{}\widehat{𝔥}\widehat{𝔫}^+`$. Here $`\widehat{𝔫}^{}`$ is spanned by the $`t^my_i`$ for $`m0`$, along with $`t^nx_i`$, and $`t^nh_j`$ for $`n<0`$. The subalgebra $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ is spanned by the $`t^0h_i`$ and $`K`$ and $`d`$. Furthermore, $`\widehat{𝔫}^+`$ is spanned by the $`t^mx_i`$ for $`m0`$, along with $`t^ny_i`$ and $`t^nh_j`$ for $`n>0`$.

The Verma module $`M(\lambda )`$ of highest weight $`\lambda `$ is defined in the same way as for $`𝔤`$. As vector spaces $`M(\lambda )U(\widehat{𝔫}^{})`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be a positive root of $`\widehat{𝔤}`$. Then from  we get that $`M(\lambda n\alpha )`$ embeds in $`M(\lambda )`$ if and only if $`2(\lambda ,\alpha )=n(\alpha ,\alpha )`$, where $`n`$ is a positive integer.

Now if $`\alpha `$ is a real root with $`2(\lambda ,\alpha )=n(\alpha ,\alpha )`$, then we can construct a singular vector in $`U(\widehat{𝔫}^{})_{n\alpha }`$ by essentially the same method as in Section 3. The only difference is the algorithm for rewriting $`f_i^{nr}af_i^r`$, where $`r`$, $`aU(\widehat{𝔫}^{})`$, and $`f_i`$ a basis element of $`\widehat{𝔫}^{}`$. We need commutation relations $`y^mf_i^r=f_i^ry^m+\mathrm{}`$, where $`y`$ runs through the basis elements of $`\widehat{𝔫}^{}`$.

First of all, if $`f_i=t^jx_\alpha `$ for some $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }`$, and $`y=t^kx_\beta `$ for some $`\beta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ such that $`\alpha +\beta \mathrm{\Phi }`$, then set $`y_{m\alpha +n\beta }=t^{mj+nk}x_{m\alpha +n\beta }`$. Set $`B=\{y_{m\alpha +n\beta }m\alpha +n\beta \mathrm{\Phi }\}`$. Then $`B`$ spans a subalgebra of $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ isomorphic to the subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ spanned by the corresponding $`x_{m\alpha +n\beta }`$. The isomorphism is given by $`y_{m\alpha +n\beta }x_{m\alpha +n\beta }`$. So we get the same formula as in the finite-dimensional case.

Now suppose that $`\alpha +\beta =0`$. Then $`j+k0`$; so $`[f_i,y]=t^{j+k}h_\alpha `$, where $`h_\alpha =[x_\alpha ,x_\alpha ]`$. In this case we use the following relation:

$`(t^kx_\alpha )(t^jx_\alpha )^r=`$ $`(t^jx_\alpha )^r(t^kx_\alpha )`$
$`r(t^jx_\alpha )^{r1}(t^{k+j}h_\alpha )r(r1)(t^jx_\alpha )^{r2}(t^{k+2j}x_\alpha ),`$
which is easily proved by induction. If $`t^kx_\alpha `$ occurs with an exponent $`>1`$ then we use this formula repeatedly.

The last possibility is

$$(t^kh_q)(t^jx_\alpha )^r=(t^jx_\alpha )^r(t^kh_q)+r\alpha ,\alpha _q^{}(t^jx_\alpha )^{r1}(t^{k+j}x_\alpha ).$$

Again, we use this formula repeatedly if $`t^kh_q`$ occurs with exponent $`>1`$.

Now we suppose that $`\alpha =m\delta `$ is an imaginary root with $`(\lambda ,\alpha )=0`$ (here $`\delta `$ is the fundamental imaginary root). Then $`M(\lambda n\alpha )M(\lambda )`$ for all positive integers $`n`$. In this case there are a lot of singular elements. One class of them is easily constructed. Let $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_q`$, $`u^1,\mathrm{},u^q`$ be two basis of $`𝔤`$, dual to each other with respect to the Killing form. For $`n>0`$ set

$$S_n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{q}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}(t^ju_i)(t^{jn}u^i).$$

###### Lemma 14

Suppose that $`(\lambda ,\delta )=0`$, then $`S_nv_\lambda `$ is a singular vector of weight $`n\delta `$ in $`M(\lambda )`$.

Proof. From , 12.8 we have the Sugawara operators

$$T_s=\underset{m}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{q}{}}(t^mu_i)(t^{m+s}u^i).$$

It is straightforward to see that $`S_nv_\lambda =T_nv_\lambda `$. Now $`K`$ acts on $`M(\lambda )`$ as scalar multiplication by $`h^{}`$, where $`h^{}`$ is the dual Coxeter number. But also by , Lemma 12.8 we have for $`x𝔤`$:

$$[t^mx,T_n]=2m(K+h^{})(t^{mn}x).$$

From this it follows that $`xS_nv_\lambda =0`$ for $`0il`$, $`x𝔫^+`$. Therefore $`S_nv_\lambda `$ is a singular vector.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 14 provides an infinite number of singular vectors. However, these are not the only ones. In  it is shown that for $`n>0`$ and $`1il`$ there are independent elements $`S_n^iU(\widehat{𝔫}^{})`$ of weight $`n\delta `$, such that $`S_n^iv_\lambda `$ is a singular vector. These $`S_n^i`$ are constructed from the generators of the centre of $`U(𝔤)`$. In this construction the $`S_n`$ correspond to the Casimir operator. However, with the exception of the Casimir operator, I do not know of efficient algorithms to construct the generators of the centre of $`U(𝔤)`$. For example, the explicit expressions given in  for a generator of the centre of degree $`s`$ involve sums of $`(dim𝔤)^s`$ terms. So constructing generators of the centre of $`U(𝔤)`$ appears to be a very hard algorithmic problem in its own right.

The conclusion is that we have efficient algorithms to construct an inclusion $`M(\lambda n\alpha )M(\lambda )`$ if $`\alpha `$ is a real root, or when $`\alpha `$ is imaginary. However, in the last case there are many singular vectors for which at present we have no efficient way of constructing them.

## 6 Constructing irreducible representations

In , P. Littelmann proves a theorem describing a particular basis of the irreducible representations of $`𝔤`$, using inclusions of Verma modules. Apart from giving a basis this result also allows one to construct the irreducible representations of $`𝔤`$. In this section we first briefly indicate how this works, and then give some experimental data concerning this algorithm.

The first ingredient of the construction is Littelmann’s path method. Here we only give a very rough description of that method; for the details we refer to , . A path is a piecewise linear function $`\pi :[0,1]P`$, such that $`\pi (0)=0`$. Such a path is given by two sequences $`\overline{\mu }=(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r)`$ and $`\overline{a}=(a_0=0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_r=1)`$, where the $`\mu _iP`$ and the $`a_i`$ are real numbers with $`0=a_0<a_1<\mathrm{}<a_r=1`$. The path $`\pi `$ corresponding to this data is given by

$$\pi (t)=(ta_{s1})\mu _s+\underset{i=1}{\overset{s1}{}}(a_ia_{i1})\mu _i\text{ for }a_{s1}ta_s.$$

Let $`\lambda `$ be a dominant weight. Then the path $`\pi _\lambda `$ is given by the sequences $`(\lambda )`$ and $`(0,1)`$, i.e., it is the straight line from the origin to $`\lambda `$. For $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$ there is a path-operator $`f_\alpha `$. Given a path $`\pi `$, $`f_\alpha (\pi )`$ is a new path, or $`0`$. Set $`B(\lambda )=\{f_{\alpha _{i_1}}\mathrm{}f_{\alpha _{i_k}}(\pi _\lambda )k0,\alpha _{i_j}\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$, and let $`V(\lambda )`$ be the irreducible $`𝔤`$-module with highest weight $`\lambda `$. Then from ,  we have that the endpoints of the paths in $`B(\lambda )`$ are weights of $`V(\lambda )`$ and the number of paths with endpoint $`\mu `$ is equal to the dimension of the weight space in $`V(\lambda )`$ with weight $`\mu `$.

Let $`\pi B(\lambda )`$ be given by the sequences $`(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _r)`$ and $`(a_0=0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_r=1)`$. Set $`\mu _{r+1}=\lambda `$ and $`\nu _i=a_i\mu _i`$ and $`\eta _i=a_i\mu _{i+1}`$ for $`1ir`$. Then it can be shown that $`M(\nu _i)M(\eta _i)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }_iU(𝔫^{})_{\eta _i\nu _i}`$ be such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_iv_{\eta _i}`$ is a singular vector. Then set $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi =\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }_r`$. The element $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi U(𝔫^{})_{\lambda \pi (1)}`$ is determined upto a multiplicative constant.

Now in  an inclusion $`B(m\lambda )B(n\lambda )`$ is described for $`m<n`$. With this inclusion we can view $`B(m\lambda )`$ as as a subset of $`B(n\lambda )`$. Furthermore, $`B(\lambda ,\mathrm{})`$ denotes the union of all $`B(m\lambda )`$ for $`m1`$. Write $`\lambda =n_1\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+n_l\lambda _l`$, and let $`I(\lambda )`$ be the left ideal of $`U(𝔫^{})`$ generated by the elements $`y_i^{n_i+1}`$ for $`1il`$. Then $`V(\lambda )=M(\lambda +\rho )/I(\lambda )v_\lambda `$, where $`\rho =\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _l`$. Now from  we have the following result.

###### Proposition 15

Suppose that all $`n_i>0`$. Then the set $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi \pi B(\lambda ,\mathrm{}),\pi B(\lambda )\}`$ is a basis of $`I(\lambda )`$.

(If some $`n_i=0`$ then there is a similar result, which we will omit here, cf. .)

In order to construct and work with the quotient $`M(\lambda +\rho )/I(\lambda )`$, we need a basis of $`I(\lambda )`$. If $`\lambda \mu `$ is not a weight of $`V(\lambda )`$, then $`I(\lambda )U(𝔫^{})_\mu =U(𝔫^{})_\mu `$. So we only need bases of the spaces $`I(\lambda )U(𝔫^{})_\mu `$ where $`\lambda \mu `$ is a weight of $`V(\lambda )`$. By the above theorem we can compute those bases by first computing paths $`\pi B(\lambda ,\mathrm{})`$ with $`\pi (1)=\lambda \mu `$, and then constructing the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\pi `$. We call this algorithm A.

In Table 2, the running times are given of algorithm A on some sample inputs. Also listed are the running times of the algorithm described in , which uses a Gröbner basis method to compute bases of the spaces $`I(\lambda )U(𝔫^{})_\mu `$. We call it algorithm B. In order to fairly compare both algorithms, the output in both cases consisted of the representing matrices of a Chevalley basis of $`𝔤`$.

We see that for type $`A_2`$, algorithm A competes well with algorithm B. However, for the other types considered this is not the case. In these cases huge numbers of inclusions of Verma modules have to be constructed, which slows the algorithm down considerably. I have also tried to construct $`V(\lambda )`$ for $`\lambda =(1,1,1)`$, and $`𝔤`$ of type $`B_3`$. But algorithm A did not complete this calculation within the available amount of memory (100M).


format: text

text:
# FLUX-LATTICE MELTING IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL DISORDERED SUPERCONDUCTORS

## I Introduction

The nature of the mixed phase in type-II two-dimensional (2D) superconductors, despite considerable experimental, theoretical and numerical effort, remains unclear. In the mean field approximation the vortices of a pure system are known to form an Abrikosov lattice Abrikosov57 . In D=3 dimensions thermal fluctuations reduce the upper critical field line as first shown by Eilenberger Eilenberger67  leaving a vortex liquid phase between the transition line and the mean field $`H_{c2}(T)`$. In D=2 dimensions the phase diagram between the critical field lines $`H_{c1}(T)`$ and $`H_{c2}(T)`$ is still under debate. Applying the Kosterlitz-Thouless-Berezinskii-Halperin-Nelson-Young (KTBHNY) theory Kosterlitz73 ; Berezinsky ; Halperin78 ; Nelson79 ; Young79  originally developed for melting in 2D crystals to superconductors Doniach79 ; Fisher80  one obtains a phase diagram with a solid, a hexatic and a liquid phase. The hexatic phase was observed in recent simulations Creffield02  for the pinned XY model and low external magnetic fields. However, the possibilty that the transition is not of KTBHNY type was not excluded Fisher80 . Indeed, for higher densities of dislocations (i.e. their core energy is low) a first order transition was found Gupta . Moreover, vortices are not hard core particles. This applies in particular if they are described in the lowest Landau level(LLL) approximation where the density of vortices is high. With the help of a high temperature series expansion starting with the LLL approximation Hikami et al Hikami91  found indeed a first order transition from the quasi-long range ordered vortex lattice to the liquid phase. In this case the intermediate hexatic phase disappears. The same result was obtained by Tesanovic and Xing Tesanovic91  by Monte Carlo simulations using the LLL approximation Thouless75 ; Yoshioka83 . However, theoretical works of Moore and coworkers Moore92 ; Yeo96  raise doubts about the existence of the quasi-long range ordered vortex lattice and suggest that the flux liquid phase exists at any nonzero temperature. The simulations based on the LLL approximation gave conflicting results regarding the flux lattice melting in a clean 2D system. Using quasi-periodic boundary condition on a plane, Hu and MacDonald Hu , and Kato and Nagaosa Kato  have found a first order transition from a quasi-long range ordered vortex lattice phase to a vortex liquid. However, the quasi-solid phase was not detected by simulations on a sphere ONeil93 ; Lee94 ; Dodgson97 .

In the presence of disorder the situation becomes even more complicated. It has long been predicted that in the presence of frozen-in disorder any long range crystalline order of a vortex lattice phase is destroyed in less than four dimensions Larkin70 . Instead, a liquid-like phase was expected to occur leaving only short range crystalline order at length scales smaller than the Larkin length Larkin79 . Recently, it was suggested that a Bragg glass phase with quasi-long range order can exist in three dimensional impure superconductors Nattermann90 ; Korshunov93 ; Giamarchi94 ; Emig99  provided the disorder is weak enough such that the dislocations cannot proliferate. Its existence in three dimensions was supported by further analytical Kierfeld97 ; Carpentier96 ; Fisher97  and numerical Gingras96 ; Otterlo98  studies. Experimental evidence for the existence of the Bragg glass phase was provided recently by neutron diffraction data Klein01 .

The situation in the 2D case is less clear. For clean systems the KTBHNY theory of melting predicts a dislocation driven melting transition from a positionally quasi-long range ordered to a hexatic phase. The transition temperature is $`T_m=\frac{a_{\mathrm{}}^2}{4\pi }\frac{\mu (\lambda +\mu )}{\lambda +2\mu }`$. Here $`\lambda =c_{11}2c_{66}`$ and $`\mu =c_{66}`$ denote the effective Lamé coefficients, $`a_{\mathrm{}}^2=\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{\varphi _0}{B}`$ and $`\varphi _0=\frac{hc}{2e}`$ denotes the flux quantum. For $`T<T_m`$ the structure factor

$`S(𝐤=𝐆+𝐪)|𝐪|^{2\eta _𝐆(T)}`$ (1)
shows quasi-Bragg peaks with a temperature dependent exponent

$`\eta _𝐆(T)={\displaystyle \frac{|𝐆|^2T}{4\pi \mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda +3\mu }{\lambda +2\mu }}.`$ (2)
In the 2D Abrikosov triangular lattice where the screening length diverges with vanishing thickness of the film, $`\lambda `$ becomes scale dependent $`\lambda (L)L^2`$, implying $`\eta _𝐆(T_m)=\frac{|𝐆|^2a_{\mathrm{}}^2}{16\pi ^2}=\frac{1}{3}(|𝐆|^2=\frac{16\pi ^2}{3a_{\mathrm{}}^2})`$. In finite systems of size $`L_s`$, $`\eta _𝐆(T_m)`$ may be larger because the effective value of $`\lambda (L)`$ is still finite. Above the melting transition the translational long range order of the lattice decays on scales $`L>\xi \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{bT_m}{TT_m}\right]^\nu `$ with $`\nu 0.3696`$ Young79 . In finite systems one will see a slightly larger melting temperature defined by $`L_s\xi (T)`$. The hexatic phase shows still quasi-long range order of the bond orientations which will disappear at a second transition at higher temperatures. As mentioned already, the possibility that the transition from the crystalline to the liquid phase is first order cannot be excluded.

Adding disorder to a purely elastic 2D system, i.e. if one suppresses dislocations by hand, there is at low temperatures a glassy phase with a structure factor

$`S(𝐤=𝐆+𝐪)|𝐪|^{2\stackrel{~}{\eta }_𝐆(T)\mathrm{ln}(|𝐪|R_a)}`$ (3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_𝐆(T)\left(\frac{TT_g}{T_g}\right)^2`$ with $`T_g`$ being the glass temperature and $`R_a`$ is the length on which the vortex displacements become of the order of the lattice spacing $`a_{\mathrm{}}`$. One should also note that $`|𝐪|`$ has to be smaller than $`L_{co}^1`$ where $`L_{co}`$ is a cross-over length scale to the asymptotic behavior. The phase characterized by the structure (3) was found by Carpentier and Le Doussal Carpentier97  following earlier work by Cardy and Ostlund Cardy82 . We will call this phase therefore the Cardy-Ostlund-Carpentier-Le Doussal (COCD) phase. Contrary to the Bragg glass phase in D=3 dimensions this phase does not show infinitely sharp Bragg peaks for $`|𝐪|0`$ but the Bragg peaks saturate at $`qR_ae^{2/\stackrel{~}{\eta }_G}`$ as can be seen from (3). Moreover, this phase is not stable with respect to dislocations which appear on a length scale Nattermann00 ; Carpentier97 ; LeDoussal00

$`L_{dis}R_ae^{c_1[\frac{T_mT}{T}\mathrm{ln}(R/R_a)]^{1/2}}`$
due to the effect of the disorder. Here $`c_1`$ is a numerical constant. Since in the thermodynamic limit the glass temperature $`T_g=\frac{3}{2\pi }a_{\mathrm{}}^2\frac{\mu (\lambda +2\mu )}{(\lambda +3\mu )}`$ is much higher than the melting temperature $`T_m`$ ($`\frac{T_g}{T_m}|_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{eff}\mathrm{}}=6)`$ one will never observe the glass transition. Thus, for system sizes $`L_s<L_{dis}`$ we have to expect to see essentially a temperature driven melting transition from a low-$`T`$ COCD phase to a vortex liquid.

It should be noted that the LLL simulations Kienappel97  for disordered systems fail to see any evidence for the existence of the COCD phase in even weakly disordered 2D superconductors of spherical geometry. The same problem but for a plane with the quasi-periodic boundary condition has not been studied yet.

In this paper we employ the LLL approximation and quasi-periodic boundary condition on a plane to study disordered 2D type-II superconductors by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations using the standard Ginzburg-Landau model where the impurities are introduced via fluctuations of the local critical temperature. The disorder is assumed to be weak such that the distance $`L_{dis}`$ between dislocations is much larger than system sizes studied and hence the dislocations can be excluded.

In order to study the glass phase we monitor the Fourier transform of the density-density correlation function Hu ; Kato

$`\chi _{DD}(𝐤)={\displaystyle _𝐫}{\displaystyle _𝐫^{}}\overline{<|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)|^2|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫^{})|^2>}e^{i𝐤.(𝐫𝐫^{})},`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=|\mathrm{\Psi }|e^{i\phi }`$ denotes the superconducting order parameter and the overbar the disorder averaging, respectively. The value of this function at $`𝐤=𝐆`$ with $`𝐆`$ being a reciprocal lattice vector defines the intensity of Bragg peaks. A closely related correlation function is that of the order parameter for translational long range order defined as follows Nattermann00

$$S(𝐆,𝐫)=\overline{<\mathrm{exp}(i𝐆.[𝐮(𝐫)𝐮(0)])>}.$$
(5)
Here $`𝐮(𝐫)`$ denotes the displacement field of the vortex positions. The latter follow from the condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=0`$. It is this correlation function which exhibits quasi-long range order in the Bragg glass phase. The structure factor is the Fourier transform of $`S(𝐆,𝐫)`$

$`S(𝐤)={\displaystyle d^2re^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐫}}S(𝐆,𝐫)}.`$
In analogy with spin glass theory Binder86  one may further consider the positional glass correlation function Nattermann00

$$S_{PG}(𝐆,𝐫)=\overline{|<\mathrm{exp}(i𝐆.[𝐮(𝐫)𝐮(0)])>|^2}$$
(6)
which may give signature of the existence of some residual ’glassy’ order of the Abrikosov lattice. If $`S_{PG}(𝐆,𝐫)`$ decays not faster than a power law for $`|𝐫|\mathrm{}`$ then a system is said to be in the positional vortex glass phase.

In analogy to the positional glass correlation function one can define the gauge-invariant phase-coherent vortex glass correlation function FisherFisherHuse91  $`C_{VG}(𝐫)`$:

$$C_{VG}(𝐫)=\overline{|<\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(0)e^{i(2\pi /\mathrm{\Phi }_0)_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝑑𝐫.𝐀}>|^2}.$$
(7)
Note that $`C_{VG}(𝐫)`$ itself depends on the path $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ between $`𝐫`$ and 0 along which the vector potential is integrated Nattermann00 . To make this correlation function path independent and simultaneously gauge invariant, Moore Moore92  proposed to keep only the longitudinal component of the vector potential. This corresponds in the symmetric gauge to the complete neglect of the phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}[i(2\pi /\mathrm{\Phi }_0)_\mathrm{\Gamma }d𝐫.𝐀]`$ in Eq. (7):

$$C_{VG}(𝐫)=\overline{|<\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(0)>|^2}.$$
(8)
The correlations measured in (8) cannot be probed directly but have been proposed to characterize the glassy state of the vortex array. They are expected to be reflected however in the current voltage relation although a straightforward derivation of this connection is still missing FisherFisherHuse91 . The relation between the correlations measured by (5) and the dissipation due to flux creep is closer Nattermann00 . Since we do not discuss dynamical properties in this article we consider (8) and (5) (and (6) as two competing theoretical tools to characterize the glassy state of the vortex array. An exponential decay of (8) – as we find – would suggest , according to FisherFisherHuse91 , the disappearence of the glassy state. This is in contrast to what one would conclude from the almost power-law like decay of (5) which suggest some remaining glassy COCD-behaviour in the low temperature state. Contrary to previous works we will focus on the behavior of correlation functions defined by Eqs. (5), (6) and (8).

In agreement with ref. Hu ; Kato  we find that the clean 2D system displays the quasi-long range ordered vortex lattice phase at low temperatures. This result is in variance with the result of Moore et al ONeil93 ; Lee94 ; Dodgson97  who found the vortex liquid phase at any temperature using the same model but with different geometry.

In the disordered case, contrary to Kienappel and Moore Kienappel97 , we showed that the glassy COCD phase exists at low temperatures. In this phase the translational invariance order parameter is found to decay as $`S(𝐆,𝐫)e^{\stackrel{~}{\eta }_𝐆\mathrm{ln}^2r}`$ as predicted theoretically by Carpentier and Le Doussal Carpentier97 . However, due to small system sizes, the possibility that it decays as a simple power law is not excluded. The clarification of this point requires simulations for considerably larger system sizes. Our results indicate, however, that quasi-long range order of correlations measured by (6) exist at low temperatures.

In the glassy phase the phase coherent vortex glass order parameter decays as $`C_{VG}(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(r/R_c)`$, where the correlation length $`R_c`$ depends not only on the temperature but also on the disorder. The stronger the disorder the larger is $`R_c`$ suggesting that the phase-coherent vortex glass ordering becomes more and more favourable as the disorder is enhanced.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II we present the LLL approach in the Landau gauge. The transition from the vortex liquid to the ordered phase of the clean system is studied in Sec. III. The nature of ordering in the same system but this time with disorder is discussed in Sec. IV. The exponential decay of the phase coherent vortex glass is also presented in this section. Finally, in the last section we summarize our main results.

## II Model

Our simulation is based on the phenomenological Ginzburg-Landau model in the approximation of a uniform magnetic field $`𝐁`$. This is a reasonable approximation, since the effective screening length $`\lambda _{eff}=2\lambda _L^2/s`$ diverges for vanishing film thickness $`s`$. Here $`\lambda _L`$ denotes the bulk screening length. The quenched disorder is introduced via the fluctuations of the local phase transition temperature. The Ginzburg-Landau free energy of the superconductor is given by

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`F_{cl}+F_{dis},`$
$`F_{cl}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2r[\alpha (T)|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2+\frac{\beta }{2}|\mathrm{\Psi }|^4+\frac{1}{2m}|𝐃\mathrm{\Psi }|^2]},`$
$`F_{dis}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^2r\alpha _0\delta T_c(𝐫)|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)|^2}.`$ (9)
Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the complex order parameter representing the macroscopic wave function of the superconducting electrons. $`𝐃`$ denotes the gauge invariant derivative D$`=i\mathrm{}\frac{2e}{c}𝐀`$ with $`𝐀`$ being the vector potential. $`𝐁=\times 𝐀`$, $`e`$ and $`m`$ are the charge and mass of the electron, respectively. In the simulation we will use the the Landau gauge $`𝐀=B(0,x,0)`$. We may go back to the symmetric gauge $`𝐀=\frac{B}{2}(y,x,0)`$ by a simple gauge transformation $`\mathrm{\Psi }_L=\mathrm{\Psi }_Se^{ixy/l^2}`$. $`\alpha (T)=\alpha _0(TT_c)`$ and $`\beta `$ is a constant; $`\alpha _0,\beta >0`$. $`T_c`$ denotes the zero-field mean-field transition temperature. $`\delta T_c(𝐫)`$ is real and Gaussian distributed with

$`<\delta T_c(𝐫)>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`<\delta T_c(𝐫)\delta T_c(𝐫^{})>`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta ^2T_c^2\xi _0^2\delta _{\xi _0}(𝐫𝐫^{}).`$ (10)
$`\delta _{\xi _0}(x)`$ is a $`\delta `$function of width of the order of the zero temperature correlation length $`\xi _0=\mathrm{}/\sqrt{2m\alpha _0T_c}`$. The typical fluctuations $`\delta T_c(𝐫)`$ of the mean-field transition temperature are then of the order $`\delta T_c\zeta T_c`$. It is convenient to collocate here the main characteristics of the model

$`B_{c2}(0)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _0T_cmc}{\mathrm{}e}},b={\displaystyle \frac{B}{B_{c2}(0)}},Gi=\left({\displaystyle \frac{m\beta }{2\pi \mathrm{}^2\alpha _0}}\right)^2,`$
$`l=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}c}{2eB}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{b}}}\xi _0={\displaystyle \frac{a_0}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4\pi }}}a_{\mathrm{}}.`$ (11)
Here $`B_{c2}(0)`$ denotes the upper critical field at $`T=0`$ and $`l`$ the magnetic length. The density and the lattice constant of the flux line lattice are given by $`\frac{1}{a_0^2}`$ and $`a_{\mathrm{}}`$, respectively. $`Gi`$ is the Ginzburg number at $`T=T_c`$.

In the LLL approximation one expands the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in terms of eigenfunctions of the operator $`\alpha +𝐃^2/2m`$ of the lowest Landau level only. This restriction is a reasonable approximation provided that fluctuations in higher Landau level channels can be neglected. The precise range of applicability of the LLL approximation is still under debate ONeil93 ; Li99 . However, one can expect that this approximation is valid for $`BB_{c2}/13`$ Li99 . Since the basic length scale of the LLL approximation is given by the magnetic length $`l=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/2eB}`$ it is convenient to measure from now on all lengths in units of $`l`$, i.e. we replace everywhere $`\frac{x}{l}`$ by $`x`$ and $`\frac{y}{l}`$ by $`y`$.

We apply quasi-periodic boundary conditions to the order parameter inside a finite system with lengths $`L_x`$ and $`L_y`$ parallel to the $`x`$ and $`y`$direction, respectively. $`\mathrm{\Psi }(y+L_y,x)=\mathrm{\Psi }(y,x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(y,x+L_x)=\mathrm{exp}(iL_xy/l)\mathrm{\Psi }(y,x)`$. Such boundary conditions are necessary to result in a phase change by $`2\pi N_\varphi `$ when orbiting the system. $`N_\varphi =\frac{L_xL_y}{2\pi l^2}`$ denotes the number of vortices in the system. We will denote $`L_x/l=3^{1/4}\pi ^{1/2}N_x`$ and $`L_y/l=2\pi ^{1/2}N_y/3^{1/4}`$, where $`N_x`$ and $`N_y`$ are the numbers of vortex columns and rows, respectively. The order parameter can then be written in the form Yoshioka83

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{|\alpha _B|l\pi ^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\beta L_y}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N_\varphi }{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}C_je^{\frac{iyX_{j,s}(xX_{j,s})^2}{2}}.`$ (12)
In the last equation we have introduced the following notations

$`\alpha _B`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (T)+\mathrm{}eB/m=\alpha _0T_c(1bt),`$
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_c}},X_{j,s}=j2\pi l/L_y+sL_x/l`$ (13)
In the mean field theory the superconducting transition of clean systems occurs at $`T_c(B)=T_c\mathrm{}eB/\alpha _0mc`$ which is defined from the condition $`\alpha _B=0`$. $`X_{j,s}`$ is the center of the cyclotron motion. The number of vortices $`N_\varphi `$ must be chosen to be an integer, the coefficients $`C_j`$ are in general complex.

Using the expansion (12) we can rewrite $`F_{cl}`$ as follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_{cl}}{ϵ^2T}}=sign(\alpha _B){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}|C_j|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3^{1/4}}{8\sqrt{2}N_y}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_s=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_d=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[f(n_s)\right|\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}\pi n_d^2}{N_\varphi }}]C_{[n_s+n_d]}C_{[n_sn_d]}|^2+`$
$`+f(n_s+1/2)\left|\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}\pi (n_d1/2)^2}{N_\varphi }}]C_{[n_s+n_d]}C_{[n_sn_d+1]}|^2\right],`$ (14)
where $`C_{[n_s]}=C_{mod(n_s,N_\varphi )}`$. The only model dependent parameter of the model in the clean limit is $`ϵ`$ given by

$$ϵ=\frac{\alpha _B\pi ^{1/2}l}{\beta ^{1/2}T^{1/2}}=\frac{1}{2Gi^{\frac{1}{4}}}\frac{(b+t1)}{b^{1/2}t^{1/2}},$$
(15)
which measures the distance to the mean-field phase boundary $`ϵ=0`$. Here $`b`$ denotes the magnetic field in units of the mean-field upper critical field $`B_{c2}`$ at $`T=0`$ (compare (11)). Below we will find the phase transitions at a critical value $`ϵ_c`$ of $`ϵ`$ which can be inverted into a band of transition lines $`b_c(t)`$ parameterized by the Ginzburg number of the corresponding superconductor:

$$b_c(t;Gi,\zeta =0)=\stackrel{~}{b}_c(t,ϵ_cGi^{\frac{1}{4}})1t+\varkappa _c^2t\varkappa _c\sqrt{2t(1t)+\varkappa _c^2t^2},\varkappa _c=\sqrt{2}ϵ_cGi^{\frac{1}{4}}.$$
(16)
Finally,

$$f(n_s)=Erf(N_x3^{1/4}(2\pi )^{1/2}n_sN_y^13^{1/4}(2\pi )^{1/2})+Erf(n_sN_y^13^{1/4}(2\pi )^{1/2}),$$
(17)
where $`Erf(x)`$ is an error function. It should be noted that different groups used different notations for the dimensionless parameter $`ϵ`$. Our $`ϵ`$ = $`t`$ (Ref. Hu, ) $`=t/2`$ (Ref. Kato, ) $`=\alpha _T/\sqrt{2}`$ (Ref. Hikami91, ) $`=g/\sqrt{2}`$ (Ref. Tesanovic91, ).

To express the disorder term $`F_{dis}`$ in terms of the LLL coefficients $`C_j`$, we expand the random Gaussian disorder in renormalized Hermite polynomials $`u_k(x)`$ and harmonics

$$\delta T_c(𝐫)=\frac{\zeta T_c\xi _0}{(L_yl)^{1/2}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{km}e^{2\pi imyl/L_y}u_k(x),u_k(x)=(2^kk!\sqrt{\pi })^{1/2}e^{x^2/2}H_k(x).$$
(18)
Here $`H_k(x)`$ are Hermite polynomials and $`a_{km}`$ are complex random numbers. To satisfy $`\delta T_c(𝐫)^{}=\delta T_c(𝐫)`$ one has to choose $`a_{km}`$ such that $`a_{k,m}=a_{k,m}`$. Using the standard orthogonality relations one can show that $`\delta T_c(𝐫)`$ satisfies Eq. (10) if $`<a_{km}>=0`$ and $`<a_{km}a_{k^{}m^{}}^{}>=\delta _{mm^{}}\delta _{kk^{}}`$. From Eqs. (12) and (18) we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F_{dis}}{T}}=ϵ^2\stackrel{~}{\zeta }({\displaystyle \frac{l}{L_y}})^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_s,n_d}{}}(a_{k,2nd}C_{[n_s+n_d]}C_{[n_sn_d]}^{}L(k,n_s,n_d)+`$
$`a_{k,2nd1}C_{[n_s+n_d]}C_{[n_sn_d+1]}^{}L(k,n_s+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},n_d{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})).`$ (19)
Here

$$L(k,n_s,n_d)=e^{\frac{\pi 3^{1/2}}{N_y^2}n_d^2}_0^{L_x/l}𝑑xu_k(x)e^{(x\frac{3^{1/4}\pi ^{1/2}}{N_y}n_s)^2}$$
(20)
and the dimensionless parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$ which controls the relative disorder strength has the form

$$\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=\frac{\zeta }{2\pi ^{1/2}Gi^{1/4}ϵt^{1/2}}=\zeta \frac{b^{1/2}}{\pi ^{1/2}(1tb)}.$$
(21)
Substituting (12) into Eq. (4) one can express the Fourier transform of the density-density correlation function in the following form (again we measure $`k^1`$ in units of $`l`$, i.e. we replace $`kl`$ by $`k`$)

$$\chi _{DD}(𝐤)=\left(\frac{N_\varphi \alpha _B\pi l^2}{\beta }\right)^2e^{k^2/2}\overline{<|\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)|^2>},$$
(22)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)=\underset{j}{}C_{[jn_y+N_\varphi ]}^{}C_je^{\frac{\pi lq_x}{L_y}(n_y2j)}.$$
(23)
In what follow we will use $`\overline{<|\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)|^2>}`$ to characterize the Bragg peaks.

Our MC simulations are performed for coefficients $`C_j`$ C$`^{N_\varphi }`$ which are updated by the standard Metropolis algorithm. The candicate for the new configuration is generated by $`C_jC_j+ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }C`$ is a complex number which is randomly chosen from the region $`|\text{Re}\mathrm{\Delta }C|1`$ and $`|\text{Im}\mathrm{\Delta }C|1`$ in the complex plane. $`ϵ`$ is chosen to be of order 0.1 so that the acceptance ratio is $`0.30.5`$. The physical quantities are measured every $`2050`$ MC steps.

## III Clean system

The aim of this section is twofold. First, we want to check our code for the clean system ($`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0`$) which was studied in detail Hu ; Kato . Second, we consider the spatial behavior of the translational invariance correlation function which have not been studied previously by simulations.

The simulations were carried out for systems of five different sizes, each containing $`4^2,6^2,8^2,10^2`$ and $`12^2`$ number of vortices. It took $`3\times 10^410^5`$ MC steps to reach the thermal equilibration. The physical quantities were calculated over $`10^55\times 10^5`$ MC steps.

Fig. 1 shows the temperature dependence of $`<|\mathrm{\Delta }(q_x)|^2>=<|\mathrm{\Delta }(q_x,0)|^2>`$ for $`N_\varphi =100`$, $`ϵ^2=20`$ and 100. At low temperatures (large $`ϵ`$) this quantity has the sharp peaks which are indicative for the existence of the quasi vortex lattice. At high temperatures the Bragg peaks are smeared out suggesting that we are in the vortex liquid phase.

In order to obtain the quasi solid-liquid transition temperature we monitor the scaling of the renormalized structure factor at the maximum position $`q_x=G=\frac{(4\pi )^{1/2}}{3^{1/4}}`$, $`<|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(G)|^2>`$, which is defined as follows

$$<|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(G)|^2>=N_\varphi <|\mathrm{\Delta }(G)|^2>/<|\mathrm{\Delta }(0)|^2>.$$
(24)
Fig. 2 shows the temperature dependence of $`<|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(G)|^2>`$ for various values of $`N_\varphi `$. The transition temperature is defined from the point where the curves splay out and we find $`ϵ_c^2=43\pm 2`$. This can be compared with previous estimates $`ϵ_c^2=43.5\pm 1.0`$ by Hu and MacDonald Hu , $`ϵ_c^250`$ by Tesanovic and Xing Tesanovic91 , and $`ϵ_c^249`$ by Kato and Nagaosa Kato . The discrepancy between estimates of various groups is probably related to the fact that the scaling regime was not reached due to small system sizes used up to now. Since this regime, according to Kato and Nagaosa Kato , corresponds to $`N_\varphi >36^2`$ and the CPU time grows as $`N_\varphi ^5`$ it is beyond our computational facilities to reach it.

Fig. 3 shows the phase boundary between the vortex liquid and the quasi-solid phase using Eq. (16). We have chosen the Ginzburg number $`Gi=10^7`$ which is typical for low-$`T_c`$ superconductors, and $`Gi=10^2`$ and 1 for high-$`T_c`$ materials Lobb87 . Since the thermal fluctuations enhance with $`Gi`$, the quasi-long range ordered vortex lattice shrinks as one increases the Ginzburg number.

The distance dependence of the translational invariance order parameter $`S(𝐆,𝐫)`$ for $`N_\varphi =144`$ and for various values of $`ϵ`$ is shown in Fig. 4. At low temperatures we find a power law behavior of the correlation function for translational long range order

$$S(𝐆,𝐫)r^{\eta _𝐆(T)}$$
(25)
whereas at high temperatures an exponential dependence on $`r`$ occurs.

One can define $`\eta _𝐆`$ from the distance dependence of $`S(𝐆,𝐫)`$ shown in Fig. 4. However, in order to minimize finite size effects we calculate $`\eta _𝐆`$ from the dependence of $`<|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(G)|^2>`$ on $`N_\varphi `$ in the quasi solid phase: $`<|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(G)|^2>N_\varphi ^{1\eta _𝐆/2}`$ (see Ref. Kato, ). In the liquid phase $`<|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(G)|^2>`$ does not depend on $`N_\varphi `$. Fig. 5 plots ln $`<|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(G)|^2>`$ versus ln$`N_\varphi `$. The dependence of $`\eta _𝐆(T)`$ on parameter $`ϵ`$ is presented in Fig. 6. At the melting temperature $`\eta _𝐆(T_m)=0.31\pm 0.03`$ which coincides with the value of $`\frac{1}{3}`$ from the KTBHNY theory. The fact that our results agree with the KTBHNY predictions suggests that the first order transition is weak and the second phase transition theory still applies. The weakness of the first order transition was supported by analytical calculations of Hikami et al Hikami91  who obtained a small difference between free energies of the liquid and quasi-long range lattice phases at the melting temperature. Since in the LLL approximation screening effects are neglected, $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ and hence, as follows from Eq. (2), $`\eta _𝐆=\frac{G^2T}{4\pi \mu }\frac{1}{ϵ^2}`$. The results shown in Fig. 6 demonstrate that, in agreement with the theoretical prediction Nelson79 , $`\eta _𝐆(T)\frac{1}{ϵ^2}`$.

## IV Disordered system

In this section we will study the effect of weak disorder on the flux lattice melting transition and on the behavior of different correlation functions. Fig. 7 shows a typical snapshots of vortex cores obtained for the clean case ($`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0`$) and two values of the disorder strength: $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0.03`$ and 0.2 after 500000 MC steps. The runs were done at $`ϵ^2=60`$ for the system of $`N_\varphi =64`$ vortices and are long enough so that the equilibrium was reached. For the uniform ($`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0`$) and weakly disordered ($`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0.03`$) cases we find the slightly distorted Abrikosov lattice. The dislocations are clearly seen in the case of $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0.2`$ and the quasi-solid lattice phase cease to be exist. Thus, in the weak disorder strength limit dislocations can be neglected. We restrict ourselves to this limit and concentrate on two values of disorder $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0.01`$ and 0.03. Some modest simulations have been performed also for $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0.02`$ and 0.04.

The MC simulations were carried out for systems of $`N_\varphi =4^2,6^2,8^210^2`$ and $`12^2`$ vortices. Depending on $`N_\varphi `$, $`10^52\times 10^6`$ MC steps were used and half of them were spent on equilibration of the system. The disorder average is done typically over $`1040`$ samples.

Fig. 8 shows the temperature dependence of the intensity of Bragg peaks defined by $`<|\mathrm{\Delta }(q_x)|^2>`$ for high ($`ϵ^2=30`$) and low ($`ϵ^2=70`$) temperatures, $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0.01`$ and $`N_\varphi =100`$. As in the clean case, at low $`T`$’s we still have sharp peaks characterizing the ordering of the vortices.

The transition temperature to the vortex liquid phase may be defined from the finite size scaling analysis of the structure factor. Fig. 9 shows the temperature dependence of $`<|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(G)|^2>`$ given by Eq. (24) for various system sizes and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0.01`$. The curves splay out at $`ϵ_c^2=48\pm 2`$ indicating that the disorder reduces slightly the transition temperature to the liquid phase. For $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0.03`$ we have $`ϵ_c^2=57\pm 2`$ (the results are not shown).

To calculate from the critical value $`ϵ_c(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_j)ϵ_{c,j}`$ the true phase boundary $`b_c(t,Gi,\zeta )`$ for the four given values of $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_j(\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_1=0.01,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_2=0.02,\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_3=0.03`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_4=0.04`$) we use the relation (21). Since the maximal value of $`t`$ is one, the maximum value of $`\zeta `$ is given by $`\zeta _j(Gi)=2\sqrt{\pi }Gi^{\frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_jϵ_{c,j}`$. Having chosen for a given Ginzburg number $`Gi`$ the values of $`\zeta `$ smaller than $`\zeta _j(Gi)`$, we find that the relation (21) defines a temperature $`t_j=\frac{\zeta ^2}{4\pi Gi^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_j^2ϵ_{cj}^2}=\frac{\zeta ^2}{\zeta _{cj}^2Gi}`$ from which we get $`b_c(t_j,Gi,\zeta )=\stackrel{~}{b}_c(t_j,ϵ_{cj}Gi^{\frac{1}{4}})`$. Here function $`\stackrel{~}{b}_c`$ is defined by Eq. (16).

Fig. 10 shows the $`bt`$ phase diagram for the disordered case for $`Gi=0.01`$. The true disorder strength is equal to $`\zeta =0.06`$. The dashed line corresponds to the clean system. Obviously, the fluctuations due to disorder shift the transition line to lower magnetic fields. The inset shows the dependence of the Ginzburg-Landau energy distribution function $`P(E)`$ on $`E`$ for $`N_\varphi =144`$ and $`ϵ^2=50`$. The double peak structure gives strong evidence that the transition is first order.

The question we ask now is what is the critical disorder strength $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_c`$ above which the COCD glass phase disappear at any nonzero temperature. To answer this question one has to, in principle, find the dependence of the effective critical temperature $`ϵ_c^2`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$. But for large values of $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$ it is very difficult to equilibrate the system at low temperatures and one cannot locate $`ϵ_c^2`$. Therefore, we restrict ourselves to a few values of the disorder strength and plot $`1/ϵ_c^2`$ versus $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }`$ as shown in Fig. 11. The interpolation to $`1/ϵ_c^2=0`$ which corresponds to the real zero temperature, gives $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_c0.11`$.

Fig. 12 shows the $`\mathrm{ln}S(G,𝐫)\mathrm{ln}r`$ plot for $`S(𝐆,𝐫)`$ defined in (5) of the $`N_\varphi =12\times 12`$ disordered system with $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0.01`$. For $`ϵ^2>ϵ_c^2=48`$ ln$`S(𝐆,𝐫)`$ decays linearly, except for $`ϵ^2=50`$ where the decay is much faster. A slightly better fit can be obtained if one plots ln$`S(G,𝐫)`$ versus ln$`{}_{}{}^{2}r`$ as shown in Fig. 13. In this case $`S(𝐆,𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(\stackrel{~}{\eta }_𝐆\mathrm{ln}^2r)`$, in agreement with the prediction of the COCD theory Carpentier97 ; Cardy82 . The exponent $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_𝐆(T)`$ depends not only on $`T`$ but, as we will see below, also on the disorder strength .

Fig. 14 shows the dependence of the translational invariance order parameter $`S(G,𝐫)`$ on $`r`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0.03`$. In this case we still have the roughness $`\mathrm{ln}^2r`$ but the decay is faster than in the $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0.01`$ case.

Fig. 15 shows the temperature and disorder dependence of exponent $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_𝐆(T)`$ for $`N_\varphi =144`$. From the simulation we find that $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_𝐆`$ increases with the disorder strength. The COCD theory, on the other hand, predicts a universal disorder independent value of $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_𝐆`$, provided one is in the asymptotic region where one sees true fixed point behavior. We interpret our numerical result as a cross-over effect: because of the relatively small system sizes one is probably not yet in the asymptotic region of the COCD theory ($`L_sL_{co}`$) and hence an increase of the disorder will results in a faster decay of the correlation. The other observation is that $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_𝐆`$ increases with increasing temperature. The same remains true for $`\eta _𝐆`$ if we fit $`S(𝐆,𝐫)e^{\eta _𝐆\mathrm{ln}r}`$ (compare Fig. 12). The result for $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_𝐆`$ is opposite to the expectation from the COCD theory in the asymptotic regime. However, our result can be understood again if we assume that the main effect for the roughness of the vortex lattice still comes from thermal fluctuations. They alone lead indeed to the increase of $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_𝐆`$ with temperature. Thus, we interpret the result of Fig. 15 as a combined effect of thermal fluctuations and disorder on scales $`L_sL_{co}`$. The present data does not allow for a clear distinction between an ln$`r`$ and ln$`{}_{}{}^{2}r`$-behavior of ln$`S(𝐆,𝐫)`$.

We next study the positional vortex glass ordering characterized by the order parameter $`S_{PG}(𝐆,𝐫)`$ (6) which we try to fit as

$`\mathrm{ln}S_{PG}(𝐆,𝐫)=\eta _{PG}\mathrm{ln}r+const.`$ (26)
where $`\eta _{PG}`$ is an exponent. The COCD theory predicts an ln$`r`$-behavior Goldschmidt82  with $`\eta _{PG}T`$. Fig. 16 shows the distance dependence of $`S_{PG}(G,𝐫)`$ versus ln$`r`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0.01`$ and 0.03. At low temperatures the fit given by Eq. (26) works well and the corresponding exponent $`\eta _{PG}`$ is presented in Fig. 17. As the temperature is lowered the tendency to the ordering gets more and more enhanced and $`\eta _{PG}`$ decreases. Fig. 17 shows that $`\eta _{PG}`$ is not sensitive to the disorder strength. Both findings are in agreement with the theoretical prediction Goldschmidt82  suggesting a quasi-long range glass ordering of $`e^{i\mathrm{𝐆𝐮}}`$.

Next we consider the vortex glass correlation function for a phase coherent vortex glass, Eq. (8). In order to compute the phase-sensitive correlation function $`C_{VG}(𝐫)`$ we go to the symmetric gauge to obtain the phase of the order parameter. The typical spatial distribution of the phase in the symmetric gauge is shown in Fig. 18. It has essentially the same shape as presented in the work of Brandt Brandt74 .

We fixed the order parameter at the center of the rectangular as shown in Fig. 18 as $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ and compute $`C_{VG}(𝐫)`$ with the help of Eq. (8), where $`|𝐫|`$ is the distance to this center. To improve statistics we average over 360 different directions of r keeping $`|𝐫|=r`$ fixed.

Fig. 19 and 20 show the spatial behavior of the vortex glass order parameter $`C_{VG}(r)`$ given by Eq. (8) for $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }=0.01`$ and 0.03. In the low temperature region straight lines correspond to the fit

$$C_{VG}(𝐫)\mathrm{exp}(r/R_c),$$
(27)
where $`R_c`$ is the correlation length. At high temperatures $`C_{VG}(𝐫)`$ decays faster than exponential.

Fig. 21 shows the temperature dependence of $`R_c`$. As the temperature decreases, the system gets more ordered and $`R_c`$ increases. The same tendency shows up if one increases the disorder strength. However we do not see any sign of a true or quasi-long range order of the phase coherent vortex glass correlation function.

## V Conclusion

We have studied the phase diagram and different correlation functions in a 2D type II superconductor by Monte Carlo simulations using the LLL approximation. For the clean case, in accord with the previous results of other groups Hikami91 ; Tesanovic91 ; Hu ; Kato , we have shown that, the quasi-long range ordered vortex lattice phase exists at low temperatures. The exponent $`\eta _𝐆`$ was found to be proportional to $`ϵ^2`$ as expected from the KTBHNY theory of the dislocation driven melting transition. This result suggests that the transition from the quasi-solid phase to the liquid one is weakly first order. It is not excluded that the agreement between our results and the predictions of the KTBHNY theory is just an artifact of the finite size effect.

In disordered systems there is a first order transition from vortex liquid phase to a COCD phase characterized by the ln$`{}_{}{}^{2}r`$-behavior of the roughness. This phase is however only stable for small enough disorder strength, $`\stackrel{~}{\zeta }\stackrel{~}{\zeta }_c0.11`$. In the COCD phase the positional vortex glass correlation function decays as power law. In agreement with the COCD theory, the corresponding exponent $`\eta _{PG}`$ grows with $`T`$ linearly and remains almost unaffected by the disorder.

The phase coherent vortex glass correlation function decays with $`r`$ exponentially (see Eq. (27)) where the correlation length $`R_c`$ increases with disorder indicating that the disorder favours the vortex glass ordering. However the phase coherent vortex glass is suppressed by thermal fluctuations in weakly disordered 2D systems.

We thank Y. Kato and A. Glatz for many useful discussions and D. Stauffer for his kind help in implementation of the code for parallel computation on CRAY located at the John von Neumann Institute for Computing. The financial support from SFB 608 and the Polish Agency KBN (Grant number 2P03B-146-18) is acknowledged.