format: text

text:
# Paths, Crystals and Fermionic Formulae

## 1 Introduction

Fermionic formulae are certain $`q`$-polynomials or $`q`$-series expressed as a specific sum of products of $`q`$-binomial coefficients. In this paper, which is an extended version of \[HKOTY1\], we introduce the fermionic formulae associated with any quantum affine algebra and discuss several aspects related to integrable systems and representation theory. For twisted cases, they are new even at $`q=1`$. Before going into the details, let us venture a brief historical account of the results scattering over immense literatures.

The first fermionic formula ($`q=1`$) appeared in eq.(45) of Bethe’s paper \[Be\] in 1931. It was given as the number of solutions to the Bethe equation for the Heisenberg spin chain based on the string hypothesis. Subsequent developments took place mainly from the 80’s. Here we divide them into the three main streams as arranged in Sections 1.11.3 below.

### 1.1 Quasi-particle picture

Probably it was the Stony Brook group who first used the physics terminology fermionic for affine Lie algebra characters. Based on the Bethe ansatz analysis of integrable 3-state Potts chain \[KM\], Kedem and McCoy discovered a novel fermionic expression of the branching functions for the coset pair of the affine Lie algebras $`(A_3^{(1)})_1(A_3^{(1)})_1/(A_3^{(1)})_2`$. There was no minus sign in the sum as opposed to the well known Feigin-Fuchs-Rocha-Caridi bosonic formula for Virasoro characters. This outstanding feature was due to the fermionic nature of the lowlying excitations characterized by the roots of the Bethe type equation. Based on an elaborate analysis of the fermionic selection rule on the roots, they actually went beyond the characters of chiral blocks, and succeeded in constructing the modular invariant partition functions, i.e., bilinear combinations thereof, as a fermionic $`q`$-series.

Focusing on the constituent chiral blocks, Kedem et al. subsequently proposed the fermionic formulae for a variety of conformal field theory (CFT) models including the non-unitary Virasoro minimal ones \[KKMM1, KKMM2\]. Through these studies, the quasi-particle picture was put forward as a general concept of lowlying excitations leading to fermionic formulae \[DKKMM\], the Bailey pair technique was explored \[BMSW\] and the Rogers-Ramanujan type identities were interpreted as an equivalence of bosonic and fermionic descriptions \[KMM\]. We refer to \[M\] for the original survey.

The progress by the Stony Brook group inspired further developments from the viewpoint of Yangian symmetry and the “spinon basis” in integrable $`A_1^{(1)}`$ modules \[BPS, BLS1, BLS2\]. These ideas led to a proof of fermionic formulae by means of the chiral vertex operators and brought a new description of the CFT Hilbert spaces. We remark that most of the formulae in these works are level truncated (or restricted) in the sense explained in Section 1.3. See also \[ANOT, NY2, NY3\] for more aspects concerning the spinon interpretations.

In the early stage of these developments, main interests were directed to $`q`$-series rather than $`q`$-polynomials. The idea of “finitizing” the former to the latter came with \[Me\] as an ultraviolet cutoff in the quasi-particle picture. It was followed by many papers, most typically \[Ber, Wa, Sc, BMS\], where the fermionic formulae were established for a polynomial analogue of $`A_1^{(1)}`$ coset Virasoro characters including the fractional level cases. See also \[FW1, FW2\]. An essential question in finitization is the meaning of the consequent $`q`$-polynomials. We postpone the discussion on this point to Section 1.3.

### 1.2 Combinatorics of Bethe ansatz

The advances achieved in the 90’s sketched in Section 1.1 may be viewed as a renaissance in the history of fermionic formulae linked up with CFT. Actually, fermionic formulae had been obtained in the middle 80’s in a different context by Kerov, Kirillov and Reshetikhin \[KKR, KR1\] for the Kostka polynomial.

The Kostka polynomial is a $`q`$-analogue of the multiplicity of the irreducible $`\text{sl}_n`$-module $`V_\lambda `$ in the $`m`$-fold tensor product $`V_{(\mu _1)}V_{(\mu _2)}\mathrm{}V_{(\mu _m)}`$. Here for a partition $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)`$ ($`\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _n0`$) $`V_\lambda `$ stands for the irreducible $`\text{sl}_n`$-module with highest weight $`_{i=1}^{n1}(\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1})\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ being the fundamental weights of $`\text{sl}_n`$. In particular, $`V_{(\mu _i)}`$ is the symmetric tensor representation of degree $`\mu _i`$. The Kostka polynomial plays an important role in algebraic combinatorics, and is generalized to the cases where the components of the tensor product are not necessarily symmetric tensor representations. See e.g. \[LLT, LT, S, SW\].

As the Stony Brook group, the approach by Kerov et al. was also based on the Bethe ansatz111Their Bethe equation is different from the one in \[KM\]., but it had several distinctive features. Postulating the completeness of string hypothesis, they derived the $`q=1`$ fermionic formula as the multiplicity of irreducible $`A_n`$-modules in the tensor product of finite-dimensional Yangian $`Y(A_n)`$-modules. Their formula admitted a natural $`q`$-analogue matching the Kostka polynomial. In this context, they treated $`q`$-polynomials without embarking on $`q`$-series and finitization. Later, Kirillov and Reshetikhin pushed these ideas further to extend the $`q=1`$ fermionic formula from $`A_n`$ to arbitrary classical simple Lie algebra $`X_n`$ \[KR2\]. There was no level truncation in those formulae (“classically restricted” in our terminology), and passage to the infinite series and connection to $`A_n^{(1)}`$ branching functions came afterward in 1995 by Kirillov as his Conjecture 4 in \[Ki4\].

The studies \[Ki1, Ki2, KR2\] on the completeness of the string hypothesis are relevant to polynomial fermionic formula at $`q=1`$ with no level truncation. In this sense they are most natural continuation of Bethe’s original treatise. The invention of rigged configurations, bijection to semistandard Young tableaux \[KKR, KR1\] and the Kirillov-Reshetikhin conjecture \[KR2\] (see also Conjecture 2.1) was one of the earliest applications of the Bethe ansatz to combinatorics and representation theory.

When inferring the $`q`$-analogue at the level of fermionic formulae, the Kostka polynomial was the crucial guide for the $`A_n`$ case. To seek the clue for the other cases is a natural question which was also raised in the end of Section 1.1. More broadly, one may ask; what is the meaning, definition or characterization of the $`q`$-polynomial that should be represented by a fermionic formula?

### 1.3 Corner transfer matrix and crystals

The answer to the question had been prepared in Baxter’s corner transfer matrix (CTM) method \[B\], which is another fundamental tool in solvable lattice models. The method introduces the quantity called one dimensional sums (1dsums). They are $`q`$-polynomials growing with lattice size, which eventually tend to affine Lie algebra characters in the infinite lattice limit. Such a phenomenon was first worked out for the celebrated ABF model \[ABF, FB\] and subsequently for other restricted solid-on-solid (RSOS) \[DJKMO1, JMO\] as well as vertex models \[DJKMO2\]. In these works in the 80’s, identification of 1dsums with characters was done mainly through explicit formulae (mostly bosonic one), therefore it was hard to go much beyond tractable examples.

The advent of Kashiwara’s crystal basis theory \[Ka1\] and its applications to vertex \[KMN1\] and RSOS models \[JMMO, DJO\] swept the difficulty away. The theory provided an intrinsic definition of 1dsums as well as a conceptual proof that their infinite lattice limit must be affine Lie algebra characters. The foregoing curiosity on 1dsums was resolved by the fundamental theorem \[KMN1\]: crystals of integrable highest weight modules are isomorphic to semi-infinite tensor products of finite crystals. This propaganda is simply called path realization.

The crystal basis theory is a theory of quantum groups at $`q=0`$ having a source in CTM with numerous applications. Here we just mention two examples relevant to this paper. The first one is the proof of the Kirillov conjecture on branching functions by Nakayashiki and Yamada \[NY1\]. It was done by introducing the classically restricted 1dsums as an intrinsic characterization of the Kostka polynomial in terms of crystals. They are intermediate ones between the level restricted ones for RSOS and the unrestricted ones for vertex models, and will be essential to our discussion on fermionic formulae without level truncation. The second example is the study of Demazure crystals. Recall that Demazure modules are certain finite-dimensional subspaces of integrable highest weight modules labeled by Weyl group elements. Demazure modules at $`q=0`$ are called Demazure crystals \[Ka2\]. It was shown \[KMOTU\] that under the path realization, the restriction of 1dsums to a certain Demazure crystal agrees with the finitization in the CTM language. See Table 1 in \[KMOTU\] for a summary of distinctive features of the three kinds of paths; unrestricted, classically restricted and (level) restricted ones. Our fermionic formulae $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`M_l`$ in this paper correspond to the latter two, respectively.

### 1.4 Physical combinatorics

Throughout the story so far, it should be emphasized that the two essential ingredients in solvable lattice models, Bethe ansatz and CTM, play complementary roles. The CTM and crystal theory provide an intrinsic definition of 1dsums $`X`$ and characterization as branching coefficients of integrable highest weight modules ($`q`$-series case) or Demazure modules (finitized $`q`$-polynomial case). On the other hand, the Bethe ansatz offers a specific formula $`M`$ which is fermionic. Therefore a synthesis of the two ideas reads

$$X=M.$$

To prove and understand this equality in the maximal generality is a fundamental problem in “Physical Combinatorics”222 Named by Jean-Yves Thibon. in the beginning of the 21st century.

In \[HKOTY1\] we have launched a fermionic formula $`M`$ for general nontwisted affine Lie algebras such that the above identity conjecturally holds. It is a $`q`$-analogue of \[KR2\], which covers a large list of known fermionic formulae under suitable specializations. In this paper we extend our proposal including the twisted cases where none was known even at $`q=1`$. Our generalization is not only in the direction of algebras. The earlier studies on 1dsums \[KMN1, KMOTU\] were done exclusively for perfect crystals and homogeneous paths (cf. Section 1.5). Thus it remains a challenge to characterize the infinite lattice limit of 1dsums over inhomogeneous paths consisting of not necessarily perfect crystals. This is also a main subject of the paper. We propose a curious answer compatible with the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz as well as the crystal theoretic scheme in \[HKKOT\]. Roughly, inhomogeneity affects the path realization into that for tensor products of several highest weight modules. Non-perfectness leads to a description in terms of embeddings of affine Lie algebras. See \[AM, DMN, HKMW\] for a physical background of considering inhomogeneous paths.

Before going into the contents of the paper, we note further aspects of the subject including some latest ones; applications to quasi-hypergeometric functions \[AI\], exclusion statistics \[BM, BS2\], decomposition of the Kirillov-Reshetikhin modules $`W_s^{(k)}`$ (see Section 2.3) into classical irreducible modules \[C1\], the Feigin-Stoyanovsky theory \[FS\], fermionic formulae for the spaces of coinvariants associated to $`\widehat{sl}_2`$ \[FKLMM\], modular representations of Hecke algebras \[FLOTW\], approaches by various bijections and tableaux \[FOW, KSS, SW, S, SS1\], a graphical computational algorithm of fermionic formulae \[Kl\], dilogarithm identities \[Ki4\], fermionic formulae for weight multiplicities \[KN\], connection to geometry of quiver varieties \[Lu, N\], spinons at $`q=0`$ \[NY3, NY4\], fermionic formulae from fixed boundary RSOS models \[OPW\], decomposition of level 1 modules by level 0 actions \[Ta, KKN, BS1\], bosonic formulae from crystals \[SS2, KMOTU\], etc.

### 1.5 Contents of the paper

Let us explain the contents of the paper in detail along Sections 2-6 and Appendices A-D.

In Section 2, we fix basic notations on affine Lie algebra $`𝔤=X_N^{(r)}`$ following \[Kac\], and crystals of $`U_q(𝔤)`$ (or $`U_q^{}(𝔤)`$)333 Although denoted by the same letter, the deformation parameter $`q`$ is unrelated with the argument of fermionic formulae having the meaning $`q=e^\delta `$ in terms of the null root $`\delta `$. following \[KMN1, KMN2\]. We consider two categories of representations and crystals; one for the integrable highest weight modules and the other for finite-dimensional modules. Crystals in the latter category are called finite crystals, for which the notion of perfect crystals is explained. We introduce irreducible finite-dimensional $`U_q^{}(𝔤)`$-modules $`W_s^{(k)}`$ and associated conjectural family of finite crystal basis $`B^{k,s}`$. In particular, all the $`B^{k,s}`$’s are conjectured to be perfect in the twisted cases $`r>1`$.

In Section 3 we define a path as an element of the semi-infinite tensor product $`\mathrm{}BB`$ of a finite crystal $`B`$ obeying a certain boundary condition. Here $`B`$ has the form $`B=B^{k_1,s_1}B^{k_2,s_2}\mathrm{}B^{k_d,s_d}`$ and the resulting paths are called inhomogeneous in the sense that $`(k_i,s_i)`$ can be $`i`$-dependent in general. Homogeneous paths ($`d=1`$) consisting of perfect $`B=B^{k_1,s_1}`$ were originally studied in \[KMN1\]. We state Conjectures 3.3 and 3.6, which identify the set of paths with the tensor product of crystals of integrable highest weight modules. The former conjecture concerns the situation where all $`B^{k_i,s_i}`$’s are perfect. It can actually be proved for a large list of crystals as mentioned in Remark 3.5. The latter conjecture deals with non-perfect cases, and is described, rather curiously, in terms of the embedding of the affine Lie algebras $`B_n^{(1)}D_{n+1}^{(1)},C_n^{(1)}A_{2n1}^{(1)},F_4^{(1)}E_6^{(1)}`$ and $`G_2^{(1)}B_3^{(1)}D_4^{(1)}`$. See (3.5). It originates in the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz calculation of RSOS central charges \[Ku\] and is supported by computer experiments. In Section 3.3 we introduce one dimensional sums (1dsums) $`X_l(B,\lambda ,q)`$ in (3.12), where $`l_0`$ or $`l=\mathrm{}`$ is the level of restriction and $`\lambda `$ is the weight of the relevant paths. They are crystal theoretic formulation of a trace of corner transfer matrices going back to \[ABF, B\]. The 1dsums over inhomogeneous paths firstly appeared in \[NY1\] for $`A_n^{(1)}`$ case. It makes essential use of the combinatorial $`R`$ matrices, i.e., the isomorphism and energy functions on tensor products of finite crystals. Our definition basically follows theirs except a subtle “boundary energy” (2nd term in (3.11)) which becomes crucial in general if $`𝔤A_n^{(1)}`$. Our fundamental observation is Conjecture 3.10 equating the 1dsums on finite tensor products with fermionic formulae. In Section 3.4 we explain how the finite tensor products are embedded into the crystals of integrable highest weight modules.

In Section 4 we define fermionic formulae labeled by the tensor product $`W=W_{s_1}^{(k_1)}\mathrm{}W_{s_d}^{(k_d)}`$. There are two versions denoted by $`M_l(W,\lambda ,q)`$ (4.7) and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_l(W,\lambda ,q)`$ (4.28). Compared to $`M_l`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_l`$ involves unphysical contributions from negative vacancy numbers in the Bethe ansatz. However as emphasized in \[HKOTY1\], they conjecturally coincide and the latter enjoys a skew invariance under the Weyl group action (Conjecture 4.3). We present the spinon character formulae derived in the infinite tensor product limit in Propositions 4.5 and 4.6. Proposition 4.10 describes the other limit where $`q`$ is replaced with $`q^1`$.

In Section 5 we present a conjectural $`q`$-series formula $`N_l(\lambda ,q)`$ for level $`l`$ vacuum string functions \[Kac\]. It extends the nontwisted cases \[KNS\], where a Bethe ansatz interpretation has been proposed. We point out the relation (5.4) to the fermionic formula $`M_l`$, although its meaning is yet to be clarified. So far the conjecture is known valid for $`A_1^{(1)}`$ \[LP\] and $`A_n^{(1)}`$ \[G, HKKOTY\] as well as $`l=1`$ case \[Kac\]. The $`q`$-series exhibits an asymptotic behavior consistent with \[Kac\] under the dilogarithm sum rule (6.4). In particular the sum rule for the twisted cases $`X_N^{(r)}(r>1)`$ can be obtained from the nontwisted one $`X_N^{(1)}`$ by a simple unfolding procedure due to (6.5). We remark that a generalization of $`N_l(\lambda ,q)`$ related to tensor product of several vacuum modules has been proved for $`A_n^{(1)}`$ and conjectured for the other nontwisted cases in the section 6.1 of \[HKKOTY\].

Section 6 is devoted to the $`Q`$-system. It is a possible character identity among $`Q_j^{(a)}=\text{ch }W_j^{(a)}`$ having a form of 2d Toda equations and essentially governs the fermionic formulae at $`q=1`$. It was proposed firstly in \[KR2, Ki3\] for nontwisted cases. We introduce the twisted cases $`X_N^{(r)}`$ by folding the $`Q`$-system of the underlying simply laced case $`X_N^{(1)}`$ by an order $`r`$ Dynkin diagram automorphism. Explicit solutions are presented for $`A_{2n}^{(2)},A_{2n1}^{(2)},D_{n+1}^{(2)}`$ and $`D_4^{(3)}`$ in terms of characters of various classical subalgebras. The results given there, Appendix C and \[KR2, HKOTY1\], cover all the non-exceptional affine Lie algebras $`𝔤`$, and exhaust the possible choices of their classical simple Lie subalgebras obtained by removing a vertex in the Dynkin diagrams. We find that only the choice of the classical subalgebra $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$ (Table 2) fits the requirements (A) and (C) of Theorem 6.3. The identity like (6.14) therein is sometimes called “combinatorial completeness of the string hypothesis in the Bethe ansatz”. For nontwisted cases $`U_q(X_N^{(1)})`$, the reason is that $`M_{\mathrm{}}(W,\lambda ,1)`$ naturally emerges from a formal counting of the number of solutions to the Bethe equation \[OW\] for rational vertex models with Yangian symmetry $`Y(X_N)`$444 Although it is not $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ but $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ that enters (6.14), we admit $`M_{\mathrm{}}=\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{}}`$ here according to Conjecture 4.3.. However for twisted cases, we have not succeeded in deriving our $`q=1`$ fermionic formula from the relevant Bethe equation \[RW\] under a string hypothesis. Consequently we do not yet know an interpretation of the identity (6.14) as a combinatorial completeness for the rational limit of trigonometric $`U_q^{}(X_N^{(r)})`$ vertex models. See the end of Section 6.3 for related remarks. In order to find the $`q=1`$ fermionic formula with $`r>1`$, we set out by postulating the $`Q`$-system first instead of investigating the Bethe equation. Once the $`Q`$-system is specified, one can execute parallel calculations with the section 8.2 of \[HKOTY1\]. Our $`M_{\mathrm{}}(W,\lambda ,1)`$ has come up from such analyses simultaneously with Theorem 6.3. To invent the $`q`$-analogue is then straightforward by presuming Conjecture 3.10, i.e., $`M_{\mathrm{}}(W,\lambda ,q)=q^DX_{\mathrm{}}(B,\lambda ,q)`$ for some $`D`$.

Appendix A provides a list of the basic fermionic formulae $`M_{\mathrm{}}(W_s^{(a)},\lambda ,q^1)`$ for twisted cases. The results are analytically obtained for non-exceptional algebras. (See appendix A of \[HKOTY1\] for a similar list for nontwisted cases.) Appendix B gives the explicit form of Proposition 4.10. Appendix C contains the solution of $`B_n^{(1)}`$ $`Q`$-system in terms of $`D_n`$ characters. Appendix D provides the lists of isomorphism $`B^{1,s_1}B^{1,s_2}B^{1,s_2}B^{1,s_1}`$ $`(1s_2s_12)`$ and energy function for $`𝔤=B_3^{(1)},C_2^{(1)},D_4^{(1)},A_3^{(2)},A_4^{(2)},D_3^{(2)}`$ and $`D_4^{(3)}`$. They form sufficient data to compute the inhomogeneous 1dsums over the tensor products of these crystals.

Let us close the introduction with two remarks. Solvable RSOS models at a generic primitive root of unity give rise to yet further 1dsums associated with complicated energy functions. A typical example is \[FB\] corresponding to $`A_1^{(1)}`$, and as noted in Section 1.1, intricate arithmetic structures have been worked out on the fermionic formula and relation to fractional level representations \[BMS, BMSW, FW2\]. The crystal theory has not yet been adapted to such situations. It may be interesting to seek an analogous generalization of our fermionic formula.

According to Section 3.4, the limit of our 1dsums $`lim_L\mathrm{}q^DX_l(B^L,\lambda ,q)`$ ($`D`$: normalization) yields the $`q`$-series having an affine Lie algebraic meaning. Such phenomena correspond, though rather roughly, to the so called “regime III” or “antiferromagnetic regime” in the language of solvable RSOS models or vertex models. However, those models indicate that the other regimes are no less interesting. In particular, the analysis of the opposite “regime II” or “ferromagnetic regime” renders the following question: what is the representation theoretical meaning of another $`q`$-series $`lim_L\mathrm{}q^D^{}X_l(B^L,\lambda ,q^1)`$ ($`D^{}`$: another normalization)? Compared with “regime III”, such issues in “regime II” are yet poorly understood555 If $`𝔤=A_n^{(1)}`$ and $`l<\mathrm{}`$, the question can be answered indirectly through the level-rank duality.. See Proposition 4.10, Appendix B and (5.4). For $`l=\mathrm{}`$ the problem is relevant to another topic, the soliton cellular automata associated with crystal bases \[HKOTY2\].

## Acknowledgements

The authors thank V. Chari, T. Nakanishi, A. Schilling, M. Shimozono and J. Suzuki for useful discussions and Y. Yamada for the collaboration in their previous work \[HKOTY1\]. A.K. and M.O. are partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan. Z.T. is supported by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.

## 2 Conjectural family of crystals

In this section we prepare necessary notations for the affine Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, quantum affine algebra $`U_q(𝔤)`$ and its crystals. We also present a conjectural family of crystals revealed by the Bethe ansatz.

### 2.1  Affine Lie algebra $`𝑿_𝑵^{\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}}`$

Let $`𝔤`$ be a Kac-Moody Lie algebra of affine type $`X_N^{(r)}=A_n^{(1)}(n1),B_n^{(1)}(n3),C_n^{(1)}(n2),D_n^{(1)}(n4),E_n^{(1)}(n=6,7,8),F_4^{(1)},G_2^{(1)},A_{2n}^{(2)}(n1),A_{2n1}^{(2)}(n2),D_{n+1}^{(2)}(n2),E_6^{(2)}`$ and $`D_4^{(3)}`$. As is well known, $`X_N^{(r)}`$ is realized as the canonical central extension of the loop algebra based on the pair $`(X_N,\sigma )`$ of finite-dimensional simple Lie algebra $`X_N`$ and its Dynkin diagram automorphism $`\sigma `$ of order $`r=1,2,3`$. The vertices of the Dynkin diagram of $`𝔤=X_N^{(r)}`$ are labeled as in Table 1, which is quoted from TABLE Aff1-3 in \[Kac\].

Among finite-dimensional subalgebras of $`𝔤`$, the following $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$ and $`𝔤_{\overline{0}}`$ will play an essential role. Here $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$ is obtained by removing the $`0`$-th vertex from the Dynkin diagram of $`𝔤`$. See the section 6.3 of \[Kac\]. On the other hand $`𝔤_{\overline{0}}`$ is the subalgebra of $`X_N`$ fixed by $`\sigma `$. See the section 8.3 of \[Kac\]. Note that $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}=𝔤_{\overline{0}}`$ except $`𝔤=A_{2n}^{(2)}`$.

Table 1 fixes the enumeration of the simple roots of $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$ by the restriction to $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. As for $`𝔤_{\overline{0}}`$ we naturally employ the same enumeration with $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$ when $`𝔤A_{2n}^{(2)}`$, since they are the same subalgebra. As for the conventions on $`𝔤_{\overline{0}}`$ for $`𝔤=A_{2n}^{(2)}`$, see Section 4.1.

Let $`\alpha _i,h_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ ($`iI=\{0,1,\mathrm{},n\}`$) be the simple roots, simple coroots, fundamental weights of $`𝔤`$. Let $`\delta `$ and $`c`$ denote the generator of imaginary roots and the canonical central element, respectively. Recall that $`\delta =_{iI}a_i\alpha _i,c=_{iI}a_i^{}h_i`$ and the Kac label $`a_i`$ is given explicitly by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \delta & =\alpha _0+\mathrm{}+\alpha _n\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=A_n^{(1)},\hfill \\ & =\alpha _0+\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+\mathrm{}+2\alpha _n\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=B_n^{(1)},\hfill \\ & =\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+2\alpha _{n1}+\alpha _n\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=C_n^{(1)},\hfill \\ & =\alpha _0+\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+\mathrm{}+2\alpha _{n2}+\alpha _{n1}+\alpha _n\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=D_n^{(1)},\hfill \\ & =\alpha _0+\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+3\alpha _3+2\alpha _4+\alpha _5+2\alpha _6\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=E_6^{(1)},\hfill \\ & =\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+3\alpha _2+4\alpha _3+3\alpha _4+2\alpha _5+\alpha _6+2\alpha _7\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=E_7^{(1)},\hfill \\ & =\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+3\alpha _2+4\alpha _3+5\alpha _4+6\alpha _5+4\alpha _6+2\alpha _7+3\alpha _8\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=E_8^{(1)},\hfill \\ & =\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+3\alpha _2+4\alpha _3+2\alpha _4\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=F_4^{(1)},\hfill \\ & =\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+3\alpha _2\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=G_2^{(1)},\hfill \\ & =2\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+2\alpha _{n1}+\alpha _n\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=A_{2n}^{(2)},\hfill \\ & =\alpha _0+\alpha _1+2\alpha _2+\mathrm{}+2\alpha _{n1}+\alpha _n\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=A_{2n1}^{(2)},\hfill \\ & =\alpha _0+\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{n1}+\alpha _n\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=D_{n+1}^{(2)},\hfill \\ & =\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+3\alpha _2+2\alpha _3+\alpha _4\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=E_6^{(2)},\hfill \\ & =\alpha _0+2\alpha _1+\alpha _2\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=D_4^{(3)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The dual Kac label $`a_i^{}`$ is equal to $`a_i`$ of $`𝔤^{}`$ corresponding to the transposed Cartan matrix. We let $`h^{}=_{iI}a_i^{}`$ denote the dual Coxeter number. Note that $`h^{}`$ for $`X_N^{(r)}`$ is independent of $`r`$ (Remark 6.1 in \[Kac\]).

For $`iI`$ we set

$$t_i=\mathrm{max}(\frac{a_i}{a_i^{}},a_0^{}),t_i^{}=\mathrm{max}(\frac{a_i^{}}{a_i},a_0).$$
(2.1)
They are given in Table 1. By the definition $`t_i,t_i^{}\{1,2,3\}`$, and $`(t_i,t_i^{})`$ for $`𝔤`$ is equal to $`(t_i^{},t_i)`$ for $`𝔤^{}`$. In the sequel, $`t_i^{}`$ and $`t_i`$ are used only for $`iI\{0\}`$. For $`1an`$ we have

$$t_a^{}=1\text{if }r=1,t_a=1\text{if }r>1,$$

and especially for $`𝔤=A_{2n}^{(2)}`$, $`(t_a,t_a^{})=(1,2)`$ for all $`1an`$. We remark that

$$ra_0\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{t_a^{}}=N\text{for any }X_N^{(r)}.$$
(2.2)
Let $`P=_{iI}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\delta `$ be the weight lattice. We define the following subsets of $`P`$: $`P^+=_{iI}_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, $`P_l^+=\{\lambda P^+\lambda ,c=l\}`$, $`\overline{P}=_{i=1}^n\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i`$, $`\overline{P}^+=_{i=1}^n_0\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i`$. Here $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_i=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i,c\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is the classical part of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$. This map $`\overline{}`$ is extended to a map on $`P`$ so that it is $``$-linear and $`\overline{\delta }=0`$. We also consider the classical weight lattice $`P_{cl}=P/\delta `$. In this paper we canonically identify $`P_{cl}`$ with $`_{iI}\mathrm{\Lambda }_iP`$. (See the section 3.1 of \[KMN1\] for a precise treatment.) We let $`\overline{Q}=_{i=1}^n\alpha _i`$ denote the classical root lattice. Let $`(|)`$ be the standard bilinear form on $`P`$ normalized by $`(\delta |\lambda )=c,\lambda `$ for any $`\lambda P`$. This normalization agrees with that in \[Kac\].

### 2.2 Quantum affine algebra and crystals

Let $`U_q(𝔤)`$ be the quantum affine algebra associated to $`𝔤`$. We follow the section 2.1 of \[KMN1\] for its definitions. $`U_q(\stackrel{}{𝔤})`$ turns out a subalgebra of $`U_q(𝔤)`$ in an obvious manner. $`U_q^{}(𝔤)`$ is the one without the generator $`q^d`$, where $`d`$ is the degree operator in $`𝔤`$.

We next review terminology for crystals. A crystal basis $`B`$ of a $`U_q(𝔤)`$ ($`U_q^{}(𝔤),U_q(\stackrel{}{𝔤})`$)-module can be regarded as a set of basis vectors of the module at $`q=0`$. On $`B`$ one has the action of modified Chevalley generators (Kashiwara operators)

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_i,\stackrel{~}{f}_i:BB\{0\}.$$

For $`bB`$ we set $`\epsilon _i(b)=\mathrm{max}\{k0\stackrel{~}{e}_i^kb0\},\phi _i(b)=\mathrm{max}\{k0\stackrel{~}{f}_i^kb0\}`$. If $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ are crystals, the crystal structure on the tensor product $`B_1B_2`$ is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{e}_i(b_1b_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{e}_ib_1b_2\hfill & \text{if }\phi _i(b_1)\epsilon _i(b_2),\hfill \\ b_1\stackrel{~}{e}_ib_2\hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.3)
$`\stackrel{~}{f}_i(b_1b_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{f}_ib_1b_2\hfill & \text{if }\phi _i(b_1)>\epsilon _i(b_2),\hfill \\ b_1\stackrel{~}{f}_ib_2\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (2.4)
We mainly use two categories of crystals. The first one contains the crystal basis $`B(\lambda )`$ of the irreducible integrable $`U_q(𝔤)`$-module $`L(\lambda )`$ with highest weight $`\lambda P^+`$. $`B(\lambda )`$ is a $`P`$-weighted crystal. The other one contains a crystal basis $`B`$ of a finite-dimensional $`U_q^{}(𝔤)`$-module. As opposed to $`B(\lambda )`$, $`B`$ is a finite set and $`P_{cl}`$-weighted. We shall call it a finite crystal. (See \[HKKOT\] for the precise definition.) For a finite crystal $`B`$, we set $`\epsilon (b)=_i\epsilon _i(b)\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, $`\phi (b)=_i\phi _i(b)\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, $`\text{wt}b=\phi (b)\epsilon (b)`$, and introduce the level of $`B`$ by

$$\text{lev}B=\mathrm{min}\{c,\epsilon (b)bB\}.$$

We further set $`B_{\mathrm{min}}=\{bBc,\epsilon (b)=\text{lev}B\}`$, and call an element of $`B_{\mathrm{min}}`$ minimal. Let $`B_1,B_2`$ be finite crystals of level $`l_1,l_2`$ . Then $`B_1B_2`$ turns out a finite crystal of level $`\mathrm{max}(l_1,l_2)`$. A $`U_q^{}(𝔤)`$-module can be viewed as a $`U_q(\stackrel{}{𝔤})`$-module. For the latter the irreducible representation with highest weight $`\lambda \overline{P}^+`$ will be denoted by $`V(\lambda )`$.

We also need the notion of perfect crystals \[KMN1, KMN2\]. A perfect crystal is a finite crystal with an additional condition. Let $`B`$ be a finite crystal of level $`l`$. $`B`$ is said to be perfect if the maps $`\epsilon ,\phi :B_{\mathrm{min}}P_l^+`$ are bijections. Set $`\sigma =\epsilon \phi ^1`$. $`\sigma `$666Distinguish this with $`\sigma `$ in $`(X_N,\sigma )`$ which appeared in Section 2.1. is related to a Dynkin diagram automorphism and can be extended on $`P^+`$.

### 2.3  Family $`𝑾_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}}`$

It is known \[CP1, CP2\] that the irreducible finite-dimensional $`U_q^{}(𝔤)`$-modules are characterized by $`n`$-tuple of polynomials $`\{P_a(u)\}_{a=1}^n`$ called Drinfel’d polynomials. Set $`\widehat{q}_k=q^{(\alpha _k|\alpha _k)/2}`$. We define an irreducible finite-dimensional $`U_q^{}(𝔤)`$-module $`W_s^{(k)}`$ ($`1kn,s1`$) by its Drinfel’d polynomials777 In the twisted cases, we are afraid that our normalization might not agree with that in \[CP2\].:

$$P_a(u)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1\widehat{q}_k^{s1}u)(1\widehat{q}_k^{s3}u)\mathrm{}(1\widehat{q}_k^{s+1}u)\hfill & (a=k),\hfill \\ 1\hfill & (ak).\hfill \end{array}$$

It is called a Kirillov-Reshetikhin module.

###### Conjecture 2.1.

The finite-dimensional $`U_q^{}(𝔤)`$-module $`W_s^{(k)}`$ has the following features:

* $`W_s^{(k)}`$ has a crystal basis $`B^{k,s}`$. $`B^{k,s}`$ is a finite crystal of level $`\frac{s}{t_k}`$888 The symbol $`x`$ denotes the smallest integer not less than $`x`$.. Moreover, it is perfect if $`\frac{s}{t_k}`$ is an integer, and not perfect if not an integer.
* As a $`U_q(\stackrel{}{𝔤})`$-module, $`W_s^{(k)}`$ decomposes itself into

$$W_s^{(k)}=\underset{\lambda \overline{P}^+}{}M_{\mathrm{}}(W_s^{(k)},\lambda ,q=1)V(\lambda ),$$

where $`M_l(W_s^{(k)},\lambda ,q)`$ is defined in (4.7).
* Set $`Q_s^{(k)}=\text{ch}W_s^{(k)}`$, then $`Q_s^{(k)}`$ satisfies the $`Q`$-system (6.1).

From (4.7) the decomposition (2) of $`W_s^{(k)}`$ has the form

$$W_s^{(k)}=V(s\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_k)\mathrm{},$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ contains irreducible modules with highest weights strictly lower than $`s\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_k`$ only. A list of such decompositions is available in Appendix A (by setting $`q=1`$).

Several remarks are in order.

###### Remark 2.2.

Although they did not specify the Drinfel’d polynomials, parts (2) and (3) (for nontwisted cases) are essentially the Kirillov-Reshetikhin conjecture \[KR2\]. In the nontwisted cases, part (2) of the conjecture was solved recently \[C1\] for all cases if $`𝔤`$ is classical and several cases if exceptional. See also \[C2\].

###### Remark 2.3.

In \[Ka3\] an irreducible finite-dimensional $`U_q^{}(𝔤)`$-module $`W(\varpi _i)`$ (fundamental representation) having a crystal basis is constructed. It should agree with our $`W_1^{(i)}`$.

###### Remark 2.4.

It is noted that $`t_k>1`$ occurs only when $`𝔤=B_n^{(1)}(k=n),C_n^{(1)}(kn),F_4^{(1)}(k=3,4),G_2^{(1)}(k=2)`$. In particular, $`t_k=1`$ for any $`k`$, if $`𝔤`$ is simply laced or of twisted type. In these cases any $`B^{k,s}`$ is conjectured to be perfect.

###### Remark 2.5.

There is a notion of coherent family of perfect crystals \[KKM\]. We also conjecture that $`\{B^{k,t_kl}\}_{l1}`$ forms a coherent family of perfect crystals for any $`k`$.

###### Remark 2.6.

For twisted cases the following crystals are known explicitly.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{[KMN2]}\hfill & A_{2n}^{(2)}:B^{1,s},A_{2n1}^{(2)}:B^{1,s},D_{n+1}^{(2)}:B^{1,s}B^{n,s},\hfill \\ \text{[JnMO]}\hfill & A_{2n}^{(2)}:B^{k,1},A_{2n1}^{(2)}:B^{k,1}.\hfill \end{array}$$

See also \[KKM\] for the explicit crystal structure of $`B^{1,s}`$. In \[JnMO\] one should notice that the labeling of the Dynkin diagrams is opposite. See also \[HKOTY1\] Remark 2.3 for nontwisted cases.

## 3 Paths and one dimensional sums

Here we define a set of paths $`𝒫(𝒑,B)`$ and the one dimensional sum $`X_l(B,\lambda ,q)`$. We then present several conjectures related to them.

### 3.1 Energy function and Yang-Baxter equation

We review the energy function and Yang-Baxter equation for finite crystals. Let $`B`$ be a finite crystal. Introduce an indeterminate $`z`$ and set

$$\text{Aff}(B)=\{z^\gamma b\gamma ,bB\}.$$

It is called the affinization of $`B`$. On $`\text{Aff}(B)`$ one can define the action of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_i(z^\gamma b)=z^{\gamma +\delta _{i0}}(\stackrel{~}{e}_ib),\stackrel{~}{f}_i(z^\gamma b)=z^{\gamma \delta _{i0}}(\stackrel{~}{f}_ib).$$

Let $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ be finite crystals. Then there exists an isomorphism of crystals called the combinatorial $`R`$ \[KMN1\]:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill R:\text{Aff}(B_1)\text{Aff}(B_2)& & \text{Aff}(B_2)\text{Aff}(B_1)\hfill \\ \hfill z^{\gamma _1}b_1z^{\gamma _2}b_2& & z^{\gamma _2+H(b_1b_2)}b_2^{}z^{\gamma _1H(b_1b_2)}b_1^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`H(b_1b_2)`$ is called the energy function and uniquely determined up to an additive constant by the following rule:

$`H(\stackrel{~}{e}_i(b_1b_2))`$ $`=H(b_1b_2)+1`$ $`\text{if }i=0,\phi _0(b_1)\epsilon _0(b_2),\phi _0(b_2^{})\epsilon _0(b_1^{}),`$
$`=H(b_1b_2)1`$ $`\text{if }i=0,\phi _0(b_1)<\epsilon _0(b_2),\phi _0(b_2^{})<\epsilon _0(b_1^{}),`$
$`=H(b_1b_2)`$ $`\text{otherwise}.`$
If we want to emphasize $`B_1B_2`$, we write $`H_{B_1B_2}`$ for $`H`$. Since $`R^2=\text{id}`$, we have $`H_{B_1B_2}(b_1b_2)=H_{B_2B_1}(b_2^{}b_1^{})`$. Note that if $`B_1=B_2`$, one has $`b_2^{}=b_1,b_1^{}=b_2`$.

Now let $`B_1,B_2`$ and $`B_3`$ be finite crystals. Then the Yang-Baxter equation holds on $`\text{Aff}(B_1)\text{Aff}(B_2)\text{Aff}(B_3)`$.

$$(\text{id}R)(R\text{id})(\text{id}R)=(R\text{id})(\text{id}R)(R\text{id}).$$
(3.1)
For $`b_iB_i(i=1,2,3)`$ let $`b_1^{},b_2^{},\widehat{b}_3,\stackrel{ˇ}{b}_3`$ be defined by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill B_1B_2& \stackrel{}{}& B_2B_1\hfill \\ \hfill b_1b_2& & b_2^{}b_1^{}\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill B_2B_3& \stackrel{}{}& B_3B_2\hfill \\ \hfill b_2b_3& & \widehat{b}_3b_2^{\prime \prime }\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill B_1B_3& \stackrel{}{}& B_3B_1\hfill \\ \hfill b_1^{}b_3& & \stackrel{ˇ}{b}_3b_1^{\prime \prime }\hfill \end{array}$$

under the isomorphism of crystals. One can check (3.1) implies

$$H(b_2b_3)+H(b_1\widehat{b}_3)=H(b_1^{}b_3)+H(b_2^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{b}_3).$$
(3.2)
Let $`\tau `$ be a Dynkin diagram automorphism, i.e., a permutation on letters from $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},n\}`$999 This $`\tau `$ should be distinguished from that in Section 6.1.. By setting $`\tau (_im_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)=_im_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\tau (i)}`$ one can also define an automorphism on $`P^+`$. Next let $`B`$ be a perfect crystal. Since $`\tau `$ is a Dynkin diagram automorphism, one necessarily has a unique bijection, denoted again by $`\tau `$, from $`B`$ onto itself satisfying

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{\tau (i)}(\tau (b))=\tau (\stackrel{~}{e}_ib),\stackrel{~}{f}_{\tau (i)}(\tau (b))=\tau (\stackrel{~}{f}_ib).$$
(3.3)
Here one should understand $`\tau (0)=0`$. Note that (3.3) implies $`\epsilon (\tau (b))=\tau (\epsilon (b)),\phi (\tau (b))=\tau (\phi (b))`$.

We end this subsection with

###### Conjecture 3.1.

Let $`B_1,B_2`$ be perfect crystals of level $`l_1,l_2`$ ($`l_1l_2`$). Under the isomorphism of crystals $`B_1B_2\stackrel{}{}B_2B_1`$, any element $`b_1b_2`$ of $`(B_1B_2)_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is mapped to $`\sigma _1(b_2)\phi _{B_1}^1(\phi _{B_1}(b_1)+\text{wt}b_2)`$, where $`\sigma _1`$ is the Dynkin diagram automorphism associated to the perfect crystal $`B_1`$ (see the end of Section 2.2) and $`\phi _{B_1}`$ is the map $`\phi `$ from $`B_1`$.

###### Remark 3.2.

If each $`B_i`$ belongs to a coherent family of perfect crystals (This coherent family may depend on $`i`$. See also Remark 2.5.) and the map $`\epsilon \times \phi :B_i(P^+)^2;b(\epsilon (b),\phi (b))`$ is injective for any $`i`$, then the conjecture can be shown to be true using the theory of crystals with core \[KK\]. Such case covers all coherent families of perfect crystals listed in \[KKM\]. The conjecture is proven for any case $`B_i=B^{k_i,s_i}`$ for type $`A_n^{(1)}`$ (\[SS1\] Theorem 7.3), although the injectivity of $`\epsilon \times \phi `$ is no longer valid.

### 3.2 Set of paths

Let $`B`$ be a finite crystal of level $`l`$. From $`B`$ we construct a subset of $`\mathrm{}B\mathrm{}B`$ called a set of paths. First we fix a reference path $`𝒑=\mathrm{}𝒃_j\mathrm{}𝒃_2𝒃_1`$. For any $`j`$, $`\epsilon (𝒃_j)`$ should have level $`l`$, and satisfy

$$\phi (𝒃_{j+1})=\epsilon (𝒃_j).$$

Set

$$𝒫(𝒑,B)=\{p=\mathrm{}b_j\mathrm{}b_2b_1b_jB,b_J=𝒃_J\text{ for }J1\}.$$

An element of $`𝒫(𝒑,B)`$ is called a path. For a path $`p𝒫(𝒑,B)`$ we can define the energy $`E(p)`$ and weight $`\text{wt}p`$ by

$`E(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}j(H(b_{j+1}b_j)H(𝒃_{j+1}𝒃_j)),`$
$`\text{wt}p`$ $`=`$ $`\phi (𝒃_1)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(\text{wt}b_j\text{wt}𝒃_j)(E(p)/a_0)\delta ,`$
where $`a_0`$ is the $`0`$-th Kac label.

Suppose $`B`$ is perfect of level $`l`$. Take $`\lambda P_l^+`$ and define $`𝒃_j`$ to be an element of $`B_{\mathrm{min}}`$ such that $`\epsilon (𝒃_j)=\sigma ^j\lambda `$. We denote the corresponding reference path by $`𝒑^{(\lambda )}`$. It is known in \[KMN1\] that we have the following isomorphism of $`P`$-weighted crystals.

$$𝒫(𝒑^{(\lambda )},B)B(\lambda ).$$

Next let $`B_i`$ be a perfect crystal of level $`l_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$. One may assume $`B_i=B^{k_i,t_{k_i}l_i}`$ in Conjecture 2.1 with some $`k_i`$ ($`1k_in`$). We also assume $`l_1l_2\mathrm{}l_d`$. Set $`B=B_1B_2\mathrm{}B_d`$. For $`\lambda _iP_{l_il_{i+1}}^+`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},d;l_{d+1}=0`$) define a reference path $`𝒑^{(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _d)}=\mathrm{}𝒃_j\mathrm{}𝒃_2𝒃_1`$ ($`𝒃_jB`$) by

$`𝒃_j`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{B_1}^1(\sigma _1^j\lambda _1+\sigma _1^j\sigma _2^j\lambda _2+\mathrm{}+\sigma _1^j\sigma _2^j\mathrm{}\sigma _d^j\lambda _d)`$
$`\epsilon _{B_2}^1(\sigma _1^{j1}\sigma _2^j\lambda _2+\sigma _1^{j1}\sigma _2^j\sigma _3^j\lambda _3+\mathrm{}+\sigma _1^{j1}\sigma _2^j\mathrm{}\sigma _d^j\lambda _d)`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`\epsilon _{B_d}^1(\sigma _1^{j1}\sigma _2^{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{d1}^{j1}\sigma _d^j\lambda _d).`$
Here $`\epsilon _{B_i}`$ signifies the map $`\epsilon `$ on $`B_i`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ is the automorphism on $`P^+`$ corresponding to $`B_i`$.

###### Conjecture 3.3.

With the notations above, we have the following isomorphism of $`P`$-weighted crystals.

$$𝒫(𝒑^{(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _d)},B)B(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}B(\lambda _d).$$

###### Remark 3.4.

This conjecture is intimately related to the following. There exists an isomorphism of $`P_{cl}`$-weighted crystals

$$B(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}B(\lambda _d)(B(\sigma _1\lambda _1)\mathrm{}B(\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _d\lambda _d))B.$$

Let $`u_\lambda `$ be the highest weight element in $`B(\lambda )`$. Under this isomorphism, $`u_{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}u_{\lambda _d}`$ is mapped to $`(u_{\sigma _1\lambda _1}\mathrm{}u_{\sigma _1\mathrm{}\sigma _d\lambda _d})𝒃_1`$. Thus the reference path $`𝒑^{(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _d)}`$ corresponds to the highest weight element in $`B(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}B(\lambda _d)`$.

###### Remark 3.5.

One can show Remark 2.5 and Conjecture 3.1 imply this conjecture in a similar manner to the $`(A_n^{(1)},B^{1,l_i})`$ case in \[HKKOT\]. Since Conjecture 3.1 is true for all coherent families of perfect crystals listed in \[KKM\] (Remark 3.2), the above conjecture is true for these cases.

This conjecture can be generalized to the case when each $`B_i`$ is of the form $`B^{k_i,s_i}`$ but not necessarily perfect. We prepare some notations. Set $`t_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{max}_{1in}t_i`$. Later in this section we consider an affine Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ such that $`t_{\mathrm{max}}>1`$. To such $`𝔤`$ we associate a different algebra $`𝔤^{(i)}`$ ($`1i<t_{\mathrm{max}}`$) by

$`𝔤=B_n^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`𝔤^{(1)}=D_{n+1}^{(1)},`$
$`𝔤=C_n^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`𝔤^{(1)}=A_{2n1}^{(1)},`$
$`𝔤=F_4^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`𝔤^{(1)}=E_6^{(1)},`$
$`𝔤=G_2^{(1)}`$ $``$ $`𝔤^{(1)}=B_3^{(1)},𝔤^{(2)}=D_4^{(1)}.`$
Notice that there is a natural inclusion

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝔤𝔤^{(1)}\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=B_n^{(1)},C_n^{(1)},F_4^{(1)},\hfill \\ 𝔤𝔤^{(1)}𝔤^{(2)}\hfill & \text{for }𝔤=G_2^{(1)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.5)
Next consider an integrable $`𝔤^{(i)}`$-module $`L^{(i)}(\mu ^{(i)})`$ with highest weight $`\mu ^{(i)}`$. Note that $`\mu ^{(i)}`$ is a weight with respect to the algebra $`𝔤^{(i)}`$. Through the inclusion (3.5) one can decompose $`L^{(i)}(\mu ^{(i)})`$ into irreducible integrable $`𝔤`$-modules as

$$L^{(i)}(\mu ^{(i)})=\underset{\nu }{}L(\nu )^{m_\nu },$$

where $`\nu `$ runs through the weight lattice $`P`$ of $`𝔤`$ and $`m_\nu `$ is the multiplicity. Now define $`B^{(i)}(\mu ^{(i)})`$ by

$$B^{(i)}(\mu ^{(i)})=\underset{\nu }{}B(\nu )^{m_\nu }.$$

Recall that $`B(\nu )`$ is the crystal basis of $`L(\nu )`$.

Consider the crystal $`B=B^{k_1,s_1}B^{k_2,s_2}\mathrm{}B^{k_d,s_d}`$. To the datum $`(k_1,s_1),\mathrm{},(k_d,s_d)`$, associate a set

$$A=\{s_i/t_{k_i}i=1,\mathrm{},d\}.$$

We decompose it into disjoint components.

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}A[l_j],`$
$`A[l]`$ $`=`$ $`\{s_i/t_{k_i}As_i/t_{k_i}=l\}.`$
Let $`\overline{d}`$ be the number of disjoint components. We arrange $`l_1,\mathrm{},l_{\overline{d}}`$ so that $`l_1>\mathrm{}>l_{\overline{d}}`$ and set $`l_{\overline{d}+1}=0`$. For any $`i`$ ($`1i\overline{d}`$) we introduce the following crystal:

$``$ $`t_{\mathrm{max}}=2`$,

$`B[i]`$ $`=`$ $`B(\lambda _i)B^{(1)}(\mu _i^{(1)})`$
$`(\lambda _i\text{ : level }l_il_{i+1}1\text{ }𝔤\text{-weight, }\mu _i^{(1)}\text{ : level 1 }𝔤^{(1)}\text{-weight})`$
$`\text{ if }l_i1/2A[l_i],`$
$`=`$ $`B(\lambda _i)(\lambda _i\text{ : level }l_il_{i+1}\text{ }𝔤\text{-weight})`$
$`\text{otherwise}.`$
$``$ $`t_{\mathrm{max}}=3`$,

$`B[i]`$ $`=`$ $`B(\lambda _i)B^{(2)}(\mu _i^{(2)})`$
$`(\lambda _i\text{ : level }l_il_{i+1}1\text{ }𝔤\text{-weight, }\mu _i^{(2)}\text{ : level 1 }𝔤^{(2)}\text{-weight})`$
$`\text{ if both }l_i1/3\text{ and }l_i2/3A[l_i],`$
$`=`$ $`B(\lambda _i)B^{(1)}(\mu _i^{(1)})`$
$`(\lambda _i\text{ : level }l_il_{i+1}1\text{ }𝔤\text{-weight, }\mu _i^{(1)}\text{ : level 1 }𝔤^{(1)}\text{-weight})`$
$`\text{ if either }l_i1/3\text{ or }l_i2/3A[l_i],`$
$`=`$ $`B(\lambda _i)(\lambda _i\text{ : level }l_il_{i+1}\text{ }𝔤\text{-weight})`$
$`\text{otherwise}.`$
Choosing such datum $`(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })=\{\lambda _i,\mu _i^{(t)}i=1,\mathrm{},\overline{d},1t<t_{\mathrm{max}}\}`$, we set

$$(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })=B[1]B[2]\mathrm{}B[\overline{d}].$$

By definition, it is the crystal basis of a level $`l_1`$ integrable $`U_q(𝔤)`$-module, which is not irreducible in general. If $`\lambda _i`$ is level 0, $`B(\lambda _i)`$ should be considered as the crystal basis of the trivial module and hence can be omitted.

###### Conjecture 3.6.

For any datum $`(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })`$ as above, there exists a reference path $`𝐩^{(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })}`$, and we have the following isomorphism of $`P`$-weighted crystals.

$$𝒫(𝒑^{(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })},B)(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu }).$$

We give examples of $`(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })`$.

###### Example 3.7.

* $`𝔤=C_3^{(1)}`$ ($`t_1=t_2=2,t_3=1,t_{\mathrm{max}}=2,𝔤^{(1)}=A_5^{(1)}`$)

$`B=B^{2,5}B^{1,5}B^{1,4}B^{2,2}B^{1,1}.`$
$`A=A[3]A[2]A[1],`$
$`A[3]=\{5/2\},A[2]=\{2\},A[1]=\{1,1/2\}.`$
$`(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })=B^{(1)}(\mu _1^{(1)})B(\lambda _2)B^{(1)}(\mu _3^{(1)}),`$
where $`\lambda _2`$ is a level 1 $`C_3^{(1)}`$-weight and $`\mu _1^{(1)},\mu _3^{(1)}`$ are level 1 $`A_5^{(1)}`$-weights.
* $`𝔤=G_2^{(1)}`$ ($`t_1=1,t_2=3,t_{\mathrm{max}}=3,𝔤^{(1)}=B_3^{(1)},𝔤^{(2)}=D_4^{(1)}`$)

$`B=B^{2,8}B^{2,7}B^{1,1}B^{2,1}.`$
$`A=A[3]A[1],`$
$`A[3]=\{8/3,7/3\},A[1]=\{1,1/3\}.`$
$`(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })=B(\lambda _1)B^{(2)}(\mu _1^{(2)})B^{(1)}(\mu _2^{(1)}),`$
where $`\lambda _1`$ is a level 1 $`G_2^{(1)}`$-weight, $`\mu _1^{(2)}`$ level 1 $`D_4^{(1)}`$-weight and $`\mu _2^{(1)}`$ level 1 $`B_3^{(1)}`$-weight.

Except for the case when $`B^{k_i,s_i}`$ are all perfect (3.2), we do not know how to construct the reference path $`𝒑^{(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })}`$ in general. We only give the answer for the case of $`𝔤=C_n^{(1)},B=B^{1,s_1}\mathrm{}B^{1,s_d}`$ here. Let us first recall the crystal $`B^{1,s}`$. As a set, it reads as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill B^{1,s}& =\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\overline{x}_n,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_1)^{2n}|x_i,\overline{x}_i0,\hfill \\ & \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(x_i+\overline{x}_i)s,\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(x_i+\overline{x}_i)s(mod2)\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

For more details, see Example 2.5 of \[HKOTY1\].

Now consider the crystal $`B=B^{1,s_1}\mathrm{}B^{1,s_d}`$ ($`s_1>s_2>\mathrm{}>s_d>s_{d+1}=0`$). Let $`l_j=s_j/2`$ and fix a datum

$$(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })=(\lambda _j,\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mu _i}1jd,i\{js_j\text{ is odd }\}),$$
(3.6)
where $`\lambda _j`$ is a level $`l_jl_{j+1}`$ (resp. $`l_jl_{j+1}1`$) dominant integral weight of $`C_n^{(1)}`$ if $`s_j`$ is even (resp. odd) and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mu _i}`$ is a fundamental weight of $`A_{2n1}^{(1)}`$. We need to define two maps $`\pi ,\iota `$. $`\pi `$ is a map from $`A_{2n1}^{(1)}`$ fundamental weights $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\mu `$ ($`\mu =0,\mathrm{},2n1`$) to $`C_n^{(1)}`$ fundamental weights given by $`\pi (\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_\mu )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu `$ ($`0\mu n`$), $`=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2n\mu }`$ ($`n<\mu 2n1`$). For a $`C_n^{(1)}`$ weight $`\lambda =_{i=0}^n\lambda ^i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$, define $`\iota (\lambda )=(\lambda ^1,\mathrm{},\lambda ^n,\lambda ^n,\mathrm{},\lambda ^1)`$. Let $`e_k`$ be the $`k`$-th unit row-vector of dimension $`2n`$. If $`2n<k<4n`$, $`e_k`$ should be understood as $`e_{k2n}`$. Now define an element $`𝒄^{(j)}`$ of $`(B^{1,s_j})^{2n}`$ by

$`𝒄^{(j)}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒄_1^{(j)}\mathrm{}𝒄_{2n}^{(j)}(𝒄_i^{(j)}B^{1,s_j}),`$
$`𝒄_i^{(j)}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\iota (_{jkd}\lambda _k+_{j+1kd,s_k:odd}\pi (\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mu _k}))\hfill & \text{ if }s_j\text{ is even}\hfill \\ \iota (_{jkd}\lambda _k+_{j+1kd,s_k:odd}\pi (\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mu _k}))+e_{\mu _j+i}\hfill & \text{ if }s_j\text{ is odd}.\hfill \end{array}`$
Next applying crystal isomorphisms $`B^{1,s_i}B^{1,s_j}\stackrel{}{}B^{1,s_j}B^{1,s_i}`$ as many times as needed, one defines an element $`𝒃_{2n}\mathrm{}𝒃_1`$ of $`B^{2n}`$ by

$`(B^{1,s_1})^{2n}(B^{1,s_2})^{2n}\mathrm{}(B^{1,s_d})^{2n}`$ $`\stackrel{}{}`$ $`B^{2n}`$ (3.8)
$`𝒄^{(1)}𝒄^{(2)}\mathrm{}𝒄^{(2n)}`$ $``$ $`𝒃_{2n}\mathrm{}𝒃_1.`$
Then $`𝒃_{2n}\mathrm{}𝒃_1`$ gives the first $`2n`$ components of our reference path $`𝒑^{(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\nu })}`$ corresponding to the datum (3.6). The other components should be determined so that they are periodic with period $`2n`$. To calculate the isomorphism (3.8) explicitly, one can use an algorithm based on insertion scheme \[HKOT1\]. See also Appendix D.

We give examples of the above mentioned $`𝒃_{2n}\mathrm{}𝒃_1`$ for $`n=2`$, i.e. $`𝔤=C_2^{(1)}`$.

###### Example 3.8.

* $`B=B^{1,4}B^{1,1}`$, $`(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })=(\lambda _1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\lambda _2=0,\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mu _2}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0)`$

$`𝒄^{(1)}=(0,0,0,0)(0,0,0,0)(0,0,0,0)(0,0,0,0)`$
$`𝒄^{(2)}=(1,0,0,0)(0,1,0,0)(0,0,1,0)(0,0,0,1)`$
$`𝒃_1=(1,0,0,1)(0,0,0,1)𝒃_2=(0,1,1,0)(0,0,1,0)`$
$`𝒃_3=(1,0,0,1)(0,1,0,0)𝒃_4=(0,0,0,0)(1,0,0,0)`$
* $`B=B^{1,5}B^{1,3}`$, $`(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })=(\lambda _1=0,\lambda _2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mu _1}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_3,\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mu _2}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1)`$

$`𝒄^{(1)}=(1,1,1,2)(2,1,1,1)(1,2,1,1)(1,1,2,1)`$
$`𝒄^{(2)}=(0,2,1,0)(0,1,2,0)(0,1,1,1)(1,1,1,0)`$
$`𝒃_1=(0,1,2,0)(1,1,1,0)𝒃_2=(1,2,1,1)(0,1,1,1)`$
$`𝒃_3=(1,2,2,0)(0,1,2,0)𝒃_4=(1,1,1,2)(0,2,1,0)`$

### 3.3 One dimensional sums

Let $`B_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$) be finite crystals, and consider the tensor product $`B_1\mathrm{}B_d`$. We define $`b_j^{(i)}`$ ($`i<j`$) by

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}B_i\mathrm{}B_{j1}B_j& \stackrel{}{}& B_i\mathrm{}B_jB_{j1}& \stackrel{}{}& \mathrm{}\\ b_i\mathrm{}b_{j1}b_j& & b_i\mathrm{}b_j^{(j1)}b_{j1}^{}& & \mathrm{}\end{array}`$
$`\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}& \stackrel{}{}& B_jB_i\mathrm{}B_{j1}\\ \mathrm{}& & b_j^{(i)}b_i^{}\mathrm{}b_{j1}^{},\end{array}`$
and set $`b_i^{(i)}=b_i`$. Suppose $`B_i=B^{k_i,s_i}`$ ($`1id`$) and let $`l_i`$ be the level of the crystal $`B^{k_i,s_i}`$. Take $`b_i^{\mathrm{}}B^{k_i,s_i}`$ such that $`\phi (b_i^{\mathrm{}})=l_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. Even if $`B^{k_i,s_i}`$ is not perfect, we expect such $`b_i^{\mathrm{}}`$ exists uniquely. It is indeed true for the $`C_n^{(1)}`$-crystal $`B^{1,s}`$ with odd $`s`$ presented in \[HKKOT\]. For later use we also define $`b_i^{ext}B^{k_i,s_i}`$ to be the highest weight element of the $`U_q(\stackrel{}{𝔤})`$-crystal $`B(s_i\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{k_i})`$ contained in $`B^{k_i,s_i}`$. For a finite path $`p=b_1\mathrm{}b_dB^{k_1,s_1}\mathrm{}B^{k_d,s_d}`$, define

$$D(p)=\underset{1i<jd}{}H(b_ib_j^{(i+1)})+\underset{1jd}{}H(b_j^{\mathrm{}}b_j^{(1)}).$$
(3.11)
Fix a positive integer $`l`$ such that $`l\mathrm{max}_il_i`$. We define a (restricted) one dimensional sum by

$$X_l(B^{k_1,s_1}\mathrm{}B^{k_d,s_d},\lambda ,q)=\stackrel{}{}_pq^{D(p)},$$
(3.12)
where the sum $`_p^{}`$ is taken over all $`p=b_1\mathrm{}b_dB^{k_1,s_1}\mathrm{}B^{k_d,s_d}`$ satisfying $`_{j=1}^d\text{wt}b_j=\lambda `$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{l\delta _{i0}+1}(b_1\mathrm{}b_d)=0i.$$
(3.13)
(3.13) can be rewritten as local conditions.

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_i^{h_i,l\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\text{wt}b_1+\mathrm{}+\text{wt}b_{j1}+1}b_j=0i,1jd.$$

We formally consider the $`l=\mathrm{}`$ case, where the condition (3.13) for $`i=0`$ is vacant. $`X_{\mathrm{}}(B,\lambda ,q)`$ was called classically restricted in \[HKOTY1\]. It is easy to see from the definition that

$$X_{\mathrm{}}(B^{k_1,s_1}\mathrm{}B^{k_d,s_d},\lambda ,1)=[W_{s_1}^{(k_1)}\mathrm{}W_{s_d}^{(k_d)}:\lambda ].$$
(3.14)
Here $`W_s^{(k)}`$ is the corresponding finite-dimensional $`U_q^{}(𝔤)`$-module of $`B^{k,s}`$ and

$$[M:\mu ]=dimvM\text{wt}v=\mu ,e_iv=0i0,$$

where $`e_i`$ denotes the root vector corresponding to the simple root $`\alpha _i`$.

###### Proposition 3.9.

$`X_l(B^{k_1,s_1}\mathrm{}B^{k_d,s_d},\lambda ,q)`$ does not depend on the order of the crystals $`B^{k_1,s_1},\mathrm{},B^{k_d,s_d}`$ in the tensor product.

###### Proof.

We set $`B_i=B^{k_i,s_i}(i=1,\mathrm{},d)`$. It is enough to check that $`X_l`$ remains unchanged under the switch of $`B_i`$ and $`B_{i+1}`$ in the tensor product. Suppose $`b_ib_{i+1}`$ is mapped to $`b_{i+1}^{}b_i^{}`$ under the isomorphism $`B_iB_{i+1}B_{i+1}B_i`$. For $`p=b_1\mathrm{}b_dB_1\mathrm{}B_d`$ define $`p^{}=b_1\mathrm{}b_{i+1}^{}b_i^{}\mathrm{}b_dB_1\mathrm{}B_{i+1}B_i\mathrm{}B_d`$. Note that $`\text{wt}p=\text{wt}p^{}`$ and $`p`$ satisfies (3.13) if and only if so does $`p^{}`$. Hence it is enough to show $`D(p)=D(p^{})`$. Set

$$D_j(p)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{j1}{}}H(b_kb_j^{(k+1)}),\widehat{D}(p)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}H(b_j^{\mathrm{}}b_j^{(1)}).$$

Then $`D(p)=_{j=1}^dD_j(p)+\widehat{D}(p)`$. Since $`\widehat{D}(p)=\widehat{D}(p^{})`$ is evident, we are left to show the following:

* $`D_j(p)=D_j(p^{})(ji,i+1)`$,
* $`D_i(p)+D_{i+1}(p)=D_i(p^{})+D_{i+1}(p^{})`$.

(i) for $`j<i`$ is trivial. To check (i) for $`j>i+1`$ use (3.1), in particular, (3.2) with $`b_1b_i,b_2b_{i+1},b_3b_j^{(i+2)}`$. For (ii) notice that $`D_{i+1}(p)=D_i(p^{})+H(b_ib_{i+1}),D_{i+1}(p^{})=D_i(p)+H(b_{i+1}^{}b_i^{})`$.

###### Conjecture 3.10.

We have

* $`q^{D^{ext}}X_{\mathrm{}}(B^{k_1,s_1}\mathrm{}B^{k_d,s_d},\lambda ,q)=M_{\mathrm{}}(W_{s_1}^{(k_1)}\mathrm{}W_{s_d}^{(k_d)},\lambda ,q)`$

$`\text{for }\lambda \overline{P}^+`$,
* $`q^{D^{ext}}X_l(B^{k_1,s_1}\mathrm{}B^{k_d,s_d},0,q)=M_l(W_{s_1}^{(k_1)}\mathrm{}W_{s_d}^{(k_d)},0,q)`$,

where $`D^{ext}=D(b_1^{ext}\mathrm{}b_d^{ext})`$ and $`M_l`$ is defined in (4.7).

At present a proof is available only for $`A_n^{(1)}`$ case \[KSS, SS1\].

### 3.4 Representation theoretical meaning

We explain a representation theoretical meaning of our one dimensional sum $`X_l(B,\lambda ,q)`$. Set $`B=B_1\mathrm{}B_d`$. We first assume all $`B_i`$’s are perfect. Let $`l_i`$ be the level of $`B_i`$. Assume $`l_1l_2\mathrm{}l_dl_{d+1}=0`$. Write $`b^{}=b_1\mathrm{}b_d`$ for an element of $`B`$ and fix $`𝒃_2`$ as in (3.2) with $`\lambda _i=\sigma _1^1\mathrm{}\sigma _i^1(l_il_{i+1})\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$.

###### Proposition 3.11.

If Conjecture 3.1 is true, then $`H_{BB}(𝐛_2b^{})D(b^{})`$ is independent of $`b^{}`$.

We need three lemmas.

###### Lemma 3.12 (\[HKKOT\] Proposition 3.1).

Let $`B_1,B_2`$ be finite crystals. Set $`B=B_1B_2`$, then

$`H_{BB}((b_1b_2)(b_1^{}b_2^{}))`$ $`=`$ $`H_{B_1B_2}(b_1b_2)+H_{B_1B_1}(\stackrel{~}{b}_1b_1^{})`$
$`+H_{B_2B_2}(b_2\stackrel{~}{b}_2^{})+H_{B_1B_2}(b_1^{}b_2^{}).`$
Here $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1,\stackrel{~}{b}_2^{}`$ are defined as

$`B_1B_2`$ $`\stackrel{}{}`$ $`B_2B_1`$
$`b_1b_2`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$
$`b_1^{}b_2^{}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{b}_2^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_1^{}.`$
###### Lemma 3.13.

Consider the tensor product of finite crystals $`B=B_1B_2\mathrm{}B_d`$. Set $`B_{>1}=B_2\mathrm{}B_d`$. For an element $`b_1\mathrm{}b_dB`$, define $`b_1^j`$ ($`1jd`$) by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B_1B_2\mathrm{}B_j& \stackrel{}{}& B_2\mathrm{}B_jB_1\\ b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_j& & \stackrel{~}{b}_2\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{b}_jb_1^j.\end{array}$$

We understand $`b_1^1=b_1`$. Then we have

$$H_{B_1B_{>1}}(b_1(b_2\mathrm{}b_d))=\underset{2jd}{}H_{B_1B_j}(b_1^{j1}b_j).$$

###### Lemma 3.14.

We retain the notations in the previous lemma. Consider isomorphisms of crystals

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B_1B_2\mathrm{}B_{j1}B_j\hfill & \stackrel{}{}& B_2\mathrm{}B_{j1}B_jB_1\hfill \\ b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_{j1}b_j\hfill & & \stackrel{~}{b}_2\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{b}_{j1}\stackrel{~}{b}_jb_1^j\hfill \\ & & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{}{}& B_2\mathrm{}B_{i1}B_jB_i\mathrm{}B_{j1}B_1\hfill \\ & & \stackrel{~}{b}_2\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{b}_{i1}\stackrel{~}{b}_j^{(i)}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{}{}& B_jB_2\mathrm{}B_{j1}B_1\hfill \\ & & \stackrel{~}{b}_j^{(2)}\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then we have $`\stackrel{~}{b}_j^{(2)}=b_j^{(1)}`$ and $`_{i=2}^{j1}H_{B_iB_j}(\stackrel{~}{b}_i\stackrel{~}{b}_j^{(i+1)})+H_{B_1B_j}(b_1^{j1}b_j)=_{i=1}^{j1}H_{B_iB_j}(b_ib_j^{(i+1)})`$.

The last two lemmas can be shown by using the Yang-Baxter equation (3.1).

Proof of Proposition 3.11. The notations in the lemmas are retained. Write $`𝒃_2=\overline{b}_1\mathrm{}\overline{b}_d,\overline{b}_iB_i`$. Let $`\overline{b}_i\overline{b}_{i+1}\mathrm{}\overline{b}_d`$ be mapped to $`\overline{b}_{i+1}^{}\mathrm{}\overline{b}_d^{}\overline{b}_i^{}`$ under the isomorphism $`B_iB_{i+1}\mathrm{}B_d\stackrel{}{}B_{i+1}\mathrm{}B_dB_i`$. Then Conjecture 3.1 implies $`\overline{b}_i^{}=b_i^{\mathrm{}}`$.

We prove by induction on $`d`$. Using Lemma 3.12 and the induction hypothesis, one has

$`H_{BB}(𝒃_2b^{})`$ $`=`$ $`H_{B_1B_1}(b_1^{\mathrm{}}b_1)+{\displaystyle \underset{2i<jd}{}}H_{B_iB_j}(\stackrel{~}{b}_i\stackrel{~}{b}_j^{(i+1)})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{2jd}{}}H_{B_jB_j}(b_j^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{b}_j^{(2)})+H_{B_1B_{>1}}(b_1(b_2\mathrm{}b_d)).`$
Here in the equality we omitted $`b^{}`$-independent terms. Lemma 3.13 and 3.14 now complete the proof.

Proposition 3.11 implies that under the embedding

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B& & 𝒫(𝒑^{(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _d)},B)B(\lambda _1)\mathrm{}B(\lambda _d)\hfill \\ b^{}& & \mathrm{}𝒃_j\mathrm{}𝒃_2b^{},\hfill \end{array}$$

the weight is given by $`l_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\text{wt}b^{}(D(b^{})D(𝒃_1))\delta `$. Here $`\lambda _i=\sigma _1^1\mathrm{}\sigma _i^1(l_il_{i+1})\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and $`𝒃_j`$ is the $`j`$-th component of the reference path $`𝒑^{(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _d)}`$. Let $`\gamma `$ be the minimal integer such that $`\sigma _i^\gamma =\text{id}`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$. For a positive integer $`L`$ such that $`L0`$ (mod $`\gamma `$), we consider a similar embedding

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B^L& & 𝒫(𝒑^{(\lambda _1^0,\mathrm{},\lambda _d^0)},B)B(\lambda _1^0)\mathrm{}B(\lambda _d^0)\hfill \\ b^L\mathrm{}b^1& & \mathrm{}𝒃_j\mathrm{}𝒃_{L+1}b^L\mathrm{}b^1.\hfill \end{array}$$

This time $`\lambda _i^0=(l_il_{i+1})\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and $`𝒃_j`$ is redefined as the $`j`$-th component of the reference path $`𝒑^{(\lambda _1^0,\mathrm{},\lambda _d^0)}`$. Under the embedding the weight is given by $`l_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+_{j=1}^L\text{wt}b^j(D(b^L\mathrm{}b^1)D(𝒃_L\mathrm{}𝒃_1))\delta `$. In view of (3.13), one has

$`\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L\mathrm{}}{L0(mod\gamma )}}{lim}q^{D(𝒃_L\mathrm{}𝒃_1)}X_{\mathrm{}}(B^L,\lambda ,q)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}}L((l_il_{i+1})\mathrm{\Lambda }_0):l_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\lambda j\delta ]q^{ja_0}.`$ (3.15)
Note that in $`[_{i=1}^dL(\lambda _i^0):\mu ]`$, $`\mu `$ is a weight in $`P`$ as opposed to $`\lambda `$ in (3.14) in $`\overline{P}`$. Let $`l`$ be an integer such that $`ll_1`$. We also have

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L\mathrm{}}{L0(mod\gamma )}}{lim}q^{D(𝒃_L\mathrm{}𝒃_1)}X_l(B^L,\lambda ,q)\\ =\underset{j}{}[[L((ll_1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}L((l_il_{i+1})\mathrm{\Lambda }_0):l\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+\lambda j\delta ]]q^{ja_0}.\end{array}$$
(3.16)
Here $`[[M,\mu ]]=dimvM\text{wt}v=\mu ,e_iv=0i`$.

Generalization of such interpretation is straightforward to the case when $`B_i`$ is not necessarily perfect. In view of Conjecture 3.6, let $`(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })`$ be the corresponding integrable $`U_q(𝔤)`$-module of $`(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })`$. One only needs to replace $`_{i=1}^dL((l_il_{i+1})\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$ with $`(\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\mu })`$.

## 4  Fermionic formula

### 4.1  Conventions on $`𝖌_{\overline{\mathrm{𝟎}}}`$

From Section 2.1 we remind that $`\{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a\}_{a=1}^n`$ and $`\{\alpha _a\}_{a=1}^n`$ are the sets of fundamental weights and simple roots of $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$, and $`\overline{P}=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n`$ denotes its weight lattice. $`\{\alpha _a\}`$ has been normalized as $`(\alpha _a|\alpha _a)=2r`$ if $`\alpha _a`$ is a long root. See Exercise 6.1 of \[Kac\]. In Sections 4, 5 and 6 we find it convenient to further introduce the simple roots $`\{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a\}_{a=1}^n`$ and the fundamental weights $`\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a\}_{a=1}^n`$ of $`𝔤_{\overline{0}}`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{P}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n`$. We equip the bilinear form $`(|)^{}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ which is again normalized as $`(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a)^{}=2r`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a`$ is a long root of $`𝔤_{\overline{0}}`$. (For $`A_2^{(2)}`$, we understand that the unique simple root $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1`$ of $`𝔤_{\overline{0}}=B_1`$ is short. See below.) Actually the situation $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}𝔤_{\overline{0}}`$ happens only for $`𝔤=A_{2n}^{(2)}`$, where $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}=C_n`$ and $`𝔤_{\overline{0}}=B_n`$. Comparing the normalizations in the above and Section 2.1, we find that $`\alpha _a,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a`$ and $`(|)`$ may be identified with $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a`$ and $`(|)^{}`$ if $`𝔤A_{2n}^{(2)}`$. In order to deal with the $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ case uniformly, we introduce a $``$-linear map $`\iota :\overline{P}\stackrel{~}{P}`$ by

$$\iota (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a)=ϵ_a\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a1an,$$
(4.1)
where $`ϵ_a`$ is specified as

$$ϵ_a=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\hfill & \text{if }𝔤=A_{2n}^{(2)}\text{ and }a=n\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(4.2)
Note that (4.1) induces $`\iota (\alpha _a)=ϵ_a\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a`$. One can check $`(\iota (\alpha _b)|\iota (\alpha _b))^{}=a_0(\alpha _b|\alpha _b)`$ for any $`1bn`$. For example in $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ case, the both sides are equal to $`8`$ if $`b=n`$ and $`4`$ otherwise. Especially for $`A_2^{(2)}(n=1)`$, we have $`(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1)^{}=2`$ and $`(\alpha _1|\alpha _1)=4`$. Now that the definitions being clear, in the rest of the paper (mostly in the rest of this section and Sections 5 and 6) we shall simply write $`(|)^{}`$ also as $`(|)`$. This will not cause a confusion because the entries shall be limited to the self-explanatory objects $`\alpha _a,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a,\iota (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a)`$, etc. We will also make abbreviations $`|\mu |^2=(\mu |\mu )`$ for $`\mu `$ belonging to either $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$ or $`𝔤_{\overline{0}}`$ root systems. With these conventions one finds

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a=\underset{b=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{ϵ_bt_b}{t_b^{}}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_b,\alpha _a=\underset{b=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{a_0t_b}{ϵ_bt_b^{}}(\alpha _a|\alpha _b)\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_b,$$

which tells that the matrices $`\left(\frac{ϵ_at_a}{t_a^{}}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)\right)_{1a,bn}`$ and $`\left(\frac{a_0t_a}{ϵ_at_a^{}}(\alpha _a|\alpha _b)\right)_{1a,bn}`$ coincide with the Cartan matrices of $`𝔤_{\overline{0}}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$, respectively for any $`𝔤`$. In particular,

$$\frac{2t_b^{}}{t_b|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b|^2}=\frac{a_0t_b|\alpha _b|^2}{2t_b^{}}=ϵ_b1bn$$
(4.3)
is valid.

### 4.2  $`𝑴_𝒍\mathbf{(}𝑾\mathbf{,}𝝀\mathbf{,}𝒒\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑴}_𝒍\mathbf{(}𝑾\mathbf{,}𝝀\mathbf{,}𝒒\mathbf{)}`$

For $`m_0`$ and $`p`$, we define

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}p+m\\ m\end{array}\right]_q=\frac{(q^{p+1};q)_{\mathrm{}}(q^{m+1};q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}(q^{p+m+1};q)_{\mathrm{}}},$$
(4.4)
where $`(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}(1xq^j)`$. The quantity (4.4) is the $`q`$-binomial coefficient for $`p_0`$, vanishing for $`mp1`$, and is equal to $`(q^{p+(m+1)/2})^m\left[\begin{array}{c}p1\\ m\end{array}\right]_q`$ for $`pm1`$. In the $`q1`$ limit it becomes

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}p+m\\ m\end{array}\right]_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p+m+1)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(m+1)}.$$

We shall also use the notation $`(q)_k=(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}/(q^{k+1};q)_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`k_0`$.

For any $`l_1`$, we introduce the index set

$`H_l`$ $`=\{(a,i)1an,1it_al\},`$
$`\overline{H}_l`$ $`=\{(a,i)1an,1it_al1\}.`$
We will also use $`H_l`$ formally with $`l=\mathrm{}`$.

Given $`\{\nu _j^{(a)}_0(a,j)H_l\}`$, we set $`W=_{(a,j)H_l}\left(W_j^{(a)}\right)^{\nu _j^{(a)}}`$. When $`l=\mathrm{}`$ we assume that $`_{j1}\nu _j^{(a)}<\mathrm{}`$ for all $`1an`$.

Let $`\lambda =\lambda _1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _n\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n`$ be an element of $`\overline{P}`$. We define the fermionic form $`M_l(W,\lambda ,q)`$ for $`𝔤`$ by

$`M_l(W,\lambda ,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{m\}}{}}q^{c(\{m\})}{\displaystyle \underset{(a,i)H_l}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}p_i^{(a)}+m_i^{(a)}\\ m_i^{(a)}\end{array}\right]_{q_a},`$ (4.7)
$`c(\{m\})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{(a,j),(b,k)H_l}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)\text{min}(t_bj,t_ak)m_j^{(a)}m_k^{(b)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}t_a^{}{\displaystyle \underset{1j,kt_al}{}}\text{min}(j,k)\nu _j^{(a)}m_k^{(a)},`$
$`p_i^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t_al}{}}}\nu _j^{(a)}\text{min}(i,j){\displaystyle \frac{1}{t_a^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{(b,k)H_l}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)\text{min}(t_bi,t_ak)m_k^{(b)},`$ (4.9)
where $`q_a`$ is given by

$$q_a=q^{t_a^{}}.$$
(4.10)
The sum $`_{\{m\}}`$ is taken over $`\{m_i^{(a)}_0(a,i)H_l\}`$ satisfying

$`p_j^{(a)}0\text{ for all }(a,j)H_l,`$ (4.11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{(a,i)H_l}{}}im_i^{(a)}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a=\iota \left({\displaystyle \underset{(a,i)H_l}{}}i\nu _i^{(a)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a\lambda \right).`$ (4.12)
From (4.9) it is easy to see that (4.12) is equivalent to $`p_{t_al}^{(a)}=\lambda _a`$ for any $`𝔤`$. In view of this and the constraint (4.11) one has

$$M_l(W,\lambda ,q)=0\text{unless }\lambda \left(\underset{(a,i)H_l}{}i\nu _i^{(a)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}_0\iota ^1(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a)\right)\overline{P}^+.$$
(4.13)
It is easy to see the properties

$$p_i^{(a)}=\frac{1}{t_a^{}}\frac{c(\{m\})}{m_i^{(a)}},M_l(W,\lambda ,q)q^ϵ_0[q^{a_0}],$$

where $`ϵ_{a=1}^na(_{i=1}^li\nu _i^{(a)}\lambda _a)`$ mod $`a_0`$.

Except (5.4) in the next section, we will actually consider $`M_l(W,\lambda ,q)`$ only for $`\lambda =0`$ when $`l<\mathrm{}`$. Using $`p_{t_al}^{(a)}=0`$ and eliminating $`m_{t_al}^{(a)}`$ by

$$\underset{(a,i)H_l}{}im_i^{(a)}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a=\underset{(a,i)H_l}{}i\nu _i^{(a)}\iota (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a),$$
(4.14)
one can rewrite the fermionic form for $`l<\mathrm{}`$ as

$`M_l(W,0,q^1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{m\}}{}}q^{\overline{c}(\{m\})}{\displaystyle \underset{(a,i)\overline{H}_l}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}p_i^{(a)}+m_i^{(a)}\\ m_i^{(a)}\end{array}\right]_{q_a},`$ (4.17)
$`\overline{c}(\{m\})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{(a,j),(b,k)\overline{H}_l}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)K_{t_bj,t_ak}^{(t_at_bl)}m_j^{(a)}m_k^{(b)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l}}|{\displaystyle \underset{(a,i)H_l}{}}i\nu _i^{(a)}\iota (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a)|^2`$
$`p_i^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t_al1}{}}}K_{i,j}^{(t_al)}\nu _j^{(a)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t_a^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{(b,k)\overline{H}_l}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)K_{t_bi,t_ak}^{(t_at_bl)}m_k^{(b)},`$ (4.19)
where the quantity $`K_{jk}^{(l)}`$ is defined by

$$K_{jk}^{(l)}=\text{min}(j,k)\frac{jk}{l}.$$
(4.20)
The sum $`_{\{m\}}`$ is now taken over $`\{m_i^{(a)}_0(a,i)\overline{H}_l\}`$ satisfying $`p_i^{(a)}0`$ for all $`(a,i)\overline{H}_l`$ and the condition that $`m_{t_al}^{(a)}`$ determined from (4.14) is a non-negative integer. When $`l=\mathrm{}`$, a similar calculation leads to

$`M_{\mathrm{}}({\displaystyle \underset{a,j}{}}W_j^{(a)\nu _j^{(a)}},{\displaystyle \underset{a,j}{}}j\nu _j^{(a)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a\mu ,q^1)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\{m\}}{}}q^{\widehat{c}(\{m\})}{\displaystyle \underset{1an,i1}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}p_i^{(a)}+m_i^{(a)}\\ m_i^{(a)}\end{array}\right]_{q_a},`$ (4.23)
$`\widehat{c}(\{m\})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{1a,bn}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,k1}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)\mathrm{min}(t_bj,t_ak)m_j^{(a)}m_k^{(b)},`$ (4.24)
$`p_i^{(a)}={\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}\nu _j^{(a)}\text{min}(i,j){\displaystyle \frac{1}{t_a^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)\text{min}(t_bi,t_ak)m_k^{(b)}.`$ (4.25)
Here the sum $`_{\{m\}}`$ is taken over $`\{m_i^{(a)}_01an,i1\}`$ satisfying $`p_i^{(a)}0`$ for all $`1an,i1`$ and $`_{a=1}^n_{j1}jm_j^{(a)}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a=\iota (\mu )`$.

Let us present the examples from $`𝔤`$ of rank 1.

###### Example 4.1.

Take $`𝔤=A_1^{(1)}`$ and $`W=_jW_j^{\nu _j}`$. (We understand $`W_j=W_j^{(1)}`$.) Then we have

$`M_{\mathrm{}}(W,\lambda _1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q^1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle q^{_{i,j1}\mathrm{min}(i,j)m_im_j}\underset{i1}{}\left[\begin{array}{c}p_i+m_i\\ m_i\end{array}\right]_q},`$
$`p_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}(\nu _j2m_j)\mathrm{min}(i,j).`$
Here $`\lambda _1`$ is a non-negative integer congruent to $`_jj\nu _j`$ mod 2. The sum is taken over $`m_1,m_2,\mathrm{}_0`$ such that $`p_j0`$ and $`_{j1}jm_j=(_jj\nu _j\lambda _1)/2`$. For $`W=W_1^2W_2`$, the non-zero ones are given by

$$M_{\mathrm{}}(W,4\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q^1)=1,M_{\mathrm{}}(W,2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q^1)=q+q^2,M_{\mathrm{}}(W,0,q^1)=q^2.$$

###### Example 4.2.

Take $`𝔤=A_2^{(2)}`$ and $`W=_jW_j^{\nu _j}`$. (We understand $`W_j=W_j^{(1)}`$.) Then we have

$`M_{\mathrm{}}(W,\lambda _1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q^1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle q^{_{i,j1}\mathrm{min}(i,j)m_im_j}\underset{i1}{}\left[\begin{array}{c}p_i+m_i\\ m_i\end{array}\right]_{q^2}},`$
$`p_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}(\nu _jm_j)\mathrm{min}(i,j).`$
Here $`\lambda _1`$ is a non-negative integer. The sum is taken over $`m_1,m_2,\mathrm{}_0`$ such that $`p_j0`$ and $`_{j1}jm_j=_jj\nu _j\lambda _1`$. For $`W=W_1^2W_2`$, the non-zero ones are give by

$`M_{\mathrm{}}(W,4\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q^1)=1,`$
$`M_{\mathrm{}}(W,3\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q^1)=q+q^3+q^5,`$ $`M_{\mathrm{}}(W,2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q^1)=q^2+2q^4+2q^6+q^8,`$
$`M_{\mathrm{}}(W,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q^1)=q^3+2q^5+2q^7+2q^9,`$ $`M_{\mathrm{}}(W,0,q^1)=q^4+q^6+2q^8+q^{10}.`$
It is natural to consider a relative of $`M_l`$ defined by101010$`\stackrel{~}{M}_l`$ here was denoted by $`N_l`$ in eq.(4.16) of \[HKOTY1\].

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_l(W,\lambda ,q)=(\text{4.7})(\text{4.12})\text{ }\text{without}\text{ the constraint }(\text{4.11}).$$
(4.28)
### 4.3  Symmetry and recursion relation

Compared with $`M_l`$ in (4.13), $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ introduced in (4.28) has a nice symmetry as emphasized in \[HKOTY1\] when $`r=1`$. In fact our computer experiments indicate111111 The former equality in Conjecture 4.3 reduces to eq.(4.22) in \[HKOTY1\] when $`\lambda =0`$. We withdraw the claim in the last sentence on p.260 of \[HKOTY1\].

###### Conjecture 4.3.

$`M_l(W,\lambda ,q)`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{M}_l(W,\lambda ,q),\text{for }l\mathrm{}\text{ and }\lambda \overline{P}^+,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{}}(W,w(\lambda +\overline{\rho })\overline{\rho },q)`$ $`=detw\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{}}(W,\lambda ,q)\text{ for any }\lambda \overline{P},`$
where $`\overline{\rho }=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\mathrm{}+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n`$ and $`w`$ is any element of the Weyl group of $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$.

If $`𝔤`$ is non-exceptional or $`D_4^{(3)}`$, i.e., $`𝔤=A_n^{(1)},B_n^{(1)},C_n^{(1)},D_n^{(1)},A_{2n}^{(2)},A_{2n1}^{(2)},D_{n+1}^{(2)}`$ or $`D_4^{(3)}`$, the last property can indeed be proved at $`q=1`$. It is based on the argument in Remark 8.8 of \[HKOTY1\] together with the existence of the Weyl group invariant solution to the $`Q`$-system established in Theorem 7.1 in \[HKOTY1\] and Theorem 6.2 in this paper.

Consider the nontwisted simply laced algebras $`𝔤=X_N^{(1)}=A_n^{(1)},D_n^{(1)}(N=n)`$ and $`E_6^{(1)}`$. Let $`\sigma `$ be the order $`r`$ automorphism of the $`X_N`$ Dynkin diagram as in Section 2.1. We have $`r=3`$ if $`𝔤=D_4^{(1)}`$ and $`r=2`$ otherwise. We shall let $`\sigma `$ act on the index set $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ as well as on the weight lattice of $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}=X_N`$. From the definition of the fermionic formula, it is straightforward to see

$$M_l(\underset{(a,j)H_l}{}\left(W_j^{(a)}\right)^{\nu _j^{(a)}},\lambda ,q)=M_l(\underset{(a,j)H_l}{}\left(W_j^{(\sigma (a))}\right)^{\nu _j^{(a)}},\sigma (\lambda ),q),$$
(4.29)
which also implies (B.1).

Next we present a recursion relation of the fermionic form $`M_l(W,\lambda ,q)`$ with respect to $`W`$. For $`a,b\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`j,k`$, we set (cf. eq.(A.6) in \[KN\])

$$\begin{array}{c}B_{bk,aj}=2\mathrm{min}(t_ak,t_bj)\mathrm{min}(t_ak,t_b(j+1))\mathrm{min}(t_ak,t_b(j1))\\ =\{\begin{array}{cc}2\delta _{k,2j}+\delta _{k,2j+1}+\delta _{k,2j1}\hfill & (t_b,t_a)=(2,1)\hfill \\ 3\delta _{k,3j}+2\delta _{k,3j+1}+2\delta _{k,3j1}\hfill & (t_b,t_a)=(3,1)\hfill \\ +\delta _{k,3j+2}+\delta _{k,3j2}\hfill & \\ t_b\delta _{t_ak,t_bj}\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(4.30)
###### Proposition 4.4.

Fix $`(a,j)\overline{H}_l`$ arbitrarily. Given any $`\lambda \overline{P}^+`$ and $`W=_{(b,k)H_l}(W_k^{(b)})^{\nu _k^{(b)}}`$, set

$`W_1`$ $`=`$ $`W_j^{(a)}W_j^{(a)}W,`$
$`W_2`$ $`=`$ $`W_{j+1}^{(a)}W_{j1}^{(a)}W,`$
$`W_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{(b,k)H_l}{}}W_k^{(b)(2\delta _{ab}\delta _{jk}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)B_{aj,bk}/t_b^{})}W.`$
Then we have

$`M_l(W_1,\lambda ,q)`$ $`=M_l(W_2,\lambda ,q)+q_a^\theta M_l(W_3,\lambda ,q),`$
$`\theta `$ $`=(2ϵ_a^1)j+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{t_al}{}}}\nu _k^{(a)}\mathrm{min}(j,k).`$
The same recursion relation holds also for $`\stackrel{~}{M}_l(W,\lambda ,q)`$.

When $`j=1`$ we understand that $`W_2=W_2^{(a)}W`$. The proof is similar to that for Theorem 6.1 in \[HKOTY1\] for $`r=1`$. In view of (6.14), $`W_1,W_2`$ and $`W_3`$ with trivial $`W`$ correspond to the three terms in the $`Q`$-system (6.1).

### 4.4  Limit of fermionic formulae

Recall that our fermionic formulae are connected to the 1dsums by Conjecture 3.10, where the latters are indeed affine Lie algebra characters in the infinite lattice limit as in (3.15) and (3.16). Motivated by this fact, we here investigate the behavior of our fermionic formulae, either of argument $`q`$ or $`q^1`$, when the quantum space data $`\{\nu _j^{(a)}\}`$ gets large. It turns out that they tend to an intriguing form121212 Convergence in the sense of the $`q`$-adic topology.. Roughly, they break into a sum of products in which each factor is again identified with a fermionic form associated with “smaller” levels or algebras. It will be interesting to seek physical interpretations of such phenomena. See \[ANOT, BLS2, NY2\] and reference therein.

###### Proposition 4.5 (Spinon character formula).

Assume that $`l/t_b`$. For any $`1bn`$ we have

$`limq^{c_0}M_{\mathrm{}}(W_l^{(b)L},\lambda ,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\zeta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{}}(W(\zeta ),\lambda ,q^1)M_{l/t_b}(W(\zeta ),0,q^1)}{(q_1)_{\zeta _1}\mathrm{}(q_n)_{\zeta _n}}},`$
$`W(\zeta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}W_1^{(a)\zeta _a}.`$ (4.31)
Here $`lim`$ means the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ so that $`L(\iota (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a)|\iota (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_b))/(t_a^{}t_b)`$ for $`1an`$. $`c_0=L^2l|\iota (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_b)|^2/(2t_b)`$. The sum is taken over $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _n_0`$ such that $`_{a=1}^n\zeta _a\iota (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a)_{a=1}^n_0\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a`$.

Under Conjecture 2.1 (1), the condition $`l/t_b`$ is equivalent to assuming that the crystal $`B^{b,l}`$ is perfect. Thus Proposition 4.5 covers all the twisted cases and Theorem 5.4 in \[HKOTY1\], to which the proof is similar. The quantity $`c_0`$ is the minimum of the quadratic form $`c(\{m\})`$ in (4.2) at $`m_i^{(a)}=\delta _{i,t_al/t_b}L(\iota (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a)|\iota (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_b))/(t_a^{}t_b)`$.

For any $`𝔤`$, one can extend Proposition 4.5 to the situation where $`W_l^{(b)}`$ is replaced by a tensor product $`W_{s_1}^{(k_1)}\mathrm{}W_{s_d}^{(k_d)}`$. To present it, we introduce a generalization of (4.17) depending on a subset $`S\overline{H}_l`$.

$`M_l^S({\displaystyle \underset{(a,j)H_l}{}}\left(W_j^{(a)}\right)^{\nu _j^{(a)}},q^1)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\{m\}}{}}q^{\overline{c}(\{m\})}{\displaystyle \underset{(a,i)\overline{H}_lS}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}p_i^{(a)}+m_i^{(a)}\\ m_i^{(a)}\end{array}\right]_{q_a}{\displaystyle \underset{(a,i)S}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q_a)_{p_i^{(a)}}}},`$ (4.34)
where $`\overline{c}(\{m\})`$ and $`p_i^{(a)}`$ are given by the same formulae as (4.2) and (4.19). The sum $`_{\{m\}}`$ is now taken over $`\{m_i^{(a)}_0(a,i)\overline{H}_lS\}`$ and $`\{m_i^{(a)}(a,i)S\}`$ satisfying $`p_i^{(a)}0`$ for all $`(a,i)\overline{H}_l`$ and the condition that $`m_{t_al}^{(a)}`$ determined from (4.14) is a non-negative integer. (4.34) reduces to (4.17) when $`S=\mathrm{}`$.

Given the quantum space $`(W_{s_1}^{(k_1)}\mathrm{}W_{s_d}^{(k_d)})^L`$ and the associated fermionic form (4.17), let $`\{m_{cr}\}=\{m_{i,cr}^{(a)}()\}`$ be the critical point of the corresponding quadratic form (4.2). We exclusively consider those $`L`$ such that $`m_{i,cr}^{(a)}`$. With the help of Remark 5.3131313 The first line on the RHS therein should be corrected as $`\{(a,\frac{t_as}{t_r})1an\}`$ for $`\frac{s}{t_r}`$. in \[HKOTY1\] (see also eq.(3.5b-d) in \[Ku\]), we find for any $`𝔤`$ that

$`\{(a,i)m_{i,cr}^{(a)}>0\}`$ $`=S_{s_1}^{(k_1)}\mathrm{}S_{s_d}^{(k_d)},`$
$`S_s^{(k)}`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\{(a,\frac{t_as}{t_k})1an\}\text{ for }\frac{s}{t_k},\hfill & \\ \{(a,\frac{t_a(ss_0)}{t_k}),(a,\frac{t_a(ss_0+t_k)}{t_k})1an\}\hfill & \\ \{(a,s)1an,t_a=t_k(>1)\}\text{ for }\frac{s}{t_k},\hfill & \end{array}`$
where $`s_0s`$ mod $`t_k`$ and $`1s_0t_k1`$. It is easy to check that $`\{(a,i)m_{i,cr}^{(a)}>0\}H_l`$ for $`l`$ defined by $`l=\mathrm{max}\{s_i/t_{k_i}1id\}`$.

###### Proposition 4.6.

With $`L`$ and $`l`$ as above, we have the following for any $`𝔤`$.

$`\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}q^{\overline{c}(\{m_{cr}\})}M_{\mathrm{}}((W_{s_1}^{(k_1)}\mathrm{}W_{s_d}^{(k_d)})^L,\lambda ,q)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\zeta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{}}(W(\zeta ),\lambda ,q^1)M_l^S(W(\zeta ),q^1)}{(q_1)_{\zeta _1}\mathrm{}(q_n)_{\zeta _n}}},`$
$`S=\{(a,i)m_{i,cr}^{(a)}>0\}\{(a,t_al)1an\},`$
where the sum $`_\zeta `$ is over $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _n_0`$ such that $`_{a=1}^n\zeta _a\iota (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a)_{a=1}^n_0\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a`$, and $`W(\zeta )`$ is defined by (4.31).

Earlier Proposition 4.5 corresponds to the case $`S=\mathrm{}`$. (Not $`M_{l/t_b}^S`$ here but $`M_l^S`$ as above.)

###### Remark 4.7.

When $`\lambda =0`$, Proposition 4.6 admits a level truncation. Let $`l^{}(l)`$ be an integer. Under the same setting as Proposition 4.6, we have

$`\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}q^{\overline{c}(\{m_{cr}\})}M_l^{}((W_{s_1}^{(k_1)}\mathrm{}W_{s_d}^{(k_d)})^L,0,q)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\zeta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{l^{}l}(W(\zeta ),0,q^1)M_l^S(W(\zeta ),q^1)}{(q_1)_{\zeta _1}\mathrm{}(q_n)_{\zeta _n}}}.`$
In terms of appropriate summation variables141414 Typically, one switches from the summation over $`\{m_i^{(a)}\}`$ to $`\{p_i^{(a)}\}`$., Remark 4.7 reproduces the many expressions argued in \[KKMM2, BLS2, NY2, HKKOTY\] for simply-laced $`𝔤`$. In the next two examples we let $`(C_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{l1}`$ denote the Cartan matrix of $`A_{l1}`$.

###### Example 4.8.

Take $`𝔤=A_1^{(1)}`$ and $`1sl1`$. Then we have

$`\underset{\begin{array}{c}L\mathrm{}\\ L2\end{array}}{lim}q^{L^2s/4}M_{\mathrm{}}(W_s^{(1)L},0,q)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\{p\}}{}}q^{\frac{1}{4}_{i,j\overline{H}_l}C_{ij}p_ip_j}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q)_{p_s}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}1il1\\ is\end{array}}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}p_i\frac{1}{2}_{j=1}^{l1}C_{ij}p_j\\ p_i\end{array}\right]_q,`$
where the sum $`_{\{p\}}`$ extends over $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{l1}2_0`$ such that $`_{j=1}^{l1}C_{ij}p_j0`$ for all $`1il1`$ except $`i=s`$.

The RHS in the above agrees with the section 4.1 of \[KKMM2\] for example.

###### Example 4.9.

Take $`𝔤=A_2^{(2)}`$ and $`1sl1`$. Then we have

$`\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}q^{L^2s}M_{\mathrm{}}(W_s^{(1)L},0,q)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\{p\}}{}}q^{_{i,j\overline{H}_l}C_{ij}p_ip_j}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(q^2)_{p_s}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}1il1\\ is\end{array}}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}p_i_{j=1}^{l1}C_{ij}p_j\\ p_i\end{array}\right]_{q^2},`$
where the sum $`_{\{p\}}`$ extends over $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{l1}_0`$ such that $`_{j=1}^{l1}C_{ij}p_j0`$ for all $`1il1`$ except $`i=s`$.

The spinon character formulae in Propositions 4.5, 4.6 and Remark 4.7 describe the limit of fermionic forms with argument $`q`$. Now we turn to the other limit where $`q`$ is replaced by $`q^1`$. We first prepare some notations. To save the space we set

$$_{q,\nu }^{(a)}(𝔤|\mu )=M_{\mathrm{}}(\underset{j1}{}W_j^{(a)\nu _j},\underset{j1}{}j\nu _j\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a\mu ,q).$$
(4.35)
Here we have exhibited the dependence on the affine Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ explicitly. The index $`1an`$ specifies a vertex of the Dynkin diagram of $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$, $`\nu =\{\nu _k\}_{k1}`$ is a sequence of non-negative integers and $`\mu `$ is an element of $`_{c=1}^n_0\alpha _c/ϵ_c`$. In the sequel we let $`D(X)`$ denote the Dynkin diagram of $`X`$. Let $`𝔤`$ be an affine Lie algebra of rank $`n`$ and $`\{t_i^{}iI\}`$ be the associated data (2.1). Fix an index $`1bn`$, and remove the two vertices $`0`$ and $`b`$ and all the edges connected to them from the Dynkin diagram $`D(𝔤)`$. The result is a disjoint union of connected diagrams $`D_a`$ labeled by the indices $`1an`$ satisfying $`(\alpha _a|\alpha _b)<0`$. To each of them we assign an affine Lie subalgebra $`𝔤^{}𝔤`$ uniquely determined by the following condition:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝔤^{}=A_{ϵ_an^{}}^{(ϵ_a)}\text{if }D_a=D(A_n^{})\text{ for some }n^{},\\ (D(\stackrel{}{𝔤}{}_{}{}^{}),\{t_c^{}(c0)\text{ of }𝔤^{}\})=(D_a,\{t_c^{}\text{ of }𝔤c\text{ belonging to }D_a\})\text{otherwise}.\end{array}$$
(4.36)
See Table 2 for the definition of the classical subalgebra $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}{}_{}{}^{}𝔤^{}`$. The symbol $`ϵ_a`$ in (4.2) actually becomes 2 only when $`𝔤=A_{2n}^{(2)},(a,b)=(n,n1)`$ hence $`n^{}=1`$ in the above. When regarding $`D(\stackrel{}{𝔤}{}_{}{}^{})`$ as a subdiagram of $`D(𝔤)`$, the labeling of vertices within the former along Table 2 can become different from the restriction of the latter. So we let $`a^{}(0)`$ denote the label within $`𝔤^{}`$ corresponding to the $`a`$ for $`𝔤`$. Let further $`\mu ^{}`$ be the projection of $`\mu `$ to the lattice $`_{c=1}^n_0\alpha _c/ϵ_c`$ for $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}^{}`$ according to $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$151515 Depending on the labelings in the two algebras, one can have $`(\alpha _i\text{ for }\stackrel{}{𝔤})^{}=\alpha _i^{}\text{ for }\stackrel{}{𝔤}^{}`$ with $`ii^{}`$ in general. Concrete formulae are available in Appendix B for each $`𝔤`$..

###### Proposition 4.10.

Fix $`1bn,l_1`$ and $`\mu =\mu _1\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\mu _n\alpha _n`$. With the above definitions of $`𝔤,a^{}`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$, we have

$`\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}M_{\mathrm{}}(W_l^{(b)L},Ll\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_b\mu ,q^1)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{t_b^{}\psi (\nu )/ϵ_b}}{_{i1}(q_b)_{\nu _i}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}1an\\ (\alpha _a|\alpha _b)<0\end{array}}{}}_{q^{},\nu ^{}}^{(a^{})}(𝔤^{}|\mu ^{}),`$ (4.37)
$`\psi (\nu )={\displaystyle \underset{i,j1}{}}\mathrm{min}(i,j)\nu _i\nu _j,`$ (4.38)
$`\nu ^{}=\{\nu _j^{}\}_{j1},\nu _j^{}={\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)}{t_a^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}\nu _kB_{bk,aj}(_0),`$ (4.39)
$`q^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}q_a\hfill & \text{ if }𝔤^{}=A_n^{}^{(1)}\text{ for some }n^{},\hfill \\ q\hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}`$ (4.40)
where the sum in (4.37) is taken over $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\mathrm{}_0`$ such that

$$\underset{i1}{}i\nu _i=ϵ_b\mu _b.$$
(4.41)
Explicit forms of (4.37) are available in Appendix B. Note that the results are totally independent of $`l`$.

###### Proof.

We start from the expression (4.23). In the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, one has $`p_i^{(b)}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`i`$. Thus by setting $`\nu _i=m_i^{(b)}`$, the factor $`_i\left[\begin{array}{c}p_i^{(b)}+m_i^{(b)}\\ m_i^{(b)}\end{array}\right]_{q_b}`$ gives rise to $`1/_i(q_b)_{\nu _i}`$. The summand $`\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)_{j,k}\mathrm{min}(t_bj,t_bk)m_j^{(b)}m_k^{(b)}`$ contained in the quadratic form (4.24) thereby becomes $`t_b^{}\psi (\nu )/ϵ_b`$ on account of (4.3). For an $`a`$ such that $`(\alpha _a|\alpha _b)<0`$ (hence $`ab`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)<0`$), write $`p_i^{(a)}`$ in (4.25) as

$$p_i^{(a)}=\frac{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)}{t_a^{}}\underset{k1}{}\text{min}(t_bi,t_ak)\nu _k\frac{1}{t_a^{}}\underset{cb}{}\underset{k1}{}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_c)\text{min}(t_ci,t_ak)m_k^{(c)},$$

where the $`c`$-sum actually extends over only the vertices of $`D_a`$. To read off the quantum space data $`\nu ^{}`$ for $`𝔤^{}`$ from this, one identifies the first terms here with that for $`p_i^{(a^{})}`$ from (4.25), leading to

$$\frac{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)}{t_a^{}}\underset{k1}{}\text{min}(t_ak,t_bi)\nu _k=\underset{j1}{}\mathrm{min}(i,j)\nu _j^{}.$$

Solving this one finds (4.39). By a direct case check, the other $`q`$-binomial factors and the remaining terms in the quadratic form (4.24) can be matched with the contributions from the product of $`_{q^{},\nu ^{}}^{(a^{})}`$’s.

## 5  $`𝒒`$-series $`𝑵_𝒍\mathbf{(}𝝀\mathbf{,}𝒒\mathbf{)}`$

We keep the convention $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a\stackrel{~}{P}`$ and $`(.|.)`$ explained in Section 4.1.

For $`l_1`$ and $`\lambda \overline{P}`$, we introduce a $`q`$-series $`N_l(\lambda ,q)`$ by

$`N_l(\lambda ,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{a=1}^n(q_a)_{\mathrm{}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{m\}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{\varphi (\{m\})}}{_{(a,j)\overline{H}_l}(q_a)_{m_j^{(a)}}}},`$ (5.1)
$`\varphi (\{m\})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{(a,j),(b,k)\overline{H}_l}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)K_{t_bj,t_ak}^{(t_at_bl)}m_j^{(a)}m_k^{(b)},`$ (5.2)
where $`q_a`$ and $`K_{j,k}^{(l)}`$ are defined in (4.10) and (4.20), respectively. The sum $`_{\{m\}}`$ is taken over $`\{m_j^{(a)}_0(a,j)\overline{H}_l\}`$ satisfying

$`{\displaystyle \underset{(a,j)\overline{H}_l}{}}jm_j^{(a)}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a\iota (\lambda )modlM,`$
$`M=_{a=1}^nt_a\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a.`$
The sublattice $`M\stackrel{~}{P}`$ is essentially the one introduced in the section 6.5 of \[Kac\]161616This $`M`$ should not be confused with a fermionic form.. From the definition it follows that

$`N_l(\lambda ,q)`$ $`=N_l(\lambda +l\beta ,q)\text{for }\beta M,`$ (5.3)
$`N_l(\lambda ,q)`$ $`q^ϵ^{}_0[[q^{a_0}]],ϵ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{|\iota (\lambda )|^2}{2l}}+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}}a\lambda _amoda_0.`$
The $`q`$-series $`N_l(\lambda ,q)`$ is related to the fermionic formula in the previous section via

$$N_l(\lambda ,q)=limq^{\frac{|\iota (\lambda )|^2}{2l}}M_l(W,\underset{(a,j)H_l}{}j\nu _j^{(a)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a\lambda ,q^1),$$
(5.4)
where $`M_l`$ can also be replaced with $`\stackrel{~}{M}_l`$. Here the quantum space data is given by $`W=_{(a,j)H_l}\left(W_j^{(a)}\right)^{\nu _j^{(a)}}`$, and the limit is taken with respect to $`\{\nu _j^{(a)}\}`$ so that $`_{j1}\nu _j^{(a)}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`1an`$.

Let us present the examples from $`𝔤`$ of rank 1.

###### Example 5.1.

Take $`𝔤=A_1^{(1)}`$, for which the formula reads

$$N_l(\lambda _1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q)=\frac{1}{(q)_{\mathrm{}}}\underset{\{m\}}{}\frac{q^{_{1i,jl1}K_{i,j}^{(l)}m_im_j}}{_{j=1}^{l1}(q)_{m_j}},$$

where $`\lambda _12`$ and the sum is over $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_{l1}_0`$ such that $`_{j=1}^{l1}jm_j\lambda _1/2modl`$. See (4.20) for $`K_{i,j}^{(l)}`$. We have

$`N_2(\lambda _1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q)`$
$`=1+q+3q^2+5q^3+10q^4+16q^5+28q^6+43q^7+70q^8+\mathrm{}\text{if }\lambda 4,`$
$`=q^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+2q+4q^2+7q^3+13q^4+21q^5+35q^6+55q^7+86q^8+\mathrm{})\text{if }\lambda _14.`$
$`N_3(\lambda _1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q)`$
$`=1+q+3q^2+6q^3+12q^4+21q^5+39q^6+64q^7+108q^8+\mathrm{}\text{if }\lambda _16,`$
$`=q^{\frac{2}{3}}(1+2q+5q^2+9q^3+18q^4+31q^5+55q^6+90q^7+149q^8+\mathrm{})\text{if }\lambda _16.`$
###### Example 5.2.

Take $`𝔤=A_2^{(2)}`$, for which the formula reads

$$N_l(\lambda _1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q)=\frac{1}{(q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}\underset{\{m\}}{}\frac{q^{_{1i,jl1}K_{i,j}^{(l)}m_im_j}}{_{j=1}^{l1}(q^2)_{m_j}},$$

where $`\lambda _1`$ and the sum is over $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_{l1}_0`$ such that $`_{j=1}^{l1}jm_j\lambda _1modl`$. Besides the summation condition, the RHS with the replacement $`qq^{1/2}`$ differs from $`A_1^{(1)}`$ case only by the factor $`1/2`$ in the quadratic form. We have

$`N_2(\lambda _1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q)`$
$`=1+2q^2+4q^4+8q^6+15q^8+26q^{10}+44q^{12}+72q^{14}+115q^{16}+\mathrm{}\text{if }\lambda _12,`$
$`=q^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+2q^2+5q^4+9q^6+17q^8+29q^{10}+50q^{12}+80q^{14}+129q^{16}+\mathrm{})\text{if }\lambda _12.`$
$`N_3(\lambda _1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1,q)`$
$`=1+2q^2+5q^4+12q^6+24q^8+46q^{10}+85q^{12}+150q^{14}+\mathrm{}\text{if }\lambda _13,`$
$`=q^{\frac{2}{3}}(1+3q^2+7q^4+15q^6+30q^8+57q^{10}+103q^{12}+180q^{14}+\mathrm{})\text{if }\lambda _13.`$
Our $`q`$-series $`N_l(\lambda ,q)`$ is connected to representation theory via

###### Conjecture 5.3.

For $`l_1,\lambda \overline{P}`$ and some $`\kappa ϵ^{}/a_0`$, one has

$$\underset{i}{}\text{mult}_{L(l\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)}(\lambda +l\mathrm{\Lambda }_0i\delta )q^i=q^\kappa N_l(\lambda ,q^{\frac{1}{a_0}}).$$

The LHS is a string function of the level $`l`$ vacuum module over $`X_N^{(r)}`$ up to a power of $`q`$. The conjecture is valid for $`A_1^{(1)}`$ \[LP\], $`A_n^{(1)}`$ \[FS, G, HKKOTY\], and also for $`l=1`$ \[Kac\]. For general nontwisted $`𝔤`$, the $`q`$-series $`N_l(\lambda ,q)`$ appeared in \[KNS\]. See also the section 6.1 of \[HKKOTY\] for a generalization of $`N_l(\lambda ,q)`$ corresponding to the tensor product $`_iL((l_il_{i+1})\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$ for nontwisted cases. It is natural to expect a similar generalization for twisted cases, but we leave it to a future study.

Under Conjecture 5.3, the property (5.3) is consistent with eq.(12.7.9) in \[Kac\]. The asymptotic behavior of $`N(\lambda ,q^{1/a_0})`$ as $`q1`$ also matches the known result. To explain this let

$$L(x)=\frac{1}{2}_0^x\left(\frac{\mathrm{log}(1y)}{y}+\frac{\mathrm{log}y}{1y}\right)𝑑y$$

be the Rogers dilogarithm function. To the power series expansion
$`q^{ϵ^{}/a_0}\left(_{b=1}^n(q_b^{1/a_0})_{\mathrm{}}\right)N_l(\lambda ,q^{1/a_0})=_kc_kq^k`$, one can apply the saddle-point method of \[RS\] to derive a crude estimate $`\mathrm{log}c_k2\sqrt{ka_0_{(a,j)\overline{H}_l}L(f_j^{(a)})/t_a^{}}+O(\mathrm{log}k)`$ for $`k1`$. Here $`f_j^{(a)}`$ is the one in Conjecture 6.1 (iii), by which the “saddle point condition” has been solved as $`q^{t_a^{}m_j^{(a)}/a_0}=1f_j^{(a)}`$ with the help of (6.3). Combining the result with the well-known property $`lim_{q1}(1q)\mathrm{log}(q_a^{1/a_0})_{\mathrm{}}^1=\pi ^2a_0/(6t_a^{})`$, one arrives at

$$\underset{q1}{lim}(1q)\mathrm{log}N_l(\lambda ,q^{1/a_0})=a_0\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{t_a^{}}+\underset{(a,j)\overline{H}_l}{}\frac{L(f_j^{(a)})}{t_a^{}}\right).$$
(5.5)
Applying (2.2) and admitting (6.4), one finally obtains

$$\underset{q1}{lim}(1q)\mathrm{log}N_l(\lambda ,q^{1/a_0})=\frac{\pi ^2}{6r}\left(\frac{ldimX_N}{l+h^{}}\right).$$
(5.6)
This agrees with the behavior of the level $`l`$ string function as $`q=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \beta )1`$ given by Theorem 13.14. a) and eq.(13.13.12) in \[Kac\].

## 6  $`𝑸`$-system and fermionic formula at $`𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$

### 6.1  $`𝑸`$-system of type $`𝖌`$

Let $`\{Q_j^{(a)}1an,j_0\}`$ be a set of infinitely many commutative variables with $`Q_0^{(a)}=1`$. We call the simultaneous equation

$$Q_j^{(a)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=Q_{j+1}^{(a)}Q_{j1}^{(a)}+Q_j^{(a)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\underset{b=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{k1}{}Q_k^{(b)(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)B_{aj,bk}/t_b^{}}$$
(6.1)
the (unrestricted) $`Q`$-system of type $`𝔤`$. Here $`B_{aj,bk}`$ is defined in (4.30) and the second term on RHS actually contains finitely many factors with positive power. For $`𝔤=X_n^{(1)}`$, it appeared in \[KR2, Ki3\] as a possible character identity among the irreducible finite-dimensional modules of the Yangian $`Y(X_n)`$ viewed as $`X_n`$ modules. The explicit form for the nontwisted cases is available in Appendix C in \[HKOTY1\]. Let us write down the twisted cases $`r=2`$ and $`3`$. Below we assume that $`Q_j^{(a)}=1`$ whenever $`a\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$.
$`𝔤=A_{2n1}^{(2)}:`$

$`Q_j^{(a)^2}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{j1}^{(a)}Q_{j+1}^{(a)}+Q_j^{(a1)}Q_j^{(a+1)}\text{for}1an1,`$
$`Q_j^{(n)^2}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{j1}^{(n)}Q_{j+1}^{(n)}+Q_j^{(n1)^2}.`$
$`𝔤=A_{2n}^{(2)}:`$

$`Q_j^{(a)^2}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{j1}^{(a)}Q_{j+1}^{(a)}+Q_j^{(a1)}Q_j^{(a+1)}\text{for}1an1,`$
$`Q_j^{(n)^2}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{j1}^{(n)}Q_{j+1}^{(n)}+Q_j^{(n1)}Q_j^{(n)}.`$
$`𝔤=D_{n+1}^{(2)}:`$

$`Q_j^{(a)^2}=Q_{j1}^{(a)}Q_{j+1}^{(a)}+Q_j^{(a1)}Q_j^{(a+1)}\text{for}1an2,`$
$`Q_j^{(n1)^2}=Q_{j1}^{(n1)}Q_{j+1}^{(n1)}+Q_j^{(n2)}Q_j^{(n)^2},`$
$`Q_j^{(n)^2}=Q_{j1}^{(n)}Q_{j+1}^{(n)}+Q_j^{(n1)}.`$
$`𝔤=E_6^{(2)}:`$

$`Q_j^{(1)^2}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{j1}^{(1)}Q_{j+1}^{(1)}+Q_j^{(2)},`$
$`Q_j^{(2)^2}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{j1}^{(2)}Q_{j+1}^{(2)}+Q_j^{(1)}Q_j^{(3)},`$
$`Q_j^{(3)^2}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{j1}^{(3)}Q_{j+1}^{(3)}+Q_j^{(2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}Q_j^{(4)},`$
$`Q_j^{(4)^2}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{j1}^{(4)}Q_{j+1}^{(4)}+Q_j^{(3)}.`$
$`𝔤=D_4^{(3)}:`$

$`Q_j^{(1)^2}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{j1}^{(1)}Q_{j+1}^{(1)}+Q_j^{(2)},`$
$`Q_j^{(2)^2}`$ $`=`$ $`Q_{j1}^{(2)}Q_{j+1}^{(2)}+Q_j^{(1)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}.`$
Let us comment on an origin of the above proposal for twisted cases. First, it is a reduction of the $`T`$-system in \[KS\] by forgetting the spectral parameter. Second, $`X_N^{(r)}`$ $`Q`$-system with $`r>1`$ is obtained from the $`X_N^{(1)}`$ $`Q`$-system by imposing a symmetry under the order $`r`$ Dynkin diagram automorphism $`\sigma `$. To explain this, we introduce the map $`\tau `$171717The $`\tau `$ here should be distinguished from the one in (3.3). between the non 0 vertices of the Dynkin diagrams $`\tau :\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}`$ for $`X_N^{(1)}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ for $`X_N^{(r)}`$ by

$`\tau (a)`$ $`=\mathrm{min}(a,N+1a)\text{ for }A_{2n}^{(2)},A_{2n1}^{(2)},`$
$`\tau (a)`$ $`=\mathrm{min}(a,n)\text{ for }D_{n+1}^{(2)},`$
$`\tau (a)`$ $`=\mathrm{min}(a,6a)(1a5),\tau (6)=4\text{ for }E_6^{(2)},`$
$`\tau (a)`$ $`=1(a=1,3,4),\tau (2)=2\text{ for }D_4^{(3)}.`$
The map $`\tau `$ respects the Dynkin diagram symmetry $`\sigma `$ on $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ in the sense that $`\tau \sigma =\tau `$. Our $`X_N^{(r)}`$ type $`Q`$-system is obtainable from the $`X_N^{(1)}`$ type $`Q`$-system through the replacement $`Q_j^{(a)}Q_j^{(\tau (a))}`$.

For a given $`l_1`$, impose the condition $`Q_{t_al}^{(a)}=1,Q_{t_al+1}^{(a)}=0`$. Then one can consider the truncated system of equations

$$Q_j^{(a)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=Q_{j+1}^{(a)}Q_{j1}^{(a)}+Q_j^{(a)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\underset{(b,k)\overline{H}_l}{}Q_k^{(b)(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)B_{aj,bk}/t_b^{}}(a,j)\overline{H}_l,$$
(6.2)
which close among $`\{Q_j^{(a)}(a,j)\overline{H}_l\}`$. We call it the level $`l`$ restricted $`Q`$-system of type $`𝔤`$. In terms of the variables $`f_j^{(a)}=1Q_{j+1}^{(a)}Q_{j+1}^{(a)}/Q_j^{(a)2}`$, it is expressed as

$$\mathrm{log}f_j^{(a)}=\underset{(b,k)\overline{H}_l}{}\frac{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_b)}{t_b^{}}K_{t_bj,t_ak}^{(t_at_bl)}\mathrm{log}(1f_k^{(b)}).$$
(6.3)
For any $`𝔤=X_N^{(r)}`$ we have

###### Conjecture 6.1.

(i) The unrestricted $`Q`$-system (6.1) has a solution in terms of a linear combination of $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$-characters of the form

$$Q_j^{(a)}=\underset{\lambda \overline{P}(j\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a_{b=1}^n_0\alpha _b/ϵ_b)}{}d_\lambda \text{ch }V(\lambda ),d_{j\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a}=1,d_\lambda _0.$$

(ii) Specialization of (i) to the $`q`$-dimension at $`q=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/(l+h^{}))`$ has the properties $`Q_{t_al}^{(a)}=1,Q_{t_al+1}^{(a)}=0`$ and $`Q_j^{(a)}_{>0}`$ for all $`(a,j)\overline{H}_l`$. (Hence it yields a solution of the level $`l`$ restricted $`Q`$-system (6.2).)

(iii) In terms of $`Q_j^{(a)}_{>0}`$ in (ii), set $`f_j^{(a)}=1Q_{j+1}^{(a)}Q_{j+1}^{(a)}/Q_j^{(a)2}`$. (Hence it is a solution of (6.3) such that $`0<f_j^{(a)}<1`$ for all $`(a,j)\overline{H}_l`$.) Then we have

$$a_0r\underset{(a,j)\overline{H}_l}{}\frac{L(f_j^{(a)})}{t_a^{}}=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\left(\frac{ldimX_N}{l+h^{}}N\right).$$
(6.4)
Several remarks are in order. First, (i) is indeed valid if $`𝔤`$ is non-exceptional or $`D_4^{(3)}`$. The explicit forms are available in \[KR2, HKOTY1\] for the nontwisted cases $`𝔤=A_n^{(1)},B_n^{(1)},C_n^{(1)},D_n^{(1)}`$ and in Section 6.2 of this paper for $`𝔤=A_{2n}^{(2)},A_{2n1}^{(2)},D_{n+1}^{(2)}`$ and $`D_4^{(3)}`$. Thus (i) is actually an existence conjecture for the other $`𝔤`$’s. On the other hand for any $`𝔤`$, the forthcoming Theorem 6.3 asserts the uniqueness as well as a unified construction $`Q_j^{(a)}=_\lambda \stackrel{~}{M}(W_j^{(a)},\lambda ,1)\text{ch}V(\lambda )`$ in terms of the fermionic form at $`q=1`$ under a further assumption (C) on the asymptotic behavior. For the exceptional $`𝔤`$’s other than $`D_4^{(3)}`$, it is yet to be confirmed if the above $`Q_j^{(a)}`$ indeed satisfies the $`Q`$-system. Second, if Conjecture 5.3 and 6.1 (i)–(ii) are valid, then the dilogarithm sum rule (6.4) follows from (5.5) and Theorem 13.14. a) in \[Kac\] by reversing the argument in the end of Section 5. In this sense Conjecture 5.3 is a $`q`$-analogue of (6.4). Third, (6.4) with $`r=1`$ was originally conjectured in \[Ki3\], where $`A_n^{(1)}`$ case was proved. (For $`X_n^{(1)}`$ non-simply laced, the range of the sum therein is misprinted and should be read as above.) Our (6.4) for $`X_N^{(r)}`$ with $`r>1`$ is actually a consequence of the $`X_N^{(1)}`$ case. To see this, note that $`f_j^{(a)}`$ for $`X_N^{(1)}`$ enjoys the symmetry $`f_j^{(a)}=f_j^{(\sigma (a))}`$ under the order $`r`$ Dynkin diagram automorphism $`\sigma `$. Therefore $`f_j^{(a)}`$ for $`X_N^{(r)}`$ is obtained as $`f_j^{(a)}=f_j^{(b)}`$ for any $`b`$ such that $`\tau (b)=a`$. In view of this, LHS of (6.4) is equal to $`_{a=1}^N_{j=1}^{l1}L(f_j^{(a)})`$, reducing it to the $`X_N^{(1)}`$ case since $`h^{}`$ is independent of $`r`$. In particular, the factor $`a_0r/t_a^{}\{1,r\}`$ has the interpretation

$$\frac{a_0r}{t_a^{}}=\mathrm{}\{b\{1,\mathrm{},N\}\tau (b)=a\}\text{for }1an.$$
(6.5)
In view of (2.2) and $`f_{t_al}^{(a)}=1`$ under $`Q_{t_al+1}^{(a)}=0`$, the sum rule (6.4) is also stated as

$$a_0r\underset{(a,j)H_l}{}\frac{L(f_j^{(a)})}{t_a^{}}=\frac{\pi ^2}{6}\left(\frac{ldimX_N}{l+h^{}}\right).$$

### 6.2  Solutions in terms of classical characters

Let us present solutions of the unrestricted $`Q`$-system (6.1) for $`𝔤=A_{2n}^{(2)},A_{2n1}^{(2)}`$, $`D_{n+1}^{(2)},D_4^{(3)}`$ in terms of the character of a classical subalgebra $`𝔤^{}𝔤`$. Similar result is available for $`𝔤=A_n^{(1)},B_n^{(1)},C_n^{(1)},D_n^{(1)}`$ \[KR2, HKOTY1\] for the choice $`𝔤^{}=\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$. Here we shall include the result $`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(A_{2n}^{(2)},C_n),(A_{2n}^{(2)},B_n),(A_{2n1}^{(2)},C_n)`$, $`(A_{2n1}^{(2)},D_n),(D_{n+1}^{(2)},B_n)`$ and $`(D_4^{(3)},G_2)`$. In case $`𝔤^{}=\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$, Appendix A with $`q=1`$ yields further conjectures on $`E_6^{(2)}`$.

Let us introduce the linear combination of characters.
$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(A_{2n}^{(2)},C_n)`$:

$`\chi _j^{(a)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \text{ch}V(k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^{}+k_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2^{}+\mathrm{}+k_a\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a^{})}\text{for}1an.`$ (6.6)
$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(A_{2n}^{(2)},B_n)`$:

$`\chi _j^{(a)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{ch}V(k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^{}+k_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2^{}+\mathrm{}+k_a\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a^{})\hfill & \text{if}1an1,\hfill \\ \text{ch}V(k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^{}+k_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2^{}+\mathrm{}+k_{n1}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{n1}^{}\hfill & \\ +2k_n\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n^{})\hfill & \text{if}a=n.\hfill \end{array}`$ (6.7)
$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(A_{2n1}^{(2)},C_n)`$:

$`\chi _j^{(a)}={\displaystyle \text{ch}V(k_b\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_b^{}+k_{b+2}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{b+2}^{}+\mathrm{}+k_a\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a^{})}`$ (6.8)
$`\text{for}1an,ba\text{mod 2},b=0\text{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}.`$
$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(A_{2n1}^{(2)},D_n)`$:

$`\chi _j^{(a)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{ch}V(k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^{}+k_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2^{}+\mathrm{}+k_a\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a^{})\hfill & \text{if}1an2,\hfill \\ \text{ch}V(k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^{}+k_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2^{}+\mathrm{}+k_{n2}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{n2}^{}\hfill & \\ +k_{n1}\overline{\omega }_{n1})\hfill & \text{if}a=n1,\hfill \\ \text{ch}V(k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^{}+k_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2^{}+\mathrm{}+k_{n2}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{n2}^{}\hfill & \\ +(k_{n1}+|k_n|)\overline{\omega }_{n1}+k_n\overline{\omega }_n)\hfill & \text{if}a=n.\hfill \end{array}`$ (6.9)
$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(D_{n+1}^{(2)},B_n)`$:

$`\chi _j^{(a)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{ch}V(k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^{}+k_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2^{}+\mathrm{}+k_a\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a^{})\hfill & \text{if}1an1,\hfill \\ \text{ch}V(j\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n^{})\hfill & \text{if}a=n.\hfill \end{array}`$ (6.10)
$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(D_4^{(3)},G_2)`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \chi _j^{(1)}& =\underset{k=0}{\overset{j}{}}\text{ch}V(k\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^{}),\hfill \\ \hfill \chi _j^{(2)}& =\underset{\begin{array}{c}k_1+k_2j\\ k_1,k_2_0\end{array}}{}\mathrm{min}(1+k_2,1+jk_1k_2)(k_1+1)\text{ch}V(k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^{}+k_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.11)
Here $`\text{ch}V(\lambda )`$ denotes the irreducible $`𝔤^{}`$ character with highest weight $`\lambda `$. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a^{}(1an)`$ are the fundamental weights of $`𝔤^{}`$. We have also used the convention $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0^{}=0`$ and $`\overline{\omega }_{n1}=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{n1}^{}+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n^{}`$, $`\overline{\omega }_n=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{n1}^{}+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n^{}`$. The sums in (6.6) –(6.10) are taken as follows.

$`(\text{6.6}),(\text{6.10})_{a<n}:`$ $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_a_0,k_1+\mathrm{}+k_aj,`$
$`(\text{6.8}):`$ $`k_b,k_{b+2},\mathrm{},k_a_0,k_b+k_{b+2}+\mathrm{}+k_a=j,`$
$`(\text{6.7}),(\text{6.9})_{a<n}:`$ $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_a_0,k_1+\mathrm{}+k_aj,k_bj\delta _{ab}2(1ba),`$
$`(\text{6.9})_{a=n}:`$ $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n1}_0,k_n,k_1+\mathrm{}+k_{n1}+|k_n|j,`$
$`k_bj\delta _{nb}2(1bn).`$
If one depicts the highest weights in the sums (6.8), ((6.6), (6.10)a\<n) and ((6.7)a\<n, (6.9)a\<n-1) with the Young diagrams as usual, they correspond to those obtained from the $`a\times j`$ rectangle by successively removing $`2\times 1`$, $`1\times 1`$ and $`1\times 2`$ blocks, respectively.

Let $`x_a=e^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a^{}}`$ be a complex variable. Then the $`𝔤^{}`$ character $`\text{ch}V(\lambda )`$ belongs to $`[x_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},x_n^{\pm 1}]`$. By an argument similar to \[HKOTY1\] one can show

###### Theorem 6.2.

If $`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(A_{2n1}^{(2)},C_n),(A_{2n}^{(2)},C_n),(D_{n+1}^{(2)},B_n)`$ or $`(D_4^{(3)},G_2)`$ (i.e., $`𝔤^{}=\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$ hence $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a^{}=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a`$), we have

1. $`\chi _j^{(a)}=_{\lambda \overline{P}^+}d_\lambda \text{ch}V(\lambda ),d_\lambda ,d_{j\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a}=1`$$`d_\lambda =0`$ unless $`\lambda j\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a_{b=1}^n_0\alpha _b/ϵ_b,1an,j_0`$,
2. $`Q_j^{(a)}=\chi _j^{(a)}`$ solves the $`Q`$-system (6.1),
3. $`lim_j\mathrm{}\left(\frac{\chi _j^{(a)}}{\chi _{j+1}^{(a)}}\right)=x_a^1`$ in the domain $`|e^{\alpha _1}|,\mathrm{},|e^{\alpha _n}|>1`$.

When $`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(A_{2n1}^{(2)},D_n)`$ or $`(A_{2n}^{(2)},B_n)`$, (B) is still valid for $`\chi _j^{(a)}`$ given in (6.7) or (6.9). However, (A) and (C) no longer hold. For example instead of (C), one has

$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(A_{2n1}^{(2)},D_n)`$:

$`\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi _j^{(a)}}{\chi _{j+1}^{(a)}}}\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x_a^1\hfill & \text{if}1an2,\hfill \\ (x_{n1}x_n)^1\hfill & \text{if}a=n1,\hfill \\ x_{n1}^2\hfill & \text{if}a=n\text{and}|e^{\alpha _{n1}^{}}|>|e^{\alpha _n^{}}|,\hfill \\ x_n^2\hfill & \text{if}a=n\text{and}|e^{\alpha _{n1}^{}}|<|e^{\alpha _n^{}}|,\hfill \end{array}`$ (6.12)
$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(A_{2n}^{(2)},B_n)`$:

$`\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi _j^{(a)}}{\chi _{j+1}^{(a)}}}\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x_a^1\hfill & \text{if}1an1,\hfill \\ x_n^2\hfill & \text{if}a=n,\hfill \end{array}`$ (6.13)
in the domain $`|e^{\alpha _1^{}}|,\mathrm{},|e^{\alpha _n^{}}|>1`$, where $`\alpha _a^{}`$ denotes a simple root of $`𝔤^{}`$.

The fact that the $`𝔤^{}`$ character $`\chi _j^{(a)}`$ satisfies the $`Q`$-system of type $`𝔤=X_N^{(2)}`$ can be shown by using the solution to the nontwisted cases $`X_N^{(1)}`$ \[KR2, HKOTY1\]. All one needs is to restrict the earlier solution in terms of $`X_N`$-characters to those for the subalgebras $`𝔤^{}`$. It is done by means of a class of identities known as Littlewood’s lemma \[L\]. See for example the references listed in the sequel.

$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(A_{2n1}^{(2)},C_n)`$: Theorem in \[KS\] and eq. (1) in p.492 (or eq. (2) in p.507) of \[KT\].
$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(A_{2n1}^{(2)},D_n)`$: Theorem in \[KS\], eq. (1.1) in p.471 of \[KT\] and eq. (5) in p.492 (or eq. (3) in p.507) of \[KT\].
$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(A_{2n}^{(2)},C_n)`$: Theorem in \[KS\] and eq. (1.5.1) in p.488 of \[KT\], the equation under eq. (1.5.2) in p.490 of \[KT\] and eq. (11.9;6) in p.238 of \[L\].
$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(A_{2n}^{(2)},B_n)`$: Theorem in \[KS\], the equation under eq. (1.1) in p.471 of \[KT\] and eq. (3) in p.492 (or eq.(1) in p.506) of \[KT\].
$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(D_{n+1}^{(2)},B_n)`$: Theorem 7.1 (B) for $`D_{n+1}^{(1)}`$ in \[HKOTY1\] and a branching rule for $`O(2n+2)O(2n+1)`$ \[W\] and $`O(n)SO(n)`$ (p.471 of \[KT\]).
$`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(D_4^{(3)},G_2)`$: Theorem 7.1 (B) for $`D_4^{(1)}`$ in \[HKOTY1\] and the branching rules $`O(8)O(7)`$ \[W\] and $`O(7)G_2`$ \[Wy\].

The solution (6.7) of the $`A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ type $`Q`$-system is relevant to a superalgebra $`B^{(1)}(0|s)`$ \[T\]. In Appendix C we have also included a solution of $`B_n^{(1)}`$ $`Q`$-system in terms of $`D_n`$ characters.

### 6.3  Fermionic form and $`𝑸`$-system

In this subsection we consider the pair $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}𝔤`$ for general $`𝔤`$.

###### Theorem 6.3.

Suppose that a linear combination of $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$ characters

$$Q_j^{(a)}=\underset{\lambda \overline{P}^+}{}d_\lambda \text{ch}V(\lambda )1an,j_0$$

possesses the properties:

1. $`d_\lambda ,d_{j\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a}=1`$$`d_\lambda =0`$ unless $`\lambda j\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a_{b=1}^n_0\alpha _b/ϵ_b`$,
2. $`\{Q_j^{(a)}\}`$ satisfies the $`Q`$-system (6.1),
3. $`lim_j\mathrm{}\left(\frac{Q_j^{(a)}}{Q_{j+1}^{(a)}}\right)=e^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a}`$ in the domain $`|e^{\alpha _1}|,\mathrm{},|e^{\alpha _n}|>1`$.

Then for any finitely many non-negative integers $`\nu _j^{(a)}`$ we have

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j1}{}\left(Q_j^{(a)}\right)^{\nu _j^{(a)}}=\underset{\lambda }{}\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{}}(W,\lambda ,1)\text{ch}V(\lambda ),$$
(6.14)
where $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{}}(W,\lambda ,1)`$ is defined by (4.28) with $`W=_{a=1}^n_{j1}(W_j^{(a)})^{\nu _j^{(a)}}`$. The sum $`_\lambda `$ runs over $`\lambda (_{a=1}^n_{i1}i\nu _i^{(a)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a_{b=1}^n_0\alpha _b/ϵ_b)\overline{P}^+`$.

This theorem has analogous aspects to Theorem 8.1 in \[HKOTY1\], where $`r=1`$ case was treated. In particular it asserts the uniqueness of $`\{Q_j^{(a)}\}`$ satisfying (A) – (C), but does not assure the existence, i.e. it does not guarantee that the functions $`\{_\lambda \stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{}}(W_j^{(a)},\lambda ,1)\text{ch}V(\lambda )\}`$ fulfill (B) and (C)181818They do (A). Note also the consistency of the condition (B) with Proposition 4.4 at $`q=1`$.. In this paper, we have shown the existence of such $`\{Q_j^{(a)}\}`$ for $`𝔤=A_{2n1}^{(2)},A_{2n}^{(2)},D_{n+1}^{(2)}`$ and $`D_4^{(3)}`$ in Theorem 6.2.

We omit the proof of Theorem 6.3 because it is essentially a repetition of the one in \[HKOTY1\], whose idea goes back to \[Ki1, Ki2\]. Another reason is that it is a corollary of more general results in \[KN, KNT\]. In these works, power series solutions of a generalized $`Q`$-system adapted to $`e^{j\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a}Q_j^{(a)}`$ has been studied. A proof of uniqueness, existence and two explicit constructions have been done under a certain convergence condition. (6.14) follows from them upon a further assumption of the Weyl group invariance.

For nontwisted cases $`r=1`$, the identity (6.14) can be interpreted as a formal (combinatorial) completeness of the Bethe ansatz for rational vertex models with Yangian $`Y(X_N)`$-symmetry \[KR2, Ki1, Ki2\]. They correspond to $`q1`$ degeneration of trigonometric vertex models with $`U_q^{}(X_N^{(1)})`$ symmetry, and the fermionic form $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{}}(W,\lambda ,1)`$ arises naturally from the rational Bethe equation \[OW\] under a string hypothesis. It is tempting to interpret (6.14) similarly for twisted cases $`r>1`$ in terms of the $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$-symmetry of a rational limit of the vertex models associated with the twisted $`U_q^{}(X_N^{(r)})`$. However, at present we do not know a way, even formally, to derive $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mathrm{}}(W,\lambda ,1)`$ with $`r>1`$ from a rational limit of the Bethe equation \[RW\] and a string hypothesis. We remark that in a naive $`q1`$ limit, transfer matrix spectrum turns out to exhibit a much larger degeneracy than the one implied from the $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$-symmetry.

## Appendix A  List of $`𝑴_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝑾_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝝀\mathbf{,}𝒒^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$

Consider a formal linear combination of the $`\stackrel{}{𝔤}`$ modules $`V(\lambda )`$ of highest weight $`\lambda `$:

$$𝒲_s^{(a)}=\underset{\lambda \overline{P}^+}{}M_{\mathrm{}}(W_s^{(a)},\lambda ,q^1)V(\lambda ).$$

In this appendix, we give a list of $`𝒲_s^{(a)}`$ for $`𝔤=A_{2n1}^{(2)},A_{2n}^{(2)},D_{n+1}^{(2)}`$ and a conjecture (in some cases) for $`𝔤=E_6^{(2)},D_4^{(3)}`$. When $`q=1`$ they reduce to (6.6), (6.8) and (6.10) for $`A_{2n}^{(2)},A_{2n1}^{(2)}`$ and $`D_{n+1}^{(2)}`$, respectively.

$`𝔤=A_{2n1}^{(2)}:`$

$$𝒲_s^{(a)}=\underset{\lambda }{}q^{\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n|s\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a\lambda )}V(\lambda )(1an),$$

where the sum $`_\lambda `$ is taken over $`\lambda \{k_e\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_e+k_{e+2}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{e+2}+\mathrm{}+k_a\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a\overline{P}^+|k_e+k_{e+2}+\mathrm{}+k_{a2}+k_a=s\}`$ with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0=0`$ and $`ea(mod2),e=0`$ or $`1`$. In the computation of $`M_{\mathrm{}}(W_s^{(a)},k_e\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_e+k_{e+2}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{e+2}+\mathrm{}+k_a\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a,q^1)`$, the only choice of $`\{m_j^{(c)}\}`$ such that $`p_i^{(c)}0`$ is the following:
if $`a=2u`$ is even, then

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}m_j^{(2c1)}=_{b=1}^{\mathrm{min}(c1,u)}\delta _{j,l_b}+_{b=1}^{\mathrm{min}(c,u)}\delta _{j,l_b}\hfill & (c1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}c1n1,j1)\hfill \\ m_j^{(2c)}=2_{b=1}^{\mathrm{min}(c,u)}\delta _{j,l_b}\hfill & (c1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}cn1,j1)\hfill \\ m_j^{(n)}=_{b=1}^u\delta _{j,l_b}\hfill & (j1)\hfill \end{array},$$

and if $`a=2u+1`$ is odd, then

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}m_j^{(1)}=0\hfill & (j1)\hfill \\ m_j^{(2c)}=_{b=1}^{\mathrm{min}(c1,u)}\delta _{j,l_b}+_{b=1}^{\mathrm{min}(c,u)}\delta _{j,l_b}\hfill & (c1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}cn1,j1)\hfill \\ m_j^{(2c+1)}=2_{b=1}^{\mathrm{min}(c,u)}\delta _{j,l_b}\hfill & (c1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}c+1n1,j1)\hfill \\ m_j^{(n)}=_{b=1}^u\delta _{j,l_b}\hfill & (j1)\hfill \end{array},$$

where $`l_b=s(k_a+k_{a2}+\mathrm{}+k_{2b+e})`$ for the both cases.

$`𝔤=A_{2n}^{(2)}:`$

$$𝒲_s^{(a)}=\underset{\lambda }{}q^{(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n|s\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a\lambda )}V(\lambda )(1an),$$

where the sum $`_\lambda `$ is taken over $`\lambda \{k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\mathrm{}+k_a\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a\overline{P}^+|k_1+\mathrm{}+k_as\}`$. In the computation of $`M_{\mathrm{}}(W_s^{(a)},k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\mathrm{}+k_a\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a,q^1)`$, the only choice of $`\{m_j^{(c)}\}`$ such that $`p_i^{(c)}0`$ is the following:

$$m_j^{(c)}=\underset{b=1}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(c,a)}{}}\delta _{j,l_b}(1cn,j1),$$

where $`l_b=s(k_b+k_{b+1}+\mathrm{}+k_a)`$.

$`𝔤=D_{n+1}^{(2)}:`$

$$𝒲_s^{(a)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}_\lambda q^{(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n|s\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a\lambda )}V(\lambda )\hfill & (1an1)\hfill \\ V(s\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n)\hfill & (a=n)\hfill \end{array},$$

where the sum $`_\lambda `$ is taken over $`\lambda \{k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\mathrm{}+k_a\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a\overline{P}^+|k_1+\mathrm{}+k_as\}`$. In the computation of $`M_{\mathrm{}}(W_s^{(a)},k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\mathrm{}+k_a\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a,q^1)`$, the only choice of $`\{m_j^{(c)}\}`$ such that $`p_i^{(c)}0`$ is the same as $`𝔤=A_{2n}^{(2)}`$ case.

$`𝔤=E_6^{(2)}`$:

$`𝒲_1^{(1)}=qV(0)+V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1),`$
$`𝒲_1^{(2)}=q^3V(0)+(q+q^2)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1)+qV(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)+V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2),`$
$`𝒲_1^{(3)}=(q^4+q^6)V(0)+(2q^3+q^4+q^5)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1)+(2q^2+q^4)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)`$
$`+(q+q^2+q^3)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2)+q^2V(2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1)+qV(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)+V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_3),`$
$`𝒲_2^{(3)}=(q^8+q^{10}+q^{12})V(0)+(2q^6+4q^8+q^{10})V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)`$
$`+(3q^4+3q^6+q^8)V(2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)+(2q^4+q^5+6q^6+q^7+q^8)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_3)`$
$`+(2q^2+2q^4)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_3+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)+V(2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_3)`$
$`+(q^5+2q^6+5q^7+3q^8+2q^9)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2)`$
$`+(2q^3+3q^4+5q^5+2q^6+q^7)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)`$
$`+(q+q^2+q^3)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_3)+(q^2+q^3+3q^4+q^5+q^6)V(2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2)`$
$`+(2q^7+q^8+3q^9+q^{10}+q^{11})V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1)`$
$`+(5q^5+3q^6+6q^7+q^8+q^9)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)`$
$`+(2q^3+q^5)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)+(3q^3+2q^4+3q^5)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_3)`$
$`+qV(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_3+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)+(2q^4+5q^5+5q^6+3q^7+q^8)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2)`$
$`+(q^2+2q^3+q^4)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)`$
$`+(4q^6+2q^7+4q^8+q^9+q^{10})V(2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1)`$
$`+(4q^4+q^5+2q^6)V(2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)+q^2V(2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)+q^2V(2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_3)`$
$`+(q^3+q^4+q^5)V(2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2)+(2q^5+q^6+q^7)V(3\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1)`$
$`+q^3V(3\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4)+q^4V(4\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1),`$
$`𝒲_1^{(4)}=q^2V(0)+qV(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1)+V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4).`$
In addition we have a conjecture for $`𝒲_s^{(a)}(a=1,2,4)`$:

$`𝒲_s^{(1)}={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{s}{}}}q^{sk}V(k\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1),`$
$`𝒲_s^{(2)}={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j_1+j_2+2j_3+j_4s\\ j_1,j_2,j_3,j_4_0\end{array}}{}}\mathrm{min}(1+j_2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+sj_1j_22j_3j_4)q^{3s2j_13j_24j_32j_4}`$
$`\times \left[\begin{array}{c}j_1+1\\ 1\end{array}\right]_qV\left(j_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+j_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2+j_3\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_3+j_4\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4\right),`$
$`𝒲_s^{(4)}={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j_1+j_4s\\ j_1,j_4_0\end{array}}{}}q^{2sj_12j_4}V\left(j_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+j_4\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4\right).`$
The conjecture has been checked for $`1s8`$. In addition, we have observed that the support for $`V\left(j_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+j_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2+j_3\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_3+j_4\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_4\right)`$ in $`𝒲_s^{(3)}`$ is given by the condition $`j_1+2j_2+2j_3+j_42s,[(j_2+1)/2]+j_3+j_4s,j_1,j_2,j_3,j_4_0`$ at least for $`1s7`$191919Unlike $`x`$ in Conjecture 2.1 (1), the symbol $`[x]`$ here denotes the greatest integer not exceeding $`x`$..
$`𝔤=D_4^{(3)}`$ :

$`𝒲_1^{(1)}=qV(0)+V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1),`$
$`𝒲_1^{(2)}=q^3V(0)+(q+q^2)V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1)+V(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2).`$
In addition we have a conjecture for $`𝒲_s^{(a)}`$:

$`𝒲_s^{(1)}={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{s}{}}}q^{sk}V(k\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1),`$
$`𝒲_s^{(2)}={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j_1+j_2s\\ j_1,j_2_0\end{array}}{}}\mathrm{min}(1+j_2,1+sj_1j_2)q^{3s2j_13j_2}`$
$`\times \left[\begin{array}{c}j_1+1\\ 1\end{array}\right]_qV(j_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1+j_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2).`$
The conjecture has been checked for $`1s20`$. This is consistent with the $`q=1`$ result (6.11).

## Appendix B  Explicit form of Proposition 4.10

Let us write down (4.37) explicitly for each $`𝔤`$. In describing the data $`\nu ^{}`$ (4.39), we use the symbols:

$`\nu =\{\nu _k\}_{k1},s\nu =\{s\nu _k\}_{k1}(s=2,3),`$
$`\xi _2=\{\nu _{\frac{k}{2}}\}_{k1},\xi _3=\{\nu _{\frac{k}{3}}\}_{k1}(\nu _{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{integer}}=0),`$
$`\eta _2=\{2\nu _{2k}+\nu _{2k1}+\nu _{2k+1}\}_{k1},`$
$`\eta _3=\{3\nu _{3k}+2(\nu _{3k1}+\nu _{3k+1})+\nu _{3k2}+\nu _{3k+2}\}_{k1}.`$
To simplify the presentation we find it convenient to introduce the fermionic formula $`_{q,\nu }^{(a)}(𝔤|\mu )`$ (see (4.35)) formally for $`𝔤=\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}B_2^{(1)},D_3^{(1)}`$ and $`A_3^{(2)}`$”. These algebras were out of the list in the beginning of Section 2.1, but it is natural to set

$$\begin{array}{cc}& _{q,\nu }^{(a)}(B_2^{(1)}|\underset{c=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mu _c\alpha _c)=_{q,\nu }^{(3a)}(C_2^{(1)}|\underset{c=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mu _{3c}\alpha _c)a=1,2,\hfill \\ & _{q,\nu }^{(a)}(D_3^{(1)}|\underset{c=1}{\overset{3}{}}\mu _c\alpha _c)=_{q,\nu }^{(a^{})}(A_3^{(1)}|\underset{c=1}{\overset{3}{}}\mu _c^{}\alpha _c)1a3,(1^{},2^{},3^{})=(2,1,3),\hfill \\ & _{q,\nu }^{(a)}(A_3^{(2)}|\underset{c=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mu _c\alpha _c)=_{q,\nu }^{(3a)}(D_3^{(2)}|\underset{c=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mu _{3c}\alpha _c)a=1,2.\hfill \end{array}$$

These relations are relevant to $`(𝔤,b)=(B_n^{(1)},n2),(D_n^{(1)},n3)`$ and $`(A_{2n1}^{(2)},n2)`$ in the following. In view of (4.29), there is a symmetry

$$_{q,\nu }^{(a)}(𝔤|\mu )=_{q,\nu }^{(\sigma (a))}(𝔤|\sigma (\mu )),$$
(B.1)
for the algebras $`𝔤=A_n^{(1)},D_n^{(1)}`$ and $`E_6^{(2)}`$. Therefore the factor $`_{q,\nu }^{(2)}(A_2^{(1)}|\mu _1\alpha _1+\mu _2\alpha _2)`$ for example in $`(𝔤,b)=(E_6^{(1)},3)`$ can also be written as $`_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_2^{(1)}|\mu _2\alpha _1+\mu _1\alpha _2)`$. There are several places in the following results where one has a freedom to make such replacements. Finally we employ the convention $`_{q,\nu }^{(a)}(A_0^{(1)}|\mu )=1`$.

$`𝔤=A_n^{(1)}:`$

$$\underset{\nu }{}\frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}_{q,\nu }^{(b1)}(A_{b1}^{(1)}|\underset{j=1}{\overset{b1}{}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_{nb}^{(1)}|\underset{j=1}{\overset{nb}{}}\mu _{b+j}\alpha _j).$$

$`𝔤=B_n^{(1)}:`$

$`bn2,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(b1)}(A_{b1}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{b1}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(B_{nb}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nb}{}}}\mu _{b+j}\alpha _j),`$
$`b=n1,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(n2)}(A_{n2}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q,\xi _2}^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _n\alpha _1),`$
$`b=n,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\eta _2}^{(n1)}(A_{n1}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j).`$
$`𝔤=C_n^{(1)}:`$

$`bn2,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(b1)}(A_{b1}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{b1}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(C_{nb}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nb}{}}}\mu _{b+j}\alpha _j),`$
$`b=n1,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(n2)}(A_{n2}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q,\eta _2}^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _n\alpha _1),`$
$`b=n,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\xi _2}^{(n1)}(A_{n1}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j).`$
$`𝔤=D_n^{(1)}:`$

$`bn3,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(b1)}(A_{b1}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{b1}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(D_{nb}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nb}{}}}\mu _{b+j}\alpha _j),`$
$`b=n2,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(n3)}(A_{n3}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n3}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _{n1}\alpha _1)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _n\alpha _1),`$
$`b=n1,n,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(n2)}(A_{n1}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j+\mu _{\overline{b}}\alpha _{n1}),`$
where in the last line, $`\overline{b}`$ is determined by $`\{b,\overline{b}\}=\{n1,n\}`$.

$`𝔤=E_6^{(1)}:`$

$`b=1,5,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(4)}(D_5^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\mu _{((b3)j3(b5))/2}\alpha _j+\mu _6\alpha _5),`$
$`b=2,4,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _{2b3}\alpha _1)_{q,\nu }^{(3)}(A_4^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mu _{(b3)j3(b4)}\alpha _j+\mu _6\alpha _4),`$
$`b=3,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(2)}(A_2^{(1)}|\mu _1\alpha _1+\mu _2\alpha _2)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_2^{(1)}|\mu _4\alpha _1+\mu _5\alpha _2)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _6\alpha _1),`$
$`b=6,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(3)}(A_5^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j).`$
$`𝔤=E_7^{(1)}:`$

$`b=1,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(5)}(D_6^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}}\mu _{7j}\alpha _j+\mu _7\alpha _6),`$
$`b=2,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _1\alpha _1)_{q,\nu }^{(2)}(A_5^{(1)}|\mu _7\alpha _1+{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{5}{}}}\mu _{j+1}\alpha _j),`$
$`b=3,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(2)}(A_2^{(1)}|\mu _1\alpha _1+\mu _2\alpha _2)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_3^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mu _{j+3}\alpha _j)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _7\alpha _1),`$
$`b=4,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(3)}(A_4^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j+\mu _7\alpha _4)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_2^{(1)}|\mu _5\alpha _1+\mu _6\alpha _2),`$
$`b=5,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(4)}(D_5^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j+\mu _7\alpha _5)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _6\alpha _1),`$
$`b=6,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(5)}(E_6^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j+\mu _7\alpha _6),`$
$`b=7,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(3)}(A_6^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j).`$
$`𝔤=E_8^{(1)}:`$

$`b=1,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(6)}(E_7^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}}\mu _{8j}\alpha _j+\mu _8\alpha _7),`$
$`b=2,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _1\alpha _1)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(E_6^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}}\mu _{j+2}\alpha _j+\mu _8\alpha _6),`$
$`b=3,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(2)}(A_2^{(1)}|\mu _1\alpha _1+\mu _2\alpha _2)_{q,\nu }^{(4)}(D_5^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\mu _{8j}\alpha _j+\mu _8\alpha _5),`$
$`b=4,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(3)}(A_3^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q,\nu }^{(2)}(A_4^{(1)}|\mu _8\alpha _1+{\displaystyle \underset{j=2}{\overset{4}{}}}\mu _{j+3}\alpha _j),`$
$`b=5,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(4)}(A_4^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _8\alpha _1)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_2^{(1)}|\mu _6\alpha _1+\mu _7\alpha _2),`$
$`b=6,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(5)}(A_6^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{5}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j+\mu _8\alpha _6)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _7\alpha _1),`$
$`b=7,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(6)}(D_7^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j+\mu _8\alpha _7),`$
$`b=8,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(5)}(A_7^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{7}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j).`$
$`𝔤=F_4^{(1)}:`$

$`b=1,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(3)}(C_3^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mu _{5j}\alpha _j),`$
$`b=2,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _1\alpha _1)_{q,\xi _2}^{(1)}(A_2^{(1)}|\mu _3\alpha _1+\mu _4\alpha _2),`$
$`b=3,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\eta _2}^{(2)}(A_2^{(1)}|\mu _1\alpha _1+\mu _2\alpha _2)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _4\alpha _1),`$
$`b=4,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(3)}(B_3^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j).`$
$`𝔤=G_2^{(1)}:`$

$`b=1,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\xi _3}^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _2\alpha _1),`$
$`b=2,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\eta _3}^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _1\alpha _1).`$
$`𝔤=A_{2n}^{(2)}:`$

$`bn1,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{2\psi }}{_i(q^2)_{\nu _i}}}_{q^2,\nu }^{(b1)}(A_{b1}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{b1}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_{2n2b}^{(2)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nb}{}}}\mu _{b+j}\alpha _j),`$
$`b=n,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q^2)_{\nu _i}}}_{q^2,\nu }^{(n1)}(A_{n1}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j).`$
$`𝔤=A_{2n1}^{(2)}:`$

$`bn2,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(b1)}(A_{b1}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{b1}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_{2n2b1}^{(2)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nb}{}}}\mu _{b+j}\alpha _j),`$
$`b=n1,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(n2)}(A_{n2}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q^2,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _n\alpha _1),`$
$`b=n,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{2\psi }}{_i(q^2)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,2\nu }^{(n1)}(A_{n1}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j).`$
$`𝔤=D_{n+1}^{(2)}:`$

$`bn2,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{2\psi }}{_i(q^2)_{\nu _i}}}_{q^2,\nu }^{(b1)}(A_{b1}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{b1}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(D_{nb+1}^{(2)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{nb}{}}}\mu _{b+j}\alpha _j),`$
$`b=n1,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{2\psi }}{_i(q^2)_{\nu _i}}}_{q^2,\nu }^{(n2)}(A_{n2}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n2}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j)_{q,2\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _n\alpha _1),`$
$`b=n,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q^2,\nu }^{(n1)}(A_{n1}^{(1)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j).`$
$`𝔤=E_6^{(2)}:`$

$`b=1,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(3)}(D_4^{(2)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mu _{5j}\alpha _j),`$
$`b=2,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _1\alpha _1)_{q^2,\nu }^{(1)}(A_2^{(1)}|\mu _3\alpha _1+\mu _4\alpha _2),`$
$`b=3,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{2\psi }}{_i(q^2)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,2\nu }^{(2)}(A_2^{(1)}|\mu _1\alpha _1+\mu _2\alpha _2)_{q^2,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _4\alpha _1),`$
$`b=4,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{2\psi }}{_i(q^2)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,\nu }^{(3)}(A_5^{(2)}|{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mu _j\alpha _j).`$
$`𝔤=D_4^{(3)}:`$

$`b=1,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^\psi }{_i(q)_{\nu _i}}}_{q^3,\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _2\alpha _1),`$
$`b=2,{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{3\psi }}{_i(q^3)_{\nu _i}}}_{q,3\nu }^{(1)}(A_1^{(1)}|\mu _1\alpha _1).`$
The decomposition into subalgebras for nontwisted cases exhibits the same pattern as the Bethe ansatz calculation of central charges in “regime II” RSOS models. See eq.(3.9) in \[Ku\].

## Appendix C  Solution to $`𝑩_𝒏^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ $`𝑸`$-system by $`𝑫_𝒏`$ characters

Here we present a solution of the unrestricted $`Q`$-system (6.1) for $`𝔤=B_n^{(1)}`$ in terms of the character of a classical subalgebra $`𝔤^{}=D_nB_n^{(1)}`$. If $`𝔤`$ is nontwisted and non-exceptional, i.e., if $`𝔤=X_n^{(1)}=A_n^{(1)},B_n^{(1)},C_n^{(1)},D_n^{(1)}`$, this is the unique case where the classical subalgebra $`𝔤^{}𝔤`$ obtained by removing an end point of the Dynkin diagram differs from $`X_n`$. A result for $`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(B_n^{(1)},B_n)`$ case is available in \[KR2, HKOTY1\]. Let us introduce the linear combination of characters:

$`\chi _j^{(a)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{ch}V(k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^{}+k_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2^{}+\mathrm{}+k_a\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a^{})\hfill & \text{if}1an2,\hfill \\ \text{ch}V(k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^{}+k_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2^{}+\mathrm{}+k_{n2}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{n2}^{}\hfill & \\ +k_{n1}\overline{\omega }_{n1})\hfill & \text{if}a=n1,\hfill \\ \text{ch}V(k_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1^{}+k_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2^{}+\mathrm{}+k_{n2}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{n2}^{}\hfill & \\ +(k_{n1}+\frac{1}{2}|k_n|)\overline{\omega }_{n1}+\frac{1}{2}k_n\overline{\omega }_n)\hfill & \text{if}a=n.\hfill \end{array}`$ (C.1)
Here $`\text{ch}V(\lambda )`$ denotes the irreducible $`D_n`$ character with highest weight $`\lambda `$. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a^{}(1an)`$ are the fundamental weights of $`D_n`$. We have also used the convention $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0^{}=0`$ and $`\overline{\omega }_{n1}=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{n1}^{}+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n^{}`$, $`\overline{\omega }_n=\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{n1}^{}+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n^{}`$. The sums in (C.1) are taken as follows.

$`\mathrm{For}an1:k_1,\mathrm{},k_a_0,k_1\mathrm{}+k_aj,`$
$`\mathrm{For}a=n:k_1,\mathrm{},k_{n1}_0,k_n,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}(k_1+\mathrm{}+k_{n1})+|k_n|j,`$
$`k_nj2.`$
If one depicts the highest weights in (C.1)a≤n-2 with Young diagrams as usual, they correspond to those obtained from the $`a\times j`$ rectangle by successively removing $`1\times 1`$ pieces. We note that $`\chi _j^{(n1)}=\text{ch}V(j\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{n1}^{}+j\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n^{})+\mathrm{}`$ and $`\chi _j^{(n)}=\text{ch}V(j\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{n1}^{})+\text{ch}V(j\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{n1}^{})+\mathrm{}`$.

The $`D_n`$ character $`\text{ch}V(\lambda )`$ belongs to $`[x_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},x_n^{\pm 1}]`$, where $`x_a=e^{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_a^{}}`$ is a complex variable. One can show Theorem 6.2 (B) for $`(𝔤,𝔤^{})=(B_n^{(1)},D_n)`$ for the $`\chi _j^{(a)}`$ given by (C.1). However, (A) and (C) no longer hold. For example instead of (C), one has

$`\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\chi _j^{(a)}}{\chi _{j+1}^{(a)}}}\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x_a^1\hfill & \text{if}1an2,\hfill \\ (x_{n1}x_n)^1\hfill & \text{if}a=n1,\hfill \\ x_{n1}^1\hfill & \text{if}a=n\text{and}|e^{\alpha _{n1}^{}}|>|e^{\alpha _n^{}}|,\hfill \\ x_n^1\hfill & \text{if}a=n\text{and}|e^{\alpha _{n1}^{}}|<|e^{\alpha _n^{}}|,\hfill \end{array}`$ (C.2)
in the domain $`|e^{\alpha _1^{}}|,\mathrm{},|e^{\alpha _n^{}}|>1`$, where $`\alpha _a^{}`$ denotes a simple root of $`D_n`$.

The fact that the $`D_n`$ character $`\chi _j^{(a)}`$ satisfies the $`Q`$-system of type $`𝔤=B_n^{(1)}`$ can be shown by using Theorem 7.1 (B) for $`B_n^{(1)}`$ in \[HKOTY1\], a branching rule for $`O(2n+1)O(2n)`$ (see for example, \[W\]) and $`O(n)SO(n)`$ (see for example, p.471 of \[KT\]).

## Appendix D  Examples of combinatorial $`𝑹`$ matrices

In this Appendix we provide explicit data of the isomorphism $`B^{1,s_1}B^{1,s_2}B^{1,s_2}B^{1,s_1}`$ $`(1s_2s_12)`$ and energy function for $`𝔤=B_3^{(1)},C_2^{(1)},D_4^{(1)},A_3^{(2)}`$, $`A_4^{(2)},D_3^{(2)}`$ and $`D_4^{(3)}`$. Suppose $`bc\stackrel{~}{c}\stackrel{~}{b}`$ and $`H(bc)=h`$ under the isomorphism $`B^{1,s_1}B^{1,s_2}B^{1,s_2}B^{1,s_1}`$. For each $`B^{1,s_1}B^{1,s_2}`$, we list the data in a table whose row is labeled with $`b`$ and column with $`c`$. At the position corresponding to the $`b`$-th row and $`c`$-th column, we put $`\stackrel{~}{c}\stackrel{~}{b}_h`$ if $`s_1s_2`$. If $`s_1=s_2`$, the isomorphism is trivial in that $`b=\stackrel{~}{c}`$ and $`c=\stackrel{~}{b}`$, therefore we just put $`h`$. Due to the limitation of space, tables for $`B^{1,2}B^{1,2}`$ for $`B_3^{(1)},D_4^{(1)}`$ and $`D_4^{(3)}`$ are not included.

Let us comment on the relevant earlier results. For $`𝔤=A_n^{(1)}`$, there is a simple algorithm to find these data in \[NY1\]. For $`𝔤`$ non-exceptional type other than $`A_n^{(1)}`$, an algorithm is available for general $`s_1,s_2`$ based on an insertion scheme \[HKOT1, HKOT2\]. If $`𝔤`$ is non-exceptional and $`s_1=s_2`$, there is a piecewise linear formula to find $`H(bc)`$ for general $`s_1`$ in \[KKM\]. (Although for $`C_n^{(1)}`$ \[KKM\] only treats $`s_1`$ even case, the results therein are valid also for odd $`s_1`$ under an appropriate adjustment.)

In \[KKM\], elements of crystals $`B^{1,s}`$ are labeled by the vectors with non-negative integer coordinates $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,\overline{x}_n,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_1)`$ ($`𝔤=C_n^{(1)},D_n^{(1)},A_{2n}^{(2)},A_{2n1}^{(2)}`$) or $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,x_0,\overline{x}_n,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_1)`$ ($`𝔤=B_n^{(1)},D_{n+1}^{(1)}`$). Here we represent them as $`1^{x_1}\mathrm{}n^{x_n}(0^{x_0})\overline{n}^{\overline{x}_n}\mathrm{}\overline{1}^{\overline{x}_1}`$ if not all of the coordinates are zero. In case they are all zero, such a crystal element is denoted by $`\varphi `$. All the tables given below are typeset by automatically transforming the output from a computer.