format: text

text:
# 1 Affine flag variety and Weyl group

## 1 Affine flag variety and Weyl group

We begin by describing the loop group and its flag variety as a classical group. For more details of the material of this section see Pressley-Segal , Kac-Raina , Slodowy , Kazhdan-Lusztig , Kumar \[6, Appendix C\], Shi , Bjorner-Brenti , and Eriksson-Eriksson .

### 1.1 Loop group and affine flag variety

Let $`𝐤`$ be an arbitrary field, and $`F:=𝐤((t))`$, the field of formal Laurent series $`f(t)=_{iN}a_it^i`$ with $`a_i𝐤`$; and $`A:=𝐤[[t]]`$, the ring of formal Taylor series. For such $`f(t)0`$, we let $`ord(f)`$ be the smallest integer $`N`$ for which $`a_N0`$.

Fix a positive integer $`n`$, and define $`G=\widehat{\mathrm{GL}}_n(𝐤):=GL_n(F)`$, the group of invertible $`n\times n`$ matrices with coefficients in $`F`$. We call this the loop group because for $`𝐤=`$ we may think of $`G`$ as a completion of the group of polynomial maps from the circle $`S^1^\times `$ to $`GL_n()`$.

Let $`G_j:=\{gGorddetg=j\}`$, so that $`G_jG_k=G_{j+k}`$, and for any $`\sigma G_1`$, we have $`G_j=\sigma ^jG_0=G_0\sigma ^j`$, and $`G=_jG_j.`$ This should be thought of as the decomposition of $`G`$ into connected components. (For $`𝐤=`$, and $`g`$ a polynomial map, the number $`orddetg`$ is the winding number of the loop $`detg:S^1^\times `$, and the $`G_j`$ are the connected components of $`G`$ in the appropriate compact-open topology.)

Let $`V:=F^n`$, a vector space over $`F`$ with a natural action of $`G`$. Let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ denote the standard $`F`$-basis of $`V`$, and for $`c`$, define $`e_{i+nc}:=t^ce_i`$. (Thus, $`\{e_i\}_i`$ is a $`𝐤`$-basis of $`V`$, in the sense appropriate to a topological vector space with the $`t`$-adic topology.)

An $`A`$-lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$ is the $`A`$-submodule $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=Av_1\mathrm{}Av_n`$, where $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$ is an $`F`$-basis of $`V`$. We may write $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=Span_𝐤v_i_{i1}`$, the space of infinite $`𝐤`$-linear combinations of the vectors $`v_{i+nc}:=t^cv_i`$. Consider the family of standard $`A`$-lattices:

$$E_j:=Span_Ae_j,e_{j+1},\mathrm{}e_{j+n1}=Span_𝐤e_i_{ij}.$$

Note that $`E_j=\sigma ^jE_1`$, where we use the shift operator $`\sigma (e_i):=e_{i+1}`$, or as a matrix:

$$\sigma =\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& t\\ 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 0\end{array}\right)G_1$$

The affine Grassmannian $`Gr(V)`$ is the space of all $`A`$-lattices of $`V`$. Clearly $`Gr(V)`$ is a homogeneous space with respect to the obvious action of $`G`$, and the stabilizer of the standard lattice $`E_1`$ is $`P_{\widehat{0}}:=GL_n(A)`$, the subgroup of matrices with coefficients in $`A`$ and with determinant having $`ord=0`$. Thus $`Gr(V)G/P_{\widehat{0}}`$, and the connected components of the Grassmannian are $`Gr_j(V):=G_0E_j=G_jE_1G_j/P_{\widehat{0}}`$. In fact, $`Gr_j(V):=\{\mathrm{\Lambda }vdim(\mathrm{\Lambda })=j\}`$, where we define the virtual dimension

$$vdim(\mathrm{\Lambda }):=dim_𝐤(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }E_1)dim_𝐤(E_1/E_1\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

The complete affine flag variety $`Fl(V)`$ is the space of all flags of lattices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_n)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_nt\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`dim_𝐤(\mathrm{\Lambda }_j/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j+1})=1`$. There always exists an $`F`$-basis $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$ of $`V`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j=Span_Av_j,\mathrm{},v_n,tv_1,\mathrm{},tv_{j1}`$ $`=Span_𝐤v_i_{ij}`$, where $`i`$ runs over all integers not less than $`j`$, and $`v_{i+nc}:=t^cv_i`$. The standard flag is $`E_{}:=(E_1\mathrm{}E_n)`$, whose stabilizer $`B`$ is the subgroup of matrices $`bP_{\widehat{0}}`$ which are lower-triangular modulo $`t`$:

$$B:=\{b=(b_{ij})GL_n(A)ord(b_{ij})>0i<j\}.$$

Thus, $`Fl(V)G/B`$, with connected components $`Fl_j(V):=G_jE_{}G_j/B=\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}vdim(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)=j\}`$. Furthermore, the projection $`Fl(V)Gr(V)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ is a bundle whose fiber is the space of complete flags in the $`n`$-dimensional $`𝐤`$-vector space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/t\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$.

### 1.2 Affine Weyl group

We first discuss $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$, the Weyl group of the disconnected group $`G`$; and then $`W`$, the Weyl group of the connected component $`G_0`$.

Let $`S_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the group of bijections $`\pi :`$, and let $`\sigma :ii+1`$ be the shift bijection. Let $`\stackrel{~}{W}S_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the subgroup of bijections which commute with the $`n`$th power of $`\sigma `$: that is, $`\stackrel{~}{W}:=\{\pi S_{\mathrm{}}\pi \tau =\tau \pi \}`$, where $`\tau :=\sigma ^n:ii+n`$.

For $`𝐜=(c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)^n`$, define an element of $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$$`\tau ^𝐜:ii+nc_{(imodn)}`$. This gives an embedding of the additive group $`^n\stackrel{~}{W}`$. Furthermore, we have the embedding $`S_n\stackrel{~}{W}`$ with $`\overline{\pi }(i+nc):=\overline{\pi }(i)+nc`$ for $`\overline{\pi }S_n`$. Then we may write any element $`\pi \stackrel{~}{W}`$ as $`\pi =\overline{\pi }\tau ^𝐜`$ for unique $`\overline{\pi }S_n`$, $`𝐜^n`$, and we have $`\overline{\pi }_1\tau ^{𝐜_1}\overline{\pi }_2\tau ^{𝐜_2}=\overline{\pi }_1\overline{\pi }_2\tau ^{\overline{\pi }_2^1(𝐜_1)+𝐜_2}`$. That is, $`\stackrel{~}{W}=S_n\times ^n`$, a semi-direct product. The normal subgroup $`^n`$ is the kernel of the homomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{W}S_n`$ which takes each $`\pi :`$ to a permutation of cosets $`\overline{\pi }:/n/n`$.

Thus, an element $`\pi \stackrel{~}{W}`$ is equivalent to a sequence of integers $`[\pi (1),\mathrm{},\pi (n)]`$ such that $`i\overline{\pi }(i)`$ defines a permutation of $`/n`$. For example, in this one-line notation $`\sigma =[2,3,\mathrm{},n+1]`$ and $`\tau ^𝐜=[1+nc_1,2+nc_2,\mathrm{},n+nc_n]`$.

We obtain another useful notation by embedding $`\stackrel{~}{W}G`$. If we let $`\pi =\overline{\pi }\tau ^𝐜W`$ act $`F`$-linearly on $`V`$ by $`\pi (e_i):=e_{\pi (i)}`$, the corresponding matrix is the affine permutation matrix $`(a_{ij})`$ with $`a_{\overline{\pi }(i),i}=t^{c_i}`$. For example, $`\sigma `$ becomes the matrix in $`G_1`$ of the previous section, $`\tau ^𝐜=diag(t^{c_1},\mathrm{},t^{c_n})`$, and $`\tau =\tau ^{(1,\mathrm{},1)}=diag(t,\mathrm{},t)`$,

Using this embedding, we may show that $`\stackrel{~}{W}N_G(\widehat{T})/\widehat{T}`$, where $`\widehat{T}`$ is the subgroup of diagonal matrices with entries in $`A`$.

Considering the embedding $`\stackrel{~}{W}G`$, we define

$$W_j:=\stackrel{~}{W}G_j=\left\{\pi \stackrel{~}{W}\right|\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\pi (i)i=j\},W:=W_0.$$

Thus $`W`$ is a normal subgroup of $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$, and we have $`W=S_n\times _0^n`$, where $`_0^n:=^nW=\{𝐜_{i=1}^nc_i=0\}`$. That is, $`W\widehat{S}_n`$, the affine Weyl group of extended Dynkin type $`\widehat{A}_{n1}`$.

Define the simple reflections $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_{n1}`$ in $`W`$ by $`s_i(i)=i+1`$, $`s_i(i+1)=i`$, and $`s_i(j)=j`$ for $`ji,i+1modn`$. We shall sometimes denote $`s_n:=s_0`$. Then $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_{n1}`$ are involutions generating $`W`$ and satisfying the Coxeter relations $`(s_is_{i+1})^3=id`$ for $`0in1`$, and $`(s_is_j)^2=id`$ otherwise. We have a semi-direct product $`\stackrel{~}{W}=\sigma \times W`$. Here $`\sigma `$ acts on $`W`$ via the outer automorphism: $`\sigma s_i\sigma ^1=s_{i+1}`$.

The Bruhat length $`\mathrm{}(\pi )`$ is defined as usual for $`\pi W`$, as the smallest number of simple reflections whose product is $`\pi `$; and we extend this to $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ by letting $`\mathrm{}(\sigma ^j\pi ):=\mathrm{}(\pi )`$. We have J. Shi’s formula :

$$\mathrm{}(\pi )=\underset{1i<jn}{}\left|floor(\frac{\pi (j)\pi (i)}{n})\right|,$$

where $`floor(x)`$ denotes the greatest integer not exceeding $`x`$. Lusztig showed:

$$\mathrm{}(\tau ^𝐜)=(n1)c_1+(n3)c_2+\mathrm{}+(n+3)c_{n1}+(n+1)c_n,$$

namely, the dot product of $`𝐜`$ with

$$2\rho ^{}:=(n1,n3,\mathrm{},n+3,n+1)=\underset{1i<jn}{}e_ie_j.$$

### 1.3 Wiring diagrams

The structure of the Weyl group is further elucidated by the loop wiring diagrams (cf. Berenstein-Fomin-Zelevinsky ). Consider a cylinder $`[0,1]\times S^1`$. On the right end, label each point $`(1,e^{2\pi \sqrt{1}i/n})`$ with the integer $`i`$, and similarly on the left end. Now, represent a permutation $`\pi =\overline{\pi }\tau ^𝐜\stackrel{~}{W}`$ by $`n`$ curves, each joining a point $`i`$ on the right to the point $`\overline{\pi }(i)`$ on the left, but looping counter-clockwise around the cylinder $`c_i`$ times.
Example. For $`n=3`$, the permutation $`\pi =[2,2,6]W`$, with $`\overline{\pi }=idS_3`$ and $`𝐜=(1,0,1)_0^3`$, is represented by the picture:

Here we represent our cylinder by identifying the top and bottom borders of the picture, so that each point $`i`$ on the right is connected to the same $`i`$ on the left (since $`\overline{\pi }=id`$). However, since $`𝐜=(1,0,1)`$, the curve starting from 1 travels once clockwise around the cylinder, the curve from 2 travels straight across, and the curve from 3 travels once counter-clockwise.

We may read off much combinatorial data from this picture. Since the curves have a total of 4 crossings, we conclude that $`\mathrm{}(\pi )=4`$. By listing these crossings, as well as crossings over the top and bottom margins, we obtain a reduced decomposition: $`\pi =s_2s_1s_2\sigma s_2\sigma ^1`$. That is, the leftmost crossing switches the top two curves, giving a factor $`s_2`$; the second switches the bottom two curves, $`s_1`$; again $`s_2`$; then the bottom curve crosses to the top, $`\sigma `$; again $`s_2`$; and finally the top curve crosses to the bottom, $`\sigma ^1`$. Using $`s_i\sigma =\sigma s_{i1}`$, we have $`\pi =s_2s_1s_2s_0`$.

### 1.4 Schubert varieties

By Gaussian elimination, we obtain the Bruhat decomposition of $`G`$ into double $`B`$-cosets: $`G=_{\pi \stackrel{~}{W}}B\pi B`$, where we consider each $`\pi `$ as an affine permutation matrix. Hence we also have a Bruhat decomposition of the affine flag variety $`Fl(V)=_{\pi \stackrel{~}{W}}X_\pi ^{}`$ into Schubert cells $`X_\pi ^{}:=B\pi E_{}`$, where $`\pi E_{}`$ is a translation of the standard flag $`E_{}=(E_1\mathrm{}E_n)`$. In particular, $`Fl_j(V)`$ is the union of all $`X_\pi ^{}`$ with $`\pi W_j`$. The Schubert cells can be defined by dimension constraints called Schubert conditions. For $`\pi W_j`$, we have:

$`X_\pi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}Fl(V)|\begin{array}{c}dim_𝐤(E_j/\mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_j)=\mathrm{\#}(_j\pi _i)\end{array}\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}Fl_j(V)|\begin{array}{c}dim_𝐤(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_j)=\mathrm{\#}(\pi _i_j)\end{array}\}`$
where $`_i`$ denotes the integers not less than $`i`$; we define $`\pi _i:=\{\pi (i),\pi (i+1),\mathrm{}\}`$; and $``$ denotes set complement. Indeed, the set on the right of the equation is clearly $`B`$-invariant, and $`\pi ^{}E_{}`$ lies in this set if and only if $`\pi ^{}=\pi `$.

The Schubert variety, meaning the topological closure $`X_\pi :=\overline{X_\pi ^{}}`$, is obtained by replacing $`=`$ in the above Schubert conditions with $``$. We say $`\pi \pi ^{}`$ in the Chevalley-Bruhat order if $`X_\pi X_\pi ^{}`$, and we can express this combinatorially as: $`\pi \pi ^{}`$ iff $`\mathrm{\#}\pi _i_j\mathrm{\#}\pi ^{}_i_j`$ for all $`1in`$$`j`$.

We explain below how $`X_\pi `$ has the structure of a projective algebraic variety. With this structure, the varieties $`X_\pi `$ include as special cases the familiar Schubert varieties for $`GL_n(𝐤)`$. In fact, for $`\pi =\overline{\pi }S_n\stackrel{~}{W}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}X_\pi `$, we have $`\pi (_1)=_1`$ and $`\pi (_{n+1})=_{n+1}`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1E_1=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1E_1`$. Also $`n=dim_𝐤(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1E_{n+1})dim_𝐤(E_1/E_{n+1})=n`$, so $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=E_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_it\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=E_{n+1}`$ for $`1in`$. Letting $`𝐤^n=E_1/E_{n+1}`$ and $`V_i:=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i/E_{n+1}`$, we thus find that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}X_\pi `$ is in natural correspondence with the complete flag

$$𝐤^n=V_1V_2\mathrm{}V_n0,$$

and the affine Schubert conditions on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}`$ are equivalent to the usual Schubert conditions

$$dim_𝐤(V_i\overline{E}_j)\mathrm{\#}(\pi [i,n][j,n])$$

relative to the standard flag $`\overline{E}_j:=E_j/E_{n+1}`$. For example, $`X_{id}=\{E_{}\}`$, a single point.

For a general $`\pi \stackrel{~}{W}`$, we can find $`a,b`$ so that $`_a\pi _i_b`$ for $`1in`$. Then any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}X_\pi `$ satisfies $`E_a\mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_b`$, and we may embed $`X_\pi `$ inside a partial flag variety of the finite-dimensional $`𝐤`$-vector space $`E_a/E_b`$. The flags in the image of this embedding must satisfy certain ordinary Schubert conditions, but they must also be stable under the nilpotent map induced on $`E_a/E_b`$ by $`tA`$. This makes $`X_\pi `$ into an algebraic variety over $`𝐤`$ (in fact, even defined over the integers).

We can imitate all the standard geometric constructions for Schubert varieties of $`GL_n(𝐤)`$. For example, we can show $`dim_𝐤X_\pi =\mathrm{}(\pi )`$; we can explicitly construct Bott-Samelson resolutions of $`X_\pi `$ as configuration varieties; and we can use the usual Frobenius-splitting arguments to show that the variety $`X_\pi `$ is normal, Cohen-Macaulay, etc.
Example. Consider as above $`n=3`$, $`\pi =[2,2,6]`$. Take $`a=2`$, $`b=4`$, and write:

$$X_\pi =\{(E_2\stackrel{3}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\stackrel{1}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\stackrel{1}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\stackrel{1}{}E_4)|\begin{array}{c}t\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_3,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2E_1\end{array}\},$$

where $`U\stackrel{d}{}V`$ means $`UV`$ and $`dim_𝐤(U/V)=d`$. All the Schubert conditions for $`X_\pi `$ follow from the conditions specified on the right side of the equation.

Let $`𝐤^6=E_2/E_4`$ with basis $`\{\overline{e}_2,\overline{e}_1,\overline{e}_0,\overline{e}_1,\overline{e}_2,\overline{e}_3\}`$, and take $`\overline{t}:𝐤^6𝐤^6`$, $`\overline{e}_i\overline{e}_{i+3}modE_4`$, so that $`\overline{t}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=0`$. Then we have the isomorphism

$$X_\pi \{(𝐤^6\stackrel{3}{}V_1\stackrel{1}{}V_2\stackrel{1}{}V_3\stackrel{1}{}0)|\begin{array}{c}\overline{t}(V_1)V_3,V_2\overline{E}_1\end{array}\},$$

a subvariety of a partial flag variety of $`GL_6(𝐤)`$ defined by Schubert conditions and the algebraic incidence condition $`\overline{t}(V_1)V_3`$.

Further, we can construct a Bott-Samelson variety corresponding to the reduced word $`\pi =s_2s_1s_2s_0`$:

$$Z_{2120}:=\{\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_3,\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^{})\\ Gr(V)^4\end{array}|\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & E_2& & E_3& & \\ & & & & & & \\ E_1& & & & \mathrm{\Lambda }_3^{}& & tE_1\\ & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_1& & \mathrm{\Lambda }_2& & \mathrm{\Lambda }_3& & t\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\end{array}\},$$

where each arrow $`UV`$ indicates the condition $`U\stackrel{1}{}V`$. We may build up this variety by starting with a single point (the standard flag) and successively adding the spaces $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, corresponding to the reflections $`s_2,s_1,s_2,s_0`$. Clearly $`Z_{2120}`$ is an iterated $`^1`$-fibration (thus smooth), and it maps birationally to $`X_\pi `$ by dropping $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^{}`$. (In this case, $`X_\pi `$ happens to be smooth itself.) Note that the pattern of inclusions defining $`Z_{2120}`$ is the dual graph of the wiring diagram (turned sideways).

### 1.5 Partial flag variety and opposite cell

A subset $`I[0,n1]`$ corresponds to a parabolic subgroup $`GP_IB`$ with Weyl group $`W_I:=s_i_{iI}W`$. For $`I0`$, the partial flag variety corresponding to the complement $`\widehat{I}:=[0,n1]I`$ is:

$$G/P_{\widehat{I}}\left\{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_h)\right|\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Lambda }_j\text{a lattice},\mathrm{\Lambda }_ht\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\\ dim(\mathrm{\Lambda }_j\mathrm{\Lambda }_{j+1})=i_{j+1}i_j\end{array}\}.$$

We shall find it convenient to index parabolics by compositions of $`n`$: that is, sequences of positive integers $`𝐝=(d_1,\mathrm{},d_h)`$ with $`d_1+\mathrm{}+d_h=n`$. Given $`I=\{0=i_1<\mathrm{}<i_h\}`$, let $`i_{h+1}:=n`$, and define a composition by $`d_j:=i_{j+1}i_j`$ (so that $`i_j=d_1+\mathrm{}+d_{j1}`$). Then we may rewrite the above more concisely as:

$$G/P_{\widehat{I}}Fl(𝐝;V):=\{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\stackrel{d_1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{d_{h1}}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_h\stackrel{d_h}{}t\mathrm{\Lambda }_1)\}.$$

Denoting $`W_𝐝:=W_{\widehat{I}}`$ and $`E_{(j)}:=E_{1+i_j}`$$`E_{()}:=(E_{(1)}\mathrm{}E_{(h)})`$, we have:

$$Fl(𝐝;V)=\underset{\pi W_𝐝\stackrel{~}{W}/W_𝐝}{}B\pi E_{()}.$$

In particular, for $`I=\{0\}`$$`𝐝=(n)`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{W}/W_𝐝=\stackrel{~}{W}/S_n^n`$, and

$$Gr(V)=G/P_{\widehat{0}}=\underset{𝐜^n}{}X_𝐜^{},$$

where $`X_𝐜^{}:=B\tau ^𝐜E_1=\{\mathrm{\Lambda }dim(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }E_j)=\mathrm{\#}(\tau ^𝐜_1_j)\}.`$

Next, for any Schubert variety $`X_\pi `$, we define a certain affine open subset, the opposite cell $`X_\pi ^{}X_\pi `$ (meaning the opposite to the cell $`X_\pi ^{}X_\pi `$, though $`X_\pi ^{}`$ itself is generally not a topological cell). Let $`E_k^{}:=Span_𝐤e_i_{i<k}`$ be the complementary space to $`E_k`$. Note that $`E_k^{}`$ is not an $`A`$-lattice in $`V`$: rather, it is a lattice over the ring $`A^{}=k[t^1]F`$. For $`\pi W`$, define $`X_\pi ^{}X_\pi Fl_0(V)`$ as the set of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}X_\pi `$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_i^{}=0`$ for $`1in`$. For example, $`E_{}X_\pi ^{}`$ for any $`\pi W`$.

\[Note: The condition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_i^{}=0`$ is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_i^{}=V`$. Proof: Recall that $`dim_𝐤(\mathrm{\Lambda }_i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_i)dim_𝐤(E_i/E_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)=0`$, and let $`\varphi :\mathrm{\Lambda }_i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_iE_i^{}E_i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_iE_i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_i`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_i^{}=Ker(\varphi )=0`$ $``$ $`Im(\varphi )=E_i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_i`$ $``$ $`E_i^{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=E_i^{}+E_i=V`$.\]

More generally, for $`\pi W_k=\sigma ^kW`$$`X_\pi Fl_k(V)`$, we let

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X_\pi ^{}& :=& \{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}X_\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_{i+k}^{}=0,1in\}\hfill \\ & =& \{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}X_\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }_iE_{i+k}^{}=V,1in\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus $`\sigma ^kE_{}X_\pi ^{}`$. We define $`X_\pi ^{}X_\pi Fl_k(𝐝,V)`$ similarly: e.g., for $`X_\pi ^{}X_\pi Gr(V)`$, we require $`\mathrm{\Lambda }E_{k+1}^{}=0`$, so $`E_{k+1}X_\pi ^{}`$.

Now we examine certain affine Grassmannian Schubert varieties which will occur in the following section. Suppose $`𝐜=(c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)`$ satisfies $`0c_1\mathrm{}c_nn`$ and $`c_1+\mathrm{}+c_n=n`$. Let $`c_j^{}:=\mathrm{\#}(\tau ^𝐜_1\tau ^j_1)=\mathrm{\#}\{ic_ij\}`$, the conjugate-complement partition of $`𝐜`$. Then we have:

$$X_𝐜^{}=\{\mathrm{\Lambda }Gr(V)E_1\mathrm{\Lambda }t^nE_1,dim(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }t^jE_1)=c_j^{},1jn\}$$

Since the maximal parabolic $`P_{\widehat{0}}`$ stabilizes $`t^jE_1`$, we have $`X_𝐜^{}=P_{\widehat{0}}\tau ^𝐜E_1`$. Furthermore, letting $`X_𝐜^{}:=X_𝐜^{}X_𝐜^{}`$, we obtain:

$$X_𝐜^{}=\{\mathrm{\Lambda }Gr(V)|\begin{array}{c}dim(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }t^jE_1)=c_j^{},1jn\\ E_1\mathrm{\Lambda }t^nE_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }t^nE_1^{}=0\end{array}\}.$$

Since $`GL_n(𝐤)P_{\widehat{0}}`$ is the joint stabilizer of $`t^jE_1`$ and $`t^jE_1^{}`$, we have $`X_𝐜^{}=GL_n(𝐤)\tau ^𝐜E_1`$.

## 2 Lusztig’s isomorphism

In this and the following section, we consider how certain varieties of matrices may be considered as opposite cells in affine Schubert varieties.

### 2.1 Nilpotent matrices

Let $`𝒩M_{n\times n}(𝐤)`$ be the set of nilpotent $`n\times n`$ complex matrices, on which $`GL_n(𝐤)`$ acts by conjugation. Lusztig  has given an equivariant algebraic isomorphism between $`𝒩`$ and the opposite cell of a Schubert variety in $`Gr(V)`$.

A matrix in $`GL_n(𝐤)`$ has a natural $`A`$-linear action on $`V`$, and for $`N𝒩`$ we can define $`\varphi _N:VV`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \varphi _N(v)& :=& \frac{t^{n1}}{1t^1N}(v)\hfill \\ & =& t^{n1}v+t^{n2}N(v)+t^{n3}N^2(v)+\mathrm{}+N^{n1}(v).\hfill \end{array}$$

Lusztig’s isomorphism is given by the map

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Phi }:& 𝒩& & Gr(V)\\ & N& & \varphi _N(E_1).\end{array}$$

Note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is $`GL_n(𝐤)`$-equivariant: for $`gGL_n(𝐤)`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }(gNg^1)=g\varphi _N(g^1E_1)=g\varphi _N(E_1)=g\mathrm{\Phi }(N)`$. We also have $`E_1\mathrm{\Phi }(N)t^nE_1`$ for all $`N𝒩`$.

We may parametrize the $`GL_n(𝐤)`$-orbits in $`𝒩`$ by $`n`$-tuples of integers $`𝐛=(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$, where $`nb_1\mathrm{}b_n0`$ and $`b_1+\mathrm{}+b_n=n`$. That is, the orbit $`𝒩_𝐛𝒩`$ consists of those nilpotents whose largest Jordan block has size $`b_1`$, the next largest has size $`b_2`$, etc. The open orbit of principal nilpotents is $`𝒩_{(n,0,\mathrm{},0)}`$, the closed orbit $`\{0\}=𝒩_{(1,\mathrm{},1)}`$.

Let $`𝐜=(nb_1,\mathrm{},nb_n)`$. Applying elementary linear algebra to the description of $`X_𝐜^{}`$ in the previous section, we may easily show that:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩_𝐛)=X_𝐜^{}\text{and}\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{𝒩}_𝐛)=X_𝐜^{},$$

where $`\overline{𝒩}_𝐛`$ denotes the closure. In particular,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒩)=X_{(0,n,\mathrm{},n)}^{}=\{\mathrm{\Lambda }Gr(V)\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{n}{}t^nE_1\}.$$

Example. Note that we can renormalize our map by a $`\tau `$-shift: $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{𝒩}_𝐛)=X_𝐜^{}X_{\tau ^j𝐜}^{}`$ (equivariant isomorphism) for any $`j`$. Thus for the example of §3, §4, we have: $`X_{(1,0,1)}^{}X_{(1,2,3)}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{𝒩}_{(2,1,0)})`$.
Let us write our map in coordinates. We represent $`v=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_ie_iE_1`$ (where $`a_i𝐤`$) by the semi-infinite column vector with entries $`a_i`$; and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=Span_Av_1,\mathrm{},v_nGr(V)`$ by the semi-infinite matrix $`[v_1,\mathrm{},v_n]`$. Then we may write

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(N)=\begin{array}{c}N^{n1}\\ \mathrm{}\\ N^2\\ N\\ I\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\end{array},$$

where $`I`$ is the identity matrix. From this we see how the Plucker coordinates (the $`n\times n`$ minors of this matrix) restrict to polynomial functions on $`𝒩`$. In particular, since the vanishing ideal of the Schubert subvarieties $`X_𝐜Gr(V)`$ is generated by the vanishing of certain Plucker coordinates, we obtain generators for the ideal of $`\overline{𝒩}_𝐛𝒩`$. (Cf. Weyman ).

### 2.2 Cyclic quivers

Lusztig  has generalized the above isomorphism (and simultaneously another isomorphism of Zelevinsky , ). The generalization involves a positive integer parameter $`h`$, with the case $`h=1`$ reducing to our discussion of nilpotent matrices.

The cyclic quiver $`\widehat{A}_{h1}`$ is the oriented graph:

For a fixed $`h`$-tuple of positive integers $`𝐝=(d_1,\mathrm{},d_h)`$, we define the $`𝐝`$-dimensional representations of this quiver to be the affine space

$$M_{d(h)\times d(1)}(𝐤)\times M_{d(1)\times d(2)}(𝐤)\times \mathrm{}\times M_{d(h1)\times d(h)}(𝐤).$$

(For legibility, we have written $`d(j)`$ instead of $`d_j`$.) That is, a representation $`(M_1,\mathrm{},M_h)`$ is a way of replacing each arrow $`ii1`$ by a linear map $`M_i:𝐤^{d(i)}𝐤^{d(i1)}`$, where we take $`d_0:=d_h`$. (For all $`j,k`$, we write $`d_{j+hk}:=d_j`$.) We have a natural action of the group $`GL_𝐝(𝐤):=GL_{d(1)}(𝐤)\times \mathrm{}\times GL_{d(h)}(𝐤)`$ on the space of representations:

$$(g_1,\mathrm{},g_h)(M_1,\mathrm{},M_h):=(g_hM_1g_1^1,g_1M_2g_2^1,\mathrm{},g_{h1}M_hg_h^1).$$

Our main concern is a certain $`GL_𝐝(𝐤)`$-stable subvariety $``$ of the representations, the space of nilpotent representations). We define:

$$=^𝐝:=\{(M_1,\mathrm{},M_h)M_1M_2\mathrm{}M_hM_{d(h)\times d(h)}(𝐤)\text{is nilpotent}\}.$$

The condition is equivalent to $`M_{j+1}M_{j+2}\mathrm{}M_hM_1\mathrm{}M_jM_{d(j)\times d(j)}(𝐤)`$ being nilpotent for any $`j`$. In general $``$ is a connected but reducible variety. I believe it has at most $`h`$ components, all of equal dimension.
Examples. (i) For $`𝐝=(1,1,1)`$, we have $`=\{(m_1,m_2,m_3)𝐤^3m_1m_2m_3=0\}`$, the union of the three coordinate planes. Similarly for $`𝐝=(1^n)`$.
(ii) For $`𝐝=(2,1,1)`$, we have $`=\{([m_1,m_1^{}],[m_2,m_2^{}]^T,m_3)(m_2m_2+m_1^{}m_2^{})m_3=0\}`$, with two irreducible components of dimension four.
We define an isomorphism from $``$ to a union of opposite cells of Schubert varieties in $`Fl(𝐝,V)`$. Here we take $`n:=d_1+\mathrm{}+d_h,`$ so that $`𝐝`$ is a composition of $`n`$, and we consider $`V=V_1\mathrm{}V_n`$, where $`V_j=F^{d(j)}`$.

First, we embed

$$M_{d(h)\times d(1)}(𝐤)\times \mathrm{}\times M_{d(h1)\times d(h)}(𝐤)G=GL_n(F),$$

$$M=(M_1,\mathrm{},M_h)\stackrel{~}{M}:=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& M_2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& 0& M_3& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& 0& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{}& M_h\\ t^1M_1& 0& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\end{array}\right).$$

That is, $`\stackrel{~}{M}=\stackrel{~}{M}_1+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{M}_h`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{M}_i:VV`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_j(v):=\{\begin{array}{cc}t^{\delta _{1j}}M_j(v)& \text{for}vV_j\hfill \\ 0& \text{for}vV_k,kj.\hfill \end{array}$$

We adopt the notations $`\stackrel{~}{M}_{j+hk}:=\stackrel{~}{M}_j`$, and:

$$\stackrel{~}{M}_j^{[k]}:=\underset{k\text{ factors}}{\underset{}{\stackrel{~}{M}_{jk+1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{M}_{j1}\stackrel{~}{M}_j}}.$$

Note that $`\stackrel{~}{M}_j\stackrel{~}{M}_k=0`$ unless $`k=j+1`$, and for $`M`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{M}_j^{[hd(j)]}=(\stackrel{~}{M}_j^{[h]})^{d(j)}=0`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{M}^n=0`$. Now we can define $`\psi _M:VV`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \psi _M(v)& :=& \frac{t^{n1}}{1\stackrel{~}{M}}(v)\hfill \\ & =& t^{n1}(v_1+\stackrel{~}{M}_1(v_1)+\stackrel{~}{M}_h\stackrel{~}{M}_1(v_1)+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{M}_1^{[nhh]}(v_1)\hfill \\ & & +v_2+\stackrel{~}{M}_2(v_2)+\stackrel{~}{M}_1\stackrel{~}{M}_2(v_2)+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{M}_2^{[nhh+1]}(v_2)\hfill \\ & & +\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & & +v_h+\stackrel{~}{M}_h(v_h)+\stackrel{~}{M}_{h1}\stackrel{~}{M}_h(v_h)+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{M}_h^{[nh1]}(v_h)),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`v=v_1+\mathrm{}+v_h`$ with $`v_jV_j`$.

Recall $`E_{()}=(E_{(1)}\mathrm{}E_{(h)})`$, the standard flag in $`Fl(𝐝,V)`$, where $`E_{(j)}:=E_{1+d(1)+\mathrm{}+d(j1)}`$ and $`E^{(j)}E_{(j)}^{}=V`$. Then Lusztig’s isomorphism is given by the map:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Psi }:& & & Fl(𝐝,V)\\ & M& & \psi _M(E_{()})\end{array}$$

where

$$\psi _M(E_{()}):=(\psi _M(E_{(1)})\mathrm{}\psi _M(E_{(h)})).$$

We give three coordinate descriptions of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. First, consider the decomposition, $`E_1=𝐤^{d(1)}\mathrm{}𝐤^{d(h)}t𝐤^{d(1)}\mathrm{}`$, so that we can write $`Vv=u_1+\mathrm{}+u_h+tu_{h+1}+\mathrm{}`$ with $`u_i𝐤^{d(i)modn}`$. Then we may write $`\mathrm{\Psi }(M)=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_h)`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_j=\{u_1+\mathrm{}+u_h+tu_{h+1}+\mathrm{}u_{i1}=M_i(u_i)inhh+j\}.$$

Second, we write a partial flag $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_h)`$ by a semi-infinite matrix of $`n`$ column-vectors $`[v_1,\mathrm{},v_n]`$ which are compatible with all the lattices in the flag: that is, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j=Span_𝐤v_i_{i1+d(1)+\mathrm{}+d(j1)}`$. We will write $`[v_1,\mathrm{},v_n]`$ as a block matrix with blocks of sizes $`d_1,\mathrm{},d_h`$. Let $`I_j`$ be an identity matrix of size $`d_j`$, and denote $`M_{j+hk}:=M_j`$, $`M_j^{[k]}:=M_{jk+1}\mathrm{}M_{j1}M_j`$. Then:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(M)=\begin{array}{cccc}M_1^{[nhh]}& M_2^{[nhh+1]}& \mathrm{}& M_h^{[nh1]}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ M_1& M_1M_2& \mathrm{}& M_h^{[h]}\\ I_1& M_2& \mathrm{}& M_h^{[h1]}\\ 0& I_2& \mathrm{}& M_h^{[h2]}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{}& I_h\\ 0& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

Third, taking bases adapted to each lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$ (i.e. performing column reduction on the above matrix), we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\begin{array}{cccc}M_1^{[nhh]}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ M_hM_1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ M_1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ I_1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& I_2& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& I_h\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\end{array},\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\begin{array}{cccc}M_2^{[nhh+1]}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ M_hM_1M_2& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ M_1M_2& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ M_2& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ I_2& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& I_3& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& I_1\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\end{array},\text{etc.}$$

From all these descriptions, we see that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is $`GL_𝐝(𝐤)`$-equivariant (provided we diagonally embed $`GL_𝐝(𝐤)GL_n(𝐤)`$). Also $`E_1\psi _M(E_{(1)})\mathrm{}\psi _M(E_{(h)})t^nE_1`$ for all $`M`$.

### 2.3 Image of Lusztig’s isomorphism

The map $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ embeds $``$ in $`Fl(𝐝,V)`$. We give several descriptions of the image. From the last coordinate description of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, we may easily show:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }()=\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}Fl(𝐝,V)|\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1& \stackrel{d(1)}{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }_2& \stackrel{d(2)}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{d(h1)}{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }_h& \stackrel{d(h)}{}& t\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\\ d\left(1\right)& & d\left(2\right)& & & & d\left(h\right)& & \\ t^{n1}E_{(2)}& & t^{n1}E_{(3)}& & \mathrm{}& & t^nE_{(1)}& =& t^{n1}E_{(h+1)}\end{array}\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_1t^{n1}E_{(2)}^{}=\mathrm{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_ht^{n1}E_{(h+1)}^{}=0\end{array}\}.$$

This suggests how to describe the image as a union of opposite cells of Schubert varieties: $`\mathrm{\Psi }()=_\pi X_\pi ^{}`$ for certain $`\pi \stackrel{~}{W}/W_𝐝`$. Let $`_{(j)}:=_{1+d(1)+\mathrm{}+d(j1)}`$, and consider the sets $`\pi _{(j)}`$$`1jh`$, which determine $`\pi `$ modulo $`W_𝐝`$. These sets should contain numbers as small as possible subject to the conditions:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\pi _{(1)}& \stackrel{d(1)}{}& \pi _{(2)}& \stackrel{d(2)}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{d(h1)}{}& \pi _{(h)}& \stackrel{d(h)}{}& \tau \pi _{(1)}\\ d\left(1\right)& & d\left(2\right)& & & & d\left(h\right)& & \\ \tau ^{n1}_{(2)}& & \tau ^{n1}_{(3)}& & \mathrm{}& & \tau ^n_{(1)}& & \end{array},$$

where $`A\stackrel{d}{}B`$ means $`AB`$ and $`\mathrm{\#}(AB)=d`$. There should be at most $`h`$ such permutations $`\pi `$ which are Bruhat-maximal. One can construct them by first maximizing a particular $`\pi _{(j)}`$, then constructing the rest of the sets, which might not always be possible.

Example. For $`𝐝=(1,1,1)`$, $`n=3`$, we have $`_{(j)}=_j`$, and the three irreducible components are $`\pi _1=[5,9,10]=[2,3,1]\tau ^{(1,2,3)}`$$`\pi _2=[8,6,10]=[2,3,1]\tau ^{(2,3,1)}`$$`\pi _3=[9,8,7]=[2,3,1]\tau ^{(2,2,2)}`$. Each $`\pi _j`$ is obtained by filling $`\pi _{(j)}`$ with numbers as small as possible subject to $`\pi _{(j)}\stackrel{d(j)}{}t^{n1}E_{(j+1)}`$, then constructing the rest of the $`\pi _{(k)}`$.

Specifically, to get $`\pi =\pi _1`$, we start with $`\pi _1\stackrel{1}{}_8`$, yielding $`\pi _1=\{5,8,9,10,\mathrm{}\}`$. Next $`\pi _1\stackrel{1}{}\pi _2\stackrel{1}{}_9`$, yielding $`\pi _2=\{8,9,10,11,\mathrm{}\}`$. Similarly $`\pi _3=\{8,10,11,12,\mathrm{}\}`$, and we conclude $`\pi =[5,9,10]`$.

The other components are obtained similarly. Note that since the $`d_j`$ are all equal to a constant $`d=1`$, the automorphism $`\sigma ^d=\sigma `$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Psi }()`$. In fact, $`\pi ^{(1)}=\sigma \pi ^{(2)}\sigma ^1=\sigma ^2\pi ^{(3)}\sigma ^2`$.
For a given $`𝐝`$, the $`GL_𝐝(𝐤)`$-orbits of $``$ are distinguished from each other by certain collections of invariants, the rank numbers $`𝐫=(r_j^k)`$, where

$$r_j^k:=rank(M_j^{[k]}:𝐤^{d(j)}𝐤^{d(jk)})\text{for}1jh,1k(n1)h.$$

(In fact, it suffices to consider $`k<h\mathrm{min}(d_1,\mathrm{},d_h)`$.) We also define $`r_j^0:=d_j`$ and $`r_j^k:=0`$ if not otherwise defined.

For a given collection of rank numbers $`𝐫:=(r_{jk})_{jk}`$, we denote the corresponding nilpotent quiver orbit by $`^𝐫`$. Not every collection of rank numbers is realized by an orbit: rather, the nonnegative integer entries in $`𝐫`$ must obey the constraints:

$$m_j^k:=r_j^kr_j^{k+1}r_{j1}^{k+1}+r_{j1}^{k+2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$

\[Note: $`m_j^k`$ is the multiplicity in $`(M_1,\mathrm{},M_h)`$ of the indecomposable quiver summand $`I_j^k`$ defined as follows: letting $`\overline{i}:=imodh`$, we define vector spaces $`U_1,\mathrm{},U_h`$ by $`_{l=1}^hU_l:=Span_𝐤e_{ji}_{0ik}`$ with $`e_iU_{\overline{i}}`$; and maps $`L_{\overline{i}}:U_{\overline{i}}U_{\overline{i}1}`$ with $`L_{\overline{i}}(e_i):=e_{i1}`$ and $`L_{\overline{j}\overline{k}}(e_{jk}):=0`$. Thus for $`h=1`$, the representation $`I_j^k`$ reduces to a nilpotent Jordan block of size $`k+1`$.\]

The image of a quiver orbit under $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can be described as:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(^𝐫)=\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}Fl(𝐝,V)|\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1& \stackrel{d(1)}{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }_2& \stackrel{d(2)}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{d(h1)}{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }_h& \stackrel{d(h)}{}& t\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\\ d\left(1\right)& & d\left(2\right)& & & & d\left(h\right)& & \\ t^{n1}E_{(2)}& & t^{n1}E_{(3)}& & \mathrm{}& & t^nE_{(1)}& & \end{array}\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_1E_1^{}=\mathrm{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_hE_h^{}=0\\ dim(\mathrm{\Lambda }_j/\mathrm{\Lambda }_jE_{(k)})=r_j^{(nhh+jk+1)}j,k\end{array}\}$$

Here we take $`E_{(j+hk)}:=t^kE_{(j)}`$. The image of the orbit closure $`\overline{^𝐫}`$ is obtained by replacing $`=`$ by $``$ in the Schubert conditions. From this, we may deduce that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(^𝐫)=X_\pi ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\overline{^𝐫})=X_\pi ^{}`$ for a certain explicitly constructable $`\pi =\pi ^𝐫\stackrel{~}{W}/W_𝐝`$.

## 3 The Variety of circular complexes

### 3.1 Circular complexes and Lusztig’s isomorphism

We apply the previous constructions to a particularly simple, but interesting case, intensively considered from a different point of view by Mehta and Trivedi . For positive integers $`ab`$, we consider the variety of two-step circular complexes or loop-complexes:

$$=_{a,b}:=\{(X,Y)M_{b\times a}(𝐤)\times M_{a\times b}(𝐤)XY=0,YX=0\}.$$

Recall that any finite linear chain-complex can be “rolled up” into such a two-step complex by letting $`𝐤^a`$ (resp. $`𝐤^b`$) be the direct sum of all the odd-numbered (resp. even-numbered) spaces in the linear complex. This gives a natural map from the variety of chain-complexes to $``$.

Now, $``$ is a subvariety of the representations of the affine quiver $`\widehat{A}_1`$; a subvariety which is invariant under the natural action of the group $`GL_{a,b}(𝐤):=GL_a(𝐤)\times GL_b(𝐤)`$, namely $`(g_a,g_b)(X,Y):=(g_bXg_a^1,g_aYg_b^1).`$ We easily see that $``$ is a finite union of $`GL_{a,b}(𝐤)`$-orbits. In fact, $``$ has exactly $`a+1`$ open orbits $`_0^{},\mathrm{},_a^{}`$, whose closures give the $`a+1`$ irreducible components of $``$:

$$_c^{}:=\{(X,Y)rankX=c,rankY=ac\},_c:=\overline{_c^{}}.$$

We define an isomorphism from $``$ to a union of opposite cells of Schubert varieties in the partial affine flag variety $`Fl(a,b;V)`$, where $`V=F^n`$ and $`n=a+b`$. Our notation will emphasize the block decomposition $`V=F^aF^b`$, as well as:

$$E=𝐤^a𝐤^bt𝐤^at𝐤^b\mathrm{}.$$

In this case, Lusztig’s isomorphism is given by the map $`\mathrm{\Psi }:G/P_aFl(a,b;V)`$ as:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(X,Y):=(\begin{array}{cc}tI_a& tY\\ X& tI_b\end{array})modP_{\widehat{0,a}}$$

where $`I_m`$ is an identity matrix of size $`m`$; or in terms of lattices, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(X,Y)=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2)`$, where $`E\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ and:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ X& 0\\ I_a& Y\\ 0& I_b\\ 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}=\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ X& 0\\ I_a& 0\\ 0& I_b\\ 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}modP,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 0\\ Y& 0\\ I_b& X\\ 0& I_a\\ 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}=\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 0\\ Y& 0\\ I_b& 0\\ 0& I_a\\ 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}modP.$$

Here the column vectors of each matrix give an A-basis for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_iE`$, written with respect to $`E=Span_𝐤e_i_{i1}`$. The blocks have sizes $`a,b,a,b,\mathrm{}`$. The map $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is $`GL_{a,b}(𝐤)`$-equivariant, provided we embed $`GL_{a,b}(𝐤)GL_n(𝐤)G`$ as block-diagonal matrices with constant coefficients.

We easily deduce:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(_c)=\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}Fl(a,b;V)|\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccc}E_{(2)}& & E_{(3)}& & & \\ \stackrel{b}{}& & \stackrel{a}{}& & & \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_1& \stackrel{a}{}& \mathrm{\Lambda }_2& \stackrel{b}{}& t\mathrm{\Lambda }_1& \\ \stackrel{a}{}& & \stackrel{b}{}& & & \\ E_{(4)}& & E_{(5)}& & & \end{array}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1E_{(3)}^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_2E_{(4)}^{}=0\\ dim(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_1E_{(3)})c\\ dim(\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_2E_{(4)})ac\end{array}\end{array}\}.$$

Here

$$E_{(1)}=E_1,E_{(2)}=E_{a+1},E_{(3)}=E_{a+b+1},E_{(4)}=E_{2a+b+1},E_{(5)}=E_{2a+2b+1}.$$

From this, we may also realize $`_c`$ as a subset of an ordinary flag variety $`Fl(b,a,b;𝐤^{a+2b})`$, the variety of partial flags

$$𝐤^{a+2b}\stackrel{b}{}U_1\stackrel{a}{}U_2\stackrel{b}{}0.$$

In fact, let $`𝐤^{a+2b}=E_{(2)}/E_{(5)}`$, with $`𝐤`$-basis $`\{\overline{e}_{a+1},\mathrm{},\overline{e}_{2a+2b}\}`$, where $`\overline{e}_i:=e_imodE_{(5)}`$. Thus $`\overline{E}_{(3)}\overline{E}_{(4)}`$ is the standard flag in $`Fl(b,a,b;𝐤^{a+2b})`$. We also define the nilpotent linear operator $`\overline{t}:𝐤^{a+2b}𝐤^{a+2b}`$ by $`\overline{t}(\overline{e}_i)=\overline{e}_{i+n}modE_{(5)}.`$ Then we have:

$$_c\mathrm{\Psi }(_c)\{U_{}Fl(b,a,b;𝐤^{a+2b})|\begin{array}{c}U_1\overline{E}_{(4)},U_2\overline{E}_{(3)},\\ dim(U_1\overline{E}_{(3)})a+bc\\ dim(U_2\overline{E}_{(4)})ba+c\\ U_1\overline{E}_{(3)}^{}=U_2\overline{E}_{(4)}^{}=0\\ U_2\overline{t}(U_1)\end{array}\}$$

This is precisely the opposite cell of a Schubert variety in $`Fl(b,a,b;𝐤^{a+2b})`$, but with the additional algebraic incidence condition $`U_2\overline{t}(U_1)`$, which can be written in terms of the Plucker coordinates of $`U_1,U_2`$.

### 3.2 Affine permutations for circular complexes

We wish to identify the image of $`_c`$ as the opposite cell of an affine Schubert variety,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(_c)=X_\pi ^{},\text{for some}\pi =\pi _cW_a\backslash \stackrel{~}{W}/W_a.$$

First, we construct the sets $`\pi _{(1)},\pi _{(2)}`$, which then determine $`\pi `$ modulo $`W_a`$. These sets should contain numbers as small as possible subject to the conditions:

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccc}_{(2)}& & _{(3)}& & & \\ \stackrel{b}{}& & \stackrel{a}{}& & & \\ \pi _{(1)}& \stackrel{a}{}& \pi _{(2)}& \stackrel{b}{}& \tau \pi _{(1)}& \\ \stackrel{a}{}& & \stackrel{b}{}& & & \\ _{(4)}& & _{(5)}& & & \end{array}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\#}(\pi _{(1)}_{(3)})=c\\ \mathrm{\#}(\pi _{(2)}_{(4)})=ac\end{array},\end{array}$$

To construct $`\pi `$ according to these constraints, we will divide $`[1,n]`$ into intervals (blocks) of the form:

$$\underset{(k)}{\underset{}{i,\mathrm{},j}}:=[i,i+1,\mathrm{},j],$$

where $`k=ji+1`$ is the number of integers in the interval. We perform two subdivisions as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill [1,\mathrm{},n]:=[& \underset{\text{i}(c)}{\underset{}{1,\mathrm{},c}},\underset{\text{ii}(ac)}{\underset{}{c+1,\mathrm{},a}},\underset{\text{iii}(ac)}{\underset{}{a+1,\mathrm{},2ac}},\hfill & \\ & \underset{\text{iv}(ba)}{\underset{}{2ac+1,\mathrm{},a+bc}},\underset{\text{v}(c)}{\underset{}{a+bc+1,\mathrm{},a+b}}]\hfill & \end{array},$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill [1,\mathrm{},n]:=[& \underset{\text{i}^{}(ac)}{\underset{}{1,\mathrm{},ac}},\underset{\text{ii}^{}(c)}{\underset{}{ac+1,\mathrm{},a}},\underset{\text{iii}^{}(c)}{\underset{}{a+1,\mathrm{},a+c}},\hfill & \\ & \underset{\text{iv}^{}(ba)}{\underset{}{a+c+1,\mathrm{},b+c}},\underset{\text{v}^{}(ac)}{\underset{}{b+c+1,\mathrm{},a+b}}]\hfill & \end{array},$$

where we have numbered the blocks with roman numerals. Now $`\pi `$ takes the first set of blocks to the second set, as well as shifting them by powers of $`\tau `$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \pi :=[& \underset{\text{v}^{}(c)}{\underset{}{a+1,\mathrm{},a+c}},\underset{\tau (\text{iii}^{})(ac)}{\underset{}{a+2b+c+1,\mathrm{},2a+2b}},\underset{\tau (\text{ii}^{})(ac)}{\underset{}{a+b+1,\mathrm{},2a+bc}},\hfill & \\ & \underset{\tau (\text{iv}^{})(ba)}{\underset{}{2a+b+c+1,\mathrm{},a+2b+c}},\underset{\tau ^2(\text{i}^{})(c)}{\underset{}{3a+2bc+1,\mathrm{},3a+2b}}]\hfill & \end{array}.$$

Recall that $`\pi `$ represents the double coset $`W_a\pi W_a`$: in fact, $`\pi `$ is maximal with respect to the left action of $`W_a`$, and minimal with respect to the right action. This is the correct normalization so that $`\mathrm{}(\pi _c)=dim_𝐤(_c)`$.

To analyze the decomposition of $`\pi `$ into simple reflections, we construct its loop wiring diagram. As before, the strip below (with top and bottom edges identified) represents a cylinder with $`n=a+b`$ dots on either end. For each $`i`$ we write $`\pi (i)=\overline{\pi }(i)+nj`$, and we draw a wire connecting the dot $`i`$ on the right to the dot $`\overline{\pi }(i)`$ on the left, but looping upwards (around the cylinder) $`j`$ times. We will group the wires into five cables corresponding to our blocks i,…,v (on the right) and $`\text{i}^{},\mathrm{},\text{v}^{}`$ (on the left), so that the cable starting at i represents $`c`$ non-crossing wires, etc. As a final simplification, instead of drawing the diagram for $`\pi `$, we instead draw the diagram for $`\tau ^1\pi `$ (a harmless normalization, since $`\tau `$ is in the center of $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$).

Whenever a cable with $`k`$ wires crosses one with $`k^{}`$ wires, we have a total of $`kk^{}`$ wire crossings. Thus the six cable-crossings of our picture give a wire-crossing total of:

$$\mathrm{}(\pi )=(ac)^2+c^2+(ac)(ba)+2c(ac)+c(ba)=ab,$$

which we may confirm by checking directly that $`dim(_c)=ab`$.

Now we may write a reduced decomposition for $`\pi `$ as follows. For integers $`i,k`$, define the affine permutation $`s_i^{[k]}:=s_is_{i2}\mathrm{}s_{i2k+2}`$, which has $`k`$ mutually commuting factors. Recall our convention $`s_{i+nj}:=s_i`$. For each cable crossing:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill \underset{(k)}{\underset{}{i+1,\mathrm{},i+k}}& & & & \underset{(j)}{\underset{}{i+1,\mathrm{},i+j}}\hfill \\ & & & & \\ & & & & \\ \hfill \underset{(j)}{\underset{}{i+k+1,\mathrm{},i+j+k}}& & & & \underset{(k)}{\underset{}{i+j+1,\mathrm{},i+j+k}}\hfill \end{array}$$

we define the associated “totally commutative” permutation:

$$s_{i+1}^{[j,k]}:=s_{i+k}^{[1]}s_{i+k+1}^{[2]}\mathrm{}s_{i+k+m}^{[\mathrm{min}(m,j,k)]}\mathrm{}s_{i+j+k}^{[\mathrm{min}(j,k)]}\mathrm{}s_{i+j+m^{}}^{[\mathrm{min}(m^{},j,k)]}\mathrm{}s_{i+j+1}^{[2]}s_{i+j}^{[1]}.$$

Finally, we can write

$$\pi =\tau s_1^{[ac,c]}s_{a+1}^{[ba,c]}s_{b+1}^{[ac,c]}s_{a+1}^{[ac,ba]}s_{b+ac+1}^{[c,c]}s_{c+1}^{[ac,ac]},$$

where the six factors (other than $`\tau `$) correspond to the cable crossings, listed left to right.

### 3.3 Bott-Samelson resolution

We can use the above data to give a Bott-Samelson resolution of singularities for $`_c`$. Although this is clearly far from a minimal resolution, it brings the circular complexes into the framework of Frobenius splittings and other results for Bott-Samelson varieties (cf. Mathieu , Kumar , Ramanathan ,…). In particular, we have the following results proved by Mehta-Trivedi
Theorem The variety of circular complexes $`_c`$ and the closures of all its $`GL_n(𝐤)`$-orbits are normal, Cohen-Macaulay, and have rational singularities.
The construction of the affine Bott-Samelson variety $`Z_𝐢`$ corresponding to a reduced word $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_l)`$ is exactly analogous to (and includes as a special case) the construction for $`GL_n(𝐤)`$. (Cf. §1.4.)

We illustrate with the simplest example in our case: $`c=1`$, $`a=2`$, $`b=3`$, $`n=5`$ so that each of the blocks $`\text{i},\mathrm{},\text{v}`$ has size $`1`$, and our cable diagram in the previous section is a simple wiring diagram. Then $`\pi =s_1s_3s_4s_3s_0s_2`$, and the Bott-Samelson variety is:

$$Z_𝐢:=\{\begin{array}{c}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_3,\mathrm{\Lambda }_4,\mathrm{\Lambda }_5,\mathrm{\Lambda }_4^{})\\ Gr(V)^6\end{array}|\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}& & & & & & E_4& & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ E_1& & E_2& & E_3& & \mathrm{\Lambda }_4^{}& & E_5& & tE_1\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_1& & \mathrm{\Lambda }_2& & \mathrm{\Lambda }_3& & \mathrm{\Lambda }_4& & \mathrm{\Lambda }_5& & t\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\end{array}\}.$$

Here $`E_j:=Span_𝐤e_i_{ij}`$, and each arrow $`UV`$ indicates the conditions $`UV`$$`dim_𝐤(U/V)=1`$. We construct a point of $`Z_𝐢`$ by starting with the standard flag $`E_1E_3\mathrm{}`$, and successively choosing the spaces $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$, corresponding to the letters 1,3,4,3,0,2. Each such choice corresponds to a fibration with fiber $`^1`$, hence $`Z_𝐢`$ is smooth of dimension $`\mathrm{}(\pi )=6`$. As we did for $`X_\pi `$, we can embed $`Z_𝐢`$ into a finite-dimensional flag variety for the $`𝐤`$-vector space $`t^1E_3/tE_1`$, since $`t^1E_3\mathrm{\Lambda }tE_1`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_5,\mathrm{\Lambda }_4^{}`$.

We can define a regular, birational map of $`Z_𝐢`$ onto $`X_\pi `$ by forgetting all the spaces except $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_3)`$. This map is generically one-to-one because generically all the spaces are determined by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$: that is, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1E_1`$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5=t\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+tE_1`$, etc. To desingularize the opposite cell $`X_\pi ^{}_c`$, we consider the subset of $`Z_𝐢`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$ are generic with respect to the opposite standard flag $`E_1^{},E_3^{}`$.


text:
# Quasi-deterministic generation of entangled atoms in a cavity

## Abstract

We present a scheme to generate a maximally entangled state of two three-level atoms in a cavity. The success or failure of the generation of the desired entangled state can be determined by detecting the polarization of the photon leaking out of the cavity. With the use of an automatic feedback, the success probability of the scheme can be made to approach unity.

There has recently been much interest in the generation of entangled states of two or more particles, as they give rise to quantum phenomena that cannot be explained in classical terms. Entangled states not only are used to test fundamental quantum-mechanical principles such as Bell’s inequalities1  but also play a central role in practical applications of the quantum information theory such as quantum computation2 , quantum teleportation3 , quantum dense coding4  and quantum cryptography5 . Two-photon entangled states can commonly be produced from a nonlinear optical process such as parametric downconversion6 . Although there seems no easy way of generating entangled states of massive particles instead of massless photons, recent advances in ion trapping technology and cavity QED have led to several proposals7  for generation of entangled states of atoms or ions and subsequent experimental realizations8 .

In this paper we introduce a scheme that allows the generation of a maximally entangled state of two $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type three-level atoms in a cavity. The scheme is similar to that proposed recently by Plenio et al.9 , but has an advantage in that the probability of obtaining the entangled state can be made to approach unity, as described below.

The system we consider is shown schematically in Fig.1. Two identical $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type three-level atoms $`a`$ and $`b`$, each with an excited state $`|e`$ and two degenerate ground states $`|L`$ and $`|R`$, are situated in a resonant optical cavity. The $`|e|L`$ transition is coupled by left-circularly polarized light, while the $`|e|R`$ transition by right-circularly polarized light. We assume that the separation between the two atoms is large compared with the wavelength of the $`|e|L`$ or $`|e|R`$ transition so that the dipole-dipole interaction can be neglected.

The outline of our scheme is as follows. Initially we prepare the two atoms in their “left” ground state $`|L`$ and inject a left-circularly polarized photon into the cavity. One of the two atoms can then absorb the photon and make an upward transition to $`|e`$. It can subsequently deexcite to $`|L`$ or $`|R`$ emitting a left- or right-circularly polarized photon. If the polarization of the emitted photon can be detected and is found right-circularly polarized, one can conclude that one of the two atoms is in $`|L`$ and the other is in $`|R`$. Since which atom is in $`|L`$ and which in $`|R`$ cannot be determined, the final state of the two atoms is a superposition of the two probabilities, i.e. an entangled state. Thus an entangled state of the two atoms results when the polarization of the photon leaking out of the cavity is detected to be right-circularly polarized.

In order to illustrate the main idea, let us first consider an ideal case of the perfect cavity. The temporal evolution of the system in the cavity is governed by the Hamiltonian $`H=H_a+H_b+H_R+H_I`$, where $`H_a`$ and $`H_b`$ are the atomic Hamiltonian for atoms $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively, $`H_R`$ is the free field Hamiltonian and $`H_I`$ is the interaction Hamiltonian given by

$$H_I=i\mathrm{}\underset{i=a,b}{}\underset{\lambda =L,R}{}(g_\lambda c_\lambda |e_{ii}\lambda |g_\lambda c_\lambda ^{}|\lambda _{ii}e|)$$
(1)
In Eq.(1) $`c_\lambda `$ and $`c_\lambda ^{}`$ $`(\lambda =L,R)`$ denote the annihilation and creation operators for the left or right circularly polarized cavity field, $`g_\lambda (\lambda =L,R)`$, assumed to be real, represents the coupling strength between the atom and the left or right circularly polarized field ($`g_\lambda `$ is assumed to be the same for atom $`a`$ and atom $`b`$), $`|e_i(i=a,b)`$ represents the excited state of the atom $`a`$ or $`b`$, and $`|\lambda _i(\lambda =L,R;i=a,b)`$ represents the “left” or “right” ground state of the atom $`a`$ or $`b`$. Expressing the state of the total system in the form $`|atoma,atomb;photon`$, the initial state can be written $`|L,L;L`$. Under the rotating wave approximation, the temporal evolution of the system is spanned by the five basis states, $`\{`$ $`|L,L;L`$, $`|e,L;0`$, $`|L,e;0`$, $`|R,L;R`$, $`|L,R;R`$ $`\}`$. A straightforward algebra yields that the state of the system at time $`t`$ is given in terms of these basis states as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=& \frac{g_R^2+2g_L^2\mathrm{cos}\alpha t}{\alpha ^2}|L,L;L\hfill \\ & \frac{g_L}{\alpha }\mathrm{sin}\alpha t(|e,L;0+|L,e;0)\hfill \\ & \frac{2g_Lg_R}{\alpha ^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\alpha t}{2}(|R,L;R+|L,R;R)\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
Eq.(2) indicates that the probability at time $`t`$ of obtaining the entangled state$`|\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|R,L;R+|L,R;R)`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P(t)=|\varphi |\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|^2& =8\frac{g_L^2g_R^2}{\alpha ^4}\mathrm{sin}^4\frac{\alpha t}{2}\hfill \\ & =\frac{8\beta ^2}{(\beta ^2+2)^2}\mathrm{sin}^4\frac{\alpha t}{2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where $`\beta g_R/g_L`$. At $`t=\frac{(2n+1)\pi }{\alpha }(n=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$, the probability has the maximum value $`P_{max}=\frac{8\beta ^2}{(\beta ^2+2)^2}`$. When $`\beta =1`$, $`P_{max}=\frac{8}{9}`$. In particular, when $`\beta =\sqrt{2}`$, $`P_{max}`$ reaches $`1`$.

We now analyze the system depicted in Fig.1, in which the polarization of the photon leaking out of the cavity is monitored. In order to describe the temporal evolution of the open system under consideration, we adopt the master equation approach. The master equation describing the time evolution of the density matrix is given by

$$\frac{d\rho }{dt}=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[H,\rho ]+\frac{\kappa }{2}\underset{\lambda =L,R}{}(2c_\lambda \rho c_\lambda ^{}c_\lambda ^{}c_\lambda \rho \rho c_\lambda ^{}c_\lambda )$$
(4)
where $`\kappa `$ denotes the cavity decay rate. Assuming that the initial state is $`|L,L;L`$, the time evolution of the system inside the cavity is now described with eight basis states, $`\{`$ $`|L,L;L`$, $`|e,L;0`$, $`|L,e;0`$, $`|R,L;R`$, $`|L,R;R`$, $`|L,L;0`$, $`|R,L;0`$, $`|L,R;0`$ $`\}`$. Compared with the perfect cavity case previously considered, we now have three more basis states $`|L,L;0`$, $`|R,L;0`$ and $`|L,R;0`$ which result when the photon in the states $`|L,L;L`$, $`|R,L;R`$ and $`|L,R;R`$, respectively, escapes the cavity. When the detector in Fig.1 registers a left circularly polarized photon i.e., when $`D_1`$ clicks, we know for sure that the state of the system in the cavity is $`|L,L;0`$. On the other hand, if a right circularly polarized photon is detected i.e. when $`D_2`$ clicks, the state of the system in the cavity can be $`|R,L;0`$ or $`|L,R;0`$. Whether the state is $`|R,L;0`$ or $`|L,R;0`$ cannot be determined from the measurement of the polarization of the photon. Since both the initial state and the system Hamiltonian are symmetric with respect to the two atoms $`a`$ and $`b`$, the state associated with the detection of right circularly polarized photon must be $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|R,L;0+|L,R;0)`$. It is then clear that, at large time $`t\mathrm{}`$, the system inside the cavity approaches a mixture of $`|L,L;0`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|R,L;0+|L,R;0)`$, i.e.,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \rho _{\mathrm{}}=& (1p)|L,L;0L,L;0|\hfill \\ & +\frac{p}{2}(|R,L;0+|L,R;0)(R,L;0|+L,R;0|)\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
where $`p`$ represents the probability to obtain the desired entangled state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|R,L+|L,R)`$ of the two atoms $`a`$ and $`b`$.

The probability $`p`$ is determined when the system parameters $`g_L`$, $`g_R`$ and $`\kappa `$ are given. In Fig.2 we plot $`p`$ as a function of $`g_L/\kappa `$ and $`g_R/\kappa `$ computed from numerical simulation of the master equation. The probability is seen to have its maximum value of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ along the line $`\frac{g_R}{g_L}=\sqrt{2}`$.

Our scheme of Fig.1 offers a way of obtaining the two-atom entangled state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|R,L+|L,R)`$ with probability $`p`$. Our scheme is thus probabilistic. When the scheme fails to generate the desired entangled state, however, the experiment can easily be repeated for another round of trial. The probability with which the scheme fails to generate the entangled state is $`1p`$. In this case the detector registers a left-circularly polarized photon and the state inside the cavity is $`|L,L;0`$. The experiment can then simply be repeated by injecting another left-circularly polarized photon into the cavity. The state of the system inside the cavity is then $`|L,L;L`$ and the entire experiment restarts. In fact, one can have the experiment automatically repeat itself in case of the failure simply by eliminating the detector $`D_1`$ and replacing it by a path directed back to the cavity, so that the left-circularly polarized photon can be automatically fed back to the cavity. One then needs only to wait for the detector $`D_2`$ to click. The moment the detector $`D_2`$ registers a photon, we know that the entangled state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|R,L+|L,R)`$ of the two atoms $`a`$ and $`b`$ is generated in the cavity. The probability that the entangled state is not generated after $`n`$ rounds of trial is $`(1p)^n`$. Since the failure probability exponentially decreases with respect to the number of rounds, the desired entangled state can be generated with high probability within a few cavity decay times. We also note that the generated entangled state is a superposition of different combinations of two ground states (or metastable states) and thus is free from decoherence caused by the cavity loss as well as spontaneous emission.

It should be pointed out that our treatment assumes that the only losses in the system are those associated with the coupling of the cavity field mode to the outer field modes. Thus, only the losses of this type lead to photon detection. Losses due to spontaneous emission into modes other than the cavity mode are neglected. Absorption of photons by the cavity mirrors are also neglected.

As a specific example for realization of our scheme proposed here, we consider hyperfine levels of cesium (nuclear spin $`I=\frac{7}{2}`$) considered recently by Lange and Kimble10 . The Zeeman sublevels of the states ($`6S_{1/2},F=3`$) and ($`6P_{1/2},F=3`$) are drawn in Fig.3, where $`|g_{m_F}`$ and $`|e_{m_F}`$ denote the sublevels ($`6S_{1/2},F=3,m_F`$) and ($`6P_{1/2},F=3,m_F`$), respectively, with $`m_F`$ running from $`3`$ through $`3`$. The wavelength of the $`|e|g`$ transition is $`852.36nm`$. The transition between $`|e_{m_F}`$ and $`|g_{m_F1}`$ is mediated by right-circularly polarized light and that between $`|e_{m_F}`$ and $`|g_{m_F+1}`$ by left-circularly polarized light. With the cesium atoms prepared initially in $`|g_{m_F+1}`$ and one left-circularly polarized photon injected into the cavity, one can then obtain, using our scheme, the entangled state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|g_{m_F1},g_{m_F+1}+|g_{m_F+1},g_{m_F1})`$ of the cesium atom with probability $`p`$.

Let us estimate the probability $`p`$ for the above system. The Hamiltonian representing the interaction of the cesium atom and the injected photon can be written as 10

$$H_I=i\mathrm{}g_0\underset{i=a,b}{}\underset{\lambda =L,R}{}(c_\lambda ^{}A_{i,\lambda }A_{i,\lambda }^{}c_\lambda )$$
(6)
where $`2g_0/2\pi `$ is the single-photon Rabi frequency and $`A_{i,\lambda }`$ is given by

$$A_{i,\lambda }=\underset{m_g,m_e}{}|F,m_g_{ii}F,m_g;\lambda |F,m_e_{ii}F,m_e|$$
(7)
where $`m_g`$ and $`m_e`$ denote the Zeeman sublevel quantum number $`m_F`$ for the states $`|g_{m_F}`$ and $`|e_{m_F}`$, respectively. Comparing Eqs.(6) and (7) with Eq.(1), we find that $`g_L`$ and $`g_R`$ of Eq.(1) correspond to $`g_0`$ of Eq.(6) multiplied by the Clebsch-Gordan coefficient $`F_g,m_g;\lambda |F_e,m_e`$. With the present technology, one can achieve the condition $`g_03\kappa 15\kappa `$11  (For example, the values of $`g_0/2\pi 120MHz`$ and $`\kappa /2\pi 40MHz`$ were cited in11 ). Taking $`g_0=3\kappa `$ and $`|g_1`$ as the initial atomic state, we obtain $`g_L=g_R=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_0`$ and $`p0.43`$. In this case the entangled state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|g_1,g_1+|g_1,g_1)`$ is obtained with the probability $`0.43`$ after one round of trial. Note that in this case there is no chance for the states other than the states $`|e_0`$, $`|g_1`$ and $`|g_1`$ to be occupied, because there is one and only one photon present in the cavity initially (see Fig.3). Taking $`g_0=3\kappa `$ and $`|g_0`$ as the initial atomic state, we obtain $`g_L=\sqrt{\frac{5}{12}}g_0`$, $`g_R=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}g_0`$ and $`p0.45`$. The atomic entangled state obtained in this case is $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|g_2,g_0+|g_0,g_2)`$. We can thus conclude that our scheme with the help of the present cavity technology allows the generation of the entangled atomic state with a reasonably high probability even after one round of trial.

A comparison of our scheme with the scheme proposed by Plenio et al.9  is now in order. The scheme of Plenio et al. provides a way of generating the entangled state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|e,g|g,e)`$ of two two-level atoms inside a cavity, where $`|e`$ and $`|g`$ refer to the upper and lower levels. Since the generated entangled state is an antisymmetric trapped state, it is important to prepare the initial state in a nonsymmetric way, e.g., the initial state can be $`|e,g;0`$, the atom $`a`$ in $`|e`$, the atom $`b`$ in $`|g`$ and no photon. The success of the scheme depends upon detection of no photon leaking out of the cavity. If a photon leaking out of the cavity is detected, then the experiment fails. In this case the state of the system inside the cavity is $`|g,g;0`$. If another photon is injected into the cavity, then the state of the system becomes $`|g,g;1`$. This state is symmetric with respect to an interchange of the two atoms. It is thus clear that the experiment cannot be repeated for another round of trial by simply reinjecting another photon. Our scheme in contrast is designed in such a way that the “correct” initial state is set up in case of the failure simply by reinjecting the photon leaked out of the cavity back into the cavity. Although probabilistic in nature, our scheme thus provides a quasi-deterministic way of generating an entangled state of two atoms.

The advantage of our scheme still prevails even if we take into account the finite detection efficiency of the detectors. When no photon is detected in the scheme of Plenio et al., there are two possibilities : (1) the experiment has succeeded and the desired entangled state has been generated, or (2) the experiment has failed and a photon has been emitted from the cavity, but the detector has failed to detect it. There is no way of knowing for sure that the desired entangled state has been generated. On the other hand, in our scheme, the detection of a photon by the detector $`D_2`$ assures that the desired entangled state has indeed been generated. The finite detection efficiency only reduces the probability for such a detection. In fact, with the automatic feedback installed in our scheme and assuming the efficiency of the photon feedback to be unity, we know that we have the desired entangled state generated inside the cavity after a sufficiently long time (after several cavity decay times), even if the detector $`D_2`$ fails to click because of the finite detection efficiency. In practical situations, however, the feedback efficiency is less than unity, and the failure to detect the photon could be due either to the finite efficiency of the detector or to feedback losses. The corresponding atomic state will then be a statistical mixture of $`|L,L`$ and the desired entangled state. In this situation the experiment should be restarted from the very beginning.

Finally, we wish to consider some practical issues in relation to the requirements on atom trapping imposed by our scheme. Our scheme requires that the two atoms be symmetrically coupled to the cavity mode for the entire duration of the experiment. This means that, as we have already assumed in Eq.(1), the coupling strength $`g_\lambda `$ should be the same at all times for the two atoms. It in turn requires that, since $`g_\lambda `$ depends on the position of the atom inside the cavity, both atoms be localized within the Lamb-Dicke limit, so that the random variation of the coupling strength $`g_\lambda `$ due to thermal motion is negligible. The Lamb-Dicke condition states that the thermal vibrational amplitude of the atom must be small compared with the optical wavelength. Let us assume that the atoms are trapped in the low-lying states of the trapping potential. Let us further assume that the trapping potential is generated from a far-off-resonance trapping (FORT) beam12 . We take the trapping potential to be $`V(x)=V_0\mathrm{cos}^2k_Tx`$ ($`x`$ represents the coordinate along the cavity axis, and $`k_T`$ is the wave number for the FORT beam), and approximate the potential to be a harmonic potential around the minimum point $`x=0`$. The Lamb-Dicke condition can then be written as $`V_0\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^4}{8mk_T^2}`$ ($`m`$ is the mass of the cesium atom). Taking $`\lambda _T=869nm=\frac{2\pi }{k_T}`$ and $`\lambda =852.36nm=\frac{2\pi }{k}`$, this condition yields $`V_00.5kHz`$. In comparison, the value of $`V_0`$ as large as $`45MHz`$ has been reported12 . A challenging requirement comes from the assumption that the atoms are trapped in the low-lying state, say the ground state, of the trapping potential. This requires that thermal energy of the atoms be less than the ground state energy of the trapping potential. Taking again the case of the FORT beam, the required condition becomes $`T\frac{\mathrm{}k_T}{2k_B}\sqrt{\frac{2V_0}{m}}`$ ($`k_B`$ is the Boltzman constant). Taking $`\lambda _T=869nm`$, and $`V_0=45MHz`$, this condition yields $`T14\mu K`$. Although the temperature as low as $`23\mu K`$ has been achieved experimentally12 , this condition on temperature pushes the present technology to its limit. In this regard, we note that there seems to exist a promising method, namely the adiabatic scheme recently proposed by Duan et al.13 , which may allow a successful operation of our experiment even with “hot” trapped atoms beyond the Lamb-Dicke limit. In this adiabatic scheme, by keeping the pumping laser collinear with the cavity axis and thereby allowing the driving pulse to have the same spatial mode structure as the cavity mode, the system dynamics can be made to become independent of the random atom position generated by thermal motion.

Our scheme also requires a reliable and efficient source of a single left-circularly polarized photon. This is certainly a difficult requirement to achieve even with much experimental progress14  witnessed recently. One promising source that can be used for our experiment may be a single atom trapped in a high-Q cavity. When combined with the adiabatic scheme of Duan et al.13 , such an atom could represent a fully controllable single photon source.

This research was supported by the Brain Korea 21 Project of the Korean Ministry of Education, by the Korea Research Foundation under Contract No. DP0107, and by the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation under Contract No. 1999-2-121-005-3. We thank Professor D.H. Cho of Korea University for helpful discussion.


text:
# Bose-Einstein Condensation of Dilute Gases in Traps

## 1. Introduction and Main Results

During the last few years it has become experimentally feasible to realize the long-predicted Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) of gases by confining them in traps at very low temperatures. A rigorous theoretical demonstration of this phenomenon – starting from the basic many-body Hamiltonian of interacting particles – is, however, a very difficult task. Following \[LS\], we will provide in this paper such a rigorous derivation for the ground state of Bosons in an external trap interacting with repulsive pair potentials, and in the well-defined limit in which the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) formula is applicable. It is the first proof of BEC for interacting particles in a continuum (as distinct from lattice) model and in a physically realistic situation. We present here a detailed version of the proof given in \[LS\]. We remark that an extension of the results presented here was recently obtained in \[LSY4\], where it was shown that the ground state is 100% superfluid in the GP limit.

The Gross-Pitaevskii limit under discussion here is a mathematically simpler limit than the usual thermodynamic limit in which the average density is held fixed as the particle number goes to infinity. A proof of BEC in this limit is still missing. The only available rigorous results concern the non-interacting gas, various mean-field and other toy models (see, e.g., \[LVZ\] for a recent preprint), or the hard core lattice gas \[KLS\].

In the GP limit one also lets the range of the potential go to zero as $`N`$ goes to infinity, but in such a way that the overall effect is non-trivial. That is, the combined effect of the infinite particle limit and the zero range limit is such as to leave a measurable residue — the GP function. The limit in which the GP function can be expected to be equal to the condensate wave function should be chosen so that all three terms in the GP functional (1.2) make a contribution. This indicates that fixing $`Na`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$ is the right thing to do, and this is quite relevant since experimentally $`N`$ can be quite large, $`10^6`$ and more, and $`Na`$ can range from about 1 to $`10^4`$ \[PeSm\]. Fixing $`Na`$ also means that we really are dealing with a dilute system, because the mean density $`\overline{\rho }`$ is then of the order $`N`$ and hence $`a^3\overline{\rho }N^2`$, meaning that the range of the interaction is much shorter than the mean particle distance.

We shall now describe the setting more precisely. Let $`H`$ be the Hamiltonian for $`N`$ identical Bosons in a trap potential $`V`$ in $`^3`$, interacting via a pair potential $`v`$:

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_i+V(𝐱_i)\right)+\underset{1i<jN}{}v(𝐱_i𝐱_j).$$
(1.1)
It acts on the subspace of totally symmetric functions in $`^NL^2(^3)`$. Units are chosen such that $`\mathrm{}=2m=1`$, where $`m`$ denotes the particle mass. We assume the trap potential $`V`$ to be a locally bounded function that tends to infinity as $`|𝐱|\mathrm{}`$. The interaction potential $`v`$ is assumed to be nonnegative, spherically symmetric, and have a finite range $`R_0`$. Its scattering length will be denoted by $`a`$. (For the definition of scattering length, see \[LSY1\] or \[LY2\].) The finiteness of the range will be assumed for simplicity, but this assumption can be relaxed. Note that we do not demand $`v`$ to be locally integrable; it is allowed to have a hard core, which forces the wave functions to vanish whenever two particles are close together. In the following, we want to let $`a`$ vary with $`N`$, and we do this by scaling, i.e., we write $`v(𝐱)=v_1(𝐱/a)/a^2`$, where $`v_1`$ has scattering length $`1`$, and keep $`v_1`$ fixed when varying $`a`$. The ground state energy of $`H`$, denoted by $`E^{\mathrm{QM}}`$, then depends only on $`N`$ and $`a`$ (for fixed $`V`$ and $`v_1`$), so the notation $`E^{\mathrm{QM}}(N,a)`$ is justified. The results below are independent of the particular shape of the interaction potential $`v_1`$.

The Gross-Pitaevskii functional is given by

$$^{\mathrm{GP}}[\varphi ]=\left(|\varphi (𝐱)|^2+V(𝐱)|\varphi (𝐱)|^2+g|\varphi (𝐱)|^4\right)d^3𝐱.$$
(1.2)
Here $`g`$ is a positive parameter that is related to the particle number and the scattering length of the interaction potential appearing in (1.1) via

$$g=4\pi Na.$$
(1.3)
We denote by $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ the minimizer of $`^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ under the normalization condition $`|\varphi |^2=1`$. Existence, uniqueness, and some regularity properties of $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ were proved in the appendix of \[LSY1\]. In particular, $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ is continuously differentiable and strictly positive. Of course $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ depends on $`g`$, but we omit this dependence for simplicity of notation. For later use, we define the projector

$$P^{\mathrm{GP}}=|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}|.$$
(1.4)
The minimizer $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ fulfills the variational equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}+V\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}+2g(\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}})^3=\mu ^{\mathrm{GP}}\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}},$$
(1.5)
which is called the GP equation. Here $`\mu ^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ is the chemical potential, given by

$$\mu ^{\mathrm{GP}}=E^{\mathrm{GP}}+g|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}|^4,$$
(1.6)
with $`E^{\mathrm{GP}}=E^{\mathrm{GP}}(g)`$ the lowest energy of $`^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ under the condition $`|\varphi |^2=1`$.

It was shown in \[LSY1\] (see Theorem 2 below) that, for each fixed $`g`$, the minimization of the GP functional correctly reproduces the large $`N`$ asymptotics of the ground state energy and density of $`H`$ – but no assertion about BEC in this limit was made. This was extended in \[LS\], where complete BEC was proved. The precise statement is as follows.

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ denote the nonnegative and normalized ground state of $`H`$. BEC refers to the reduced one-particle density matrix

$$\gamma (𝐱,𝐱^{})=N\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱,𝐗)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱^{},𝐗)𝑑𝐗,$$
(1.7)
where we denoted $`𝐗=(𝐱_2,\mathrm{},𝐱_N)`$ and $`d𝐗=_{j=2}^Nd^3𝐱_j`$ for short. It is the kernel of a positive trace class operator $`\gamma `$ on $`L^2(^3)`$, with $`\mathrm{Tr}[\gamma ]=N`$.

Complete (or 100%) BEC is defined to be the property that $`\frac{1}{N}\gamma (𝐱,𝐱^{})`$ becomes a simple product $`\phi (𝐱)\phi (𝐱^{})`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$, in which case $`\phi `$ is called the condensate wave function. I.e., $`\frac{1}{N}\gamma `$ converges to a one-dimensional projection. In particular, there is one eigenvalue of $`\gamma `$ of the order $`N`$ (even equal to $`N`$ in the limit), and all the others are of lower order. In the GP limit, i.e., $`N\mathrm{}`$ with $`g=4\pi Na`$ fixed, we can show that this is the case, and the condensate wave function is, in fact, the GP minimizer $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}`$.

###### Theorem 1 (Bose-Einstein Condensation).

For each fixed $`g`$

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\gamma (𝐱,𝐱^{})=\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱^{})$$
(1.8)
in trace class norm, i.e., $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[|\gamma /NP^{\mathrm{GP}}|\right]0`$.

###### Remark 1.

Theorem 1 implies that there is 100% condensation for all $`n`$-particle reduced density matrices of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, i.e., they converge to the one-dimensional projector onto the corresponding $`n`$-fold product of $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}`$. See \[LS\] for details.

###### Remark 2.

Convergence does not hold for the Sobolev norm $`\mathrm{Tr}[|(1\mathrm{\Delta })(\gamma /NP^{\mathrm{GP}})|]`$. It can be shown \[LS\] that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma ]=\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{\Delta }P^{\mathrm{GP}}]+gs|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}|^4$$
(1.9)
for some parameter $`0<s1`$ depending only on the interaction potential $`v_1`$.

A corollary of Theorem 1, important for the interpretation of experiments, concerns the momentum distribution of the ground state.

###### Corollary 1 (Convergence of momentum distribution).

Let

$$\widehat{\rho }(𝐤)=\gamma (𝐱,𝐱^{})\mathrm{exp}[i𝐤(𝐱𝐱^{})]d^3𝐱d^3𝐱^{}$$
(1.10)
denote the one-particle momentum density of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Then, for fixed $`g`$,

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\widehat{\rho }(𝐤)=|\widehat{\varphi }^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐤)|^2$$
(1.11)
strongly in $`L^1(^3)`$. Here, $`\widehat{\varphi }^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ denotes the Fourier transform of $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}`$.

###### Proof.

If $``$ denotes the (unitary) operator ‘Fourier transform’ and if $`h`$ is an arbitrary $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$-function, then

$$\left|\frac{1}{N}\widehat{\rho }h|\widehat{\varphi }^{\mathrm{GP}}|^2h\right|=\left|\mathrm{Tr}[^1(\gamma /NP^{\mathrm{GP}})h]\right|h_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[|\gamma /NP^{\mathrm{GP}}|\right],$$
(1.12)
from which we conclude that

$$\widehat{\rho }/N|\widehat{\varphi }^{\mathrm{GP}}|^2_1\mathrm{Tr}\left[|\gamma /NP^{\mathrm{GP}}|\right].$$
(1.13)
It is important to note that in the limit considered $`v`$ becomes a hard potential of short range. This is the opposite of the usual mean field limit, where the strength of the potential goes to zero while its range tends to infinity.

We also wish to emphasize that in this GP limit the fact that there is 100% condensation does not mean that no significant interactions occur. The kinetic and potential energies can differ markedly from those obtained with a simple variational function that is an $`N`$-fold product of one-body condensate wave functions. This assertion might seem paradoxical, and the explanation is that near the GP limit the region in which the wave function differs from the condensate function has a tiny volume that goes to zero as $`N\mathrm{}`$. Nevertheless, the interaction energy, which is proportional to $`N`$, resides in this tiny volume.

Before proving Theorem 1, let us state some prior results on which we shall build. These results concern the asymptotic behavior of the ground state energy and density of (1.1) in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ with $`g=4\pi Na`$ fixed. The following Theorem 2 was proved in \[LSY1\].

###### Theorem 2 (Asymptotics of Energy and Density).

Let $`\rho (𝐱)=\gamma (𝐱,𝐱)`$ denote the density of the ground state of $`H`$. For fixed $`g=4\pi Na`$,

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}E^{\mathrm{QM}}(N,a)=E^{\mathrm{GP}}(g)$$
(1.14)
and

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\rho (𝐱)=|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2$$
(1.15)
in the sense of weak convergence in $`L^1(^3)`$.

###### Remark 3.

The convergence in (1.15) was shown in \[LSY1\] to be in the weak $`L^1(^3)`$ sense, but our result here implies strong convergence, in fact. This can easily be deduced from Theorem 1 (cf. the proof of Corollary 1).

We now give a brief outline of the proof of Theorem 1. There are two essential ingredients. The first is a proof that the part of the kinetic energy that is associated with the interaction $`v`$ is mostly located in small balls surrounding each particle. More precisely, these balls can be taken to have radius $`N^{7/17}`$, which is much smaller than the mean particle spacing $`N^{1/3}`$. This allows us to conclude that the function of $`𝐱`$ defined for each fixed value of $`𝐗`$ by

$$f_𝐗(𝐱)=\frac{1}{\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱,𝐗)0$$
(1.16)
has the property that $`_𝐱f_𝐗(𝐱)`$ is almost zero outside the small balls centered at points of $`𝐗`$. This is made precise in Lemma 1.

The complement of the small balls has a large volume but it can be a weird set; it need not even be connected. Therefore, the smallness of $`_𝐱f_𝐗(𝐱)`$ in this set does not guarantee that $`f_𝐗(𝐱)`$ is nearly constant (in $`𝐱`$), or even that it is continuous. We need $`f_𝐗(𝐱)`$ to be nearly constant in order to conclude BEC. What saves the day is the knowledge that the total kinetic energy of $`f_𝐗(𝐱)`$ (including the balls) is not huge. The result that allows us to combine these two pieces of information in order to deduce the almost constancy of $`f_𝐗(𝐱)`$ is the generalized Poincaré inequality in Lemma 4.

## 2. The Proof

We start with the following Lemma. It shows that to leading order all the interaction energy is concentrated in small balls. The proof we give here is a detailed version of the one sketched in \[LS\]. Instead of referring to the methods of \[LSY1\], we follow a slightly different route and use the (partly simpler) methods of the review article \[LSSoY\].

Throughout the paper we suppress the dependence on $`N`$ for simplicity of notation. For instance, in Eq. (2.2) both $`𝐗`$ and $`f_𝐗`$ depend on $`N`$.

###### Lemma 1 (Localization of the Energy).

For fixed $`𝐗`$ let

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐗=\left\{𝐱^3\right|\underset{k2}{\mathrm{min}}|𝐱𝐱_k|N^{7/17}\}.$$
(2.1)
Then

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}𝑑𝐗_{\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐗}d^3𝐱|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2|_𝐱f_𝐗(𝐱)|^2=0.$$
(2.2)
Note that (2.2) does not imply that the kinetic energy of $`f_𝐗`$ goes to zero. In fact, it can be shown \[LS, CS\] that if one replaces $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐗`$ by $`^3`$ in (2.2) the result is

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}𝑑𝐗_^3d^3𝐱|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2|_𝐱f_𝐗(𝐱)|^2=gs|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^4d^3𝐱$$
(2.3)
(compare with (1.9)). Here $`0<s1`$ is a parameter depending only on the interaction potential $`v`$. (For example, $`s=1`$ in the case of hard core Bosons; in general, $`s<1`$.) The right side of (2.3) is $`O(1)`$ in the limit considered, and is not necessarily small. Thus Lemma 1 shows that all the interaction energy is localized in small balls of radius $`N^{7/17}`$ surrounding each particle.

###### Proof of Lemma 1.

We shall show that

$$\begin{array}{c}𝑑𝐗_{\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐗^c}d^3𝐱|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2|_𝐱f_𝐗(𝐱)|^2\hfill \\ \hfill +𝑑𝐗d^3𝐱|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2|f_𝐗(𝐱)|^2\left[\frac{1}{2}\underset{k2}{}v(𝐱𝐱_k)2g|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2\right]\\ \hfill g|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^4d^3𝐱o(1)\end{array}$$
(2.4)
as $`N\mathrm{}`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐗^c`$ is the complement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐗`$ in $`^3`$. We claim that this implies the assertion of the Lemma. To see this, note that the left side of (2.4) can be written as

$$\frac{1}{N}E^{\mathrm{QM}}\mu ^{\mathrm{GP}}𝑑𝐗_{\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐗}d^3𝐱|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2|_𝐱f_𝐗(𝐱)|^2,$$
(2.5)
where we used partial integration and the GP equation (1.5), and also the symmetry of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The convergence of the energies in Theorem 2 and the relation (1.6) now imply the desired result.

We are left with the proof of (2.4). This is actually just a detailed examination of the lower bounds to the energy derived in \[LSY1\] and \[LY1\], and we use the methods from there. The proof presented here follows closely \[LSSoY\] and differs slightly from \[LSY1\].

Writing $`f_𝐗(𝐱)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{k2}\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_k)F(𝐱,𝐗)`$ and using that $`F`$ is symmetric in the particle coordinates, we see that (2.4) is equivalent to

$$\frac{1}{N}Q(F)g|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}|^4o(1),$$
(2.6)
where $`Q`$ is the quadratic form

$$\begin{array}{c}Q(F)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{\mathrm{\Omega }_i^c}|_iF|^2\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_k)|^2d^3𝐱_k\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\underset{ji}{}v(𝐱_i𝐱_j)2g|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_i)|^2\right]|F|^2\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_k)|^2d^3𝐱_k,\end{array}$$
(2.7)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^c=\{(𝐱_1,𝐗)^{3N}|\mathrm{min}_{ki}|𝐱_i𝐱_k|N^{7/17}\}`$.

While (2.6) is not true for all conceivable $`F`$’s satisfying the normalization condition

$$|F|^2\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_k)|^2d^3𝐱_k=1,$$
(2.8)
it is true for an $`F`$, such as ours, that has bounded kinetic energy (2.3). In fact, we will show that

$$\frac{1}{N}\left[Q(F)+\epsilon \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{^{3N}}|_iF|^2\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_k)|^2d^3𝐱_k\right]g|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}|^4o(1),$$
(2.9)
for all $`F`$ satisfying (2.8), with $`\epsilon =o(1)`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$.

To estimate the left side of (2.9) from below, we divide space into boxes of side length $`L`$, labeled by $`\alpha `$, and distribute the particles over the boxes. If we use Neumann boundary conditions in each box, this can only lower the energy, since we effectively allow discontinuous functions. Moreover, since $`v`$ is positive, we can neglect interactions among particles in different boxes for the lower bound. To be precise, the left side of (2.9) is bounded below by

$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{\{n_\alpha \}}{inf}\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{F_\alpha }{inf}\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha (F_\alpha )}{F_\alpha ^2},$$
(2.10)
where the infimum is over all distributions of $`n_\alpha `$ particles in the boxes $`\alpha `$, under the constraint that $`_\alpha n_\alpha =N`$, and

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha (F_\alpha )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_\alpha }{}}\left[_{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_i^c}|_iF_\alpha |^2+\epsilon _\alpha |_iF_\alpha |^2\right]\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_\alpha }{}}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_k)|^2d^3𝐱_k\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_\alpha }{}}_\alpha \left[\underset{ji}{}v(𝐱_i𝐱_j)2g|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_i)|^2\right]|F_\alpha |^2\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_\alpha }{}}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_k)|^2d^3𝐱_k.\end{array}$$
(2.11)
Here all the integrals are restricted to the box $`\alpha `$, and $`F_\alpha `$ is a function of $`n_\alpha `$ variables.

We now fix some $`M>0`$, that will eventually tend to $`\mathrm{}`$, and restrict ourselves to boxes $`\alpha `$ inside a cube $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ of side length $`M`$. Since $`v0`$ the contribution to (2.10) of boxes outside this cube is easily estimated from below by $`2gNsup_{𝐱\mathrm{\Lambda }_M}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2`$, which, divided by $`N`$, is arbitrarily small for $`M`$ large, since $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ decreases faster than exponentially at infinity (\[LSY1\], Lemma A.5).

For the boxes inside the cube $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ we want to use the results on the homogeneous Bose gas obtained in \[LY1\], and therefore we must approximate $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ by constants in each box. Let $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{min}}`$, respectively, denote the maximal and minimal values of $`|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}|^2`$ in box $`\alpha `$. Define

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_{n_\alpha })=F_\alpha (𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_{n_\alpha })\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_\alpha }{}}\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_k),$$
(2.12)
and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(i)}(𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_{n_\alpha })=F_\alpha (𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_{n_\alpha })\underset{\begin{array}{c}k=1\\ ki\end{array}}{\overset{n_\alpha }{}}\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_k).$$
(2.13)
We have, for all $`1in_\alpha `$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\left[_{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_i^c}|_iF_\alpha |^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{ji}{}_\alpha v(𝐱_i𝐱_j)|F_\alpha |^2\right]\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_\alpha }{}}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_k)|^2d^3𝐱_k\hfill \\ \hfill \rho _{\mathrm{min}}\left[_{\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_i^c}|_i\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(i)}|^2+\frac{1}{2}\underset{ji}{}_\alpha v(𝐱_i𝐱_j)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(i)}|^2\right]\underset{k=1}{\overset{n_\alpha }{}}d^3𝐱_k.\end{array}$$
(2.14)
We now use the following Lemma, which was proved in \[LY1\]. It allows us to replace $`v`$ by a ‘soft’ potential, at the cost of sacrificing kinetic energy and increasing the effective range.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`v(𝐱)0`$ with finite range $`R_0`$. Let $`U(r)0`$ be any function satisfying $`U(r)r^2𝑑r1`$ and $`U(r)=0`$ for $`r<R_0`$. Let $`^3`$ be star shaped with respect to $`0`$ (e.g. convex with $`0`$). Then for all functions $`\psi `$

$$_{}\left[|\psi |^2+\frac{1}{2}v|\psi |^2\right]a_{}U|\psi |^2.$$
(2.15)
By dividing $`\alpha `$ for given points $`𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_{n_\alpha }`$ into Voronoi cells $`_i`$ that contain all points closer to $`𝐱_i`$ than to $`𝐱_j`$ with $`ji`$ (these cells are star shaped w.r.t. $`𝐱_i`$, indeed convex), and choosing a $`U`$ with radius $`RN^{7/17}`$, we see that (2.14) is bounded below by

$$(\text{2.14})a\rho _{\mathrm{min}}_\alpha U(t_i)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(i)}|^2a\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{min}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{max}}}_\alpha U(t_i)|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |^2,$$
(2.16)
where $`t_i`$ is the distance of $`𝐱_i`$ to its nearest neighbor among the other points $`𝐱_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n_\alpha `$, i.e.,

$$t_i(𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_{n_\alpha })=\underset{j,ji}{\mathrm{min}}|𝐱_i𝐱_j|.$$
(2.17)
As in \[LY1\] we choose for $`U`$ the potential

$$U(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}3(R^3R_0^3)^1\hfill & \text{for }R_0<r<R\text{ }\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise  ,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.18)
with $`R`$ determined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐗`$ as $`R=N^{7/17}`$. Note that $`RR_0`$ for $`N`$ large enough, since $`R_0=O(N^1)`$ in the limit considered.

Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha =\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_i)\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(i)}`$ we can estimate

$$|_i\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha |^22\rho _{\mathrm{max}}|_i\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(i)}|^2+2|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{(i)}|^2C_M$$
(2.19)
with

$$C_M=\underset{𝐱\mathrm{\Lambda }_M}{sup}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2.$$
(2.20)
Inserting (2.19) into (2.11), summing over $`i`$ and using $`\rho ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱_i)\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$ in the last term of (2.11), we get

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha (F_\alpha )}{F_\alpha ^2}\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{min}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{max}}}E_\epsilon ^U(n_\alpha ,L)2g\rho _{\mathrm{max}}n_\alpha \epsilon C_Mn_\alpha ,$$
(2.21)
where $`E_\epsilon ^U(n_\alpha ,L)`$ is the ground state energy of

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_\alpha }{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }_i+aU(t_i)\right)$$
(2.22)
in a box of side length $`L`$. We want to minimize (2.21) with respect to $`n_\alpha `$, and drop the subsidiary condition $`_\alpha n_\alpha =N`$ in (2.10). This can only lower the minimum. For the time being we also ignore the last term in (2.21). The total contribution of this term for all boxes is bounded by $`\epsilon C_MN`$ and will turn out to be negligible compared to the other terms.

It was shown in \[LY1\] (see also \[LSSoY\]) that

$$E_\epsilon ^U(n_\alpha ,L)\frac{4\pi an_\alpha ^2}{L^3}(1CY_\alpha ^{1/17})$$
(2.23)
with $`Y_\alpha =a^3n_\alpha /L^3`$, provided $`\epsilon Y_\alpha ^{1/17}`$ and $`n_\alpha (\mathrm{const}.)Y_\alpha ^{1/17}`$. The condition on $`\epsilon `$ is certainly fulfilled if we choose $`\epsilon =Y^{1/17}`$ with $`Y=a^3N/L^3`$. We now want to show that the $`n_\alpha `$ minimizing the right side of (2.21) is large enough for (2.23) to apply.

If the minimum of the right side of (2.21) (without the last term) is taken for some $`\overline{n}_\alpha `$, we have

$$\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{min}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{max}}}\left(E_\epsilon ^U(\overline{n}_\alpha +1,L)E_\epsilon ^U(\overline{n}_\alpha ,L)\right)2g\rho _{\mathrm{max}}.$$
(2.24)
On the other hand, we claim that

###### Lemma 3.

For any $`n`$

$$E_\epsilon ^U(n+1,L)E_\epsilon ^U(n,L)8\pi a\frac{n}{L^3}.$$
(2.25)
###### Proof.

Denote the operator (2.22) by $`\stackrel{~}{H}_n`$, with $`n_\alpha =n`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n`$ be its ground state. Let $`t_i^{}`$ be the distance to the nearest neighbor of $`𝐱_i`$ among the $`n+1`$ points $`𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_{n+1}`$ (without $`𝐱_i`$) and $`t_i`$ the corresponding distance excluding $`𝐱_{n+1}`$. Obviously, for $`1in`$,

$$U(t_i^{})U(t_i)+U(|𝐱_i𝐱_{n+1}|)$$
(2.26)
and

$$U(t_{n+1}^{})\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}U(|𝐱_i𝐱_{n+1}|).$$
(2.27)
Therefore

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{n+1}\stackrel{~}{H}_n\frac{1}{2}\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }_{n+1}+2a\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}U(|𝐱_i𝐱_{n+1}|).$$
(2.28)
Using $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_n/L^{3/2}`$ as trial function for $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{n+1}`$ we arrive at (2.25). ∎

Eq. (2.25) together with (2.24) shows that $`\overline{n}_\alpha `$ is at least $`N\rho _{\mathrm{max}}L^3`$ (recall that $`g=4\pi Na`$). We shall choose $`LN^{1/10}`$, so the conditions needed for (2.23) are fulfilled for $`N`$ large enough, since $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}=O(1)`$ and hence $`\overline{n}_\alpha N^{7/10}`$ and $`Y_\alpha N^2`$.

In order to obtain a lower bound on (2.21), we can use $`Y_\alpha Y`$ in the error term in (2.23). We therefore have to minimize

$$4\pi a\left(\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{min}}}{\rho _{\mathrm{max}}}\frac{n_\alpha ^2}{L^3}\left(1CY^{1/17}\right)2n_\alpha N\rho _{\mathrm{max}}\right),$$
(2.29)
and we can drop the requirement that $`n_\alpha `$ has to be an integer. The minimum of (2.29) is obtained for

$$n_\alpha =\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{max}}^2}{\rho _{\mathrm{min}}}\frac{NL^3}{(1CY^{1/17})}.$$
(2.30)
Using (2.10), (2.21) and (2.23) this gives the following lower bound on the left side of (2.9), including now the last term in (2.21) as well as the contributions from the boxes outside $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$:

$$g\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_M}{}\rho _{\mathrm{min}}^2L^3\left(\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{max}}^3}{\rho _{\mathrm{min}}^3}\frac{1}{(1CY^{1/17})}\right)2g\underset{𝐱\mathrm{\Lambda }_M}{sup}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2\epsilon C_M.$$
(2.31)
Now $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ is differentiable and strictly positive. Since all the boxes are in the fixed cube $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ there are constants $`C^{}<\mathrm{}`$, $`C^{\prime \prime }>0`$, such that

$$\rho _{\mathrm{max}}\rho _{\mathrm{min}}C^{}L,\rho _{\mathrm{min}}C^{\prime \prime }.$$
(2.32)
Since $`LN^{1/10}`$ and $`YN^{17/10}`$ we therefore have, for large $`N`$,

$$\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{max}}^3}{\rho _{\mathrm{min}}^3}\frac{1}{(1CY^{1/17})}1+(\mathrm{const}.)N^{1/10}.$$
(2.33)
Also,

$$g\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_M}{}\rho _{\mathrm{min}}^2L^3g|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}|^4.$$
(2.34)
Hence, for some constant depending only on $`g`$ and $`M`$,

$$(\text{2.31})g|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}|^4(\mathrm{const}.)N^{1/10}2g\underset{𝐱\mathrm{\Lambda }_M}{sup}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2.$$
(2.35)
This proves the desired result, and finishes the proof of Lemma 1. ∎

In the following, $`𝒦^m`$ denotes a bounded and connected set that is sufficiently nice so that the Poincaré-Sobolev inequality (see \[LLo, Thm. 8.12\]) holds on $`𝒦`$. In particular, this is the case if $`𝒦`$ satisfies the cone property \[LLo\] (e.g., if $`𝒦`$ is a ball or a cube). The following Lemma is a generalization of the Poincaré inequality. It can be further generalized to the $`L^p`$ case, and, with a different and more complicated proof, to the case of magnetic fields \[LSY3\].

###### Lemma 4 (Generalized Poincaré Inequality).

For $`m2`$ let $`𝒦^m`$ be as explained above, and let $`h`$ be a bounded function with $`_𝒦h=1`$. There exists a constant $`C`$ (depending only on $`𝒦`$ and $`h`$) such that for all sets $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝒦`$ and all $`fH^1(𝒦)`$ with $`_𝒦fhd^m𝐱=0`$, the inequality

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }|f(𝐱)|^2d^m𝐱+\left(\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }^c|}{|𝒦|}\right)^{2/m}_𝒦|f(𝐱)|^2d^m𝐱\frac{1}{C}_𝒦|f(𝐱)|^2d^m𝐱$$
(2.36)
holds. Here $`||`$ is the volume of a set, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c=𝒦\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Proof.

By the usual Poincaré-Sobolev inequality on $`𝒦`$ (see \[LLo, Thm. 8.12\]),

$$f_{L^2(𝒦)}^2\stackrel{~}{C}f_{L^{2m/(m+2)}(𝒦)}^2$$
(2.37)
for some constant $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$, if $`m2`$ and $`_𝒦fh=0`$. Using the triangle inequality we can estimate

$$f_{L^2(𝒦)}^22\stackrel{~}{C}\left(f_{L^{2m/(m+2)}(\mathrm{\Omega })}^2+f_{L^{2m/(m+2)}(\mathrm{\Omega }^c)}^2\right).$$
(2.38)
Applying Hölder’s inequality

$$f_{L^{2m/(m+2)}(\mathrm{\Omega })}f_{L^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}|\mathrm{\Omega }|^{1/m}$$
(2.39)
(and the analogue with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ replaced by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^c`$), we see that (2.36) holds with $`C=2|𝒦|^{2/m}\stackrel{~}{C}`$. ∎

The important point in Lemma 4 is that there is no restriction on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ concerning regularity or connectivity. Combining the results of Lemmas 1 and 4, we now are able to prove Theorem 1.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

For some $`M>0`$ let $`𝒦=\{𝐱^3,|𝐱|M\}`$, and define

$$f_𝐗_𝒦=\frac{1}{_𝒦|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2d^3𝐱}_𝒦|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2f_𝐗(𝐱)d^3𝐱.$$
(2.40)
We shall use Lemma 4, with $`m=3`$, $`h(𝐱)=|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2/_𝒦|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}|^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐗𝒦`$ and $`f(𝐱)=f_𝐗(𝐱)f_𝐗_𝒦`$ (see (2.1) and (1.16)). Since $`\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ is bounded on $`𝒦`$ above and below by some positive constants, this Lemma also holds (with a different constant $`C^{}`$) with $`d^3𝐱`$ replaced by $`|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2d^3𝐱`$ in (2.36). Therefore,

$$\begin{array}{c}𝑑𝐗_𝒦d^3𝐱|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2\left[f_𝐗(𝐱)f_𝐗_𝒦\right]^2\hfill \\ \hfill C^{}d𝐗[_{\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐗𝒦}|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2|_𝐱f_𝐗(𝐱)|^2d^3𝐱\\ \hfill +\frac{N^{8/51}}{M^2}_𝒦|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2|_𝐱f_𝐗(𝐱)|^2d^3𝐱],\end{array}$$
(2.41)
where we used that $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐗^c𝒦|(4\pi /3)N^{4/17}`$. The first integral on the right side of (2.41) tends to zero as $`N\mathrm{}`$ by Lemma 1, and the second is bounded by (2.3). We conclude that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}𝑑𝐗_𝒦d^3𝐱|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2\left[f_𝐗(𝐱)f_𝐗_𝒦\right]^2=0.$$
(2.42)
Moreover, since

$$_𝒦|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2f_𝐗(𝐱)d^3𝐱_^3|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2f_𝐗(𝐱)d^3𝐱$$
(2.43)
by the positivity of $`f_𝐗`$,

$$\frac{1}{N}\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}|\gamma |\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}\left[_𝒦|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2d^3𝐱\right]^2𝑑𝐗f_𝐗_𝒦^2.$$
(2.44)
Hence, by (2.42),

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{1}{N}\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}|\gamma |\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}_𝒦|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2d^3𝐱\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}𝑑𝐗_𝒦d^3𝐱|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱,𝐗)|^2.$$
(2.45)
It follows from (1.15) that the right side of this inequality equals $`\left[_𝒦|\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}(𝐱)|^2d^3𝐱\right]^2`$. Since the radius of $`𝒦`$ was arbitrary, we conclude that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}|\gamma |\varphi ^{\mathrm{GP}}=1,$$
(2.46)
implying convergence of $`\gamma /N`$ to $`P^{\mathrm{GP}}`$ in Hilbert-Schmidt norm. Since the traces are equal, convergence even holds in trace class norm (cf. \[Si, Thm. 2.20\]), and Theorem 1 is proven. ∎

Throughout the paper we were dealing with Bosons in three-dimensional space. However, the method presented here also works in the case of a 2D Bose gas. The relevant parameter to be kept fixed in the GP limit is $`g=4\pi N/|\mathrm{ln}(a^2N)|`$, all other considerations carry over without essential change, using the results in \[LSY2, LY2\]. We also point out that our method necessarily fails for the 1D Bose gas, where there is no BEC in the ground state \[PiSt\]. An analogue of Lemma 1 cannot hold in the 1D case since even a hard core potential with arbitrarily small range produces an interaction energy that is not localized on scales smaller than the mean particle spacing.