format: text

text:
# Anisotropic flow

## 1 Introduction. Flow adventures from Monterey to Nantes.

From the point of view of anisotropic flow this conference is quite remarkable. Elliptic flow has been fully recognized as an important observable providing information on the early stages of heavy ion collisions. An increased attention to anisotropic flow in recent years has resulted in a significant improvement in all three components of the field: techniques and methods, analysis and presentation of the data, and theoretical understanding of the underlying physics. For a long time the anisotropic flow measurements suffered large systematic errors related to the so called “non-flow” contribution, the contribution due to the azimuthal correlations not related to the orientation of the reaction plane. At this Quark Matter conference, for the first time, we discuss the results mostly free of this uncertainty, using results obtained with 3-, 4-, and even more particle correlations. Elliptic flow up to $`p_t10\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}12}`$ GeV/c, the “wiggle” in directed flow, $`v_2(p_t)`$ for a number of identified particles up to $`p_t`$ $``$3-4 GeV/c, are only a few other results presented at this conference.

The starting point for many recent developments was the Quark Matter ’95 conference at Monterey. Then, the E877 Collaboration reported the first observation of anisotropic flow in ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions at the BNL AGS , the discovery, which M. Gyulassy in his concluding remarks called the “major highlight of the year”. That analyses was done with the use of a new approach , the very notations of which, like $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$, are a common language now. The E877 Collaboration also presented the results from the first attempts to perform HBT interferometry of the anisotropic source, one of the important directions in today’s HBT analysis. At the same conference, J.-Y. Ollitrault, foreseeing future precise measurements, emphasized the importance of the understanding and measuring of the non-flow correlations. It was pointed out that flow is a collective phenomena and in order to disentangle it from other contributions to particle azimuthal correlations one has to exploit multi-particle correlations (cumulants).

Anisotropic flow is defined as azimuthal asymmetry in particle distribution with respect to the reaction plane (the plane spanned by the beam direction and the impact parameter). It is called flow for it is a collective phenomena, but it does not necessarily imply hydrodynamic flow. It is commonly characterized using Fourier decomposition of the azimuthal distributions . Then the first harmonic Fourier coefficient, $`v_1`$, describes directed flow, and the second harmonic coefficient, $`v_2`$, corresponds to elliptic flow; non-zero higher harmonics can be also present in the distribution.

The two reasons for anisotropic flow are the original asymmetry in the configuration space (non-central collisions !) and rescatterings. In a case of elliptic flow the initial “ellipticity” of the overlap zone is usually characterized by the quantity $`\epsilon =(y^2x^2)/(y^2+x^2`$, assuming the reaction plane being the $`xz`$-plane. With the system expansion the spatial anisotropy decreases. This is the reason for the high sensitivity of elliptic flow to the evolution of the system at very early times , 2–5 fm/c, of the order of the size of the system.

## 2 Directed flow

Three major results reported at this conference regarding directed flow were: the understanding of the role of momentum conservation  (due to lack of space I do not discuss it here, for details, see ), the use of 3-particle correlations in order to suppress the non-flow contributions , and the first results on directed flow of protons close to mid-rapidity . The latter is related to earlier predictions of the so called “wiggle” in the dependence of $`v_1(y)`$ .

Three-particle correlations, discussed in the talk of Borghini et al. , relies on the observed strong elliptic flow at mid-rapidity and permits directed flow measurements, which are much less affected by non-flow correlations. If in the usual two-particle correlator

$$e^{i(\varphi _1\varphi _2)}v_1^2+\delta _1,$$
(1)
the non-flow contribution, $`\delta _11/N_{tot}`$, where $`N_{tot}`$ is the total number of particles, then the 3-particle correlation approach gives

$$e^{i(\varphi _1+\varphi _22\varphi _3)}v_1^2v_2+\delta _1^2.$$
(2)
The relative suppression of the non-flow contribution in Eq. 2 compared to Eq. 1 is of the order of $`1/(v_2N_{tot})`$, which for large elliptic flow could be significant. Mathematically, one can trace that in Eq. 2, the contribution of any correlations projected onto the reaction plane and the plane perpendicular to the reaction plane enter with opposite signs. The non-flow contributions, by definition, are the correlations not dependent on the relative orientation with respect to the reaction plane, and as such just cancel out from the final result.

The so called “wiggle” in directed flow, the three times change in the sign of directed flow in the midrapidity region, had been predicted a few years ago. The origin of this wiggle is somewhat different in different models, but any of the explanations would be very intriguing and interesting. In the “third flow component” picture , it results from the expansion of the initially tilted disk of the compressed matter. It appeared that the effect is present only if QGP is produced. Thus the wiggle might be a signature of the QGP production. The second explanation of the wiggle relies on the non-complete stopping of nucleons during the collisions, which results in the correlation of the position of the nucleon in the transverse plane and their rapidity. Combining this with a subsequent radial expansion one gets the wiggle . The first results have been presented by the NA49 Collaboration  (see Fig. 1):

One can see a clear indication of the change of sign of directed flow of protons as a function of rapidity for the most peripheral events. It would be extremely interesting to see the analogous results from experiments at RHIC. Detailed model predictions for the energy dependence of directed flow of both pions and baryons would also be very interesting.

## 3 Elliptic flow

There have been many new results and ideas presented at this conference. I will only briefly mention the most important (from my point of view).

### 3.1 Comparing the results from different experiments

Anisotropic flow results at this conference have been presented by many collaborations . As always in such a case the question appears if these results are consistent. There are obvious difficulties to perform a fair comparison: different collaborations use different centralities. Nevertheless, I would conclude that the data where comparable are consistent (for the figures see the slides of my talk).

The second question often asked during the conference concerns transverse momentum dependence of elliptic flow at different collisions energies. The integrated elliptic flow is higher at RHIC than at SPS. The question is if $`v_2`$ as a function of $`p_t`$ become steeper or if the observed increase in integrated flow is mostly due to the increase in mean transverse momentum? To answer this very interesting question is more difficult, as the slope of $`v_2(p_t)`$ strongly depends on centrality and one does have to have the same centralities in different experiments for comparison. With the existing data, however, I would conclude that in the central collisions the slope of $`v_2(p_t)`$ at SPS energies looks significantly smaller than at RHIC; in mid-central collisions the difference is not that large. (I discuss the centrality dependence of $`v_2`$ in more detail below.)

### 3.2 Flow and non-flow from multi-particle correlations

Anisotropic flow is a multi-particle phenomena. It means that if one considers many-particle correlations instead of two-particle correlations, the relative contribution of non-flow effects (due to few particle clusters) would decrease. Considering many-particle correlations, one has to subtract the contribution from correlations of the lower-order multiplets and use cumulants instead of simple correlators . For example, correlating four particles, one gets ($`u_ie^{i\varphi _i}`$)

$$u_{n,1}u_{n,2}u_{n,3}^{}u_{n,4}^{}=v_n^4+22v_n^2\delta _n+2\delta _n^2,$$
(3)
where $`\delta _n`$ stands for the non-flow contribution to two particle correlator: $`u_{n,1}u_{n,2}^{}=v_n^2+\delta _n`$. Subtracting from the expression (3) twice the square of the two particle correlator, one is left with only the flow contributions

$$u_{n,1}u_{n,2}u_{n,3}^{}u_{n,4}^{}u_{n,1}u_{n,2}u_{n,3}^{}u_{n,4}^{}2u_{n,1}u_{n,2}^{}^2=v_n^4,$$
(4)
where the notation $`\mathrm{}`$ is used to denote the cumulant. A very elegant way of calculating cumulants in flow analysis with the help of the generating function was proposed in . The NA49 Collaboration presented elliptic flow results from 4-, 6- and even 8-particle cumulants . Remarkably, the results from all higher order cumulants agree well, indicating that even 4-particle cumulants already suppress the non-flow contribution to a negligible level. The use of the multi-particle correlations permits one to measure the non-flow contribution and check its multiplicity dependence. The latter is expected to be roughly inversely proportional to the multiplicity, thus reflecting the small cluster origin of such correlations. Indeed, the result reported by the NA49 Collaboration are in agreement with a $`1/N`$ dependence.

The STAR Collaboration presented results from 4-particle correlations at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ =130 GeV and $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ =200 GeV , Fig. 2. Transverse momentum dependence of the non-flow (relative) contribution was also discussed . The results are consistent with weak increase in the relative non-flow signal from 15% at low $`p_t`$ to about 20% at $`p_t4`$ GeV/c (at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ =130 GeV). Finally, note a possible increase of the relative non-flow contribution with the collision energy, from 7-10% at SPS  to about 15% at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ =130 GeV and $``$20% at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ = 200 GeV at RHIC . Both effects are consistent with the increase in the contribution from hard processes.

#### 3.2.1 Flow fluctuations

Very good statistics results reported at this conference become sensitive to another effect usually neglected in flow analysis, namely, event-by-event flow fluctuations. The latter can can be due to two different reasons: “real” flow fluctuations – fluctuations at fixed impact parameter and fixed multiplicity (see, for example, ), and impact parameter variations among events from the same centrality bin in a case where flow does not fluctuate at fixed impact parameter. Note that these fluctuations affect any kind of analysis, including the “standard” one based on pair correlations. The reason is that any flow measurement is based on correlations between particles, which are sensitive only to certain moments of the distribution in $`v_2`$. In the pair correlation approach with the reaction plane determined from the second harmonic, the correlations are proportional to $`v^2`$. Averaging over events gives $`v^2`$, which in general is not equal to $`v^2`$. The 4-particle cumulant method involves the difference between 4-particle correlations and (twice) the square of the 2-particle correlations. It is usually assumed that this difference comes from non-flow correlations. Note, however, that this difference ($`v^4v^2^20`$) could be due to flow fluctuations. Let us consider an example where the distribution in $`v`$ is flat from $`v=0`$ to $`v=v_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and there is no non-flow contribution. Then, a simple calculation would lead to the ratio of the flow values from the standard 2-particle correlation method and 4-particle cumulants as large as $`v^2^{1/2}/(2v^2^2v^4)^{1/4}=5^{1/4}1.5`$. Thus comparing any theoretical model with the data one should take into account flow fluctuations if they exist in the model.

### 3.3 Pseudorapidity dependence

The PHOBOS Collaboration is still the only one which reports elliptic flow in a wide pseudorapidity range, Fig. 3. This pseudorapidity dependence is still a challenge for the hydrodynamic models , which predicts rather weak pseudorapidity dependence of elliptic flow. As was pointed out at the conference such behavior of $`v_2`$ in the hydrodynamic model could be related to the boost invariant initial conditions used in the calculations. Note also that PHOBOS results for elliptic flow at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ =130 GeV and 200 GeV are very similar, which is in some disagreement with the STAR results.

### 3.4 Elliptic flow at large $`p_t`$

An obvious interest in elliptic flow at large transverse momenta is due to a possible strong signal as a results of high $`p_t`$ parton energy loss . Shuryak in his recent paper  argued that the signal observed by the STAR Collaboration (only elliptic flow results from 2-particle correlations were known at that moment) could be probably too strong. He has calculated elliptic flow for the limiting case of very strong absorption resulting in predominant surface emission. Using his idea I arrived for the maximum flow values as a function of impact parameter

$$v_{2,max}=\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )/(6\alpha ),\mathrm{where}\alpha =\mathrm{arccos}(b/(2R)).$$
(5)
Comparing this formula to the STAR data  from 4-particle cumulants one finds reasonable agreement.

At this conference, the STAR Collaboration presented the results  on $`v_2(p_t)`$ up to $`p_t12`$ GeV/c (from 2-particle correlations). It shows that elliptic flow is large at least to $`p_t6\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}8}`$ GeV/c. Elliptic flow is maximum at $`p_t3`$ GeV/c and probably decreases very slowly up to the highest momentum measured. To discuss reliably any trends in the region of $`p_t>6`$ GeV/c, however, requires multi-particle correlation measurements. Model calculations are also needed.

Another interesting fact concerning flow at high $`p_t`$ has been reported by the CERES Collaboration . According to their data, the saturation of $`v_2(p_t)`$ at SPS energies is quite similar to the one at RHIC, although to make a definite conclusion one needs more carefully comparison.

### 3.5 Baryon and meson elliptic flow

At this conference both the STAR and PHENIX Collaborations presented very interesting results on $`p_t`$ dependence of elliptic flow of baryons and mesons. Although the results from both experiments have rather large error-bars, both agree that baryon elliptic flow saturates at higher $`p_t`$ and larger $`v_2`$ values than meson elliptic flow. From my point of view it could be due to the (partial) particle production via (constituent) quark coalescence at moderate transverse momentum. Then, in this region:

$$\frac{d^3n_M}{d^3p_M}[\frac{d^3n_q}{d^3p_q}(p_qp_M/2)]^2,\mathrm{and}\frac{d^3n_B}{d^3p_B}[\frac{d^3n_q}{d^3p_q}(p_qp_B/3)]^3,$$
(6)
resulting in larger saturation values of $`v_2`$ for baryons as well as the saturation point being at higher transverse momentum.

Note that Eq. 6 is valid only in a rather limited region of transverse momentum. At very low momentum probably most hadrons are formed via coalescence. Then their elliptic flow values should be similar to the elliptic flow of constituent quarks (I do not consider here the possible dependence on the mass of the particles). At really high $`p_t`$, however, hadrons are formed mostly due to parton fragmentation. There, the elliptic flow of hadrons should be determined by the elliptic flow of the fragmenting partons and there should be no significant difference in baryon and meson flow (due to this mechanism and neglecting the difference in the parton fragmentation functions into baryons/mesons). Note that the coalescence effect, if present, would also lead to an increase of the relative baryon to meson ratio in the same $`p_t`$ range.

The centrality dependence of the ratio $`v_{2,baryon}(p_t)/v_{2,meson}(p_t)`$ would be extremely interesting. If the effect of baryon flow being larger than meson flow is indeed due to coalescence, one would expect that at higher centralities the crossings would appear at somewhat higher transverse momentum. A detailed comparison of the transverse momentum and centrality dependencies of elliptic flow of baryons/mesons and their yields could also help to understand the nature of both effects.

### 3.6 Centrality dependence

In the hydrodynamic limit elliptic flow is approximately proportional to the original spatial ellipticity of the nuclear overlapping region , $`v_2\epsilon `$. In the opposite limit, usually called the low density limit , elliptic flow depends also on the particle density in the transverse plane: $`v_2\epsilon dN/dy/S`$, where $`S`$ is the area of the overlapping zone. The comparison of the results on elliptic flow from the point of view of particle density in the transverse plane was first done in . In this approach, the transition to deconfinement would lead to some wiggles in $`v_2/\epsilon `$ dependence, (“kinks”) ).

Fig. 6 shows the recent ($`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=130`$ GeV) STAR results on elliptic flow from 4-particle cumulants , preliminary NA49  (also from 4-particle cumulants), and E877 results. New measurements at full RHIC energies of $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}=200`$ GeV reported by STAR  are also shown. For this Figure I have rescaled down these new data points by a factor of 1.06 to account for the change in mean transverse momentum (in 200 GeV data set the low transverse momentum cutoff is 150 MeV/c compared to 75 MeV in 130 GeV data). Note also that SPS data do not have a low $`p_t`$ cutoff. (There are possible systematic errors in Fig. 8 of the order of 10-20% due to uncertainties in centrality measurements. However, these uncertainties do not alter the general trend). Fig. 6 shows that at high particle densities the data reach hydrodynamical limits. With relatively large error-bars for the most central collisions it is difficult to draw any conclusion about the saturation at the hydrodynamical limit. As for the hydrodynamic limits, they are also somewhat model dependent. In some cases (depending on the latent heat and equation of state) in the model  one can observe an almost linear dependence of $`v_2`$ on particle density.

A closer examination of the plot in the region of 7-15 particles/fm2 shows that there is no scaling in this region. (This is probably related to the use of $`\epsilon `$ calculated using the specific weight according to the number of wounded nucleons. One should also take into account slightly different transverse momentum regions used in different analyses.) Note that the data from both RHIC and SPS results show a rather flat region with some rise at density 1̃5 fm-2. One could speculate that such a behavior could indicate a change in the physics of rescatterings. Noteworthy that the color percolation point discussed by Satz  is just in the same region (shown by an arrow in figure). Very interesting that the WA98 Collaboration  analyzing the high transverse momentum photon flow also observes a non-smooth behavior at the same place.

Another indication of non smooth flow dependence on the particle density in this region can be seen in the figure showing an elliptic flow excitation function . In this figure both NA49 and NA45 data points show very little increase in the average flow from 40$`A`$ GeV to 160$`A`$ GeV data, while there is a significant increase between highest AGS point and lowest SPS, and between SPS and RHIC.111In the poster of H. Sako, CERES Collaboration, one can also notice an interesting increase in multiplicity as well as mean transverse momentum fluctuations at beam energy of 40$`A`$ GeV.

### 3.7 Models

It has been mentioned many times that at RHIC energies the hydrodynamic description of the results is quite successful. However, a few problems, like the description of the pseudorapidity dependence  still remain. The hydrodynamic model has been discussed in a separate talk  at this conference and many details can be found there.

At this conference there also was presented a model  with totally hadronic rescatterings starting at zero time, which also describes many features of the data.

AMPT (A Multi Phase Transport) model  also describes the data very well in the so-called “string melting” scenario with quark-quark cross sections of about 5 mb. More detailed examination of the “string melting” scenario reveals that it is nothing else than what one would do in a case of a constituent quark picture. Namely, the number of quarks in the system is calculated as the number of quarks in the final hadrons. The final formation time (after which a quark can interact) is also taken into account. The cross section of 5 mb also does not look unusual - it would be close to the total NN cross section divided by 9. Note that the AMPT model also quite successfully describes the HBT radii. This model definitely deserves further study.

## 4 Conclusions

I will summarize the most important results just by enumeration:
\- the “wiggle” in proton directed flow has been observed at SPS .
\- non-flow contribution is better understood and measured both at SPS and RHIC .
\- at RHIC $`v_2(p_t)`$ saturates at values close the ones in the surface emission picture.
\- $`v_2`$ of baryons exceeds $`v_2`$ of mesons from $`p_t`$ about 2 GeV/c till at least 3–4 GeV/c .
\- At RHIC elliptic flow persists up to $`p_t812`$ GeV/c
\- the saturation of elliptic flow at SPS probably not very different than at RHIC
\- The dependence of elliptic flow on pseudorapidity is rather strong. It drops about 2 times at about $`\eta =3`$ . (Still a challenge for the hydrodynamic description.)
\- $`v_2/\epsilon `$ is roughly proportional to particle density in the transverse plane $`(dN/dy)/S`$ reaching the hydrodynamic model predictions in central collisions.

In this summary I also want to mention a few important measurements for the future:
\- we have to measure non-flow correlations in $`pp`$ collisions and compare them to the ones measured in nuclear collisions.
\- we need to check for non-flow contribution at high transverse momenta.
\- centrality dependence of baryon/meson elliptic flow would be very interesting.
\- the collision of lighter system (e.g. Cu+Cu) and (multi)strange particle flow will be very important to understand the origin of the observed collectivity.
\- different RHIC collaborations have data taken at $`\sqrt{s_{NN}}`$ =20 GeV. It would be really interesting to analyze these data and compare with SPS results.
\- directed flow at RHIC will be probably the next result from RHIC…
\- the percolation point region should be looked at in great detail.
\- finally, we need a detailed comparison (at a level of a few percent) of the results from different experiments; for that we need the results corresponding to the same centralities.

Acknowledgments. I thank the organizers for the invitation, all the speakers for their help providing me their data, and many of my colleagues, and in particular Art Poskanzer, for numerous very helpful discussions.


text:
# Microsimulations of Freeway Traffic Including Control Measures

## I Introduction

For many years, now, the volume of vehicular traffic increases continuously. Lack of space and money, or ecological considerations often do not allow to respond to this rising demand by expanding the infrastructure. Control strategies for vehicular traffic offer the possibility to increase both, the capacity and the stability of traffic flow without building new streets. The reason why such strategies are promising is the fact that (i) traffic breakdowns are typically triggered by perturbations which can be reduced by suitable control measures, (ii) traffic flow typically drops by about 5% to 30%  after a breakdown. This gives a first estimate for the potential capacity gain.

Testing of new control strategies on real traffic is very expensive and not always feasible. In contrast, traffic simulations allow to assess the performance of a given control strategy in a short time. Therefore, simulations are especially useful in selecting the best strategy during early stages of implementing new traffic controls.

There are several approaches to model vehicular traffic which can be used to simulate traffic controls (see the overview in Ref. ).

Macroscopic models make use of the picture of traffic “flow” as a physical flow of some fluid. They describe the dynamics of “macroscopic” quantities like the traffic density, traffic flow, or the locally averaged velocity as a function of space and time. Therefore, they are suitable to model control measures that influence directly these quantities, like on-ramp controls .

In contrast, microscopic models describe the motion of each individual vehicle, i.e., they model the driving reactions (accelerations, braking decelerations, and lane changes) of each driver as a response to the surrounding traffic. They are especially suited to model control measures that influence selectively individual driver-vehicle units, such as driver-assistance systems or speed limits (a speed limit of, e.g., 100 km/h should not affect trucks). However, to the knowledge of the authors, no accepted model or systematic simulation study of these effects has been published.

Microscopic models have probably the longest history of all traffic models. Nowadays, there is an enormous variety, ranging from low-fidelity single-lane models for academic purposes (see, e.g., the overview in Ref. ) to very detailled high-fidelity multi-lane models with the goal of simulating traffic as realistically as possible (see, e.g., Ref. ).

From a physicist’s point of view, the simple models are useful to investigate generic properties of traffic flow like stop-and-go waves in its purest form. The dynamics of individual driver-vehicle units, however, is not modelled realistically.

High-fidelity models can model nearly every traffic situation including any conceivable control measure. Unfortunately, their level of detail comes with many model parameters (more than 50 are not uncommon), which increases the sensitivity to small parameter changes and complicates calibration.

## II The Intelligent-Driver Model (IDM)

In this paper, we will use the recently developed “intelligent-driver model” (IDM) . With respect to complexity, it lies in between the simplistic and high-fidelity models mentioned above. For simplicity, we will simulate a single-lane main road and use a very simple lane-change model for on-ramps. Therefore, we do not consider situations where lane changes on the main road are important like weaving sections. In fact, theoretical investigations backed up with empirical data  have shown that for many types of road inhomogeneities lane-changes on the main road do not play an important role.

The seven parameters of the IDM are intuitive and have plausible values, cf. Table I. We have shown that this model describes realistically both, the driving behavior of individual drivers and the collective dynamics of traffic flow like stop-and go waves, or the aforementioned capacity drop .

The IDM acceleration $`\dot{v}`$ of each vehicle is a continuous function of its own velocity $`v`$, the spatial gap $`s`$ to the leading vehicle, and the velocity difference (approaching rate) $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ to the front vehicle:

$$\dot{v}=a\left[1\left(\frac{v}{v_0}\right)^\delta \left(\frac{s^{}(v,\mathrm{\Delta }v)}{s}\right)^2\right].$$
(1)
This expression is an interpolation of the tendency to accelerate on a free road according to the formula $`a[1(v/v_0)^\delta ]`$ and the tendency to brake with deceleration $`a(s^{}/s)^2`$, when the vehicle comes too close to the vehicle in front. The deceleration term depends on the ratio between the “desired minimum gap” $`s^{}`$ and the actual gap $`s`$, where the desired gap

$$s^{}(v,\mathrm{\Delta }v)=s_0+s_1\sqrt{\frac{v}{v_0}}+Tv+\frac{v\mathrm{\Delta }v}{2\sqrt{ab}}$$
(2)
is dynamically varying with the velocity $`v`$ and the approaching rate $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$.

In general, the IDM parameters have different values for each individual vehicle representing different driving styles and motorizations (see below). Many aspects of traffic control, however, can be simulated assuming two driver-vehicle classes (two parameter sets representing, e.g., cars and trucks). For simplicity, we will restrict ourselves to these cases, here.

### A Model Properties

The IDM accceleration (1) is a continuous function of the variables $`s`$, $`v`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }v`$ describing the traffic situation seen by the driver. The driving styles implemented by the IDM can be seen when considering the following limiting cases:

* On a nearly empty freeway corresponding to $`sv_0T`$, the acceleration is given by $`\dot{v}=a[1(v/v_0)^\delta ]`$. The driver accelerates to his desired velocity $`v_0`$ with the maximum acceleration given by $`a`$. The acceleration coefficient $`\delta `$ influences the changes of the acceleration when approaching $`v_0`$. For $`\delta =1`$, we have an exponential approach with a relaxation time of $`\tau =v_0/a`$. In the limit $`\delta \mathrm{}`$, the acceleration $`\dot{v}=a`$ is constant during the whole acceleration process and drops to zero when reaching $`v_0`$.
* In dense equilibrium traffic corresponding to $`\dot{v}=0`$ and $`v<v_0/2`$, drivers follow each other with a constant distance $`s_e(v)s^{}(v,0)=s_0+s_1\sqrt{(}v/v_0)+vT`$. For the case $`s_1=0`$ considered here, the distance is equal to a small contribution $`s_0`$ denoting the minimum bumper-to-bumper distance kept in standing traffic plus a velocity-dependent contribution $`vT`$ corresponding to a time headway $`T`$.
* When approaching standing obstacles from an initially large distance, i.e., for $`\mathrm{\Delta }v=v`$ and $`sv^2/(2b)`$, IDM drivers brake in a way that the comfortable deceleration $`b`$ will not be exceeded in the approaching phase.
* Finally, when there is an emergency situation characterized by $`s<(\mathrm{\Delta }v)^2/(2b)`$, the drivers brake hard to get their vehicle under control, again. One could also incorporate a maximum physical deceleration (blocking wheels) of about 9 m/s2, but such decelerations were not reached in our simulations.

In view of applications in traffic control, it is essential that the road capacity per lane increases strongly with decreasing time headway $`T`$ (since the theoretical upper limit of traffic flow for vehicles of zero length is given by $`1/T`$), while traffic stability is enhanced with increasing $`T`$ (as there is more time to react to new situations). Furthermore, stability increases with growing $`a`$ (because drivers adapt faster to new situations) and decreasing $`b`$ (due to their more anticipative braking reactions). As one expects intuitively, the capacity drop mentioned above is caused mainly by drivers who accelerate too slowly when leaving congested traffic. In accordance with this picture, the simulated capacity drop increases with decreasing acceleration $`a`$.

## III Traffic Control

Traffic controls influence the driving behavior of some or all vehicles. Some examples are

* speed limits,
* on-ramp controls (“ramp metering”),
* dynamic-route guidance systems, and
* lane-changing restrictions.

In addition to such externally imposed measures, a vehicle-based automated acceleration control is possible for vehicles equipped with driver-assistance systems.

Traffic control by ramp metering and route guidance is an old and large field ( for an overview, see, e.g., ), while comparatively little has been published about modelling of speed limits . In most cases, the effects of the above control measures on the static capacity have been investigated. We are not aware of a systematic simulation of the dynamic effects caused by various control measures using a single micromodel. We will show that dynamic effects are not only relevant but sometimes produce even counter-intuitive results. In particular, we will show that speed limits can increase the dynamic capacity although the average static capacity is even reduced.

In the following, we will simulate effects of a speed limit, an on-ramp control, and a driver-assistance system for a section of the German autobahn A8-East containing an uphill section around $`x=40`$ km. As further inhomogeneity, there is a small junction at about $`x=41.0`$ km. However, since the involved ramp flows were very small, we assumed that the junction had no dynamical effect.

We considered the situation during the evening rush hour on November 2, 1998. At about 17 h, traffic broke down at the uphill section. At about 18 h, an additional congestion caused by an incident further downstream propagated into the simulated section . In the simulation shown in Fig. 1(c), we used measured lane-averaged one-minute data of velocity and flow as upstream and downstream boundary conditions. Both types of traffic breakdowns were realistically reproduced. For the purpose of simulating traffic controls, however, we will exclude the incident-caused jam, here, replacing the data-based downstream boundary conditions by “free” boundary conditions . The reason is that congested traffic caused by accidents can be hardly eliminated by control measures. (The probability for an incident to occur can certainly be influenced, but this will not be discussed here).

### A Speed limits

We have assumed two vehicle classes: 50% of the drivers had a desired velocity of $`v_0=120`$ km/h, while the other half had $`v_0=160`$ km/h outside of the uphill region. A speed limit reduces the desired velocities to 80 km/h. Within the uphill region, both driver-vehicle classes are forced to drive at a maximum of 60 km/h (for example, due to overtaking trucks that are not considered explicitely here; their realistic inclusion requires multi-lane simulations.)

Figure 2 shows spatio-temporal plots of the locally averaged traffic density for scenarios with and without the speed limit. (For the specific averaging formula, see Ref. .) The simulations show the following:

* During the rush hour (17 h $`t19`$ h), the overall effect of the speed limit is positive. The increased travel times in regions without congestion are overcompensated by the saved time due to the avoided breakdown.
* For lighter traffic ($`t<17`$ h or $`t>19`$:30 h), however, the effect of the speed limit clearly is negative. This problem can be circumvented by traffic-dependent, variable speed limits.

### B On-Ramp Control

Traffic inflow on on-ramps can be controlled, e.g., by traffic lights (“ramp metering”). Many on-ramp flow-control strategies have been proposed in the last 30 years and applied mostly to macroscopic simulations . Clearly, lane-changing processes play an important role in simulating on-ramp flow-control . The role of the longitudinal dynamics (acceleration and braking), however, remained less clear.

Here, we will show that on-ramp control can be beneficial even when considering essentially longitudinal effects. To this purpose, we neglect lane changes on the main road and apply following minimal lane-changing scheme to implement an on-ramp of length $`L_{\mathrm{rmp}}`$ from which a traffic flow $`Q_{\mathrm{rmp}}`$ merges to a single main lane:

* Try to add ramp vehicles to the main flow at the times when the temporal ramp-flow integral reaches integer values.
* Search the largest gap on the main lane in the section of length $`L_{\mathrm{rmp}}`$ adjacent to the acceleration lane.
* If the resulting gaps to the respective front and rear vehicles exceed a certain minimal value, place the new vehicle in the middle with an initial velocity given by the average of the front and rear vehicles.
* Otherwise, add the vehicle to the queue of waiting vehicles. (This case did not occur in the simulations. All queues were caused by the flow control to be described below).

Another possibility (apart from a multi-lane model) is opened by the recently formulated micro-macro link  allowing to simulate the ramp section macroscopically with a source term in the continuity equation , while the remaining stretch is simulated microscopically, see Fig. 3.

We restrict the sum of the traffic flow $`Q_{\mathrm{main}}`$ upstream of the on-ramp and the flow $`Q_{\mathrm{rmp}}`$ arriving at the on-ramp by following simple control scheme:

$$Q_{\mathrm{rmp}}^{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{max}(0,Q_\mathrm{c}Q_{\mathrm{main}}),$$
(3)
where $`Q_{\mathrm{main}}`$ is the traffic flow on the main road upstream of the on-ramp. If, at some time $`t_\mathrm{c}`$, the flow $`Q_{\mathrm{rmp}}`$ arriving at the on-ramp exceeds this limit, a queue of

$$n_{\mathrm{wait}}(t)=_{t_c}^t𝑑t(Q_{\mathrm{rmp}}Q_{\mathrm{rmp}}^{\mathrm{max}})$$
(4)
waiting vehicles will form. The actual inflow $`Q_{\mathrm{rmp}}^c`$ of the controlled on-ramp is given by

$$Q_{\mathrm{rmp}}^c=\{\begin{array}{cc}Q_{\mathrm{rmp}}^{\mathrm{max}}\hfill & \text{if }n_{\mathrm{wait}}(t)1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{min}(Q_{\mathrm{rmp}},Q_{\mathrm{rmp}}^{\mathrm{max}})\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
Notice that the on-ramp can be completely closed according to this scheme. More elaborate and realistic control schemes have been proposed in the literature . The simulation results, however, are robust with respect to the choice of a certain control scheme, so we chose the conceivably most simple one.

We simulated single-lane single-class traffic and modelled the uphill gradient by reducing the desired velocity from 120 km/h to 60 km/h.

Figure 4 shows the travel time through the simulated section on the main road, and the waiting time at the on-ramp for an assumed ramp flow $`Q_{\mathrm{rmp}}`$ of 300 vehicles per hour and main lane for the optimal choice of $`Q_\mathrm{c}`$. Notice that in the optimized control scenario, the waiting times of the on-ramp vehicles are overcompensated by the decreased travel time for the main road stretch (with the exception of a short time interval after 17 h). Since also vehicles coming from the on-ramp drive on the main section afterwards, even they will generally profit from the flow control in this example.

Figure 5 shows the travel and waiting times for non-optimal values of $`Q_\mathrm{c}`$. If $`Q_\mathrm{c}`$ is 5% below the optimal value, the maximum waiting time is increased and becomes comparable to the saved travel time (Fig. 5 left). If one increases $`Q_\mathrm{c}`$ above the optimal value, the control becomes less and less effective (Fig. 5 right).

A suitable measure for assessing the quality of a traffic control is given by the sum of the waiting and travel times of all vehicles during the whole rush hour ,

$$T_\mathrm{t}=_{t_1}^{t_2}𝑑t[n_{\mathrm{wait}}(t)+n_{\mathrm{main}}(t)],$$
(6)
where $`n_{\mathrm{main}}`$ is the number of all vehicles in the considered section $`x_1xx_2`$. The spatio-temporal region $`[t_1,t_2]\times [x_1,x_2]`$ must be selected such that there is free traffic at all boundaries. Notice that the vehicle numbers and not the travel and waiting times enter into the quality measure $`T_\mathrm{t}`$. Furthermore, if $`Q_{\mathrm{main}}(t)Q_\mathrm{c}`$ is satisfied for $`t_1xt_2`$, $`T_\mathrm{t}`$ does not depend on the on-ramp flow while the waiting times do. The right part of Fig. 4 illustrates the changes of the quality measure $`T_\mathrm{t}`$ induced by the control, see the difference between the areas enclosed by the two solid curves (saved total travel time for the main traffic) and by the dashed curve and the $`x`$-axis (total waiting time of the on-ramp traffic if the control is active).

### C Vehicle-Based Methods

The research presented in this section was performed in tight collaboration with the Volkswagen AG.

Presently, vehicle-based driver-assistance systems with adaptive acceleration control become available. In such systems, a detector determines the distance and velocity difference to the front vehicle and automatically accelerates or decelerates the vehicle according to the traffic situation. Obviously, micromodels like the IDM can be used to implement the control algorithm of such a system.

It may be argued that human and automated driving behaviours are fundamentally different. In fact, the assumptions of micromodels like the IDM: reaction only to the immediatel predecessor in combination with a negligible reaction time, fit perfectly to automated controls but less to human drivers. Human drivers have a non-negligible reaction time (of the order of 1 s) leading to more instability. This is offset by the more elaborate human driving strategy including direct reaction to decelerations (i.e., to braking lights) and anticipation of the traffic situations several vehicles in front of them. Nevertheless, the IDM can be calibrated to actual traffic data (cf. Fig. 1) suggesting that these two effects not contained in the IDM essentially cancel each other. This justifies the use of the same model for both human and automated longitudinal control.

Here, we show that, in principle, such control systems can improve the capacity and quality of traffic flow.

In the simulations, we model both equipped and not equipped vehicles with the IDM, using different values for $`a`$ and $`T`$. From the discussion of the IDM in Section II A one might expect that increasing $`a`$ for the equipped vehicles (within the range allowed by the motorization) increases stability of the overall traffic, while decreasing $`T`$ increases its capacity.

Figures 6 and 7 show that this is true even for only 10% equipped vehicles. The total additional time spent in the traffic jam was decreased by more than 80% with respect to the original situation. For a percentage of 20% equipped vehicles, the traffic breakdown disappeared almost completely.

## IV Outlook and Discussion

In this paper, we have simulated the effects of speed limits, on-ramp controls, and driver-assistance systems using the microscopic intelligent-driver model (IDM). The IDM is suitable for simulating traffic controls because it is relatively simple, contains only a few and intuitive model parameters, and reproduces all relevant properties of real traffic. Moreover, it is numerically efficient and robust.

In all simulations, the model parameters have been calibrated to the historic traffic data of the respective reference scenarios. The presented effects of traffic control, however, are of a qualitative nature. They need to be calibrated before appying them in real control systems.

While our simulations of an on-ramp control support the findings obtained with macroscopic models , we show that speed limits and driver-assistance systems have a similar beneficial potential. We emphasize that all three control measures have been simulated with the same model. Thus, it is possible to exploit the synergy effects that might result from a combination of these measures.

Both uphill gradients and speed limits reduce the velocity, so, at first sight, it is puzzling why speed limits can improve the quality of traffic flow while obviously uphill regions deteriorate it. To understand this, note that the desired velocity $`v_0`$ corresponds to the lowest value of

* the maximum velocity allowed by the motorization,
* the imposed speed limits, and (possibly with a “disobedience factor”),
* the velocity actually “desired” by the driver.

Therefore, speed limits act selectively on the faster vehicles, while uphill gradients reduce predominantly the desired velocity of the slower vehicles. As a consequence, speed limits reduce velocity differences, thereby stabilizing traffic, while uphill gradients increase them. Since global speed limits always raise the travel time in off-peak hours when free traffic is unconditionally stable, traffic-dependent speed limits are an optimal solution.

In contrast to speed limits, on-ramp controls are not common in Europe. We showed that, nevertheless, they can help to avoid or delay traffic breakdowns. Moreover, they can be advantageous even to the drivers who have to wait at the on-ramps because their total travel times are decreased as well.

The effects of on-ramp controls are qualitatively comparable to those of traffic-dependent, dynamic route guidance systems. While the former truncate flow peaks on a short time scale of the order of minutes, dynamic-route guidance systems truncate flow peaks on a time scale of hours.

In summary, our simulations support the conclusion that control measures which homogenize traffic flow are generally suitable for the reduction of congestion and travel times. While speed limits decrease speed differences, on-ramp controls smooth out flow peaks.

On the long run, however, vehicle-based systems have certainly the highest potential for increasing the traffic capacity of a given infrastructure. Driver-assistance systems can improve and speed up the reaction to the behavior of the respective vehicle in front. This allows stable traffic at significantly reduced time headways. In our test scenario, 20% equipped vehicles nearly eliminated all breakdowns. However, some legislatory and sensor-related problems remain to be solved.

Presently, we are extending our simulations to multi-lane traffic for the simulation of further control measures like lane-changing restrictions or overtaking bans for all or certain classes of vehicles (e.g., trucks). Moreover, we are exploring the potentials of communicating vehicles with respect to their optimal self-organization based on the paradigms of decentralized control and collective intelligence .

Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful for financial support by the DFG (grant no. He 2789/2-1). The research of Section III C was initiated and funded by the strategic research of the Volkswagen AG, Wolfsburg, and the results were produced in tight collaboration.


text:
# Transformation formulas in Quantum Cohomology

## 1 Introduction

It is known , that the problem of determining the conditions on conjugacy classes $`\overline{A_1},\mathrm{},\overline{A_s}`$ in $`SU(n)`$ so that these lift to elements $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_sSU(n)`$ with $`A_1A_2,\mathrm{}A_s=1`$ is controlled by Quantum Schubert calculus of Grassmannians. Teleman and Woodward have in a recent preprint generalized this to an arbitrary simple, simply connected compact group $`K`$. If $`G`$ is the complex simple subgroup (whose real points are $`K`$), then the role played by the Grassmanians is replaced by the homogeneous spaces $`G/P`$ for P a maximal parabolic subgroup.

In the case of $`SU(n)`$ (and similarly for $`K`$) there is a natural ’action’ of center of $`K`$ on the representation theory side, namely if $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_s`$ are central elements with $`c_1c_2\mathrm{}c_s=1`$, then these act on the set of conjugacy classes $`\overline{A_1},\mathrm{},\overline{A_s}`$ in $`SU(n)`$ lift-able to elements $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_sSU(n)`$ with $`A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_s=1`$, the action being just multiplying $`\overline{A_i}`$ by $`c_i`$. This action is well defined on the level of conjugacy classes because the $`c_i`$ are central.

This suggests a natural transformation property of Gromov-Witten numbers of the Grassmannians under the action of the center. This property was proved in  as a consequence of the known description of Quantum Schubert calculus .

The aim of this article is twofold. The first aim is to prove the transformation formulas geometrically and in complete generality (for any simple simply connected complex Lie group). The second is to show that these formulas determine quantum Schubert calculus in the case of Grassmannians (Bertram’s Schubert Calculus). We also give a strengthening in the case of Grassmannians of a theorem of Fulton and Woodward on the lowest power of $`q`$ appearing in a (quantum)product of Schubert classes in $`G/P`$ where $`P`$ is a maximal parabolic subgroup.

Let us now describe these transformation formulas. See section 1 for the notation. Let $`G`$ be a simple, semi-simple complex algebraic group. We first construct a map $`\varphi :CW`$ where $`C`$ is the center of $`G`$ and $`W`$ the Weyl group. Let $`Z`$ be a homology class of $`G/P`$ where $`P`$ is an arbitrary parabolic subgroup (not necessarily maximal). Let $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_s`$ be central elements with product =1. Let $`w_1,\mathrm{},w_s`$ be elements of (a suitable right quotient of $`W`$), then the transformation formulas take the shape

$$<X_{\varphi (c_1)w_1},\mathrm{},X_{\varphi (c_s)w_s}>_Z^{}=<X_{w_1},\mathrm{},X_{w_s}>_Z$$

where $`Z^{}`$ is a homology class determined by $`Z`$ and the rest of the data.

It happens that in some cases, $`Z^{}`$ is a simpler homology class than $`Z`$, for instance $`Z^{}`$ could be zero, when $`Z`$ is not. This allows for reducing the quantum terms to the classical ones. This program works in the Grassmannian case (and Flag manifold case, but we have not included the details here).

There exist simple simply connected groups with trivial center. In this case the transformation formulas do not give any information. Maybe there is an extension of these transformation formulas to the non miniscule case. Such an extension is not apparent from the representation theory side.

The argument for Grassmannians may go through in the miniscule case. We will return to this question in a later paper.

One final comment is that even in the classical case of cohomology the transformation formulas give vanishing statements. For example if Z’ turns out to be negative and $`Z=0`$, then we get a vanishing statement of certain intersection numbers.

Many of the results in this paper are new proofs of older results using methods which seem both natural and elementary (to the author). It is perhaps worth pointing out what is essentially new in this paper - the transformation formulas in the (usual) partial flag manifold case, the exact determination of the lowest order terms in the quantum products of two Schubert cycles in (usual) Grassmannians, the natural extension of the transformation formulas to all groups. It should be noted that the quantum schubert calculus of $`G/B`$ or of $`G/P`$ is not known except (when $`G=\text{SL}(n)`$), and the relations coming from the center might be the first general explicit formula.

A. Buch  has recently given new proofs of Bertram’s Quantum Schubert Calculus, using very different methods.

We thank Aaron Bertram, Patrick Brosnan, Anders Buch, William Fulton, Misha Kapovich, Madhav Nori and Christopher Woodward for several helpful conversations and encouragement.

## 2 Some representation theory

### 2.1 Notation

We review some basic representation theory in this section. For proofs refer to Bourbaki.

Let $`G`$ be a simple simply connected complex algebraic group. Let $`𝔤`$ be its lie algebra. Let $`B`$ be a Borel subgroup, $`TB`$ a maximal torus and let

$$𝔤=𝔥\underset{\alpha }{}𝔤_\alpha .$$

where the $`\alpha `$’s belong to the subset of roots $`R`$ in $`𝔥^{}`$. The set $`R`$ is partitioned into the set of positive roots $`R^+`$ and negative roots $`R^{}`$, and the lie algebra of $`B`$ is

$$𝔟=𝔥\underset{\alpha }{}𝔤_\alpha .$$

with the $`\alpha ^{}s`$ in $`R^+`$. Also define $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to be the set of simple roots.

The Weyl group W is defined to be $`N(T)/T`$, where $`N(T)`$ is the normalizer of T which acts on $`𝔥`$ and $`𝔥^{}`$. If $`\alpha `$ is a root, we have elements $`w_\alpha W`$, $`H_\alpha 𝔥`$, so that $`w_\alpha `$ acts on $`𝔥^{}`$ by

$$w_\alpha (\beta )=\beta \beta (H_\alpha )\alpha .$$

and this map preserves the roots, is a reflection and takes $`\alpha `$ to $`\alpha `$.

The action of $`w_\alpha `$ on $`𝔤`$ is given by

$$w_\alpha (H)=H\alpha (H)H_\alpha .$$

It is also known that $`w_\alpha `$’s generate $`W`$.

The affine Weyl group $`W_{aff}`$ is defined to be the set of automorphisms of $`𝔥`$ generated by $`W`$ and translations by $`H_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha R`$.

### 2.2 Conjugacy classes

Let $`K`$ be a maximal (connected) compact subgroup of $`G`$. If $`𝔨`$ is the lie algebra of $`K`$, then $`𝔨_{}=𝔤`$. Let $`T_K=TK`$ be the maximal torus in $`K`$, with lie algebra $`i𝔥`$. The following are standard facts:

1. $`T_KK`$ induces a surjection on conjugacy classes.
2. $`x_1,x_2T_K`$ are conjugate in $`K`$ if and only if there exists $`wW`$ with $`Ad(w)x_1=x_2`$.
3. let $`\text{Exp}:𝔥_KT_K`$ be the exponential map from the lie algebra of $`T_K`$ to $`T_K`$. The kernel of this map is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)=`$span $`\{2\pi iH_\alpha :\alpha R\}`$. This follows from simply connectedness of $`G`$.
4. If $`t_1,t_2𝔥_K`$, then Exp($`t_1`$) and Exp($`t_2`$) are conjugate in $`K`$ if and only if there exists $`wW`$ with

$$w(t_1)t_2\mathrm{\Gamma }(T).$$

Putting this all together, if we let $`𝔥_{}`$ be the $``$\- span of $`\{H_\alpha :\alpha R\}`$, then the map $`𝔥_{}T_K`$ by $`t`$Exp($`2\pi it`$) induces an isomorphism

$`𝔥_{}/W_{aff}`$ conjugacy classes in $`K`$.

### 2.3 Fundamental Chamber and Center

Let $`L_{\alpha ,k}=\{x𝔥_{}:\alpha (x)=k\}`$. The affine Weyl group is then the group generated by reflections in $`L_{\alpha ,k}`$ for $`k`$. Finally let $`\stackrel{˘}{\alpha }`$ be the highest weight for the adjoint representation.

###### Theorem 1.

(Fundamental chamber for affine Weyl group) Let $`C=\{x𝔥_{}:\alpha (x)>0`$ for $`\alpha R^+,\stackrel{˘}{\alpha }(x)<1\}`$.

1. $`C`$ is a connected component of $`𝔥_{}_{\alpha R,k}L_{\alpha ,k}.`$
2. If $`C^{}`$ is any other component, there is a unique $`wW_{aff}`$ with $`w(C)=C^{}.`$
3. Let $`\overline{C}`$ be the closure of $`C`$, then the composite $`\overline{C}𝔥_{}/W_{aff}`$ conjugacy classes in $`K`$ is, a homeomorphism.

We now give the description of the center. For this, Let $`S=\{x\overline{C}:\alpha (x)`$, for all $`\alpha R\}`$. Finally, write $`\stackrel{˘}{\alpha }=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }}n_\alpha \alpha `$. where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the set of simple positive roots.

###### Theorem 2.

1. The map $`\overline{C}`$ conjugacy classes in $`G`$, takes $`S`$ to center($`K`$).
2. Define $`x_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$ by the formula $`\beta (x_\alpha )=\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }`$ for $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then, $`S=\{0\}\{x_\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Delta },n_\alpha =1\}`$

### 2.4  A map from Center to the Weyl group

If $`c`$ is in center($`G`$) (=center($`K`$)), which corresponds to $`x_\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$ then we can consider the set $`C^{}=Cx_\alpha `$. It is easy to see that this is a connected component of $`𝔥_{}_{\alpha R,k}L_{\alpha ,k}.`$ Therefore we have

$$Cx_\alpha =w_c^1(C)+t_\alpha $$

where $`w_cW`$ and $`t_\alpha `$ \- span of $`H_\beta ,\beta R.`$

Define $`y(x)=w_c(xx_\alpha t_\alpha )`$. Then we have the equation

$$xx_\alpha =w_c^1(y(x))+t_\alpha $$

and also that $`xCy(x)C`$. Hence, $`x\overline{C}y(x)\overline{C}.`$ Now put $`x=x_\alpha `$. Then we get,

$`w_c^1(y(x)=t_\alpha `$, this gives $`y(x)`$ is zero in $`𝔥_{}/W_{aff}`$ and by theorem 1 in section 2.3, we get $`y(x)=0`$ so $`t_\alpha =0.`$

We therefore have:

###### Theorem 3.

(Map from center to Weyl group) Let $`c`$ be in center($`K`$), let $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$ be so that $`exp(2\pi ix_\alpha )=c`$. Then there exists a $`w_cW`$ so that the equation $`Cx_\alpha =w_c^1(C)`$ holds. Furthermore the map Center($`G`$)$`W`$ is a injective homomorphism of groups.

###### Proof.

The only part not proved is that $`cw_c`$ is a homomorphism of groups. For this, let $`c_1,c_2`$ be central elements. Let $`x_\alpha ,x_\beta ,x_\gamma `$ correspond to $`c_1,c_2`$ and $`c_1c_2`$ respectively. It is clear that $`x_\alpha +x_\beta =x_\gamma +t`$ with $`t`$ \- span of $`H_\delta ,\delta R.`$ hence

$$Cx_\gamma =Cx_\alpha x_\beta +t$$

$$=w_{c_1}^1(Cx_\beta )+(w_{c_1}^1(x_\beta )x_\beta )+t$$

$$=w_{c_1}^1w_{c_2}^1(C)+t_1+t$$

where $`t_1`$ and $`t`$ are in $``$ \- span of $`H_\delta ,\delta R.`$ The proof is therefore complete. ∎

We can describe the element $`w_c`$ more concretely, for this first note

1. If $`xC`$ then $`y(x)C`$.
2. For $`\beta R`$, $`\beta R^+`$ if and only if $`\beta (x)>0`$ for any $`xC.`$
3. $`w_c(\beta )(y(x))=\beta (w_c^1(y(x)))=\beta (x)\beta (x_\alpha ).`$

we therefore have the following description of $`w_c`$.

###### Lemma 1.

In the situation above

1. If $`\beta (x_\alpha )=0`$ then $`\beta `$ and $`w_c(\beta )`$ have the same ’sign’ (simultaneously in $`R^+`$, or in $`R^{}`$).
2. If $`\beta (x_\alpha )=1`$ then $`\beta `$ and $`w_c(\beta )`$ have opposite ’signs’.

### 2.5 Parabolics associated to Central Elements

Fix $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ belonging to center($`G`$) with $`c_1c_2=1.`$ Let $`x_\alpha ,x_\beta `$ be their representatives in $`\overline{C}.`$

Define parabolic subgroups $`P_1,P_2B`$ by defining their Lie algebras

$$𝔭_1=𝔥\underset{\gamma :\gamma (x_\alpha )0}{}𝔤_\gamma .$$

$$𝔭_2=𝔥\underset{\gamma :\gamma (x_\beta )0}{}𝔤_\gamma .$$

And their Levi subgroups $`Q_1,Q_2`$ by defining their lie algebras

$$𝔮_1=𝔥\underset{\gamma :\gamma (x_\alpha )=0}{}𝔤_\gamma .$$

$$𝔮_2=𝔥\underset{\gamma :\gamma (x_\beta )=0}{}𝔤_\gamma .$$

That these are closed subgroups, follows from the $`P`$’s being standard parabolics and $`Q`$’s being the centralisers of the $`c`$’s.

These are related due to the relation $`c_1c_2=1`$:

###### Lemma 2.

$`Q_2=Ad(w_{c_1})(Q_1)`$. Or that $`\gamma (x_\alpha )=0`$ if and only if $`(w_{c_1}(\gamma ))(x_\beta )=0`$.

###### Proof.

Follows from $`x_\alpha =w_{c_1}^1(x_\beta ).`$

###### Lemma 3.

$`(Ad(w_{c_1})(P_1))P_2=Q_2`$ and this is a transverse intersection.

###### Proof.

The first statement follows from

$$(w_{c_1}(\gamma ))(x_\beta )=\gamma (x_\alpha ).$$

The transversality statement follows from the same equation (counting dimensions). ∎

###### Corollary 1.

If $`g_1,g_2`$ are general elements of $`G`$, the set $`(w_{c_1}P_1g_1)(P_2g_2)`$ is non empty.

###### Proof.

If $`g_1=w_{c_1}^1,g_2=1`$, then this follows from the lemma above. Then apply standard intersection theory(local). ∎

## 3 Algebraic Geometry preliminaries on $`G/B`$

### 3.1 Line bundles on $`G/P`$ and $`G/B`$

Let $`P`$ be a parabolic containing $`B`$. We then have a natural surjection $`G/BG/P`$. It is known this induces injections on the Picard Groups. Our goal here is to recall the standard facts on describing all the line bundles on $`G/B`$ and on which of these descend to $`G/P`$.

Let $`WL`$ = weight lattice of $`𝔤`$. This is the subset of $`𝔥^{}`$ spanned by elements $`\omega `$ so that $`\omega (H_\alpha )`$ for all $`\alpha R`$ . It has a $``$ basis $`\{\omega _\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ where

$$\omega _\alpha (H_\beta )=\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }.$$

for all $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Delta }`$.

There is a natural isomorphism $`\psi :WL`$Pic($`G/B`$). The map is defined as follows: for each $`\omega WL^+`$ there exists a representation $`\rho :GGL(V)`$ with highest weight $`\omega `$. Let the highest weight vector be $`vV`$. Then there is a map $`G/BOrb(v)(V)`$ where $`Orb(v`$) is the orbit of the line $`v`$. The map then takes $`\omega `$ to pull back of $`𝒪(1)`$ by the map above.

The subset $`WL_P`$ of weights that descend to line bundles on $`G/P`$ are just those elements $`\omega `$ which satisfy the property

if $`𝔤_\alpha 𝔤_\alpha 𝔭`$, then $`\omega (H_\alpha )=0.`$

The second Homology group $`H_2(G/P,)`$ can be naturally considered as the dual $`Hom(WL_P,)`$ by Poincare duality. Note that the homology class of $`f_{}([C])`$ where $`f:^1G/P`$ corresponds to the map $`WL_P`$ obtained by taking ’degree of the pullback bundle’.

Next we describe the first Chern classes of the tangent bundles of $`G/B`$ and $`G/P`$.

1. First Chern class of $`T_{G/B}`$: this is $`\psi (_{\alpha R^+}\alpha ).`$
2. First Chern class of $`T_{G/P}`$: this is $`\psi (_{\alpha R,𝔤_\alpha 𝔭}\alpha ).`$

### 3.2 Cell decomposition and cohomology of $`G/P`$

Let $`PB`$ be a parabolic subgroup. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_P`$ be the set of roots $`\alpha `$ such that $`𝔤_\alpha 𝔤_\alpha 𝔭.`$ Let $`W_P`$ be the subgroup of the Weyl group generated by the reflections corresponding to elements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

###### Theorem 4.

(Bruhat decomposition:) $`G/P`$ is a disjoint union of the sets $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_w`$ for $`wW/W_P`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_w`$ is defined to be $`BwPG/P`$. Let $`X_w`$ be the closure of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_w`$. The codimension of $`X_w`$ is the cardinality of the set

$$\left|\{\alpha R:𝔤_\alpha 𝔭,w(\alpha )R^+\}\right|.$$

###### Proof.

Standard, see . ∎

It is known that the subvarieties $`X_w`$ generate the cohomology (additively) of $`G/P`$.Finally recall the definition of ’relative position’ $`[g_1,g_2]`$ of two elements $`g_1,g_2G`$. We define $`w=[g_1,g_2]`$ to be the unique element of the Weyl group so that there exist $`b_1,b_2B`$ so that $`g_1=g_2b_1wb_2`$ (Bruhat decomposition).

Note the following three properties:

1. $`[g_1,g_2]=[gg_1,gg_2]`$ for $`g_1,g_2G.`$
2. $`[g_1b,g_2]=[g_1,g_2b]=[g_1,g_2]`$ for $`bB.`$
3. $`hg\mathrm{\Lambda }_w`$ if and only if $`[h,g]=w`$.

Analogous definition of relative position can be made of $`[g_1,g_2]`$ where this takes values in $`W/W_P,g_1G/P`$ and $`g_2G`$.

We need one final lemma which relates the codimensions of $`X_w`$ and $`X_{w_cw}`$ where $`w_c`$ is an element of the Weyl group constructed out of a central element $`c`$ as in the previous section

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`c\text{center}(G),wW`$ with representative $`x_\alpha \overline{C}`$. Then $`\text{codim}(X_{w_cw})\text{codim}(X_w)`$ is equal to

$$\underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }}{}w\beta (x_\alpha ).$$

###### Proof.

The quantity we are interested in is

$$\left|\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_P:w(\alpha )R^+\}\right|\left|\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_P:(w_cw)(\alpha )R^+\}\right|.$$

To evaluate the second quantity(using lemma 1 of 2.4), divide into two cases namely

$$\left|\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_P:w(\alpha )R^+,w\beta (x_\alpha )=0\}\right|$$

and

$$\left|\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_P:w(\alpha )R^{},w\beta (x_\alpha )=1\}\right|.$$

Therefore the quantity we are interested in becomes

$$\left|\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_P:w(\alpha )R^+,w\beta (x_\alpha )=1\}\right|\left|\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_P:w(\alpha )R^{},w\beta (x_\alpha )=1\}\right|.$$

and that is what is displayed in the statement of the lemma. Note that our hypotheses imply that if $`\beta R`$, then $`\beta (x_\alpha )`$ is in the set $`\{1,0,1\}`$.

### 3.3 Space of maps and Gromov-Witten invariants

Let $`XH_2(G/B;)`$.

Let $`M_X=`$ space of maps $`f:^1G/B`$ so that $`f_{}([^1])=X`$. It is known that $`M_X`$ can be given the structure of a smooth quasi-projective variety of dimension $`d_X`$ where

$`d_X=c_1(T_{G/B})X`$ \+ dim($`G/B).`$

Of central interest to us in this paper are Gromov-Witten invariants. Recall that we have fixed three points $`p_1,p_2,p_3`$ on $`^1`$ (which we usually take to be $`0,\mathrm{},1`$).

###### Definition 1.

Let $`ZH_2(G/B;)`$; $`w_1,w_2,w_3W`$ . Then,

$`<X_{w_1},X_{w_2},X_{w_3}>_Z`$ is defined to be the number of maps (0 if infinite) $`fM_Z`$ so that $`f(p_i)g_iX_{w_i};i=1,2,3`$ where $`g_i`$ are ’general’ points of $`G`$.

Note that the invariant above is 0 unless

$$\text{Codim}(X_{w_i})=c_1(T_{G/B})Z+\text{dim}(G/B).$$

## 4 The transformation formula

###### Theorem 5.

Let $`ZH_2(G/P;)`$; $`u_1,u_2,u_3W`$ ,$`c_1,c_2\text{Center}(G)`$. Then,

$$<X_{u_1},X_{u_2},X_{u_3}>_Z=<X_{w_{c_1}u_1},X_{w_{c_2}u_2},X_{u_3}>_Z^{}.$$

where $`Z^{}`$ as an element of $`Hom(WL_P,)`$ is given by

$$z^{}(\gamma )=z(\gamma )\gamma (u_1^1x_1x_1)\gamma (u_2^1x_2w_2x_2).$$

###### Proof.

Let us first check that the codimension condition

$$\text{codim}(X_{u_i})=c_1(T_{G/P})Z+\text{dim}(G/P).$$

for the left hand side is the same as that for the RHS.

Recall that if $`c\text{center}(G),wW`$ with representative $`x_\alpha \overline{C}`$. Then $`\text{codim}(X_{w_cw})\text{codim}(X_w)`$ is equal to

$$\underset{\beta :𝔤_\beta p}{}w\beta (x_\alpha ).$$

so we have to verify

$$\underset{\beta :𝔤_\beta p}{}(u_1\beta (x_1)+u_2\beta (x_2))$$

equals

$$\gamma (Z^{})\gamma (Z)$$

where

$$\gamma =\underset{\beta :𝔤_\beta p}{}\beta .$$

which has been proved before \[3.2, lemma 4\].

To start working towards the transformation formulas, fix $`u_1,u_2,u_3W`$, $`g_1,g_2,g_3G`$ ’elements in general position’. And $`c_1,c_2`$ central elements in $`G`$ with $`c_1c_2=1`$ (as in section 2.5). Recall the notations of section 2.5.

Pick an element $`k(P_1g_1^1)(w_{c_2}P_2g_2^1)`$. There exists such a $`k`$ because of corollary 1 in section 2.5. Consider the map

$`\varphi :G/PG/P`$ given by left multiplication by $`k`$. Let $`fM_Z`$, we claim

$`f(p_i)g_iX_{w_i};i=1,2,3`$ if and only if

Setting $`g=\varphi f,g(p_i)kg_iX_{w_i};i=1,2,3`$, this claim is obvious but we also have $`k(g_1)P_1`$ and $`kg_2Ad(w_{c_2})P_2`$ . So we might as well assume $`g_1P_1`$ and $`g_2w_{c_2}P_2`$.

Now suppose $`f:^1G/P`$ then , let $`s`$ be the map $`^1G/P`$ given by: (to simplify notation: let

1. $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ denote $`w_{c_1}`$ and $`w_{c_2}`$ respectively.
2. $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ denote $`x_\alpha `$ and $`x_\beta `$ respectively.
3. for $`tT`$, $`z`$, let $`z^t`$ denote $`exp(ln(z)t)`$ (with the indeterminacies.)

$$s(z)=z^{x_1}f(z).$$

Note that the indeterminacy of $`s`$ is always central so as a map to $`G/P`$ it is well defined (on the complement of $`\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$). And we can extend this to the whole of $`^1`$, because all the functions involved are of bounded growth.

We have to study the effect on the degrees and also on the ’positions’ of $`s(1),s(1),s(\mathrm{})`$.

Position of s(0):

We have assumed that $`g_1`$ is in $`P_1`$. And $`P_1=Q_1B`$. So let $`g_1`$ = $`q_1b`$. We claim that the element

$`g_1^{}=q_1w_1^1`$ is well defined in $`G/P`$ (independent of choices). we need that if $`q_1^{}=q_1b`$, then$`q_1w_1^1`$ and $`q_1bw_1^1`$ give the same point in $`G/P`$. That is, $`w_1bw_1^1B`$ if $`bQ_1B`$. But this is clear from lemma 1 of section 2.4.

We claim: $`[s(0),g_1^{}]=w_1[f(0),g_1]`$. That is $`[s(0),q_1w_1^1]=w_1^1[f(0),q_1]`$.

Let $`f(0)=q_1b_1wb_2`$ and $`f=n(z)f(0)`$ where $`n(0)=1`$. we therefore need to compare

$`[lim_{z0}z^{x_1}n(z)f(0),g_1^{}]`$ with

$`[f(0),g_1]`$.

Or,if we set $`h=q_1^1f(0)`$,

we want to relate

$`[lim_{z0}(Ad(q_1^1)z^{x_1})(Ad(q_1^1)n(z))h,w^1]`$

with $`[h,1]`$

It is easy to see that $`Ad(q_1^1)z^{x_1}=z^{x_1}`$. Setting $`r(z)=Ad(q_1^1)n(z)`$, we want then to relate

$`[lim_{z0}z^{x_1}r(z)h,w^1]`$ with $`[h,1]`$ where $`r(0)=1`$. For this we need

###### Lemma 5.

If $`d(z)`$ is a holomorphic map to $`G`$, with $`d(0)B`$ then $`k=lim_{z0}Ad(z^{x_1})d(z)`$ exists with $`w_1kw_1^1B`$.

###### Proof.

$`G`$ is generated by the one parameter groups $`G_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha R`$ and T. These groups are isomorphic to $``$, and with an action (Ad) of the torus with $`Ad(t)u=\alpha (t)u`$.

If $`d(z)G_\alpha =`$ given by $`d(z)=z^m`$ then

$`Ad(z^{x_1})d(z)=z^{\alpha (x_1)}d(z)`$. Hence to verify the lemma we need

1. If $`\alpha R^+`$ then $`\alpha (x_1)=0`$ implies $`w_1(\alpha )`$ is a positive root, which is known. If $`\alpha (x_1)=1`$ then $`k=1`$.
2. If $`\alpha R^{}`$ with $`\alpha (x_1)=0`$ then clearly $`k=1`$.
3. If $`\alpha R^{}`$ with $`\alpha (x_1)=1`$ then clearly $`k`$ exists and $`w_1(\alpha )`$ is positive.

Position of $`s(\mathrm{}),s(1)`$: Note that we have chosen $`p_2=\mathrm{}`$ in order to simplify the notation.

Note that $`g_2w_2P_2`$. Consider the map $`\psi :G/PG/P`$ by left multiplication by $`w_2^1.`$ Write $`g_2=w_2q_2b`$ for $`q_2Q_2`$ and $`bB`$. Let $`g_2^{}=w_2q_2w_2^1b`$ as before the $`G/P`$ class of $`g_2^{}`$ is well-defined. It is then easy to see that $`w_2[f(\mathrm{}),g_2]=[s(\mathrm{}),g_2^{}]`$. For this is is enough to notice that $`z^{x_1}=(\frac{1}{z})^{w_2x_2}`$.

Finally let $`g_3^{}=g_3`$ it is clear that $`[s(1),g_3^{}]=[f(1),g_3]`$.

Next we have to compute the homology class $`s_{}([^1])`$.

###### Theorem 6.

If $`z`$ is the element in $`Hom(WL_P,^1)`$ corresponding to $`f`$ then the element $`z^{}`$ corresponding to $`s`$ is the element

$$z^{}(\gamma )=z(\gamma )\gamma (u_1^1x_1x_1)\gamma (u_2^1x_2w_2x_2)$$

$$=z(\gamma )u_1\gamma (x_1)u_2\gamma (x_2).$$

###### Proof.

It is enough to prove this in the case $`\gamma `$ positive and integral. Let $`L`$ be the line bundle on $`G/P`$ corresponding to $`\gamma `$. We construct the line bundle corresponding to $`\gamma `$ in a different (equivalent) manner first. First extend $`\gamma `$ to a map $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:P^{}`$. then construct the total space of $`L`$ as $`G\times /R`$ where $`R`$ is the equivalence relation $`(g,v)=(gp,\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)v)`$ for $`pP`$.

$`f,s`$ give two line bundles $`L_f=f^{}(L),L_s=s^{}(L).`$ At a point other than 0,$`\mathrm{}`$, construct the map $`\psi :L_fL_s`$, by $`(\stackrel{˘}{f}(z),1)`$ to $`(z^{x_1}\stackrel{˘}{f}(z),\mathrm{\Gamma }(z^{x_1}))`$ where $`\stackrel{˘}{f}(z)`$ is a local lifting of $`f`$ to a map $`G`$, and where the same determination of $`z^{x_1}`$ in both $`z^{x_1}\stackrel{˘}{f}(z)`$ and in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(z^{x_1})`$.

It is immediate to see that $`\psi `$ is an isomorphism of bundles outside of $`\{0,\mathrm{}\}`$. Let us analyze this map first at $`z=0`$. Lift $`f`$ to a map $`\stackrel{˘}{f}`$ to $`G`$. Then $`(\stackrel{˘}{f},1)`$ is a local section of $`f`$ and this is mapped by $`\psi `$ to $`(z^{x_1}\stackrel{˘}{f},\mathrm{\Gamma }(z^{x_1}))`$ a meromorphic section of $`L_s`$. To complete the analysis we have to display a generating section of $`L_s`$. Let $`\stackrel{˘}{f}(z)=q_1b(z)u_1p`$ where (recall $`g_1=q_1b_1pP`$) $`b(0)B`$. Now $`z^{x_1}q_1=q_1z^{x_1}`$ and $`z^{x_1}b(z)z^{x_1}`$ is holomorphic at $`z=0`$. We therefore find that $`(z^{x_1}q_1b(z)z^{x_1}u_1p_1,1)`$ is a holomorphic section of $`L_s`$. Therefore the contribution at $`z=0`$ to $`deg(L_s)deg(L_f)`$ is $`\gamma (x_1u_1^1x_1)`$.

The calculation at $`\mathrm{}`$ is similar and we arrive at the equation in the statement.

Now consider the map which takes a map $`f:^1G/P`$ to the map $`s`$ as above. We have seen that if we choose generic $`g_i`$ to compute the left hand side, then the $`s^{}s`$ correspond to the right hand side computed with respect to $`g_i^{}`$. The $`g_i^{}`$ depend only on the $`g_i`$ and the central elements chosen. So computed w.r.t $`g_i^{}`$ the right handside is a finite number and the codimension computation therefore gives us an inequality.

$$<X_{u_1},X_{u_2},X_{u_3}>_Z<X_{w_{c_1}u_1},X_{w_{c_2}u_2},X_{u_3}>_Z^{}.$$

Now apply the reasoning again, this time with $`c_2,c_1`$, to get the other inequality.

###### Corollary 2.

Let $`ZH_2(G/P;)`$; $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_sW`$ ,$`c_1,\mathrm{},c_s\text{Center}(G)`$,
$`c_1c_2\mathrm{}c_s=1`$. Then,

$$<X_{u_1},\mathrm{},X_{u_3}>_Z=<X_{w_{c_1}u_1},\mathrm{},X_{w_{c_s}u_s}>_Z^{}.$$

where $`Z^{}`$ as an element of $`Hom(WL_P,)`$ is given by

$$z^{}(\gamma )=z(\gamma )\gamma (u_1^1x_1)\gamma (u_2^1x_2)\mathrm{}\gamma (u_s^1x_s).$$

($`x_k\overline{C}`$ is the representative of $`c_k`$.)

###### Proof.

Let us do the case $`s=3`$, the general case is similiar. We write down the transformation formulas (as in the theorem) for $`c_1,c_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$, and then transform this on the second and third ’variables’ by $`c_1c_2,(c_1c_2)^1`$, it is clear that $`(c_1c_2)^1=c_3`$. We just have to verify that the formula for $`Z^{}`$ is the one above. We leave this to the reader. ∎

## 5 Reformulation

Let $`P`$ be a standard parabolic, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the set $`\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }:𝔤_\alpha 𝔭\}`$. It is clear that $`\omega _\sigma :\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ gives a basis for $`WL_P`$. Introduce variables $`q_\sigma `$ for $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

We need the following simple fact before we can describe the quantum cohomology of $`G/P`$.

Duals:

The Poincare dual of the class $`X_w`$ is the class $`X_{w_0w}`$ where $`w_0`$ is the unique element in the Weyl group so that

$$Bw_0Bw_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=T.$$

###### Definition 2.

Define

1. $`X_{u_1}X_{u_2}`$
$`=_{uW/W_P,ZHom(WL_P,)}(_{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }}q_{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{Z(\omega _\sigma )})<X_{u_1},X_{u_2},X_u>_ZX_{w_0u}.`$
2. $`QH(G/P)=H^{}(G/P,)[q_\sigma :\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }]`$ with the product given above.
3. For $`c`$ in center of $`G`$ with $`w_c`$ the associated Weyl group element, let $`T_c:QH(G/P)QH(G/P)`$ by $`T_c(X_w)=(_\sigma q_{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\omega _\sigma (x_1w^1x_1)}X_{w_cw}`$.

Let us now try to compare $`T_c(X_{u_1}X_{u_2})`$ to $`T(X_{u_1})X_{u_2}`$

###### Lemma 6.

1. $`T_{c_1}T_{c_2}=(_\sigma q_{\sigma }^{}{}_{}{}^{\omega _\sigma (w_1^1x_2x_2)})T_{c_1c_2}`$ as operators.
2. $`T_c(xy)=T_c(x)y`$.
3. $`T_1`$ = multiplication by $`1.`$

## 6 The $`SL_N`$ case

Let us look at $`Gr(r,n)`$. Here we have simple roots $`L_iL_{i+1}`$ for $`i=n1,\mathrm{},1`$. For $`Gr(r,n)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ from the previous section is $`L_rL_{r+1}`$. The center is cyclic group of order $`n`$ generated by the diagonal matrix $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with entries $`\zeta `$ where $`\zeta =e^{\frac{2\pi i}{n}}`$.

The element in $`\overline{C}`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Theta }^k,k=1,\mathrm{}n1`$ is $`(\frac{k}{n},\mathrm{},\frac{k}{n},\frac{k}{n}1,\frac{k}{n}1)`$ where there are $`(nk)`$ $`\frac{k}{n}`$’s. The element of the Weyl group corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Theta }^k`$ is just ’subtract k modulo n,replacing zeroes by n’ in the standard representation of the Weyl group as a permutation group. Using these we can give a more explicit form of the transformation formulas.

###### Definition 3.

Let $`I=\{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_r\}`$. Let $`F^{}`$ be a complete flag in a n-dimensional vector space E. Now let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_I(F^{})=\{LGr(r,E)\text{dim}(LF^{i_t})t`$ for $`1tr\}`$. We denote the cohomology class of this subvariety by $`\sigma (I)`$. The codimension of this subvariety is the number of pairs $`(j,i)`$ with $`jI`$ and $`iI`$ and $`j>i`$.

The Gromov-Witten invariants in the Grassmannian case also have an interpretation in terms of vector bundles on $`^1`$. Let $`V=𝒪^n`$ be a vector bundle on $`^1`$ . We have a universal sequence of vector bundles on $`Gr(r,n)`$

$$0𝒮𝒪^n𝒬0$$

where $`𝒮`$ is the universal subbundle of rank $`r`$ and $`𝒬`$ the quotient. It is now easy to verify that degree $`d`$ maps $`\rho :^1Gr(r,n)`$ are in $`1`$-$`1`$ correspondence with subbundles of rank $`r`$ and degree $`d`$ of V by pulling back the universal sequence via the map $`\rho `$. Also, the image of point $`p_i`$ under this map is exactly the fiber of this subbundle at $`p_i`$. It is useful to fix an $`n`$-dimensional space $`T`$ and identify all fibers of the bundle V with $`T`$. To obtain the other direction of this correspondence note that subbundles $`𝒮`$ correspond to a family of $`r`$ dimensional subspaces of T(over $`^1`$).

The number defined above, therefore counts the number (zero if infinite) of subbundles $`E`$ of V of degree $`d`$ and rank $`r`$ such that the fiber $`E_{p_i}`$ as a subset of T lies in the Schubert variety $`\mathrm{\Omega }_I(F_{p_i}^{})`$.

### 6.1 The Transformation property

###### Theorem 7.

Let $`I_1,\mathrm{},I_s`$ be subsets of $`\{1,..n\}`$ of cardinality $`r`$ each. Let $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_s`$ be natural numbers summing to $`n`$. Define $`J_i=I_in_i`$ mod $`n`$. That is subtract $`n_i`$ from the numbers in $`I_i`$ and reduce them mod $`n`$ and replace all $`0`$’s by $`n`$. define $`d_i`$ = number of elements in $`I_i`$ which are less than or equal to $`n_i`$.

then

$$<\sigma (I_1),\mathrm{},\sigma (I_s)>_d=<\sigma (J_1),\mathrm{},\sigma (J_s)>_{d+r{\scriptscriptstyle d_i}}.$$

Remark: This property has been noted and proved in  as a consequence of the Schubert Calculus established in . The proof here is geometric and independent of . It is essentially the same proof as that of the transformation formulas of the previous section.

###### Proof.

First we verify that the codimension conditions on both sides are the same. That is:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}\text{codim}(\sigma (I_i))=nd+r(nr).$$

is same as the condition

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}\text{codim}(\sigma (J_i))=n(d+rd_i)+r(nr).$$

This follows easily from the observation:

$$\text{codim}(\sigma (J_i))=\text{codim}(\sigma (I_i))+(n_id_i)r(nr)d_i.$$

Now fix $`s`$ general flags on $`V=C^n`$: $`F_{p_i}^{},i=1,..s`$, as well as $`s`$ points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_s`$ on $`^1`$. Then $`<\sigma (I_1),\mathrm{},\sigma (I_s)>_d`$ is the number of subbundles (zero if infinite) of subbundles $``$ of $`𝒱=V_{}𝒪`$ of degree $`d`$ and rank $`r`$ such that the fiber $`_{p_i}`$ as a subset of $`C^n`$ lies in the Schubert variety $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{I_i}(F_{p_i}^{})`$. Let $`V_i=F_{p_i}^{n_i}`$. We have from genericity of the flags, an equality

$$V_iC^n.$$

We define a new bundle on $`^1`$ as follows ($`q`$ is a new point on $`^1`$).

###### Definition 4.

$`𝒱^{}=(V_i𝒪(p_iq))`$.

Note that we are given an isomorphism $`𝒱𝒱^{}`$ over the open set $`U=^1\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_s,q\}`$ and also that $`𝒱^{}`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒪^n`$. From the theorem below we know that we have a one-one correspondence between subbundles $``$ of $`𝒱`$ and subbundles $`^{}`$ of $`𝒱^{}`$. We also have induced flags $`F_{p_i}^{}`$ on the fibers of $`𝒱^{}`$ at the points $`p_i`$, so that if fiber $`_{p_i}`$ is in the Schubert variety $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{I_i}(F_{p_i}^{})`$, then the fiber $`_{}^{}{}_{p_i}{}^{}`$ is in the Schubert variety $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{J_i}(F_{p_i}^{})`$. The theorem below also tells us that in this correspondence degree of $`^{}`$ is equal to degree of $`r+d_i`$.

This finishes the proof but we have to deal with genericity questions. A more refined approach can directly show that the induced flags on $`𝒱^{}`$ are generic too. But we wish to avoid this line of argument here. Instead we note that this argument proves that (with the codimension computation) that

$$<\sigma (I_1),\mathrm{},\sigma (I_s)>_d<\sigma (J_1),\mathrm{},\sigma (J_s)>_{d+r{\scriptscriptstyle d_i}}.$$

We could then reverse this construction (or perform in many times) to get the other inequality. This proves that there are no intersections at ‘ infinity’ and also transversality without invoking the theory of Quot schemes. ∎

###### Theorem 8.

(Local theory) Let $`C`$ be a smooth curve $`p`$ a point on it, $`t`$ a uniformising parameter at $`p`$. Let $`𝒱`$ be a vector bundle on $`C`$, $`V=`$ fiber $`𝒱_p`$. Also suppose that we are given a complete flag on $`V`$: $`V_1V_2\mathrm{}V_n=V`$. Define $`𝒱_k^{}=\{`$ meromorphic sections $`s`$ of $`𝒱`$ which are holomorphic sections of $`𝒱`$ outside of $`p`$ and such that $`ts`$ extends to give a section of $`𝒱`$ near $`p`$ with fiber at $`p`$ in $`V_k\}`$.

1. $`𝒱𝒱_k^{}`$ with quotient supported at $`p`$ of dimension $`k`$.
2. There is a one-one correspondence between subbundles $``$ of $`𝒱`$ and subbundles $`_k^{}`$ of $`𝒱_k^{}`$. In this correspondence the quotient $`\frac{_k^{}}{}`$ is supported at $`p`$ and has dimension $`\text{dim}(_pV_k)`$.
3. We have a sequence of inclusions

$$t(𝒱_k^{})t(𝒱_{k+1}^{})\mathrm{}𝒱𝒱_1^{}\mathrm{}𝒱_k^{}.$$

which gives a complete flag on the fiber $`(𝒱_k^{})_p`$.
4. In the correspondence on the subbundles if fiber $`_{p_i}`$ is in the Schubert variety $`\mathrm{\Omega }_I(F_{p_i}^{})`$, then the fiber $`_{𝓀}^{}{}_{p}{}^{}`$ is in the Schubert variety $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Ik}(F_p^{})`$.

###### Proof.

All fairly obvious and proofs can be found in the appendix to . ∎

### 6.2 Quantum Schubert calculus

The objective of this section is to show how Pieri’s formula is a easy consequence of the relations of the previous section. Namely for the intersections in the Pieri formula, the relations reduce to $`d=0`$ case which are classically known by induction.

As in the classical approach of Hodge-Pedoe see , one can then prove Giambelli formula from Pieri. In  Pieri is deduced from Giambelli.

###### Definition 5.

Define a map $`T:QH(Gr(r,n))QH(Gr(r,n))`$ by the rule $`T(\sigma (I))=q^{d_1}(\sigma (I1))`$ where $`d_1`$ = number of elements in $`I`$ which are less than or equal to 1. Notice that if $`k<=n`$, $`T^k(\sigma (I))=q^{d_k}\sigma (Ik)`$ where $`d_k`$ = number of elements in $`I`$ which are less than or equal to $`k`$. This $`T`$ is essentially $`T_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of the previous section.

###### Theorem 9.

(reformulation of transformation property) The transformation property is equivalent to the property

$$T(\sigma (I)\sigma (J))=T(\sigma (I))\sigma (J).$$

The proof of Pieri to follow is pure algebra beyond this point. We first note the following

###### Lemma 7.

Let $`\sigma (I)`$ have codimension less than or equal to $`n1`$, then if $`\sigma (K)`$ appears in $`\sigma (I)\sigma (J)`$ with a q coefficient $`>=1`$, then then there exists $`k`$ so that $`\sigma (Kk)`$ appears in $`\sigma (I)\sigma (Jk)`$ with q degree $`=0`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose not, choose $`k`$ so that the q degree is minimized and equals $`d`$. Let $`J^{}=Jk`$, and $`K^{}=Kk`$. since we cannot minimize the q degree further, application of the operation $`T^l`$ tells us that if $`d_l`$ = number of elements in $`J^{}`$ which are less than or equal to $`l`$, and $`c_l`$ = similar number for $`K^{}`$ then $`d_lc_l`$. This clearly implies that $`\text{codim}(J^{})\text{codim}(K^{})`$. But we also have

$$\text{codim}(I)+\text{codim}(J^{})=nd+\text{codim}(K^{})$$

this yields a contradiction immediately if $`d>=1`$. ∎

Pieri formula is usually written in cohomological notation: for this we make the following definitions.

###### Definition 6.

If $`I=\{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_r\}`$ is a subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{}n\}`$ then define $`a(I,k)=nr+ki_k`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},r`$.

###### Definition 7.

(special schubert cells) If $`a<=nr`$ define $`\sigma _a=\sigma (I_a)`$ where

$$I_a=\{nr+1a,nr+2,\mathrm{}nr\}.$$

###### Theorem 10.

$$\sigma _a\sigma (I)=\underset{K}{}\sigma (K)+q\underset{L}{}\sigma (L).$$

where the $`K`$ sum is over all $`K`$ satisfying

$$nra(K,1)a(I,1)a(K,2)\mathrm{}a(K,r)a(I,r)$$

and

$$\text{codim}(I)+a=\text{codim}(K).$$

and the $`L`$ sum is over all $`L`$ satisfying

$$a(I,1)1a(L,1)a(I,2)1\mathrm{}a(I,r)1a(L,r)0$$

and

$$\text{codim}(I)+a=\text{codim}(L)+n.$$

Notice that there are no $`L`$ terms if $`a(I,r)=0`$.

###### Proof.

The statement about the $`K`$ terms is classical . Let us first show that there are no terms with $`q^2`$ and higher. From the previous lemma there is then $`L^{}`$ and and $`I^{}`$ so that $`I=I^{}k`$ and $`L=L^{}k`$, so that

* $`\sigma (L^{})`$ appears with $`q`$ degree =0 in $`\sigma _a\sigma (I^{})`$
* $`d_k<=c_k2`$ where $`d_k`$ = number of elements in $`I^{}k`$, and $`c_k`$ = number of elements in $`L^{}k`$.

Let $`d_k=j`$. Then $`a(L^{},j+2)a(I^{},j+1)`$ tells us that if $`L^{}=\{l_1^{}\mathrm{}l_r^{}\}`$ and $`I^{}=\{i_1^{}\mathrm{}i_r^{}\}`$ then

$$nr+(j+1)l_{j+2}^{}nr+ji_{j+1}^{}$$

or what is the same

$`i_{j+1}^{}+1l_{j+2}^{}`$ hence $`l_{j+2}^{}i_{j+1}^{}+1`$. But $`i_{j+1}^{}>k`$ , therefore $`l_{j+2}^{}>k+1`$ which is in direct contradiction to $`d_k<=c_k2.`$

We now deal with the $`q^1`$ terms. We find $`L^{}`$ and $`I^{}`$ as before so that $`d_k=c_k1`$. Let $`d_k=j`$. $`c_k=j+1`$. Then contemplation of $`I=I^{}k`$ and $`J=J^{}k`$ gives the result. For example let us only verify $`a(I,r)1a(L,r)`$. It is clear that $`l_r=l_{j+1}^{}k+n`$, and $`i_r=i_j^{}k+n`$.

so we need to verify

$$nr+rl_rnr+ri_r1$$

or that

$$i_r+1l_r$$

or that

$$i_j^{}+1l_{j+1}^{}.$$

which is just

$$a(I^{},j)a(L^{},j+1)$$

which is already known classically.

The tediousness of the above proof is made up by the simplicity of the proof of Giambelli formula. The essential part of which is the the following formula. Because of our Homological -cohomological notation problems we need to make one definition.

###### Definition 8.

Let $`\stackrel{˘}{a}=a_1\mathrm{}a_r`$ be given, then define $`I(\stackrel{˘}{a})`$ by $`i_l=nr+la_l`$. If this is not a subset of $`\{1,..n\}`$ define $`\sigma (I(\stackrel{˘}{a}))`$ to be zero. Also denote $`\sigma (I(\stackrel{˘}{a}))`$ by $`\sigma _{a_1,\mathrm{},a_r}`$ and ignore 0’s in the subscript if they appear.

###### Theorem 11.

$$(1)^d\sigma _{a_1,\mathrm{}a_d}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}(1)^j\sigma _{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{j1},a_{j+1}1,\mathrm{},a_d1}\sigma _{a_j+dj}.$$

###### Proof.

Note that on the lhs the length of the string $`\stackrel{˘}{a^{}}=\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{j1},a_{j+1}1,\mathrm{},a_d1\}`$ is less than r. So $`a_r^{}=0`$. Hence no $`q^1`$ terms are produced via Pieri, and the formula in $`q`$ degree 0 is known classically  page 205. Hence there is really nothing (new) to prove. Iteration of this gives the Giambelli formula as in . ∎

Fulton and Woodward have proved a theorem on the smallest power of q in the quantum product of Schubert subvarieties in the case of $`G/P`$, P maximal parabolic. We prove the Grassmann case of their theorem in a slightly strengthened form.

###### Theorem 12.

(Fulton-Woodward) The smallest power of q appearing in $`\sigma (I)\sigma (J)`$ is the number $`d=max\{d_i+d_j^{}r:i+j=n\}`$ where $`d_i`$ = number of elements in $`I`$ which are less than or equal to $`i`$, $`d_j^{}`$ = number of elements in $`J`$ which are less than or equal to $`j`$. Moreover, if the max is achieved for $`i,j:i+j=n`$, then

$$\sigma (I)\sigma (J)=q^d(\sigma (Ii)\sigma (Jj))+\text{higher order terms}.$$

where the cup product $``$ on the right hand side is the cup product in usual cohomology.

Remark: The ‘strengthened’ part refers to identification of the lowest order terms which is curiously a product in the ordinary cohomology. This may not be true for all $`G/P`$’s. Also the associativity of quantum cohomology has not been used so far!

###### Proof.

We know $`T^n=`$ multiplication by $`q^r`$, therefore

$$q^r(\sigma (I)\sigma (J))=T^n(\sigma (I)\sigma (J)).$$

$$=T^i(\sigma (I)T^j(\sigma (J)$$

when $`i+j=n`$,

$$=q^{d_i+d_j^{}}\sigma (Ii)\sigma (Jj).$$

Therefore, if $`i+j=n`$,

$$\sigma (I)\sigma (J)=q^{d_i+d_j^{}r}\sigma (Ii)\sigma (Jj).$$

Suppose that we choose $`i,j`$(with sum $`=n`$) so as to maximize $`d_i+d_j^{}r`$ then clearly for $`I^{}=Ii`$ and $`j^{}=Ji`$, we have $`c_k+c_{nk}^{}r`$, for any $`k`$ (here $`c_k`$= number of elements in $`I^{}`$ which are less than or equal to $`k`$, $`c_{nk}^{}`$ = number of elements in $`J^{}`$ which are less than or equal to $`nk`$. ) this tells us that the dual of $`\sigma (I^{})`$ is contained in $`\sigma (J^{})`$, for a choice of flags. Hence by Kleiman’s Bertini theorem, we have $`\sigma (I^{})\sigma (J^{})0`$.