text:
# Cumulants in Noncommutative Probability Theory III. Creation and annihilation operators on Fock spaces

## Introduction

Fock space constructions like in \[GM02\] give rise to natural interchangeable families and are thus well suited for cumulant calculations like in part I \[Leh04\] and part II \[Leh03\].

In this paper we develop some general formulas and recompute cumulants for generalized Toeplitz operators, notably for $`q`$-Fock spaces, previously considered by A. Nica \[Nic96\] and M. Anshelevich \[Ans01\], and the Fock spaces associated to characters of the infinite symmetric group recently introduced by M. Bożejko and M. Guta \[BG02\]. For the latter we indicate a general formula for mixed moments of creation and annihilation operators in terms of the cycle indicator polynomial of a certain directed graph.

The paper has three sections.

In the first section some general formulae are developed, in particular the cumulants of generalized Toeplitz operators are given by

$$K_n(L^{}+\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _{k+1}L^k)=b_n\alpha _n$$

where $`b_n`$ is a certain statistic on the symmetric group.

In the second section, we review the $`q`$-cumulants of Nica and Anshelevich in the light of the new theory.

In the final section we study in detail the Fock space associated to irreducible characters on the infinite symmetric group recently introduced by Bożejko and Guta. It turns out that expectations of multidimensional Dyck words are given by the so-called cycle-indicator polynomial of a certain digraph associated to the Dyck word. This polynomial counts the number of coverings of the digraph with hamiltonian cycles and satisfies a certain cut-and-fuse recursion formula, which is reflected by a certain commutation relation of the creation and annihilation operators. We characterize those Fock states, which only depend on this digraph construction, as averages of the Bożejko-Guta Fock states, that is, states which are associated to not necessarily irreducible characters of the symmetric group.

## 1. Preliminaries

In this section we collect the necessary definitions and auxiliary results needed later on. For details we refer to part I \[Leh04\].

### 1.1. Exchangeability Systems and Cumulants

We recall first that an *exchangeability system* $``$ for a noncommutative probability space $`(𝒜,\phi )`$ consists of another noncommutative probability space $`(𝒰,\stackrel{~}{\phi })`$ and an infinite family $`𝒥=(\iota _k)_{k𝐍}`$ of state-preserving embeddings $`\iota _k:𝒜𝒜_k𝒰`$, which we conveniently denote by $`XX^{(k)}`$, such that the algebras $`𝒜_j`$ are *interchangeable* with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$: for any family $`X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n𝒜`$, and for any choice of indices $`h(1),\mathrm{},h(n)`$ the expectation is invariant under any permutation $`\sigma 𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the sense that

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }(X_1^{(h(1))}X_2^{(h(2))}\mathrm{}X_n^{(h(n))})=\stackrel{~}{\phi }(X_1^{(\sigma (h(1)))}X_2^{(\sigma (h(2)))}\mathrm{}X_n^{(\sigma (h(n)))}).$$
(1.1)
Throughout this paper we will assume that the algebra $`𝒰`$ is generated by the algebras $`𝒜_k`$ and that the action of $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$ extends to all of $`𝒰`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ the set of partitions (or equivalence relations) of the set $`[n]=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. The value (1.1) only depends on the kernel $`\pi =\mathrm{ker}h\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ defined by

$$i_\pi jh(i)=h(j)$$

and we denote it $`\phi _\pi (X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)=\stackrel{~}{\phi }(X_1^{(\pi (1))}X_2^{(\pi (2))}\mathrm{}X_n^{(\pi (n))}).`$ Here we consider a partition $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ as a function $`\pi :[n]𝐍`$, mapping each element to the number of the block containing it. This is a canonical example of an index function $`h`$ with $`\mathrm{ker}h=\pi `$.

Subalgebras $`,𝒞𝒜`$ are called *$``$-exchangeable* or, more suggestively, *$``$-independent* if for any choice of random variables $`X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n𝒞`$ and subsets $`I,J\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that $`IJ=\mathrm{}`$, $`IJ=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, $`X_i`$ for $`iI`$ and $`X_i𝒞`$ for $`iJ`$, we have the identity

$$\phi _\pi (X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)=\phi _\pi ^{}(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)$$

whenever $`\pi `$, $`\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ are partitions with $`\pi |_I=\pi ^{}|_I`$ and $`\pi |_J=\pi ^{}|_J`$. We say that two families of random variables $`(X_i)`$ and $`(Y_j)`$ are $``$-exchangeable if the algebras they generate have this property.

Then it is possible to define cumulant functionals, indexed by set partitions $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_n`$, via

$$K_\pi ^{}(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)=\underset{\sigma \pi }{}\phi _\sigma (X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)\mu (\sigma ,\pi )$$

where $`\mu (\sigma ,\pi )`$ is the Möbius function of the lattice of set partitions, cf. part I. Alternatively, the cumulants can be defined by Good’s formula. Given noncommutative random variables $`X_1`$$`X_2`$, …, $`X_n`$, take an arbitrary partition $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_n`$. We choose for each $`k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ an exchangeable copy $`\{X_j^{(k)}:j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\}`$ of the given family $`\{X_j:j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\}`$. For each block $`B=\{k_1<k_2<\mathrm{}<k_b\}\pi `$ we pick a primitive root of unity $`\omega _b`$ of order $`b=|B|`$, and set for each $`iB`$

$$X_i^{\pi ,\omega }=\omega _bX_i^{(k_1)}+\omega _b^2X_i^{(k_2)}+\mathrm{}+\omega _b^bX_i^{(k_b)}$$

Then we have Good’s formula \[Leh04, Prop. 2.8\]

$$K_\pi ^{}(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)=\frac{1}{\left|B\right|}\phi (X_1^{\pi ,\omega }X_2^{\pi ,\omega }\mathrm{}X_n^{\pi ,\omega });$$
(1.2)
if $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ consists of one block only, we may abbreviate and write

$$K_n(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)=\frac{1}{n}\phi (X_1^\omega X_2^\omega \mathrm{}X_n^\omega )$$

where $`\omega `$ is a primitive root of unity of order $`n`$ and

$$X_i^\omega =\omega X_i^{(1)}+\omega ^2X_i^{(2)}+\mathrm{}+\omega ^nX_i^{(n)}.$$

The use of the probabilistic termini “independence” and “cumulants” is justified by the following proposition which establishes the analogy to classical probability.

###### Proposition 1.1 (\[Leh04\]).

Two subalgebras $`,𝒞𝒜`$ are $``$-independent if and only if mixed cumulants vanish, that is, whenever $`X_i𝒞`$ are some noncommutative random variables and $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ is an arbitrary partition such that there is a block of $`\pi `$ which contains indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ such that $`X_i`$ and $`X_j𝒞`$, then $`K_\pi ^{}(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ vanishes.

###### Remark 1.2.

In the sequel we will sometimes not distinguish between i.i.d. sequences in $`𝒜`$ and sequences of the form $`X^{(i)}`$. The latter do not belong to $`𝒜`$ strictly speaking, but we can replace $`𝒜`$ by the algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ generated by $`(𝒜_i)_{iI}`$, where $`I𝐍`$ is an infinite subset, and construct an exchangeability system for $`\stackrel{~}{𝒜}`$ by considering $`𝐍`$ as a disjoint union of infinitely many copies of $`I`$.

One of our main tools will be the product formula of Leonov and Shiryaev.

###### Proposition 1.3 (\[Leh04, Prop. 3.3\]).

Let $`(X_{i,j})_{i\{1,\mathrm{},m\},j\{1,\mathrm{},n_i\}}𝒜`$ be a family of noncommutative random variables, in total $`n=n_1+n_2+\mathrm{}+n_m`$ variables. Then every partition $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_m`$ induces a partition $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ on $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\{(i,j):i[m],j[n_i]\}`$ with blocks $`\stackrel{~}{B}=\{(i,j):iB,j[n_i]\}`$, that is, each block $`B\pi `$ is replaced by the union of the intervals $`(\{n_{i1}+1,n_{i1}+2,\mathrm{},n_i\})_{iB}`$. Then we have

$$K_\pi ^{}(\underset{j_1}{}X_{1,j_1},\underset{j_2}{}X_{2,j_2},\mathrm{},\underset{j_m}{}X_{m,j_m})=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\sigma \mathrm{\Pi }_n\\ \sigma \stackrel{~}{\widehat{0}}_m=\stackrel{~}{\pi }\end{array}}{}K_\sigma ^{}(X_{1,1},X_{1,2},\mathrm{},X_{m,n_m})$$

## 2. Fock spaces

We recall some definitions from \[GM02\].

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`𝔎`$ be a real Hilbert space. The algebra $`𝔄(𝔎)`$ is the unital $``$-algebra with generators $`\{\omega (\xi ):\xi 𝔎\}`$ and relations

$$\omega (\lambda \xi +\mu \eta )=\lambda \omega (\xi )+\mu \omega (\eta )\omega (\xi )^{}=\omega (\xi )$$

for all $`\xi `$$`\eta 𝔎`$ and $`\lambda `$$`\mu 𝐑`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $``$ be a complex Hilbert space. The algebra $`𝒞()`$ is the unital $``$-algebra with generators $`L(\xi )`$ and $`L^{}(\xi )`$ and relations

$$L(\lambda \xi +\mu \eta )=\lambda L(\xi )+\mu L(\eta )L^{}(\xi )=L(\xi )^{}$$

for all $`\xi `$$`\eta `$ and $`\lambda `$$`\mu 𝐂`$.

###### Definition 2.3.

A *Fock state* on $`𝒞()`$ is a state $`\rho `$ satisfying

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}\rho (L^{}(\xi )L^{}(\eta ))& \rho (L^{}(\xi )L(\eta ))\\ \rho (L(\xi )L^{}(\eta ))& \rho (L(\xi )L(\eta ))\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \xi ,\eta \\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]$$

and

$$\rho (L^{\epsilon _1}(U\xi _1)L^{\epsilon _2}(U\xi _2)\mathrm{}L^{\epsilon _n}(U\xi _n))=\rho (L^{\epsilon _1}(\xi _1)L^{\epsilon _2}(\xi _2)\mathrm{}L^{\epsilon _n}(\xi _n))$$

for all unitary operators $`U𝒰()`$ and all choices of exponents $`\epsilon _j\{,1\}`$. In particular, odd moments vanish.

If the Hilbert space $``$ is infinite dimensional, we can decompose it into an infinite direct sum $`=_i`$ and the subalgebras $`𝒞(_i)`$ are interchangeable, because any permutation of indices can be implemented by a unitary operator on $``$. Therefore Fock spaces are a rich source of exchangeability systems. We proceed by calculating cumulants in certain special cases. Throughout this paper the exchangeability system will be

$$=(𝒞(𝔎),\rho ,(\iota _k))$$

where $`𝔎=_i`$ is the direct sum of infinitely many copies $`_i`$, which give rise to the embeddings $`\iota _k:𝒞()𝒞(_k)𝒞(𝔎)`$, which are interchangeable with respect to the Fock state $`\rho `$.

###### Proposition 2.4.

Any Fock state is given by a function $`𝐭`$ on pair partitions

$$\rho (L^{\epsilon _1}(\xi _1)L^{\epsilon _2}(\xi _2)\mathrm{}L^{\epsilon _n}(\xi _n))=\underset{\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(2)}}{}𝐭(\pi )\underset{\{k<l\}\pi }{}Q(\epsilon _k,\epsilon _l)\xi _k,\xi _l$$
(2.1)
where $`\epsilon _j\{,1\}`$ and

$$Q(\epsilon ,\epsilon ^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }\epsilon =\text{ and }\epsilon ^{}=1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

The proof is essentially the same as the proof of Theorem II.LABEL:II-thm:GeneralCumulants:Maxwell. Conversely, it was shown in \[GM02\] that a positive definite function on pair partitions gives rise to a Fock state and a Fock representation of $`𝒞()`$.

###### Corollary 2.5.

For $`\epsilon _j\{1,\}`$ the cumulants of the creation and annihilation operators are given by

$$K_\pi ^{}(L^{\epsilon _1}(\xi _1),L^{\epsilon _2}(\xi _2),\mathrm{},L^{\epsilon _n}(\xi _n))=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(2)}\hfill \\ 𝐭(\pi )_{\{k<l\}\pi }Q(\epsilon _k,\epsilon _l)\xi _k,\xi _l\hfill & \text{if }\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(2)}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Definition 2.6.

A positive definite function $`𝐭`$ on pair partitions is called *multiplicative* if it factors with respect to the connected components of $`\pi `$. (See Definition I.LABEL:I-def:GeneralCumulants:partitions).

The following lemma is immediate from the definition.

###### Lemma 2.7.

Pyramidal independence holds if and only if $`𝐭`$ is multiplicative.

From now on we will work with a fixed orthonormal basis $`\{e_i\}`$ of $``$ and calculate expectation of words in $`L_i=L(e_i)`$ or creation operators $`L=L(h)`$ for some fixed unit vector $`h`$.

###### Definition 2.8.

A *lattice path* is a sequence of points $`((x_i,y_i))_{i=0,1,\mathrm{},n}`$ in $`𝐍_0\times 𝐙`$ such that $`y_0=y_n=0`$, $`y_j0`$ for all $`j`$ and $`x_i=i`$. As the $`x`$-coordinates are redundant, we will also refer to the sequence $`(y_i)_{i=0,1,\mathrm{},n}`$ as lattice paths. A lattice path is *irreducible* if $`y_j>0`$ for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n1`$ and reducible otherwise. A *Łukasiewicz path* is a lattice path $`(y_j)`$ such that $`y_iy_{i1}1`$. A *lattice word* is a word $`L^{k_1}L^{k_2}\mathrm{}L^{k_n}`$ where $`k_j𝐙`$ and $`L^k`$ is interpreted as $`L^{}^k`$ and such that the sequence $`y_j=k_1+k_2+\mathrm{}+k_j`$ constitutes a lattice path. A Łukasiewicz word is defined accordingly. A *Dyck path* is a lattice path $`(y_j)`$ such that $`y_iy_{i1}=\pm 1`$. A *$`N`$-dimensional lattice path* is a sequence of points $`\stackrel{}{y}_j`$ in $`𝐙^N`$ such that $`\stackrel{}{y}_0=\stackrel{}{y}_n=\stackrel{}{0}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}_{k+1}\stackrel{}{y}_k`$ is a multiple of a basis vector $`e_i`$ and such that all coordinates of $`\stackrel{}{y}_j`$ are nonnegative. A word $`L_{i_1}^{k_1}L_{i_2}^{k_2}\mathrm{}L_{i_n}^{k_n}`$ is an *($`N`$-dimensional) lattice word* if the path $`\stackrel{}{y}_j=k_1e_{i_1}+k_2e_{i_2}+\mathrm{}+k_je_{i_j}`$ is a lattice path. Multidimensional Łukasiewicz words and Dyck words are defined similarly.

###### Proposition 2.9.

For $`k_j𝐙`$ we have

$$\rho (L_{i_1}^{k_1}L_{i_2}^{k_2}\mathrm{}L_{i_n}^{k_n})=0$$

unless the word $`L_{i_1}^{k_1}L_{i_2}^{k_2}\mathrm{}L_{i_n}^{k_n}`$ is a lattice word.

###### Proof.

Indeed if one of the $`\stackrel{}{y}_j`$ in Definition 2.8 has a negative component then the sum (2.1) is empty, as there is no pairing with nonzero contribution. ∎

It was shown in \[GM02\] that Fock states can always be modeled on so-called combinatorial Fock spaces as follows. Let $``$ be a fixed Hilbert space. Let $`V_n`$ be a sequence of Hilbert spaces with an action $`U_n`$ of the symmetric group $`𝔖_n`$ and densely defined intertwining operators $`j_n:V_nV_{n+1}`$ such that

$$j_nU_n(\sigma )=U_{n+1}(\iota _n(\sigma ))j_n$$
(2.2)
where $`\iota _n:𝔖_n𝔖_{n+1}`$ is the natural inclusion. Let

$$_V()=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}V_n_s^n$$

where $`V_n_s^n`$ is the subspace spanned by the vectors which are invariant under the action $`U_n\stackrel{~}{U}_n`$ of $`𝔖_n`$ on $`V_n^n`$ given by

$$(U_n(\sigma )\stackrel{~}{U}_n(\sigma ))(v\xi _1\xi _2\mathrm{}\xi _n)=U_n(\sigma )v\xi _{\sigma ^1(1)}\xi _{\sigma ^1(2)}\mathrm{}\xi _{\sigma ^1(n)}$$

From now on we will abbreviate

$$v\xi _1\xi _2\mathrm{}\xi _n:=v\xi _1\xi _2\mathrm{}\xi _n;$$

for $`vV_n`$ and $`\eta ^n`$ we define the Symmetrizator

$$v_s\eta =P_nv\eta =\frac{1}{n!}\underset{\sigma }{}U_n(\sigma )v\stackrel{~}{U}_n(\sigma )\eta $$

and left and right creation operators

$$L_{V,j}(h)v_s\eta =(n+1)(j_nv)_s(h\eta )R_{V,j}(h)v_s\eta =(n+1)(j_nv)_s(\eta h);$$
(2.3)
its adjoint is the annihilation operator $`L_{V,j}^{}`$ which is the restriction of

$`\stackrel{~}{L}_{V,j}^{}(\xi ):V_{n+1}^{n+1}`$ $`V_n^n`$
$`v\xi _1\xi _2\mathrm{}\xi _n`$ $`\xi _1,\xi j_n^{}v\xi _2\xi _3\mathrm{}\xi _n`$
to $`V_{n+1}_s^{n+1}`$. A similar formula holds for $`R_{V,j}^{}`$. On symmetric tensors it is given by

$$R^{}(\xi )v_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _{n+1}=\frac{1}{n+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}\xi _i,\xi j_n^{}U_{n+1}(\tau _{i,n+1})v_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _{i1}\xi _{n+1}\xi _{i+1}\mathrm{}\xi _n$$
(2.4)
where $`\tau _{i,j}`$ is the transposition which exchanges $`i`$ and $`j`$. Left and right creation operators are equivalent and we will consider either of them, whenever it is notationally convenient.

Let $`𝒞_{V,j}()`$ be the $``$-algebra generated by these creation operators and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_VV_0`$ a unit vector. Then

$$\rho _{V,j}(X)=\mathrm{\Omega }_V,X\mathrm{\Omega }_V$$

is a Fock state.

###### Proposition 2.10.

\[GM02, Thm. 2.7\] Let $`𝐭`$ be a positive definite function on pair partitions. Then for any complex Hilbert space $``$ the GNS-representation of $`𝒞(,\rho _𝐭)`$ is unitarily equivalent to $`(_V(),𝒞_{V,j}(),\mathrm{\Omega }_V)`$ for some sequence $`(V_n,j_n)_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ which up to unitary equivalence is uniquely determined by $`𝐭`$.

Using this model it is now easy to compute cumulants in certain cases.

###### Proposition 2.11.

If the lattice word $`(L^{k_1},L^{k_2},\mathrm{},L^{k_n})`$ is reducible, then

$$K_n^{}(L^{k_1},L^{k_2},\mathrm{},L^{k_n})=0$$

###### Proof.

Indeed for a lattice word $`L_{i_1}^{k_1}L_{i_2}^{k_2}\mathrm{}L_{i_m}^{k_m}`$ we have

$$L_{i_1}^{k_1}L_{i_2}^{k_2}\mathrm{}L_{i_m}^{k_m}\mathrm{\Omega }_V=\rho (L_{i_1}^{k_1}L_{i_2}^{k_2}\mathrm{}L_{i_m}^{k_m})\mathrm{\Omega }_V$$

and therefore if $`m`$ is the largest index for which $`k_{m+1}+k_{m+2}+\mathrm{}+k_n=0`$, then by assumption $`m>1`$ and Lemma I.LABEL:I-lem:GeneralCumulants:subwordexpectationvanishes implies that

$$(L^{k_{m+1}})^\omega (L^{k_2})^\omega \mathrm{}(L^{k_n})^\omega \mathrm{\Omega }_V=\rho ((L^{k_{m+1}})^\omega (L^{k_2})^\omega \mathrm{}(L^{k_n})^\omega )\mathrm{\Omega }_V=0.$$

In the case of the free creation operators of Voiculescu we can say even more, see Proposition 3.4 below. There is a special kind of operators for which cumulants can be calculated explicitly in general.

###### Definition 2.12.

Let $`h`$ be a fixed unit vector and let $`L=L(h)`$ be a creation operator. A *generalized Toeplitz operator* is an operator of the form

$$L^{}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _kL^{k1}$$

Such operators were considered by Voiculescu as a model of free random variables \[Voi86\] and for $`q`$-deformations of them by Nica \[Nic96\]. The cumulants of Toeplitz operators are rather restrictive and only allow Łukasiewicz words which are “prime” and consequently can be immediately read off the coefficients.

###### Proposition 2.13.

For $`k_j\{,0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$ we have

$$K_n^{}(L^{k_1},L^{k_2},\mathrm{},L^{k_n})=0$$

unless $`k_1=k_2=\mathrm{}=k_{n1}=`$ and $`k_n=n1`$. In the latter case, the cumulant equals the expectation of the product:

$`K_n^{}(L^{},\mathrm{},L^{},L^{n1})`$ $`=\rho ((L^{})^{n1}L^{n1})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_{2n2}^{(2)}}{}}K_\pi ^{}(L^{},L^{},\mathrm{},L,L)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma 𝔖_{n1}}{}}\nu (\sigma )`$
where $`\nu `$ is a function on the symmetric group, because every contributing $`2`$-partition connects a point of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ to a point in $`\{n,n+1,\mathrm{},2n2\}`$ and can be interpreted as a permutation.

###### Proof.

We may assume that all $`k_j0`$, because otherwise the presence of the identity operator makes the cumulant vanish. Let $`m`$ be the total number of factors when decomposing the powers of $`L`$ into single creators, i.e. $`m=\left|k_j\right|`$ where we put $`||=1`$. Let $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_m`$ be the interval partition induced by the $`n`$ exponents $`k_j`$, that is $`\pi =\stackrel{~}{\widehat{0}}_n`$ in the notation of the proof of Proposition I.LABEL:I-prop:GeneralCumulants:Productformula. If the $`k_j`$ are not as claimed, then there are at least two monomials $`L^k`$ with $`k>0`$. By the product formula (Proposition I.LABEL:I-prop:GeneralCumulants:Productformula) we have

$$K_n^{}(L^{k_1},L^{k_2},\mathrm{},L^{k_n})=\underset{\sigma \pi =\widehat{1}_m}{}K_\sigma ^{}(L^{\epsilon _1},L^{\epsilon _2},\mathrm{},L^{\epsilon _m})$$

where $`\epsilon _j\{,1\}`$. Now $`\sigma `$ must be both a pair partition connecting creation operators with annihilation operators and at the same time we must have $`\sigma \pi =\widehat{1}_m`$, but the two different blocks with $`k>0`$ cannot be connected in this way, because each $`L^{}`$ can only be connected to one $`L^k`$. Therefore the sum is empty. ∎

A similar formula holds for partitioned cumulants.

###### Proposition 2.14.

For $`k_j\{,0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$ we have

$$K_\pi ^{}(L^{k_1},L^{k_2},\mathrm{},L^{k_n})=0$$

unless $`k_j`$ and $`\pi `$ are compatible in the sense that

$$k_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}b1\hfill & \text{if }j\text{ is the last element of a block }B\text{ of length }\left|B\right|=b\hfill \\ \hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

In that case

$$K_\pi ^{}(L^{k_1},L^{k_2},\mathrm{},L^{k_n})=\rho _\pi (L^{k_1},L^{k_2},\mathrm{},L^{k_n})$$

By multilinear expansion we have the following corollary.

###### Corollary 2.15.

Let

$$b_n=\rho ((L^{})^{n1}L^{n1})=\underset{\sigma 𝔖_{n1}}{}\nu (\sigma )$$

where $`\nu (\sigma )`$ is the statistic on the symmetric group defined in Proposition 2.13. Then the generalized Toeplitz operator

$$T=L^{}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha _k}{b_k}L^{k1}$$

has cumulants

$$K_n^{}(T,T,\mathrm{},T)=\alpha _n$$

###### Example 2.16 ($`q`$-cumulants).

For Nica’s $`q`$-cumulants \[Nic96\] we have

$$b_n(q)=[n]_q!$$

which includes the classical case $`b_n(1)=n!`$ and the free case $`b_n(0)=1`$ considered by Voiculescu. Moreover, for partitioned cumulants a simple formula holds, too, namely Corollary 3.5 below.

## 3. $`q`$-Fock space

In an attempt to unify bosonic and fermionic Fock space, the deformed $`q`$-Fock spaces were constructed in \[FB70\], \[BS94\] and \[BKS97\].

###### Definition 3.1 ($`q`$-Fock space).

On free Fock space $`()=_0()=𝐂\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^n`$ define the $`q`$-symmetrizator on $`n`$-particle space by

$`P_n^q(\eta _1\eta _2\mathrm{}\eta _n)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma 𝔖_n}{}}q^{\left|\sigma \right|}\stackrel{~}{U}_n(\sigma )\eta _1\eta _2\mathrm{}\eta _n`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma 𝔖_n}{}}q^{\left|\sigma \right|}\eta _{\sigma ^1(1)}\eta _{\sigma ^1(2)}\mathrm{}\eta _{\sigma ^1(n)}`$
where $`\left|\sigma \right|`$ is the number of inversions of the partition $`\sigma `$. Define the $`q`$-inner product on elementary tensors $`\xi ^m`$, $`\eta ^n`$ by

$$\xi ,\eta _q=\delta _{m,n}\xi ,P_n^q\eta $$

where $`,`$ is the inner product on $`()`$ (linear in the second variable). $`q`$-Fock space is the completion with respect to this norm and denoted $`_q()`$. On this space we define creation operators and annihilation operators

$`L(\xi )\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=\xi `$ $`L(\xi )\eta _1\mathrm{}\eta _n`$ $`=\xi \eta _1\mathrm{}\eta _n`$ (3.1)
$`L^{}(\xi )\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=0`$ $`L^{}(\xi )\eta _1\mathrm{}\eta _n`$ $`={\displaystyle q^{k1}\xi ,\eta _k\eta _1\mathrm{}\widehat{\eta }_k\mathrm{}\eta _n}`$ (3.2)
These satisfy the $`q`$-commutation relations

$$L^{}(\xi )L(\eta )qL(\eta )L^{}(\xi )=\xi ,\eta I$$

and give rise to canonical interchangeable random variables with respect to the vacuum expectation $`\rho (X)=\mathrm{\Omega },X\mathrm{\Omega }`$: Given mutually orthogonal and isomorphic subspaces $`(E_j)_{j0}`$ of $``$, the $``$-subalgebras $`𝒜_j`$ generated by $`\{L(f):fE_j\}`$ are interchangeable. Moreover, orthogonal subspaces of $`E_0`$ give rise to interchangeable algebras.

###### Proposition 3.2 (\[BS94\]).

The Fock state corresponding to $`q`$-Fock space is given by the positive definite function

$$𝐭(\pi )=q^{nc(\pi )}$$

where $`nc(\pi )`$ is the *number of crossings* of the pair partition $`\pi `$. In particular, pyramidal independence holds.

The cases $`q=1,0,1`$ give rise to fermionic, free and bosonic Fock spaces and correspondingly fermionic graded probability theory \[MN97\] (see section I.LABEL:I-sec:GeneralCumulantExamples:Fermions), free probability theory \[Voi85, Voi86\] and classical probability theory with corresponding notions of independence and convolution.

However, for other $`q`$ there is no $`q`$-convolution \[vLM96\]: There exist $`q`$-independent s.a. variables $`X`$, $`X^{}`$, $`Y`$ such that $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ have the same distribution but the distributions of $`X+Y`$ and $`X^{}+Y`$ differ. See also \[Gut01\], where a $`q`$-convolution for generalized Gaussians is constructed.

Nevertheless, choosing certain models of random variables various $`q`$-cumulants have been found.

### 3.1. $`q`$-Toeplitz operators

Motivated by Speicher’s work on free cumulants and Voiculescu’s Toeplitz model of free random variables \[Voi86\], Nica \[Nic95\] considered $`q`$-Toeplitz operators

$$T=L_q^{}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha _{k+1}}{[k]_q!}L_q^k$$
(3.3)
with $`L=L(h)`$ for some fixed unit vector $`h`$. Here and in the sequel we will use the standard $`q`$-notations

$$[n]_q=\frac{1q^n}{1q}=1+q+q^2+\mathrm{}+q^{n1}[n]_q!=[1]_q[2]_q\mathrm{}[n]_q$$

Here exchangeable copies correspond to $`L_i=L_q^{(i)}=L_q(e_i)`$. We want to show that Nica’s cumulants involving left-reduced crossings coincide with the cumulants of this exchangeability system. Actually technical reasons force us to rather consider right-reduced crossings. We will calculate mixed cumulants of creation- and annihilation operators.

###### Theorem 3.3.

For a lattice word $`(\epsilon _1,\epsilon _2,\mathrm{},\epsilon _n)`$, $`\epsilon _j\{,0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$, the $`q`$-cumulant $`K_n^q(L_q^{\epsilon _1},L_q^{\epsilon _2},\mathrm{},L_q^{\epsilon _n})`$ vanishes unless $`\epsilon _1=\epsilon _2=\mathrm{}=\epsilon _{n1}=`$ and $`\epsilon _n=n1`$. In the latter case

$$K_n^q(L_q^{},L_q^{},\mathrm{},L_q^{},L_q^{n1})=\rho (L_q^{}L_q^{}\mathrm{}L_q^{}L_q^{n1})=[n1]_q!$$

###### Proof.

This follows from (3.2), namely

$$L^{}e^k=(1+q+\mathrm{}+q^{n1})e^{(k1)}=[n]_qe^{(k1)}$$

from which we infer that

$$L_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{n1}L^{n1}\mathrm{\Omega }=[n1]_q!\mathrm{\Omega }.$$

Now apply Proposition 2.13. ∎

In the case $`q=0`$ (free Fock space) we have a complete description of the cumulants.

###### Proposition 3.4.

Let $`q=0`$. Then for $`k_j𝐙`$ the cumulants are

$$K_n^{}(L^{k_1},L^{k_2},\mathrm{},L^{k_n})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\rho (L^{k_1}L^{k_2}\mathrm{}L^{k_n})=1\hfill & \text{if there is no non-trivial lattice subword}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}.$$

Here $`L^k`$ stands for $`(L^{})^k`$ if $`k<0`$.

###### Proof.

If there is a lattice subword $`L^{k_p},L^{k_{p+1}},\mathrm{},L^{k_q}`$, then

$$L^{k_p}L^{k_{p+1}}\mathrm{}L^{k_q}=\rho (L^{k_p}L^{k_{p+1}}\mathrm{}L^{k_q})I$$

and

$$(L^{k_p})^\omega (L^{k_{p+1}})^\omega \mathrm{}(L^{k_q})^\omega =\rho ((L^{k_p})^\omega (L^{k_{p+1}})^\omega \mathrm{}(L^{k_q})^\omega )=0$$

If there is no such subword, we use the noncrossing moment-cumulant formula

$$K_n^q(L^{k_1},L^{k_2},\mathrm{},L^{k_1})=\underset{\pi NC_n}{}\rho (L_{\pi (1)}^{k_1}L_{\pi (2)}^{k_2}\mathrm{}L_{\pi (n)}^{k_n})\mu _{NC}(\pi ,\widehat{1}_n)$$

and the only partition which gives a nonzero contribution is $`\pi =\widehat{1}_n`$. ∎

Note that for general $`q`$ this is no longer true.

Let us now compute the partitioned cumulants of Łukasiewicz words, i.e. words of the form $`L_{\pi (1)}^{\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}L_{\pi (n)}^{\epsilon _n}`$ with $`\epsilon _j\{,0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$. By Proposition 2.14 the cumulants coincide with the expectations

$$\rho (L_{\pi (1)}^{\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}L_{\pi (n)}^{\epsilon _n})$$

and we only need to compute those, in which each block $`B=\{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_b\}`$ satisfies $`\epsilon _{i_1}=\epsilon _{i_2}=\mathrm{}=\epsilon _{i_{b1}}=`$ and $`\epsilon _{i_b}=b1`$. For noncrossing $`\pi `$, it follows by pyramidal independence that

$$\rho (L_{\pi (1)}^{\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}L_{\pi (n)}^{\epsilon _n})=\underset{B}{}\rho (\underset{iB}{}L^{\epsilon _i});$$

for more general $`\pi `$ we must count the right reduced crossings.

###### Corollary 3.5.

For a partition $`\pi =\{B_1,B_2,\mathrm{},B_p\}`$ the corresponding cumulant of the $`q`$-Toeplitz operator is

$$K_\pi ^q(L_q^{}+\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha _{k+1}}{[k]_q!}L_q^k)=q^{rrc(\pi )}\alpha _{\left|B_1\right|}\alpha _{\left|B_2\right|}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\left|B_p\right|}$$

where $`rrc(\pi )`$ is the number of right reduced crossings

$$rrc(\pi )=\mathrm{\#}\{(i<i^{}<j<j^{}):i,jB,i^{},j^{}B^{},j=\mathrm{max}B,j^{}=\mathrm{max}B^{}\}$$

###### Proof.

Let us define an un-crossing map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\mathrm{\Pi }_n\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$. For $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_n`$, sort its blocks according to their last elements. Let $`B_0`$ be the last block which is not an interval. Choose $`j_2B_0`$ maximal s.t. $`j_21B_0`$ and let $`j_1B_0`$ be its predecessor in $`B_0`$. In other words, $`j_1`$ and $`j_2`$ enclose the last “hole” in $`B_0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi )`$ be the partition obtained by cyclically rotating the interval $`(j_1,j_1+1,\mathrm{},j_21)`$ to $`(j_1+1,j_1+2,\mathrm{},j_21,j_1)`$. Then $`rrc(\pi )=rrc(\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ))+c`$ where $`c`$ is the number of right reduced arcs of $`\pi `$ which are crossed by the arc $`(j_1,\mathrm{max}B_0)`$. This number is equal to

$$c=\underset{\begin{array}{c}B\pi \\ j_1<\mathrm{max}B<j_2\end{array}}{}\left|B\right|\left|B[j_1+1,j_21]\right|$$

and it is also immediate that

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho (L_{\pi (1)}^{\epsilon _1}L_{\pi (2)}^{\epsilon _2}\mathrm{}L_{\pi (j_1)}^{}L_{\pi (j_1+1)}^{\epsilon _{j_1+1}}\mathrm{}L_{\pi (j_21)}^{\epsilon _{j_21}}\mathrm{}L_{\pi (n)}^{\epsilon _n})\hfill \\ \hfill =q^c\rho (L_{\pi (1)}^{\epsilon _1}L_{\pi (2)}^{\epsilon _2}\mathrm{}L_{\pi (j_11)}^{\epsilon _{j_11}}L_{\pi (j_1+1)}^{\epsilon _{j_1+1}}\mathrm{}L_{\pi (j_21)}^{\epsilon _{j_21}}L_{\pi (j_1)}^{}L_{\pi (j_2)}^{\epsilon _{j_2}}\mathrm{}L_{\pi (n)}^{\epsilon _n})\end{array}$$

### 3.2. “Reduced” $`q`$-cumulants

In this section we consider the cumulants found in \[Ans01\] (see also \[SY01\]) which are weighted by another statistic on partitions, the number of so-called reduced crossings. Instead of taking powers of creation operators, one adds gauge operators to the scenery.

###### Definition 3.6.

Let $`T`$ be an operator with dense domain $`𝒟`$. The *gauge operator* $`\gamma (T)`$ on $`_q()`$ with dense domain $`_{alg}(𝒟)`$ is defined by

$$\gamma (T)\mathrm{\Omega }=0\gamma (T)\eta _1\mathrm{}\eta _n=q^{k1}T\eta _k\eta _1\mathrm{}\widehat{\eta }_k\mathrm{}\eta _n$$

###### Proposition 3.7 (\[Ans01, Prop. 2.2\]).

If $`T`$ is essential selfadjoint with dense domain $`𝒟`$ and $`T(𝒟)𝒟`$, then $`\gamma (T)`$ is essential selfadjoint with dense domain $`_{alg}(𝒟)`$.

Then consider processes of the form

$$\gamma _I(\xi ,T,\lambda )=L_I(\xi )+L_I^{}(\xi )+\gamma _I(T)+\left|I\right|\lambda $$

where $`=L^2(𝐑_+)V`$ is the underlying Hilbert space, $`\xi V`$ is an analytic vector for $`T:𝒟VV`$ and $`L_I(\xi )=L(\chi _I\xi )`$ etc. In \[Ans01, Prop. 2.2\] stochastic measures are used to find the cumulants of such processes.

This kind of independence can be reduced to the following symmetry. Let $`=\mathrm{}_2V`$ and denote $`\{e_j\}_{j0}`$ the canonical basis of $`\mathrm{}_2`$ and $`P_j`$ the one-dimensional projections on $`e_j`$. For $`vV`$, $`TB(V)`$ (or densely defined), $`\lambda 𝐂`$ (or $`𝐑`$ to be s.a.), define

$$\gamma (v,T,\lambda )=L(e_0v)+L^{}(e_0v)+\gamma (P_0T)+\lambda I$$

Interchangeable copies are obtained by replacing $`e_0`$ with $`e_j`$:

$$\gamma _j(v,T,\lambda )=L_j(v)+L_j^{}(v)+\gamma _j(T)+\lambda $$

where

$$L_j(v)=L(e_jv)\gamma _j(T)=\gamma (P_jT)$$

###### Remark 3.8.

Note that all these operators are infinite divisible. This can be seen by embedding $`l_2`$ into $`L_2(𝐑)`$ by sending the basis elements $`e_i`$ to the characteristic function of unit intervals. Therefore the class of obtainable distributions is the same as in \[Ans01\]. We chose to work with $`l_2`$ for the sake of simplicity.

We will consider the unital $``$-algebras $`𝒜_i`$ generated by $`𝒳_i=\{L_i(v),L_i^{}(v),\gamma _i(T):vV,TB(V)\}`$ and more generally, for an index set $`I`$, the algebra $`A_I`$ generated by $`𝒜_i`$, $`iI`$. Then these algebras satisfy pyramidal independence. First we need a lemma.

###### Lemma 3.9 (\[Ans01, Lemma 3.2\]).

Let $`E_j=\mathrm{span}\{e_i\}_{iI_j}\mathrm{}_2`$, $`j=1,2`$ with $`I_1I_2=\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. $`E_1E_2`$). Then we have

1. $`_q(E_1V)𝐂\mathrm{\Omega }_q(E_2V)𝐂\mathrm{\Omega }`$
2. Let $`\eta _q(E_2V)`$, $`X𝒜_1`$, then $`X\eta =(X\rho (\eta ))\mathrm{\Omega }\eta +\rho (X)\eta `$

###### Proof.

The first part is clear since $`E_1VE_2V`$. For the second part, observe that by orthogonality we have for $`iI_1`$

$`L_i^{}(v)\eta `$ $`=0`$
$`L_i(v)\eta `$ $`=(e_iv)\eta `$
$`\gamma _i(T)\eta `$ $`=0`$
More generally, for $`\eta _1_q(E_1V)𝐂_\mathrm{\Omega }`$,

$`L_i^{}(v)\eta _1\eta `$ $`=(L_i^{}(v)\eta _1)\eta `$
$`\gamma _i(T)\eta _1\eta `$ $`=(\gamma _i(T)\eta _1)\eta `$
Thus $`\eta `$ is either unchanged or sent to $`0`$ and the claim follows. ∎

Pyramidal independence still holds.

###### Proposition 3.10 (\[Ans01, Lemma 3.3\]).

Let $`X,X^{}𝒜_I`$, $`Y𝒜_J`$ with $`IJ=\mathrm{}`$, then $`\rho (XYX^{})=\rho (XX^{})\rho (Y)`$.

###### Proof.

By the preceding lemma,

$`\mathrm{\Omega },XYX^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=X^{}\mathrm{\Omega },\stackrel{}{Y}X^{}\mathrm{\Omega }+\rho (Y)X^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=\rho (Y)\mathrm{\Omega },XX^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=\rho (Y)\rho (XX^{})`$
Now we want to compute cumulants of the generators $`L_i(v)`$, $`L_i^{}(v)`$, and $`\gamma _i(T)`$. In the following let $`X_i`$ denote one of $`L_j(v)`$, $`L_j^{}(v)`$, $`\gamma _j(T)`$, $`jI`$, $`vV`$, $`TB(V)`$. First observe that the expectation of a word $`X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_n`$ vanishes unless $`X_1`$ is an annihilator and $`X_n`$ is a creator. Using lemma 3.9 again one sees the following more general fact. Let $`w=X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_n`$ be a word in generators, $`X_j𝒜_{i_j}`$ and denote $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ the partition induced by the indices $`i_j`$. Then again $`\rho (X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_n)=0`$ unless each block of $`\pi `$ starts with an annihilator and ends with a creator. Moreover the number of creators must equal the number of annihilators in each block. The following proposition shows that the cumulants are even more restrictive and behave like those of “gaussian” variables: only one pair of creator/annihilator is allowed in each block.

###### Proposition 3.11.

The cumulant $`K_\pi ^q(X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n)`$ vanishes unless each block of $`\pi `$ starts with an annihilator, ends with a creator and otherwise only contains gauge operators. If these conditions are satisfied, the cumulant equals the expectation of the corresponding word.

###### Proof.

We only give the proof for $`\pi =\widehat{1}_n`$; it remains essentially the same in the general case. The cumulant is equal to the expectation of the “discrete Fourier transform” (I.LABEL:I-eq:GeneralCumulants:GoodFormula1). If we abbreviate $`e_\omega =\omega ^ke_k`$ and $`p_\omega =\omega ^kp_k`$, we have

$`L_0(v)^\omega `$ $`={\displaystyle \omega ^kL(e_kv)}=L(e_\omega v)`$
$`L_0^{}(v)^\omega `$ $`=L^{}(e_{\overline{\omega }}v)`$
$`\gamma _0(T)^\omega `$ $`=\gamma (p_\omega T)`$
Now $`p_\omega e_{\omega ^m}=e_{\omega ^{m+1}}`$ and

$$e_{\overline{\omega }},e_{\omega ^m}=\omega ^k\omega ^{mk}=\omega ^{(m+1)k}=0$$

unless $`m+1`$ is a multiple of $`n`$. The action of $`X_1^\omega X_2^\omega \mathrm{}X_n^\omega `$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ starts with a creator

$$X_1^\omega X_2^\omega \mathrm{}X_n^\omega \mathrm{\Omega }=X_1^\omega X_2^\omega \mathrm{}X_{n1}^\omega (e_\omega v)$$

Then a mixture of creation, annihilation and gauge operators changes the first component by either tensoring with $`e_\omega `$ ore multiplying with $`p_\omega `$. If there is an annihilator besides $`X_1`$, it encounters $`e_{\omega ^m}`$ with $`m<n1`$ and all the inner products vanish. If there is a creator, it must be matched by an annihilator different from $`X_1`$, and again the inner products vanish. Hence, $`X_1,X_2,\mathrm{},X_n`$ must have the structure claimed in the theorem. If this is the case, we have $`X_1=L_0^{}(v_1)`$, $`X_n=L_0(v_2)`$, and $`X_j=\gamma _0(T_j)`$ for $`2jn1`$, and

$`\rho (X_1^\omega X_2^\omega \mathrm{}X_n^\omega )`$ $`=e_{\overline{\omega }}v_1,e_{\omega ^{n1}}T_2T_3\mathrm{}T_{n1}v_2`$
$`=e_{\overline{\omega }},e_{\omega ^{n1}}v_1,T_2T_3\mathrm{}T_{n1}v_2`$
$`=n\rho (X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_n)`$
###### Definition 3.12 (An un-crossing map \[Ans01\]).

On the set of partitions $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ define a map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\mathrm{\Pi }_n\mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ which fixes interval partitions and otherwise acts as follows. Let $`B`$ be the last block which is not an interval (if we sort blocks with respect to their maximal element). Let $`j_2=\mathrm{max}\{sB:s1B\}`$ (the start of the last subinterval of $`B`$) and $`j_1`$ its predecessor in $`B`$. These two numbers enclose a hole of $`B`$ and the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ moves this hole to the end of $`B`$: Let $`\alpha =((j_1+1)(j_1+2)\mathrm{}b(B))^{b(B)j_2+1}𝔖_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi )=\alpha (\pi )`$, i.e., $`i_{\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi )}j`$ $``$ $`\alpha ^1(i)_\pi \alpha ^1(j)`$. We will need the number of blocks which end between $`j_1`$ and $`j_2`$ but do not start there,

$$c_b(\pi )=\left|\{s:j_1<b(B_s)<j_2\}\right|\left|\{s:j_1<a(B_s)<j_2\}\right|$$

Then $`rc(\pi )=rc(\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ))+c_b(\pi )`$ and since iterating the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ends at an interval partition after at most $`n`$ steps, we have

$$rc(\pi )=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}c_b(\mathrm{\Phi }^k(\pi )).$$

###### Theorem 3.13 (\[Ans01, Lemma 3.8\]).

Let $`X_j𝒳_{i_j}`$ be generators and $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_n`$ be the kernel of the index map $`ji_j`$, i.e., $`p_\pi q`$ $``$ $`i_p=i_q`$. Assume that each block consists of gauge operators enclosed by an annihilator at the beginning and a creator at the end. Then

$$\rho (X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_n)=q^{rc(\pi )}\underset{B\pi }{}\rho (X_B)$$

that is, for such words $`\rho `$ is multiplicative modulo a factor $`q^{rc(\pi )}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`B`$ be the block containing $`n`$. If $`B`$ is an interval, we can factor it out by pyramidal independence.

If not, consider the last block and let $`j_1`$, $`j_2`$ be as in the construction of the un-crossing map above. If this hole is a union of intervals, we can factor it out by pyramidal independence.

Otherwise there are crossings. Let

$$\eta =X_{j_2}X_{j_2+1}\mathrm{}X_n\mathrm{\Omega }^1$$

and

$$\xi =X_{j_1+1}X_{j_1+2}\mathrm{}X_{j_21}\mathrm{\Omega }^{c_b(\pi )}$$

note that $`X_{j_1}`$ is either an annihilator or a gauge operator, therefore

$`X_{j_1}X_{j_1+1}\mathrm{}X_n\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=X_{j_1}X_{j_1+1}\mathrm{}X_{j_21}\eta `$
$`=X_{j_1}(\xi \eta )`$
$`=q^{c_b(\pi )}X_{j_1}\eta \xi `$
$`=q^{c_b(\pi )}X_{j_1}X_{j_2}X_{j_2+1}\mathrm{}X_nX_{j_1+1}X_{j_1+2}\mathrm{}X_{j_21}\mathrm{\Omega }`$
because $`c_b(\pi )`$ is the number of creators between $`X_{j_1}`$ and $`X_{j_2}`$. Thus

$$\rho (X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_n)=q^{c_b(\pi )}\rho (X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_{j_1}X_{j_2}X_{j_2+1}\mathrm{}X_nX_{j_1+1}X_{j_1+2}\mathrm{}X_{j_21})$$

and the partition determined by the permuted indices is exactly $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi )`$. ∎

By multilinear expansion we get from this

###### Corollary 3.14.

For $`X_j=L_0^{}(v_j)+L_0(v_j)+\gamma _0(T_j)+\lambda _j`$ the partitioned cumulants are multiplicative modulo a factor $`q^{rc(\pi )}`$:

$$K_\pi ^q(X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_n)=q^{rc(\pi )}\underset{B\pi }{}K_{\left|B\right|}^q(X_B)$$

## 4. Fock spaces associated to characters of the infinite symmetric group

Recently the calculations on another concrete Fock space have been carried out in \[BG02\]. It was shown that using a certain embedding of pair partitions into symmetric groups, one can evaluate characters of the latter and obtain Fock states in this way.

### 4.1. A simple case

###### Definition 4.1.

Let $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_{2n}^{(2)}`$ be a pair partition. There exists a unique noncrossing pair partition $`\widehat{\pi }NC_{2n}^{(2)}`$ such that the set of left points of the pairs in $`\pi `$ and $`\widehat{\pi }`$ coincide. A *cycle* in $`\pi `$ is a sequence $`((l_1,r_1),\mathrm{},(l_m,r_m))`$ of pairs of $`\pi `$ such that the pairs $`(l_1,r_2),(l_2,r_3),\mathrm{},(l_m,r_1)`$ belong to $`\widehat{\pi }`$. The length of this cycle is $`m`$. We denote by $`c(\pi )`$ the number of cycles of $`\pi `$ and $`c_m(\pi )`$ the number of cycles of length $`m`$.

Let $`\pi =\{(l_1,r_1),\mathrm{},(l_n,r_n)\}`$ and $`\widehat{\pi }=\{(l_1,\widehat{r}_1),\mathrm{},(l_n,\widehat{r}_n)\}`$ then define a permutation $`\sigma `$ by its images $`\sigma (i)=j`$ if $`r_i=\widehat{r}_j`$, i.e., $`\widehat{r}_i=r_{\sigma ^1(i)}`$. Then the number of cycles of $`\pi `$ is the number of cycles of $`\sigma `$.

Here the cumulant function which we want to consider is given by

$$𝐭_N(\pi )=\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)^{\left|\pi \right|c(\pi )}$$

where $`N𝐙\{0\}`$ is a fixed integer. The corresponding combinatorial Fock space can be realized as follows. The function $`𝐭_N`$ actually comes from a character of the infinite symmetric group which is given by

$$\phi _N(\sigma )=\underset{m2}{}\left(\frac{1}{N}\right)^{(m1)c_m(\sigma )}$$

With this function there is associated the symmetrizator

$`P_N^{(n)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma 𝔖_n}{}}\phi _N(\sigma )\stackrel{~}{U}^{(n)}(\sigma )`$
$`=\left(e+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\stackrel{~}{U}^{(n)}((1,2))\right)\left(e+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(\stackrel{~}{U}^{(n)}((1,3))+\stackrel{~}{U}^{(n)}((2,3)))\right)\mathrm{}`$
$`\mathrm{}\left(e+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(\stackrel{~}{U}^{(n)}((1,n))+\stackrel{~}{U}^{(n)}((2,n))+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{U}^{(n)}((n1,n)))\right)`$
On full Fock space $`()`$ consider the deformed inner product

$$\xi ,\eta _N=\xi ,P_N\eta $$

i.e., for simple tensors the inner product is

$$\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _m,\eta _1\mathrm{}\eta _n_N=\delta _{mn}\underset{\sigma 𝔖_n}{}\phi _N(\sigma )\xi _1,\eta _{\sigma ^1(1)}\xi _2,\eta _{\sigma ^1(2)}\mathrm{}\xi _n,\eta _{\sigma ^1(n)}$$

One can show that this is a positive bilinear form and after dividing through its kernel and completing it we get a Hilbert space $`_N()`$. On these we have the following creation and annihilation operators

$$L_N(\xi )\mathrm{\Omega }=\xi L_N^{}(\xi )\mathrm{\Omega }=0$$

$`L_N(\xi )\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n`$ $`=\xi \xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n`$
$`L_N^{}(\xi )\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n`$ $`=\xi ,\xi _1\xi _2\mathrm{}\xi _n`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}}\xi ,\xi _k\xi _2\mathrm{}\xi _{k1}\xi _1\xi _{k+1}\mathrm{}\xi _n`$
It follows that for a unit vector $`\xi `$ we have the deformed factorial function

$$b_{n+1}=\rho (L_N^{}(\xi )^nL_N(\xi )^n)=\left(1+\frac{1}{N}\right)\left(1+\frac{2}{N}\right)\mathrm{}\left(1+\frac{n1}{N}\right)$$

and by Corollary 2.15 we have the following formula for the cumulants.

###### Proposition 4.2.

$$K_n^{}(L_N^{}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha _k}{\left(1+\frac{1}{N}\right)\left(1+\frac{2}{N}\right)\mathrm{}\left(1+\frac{k2}{N}\right)}L_N^{k1})=\alpha _n$$

### 4.2. Some graph theory: the cycle cover polynomial

In order to understand the partitioned moments and cumulants we need some graph theory.

Given a multidimensional Dyck word $`W=L_{i_1}^{\epsilon _1}L_{i_2}^{\epsilon _2}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}}^{\epsilon _{2n}}`$ with $`\epsilon _j\{,1\}`$, the expectation

$$\rho (W)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_{2n}^{(2)}\\ \pi \underset{¯}{i}\end{array}}{}t^{nc(\pi )}$$

roughly has the following interpretation. To the word $`W`$ we associate a digraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$. First ignore the “colors” $`i_j`$ and consider the onedimensional Dyck word $`L_1^{\epsilon _1}L_1^{\epsilon _2}\mathrm{}L_1^{\epsilon _{2n}}`$. The number of $``$’s among the $`\epsilon _j`$ is the same as the number of $`1`$’s. Let $`\widehat{\pi }NC_{2n}^{(2)}`$ be the unique noncrossing pair partition whose left points are the indices $`j`$ with $`\epsilon _j=`$. We interpret this partition as a bijection $`b`$ between the annihilators and creators. The graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ has vertex set $`V=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and we put an arrow from $`v_p`$ to $`v_p^{}`$ if $`L_{i_p}^{}`$ and $`L_{i_{b(p^{})}}`$ have the same color and $`b(p^{})>p`$.

In other words, we first construct a bipartite graph $`B`$ on the two sets of vertices: The set of annihilators $`V_{}=\{p(1)<p(2)<\mathrm{}<p(n)\}`$ and creators $`V_1=\{q(1)<q(2)<\mathrm{}<q(n)\}`$. The edges are $`E=\{\{p(r),q(s)\}:i_{p(r)}=i_{q(s)}\text{and}q(s)>p(r)\}`$. There is a unique noncrossing pair partition $`\pi NC_{2n}^{(2)}`$ consisting of pairs $`\{p<q\}`$ s.t. $`\epsilon _p=`$ and $`\epsilon _q=1`$. It can be constructed recursively by connecting the rightmost annihilator to its right neighbour, removing both from the word and repeating the procedure on the new word. In particular, considering $`\pi `$ as a permutation (product of transpositions), we have $`\pi (p(n))=p(n)+1`$. Then

$$\rho (L_{i_1}^{\epsilon _1}L_{i_2}^{\epsilon _2}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}}^{\epsilon _{2n}})=\underset{\mu }{}\frac{1}{N^{nc(\sigma )}}$$

where the sum runs over all complete matchings of the bipartite graph $`B`$ and $`\sigma 𝔖_n`$ is the permutation on $`V_{}`$ which maps $`p(i)`$ to $`\pi ^1\mu (i)`$, if we consider $`\pi `$ and $`\mu `$ as bijections from $`V_{}`$ to $`V_1`$.

Further we construct a directed graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with vertex set $`\{p(1),\mathrm{},p(n)\}`$ which we relabel as $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ and we put a directed edge from $`v_r`$ to $`v_s`$ if $`\{p(r),\pi (p(s))\}E(B)`$, where $`B`$ is the bipartite graph constructed above. This is the contraction of bipartite graph $`B`$ along the bijection $`\pi `$, which was also constructed in \[Las02\].

In other words, $`v_rv_sE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ if and only if $`i_{p(r)}=i_{\pi (p(s))}=i_{q(\sigma (s))}`$ and $`\pi (p(s))>p(r)`$. A complete matching of $`B`$ corresponds to a partition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ into hamiltonian cycles, that is, a partition of the vertices into vertex-disjoint cycles, and the number of cycles of $`\sigma `$ is equal to the number of components of the hamiltonian partition (also called a cycle cover or $`2`$-factor).

We are therefore led to the so called *cycle cover polynomial* $`C_c(\mathrm{\Gamma };x)`$. This is a specialization of both the cover polynomial $`C!(\mathrm{\Gamma };x,y)`$ of Chung and Graham \[CG95\] and the geometric cover polynomial $`C(\mathrm{\Gamma };x,y)`$ of D’Antona and Munarini \[DM00\], which have been proposed as a kind of Tutte polynomial for digraphs. Namely we have

$`C!(\mathrm{\Gamma };x,y)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{(C,P)}{}}x^{\left|C\right|}y^{\underset{¯}{\left|P\right|}}`$
$`C(\mathrm{\Gamma };x,y)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{(C,P)}{}}x^{\left|C\right|}y^{\left|P\right|}`$
$`C_c(\mathrm{\Gamma };x)`$ $`=C!(\mathrm{\Gamma };x,0)=C(\mathrm{\Gamma };x,0)={\displaystyle \underset{C}{}}x^{\left|C\right|}`$
here the sum runs over all cycle-path covers $`(C,P)`$ (cycle covers $`C`$, respectively) of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`\left|C\right|`$ cycles and $`\left|P\right|`$ paths. Loops are interpreted as cycles of length $`1`$ and single vertices as paths of length $`0`$ and $`y^{\underset{¯}{n}}=y(y1)\mathrm{}(yn+1)`$ is the falling factorial function.

###### Theorem 4.3.

$$\rho (L_{i_1}^{\epsilon _1}L_{i_2}^{\epsilon _2}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}}^{\epsilon _{2n}})=\frac{1}{N^n}C_c(\mathrm{\Gamma };N)$$

This can be seen explicitly as discussed above or by observing that both quantities satisfy the same recursive relation:

The creation operators satisfy the following “commutation relation”:

$$L_i^{}L_j=\delta (i,j)I+\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ji}$$
(4.1)
with $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ji}=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }(|e_je_i|)`$ where for an operator $`TB()`$ we denote by $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)`$ its differential second quantization

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }(T)\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\xi _1\mathrm{}T\xi _i\mathrm{}\xi _n.$$

These operators act like derivations on analytic vectors:

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ji}L_{i_1}\mathrm{}L_{i_n}\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\delta (i,i_k)L_{i_1}\mathrm{}L_{i_{k1}}L_jL_{i_{k+1}}\mathrm{}L_{i_n}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

i.e., it replaces $`L_i`$ by $`L_j`$ and for any noncommutative polynomial $`P`$

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ji}P(L_1,L_2,\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Omega }=D_iP(L_1,L_2,\mathrm{})[L_j]\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(4.2)
the noncommutative derivative of $`P`$ with respect to $`L_i`$ in the direction $`L_j`$.. In particular $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ii}P\mathrm{\Omega }=n_iP\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`n_i`$ is the total degree of $`L_i`$ in $`P`$.

Therefore we have the following recursive procedure to compute the expectation of a multidimensional Dyck word $`W=L_{i_1}^{\epsilon _1}L_{i_2}^{\epsilon _2}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}}^{\epsilon _{2n}}`$, namely to look for the rightmost annihilator $`L_{i_{p(n)}}^{}`$, replace $`L_{i_{p(n)}}^{}L_{i_{p(n)+1}}`$ by $`\delta (i_{p(n)},i_{p(n)+1})I+\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i_{p(n)+1},i_{p(n)}}`$ and apply (4.2).

In terms of cover polynomials this corresponds to the cut and fuse recursion, which is a convenient way to compute the cover polynomial. Fix an edge $`e=v_1v_2`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then it is easy to see that

$$C(\mathrm{\Gamma };x,y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}xC(\mathrm{\Gamma }v;x,y)+C(\mathrm{\Gamma }e;x,y)\hfill & \text{if }e\text{ is a loop on the vertex }v_1=v_2=v\hfill \\ C(\mathrm{\Gamma }e;x,y)+C(\mathrm{\Gamma }/e;x,y)\hfill & \text{if }e\text{ is not a loop}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.3)
where the quotient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/e`$ is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by fusing $`v_1=e_+`$ and $`v_2=e_{}`$ along $`e`$, i.e., in the new graph the vertices $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are identified and all edges with source $`v_1`$ or target $`v_2`$ are deleted. As initial condition we put $`C(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n;x,y)=y^n`$ for the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ on $`n`$ vertices with no edges and $`C(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0;x,y)=1`$ for the empty graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$. The polynomial of Chung and Graham satisfies exactly the same recursion, but with initial condition $`C!(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n;x,y)=y^{\underset{¯}{n}}`$. We are only interested in the cycle cover polynomial, for which the powers of $`y`$ are not relevant.

###### Claim 4.4.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between the recursion

$$\rho (L_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}L_{i_k}^{}L_{i_{k+1}}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}})=\rho (L_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}L_{i_{k1}}^{\epsilon _{k1}}(\delta (i_k,i_{k+1})I+\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i_{k+1},i_k})L_{i_{k+2}}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}})$$

and (4.3).

There are two cases to consider, depending on whether $`i_{p(n)}=i_{p(n)+1}`$ or not. First assume $`i_{p(n)}=i_{p(n)+1}=:i`$, then with $`k=p(n)`$ we have

$`\rho (L_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}L_{i_k}^{}L_{i_{k+1}}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}})`$ $`=\rho (L_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}L_{i_{k1}}^{\epsilon _{k1}}(I+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ii})L_{i_{k+2}}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}})`$
$`=(1+{\displaystyle \frac{n_i}{N}})\rho (L_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}L_{i_{k1}}^{\epsilon _{k1}}L_{i_{k+2}}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}})`$
where $`n_i`$ is the total degree of $`L_i`$ in $`L_{i_{k+2}}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}}`$. On the graph side, there is a loop from $`v_n`$ to itself, and therefore removing successively all edges emanating from $`v_n`$ we obtain

$`C_c(\mathrm{\Gamma };x)`$ $`=xC_c(\mathrm{\Gamma }v_n;x)+C_c(\mathrm{\Gamma }v_nv_n;x)`$
$`=xC_c(\mathrm{\Gamma }v_n;x)+{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}t\\ i_p(n)=i_{\pi (p(t))}\\ \pi (p(t))>p(n)\end{array}}{}}C_c(\mathrm{\Gamma }/v_nv_t;x)`$
The second sum runs over all edges emanating from $`v_n`$. The remaining term $`C_c(\mathrm{\Gamma }\{v_nv_n,v_nv_{t_1},\mathrm{},v_nv_{t_k}\};x)`$ vanishes because there is no cycle through $`v_n`$ anymore.

Now we show that each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/v_nv_t`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }v_n`$. Indeed $`v_rv_sE(\mathrm{\Gamma }v_n)`$ if and only if $`v_rv_sE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, while $`v_rv_sE(\mathrm{\Gamma }/v_nv_t)`$ if and only if either $`st`$ and $`v_rv_sE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ or $`s=t`$ and $`v_rv_nE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. The first case being trivial, consider the case $`s=t`$. Then $`v_nv_tE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ implies $`i_{p(n)}=i_{\pi (p(t))}`$ and $`\pi (p(t))>p(n)`$. Now $`v_rv_tE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ if and only if $`i_{p(r)}=i_{\pi (p(t))}`$ and $`\pi (p(t))>p(r)`$. The second condition is redundant because already $`p(n)>p(r)`$.

On the other hand,

$$v_rv_nE(\mathrm{\Gamma })i_{p(r)}=i_{\pi (p(n))}\text{and}\pi (p(n))=p(n)+1>p(r)$$

and again the second condition is automatically satisfied. Moreover $`i_{\pi (p(n))}=i_{p(n)+1}=i_{p(n)}=i_{\pi (p(t))}`$. Thus $`v_rv_tE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ if and only if $`v_rv_nE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and finally $`v_rv_sE(\mathrm{\Gamma }/v_nv_t)`$ if and only if $`v_rv_sE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ for all $`s`$.

Now assume that $`i_{p(n)}i_{p(n)+1}`$. Then with $`k=p(n)`$

$`\rho (L_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}L_{i_k}^{}L_{i_{k+1}}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}})`$ $`=\rho (L_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}L_{i_{k1}}^{\epsilon _{k1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i_{k+1},i_k}L_{i_{k+2}}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=k+2}{\overset{2n}{}}}\delta (i_k,i_r)\rho (L_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}L_{i_{k1}}^{\epsilon _{k1}}L_{i_{k+2}}\mathrm{}L_{i_{r1}}L_{i_{k+1}}L_{i_{r+1}}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}})`$
On the graph side, this corresponds to the identity

$$C_c(\mathrm{\Gamma };x)=\underset{e_{}=v_n}{}C(\mathrm{\Gamma }/e;x)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}t\\ i_{p(n)}=i_{\pi (p(t))}\\ \pi (p(t))>p(n)\end{array}}{}C_c(\mathrm{\Gamma }/v_nv_t;x)$$

and there is a one to one correspondence between the summands: Let $`r=\pi (p(t))>p(n)`$, then the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r`$ corresponding to $`\rho (L_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}L_{i_{k1}}^{\epsilon _{k1}}L_{i_{k+2}}\mathrm{}L_{i_{r1}}L_{i_{k+1}}L_{i_{r+1}}\mathrm{}L_{i_{2n}})`$ has vertices $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n1}`$, partition $`\pi ^{}=\pi \{p(n),p(n)+1\}`$ and edges

$`v_xv_yE(\mathrm{\Gamma }_r)`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}i_{p(x)}=i_{\pi (p(y))}\text{ and }\pi ^{}(p(y))>p(x)\hfill & \text{if }yt\hfill \\ i_{p(x)}=i_{p(n)+1}\hfill & \text{if }y=t\hfill \end{array}`$
$`\{\begin{array}{cc}v_xv_yE(\mathrm{\Gamma })\hfill & \text{if }yt\hfill \\ v_xv_nE(\mathrm{\Gamma })\hfill & \text{if }y=t\hfill \end{array}`$
$`v_xv_yE(\mathrm{\Gamma }/v_nv_t)`$
###### Remark 4.5.

Not every digraph is the digraph of a Dyck word. A necessary condition is, that the vertices with common successors can be linearly ordered. Denote by $`R(v)`$ the set of successors of a vertex $`v`$. Given two vertices $`v_i`$ and $`v_j`$, if there is a vertex $`v_k`$ such that both $`R(v_i)R(v_k)\mathrm{}`$ and $`R(v_j)R(v_k)\mathrm{}`$, then either $`R(v_i)R(v_j)`$ or $`R(v_j)R(v_i)`$.

### 4.3. The Vershik-Kerov construction

We recall the construction of the representations of Vershik and Kerov \[VK81\] which give rise to the irreducible characters of the infinite symmetric group $`𝔖_{\mathrm{}}`$ which were first found by Thoma \[Tho64\], namely

$$\phi _{\alpha ,\beta }(\sigma )=\underset{m2}{}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _i^m+(1)^{m+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta _i^m\right)^{\rho _m(\sigma )}$$

where $`\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}0`$ and $`\beta _1\beta _2\mathrm{}0`$ are given sequences such that $`\alpha _i+\beta _i1`$ and $`\rho _m(\sigma )`$ is the number of cycles of length $`m`$ of $`\sigma `$.

To keep notations simple we consider only the the case where $`\beta _i=0`$ and $`\alpha _i=1`$. In this case $`\alpha _n`$ can be interpreted as a probability measure $`m^{(\alpha )}`$ on $`𝐍`$ with $`m^{(\alpha )}(\{k\})=\alpha _k`$. We consider the elements of the space $`𝔛_n=𝐍^n`$ with the product measure $`m_n^{(\alpha )}`$ as words $`x=x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n`$ and abbreviate the value of the measure by

$$\alpha _x=m_n^{(\alpha )}(\{x\})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _{x_i}.$$

$`𝔖_n`$ acts on $`𝔛_n`$ by $`(\sigma x)_i=x_{\sigma ^1(i)}`$. We write $`xy`$ if $`x`$ and $`y`$ are in the same orbit, i.e., if there exists a permutation $`\sigma 𝔖_n`$ such that $`y=\sigma x`$. Now consider the space of “rearrangements”

$$\stackrel{~}{𝔛}_n=\{(x,y)𝔛_n\times 𝔛_n:xy\}.$$

If we equip the space of functions $`f:\stackrel{~}{𝔛}𝐂`$ with the Hilbert norm

$$f_2^2=_{𝔛_n}\underset{yx}{}\left|f(x,y)\right|^2dm_n^{(\alpha )}(x)=\underset{x𝔛_n}{}\alpha _x\underset{yx}{}\left|f(x,y)\right|^2,$$

then the Hilbert space

$$V_n^{(\alpha )}=\{f:\stackrel{~}{𝔛}_n𝐂:f_2^2<\mathrm{}\}$$

carries a unitary representation $`U_n^{(\alpha )}`$ of $`𝔖_n`$

$$(U_n^{(\alpha )}(\sigma )h)(x,y)=h(\sigma ^1x,y)$$

This space has an orthogonal basis $`\{\delta _{x,y}:(x,y)\stackrel{~}{𝔛}_n\}`$ of functions $`\delta _{x,y}(x^{},y^{})=\delta (x,x^{})\delta (y,y^{})`$. The action of $`𝔖_n`$ is

$$U_n^{(\alpha )}(\sigma )\delta _{x,y}=\delta _{\sigma x,y}$$

and their inner products are

$$\delta _{x^{},y^{}},\delta _{x^{\prime \prime },y^{\prime \prime }}_{V_n^{(\alpha )}}=\delta (x^{},x^{\prime \prime })\delta (y^{},y^{\prime \prime })\alpha _x^{}$$

###### Theorem 4.6 (\[VK81\]).

Let $`1_n=_{x\stackrel{~}{𝔛}_n}\delta _{x,x}`$ be the diagonal, then

$$U_n^{(\alpha )}(\sigma )\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_n,1_n=m_n^{(\alpha )}(\{x:\sigma x=x\})=\phi _{\alpha ,0}(\sigma )$$

###### Proposition 4.7.

The maps $`j_n:V_n^{(\alpha )}V_{n+1}^{(\alpha )}`$ defined by

$$j_nh(x,y)=\delta (x_{n+1},y_{n+1})h(x_1\mathrm{}x_n,y_1\mathrm{}y_n),$$

i.e.,

$$j_n\delta _{x,y}=\underset{z𝔛_1}{}\delta _{xz,yz}$$

clearly satisfy the intertwining relation (2.2) and their adjoints are given by

$$j_n^{}\delta _{xz,yz^{}}=\delta (z,z^{})\alpha _z\delta _{x,y}.$$

We can therefore construct the symmetric Fock space spanned by the vectors

$$\delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\xi _2\mathrm{}\xi _n=\frac{1}{n!}\underset{\sigma 𝔖_n}{}\delta _{\sigma x,y}\xi _{\sigma ^1(1)}\xi _{\sigma ^1(2)}\mathrm{}\xi _{\sigma ^1(n)}$$

It will be notationally more convenient to work with the right creation and annihilation operators (2.3)

$`R(\xi _{n+1})\delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\xi _2\mathrm{}\xi _n`$ $`=(n+1)j_n\delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\xi _2\mathrm{}\xi _{n+1}`$
$`=(n+1){\displaystyle \underset{z𝔛_1}{}}\delta _{xz,yz}_s\xi _1\xi _2\mathrm{}\xi _{n+1}`$
The annihilation operator is given by (2.4) and can be simplified to

$`R^{}(\xi )`$ $`\delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\xi _2\mathrm{}\xi _{n+1}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\xi _i,\xi j_n^{}U_{n+1}(\tau _{i,n+1})\delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _{i1}\xi _{n+1}\xi _{i+1}\mathrm{}\xi _n`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\xi _i,\xi \delta (x_i,y_{n+1})\alpha _{x_i}\delta _{x_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{ˇ}{x}_i\mathrm{}x_n,y_1\mathrm{}y_n}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\stackrel{ˇ}{\xi }_i\mathrm{}\xi _n`$
###### Definition 4.8.

For an operator $`TB()`$ we define weighted differential second quantisation operators

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)}(T)\delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _{x_i}^k\delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _{i1}T\xi _i\xi _{i+1}\mathrm{}\xi _n$$

Then we have the following “commutation relation”.

###### Lemma 4.9.

$$R^{}(\xi )R(\eta )=\eta ,\xi I+\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(|\eta \xi |)$$
(4.4)
In particular for standard basis vectors $`\xi =e_i`$ and $`\eta =e_j`$ we have

$$R_i^{}R_j=\delta (i,j)I+\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ji}^{(1)}$$
(4.5)
where $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ji}^{(k)}=\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)}(|e_je_i|)`$.

###### Proof.

$`R^{}(\xi )`$ $`R(\xi _{n+1})\delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n`$
$`=(n+1)R^{}(\xi ){\displaystyle \underset{z𝔛_1}{}}\delta _{xz,yz}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _{n+1}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{z𝔛_1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\xi _i,\xi j_n^{}U_{n+1}(\tau _{i,n+1})\delta _{xz,yz}_s\stackrel{~}{U}_{n+1}(\tau _{i,n+1})\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _{n+1}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{z𝔛_1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\xi _i,\xi \delta (x_i,z)\alpha _z\delta _{x_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{ˇ}{x}_i\mathrm{}x_nz,y}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\stackrel{ˇ}{\xi }_i\mathrm{}\xi _{n+1}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{z𝔛_1}{}}\xi _{n+1},\xi \alpha _z\delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\xi _i,\xi \delta (x_i,z)\alpha _{x_i}\delta _{x_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{ˇ}{x}_i\mathrm{}x_nx_i,y}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\stackrel{ˇ}{\xi }_i\mathrm{}\xi _{n+1}`$
$`+\xi _{n+1},\xi \delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\xi _i,\xi \delta (x_i,z)\alpha _{x_i}\delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _{i1}\xi _{n+1}\xi _{i+1}\mathrm{}\xi _n`$
$`+\xi _{n+1},\xi \delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n`$
It will also be convenient to have weighted creation and annihilation operators at our disposal.

###### Definition 4.10.

For $`k𝐍_0`$ let

$$R^{(k)}(\xi )\delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n=(n+1)\underset{z𝔛_1}{}\alpha _z^k\delta _{xz,yz}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n\xi $$

in particular, $`R^{(0)}(\xi )=R(\xi )`$.

Then the action of $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ji}`$ on analytic vectors is like a derivation:

###### Lemma 4.11.

$$\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ji}^{(k)}R_{i_n}^{(k_n)}\mathrm{}R_{i_1}^{(k_1)}\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\delta (i,i_j)R_{i_n}^{(k_n)}\mathrm{}R_{i_{j+1}}^{(k_{j+1})}R_j^{(k_j+k)}R_{i_{j1}}^{(k_{j1})}\mathrm{}R_{i_1}^{(k_1)}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

The adjoint of a weighted creation operator is a weighted annihilation operator, as expected.

###### Proposition 4.12.

$$R^{(k)}(\xi )^{}\delta _{x,y}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n=\frac{1}{n}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\delta (x_i,y_n)\alpha _{x_i}^{k+1}\xi _i,\xi \delta _{x_1\mathrm{}\stackrel{ˇ}{x}_i\mathrm{}x_n,y_1\mathrm{}y_{n1}}_s\xi _1\mathrm{}\stackrel{ˇ}{\xi }_i\mathrm{}\xi _n$$

The general “commutation relation” now is as follows.

###### Proposition 4.13.

$$R^{(k)}(\eta )R^{(m)}(\xi )=\xi ,\eta \underset{z}{}\alpha _z^{m+k+1}I+\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(m+k+1)}(|\xi \eta |)$$

and in particular

$$R_i^{(k)}R_j^{(m)}=\delta (i,j)\underset{z}{}\alpha _z^{m+k+1}I+\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ji}^{(m+k+1)}$$

In this case the expectations of multidimensional Dyck words is given by evaluations of the *cycle indicator polynomial* of D’Antona and Munarini.

### 4.4. More graph theory: the cycle indicator polynomial

###### Definition 4.14 (\[DM00\]).

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a digraph. The *cycle-path indicator polynomial* of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the multivariate polynomial

$$I(\mathrm{\Gamma };𝒙,𝒚)=\underset{(C,P)}{}\underset{\gamma C}{}x_{\left|\gamma \right|}\underset{\pi P}{}y_{\left|\pi \right|}$$

where the sum runs over all cycle-path coverings $`(C,P)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`\left|\gamma \right|`$ (resp. $`\left|\pi \right|`$) denotes the number of vertices of a cycle $`\gamma `$ (resp. a path $`\pi `$).

The cycle-path indicator polynomial satisfies a recursion similar to the recursion (4.3) of the geometric cover polynomial. However in order to do the cut and fuse operations, one somehow has to remember the deleted vertices. This is done by putting weights on the vertices.

###### Definition 4.15.

Let $`w:V(\gamma )𝐍`$ be a weight function on the vertices of the digraph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and denote the weighted graph by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_w=(\mathrm{\Gamma },w)`$. For a path $`\pi =v_1\mathrm{}v_k`$ let $`w(\pi )=w(v_1)+\mathrm{}+w(v_k)`$ and similarly the weight of a cycle is the sum of the weights of its vertices. Define the cycle-path indicator polynomial of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_w`$ as

$$I(\mathrm{\Gamma }_w;𝒙,𝒚)=\underset{(C,P)}{}\underset{\gamma C}{}x_{w(\gamma )}\underset{\pi P}{}y_{w(\pi )}$$

An unweighted graph therefore has the same cycle-path indicator polynomial as the same graph with weight $`1`$ on each vertex.

We define the cut and fuse operations on weighted digraphs as follows.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_wv`$ $`=(\mathrm{\Gamma }v,w|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }v})`$ for $`vV(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_we`$ $`=(\mathrm{\Gamma }e,w)`$ for $`wE(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_w/e`$ $`=(\mathrm{\Gamma }/e,w^{})`$ for $`e=v_1v_2E(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$
where we denote $`v_0`$ the collapsed vertex and

$$w^{}(v)=\{\begin{array}{cc}w(v)\hfill & vv_0\hfill \\ w(v_1)+w(v_2)\hfill & v=v_0\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proposition 4.16 (\[DM00\]).

The cycle-path indicator polynomial satisfies the following cut-and-fuse recursion. Fix an edge $`e`$, then

$$I(\mathrm{\Gamma }_w;𝒙,𝒚)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x_{w(v)}I(\mathrm{\Gamma }_wv;𝒙,𝒚)+I(\mathrm{\Gamma }_we;𝒙,𝒚)\hfill & \text{if }e=vv\text{ is a loop}\hfill \\ I(\mathrm{\Gamma }_we;𝒙,𝒚)+I(\mathrm{\Gamma }_w/e;𝒙,𝒚)\hfill & \text{if }e=v_1v_2\text{ is not a loop}\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has no edges, then

$$I(\mathrm{\Gamma }_w;𝒙,by)=\underset{v}{}y_{w(v)}$$

and if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is empty, then $`I(\mathrm{};𝒙,𝒚)=1`$.

We are only interested in the *cycle indicator polynomial*

$$I_c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_w;𝒙)=I(\mathrm{\Gamma }_w;𝒙,\mathrm{𝟎}).$$

Again the commutation relation (4.5) corresponds to cut and fuse operations and we obtain the following formula. Roughly the expectation of a weighted multidimensional Dyck word is given by the cycle indicator of the weighted graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_w`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is constructed as in section 4.2 and the weight of a vertex is computed from the weight of the corresponding annihilator plus one plus the weight of the creator to which it is connected by $`\pi `$.

###### Theorem 4.17.

$$\rho (R_{i_1}^{(k_1)\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}R_{i_1}^{(k_{2n})\epsilon _{2n}})=I_c(\mathrm{\Gamma }_w;𝒙)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_w`$ is the graph with weights $`w(v_i)=k_{p(i)}+1+k_{\pi (p(i))}`$ and $`x_1=1`$,

$$x_k=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _i^k+(1)^{k+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\beta _i^k$$

for $`k2`$.

###### Theorem 4.18.

Any positive definite functional on pair partitions whose values only depends on the graphs $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi )`$ is given by a (not necessarily irreducible) character on the infinite symmetric group. The multiplicative ones are exactly those which come from irreducible characters of the symmetric group.

###### Proof.

It suffices to show this for pair partitions. We will construct the representation of $`𝔖_n`$ as in the proof of \[GM02, Theorem 2.7\]. Let $`H_n`$ be the space spanned by products

$$R_{\sigma (1)}R_{\sigma (2)}\mathrm{}R_{\sigma (n)}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

this space carries a natural representation $`U_n`$ of $`𝔖_n`$, namely

$$U_n(\sigma )R_{\tau (1)}R_{\tau (2)}\mathrm{}R_{\tau (n)}\mathrm{\Omega }=R_{\sigma \tau (1)}R_{\sigma \tau (2)}\mathrm{}R_{\sigma \tau (n)}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

and therefore for any partition with given cycle structure the expectation function is given by

$$U_n(\sigma )R_nR_{n1}\mathrm{}R_1\mathrm{\Omega },R_nR_{n1}\mathrm{}R_1\mathrm{\Omega }=R_1^{}R_2^{}\mathrm{}R_n^{}R_{\sigma (n)}R_{\sigma (n1)}\mathrm{}R_\sigma (1)\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }=t(\pi )$$

where $`\sigma `$ has the same cycle structure as $`\pi `$. ∎


format: text

text:
# 1 The twisted knot 𝐾_{2𝑛+1}

Heegaard Splittings and Virtually Haken Dehn Filling

J. Masters111Supported by NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship, W. Menasco and X. Zhang222Partially supported by NSF grant DMS 0204428

Abstract. We use Heegaard splittings to give some examples of virtually Haken 3-manifolds.

A compact connected 3-manifold is said to be virtually Haken if it has a finite sheeted covering space which is Haken. The virtual Haken conjecture states that every compact, connected, orientable, irreducible 3-manifold with infinite fundamental group is virtually Haken. Since virtually Haken 3-manifolds and Haken 3-manifolds possess similar properties, such as geometric decompositions and, in the closed case, topological rigidity, the resolution of this conjecture would provide solutions to several fundamental problems about compact 3-manifolds with infinite fundamental groups.

Some recent results in attacking the conjecture can be found in \[CL\] \[BZ\] \[M\] \[DT\]. A summary of earlier results can be found in \[K, Problem 3.2\]. For connections between the virtual Haken conjecture, Heegaard splittings, and the Property $`\tau `$ conjecture, see \[L\].

Motivated by the work of Casson and Gordon (\[CG\]), we shall show that lifted Heegaard surfaces can often be compressed to become essential. Our techniques can be used to produce many families of non-Haken but virtually Haken 3-manifolds, a few of which are given here to illustrate the method. A more general result will be proved in a forthcoming paper.

The first named author wishes to thank Cameron Gordon for many useful conversations, and the University of Texas at Austin for its hospitality.

We proceed to give the examples. Let $`K_{2n+1}`$ be the twist knot in $`S^3`$ as shown in Figure 1. Let $`M_n`$ be the exterior of $`K_{2n+1}`$, with standard meridian-longitude framing on $`M_n`$. Recall that a connected, compact, orientable 3-manifold whose boundary is a torus is called small if every closed, orientable, embedded, incompressible surface is parallel to the boundary, and called large otherwise.

###### Theorem 1

The $`3`$-fold cyclic cover of $`M_n`$ is large for every $`n>0`$. Every Dehn filling of $`M_n`$ with slope $`3p/q`$, $`(3p,q)=1`$, $`|p|>1`$, yields a virtually Haken 3-manifold.

Note that by \[HT\], $`M_n`$ is hyperbolic, small, and has exactly three boundary slopes, for every $`n>0`$. It follows (combining with \[CGLS, Theorem 2.0.3\]) that all but exactly three Dehn fillings of $`M_n`$ give irreducible non-Haken 3-manifolds. Also note that each $`K_{2n+1}`$, $`n>0`$, is a non-fiberd knot with a genus one Seifert surface, and thus by \[CL\] it was known that every $`m`$-fold cyclic cover of $`M_n`$, $`m4`$, is large and every Dehn filling of $`M_n`$ with slope $`p/q`$, $`(p,q)=1`$, $`|p|8`$, is virtually Haken.

Proof. Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}_n`$ be the 3-fold cyclic cover of $`M_n`$ with induced meridian-longitude framing on $`\stackrel{~}{M}_n`$. We shall show that $`\stackrel{~}{M}_n`$ contains a connected, essential (i.e. orientable, incompressible, non-boundary-parallel) genus two closed surface which has an essential simple closed curve isotopic to a longitude curve of the cover. It follows from \[CGLS, Theorem 2.4.3\] that the surface remains incompressible in every Dehn filling of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_n`$ with slope $`p/q`$, $`(p,q)=1`$, $`|p|>1`$. As every Dehn filling of $`M_n`$ with slope $`3p/q`$, $`(3p,q)=1`$, $`|p|>1`$, is free covered by Dehn filling of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_n`$ with slope $`p/q`$, $`(p,q)=1`$, $`|p|>1`$, the second conclusion of the theorem will follow.

To make the illustration simple, we first prove the theorem with all details in case $`n=1`$, i.e. for the $`5_2`$ knot $`K=K_3`$. The knot $`K`$ is tunnel number one, and Figure 2 shows an unknotting tunnel. Also pictured in Figure 2 is a longitude $`\lambda `$ of $`K`$. Let $`N`$ be a regular neighborhood of $`K`$ in $`S^3`$, $`M=M_1=\overline{S^3N}`$, $`B`$ a regular neighborhood of the unknotting tunnel in $`M`$, and $`H=\overline{MB}`$. Then $`H`$ is a handle body of genus two. Let $`D`$ be a meridian disk of the 1-handle $`B`$ whose boundary is shown in Figure 2. We deform the handle body $`H^{}=NB`$ by an isotopy in $`S^3`$ so that its exterior $`H`$ can be recognized as a standard handle body in $`S^3`$ and at the same time we trace the corresponding deformation of $`D`$ and $`\lambda `$ under the isotopy. The process is shown through Figures 3-6.

A meridian disk system  of a handlebody of genus $`g`$ is a set of $`g`$ properly embedded mutually disjoint disks in the handle body such that cutting the handlebody along these disks results in a 3-ball. Let $`\{X,Y\}`$ be a meridian disk system of $`H`$ whose boundary are shown in Figure 6. Following $`D`$ in the given orientation, we get a geometric presentation of the fundamental group $`\pi _1(M)`$ of $`M`$:

$$\pi _1(M)=<x,y;x^1y^1x^1yxyxy^1x^1y^1xyxy>,$$

where $`x`$ is chosen such that it has a representative curve which is a simple closed curve in $`H`$ which is disjoint from $`Y`$ and intersects $`X`$ exactly once and $`y`$ is also chosen similarly. (We shall call such generators dual to the disk system.) Also we can read off the longitude in terms of these two generators:

$$\lambda =yxyx^1y^1x^1y^2x^1y^1x^1yxyx^2.$$

Cutting $`H`$ along $`X`$ and $`Y`$, we get a 3-ball. Figure 7 shows the boundary 2-sphere of the 3-ball, which records $`X^+`$, $`X^{}`$, $`Y^+`$, $`Y^{}`$ and $`D`$. Figure 8 shows $`H`$ in a standard position, and $`D`$ in $`H`$.

The exterior of $`H`$ in $`M`$ is a compression body which we denote by $`C`$. Topologically, $`C`$ is $`M\times [0,1]`$ with a $`1`$-handle attached on $`M\times \{1\}`$. It has two boundary components: one is $`M=M\times \{0\}`$ and the other is the genus two surface $`H`$. We have that $`H_HC`$ is a Heegaard splitting of $`M`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}=\stackrel{~}{M}_1`$ be the 3-fold cyclic cover of $`M=M_1`$. Note that each of $`x`$ and $`y`$ is a generator of $`H_1(M;)=`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ have the induced Heegaard splitting from that of $`M`$. We can easily give the Heegaard diagram of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, as shown in Figure 9. The genus four handle body $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ in Figure 9 is the corresponding cover of $`H`$. The corresponding cover $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ of $`C`$ is a compression body obtained by attaching three 1-handles to $`\stackrel{~}{M}\times [0,1]`$ on the side $`\stackrel{~}{M}\times \{1\}`$. The disk $`X`$ lifts to three disks $`X_1,X_2,X_3`$; and the disk $`Y`$ lifts to three disks $`Y_1,Y_2,Y_3`$, as shown in Figure 9. Pick the meridian disk $`X_4`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ as shown in Figure 9. Then {$`X_1`$, $`X_2`$, $`X_3`$, $`X_4`$} forms a disk system of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. The disk $`D`$ lifts to three disks {$`W_1`$,$`W_2`$, $`W_3`$} whose boundary {$`W_1`$, $`W_2`$, $`W_3`$} is shown in Figure 9. Figure 9 also shows the longitude $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, which is a lift of $`\lambda `$.

This Heegaard splitting of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is weakly reducible: $`X_4`$ is disjoint from $`W_3`$. We now show that the closed, genus 2 surface $`S`$ obtained by compressing the Heegaard surface $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ using the disks $`W_3`$ and $`X_4`$ is essential in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. It is enough to show that the surface $`S`$ is incompressible in $`\stackrel{~}{M}(2)`$, which is the manifold obtained by Dehn filling $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ with the slope $`2`$. $`\stackrel{~}{M}(2)`$ has the induced Heegaard splitting $`\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{C}(2)`$. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(2)`$ is the free 3-fold cyclic cover of $`M(6)`$, extending the cover $`\stackrel{~}{M}M`$, and that $`\stackrel{~}{C}(2)`$ is a handle body of genus four covering the handle body $`C(6)`$ of genus two, extending the cover $`\stackrel{~}{C}C`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ be the filling solid torus in $`\stackrel{~}{M}(2)`$ and let $`W_4`$ be a meridian disk of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. Then $`\{W_1,W_2,W_3,W_4\}`$ is a disk system of the handle body $`\stackrel{~}{C}(2)`$.

Cutting $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ along $`X_4`$, we get a handle body $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$ of genus three, and $`\{X_1,X_2,X_3\}`$ is a disk system of $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$. Using the Whitehead algorithm \[S\], we see that $`H_\mathrm{\#}W_3`$ is incompressible in $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$. In fact, from Figure 9, we can read off the Whitehead graph of $`W_3`$ with respect to the disk system $`\{X_1,X_2,X_3\}`$ of $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$, which is given as Figure 10. The graph is connected with no cut vertex, which means, by the Whitehead algorithm, that $`W_3`$ must intersect every essential disk of $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$. Now by the Handle Addition Lemma due to Przytycki \[P\] and Jaco \[J\], the manifold $`H_\mathrm{\#}W_3\times I`$, obtained by attaching the 2-handle $`W_3\times I`$ to $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$, has incompressible boundary.

On the other hand, cutting the handle body $`\stackrel{~}{C}(2)`$ along the disk $`W_3`$, we get a handle body $`H_{}`$, which is homeomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ with the two $`1`$-handles $`W_1\times I`$ and $`W_2\times I`$ attached on $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. The genus of $`H_{}`$ is three, and $`\{W_1,W_2,W_4\}`$ gives a disk system. Let $`\alpha M`$ be an essential simple closed curve of slope $`6`$. We can easily see that with respect to the generators $`x,y`$ of $`\pi _1(M)`$,

$$\alpha =\lambda x^6=yxyx^1y^1x^1y^2x^1y^1x^1yxyx^8.$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be a lift of $`\alpha `$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ has slope $`2`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ which can be considered as the boundary of the disk $`W_4`$. Figure 11 shows $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=W_4`$, $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$.

Again using the Whitehead algorithm, we see that $`H_{}X_4`$ is incompressible in $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{}`$. In fact, from Figure 11, we can read off the Whitehead graph of $`X_4`$ with respect to the disk system $`\{W_1,W_2,W_4\}`$, which is given as Figure 12. The graph is connected with no cut vertex, which means, by the Whitehead algorithm, that $`H_{}X_4`$ is incompressible in $`H_{}`$. Again by the Handle Addition Lemma, the manifold $`H_{}X_4\times I`$ has incompressible boundary of genus two. Note that $`(H_{}X_4\times I)=(\stackrel{~}{H}_\mathrm{\#}Y_3\times I)=S`$ (up to a small isotopy), and thus $`S`$ is incompressible in $`\stackrel{~}{M}(2)`$. But the surface $`S`$ is contained $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, and thus it is an essential surface in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$.

Obviously the longitude $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is isotopic to an essential simple closed curve in the surface $`S`$, as shown in Figure 9. The proof of Theorem 1 is complete for $`n=1`$.

The proof for general $`K_{2n+1}`$, $`n>0`$, is similar. The knot $`K_{2n+1}`$ is tunnel number one, with an unknotting tunnel shown in Figure 2 (replacing the bottom three crossings by $`2n+1`$ crossings). Let $`M_n`$ be the exterior of $`K_{2n+1}`$, $`H^{}`$ the handlebody which is a regular neighborhood of the knot and its unknotting tunnel, $`H=\overline{M_nH^{}}`$, and $`D`$ a meridian disk of the unknotting tunnel. There is a corresponding Heegaard splitting $`M_n=H_HC`$, where $`C`$ is a compression body. We let $`\lambda `$ be a standard longitude, and again we deform the handlebody $`H^{}`$ by an isotopy in $`S^3`$ so that its exterior $`H`$ can be recognized as a standard handlebody in $`S^3`$, while tracing the corresponding deformations of $`D`$ and $`\lambda `$ under the isotopy. We thus get two essential disks $`X`$ and $`Y`$ which form a disk system of $`H`$. From $`D`$, we get a geometric presentation of the fundamental group $`\pi _1(M_n)`$ of $`M_n`$ with respect to the disk system $`\{X,Y\}`$:

$$\pi _1(M)=<x,y;(x^1y^1)^{2n1}x^1(yx)^{n+1}y^1(x^1y^1)^{2n1}(xy)^{n+1}>.$$

Also we get

$$\lambda =y(xy)^n(x^1y^1)^nx^1y^2(x^1y^1)^nx^1(yx)^{n+1}x.$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}_n`$ be the 3-fold cyclic cover of $`M_n`$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{M}_n=\stackrel{~}{H}_{\stackrel{~}{H}}\stackrel{~}{C}`$ have the induced Heegaard splitting from that of $`M_n`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is a genus four handle body which is the corresponding 3-fold cyclic cover of $`H`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ a compression body which covers $`C`$. Again the disk $`X`$ lifts to three disks $`X_1,X_2,X_3`$; and the disk $`Y`$ lifts to three disks $`Y_1,Y_2,Y_3`$, as shown in Figure 9 (ignore the $`W_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ part), and we pick the meridian disk $`X_4`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ as shown in Figure 9. Then {$`X_1`$, $`X_2`$, $`X_3`$, $`X_4`$} forms a disk system of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. The disk $`D`$ lifts to three disks {$`W_1`$,$`W_2`$, $`W_3`$} which form a disk system of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Again exactly one of the disks {$`W_1`$, $`W_2`$, $`W_3`$}, say $`W_3`$, is disjoint from $`X_4`$, which shows that the Heegaard splitting of $`\stackrel{~}{M}_n`$ is weekly reducible. Again one can show that the surface $`S`$ obtained by compressing the Heegaard surface $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ using the disks $`W_3`$ and $`X_4`$ is an essential closed genus two surface in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_n`$. In fact, cutting $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ along $`X_4`$, we get a handle body $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$ of genus three and $`\{X_1,X_2,X_3\}`$ is a disk system of $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$. The Whitehead graph of $`W_3`$ with respect to the disk system $`\{X_1,X_2,X_3\}`$ of $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$ is given as Figure 13. The graph is connected with no cut vertex, which means that $`H_\mathrm{\#}W_3`$ is incompressible. Thus by the handle addition lemma, the manifold $`H_\mathrm{\#}W_3\times I`$, obtained by attaching the 2-handle $`W_3\times I`$ to $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$, has incompressible boundary.

On the other hand, letting $`\stackrel{~}{C}(2)`$ be the handle body obtained by Dehn filling $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ with slope $`2`$ and letting $`W_4`$ be a meridian disk of the filling solid torus, then $`\{W_1,W_2,W_3,W_4\}`$ forms a disk system of $`\stackrel{~}{C}(2)`$. Cutting $`\stackrel{~}{C}(2)`$ along the disk $`W_3`$, we get a handlebody $`H_{}`$ with disk system $`\{W_1,W_2,W_4\}`$. Let $`\alpha M`$ be an essential simple closed curve of slope $`6`$. Then with respect to the generators $`x,y`$ of $`\pi _1(M)`$,

$$\alpha =\lambda x^6=y(xy)^n(x^1y^1)^nx^1y^2(x^1y^1)^nx^1(yx)^{n+1}x^6.$$

We may consider $`W_4`$ as a lift of $`\alpha `$. From the word $`\alpha `$, we can draw $`W_4`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. Consequently we can read off the Whitehead graph of $`X_4`$ with respect to the disk system $`\{W_1,W_2,W_4\}`$ and see that the graph is the same as that shown in Figure 12, showing that $`H_{}X_4`$ is incompressible in $`H_{}`$. Thus the manifold $`H_{}X_4\times I`$ has incompressible boundary of genus two. We thus have justified the incompressibility of the surface $`S`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_n(2)`$ and thus in $`\stackrel{~}{M}_n`$.

Finally the longitude $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is isotopic to an essential simple closed curve in the surface $`S`$, which is obvious. The proof for the general case is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`J_{2n+1}`$, $`n>0`$, be the family of two bridge knots shown in Figure 14. Note that these knots are hyperbolic, small and non-fibered with genus two Seifert surfaces.

###### Theorem 2

The $`5`$-fold cyclic cover of the exterior of $`J_{2n+1}`$ is large and every Dehn filling of the exterior of $`J_{2n+1}`$ with slope $`5p/q`$, $`(5p,q)=1`$, $`|p|>1`$, yields a virtually Haken 3-manifold, for every $`n>0`$.

This theorem gives another family of non-Haken, virtually Haken 3-manifolds to which the results of \[CL\] do not apply. As the proof of Theorem 2 is very similar to that of Theorem 1, we omit the details and indicate only the steps. In fact the exterior of $`J_{2n+1}`$ is tunnel number one and a genus two Heegard splitting of it can be explicitly given as in the case for the exterior of the twist knot $`K_{2n+1}`$. In the $`5`$-fold cyclic cover of the exterior of $`J_{2n+1}`$, the lifted Heegaard surface is of genus $`6`$ and can be compressed along two reducing disks, one on each side of the Heegaard surface, to a closed incompressible surface of genus $`4`$. Also a lift of the longitude can be isotoped into the resulting incompressible surface.

We now go back to the twist knots $`K_{2n+1}`$ and prove the following Theorem 3. Although the result of the theorem is covered by \[CL\], we have included it primarily because its proof illustrates two complications which arise in more general settings. First, we have to deal with multi 2-handle additions, which requires the multi 2-handle addition theorem of Lei \[L\]. Also, one of the Whitehead graphs contains a cut vertex, and must be simplified using Whitehead moves.

###### Theorem 3

The $`5`$-fold cyclic cover of the exterior $`M_n`$ of $`K_{2n+1}`$ is large for every $`n>0`$. Every Dehn filling of $`M_n`$ with slope $`5p/q`$, $`(5p,q)=1`$, $`|p|>1`$, yields a virtually Haken 3-manifold.

Proof. Again we give details only for the $`n=1`$ case. We continue to use the Heegaard splitting of $`M=M_1=HC`$ as given in the proof of Theorem 1. Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be the 5-fold cyclic cover of $`M`$ with the induced Heegaard splitting from that of $`M`$. The Heegaard diagram of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is shown in Figure 15. The genus six handle body of Figure 14 is $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ which covers $`H`$. The disks $`X`$ and $`Y`$ of $`H`$ lift to disks $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_5`$ and $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_5`$, as shown in Figure 15. Pick the meridian disk $`X_6`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ as shown in Figure 15. Then {$`X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4,Y_5,X_6`$} forms a disk system of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. The disk $`D`$ lifts to five disks {$`W_1,W_2,W_3,W_4,W_5`$} whose boundaries are shown in Figure 15. Figure 15 also shows a longitude $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, which is a lift of the longitude $`\lambda `$ of $`M`$.

This Heegaard splitting of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is weakly reducible: {$`Y_5`$, $`X_6`$} is disjoint from {$`W_4`$, $`W_5`$}. We now show that the surface $`S`$ obtained by compressing the Heegaard surface $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ using these four disks is an essential closed genus two surface in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. It is enough to show that the surface $`S`$ is incompressible in $`\stackrel{~}{M}(2)`$, which is the free 5-fold cyclic cover of $`M(10)=HC(10)`$, and has the induced Heegaard splitting $`\stackrel{~}{H}\stackrel{~}{C}(2)`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ be the filling solid torus in $`\stackrel{~}{M}(2)`$ and let $`W_6`$ be a meridian disk of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. Then $`\{W_1,\mathrm{},W_5,W_6\}`$ is a disk system of the handle body $`\stackrel{~}{C}(2)`$.

Cutting $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ along $`Y_5,X_6`$, we get a handle body $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$ of genus four and $`\{X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4\}`$ is a disk system of $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$. The Whitehead graph of {$`W_4`$, $`W_5`$} with respect to the disk system $`\{X_1,\mathrm{},X_4\}`$ of $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$ is given in Figure 16. The graph is connected with no cut vertex, which means that the surface $`H_\mathrm{\#}\{W_4,W_5\}`$ is incompressible in $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$. Moreover as $`W_4`$ is disjoint from the disk $`X_1`$, and $`W_5`$ is disjoint from the disk $`X_4`$, each of the surfaces $`H_\mathrm{\#}W_4`$ and $`H_\mathrm{\#}W_5`$ is compressible in $`H_\mathrm{\#}`$. Therefore all the conditions of the multi-handle addition theorem of \[L\] are satisfied, and thus the manifold $`H_\mathrm{\#}W_4\times IW_5\times I`$ has incompressible boundary.

On the other hand, cutting the handle body $`\stackrel{~}{C}(2)`$ along the disks $`W_4`$ and $`W_5`$, we get a handle body $`H_{}`$, with disk system $`\{W_1,W_2,W_3,W_6\}`$. Let $`\alpha M`$ be an essential simple closed curve of slope $`10`$. Then

$$\alpha =\lambda x^{10}=yxyx^1y^1x^1y^2x^1y^1x^1yxyx^{12}.$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be a lift $`\alpha `$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$, which can be considered as the boundary of the disk $`W_6`$, has slope $`2`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Figure 17 shows $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=W_6`$, $`W_1`$,$`W_2`$, $`W_3`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$.

From Figure 17, we can read off the Whitehead graph of {$`Y_5`$, $`X_6`$} with respect to the disk system $`\{W_1,W_2,W_3,W_6\}`$ of $`H_{}`$, which is given as Figure 18. The graph is connected but has a cut vertex (the vertex $`W_2^{}`$). Applying Whitehead moves to the graph twice with results shown in Figure 19, we end up with a graph (shown in Figure 19 (b)) which is connected with no cut vertex. This means that the surface $`H_{}\{Y_5X_6\}`$ is incompressible in $`H_{}`$. From Figure 16, we also see that $`Y_5`$ is disjoint from $`W_6`$ and $`X_6`$ is disjoint from $`W_1`$. Thus each of the surfaces $`H_{}Y_5`$ and $`H_{}X_6`$ is compressible in $`H_{}`$. Again the multi-handle addition theorem of \[L\] implies that the manifold $`H_{}X_6\times IY_5\times I`$ has incompressible boundary. Therefore the genus two surface $`S=(H_{}X_6\times IY_5\times I)=(H_\mathrm{\#}W_4\times IW_5\times I)`$ is incompressible in $`\stackrel{~}{M}(2)`$ and thus is essential in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$.

Obviously $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ can be isotoped into $`S`$. The proof of Theorem 3 is complete in case $`n=1`$. The proof for the general case is similar (cf the proof of Theorem 1 in general case). We leave the details to the reader to verify. $`\mathrm{}`$

References

\[BZ\] S. Boyer and X. Zhang, Virtual Haken 3-manifolds and Dehn filling, Topology 39 (2000) 103-114.

\[CG\] A. Casson and C. Gordon, Reducing Heegaard splittings. Topology Appl. 27 (1987) 275–283.

\[CGLS\] M. Culler, C. Gordon, J. Luecke and P. Shalen, Dehn surgery on knots, Ann. of Math. 125 (1987) 237-300.

\[CL\] D. Cooper and D. Long, Virtually Haken Dehn-filling, J. Differential Geom. 52 (1999) 173–187.

\[DT\] N. Dunfield and W. Thurston, The virtusl Haken conjecture: experiments and examples, preprint.

\[HT\] A. Hatcher and W. Thurston, Incompressible surfaces in $`2`$-bridge knot complements. Invent. Math. 79 (1985) 225–246.

\[J\] W. Jaco, Adding a $`2`$-handle to a $`3`$-manifold: an application to property $`R`$. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 92 (1984) 288–292.

\[K\] R. Kirby, Problems in Low-Dimensional Topology, Geometric topology. Edited by William H. Kazez. AMS/IP Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 2.2. (1997) 35-473.

\[La\] M. Lackenby, Heegaard splittings, the virtually Haken conjecture and Property tau, preprint.

\[L\] F. Lei, A proof of Przytycki’s conjecture on n-relator 3-manifolds, Topology (1995) 473-476.

\[M\] J. Masters, Virtual homology of surgered torus bundles. Pacific J. Math. 195 (2000) 205–223.

\[P\] J. Przytycki, Incompressibility of surfaces after Dehn surgery. Michigan Math. J. 30 (1983) 289–308.

\[S\] J. Stallings, Whitehead graphs on handlebodies, preprint.

Mathematics Department, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005
mastersj@rice.edu

Mathematics Department, SUNY at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-2900
menasco@math.buffalo.edu

Mathematics Department, SUNY at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-2900
xinzhang@math.buffalo.edu