text:
# Path Model for a Level Zero Extremal Weight Module over a Quantum Affine Algebra11footnote 1To be revised.

## 0 Introduction.

Let $`𝔤`$ be a symmetrizable Kac–Moody algebra with $`𝔥`$ the Cartan subalgebra and $`W`$ the Weyl group. We fix an integral weight lattice $`P𝔥^{}`$ that contains all simple roots $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ of $`𝔤`$. Let $`\lambda P`$ be an integral weight. In \[L1\] and \[L2\], Littelmann introduced the notion of Lakshmibai–Seshadri paths of shape $`\lambda `$, which are piecewise linear, continuous maps $`\pi :[0,1]P`$ parametrized by pairs of a sequence of elements of $`W\lambda `$ and a sequence of rational numbers satisfying a certain condition, called the chain condition. Denote by $`𝔹(\lambda )`$ the set of Lakshmibai–Seshadri paths of shape $`\lambda `$. Littelmann proved that $`𝔹(\lambda )`$ has a normal crystal structure in the sense of \[Kas3\], and that if $`\lambda `$ is a dominant integral weight, then the formal sum $`_{\pi 𝔹(\lambda )}e(\pi (1))`$ is equal to the character $`chL(\lambda )`$ of the integrable highest weight $`𝔤`$-module $`L(\lambda )`$ of highest weight $`\lambda `$. Then he conjectured that $`𝔹(\lambda )`$ for dominant $`\lambda P`$ would be isomorphic to the crystal base of the integrable highest weight module of highest weight $`\lambda `$ as crystals. This conjecture was affirmatively proved independently by Kashiwara \[Kas4\] and Joseph \[J\].

In \[Kas2\] and \[Kas5\], Kashiwara introduced an extremal weight module $`V(\lambda )`$ of extremal weight $`\lambda P`$ over a quantized universal enveloping algebra $`U_q(𝔤)`$, and showed that it has a crystal base $`(\lambda )`$. The extremal weight module is a natural generalization of an integrable highest (lowest) weight module. In fact, we know from \[Kas2, §8\] that if $`\lambda P`$ is dominant (resp. anti-dominant), then the extremal weight module $`V(\lambda )`$ is isomorphic to the integrable highest (resp. lowest) weight module of highest (resp. lowest) weight $`\lambda `$, and the crystal base $`(\lambda )`$ of $`V(\lambda )`$ is isomorphic to the crystal base of the integrable highest (resp. lowest) weight module as crystals.

Now, assume that $`𝔤`$ is of affine type. Let $`I`$ be the index set of the simple roots $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ of $`𝔤`$, and fix a special vertex $`0I`$ as in \[Kas5, §5.2\]. In this paper, as an extension of the isomorphism theorem due to Kashiwara and Joseph, we prove that if $`\lambda `$ is a fundamental basic weight $`\varpi _iP`$ for $`iI_0:=I\{0\}`$ (see \[Kas5, §5.2\]; note that $`\varpi _i`$ is not dominant), then the connected component222The authors have checked that the crystal graph of $`𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ is connected for some special $`\varpi _i`$’s. For example, if $`\varpi _i`$ is minuscule, then $`𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ is connected. The connectedness of the crystal $`𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ will be studied in a forthcoming paper. $`𝔹_0(\varpi _i)`$ of $`𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ containing $`\pi _{\varpi _i}(t):=t\varpi _i`$ is isomorphic to the crystal base $`(\varpi _i)`$ of the extremal weight module $`V(\varpi _i)`$ as crystals. Namely, we prove the following:

###### Theorem 1.

Assume that $`𝔤`$ is of affine type. There exists a unique isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\varpi _i}:(\varpi _i)\stackrel{}{}𝔹_0(\varpi _i)`$ of crystals such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\varpi _i}(u_{\varpi _i})=\pi _{\varpi _i}`$, where $`u_{\varpi _i}(\varpi _i)`$ is the unique extremal weight element of extremal weight $`\varpi _i`$.

In \[Kas5\], Kashiwara conjectured that if $`\lambda =_{iI_0}m_i\varpi _i`$, then there exists a natural embedding of crystals from the connected component $`_0(\lambda )`$ of $`(\lambda )`$ containing the extremal weight element $`u_\lambda `$ of weight $`\lambda `$ into the tensor product $`_{iI_0}(\varpi _i)^{m_i}`$ that maps $`u_\lambda `$ to $`_{iI_0}u_{\varpi _i}^{m_i}`$. Beck and Nakajima proved in \[B\], \[BN\], and \[N\] that this conjecture is true. Because the tensor product of crystals corresponds to the concatenation of path models (cf. \[L2, §1 and Lemma 2.7\]), we get the following corollary by combining the above result of Beck and Nakajima and Theorem 1.

###### Corollary.

Let $`\lambda =_{iI_0}m_i\varpi _iP`$ with $`m_i_0`$, and let $`𝔹_0(\underset{¯}{\lambda })`$ be the connected component of the concatenation $`Cat_{iI_0}𝔹_0(\varpi _i)^{m_i}`$ of path models $`𝔹_0(\varpi _i)`$’s containing the path $`\pi _{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}:=Cat_{iI_0}\pi _{\varpi _i}^{m_i}`$, i.e., that of $`Cat_{iI_0}𝔹(\varpi _i)^{m_i}`$. Then there exists a unique isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}:_0(\lambda )\stackrel{}{}𝔹_0(\underset{¯}{\lambda })`$ of crystals that maps $`u_\lambda `$ to $`\pi _{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}`$.

Let $`𝔤_S`$ be a Levi subalgebra corresponding to a proper subset $`S`$ of the index set $`I`$. By restriction, we can regard the crystals $`𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ and $`𝔹_0(\varpi _i)`$ for $`𝔤`$ as crystals for $`𝔤_S`$. We show the following branching rule for $`𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ and $`𝔹_0(\varpi _i)`$ as crystals for $`𝔤_S`$:

###### Theorem 2.

As crystals for $`𝔤_S`$, $`𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ and $`𝔹_0(\varpi _i)`$ decompose as follows :

$$𝔹(\varpi _i)\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔹(\varpi _i)\\ \pi \text{}𝔤_S\text{-dominant}\end{array}}{}𝔹_S(\pi (1)),𝔹_0(\varpi _i)\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔹_0(\varpi _i)\\ \pi \text{}𝔤_S\text{-dominant}\end{array}}{}𝔹_S(\pi (1)).$$

where $`𝔹_S(\lambda )`$ is the set of Lakshmibai–Seshadri paths of shape $`\lambda `$ for $`𝔤_S`$, and $`\pi 𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ is said to be $`𝔤_S`$-dominant if $`(\pi (t))(\alpha _i^{})0`$ for all $`t[0,1]`$ and $`iS`$.

We also show that the extremal weight module $`V(\varpi _i)`$ of extremal weight $`\varpi _i`$ is completely reducible as a $`𝔤_S`$-module. As an application of Theorems 1 and 2 above, we obtain the following branching rule for $`V(\varpi _i)`$:

###### Theorem 3.

The extremal weight module $`V(\varpi _i)`$ of extremal weight $`\varpi _i`$ is completely reducible as a $`U_q(𝔤_S)`$-module, and the decomposition of $`V(\varpi _i)`$ as a $`U_q(𝔤_S)`$-module is given by :

$$V(\varpi _i)\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔹_0(\varpi _i)\\ \pi \text{}𝔤_S\text{-dominant}\end{array}}{}V_S(\pi (1)),$$

where $`V_S(\lambda )`$ is the integrable highest weight module of highest weight $`\lambda `$ over the quantized universal enveloping algebra $`U_q(𝔤_S)`$ of the Levi subalgebra $`𝔤_S`$.

Assume that $`\varpi _i`$ is minuscule, i.e., $`\varpi _i(\alpha ^{})\{\pm 1,0\}`$ for every dual real root $`\alpha ^{}`$ of $`𝔤`$. Then we can check that $`𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ is connected, and hence $`𝔹(\varpi _i)=𝔹_0(\varpi _i)`$. In this case, we get the following decomposition rule of Littelmann type for the concatenation $`𝔹(\lambda )𝔹(\varpi _i)`$. Here we note that unlike Theorems 2 and 3, this theorem does not necessarily imply the decomposition rule for tensor products of corresponding $`U_q(𝔤)`$-modules.

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`\lambda `$ be a dominant integral weight which is not a multiple of the null root $`\delta `$ of $`𝔤`$, and assume that $`\varpi _i`$ is minuscule. Then the concatenation $`𝔹(\lambda )𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ decomposes as follows :

$$𝔹(\lambda )𝔹(\varpi _i)\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔹(\varpi _i)\\ \pi \text{}\lambda \text{-dominant}\end{array}}{}𝔹(\lambda +\pi (1)),$$

where $`\pi 𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ is said to be $`\lambda `$-dominant if $`(\lambda +\pi (t))(\alpha _i^{})0`$ for all $`t[0,1]`$ and $`iI`$.

###### Remark.

The reader should compare Theorems 1 and 4 with the corresponding results \[G, Theorems 1.5 and 1.6\] of Greenstein for bounded modules.

This paper is organized as follows. In §1, we fix our notation, and recall some basic facts about crystal bases. In §2 and §3, we introduce some tools for crystal bases and path models, which will be needed in the proof of our isomorphism theorem (Theorem 1). In §4, we will prove our main results mentioned above.

## 1 Preliminaries and Notation.

### 1.1 Quantized universal enveloping algebras.

Let $`A=(a_{ij})_{i,jI}`$ be a symmetrizable generalized Cartan matrix, and $`𝔤:=𝔤(A)`$ the Kac–Moody algebra over $``$ associated to the generalized Cartan matrix $`A`$. Denote by $`𝔥`$ the Cartan subalgebra, by $`\mathrm{\Pi }:=\left\{\alpha _i\right\}_{iI}𝔥^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}:=\left\{\alpha _i^{}\right\}_{iI}𝔥`$ the set of simple roots and simple coroots, and by $`W=r_iiI`$ the Weyl group. We take (and fix) an integral weight lattice $`P𝔥^{}`$ such that $`\alpha _iP`$ for all $`iI`$.

Denote by $`U_q(𝔤)`$ the quantized universal enveloping algebra of $`𝔤`$ over the field $`(q)`$ of rational functions in $`q`$, and by $`U_q^{}(𝔤)`$ (resp. $`U_q^+(𝔤)`$) the negative (resp. positive) part of $`U_q(𝔤)`$. We denote by $`\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤)=_{\lambda P}U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda `$ the modified quantized universal enveloping algebra of $`𝔤`$, where $`a_\lambda `$ is a formal element of weight $`\lambda `$ (cf. \[Kas2, §1.2\]).

### 1.2 Affine Lie algebras.

In some parts of this paper, we will assume that $`𝔤`$ is of affine type. In this case, we use the following notation. Let

$$\delta =\underset{iI}{}a_i\alpha _i𝔥^{}\text{ and }c=\underset{iI}{}a_i^{}\alpha _i^{}𝔥$$
(1.2.1)
be the null root and the canonical central element of $`𝔤`$. We denote by $`(,)`$ the bilinear form on $`𝔥^{}`$, which is normalized by: $`a_i^{}=\frac{(\alpha _i,\alpha _i)}{2}a_i`$ for all $`iI`$. Set $`𝔥_0^{}:=_{iI}\alpha _i𝔥^{}`$, and let $`cl:𝔥_0^{}𝔥_0^{}/\delta `$ the canonical map from $`𝔥_0^{}`$ onto the quotient space $`𝔥_0^{}/\delta `$. We have a bilinear form (denoted also by $`(,)`$) on $`𝔥_0^{}/\delta `$ induced from the bilinear form $`(,)`$, which is positive-definite.

We take (and fix) a special vertex $`0I`$ as in \[Kas5, §5.2\], and set $`I_0:=I\{0\}`$. For $`iI_0`$, let $`\varpi _i`$ be a unique element in $`_{iI_0}\alpha _i`$ such that $`\varpi _i(\alpha _j^{})=\delta _{i,j}`$ for all $`jI_0`$. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i:=\varpi _i+a_i^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is an $`i`$-th fundamental weight for $`𝔤`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ is a $`0`$-th fundamental weight for $`𝔤`$. So we may assume that all $`\varpi _i`$’s are contained in the integral weight lattice $`P`$.

### 1.3 Crystal bases.

Let $`(\mathrm{})`$ be the crystal base of the negative part $`U_q^{}(𝔤)`$ with $`u_{\mathrm{}}`$ the highest weight element. Denote by $`e_i`$ and $`f_i`$ the raising and lowering Kashiwara operator on $`(\mathrm{})`$, respectively, and define $`\epsilon _i:(\mathrm{})`$ and $`\phi _i:(\mathrm{})`$ by

$$\epsilon _i(b):=\mathrm{max}\left\{n0e_i^nb0\right\},\phi _i(b):=\epsilon _i(b)+(wt(b))(\alpha _i^{}).$$
(1.3.1)
Denote by $`:(\mathrm{})(\mathrm{})`$ the so-called $``$-operation on $`(\mathrm{})`$ (cf. \[Kas1, Theorem 2.1.1\] and \[Kas3, §8.3\]). We put $`e_i^{}:=e_i`$ and $`f_i^{}:=f_i`$ for each $`iI`$.

###### Theorem 1.3.1 (cf. \[Kas1, Theorem 2.2.1\]).

For each $`iI`$, there exists an embedding $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}:(\mathrm{})(\mathrm{})_i`$ of crystals that maps $`u_{\mathrm{}}`$ to $`u_{\mathrm{}}b_i(0)`$, where $`_i:=\{b_i(n)n\}`$ is a crystal in \[Kas1, Example 1.2.6\]. In addition, if $`b=(f_i^{})^kb_0`$ with some $`k_0`$ and $`b_0(\mathrm{})`$ such that $`e_i^{}b_0=0`$, then $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}(b)=b_0b_i(k)`$.

We denote by $`(\mathrm{})`$ the crystal base of the positive part $`U_q^+(𝔤)`$ with $`u_{\mathrm{}}`$ the lowest weight vector, and by $`e_i`$ and $`f_i`$ the raising and lowering Kashiwara operator on $`(\mathrm{})`$, respectively. We set

$$\epsilon _i(b):=\phi _i(b)(wt(b))(\alpha _i^{}),\phi _i(b):=\mathrm{max}\left\{n0f_i^nb0\right\}.$$
(1.3.2)
We also have the $``$-operation $`:(\mathrm{})(\mathrm{})`$ on $`(\mathrm{})`$. We can easily show that there exists an embedding $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^+:(\mathrm{})_i(\mathrm{})`$ of crystals with properties similar to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}`$ in Theorem 1.3.1.

Let $`(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))=_{\lambda P}(U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda )`$ be the crystal base of the modified quantized universal enveloping algebra $`\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤)`$ with $`u_\lambda `$ the element of $`(U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda )`$ corresponding to $`a_\lambda U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda `$ (cf. \[Kas2, Theorem 2.1.2\]). We denote by $`e_i`$ and $`f_i`$ the raising and lowering Kashiwara operator on $`(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))`$, and define $`\epsilon _i:(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))`$ and $`\phi _i:(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))`$ by

$$\epsilon _i(b):=\mathrm{max}\left\{n0e_i^nb0\right\},\phi _i(b):=\mathrm{max}\left\{n0f_i^nb0\right\}.$$
(1.3.3)
We know the following theorem from \[Kas2, Theorem 3.1.1\].

###### Theorem 1.3.2.

There exists an isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\lambda :(U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda )\stackrel{}{}(\mathrm{})𝒯_\lambda (\mathrm{})`$ of crystals such that $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\lambda (u_\lambda )=u_{\mathrm{}}t_\lambda u_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`𝒯_\lambda :=\left\{t_\lambda \right\}`$ is a crystal consisting of a single element $`t_\lambda `$ of weight $`\lambda `$ (cf. \[Kas3, Example 7.3\]).

We also denote by $`:(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))`$ the $``$-operation on $`(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))`$ (cf. \[Kas2, Theorem 4.3.2\]). We know the following theorem from \[Kas2, Corollary 4.3.3\].

###### Theorem 1.3.3.

Let $`b(U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda )`$, and assume that $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\lambda (b)=b_1t_\lambda b_2`$ with $`b_1(\mathrm{})`$ and $`b_2(\mathrm{})`$. Then, $`b^{}`$ is contained in $`(U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda ^{})`$, where $`\lambda ^{}:=\lambda wt(b_1)wt(b_2)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\lambda ^{}(b^{})=b_1^{}t_\lambda ^{}b_2^{}`$.

### 1.4 Crystal base of an extremal weight module.

Since $`(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))`$ is a normal crystal, we can define an action of the Weyl group $`W`$ on $`(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))`$ (see \[Kas2, §7.1\]); for $`iI`$, we define an action of simple reflection $`r_i`$ by

$$r_ib:=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_i^nb\hfill & \text{if }n:=(wt(b))(\alpha _i^{})0\hfill \\ e_i^nb\hfill & \text{if }n:=(wt(b))(\alpha _i^{})0.\hfill \end{array}\text{for }b(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤)).$$
(1.4.1)
An element $`b(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))`$ is called extremal if the elements $`\left\{wb\right\}_{wW}(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))`$ satisfy the following condition for all $`iI`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{if }\left(wt(wb)\right)(\alpha _i^{})0\text{, then }e_i(wb)=0\text{,}\hfill \\ \text{and if }\left(wt(wb)\right)(\alpha _i^{})0\text{, then }f_i(wb)=0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.4.2)
For $`\lambda P`$, we define a subcrystal $`(\lambda )`$ of $`(U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda )`$ by

$$(\lambda ):=\{b(U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda )b^{}\text{ is extremal}\}.$$
(1.4.3)
Remark that $`u_\lambda (U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda )`$ is contained in $`(\lambda )`$. We know from \[Kas2, Proposition 8.2.2\] and \[Kas5, §3.1\] that $`(\lambda )`$ is the crystal base of the extremal weight module $`V(\lambda )`$ of extremal weight $`\lambda `$ over $`U_q(𝔤)`$.

## 2 Some Tools for Crystal Bases.

### 2.1 Multiple maps.

We know the following theorem (see \[Kas4, Theorem 3.2\]).

###### Theorem 2.1.1.

Let $`m_{>0}`$. There exists a unique injective map $`S_{m,\mathrm{}}:(\mathrm{})(\mathrm{})`$ such that for all $`b(\mathrm{})`$ and $`iI`$, we have

$`wt(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b))=mwt(b),\epsilon _i(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b))=m\epsilon _i(b),\phi _i(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b))=m\phi _i(b),`$ (2.1.1)
$`S_{m,\mathrm{}}(u_{\mathrm{}})=u_{\mathrm{}},S_{m,\mathrm{}}(e_ib)=e_i^mS_{m,\mathrm{}}(b),S_{m,\mathrm{}}(f_ib)=f_i^mS_{m,\mathrm{}}(b).`$ (2.1.2)
###### Proposition 2.1.2.

We set $`S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}:=S_{m,\mathrm{}}`$. Then we have $`S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}=S_{m,\mathrm{}}`$ on $`(\mathrm{})`$. Namely, the $``$-operation commutes with the map $`S_{m,\mathrm{}}:(\mathrm{})(\mathrm{})`$.

The proposition above can be shown in a way similar to \[NS2, Theorem 2.3.1\]. Before giving a proof of the proposition, we show the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.1.3.

The following diagram is commutative :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(\mathrm{})& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}}{}& (\mathrm{})_j\\ S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}& & S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}𝒮_{m,j}& & \\ (\mathrm{})& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}}{}& (\mathrm{})_j.\end{array}$$
(2.1.3)
Here $`𝒮_{m,j}:_j_j`$ is a map defined by $`𝒮_{m,j}(b_j(n)):=b_j(mn)`$.

###### Proof.

For $`b(\mathrm{})`$, there exists $`b_0(\mathrm{})`$ such that $`b=(f_j^{})^kb_0`$ for some $`k_0`$ and $`e_j^{}b_0=0`$. Then, by Theorem 1.3.1, we have $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(b)=b_0b_j(k)`$, and hence

$$(S_{\mathrm{}}^{}𝒮_{m,j})(\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(b))=S_{\mathrm{}}^{}(b_0)b_j(mk).$$

On the other hand, we see that $`S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b)=(f_j^{})^{mk}S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b_0)`$. If $`e_j^{}S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b_0)0`$, then we have $`\epsilon _j(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_0^{}))1`$. Since $`\epsilon _j(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b))=m\epsilon _j(b)m`$ for all $`b(\mathrm{})`$, we deduce that $`\epsilon _j(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_0^{}))m`$, and hence $`(e_j^{})^mS_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b_0)0`$. However, since $`e_j^{}b_0=0`$, we get $`(e_j^{})^mS_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b_0)=S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(e_j^{}b_0)=0`$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, we conclude that $`e_j^{}S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b_0)=0`$. It follows from Theorem 1.3.1 that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b))=\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}((f_j^{})^{mk}S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b_0))=S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b_0)b_j(mk).$$

Hence we have $`(S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}𝒮_{m,j})(\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(b))=\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b))`$. This completes the proof of the lemma. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 2.1.2.

We will prove that $`S_{\mathrm{}}^{}(b)=S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b)`$ for $`b(\mathrm{})_\xi `$ by induction on the height $`ht(\xi )`$ of $`\xi `$ (note that $`wt(b)_{iI}_0\alpha _i`$ for all $`b(\mathrm{})`$). If $`ht(\xi )=0`$, then $`b`$ is the highest weight element $`u_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{})`$, and hence the assertion is obvious.

Assume that $`ht(\xi )1`$. Then there exists some $`iI`$ such that $`b_1:=e_ib0`$. If $`e_j^{}b_1=0`$ for all $`jI`$, then $`b_1=u_{\mathrm{}}`$, and hence $`b=f_iu_{\mathrm{}}`$. Because $`f_i^ku_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a unique element of weight $`k\alpha _i`$ for all $`k_0`$, and $`wt(b^{})=wt(b)`$ for all $`b(\mathrm{})`$, we deduce that $`b^{}=b`$, and hence that

$$S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b)=\left(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b^{})\right)^{}=\left(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b)\right)^{}=\left(f_i^mu_{\mathrm{}}\right)^{}=f_i^mu_{\mathrm{}}=S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b).$$

So we may assume that there exists $`jI`$ such that $`e_j^{}b_10`$. Let $`b_2(\mathrm{})`$ be such that $`e_j^{}b_2=0`$ and $`b_1=(f_j^{})^kb_2`$ for some $`k_1`$. Namely, $`b=f_i(f_j^{})^kb_2`$ for some $`k1`$ and $`b_2(\mathrm{})`$ such that $`e_j^{}b_2=0`$.

Case 1 : $`ij`$. We show that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b))=\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b))`$ (recall that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}:(\mathrm{})(\mathrm{})_j`$ is an embedding of crystals). We have

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(b)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(f_i(f_j^{})^kb_2)=f_i\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}((f_j^{})^kb_2)=f_i(b_2b_j(k))`$
$`=f_ib_2b_j(k).`$
Here the last equality immediately follows from the definition of the tensor product of crystals (see, for example, \[Kas3, §7.3\]) and the condition that $`ij`$. Therefore, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b))`$ $`=(S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}𝒮_{m,j})(\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(b))\text{by Lemma }\text{2.1.3}`$
$`=S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(f_ib_2)b_j(mk)`$
$`=S_{m,\mathrm{}}(f_ib_2)b_j(mk)\text{by the inductive assumption}`$
$`=f_i^mS_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2)b_j(mk).`$
On the other hand,

$`S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b)`$ $`=S_{m,\mathrm{}}(f_i(f_j^{})^kb_2)=f_i^mS_{m,\mathrm{}}((f_j^{})^kb_2)`$
$`=f_i^m(f_j^{})^{mk}S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2)\text{by the inductive assumption.}`$
As in the proof of Lemma 2.1.3, we deduce that $`e_j^{}S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b_2)=0`$, and hence $`e_j^{}S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2)=e_j^{}S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b_2)=0`$ by the inductive assumption. Therefore,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b))`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(f_i^m(f_j^{})^{mk}S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2))=f_i^m\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}((f_j^{})^{mk}S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2))`$
$`=f_i^m(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2)b_j(mk))=(f_i^mS_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2))b_j(mk).`$
Here the last equality immediately follows again from the definition of the tensor product of crystals and the condition that $`ij`$. Thus, we get that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b))=\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b))`$, and hence $`S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b)=S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b)`$.

Case 2 : $`i=j`$. As in Case 1, we have $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(b)=f_i(b_2b_i(k))`$. We deduce from the definition of the tensor product of crystals that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}(b)=f_i(b_2b_i(k))=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_ib_2b_i(k)\hfill & \text{if }\phi _i(b_2)>k,\hfill \\ b_2b_i(k1)\hfill & \text{if }\phi _i(b_2)k.\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence, as in Case 1, we get

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}(S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b))=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_i^mS_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2)b_i(mk)\hfill & \text{if }\phi _i(b_2)>k,\hfill \\ S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2)b_i(mkm)\hfill & \text{if }\phi _i(b_2)k.\hfill \end{array}$$

On the other hand, in exactly the same way as in Case 1, we can show that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b))=f_i^m(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2)b_i(mk))`$. Because $`\phi _i(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2))=m\phi _i(b_2)`$ by (2.1.1), we deduce from the definition of the tensor product of crystals that

$$f_i^m(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2)b_i(mk))=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_i^mS_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2)b_i(mk)\hfill & \text{if }\phi _i(b_2)>k,\hfill \\ S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2)b_i(mkm)\hfill & \text{if }\phi _i(b_2)k.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore we obtain that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}(S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b))=\mathrm{\Psi }_i^{}(S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b))`$, and hence $`S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b)=S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b)`$. Thus, we have proved the proposition. ∎

###### Remark 2.1.4.

A similar result holds for the crystal base $`(\mathrm{})`$. Namely, for each $`m_{>0}`$, there exists a unique injective map $`S_{m,\mathrm{}}:(\mathrm{})(\mathrm{})`$ with properties similar to $`S_{m,\mathrm{}}`$ in Theorem 2.1.1, and it commutes with the $``$-operation on $`(\mathrm{})`$.

For $`m_{>0}`$, we define an injective map $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{m,\lambda }:(U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda )(U_q(𝔤)a_{m\lambda })`$ as in the following commutative diagram (cf. Theorem 1.3.2):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda )& \underset{}{\overset{\mathrm{\Xi }_\lambda }{}}& (\mathrm{})𝒯_\lambda (\mathrm{})\\ \stackrel{~}{S}_{m,\lambda }& & S_{m,\mathrm{}}\tau _{m,\lambda }S_{m,\mathrm{}}& & \\ (U_q(𝔤)a_{m\lambda })& \underset{}{\overset{\mathrm{\Xi }_{m\lambda }^1}{}}& (\mathrm{})𝒯_{m\lambda }(\mathrm{}),\end{array}$$
(2.1.4)
where $`\tau _{m,\lambda }:𝒯_\lambda 𝒯_{m\lambda }`$ is defined by $`\tau _{m,\lambda }(t_\lambda ):=t_{m\lambda }`$. We define $`\stackrel{~}{S}_m:\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤)\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤)`$ as the direct sum of all $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{m,\lambda }`$’s.

###### Proposition 2.1.5.

The maps $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{m,\lambda }:(U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda )(U_q(𝔤)a_{m\lambda })`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}_m:(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))`$ have properties similar to $`S_{m,\mathrm{}}`$ in Theorem 2.1.1. In addition, the map $`\stackrel{~}{S}_m`$ commutes with the $``$-operation on $`(\stackrel{~}{U}_q(𝔤))`$.

###### Proof.

The first assertion immediately follows from Theorem 2.1.1, Remark 2.1.4, and the definition of the tensor product of crystals (see also \[Kas5, Appendix B\]). Let us show the second assertion. We set $`\stackrel{~}{S}_m^{}:=\stackrel{~}{S}_m`$. It suffices to prove the following claim:

Claim.  Let $`\lambda P`$, and $`b(U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda )`$. Then we have that $`\stackrel{~}{S}_m^{}(b)(U_q(𝔤)a_{m\lambda })`$, and that $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{m\lambda }(\stackrel{~}{S}_m^{}(b))=\mathrm{\Xi }_{m\lambda }(\stackrel{~}{S}_m(b))`$.

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\lambda (b)=b_1t_\lambda b_2`$ with $`b_1(\mathrm{})`$ and $`b_2(\mathrm{})`$. Then we see by the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{S}_m`$ that

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{m\lambda }(\stackrel{~}{S}_m(b))=(S_{m,\mathrm{}}\tau _{m,\lambda }S_{m,\mathrm{}})(\mathrm{\Xi }_\lambda (b))=S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_1)t_{m\lambda }S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2).$$

On the other hand, we know from Theorem 1.3.3 that $`b^{}(U_q(𝔤)a_\lambda ^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\lambda ^{}(b^{})=b_1^{}t_\lambda ^{}b_2^{}`$, where $`\lambda ^{}:=\lambda wt(b_1)wt(b_2)`$. Hence we have

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{m\lambda ^{}}(\stackrel{~}{S}_m(b^{}))=(S_{m,\mathrm{}}\tau _{m,\lambda }S_{m,\mathrm{}})(\mathrm{\Xi }_\lambda ^{}(b^{}))=S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_1^{})t_{m\lambda ^{}}S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2^{}).$$

We deduce again from Theorem 1.3.3 that $`\stackrel{~}{S}_m^{}(b)=\left(\stackrel{~}{S}_m(b^{})\right)^{}(U_q(𝔤)a_{m\lambda })`$, and that

$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{m\lambda }(\stackrel{~}{S}_m^{}(b))=S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b_1)t_{m\lambda }S_{m,\mathrm{}}^{}(b_2)`$
$`=S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_1)t_{m\lambda }S_{m,\mathrm{}}(b_2)\text{by Proposition }\text{2.1.2}\text{ and Remark }\text{2.1.4}.`$
Thus, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{m\lambda }(\stackrel{~}{S}_m^{}(b))=\mathrm{\Xi }_{m\lambda }(\stackrel{~}{S}_m(b))`$, as desired. ∎

###### Theorem 2.1.6.

Let $`m_{>0}`$. There exists an injective map $`S_{m,\lambda }:(\lambda )(m\lambda )`$ such that $`S_{m,\lambda }(u_\lambda )=u_{m\lambda }`$ and such that for all $`b(\mathrm{})`$ and $`iI`$, we have

$`wt(S_{m,\lambda }(b))=mwt(b),\epsilon _i(S_{m,\lambda }(b))=m\epsilon _i(b),\phi _i(S_{m,\lambda }(b))=m\phi _i(b),`$ (2.1.5)
$`S_{m,\lambda }(e_ib)=e_i^mS_{m,\lambda }(b),S_{m,\lambda }(f_ib)=f_i^mS_{m,\lambda }(b).`$ (2.1.6)
###### Proof.

Set $`S_{m,\lambda }:=\stackrel{~}{S}_m|_{(\lambda )}`$. Then it is obvious from Proposition 2.1.5 that $`S_{m,\lambda }((\lambda ))(U_q(𝔤)a_{m\lambda })`$. So we need only show that $`\left(S_{m,\lambda }(b)\right)^{}`$ is extremal for every $`b(\lambda )`$. We can easily check that the action of the Weyl group $`W`$ commutes with $`S_{m,\lambda }`$. So it follows from Proposition 2.1.5 that

$$w\left((S_{m,\lambda }(b))^{}\right)=wS_{m,\lambda }(b^{})=S_{m,\lambda }(wb^{})\text{for all }b(\lambda )\text{ and }wW.$$

Assume that $`wt(b^{})=\mu `$. Then we see that $`wt\left((S_{m,\lambda }(b))^{}\right)=m\mu `$. Suppose that $`(w(m\mu ))(\alpha _i^{})0`$ and $`e_i\left(w((S_{m,\lambda }(b))^{})\right)0`$. As in the proof of Lemma 2.1.3, we deduce that $`e_i^m\left(w((S_{m,\lambda }(b))^{})\right)0`$. Hence we have

$$S_{m,\lambda }\left(e_i(wb^{})\right)=e_i^mS_{m,\lambda }(wb^{})=e_i^m\left(wS_{m,\lambda }(b^{})\right)=e_i^m\left(w((S_{m,\lambda }(b))^{})\right)0.$$

However, since $`(w(\mu ))(\alpha _i^{})0`$ and $`b^{}`$ is extremal, we have $`e_i(wb^{})=0`$, and hence $`S_{m,\lambda }\left(e_i(wb^{})\right)=0`$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, we get that $`e_i\left(w((S_{m,\lambda }(b))^{})\right)=0`$. Similarly, we can prove that if $`(w(m\mu ))(\alpha _i^{})0`$, then $`f_i\left(w((S_{m,\lambda }(b))^{})\right)=0`$. This completes the proof of the theorem. ∎

### 2.2 Embedding into tensor products.

In this subsection, we assume that $`𝔤`$ is an affine Lie algebra (for the notation, see §1.2). We know the following theorem from \[B\], \[N\] in the symmetric case, and from \[BN\] in the nonsymmetric case.

###### Theorem 2.2.1.

Let $`\lambda :=_{iI_0}m_i\varpi _i`$ with $`m_i_0`$, and let $`_0(\lambda )`$ be the connected component of $`(\lambda )`$ containing the extremal weight element $`u_\lambda `$ of weight $`\lambda `$. There exists a unique embedding $`_0(\lambda )_{iI_0}(\varpi _i)^{m_i}`$ of crystals that maps $`u_\lambda `$ to $`_{iI_0}u_{\varpi _i}^{m_i}`$. In particular, we have an embedding

$$G_{m,\varpi _i}:_0(m\varpi _i)(\varpi _i)^m$$
(2.2.1)
of crystals that maps $`u_{m\varpi _i}`$ to $`u_{\varpi _i}^m`$.

Since $`(\varpi _i)`$ is connected (see \[Kas5, Theorem 5.5\]), we see that $`S_{m,\varpi _i}((\varpi _i))_0(m\varpi _i)`$. Hence we can define $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}:(\varpi _i)(\varpi _i)^m`$ by $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}:=G_{m,\varpi _i}S_{m,\varpi _i}`$ for each $`m_{>0}`$. Remark that $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}`$ has the following properties:

$`wt(\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b))=mwt(b),\epsilon _j(\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b))=m\epsilon _j(b),\phi _j(\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b))=m\phi _j(b),`$ (2.2.2)
$`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(u_{\varpi _i})=u_{\varpi _i}^m,\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(e_jb)=e_j^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b),\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(f_jb)=f_j^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b).`$ (2.2.3)
###### Lemma 2.2.2.

Let $`m,n_{>0}`$. Then we have $`\sigma _{mn,\varpi _i}=\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`(\varpi _i)`$ is connected, every $`b(\varpi _i)`$ is of the form $`b=x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_k}u_{\varpi _i}`$ for some $`j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_kI`$, where $`x_j`$ is either $`e_j`$ or $`f_j`$. We will show by induction on $`k`$ that $`\sigma _{mn,\varpi _i}(b)=\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b)`$ for all $`b(\varpi _i)`$. If $`k=0`$, then the assertion is obvious, since $`b=u_{\varpi _i}`$. Assume that $`k1`$. We set $`b^{}:=x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_k}u_{\varpi _i}`$, and $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b^{})=:u_1u_2\mathrm{}u_m(\varpi _i)^m`$. Assume that

$$\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b)=x_{j_1}^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b^{})=x_{j_1}^{k_1}u_1x_{j_1}^{k_2}u_2\mathrm{}x_{j_1}^{k_m}u_m.$$

for some $`k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_m_0`$. Then we have

$$\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b)=x_{j_1}^{nk_1}\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}(u_1)x_{j_1}^{nk_2}\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}(u_2)\mathrm{}x_{j_1}^{nk_m}\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}(u_m).$$

Remark (cf. \[Kas1, Lemma 1.3.6\]) that for all $`u_1u_2\mathrm{}u_m(\varpi _i)^m`$,

$$x_j(u_1u_2\mathrm{}u_m)=u_1u_2\mathrm{}x_ju_l\mathrm{}u_m$$

if and only if

$`x_j^n(\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}(u_1)\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}(u_2)\mathrm{}\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}(u_m))=`$
$`\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}(u_1)\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}(u_2)\mathrm{}x_j^n\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}(u_l)\mathrm{}\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}(u_m).`$
So we obtain

$`\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b)`$ $`=x_{j_1}^{mn}\left(\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}(u_1)\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}(u_2)\mathrm{}\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}(u_m)\right)`$
$`=x_{j_1}^{mn}\left(\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b^{})\right).`$
Since $`\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b^{})=\sigma _{mn,\varpi _i}(b^{})`$ by the inductive assumption, and since $`\sigma _{mn,\varpi _i}(b)=x_{j_1}^{mn}\sigma _{mn,\varpi _i}(b^{})`$, we obtain $`\sigma _{n,\varpi _i}^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b)=\sigma _{mn,\varpi _i}(b)`$. ∎

For each $`wW`$, we set $`u_{w\varpi _i}:=wu_{\varpi _i}(\varpi _i)`$. By \[Kas5, Proposition 5.8\], we see that $`u_{w\lambda }`$ is well-defined. We can easily show the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.2.3.

For each $`m_{>0}`$ and $`wW`$, we have $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(u_{w\varpi _i})=(u_{w\varpi _i})^m`$.

###### Proposition 2.2.4.

Let $`b(\varpi _i)`$. Assume that $`b=x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_k}u_{\varpi _i}`$, where $`x_j`$ is either $`e_j`$ or $`f_j`$, and set $`b_l:=x_{j_l}x_{j_{l+1}}\mathrm{}x_{i_k}u_{\varpi _i}`$ for $`l=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{},k+1`$ (here $`b_{k+1}:=u_{\varpi _i}`$). Then there exists sufficiently large $`m`$ such that for all $`l=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{},k+1`$,

$$\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b_l)=u_{w_{l,1}\varpi _i}u_{w_{l,2}\varpi _i}\mathrm{}u_{w_{l,m}\varpi _i}$$
(2.2.4)
for some $`w_{l,1},w_{l,2},\mathrm{},w_{l,m}W`$.

###### Proof.

We show the assertion by induction on $`k`$. If $`k=0`$, then the assertion is obvious. Assume that $`k1`$. By the inductive assumption, there exists $`m_{>0}`$ such that $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b_l)`$ is of the desired form for all $`l=2,\mathrm{},k+1`$. Assume that

$`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b_1)`$ $`=\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(x_{j_1}b_2)=x_{j_1}^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b_2)`$
$`=x_{j_1}^{c_1}u_{w_{2,1}\varpi _i}x_{j_1}^{c_2}u_{w_{2,2}\varpi _i}\mathrm{}x_{j_1}^{c_m}u_{w_{2,m}\varpi _i}.`$
for some $`c_1,c_2,\mathrm{},c_m_0`$. We can easily check by Lemma 2.2.3 and \[Kas1, Lemma 1.3.6\] that if $`n_p_{>0}`$ satisfies the condition $`(w_{2,p}\varpi _i)(\alpha _{j_1}^{})n_pc_p`$, then $`\sigma _{n_p,\varpi _i}(x_{j_1}^{c_p}u_{w_{2,p}\varpi _i})=u_{w_1\varpi _i}u_{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}u_{w_n\varpi _i}`$ for some $`w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_nW`$. Therefore, by Lemma 2.2.3, we see that there exists $`N0`$ (for example, put $`N=_{p=1}^mn_p`$) such that

$$(\sigma _{N,\varpi _i})^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b_1)=u_{w_{1,1}\varpi _i}u_{w_{1,2}\varpi _i}\mathrm{}u_{w_{1,Nm}\varpi _i}$$

for some $`w_{1,1},w_{1,2},\mathrm{},w_{1,Nm}W`$. Furthermore, we deduce from Lemma 2.2.3 that $`(\sigma _{N,\varpi _i})^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b_l)`$ is of the desired form for all $`l=2,\mathrm{},k+1`$. It follows from Lemma 2.2.2 that $`(\sigma _{N,\varpi _i})^m\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}=\sigma _{Nm,\varpi _i}`$. We have thus proved the proposition. ∎

## 3 Preliminary Results.

### 3.1 Some tools for path models.

A path is, by definition, a piecewise linear, continuous map $`\pi :[0,1]_{}P`$ such that $`\pi (0)=0`$. We regard two paths $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ as equivalent if there exist piecewise linear, nondecreasing, surjective, continuous maps $`\psi ,\psi ^{}:[0,1][0,1]`$ (reparametrization) such that $`\pi \psi =\pi ^{}\psi `$. We denote by $``$ the set of paths (modulo reparametrization) such that $`\pi (1)P`$, and by $`e_i`$ and $`f_i`$ the raising and lowering root operator (see \[L2, §1\]). By using root operators, we can endow $``$ with a normal crystal structure (see \[L2, §1 and §2\]); we set $`wt(\pi ):=\pi (1)`$, and define $`\epsilon _i:`$ and $`\phi _i:`$ by

$$\epsilon _i(\pi ):=\mathrm{max}\left\{n0e_i^n\pi 0\right\},\phi _i(\pi ):=\mathrm{max}\left\{n0f_i^n\pi 0\right\}.$$
(3.1.1)
For an (arbitrary) integral weight $`\lambda P`$, we denote by $`𝔹(\lambda )`$ the set of Lakshmibai–Seshadri paths of shape $`\lambda `$ (see \[L2, §4\]), and set $`\pi _\lambda (t):=t\lambda 𝔹(\lambda )`$. Denote by $`𝔹_0(\lambda )`$ the connected component of $`𝔹(\lambda )`$ containing $`\pi _\lambda `$. We obtain the following lemma by \[L2, Lemma 2.4\].

###### Lemma 3.1.1.

For $`\pi `$, we define $`S_m:`$ by $`S_m(\pi ):=m\pi `$, where $`(m\pi )(t):=m\pi (t)`$ for $`t[0,1]`$. Then we have $`S_m(𝔹_0(\lambda ))=𝔹_0(m\lambda )`$. In addition, the map $`S_m`$ has properties similar to $`S_{m,\mathrm{}}`$ in Theorem 2.1.1.

For paths $`\pi _1,\pi _2`$, we define a concatenation $`\pi _1\pi _2`$ as in \[L2, §1\]. Because $`\pi _\lambda \pi _\lambda \mathrm{}\pi _\lambda `$ ($`m`$-times) is just $`\pi _{m\lambda }`$ modulo reparametrization, we obtain the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.1.2.

We have a canonical embedding $`G_{m,\lambda }:𝔹_0(m\lambda )𝔹(\lambda )^m`$ of crystals that maps $`\pi _{m\lambda }`$ to $`\pi _\lambda ^m`$, where $`𝔹(\lambda )^m:=\{\pi _1\pi _2\mathrm{}\pi _m\pi _i𝔹(\lambda )\}`$, and $`\pi _\lambda ^m:=\pi _\lambda \pi _\lambda \mathrm{}\pi _\lambda 𝔹(\lambda )^m`$.

By combining Lemmas 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, we get an embedding $`\sigma _{m,\lambda }:𝔹_0(\lambda )𝔹(\lambda )^m`$ defined by $`\sigma _{m,\lambda }:=G_{m,\lambda }S_m`$. It can easily be seen that this map has properties similar to (2.2.2) and (2.2.3).

Since $`𝔹(\lambda )`$ is a normal crystal, we can define an action of the Weyl group $`W`$ on $`𝔹(\lambda )`$ (cf. (1.4.1); see also \[L2, Theorem 8.1\]). We set $`\pi _{w\lambda }:=w\pi _\lambda `$ for $`wW`$. Note that $`(w\pi _\lambda )(t)=t(w\lambda )`$ for each $`wW`$. Using \[L2, Lemma 2.7\], we can prove the following proposition in a way similar to Proposition 2.2.4.

###### Proposition 3.1.3.

Let $`\pi 𝔹_0(\lambda )`$. Assume that $`\pi =x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_k}\pi _\lambda `$, where $`x_j`$ is either $`e_j`$ or $`f_j`$, and set $`\pi _l:=x_{j_l}x_{j_{l+1}}\mathrm{}x_{i_k}\pi _\lambda `$ for $`l=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},k+1`$ (here $`\pi _{k+1}:=\pi _\lambda `$). Then there exists sufficiently large $`m`$ such that for all $`l=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{},k+1`$,

$$\sigma _{m,\lambda }(\pi _l)=\pi _{w_{l,1}\lambda }\pi _{w_{l,2}\lambda }\mathrm{}\pi _{w_{l,m}\lambda }$$
(3.1.2)
for some $`w_{l,1},w_{l,2},\mathrm{},w_{l,m}W`$.

### 3.2 Preliminary lemmas.

In this subsection, $`𝔤`$ is again of affine type (for the notation, see §1.2). By using \[L2, Lemma 2.1 c)\], we can easily show the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.2.1.

Let $`iI_0`$. For each $`wW`$ and $`jI`$, we have $`wt(\pi _{w\varpi _i})=wt(u_{w\varpi _i})`$, $`\epsilon _j(\pi _{w\varpi _i})=\epsilon _j(u_{w\varpi _i})`$, and $`\phi _j(\pi _{w\varpi _i})=\phi _j(u_{w\varpi _i})`$.

It follows from \[Kas1, Lemma 1.3.6\], \[L2, Lemma 2.7\], and the lemma above that

$$x_j^k(u_{w_1\varpi _i}u_{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}u_{w_m\varpi _i})=x_j^{k_1}u_{w_1\varpi _i}x_j^{k_2}u_{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}x_j^{k_m}u_{w_m\varpi _i}$$

for some $`k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_m_0`$ if and only if

$$x_j^k(\pi _{w_1\varpi _i}\pi _{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}\pi _{w_m\varpi _i})=x_j^{k_1}\pi _{w_1\varpi _i}x_j^{k_2}\pi _{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}x_j^{k_m}\pi _{w_m\varpi _i}$$

for every $`k_0`$, $`m_{>0}`$ and $`w_1,w_2,\mathrm{},w_mW`$. So we obtain the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.2.2.

(1) Let $`b=x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_k}u_{\varpi _i}(\varpi _i)`$. Take $`m_{>0}`$ such that the assertion of Proposition 2.2.4 holds, and assume that $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b)=u_{w_1\varpi _i}u_{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}u_{w_m\varpi _i}`$. Then we have $`\pi :=x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_k}\pi _{\varpi _i}0`$, and $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(\pi )=\pi _{w_1\varpi _i}\pi _{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}\pi _{w_m\varpi _i}`$.

(2) The converse of (1) holds. Namely, let $`\pi =x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_k}\pi _{\varpi _i}𝔹(\varpi _i)`$. Take $`m_{>0}`$ such that the assertion of Proposition 3.1.3 holds, and assume that $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(\pi )=\pi _{w_1\varpi _i}\pi _{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}\pi _{w_m\varpi _i}`$. Then we have $`b:=x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_k}u_{\varpi _i}0`$, and $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b)=u_{w_1\varpi _i}u_{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}u_{w_m\varpi _i}`$.

## 4 Main Results.

### 4.1 Isomorphism theorem.

From now on, $`𝔤`$ is always an affine Lie algebra. We can carry out the proof of our isomorphism theorem, following the general line of that for \[Kas5, Theorem 4.1\].

###### Theorem 4.1.1.

There exists a unique isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\varpi _i}:(\varpi _i)\stackrel{}{}𝔹_0(\varpi _i)`$ of crystals such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\varpi _i}(u_{\varpi _i})=\pi _{\varpi _i}`$.

###### Proof.

It suffices to prove that for $`j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_pI`$ and $`k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_qI`$,

(1) $`x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_p}u_{\varpi _i}=x_{k_1}x_{k_2}\mathrm{}x_{k_q}u_{\varpi _i}x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_p}\pi _{\varpi _i}=x_{k_1}x_{k_2}\mathrm{}x_{k_q}\pi _{\varpi _i}`$,

(2) $`x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_p}u_{\varpi _i}=0x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_p}\pi _{\varpi _i}=0`$.

Part (2) has already been proved in Lemma 3.2.2. Let us show the direction $`()`$ of Part (1). Take $`m_{>0}`$ such that the assertion of Proposition 2.2.4 holds for both $`b_1:=x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_p}u_{\varpi _i}`$ and $`b_2:=x_{k_1}x_{k_2}\mathrm{}x_{k_q}u_{\varpi _i}`$:

$`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b_1)=u_{w_1\varpi _i}u_{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}u_{w_m\varpi _i},`$
$`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b_2)=u_{w_1^{}\varpi _i}u_{w_2^{}\varpi _i}\mathrm{}u_{w_m^{}\varpi _i}.`$
Since $`b_1=b_2`$, we get $`u_{w_l\varpi _i}=u_{w_l^{}\varpi _i}`$, and hence $`w_l\varpi _i=w_l^{}\varpi _i`$ for all $`l=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},m`$. By Lemma 3.2.2 (1), we see that

$`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(\pi _1)=\pi _{w_1\varpi _i}\pi _{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}\pi _{w_m\varpi _i},`$
$`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(\pi _2)=\pi _{w_1^{}\varpi _i}\pi _{w_2^{}\varpi _i}\mathrm{}\pi _{w_m^{}\varpi _i},`$
where $`\pi _1:=x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_p}\pi _{\varpi _i}`$ and $`\pi _2:=x_{k_1}x_{k_2}\mathrm{}x_{k_q}\pi _{\varpi _i}`$. Since $`w_l\varpi _i=w_l^{}\varpi _i`$ and $`\pi _{w\varpi _i}(t)=t(w\varpi _i)`$ for all $`wW`$, we get $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(\pi _1)=\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(\pi _2)`$. Since $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}`$ is injective, we conclude that $`\pi _1=\pi _2`$.

We show the reverse direction $`()`$ of Part (1). Take $`m_{>0}`$ such that the assertion of Proposition 3.1.3 holds for both $`\pi _1:=x_{j_1}x_{j_2}\mathrm{}x_{j_p}\pi _{\varpi _i}`$ and $`\pi _2:=x_{k_1}x_{k_2}\mathrm{}x_{k_q}\pi _{\varpi _i}`$:

$`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(\pi _1)=\pi _{w_1\varpi _i}\pi _{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}\pi _{w_m\varpi _i},`$
$`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(\pi _2)=\pi _{w_1^{}\varpi _i}\pi _{w_2^{}\varpi _i}\mathrm{}\pi _{w_m^{}\varpi _i}.`$
Since $`\pi _1=\pi _2`$, and hence $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(\pi _1)=\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(\pi _2)`$ in $``$, the two paths $`\pi _{w_1\varpi _i}\pi _{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}\pi _{w_m\varpi _i}`$ and $`\pi _{w_1^{}\varpi _i}\pi _{w_2^{}\varpi _i}\mathrm{}\pi _{w_m^{}\varpi _i}`$ are identical modulo reparametrization. Hence we can deduce that $`w_l\varpi _i=w_l^{}\varpi _i`$ for all $`l=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},m`$ from the fact that if $`a\varpi _jW\varpi _i`$ for some $`a_0`$ and $`i,jI_0`$, then $`i=j`$ and $`a=1`$. By Lemma 3.2.2 (2), we have

$`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b_1)=u_{w_1\varpi _i}u_{w_2\varpi _i}\mathrm{}u_{w_m\varpi _i},`$
$`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b_2)=u_{w_1^{}\varpi _i}u_{w_2^{}\varpi _i}\mathrm{}u_{w_m^{}\varpi _i}.`$
Since $`w_l\varpi _i=w_l^{}\varpi _i`$ for all $`l=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},m`$, it follows from \[Kas5, Proposition 5.8 (i)\] that $`u_{w_l\varpi _i}=u_{w_l^{}\varpi _i}`$ for all $`l=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{},m`$. Therefore we have $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b_1)=\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}(b_2)`$. Since $`\sigma _{m,\varpi _i}`$ is injective, we conclude that $`b_1=b_2`$. ∎

In general, an isomorphism of crystals between $`(\lambda )`$ and $`𝔹_0(\lambda )`$ does not exist, even if $`(\lambda )`$ is connected. For example, let $`𝔤`$ be of type $`A_2^{(1)}`$, and $`\lambda =\varpi _1+\varpi _2`$ (we know from \[Kas5, Proposition 5.4\] that $`(\lambda )`$ is connected). If $`(\lambda )𝔹_0(\lambda )`$ as crystals, then we would have $`wu_\lambda =w^{}u_\lambda `$ in $`(\lambda )`$ for every $`w,w^{}W`$ with $`w\lambda =w^{}\lambda `$, but we have an example of $`w,w^{}W`$ such that $`wu_\lambda w^{}u_\lambda `$ in $`(\lambda )`$ and $`w\lambda =w^{}\lambda `$ (see \[Kas5, Remark 5.10\]). On the other hand, we obtain the following corollary by combining Theorems 2.2.1 and 4.1.1, because we can deduce from Theorem 4.1.1 that the concatenation $`Cat_{iI_0}𝔹_0(\varpi _i)^{m_i}`$ of $`𝔹_0(\varpi _i)`$’s is isomorphic to the tensor product $`_{iI_0}(\varpi _i)^{m_i}`$ of $`(\varpi _i)`$’s for all $`m_i_0,iI`$.

###### Corollary 4.1.2.

Let $`\lambda =_{iI_0}m_i\varpi _i`$, and set $`\pi _{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}:=Cat_{iI_0}\pi _{\varpi _i}^{m_i}Cat_{iI_0}𝔹_0(\varpi _i)^{m_i}`$. Let $`𝔹_0(\underset{¯}{\lambda })`$ be the connected component of $`Cat_{iI_0}𝔹_0(\varpi _i)^{m_i}`$ containing $`\pi _{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}`$, i.e., that of $`Cat_{iI_0}𝔹(\varpi _i)^{m_i}`$. Then there exists a unique isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}:_0(\lambda )\stackrel{}{}𝔹_0(\underset{¯}{\lambda })`$ of crystals that maps $`u_\lambda `$ to $`\pi _{\underset{¯}{\lambda }}`$.

###### Remark 4.1.3.

In \[G\], Greenstein proved that if $`𝔤`$ is of type $`A_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}`$, then the connected component $`𝔹_0(m\varpi _i+n\delta )`$ is a path model for a certain bounded module $`L(\mathrm{},m,n)`$. He also showed a decomposition rule for tensor products, which seems to be closely related to Theorem 4.3.2 below.

### 4.2 Branching rule.

###### Lemma 4.2.1.

For any $`\pi 𝔹(\varpi _i)`$, we have $`(\pi (1),\pi (1))(\varpi _i,\varpi _i)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\pi =(\nu _1,\nu _2,\mathrm{},\nu _s;a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)`$ with $`\nu _jW\varpi _i`$ and $`a_j[0,1]`$ be a Lakshmibai-Seshadri path of shape $`\varpi _i`$ (cf. \[L2, §4\]). By the definition of a Lakshmibai–Seshadri path, we see that $`\pi (1)=_{j=1}^s(a_ja_{j1})\nu _j`$. Hence we have

$`(\pi (1),\pi (1))`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}}(a_ja_{j1})^2(\nu _j,\nu _j)+2{\displaystyle \underset{1k<ls}{}}(a_ka_{k1})(a_la_{l1})(\nu _k,\nu _l)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}}(a_ja_{j1})^2(\varpi _i,\varpi _i)+2{\displaystyle \underset{1k<ls}{}}(a_ka_{k1})(a_la_{l1})(\varpi _i,w_{kl}\varpi _i)`$
for some $`w_{kl}W`$. By \[Kac, Proposition 6.3\], we deduce that $`w_{kl}\varpi _i=\varpi _i\beta _{kl}+n_{kl}\delta `$ for some $`\beta _{kl}_{iI_0}_0\alpha _i`$ and $`n_{kl}`$. Therefore we have (note that $`\varpi _i`$ is of level $`0`$)

$`(\pi (1),\pi (1))`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}}(a_ja_{j1})^2(\varpi _i,\varpi _i)`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \underset{1k<ls}{}}(a_ka_{k1})(a_la_{l1})(\varpi _i,\varpi _i\beta _{kl}+n_{kl}\delta )`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}}(a_ja_{j1})^2(\varpi _i,\varpi _i)+2{\displaystyle \underset{1k<ls}{}}(a_ka_{k1})(a_la_{l1})(\varpi _i,\varpi _i)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{1k<ls}{}}(a_ka_{k1})(a_la_{l1})(\varpi _i,\beta _{kl})`$
$`=\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}}(a_ja_{j1})\right\}^2(\varpi _i,\varpi _i)2{\displaystyle \underset{1k<ls}{}}(a_ka_{k1})(a_la_{l1})(\varpi _i,\beta _{kl})`$
$`=(\varpi _i,\varpi _i)2{\displaystyle \underset{1k<ls}{}}(a_ka_{k1})(a_la_{l1})(\varpi _i,\beta _{kl})`$
Since $`(\varpi _i,\beta _{kl})0`$ for all $`1k<ls`$, we deduce that $`(\pi (1),\pi (1))(\varpi _i,\varpi _i)`$, as desired. ∎

Let $`S`$ be a proper subset of $`I`$, i.e., $`SI`$. Denote by $`𝔤_S`$ the Levi subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ corresponding to $`S`$. Note that a crystal $`𝔹`$ for $`𝔤`$ can be regarded as a crystal for $`𝔤_S`$ by restriction.

###### Theorem 4.2.2.

As crystals for $`𝔤_S`$, $`𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ and $`𝔹_0(\varpi _i)`$ decompose as follows :

$$𝔹(\varpi _i)\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔹(\varpi _i)\\ \pi \text{}𝔤_S\text{-dominant}\end{array}}{}𝔹_S(\pi (1)),𝔹_0(\varpi _i)\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔹_0(\varpi _i)\\ \pi \text{}𝔤_S\text{-dominant}\end{array}}{}𝔹_S(\pi (1)).$$
(4.2.1)
where $`𝔹_S(\lambda )`$ is the set of Lakshmibai–Seshadri paths of shape $`\lambda `$ for $`𝔤_S`$, and a path $`\pi `$ is said to be $`𝔤_S`$-dominant if $`(\pi (t))(\alpha _i^{})0`$ for all $`t[0,1]`$ and $`iS`$.

###### Proof.

We will show the first equality in (4.2.1), since the second one can be shown in the same way. As in \[Kas1, §9.3\], we deduce, using by Lemma 4.2.1, that each connected component of $`𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ (as a crystal for $`𝔤_S`$) contains an extremal weight element $`\pi ^{}`$ with respect to $`W_S:=r_jjS`$. Because $`𝔤_S`$ is a finite-dimensional reductive Lie algebra, there exists $`wW_S`$ such that $`((w\pi )(1))(\alpha _j^{})0`$ for all $`jS`$. Put $`\pi :=w\pi ^{}`$ for this $`wW_S`$. Since $`\pi `$ is also extremal, we deduce from \[L2, Lemma 4.5 d)\] that $`(\pi (t))(\alpha _j^{})0`$ for all $`t[0,1]`$ and $`jS`$, i.e., $`\pi `$ is $`𝔤_S`$-dominant. We see from \[L2, Theorem 7.1\] that the connected component containing $`\pi `$ is isomorphic to $`𝔹_S(\pi (1))`$, thereby completing the proof of the theorem. ∎

###### Theorem 4.2.3.

(1) The extremal weight module $`V(\varpi _i)`$ of extremal weight $`\varpi _i`$ is completely reducible as a module over the quantized universal enveloping algebra $`U_q(𝔤_S)`$ of the Levi subalgebra $`𝔤_S`$.

(2) The decomposition of $`V(\varpi _i)`$ as a $`U_q(𝔤_S)`$-module is given by :

$$V(\varpi _i)\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔹_0(\varpi _i)\\ \pi \text{}𝔤_S\text{-dominant}\end{array}}{}V_S(\pi (1)),$$
(4.2.2)
where $`V_S(\lambda )`$ is the integrable highest weight module of highest weight $`\lambda `$ over $`U_q(𝔤_S)`$.

###### Proof.

(1) We first prove that $`U:=U_q(𝔤_S)u`$ is finite-dimensional for each weight vector $`uV(\varpi _i)`$. To prove this, it suffices to show that the weight system $`Wt(U)`$ of $`U`$ is a finite set, since each weight space of $`V(\varpi _i)`$ is finite-dimensional (see \[Kas5, Proposition 5.16 (iii)\]). Remark that if $`\mu ,\nu P`$ are weights of $`U`$, then $`\mu ,\nu 𝔥_0^{}`$, and $`\mu \nu Q_S:=_{iS}\alpha _i`$. Hence the canonical map $`cl:𝔥_0^{}𝔥_0^{}/\delta `$ is injective on $`Wt(U)`$, since $`k\delta Q_S`$ for any $`k\{0\}`$. Since $`Wt(U)`$ is contained in the weight system $`Wt(V(\varpi _i))`$ of $`V(\varpi _i)`$, it follows from Theorem 4.1.1 and Lemma 4.2.1 that

$`cl(Wt(U))`$ $`cl\left(Wt(V(\varpi _i))\right)=cl\left(\{\pi (1)\pi 𝔹_0(\varpi _i)\}\right)\text{by Theorem }\text{4.1.1}`$
$`\{\mu ^{}𝔥_0^{}/\delta (\mu ^{},\mu ^{})(cl(\varpi _i),cl(\varpi _i))\}\text{by Lemma }\text{4.2.1}.`$
Because the bilinear form $`(,)`$ on $`𝔥_0^{}/\delta `$ is positive-definite, the set $`cl(Wt(U))`$ is discrete and contained in a compact set with respect to the metric topology on $`_{}(𝔥_0^{}/\delta )`$ defined by $`(,)`$. Therefore, we see that $`cl(Wt(U))`$ is a finite set, and hence so is $`Wt(U)`$. Thus, we conclude that $`U=U_q(𝔤_S)u`$ is finite-dimensional.

Since $`q`$ is assumed not to be a root of unity, the finite-dimensional $`U_q(𝔤_S)`$-module $`U_q(𝔤_S)u`$ is completely reducible for each weight vector $`uV(\varpi _i)`$. Because $`V(\varpi _i)`$ is a sum of all such $`U_q(𝔤_S)u`$’s, we deduce that $`V(\varpi _i)`$ is also completely reducible.

(2) Because each weight space of $`V(\varpi _i)`$ is finite-dimensional, we can define the formal character $`chV(\varpi _i)`$ of $`V(\varpi _i)`$. By Theorem 4.2.2, we have

$$chV(\varpi _i)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔹_0(\varpi _i)\\ \pi \text{}𝔤_S\text{-dominant}\end{array}}{}chV_S(\pi (1)).$$

Therefore, in order to prove Part (2), we need only show that this is the unique way of writing $`chV(\varpi _i)`$ as a sum of the characters of integrable highest weight $`𝔤_S`$-modules. Assume that

$$chV(\varpi _i)=\underset{\lambda P}{}c_\lambda chV_S(\lambda )\text{and}chV(\varpi _i)=\underset{\lambda P}{}c_\lambda ^{}chV_S(\lambda )$$

with $`c_\lambda ,c_\lambda ^{}`$ for $`\lambda P`$. Then we have $`_{\lambda P}(c_\lambda c_\lambda ^{})chV_S(\lambda )=0`$. Suppose that there exists $`\lambda P`$ such that $`c_\lambda c_\lambda ^{}0`$, and set $`X:=\{\lambda Pc_\lambda c_\lambda ^{}0\}(\mathrm{})`$. Note that $`X`$ is contained in the weight system $`Wt(V(\varpi _i))`$ of $`V(\varpi _i)`$. As in the proof of Part (1), we deduce that

$$cl\left(Wt(V(\varpi _i))\right)\{\mu ^{}𝔥_0^{}/\delta (\mu ^{},\mu ^{})(cl(\varpi _i),cl(\varpi _i))\},$$

and hence $`Wt(V(\varpi _i))`$ modulo $`\delta `$ is a finite set.

Now, we define a partial order $`_S`$ on $`P`$ as follows:

$$\mu _S\nu \text{for }\mu ,\nu P\mu \nu (Q_S)_+:=\underset{iS}{}_0\alpha _i.$$

Let us show that the set $`X`$ has a maximal element with respect to this order $`_S`$. Let $`\mu X`$. Then $`Wt(V(\varpi _i))(\mu +Q_S)`$ is a finite set. Indeed, if this is not a finite set, then there exist elements $`\nu ,\nu ^{}`$ of it such that $`\nu \nu ^{}=k\delta `$ with $`k\{0\}`$, since $`Wt(V(\varpi _i))`$ modulo $`\delta `$ is a finite set. However, since $`\nu \nu ^{}Q_S`$ and $`k\delta Q_S`$ for any $`k\{0\}`$, this is a contradiction. Therefore, we see that $`X(\mu +(Q_S)_+)`$ is also a finite set, and hence that $`X`$ has a maximal element of the form $`\mu +\beta `$ for some $`\beta (Q_S)_+`$.

Let $`\nu X`$ be a maximal element with respect to this order $`_S`$. We can easily see that the coefficient of $`e(\nu )`$ in $`_{\lambda P}(c_\lambda c_\lambda ^{})chV_S(\lambda )`$ is equal to $`c_\nu c_\nu ^{}`$. Since $`\nu X`$, we have $`c_\nu c_\nu ^{}0`$, which contradicts $`_\lambda (c_\lambda c_\lambda ^{})chV_S(\lambda )=0`$. This completes the proof of the theorem. ∎

### 4.3 Decomposition rule for tensor products.

In this subsection, we assume that $`\varpi _i`$ is minuscule, i.e., $`\varpi _i(\alpha ^{})\{\pm 1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\}`$ for every dual real root $`\alpha ^{}`$ of $`𝔤`$. For example, if $`𝔤`$ is of type $`A_n^{(1)}`$, then all $`\varpi _i`$’s are minuscule.

###### Remark 4.3.1.

If $`\varpi _i`$ is minuscule, then, for any $`\mu ,\nu W\varpi _i`$ and rational number $`0<a<1`$, there does not exist an $`a`$-chain for $`(\mu ,\nu )`$. Hence it follows from the definition of a Lakshmibai–Seshadri path that $`𝔹(\varpi _i)=\{\pi _{w\varpi _i}wW\}`$. Since $`w\pi _{\varpi _i}=\pi _{w\varpi _i}`$, we see that $`𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ is connected, and hence $`𝔹(\varpi _i)=𝔹_0(\varpi _i)`$.

###### Theorem 4.3.2.

Let $`\lambda `$ be a dominant integral weight which is not a multiple of the null root $`\delta `$ of $`𝔤`$. Then the concatenation $`𝔹(\lambda )𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ decomposes as follows :

$$𝔹(\lambda )𝔹(\varpi _i)\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔹(\varpi _i)\\ \pi \text{}\lambda \text{-dominant}\end{array}}{}𝔹(\lambda +\pi (1)),$$
(4.3.1)
where $`\pi 𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ is said to be $`\lambda `$-dominant if $`(\lambda +\pi (t))(\alpha _i^{})0`$ for all $`t[0,1]`$ and $`iI`$.

###### Proof.

We will prove that each connected component contains a (unique) path of the form $`\pi _\lambda \pi `$ for a $`\lambda `$-dominant path $`\pi 𝔹(\varpi _i)`$. Then the assertion of the theorem follows from \[L2, Theorem 7.1\].

Let $`\pi _1\pi _2𝔹(\lambda )𝔹(\varpi _i)`$. It can easily be seen that $`e_{i_1}e_{i_2}\mathrm{}e_{i_k}(\pi _1\pi _2)=\pi _\lambda \pi _2^{}`$ for some $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_kI`$, where $`\pi _2^{}𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ (cf. \[G, §5.6\]). Set $`S:=\{iI\lambda (\alpha _i^{})=0\}`$ (note that $`SI`$, since $`\lambda `$ is not a multiple of $`\delta `$), and let $`𝔹`$ be the set of paths of the form $`e_{j_1}e_{j_2}\mathrm{}e_{j_l}(\pi _\lambda \pi _2^{})`$ for some $`j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_lS`$. Remark that if $`e_{j_1}e_{j_2}\mathrm{}e_{j_l}(\pi _\lambda \pi _2^{})0`$, then $`e_{j_1}e_{j_2}\mathrm{}e_{j_l}(\pi _\lambda \pi _2^{})=\pi _\lambda (e_{j_1}e_{j_2}\mathrm{}e_{j_l}\pi _2^{})`$. As in the proof of Part (2) of Theorem 4.2.3, we deduce that

$$\{\pi (1)\pi 𝔹(\varpi _i)\}\left(\pi _2^{}(1)+(Q_S)_+\right)=Wt(V(\varpi _i))\left(\pi _2^{}(1)+(Q_S)_+\right)$$

is a finite set. Hence we have $`\pi _\lambda \pi _2^{\prime \prime }𝔹`$ for some $`\pi _2^{\prime \prime }𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ such that $`e_j(\pi _\lambda \pi _2^{\prime \prime })=0`$, $`jS`$. Because $`\varpi _i`$ is minuscule and $`\pi _2^{\prime \prime }=\pi _{w\varpi _i}`$ for some $`wW`$ (cf. Remark 4.3.1), we see that $`e_j(\pi _\lambda \pi _2^{\prime \prime })=0`$ for all $`jIS`$. Therefore, we conclude that $`\pi _2^{\prime \prime }𝔹(\varpi _i)`$ is $`\lambda `$-dominant. Thus we have completed the proof of the theorem. ∎

###### Remark 4.3.3.

Unlike Theorems 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, this theorem does not necessarily imply the decomposition rule for tensor products of corresponding $`U_q(𝔤)`$-modules.


format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

The subject of cosmological perturbations continues to attract much attention because it is an essential step in understanding any theory of cosmological structure formation. The simple idea that the observed structure in the Universe has resulted from the gravitational amplification of small primordial fluctuations works remarkably well and it must be discussed in any theory of relativistic cosmology.

In inflationary cosmology the presently observed structures in the Universe are generated by quantum fluctuations during an early de Sitter phase. The subsequent evolution is classical and depends on the interplay between pressure forces, the rate of growth of the expansion factor and on the content and the nature of the, yet unknown, dark matter.

Very recently, an alternative scenario has been proposed. In  we discussed a cosmology of the Planck Era, valid immediately after the initial singularity, in which the Newton constant and the cosmological constant are dynamically coupled to the geometry by “improving” the Einstein equations with the renormalization group (RG) equation for Quantum Einstein Gravity . It has then been shown that in this new scenario a solution to the horizon and flatness problem of standard cosmology is possible without the introduction of an ad hoc scalar field. There is also a natural mechanism generating primordial density fluctuations with spectral index $`n=1`$, at least at short wavelengths.

The recent evidence for a non-trivial ultraviolet fixed point in Quantum Einstein Gravity  has opened the possibility of a non-perturbative renormalizability of the theory along the lines of the asymptotic safety conjectured by Weinberg . This has triggered a number of investigations in black hole physics  and cosmology . According to the findings of  Newton’s constant is an asymptotically free coupling at very high energy scales. Given the RG flow near this non-trivial fixed point it is possible to “RG improve” the Einstein field equations by replacing Newton’s constant $`G`$ and the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by their scale-dependent (“running”) counterparts. The RG improved Einstein equations lead to a mathematically tractable system of evolution equations for the scale factor, the pressure, the density, $`G`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Near the fixed point explicit solutions are available .

A similar mechanism could in principle be operating also far from the Big Bang, in a completely different era of the Universe. In fact, in the late Universe, the possibility that another, this time infrared attractive fixed point, might be present in the RG flow for gravity and governs its long distance behavior has been discussed in . In this case a solution of the “cosmic coincidence problem”  arises naturally without the introduction of a quintessence field. It can be shown that in the fixed point regime the vacuum energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }/8\pi G`$ is automatically adjusted so as to equal the matter energy density, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=1/2`$, and that the deceleration parameter approaches $`q=1/4`$. Moreover, an analysis of the high-redshift SNe Ia data leads to the conclusion that this infrared fixed point cosmology is in good agreement with the observations , and that it is a promising candidate for describing the dynamics of the Universe on very large scales. It is important to note that the experimental determination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is model dependent. The numbers which are usually quoted, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$, are obtained when one fits the data to the cosmological standard model. Our prediction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.5`$ is not inconsistent with this result since we use a different model; in fact, we find that it fits the supernova data as accurately as the standard model.

Cosmologies with a time dependent $`G`$ have been discussed in , while homogeneous and isotropic cosmological models with variable $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ have been discussed in  and . Also for this reason a formalism where the evolution of small fluctuations of the density, of $`G`$, and of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be consistently discussed is needed. The aim of this paper is to present such a formalism and to apply it to the case of the RG derived cosmologies.

We shall follow the so-called covariant approach, pioneered by Hawking , further extended by Ellis and Bruni , Jackson  and Zimdahl , in order to provide a gauge-invariant formulation of the problem. The gauge issue is in fact a major problem in discussing the evolution of the long wavelength fluctuations, where the presence of spurious gauge modes can be more difficult to avoid . The second order acoustic propagation equations, governing the comoving fractional spatial gradients of the density and of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are then obtained for a class of background spacetimes with a time-dependent Newton constant and cosmological constant where the matter field is described by a perfect fluid with conserved energy momentum tensor. The properties of the solutions are then discussed for a class of RG derived cosmologies. It turns out that it is possible to have both growing and decaying modes for the fractional quantities describing the perturbations of the density, $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, depending on the equation of state.

In particular, if the late time evolution of the background Universe is governed by the infrared fixed point cosmology we shall find that all the relevant perturbations decay with a power law of the cosmic time or stay constant, i.e. the infrared fixed point cosmology is stable under small deviations from perfect homogeneity and isotropy. According to this result, the ultimate fate of the Universe at very large scales is a sort of “eternal dilution” where a homogeneous and isotropic state is reached for $`t\mathrm{}`$.

## II Gauge-invariant perturbation theory

In this section we generalize the formalism of refs. by allowing $`GG(x^\mu )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^\mu )`$ to be scalar functions on spacetime.

A “fundamental observer” describing the cosmological fluid flow lines has 4-velocity

$$u^\mu =dx^\mu /d\tau ,u^\mu u_\mu =1$$
(1)
where $`\tau `$ is the proper time along the fluid flow lines. The projection tensor onto the tangent 3-space orthogonal to $`u^\mu `$ is

$$h_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }+u_\mu u_\nu $$
(2)
with $`h_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}=h_{}^{\mu }{}_{\sigma }{}^{}`$ and $`h_{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}u^\nu =0`$. The covariant derivative of $`u^\mu `$ is

$$u_{\mu ;\nu }=\omega _{\mu \nu }+\sigma _{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }h_{\mu \nu }\dot{u}_\mu u_\nu $$
(3)
where $`\omega _{\mu \nu }=h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu }{}^{}h_{}^{\beta }{}_{\nu }{}^{}u_{[\alpha ;\beta ]}`$ is the vorticity tensor, $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }=h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu }{}^{}h_{}^{\beta }{}_{\nu }{}^{}u_{(\alpha ;\beta )}\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }h_{\mu \nu }`$ is the shear tensor, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=u_{}^{\mu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}`$ is the expansion scalar and $`\dot{u}^\mu =u_{}^{\mu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}u^\nu `$ is the acceleration four-vector; square and round brackets denote anti-symmetrization and symmetrization, respectively. The Riemann tensor is defined by $`u_{\mu ;\lambda \tau }u_{\mu ;\tau \lambda }=R_{}^{\sigma }{}_{\mu \lambda \tau }{}^{}u_\sigma `$ and the Ricci tensor by $`R_{\mu \nu }=R_{}^{\tau }{}_{\mu \tau \nu }{}^{}`$. With these conventions, Einstein’ s equations are

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }+8\pi GT_{\mu \nu }$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^\mu )`$ is the position dependent cosmological constant and $`G=G(x^\mu )`$ the position dependent Newton constant. The energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is assumed to be conserved. For a perfect fluid it has the form

$$T^{\mu \nu }=\rho u^\mu u^\nu +ph^{\mu \nu }$$
(5)
The conservation law $`T_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}=0`$ leads to mass-energy conservation

$$\frac{\dot{\rho }}{(\rho +p)}+\mathrm{\Theta }=0$$
(6)
and the equation of motion

$$\dot{u}^\mu +\frac{h^{\mu \nu }p_{;\nu }}{\rho +p}=0.$$
(7)
The Bianchi identities require the RHS of (4) to be covariantly conserved. This consistency condition together with the conservation laws (6) and (7) provides the equations for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`G`$,

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+8\pi \dot{G}\rho =0`$ (8)
$`h^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{;\nu }8\pi ph^{\mu \nu }G_{;\nu }=0`$ (9)
by projecting along $`u^\mu `$ and onto the hyperplane orthogonal to $`u^\mu `$. The Raychaudhuri equation is obtained with the help of the Einstein field equations and of Eq.(3),

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }^2+2(\sigma ^2\omega ^2)\dot{u}_{;\mu }^\mu +4\pi G(\rho +3p)\mathrm{\Lambda }=0$$
(10)
where $`2\sigma ^2\sigma _{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`2\omega ^2\omega _{\mu \nu }\omega ^{\mu \nu }`$. The term $`\dot{u}_{;\mu }^\mu `$ can be rewritten as

$$\dot{u}_{;\mu }^\mu =h^{\lambda \tau }\left(\frac{h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\lambda }{}^{}p_{;\nu }}{\rho +p}\right)_{;\tau }+h^{\lambda \tau }\frac{p_{;\lambda }}{\rho +p}\frac{p_{;\tau }}{\rho +p}.$$
(11)
The scalar $`𝒦`$ is defined as

$$𝒦2\sigma ^2\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }^2+16\pi G\rho +2\mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(12)
It is possible to show that for zero vorticity, $`\omega _{\mu \nu }=0`$, it coincides with the Ricci scalar $`{}_{}{}^{(3)}R`$ of the 3-dimensional hyperplane everywhere orthogonal to $`u^\mu `$. An auxiliary length scale $`S(t)`$ is introduced as the solution of the equation

$$\frac{\dot{S}}{S}=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Theta }.$$
(13)
Suitable quantities useful to characterize the spatial inhomogeneities of density, pressure and expansion are, respectively,

$$D_\mu \frac{Sh_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\rho _{;\nu }}{\rho +p},P_\mu \frac{Sh_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }p_{;\nu }}{\rho +p},t_\mu Sh_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\mathrm{\Theta }_{;\nu }$$
(14)
In order to characterize spatial inhomogeneities of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ it is convenient to introduce the following dimensionless quantities:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \frac{1}{G}Sh_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }G_{;\nu },\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}Sh_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{;\nu }.$$
(15)
We then have from (6) and (7)

$`h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\gamma }{}^{}(Sh_{}^{\beta }{}_{\alpha }{}^{}\rho _{;\beta }\dot{)}={\displaystyle \frac{S}{3}}\mathrm{\Theta }h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\gamma }{}^{}\rho _{;\alpha }+S\mathrm{\Theta }h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\gamma }{}^{}p_{;\alpha }+Sh_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\gamma }{}^{}(\rho _{;\alpha }\dot{)}`$ (16)
$`=S\mathrm{\Theta }h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\gamma }{}^{}\rho _{;\alpha }S\mathrm{\Theta }h_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\gamma }{}^{}p_{;\alpha }(p+\rho )Sh_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta }{}^{}\rho _{;\alpha }(\omega _{}^{\beta }{}_{\gamma }{}^{}+\sigma _{}^{\beta }{}_{\gamma }{}^{})`$ (17)
In the first line we used the identity $`(\rho _{;\alpha }\dot{)}=\dot{\rho }_{;\alpha }\rho _{;\beta }u_{}^{\beta }{}_{;\alpha }{}^{}`$ and in the second line (3). Eq.(16) can now be rewritten as

$$h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}\dot{D}_\nu +\frac{\dot{p}}{\rho +p}D_\mu +(\omega _{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}+\sigma _{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{})D_\nu +t_\mu =0.$$
(18)
We can obtain the equation of motion for $`t_\mu `$ by following similar manipulations:

$`h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}\dot{t}_\nu =\dot{S}h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\nu +Sh_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}\dot{u}_\nu \dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}+Sh_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}(\mathrm{\Theta }_{;\nu }\dot{)}`$ (19)
$`=\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}P_\mu (\omega _{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}+\sigma _{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{})t_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Theta }t_\mu Sh_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}(2\sigma ^22\omega ^2)_{;\nu }+Sh_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}(\dot{u}_{}^{\tau }{}_{;\tau }{}^{})_{;\nu }`$ (20)
$`4\pi G(\rho +p)[D_\mu +3P_\mu ]4\pi G\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (\rho +p)`$ (21)
In the last line we have used the Raychaudhuri equation (10) and Eq.(9). We stress that Eq.(18) and Eq.(19) are completely general in the sense that no assumption on the functional form of $`G`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has been made. In particular, Eq.(19) coincides with Eq.(27) of  for constant $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Given an equation of state $`p=p(\rho )`$ it is possible to express $`P_\mu `$ in terms of $`D_\mu `$, but (18) and (19) still do not form a closed system since an evolution equation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ is needed. It can be obtained in the following way: from the definition of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ we have

$`h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}(G\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \dot{)}=P_\mu \dot{G}+Sh_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\dot{G}_{,\nu }G\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu (\omega _{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}+\sigma _{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{})`$ (22)
$`h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu \dot{)}=P_\mu \dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+Sh_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{,\nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu (\omega _{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}+\sigma _{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{})`$ (23)
where we have used Eq.(3). From Eq.(8) and Eq.(9) we get instead

$`h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu \dot{)}=8\pi \dot{p}G\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu +8\pi ph_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}(G\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \dot{)}`$ (24)
$`h^{\mu \nu }\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{,\nu }+8\pi h^{\mu \nu }\rho _{,\nu }+8\pi \rho h^{\mu \nu }\dot{G}_{,\nu }=0`$ (25)
Therefore by using (23) in (24) and using (25) in the result, (22) becomes

$$h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}(G\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \dot{)}=\frac{\dot{p}}{\rho +p}G\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \dot{G}D_\mu \frac{G}{\rho +p}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu (\omega _{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}+\sigma _{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{})$$
(26)
This is the equation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ we were looking for.

From now on we shall assume the background Universe to be homogeneous and isotropic, i.e. $`\omega _{\mu \nu }=\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\dot{u}_\mu =0`$. In this Universe we consider small perturbations of the motion of the fluid and consequently, up to first order in the inhomogeneities, the factors multiplying the quantities $`D_\mu `$, $`P_\mu `$, $`t_\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ in (18) and (19) refer to the background. Thus the linearized equation for $`D_\mu `$ becomes

$`h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}\dot{D}_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{p}}{\rho +p}}D_\mu +t_\mu =0`$ (27)
and the linearized equation for $`t_\mu `$ reads

$`h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}\dot{t}_\nu =\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}P_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Theta }t_\mu +Sh_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}(\dot{u}_{}^{\tau }{}_{;\tau }{}^{})_{;\nu }4\pi G(\rho +p)[D_\mu +3P_\mu ]4\pi G\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (\rho +p)`$ (28)
These equations can be further simplified if we specify the factors in front of the quantities $`D_\mu `$, $`P_\mu `$, for the background spacetime. In particular, in a homogeneous Universe with variable $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the relevant equations for the background evolution read

$`𝒦=2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Theta }^2+8\pi G\rho +\mathrm{\Lambda })={}_{}{}^{(3)}R`$ (29a)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Theta }}+12\pi G(\rho +p)={}_{}{}^{(3)}R/2`$ (29b)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+8\pi \dot{G}\rho =0`$ (29c)
These equations imply that we may set $`S(t)=a(t)`$. In fact, we observe that Eq.(29a) and Eq.(29b) are the $`00`$-component and $`ii`$-component of Einstein’s equation, respectively, provided we identify $`S(t)`$ with the scale factor $`a(t)`$ of the Robertson-Walker line element

$$ds^2=dt^2+a(t)^2\left[\frac{dr^2}{1Kr^2}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\right]$$
(30)
For $`K=0`$ the $`3`$-spaces of constant cosmological time $`t`$ are flat, and for $`K=+1`$ and $`1`$ they are spheres and pseudo-spheres, respectively. The 3-curvature of the $`t=const`$ hyperplane is

$${}_{}{}^{(3)}R=\frac{6K}{a^2}.$$
(31)
As a consequence of the above results, Eq.(28) now reads

$$h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}\dot{t}_\nu =\frac{{}_{}{}^{(3)}R}{2}P_\mu 2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}t_\mu 4\pi G(\rho +p)D_\mu +Sh_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}(\dot{u}_{}^{\tau }{}_{;\tau }{}^{})_{;\nu }4\pi G\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (\rho +p)$$
(32)
Eq.(11), up to linear order, implies :

$$Sh_{}^{\tau }{}_{\nu }{}^{}(\dot{u}_{;\mu }^\mu )_{;\tau }=\frac{^2}{a^2}P_\nu $$
(33)
where $`^2`$ is the Laplacian on the maximally symmetric 3-space. For an equation of state $`p=p(\rho )`$ we may write

$$\dot{p}=c_s^2\mathrm{\Theta }(\rho +p),P_\mu =c_s^2D_\mu .$$
(34)
where $`c_s=(p/\rho )^{1/2}`$ denotes the velocity of sound in the medium. Therefore Eq.(32) becomes

$$h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}\dot{t}_\nu =2\frac{\dot{a}}{a}t_\mu \left[4\pi G(\rho +p)+c_s^2\frac{3K}{a^2}+c_s^2\frac{^2}{a^2}\right]D_\mu 4\pi G\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (\rho +p)$$
(35)
By combining (35) with (27) and (34) and noticing that $`h_{}^{\mu }{}_{\tau }{}^{}(h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }{}^{}\dot{D}_\nu \dot{)}=h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\tau }{}^{}\ddot{D}_\nu \dot{u}_\tau \dot{u}^\nu D_\nu =h_{}^{\nu }{}_{\tau }{}^{}\ddot{D}_\nu `$ up to second order, we get the desired differential equation for the fractional density which is of second order in $`t`$:

$`h_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\ddot{D}_\nu +(23c_s^2){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}h_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\dot{D}_\nu `$ (36)
$`[3(c_s^2\dot{)}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}+4\pi G[(\rho 3p)+2\mathrm{\Lambda }]c_s^2+4\pi G(\rho +p)+c_s^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{a^2}}]D_\mu `$ (37)
$`4\pi G\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (\rho +p)=0`$ (38)
The corresponding first order evolution equation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ reads according to Eq.(26)

$$h_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }(G\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu \dot{)}=c_s^2\mathrm{\Theta }G\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \dot{G}D_\mu $$
(39)
Once the solution for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ is obtained also $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu `$ is known. Eq. (9) yields the simple relationship

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu =\frac{8\pi pG}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu $$
(40)
The coupled system (36), (39), (40) are the general gauge-invariant equations which govern the first order perturbations of cosmologies with variable $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. They are one of our main results. As an immediate consequence of (40) we observe that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu =0`$ in any Universe with $`p=0`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is always spatially constant in this case.

## III RG derived cosmologies

The idea of using the RG flow equation in gravity is borrowed from particle physics where the RG improvement is a standard device in order to add, for instance, the dominant quantum corrections to the Born approximation of a scattering cross section. However, instead of improving solutions, in  the more powerful improvement of the basic equations has been discussed. We shall now briefly review the main results for an homogeneous and isotropic Universe.

We assume that there is a fundamental scale dependence of Newton’s constant which is governed by an exact RG equation for a Wilsonian effective action whose precise nature needs not to be specified here. At a typical length scale $`\mathrm{}`$ or mass scale $`k=\mathrm{}^1`$ those “constants” assume the values $`G(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)`$, respectively. In trying to “RG-improve” Einstein’s equation the crucial step is the identification of the scale $`\mathrm{}`$ or $`k`$ which is relevant in the situation under consideration . In cosmology, the postulate of homogeneity and isotropy implies that $`k`$ can depend on the cosmological time only so that the scale dependence is turned into a time dependence:

$$G(t)G(k=k(t)),\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)\mathrm{\Lambda }(k=k(t))$$
(41)
In principle the time dependence of $`k`$ can be either explicit or implicit via the scale factor: $`k=k(t,a(t),\dot{a}(t),\ddot{a}(t),\mathrm{})`$. In ref.  we gave detailed arguments as to why the purely explicit time dependence

$$k(t)=\xi /t$$
(42)
with $`\xi `$ being a positive constant of order unity is the correct identification. In a nutshell, the argument is that, when the age of the Universe is $`t`$, no (quantum) fluctuation with a frequency smaller than $`1/t`$ can have played any role yet. Hence the integrating-out of modes (“coarse graining”) which underlies the Wilson renormalization group should be stopped at $`k1/t`$. Moreover, other plausible cutoffs, such as $`kH(t)`$, are equivalent to (42) under very general conditions. (See  and  for further details.)

Once the RG trajectory $`k(G(k),\mathrm{\Lambda }(k))`$ is known, the system (2.26) together with (41,42) can be solved. In the following we focus on the vicinity of a fixed point where simple analytical solutions can be found .

To be precise, we assume that within a large basin of attraction the dimensionless quantities $`g(k)k^2G(k)`$ and $`\lambda (k)\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)/k^2`$ get attracted either towards an ultraviolet (UV) fixed point for $`k\mathrm{}`$ or towards an infrared (IR) fixed point for $`k0`$. While the physics of these two situations is quite different (early vs. late Universe) they are rather similar mathematically and we can discuss the two cases in parallel <sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*If both of the fixed points are present one could have a very symmetric scenario with respect to the “birth” and “death” of the Universe where the cosmological evolution amounts to a cross-over from the UV to the IR fixed point. See ref. for a similar cross-over in 2D gravity..

As for the actual derivation of those fixed points from the RG equations, a non-gaussian UV fixed point is known to exist in the Einstein-Hilbert truncation of pure Quantum Einstein Gravity  and in more general truncations . Recently it was also found within the 2 Killing-vector reduction of Quantum Einstein Gravity . For the time being, the existence of an IR fixed point cannot be deduced yet from a (truncated) RG equation because from a technical point of view it is very difficult to follow the RG flow very far towards the IR. The reason is that a reliable description of IR physics most probably requires truncations containing nonlocal invariants. In the second paper of  a first progress was made in this direction. Using a simple, mathematically tractable nonlocal truncation it was shown that there is a scale invariant IR fixed point at which the size of the universe is completely unrelated to the value of the bare cosmological constant. The problem is that this truncation has an interpretation only within euclidean quantum gravity and does not direcly imply the IR fixed point postulated in the present paper. Nevertheless, this investigation suggests that the late Universe, at very large scales, may be regarded as a kind of scale free “critical phenomenon”. A natural way of implementing this general physical picture within Lorentzian gravity is by means of a fixed point for $`g`$ and $`\lambda `$.

It is also conceivable that the postulated IR fixed point is of a completely classical nature  or that the quantum effects of matter fields play an important role .

In the vicinity of a fixed point $`(g_{},\lambda _{})`$ the evolution of the dimensionful $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is approximately given by

$$G(k)=\frac{g_{}}{k^2},\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)=\lambda _{}k^2$$
(43)
From (43) with (42) we obtain the time dependent Newton constant and cosmological constant:

$$G(t)=g_{}\xi ^2t^2,\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=\frac{\lambda _{}\xi ^2}{t^2}$$
(44)
The power laws (44) are valid for $`t0`$ (UV case) or for $`t\mathrm{}`$ (IR case), respectively. If we use these functions $`G(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ in the coupled system (2.26), its solution gives us the scale factor $`a(t)`$ and the density $`\rho (t)`$ of the “RG improved cosmology”.

In the case of a spatially flat Universe $`(K=0)`$ and the equation of state $`p=w\rho `$, which we shall consider in this paper, the system (2.26) with (44) has the following one-parameter family of solutions:

$`a(t)=\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\right)^2(1+w)^4g_{}\lambda _{}\right]^{1/(3+3w)}t^{4/(3+3w)}`$ (45a)
$`\rho (t)={\displaystyle \frac{8}{9\pi (1+w)^4g_{}\lambda _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^4}}`$ (45b)
$`G(t)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}(1+w)^2g_{}\lambda _{}t^2`$ (45c)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)={\displaystyle \frac{8}{3(1+w)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^2}}`$ (45d)
Note in particular that $`at`$ for $`w=1/3`$ and $`at^{4/3}`$ for $`w=0`$. Apart from the constant $`w`$ and the product $`g_{}\lambda _{}`$, the solution (3.5) depends only on a single constant of integration, $``$, whose value affects only the overall scale of $`a(t)`$. Numerically it equals $`8\pi \rho (t)[a(t)]^{3+3w}`$ which, like in standard cosmology, is a conserved quantity. Introducing the critical density

$$\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}(t)\frac{3}{8\pi G(t)}\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2$$
(46)
we find for any value of $`w`$, $`g_{}\lambda _{}`$, and $``$ that $`\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}(t)=2\rho (t)`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=\rho (t)`$. Hence

$$\rho =\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2}\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}$$
(47)
Thus the total energy density $`\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}\rho +\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ equals precisely the critical one: $`\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}(t)=\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}(t)`$.

The exact equality, at any time, of the matter energy density $`\rho `$ and the vacuum energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a nontrivial prediction of the fixed point solution. In terms of the relative densities,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{tot}}=1$$
(48)
Also the Hubble parameter of the solution (3.5)

$$H\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{4}{3+3w}\frac{1}{t}$$
(49)
and its deceleration parameter

$$q\frac{a\ddot{a}}{\dot{a}^2}=\frac{3w1}{4}$$
(50)
are independent of $`g_{}`$, $`\lambda _{}`$ and $``$ . (It can be shown that the standard formula for $`q`$ in terms of the relative densities continues to be correct for all solutions of the improved system (2.6) with an arbitrary RG trajectory: $`q=\frac{1}{2}(3w+1)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.)

## IV Stability of fixed point cosmologies

In Section II we derived a general system of equations governing the dynamics of small perturbations about a cosmology with variable $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In the following we apply this formalism to the fixed point background cosmology of (3.5). We write

$$D^\mu =\delta ^n(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_n^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\gamma ^n(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_n^\mu $$
(51)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n^\mu `$ is an eigenfunction of the Laplacian operator $`^2`$ with (negative) eigenvalues $`\nu _n^2`$:

$$^2\mathrm{\Psi }_n^\mu =\nu _n^2\mathrm{\Psi }_n^\mu $$
(52)
For an equation of state of the type $`p=w\rho `$ we then obtain the following closed system for the perturbed quantities:

$`\ddot{\delta }^n+(23w){\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\dot{\delta }^n\left[4\pi G\rho (1w)(3w+1)+2w\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]\delta ^n+w\nu _n^2\delta ^n=4\pi \rho G\gamma ^n(1+w)`$ (53)
$`\dot{\gamma }^n=3w{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\gamma ^n{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{G}}{G}}\gamma ^n{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{G}}{G}}\delta ^n.`$ (54)
We consider this system in the long wavelength limit for which $`\nu _n0`$. Its solutions are simple power-laws. If we set $`\delta =At^\alpha `$ and $`\gamma =Bt^\beta `$ then, by direct substitution in (53), one finds that $`\beta =\alpha `$, and $`\alpha `$ is obtained by solving a cubic equation. It has three real roots:

$$\alpha _1=\frac{4w}{1+w}\alpha _2=\frac{2(3w1)}{3(w+1)}\alpha _3=\frac{w3}{w+1}$$
(55)
In the late Universe governed by an IR fixed point, $`p=0`$ i.e. $`w=0`$ should be a good approximation to the equation of state. In this case the exponents are $`\alpha =(0,2/3,3)`$. It is not necessary to invoke the long wavelength limit in order to arrive at this result; for $`w=0`$ the eigenvalues $`\nu _n^2`$ drops out from (54) so that we are left with the same equation for perturbations at any wavelength. As a consequence, there are no growing modes of the $`\rho `$ and $`G`$perturbations. Furthermore, as we mentioned already, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is strictly spatially constant in a $`p=0`$ Universe so that there are no inhomogeneous $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$perturbations at all. We conclude that in an IR-fixed point Universe there exist no linear perturbations which would drive the evolution away from the ideal homogeneous and isotropic state. This implies that there is no Jeans-type instability giving rise to the formation of structures on cosmological scales.

This last restriction stems from the fact that the above derivation made essential use of the cutoff identification (42) which assumes that the relevant momentum scale $`k`$ is given by the inverse cosmological time. For a perfectly homogeneous and isotropic Universe this is essentially the unique choice . Therefore the above analysis should apply to perturbations with proper wavelengths on the Megaparsec scale or beyond where the Universe starts looking homogeneous and isotropic. The dynamics of perturbations on smaller length scales is much harder to analyze. The reasons are: (i) It is not clear how to identify the running scale $`k`$ in terms of physical quantities since in presence of inhomogeneities or anisotropies $`1/t`$ is presumably not the only relevant scale. (ii) Smaller lengths correspond to higher values of $`k`$ for which the RG trajectory might still be far away from the IR fixed point. Thus more detailed knowledge about the trajectory $`k(G(k),\mathrm{\Lambda }(k))`$ is necessary.

In order to get a first understanding of what could happen at small length scales let us consider the following “toy-model” RG trajectory. Let us assume that for $`k`$ below a certain critical value, $`G(k)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)`$ run according to the fixed point law (44) and they are approximately constant for $`k`$ well above this critical value. This behavior is motivated by the fact that from laboratory to galactic scales, say, we do not see any variation of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In this model the evolution of the homogeneous and isotropic background is still described by the fixed point cosmology: $`k`$ is small, the RG-trajectory is close to the fixed point, and $`k1/t`$ is the unique cutoff identification. However, if “lumps” form due to the gravitational attraction and if they are sufficiently small then their size can correspond to a $`k`$value smaller than the critical one so that $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are constant across these structures. As a consequence, a density perturbation is not accompanied by a perturbation (spatial inhomogeneity) of $`G`$ in this case.

Small scale perturbations of this type are described by Eq.(53) with $`\gamma ^n0`$ on the RHS,

$$\ddot{\delta }^n+(23w)\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\dot{\delta }^n\left[4\pi G\rho (1w)(3w+1)+2w\mathrm{\Lambda }\right]\delta ^n+w\nu _n^2\delta ^n=0$$
(56)
Formally this equation is the same as in standard cosmology, but now the background evolution is given by the fixed point solution (3.5). If we set $`\delta _n(t)=At^\alpha `$, we obtain

$$\alpha _1=\frac{5(3w1)\sqrt{81w^2+138w+73}}{6(1+w)}\alpha _2=\frac{5(3w1)+\sqrt{81w^2+138w+73}}{6(1+w)}$$
(57)
and there is always a growing mode and a decaying mode, as in the standard case. In deriving (57) we used the long wavelength limit $`\nu _n^2=0`$ in (56). As we are interested in small structures this is not necessarily always allowed, but for the most relevant case $`w=0`$ the eigenvalue $`\nu _n^2`$ drops out again so that (57) is indeed valid for small scale perturbations. For $`w=0`$ the density perturbations grow approximately as

$$\delta (t)t^{0.59}a^{0.44}$$
(58)
In  we developed a cosmology of the Planck era immediately after the Big Bang which was governed by an UV fixed point. In this scenario $`w=1/3`$ is a distinguished choice for the equation of state. From Eq.(55) we read off that in this “radiation dominated Planck era” there exist perturbations which grow as $`\delta (t)ta(t)`$. Interestingly, for $`w=1/3`$, Eq.(56) with $`\nu _n^2=0`$ yields a qualitatively similar result; from (57) we obtain growing modes with $`\delta (t)t^\sqrt{2}a^\sqrt{2}`$.

## V conclusion

We have presented a general covariant framework to investigate the evolution of cosmological perturbations in Robertson-Walker spacetimes with variable $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In comparison to earlier work  on cosmologies with a time dependent $`G`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and possibly fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ the new feature of our model is that the time dependence of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a secondary effect which derives from a more fundamental scale dependence. In a typical Brans-Dicke type theory, say, the dynamics of the Brans-Dicke field $`\mathrm{\Phi }=1/G`$ is governed by a standard local lagrangian with a kinetic term $`(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2`$. In our approach there is no simple lagrangian description of the $`G`$-dynamics. It rather arises from an RG equation for $`G(k)`$ and a cutoff identification $`k=k(x)`$. From the point of view of the gratitational field equations, $`G(x)`$ has the status of an external scalar field.

Our main interest was to analyze a special type of spacetimes where the evolution of $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the background Universe is governed by a RG flow near a fixed point. In this case the flow is very simple and it is possible to obtain explicit solutions in a model independent way. In fact, as for the IR fixed point governing the late-time behavior of the Universe, no further assumptions beyond the very fixed point hypothesis need to be made. In particular, the IR fixed point is not necessarily due to quantum gravity effects as is the UV fixed point, it could have a purely classical origin (for instance within a classical averaging scenario ).

We performed a detailed stability analysis of the fixed point solution (3.5) which was first discussed in . With the equation of state $`p=0`$, appropriate for the late Universe, we found that the IR fixed point cosmology is stable against the formation of large scale inhomogeneities. As a consequence, structure formation on cosmological scales stops by the time when the Universe enters the fixed point regime. We also found that perturbations on small length scales still can grow even in the fixed point epoch. As a very rough estimate, we expect the dividing line between large- and small-scale perturbations to be of the order of the Hubble length.

It also turned out that if the evolution of the Universe immediately after the initial singularity at $`t=0`$ is described by a UV fixed point solution (3.5) with $`w>0`$, there is always an amplification of the small disturbances generated during the quantum gravity era. In particular for $`w=1/3`$ density perturbations grow as $`\delta _na`$. These fluctuations would then emerge as “primordial” density perturbations at the end of the Planck era and follow the subsequent evolution according to the standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker dynamics.

It is clear, though, that the classical isotropy problem of the Big Bang cosmology is not solved by the IR fixed point postulate. A satisfactory solution to this problem would involve starting from a generic inhomogeneous and anisotropic Universe and showing that it evolves into an almost homogeneous and isotropic one long before the time of decoupling. It is intriguing to speculate that RG effects play a crucial role here. In this context it is an encouraging first result that the UV fixed point cosmology is free from the particle horizon present in the radiation dominated standard model .

Clearly more work is needed in order to confront the (IR) fixed point cosmology with the observations. As a first step we compare in  our predictions to the recent high-redshift supernova data. It turns out that, at least as far as these data are concerned, the fixed point model is phenomenologically viable. In ref. we also extend the fixed point model proper by assuming that the fixed point epoch is preceded by an era with a constant $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In this model, because of the accelerated $`t^{4/3}`$-expansion after the transition, perturbations first evolve inside the horizon, then they become larger than the horizon. If we assume that the dividing line between “large” and “small” perurbations is indeed of the order $`H^1`$, then, in the fixed point regime, perturbations first grow inside the horizon with the exponents (58) and at some point they reach the asymptotic constant regime with (55). This behavior is similar to the one found in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated cosmologies and it is a consequence of the cosmic-no hair theorem . We shall come back to the extended model elsewhere.

We also hope to implement this formalism in a more realistic framework, taking into account the presence of dark matter in a multifluid description, in a $`N`$-body simulation where the background solution is given by the IR fixed point cosmology. Also, it will be important to analyze the model in the context of the recent data on the cosmic microwave background radiation and the cluster density data.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank V.Lukash, G.Esposito, P.Forgács, C.Kiefer, C.Rubano, M.Niedermaier and M.Sereno for very interesting discussions. A.B. also acknowledges the warm hospitality of the Physics Departments of the University of Napoli and of Mainz University, where part of this work was written. M.R. would like to thank the Astrophysical Observatory of Catania for the hospitality extended to him.