text:
# Coisotropic and Polar actions on Complex Grassmannians

## 1 Introduction and Preliminaries

The aim of this paper is to present the classification of compact connected subgroups of $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$ acting coisotropically on the complex Grassmannians $`Gr(k,n)=\mathrm{SU}(n)/\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(k)\times \mathrm{U}(nk))`$.
If $`(M,g)`$ is a compact Kähler manifold with Kähler form $`\omega `$ and $`K`$ is a compact connected Lie subgroup of its full isometry group, then the $`K`$-action is called coisotropic or multiplicity free if the principal $`K`$-orbits are coisotropic with respect to $`\omega `$ . Kac  and Benson and Ratcliff  have given the classification of linear multiplicity free representations, from which one has the full classification of coisotropic actions on $`Gr(k,n)`$ for $`k=1`$, i.e. on the complex projective space. It is therefore natural to investigate this kind of actions on complex Grassmannians. Note that, in our analysis, we will always assume $`2k\frac{n}{2};`$ if $`k>\frac{n}{2}`$ we refer to the dual Grassmannian $`Gr(k^{},n),`$ where $`k^{}=nk\frac{n}{2}.`$ Our main result is given in the following

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`K`$ be a compact connected semisimple Lie subgroup of $`\mathrm{SU}(n),`$ acting non transitively on the complex Grassmannians $`M=Gr(k,n)=\mathrm{SU}(n)/\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(k)\times \mathrm{U}(nk)).`$ Then $`K`$ acts coisotropically on $`M`$ if and only if its Lie algebra $`𝔨`$ is conjugate to one of the Lie algebras appearing in Table $`1.`$

Table 1

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ 𝔨& M& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & \\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔬\left(n\right)& Gr(k,n)& \\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔭𝔦𝔫\left(7\right)& Gr(2,8)& 𝔰𝔭𝔦𝔫\left(7\right)𝔰𝔲\left(8\right)viaspinrep.\\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔭\left(n\right)& Gr(k,2n)& \\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔭\left(n\right)& Gr(k,2n+1)& k3\\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔭\left(2\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(n4\right)& Gr(4,n)& n9\\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲\left(l\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(p\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(q\right)& Gr(2,n)& p,q>2,n=p+q+l\\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲\left(l\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(nl2\right)& Gr(2,n)& l,nl>2\\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲\left(l\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(p\right)+𝔰𝔭\left(q\right)& Gr(2,n)& q>1,p>2,n=p+2q+l\\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲\left(l\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(nl1\right)& Gr(k,n)& n>k+l+1,l>k\\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲\left(n1\right)& Gr(k,n)& n4\\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲\left(l\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(nl\right)& Gr(k,n)& knl\mathrm{or}kl\\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲\left(p\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(q\right)& Gr(k,n)& q>k,p>k,n=p+q+1\end{array}$$

All the Lie algebras listed in the first column, unless explicitly specified, are meant to be standardly embedded into $`𝔰𝔲(n),`$ e.g. $`𝔰𝔭(2)+𝔰𝔲(n4)𝔰𝔲(4)+𝔰𝔲(n4)𝔰𝔲(n).`$

In the following theorem we determine all the minimal non-semisimple Lie algebras $`𝔨`$ of the compact connected subgroups of $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$ acting coisotropically on complex Grassmannian.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`K`$ be a not semisimple compact connected Lie subgroup of $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$ acting non transitively on $`M.`$ Then $`K`$ acts coisotropically on $`M`$ if and only if its Lie algebra $`𝔨,`$ up to conjugation, contains one of the Lie algebras appearing in Table $`2,`$ and their semisimple parts coincide.

Table 2

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ 𝔨& M& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & \\ & & \\ 𝔷+𝔰𝔭\left(2\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(4\right)& Gr(4,8)& \\ & & \\ 𝔷+𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)+𝔰𝔭\left(n1\right)& Gr(2,2n)& n3\\ & & \\ 𝔷+𝔰𝔲\left(3\right)+𝔰𝔭\left(n1\right)& Gr(3,2n+1)& n3\\ & & \\ 𝔷+𝔰𝔲\left(k\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(k\right)& Gr(k,2k)& \\ & & \\ & & \\ 𝔱_1+𝔰𝔲\left(n2\right)& Gr(2,n)& n>4,𝔱_1\mathrm{maximal}\mathrm{torus}\mathrm{in}𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)\\ & & \\ 𝔞+𝔰𝔲\left(n2\right)& Gr(k,n)& k>2,n>4\\ & & \\ 𝔞+𝔰𝔭\left(n\right)& Gr(3,2n+1)& \\ & & \\ 𝔞+𝔰𝔭\left(n1\right)& Gr(2,2n)& n2\\ & & \\ 𝔞+𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)& Gr(2,4)& \\ & & \\ 𝔞+𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)& Gr(2,6)& \\ & & \\ 𝔞+𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)+𝔰𝔭\left(n2\right)& Gr(2,2n)& n>3,n=2q+4\\ & & \\ 𝔞+𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)+𝔰𝔭\left(p\right)+𝔰𝔭\left(q\right)& Gr(2,2n)& p,q2,n=2p+2q+2\\ & & \\ 𝔞+𝔰𝔲\left(k\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(k1\right)& Gr(k,2k)& k3\\ & & \\ 𝔞+𝔰𝔲\left(k\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(k\right)& Gr(k,2k+1)& k2\\ & & \\ 𝔞+𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)+𝔰𝔭\left(n1\right)& Gr(2,2n+1)& n>2\\ & & \\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲\left(n4\right)++𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)& Gr(2,n)& n>6\\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲\left(l\right)++𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)+𝔰𝔭\left(q\right)& Gr(2,n)& l>2,q2,n=2q+2+l\\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲\left(l\right)++𝔰𝔭\left(p\right)+𝔰𝔭\left(q\right)& Gr(2,n)& p,q2,n=2p+2q+l,l>2\\ & & \\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲\left(l\right)++𝔰𝔭\left(n1\right)& Gr(2,2n+l1)& n>2,l>2\\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲\left(l\right)++𝔰𝔲\left(nl1\right)& Gr(k,n)& nl+3,l2,k>nl\\ & & \\ & & \\ \left(\frac{n}{k\left(nk\right)}\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(k\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(nk1\right)& Gr(k,n)& n>2k+1\\ & & \\ \left(\frac{\left(k1\right)n}{n1}\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(k1\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(nk\right)& Gr(k,n)& k3\\ & & \\ \left(\frac{qn}{n1}\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(p\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(q\right)& Gr(k,n)& n=p+q+1,p>k,kq+2.\\ & & \\ \left(\frac{nq}{2\left(n2\right)}\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(2\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(p\right)+𝔰𝔭\left(q\right)& Gr(2,n)& p>2,q>1,n=2+p+2q\end{array}$$

The notations used in Table $`2`$ are as follows. We denote with $`𝔷`$ the one dimensional center of the Lie algebra $`𝔥`$ of the group $`H=\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(k)\times \mathrm{U}(nk)),`$ with $`𝔞`$ a Cartan subalgebra of the centralizer of the semisimple part of $`𝔨.`$ In the third block we see that the semisimple part of $`𝔨`$ is given by the sum of three ideals $`𝔨_1𝔰𝔲(l),`$ $`𝔨_2+𝔨_3𝔰𝔲(nl)`$ and we denote by $``$ the centralizer of $`𝔨_2+𝔨_3`$ in $`𝔰𝔲(nl).`$ In the fourth block $``$ denotes the centralizer of $`𝔰𝔭(n1)`$ ($`𝔰𝔲(nl1)`$) in $`𝔰𝔲(2n1)`$ (resp. $`𝔰𝔲(nl).`$ Finally, looking at the last block, we consider in the first three cases the product $`𝔷\times `$ where $``$ is the centralizer of the semisimple part in $`𝔰𝔲(n1)`$. With this notation $`(\alpha )`$ denotes any line in $`𝔷\times `$ different from $`y=\alpha x.`$ In the last case we use the same notations, pointing out that here $``$ is the centralizer of $`𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔭(q)`$ in $`𝔰𝔲(p+2q).`$
Victor Kac  obtained a complete classification (Tables Ia, Ib, in Appendix) of irreducible multiplicity free actions $`(\rho ,V)`$. Most of these include a copy of the scalars $``$ acting on $`V`$. We will say that a multiplicity free action $`(\rho ,V)`$ of a complex group $`G`$ is decomposable if we can write $`V`$ as the direct sum $`V=V_1V_2`$ of proper $`\rho (G)`$-invariant subspaces in such a way that $`\rho (G)=\rho _1(G)\times \rho _2(G)`$, where $`\rho _i`$ denotes the restriction of $`\rho `$ to $`V_i`$. If $`V`$ does not admit such a decomposition then we say that $`(\rho ,V)`$ is an indecomposable multiplicity free action. C. Benson and G. Ratcliff have given the complete classification of indecomposable multiplicity free actions (Tables IIa, IIb Appendix). We recall here their theorem (Theorem 2, pag 154 )

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`(\rho ,V)`$ be a regular representation of a connected semisimple complex algebraic group $`G`$ and decompose $`V`$ as a direct sum of $`\rho (G)`$-irreducible subspaces, $`V=V_1V_2\mathrm{}V_r`$. The action of $`(^{})^r\times G`$ on $`V`$ is an indecomposable multiplicity free action if and only if either

$`r=1`$ and $`\rho (G)\mathrm{GL}(V)`$ appears in Table Ia (see the Appendix);

$`r=2`$ and $`\rho (G)\mathrm{GL}(V_1)\times \mathrm{GL}(V_2)`$ appears in Tables IIa and IIb (see the Appendix).

In  are also given conditions under which one can remove or reduce the copies of the scalars preserving the multiplicity free action. Obviously if an action is coisotropic it continues to be coisotropic also when this action includes another copy of the scalars. We will call minimal those coisotropic actions in which the scalars, if they appear, cannot be reduced.
Let $`K`$ be a compact group acting isometrically on a compact Kähler manifold $`M.`$ We say that $`M`$ is $`K^{}`$-almost homogeneous if $`K^{}`$ has an open orbit in $`M.`$ If all Borel subgroups of $`K^{}`$ act with an open orbit on $`M`$, then the $`K^{}`$-open orbit $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is called a spherical homogeneous space and $`M`$ is called a spherical embedding of $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ We will briefly recall some results that will be used in the sequel.

###### Theorem 1.4.

 Let $`M`$ be a connected compact Kähler manifold with an isometric action of a connected compact group $`K`$ that is also Poisson. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

* The $`K`$-action is coisotropic.
* The cohomogeneity of the $`K`$ action is equal to the difference between the rank of $`K`$ and the rank of a regular isotropy subgroup of $`K`$.
* The moment map $`\mu :M𝔨^{}`$ separates orbits.
* The Kähler manifold $`M`$ is projective algebraic, $`K^{}`$-almost homogeneous and a spherical embedding of the open $`K^{}`$-orbit.

As an immediate consequence of the above theorem one can deduce, under the same hypotheses on $`K`$ and $`M,`$ two simple facts that will be frequently used in our classification:

* Let $`p`$ be a fixed point on $`M`$ for the $`K`$-action, or $`Kp`$ a complex $`K`$-orbit, then the $`K`$-action is coisotropic if and only if the slice representation is coisotropic.
* dimensional condition. If $`K`$ acts coisotropically on $`M`$ the dimension of a Borel subgroup $`B`$ of $`K^{}`$ is not less than the dimension of $`M`$.

A relatively large class of coisotropic actions is provided by polar ones. We recall here that an isometric action of a group $`K`$ is called polar on $`M`$ if there exists a properly embedded submanifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which meets every $`K`$-orbit and is orthogonal to the $`K`$-orbits in all common points. Such a submanifold is called a section, and, if it is flat, the action is called hyperpolar.
A result due to Hermann states that given $`K`$ a compact Lie group and two symmetric subgroups $`H_1`$,$`H_2K`$, then $`H_i`$ acts hyperpolarly on $`K/H_j`$ for $`i,j1,2.`$ Therefore, given an Hermitian symmetric space as $`Gr(k,n)=\mathrm{SU}(n)/\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(k)\times \mathrm{U}(nk))`$ it is clear that subgroups like $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$, $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$ and $`\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(l)\times \mathrm{U}(nl))`$ will act on $`Gr(k,n)`$ hyperpolarly, hence, since for  a polar action on an irreducible compact homogeneous Kähler manifold is coisotropic, these actions are coisotropic.
Once we have determined the complete list of coisotropic actions on $`Gr(k,n),`$ in Table $`2,`$ we have also investigated which ones are polar. Dadok , Heintze and Eschemburg  have classified the irreducible polar linear representations, while I.Bergmann  has found all the reducible polar ones. Using their results we determine in section $`3`$ the polar actions on complex Grassmannians. We get the following

###### Theorem 1.5.

Let $`K`$ be a compact connected Lie subgroup of $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$ acting non transitively on the complex Grassmannians $`M=Gr(k,n)=\mathrm{SU}(n)/\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(k)\times \mathrm{U}(nk)).`$ Then $`K`$ acts polarly on $`M`$ if and only if its Lie algebra $`𝔨`$ is conjugate to one of the Lie algebras appearing in Table $`3.`$

Table 3

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ 𝔨& M& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & \\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔬\left(n\right)& Gr(k,n)& \\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔭\left(n\right)& Gr(k,2n)& \\ & & \\ +𝔰𝔲\left(l\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(nl\right)& Gr(k,n)& \\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲\left(l\right)+𝔰𝔲\left(nl\right)& Gr(k,n)& lnl\end{array}$$

where $``$ is the centralizer of $`𝔰𝔲(nl)+𝔰𝔲(l)`$ in $`𝔰𝔲(n)`$. In particular the $`K`$-action is hyperpolar.

We here briefly explain our method in order to prove our main theorem. Thanks to Theorem 1.4,(iv) we have that if $`K`$ is a subgroup of a compact Lie group $`L`$ such that $`K`$ acts coisotropically on $`M`$ so does $`L`$. As a consequence, in order to classify coisotropic actions on $`Gr(k,n),`$ one may suggest a sort of “telescopic” procedure by restricting to maximal subgroups $`K`$ of $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$, hence passing to maximal subgroups that give rise to coisotropic actions and so on.
In the Appendix we give the complete list of maximal subgroups $`K`$ of $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we prove Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2. We have divided this section in five subsections in each of which we analyze separately one of the maximal subgroups of $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$. In the third section we give the proof of Theorem 1.5.
We enclose, in the Appendix, the tables of irreducible and reducible linear multiplicity free representations (Tables Ia, Ib and Tables IIa, IIb respectively), the table of maximal subgroups of $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$ and $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$ (Tables III, IV) and the table of reduced prehomogeneous triplets (Table V), since we will frequently refer to them in our analysis.

## 2 Proof of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2

In the following subsections we will go through all maximal subgroups $`K`$ of $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$ according to Table III in Appendix.

### 2.1 The case $`K=\mathrm{SO}(n)`$

Note that $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$ is a symmetric subgroup of $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$. The action is polar hence coisotropic on complex Grassmannians. We can now investigate the behaviour of subgroups of $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$. Take a $`k`$-plane $`\pi `$ in $`^n.`$ The $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$-orbit of $`\pi `$ is a real non oriented Grassmannian. Note that the orbit coincides with the set of fixed points of the conjugation, which is an antiholomorphic isometry on $`Gr(k,n)`$, hence the orbit is totally real in $`Gr(k,n)`$. The following proposition is easy to prove using well known properties of the moment map.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`K`$ be a semisimple Lie group which acts on a Kähler manifold $`M`$ with a totally real orbit $`Kp`$ and moment map $`\mu `$. Then $`\mu (Kp)=0.`$

In the sequel we will identify $`𝔨𝔨^{}`$ by means of an $`Ad(K)`$-invariant inner product on $`𝔨.`$
From the previous proposition we deduce that $`0`$ belongs to the image of the moment map $`\mu :Gr(k,n)𝔰𝔬(𝔫).`$ Let now take the subgroup $`K^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$. Obviously its image via the moment map $`\mu ^{}`$ of $`K^{},`$ given by the composition of $`\mu `$ with the projection map $`𝔨𝔨^{}`$, contains $`0.`$ If $`K^{}`$ acts coisotropically, then $`\mu ^{}`$ separates, by Theorem 1.4 (iii), the orbits and therefore $`\mu _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(0)`$ coincides with the real non oriented Grassmannian. The problem is then restricted to the analysis of those subgroups $`K^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$ that act transitively on the real Grassmannian and coisotropically on the complex $`Gr(k,n).`$ The first problem was solved by Onishchick in .
We have to distinguish two cases, namely $`k=2`$ and $`k>2.`$
In the first case we have to consider the subgroups $`G_2`$ and $`Spin(7)`$ of $`\mathrm{SO}(7)`$ and $`\mathrm{SO}(8)`$ respectively. The first one, $`G_2,`$ cannot act coisotropically on $`Gr(2,7)`$ because the Borel subgroup of $`G_2^{}`$ has complex dimension $`8<dimGr(2,7)`$. $`Spin(7)`$ acts, instead, coisotropically on $`Gr(2,8).`$ Note that the totally real orbit is, in this case, the non oriented real Grassmannian $`Gr_{}(2,8)`$ and $`\mathrm{U}(3)`$ is the isotropy subgroup of $`Spin(7)`$. It is well known that the cohomogeneity $`\text{chm}(Gr(2,8),Spin(7))=\text{chm(Slice},\mathrm{U}(3))`$; now, the slice representation of $`\mathrm{U}(3)`$ on $`Gr(2,8)`$ can be deduced immediately from the isotropy representation of $`\mathrm{U}(3)`$, that is given by $`^3(^3)^{}=^3\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(^3)`$, since the orbit is totally real. Furthermore observe that $`\text{rk}(Spin(7))=\text{rk}(\mathrm{U}(3))`$ and the same holds for the principal isotropy subgroups; hence, by Theorem 1.4 (ii), the $`Spin(7)`$-action is coisotropic if and only if the $`\mathrm{U}(3)`$-action is coisotropic. Now, looking at the list of Benson and Ratcliff (Table IIa, Appendix), we conclude that the action of $`\mathrm{U}(3)`$ is coisotropic since the scalars act on $`^3(^3)^{}`$ as $`z(v_1,v_2v_3)=[zv_1,z^2(v_2v_3)]`$ and $`a=1b=2`$.
In the second case, when $`k>2`$, only $`K^{}=Spin(7)`$ acts transitively on the real non oriented Grassmannian of 3-planes in $`^8.`$ As for $`G_2`$, the Borel subgroup of $`Spin(7)`$ is too small: it has, in fact, complex dimension 12 which is smaller than the complex dimension of $`Gr(3,8).`$
This completes the analysis ; we have thus proved that the only subgroups of $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$ which act coisotropically on some Grassmannian $`Gr(k,n)`$ are $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$ and $`Spin(7)\mathrm{SO}(8)`$.

### 2.2 The case $`K=\mathrm{SU}(p)\mathrm{SU}(q)`$.

For simplicity we will denote the group $`\mathrm{SU}(p)\times \mathrm{SU}(q)`$ by $`K\mathrm{SU}(n)`$, with $`n=pq.`$
In this case we will determine the slice representation on a complex orbit, showing that is not coisotropic. We recall the following simple lemma

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`\rho :G\mathrm{GL}(V)`$ be a linear coisotropic representation. If $`V`$ splits as the direct sum $`V_1V_2\mathrm{}V_l`$ of irreducible submodules then $`\rho (G)`$ restricted on each $`V_i`$ is coisotropic.

We have to distinguish two different cases.

1. Either $`p`$ or $`q`$ is bigger than $`k`$. We can assume, for example, that $`pk`$. We choose a $`k`$-dimensional subspace $`W^p`$ and a one-dimensional $`V^q.`$ The stabilizer $`K_\pi `$, where $`\pi `$ is the $`k`$-plane $`WV^p^q,`$ is $`\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(k)\times \mathrm{U}(pk))\times \mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(1)\times \mathrm{U}(q1))`$; it is easy to see that the tangent space $`T_\pi G_r(k,p)=\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ splits, as a $`K_\pi `$-module, as

$$\left(W^{}W^{}\right)\left(V^{}V^{}\right)\left(𝔰𝔩\left(W\right)V^{}V^{}\right)\left(W^{}W^{}V^{}V\right)$$

where $`W^{},V^{}`$ are the orthogonal complements of $`W,V`$ in $`^p,^q`$ respectively. Here we have used the fact that $`W^{}W=𝔰𝔩(W)`$ as $`U(k)`$-modules. The first two factors can be identified with the tangent space at $`\pi `$ of the $`K`$-orbit $`K\pi ,`$ which is therefore complex; on the other hand the summand $`𝔰𝔩(W)V^{}V^{}`$ does not appear in Kac’s list, so that the $`K`$-action is not coisotropic, thanks to Lemma 2.1.
2. $`p`$ and $`q`$ are smaller than $`k`$. Clearly $`k=mp+l`$ where $`m<q`$ and $`l<p`$. Choose an $`l`$-dimensional subspace $`W^p,`$ an $`m`$-dimensional $`V^q,`$ and $`v_{m+1}^qV.`$ We consider a $`k`$-complex plane $`\pi =(^pV)(Wv_{m+1})`$; it is easy to check that the $`K`$-orbit $`K\pi Gr(l,p)\times \mathrm{SU}(q)/\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(1)\times \mathrm{U}(m)\times \mathrm{U}(qm1))`$ is complex. Following the same procedure used in the previous case, with slightly heavier computations, we determine the slice summand $`𝔰𝔩(W^{})V^{}v_{m+1}`$, on which $`Ad(\mathrm{U}(l))\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(m)\times \mathrm{U}(1))`$ acts; this action does not appear in Kac’s list. Hence, using again Lemma 2.1, we can conclude that the $`\mathrm{SU}(p)\mathrm{SU}(q)`$-action cannot be coisotropic.

### 2.3 The case of a simple Lie group $`K=H`$ such that $`\rho (H)`$ is an irreducible representation of complex type.

This case can be analyzed using the work of Sato and Kimura . Throughout this section we will identify the fundamental highest weights $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$ with the corresponding irreducible representations.
We recall here that, given $`G`$ a connected complex linear algebraic group, and $`\rho `$ a rational representation of $`G`$ on a finite dimensional complex vector space $`V,`$ such a triplet $`(G,\rho ,V)`$ is prehomogeneous if $`V`$ has a Zariski dense $`G`$-orbit.

###### Definition 2.1.

Two triplets $`(G,\rho ,V)`$ and $`(G^{},\rho ^{},V^{})`$ are called equivalent if there exist a rational isomorphism $`\sigma :\rho (G)\rho ^{}(G^{})`$ and an isomorphism $`\tau :VV^{}`$, both defined over $``$ such that the diagram is commutative for all $`gG`$.

This equivalence relation will be denoted by $`(G,\rho ,V)(G^{},\rho ^{},V^{})`$.

We say that two triplets $`(G,\rho ,V)`$ and $`(G^{},\rho ^{},V^{})`$ are castling transforms of each other when there exist a triplet $`(\stackrel{~}{G},\stackrel{~}{\rho },V(m))`$ and a positive number $`n`$ with $`m>n1`$ such that

$$(G,\rho ,V)(\stackrel{~}{G}\times \mathrm{SL}(n),\stackrel{~}{\rho }\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,V(m)V(n))$$

and

$$(G^{},\rho ^{},V^{})(\stackrel{~}{G}\times \mathrm{SL}(mn),\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,V(m)^{}V(mn)),$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{}`$ is the contragradient representation of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ on the dual vector space $`V(m)^{}`$ of $`V(m)`$. We recall that $`V(n)`$ is a complex vector space of dimension $`n.`$ A triplet $`(G,\rho ,V)`$ is called reduced if there is no castling transform $`(G^{},\rho ^{},V^{})`$ with $`dimV^{}<dimV.`$ We give here a useful lemma that permits to find relations between coisotropic actions on Grassmannians, which must have an open dense orbit, and prehomogeneous triplets. This can be easily proved as a consequence of Lemma 5 and Proposition 7 pag. 37 in section 3 .

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`G`$ be any complex, connected Lie group. $`G`$ acts with an open dense orbit on $`Gr(k,n)`$ if and only if $`G\times GL(k)`$ acts with an open dense orbit on $`^n^k`$ i.e. $`(G\times \mathrm{GL}(k),\rho ,^n^k)`$ is a prehomogeneous triplet.

Let $`H`$ be a simple group; denote with $`d`$ the degree of $`\rho `$ and with $`V(d)`$ its representation space. We are looking for simple groups $`H`$, whose representation is irreducible and of complex type, that act coisotropically on complex Grassmannians $`Gr(k,d)`$. Recall that one can restrict the analysis to $`2<k\frac{d}{2}`$; in fact for $`k>\frac{d}{2}`$ one can take the dual Grassmannian $`Gr(dk,d).`$ With these notations we state and prove the following

###### Lemma 2.3.

If $`𝔥A_n`$ then the triplet $`(H\times \mathrm{GL}(k),\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_1,V(d)V(k))`$ is reduced.

###### Proof.

Suppose, by contradiction, that the triplet is not reduced. Then there would exist two triplets $`(\stackrel{~}{G},\stackrel{~}{\rho },V(m))`$ and $`(G^{},\rho ^{},V^{}),`$ with $`dimV^{}<dim(V(d)V(k)),`$ such that

$`(H\times \mathrm{GL}(k),\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_1,V(d)V(k))(\stackrel{~}{G}\times \mathrm{SL}(n),\stackrel{~}{\rho }\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,V(m)V(n));`$

$`(G^{},\rho ^{},V^{})(\stackrel{~}{G}\times \mathrm{SL}(mn),\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,V(m)^{}V(mn)).`$

Switching to the Lie algebra level we get, from the first condition $`𝔥+𝔤𝔩(k)d\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{𝔤})+𝔰𝔩(n)`$ which implies, since $`𝔥A_n,`$ that $`n=k`$ and $`m=d`$, and, from the second, we get $`dimV^{}=d(dk)`$. This gives rise to a contradiction since $`dimV^{}dim(V(d)V(k))`$

Sato and Kimura have completely classified the prehomogeneous reduced triplets. Hence the problem, if $`𝔥A_n`$, boils down to see whether the triplet $`(H\times \mathrm{GL}(k),\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_1,V(d)V(k))`$ appears in the list of Sato Kimura (see Table V Appendix). If it is not the case the $`H`$-action is not coisotropic.
We find, for $`k=2,`$ the triplet $`(Spin(7,)\times \mathrm{GL}(2),\mathrm{spin}.\mathrm{representation}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,^8^2)`$; hence $`Spin(7)`$ has an open orbit on $`Gr(2,8);`$ it has already been studied as subgroup of $`\mathrm{SO}(8).`$ This action is coisotropic.
The other groups, arising from the triplets $`(Spin(10)\times \mathrm{GL}(2),\mathrm{half}\mathrm{spin}.\mathrm{representation}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,^{16}^2)`$, $`(G_2\times \mathrm{GL}(2),\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,^7^2)`$ and $`(E_8^{}\times \mathrm{GL}(2),\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,^{27}^2)`$ can be excluded thanks to the dimensional condition.
For $`k>2`$ we find again $`Spin(7)`$ on $`Gr(3,8)`$, and $`Spin(10)`$ on $`Gr(3,16)`$ and they are excluded for the same dimensional reason.
Note that in the list of Sato and Kimura the group $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$ appears; this case will be studied separately in next paragraph.
Now, suppose $`𝔥=A_n`$. We impose the dimensional condition. Denote with $`𝔟`$ the Lie algebra of the Borel subgroup of $`H^{}`$. We get the following inequality

$$dim_{}𝔟dim_{}Gr(k,d)$$

that, when $`𝔥=A_n,`$ becomes

$$\frac{(n1)(n+2)}{2k}+kd.$$
(1)
Using Young diagrams we can write down the degree of each representation.
To solve this case we distinguish the case $`k=2`$ and $`k2.`$ For $`n=2`$ and $`k=2`$ the fact that only $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ are admissible is straightforward. If $`k=2,`$ and $`n3,`$ then it is easy to prove that $`d<\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)<n^2`$ hence, using Proposition 7 and Corollary 8 (pag. 45 section 3 of ), we have only to investigate the representations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n1},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n2},n=3,4.`$ Note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n1}`$ correspond to transitive action of $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$ on $`Gr(k,n).`$ We then find the following two triplets: when $`n=2,`$ $`(\mathrm{SL}(2),2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,S^2(^2))`$ which corresponds to a coisotropic action on the complex projective space and for $`n=4,`$ we get $`(\mathrm{SL}(4),\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,^6)`$ that must be excluded since it is of real type.
In the general case, when $`2<k\frac{d}{2},`$ we can do analogous calculations excluding all the simple groups which act non transitively, i.e which have representations different from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n1}.`$ Indeed we note that

$$d\frac{(n1)(n+2)}{2k}+k\frac{(n1)(n+2)}{6}+\frac{d}{2}$$

hence

$$d\frac{(n1)(n+2)}{3}.$$
(2)
Consider the case $`\rho =\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ separately. The inequality (2) holds for $`n4`$ and the corresponding cases are $`(\mathrm{SL}(3),\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,^3),`$ which corresponds to the transitive action of $`\mathrm{SL}(3)`$ on $`Gr(1,3),`$ and to $`(\mathrm{SL}(4),\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,^6)`$ that can be excluded since it is of real type.
We then study the general case, analyzing $`d(\mathrm{\Lambda }_l)`$, where $`2<l\frac{n}{2}`$ (if $`l>\frac{n}{2}`$ we can consider the dual representation which shares the same behavior). We shall prove that the inequality (2) does not hold if $`\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n1}.`$ Indeed it becomes for $`\rho =\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$,

$$3n(n2)\mathrm{}(nl+1)(n+2)l!$$

with the condition $`n2l>4.`$ This can never be satisfied.
Now, observing that the degree $`d(_im_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i)`$ increases as $`m_i`$ increases it is sufficient to prove that $`m\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n1}`$ do not satisfy condition (2) in order to get our assert. This is a straightforward calculation using Young diagrams.
We conclude that no simple group $`H`$ with $`\rho (H)\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n1}`$ gives rise to a coisotropic action, except for $`Spin(7)\mathrm{SO}(8)`$ and $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)\mathrm{SU}(2n)`$.

### 2.4  The case $`K=\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$.

We now consider the case $`K=\mathrm{Sp}(n)\mathrm{SU}(2n)`$ acting on the Grassmannian $`Gr(k,2n)`$. Note that $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$ is a symmetric subgroup of $`\mathrm{SU}(2n)`$; the action is then polar hence coisotropic on complex Grassmannians. We will now go through the maximal subgroups $`K^{}`$ of $`Sp(n)`$ (see Table IV in the Appendix, for the complete list).
(i) $`K^{}=\mathrm{U}(n).`$ We recall that the subgroup $`K^{}=\mathrm{U}(n)`$ acts on $`^{2n}`$ reducibly, namely as $`\rho _n\rho _n^{}`$ where $`\rho _n`$ denotes the standard representation of $`U(n)`$ in $`^n`$. We consider a $`k`$-dimensional subspace $`\pi ^n`$, since we can always suppose $`kn`$; then $`K^{}\pi =\mathrm{U}(n)/\mathrm{U}(k)\times \mathrm{U}(nk)`$ and $`T_\pi Gr(k,2n)`$ splits, as a $`\mathrm{U}(k)\times \mathrm{U}(nk)`$-module, as $`S^2(\pi ^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\pi ^{})\pi ^{}^{nk}\pi ^{}_{}^{nk}{}_{}{}^{}.`$ This means that $`K^{}\pi `$ is a complex orbit with slice representation $`S^2(\pi ^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\pi ^{})\pi ^{}_{}^{nk}{}_{}{}^{}`$ which is not coisotropic by .
(ii) $`K^{}=\mathrm{SO}(p)\mathrm{Sp}(q),pq=n,p3,q1.`$ Clearly

$$SO(p)\mathrm{Sp}(q)\mathrm{SU}(p)\mathrm{SU}(2q)$$

hence the action cannot be coisotropic as the action of $`\mathrm{SU}(p)\mathrm{SU}(2q)`$ is not (section 2.2).
(iii) $`K^{}=\rho (H),Hsimple,\rho Irr_{},deg\rho =n.`$ With the same estimates on the degree of the representation that we have used in the previous paragraph, it is easy to prove that these groups cannot acts coisotropically on the complex Grassmannians.
(iv) $`K^{}=\mathrm{Sp}(l)\times \mathrm{Sp}(nl).`$ First of all we shall give a complex orbit for the $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$-action. We recall that $`kn.`$ We identify the $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$-module $`^n`$ with $`^{2n}=^n^n`$ endowed with the anti-holomorphic map $`J^{2n}`$ commuting with the $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$-action. If we select a $`k`$-plane $`\pi ^n`$ it is not difficult to see that the stabilizer $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)_\pi `$ is given by $`\mathrm{U}(k)\times \mathrm{Sp}(nk)`$. We have that $`\pi ^{}=J\pi W,`$ where $`W`$ is a quaternionic subspace of complex dimension $`2(nk)`$; note that $`J\pi =\pi ^{}`$ as $`\mathrm{U}(k)`$-modules. The tangent space $`T_\pi Gr(k,2n)`$ splits into irreducible complex $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)_\pi `$-submodules as

$$\pi ^{}\pi ^{}=S^2\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\pi ^{}(\pi ^{}W),$$

while on the other hand the isotropy representation of $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)/\mathrm{Sp}(n)_\pi `$ is given by $`S^2\pi ^{}L`$, where $`L=^k_{}^{nk}`$ as real submodules. From this we see that the slice is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\pi ^{}`$ and that the orbit $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)\pi `$ is complex. Note that this action appears in , this is another way to see that $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$ acts on complex Grassmannians coisotropically.
We now consider $`K^{}=\mathrm{Sp}(l)\times \mathrm{Sp}(nl)`$. We take $`k_1,k_2`$ such that $`k_1l,k_2nl`$ and $`k=k_1+k_2`$. Let $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ be two complex $`k_1`$\- and $`k_2`$-planes in $`^{2l}`$ and $`^{2n2l}`$ respectively, such that the orbits in $`Gr(k_1,2l)`$ and $`Gr(k_2,2n2l)`$ resp. are complex. Let $`\pi =\pi _1\pi _2`$ be the $`k`$-complex plane in $`^{2n}`$. It is easy to see that the stabilizer $`K_\pi ^{}`$ of the $`k`$-plane $`\pi `$ is $`\mathrm{U}(k_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(lk_1)\times \mathrm{U}(k_2)\times \mathrm{Sp}(nlk_2)`$. With the same notation that we have used before, it is easy to check that the slice representation is given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\pi _1)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\pi _2)(\pi _1^{}\pi _2^{})(\pi _1^{}\pi _2^{})(\pi _1^{}W_2)(\pi _2^{}W_1)$$

and looking at Tables IIa, IIb we can conclude that this action is not coisotropic on the complex Grassmannians.
Note that if we consider the $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$-action on the complex Grassmannians, with $`k`$ even, the orbit of the $`k`$-plane $`\pi `$ generated by $`v_1,v_2\mathrm{}v_k`$ and $`Jv_1,Jv_2\mathrm{}Jv_k`$, is totally real (for $`k=2`$ it is $`^{n1}=\mathrm{Sp}(n)/\mathrm{Sp}(1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(n1)`$). We may restrict our analysis, as in the $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$ case, to those subgroups of $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$ that act transitively on the totally real orbit, and coisotropically on the complex Grassmannians. In  one can find that no subgroups of $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$ can act transitively on the totally real orbit. This gives another proof, when $`k`$ is even, of the fact that no subgroup of $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$ can act coisotropically on $`Gr(k,n)`$.

### 2.5 The reducible case

We can investigate directly the subgroups $`L`$ of $`K=\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(l)\times \mathrm{U}(nl))`$ because $`K`$ acts coisotropically on the complex Grassmannians.
Recall that, in the sequel, we always assume $`1<k\frac{n}{2}`$. If $`k>\frac{n}{2}`$ we refer to the dual Grassmannian $`Gr(k^{},n),`$ where $`k^{}=nk\frac{n}{2}.`$
With this assumption we divide the reducible case in three paragraphs: in the first one we will analyze the case $`k=l`$, namely when the group $`K`$ has a fixed point in $`Gr(k,n)`$; in the second we suppose $`k<l,nl`$, finally in the third one we complete the analysis studying the case $`k<l,k>nl`$. We will also, for simplicity switch to the Lie algebra level, denoting by $`𝔷`$ the one dimensional center of the Lie algebra $`𝔨`$ of $`K.`$

#### 2.5.1 The fixed point case

Consider $`LK=\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(k)\times \mathrm{U}(nk))`$ and $`\pi =^k`$ a fixed $`k`$-plane. Let $`𝔩`$ be the Lie algebra of $`L,`$ $`𝔩𝔰𝔲(k)+𝔰𝔲(nk)+=𝔨.`$ Suppose $`𝔩`$ acts coisotropically. We consider the projections $`\rho _1:𝔩𝔰𝔲(k),`$ $`\rho _2:𝔩𝔰𝔲(nk)`$ and we put $`𝔩_i=\rho _i(𝔩).`$ This means that $`𝔷+𝔩_1+𝔩_2`$ acts coisotropically. We distinguish some cases according to the irreducibility of $`𝔩_i`$ on the slice $`S`$ at $`\pi =^k,`$ that is given by $`(^k)^{}^{nk}.`$ In the sequel we refer to Tables Ib, IIa and IIb in the Appendix, for all the conditions under which one can remove the scalars preserving the multiplicity free action.
(1) $`𝔩_1`$ and $`𝔩_2`$ act both irreducibly on $`(^k)^{}`$ and $`^{nk}`$ respectively. Since $`𝔩_i𝔰𝔲(k)`$ or $`𝔰𝔲(nk),`$ we have that $`𝔩_i`$ are centerless. Hence $`𝔩_1+𝔩_2`$ is semisimple and acts irreducibly on $`(^k)^{}^{nk}`$ from Table Ia we get

| n. | $`𝔩_1`$ | $`𝔩_2`$ | $`\mathrm{conditions}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | $`𝔰𝔲(k)`$ | $`𝔰𝔲(nk)`$ |  |
| 2. | $`𝔰𝔭(2)`$ | $`𝔰𝔲(k)`$ | $`k4`$ |
| 3. | $`𝔰𝔲(2)`$ | $`𝔰𝔭(\frac{n2}{2})`$ | $`n2`$ |
| 4. | $`𝔰𝔲(3)`$ | $`𝔰𝔭(\frac{n3}{2})`$ |  |

Note that each $`𝔩_i`$ has trivial centralizer in $`𝔰𝔲(k)`$ (or in $`𝔰𝔲(nk)`$), so that the centralizer of $`𝔩`$ in $`𝔨`$ coincides with the center $`𝔷.`$ Moreover, except in case 1, when $`k=nk,`$ we have that $`𝔩_1`$ is not isomorphic to $`𝔩_2`$, so that $`𝔩𝔩_1+𝔩_2`$ or $`𝔩𝔩_1+𝔩_2+𝔷`$ or $`𝔩𝔰𝔲(\frac{n}{2})^\mathrm{\Delta }𝔰𝔲(\frac{n}{2})+𝔰𝔲(\frac{n}{2})+𝔷`$ or $`𝔩𝔰𝔲(\frac{n}{2})^\mathrm{\Delta }+𝔷.`$ Note also that the scalars are always needed except in case $`1`$, $`k\frac{n}{2}`$, and case $`2`$, $`k5`$, while the center $`𝔷`$ always acts non-trivially on the tangent space. The case $`𝔩𝔷+𝔰𝔲(\frac{n}{2})^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be excluded simply by the dimensional condition. Summing up we have the following minimal coisotropic actions

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝔩& M& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & \\ 𝔰𝔲(k)+𝔰𝔲(nk)& Gr(k,n)& 2kn\\ 𝔷+𝔰𝔲(k)+𝔰𝔲(k)& Gr(k,2k)& \\ 𝔰𝔭(2)+𝔰𝔲(n4)& Gr(4,n)& n9\\ 𝔷+𝔰𝔭(2)+𝔰𝔲(4)& Gr(4,8)& \\ 𝔷+𝔰𝔲(2)+𝔰𝔭(n1)& Gr(2,2n)& n3\\ 𝔷+𝔰𝔲(3)+𝔰𝔭(n1)& Gr(3,2n+1)& n3\end{array}$$

(2) Suppose $`𝔩_i`$ acts irreducibly and $`𝔩_j`$ acts reducibly ($`ij,1i,j2`$). Assume, for example, $`𝔩_1`$ acts irreducibly on $`(^k)^{}`$ and $`𝔩_2`$ reducibly on $`^{nk}.`$ Thus the second factor splits as the direct sum $`V_oV^1\mathrm{}V^jV_1\mathrm{}V_r`$ of irreducible $`𝔩_2`$-submodules. We denote by $`V_o`$ the submodule on which the action is trivial; while $`V^k`$ are the non-trivial submodules of dimension one and $`V_k`$ the ones that have dimension bigger than $`1`$. Using Theorem 1.3, we have that $`dimV_o2`$ and $`r+j2`$. We distinguish some cases according to the dimension of $`V_o.`$
When $`dimV_o=nk=2`$ we have $`r=0`$ and $`j=0`$, recalling that $`2kn,`$ we conclude that $`k=2`$. In this case $`𝔩=𝔰𝔲(2)`$ because $`𝔩_2=0;`$ since the scalars cannot be removed when $`𝔰𝔲(2)`$ acts diagonally, the action is not multiplicity free.
If $`dimV_o=1`$ either $`r=1`$ and $`j=0`$ or $`r=0`$ and $`j1.`$
Since the trace $`tr(\rho _2(X))=0`$ for all $`X𝔩,`$ if $`r=0`$ then $`j=0`$ and in particular $`k=1,`$ ( $`2kn=k+1`$) contrary to our assumption. We have the following possibilities, from Tables IIa and IIb.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}n.& 𝔩_1& 𝔩_2& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & & \\ 1.& 𝔰𝔲(k)& 𝔰𝔲(nk1)& nk+3\\ 2.& 𝔰𝔲(2)& 𝔰𝔭(\frac{n3}{2})& n7,k=2\end{array}$$

From this we see that $`𝔩𝔷+𝔩_1+𝔩_2.`$ Note that when $`n>2k+1`$ in case $`1`$ the scalars can be reduced while in case $`2`$, scalars can never be reduced. Summing up we conclude that only $`𝔷+𝔰𝔲(k)+𝔰𝔲(nk1)`$ on $`Gr(k,n),`$ $`n>2k+1,`$ gives rise to a coisotropic action.
The last case arises when $`dimV_o=0.`$ We have $`r+j=2`$, otherwise we fall again in the case in which both the actions were irreducible.
If $`r=2`$ by Tables IIa and IIb we have

$$\begin{array}{cccc}n.& 𝔩_1& 𝔩_2& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & & \\ 1.& 𝔰𝔲(2)& 𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔲(q)& p+q=n2,p,q2\\ 2.& 𝔰𝔲(2)& 𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔭(q)& p+2q=n2,p2,q>1\\ 3.& 𝔰𝔲(2)& 𝔰𝔭(p)+𝔰𝔭(q)& 2p+2q=n2,p,q>1\end{array}$$

Note that the centralizer is $`𝔷+`$, where $``$ denotes the centralizer of $`𝔩_2`$ in $`𝔰𝔲(n2).`$ We recall briefly the action of $`𝔷`$ and $``$ on the slice that is given by

$$(\pi ^{}V_1)(\pi ^{}V_2).$$

$`𝔷`$ acts as $`(e^{i(\frac{\varphi }{2}+\frac{\varphi }{n2})},e^{i(\frac{\varphi }{2}+\frac{\varphi }{n2})})`$ while $``$ acts as $`(e^{i\frac{\psi }{p}},e^{i\frac{\psi }{q}}).`$
By Table IIa the scalars, in the first case, can be removed if $`p`$ and $`q`$ are bigger than $`2`$ while they cannot be reduced if $`p=q=2.`$ If $`p=2`$ and $`q>2`$ the scalars cannot be reduced if the action on the first factor is trivial: this happens when we consider the line $`\psi =\frac{n}{n2}\varphi ,`$ which one can show easily that corresponds to the centralizer of $`𝔰𝔲(n4)+𝔰𝔲(4)`$ in $`𝔰𝔲(n).`$
In the second case the scalars cannot be reduced if $`p=2.`$ If $`p>2`$ then the scalars are needed if the action on the second factor is trivial, that corresponds to the line $`\psi =\frac{nq}{2(n2)}\varphi .`$
Finally in the third case the scalars can never be reduced.
Here we give the corresponding minimal coisotropic actions. In what follows we will denote by $`(\alpha )`$ the lines different from $`y=\alpha x`$ where $`(x,y)𝔷+.`$

$$\begin{array}{cccc}n.& 𝔩& M& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & & \\ 1.& 𝔷+𝔰𝔲(2)++𝔰𝔲(2)+𝔰𝔲(2)& Gr(2,6)& \\ 2.& 𝔰𝔲(2)+𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔲(q)& Gr(2,n)& p\mathrm{and}q>2,p+q=n2\\ 3.& (\frac{n}{n2})+𝔰𝔲(2)+𝔰𝔲(2)+𝔰𝔲(n4)& Gr(2,n)& n>6\\ 4.& (\frac{nq}{2(n2)})+𝔰𝔲(2)+𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔭(q)& Gr(2,n)& p>2,q>1,n=2+p+2q\\ 5.& 𝔷+𝔰𝔲(2)++𝔰𝔲(2)+𝔰𝔭(n2)& Gr(2,2n))& n>3\\ 6.& 𝔷+𝔰𝔲(2)++𝔰𝔭(p)+𝔰𝔭(q)& Gr(2,2n)& p>1,q>1,2p+2q=n2\end{array}$$

Suppose now $`j=1`$ and $`r=1`$. We obtain

$$\begin{array}{cccc}n.& 𝔩_1& 𝔩_2& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & & \\ 1.& 𝔰𝔲(k)& 𝔰𝔲(nk1)+& nk+3\\ 2.& 𝔰𝔲(2)& 𝔰𝔭(\frac{n3}{2})+& n7,k=2\end{array}$$

Note that the centralizer is again $`𝔷+`$, where $``$ is the centralizer of $`𝔩_2`$ in $`𝔰𝔲(nk).`$ Clearly $`𝔩`$ can be $`𝔷++𝔰𝔲(k)^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ but this case does not hold for dimensional reasons. The scalars acts as follows: $`𝔷`$ acts as $`(e^{i(\frac{\varphi }{k}+\frac{\varphi }{nk})},e^{i(\frac{\varphi }{k}+\frac{\varphi }{nk})}),`$ and $``$ as $`(e^{i\psi },e^{i\frac{\psi }{nk1}}).`$ Hence, with the same arguments used above, we get

$$\begin{array}{cccc}n.& 𝔩& M& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & & \\ 1.& 𝔷+𝔰𝔲(k)++𝔰𝔲(k1)& Gr(k,2k)& k3\\ 2.& 𝔷+𝔰𝔲(k)++𝔰𝔲(k)& Gr(k,2k+1)& k2\\ 3.& (\frac{n}{(nk)k})+𝔰𝔲(k)+𝔰𝔲(nk1)& Gr(k,n)& n>2k+1\\ 5.& 𝔷++𝔰𝔲(2)+𝔰𝔭(n1)& Gr(2,2n+1)& n>2\end{array}$$

Finally if $`j=2`$, we get that $`nk=2`$, hence $`k=2,`$ $`𝔩_2=𝔱_1𝔰𝔲(2)`$ is a torus and we have the corresponding diagonal action of $`𝔰𝔲(2)`$ on the slice, given by $`^2^2.`$ Note that, in this case, the centralizer coincides with $`𝔷+𝔱_1`$, hence the action of $`𝔷+𝔱_1+𝔰𝔲(2)`$ on $`Gr(2,4)`$ is multiplicity free but the scalar cannot be reduced.

Now assume $`𝔩_1`$ acts reducibly and $`𝔩_2`$ acts irreducibly. Following the same procedure used in the symmetric case we find either the dual cases, i.e. where one interchange the roles of $`k`$ and $`nk`$, or cases already found. Only when, with the same notations used above, $`(^k)^{}=W_oW^1\mathrm{}W^mW_1\mathrm{}W_s`$ and $`dimW_o=0,`$ $`m=2`$ and $`s=0`$, we get another different coisotropic action. Clearly, again by Tables IIa and IIb, $`k=2`$ and on the slice we have $`𝔰𝔲(n2)`$ or $`𝔰𝔭(\frac{n2}{2})`$ acting diagonally on $`^{n2}^{n2}.`$ The scalars can be reduced if $`n4`$ in the first case, while in the second case the scalars are needed. We note also that $`𝔩_1`$ is a torus, denoted by $`𝔱_1,`$ in $`𝔰𝔲(2).`$ Hence we have, with the same notation used above, the following multiplicity free actions.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}n.& 𝔩& M& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & & \\ 1.& 𝔱_1+𝔰𝔲(n2)& Gr(2,n)& n>4\\ 2.& 𝔷+𝔱_1+𝔰𝔭(n1)& Gr(2,2n)& n2\end{array}$$

(3) $`𝔩_1`$ and $`𝔩_2`$ act both reducibly on $`(^k)^{}`$ and $`^{nk}`$ respectively. We can split $`(^k)^{}=W_oW^1\mathrm{}W^mW_1\mathrm{}W_s`$ as $`𝔩_1`$-irreducible submodules and $`^{nk}=V_oV^1\mathrm{}V^jV_1\mathrm{}V_r`$ as $`𝔩_2`$-irreducible submodules. First of all note that $`r0`$ or $`s0,`$ otherwise the dimensional condition is not satisfied. We here investigate the possible dimensions of $`V_o`$ and $`W_o`$. Assume that $`V_o,W_o0;`$ then $`𝔩_1+𝔩_2`$ acts trivially on $`V_oW_o`$ and $`𝔩`$ acts coisotropically, so that $`𝔩`$ has no trivial projection along $`𝔷`$ which acts on $`V_oW_o.`$ Since $`dim𝔷=1,`$ we must have $`dim(V_oW_o)1.`$ On the other hand $`dimW_o,dimV_o2.`$ Indeed, assume by contradiction, $`dimW_o>2.`$ Clearly $`r=0,`$ otherwise we have too many terms in the slice; on the other hand by dimensional reasons $`s`$ has to be greater or equal than $`1`$. Recall also that $`tr(\rho _2(X))=0,X𝔩`$ so $`dimV_o=0`$ and $`j=2`$ or $`dimV_o>0`$ and $`j=0`$. The first case is excluded otherwise $`k=2`$ that is impossible since $`kdimW_o>2`$. Hence $`dimV_o0`$ so $`dim(W_oV_o)2`$ that is a contradiction.
Note also that we have a symmetry between $`W_o`$ and $`V_o`$ so we have only four cases. Our aim is to prove none of these gives a coisotropic action. We will analyze the one in which $`dimV_o=dimW_o=1`$ because the others are quite similar. We know that $`r`$ or $`s`$ must be positive. Assume, for example, $`r1.`$ Since $`\rho _1(l)𝔰𝔲(k)`$ then, again by the condition on the trace, $`m=0.`$ In particular $`s`$ has to be greater, as $`k>1,`$ or equal to $`1`$ so $`j=0`$ as before. Now in the slice representation appears the indecomposable factor $`(W_1V_o)(V_1W_o)(W_1V_1),`$ hence the action cannot be multiplicity free. Clearly the case $`s1`$ is exactly the same.

#### 2.5.2 The case $`k<l,k<nl`$

Let $`L\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(l)\times \mathrm{U}(nl))`$. Let $`\pi _1`$ be a complex $`k`$-plane in $`^l`$ and let $`\pi _2`$ be a complex $`k`$-plane in $`^{nl}`$. Clearly $`K\pi _i`$ are complex orbits so if $`LK`$ acts on $`Gr(k,n)`$ coisotropically then it acts also on $`K\pi _i`$, $`i=1,2`$, coisotropically (see  Restriction Lemma).
With the same notations used in the previous case we denote by $`𝔩_1`$ (resp. $`𝔩_2`$) the projection of $`𝔩`$ on $`𝔰𝔲(l)`$ (resp. $`𝔰𝔲(nl)`$). We have the following possibilities:

$`𝔩_i,i=1,2`$ acts transitively on $`K\pi _i`$ ;

$`𝔩_i`$ acts transitively and $`𝔩_j(𝔩)`$ acts coisotropically ($`ijmod\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$);

$`𝔩_i,i=1,2`$ acts coistropically.

(1) $`𝔩_1=𝔰𝔲(l)`$ and $`𝔩_2=𝔰𝔲(nl).`$ The simply connected group with Lie algebra $`𝔩=𝔩_1+𝔩_2`$ is $`L=\mathrm{SU}(l)\times \mathrm{SU}(nl)`$ and $`L\pi _1`$ is a complex orbit. Furthermore, it is easy to see that the slice representation is given by $`S=\pi _1^{}^{nl}`$. On the slice $`S`$ we have, looking at Tables Ia, Ib, the irreducible multiplicity free action of $`𝔰𝔲(k)+𝔰𝔲(nl)`$, where $`knl,`$ and $`k,nl2.`$ Hence, under these conditions, we get that this action is multiplicity free. Note that when $`l=nl`$ then $`𝔩`$ should be also $`+𝔰𝔲(l)^\mathrm{\Delta }`$, but this case is not coisotropic for dimensional reasons.
(2.a) $`𝔩_1=𝔰𝔲(l)`$ and $`𝔩_2=𝔰𝔬(nl)`$ (or $`𝔰𝔭(nl)`$). We can take a complex $`𝔰𝔬(nl)`$ (resp. $`𝔰𝔭(nl)`$)-orbit in $`^{nl}`$ and it is easy to see that the slice representation contains the submodule $`S^2(\pi _2)\pi _2^{}^l`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\pi _2)\pi _2^{}^l`$). The stabilizer’s factor $`\mathrm{U}(k)`$ acts diagonally on $`S^2(\pi _2)`$ (resp. on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\pi _2)`$ ) and on $`\pi _2^{}`$. This kind of indecomposable action does not appear in Table II, hence these actions fail to be coisotropic.
(2.b) $`𝔩_1=𝔰𝔲(l)`$ and $`𝔩_2+𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔲(q),`$ where $`p+q=nl`$ and $``$ is the centralizer of $`𝔩_2`$ in $`𝔰𝔲(nl).`$ The slice representation relative to the complex orbit $`\mathrm{SU}(l)\pi _1`$ is given by $`S=\pi _1^{}^{nl}`$. We can decompose $`^{nl}`$ as $`𝔩_2`$-irreducible submodules as follows $`V_oV^1\mathrm{}V^jV_1\mathrm{}V_r,`$ with the same notations used in the fixed point case. Note that again $`dimV_o2`$ and $`r+j2.`$ We will follow exactly the same procedure used when $`k=l`$ distinguishing three different cases, namely when $`dimV_o=2,1`$ or $`0.`$
When $`dimV_o=2`$ we have $`^{nl}=V_o`$ that implies, since $`k1,`$ $`k=2=nl,`$ which is not our case, since $`k<nl.`$
If $`dimV_o=1`$ it is easy to see that $`^{nl}`$ splits as the direct sum $`V_1`$, i.e $`j=0`$ and $`r=1.`$ The slice becomes $`S=\pi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}V_1,`$ hence on the slice $`_s+𝔰𝔲(k)+𝔰𝔲(nl1)`$ or $`_s+𝔰𝔲(2)+𝔰𝔭((nl1)/2)`$ act, where $`𝔰𝔲(k)+_s`$ acts diagonally on $`\pi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and where $`_s𝔰𝔲(l)`$ is the determinant condition of the stabilizer’s factor $`\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(k)\times \mathrm{U}(lk))`$ since $`k<l.`$ The centralizer of $`𝔩`$ coincides with $`𝔠+_s`$, where the centralizer $`𝔠`$ of $`𝔰𝔲(l)+𝔰𝔲(nl)`$ in $`𝔰𝔲(n)`$ acts as $`(e^{i(\frac{n\varphi }{(nl)l})},e^{i(\frac{n\varphi }{(nl)l})})`$, while $`_s`$ acts as $`(e^{i(\frac{\psi }{k})},e^{i(\frac{\psi }{k})}):`$ that corresponds to a single scalar action. Note that, only in case $`1,`$ when $`n>k+l+1,`$ one can reduce the scalars. Hence we find only the coisotropic action of $`𝔰𝔲(l)+𝔰𝔲(nl1)`$ on $`Gr(k,n),`$ where $`n>k+l+1.`$
Suppose now $`dimV_o=0.`$ Assume first $`r=2.`$ The slice $`S`$ splits as $`\pi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}V_1\pi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}V_2,`$ hence $`k=2`$ and on the slice we have the following multiplicity free actions

$$\begin{array}{cccc}n.& 𝔥_1& 𝔩_2& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & & \\ 1.& _s+𝔰𝔲(2)& 𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔲(q)& p+q=nl,p,q2\\ 2.& _s+𝔰𝔲(2)& 𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔭(q)& p+2q=nl,p2,q1\\ 3.& _s+𝔰𝔲(2)& 𝔰𝔭(p)+𝔰𝔭(q)& 2p+2q=nl,p,q1\end{array}$$

where $`𝔥_1`$ denotes the factor of the stabilizer of $`\pi _1`$ that acts on $`\pi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}.`$ Note that the centralizer of $`𝔩`$ in $`𝔨`$ is $`𝔠+_s+.`$ Here we give the corresponding minimal coisotropic actions,

$$\begin{array}{cccc}n.& 𝔩& M& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & & \\ 1.& 𝔰𝔲(l)++𝔰𝔲(2)+𝔰𝔲(2)& Gr(2,n)& n=l+4\\ 2.& 𝔰𝔲(l)+𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔲(q)& Gr(2,n)& p,q>2,p+q=nl\\ 3.& 𝔰𝔲(l)+𝔰𝔲(2)+𝔰𝔲(nl2)& Gr(2,n)& k<l,nl\\ 4.& 𝔰𝔲(l)+𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔭(q)& Gr(2,n)& p>2,p+2q=nl\\ 5.& 𝔰𝔲(l)++𝔰𝔲(2)+𝔰𝔭(q)& Gr(2,n)& 42q=nl2\\ 6.& 𝔰𝔲(l)++𝔰𝔭(p)+𝔰𝔭(q)& Gr(2,n)& 2p+2q=nl,p,q2\end{array}$$

Suppose now $`j=1`$ and $`r=1`$. We obtain, with the same arguments used in the fixed point case, and recalling that the centralizer is again $`𝔠+`$ the following minimal coisotropic actions:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}n.& 𝔩& M& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & & \\ 1.& 𝔰𝔲(l)++𝔰𝔲(nl1)& Gr(k,n)& k=nl12\\ 2.& 𝔰𝔲(l)+𝔰𝔲(nl1)& Gr(k,n)& n>k+l+1\\ 3.& +𝔰𝔲(l)+𝔰𝔭(n1)& Gr(2,2n+l1)& n>2\end{array}$$

Finally if $`j=2`$ and $`r=0`$ we get that $`nl=2`$, hence $`k=1`$, that is not our case.
(3) Note that, by (2.a), we can restrict our analysis to the case in which the two projections are contained into reducible subgroups; that is $`𝔩_1+𝔰𝔲(p_1)+𝔰𝔲(q_1),p_1+q_1=l`$ and $`𝔩_2+𝔰𝔲(p_2)+𝔰𝔲(q_2),p_2+q_2=nl.`$ We want to prove that this action fails to be multiplicity free.
Take $`\pi _1`$ a complex $`k_1`$-plane in $`^{p_1}`$ and $`\pi _2`$ a complex $`k_2`$-plane in $`^{q_1}`$, where $`k_1+k_2=k.`$ The orbit $`\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(p_1)\times \mathrm{U}(q_1))(\pi _1\pi _2)`$ is complex and it is easy to check that the slice is given by

$$(\pi _1^{}\pi _2^{})(\pi _1^{}^{p_2})(\pi _1^{}^{q_2})(\pi _2^{}\pi _1^{})(\pi _2^{}^{q_2})(\pi _2^{}^{p_2}).$$

where $`\pi _1^{}`$ (resp. $`\pi _2^{})`$ denotes the orthogonal complement of $`\pi _1`$ (resp. $`\pi _2`$) in $`^p`$ (resp. $`^q`$).
Note that only the case $`k_1=k_2=1`$ is admissible since, otherwise there would be at least three terms on which for example $`𝔰𝔲(k_1)`$ (if $`k_1>1`$) acts. Then, under this assumption, there must be, for example $`p_1>1,`$ otherwise $`p_1+p_2+q_1+q_2=n=4,`$ and the corresponding action is not coisotropic for dimensional reasons. Take a $`2`$-plane $`\pi `$ in $`^{p_1}`$, then in the slice appears the term $`\pi ^{}^{p_2}\pi ^{}^{q_1}\pi ^{}^{q_2},`$ hence the action is not coisotropic.

#### 2.5.3 The case $`k<l,k>nl`$

We can take a $`k`$-plane $`\pi ^l`$ and determine the complex $`K`$-orbit. By the restriction lemma we have that the projection $`\rho _1(𝔩)=𝔩_1`$ must act coisotropically on the complex orbit $`Gr(k,l).`$ Therefore we may have two possible situations, namely when the action is transitive, i.e $`𝔩_1=𝔰𝔲(l)`$, or when $`𝔩_1`$ acts coisotropically on $`Gr(k,l)`$.
(1) Suppose $`𝔩_1=𝔰𝔲(l).`$ Note that $`𝔩_1`$ acts on the first factor of the slice $`S=\pi ^{}^{nl}`$ irreducibly; while the second factor can split as the direct sum of irreducible $`𝔩_2`$-submodules. Following the same procedure we have used when both $`l,nl>k,`$ and with the same notations, we have $`dimV_o2,`$ and $`^{nl}`$ can split as at most two summands.
When $`dimV_o=2`$ the action is not coisotropic, as the diagonal action of $`𝔰𝔲(k)`$ needs the scalars indeed the center acts as $`z(z^a,z^a).`$
If $`dimV_o=1`$ then $`r=1`$ and $`j=0`$, or $`j=r=0;`$ in the first case the only possibility is the action of $`𝔰𝔲(k)+𝔰𝔲(nl1)`$, $`nl3`$, on the slice; note that the scalars are removable if and only if $`nl1>k`$ which is not our case, hence the action is not multiplicity free. In the second case, by Table Ia, we get the multiplicity free action of $`𝔰𝔲(n1).`$
Finally if $`dimV_o=0`$ we obtain the same cases found in (2.b) (when $`dimV_o=0`$). However, note that the groups arising when $`r=2`$ and $`j=0`$ have to be excluded since otherwise, by Tables IIa, IIb, $`k=2`$ and $`2>nl=dimV_1+dimV_24`$ that gives rise to a contradiction. On the other hand the case arising when $`j=2`$ and $`r=0`$ has to be considered. In this situation $`𝔩_2=𝔱_1`$ and $`l=n2`$.
Summing up, when the $`𝔩_2`$-action is reducible, we get the following coisotropic actions :

$$\begin{array}{cccc}n.& 𝔩& M& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & & \\ 1.& 𝔰𝔲(l)++𝔰𝔲(nl1)& Gr(k,n)& nl+5,k>nl\\ 2.& 𝔱_1+𝔰𝔲(n2)& Gr(k,n)& k>2\end{array}$$

When the $`𝔩_2`$-action is irreducible, with the same arguments that we have used in the fixed point case, we have the following multiplicity free actions.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}n& 𝔩& M& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & & \\ 1.& 𝔰𝔲(n1)& Gr(k,n)& n4\\ 2.& 𝔰𝔲(l)+𝔰𝔲(nl)& Gr(k,n)& k,nl2\\ 3.& 𝔰𝔭(2)+𝔰𝔲(n4)& Gr(k,n)& 5<k\frac{n}{2}\end{array}$$

(2) Suppose now that $`𝔩_1`$ acts coisotropically on $`Gr(k,l).`$ We will test all the maximal subgroups of $`\mathrm{SU}(l)`$ that act multiplicity free on $`Gr(k,l)`$ and then, according to the analysis that we have already done, we will go through all their subgroups still acting coisotropically. The idea will be always the same, we choose a complex orbit, we find the slice representation and we determine under which conditions the action appears in Tables Ia or IIa, IIb.

$`𝔩_1=𝔰𝔬(l).`$ The slice $`S=S^2(\pi ^{})(\pi ^{}^{nl})`$ does not appear in Tables IIa, IIb; hence the action is not coisotropic.

$`𝔩_1=𝔰𝔭(l/2).`$ The slice is $`S=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\pi ^{})(\pi ^{}^{nl})`$ where $`\mathrm{U}(k)`$ acts diagonally on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\pi ^{})\pi ^{}`$. It appears in Table IIa or IIb iff $`nl=1`$, i.e. $`l=n1.`$ The scalars act on the slice as $`z(z^a,z^a)`$. Therefore, by Tables IIa and IIb, $`𝔰𝔭((n1)/2)𝔰𝔲(n1)`$ acts coisotropically on $`Gr(k,n)`$ for $`k3`$; if $`k=3`$, the slice becomes $`S=\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ and $`+𝔰𝔭(n)`$ act coisotropically on $`Gr(3,2n+1).`$ Note that no subgroup of $`\mathrm{Sp}(n1/2)`$ can act coisotropically on the complex Grassmannian.

$`𝔩_1=+𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔲(q)`$ where $`p+q=l`$ and $``$ is the centralizer of $`𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔲(q)`$ in $`𝔰𝔲(l)`$. We take $`k_1,k_2`$ such that $`k_1p,k_2q`$ and $`k=k_1+k_2`$. Let $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ be $`k_1`$\- and $`k_2`$-planes in $`^p`$ and $`^q`$ respectively; let $`\pi =\pi _1\pi _2`$ be the $`k`$-complex plane in $`^l.`$ The slice is

$$S=(\pi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}^{nl})(\pi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}^{nl})(\pi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi _2^{})(\pi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\pi _1^{}).$$

We are going to prove that, for all $`k`$, $`nl`$ has to be $`1`$ and $`𝔩_2=0.`$ Indeed, if $`k=2`$ then, since $`k>nl`$ then $`nl=1`$. For $`k3`$ then the group acts on the slice coisotropically only if $`nl=1`$, i.e. $`p+q=n1,`$ note that if it is not the case, there would be too many terms.
By a straightforward calculation we can always take $`p`$ or $`q`$ bigger than $`k,`$ otherwise we fall again in the fixed point case. Assume, for example, $`p>k`$ and take a complex $`k`$-plane $`\pi ^p`$ and consider the complex orbit through $`\pi .`$ The slice representation is given by $`(\pi ^{}^q)(\pi ^{})`$ where $`_s+𝔰𝔲(k)`$ acts diagonally on $`\pi ^{}`$; here $`_s`$ denotes the centralizer of $`𝔰𝔲(k)+𝔰𝔲(pk)`$ in $`𝔰𝔲(p)`$.
The centralizer, $`𝔠,`$ of $`𝔰𝔲(n1)`$ in $`𝔰𝔲(n)`$, acts on the slice as $`(1,e^{i\frac{n\varphi }{n1}});`$ while $``$ as $`(e^{i\frac{\psi }{p}}e^{i\frac{\psi }{q}},e^{i\frac{\psi }{p}})`$ and $`_s`$ as $`(e^{i\frac{\theta }{k}},e^{i\frac{\theta }{k}}).`$
If $`q=1`$ we shall assume $`k3`$ since if it is not we fall again in the fixed point case. The slice is given by $`\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ and the scalars act on the slice $`(e^{i\frac{\psi }{p}}e^{i\psi }e^{i\frac{\theta }{k}},e^{i\frac{n\varphi }{n1}}e^{i\frac{\psi }{p}}e^{i\frac{\theta }{k}}).`$ We know that this action fails to be multiplicity free when $`a=b.`$ We conclude, when $`q=1,`$ that the action is coisotropic if and only if $`\psi \frac{n\varphi }{n1}.`$ Note also that the line $`\psi =\frac{n\psi }{n1}`$ corresponds to the centralizer of $`𝔰𝔲(2)+𝔰𝔲(n2)`$ in $`𝔰𝔲(n).`$ In particular, if $`𝔱_1`$ denotes a torus in $`𝔰𝔲(2),`$ then the action is multiplicity free if and only if the projection of the scalar has a no trivial component along $`𝔱_1.`$
Now, suppose that $`q>1.`$ The slice becomes $`(\pi ^{}^q)(\pi ^{})`$ and the action of the scalars on the slice is $`(e^{i\frac{\psi }{p}}e^{i\frac{\psi }{q}}e^{i\frac{\theta }{k}},e^{i\frac{n\varphi }{n1}}e^{i\frac{\psi }{p}}e^{i\frac{\theta }{k}}).`$
By Tables IIa, IIb we can distinguish some cases according to the relations between $`k`$ and $`q.`$
Firstly if $`q>k`$ one can reduce the scalars if and only if the action on the second factor is non trivial and this holds since $`_s`$ acts.
When $`q=k`$ we fall again in the fixed point case.
In case $`q=k1`$ the scalars cannot be reduced and it is easy to check that the image of the scalars’s action is one dimensional if and only if $`\psi =\frac{(k1)n\varphi }{n1}.`$
Finally if $`q<k1`$ the action fails to be multiplicity free if and only if the image of the scalars is one dimensional and on both factors the action is the same. This happens on the line $`\psi =\frac{qn\varphi }{n1}.`$ Summing up we have the following minimal coisotropic actions

$$\begin{array}{cccc}n.& 𝔩& M& \mathrm{conditions}\\ & & & \\ 1.& 𝔱_1+𝔰𝔲(n2)& Gr(k,n)& k>2\\ 2.& 𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔲(q)& Gr(k,n)& p+q=n1,p,q>k\\ 3.& (\frac{(k1)n}{n1})+𝔰𝔲(k1)+𝔰𝔲(nk)& Gr(k,n)& k3\\ 4.& (\frac{qn}{n1})+𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔲(q)& Gr(k,n)& p+q=n1,p>k,kq+2.\end{array}$$

We shall investigate if we can go under $`+𝔰𝔲(p)+𝔰𝔲(q)`$.
We first consider the maximal subalgebras of $`𝔰𝔲(q)`$. Choose a $`k`$-plane $`\pi `$ in $`^p`$ as above. The slice, corresponding to the orbit through $`\pi `$ is given by $`S=\pi ^{}^q\pi ^{}`$. By Tables IIa and IIb we argue that no subalgebras give rise to a coisotropic action.
Let now consider the maximal subalgebras of $`𝔰𝔲(p)`$.
We take the subalgebra $`𝔰𝔬(p)`$ (resp. $`𝔰𝔭(p/2)`$). Take the $`k`$-plane $`\pi `$ such that the orbit through it is complex. The slice becomes $`S=S^2(\pi ^{})(\pi ^{})(\pi ^{}^q)`$ (resp. $`S=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\pi ^{})(\pi ^{})(\pi ^{}^q)`$) and the corresponding actions on it do not appear in Tables IIa and IIb. The case of a simple subalgebra can be treated likewise.
Let now investigate $`+𝔰𝔲(p_1)+𝔰𝔲(p_2)𝔰𝔲(p)`$. We take $`k_1,k_2`$ such that $`k_1p_1,k_2p_2`$ and $`k=k_1+k_2`$. Let $`\pi _1`$ and $`\pi _2`$ be $`k_1`$\- and $`k_2`$-planes in $`^{p_1}`$ and $`^{p_2}`$ respectively; let $`\pi =\pi _1\pi _2`$ be the $`k`$-complex plane in $`^p.`$ The slice contains the submodules $`(\pi _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{})(\pi _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}^q)(\pi _i^{}\pi _j^{})`$ with $`ij`$, hence the corresponding action is not coisotropic.
Finally the case $`𝔩_1=++𝔰𝔲(p)^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be excluded for dimensional reasons.

## 3 Polar actions on Complex Grassmannians

In this section we study which coisotropic actions are polar. Firstly observe that the reducible actions arising from Table IIa and IIb are not polar; this can be easily deduced as an application of Theorem $`2`$ (pag. 313) ; while, see  and , in the irreducible case we know that $`𝔰𝔬(n)`$ on $`Gr(k,n),`$ $`𝔰𝔭(n)`$ on $`Gr(k,2n)`$ and $`𝔰𝔲(l)+𝔰𝔲(nl)`$, for $`lnl`$ on $`Gr(k,n)`$ give rise to polar actions. The last two cases $`𝔰𝔭𝔦𝔫(7)`$ on $`Gr(2,8)`$ and $`𝔰𝔭(n)`$ on $`Gr(k,2n+1)`$ can be excluded. The first one fails to be polar since $`𝔰𝔭𝔦𝔫(7)`$ has the same orbits of $`𝔲(3)`$ which is not polar for .
Let now consider the action of $`𝔰𝔭(n)`$ on $`Gr(k,2n+1).`$ For $`k3,`$ using Theorem $`2`$ , one can easily prove that the action is not polar. Note that if $`k=4`$ the action on $`S=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\pi ^{})\pi ^{}`$ appears in  but as real representation.
Now we consider the case $`k=2.`$ As $`𝔰𝔭(n)`$-module $`^{2n+1}=^{2n}`$ and take $`\pi `$ in $`^{2n}`$ such that the orbit through $`\pi `$ is complex. The normal space $`N=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\pi ^{})^2`$ is acted on by $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)_\pi =\mathrm{U}(2)\times \mathrm{Sp}(n2)`$ so that the action has cohomogeneity $`2`$. If the $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$ action were polar, using Proposition 1  a section in $`N`$ can be taken as the direct sum of a section for the action of $`\mathrm{U}(2)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\pi ^{})`$ plus a section of $`\mathrm{U}(2)`$ on $`^2.`$ With this remark any subspace $`𝔪N`$ generated by $`v_1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\pi ^{})`$ and $`v_2`$ in $`T_\pi Gr(2,2n)^{}T_\pi Gr(2,2n+1)`$ would be the tangent space to a totally geodesic submanifold. A direct inspection taking,

$$v_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)v_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & & & & & \\ 1& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

shows, together with Theorem $`7.2`$ pag. 224  on Lie triple systems, that the section $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{exp}(𝔪)`$ is not totally geodesic, hence the action cannot be polar.
Finally observe that the groups $`K`$ that are listed in Table $`3`$ act also hyperpolarly on complex Grassmannians, since $`K`$ and $`\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(l)\times \mathrm{U}(nl))`$ are symmetric subgroups of $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$.

## 4 Appendix

Table I a:  Lie algebras $`𝔨`$ s.t. $`+𝔨`$ gives rise to irreducible multiplicity free actions

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ 𝔰𝔲(n)\hfill & \hfill n1& & 𝔰𝔬(n)\hfill & \hfill n3\\ 𝔰𝔭(n)\hfill & \hfill n2& & S^2(𝔰𝔲(n))\hfill & \hfill n2\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔰𝔲(n))\hfill & \hfill n4& & 𝔰𝔲(n)𝔰𝔲(m)\hfill & \hfill n,m2\\ 𝔰𝔲(2)𝔰𝔭(n)\text{ }\hfill & \hfill n2& & 𝔰𝔲(3)𝔰𝔭(n)\text{ }\hfill & \hfill n2\\ 𝔰𝔲(n)𝔰𝔭(2)\hfill & \hfill n4& & 𝔰𝔭𝔦𝔫(7)\hfill & \\ 𝔰𝔭𝔦𝔫(9)\hfill & & & 𝔰𝔭𝔦𝔫(10)\hfill & \\ 𝔤_2\hfill & \hfill n1& & 𝔢_6\hfill & \hfill n3\end{array}$$

Table I b: Irreducible coisotropic actions in which the scalars are removable

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ 𝔰𝔲(n)\hfill & \hfill n2& & 𝔰𝔭(n)\hfill & \hfill n2\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔰𝔲(n))\hfill & \hfill n4& & 𝔰𝔲(n)𝔰𝔲(m)\hfill & \hfill n,m2,nm\\ 𝔰𝔭𝔦𝔫(10)\hfill & & & 𝔰𝔲(n)𝔰𝔭(2)\hfill & \hfill n5\end{array}$$

Table II a: Indecomposable coisotropic actions in which the scalars can be removed or reduced

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 𝔰𝔲(n)_{𝔰𝔲(n)}𝔰𝔲(n)\hfill & \hfill n3,ab\\ 𝔰𝔲(n)^{}_{𝔰𝔲(n)}𝔰𝔲(n)\hfill & \hfill n3ab\\ 𝔰𝔲(2m)_{𝔰𝔲(2m)}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔰𝔲(2m))\hfill & \hfill m2,b0\\ 𝔰𝔲(2m+1)_{𝔰𝔲(2m+1)}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔰𝔲(2m+1))\hfill & \hfill m2,amb\\ 𝔰𝔲(2m)^{}_{𝔰𝔲(2m)}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔰𝔲(2m))\hfill & \hfill m2,b0\\ 𝔰𝔲(2m+1)^{}_{𝔰𝔲(2m+1)}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔰𝔲(2m+1))\hfill & \hfill m2,amb\\ 𝔰𝔲(n)_{𝔰𝔲(n)}(𝔰𝔲(n)𝔰𝔲(m))\hfill & \hfill 2n<m,a0\\ 𝔰𝔲(n)_{𝔰𝔲(n)}(𝔰𝔲(n)𝔰𝔲(m))\hfill & \hfill m2,nm+2,ab\\ 𝔰𝔲(n)^{}_{𝔰𝔲(n)}(𝔰𝔲(n)𝔰𝔲(m))\hfill & \hfill 2n<m,a0\\ 𝔰𝔲(n)^{}_{𝔰𝔲(n)}(𝔰𝔲(n)𝔰𝔲(m))\hfill & \hfill 2m,nm+2,ab\\ (𝔰𝔲(2)𝔰𝔲(2))_{𝔰𝔲(2)}(𝔰𝔲(2)𝔰𝔲(n))\hfill & \hfill n3,a0\\ (𝔰𝔲(n)𝔰𝔲(2))_{𝔰𝔲(2)}(𝔰𝔲(2)𝔰𝔭(m))\hfill & \hfill n3,m4,b0\end{array}$$

Table II b: Indecomposable coisotropic actions in which the scalars cannot be removed or reduced

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 𝔰𝔲(2)_{𝔰𝔲(2)}𝔰𝔲(2)\hfill & \\ 𝔰𝔲(n)^{()}_{𝔰𝔲(n)^{}}(𝔰𝔲(n)𝔰𝔲(n))\hfill & \hfill n2\\ (𝔰𝔲(n+1)^{()}_{𝔰𝔲(n+1)}(𝔰𝔲(n+1)𝔰𝔲(n))\hfill & \hfill n2\\ (𝔰𝔲(2)_{𝔰𝔲(2)}(𝔰𝔲(2)𝔰𝔭(m))\hfill & \hfill m2\\ (𝔰𝔲(2)𝔰𝔲(2))_{𝔰𝔲(2)}(𝔰𝔲(2)𝔰𝔭(m))\hfill & \\ (𝔰𝔭(n)𝔰𝔲(2))_{𝔰𝔲(2)}(𝔰𝔲(2)𝔰𝔭(m))\hfill & \hfill n,m2\\ 𝔰𝔭(n)_{𝔰𝔭(n)}𝔰𝔭(n)\hfill & \hfill n2\\ 𝔰𝔭𝔦𝔫(8)_{𝔰𝔭(8)}𝔰𝔬(8)\hfill & \end{array}$$

In the previous Tables we use the notation of , as an example $`𝔰𝔲(n)_{𝔰𝔲(n)}𝔰𝔲(n)`$ denotes the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔲(n)`$ acting on $`^n^n`$ via the direct sum of two copies of the natural representation.

Table III: Maximal subgroups of $`\mathrm{SU}(n)`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \hfill i)& \mathrm{SO}(n)& \\ & & \\ \hfill ii)& \mathrm{Sp}(m)& 2m=n\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill iii)& \mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(k)\times \mathrm{U}(nk))& 1kn1\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill iv)& \mathrm{SU}(p)\mathrm{SU}(q)& pq=n,p3,q3\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill v)& \rho (H)& H\mathrm{simple}\rho \mathrm{Irr}_{},\mathrm{deg}\rho =\mathrm{n}\hfill \end{array}$$

Table IV: Maximal subgroups of $`\mathrm{Sp}(n)`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \hfill i)& \mathrm{U}(n)& \\ & & \\ \hfill ii)& \mathrm{Sp}(k)\times Sp(nk)& 1kn1\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill iii)& \mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(k)\times \mathrm{U}(nk))& 1kn1\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill iv)& \mathrm{SO}(p)\mathrm{Sp}(q)& pq=n,p3,q1\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill v)& \rho (H)& H\mathrm{simple}\rho \mathrm{Irr}_{},\mathrm{deg}\rho =2\mathrm{n}\hfill \end{array}$$

Table V: Reduced prehomogeneous triplets

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ G\hfill & \rho \hfill & V\hfill & \hfill \text{conditions}\\ & & & \\ \mathrm{GL}(n)\hfill & 2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(\frac{n(n+1)}{2})\hfill & \hfill n2\\ \mathrm{GL}(2n)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\hfill & V(n(n3))\hfill & \hfill n3\\ \mathrm{GL}(2)\hfill & 3\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(4)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{GL}(6)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_3\hfill & V(20)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{GL}(7)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_3\hfill & V(35)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{GL}(8)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_3\hfill & V(56)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{SL}(3)\times \mathrm{GL}(2)\hfill & 2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(6)V(2)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{SL}(6)\times \mathrm{GL}(2)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(15)V(2)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{SL}(5)\times \mathrm{GL}(3)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(15)V(3)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{SL}(5)\times \mathrm{GL}(4)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(10)V(4)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{SL}(3)\times \mathrm{SL}(3)\times \mathrm{GL}(2)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(3)V(3)V(2)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{Sp}(n)\times \mathrm{GL}(2m)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(2n)V(2m)\hfill & \hfill n2m2\\ \mathrm{GL}(1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(3)\hfill & \rho _1\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\hfill & V(1)V(14)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{SO}(n)\times \mathrm{GL}(m)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(n)V(m)\hfill & \hfill n3,\frac{n}{2}m1\\ \mathrm{GL}(1)\times \mathrm{Spin}(7)\hfill & \rho _1\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{rep}.\hfill & V(1)V(8)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{Spin}(7)\times \mathrm{GL}(2)\hfill & \mathrm{spin}\mathrm{rep}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(8)V(2)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{Spin}(7)\times \mathrm{GL}(3)\hfill & \mathrm{spin}\mathrm{rep}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(8)V(3)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{GL}(1)\times \mathrm{Spin}(9)\hfill & \rho _1\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{rep}.\hfill & V(1)V(16)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{Spin}(10)\times \mathrm{GL}(2)\hfill & \mathrm{half}\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{rep}.\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(16)V(2)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{Spin}(10)\times \mathrm{GL}(3)\hfill & \mathrm{half}\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{rep}.\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(16)V(3)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{GL}(1)\times \mathrm{Spin}(11)\hfill & \rho _1\mathrm{spin}.\mathrm{rep}.\hfill & V(1)V(32)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{GL}(1)\times \mathrm{Spin}(11)\hfill & \rho _1\mathrm{half}\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{rep}.\hfill & V(1)V(64)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{GL}(1)\times \mathrm{G}_2\hfill & \rho _1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\hfill & V(1)V(7)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{G}_2\times \mathrm{GL}(2)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(7)V(2)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{GL}(1)\times \mathrm{E}_6\hfill & \rho _1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(1)V(27)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{E}_6\times \mathrm{GL}(2)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(27)V(2)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{GL}(1)\times \mathrm{E}_7\hfill & \rho _1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(1)V(56)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{Sp}(n)\times \mathrm{GL}(2)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_12\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(2n)V(3)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{GL}(1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(n)\times \mathrm{SO}(3)\hfill & \rho _1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(1)V(2n)V(3)\hfill & \\ \mathrm{SL}(n)\times \mathrm{GL}(m)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(n)V(m)\hfill & \hfill \frac{m}{2}n1\\ \mathrm{GL}(2m+1)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\hfill & V(m(2m+1))\hfill & \hfill m2\\ \mathrm{SL}(2m+1)\times \mathrm{GL}(2)\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(m(2m+1))V(2)\hfill & \hfill m2\\ \mathrm{Sp}(n)\times \mathrm{GL}(2m+1))\hfill & \mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & V(2n)V(2m+1)\hfill & \hfill n>2m+11\\ \mathrm{GL}(1)\times \mathrm{Spin}(10)\hfill & \rho _1\mathrm{half}\mathrm{spin}\mathrm{rep}.\hfill & V(1)V(16)\hfill & \end{array}$$

In the previous Table $`\rho _1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ denote the standard representation of $`\mathrm{GL}(1)`$ and the fundamental highest weights respectively.

Leonardo Biliotti
Dipartimento di Matematica e Applicazioni per l’Architettura,
Università di Firenze, Piazza Ghiberti 27, 50142 Firenze, Italy.
email: biliotti@math.unifi.it
Anna Gori
Dipartimento di Matematica “Ulisse Dini”,
Università di Firenze, Viale Morgagni 67-A, 50134 Firenze, Italy.
email: gori@math.unifi.it


format: text

text:
# Light curves and H𝛼 luminosities as indicators of 56Ni mass in type IIP supernovae

## 1 Introduction

Supernovae type II with a plateau in the light curve (SNe IIP) are thought to be a spectroscopically and photometrically homogeneous family of core collapse supernovae (Filippenko (2001)). The light curve of SN IIP is characterized by two distinct phases; a plateau with a duration of $`60100`$ days and a quasi-exponential tail at the later epochs. The plateau corresponds to the radiative cooling of the hot opaque envelope originally heated by the explosion (Grassberg et al. (1971)). Variations of observational properties at the plateau phase are interpreted in terms of variation of ejecta mass, explosion energy, and radius of the progenitor (Litvinova & Nadyozhin (1985)). The exponential tail is attributed to the instant reprocessing of the energy of radioactive decay of 56Co (Weaver & Woosley (1980)) and the luminosity at this stage is directly determined by the mass of ejected 56Ni, a fact successfully exploited for SN 1987A (Catchpole et al. (1988)).

The SN IIP phenomena are believed to originate from the explosion of red supergiant stars whose main sequence masses lie in the range $`1025\mathrm{M}_{}`$; precise boundary are still a subject of controversy, as well as the mechanism(s) of explosion. The study of optical properties of SNe IIP provides a means of recovering their major characteristics (mass, energy, 56Ni mass, asymmetry) and eventually to impose constraints on the explosion models and pre-supernova parameters. The 56Ni mass is one of the crucial parameters since it presumably depends on the presupernova structure and the explosion model (Aufderheide et al. (1991)) and can be directly measured.

The straightforward way to measure 56Ni mass in SNe IIP is based upon the physical argument that the early (120–300 d) bolometric luminosity on the radioactive tail should be equal to the luminosity of radioactive decay of 56Co. This is because at this stage the loss of the internal energy to expansion ($`pdV`$ work) is small, while the envelope is nearly opaque to gamma-rays. This method was successfully used for SN 1987A (Catchpole et al. (1988); Bouchet & Danziger (1993) ) with estimates $`0.08\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and 0.07 M, accordingly, and an average $`0.075\mathrm{M}_{}`$. The application of this method to other SNe IIP is, however, hampered by the lack of infrared observations longward of the I band. Note, the $`UBVRI`$ data account for about half of the luminosity at this age according to results for SN 1987A (Catchpole et al. (1988); Schmidt et al. (1993)). Therefore, for SNe IIP one uses the absolute flux in one band (e.g. $`V`$) or several bands in the optical, which, on being compared with the absolute flux of SN 1987A provides an estimate of 56Ni mass. This method essentially assumes that the absolute flux in one or several optical bands is a constant fraction of the bolometric flux, i.e. the spectral energy distribution (SED) during the radioactive tail epoch is similar for all SNe IIP. Using this approach, Phillips et al. (1990) claimed that similar $`B`$ and $`V`$ absolute magnitudes of SN 1987A, SN 1969L and SN 1983K on the radioactive tail implies similarity of their ejected 56Ni masses. A similar conclusion was made by Patat et al. (1994) from a study of a large sample of type II SNe. Schmidt et al. (1993) slightly modified this method applying a procedure of reconstruction of the light curve using a bolometric correction determined from SN 1987A data. Using a constant bolometric correction does not necessarily improve the accuracy of the determination of 56Ni mass compared with the use of absolute magnitudes in one or several filters. Recently Hamuy (2003) using this method recovered 56Ni mass for an extensive sample of SNe IIP and pointed to an interesting correlation of 56Ni mass with the luminosity (MV) on the plateau.

Here we revisit the problem of 56Ni mass in SNe IIP, pursuing two major goals. First, we independently determine the 56Ni mass for a different sample using a unified approach to distance determination and present a new correlation between 56Ni mass and light curve shape. The second major goal is to check the possibility of the use of H$`\alpha `$ luminosity as a tracer of 56Ni mass. This possibility is intriguing bearing in mind that in the case of high redshift SN IIP ($`z0.05`$) we face a problem of contribution of the host galaxy background, which will inhibit the confident estimation of the broad band magnitude at the radioactive tail phase. On the other hand, H$`\alpha `$ is not affected by the stellar background and thus may be used as an indicator of the ejected amount of 56Ni. Nevertheless incorrect substraction of any underlying H II region emission could hamper accuracy; identification of this narrow component in the blend would remove this problem.The use of H$`\alpha `$ as an indicator of 56Ni mass is prompted by early radioactive models which show an expected proportionality between H$`\alpha `$ luminosity and the amount of 56Ni (Chugai (1990)). This has also been noted in connection with the comparison of light curve and H$`\alpha `$ luminosities for SN 1999em and SN 1987A (Elmhamdi et al. (2003)).

The paper is organized as follows. We first select a sample of well observed SNe IIP with late photometry and spectra, and adopt appropriate distances and extinction (Sect. 2). We then apply the $`V`$ light curve technique to estimate the 56Ni mass for these supernovae and study correlations between the 56Ni mass and light curve shape (Sect. 3). Then we use the late H$`\alpha `$ luminosity to derive 56Ni mass (Sect. 4). Both photometric and specroscopic 56Ni mass are then compared and the implications are discussed (Sect. 5).

## 2 Sample, distance, extinction

Our basic sample consists of 9 SNe IIP, namely: SN 1987A, SN 1969L, SN 1988A, SN 1988H, SN 1990E, SN 1991G, SN 1992H, SN 1997D and SN 1999em, although throughout the paper we will be invoking other objects (SN 1970G, SN 1995ad, SN 1995V, SN 1995W, SN 1999gi and SN 1999eu). The events are selected on the basis of published and unpublished photometric and spectroscopic observations at the plateau and later epochs. The sample parameters are presented in Table 1 together with the corresponding references to the literature from which the photometry has been taken. In what follows we adopt the standard reddening laws of Cardelli et al. (1989).

For the problem of 56Ni determination the total extinction and distance estimates are of principal importance. Galactic extinction is removed using the map of galactic dust extinction by Schlegel et al (1998). The host galaxy reddening is then estimated from the $`BV`$ and $`VR`$ colour excess compared to the intrinsic colour curves of SN 1987A. This approach is justified by the fact that at the late photospheric phase SNe IIP seem to follow colour evolution similar to SN 1987A (Schmidt et al. (1992)). The use of the $`BV`$ colour alone to estimate the host galaxy reddening may present some problems, as in most cases it provides negative reddening. This point was noted also by Hamuy (2003) who used the $`VI`$ index for an independent estimate of extinction.

The recovered total visual reddening ($`A_V^{tot}`$) of our sample is listed in Table 1. Fig. 1, on the other hand, displays the intrinsic $`BV`$ and $`VR`$ colour evolution. Note that for the case of SN 1997D, both colours show a large excess by the end of the photospheric phase. The small (case b; Turatto et al. (1998)) and large (case a; Zampieri e al. (2002)) age scenarios are displayed. This high reddening seems unlikely since the presence of interstellar lines was not reported in the early spectra as one may expect in a case with such high reddening (Turatto et al. (1998)). The very red colour at the end of the photospheric phase is seen in other objects with a very low ejected 56Ni mass (e.g. SN 1999eu; Pastorello et al. 2003, in preparation). An explanation of this peculiarity may be related to the fast cooling from the plateau phase to reach the faint radioactive tail, and/or possibly relates to the nature and structure of the progenitor star. Interestingly, the late nebular intrinsic $`BV`$ colours of the complete sample seem to be very similar to that of SN 1987A, both in slope and magnitude. The convergence to the same fate at later phases is also confirmed for the faint object SN 1997D and as well as for the underluminous SN 1999eu (Pastorello et al. 2003). Although studying the spectral energy distribution (SED) of SNe IIP is beyond the scope of the present work, the fact of a small scatter ($`\pm 0.3`$ mag) in the sample around the SN 1987A intrinsic $`(BV)_0`$ colour indicates the similarity in the SED for SNe IIP on the radioactive tail.

The distance of $`\mathrm{D}=50`$ kpc is used for SN 1987A, while for the other SNe we adopt distances derived from the recession velocity of the host galaxy corrected for Local Group infall onto the Virgo Cluster as reported in the “LEDA111available online at http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr/cgi-bin/single.pl” extragalactic database. The Hubble constant $`\mathrm{H}_0`$=70 km s-1Mpc-1 is adopted. The computed distances are reported in third column of Table 1. We note here that a possibly more accurate value of the distance to SN 1999em, 7.8 Mpc, comes from stellar studies of the parent galaxy NGC 1637 (Sohn $`\&`$ Davidge (1998)).

## 3 56Ni mass from $`V`$ light curve

The luminosity of SN IIP on the radioactive tail is controlled by the radioactive decay (56Co$``$56Fe) and if the trapping of gamma rays is efficient, the decline rates of the light curves of SNe II should converge to the exponential life-time of 56Co (i.e. 111.26 days or 0.976 mag per 100 d). The radioactive tails in SN IIP all show similar decay rates, especially in the $`V`$ band (Patat el al. (1994)). This fact provides a solid basis for using the $`V`$ light curve for the recovery of the ejected 56Ni mass (Phillips et al. 1990; Schmidt et al. 1993). In Fig. 2 we display the absolute $`V`$ light curves of the SNe sample together with that of SN 1987A. The computed late time decline slopes ($`150400`$ days since explosion) are reported as well in Table 1 (fifth column). Their mean value is $`<\gamma ^V>0.99(\pm 0.13)`$, consistent with the radioactive decay of 56Co and consequent trapping of the gamma-rays.

The 56Ni mass is estimated from absolute $`M_V`$ magnitudes between $`120400`$ d using the SN 1987A tail as a template. Results produced by the least squares fit are reported in Table 2. Both possible cases for SN 1997D are reported (more details concerning this event are discussed in sect. 4.2). These values show a significant range of the ejected 56Ni masses, from $`0.0028\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and $`0.0036\mathrm{M}_{}`$ for subluminous SN 1999eu and SN 1997D(case b) respectively to $`0.123\mathrm{M}_{}`$ for SN 1992H with the average value $`0.05\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Our values differ somewhat from those determined recently by Hamuy (2003) for objects in common. The differences stem primarily from the different distances adopted here. As noted earlier the methodology followed by Hamuy is based upon the conversion of $`V`$ magnitude into a bolometric luminosity through an assumed constant bolometric correction, while we are adopting SN 1987A luminosities as a template at late epochs.

With our values of the 56Ni masses it is instructive to check that the correlation between plateau $`M_V`$ magnitude and the amount of 56Ni found by Hamuy (2003) is preserved. We have modified the definition of the plateau $`M_V`$ magnitude compared to Hamuy (2003) in order to avoid any uncertainty in the explosion time. Therefore, we use the inflection time during transition from plateau to the radioactive tail as a zero point. The inflection time $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ is defined as the moment when the first derivative at the transition phase $`S=dM_V/dt`$ (we dub it “steepness”) is maximal. To calculate $`S`$ we use the following procedure. The $`V`$ band flux in the transition period from plateau and radioactive tail is approximated by a sum of plateau and radioactive terms:

$$F=A\frac{(t/t_0)^p}{1+(t/t_0)^q}+B\mathrm{exp}(t/111.26),$$
(1)
where $`A`$, $`B`$, $`t_0`$, $`p`$ and $`q`$ are parameters derived by the $`\chi ^2`$ minimization technique in the sensitive interval $`t_\mathrm{i}\pm 50`$ days. The behaviour of $`S`$ and determination of $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ is demonstrated for each SN in Fig. 3. The derived $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ are reported in Table 2 (third column) with the corresponding errors while the computed $`S`$ values and their errors are presented in Fig. 5. The errors in $`S`$ and $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ are estimated according to the best fit (shown in Fig. 3) and as well by introducing test points for events with poor data especially at the transition phase (from plateau to radioactive decay). With the determined inflection time $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ we choose the epoch $`t_\mathrm{i}35`$ days as a reference for the $`M_V`$ on the plateau.

Fig. 4 (upper panel) demonstrates the correlation between photometric 56Ni mass and the absolute magnitude $`M_V(t_\mathrm{i}35)`$ for the sample of SNe IIP with measurable $`S`$ and $`t_\mathrm{i}`$ values. This plot shows small scatter around a linear trend and thus supports the correlation found by Hamuy (2003). In our case, and assuming case “a” (Zampieri et al. 2002) for SN 1997D, the linear correlation is described by the equation:

$$\mathrm{log}M(^{56}\mathrm{Ni})=0.438M_V(t_\mathrm{i}35)8.46.$$
(2)
Therefore this result suggests a direct correlation between $`V`$ magnitudes (absolute or apparent) of plateau and radioactive tail. In fact Fig. 4 (lower panel) demonstrates the correlation between $`M_V`$ magnitudes at plateau (on $`t_\mathrm{i}35`$ day) and tail (on $`t_\mathrm{i}+35`$ day).This is therefore a direct form of the correlation shown in the upper panel.

The sample we explore reveals another interesting correlation. Fig. 5 demonstrates that the steepness $`S`$ anticorrelates with 56Ni mass: the lower is the 56Ni mass the larger is $`S`$, i.e. the steeper is the transition from plateau to the tail. We note however, that an accurate determination of $`S`$ necessitates a $`V`$ light curve with a reasonably high density of observational points at the end of the plateau phase and the beginning of the radioactive tail. Indeed SNe 1990E and 1988H are not studied here because of the paucity of their light curve data. The best linear fit (Fig. 5) reads:

$$\mathrm{log}M(^{56}\mathrm{Ni})=6.2295S0.8147$$
(3)
The interpretation of this correlation requires hydrodynamical modeling with different amounts of 56Ni and degrees of mixing. In the case of unmixed 56Ni one does not expect a notable dependence of the steepness on the amount of 56Ni. This is readily seen from the modeling SNe IIP light curves by Eastman et al. (1994). For the same amount of 56Ni the mixing results in a decreased steepness because of an increase of radiative diffusion (Eastman et al. (1994)). Unfortunately, in the cited paper the authors did not model cases of variable 56Ni mass with similar degrees of mixing, so the question of the physics behind the above correlation, remains open. At this stage, we may only suggest that somehow the increase of the 56Ni mass in SNe IIP ejecta favours the larger contribution of radiative diffusion at the end of the plateau and, therefore, a less steep transition from plateau to the radioactive tail. It may well be that the increase of the 56Ni mass is accompanied by the growth of the degree of mixing degree which favours a less steep decline as demonstrated in Fig. 10 and Fig. 12 of Eastman et al. (1994).

Interestingly, if the correlation between steepness and 56Ni mass is confirmed, this will provide us with an exciting possibility of probing 56Ni mass in SNe IIP from the light curve shape in a manner independent of the distance and extinction.

## 4 56Ni mass from H$`\alpha `$ luminosity

The H$`\alpha `$ luminosity of SNe IIP at late epochs reflects the total ionization in the weakly ionized gas caused by radioactive decay of 56Co and, therefore, to a first approximation is proportional to the overall deposition rate and hence to the 56Ni mass (Chugai (1990); Xu et al. (1992); Kozma & Fransson (1992)) unless effects due to higher densities become important. This suggests that the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity resulting from gamma-ray trapping may provide a quantitative measure of the 56Ni mass in SNe IIP. The accurate measurements on SN 1987A provide a control. To explore deviations from the simple proportionality we use an upgraded radioactive model of the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity.

### 4.1 Model of H$`\alpha `$ luminosity

Some brief comments about the modified model of H$`\alpha `$ luminosity powered by the radioactive decay are in order. The primary purpose of the modification of the previous version (Chugai 1990) is to specify better the early nebular phase. This was done by the implementation of macroscopic mixing, collisional and radiative de-excitation effects. The supernova envelope is mimicked by two zones. The inner zone with the radius $`r_{\mathrm{mix}}=v_{\mathrm{mix}}t`$ is a mixing core with a total mass fraction $`f_{\mathrm{mix}}`$, which is divided between metals together with He-rich matter (we dub this mixture “metals” with the mass fraction of $`f_\mathrm{m}`$) and H-rich matter with the mass fraction $`1f_{\mathrm{mix}}`$. The outer zone consists of hydrogen-rich matter. All the 56Ni resides in the mixing core and has a generally clumpy distribution. This is mimicked by 56Ni clumps in cocoons of metals with the total area of cocoons being $`4\pi r_{\mathrm{mix}}^2f_\mathrm{s}`$. Here $`f_\mathrm{s}`$ is a mixing parameter, which is unity if all metals reside in the spherical layer with the inner spherical cavity occupied by 56Ni. We adopt $`f_\mathrm{s}=2`$ which corresponds to moderate mixing. The escape probability for gamma-rays through the metal layer is $`\mathrm{exp}(\tau _\mathrm{m})`$, where $`\tau _\mathrm{m}`$ is the optical depth of the metal layer, while the absorption probability in the mixing zone is described by the expression $`\tau _1/(1+\tau _1)`$, where $`\tau _1`$ is the optical depth of the inner zone. In the mixing core gamma-rays have a finite probability of being absorbed by H-rich material, which is proportional to $`1f_{\mathrm{mix}}`$. The absorption probability for the outer hydrogen layer with the optical depth $`\tau _2`$ is defined as $`p_2=1\mathrm{exp}(\tau _2)`$.

The energy deposited in the hydrogen is shared between ionization, excitation and thermal energy with corresponding branching ratios (Kozma & Fransson (1992); Xu et al. (1992)). The ionization of hydrogen is calculated in the approximation of three levels plus continuum. The photoionization from the second level by two-photon and continuum radiation was calculated assuming the continuum luminosity is equal to the deposited luminosity while the spectrum is assumed to be dilute black-body with the temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. The electron temperature was set to be 5000 K. Effects of radiation transfer in Balmer and Paschen continua are treated in the escape probability approximation (Chugai 1990).

The sensitivity of the radioactive model to parameter variations (Table 3) is demonstrated in Fig. 6. Each panel shows the effect of a single parameter variation compared to a standard model, which is in fact the optimal model for the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity of SN 1987A. The saturation at the early epoch is a new feature compared to the previous model and this is related to several factors: gamma-ray trapping in the inner zone, collisional de-excitation of the third level and H$`\alpha `$ absorption in the Paschen continuum, especially in the mixing zone. In Fig. 6a we present models with lower mass (10 and $`7\mathrm{M}_{}`$) compared to the standard $`14\mathrm{M}_{}`$. A lower mass results in a high rate of the luminosity decay owing to a lower optical depth for gamma-rays. For moderate mass variation (factor $`1.4`$) the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity in the range $`200300`$ d shows less than 10% deviation from the standard case. With the rest of parameters fixed the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity is proportional to the 56Ni mass (Fig. 6b) at the nebular epoch $`t>200`$ days. This property reflects the simple truth that to a good approximation the total ionization rate of hydrogen in the envelope is proportional to the total radiactive decay rate, i.e. 56Ni mass. The proportionality, however, breaks down for $`t<200`$ days because of saturation effects related to H$`\alpha `$ collisional de-excitation and continuum absorption, which become important at early epoch. The effect of factor 1.5 higher kinetic energy is similar to the effect of factor $`1.2`$ lower mass (Fig. 6c), in accordance with the dependence of optical depth on both parameters $`\tau _\gamma M^2/E`$. A lower continuum temperature (Fig. 6d) results in a lower luminosity, especially, at the early epoch ($`t<200`$ d) since the ionization (and therefore recombination) rate becomes lower. A lower mixing core fraction (Fig. 6e) results in the higher H$`\alpha `$ luminosity since the total deposition in the outer H-rich matter increases. The higher metal fraction in the mixing core (Fig. 6f), on the contrary, suppresses the late time H$`\alpha `$ luminosity consistent with the decreased deposition into mixed hydrogen material. However, this effect is small if the variation of this parameter is within a factor 1.5.

The modeling shows that if ejecta parameters vary less than a factor 1.4 compared to those of SN 1987A, the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity is then proportional to the 56Ni mass (to within 10% accuracy) at the late time nebular phase $`200400`$ days. In this age range using the SN 1987A model as a template we may estimate the 56Ni mass in other SNe IIP from the ratio of H$`\alpha `$ luminosity to that of SN 1987A. It is worth noting here that despite the large possible variation of the main sequence mass for SNe IIP, presumably say $`1025\mathrm{M}_{}`$, the range in mass of the ejecta may actually be smaller since mass loss increases rapidly with the mass.

### 4.2 Results of 56Ni mass determination

The spectra utilized in this section are based on data in the Asiago/ESO SN Catalogue. Additional spectra were kindly provided by R. Stathakis. A sample of the spectra is shown in Fig. 7 together with some line identifications. The available spectra of our sample were corrected for reddening effects and the recovered integrated H$`\alpha `$ line fluxes are then translated to luminosities using adopted distances. In a straightforward approach we use the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity of SN 1987A as a template to recover the 56Ni mass from the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity of SNe IIP assuming proportionality between the 56Ni mass and the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity in the range between $`200400`$ days. The resulting values of 56Ni mass are given in Table 4 in the second column.

Another approach has been to fit the H$`\alpha `$ light curves with the model of luminosity evolution. All the other parameters, except for 56Ni mass, are assumed to be the same as in the standard model for SN 1987A unless additional information indicates essentially different parameters. The plateau of SN 1970G is very brief ($`t_\mathrm{p}60`$ d) which indicates a lower ejecta mass than that of a typical SN IIP. We adopt $`8\mathrm{M}_{}`$ as the most appropriate value for SN 1970G ejecta taking into account both the light curve and the rate of the H$`\alpha `$ flux decay. The results are plotted for 9 SNe in Fig. 8. Recovered values of 56Ni mass are given in Table 4 (third column). Note that the straightforward approach based upon the use of the H$`\alpha `$ light curve of SN 1987A (second column of Table 4) and the application of model fitting produce quite similar values with a maximal difference, apart from SN 1970G(SNP/L) and SN 1997D(treated bellow), of $``$13% for SN 1988H.

This deviation may be adopted as an uncertainty of the 56Ni mass determination from the accurate data. Given the uncertainty of the observed value of the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity (at least 10%) we are therefore able to derive a 56Ni mass from H$`\alpha `$ with an uncertainty of about 25%.

The subluminous SN 1997D is a special case. Originally, the age of the supernova at discovery has been estimated to be $`t_\mathrm{d}=50`$ days (Turatto et al. 1998), while Zampieri et al. (2002) argue for an age almost twice as large $`t_\mathrm{d}95`$ days. We consider both large and small age options. In the large age case we adopt $`M=18\mathrm{M}_{}`$, $`E=9\times 10^{50}`$ erg (Zampieri et al. 2002), while in the small age option we adopt $`M=6\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and $`E=1\times 10^{50}`$ erg (Chugai & Utrobin (2000)). A reasonable fit in the first case (Fig. 9a) is found for the 56Ni mass of $`0.011\mathrm{M}_{}`$ with a mixed core fraction $`f_{\mathrm{mix}}=0.05`$, which corresponds to the mixing core having $`0.9\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and a core metal fraction $`f_\mathrm{m}=0.99`$, i.e. with the metal core practically devoid of hydrogen. The model also requires a low continuum temperature in the ultraviolet $`T_\mathrm{c}=4500`$ K. For the small age choice the fit (Fig. 9b) corresponds to $`M(^{56}\mathrm{Ni})=0.0024\mathrm{M}_{}`$. In this case $`f_{\mathrm{mix}}=0.05`$, $`f_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$ (a significant amount of mixed hydrogen) and $`T_\mathrm{c}=5500`$ K.

The 56Ni mass derived from the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity adopting SN 1987A as template, $`M_{\mathrm{Ni}}(\text{H}\alpha )`$, is plotted in Fig. 10 versus photometric 56Ni mass, $`M_{\mathrm{Ni}}(V)`$, derived from the tail $`M_V`$ magnitude (Table 2). Both sets of values agree within 20% . This consistency supports the proposition that the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity may be a good indicator of 56Ni mass in SNe IIP unless we are dealing with extreme cases such as SN 1970G (SNP/L) or underluminous cases such as SN 1997D.

### 4.3 Application of H$`\alpha `$ to 56Ni diagnostics

In the absence of the late time photometry but with available spectra of SNe IIP at the nebular epoch we may use the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity to estimate 56Ni mass ejected by supernova provided the explosion time is known. We demonstrate this approach to SN 1995ad, SN 1995V and SN 1995W (all type IIP) for which late photometric data are not available. Distances are computed using the corrected recession velocities (reported in “LEDA” data base assuming $`H_0=`$70 km s-1Mpc-1).

SN 1995ad: This SN was discovered on Sep. 28.8 UT in NGC 2139 by R. Evans (IAUC (6239)). Its Sep. 29.3 UT spectrum, obtained by S. Benetti, displays a hot continuum with temperature $`T_{bb}`$ $``$ 13000 K and a broad H$`\alpha `$ emission ($`FWHM=`$11000 km s-1). These characteristics combined with the fact that nothing was seen at the position of the SN in the Aug. 25 image (IAUC 6239) provide constraints on the explosion time. The assumed distance and reddening are respectively $`D=23.52`$ Mpc and $`A_V=0.112`$ mag (NED; Schlegel et al. 1998) while the galaxy inclination is $`40.9^{}`$. The spectrum we use here is taken 1996 March. 24, about 180 days since explosion. The derived H$`\alpha `$ luminosity, $`1.06\times 10^{40}`$ erg s-1, is then compared to that of SN 1987A at a similar epoch to recover an ejected mass $`0.056M_{}`$.

SN 1995V: discovered in NGC 1087 by R. Evans (IAUC (6197)). The galaxy inclination is 33.2. The adopted distance and reddening are, accordingly, $`D=20.61`$ Mpc and $`A_V=1.37`$ mag, while the explosion time is assumed to be 1995 July. 25 (Fassia et al. (1998)). The available late spectrum was taken around day 409 since explosion. Comparing the recovered H$`\alpha `$ luminosity, $`1.33\times 10^{39}`$ erg s-1, with that of SN 1987A leads to the estimate of $`M(^{56}\text{Ni})0.046\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

SN 1995W: discovered on Aug. 5.65 UT in NGC 7650 by A. Williams and R. Martin (IAUC (6206)). The spectrum taken on Aug 17.29 UT displayed features of SN IIP around one month (IAUC 6206). The distance is $`D=44.81`$ Mpc, and the reddening is $`A_V=0.044`$ mag (NED; Schlegel et al. 1998) and the host galaxy inclination is 47.4. The late spectrum was taken around day 300 (1996 May. 12). The H$`\alpha `$ luminosity, $`4.79\times 10^{39}`$ erg s-1, when compared to that of SN 1987A at similar epoch yields an amount of 56Ni mass of $`M(^{56}\text{Ni})0.048\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

Note that the adopted reddening values for SN 1995ad and SN 1995W do not include the host galaxy reddening. For these events the inclination of their host galaxies may provide further indication of uncertainty in the extinction since large extinctions might be expected for highly inclined galaxies if the SN occurred towards the far side. Although no sign of high extinction from interstellar lines was reported in early spectra of these two objects, the derived amounts of $`M(^{56}\mathrm{Ni})`$ might be taken as lower limits bearing in mind the significant inclination of their host galaxies.

## 5 Discussion and conclusion

The primary goal of this paper was to demonstrate that the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity at the nebular epoch may be an indicator of the 56Ni mass in SNe IIP ejecta. To explore this idea we selected a sample of well observed SNe IIP, and using $`V`$ magnitudes on the radioactive tail we derived in a standard way the photometric mass of 56Ni mass. With our sample we confirmed using a slightly different approach the correlation between 56Ni mass and absolute magnitude $`M_V`$ of the plateau reported recently by Hamuy (2003). We then applied a two-zone model of the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity in SN IIP to explore the sensitivity of the H$`\alpha `$ behaviour to variation of model parameters. We found that if mass, energy and mixing conditions do not vary strongly among SNe IIP (less than factor 1.4) then with an accuracy better than 10% H$`\alpha `$ luminosity is proportional to 56Ni mass during the $`200400`$ days after explosion. H$`\alpha `$ luminosities were then used to derive 56Ni masses. This was done employing two approaches: first, using the H$`\alpha `$ light curve in SN 1987A as template and, second, applying the model computations. Both approaches agree within 15% unless we are dealing with extreme cases such as SN 1970G (type IIP/L) and underluminous SN 1997D. In both these cases we should possess additional information about ejecta mass and energy to derive the 56Ni mass from H$`\alpha `$. The 56Ni mass values derived from the photometry and H$`\alpha `$ luminosity agree within 20%, which thus gives us confidence that H$`\alpha `$ is a good indicator of the amount of 56Ni in SNe IIP. Simultaneously, this consistency suggests that parameters of SNe IIP (mass, energy and mixing) are not very different. In fact this is consistent with the uniformity of plateau luminosities and plateau lengths of SNe IIP.

We applied the method of 56Ni mass estimation from H$`\alpha `$ for three SNe IIP (SN 1995ad, SN 1995V and SN 1995W) without photometry at the nebular phase and derived 56Ni masses of $`0.056\mathrm{M}_{}`$, $`0.046\mathrm{M}_{}`$, $`0.048\mathrm{M}_{}`$, quite reasonable values, although they could be underestimates, since the host galaxy extinction (for SN 1995ad & 1995W) has not been taken into account. Nevertheless, this is a good demonstration of the possibility of the method. Generally, the approach based upon H$`\alpha `$ may be indispensable in cases, when the photometry at the nebular epoch is absent, or when there is a problem with subtraction of stellar background (SN IIP in the bulge, or in high redshift galaxies).

An interesting by-product of the analysis of the SNe IIP sample is the demonstrated correlation between 56Ni mass and the steepness parameter ($`S`$) introduced to measure the light curve decay rate at the inflection point. The correlation is such that the steeper the decline at the inflection point the lower is the 56Ni mass. Thus radiative diffusion times and 56Ni masses are linked. How an increased radioactive energy input leads to a higher effective opacity will require elaboration by hydrodynamical modeling. This correlation, if confirmed, will provide us with a distance and extinction independent way to determine the amount of ejected 56Ni.

Finally we note that in Fig. 10 the clustering of the points around two values of 56Ni mass viz. 0.005 and 0.05 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ may result from poor statistical sampling. On the other hand it may be a hint that a mechanism such as fall-back is an important one in the evolution of the low-mass group.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Raylee Stathakis for providing us with some unpublished spectra in the AAO Archive which were useful for measurements of H$`\alpha `$ luminosities. A. Elmhamdi thanks A. Pastorello for providing some data for SN 1999eu. Research by N. N. Chugai was supported by grant “RFBR 01-02-16295” of Russian Academy of Sciences.