text:
# Short antichains in root systems, semi-Catalan arrangements, and 𝐵-stable subspaces

## 1. Notation and other preliminaries

(1.1) Main notation.$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the root system of $`(g,t)`$ and $`W`$ is the usual Weyl group. For $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`g_\alpha `$ is the corresponding root space in $`g`$.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ is the set of positive roots and $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+}\alpha `$.

$`\mathrm{\Pi }=\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _p\}`$ is the set of simple roots in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\theta `$ is the highest root in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$.
We set $`V:=t_R=_{i=1}^pR\alpha _i`$ and denote by $`(,)`$ a $`W`$-invariant inner product on $`V`$. As usual, $`\mu ^{}=2\mu /(\mu ,\mu )`$ is the coroot for $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$.

$`C=\{xV(x,\alpha )>0\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }\}`$ is the (open) fundamental Weyl chamber.

$`A=\{xV(x,\alpha )>0\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }\&(x,\theta )<1\}`$ is the fundamental alcove.

$`Q^+=\{_{i=1}^pn_i\alpha _in_i=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ and $`Q^{}=_{i=1}^pZ\alpha _i^{}V`$ is the coroot lattice.
Letting $`\widehat{V}=VR\delta R\lambda `$, we extend the inner product $`(,)`$ on $`\widehat{V}`$ so that $`(\delta ,V)=(\lambda ,V)=(\delta ,\delta )=(\lambda ,\lambda )=0`$ and $`(\delta ,\lambda )=1`$.

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\{\mathrm{\Delta }+k\delta kZ\}`$ is the set of affine real roots and $`\widehat{W}`$ is the affine Weyl group.
Then $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+=\mathrm{\Delta }^+\{\mathrm{\Delta }+k\delta k1\}`$ is the set of positive affine roots and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}=\mathrm{\Pi }\{\alpha _0\}`$ is the corresponding set of affine simple roots, where $`\alpha _0=\delta \theta `$. The inner product $`(,)`$ on $`\widehat{V}`$ is $`\widehat{W}`$-invariant. The notation $`\beta >0`$ (resp. $`\beta <0`$) is a shorthand for $`\beta \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+`$ (resp. $`\beta \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+`$).
For $`\alpha _i`$ ($`0ip`$), we let $`s_i`$ denote the corresponding simple reflection in $`\widehat{W}`$. If the index of $`\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ is not specified, then we merely write $`s_\alpha `$. The length function on $`\widehat{W}`$ with respect to $`s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_p`$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{}`$. For any $`w\widehat{W}`$, we set

$$N(w)=\{\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+w(\alpha )\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+\}.$$

It is standard that $`\mathrm{\#}N(w)=\mathrm{}(w)`$ and $`N(w)`$ is bi-convex. The latter means that both $`N(w)`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+N(w)`$ are subsets of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+`$ that are closed under addition. Furthermore, the assingment $`wN(w)`$ sets up a bijection between the elements of $`\widehat{W}`$ and the finite bi-convex subsets of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+`$.

(1.2) Ideals and antichains. Throughout the paper, $`b`$ is the Borel subalgebra of $`g`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`u=[b,b]`$. Let $`cb`$ be an ad-nilpotent ideal. Then $`c=\underset{\alpha I}{}g_\alpha `$ for some $`I\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. This $`I`$ is said to be an ideal (of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$). More precisely, a set $`I\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ is an ideal, if whenever $`\gamma I,\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, and $`\gamma +\mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`\gamma +\mu I`$. Our exposition will be mostly combinatorial, i.e., in place of ad-nilpotent ideal of $`b`$ we will deal with the respective ideals of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$.
For $`\mu ,\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, write $`\mu \gamma `$, if $`\gamma \mu Q^+`$. The notation $`\mu \gamma `$ means that $`\mu \gamma `$ and $`\gamma \mu `$. We regard $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ as poset under ‘$``$’. Let $`I\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ be an ideal. An element $`\gamma I`$ is called a generator, if $`\gamma \alpha I`$ for any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }`$. In other words, $`\gamma `$ is a minimal element of $`I`$ with respect to ‘$``$’. We write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(I)`$ for the set of generators of $`I`$. It is easily seen that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(I)`$ is an antichain of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, i.e., $`\gamma _i\preccurlyeq ̸\gamma _j`$ for any pair $`(\gamma _i,\gamma _j)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(I)`$. Conversely, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ is an antichain, then the ideal

$$I\mathrm{\Gamma }:=\{\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+\mu \gamma _i\text{ for some }\gamma _i\mathrm{\Gamma }\}$$

has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as the set of generators. Let $`An`$ denote the set of all antichains in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. In view of the above bijection $`Ad\stackrel{1:1}{}An`$, we will freely switch between ideals and antichains. An ideal $`I`$ is called strictly positive, if $`I\mathrm{\Pi }=\text{}`$. The set of strictly positive ideals is denoted by $`Ad_0`$.

## 2. Ideals, maximal and minimal elements of $`\widehat{W}`$

In this section we review some recent results by Athanasiadis, Cellini-Papi, Sommers, and this author. A few complements is also given.
The idea of describing ideals of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ through the use of elements of $`\widehat{W}`$ goes back to D. Peterson, who exploited minuscule elements for counting Abelian ideals of $`b`$, see . In general case, given $`I\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, we want to have $`w\widehat{W}`$ such that $`N(w)_{k1}(k\delta \mathrm{\Delta }^+)`$ and $`N(w)(\delta \mathrm{\Delta }^+)=\delta I`$. It turns out that, for any ideal $`I`$, there is a unique element of minimal length satisfying these properties. In contrast, the element of maximal length exists if and only if $`I`$ is strictly positive, and in this case such an element is unique, too. Implementation of this program yields also explicit formulae for the number of all and strictly positive ideals.

As is well known, $`\widehat{W}`$ is isomorphic to a semi-direct product of $`W`$ and $`Q^{}`$. Given $`w\widehat{W}`$, there is a unique decomposition

(2.1)
$$w=vt_r,$$

where $`vW`$ and $`t_r`$ is the translation corresponding to $`rQ^{}`$. The word “translation” means the following. The group $`\widehat{W}`$ has two natural actions:

(a) the linear action on $`\widehat{V}=VR\delta R\lambda `$;

(b) the affine-linear action on $`V`$.
We use ‘$``$’ to denote the second action. For $`rQ^{}`$, the linear action of $`t_r\widehat{W}`$ on $`VR\delta `$ is given by $`t_r(x)=x(x,r)\delta `$ (we do not need the formulas for the whole of $`\widehat{V}`$), while the affine-linear action on $`V`$ is given by $`t_ry=y+r`$. So that $`t_r`$ is a true translation for the $``$-action on $`V`$.
Let us say that $`w\widehat{W}`$ is dominant, if $`w(\alpha )>0`$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }`$. Obviously, $`w`$ is dominant if and only if $`N(w)_{k1}(k\delta \mathrm{\Delta }^+)`$. It also follows from \[3, 1.1\] that $`w`$ is dominant if and only if $`w^1AC`$. Write $`\widehat{W}_{dom}`$ for the set of dominant elements.

2.2 Proposition.

* If $`w=vt_r\widehat{W}_{dom}`$, then $`r\overline{C}`$;
* The mapping $`\widehat{W}_{dom}Q^{}`$ given by $`w=vt_rv(r)`$ is a bijection.

Proof. (i) We have $`w^1x=v^1(x)r`$ for any $`xV`$. In particular, $`w^1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}=r`$. Since $`0\overline{A}`$ and $`w`$ is dominant, we are done.

(ii) Given $`\varkappa Q^{}`$, we want to find $`w=vt_r`$ such that $`w^1A=v^1(A)rC`$ and $`v(r)=\varkappa `$. In view of the last equality, the previous containment reads $`v^1(A\varkappa )C`$. Therefore $`v`$ must be the unique element of $`W`$ taking the alcove $`A\varkappa `$ into the dominant Weyl chamber $`C`$. Then $`r=v^1(\varkappa )`$.
This argument proves both the injectivity and surjectivity of the mapping in question.  Letting $`\delta I:=N(w)(\delta \mathrm{\Delta }^+)`$, we easily deduce that $`I`$ is an ideal, if $`w\widehat{W}_{dom}`$. We say $`\delta I`$ is the first layer of $`N(w)`$ and $`I`$ is the first layer ideal of $`w`$. However, an ideal $`I`$ may well arise from different dominant elements. To obtain a bijection, one has to impose further constraints on dominant elements. One may attempt to consider either maximal or minimal bi-convex subsets with first layer $`\delta I`$. This naturally leads to notions of ‘minimal’ and ‘maximal’ elements. This terminology suggested in  is also explained by a relationship between these elements and dominant regions of the Shi arrangement, see Section 3. However, the formal definitions do not require invoking arrangements. Furthermore, we want to stress that many results relating the ideals and these two kinds of dominant elements can be obtained without ever mentioning the Shi (or Catalan) arrangement.

2.3 Definition. $`w\widehat{W}`$ is called minimal, if

* $`w`$ is dominant;
* if $`\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ and $`w^1(\alpha )=k\delta +\mu `$ for some $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`k1`$.

Using (i), condition (ii) can be made more precise. If $`k\{1,0\}`$, then $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$.
The set of minimal elements is denoted by $`\widehat{W}_{min}`$.

2.4 Proposition \[3, Prop. 2.12\].  There is a bijection between $`\widehat{W}_{min}`$ and $`Ad`$. Namely,

* given $`w\widehat{W}_{min}`$, the corresponding ideal is $`\{\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+\delta \mu N(w)\}`$;
* given $`IAd`$, the corresponding minimal element is determined by the finite bi-convex set

$$\underset{k1}{}(k\delta I^k)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+.$$

Here $`I^k`$ is defined inductively by $`I^k=(I^{k1}+I)\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$.

If $`N\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+`$ is a finite convex subset, containing $`\delta I`$, then it must also contain $`_{i1}(k\delta I^k)`$. So, the latter is the minimal bi-convex subset containing $`\delta I`$.
The first layer ideal of $`w\widehat{W}_{min}`$ is denoted by $`I_w`$.

2.5 Proposition \[10, Theorem 2.2\] \[14, 6.3(1)\].

If $`w\widehat{W}_{min}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(I_w)=\{\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }^+w(\delta \gamma )\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}\}`$.  Following , we give a ”geometric” description of the minimal elements. Set

$$D_{min}=\{xV(x,\alpha )1\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }\&(x,\theta )2\}.$$

It is a certain simplex in $`V`$.

2.6 Proposition \[4, Prop. 2 & 3\].

1. $`w=vt_r\widehat{W}_{min}`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}w\text{ is dominant},\hfill \\ v(r)D_{min}Q^{}.\hfill \end{array}`$

2. The mapping $`\widehat{W}_{min}D_{min}Q^{}`$, $`w=vt_rv(r)`$, is a bijection.  Proof. 1. ‘$``$’ The first condition is satisfied by the definition.
Next, we have $`w^1(x)=v^1(x)+(x,v(r))\delta `$ for any $`xVR\delta `$. In particular,

(2.7)
$$\begin{array}{c}w^1(\alpha _i)=v^1(\alpha _i)+(\alpha _i,v(r))\delta ,i1,\hfill \\ w^1(\alpha _0)=v^1(\theta )+(1(\theta ,v(r)))\delta .\hfill \end{array}$$

Comparing this with Definition 2(ii), one concludes that $`v(r)D_{min}`$.

$``$’ The previous argument can be reversed.

2. This follows from part 1 and Proposition 2.  Remark. The above proof applies equally well to Propositions 2, 5 and 5 below. It is a simplified version of the proof of Propositions 2 & 3 in .
It follows that $`\mathrm{\#}(Ad)`$ equals the number of integral points in $`D_{min}`$. (Unless otherwise stated, an ’integral point’ is a point lying in $`Q^{}`$.) A pleasant feature of this situation is that there is an element of $`\widehat{W}`$ that takes $`D_{min}`$ to a dilated closed fundamental alcove. Namely, $`w(D_{min})=(h+1)\overline{A}`$ for some $`w\widehat{W}`$, see \[4, Thm. 1\]. Write $`\theta `$ as a linear combination of simple roots: $`\theta =_ic_i\alpha _i`$. The integers $`c_i`$ are said to be the coordinates of $`\theta `$. By a result of M. Haiman \[6, 7.4\], the number of integral points in $`t\overline{A}`$ is equal to

(2.8)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{t+e_i}{1+e_i}$$

whenever $`t`$ is relatively prime with all the coordinates of $`\theta `$. Since this condition is satisfied for $`t=h+1`$, one obtains

(2.9)
$$\mathrm{\#}(Ad)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{h+e_i+1}{e_i+1}.$$

It is the main result of .
Combining Propositions 2 and Eq. (2.7) yields the assertion that $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Gamma }(I_w)=k`$ if and only if $`v(r)`$ lies on a face of $`D_{min}`$ of codimension $`k`$ \[10, Thm. 2.9\]. Now, we turn to considering maximal (dominant) elements of $`\widehat{W}`$. Most of the results on these elements are due to E. Sommers. However our presentation follows  rather freely, since we want to have a uniform treatment for both minimal and maximal elements. Because some assertions have no exact counterparts in , we also give some proofs.

2.10 Definition. $`w\widehat{W}`$ is called maximal, if

* $`w`$ is dominant;
* if $`\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ and $`w^1(\alpha )=k\delta +\mu `$ for some $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`k1`$.

Using (i), condition (ii) can be made more precise. If $`k=1`$, then $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$; if $`k=0`$, then $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ The set of maximal elements is denoted by $`\widehat{W}_{max}`$.

If $`IAd_0`$, then for any $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ we define $`k(\mu ,I)`$ as the minimal possible number of summands in the expression $`\mu =_i\nu _i`$, where $`\nu _i\mathrm{\Delta }^+I`$. Notice that this definition only makes sense for strictly positive ideals.

2.11 Proposition \[14, Sect. 5\].  There is a bijection between $`\widehat{W}_{max}`$ and $`Ad_0`$. Namely,

* given $`w\widehat{W}_{min}`$, the corresponding strictly positive ideal is $`\{\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+\delta \mu N(w)\}`$;
* given $`IAd_0`$, the corresponding maximal element is determined by the finite bi-convex set

($`\mathrm{}`$) $`\{m\delta \gamma \gamma I\&1mk(\gamma ,I)1\}`$.   Proof. 1. Suppose $`w\widehat{W}`$ is dominant, and let $`I`$ be the first layer ideal of $`w`$. Assuming that $`I\mathrm{\Pi }\alpha `$, we show that $`w`$ cannot be maximal. For any $`\gamma I`$, let $`k_\gamma `$ be the maximal integer such that $`k_\gamma \delta \gamma N(w)`$, i.e.,

$$N(w)=\{l\delta \gamma \gamma I\&1lk_\gamma \}.$$

Let $`I(\alpha )`$ be the ideal generated by $`\alpha `$. Clearly, $`I(\alpha )I`$. Set

$$N(w)^2=\{l\delta \gamma \gamma I(\alpha )\&1l2k_\gamma \}\{l\delta \gamma \gamma II(\alpha )\&1lk_\gamma \}.$$

Obviously, $`N(w)^2`$ is finite and has the same first layer as $`N(w)`$. It is also easy to verify that $`N^2`$ is again bi-convex. Hence $`N(w)^2=N(w^{})`$ for some $`w^{}\widehat{W}`$. Since $`N(w^{})N(w)`$, there is a presentation $`w^{}=uw`$, where $`\mathrm{}(w^{})=\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(w)`$. If $`s_\nu `$ ($`\nu \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$) is the rightmost reflection in a reduced decomposition for $`u`$, then $`w^1(\nu )=k\delta \mu `$ with $`k2`$, as the first layers of $`N(w^{})`$ and $`N(w)`$ are the same. Thus, $`w`$ is not maximal.

2. Suppose $`IAd_0`$, and let $`w\widehat{W}`$ be any dominant element with first layer ideal $`I`$. Since $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+N(w)`$ is convex and contains $`\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }^+I)`$, it follows from the very definition of numbers $`k(\gamma ,I)`$ that $`l\delta \gamma \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+N(w)`$ for all $`lk(\gamma ,I)`$. Hence $`N(w)`$ is contained in the finite set given by Eq. 2($`\mathrm{}`$). It only remains to prove that the latter is bi-convex. For this crucial fact, we refer to \[14, Lemma 5.2\].  The strictly positive ideal corresponding to $`w\widehat{W}_{max}`$ (the first layer ideal of $`w`$) is denoted by $`I^w`$. For an ideal $`I\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, we write $`\mathrm{\Xi }(I)`$ for the set of maximal elements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+I`$. It is immediate that $`\mathrm{\Xi }(I)`$ is an antichain.

2.12 Proposition \[14, 6.3(2)\].  If $`w\widehat{W}_{max}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Xi }(I^w)=\{\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }^+w(\delta \gamma )\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}\}`$.  2.13 Remark. Note that antichains of the form $`\mathrm{\Xi }(I^w)`$ are not arbitrary. From the definition of a strictly positive ideal it readily follows that, given $`\mathrm{\Xi }An`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }(I)`$ for some $`IAd_0`$ if and only if for any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }`$ there is a $`\gamma \mathrm{\Xi }`$ such that $`\gamma \alpha `$. We shall say that such an antichain covers the simple roots. Now, we proceed to a ”geometric” characterization of the maximal elements. Set

$$D_{max}=\{xV(x,\alpha )1\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }\&(x,\theta )0\}.$$

It is a certain simplex in $`V`$.

2.14 Proposition (cf. \[14, Prop. 5.6\]).

1. $`w=vt_r\widehat{W}_{max}`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}w\text{ is dominant},\hfill \\ v(r)D_{max}Q^{}.\hfill \end{array}`$

2. The mapping $`\widehat{W}_{max}D_{max}Q^{}`$, $`w=vt_rv(r)`$, is a bijection.  Proof. 1. The argument is the same as in Proposition 2, taking into account that the constraints for $`D_{max}`$ are different.
2. This follows from part 1 and Proposition 2.

2.15 Proposition.  Suppose $`w=vt_r\widehat{W}_{max}`$. Then $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Xi }(I^w)=k`$ if and only $`v(r)`$ lies on a face of codimension $`k`$ of $`D_{max}`$.  Proof. Combine Propositions 2 and Eq. (2.7).  Since $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the only antichain of cardinality $`p`$ \[10, 2.10(ii)\] and it is certainly of the form $`\mathrm{\Xi }(I^w)`$, we see that $`D_{max}`$ has a unique integral vertex.
In order to compute $`\mathrm{\#}(D_{max}Q^{})`$, we replace $`D_{max}`$ with another simplex. Let $`\{\varpi _i^{}\}_{i=1}^p`$ denote the dual basis of $`V`$ for $`\{\alpha _i\}_{i=1}^p`$. Set $`\rho ^{}=_{i=1}^p\varpi _i^{}`$. Since the sum of the coordinates of $`\theta `$ equals $`h1`$, the translation $`xt_\rho ^{}x=x_{i=1}^p\varpi _i^{}`$ takes $`D_{max}`$ to the negative dilated fundamental alcove

$$(h1)\overline{A}=\{xV(x,\alpha )0\alpha \mathrm{\Pi };(x,\theta )1h\}.$$

It may happen that $`\rho ^{}`$ does not belong to $`Q^{}`$, so that this translation, which is in the extended affine Weyl group, does not belong to $`\widehat{W}`$, while we wish to have a transformation from $`\widehat{W}`$. Nevertheless, since $`h1`$ is relatively prime with the index of connection of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, it follows from \[4, Lemma 1\] that there is an element of $`\widehat{W}`$ that takes $`D_{max}`$ to $`(1h)\overline{A}`$.

Again, using the above-mentioned result of Haiman, see Eq. (2.8), one obtains

2.16 Theorem ,,.

$$\mathrm{\#}(Ad_0)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{h+e_i1}{e_i+1}.$$

Remark. The proofs in  and  are based on the fact that the strictly positive ideals correspond to the bounded regions of the Catalan arrangement and that the number of bounded regions of any hyperplane arrangement can be computed via the characteristic polynomial of this arrangement, see Section 3.

## 3. Ideals and dominant regions of the Catalan arrangement

Recall a bijection between the ideals of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and the dominant regions of the Catalan arrangement. This bijection is due to Shi \[13, Theorem 1.4\].
For $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`kZ`$, define the hyperplane $`H_{\mu ,k}`$ in $`V`$ as $`\{xV(x,\mu )=k\}`$. The Catalan arrangement, $`\mathrm{Cat}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, is the collection of hyperplanes $`H_{\mu ,k}`$, where $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`k=1,0,1`$. The regions of an arrangement are the connected components of the complement in $`V`$ of the union of all its hyperplanes. Obviously, the dominant regions of $`\mathrm{Cat}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ are the same as those for the Shi arrangement $`\mathrm{Shi}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. The latter is the collection of hyperplanes $`H_{\mu ,k}`$, where $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`k=0,1`$. But, it will be more convenient for us to deal with the arrangement $`\mathrm{Cat}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, since it is $`W`$-invariant.
It is clear that $`C`$ is a union of regions of $`\mathrm{Cat}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Any region lying in $`C`$ is said to be dominant. The Shi bijection takes an ideal $`I\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ to the dominant region

(3.1)
$$R_I=\{xC(x,\gamma )>1,\text{ if }\gamma I\&(x,\gamma )<1,\text{ if }\gamma I\}.$$

A proof of this result, which is almost self-contained, is given by Athanasiadis in \[2, Lemma 3.1\]. But for the fact that $`R_I`$ is non-empty he refers to an earlier work Shi . It is not, however, easy to extract the proof from Shi’s paper. What we want to say is that the non-emptiness of $`R_I`$ readily follows from the theory of minimal elements:

If $`w\widehat{W}`$ is the minimal element corresponding to $`I`$, then $`w^1A`$ belong to $`R_I`$.

Indeed, $`H_{\mu ,1}`$ separates $`A`$ and $`w^1A`$ if and only if $`w(\delta \mu )\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^+`$, see \[3, 1.1\].
In fact, $`w^1A`$ is the nearest to the origin alcove in $`R_I`$.

A region (of an arrangement) is called bounded, if it is contained in a sphere about the origin.

3.2 Proposition ,,.  $`IAd(g)_0`$ if and only if the region $`R_I`$ is bounded.  If $`R_I`$ is bounded, then it obviously contains an alcove that is most distant from the origin. It was shown in  that if $`w`$ is the maximal element corresponding to $`IAd_0`$, then $`w^1A`$ is the most distant from the origin alcove in $`R_I`$.
The number of regions and bounded regions of any hyperplane arrangement can be counted through the use of a striking result of T. Zaslavsky. Let $`\chi (𝒜,t)`$ denote the characteristic polynomial of a hyperplane arrangement $`𝒜`$ in $`V`$ (see e.g. \[1, Sect. 2\] for precise definitions). 3.3 Theorem (Zaslavsky).

1. The number of regions into which $`𝒜`$ dissects $`V`$ equals $`(1)^p\chi (𝒜,1)`$.

2. The number of bounded regions into which $`𝒜`$ dissects $`V`$ equals $`|\chi (𝒜,1)|`$.  In , Athanasiadis gives a nice case-free proof of the following formula for the characteristic polynomial of the Catalan arrangement:

(3.4)
$$\chi (\mathrm{Cat}(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}(the_i).$$

Since $`\mathrm{Cat}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is $`W`$-invariant, the values $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\chi (\mathrm{Cat}(\mathrm{\Delta }),\pm 1)|}{\mathrm{\#}(W)}}`$ give the number of bounded and all regions in $`C`$, respectively. In this way, one obtains explicit formulae for the cardinality of $`Ad_0`$ and $`Ad`$ written already down in Section 2. Thus, the characteristic polynomial of the Catalan arrangement provides an alternative approach to counting ideals and strictly positive ideals.

## 4. Short antichains and $`b`$-stable subspaces in the little adjoint $`G`$-module

At the rest of the paper, we stick to the case in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has roots of different length. Then we naturally have long and short roots, long and short reflections, etc. Our goal is to show that the theory presented in the previous sections can be extended to the setting, where one pays attention to the length of roots involved. A piece of such theory already appeared in , where we studied Abelian ideals of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ consisting of only long roots. Now, we consider the general case. Our treatment will again be combinatorial. We wish, however, to stress that it has a related representation-theoretic picture. While the ideals (antichains) in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ correspond bijectively to the $`b`$-stable subspaces in $`g`$ having no nonzero semisimple elements, our short antichains in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ correspond bijectively to the $`b`$-stable subspaces, without nonzero semisimple elements, in the little adjoint $`g`$-module.
To distinguish various objects associated with long and short roots, we use the subscripts ‘$`l`$’ and ‘$`s`$’, respectively. For instance, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_l`$ is the set of long simple roots and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$ is the set of short positive roots. Accordingly, each simple reflection $`s_i`$ is either short or long. Since $`\theta `$ is long, the simple root $`\alpha _0`$ and the reflection $`s_0`$ are regarded as long. Therefore, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_l=\mathrm{\Pi }_l\{\alpha _0\}`$. Write $`\theta _s`$ for the unique short dominant root in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. A simple $`g`$-module with highest weight $`\theta _s`$, $`V(\theta _s)`$, is said to be little adjoint. The set of nonzero weights of $`V(\theta _s)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$, all nonzero weights are simple, and the multiplicity of the zero weight is $`\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Pi }_s)`$ \[8, 2.8\].

4.1 Definition. An antichain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ is called short, if it consists of short roots, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$. Similarly, one defines a long antichain. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a short antichain, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is a long antichain in the dual root system $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. Therefore, it suffices, in principle, to consider only short antichains. We write $`An_s`$ for the set of all short antichains of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. The respective set of ideals is denoted by $`Ad_s`$.
Recall that, for any finite-dimensional rational $`G`$-module $`V`$, there are notions of semisimple and nilpotent elements, generalizing those in $`g`$, see . An element $`vV`$ is called semisimple, if the orbit $`Gv`$ is closed; it is called nilpotent, if the closure of $`Gv`$ contains the origin. We shall say that a subspace of $`V`$ is nilpotent, if it consists of nilpotent elements.

4.2 Proposition.  There is a one-to-one correspondence between $`An_s`$ and the nilpotent $`b`$-stable subspaces of $`V(\theta _s)`$.  Proof. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a short antichain, then the corresponding subspace of $`V(\theta _s)`$ is the sum of weight spaces $`V(\theta _s)_\mu `$, $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$, such that $`\gamma _i\text{}\mu `$ for some $`\gamma _i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Conversely, if $`U`$ is a $`b`$-stable subspace of $`V(\theta _s)`$, then it is a sum of weight spaces. If $`U`$ contains no semisimple elements, then all weights of $`U`$ must lie in an open halfspace of $`V`$ (by the Hilbert-Mumford criterion). From the above description of weights of $`V(\theta _s)`$, it follows that the weights of $`U`$ must form a subset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$. The minimal elements of this set of weights give us the required short antichain.  If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a short antichain, then the set of weights of the corresponding nilpotent $`b`$-stable subspace of $`V(\theta _s)`$ is $`I\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$.

## 5. Short antichains, $`s`$-minimal and $`s`$-maximal elements of $`\widehat{W}`$

Our goal is to show that the theory described in Section 2 extends well to short antichains.

5.1 Definition. $`w\widehat{W}`$ is called $`s`$-minimal, if

* $`w`$ is dominant;
* if $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_s`$ and $`w^1(\alpha )=k\delta +\mu `$ with $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`k1`$;
* if $`\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_l`$ and $`w^1(\alpha )=k\delta +\mu `$ with $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`k0`$;

Using (i), conditions (ii), (iii) can be made more precise. If $`k=0`$ or $`k=1`$ in (ii), then $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$.

We write $`\widehat{W}_{min}^{(s)}`$ for the set of all $`s`$-minimal elements. Notice that $`\widehat{W}_{min}^{(s)}\widehat{W}_{min}`$.

5.2 Proposition.  The bijection between $`Ad`$ and $`\widehat{W}_{min}`$ described in Proposition 2 gives rise to a bijection between $`An_s`$ (or $`Ad_s`$) and $`\widehat{W}_{min}^{(s)}`$.  Proof. 1. Suppose $`w\widehat{W}_{min}^{(s)}`$, and let $`I_w`$ be the corresponding ideal. It follows from Definition 5(ii),(iii) and Proposition 2 that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(I_w)\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$. Thus, we obtain a short antichain.

2. The use of Proposition 2 gives also the converse.  Now, we give a geometric description of $`s`$-minimal elements in the spirit of Section 2. Set

$$D_{min}^{(s)}=\{xV(x,\alpha )1(\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_s);(x,\alpha )0(\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_l);(x,\theta )1\},$$

and recall that $`w=vt_r`$, where $`vW`$ and $`rQ^{}`$.

5.3 Proposition.

1. $`w=vt_r\widehat{W}_{min}^{(s)}`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}w\text{ is dominant},\hfill \\ v(r)D_{min}^{(s)}Q^{}.\hfill \end{array}`$

2. The mapping $`\widehat{W}_{min}^{(s)}D_{min}^{(s)}Q^{}`$, $`w=vt_rv(r)`$, is a bijection.  Proof. The argument is the same as in Proposition 2, taking into account that the constraints for $`D_{min}^{(s)}`$ are different.  In order to compute the number $`\mathrm{\#}(D_{min}^{(s)}Q^{})`$, we perform the following transformation. Set $`\rho _s^{}=_{\alpha _i\mathrm{\Pi }_s}\varpi _i^{}`$. It is easily seen that the translation $`t_{\rho _s^{}}`$ takes $`D_{min}^{(s)}`$ to the dilated closed fundamental alcove

$$(g+1)\overline{A}=\{xV(x,\alpha )0\alpha \mathrm{\Pi };(x,\theta )g+1\}.$$

Here $`g=(\theta ,_{\alpha _i\mathrm{\Pi }_s}\varpi _i^{})`$, i.e., it is the sum of the short coordinates of $`\theta `$ (i.e., those corresponding to the short simple roots). It is easy to obtain other formulae for $`g`$. E.g., $`g=(\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Delta }_s)/p=(\rho _s,\theta ^{})`$, where $`\rho _s`$ is the half-sum of all positive short roots. If we want to explicitly indicate that $`g`$ depends on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we write $`g_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.
Although the above translation may not belong to $`\widehat{W}`$, the very existence of such a transformation and Lemma 1 in  show that the following is true

5.4 Lemma.  If $`g+1`$ and the index of connection of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are relatively prime, then there is an element of $`\widehat{W}`$ that takes $`D_{min}^{(s)}`$ to $`(g+1)\overline{A}`$.  The numbers $`g`$ for all root systems with roots of different lengths are as follows:

| $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ | $`\text{C}_p`$ | $`\text{B}_p`$ | $`\text{F}_4`$ | $`\text{G}_2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`g`$ | $`2p2`$ | 2 | 6 | 3 |

It follows that Lemma 5 always applies and hence $`\mathrm{\#}(An_s)=\mathrm{\#}(\widehat{W}_{min}^{(s)})=\mathrm{\#}((g+1)\overline{A}Q^{})`$. In turn, if $`g+1`$ is relatively prime with the coordinates of $`\theta `$, then this number is computed by Eq. (2.8). One sees that the condition of relative primeness does not hold only for $`\text{G}_2`$. (However, this case can be studied by hand.) Thus, we obtain

5.5 Theorem.  Suppose $`|\theta |^2/|\theta _s|^2=2`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\#}(An_s)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{g+e_i+1}{e_i+1}.$$

It is easily seen that $`\mathrm{\#}(An_s)=4`$ for $`\text{G}_2`$.
Looking at the factors occurring in the formula of Theorem 5, one may notice that there is a nice formula for $`An_s`$, which resembles Eq. (2.9) and also covers the case of $`\text{G}_2`$. Here is it.
Suppose $`e_1<e_2<\mathrm{}<e_p`$ and set $`n=\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Pi }_s)`$. Then for any $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we have

(5.6)
$$\mathrm{\#}(An_s)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{h+e_i+1}{e_i+1}.$$

But it is not clear how to prove this a priori.
Changing the role of long and short roots in Definition 5, one may define $`l`$-minimal elements, which are in a one-to-one correspondence with the long antichains. Since the proofs here are similar, we state only results. The simplex associated with the $`l`$-minimal elements is

$$D_{min}^{(l)}=\{xV(x,\alpha )0(\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_s);(x,\alpha )1(\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_l);(x,\theta )2\},$$

and the $`l`$-minimal elements bijectively correspond to the integral points of $`D_{min}^{(l)}`$. The shift in the direction of $`\rho _l^{}=_{\alpha _i\mathrm{\Pi }_l}\varpi _i^{}`$ takes $`D_{min}^{(l)}`$ to $`(h+1g)A`$. Therefore, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not of type $`\text{G}_2`$, then

(5.7)
$$\mathrm{\#}(An_l)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{hg+e_i+1}{e_i+1}.$$

Since this number can also be computed as $`\mathrm{\#}(An_s)`$ for the dual root system $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, a relation between $`g`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ emerges. Namely, $`g_\mathrm{\Delta }+g_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=h`$.
Now we turn to considering a ‘short’ analogue of maximal elements.

5.8 Definition. $`w\widehat{W}`$ is called $`s`$-maximal, if

* $`w`$ is dominant;
* if $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_s`$ and $`w^1(\alpha )=k\delta +\mu `$ with $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`k1`$;
* if $`\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_l`$ and $`w^1(\alpha )=k\delta +\mu `$ with $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`k0`$.

Using (i), conditions (ii), (iii) can be made precise. If $`k=0`$, then $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$; if $`k=1`$ in (ii), then $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$.
We write $`\widehat{W}_{max}^{(s)}`$ for the set of all $`s`$-maximal elements. Notice that $`\widehat{W}_{max}^{(s)}\widehat{W}_{max}`$.

As in case of maximal elements, we wish to set up a one-to-one correspondence between the $`s`$-maximal elements and a certain subset of $`An_s`$. In order to distinguish the right subset we need some preparations. Recall that, although $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ is not a sub-root system of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, it is a root system in its own right. Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$ is the set of positive roots for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$. Let us write $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$ for the corresponding set of simple roots. As $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ itself, it consists of $`p`$ roots. Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_s\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$. Other roots in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$ are in bijection with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_l`$. Each $`\beta \mathrm{\Pi }_l`$ is replaced by a short root as follows. Let $`\alpha `$ be the closest to $`\beta `$ (in the sense of the Dynkin diagram) short simple root. The sum of all simple roots in the string connecting $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is a short root, which is a simple root for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$.
Warning. Although we often consider antichains lying in (certain subsets of) $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$, it is always meant that the ordering ‘$``$’ is inherited from the whole of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$.

5.9 Proposition.  The bijection between $`Ad_0`$ and $`\widehat{W}_{max}`$ described in Proposition 2 gives rise to a bijection between $`\widehat{W}_{max}^{(s)}`$ and the short antichains lying in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$.  Proof. The correspondence described in Proposition 2 attaches to a maximal element $`w`$ its first layer ideal, $`I^w`$. But even if $`w`$ is $`s`$-maximal, the generators of $`I^w`$ may not be short roots. So, we do not immediately obtain a required short antichain. To correct this, we take $`I^w\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$. (It is also the set of weights of a nilpotent $`b`$-stable subspace of $`V(\theta _s)`$.) The set of generators (minimal elements) of $`I^w\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$ is a short antichain of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, which we attach to $`w\widehat{W}_{max}^{(s)}`$.

Now, we are to prove that the resulting antichain lies in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$ and that this correspondence is really a bijection.

Recall from Section 2 that $`\mathrm{\Xi }(I)`$ is the set of maximal elements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+I`$ and that in case of maximal elements $`\mathrm{\Xi }(I^w)`$ is described in Proposition 2. That description implies that, for $`w\widehat{W}_{max}^{(s)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }(I^w)`$ consists of short roots. Since $`\mathrm{\Xi }(I^w)`$ covers all simple roots (see Remark 2) and consists of short roots, it also covers all roots from $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$. (Use the explicit description of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$ given above.) This means that the short antichain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(I^w\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$ does not contain roots from $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$.

Injectivity. If $`w,w^{}\widehat{W}_{max}^{(s)}`$ are different, then $`\mathrm{\Xi }(I^w)\mathrm{\Xi }(I^w^{})`$. Since these two sets consist of short roots, we obviously have $`I^w\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+I^w^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$.

Surjectivity. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an antichain of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ lying in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$, then take all maximal short roots in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+I\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. More precisely, let $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ be the set of short roots $`\mu `$ such that if $`\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$ and $`\nu \mu `$ then there is $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\nu \gamma `$. Then $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is a short antichain that covers all roots in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$ and hence the whole of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. In view of Remark 2, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is of the form $`\mathrm{\Xi }(I^w)`$ for some $`w\widehat{W}_{max}`$. Finally, since $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ consists of short roots, this $`w`$ is $`s`$-maximal.  The antichains of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ lying in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$ are said to be strictly $`s`$-positive. The corresponding subset of $`An_s`$ is denoted by $`An_{s,0}`$.
Once again, the next part of our program is a geometric description. Set
$`D_{max}^{(s)}=\{xV(x,\alpha )1(\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_s);(x,\alpha )0(\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_l);(x,\theta )1\}`$,

5.10 Proposition.

1. $`w=vt_r\widehat{W}_{max}^{(s)}`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}w\text{ is dominant},\hfill \\ v(r)D_{max}^{(s)}Q^{}.\hfill \end{array}`$

2. The mapping $`\widehat{W}_{max}^{(s)}D_{max}^{(s)}Q^{}`$, $`w=vt_rv(r)`$, is a bijection.  Proof. The argument is the same as in Proposition 2, taking into account that the constraints for $`D_{max}^{(s)}`$ are different.  The translation in the direction of $`\rho _s^{}`$, which belongs to extended affine Weyl group, takes $`D_{max}^{(s)}`$ to $`(1g)A`$. Since $`g1`$ is always relatively prime with the index of connection, there is also an element of $`\widehat{W}`$ that does the same, cf. Lemma 5. As in case of $`s`$-minimal elements, we have $`g1`$ is relatively prime with the coordinates of $`\theta `$, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is not of type $`\text{G}_2`$. Therefore, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\{\text{B}_p,\text{C}_p,\text{F}_4\}`$, then

(5.11)
$$\mathrm{\#}(An_{s,0})=\mathrm{\#}(\widehat{W}_{max}^{(s)})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\frac{g+e_i1}{e_i+1}.$$

For $`\text{G}_2`$, this set consists of 2 elements.

## 6. Short antichains and the semi-Catalan arrangement

In this section, we study a hyperplane arrangement in $`V`$ that has the same connection with short antichains in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ as the Catalan arrangement has with all antichains. This provides yet another approach to counting the short and strictly $`s`$-positive antichains.

6.1 Definition. 1. The semi-Catalan arrangement in $`V`$, $`\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, consists of the hyperplanes $`H_{\mu ,k}`$ ($`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_s^+,k=1,0,1`$) and $`H_{\nu ,0}`$ ($`\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_l^+`$).

2. The $`m`$-semi-Catalan arrangement in $`V`$, $`\mathrm{Cat}_s^m(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, consists of the hyperplanes $`H_{\mu ,k}`$ ($`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_s^+,k=m,\mathrm{},1,0,1,\mathrm{},m`$) and $`H_{\nu ,0}`$ ($`\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_l^+`$). All these arrangements are deformations of the Coxeter arrangement. Notice also that $`\mathrm{Cat}_s^0(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the usual Coxeter arrangement, and $`\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{Cat}_s^1(\mathrm{\Delta })`$.
First, we are interested in the dominant regions of $`\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and their relation to short antichains. Define a mapping

$$\psi :An_s\{\text{the dominant regions of }\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta })\}$$

as follows. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }An_s`$, let

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{𝜓}{}R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}:=\{xC(x,\mu )>1,\text{ if }\mu I\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+\&(x,\mu )<1,\text{ if }\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_s^+I\mathrm{\Gamma }\}.$$

6.2 Theorem.

* The mapping $`\psi `$ is well-defined, and it is a bijection;
* $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$ is bounded if and only if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }An_{s,0}`$.

Proof. (i) 1. Regarding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as ”usual” antichain, we can construct a region $`R_{I\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, as prescribed by Eq. (3.1). Obviously, $`R_{I\mathrm{\Gamma }}R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$. Hence the latter is non-empty.
2. Since the definition of the set $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$ includes a constraint for any hyperplane in $`\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ meeting $`C`$, $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$ cannot contain more than one region. It is also clear that $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}^{(s)}`$, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. For, if $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }I\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, then $`H_{\gamma ,1}`$ separates $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$ and $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}^{(s)}`$. Hence $`\psi `$ is injective.
3. The surjectivity of $`\psi `$ follows from the existence of the inverse map. Given a region $`R`$, take the set of walls of $`R`$ separating $`R`$ from the origin. Then the corresponding set of roots form a short antichain.

(ii) If $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)I\mathrm{\Gamma }=\text{}`$, then $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$ belong to the bounded domain $`\{xC(x,\mu )<1,\mu \mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)\}`$.

Conversely, assume $`\beta I\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$. Recall from Section 5 that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$ is in bijection with $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ ($`\beta `$ either belong to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_s`$ or is obtained via a simple procedure from a long simple root). Let $`\beta ^{}`$ be the simple root in $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ corresponding to $`\beta `$ and $`\phi _\beta ^{}`$ the respective fundamental weight of $`g`$. Then we claim that if $`xR_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$, then $`x+t\phi _\beta ^{}R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$ for any $`tR_0`$. Indeed, $`\beta `$ is the minimal short having nonzero $`\beta ^{}`$-coordinate. Therefore all short roots having nonzero $`\beta ^{}`$-coordinate are in $`I\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This means that $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$ has no upper bound in the direction of $`\phi _\beta ^{}`$. Thus, $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$ unbounded.  Let us look at the relationship between $`s`$-minimal and $`s`$-maximal elements on one hand, and dominant regions of $`\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ on the other hand.

6.3 Proposition.

* Suppose $`w\widehat{W}_{min}^{(s)}`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }An_s`$ be the corresponding antichain. Then $`w^1AR_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$, and it is the nearest to the origin alcove in $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$.
* Suppose $`w\widehat{W}_{max}^{(s)}`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }An_{s,0}`$ be the corresponding antichain. Then $`w^1AR_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$, and it is the most distant from the origin alcove in $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$.

Proof. (i) It was already observed before that $`w^1AR_{I\mathrm{\Gamma }}R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(s)}`$. Suppose we are inside $`w^1A`$. To get in an alcove that is closer to the origin, we must cross a wall separating $`w^1A`$ from the origin. These walls correspond to the roots $`\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ such that $`w^1(\alpha )<0`$. But then $`w^1(\alpha )=\delta +\mu `$, where $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$. So that having crossed this wall, we get in another dominant region of $`\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

(ii) Suppose $`w\widehat{W}_{max}^{(s)}`$ and we are inside $`w^1A`$. To get in an alcove that is more distant from the origin, we must cross a wall of $`w^1A`$ that does not separate $`w^1A`$ from the origin. These walls correspond to the roots $`\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ such that $`w^1(\alpha )>0`$. In view of the definition of $`s`$-maximal elements, there are two possibilities: (a) if $`w^1(\alpha )=\mu \mathrm{\Delta }+`$, then crossing such a wall we leave $`C`$; (b) if $`w^1(\alpha )=\delta \mu `$, $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$, then crossing such a wall we get in another dominant region of $`\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Hence $`w^1A`$ is the most distant from the origin alcove in a certain region.
The hyperplanes of $`\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ separating $`w^1A`$ from the origin (not necessarily walls of $`w^1A`$) correspond to the short roots $`\mu `$ such that $`w(\delta \mu )<0`$, i.e., these roots are exactly the short roots in the first layer ideal of $`w`$. According to the correspondence described in the proof of Proposition 5, the minimal elements of this set form the short antichain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ attached to $`w`$. Thus, $`w^1A`$ lies in the required alcove.  Theorem 6 implies that the number of short or strictly $`s`$-positive antichains can be found through the use of the characteristic polynomial of $`\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. In fact, we are able to compute the characteristic polynomial for $`\mathrm{Cat}_s^m(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ with any $`m`$. One should just follow the scheme of Athanasiadis’ proof for the usual $`m`$-Catalan arrangement, see \[1, Theorem 3.1\]. Let $`P^{}`$ be the coweight lattice and $`f=[P^{}:Q^{}]`$. (Hence $`f`$ is the index of connection of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.)

6.4 Theorem.  Suppose $`tN`$, $`t>mg`$, and both $`t`$, $`tmg`$ are relatively prime with all the coordinates of $`\theta `$. Then

$$\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s^m(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)=\frac{\mathrm{\#}W}{f}\mathrm{\#}((tmg)AP^{}).$$

Proof. We give only a sketch of the proof, where we indicate essential distinction from Athanasiadis’ proof for an $`m`$-Catalan arrangement, referring to  for all details.

Let $`P`$ denote the fundamental parallelepiped $`\{_{i=1}^py_i\varpi _i^{}0y_i1\}`$. Set $`P_t=P\frac{1}{t}P^{}`$. Also, let $`V_{\mathrm{\Delta },t}^m`$ be the set of hyperplanes

$`H_{\mu ,k+\frac{n}{t}}`$ ($`n,kZ`$, $`|n|m`$, $`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_s`$) and $`H_{\gamma ,k}`$ ($`kZ`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }_l`$).

Note that fractional indices are allowed only for hyperplanes orthogonal to short roots, so that our $`V_{\mathrm{\Delta },t}^m`$ is different from that of Athanasiadis.

Given an arrangement $`𝒜`$ in $`V`$, according to a general result (Athanasiadis, Björner-Ekedahl), the value $`\chi (𝒜,t)`$ is equal to the number of points in the complement of all hyperplanes, counted after reduction modulo $`t`$, i.e., in $`(Z_t)^p`$. More precisely, this equality holds for infinitely many $`t`$ (this can be made even more precise, see \[1, Sect. 2\]).
In our situation, this general principle leads to the equality $`\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s^m(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)=\mathrm{\#}\{P_tV_{\mathrm{\Delta },t}^m\}`$. Using the fact that $`P`$ contains $`\mathrm{\#}W/f`$ alcoves, this can be transformed to

$$\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s^m(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)=\frac{\mathrm{\#}W}{f}\mathrm{\#}((A\frac{1}{t}P^{})V_{\mathrm{\Delta },t}^m)=\frac{\mathrm{\#}W}{f}\mathrm{\#}((tAP^{})tV_{\mathrm{\Delta },t}^m).$$

It easily follows from the definition of $`V_{\mathrm{\Delta },t}^m`$ that $`(tAP^{})tV_{\mathrm{\Delta },t}^m`$ is obtained from $`tAP^{}`$ by deleting the coweights lying on the hyperplanes $`H_{\alpha ,i}`$ with $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_s`$ and $`1im`$. That is, the set in question is equal to

$$\{xP^{}(x,\alpha )>m(\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_s);(x,\alpha )>0(\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_l);(x,\theta )<t\}.$$

Finally, the translation by the negative of $`m\rho _s^{}`$ (which lies in $`P^{}`$) takes this set to the points of $`P^{}`$ lying in the open simplex $`(tgm)A`$.  Let us discuss consequences of this result. We use values of $`g`$ given in Section 5. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }\{\text{B}_p,\text{C}_p,\text{F}_4\}`$ and $`t`$ is relatively prime with the coordinates of $`\theta `$, then the same holds for $`tmg`$ with any $`m`$. It follows that

$$\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s^m(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)=\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s^0(\mathrm{\Delta }),tmg)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}(tmge_i).$$

(The first equality holds for infinitely many values of $`t`$; hence it holds always, as both parts are polynomials in $`t`$. The second equality is a statement about Coxeter arrangements.) In particular,

(6.5)
$$\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}(tge_i).$$

Combining Theorems 3 and 6, we conclude that

$$\mathrm{\#}(An_s)=|\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta }),1)|/\mathrm{\#}W\text{ and }\mathrm{\#}(An_{s,0})=|\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta }),1)|/\mathrm{\#}W,$$

which coincides, of course, with the formula in Theorem 5 and Eq. (5.11).
For $`\text{G}_2`$, we have $`g=3`$ and the assumption of Theorem 6 is satisfied only if $`m`$ is even. Therefore

$$\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s^{2m}(\text{G}_2),t)=\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s^0(\text{G}_2),t6m)=(t6m1)(t6m5).$$

Using ad hoc arguments, one may derive the “odd” formula

(6.6)
$$\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s^{2m+1}(\text{G}_2),t)=(t6m5)(t6m7).$$

It is also easy to compute $`\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s^1(\text{G}_2),t)`$ directly from the definition of a characteristic polynomial.
Again, it is noteworthy that formulae (6.5), (6.6) for $`\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)`$ admit a uniform presentation for all non-simply laced cases, cf. Eq. (5.6).

6.7 Theorem.  If $`n=\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Pi }_s)`$ and the exponents of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are increasingly ordered, then

$$\chi (\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)=\underset{in}{}(the_i)\underset{in+1}{}(te_i).$$

Of course, it would be interesting to have a uniform proof (explanation) for this.

6.8 Remarks. 1. One may consider ‘short’ analogues for other arrangements associated with root systems. For instance, the extended semi-Shi arrangement, $`\text{Shi}_s^m(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, is the collection of hyperplanes $`H_{\mu ,k}`$ ($`\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_s^+,k=m+1,\mathrm{},1,0,\mathrm{},m`$) and $`H_{\nu ,0}`$ ($`\nu \mathrm{\Delta }_l^+`$). It is not hard to compute that, for $`\text{C}_2`$, the characteristic polynomial is equal to $`(t2m1)^2`$. For $`\text{G}_2`$, it is equal to $`(t3m1)(t3m2)`$, at least if $`m3`$. I conjecture that the following formula holds in general:

$$\chi (\text{Shi}_s^m(\mathrm{\Delta }),t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}(tmg_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}e_i(\mathrm{\Delta }_l)),$$

where $`\{e_i(\mathrm{\Delta }_l)\}`$ are the exponents for the root system $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$. For instance, in case of $`\text{F}_4`$ we have $`g_\mathrm{\Delta }=g_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=6`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$ is of type $`\text{D}_4`$. Therefore the conjectural expression is $`(t6m1)(t6m3)^2(t6m5)`$.

2. The dominant regions of $`\mathrm{Cat}_s(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ provide a connection, in the spirit of , with nilpotent $`G`$-orbits in $`V(\theta _s)`$. I hope to discuss this topic in a forthcoming publication.

## 7. Some numerical complements

In this section, we collect several results that can be proved in a case-by-case fashion.

### 7.1.

We know the number of all and short antichains for all irreducible reduced root systems. Using this, on may observe that $`\mathrm{\#}(An_s)`$ divides $`\mathrm{\#}(An)`$ in all cases. Furthermore, the ratio has, a posteriori, an interesting description. Namely, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Pi }_l)`$ be the root system whose set of simple roots is $`\mathrm{\Pi }_l`$. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Pi }_l)`$ is smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_l`$, and that the former is irreducible, since $`\mathrm{\Pi }_l`$ is a connected subset of the Dynkin diagram. Write $`An(\mathrm{\Pi }_l)`$ for the set of all antichains in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Pi }_l)^+`$.

7.1 Theorem.  $`\mathrm{\#}(An)=\mathrm{\#}(An_s)\mathrm{\#}(An(\mathrm{\Pi }_l))`$.  Proof. Case-by-case verification. For instance, in case of $`\text{F}_4`$ we have $`\mathrm{\#}(An)=105`$, $`\mathrm{\#}(An_s)=21`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Pi }_l)`$ is of type $`\text{A}_2`$, where one has five antichains.  Of course, this proof is not illuminating. One may consider a natural mapping $`AnAn_s`$ that takes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to the set of minimal elements of $`I\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$. For $`\text{C}_p`$, all fibres of this mapping has the same cardinality, which is 2. To some extent, this is an explanation in this case. Unfortunately, the ”equicardinality” property does not hold for $`\text{F}_4`$ and $`\text{G}_2`$. The statement of Theorem 7.1 can be compared with another equality, which is easy to prove. The reflection $`s_\gamma W`$ is called short, if $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }_s^+`$. Let $`W_s`$ be the (normal) subgroup of $`W`$ generated by all short reflections, and let $`W(\mathrm{\Pi }_l)`$ be the Weyl group of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Pi }_l)`$. Then $`WW_sW(\mathrm{\Pi }_l)`$ (a semidirect product).

### 7.2.

We have shown that the short antichains of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ lying in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$ are in a one-to-one correspondence with $`s`$-maximal elements, and then computed their number. However, it is also natural to enumerate the short antichains lying in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+\mathrm{\Pi }_s`$. (Recall that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_s`$ is a proper subset of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)`$.) Set $`An_{ss}=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }An_s\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Pi }_s=\text{}\}`$. I did not find a suitable bijection for $`An_{ss}`$, but the following formula for the cardinality is true:

(7.2)
$$\mathrm{\#}(An_{ss})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{h+e_i1}{e_i+1},$$

where the notation is the same as in Theorem 6. Again, this formula bears a striking resemblance with Theorem 2. Direct calculations show that this gives us the correct number for $`\text{B}_p`$ (this is easy, because there is only a few short roots), $`\text{F}_4`$, $`\text{G}_2`$.
The argument for $`\text{C}_p`$ goes as follows. The set of positive roots $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+(\text{C}_p)`$ is naturally represented by the shifted Ferrers diagram of shape $`(2p1,2p3,\mathrm{},1)`$, and the ideals are represented by suitable subdiagrams of it, see slightly different versions in \[13, Sect. 2\], \[3, Sect. 3\], \[10, Sect. 5\]. In these interpretations, the long roots are represented by the boxes in an extreme diagonal of this shifted Ferrers diagram, and the simple roots correspond to the boxes of another (”opposite”) diagonal. These two diagonals have a unique common box, corresponding to the long simple root. If we want to obtain an ideal whose generators are short and contain no short simple roots, then we just erase both these diagonals and consider a subdiagram of the smaller shifted diagram. But this smaller shifted Ferrers diagram, which is of shape $`(2p3,2p5,\mathrm{},1)`$, can be thought of as the set of positive roots for $`\text{C}_{p1}`$. Thus, the number $`\mathrm{\#}(An_{ss})`$ for $`\text{C}_p`$ equals the number $`\mathrm{\#}(An)`$ for $`\text{C}_{p1}`$. The latter is known to equal $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{2p2}{p1}\right)`$, which is consistent with Eq. (7.2). Actually, we obtain more. Our bijection between $`An_{ss}(\text{C}_p)`$ and $`An(\text{C}_{p1})`$ preserves the number of elements. Therefore, we conclude that the number of $`k`$-element antichains in $`An_{ss}(\text{C}_p)`$ is equal to $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{p1}{k}\right)^2`$, $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},p1`$.

### 7.3.

Counting antichains with respect to the number of generators yields an interesting $`q`$-analogue of $`\mathrm{\#}(An)`$, see , . In case of two root lengths, one may consider, of course, a 2-parameter refinement. Set

$$Ank,m=\{\mathrm{\Gamma }An\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_s^+)=k\&\mathrm{\#}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_l^+)=m\},a_{k,m}=\mathrm{\#}Ank,m,$$

and consider the generating function $`(t,u)=_{k,m0}a_{k,m}t^ku^m`$. We have

* $`(t,u)=1+3t+3u+tu`$.
* $`(t,u)=1+12t+12u+8t^2+39tu+8u^2+12t^2u+12tu^2+t^2u^2`$.

The symmetry of these polynomials stems from the fact the corresponding root systems are self-dual. Since the root systems of type B and C are dual to each other, the corresponding matrices $`(a_{k,m})`$ are mutually transposed. So, it suffices to handle the case of $`\text{C}_p`$. Each pair of long roots in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+(\text{C}_p)`$ is comparable, hence any antichain contains at most one long root. So that we are to determine the coefficients $`a_{k,0},a_{k,1},(k=0,1,\mathrm{},p1)`$. In \[10, Sect. 5\], we constructed an involution on the set $`An(\text{C}_p)`$, which maps $`Ank,0`$ onto $`Anp1k,1`$. Hence $`a_{pk1,1}=a_{k,0}`$ and we have to only count the number of short antichains with $`k`$ elements. Using shifted Ferrers diagrams, it can be shown that $`a_{k,0}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{p}{k}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{p1}{k}\right)`$. (In this situation, short simple roots are allowed, so that one has to erase only one diagonal and work with the shifted Ferrers diagram of shape $`(2p2,2p4,\mathrm{},2)`$.)


format: text

text:
# Symplectic manifolds with disconnected contact type boundary in dimension 4𝑛

## 1. Introduction

The boundary $`Z`$ of a symplectic manifold $`(Z,\omega )`$ is said to have contact type if there is a conformal symplectic vector field $`X`$ (that is, $`\mathrm{\pounds }_X\omega =d(i_X\omega )=\omega `$) which is defined near $`Z`$ and is everywhere transverse to $`Z`$, pointing outwards. Given a suitable almost complex structure $`J`$ compatible with $`\omega `$ (that is, a compatible almost complex structure which leaves the kernel of the contact form $`\alpha =i_X\omega `$ invariant) then a boundary of contact type is automatically $`J`$-convex (that is, $`d\alpha (v,Jv)>0`$ for every $`vKer(\alpha )\{0\}`$). In the case that $`J`$ is integrable it is equivalent to the definition of pseudo-convex boundary in complex analysis. Thus, the contact type condition can be considered as its symplectic generalization.

The natural question is how much this symplectic analogue is more general than the complex one. One of the basic facts in the complex case is that the boundary of a compact complex manifold with pseudo-convex boundary is always connected. The first example of a compact symplectic 4-manifold with disconnected contact type boundary was given by D. McDuff in . In particular, its completion as a convex symplectic manifold is not diffeomorphic to a Stein manifold, showing that the former class of manifolds strictly contains the latter. Further generalizations were given by H. Geiges  giving 6-dimensional examples.

The aim of this work is to give examples of such manifolds in any dimension $`4n`$. More precisely, the main result is the following:

###### Theorem 1.1.

There are examples of symplectic manifolds with disconnected contact type boundary of dimension $`4n`$ for any $`n>0`$.

The construction of these examples is very natural and generalizes the twisted symplectic structures on the tangent bundle of a Riemannian manifold $`M`$. Let us recall that given a closed 2-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`M`$, a twisted symplectic form on $`TM`$ is given by $`\omega _0+\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\omega _0`$ is the canonical symplectic form on $`TM`$ induced by the Riemannian metric and $`\pi :TMM`$ is the bundle projection. This symplectic form has a physical meaning since the Hamiltonian flow given by the kinetic energy $`(1/2)v,v`$ with respect to this symplectic form describes the motion of a charged particle under the influence of the magnetic field $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ .

It was showed in  that given a surface $`M`$ of genus greater than 1 and a Riemannian metric with constant sectional curvature $`1`$, then the symplectic manifold ($`\{(x,v)TM;av^2b\},\omega )`$ has contact type boundary for any $`0<a<1`$ and $`b>1`$, where $`\omega `$ is the twisted symplectic form $`\omega _0+\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Kähler form on $`M`$.

Theorem 1.1 is a direct consequence of the following theorem which generalizes this example in a very natural way:

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`M^{2n}`$ be a compact quotient of the complex hyperbolic space with constant holomorphic sectional curvature $`c`$ for $`c>0`$. Let $`\omega _0`$ be the canonical symplectic form on $`TM`$ induced by the Riemannian metric. Consider on $`TMM`$ the 1-form given by

$$\beta _{(x,v)}(\xi )=\frac{1}{v^2}Jv,K\xi ,$$

where $`K:TTMTM`$ is the curvature operator and $`J`$ is the complex structure on $`M`$. Then, the 2-form $`\omega :=\omega _0+d\beta `$ is symplectic and given any $`0<a<c`$ and $`b>c`$ the symplectic manifold $`(\{(x,v)TM;av^2b\},\omega )`$ has contact type boundary.

Remark. In particular, their completion $`\widehat{M}^{4n}`$ as convex symplectic manifolds satisfy $`H_{4n1}(\widehat{M})=`$, answering positively the question 3.2.B. in .

We call $`\omega `$ a generalized twisted symplectic form because it coincides with the twisted symplectic form in dimension 2 (when $`n=1`$, $`\beta `$ is the connection form). Moreover, the generalized magnetic field $`d\beta _{(x,v)}`$ can be decomposed as a sum of a horizontal 2-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(x,v)}`$ and a vertical 2-form $`\overline{\beta }_{(x,v)}`$ such that $`\text{span}\{(0,v),(0,Jv)\}`$ is in the kernel of $`\overline{\beta }_{(x,v)}`$ (lemmas 2.1 and 2.2). With respect to a horizontal orthonormal basis $`\{v_i,Jv_i\}_{i=0}^{n1}`$ such that $`v_0=v/v`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(x,v)}`$ has the simple form (lemma 2.3)

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{(x,v)}(u,w)=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}& u& \end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \left(\begin{array}{cc}0& c\\ c& 0\end{array}\right)\\ \left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{c}{2}\mathrm{Id}\\ \frac{c}{2}\mathrm{Id}& 0\end{array}\right)& 0\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}|\\ w\\ |\end{array}\right].$$

Finally, note that, if $`n>1`$, the hypersurfaces $`S_c:=\{(x,v)TM;v=c\}`$ are not of contact type for the twisted symplectic form $`\omega _0+\pi ^{}\rho `$, where $`\rho `$ is the Kähler form on $`M`$. In effect, it follows from the Gysin sequence that, if $`n>1`$, then $`\pi ^{}:H^2(M,)H^2(SM,)`$ is an isomorphism. In particular, $`\omega _0+\pi ^{}\rho `$ restricted to $`S_c`$ is never exact.

## 2. Proof of the Theorem 1.2

Denote by $`J`$ the complex structure on $`M`$ and let $`G(x,v)=(0,Jv/v^2)`$ be a vector field on $`TM`$ where the decomposition is given by the horizontal and vertical subbundles induced by the Riemannian metric. Denote the Sasaki metric on $`TM`$ by

$$g(\xi ,\eta ):=\pi _{}\xi ,\pi _{}\eta +K\xi ,K\eta ,$$

where $`\pi :TMM`$ is the bundle projection and $`K:TTMTM`$ is the curvature operator. Since $`\beta _{(x,v)}(\xi )=g(\xi ,G(x,v))`$, we have by the symmetry of the connection $``$ of $`g`$ that

$`d\beta (\xi ,\eta )`$ $`=\xi \beta (\eta )\eta \beta (\xi )\beta ([\xi ,\eta ])`$
$`=g(\eta ,_\xi G)g(\xi ,_\eta G).`$
Now, suppose that $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ are both horizontal. A straightforward computation shows that given a horizontal vector $`X`$ and a vertical vector field $`Y`$ we have that

$$\pi _{}_XY(x,v)=(1/2)R(v,KY)\pi _{}X,$$

see . Thus, we conclude that

$$g(\xi ,_\eta G)=(1/2)R(v,Jv/v^2)\pi _{}\eta ,\pi _{}\xi .$$

Consequently,

$$d\beta _{(x,v)}(\xi ,\eta )=R(v,Jv/v^2)\pi _{}\eta ,\pi _{}\xi .$$

###### Lemma 2.1.

The horizontal and vertical subbundles are orthogonal with respect to $`d\beta `$, that is, given $`\xi H(x,v)`$ and $`\eta V(x,v)`$ then

$$d\beta _{(x,v)}(\xi ,\eta )=0.$$

In particular, $`\omega `$ is symplectic.

###### Proof.

Let $`W`$ be the almost complex structure on $`TM`$ given by $`W(\xi _h,\xi _v)=(\xi _v,\xi _h)`$. Since $`W`$ is parallel (because $`\omega _0=g(W,)`$ is closed) and defines an isometry, we have that

$$d\beta (\xi ,\eta )=g(W\eta ,_\xi WG)g(W\xi ,_\eta WG).$$

Thus, it is sufficient to prove that $`_\xi WG`$ is vertical and that $`_\eta WG`$ is horizontal.

Given a vertical vector $`X`$ and a horizontal vector field $`Y`$ we have that (see )

$$_XY(x,v)=((1/2)R(v,KX,\pi _{}Y),0).$$

In particular, $`_\eta WG`$ is horizontal.

Now, let us prove that $`_\xi WG`$ is vertical. Let $`\{E_1,\mathrm{},E_n\}`$ be an orthonormal frame field that is geodesic at $`x`$ and defined in a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`x`$. This means that $`\stackrel{~}{}_{E_i}E_j=0`$ for all $`i`$ and $`j`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is the Levi-Civita connection on $`M`$. Let $`X_i(x,v)=(E_i(x),0)`$ be the horizontal lift of $`E_i`$. We will show that $`_{X_i}WGV(x,t)`$ for all $`i`$. In effect, note that

$$WG(x,v)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}E_i(x),Jv/v^2X_i(x,v).$$

Hence,

$$_{X_j}WG=\underset{(i)}{\underset{}{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}X_jE_i(x),Jv/v^2X_i}}+\underset{(ii)}{\underset{}{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}E_i(x),Jv/v^2_{X_j}X_i}}.$$

Since $`\pi :TMM`$ is a Riemannian submersion, the horizontal component of $`_{X_j}X_i`$ equals $`\stackrel{~}{}_{E_j}E_i=0`$ which implies that $`(ii)`$ is vertical.

Now, we will show that $`(i)`$ vanishes. Let $`\alpha _j:(ϵ,ϵ)M`$ be a curve adapted to $`E_j`$ and $`Z_j`$ the parallel transport of $`v`$ along $`\alpha _j`$ such that $`X_j=\frac{d}{dt}|_{t=0}(\alpha _j(t),Z_j(t))`$. We have

$`X_jE_i(x),Jv/v^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}|_{t=0}E_i(\alpha _j(t),{\displaystyle \frac{JZ_j(t)}{Z_j(t)}}`$
$`=\stackrel{~}{}_{\alpha _j^{}(0)}E_i,Z_j(0)`$
$`=\stackrel{~}{}_{E_j}E_i,Jv/v^2=0,`$
where the second equality follows by the fact that $`JZ_j`$ is also parallel.

Now, recall that $`\omega _0`$ is given by

$$\omega _0(\xi ,\eta )=\pi _{}\xi ,K\eta K\xi ,\pi _{}\eta .$$

Consequently, we conclude by the orthogonality of the horizontal and vertical subbundles with respect to $`d\beta `$ that $`\omega `$ is a symplectic form. ∎

###### Lemma 2.2.

The subspace generated by $`(0,v)`$ and $`(0,Jv)`$ is in the kernel of $`d\beta _{(x,v)}`$.

###### Proof.

By the lemma 2.1, it is sufficient to prove that the subspace generated by $`(0,v)`$ and $`(0,Jv)`$ is in the kernel of $`d\beta _{(x,v)}|_{V(x,v)}`$. Note that

$$d\beta _{(x,v)}|_{V(x,v)}=d(\beta |_{T_xM})_v.$$

Now, write

$$(\beta |_{T_xM})_v(w)=f(v)\overline{\beta }_v(w),$$

where $`f(v)=1/v^2`$ and $`\overline{\beta }_v(w)=Jv,w`$. Note that

$`d\overline{\beta }(v,w)`$ $`=w,D_vJvv,D_wJv`$
$`=w,JD_vvv,JD_wv`$
$`=w,Jvv,Jw`$
$`=2Jv,w,`$
where $`D`$ denotes the covariant derivative of $`(T_xM,,)`$. Now, let $`\{v,Jv,w_1,\mathrm{},w_{n2}\}`$ be an orthogonal basis of $`T_xM`$. We have that

$`d(\beta |_{T_xM})_v(v,w_i)`$ $`=df\overline{\beta }(v,w_i)+f(v)d\overline{\beta }(v,w_i)`$
$`=df(v)Jv,w_idf(w_i)Jv,v+2f(v)Jv,w_i=0,`$
and

$`d(\beta |_{T_xM})_v(Jv,w_i)`$ $`=df(Jv)Jv,w_idf(w_i)Jv,Jv2f(v)v,w_i=0,`$
for all $`i`$. On the other hand,

$`d(\beta |_{T_xM})_v(v,Jv)`$ $`=df(v)Jv,Jv+2f(v)Jv,Jv`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{v^2}}v^2+2=0.`$
Thus, by the lemma 2.1, we can write

$$d\beta _{(x,v)}(\xi ,\eta )=\mathrm{\Omega }_{(x,v)}(\xi ,\eta )+d\beta _{(x,v)}|_{V(x,v)},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the horizontal 2-form given by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(x,v)}(\xi ,\eta )`$ $`=R(v,Jv/v^2)\pi _{}\xi ,\pi _{}\eta `$
$`=R(v,Jv/v^2,\pi _{}\xi ,\pi _{}\eta ),`$
where $`R(X,Y,Z,W)`$ is the curvature tensor on $`M`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`\{v_i,Jv_i\}_{i=0}^{n1}`$ be an orthonormal basis of $`H(x,v)`$ such that $`v_0=v/v`$. Then,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(v_0,Jv_0)=c$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(v_i,Jv_i)=c/2,\text{for all }1in1$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(v_i,v_j)=\mathrm{\Omega }(v_i,Jv_j)=0\text{for all }ij$$

###### Proof.

Since $`M`$ has constant holomorphic sectional curvature $`c`$, the curvature tensor is given by (cf. , page 166)

$`R(X,Y,Z,W)=`$ $`(c/4)(X,ZY,WX,WY,Z+X,JZY,JW`$
$`X,JWY,JZ+2X,JYZ,JW).`$
Consequently, we have that

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(w_1,w_2)`$ $`=R(v,Jv/v^2,w_1,w_2)`$
$`=(c/4)(v,w_1Jv/v^2,w_2v,w_2Jv/v^2,w_1+`$
$`+v,Jw_1Jv/v^2,Jw_2v,Jw_2Jv/v^2,Jw_1`$
$`2w_1,Jw_2).`$
Applying directly the last equation, we have that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(v_0,Jv_0)=(c/4)(vJv/v^2+vJv/v^2+2)=c$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(v_i,Jv_i)=2c/4,$$

for every $`1in1`$. Now, let $`\{w_0,\mathrm{}w_{2n1}\}=\{v_i,Jv_i\}_{i=0}^{n1}`$. Thus,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(w_i,w_j)=`$ $`(c/4)(vw_0,w_iw_1/v,w_jvw_0,w_jw_1/v,w_i+`$
$`+vw_0,Jw_iw_1/v,Jw_jvw_0,Jw_jw_1,Jw_i`$
$`2w_i,Jw_j).`$
Consequently, if either $`i2`$ or $`j2`$, we conclude that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(w_i,w_j)=2w_i,Jw_j.$$

Hence,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(v_i,v_j)=\mathrm{\Omega }(v_i,Jv_j)=0,$$

if either $`i1`$ or $`j1`$ and $`ij`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`H(x,v)=(1/2)v^2`$ be the Hamiltonian given by the kinetic energy. Then the Hamiltonian vector field of $`H`$ is given by

$$X_H(x,v)=(v,R(v,Jv/v^2)v).$$

###### Proof.

In effect, let $`\xi T_{(x,v)}TM`$. Then,

$`\omega (X_H,\xi )`$ $`=\omega _0(X_H,\xi )+\mathrm{\Omega }(X_H,\xi )+d\beta |_{V(x,v)}(X_H,\xi )`$
$`=v,K\xi R(v,Jv/v^2)v,\pi _{}\xi +R(v,Jv/v^2)v,\pi _{}\xi `$
$`=v,K\xi =dH(\xi ),`$
because $`d\beta |_{V(x,v)}(X_H,\xi )=0`$, since $`(0,Jv)`$ is in the kernel of $`d\beta |_{V(x,v)}`$ by the lemma 2.2 and

$$R(v,Jv/v^2)v=cJv$$

by the lemma 2.3. ∎

To finish the proof of the theorem, let $`\alpha =\lambda +\beta `$ be the primitive of $`\omega `$, where $`\lambda _{(x,v)}(\xi )=v,\pi _{}\xi `$ is the Liouville form. Then, we have that

$`\alpha _{(x,v)}(X_H)`$ $`=\lambda (X_H)+\beta (X_H)`$
$`=v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}Jv,R(v,{\displaystyle \frac{Jv}{v^2}})v`$
$`=v^2+c,`$
because, by the lemma 2.3, $`R(v,Jv/v^2)v=cJv`$.

Let $`X`$ be the conformal symplectic vector field corresponding to $`\alpha `$, that is, $`\alpha =i_X\omega `$. We have that

$$\omega (X,X_H)=\alpha (X_H)=cv^2.$$

On the other hand,

$$\omega ((0,v),X_H)=v^2.$$

Now, suppose that $`c>0`$. If $`v^2<c`$ then $`X`$ points to the direction of $`(0,v)`$ and if $`v^2>c`$ then $`X`$ points to the direction of $`(0,v)`$. Hence, $`X`$ points outwards the submanifold $`(\{(x,v)TM;avb\},\omega )`$, concluding the proof of the Theorem 1.2.


text:
# Acoustic Emission and Shape Memory Effect in the Martensitic Transformation

## Abstract

Acoustic emission signals are known to exhibit a high degree of reproducibility in time and show correlations with the growth and shrinkage of martensite domains when athermal martensites are subjected to repeated thermal cycling in a restricted temperature range. We show that a recently introduced two dimensional model for the martensitic transformation mimics these features. We also show that these features are related to the shape-memory effect where near full reversal of morphological features are seen under these thermal cycling conditions.

Acoustic emission(AE) is an important nondestructive technique that is sensitive to the microstructural changes taking place inside the system. It is widely employed in the detection of earthquakes of small magnitudes Aber , understanding and mapping nucleation events of fracture in seismology Lock , and precursor effect of fracture Garci . Its nondestructive character finds many applications in industry as well Marge . Acoustic emission is attributed to the sudden release of stored strain energy, although the details of the mechanism are generally system specific. For instance, the difference between the nature of AE signals in thermal and athermal transformations has been used to characterize the nature of a first order transformation Riche . In the case of athermal martensites, the kinetics of the transformation is not controlled by thermal fluctuations which implies that the system is caught in a local minimum. It jumps over the barrier only when subjected to changes in external parameters such as temperature or stress Riche ; Lovey99 ; Carr ; Picor ; Vives1 ; Vives2 . The AE emitted during martensitic transformation often shows unusual and interesting statistical properties, one that has attracted considerable attention is the power law statistics of the AE signals Vives1 ; Carr ; Rajeev , as it is reminiscent of self-organized criticality Bak . Much less known, but perhaps equally intriguing is that AE signals can show a high degree of statistical correlations in time (reproducibility) and its correlations to the growth and shrinkage of microplates Lovey99 ; Amen ; Picor . These results based on careful experiments on single crystals of $`CuAlZn`$ alloys under repeated thermal cycling in a restricted domain of temperatures Amen ; Picor  are well summarized in Figs. 10-12 of Ref. Lovey99 . To the best of our knowledge, these results have not been explained so far. Explaining these features is also crucial to the understanding of the shape-memory effect of martensites comment . Moreover, as far as we are aware, there are no models of shape-memory effect which demonstrate the reversal of morphology of martensite domains under thermal cycling. The purpose of this paper is to devise a model which explains these correlations and provide a model for the shape-memory effect.

Martensitic transformation is considered as an atypical first order transformation as it exhibits some features of second order transition such as precursor effect Kartha  and the scale free power law distribution of AE signals, again a signature of critical fluctuations. On cooling from a higher symmetry parent phase, nucleation of thin plate like product domains with internal twinned structure is seen. Nucleation is known to be athermal usually occurring at defects Kacha . Long range strain fields resulting from the difference in the unit cell structure between the parent and product phases tend to block the transformation. The athermal nature of the transformation also means that the amount of transformed phase is fixed for a fixed quench and further undercooling is required for an additional growth. For the same reason, the transformation occurs in a broad range of temperatures and it exhibits hysteresis under thermal cycling.

The power law statistics of the avalanches has been modeled using random field Ising models Sethna  where the extent of quenched disorder plays a crucial role. However, as the power law is seen only after repeated thermal cycling, Vives et al Vives1 ; Vives2  conclude that the transformation induced disorder, rather than quenched disorder ( defects ) is responsible for these avalanches. Recently, a model which generates dynamical disorder during the transformation has been shown to reproduce the power law statistics Rajeev . We show that this simple 2D phenomenological model Rajeev  has the right ingredients to explain the correlated AE signals and the shape-memory effect comment .

The model uses the deviatoric strain as the principal order parameter. The effect of the bulk and shear strains are included only in a phenomenologically way through a long range interaction term (see below). In terms of the two components of the displacement field, $`u_x`$ and $`u_y`$, the deviatoric strain is given by $`ϵ=(\frac{u_x}{x}\frac{u_y}{y})/\sqrt{2}`$.

The scaled free-energy, written entirely in terms of $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})`$, is the sum of local a free energy $`F_L`$ and an effective long-range term, $`F_{lr}`$, that describes transformation induced strain-strain interaction. $`F_L`$ is given by

$$F_L=𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\left[f_l(ϵ(\stackrel{}{r}))+\frac{\alpha }{2}(\stackrel{}{}ϵ(\stackrel{}{r}))^2\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})\right],$$
(1)
where both $`\alpha `$ and $`\sigma `$ are in scaled form. Here, $`f_l(ϵ(\stackrel{}{r}))`$ is taken as the usual Landau polynomial for a first order transition given by $`f_l(ϵ(\stackrel{}{r}))=\frac{\tau }{2}ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})^2ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})^4+\frac{1}{2}ϵ(\stackrel{}{r})^6`$, where $`\tau =(TT_c)/(T_0T_c)`$ is the scaled temperature, $`T_0`$ is the first-order transition temperature, and $`T_c`$ is the temperature below which there are only two degenerate global minima $`ϵ=\pm ϵ_m`$. We mimic the nucleation of the martensite domains occurring at localized defects sites by an inhomogeneous stress field, $`\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})`$ Cao . Recent studies have shown that an effective long-range interaction between the transformed domains results due to the coupling with the other components of the strain order parameter Kartha ; Shenoy . However, as our approach is phenomenological, we attempt to guess a simple form that respects the invariance of $`f_l(ϵ)`$ under $`ϵϵ`$. Following Wang and Kachaturyan Wang  (see their Eqn (11)), one simple form that satisfies this requirement when represented in the Fourier space can be written as

$$F_{lr}\{ϵ\}=𝑑\stackrel{}{k}B(\stackrel{}{k}/k)\{ϵ^2(\stackrel{}{r})\}_k\{ϵ^2(\stackrel{}{r})\}_k^{},$$
(2)
where $`\{ϵ^2(\stackrel{}{r})\}_k`$ and $`\{ϵ^2(\stackrel{}{r})\}_k^{}`$ is the Fourier transform of $`ϵ^2(\stackrel{}{r})`$ and its complex conjugate respectively, and $`B(\stackrel{}{k}/k)`$ is an appropriate kernel. Further, noting that the favourable directions of growth of the twins are along $`[11]`$ and $`[1\overline{1}]`$ directions, we find that the functional dependence of the kernel on $`k_x`$ and $`k_y`$ takes on a relatively simple form. We also use the fact that $`[10]`$ and $`[01]`$ are unfavourable directions for the growth. A simple choice of $`B(\stackrel{}{k})`$ having these features is $`B(\stackrel{}{k}/k)=\frac{1}{2}\beta \theta (k\mathrm{\Lambda })\widehat{k}_{}^{2}{}_{x}{}^{}\widehat{k}_{}^{2}{}_{y}{}^{}`$, where $`\widehat{k}_x`$ and $`\widehat{k}_y`$ are the unit vectors in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions, and $`\beta `$ is the strength of interaction. The step function $`\theta (k\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ has been introduced to impose a cutoff on the range of the interaction.(See Ref. comment2 .) Equation 2 also has the property that as the transformation proceeds, the growth of the domains transverse to $`[11]`$ and $`[1\overline{1}]`$ directions are hindered. Indeed, the geometrical picture of the kernel in real space is similar to Kartha et al Kartha .

Acoustic emission during the transformation suggests that inertial effects are important Bales . This is included through the kinetic energy of the displacement fields

$$T=𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\rho \left[\left(\frac{u_x(\stackrel{}{r},t)}{t}\right)^2+\left(\frac{u_y(\stackrel{}{r},t)}{t}\right)^2\right],$$
(3)
where $`\rho `$ is the mass density. Experiments show that the AE activity depends on the acceleration of the microplates Amen . Since, the parent-product interface moves in the parent phase, it is associated with dissipation which we represent by the Rayleigh dissipative functional Landau . Again, we represent the dissipative functional entirely in terms of the deviatoric strains Bales .

$$R=\frac{1}{2}\gamma 𝑑\stackrel{}{r}\left(\frac{}{t}ϵ(\stackrel{}{r},t)\right)^2.$$
(4)
This is consistent with the fact that shear and bulk strains are known to equilibrate rapidly and hence do not contribute. The equations of motion for the displacement fields are calculated using the Lagrangian $`L=TF`$ where $`F`$ is the total free energy Bales  through

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{\delta L}{\delta \dot{u}_i}\right)\frac{\delta L}{\delta u_i}=\frac{\delta R}{\delta \dot{u}_i},i=x,y.$$
(5)
After scaling out $`\rho `$ and $`\alpha `$, the equation of motion for the deviatoric strain $`ϵ(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}ϵ(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ $`=`$ $`^2[{\displaystyle \frac{f(\stackrel{}{r},t)}{ϵ(\stackrel{}{r},t)}}\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})^2ϵ(\stackrel{}{r},t)+\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}ϵ(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`2ϵ(\stackrel{}{r},t){\displaystyle }d\stackrel{}{k}B(\stackrel{}{k}/k)\{ϵ^2(\stackrel{}{k},t)\}_ke^{i\stackrel{}{k}.\stackrel{}{r}}],`$
where $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ now refer to the rescaled parameters. There are three adjustable parameters in the model, namely, the scaled temperature $`\tau `$, the strength of the long-range interaction $`\beta `$ and that of dissipation $`\gamma `$. The effect of increasing $`\gamma `$ is to reduce the twin width and that of $`\beta `$ is to reduce the width of the martensite domains transverse to the habit plane directions.

Simulations are carried out by discretizing Eq.(6) on a $`N\times N`$ grid ( ie., $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=1`$) using the Euler’s scheme with periodic boundary conditions. The time step used is $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.002`$. ( Actually, we see convergence of solutions even for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0.005`$.) A pseudo-spectral technique is employed to compute the long-range term Rajeev . Computations are carried out for several values of parameters.

Our earlier study has shown that the model exhibits hysteresis under thermal cycling during which the energy dissipated $`R(t)`$, ($`=\frac{1}{2}dE/dt)`$ occurs in the form of bursts Rajeev . Using Eq.(4), we compute $`R(t)`$ during repeated thermal cycling in a small temperature interval as in experiments. We represent the stress field due to the random distribution of defects by $`\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})=_j^{j_{max}}\sigma _0(\stackrel{}{r_j})exp[|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r_j}|^2/\zeta ^2]`$, where $`\stackrel{}{r}_j`$ refers to the coordinates of the randomly chosen defect sites and $`j_{max}`$ their total number. $`\sigma _0(\stackrel{}{r_j})`$ is taken to be uniformly distributed in the interval \[-0.3,0.3\].

Using the above initial configuration, we cool the system from the austenite phase. Then, at an appropriate point ( shown as $``$ in Fig. 3b) in the full cycle, we subject the system to repeated thermal cycling in a small temperature range $`\tau _{min}=5`$ and $`\tau _{max}=4`$. The starting configuration of the martensite domains for the small cycle is chosen in a way that, it contains a fair number of martensite domains, typically, when the area fraction $`\varphi `$ 0.6. For the cooling cycle, the final configuration during heating cycle is taken as the initial configuration. Calculations are performed for a range of parameter values of $`50\beta 10`$ and $`5\gamma 1`$. As the general features remain the same, we report here the results for $`\beta =25`$ and $`\gamma =4`$. Other parameter values are $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.2,\zeta =1`$ and $`N=256`$. During the first few cycles, the loops drift slightly in the $`\varphi \tau `$ plane which mimics the training period known in experiments, eventually stabilizing after several cycles (Fig. 1a). (In experiments also, the training period is typically the same for $`CuAlZn`$ Lovey99 , but could be much larger in some other alloys.) A typical plot of $`\varphi `$ vs. $`t`$ for the first three cycles is shown in Fig. 1a.

The energy dissipated $`R(t)`$ stabilizes after the training period. A plot of $`R(t)`$ for several forward and reverse cycles ( fifth to eight) after stabilization is shown in Fig. 2. It is clear that the energy bursts (which mimic the AE signals), as in experiments Amen ; Picor , exhibit a near repetitive pattern in time (temperature) during successive heating and cooling parts of the cycles.

In order to establish a correspondence between $`R(t)`$ and the changes in the spatial configuration of the martensite domains, we have simultaneously monitored the morphology over several cycles. During the first few cycles, the morphology changes considerably even as the system returns to nearly the same point in the $`\varphi \tau `$ diagram at the end of each cycle. Most changes occur during the first three or four cycles as can be seen from Figs 3a and 3b. Figure 3a is the starting morphology for the first cycle, while Fig. 3b that obtained at the end of four cycles. As can be seen, all the curved twin interfaces have been rendered straight after going through four cycles. The snapshots of the morphology during one such stabilized cooling and heating cycle, the fifth one, at selected intervals is displayed in Fig. 4. It is clear that during heating, the martensite plates shrink and some even disappear. However, during cooling these domains reappear and the eventual morphology at the end of the cycle is practically recovered on returning to the starting point on the $`(\varphi ,\tau )`$ diagram. As can be seen, the final configuration obtained during the fifth cycle, Fig. 4d can be seen to be practically the same as Fig. 3b which is the initial configuration for the fifth cycle. Under further cycling, the end configurations change very little, consistent with that observed in experiments Lovey99 .

Having established the repetitive nature of the energy bursts and the reversal of the morphology under thermal cycling, we need to explain the role of training cycles in inducing this correlated behavior shown in Figs. 2 and 4. We have argued earlier Rajeev  that the model generates a huge number of transformation induced metastable states due to the fact that we have including threshold dynamics, slow driving ( the rate of cooling or heating), dissipation and a fast relaxation mechanism. The spiky nature of $`R(t)`$ which mimics the bursts of acoustic emission was attributed to the following. As the temperature changes, the increase in the driving force arising from the decrease in temperature , goes in surmounting these local thresholds and another part goes in to the growth of the platelets, and the rest is dissipated in the form of bursts of energy (due to advancing interface). First, we note that the initial state for the repetitive small thermal cycles, Fig. 3a, is a configuration reached by cooling from the austenite phase. Further, a comparison of Fig. 3a with the final morphology reached after four small thermal cycles, Fig. 3b, reveals that the initial state Fig. 3a is a relatively shallow metastable state. This can be seen from the fact that the sizes of the martensitic domains of Fig. 3a, are smaller than that in Fig. 3b (or Fig. 4d) and the twin interfaces of Fig. 3a are rough and considerably curved compared to Fig. 3b. (Note that the austenite-martensite interfaces are nearly straight). Such configurations are generally expected to have higher energy compared to straighter ones. The repetitive pattern of the energy bursts during successive cycles after the training period is an indication that the system traverses through the same set of metastable states. During the first few cycles, the free energy landscape is so modified that it smoothens out the high energy barriers corresponding to the rough curved twin interfaces in Fig. 3a with very little change in the area fraction. A crucial role in smoothening process is actually played by the long-range interaction term, as the growth (shrinkage) of a martensite domain is influenced by the configuration of rest of the domains. Computation of the free energy $`F_{lr}`$ arising from the long-range interaction between the domains shows that it actually becomes more negative, saturating after the first few cycles. This leads to a reduction in the local free energy, $`F_L`$, as well. The net effect is to create a deeper set of metastable states for the system to circulate for the later cycles. Within one such stabilized cycles, say the fifth, the starting configuration (Fig. 3b) has the lowest free energy reaching a maximum at the end of a heating cycle (Fig. 4b). Thereafter it decreases during cooling. The fact that after first few cycles, the system traverses through a deep set of free energy configurations is actually reflected in Fig. 4. Note that the morphology at $`\tau =4.0`$ is similar to that at $`\tau =0.5`$ except that the widths have increased at the expense of the austenite regions consistent with the increase in the well depth stated above. The growth in the width of martensitic domains as we decrease the temperature is surprisingly similar to that observed in experiments. (See Fig. 12 of Ref.Lovey99 .)

In conclusion, our model exhibits the repetitive bursts of energy under successive thermal cycles in a small temperature interval as observed in experiments on acoustic emission. More importantly, these bursts of energy are shown to be correlated to the growth and shrinkage of martensite plates. The near full reversal of the morphology during successive cycles after the training period can be traced to the influence of the long-range interaction term. During the training period the long-range term has a tendency to smoothen out higher energy barriers in the free energy landscape. This in turn induces a transformation pathway along a unique set of low energy metastable configurations. As far as we know, this is the first time that the influence of training cycles on shape-memory effect has been elucidated. We expect that our analysis provides a good insight into the shape memory effect which finds immense applications in a variety of areas from mechanical actuators to bio-medical applications Van . To the best of authors knowledge, this is the first model which shows near full reversal of morphology under thermal cycling.