text:
# QSO 2237+0305 𝑉𝑅 light curves from Gravitational Lenses International Time Project optical monitoring

## 1 Introduction

Sixteen years after its discovery by Huchra and collaborators (Huchra et al., 1985), the quadruply imaged QSO 2237+0305 is a system that remains of great theoretical and observational interest. In this system, a high-redshift quasar at $`z`$ = 1.695 is lensed by a nearly face-on, barred spiral galaxy at $`z`$ = 0.039 (Huchra et al., 1985; Yee, 1988). The geometrical configuration of the four lensed components, forming a fairly symmetrical and compact cross around the galaxy nucleus, implies that the light rays of the four QSO images pass through the bulge of the galaxy. Therefore, high optical depths to microlensing at the QSO image positions ($`0.5`$) are obtained from models (e.g., Schmidt, Webster, & Lewis, 1998). Moreover, thanks to the unusually small distance between the observer and the lensing galaxy, the microlensing events should have a relatively short timescale of the order of months. On the other hand, the time delays between the different images derived from models are estimated to be of the order of hours (e.g., Schmidt, Webster, & Lewis, 1998) so that evidence in favor of microlensing variability may be found in a direct way.

In fact, the above-mentioned theoretical expectations have been confirmed, and the first detection of microlensing variability was made for this system (Irwin et al., 1989). Other microlensing events have also been reported (e.g., Corrigan et al., 1991; Østensen et al., 1996; Woźniak et al., 2000a, b), and several groups are currently monitoring this gravitational lens system. The aim of this paper is to present observations from a new optical monitoring campaign obtained with the Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) within the Gravitational Lenses International Time Project (GLITP) collaboration. This ended monitoring program included observations in two filters ($`V`$ and $`R`$) with excellent temporal sampling (daily observations). Very good seeing conditions and angular resolutions of the cameras contributed to the obtaining of accurate photometry for the four lensed components (A–D) of the distant quasar.

## 2 Observations

We observed QSO 2237+0305 from 1999 October 1 to 2000 February 3, i.e., during approximately four months. All observations were made with the 2.56 m NOT at the Roque de los Muchachos Observatory, Canary Islands (Spain), using two different cameras. Most of the images correspond to the StanCam, which uses a SITe 1024$`\times `$1024 CCD detector with a 0.176 arcsec/pixel scale. On some nights (at the beginning of the monitoring period) we took images with the ALFOSC camera. The ALFOSC camera uses a Loral-Lesser 2048$`\times `$2048 CCD detector with a 0.188 arcsec/pixel scale.

During good weather/technical conditions on a given night, two consecutive 300 s exposures were taken (one in the $`V`$ band and another one in the $`R`$ band). The mean FWHM of the seeing disk was below 1″ for 58% of nights in the $`V`$ filter (68% in the $`R`$ filter), and the mean observing frequency in each optical band was of three images per week. Preprocessing of the data included the usual bias subtraction and flat-fielding using dome and sky flats (when these were available). On some of the nights, more than one observation per filter could be obtained. These were subsequently combined.

## 3 PSF photometry

Due to the small angular separation between the lensed components ($``$ 2″) and their proximity to the galaxy nucleus, the photometry of QSO 2237+0305 is remarkably complex. Assuming a reasonable profile for the galaxy nucleus, one way to determine the brightness of the four quasar components is through PSF fitting.

After testing exponential disks and/or de Vaucouleurs profiles and different image sizes, we concluded that the best option for modeling the galaxy is a de Vaucouleurs profile within a relatively small region around the galaxy center. Therefore, we used a model consisting of four pointlike sources and a de Vaucouleurs profile convolved with a PSF image, plus a constant background. The model was fitted to the images by adjusting its parameters to minimize the sum of the square residuals, as described in McLeod et al. (1998) and Lehár et al. (2000). The model contains the following parameters: the position and intensity for all five sources (quasar components A–D and galaxy), the effective radius ($`R_{\mathrm{eff}}`$), the ellipticity ($`ϵ`$) and the position angle (P.A.) for the galaxy, and the background.

On many CCD frames, there are four field stars (those named $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in Figure 1 of Corrigan et al. 1991, plus two others) whose clean 2D profiles (the sky background has been subtracted) can be used as valid reference PSFs. However, due to several reasons (saturation, low signal-to-noise, etc.) not all field stars were acceptable as valid reference PSFs in all frames. We only selected and modeled the images having at least two valid PSFs, i.e., 52 images (or nights) in the $`V`$ filter and 50 images in the $`R`$ filter. The seeing in all these images is below 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4, so we conclude that up to this seeing level our method works properly, as we will see in the results.

In principle, our photometric model has 19 parameters to fit. However, for each image, we reduced the number of free parameters to seven: quasar images intensities, absolute position of the A component and the background. The procedure for fixing the other parameters was the following:

1. We applied the code to all images with a seeing (FWHM) better than 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7 (7 images in the $`V`$ filter and 14 images in the $`R`$ filter) allowing all parameters to be free. The mean values obtained for the relative positions of the quasar components and the galaxy are in excellent agreement with the results obtained by the CASTLES collaboration (Falco et al. 2002, in preparation) using Hubble Space Telescope (HST)—the differences in right ascension and declination are $``$ 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$006; see Table 1).
2. We applied the code to the images with the best seeing (FWHM $`<`$ 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$7), setting only the relative positions to those obtained in the previous step. The mean values obtained for the galaxy parameters ($`R_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`ϵ`$, and P.A.) are summarized in Table 2.
3. We applied the code to all images (whatever their seeings), setting the relative positions and the galaxy parameters to those derived in steps 1 and 2, and allowing the remaining parameters to vary. The results that we obtained for the integrated galaxy intensity relative to that of $`\alpha `$ star are distributed around a central value (6.66 in the $`V`$ band and 7.44 in the $`R`$ band) with a small dispersion (0.29 in the $`V`$ band and 0.26 in the $`R`$ band), providing further evidence for the goodness of our fit.
4. Finally, we applied the code to all the images now also setting the galaxy intensity to the relative galaxy intensity (obtained in step 3) times the $`\alpha `$ star intensity inferred from the code.

Given a frame, we made several measurements of the typical instrumental flux of each component (one for each valid reference PSF). Thus, we could use as the typical instrumental flux the mean value of different PSF estimates and as error the standard deviation of the mean. In this way (the PSFphotI task) we obtained one independent estimate of the error for each day and components A–D. When only two valid PSFs were available, the uncertainty in the typical instrumental flux of the $`\alpha `$ star (the calibration star; see below) is assumed to be the average of the standard deviations obtained from the days with three or four valid PSFs. However, this procedure is not totally consistent with the fact that the brightest reference stars probably lead to better estimates of the flux than the others (the statistical weights being difficult to estimate). Moreover, the error measurements were obtained from poor statistics (typically three values for the QSO components), and so the reliability of some uncertainties could not be very high. In addition, it may be that certain sources of error have not been taken into account. For these reasons, we alternatively estimated the flux of the compact sources (A–D and the $`\alpha `$ star) using only the brightest reference star that was available for PSF photometry (the PSFphotII task). In this case, to compute the error in the physical flux we used the mean of the absolute differences between adjacent days, which is a very conservative estimate since it neglects the possible day-to-day variability of the QSO components.

To do the photometric calibration we chose the $`\alpha `$ star that is always present in the images (frames), taking its $`V`$ magnitude from Woźniak et al. (2000a) and $`R`$ magnitude from the Guide Star Catalog II (http://www-gsss.stsci.edu/gsc/gsc2/GSC2home.htm).

In Figure 1 we show the light curves for QSO 2237+0305 in the two bands obtained with the variant PSFphotII. The PSFphotII task gives average errors of 0.01–0.04 mag in the $`V`$ band and 0.02–0.03 mag in the $`R`$ band for images A–D, respectively. Comparison of the PSFphotI and PSFphotII light curves revealed that there were no significant deviations between both sets of photometry.111The $`VR`$ light curves from the PSFphotI and PSFphotII tasks are available at http://www.iac.es/proyect/gravs-lens/GLITP/om2237

## 4 ISIS photometry

In addition to the PSF photometry described in the previous section, we also performed image-subtraction photometry of the four lensed components of QSO 2237+0305. This technique has been pioneered by Woźniak et al. (2000a, b), using the ISIS method developed by Alard (2000). Because of the brightness of the lens, observations of this particular multiply imaged quasar are well adapted for optimal image subtraction designed to efficiently remove the galaxy contribution without modeling its photometric profile. To do so, we implemented in Liège a locally adapted and completed version (Moreau et al. 2002, in preparation) of the public ISIS software provided by Alard222The ISIS 2.1 Package, http://www.iap.fr..

First of all, we rebinned all available CCD frames for each of the $`V`$ and $`R`$ passbands so that they matched a common sampling pixel grid. A first-order 2D polynomial fit to the positions of the field stars was used to correct for offsets and field rotation; all the CCD frames were then resampled on the same pixel grid using bicubic spline interpolation.

At this step, stacking or subtracting images becomes possible for a strictly astrometric application, but for an optimal co-addition, we must take into account the disparities in seeing, sky background level, and possibly PSF shape from one image to another. For both passbands, we built a reference frame by median-stacking eight selected images with best seeing which were first convolved with an optimal 2D kernel in order to match a common PSF shape and refer to similar observing conditions. Following Alard, we modeled the convolution kernels as linear combinations of three 2D Gaussian profiles, each Gaussian being apodized by a 2D polynomial and then normalized in flux. The best-fit kernel coefficients were determined using a least-squares algorithm taking into account the differences of the local sky background values. We then co-added these eight convolved images for both passbands and built up a deep and quasi-noiseless $`V`$ (and $`R`$) reference frame.

This reference frame was subsequently subtracted from each of the individual CCD frames in order to obtain differential images where the only residuals expected to appear lie at the positions of the variable objects. Of course, the subtraction operation was also optimized in the sense that the reference frame was successively convolved with an adapted kernel in order the better to match best each individual frame. The optimal kernel was obtained as above by least-squares fitting and an important point is that the coefficients of the kernel model were themselves considered non-constant and also described by 2D polynomials, enabling space-varying kernel solutions. Thanks to this method, the deflecting galaxy totally disappears after the optimal subtraction and the observed residuals essentially correspond to the four variable lensed quasar images (details will be given in Moreau et al. 2002, in preparation).

We could then perform a simultaneous 4-PSF fitting photometry of all differential frames obtained by optimal subtraction in order to measure for each of the four lensed components the respective flux differences between each individual frame and the reference one. The photometry process begins with the determination of a mean PSF model in the reference frame. We use a routine provided in ISIS which builds a normalized composite PSF out of a few bright star profiles distributed all over the field. The PSF model obtained may now be adapted to each subtracted image by flux-normalized convolution with the respective optimal kernels successively determined during the subtraction process. Using original dedicated software, we then derived the flux differences from all subtracted images by simultaneous least-squares fitting of four scaled PSF models (with either positive or negative amplitudes), resampled from spline interpolation in order to perfectly coincide with the exact positions of the four components forming the gravitational lens system QSO 2237+0305.

As we are performing differential photometry, there has so far been no need to assume light-distribution models for the galaxy, with their attendant errors. But of course, in order to get the absolute fluxes at all observing epochs for each of the four lensed components of QSO 2237+0305, we need to perform in both the $`V`$ and $`R`$ passbands direct photometry on the reference frame and, for this zero-point adjustment, we must determine a model for the photometric profile of the lensing galaxy.

Absolute photometry of the four lensed components of QSO 2237+0305 was derived for each passband using the so-called General program (Remy, 1996; Østensen et al., 1996). We fitted to the relevant part of the reference frame a global model of the gravitational lens made of one PSF for each of the four lensed components plus a model of the galaxy profile. Using a public-domain HST image, we measured very accurately the positions of three of the lensed components and that of the galaxy center relatively to the fourth lensed component (component A), the position of which is a free parameter in the fit. For the lens galaxy model, we adopted in the $`V`$ band a combination of a central PSF plus four Gaussian functions with different widths, which led to faint and acceptable residuals. But in the case of the $`R`$ band, the galaxy model turned out to be more complex and we fitted the galaxy using various possible models (PSF + Gaussians, exponential disk, or de Vaucouleurs profiles). As we did not find any model clearly better than another, we averaged the photometric measurements derived for the four lensed components only taking into account the best models (one PSF + two, three, or four Gaussians and one PSF + de Vaucouleurs profile), which led to the faintest acceptable residuals. Having derived the flux of the four lensed components in the reference frame (with an estimated accuracy of 0.2–2.1$`\%`$ in $`V`$ and 0.1–2.6$`\%`$ in $`R`$, for components A to D), we then obtained their absolute fluxes at all observing epochs and, using as in section 3 the $`\alpha `$ photometric calibration star, we finally constructed their photometric light curves (see Figure 2).

The next step then consisted in deriving realistic estimates for the photometric error bars. We simulated about one hundred observations for each epoch. Of course, each simulated frame contained the four lensed components of QSO 2237+0305, the lensing galaxy and the stars in the field in order to mimic very precisely the CCD frames obtained at the telescope. These simulations were made taking into account the observed seeing and sky background, as well as the CCD read-out noise and photon noise. Later on, we applied the adapted ISIS image-subtraction method to our simulated images. We thus derived for each observing date the average and the variance of the flux for each of the four lensed components and finally obtained from magnitude calibration estimated 1$`\sigma `$ error bars. The averaged values of these error bars are 0.007, 0.017, 0.013 and 0.024 mag in the $`V`$ band and 0.005, 0.008, 0.007 and 0.013 in the $`R`$ band, for components A, B, C and D, respectively.333The $`VR`$ light curves from ISIS tasks are available at http://vela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/extragal/gravlens/bibdat/engl/lc-2237.html The ISIS light curves were constructed out of 53 measurements in the $`V`$ band and 51 in the $`R`$ band. Among the available observations, we rejected in fact all frames with a seeing larger than, or equal to, 1$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$8 (i.e. 2 frames in the $`V`$ band and 4 in the $`R`$ one), plus the $`V`$ observation on December 13rd, because of a detector line problem exactly located on the image of QSO 2237+0305.

If we compare our absolute fluxes with those derived from the results obtained by PSF photometry (Section 3), we have a difference of 0.6$`\%`$ for A & B, 2.0$`\%`$ for C and 4.0$`\%`$ for D in the $`V`$ band, and 0.3$`\%`$ for A & B, 5.0$`\%`$ for C, and 9.5$`\%`$ for D in the $`R`$ band. Let us recall however, that, here errors due to the modeling of the galaxy profile only affect the zero point of the fluxes, not the general relative trend of the photometric light curves.

## 5 Discussion

In Figure 3 we compare the light curves in the $`V`$ band of the four lensed images of QSO 2237+0305 obtained from the GLITP data (both PSF and ISIS photometry) and the OGLE data (Woźniak et al., 2000b). The behavior of the new light curves (A–D) in the $`V`$ band basically agree with the trends reported by the OGLE collaboration during the same monitoring interval, and this strengthens both sets of photometry (OGLE and our new dataset). There is a remarkable similarity among the three sets of light curves (GLITP/PSF, GLITP/ISIS, and OGLE), which involve different photometric methods and/or telescopes. However, we notice that the GLITP data extend the time coverage by more than a month during a decisive period in which a high-magnification microlensing event is observed for the A component. In Figures 1 and 2, a general agreement between the $`V`$ and $`R`$ trends can be also seen, although a full discussion on the observed $`VR`$ color gradients is beyond the scope of this introductory paper.

The two different data processing techniques (PSF and ISIS) generate error bars with different sizes. However this fact does not imply that one approach is better than the other one, because the estimate of the errors also depends on the method. In fact if we calculate the differences between consecutive nights we will find that the ISIS photometry has smaller dispersion than the PSF method for the A component but greater for the B, C, and D components.

If we examine Figure 3 in detail, we see some slight discrepancies for several days. The trends of components A and B are remarkably similar and the other two components show a less good agreement. In the three photometry sets there is a drop for the C component, but at the end of the GLITP/ISIS light curve there is a rise. For the D component, the GLITP/PSF light curve is flatter than the others. These differences could play a role in the interpretation of the trends. On the other hand, due to the very good time coverage in the two optical bands (e.g., from the PSF photometry we obtained 52 final data in the $`V`$ band in 120 days) and the achievement of light curves characterized by reliable and relatively small photometric errors, the new dataset constitutes an important tool for further studies. In particular, several microlensing analyses are now in progress and will appear in forthcoming papers.

The Nordic Optical Telescope is jointly operated on the island of La Palma by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, in the Spanish Roque de Los Muchachos Observatory of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC). This work was supported by project P6/88 of the IAC, Universidad de Cantabria funds, DGESIC (Spain) grant PB97-0220-C02, and Spanish Department of Science and Technology grant AYA2001-1647-C02. Research in Liège was supported in part by the Belgian Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs (OSTC), by PRODEX (Gravitational Lens Studies with HST), by contract P4/05 ”Pôle d’Attraction Interuniversitaire” (OSTC, Belgium), and by the ”Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique” (Belgium), including a two-year post-doc research position for O.M. (1999-2001). We acknowledge information provided by the Guide Star Catalog II.


format: text

text:
# 𝑡–analogs of 𝑞–characters of Kirillov-Reshetikhin modules of quantm affine algebras

## 1. Introduction

Let $`𝔤`$ be a complex simple Lie algebra of type $`ADE`$, $`𝐋𝔤=𝔤[z,z^1]`$ be its loop algebra, and $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$ be its quantum universal enveloping algebra, or the quantum loop algebra for short. It is a subquotient of the quantum affine algebra $`𝐔_q(\widehat{𝔤})`$, i.e., without central extension and degree operator. It is customary to define $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$ as an algebra over $`(q)`$, but here we consider $`q`$ as a nonzero complex number which is not a root of unity. Let $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ ($`iI`$) be simple roots and fundamental roots of $`𝔤`$, where $`I`$ is the index set. Let $`(a_{ij})_{i,jI}`$ be the Cartan matrix. By Drinfeld , Chari-Pressley , isomorphism classes of irreducible finite dimension representations of $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$ are parametrized by $`I`$-tuples of polynomials $`P=(P_i(u))_{iI}`$ with normalization $`P_i(0)=1`$. They are called Drinfeld polynomials. Let us denote by $`L(P)`$ the corresponding irreducible representation.

For $`iI`$, $`k_0`$, $`a^{}`$, let

$$P_{k,a}^{(i)}=\left((P_{k,a}^{(i)})_j(u)\right)_{jI};(P_{k,a}^{(i)})_j(u)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{s=1}{\overset{k}{}}(1aq^{2s2}u)\hfill & \text{if }j=i,\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`W_{k,a}^{(i)}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}L(P_{k,a}^{(i)})`$ be the irreducible finite dimensional representation with Drinfeld polynomial $`P_{k,a}^{(i)}`$. This particular class of representations are called Kirillov-Reshetikhin modules. They were introduced in  and have been studied intensively by a motivation from the so-called Bethe ansatz (see \[11, §5.7\] and the references therein). Our first goal is to prove the following recursion formula, called the $`T`$-system, which was conjectured by Kuniba-Nakanishi-Suzuki , and a convergence property:

###### Theorem 1.1.

(1) There exists an exact sequence

$$0\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}W_{k,aq}^{(j)}W_{k,a}^{(i)}W_{k,aq^2}^{(i)}W_{k+1,a}^{(i)}W_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)}0(k=1,2,\mathrm{}).$$

Moreover, the first and third terms are irreducible. Here we have the following convention: we introduce some ordering among $`j`$’s such that $`a_{ij}=1`$ in order to define the tensor product of the first term. We set $`W_{k,a}^{(i)}`$ to be the trivial representation if $`k=0`$. If $`𝔤`$ is of type $`A_1`$, the first term of the exact sequence is understood as the trivial representation.

(2) The normalized $`q`$–character of $`W_{k,a}^{(i)}`$, considered as a polynomial in $`A_{i,a}^1`$, has a limit as a formal power series:

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\chi _q(W_{k,a}^{(i)})}{Y_{i,a}Y_{i,aq^2}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}}[[A_{i,aq^m}^1]]_{iI,m_{>0}}.$$

The definition of $`\chi _q`$ will be recalled in §2. Taking the $`\chi _q`$ of the exact sequence, we get

$$\chi _q(W_{k,a}^{(i)})\chi _q(W_{k,aq^2}^{(i)})=\chi _q(W_{k+1,a}^{(i)})\chi _q(W_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)})+\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}\chi _q(W_{k,aq}^{(j)})(k=1,2,\mathrm{}).$$

This is the original $`T`$-system. The $`T`$-system is a recursion formula. In particular, we can determine all $`\chi _q(W_{k,a}^{(i)})`$ inductively, once we know $`\chi _q(W_{1,a}^{(i)})`$ for any $`iI`$. These representations $`W_{1,a}^{(i)}`$, i.e., Kirillov-Reshetikhin modules with $`k=1`$, are called l–fundamental representations (or simply ‘fundamental representations’). They are basic building blocks in the representation theory of $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$, since any irreducible representations are subquotients of their tensor products. If $`𝔤`$ is of type $`A_n`$, they are lifts of the representation of fundamental representations of $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$. For general $`𝔤`$, there is a combinatorial algorithm to compute them due to Frenkel-Mukhin . But the algorithm is too complicated and author’s computer program, written by C, did not give answers for two fundamental representations of $`E_8`$ so far. For type $`A_n`$, $`D_n`$ see . Even if we can compute $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{1,a}^{(i)})`$ for the special node $`i`$ of $`E_8`$, it is a polynomial consisting of 6899079264 monomials. It is pratically impossible to compute even $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{2,a}^{(i)})`$ by the recursion.

However we can deduce a weaker information for $`W_{k,a}^{(i)}`$ as follows. The quantum loop algebra $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$ contains the finite dimensional quantum enveloping algebra $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$ as a subalgebra. Let $`\mathrm{Res}`$ be the functor sending $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$-modules to $`𝐔_q(𝔤)`$-modules by restriction. We set $`Q_k^{(i)}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\mathrm{Res}W_{k,a}^{(i)}`$. It is known that it is independent of $`a`$.

Theorem 1.1 has the following specialization:

(1.2)
$$Q_k^{(i)}Q_k^{(i)}=\left(Q_{k+1}^{(i)}Q_{k1}^{(i)}\right)\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Q_k^{(j)}(k=1,2,\mathrm{})$$

and

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}\chi (Q_k^{(i)})[[e^{\alpha _i}]]_{iI}.$$

The equation (1.2) is called $`Q`$-system. It also has a recursive structure, and we do not know the initial term. However, Hatayama-Kuniba-Okado-Takagi-Yamada  showed that the solution of the $`Q`$-system with the above convergence property, which is a sum of characters of representations of $`𝔤`$, has the following explicit expression. (See also  for more general results in this derection.)

###### Corollary 1.3 (Kirillov-Reshetikhin conjecture).

Let $`𝒬_k^{(i)}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}e^{k\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}\chi (Q_k^{(i)})`$ be the normalized character of $`Q_k^{(i)}`$. For a sequence $`\nu =(\nu _k^{(i)})_{iI,k_{>0}}`$ such that all but finitely many $`\nu _k^{(i)}`$ are zero, we set $`𝒬^\nu \stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}_{i,k}\left(𝒬_k^{(i)}\right)^{\nu _k^{(i)}}.`$ Then we have

$$𝒬^\nu \underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+}{}(1e^\alpha )=\underset{N=(N_k^{(i)})}{}\underset{iI,k_{>0}}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{P_k^{(i)}(\nu ,N)+N_k^{(i)}}{N_k^{(i)}}\right)e^{kN_k^{(i)}\alpha _i},$$

$$P_k^{(i)}(\nu ,N)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\nu _l^{(i)}\mathrm{min}(k,l)\underset{jI}{}a_{ij}\underset{l_{>0}}{}N_l^{(j)}\mathrm{min}(k,l),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ is the set of the postive roots, and $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b}\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+1)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(ab+1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b+1)`$.

Corollary 1.3 and the equation (1.2) were stated in , but proofs were not provided. Then the paper became the starting point of the subject. See \[11, 5.7\] for the status of the conjecture in the last year.

For a geometric side, it gives us an explicit formula of the Euler number (but not of Betti numbers) of arbitrary quiver varieties of type $`ADE`$. The formula are slightly different from the specialization of an explicit formula for Betti numbers, which was conjectured by Lusztig  in connection with fermionic formula. The difference is the definition of binomial coefficients. His ($`q`$-analog of) $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b}\right)`$ is set $`0`$ if $`b>a`$. The equivalence between two formulae are not known so far. (See \[11, Remark 1.3\] for detail.)

For the proofs of above results, we use ‘$`t`$–analogs of $`q`$–characters’, introduced by the author  by using quiver varieties. They were defined for arbitrary representations of $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$ and there are combinatorial algorithms to compute them for arbitrary irreducible representations. Therefore we can, in principle, compute many things, such as tensor product decompositions, etc. (The original $`q`$–characters were introduced and studied by Knight, Frenkel-Reshetikhin, Frenkel-Mukhin .) A new point in this paper is that the algorithms are drastically simplified, when they are applied to Kirillov-Reshetikhin modules. In \[15, §10\] it was conjectured that a geometric reason for this simplification was smallness of certain natural morphisms between two graded quiver varieties. We do not prove this conjecture, but find that checking the smallness only for few cases is enough to derive the $`T`$-system.

It is highly desirable to have a characterization of the solution of $`T`$-system and its $`t`$-analog, similar to the result of Kuniba-Nakanishi-Tsuboi . Such a result should have many applications to the representation theory of $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$, according to the importance of $`t`$–analogs of $`q`$–characters.

### Acknowledgement

Most of this work was done while I was visiting the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute at Berkeley. When I was a student of Professor Ochiai, he often talked me how wonderful Berkeley is. Therefore it is a great pleasure for me to dedicate this paper for his birthday to prove that !

## 2. Review on $`t`$–analogs of $`q`$–characters

In this section we recall the theory of $`t`$–analogs of $`q`$–characters , which we will use later. We give their properties, axiomized in , so that we do not need to go back to the original definitions. But in order to understand a flavor of the theory, we first briefly summarize results of  and . This part is expository. See  for more detailed survey.

Let $`𝐑`$ be the Grothendieck ring of the category of finite dimensional representations of $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$. The class $`\{L(P)\}_P`$ of irreducible finite dimensional representations is a basis of $`𝐑`$. The $`q`$–character $`\chi _q(V)`$  is the generating function of l–weight multiplicities of a representation $`V`$. Here an l–weight space of $`V`$ is a simultaneous generalized eigenspace with respect to the commutative subalgebra of $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$ which corresponds to $`𝐔(𝔥[z,z^1])`$ at $`q=1`$. ($`𝔥`$ is the Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$.) The corresponding eigenvalues, which we call l–weights, are parametrized by $`I`$-tuple of rational functions $`Q/R=(Q_i(u)/R_i(u))_{iI}`$ with normalization $`Q_i(0)=R_i(0)=1`$ . We say an l–weight is l–dominant when $`Q_i(u)/R_i(u)`$ are polynomials for all $`i`$. These concepts are natural analogs of the corresponding concepts without ‘l–’ for finite dimensional representations of $`𝔤`$. That is, weight spaces are simultaneous eigenspaces of $`𝔥`$, weights are their eigenvalues. Irreducible representations are parametrized by dominant weights, and so on. There is a natural analog of the dominance order on weights for l–weights. It will be denoted by $`<`$.

As in the case of finite dimensional representations of $`𝔤`$, the $`q`$–characters define a ring homomorphism (see  for the proof)

$$\chi _q:𝐑𝒴\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}[Y_{i,a},Y_{i,a}^1]_{iI,a^{}},$$

where $`𝒴`$ is the Laurent polynomial ring of uncontably many variables $`Y_{i,a}`$’s ($`iI`$, $`a^{}`$). Moreover, this is injective. Then, Frenkel-Mukhin gave a characterization of the image of $`\chi _q`$, which gives a combinatorial algorithm to compute $`\chi _q(L(P))`$ when $`L(P)`$ is an l–fundamental representation .

Around the same time, the author introduced another family of finite dimensional representations $`\{M(P)\}`$ of $`𝐔_q(𝐋𝔤)`$, also parametrized by Drinfeld polynomial $`P`$ . They are called standard modules. Those $`M(P)`$ and irreducible representations $`L(P)`$ naturally define classes in the $`t`$–analog of the representation ring $`𝐑_t\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}𝐑[t,t^1]`$. We denote them by the same symbol. There is a bar involution $`\overline{\text{}}`$ on $`𝐑_t`$. Then a main result of  (although stated in a different form there) is the following characterization of the class $`L(P)`$:

(2.1)
$$\overline{L(P)}=L(P),L(P)M(P)+\underset{Q:Q<P}{}t^1[t^1]M(Q).$$

This is very similar to definitions of Kazhdan-Lusztig bases of Hecke algebras, canonical bases of quantum enveloping algebras for type $`ADE`$, etc. As these bases, this characterization gives us an algorithm to compute the transition matrix between two bases $`\{L(P)\}`$, $`\{M(P)\}`$ of $`𝐑_t`$, once we can compute $`\overline{M(P)}`$.

In order to compute $`\overline{M(P)}`$, the author introduced the $`t`$–analogs of $`q`$–characters, which gives a $`[t,t^1]`$-linear homomorphism

$$\chi _{q,t}:𝐑_t𝒴_t,$$

where $`𝒴_t\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}[t,t^1,Y_{i,a},Y_{i,a}^1]_{iI,a^{}}.`$ This is injective again and the image has a similar characterization as $`\chi _q`$. In particular, we have a combinatorial algorithm to compute them for l–fundamental representations. Although $`\chi _{q,t}`$ is not a ring homomorphism, we have a simple ‘twist’ of multiplication so that we can compute $`\chi _{q,t}(M(P))`$ for arbitrary $`P`$, which are tensor products of l–fundamental representations . The bar involution on $`\chi _{q,t}`$ is easily defined so that $`\overline{M(P)}`$ can be computed, if we know all values of $`\chi _{q,t}(M(P))`$. Combining with the above characterization of $`L(P)`$, we have a combinatorial algorithm to compute the transition matrix, although it is practically difficult to compute them explicitly, as we mentioned in the introduction. This is the end of our exposition.

Now we fix notations. We use symbols $`Y_{i,a}`$ following . It corresponds to the character of the fundamental weight $`y_i=e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i}`$ in the above analogy. Let $``$ be the set of monomials in $`𝒴`$. For an $`I`$-tuple of rational functions $`Q/R=(Q_i(u)/R_i(u))_{iI}`$ with $`Q_i(0)=R_i(0)=1`$, we set

$$e^{Q/R}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{iI}{}\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{\beta }{}Y_{i,\alpha }Y_{i,\beta }^1,$$

where $`\alpha `$ (resp. $`\beta `$) runs roots of $`Q_i(1/u)=0`$ (resp. $`R_i(1/u)=0`$), i.e., $`Q_i(u)=_\alpha (1\alpha u)`$ (resp. $`R_i(u)=_\beta (1\beta u)`$). As a special case, an $`I`$-tuple of polynomials $`P=(P_i(u))_{iI}`$ defines $`e^P=e^{P/1}`$. In this way, the set $``$ of monomials are identified with the set of $`I`$-tuple of rational functions, and the set of l–dominant monomials are identified with the set of $`I`$-tuple of polynomials. A monomial in $`𝒴_t`$ means a monomial only in $`Y_{i,a}^\pm `$, containing no $`t`$’s. So they are same as monomials in $`𝒴`$. We consider $`[t,t^1]`$ as coefficients.

Let

$$A_{i,a}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}Y_{i,aq}Y_{i,aq^1}\underset{j:ji}{}Y_{j,a}^{a_{ij}},$$

where $`a_{ij}`$ is the $`(i,j)`$-entry of the Cartan matrix. (This is different from the original definition in  for general $`𝔤`$. But it is the same when $`𝔤`$ is of type $`ADE`$.)

###### Definition 2.2.

(1) For a monomial $`m`$, we define $`u_{i,a}(m)`$ be the degree in $`Y_{i,a}`$, i.e.,

$$m=\underset{i,a}{}Y_{i,a}^{u_{i,a}(m)}.$$

(2) A monomial $`m`$ is said $`i`$–dominant if $`u_{i,a}(m)0`$ for all $`a`$. It is said l–dominant if it is $`i`$–dominant for all $`i`$.

(3) Let $`m,m^{}`$ be monomials in $``$. We say $`mm^{}`$ if $`m/m^{}`$ is a monomial in $`A_{i,a}^1`$ ($`iI`$, $`a^{}`$). Here a monomial in $`A_{i,a}^1`$ means a product of nonnegative powers of $`A_{i,a}^1`$. It does not contain any factors $`A_{i,a}`$. In such a case we define $`v_{i,a}(m,m^{})_0`$ by

$$m=m^{}\underset{i,a}{}A_{i,a}^{v_{i,a}(m,m^{})}.$$

This is well-defined since the $`q`$-analog of the Cartan matrix is invertible. We say $`m<m^{}`$ if $`mm^{}`$ and $`mm^{}`$.

(4) For an $`i`$–dominant monomial $`m`$ we define

$$E_i(m)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}m\underset{a}{}\underset{r_a=0}{\overset{u_{i,a}(m)}{}}t^{r_a(u_{i,a}(m)r_a)}\left[\begin{array}{c}u_{i,a}(m)\\ r_a\end{array}\right]_tA_{i,aq}^{r_a},$$

where $`\left[\begin{array}{c}n\\ r\end{array}\right]_t`$ is the $`t`$-binomial coefficient. We call $`E_i(m)`$ an expansion at $`m`$.

(5) Let $`𝒦_{t,i}`$ be the $`[t,t^1]`$-linear subspace of $`𝒴_t`$ generated by $`E_i(m)`$ with $`i`$–dominant monomials $`m`$. Let $`𝒦_t`$ be the intersection $`_i𝒦_{t,i}`$.

By the identification between monomials in $``$ and $`I`$-tuples of rational functions, we also apply the above definitions to the latter. For example, $`Q/RQ^{}/R^{}`$ means $`e^{Q/R}e^{Q^{}/R^{}}`$.

For $`m`$, we define $`(\stackrel{~}{u}_{i,a}(m))_{iI,a^{}}`$ as the solution of

$$u_{i,a}(m)=\stackrel{~}{u}_{i,aq^1}(m)+\stackrel{~}{u}_{i,aq}(m)\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}\stackrel{~}{u}_{j,a}(m).$$

To solve the system, we may assume that $`u_{i,a}(m)=0`$ unless $`a`$ is a power of $`q`$. Then the above is a recursive system, since $`q`$ is not a root of unity. So it has a unique solution such that $`\stackrel{~}{u}_{i,q^s}(m)=0`$ for sufficiently small $`s`$. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{u}_{i,a}(m)`$ is nonzero for possibly infinitely many $`a`$’s, although $`u_{i,a}(m)`$ is not.

Suppose that l–dominant monomials $`m_{P^1}`$, $`m_{P^2}`$ and monomials $`m^1m_{P^1}`$, $`m^2m_{P^2}`$ are given. We define an integer $`d(m^1,m_{P^1};m^2,m_{P^2})`$ by

(2.3)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill d(m^1,m_{P^1};m^2,m_{P^2})& \stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{i,a}{}\left(v_{i,aq}(m^1,m_{P^1})u_{i,a}(m^2)+u_{i,aq}(m_{P^1})v_{i,a}(m^2,m_{P^2})\right)\hfill \\ & =\underset{i,a}{}\left(u_{i,a}(m^1)v_{i,aq^1}(m^2,m_{P^2})+v_{i,a}(m^1,m_{P^1})u_{i,aq^1}(m_{P^1})\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

We also define

(2.4)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \stackrel{~}{d}(m^1,m^2)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\underset{i,a}{}u_{i,aq}(m^1)\stackrel{~}{u}_{i,a}(m^2),\hfill \\ & \epsilon (m^1,m^2)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\stackrel{~}{d}(m^1,m^2)\stackrel{~}{d}(m^2,m^1).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`u_{i,a}(m^2)=0`$ except for finitely many $`a`$’s, this is well-defined. Moreover, we have

(2.5)
$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon (m^1,m^2)=d(m^1,m_{P^1};m^2,m_{P^2})d(m^2,m_{P^2};m^1,m_{P^1})+\epsilon (m_{P^1},m_{P^2}).\end{array}$$

We also write $`\epsilon (P^1,P^2)`$ instead of $`\epsilon (m_{P^1},m_{P^2})`$.

We express the property of $`\chi _{q,t}`$ for its slightly modified version $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}`$.

###### Theorem 2.6.

(1) The $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}`$ of a standard module $`M(P)`$ has a form

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}(M(P))=e^P+a_m(t)m,$$

where the summation runs over monomials $`m<e^P`$.

(2) For each $`iI`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}(M(P))`$ can be expressed as a linear combination (over $`[t,t^1]`$) of $`E_i(m)`$ with $`i`$–dominant monomials $`m`$. Moreover, the image of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}`$ is exactly equal to $`𝒦_t`$.

(3) Suppose that two $`I`$-tuples of polynomials $`P^1=(P_i^1)`$, $`P^2=(P_i^2)`$ satisfy the following condition:

(2.7)   $`a/b\{q^nn,n2\}`$ for any pair $`a`$, $`b`$ with $`P_i^1(1/a)=0`$, $`P_j^2(1/b)=0`$ ($`i,jI`$).
Then we have

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}(M(P^1P^2))=\underset{m^1,m^2}{}t^{2d(m^1,m_{P^1};m^2,m_{P^2})}a_{m^1}(t)a_{m^2}(t)m^1m^2,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}(M(P^a))=_{m^a}a_{m^a}(t)m^a`$ with $`a=1,2`$.

Moreover, properties (1),(2),(3) uniquely determine $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}`$.

Apart from the existence problem, one can consider the above properties (1), (2), (3) as the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}`$ (an axiomatic definition). We only use the above properties, and the reader can safely forget the original definition.

Let us explain briefly why the properties (1), (2), (3) determine $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}`$. First consider the case $`M(P)`$ is an l–fundamental representation. (We have $`M(P)=L(P)`$ in this case.) Then one can determine $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}(M(P))`$ starting from $`m_P`$ and using the property (2) inductively. The graph will never contain l–dominant monomials and will stop eventually. (The idea can be seen in the example below.) For general $`P`$, write it as $`P=P^1P^2P^3\mathrm{}`$ so that each $`M(P^\alpha )`$ is an l–fundamental representation, and the condition (2.7) is met with respect to the ordering. Then we apply (3) successively to get $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}(M(P))`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}(M(P^\alpha ))`$ with $`\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{}`$.

We now define $`\chi _{q,t}(M(P))`$ by

(2.8)
$$\chi _{q,t}(M(P))=\underset{m}{}t^{d(m,m_P;m,m_P)}a_m(t)m\text{if }\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}(M(P))=\underset{m}{}a_m(t)m.$$

We define an involution $`\overline{\text{}}`$ on $`𝒴_t`$ by $`\overline{t}=t^1`$, $`\overline{Y_{i,a}^\pm }=Y_{i,a}^\pm `$. One can show (see \[15, §3\]) that we can define an involution $`\overline{\text{}}`$ on $`𝐑_t`$ by

$$\chi _{q,t}(\overline{V})=\overline{\chi _{q,t}(V)}.$$

(By the second statement of Theorem 2.6(2), it is enough to check that right hand side is contained in $`𝒦_t`$, after multiplying a power of $`t`$. This can be checked.)

We attach to each standard module $`M(P)`$ an oriented colored graph as follows. (It is a slight modification of the graph in \[5, 5.3\].) The vertices are monomials in $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}(M_P)`$. We draw a colored edge $`\stackrel{i,a}{}`$ from $`m_1`$ to $`m_2`$ if $`m_2=m_1A_{i,a}^1`$. We also write the coefficients of the monomials in $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}(M(P))`$. In fact, edges are determined from monomials on vertices. Now $`E_i(m)`$ in Theorem 2.6 gives edges with color $`i`$ starting from $`m`$ and subsequent monomials. Similarly we also draw a graph for an irreducible representation $`L(P)`$.

Let us define matrices with entries in $`[t,t^1]`$:

$$c_{PQ}(t)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\text{the coefficient of }m_Q\text{ in }\chi _{q,t}(M(P)),$$

$$L_{PQ}(t)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}\text{the coefficient of }m_Q\text{ in }\chi _{q,t}(L(P)),$$

$$Z_{PQ}(t)\text{ by }M(P)=\underset{Q}{}Z_{PQ}(t)L(Q).$$

By geometric interpretations of these polynomials \[15, §8\], all these have positivity, i.e., they are contained in $`_0[t,t^1]`$.

We define a new multiplication on $`𝐑_t`$ by

$$m^1m^2\stackrel{\mathrm{def}.}{=}t^{\epsilon (m^1,m^2)}m^1m^2.$$

This is noncommutative. One can show (see \[15, §3\], where $``$ is denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ there) that there exists a unique multiplication $``$ on $`𝐑_t`$ satisfying

$$\chi _{q,t}(V_1V_2)=\chi _{q,t}(V_1)\chi _{q,t}(V_2).$$

When $`t=1`$, this corresponds to the tensor product on $`𝐑`$. So there will be no fear of the confusion. Varagnolo-Vasserot define the multiplation in a geometric way . Their definition implies the positivity of structure constants, i.e., if we define $`a_{PQ}^R(t)`$ by

$$L(P)L(Q)=\underset{R}{}a_{PQ}^R(t)L(R),$$

it has nonnegative coefficients $`a_{PQ}^R(t)_0[t,t^1]`$.

We close this section by giving a example of computation of $`W_{2,a}^{(1)}=L(P_{2,a}^{(1)})`$ for $`𝔤=A_2`$.

###### Example 2.9.

Let $`𝔤`$ be of type $`A_2`$. We put a numbering $`I=\{1,2\}`$.

(1) The graph of the l–fundametal representation $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}(W_{1,a}^{(1)})=\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}(M(P_{1,a}^{(1)}))`$ is the following:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}Y_{1,a}& \stackrel{1,aq}{}& Y_{1,aq^2}^1Y_{2,aq}& \stackrel{2,aq^2}{}& Y_{2,aq^3}^1.\end{array}$$

This can be checked by Theorem 2.6(1),(2). The graph of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi _{q,t}}(M(P_{1,aq^2}^{(1)}))`$ is exactly the same if we replace $`a`$ by $`aq^2`$.

(2) By Theorem 2.6(3) and (2.8), we can compute the graph of $`\chi _{q,t}(M(P_{2,a}^{(1)}))`$ as

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}Y_{1,a}Y_{1,aq^2}& \stackrel{1,aq}{}& t^1Y_{2,aq}& \stackrel{2,aq^2}{}& t^1Y_{1,aq^2}Y_{2,aq^3}^1\\ 1,aq^3& & & & 1,aq^3& & \\ Y_{1,a}Y_{1,aq^4}^1Y_{2,aq^3}& \stackrel{1,aq}{}& Y_{1,aq^2}^1Y_{1,aq^4}^1Y_{2,aq}Y_{2,aq^3}& \stackrel{2,aq^2}{}& t^1Y_{1,aq^4}^1\\ 2,aq^4& & 2,aq^4& & & & \\ Y_{1,a}Y_{2,aq^5}^1& \stackrel{1,aq}{}& Y_{1,aq^2}^1Y_{2,aq}Y_{2,aq^5}^1& \stackrel{2,aq^2}{}& Y_{2,aq^3}^1Y_{2,aq^5}^1\end{array}$$

(3) Finally applying the characterization (2.1), we find

$$t^{\epsilon (P_{1,a}^{(1)},P_{1,aq^2}^{(1)})}W_{1,a}^{(1)}W_{1,aq^2}^{(1)}=M(P_{2,a}^{(1)})=W_{2,a}^{(1)}+t^1L(P_{1,aq}^{(2)})=W_{2,a}^{(1)}+t^1W_{1,aq}^{(2)}.$$

This is a special case of the $`T`$-system. The graph of $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{2,a}^{(1)})`$ is obtained simply from the above graph by erasing monomials with coefficients $`t^1`$, i.e., $`Y_{2,aq}`$, $`Y_{1,aq^2}Y_{2,aq^3}^1`$, $`Y_{1,aq^4}^1`$. The resulting graph turns out to be given by the following rule without using (2.1): if one gets an l–dominant monomial in the expansion at $`m`$, then he/she does not add it to the graph and continue the expansion.

The result of this paper is proved by checking that we have the same structure for general $`W_{k,a}^{(i)}`$.

## 3. A study of right negative monomials

We only consider monomials $`m`$ whose factors are of the form $`Y_{i,aq^s}`$ for a fixed $`a^{}`$ hereafter.

###### Definition 3.1.

(1) For a monomial $`m1`$, we define

$$\mathrm{r}(m)=\mathrm{max}\left\{s\text{there is a factor }Y_{i,aq^s}\text{ appearing in }m\text{ for some }i\right\}.$$

(2) Following , we say a monomial $`m`$ is right negative if the factors $`Y_{i,aq^{\mathrm{r}(m)}}`$ have nonpositive powers for all $`i`$. (It must be negative for at lease one $`i`$ by definition of $`\mathrm{r}(m)`$.) The product of right negative monomials is right negative. An l–dominant monomial is not right negative.

In this section, we shall prove the following.

###### Theorem 3.2.

(1) $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)})`$ does not contain right negative monomials other than $`m_{P_{k,a}^{(i)}}`$ corresponding to the l–highest weight vector.

(2) Let $`m`$ be a right negative monomial appearing in $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)})`$ such that $`\mathrm{r}(m)2k`$. Then it is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill m& =\underset{t=0}{\overset{s1}{}}Y_{i,aq^{2t}}\underset{t=s+1}{\overset{k}{}}\left(Y_{i,aq^{2t}}^1\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2t1}}\right)\hfill \\ & =Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2s2}}Y_{i,aq^{2s+2}}^1\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}^1\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2s+1}}\mathrm{}Y_{j,aq^{2k1}}\hfill \end{array}$$

for some $`s=0,1,\mathrm{},k1`$. Moreover, its coefficient is equal to $`1`$.

(3) We have

$$t^{\epsilon (P_{k,a}^{(i)},P_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)})}W_{k,a}^{(i)}W_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)}=W_{k+1,a}^{(i)}+t^1L(P_{k1,a}^{(i)}\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}P_{1,aq^{2k1}}^{(j)})(k=1,2,3,\mathrm{}).$$

###### Remark 3.3.

(1) We do not have

$$L(P_{k1,a}^{(i)}\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}P_{1,aq^{2k1}}^{(j)})=W_{k1,a}^{(i)}\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}W_{1,aq^{2k1}}^{(j)}$$

in general. A counter example can be found, e.g., $`𝔤=A_2`$, $`k=2`$. Therefore Theorem 3.2(3) does not give us an inductive formula for $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)})`$ unlike the $`T`$-system in Theorem 1.1.

(2) It may not be easy for a reader to understand the importance of the statements of Theorem 3.2(1),(2) at first sight. But they are pratically very useful to study tensor product decompositions of $`W_{k,a}^{(i)}`$’s, as shown in the proof of Theorems 1.1, 3.2. As another application of Theorem 3.2(1), we can apply Frenkel-Mukhin’s algorithm \[6, §5.5\] to compute $`\chi _q(W_{k,a}^{(i)})`$. (See also  for a geometric explanation.) This is because $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)})`$ does not have l–dominant monomial other than $`m_{P_{k,a}^{(i)}}`$. This will gives us an important application later. See Figure 1 for a part of the graph for $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k+1,a}^{(i)})`$.

We shall prove the assertions (1), (2) simultaneously by induction on $`k`$. The statement (3) will be proved during the induction argument, i.e., we do not need (3) for $`k`$ during the proof. The assertion (1) is true for $`k=1`$. (See \[6, Lemma 6.5\] or \[15, Proposition 4.13\] for a simple geometric proof.) The assertion (2) for $`k=1`$ follows from Theorem 2.6(2). See also the proof of Theorem 3.2(2) below.

Let us assume the assertions (1), (2) for $`k`$ and prove them for $`k+1`$. We consider

$$t^{\epsilon (P_{k,a}^{(i)},P_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)})}\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)}W_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)})=Y_{i,a}Y_{i,aq^2}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}+\mathrm{}.$$

###### Lemma 3.4.

Take monomials $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ from $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)})`$ and $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)})`$ respectively such that $`mm^{}`$ is not right negative.

(1) We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& m=Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}\text{or}\underset{t=0}{\overset{s1}{}}Y_{i,aq^{2t}}\underset{t=s+1}{\overset{k}{}}\left(Y_{i,aq^{2t}}^1\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2t1}}\right),\hfill \\ & m^{}=Y_{i,aq^{2k}}\hfill \end{array}$$

for some $`s=0,1,\mathrm{},k1`$.

(2) The coefficient of $`mm^{}`$ in $`t^{\epsilon (P_{k,a}^{(i)},P_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)})}\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)}W_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)})`$ is equal to $`1`$ if $`m=Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}`$ and $`t^1`$ otherwise.

###### Proof.

Since $`mm^{}`$ is not right negative, $`m`$ or $`m^{}`$ is not right negative. Suppose that $`m`$ is not right negative. The induction hypothesis (1) for $`k`$ implies $`m=Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}`$. Moreover if $`m^{}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}`$, then $`m^{}`$ is right negative and $`\mathrm{r}(m^{})2k+2`$ by Theorem 2.6(2). Therefore $`mm^{}`$ becomes right negative, and we have a contradiction to the assumption. Thus we have $`m^{}=Y_{i,aq^{2k}}`$ in this case.

Next suppose $`m^{}`$ is not right negative. Then we have $`m^{}=Y_{i,aq^{2k}}`$. We may assume that $`m`$ is right negative. Since $`mm^{}`$ is not right negative, the factor $`Y_{j,aq^{\mathrm{r}(m)}}`$ must be equal to $`m^1=Y_{i,aq^{2k}}^1`$. By the induction hypothesis (2) for $`k`$, the monomial $`m`$ must be of the form of the second case of the assertion of the lemma. Thus we have completed the proof of (1) of the lemma.

Let us compute the coefficients of $`mm^{}`$ in $`t^{\epsilon (P_{k,a}^{(i)},P_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)})}\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)}W_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)})`$ when $`m`$, $`m^{}`$ are as in the claim. If $`mm^{}=Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}`$, then the coefficient is $`1`$. So we assume $`m`$ is the second case of the assertion of the claim. By the induction hypothesis (2) for $`k`$, the coefficient of $`m`$ in $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)})`$ is $`1`$. The coefficient of $`m^{}`$ in $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)})`$ is also $`1`$ by Theorem 2.6(2). We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& d(m,Y_{i,aq^{2k}})=v_{i,aq^{2k+1}}(m,Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}})=0,\hfill \\ & d(Y_{i,aq^{2k}},m)=v_{i,aq^{2k1}}(m,Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}})=1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore the coefficient of $`mm^{}`$ is equal to $`t^1`$, where we have used (2.5). ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 3.2(3).

Let us define $`a_P(t)`$ by

$$t^{\epsilon (P_{k,a}^{(i)},P_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)})}\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)}W_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)})=\underset{P}{}a_P(t)\chi _{q,t}(L(P)),$$

where $`P`$ runs all Drinfeld polynomials. Consider the coefficient of an l–dominant monomial $`m_Q`$ in both hand sides. Since an l–dominant monomial is not right negative, Lemma 3.4 implies

$$\begin{array}{c}m_Q=Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}=m_{P_{k+1,a}^{(i)}}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{or}m_Q=Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k4}}\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2k1}}=m_{P_{k1,a}^{(i)}}\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}m_{P_{1,aq^{2k1}}^{(j)}}.\end{array}$$

The latter is the case $`s=k1`$ of Lemma 3.4(1). Note that the corresponding $`m_Q`$ is not l–dominant for $`sk1`$. The coefficient of $`m_Q`$ is $`1`$ or $`t^1`$ respectively. On the other hand, from the right hand side, it is equal to

$$\underset{P}{}a_P(t)L_{PQ}(t).$$

Remember that we have $`a_P(t),L_{PQ}(t)_0[t,t^1]`$ and $`L_{PQ}(t^1)=L_{PQ}(t)`$, $`L_{PP}(t)=1`$. Therefore, if $`Q`$ is not as above, we have $`a_Q(t)=0`$. And if $`Q`$ is as above, we have $`a_Q(t)=1`$ or $`t^1`$ respectively. This shows Theorem 3.2(3). ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 3.2(1).

Take $`\chi _{q,t}`$ of the both hand sides of Theorem 3.2(3). We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \chi _{q,t}(L(P_{k1,a}^{(i)}\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}P_{1,aq^{2k1}}^{(j)}))\hfill \\ \hfill =& Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k4}}\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2k1}}\hfill \\ & +Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k6}}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}^1\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2k3}}Y_{j,aq^{2k1}}\hfill \\ & +Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k8}}Y_{i,aq^{2k4}}^1Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}^1\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2k5}}Y_{j,aq^{2k3}}Y_{j,aq^{2k1}}+\mathrm{},\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have used the expansion (Theorem 2.6(2)). Therefore any monomial $`m`$ such that

1. it is not right negative,
2. it appears in $`\chi _{q,t}`$ of the left hand side of Theorem 3.2(3),

which we just classified in Lemma 3.4, appears in above, except the l–highest weight monomial. Thus $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k+1,a}^{(i)})`$ does not contain monomials, which are not right negative, other than $`m_{P_{k+1,a}^{(i)}}`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 3.2(2).

We may assume Theorem 3.2(1) for $`k+1`$ now. Therefore we can apply Frenkel-Mukhin’s algorithm to compute $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k+1,a}^{(i)})`$. But we will use a self-contained argument, using only the induction hypothesis. We want to classify all right negative monomials $`m`$ with $`\mathrm{r}(m)2k+2`$.

Let us consider the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k+1,a}^{(i)})`$. Since $`m`$ is not l–dominant, it must have an incoming arrow $`m^{}m`$. Noticing that if $`m^{}`$ is also right negative (i.e., it is not the l–highest weight monomial), then we have $`\mathrm{r}(m^{})\mathrm{r}(m)2k+2`$. We can repeat this procedure until $`m^{(N)}=(\mathrm{}((m^{})^{})\mathrm{})^{}`$ ($`N`$-times) becomes the l–highest weight monomial $`Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}`$. So we study the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from $`Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}`$ and forget monomials $`m`$ with $`\mathrm{r}(m)>2k+2`$. The first part of the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is

$$m^{(N)}=Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}\stackrel{i,aq^{2k+1}}{}Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}Y_{i,aq^{2k+2}}^1\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2k+1}}.$$

There are no other arrows from $`Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}`$: other candidates, which are of the form

$$Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2s2}}Y_{i,aq^{2s+4}}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2s+1}}$$

are l–dominant, and they do not appear in $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k+1,a}^{(i)})`$. Therefore $`m^{(N1)}`$ is the second monomial in the graph. We continue the graph. Next part is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}m^{(N1)}=Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}Y_{i,aq^{2k+2}}^1\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2k+1}}& \stackrel{j,aq^{2k+2}}{}& \\ i,aq^{2k1}& & & & \\ Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k4}}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}^1Y_{i,aq^{2k+2}}^1\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2k1}}Y_{j,aq^{2k+1}}& & .\end{array}$$

We do not consider the incoming monomial of $`\stackrel{j,aq^{2k+2}}{}`$ since its largest exponent $`l`$ is $`2k+3`$. There are no other outgoing arrows from $`m^{(N1)}`$, i.e., $`\stackrel{i,aq^{2s1}}{}`$ with $`s=1,2,\mathrm{},k1`$. Such an arrow goes to a monomial, which leads to a contradiction with the induction hypothesis (2) for $`k`$, as one can easily check by considering $`W_{k,a}^{(i)}W_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)}`$. We continue the graph to get all

$$Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2s2}}Y_{i,aq^{2s+2}}^1\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k+2}}^1\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2s+1}}\mathrm{}Y_{j,aq^{2k+1}}$$

for $`s=k,k1,\mathrm{},0`$. We cannot have an outgoing arrow $`\stackrel{j,aq^{2t}}{}`$ with $`t=s,\mathrm{},k`$, again by a study of $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)}W_{1,aq^{2k}}^{(i)})`$. We do not consider the incoming monomial of $`\stackrel{j,aq^{2k+2}}{}`$ as above. The last monomial is

$$Y_{i,aq^2}^1\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k+2}}^1\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq}\mathrm{}Y_{j,aq^{2k+1}}.$$

Then an outgoing arrow goes to a monomial such that its maximal exponent is greater than $`2k+2`$. Thus we obtain all the monomials satisfying the condition, and get Theorem 3.2(2) for $`k+1`$. (See Figure 1 for the part of the graph for $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)})`$.) ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1(2).

We already computed a part of $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k+1,a}^{(i)})`$ as Figure 1. The horizontal arrows, not written here, are multiplications by $`A_{j,b}`$’s for $`(j,b)(i,aq^{2s1})`$ ($`s=1,\mathrm{},k+1`$). Compare with the graph for $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,aq^2}^{(i)})`$. If we multiply $`Y_{i,a}`$, the graph is exactly the same as the above graph except the last line. This is because we do not touch the factor $`Y_{i,a}`$ until the last line. Therefore we have

$$\chi _{q,t}(W_{k+1,a}^{(i)})=Y_{i,a}\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,aq^2}^{(i)})+Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}E,$$

where $`E`$ is a polynomial in $`A_{i,b}^1`$ of degree greater than $`k`$. Here we assign $`A_{i,b}^1`$ degree $`1`$ for any $`i`$, $`b`$. This implies the convergence statement of Theorem 1.1(2). ∎

## 4. Proof of Theorem 1.1(1)

In this section, we shall complete the proof of Theorem 1.1. Our first goal is to show that $`W_{k+1,a}^{(i)}W_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)}`$ is irreducible. We need the following.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`P=P_{k,a}^{(i)}P_{k,aq^2}^{(i)}=P_{k+1,a}^{(i)}P_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)}`$. Then $`\chi _{q,t}(L(P))`$ contains all monomials

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \underset{t=0}{\overset{s1}{}}Y_{i,aq^{2t}}Y_{i,aq^{2t+2}}\underset{t=s}{\overset{k1}{}}Y_{j,aq^{2t+1}}\hfill \\ \hfill =& Y_{i,a}Y_{i,aq^2}^2\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2s2}}^2Y_{i,aq^{2s}}\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2s+1}}\mathrm{}Y_{j,aq^{2k1}}\hfill \end{array}(s=1,2,\mathrm{},k1)$$

with coefficients $`1`$.

###### Proof.

Let us consider the standard module $`M(P)`$ with Drinfeld polynomial $`P`$. We consider first several terms of $`\chi _{q,t}(M(P))`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\chi _{q,t}(M(P))=Y_{i,a}Y_{i,aq^2}^2\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}^2Y_{i,aq^{2k}}\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{s=1}{\overset{k1}{}}(1+t^2)^{ks}t^{2(sk)}Y_{i,a}Y_{i,aq^2}^2\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2s2}}^2Y_{i,aq^{2s}}\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2s+1}}\mathrm{}Y_{j,aq^{2k1}}\\ \hfill +\mathrm{}.\end{array}$$

Note that $`(1+t^2)^{ks}t^{2(sk)}[t^1]`$ and the constant term is equal to $`1`$. Then the characterization (2.1) gives us

$$\begin{array}{c}\chi _{q,t}(L(P))=Y_{i,a}Y_{i,aq^2}^2\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}^2Y_{i,aq^{2k}}\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{s=1}{\overset{k1}{}}Y_{i,a}Y_{i,aq^2}^2\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2s2}}^2Y_{i,aq^{2s}}\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2s+1}}\mathrm{}Y_{j,aq^{2k1}}\\ \hfill +\mathrm{}.\end{array}$$

The procedure to define $`L(P)`$ from $`M(P)`$ is recursive. So we do not need to cosider the further part. ∎

###### Remark 4.2.

During the proof, we encountered a simplification of the characterization (2.1), i.e., simply taking constant terms. This is exactly the phenomena appearing when we study the decomposition theorem for a semi-small morphism $`\pi :XY`$. (See \[14, §7\], \[15, 9.3\] for similar arguments.)

It seems natural to expect that $`M(P)`$ is semi-small in the sense of \[15, 10.1\], i.e., $`c_{QR}(t)[t^1]`$ for all $`Q,RP`$, although we have checked the assertion for only first several terms.

###### Proof of the irreducibility of $`W_{k+1,a}^{(i)}W_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)}`$.

We consider

$$t^{\epsilon (P_{k+1,a}^{(i)},P_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)})}\chi _{q,t}(W_{k+1,a}^{(i)}W_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)}).$$

Our first task is to classify all l–dominant monomials appearing in it. Take monomials $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ from $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k+1,a}^{(i)})`$ and $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)})`$ respectively such that $`mm^{}`$ is not right negative. If $`m`$ is right negative, then $`m^{}`$ is not right negative, hence we have $`m^{}=Y_{i,aq^2}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k2}}`$ by Theorem 3.2(1). But then $`mm^{}`$ must be right negative as we can see from Theorem 3.2(2), applied to $`m`$. Therefore $`m`$ is not right negative and we have $`m=Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}`$ by Theorem 3.2(1). Since $`mm^{}`$ is not right negative, the factor $`Y_{j,aq^{\mathrm{r}(m^{})}}`$ must be one of $`Y_{i,a}^1`$, …, $`Y_{i,aq^{2k}}^1`$. (In fact, $`Y_{i,a}^1`$ is impossible.) By Theorem 3.2(2) we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& mm^{}\hfill \\ \hfill =& Y_{i,a}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}Y_{i,aq^2}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2s2}}Y_{i,aq^{2s+2}}^1\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}^1\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2s+1}}\mathrm{}Y_{j,aq^{2k1}}\hfill \\ \hfill =& Y_{i,a}Y_{i,aq^2}^2\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2s2}}^2Y_{i,aq^{2s}}\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2s+1}}\mathrm{}Y_{j,aq^{2k1}}\hfill \end{array}$$

for some $`s=1,2,\mathrm{},k1`$. This is the classification. Again by Theorem 3.2(2), the coefficients of above $`m^{}`$ in $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)})`$ is $`1`$. A direct computation shows

$$d(m,m_{P_{k+1,a}^{(i)}};m^{},m_{P_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)}})=d(m^{},m_{P_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)}};m,m_{P_{k+1,a}^{(i)}})=0.$$

Therefore the coefficient of $`mm^{}`$ in $`t^{\epsilon (P_{k+1,a}^{(i)},P_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)})}\chi _{q,t}(W_{k+1,a}^{(i)}W_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)})`$ is also $`1`$.

Let us define $`a_Q(t)`$ by

(4.3)
$$\chi _{q,t}(W_{k+1,a}^{(i)}W_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)})=\underset{Q}{}a_Q(t)\chi _{q,t}(L(Q)),$$

where $`Q`$ runs all Drinfeld polynomials. We have $`a_P(t)=1`$. Let us consider $`QP`$. If $`m_Q`$ is not one of the above classified monomials, then the coefficient in the left hand side is $`0`$. Since $`L_{QQ}(t)=1`$, the positivity of coefficients implies $`a_Q(t)=0`$ for such $`Q`$. Next we consider $`m_Q`$ as above. We have

$$1=\underset{Q^{}}{}a_Q^{}(t)L_{Q^{}Q}(t).$$

But Lemma 4.1 means $`L_{PQ}(t)=1`$. Therefore the positivity of $`L_{Q^{}Q}(t)`$ implies that $`a_Q^{}L_{Q^{}Q}(t)=0`$ for $`Q^{}P`$. Setting $`Q^{}=Q`$, we get $`a_Q(t)=0`$ since $`L_{QQ}(t)=1`$. This means that the right hand side of (4.3) is a single term $`L(P)`$, that is $`W_{k+1,a}^{(i)}W_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)}`$ is irreducible. ∎

###### Remark 4.4.

Chari gave a sufficient condition for the irreducibility of the tensor product of Kirillov-Reshetikhin modules . But the above case is not covered by her result.

###### Completion of the proof of Theorem 1.1.

First of all, it is easy to show the irreducibility of the tensor product $`_{j:a_{ij}=1}W_{k,aq}^{(j)}`$: Using Theorem 3.2(1),(2), one can prove that its $`\chi _{q,t}`$ has no l–dominant monomials other than the l–highest weight monomial. This case can be also deduced from Chari’s sufficient condition .

The rest of the proof goes on a similar line as the above proof of the irreducibility of $`W_{k+1,a}^{(i)}W_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)}`$. Let us consider $`t^{\epsilon (P_{k,a}^{(i)},P_{k,aq^2}^{(i)})}\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)}W_{k,aq^2}^{(i)}).`$ Take monomials $`m`$ and $`m^{}`$ from $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)})`$ and $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,aq^2}^{(i)})`$ respectively such that $`mm^{}`$ is not right negative. By an argument as above, we have

$$mm^{}=Y_{i,a}Y_{i,aq^2}^2\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2s2}}^2Y_{i,aq^{2s}}\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq^{2s+1}}\mathrm{}Y_{j,aq^{2k1}}$$

for some $`s=0,\mathrm{},k1`$. (We have $`m^{}=Y_{i,aq^2}\mathrm{}Y_{i,aq^{2k}}`$.) Note that we have one extra monomial when $`s=0`$, i.e.,

$$\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}Y_{j,aq}\mathrm{}Y_{j,aq^{2k1}}.$$

We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& d(m,m_{P_{k,a}^{(i)}};m^{},m_{P_{k,aq^2}^{(i)}})d(m^{},m_{P_{k,aq^2}^{(i)}};m,m_{P_{k,a}^{(i)}})\hfill \\ \hfill =& v_{i,aq^{2k+1}}(m,m_{P_{k,a}^{(i)}})v_{i,aq}(m,m_{P_{k,a}^{(i)}})=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }s=0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore the coefficient of $`mm^{}`$ in $`t^{\epsilon (P_{k,a}^{(i)},P_{k,aq^2}^{(i)})}\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)}W_{k,aq^2}^{(i)})`$ is $`t^1`$ ($`s=0`$) or $`1`$ ($`s0`$). Considering the decomposition of $`\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)}W_{k,aq^2}^{(i)})`$ as above, we get

$$\begin{array}{c}t^{\epsilon (P_{k,a}^{(i)},P_{k,aq^2}^{(i)})}\chi _{q,t}(W_{k,a}^{(i)}W_{k,aq^2}^{(i)})\hfill \\ \hfill =t^{\epsilon (P_{k+1,a}^{(i)},P_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)})}\chi _{q,t}(W_{k+1,a}^{(i)}W_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)})+t^{1N}\chi _{q,t}(\underset{j:a_{ij}=1}{}W_{k,aq}^{(j)}),\end{array}$$

where $`N=_{a<b}\epsilon (P_{k,aq}^{(j_a)},P_{k,aq}^{(j_b)})`$. Here $`j_1,j_2,\mathrm{}`$ is the ordering used for the definition of the tensor product. If we set $`t=1`$, this is nothing but the $`T`$-system.

By , $`W_{k,a}^{(i)}W_{k,aq^2}^{(i)}`$ is cyclic: it is generated by the tensor product of l–highest weight vectors. Its simple quotient must be isomorphic to $`W_{k+1,a}^{(i)}W_{k1,aq^2}^{(i)}`$ since they have the same Drinfeld polynomials. This shows the existence of the exact sequence. ∎


text:
# Neutral Plasma Oscillations at Zero Temperature

## Abstract

We use cold plasma theory to calculate the response of an ultracold neutral plasma to an applied rf field. The free oscillation of the system has a continuous spectrum and an associated damped quasimode. We show that this quasimode dominates the driven response. We use this model to simulate plasma oscillations in an expanding ultracold neutral plasma, providing insights into the assumptions used to interpret experimental data \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 318 (2000)\].

Recent experimental rolston98 ; killian99 ; kulin00 ; robinson00 ; killian01 ; dutta01  and theoretical work cote00 ; greene00 ; tkachev01 ; hahn01 ; robicheaux02 ; mazevet02 ; kuzmin02  has studied the formation and evolution of ultracold plasmas. In the laboratory, cold plasmas are created either by directly photo-ionizing laser-cooled atoms, or by exciting the atoms to high-lying Rydberg states that spontaneously ionize. A fraction of the electrons escape the plasma and the resulting electric field drives the ion expansion. Models of the expansion suggest that the density profile in the plasma is approximately Gaussian, and that it expands in a self-similar manner. It can be expressed as

$$n(r,t)=\frac{n_0\sigma _0^3}{\sigma ^3}\mathrm{exp}[r^2/2\sigma ^2],$$
(1)
where $`\sigma =\sqrt{\sigma _0^2+v^2t^2}`$ is the time-dependent width of the distribution, $`v`$ is the asymptotic expansion velocity, and $`t`$ is time.

The experimental justification of this density profile for the case of an expanding plasma is based on the plasma’s response to a spatially uniform applied rf field. In those experiments, Xe atoms initially cooled to $`10\mu `$K were ionized by a dye laser. The initial electron energy ($`E_e/k_B`$) ranged from a few to 1000 K, and the initial electron density ranged from $`0.2`$ to $`2.5\times 10^9`$ cm<sup>-3</sup>. The plasmas were nearly charge-neutral, and at electron energies above 70 K, the kinetic energy of the electrons allowed significant loss. The resulting net positive charge in the cloud drove the plasma expansion.

As the plasma expanded and its density decreased, the applied rf field pumped energy into the plasma. The heating was assumed to be largest where the applied rf frequency matched the local plasma frequency. Because of collisions in the plasma, the local heating presumably raised the overall plasma temperature, and a small number of the more weakly-bound electrons were ejected. The experiment measured the rate at which electrons were ejected from the expanding plasma as a function of time for a fixed applied rf frequency. This signal was presumed to be proportional to the rate at which the rf field heats the plasma, and was a measure of the weighted time-dependent density profile.

The peak of this signal was interpreted to correspond to the “average” density of the plasma,

$$\overline{n}(t)=2^{3/2}n(0,t)=\frac{n_0\sigma _0^3}{\left[2\left(\sigma _0^2+v^2t^2\right)\right]^{3/2}}$$
(2)
with $`v`$ a constant. This density was experimentally determined by setting the applied frequency $`\omega `$ equal to the average plasma frequency, $`\omega _p`$, and using the relation $`\overline{\omega }_p=\sqrt{q^2\overline{n}(t)/m_eϵ_0}`$, where $`q`$ is the electron charge, $`m_e`$ is the electron mass, and $`ϵ_0`$ is the permittivity of free space. The derived density, $`\overline{n}`$, is time dependent. For a different applied rf frequency $`\omega `$, the signal peaks at a different time. A least-squares fit of $`\overline{n}(t)`$ to Eq. (2) gives the initial density $`n_0`$ and the expansion velocity $`v`$.

In this paper, we examine the validity of the assumptions used in this interpretation by presenting the response of the system predicted by cold plasma theory. This theory is good for plasmas in which $`(\lambda _D/\sigma )^21`$, where $`\lambda _D`$ is the Debye length. In the experiments we are simulating, $`(\lambda _D/\sigma )^210^310^1`$, making cold plasma theory a good way to model the collective response of the system.

We consider spherically symmetric charge-neutral Gaussian distributions of cold ions and electrons to which an rf-electric field in the $`z`$-direction is applied. The ions are taken as fixed on the time-scale of the rf oscillation. The fluid equations describing the electrons are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{t}}+\left(n\stackrel{}{v}\right)=0`$ (3)
$`^2\varphi =q\left(nn_i\right)/ϵ_0`$ (4)
$`m\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{t}}+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{v}\right)=q\stackrel{}{E}\gamma m\stackrel{}{v}.`$ (5)
In these equations $`n=n(r,t)`$ is the electron density, $`n_i=n_i(r)`$ is the ion density (assumed to be fixed in time), $`\stackrel{}{v}=\stackrel{}{v}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is the electron velocity, $`\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{E}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is the total electric field (the sum of the external field and that generated by the plasma response), and $`\gamma `$ is a phenomenological damping rate. Some effects of finite temperature, such as electron-electron collisions and electron-ion collisions, are approximated by the the parameter $`\gamma `$.

In the experiment by Kulin et al. kulin00 , the applied $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ was uniform in space and oscillating in the $`\widehat{z}`$-direction. Assuming that this applied field is small, the fluid equations can be linearized by assuming that the density and the potential are of the form $`n(r,\theta ,t)=n^{(0)}(r)+\delta n(r)\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{i\omega t}`$, where $`n^{(0)}(r)`$ is the equilibrium electron density, and $`\varphi (r,\theta ,t)=\delta \varphi (r)\mathrm{cos}\theta e^{i\omega t}`$ (spherical harmonics with $`\mathrm{}=1`$). After some algebra to linearize the fluid Equations (3)-(5), the potential produced by the electrons is given by the expression

$$\delta \varphi \frac{\left[\frac{d}{dr}\omega _p^2(r)\right]\frac{\delta \varphi }{r}}{\omega ^2\omega _p^2(r)+i\omega \gamma }=\frac{\left[\frac{d}{dr}\omega _p^2(r)\right]E_0}{\omega ^2\omega _p^2(r)+i\omega \gamma }$$
(6)
where the operator $``$ is defined as

$$\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{2}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\frac{2}{r^2}$$
(7)
and where $`\omega _p(r)=\sqrt{q^2n^{(0)}(r)/m_eϵ_0}`$ is the plasma frequency. The boundary conditions are that $`\delta \varphi (0)=0`$ and that at infinity the field is that of a dipole, $`\delta \varphi (r)1/r^2`$.

Because this is a driven system, we first look for normal modes. Notice, however, that with $`E_0=0`$ and $`\gamma =0`$ (undamped free response) this mode equation has a continuous spectrum, similar to the diocotron mode equation in non-neutral plasmasschecter99a ; spencer97 ; corngold95 ; briggs70 ; case60 ; kelvin80 . And, as with the diocotron mode, this equation also has a damped quasimode. Following Ref. spencer97 , Eq. (6) can be solved along a contour in the complex $`r`$-plane to uncover this damped quasimode. Figure 1 shows the frequency and damping rate of this quasimode for a sequence of density profiles of the form

$$n(r)=n_0e^{r^p/2\sigma ^p}$$
(8)
The real and imaginary parts of the quasimode frequency are well approximated by the simple formulas $`\omega _m/\omega _p(0)=1/\sqrt{3}0.668/p0.102/p^2`$ and $`\gamma _m/\omega _p(0)=1.077/p0.959/p^2`$.

Note that the Gaussian ($`p=2`$) quasimode is heavily damped and that as $`p`$ becomes large (making the density profile approach a step-profile) the damping rate goes to zero and the frequency approaches $`\omega _m=\omega _p(0)/\sqrt{3}`$.

The quasimode dominates the free response of a system with a continuous spectrum schecter00 ; schecter99 . It also strongly influences the driven response, as can be seen in Fig. 2. This figure shows the rate at which a plasma absorbs power from an applied rf field as a function of the frequency of that field. To calculate this power, we note that the total electric field (the applied field plus the plasma response) is given by

$$\stackrel{}{E}(r,t)=\left(\widehat{z}E_0\mathrm{cos}\theta \delta \varphi \right)e^{i\omega t}.$$
(9)
By using the linearized Eq. (5) to compute the current density $`\stackrel{}{J}=qn\stackrel{}{v}`$ in the plasma, the power density can be written as

$$P=\frac{1}{2}Re\left(\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{J}^{}\right)=\frac{ϵ_0}{2}\left|\stackrel{}{E}\right|^2\frac{\omega _p^2(r)\gamma }{\omega ^2+\gamma ^2}.$$
(10)
The influence of the quasimode on the absorbed power can be seen by integrating this power density over all space for various values of the driving frequency $`\omega `$. Although strongly damped, the quasimode still influences how the plasma responds to the rf field. Figure 2 shows the calculated power absorbed by the plasma as a function of the applied rf frequency for a non-expanding plasma. In each case the peak of the absorbed power occurs near the frequency of the quasimode. Notice that these resonances occur at quite small values of the density, rather than in the body of the density distribution as assumed by Kulin, et al. The experiment used $`\omega /\omega _p(0)=0.6`$

We now use these cold driven solutions of Eq. (6) to simulate the plasma expansion experiment. In order to do this, we need an expression for the electron density, $`n(r,t)`$ and the phenomenological damping rate $`\gamma `$. For both of these we use the model of Robicheaux and Hanson robicheaux02 . They simulated an expanding ultracold neutral plasma to study three-body recombination and electron heating. An important result of their paper is that the electron temperature scales with density as $`T_en^{1/3}`$, which makes the Coulomb logarithm ($`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) constant. We use this result in our simulation of the collective response of the plasma to an applied field. It is likely that the phenomenological damping rate, $`\gamma `$, is proportional to the electron collision rate, $`\nu `$. The scaled collision rate in the plasma is $`\nu /\omega _p\sqrt{n/T^3}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which is constant in this temperature scaling. For typical experimental parameters, this gives $`\gamma /\omega _p(0)1/100`$. Another important result from the work of Robicheaux and Hanson is that most of the ions in the plasma experience an electric field linearly proportional to $`r`$. Given the known initial conditions in the plasma, this leads directly to the result that the plasma density is Gaussian, and that it expands in a self-similar manner described by Eq. (1) note01 .

We simulate the plasma expansion experiment as follows. The plasma expansion velocity ($`v`$), the rf frequency ($`\omega `$) and rf amplitude ($`E_0`$) are held constant. At a particular time $`t`$, we insert the density from Eq. (1) into Eq. (6) to find the potential $`\delta \varphi `$ and the total electric field \[Eq. (9)\]. We integrate the power density \[Eq. (10)\] over the spatial coordinates to get the plasma heating rate at that time. We increment time and repeat the heating rate calculation to generate one of the time-sweeps shown in Fig. 3(a). Repeating these calculations for a range of applied field frequencies generates all of the time sweeps shown in the figure.

We convert the time sweeps in Fig. 3(a) into average density determinations. At the peak of each time sweep we set the applied frequency $`\omega `$ equal to the average plasma frequency $`\overline{\omega }_p=\sqrt{q^2\overline{n}/m_eϵ_0}`$ to calculate the average density $`\overline{n}`$, as was done in the experiment kulin00 . With this conversion from frequency to density, the simulated average density $`\overline{n}(t)`$ is plotted in Fig. 3(b). The data is fit to Eq. (2) using a least-squares method to extract the initial central density, $`n_0`$, and expansion velocity $`v`$.

The shapes of the calculated plasma heating rates shown in Fig. 3(a) match the experimental ones from Reference kulin00 , and the fit of $`\overline{n}(t)`$ in Fig. 3(b) to Eq. (2) is excellent note03 . The expansion velocity extracted from the fit exactly matches the known velocity that we put into the simulation, independent of the value of the scaled damping rate $`\gamma /\omega _p(0)`$. If the Robicheaux and Hanson temperature scaling is correct, the plasma response to the rf field accurately reproduces the true asymptotic expansion velocity. However, different temperature scalings make the fit worse. If instead of using $`Tn^{1/3}`$ in determining $`\gamma `$, we use $`Tn^{2/3}`$, the fitted velocity increases by roughly a factor of two, depends on $`\gamma /\omega _p(0)`$, the extracted $`\overline{n}(t)`$ does not follow Eq. (2), and the simulation does not fit the experiment.

The initial central density $`n_0`$ extracted from the fit of $`\overline{n}(t)`$ to Eq. (2) is quite sensitive to the scaled damping factor, $`\gamma /\omega _p(0)`$. It scales approximately as $`e^{2\gamma /\omega _p(0)}`$. It also depends on the particular temperature scaling used in the simulation, and can vary by orders of magnitude. For the Robicheaux and Hanson temperature scaling and with $`\gamma /\omega _p(0)=0.01`$, the fitted central density underestimates the known central density in our simulation by a factor of three.

Cold plasma theory only addresses the collective behavior of the system. Another effect that might be involved in the resonant behavior seen in the experiment is that the electron motion in the plasma resonates with the driving field. Robicheaux and Hanson estimate that in the bulk of the plasma the potential satisifes $`q\varphi /k_BT=r^2/2\sigma ^2`$. This means that most of the particles are in an isotropic harmonic oscillator well with natural frequency $`\omega _0=\omega _p(0)\lambda _D(0)/\sigma `$, where $`\lambda _D(0)`$ is the Debye length at the center of the cloud. If the peaks in the experiment were due to particle resonance at $`\omega =\omega _0`$ in the expanding plasma, the experiment does not indicate a uniform expansion note02 .

However, in experiments where $`\lambda _D(0)\sigma `$, such as in the present simulations, we would expect collective effects like the quasimode, to dominate over individual particle effects like a resonance at $`\omega =\omega _0`$. But even though collective effects should dominate these plasmas, particle resonance can play a role, as it does in the case of electron Bernstein wave in magnetized plasmas krall73 . Calculating this effect requires a kinetic theory treatment that is beyond the scope of this paper. But we note that even in kinetic theory the particle resonance will not be sharp because the well is not perfectly parabolic, causing the orbit frequency to vary with the energy and angular momentum. Averaging this resonance over the distribution function blurs its effect and makes the resonances at $`\omega _0`$, $`2\omega _0`$, etc. less pronounced.

It would be very helpful to have direct measurements of the ion density distribution, such as with optical detection. These measurements could provide benchmark data against which future simulations can be compared. Also, as mentioned previously, full kinetic simulations are probably required to address the particle orbit problem. Such measurements and simulations are currently underway in our laboratory.

In conclusion, we have used a simulation based on cold plasma theory to calculate the response of an ultracold plasma to an applied rf field. When $`Tn^{1/3}`$, the simulation accurately reproduces the experimental data of Kulin et al. kulin00 , providing an important consistency check of the model of Robicheaux and Hanson robicheaux02 .

The model confirms that the plasma response accurately reproduces the asymptotic velocity of an expanding plasma, and determines the initial plasma density to within a factor of two or three. The plasma response is dominated by the quasi-mode. Even though the mode is strongly damped, it shifts the plasma resonance to lower densities than otherwise expected from a local-density approximation.

This work is supported in part by grants from the Research Corporation and from the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-9985027.


text:
# Markovian Behaviour and Constrained Maximization of the Entropy in Chaotic Quantum Systems

## Abstract

The separation of the Schrödinger equation into a Markovian and an interference term provides a new insight in the quantum dynamics of classically chaotic systems. The competition between these two terms determines the localized or diffusive character of the dynamics. In the case of the Kicked Rotor, we show how the constrained maximization of the entropy implies exponential localization.

thanks: also at: Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República.

In the last few decades the field of Quantum Chaos has drawn the attention of researchers in several areas of science. Many interesting phenomena were studied in systems such as atom traps and microwave cavities. Furthermore, the recent advances in technology that allow to construct and almost perfectly preserve quantum states, has opened the field of quantum computation, where chaotic effects and their control play an essential role QC .

In this work we develop a different and general approach to the subject of dynamical localization (DL) and the related issue of quantum diffusion. This approach leads to an improved understanding of why DL takes place in some systems while in others quantum diffusion continues for ever. The path we follow consists in rewriting the Schrödinger equation in a form in which the part responsible for DL is separated from the part responsible for quantum diffusion. As we shall see, the terms responsible for quantum diffusion have the form of a master equation, typical of Markovian processes, while the other part consists of interference terms required to preserve the unitary character of the quantum evolution. The master equation has been extensively used by W. Zurek and co–workers Zurek  to study the emergence of a classical behavior due to environment–induced decoherence. For the systems considered in the present work the environment does not play a role, and the decoherence, if present, is self–generated by the dynamics.

Consider a quantum system described by a generic time-dependent Hamiltonian of the form $`H(t)=H_0+V(t)`$, where $`H_0`$ is the time-independent part, with known eigenstates and eigenvalues satisfying $`H_0|k=E_k|k`$. We write the wave function as $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=_ka_k(t)|k`$. The time-dependent part of the Hamiltonian, $`V(t)`$, induces transitions between the eigenstates of $`H_0`$. The actual quantum unitary evolution of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is given by the Schrödinger equation. However, if discrete times $`t_n`$ are considered, then a quantum map is obtained

$$a_k(t_{n+1})=\underset{l}{}U_{kl}^{(n)}a_l(t_n),$$
(1)
where $`U_{kl}^{(n)}k|U(t_{n+1},t_n)|l`$ and $`U(t_{n+1},t_n)`$ is the evolution operator connecting the state at time $`t_n`$ with the one at time $`t_{n+1}`$. In terms of $`U`$, the occupation probability $`P_k(t_n)\left|a_k(t_n)\right|^2`$ can be expressed as

$$P_k(t_{n+1})=\underset{l,m}{}U_{kl}^{(n)}U_{km}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{}a_{l}^{}(t_n)a_m^{}(t_n).$$
(2)
If we separate the diagonal terms in its rhs, eq. (2) may be written as

$$P_k(t_{n+1})=\underset{l}{}T_{kl}P_l(t_n)+\beta _k(t_n),$$
(3)
with

$$\beta _k(t_n)=\underset{\stackrel{l,m}{(lm)}}{}U_{kl}^{(n)}U_{km}^{(n)}{}_{}{}^{}a_{l}^{}(t_n)a_m^{}(t_n),$$
(4)
where we have defined $`T_{kl}\left|U_{kl}^{(n)}\right|^2`$ as the transition probability. This is meaningful because $`T_{kl}0`$ and $`_kT_{kl}=_lT_{kl}=1`$. Thus, if the term $`\beta _k`$ could be neglected in eq. (3), the time evolution of the occupation probability would be described by a Markovian process in which the transition probability $`kl`$, in a time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_n=t_{n+1}t_n,`$ is given by $`T_{kl}`$.

We now consider the transition probability per unit time, defined as

$$W_{kl}\frac{T_{kl}\delta _{kl}}{\mathrm{\Delta }t_n},$$
(5)
where $`\delta _{kl}`$ is the Kronecker delta. A straightforward calculation shows that the quantum evolution equation (3), can be written as

$$P_k(t_{n+1})=P_k(t_n)+\underset{lk}{}\left(W_{kl}P_lW_{lk}P_k\right)\mathrm{\Delta }t_n+\beta _k.$$
(6)
In this form, two qualitatively different terms can be distinguished: one associated with a Markovian process, i.e. a classical-like diffusion, and the other, $`\beta _k`$, associated to quantum interference effects. This last term preserves the unitary character of the evolution. Its contribution depends on the continuous or discrete character of the dynamical response spectrum jain ; peres ; 2frecuencias . For systems with a discrete spectrum, as the periodic kicked rotor, it is of the same order of magnitude as the Markovian term, and becomes responsible for the dynamical localization found in such systems. A finite time of the order of $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ is the average separation in the frequency response spectrum, is required in order to resolve the discreteness of the spectrum. At shorter time scales, the discreteness of the spectrum has no effect on the dynamics, the Markovian approximation holds and the system “mimics” classical chaos. In the case of a continuous spectrum, the terms contributing to $`\beta _k`$ in eq. (4) are scattered on the complex plane in such a way that their sum becomes negligible compared to the Markovian term in eq. (6). Then, the unitary evolution is well approximated, for arbitrary long times, by a Master equation

$$\frac{P_k}{t_n}=\underset{lk}{}\left(W_{kl}P_lW_{lk}P_k\right)$$
(7)
which results from eq. (6) if $`\beta _k`$ is neglected.

Assuming, for simplicity, that $`W_{k,kl}=W_{k,k+l}`$, eq. (7) may be written as a diffusion equation,

$$\frac{P_k}{t_n}=\frac{D}{2}\frac{^2P_k}{k^2}$$
(8)
where the diffusion coefficient is

$$D=2\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}W_{k,k+l}l^2.$$
(9)
The differential operators in eqs. (7) and (8) represent the discrete derivatives $`P_k/t_n=\left[P_k(t_{n+1})P_k(t_n)\right]/\mathrm{\Delta }t_n`$ and $`^2P_k/k^2=\left[P_{k+l}(t_n)+P_{kl}(t_n)2P_k(t_n)\right]/l^2`$. Note that, according to eq. (8), an initial gaussian distribution evolves as a spreading gaussian.

As it is well known vankampen , a Markovian process described by a Master equation such as (7), satisfies the H-theorem, which assures that the thermodynamic entropy, $`S_kP_k\mathrm{ln}P_k`$ can only increase. On the other hand, in a unitary evolution the entropy calculated from the density operator, S$``$ \- trace$`(\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho )`$, must be constant. We note that this expression is equivalent to the entropy $`S`$ only if the index $`k`$ can be associated to the eigenstates of the complete Hamiltonian $`H(t)`$. Obviously in this situation the Master equation does not hold. Since in our case we have used the representation of eigenstates of $`H_0`$, and not of $`H(t)`$, the thermodynamical entropy $`S`$ corresponds to a “coarse-graining” of the entropy S. In the rest of this paper, we refer to the thermodynamic entropy $`S`$ simply as “entropy”. Even though it is possible to define quantum dynamical entropies Alicki , as long as the Master equation (7) holds it is adequate to use the associated thermodynamical entropy $`S`$.

The introduction of the entropy $`S`$ will allow us to use thermodynamic arguments to draw interesting conclusions regarding DL. We recall Haken  that if the value of an observable $`M`$ in state $`|k`$ is $`M_k`$, the maximum value of the entropy consistent with a given constraint,

$$\underset{k}{}M_kP_k=M,$$
(10)
corresponds to an exponential (canonical) distribution

$$P_k=e^\mathrm{\Omega }e^{\lambda M_k}.$$
(11)
This equilibrium distribution is attained after a diffusive process in which the entropy is maximized. The Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda ,\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are determined by the constraint (10) and the normalization condition $`_kP_k=1`$, respectively. In particular, the condition $`\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\lambda }+M=0`$ must be satisfied. However, if the constraint (10) is removed, the distribution evolves according to a diffusion equation for arbitrary long times and the entropy increases without bound, provided that the spectrum of $`H_0`$ is unbounded.

At this point, it is convenient to consider a concrete example. We choose the quantum Kicked Rotor (QKR), one of the first classically chaotic systems to be quantum-mechanically investigated Casati79 . For this system, the evolution operator has the following form Izrailev

$$U_{kl}^{(n)}=i^{(lk)}J_{lk}(\kappa )e^{iE_l\mathrm{\Delta }t_n/\mathrm{}},$$
(12)
where $`\kappa =K/\mathrm{}`$ is the dimensionless kick strength, $`E_l=\mathrm{}^2l^2/2I`$ is the kinetic energy of the rotor, $`I`$ its moment of inertia, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_n=t_{n+1}t_n=T`$ the constant time interval between kicks and $`J_s`$ is the $`s^{th}`$ order Bessel function. Note that in this case, the condition $`W_{k,kl}=W_{k,k+l}`$ is satisfied by (12). Then, as long as the term $`\beta _k`$ can be neglected in eq. (6), the evolution is given by the diffusion equation (8). The diffusion coefficient, obtained from eq. (9) using standard properties of the Bessel functions, is $`D=\kappa ^2/2T`$ , which is consistent with the classical result.

The average energy of the QKR is given by $`E(t_n)=_{k=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}E_kP_k(t_n)`$. A direct calculation based on eq. (6), shows that the energy change across two consecutive kicks, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_nE(t_{n+1})E(t_n)`$, can be written in terms of the transition probabilities $`W_{kl}\mathrm{\Delta }t_n`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}E_lP_k(t_n)W_{kl}\mathrm{\Delta }t_n+{\displaystyle \underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}E_l\beta _l`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K^2}{4I}}+{\displaystyle \underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}E_l\beta _l(t_n).`$
The first term in the rhs of this expression describes the classical diffusive increase in the energy while the second term, involving the sum of $`\beta _l`$, accounts for quantum interference effects and is calculated explicitly in 2frecuencias . In Fig. 1, we show the contribution of each term in eq. (13) to the energy of the QKR, as a function of the number of kicks, $`n`$. The dotted line in this figure corresponds to the contribution of the interference term, $`_lE_l\beta _l(t_n)`$ and the dashed line to the contribution of the Markovian term. This last contribution has a slope $`\kappa ^2/2`$ and is coincident with the classical linear diffusive increase. After $`50`$ kicks, the cumulative effect of the quantum coherence begins to cancel out the diffusive growth of the energy. In eq. (13), $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_n=T`$ and the parameters are $`\kappa =21.0`$ and $`\mathrm{}T/I=1`$. The energy is in units of $`\mathrm{}^2/2I`$ and the smoothing was obtained by averaging over one hundred initial conditions, corresponding to the fifty lowest eigenvalues of $`H_0`$. We see that the contribution of the interference term is negligible until dynamical localization sets in, so that this term may be identified as the one responsible for DL.

During the quantum diffusion which precedes DL, when the interference term is negligible, the quantum evolution mimics a Markovian process. and the entropy increases, as shown in Fig. 2. However, the discrete quasi–energy spectrum of the QKR Floquet operator (12) introduces a constraint that limits the entropy increase. In fact, as is well known Izrailev , only a finite number ($`L_0`$ on the average) of eigenstates of $`H_0`$ are required to describe an eigenstate of the Floquet operator. If we initialize the system in the eigenstate $`|k_0`$ of $`H_0`$, the subsequent evolution can only involve eigenstates $`|k`$ of $`H_0`$ such that $`\left|kk_0\right|L`$. This fact represents a constraint on the entropy increase, of the type given by eq. (10). The actual value of $`L`$ depends on the initial condition, but it must obey $`L=L_0`$, where the average is over different initial states $`|k_0`$. For each $`k_0`$, we take $`L`$, i.e. the maximum distance $`\left|kk_0\right|`$ in angular momentum space present in the dynamical evolution, as the observable $`M`$ of eq. (10). Then, the corresponding constraint is $`L=\left|kk_0\right|_{max}=L_0`$. From this constraint and the normalization condition for the occupation probability, we obtain the Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda =\mathrm{sinh}^1(1/L_0)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{ln}\left[L_0+(L_0^2+1)^{1/2}\right]`$. Then, the probability distribution (11) resulting from the constrained maximization of the entropy is

$$P_k=\frac{e^{\lambda \left|kk_0\right|}}{L_0+(L_0^2+1)^{1/2}}\frac{1}{2L_0}e^{\frac{\left|kk_0\right|}{L_0}}$$
(14)
because $`L_01`$. This exponential profile for the localized wave function has been verified both numerically Izrailev  and experimentally experimental  for the case of the QKR. When the maximum value of the entropy consistent with this constrain is attained, the interference term in the rhs of eq. (6) becomes non-negligible and so the master equation approximation does not hold. Then the entropy remains constant (see Fig. 2).

The origin of DL may thus be traced to the discrete nature of the dynamical response frequency spectrum (or equivalently for the QKR, the quasi–energy spectrum), which determines the degree of randomness of the $`\beta _k`$ values in the complex plane. This is discussed in further detail in 2frecuencias .

To clarify the relation of DL to the behavior of the second term in the rhs of eq. (13) we now consider a simple modification of the QKR, in which the time intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_n`$, are randomly chosen. In this case eqs. (12) and (13) are valid, but the contribution of the interference term in the rhs of eq. (6) is negligible for arbitrarily long times since the dynamical response frequency spectrum is continuous and this system does not show DL 2frecuencias . In this case, the evolution is always Markovian and it can be described by the diffusion equation (8) with the diffusion coefficient given by eq. (9).

One might think that these diffusive dynamics is an artifact resulting from the randomness of the time intervals between successive kicks. That this is not the case may be seen by considering the double Kicked Rotor (QDKR), a quasiperiodic version of the QKR. The QDKR is obtained when a second series of pulses is applied to the rotor, with an irrational ratio between the periods of both trains of pulses. The evolution operator (12) also holds for the QDKR, but the time intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_n`$ now form a pseudo-random sequence. The response spectrum of this system is dense and it undergoes unlimited quantum diffusion at a rate consistent with the classical diffusion rate 2frecuencias . This implies that the contribution of the interference term in eq. (6) is negligible also in this case. In both cases, the probability distribution $`P_k(t_n)`$ evolves as a spreading gaussian. The long–term evolution of the entropy is markedly different for these systems than for the periodic case. In Fig. 2, the time evolution of the entropy $`S`$ for the QKR and the random kicked rotor are compared. In the case of the QKR, the entropy stops growing when the constraint is satisfied, while it grows without bound in the other case.

Finally, we remark that the approach of separating the Schrödinger equation into a master equation part supplemented by a term which takes into account quantum interference effects, provides a new insight on quantum diffusion and dynamical localization. As we have shown, the localized or diffusive character of the dynamics can be understood as the result of the competition between these terms of the evolution equation. The Markovian term dominates the dynamics for a time which depends on the topology of the dynamical response spectrum. The general procedure has been illustrated using the quantum kicked rotor, in its periodic, quasi–periodic and random kick versions. In particular, we have explained the exponentially localized probability distribution of the QKR using simple, well accepted results from the theory of stochastic processes. This exponential distribution results from the constrained maximization of the coarse–grained entropy. The localization–length constraint is due to the discrete nature of the dynamical response spectrum of the QKR. In the other cases considered the dynamical response spectrum is dense, the localization length is infinite (i.e. the constraint is absent) and the entropy increase continues indefinitely, as is characteristic of a diffusive process. We have shown, that in this case the Schrödinger equation is equivalent to a diffusion equation with the classical diffusion coefficient.

The approach that we have presented here may be used to describe the dynamics of an arbitrary quantum system in which there is quantum diffusion.

*We acknowledge the support of PEDECIBA and CONICYT-Clemente Estable (project #6026), RD acknowledges partial financial support from <br>MCT/FINEP/CNPq (PRONEX) under contract 41.96.0886.00.*