text:
# The Cherednik kernel and generalized exponents

## Introduction

Let $`𝔤`$ be a complex simple Lie algebra of rank $`n`$ and denote by $`G`$ its adjoint group. The algebra $`S(𝔤)`$ of complex valued polynomial functions on $`𝔤`$ becomes a graded representation for $`G`$. It is known from the work of Kostant  that if $``$ denotes the subring of $`G`$–invariant polynomials on $`𝔤`$ then $`S(𝔤)`$ is free as an $``$–module and is generated by $``$, the space of $`G`$–harmonic polynomials on $`𝔤`$ (the polynomials annihilated by all $`G`$–invariant differential operators with constant complex coefficients and no constant term), or equivalently $`S(𝔤)=`$. The space of harmonic polynomials thus becomes a graded, locally finite representation of $`G`$; it can equivalently be thought of as the ring of regular functions on the cone of nilpotent elements in $`𝔤`$. If we denote by $`^i`$ its $`i`$–th graded piece, and by $`V_\lambda `$ the irreducible representation of $`G`$ with highest weight $`\lambda `$ we can consider the graded multiplicity of $`V_\lambda `$ in $``$

$$E(V_\lambda ):=\underset{0i}{}\mathrm{dim}_{}\left(\mathrm{Hom}_G(V_\lambda ,^i)\right)t^i$$

As a polynomial with positive integer coefficients $`E(V_\lambda )`$ can be written in the form

$$E(V_\lambda )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{v_\lambda }{}}t^{e_i(\lambda )}$$

such that $`e_1(\lambda )e_2(\lambda )\mathrm{}e_{v_\lambda }(\lambda )`$ and $`v_\lambda `$ is the multiplicity of the $`0`$–th weight space of $`V_\lambda `$. The positive integers $`e_i(\lambda )`$ were called by Kostant the generalized exponents of $`V_\lambda `$. The terminology is justified by the fact that the classical exponents of $`G`$, the numbers $`e_1\mathrm{}e_n`$ which appear in the factorization of the Poincaré polynomial of $`G`$

$$p_G(t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1+t^{2e_i+1})$$

coincide with the generalized exponents of the adjoint representation of $`G`$.

To further motivate the importance of generalized exponents note that by  and  the polynomials $`E(V_\lambda )`$ are particular examples of Kazhdan–Lusztig polynomials (for the affine Weyl group associated to the Weyl group of $`G`$) and therefore of considerable combinatorial complexity. The results of Lusztig and Hesselink describe $`E(V_\lambda )`$ as a $`t`$–analogue of the $`0`$-th weight multiplicity of $`V_\lambda `$ via a deformation of Kostant’s weight multiplicity formula introduced by Lusztig.

The problem of computing the classical exponents of $`G`$ was initially motivated by the problem of computing the Betti numbers of $`G`$ . It turns out that the classical exponents admit another description quite different from the one alluded to above. It was observed independently by A. Shapiro (unpublished) and R. Steinberg  that if we denote by $`h(k)`$ the number of positive roots of height $`k`$ in the root system associated to $`G`$ then the number of times $`k`$ occurs as an exponent of $`G`$ is $`h(k)h(k+1)`$. This very simple procedure for computing the classical exponents was justified by Coleman  modulo the empirically observed fact that $`2N=nh`$ ($`N`$ is the number of reflexions in the Weyl group of $`G`$ and $`h`$ is the order of a special element of the Weyl group called the Coxeter transformation) and by Kostant  who gave a uniform proof by studying the decomposition of $`𝔤`$ into submodules for the action of a principal three dimensional subalgebra of $`𝔤`$. There is also a proof of this fact directly from Macdonald’s factorization of the Poincaré polynomial of the Weyl group of $`G`$  \[5, Section 3.20\].

The main goal of this paper is to explain how the above description of the classical exponents and similar descriptions of generalized exponents can be obtained by analyzing the Fourier coefficients of the Cherednik kernel, a certain continuous function on a maximal torus of $`G`$. Besides recovering the formulas for generalized exponents of irreducible representations parameterized by dominant roots, our main result, Theorem 4.5, describes combinatorially the generalized exponents for irreducible representations parameterized by dominant elements $`\lambda `$ of the root lattice of $`𝔤`$ which are sums of two orthogonal short roots.

To describe this result we need the following notation. Let $`\lambda `$ be a dominant element of the root lattice of $`𝔤`$ which can be written as a sum of two orthogonal short roots and it is not itself a root. For any $`\gamma `$ in the same Weyl group orbit as $`\lambda `$ let $`n(\gamma )`$ be the number of (unordered) pairs of positive short orthogonal roots which sum up to $`\gamma `$. Let $`h_\lambda (k):=h_\lambda ^{}(k)h_\lambda ^{\prime \prime }(k)`$, where $`h_\lambda ^{}(k)`$ is the number of weights of $`V_\lambda `$ which have height $`k`$ and $`h_\lambda ^{\prime \prime }(k)`$ is the number of weights $`\gamma `$ of $`V_\lambda `$ in the same Weyl group orbit as $`\lambda `$ and whose height is $`k+n(\gamma )`$.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`\lambda `$ be a dominant element of the root lattice of $`𝔤`$ which can be written as a sum of two orthogonal short roots and it is not itself a root. With this notation above, the multiplicity of $`V_\lambda `$ in $`^k`$ equals $`h(k)h(k+1)`$.

Our result suggests that similar formulas for generalized exponents for other classes of irreducible representations of $`G`$ are also possible if one explicitly describes the Fourier coefficients of the Cherednik kernel parametrized by all weights of the irreducible representation under consideration. A general technique of inductively computing the Fourier coefficients of the Cherednik kernel is described in Theorem 4.1. Another closely related method for computing the Fourier coefficients of the Cherednik kernel was introduced by Bazlov . It is based on Cherednik operators and was succesfuly applied to compute the Fourier coefficients parametrized by roots, but this method seems to be less efficient in general because of the complexity of Cherednik operators.

## 1. Preliminaries

### 1.1.

Let $`𝔤`$ be a complex simple Lie algebra of rank $`n`$ and denote by $`G`$ its adjoint group. Let $`𝔥`$ and $`𝔟`$ be a Cartan subalgebra respectively a Borel subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ such that $`𝔥𝔟`$, fixed once and for all. The maximal torus of $`G`$ corresponding to $`𝔥`$ is denoted by $`H`$. We have $`H=TA`$ where $`T`$ is a compact torus and $`A`$ is a real split torus. The volume one Haar measure on $`T`$ is denoted by $`ds`$.

Let $`R𝔥^{}`$ be the set of roots of $`𝔤`$ with respect to $`𝔥`$, let $`R^+`$ be the set of roots of $`𝔟`$ with respect to $`𝔥`$ and denote by $`R^{}=R^+`$. Of course, $`R=R^+R^{}`$; the roots in $`R^+`$ are called positive and those in $`R^{}`$ negative. The set of positive simple roots determined by $`R^+`$ is denoted by $`\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n\}`$. We know that the roots in $`R`$ have at most two distinct lengths. We will use the notation $`R_s`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ to refer respectively to the short roots and the long roots in $`R`$. If the root system is simply laced we consider all the roots to be short. The dominant element of $`R_s`$ is denoted by $`\theta _s`$ and the dominant element of $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ is denoted by $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$.

Any element $`\alpha `$ of $`R`$ can be written uniquely as a sum of simple roots $`_{i=1}^na_i\alpha _i`$. The height of the root $`\alpha `$ is defined to be

$$\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_i.$$

The root of $`R`$ with has the largest height is denoted by $`\theta `$. By the above convention, if $`R`$ is simply laced then $`\theta =\theta _s`$ and if $`R`$ is not simply laced then $`\theta =\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$.

Denote by $`r`$ the maximal number of laces in the Dynkin diagram associated to $`𝔤`$. There is a canonical positive definite bilinear form $`(,)`$ on $`𝔥_{}^{}`$ (the real vector space spanned by the roots) normalized such that $`(\alpha ,\alpha )=2`$ for long roots and $`(\alpha ,\alpha )=2/r`$ for short roots. For any root $`\alpha `$ define $`\alpha ^{}=2\alpha /(\alpha ,\alpha )`$. We know from the axioms of a root system that $`(\alpha ,\beta ^{})`$ is an integer for any roots $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. In fact, the only possible values for $`|(\alpha ,\beta ^{})|`$ are $`0`$, $`1`$ or $`2`$ if the length of $`\alpha `$ does not exceed the length of $`\beta `$ (the value $`2`$ is attained only if $`\alpha =\pm \beta `$) and $`0`$, $`r`$ if the length of $`\alpha `$ is strictly larger than the length of $`\beta `$.

Define $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}_{\alpha R}\alpha ^{}`$. With this notation the height of any root $`\alpha `$ can be written as $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )=(\alpha ,\rho )`$. The root lattice $`Q`$ is the integral span of the simple roots. For an element $`\lambda `$ in $`Q`$ we define its height as $`\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )=(\lambda ,\rho )`$.

### 1.2.

For any root $`\alpha `$ consider the reflexion of the Euclidean space $`𝔥_{}^{}`$ given by

$$s_\alpha (x)=x(x,\alpha ^{})\alpha .$$

The Weyl group $`W`$ of the root system $`R`$ is the subgroup of $`\mathrm{GL}(𝔥_{}^{})`$ generated by the reflexions $`s_\alpha `$, for all roots $`\alpha `$ (the simple reflexions $`s_i:=s_{\alpha _i}`$, $`1in`$, are enough). The scalar product on $`𝔥_{}^{}`$ is equivariant with respect to the action of $`W`$.

We can extend the bilinear form on $`𝔥_{}^{}`$ to a bilinear form on the real vector space $`V:=𝔥_{}^{}+\delta `$ by setting $`(\delta ,V)=0`$. The affine root system $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is defined as

$$\stackrel{~}{R}=\{\alpha +k\delta |\alpha R,k\}.$$

The set of affine positive roots $`\stackrel{~}{R}^+`$ consists of affine roots of the form $`\alpha +k\delta `$ such that $`k`$ is positive if $`\alpha `$ is a positive root, and $`k`$ strictly positive if $`\alpha `$ is a negative root. The affine simple roots are $`\alpha _i`$ ($`1in`$), and $`\alpha _0:=\delta \theta `$.

The affine Weyl group $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ is the subgroup of $`\mathrm{GL}(V)`$ generated by all reflexions $`s_{\alpha +k\delta }`$ associated to affine roots. As above, the affine Weyl group is generated by the simple reflexions $`s_0:=s_{\alpha _0}`$, $`s_i`$ ($`1in`$). Let us describe explicitly the action of the simple affine reflexion

$$s_0(x)=s_\theta (x)+(x,\theta )\delta .$$

The bilinear form on $`V`$ is equivariant with respect to the affine Weyl group action.

## 2. The Cherednik kernel

### 2.1.

For an element $`\lambda `$ of the root lattice we denote by $`e^\lambda `$ the corresponding character of the compact torus $`T`$. The trivial character $`e^0`$ will be also denoted by $`1`$. Let $`[Q]`$ be the $``$–algebra spanned by all such elements (the group algebra of the lattice $`Q`$). Note that the multiplication is given by $`e^\lambda e^\mu =e^{\lambda +\mu }`$. There is an involution of $`[Q]`$ given by $`\overline{e^\lambda }=e^\lambda `$. If we set $`e^\delta =q`$, for $`q`$ a fixed complex number, the affine Weyl group acts naturally on $`[Q]`$. For example, $`e^{s_0(\lambda )}=q^{(\lambda ,\theta )}e^{s_\theta (\lambda )}`$.

The subalgebra of $`[Q]`$ consisting of $`W`$–invariant elements is denoted by $`[Q]^W`$. The irreducible finite dimensional representations of $`G`$ are parameterized by the dominant elements of the root lattice. For a dominant $`\lambda `$ we denote by $`\chi _\lambda `$ the character of the corresponding irreducible representation of $`G`$. Restricting the characters to $`T`$ we will regard them as elements of $`[Q]`$. A basis of $`[Q]^W`$ is then given by the all the irreducible characters $`\chi _\lambda `$ of $`G`$.

For any continuous function $`f`$ on the torus $`T`$, its Fourier coefficients are parameterized by $`Q`$ and are given by

$$f_\lambda :=_Tfe^\lambda 𝑑s.$$

The coefficient $`f_0`$ is called the constant term of $`f`$; it will be also denoted by $`[f]`$.

### 2.2.

Let us consider the following function on the torus

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{|W|}\underset{\alpha R}{}(1e^\alpha ).$$

Modulo the normalization by the cardinal of the Weyl group (which makes the constant term $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]=1`$) this is the square absolute value of the Weyl denominator of the root system $`R`$. The scalar product on $`[Q]^W`$ given by

$$f,g:=_Tf\overline{g}\mathrm{\Delta }𝑑s$$

makes the characters $`\chi _\lambda `$ orthonormal.

Assume $`q`$ and $`t`$ are complex numbers of small absolute value and let

$$(q,t)=\underset{\alpha R}{}\underset{i0}{}\frac{1q^ie^\alpha }{1q^ite^\alpha }$$

Since $`q`$ and $`t`$ are small the infinite product is absolutely convergent and $`(q,t)`$ should be seen as a continuous function on the torus $`T`$. In the special case when $`t=q^k`$ and $`k`$ is a positive integer this function was introduced by Macdonald in  (see also ) and used to define a family of orthogonal polynomials associated to root systems and depending on the parameters $`q`$ and $`t`$. Note that in this case $`(q,q^k)`$ is given by a finite product and no convergence problems appear; therefore $`q`$ is not required to have small absolute value and it can be regarded as a parameter. The constant term of $`(q,t)`$ was subject to conjectures of Macdonald, later to be proved by Cherednik . The function

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(q,t)=\frac{(q,t)}{[(q,t)]}$$

is a $`W`$–invariant continuous function on the torus with constant term equal to one. It is also invariant under the transformation which sends $`e^\lambda `$, $`q`$ and $`t`$ to their inverses and therefore well defined also for $`q`$ and $`t`$ in a neighborhood of infinity. We can define the following non–degenerate scalar product on $`[Q]^W`$

$$f,g_{q,t}^\mathrm{\Delta }:=_Tf\overline{g}\mathrm{\Delta }(q,t)𝑑s$$

### 2.3.

Let us consider also the continuous function on $`T`$ given by

$$K(q,t)=\underset{\alpha R^+}{}\underset{i0}{}\frac{(1q^ie^\alpha )(1q^{i+1}e^\alpha )}{(1tq^ie^\alpha )(1tq^{i+1}e^\alpha )}$$

Note that with the notation $`e^\delta =q`$ the above function can be written as

$$K(q,t)=\underset{\alpha \stackrel{~}{R}^+}{}\frac{1e^\alpha }{1te^\alpha }$$

For $`t=q^k`$ and positive integral $`k`$ this function first appeared in Cherednik’s work  on the Macdonald constant term conjecture. Unlike $`(q,t)`$ it is not invariant under the Weyl group. The function

$$C(q,t)=\frac{K(q,t)}{[K(q,t)]}$$

is a function on the torus with constant term equal to one, which we will call the Cherednik kernel. The following result establishes a very important property of $`c_\lambda (q,t)`$, the Fourier coefficients of $`C(q,t)`$.

###### Theorem 2.1.

(\[11, (5.1.10)\]). With the above notation, the Fourier coefficients $`c_\lambda (q,t)`$ of $`C(q,t)`$ are rational functions in $`q`$ and $`t`$. Furthermore, the Cherednik kernel is invariant under the transformation which sends $`e^\lambda `$, $`q`$ and $`t`$ to their inverses.

Consider now $`q`$ and $`t`$ as formal variables and define the field $`𝔽:=(q,t)`$. We extend the involution on $`[Q]`$ to the group algebra $`𝔽[Q]`$ by setting $`\overline{q}=q^1`$ and $`\overline{t}=t^1`$. Since $`c_\lambda (q,t)`$ are rational functions in $`q`$ and $`t`$ and therefore defined for generic $`q`$ and $`t`$ we can regard them as elements of $`𝔽`$. The invariance of the Cherednik kernel from the above Theorem can be restated as

$$c_\lambda (q^1,t^1)=c_\lambda (q,t)$$
(1)
We can define the following non–degenerate scalar product on $`𝔽[Q]`$

$$f,g_{q,t}^C:=_Tf\overline{g}C(q,t)𝑑s$$

For example $`c_\lambda (q,t)=1,e^\lambda _{q,t}^C`$. The scalar product has the property that

$$g,f_{q,t}^C=\overline{f,g}_{q,t}^C$$

It is known (see e.g. \[11, (5.1.35)\]) that the two scalar product coincide for all elements $`f,g𝔽[Q]^W`$

$$f,g_{q,t}^\mathrm{\Delta }=f,g_{q,t}^C$$
(2)
We will use the notation $`,_{q,t}`$ to refer to $`,_{q,t}^C`$. It follows from the above relation that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(q,t)`$ has also Fourier coefficients which are rational functions of $`q`$ and $`t`$ and therefore regarded as elements of $`𝔽`$.

### 2.4.

For each simple affine root consider the following operator, called Demazure–Lusztig operator, acting on $`𝔽[Q]`$ as follows

$$T_i(e^\lambda )=e^{s_i(\lambda )}+(1t)\frac{e^\lambda e^{s_i(\lambda )}}{1e^{\alpha _i}}$$

The following result is due to Cherednik.

###### Theorem 2.2 ().

The Demazure–Lusztig operators are unitary for the above scalar product on $`𝔽[Q]`$. This means that for any $`f,g𝔽[Q]`$ we have

$$T_i(f),T_i(g)_{q,t}=f,g_{q,t}$$

The unitarity of the Demazure–Lusztig operators will be our main tool for computing some of the Fourier coefficients of the Cherednik kernel.

### 2.5.

Consider now $`t`$ as a formal variable. The graded torus character of $`S(𝔤)`$, the algebra of complex valued polynomial functions on $`𝔤`$, is easily seen to be

$$\mathrm{ch}_{S(𝔤)}(t)=\underset{\alpha R}{}\frac{1}{1te^\alpha }$$

If $`\chi _\lambda `$ denotes the character of the irreducible representation of $`G`$ with highest weight $`\lambda `$, then the graded multiplicity of $`V_\lambda `$ inside $`S(𝔤)`$ can be computed as

$$\mathrm{ch}_{S(𝔤)}(t),\chi _\lambda =\frac{1}{|W|}_T(0,t)\overline{\chi }_\lambda $$
(3)
As mentioned in Introduction if $``$ denotes the subring of $`G`$–invariant polynomials on $`𝔤`$ and $``$ the space of $`G`$–harmonic polynomials on $`𝔤`$ then $`S(𝔤)=`$ as graded $`G`$–modules. If follows that if we want to compute $`E(V_\lambda )`$, the graded multiplicity of $`V_\lambda `$ inside $``$, then we would have to factor out in formula (3) the graded multiplicity of the trivial representation inside $`S(𝔤)`$, or equivalently the constant term of $`(0,t)`$. We can conclude that

$$E(V_\lambda )=1,\chi _\lambda _{0,t}^\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(4)
By formula (2) we can thus express $`E_\lambda `$ as a sum of weight multiplicities of $`V_\lambda `$ times values of Fourier coefficients of the Cherednik kernel at $`q=0`$. The non–symmetry of the Cherednik kernel allows various Fourier coefficients parameterized by elements in the same Weyl group orbit to behave differently and therefore to contribute differently to the above scalar product. This feature is not present for the Macdonald kernel $`\mathrm{\Delta }(q,t)`$. We will return to the problem of computing the Fourier coefficients of the Cherednik kernel after some combinatorial considerations which will allow us to describe them in simple terms for elements of several Weyl group orbits .

## 3. The height function and the Bruhat order

### 3.1.

For each $`w`$ in $`W`$ let $`\mathrm{}(w)`$ be the length of a reduced (i.e. shortest) decomposition of $`w`$ in terms of the $`s_i`$. We have $`\mathrm{}(w)=|\mathrm{\Pi }(w)|`$ where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(w)=\{\alpha R^+|w(\alpha )R^{}\}.$$

We also denote by $`{}_{}{}^{c}\mathrm{\Pi }(w)=\{\alpha R^+|w(\alpha )R^+\}.`$ If $`w=s_{j_p}\mathrm{}s_{j_1}`$ is a reduced expression of $`w`$, then

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(w)=\{\alpha ^{(i)}|1ip\},$$

with $`\alpha ^{(i)}=s_{j_1}\mathrm{}s_{j_{i1}}(\alpha _{j_i})`$.

For each element $`\lambda `$ of $`Q`$ define $`\lambda _+`$ to be the unique dominant element in $`W\lambda `$, the orbit of $`\lambda `$. Let $`w_\lambda W`$ be the unique minimal length element such that $`w_\lambda (\lambda _+)=\lambda `$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

With the notation above, we have

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda ^1)=\{\alpha R^+|(\lambda ,\alpha )<0\}.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`\alpha `$ be an element of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda ^1)`$. Then $`w_\lambda ^1(\alpha )`$ is a negative root and in consequence

$$0(\lambda _+,w_\lambda ^1(\alpha ))=(w_\lambda (\lambda _+),\alpha )=(\lambda ,\alpha ).$$
(5)
Let us see that above we cannot have equality. If $`w_\lambda ^1=s_{j_p}\mathrm{}s_{j_1}`$ is a reduced expression, then

$$\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda ^1)=\{\alpha ^{(i)}|1ip\},$$

with $`\alpha ^{(i)}=s_{j_1}\mathrm{}s_{j_{i1}}(\alpha _{j_i})`$. Suppose that

$$0=(\lambda ,\alpha ^{(i)})=(\lambda ,s_{j_1}\mathrm{}s_{j_{i1}}(\alpha _{j_i}))=(s_{j_{i1}}\mathrm{}s_{j_1}(\lambda ),\alpha _{j_i})$$

then

$$s_{j_i}s_{j_{i1}}\mathrm{}s_{j_1}(\lambda )=s_{j_{i1}}\mathrm{}s_{j_1}(\lambda ),$$

fact which contradicts the minimality of $`w_\lambda ^1`$.

Conversely, if the inequality $`(\lambda ,\alpha )<0`$ holds for a positive root $`\alpha `$ then equation (5) shows that $`w_\lambda ^1(\alpha )`$ is a negative root. ∎

### 3.2.

The Bruhat order is a partial order on any Coxeter group defined in way compatible with the length function. For an element $`w`$ we put $`w<s_iw`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{}(w)<\mathrm{}(s_iw)`$. The transitive closure of this relation is called the Bruhat order. The terminology is motivated by the way this ordering arises for Weyl groups in connection with inclusions among closures of Bruhat cells for a corresponding semisimple algebraic group.

For the basic properties of the Bruhat order we refer to Chapter 5 in . Let us list a few of them (the first two properties completely characterize the Bruhat order):

1. For each $`\alpha R^+`$ we have $`s_\alpha w<w`$ if and only if $`\alpha `$ is in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(w^1)`$ ;
2. $`w^{}<w`$ if and only if $`w^{}`$ can be obtained by omitting some factors in a fixed reduced decomposition of $`w`$ ;
3. if $`w^{}w`$ then either $`s_iw^{}w`$ or $`s_iw^{}s_iw`$ (or both).

We can use the Bruhat order on $`W`$ do define a partial order on each orbit of the Weyl group action on $`Q`$ as follows.

###### Definition 3.2.

Let $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ be two elements of the root lattice which lie in the same orbit of $`W`$. By definition $`\lambda <\mu `$ if and only if $`w_\lambda <w_\mu `$.

By the above Definition the dominant element of a $`W`$–orbit is the minimal element of that orbit with respect to the Bruhat order.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`\lambda `$ be an element of the root lattice such that $`s_i(\lambda )\lambda `$ for some $`1in`$. Then $`w_{s_i(\lambda )}=s_iw_\lambda `$.

###### Proof.

Because $`\mathrm{}(s_iw_\lambda )=\mathrm{}(w_\lambda )\pm 1`$ and $`\mathrm{}(s_iw_{s_i(\lambda )})=\mathrm{}(w_{s_i(\lambda )})\pm 1`$ we have four possible situations depending on the choice of the signs in the above relations. The choice of a plus sign in both relations translates into $`\alpha _i\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda ^1)`$ and $`\alpha _i\mathrm{\Pi }(w_{s_i\lambda }^1)`$ which by Lemma 3.1 and our hypothesis implies that $`(\alpha _i,\lambda )>0`$ and $`(\alpha _i,s_i(\lambda ))>0`$ (contradiction). The same argument shows that the choice of a minus sign in both relations is impossible. Now, we can assume that $`\mathrm{}(s_iw_\lambda )=\mathrm{}(w_\lambda )+1`$ and $`\mathrm{}(s_iw_{s_i(\lambda )})=\mathrm{}(w_{s_i(\lambda )})1`$, the other case being treated similarly. Using the minimal length properties of $`w_\lambda `$ and $`w_{s_i(\lambda )}`$ we can write

$$\mathrm{}(w_\lambda )+1=\mathrm{}(s_iw_\lambda )\mathrm{}(w_{s_i(\lambda )})=\mathrm{}(s_iw_{s_i(\lambda )})+1\mathrm{}(w_\lambda )+1$$

which shows that $`\mathrm{}(s_iw_\lambda )=\mathrm{}(w_{s_i(\lambda )})`$. Our conclusion now follows from the uniqueness of the element $`w_{s_i(\lambda )}`$. ∎

An immediate consequence is the following

###### Lemma 3.4.

Let $`\lambda `$ be a weight such that $`s_i(\lambda )\lambda `$ for some $`1in`$. Then $`s_i(\lambda )>\lambda `$ if and only if $`(\alpha _i,\lambda )>0`$. If the equivalent conditions hold we also have

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(w_{s_i(\lambda )})=\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )\{w_\lambda ^1(\alpha _i)\}.$$

###### Lemma 3.5.

For an element $`\lambda `$ in the root lattice we have

$$\mathrm{ht}(\lambda _+)\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )}{}(\lambda _+,\alpha ^{})$$

Moreover, the number $`\mathrm{ht}(\lambda _+)\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )\mathrm{}(w_\lambda )`$ is a positive integer.

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )=(\lambda ,\rho )=(\lambda _+,w_\lambda ^1(\rho ))`$ we obtain that

$$\mathrm{ht}(\lambda _+)\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )=(\lambda _+,\rho w_\lambda ^1(\rho ))$$

If we write

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda ^1)}{}\alpha ^{}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha {}_{}{}^{c}\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda ^1)}{}\alpha ^{}$$

using the equalities

$$w_\lambda ^1\left(\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda ^1)\right)=\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )\text{ and }w_\lambda ^1\left({}_{}{}^{c}\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda ^1)\right)={}_{}{}^{c}\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )$$
(6)
we find that

$$w_\lambda ^1(\rho )=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )}{}\alpha ^{}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha {}_{}{}^{c}\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )}{}\alpha ^{}$$

Our first claim then immediately follows. Regarding the second claim, note that for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )`$ we always have $`(\lambda _+,\alpha ^{})1`$. Indeed, from the equality (6) we know that $`\alpha =w_\lambda ^1(\beta )`$ with $`\beta \mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda ^1)`$ and therefore by Lemma 3.1

$$(\lambda _+,\alpha ^{})=(\lambda ,\beta ^{})>0$$

In conclusion, $`\mathrm{ht}(\lambda _+)\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )\mathrm{}(w_\lambda )=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )}\left((\lambda _+,\alpha ^{})1\right)`$ is a sum of positive integers and hence a positive integer. ∎

For any element $`\lambda `$ of the root lattice we will use the notation

$$D_\lambda =\mathrm{ht}(\lambda _+)\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )\mathrm{}(w_\lambda )$$

As we will see $`D_\lambda `$ encodes a certain type of combinatorial information about $`\lambda `$.

If the root system is not simply laced it will be convenient to consider

$$D_\lambda (\mathrm{})=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}(w_\lambda )}{}\left((\lambda _+,\alpha ^{})1\right)$$

and

$$D_\lambda (s)=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_s(w_\lambda )}{}\left((\lambda _+,\alpha ^{})1\right)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}(w_\lambda )`$, respectively $`\mathrm{\Pi }_s(w_\lambda )`$, is used to denote the long roots, respectively short roots, in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )`$.

### 3.3.

Let us describe $`D_\lambda `$ in a few cases. Assume that $`\lambda `$ is a short root. Then $`\lambda _+=\theta _s`$ and

$$D_\lambda =\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )}{}\left((\theta _s,\alpha ^{})1\right)$$

Since $`\theta _s`$ is a short root, it follows that the scalar product $`(\theta _s,\alpha ^{})`$ equals 2 if $`\alpha =\theta _s`$ and equals 1 otherwise. Therefore $`D_\lambda `$ takes the value 1 or 0 depending on whether $`\theta _s`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )`$ or not. But since $`w_\lambda (\theta _s)=\lambda `$ we obtain that $`\theta _s`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )`$ if and only if $`\lambda `$ is a negative root. Therefore we have proved the following result.

###### Lemma 3.6.

If $`\lambda `$ is a short root then $`D_\lambda =0`$ if $`\lambda `$ is a positive root and $`D_\lambda =1`$ if $`\lambda `$ is a negative root.

### 3.4.

In the case on non–simply laced root systems we can investigate $`D_\lambda `$ for $`\lambda `$ a long root. Denote first by $`N(\theta _{\mathrm{}})`$ the number of unordered pairs $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$ of short roots such that $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}=\alpha +\beta `$. For any other long root $`\lambda `$ the number of unordered pairs $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$ of short roots such that $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}=\alpha +\beta `$ is still $`N(\theta _{\mathrm{}})`$ since $`w_\lambda `$ provides a bijection between the set of such pairs.

If $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are short roots such that $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}=\alpha +\beta `$ then $`(\theta _{\mathrm{}},\alpha ^{})=2+(\beta ,\alpha ^{})`$. We remark that $`(\theta _{\mathrm{}},\alpha ^{})`$ cannot be zero and then it equals $`r`$. It follows that always $`(\beta ,\alpha ^{})=r2`$. The same is true for the scalar product of pairs of short roots associated in a similar way to any long root. Denote by $`n(\lambda )`$ the number of negative roots appearing in all unordered pairs of short roots such that $`\lambda =\alpha +\beta `$. The following result describes $`D_\lambda `$ in combinatorial terms.

###### Lemma 3.7.

For a non–simply laced root system $`D_\lambda (\mathrm{})=0`$ if $`\lambda `$ is a positive long root and $`D_\lambda (\mathrm{})=1`$ if $`\lambda `$ is a negative long root. Also, $`D_\lambda (s)=(r1)n(\lambda )`$.

###### Proof.

As before, by examining the scalar products we find that $`D_\lambda (\mathrm{})=0`$ if $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ is not in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )`$ and $`D_\lambda (\mathrm{})=1`$ if $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )`$. But since $`w_\lambda (\theta _{\mathrm{}})=\lambda `$ this translates precisely into our first claim.

Regarding the second claim we use the fact that $`(\theta _{\mathrm{}},\alpha ^{})=r`$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_s(w_\lambda )`$ to write $`D_\lambda (s)=(r1)|\mathrm{\Pi }_s(w_\lambda )|`$. Therefore, it will be enough to show that $`n(\lambda )=|\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )|`$. Remark first that all the unordered pairs of short root which sum up to $`\lambda `$ are of the form $`\{w_\lambda (\alpha ),w_\lambda (\beta )\}`$ with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ positive short roots such that $`\theta _\lambda =\alpha +\beta `$. If, for example, $`w_\lambda (\alpha )`$ is a negative root then $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_s(w_\lambda )`$. We have shown that $`n(\lambda )|\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )|`$. For the converse inequality note that if $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_s(w_\lambda )`$ then $`(\theta _{\mathrm{}},\alpha )=1`$ and hence $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}\alpha =s_\theta _{\mathrm{}}(\alpha )`$ is a short root and $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}=\alpha +(\theta _{\mathrm{}}\alpha )`$. Then $`\lambda =w_\lambda (\alpha )+w_\lambda (\theta _{\mathrm{}}\alpha )`$ and $`w_\lambda (\alpha )`$ is a negative root. In conclusion $`|\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )|n(\lambda )`$ and our statement is proved. ∎

### 3.5.

We will give a combinatorial description of $`D_\lambda `$ for a few more Weyl group orbits. Let us describe first the orbits we wish to consider. Define

$$S:=\{\gamma =\alpha +\beta |\alpha ,\beta R_s,(\alpha ,\beta )=0\}$$

The Weyl group acts on $`S`$ and the number of orbits of this action is given by the number of dominant elements of $`S`$. It is useful to note that the set $`S`$ is empty for the root system of type $`G_2`$ and that for all the other non–simply laced root systems the long roots belong to $`S`$. Let us consider $`J`$ the set of connected components of the diagram obtained from the Dynkin diagram of $`R`$ by removing the nodes corresponding to those simple roots for which $`(\theta _s,\alpha _i^{})=1`$ and which contain at least one node associated to a short simple root of $`R`$. Note that each connected component as above is itself a Dynkin diagram and therefore we can associate its Weyl group $`W_j`$, root system $`R_j`$ and highest short root $`\theta _{s,j}`$.

###### Lemma 3.8.

The dominant elements of $`S`$ are $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$ for all $`j`$ in $`J`$.

###### Proof.

We know (see e.g. ) that for any element $`x`$ of $`𝔥_{}^{}`$ the stabilizer $`\mathrm{stab}_W(x)`$ is generated by the simple reflexions which fix $`x`$. Therefore the stabilizer of $`\theta _s`$ is the group generated by the simple reflexions $`s_i`$ for which $`(\theta _s,\alpha _i)=0`$ and using the notation above we obtain that

$$\mathrm{stab}_W(\theta _s)=\underset{jJ}{}W_j$$

If for a simple root $`\alpha _i`$ we have $`(\theta _s,\alpha _i)=0`$ then $`\alpha _i`$ belongs to one of the root systems $`R_j`$ and therefore $`(\theta _{s,j},\alpha _i)0`$ for any $`jJ`$. Hence, $`(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j},\alpha _i)0`$ for any $`jJ`$. If $`\alpha _i`$ is a simple root such that $`(\theta _s,\alpha _i^{})=1`$, since $`(\theta _{s,j},\alpha _i^{})1`$ we obtain again that $`(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j},\alpha _i)0`$ for any $`jJ`$. In conclusion, the elements $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$ are all dominant. To finish the proof we will show that any element $`\gamma `$ of $`S`$ is in fact conjugate to one of the $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$.

Fix an element $`\gamma =\alpha +\beta `$ of $`S`$ such that $`\alpha ,\beta R_s`$ and $`(\alpha ,\beta )=0`$. We can find a Weyl group element $`w`$ such that $`w(\alpha )=\theta _s`$ and therefore $`w(\gamma )=\theta _s+w(\beta )`$. Moreover, $`(\theta _s,w(\beta ))=0`$. This means in particular that $`s_{w(\beta )}`$ is an element of $`W`$ which fixes $`\theta _s`$. The element $`s_{w(\beta )}`$ of $`\mathrm{stab}_W(\theta _s)`$ being a reflexion it follows that $`w(\beta )`$ is a short root in one of the $`R_j`$. If we denote by $`\theta _{s,j}`$ the highest short root of $`R_j`$, we can find an element $`w^{}`$ of $`W_j`$ such that $`w^{}w(\beta )=\theta _{s,j}`$. Of course, since $`w^{}`$ fixes $`\theta _s`$ we obtain that

$$w^{}w(\gamma )=\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}$$

Therefore, we have proved that each element of $`S`$ is in the same orbit with one of the elements $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$, $`jJ`$. ∎

### 3.6.

We will investigate the possible values of the scalar products $`(\theta _s+\theta _s^{},\alpha ^{})`$ for positive roots $`\alpha `$. We wish to study the cases which were not already accounted for. Hence we fix $`jJ`$ such that $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$.

The possible values of the scalar product $`(\theta _s,\alpha ^{})`$ are $`0`$, $`1`$ and $`2`$ and the possible values of the scalar product $`(\theta _{s,j},\alpha ^{})`$ are $`0`$, $`\pm 1`$ and $`2`$. Note that if one on the scalar products is $`2`$ then the other one is necessarily $`0`$ since $`\alpha `$ is either $`\theta _s`$ or $`\theta _{s,j}`$. Therefore $`(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j},\alpha ^{})=2`$ only if $`\alpha =\theta _s`$, $`\alpha =\theta _{s,j}`$ or $`(\theta _s,\alpha ^{})=(\theta _s^{},\alpha ^{})=1`$. The other possible values of the scalar product are $`0`$ and $`1`$ since $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$ is dominant and $`\alpha `$ positive their scalar product has to be positive.

The most interesting situation is when we have $`(\theta _s,\alpha ^{})=(\theta _{s,j},\alpha ^{})=1`$. In the situation when we have two distinct root lengths $`\alpha `$ can potentially be a long root. In such a case $`(\theta _s,\alpha )=(\theta _{s,j},\alpha )=1`$ and therefore $`s_{\theta _s}s_{\theta _{s,j}}(\alpha )=\alpha r\theta _sr\theta _{s,j}`$ is a long root. The scalar product $`(r\theta _s+r\theta _{s,j}\alpha ,\alpha )=2(r1)`$. If $`r=3`$ this leads to a contradiction and if $`r=2`$ then we obtain that $`\alpha =\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$. Hence, $`\alpha `$ being a dominant long root it must equal $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ and hence $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}=\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ (contradiction). We have shown that if $`\alpha `$ is a positive root and $`(\theta _s,\alpha ^{})=(\theta _{s,j},\alpha ^{})=1`$ then $`\alpha `$ is necessarily short.

Let $`A:=\{\alpha R_s^+|(\theta _s,\alpha ^{})=(\theta _{s,j},\alpha ^{})=1\}`$. Denote by $`\phi =s_{\theta _s}s_{\theta _{s,j}}`$. We will show that $`\phi `$ is an involution of $`A`$ without fixed points. Indeed, $`\phi (\alpha )=\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}\alpha `$ is a short root and $`(\theta _s,\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}\alpha )=2/r1/r=1/r`$ and similarly $`(\theta _{s,j},\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}\alpha )=1/r`$, showing that $`\phi (\alpha )`$ is an element of $`A`$. Obviously, $`\phi ^2`$ is the identity. If $`\alpha `$ is fixed by $`\phi `$ then $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}=2\alpha `$. Computing the scalar product with $`\alpha `$ we obtain $`2/r=4/r`$ which is a contradiction. Therefore, the involution $`\phi `$ does not have fixed points.

### 3.7.

One consequence of the above considerations is that $`A`$ has an even number of elements. For our $`jJ`$ (chosen such that $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$) denote by $`n(j)`$ the number of unordered pairs $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$ of short orthogonal roots such that $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}=\alpha +\beta `$. Also, for $`\lambda W(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j})`$ denote by $`n(\lambda )`$ the number of negative roots appearing in all unordered pairs of short roots such that $`\lambda =\alpha +\beta `$.

###### Lemma 3.9.

With the notation above $`n(j)=1+|A|/2`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$ is a pair of short orthogonal roots for which $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}=\alpha +\beta `$, then $`(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j},\alpha ^{})=(\alpha +\beta ,\alpha ^{})=2/p`$. Such a root must necessarily be positive since otherwise $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha +\beta )<\mathrm{ht}(\theta _s)`$. From previous considerations we know that either $`\alpha A`$, either $`\alpha \{\theta _s,\theta _{s,j}\}`$. Therefore, the pair $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$ is $`\{\theta _s,\theta _{s,j}\}`$ or the pair $`\{\alpha ,\phi (\alpha )\}`$ for some $`\alpha A`$. It is easy to see that the number of such pairs is $`1+|A|/2`$. ∎

The next result describes $`D_\lambda `$ in combinatorial terms.

###### Lemma 3.10.

For an element $`\lambda W(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j})`$ as above we have

$$D_\lambda =D_\lambda (s)=n(\lambda )$$

###### Proof.

As we have argued before, there is no long root $`\alpha `$ such that $`(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j},\alpha ^{})=2`$ and therefore $`D_\lambda (\mathrm{})=0`$. Furthermore,

$$D_\lambda =D_\lambda (s)=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_s(w_\lambda )}{}((\theta _s+\theta _{s,j},\alpha ^{})1)$$

and since the scalar product $`(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j},\alpha ^{})`$ is at most 2 we obtain that $`D_\lambda `$ is the number of $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }_s(w_\lambda )`$ for which $`(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j},\alpha ^{})=2`$. We know from Lemma 3.9 that a short positive root $`\alpha `$ such that $`(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j},\alpha ^{})=2`$ gives rise an expression $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}=\alpha +\beta `$ with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ short positive roots Therefore $`\lambda =w_\lambda (\alpha )+w_\lambda (\beta )`$ and the short root $`w_\lambda (\alpha )`$ is negative. We have shown that $`n(\lambda )D_\lambda `$. For the converse inequality we argue as in the proof of Lemma 3.7. ∎

The following result is an immediate consequence of the combinatorial description of $`D_\lambda `$.

###### Lemma 3.11.

Let $`\lambda W(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j})`$ as above such that $`\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )=0`$. Then $`D_\lambda =n(j)`$.

###### Proof.

The claim is clear since if $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$ is a pair of orthogonal short roots such that $`\lambda =\alpha +\beta `$ then because $`\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )=0`$ precisely one of $`\alpha `$ or $`\beta `$ is a positive root and the other is a negative root. In conclusion $`n(\lambda )=n(j)`$. ∎

The next result will be useful later.

###### Lemma 3.12.

Let $`\lambda =s_\theta (\theta _s+\theta _{s,j})`$. Then $`D_\lambda =2n(j)1`$ is the root system $`R`$ is simply laced and $`D_\lambda =n(j)`$ if the root system is not simply laced.

###### Proof.

Consider a pair $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$ of short orthogonal positive roots such that $`\alpha +\beta =\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$. Then $`\{s_\theta (\alpha ),s_\theta (\beta )\}`$ is pair of short orthogonal roots such that $`s_\theta (\alpha )+s_\theta (\beta )=\lambda `$ and all the pairs with this property arise in this way.

Assume first that $`R`$ is simply laced. If $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}=\{\theta _s,\theta _{s,j}\}`$ then $`\{s_\theta (\alpha ),s_\theta (\beta )\}=\{\theta _s,\theta _{s,j}\}`$. In all the other cases $`\{s_\theta (\alpha ),s_\theta (\beta )\}=\{\alpha \theta _s,\beta \theta _s\}`$. Since $`\theta _s`$ is the highest root of $`R`$ the number of negative roots appearing in the $`n(j)`$ unordered pairs of short roots which sum up to $`\lambda `$ equals $`2n(j)1`$.

If $`R`$ is non–simply laced then $`(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j},\theta )=1`$ which forces of course $`(\alpha +\beta ,\theta )=1`$. Because $`\theta `$ is dominant both $`(\alpha ,\theta )`$ and $`(\beta ,\theta )`$ are positive integers and therefore one of them equals 0 (say, the first one) and the other equals 1. Hence $`\{s_\theta (\alpha ),s_\theta (\beta )\}=\{\alpha \theta ,\beta \}`$. In conclusion the number of negative roots appearing in the $`n(j)`$ unordered pairs of short roots which sum up to $`\lambda `$ equals $`n(j)`$. ∎

### 3.8.

For the root system $`R`$ we denote by $`N(R)`$ the number of positive roots in $`R`$. Similarly we denote by $`N(R_s)`$ the number of positive short roots in $`R`$ and we use corresponding notation for the root systems $`R_j`$.

###### Lemma 3.13.

With the notation above, there are exactly $`N(R_s)N(R_{s,j})/n(j)`$ elements in the orbit $`W(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j})`$.

###### Proof.

For a fixed short root there are exactly $`2N(R_{s,j})`$ short roots orthogonal to it and with the sum in the prescribed orbit (since this is the situation for $`\theta _s`$). Therefore, the total number of pairs of orthogonal short roots is $`4N(R_s)N(R_{s,j})`$. From all these pairs by taking their sum we obtain each element of the orbit $`W(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j})`$ exactly $`2n(j)`$ times. In conclusion the number of elements in the orbit $`W(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j})`$ has the predicted value. ∎

## 4. Fourier coefficients

In this section we will describe a general inductive procedure for computing the Fourier coefficients of the Cherednik kernel and then we apply it to find explicit formulas for the coefficients corresponding to elements in a few Weyl group orbits.

### 4.1.

Let $`\lambda `$ be an element of the root lattice and $`\alpha _i`$ a simple root. If $`(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})=k>0`$ then

$$T_i(e^\lambda )=e^{s_i(\lambda )}+(1t)(e^\lambda +\mathrm{}+e^{\lambda (k1)\alpha _i})$$

Note that for $`1<j<k`$ the element $`\lambda j\alpha _i`$ is a convex combination of $`\lambda `$ and $`s_i(\lambda )`$. Indeed

$$\lambda j\alpha _i=(1j/k)\lambda +j/ks_i(\lambda )$$

In consequence they lie in Weyl group orbits strictly closer to the origin than the elements in $`W\lambda `$. The same is true if $`(\lambda ,\theta )=k>0`$

$$T_0(e^\lambda )=tq^ke^{s_\theta (\lambda )}+(t1)(qe^{\lambda \theta }+\mathrm{}+q^{k1}e^{\lambda (k1)\theta })$$

and for $`1<j<k`$ the element $`\lambda j\theta `$ is a convex combination of $`\lambda `$ and $`s_\theta (\lambda )`$. Using the unitarity of the Demazure–Lusztig operators we obtain relations between Fourier coefficients of the Cherednik kernel.

Using the equality $`T_i(1),T_i(e^\lambda )_{q,t}=1,e^\lambda _{q,t}`$ we obtain the following relations

$$tc_{s_i(\lambda )}(q,t)c_\lambda (q,t)=(1t)\left(c_{\lambda \alpha _i}(q,t)+\mathrm{}+c_{\lambda (k1)\alpha _i}(q,t)\right)$$
(7)
for all $`1in`$ such that $`s_i(\lambda )>\lambda `$. Also if $`(\lambda ,\theta )=k>0`$ we have

$$tq^kc_\lambda (q,t)c_{s_\theta (\lambda )}(q,t)=(1t)\left(q^{k1}c_{\lambda \theta }(q,t)+\mathrm{}+qc_{\lambda (k1)\theta }(q,t)\right)$$
(8)
Fix a non–zero dominant element $`\lambda _+Q`$ and consider the homogeneous system associated to the above equations. The unknowns are $`x_\lambda `$ for all $`\lambda W\lambda _+`$ and the equations

$`tx_{s_i(\lambda )}x_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`0\text{if}1in\text{and}s_i(\lambda )>\lambda `$ (9)
$`tq^kx_\lambda x_{s_\theta (\lambda )}`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{if}(\lambda ,\theta )=k>0`$ (10)
It is easy to see that from equation (9) we obtain that $`x_\lambda =t^{\mathrm{}(w_\lambda )}x_{\lambda _+}`$. We also have $`k:=(\lambda _+,\theta )>0`$ and from equation (10) we get

$$tq^kx_{\lambda _+}t^{\mathrm{}(w_{s_\theta (\lambda )})}x_{\lambda _+}=0$$

which implies that $`x_{\lambda _+}=0`$ and therefore $`x_\lambda =0`$ for all $`\lambda W\lambda _+`$.

###### Theorem 4.1.

The system given by equations (7) and (8) and $`c_0(q,t)=1`$ has unique solution.

###### Proof.

We know that the system has at least one solution. Fix now a non–zero dominant $`\lambda _+Q`$. Since the homogeneous system given by equations (9) and (10) has a unique solution it follows that the system given by equations (7) and (8) has at most one solution. Combining these two remarks it follows that for any $`\lambda W\lambda _+`$, $`c_\lambda (q,t)`$ is uniquely expressible in terms of $`c_\mu (q,t)`$’s, where $`\mu `$ lies in an orbit of $`W`$ closer to the origin that $`\lambda _+`$. Using induction on the distance of $`\lambda _+`$ to the origin we obtain that our system has a unique solution. ∎

### 4.2.

We will now apply the inductive procedure described in the proof of Theorem 4.1 to find the Fourier coefficients of the Cherednik kernel corresponding to a few Weyl group orbits. The orbit of $`W`$ on $`Q`$ closest to the origin is $`W\theta _s`$. If the root system is simply laced then $`\theta _s=\theta `$ the highest root of $`R`$. Let $`X_{\theta _s}`$ be the element of $`𝔽`$ for which

$$c_{\theta _s}(q,t)=t^{\mathrm{ht}(\theta _s)}X_{\theta _s}$$
(11)
###### Theorem 4.2.

For any short root $`\lambda `$ we have

$$c_\lambda (q,t)=t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda }X_{\theta _s}+(t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )}t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda })$$
(12)
and $`X_{\theta _s}=(1t^1)/(1qt^{\mathrm{ht}(\theta )})`$.

###### Proof.

We will show that the above formula is valid by induction on the order on the orbit $`W\theta _s`$ induced from the Bruhat order. For the minimal element of the orbit we have $`D_{\theta _s}=0`$ (by Lemma 3.6) and the predicted formula coincides with (11).

Assuming that the predicted formula is true for $`\lambda `$ we will show that it is true for $`s_i(\lambda )>\lambda `$. As explained in Lemma 3.4 this means that $`(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})>0`$. In fact the possible values of the scalar product are $`1`$ or $`2`$ (only if $`\lambda =\alpha _i`$). If $`(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})=1`$ then $`\mathrm{ht}(s_i(\lambda ))=\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )1`$ and $`\mathrm{}(w_{s_i(\lambda )})=\mathrm{}(w_\lambda )+1`$. It follows that $`D_{s_i(\lambda )}=D_\lambda `$ therefore using equation (7) we get

$`c_{s_i(\lambda )}(q,t)`$ $`=`$ $`t^1c_\lambda (q,t)`$
$`=`$ $`t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda 1}X_{\theta _s}+(t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )1}t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda 1})`$
$`=`$ $`t^{\mathrm{ht}(s_i(\lambda ))+D_{s_i(\lambda )}}X_{\theta _s}+(t^{\mathrm{ht}(s_i(\lambda ))}t^{\mathrm{ht}(s_i(\lambda ))+D_{s_i(\lambda )}})`$
If $`(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})=2`$ then $`\lambda =\alpha _i`$ and $`s_i(\lambda )=\alpha _i`$. In consequence $`D_\lambda =0`$ and $`D_{s_i(\lambda )}=1`$. Again by equation (7) we get

$`c_{s_i(\lambda )}(q,t)`$ $`=`$ $`t^1c_\lambda (q,t)+(t^11)`$
$`=`$ $`X_{\theta _s}+(t^11)`$
$`=`$ $`t^{\mathrm{ht}(s_i(\lambda ))+D_{s_i(\lambda )}}X_{\theta _s}+(t^{\mathrm{ht}(s_i(\lambda ))}t^{\mathrm{ht}(s_i(\lambda ))+D_{s_i(\lambda )}})`$
We have thus shown that the formula (12) is valid for all short roots. To show that $`X_{\theta _s}`$ has the predicted value we use the equation (8).

Indeed, if the root system $`R`$ is simply laced then $`\theta =\theta _s`$ and the equation (8) for $`\lambda =\theta _s`$ becomes

$$tq^2c_{\theta _s}(q,t)=c_{\theta _s}(q,t)+q(1t)$$

and replacing $`c_{\theta _s}(q,t)`$ and $`c_{\theta _s}(q,t)`$ with their formulas in terms of $`X_{\theta _s}`$ we obtain the desired result.

If the root system $`R`$ is non–simply laced then $`\theta =\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ and the equation (8) for $`\lambda =\theta _s`$ becomes

$$tqc_{\theta _s}(q,t)=c_{\theta _s\theta }(q,t)$$

and again our result follows. ∎

### 4.3.

We will describe next the Fourier coefficients of the Cherednik kernel corresponding to long roots in the case of a non–simply laced root systems.

###### Theorem 4.3.

For any long root $`\lambda `$ we have

$$c_\lambda (q,t)=t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda (\mathrm{})}X_{\theta _s}+(t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )}t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda (\mathrm{})})$$
(13)
###### Proof.

Let us denote by $`X_\theta `$ the element of $`𝔽`$ defined by $`c_\theta (q,t)=t^{\mathrm{ht}(\theta )}X_\theta `$. We will show inductively that for any long roots $`\lambda `$ we have

$$c_\lambda (q,t)=t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda }X_\theta +(t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda (\mathrm{})}t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda })X_{\theta _s}+(t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )}t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda (\mathrm{})})$$
(14)
The formula (14) is clearly true for $`\theta `$. Assuming that the predicted formula is true for $`\lambda `$ we will show that it is true for $`s_i(\lambda )>\lambda `$. For such an $`\alpha _i`$ the possible values of the scalar product $`(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})`$ are 1 (if $`\alpha _i`$ is a long root), 2 (if $`\alpha _i=\lambda `$) and $`r`$ (if $`\alpha _i`$ is a short root). We analyze these cases separately.

If $`(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})=1`$ then $`\mathrm{ht}(s_i(\lambda ))=\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )1`$ and $`\mathrm{}(w_{s_i(\lambda )})=\mathrm{}(w_\lambda )+1`$. It follows that $`D_{s_i(\lambda )}=D_\lambda `$ therefore using equation (7) we get the desired formula for $`c_{s_i(\lambda )}(q,t)`$.

If $`(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})=2`$ then $`\lambda =\alpha _i`$ and $`s_i(\lambda )=\alpha _i`$. In consequence $`D_\lambda (\mathrm{})=0`$, $`D_{s_i(\lambda )}(\mathrm{})=1`$ and $`D_{s_i(\lambda )}(s)=D_\lambda (s)`$ . Again equation (7) gives the predicted formula for $`c_{s_i(\lambda )}(q,t)`$.

If $`\alpha _i`$ is a short root and $`(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})=r`$ then $`\lambda \alpha _i,\lambda (r1)\alpha _i`$ are short roots (for example $`\lambda \alpha _i=s_\lambda (\alpha _i)`$). From Lemma 3.4 we know that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(w_{s_i(\lambda )})=\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )\{w_\lambda ^1(\alpha _i)\}$$

and since $`\alpha _i`$ is a short root we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}(w_{s_i(\lambda )})=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mathrm{}}(w_\lambda )\text{and}\mathrm{\Pi }_s(w_{s_i(\lambda )})=\mathrm{\Pi }_s(w_\lambda )\{w_\lambda ^1(\alpha _i)\}$$

Therefore, by Lemma 3.7 it follows that

$$D_{s_i(\lambda )}(\mathrm{})=D_\lambda (\mathrm{})\text{and}D_{s_i(\lambda )}(s)=D_\lambda (s)+r1$$

One immediate consequence of the above equalities is that

$$\mathrm{ht}(s_i(\lambda ))+D_{s_i(\lambda )}=\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda 1$$

and that $`\lambda `$ and $`s_i(\lambda )`$ are either both positive roots or both negative roots. Hence

$$D_{\lambda \alpha _i}=D_{\lambda (r1)\alpha _i}=D_\lambda (\mathrm{})$$

The equation (7) in this case becomes

$$c_{s_i(\lambda )}(q,t)=t^1c_\lambda (q,t)+(t^11)(c_{\lambda \alpha _i}(q,t)+c_{\lambda (r1)\alpha _i}(q,t))$$

and the induction hypothesis together with the above equalities implies the formula (14) for $`c_{s_i(\lambda )}(q,t)`$.

We have thus shown that the formula (14) is valid for all long roots. To show that (13) is true it is enough to show that $`X_\theta =X_{\theta _s}`$. To see that this is indeed the case we use equation (8) for $`\lambda =\theta `$

$$tq^2c_\theta (q,t)=c_\theta (q,t)+q(1t)$$

or equivalently

$$(q^2t^{2\mathrm{h}\mathrm{t}(\theta )}t^{D_\theta (s)})X_\theta =(1t^{D_\theta (s)})X_{\theta _s}+(t^11)(qt^{\mathrm{ht}(\theta )}+1)$$

Replacing $`t^11`$ with $`(qt^{\mathrm{ht}(\theta )}1)X_{\theta _s}`$ in the above formula immediately gives $`X_\theta =X_{\theta _s}`$ and therefore the desired result. ∎

Theorem 4.2 and Theorem 4.3 were also obtained by Bazlov \[1, Theorem 3\] using a different (but related) procedure for computing the Fourier coefficients based on the unitarity of Cherednik operators. Given the considerable complexity of Cherednik operators, their action is very hard to be analyzed in general.

### 4.4.

We will next describe the Fourier coefficients for the Cherednik kernel for all $`\lambda W(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j})`$, where $`jJ`$ is such that $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$. First, let us define $`X_j`$ to be the unique element of $`𝔽`$ for which

$$c_{\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}}(q,t)=t^{\mathrm{ht}(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j})}X_jX_{\theta _s}$$
(15)
We will also need the following notation: for $`\lambda `$ as above $`d_\lambda `$ is defined to be 0 if $`\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )0`$ and to be 1 if $`\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )<0`$. Also,

$`a_\lambda (t)`$ $`:=`$ $`t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )}(t^{d_\lambda }+t^{D_\lambda n(j)}t^{D_\lambda }t^{d_\lambda +D_\lambda n(j)})`$
$`b_\lambda (t)`$ $`:=`$ $`t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )}(1+t^{d_\lambda +D_\lambda n(j)}t^{d_\lambda }t^{D_\lambda n(j)})`$
###### Theorem 4.4.

For $`\lambda `$ as above we have

$$c_\lambda (q,t)=t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda }X_jX_{\theta _s}+a_\lambda (t)X_{\theta _s}+b_\lambda (t)$$
(16)
and $`X_j=(1t^{n(j)})/(1qt^{\mathrm{ht}(\theta )n(j)+1})`$

###### Proof.

As before, we will show inductively that the formula (16) holds for any $`\lambda `$ in the Weyl group orbit of $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$. The formula (16) is easily seen to be true for the dominant element of the orbit.

Assuming that the predicted formula is true for $`\lambda `$ we will show that it is true for $`s_i(\lambda )>\lambda `$. According to Section 3.6 the possible values of the scalar product $`(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})`$ are 1 and 2. In the latter case $`\alpha _i`$ is necessarily a short root.

If $`(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})=1`$ then $`\mathrm{ht}(s_i(\lambda ))=\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )1`$ and $`\mathrm{}(w_{s_i(\lambda )})=\mathrm{}(w_\lambda )+1`$. It follows that $`D_{s_i(\lambda )}=D_\lambda `$ and by using equation (7) we get the desired formula for $`c_{s_i(\lambda )}(q,t)`$. In fact, special care is needed if $`\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )=0`$ since $`d_\lambda =0`$ and $`d_{s_i(\lambda )}=1`$, but Lemma 3.11 assures that everything goes smoothly.

If $`\alpha _i`$ is a short root and $`(\lambda ,\alpha _i^{})=2`$ then $`\lambda \alpha _i`$ is also a short root which is orthogonal on $`\alpha _i`$ (see Section 3.6). From Lemma 3.4 we know that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(w_{s_i(\lambda )})=\mathrm{\Pi }(w_\lambda )\{w_\lambda ^1(\alpha _i)\}$$

and therefore

$$D_{s_i(\lambda )}=D_\lambda +1$$

The equation (7) in this case becomes

$$c_{s_i(\lambda )}(q,t)=t^1c_\lambda (q,t)+(t^11)c_{\lambda \alpha _i}(q,t)$$

Let us assume first that $`\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )0`$. Since $`\lambda \alpha _i`$ is a short root it does not have height zero and moreover $`D_{\lambda \alpha _i}=d_\lambda =d_{s_i(\lambda )}`$. Using this equality, the above equation gives

$`a_{s_i(\lambda )}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )1}(t^{d_\lambda }+t^{D_\lambda n(j)}t^{D_\lambda }t^{d_\lambda +D_\lambda n(j)})+(t^11)t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )1+d_\lambda }`$
$`=`$ $`t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )1}(t^{d_\lambda 1}+t^{D_\lambda n(j)}t^{D_\lambda }t^{d_\lambda +D_\lambda n(j)})`$
$`=`$ $`t^{\mathrm{ht}(s_i(\lambda ))}(t^{d_{s_i(\lambda )}}+t^{D_{s_i(\lambda )}n(j)}t^{D_{s_i(\lambda )}}t^{d_{s_i(\lambda )}+D_{s_i(\lambda )}n(j)})`$
and

$`b_{s_i(\lambda )}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )1}(1t^{d_\lambda })(1t^{D_\lambda n(j)})+t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )1}(1t^{d_\lambda })(t^11)`$
$`=`$ $`t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )1}(1t^{d_\lambda })(t^1t^{D_\lambda n(j)})`$
$`=`$ $`t^{\mathrm{ht}(s_i(\lambda ))}(1t^{d_{s_i(\lambda )}})(1t^{D_{s_i(\lambda )}n(j)})`$
which give the desired formula for $`c_{s_i(\lambda )}(q,t)`$. The case $`\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )=0`$ is handled similarly with the use of Lemma 3.11. We have therefore proved the formula (16) is always valid. We are left with finding the precise value of $`X_j`$. As before, we will make use of equation (8) for $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$, which takes different forms depending on whether the root system $`R`$ is simply laced or not. In both cases we will use the Lemma 3.12 which describes $`D_{s_\theta (\theta _s+\theta _{s,j})}`$.

If $`R`$ is non–simply laced the equation (8) for $`\lambda =\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$ becomes

$$qtc_{\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}}(q,t)=c_{\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}\theta }(q,t)$$

or equivalently

$$qt^{\mathrm{ht}(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j})+1}X_jX_{\theta _s}=t^{\mathrm{ht}(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}\theta )+n(j)}X_jX_{\theta _s}+t^{\mathrm{ht}(\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}\theta )}(1t^{n(j)})X_{\theta _s}$$

which gives the desired expression for $`X_j`$.

If $`R`$ is simply laced the equation (8) for $`\lambda =\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$ becomes

$$q^2tc_{\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}}(q,t)=c_{\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}}(q,t)+q(1t)c_{\theta _{s,j}}(q,t)$$

After replacing each Fourier coefficient with its formula given by (16) and (12) and after straightforward manipulations we find the predicted expression for $`X_j`$. ∎

### 4.5.

We will collect all the values of the Fourier coefficients at $`q=0`$. For $`\lambda `$ a positive root (short or long) we have

$$c_\lambda (0,t)=t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )}t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )1}$$
(17)
and for $`\lambda `$ a negative root we have $`c_\lambda (0,t)=0`$.

For $`\lambda `$ an element of the orbit of $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}(\theta _{\mathrm{}})`$ we get

$$c_\lambda (0,t)=(t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )}t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )1})(t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda n(j)}t^{\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )+D_\lambda n(j)1})$$
(18)
for $`\lambda `$ of strictly positive height and $`c_\lambda (0,t)=0`$ for $`\lambda `$ of height smaller than zero.

Note that the fact that the Fourier coefficients $`c_\lambda (0,t)`$ a zero if $`\lambda `$ has not strictly positive height follows directly from the definition of $`K(0,t)`$.

For $`\lambda `$ a dominant element of the root lattice and a strictly positive integer $`i`$ denote by $`h_\lambda ^{}(i)`$ the number of weights (counted with multiplicities) of $`V_\lambda `$ the irreducible representation of $`G`$ with highest weight $`\lambda `$ which have height $`i`$. For $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$ denote by $`h_{\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}}^{\prime \prime }(i)`$ the number of elements $`\gamma `$ of the orbit of $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$ for which $`\mathrm{ht}(\gamma )+D_\gamma n(j)=i`$. For $`\lambda `$ a dominant root let $`h_\lambda (i):=h_\lambda ^{}(i)`$; for $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$ let $`h_{\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}}(i)=h_{\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}}^{}(i)h_{\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}}^{\prime \prime }(i)`$. Note that for the above cases $`h_\lambda (1)h_\lambda (2)\mathrm{}h_\lambda (\mathrm{ht}(\lambda ))`$ and $`h_\lambda (i)=0`$ for $`i`$ strictly larger than $`\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )`$.

###### Theorem 4.5.

The generalized exponents of $`V_\lambda `$ where $`\lambda `$ a dominant root or $`\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$ are given by the elements of the partition dual to $`\{h_\lambda (i)\}_{i1}`$. Equivalently, the multiplicity of $`V_\lambda `$ in $`^i`$ is $`h_\lambda (i)h_\lambda (i+1)`$.

###### Proof.

The result is a direct consequence of the formulas (17) and (18). Indeed, if we denote by $`\mathrm{wt}(\lambda )`$ the set of weights of $`V_\lambda `$ and for any $`\gamma \mathrm{wt}(\lambda )`$ we denote by $`m_{\lambda \gamma }`$ the weight multiplicity of $`\gamma `$ in $`V_\lambda `$, we have

$`1,\chi _\lambda _{0,t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma \mathrm{wt}(\lambda )}{}}m_{\lambda \gamma }c_\gamma (0,t)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1i\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )}{}}h_\lambda (i)(t^it^{i1})+m_{\lambda 0}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1i\mathrm{ht}(\lambda )}{}}(h_\lambda (i)h_\lambda (i+1))t^i`$
Our result is proved. ∎

Note that for the representation $`V_\theta `$ (the adjoint representation of $`G`$) the above Theorem describes precisely the procedure for computing the classical exponents proved by Kostant .

### 4.6.

For each type of root system we will describe next the results of the description of generalized exponents for $`\lambda =\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$, $`jJ`$ provided by Theorem 4.5.

$`A_n`$: $`|J|=1`$, $`n(j)=2`$

$`E(\lambda )=_{1i<\frac{n}{2}}i(t^{2i}+t^{2n2i})+_{1i<\frac{n2}{2}}i(t^{2i+1}+t^{2n2i1})+\frac{n2}{2}t^n`$

$`B_n`$: $`|J|=0`$.

$`C_n`$, $`n4`$: $`|J|=1`$, $`n(j)=3`$

$`E(\lambda )=_{1i<\frac{n1}{2}}i(t^{4i}+t^{4n4i4})+_{1i<\frac{n2}{2}}i(t^{4i+2}+t^{4n4i6})+\frac{n3}{2}t^{2n2}`$

$`D_4`$: $`|J|=3`$, $`n(j)=3`$ for any $`jJ`$. Also for all three $`\lambda =\theta _s+\theta _{s,j}`$ we have

$`E(V_\lambda )=t^2+t^4+t^6`$

$`D_n`$, $`n5`$: $`|J|=2`$. If we denote $`J=\{j_1,j_2\}`$ we have $`n(j_1)=n1`$, $`n(j_2)=3`$. With the notation $`\lambda _1=\theta _s+\theta _{s,j_1}`$ and $`\lambda _2=\theta _s+\theta _{s,j_2}`$ we have

$`E(V_{\lambda _1})=_{i=1}^{n1}t^{2i}`$

For $`n`$ even we have

$`E(V_{\lambda _2})=_{i=1}^{n/22}\left(\frac{i+1}{2}(t^{2i}+t^{4n2i8})+(\frac{n}{2}\frac{i+1}{2})(t^{2n2i6}+t^{2n+2i2})\right)+\frac{n}{2}(t^{2n6}+t^{2n4}+t^{2n2})`$

For $`n`$ odd we have

$`E(V_{\lambda _2})=_{i=1}^{n3}\frac{i+1}{2}(t^{2i}+t^{4n2i8})+_{i=\frac{n3}{2}}^{n3}(t^{2i+1}+t^{4n2i9})+\frac{n1}{2}t^{2n4}`$

$`E_6`$: $`|J|=1`$, $`n(j)=4`$

$`E(V_\lambda )=t^2+t^3+t^4+t^5+2t^6+t^7+2t^8+2t^9+2t^{10}+t^{11}+2t^{12}+t^{13}+t^{14}+t^{15}+t^{16}`$

$`E_7`$: $`|J|=1`$, $`n(j)=5`$

$`E(V_\lambda )=t^2+t^4+2t^6+2t^8+3t^{10}+3t^{12}+3t^{14}+3t^{16}+3t^{18}+2t^{20}+2t^{22}+t^{24}+t^{26}`$

$`E_8`$: $`|J|=1`$, $`n(j)=7`$

$`E(V_\lambda )=t^2+t^6+t^8+t^{10}+2t^{12}+2t^{14}+t^{16}+3t^{18}+2t^{20}+2t^{22}+3t^{24}+2t^{26}+2t^{28}+3t^{30}+t^{32}+2t^{34}+2t^{36}+t^{38}+t^{40}+t^{42}+t^{46}`$

$`F_4`$: $`|J|=0`$.

$`G_2`$: $`|J|=0`$.

It is interesting to note that whenever it is defined $`n(j)`$ equals some classical exponent for the root system in question. We also observe the following symmetry (recall that $`v_l`$ is the multiplicity of the $`0`$–th weight space of $`V_\lambda `$)

$$e_i(\lambda )+e_{v_\lambda i}(\lambda )=\mathrm{ht}(\theta _s)+\mathrm{ht}(\theta _{s,j})+2$$

### 4.7.

We close by noting that if $`e_i=e_i(\theta )`$ are the classical exponents, their symmetry observed by Chevalley (and proved by Kostant )

$$e_i+e_{ni}=\mathrm{ht}(\theta )+1$$
(19)
can be also explained as follows. By examining $`\mathrm{\Delta }(q,t)`$ we observe that the scalar product $`1,\chi _\theta _{t,t}=1,\chi _\theta =0`$. On the other hand, it is easy to see that

$$1,\chi _\theta _{q,t}=\frac{(t^{e_1}+\mathrm{}+t^{e_n})qt^{\mathrm{ht}(\theta )}(t^{e_1}+\mathrm{}+t^{e_n})}{1qt^{\mathrm{ht}(\theta )}}$$

and therefore our convention $`e_1\mathrm{}e_n`$ immediately gives (19). For non–simply laced root systems the same argument gives a similar symmetry for the generalized exponents for $`V_{\theta _s}`$. If $`n_s`$ denotes the number of simple short roots in $`R`$ then we have

$$e_i(\theta _s)+e_{n_si}(\theta _s)=\mathrm{ht}(\theta )+1$$

However, this type of considerations do not explain the symmetry of the generalized exponents observed in the previous paragraph.


format: text

text:
# Commutative 𝐂^∗-algebras and 𝜎-normal morphisms

## 1. Introduction

The image of a monotone $`\sigma `$-complete $`C^{}`$-algebra under a $`\sigma `$-normal morphism is again monotone $`\sigma `$-complete, as can be deduced from somewhat technical results in the literature . In Section 2 of the present paper, however, we give a straightforward proof when the algebra is commutative, using only the commutative Gelfand–Naimark theorem. We also indicate how the general statement can be inferred. Section 3 contains an application in spectral theory which justifies special interest in the commutative case.

## 2. Main result

The $`C^{}`$-algebras in this paper are not necessarily unital and neither are (if applicable) the morphisms. This being said, we recall the relevant order definitions.

###### Definition 2.1.

Cf. \[6, 3.9.2\].

1. A $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ is *monotone $`\sigma `$-complete* if every bounded increasing sequence of self-adjoint elements of $`A`$ has a supremum in $`A`$.
2. A $`C^{}`$-subalgebra $`A`$ of a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B`$ is a *monotone $`\sigma `$-closed $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`B`$* if $`sup_{n1}^Ba_nA`$, whenever $`a_1a_2\mathrm{}`$ is a bounded increasing sequence of self-adjoint elements of $`A`$ which has a supremum $`sup_{n1}^Ba_n`$ in $`B`$.
3. A morphism $`\varphi :AB`$ between two $`C^{}`$-algebras is a *$`\sigma `$-normal morphism* if $`\varphi (sup_{n1}a_n)=sup_{n1}\varphi (a_n)`$, for each bounded increasing sequence $`a_1a_2\mathrm{}`$ of self-adjoint elements of $`A`$ which has a supremum in $`A`$.

Our main result then reads as follows.

###### Theorem 2.2.

Let $`A`$ be a commutative monotone $`\sigma `$-complete $`C^{}`$-algebra. Suppose $`\varphi :AB`$ is a $`\sigma `$-normal morphism into a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B`$. Then $`\varphi (A)`$ is a commutative monotone $`\sigma `$-complete $`C^{}`$-algebra, and a monotone $`\sigma `$-closed $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`B`$.

The proof of Theorem 2.2 which we will now give uses no result beyond the commutative Gelfand–Naimark theorem. We start with an isometric $`\sigma `$-monotone lifting result for functions.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`X`$ be a topological space, and let $`C_0(X)`$ denote the continuous functions on $`X`$ vanishing at infinity. Suppose that $`YX`$ is a nonempty subset.

1. If $`0f_1f_2\mathrm{}`$ is a sequence of functions on $`Y`$, such that each $`f_n`$ is the restriction of some element of $`C_0(X)`$ to $`Y`$, then there exists a sequence $`0g_1g_2\mathrm{}`$ in $`C_0(X)`$ such that, for each $`n`$, $`g_n`$ restricts to $`f_n`$ and $`g_n_{\mathrm{}}=f_n_{\mathrm{}}`$.
2. If $`f_1f_2\mathrm{}0`$ is a sequence of functions on $`Y`$, such that each $`f_n`$ is the restriction of some element of $`C_0(X)`$ to $`Y`$, then there exists a sequence $`g_1g_2\mathrm{}0`$ in $`C_0(X)`$ such that, for each $`n`$, $`g_n`$ restricts to $`f_n`$ and $`g_n_{\mathrm{}}=f_n_{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`h_nC_0(X)`$ restricts to $`f_n`$. Replacing $`h_n`$ with $`|h_n|`$, we may assume that $`h_n0`$. After a subsequent replacement of $`h_n`$ with $`\mathrm{min}(h_n,f_n_{\mathrm{}})C_0(X)`$, we may assume that $`h_n0`$ and that $`h_n_{\mathrm{}}=f_n_{\mathrm{}}`$. In the case of an increasing sequence, define $`g_n=\mathrm{max}_{1in}h_i`$. In the case of a decreasing sequence, define $`g_n=\mathrm{min}_{1in}h_i`$. Then the $`g_n`$ have the required properties. ∎

Conbining this with the commutative Gelfand–Naimark theorem, we obtain the following generalization of the above result. It is somewhat stronger than needed for our purpose, as we will use only the first part without the isometric property in the sequel.

###### Proposition 2.4.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be commutative $`C^{}`$-algebras. Suppose that $`\varphi :AB`$ is a surjective morphism.

1. If $`0b_1b_2\mathrm{}`$ is a sequence in $`B`$, then there exists a sequence $`0a_1a_2\mathrm{}`$ in $`A`$, such that, for each $`n`$, $`\varphi (a_n)=b_n`$ and $`a_n=b_n`$.
2. If $`b_1b_2\mathrm{}0`$ is a sequence in $`B`$, then there exists a sequence $`a_1a_2\mathrm{}0`$ in $`A`$, such that, for each $`n`$, $`\varphi (a_n)=b_n`$ and $`a_n=b_n`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`B0`$. In that case, define the canonical map $`\varphi ^{}:\widehat{B}\widehat{A}`$ between the spectra by $`\varphi ^{}(\beta )=\beta \varphi `$ for $`\beta \widehat{B}`$. Since $`\varphi `$ is surjective, $`\varphi ^{}`$ is injective. We identify $`\widehat{B}`$ as a set with its image in $`\widehat{A}`$ using $`\varphi ^{}`$, and we thus view $`C_0(\widehat{B})`$ as functions on $`\widehat{B}\widehat{A}`$. Actually, $`\varphi ^{}`$ is a homeomorphic embedding of $`\widehat{B}`$ into $`\widehat{A}`$, but this is not needed. Using these two identifications, the following diagram is then commutative:

Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_B`$ denote the Gelfand–Naimark isomorphisms, and Res is the restriction mapping. The proposition now follows from an application of Lemma 2.3 at the bottom part of the diagram. ∎

###### Proposition 2.5.

Let $`A`$ be a commutative monotone $`\sigma `$-complete $`C^{}`$-algebra. Suppose $`\varphi :AB`$ is a $`\sigma `$-normal morphism into a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B`$. Let $`b_1b_2\mathrm{}`$ be a bounded sequence of self-adjoint elements of $`\varphi (A)`$. Then this sequence has a supremum in $`B`$, and this supremum in $`B`$ is an element of $`\varphi (A)`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`b_10`$. Using Proposition 2.4 for the morphism $`\varphi :A\varphi (A)`$, we find a bounded sequence $`a_1a_2\mathrm{}`$ of self-adjoint elements of $`A`$, such that $`\varphi (a_n)=b_n`$ for all $`n`$. Since $`A`$ is monotone $`\sigma `$-complete, $`sup_{n1}a_n`$ exists in $`A`$. By the $`\sigma `$-normality of $`\varphi `$, $`sup_{n1}b_n`$ exists in $`B`$, since it is equal to $`\varphi (sup_{n1}a_n)`$. This also shows that this supremum in $`B`$ is an element of $`\varphi (A)`$. ∎

Proposition 2.5 implies Theorem 2.2, as the reader will easily verify.

###### Remark 2.6.

As mentioned in the Introduction, Theorem 2.2 also holds in the noncommutative case. In fact, the noncommutative version of Proposition 2.5 — which implies the noncommutative version of Theorem 2.2 — is valid, as can be seen from \[7, Lemma 1.1\], which is in turn based on \[4, Proposition 5\]. The proof of the latter basic result relies on the general Gelfand–Naimark theorem and involves some well chosen use of the Borel functional calculus.

As an alternative route, in the unital noncommutative case the monotone $`\sigma `$-completeness of $`\varphi (A)`$ in Theorem 2.2 also follows from \[7, Proposition 1.3\], which is in turn based on \[1, Lemma 2.13\]. A closer inspection of the proof of the latter result shows that it in fact yields Proposition 2.5 in the unital noncommutative setting, and therefore Theorem 2.2 in the unital noncommutative case again. This key proof of \[1, Lemma 2.13\] relies itself on the fact that a unital monotone $`\sigma `$-complete $`C^{}`$-algebra is a Rickart $`C^{}`$-algebra in which the projections form a lattice. As remarked in the introduction of , this follows from .

The above makes it clear that in the commutative case the proof of Theorem 2.2 as given in this section is considerably more elementary than the alternative approach of establishing and subsequently specializing the noncommutative version.

## 3. Application in spectral theory

To conclude, we give an application of Theorem 2.2 in spectral theory that justifies special interest in the commutative case. It is based on the following.

###### Corollary 3.1.

Let $`A`$ be a commutative monotone $`\sigma `$-complete $`C^{}`$-algebra and suppose $`\pi :AB(H)`$ is a $`\sigma `$-normal representation in a separable Hilbert space $`H`$. Then $`\pi (A)`$ is strongly closed. If $`A`$ and $`\pi `$ are unital, then $`\pi (A)`$ is a von Neumann algebra.

Indeed, $`\pi (A)`$ is a monotone $`\sigma `$-closed $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`B(H)`$ by Theorem 2.2. Hence the Up–Down theorem for separable Hilbert spaces \[6, Theorem 2.4.3\] implies that it is strongly closed, establishing the corollary (which is also valid in the noncommutative case in view of Remark 2.6).

As an application of Corollary 3.1 in spectral theory, let $`X`$ be a compact Hausdorff space with associated $`C^{}`$-algebras $`C(X)`$ of continuous functions and $`_b(X)`$ of bounded Borel measurable functions. Suppose that $`\pi :C(X)B(H)`$ is a unital representation. Then $`\pi `$ extends uniquely to a unital representation of $`_b(X)`$, again denoted by $`\pi `$, such that

(3.1)
$$(\pi (f)\xi ,\xi )=_Xf(x)𝑑\mu _\xi (x)(f_b(X),\xi H).$$

Here $`\mu _\xi `$ denotes the positive and bounded unique regular Borel measure on $`X`$ which is provided by the Riesz representation theorem when one requires (3.1) to hold for all $`fC(X)`$.

It is easy to see that $`\pi `$ maps $`_b(X)`$ into the strong closure of $`\pi (C(X))`$, implying that $`\pi (_b(X))`$ and $`\pi (C(X))`$ have the same strong closure. If $`H`$ is separable, then $`\pi (_b(X))`$ is actually equal to the strong closure of $`\pi (C(X))`$ \[3, proof of Proposition 9.5.3\]. This description of the von Neumann algebra generated by $`\pi (C(X))`$ as being equal to $`\pi (_b(X))`$ is a basic ingredient for further investigation of the unital separable representation $`\pi `$ of $`C(X)`$.

The proof of the equality of $`\pi (_b(X))`$ and the strong closure of $`\pi (C(X))`$ in the separable case is usually based on measure-theoretical arguments and is somewhat more involved than others in this circle of ideas, cf. \[3, proof of Proposition 9.5.3\], but Corollary 3.1, which is based on order properties, provides an alternative approach. Indeed, $`_b(X)`$ is monotone $`\sigma `$-complete and, as a consequence of (3.1) and the monotone convergence theorem, $`\pi `$ is a $`\sigma `$-normal representation of $`_b(X)`$. Therefore, by Corollary 3.1, $`\pi (_b(X))`$ is strongly closed, hence equal to the strong closure of $`\pi (C(X))`$.

In fact, by the same reasoning Corollary 3.1 also implies — still for a unital separable representation — that the image of the monotone $`\sigma `$-completion of $`C(X)`$ in $`_b(X)`$ is strongly closed, hence already equal to the von Neumann algebra generated by $`\pi (C(X))`$. If $`X`$ is second countable then this monotone $`\sigma `$-completion of $`C(X)`$ in $`_b(X)`$ — the Baire algebra — coincides with $`_b(X)`$, but in other cases it may be a proper $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`_b(X)`$ \[5, Remarks 6.2.10\].


text:
# Theoretical progress for the associated production of a Higgs boson with heavy quarks at hadron colliders

## 1 Introduction

The discovery and study of one or more Higgs bosons is among the most important goals of present and future colliders. In this context, the production of a Higgs boson with a pair of top or bottom quark and antiquark is important both for the discovery of a Higgs boson and for the study of the Higgs Yukawa couplings to quarks.

Observing $`p\overline{p}t\overline{t}h`$ at the Tevatron ($`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV) will require very high luminosity Goldstein:2000bp  and will probably be beyond the machine capabilities. On the other hand, if $`M_h130`$ GeV, $`ppt\overline{t}h`$ is an important discovery channel for a SM-like Higgs boson at the LHC ($`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV) atlas:1999 ; Beneke:2000hk ; Drollinger:2001ym . Given the statistics expected at the LHC, $`ppt\overline{t}h`$, with $`hb\overline{b},\tau ^+\tau ^{},W^+W^{},\gamma \gamma `$ will also be instrumental to the determination of the couplings of a discovered Higgs boson, and offer a unique handle on the top quark Yukawa coupling Zeppenfeld:2000td ; Zeppenfeld:2002ng ; Belyaev:2002ua ; Maltoni:2002jr ; Duehrssen:2003at .

The associated production of a Higgs boson with a pair of $`b\overline{b}`$ quarks has a very small cross section in the SM, and can therefore be used to test the hypothesis of enhanced bottom quark Yukawa couplings which is common to many extensions of the SM, such as the MSSM for large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Both the Tevatron and the LHC will be able to search for evidence of an enhanced $`b\overline{b}h`$ production, in both inclusive and exclusive measurements. Detecting two bottom quarks in the final state identifies uniquely the Higgs coupling responsible for the enhanced cross section and drastically reduces the background. This is the case we will consider in the following.

In view of their phenomenological relevance, a lot of effort has been recently invested in improving the stability of the theoretical predictions for the hadronic total cross sections for $`p\overline{p},ppt\overline{t}h`$ and $`p\overline{p},ppb\overline{b}h`$ Beenakker:2001rj ; Reina:2001sf ; Reina:2001bc ; Beenakker:2002nc ; Dawson:2002tg ; Dawson:2003zu ; Dittmaier:2003ej ; Dawson:2003pl . In this proceeding we will present the results of our calculation of the NLO cross section for both the inclusive $`p\overline{p},ppt\overline{t}h`$ Reina:2001sf ; Reina:2001bc ; Dawson:2002tg ; Dawson:2003zu  and the exclusive $`p\overline{p},ppb\overline{b}h`$ cross sections Dawson:2003pl , where $`h`$ denotes the SM Higgs boson and, in the case of $`b\overline{b}h`$, also the scalar Higgs bosons of the MSSM. In both cases the NLO cross sections have a drastically reduced renormalization and factorization scale dependence, of the order of 15-20% as opposed to the 100% uncertainty of the LO cross sections. This leads to increased confidence in prediction based on this results.

The calculation of the NLO corrections to the hadronic processes $`p\overline{p},ppt\overline{t}h`$ and $`p\overline{p},ppb\overline{b}h`$ presents challenging technical difficulties, ranging from virtual pentagon diagrams with several massive internal and external particles to real gluon and quark emission in the presence of infrared singularities. We refer to Reina:2001bc ; Dawson:2003zu  for a complete discussion of all technical details.

## 2 Results for $`𝒕\overline{𝒕}𝒉`$ production

The impact of NLO QCD corrections on the tree level cross section for $`𝒑𝒑\mathbf{}𝒕\overline{𝒕}𝒉`$ production (LHC) in the SM is illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. Similar results for the case of $`𝒑\overline{𝒑}\mathbf{}𝒕\overline{𝒕}𝒉`$ production (Tevatron) can be found in Ref. Reina:2001sf ; Reina:2001bc . Results for $`𝝈_{𝑵𝑳𝑶}`$ ($`𝝈_{𝑳𝑶}`$) are obtained using the 2-loop (1-loop) evolution of $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ and CTEQ5M (CTEQ5L) parton distribution functions Lai:1999wy , with $`𝜶_𝒔^{𝑵𝑳𝑶}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.118}`$. The top quark mass is renormalized in the OS scheme and its pole mass is fixed at $`𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟒}`$ GeV.

Fig. 1 illustrates the renormalization/factorization scale dependence of $`𝝈_{𝑳𝑶}`$ and $`𝝈_{𝑵𝑳𝑶}`$ at the LHC. The NLO cross section shows a drastic reduction of the scale dependence with respect to the lowest order prediction. Fig. 2 complements this information by illustrating the dependence of the LO and NLO cross sections on the Higgs boson mass at the LHC. For scales $`𝝁\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.4}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ ($`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝒉\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$) the NLO corrections enhance the cross section. We estimate the remaining theoretical uncertainty on the NLO result to be of the order of 15-20%, due to the leftover $`𝝁`$-dependence, the error from the PDFs, and the error on the top quark pole mass $`𝒎_𝒕`$.

## 3 Results for $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}𝒉`$ production

We evaluate the fully exclusive cross section for $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}𝒉`$ production by requiring that the transverse momentum of both final state bottom and anti-bottom quarks be larger than 20 GeV ($`𝒑_𝑻^𝒃\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$ GeV), and that their pseudorapidity satisfy the condition $`\mathbf{|}𝜼_𝒃\mathbf{|}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ for the Tevatron and $`\mathbf{|}𝜼_𝒃\mathbf{|}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{2.5}`$ for the LHC. This corresponds to an experiment measuring the Higgs decay products along with two high $`𝒑_𝑻`$ bottom quark jets. In order to better simulate the detector response, the final state gluon and the bottom/anti-bottom quarks are treated as distinct particles only if the separation in the azimuthal angle-pseudorapidity plane is $`𝚫𝑹\mathbf{>}\mathbf{0.4}`$. For smaller values of $`𝚫𝑹`$, the four momentum vectors of the two particles are combined into an effective bottom/anti-bottom quark momentum four-vector.

The set-up used for the NLO (LO) calculation of the $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}𝒉`$ cross section is the same as for $`𝒕\overline{𝒕}𝒉`$ (see Sec. 2). In the $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}𝒉`$ case, however, we have also investigated the dependence of the NLO result on the choice of the renormalization scheme for the bottom quark Yukawa coupling. The strong scale dependence of the $`\overline{𝑴𝑺}`$ bottom quark mass ($`\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$) plays a special role in the perturbative evaluation of the $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}𝒉`$ production cross section since it enters in the overall bottom quark Yukawa coupling. The same is not true for $`𝒕\overline{𝒕}𝒉`$ production since the $`\overline{𝑴𝑺}`$ top quark mass has only a very mild scale dependence. The bottom quark pole mass is taken to be $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.6}`$ GeV. In the OS scheme the bottom quark Yukawa coupling is calculated as $`𝒈_{𝒃\overline{𝒃}𝒉}\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{/}𝒗`$, while in the $`\overline{𝑴𝑺}`$ scheme as $`𝒈_{𝒃\overline{𝒃}𝒉}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒗`$, where we use the 2-loop (1-loop) $`\overline{𝑴𝑺}`$ bottom quark mass for the NLO (LO) cross section respectively.

The impact of NLO QCD corrections on the tree level cross section for $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}𝒉`$ exclusive production in the SM is summarized in Fig. 3 for both the Tevatron and the LHC. In both the $`𝑶𝑺`$ and the $`\overline{𝑴𝑺}`$ schemes the stability of the cross section is greatly improved at NLO, and the corresponding theoretical uncertainty reduced to 15-20%. The $`\overline{𝑴𝑺}`$ results seem to have overall a better perturbative behavior, although the variation of the NLO cross section about its point of least sensitivity to the renormalization/factorization scale is almost the same when one uses the $`𝑶𝑺`$ or the $`\overline{𝑴𝑺}`$ schemes for the bottom Yukawa coupling. This indicates that the running of the Yukawa coupling is not the only important factor to determine the overall perturbative stability of the cross section. The difference between the $`𝑶𝑺`$ and the $`\overline{𝑴𝑺}`$ results at their plateau values should probably be interpreted as an additional theoretical uncertainty Dawson:2003pl .

Finally, in Fig. 4 we illustrate the dependence of the exclusive cross section, at the Tevatron and at the LHC, on the Higgs boson mass, both in the SM and in some scenarios of the MSSM, corresponding to $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$, and $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}`$. For the Tevatron we consider the case of the light MSSM scalar Higgs boson($`𝒉^\mathrm{𝟎}`$) while for the LHC we consider the case of the heavy MSSM scalar Higgs boson ($`𝑯^\mathrm{𝟎}`$). We see that the rate for $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}𝒉`$ production can be significantly enhanced in a supersymmetric model with large values of $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$, and makes $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}𝒉`$ a very important mode for discovery of new physics at both the Tevatron and the LHC.

## Acknowledgments

The work of S.D. (C.J./L.R., L.H.O.) is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant DE-AC02-98CH10886 (DE-FG02-97ER41022, DE-FG-02-91ER40685). The work of D.W. is supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant No. PHY-0244875.


text:
# Correlation Length Exponent in the Three-Dimensional Fuse Network

## Abstract

We present numerical measurements of the critical correlation length exponent $`\nu `$ in the three-dimensional fuse model. Using sufficiently broad threshold distributions to ensure that the system is the strong-disorder regime, we determine $`\nu `$ to be $`\nu =0.86\pm 0.06`$ based on analyzing the fluctuations of the survival probability. The value we find for $`\nu `$ is very close to the percolation value $`0.88`$ and we propose that the three-dimensional fuse model is in the universality class of ordinary percolation.

It is already twenty years since the publication of the first experimental evidence of scaling in the morphology of brittle fractures mpp84 . About seven years later it was proposed that not only is there scaling, but the scaling properties are universal, in the sense that they do not depend on material properties blp90 ; b97 . There is now mounting evidence for this hypothesis, which may be expressed as the scaling invariance

$$\pi (z;x,y)=\lambda ^\zeta \pi (\lambda ^\zeta z;\lambda x,\lambda y),$$
(1)
of $`\pi `$, which is the probability density that at position $`(x,y)`$ in the average fracture plane, the fracture is at height $`z`$ given that it is at $`z=0`$ at $`(0,0)`$, with $`\zeta `$ as the universal roughness exponent having a value very close to 0.80 for a large class of materials. One experimentally important consequence of this scaling is that the average fracture width $`w`$ scales as

$$wL^\zeta ,$$
(2)
where $`L`$ is the linear size of the average fracture plane.

Ever since the proposal of universality, it has remained a theoretical challenge to explain this value. Recently, it was suggested by Hansen and Schmittbuhl that it has its origin in the fracture process being a a correlated percolation process hs03 . The essence of the argument is based on existence of a localization length $`l`$ and a correlation length $`\xi `$ that grows during the breakdown process. The localization length depends on the disorder in the material: Stronger disorder means larger localization length. Whether the localization length diverges for large but finite disorder or it only reaches this limit for infinite disorder is at present not known. However, mean field arguments suggest that the former scenario is the correct one hhr91 . For correlation lengths $`\xi `$ much smaller than the localization length $`l`$, Hansen and Schmittbuhl hs03  assumed a relation

$$\xi |pp_c|^\nu ,$$
(3)
where $`p`$ is the local damage density and $`p_c`$ is the damage density at failure. This relation is taken directly from percolation theory. The reason it is only valid for large localization lengths $`l`$ is that $`p`$ is assumed to be spatially stationary (meaning that the statistical distribution of $`p`$-values is independent of position). The correlation length exponent $`\nu `$ has the value 4/3 in two-dimensional percolation and 0.88 in three-dimensional percolation sa92 . It is by no means given that $`\nu `$ should be the same in the brittle fracture problem — and Toussaint and Pride suggest that it is equal to 2 tp02 . However, it was suggested by Hansen and Schmittbuhl that the two-dimensional fuse model has $`\nu =4/3`$ placing it in the same universality class as two-dimensional percolation. When the correlation length approaches the localization length $`l`$, gradients develop in the damage — $`p`$ can no longer be regarded as spatially stationary — and using arguments from gradient percolation srg85 , Hansen and Schmittbuhl suggested the relation

$$\zeta =\frac{2\nu }{1+2\nu }.$$
(4)
With $`\nu =4/3`$ for the two-dimensional fuse model, this leads to $`\zeta =8/110.73`$. Recent numerical calculations gives $`\zeta =0.74\pm 0.03`$ bbrsh03 .

Recently, Kumar et al. knsz03  have proposed that there is no universal correlation length exponent $`\nu `$ in the two-dimensional fuse network. The numerical evidence presented is based on a disorder having a small, finite localization length so that $`p`$ is not spatially stationary due to localization. However, the analysis implicitly assumes that Eq. (3) is valid, which requires $`p`$ to be spatially stationary. Hence, there is no support for the conclusion reached.

It is the aim of this letter to measure $`\nu `$ in the three-dimensional fuse model. We find the value $`\nu =0.86\pm 0.06`$. This is close to the three-dimensional percolation value $`\nu =0.88`$, hence supporting the notion that the fuse model is in the universality class of ordinary percolation, both in two and three dimensions. The roughness exponent $`\zeta `$ was measured by Batrouni and Hansen bh98  to be $`\zeta =0.62\pm 0.05`$. Using Eq. (4) with $`\nu =0.86`$, we find $`\zeta =0.63`$. Hence, the value for $`\nu `$ we report here is consistent with the roughness exponent measured in bh98  when using Eq. (4). We note, however, that this value for the roughness exponent is not consistent with the one reported by Räisänen et al. rsad98 , who reported a roughness exponent close to the minimal energy result, $`\zeta =0.41\pm 0.02`$ ad96 , claiming that they should be identical.

The fuse model that we study consists of an oriented simple cubic lattice. As in Ref. bh98 , we use periodic boundary conditions in all directions nb99  and the average current flows in the (1,1,1)-direction. Each bond is an ohmic resistor up to a threshold value. When this value is reached, the resistor turns irreversibly into an insulator. The threshold values are drawn from a spatially uncorrelated probability density $`p(t)`$. A voltage drop equal to unity is set up across the lattice along a given plane orthogonal to the (1,1,1)-direction. The currents are then calculated using the Conjugate Gradient algorithm bh88 . After the currents $`i`$ have been determined, the bond having the largest ratio $`\mathrm{max}(i)/\mathrm{max}(t)`$ is determined. This bond is then removed and the currents are recalculated. We do not allow the final crack to cross the plane along which the voltage drop is imposed. This simplifies the analysis of the final crack breaking the network apart, while it only imposes weak finite size corrections to fracture patterns.

The threshold values $`t`$ constructed by setting $`t=r^D`$, where $`r`$ is drawn from a uniform distribution on the unit interval bhr94 . This corresponds to a probability density $`p(t)t^{1+\beta }`$ on the interval $`0<t<1`$ with $`\beta =1/D`$. The parameter $`D>0`$ controls the width of the distribution: Larger values of $`D`$ corresponds to stronger disorder. In order to ensure that our results are obtained in the strong disorder phase of the fuse model, we studied $`D=`$ 10, 12, 15 and 20. Our system sizes varied from $`L=6`$ to 24 with 5000 samples generated for the smallest sizes to 200 samples for the largest sizes.

With $`D=20`$, the smallest threshold values generated are of the order $`(24^3)^{20}10^{83}`$. The system has, however, still not entered purely screened percolation regime. With this level of disorder, the system fails when a fraction of about 0.62 of the bonds have failed. The threshold values of the bonds that fail near the end of the process are about $`0.62^{20}10^4`$ — which is of the order of the currents that are carried by the bonds in the system. Hence, there is competition between threshold values and currents, making the failure process a correlated one rather than a pure percolation one even in this seemingly extreme case.

Fig. 1 shows the damage profile in the current direction of the random fuse model with $`D=10`$. We denote the (1,1,1)-direction the $`z`$-direction. We define the damage as the normalized average number of burned-out fuses in the plane orthogonal to the $`z`$-direction at $`z`$. The distribution has a weak maximum in the middle. This indicates a finite but large localization length $`l`$. Such a maximum is smaller or entirely absent from the stronger disorders (i.e. larger $`D`$-values) we studied.

Following percolation analysis sa92 , we define the survival probability $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ indicating the relative number of lattices that has survived for a given average damage $`p`$. Assuming that the disorder is broad enough so that $`p`$ is independent of $`z`$ and there is a finite critical value of $`p=p_c`$ at which 50 % of the lattices survives, we have that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }[(pp_c)L^{1/\nu }].$$
(5)
This scaling ansatz implies that both the mean value of the density of broken bonds $`p`$ and the fluctuations $`(p^2p^2)^{1/2}`$ at breakdown scales as $`L^{1/\nu }`$ using

$$p=p\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Pi }}{dp}\right)𝑑p,$$
(6)
and

$$p^2p^2=(pp)^2\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Pi }}{dp}\right)𝑑p.$$
(7)
In Fig. 2 the fluctuations of the density of broken bonds, $`W_c=\sqrt{p^2p^2}`$, have been plotted against the system size $`L`$. The mean value of the slopes gives $`\nu =0.86\pm 0.06`$ which is consistent with percolation value $`\nu =0.88`$.

Using $`\nu =0.88`$ from standard percolation we now turn to the scaling of $`p`$. From finite-size scaling analysis, we expect the functional dependency

$$p=p_c\frac{A}{L^{1/\nu }}$$
(8)
on $`L`$. We show this relation for different values of $`D`$ in Fig. 3.

This way of measuring the critical exponent $`\nu `$ is much less sensitive than the one presented in Fig. 2. From standard percolation in a simple cubic lattice the threshold for an infinite system is $`p_c=0.752`$ sa92 . The extrapolations done in Fig. 4 show results lying below this threshold. However, this is to be expected as the percolation process in this limit is screened rhhg88 . This result strongly indicates that there is a strong disorder regime for finite disorders with $`p_c`$ larger than zero in the three-dimensional fuse model. In fact, extrapolating the straight line in Fig. 4 towards larger $`1/D`$-values will result in $`p_c`$ reaching zero and becoming negative at $`D<1.33`$. This is physically impossible and $`p_c`$ remains zero in this range. This indicates that there is a transition from a percolation-like regime with $`p_c>0`$ for $`D>1.33`$ to a regime with $`p_c=0`$ for $`D<1.33`$. This latter regime has been described as the diffuse localization regime in hhr91 .

In summary, we have determined the correlation length exponent in the three-dimensional fuse model to be $`\nu =0.86\pm 0.06`$. This is consistent with the percolation value of $`\nu =0.88`$. Furthermore, using Eq. (4), this is consistent with the previously measured roughness exponent $`\zeta =0.62\pm 0.05`$ bh98 , lending support to the scenario proposed by Hansen and Schmittbuhl hs03  for understanding the universality of the roughness exponent in the fuse model and brittle fracture. Our analysis was based on studying the fuse model with strong enough disorder for the breakdown process to develop in a percolation-like manner with $`p`$ spationally stationary so that the tools developed for studying that problem could be used in the present one. We note that in this regime, one will not see the fracture roughness scaling of Eq. (1): The fracture will have a fractal structure. When, on the other hand, the disorder is weak enough for localization to set in, $`p`$ is no longer spatially stationary, making a direct measurement of $`\nu `$ based on fluctuations in $`p`$ impossible. However, it is in this regime fracture roughness scaling as in Eq. (1) is seen as shown in bh98 .

We thank G. G. Batrouni, H. A. Knudsen, and J. Schmittbuhl for helpful discussions. B. Skaflestad is also greatly acknowledged for giving help and hints during the implementation of the numerical simulations.