text:
# Alcoves associated to special fibers of local models

## 1. Introduction

Let $`G`$ be a classical group over the $`p`$-adic field $`_p`$, and let $`\mu `$ be a dominant minuscule coweight of $`G`$. We assume that the pair $`(G,\mu )`$ comes from a PEL-type Shimura datum $`(𝐆,X,K)`$ where the $`p`$-component $`K_p`$ of the compact open subgroup $`K`$ is an Iwahori subgroup of $`𝐆(_p)=G(_p)`$. We assume that the corresponding Shimura variety $`\mathrm{Sh}(𝐆,X,K)`$ has a model over a $`p`$-adic number ring $`𝒪_𝔭`$. In this case $`\mathrm{Sh}(𝐆,X,K)`$ is said to have Iwahori-type bad reduction at the prime $`𝔭`$. A fundamental problem is to understand the geometry of the special fiber. In the prototypical example of the modular curve $`Y_0(p)`$, the special fiber is a union of two smooth curves which intersect transversally. In the general case the global geometry cannot be easily described and the singularities can be quite complicated (see ).

The local geometry can be approached using the Rapoport-Zink local model $`M_\mu `$ . This projective $`𝒪_𝔭`$-scheme is a local model for the singularities in the special fiber of $`\mathrm{Sh}(𝐆,X,K)`$, but it is defined in terms of the pair $`(G,\mu )`$ using linear algebra and is somewhat easier to deal with than the Shimura variety itself.

In this paper we address certain combinatorial questions which arise in the study of the special fiber $`M_{\mu ,\overline{𝔽}_p}`$ of $`M_\mu `$. To fix ideas, consider the case where $`G`$ is split. It turns out that $`M_{\mu ,\overline{𝔽}_p}`$ can be regarded as a finite-dimensional union of Iwahori-orbits in the affine flag variety for $`G(\overline{𝔽}_p((t)))`$, see  and . It follows that $`M_{\mu ,\overline{𝔽}_p}`$ has a stratification indexed by a finite set $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ of the extended affine Weyl group $`\stackrel{~}{W}(G)`$ for $`G`$. Equivalently, $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ can be regarded as a finite set of alcoves in the affine Coxeter complex determined by a splitting for $`G`$. Let $`W_0`$ denote the finite Weyl group of $`G`$. For each translation $`\lambda `$ in the $`W_0`$-orbit of $`\mu `$ there is an Iwahori-orbit in $`M_{\mu ,\overline{𝔽}_p}`$ corresponding to $`\lambda `$; in other words, the element $`t_\lambda `$ in $`\stackrel{~}{W}(G)`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$. We let $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )`$ denote the subset of $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ indexing those strata which lie in the closure of the stratum indexed by $`t_\lambda `$, for some $`\lambda W_0(\mu )`$.

We are primarily concerned with the equality $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$, which has important geometric content. For example, if the $`𝒪_𝔭`$-scheme $`M_\mu `$ is flat, this equality automatically holds. On the other hand, the equality has been established combinatorially when $`G=\mathrm{GL}_n`$ or $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$ by Kottwitz and Rapoport , and this was exploited by U. Görtz in his proof of the flatness of the local models associated to $`\text{Res}_{E/F}\mathrm{GL}_n`$, where $`E/F`$ is an unramified extension of $`p`$-adic fields.

In , Kottwitz and Rapoport propose purely combinatorial definitions of the sets $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )`$ and $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$, for every split group $`G`$ and every dominant coweight $`\mu `$. An element $`x\stackrel{~}{W}(G)`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )`$ if $`xt_\lambda `$ in the Bruhat order on $`\stackrel{~}{W}(G)`$, for some $`\lambda W_0(\mu )`$. The element $`x`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ if the vertices of the corresponding alcove satisfy certain inequalities similar to those arising from the definition of local models; see section 3 for details. (These definitions agree with the geometric interpretations above when $`G=\mathrm{GL}_n`$ or $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$ and $`\mu `$ is minuscule, see loc. cit..) Kottwitz and Rapoport show that the inclusion $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ is always valid. We adopt their point of view and assume from now on that $`G`$ is split. We address the question of whether the equality $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ holds in full generality, in particular for non-minuscule coweights $`\mu `$.

The main result of this paper is that the situation is as nice as possible for groups of type $`A_{n1}`$.

###### Theorem 1.

For any root system of type $`A_{n1}`$, the equality $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ holds for every dominant coweight $`\mu `$.

Actually, we derive this theorem from a more general result available for any root system. We introduce the new notion of the set of $`\mu `$-strongly permissible alcoves $`\mathrm{Perm}^{st}(\mu )`$. Like the Kottwitz-Rapoport notion of $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$, this is a set of alcoves determined by imposing conditions vertex-by-vertex. Although the condition we require on vertices might look more technical than that of Kottwitz-Rapoport, a similar notion for finite Weyl groups already occurred in a classical theorem of Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand . We prove the following statement.

###### Proposition 2.

For any root system $`R`$, the inclusion $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )\mathrm{Perm}^{st}(\mu )`$ holds for every dominant coweight $`\mu `$.

When the root system $`R`$ is of type $`A_{n1}`$, we prove that $`\mu `$-permissibility and $`\mu `$-strong permissibility are equivalent and derive Theorem 1 from Proposition 2 and the inverse inclusion proved by Kottwitz-Rapoport.

In this paper we introduce some notions of cones, acute or obtuse, in the set of alcoves. These notions play an important role in the proof of Proposition 2 and may also be useful for other combinatorial questions. Another ingredient is a lemma due to Deodhar  which is also used in .

The equality $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ turns out to be false in general.

###### Theorem 3.

If $`R`$ is an irreducible root system of rank $`4`$ and not of type $`A_{n1}`$, then $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ for every sufficiently regular dominant coweight $`\mu `$.

Theorem 3 is based on counter-examples due to Deodhar . Deodhar determines which finite Weyl groups $`W`$ have the property that $`ww^{}`$ in the Bruhat order if and only if $`w(\lambda )w^{}(\lambda )`$ is a sum of positive coroots for every dominant coweight $`\lambda `$. He proves that $`W`$ has this property if and only if the irreducible components of the associated root system $`R`$ are of type $`A_{n1}`$ or of rank $`3`$. Our proof of Theorem 3 uses the counter-examples he gives explicitly in the other cases. However Theorem 1 is proved independently and in fact in section 8 we give an alternate, perhaps more conceptual, proof of Deodhar’s theorem for root systems of type $`A_{n1}`$.

In light of Theorem 3, and motivated by the study of local models attached to certain nonsplit groups, Rapoport proposed that the equality $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ might be valid for all root systems as long as $`\mu `$ is a sum of minuscule coweights. In section 10 we show this is indeed the case for the symplectic group.

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`\mu `$ be a sum of minuscule coweights for the group $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$. Then the equality $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ holds.

Theorem 4 relies on a description of the root system of $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$ as the “fixed-point” root system $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ with respect to the nontrivial automorphism $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of the root system $`R`$ for $`\mathrm{GL}_{2n}`$, à la Steinberg . This idea was also exploited in . In fact in section 9 we prove the following statement is valid for every dominant coweight, at least in the case of the symplectic group.

###### Proposition 5.

The equality $`\mathrm{Adm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{W}(\mathrm{GSp}_{2n})`$ holds for any dominant coweight $`\mu `$ of the root system $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ for $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$.

Here the sets $`\mathrm{Adm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )`$ and $`\mathrm{Perm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )`$ are the subsets of $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\mathrm{GSp}_{2n})`$ analogous to the subsets $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )`$ and $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\mathrm{GL}_{2n})`$. Moreover, the equality $`\mathrm{Perm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{W}(\mathrm{GSp}_{2n})`$ can be proved in the case where $`\mu `$ is a sum of minuscule coweights by a method of Kottwitz-Rapoport , yielding Theorem 4. It is also worthwhile to remark that the set $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{W}(\mathrm{GSp}_{2n})`$ has itself some geometric meaning for every $`\mu `$. This set parametrizes the strata in the special fiber of the local model considered in , since the definition thereof uses the standard representation of the symplectic group.

Theorem 1 is expected to play a role in proving the flatness of the Pappas-Rapoport local models attached to the group $`\text{Res}_{E/F}\mathrm{GL}_n`$, where $`E/F`$ is a totally ramified extension of $`p`$-adic fields. For details we refer the reader to forthcoming work of U. Görtz . Likewise, Theorem 4 (or Proposition 5) is expected to play a role in proving the flatness of analogous local models attached to $`\text{Res}_{E/F}\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$. Thus, our study of $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )`$ and $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ for non-minuscule coweights $`\mu `$ of split groups has ramifications for Shimura varieties attached to certain non-split groups.

For applications to the bad reduction of PEL-type Shimura varieties attached to orthogonal groups one would like to determine whether the analogs of Theorem 4 and Proposition 5 hold for the split orthogonal groups $`\mathrm{O}(2n)`$ (PEL Shimura varieties arise for groups of type $`A`$,$`C`$, and $`D`$). The methods of this paper do not seem to give much information in that situation. However, in section 11 we show that the analog of Proposition 5 for the odd orthogonal groups does not hold. This can be understood in terms of a non-inheritance property of the Bruhat order: the group $`\mathrm{SO}(2n+1)`$ can be realized as the fixed point group $`\mathrm{SL}(2n+1)^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ for a certain involution $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and this gives a corresponding embedding of affine Weyl groups $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(B_n)W_{\mathrm{aff}}(A_{2n})`$. However, the Bruhat order on the former is not inherited from the Bruhat order on the latter (in contrast to the symplectic case, cf. Proposition 9.6).

## 2. Affine Weyl group attached to a root system

Let us fix notation and recall basic facts about affine Weyl group and alcoves. For proofs, we refer to Humphreys’ book , especially chapter 4.

Let $`(X^{},X_{},R,\stackrel{ˇ}{R})`$ be a root system. We assume throughout this paper that the root system is reduced and irreducible. When there is no chance of confusion we will denote the root system $`(X^{},X_{},R,\stackrel{ˇ}{R})`$ simply by $`R`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be a base of $`R`$. Let $`R^+`$ (resp. $`R^{}`$) denote the set of positive (resp. negative) roots. The cardinality of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ will be called the rank of $`R`$. Denote by $`,:X^{}\times X_{}`$ the perfect pairing making $`X^{}`$ and $`X_{}`$ dual free abelian groups.

Corresponding to $`\alpha R`$ we have a reflection $`s_\alpha `$, acting on $`V=X_{}`$ by $`s_\alpha (x)=x\alpha ,x\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }`$. The Weyl group $`W_0`$ is the subgroup of $`\mathrm{GL}(V)`$ generated by these reflections. It is known that $`W_0`$ is generated by $`S=\{s_\alpha |\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }\}`$ as a finite Coxeter group.

Let $`H_\alpha `$ denote the hyperplane (wall) fixed by the reflection $`s_\alpha `$, for every $`\alpha R`$. The connected components of the set $`V_{\alpha R}H_\alpha `$ will be called chambers. The finite Weyl group $`W_0`$ acts simply transitively on the set $`𝒞`$ of chambers. There is a distinguished chamber

$$C_0=\{xV|\alpha ,x>0,\text{for every}\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }\}$$

which will be called the dominant chamber.

Corresponding to $`\alpha R`$ and $`k`$ we have an affine reflection $`s_{\alpha ,k}`$, acting on $`V=X_{}`$ by $`s_{\alpha ,k}(x)=x(\alpha ,xk)\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }`$. The affine Weyl group $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ is the subgroup of $`\mathrm{Aut}(V)`$ generated by these reflections. It is known that $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ is generated, as a Coxeter group, by $`S_{\mathrm{aff}}=S\{s_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha },1}\}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is the unique highest root of $`R`$. Moreover, $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ is the semi-direct product $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}=W_0\stackrel{ˇ}{Q}`$ where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{Q}`$ is the lattice generated by $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}`$ acting on $`V`$ by translation.

Let us denote $`\stackrel{~}{R}=R\times `$. Let $`H_{\alpha ,k}`$ denote the hyperplane in $`V`$ fixed by the reflection $`s_{\alpha ,k}`$ for every $`(\alpha ,k)\stackrel{~}{R}`$. The connected components of the set $`V_{(\alpha ,k)\stackrel{~}{R}}H_{\alpha ,k}`$ will be called alcoves. The affine Weyl group $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ acts simply transitively on the set $`𝒜`$ of the alcoves. There is a distinguished alcove

$$A_0=\{xC_0|\stackrel{~}{\alpha },x<1\}$$

that will be called the base alcove.

The extended Weyl group $`\stackrel{~}{W}=W_0X_{}`$ also acts on the set $`𝒜`$. Indeed for any coweight $`\lambda X_{}`$ the translation $`t_\lambda `$ by the vector $`\lambda `$ sends a wall on another wall since $`\alpha ,\lambda `$ for every $`\alpha R`$, therefore sends an alcove to another alcove. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the isotropy group in $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ of the base alcove. It is known that $`\stackrel{~}{W}=W_{\mathrm{aff}}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. With the help of this decomposition, the Bruhat order and the length function on the Coxeter group $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ can be extended to $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$, which is not a Coxeter group in general. For $`w,w^{}W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$, $`\tau ,\tau ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we say $`w\tau w^{}\tau ^{}`$ if and only if $`ww^{}`$ and $`\tau =\tau ^{}`$. We put $`l(w\tau )=l(w)`$.

Let us recall some basic facts on minimal galleries. A gallery of length $`l`$ is a sequence of alcoves $`A^{}=A_0^{},\mathrm{},A_l^{}=A^{\prime \prime }`$ such that $`A_{i1}^{}`$ and $`A_i^{}`$ share a wall $`H_i`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$. The gallery is minimal if there does not exist a gallery going from $`A^{}`$ to $`A^{\prime \prime }`$ with length strictly less than $`l`$. In general there exist more than one minimal gallery going from $`A^{}`$ from $`A^{\prime \prime }`$, but the set of walls $`H_i`$ depends only on $`A^{}`$ and $`A^{\prime \prime }`$: it is the set of walls $`H=H_{\alpha ,k}`$ separating $`A^{}`$ and $`A^{\prime \prime }`$, i.e., those such that $`A^{}`$ and $`A^{\prime \prime }`$ lie in different connected components of $`VH`$.

Minimal galleries are very closely related to reduced expressions in the Coxeter system $`(W_{\mathrm{aff}},S_{\mathrm{aff}})`$. Let $`xW_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ and $`x=s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_l`$ be a reduced expression with $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_lS_{\mathrm{aff}}`$, i.e., such an expression with minimal length $`l=l(x)`$. Let $`A_0,A_1,\mathrm{},A_l`$ be the alcoves defined by $`A_i=s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_iA_0`$. Obviously, $`A_{i1}`$ and $`A_i`$ share a wall $`H_i`$. Hence, this sequence of alcoves forms a gallery going from the base alcove $`A_0`$ to $`A_l=xA_0`$. In this way, the reduced expressions of $`x`$ correspond bijectively to the minimal galleries going from $`A_0`$ to $`xA_0`$. The cardinality of the set of hyperplanes $`H_{\alpha ,k}`$ with $`(\alpha ,k)\stackrel{~}{R}`$ separating $`A_0`$ and $`xA_0`$ is equal to the length $`l(x)`$.

Another basic fact that will be used in the sequel is the following. If an expression $`x=s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_l`$ is not reduced, there are integers $`i<j`$ such that we can delete $`s_i`$ and $`s_j`$ without changing $`x`$:

$$x=s_1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}_i\mathrm{}\widehat{s}_j\mathrm{}s_l.$$

Equivalently, a gallery $`A_0^{},\mathrm{},A_l^{}`$ is not minimal if there exist integers $`i<j`$ such that $`H_i=H_j`$, where for every $`i`$, $`H_i`$ denotes the wall shared by the consecutive alcoves $`A_{i1}^{}`$ and $`A_i^{}`$.

## 3. The $`\mu `$-admissible and $`\mu `$-permissible sets

In the sequel, a dominant coweight $`\mu `$ will be fixed and we will denote by $`\tau `$ the unique element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`t_\mu W_{\mathrm{aff}}\tau `$. Let $`\mathrm{Conv}(\mu )`$ denote the convex hull of the set $`\{\lambda |\lambda W_0(\mu )\}`$. In , R. Kottwitz and M. Rapoport introduce the notions of the $`\mu `$-admissible and $`\mu `$-permissible subsets of $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$.

###### Definition 3.1.

(Kottwitz-Rapoport)

1. Let $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )=\{x\stackrel{~}{W}xt_\lambda \text{for some}\lambda W_0(\mu )\}`$. An element $`x\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )`$ is called $`\mu `$-admissible.
2. Let $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ be the set of elements $`xW_{\mathrm{aff}}\tau `$ such that $`x(a)a\mathrm{Conv}(\mu )`$ for every vertex $`aA_0`$. An element $`x\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ is called $`\mu `$-permissible.

We remark that in general the facets of $`A_0`$ having minimal dimension are not points, so our use of the word “vertex” in the definition above may be considered inaccurate. Throughout this paper we shall ignore this subtlety and continue to imagine that the facets of $`A_0`$ of minimal dimension are in fact points. It is not difficult to translate our resulting arguments and statements into ones which do not abuse terminology.

The following theorem is proved in .

###### Theorem 3.2.

(Kottwitz-Rapoport)

1. For any root system $`R`$ and dominant coweight $`\mu `$, $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$.
2. Let $`R`$ be the root system attached to $`\mathrm{GL}_n`$ or $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$. Let $`\mu `$ be a minuscule coweight of $`R`$. Then $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$.

Recall that a coweight $`\mu `$ is minuscule if $`\alpha ,\mu \{1,0,1\}`$, for every root $`\alpha `$. For root systems of type $`A_{n1}`$, the second statement can be generalized to every dominant coweight $`\mu `$.

###### Theorem 3.3.

For any root system of type $`A_{n1}`$, the equality $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ holds for every dominant coweight $`\mu `$.

According to Kottwitz-Rapoport, it is sufficient to prove the inclusion $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$.

## 4. Obtuse cones and $`\mu `$-strongly permissible sets

Let $`B_0`$ denote the negative obtuse cone in $`V`$ generated by the coroots $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }`$ with $`\alpha R^+`$. The convex hull $`\mathrm{Conv}(\mu )`$ occurring in the definition of the $`\mu `$-permissible set may be usefully described as the intersection of $`|W_0|`$ obtuse cones

$$\mathrm{Conv}(\mu )=\underset{wW_0}{}w\mu +w(B_0).$$

We can rephrase the definition of $`\mu `$-permissibility by saying that $`xW_{\mathrm{aff}}\tau `$ is $`\mu `$-permissible if and only if for every vertex $`v`$ of the base alcove and for any $`wW_0`$, we have

$$x(v)t_{w\mu }(v)+w(B_0).$$

The notion of $`\mu `$-strong permissibility consists in requiring a little bit more than the last inclusion.

Let $`v`$ be an element of $`V`$, $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(v)`$ the orbit of $`v`$ under the action of the affine Weyl group $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$. In the spirit of a paper of Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand , it seems reasonable to consider the subset $`B(v,w)`$ of $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(v)`$ defined as follows.

###### Definition 4.1.

For every $`vV`$ and $`wW_0`$, let $`B(v,w)`$ be the set of elements $`v^{}`$ of the form $`s_r\mathrm{}s_1(v)`$ with $`s_i=s_{\alpha _i,k_i}`$ with $`(\alpha _i,k_i)\stackrel{~}{R}`$ such that for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$,

$$s_is_{i1}\mathrm{}s_1(v)s_{i1}\mathrm{}s_1(v)+w(B_0).$$

We obviously have the inclusion

$$B(v,w)W_{\mathrm{aff}}(v)(v+w(B_0)).$$

In contrast to the notion of $`\mu `$-permissibility, we use these smaller sets $`B(v,w)`$ to define the notion of $`\mu `$-strong permissibility.

###### Definition 4.2.

For every dominant coweight $`\mu X_{}`$, let $`\mathrm{Perm}^{st}(\mu )`$ be the set of $`xW_{\mathrm{aff}}\tau `$ such that for every vertex $`a`$ of $`A_0`$ and every $`wW_0`$ the element $`x(a)`$ lies in $`B(t_{w\mu }(a),w)`$. Such an element $`x`$ is said to be $`\mu `$-strongly permissible.

We obviously have the inclusion $`\mathrm{Perm}^{st}(\mu )\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$. We will prove the following stronger statement.

###### Proposition 4.3.

For any root system $`R`$ and dominant coweight $`\mu X_{}`$, the inclusion $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )\mathrm{Perm}^{st}(\mu )`$ holds.

To prove this theorem we need the notion of acute cone to be discussed in section 5. The proof itself is postponed to section 6.

The following lemma shows that in the case of a root system of type $`A_{n1}`$ the notions of $`\mu `$-permissibility and $`\mu `$-strong permissibility coincide. Thus Theorem 3.3 follows from Proposition 4.3.

###### Lemma 4.4.

Suppose $`R`$ is of type $`A_{n1}`$. Let $`v`$ be a vertex of some alcove $`A`$. For every $`wW_0`$, the equality

$$B(v,w)=W_{\mathrm{aff}}(v)(v+w(B_0))$$

holds. In particular $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}^{st}(\mu )`$ for every dominant coweight $`\mu `$.

###### Proof.

For a root system $`R`$ of type $`A_{n1}`$, the vertices of alcoves belong to the coweight lattice $`\stackrel{ˇ}{P}=\{vV\alpha ,v\text{for every root}\alpha R\}`$. Moreover, if $`v\stackrel{ˇ}{P}`$, the orbit $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(v)`$ is exactly the set of elements $`v^{}\stackrel{ˇ}{P}`$ such that $`v^{}v\stackrel{ˇ}{Q}`$, as one sees using the relation $`t_{\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }}=s_{\alpha ,1}s_\alpha `$, for any $`\alpha R`$. Since $`\stackrel{ˇ}{Q}`$ admits $`\{w(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha })\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }\}`$ as $``$-basis, any element

$$v^{}W_{\mathrm{aff}}(v)(v+w(B_0))$$

can be written uniquely in the form $`v^{}=v_{\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }}n_\alpha w(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha })`$ with $`n_\alpha `$. Thus, it is sufficient to prove the inclusion $`vw(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha })B(v,w)`$ for any simple root $`\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }`$. Let $`k`$ be the integer $`w(\alpha ),v`$. Obviously, $`vw(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha })=s_{w(\alpha ),k1}(v)`$ and we are done. ∎

###### Remark 4.5.

Let $`R`$ be any root system and let $`v`$ be a special vertex for $`R`$, i.e. an element of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{P}`$. Then for every element $`wW_0`$ we have inclusions

$$\{v\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }}{}w(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha })\}B(v,w)W_{\mathrm{aff}}(v)(v+w(B_0))\{v\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }}{}w(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha })\},$$

the first and last inclusions being proved as in the proof of Lemma 4.4; in particular the displayed equality in Lemma 4.4 holds provided that $`v`$ is a special vertex. The importance of the first set above stems from its interpretation as the coweights appearing in the character of the Verma module attached to the vertex $`v`$ and the system of positive roots $`w(R^+)`$. One can see from the example of nonspecial vertices for the root systems $`B_2`$ and $`G_2`$ that in general $`\{v_{\alpha \mathrm{\Pi }}w(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha })\}B(v,w)`$. One might hope that the second inclusion is always an equality (and thus that $`\mathrm{Perm}^{st}(\mu )`$ always equals $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$). However, this also fails in general, as we shall see in $`\mathrm{\S }7`$ using the examples of Deodhar . Of the three sets above, $`B(v,w)`$ seems to be the most related to the Bruhat order but also the most difficult to be visualized.

The equality of the sets in Lemma 4.4 for every vertex imposes rather strong conditions on the underlying root system $`R`$. In fact, as we shall see in section 8 (Remark 8.3), if $`w_0`$ is the longest element of $`W_0`$ and

$$B(v,w_0)=W_{\mathrm{aff}}(v)(v+w_0(B_0))$$

for every vertex $`v`$, then $`R`$ is necessarily of type $`A_{n1}`$ or of rank $`3`$.

## 5. Acute cones

Let $`\overline{C}_0`$ be the closure of the dominant chamber $`C_0`$. For any $`xV`$ and $`wW_0`$, the acute cone $`\overline{C}(x,w)=x+w(\overline{C}_0)`$ is the translation of $`w(\overline{C}_0)`$ by the vector $`x`$. For $`A𝒜`$ and $`wW`$, we want to define a subset $`C(A,w)`$ of $`𝒜`$ which is as close as possible to a cone $`\overline{C}(x,w)`$.

The easiest way to do so consists in choosing a point $`a`$ inside the base alcove $`A_0`$. Since $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ acts simply transitively on $`𝒜`$, each alcove $`A`$ contains a unique point $`A(a)`$ conjugate to $`a`$.

###### Definition 5.1.

$`C_a(A,w)=\{A^{}𝒜|A^{}(a)A(a)+w(\overline{C}_0)\}`$.

The disadvantage of this definition is that it really depends on the choice of $`aA_0`$. In order to give a more intrinsic definition, we need the notion of direction of a gallery.

Let $`wW_0`$. A wall $`H=H_{\alpha ,k}`$ can also given by $`H_{\alpha ,k}`$. But only one root from $`\{\alpha ,\alpha \}`$ lies in $`w(R^+)`$; let us assume $`\alpha w(R^+)`$. We define the $`w`$-positive half-space $`H^{w+}`$ by $`H^{w+}=\{vV\alpha ,x>k\}`$. Let $`H^w`$ be the other half-space.

###### Definition 5.2.

A gallery $`A_0^{},\mathrm{},A_l^{}`$ is said to be in the $`w`$-direction if for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$, letting $`H_i`$ denote the common wall of $`A_{i1}^{}`$ and of $`A_i^{}`$, the alcove $`A_{i1}^{}`$ lies in the $`w`$-negative half-space $`H_i^w`$ and the alcove $`A_i^{}`$ lies in the $`w`$-positive half-space $`H_i^{w+}`$.

Obviously, the gallery $`A_0^{},\mathrm{},A_l^{}`$ is in the $`w`$-direction if and only if the inverse gallery $`A_l^{},\mathrm{},A_0^{}`$ is in the $`ww_0`$-direction where $`w_0`$ is the maximal length element of $`W_0`$. We will sometimes say the gallery $`A_l^{},\mathrm{},A_0^{}`$ is in the $`w`$-opposite direction.

###### Lemma 5.3.

Any gallery $`A_0^{},\mathrm{},A_l^{}`$ in some $`w`$-direction is automatically minimal. If there exists a gallery going from $`A_0^{}`$ to $`A_l^{}`$ in the $`w`$-direction, then any other minimal gallery going from $`A_0^{}`$ to $`A_l^{}`$ is in the $`w`$-direction too.

###### Proof.

Suppose the gallery $`A_0^{},\mathrm{},A_l^{}`$ is not minimal. This means there exist two integers $`i<j`$ such that $`H_i=H_j`$. Let $`H`$ denote this hyperplane and suppose $`H_kH`$ for any integer $`k`$ in between $`i<k<j`$. By hypothesis the alcove $`A_i^{}`$ lies in $`H^{w+}`$. By induction, we know that $`A_k^{}`$ also lies in $`H^{w+}`$ for any $`k=i,\mathrm{},j1`$ since the only hyperplane separating $`A_{k1}^{}`$ and $`A_k^{}`$ is $`H_kH`$. Thus $`A_{j1}H_j^{w+}`$, which contradicts the hypothesis $`A_{j1}H_j^w`$.

In an arbitrary minimal gallery $`A_0^{},\mathrm{},A_l^{}`$, for every $`i`$, the alcoves $`A_0^{}`$ and $`A_{i1}^{}`$ lie in the same connected component of $`VH_i`$, and the alcoves $`A_i^{}`$ and $`A_l^{}`$ lie in the other connected component. If the gallery $`A_0^{},\mathrm{},A_l^{}`$ is supposed to be in the $`w`$-direction, $`A_{i1}^{}H_i^w`$ and $`A_i^{}H_i^{w+}`$ and consequently we have $`A_0^{}H_i^w`$ and $`A_l^{}H_i^{w+}`$. This means for any hyperplane $`H`$ separating $`A_0^{}`$ and $`A_l^{}`$, $`A_0^{}H^w`$ and $`A_l^{}H^{w+}`$. The same argument now proves that any other minimal gallery going from $`A_0^{}`$ to $`A_l^{}`$ is also in the $`w`$-direction. ∎

###### Definition 5.4.

Let $`C(A,w)`$ be the set of alcoves $`A^{}𝒜`$ such that there exists a gallery $`A_0^{},A_1^{},\mathrm{},A_l^{}`$ going from $`A`$ to $`A^{}`$ in the $`w`$-direction.

We call $`C(A,w)`$ the acute cone from $`A`$ in the $`w`$-direction.

###### Proposition 5.5.

We have the inclusion $`C_a(A,w)C(A,w)`$ for any point $`aA_0`$.

###### Proof.

If $`A^{}(a)A(a)+w(\overline{C}_0)`$ then for every root $`\alpha w(R^+)`$, the inequality

$$\alpha ,A(a)\alpha ,A^{}(a)$$

holds. Hence, for any hyperplane $`H`$ separating $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$, $`A`$ lies in the $`w`$-negative half-space $`H^w`$ and $`A^{}`$ lies in the $`w`$-positive half-space $`H^{w+}`$. As shown in the proof of the above lemma, any minimal gallery going from $`A`$ to $`A^{}`$ is in the $`w`$-direction. ∎

###### Corollary 5.6.

For any two alcoves $`A,A^{}`$, there exists $`wW_0`$ and a gallery going from $`A`$ to $`A^{}`$ in the $`w`$-direction. In other words

$$𝒜=\underset{wW_0}{}C(A,w).$$

###### Proof.

The union $`_{wW_0}C_a(A,w)`$ obviously covers the whole set $`𝒜`$ for any $`aA_0`$. ∎

###### Corollary 5.7.

Let $`\mu `$ be a dominant coweight. Then $`t_{w\mu }(A_0)C(A_0,w)`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\mu `$ is dominant and lies in $`\stackrel{ˇ}{Q}`$, $`t_{w\mu }(A_0)`$ belongs to $`C_a(A_0,w)`$ for all $`aA_0`$. If now $`\mu `$ is dominant but not necessarily in $`\stackrel{ˇ}{Q}`$, let us choose a point $`a`$ in $`A_0`$ fixed by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, for instance we can take the barycenter of $`A_0`$. Then $`t_{w\mu }(A_0)`$ belongs to $`C_a(A_0,w)`$ a fortiori to $`C(A,w)`$. ∎

There exists another characterization of the acute cone $`C(A,w)`$ which will be useful later.

###### Lemma 5.8.

An alcove $`A^{}`$ lies in $`C(A,w)`$ if and only if it is contained in every $`w`$-positive halfspace $`H^{w+}`$ containing $`A`$:

$$A^{}\underset{AH^{w+}}{}H^{w+}.$$

###### Proof.

This is only a matter of rephrasing the proof of Lemma 5.3. In fact, we have seen there that $`A^{}C(A,w)`$ if and only if for any wall $`H`$ separating $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$, we have $`AH^w`$ and $`A^{}H^{w+}`$. In other words, $`A^{}_{AH^{w+}}H^{w+}.`$

## 6. Proof of Proposition 4.3

Suppose $`\mu X_{}`$ is dominant and $`\mu W_{\mathrm{aff}}\tau `$ for $`\tau \mathrm{\Omega }`$, the isotropy group of the base alcove. Given an element $`xW_{\mathrm{aff}}\tau `$ which is $`\mu `$-strongly permissible, we want to prove there exists $`wW_0`$ such that $`xt_{w\mu }`$. According to the Corollary 5.6, there exists $`wW_0`$ such that $`x(A_0)C(A_0,w)`$. According to Corollary 5.7, $`t_{w\mu }(A_0)`$ lies in the same acute cone $`C(A_0,w)`$. We will prove $`xt_{w\mu }`$ for this $`w`$.

Let us write $`x=x_1\tau `$ and $`t_{w\mu }=x_2\tau `$ with $`x_1,x_2W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ and $`\tau \mathrm{\Omega }`$. To prove Proposition 2 we thus have to prove the following statement.

###### Proposition 6.1.

Let $`x_1,x_2`$ be two elements of $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ and $`wW_0`$ such that

* for every vertex $`v`$ of $`A_0`$, $`x_1(v)`$ lies in $`B(x_2(v),w)`$;
* the two alcoves $`x_1(A_0)`$ and $`x_2(A_0)`$ lie in $`C(A_0,w)`$.

Then the inequality $`x_1x_2`$ holds.

First, we prove that the statement does not change when we move the base alcove in the $`w`$-opposite direction. By this operation we can then move the alcoves $`x(A_0)`$ and $`t_{w\mu }(A_0)`$ far from the walls. As we will see, the proof is much easier in that case, compared to the proof of Kottwitz-Rapoport in the minuscule case, which deals with alcoves very close to the origin.

###### Lemma 6.2.

Let $`x_1,x_2W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ be such that the alcoves $`x_1(A_0)`$ and $`x_2(A_0)`$ lie in $`C(A_0,w)`$. Let $`yW_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ be such that $`A_0^{}C(A_0,ww_0)`$ where $`y(A_0^{})=A_0`$. Then $`x_1x_2`$ if and only if $`yx_1yx_2`$.

Note that the condition $`A_0^{}C(A_0,ww_0)`$ means there exists a gallery going from $`A_0^{}`$ to $`A_0`$ in the $`w`$-direction.

###### Proof.

According to Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand  (see also ) every Coxeter group satisfies the following property : let $`x_1,x_2W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ and $`sS_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ be a simple reflection, then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x_1x_2& & sx_1sx_2\hfill \end{array}$$

whenever $`l(sx_1)>l(x_1)`$ and $`l(sx_2)>l(x_2)`$. It follows easily by induction on $`l(y)`$ that $`x_1x_2`$ is equivalent to $`yx_1yx_2`$ whenever $`l(yx_i)=l(y)+l(x_i)`$ for $`i=1,2`$.

Therefore what we really have to prove is that the lengths add

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill l(yx_1)=l(y)+l(x_1)& & l(yx_2)=l(y)+l(x_2).\hfill \end{array}$$

Of course, we only need to prove the first of these equalities.

Let us choose a minimal gallery $`A_0^{},\mathrm{},A_l^{}`$ going from $`A_0^{}`$ to $`A_0`$, with $`l=l(y)`$, and $`A_0,\mathrm{},A_r`$ a minimal gallery going from $`A_0`$ to $`x_1(A_0)`$, with $`r=l(x_1)`$. According to Lemma 5.3, any minimal galleries going from $`A_0^{}`$ to $`A_0`$ or going from $`A_0`$ to $`x_1(A_0)`$ are automatically in the $`w`$-direction. Obviously, the concatenation of two galleries in the $`w`$-direction is still in the $`w`$-direction. By Lemma 5.3 again, the concatenated gallery $`A_0^{},\mathrm{},A_l^{}=A_0,\mathrm{},A_r`$ is minimal.

Let us prove that the concatenated gallery $`A_0^{},\mathrm{},A_0,\mathrm{},A_r=x_1yA_0^{}`$ is minimal only if the equality $`l(yx_1)=l+r`$ holds.

Let $`S_{\mathrm{aff}}^{}=\{y^1sysS_{\mathrm{aff}}\}`$ be the set of reflections by walls of $`A_0^{}`$; obviously $`(W_{\mathrm{aff}},S_{\mathrm{aff}}^{})`$ is also a Coxeter system. Now, by viewing $`A_0^{}`$ as base alcove, the gallery $`A_0^{},\mathrm{},A_0,\mathrm{},A_r=x_1yA_0^{}`$ gives rise to a reduced expression

$$x_1y=s_1^{}\mathrm{}s_{l+r}^{}$$

with $`s_1^{},\mathrm{},s_{l+r}^{}`$ in $`S_{\mathrm{aff}}^{}`$. Thus the length of $`x_1y`$ in the Coxeter system $`(W_{\mathrm{aff}},S_{\mathrm{aff}}^{})`$ is equal to $`l+r`$. Consequently, the length of

$$yx_1=(ys_1^{}y^1)\mathrm{}(ys_{l+r}^{}y^1)$$

in the Coxeter system $`(W_{\mathrm{aff}},S_{\mathrm{aff}})`$ is equal to $`l+r`$. ∎

Another important ingredient in the proof is a lemma due to Deodhar , which is available for any Coxeter system, in particular for the Coxeter system $`(W_{\mathrm{aff}},S_{\mathrm{aff}})`$. Let $`J`$ be a subset of $`S_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ ; let $`W_J`$ be the subgroup of $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ generated by $`J`$. It is known that there exists a subset $`W^J`$ of $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ such that any element $`xW_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ admits a unique decomposition $`x=x^Jx_J`$ with $`x^JW^J`$ and $`x_JW_J`$ such that $`l(x)=l(x^J)+l(x_J)`$.

###### Lemma 6.3 (Deodhar ).

Let $`𝒥`$ be a set whose elements are subsets of $`S_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ such that $`_{J𝒥}J=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`x,yW_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ and $`x=x^Jx_J`$ and $`y=y^Jy_J`$ be the unique decompositions of $`x`$ and $`y`$ for $`J𝒥`$. Then $`xy`$ if and only if $`x^Jy^J`$ for every $`J𝒥`$.

Elements of $`S_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ correspond to walls of the base alcove $`A_0`$. For any vertex $`a`$ of $`A_0`$, let $`J_a`$ denote the subset of elements of $`S_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ corresponding to walls containing $`a`$. Obviously, the intersection of such subsets $`J_a`$ for all vertices $`a`$ of the base alcove is empty. Thus, the lemma of Deodhar applies.

Let us fix a vertex $`a`$ of the base alcove $`A_0`$ and let $`J`$ denote $`J_a`$. It is useful to visualize the decomposition $`x=x^Jx_J`$ in terms of alcoves. Let $`x`$ be an element of $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ and $`A=x(A_0)`$ the corresponding alcove. The coset $`xW_J`$ is in bijection with the set of alcoves sharing with $`A`$ the vertex $`x(a)`$. The element $`x^J`$ corresponds to the minimal element among those alcoves.

###### Lemma 6.4.

Let $`a`$ be a vertex of the base alcove $`A_0`$ and let $`J`$ denote $`J_a`$. Let $`x_1,x_2`$ be elements of $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ such that $`x_1(a)B(x_2(a),w)`$. There exists an alcove $`A`$ such that for every $`yW_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ satisfying $`y^1A_0C(A,ww_0)`$ we have $`(yx_1)^J(yx_2)^J`$.

In more intuitive terms, the inequality $`(yx_1)^J(yx_2)^J`$ holds for the alcove $`y^1A_0`$ far enough in $`w`$-opposite direction.

###### Proof.

Let us denote $`v_1=x_1(a)`$ and $`v_2=x_2(a)`$. We can easily reduce to the case $`v_1=sv_2`$, where $`s`$ is some reflection $`s_{\alpha ,k}`$ and $`v_1v_2+w(B_0)`$. In other words $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ are symmetric with respect to the hyperplane $`H=H_{\alpha ,k}`$ ; $`v_1`$ lies in the $`w`$-negative half-space $`H^w`$ ; $`v_2`$ lies in the $`w`$-positive half-space $`H^{w+}`$. We can also suppose $`v_1v_2`$, thus $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ lie in the interiors of the corresponding half-spaces determined by $`H`$.

Let $`A`$ be an alcove in the $`w`$-negative half-space $`H^w`$. The whole acute cone $`C(A,ww_0)`$ belongs then to $`H^w`$.

Let $`A_0^{}=y^1(A_0)`$ be an alcove lying in $`C(A,ww_0)`$, a fortiori in the $`w`$-negative half-space $`H^w`$. Just as in the proof of the last lemma, it will be convenient to consider $`A_0^{}`$ as base alcove. Let $`S_{\mathrm{aff}}^{}`$ denote the set of reflections by walls of $`A_0^{}`$. Let $`a^{}=y^1(a)`$ and let $`J^{}`$ denote the subset of reflections by the walls of $`A_0^{}`$ containing the vertex $`a^{}`$. Since the conjugation by $`y^1`$ makes the Coxeter $`(W_{\mathrm{aff}},S_{\mathrm{aff}})`$ isomorphic to the Coxeter system $`(W_{\mathrm{aff}},S_{\mathrm{aff}}^{})`$, the inequality we want to prove in the former system

$$(yx_1)^J(yx_2)^J$$

is equivalent to the inequality we are going to prove

$$(x_1y)^J^{}(x_2y)^J^{}$$

in the latter system. In the remainder of the proof, all inequalities are understood to be relative to the Coxeter system $`(W_{\mathrm{aff}},S_{\mathrm{aff}}^{})`$.

Obviously, $`(x_1y)^J^{}(a^{})=x_1y(a^{})=v_1`$ and $`(x_2y)^J^{}(a^{})=x_2y(a^{})=v_2`$. The alcove $`(x_1y)^J^{}(A_0^{})`$, resp. $`(x_2y)^J^{}(A_0^{})`$, is minimal among the alcoves sharing the vertex $`v_1`$, resp. $`v_2`$. Like $`v_1`$, the alcove $`(x_1y)^J^{}(A_0^{})`$ lies in the $`w`$-negative half-space $`H^w`$. Like $`v_2`$, the alcove $`(x_2y)^J^{}(A_0^{})`$ lies in the $`w`$-positive half-space $`H^{w+}`$.

Let $`A_0^{},A_1^{},\mathrm{},A_l^{}`$ be a minimal gallery going from $`A_0^{}`$ to $`A_l^{}=(x_2y)^J^{}A_0^{}`$. Since $`A_0^{}H^w`$ and $`A_l^{}H^{w+}`$, there exists an integer $`j`$ such that $`A_{j1}^{}`$ and $`A_j^{}`$ share the wall $`H`$. The minimal gallery $`A_0^{},A_1^{},\mathrm{},A_l^{}`$ corresponds to a reduced expression

$$(x_2y)^J^{}=s_1^{}s_2^{}\mathrm{}s_l^{}$$

with $`s_1^{},\mathrm{},s_l^{}S_{\mathrm{aff}}^{}`$. By removing the reflection $`s_j^{}`$ from the reduced expression, we get

$$s_1^{}\mathrm{}\widehat{s}_j^{}\mathrm{}s_l^{}=s(x_2y)^J^{}.$$

Therefore $`s(x_2y)^J^{}(x_2y)^J^{}`$.

But the alcove $`s(x_2y)^J^{}A_0^{}`$ contains the vertex $`s(x_2y)^J^{}(a^{})=v_1`$. Thus by minimality, we know $`(x_1y)^J^{}s(x_2y)^J^{}`$, therefore $`(x_1y)^J^{}(x_2y)^J^{}`$. ∎

Proof of Proposition 6.1. The proposition follows from Lemmas 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 as follows. By hypothesis we know that $`x_1(A_0),x_2(A_0)C(A_0,w)`$ and that, for every vertex $`a`$ of the base alcove, $`x_1(a)B(x_2(a),w)`$. By 6.4, for every vertex $`aA_0`$ there exists an alcove $`A_a`$ such that, if $`yW_{\mathrm{aff}}`$ satisfies $`y^1(A_0)C(A_a,ww_0)`$, then $`(yx_1)^{J_a}(yx_2)^{J_a}`$. Now choose $`y`$ such that

$$y^1(A_0)C(A_0,ww_0)\underset{a}{}C(A_a,ww_0).$$

(Note that the intersection of finitely many acute cones in the same direction is nonempty.) Then $`(yx_1)^{J_a}(yx_2)^{J_a}`$ for every $`a`$ and thus by Lemma 6.3, $`yx_1yx_2`$. But then Lemma 6.2 implies $`x_1x_2`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 7. Deodhar’s counter-examples

In  Deodhar considers the following question: which finite Weyl groups $`W_0`$ have the property that $`ww^{}`$ in the Bruhat order if and only if $`w(\lambda )w^{}(\lambda )`$ is a sum of positive coroots for every dominant coweight $`\lambda `$? Surprisingly enough, at least for us, he proves that $`W_0`$ has this property if and only if the irreducible components of the associated root system $`R`$ are of type $`A_{n1}`$ or of rank $`3`$. For part of his proof, for an irreducible root system of rank $`4`$ and not of type $`A_{n1}`$, he proves the following statement by giving explicit examples.

###### Proposition 7.1 (Deodhar ).

Let $`R`$ be an irreducible root system of rank $`4`$ and not of type $`A_{n1}`$. Then there exist elements $`w,w^{}W_0,ww^{}`$ such that

* for every dominant coweight $`\lambda `$, $`w(\lambda )w^{}(\lambda )`$ is a sum of positive coroots;
* $`l(w)=l(w^{})`$.

We derive the following statement about $`\mu `$-admissible and $`\mu `$-permissible sets, thus proving Theorem 3.

###### Proposition 7.2.

For $`R`$ an irreducible root system of rank $`4`$ and not of type $`A_{n1}`$, we have $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ for every sufficiently regular dominant coweight $`\mu `$.

###### Proof.

The idea of the proof is the remark, due to Kottwitz and Rapoport, that nearby the extreme elements $`t_{w\mu }`$, the picture looks like the Bruhat order in the finite Weyl group $`W_0`$. (This is proved in a precise form in Lemma 7.5 below.)

Let $`\mu `$ be a regular dominant coweight. For simplicity, suppose $`\mu \stackrel{ˇ}{Q}`$. Let $`w,w^{}W_0`$ be chosen as in Proposition 7.1. Let us consider the element

$$x=t_{w^1\mu }w^1w^{}.$$

We prove $`x`$ is $`\mu `$-permissible but not $`\mu `$-admissible, if $`\mu `$ is sufficiently regular.

Since $`ww^{}`$, we know $`xt_\mu ^{}`$ for any $`\mu ^{}W_0(\mu )`$. Therefore to prove $`x`$ is not $`\mu `$-admissible, it is enough to show $`l(x)=l(t_\mu )`$. Since $`\mu `$ is regular dominant, by a theorem of Iwahori-Masumoto  the maximal length element in the coset $`t_{w^1\mu }W_0`$ is $`t_{w^1\mu }w^1`$. Moreover we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill l(x)& =& l(t_{w^1\mu }w^1)l(w^{})\hfill \\ & =& l(t_{w^1\mu }w^1)l(w)\hfill \\ & =& l(t_{w^1\mu }),\hfill \end{array}$$

so $`l(x)`$ is equal to $`l(t_\mu )`$.

Let us prove that $`x`$ is $`\mu `$-permissible. Let $`a`$ be a vertex of $`A_0`$. By construction of the elements $`w`$ and $`w^{}`$, the difference

$$t_{w^1\mu }(a)t_{w^1\mu }w^1w^{}(a)=aw^1w^{}(a)=w^1(w(a)w^{}(a))$$

lies in $`w^1(B_0)`$, since $`a`$ is dominant.

For $`\mu `$ sufficiently regular dominant, we have

$$t_{w^1\mu }w^1w^{}(a)aw^1(\overline{C}_0).$$

(This relation can be used as the definition of “sufficiently regular”.) According to the following well-known statement, $`x`$ is $`\mu `$-permissible. ∎

###### Lemma 7.3.

The equality

$$w\overline{C}_0(w\mu +wB_0)=w\overline{C}_0\mathrm{Conv}(\mu )$$

holds for any $`\mu `$ dominant and $`wW_0`$.

In some sense, this lemma was the starting point of this work.

###### Remark 7.4.

The following lemma, which is not used in the sequel, makes precise the remark of Kottwitz-Rapoport which inspired Proposition 7.2 above.

###### Lemma 7.5.

Let $`R`$ be any irreducible root system. Suppose $`\lambda X_{}`$, and let $`t_\lambda w_\lambda `$ be the unique element of minimal length in the coset $`t_\lambda W_0`$. Suppose $`w_1,w_2W_0`$. Then $`t_\lambda w_\lambda w_1t_\lambda w_\lambda w_2`$ if and only $`w_1w_2`$.

###### Proof.

By a formula of Iwahori-Matsumoto (loc. cit.), $`l(t_\lambda w_\lambda w_i)=l(t_\lambda w_\lambda )+l(w_i)`$ for $`i=1,2`$. The lemma is a consequence of these equalities, as explained already in the proof of Lemma 6.2. ∎

The geometric meaning of the lemma can be stated as follows.

###### Corollary 7.6.

Suppose $`x,yW_{\mathrm{aff}}\tau `$ are such that the alcoves $`x(A_0)`$ and $`y(A_0)`$ share a vertex $`v=t_\lambda (0)`$, where $`t_\lambda W_{\mathrm{aff}}\tau `$. Then $`x<y`$ if and only if there exists a sequence of reflections $`s_{H_1},\mathrm{},s_{H_n}`$ such that

$$x<s_{H_1}x<s_{H_2}s_{H_1}x<\mathrm{}<s_{H_n}\mathrm{}s_{H_1}x=y,$$

where every hyperplane $`H_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, contains the vertex $`v`$.

## 8. Proof of Deodhar’s theorem for $`A_{n1}`$

The goal of this section is to present a short proof of the following theorem of Deodhar  characterizing the Bruhat order on $`W_0=S_{n1}`$. As in the proof of Theorem 1 we rely on Proposition 6.1 as the key ingredient.

###### Proposition 8.1 (Deodhar ).

Let $`R`$ be a root system of type $`A_{n1}`$. Let $`w,w^{}W_0`$. Then $`w^{}w`$ in the Bruhat order on $`W_0`$ if and only if for every dominant coweight $`\lambda `$, $`w^{}(\lambda )w(\lambda )`$ is a sum of positive coroots.

###### Proof.

We need to show that if $`w^{}(\lambda )w(\lambda )`$ is a sum of positive coroots for all dominant coweights $`\lambda `$, then $`w^{}w`$, the reverse implication being a general fact for all root systems which is easily proved. Recall that for root systems of type $`A_{n1}`$ every vertex $`v`$ of the base alcove is either a dominant fundamental coweight or zero. Let $`w_0`$ denote the longest element of $`W_0`$.

The assumption on $`w`$ and $`w^{}`$ implies that, for every vertex $`vA_0`$,

$$w^{}(v)W_{\mathrm{aff}}(w(v))(w(v)+w_0(B_0))$$

and thus

$$w^{}(v)B(w(v),w_0),$$

by Lemma 4.4. By Lemma 8.2 below, $`w(A_0)`$ and $`w^{}(A_0)`$ both belong to $`C(A_0,w_0)`$. Therefore by Proposition 6.1, $`w^{}w`$, as desired.

We have used a special case ($`\mu =0`$) of the following general lemma. Intuitively, it says that all the alcoves “on the boundary” of the antidominant Weyl chamber are contained in the antidominant acute cone of alcoves.

###### Lemma 8.2.

Let $`R`$ be an irreducible root system with Weyl group $`W_0`$. Let $`w_0`$ denote the longest element of $`W_0`$. Then for any dominant coweight $`\mu `$ and any $`wW_0`$ we have

$$t_{w_0\mu }w(A_0)C(A_0,w_0).$$

###### Proof.

Since the concatenation of two galleries in the $`w_0`$-direction is still in the $`w_0`$-direction, it suffices to prove that $`t_{w_0\mu }(A_0)C(A_0,w_0)`$ and $`t_{w_0\mu }w(A_0)C(t_{w_0\mu }(A_0),w_0)`$. The first statement results from Corollary 5.7, and since the translation of a gallery in the $`w_0`$-direction is still in the $`w_0`$-direction, the second is equivalent to $`w(A_0)C(A_0,w_0)`$.

Choose a reduced expression $`w=s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_r`$, where for each $`i=1,\mathrm{}r`$, $`s_i=s_{\alpha _i}`$ is the reflection corresponding to a simple root $`\alpha _i`$. We claim that the gallery $`A_0,s_1(A_0),\mathrm{},s_1\mathrm{}s_r(A_0)`$ is in the $`w_0`$-direction. Fix $`i`$ and let $`H_i=H_{s_1\mathrm{}s_{i1}(\alpha _i)}`$ denote the hyperplane separating $`s_1\mathrm{}s_{i1}(A_0)`$ and $`s_1\mathrm{}s_i(A_0)`$. We need to show that

$$s_1\mathrm{}s_{i1}(A_0)H_i^{w_0}$$

and

$$s_1\mathrm{}s_i(A_0)H_i^{w_0+}.$$

But since $`s_1\mathrm{}s_{i1}(\alpha _i)>0`$, we have

$$H_i^{w_0}=\{xV|s_1\mathrm{}s_{i1}(\alpha _i),x>0\}$$

and

$$H_i^{w_0+}=\{xV|s_1\mathrm{}s_{i1}(\alpha _i),x<0\},$$

yielding the desired inclusions.

###### Remark 8.3.

If $`R`$ is any root system such that

$$B(v,w_0)=W_{\mathrm{aff}}(v)(v+w_0(B_0))$$

for every vertex $`v`$, then as in the proof of Proposition 8.1. we see that $`W_0`$ enjoys the property that $`w^{}w`$ in the Bruhat order if and only if $`w^{}(\lambda )w(\lambda )`$ is a sum of positive coroots for every dominant coweight $`\lambda `$. (Indeed, letting $`\lambda `$ range over fundamental coweights and recalling that every vertex of $`A_0`$ is a positive scalar multiple of a fundamental coweight, we see that the condition on the differences $`w^{}(\lambda )w(\lambda )`$ ensures that $`w^{}(v)W_{\mathrm{aff}}(w(v))(w(v)+w_0(B_0))`$ for every vertex $`vA_0`$, and the rest of the proof goes over word-for-word.) Consequently, Deodhar’s theorem (see Proposition 7.1) implies that $`R`$ is of type $`A_{n1}`$ or of rank $`3`$ (cf. Remark 4.5).

## 9. Admissible sets and automorphisms of root systems

In this section we study the behavior of admissible sets relative to an automorphism $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of the underlying root system. This will yield information about the admissible and permissible sets in the extended affine Weyl group for $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$, to be discussed at the end of this section and in section 10. We begin by recalling some facts about automorphisms of root systems; the main reference is Steinberg’s article , especially $`\mathrm{\S }1.301.33`$.

Let $`R=(X^{},X_{},R,\stackrel{ˇ}{R},\mathrm{\Pi })`$ be an irreducible and reduced (based) root system, as in section 2. We may equip $`V=X_{}`$ with a $`W_0`$-invariant inner product $`(,)`$. By assumption $`X^{}=\mathrm{Hom}(X_{},)`$, and we let $`,:X^{}\times X_{}`$ denote the canonical pairing. A root $`\beta R`$ is a linear functional on $`V`$. Using the isomorphism of the vector space $`V`$ with its dual defined with the help of $`(,)`$, we have the identification $`\beta =2\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta }/(\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta },\stackrel{ˇ}{\beta })`$; in this way $`\beta `$ may be regarded as an element of $`V`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be an automorphism of $`R`$, in the sense of . This means that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a linear automorphism of $`(V,(,))`$ leaving stable the sets $`X^{}`$, $`R`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, when these are regarded as functionals on $`V`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ leaves stable the subsets $`X_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}`$ of $`V`$ as well. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ induces automorphisms of the groups $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$, $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$, $`W_0`$, and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{Q}`$; in particular we may consider the fixed-point subgroups $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$, $`W_0^\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{Q}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

The group $`W_0^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Weyl group of a root system $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$, which is defined as follows. Define $`𝒵=\{xX_{}|\alpha ,x=0,\text{for all}\alpha R\}`$. It is known that $`𝒵\stackrel{ˇ}{Q}=\{0\}`$ and $`𝒵+\stackrel{ˇ}{Q}`$ has finite index in $`X_{}`$ (see Lemma 1.2 of ). Let $`X_{}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}=\{xX_{}|x\mathrm{\Theta }(x)𝒵\}`$, and let $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}=X_{}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$. For any $`\beta R`$, let $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\beta )`$ denote the average of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-orbit of $`\beta `$. Then according to  $`\mathrm{\S }1.33`$, $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ is the subset of $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ consisting of all elements $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\beta )`$, $`\beta R`$, except those which are smaller multiples of others. Moreover, for any $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-orbit $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }`$, let $`V_\pi `$ denote the real vector space generated by $`\pi `$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\pi `$ be any highest root of the (possibly reducible) root system $`RV_\pi `$. Then the set $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ of simple roots in $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ consists of the elements $`\alpha _\pi :=\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\pi )`$ as $`\pi `$ ranges over all $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-orbits in $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. (The highest roots of $`RV_\pi `$ form a single $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-orbit, so the choice of $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\pi `$ for each orbit $`\pi `$ is immaterial.) By loc. cit. $`\mathrm{\S }1.321.33`$, $`(V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]},R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]})`$ is a root system in the sense of loc. cit., $`\mathrm{\S }1.11.6`$.

For any $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-orbit $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }`$, let $`s_\pi `$ denote the longest element of the Weyl group $`W_\pi `$ generated by $`\{s_\alpha |\alpha \pi \}`$. The restriction of $`s_\pi `$ to $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ is the reflection $`s_{\alpha _\pi }`$ corresponding to $`\alpha _\pi `$. In the sequel we will abuse notation and write $`s_{\alpha _\pi }`$ instead of $`s_\pi `$.

Let $`X^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}=\mathrm{Hom}(X_{}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]},)`$. Regarding $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ as a set of linear functionals on $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$, it follows easily that $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}X^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$. Regarding $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ as a subset of $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$, we define another subset $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}=\{2\beta /(\beta ,\beta )|\beta R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}\}`$. The following statement is certainly well-known, but lacking a convenient reference, we provide some details.

###### Proposition 9.1.

$`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}=(X^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]},X_{}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]},R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]},\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]},\mathrm{\Pi }^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]})`$ is a reduced and irreducible (based) root system in the vector space $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$. Its affine Weyl group is $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}^\mathrm{\Theta }=\stackrel{ˇ}{Q}^\mathrm{\Theta }W_0^\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

###### Proof.

In light of loc. cit. $`\mathrm{\S }1.32`$, to prove $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ is a based root system it remains only to show that, (i) every element of $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ is an integral linear combination of elements of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$, and (ii) $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}X_{}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$. For statement (i), consider the following property of a $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-orbit $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }`$:

$$()\text{The elements of }\mathrm{\pi }\text{ are pairwise orthogonal}\text{.}$$

If $`()`$ holds for every $`\pi `$, then each $`\alpha \pi `$ is a highest root and thus $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\alpha )=\alpha _\pi `$. Therefore (i) follows from the analogous property of the root system $`R=(X^{},X_{},R,\stackrel{ˇ}{R},\mathrm{\Pi })`$. By examining automorphisms of simple Dynkin diagrams, we see that $`()`$ holds for every $`\pi `$ unless $`R`$ is of type $`A_{2n}`$ (which we assume realized in $`V=^{2n+1}`$), $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{2n+1})=(x_{2n+1},\mathrm{},x_1)`$, and $`\pi =\{e_ne_{n+1},e_{n+1}e_{n+2}\}`$; therefore, $`\alpha _\pi =e_ne_{n+2}`$. In this case one can verify by direct calculation that (i) holds (and in fact $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ is of type $`C_n`$). We note that (i) is equivalent to the statement that $`2(\alpha ,\beta )/(\beta ,\beta )`$ for every $`\alpha ,\beta R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$.

Next, one can show, following loc. cit. $`\mathrm{\S }1.32`$, that $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the group of affine transformations of $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ generated by the reflections through the hyperplanes $`\beta +k=0`$, for $`\beta R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ and $`k`$. It follows that $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the affine Weyl group for the root system $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ in $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$, and therefore the fixed-point group $`\stackrel{ˇ}{Q}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is precisely the corresponding coroot lattice. But then $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}\stackrel{ˇ}{Q}^\mathrm{\Theta }X_{}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$, and (ii) is proved.

Finally, if $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is the highest root of $`R`$, then $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{~}{\alpha })`$ is also highest and thus $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\stackrel{~}{\alpha })=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is the unique highest root of $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$. Therefore $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ is irreducible. ∎

Viewing roots as linear functionals on $`V`$, we have the inclusion

$$R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}R|_{V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}},$$

since $`\alpha |_{V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}}`$ can be identified with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\alpha )`$, for any $`\alpha R`$. Although the opposite inclusion does not always hold, every element of $`R|_{V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}}`$ is of the form $`c\beta `$ for some $`\beta R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ and $`c[0,1]`$. In fact $`c\{\frac{1}{2},1\}`$, as is shown by the following lemma which is implicit in Steinberg’s book ; we provide a proof since we could not locate a reference.

###### Lemma 9.2.

Given a root $`\alpha R`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\alpha )`$ is either a root $`\alpha ^{}`$ or a half-root $`\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^{}`$, for $`\alpha ^{}R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$. In other words

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(R)W_0^\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Pi }^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}\frac{1}{2}W_0^\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Pi }^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}.$$

Conversely, if $`\alpha ^{}`$ is any root in $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$, there is at least one root $`\alpha R`$ such that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\alpha )=\alpha ^{}`$. Moreover $`\alpha ^{}`$ is a positive root in $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ if and only if $`\alpha `$ is a positive root in $`R`$.

###### Proof.

First note that if $`\alpha V_\pi R`$, then $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\alpha )`$ is either $`\alpha _\pi `$ or $`\frac{1}{2}\alpha _\pi `$ (the latter occurring only in the case $`R`$ is of type $`A_{2n}`$ and $`\pi =\{e_ne_{n+1},e_{n+1}e_{n+2}\}`$; cf. the proof of Prop. 9.1). Thus it is enough to prove the following statement.

$`()`$ Given $`\beta R^+`$, there exist $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`wW_0^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ such that $`w\beta V_\pi R`$.

For any $`\beta R^+`$, we have $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\beta )=_\pi c_\pi \alpha _\pi `$, where $`c_\pi 0`$ for every $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-orbit $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }`$. We will prove $`()`$ by induction on the quantity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\beta )=_\pi c_\pi `$.

Fix a positive root $`\beta `$; we may assume that $`\beta `$ is not supported in any $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }`$. Since the pairing $`(,)`$ is positive definite, we have $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\beta ),\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\beta ))>0`$ and thus there is a $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-orbit $`\pi `$ such that $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\beta ),\alpha _\pi )>0`$. By  $`\mathrm{\S }1.15`$, $`s_{\alpha _\pi }`$ permutes the positive roots not supported on $`\pi `$, and thus $`s_{\alpha _\pi }\beta `$ is positive. On the other hand

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(s_{\alpha _\pi }\beta )=s_{\alpha _\pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\beta )=\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\beta )\frac{2(\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\beta ),\alpha _\pi )}{(\alpha _\pi ,\alpha _\pi )}\alpha _\pi ,$$

and thus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(s_{\alpha _\pi }\beta )<\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\beta )`$. By induction $`s_{\alpha _\pi }\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\beta )W_0^\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Pi }^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}\frac{1}{2}W_0^\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Pi }^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$, whence the first statement follows. The converse statement, as well as the one concerning positivity, is obvious. ∎

Given a fixed affine root $`(\alpha ,k)`$ for $`R`$, let $`k^{}=k`$ if $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\alpha )=\alpha ^{}`$ and let $`k^{}=2k`$ if $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\alpha )=\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^{}`$. Given a hyperplane $`H_{\alpha ,k}`$ for $`R`$ in $`V`$ we have

$$H_{\alpha ,k}V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}=H_{\alpha ^{},k^{}},$$

where $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`k^{}`$ are defined as above. Moreover, every hyperplane for $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ in $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ is of this form. This has the following consequence for the set of alcoves in $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ that arise from the root system $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$.

###### Proposition 9.3.

Given an alcove $`A`$ in $`V`$, the set $`AV^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ is either empty or is an alcove $`A^{}`$ in $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$; moreover every alcove $`A^{}`$ in $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ arises as $`A^{}=AV^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ for a uniquely determined alcove $`A`$ in $`V`$.

If $`A_0`$ (resp. $`A_0^{}`$) is the base alcove in $`V`$ (resp. in $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$), we have $`A_0^{}=A_0V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$.

###### Proof.

If $`x,yV^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ are in the same alcove $`A^{}`$, they belong to the same connected component of $`VH_{\alpha ,k}`$; therefore $`x,yA`$ for some alcove $`A`$ in $`V`$. If $`x,yV^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ belong to two different alcoves in $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$, there exists $`(\alpha ^{},k^{})R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}\times `$ such that $`\alpha ^{},x<k^{}`$ and $`\alpha ^{},y>k^{}`$. Let $`(\alpha ,k)`$ be a corresponding affine root in $`R`$ (i.e., $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\alpha )=\alpha ^{}`$ and $`k=k^{}`$). We have $`\alpha ,x<k`$ and $`\alpha ,y>k`$, thus $`x`$ and $`y`$ belong to different alcoves in $`V`$.

An element $`xA_0^{}`$ satisfies the inequalities $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\alpha ),x>0`$ for all positive roots $`\alpha `$ of $`R`$, and the inequality $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }),x<1`$ for the highest root $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ of $`R`$. Since $`xV^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ these inequalities are equivalent with $`\alpha ,x>0`$ for all positive roots $`\alpha `$ of $`R`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha },x<1`$. Therefore $`xA_0`$. ∎

###### Lemma 9.4.

For any hyperplane $`H_{\alpha ,k}`$ for $`R`$ in $`V`$, the equality

$$H_{\alpha ,k}^{w+}V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}=H_{\alpha ^{},k^{}}^{w+}$$

holds for any $`wW_0^\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

###### Proof.

This follows easily from the definitions, noting that $`\alpha w(R^+)`$ if and only if $`\alpha ^{}w(R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]+})`$ under the assumption $`wW_0^\mathrm{\Theta }`$. ∎

It is now easy to prove an inheritance property for acute cones of alcoves. Let $`C(A_0,w)V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ denote the set of alcoves in $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ of the form $`AV^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ such that $`AC(A_0,w)`$.

###### Proposition 9.5.

Let $`wW_0^\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Then

$$C(A_0^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]},w)=C(A_0,w)V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}.$$

###### Proof.

This follows easily from Lemma 9.4 and the description of acute cones of alcoves as intersections of half-spaces as in Lemma 5.8. ∎

As in section 2, define the extended affine Weyl group $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}=X_{}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}W_0^\mathrm{\Theta }`$, which acts on the set $`𝒜^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ of alcoves of $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$. Let $`A_0^{}`$ denote the base alcove and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ the stabilizer of $`A_0^{}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$. Because $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ acts simply transitively on $`𝒜^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$, we have the decomposition $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}=W_{\mathrm{aff}}^\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Omega }^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$.

According to Proposition 9.3, we have $`A_0V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}=A_0^{}`$, thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}=\mathrm{\Omega }^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$. We also have $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}=W_{\mathrm{aff}}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$. This allows us to generalize the Kottwitz-Rapoport result on the inheritance property of the Bruhat order from affine Weyl groups to extended affine Weyl groups.

###### Proposition 9.6.

The Bruhat order $``$ on $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ is inherited from the Bruhat order $``$ on $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$. In other words, if $`x,y\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$, then $`xy`$ if and only if $`xy`$.

###### Proof.

According to Proposition 2.3 of Kottwitz-Rapoport , the statement is already valid if $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ is replaced by $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ is replaced by $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$. Since the Bruhat order on $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (resp. $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}`$) is extended in the obvious way to $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$) as explained in section 2, the proposition follows. ∎

Now let $`\mu X_{}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ be a fixed coweight, which we suppose is dominant (note that it is dominant with respect to $`R`$ if and only if it is dominant with respect to $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$). We denote by $`\mathrm{Adm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )`$, $`\mathrm{Perm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )`$, and $`\mathrm{Perm}^{st,\mathrm{\Theta }}(\mu )`$ the subsets of $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ analogous to the subsets $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )`$, $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$, and $`\mathrm{Perm}^{st}(\mu )`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$. The main goal of this section is the following proposition. If $`R`$ is taken to be the root system for $`\mathrm{GL}_{2n}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ its nontrivial automorphism (cf. section 10), then $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ is the root system for $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$. Therefore this result implies Proposition 5.

###### Proposition 9.7.

Suppose that the root system $`R`$ is of type $`A_m`$. Then the equality

$$\mathrm{Adm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}$$

holds for every dominant coweight $`\mu `$ of $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$.

###### Proof.

Under the assumption that $`R`$ is of type $`A_m`$, we have

$$\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}^{st}(\mu ).$$

If $`x\mathrm{Adm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )`$, we have $`x\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )`$ according to Proposition 9.6, thus $`x\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$.

Suppose $`x\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$. Let $`A=x(A_0)`$ and $`A^{}=x(A_0^{})`$; the alcoves $`A`$ in $`V`$ and $`A^{}`$ in $`V^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ satisfy $`A^{}=AV^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$. By Corollary 5.6, there is an element $`wW_0^\mathrm{\Theta }`$ such that $`A^{}C(A_0^{},w)`$. By Proposition 9.5, $`AC(A_0,w)`$. Since $`x\mathrm{Perm}^{st}(\mu )`$, we have $`x(v)B(t_{w\mu }(v),w)`$ for every vertex $`vA_0`$. We can now apply Proposition 6.1. to $`x`$ and $`t_{w\mu }`$ and we obtain $`xt_{w\mu }`$ relative to the Bruhat order on $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$. By Proposition 9.6. the same inequality holds for the Bruhat order on $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$. ∎

Note that the set $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ has some geometric meaning, when $`m=2n1`$, which directly relates to the local models of  attached to $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$ and a dominant coweight $`\mu `$. More precisely, let us write $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ for the automorphism of $`\mathrm{GL}_{2n}`$ given by $`X\stackrel{~}{J}^1(X^t)^1\stackrel{~}{J}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ is the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& J\\ J& 0\end{array}\right),$$

and where $`J`$ is the anti-diagonal matrix with entries equal to $`1`$. This determines a symplectic group $`\mathrm{Sp}_{2n}=\mathrm{SL}_{2n}^\mathrm{\Theta }`$, and a corresponding group $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$. The automorphism $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ preserves the standard splitting for $`\mathrm{GL}_{2n}`$, hence induces an automorphism, also denoted $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, of the root system $`R`$ for $`\mathrm{GL}_{2n}`$. The root system $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ of Steinberg is the root system of the group $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$ determined by its standard splitting (the “upper triangular” Borel subgroup and the diagonal torus).

Fix a dominant cocharacter $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _n,\nu _n,\mathrm{},\nu _1)`$ of $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$. We can interpret the set $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{W}(\mathrm{GSp}_{2n})`$ in terms of lattice chains. Let $`k`$ denote an algebraic closure of $`𝔽_p`$, and let $`𝒱_i=t^1k[[t]]^ik[[t]]^{2ni}`$, for $`0i2n`$; extend by periodicity to get the “standard” infinite lattice chain $`𝒱_{}`$. Consider the following set of periodic lattice chains

$$\mathrm{}_1_0\mathrm{}_{2n}=t^1_0\mathrm{}$$

consisting of $`k[[t]]`$-lattices in $`k((t))^{2n}`$ with the following properties:

* $`\mathrm{inv}(_i,𝒱_i)\mu `$, for every $`i`$,
* $`_i^{}=t^{c(\mu )}_i`$, for every $`i`$.

Here $`\mathrm{inv}(L,L^{})`$ denotes the standard notion of invariant between two $`k[[t]]`$-lattices, and $``$ denotes the usual partial order on dominant coweights for $`\mathrm{GL}_{2n}`$. Moreover, $``$ is defined using the symplectic form $`(x,y)x^t\stackrel{~}{J}y`$ on $`k((t))^{2n}`$, and $`c(\mu )`$ is the common value for $`\mu _i+\nu _i`$, $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}in`$.

This is precisely the set of $`k`$-points $`M_\mu (k)`$ for the local model $`M_\mu `$ considered in . It carries an action of the standard Iwahori subgroup $`I_k`$ of $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}(k[[t]])`$, namely the stabilizer of the standard lattice chain $`𝒱_{}`$.

The $`I_k`$-orbits are clearly parametrized by the set $`\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{W}(\mathrm{GSp}(2n))`$. The content of Proposition 9.7 is therefore that the strata in the special fiber of the model $`M_\mu `$ are indexed by the set of $`\mu `$-admissible elements of $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\mathrm{GSp}_{2n})`$. As indicated by Görtz ,, this makes it very likely that the models $`M_\mu `$ from  are flat.

## 10. Admissible and permissible sets for $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$

In light of Theorem 3, it makes sense to ask when the equality $`\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$ holds for a dominant coweight $`\mu `$ of the root system for $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$. This root system arises as the “fixed-points” under an automorphism $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of that of $`\mathrm{GL}_{2n}`$, as in section 9. By Proposition 9.7, we obviously have the following criterion:

$$\mathrm{Adm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )\mathrm{Perm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}.$$

Using this will deduce that the equality $`\mathrm{Adm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )`$ holds whenever $`\mu `$ is a sum of minuscule coweights of $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$.

Define $`X^{}=X_{}=^{2n}`$ and equip $`V=^{2n}`$ with the standard inner product $`(,)`$. Let $`R=\stackrel{ˇ}{R}=\{e_ie_j|1i<j2n\}`$, where the $`e_i`$ are the standard basis vectors. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\{e_ie_{i+1}|1i<2n\}`$. Then $`R=(X^{},X_{},R,\stackrel{ˇ}{R},\mathrm{\Pi })`$ is the root system for $`\mathrm{GL}_{2n}`$. The finite Weyl group $`W_0=S_{2n}`$ acts on $`X_{}=^{2n}`$ by permuting the coordinates, and the extended affine Weyl group is $`\stackrel{~}{W}=^{2n}S_{2n}`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denote the automorphism of $`X_{}=^{2n}`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{2n})=(x_{2n},\mathrm{},x_1).$$

We can then form the root system $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ as in section 9. It is easy to check that $`R^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ is the root system of $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$, so all the results of section 9 are in force in studying the latter.

###### Theorem 10.1.

Let $`\mu `$ be a sum of minuscule coweights for $`\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}`$. Then

$$\mathrm{Adm}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}(\mu ).$$

Proof. According to Proposition 9.7, we only need to show

$$\mathrm{Perm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}.$$

The arguments we use are very close to those in Lemma 12.4 of .

We will need some notation. For a vector $`v^{2n}`$, let $`v(m)`$ denote its $`m`$th entry, so that $`v=(v(1),\mathrm{},v(2n))`$. Let $`r=\mathrm{\Theta }`$, that is, $`r`$ is the automorphism of $`^{2n}`$ which reverses the order of the coordinate entries. If $`v,v^{}^{2n}`$, we write $`vv^{}`$ if $`v(m)v^{}(m)`$ for each $`m`$. For $`c`$, let $`𝐜=(c^{2n})=(c,\mathrm{},c)^{2n}`$.

Let $`\omega _i=(1^i,0^{2ni})`$ for $`1i2n`$. The vectors $`\omega _i`$, $`1i2n1`$, together with 0 serve as “vertices” of the base alcove $`A_0`$ for $`\mathrm{GL}_{2n}`$.

The only minuscule coweights are the vectors $`\nu `$ in $`^{2n}`$ of the form $`\nu =(1^n,0^n)+𝐜`$ or $`\nu =𝐜`$, for $`c`$. Therefore we may write $`\mu =(a^n,b^n)`$, where $`a,b`$ and $`ab`$. For simplicity we discuss only the case where $`b=0`$, the more general case being similar.

We choose a coordinate system $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_n,\mathrm{},y_1)`$ on $`V=^{2n}`$. Then $`X_{}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_n,\mathrm{},y_1)^{2n}|x_1+y_1=\mathrm{}=x_n+y_n\}`$. The finite Weyl group $`W_0^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$ is $`W_n=(/2)^nS_n`$. The element $`e_i(/2)^n`$ acts by switching $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$, and an element $`\sigma S_n`$ acts by simultaneously permuting the $`x_i`$’s and the $`y_i`$’s. Let $`\mathrm{Conv}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )`$ denote the convex hull in $`^{2n}`$ of the set $`W_n(\mu )`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Conv}(\mu )\hfill & =\hfill & \{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_n,\mathrm{},y_1)^{2n}|0x_i,y_ia,i,\text{and}_ix_i+y_i=na\}\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \{v^{2n}|\mathrm{𝟎}v𝐚\text{and}_mv(m)=na\},\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{Conv}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )\hfill & =\hfill & \{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_n,\mathrm{},y_1)^{2n}|0x_i,y_ia\text{and}x_i+y_i=a,i\}\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \{v^{2n}|\mathrm{𝟎}v𝐚\text{and}v+r(v)=𝐚\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The vectors $`\eta _i:=(\omega _i+\omega _{2ni})/2`$, $`1in`$, together with 0, serve as “vertices” for the base alcove $`A_0^{}`$. We now fix $`x\stackrel{~}{W}^{[\mathrm{\Theta }]}`$, and let $`v_i:=x(\omega _i)`$, for $`1i2n1`$. One can easily verify that $`x(\eta _i)\eta _i=(v_i\omega _i+v_{2ni}\omega _{2ni})/2`$, for $`1in`$.

Now suppose $`x=t_\lambda w\mathrm{Perm}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )`$, i.e., $`\lambda =x(\mathrm{𝟎})\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`x(\eta _i)\eta _i`$ belong to $`\mathrm{Conv}^\mathrm{\Theta }(\mu )`$ for $`1in`$. Therefore

(10.1)
$$\mathrm{𝟎}\lambda 𝐚$$

(10.2)
$$\lambda +r(\lambda )=𝐚$$

(10.3)
$$\mathrm{𝟎}v_i\omega _i+v_{2ni}\omega _{2ni}\mathrm{𝟐}𝐚$$

(10.4)
$$v_i\omega _i+v_{2ni}\omega _{2ni}+r(v_i\omega _i+v_{2ni}\omega _{2ni})=\mathrm{𝟐}𝐚,$$

the last two equations holding for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. We also have

(10.5)
$$v_i+r(v_{2ni})=𝐚+\mathrm{𝟏}$$

(10.6)
$$\omega _i+r(\omega _{2ni})=\mathrm{𝟏},$$

for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},2n`$ (for (10.5), use (10.2) and (10.6) together with the observation that $`wW_0^\mathrm{\Theta }w\text{commutes with}r`$).

We need to show that $`x\mathrm{Perm}(\mu )`$, i.e., $`\lambda `$ and $`x(\omega _i)\omega _i`$ belong to $`\mathrm{Conv}(\mu )`$ for $`1i2n1`$. Thus we need to show

(10.7)
$$\mathrm{𝟎}\lambda 𝐚$$

(10.8)
$$\underset{m}{}\lambda (m)=na$$

(10.9)
$$\mathrm{𝟎}v_i\omega _i𝐚$$

(10.10)
$$\underset{m}{}v_i(m)\omega _i(m)=na,$$

the last two equations holding for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},2n1`$. It is easy to check that (10.7), (10.8), and (10.10) are satisfied. It is enough to verify (10.9) for $`i`$ such that $`1in`$: applying $`r`$ to (10.9) and using the identities in (10.5-10.6) yields (10.9) with $`2ni`$ replacing $`i`$. Henceforth we fix $`i`$ in this range. From (10.5-10.6) we can easily verify that $`𝐚r(v_i\omega _i)=v_{2ni}\omega _{2ni}`$. Therefore (10.2) and (10.3), respectively, yield

(10.11)
$$𝐚v_i+r(v_i)𝐚+\mathrm{𝟏}$$

(10.12)
$$𝐚v_i\omega _ir(v_i\omega _i)𝐚.$$

Let $`u=v_i(m)\omega _i(m)`$ and $`v=r(v_i)(m)r(\omega _i)(m)`$ for any $`m`$ in the range $`1m2n`$. Then (10.11) and (10.12) yield

(10.13)
$$au+v+\delta a+1$$

(10.14)
$$auva,$$

where $`\delta =\omega _i(m)+r(\omega _i)(m)`$. Since $`1in`$, the term $`\delta `$ is either 0 or 1. Adding (10.13) and (10.14) gives

(10.15)
$$02u+\delta 2a+1$$

and thus $`0u=v_i(m)\omega _i(m)a`$. Since this inequality holds for every $`m`$, we have $`\mathrm{𝟎}v_i\omega _i𝐚`$, as desired.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 11. Remarks on $`\mathrm{PSO}(2n+1)`$

The results we obtained in the symplectic case depend in a crucial way on the fact that the restriction of the Bruhat order of $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\mathrm{GL}(2n))`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\mathrm{GSp}(2n))`$ is the Bruhat order of the latter group. This inheritance property is no longer true for the odd orthogonal group. We are grateful to Kottwitz for his help in preparing this section.

The group $`\mathrm{PSO}(2n+1)`$ whose root system is $`B_n`$ can be defined as the fixed point subgroup of an involution of $`\mathrm{PGL}(2n+1)`$. This induces an involution $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on the root system $`A_{2n}`$. However the fixed point root system of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in the sense of Steinberg, see  or section 9, is not $`B_n`$ but rather $`C_n`$. We have the natural inclusions

$$W_{\mathrm{aff}}(B_n)W_{\mathrm{aff}}(C_n)W_{\mathrm{aff}}(A_{2n}).$$

According to  and , the Bruhat order of $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(C_n)`$ is inherited from $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(A_{2n})`$. We will show by the following examples that the Bruhat order of $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(B_n)`$ is not.

Let denote $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_n`$ the simple reflections of $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(B_n)`$ and $`s_0^{},\mathrm{},s_n^{}`$ those of $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(C_n)`$. The inclusion $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(B_n)W_{\mathrm{aff}}(C_n)`$ is given by $`s_is_i^{}`$ for $`i0`$ and $`s_0s_0^{}s_1^{}s_0^{}`$. The elements $`s_0`$ and $`s_1`$ are not related by the Bruhat order in $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(B_n)`$ but their images $`s_0^{}s_1^{}s_0^{}`$ and $`s_1^{}`$ are related.

The extended affine Weyl group $`\stackrel{~}{W}(B_n)=W_{\mathrm{aff}}(B_n)\{1,\tau \}`$ is canonically identified with $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(C_n)`$ by $`\tau s_0^{}`$. One can show by similar examples that the extended Bruhat order on the coset $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(B_n)\tau `$ is also not inherited from $`W_{\mathrm{aff}}(C_n)`$.

Let $`\mu ^n`$ be a dominant coweight of type $`B_n`$. Concerning the analog of Theorem 4 for $`\mathrm{PSO}(2n+1)`$, we do not know whether the equality

$$\mathrm{Adm}^{B_n}(\mu )=\mathrm{Perm}^{B_n}(\mu )$$

holds for $`\mu `$ a sum of minuscule coweights. However, it is not hard to see that the analog of Proposition 5 is false.

Example. Let $`n=2`$ and $`\mu =(1,0)`$. Then $`\mathrm{Adm}^{B_n}(\mu )`$ consists of 13 elements. But

$$\mathrm{Perm}^{A_{2n}}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{W}(B_n)=\mathrm{Perm}^{A_{2n}}(\mu )W_{\mathrm{aff}}(C_n)=\mathrm{Adm}^{C_n}(\mu )$$

consists of 19 elements. The final equality above follows from Proposition 9.7.

## 12. Acknowledgments

We thank R. Kottwitz for encouragement, helpful comments, and a careful reading of the paper. We are also grateful to M. Rapoport for communicating his guess that Theorem 4 might hold, and for his continued interest in this work. Finally, we thank W. Casselman for his comments on the paper.

This article was written during the Semestre Hecke workshop on automorphic forms at the Institut Henri Poincaré in Paris, held in the spring semester of 2000. The first author thanks the IHP for its hospitality. His research is partially supported by an NSF-NATO postdoctoral fellowship, an NSERC research grant, a Connaught New Staff grant, and NSF grant DMS 97-29992. The second author would like to thank the mathematics department of the University of Toronto for a fruitful visit in February 2000 during which this research in collaboration could begin.

Institute for Advanced Study
School of Math
Einstein Drive
Princeton, NJ 08540
email: haines@ias.edu

CNRS, Université de Paris Nord
Département de mathématiques,
93430 Villetaneuse, FRANCE
email: ngo@math.univ-paris13.fr


format: text

text:
# Mott transition and heavy fermion state in the pyrochlore Hubbard model

## I Introduction

Recently, the role played by geometrical frustration in strongly correlated electron systems has attracted renewed interests. The pyrochlore lattice, namely, corner-sharing tetrahedra (FIG.1), is one of the typical system in which the geometrical frustration is crucial to determine its properties. Here we investigate effects of geometrical frustration on itinerant electron systems based upon the pyrochlore Hubbard model. One of the purpose of this paper is to investigate the Mott transition in the absence of magnetic long-range order. According to the study of the Heisenberg model on the pyrochlore lattice, it has been pointed out that the ground state of the insulating state is quantum disordered spin liquid. The critical character of the Mott transition without magnetic order is quite different from that accompanying antiferromagnetic one. Moreover the character of the quantum spin liquid has not yet been unveiled sufficiently. It is expected that the study from electron systems will shed new light on this subject.

Another purpose of this paper is to reveal how the geometrical frustration affects strong electron correlation effects in the metallic state. Some recent experiments on the pyrochlore itinerant electron systems have reported that remarkable heavy-fermion-like behaviors manifest in these systems implying the crucial role of the geometrical frustration. Here we show that the heavy-fermion state is realized in the pyrochlore Hubbard model in the vicinity of the half-filling. We also show that the dynamical spin susceptibility obtained from our model away from the half-filling is consistent with recent neutron scattering experiments for itinerant pyrochlore systems.

The organization of this paper is as follows. The model and the basic method are given in Sec. II. In Sec. III, we discuss about the Mott transition and the realization of the quantum disordered spin liquid in the half-filling case. In Sec. IV, we consider the hole-doped case focusing on the heavy fermion state and its magnetic properties.

## II Model Hamiltonian and method

The Hamiltonian of the model is given by,

$`H=2{\displaystyle \underset{k,\sigma }{}}\psi _{k\sigma }^{}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \mathrm{cos}(k_x+k_y)& \mathrm{cos}(k_yk_z)& \mathrm{cos}(k_xk_z)\\ \mathrm{cos}(k_x+k_y)& 0& \mathrm{cos}(k_x+k_z)& \mathrm{cos}(k_y+k_z)\\ \mathrm{cos}(k_yk_z)& \mathrm{cos}(k_x+k_z)& 0& \mathrm{cos}(k_xk_y)\\ \mathrm{cos}(k_xk_z)& \mathrm{cos}(k_y+k_z)& \mathrm{cos}(k_xk_y)& 0\end{array}\right)\psi _{k\sigma }+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{4}{}}}c_{i\nu }^{}c_{i\nu }c_{i\nu }^{}c_{i\nu },`$ (5)
Here $`c_{i\nu \sigma }(c_{i\nu \sigma }^{})`$ is an annihilation (creation) operator of electrons with spin $`\sigma `$ on the $`\nu `$-th site of the $`i`$-th tetrahedron. $`\psi _{k\sigma }^{}=(c_{k,1\sigma }^{},c_{k,2\sigma }^{},c_{k,3\sigma }^{},c_{k,4\sigma }^{})`$. The kinetic term is diagonalized as, $`H_{\mathrm{kin}}=_{k\sigma }_{\nu =1}^4E_{k\nu }a_{k\nu \sigma }^{}a_{k\nu \sigma }`$, where $`E_{k1}=E_{k2}=1`$, $`E_{k3}=1+\sqrt{1+t_k}`$, $`E_{k4}=1\sqrt{1+t_k}`$ with $`t_k=\mathrm{cos}(2k_x)\mathrm{cos}(2k_y)+\mathrm{cos}(2k_y)\mathrm{cos}(2k_z)+\mathrm{cos}(2k_z)\mathrm{cos}(2k_x)`$. The basis in the diagonalized space is obtained from the canonical transformation, $`\psi _{k\sigma }^{}=_{\nu =1}^4\stackrel{}{s}_\nu (k)a_{k\nu \sigma }^{}`$. Using the abbreviation, $`s(x\pm y)\mathrm{sin}(k_x\pm k_y)`$ etc., we write down $`\stackrel{}{s}_{1,2}`$(k),

$`\stackrel{}{s}_1(k)=(s(x+z),s(yz),s(x+y),0)/n_+,`$ (6)
where $`n_\pm =\sqrt{s(x\pm z)^2+s(yz)^2+s(x+y)^2}`$, and,

$`\stackrel{}{s}_2(k)`$ $`=`$ $`(s(x+z)s(xz)s(yz)`$ (12)
$`s(y+z)(s(yz)^2+s(x+y)^2),`$
$`s(x+z)s(y+z)s(yz)`$
$`s(xz)(s(x+z)^2+s(x+y)^2),`$
$`s(x+y)(s(x+z)s(y+z)+s(xz)s(yz)),`$
$`s(x+y)n_+^2)/n_2,`$
for $`k_x+k_y0`$, where $`n_2=n_+[n_+^2n_{}^2(s(x+z)s(y+z)+s(xz)s(yz))^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, and,

$`\stackrel{}{s}_2(k)`$ $`=`$ $`(s(2x),s(2x),2s(xz),2s(x+z))`$ (13)
$`\times `$ $`1/\sqrt{2s(2x)^2+4s(xz)^2+4s(x+z)^2}`$ (14)
for $`k_x+k_y=0`$. The expressions of $`\stackrel{}{s}_3(k)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{s}_4(k)`$ are very complicated. However in the following, we need only $`\stackrel{}{s}_3(k)`$ for small $`k`$, which is given by,

$`\stackrel{}{s}_3(k)`$ $`=`$ $`(k_xk_y+k_z,k_x+k_y+k_z,`$ (16)
$`k_x+k_yk_z,k_xk_yk_z)/2|k|.`$
At the half-filling, in the absence of electron-electron interaction, $`E_{k3}`$ and $`E_{k4}`$ are filled completely, and the two degenerate flat bands are empty. $`E_{k3}`$ touches with the two flat bands at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point of the Brillouin zone. This state is a gapless band insulator. We now consider the effect of electron interaction on this state. Since, in the case of the half-filling or in the vicinity of the half-filling, the band $`E_{k4}`$ is sufficiently far from the Fermi level, it does not affect low energy properties and is negligible in the following argument. Then, the single-particle Green’s functions of $`a_{k\nu \sigma }`$-electron are determined by the following equation.

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{3}{}}}[(\epsilon +\mu E_{k\lambda })\delta _{\mu \lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }_k^{(\mu \lambda )}(\epsilon )]G_k^{(\lambda \nu )}(\epsilon )=\delta _{\mu \nu }.`$ (17)
We put the chemical potential $`\mu =1`$. In general, the off-diagonal self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(\mu \nu )}`$($`\mu \nu `$) is not negligible. However, in the vicinity of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point, at which the most important scattering processes occur, the off-diagonal terms vanish because of the momentum dependence of $`\stackrel{}{s}_\nu (k)`$. Thus in the following argument, we neglect the off-diagonal self-energy.

## III The half-filling case

### A Self-energy

To investigate the electronic state at the half-filling, we calculate the self-energy. Recently, Isoda and Mori obtained the diagonal self-energy of this model up to the second order in $`U`$, which is given by, $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\epsilon )\sqrt{\epsilon }`$ for $`\epsilon <0`$. However, as will be shown here, the higher order corrections to the self-energy give rise more singular contributions and a drastic change of the electronic state, namely, the Mott transition.

At the half-filling, the $`E_{k3}`$-band is completely filled, while the flat bands are empty. Hence, at zero temperature, particle-particle channel between $`a_3`$-electron and $`a_1`$ or $`a_2`$-electron vanishes. On the other hand, particle-hole channel gives non-vanishing contributions only for the pair of $`a_3`$-electron and $`a_1`$ or $`a_2`$-electron. Then the most singular diagrams up to the forth order in $`U`$ are those shown in FIG.2. Since the Fermi level is at the position between the two flat bands and $`E_{k3}`$-band, we shift the chemical potential infinitesimally, $`\mu 1\delta `$. After integrating over energy and momentum, we take the limit $`\delta 0`$. This procedure is required in this singular perturbative calculation to fix the density of electrons $`n=1`$. Neglecting the momentum dependence of $`\stackrel{}{s}_\nu (k)`$ does not affect the leading singular behaviors. Then, we can carry out the calculation analytically. For $`\epsilon <0`$, we obtain,

$`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\epsilon )\text{const.}cU^2\sqrt{|\epsilon |}c{\displaystyle \frac{U^3}{2\sqrt{|\epsilon |}}}+c{\displaystyle \frac{U^4}{4|\epsilon |^{\frac{3}{2}}}},`$ (18)
where $`c`$ is a positive constant of order unity. The real part of the self-energy for hole-like excitations is divergent. The same divergent behavior appears in the imaginary part, however, for particle-like excitations. Higher order corrections also show stronger divergence. This divergent behavior means that the unperturbed state is unstable in the presence of electron correlation and that the single particle energy gap is generated. To see this we take only up to the third order term of the self-energy. Hole-like excitations are possible only for $`E_{k3}`$-band in the half-filling case at zero temperature. Thus the single particle energy of this band measured from the Fermi level is changed to $`\epsilon _kU^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for $`k=0`$. $`E_{k3}`$ band is pushed down to the lower energy, and the energy gap opens between the flat bands and $`E_{k3}`$-band. This gap generation due to electron correlation signifies that the systems is in the Mott insulating state. Although the exact magnitude of the gap should be determined by taking into account higher order corrections in $`U`$, the gapful state is the self-consistent solution for non-vanishing $`U`$. Thus an infinitesimally small $`U`$ drives the system into the Mott insulator at the half-filling. In the ground state, the two bands below the gap, $`E_{k3}`$, $`E_{k4}`$, are filled with up and down spins. Hence the system is in the spin singlet state. It should be stressed that, after the mass gap generation, the singularities of the perturbative expansion are eliminated, and as a result, the gapful state is stabilized even if one take into account higher order corrections, which just renormalize the magnitude of the gap.

### B Quantum spin liquid state

To see the magnetic property of the Mott insulating state obtained in the previous section, we compute spin-spin correlation functions, $`\chi _{\mu \nu }(q,\omega )=S_\mu ^+(q,\omega )S_\nu ^{}(q,\omega )`$, where $`S_\nu ^+=_kc_{k+q\nu }^{}c_{k\nu }`$. We carry out perturbative expansion in terms of $`U`$ using the Green’s function of the gapful state, $`G^{(33)}(\epsilon )[\epsilon E_{k3}+\mathrm{\Delta }]^1`$, as the unperturbed propagator. Calculating the diagrams up to the third order in $`U`$, we have, $`\mathrm{Im}\chi (q,\omega )\sqrt{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega \mathrm{\Delta })`$ with $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ a step function. The spin gap exists between the spin singlet ground state and the triplet state. Thus the system is in the quantum disordered spin liquid state without magnetic long-range order. The result may not be changed qualitatively by higher order corrections. These results are consistent with the previous studies for the pyrochlore Heisenberg model. The singularity of the self-energy (18) is deeply related with the accidental degeneracy at the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ point in the momentum space, which may cause an instability of lattice structure. This property may be relevant to the metal-insulator transition of $`\mathrm{Tl}_2\mathrm{Ru}_2\mathrm{O}_7`$, which accompanies a structure change.

## IV The hole-doled case

### A Heavy fermion state

In the hole-doped case, the singularities appeared in the half-filling case are eliminated by the presence of the cutoff which is the chemical potential $`\mu `$ measured from the half-filling level. Then the Fermi liquid metallic state is realized. However, in the vicinity of the half-filling, the effective mass is much enhanced by electron correlation. Up to the third order in $`U`$, the leading term of the mass enhancement factor $`z_k`$ is,

$`z_k^11{\displaystyle \frac{Re\mathrm{\Sigma }(\epsilon )}{\epsilon }}|_{\epsilon 0}{\displaystyle \frac{U^2}{\sqrt{|\mu |}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{U^3}{|\mu |^{\frac{3}{2}}}}.`$ (19)
As the electron filling approaches the half-filling value $`|\mu |0`$, the mass enhancement factor shows the divergent behavior indicating the precursor of the Mott transition. Such a large mass enhancement is actually observed in the specific heat measurement for some pyrochlore itinerant systems like $`\mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{Sc})\mathrm{Mn}_2`$.

### B Magnetic properties and the neutron cross section

The largely enhanced effective mass obtained in the previous section is a remarkable property of geometrically frustrated electron systems in which several modes of spin fluctuations compete with each other, and magnetic long-range order is suppressed. The spin fluctuation is almost localized in real space as in the case of $`f`$-electron based heavy fermion systems. This property is seen more clearly in the momentum dependence of the spin-spin correlation function. We calculate it by the perturbative calculation. Since the magnetic frustration is so strong, any approximations which neglect the coupling between several modes of spin fluctuation like random phase approximation(RPA) or fluctuation exchange approximation(FLEX) are invalid for this system. Actually the most singular contributions up to the order of $`O(U^3)`$ comes from the diagrams shown in FIG.3. To simplify the calculation we exploit the following approximation. Near the half-filling, the momenta running in $`G^{(33)}`$-line take small values in the vicinity of the Fermi surface. Moreover for small $`k`$, $`\stackrel{}{s}_3(k)`$ does not depend on $`|k|`$. Thus we can separate the integral over $`|k|`$ and the angle for the momenta running in $`G^{(33)}`$-line. Then, the spin-spin correlation function is decomposed into the momentum part and the energy part, $`\chi _{\mu \nu }(q,\omega )=f(\omega )g_{\mu \nu }(q)`$. Such a factorization of the spin-spin correlation function is indeed observed in an inelastic neutron scattering experiment for $`\mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{Sc})\mathrm{Mn}_2`$. The energy part is given by,

$`f(\omega )a_1U^2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{|\omega +2\mu |}{E_c}}a_2U^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +2\mu }}+\mathrm{}`$ (20)
for small $`\omega `$. Here $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$ are constants. Thus in the vicinity of the half-filling, spin fluctuation is much enhanced. The presence of the giant spin fluctuation is also consistent with several experiments for itinerant pyrochlore systems. It is noted that such a large enhancement of $`\chi _{\mu \nu }(q,\omega )`$ is not obtained by RPA or FLEX approximations for the appropriate value of $`U`$. We calculate the structure factor $`g_{\mu \nu }(q)`$ numerically. In FIG.4(a), we plot the intensity of $`g_{12}(q)`$ in the - plane of the reciprocal lattice. $`g_{12}(q)`$ is almost constant in the -direction, indicating that the spin fluctuation is strongly localized in this direction. It also has a small peak on the $`q_x=q_y=0`$ line showing the presence of small fluctuation toward a collinear magnetic order, as was pointed out in the study of the Heisenberg model. However this mode competes with the other modes which exist in $`g_{13}(q)`$, $`g_{23}(q)`$, $`g_{14}(q)`$, $`g_{24}(q)`$, and thus such a magnetic order is suppressed.

In FIG.4(b), we show the calculated result of the neutron cross section, $`_{\mu ,\nu }e^{iG(R_\mu R_\nu )}\chi _{\mu \nu }(q,\omega )`$, in the - plane. Here $`G`$ is a reciprocal lattice vector. The positions of the maximum are almost consistent with the neutron scattering experiment for $`\mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{Sc})\mathrm{Mn}_2`$. Note that this structure is very similar to that found for the Heisenberg model. Thus the itineracy of electron affect little the structure in the momentum space, though the dynamical properties between the Mott insulating state and the metallic state are quite different; namely, the former is gapful and the latter is gapless. The momentum dependence of $`\chi _{\mu \nu }(q,\omega )`$ implies that the spin fluctuation is localized in a tetrahedron forming collective 4-spin singlet. Such a localized character of spin fluctuation is very similar to magnetic properties of $`f`$-electron based heavy fermion systems. However, in the latter systems, magnetic long-range order is suppressed by the presence of Kondo temperature higher than magnetic ordering temperature. In our system, the geometrical frustration is crucial.

### C Compressibility

Here we discuss the charge response of the heavy-fermion state near the half-filling. In general, the charge susceptibility $`\chi _c`$ in the vicinity of the Mott metal-insulator transition point shows quite different behaviors depending on the density of states near the Fermi level. In our systems, the bare density of states in the hole-doped case is non-singular, though four-point vertices are much enhanced by electron correlation. The perturbative calculation of the charge susceptibility gives singular terms in the limit of $`\mu 0`$, namely, $`\chi _cC_1U^2\mathrm{log}|\mu |+C_2U^3/|\mu |+\mathrm{}`$. Thus it is highly non-trivial how the charge susceptibility behaves, as the electron filling approaches the half-filling value. To see this we resum the most singular terms of the perturbative expansion in $`U`$. As was done before, we neglect the momentum dependence of $`\stackrel{}{s}_\nu `$. We first consider the terms which contain only one irreducible four-point vertex. The most singular terms of this type are diagrammatically expressed as FIG.5(a) These terms are calculated as,

$`\chi _c^{\mathrm{irr}}=C_2U^2\mathrm{log}|\mu |+C_3U^3/|\mu |+C_4U^4/|\mu |^2+\mathrm{}.`$ (21)
Here $`C_2`$,$`C_3`$, and $`C_4`$ are positive constants. On the other hand, the term which contains $`n`$ irreducible four-point vertices shown in FIG.5(b) gives the contribution $`[c\chi _c^{\mathrm{irr}}]^n/|\mu |^{\frac{n1}{2}}`$ with $`c`$ a positive constant. Summing up all most singular terms, we have,

$`\chi _c=a\sqrt{|\mu |}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _c^{\mathrm{irr}}}{1+\frac{c}{\sqrt{|\mu |}}\chi _c^{\mathrm{irr}}}}.`$ (22)
Thus as the electron filling approaches the half-filling value $`\mu 0`$, the charge susceptibility decreases toward zero, $`\chi _c0`$, indicating that the system becomes incompressible.

## V Summary

In this paper, we investigate the Mott transition, strong correlation effects and spin dynamics of the pyrochlore Hubbard model. We show that, at the half-filling, electron-electron interaction leads the system into the Mott insulator in which the quantum disordered spin liquid state realizes. In the hole-doped case, we show that the effective mass is anomalously enhanced in the vicinity of the half-filling signifying the heavy fermion state. We have also calculated the neutron cross sectin of this state which is consistent with the recent experiment for some itinerant pyrochlore systems like $`\mathrm{Y}(\mathrm{Sc})\mathrm{Mn}_2`$.

Although we carried out the perturbative calculation up to the fourth order in $`U`$, the singular divergent behavior of the self-energy shown in Sec. III implies that we need to resum all order singular diagrams. Since the most singular diagrams have the specific structure as discussed in Sec. III, we can carry out this program in principle. We would like to address this issue in the near future.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank K. Yamada, K. Ueda, N. Kawakami, H. Tsunetsugu, H. Ikeda for invaluable discussions. This work was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, Japan.


text:
# Covariant Treatment of Neutrino Spin (Flavour) Conversion in Matter under the Influence of Electromagnetic Fields

## Acknowledgements

We should like to thank Anatoly Borisov, Pavel Eminov and Pavel Nikolaev for discussions on the relativistic quantum statistics.

## References