format: text

text:
# Correlation mechanism of the 𝑓-electron delocalization.

## I Introduction

Published as: Phys. Rev. B 62, 16370 (2000-II).
The correct treatment of the local charge density built into the density functional method of ab initio band structure calculations, particularly in the local (spin) density approximation (LDA), provides a remarkably good description of those materials where the energy structure of the ions, established by the intra-atomic Coulomb interactions, is strongly modified by the band formation. If this condition is not fulfilled, like in many materials containing $`d`$\- or $`f`$-electrons, the band structure method is insufficient. The parameter which determines if the material belongs to this class of strongly correlated systems (SCES) is the ratio $`W/U`$, where $`W`$ is the bandwidth and $`U`$ is the parameter describing the Coulomb repulsion between $`d`$\- or $`f`$-electrons. There are a number of different suggestions of how to treat the failure of the LDA method. Also, at least three different definitions of the parameter $`U`$ in use. The first one was introduced by Hubbard  as the Coulomb integral calculated between the wave functions of the corresponding $`d`$-, or $`f`$-shells. Hubbard also discussed the importance of screening effects on $`U`$. This is mainly the Slater Fo integral ($`U_1`$=Fo is commonly used). The second definition, which comes from the formulation of the $`s`$-band Hubbard model, is $`U_2`$=\[En+1-En\]-\[En-En-1\], where En is the energy of a $`d`$($`f`$)-atom with n electrons in the shell. An uncertainty exists also within this definition. The recipe used in the so-called LDA+U method  consists of calculation of the energies En-1 and En+1 of an atom either within an impurity-type or super cell approach. The results are then depending on where, and from where, the electron is removed, the degree of relaxation allowed for the charge on the neighboring atoms and the number of atoms allowed to be involved in the relaxation. In the next step of the LDA+U method the found value $`U_2`$ is used for correcting the potential experienced by $`d`$($`f`$)-electrons only, in spite of the fact that relaxation of charge on the neighboring sites has been used when calculating $`U_2`$. Another approach is to use $`U_2\delta ^2E_{LDA}/\delta n_d^2`$ as discussed by Gunnarsson et al.  .

It is clear from a physical point of view that the intensity of the correlations characterized by the value of $`U`$ should depend on the type of ground state and the approximation used. Progress in this direction has been achieved by Beiden et al.  . The definition used in their work, $`U_3=f_{dd}^0+f_{bb}^02f_{bd}^0`$, involves both the Coulomb matrix elements in the linear muffin tin method using the spherical approximation (LMTO-ASA), $`f_{ll^{}}^L`$, and the average population numbers of different shells, $`f_{bb}^0=[f_{ss}^0n_s^2+f_{pp}^0n_p^2+2f_{sp}^0n_pn_s]/[n_p+n_s]^2`$. Both the matrix elements and the population numbers, are calculated self-consistently. The functional for these band structure calculations has been constructed on the basis of the Gutzwiller-type approximation, and been applied to the 3-$`d`$ metals V, Mn, Ni, Cu and 4-$`d`$ metals Nb and Tc. The Gutzwiller correlation correction influences the value of $`U_3`$ indirectly, via the variational procedure for finding the population numbers.

If we look at the definition of $`U_2`$, the physical values of $`U_i^{}`$ are determined by self-consistent values of the difference of the many electron energies En. When we are discussing the ground state, or thermo-dynamical properties, all processes, fast and slow, renormalizing En have to be considered. The renormalization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,n1}`$=En-En-1 by long-range Coulomb interaction  leads to a dependence of these energies on the shape of the Fermi surface via the frequency-dependent dielectric function. Peaks in the electron density of states amplify the effect of mixing and, therefore, cause a decrease of En-En-1, favoring a delocalization of $`d`$($`f`$)-electrons. In this paper we will consider renormalization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,n1}`$ caused by kinematic interactions due to mixing. This will be considered in the present paper. The description of the high-energy experiments like photo-electron spectroscopies, sometimes requires a different approach (see Ref.).

A very specific situation can arise in metallic $`f`$-systems when one of the intra-atomic transitions happens to be in a close vicinity of the Fermi level . The scattering processes of the conduction electrons on this transition are resonantly amplified in this case. Therefore, one may expect a strong dependence of all renormalizing magnitudes on the mixing interaction if there is such a degeneracy.

In this paper we show that the delocalization of $`f`$-electrons with pressure can be accounted for in a simple model. We also give quantitative numbers as regards the delocalization in Pr. Below, in order to display explicitly the mentioned effect of quasi-degeneracy we consider the periodical Anderson model for the case of praseodymium metal in the corresponding region of parameters. Here, by means of a diagrammatic perturbation theory from the atomic limit, we derive a system of self-consistent equations which determine the physical value of the Hubbard $`U`$, the spectral weights of the $`[(n1),n]`$ and $`[n,(n+1)]`$ electron transitions. The equations include correlation effects explicitly, without decoupling of the higher order correlation functions to the single-electron population numbers, and describe the dependence of the physical properties involved on the degree of delocalization of the states. As will be seen below, this procedure always leads to a splitting of the initial value for $`U`$ to many different orbital-dependent $`U^{}`$. Here, we only inspect the orbitally polarized solution, the effect of crystal-field levels is not taken into account, since the scale of the crystal-field transitions is much smaller than the ones considered here, although it can be included in the formalism.

## II The Model and its approximation

We start with the periodical multi orbital Anderson Hamiltonian,

$$=\underset{𝐤,\mu }{}ϵ_{𝐤\mu }^{}c_{𝐤\mu }^{}c_{𝐤\mu }^{}+\underset{i,\mu }{}ϵ^0\widehat{n}_{i\mu }+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,\nu \mu }{}U_{\nu \mu }\widehat{n}_{i\nu }\widehat{n}_{i\mu }+\underset{\mu ,𝐤,i}{}[V_\mu (𝐤)e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐑}_i}c_{𝐤\mu }^{}f_{i\mu }^{}+V_\mu ^{}(𝐤)e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐑}_i}f_{i\mu }^{}c_{𝐤\mu }^{}],$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{n}_{i\mu }=f_{i\mu }^{}f_{i\mu }`$, $`i`$ is the site index and $`\mu `$ is the $`f`$-orbital index, i.e. the $`\sigma ,m_l`$ states. The first term describes the non-$`f`$conduction electrons, $`ϵ_{𝐤\mu }`$ is the band structure energy, which in our case is taken from a self consistent band structure calculation. The two next terms describe the strongly correlated $`f`$-electrons, and the last term represents the mixing interaction between the $`f`$-states and the conduction band. Thus, we will study self-consistently the changes in the band structure caused by the mixing interaction in the background of the strongly correlated $`f`$-system. We define many-particle $`f`$-states, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as

$`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}|0`$
$`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}|\mu =f_\mu ^{}|0`$
$`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu ,\mu ^{}}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}|\mu \mu ^{}=f_\mu ^{}f_\mu ^{}^{}|0,\mathrm{}`$
and so on for all 14 $`f`$-orbitals.

The creation and annihilation operators for the $`f`$-electrons are rewritten in terms of Hubbard $`X`$-operators, describing transitions between many-particle states $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, $`X_i^{\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}|\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}|`$. The expansion is written as

$$f_{i\mu }=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }|f_{i\mu }|\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}X_i^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }|f_{i\mu }|\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }X_i^{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(2)
We define the transitions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$) as $`a`$, and the inverse, $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, as $`\overline{a}`$. Now let us reformulate the Hamiltonian and the Green functions (GF’s) for the $`f`$-operators, in terms of Hubbard operators and then use a diagram technique for the $`X`$ operators . The electronic Matsubara temperature $`f`$-Green functions should be expressed in terms of $`X`$-operator GF’s

$$𝒯f_{i\mu }^{}(\tau )f_{i\mu ^{}}^{}(\tau ^{})=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1|f_{i\mu }|\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2|f_{i\mu ^{}}^{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }_2𝒯X_i^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_1}(\tau )X_i^{\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}(\tau ^{}).$$
(3)
The $`X`$-operators satisfy the commutation relation

$$[X_i^{p,q},X_j^{r,s}]_\eta =\delta _{ij}\left(\delta _{qr}X^{p,s}+\eta \delta _{sp}X^{r,q}\right).$$
(4)
The fact that the (anti)commutator of two $`X`$ operators is still an operator gives rise to ”end” factors (averages of one $`X`$-operator, $`X^{\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$) when the extended Wick’s theorem is applied to the Green functions. In the diagram technique end factors are represented by open (closed) circles for the zero (dressed) spectral weights. The zero Green functions for $`X`$, and $`c`$-operators are

$`\left(G_{m,n}^{a,\overline{b}}(i\omega _n)\right)^0\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}i𝒯X_n^a(\tau )X_m^{\overline{b}}(\tau ^{})_\omega ^0=\delta (ab){\displaystyle \frac{P_a^0}{i\omega _n\mathrm{\Delta }_a^0}}\delta _{m,n}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}P_a^0𝒟_a^0,`$ (5)
$`\left(C_\mu (𝐤,i\omega _n)\right)^0\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}i𝒯c_{𝐤\mu }(\tau )c_{𝐤\mu }^{}(\tau ^{})_\omega ^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\omega _nϵ_{𝐤\mu }}},`$ (6)
where $`i\omega _n=(2n+1)\pi T`$ and $`T`$ is the temperature in energy units (kB=1). $`P_a`$ denotes the end factors, $`P_a=P_{\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}=\{X^{\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}},X^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }}\}=X^{\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }}+X^{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}=N_\mathrm{\Gamma }+N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, which in lowest order are spectral weights, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }}=E_{N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}E_{N_\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ the energy of the transition $`a`$ entering the locators , $`𝒟_a(i\omega _n)=\frac{1}{i\omega _n\mathrm{\Delta }_a}`$, for the $`X`$-operator Green functions. Averaging the expansion (2,4) for the anticommutator

$$1=\{f_{i,\mu },f_{i,\mu }^{}\}=\{\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}X_i^{\mathrm{\Gamma },\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }},\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{}X_i^{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}\}=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{}\{X_i^{\mathrm{\Gamma },\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }},X_i^{\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}\},$$
(7)
gives a sum rule for the spectral weights in the $`X`$-operator Green functions.

Using a diagram technique for the Hubbard operators  we formulate a mean field theory (defined as the theory with no energy dependent corrections to the self energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and to the spectral weights $`P_{\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}`$). The second order graphs are summed to give corrections to the population numbers, $`P_a=P_a^0+\delta P_a^{(1)}+\delta P_a^{(2)}`$, and the frequencies, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a=\mathrm{\Delta }_a^0+\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_a`$. Within the Fermionic hierarchy, the first correction to the population numbers, the Ising-model-like, $`\delta P_a^{(1)}`$, is given by the sum of ovals, and is shown in Fig.1.

We denote the conduction Green functions by dashed lines, the locators for $`X`$-operator Green functions by full lines, bold full lines and double dashed lines mean the full Green functions, and the dots denote the terminal factors (local spectral weights).

The cumulant contribution, $`\delta P_a^{(1)}`$ (see Fig.1) can be calculated from a generating functional as described by Sandalov et al.  .

This procedure gives the expansion of an exponential function. However, this contribution, in the paramagnetic state, does not change the relative weights of the population numbers and can be omitted. The second contribution $`\delta P_a^{(2)}`$, see Fig.2, is given by

$$\beta ^1\underset{\omega _n,\mu ,a_1,a_2}{}T_\mu (i\omega _n)f_\mu ^{a_1}(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}_2}𝒟_{a_1}(i\omega _n)\kappa _{a_2}^{a_1;a,\overline{a}}𝒟_{a_2}(i\omega _n)P_{a_2},$$
(8)
where $`\kappa `$ are structure constants of the algebra and $`\beta ^1=T`$ is the temperature and

$$T_\mu (i\omega _n)=\underset{𝐤,\mu }{}V_\mu ^{}(𝐤)C_{𝐤,\mu }(i\omega _n)V_\mu (𝐤).$$
(9)
The Green function for the conduction electrons are dressed by the interaction as shown in Fig.3

to give

$$\left[C_\mu (𝐤,i\omega _n)\right]^1=\left[C_\mu ^{(0)}(𝐤,i\omega _n)\right]^1\underset{a}{}|V_\mu (𝐤)|^2|f_\mu ^a|^2P_a𝒟_a(i\omega _n).$$
(10)
The shift of the frequencies, $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_a=\mathrm{\Delta }_a\mathrm{\Delta }_a^0`$, comes from the equation shown in Fig.4,

and is given by

$$\beta ^1\underset{\omega _n,\mu }{}T_\mu (i\omega _n)f_\mu ^a(f_\mu ^{})^{\overline{a}}𝒟_a(i\omega _n).$$
(11)
These equations are coupled and accordingly have to be solved self consistently. Note that, so far, this formalism is not restricted to the case of praseodymium, it is valid for any $`f`$-electron system. The physics of $`f`$-systems is described by the positions of the levels $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a`$ and the corresponding spectral weights $`P_a`$.

## III Application to praseodymium

We now concentrate on the model for praseodymium metal. The existence of crystal-field effects says that Pr is in an orbitally polarized $`f^2`$ state. Two localized $`f`$-electrons are placed into orbitals 1 and 2; this two-electron state is denoted as $`|`$12) (in indices as (12)). When mixing is absent $`n_f=2`$ and $`N_{(12)}^0=1`$. Switching the mixing on causes transitions to $`f^1`$ and $`f^3`$ states; we denote $`f^1`$ as 1 or 2 depending on $`m_l`$, $`f^3`$ as $`|12\nu )`$, $`\nu `$ being one of the 12 unoccupied $`f`$-orbitals. The way that spectral weight transfers to higher transitions is shown in Fig.5.

The energies for these states are estimated from $`E_n=nϵ^0+Un(n1)/2`$ with $`ϵ^0`$ providing the energy minimum for $`n=2`$ and describing the attraction to the nucleus. This gives $`ϵ^0=3U/2`$. The bare energies of the transitions are, from $`|`$12) to $`|`$1) or $`|`$2), denoted by indices as (12)1 and (12)2, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=E_2E_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)1}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)2}=U/2`$, from $`|`$12$`\nu `$) to $`|`$12) $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=E_3E_2=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12\nu )(12)}=U/2=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12\nu )(1\nu )}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12\nu )(2\nu )}`$, and from $`|`$12$`\nu \nu ^{}`$) to $`|`$12$`\nu `$) $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3=3U/2`$. The zero $`f`$-Green functions can be found by inversion of the expansion in Eqn. 2, $`F_1^{(0)}=Tf_1f_1^{}^0=F_2^{(0)}`$ and $`F_\nu ^{(0)}=Tf_\nu f_\nu ^{}^0`$ becomes

$$F_1^{(0)}=\frac{P_{(12)2}^0}{i\omega _n\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)2}^0}+\underset{\nu }{}\frac{P_{(12\nu )(2\nu )}^0}{i\omega _n\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12\nu )(2\nu )}^0}+\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{i\omega _n\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)2}^0},$$
(12)
using the expansion (Eqn.2), and for the 12 different $`\nu `$ orbitals

$$F_\nu ^{(0)}=\frac{P_{(12\nu )(12)}^0}{i\omega _n\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12\nu )(12)}^0}+\underset{\nu ^{}}{}(1\delta _{\nu \nu ^{}})\frac{P_{(12\nu \nu ^{})(12\nu )}^0}{i\omega _n\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12\nu \nu ^{})(12\nu ^{})}^0}+\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{i\omega _n\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12\nu )(12)}^0}.$$
(13)
Then, the dressed conduction Green functions (10) can be written as,

$$C_\mu (𝐤,i\omega _n)=\frac{1}{i\omega _nϵ_𝐤^\mu |V_\mu (𝐤)|^2F_\mu (i\omega _n)};\mu =1,2,\nu .$$
(14)
Due to the complex structure of the system of equations we make some further simplifications. We do not allow non-diagonal hopping (this case has been considered in ref. ) to occur. Non-diagonal terms affect the shifts only in fourth order of perturbation theory and are thus much smaller than the effects considered here. Physically the non-diagonal hopping would give a small width to the levels, not changing the physical picture to a large extent. Further we assume that the mixing parameter, $`V_\mu (𝐤)`$, has a k dependence following $`ϵ_𝐤`$. Then the summation over k in the formulas above can be replaced by a integration over the density of states (DOS) $`g_\mu (ϵ)=_𝐤\delta (ϵϵ_{\mu 𝐤})`$. Applying the formula (Eqn. 11) for the transition $`a`$=(12)1 we obtain

$$\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)1}=\underset{\omega _n,𝐤}{}|V_2(𝐤)|^2𝒟_{(12)1}(i\omega _n)C_2(𝐤,i\omega _n)$$
(15)
and transforming summation over the Matsubara frequencies to a integration over energy, we obtain an expression in terms of the retarded Green functions

$$\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)1}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega f(\omega \mu )_{W_a}^{W_b}𝑑xg_2(x)|V_2(x)|^2\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)Im\left[\frac{1}{\omega +i\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)1}}C_2^R(x,\omega +i\delta )\right]$$
(16)
The correction to the spectral weight according to Eqn.( 8) becomes

$`\delta P_{(12)1}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega f(\omega \mu ){\displaystyle _{W_a}^{W_b}}𝑑xg_2(x)|V_2(x)|^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\right)Im\left[{\displaystyle \frac{P_{(12)2}}{\left[\omega +i\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)2}\right]^2}}C_2^R(x,\omega +i\delta )\right]`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega f(\omega \mu ){\displaystyle _{W_a}^{W_b}}𝑑xg_\nu (x)|V_\nu (x)|^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\right)Im\left[{\displaystyle \frac{P_{(12\nu )12}}{\left[\omega +i\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{(12\nu )(12)}\right]^2}}C_\nu ^R(x,\omega +i\delta )\right].`$ (18)
Note that the contributions from the lower and upper Hubbard sub-bands enter with different signs, i.e. these contributions favor a localization and a delocalization respectively. Due to symmetry of the corrections the (12)1 transition gives the same corrections as (12)2, and (12$`\nu `$)(1$`\nu `$) the same as (12$`\nu `$)(2$`\nu `$). The corrections which we have taken into account are listed in tables I and II.

The bare band structure of Pr metal consists of conduction bands, a local level, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, below the bottom of the conduction band, a level $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ slightly above the Fermi energy, $`ϵ_F`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$, which is much higher than $`ϵ_F`$. The input DOS is shown in Fig.10 (V=0). The transitions, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{\pm 1}`$, from the crystal-field levels, $`|\pm 1`$, are slightly above the transition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ of the singlet state and are empty in the ground state. We do not write them here explicitly, since the summation over the CF-levels gives the same for the lower spectral weight. Therefore, at T=0 K, this does not change the delocalization scenario.

## IV Analysis and Conclusions

The equations (8)-(11) represent the general form of the mean-field equations for the multi-orbital Anderson model and some conclusions of general nature can be drawn from them. First, as seen in the type of solution considered above, contrary to the Gutzwiller  approach , the description of excitations in terms of $`f`$-orbitals becomes meaningless since many-Fermion magnitudes are involved and the proper way to describe electrons is in terms of collective atomic like excitations described by the Hubbard operators. The Fermi-like $`f`$-excitations are separated into different subgroups. The part described by the lower poles of the $`f`$-electron Green function (Fermionic transitions), is not important for thermodynamics. Inspection of the next corrections to these spectral weights shows that they depend on the spin dynamics. The upper-pole excitations form delocalized states, contributing to the cohesive energy, and the corresponding band structure depends mainly on the $`f`$-spectral weights in the upper pole. The latter being coupled by the sum rule to the lower pole, reflect the dynamics of localized spins and, therefore, includes in principle temperature effects into the band structure in a different way compared to usual approaches. Second, the upper and lower frequencies ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$) are moved due to renormalization by mixing interaction towards each other, giving a reduction of the effective $`U^{}`$. All other frequencies are also renormalized, thus leading to a splitting of the Hubbard $`U`$ into several band structure dependent $`U_{a,a^{}}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_a^{(n+1,n)}\mathrm{\Delta }_a^{}^{(n,n1)}`$. Third, when mixing is turned on, part of the electrons are placed into the mixed state $`c_{𝐤\mu }^{}X_i^{\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}`$, and the sum rule for the total spectral weight causes the occupation of the lower pole to decrease with the same amount, i.e. the system undergoes delocalization. Therefore, in the considered solution the value of the observable local moment turns out to be linked to the strength of the mixing interaction in the other energy region, near $`ϵ_F`$. Particularly, the localized moment observed in neutron experiments and the Curie constant in high temperature magnetic susceptibility should be proportional to the spectral weight of the lower pole. Note that this mechanism is difficult to extract from the one-electron GF’s since the transfer of the spectral weight is hidden in the complex many-electron vertices, and cannot be obtained in a one-electron picture at all. This mechanism of delocalization does not work if the mixing interaction is self-consistently switched off by the correlations.

The correction $`\delta P^{(2)}`$ to the spectral weights contain the locator $`𝒟_a(i\omega )`$ in the second power, whereas the frequency shift $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_a`$ only in the first. Therefore, $`\delta P^{(2)}`$ depends on the critical parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}\mu `$ much stronger than the shift $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_a`$ and it is the spectral weight transfer, not the decrease of the Hubbard $`U`$, which is decisive for the delocalization of $`f`$-electrons under applied pressure for the scenario considered. Increasing the mixing, under external pressure, causes spectral weight to transfer from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$\- to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$-energy region.

Within this model, where hopping is not taken into account, the mixing of ($`spd`$)-states with the transition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ forms a pseudo-gap near $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, the DOS increases in the vicinity of $`ϵ_F`$ and electrons fill in additional states, therefore the Fermi energy $`ϵ_F`$ moves down. Thus, part of $`f`$-Hubbard’s transitions  influence the cohesive energy of the metal. Composing the $`f`$-electron’s Green functions spectral weights from the $`X`$-operator Green functions, and taking small enough values of the mixing interaction, we find that the same statement is valid also for $`f`$-electrons. Thus, the energy needed for this transfer is provided by the $`PV`$ term in the free energy and by the contribution from $`f`$-electrons to the cohesive energy.

At last, some conclusions specific to $`Pr`$ can be added to what’s given above. The deformation of the band structure also results in an increase of the effective mass, which should give an enhancement of the Pauli-part of the magnetic susceptibility besides the crystal-field mechanism described by White and Fulde .

However, as described above, the value of the localized $`f`$-moment should be slightly reduced. Indeed, switching on mixing leads to the shifts: $`N_{(12)}^0N_{(12)}^0\delta N_{(12)}^0`$, $`N_{(12\nu )}^{(0)}=0`$ $`N_{(12\nu )}n_{cX}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}c_{k\nu }^{}X_k^{(12)(12\nu )}0`$. This increases the spectral weight in the upper Hubbard band to $`12n_{cX}`$. Since the total spectral weight of $`G_{(12)}^f`$ is equal to one, the spectral weight in a lower pole, at $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)1}`$, decreases by the same amount.

## V Numerical Calculations for praseodymium

We made two numerical tests, one with a square shaped DOS using a mixing in the form $`V_𝐤=V_1+V_2(ϵ_𝐤ϵ_0)`$ and varying the constants $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ and the position of the levels. The second type of numerical test were done for a DOS for the conduction band of the Pr metal. The DOS was obtained using a full-potential LMTO method with the two 4$`f`$-electrons in the core and for the real dhcp structure (see Fig.10 V=0). In this case we used $`V_𝐤=V_1`$ only. According to Anderson’s argument  due to symmetry reasons the $`𝐤`$-independent part of the single-electron mixing should vanish. There is, however, a local contribution to mixing from Coulomb interaction ,

$$\overline{V}_1c_{}^{}f_{}^{}ff=\overline{V}_1\gamma |f_1^{}f_2^{}f_3^{}|\mathrm{\Gamma }c_{}^{}X_{}^{\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }}=Vc_{}^{}X_{}^{\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(19)
which is allowed to be non-zero. The non-local part we model by the term $`V_2(ϵ_𝐤ϵ_0)`$ providing $`_𝐤V_2(ϵ_𝐤ϵ_0)=0`$. Thus, we assume that the main contribution to the $`𝐤`$-dispersion comes from the neighboring atoms which gives the $`𝐤`$-dependence in both $`ϵ_𝐤`$ and $`V_𝐤`$. We choose $`U`$ to be 10 eV. The system of equations was solved by means of a steepest descent method. The criterion for convergence used was that the sum of the squared difference of the input and output between two consecutive iterations, i.e. $`_a(\delta P_a\delta P_a^{(calc.)})^2+_a(\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_a\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_a^{(calc.)})^2`$ should be less than $`10^6`$. It is worth to mention that it is very difficult to achieve convergence near the transition from localized to delocalized and that we had to mix a very small portion of a previous iteration into the new solution. Further, a good start guess was important for the convergence.

### A Constant DOS Case

For the constant DOS we choose the bandwidth to be 8 eV. The population of the lower level for different cases of the mixing is shown in Fig.6.

From this figure we see that the population drops when the mixing is increased, but, there is also an interesting feature for $`V_20.2`$ eV and above. When increasing $`V_1`$, there is actually a localization of the electrons. Since $`V_2`$ comes from the bandstructure ($`V_1`$ is the local mixing coming from the Coulomb interaction) we see that changes in structure or composition which reduce $`V_2`$, can actually mean that we have a larger degree of delocalization. Hence, delocalization does not always come from increased mixing interaction, but decreased. The Hubbard $`U`$-parameter was extracted and the result is shown in

Fig.7A and B, where $`V_1`$, and $`V_2`$ is changed respectively. We see that $`U`$ decrease with almost 10% when mixing is changed. This actually moves the upper transition closer to the Fermi-level, and therefore also affects the delocalization. There is, however, another important effect, the distance between the upper transition, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)1}`$, and the chemical potential $`\mu `$. The effect of this is shown in Fig.8.

In this figure, we see that one driving mechanism of delocalization is the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)1}\mu `$. Further, we see that the behavior is almost independent for the different values of mixing. The best fit to the $`P_{low}`$ ($`P_{low}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}N_1+N_2`$) versus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)1}\mu `$ is obtained from the function

$$P_{low}=\alpha +\frac{\beta }{(\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)1}\mu )+\gamma }.$$
(20)
Where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are constants with the values given in table III.

Using this equation we determine the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)1}\mu `$ when complete delocalization occurs to be 0.0366 eV. i.e. when the transition is very close to the chemical potential.

### B LMTO-DOS Case

When we used the DOS from a band-structure calculation we obtained the following result. For this case we put $`V_2=0`$. The DOS after the self-consistent cycle is shown in Fig.10. As seen, upon an increase of mixing, the bandwidth is narrowed and a gap where the upper level is situated is opened up. The states, pushed out of the gap region, enhance the DOS at the Fermi level. The gap that develops and the delocalization is further illustrated in Fig.10. The peak above the Fermi level will not be seen in experiments since these transitions become delocalized due to mixing interactions.

In Fig.9 we present the result of the self-consistent calculations. As seen from equations (16) and (17), the energy difference between the upper level and the chemical potential is one of the most crucial parameters of the model. Fig.9a shows the dependence of the population number $`N_{12}`$ on this parameter for two values of mixing. The Hubbard parameter chosen is 10 eV and the mixing, $`V_𝐤=V_1`$, is 1 and 2 eV respectively; the bandwidth is 9 eV. The next figure, Fig.9b, shows how $`U`$, defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12\nu )12}\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)1}`$, change as a function of the same parameters. The graph in Fig.9d shows the change of the chemical potential $`\mu `$ and the fourth graph, Fig.9c, shows the change in $`U`$ and population number $`N_{12}`$ when only mixing is changed. As seen, in Fig.9c, dependences on the value of the mixing parameter are smooth and the only instability is caused by the level slightly above the Fermi energy. The value of the critical parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)(12\nu )}^0\mu `$ can be changed by chemical doping, which will shift the chemical potential and therefore affect the transition pressure. If we look at the form of the DOS, generated by pure LDA calculations (see Fig.10 for V=0), it does not contain a quasi-gap in the vicinity of $`ϵ_f`$, since within band structure calculations all $`f`$-states are taken in core and the transition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ does not exist. It is, however, worth to note that experimentally photo-electron spectroscopy shows peaks above the Fermi level for all rare earths. These peaks are interpreted as $`f`$-states. If we treat the $`f`$-states as fully delocalized we have peaks above the Fermi-level but the equilibrium properties are not well described (see e. g. ref. ).

## VI Conclusion

We have studied the scenario of $`f`$-electron delocalization and dependence of Hubbard $`U`$ on the value of the mixing interaction which is assumed to increase proportionally to the external pressure. The scenario considered emphasizes that the dominant role is played by the $`f`$-sum rule, connecting excitations in different energy regions and resonant mixing of ($`spd`$)-electrons and Hubbard’s $`f`$-excitations. The mechanism can only exist due to strong correlations. Thus, in our picture, delocalization arises due to the following reasons: First, the strong correlations provide the separation of the $`f`$-shell into two manifolds in different energy regions. Second, under the application of pressure the mixing increases due to an increase in the overlap. Third, the shift of bands, and the renormalization of the levels, alter the crucial parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(12)1}\mu `$.

## Acknowledgments

This project has been financed by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council (NFR), and Materials Consortium No. 9. I. S. thanks for support from the Göran Gustafsson foundation.


text:
# D/H MEASUREMENTS

## 1 Introduction

During primordial Big Bang nucleosynthesis deuterium is produced in significant amounts and then destroyed in stellar interiors. It is thus a key element in cosmology and in galactic chemical evolution (see e.g. Audouze & Tinsley ; Boesgaard & Steigman ; Olive et al. ; Pagel et al. ; Vangioni-Flam & Cassé $`^,`$; Prantzos ; Scully et al. ; Cassé & Vangioni-Flam ).

The Copernicus space observatory has provided the first direct measurement of the D/H ratio in the interstellar medium (ISM) representative of the present epoch (Rogerson & York ) :

(D/H)$`{}_{\mathrm{ISM}}{}^{Copernicus}1.4\pm 0.2\times 10^5`$.

More recently D/H evaluations were made in the direction of quasars (QSOs) in low metallicity media. They were completed toward three different QSOs’ (Burles & Tytler $`^,`$; O’Meara & Tytler ) leading to a possible range of $`2.44.8\times 10^5`$ for the primordial D/H. These values correspond to a new estimations of the baryon density of the Universe, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}\mathrm{h}^2=0.019\pm 0.0009`$, in the frame of the standard BBN model (Burles et al. ; Nollett & Burles ). When compared to the recent $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}\mathrm{h}^2`$ evaluation made from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) observations (see e.g. Jaffe et al. ) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}\mathrm{h}^2=0.032\pm 0.005`$, this seems to lead to a possible conflict. Note that another D/H measurement made toward a low redshift QSO leading to a D/H value possibly larger than $`10^4`$ (Webb et al. ; Tytler et al. ) corresponds to an even stronger disagreement since it translates into $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}\mathrm{h}^20.01`$.

It is thus important to investigate the possibility of varying D/H ratios in different astrophysical sites (see e.g. Lemoine et al. ). If variations are indeed found, their cause should be investigated before a reliable primordial D/H evaluation can be inferred from a small number of observations.

## 2 Interstellar observations

Several methods have been used to measure the interstellar D/H ratio. All will not be discussed here and for more details see e.g. Ferlet . The more reliable approach is to observe in absorption, against the background continuum of stars, the atomic Lyman series of D and H in the far-UV.

Toward hot stars, with the Copernicus satellite, many important evaluations of D/H were obtained (see e.g. Rogerson and York ; York and Rogerson ; Vidal–Madjar et al. ; Laurent et al. ; Ferlet et al. ; York ; Allen et al. ) leading to the detection of variations recently enforced by HST–GHRS (Vidal–Madjar et al. ) toward G191–B2B showing a low value and IMAPS observations, one made toward $`\delta `$ Ori presenting again a low value (Jenkins et al. ) confirming the previous analysis made by Laurent et al.  from Copernicus observations and the other one toward $`\gamma ^2`$ Vel with a high value (Sonneborn et al. ). These observations seem to indicate that in the ISM, within few hundred parsecs, D/H may vary by more than a factor $`3`$.

From published values, D/H ranges from

$`5\times 10^6`$ $`<`$ (D/H)ISM $`<`$ $`4\times 10^5`$.

This method also provided a precise D/H evaluation in the local ISM (LISM) in the direction of the cool star Capella (Linsky et al. ) :

(D/H)$`{}_{\mathrm{Capella}}{}^{\mathrm{GHRS}}=1.60\pm 0.09_{0.10}^{+0.05}\times 10^5`$

Additional observations made in the LISM lead Linsky  (see references there in) to the conclusion that the D/H value within the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC) is (compatible with 12 evaluations) :

(D/H)$`{}_{\mathrm{LIC}}{}^{\mathrm{GHRS}}=1.50\pm 0.10\times 10^5`$

## 3 The nearby ISM

Observations of white dwarfs (WD) in the nearby ISM (NISM) for precise D/H evaluations were first proposed and achieved in the direction of G191–B2B by Lemoine et al.  using the HST–GHRS spectrograph at medium resolution. Follow up observations on G191–B2B at higher resolution with the GHRS Echelle-A grating by Vidal–Madjar et al.  (same instrument configuration used as in the Capella study) lead to a precise D/H evaluation in the NISM along this line of sight within one Hi region – the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC) also observed toward Capella (these stars are separated by $`7^o`$ on the sky) – and within a more complex and ionized Hii region presenting a double velocity structure. In these two main interstellar components the D/H ratio was found to be different if one assumes that the D/H value within the LIC is the same as the one found in the direction of Capella, in which case D/H has to be lower ($`0.9\times 10^5`$) in the more ionized components.

In any case a lower “average” D/H ratio is found (2$`\sigma `$ error) :

(D/H)$`{}_{\mathrm{G191}\mathrm{B2B}}{}^{\mathrm{GHRS}}=1.12\pm 0.16\times 10^5`$

This result has been contested by Sahu et al.  who used new HST–STIS high resolution Echelle observations. However Vidal–Madjar  has showed that all data sets (GHRS and STIS) in fact converge on a same value of the D/H ratio, which furthermore agrees with that derived by Vidal–Madjar et al.  and disagrees with that of Sahu et al. .

Since the disagreement between the two analysis was on the Di column density estimation, FUSE observations were expected to clarify the situation since they give access to weaker deuterium Lyman lines that are less sensitive to saturation effects than Lyman $`\alpha `$. Three independent data sets were obtained corresponding to the three different FUSE entrance apertures (Vidal–Madjar et al. ). The fits of the D Lyman $`\beta `$ line in the various FUSE channels are shown in Figure 1 and compared with the estimate of Sahu et al. . These new data confirm the measurement of N(Di) of Vidal–Madjar et al. ; the value N(Di) derived by Sahu et al.  lies 6$`\sigma `$ away from the new result. These 6$`\sigma `$ are quantified in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2`$, including many possible systematics such as stellar continuum placement, zero level, spectral instrument shifts, line spread function profiles, all free in the fitting process (see e.g. the different stellar continuum levels in Figure 1 from left to right panels).

The Hi column density toward G191–B2B is well determined. Independent measurements with EUVE (Dupuis et al. ), GHRS (medium and high resolution) and STIS (high resolution) using several methods of evaluation (EUV, Lyman continuum opacity and Lyman $`\alpha `$, damping wing modelling), converge on a value of log N(Hi) = 18.34 ($`\pm 0.03`$). The error on this value includes systematic errors associated with the various measurement techniques.

Using the Di column density as measured by FUSE and the Hi column density compatible with all published values, one arrives at (2$`\sigma `$ error) :

(D/H)$`{}_{\mathrm{G191}\mathrm{B2B}}{}^{\mathrm{FUSE}\mathrm{HST}\mathrm{EUVE}}=1.16\pm 0.24\times 10^5`$

This value is marginally compatible ($`2\sigma `$) with the LIC one.

The essential question remains : if D/H variations are confirmed in more sightlines, what could be their cause ?

## 4 The FUSE observatory

FUSE starts to produce orders of magnitude more data on the distribution of D/H in the ISM. From the planned D/H survey, we should be able to evaluate the deuterium abundance in a wide variety of locations, possibly linked to the past star formation rate as well as to the supposed infall of less processed gas in our Galaxy, and thus better understand Galactic chemical evolution.

The FUSE sensitivity should allow evaluations of the deuterium abundance in tens of lines of sights : i) in the direction of white dwarfs and cool stars in the NISM ; ii) toward hot sub-dwarfs in the more distant ISM and nearby Galactic halo ; iii) within the Galactic disk over several kilo-parsecs in the direction of O and early B stars ; iv) in the more distant Galactic halo, within high velocity cloud complexes as well as in intergalactic clouds in the direction of low redshift QSOs, AGNs and blue compact galaxies.

The first precise D/H evaluations toward few white dwarfs were presented in early 2001 at the AAS meeting (Moos et al. ; Friedman et al. ; Hébrard et al. ; Kruk et al. ; Linsky et al. ; Sonneborn et al. ; Vidal–Madjar et al. ). The deuterium Lyman lines are clearly seen toward these few WDs and, as an example, the Lyman $`\beta `$ line is shown in the case of G191–B2B as previously discussed (see Figure 1). Several of these D/H evaluations made in the ISM with FUSE, HST, IMAPS are shown in Figure 2 along with one made recently in the direction of one QSO from ground based observations , as a function of the line of sight average metallicity as traced by O/H when available. It seems that the D/H variation does not anti–correlate with O/H. Thus a simple mechanism as astration, able to destroy D and produce O, does not seem compatible with the observations. Other mechanisms should be investigated as the ones listed by e.g. Lemoine et al. .

## 5 Conclusion

In summary the status of the different – but discordant – D/H evaluations taken with no a priori bias to select one over another could be the following.

If the variations of the D/H ratio in the NISM are illusory, one could quote an average value of (D/H)$`{}_{\mathrm{NISM}}{}^{}1.31.4\times 10^5`$ barely compatible with all observations.

More in agreement with the present observations, D/H seems to vary in the ISM. One has thus to understand why.

Until then, any single or small number of values should not be considered to represent the definitive D/H in a given region. This is particularly true for the “primordial” values found in the direction of QSOs since the physical state of the probed environment is more poorly known than the Galactic one.

Our hope is that the FUSE mission will solve these problems.

## Acknowledgments

I am very grateful for the entire FUSE operation team for all the impressive work they are doing to make the FUSE observatory come true. I also thank the whole FUSE team for many positive interaction and comments. This work is based on data obtained by the NASA–CNES–CSA FUSE mission operated by the Johns Hopkins University under NASA contract NAS5–32985.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The quantum group $`U_q(\text{g})`$ associated with a simple Lie algebra g is an associative algebra over the rational function field $`\text{C}(q)`$ ($`q`$ is an indeterminate) and we can define its ”integral” form over the Laurant polynomial ring $`\text{C}[q,q^1]`$, which enables us to specialize $`q`$ to any non-zero complex number $`\epsilon `$. We are going to see two types of such integral forms and accordingly, we obtain two types of specializations, one is called the ’restriced specialization’ denoted by $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$, and the other is called the ’non-restricted specialization’ denoted by $`U_\epsilon `$. Both coincide if $`\epsilon `$ is trancendental. But we are interested in the case that $`\epsilon `$ is the $`l`$-th primitive root of unity, where $`l`$ is an odd integer greater than 1. In the case, they do not so. The former is initiated by Lusztig , and the latter is introduced in  by DeConcini and Kac. Their representation theories are quite different: Irreducible $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$-modules are highest weight modules in some sense and the classification of the irreducible modules is same as the one for simple Lie algebras or ordinary quantum algebras (see Theorem 3.5 below). Furthermore, irreducble modules possess the remarkable property “tensor product theorem” (see Theorem 3.6 below), which claims that arbitray irreducible highest weight module $`V(\lambda )`$ with the highest weight $`\lambda `$ is devided into tensor product of two irreducible modules $`V(\lambda ^{(0)})`$ and $`V(l\lambda ^{(1)})`$ where $`\lambda ^{(0)}`$ and $`\lambda ^{(1)}`$ are as in Theorem 3.6. Here the module $`V(\lambda ^{(0)})`$ is identified with the irreducible $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$-module, wehre $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$ is some finite dimenstional subalgebra of $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$ (see 2.2) and the module $`V(l\lambda ^{(1)})`$ can be identified with the irreducible highest weight $`U(\text{g})`$-module $`V(\lambda ^{(1)})`$, whose structure is known very well. Thus, if the structure of $`V(\lambda ^{(0)})`$ is clarified, we can analize the detailed feature of $`V(\lambda )`$. Indeed, the character of $`V(\lambda )`$ is given by the famous Kazhdan-Lusztig formula. But structures as a module, e.g., explicit descriptions of basis vectors or actions of the generators on them, are not still clear.

On the other hand, irreducible $`U_\epsilon `$-modules are not necessarily highest or lowest weight modules. They are characterized by many continious parameters and if they are “generic”, their dimensions are all same (see ,). But if we specialize the parameters properly, the modules become reducible. In , Date, Jimbo, Miki and Miwa constrcuted such $`U_\epsilon `$-modules for $`A_n`$-type explicitly, which is called the ’maximal cyclic representations’ that is realized in the vector space $`𝒱:=(\text{C}^l)^{\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)}`$. They contains the continious parameters and it is shown that if those parameters are generic, they are irreducible. Here we consider certain non-generic specialization of the parameters so that $`𝒱`$ becomes a reducible $`U_\epsilon `$-module. Moreover, we shall observe that such a module includes the unique primitive vector (see Proposition 4.9). The submodule generated by this primitive vector can be seen as an irreducible $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$-module and isomorphic to $`V(\lambda ^{(0)})`$ for some $`\lambda `$ (Theorem 5.5).

The organizations of the paper is as follows; in section 2 we review the quantum algebras at roots of unity. In section 3, we see the maximal cyclic representations of the $`A`$-type following  and review the represenation theory of $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$. In section 4, we specilize the parameters properly and show that under the specialization, there exists a unique primitive vector in the module. Finally, in section 5, it is shown that the representation space become the module of the finite dimensional algebra $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$ and the submodule generated by the primitive vector is irreducible.

## 2 Algebras at roots of unity

In this section, we review the algebras treated in this article.

### 2.1 Restricted integral forms and specializations

Let $`\text{C}(q)`$ be the rational function field in an indeterminate $`q`$ and denote the ring $`\text{C}[q,q^1]`$ by $`𝒜`$. We use the notations:

$$[a]_q:=\frac{q^aq^a}{qq^1},[a]_q!:=[a]_q[a1]_q\mathrm{}[2]_q[1]_q,\left[\begin{array}{c}m\\ k\end{array}\right]_q:=\frac{[m]_q!}{[k]_q![mk]_q!}.$$

Let $`I:=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ be the index set and $`(a_{ij})_{i,jI}`$ be the Cartan matrix of type A, i.e., $`a_{ii}=2`$ ($`1in`$), $`a_{ii+1}=a_{i+1i}=1`$ ($`1in1`$), and $`a_{ij}=0`$ otherwise. Let us denote the set of roots (resp. positive roots) by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$). Let $`\{h_i\}_{iI}`$ be the set of simple coroots and $`\{\alpha _i\}_{iI}`$ the set of simple roots. Define the weight lattice $`P:=\{\lambda |h_i,\lambda \text{Z}\}`$ (resp. the set of dominant integral weights $`P_+:=\{\lambda |h_i,\lambda \text{Z}_0\}`$). Let $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\}_{iI}`$ be the fundamental weights which satisfy $`h_i,\mathrm{\Lambda }_j=\delta _{ij}`$ and then $`P=_i\text{Z}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$. Let $`W`$ be the Weyl group of type $`A_n`$, which is generated by the simple reflections $`s_i`$ $`(iI)`$. The quantum algebra  $`U_q(\text{g})`$ is the associative algebra generated by $`e_i,f_i,t_i^\pm `$ ($`iI`$) and the relations

$`t_it_i^1=t_i^1t_i=1,t_it_j=t_jt_i,`$ (2.1)
$`t_ie_jt_i^1=q^{a_{ij}}e_j,`$ (2.2)
$`t_if_jt_i^1=q^{a_{ij}}e_j,`$ (2.3)
$`e_if_jf_je_i={\displaystyle \frac{t_it_i^1}{qq^1}},`$ (2.4)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{1a_{ij}}{}}}(1)e_i^{(k)}e_je_i^{(1a_{ij}k)}={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{1a_{ij}}{}}}(1)f_i^{(k)}f_jf_i^{(1a_{ij}k)}=0(ij),`$ (2.5)
where $`e_i^{(k)}:=e_i^k/[k]_q!`$ and $`f_i^{(k)}:=f_i^k/[k]_q!`$.

Here we set

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}t_i,p\\ r\end{array}\right]_q:=\underset{s=1}{\overset{r}{}}\frac{t_iq^{p+1s}t_i^1q^{sp1}}{q^sq^s}.$$

The algebra $`U_𝒜^{\mathrm{res}}`$ is the $`𝒜`$-subalgebra of $`U_q(\text{g})`$ generated by $`e_i^{(k)}`$, $`f_i^{(k)}`$, $`t_i^\pm `$ and $`\left[\begin{array}{c}t_i,p\\ k\end{array}\right]`$ ($`iI`$, $`p,k\text{Z}`$ and $`k0`$), which is called the restricted integral form.

Here we can define the restricted specializations for any $`\epsilon \text{C}^\times `$;

$$U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}:=U_𝒜^{\mathrm{res}}_𝒜\text{C}_\epsilon ,$$
(2.6)
where $`𝒜`$ acts on $`\text{C}_\epsilon :=\text{C}`$ by $`f(q)c:=f(\epsilon )c`$ ($`c\text{C}`$).

### 2.2 Finite dimensional quantum algebra

For $`\epsilon \text{C}^\times `$ we use the notation

$$[a]:=\frac{\epsilon ^a\epsilon ^a}{\epsilon \epsilon ^1},[a]!:=[a][a1]\mathrm{}[2][1],\left[\begin{array}{c}m\\ k\end{array}\right]:=\left[\begin{array}{c}m\\ k\end{array}\right]_{q=\epsilon }.$$

Since $`\left[\begin{array}{c}m\\ k\end{array}\right]_q\text{C}[q,q^1]`$, the definition of $`\left[\begin{array}{c}m\\ k\end{array}\right]`$ is valid.

As for the specializations of $`q`$, we shall be interested in the case that $`\epsilon `$ is a root of unity. So in what follows, suppose that:

$`l`$ is the odd integer greater than 1 and $`\epsilon `$ is the primitive $`l`$-th root of unity.
Under this setting, we can find an interesting finite dimensional subalgebra $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$ of $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$. $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$ is defined as the subalgebra of $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$ generated by $`e_i`$, $`f_i`$ and $`t_i^\pm `$ ($`1in`$). We know that this algebra is finite dimensional over C with the dimension $`2^nl^{n^2+2n}`$ (see Proposition 2.2 below).

This $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$ is also defined by ”generators and relations” as follows;

###### Proposition 2.1 (,)

The algebra $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$ is isomorphic to the associative C-algebra with generators $`e_\alpha `$, $`f_\alpha `$ $`(\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+)`$ and $`t_i^\pm `$ $`(1in)`$ satisfying the following relations;

$`t_it_i^1=t_i^1t_i=1,t_it_j=t_jt_i,`$ (2.7)
$`t_ie_jt_i^1=\epsilon ^{a_{ij}}e_j,`$ (2.8)
$`t_if_jt_i^1=\epsilon ^{a_{ij}}e_j,`$ (2.9)
$`e_if_jf_je_i=\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{t_it_i^1}{\epsilon \epsilon ^1}}.`$ (2.10)
If $`(\alpha _i,\alpha )=0`$ and $`i<g(\alpha )`$,

$`e_ie_\alpha =e_\alpha e_i,`$ (2.11)
$`f_if_\alpha =f_\alpha f_i.`$ (2.12)
If $`(\alpha _i,\alpha )=1`$ and $`i<g(\alpha )`$,

$`e_{\alpha +\alpha _i}=\epsilon ^1e_\alpha e_ie_ie_\alpha ,`$ (2.13)
$`\epsilon e_ie_{\alpha +\alpha _i}=e_{\alpha +\alpha _i}e_i,`$ (2.14)
$`\epsilon e_{\alpha +\alpha _i}e_\alpha =e_\alpha e_{\alpha +\alpha _i},`$ (2.15)
$`f_{\alpha +\alpha _i}=\epsilon f_\alpha f_if_if_\alpha ,`$ (2.16)
$`\epsilon f_if_{\alpha +\alpha _i}=f_{\alpha +\alpha _i}f_i,`$ (2.17)
$`\epsilon f_{\alpha +\alpha _i}f_\alpha =f_\alpha f_{\alpha +\alpha _i}.`$ (2.18)
$`e_\alpha ^l=f_\alpha ^l=0,(\text{ for any }\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+),`$ (2.19)
$`t_i^{2l}=1(\text{ for any }iI),`$ (2.20)
where we define $`g(\alpha )`$ $`(\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+)`$ to be the largest index satisfying $`c_i0`$ if we write $`\alpha =_ic_i\alpha _i`$ and set $`e_i:=e_{\alpha _i}`$ and $`f_i:=f_{\alpha _i}`$.

Define $`(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})^+`$ (resp. $`(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})^{}`$, $`(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})^0`$) to be the subalgebra of $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$ generated by $`e_i`$ (resp. $`f_i`$, $`t_i^\pm `$). Fix a reduced expression $`w_0=s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\mathrm{}s_{i_N}`$ of the longest elememtn of the Weyl group $`W`$ and set $`\beta _k:=s_{i_1}s_{i_2}\mathrm{}s_{i_{k1}}(\alpha _{i_k})`$ for $`k\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ where $`N:=\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)`$ is the number of positive roots. Here we have the following Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$-Birkhoff-Witt type theorem:

###### Proposition 2.2 (,)

1. The algebra $`(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})^+`$ is a finite dimensional C-vector space with the basis

$$\{e_{\beta _N}^{r_N}e_{\beta _{N1}}^{r_{N1}}\mathrm{}e_{\beta _1}^{r_1}\}_{0r_1,\mathrm{},r_N<l}.$$
(2.21)
2. The algebra $`(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})^{}`$ is a finite dimensional C-vector space with the basis

$$\{f_{\beta _N}^{r_N}f_{\beta _{N1}}^{r_{N1}}\mathrm{}f_{\beta _1}^{r_1}\}_{0r_1,\mathrm{},r_N<l}.$$
(2.22)
3. The algebra $`(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})^0`$ is a finite dimensional C-vector space with the basis

$$\{t_n^{r_n}t_{n1}^{r_{n1}}\mathrm{}t_1^{r_1}\}_{0r_1,\mathrm{},r_n<2l}.$$
(2.23)
4. Multiplication defines an isomorphism of C-vector space;

$$(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})^{}(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})^0(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})^+\stackrel{}{}U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}.$$
(2.24)

### 2.3 Non-restrcited specializations

Here we see another type of specialization of $`q`$ to a root of unity.

Introduce the elements

$$[t_i;m]:=\frac{t_iq^mt_i^1q^m}{qq^1}U_q(\text{g}).$$

The algebra $`U_𝒜`$ is the $`𝒜`$-subalgebra of $`U_q(\text{g})`$ generated by the elements $`e_i`$, $`f_i`$, $`t_i^\pm `$ and $`[t_i;0]`$ $`(1in)`$.

Remark.  The defining relations for $`U_𝒜`$ are as in 2.1, but repalcing (2.4) by

$$e_if_jf_je_i=\delta _{ij}[t_i;0].$$
(2.25)
and add the relation $`(qq^1)[t_i;0]=t_it_i^1`$.

Now for arbitrary $`\epsilon \text{C}^\times `$ we define the C-algebra

$$U_\epsilon :=U_𝒜_𝒜\text{C}_\epsilon ,$$

where $`𝒜`$ acts on $`\text{C}_\epsilon =\text{C}`$ by $`f(q)c=f(\epsilon )c`$ $`(c\text{C})`$. This $`U_\epsilon `$ is called the non-restricted specialization.

## 3 Representations

### 3.1 Maximal cyclic representations of $`U_\epsilon `$

The representation theory of $`U_\epsilon `$ is discussed in  in which the maximal dimension of irreducible representations for $`A_n`$ type is given by $`l^{\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)}`$ in the case $`\epsilon `$ is the $`l`$-th root of unity and in , it is constructed explicitly and called the ’maximal cyclic representaions’. Here we modify the presnetations in  subtly in order to simplify the arguments in the section 4.

Let $`H`$ be the group generated by $`\{x_{ij},z_{ij}\}_{1ijn}`$ and the center $`\epsilon `$ with the relations $`z_{ij}x_{ij}=\epsilon x_{ij}z_{ij}`$ and all others commute each other, and set $`𝒲:=\text{C}[H]`$ the group ring of $`H`$. For $`r:=(r_1,\mathrm{},r_n),`$ $`s:=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)(\text{C}^\times )^n`$, we define the map $`\phi _{r,s}:U_\epsilon 𝒲`$ by (see );

$`\phi _{r,s}(e_i):={\displaystyle \underset{k=i}{\overset{n}{}}}x_{ik}x_{ik+1}\mathrm{}x_{in}\{r_iz_{ik}z_{ik1}z_{i1k1}^1z_{i+1k}^1\},`$ (3.1)
$`\phi _{r,s}(f_i):={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{i}{}}}x_{i+1kn+1k}^1x_{i+2kn+2k}^1\mathrm{}x_{in}^1`$ (3.2)
$`\times \{s_iz_{i+1knk}z_{i+1kn+1k}^1z_{ikn+1k}z_{iknk}^1\},`$
$`\phi _{r,s}(t_i):={\displaystyle \frac{r_i}{s_i}}z_{in}^2z_{i1n}^1z_{i+1n}^1,`$ (3.3)
where we use the notation $`\{z\}=(zz^1)/(\epsilon \epsilon ^1)`$.

Let $`:𝒲𝒲`$ be the C-linear involution defined by

$$x_{jk}^{}:=x_{k+1jk}^1,z_{jk}^{}:=z_{k+1jk}^1,$$

and set

$$A_{ik}:=x_{ik}x_{ik+1}\mathrm{}x_{in},B_{ik}:=z_{ik}z_{ik1}z_{i1k1}^1z_{i+1k}^1.$$

Then, (3.1) and (3.2) can be written in the following forms;

$$\phi _{r,s}(e_i)=\underset{k=i}{\overset{n}{}}A_{ik}\{r_iB_{ik}\},\phi _{r,s}(f_i)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{i}{}}A_{n+1in+1k}^{}\{s_iB_{n+1in+1k}^{}\}.$$
(3.4)
###### Proposition 3.1

The map $`\phi _{r,s}`$ defines a C-linear algebra homomorphism from $`U_\epsilon `$ to $`𝒲`$.

###### Lemma 3.2

The following commutation relations hold (see (2.5)).

$`A_{ij}B_{ik}`$ $`=\epsilon ^2B_{ik}A_{ij}\mathrm{if}j<k,`$
$`=\epsilon ^1B_{ik}A_{ij}\mathrm{if}j=k,`$
$`=B_{ik}A_{ij}\mathrm{if}j>k.`$
Proof of Proposition 3.1. We have $`A_{ik}B_{ik}=\epsilon ^1B_{ik}A_{ik}`$ and then

$$\phi _{r,s}(e_i)=\underset{k=i}{\overset{n}{}}\{r_i\epsilon ^1B_{ik}\}A_{ik},\phi _{r,s}(f_i)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{i}{}}\{s_i\epsilon ^1B_{n+1in+1k}^{}\}A_{n+1in+1k}^{}.$$

This implies $`\phi _{r,s}=\rho _{\epsilon ^1r,\epsilon ^1s}`$ ($`\rho _{r,s}`$ is given in ). Thus, by Theorem 2.2 in , we obtained the desired result.

###### Proposition 3.3

For any $`m\text{Z}_{>0}`$, we have

$`\phi _{r,s}(e_i^m)=[m]!{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}ik_p<\mathrm{}<k_1n\\ 1\nu _p<\mathrm{}<\nu _1=m\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}}A_{ik_r}^{\nu _r\nu _{r+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\left\{\begin{array}{c}r_iB_{ik_r};\nu _r1\\ \nu _r\nu _{r+1}\end{array}\right\},`$ (3.9)
$`\phi _{r,s}(f_i^m)`$
$`=[m]!{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}ik_p<\mathrm{}<k_1n\\ 1\nu _p<\mathrm{}<\nu _1=m\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}}A_{n+1in+1k_r}^{\nu _r\nu _{r+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\left\{\begin{array}{c}s_iB_{n+1in+1k_r}^{};\nu _r1\\ \nu _r\nu _{r+1}\end{array}\right\},`$ (3.14)
where $`\nu _{p+1}=0`$ and we set

$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}a;b\\ c\end{array}\right\}:=\frac{\{a\epsilon ^b\}\{a\epsilon ^{b1}\}\mathrm{}\{a\epsilon ^{bc+1}\}}{[c]!}.$$

Remark.  The definition of $`\left\{\begin{array}{c}a;b\\ c\end{array}\right\}`$ is invalid for $`\epsilon `$ such that $`[c]!=0`$. But in the right hand-side of (3.9) and (3.14) we see that the term

$$\frac{[m]!}{_{r=1}^p[\nu _r\nu _{r+1}]}(1\nu _p<\mathrm{}<\nu _1=m).$$

is valid since $`[m]_q!/_{r=1}^p[\nu _r\nu _{r+1}]_q\text{Z}[q,q^1]`$.

Proof.  In , the following formula is given

$$\rho _{r,s}(e_i^m)=[m]!\underset{p=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{\begin{array}{c}ik_p<\mathrm{}<k_1n\\ 1\nu _p<\mathrm{}<\nu _1=m\end{array}}{}\underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}\left\{\begin{array}{c}r_iB_{ik_r};\nu _{r+1}\\ \nu _r\nu _{r+1}\end{array}\right\}\underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}A_{ik_r}^{\nu _r\nu _{r+1}},$$
(3.15)
where $`\nu _{p+1}=0`$. Since $`\phi _{r,s}=\rho _{\epsilon ^1r,\epsilon ^1s}`$, it follows from (3.15)

$`\phi _{r,s}(e_i^m)=\rho _{\epsilon ^1r,\epsilon ^1s}(e_i^m)`$
$`=[m]!{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}ik_p<\mathrm{}<k_1n\\ 1\nu _p<\mathrm{}<\nu _1=m\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\left\{\begin{array}{c}\epsilon ^1r_iB_{ik_r};\nu _{r+1}\\ \nu _r\nu _{r+1}\end{array}\right\}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}}A_{ik_r}^{\nu _r\nu _{r+1}}`$ (3.20)
Here by Lemma 3.2 we obtain for $`ik_p<\mathrm{}<k_1n`$ and $`1rp`$

$`\left\{\begin{array}{c}\epsilon ^1r_iB_{ik_r};\nu _{r+1}\\ \nu _r\nu _{r+1}\end{array}\right\}\left({\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}}A_{ik_r}^{\nu _r\nu _{r+1}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}}A_{ik_r}^{\nu _r\nu _{r+1}}\right)\left\{\begin{array}{c}\epsilon ^{1+\nu _r+\nu _{r+1}2\nu _{p+1}}r_iB_{ik_r};\nu _{r+1}\\ \nu _r\nu _{r+1}\end{array}\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}}A_{ik_r}^{\nu _r\nu _{r+1}}\right)\left\{\begin{array}{c}r_iB_{ik_r};\nu _r1\\ \nu _r\nu _{r+1}\end{array}\right\},`$
where we use $`\nu _{p+1}=0`$. Thus, we obtain (3.9). Similarly we also get (3.14).

Let $`V_{ij}`$ $`(1ijn)`$ be a copy of the vector space $`\text{C}^l`$ and set $`𝒱:=_{1ijn}V_{ij}`$. Let $`u_0,\mathrm{},u_{l1}`$ be the standard basis of $`\text{C}^l`$. Now we define the representation $`(\psi _{a,b},𝒱)`$ of $`𝒲`$ as follows: Let $`Z_{jk},X_{jk}\mathrm{End}(𝒱)`$ be the matrices defined as $`Z_{jk}u_i=u_{i+1}`$ and $`X_{jk}u_i=\epsilon ^iu_i`$ on the component $`V_{jk}`$ and as the identity on the other component. For non-zero parameters $`a:=(a_{ij})_{1ijn}`$ and $`b:=(b_{ij})_{1ijn}(\text{C}^\times )^{n(n+1)/2}`$, define $`\psi _{a,b}(x_{ij}),\psi _{a,b}(z_{ij})\mathrm{End}(𝒱)`$ to be

$$\psi _{a,b}(x_{ij})=a_{ij}X_{ij},\psi _{a,b}(z_{ij})=b_{ij}Z_{ij}.$$
(3.23)
We can easily check that these define the representation of $`𝒲`$:

$$\psi _{a,b}:𝒲\mathrm{End}(𝒱).$$
(3.24)
Composing $`\phi _{r,s}`$ and $`\psi _{a,b}`$;

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{r,s,a,b}:=\psi _{a,b}\phi _{r,s}:U_\epsilon \stackrel{\phi _{r,s}}{}𝒲\stackrel{\psi _{a,b}}{}\mathrm{End}(𝒱).$$

we obtain the representation of $`U_\epsilon `$ denoted by $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{r,s,a,b},𝒱)`$. The representation introduced in  is just as $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\epsilon r,\epsilon s,a,b},𝒱)`$ in our notation since we have $`\phi _{r,s}=\rho _{\epsilon ^1r,\epsilon ^1s}`$ in the proof of Proposition 3.1.

In , it is shown that the central elements of $`U_\epsilon `$ take values in an open set of $`\text{C}^{n(n+2)}`$ and then by , it turns out to be generically irreducible for the parameters $`r,s,a,b`$. We are interested in specializations of these parameters so that the representation $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{r,s,a,b}),𝒱)`$ is not necessarily irreducible.

### 3.2 Representations of $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$ and $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$

We review the representation theory of $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$. The classification of the irreducible represntations of $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$ is given by Lusztig . Before seeing it, let us recall the notions of highest weight modules.

###### Definition 3.4

Let $`V`$ be a $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$-module of type $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (as for “type”, see ,).

1. The weight spaces $`V_\lambda `$ $`(\lambda =_im_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_iP)`$ of $`V`$ are defined by

$$V_\lambda :=\left\{vV\right|t_iv=\epsilon ^{m_i^{(0)}}v,\left[\begin{array}{c}t_i;0\\ l\end{array}\right]v=\left[\begin{array}{c}m_i^{(1)}\\ l\end{array}\right]v\},$$
(3.25)
where $`m_i=m_i^{(0)}+lm_i^{(1)}`$ and $`0m_i^{(0)}<l`$.
2. $`V`$ is a highest weight module if $`V`$ is generated by a primitive vector, i.e., a vector $`vV_\lambda `$ for some $`\lambda P`$, such that $`e_iv=e_i^{(l)}v=0`$ for any $`iI`$. In the case, $`\lambda `$ is called the highest weight and $`v`$ is called the highest weight vector of $`V`$.

Let $`V(\lambda )`$ be the irreducible highest weight $`U_q(\text{g})`$-module given by $`V(\lambda )=U_q(\text{g})/`$ where $`\lambda P_+`$ and, $``$ is the left ideal generated by $`e_i`$, $`f_i^{1+h_i,\lambda }`$ and $`t_iq^{h_i,\lambda }`$ $`(1in)`$. Here denote the generator of $`V(\lambda )`$ by $`v_\lambda `$. Let $`V_𝒜^{\mathrm{res}}(\lambda )`$ be the $`U_𝒜^{\mathrm{res}}`$-submodule of $`V(\lambda )`$ generated by $`v_\lambda `$. Set $`W_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}(\lambda ):=V_𝒜^{\mathrm{res}}(\lambda )_𝒜\text{C}_\epsilon `$, which is naturally $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$-module. Note that $`W_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}(\lambda )`$ is not necessarily irreducible. So, let $`Y`$ be its maximal proper submodule and define $`V_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}(\lambda ):=W_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}(\lambda )/Y`$ to be the irreducibel quotient, which is type $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ highest weight module with the highest weight $`\lambda `$.

###### Theorem 3.5 ()

Arbitrary finite-dimensional irreducible $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$-module $`V`$ of type 1 is isomorphic to $`V_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}(\lambda )`$ for a unique $`\lambda P_+`$.

Note that arbitrary finite-dimensional irreducible $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$-module $`V`$ of type 1 is a direct sum of its weight spaces.

###### Theorem 3.6 ()

For $`\lambda =_im_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_iP_+`$, define $`\lambda ^{(0)}:=_im_i^{(0)}\lambda _i`$ and $`\lambda ^{(1)}:=_im_i^{(1)}\lambda _i`$ where $`m_i=m_i^{(0)}+lm_i^{(1)}`$ with $`0m_i^{(0)}<l`$ (and then $`\lambda =\lambda ^{(0)}+l\lambda ^{(1)}`$). The $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$-module $`V_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}(\lambda )`$ is isomorphic to $`V(\lambda ^{(0)})V(l\lambda ^{(1)})`$.

Here we call a weight $`\lambda P_+`$ satisfying $`\lambda =\lambda ^{(0)}`$ a $`l`$-restricted weight. As we have stated in the introduction, the module $`V(\lambda ^{(0)})`$ is irreducible $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$-module and $`V(l\lambda ^{(1)})`$ is identified with the irreducible highest weight $`\text{sl}_{n+1}`$-module $`V(\lambda ^{(1)})`$. Since we know the structure of irreducible $`\text{sl}_{n+1}`$-module well, this theorem implies that the structure of the module $`V_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}(\lambda )`$ can be clarified if we shall make clear the one for $`V(\lambda ^{(0)})`$.

## 4 Primitive vectors

Let $`l`$ and $`\epsilon `$ be same as in the previous section.

### 4.1 Specializations of parameters

Let $`M:=\{\mathrm{m}=(m_{jk})_{1jkn}|0m_{jk}l1\}`$ be the index set of the standard basis of $`𝒱`$. We can consider the additive structure on $`M`$ via the natural identification $`M(\text{Z}/l\text{Z})^{\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)}`$. For $`\mathrm{m}M`$ we write $`u_\mathrm{m}:=_{1jkn}u_{m_{jk}}`$ ($`u_{m_{jk}}V_{jk}`$).

Here we consider the following specialization of parameters $`r,s,a,b`$ :

$`a_{ik}a_{ik+1}\mathrm{}a_{in}=1,`$ (4.1)
$`r_ib_{ik}b_{ik1}b_{i1k1}^1b_{i+1k}^1=1,(1ikn),`$ (4.2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_i}{s_i}}b_{in}^2b_{i1n}^1b_{i+1n}^1=\epsilon ^{\lambda _i}`$ (4.3)
where integers $`\{\lambda _i\}_{1in}`$ satisfy $`0\lambda _i<l`$.

Remark. Here note that the set of parameters satisfying (4.1)–(4.3) is never empty. Indeed, if we set $`a_{jk}=b_{jk}=1`$ for any $`(j,k)`$ and $`r_i=1`$ and $`s_i=\epsilon ^{\lambda _i}`$ for any $`i`$, it is trivial to see that these satisfy (4.1)–(4.3). (By (4.1), we have $`a_{jk}=1`$ for all $`1jkn`$).

###### Lemma 4.1

Under the specialization (4.2) and (4.3), we have

$$s_ib_{i+1knk}b_{i+1kn+1k}^1b_{ikn+1k}b_{iknk}^1=\epsilon ^{\lambda _i}.$$
(4.4)
Proof. Using (4.2), we have $`r_ib_{ik}b_{ik1}b_{i1k1}^1b_{i+1k}^1=1=r_ib_{ik1}b_{ik2}b_{i1k2}^1b_{i+1k1}^1`$ and then $`b_{ik}b_{i1k1}^1b_{i+1k}^1=b_{ik2}b_{i1k2}^1b_{i+1k1}^1`$. Changing $`iik`$ and $`knk`$, we get

$$b_{i+1knk}b_{i+1kn+1k}^1=b_{iknk1}b_{ikn+1k}^1b_{ik1nk1}b_{ik1nk1}^1.$$
(4.5)
By (4.2) with $`k=n`$ and (4.3), we have $`s_ib_{in1}b_{in}^1b_{i1n}b_{i1n1}^1=\epsilon ^{\lambda _i}`$, which is (4.4) in the case $`k=1`$. Suppose that (4.4) holds and substitute (4.5) into (4.4). Then we obtain

$$s_ib_{iknk1}b_{iknk}^1b_{ik1nk}b_{ik1nk1}^1=\epsilon ^{\lambda _i}.$$

Thus, the induction on $`k`$ procedes and then we prove (4.4) for any $`k\{1,2,\mathrm{},i\}`$.

By (4.1)–(4.3) and this lemma, we have

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{r,s,a,b}(e_i):={\displaystyle \underset{k=i}{\overset{n}{}}}X_{ik}X_{ik+1}\mathrm{}X_{in}\{Z_{ik}Z_{ik1}Z_{i1k1}^1Z_{i+1k}^1\},`$ (4.6)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{r,s,a,b}(f_i):={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{i}{}}}X_{i+1kn+1k}^1X_{i+2kn+2k}^1\mathrm{}X_{in}^1`$ (4.7)
$`\times \{\epsilon ^{\lambda _i}Z_{i+1knk}Z_{i+1kn+1k}^1Z_{ikn+1k}Z_{iknk}^1\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{r,s,a,b}(t_i):=\epsilon ^{\lambda _i}Z_{in}^2Z_{i1n}^1Z_{i+1n}^1,`$ (4.8)
### 4.2 Primitive vecotrs in $`𝒱`$

Under the specialization in 4.1, we get the following:

###### Proposition 4.2

Under the specialization (4.1) and (4.2), $`v𝒱`$ satisfies the condition

$$e_iv=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{any}i=1,\mathrm{},n,$$
(4.9)
if and only if $`v=cu_\stackrel{}{0}`$ $`(c\text{C})`$ where $`\stackrel{}{0}=(0,0,\mathrm{},0)M`$.

Proof.  By (4.1) and (4.2), the action of $`e_i`$ on $`u_\mathrm{m}𝒱`$ ($`\mathrm{m}=(m_{gh})M`$) is given by

$$e_iu_\mathrm{m}=\underset{ikn}{}[m_{ik}+m_{ik1}m_{i1k1}m_{i+1k}]u_{\mathrm{m}+ϵ_{ik}+\mathrm{}ϵ_{in}},$$
(4.10)
where $`ϵ_{jk}M`$ satisfies that the $`(j,k)`$-entry is 1 and all others are 0. If $`\mathrm{m}=\stackrel{}{0}`$, we have $`m_{ik}+m_{ik1}m_{i1k1}m_{i+1k}=0`$ for all $`ikn`$, which implies that $`e_iu_\stackrel{}{0}=0`$ for any $`i`$.

Conversely, assume that $`v=_{\mathrm{m}M}c_\mathrm{m}u_\mathrm{m}`$ $`(c_\mathrm{m}\text{C})`$ satisfies (4.9). First, we have

$$0=e_nv=X_{nn}\{Z_{n1n1}^1Z_{nn}\}v=\underset{\mathrm{m}M}{}c_\mathrm{m}[m_{nn}m_{n1n1}]u_{\mathrm{m}+ϵ_{nn}}.$$
(4.11)
This implies that

$$m_{n1n1}m_{nn}c_\mathrm{m}=0,$$
(4.12)
and then we have $`v=_{\mathrm{m}M,m_{n1n1}=m_{nn}}c_\mathrm{m}v_\mathrm{m}`$.

Next, by $`e_{n1}v=0`$ we have

$`0=e_{n1}v=(X_{n1n1}X_{n1n}\{Z_{n1n1}Z_{n2n2}^1\}+X_{n1n}\{Z_{n1n}Z_{n1n1}Z_{n2n1}^1Z_{nn}^1\})v`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{m}M,\\ m_{n1n1}=m_{nn}\end{array}}{}}c_\mathrm{m}[m_{n1n1}m_{n2n2}]u_{\mathrm{m}+ϵ_{n1n1}+ϵ_{n1n}}`$
$`+c_\mathrm{m}[m_{n1n}+m_{n1n1}m_{n2n1}m_{nn}]u_{\mathrm{m}+ϵ_{n1n}}.`$
This implies that

$$c_\mathrm{m}[m_{n1n1}m_{n2n2}]=c_\mathrm{m}[m_{n1n}+m_{n1n1}m_{n2n1}m_{nn}]=0$$
(4.14)
for any $`\mathrm{m}M`$ satisfying $`m_{n1n1}=m_{nn}`$ since all vectors appear in the summation are linearly independent under the condition $`m_{n1n1}=m_{nn}`$, that is, the index $`\mathrm{m}+ϵ_{n1n1}+ϵ_{n1n}`$ and $`\mathrm{m}^{}+ϵ_{n1n}`$ never coincide for arbitrary $`\mathrm{m},\mathrm{m}^{}`$ under the condition $`m_{n1n1}=m_{nn}`$. Thus, by (4.12) and (4.14) we have unless

$`m_{n2n2}=m_{n1n1}=m_{nn},`$
$`m_{n2n1}=m_{n1n},`$
$`c_\mathrm{m}=0`$.

Here we assume that $`c_\mathrm{m}=0`$ in $`v`$ unless

$`m_{ii}=m_{i+1i+1}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}=m_{nn},`$
$`m_{ii+1}=m_{i+1i+2}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}=m_{n1n},`$ (4.15)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$
$`m_{in1}=m_{i+1n}.`$
By $`e_iv=0`$ we get

$`0={\displaystyle \underset{k=i}{\overset{n}{}}}X_{ik}X_{ik+1}\mathrm{}X_{in}\{Z_{ik}Z_{ik1}Z_{i1k1}^1Z_{i+1k}^1\}v`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{m}M,\\ \mathrm{m}\text{ satisfies (}\text{4.15}\text{)}\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=i}{\overset{n}{}}}c_\mathrm{m}[m_{ik}+m_{ik1}m_{i1k1}m_{i+1k}]u_{\mathrm{m}+ϵ_{ik}+\mathrm{}+ϵ_{in}}`$ (4.18)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{m}M,\\ \mathrm{m}\text{ satisfies (}\text{4.15}\text{)}\end{array}}{}}(c_\mathrm{m}[m_{ii}m_{i1i1}]u_{\mathrm{m}+ϵ_{ii}+\mathrm{}+ϵ_{in}}`$ (4.20)
$`+c_\mathrm{m}[m_{ii+1}+m_{ii}m_{i1i}m_{i+1i+1}]u_{\mathrm{m}+ϵ_{ii+1}+\mathrm{}+ϵ_{in}}`$ (4.21)
$`+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}+`$
$`+c_\mathrm{m}[m_{in}+m_{in1}m_{i1n1}m_{i+1n}]u_{\mathrm{m}+ϵ_{in}}).`$
It follows from (4.15) that all vectors apear in the summation (4.21) are linearly independent. Therefore, we obtain that $`c_\mathrm{m}=0`$, unless

$`m_{ii}m_{i1i1}=0,`$
$`m_{ii+1}+m_{ii}m_{i1i}m_{i+1i+1}=0,`$
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$
$`m_{in}+m_{in1}m_{i1n1}m_{i+1n}=0.`$
Thus, from this and (4.15) we get $`c_\mathrm{m}=0`$ unless

$`m_{i1i1}=m_{ii}=m_{i+1i+1}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}=m_{nn},`$
$`m_{i1i}=m_{ii+1}=m_{i+1i+2}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}=m_{n1n},`$ (4.22)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$
$`m_{i1,n2}=m_{in1}=m_{i+1n},`$
$`m_{i1n1}=m_{in}.`$
Thus, using $`e_2v=e_3v=\mathrm{}=e_{n1}v=e_nv=0`$ we have $`c_\mathrm{m}=0`$ unless

$`m_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}=m_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}2}}=m_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}3}}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}=m_{nn},`$
$`m_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}}=m_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3}}=m_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}4}}=\mathrm{}=m_{n1n},`$ (4.23)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$
$`m_{1,n2}=m_{2n1}=m_{3n},`$
$`m_{1n1}=m_{2n}.`$
Finally, using $`e_1v=0`$, we have

$`0={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}X_{1k}X_{1k+1}\mathrm{}X_{1n}\{Z_{1k}Z_{1k1}Z_{2k}^1\}v`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{m}M,\\ \mathrm{m}\text{ satisfies (}\text{4.23}\text{)}\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}c_\mathrm{m}[m_{1k}+m_{1k1}m_{2k}]u_{\mathrm{m}+ϵ_{1k}+\mathrm{}+ϵ_{1n}}`$ (4.26)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{m}M,\\ \mathrm{m}\text{ satisfies (}\text{4.23}\text{)}\end{array}}{}}(c_\mathrm{m}[m_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}]u_{\mathrm{m}+ϵ_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}+\mathrm{}+ϵ_{1n}}`$ (4.28)
$`+c_\mathrm{m}[m_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}m_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}2}}]u_{\mathrm{m}+ϵ_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}}+\mathrm{}+ϵ_{1n}}`$ (4.29)
$`+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}+`$
$`+c_\mathrm{m}[m_{1n}+m_{1n1}m_{2n}]u_{\mathrm{m}+ϵ_{1n}}).`$
Under the condition of (4.23), we get that $`c_\mathrm{m}=0`$, unless

$$0=m_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}=m_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}}=\mathrm{}=m_{1n}.$$
(4.30)
Therefore, it follows from (4.23) and (4.30) that $`c_\mathrm{m}=0`$ unless

$`0=m_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}=m_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}2}}=m_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}3}}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}=m_{nn},`$
$`0=m_{\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}2}}=m_{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}3}}=m_{\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}4}}=\mathrm{}=m_{n1n},`$ (4.31)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$
$`0=m_{1,n2}=m_{2n1}=m_{3n},`$
$`0=m_{1n1}=m_{2n},`$
which implies that $`v=cu_\stackrel{}{0}`$.

Remark.  In the proof of the proposition, we see easily that we do not need (4.1) essentially. It is required for simplification of the proof or the presentations. So it is possible to proceed the same argument for generic $`a_{jk}`$’s.

The primitive vector $`u_\stackrel{}{0}`$ possesses the following property:

###### Proposition 4.3

Under the condition (4.1), (4.2) and (4.3), we have $`f_i^{\lambda _i+1}u_\stackrel{}{0}=0`$.

Proof. We obtain the explicit form of $`f_i^{\lambda _i+1}`$ on $`𝒱`$ by (3.14) in Proposition 3.3 taking $`m=\lambda _i+1`$. By Lemma 4.1, under the specialization (4.1), (4.2) and (4.3), we have $`s_ib_{i+1knk}b_{i+1kn+1k}^1b_{ikn+1k}b_{iknk}^1=\epsilon ^{\lambda _i}`$. Thus, on $`u_\stackrel{}{0}`$ we have

$`f_i^{\lambda _i+1}u_\stackrel{}{0}`$
$`=[\lambda _i+1]!{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\lambda _i+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}ik_p<\mathrm{}<k_1n\\ 1\nu _p<\mathrm{}<\nu _1=\lambda _i+1\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}}A_{n+1in+1k_r}^{\nu _r\nu _{r+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\left\{\begin{array}{c}\epsilon ^{\lambda _i};\nu _r1\\ \nu _r\nu _{r+1}\end{array}\right\}u_\stackrel{}{0}.`$
For any $`p\{1,2,\mathrm{},\lambda _i+1\}`$ and any $`\nu _p,\mathrm{},\nu _1`$ satisying $`1\nu _p<\mathrm{}<\nu _1=\lambda _i+1`$, there exists some $`r\{1,2,\mathrm{},p\}`$ such that $`\nu _{r+1}\lambda _i<\nu _r`$. Therefore, for such $`r`$ we have

$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}\epsilon ^{\lambda _i};\nu _r1\\ \nu _r\nu _{r+1}\end{array}\right\}=\frac{\{\epsilon ^{\lambda _i+\nu _r1}\}\{\epsilon ^{\lambda _i+\nu _r2}\}\mathrm{}\{\epsilon ^{\lambda _i+\nu _{r+1}}\}}{[\nu _r\nu _{r+1}]!}=0.$$

Thus, we obtain $`f_i^{\lambda _i+1}u_\stackrel{}{0}=0`$.

Here for $`\lambda :=(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)`$ $`(0\lambda _i<l)`$ we define the $`U_\epsilon `$-submodule $`L(\lambda )`$ of $`𝒱`$ by $`L(\lambda ):=U_\epsilon u_\stackrel{}{0}`$.

Let $`V(\lambda )`$ be the irreducible highest weight $`U_q(\text{g})`$-module as in 3.2. Let $`V_𝒜(\lambda )`$ be the $`U_𝒜`$-submodule of $`V(\lambda )`$ generated by $`v_\lambda `$. Set $`V_\epsilon (\lambda ):=V_𝒜(\lambda )_𝒜\text{C}_\epsilon `$, which is naturally $`U_\epsilon `$-module. Note that $`V_\epsilon (\lambda )`$ is not necessarily irreducible. By Propositoin 4.3, $`f_i^{h_i,\lambda +1}u_\stackrel{}{0}=0`$ ($`iI`$), thus we have the following surjective $`U_\epsilon `$-linear map $`\pi :V_\epsilon (\lambda )L(\lambda )`$ given by $`\pi :v_\lambda u_\stackrel{}{0}`$. It seems that the module $`L(\lambda )`$ is in the similar stream of the theory of $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$-modules. Here we expect that $`L(\lambda )`$ is an irreducible highest weight $`U_\epsilon `$-module. Suprisingly, in the next section we obtain more interesting results that $`L(\lambda )`$ can be seen as an irreducible $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$-module. This means that we get $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$ (or $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$)-modules directly from $`U_\epsilon `$-modules.

### 4.3 Shifts of parameters

Let $`r^{(0)}=(r_j^{(0)})`$, $`s^{(0)}=(s_j^{(0)})(\text{C}^\times )^n`$ and $`a^{(0)}=(a_{jk}^{(0)})`$, $`b^{(0)}=(b_{jk}^{(0)})(\text{C}^\times )^N`$ be the parameters satisfying (4.1)–(4.3).

Fix a basis vector $`u_\xi 𝒱`$ ($`\xi =(\xi _{jk})M`$) arbitrarily and set $`b^{(\xi )}:=(\epsilon ^{\xi _{jk}}b_{jk}^{(0)})(\text{C}^\times )^N`$. In this setting we obtain the following:

###### Proposition 4.4

For any $`\mu =(\mu _{jk})M`$ and any $`XU_\epsilon `$, set

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{r^{(0)},s^{(0)},a^{(0)},b^{(0)}}(X)u_\mu =\underset{\mathrm{m}M}{}C_\mathrm{m}u_\mathrm{m}.$$
(4.33)
Then we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{r^{(0)},s^{(0)},a^{(0)},b^{(\xi )}}(X)u_{\mu +\xi }=\underset{\mathrm{m}M}{}C_\mathrm{m}u_{\mathrm{m}+\xi }$$
(4.34)
Proof.  It is shown easily from the formula

$`\psi _{a^{(0)},b^{(0)}}(x_{jk})u_{\mu _{jk}}=a_{jk}^{(0)}u_{\mu _{jk}+1},\psi _{a^{(0)},b^{(0)}}(z_{jk})u_{\mu _{jk}}=b_{jk}^{(0)}\epsilon ^{\mu _{jk}}u_{\mu _{jk}},`$
$`\psi _{a^{(0)},b^{(\xi )}}(x_{jk})u_{\mu _{jk}+\xi _{jk}}=a_{jk}^{(0)}u_{\mu _{jk}+\xi _{jk}+1},`$
$`\psi _{a^{(0)},b^{(\xi )}}(z_{jk})u_{\mu _{jk}+\xi _{jk}}=b_{jk}^{(\xi )}\epsilon ^{\mu _{jk}+\xi _{jk}}u_{\mu _{jk}+\xi _{jk}}=b_{jk}^{(0)}\epsilon ^{\mu _{jk}}u_{\mu _{jk}+\xi _{jk}}.`$
By Proposition 4.4, we have the following result.

###### Proposition 4.5

We consider the representation $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{r^{(0)},s^{(0)},a^{(0)},b^{(\xi )}},𝒱)`$. A vector $`v𝒱`$ satisfies the condition

$$e_iv=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{any}i=1,\mathrm{},n,$$
(4.35)
if and only if $`v=cu_\xi `$ $`(c\text{C})`$ where $`u_\xi 𝒱`$ is the fixed basis vector as above.

By this proposition, if we take the parameters properly, any basis vector $`u_\xi `$ in $`𝒱`$ can be a primitive vector.

## 5 Irreducible $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$-module

Suppose that parameters $`r,s,a,b`$ satisfy the conditions (4.1)–(4.3). In this case $`u_\stackrel{}{0}`$ is the unique (up to constant) primitive vector in $`𝒱`$. As we defined in the last section, set $`L(\lambda ):=U_\epsilon u_\stackrel{}{0}`$ $`(\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _n),\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}\lambda _il1)`$, which is a $`U_\epsilon `$-submodule of $`𝒱`$. In this section we shall see several properties of this module and it amounts to an irreducible $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$-module.

### 5.1 Root vectors

First, we see higher root vectors in $`U_\epsilon `$. There are several definitions for them. We shall introduce two of them here and discuss their relations.

The first one is defined by using (2.13) and (2.16). We also denote them by $`e_\alpha `$ and $`f_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+`$).

###### Lemma 5.1

The root vectors $`e_\alpha `$ and $`f_\alpha U_\epsilon `$ ($`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+`$) defined by (2.13) and (2.16) satisfy the relations (2.11), (2.12), (2.14), (2.15), (2.17) and (2.18) in $`U_\epsilon `$.

Proof. The proof for the $`f_\alpha `$ case is similar to the $`e_\alpha `$ case, thus we shall only see the $`e_\alpha `$ case. We shall show (2.11), (2.14) and (2.15) simultaneously by the induction on the height of roots. Set $`\alpha =\alpha _j+\alpha _{j+1}\mathrm{}+\alpha _k,`$ $`\beta =\alpha \alpha _j`$ and $`\gamma =\beta \alpha _{j+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ ($`j<k`$). If the condition $`(\alpha ,\alpha _i)=0`$ and $`i<g(\alpha )(=k)`$ hold, we know that $`i\{1,2,\mathrm{},j2,j+1,j+2,\mathrm{},k1\}`$. If $`i\{1,2,\mathrm{},j2,j+2,\mathrm{},k1\}`$, by the hypothesis of the induction we have $`e_ie_\beta =e_\beta e_i`$ and then

$$e_ie_\alpha =e_i(\epsilon ^1e_je_\beta e_\beta e_j)=(\epsilon ^1e_je_\beta e_\beta e_j)e_i=e_\alpha e_i.$$

If $`i=j+1`$, by the hypothesis of the induction we have $`\epsilon e_{j+1}e_\beta =e_\beta e_{j+1}`$, $`e_je_\gamma =e_\gamma e_j`$ and then

$`e_{j+1}e_\alpha `$ $`=e_{j+1}(\epsilon ^1e_je_\beta e_\beta e_j)=e_{j+1}(\epsilon ^1e_j(\epsilon ^1e_{j+1}e_\gamma e_\gamma e_{j+1})e_\beta e_j)`$
$`=\epsilon ^2e_{j+1}e_je_{j+1}e_\gamma \epsilon ^1e_{j+1}e_je_\gamma e_{j+1}e_{j+1}e_\beta e_j`$
$`=\epsilon ^1e_\beta e_{j+1}e_j+e_\gamma e_{j+1}e_je_{j+1}+\epsilon ^1e_je_\beta e_{j+1}e_\beta e_je_{j+1}e_\gamma e_{j+1}e_je_{j+1}\epsilon ^1e_\beta e_{j+1}e_j`$
$`=\epsilon ^1e_je_\beta e_{j+1}e_\beta e_je_{j+1}=e_\alpha e_{j+1}.`$
Here we used the formula;

$`e_{j+1}e_je_{j+1}e_\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon e_\beta e_{j+1}e_j+\epsilon ^2e_\gamma e_{j+1}e_je_{j+1}+\epsilon e_je_\beta e_{j+1},`$
$`e_{j+1}e_je_\gamma e_{j+1}`$ $`=`$ $`e_\beta e_je_{j+1}+e_\gamma e_{j+1}e_je_{j+1}.`$
Next, if the condition $`(\alpha ,\alpha _i)=1`$ and $`i<g(\alpha )(=k)`$ hold, we know that $`i=j1`$. In this case, we have

$`e_{j1}e_{\alpha +\alpha _{j1}}`$ $`=e_{j1}(\epsilon ^1e_{j1}e_\alpha e_\alpha e_{j1})`$
$`=e_{j1}(\epsilon ^1e_{j1}(\epsilon ^1e_je_\beta e_\beta e_j)(\epsilon ^1e_je_\beta e_\beta e_j)e_{j1})`$
$`=\epsilon ^2([2]e_{j1}e_je_{j1}e_\beta e_je_{j1}^2e_\beta )\epsilon ^1e_\beta e_{j1}^2e_je_{j1}(\epsilon ^1e_je_\beta e_\beta e_j)e_{j1}`$
$`=((\epsilon ^2e_je_\beta +\epsilon ^1e_\beta e_j)e_{j1}+\epsilon ^2e_{j1}(\epsilon ^1e_je_\beta e_\beta e_j))e_{j1}`$
$`=\epsilon ^1(\epsilon ^1e_{j1}e_\alpha e_\alpha e_{j1})e_{j1}=\epsilon ^1e_{\alpha +\alpha _{j1}}e_{j1}.`$
Finally, under the same condition as above, using $`e_je_\alpha =\epsilon ^1e_\alpha e_j`$, $`e_\beta e_\alpha =\epsilon e_\alpha e_\beta `$, $`e_{j1}e_\beta =e_\beta e_{j1}`$ and $`e_je_\beta ^2[2]e_\beta e_je_\beta +e_\beta ^2e_j=e_j^2e_\beta [2]e_je_\beta e_j+e_\beta e_j^2=0`$ we have

$`e_\alpha ^2e_{j1}`$ $`=(\epsilon ^1e_je_\beta e_\beta e_j)e_\alpha e_{j1}=e_je_\alpha e_{j1}e_\beta e_\beta e_je_\alpha e_{j1}`$
$`=\epsilon ^1e_j^2e_{j1}e_\beta ^2e_je_\beta e_je_{j1}e_\beta \epsilon ^1e_\beta e_j^2e_{j1}e_\beta +e_\beta e_je_\beta e_je_{j1}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^2}{[2]}}e_j^2e_{j1}e_\beta ^2\epsilon ^1e_\beta e_j^2e_{j1}e_\beta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[2]}}e_\beta ^2e_j^2e_{j1}`$
$`=e_{j1}(\epsilon ^2e_je_\beta e_je_\beta +\epsilon ^1e_\beta e_j^2e_\beta +\epsilon ^1e_je_\beta ^2e_je_\beta e_je_\beta e_j)`$
$`+[2](\epsilon ^2e_je_\beta e_{j1}e_je_\beta \epsilon ^1e_je_\beta e_{j1}e_\beta e_j\epsilon ^1e_\beta e_je_{j1}e_je_\beta +e_\beta e_je_{j1}e_\beta e_j)`$
$`=e_{j1}e_\alpha ^2+[2]e_\alpha e_{j1}e_\alpha ,`$
and then we have $`e_\alpha e_{\alpha +\alpha _{j1}}=\epsilon e_{\alpha +\alpha _{j1}}e_\alpha `$.

Here we introduce the alternative definition of root vectors . For roots $`\alpha =\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}\alpha _j`$ and $`\beta =\alpha _{j+1}+\alpha _{j+2}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _k`$ ($`i<j<k`$), we define

$`\overline{e}_{\alpha +\beta }=\overline{e}_\alpha \overline{e}_\beta \epsilon \overline{e}_\beta \overline{e}_\alpha ,`$ (5.1)
$`\overline{f}_{\alpha +\beta }=\overline{f}_\alpha \overline{f}_\beta \epsilon ^1\overline{f}_\beta \overline{f}_\alpha ,`$ (5.2)
where we set $`\overline{e}_{\alpha _i}:=e_i`$ and $`\overline{f}_{\alpha _i}:=f_i`$. Note that this definitions are well-defined, that is, these do not depend on the choice of $`j`$.

We obtain the following simple relations between two types of the root vectors:

###### Lemma 5.2

For any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+`$, we have

$$\overline{e}_\alpha =\epsilon ^{\mathrm{height}(\alpha )1}e_\alpha ,\overline{f}_\alpha =\epsilon ^{\mathrm{height}(\alpha )+1}f_\alpha ,$$
(5.3)
$$\overline{e}_\alpha ^l=e_\alpha ^l,\overline{f}_\alpha ^l=f_\alpha ^l.$$
(5.4)
Proof. The proof of (5.3) is done by using induction on the height of roots and (5.4) is immediate consequence of (5.3) since $`\epsilon ^l=1`$.

### 5.2 $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$-module structure on $`𝒱`$

For $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ we define the actions of $`e_\alpha `$ and $`f_\alpha `$ recursively by using the formula (2.13) and (2.16) as in the previous subsection.

###### Proposition 5.3

For any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, we have

$$e_\alpha ^l=f_\alpha ^l=0\text{ and }t_i^{2l}=1\text{ on }𝒱.$$
(5.5)
Proof. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{r,s,a,b}(t_i)=\epsilon ^{\lambda _i}Z_{in}^2Z_{i1n}^1Z_{i+1n}^1`$ on $`𝒱`$ and $`Z_{ij}^l=1`$, it is trivial that $`t_i^{2l}=1`$. To show the nilpotency of $`e_\alpha `$ and $`f_\alpha `$ we see the following result in .

###### Proposition 5.4 ( Proposition 3.4)

For $`\alpha =\alpha _i+\alpha _{i+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _j`$, the actions of $`\overline{e}_\alpha ^l`$ and $`\overline{f}_\alpha ^l`$ on $`𝒱`$ are given by

$`\overline{e}_\alpha ^l`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\epsilon \epsilon ^1)^l}}({\displaystyle \underset{k_1i,\mathrm{},k_{ji+1}j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{ji+1}{}}}(1)^{p1}\theta (k_1\mathrm{}k_p<\mathrm{}<k_{ji+1})`$
$`C_{ik_1\mathrm{}k_{p1}}(C_{i+p1k_p}C_{i+p1k_p}^1)C_{i+pk_{p+1}\mathrm{}k_{ji+1}}D_{ik_1\mathrm{}k_{ji+1}})\mathrm{id},`$
$`\overline{f}_\alpha ^l`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\epsilon \epsilon ^1)^l}}({\displaystyle \underset{k_1n+1j,\mathrm{},k_{ji+1}n+1i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{ji+1}{}}}(1)^{p1}\theta (k_1\mathrm{}k_p<\mathrm{}<k_{ji+1})`$
$`\overline{C}_{n+1jk_1\mathrm{}k_{p1}}(\overline{C}_{nj+pk_p}\overline{C}_{nj+pk_p}^1)\overline{C}_{nj+p+1k_{p+1}\mathrm{}k_{ji+1}}\overline{D}_{nj+1k_1\mathrm{}k_{ji+1}})\mathrm{id},`$
where $`\theta (X)=1`$ if $`X`$ is true and $`\theta (X)=0`$ otherwise, and we set

$`C_{ik}:=(\epsilon ^1r_ib_{ik}b_{ik1}b_{i1k1}^1b_{i+1k}^1)^l,`$ (5.6)
$`\overline{C}_{ik}:=(\epsilon ^1s_ib_{k+1ik}b_{kik1}b_{k+1ik1}^1b_{kik}^1)^l,`$ (5.7)
$`D_{ik}:={\displaystyle \underset{p=k}{\overset{n}{}}}(a_{ip})^l,\overline{D}_{ik}:={\displaystyle \underset{p=k}{\overset{n}{}}}(a_{p+1ip}^1)^l,`$ (5.8)
and $`\varphi _{ik_1\mathrm{}k_p}:=\varphi _{ik_1}\mathrm{}\varphi _{ik_p}`$ for $`\varphi =C,\overline{C},D,\overline{D}`$.

Applying the specializations of the parameters (4.1), (4.2) and (4.3) to $`C_{ik}`$, $`\overline{C}_{ik}`$, $`D_{ik}`$ and $`\overline{D}_{ik}`$, we have $`C_{ik}=\overline{C}_{ik}=1`$, which implies that $`C_{nj+pk_p}C_{nj+pk_p}^1=\overline{C}_{nj+pk_p}\overline{C}_{nj+pk_p}^1=0`$ and then $`\overline{e}_\alpha ^l=\overline{f}_\alpha ^l=0`$. Since we have $`e_\alpha ^l=\overline{e}_\alpha ^l`$ and $`f_\alpha ^l=\overline{f}_\alpha ^l`$ by Lemma 5.2, we obtain that $`e_\alpha ^l=f_\alpha ^l=0`$ on $`𝒱`$.

###### Theorem 5.5

1. If we define the actions of $`e_\alpha `$ and $`f_\alpha `$ $`(\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_+)`$ by using (2.13) and (2.16), the vector space $`𝒱`$ becomes $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$-module.
2. The subspace $`L(\lambda )`$ $`(\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n),\lambda _i\{0,1,\mathrm{},l1\})`$ is the irreducible $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$-submodule of $`𝒱`$.

Proof. To show the former half of the theorem, it suffices to check the relations (2.7)–(2.20) in Proposition 2.1. The relations (2.7)–(2.10) are satisfied since $`𝒱`$ is originally $`U_\epsilon `$-module. The relations (2.11)–(2.18) are obtained from Lemma 5.2. We have the relations (2.19) and (2.20) from Proposition 5.3. Thus, we have the well-defined actions of $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$ on $`𝒱`$.

### 5.3 Proof of irreducibility

In orderto show the irreducibility of $`L(\lambda )`$, we need the following:

###### Proposition 5.6

Any finite dimensional $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$-module contains a primitive vector.

To show the proposition, we shall show the following lemma

###### Lemma 5.7

Let $`L>0`$ be a sufficiently large integer. For any $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_LI`$ we have in $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$,

$$e_{i_L}\mathrm{}e_{i_2}e_{i_1}=0.$$
(5.9)
Proof.  We define a Z-gradation on $`(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})^+`$ by the following way: As we have seen in Proposition 2.2, $`(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})^+`$ has the basis

$$\{e_{\beta _N}^{r_N}e_{\beta _{N1}}^{r_{N1}}\mathrm{}e_{\beta _1}^{r_1}\}_{0r_1,\mathrm{},r_N<l}.$$

Using this, we define

$$(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})_d^+:=\underset{r_1\mathrm{ht}(\beta _1)+\mathrm{}+r_N\mathrm{ht}(\beta _N)=d}{}\text{C}e_{\beta _N}^{r_N}e_{\beta _{N1}}^{r_{N1}}\mathrm{}e_{\beta _1}^{r_1},$$
(5.10)
where $`\mathrm{ht}(\beta )`$ is the height of a root $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_+`$. We have

$$(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})^+=\underset{d}{}(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})_d^+.$$

An element in $`(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})_d^+`$ is called a homogeneous element of degree $`d`$. Since all the relations in $`(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})^+`$, that is, (2.11), (2.13), (2.14, (2.15) and (2.19) are homogeneous, it is well-defined and then we obtain $`(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})_d^+(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})_e^+(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})_{d+e}^+`$ for $`d,e\text{Z}_0`$. Hence, $`e_{i_L}\mathrm{}e_{i_2}e_{i_1}`$ is a homogeneous element of degree $`L`$. It immediately follows from Proposition 2.2 that the maximum degree is $`(l1)_{i=1}^N\mathrm{ht}(\beta _i):=J`$, which implies that if $`L>J`$, $`(U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}})_L^+=0`$. Thus, if $`L`$ is sufficiently large, a homogeneous element $`e_{i_L}\mathrm{}e_{i_2}e_{i_1}`$ must vanish.

Proof of Proposition 5.6.  Suppose that a finite dimensional $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$-module $`V`$ does not have any primitive vector. So any non-zero $`vV`$ there exists an infinite sequence $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k,\mathrm{}`$ $`(i_jI)`$ such that all vectors $`v`$, $`e_{i_1}v`$, $`e_{i_2}e_{i_1}v,\mathrm{},e_{i_k}\mathrm{}e_{i_2}e_{i_1}v,\mathrm{}`$ never vanish. But this contradicts to Lemma 5.7. Therefore, $`V`$ contains a primitive vector.

Let $`W`$ be a non-zero submodule of $`L(\lambda )`$. By Proposition 5.6, $`W`$ contains a primitive vector. By the uniqueness of the primitive vector in $`𝒱`$ (Proposition 4.2), $`W`$ has to contain $`u_\stackrel{}{0}`$. Therefore, $`W=L(\lambda )`$ and then $`L(\lambda )`$ is irreducible. Here we completed the proof of Theorem 5.5(ii).

By Proposition 7.1 in , for a ’$`l`$-restricted weight’ (see 3.2) $`\lambda P_+`$ the $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$-module $`V_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}(\lambda )`$ (see 3.2) is identified with the irreducible $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$-module, which is isomorphic to $`L(\lambda )`$. Accodingly, by Theorem 5.5 we realize the irreducible highest weight $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}`$-module $`V_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}(\lambda )`$ with the $`l`$-restricted highest weight $`\lambda `$ in the vector space $`𝒱`$.

Our further problem is to write down a basis of $`L(\lambda )`$ explicitly. Any basis vector of the irreducible $`U_q(\text{g})`$-module $`V(\lambda )`$ is parametrized by ”Young tableaux” of shape $`\lambda `$. So by the constrcution of $`V_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{res}}(\lambda )`$ in 3.2, we deduce that a basis vector of $`L(\lambda )`$ would be parametrized by ’restricted’(in some sense) Young tableaux. We would also like to see the structure of the quotient module $`𝒱/L(\lambda )`$ or the tensor product of $`𝒱𝒱`$.

In , for the $`B_n`$, $`C_n`$ and $`D_n`$-cases the analogous presentations of the maximal cyclic representations are given explicitly. Thus, we can apply the procedure adopted here to them and might hope to obtain the irreducible $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}(B_n)`$ ($`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}(C_n)`$, $`U_\epsilon ^{\mathrm{fin}}(D_n)`$)-modules, which will be discussed elsewhere.


text:
# Coalescence of a strange star with a black hole

## 1 Introduction

Binary coalescence of compact objects must give rise to gravitational radiation emission which is expected to be observed with such instruments as LIGO or VIRGO (e.g. Thorne 1995). Neutron stars coalescing with black holes may also be the source of r–process nuclei and of gamma–ray bursts (Lattimer and Schramm 1976). Coalescence of any compact objects (black holes, neutron stars, quark stars) may release enough energy to power a fireball giving rise to some cosmological gamma–ray bursts (Paczyński 1986), and the coalescence of strange (quark) stars may be especially promising (Haensel et al. 1991), provided that no quark matter is spilled into the environment with dire consequences for the birth rate of neutron stars (Caldwell and Friedman 1991, Kluźniak 1994).

More detailed motivation and further references can be found in Lee and Kluźniak (1999a), where the SPH coalescence of a tidally locked neutron star and a black hole is discussed. Lee and Kluźniak (1999b) discuss the coalescence of a tidally locked stiff polytrope with a black hole, while SPH simulations of non–rotating neutron stars in binary coalescence with black holes have been presented by Lee (2000).

## 2 Numerical method and initial conditions

We have used the Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) method (Monaghan 1992) for our calculations. Our Newtonian code is three dimensional and we include a term in the equations of motion that simulates the loss of angular momentum to gravitational radiation in the binary (this is calculated in the quadrupole approximation for a point–mass binary). We also compute the gravitational radiation waveforms emitted during the coalesence, in the quadrupole approximation. The strange star is modeled with $`N=17000`$ SPH particles, and has mass $`M_{SS}=1.4M_{}`$ and radius $`R_{SS}=11`$ km. The black hole is modeled as a point mass producing a Newtonian potential, and we model accretion onto it by placing an absorbing boundary at the Schwarzschild radius $`r_{Sch}=2GM_{BH}/c^2`$. For the strange star we take the equation of state to be $`P=c^2(\rho \rho _0)/3`$, with $`\rho _0=5\times 10^{17}`$ kg m-3.

To perform a dynamical coalescence calculation, we place the binary components in a close Keplerian orbit at a small separation (a few stellar radii) and give them the corresponding orbital velocities for point masses. The strange star is initially spherical and has no spin as seen from an external, inertial reference frame. The orbit decays through the emission of gravitational waves and because of tidal instabilites of purely Newtonian origin (Lai, Rasio & Shapiro 1993).

Here we present the result of one calculation, with an initial mass ratio $`q=M_{SS}/M_{BH}=0.3`$ and initial separation $`r_i=3R_{SS}`$. The dynamical evolution of the system is followed for approximately 7 ms.

## 3 Results

At the start of the simulation a tidal bulge appears on the strange star as a result of the presence of the black hole companion. The orbital decay causes the star to overflow its Roche lobe, beginning mass transfer within the first orbit. The star is tidally stretched into a tube of practically uniform thickness, and some matter that moves towards the black hole winds around it and produces a torus (see Figure 1). The outer parts of the star move away from the hole as the stream connecting the two becomes thinner. Small condensations form at regular intervals along the narrow stream (see panel (d) in Figure 1), reminiscent of the results of a black hole–neutron star coalescence for a stiff equation of state (Lee 2000).

The mass accretion rate onto the black hole shows a large initial peak at the initial mass transfer episode (see Figure 2), and a subsequent decay, due to the presence of the accretion torus. The small spikes in the curve (such as the ones visible at $`t2.1,2.4,3`$ ms) indicate the accretion of small knots along the matter stream coming from the star.

In the accretion disk around the black hole, the density has dropped below $`\rho _0`$ and so this matter behaves as pressure–free dust in orbit about the hole (for reference, in Figure 1 $`\mathrm{log}(\rho _0/\rho _{})=0.62`$). However, in the surviving core, flung to a large distance during the tidal encounter, and in the small condensations seen in the matter stream connecting the two binary components, the density remains above this value, and thus the matter continues to feel hydrodynamic effects. By $`t5`$ ms, there are 0.15 solar masses in the system excluding the black hole, and this is roughly evenly divided between matter with densities above and below $`\rho _0`$.

## 4 Discussion and conclusions

At the end of the calculation we have attempted to obtain an estimate for the amount matter that could be dynamically ejected from the system, by computing the total mechanical energy (kinetic + gravitational potential) of the fluid. We find that $`5\times 10^3M_{}`$ could leave the system, and would originate from the outermost section of the largest blob formed at the end of the tidal tail. The rest of the matter ($`0.15M_{}`$) is gravitationally bound to the black hole, located practically at the center of mass of the system, and which has acquired a kick velocity from the asymmetric interaction ($`v_{kick}10^3`$km s-1).

Some of the matter in the accretion torus has enough angular momentum so as not to be accreted immediatly by the black hole (i.e. it can remain in orbit in a stable fashion), amounting to $`0.08M_{}`$. This fluid would presumably be accreted onto the black hole on the viscous time scale as angular momentum is redistributed in the disk.

## Acknowledgments

This work supported in part by KBN grant 2P03D 004 18, CONACYT (28987E)and DGAPA–UNAM (IN119998)