text:
# Conformal Killing spinors and special geometric structures in Lorentzian geometry - a survey

## 1 Introduction

A classical object in differential geometry are conformal Killing fields. These are by definition infinitesimal conformal symmetries i.e. the flow of such vector fields preserves the conformal class of the metric. The number of linearely independing conformal Killing fields measures the degree of conformal symmetry of the manifold. This number is bounded by $`\frac{1}{2}(n+1)(n+2)`$, where $`n`$ is the dimension of the manifold. It is the maximal one if the manifold is conformally flat. S. Tachibana and T. Kashiwada (cf. \[TK69\], \[Kas68\]) introduced a generalisation of conformal Killing fields, the conformal Killing forms (or twistor forms). Conformal Killing forms are solutions of a conformally invariant twistor type equation on differential forms. They were studied in General Relativity mainly from the local viewpoint in order to integrate the equation of motion (e.g. \[PW70\]), furthermore they were used to obtain symmetries of field equations (\[BC97\], \[BCK97\]). Recently, U. Semmelmann (\[Sem01\]) started to discuss global properties of conformal Killing forms in Riemannian geometry. Another generalisation of conformal Killing vectors is that of conformal Killing spinors (or twistor spinors), which are solutions of the conformally invariant twistor equation on spinors introduced by R. Penrose in General Relativity (cf. \[PR86\]). Whereas conformal Killing fields are classical symmetries, conformal Killing spinors define infinitesimal symmetries on supermanifolds (cf. \[ACDS98\]). Special kinds of such spinors, parallel and special Killing spinors, occur in supergravity and string theories. In 1989 A. Lichnerowicz and T. Friedrich started a systematic study of twistor spinors in conformal Riemannian geometry. Whereas the global structure of Riemannian manifolds admitting conformal Killing spinors is quite well understood (cf. e.g. \[Lic88b\], \[Lic88a\], \[Lic89\], \[Fri89\] \[Lic90\], \[BFGK91\], \[Hab90\], \[Hab93\], \[Hab94\], \[Hab96\], \[KR94\], \[KR96\], \[KR97\], \[KR98\]), the state of art in its origin, Lorentzian geometry, is far from being satisfactory. J. Lewandowski (\[Lew91\]) described the local normal forms of 4-dimensional spacetimes with zero free twistor spinors. His results indicated that there are interesting relations between conformal Killing spinors, different global contact structures and Lorentzian geometry, that should be discovered. In the present survey we discuss some of these structures. Since there is some interest in several kinds of Killing spinors on Lorentzian manifolds by physicists working in string theory, our investigations and methods, motivated mainly from geometry, could be, perhaps, of some use in physics.

## 2 Conformally invariant operators on spinors

In this section we will define the kind of spinor fields we are interested in and discuss two applications in Riemannian geometry.
Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be a semi-Riemannian spin manifold of dimension $`n3`$. We denote by $`S`$ the spinor bundle and by $`\mu :T^{}MSS`$ the Clifford multiplication. The 1-forms with values in the spinor bundle decompose into two subbundles

$$T^{}MS=VTw,$$

where $`V`$, being the orthogonal complement to the “twistor bundle” $`Tw:=Ker\mu `$, is isomorphic to $`S`$. Usually, we identify $`TM`$ and $`T^{}M`$ using the metric $`g`$.
We obtain two differential operators of first order by composing the spinor derivative $`^S`$ with the orthogonal projections onto each of these subbundles,
the Dirac operator $`D`$

$$D:\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)\stackrel{^S}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(T^{}MS)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(STw)\stackrel{pr_S}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)$$

and the twistor operator $`P`$

$$P:\mathrm{\Gamma }(S)\stackrel{^S}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(T^{}MS)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(STw)\stackrel{pr_{Tw}}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(Tw).$$

Locally, these operators are given by the following formulas

$`D\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\sigma ^i_{s_i}^S\phi `$
$`P\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\sigma ^i(_{s_i}^S\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}s_iD\phi ),`$
where $`(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)`$ is a local orthonormal basis, $`(\sigma ^1,\mathrm{},\sigma ^n)`$ its dual and $``$ denotes the Clifford multiplication. Both operators are conformally covariant. More exactly, if $`\stackrel{~}{g}=e^{2\sigma }g`$ is a conformal change of the metric, the Dirac and the twistor operator satisfy

$`D_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{n+1}{2}\sigma }D_ge^{\frac{n1}{2}\sigma }`$
$`P_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\sigma }{2}}P_ge^{\frac{\sigma }{2}}.`$
The spinor fields we are interested in are the solutions of the conformally invariant equations $`D\phi =0`$ and $`P\phi =0`$. A spinor field $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ is called

| harmonic spinor | $``$ | $`D\phi =0`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| twistor spinor (conformal Killing spinor) | $``$ | $`P\phi =0`$ |
| parallel spinor | $``$ | $`^S\phi =0`$ |
| geometric Killing spinor | $``$ | $`_X^S\phi =\lambda X\phi ,\lambda `$ |
| with Killing number $`\lambda `$ |  |  |

The local formula for the twistor operator shows another characterisation of a twistor spinor: A spinor field $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ is a twistor spinor if and only if

$`_X^S\phi +\frac{1}{n}XD\phi =0`$.
Obviously, parallel and Killing spinors are special kinds of twistor spinors. Each twistor spinor that satisfies the Dirac equation $`D\phi =\mu \phi `$ is a Killing spinor. On Riemannian manifolds each twistor spinor without zeros can be transformed by a conformal change of the metric into a Killing spinor.
Twistor spinors appeared naturally in Riemannian geometry. For a motivation, let me explain two well known examples, where it was usefull to know structure results for manifolds with special kinds of twistor spinors.
1. Eigenvalue estimates for the Dirac operator on closed Riemannian manifolds with positive scalar curvature $`R`$ (limiting case)
The Dirac operator $`D`$ on a closed Riemannian spin manifold is elliptic and essentially selfadjoint. Hence, its spectrum contains only real eigenvalues of finite multiplicity. One is interested in lower estimates for the smallest eigenvalue. It is easy to prove that the Dirac operator $`D`$ and the twistor operator $`P`$ are related by

$$D^2=\frac{n}{n1}(P^{}P+\frac{1}{4}R).$$

If $`\lambda `$ is an eigenvalue of $`D`$ and $`D\phi =\lambda \phi `$, integration of

$$D^2\phi ,\phi =\frac{n}{n1}P^{}P\phi ,\phi +\frac{1}{4}R\phi ,\phi $$

yields the estimate (\[Fri80\])

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\frac{n}{n1}\underset{xM}{\mathrm{min}}R(x),$$
(1)
where equality holds if and only if the eigenspinor $`\phi `$ is a twistor spinor. Hence, the discussion of the limiting case (i.e. equality holds in (1)) leads to the problem to find all Riemannian structures which admit real Killing spinors (i.e. Killing spinors with real Killing number). This problem was studied by several authors 111Friedrich, Grunewald, Kath, Hijazi, Baum, Bär, Duff, Nillson, Pope, Nieuwenhuizen and many others) between 1980 and 1993 and is now essentially solved. The key observation in the understanding of geometric Killing spinors was made by Ch. Bär in 1993 (\[Bär93\]). He remarked, that a Riemannian manifold $`(M^n,g)`$ has real Killing spinors if and only if the metric cone $`C_+(M)=(^+\times M,dt^2+t^2g)`$ has parallel spinors. The cone is irreducible in case $`M^n`$ is not the standard sphere. Then, to the cone, one can apply a result of McK. Wang (\[Wan89\]) that describes the possible reduced holonomy groups $`\mathrm{Hol}_0`$ of irreducible manifolds with parallel spinors and is able to derive the corresponding geometries of $`M`$. The result is given in the following table. A compact simply connected Riemannian manifold $`(M^n,g)`$ admits real Killing spinors if and only if

| $`\mathrm{Hol}(C_+(M))`$ | $`\mathrm{SU}(\frac{n}{2})`$ | $`\mathrm{Sp}(\frac{n}{4})`$ | $`G_2`$ | $`\mathrm{Spin7}`$ | $`1`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`M^n`$ | Einstein-Sasaki | 3-Sasaki | nearly Kähler | nearly parallel | $`S^n`$ |
|  |  |  | non Kähler | $`G_2`$-structure |  |

Rigidity Theorems
As a second example I want to explain the Rigidity Theorem for asymptotically locally hyperbolic (ALH) manifolds, proved by Andersson and Dahl (\[AD98\]): An ALH manifold is a complete Riemannian manifold with an asymptotically locally hyperbolic end $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Andersson and Dahl proved that each ALH manifold of dimension $`n`$ with scalar curvature $`R`$ bounded by $`Rn(n1)`$ is isometric to the hyperbolic space $`^n`$. The hyperbolic space $`^n`$ admits imaginary Killing spinors (i.e. the Killing number is purely imaginary). Using such Killing spinor on the asymptotic end of the ALH manifold one can construct an imaginary Killing spinor on $`M^n`$ itself. A complete Riemannian spin manifold $`(M^n,g)`$ admits imaginary Killing spinors if and only if $`(M^n,g)`$ is isometric to a warped product $`(\times F,dt^2+e^{t\mu }g_F)`$ , where $`(F,g_F)`$ is a complete Riemannian manifold with parallel spinors (\[Bau89\]). But, being asymptotically locally hyperbolic, such a warped product has to be the hyperbolic space $`^n`$.
Whereas twistor spinors on Riemannian manifolds are rather well studied 222e.g., by Lichnerowicz, Friedrich, K.Habermann, Küehnel, Rademacher, the state of art in Lorentzian geometry, where the twistor equation originally came from, is far from being satisfactory. For that reason, in this survey we want to consider twistor spinors in Lorentzian geometry and discuss the following problems:

1. Which Lorentzian geometries admit twistor spinors?
2. How the properties of twistor spinors are related to the geometric structures where they can occur?

## 3 Basic facts on twistor spinors

There is a fundamental difference between the two conformally invariant equations $`D\phi =0`$ and $`P\phi =0`$. Whereas the dimension of space of harmonic spinors can become arbitrary large, the dimension of the space of twistor spinors is always bounded by $`2\mathrm{rank}S`$. It holds even more: the twistor equation $`P\phi =0`$ can be viewed as a parallelity equation with respect to a suitable covariant derivative in a suitable bundle. Let us explain this fact (well known for a long time, cf. \[PR86\], \[BFGK91\]) more in detail. Let $``$ and $`W`$ denote the curvature tensor and the Weyl tensor of $`(M^n,g)`$, respectively, considered as selfadjoint maps on the space of 2-forms $`,W:\mathrm{\Lambda }^2M\mathrm{\Lambda }^2M`$. $`\mathrm{Ric}`$ denotes the Ricci tensor of $`(M^n,g)`$ considered here as $`(1,1)`$-tensor or as $`(2,0)`$-tensor as it is needed. In conformal geometry there are 2 further curvature tensors that play an important role, the Rho tensor $`K`$

$$K(X):=\frac{1}{n2}(\frac{R}{2(n1)}X\mathrm{Ric}(X)),XTM$$

and the Cotton-York tensor

$$C(X,Y):=(_XK)(Y)(_YK)(X),X,YTM.$$

Let us consider the double spinor bundle $`E=SS`$ with the following covariant derivative

$$_X^E:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_X^S& \frac{1}{n}X\\ \frac{n}{2}K(X)& _X^S\end{array}\right)$$

The curvature of this derivative is given by

$$^^E(X,Y)\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi \\ \psi \end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}W(XY)\phi \hfill \\ W(XY)\psi nC(X,Y)\phi \hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(2)
(cf. \[BFGK91\], chap. 1). Using integrability conditions for twistor spinors one obtains the following correspondence between twistor spinors and parallel spections in $`(E,^E)`$:

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be a semi-Riemannian spin manifold and $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$. Then

1. If $`\phi `$ is a twistor spinor, then $`^E\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi \\ D\phi \end{array}\right)=0.`$
2. If $`^E\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi \\ \psi \end{array}\right)=0`$, then $`\phi `$ is a twistor spinor and $`\psi =D\phi `$.

A semi-Riemannian manifold is (locally) conformally flat if and only if $`W=0`$ (hence $`C=0`$) in dimension $`n4`$ or $`C=0`$ in dimension $`n=3`$, where $`W=0`$ is always satisfied. Therefore, by formula (2) the spin manifold $`(M^n,g)`$ is conformally flat if and only if the curvature $`^^E`$ of $`^E`$ vanishes. Together with Proposition 3.1 one obtains the maximal possible number of linearely independent twistor spinors, which is attained on conformally flat manifolds as in the case of conformal vector fields.

###### Proposition 3.2

1. The dimension of the space of twistor spinors is a conformal invariant and bounded by

$$dim\mathrm{ker}P2\mathrm{rank}S=2^{[\frac{n}{2}]+1}=:d_n.$$
2. If $`dim\mathrm{ker}P=d_n`$, then $`(M^n,g)`$ is conformally flat.
3. If $`(M^n,g)`$ is simply connected and conformally flat, then $`dim\mathrm{ker}P=d_n`$.

For example, all simply connected space forms $`_k^n,\stackrel{~}{}_k^n,\stackrel{~}{S}_k^n`$ admit the maximal number of linearly independent twistor spinors.

## 4 Twistor spinors on Lorentzian spin manifolds

Now, we restrict our attention to the case of Lorentzian signature $`(,+\mathrm{}+)`$. Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be an oriented and time-oriented Lorentzian spin manifold. On the spinor bundle $`S`$ there exists an indefinite non-degenerate inner product $`,`$ such that

$`X,\phi ,\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\phi ,X\psi \text{and}`$
$`X(\phi ,\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`_X^S\phi ,\psi +\phi ,_X^S\psi ,`$
for all vector fields $`X`$ and all spinor fields $`\phi ,\psi `$. Each spinor field $`\phi \mathrm{\Gamma }(S)`$ defines a vector field $`V_\phi `$ on $`M`$, the so-called Dirac current, by

$$g(V_\phi ,X):=X\phi ,\phi .$$
(3)
A motivation to call twistor spinors conformal Killing spinors is the

###### Proposition 4.1

Let $`\phi `$ be a spinor field on a Lorentzian spin manifold $`(M^n,g)`$ with Dirac current $`V_\phi `$. Then

1. $`V_\phi `$ is causal and future-directed.
2. The zero sets of $`\phi `$ and $`V_\phi `$ coincide.
3. If $`\phi `$ is a twistor spinor, $`V_\phi `$ is a conformal Killing field.

Now, let us discuss 3 types of special Lorentzian geometries that admit conformal Killing spinors.

### 4.1 Brinkman spaces with parallel spinors

A Lorentzian manifold is called *Brinkman space* if it admits a non-trivial lightlike parallel vector field. Let us consider two examples of such spaces.

Example 1: pp-manifolds.
A *pp-manifold* is a Brinkman space with the additional curvature property

$$\text{Trace}_{(3,5),(4,6)}=0.$$

Equivalently, pp-manifolds can be characterised as those Lorentzian manifolds $`(M^n,g)`$, where the metric has the following local normal form depending only on one function $`f`$ of $`(n1)`$ variables

$$g=dtds+f(s,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n2})ds^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}dx_i^2.$$

(cf. \[Sch74\]). In terms of holonomy, pp-manifolds can be characterised as those Lorentzian manifolds for which the holonomy algebra is an abelian ideal of $`𝔰𝔬(1,n1)`$. (see \[Lei01a\]). Using the latter fact one can easily prove that for each simply connected pp-manifold

$$dim\mathrm{ker}P\frac{d_n}{4}.$$

Furthermore, on pp-manifolds each twistor spinor is parallel. An important examples of geodesically complete pp-manifolds are the Lorentzian symmetric spaces with solvable transvection group which occur also as a special model for a certain string equation in $`10+1`$-dimension (cf. the talk of J. Figueroa O‘Farrill at this Workshop or \[FOP01\], \[BFOHP01\]).

Example 2: Brinkman spaces with special Kähler flag.
Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be a Brinkman space with the lightlike parallel vector field $`V`$. $`V`$ defines a flag $`VV^{}TM`$ in $`TM`$, where $`V^{}=\{YTM|g(V,Y)=0\}`$. We equip the bundle $`E:=V^{}/V`$ with the positive definite inner product $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ induced by $`g`$ and the metric connection $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ induced by the Levi-Civita connection of $`g`$. We call the flag $`VV^{}TM`$ a *special Kähler flag*, if the bundle $`E`$ admits an orthogonal almost complex structure $`J:EE,J^2=id`$, such that $`\text{Trace}(J^\stackrel{~}{}(X,Y))=0`$ for all $`X,YTM`$. It was proved by I. Kath in \[Kat99\] that $`(M^{2m},g)`$ is a Brinkman space with special Kähler flag if and only if $`(M^{2m},g)`$ has pure parallel spinors.

### 4.2 Twistor spinors on Lorentzian Einstein Sasaki manifolds

An odd-dimensional Lorentzian manifold $`(M^{2m+1},g;\xi )`$ equipped with a vector field $`\xi `$ is called *Lorentzian Sasaki manifold* if

1. $`\xi `$ is a timelike Killing field with $`g(\xi ,\xi )=1.`$
2. The map $`J:=\xi :TMTM`$ satisfies

$`J^2X`$ $`=`$ $`Xg(X,\xi )\xi \text{and}`$
$`(_XJ)(Y)`$ $`=`$ $`g(X,Y)\xi +g(Y,\xi )X.`$

Let us consider the metric cone $`C_{}(M):=(^+\times M,dt^2+t^2g)`$ with timelike cone axis over $`(M,g)`$. The cone metric has signature $`(2,2m)`$. Then the following relations between properties of $`M`$ and those of its cone are easy to verify

| $`(M^{2m+1},g;\xi )`$ |  | cone $`C_{}(M)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Lorentzian Sasaki | $``$ | (pseudo) Kähler |
| Lorentzian Einstein Sasaki ($`R<0`$) | $``$ | Ricci-flat and (pseudo) Kähler |
| Lorentzian Einstein Sasaki ($`R<0`$) | $``$ | $`\mathrm{Hol}_0(C_{}(M))SU(1,m)`$ |

The standard example for regular Lorentzian Einstein Sasaki manifolds are $`S^1`$\- bundles over Riemannian Kähler Einstein spaces of negative scalar curvature: Let $`(X^{2m},h)`$ be a Riemannian Kähler Einstein spin manifold of scalar curvature $`R_X<0`$ and let $`(M^{2m+1},\pi ,X;S^1)`$ denote the $`S^1`$-principal bundle associated to the square root $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{m,0}X}`$ of the canonical bundle of $`X`$ given by the spin structure. Furthermore, let $`A`$ be the connection on $`M`$ induced by the Levi-Civita connection of $`(X,h)`$. Then

$$g:=\pi ^{}h\frac{16m}{(m+1)R_X}AA$$

defines a Lorentzian Einstein Sasaki metric on the spin manifold $`M^{2m+1}`$. Lorentzian Einstein Sasaki manifolds admit a special kind of twistor spinors.

###### Proposition 4.2

(\[Kat99\], \[Boh00\]) Let $`(M,g)`$ be a simply connected Lorentzian Einstein Sasaki manifold. Then $`M`$ is spin and admits a twistor spinor $`\phi `$ on $`M`$ such that

* $`V_\phi `$ is a timelike Killing field with $`g(V_\phi ,V_\phi )=1`$
* $`V_\phi \phi =\phi `$
* $`_{V_\phi }\phi =\frac{1}{2}i\phi `$.

Conversally, if $`(M,g)`$ is a Lorentzian spin manifold with a twistor spinor satisfying a), b) and c). Then $`\xi :=V_\phi `$ is a Lorentzian Einstein Sasaki structure on $`(M,g)`$.

### 4.3 Twistor spinors on Fefferman spaces

Fefferman spaces are Lorentzian manifolds which appear in the frame work of CR geometry. Let us first explain the necessary notations from CR geometry. Let $`N^{2m+1}`$ be a smooth oriented manifold of odd dimension $`2m+1`$. A *CR structure on $`N`$* is a pair $`(H,J)`$ where
1. $`HTM`$ is a real $`2m`$-dimensional subbundle.
2. $`J:HH`$ is an almost complex structure on $`H`$, $`J^2=Id`$.
3. If $`X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(H)`$, then $`[JX,Y]+[X,JY]\mathrm{\Gamma }(H)`$ and
$`J([JX,Y]+[X,JY])[JX,JY]+[X,Y]0`$ (integrability condition).

Standard examples of CR manifolds are the following:

* Real hypersurfaces $`N`$ of a complex manifold $`(M,J_M)`$. The CR structure is given by $`H:=TNJ_M(TN),J:=J_M|_H`$.
* Riemannian Sasaki manifolds $`(N,g,\xi )`$. The CR structure is given by $`H:=\xi ^{}`$ and $`J:=\xi `$.
* Heisenberg manifolds $`e(m)=He(m)/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`He(m)`$ is the Heisenberg group of matrices

$$He(m)=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& x^t& z\\ 0& I_m& y\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\right|x,y^m,z\}$$

and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a discret lattice in $`He(m)`$.

Let $`(N,H,J)`$ be a CR manifold. In order to define Fefferman spaces we fix a contact form $`\theta \mathrm{\Omega }^1(N)`$ on $`N`$ such that $`\theta |_H=0`$. Let us denote by $`T`$ the Reeb vector field of $`\theta `$ which is defined by the conditions $`\theta (T)=1`$ and $`T_{}\text{ }d\theta =0`$. In the following we suppose that the Levi form $`L_\theta :H\times H`$

$$L_\theta (X,Y):=d\theta (X,JY)$$

is positive definite. Then $`(N,H,J,\mathrm{\Theta })`$ is called a strictly pseudoconvex manifold. The tensor field $`g_\theta :=L_\theta +\theta \theta `$ defines a Riemannian metric on $`N`$. There is a special metric covariant derivative on a strictly pseudoconvex manifold, the Tanaka-Webster connection $`^W:\mathrm{\Gamma }(TN)\mathrm{\Gamma }(TN^{}TN)`$ uniquely defined by the conditions

$`^Wg_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`Tor^W(X,Y)`$ $`=`$ $`L_\theta (JX,Y)T`$
$`Tor^W(T,X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}([T,X]+J[T,JX])`$
for $`X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(H)`$. This connection satisfies $`^WJ=0`$ and $`^WT=0`$ (cf. \[Tan75\], \[Web78\]). Let us denote by $`T_{10}TN^{}`$ the eigenspace of the complex extension of $`J`$ on $`H^{}`$ to the eigenvalue $`i`$. Then $`L_\theta `$ extends to a hermitian form on $`T_{10}`$ by

$$L_\theta (U,V):=id\theta (U,\overline{V}),U,VT_{10}.$$

For a complex 2-form $`\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }^2N^{}`$ we denote by $`\text{trace}_\theta \omega `$ the $`\theta `$-trace of $`\omega `$:

$$\text{trace}_\theta \omega :=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{m}{}}\omega (Z_\alpha ,\overline{Z}_\alpha ),$$

where $`(Z_1,\mathrm{},Z_m)`$ is an unitary basis of $`(T_{10},L_\theta )`$. Let $`^W`$ be the $`(4,0)`$-curvature tensor of the Tanaka-Webster connection $`^W`$ on the compexified tangent bundle of $`N`$

$$^W(X,Y,Z,V):=g_\theta (([_X^W,_Y^W]_{[X,Y]}^W)Z,\overline{V}).$$

and let us denote by

$$\mathrm{Ric}^W:=\text{trace}_\theta ^{(3,4)}:=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{m}{}}^W(,,Z_\alpha ,\overline{Z}_\alpha )$$

the *Tanaka-Webster Ricci curvature* and by $`R^W:=\text{trace}_\theta \mathrm{Ric}^W`$ the *Tanaka-Webster scalar curvature*. The Ricci curvature $`\mathrm{Ric}^W`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-form on $`N`$ with $`\mathrm{Ric}^W(X,Y)i`$ for real vectors $`X,YTN`$. The scalar curvature $`R^W`$ is a real function.
Now, let us suppose that $`(N^{2m+1},H,J,\theta )`$ is a strictly pseudoconvex spin manifold. The spin structure of $`(N,g_\theta )`$ defines a square root $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{m+1,0}N}`$ of the canonical line bundle

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{m+1,0}N:=\{\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }^{m+1}N^C|V_{}\text{ }\omega =0V\overline{T}_{10}\}.$$

We denote by $`(F,\pi ,N)`$ the $`S^1`$-principal bundle associated to $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{m+1,0}N}`$. If one fixes a connection form $`A`$ on $`F`$ and the corresponding decomposition of the tangent bundle $`TF=ThFTvF=H^{}T^{}TvF`$ into the horizontal and vertical part, then a Lorentzian metric $`h`$ is defined by

$$h:=\pi ^{}L_\theta ic\pi ^{}\theta A,$$

where $`c`$ is a non-zero real number. The Fefferman metric is a metric of the latter type, where the choice of $`A`$ and $`c`$ is done in such a way that the conformal class of $`h`$ does not depend on the pseudohermitian form $`\theta `$. Such a choice can be made with the connection

$$A_\theta :=A^W\frac{i}{4(m+1)}R^W\theta ,$$

where $`A^W`$ is the connection form of $`F`$ defined by the Tanaka-Webster connection $`^W`$. The curvature form of $`A^W`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{A^W}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Ric}^W`$. Then

$$h_\theta :=\pi ^{}L_\theta i\frac{8}{m+2}\pi ^{}\theta A_\theta $$

is a Lorentzian metric such that the conformal class $`[h_\theta ]`$ is an invariant of the CR-structure $`(N,H,J)`$. The metric $`h_\theta `$ is $`S^1`$-invariant, the fibres of the $`S^1`$-bundle are lightlike. We call $`(F^{2m+2},h_\theta )`$ with its canonically induced spin structure *Fefferman space of the strictly pseudoconvex spin manifold $`(N,H,J,\theta )`$*.
The Fefferman metric was first discovered by C. Fefferman for the case of strictly pseudoconvex hypersurfaces $`N^{m+1}`$ (\[Fef76\]), who showed that $`N\times S^1`$ carries a Lorentzian metric whose conformal class is induced by biholomorphisms. The considerations of Fefferman were extended by Burns, Diederich and Snider (\[BDS77\]) and by Lee (\[Lee86\]) to the case of abstract (not nessarily embedded) CR-manifolds. A geometric characterization of Fefferman metrics was given by Sparling (cf. \[Spa85\], \[Gra87\]).
Fefferman spaces admit a special kind of twistor spinors.

###### Proposition 4.3

(\[Bau99\]) Let $`(N,H,J,\theta )`$ be a strictly pseudoconvex spin manifold with the Fefferman space $`(F,h_\theta )`$. Then there exist two linearly independent twistor spinors $`\phi `$ on $`(F,h_\theta )`$ such that

* $`V_\phi `$ is a regular lightlike Killing field
* $`V_\phi \phi =0`$
* $`_{V_\phi }\phi =ic\phi `$ where $`c\backslash \{0\}`$.

Conversally, if $`(M,g)`$ is an even dimensional Lorentzian spin manifold with a twistor spinor satisfying a), b) and c), then there exists a strictly pseudoconvex spin manifold $`(N,H,J,\theta )`$ such that its Fefferman space is locally isometric to $`(M,g)`$.

### 4.4 Twistor spinors inducing lightlike Killing fields

As we noticed in Proposition 4.1 each twistor spinor $`\phi `$ induces a causal conformal Killing field $`V_\phi `$. Now we study the situation where $`V_\phi `$ is lightlike and Killing. The following result explaines the role Fefferman spaces are playing in the set of all special geometries that admit twistor spinors.

###### Proposition 4.4

(\[BL02\]) Let $`(M,g)`$ be a Lorentzian spin manifold admitting a twistor spinor $`\phi `$ such that $`V_\phi `$ is lightlike and Killing. Then the function $`\mathrm{Ric}(V_\phi ,V_\phi )`$ is constant and non-negative on $`M`$. Furthermore,

1. $`\mathrm{Ric}(V_\phi ,V_\phi )>0`$ if and only if $`(M,g)`$ is locally isometric to a Fefferman space.
2. $`\mathrm{Ric}(V_\phi ,V_\phi )=0`$ if and only if $`(M,g)`$ is locally conformal equivalent to a Brinkman space with parallel spinors.

### 4.5 Twistor spinors in dimension $`n6`$

Finally, we describe all geometric structures of Lorentzian spin manifolds with twistor spinors that appear locally up to dimension 6.

###### Proposition 4.5

(\[Lew91\], \[Lei01b\], \[BL02\]) Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be a Lorentzian manifold with twistor spinors without zeros. Then $`(M^n,g)`$ is locally conformal equivalent to one of the following kinds of Lorentzian structures.

| $`n=3`$ | pp-manifold |
| --- | --- |
| $`n=4`$ | pp-manifold |
|  | Fefferman space |
| $`n=5`$ | pp-manifold |
|  | Lorentzian Einstein Sasaki manifold |
|  | $`(,dt^2)\times (N^4,h)`$, where $`(N^4,h)`$ is a Riemannian |
|  | Ricci-flat Kähler manifold |
| $`n=6`$ | pp-manifold |
|  | Fefferman space |
|  | $`^{1,1}\times (N^4,h)`$, where $`(N^4,h)`$ is a Ricci-flat Kähler manifold |
|  | Brinkman space with special Kähler flag |

Helga Baum, Institut für Mathematik, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Sitz: Rudower Chaussee 25, 12489 Berlin, Germany
email: baum@mathematik.hu-berlin.de


format: text

text:
# Lower bounds for Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials from patterns

## 1. Introduction

Many recent results on the singularities of Schubert varieties $`X_w`$ in the variety $`_𝓃`$ of flags in $`^n`$ are expressed by the existence of certain patterns in the indexing permutation $`w𝔖_n`$. For example, Lakshmibai and Sandhya \[LS\] proved that $`X_w`$ is singular if and only if $`w`$ contains either of the patterns $`4231`$ or $`3412`$ (see also \[R\], \[W\]). A permutation $`w𝔖_n`$ is said to contain the pattern $`\stackrel{~}{w}𝔖_k`$ for $`k<n`$ if the permutation matrix of $`w`$ has the permutation matrix of $`\stackrel{~}{w}`$ as a submatrix.

This implies that if $`\stackrel{~}{w}𝔖_k`$ is any pattern for $`w`$ and $`X_{\stackrel{~}{w}}_𝓀`$ is singular, then $`X_w`$ is singular as well. In this paper, we give a general geometric explanation of this phenomenon which works for the flag variety $``$ and Weyl group $`W`$ of any semisimple algebraic group $`G`$.

Our result concerns the Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials $`P_{x,w}(q)_0[q]`$, $`x,wW`$. Although defined purely combinatorially, they carry important information about representation theory of Hecke algebras and Lie algebras (see \[KL1, BB, BryK, BGS\] among many others), as well as geometric information about the singularities of Schubert varieties $`X_w`$ in $``$.

More precisely, $`P_{x,w}(q)`$ is the Poincaré polynomial (in $`q^{1/2}`$) of the local intersection cohomology of $`X_w`$ at a generic point of $`X_x`$, and $`P_{1,w}(1)=1`$ if and only if $`X_w`$ is rationally smooth \[KL2\]. If $`G`$ is of type A,D, or E, then $`X_w`$ is singular if and only if $`P_{1,w}(1)>1`$ (Deodhar \[De\] proved this for type A, while Peterson (unpublished) proved it for all simply laced groups. See \[CK\]).

Our main result (Theorem 4) is a lower bound for $`P_{x,w}(1)`$ in terms of Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials of patterns appearing in $`x`$ and other elements of $`W`$ determined by $`x`$ and $`w`$. Here a pattern of an element of $`W`$ is its image under a function $`\varphi :WW^{}`$, which we define for any finite Coxeter group and any (not necessarily standard) parabolic subgroup $`W^{}W`$. It agrees with the standard definition of patterns in type A, but is more general than the one using signed permutations used in \[Bi\] for types B and D.

One consequence of our result is the following:

###### Theorem 1.

For any parabolic $`W^{}W`$, we have $`P_{1,w}(1)P_{1,\varphi (w)}(1)`$.

In particular, this gives another proof that $`X_{\stackrel{~}{w}}`$ singular implies $`X_w`$ singular in type A. See also the remark after Theorem 10.

The definition of the pattern map $`\varphi `$ is combinatorial, but it is motivated by the geometry of the action of the torus $`T`$ on $``$, and the proof of Theorem 4 is entirely geometrical. For $`W^{}W`$ parabolic, there is a cocharacter $`\rho :^{}T`$ whose fixed point set in $``$ is a disjoint union of copies of the flag variety $`^{}`$ of a group $`G^{}`$ with Weyl group $`W^{}`$. The action of $`\rho `$ gives rise to a “hyperbolic localization” functor which takes sheaves on $``$ to sheaves on $`^{}`$. Theorem 4 then follows from a “decomposition theorem” for this functor, proved in \[Br\], together with the fact that hyperbolic localization preserves local Euler characteristics.

If the action is totally attracting or repelling near a fixed point, hyperbolic localization is just ordinary restriction or its Verdier dual. This gives stronger coefficient-by-coefficient inequalities in some special cases (see Theorem 5). The attracting/repelling case of \[Br\] has been known for some time; it was used in \[BrM\] to prove a conjecture of Kalai on toric $`g`$-numbers of rational convex polytopes.

Matthew Dyer has recently given us a preprint \[Dy\] containing an inequality equivalent to Theorem 4, which he proves using his theory of abstract highest weight categories. It seems likely that his approach is dual to ours under some version of Koszul duality \[BGS\].

This work was originally motivated by the following question asked by Francesco Brenti: How can we describe the Weyl group elements $`w`$ such that $`P_{\mathrm{id},w}(1)=2`$? In type A, we can show that if $`P_{\mathrm{id},w}(1)=2`$ then the singular locus of the Schubert variety $`X_w`$ has only one irreducible component and $`w`$ must avoid the patterns:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(526413)& (546213)& (463152)\\ (465132)& (632541)& (653421)\end{array}$$

We conjecture the converse holds as well.

We outline the sections of this paper. In §2.1, we discuss pattern avoidance on permutations and some applications from the literature. In §2.2 we describe the pattern map for arbitrary finite Coxeter groups. §2.3 explains why the two notions agree for permutations. The main result of §2.2 is proved in §2.4. In §3 we state our main theorem. In §3.1 we highlight two particularly interesting special cases, including Theorem 1. Our geometric arguments are in §4.

## 2. Pattern avoidance

### 2.1. Classical pattern avoidance

We can write an element $`w`$ of the permutation group $`𝔖_n`$ on $`n`$ letters in one-line notation as $`w=w_1w_2\mathrm{}w_n`$, i.e. $`w`$ maps $`i`$ to $`w_i`$. We say a permutation $`w`$ contains a pattern $`v𝔖_k`$ if there exists a subsequence $`w_{i_1}w_{i_2}\mathrm{}w_{i_k}`$, with the same relative order as $`v=v_1\mathrm{}v_k`$. If no such subsequence exists we say $`w`$ avoids the pattern $`v`$.

More formally, let $`a_1\mathrm{}a_k`$ be any list of distinct positive integers. Define the flattening function $`\text{fl}(a_1\mathrm{}a_k)`$ to be the unique permutation $`v𝔖_k`$ such that $`v_i>v_ja_i>a_j`$. Then it is equivalent to say that $`w`$ avoids $`v`$ if no $`\text{fl}(w_{i_1}w_{i_2}\mathrm{}w_{i_k})=v`$. For example, $`w=4536172`$ contains the pattern $`3412`$, since $`\text{fl}(w_1w_4w_5w_7)=\text{fl}(4612)=3412`$, but it avoids $`4321`$.

Several properties of permutations have been characterized by pattern avoidance and containment. For example, as mentioned in the introduction, for the Schubert variety $`X_w`$ we have Schubert variety $`X_w`$ is nonsingular if and only if $`P_{1,w}=1`$ if and only if $`w`$ avoids $`3412`$ and $`4231`$ \[LS, C, De, KL2\]. The element $`C_w^{}`$ of the Kazhdan-Lusztig basis of the Hecke algebra of $`W`$ equals the product $`C_{s_{a_1}}^{}C_{s_{a_2}}^{}\mathrm{}C_{s_{a_p}}^{}`$ for any reduced expression $`w=s_{a_1}s_{a_2}\mathrm{}s_{a_p}`$ if and only if $`w`$ is 321-hexagon-avoiding \[BiW\]. Here 321-hexagon-avoiding means $`w`$ avoids the five patterns $`321,`$ $`56781234,`$ $`46781235,`$ $`56718234,`$ $`46718235`$.

The notion of pattern avoidance easily generalizes to the Weyl groups of types B,C,D since elements can be represented in one-line notation as permutations with $`\pm `$ signs on the entries. Once again, the properties $`P_{1,w}=1`$ and $`C_w^{}=C_{s_{a_1}}^{}C_{s_{a_2}}^{}\mathrm{}C_{s_{a_p}}^{}`$ can be characterized by pattern avoidance \[Bi, BiW\], though the list of patterns can be rather long. More examples of pattern avoidance appear in \[LasSc, St, BiP, BiW2, Ma, KLR, Co, Co2\].

### 2.2. Patterns in Coxeter groups

In this section, we generalize the flattening function for permutations to an arbitrary finite Coxeter group $`W`$.

Let $`S`$ be the set of simple reflections generating $`W`$. The set $`R`$ of all reflections is $`R=_{wW}wSw^1`$. Given $`wW`$, its length $`l(w)`$ is the length of the shortest expression for $`w`$ in terms of elements of $`S`$. The Bruhat-Chevalley order is the partial order $``$ on $`W`$ generated by the relation

$$x<y\text{ if }l(x)<l(y)\text{and}xy^1R.$$

Each subset $`IS`$ generates a subgroup $`W_I`$; a subgroup $`W^{}W`$ which is conjugate to $`W_I`$ for some $`I`$ is called a parabolic subgroup. The $`W_I`$’s themselves are known as standard parabolic subgroups.

A parabolic subgroup $`W^{}=xW_Ix^1`$ of $`W`$ is again a Coxeter group, with simple reflections $`S^{}=xIx^1`$ and reflections $`R^{}=RW^{}`$. Note that $`S^{}S`$ unless $`W^{}`$ is standard.

We denote the length function and the Bruhat-Chevalley order for $`(W^{},S^{})`$ by $`l^{}`$ and $`^{}`$, respectively. If $`W^{}=W_I`$ then

$$l^{}=l|_W^{}\text{and}^{}=\mathrm{}|_{W^{}\times W^{}},$$

but in general we only have $`l^{}(w)l(w)`$ and $`x^{}yxy`$. For instance, if $`W^{}𝔖_4`$ is generated by the reflections $`r_{23}=1324`$ and $`r_{14}=4231`$, then $`r_{23}r_{14}`$ although they are not comparable for $`^{}`$.

The following theorem/definition generalizes the flattening function for permutations.

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`W^{}W`$ be a parabolic subgroup. There is a unique function $`\varphi :WW^{}`$, the pattern map for $`W^{}`$, satisfying:

1. $`\varphi `$ is $`W^{}`$-equivariant: $`\varphi (wx)=w\varphi (x)`$ for all $`wW^{}`$, $`xW`$,
2. If $`\varphi (x)^{}\varphi (wx)`$ for some $`wW^{}`$, then $`xwx`$.

In particular, $`\varphi `$ restricts to the identity map on $`W^{}`$.

If $`W^{}=W_I`$ is a standard parabolic, then (b) can be strengthened to “if and only if”. In this case the result is well-known.

To show uniqueness, note that (a) implies that $`\varphi `$ is determined by the set $`\varphi ^1(1)`$, and (b) implies that $`\varphi ^1(1)W^{}x`$ is the unique minimal element in $`W^{}x`$. Existence is more subtle; it is not immediately obvious that the function so defined satisfies (b). We give a construction of a function $`\varphi `$ that satisfies (a) and (b) in Section 2.4.

### 2.3. Relation with classical patterns

Take integers $`1a_1<\mathrm{}<a_kn`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k\}`$. Define a generalized flattening function $`\text{fl}_\mathrm{\Sigma }:𝔖_n𝔖_k`$ by $`\text{fl}_\mathrm{\Sigma }(w)=\text{fl}(w_{i_1}w_{i_2}\mathrm{}w_{i_k})`$, where $`w_{i_j}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for all $`1jk`$ and $`1i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_kn`$.

Let $`W^{}𝔖_n`$ be the subgroup generated by the transpositions $`r_{a_i,a_j}`$ for all $`i<j`$. It is parabolic; conjugating by any permutation $`z`$ with $`z_i=a_i`$ for $`1ik`$ gives an isomorphism $`\iota :𝔖_kW^{}`$, where $`𝔖_k𝔖_n`$ consists of permutations fixing the elements $`k+1,\mathrm{},n`$.

The function $`\iota \text{fl}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ satisfies the properties of Theorem 2, and so $`\iota \text{fl}_\mathrm{\Sigma }(w)=\varphi (w)`$. Property (a) follows since left multiplication by a permutation $`wW^{}`$ acts only on the values in the set $`\{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k\}`$. To prove (b), note that if $`v_i=w_i`$ for two permutations $`v,w𝔖_n`$ then $`vw`$ if and only $`\text{fl}(\widehat{v})\text{fl}(\widehat{w})`$ where $`\widehat{v},\widehat{w}`$ are the sequences obtained by removing the $`i`$th entry from each. This implies that $`\iota \text{fl}_\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)^{}\iota \text{fl}_\mathrm{\Sigma }(wx)`$ if and only if $`xwx`$.

For example, take $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{1,4,6,7\}`$; the associated subgroup $`W^{}𝔖_7`$ is generated by $`\{r_{14},r_{46},r_{67}\}`$. If $`x=6213475`$ then $`y=1243675`$ is the unique minimal element in $`W^{}x`$ and $`x=r_{46}r_{14}y`$, so $`\varphi (x)=r_{46}r_{14}`$. This agrees with the classical flattening using the isomorphism $`W^{}𝔖_4`$ given by $`r_{14}s_1`$, $`r_{46}s_2`$, $`r_{67}s_3`$: in fact,

$$\text{fl}_{\{1,4,6,7\}}(6213475)=\text{fl}(6147)=3124=s_2s_1.$$

To obtain the most general parabolic subgroup of $`𝔖_n`$, let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Sigma }_l`$ be disjoint subsets of $`1\mathrm{}n`$. To each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$ is associated a parabolic subgroup $`W_j^{}`$ as before, and then

$$W^{}=W_1^{}W_2^{}\mathrm{}W_l^{}𝔖_{|\mathrm{\Sigma }_1|}\times \mathrm{}\times 𝔖_{|\mathrm{\Sigma }_l|}$$

is a parabolic subgroup. The corresponding flattening function is

$$w(\text{fl}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}(w),\mathrm{},\text{fl}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_l}(w)).$$

In types B and D, the flattening function of \[Bi\] given in terms of signed permutations can also be viewed as an instance of our pattern map. The group $`W^{}`$ of signed permutations which fix every element except possibly the $`\pm a_i`$, $`1ik`$ is parabolic. Multiplication on the left by $`wW^{}`$ acts only on the values in the set $`\{\pm a_1,\pm a_2,\mathrm{},\pm a_k\}`$ and if $`v_i=w_i`$ for two signed permutations $`v,w`$ then $`vw`$ if and only $`\text{fl}(\widehat{v})\text{fl}(\widehat{w})`$ where $`\widehat{v},\widehat{w}`$ are the sequences obtained by removing the $`i`$th entry from each. It follows that $`v\text{fl}(\widehat{v})`$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem 2

There are other types of parabolic subgroups in types B and D which give rise to other pattern maps. For instance, the group $`W^{}`$ of all unsigned permutations is a parabolic subgroup of either Bn or Dn. In this case the pattern map “flattens” the signed permutation to an unsigned one (e.g. $`4,2,1,31432`$). Other cases of pattern maps for classical groups are more difficult to describe combinatorially.

The first author and Postnikov \[BiP\] have used these more general pattern maps to reduce significantly the number of patterns needed to recognize smoothness and rational smoothness of Schubert varieties. They reduce the list even further by generalizing pattern maps to the case of “root system embeddings” which do not necessarily preserve the inner products of the roots; for instance, there is a root system embedding of A3 into B3. We do not know of a geometric interpretation of these more general pattern maps.

### 2.4. Spanning subgroups and the reflection representation

To prove Theorem 2 we use the action of $`W`$ on its root system. See \[H, Section 1\] for proofs of the following facts.

We have the following data: a representation of $`W`$ on a finite-dimensional real vector space $`V`$, a $`W`$-invariant subset $`\mathrm{\Phi }V`$ (the roots), a subset $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (the positive roots), and a bijection $`r\alpha _r`$ between $`R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

These data satisfy the following properties: $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the disjoint union of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. The vectors $`\{\alpha _s\}_{sS}`$ form a basis for $`V`$; a root $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }`$ is positive if and only if it can be expressed in this basis with nonnegative coefficients. For any $`rR`$ and $`wW`$, we have

(1)
$$rw>w\alpha _rw\mathrm{\Pi }.$$

Given a linear function $`H:V`$, define

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_H=\{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }H(\alpha )>0\}.$$

Call $`H`$ generic if $`\mathrm{\Phi }kerH=\mathrm{}`$. If we take $`H_1(\alpha _s)=1`$ for all $`sS`$, then $`H_1`$ is generic and $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }_{H_1}`$. If we put $`H_w=H_1w^1`$, then $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{H_w}=w\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Conversely, if $`H`$ is generic, then $`\mathrm{\Pi }_H=w\mathrm{\Pi }`$ for a unique $`wW`$.

###### Proposition 3.

Let $`W^{}W`$ be a subgroup generated by reflections. Then $`W^{}`$ is parabolic if and only if there is a subspace $`V^{}V`$ so that $`W^{}`$ is generated by $`R^{}=\{rR\alpha _rV^{}\}`$. If so, then $`V^{}`$ is $`W^{}`$-stable, and putting $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }V^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=\mathrm{\Pi }V^{}`$, and $`\alpha _r^{}=\alpha _r`$ for $`rR^{}`$ gives the reflection representation of $`W^{}`$.

###### Proof.

See \[H, §1.12\]. ∎

###### Remark.

In type A, all subgroups generated by reflections are parabolic. In other types this is no longer the case – for instance, the subgroup $`W^{}(_2)^n`$ of Bn generated by reflections in the roots $`\{\pm e_j\}`$ is not parabolic for any $`n2`$, since these roots span $`V`$.

We now prove the existence of the function $`\varphi `$ from Theorem 2. Let $`V^{}V`$ be as in Proposition 3. Given $`wW`$, we have $`w\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{\Pi }_{H_w}`$, and so $`w\mathrm{\Pi }V^{}=\mathrm{\Pi }_H^{}^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=\mathrm{\Pi }V`$ and $`H^{}=H_w|_V^{}`$. It follows that there is a unique $`\varphi (w)W^{}`$ so that

$$\varphi (w)\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=w\mathrm{\Pi }V^{}.$$

We show that the function $`\varphi `$ defined this way satisfies (a) and (b) from Theorem 2. Any $`wW^{}`$ fixes $`V^{}`$, so if $`xW`$ then

$$\varphi (wx)\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=(wx\mathrm{\Pi })V^{}=w(x\mathrm{\Pi }V^{})=w\varphi (x)\mathrm{\Pi }^{},$$

giving (a).

To prove (b), it will be enough to show that $`\varphi (x)^{}\varphi (rx)`$ implies $`xrx`$ for any $`xW`$, $`rR^{}`$, since these relations generate the Bruhat-Chevalley orders on $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$. We have

$`\varphi (x)<^{}\varphi (rx)=r\varphi (x)`$ $``$ $`\alpha _r\varphi (x)\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=x\mathrm{\Pi }V^{}`$
$``$ $`\alpha _rx\mathrm{\Pi }`$
$``$ $`x<rx.`$
## 3. The main result

Suppose now that $`W`$ is the Weyl group of a semisimple complex algebraic group $`G`$. Let $`W^{}W`$ be parabolic, and let $`\varphi :WW^{}`$ be the pattern map of Theorem 2. For any $`xW`$, define a partial order on $`W^{}x`$ by “pulling back” the Bruhat order from $`W^{}`$: if $`w,w^{}W^{}`$, say $`wx_xw^{}x`$ if and only if $`\varphi (wx)^{}\varphi (w^{}x)`$. By Theorem 2, this is weaker than the Bruhat order on $`W^{}x`$.

Our main result is the following.

###### Theorem 4.

If $`x,wW`$, then

$$P_{x,w}(1)\underset{yM(x,w;W^{})}{}P_{y,w}(1)P_{\varphi (x),\varphi (y)}^{}(1),$$

where $`M(x,w;W^{})`$ is the set of maximal elements with respect to $`_x`$ in $`[1,w]W^{}x`$, and $`P^{}`$ denotes the Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomial for the Coxeter system $`(W^{},S^{})`$.

Conjecturally this should hold for any finite Coxeter group $`W`$. There is a stronger formulation when $`W^{}`$ is a standard parabolic subgroup of $`W`$; see the next section.

###### Example.

Take $`W=𝔖_4`$, $`w=4231`$, $`x=2143`$. Let $`W^{}𝔖_2\times 𝔖_2`$ be the group generated by reflections $`r_{13}=3214`$, $`r_{24}=1432`$. Then $`W^{}x=\{2143,4123,2341,4321\}`$. All but $`4321`$ are in the interval $`[1,w]`$, so the maximal elements of $`[1,w]W^{}x`$ are $`4123=r_{24}x`$ and $`2341=r_{13}x`$. Theorem 4 gives

$$P_{2143,4231}(1)P_{4123,4231}(1)P_{1,r_{24}}^{}(1)+P_{2341,4231}(1)P_{1,r_{13}}^{}(1)$$

$$=11+11=2,$$

which holds since $`P_{2143,4231}(q)=1+q`$.

Note that this shows $`X_{4231}`$ is singular, even though all the Schubert varieties corresponding to terms on the right hand side are smooth.

###### Example.

One can calculate $`P_{1234567,6734512}(1)=44`$ in type $`A`$. This is the maximum value of $`P_{x,w}(1)`$ for any $`x,w𝔖_7`$. Let $`W^{}𝔖_9`$ be the subgroup generated by the reflections $`\{r_{13},r_{34},r_{45},r_{57},r_{78},r_{89}\}`$; it is a parabolic subgroup isomorphic to $`𝔖_7`$. If $`w=869457213`$ and $`x=163457289`$, then $`W^{}x=W^{}w`$ so $`M(x,w;W^{})=\{w\}`$, giving $`\varphi (x)=1234567`$ and $`\varphi (w)=6734512`$. Hence

$$P_{x,w}(1)P_{1234567,6734512}^{}(1)P_{w,w}(1)=44.$$

### 3.1. Special cases/applications

The complicated interaction of the multiplicative structure of $`W`$ and the Bruhat-Chevalley order makes computing the set $`M(x,w;W^{})`$ difficult. We mention two cases in which the answer is nice:

(a) If $`w`$ and $`x`$ lie in the same $`W^{}`$-coset then $`M(x,w;W^{})=\{w\}`$. In this case Theorem 4 says

$$P_{x,w}(1)P_{\varphi (x),\varphi (w)}^{}(1).$$

This allows us to prove Theorem 1 from the introduction’: given $`wW`$, let $`xW^{}w`$ satisfy $`\varphi (x)=1`$. Then

$$P_{1,w}(1)P_{x,w}(1)P_{1,\varphi (w)}^{}(1).$$

The first inequality comes from the monotonicity of Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials \[I\],\[BrM2, Corollary 3.7\].

(b) If either $`W^{}`$ or $`x^1W^{}x`$ is a standard parabolic subgroup of $`W`$, then $`M(x,w;W^{})`$ has only one element. The case where $`x=1`$ was studied by Billey, Fan, and Losonczy \[BiFL\].

In this case the inequality will hold coefficient by coefficient rather than just at $`q=1`$:

###### Theorem 5.

If $`W^{}`$ or $`x^1W^{}x`$ is a standard parabolic subgroup, then

$$[q^k]P_{x,w}\underset{i+j=k}{}[q^i]P_{y,w}[q^j]P_{\varphi (x),\varphi (y)}^{},$$

where $`M(x,w;W^{})=\{y\}`$. Here the notation $`[q^k]P`$ means the coefficient of $`q^k`$ in the polynomial $`P`$.

If both (a) and (b) hold, then Theorem 5 is implied by a well-known equality (see \[P, Lemma 2.6\]):

###### Theorem 6.

If $`W^{}`$ or $`x^1W^{}x`$ is a standard parabolic subgroup of $`W`$ and $`wW^{}x`$, then

$$P_{x,w}(q)=P_{\varphi (x),\varphi (w)}^{}(q).$$

Theorem 6 can be thought of as a generalization of a theorem due to Brenti and Simion:

###### Theorem 7.

\[BreS\] Let $`u,v𝔖_n`$. For any $`1in`$ such that $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},i\}`$ appear in the same set of positions (though not necessarily in the same order) in both $`u`$ and $`v`$, then

$$P_{u,v}(q)=P_{u[1,i],v[1,i]}(q)P_{\text{fl}(u[i+1,n]),\text{fl}(v[i+1,n])}(q),$$

where $`u[j,k]`$ is obtained from $`u`$ by only keeping the numbers $`j,j+1,\mathrm{},k`$ in the order they appear in $`u`$.

We demonstrate the relationship between the two theorems on an example. Let $`I_1=\{s_1,s_2,s_3\}`$, $`I_2=\{s_5,s_6,s_7\}`$, $`I=I_1I_2`$. Let $`W^{}=W_IW_{I_1}\times W_{I_2}`$. Any pair $`x,w`$ in the same coset of $`W^{}\backslash W`$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem 7 and Theorem 6. Take $`x=25174683`$ and $`w=48273561`$. Then Theorem 6 gives

$`P_{25174683,48273561}(q)`$ $`=P_{\varphi (25174683),\varphi (48273561)}^{}(q)`$
$`=P_{21435768,42318756}^{}(q)=P_{2143,4231}(q)P_{1324,4312}(q)`$
agreeing with Theorem 7. The last equality results because we have $`P_{x_1\times x_2,w_1\times w_2}(q)=P_{x_1,w_1}(q)P_{x_2,w_2}(q)`$ for any $`x_1\times x_2`$, $`w_1\times w_2`$ in the reducible Coxeter group $`W_{I_1}\times W_{I_2}`$.

## 4. Geometry of flag varieties

Let $`G`$ be a connected semisimple linear algebraic group over $``$. It acts transitively on the flag variety $``$ of Borel subgroups of $`G`$ by conjugation: $`gB=gBg^1`$. For any $`gG`$, the point $`B`$ is fixed by $`g`$ if and only if $`gB`$.

Fix a Borel subgroup and a maximal torus $`TBG`$. The Weyl group $`W=N_G(T)/T`$ is a finite Coxeter group. The point $`gB`$ is fixed by $`T`$ if and only if $`gN_G(T)B`$, and so $`ggB`$ induces a bijection between $`W`$ and $`^𝒯`$. We abuse notation and refer to $`wW`$ and the corresponding point of $``$ by the same symbol.

Every $`B`$-orbit on $``$ contains a unique $`T`$-fixed point; for $`wW`$, the Bruhat cell $`C_w`$ is the $`B`$-orbit $`Bw`$. The Schubert variety $`X_w`$ is the closure of $`C_w`$; we have $`X_w=_{xw}C_x`$ and so $`X_xX_wxw`$.

### 4.1. Torus actions

Let $`\rho :^{}T`$ be a cocharacter of $`T`$, and let $`G^{}`$ be the centralizer of $`T_0=\rho (^{})`$.

###### Theorem 8.

\[Sp, Theorem 6.4.7\] $`G^{}`$ is connected and reductive; $`T`$ is a maximal torus in $`G^{}`$. If $`T_0`$ fixes a point $`B_0`$, so that $`T_0B_0`$, then $`B_0G^{}`$ is a Borel subgroup of $`G^{}`$.

Let $`^{}𝒢^{}/^{}`$ be the flag variety of $`G^{}`$, and put $`^\rho =^{𝒯_\mathcal{0}}`$. Using Theorem 8, we can define a $`G^{}`$-equivariant algebraic map $`\psi :^\rho ^{}`$ by $`\psi (B_0)=(B_0)G^{}`$.

Fix a maximal torus and Borel subgroup of $`G^{}`$ by setting $`B^{}=BG^{}`$, $`T^{}=T`$. The Weyl group of $`G^{}`$ is $`W^{}=N_G^{}(T^{})/T^{}=W(G^{}/B^{})`$. The Schubert varieties of $`^{}`$ defined by the action of $`B^{}`$ are indexed by elements of $`W^{}`$; denote them by $`X_w^{}`$, $`wW^{}`$.

###### Proposition 9.

$`W^{}`$ is a parabolic subgroup of $`W`$, and all parabolic subgroups arise in this way for some choice of $`\rho `$.

This is well-known; the groups $`G^{}`$ which arise this way are Levi subgroups of parabolic subgroups of $`G`$. The second half of the statement (which is the only part we need) can be deduced from \[Sp, 6.4.3 and 8.4.1\], for instance.

Now we can connect the pattern map $`\varphi `$ defined by Theorem 2 to geometry.

###### Theorem 10.

The map $`\psi `$ restricts to an isomorphism on each connected component of $`^\rho `$. The restriction $`\psi |_^T:^T(^{})^T`$ is the pattern map $`\varphi `$, using the identifications $`^T=W`$, $`(^{})^T=W^{}`$. In particular, the components of $`^\rho `$ are in bijection with $`W^{}\backslash W`$.

###### Proof.

To show the first assertion, it is enough to show that $`\psi `$ is a finite map, since it is $`G^{}`$-equivariant and its image $`^{}`$ is maximal among the compact homogeneous spaces for $`G^{}`$. But $`\psi (gB)(^{})^TTgBgB^T`$, a finite set.

Certainly $`\psi `$ takes $`T`$-fixed points to $`T`$-fixed points, so it induces a function $`WW^{}`$ by restriction. We need to show that it satisfies the properties of Theorem 2. The $`W^{}`$-equivariance (a) follows immediately from the $`G^{}`$-equivariance of $`\psi `$.

To see property (b), take $`xW`$ and $`wW^{}`$, and suppose that $`\psi (x)^{}\psi (wx)`$. This implies that $`\psi (x)\overline{B^{}\psi (wx)}`$, and since $`x`$ and $`wx`$ lie in the same component of $`^\rho `$, we must have $`x\overline{B^{}wx}\overline{Bwx}`$. Thus $`xwx`$. ∎

###### Remark.

Given $`wW`$, let $`Y^{}`$ be the component of $`^\rho `$ which contains $`w`$. Then one can show that $`X_wYX_{\varphi (w)}^{}`$. Therefore, $`X_{\varphi (w)}^{}`$ singular implies that $`X_w`$ is singular, using the result of Fogarty and Norman \[FN\]: a linearly algebraic group $`G`$ is linearly reductive (this class includes all tori) if and only if for all smooth algebraic $`G`$-schemes $`X`$ the fixed point scheme $`X^G`$ is smooth.

### 4.2. Hyperbolic localization

Let $`X`$ be a normal complex variety with an action of $`^{}`$. Let $`X^{}=X^{^{}}`$, and let $`X_1^{}\mathrm{}X_r^{}`$ be the connected components of $`X^{}`$. For $`1kr`$, define a variety

$$X_k^+=\{xX\underset{t0}{lim}txX_k^{}\},$$

and let $`X^+`$ be the disjoint (disconnected) union of all the $`X_k^+`$. The inclusions $`X_k^{}X_k^+X`$ induce maps

$$X^{}\stackrel{f}{}X^+\stackrel{g}{}X.$$

Let $`D^b(X)`$ denote the constructible derived category of $``$-sheaves on $`X`$.

###### Definition.

Given $`SD^b(X)`$, define its hyperbolic localization

$$S^!=f^!g^{}SD^b(X^{}).$$

Hyperbolic localization is better adapted to $`^{}`$-equivariant geometry than ordinary restriction. It was first studied by Kirwan \[Ki\], who showed that if $`S`$ is the intersection cohomology sheaf of a projective variety with a linear $`^{}`$-action, then $`S`$ and $`S^!`$ have isomorphic hypercohomology groups.

We will need two properties of hyperbolic localization from \[Br\]. For any $`SD^b(X)`$ and $`pX`$, we let $`\chi _p(X)`$ denote the Euler characteristic of the stalk cohomology at $`p`$.

###### Proposition 11.

\[Br, Proposition 3\] If $`pX^{}`$, then

$$\chi _p(S)=\chi _p(S^!).$$

Second, hyperbolic localization satisfies a decomposition theorem \[Br, Theorem 2\]. When applied to $`X=`$ and the action given by $`\rho `$, this gives the following.

###### Theorem 12.

Let $`L_w`$, and $`L_v^{}`$ be the intersection cohomology sheaves of the Schubert varieties $`X_w`$ and $`X_v^{}`$, respectively. For any $`wW`$ and $`1kr`$, there is an isomorphism

$$\psi _{}((L_w)^!|__k^{})\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}L_{v_j}^{}[d_j],$$

for some $`v_jW^{}`$ (not necessarily distinct) and $`d_j2`$.

Here we use the fact that hyperbolic localization preserves $`B^{}`$-equivariance. The fact that $`d_j2`$ follows from the purity of the stalks of simple mixed Hodge modules of Schubert varieties.

### 4.3. Proof of Theorem 4

The description of Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomials as the local intersection cohomology Poincaré polynomials of Schubert varieties \[KL2\] implies that for any $`u,vW`$, we have

$$P_{u,v}(1)=\chi _u(L_v)=\underset{i}{}dim_{}^{2i}((L_v)_u).$$

Now, given $`x,wW`$, let $`_k^{}`$ be the component of $`^\rho `$ which contains $`x`$, and thus all of $`W^{}x`$. For every $`yW^{}`$, let $`a_y`$ be the number of $`j`$ for which $`v_j=y`$ in Theorem 12.

For any $`zW^{}x`$ we have, using Theorem 12 and Proposition 11,

$`P_{z,w}(1)`$ $`=\chi _z(L_w)=\chi _{\varphi (z)}\left(\psi _{}((L_w)^!|__k^{})\right)`$
(2) $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}\chi _{\varphi (z)}\left(L_{v_j}^{}[d_j]\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{yW^{}z}{}}a_yP_{\varphi (z),\varphi (y)}^{}(1)`$
(note that the shift $`[d_j]`$ does not change the Euler characteristic, since $`d_j2`$).

If $`z[1,w]`$ then equation (2) implies $`a_z=0`$, since $`P_{z,w}=0`$, $`P_{z,z}^{}=1`$, and all the terms in the sum are nonnegative. Using (2) again shows that if $`yM(x;w;W^{})`$, i.e. $`y`$ is maximal in $`[1,w]W^{}x`$, then $`a_y=P_{y,w}(1)`$. Finally, evaluating (2) at $`x`$ and keeping only the terms with $`yM(x,w;W^{})`$ proves Theorem 4. ∎

### 4.4. Proof of Theorem 5

Suppose first that $`x^1W^{}x=W_I`$ is a standard parabolic subgroup. Take $`\mu `$ to be any dominant integral cocharacter which annihilates a root $`\alpha _r`$ if and only if $`rW^{}`$, and let $`\rho =Ad(x)\mu `$. Then the action of $`\rho `$ is completely repelling near the component $`_𝓀^{}`$ of $`^\rho `$ which contains $`W^{}x=xW_I`$, meaning that $`_𝓀^+=_𝓀^{}`$, in the notation of §4.2.

This implies that hyperbolic localization to $`_k^{}`$ is just ordinary restriction: setting $`h:_k^{}^\rho `$ for the inclusion, we have

$$(S^!)|__k^{}=h^!f^!g^{}S=(fh)^!g^{}S=(fh)^{}g^{}S=S|__k^{},$$

since both $`h`$ and $`fh`$ are open immersions. The same argument given for Theorem 4 now proves Theorem 5, using local Poincaré polynomials instead of local Euler characteristics.

If instead $`W^{}=W_I`$, we can use the anti-involution $`gg^1`$ to replace left cosets by right cosets, since $`P_{x^1,w^1}=P_{x,w}`$ for all $`x,wW`$.

### Acknowledgments

We have benefitted greatly from conversations with Francesco Brenti, Victor Guillemin, Victor Ginzburg, Bert Kostant, Sue Tolman, David Vogan and Greg Warrington. We are grateful to Patrick Polo for spotting an error in Theorem 5, and to the referees for thoughtful comments.