text:
# Richardson Varieties in the Grassmannian

## Introduction

Let $`G`$ denote a semisimple, simply connected, algebraic group defined over an algebraically closed field $`K`$ of arbitrary characteristic. Let us fix a maximal torus $`T`$ and a Borel subgroup $`B`$ containing $`T`$. Let $`W`$ be the Weyl group ($`N(T)/T`$, $`N(T)`$ being the normalizer of $`T`$). Let $`Q`$ be a parabolic subgroup of $`G`$ containing $`B`$, and $`W_Q`$, the Weyl group of $`Q`$. For the action of $`G`$ on $`G/Q`$ given by left multiplication, the $`T`$-fixed points are precisely the cosets $`e_w:=wQ`$ in $`G/Q`$. For $`wW/W_Q`$, let $`X_w`$ denote the Schubert variety (the Zariski closure of the $`B`$-orbit $`Be_w`$ in $`G/Q`$ through the $`T`$-fixed point $`e_w`$), endowed with the canonical structure of a closed, reduced subscheme of $`G/Q`$. Let $`B^{}`$ denote the Borel subgroup of $`G`$ opposite to $`B`$ (it is the unique Borel subgroup of $`G`$ with the property $`BB^{}=T`$). For $`vW/W_Q`$, let $`X^v`$ denote the opposite Schubert variety, the Zariski closure of the $`B^{}`$-orbit $`B^{}e_v`$ in $`G/Q`$.

Schubert and opposite Schubert varieties play an important role in the study of the generalized flag variety $`G/Q`$, especially, the algebraic-geometric and representation-theoretic aspects of $`G/Q`$. A more general class of subvarieties in $`G/Q`$ is the class of Richardson varieties; these are varieties of the form $`X_w^v:=X_wX^v`$, the intersection of the Schubert variety $`X_w`$ with opposite Schubert variety $`X^v`$. Such varieties were first considered by Richardson in (cf. ), who shows that such intersections are reduced and irreducible. Recently, Richardson varieties have shown up in several contexts: such double coset intersections $`BwBB^{}xB`$ first appear in , , , . Very recently, Richardson varieties have also appeared in the context of K-theory of flag varieties (, ). They also show up in the construction of certain degenerations of Schubert varieties (cf. ).

In this paper, we present results for Richardson varieties in the Grassmannian variety. Let $`G_{d,n}`$ be the Grassmannian variety of $`d`$-dimensional subspaces of $`K^n`$, and $`p:G_{d,n}^N(=(^dK^n))`$, the Plücker embedding (note that $`G_{d,n}`$ may be identified with $`G/P,G=SL_n(K),P`$ a suitable maximal parabolic subgroup of $`G`$). Let $`X:=X_wX^v`$ be a Richardson variety in $`G_{d,n}`$. We first present a Standard monomial theory for $`X`$ (cf. Theorem 3.3.2). Standard monomial theory (SMT) consists in constructing an explicit basis for the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`X`$. SMT for Schubert varieties was first developed by the second author together with Musili and Seshadri in a series of papers, culminating in , where it is established for all classical groups. Further results concerning certain exceptional and Kac–Moody groups led to conjectural formulations of a general SMT, see . These conjectures were then proved by Littelmann, who introduced new combinatorial and algebraic tools: the path model of representations of any Kac-Moody group, and Lusztig’s Frobenius map for quantum groups at roots of unity (see ); recently, in collaboration with Littelmann (cf. ), the second author has extended the results of  to Richardson varieties in $`G/B`$, for any semisimple $`G`$. Further, in collaboration with Brion (cf. ), the second author has also given a purely geometric construction of standard monomial basis for Richardson varieties in $`G/B`$, for any semisimple $`G`$; this construction in loc. cit. is done using certain flat family with generic fiber $``$ diag$`(X_w^v)X_w^v\times X_w^v`$, and the special fiber $`_{vxw}X_x^v\times X_w^x`$.

If one is concerned with just Richardson varieties in the Grassmannian, one could develop a SMT in the same spirit as in  using just the Plücker coordinates, and one doesn’t need to use any quantum group theory nor does one need the technicalities of . Thus we give a self-contained presentation of SMT for unions of Richardson varieties in the Grassmannian. We should remark that Richardson vatieties in the Grassmannian are also studied in , where these varieties are called skew Schubert varieties, and standard monomial bases for these varieties also appear in loc. cit. (Some discussion of these varieties also appears in .) As a consequence of our results for unions of Richardson varieties, we deduce the vanishing of $`H^i(X,L^m),i1,m0,L`$, being the restriction to $`X`$ of $`𝒪_^N(1)`$ (cf. Theorem 5.0.3); again, this result may be deduced using the theory of Frobenius-splitting (cf. ), while our approach uses just the classical Pieri formula. Using the standard monomial basis, we then determine the tangent space and also the multiplicity at any $`T`$-fixed point $`e_\tau `$ on $`X`$. We first give a recursive formula for the multiplicity of $`X`$ at $`e_\tau `$ (cf. Theorem 7.6.2). Using the recursive formula, we derive a formula for the multiplicity of $`X`$ at $`e_\tau `$ as being the product of the multiplicities at $`e_\tau `$ of $`X_w`$ and $`X^v`$ (as above, $`X=X_wX^v`$) (cf. Theorem 7.6.4). Using the product formula, we get a generalization of Rosenthal-Zelevinsky determinantal formula (cf. ) for the multiplicities at singular points of Schubert varieties to the case of Richardson varieties (cf. Theorem 7.7.3). It should be mentioned that the multiplicities of Schubert varieties at $`T`$-fixed points determine their multiplicities at all other points, because of the $`B`$-action; but this does not extend to Richardson varieties, since Richardson varieties have only a $`T`$-action. Thus even though, certain smoothness criteria at $`T`$-fixed points on a Richardson variety are given in Corollaries 6.7.3 and 7.6.5, the problem of the determination of singular loci of Richardson varieties still remains open.

In §1, we present basic generalities on the Grassmannian variety and the Plücker embedding. In §2, we define Schubert varieties, opposite Schubert varieties, and the more general Richardson varieties in the Grassmannian and give some of their basic properties. We then develop a standard monomial theory for a Richardson variety $`X_w^v`$ in the Grassmannian in §3 and extend this to a standard monomial theory for unions and nonempty intersections of Richardson varieties in the Grassmannian in §4. Using the standard monomial theory, we obtain our main results in the three subsequent sections. In §5, we prove the vanishing of $`H^i(X_w^v,L^m)`$, $`i>0`$, $`m0`$, where $`L`$ is the restriction to $`X_w^v`$ of the ample generator of the Picard group of the Grassmannian. In §6, we determine a basis for the tangent space and a criterion for smoothness for $`X_w^v`$ at any $`T`$-fixed point $`e_\tau `$. Finally, in §7, we derive several formulas for the multiplicity of $`X_w^v`$ at any $`T`$-fixed point $`e_\tau `$.

We are thankful to the referee for many valuable comments and suggestions, especially for the alternate proof of Theorem 7.6.4.

## 1. The Grassmannian Variety $`G_{d,n}`$

Let $`K`$ be the base field, which we assume to be algebraically closed of arbitrary characteristic. Let $`d`$ be such that $`1d<n`$. The Grassmannian $`G_{d,n}`$ is the set of all $`d`$-dimensional subspaces of $`K^n`$. Let $`U`$ be an element of $`G_{d,n}`$ and $`\{a_1,\mathrm{}a_d\}`$ a basis of $`U`$, where each $`a_j`$ is a vector of the form

$$a_j=\left(\begin{array}{c}a_{1j}\\ a_{2j}\\ \mathrm{}\\ a_{nj}\end{array}\right),\text{with }a_{ij}K.$$

Thus, the basis $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_d\}`$ gives rise to an $`n\times d`$ matrix $`A=(a_{ij})`$ of rank $`d`$, whose columns are the vectors $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_d`$.

We have a canonical embedding

$$p:G_{d,n}(^dK^n),U[a_1\mathrm{}a_d]$$

called the Plücker embedding. It is well known that $`p`$ is a closed immersion; thus $`G_{d,n}`$ acquires the structure of a projective variety. Let

$$I_{d,n}=\{\underset{¯}{i}=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_d)^d:\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}i_1<\mathrm{}<i_dn\}.$$

Then the projective coordinates (Plücker coordinates) of points in $`(^dK^n)`$ may be indexed by $`I_{d,n}`$; for $`\underset{¯}{i}I_{d,n}`$, we shall denote the $`\underset{¯}{i}`$-th component of $`p`$ by $`p_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$, or $`p_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_d}`$. If a point $`U`$ in $`G_{d,n}`$ is represented by the $`n\times d`$ matrix $`A`$ as above, then $`p_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_d}(U)=\text{det}(A_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_d})`$, where $`A_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_d}`$ denotes the $`d\times d`$ submatrix whose rows are the rows of $`A`$ with indices $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_d`$, in this order.

For $`\underset{¯}{i}I_{d,n}`$ consider the point $`e_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$ of $`G_{d,n}`$ represented by the $`n\times d`$ matrix whose entries are all 0, except the ones in the $`i_j`$-th row and $`j`$-th column, for each $`1jd`$, which are equal to 1. Clearly, for $`\underset{¯}{i},\underset{¯}{j}I_{d,n}`$,

$$p_{\underset{¯}{i}}(e_{\underset{¯}{j}})=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if }\underset{¯}{i}=\underset{¯}{j}\text{;}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

We define a partial order $``$ on $`I_{d,n}`$ in the following manner: if $`\underset{¯}{i}=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_d)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{j}=(j_1,\mathrm{},j_d)`$, then $`\underset{¯}{i}\underset{¯}{j}i_tj_t,t`$. The following well known theorem gives the defining relations of $`G_{d,n}`$ as a closed subvariety of $`(^dK^n)`$ (cf. ; see  for details):

###### Theorem 1.0.1.

The Grassmannian $`G_{d,n}(^dK^n)`$ consists of the zeroes in

$`(^dK^n)`$ of quadratic polynomials of the form

$$p_{\underset{¯}{i}}p_{\underset{¯}{j}}\pm p_\alpha p_\beta $$

for all $`\underset{¯}{i},\underset{¯}{j}I_{d,n}`$, $`\underset{¯}{i},\underset{¯}{j}`$ non-comparable, where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ run over a certain subset of $`I_{d,n}`$ such that $`\alpha >`$ both $`\underset{¯}{i}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{j}`$, and $`\beta <`$ both $`\underset{¯}{i}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{j}`$.

### 1.1. Identification of $`G/P_d`$ with $`G_{d,n}`$

Let $`G=SL_n(K)`$. Let $`P_d`$ be the maximal parabolic subgroup

$$P_d=\left\{AG\right|A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 0_{(nd)\times d}& \end{array}\right)\}.$$

For the natural action of $`G`$ on $`(^dK^n)`$, we have, the isotropy at $`[e_1\mathrm{}e_d]`$ is $`P_d`$ while the orbit through $`[e_1\mathrm{}e_d]`$ is $`G_{d,n}`$. Thus we obtain a surjective morphism $`\pi :GG_{d,n},gga`$, where $`a=[e_1\mathrm{}e_d]`$. Further, the differential $`d\pi _e:`$ Lie$`GT(G_{d,n})_a`$ (= the tangent space to $`G_{d,n}`$ at $`a`$) is easily seen to be surjective. Hence we obtain an identification $`f_d:G/P_dG_{d,n}`$ (cf. , Proposition 6.7).

### 1.2. Weyl Group and Root System

Let $`G`$ and $`P_d`$ be as above. Let $`T`$ be the subgroup of diagonal matrices in $`G`$, $`B`$ the subgroup of upper triangular matrices in $`G`$, and $`B^{}`$ the subgroup of lower triangular matrices in $`G`$. Let $`W`$ be the Weyl group of $`G`$ relative to $`T`$, and $`W_{P_d}`$ the Weyl group of $`P_d`$. Note that $`W=S_n`$, the group of permutations of a set of $`n`$ elements, and that $`W_{P_d}=S_d\times S_{nd}`$. For a permutation $`w`$ in $`S_n`$, $`l(w)`$ will denote the usual length function. Note also that $`I_{d,n}`$ can be identified with $`W/W_{P_d}`$. In the sequel, we shall identify $`I_{d,n}`$ with the set of “minimal representatives” of $`W/W_{P_d}`$ in $`S_n`$; to be very precise, a $`d`$-tuple $`\underset{¯}{i}I_{d,n}`$ will be identified with the element $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_d,j_1,\mathrm{},j_{nd})𝒮_n`$, where $`\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_{nd}\}`$ is the complement of $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_d\}`$ in $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ arranged in increasing order. We denote the set of such minimal representatives of $`S_n`$ by $`W^{P_d}`$.

Let $`R`$ denote the root system of $`G`$ relative to $`T`$, and $`R^+`$ the set of positive roots relative to $`B`$. Let $`R_{P_d}`$ denote the root system of $`P_d`$, and $`R_{P_d}^+`$ the set of positive roots.

## 2. Schubert, Opposite Schubert, and Richardson Varieties in $`G_{d,n}`$

For $`1tn`$, let $`V_t`$ be the subspace of $`K^n`$ spanned by $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_t\}`$, and let $`V^t`$ be the subspace spanned by $`\{e_n,\mathrm{},e_{nt+1}\}`$. For each $`\underset{¯}{i}I_{d,n}`$, the Schubert variety $`X_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$ and Opposite Schubert variety $`X^{\underset{¯}{i}}`$ associated to $`\underset{¯}{i}`$ are defined to be

$$X_{\underset{¯}{i}}=\{UG_{d,n}dim(UV_{i_t})t,1td\},$$

$$X^{\underset{¯}{i}}=\{UG_{d,n}dim(UV^{ni_{(dt+1)}+1})t,1td\}.$$

For $`\underset{¯}{i},\underset{¯}{j}I_{d,n}`$, the Richardson Variety $`X_{\underset{¯}{i}}^{\underset{¯}{j}}`$is defined to be $`X_{\underset{¯}{i}}X^{\underset{¯}{j}}`$. For $`\underset{¯}{i},\underset{¯}{j},\underset{¯}{e},\underset{¯}{f}I_{d,n}`$, where $`\underset{¯}{e}=(1,\mathrm{},d)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{f}=(n+1d,\mathrm{},n)`$, note that $`G_{d,n}=X_{\underset{¯}{f}}^{\underset{¯}{e}}`$, $`X_{\underset{¯}{i}}=X_{\underset{¯}{i}}^{\underset{¯}{e}}`$, and $`X^{\underset{¯}{i}}=X_{\underset{¯}{f}}^{\underset{¯}{i}}`$.

For the action of $`G`$ on $`(^dK^n)`$, the $`T`$-fixed points are precisely the points corresponding to the $`T`$-eigenvectors in $`^dK^n`$. Now

$$^dK^n=\underset{\underset{¯}{i}I_{d,n}}{}Ke_{\underset{¯}{i}}\text{,\hspace{1em}as }T\text{-modules,}$$

where for $`\underset{¯}{i}=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_d),e_{\underset{¯}{i}}=e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_d}`$. Thus the $`T`$-fixed points in $`(^dK^n)`$ are precisely $`\left[e_{\underset{¯}{i}}\right]`$, $`\underset{¯}{i}I_{d,n}`$, and these points, obviously, belong to $`G_{d,n}`$. Further, the Schubert variety $`X_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$ associated to $`\underset{¯}{i}`$ is simply the Zariski closure of the $`B`$-orbit $`B\left[e_{\underset{¯}{i}}\right]`$ through the $`T`$-fixed point $`\left[e_{\underset{¯}{i}}\right]`$ (with the canonical reduced structure), $`B`$ being as in §1.2. The opposite Schubert variety $`X^{\underset{¯}{i}}`$ is the Zariski closure of the $`B^{}`$-orbit $`B^{}\left[e_{\underset{¯}{i}}\right]`$ through the $`T`$-fixed point $`\left[e_{\underset{¯}{i}}\right]`$ (with the canonical reduced structure), $`B^{}`$ being as in §1.2.

### 2.1. Bruhat Decomposition

Let $`V=K^n`$. Let $`\underset{¯}{i}I_{d,n}`$. Let $`C_{\underset{¯}{i}}=B[e_{\underset{¯}{i}}]`$ be the Schubert cell and $`C^{\underset{¯}{i}}=B^{}[e_{\underset{¯}{i}}]`$ the opposite Schubert cell associated to $`\underset{¯}{i}`$. The $`C_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$’s provide a cell decomposition of $`G_{d,n}`$, as do the $`C^{\underset{¯}{i}}`$’s. Let $`X=V\mathrm{}V`$ (d times). Let

$$\pi :X^dV,(u_1,\mathrm{},u_d)u_1\mathrm{}u_d,$$

and

$$p:^dV\{0\}(^dV),u_1\mathrm{}u_d[u_1\mathrm{}u_d].$$

Let $`v_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$ denote the point $`(e_{i_1},\mathrm{},e_{i_d})X`$.

Identifying $`X`$ with $`M_{n\times d}`$, $`v_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$ gets identified with the $`n\times d`$ matrix whose entries are all zero except the ones in the $`i_j`$-th row and $`j`$-th column, $`1jd`$, which are equal to $`1`$. We have

$$Bv_{\underset{¯}{i}}=\{AM_{n\times d}x_{ij}=0,i>i_j,\text{ and }\underset{t}{}x_{i_tt}0\},$$

$$B^{}v_{\underset{¯}{i}}=\{AM_{n\times d}x_{ij}=0,i<i_j,\text{ and }\underset{t}{}x_{i_tt}0\}.$$

Denoting $`\overline{Bv_{\underset{¯}{i}}}`$ by $`D_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$, we have $`D_{\underset{¯}{i}}=\{AM_{n\times d}x_{ij}=0,i>i_j\}`$. Further, $`\pi (Bv_{\underset{¯}{i}})=p^1(C_{\underset{¯}{i}})`$, $`\pi (D_{\underset{¯}{i}})=\widehat{X_{\underset{¯}{i}}}`$, the cone over $`X_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$. Denoting $`\overline{B^{}v_{\underset{¯}{i}}}`$ by $`D^{\underset{¯}{i}}`$, we have $`D^{\underset{¯}{i}}=\{AM_{n\times d}x_{ij}=0,i<i_j\}`$. Further, $`\pi (B^{}v_{\underset{¯}{i}})=p^1(C^{\underset{¯}{i}})`$, $`\pi (D^{\underset{¯}{i}})=\widehat{X^{\underset{¯}{i}}}`$, the cone over $`X^{\underset{¯}{i}}`$. From this, we obtain

###### Theorem 2.1.1.

1. Bruhat Decomposition: $`X_{\underset{¯}{j}}=\dot{\underset{\underset{¯}{i}\underset{¯}{j}}{}}Be_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$, $`X^{\underset{¯}{j}}=\dot{\underset{\underset{¯}{i}\underset{¯}{j}}{}}B^{}e_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$.
2. $`X_{\underset{¯}{i}}X_{\underset{¯}{j}}`$ if and only if $`\underset{¯}{i}\underset{¯}{j}`$.
3. $`X^{\underset{¯}{i}}X^{\underset{¯}{j}}`$ if and only if $`\underset{¯}{i}\underset{¯}{j}`$.

###### Corollary 2.1.2.

1. $`X_{\underset{¯}{j}}^{\underset{¯}{k}}`$ is nonempty $`\underset{¯}{j}\underset{¯}{k}`$; further, when $`X_{\underset{¯}{j}}^{\underset{¯}{k}}`$ is

nonempty, it is reduced and irreducible of dimension $`l(w)l(v)`$, where

$`w`$ (resp. $`v`$) is the permutation in $`S_n`$ representing $`\underset{¯}{j}`$ (resp. $`\underset{¯}{k}`$) as in §1.2.
2. $`p_{\underset{¯}{j}}|_{X_{\underset{¯}{i}}^{\underset{¯}{k}}}0\underset{¯}{i}\underset{¯}{j}\underset{¯}{k}.`$

###### Proof.

(1) Follows from . The criterion for $`X_{\underset{¯}{j}}^{\underset{¯}{k}}`$ to be nonempty, the irreducibility, and the dimension formula are also proved in .

(2) From Bruhat decomposition, we have $`p_{\underset{¯}{j}}|_{X_{\underset{¯}{i}}}0e_{\underset{¯}{j}}X_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$; we also have $`p_{\underset{¯}{j}}|_{X^{\underset{¯}{k}}}0e_{\underset{¯}{j}}X^{\underset{¯}{k}}`$. Thus $`p_{\underset{¯}{j}}|_{X_{\underset{¯}{i}}^{\underset{¯}{k}}}0e_{\underset{¯}{j}}X_{\underset{¯}{i}}^{\underset{¯}{k}}`$. Again from Bruhat decomposition, we have $`e_{\underset{¯}{j}}X_{\underset{¯}{i}}^{\underset{¯}{k}}\underset{¯}{i}\underset{¯}{j}\underset{¯}{k}`$. The result follows from this. ∎

For the remainder of this paper, we will assume that all our Richardson varieties are nonempty.

###### Remark 2.1.3.

In view of Theorem 2.1.1, we have $`X_{\underset{¯}{i}}X_{\underset{¯}{j}}`$ if and only if $`\underset{¯}{i}\underset{¯}{j}`$. Thus, under the set-theoretic bijection between the set of Schubert varieties and the set $`I_{d,n}`$, the partial order on the set of Schubert varieties given by inclusion induces the partial order $``$ on $`I_{d,n}`$.

### 2.2. More Results on Richardson Varieties

###### Lemma 2.2.1.

Let $`XG_{d,n}`$ be closed and $`B`$-stable (resp. $`B^{}`$-stable). Then $`X`$ is a union of Schubert varieties (resp. opposite Schubert varieties).

The proof is obvious.

###### Lemma 2.2.2.

Let $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$ be two Richardson varieties in $`G_{d,n}`$ with nonempty intersection. Then $`X_1X_2`$ is a Richardson variety (set-theoretically).

###### Proof.

We first give the proof when $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are both Schubert varieties. Let $`X_1=X_{\tau _1}`$, $`X_2=X_{\tau _2}`$, where $`\tau _1=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_d)`$, $`\tau _2=(b_1,\mathrm{},b_d)`$. By Lemma 2.2.1, $`X_1X_2=X_{w_i}`$, where $`w_i<\tau _1`$, $`w_i<\tau _2`$. Let $`c_j=\mathrm{min}\{a_j,b_j\}`$, $`1jd`$, and $`\tau =(c_1,\mathrm{},c_d)`$. Then, clearly $`\tau I_{d,n}`$, and $`\tau <\tau _i`$, $`i=1,2`$. We have $`w_i\tau `$, and hence $`X_1X_2=X_\tau `$.

The proof when $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are opposite Schubert varieties is similar. The result for Richardson varieties follows immediately from the result for Schubert varieties and the result for opposite Schubert varieties. ∎

###### Remark 2.2.3.

Explicitly, in terms of the distributive lattice structure of $`I_{d,n}`$, we have that $`X_{w_1}^{v_1}X_{w_2}^{v_2}=X_{w_1w_2}^{v_1v_2}`$ (set theoretically), where $`w_1w_2`$ is the meet of $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ (the largest element of $`W^{P_d}`$ which is less than both $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$) and $`v_1v_2`$ is the join of $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ (the smallest element of $`W^{P_d}`$ which is greater than both $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$). The fact that $`X_1X_2`$ is reduced follows from ; we will also provide a proof in Theorem 4.3.1.

## 3. Standard Monomial Theory for Richardson Varieties

### 3.1. Standard Monomials

Let $`R_0`$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`G_{d,n}`$ for the Plücker embedding, and for $`w,vI_{d,n}`$, let $`R_w^v`$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of the Richardson variety $`X_w^v`$. In this section, we present a standard monomial theory for $`X_w^v`$ in the same spirit as in . As mentioned in the introduction, standard monomial theory consists in constructing an explicit basis for $`R_w^v`$.

###### Definition 3.1.1.

A monomial $`f=p_{\tau _1}\mathrm{}p_{\tau _m}`$ is said to be standard if

(\*)
$$\tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _m.$$

Such a monomial is said to be standard on $`X_w^v`$, if in addition to condition (\*), we have $`w\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _mv`$.

###### Remark 3.1.2.

Note that in the presence of condition (\*), the standardness of $`f`$ on $`X_w^v`$ is equivalent to the condition that $`f|_{X_w^v}0`$. Thus given a standard monomial $`f`$, we have $`f|_{X_w^v}`$ is either $`0`$ or remains standard on $`X_w^v`$.

### 3.2. Linear Independence of Standard Monomials

###### Theorem 3.2.1.

The standard monomials on $`X_w^v`$ of degree $`m`$ are linearly independent in $`R_w^v`$.

###### Proof.

We proceed by induction on $`dimX_w^v`$.

If $`dimX_w^v=0`$, then $`w=v`$, $`p_w^m`$ is the only standard monomial on $`X_w^v`$ of degree $`m`$, and the result is obvious. Let $`dimX_w^v>0`$. Let

($``$)
$$0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}c_iF_i,c_iK^{},$$

be a linear relation of standard monomials $`F_i`$ of degree $`m`$. Let $`F_i=p_{w_{i1}}\mathrm{}p_{w_{im}}`$. Suppose that $`w_{i1}<w`$ for some $`i`$. For simplicity, assume that $`w_{11}<w`$, and $`w_{11}`$ is a minimal element of $`\{w_{j1}w_{j1}<w\}`$. Let us denote $`w_{11}`$ by $`\phi `$. Then for $`i2`$, $`F_i|_{X_\phi ^v}`$ is either $`0`$, or is standard on $`X_\phi ^v`$. Hence restricting $`()`$ to $`X_\phi ^v`$, we obtain a nontrivial standard sum on $`X_\phi ^v`$ being zero, which is not possible (by induction hypothesis). Hence we conclude that $`w_{i1}=w`$ for all $`i`$, $`1im`$. Canceling $`p_w`$, we obtain a linear relation among standard monomials on $`X_w^v`$ of degree $`m1`$. Using induction on $`m`$, the required result follows. ∎

### 3.3. Generation by Standard Monomials

###### Theorem 3.3.1.

Let $`F=p_{w_1}\mathrm{}p_{w_m}`$ be any monomial in the Plücker coordinates of degree $`m`$. Then $`F`$ is a linear combination of standard monomials of degree $`m`$.

###### Proof.

For $`F=p_{w_1}\mathrm{}p_{w_m}`$, define

$$N_F=l(w_1)N^{m1}+l(w_2)N^{m2}+\mathrm{}l(w_m),$$

where $`N0`$, say $`N>d(nd)`$ ($`=dimG_{d,n}`$) and $`l(w)=\text{dim}X_w`$. If $`F`$ is standard, there is nothing to prove. Let $`t`$ be the first violation of standardness, i.e. $`p_{w_1}\mathrm{}p_{w_{t1}}`$ is standard, but $`p_{w_1}\mathrm{}p_{w_t}`$ is not. Hence $`w_{t1}w_t`$, and using the quadratic relations (cf. Theorem 1.0.1)

(\*)
$$p_{w_{t1}}p_{w_t}=\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}\pm p_\alpha p_\beta ,$$

$`F`$ can be expressed as $`F=F_i`$, with $`N_{F_i}>N_F`$ (since $`\alpha >w_{t1}`$ for all $`\alpha `$ on the right hand side of $`()`$). Now the required result is obtained by decreasing induction on $`N_F`$ (the starting point of induction, i.e. the case when $`N_F`$ is the largest, corresponds to standard monomial $`F=p_\theta ^m`$, where $`\theta =(n+1d,n+2d,\mathrm{},n)`$, in which case $`F`$ is clearly standard). ∎

Combining Theorems 3.2.1 and 3.3.1, we obtain

###### Theorem 3.3.2.

Standard monomials on $`X_w^v`$ of degree $`m`$ give a basis for $`R_w^v`$ of degree $`m`$.

As a consequence of Theorem 3.3.2 (or also Theorem 1.0.1), we have a qualitative description of a typical quadratic relation on a Richardson variety $`X_w^v`$ as given by the following

###### Proposition 3.3.3.

Let $`w,\tau ,\phi ,vI_{d,n},w>\tau ,\phi `$ and $`\tau ,\phi >v`$. Further let $`\tau ,\phi `$ be non-comparable (so that $`p_\tau p_\phi `$ is a non-standard degree $`2`$ monomial on $`X_w^v`$). Let

(\*)
$$p_\tau p_\phi =\underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}c_{\alpha ,\beta }p_\alpha p_\beta ,c_{\alpha ,\beta }k^{}$$

be the expression for $`p_\tau p_\phi `$ as a sum of standard monomials on $`X_w^v`$. Then for every $`\alpha ,\beta `$ on the right hand side we have, $`\alpha >`$ both $`\tau \text{ and }\phi `$, and $`\beta <`$ both $`\tau \text{ and }\phi `$.

Such a relation as in (\*) is called a straightening relation.

### 3.4. Equations Defining Richardson Varieties in the Grassmannian

Let

$`w,vI_{d,n}`$, with $`wv`$. Let $`\pi _w^v`$ be the map $`R_0R_w^v`$ (the restriction map). Let $`\mathrm{ker}\pi _w^v=J_w^v`$. Let $`Z_w^v=\{\text{all standard monomials }F|F\text{ contains some }p_\phi `$ for some $`w\phi \text{ or }\phi v\}`$. We shall now give a set of generators for $`J_w^v`$ in terms of Plücker coordinates.

###### Lemma 3.4.1.

Let $`I_w^v=(p_\phi ,w\phi \text{ or }\phi v)`$ (ideal in $`R_0`$). Then $`Z_w^v`$ is a basis for $`I_w^v`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`FI_w^v`$. Then writing $`F`$ as a linear combination of standard monomials

$$F=a_iF_i+b_jG_j,$$

where in the first sum each $`F_i`$ contains some $`p_\tau `$, with $`w\tau \text{ or }\tau v`$, and in the second sum each $`G_j`$ contains only coordinates of the form $`p_\tau `$, with $`w\tau v`$. This implies that $`a_iF_iI_w^v`$, and hence we obtain

$$b_jG_jI_w^v.$$

This now implies that considered as an element of $`R_w^v`$, $`b_jG_j`$ is equal to $`0`$ (note that $`I_w^vJ_w^v`$). Now the linear independence of standard monomials on $`X_w^v`$ implies that $`b_j=0`$ for all $`j`$. The required result now follows. ∎

###### Proposition 3.4.2.

Let $`w,vI_{d,n}`$ with $`wv`$. Then $`R_w^v=R_0/I_w^v`$.

###### Proof.

We have, $`R_w^v=R_0/J_w^v`$ (where $`J_w^v`$ is as above). We shall now show that the inclusion $`I_w^vJ_w^v`$ is in fact an equality. Let $`FR_0`$. Writing $`F`$ as a linear combination of standard monomials

$$F=a_iF_i+b_jG_j,$$

where in the first sum each $`F_i`$ contains some term $`p_\tau `$, with $`w\tau \text{ or }\tau v`$, and in the second sum each $`G_j`$ contains only coordinates $`p_\tau `$, with $`w\tau v`$, we have, $`a_iF_iI_w^v`$, and hence we obtain

$`FJ_w^v`$

$`b_jG_jJ_w^v`$ (since $`a_iF_iI_w^v`$, and $`I_w^vJ_w^v`$)

$`\pi _w^v(F)`$ $`(=b_jG_j)`$ is zero

$`b_jG_j`$ (= a sum of standard monomials on $`X_w^v`$) is zero on $`X_w^v`$

$`b_j=0`$ for all $`j`$ (in view of the linear independence of standard monomials on $`X_w^v`$)

$`F=a_iF_i`$

$`FI_w^v`$ .

Hence we obtain $`J_w^v=I_w^v`$. ∎

Equations defining Richardson varieties:

Let $`w,vI_{d,n}`$, with $`wv`$. By Lemma 3.4.1 and Proposition 3.4.2, we have that the kernel of $`(R_0)_1(R_w^v)_1`$ has a basis given by $`\{p_\tau w\tau \text{ or }\tau v\}`$, and that the ideal $`J_w^v`$ (= the kernel of the restriction map $`R_0R_w^v`$) is generated by $`\{p_\tau w\tau \text{ or }\tau v\}`$. Hence $`J_w^v`$ is generated by the kernel of $`(R_0)_1(R_w^v)_1`$. Thus we obtain that $`X_w^v`$ is scheme-theoretically (even at the cone level) the intersection of $`G_{d,n}`$ with all hyperplanes in $`(^dk^n)`$ containing $`X_w^v`$. Further, as a closed subvariety of $`G_{d,n}`$, $`X_w^v`$ is defined (scheme-theoretically) by the vanishing of $`\{p_\tau w\tau \text{ or }\tau v\}`$.

## 4. Standard Monomial Theory for a Union of Richardson Varieties

In this section, we prove results similar to Theorems 3.2.1 and 3.3.2 for a union of Richardson varieties.

Let $`X_i`$ be Richardson varieties in $`G_{d,n}`$. Let $`X=X_i`$.

###### Definition 4.0.1.

A monomial $`F`$ in the Plücker coordinates is standard on the union $`X=X_i`$ if it is standard on some $`X_i`$.

### 4.1. Linear Independence of Standard Monomials on $`X=X_i`$

###### Theorem 4.1.1.

Monomials standard on $`X=X_i`$ are linearly independent.

###### Proof.

If possible, let

(\*)
$$0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}a_iF_i,a_iK^{}$$

be a nontrivial relation among standard monomials on $`X`$. Suppose $`F_1`$ is standard on $`X_j`$. Then restricting $`()`$ to $`X_j`$, we obtain a nontrivial relation among standard monomials on $`X_j`$, which is a contradiction (note that for any $`i,F_i|_{X_j}`$ is either $`0`$ or remains standard on $`X_j`$; further, $`F_1|_{X_j}`$ is non-zero). ∎

### 4.2. Standard Monomial Basis

###### Theorem 4.2.1.

Let $`X=_{i=1}^rX_{w_i}^{v_i}`$, and $`S`$ the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`X`$. Then the standard monomials on $`X`$ give a basis for $`S`$.

###### Proof.

For $`w,vI_{d,n}`$ with $`wv`$, let $`I_w^v`$ be as in Lemma 3.4.1. Let us denote $`I_t=I_{w_t}^{v_t},X_t=X_{w_t}^{v_t},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}tr`$. We have $`R_{w_t}^{v_t}=R_0/I_t`$ (cf. Proposition 3.4.2). Let $`S=R_0/I`$. Then $`I=I_t`$ (note that being the intersection of radical ideals, $`I`$ is also a radical ideal, and hence the set theoretic equality $`X=X_i`$ is also scheme theoretic). A typical element in $`R_0/I`$ may be written as $`\pi (f)`$, for some $`fR_0`$, where $`\pi `$ is the canonical projection $`R_0R_0/I`$. Let us write $`f`$ as a sum of standard monomials

$$f=a_jG_j+b_lH_l,$$

where each $`G_j`$ contains some $`p_{\tau _j}`$ such that $`w_i\tau _j\text{ or }\tau _jv_i`$, for $`1ir`$; and for each $`H_l`$, there is some $`i_l`$, with $`1i_lr`$, such that $`H_l`$ is made up entirely of $`p_\tau `$’s with $`w_{i_l}\tau v_{i_l}`$. We have $`\pi (f)=b_lH_l`$ (since $`a_jG_jI`$). Thus we obtain that $`S`$ (as a vector space) is generated by monomials standard on $`X`$. This together with the linear independence of standard monomials on $`X`$ implies the required result. ∎

### 4.3. Consequences

###### Theorem 4.3.1.

Let $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$ be two Richardson varieties in $`G_{d,n}`$. Then

$`(1)`$ $`X_1X_2`$ is reduced.

$`(2)`$ If $`X_1X_2\mathrm{}`$, then $`X_1X_2`$ is reduced.

###### Proof.

$`(1)`$ Assertion is obvious.

$`(2)`$ Let $`X_1=X_{w_1}^{v_1}`$, $`X_2=X_{w_2}^{v_2}`$, $`I_1=I_{w_1}^{v_1}`$, and $`I_2=I_{w_2}^{v_2}`$. Let $`A`$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`X_1X_2`$. Let $`A=R_0/I`$. Then $`I=I_1+I_2`$. Let $`FI`$. Then by Lemma 3.4.1 and Proposition 3.4.2, in the expression for $`F`$ as a linear combination of standard monomials

$$F=a_jF_j,$$

each $`F_j`$ contains some $`p_\tau `$, where either ($`(w_1\text{ or }w_2)\tau `$) or ($`\tau (v_1\text{ or }v_2)`$). Let $`X_1X_2=X_\mu ^\nu `$ set theoretically, where $`\mu =w_1w_2`$ and $`\nu =v_1v_2`$ (cf. Remark 2.2.3). If $`B=R_0/\sqrt{I}`$, then by Lemma 3.4.1 and Proposition 3.4.2, under $`\pi :R_0B`$, $`\mathrm{ker}\pi `$ consists of all $`f`$ such that $`f=c_kf_k`$, $`f_k`$ being standard monomials such that each $`f_k`$ contains some $`p_\phi `$, where $`\mu \phi \text{ or }\phi \nu `$. Hence either ($`(w_1\text{ or }w_2)\phi `$) or ($`\phi (v_1\text{ or }v_2)`$). Hence $`\sqrt{I}=I`$, and the required result follows from this. ∎

###### Definition 4.3.2.

Let $`w>v`$. Define $`^+X_w^v:=\underset{w>w^{}v}{}X_w^{}^v`$, and $`^{}X_w^v:=\underset{wv^{}>v}{}X_w^v^{}`$.

###### Theorem 4.3.3.

(Pieri’s formulas) Let $`w>v`$.

1. $`X_w^v\{p_w=0\}=^+X_w^v,\text{scheme theoretically}.`$
2. $`X_w^v\{p_v=0\}=^{}X_w^v,\text{scheme theoretically}.`$

###### Proof.

Let $`X=^+X_w^v`$, and let $`A`$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`X`$. Let $`A=R_w^v/I`$. Clearly, $`(p_w)I,(p_w)`$ being the principal ideal in $`R_w^v`$ generated by $`p_w`$. Let $`fI`$. Writing $`f`$ as

$$f=b_iG_i+c_jH_j,$$

where each $`G_i`$ is a standard monomial in $`R_w^v`$ starting with $`p_w`$ and each $`H_j`$ is a standard monomial in $`R_w^v`$ starting with $`p_{\theta _{j1}}`$, where $`\theta _{j1}<w`$, we have, $`b_iG_iI`$. This now implies $`c_jH_j`$ is zero on $`^+X_w^v`$. But now $`c_jH_j`$ being a sum of standard monomials on $`^+X_w^v`$, we have by Theorem 4.1.1, $`c_j=0`$, for all $`j`$. Thus we obtain $`f=b_iG_i`$, and hence $`f(p_w)`$. This implies $`I=(p_w)`$. Hence we obtain $`A=R_w^v/(p_w)`$, and (1) follows from this. The proof of (2) is similar. ∎

## 5. Vanishing Theorems

Let $`X`$ be a union of Richardson varieties. Let $`S(X,m)`$ be the set of standard monomials on $`X`$ of degree $`m`$, and $`s(X,m)`$ the cardinality of $`S(X,m)`$. If $`X`$=$`X_w^v`$ for some $`w,v`$, then $`S(X,m)`$ and $`s(X,m)`$ will also be denoted by just $`S(w,v,m)`$, respectively $`s(w,v,m)`$.

###### Lemma 5.0.1.

$`(1)`$ Let $`Y=Y_1Y_2`$, where $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ are unions of Richardson varieties such that $`Y_1Y_2\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$s(Y,m)=s(Y_1,m)+s(Y_2,m)s(Y_1Y_2,m).$$

$`(2)`$ Let $`w>v`$. Then

$`s(w,v,m)`$ $`=s(w,v,m1)+s(^+X_w^v,m)`$
$`=s(w,v,m1)+s(^{}X_w^v,m)`$
.

(1) and (2) are easy consequences of the results of the previous section.

Let $`X`$ be a closed subvariety of $`G_{d,n}`$. Let $`L=p^{}(𝒪_{}(1))`$, where $`=(^dK^n)`$, and $`p:X`$ is the Plücker embedding restricted to $`X`$.

###### Proposition 5.0.2.

Let $`r`$ be an integer $`d(nd)`$. Suppose that all Richardson varieties $`X`$ in $`G_{d,n}`$ of dimension at most $`r`$ satisfy the following two conditions:

$`(1)`$ $`H^i(X,L^m)=0`$, for $`i1`$, $`m0`$.

$`(2)`$ The set $`S(X,m)`$ is a basis for $`H^0(X,L^m),m0`$.

Then any union of Richardson varieties of dimension at most $`r`$ which have nonempty intersection, and any nonempty intersection of Richardson varieties, satisfy $`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$.

###### Proof.

The proof for intersections of Richardson varieties is clear, since any nonempty intersection of Richardson varieties is itself a Richardson variety (cf. Lemma 2.2.2 and Theorem 4.3.1).

We will prove the result for unions by induction on $`r`$. Let $`S_r`$ denote the set of Richardson varieties $`X`$ in $`G_{d,n}`$ of dimension at most $`r`$. Let $`Y=_{j=1}^tX_j`$, $`X_jS_r`$. Let $`Y_1=_{j=1}^{t1}X_j`$, and $`Y_2=X_t`$. Consider the exact sequence

$$0𝒪_Y𝒪_{Y_1}𝒪_{Y_2}𝒪_{Y_1Y_2}0,$$

where $`𝒪_Y𝒪_{Y_1}𝒪_{Y_2}`$ is the map $`f(f|_{Y_1},f|_{Y_2})`$ and $`𝒪_{Y_1}𝒪_{Y_2}𝒪_{Y_1Y_2}`$ is the map $`(f,g)(fg)|_{Y_1Y_2}`$. Tensoring with $`L^m`$, we obtain the long exact sequence

$$H^{i1}(Y_1Y_2,L^m)H^i(Y,L^m)H^i(Y_1,L^m)H^i(Y_2,L^m)H^i(Y_1Y_2,L^m)$$

Now $`Y_1Y_2`$ is reduced (cf. Theorem 4.3.1) and $`Y_1Y_2S_{r1}`$. Hence, by the induction hypothesis $`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$ hold for $`Y_1Y_2`$. In particular, if $`m0`$, then $`(2)`$ implies that the map $`H^0(Y_1,L^m)H^0(Y_2,L^m)H^0(Y_1Y_2,L^m)`$ is surjective. Hence we obtain that the sequence

$$0H^0(Y,L^m)H^0(Y_1,L^m)H^0(Y_2,L^m)H^0(Y_1Y_2,L^m)0$$

is exact. This implies $`H^0(Y_1Y_2,L^m)H^1(Y,L^m)`$ is the zero map; we have, $`H^1(Y,L^m)H^1(Y_1,L^m)H^1(Y_2,L^m)`$ is also the zero map (since by induction $`H^1(Y_1,L^m)=0=H^1(Y_2,L^m)`$). Hence we obtain $`H^1(Y,L^m)=0,m0`$, and for $`i2`$, the assertion that $`H^i(Y,L^m)=0,m0`$ follows from the long exact cohomology sequence above (and induction hypothesis). This proves the assertion (1) for $`Y`$.

To prove assertion (2) for $`Y`$, we observe

$`h^0(Y,L^m)`$ $`=h^0(Y_1,L^m)+h^0(Y_2,L^m)h^0(Y_1Y_2,L^m)`$
$`=s(Y_1,m)+s(Y_2,m)s(Y_1Y_2,m).`$
Hence Lemma 5.0.1 implies that

$$h^0(Y,L^m)=s(Y,L^m).$$

This together with linear independence of standard monomials on $`Y`$ proves assertion (2) for $`Y`$. ∎

###### Theorem 5.0.3.

Let $`X`$ be a Richardson variety in $`G_{d,n}`$. Then

(a) $`H^i(X,L^m)=0`$ for $`i1`$, $`m0`$.

(b) $`S(X,m)`$ is a basis for $`H^0(X,L^m)`$, $`m0`$.

###### Proof.

We prove the result by induction on $`m,\text{ and }dimX`$.

If $`dimX=0`$, $`X`$ is just a point, and the result is obvious. Assume now that $`dimX1`$. Let $`X=X_w^v,w>v`$. Let $`Y=^+X_w^v`$. Then by Pieri’s formula (cf. §4.3.3), we have,

$$Y=X(\tau )\{p_\tau =0\}\text{(scheme theoretically)}.$$

Hence the sequence

$$0𝒪_X(1)𝒪_X𝒪_Y0$$

is exact. Tensoring it with $`L^m`$, and writing the cohomology exact sequence, we obtain the long exact cohomology sequence

$$\mathrm{}H^{i1}(Y,L^m)H^i(X,L^{m1})H^i(X,L^m)H^i(Y,L^m)\mathrm{}.$$

Let $`m0`$, $`i2`$. Then the induction hypothesis on $`dimX`$ implies (in view of Proposition 5.0.2) that $`H^i(Y,L^m)=0`$, $`i1`$. Hence we obtain that the sequence $`0H^i(X,L^{m1})H^i(X,L^m)`$, $`i2`$, is exact. If $`i=1`$, again the induction hypothesis implies the surjectivity of $`H^0(X,L^m)H^0(Y,L^m)`$. This in turn implies that the map $`H^0(Y,L^m)H^1(X,L^{m1})`$ is the zero map, and hence we obtain that the sequence $`0H^1(X,L^{m1})H^1(X,L^m)`$ is exact. Thus we obtain that $`0H^i(X,L^{m1})H^i(X,L^m)`$, $`m0`$, $`i1`$ is exact. But $`H^i(X,L^m)=0`$, $`m0`$, $`i1`$ (cf. ). Hence we obtain

(1)
$$H^i(X,L^m)=0\text{ for }i1,m0,$$

and

(2)
$$h^0(X,L^m)=h^0(X,L^{m1})+h^0(Y,L^m).$$

In particular, assertion (a) follows from (1). The induction hypothesis on $`m`$ implies that $`h^0(X,L^{m1})=s(X,m1)`$. On the other hand, the induction hypothesis on $`dimX`$ implies (in view of Proposition 5.0.2) that $`h^0(Y,L^m)=s(Y,m)`$. Hence we obtain

(3)
$$h^0(X,L^m)=s(X,m1)+s(Y,m).$$

Now $`(3)`$ together with Lemma 5.0.1,(2) implies $`h^0(X,L^m)=s(X,m)`$. Hence (b) follows in view of the linear independence of standard monomials on $`X_w^v`$ (cf. Theorem 3.2.1). ∎

###### Corollary 5.0.4.

We have

1. $`R_w^v=\underset{m^+}{}H^0(X_w^v,L^m),wv.`$

2. $`dimH^0(^+X_w^v,L^m)=dimH^0(^{}X_w^v,L^m),w>v,m0.`$

###### Proof.

Assertion 1 follows immediately from Theorems 3.3.2 and 5.0.3(b). Assertion 2 follows from Lemma 5.0.1, Theorem 5.0.2(2), and Theorem 5.0.3(b). ∎

## 6. Tangent Space and Smoothness

### 6.1. The Zariski Tangent Space

Let $`x`$ be a point on a variety $`X`$. Let $`𝔪_x`$ be the maximal ideal of the local ring $`𝒪_{X,x}`$ with residue field $`K(x)`$($`=𝒪_{X,x}/𝔪_x`$). Note that $`K(x)=K`$ (since $`K`$ is algebraically closed). Recall that the Zariski tangent space to $`X`$ at $`x`$ is defined as

$`T_x(X)`$ $`=\text{Der}_K(𝒪_{X,x},K(x))`$
$`=\{D:𝒪_{X,x}K(x),K\text{-linear such that }D(ab)=D(a)b+aD(b)\}`$
(here $`K(x)`$ is regarded as an $`𝒪_{X,x}`$-module). It can be seen easily that $`T_x(X)`$ is canonically isomorphic to $`\text{Hom}_{K\text{-mod}}(𝔪_x/𝔪_x^2,K)`$.

### 6.2. Smooth and Non-smooth Points

A point $`x`$ on a variety $`X`$ is said to be a simple or smooth or nonsingular point of $`X`$ if $`𝒪_{X,x}`$ is a regular local ring. A point $`x`$ which is not simple is called a multiple or non-smooth or singular point of $`X`$. The set $`\mathrm{Sing}X=\{xXx\text{is a singular point}\}`$ is called the singular locus of $`X`$. A variety $`X`$ is said to be smooth if $`\text{Sing}X=\mathrm{}`$. We recall the well known

###### Theorem 6.2.1.

Let $`xX`$. Then $`dim_KT_x(X)dim𝒪_{X,x}`$ with equality if and only if $`x`$ is a simple point of $`X`$.

### 6.3. The Space $`T_{w,\tau }^v`$

Let $`G,T,B,P_d,W,R,W_{P_d},R_{P_d}`$ etc., be as in §1.2. We shall henceforth denote $`P_d`$ by just $`P`$. For $`\alpha R`$, let $`X_\alpha `$ be the element of the Chevalley basis for $`𝔤(=\mathrm{Lie}G`$), corresponding to $`\alpha `$. We follow  for denoting elements of $`R,R^+`$ etc.

For $`w\tau v`$, let $`T_{w,\tau }^v`$ be the Zariski tangent space to $`X_w^v`$ at $`e_\tau `$. Let $`w_0`$ be the element of largest length in $`W`$. Now the tangent space to $`G`$ at $`e_{id}`$ is $`𝔤`$, and hence the tangent space to $`G/P`$ at $`e_{id}`$ is $`\underset{\beta R^+R_P^+}{}𝔤_\beta `$. For $`\tau W`$, identifying $`G/P`$ with $`G/^\tau P`$ (where $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }P=\tau P\tau ^1`$) via the map $`gP(n_\tau gn_\tau ^1){}_{}{}^{\tau }P,n_\tau `$ being a fixed lift of $`\tau `$ in $`N_G(T)`$, we have, the tangent space to $`G/P`$ at $`e_\tau `$ is $`\underset{\beta \tau (R^+)\tau (R_P^+)}{}𝔤_\beta `$, i.e.,

$$T_{w_0,\tau }^{\text{id}}=\underset{\beta \tau (R^+)\tau (R_P^+)}{}𝔤_\beta .$$

Set

$$N_{w,\tau }^v=\{\beta \tau (R^+)\tau (R_P^+)|X_\beta T_{w,\tau }^v\}.$$

Since $`T_{w,\tau }^v`$ is a $`T`$-stable subspace of $`T_{w_0,\tau }^v`$, we have

$$T_{w,\tau }^v=\text{ the span of }\{X_\beta ,\beta N_{w,\tau }^v\}.$$

### 6.4. Certain Canonical Vectors in $`T_{w,\tau }^v`$

For a root $`\alpha R^+R_P^+`$, let $`Z_\alpha `$ denote the $`SL(2)`$-copy in $`G`$ corresponding to $`\alpha `$; note that $`Z_\alpha `$ is simply the subgroup of $`G`$ generated by $`U_\alpha `$ and $`U_\alpha `$. Given $`xW^P`$, precisely one of $`\{U_\alpha ,U_\alpha \}`$ fixes the point $`e_x`$. Thus $`Z_\alpha e_x`$ is a $`T`$-stable curve in $`G/P`$ (note that $`Z_\alpha e_x^1`$), and conversely any $`T`$-stable curve in $`G/P`$ is of this form (cf. ). Now a $`T`$-stable curve $`Z_\alpha e_x`$ is contained in a Richardson variety $`X_w^v`$ if and only if $`e_x,e_{s_\alpha x}`$ are both in $`X_w^v`$.

###### Lemma 6.4.1.

Let $`w,\tau ,vW^P,w\tau v`$. Let $`\beta \tau (R^+R_P^+)`$. If $`ws_\beta \tau v(\mathrm{mod}W_P)`$, then $`X_\beta T_{w,\tau }^v`$.

(Note that $`s_\beta \tau `$ need not be in $`W^P`$.)

###### Proof.

The hypothesis that $`ws_\beta \tau v(\mathrm{mod}W_P)`$ implies that the curve $`Z_\beta e_\tau `$ is contained in $`X_w^v`$. Now the tangent space to $`Z_\beta e_\tau `$ at $`e_\tau `$ is the one-dimensional span of $`X_\beta `$. The required result now follows. ∎

We shall show in Theorem 6.7.2 that $`w,\tau ,v`$ being as above, $`T_{w,\tau }^v`$ is precisely the span of $`\{X_\beta ,\beta \tau (R^+R_P^+)|ws_\beta \tau v(\mathrm{mod}W_P)\}`$.

### 6.5. A Canonical Affine Neighborhood of a $`T`$-fixed Point

Let $`\tau W`$. Let $`U_\tau ^{}`$ be the unipotent subgroup of $`G`$ generated by the root subgroups $`U_\beta ,\beta \tau (R^+)`$ (note that $`U_\tau ^{}`$ is the unipotent part of the Borel sub group $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }B_{}^{}`$, opposite to $`{}_{}{}^{\tau }B(=\tau B\tau ^1)`$). We have

$$U_\beta 𝔾_a,U_\tau ^{}\underset{\beta \tau (R^+)}{}U_\beta .$$

Now, $`U_\tau ^{}`$ acts on $`G/P`$ by left multiplication. The isotropy subgroup in $`U_\tau ^{}`$ at $`e_\tau `$ is $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\beta \tau (R_P^+)}U_\beta `$. Thus $`U_\tau ^{}e_\tau \mathrm{\Pi }_{\beta \tau (R^+R_P^+)}U_\beta `$. In this way, $`U_\tau ^{}e_\tau `$ gets identified with $`𝔸^N`$, where $`N=\mathrm{\#}(R^+R_P^+)`$. We shall denote the induced coordinate system on $`U_\tau ^{}e_\tau `$ by $`\{x_\beta ,\beta \tau (R^+R_P^+)\}`$. In the sequel, we shall denote $`U_\tau ^{}e_\tau `$ by $`𝒪_\tau ^{}`$ also. Thus we obtain that $`𝒪_\tau ^{}`$ is an affine neighborhood of $`e_\tau `$ in $`G/P`$.

### 6.6. The Affine Variety $`Y_{w,\tau }^v`$

For $`w,\tau ,vW,w\tau v`$, let us denote $`Y_{w,\tau }^v:=𝒪_\tau ^{}X_{w,\tau }^v`$. It is a nonempty affine open subvariety of $`X_w^v`$, and a closed subvariety of the affine space $`𝒪_\tau ^{}`$.

Note that $`L`$, the ample generator of $`\text{Pic}(G/P)`$, is the line bundle corresponding to the Plücker embedding, and $`H^0(G/P,L)=(^dK^n)^{}`$, which has a basis given by the Plücker coordinates $`\{p_\theta ,\theta I_{d,n}\}`$. Note also that the affine ring $`𝒪_\tau ^{}`$ may be identified as the homogeneous localization $`(R_0)_{(p_\tau )}`$, $`R_0`$ being as in §3.1. We shall denote $`p_\theta /p_\tau `$ by $`f_{\theta ,\tau }`$. Let $`I_{w,\tau }^v`$ be the ideal defining $`Y_{w,\tau }^v`$ as a closed subvariety of $`𝒪_\tau ^{}`$. Then $`I_{w,\tau }^v`$ is generated by $`\{f_{\theta ,\tau }w\theta \text{ or }\theta v\}`$.

### 6.7. Basis for Tangent Space & Criterion for Smoothness of $`X_w^v`$ at $`e_\tau `$

Let $`Y`$ be an affine variety in $`𝔸^n`$, and let $`I(Y)`$ be the ideal defining $`Y`$ in $`𝔸^n`$. Let $`I(Y)`$ be generated by $`\{f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_r\}`$. Let $`J`$ be the Jacobian matrix $`(\frac{f_i}{x_j})`$. We have (cf. Theorem 6.2.1) the dimension of the tangent space to $`Y`$ at a point $`P`$ is greater than or equal to the dimension of $`Y`$, with equality if and only if $`P`$ is a smooth point; equivalently, rank $`J_P\text{codim}_{𝔸^n}Y`$ with equality if and only if $`P`$ is a smooth point of $`Y`$ (here $`J_P`$ denotes $`J`$ evaluated at $`P`$).

Let $`w,\tau ,vW,w\tau v`$. The problem of determining whether or not $`e_\tau `$ is a smooth point of $`X_w^v`$ is equivalent to determining whether or not $`e_\tau `$ is a smooth point of $`Y_{w,\tau }^v`$ (since $`Y_{w,\tau }^v`$ is an open neighborhood of $`e_\tau `$ in $`X_w^v`$). In view of Jacobian criterion, the problem is reduced to computing $`(f_{\theta ,\tau }/x_\beta )_{e_\tau },w\theta \text{ or }\theta v`$ (the Jacobian matrix evaluated at $`e_\tau `$). To carry out this computation, we first observe the following:

Let $`V`$ be the $`G`$-module $`H^0(G/P,L)(=(^dK^n)^{})`$. Now $`V`$ is also a $`𝔤`$-module. Given $`X`$ in $`𝔤`$, we identify $`X`$ with the corresponding right invariant vector field $`D_X`$ on $`G`$. Thus we have $`D_Xp_\theta =Xp_\theta `$, and we note that

$$(f_{\theta ,\tau }/x_\beta )(e_\tau )=X_\beta p_\theta (e_\tau ),\beta \tau (R^+R_P^+),$$

where the left hand side denotes the partial derivative evaluated at $`e_\tau `$.

We make the folowing three observations:

(1) For $`\theta ,\mu W^P`$, $`p_\theta (e_\mu )0\theta =\mu `$, where, recall that for $`\theta =(i_1\mathrm{}i_d)W^P,e_\theta `$ denotes the vector $`e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_d}`$ in $`^dK^n`$, and $`p_\theta `$ denotes the Plücker coordinate associated to $`\theta `$.

(2) Let $`X_\alpha `$ be the element of the Chevalley basis of $`𝔤`$, corresponding to $`\alpha R`$. If $`X_\alpha p_\mu 0`$, $`\mu W^P`$, then $`X_\alpha p_\mu =\pm p_{s_\alpha \mu }`$, where $`s_\alpha `$ is the reflection corresponding to the root $`\alpha `$.

(3) For $`\alpha \beta `$, if $`X_\alpha p_\mu ,X_\beta p_\mu `$ are non-zero, then $`X_\alpha p_\mu X_\beta p_\mu `$.

The first remark is obvious, since $`\{p_\theta \theta W^P\}`$ is the basis of $`(^PK^n)^{}(=H^0(G/P,L))`$, dual to the basis $`\{e_\phi ,\phi I_{d,n}\}`$ of $`^dK^n`$. The second remark is a consequence of $`SL_2`$ theory, using the following facts:

(a) $`|\chi ,\alpha ^{}|=\left|\frac{2(\chi ,\alpha )}{(\alpha ,\alpha )}\right|=0\text{or }1`$, $`\chi `$ being the weight of $`p_\mu `$.

(b) $`p_\mu `$ is the lowest weight vector for the Borel subgroup $`{}_{}{}^{\mu }B=\mu B\mu ^1`$.

The third remark follows from weight considerations (note that if $`X_\alpha p_\mu 0`$, then $`X_\alpha p_\mu `$ is a weight vector (for the $`T`$-action) of weight $`\chi +\alpha `$, $`\chi `$ being the weight of $`p_\mu `$).

###### Theorem 6.7.1.

Let $`w,\tau ,vW^P,w\tau v`$. Then

$$dimT_{w,\tau }^v=\mathrm{\#}\{\gamma \tau (R^+R_P^+)ws_\gamma \tau v(\mathrm{mod}W_P)\}.$$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 3.4.1 and Proposition 3.4.2, we have, $`I_{w,\tau }^v`$ is generated by $`\{f_{\theta ,\tau }w\theta \text{ or }\theta v\}`$. Denoting the affine coordinates on $`𝒪_\tau ^{}`$ by $`x_\beta ,\beta \tau (R^+R_P^+)`$, we have the evaluations of $`\frac{f_{\theta ,\tau }}{x_\beta }`$ and $`X_\beta p_\theta `$ at $`e_\tau `$ coincide. Let $`J_w^v`$ denote the Jacobian matrix of $`Y_{w,\tau }^v`$ (considered as a subvariety of the affine space $`𝒪_\tau ^{}`$). We shall index the rows of $`J_w^v`$ by $`\{f_{\theta ,\tau }w\theta \text{ or }\theta v\}`$ and the columns by $`x_\beta ,\beta \tau (R^+R_P^+)`$. Let $`J_w^v(\tau )`$ denote $`J_w^v`$ evaluated at $`e_\tau `$. Now in view of (1) & (2) above, the $`(f_{\theta ,\tau },x_\beta )`$-th entry in $`J_w^v(\tau )`$ is non-zero if and only if $`X_\beta p_\theta =\pm p_\tau `$. Hence in view of (3) above, we obtain that in each row of $`J_w^v(\tau )`$, there is at most one non-zero entry. Hence rank$`J_w^v(\tau )=`$ the number of non-zero columns of $`J_w^v(\tau )`$. Now, $`X_\beta p_\theta =\pm p_\tau `$ if and only if $`\theta s_\beta \tau (\mathrm{mod}W_P)`$. Thus the column of $`J_w^v(\tau )`$ indexed by $`x_\beta `$ is non-zero if and only if $`ws_\beta \tau (\mathrm{mod}W_P)`$ or $`s_\beta \tau v(\mathrm{mod}W_P)`$. Hence rank$`J_w^v(\tau )=\mathrm{\#}\{\gamma \tau (R^+R_P^+)|ws_\gamma \tau (\mathrm{mod}W_P)\text{ or }s_\gamma \tau v(\mathrm{mod}W_P)\}`$ and thus we obtain

$$dimT_{w,\tau }^v=\mathrm{\#}\{\gamma \tau (R^+R_P^+)ws_\gamma \tau v(\mathrm{mod}W_P)\}.$$

###### Theorem 6.7.2.

Let $`w,\tau ,v`$ be as in Theorem 6.7.1. Then $`\{X_\beta ,\beta \tau (R^+R_P^+)|ws_\beta \tau v(\mathrm{mod}W_P)\}`$ is a basis for $`T_{w,\tau }^v`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\beta \tau (R^+R_P^+)`$ be such that $`ws_\beta \tau v(\mathrm{mod}W_P)`$. We have (by Lemma 6.4.1), $`X_\beta T_{w,\tau }^v`$. On the other hand, by Theorem 6.7.1,

$`dimT_{w,\tau }^v=\mathrm{\#}\{\beta \tau (R^+R_P^+)ws_\beta \tau v(\mathrm{mod}W_P)\}.`$ The result follows from this. ∎

###### Corollary 6.7.3.

$`X_w^v`$ is smooth at $`e_\tau `$ if and only if $`l(w)l(v)=\mathrm{\#}\{\alpha R^+R_P^+w\tau s_\alpha v(\mathrm{mod}W_P)\}`$.

###### Proof.

We have, $`X_w^v`$ is smooth at $`e_\tau `$ if and only if $`dimT_{w,\tau }^v=dimX_w^v`$, and the result follows in view of Corollary 2.1.2 and Theorem 6.7.1 (note that if $`\beta =\tau (\alpha )`$, then $`s_\beta \tau =\tau s_\alpha (\mathrm{mod}W_P)`$). ∎

## 7. Multiplicity at a Singular Point

### 7.1. Multiplicity of an Algebraic Variety at a Point

Let $`B`$ be a graded, affine $`K`$-algebra such that $`B_1`$ generates $`B`$ (as a $`K`$-algebra). Let $`X=\text{Proj}(B)`$. The function $`h_B(m)`$ (or $`h_X(m)`$) $`=\text{dim}_KB_m`$, $`m`$ is called the Hilbert function of $`B(\text{or }X)`$. There exists a polynomial $`P_B(x)`$ (or $`P_X(x)`$) $`[x]`$, called the Hilbert polynomial of $`B(\text{or }X)`$, such that $`f_B(m)=P_B(m)`$ for $`m0`$. Let $`r`$ denote the degree of $`P_B(x)`$. Then $`r=\text{dim}(X)`$, and the leading coefficient of $`P_B(x)`$ is of the form $`c_B/r!`$, where $`c_B`$. The integer $`c_B`$ is called the degree of $`X`$, and denoted $`\text{deg}(X)`$ (see  for details). In the sequel we shall also denote $`\text{deg}(X)`$ by $`\text{deg}(B)`$.

Let $`X`$ be an algebraic variety, and let $`PX`$. Let $`A=𝒪_{X,P}`$ be the stalk at $`P`$ and $`𝔪`$ the unique maximal ideal of the local ring $`A`$. Then the tangent cone to $`X`$ at $`P`$, denoted $`\text{TC}_P(X)`$, is $`\text{Spec}(\text{gr}(A,𝔪))`$, where $`\text{gr}(A,𝔪)=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}𝔪^j/𝔪^{j+1}`$. The multiplicity of $`X`$ at $`P`$, denoted $`\mathrm{mult}_P(X)`$, is $`\text{deg}(\text{Proj}(\text{gr}(A,𝔪)))`$. (If $`XK^n`$ is an affine closed subvariety, and $`m_PK[X]`$ is the maximal ideal corresponding to $`PX`$, then $`\text{gr}(K[X],m_P)=\text{gr}(A,𝔪)`$.)

### 7.2. Evaluation of Plücker Coordinates on $`U_\tau ^{}e_\tau `$

Let $`X=X_w^v`$. Consider a $`\tau W^P`$ such that $`w\tau v`$.

I. Let us first consider the case $`\tau =\text{id}`$. We identify $`U^{}e_{\text{id}}`$ with

$$\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}& \text{Id}_{d\times d}\\ x_{d+\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}1}}& \mathrm{}& x_{d+1d}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ x_{n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}& \mathrm{}& x_{nd}\end{array}\right),x_{ij}k,d+1in,1jd\right\}.$$

Let $`A`$ be the affine algebra of $`U^{}e_{\text{id}}`$. Let us identify $`A`$ with the polynomial algebra $`k[x_\beta ,\beta R^+R_P^+]`$. To be very precise, we have $`R^+R_P^+=\{ϵ_jϵ_i`$, $`1jd,d+1in\}`$; given $`\beta R^+R_P^+`$, say $`\beta =ϵ_jϵ_i`$, we identify $`x_\beta `$ with $`x_{ij}`$. Hence we obtain that the expression for $`f_{\theta ,\text{id}}`$ in the local coordinates $`x_\beta `$’s is homogeneous.

###### Example 7.2.1.

Consider $`G_{2,4}`$. Then

$$U^{}e_{\text{id}}=\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\\ x_{31}& x_{32}\\ x_{41}& x_{42}\end{array}\right),x_{ij}k\right\}.$$

On $`U^{}e_{\text{id}}`$, we have $`p_{12}=1`$, $`p_{13}=x_{32}`$, $`p_{14}=x_{42}`$, $`p_{23}=x_{31}`$, $`p_{24}=x_{41}`$, $`p_{34}=x_{31}x_{42}x_{41}x_{32}`$.

Thus a Plücker coordinate is homogeneous in the local coordinates $`x_{ij},d+1in,1jd`$.

II. Let now $`\tau `$ be any other element in $`W^P`$, say $`\tau =(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$. Then $`U_\tau ^{}e_\tau `$ consists of $`\{N_{d,n}\}`$, where $`N_{d,n}`$ is obtained from $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\text{Id}\\ X\end{array}\right)_{n\times d}`$ (with notations as above) by permuting the rows by $`\tau ^1`$. (Note that $`U_\tau ^{}e_\tau =\tau U^{}e_{\text{id}}`$.)

###### Example 7.2.2.

Consider $`G_{2,4}`$, and let $`\tau =(2314)`$. Then $`\tau ^1=(3124)`$, and

$$U_\tau ^{}e_\tau =\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}x_{31}& x_{32}\\ 1& 0\\ 0& 1\\ x_{41}& x_{42}\end{array}\right),x_{ij}k\right\}.$$

We have on $`U_\tau ^{}e_\tau `$, $`p_{12}=x_{32}`$, $`p_{13}=x_{31}`$, $`p_{14}=x_{31}x_{42}x_{41}x_{32}`$, $`p_{23}=1`$, $`p_{24}=x_{42}`$, $`p_{34}=x_{41}`$.

As in the case $`\tau =\text{id}`$, we find that for $`\theta W^P`$, $`f_{\theta ,\tau }:=`$ $`p_\theta |_{U_\tau ^{}e_\tau }`$ is homogeneous in local coordinates. In fact we have

###### Proposition 7.2.3.

Let $`\theta W^P`$. We have a natural isomorphism

$$k[x_\beta ,\beta R^+R_P^+]k[x_{\tau (\beta )},\beta R^+R_P^+],$$

given by

$$f_{\theta ,\text{id}}f_{\tau \theta ,\tau }.$$

The proof is immediate from the above identifications of $`U^{}e_{\text{id}}`$ and $`U_\tau ^{}e_\tau `$. As a consequence, we have

###### Corollary 7.2.4.

Let $`\theta W^P`$. Then the polynomial expression for $`f_{\theta ,\tau }`$ in the local coordinates $`\{x_{\tau (\beta )},\beta R^+R_P^+\}`$ is homogeneous.

### 7.3. The algebra $`A_{w,\tau }^v`$

As above, we identify $`A_\tau `$, the affine algebra of $`U_\tau ^{}e_\tau `$ with the polynomial algebra $`K[x_\beta ,\beta \tau (R^+R_P^+)]`$. Let $`A_{w,\tau }^v=A_\tau /I_{w,\tau }^v`$, where $`I_{w\tau }^v`$ is the ideal of elements of $`A_\tau `$ that vanish on $`X_w^vU_\tau ^{}e_\tau `$.

Now $`I(X_w^v)`$, the ideal of $`X_w^v`$ in $`G/P`$, is generated by $`\{p_\theta ,\theta W^Pw\theta \text{ or }\theta v\}`$. Hence we obtain (cf. Corollary 7.2.4) that $`I_{w,\tau }^v`$ is homogeneous. Hence we get

(\*)
$$\text{gr }(A_{w,\tau }^v,M_{w,\tau }^v)=A_{w,\tau }^v,$$

where $`M_{w,\tau }^v`$ is the maximal ideal of $`A_{w,\tau }^v`$ corresponding to $`e_\tau `$. In particular, denoting the image of $`x_\beta `$ under the canonical map $`A_\tau A_{w,\tau }^v`$ by just $`x_\beta `$, the set $`\{x_\beta \beta \tau (R^+R_P^+)\}`$ generates $`A_{w,\tau }^v`$. Let $`R_w^v`$ be the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`X_w^v`$ (for the Plücker embedding), $`Y_{w,\tau }^v=X_w^vU_\tau ^{}e_\tau .`$ Then $`K[Y_{w,\tau }^v]=A_{w,\tau }^v`$ gets identified with the homogeneous localization $`(R_w^v)_{(p_\tau )}`$, i.e. the subring of $`(R_w^v)_{p_\tau }`$ (the localization of $`R_w^v`$ with respect to $`p_\tau `$) generated by the elements

$$\{\frac{p_\theta }{p_\tau },\theta W^P,w\theta v\}.$$

### 7.4. The Integer $`\mathrm{deg}_\tau (\theta )`$

Let $`\theta W^P`$. We define $`\mathrm{deg}_\tau (\theta )`$ by

$$\mathrm{deg}_\tau (\theta ):=\mathrm{deg}f_{\theta ,\tau }$$

(note that $`f_{\theta ,\tau }`$ is homogeneous, cf. Corollary 7.2.4). In fact, we have an explicit expression for $`\mathrm{deg}_\tau (\theta )`$, as follows (cf. ):

###### Proposition 7.4.1.

Let $`\theta W^P`$. Let $`\tau =(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$, $`\theta =(b_1,\mathrm{},b_n)`$. Let $`r=\mathrm{\#}\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_d\}\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_d\}`$. Then $`\mathrm{deg}_\tau (\theta )=dr`$.

### 7.5. A Basis for the Tangent Cone

Let $`Z_\tau =\{\theta W^P|\text{either }\theta \tau \text{or }\tau \theta \}.`$

###### Theorem 7.5.1.

With notations as above, given $`r^+`$,

$$\{f_{\theta _1,\tau }\mathrm{}f_{\theta _m,\tau }w\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _mv,\theta _iZ_\tau ,\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\mathrm{deg}_\tau (\theta _i)=r\}$$

is a basis for $`(M_{w,\tau }^v)^r/(M_{w,\tau }^v)^{r+1}`$.

###### Proof.

For $`F=p_{\theta _1}\mathrm{}p_{\theta _m}`$, let deg$`F`$ denote the degree of $`f_{\theta _1,\tau }\mathrm{}f_{\theta _m,\tau }`$. Let

$$A_r=\{F=p_{\theta _1}\mathrm{}p_{\theta _m},w\theta _iv|\text{deg}F=r\}.$$

Then in view of the relation (\*) in §7.3, we have, $`A_r`$ generates $`(M_{w,\tau }^v)^r/(M_{w,\tau }^v)^{r+1}`$. Let $`FA_r`$, say $`F=p_{\tau _1}\mathrm{}p_{\tau _m}`$. From the results in §3, we know that $`p_{\tau _1}\mathrm{}p_{\tau _m}`$ is a linear combination of standard monomials $`p_{\theta _1}\mathrm{}p_{\theta _m},w\theta _iv`$. We claim that in each $`p_{\theta _1}\mathrm{}p_{\theta _m},\theta _iZ_\tau ,\text{ for all }i`$. Suppose that for some $`i,\theta _iZ_\tau `$. This means $`\theta _i`$ and $`\tau `$ are not comparable. Then using the fact that $`f_{\tau ,\tau }=1`$, on $`Y_{w,\tau }^v`$, we replace $`p_{\theta _i}`$ by $`p_{\theta _i}p_\tau `$ in $`p_{\theta _1}\mathrm{}p_{\theta _m}`$. We now use the straightening relation (cf. Proposition 3.3.3) $`p_{\theta _i}p_\tau =c_{\alpha ,\beta }p_\alpha p_\beta `$ on $`X_w^v`$, where in each term $`p_\alpha p_\beta `$ on the right hand side, we have $`\alpha <w`$, and $`\alpha >`$ both $`\theta _i`$ and $`\tau `$, and $`\beta <`$ both $`\theta _i`$ and $`\tau `$; in particular, we have, in each term $`p_\alpha p_\beta `$ on the right hand side, $`\alpha ,\beta `$ belong to $`Z_\tau `$. We now proceed as in the proof of Theorem 3.3.1 to conclude that on $`Y_{w,\tau }^v,F`$ is a linear combination of standard monomials in $`p_\theta `$’s, $`\theta Z_\tau `$ which proves the Claim.

Clearly, $`\{f_{\theta _1,\tau }\mathrm{}f_{\theta _m,\tau }w\theta _1\mathrm{}\theta _mv,\theta _iZ_\tau \}`$ is linearly independent in view of Theorem 3.2.1 (Since $`p_\tau ^lf_{\theta _1,\tau }\mathrm{}f_{\theta _m,\tau }=p_\tau ^{lm}p_{\theta _1}\mathrm{}p_{\theta _m}`$ for $`lm`$, and the monomial on the right hand side is standard since $`\theta _iZ_\tau `$). ∎

### 7.6. Recursive Formulas for $`\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^v`$

###### Definition 7.6.1.

If $`w>\tau v`$, define $`_{w,\tau }^{v,+}:=\{w^{}W^Pw>w^{}\tau v,l(w^{})=l(w)1\}`$. If $`w\tau >v`$, define $`_{w,\tau }^{v,}:=\{v^{}W^Pw\tau v^{}>v,l(v^{})=l(v)+1\}`$.

###### Theorem 7.6.2.

1. Suppose $`w>\tau v`$. Then

$$(\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^v)\mathrm{deg}_\tau w=\underset{w^{}_{w,\tau }^{v,+}}{}\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^{}^v.$$
2. Suppose $`w\tau >v`$. Then

$$(\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^v)\mathrm{deg}_\tau v=\underset{v^{}_{w,\tau }^{v,}}{}\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^v^{}.$$
3. $`\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_\tau ^\tau =1`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`X_\tau ^\tau `$ is a single point, (3) is trivial. We will prove (1); the proof of (2) is similar.

Let $`H_\tau =\underset{w^{}_{w,\tau }^{v,+}}{}X_w^{}^v`$. Let $`\phi _w^v(r)`$ (resp. $`\phi _{H_\tau }(r)`$) be the Hilbert function for the tangent cone of $`X_w^v`$ (resp. $`H_\tau `$) at $`e(\tau )`$, i.e.

$$\phi _w^v(r)=dim((M_{w,\tau }^v)^r/(M_{w,\tau }^v)^{r+1}).$$

Let

$$_{w,\tau }^v(r)=\{p_{\tau _1}\mathrm{}p_{\tau _m},\tau _iZ_\tau (1)w\tau _1\mathrm{}\tau _mv,(2)\mathrm{deg}_\tau (\tau _i)=r\}.$$

Let

$`_1`$ $`=\{p_{\tau _1}\mathrm{}p_{\tau _m}_{w,\tau }^v(r)\tau _1=w\},`$
$`_2`$ $`=\{p_{\tau _1}\mathrm{}p_{\tau _m}_{w,\tau }^v(r)\tau _1<w\}.`$
We have $`_{w,\tau }^v(r)=_1\dot{}_2`$. Hence denoting $`\mathrm{deg}_\tau (w)`$ by $`d`$, we obtain

$$\phi _w^v(r+d)=\phi _w^v(r)+\phi _{H_\tau }(r+d).$$

Taking $`r0`$ and comparing the coefficients of $`r^{u1}`$, where $`u=dimX_w^v`$, we obtain the result. ∎

###### Corollary 7.6.3.

Let $`w>\tau >v`$. Then

$$(\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^v)(\mathrm{deg}_\tau w+\mathrm{deg}_\tau v)=\underset{w^{}_{w,\tau }^{v,+}}{}\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^{}^v+\underset{v^{}_{w,\tau }^{v,}}{}\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^v^{}.$$

###### Theorem 7.6.4.

Let $`w\tau v`$. Then $`\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^v=(\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w)(\mathrm{mult}_\tau X^v)`$

###### Proof.

We proceed by induction on $`dimX_w^v`$.

If $`dimX_w^v=0`$, then $`w=\tau =v`$. In this case, by Theorem 7.6.2 (3), we have that $`\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_\tau ^\tau =1`$. Since $`e_\tau Be_\tau X_w`$, and $`Be_\tau `$ is an affine space open in $`X_w`$, $`e_\tau `$ is a smooth point of $`X_w`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w=1`$. Similarly, $`\mathrm{mult}_\tau X^v=1`$.

Next suppose that $`dimX_w^v>0`$, and $`w>\tau v`$. By Theorem 7.6.2 (1),

$`\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^v`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{deg}_\tau w}}{\displaystyle \underset{w^{}_{w,\tau }^{v,+}}{}}\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^{}^v`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{deg}_\tau w}}{\displaystyle \underset{w^{}_{w,\tau }^{v,+}}{}}\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^{}\mathrm{mult}_\tau X^v`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{deg}_\tau w}}{\displaystyle \underset{w^{}_{w,\tau }^{v,+}}{}}\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^{}\right)\mathrm{mult}_\tau X^v`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{deg}_\tau w}}{\displaystyle \underset{w^{}_{w,\tau }^{v,+}}{}}\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^{}^{\text{id}}\right)\mathrm{mult}_\tau X^v`$
$`=\left(\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^{\text{id}}\right)\mathrm{mult}_\tau X^v=\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w\mathrm{mult}_\tau X^v.`$
The case of $`dimX_w^v>0`$ and $`w=\tau >v`$ is proven similarly. ∎

###### Corollary 7.6.5.

Let $`w\tau v`$. Then $`X_w^v`$ is smooth at $`e_\tau `$ if and only if both $`X_w`$ and $`X^v`$ are smooth at $`e_\tau `$.

###### Remark 7.6.6.

The following alternate proof of Theorem 7.6.4 is due to the referee, and we thank the referee for the same.

> Identify $`𝒪_\tau ^{}`$ with the affine space $`𝔸^N`$ where $`N=d(nd)`$, by the coordinate functions defined in §6.5. Then $`X_w𝒪_\tau ^{}`$ and $`X^v𝒪_\tau ^{}`$ are closed subvarieties of that affine space, both invariant under scalar multiplication (e.g. by Corollary 7.2.4). Moreover, $`X_w`$ and $`X^v`$ intersect properly along the irreducible subvariety $`X_w^v`$; in addition, the Schubert cells $`C_w`$ and $`C^v`$ intersect transversally (by ).
>
> Now let $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ be subvarieties of $`𝔸^N`$, both invariant under scalar multiplication, and intersecting properly. Assume in addition that they intersect transversally along a dense open subset of $`YZ`$. Then
>
> $$\mathrm{mult}_𝐨(YZ)=\mathrm{mult}_𝐨(Y)\mathrm{mult}_𝐨(Z)$$
>
> where $`𝐨`$ is the origin of $`𝔸^N`$.
>
> To see this, let $`(Y)`$, $`(Z)`$ be the closed subvarieties of $`(𝔸^N)=^{N1}`$ associated with $`Y`$, $`Z`$. Then $`\mathrm{mult}_𝐨(Y)`$ equals the degree $`\mathrm{deg}((Y))`$, and likewise for $`Z`$, $`YZ`$. Now
>
> $$\mathrm{deg}((YZ))=\mathrm{deg}((Y)(Z))=\mathrm{deg}((Y))\mathrm{deg}((Z))$$
>
> by the assumptions and the Bezout theorem (see , Proposition 8.4 and Example 8.1.11).

It has also been pointed out by the referee that the above alternate proof in fact holds for Richardson varieties in a minuscule $`G/P`$, since the intersections of Schubert and opposite Schubert varieties with the opposite cell are again invariant under scalar multiplication (the result analogous to Corollary 7.2.4 for a minuscule $`G/P`$ follows from the results in ). Recall that for $`G`$ a semisimple algebraic group and $`P`$ a maximal parabolic subgroup of $`G`$, $`G/P`$ is said to be minuscule if the associated fundamental weight $`\omega `$ of $`P`$ satisfies

$$(\omega ,\beta ^{})(=2(\omega ,\beta )/(\omega ,\beta ))1$$

for all positive roots $`\beta `$, where $`(,)`$ denotes a $`W`$-invariant inner product on $`X(T)`$.

### 7.7. Determinantal Formula for $`\mathrm{mult}X_w^v`$

In this section, we extend the

Rosenthal-Zelevinsky determinantal formula (cf. ) for the multplicity of a Schubert variety at a $`T`$-fixed point to the case of Richardson varieties. We use the convention that the binomial coefficient $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a}{b}\right)=0`$ if $`b<0`$.

###### Theorem 7.7.1.

(Rosenthal-Zelevinsky) Let $`w=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_d)`$ and $`\tau =(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _d)`$ be such that $`w\tau `$. Then

$$\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w=(1)^{\kappa _1+\mathrm{}+\kappa _d}\left|\begin{array}{ccc}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1}{\kappa _1}\right)& \mathrm{}& \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_d}{\kappa _d}\right)\\ \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1}{1\kappa _1}\right)& \mathrm{}& \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_d}{1\kappa _d}\right)\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1}{d1\kappa _1}\right)& \mathrm{}& \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_d}{d1\kappa _d}\right)\end{array}\right|,$$

where $`\kappa _q:=`$ $`\mathrm{\#}\{\tau _p\tau _p>i_q\}`$, for $`q=1,\mathrm{},d`$.

###### Lemma 7.7.2.

$`\mathrm{mult}_\tau X^v=\mathrm{mult}_{w_o\tau }X_{w_0v}`$, where $`w_0=(n+1d,\mathrm{},n)`$.

###### Proof.

Fix a lift $`n_0`$ in $`N(T)`$ of $`w_0`$. The map $`f:X^vn_0X^v`$ given by left multiplication is an isomorphism of algebraic varieties. We have $`f(e_\tau )=e_{w_0\tau }`$, and $`n_0X^v=n_0\overline{B^{}e_v}`$ $`=n_0\overline{n_0Bn_0e_v}=\overline{Bn_0e_v}`$ $`=\overline{Be_{w_0v}}=X_{w_0v}`$. ∎

###### Theorem 7.7.3.

Let $`w=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_d)`$, $`\tau =(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _d)`$, and $`v=(j_1,\mathrm{},j_d)`$ be such that $`w\tau v`$. Then

$$\mathrm{mult}_\tau X_w^v=(1)^c\left|\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1}{\kappa _1}\right)& \mathrm{}& \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_d}{\kappa _d}\right)\\ \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1}{1\kappa _1}\right)& \mathrm{}& \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_d}{1\kappa _d}\right)\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1}{d1\kappa _1}\right)& \mathrm{}& \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_d}{d1\kappa _d}\right)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1j_d}{\gamma _d}\right)& \mathrm{}& \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1j_1}{\gamma _1}\right)\\ \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1j_d}{1\gamma _d}\right)& \mathrm{}& \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1j_1}{1\gamma _1}\right)\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1j_d}{d1\gamma _d}\right)& \mathrm{}& \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1j_1}{d1\gamma _1}\right)\end{array}\right)\right|,$$

where $`\kappa _q:=`$ $`\mathrm{\#}\{\tau _p\tau _p>i_q\}`$, for $`q=1,\mathrm{},d`$, and $`\gamma _q:=`$ $`\mathrm{\#}\{\tau _p\tau _p<j_q\}`$, for $`q=1,\mathrm{},d`$, and $`c=\kappa _1+\mathrm{}+\kappa _d+\gamma _1+\mathrm{}+\gamma _d`$.

###### Proof.

Follows immediately from Theorems 7.6.4, 7.7.1, and Lemma 7.7.2, in view of the fact that $`w_0\tau =(n+1\tau _d,\mathrm{},n+1\tau _1)`$ and $`w_0v=(n+1j_d,\mathrm{},n+1j_1)`$. ∎


format: text

text:
# Higgs: Standard Model and Beyond**footnote * Talk given at VIII Mexican Workshop on Particles and Fields, Zacatecas, Mexico, November 14-20, 2001.

## 1 Introduction

Two of the great mysteries in the elementary particle physics are the cause of the electroweak symmetry breaking (that generates masses for the weak gauge bosons $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z`$) and the origin of the flavor symmetry breaking (that generates masses for quarks and leptons). In the Standard Model (SM), both symmetry breaking mechanisms are explained by introducing a single Higgs boson doublet field. The $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons gain their masses from Goldstone boson mechanism and the fermions gain their massed from Yukawa interactions. In the SM, the mass of the Higgs boson can receive a large radiative correction that is proportional to the square of the cutoff scale beyond which new physics effect has to take place. In order for the SM to be a valid field theory all the way up to the Planck’s scale (about $`10^{19}`$ GeV), the mass of the SM Higgs boson has to be somewhere around 130 GeV to 180 GeV (to satisfy the naturalness condition). Furthermore, to explain the diverse fermion mass spectrum, every fermion has to be assigned a different Yukawa coupling. The fact that the mass of the top quark is so large as compared to the other fermions and is close to the vacuum expectation value suggests that top is a special quark and it may play a role in the electroweak symmetry breaking. If that is the case, then the flavor symmetry breaking and the electroweak symmetry breaking mechanisms may be related. In this talk I will discuss two different classes of models – one is the strongly interacting models and another is the weakly interacting models. (For a brief review on the SM Higgs boson, please see the talk by J. Conway in this Workshop.) The typical strongly interacting models are Technicolor, top-condensate topCrev , topcolor Hill  and top-seesaw models he\_hill , and the weakly interacting models are supersymmetry models, particularly, the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) MSSM . In the former class of models, the electroweak symmetry breaking is generated dynamically and usually results in composite (in contrast to elementary) Higgs bosons. On the contrary, in the latter class of models, the electroweak symmetry breaking is generated spontaneously and results in elementary Higgs bosons. I shall take the topcolor model and the MSSM as two examples to discuss the phenomenology predicted by these two classes of models and to identify a few experiments at high energy colliders that can distinguish these models assuming some new physics signals are found.

## 2 Models

### 2.1 Topcolor model

In the topcolor model, the mass of the top quark is generated by topcolor dynamics that also contributes to the electroweak symmetry breaking and induces two composite Higgs boson doublets in its low energy effective theory. The physical (composite) scalars are $`t`$-Higgs ($`H_t^0`$), top-pions ($`\pi _t^0,\pi _t^\pm `$) and $`b`$-Higgs ($`H_b^0`$$`A_b^0,H_b^\pm `$). Because the topcolor dynamics has to be strong enough to make top quark and antiquark to form condensate to generate the large top quark mass as well as to contribute to part of the weak boson masses, the Yukawa couplings of $`t`$-Higgs (or top-pions) with top quarks have to be large (at the order of 1). Furthermore, because the bottom quark is the isospin partner of the top quark, the strong topcolor dynamics that a left-handed top quark experiences will also affect the bottom quark, Hence, the Yukawa coupling of $`b`$-Higgs with bottom quarks have to be large as well. This should be compared with the SM in which the Yukawa coupling of top quark to the SM Higgs boson is about 1 while the coupling of bottom quark is much less than 1 (about 1/50 at the 100 GeV scale). In this model, tau lepton does not involve the topcolor dynamics so that it does not directly couple to the composite scalars and its Yukawa coupling vanishes. (Its mass has to be generated by other mechanics, such as the technicolor dynamics. Again, this is different from the SM prediction which is equal to $`\sqrt{2}m_\tau /v`$ where $`v`$ is the vacuum expectation value ($`246`$ GeV) and $`m_\tau `$ is the mass of tau. Hence, it is expected that the collider phenomenology of this model will be significantly different from the SM.

As noted above, there are also charged Higgs bosons and top-pions predicted in this model. Their couplings to the top, bottom, and charm quarks are shown in the equation below:

$$\begin{array}{c}_{\pi _t}^{tc}=\frac{m_t\mathrm{tan}\beta }{v}[iK_{UR}^{tt}K_{UL}^{tt}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{t_L}t_R\pi _t^0+\sqrt{2}K_{UR}^{tt}{}_{}{}^{}K_{DL}^{bb}\overline{t_R}b_L\pi _t^++\hfill \\ iK_{UR}^{tc}K_{UL}^{tt}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{t_L}c_R\pi _t^0+\sqrt{2}K_{UR}^{tc}{}_{}{}^{}K_{DL}^{bb}\overline{c_R}b_L\pi _t^++\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.],\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =\sqrt{\left(v/v_t\right)^21}`$ and $`v_tO(60100)`$ GeV is the top-pion decay constant; $`K_{UL,R}`$ and $`K_{DL,R}`$ are rotation matrices that diagonalize the up- and down-quark mass matrices $`M_U`$ and $`M_D`$, i.e., $`K_{UL}^{}M_UK_{UR}=M_U^{\mathrm{dia}}`$ and $`K_{DL}^{}M_DK_{DR}=M_D^{\mathrm{dia}}`$, from which the CKM matrix is defined as $`V=K_{UL}^{}K_{DL}`$. As shown in Ref. hy , a typical topcolor model, that is consistent with all the precision low energy data, gives

$$K_{UR}^{tt}0.990.94,K_{UR}^{tc}\stackrel{<}{}0.110.33,K_{UL}^{tt}K_{DL}^{bb}1.$$
(1)
As to be discussed later, the large flavor mixing between $`t_R`$ and $`c_R`$ can lead to very distinct collider signatures. One example is to induce a large single-top event rate at hadron colliders tim .

### 2.2 MSSM

In the MSSM, the electroweak symmetry is radiatively broken due to the contribution of the heavy top quark in loops. (It would not have worked if the top quark were not heavy enough.) Therefore, in this model, top quark also plays a special role in the electroweak symmetry breaking. Two Higgs doublet fields are required in the MSSM by the requirement of supersymmetry. Among the eight real fields, three of them are the Goldstone bosons which generate the masses of the weak gauge bosons and five of them are the two CP-even Higgs bosons ($`h`$ and $`H`$), one CP-odd Higgs boson ($`A`$) and two charged Higgs bosons ($`H^\pm `$). Their couplings to the fermions are derived by demanding one Higgs doublet couple to the up-type fermions and another to the down-type fermions, which is similar to a type-II two-Higgs-doublet model MSSM . For example, the tree level Yukawa couplings of $`A`$-$`b`$-$`b`$ and $`A`$-$`t`$-$`t`$ are $`\sqrt{2}m_b\mathrm{tan}\beta /v`$, and $`\sqrt{2}m_t\mathrm{cot}\beta /v`$, respectively, where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the ratio of the two vacuum expectation values. For a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the coupling of $`A`$-$`b`$-$`b`$ can become $`O(1)`$, while the coupling of $`A`$-$`t`$-$`t`$ becomes very small. This pattern of the Yukawa couplings is not only different from that in the SM (where the top Yukawa coupling is much larger than the bottom Yukawa coupling) but also different from the topcolor model (where both the top and bottom Yukawa couplings are $`O(1)`$). This difference is the crucial element that allows us to distinguish different classes of electroweak symmetry braking models by carefully examining the experimental data. We shall come back to this point in the next section.

A perfect supersymmetric theory cannot describe the Nature. (Otherwise, we would have seen various supersymmetric partners of the observed particles.) Hence, supersymmetry has to be broken. To incorporate the effect from the yet-to-be found supersymmetry breaking mechanism, the MSSM contains the soft-breaking sector in its Lagrangian to parameterize all such possibilities. One interesting possibility induced by a general soft-breaking sector is that the top-squark and the charm-squark can be largely mixed to yield a sizable flavor mixing between top and charm. One such model can be generated by imposing a horizontal $`U(1)_H`$ symmetry, which is called the Type-B supersymmetry model in Ref. dhy . Another way to generate the up-type squark mixings is to have a non-diagonal $`A_u`$ in the flavor space. Motivated by the charge-color-breaking (CCB) and vacuum stability (VS) bounds, we define at the weak scale

$$A_u^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& x\\ 0& y& 1\end{array}\right)A,$$

where $`(x,y)=O(1)`$ and $`A_u^{}`$ is $`A_u`$ in the super-CKM basis (where the quark mass matrix $`M_u`$ is diagonal). Hence, we have generated large flavor-mixings in the $`\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{c}`$ sector, which are consistent with all low energy experimental flavor changing neutral current (FCNC) data and theoretical CCB/VS bounds. Without losing generality, we define the Type-A1 model as $`x0,y=0`$ and Type-A12 model as $`x=0,y0`$. It is obviously that in the former model $`\stackrel{~}{c}_L`$ decouples, and in the latter model $`\stackrel{~}{c}_R`$ decouples. (Here, we assume $`M_{LL}^2M_{RR}^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝐈_{3\times 3}`$, for simplicity.) It has been shown in Ref. dhy  that both Type-A and Type-B models can radiatively generate large flavor-mixing Yukawa couplings to quarks.

## 3 $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$ and $`b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$

In Ref. he\_bot , we calculated the cross sections of the $`gg,q\overline{q}b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$ processes at the Tevatron and the LHC, where $`\varphi ^0`$ denotes a (pseudo-) scalar predicted in the strongly interacting topcolor model, the two Higgs doublet extension of top-condensate model tt-2HDM , and the MSSM. To suppress the large SM QCD backgrounds in the detection mode of $`\varphi ^0b\overline{b}`$, a set of kinematic cuts has to be applied together with 3 or more $`b`$-tags. For the class of strongly interacting models, the Tevatron Run II and the LHC are able to either exclude an entire model or a large part of the model parameters if the $`\varphi ^0b\overline{b}`$ signal is not found experimentally. Likewise, for the class of weakly interacting models, such as the MSSM, a large portion of the supersymmetry parameters on the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ versus $`m_A`$ plane can be probed at the Tevatron and the LHC. However, because the coupling of $`A`$-$`b`$-$`b`$ can receive large (about a factor of 2) radiative corrections from the supersymmetric particle threshold effect and the QCD interaction, the precise region of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ as a function of $`m_A`$ that can be studied via the above processes will depend on other supersymmetry parameters, such as the $`\mu `$ parameter and the top-squark masses he\_bot . Nevertheless, the constraint provided by this process on the $`\mathrm{tan}\beta m_A`$ plane is complementary to that provided by the associated production of the weak gauge boson and the Higgs boson.

If the mass of $`\varphi ^0`$ is large, it can be dominantly produced from the s-channel fusion process $`b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$ at hadron colliders. The cross sections of this process for various models were also given in Ref. ch\_qcd .

As noted in the previous section, to distinguish the strongly interacting from the weakly interacting models, one should also examine the production of $`t\overline{t}\varphi ^0`$ in addition to the $`b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$ channel. Furthermore, to distinguish those two classes of models in the $`b\overline{b}\varphi ^0`$ channel, one can examine the tau lepton decay mode of $`\varphi ^0`$. (In the topcolor model, $`b`$-Higgs do not couple strongly to the tau lepton, while in the MSSM with a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the coupling of $`\varphi ^0`$-$`\tau `$-$`\tau `$ is large.)

## 4 $`c\overline{b}H^+`$

If the mass of a charged Higgs boson is lees than $`170`$ GeV, it can be studied via the decay process $`tH^+b`$ using the large data sample of the $`t\overline{t}`$ pairs expected at the Tevatron and the LHC tbH . For a heavy charged Higgs boson, the $`H^+H^{}`$ pair production rate is usually small unless enhanced by some resonant effect. One such example is to have have a heavy neutral Higgs boson with mass larger than twice of $`m_{H^+}`$ in the MSSM. It can also be associated produced with a top quark via $`gbH^\pm t`$ gbHt , but again with a small rate. In dhy ; hy , it was pointed out that $`H^+`$ can be produced via the s-channel process $`csH^\pm `$ because of the large parton luminosities of charm and strange quarks at the LHC. Furthermore, if the flavor-mixing coupling of $`c`$-$`b`$-$`H^+`$ can be large, then $`H^+`$ can also be produced via $`cbH^\pm `$.

In the topcolor model, the mass of top-pion $`\pi _t^\pm `$ is expected to be around the weak scale. For a given $`m_{\pi _t}`$, the allowed range of the Yukawa couplings has to be checked by comparing with low energy precision data. A recent study for the topcolor assisted technicolor model can be found in Ref. kuang . To test this model’s prediction, we can study the single-top event signature from $`c\overline{b}H^+t\overline{b}`$. The invariant mass distribution of the $`t`$-$`\overline{b}`$ system can reveal the existence of such a resonant ch\_qcd . To truly test this model, one should also check that the polarization of the final state top quark is right-handed because of its couplngs, cf. Eq. (2.1). In contrast, the top quark produced from the SM single top processes, either the s-channel process $`q\overline{q}^{}W^{}t\overline{b}`$ or the t-channel process $`qbq^{}t`$, are almost one hundred percent left-handedly polarized tim .

Similarly, in the MSSM, a sizable flavor-mixing $`c`$-$`b`$-$`H^+`$ coupling can be radiatively generated through radiative correction arising from the large stop and scharm mixings. At the tree level, the coupling of $`c`$-$`b`$-$`H^+`$ is suppressed by the CKM matrix element $`V_{bc}`$ which is about 0.04. Hence, even with the large enhancement factor from a large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the tree level rate of $`c\overline{b}H^+`$ is still smaller than that of $`c\overline{s}H^+`$ at the Tevatron and the LHC because the parton luminosity of the strange quark is much larger than that of the bottom quark. As shown in Ref. dhy , the Type-A supersymmetry models with the non-diagonal scalar trilinear $`A`$-term for the up-type squarks can enhance the $`c`$-$`b`$-$`H^+`$ coupling from the contribution of stop, scharm and gluino in loops. For $`y=0`$ and $`xO(1)`$ (i.e. Type-A1 model), the production rate of $`c\overline{b}H^+`$ can be increased by a factor of 2 to 5 as compared to its tree level rate, depending on the value of $`x`$. In Fig. 1, we show the single charged Higgs boson production rate for a typical choice of the supersymmetry parameters $`(m_{\stackrel{~}{g}},\mu ,\stackrel{~}{m}0))=(300,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}300},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}600})`$ GeV, $`(A,A_b)=1.5`$ TeV, and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =(15,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}50})`$ with $`x=0.75`$.

## 5 $`tc\varphi ^0`$

The flavor-mixing dynamics predicted by models can also be tested from the FCNC decay of the top quark, such as $`tc\varphi ^0,c\gamma ,cg`$.

It is known that the SM branching ratio of the flavor-changing top decay $`tch^0`$ is extremely small ($`\stackrel{<}{}10^{13}10^{14}`$ SM-tch ), so that this process provides an excellent window for probing new physics. In the topcolor model The low energy precision data requires the mass of the top-pions not to be too small as compared to the top quark mass kuang . In case that $`m_\pi ^0<m_tm_c`$, the decay process $`tc\varphi ^0`$ can occur at tree level, cf. Eq. (2.1), which can impose further constraint on the model if such a signal is not found experimentally. A few recent studies on the other FCNC processes predicted by the topcolor model can be found in Ref. yue .

In the MSSM, the loop induced $`t`$-$`c`$-$`h^0`$ coupling can be greatly enhanced depending on the detailed parameters of the model. dhy . Assuming that the only dominant decay mode of the top quark is its SM decay mode, i.e. $`tbW`$, the decay branching ratio of $`tch^0`$ is given by Br$`[tch^0]\mathrm{\Gamma }[tch^0]/\mathrm{\Gamma }[tbW]`$. As summarized in Table 1, $`\mathrm{Br}[tch^0]`$ can be as large as $`10^310^5`$ over a large part of the supersymmetry parameter space where the mass of the lightest Higgs boson $`h^0`$ is around $`110130`$ GeV. Since the LHC with an integrated luminosity of $`100`$ fb<sup>-1</sup> can produce about $`10^8`$ $`t\overline{t}`$ pairs, it can have a great sensitivity to discover this decay channel and test the model predictions, by demanding one top decaying into the usual $`bW^\pm `$ mode and another to the FCNC $`ch^0`$ mode.

## 6 Conclusion

Because the mass of the top quark is close to the weak scale, it may play an essential role in the breaking of the electroweak symmetry. Two classes of models – strongly interacting and weakly interacting models — are considered. In the topcolor model, the Yukawa couplings of the top quark are large. As an isospin partner of the top quark, the bottom quark can also experience large Yukawa interactions. With the possibility of having a large flavor-mixing between the (right-handed) top- and charm-quarks, the charged top-pions can be copiously produced via the s-channel $`cb`$-fusion process at high energy colliders, due to its large Yukawa coupling and the sizable parton luminosities. In the MSSM, the flavor symmetry is tightly connected to the supersymmetry breaking through the introduction of the soft breaking sector in the Lagrangian. To carefully study the flavor-mixing and the flavor changing neutral current processes can advance our knowledge on the supersymmetry breaking mechanism. This point was demonstrated in some production and decay processes. Although through out this talk, I only concentrated on the phenomenology at hadron colliders, some similar effects are also expected in the future Linear Colliders. For example, a polarized $`\gamma \gamma `$ collide can test the chirality of the Yukawa coupling of $`b`$-$`c`$-$`H^+`$ by studying the single charged Higgs boson production kanemura . There are two other aspects of the physics of Higgs boson which I do not have space to write on this report. First, the associated production of $`A`$ and $`H^\pm `$ from the quark fusion process can constrain MSSM as a function of the only one supersymmetry parameter $`m_A`$, because the coupling of $`W^{}`$-$`A`$-$`H^\pm `$ is determined by the gauge interaction and $`M_A`$ and $`M_{H^+}`$ are related by $`M_W`$ in the MSSM ky . This mass relation however does not generally hold in a 2HDM. Second, in a general 2HDM, the CP-odd scalar can be very light so that it can register into detectors as a ”single-photon” signature (which originates from a pair of highly boosted photons produced by the decay of $`A`$). In that case, the production process $`q\overline{q}^{}W^\pm h`$ with $`hAA`$ and $`A\gamma \gamma `$ appear as a $`W^\pm +\gamma \gamma `$ signal event at colliders gilberto .

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank J.L Diaz-Cruz and M.A. Perez for their support, and my collaborators C. Balazs, L.J. Diaz-Cruz, H.-J. He, S. Kanemura, F. Larios, G. Tavares-Velasco, and T. Tait for their invaluable contributions. This work was supported in part by the NSF grant PHY-9802564.