format: text

text:
# The ring of sections of a complete symmetric variety

## Introduction

The aim of this paper is to explicitly adapt the Littelmann standard monomial theory for flag varieties in , and , to complete symmetric varieties as constructed by De Concini and Procesi in  in characteristic zero and by De Concini and Springer for arbitrary characteristic in .

We review briefly such completions. Let $`G`$ be an adjoint semi-simple group, let $`H`$ be the fixed subgroup for an involutive automorphism $`\sigma `$ of $`G`$ and consider the affine variety $`G/H`$, called *symmetric variety*. De Concini and Procesi in  show that there exists an irreducible representation $`V`$ and a line $`r`$ of $`V`$ such that the stabilizer of $`r`$ is $`H`$. They define the complete symmetric variety $`X`$ as the closure of the orbit $`Gr`$ in $`(V)`$.

This compactification of $`G/H`$ is a *wonderful* $`G`$ variety in the sense of Luna (see Proposition 1.1): $`X`$ is smooth; $`XGr`$ is a divisor with normal crossing and smooth irreducible components $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_{\mathrm{}}`$; the closures of the $`G`$ orbits in $`X`$ are $`X_I=_{iI}S_i`$ where $`I\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$.

Many properties of these varieties have been studied. The ones interesting for us here are the description of the Picard group of $`X`$ as a sublattice of the lattice of weights given in  and  and the description of $`H^0(X,)`$ as a $`G`$-module for all $`Pic(X)`$. In particular in  it is proved that $`H^0(X,_{\alpha _i\sigma (\alpha _i)})\mathrm{𝕜}s_i`$ where $`\alpha _i`$ is a simple root for a suitable basis of the root system of $`G`$ and $`s_i`$ is a $`G`$ invariant section whose divisor is $`S_i`$.

In this paper we construct a standard monomial theory for the ring

$$A(X)=\underset{Pic(X)}{}H^0(X,).$$

We call this ring the *ring of sections* of $`X`$. One should think to this ring as a variant of the multicone over a flag variety.

We give first an explicit description of a basis of $`Pic(X)`$ (see Theorem 2.3). As a first application of this result we prove a generalization of the Parthasarathy-Ranga Rao-Varadarajan conjecture (PRV) to complete symmetric varieties (Theorem 2.7). The motivation for this generalization is that it should give the combinatorial side of the surjectivity of the multiplication map $`H^0(X,)H^0(X,^{})H^0(X,^{}).`$ In the so-called group case, i.e. the involution $`\sigma :G\times GG\times G`$ with $`\sigma (g_1,g_2)=(g_2,g_1)`$, the surjectivity has been proved by Kannan in  but in general this remains an open problem.

Then we pass to the construction of a standard monomial theory for the ring $`A(X)`$. Let $`P`$ be the parabolic subgroup of $`G`$ such that $`G/P`$ is the unique closed orbit in $`X`$. Given an LS path $`\pi `$ of shape $`\lambda Pic^+(G/P)`$, Littelmann defines a section $`p_\pi `$ in $`H^0(G/P,_\lambda )`$. We lift $`p_\pi `$ to a section $`x_\pi `$ over $`X`$ taking into account the description of $`H^0(X,_\lambda )`$. The building blocks of our monomials are given by the sections $`x_\pi `$, where $`\pi `$ runs over LS paths of shape $`\theta `$ for $`\theta `$ generator of $`Pic(X)`$, and by the sections $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_{\mathrm{}}`$. Then we define a notion of standardness for these monomials and introduce a variant of the lexicographic order. Our standard monomial theory strictly mimes that of $`G/P`$, indeed the relations are the same up to “bigger” terms that vanish “more” on the divisors $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Theorem 3.3). Further this standard monomial theory is compatible with the $`G`$ orbit closures (Corollary 3.4).

As a consequence of this standard monomial theory we construct a flat deformation that degenerates $`A(X)`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{A}(G/P)\mathrm{𝕜}[s_1,\mathrm{},s_{\mathrm{}}]`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{A}(G/P)`$ is the coordinate ring of a multicone over $`G/P`$ corresponding to the sublattice $`Pic(X)`$ of $`Pic(G/P)`$. So we use this to prove that $`A(X)`$ has rational singularities. Moreover if we fix a line bundle $``$ then also the ring $`A_{}=_nH^0(X,^n)`$ has rational singularities. This is well known and we have included it here since it was impossible for us to find it in the literature.

Although in all this paper we take $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ to have characteristic zero, all the results are valid in every characteristic except the rational singularityness proofs that use the flat degeneration and the quotient by a reductive group to pass from $`A(G/P)`$ to $`A(X)`$.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 1 we recall all preliminaries results about complete symmetric varieties to be used in the sequel. In Section 2 we see the description of the generators of the Picard group of a symmetric variety giving the application to the PRV for symmetric varieties. Finally in Section 3, after a short review of Littelmann LS paths and related results, we construct our standard monomial theory. We finish the section proving the degeneration result and showing that the ring $`A(X)`$ and the cone ring $`A_{}(X)`$ have rational singularities.

The authors would like to thank C. De Concini who suggested us to work on a standard monomial theory for the ring $`A(X)`$. We want also to thank him for many useful conversations on this problem.

## 1. Preliminary Results on Complete Symmetric Varieties

In this section we collect all preliminary results for the sequel setting up notation and reviewing the construction of the wonderful compactification of $`G/H`$ (for details see  and ).

Let $`G`$ be an adjoint semi-simple group defined over an algebraically closed field $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ of characteristic zero, and let $`\sigma `$ be an involutorial automorphism of $`G`$. Denote by $`H`$ the subgroup of fixed points of $`\sigma `$ in $`G`$. The involution $`\sigma `$ induces a linear map, still denoted by $`\sigma `$, on the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ of the group $`G`$. We denote by $`𝔥`$ the Lie algebra of the reductive group $`H`$; notice that $`𝔥`$ is exactly the $`+1`$ eigenspace of $`\sigma `$ on $`𝔤`$. If $`T`$ is a $`\sigma `$ stable torus of $`G`$ and $`𝔱`$ its Lie algebra, we decompose $`𝔱`$ as $`𝔱_0𝔱_1`$ with $`𝔱_0`$ the $`+1`$ eigenspace of $`\sigma `$ and $`𝔱_1`$ the $`1`$ eigenspace. Notice that $`𝔱_0`$ is the Lie algebra of $`T^\sigma `$ while $`𝔱_1`$ is the Lie algebra of the torus $`T_1=\{tT|\sigma (t)=t^1\}`$; we call this latter torus *anisotropic*. Recall that any $`\sigma `$ stable torus is contained in a maximal torus of $`G`$ which is itself $`\sigma `$ stable. We fix such a $`\sigma `$ stable maximal torus $`T`$ for which $`dimT_1`$ is maximal and denote this dimension by $`\mathrm{}`$, calling it the *rank* of the symmetric variety $`G/H`$.

Now let $`\mathrm{\Phi }𝔱^{}`$ be the root system of $`𝔤`$ and denote still by $`\sigma `$ the induced map on $`𝔱^{}`$. Observe that $`\sigma `$ preserves the killing form on $`𝔱`$ and on $`𝔱^{}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }|\sigma (\alpha )=\alpha \}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. We can choose the set of positive roots $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ in such a way that $`\sigma (\alpha )\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ for all root $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the basis defined by $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ and put $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$. The action of the involution $`\sigma `$ on the set of roots admits the following descriptions. There exists an involutive bijection $`\overline{\sigma }:\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ such that for every $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ we have

$$\sigma (\alpha )=\overline{\sigma }(\alpha )\beta _\alpha $$

where $`\beta _\alpha `$ is a non negative linear combination of roots in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, moreover $`\beta _{\overline{\sigma }(\alpha )}=\beta _\alpha `$. Further $`\sigma (\alpha )=w_{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\overline{\sigma }(\alpha )`$ if $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, where $`w_{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}`$ is the longest element of the Weyl group of the root system with base $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$.

We introduce here a particular behavior of a simple root: we say that $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ is an *exceptional* root if $`\overline{\sigma }(\alpha )\alpha `$ and $`(\alpha ,\sigma (\alpha ))0`$, where $`(,)`$ is the Killing form. Notice that $`\overline{\sigma }(\alpha )`$ is exceptional if $`\alpha `$ is. Moreover the compactification $`X`$ we are going to construct below is said to be exceptional if there exist exceptional roots.

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔱^{}`$ the set of integral weights of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$; clearly $`\sigma `$ acts also on this set. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$ be the set of dominant weights with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and let $`\omega _\alpha `$ be the fundamental weight dual to the simple coroot $`\alpha ^{}`$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$. A simple computation, using the $`\sigma `$ invariance of the Killing form, shows that

$$\sigma (\omega _\alpha )=\omega _{\overline{\sigma }(\alpha )}$$

for every $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. Moreover any integral weight $`\lambda `$ such that $`\sigma (\lambda )=\lambda `$ is of the form

$$\lambda =\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1}{}n_\alpha \omega _\alpha $$

with integer coefficients such that $`n_\alpha =n_{\overline{\sigma }(\alpha )}`$; we denote by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ the set of such weights that we call *special*. Further if $`n_\alpha 0`$ for every root $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ then we say that the special weight $`\lambda `$ is *regular*.

Other notation we will use. We index $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n`$ and we denote by $`\omega _i`$ the fundamental weight $`\omega _{\alpha _i}`$. Moreover we define a map $`\sigma `$ on the set of indeces $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ in such a way that $`\overline{\sigma }(\alpha _i)=\alpha _{\sigma (i)}`$ if $`\alpha _i\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\sigma (i)=i`$ if $`\alpha _i\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. So we can write the action of $`\sigma `$ on the fundamental weights of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ simply as $`\sigma (\omega _i)=\omega _{\sigma (i)}`$.

Now we come to the basic construction of the compactification of $`G/H`$. Consider a simply connected covering $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{G}G`$ and the induced involutorial automorphism $`\sigma :\stackrel{~}{G}\stackrel{~}{G}`$. For a subgroup $`A`$ of $`G`$ we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ the subgroup $`\pi ^1(A)`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Notice that $`\stackrel{~}{H}=\pi ^1(H)`$ contains $`(\stackrel{~}{H})^0=(\stackrel{~}{G})^\sigma `$, the fixed point group in $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$, as the identity component. If $`V`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ module, we define the $`\sigma `$ twisted $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ module $`V^\sigma `$ as the vector space $`V`$ with action $`gv=\sigma (g)v`$. Notice that if $`\lambda `$ is a dominant special weight then the dual of the irreducible $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ module of highest weight $`\lambda `$ is isomorphic to $`V_\lambda ^\sigma `$. Let $`h_\lambda `$ be such isomorphism considered as an element of $`V_\lambda V_\lambda `$. Notice that $`G`$ acts on the projective space over any $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ module.

Assume now that $`\lambda `$ is a regular special dominant weight. In  it is proved that: (i) the stabilizer of the line $`\mathrm{𝕜}h_\lambda `$ in $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ and (ii) the stabilizer of the line $`\mathrm{𝕜}h_\lambda `$ in $`G`$ is $`H`$.

Consider the $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ decomposition $`V_{2\lambda }V^{}`$ of the tensor product $`V_\lambda V_\lambda `$, where $`V^{}`$ is sum of highest weight modules $`V_\mu `$ with $`\mu <\lambda `$ in the dominant order, and let $`p:V_{2\lambda }V^{}V_{2\lambda }`$ be the $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ equivariant projection. Notice that $`p(h_\lambda )`$ is non zero and let $`r_\lambda `$ be its class in $`(V_{2\lambda })`$. Now we define the *compactification* $`X`$ of $`G/H`$ as the closure in $`(V_{2\lambda })`$ of the orbit $`Gr_\lambda `$. Let $`P`$ be the parabolic subgroup of $`G`$ stabilizing the line $`\mathrm{𝕜}v_\lambda (V_\lambda )`$ spanned by a heighest weight vector $`v_\lambda `$. The following proposition from  describes the structure of the compactification.

###### Proposition 1.1.

*(Theorem 3.1 in )*
1) $`X`$ is a smooth projective $`G`$ variety;
2)$`XGr_\lambda `$ is a divisor with normal crossing and smooth irreducible components $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_{\mathrm{}}`$;
3) the $`G`$ orbits of $`X`$ correspond to the subsets of the indexes $`1,2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ so that the orbit closures are the intersections $`S_{i_1}S_{i_2}\mathrm{}S_{i_k}`$, with $`1i_1,\mathrm{},i_k\mathrm{}`$.
So $`X`$ is a wonderful $`G`$ variety in the sense of Luna. Moreover
4) the unique closed orbit $`Y_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}S_i`$ is isomorphic to the flag variety $`G/P`$;
5) $`X`$ is independent on the choice of the regular special weight $`\lambda `$ up to $`G`$ equivariant isomorphism.

We go on constructing some line bundles on the variety $`X`$. Let $`\lambda `$ be a dominant weight of $`𝔤`$ such that $`(V_\lambda )`$ contains a line $`r`$ invariant for $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$. Consider the map

$$G/HgHgr(V_\lambda ).$$

One can show that this induces a projection

$$\psi _\lambda :X(V_\lambda ).$$

Now let $`𝒪(1)`$ be the tautological line bundle on $`(V_\lambda )`$ and define the line bundle $`_\lambda `$ on $`X`$ as $`\psi _\lambda ^{}𝒪(1)`$. If we restrict $`_\lambda `$ on $`G/P\stackrel{~}{G}/\stackrel{~}{P}YX`$ we have the usual line bundle $`\stackrel{~}{G}\times _{\stackrel{~}{P}}\mathrm{𝕜}_\lambda `$ corresponding to $`\lambda `$ in the identification of $`Pic(\stackrel{~}{G}/\stackrel{~}{P})`$ with a sublattice of the weight lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Moreover we have

###### Proposition 1.2.

*(Proposition 8.1 in )* The map $`Pic(X)Pic(Y)`$ induced by the inclusion is injective.

So we can identify $`Pic(X)`$ with a sublattice of the weight lattice. Further the line bundles constructed above account for all line bundles since we have

###### Proposition 1.3.

*(Lemma 4.6 in )* $`Pic(X)`$ corresponds to the lattice generated by the dominant weights $`\lambda `$ such that $`(V_\lambda )^{\stackrel{~}{H}}`$ is non void.

We come to the analysis of such weights. Call a dominant weight $`\lambda `$ *spherical* if $`V_\lambda ^{\stackrel{~}{H}^0}0`$. It is easy to see that a spherical weight must be special. On the contrary the double of any dominant special weight is spherical. Moreover if $`\stackrel{~}{H}^0`$ has no non trivial characters then $`Pic(X)\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$ is exactly the set of spherical weights. In general we have

###### Proposition 1.4.

*(Theorem 4.8 in )* $`Pic(X)`$ is generated by the spherical weights and the fundamental weights corresponding to the exceptional roots.

We recall a characterization of the spherical weights due to Helgason (see ,  or ). For a root $`\alpha `$ let $`\overline{\alpha }`$ be its restriction to $`𝔱_1`$. Then

###### Proposition 1.5.

*(Theorem 3 in )* A weight is spherical if and only if it is special and $`(\mu ,\overline{\alpha })/(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\alpha })`$ is an integer for all root $`\alpha `$ such that $`(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\alpha })0`$.

Now we introduce a filtration on the spaces of global sections $`H^0(X,_\lambda )`$ by the order of vanishing on the $`G`$ stable divisors $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_{\mathrm{}}`$. For a root $`\alpha `$ define $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\alpha \sigma (\alpha )`$ and notice that the set $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\{\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{\mathrm{}},\alpha _{\mathrm{}+1},\mathrm{},\alpha _r\}`$ can be indexed in such a way that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i=\alpha _i\sigma (\alpha _i)`$ are different for $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ (and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1=\{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{}}\}`$). Then, up to reindexing the $`G`$ stable divisors, we have

###### Proposition 1.6.

*(Corollary 8.2 in )* There exists a unique up to scalar $`G`$ invariant section $`s_iH^0(X,_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i})`$ whose divisor is $`S_i`$.

For a $`\mathrm{}`$-tuple $`𝐧=(n_1,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{}})`$ of non negative integers, the multiplication by $`s^𝐧\mathrm{\Pi }_is_i^{n_i}`$ gives a linear map

$$H^0(X,_{\lambda {\scriptscriptstyle n_i\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i}})H^0(X,_\lambda ).$$

Let $`F_\lambda (𝐧)`$ be the image of this map. We order $`^{\mathrm{}}`$ by setting $`(n_1,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{}})(n_1^{},\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{}}^{})`$ if $`n_in_i^{}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. Clearly $`F_\lambda (𝐧^{})F_\lambda (𝐧)`$ if and only if $`𝐧^{}𝐧`$. We have the following theorem

###### Proposition 1.7.

*(Theorem 5.10 in )* Let $`\lambda Pic(X)`$. If $`\lambda n_i\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i`$ is dominant, then

$$F_\lambda (𝐧)/(\underset{𝐧^{}>𝐧}{}F_\lambda (𝐧^{}))=H^0(G/P,_{\lambda {\scriptscriptstyle n_i\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i}}).$$

Otherwise both sides are $`0`$. In particular $`H^0(X,_\lambda )0`$ if and only if there exists a dominant weight $`\mu `$ and a $`\mathrm{}`$-tuple of non negative integers $`(n_1,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{}})`$ such that $`\lambda =\mu +n_i\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i`$.

As a direct consequence we have

###### Corollary 1.8.

Let $`\lambda `$ be a dominant weight in $`Pic(X)`$. Then the map

$$H^0(X,_\lambda )H^0(G/P,_\lambda )$$

induced by inclusion, is surjective.

We finish this review of preliminary results introducing the restricted root system. The results we state here are proved in . Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ the set $`\{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }\}`$. This is a root system in the space $`E_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ with base $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{}}\}`$. We call its Weyl group $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ the *restricted Weyl group*. Consider the following subgroups of the Weyl group $`W`$ of $`𝔤`$, $`W_0=\{wW|w(E_1)E_1\}`$ and $`W_1=\{wW|w_{|E_1}=Id_{E_1}\}`$. Then

###### Proposition 1.9.

*(Lemma 4.1 in )* The restriction map $`W_0ww_{|E_1}End_{}(E_1)`$ induces an isomorphism of $`W_0/W_1`$ with the Weyl group $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ of the root system $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\{\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_1|\mu \text{ is integral on }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^{}\}`$ and notice that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ can be identified with the set of integral weights of the root system $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},E_1)`$.

## 2. The Spherical Weights and the PRV Conjecture

In this section we complete the description of the spherical weights. Using this description we prove a version of the Parthasaraty-Ranga Rao-Varadarajan conjecture (PRV) for complete symmetric varieties. We begin with two preliminary lemmas.

###### Lemma 2.1.

If $`\lambda `$ is a dominant weight in the lattice generated by the spherical weights then $`\lambda `$ is spherical.

###### Proof.

This is clear from the Helgason criterion in Proposition 1.5. ∎

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ be an exceptional root. Then $`\sigma (\alpha ),\alpha ^{}=1`$.

###### Proof.

We have that $`\sigma (\alpha )`$ is not supported in $`\alpha `$ since $`\sigma (\alpha )=w_{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\overline{\sigma }(\alpha )`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }(\alpha )\alpha `$. Hence $`(\sigma (\alpha ),\alpha )0`$.

We know that $`|\sigma (\alpha ),\alpha ^{}|=|2(\sigma (\alpha ),\alpha )/(\alpha ,\alpha )|2`$ since $`\sigma `$ preserves the Killing form. Moreover $`(\sigma (\alpha ),\alpha )0`$, $`\sigma (\alpha )\alpha `$ being $`\alpha `$ exceptional, so $`\sigma (\alpha ),\alpha ^{}=\pm 1`$ and by $`(\sigma (\alpha ),\alpha )0`$ we conclude $`\sigma (\alpha ),\alpha ^{}=1`$. ∎

The following theorem gives a new description of the spherical weights. (Recall that we have indexed the set $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ in such a way that $`\alpha _i\sigma (\alpha _i)`$ are different for $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$.)

###### Theorem 2.3.

The lattice generated by the spherical weights is the lattice $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ of integral weights of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. Moreover if we set:

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega _i\hfill & \text{if }\sigma (i)=i,\sigma (\alpha _i)\alpha _i,\hfill \\ 2\omega _i\hfill & \text{if }\sigma (\alpha _i)=\alpha _i,\hfill \\ \omega _i+\omega _{\sigma (i)}\hfill & \text{if }\sigma (i)i.\hfill \end{array}$$

then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ is generated by $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_j^{}=c_i\delta _{i,j}`$ with $`c_i=1`$ if $`2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and $`c_i=2`$ otherwise. In particular if $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is reduced then $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{\mathrm{}}`$ are the fundamental weights dual to $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1^{},\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$.

###### Proof.

In order to describe the spherical weights we use the Helgason criterion in Proposition 1.5. For each root $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }`$ such that $`(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\alpha })0`$ we have

$$\frac{(\mu ,\overline{\alpha })}{(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\alpha })}=\frac{2(\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}=\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}$$

since $`\overline{\alpha }=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$. The first claim follows.

Now let $`c_\alpha 2\sigma (\alpha ),\alpha ^{}`$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }`$. Observe that $`c_\alpha `$ is a non negative integer less or equal to $`4`$ since $`\sigma `$ preserves the Killing form. Moreover $`c_\alpha =0`$ if and only if $`\sigma (\alpha )=\alpha `$, and $`c_\alpha =4`$ if and only if $`\sigma (\alpha )=\alpha `$. Hence, in particular, $`(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\alpha })0`$ implies $`c_\alpha 0`$.

Fix a root $`\alpha `$ such that $`(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\alpha })0`$ and let $`\mu `$ be a special dominant weight. We have

$$\frac{(\mu ,\overline{\alpha })}{(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\alpha })}=\frac{2\mu ,\alpha ^{}}{c_\alpha }.$$

In  it is proved that $`2\mu `$ is a spherical weight (see also the discussion above Proposition 1.1). So $`(\mu ,\overline{\alpha })/(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\alpha })=a/2`$ with $`a`$, hence we have the integral equality $`4\mu ,\alpha ^{}=ac_\alpha `$.

There are two cases: (i) $`\sigma (\alpha )\alpha `$, so $`4c_\alpha `$, hence $`2|a`$ and $`(\mu ,\overline{\alpha })/(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\alpha })`$ or (ii) $`\sigma (\alpha )=\alpha `$, in this case $`c_\alpha =4`$ and $`(\mu ,\overline{\alpha })/(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\alpha })`$ if and only if $`\mu ,\alpha ^{}2`$.

Being $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ a root system and using the first statement of the theorem, it follows that a special weight $`\mu `$ is spherical if and only if, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$, we have

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i^{}\hfill & \text{ if }2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},\hfill \\ \mu ,(2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i)^{}\hfill & \text{ if }2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},\hfill \end{array}$$

since $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is a base for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$.

If we assume that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is reduced then the description of the generators of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ follows from the above discussion. So let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ be non reduced. We can suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is irreducible; it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is of type $`\text{BC}_{\mathrm{}}`$.

First we consider the case of $`X`$ exceptional and let $`\alpha \alpha _i`$ be an exceptional root. We have

$$\beta s_\alpha \sigma (\alpha )=\sigma (\alpha )+\sigma (\alpha ),\alpha ^{}\alpha =\sigma (\alpha )+\alpha $$

by Lemma 2.2. Observe that $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$. So $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is the unique simple root in $`\text{BC}_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. Let $`\mu \omega _i+\omega _{\sigma (i)}`$, we have

$`\mu ,(2\stackrel{~}{\alpha })^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(\mu ,\overline{2\alpha })}{(\overline{2\alpha },\overline{2\alpha })}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mu ,\overline{\alpha })}{(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\alpha })}}=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ,\alpha _i^{}}{c_\alpha }}=\mu ,\alpha _i^{}=1,`$
using again Lemma 2.2. Hence the result about $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ holds also in this case.

If $`X`$ is non exceptional (and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is non reduced) then the involution is described, up to isomorphism, by one of the following two Satake diagrams

In the first case we have

$$\sigma (\alpha _i)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _i(\alpha _{i1}+\alpha _{i+1})\hfill & \text{if }2|i\text{ and }i<2\mathrm{},\hfill \\ \alpha _2\mathrm{}(\alpha _{2\mathrm{}1}+2\alpha _{2\mathrm{}+1}+\mathrm{}+2\alpha _{n1}+\alpha _n)\hfill & \text{if }i=2\mathrm{},\hfill \\ \alpha _i\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`\sigma (\alpha _2\mathrm{}),\alpha _2\mathrm{}^{}=1`$ we have: (i) $`s_{\alpha _2\mathrm{}}\sigma (\alpha _2\mathrm{})=\sigma (\alpha _2\mathrm{})\alpha _2\mathrm{}`$, (ii) $`(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2\mathrm{})=(\alpha _2\mathrm{},\alpha _2\mathrm{})`$. Hence $`\alpha _2\mathrm{}`$ is the unique simple root such that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2\mathrm{},2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and

$`\omega _2\mathrm{},(2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2\mathrm{})^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _2\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2\mathrm{})}{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2\mathrm{})}}={\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _2\mathrm{},\alpha _2\mathrm{}\sigma (\alpha _2\mathrm{}))}{(\alpha _2\mathrm{},\alpha _2\mathrm{})}}=`$
$`=\omega _2\mathrm{},\alpha _2\mathrm{}^{}=1.`$
So the claimed description of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ is proved.

In the second case we have

$$\sigma (\alpha _i)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _1(3\alpha _2+2\alpha _3+\alpha _4)\hfill & \text{if }i=1,\hfill \\ \alpha _i\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`\sigma (\alpha _1),\alpha _1^{}=1`$ we conclude as in the previous case. ∎

###### Corollary 2.4.

*1)* The set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^+`$ of integral weights of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ that are dominant with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$;
*2)* there exists a $``$ basis $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ for $`Pic(X)`$ that is a $``$ basis for the cone $`Pic^+(X)`$; moreover any $`\theta _i`$ is of the following three kind: $`w_j`$ or $`2w_j`$ or $`w_j+w_{\sigma (j)}`$ for some $`1jn`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from the formula for the weights $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_i`$ given in Theorem 2.3 above and from Proposition 1.4. ∎

We introduce a new order on the set of weights. Given two integral weights $`\mu ,\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we write $`\mu _\sigma \lambda `$ if $`\mu =\lambda \stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ for some $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}`$ is the positive cone over $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$.

Let $`\lambda Pic^+(X)`$. Using the order $`_\sigma `$ above and Proposition 1.7 we can decompose $`H^0(X,_\lambda )`$ as

$$H^0(X,_\lambda )=V_\mu ^{},$$

where the sum runs over the dominant weights $`\mu `$ such that $`\mu _\sigma \lambda `$. Now recall the PRV conjecture proved independently in  and .

###### Proposition 2.5.

Let $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ be two dominant weights and let $`\tau ,ϵ`$ be two elements in the Weyl group. If $`\nu =\tau (\lambda )+ϵ(\mu )`$ is dominant then the module $`V_\nu `$ appears in the decomposition into irreducible modules of the tensor product $`V_\lambda V_\mu `$.

A usefull consequence is the following

###### Proposition 2.6.

*(Lemma 3.2 in )* Let $`\nu ,\lambda ,\mu `$ be dominant weights such that $`\nu \lambda +\mu `$. Then there exist dominant weights $`\lambda ^{},\mu ^{}`$ such that (i) $`\lambda ^{}\lambda `$, $`\mu ^{}\mu `$ and (ii) $`V_\nu `$ appears in the decomposition of $`V_\lambda ^{}V_\mu ^{}`$.

We want to prove the following generalization for symmetric varieties

###### Theorem 2.7.

If $`\nu ,\lambda ,\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_1^+`$ and $`\nu _\sigma \lambda +\mu `$, then there exist two weights $`\lambda ^{},\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1^+`$ such that (i) $`\lambda ^{}_\sigma \lambda `$, $`\mu ^{}_\sigma \mu `$ and (ii) $`V_\nu `$ appears in the decomposition of $`V_\lambda ^{}V_\mu ^{}`$.

###### Proof.

For $`\eta 𝔱^{}`$ we denote by $`[\eta ]_W`$ the unique element of the dominant Weyl chamber in the orbit $`W\eta `$. For $`\eta 𝔱_1^{}`$ we define analogously $`[\eta ]_{\stackrel{~}{W}}`$ using the root system $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},E_1)`$. We observe that if $`\eta 𝔱_1^{}`$ then $`[\eta ]_W=[\eta ]_{\stackrel{~}{W}}`$ since by Proposition 1.9 we have $`\stackrel{~}{W}\eta W\eta `$ and since the dominant Weyl chamber of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is contained in the dominant Weyl chamber of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by Corollary 2.4.

Assume that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is reduced and let $`K`$ be a simply connected group with root system $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. Notice that the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^+`$ is the set of dominant integral weights of $`K`$ and $`_\sigma `$ is the dominant order for $`K`$. For $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_1^+`$ let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\eta `$ be the set of weights of the irreducible $`K`$ module $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\eta `$ of highest weight $`\eta `$.

We have $`\nu \mathrm{\Omega }_{\lambda +\mu }`$ since $`\nu _\sigma \lambda +\mu `$ and $`\nu ,\lambda ,\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_1^+`$. Consider now the $`K`$ equivariant projection

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_\lambda \stackrel{~}{V}_\mu \stackrel{~}{V}_{\lambda +\mu }.$$

We have that there exist weights $`\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$, $`\overline{\mu }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ such that $`\nu =\overline{\lambda }+\overline{\mu }`$. In particular $`\lambda \overline{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}`$, $`\mu \overline{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}`$. Let $`\lambda ^{}[\overline{\lambda }]_W`$, $`\mu ^{}[\overline{\mu }]_W`$ and notice that $`\lambda ^{},\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1^+`$ by the remark at the beginning of the proof. Moreover $`\lambda ^{}\overline{\lambda },\mu ^{}\overline{\mu }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}`$ since $`\overline{\lambda },\overline{\mu }`$ are integral weights. So $`\lambda \lambda ^{},\mu \mu ^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{}`$. Further $`\lambda ^{}\lambda `$, $`\mu ^{}\mu `$ since $`\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$, $`\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$. We conclude $`\lambda ^{}_\sigma \lambda `$, $`\mu ^{}_\sigma \mu `$. This shows also $`\lambda ^{},\mu ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1^+`$. Finally $`V_\nu `$ appears in $`V_\lambda ^{}V_\mu ^{}`$ using the PRV (Proposition 2.5).

Assume now that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is non reduced and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is irreducible (without loss of generality); so $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is of type $`\text{BC}_{\mathrm{}}`$. The proof given above still holds with the following remarks: (i) choose $`K`$ of type $`\text{B}_{\mathrm{}}\text{BC}_{\mathrm{}}`$ and notice that $`_\sigma `$ is the dominant order for $`\text{B}_{\mathrm{}}`$; (ii) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^+`$ is strictly contained in the set of dominant integral weights of $`K`$ and (iii) if $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_1^+`$ and $`\zeta _\sigma \eta `$ then $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }_1^+`$. ∎

As an application to symmetric varieties we have

###### Corollary 2.8.

Let $`X`$ be a non exceptional complete symmetric variety and let $`\lambda ,\mu Pic^+(X)`$. Consider the multiplication map

$$H^0(X,_\lambda )H^0(X,_\mu )H^0(X,_{\lambda +\mu }).$$

Then if $`V_\nu ^{}`$ appears in the right hand side as a direct summand then it appears in the left hand side too.

###### Proof.

Follows from Theorem 2.7 above and Proposition 1.4. ∎

## 3. The Standard Monomial Theory

We begin this section with a short review of Littelmann path basis theory, for details see , and . Denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ the set of piecewise linear paths $`\pi :[0,1]_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ starting in $`0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }^+`$ be the set of path $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }`$ such that $`Im\pi `$ is contained in the dominant Weyl chamber. For $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$ let $`e_\alpha ,f_\alpha `$ be the root operators associated with $`\alpha `$. We can associate a coloured directed graph $`𝒢(𝔹)`$ to any subset $`𝔹`$ of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ by joining two paths $`\pi _1,\pi _2𝔹`$ with an arrow if $`f_\alpha (\pi _1)=\pi _2`$.

Now let $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$ and choose $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }^+`$ such that $`\pi (1)=\lambda `$, then the *path model* associated with $`\pi `$ is the set $`𝔹_\pi `$ of paths obtained from $`\pi `$ by applying the root operators, i.e., $`𝔹_\pi \{0\}`$ is the smallest subset of $`\mathrm{\Pi }\{0\}`$ that contains $`\pi `$ and is closed under the root operators $`e_\alpha ,f_\alpha `$. The path model describes the character of the $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ module $`V_\lambda `$, indeed we have $`chV_\lambda =_{\eta 𝔹_\pi }e^{\eta (1)}`$.

In particular if we start with $`\pi _\lambda :tt\lambda `$ then $`𝔹_\lambda 𝔹_{\pi _\lambda }`$ is the set of Lakshmibai-Seshadri paths (LS paths) of shape $`\lambda `$. This path model has a simple combinatorial description in terms of poset with bonds (see , ). Let $`W_\lambda `$ be the stabilizer of $`\lambda `$ in the Weyl group $`W`$ and consider the set of minimal representatives $`W^\lambda `$. Given two adjacent elements $`\tau _1<s_\alpha \tau _2`$ in $`W^\lambda `$, where $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$, one can define a positive integer value function $`f_\lambda `$ as $`f_\lambda (\tau _1,\tau _2)=\tau _1(\lambda ),\alpha ^{}`$. Further given a complete chain $`\tau _1<\mathrm{}<\tau _u`$ in $`W^\lambda `$ we have that $`\mathrm{gcd}\{f_\lambda (\tau _1,\tau _2),\mathrm{},f_\lambda (\tau _{u1},\tau _u)\}`$ depends only on the pair $`\tau _1,\tau _u`$; so one can extend $`f_\lambda `$ to comparable pairs defining $`f_\lambda (\tau _1,\tau _u)=\mathrm{gcd}\{f_\lambda (\tau _1,\tau _2),\mathrm{},f_\lambda (\tau _{u1},\tau _u)\}`$. The data $`(W^\lambda ,,f_\lambda )`$ is called a *poset with bonds*.

Then the set $`𝔹_\lambda `$ of LS paths of shape $`\lambda `$ is in bijection with the set of pairs $`(\tau _1<\mathrm{}<\tau _u;0=a_0<a_1<\mathrm{}<a_{u1}<a_u=1)`$ such that $`a_if_\lambda (\tau _i,\tau _{i+1})`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},u1`$. Now let $`N_\lambda `$ be the least common multiple of the image $`f_\lambda (W^\lambda )`$ and consider the set $`𝒲`$ of words in the alphabet $`W`$. We define the *word* $`w(\pi )𝒲`$ of an LS path $`\pi =(\tau _1<\mathrm{}<\tau _u;0=a_0<a_1<\mathrm{}<a_u=1)`$ as $`w(\pi )=\tau _1^{N_\lambda (a_1a_0)}\mathrm{}\tau _u^{N_\lambda (a_ua_{u1})}`$.

Now let $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r`$ be dominant weights and call *formal monomial* any string $`\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _r`$ with $`\pi _i𝔹_{\lambda _i}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$. In order to introduce a variant of the lexicographic order, we extend the word to monomials defining $`w(\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _u)=w(\pi _1)\mathrm{}w(\pi _u)`$ using juxtaposition of words in $`𝒲`$. Given two monomials $`\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _r`$, $`\eta _1\mathrm{}\eta _r`$ we define $`\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _r\eta _1\mathrm{}\eta _r`$ if $`w(\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _r)_{\mathrm{lex}}\tau _1(w(\eta _1))\mathrm{}\tau _r(w(\eta _r))`$ for all permutations $`(\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _r)`$ in the subgroup $`𝔖_{N_{\lambda _1}}\times \mathrm{}\times 𝔖_{N_{\lambda _r}}`$ of the symmetric group $`𝔖_{N_{\lambda _1}+\mathrm{}+N_{\lambda _r}}`$ on $`N_{\lambda _1}+\mathrm{}+N_{\lambda _r}`$ symbols acting in the natural way on words of length $`N_{\lambda _1}+\mathrm{}+N_{\lambda _r}`$.

Consider the set $`𝔹_{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}𝔹_{\lambda _r}`$ of concatenations of LS paths of shapes $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r`$ and notice that it is stable under the root operators. Define $`𝒢(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r)`$ as the connected component of the graph $`𝒢(𝔹_{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}𝔹_{\lambda _r})`$ containing $`\pi _{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}\pi _{\lambda _r}`$; let $`\lambda \lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _r`$ and recall that the map $`\pi _{\lambda _1}\mathrm{}\pi _{\lambda _r}\pi _\lambda `$ extends to an isomorphism of graphs $`𝒢(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r)𝒢(𝔹_\lambda )`$. Now given a formal LS path monomial $`\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _r`$ we call it *standard* if $`\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _r𝒢(\lambda _1,\mathrm{}\lambda _r)`$. It is then clear that the number of formal standard monomial $`\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _r`$ is given by $`|𝒢(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r)|=|𝔹_\lambda |=dimV_\lambda `$.

This machinery has another key feature for our purpose. Let $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r`$ be dominant weights such that the lattice $`\mathrm{\Psi }\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r_{}`$ has rank $`r`$ and let $`Q`$ be the parabolic subgroup $`P_{\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _r}`$ of $`G`$. Consider the ring $`A_\mathrm{\Psi }(G/Q)_{\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }}H^0(G/Q,_\lambda )`$. Let $`\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$ and recall that Littelmann associates a section $`p_\pi H^0(G/Q,_\lambda )`$ to an LS path $`\pi 𝔹_\lambda `$. These sections have very remarkable properties and they give a standard monomial theory for $`A_\mathrm{\Psi }(G/Q)`$. Let $`\pi _1,\mathrm{},\pi _u`$ be LS paths with $`\pi _i𝔹_{\lambda _{h_i}}`$ and $`h_1\mathrm{}h_u`$, and call a monomial $`p_{\pi _1}\mathrm{}p_{\pi _u}`$ standard if $`\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _u`$ is a standard formal monomial, further we define the shape of the monomial $`p_{\pi _1}\mathrm{}p_{\pi _u}`$ as $`\lambda _{h_1}+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{h_u}`$. Then one has

###### Proposition 3.1.

*1)* The standard monomials of shape $`\lambda `$ forms a $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ basis for $`H^0(G/Q,_\lambda )`$;
*2)* if $`p_{\pi _1}\mathrm{}p_{\pi _u}=_ha_hp_{\eta _{h,1}}\mathrm{}p_{\eta _{h,u}}`$ express the non standard monomial $`p_{\pi _1}\mathrm{}p_{\pi _u}`$ in terms of standard monomials with $`a_h0`$ then $`\eta _{h,1}\mathrm{}\eta _{h,u}\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _u`$ for all $`h`$.

We will refer to the expressions in 2) of Proposition 3.1 above as the *Littelmann relations*.

We are ready to develop our standard monomial theory. First a definition, for a variety $`Z`$ let $`A(Z)`$ denote the ring $`_{Pic(Z)}H^0(Z,)`$ that we call the *ring of sections* of $`Z`$. Now let $`X`$ be a complete symmetric variety and let $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ be the $``$ basis for $`Pic(X)`$ as in Corollary 2.4. Let $`𝔹_i𝔹_{\theta _i}`$ be the LS path basis of shape $`\theta _i`$ described above for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$. For an LS path $`\pi 𝔹_i`$ it is possible, according to Proposition 1.7, to choose $`x_\pi H^0(X,_{\theta _i})`$ such that $`x_{\pi |G/P}=p_\pi `$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

The sections $`x_\pi `$ for $`\pi 𝔹_1\mathrm{}𝔹_r`$ and the sections $`s_iH^0(X,_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i})`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ generate $`A(X)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`A^{}(X)`$ be the $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ subalgebra generated by the sections in the statement. By Proposition 1.7 it is enough to show that for each dominant $`\lambda Pic(X)`$ the submodule $`V_\lambda ^{}H^0(X,_\lambda )`$ is contained in $`A^{}(X)`$.

For a weight $`\lambda =a_1\theta _1+\mathrm{}+a_r\theta _r`$ let $`ht\lambda _ia_i`$. We use induction on $`ht\lambda `$. If $`ht\lambda =0`$ then $`\lambda =0`$ and $`H^0(X,_\lambda )\mathrm{𝕜}1`$. So suppose $`ht\lambda >0`$. Hence there exists a dominant weight $`\lambda ^{}`$ and $`1ir`$ such that $`\lambda =\lambda ^{}+\theta _i`$. Consider the following commutative diagram

where the horizontal maps are induced by multiplication. Notice that the lower horizontal map is surjective by $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ equivariance. This finish the proof since $`ht\lambda ^{}<ht\lambda `$. ∎

A generic monomial in the generators can be written in the form

$$x=s_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}s_{\mathrm{}}^n_{\mathrm{}}x_{\pi _1}\mathrm{}x_{\pi _u}$$

with $`\pi _i𝔹_{h_i}`$ and $`h_1\mathrm{}h_u`$. For such a monomial $`x`$ we define the *order of vanishing* as $`v(x)(n_1,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{}})`$, the *shape* as $`\lambda (x)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}n_i\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i+_{j=1}^h\theta _{h_j}`$ and the *flag shape* as $`\mu (x)\lambda (\overline{x})`$ where $`\overline{x}s^{v(x)}x`$. Notice that $`xF_{\lambda (x)}(v(x))H^0(X,_{\lambda (x)})`$ and that $`\mu (x)\mathrm{\Lambda }^+`$.

We define the set $``$ of *standard monomials* for $`X`$ as the set of monomials $`x=s_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}s_{\mathrm{}}^n_{\mathrm{}}x_{\pi _1}\mathrm{}x_{\pi _u}`$ as above such that $`\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _u`$ is a formal LS standard monomial. Further we denote by $`_\lambda `$ the set of standard monomials $`x`$ such that $`\lambda (x)=\lambda `$. Given two monomials $`x=s_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}s_{\mathrm{}}^n_{\mathrm{}}x_{\pi _1}\mathrm{}x_{\pi _u}`$ and $`y=s_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}s_{\mathrm{}}^m_{\mathrm{}}x_{\eta _1}\mathrm{}x_{\eta _v}`$ with the same shape we write $`xy`$ if $`v(x)<v(y)`$ or $`v(x)=v(y)`$ and $`\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _u\eta _1\mathrm{}\eta _v`$.

Finally let $`𝒜(X)`$ be the polynomial ring with indeterminates $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`x_\pi `$ with $`\pi 𝔹_1\mathrm{}𝔹_r`$. Clearly $`A(X)`$ is isomorphic to a quotient of $`𝒜(X)/I`$ for some ideal $`I𝒜(X)`$.

The main result of our standard monomial theory is the following

###### Theorem 3.3.

*1)* The set $`_\lambda `$ is a $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ basis for $`H^0(X,_\lambda )`$;
*2)* given monomials $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_t`$, let $`x_1\mathrm{}x_t=a_zz`$ with $`z`$ be the relation guaranteed by *1)*. Then for any standard monomial $`z`$ such that $`a_z0`$ we have $`x_1\mathrm{}x_tz`$. Moreover $`\overline{x}_1\mathrm{}\overline{x}_t=a_z\overline{z}`$ with $`v(z)=v(x)+v(y)`$ is the Littelmann relation for a multicone over $`G/P`$;
*3)* the ideal $`I`$ is generated by the relation in *2)* for $`t=2`$ and $`x=x_{\pi _1}`$, $`x_2=x_{\pi _2}`$ with $`\pi _1,\pi _2𝔹_1\mathrm{}𝔹_r`$ and $`x_{\pi _1}x_{\pi _2}`$ not standard.

###### Proof.

We prove the three statements together.

First notice that a section in $`A(X)`$ vanishing on $`G/P`$ is in the ideal generated by $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_{\mathrm{}}`$ since the divisor $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_{\mathrm{}}`$ are smooth and normal crossing.

If $`\pi _1,\pi _2𝔹_1\mathrm{}𝔹_r`$ are two LS paths such that $`x_{\pi _1}x_{\pi _2}`$ is not standard, consider the Littelmann relation

$$p_{\pi _1}p_{\pi _2}=\underset{h}{}a_hp_{\eta _{h,1}}p_{\eta _{h,2}}$$

on $`G/P`$. Then $`x_{\pi _1}x_{\pi _2}_ha_hx_{\eta _{h,1}}x_{\eta _{h,2}}`$ vanishes on $`G/P`$, hence

$$x_{\pi _1}x_{\pi _2}=\underset{h}{}a_hx_{\eta _{h,1}}x_{\eta _{h,2}}+\underset{v(z)>0}{}a_zz$$

where in the second sum the $`z`$’s are (not necessarily standard) monomials.

Consider the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ homogeneous element

$$f_{\pi _1,\pi _2}x_{\pi _1}x_{\pi _2}\underset{h}{}a_hx_{\eta _{h,1}}x_{\eta _{h,2}}\underset{v(z)>0}{}a_zz$$

in $`𝒜(X)`$ and let $`J`$ be the ideal generated by the various $`f_{\pi _1,\pi _2}`$ with $`x_{\pi _1}x_{\pi _2}`$ not standard as above. We want to show that $``$ generates $`𝒜(X)/J`$ as a vector space.

Let $`xs_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}s_{\mathrm{}}^n_{\mathrm{}}x_{\pi _1}\mathrm{}x_{\pi _u}`$ be a not standard monomial (so $`u2`$). We proceed by induction on the flag shape of $`x`$ with respect to the order $`_\sigma `$.

Observe that $`𝒜(X)/(s_1,\mathrm{}s_{\mathrm{}}+J)`$ is isomorphic to the coordinate ring of a multicone over $`G/P`$ since the relations on sections over $`G/P`$ are generated by the relations of degree 2 (Proposition 2 in ). Hence $`x_{\pi _1}\mathrm{}x_{\pi _u}+s_1,\mathrm{},s_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a sum of standard monomials in the $`x_\pi `$. So in $`𝒜(X)/J`$ we have $`x_{\pi _1}\mathrm{}x_{\pi _u}=_za_zz+s_1y_1+\mathrm{}+s_{\mathrm{}}y_{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_{\mathrm{}}`$ are sums of monomials with flag shape $`<_\sigma `$ of the flag shape of $`x`$.

Now consider the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ homogeneous projection $`\varphi :𝒜(X)/JA(X)`$. We want to show that $`\varphi `$ is an isomorphism. It is enough to prove that $`dim(𝒜(X)/J)_\lambda dim(A(X))_\lambda `$ for each $`\lambda `$, since $`\varphi `$ is clearly surjective. We have $`dim(𝒜(X)/J)_\lambda |_\lambda |`$. On the other hand $`(A(X))_\lambda =H^0(X,_\lambda )=V_\mu ^{}`$ with $`\mu _\sigma \lambda `$, $`\mu `$ dominant. So $`dim(A(X))_\lambda =_{\mu _\sigma \lambda ,\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^+}dimV_\mu ^{}=_{\mu _\sigma \lambda ,\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^+}|𝔹_{\pi _\mu }|`$. If $`\mu =a_1\theta _1+\mathrm{}+a_r\theta _r`$ then

$$|B_\mu |=|𝒢(\underset{a_1}{\underset{}{\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _1}},\mathrm{},\underset{a_r}{\underset{}{\theta _r,\mathrm{},\theta _r}})|$$

and we conclude $`_{\mu _\sigma \lambda ,\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^+}|𝔹_\mu |=|_\lambda |`$. ∎

Now we show that this standard monomial theory is compatible with the $`G`$ orbit closures in $`X`$. So let $`I\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$ and let $`X_I_{iI}S_i`$ be the corresponding $`G`$ orbit closure. Define a monomial $`x=s_1^{n_1}\mathrm{}s_{\mathrm{}}^n_{\mathrm{}}x_{\pi _1}\mathrm{}x_{\pi _u}`$ to be *standard on $`X_I`$* if it is standard and $`n_i=0`$ for all $`iI`$. Given a weight $`\lambda `$, denote by $`_{\lambda ,I}`$ the set of monomials standard on $`X_I`$ with shape $`\lambda `$. Then we have

###### Corollary 3.4.

The set $`_{\lambda ,I}`$ is a $`\mathrm{𝕜}`$ basis for $`H^0(X_I,_{\lambda |X_I})`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`J`$ be the complement of $`I`$ in $`\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$. Adapting the proof of Theorem 8.3 in  we have that $`H^0(X,_\lambda )H^0(X_I,_{\lambda |X_I})`$ is a surjective map and that $`H^0(X_I,_{\lambda |X_I})=_\mu V_\mu ^{}`$ where the sum runs over all dominant weights $`\mu `$ of the form

$$\mu =\lambda \underset{jJ}{}a_j\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_j$$

with $`a_j0`$. So the set of standard monomials $`_\lambda `$ is a generating set for $`H^0(X_I,_{\lambda |X_I})`$. Hence $`_{\lambda ,I}`$ is a generating set since any monomial in $`_\lambda _{\lambda ,I}`$ contains some $`s_i`$ with $`iI`$ and vanishes on $`X_I`$. Moreover comparing the dimensions we have that $`_{\lambda ,I}`$ is a basis. ∎

Clearly all the statements of Theorem 3.3 carry on to $`X_I`$ giving a standard monomial theory for the ring $`A_{Pic(X)}(X_I)=_{\lambda Pic(X)}H^0(X_I,_{\lambda |X_I})`$.

Now we want to give some straightforward applications of the discussion above. The form of the relations in Theorem 3.3 allows to degenerate the ring $`A(X)`$ to the coordinate ring of the product of a multicone over the flag varieties $`G/P`$ and the affine space $`\mathrm{𝕜}^{\mathrm{}}`$. Indeed, let $`K`$ be the ideal of $`A(X)`$ generated by $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_{\mathrm{}}`$ and consider the Rees algebra

$$\mathrm{}A(X)t^2A(X)tA(X)Kt^1K^2t^2\mathrm{}A(X)\mathrm{𝕜}[t,t^1].$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{A}(G/P)A_{Pic(X)}(G/P)`$. Then we have

###### Theorem 3.5.

$``$ is a flat $`\mathrm{𝕜}[t]`$ algebra. The general fiber $`/(ta)`$, with $`a\mathrm{𝕜}\{0\}`$, is isomorphic to $`A(X)`$ and the special fiber $`/(t)`$ is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{A}(G/P)\mathrm{𝕜}[s_1,\mathrm{},s_{\mathrm{}}]`$.

###### Proof.

This is a standard result about Rees algebra taking into account the relations of Theorem 3.3. ∎

Now we use this degeneration result to prove that $`A(X)`$ has rational singularities. As we said in the introduction, this is well known and we include it here since we haven’t found it in the literature. In the proof below we will use (i) that $`A(G/P)`$ has rational singularities (Theorem 2 in ) and (ii) that the property of having rational singularities is stable under flat deformation (see ) and under the quotient by a reductive group (see ).

###### Theorem 3.6.

*1)* The ring $`A(X)`$ has rational singularities;
*2)* for all $`Pic(X)`$ the ring $`A_{}_nH^0(X,^n)`$ has rational singularities.

###### Proof.

By what we said above and Theorem 3.5 in order to prove 1) it is enough to show that $`\stackrel{~}{A}(G/P)`$ is the fixed point algebra of $`A(G/P)`$ under the action of a reductive group. This will be done in two steps. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be the lattice $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and observe that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }Pic(G/P)=\omega _\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1_{}\mathrm{\Psi }Pic(X)$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ be the maximal torus of $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ over $`T`$ and recall that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=Hom(\stackrel{~}{T},\mathrm{𝕜}^{})`$. We define $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{i=1}^r\mathrm{ker}\theta _i\stackrel{~}{T}`$ and an action of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ on $`A(G/P)`$ by

$$tf\mu (t)f\text{ for all }t\stackrel{~}{S}\text{ and }fH^0(G/P,_\mu ).$$

We have that $`(A(G/P))^{\stackrel{~}{S}}=A_\mathrm{\Psi }(G/P)`$. Now we observe that $`\mathrm{\Psi }/Pic(X)`$ is a finite abelian group. Hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=Hom(\mathrm{\Psi }/Pic(X),\mathrm{𝕜}^{})`$ is also finite and we can define an action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`A_\mathrm{\Psi }(G/P)`$ by

$$\gamma f\gamma (\mu +\mathrm{\Psi })f\text{ for all }\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\text{ and }fH^0(G/P,_\mu ).$$

Clearly $`(A_\mathrm{\Psi }(G/P))^\mathrm{\Gamma }=\stackrel{~}{A}(G/P)`$.

For the proof of 2) notice that if $``$ is not trivial and there exists $`m>0`$ such that $`H^0(X,^m)0`$ then $`H^0(X,^n)=0`$ for all $`n<0`$. So we can assume $`A_{}(X)=_nH^0(X,^n)`$ and $`=_\lambda `$ for some $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Then the proof goes on as in 1) using the action of a torus and a finite group to pass from the algebra $`A(X)`$, corresponding to $`Pic(X)`$, to $`A_{}(X)`$, corresponding to $`\lambda `$. ∎

As a final remark we consider the characteristic $`p`$ case. In this paper we have treated exclusively the characteristic $`0`$ case. In particular in the proof of the last Theorem we used the result of Boutot on quotients of rational singularities and the result of Elkike on deformation of rational singularities which in general hold only in this case and we do not know if Theorem 3.6 holds also in the finite characteristic case.

However it is possible to prove Theorem 3.3 in general with few changes to our proof. We give now an outline of the modification needed to pass from the characteristic zero case to the general case.

The characterizations of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`Pic(X)`$ given in Theorem 2.3 and Corollary 2.4 hold in the same way and with the same proofs in the finite characteristic case. The main changes are in the proof of Lemma 3.2. One minor change is that we cannot use the decomposition of $`H^0(X,_\lambda )=_{\mu _\sigma \lambda ,\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }^+}V_\mu ^{}`$, but we have instead to use the filtration $`F_\lambda `$ of Proposition 1.7. A more important change is that $`V_\lambda ^{}`$ is no more irreducible but we can instead use the surjectivity of the multiplication of sections $`H^0(G/P,_\lambda )H^0(G/P,_\mu )H^0(G/P,_{\lambda +\mu })`$ proved by Ramanan and Ramanathan (see ). Then the remaining part of the proof of Theorem 3.3 goes on with only minor changes.

Rocco Chirivì,
Università di Pisa,
Dipartimento di Matematica “Leonida Tonelli”
via Buonarroti n. 2, 56127 Pisa, Italy,
e-mail: chirivi@dm.unipi.it
and
Andrea Maffei,
Università di Roma “La Sapienza”,
Dipartimento di Matematica “Guido Castelnuovo”,
Piazzale Aldo Moro n. 5, 00185 Rome, Italy,
e-mail: amaffei@mat.uniroma1.it


text:
# 1 Plaquette formulation

## 1 Plaquette formulation

Lattice gauge theory (LGT) can be formulated in many equivalent ways. The original Wilson formulation is given in terms of group valued matrices on links as fundamental degrees of freedom . The partition function reads

$$Z=DU\mathrm{exp}\{\beta S[U_\mu (x)]\},$$
(1)
where $`S`$ is the standard Wilson action and the integral is calculated over the Haar measure on the group at every link of the lattice. Several years later the dual representation for abelian LGT’s was constructed in . Extensions to nonabelian groups have been proposed in ninetees in -. A closely related approach is so-called plaquette representation invented in the continuum theory by M. Halpern  and extended to the lattice models in . In this representation the plaquette matrices play the role of the dynamical degrees of freedom and satisfy certain constraints expressed through Bianchi identities. Both dual and plaquette formulations are not so popular in the case of nonabelian models, probably due to their complexity. In the nonabelian case above mentioned constraints appear to be highly-nonlocal and this fact makes an analytical study of the model rather difficult. In spite of this complexity the plaquette formulation has certain advantages over the standard one : duality transformations, Coulomb-gas representation, strong coupling expansion and mean-field approximation look more natural and simpler in the plaquette formulation. Nevertheless we believe the main advantage of this formulation lies in its applications to the low-temperature region. Let $`V_p`$ be a plaquette matrix in $`SU(N)`$ LGT. The rigorous result of  asserts that the probability $`p(\xi )`$ that $`\text{Tr}(IV_p)\xi `$ is bounded by

$$p(\xi )𝒪(e^{b\beta \xi }),\beta \mathrm{},b=\mathrm{const}$$
(2)
uniformly in the volume. Thus, all configurations with $`\xi O(\beta ^1)`$ are exponentially suppressed. The Gibbs measure at large $`\beta `$ is strongly concentrated around configurations on which $`V_pI`$. This property justifies expansion of plaquette matrices around unity when $`\beta `$ is sufficiently large.

This is our first motivation to construct a low-temperature expansion of gauge models using the plaquette formulation. The well-known problem of the standard perturbation theory (PT) can be shortly formulated as follows. When the volume is fixed, and in the complete axial gauge the link matrices perform small fluctuations around the unit matrix and the PT works very well producing the asymptotic expansion in inverse powers of $`\beta `$. However, in the thermodynamic limit (TL) system deviates arbitrarily far from the ordered state, no saddle point exists anymore and configurations of link matrices are distributed uniformly in the group space. That there are problems with the conventional PT was proven in , where it was shown the PT results depend on the boundary conditions (BC) used to reach the TL. All this rises the question whether PT gives asymptotic expansion uniformly valid in the volume. Fortunately, even in the TL the plaquette matrices are close to unity, the inequality (2) holds and thus provides a basis for the construction of the low-temperature expansion.

Our next motivation is to derive the dual representation of nonabelian models which could be used for their analytical study. Here we formulate such representation for $`SU(2)`$ LGT and compute dual form of the ’t Hooft loop. We also describe monopoles of the maximal axial gauge.

Now we outline the derivation of our plaquette formulation (all technical details will be given in a forthcoming publication ). Consider a $`3D`$ lattice with free BC on the link gauge matrices. We make a change of variables in the partition function (1) $`V_p=U_\mu (x)U_\nu (x+\mu )U_\mu ^{}(x+\nu )U_\nu ^{}(x)`$. The partition function gets the form

$$Z=\underset{p}{}dV_p\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \underset{p}{}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{Tr}V_p\right]J(V_p),$$
(3)
$$J(V_p)=\underset{l}{}dU_l\underset{p}{}\delta \left(V_p^{}\underset{lp}{}U_lI\right)=\underset{c}{}J(V_c).$$
(4)
The last equations are rather formal, for we have to specify the order of multiplication of nonabelian matrices. To do that we define in a cube a vertex $`A`$ and separated by the space diagonal a vertex $`B`$, see Fig.1. This assignment we extend for all neighbouring cubes and finally for the whole lattice. The plaquette matrices $`V_p`$ we insert at the vertices $`A`$ or $`B`$ of each plaquette attached to $`A`$ or $`B`$, correspondingly. Next, take a path connecting vertices $`A`$ and $`B`$ by three links, as shown in Fig.1. Then the matrix $`V_c`$ entering the Bianchi identity for the cube $`c`$ is of the form

$$V_c=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\sigma ^k\omega _k(c)\right]=\left(\underset{pA}{}V_p\right)C\left(\underset{pB}{}V_p\right)C^{},C=U_1U_2U_3^{}.$$
(5)
$`_{p(A,B)}`$ means an appropriately ordered product over three plaquettes of the cube attached to the vertex $`A`$ or $`B`$. The matrix $`C`$ defines a parallel transport of vertex $`B`$ into vertex $`A`$ and is called connector. The connector $`C`$ plays a crucial role in the nonabelian Bianchi identity. Its path can, in principle be chosen in an arbitrary way but the possible choices of $`_{pA}`$, $`_{pB}`$ and $`C`$ must fit together. We choose the structure of connectors as shown in Fig.1.

As is seen from Fig.1 there are four types of elementary cubes with different types of connector pathes. The next steps in the derivation are as follows:

I). Map one of the space-like plaquette delta’s to a delta-function for the cube $`J(V_c)`$ with $`V_c`$ given in (5).

II). Choose the maximal axial gauge in the form

$$U_3(x,y,z)=U_2(x,y,0)=U_1(x,0,0)=I.$$
(6)
To simplify connectors one can fix the Dirichlet BC in the plane $`z=0`$.

III). Integrate out all link variables following .

In what follows we pass to the dual lattice where cubes become sites and so on. The partition function takes the form

$$Z=\underset{l}{}dV_l\mathrm{exp}[\beta \underset{l}{}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{Tr}V_l]\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\underset{x(i)}{}J\left(V_x^{(i)}\right),$$
(7)
where $`_{x(i)}`$ runs over all sites with $`i`$-th type of connector pathes and $`J(V_x^{(i)})`$ is an $`SU(N)`$ delta-function given by

$$J(V_x)=\underset{r}{}d_r\chi _r\left(V_x\right),$$
(8)
where the sum over $`r`$ is a sum over all representations of $`SU(N)`$, $`\chi _r`$ is character of $`r`$-th representation and $`d_r=\chi _r(I)`$.

To write down exact expressions we choose coordinate system on the dual lattice as in Fig.1. Then, e.g. the connector for the cube $`B_1A`$ is

$$V_x^{(1)}=V_{l_5}^{}V_{l_1}V_{l_6}^{}C_{\stackrel{}{x}(1)}V_{l_2}V_{l_3}V_{l_4}^{}C_{\stackrel{}{x}(1)}^{},$$
(9)
$$C_{\stackrel{}{x}(1)}=\underset{k=z_i1}{\overset{1}{}}V_{n_2}(x_i,y_i1,k)\underset{p=1}{\overset{z_i1}{}}V_{n_1}(x_i1,y_i,p).$$
(10)
## 2 Low-temperature expansion

In this section we construct the low-temperature expansion of gauge models in the plaquette formulation. In doing this we follow the strategy developed for the two-dimensional principal chiral models in . The weak-coupling expansion in both models bears many common features. In the abelian case they turn out to be practically identical, while the only, but essential difference in the nonabelian case is the appearence of connectors in gauge models. The lattice PT in temporal gauge ($`U_0=I`$) was constructed for abelian and nonabelian models in the standard Wilson formulation by F. Müller and W. Rühl . In this gauge the PT for nonabelian models displays serious infrared divergences in separate terms of the expansion starting from the order $`𝒪(\beta ^2)`$ for Wilson loops and from $`𝒪(\beta ^1)`$ for the free energy. Although it is expected that all divergences are cancelled in gauge invariant quantities, we are not aware of any proof of the infrared finitness at higher orders of the expansion. Here we outline the low-temperature expansion for $`SU(2)`$ LGT (all details and extension to other groups will be given in ). We want to expand the partition and correlation functions into asymptotic series whose coefficients are calculated over certain Gaussian measure. Let us consider the standard parameterization for the $`SU(2)`$ link matrix $`V_l=\mathrm{exp}[i\sigma ^k\omega _k(l)]`$, where $`\sigma ^k,k=1,2,3`$ are Pauli matrices and introduce

$$W_l=\left[\underset{k}{}\omega _k^2(l)\right]^{1/2},W_x=\left[\underset{k}{}\omega _k^2(x)\right]^{1/2},$$
(11)
where $`\omega _k(x)`$ is a site angle defined in (5) and has the standard expansion $`\omega _k(x)=\omega _k^{(0)}(x)+\omega _k^{(1)}(x)+\omega _k^{(2)}(x)+\mathrm{}`$ in powers of link angles. The first coefficient can be written down as

$$\omega _k^{(0)}(x)=\omega _k(l_4)+\omega _k(l_5)+\omega _k(l_6)\omega _k(l_1)\omega _k(l_2)\omega _k(l_3).$$
(12)
$`\omega _k^{(i)}(x)`$ for $`i1`$ can be computed by making repeated use of the Campbell-Baker-Hausdorff formula. Then, the partition function (7) can be exactly rewritten to the following form

$`Z_{SU(2)}={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}\left[\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2W_l}{W_l^2}\underset{k}{}d\omega _k(l)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[2\beta \underset{l}{}\mathrm{cos}W_l\right]\underset{x}{}\frac{W_x}{\mathrm{sin}W_x}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m(x)=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}d\alpha _k(x)\mathrm{exp}\left[i\underset{k}{}\alpha _k(x)\omega _k(x)+2\pi im(x)\alpha (x)\right]},`$ (13)
where $`\alpha (x)=(_k\alpha _k^2(x))^{1/2}`$. In derivation of this representation we have used the Poisson formula. In order to perform the weak coupling expansion we make the substitution $`\omega _k(l)(2\beta )^{1/2}\omega _k(l)`$, $`\alpha _k(x)(2\beta )^{1/2}\alpha _k(x)`$ and then expand the integrand of (13) in powers of fluctuations of the link fields. Introduce external sources $`h_k(l)`$ coupled to the link field $`\omega _k(l)`$ and $`s_k(x)`$ coupled to the auxiliary field $`\alpha _k(x)`$. Then one can get the following expansion

$$Z=\left[1+\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\beta ^k}B_k(_h,_s)\right]M(h,s),$$
(14)
where $`B_k`$ are known operators. Up to exponentially small terms the generating functional $`M(h,s)`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{4}s_k(x)G_{x,x^{}}s_k(x^{})+\frac{i}{2}s_k(x)D_l(x)h_k(l)+\frac{1}{4}h_k(l)G_{ll^{}}h_k(l^{})\right],$$
(15)
where we introduced link Green functions $`G_{ll^{}}`$ and $`D_l(x^{})`$ defined as

$$G_{ll^{}}=2\delta _{l,l^{}}G_{x,x^{}}G_{x+n,x^{}+n^{}}+G_{x,x^{}+n^{}}+G_{x+n,x^{}},$$
(16)
$$D_l(x^{})=G_{x,x^{}}G_{x+n,x^{}}.$$
(17)
These formulae allow us to calculate the weak coupling expansion of both the free energy and any fixed-distance observable. Extension of this expansion for $`SU(N)`$ LGT and for the Wilson loop and other observables is straightforward.

Let us give some comments on the property of the expansion and on the infrared problem. One proves that the probability that $`K`$ links have large fluctuations like $`\omega _k(l)𝒪(\sqrt{\beta })`$ is suppressed as $`𝒪(e^{\mathrm{const}K\pi ^2\beta })`$, $`C`$ is a constant. It shows that large fluctuations are under good control since they are exponentially suppressed with $`\beta `$, and this obviously remains true in the TL. This property is very essential achievement of the expansion in the plaquette representation. No such controll exists for the large fluctuations of the link gauge matrices in the TL. It follows from the definition of the link Green function (16) that $`G_{ll^{}}4/3`$. Hence, with respect to the Gaussian measure fluctuations of link variables are bounded like

$$\omega _l\omega _l^{}_G=\frac{1}{2}G_{ll^{}}\frac{\mathrm{const}}{R^3}.$$
(18)
This property justifies the low-temperature expansion in powers of fluctuations of link (plaquette) variables, while there is no such justification for the expansion in terms of the original link variables the fluctuations of which are not bounded when $`L\mathrm{}`$. As is seen from the generating functional (15) it depends only on infrared finite Green functions: link Green functions are infrared finite by construction, while the Green function for the free scalar field is finite in any dimension $`D3`$.

In spite of all these nice properties, it is far from obvious that the expansion is uniformly valid in the volume. The problem appears in the following way. In  we compute the first coefficient of the free energy expansion and prove that it coincides with the standard answer. Nevertheless, that computations show clearly that the source of the troubles are the connectors of the nonabelian Bianchi identities. The low-temperature expansion starts from the abelian Bianchi identity for every cube and goes towards gradual restoration of the full identity with every order of the expansion. Thus, the generating functional contains an abelianized form of the identity without connectors. High-order terms include an expansion of connectors which lead to appearence of infrared divergent terms. Consider, for example the term $`\alpha _k(x)\omega _k^1(x)𝒪(1/\sqrt{\beta })`$ in the exponent of (13). $`\omega _k^1(x)`$ includes the following contributions from connectors $`ϵ_{kmn}(\omega _m(l_1)+\omega _m(l_2)+\omega _m(l_3))_{lC}\omega _n(l)`$, where sum over $`l`$ extends over all links belonging to the connector $`C`$. For any finite $`L`$ one can always find such large $`\beta `$ that this sum is of the order $`𝒪(1/\sqrt{\beta })`$. In the weak coupling expansion such terms are treated as perturbations and should be expanded. These terms are not infrared finite. And even though the final result is infrared finite it is not obvious that such terms may be considered as perturbation in the TL. Indeed, in the infinite volume limit practically all connectors become infinitely long, therefore it is not clear if the last sum is properly bounded in this limit and may be expanded perturbatively.

## 3 Dual representation, ’t Hooft loop and monopoles

In this section we give the dual form of $`SU(2)`$ LGT which can be obtained from the plaquette formulation. Let $`x`$ be a site dual to the cube of the original lattice and $`l`$ be a link dual to the plaquette of the original lattice. Then it follows from (7), (8) and from the expression for the Jacobian that in the case of the $`SU(2)`$ gauge group the partition function on the dual lattice can be written in the following form

$$Z=\underset{r_x=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{x}{}\left[(2r_x+1)\underset{m_i(x)=r_x}{\overset{r_x}{}}\right]\underset{l}{}\mathrm{\Xi }_l.$$
(19)
The summation over $`r_x`$ corresponds to the summation over all irreducible representations of the $`SU(2)`$ group. The sums over magnetic numbers $`m_i(x)`$ correspond to the calculation of $`SU(2)`$ traces. The index $`i`$ may run from $`6`$ to $`6+3L`$ depending on the position of the original cube, $`L`$ is the linear extent of the lattice. The link integral $`\mathrm{\Xi }_l`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_l=𝑑Ve^{\beta \mathrm{Tr}V}V_{r_x}^{m_1n_1}V_{r_{x+n}}^{m_2n_2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{M(x)}{}}\left(V_{r_i}^{k_ik_{i+1}}V_{r_i}^{p_ip_{i+1}}\right),$$
(20)
where $`V_r^{mn}`$ is a matrix element of $`r`$-th representation. The integer number $`M(x)`$ depends on the position of the plaquette on the lattice and shows how many times a dual link serves as connector in the Bianchi identities.

Consider now the t’ Hooft line which in $`3D`$ consists of a string $`S_{xy}`$ of dual links between sites $`x`$ and $`y`$ on the dual lattice. With the set $`T`$ of plaquettes dual to the string $`S_{xy}`$ we define the action

$$S_z(U;T)=\beta \underset{pT}{}\mathrm{ReTr}U_p+\beta \underset{pT}{}\mathrm{ReTr}zU_p$$
(21)
and the corresponding partition function $`Z(z;S_{xy})`$ with action (21). Here $`z`$ is center element of $`SU(N)`$. By a change of variables $`V_lz^{}V_l`$ for $`lS_{xy}`$ we get the following representation for the partition function $`Z(z;S_{xy})`$

$`Z(z;S_{xy})={\displaystyle \underset{l}{}dV_l\mathrm{exp}[\beta \underset{l}{}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{Tr}V_l]\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{x(i)}{}J\left(V_x^{(i)}\right)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{x(1)x,y}{}}J\left(V_x^{(1)}\right)J\left(zV_x^{(1)}\right)J\left(zV_y^{(1)}\right),`$ (22)
since $`z`$ cancels from all Bianchi constraints but those for the endpoints. Therefore, one can say that the Bianchi constraint is violated at these endpoints. It follows from these expressions that in the ensemble defined by the partition function (19) the disorder operator becomes particulary simple

$$D_z(S_{xy})=\frac{Z(z;S_{xy})}{Z(1;S_{xy})}=\mathrm{exp}[2i\pi (r_xr_y)].$$
(23)
Comparing this expression with the partition function (13) and remembering that $`r_x`$ is just the radial component of the auxiliary field $`\alpha _k(x)`$ we conclude that introducing sources like $`r_xr_y`$ amounts to a simple shift in the corresponding sites for the integers $`m_x`$ in (13). Therefore, we may interpret the summation over $`m_x`$ as summation over monopole configurations which appear due to the periodicity of $`SU(2)`$ delta-function (in close analogy with $`U(1)`$ model). Indeed, expressed in terms of elements of algebra the Bianchi identity reads $`(_k\omega _k^2(x))^{1/2}=2\pi m_x`$. Configurations $`m_x0`$ we term monopoles of the maximal axial gauge. Investigation of these configurations and their contribution to the Wilson loops will be presented in a separate publication.


text:
# Mean Curvature Flows in Higher Codimension

## 1 Introduction

Let $`M`$ be a Riemannian manifold and $`F:\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ an isometric immersion of a smooth compact submanifold. The second fundamental form $`A`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is defined by

$$A:T\mathrm{\Sigma }\times T\mathrm{\Sigma }N\mathrm{\Sigma },$$

$$A(X,Y)=(_X^MY)^{}\text{where}X,YT\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

Here $`^M`$ is the Levi-Civita connection on $`M`$ and $`()^{}`$ denotes the projection onto the normal bundle $`N\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

The mean curvature vector $`H`$ is defined by

$$H=Tr_gAN\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

where the trace $`Tr_g`$ is taken with respect to the induced metric $`g`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

When $`M=^N`$, if $`x^1,\mathrm{},x^n`$ denote a local coordinate system on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ then the second fundamental form can be represented by $`(\frac{^2F}{x^ix^j})^{}`$ and the mean curvature vector is $`H=(g^{ij}\frac{^2F}{x^ix^j})^{}`$, where $`g^{ij}`$ is the inverse matrix to $`g_{ij}=<\frac{F}{x^i},\frac{F}{x^j}>`$, the first fundamental form. Here $`\frac{^2F}{x^ix^j}`$ is considered as a vector in $`^N`$. In this case, it is not hard to check

$$H=\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }F$$
(1.1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the Laplace operator of the induced metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

The importance of the mean curvature vector lies in the first variation formula of area.

$$\delta _V(area(\mathrm{\Sigma }))=_\mathrm{\Sigma }HV$$

for any variation field $`V`$. Thus $`H`$ is the normal vector field on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that points to the direction in which the area decreases most rapidly. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is called a minimal submanifold if $`H`$ vanishes identically.

The mean curvature flow of $`F:\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ is a family of immersions $`F:\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,ϵ)M`$ parametrized by $`t`$ that satisfies

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{d}{dt}F_t(x)=H(x,t)\hfill \\ & F_0=F\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.2)
where $`H(x,t)`$ is the mean curvature vector of $`F_t(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ at $`F_t(x)`$.

This should be considered as the heat equation for submanifolds in view of equation (1.1). A submanifold tends to find its optimal shape inside the ambient manifold.

If we assume $`M=^N`$, in terms of coordinate $`x^1,\mathrm{},x^n`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the mean curvature flow is the solution to the following system of parabolic equations

$$F=F^A(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n,t),A=1,\mathrm{}N$$

$$\frac{F^A}{t}=\underset{i,j,B}{}g^{ij}P_B^A\frac{^2F^B}{x^ix^j},A=1,\mathrm{}N$$

where $`P_B^A=\delta _B^Ag^{kl}\frac{F^A}{x^k}\frac{F^B}{x^l}`$ is the projection operator to the normal direction.

The equation (1.2) is a quasi-linear parabolic system and short time existence is guaranteed when the initial submanifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is compact and smooth .

In general, the mean curvature flow fails to exist after a finite time. The singularity is completely characterized by the blow up of the second fundamental form. Namely, singularity at $`t_0`$ if and only if $`sup_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}|A|^2\mathrm{}`$ as $`tt_0`$. See for example  for the hypersurface case.

The mean curvature flow has been studied by various approaches. In this article, we shall concentrated on the approaches of classical partial differential equations and geometric measure theory. For the level set approach and numerical methods, please see  and the reference therein.

There are many beautiful results in the hypersurface (codimension one) case.

###### Theorem 1.1

(Huisken, 1984 ($`N3`$), Gage-Hamilton, 1985 ($`N=2`$)) Any convex compact hypersurface in $`^N`$ contracts to a round point after finite time along the mean curvature flow.

###### Theorem 1.2

(Grayson, 1987 ) Any embedded closed curve in $`^2`$ contracts to a round point after finite time along the curvature flow.

In codimension one case, $`H`$ is essentially a scalar function and $`H>0`$ is preserved along the flow . As a contrast, in higher codimension $`H`$ is a genuine vector and we do not know how to control the direction of $`H`$. There are relatively very few results in the higher codimension case, see ,  and .

We shall discuss some new results about mean curvature flows in higher codimension in this article. The guideline is to identify positive quantities preserved along the flow.

The author would like to thank Gerhard Huisken, Richard Hamilton, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Brian White and Shing-Tung Yau for valuable suggestions and discussions .

## 2 Applications in calibrated geometry

Let $`M`$ be an $`N`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold and $`\alpha `$ an $`n`$-form on $`M`$. For any $`pM`$ and $`S`$ any $`n`$-dimensional oriented subspace of $`T_pM`$. Represent $`S=e_1\mathrm{}e_n`$, where $`e_1,\mathrm{}e_n`$ is an oriented orthonormal basis for $`S`$. Define the comass of $`\alpha `$ , $`|\alpha |`$ by

$$|\alpha |(p)=\underset{ST_pM}{sup}\alpha (e_1\mathrm{}e_n)$$

Following Harvey and Lawson , a closed form $`\alpha `$ with $`|\alpha |(p)=1`$ at each $`pM`$ is called a calibrating form.

An oriented closed $`n`$-dimensional submanifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`M`$ is calibrated by $`\alpha `$ if $`\alpha (T_p\mathrm{\Sigma })=1`$ for any $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, or $`\alpha |_\mathrm{\Sigma }=vol|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. A fundamental fact in calibrated geometry is: a calibrated submanifold minimizes area in its homology class. This follows from Stoke’s Theorem:

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ be any submanifold with $`[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}]=[\mathrm{\Sigma }]`$, then

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}vol|_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\alpha |_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\alpha |_\mathrm{\Sigma }=_\mathrm{\Sigma }vol|_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

We are interested in the following two classes of calibrated submanifolds.

(1) Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a Kähler manifold and $`\alpha =\frac{1}{n!}\omega ^n`$. Any $`2n`$ dimensional complex submanifold is calibrated by $`\alpha `$.

(2) Let $`(M,\omega ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be Calabi-Yau of complex dimension $`m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the parallel holomorphic $`(m,0)`$ form. $`\alpha =Re\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is then a calibrating form. A Lagrangian submanifold calibrated by $`\alpha `$ is called a special Lagrangian submanifold.

Define the function $`\alpha (p)=\alpha (T_p\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we may use $`\alpha `$ to measure how far $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is away from being calibrated. On a calibrated submanifold $`\alpha 1`$. It turns out the condition $`\alpha >0`$ can be used to rule out a certain type of singularity.

There are two types of finite time singularity depending on the blow-up rate of $`|A|`$. Denote by $`t_0`$ the blow up time, then $`sup_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}|A|^2\mathrm{}`$ as $`tt_0`$. The singularity is said to be fast-forming (type I) if there exists a $`C>0`$ such that

$$\underset{t}{sup}|A|^2\frac{C}{t_0t}$$

Otherwise, the singularity is called slow-forming (type II). For embedded curve on the plane, only type I singularity occurs.

###### Theorem 2.1

 Let $`(M^4,\omega )`$ be a Kähler-Einstein four-manifold, then a symplectic surface, i.e. $`\omega >0`$ remains symplectic along the mean curvature flow and the flow does not develop any type I singularity.

The results in Theorem 2.1 were obtained in the summer of 1999 and announced in February 2000 at Stanford’s differential geometry seminar. Theorem 2.1 was also proved by Chen-Tian  and Chen-Li .

When $`M`$ is a Calabi-Yau manifold of arbitrary dimension, we prove the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.2

 Let $`(M,\omega ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a Calabi-Yau manifold, then a Lagrangian submanifold with $`Re\mathrm{\Omega }>0`$ remains Lagrangian and $`Re\mathrm{\Omega }>0`$ along the mean curvature flow and the flow does not develop any type I singularity.

That being Lagrangian is preserved along the mean curvature flow in Kähler-Einstein manifolds was proved by Smoczyk in .

Proof. In ( see page 324, remark 5.1), we sketch a proof of this theorem. For a Lagrangian submanifold of Calabi-Yau manifolds, the fundamental equations are, (see for example  or )

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=e^{i\theta }vol|_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(2.1)
$$H=J(\theta )$$

Once we know being Lagrangian is preserved, then $`\theta `$ satisfies the heat equation

$$\frac{d}{dt}\theta =\mathrm{\Delta }\theta $$

By equation (2.1), $`Re\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. A straightforward calculation using $`|H|^2=|\theta |^2`$ shows

$$\frac{d}{dt}Re\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Delta }Re\mathrm{\Omega }+|H|^2Re\mathrm{\Omega }$$

The same argument in Proposition 5.2 of  shows on a type I blow up limit $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$, we will have $`|H|^2=0`$. Since any type I blow up limit is smooth and satisfies $`F^{}=H`$ , $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ must be a flat space. White’s regularity theorem  shows there is no type I singularity.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Applications in mapping deformations

Let $`f:\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ be a smooth map between compact Riemannian manifolds. The volume form $`\omega _1`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ extends to a parallel calibrating form on the product space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the graph of $`f`$ as a submanifold of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$. On $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\omega _1=Jac(\pi _1|_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is the Jacobian of the projection $`\pi _1:\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ restricting to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Any submanifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ is a locally a graph over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ if $`\omega _1>0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ by the inverse function theorem.

We shall evolve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by the mean curvature flow in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ . If $`\omega _1>0`$ is preserved along the flow then each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ is a graph over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and thus the flow gives a deformation $`f_t`$ of the original map $`f`$. It turns out a stronger inequality is preserved.

###### Theorem 3.1

 If a smooth map $`f:S^2S^2`$ satisfies $`\omega _1>|\omega _2|`$ on the graph of $`f`$, then the inequality remains true along the mean curvature flow, the flow exists smoothly for all time and $`f_t`$ converges to a constant map.

The assumption is the same as $`Jac(\pi _1|_\mathrm{\Sigma })>|Jac(\pi _2|_\mathrm{\Sigma })|`$. In other words, if we see more of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ than from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ converges to some $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\times \{p\}`$ eventually. This is a natural geometric assumption and we believe such assumption is necessary for higher codimension mean curvature flow.

This theorem is generalized to arbitrary dimension and codimension in  under a slightly stronger assumption.

###### Theorem 3.2

 Let $`f:S^nS^m`$ be a smooth map. If $`\omega _1>\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ on the graph of $`f`$, then the mean curvature flow of the graph of $`f`$ in $`S^n\times S^m`$ exists for all time, remains a graph, and converges smoothly to the graph of a constant map at infinity.

This theorem is true under various curvature assumptions, please see  for the more general version. $`\omega _1`$ should be considered as the inner product of the tangent space of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the tangent space of $`S_n`$. The condition $`\omega _1>\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$ guarantees $`T\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is closer to $`TS^n`$ than to any other competing directions.

When $`\omega _1=\omega _2`$, we proved the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3.3

 Let $`f:S^2S^2`$ be a smooth map such that $`\omega _1=\omega _2>0`$ on the graph of $`f`$, then the equality is preserved along the mean curvature flow and $`f_t`$ converges to an isometry of $`S^2`$.

The condition translates to $`f^{}\omega _2=\omega _1`$, or $`f`$ is an area-preserving diffeomorphism (or symplectomorphism). Recall the harmonic heat flow of Eells-Sampson considers the deformation of a map $`f:MN`$ along the gradient flow of the energy functional. When the sectional curvature of the target $`N`$ is non-positive, the flow exists for all time and $`f_t`$ converges to a harmonic map as $`t\mathrm{}`$. For maps of nonzero degree between two-spheres $`f:S^2S^2`$, singularities do occur in the harmonic heat flow even after finite time. It is quite surprising that the mean curvature deformation exists for all time and converges.

$`f_t`$ indeed provides a path in the diffeomorphism (symplectomorphism) group of $`S^2`$.

###### Theorem 3.4

 Any area preserving diffeomorphism of two-sphere deforms to an isometry through area preserving diffeomorphisms along the mean curvature flow.

For a Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with positive genus, the same result holds  when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has hyperbolic metric and the map $`f:\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is homotopic to identity.

## 4 Proof of Theorem 3.1

We shall explain the techniques involved in the proof of Theorem 3.1 as it is the first complete solution to a higher codimension mean curvature flow.

### 4.1 Maximum principle

The maximum principle of parabolic systems developed by R. Hamilton  plays an important role in the study of geometric evolution equations. The first step is to use maximum principle to show the inequalities $`\omega _1+\omega _2>0`$ and $`\omega _1\omega _2>0`$ are preserved along the flow.

In fact, if we denote the singular values of $`df`$ by $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$, then

$$\omega _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1+\lambda _1^2)(1+\lambda _2^2)}}$$

and

$$\omega _2=\frac{\lambda _1\lambda _2}{\sqrt{(1+\lambda _1^2)(1+\lambda _2^2)}}$$

Let $`\eta _1=\omega _1+\omega _2`$ and $`\eta _2=\omega _1\omega _2`$, then $`0<\eta _1,\eta _21`$. The following equations are derived in  (see  for general parallel forms).

$$\frac{d}{dt}\eta _1=\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _1+\eta _1|A_1|^2+\eta _1(1\eta _1^2)$$
(4.1)
$$\frac{d}{dt}\eta _2=\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _2+\eta _2|A_2|^2+\eta _2(1\eta _2^2)$$
(4.2)
where $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are part of the second fundamental form with $`|A_1|^2+|A_2|^2=2|A|^2`$.

The assumption of Theorem 3.1 implies $`\eta _1,\eta _2>0`$ initially. By maximum principle of parabolic equations, $`\mathrm{min}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}\eta _i`$ is nondecreasing. This guarantees $`\omega _1>|\omega _2|`$ is preserved. Adding equations (4.1) and (4.1), we get for $`\mu =\omega _1`$,

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\mu +c|A|^2$$
(4.3)
where $`c>0`$ is $`\mathrm{min}\{\eta _1,\eta _2\}`$ at $`t=0`$.

### 4.2 Blow-up analysis

The blow-up analysis is used in proving long time existence of the flow. First let us recall the blow-up analysis for minimal surfaces. To study a possible singularity $`x_0`$, we blow up the minimal surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^n`$ at $`x_0`$ by $`B_\lambda :x\lambda (xx_0)`$, $`\lambda >0`$. Any limit as $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ is still minimal since the minimal surface equation is invariant under the scaling. It must be a cone as a consequence of the monotonicity formula. A minimal cone is rigid in the following sense: if it is close enough to a plane, then it must be a plane. The closeness is measured by the density function.

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0)=\underset{r0}{lim}\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0,r)=\underset{r0}{lim}\frac{area(B(x_0,r)\mathrm{\Sigma })}{\omega ^nr^n}$$

where $`\omega ^n`$ is the area of an $`n`$-dimensional unit ball. The monotonicity formula in minimal surface theory says $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0,r)`$ is non-increasing as $`r`$ approaches $`0`$, in particular the limit exists. Allard’s regularity theorem  then asserts there exists an $`ϵ>0`$ such that if $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x_0)<1+ϵ`$, then $`x_0`$ is a regular point. We refer to Simon’s book  for minimal surface theory.

For the mean curvature flow, we consider the total space time as a submanifold in $`M\times `$ and use parabolic blow up at a space time point $`(x_0,t_0)`$. The limit is still a mean curvature flow and the monotonicity formula of Huisken implies a time slice satisfies $`F^{}=H`$, or the limit flow is self-similar. For a smooth point, we obtain the stationary flow of a plane.

The density function is now replaced by the integral of the backward heat kernel. To be more precise, we isometrically embed $`M`$ into $`^N`$. For any $`\lambda >1`$, the parabolic blow up $`D_\lambda `$ at $`(x_0,t_0)`$ is defined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill D_\lambda :^N\times [0,t_0)& ^N\times [\lambda ^2t_0,0)\hfill \\ \hfill (x,t)& (\lambda (xx_0),\lambda ^2(tt_0))\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.4)
The (n-dimensional) backward heat kernel $`\rho _{x_0,t_0}`$ at $`(x_0,t_0)`$ is

$$\rho _{x_0,t_0}(x,t)=\frac{1}{(4\pi (t_0t))^{\frac{n}{2}}}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{|xx_0|^2}{4(t_0t)})$$
(4.5)
Notice that the integral $`\rho _{x_0,t_0}𝑑\mu _t`$ is invariant under the parabolic blow up, where $`d\mu _t=\sqrt{detg_{ij}(F_t)}d\mu `$ is the pull back volume form by $`F_t`$.

The monotonicity formula of Huisken  says for $`t<t_0`$

$$\frac{d}{dt}\rho _{x_0,t_0}𝑑\mu _t0$$

so the limit as $`tt_0`$ exists. This formula holds only for mean curvature flows in Euclidean spaces. For a general ambient manifold, a modification to take care of curvature terms is necessary, see  or . The analogue of Allard’s regularity theorem in mean curvature flow is the following theorem of White.

###### Theorem 4.1

 There is an $`ϵ>0`$ such that if

$$\underset{tt_0}{lim}\rho _{x_0,t_0}𝑑\mu _t<1+ϵ$$

then $`(x_0,t_0)`$ is a regular point.

In the proof of Theorem 3.1, the equation (4.3) helps us find a subsequence $`t_it_0`$ and blow up rate $`\lambda _i\mathrm{}`$ such that the $`L^2`$ norm of the second fundamental form $`|A|^2`$ of $`\lambda _i\mathrm{\Sigma }_{t_i}`$ approaches zero. The limit is thus a plane and $`\rho _{x_0,t_0}𝑑\mu _{t_i}1`$ as $`t_i\mathrm{}`$. Monotonicity formula implies $`lim_{tt_0}\rho _{x_0,t_0}𝑑\mu _t=1`$. By White’s theorem again it can be concluded that $`(x_0,t_0)`$ is a regular point.

### 4.3 Curvature estimate

From the calculation in , the norm of the second fundamental form $`|A|^2`$ satisfies

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d}{dt}|A|^2& \mathrm{\Delta }|A|^22|A|^2+K_1|A|^4+K_2|A|^2\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`K_1,K_2`$ are constants depending on the curvature and the covariant derivatives of curvature of the ambient space .

In general, $`|A|^2`$ blows up in finite time because of the $`|A|^4`$ term. However, the equation of $`\mu `$ (4.3) helps to control $`|A|^2`$ in the proof of Theorem 3.1.

By equation (4.3) for any $`k`$, $`0<k<1`$, we have

$$\frac{d}{dt}(\mu k)\mathrm{\Delta }(\mu k)+c\frac{\mu }{\mu k}(\mu k)|A|^2$$

where we use $`0<\mu 1`$.

If $`\mathrm{min}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}\mu `$ is very close to one when $`t`$ is large, we may choose $`k`$ close to $`1`$ so that $`\mu k>0`$ is preserved after some $`t_1`$ and $`\frac{\mu }{\mu k}`$ is large. The quantity $`g=\frac{|A|^2}{\mu k}`$ after time $`t_1`$ then satisfies

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \frac{d}{dt}g\mathrm{\Delta }g+VgK_3g^2+K_4g\end{array}$$

with $`K_3>0`$. The maximum principle shows $`g`$ is uniformly bounded for $`t>t_1`$ .

By equations (4.1) and (4.2) and a comparison argument, we see $`\mathrm{min}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}\eta _11`$ and $`\mathrm{min}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}\eta _21`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. In particular , $`\mathrm{min}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}\mu 1`$. The assumption on $`\mu `$ is true when $`t`$ is large enough and thus $`|A|^2`$ is uniformly bounded. Integrate equation (4.3) over space and time shows $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}|A|^20`$ and the sub mean value inequality in  shows $`sup|A|^20`$. The last step is to apply Simon’s  general convergence theorem for gradient flows.

## 5 Related problems

Recall  that being Lagrangian is preserved along the mean curvature flow in Kähler-Einstein manifolds. The graph of a symplectomorphism of a Kähler-Einstein manifold $`M`$ is a Lagrangian submanifold in the product space $`(M\times M,\omega _1\omega _2)`$. The following question is thus a natural generalization of Theorem 3.3.

###### Question 1

Can one prove the long time existence and convergence of mean curvature flows of symplectomorphisms of Kähler-Einstein manifolds?

Theorem 3.3 and the corresponding theorems for higher genus Riemann surfaces implies any Lagrangian graph is Lagrangian isotopic to a minimal Lagrangian graph along the mean curvature flow. This is related to the following conjecture due to Thomas and Yau .

###### Question 2

Can one prove the long time existence and convergence of mean curvature flow of a stable graded Lagrangian submanifold in a Calabi-Yau manifold?

A notion of stability for Lagrangian submanifolds was formulated in  in terms of the range of the phase function $`\theta `$.

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=e^{i\theta }vol|_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

on any Lagrangian submanifold of Calabi-Yau manifold. Theorem 2.2 implies if $`\frac{\pi }{2}<\theta <\frac{\pi }{2}`$ on a Lagrangian submanifold, then the mean curvature flow does not develop any type I singularity. How to exclude or perturb away type II singularities seems a very interesting yet hard problem.