text:
# Ring theoretic properties of quantum grassmannians

## Introduction

Fix a base field $`k`$, a nonzero scalar $`qk`$ and positive integers $`m,n`$ with $`mn`$. The coordinate ring of quantum $`m\times n`$ matrices, $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$, is the $`k`$-algebra generated by $`mn`$ indeterminates $`X_{ij}`$, $`1im`$ and $`1jn`$, subject to the following relations:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X_{ij}X_{il}& =& qX_{il}X_{ij},\hfill \\ \hfill X_{ij}X_{kj}& =& qX_{kj}X_{ij},\hfill \\ \hfill X_{il}X_{kj}& =& X_{kj}X_{il},\hfill \\ \hfill X_{ij}X_{kl}X_{kl}X_{ij}& =& (qq^1)X_{il}X_{kj},\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
for $`1i<km`$ and $`1j<ln`$. It is well-known that $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ can be presented as an iterated skew polynomial algebra over $`k`$ with the generators added in lexicographic order. As a consequence of this presentation, it is easy to establish that $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ is a noetherian domain of Gelfand-Kirillov dimension $`mn`$.

We will usually write $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$ for the algebra $`𝒪_q(M_{nn})`$. In this algebra the quantum determinant, $`D_q=det_q`$ is defined by

$$D_q:=\underset{\sigma S_n}{}(q)^{l(\sigma )}X_{1,\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}X_{n,\sigma (n)};$$

from \[13, Theorem 4.6.1\], we know that $`D_q`$ is in the centre of $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$.

Following , we use the notation $`[IJ]`$ to denote the quantum determinant of the quantum matrix subalgebra $`𝒪_q(M_{I,J})`$ of $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ generated by the elements $`X_{ij}`$ with $`iI`$ and $`jJ`$, where $`I`$ and $`J`$ are index sets with $`|I|=|J|`$. The element $`[I|J]`$ is the quantum minor determined by the index sets $`I`$ and $`J`$. If $`I=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_s\}`$ and $`J=\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_s\}`$ where the indices are written in ascending order, then we will often denote $`[IJ]`$ by $`[i_1\mathrm{}i_sj_1\mathrm{}j_s]`$.

In this paper we are interested in studying the ring theoretic properties of a certain subalgebra of $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$, the quantum deformation of the homogeneous coordinate ring of the $`m\times n`$ grassmannian, $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$. This is a deformation of the classical homogeneous coordinate ring of the grassmannian of $`m`$-dimensional $`k`$-subspaces of $`n`$-dimensional $`k`$-space and is generated by the maximal quantum minors of $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$; to be more specific, $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is the subalgebra of $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ generated by the $`m\times m`$ quantum minors of $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$. In the quantum grassmannian $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$, any $`m\times m`$ quantum minor will involve rows $`1,\mathrm{},m`$ of the quantum matrix $`(X_{ij})`$ associated to $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$. Thus, to simplify notation, we may denote a quantum minor by its columns only; that is, the quantum minor given by the row set $`\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ and column set $`J`$ will be denoted by $`[J]`$.

Example $`𝒢_q(2,4)`$ is the $`k`$-algebra generated by the $`2\times 2`$ minors of the $`2\times 4`$ quantum matrix of $`𝒪_q(M_{2,4})`$: $`\left[12\right],\left[13\right],\left[14\right],\left[23\right],\left[24\right]`$ and $`\left[34\right].`$
Using the relations for $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ and \[6, Lemma A.1\] we can calculate the following commutation relations:

$$\left[12\right]\left[13\right]=q\left[13\right]\left[12\right],\left[12\right]\left[14\right]=q\left[14\right]\left[12\right],\left[12\right]\left[23\right]=q\left[23\right]\left[12\right],$$

$$\left[12\right]\left[24\right]=q\left[24\right]\left[12\right],\left[12\right]\left[34\right]=q^2\left[34\right]\left[12\right],\left[13\right]\left[14\right]=q\left[14\right]\left[13\right],$$

$$\left[13\right]\left[23\right]=q\left[23\right]\left[13\right],\left[13\right]\left[24\right]=\left[24\right]\left[13\right]+\left(qq^1\right)\left[14\right]\left[23\right],$$

$$\left[13\right]\left[34\right]=q\left[34\right]\left[13\right],\left[14\right]\left[23\right]=\left[23\right]\left[14\right],\left[14\right]\left[24\right]=q\left[24\right]\left[14\right],$$

$$\left[14\right]\left[34\right]=q\left[34\right]\left[14\right],\left[23\right]\left[24\right]=q\left[24\right]\left[23\right],\left[23\right]\left[34\right]=q\left[34\right]\left[23\right],$$

$$\left[24\right]\left[34\right]=q\left[34\right]\left[24\right],$$

and the Quantum Plücker relation

$$\left[12\right]\left[34\right]q\left[13\right]\left[24\right]+q^2\left[14\right]\left[23\right]=0.$$

## 1 Fioresi’s commutation relations

In , Fioresi has developed useful commutation relations for the $`m\times m`$ quantum minors which generate $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$. However, Fioresi works in the following setting. The field $`k`$ that she considers is required to be algebraically closed of characteristic zero, and the quantum matrix algebra that she considers is generated as an algebra over the ring $`k[q,q^1]`$, where $`q`$ is transcendental over $`k`$. The first thing that we need to do is to observe that these commutation relations hold over any field $`k`$ and for any $`0qk`$. A couple of warnings about notation for readers comparing  with this paper. First, because of the choice of relations for $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$, it is necessary to replace $`q`$ by $`q^1`$ in any relation taken from . Secondly, Fioresi works with the quantum grassmannian defined by the maximal $`m\times m`$ minors of $`𝒪_q(M_{nm})`$; thus, in any maximal minor, she uses all of the $`m`$ columns, and a generating quantum minor of the Grassmannian is specified by choosing $`m`$ rows. To deal with this second difference, we can think of both versions of the quantum Grassmannian as being subalgebras in the quantum matrix algebra $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$ and observe that the transpose automorphism, $`\tau `$, see \[13, 3.7.1\], transforms Fioresi’s quantum grassmannian to our quantum grassmannian.

Recall the following total lexicographic ordering on quantum minors: $`\left[j_1j_2\mathrm{}j_m\right]<_{\mathrm{lex}}\left[i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_m\right]`$ if and only if there exists an index $`\alpha `$ such that $`j_l=i_l`$ for $`l<\alpha `$, but $`j_\alpha <i_\alpha `$.

Let $`[I]=[i_1\mathrm{}i_m]`$ denote an $`m\times m`$ quantum minor. If $`[I][1\mathrm{}m]`$, consider the least integer $`s`$ such that $`i_s>s`$. Let $`\sigma ([I])`$ be the quantum minor obtained from $`[I]`$ by replacing $`i_s`$ by $`i_s1`$ and leaving the other indices unchanged. Obviously, $`\sigma ([I])<_{\mathrm{lex}}[I]`$. The standard tower of $`[I]`$ is the sequence of quantum minors $`[I_N]>_{\mathrm{lex}}[I_{N1}]>_{\mathrm{lex}}\mathrm{}>_{\mathrm{lex}}[I_1]>_{\mathrm{lex}}[I_0]`$ where $`[I_N]=[I]`$, $`[I_{l1}]=\sigma ([I_l])`$, and $`[I_0]=[1,\mathrm{},r]`$. If $`[I]=[1\mathrm{}r]`$ then the standard tower is defined to be the single quantum minor $`[I]`$.

We will denote the version of the $`m\times n`$ quantum Grassmannian constructed by Fioresi by $`𝒢_h(m,n)`$. Note also that the relations in  use $`h`$ where we would use $`h^1`$; thus we should interchange $`h`$ and $`h^1`$.

###### Proposition 1.1

Let $`K`$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, and let $`h`$ be an indeterminate over $`K`$. Set $`𝒢_h(m,n)`$ to be the quantum Grassmannian subalgebra of $`𝒪_h(M(K[h,h^1])_{mn})`$. Let $`I,J\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ with $`|I|=|J|=m`$, and $`\left[I\right]<_{\mathrm{lex}}\left[J\right]`$. Set $`s=m|IJ|`$. Then in $`𝒢_h(m,n)`$,

$$\left[I\right]\left[J\right]=h^s\left[J\right]\left[I\right]+\underset{\left[L\right]<_{\mathrm{lex}}\left[I\right]}{}\lambda _{\left[L\right]}\left(hh^1\right)^{i_{\left[L\right]}}\left(h\right)^{j_{\left[L\right]}}\left[L\right]\left[L^{}\right],$$

where $`i_{\left[L\right]},j_{\left[L\right]}`$ and $`\lambda _{\left[L\right]}`$ is either $`0`$ or $`1`$, while $`L^{}`$ is the set $`\left(IJ\right)\left((IJ)L\right)`$.

Proof In \[3, Proposition 2.21 and Theorem 3.6\], Fioresi obtains commutation relations of the above form, but with the products $`\left[L\right]\left[L^{}\right]`$ on the right hand side of the equation above more carefully stated. In Proposition 2.21 she first obtains the result for the case that $`IJ=\mathrm{}`$. In this case, the quantum minors $`[L]`$ involved are members of the standard tower of $`[I]`$, and so $`\left[L\right]<_{\mathrm{lex}}\left[I\right]`$, as we require. The general case where $`IJ\mathrm{}`$ is dealt with in Theorem 3.6. Set $`[\stackrel{~}{I}]`$ to be the quantum minor obtained from columns $`I\backslash (IJ)`$, and similarly, define $`[\stackrel{~}{J}]`$. Proposition 2.21 provides a commutation rule for $`[\stackrel{~}{I}][\stackrel{~}{J}]`$ with terms on the right hand side $`[\stackrel{~}{L}][\stackrel{~}{L^{}}]`$ where $`[\stackrel{~}{L}]<_{\mathrm{lex}}[\stackrel{~}{I}]`$. In Theorem 3.6, a commutation rule with the same coefficients is then obtained for $`\left[I\right]\left[J\right]`$ by replacing each $`[\stackrel{~}{L}][\stackrel{~}{L^{}}]`$ by $`[\stackrel{~}{L}(IJ)][\stackrel{~}{L^{}}(IJ)]`$. Thus, all that needs to be done is to make the easy observation that if $`[\stackrel{~}{L}]<_{\mathrm{lex}}[\stackrel{~}{I}]`$ then $`[\stackrel{~}{L}(IJ)]<_{\mathrm{lex}}[\stackrel{~}{I}(IJ)]=[I]`$.

###### Corollary 1.2

Let $`k`$ be any field and $`q`$ any nonzero element of $`k`$. Set $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ to be the quantum Grassmannian subalgebra of $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$. Let $`I,J\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ with $`|I|=|J|=m`$, and $`\left[I\right]<_{\mathrm{lex}}\left[J\right]`$. Set $`s=m|IJ|`$. Then in $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$,

$$\left[I\right]\left[J\right]=q^s\left[J\right]\left[I\right]+\underset{\left[L\right]<_{\mathrm{lex}}\left[I\right]}{}\lambda _{\left[L\right]}\left(qq^1\right)^{i_{\left[L\right]}}\left(q\right)^{j_{\left[L\right]}}\left[L\right]\left[L^{}\right],$$

where $`\lambda _{\left[L\right]}k`$, $`i_{\left[L\right]},j_{\left[L\right]}`$ and $`\lambda _{\left[L\right]}`$ is either $`0`$ or $`1`$, while $`L^{}`$ is the set $`\left(IJ\right)\left((IJ)L\right)`$.

Proof Proposition 1.1 applies in the case that $`K=`$. In this case, observe that the coefficients of the monomials in the maximal minors are all in $`[h,h^1]`$; so that these relations hold in the quantum Grassmannian over $`[h,h^1]`$. There is then a natural homomorphism from this quantum Grassmannian to $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$, such that $`zz1_k`$ for $`z`$ and $`hq`$, which produces the required relations.

Recall that an element $`a`$ of an algebra $`A`$ is a normal element if $`aA=Aa`$. The next result follows immediately from the previous Corollary.

###### Corollary 1.3

An $`m\times m`$ quantum minor $`\left[I\right]𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is normal modulo the ideal generated by the set $`\{\left[J\right]\left[J\right]<_{\mathrm{lex}}\left[I\right]\}`$.

The algebra $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ is a connected $``$-graded algebra, graded by the total degree in the canonical generators. Since $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is a subalgebra generated by homogeneous elements of degree $`m`$ with respect to this grading, $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ inherits a connected $``$-graded structure in which its canonical generators have degree one.

###### Theorem 1.4

The quantum grassmannian $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is a noetherian domain.

Proof The quantum Grassmannian $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is generated by the $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right)`$ quantum minors of size $`m`$ in $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$. Denote these quantum minors by $`u_1<_{\mathrm{lex}}u_2<_{\mathrm{lex}}\mathrm{}<_{\mathrm{lex}}u_{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right)}`$. Then by Corollary 1.3, $`\{u_1,\mathrm{},u_{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right)}\}`$ is a normalising sequence of $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$; that is, $`u_1`$ is normal and $`u_l`$ is normal modulo the ideal generated by $`\{u_1,\mathrm{},u_{l1}\}`$, for $`l>1`$. The factor by the ideal generated by this normalising sequence is the base field; so the fact that $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is noetherian follows by repeated use of \[1, Lemma 8.2\].

Finally, $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is a domain since it is a subalgebra of $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ which is a domain.

Remark If $`A`$ is a noetherian, connected $``$-graded $`k`$-algebra such that every non-simple graded prime factor ring $`A/P`$ contains a nonzero homogeneous normal element in $`_{i1}\left(A/P\right)_i`$ then we say that $`A`$ has enough normal elements (). Thus, the two previous results show that the quantum grassmannian has enough normal elements.

There is a useful isomorphism between $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ and $`𝒢_{q^1}(m,n)`$ which we now describe. Notice that, if $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_mn`$, $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is isomorphic to the subalgebra of $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$ generated by the $`m\times m`$ minors that use rows $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_m`$, that is, the minors $`[I|J]`$ with $`I=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m\}`$ and $`J\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, $`|J|=m`$. Let $`A:=𝒪_q(M_n)`$ with generators $`X_{ij}`$ and $`A^{}:=𝒪_{q^1}(M_n)`$ with generators $`X_{ij}^{}`$. Take a copy $`R`$ of $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ inside $`A`$ generated by the $`m\times m`$ quantum minors that use the first $`m`$ rows of $`A`$, and take a copy $`R^{}`$ of $`𝒢_{q^1}(m,n)`$ that uses the last $`m`$ rows of $`A^{}`$. Following the proof of \[7, Corollary 5.9\], we see that there is an isomorphism $`\delta :AA^{}`$ which takes $`[I|J]`$ to $`[\omega _0I|\omega _0J]^{}`$, where $`[|]^{}`$ denotes a quantum minor in $`A^{}:=𝒪_{q^1}(M_n)`$ and $`\omega _0`$ is the longest element of the symmetric group $`S_n`$; that is, $`\omega _0(i)=ni+1`$. Note that the isomorphism $`\delta `$ restricted to $`R`$ produces an isomorphism from $`R`$ to $`R^{}`$ that takes a generating minor $`[I]`$ to the minor $`[\omega _0I]^{}`$. In particular, note that under this isomorphism, $`[12\mathrm{}m]`$, the leftmost minor of $`R=𝒢_q(m,n)`$, is translated into the rightmost minor $`[nm+1\mathrm{}n]^{}`$ of the quantum grassmannian $`R^{}=𝒢_{q^1}(m,n)`$. We denote this induced isomorphism from $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ to $`𝒢_{q^1}(m,n)`$ by $`\delta `$ also.

As an example of the use of the isomorphism $`\delta `$, we record the following lemma which we need later.

###### Lemma 1.5

Let $`I\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ with $`|I|=m`$. Then

$$\left[I\right][nm+1\mathrm{}n]=q^s[nm+1\mathrm{}n]\left[I\right]$$

where $`s=m|I\{nm+1,\mathrm{},n\}|`$, and thus $`[nm+1\mathrm{}n]`$ is normal in $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$.

Proof Note that $`\omega _0\{nm+1,\mathrm{},n\}=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$. Note also that
$`|I\{nm+1,\mathrm{},n\}|=|\omega _0I\omega _0\{nm+1,\mathrm{},n\}|=|\omega _0I\{1,\mathrm{},m\}|`$.

By Corollary 1.2, $`[1\mathrm{}m][\omega _0I]=q^s[\omega _0I][1\mathrm{}m]`$. Applying $`\delta `$ to this equation gives $`[nm+1\mathrm{}n]^{}[I]^{}=q^s[I]^{}[nm+1\mathrm{}n]^{}`$ in $`𝒢_{q^1}(m,n)`$. This can be rewritten as $`[I]^{}[nm+1\mathrm{}n]^{}=q^s[nm+1\mathrm{}n]^{}[I]^{}`$ in $`𝒢_{q^1}(m,n)`$. Finally, replacing $`q^1`$ by $`q`$, we obtain

$$[I][nm+1\mathrm{}n]=q^s[nm+1\mathrm{}n][I]$$

in $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$.

## 2 A basis for $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$

In this section, we obtain a basis for $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$. This basis is a subset of the basis of preferred products of $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ obtained in \[6, Section 1\]. First, we adapt the language used in that paper to the grassmannian subalgebra $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$. Recall from Section 1 that if $`J`$ is an $`m`$-element subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ then $`[J]`$ denotes the quantum minor $`[1,\mathrm{},mJ]`$ of $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$. Thus, let $`m,n^{}`$ with $`nm`$. We define a partial ordering on $`m`$-element subsets of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$.

###### Definition 2.1

Let $`A,B\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ with $`|A|=m=|B|`$. We define a partial ordering, denoted by $`_{}`$. Write $`A`$ and $`B`$ in ascending order:

$$A=\{a_1<a_2<\mathrm{}<a_m\}\text{and}B=\{b_1<b_2<\mathrm{}<b_m\}.$$

Define $`A_{}B`$ to mean that $`a_ib_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$.

This naturally defines a partial ordering on the generators of $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$.

###### Definition 2.2

Let $`\left[I\right]`$ and $`\left[J\right]`$ belong to the generating set of $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$. Then we write that $`\left[I\right]_c\left[J\right]`$ if and only if $`I_{}J`$.

For example, Figure 1 shows the ordering on generators of $`𝒢_q(3,6)`$.

Recall that a tableau is a Young diagram with entries in each box. If each row of a tableau $`T`$ has length $`m`$ then we will say that $`T`$ is an $`m`$-tableau. Here, we consider tableaux with entries from $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and no repetitions in each row. An allowable $`m`$-tableau $`T`$ is an $`m`$-tableau with strictly increasing rows. If an allowable $`m`$-tableau $`T`$ has rows $`J_1,\mathrm{},J_s`$, then $`T`$ is preferred if and only if $`J_1_{}J_2_{}\mathrm{}_{}J_s`$.

Let $`I=\{m,m1,\mathrm{},1\}`$ and let $`S`$ be an $`m`$-tableau which has the same number of rows as $`T`$ and such that each row of $`S`$ is $`I`$. Then $`T`$ is an allowable (preferred) $`m`$-tableau if and only if the bitableau $`(ST)`$ is allowable (preferred) in the sense of . With this in mind, we define the following ordering on allowable $`m`$-tableau. Let

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{c}J_1\\ J_2\\ \mathrm{}\\ J_t\end{array}\right),S=\left(\begin{array}{c}L_1\\ L_2\\ \mathrm{}\\ L_s\end{array}\right).$$

Then $`TS`$ if $`t>s`$, or if $`s=t`$ and

$$\{J_1,\mathrm{},J_t\}<_{\mathrm{lex}}\{L_1,\mathrm{},L_s\};$$

that is, there exists an index $`i`$ such that $`J_\alpha =L_\alpha `$ for $`\alpha <i`$, but $`J_i<_{}L_i`$.

Any allowable $`m`$-tableau determines a product of quantum minors in the quantum grassmannian as follows.

###### Definition 2.3

For any (allowable) $`m`$-tableau

$$T=\left(\begin{array}{c}J_1\\ J_2\\ \mathrm{}\\ J_s\end{array}\right),$$

define $`[T]=[J_1][J_2]\mathrm{}[J_s]`$.

###### Definition 2.4

The content of an $`m`$-tableau $`T`$ is the multiset $`\{1^{t_1},2^{t_2},\mathrm{},n^{t_n}\}`$, where $`t_i`$ is the number of times $`i`$ appears in $`T`$.

We will use the content of a tableau to define a natural $`^n`$-grading on the $`m\times n`$ quantum Grassmannian. There is a $`^n`$-grading on $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ defined by assigning degree $`\epsilon _j`$ to $`X_{ij}`$, where $`\epsilon _j`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$ form the natural basis of $`^n`$. Since the maximal minors of $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ are homogeneous with respect to this basis, there is an induced $`^n`$-grading on $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$: consider a product of minors $`\left[T\right]`$ in $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$, if the tableau $`T`$ has content $`\{1^{t_1},2^{t_2},\mathrm{},n^{t_n}\}`$, then $`\left[T\right]`$ is homogeneous of degree $`(t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_n)`$. Thus, the degree of a product is dependent on the number of times each column of the $`m\times n`$ quantum matrix appears in it.

###### Theorem 2.5

Generalised Quantum Plücker Relations for Quantum Grassmannians
Let $`J_1,J_2,K\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ be such that $`|J_1|,|J_2|m`$ and $`|K|=2m|J_1||J_2|>m`$. Then

$$\underset{K^{}K^{\prime \prime }=K}{}\left(q\right)^{\mathrm{}(J_1;K^{})+\mathrm{}(K^{};K^{\prime \prime })+\mathrm{}(K^{\prime \prime };J_2)}[J_1K^{}][K^{\prime \prime }J_2]=0,$$

where $`\mathrm{}(I;J)=|\{(i,j)I\times J:i>j\}|`$.

Proof We work in the algebra $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$ and apply \[6, Proposition B2(a)\] with $`I_1=I_2=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}=:I`$. Thus,

$$\underset{K^{}K^{\prime \prime }=K}{}\left(q\right)^{\mathrm{}(J_1;K^{})+\mathrm{}(K^{};K^{\prime \prime })+\mathrm{}(K^{\prime \prime };J_2)}[I|J_1K^{}][I|K^{\prime \prime }J_2]=0,$$

since $`|K|>m=|I_1I_2|`$, see \[6, B3\]. This is the desired relation.

###### Lemma 2.6

Let $`T`$ be an $`m`$-tableau with content $`\gamma `$ and suppose that $`T`$ is not preferred. Then

(a) $`T`$ is not minimal with respect to $``$ among $`m`$-tableaux with content $`\gamma `$;

(b) $`[T]`$ can be expressed as a linear combination of products $`[S]`$, where each $`S`$ is an $`m`$-tableau with content $`\gamma `$ such that $`ST`$.

Proof Follow the proof of \[6, Lemma 1.7\]. Note that in the proof the only place where the shape of a bitableau might change is near the end of the proof where the right-hand side of the Exchange Formula is considered. In our situation, the right-hand side is zero, as noted in Theorem 2.5.

Note that fixing the content of an $`m`$-tableau fixes its shape and thus fixes the number of rows in the $`m`$-tableau.

Let $`\delta =(c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)^n`$. Let $`V`$ be the homogeneous component of degree $`\delta `$ in $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$. Note that $`V`$ might be zero, and that this is the case if and only if there is no product $`[T]`$ where $`T`$ is an $`m`$-tableau of content $`(1^{c_1}\mathrm{}n^{c_n})`$. Also, an element of $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ belongs to $`V`$ if and only if it is a linear combination of products $`[T]`$, where $`T`$ runs over all $`m`$-tableau with content $`(1^{c_1}\mathrm{}n^{c_n})`$; that is, the products $`[T]`$, where $`T`$ runs over all $`m`$-tableau with content $`(1^{c_1}\mathrm{}n^{c_n})`$ span $`V`$.

###### Theorem 2.7

Let $`\delta =(c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)^n`$, let $`V`$ be the homogeneous component of $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ with degree $`\delta `$, and set $`\gamma =\left(1^{c_1}2^{c_2}\mathrm{}n^{c_n}\right)`$. The products $`[T]`$, as $`T`$ runs over all preferred $`m`$-tableau with content $`\gamma `$, form a basis for $`V`$.

Proof It is enough to prove that for any $`m`$-tableau $`T`$ with content $`\gamma `$ the product $`[T]`$ is a linear combination of products $`[S]`$ where $`S`$ is a preferred $`m`$-tableau with content $`\gamma `$. Let $``$ be the set of $`m`$-tableau with content $`\gamma `$; clearly, $``$ is a finite set and we order it by $``$. We use induction on $``$ to show the result. Let $`U`$. If $`U`$ is minimal, then it is preferred, by part (a) of the previous result. Otherwise, by part (b) of the previous result, $`[U]`$ is a linear combination of products $`[S]`$, where $`S`$ and $`SU`$. Thus, by an induction argument applied to $`S`$, we may conclude that $`[U]`$ is a linear combination of products $`[S]`$ where $`S`$ is a preferred $`m`$-tableau with content $`\gamma `$.

Recall that $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is a subalgebra of $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ and notice that the products $`[T]`$, as $`T`$ runs over all preferred $`m`$-tableaux of content $`\gamma `$, form a subset of the basis of $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ constructed in . Therefore, they are linearly independent and we have the result.

###### Corollary 2.8

The products $`[T]`$, as $`T`$ runs over all preferred $`m`$-tableaux, form a basis for $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$.

This basis can be used to calculate the Gelfand-Kirillov dimension of the $`m\times n`$ quantum Grassmannian.

Consider the partial ordering $`_c`$ on the generating minors of $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$. A saturated path between two minors $`a<_cb`$ will be an ‘upwards path’ $`a=a_1<_ca_2<_c\mathrm{}<_ca_l=b`$ of minors such that no additional terms can be added; that is, for any index $`i`$ there is no minor $`d`$ such that $`a_i<_cd<_ca_{i+1}`$. The length of such a saturated path is defined to be $`l`$. For example, a saturated path between the minors $`\left[134\right]`$ and $`\left[256\right]`$ in $`𝒢_q(3,6)`$ is

$$\left[134\right]<_c\left[234\right]<_c\left[235\right]<_c\left[236\right]<_c\left[246\right]<_c\left[256\right].$$

The length of this saturated path is $`6`$.

A maximal path is a saturated path between the two minors $`\left[1\mathrm{}m\right]`$ and $`\left[nm+1\mathrm{}n\right]`$. It is easy to check that any maximal path has length $`m(nm)+1`$.

###### Proposition 2.9

Let $`G=𝒢_q(m,n)`$ and let $`\alpha `$ be the length of a maximal path in $`G`$. Then

$$\mathrm{GKdim}(𝒢_q(m,n))=\alpha =m(nm)+1.$$

Proof Let $`V`$ be the $`k`$-subspace of $`G`$ spanned by the $`m\times m`$ minors which generate $`G`$. Then $`\mathrm{GKdim}(G)=\overline{lim}\mathrm{log}_nd_V\left(n\right)`$ where $`d_V\left(n\right)=dim_k\left(_{i=0}^nV^i\right)`$. Let $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_\alpha `$ be a maximal path in $`G`$. Then $`a_1^{s_1}a_2^{s_2}\mathrm{}a_\alpha ^{s_\alpha }V^{n+1}`$ whenever $`_{i=1}^\alpha s_i=n+1`$. The set $`\{a_1^{s_1}a_2^{s_2}\mathrm{}a_\alpha ^{s_\alpha }\mathrm{\Sigma }s_i=n+1\}`$ is linearly independent. Therefore

$`dim_k\left(V^{n+1}\right)`$ $`|\{a_1^{s_1}a_2^{s_2}\mathrm{}a_\alpha ^{s_\alpha }\mathrm{\Sigma }s_i=n+1\}|=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+\alpha }{\alpha 1}}\right)`$
which is a polynomial in $`n`$ of degree $`\alpha 1`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{GKdim}(G)\alpha `$.

Let $`a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_n}V^n`$. By Theorem 2.7, $`a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_n}`$ may be rewritten as a linear combination of preferred products from $`V^n`$.

There are finitely many maximal paths in $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$. Suppose there are $`c`$ such paths and index them $`1,\mathrm{},c`$. Let $`a_1<_ca_2<_c\mathrm{}<_ca_\alpha `$ be the $`i`$th maximal path and let $`W_i^{(n)}`$ denote the subspace generated by monomials $`a_1^{s_1}\mathrm{}a_\alpha ^{s_\alpha }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }s_j=n`$. The above observation shows that $`V^n_{i=1}^cW_i^{(n)}`$. Consider $`\mathrm{dim}(W_i^{(n)})`$. The products $`a_1^{s_1}\mathrm{}a_\alpha ^{s_\alpha }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }s_j=n`$ are linearly independent. Therefore

$`\mathrm{dim}(W_i^{(n)})`$ $`=`$ $`|\{a_1^{s_1}\mathrm{}a_\alpha ^{s_\alpha }{\displaystyle s_i}=n\}|=|\{(s_1,\mathrm{},s_\alpha )^\alpha {\displaystyle s_i}=n\}|.`$
Therefore $`\mathrm{dim}(W_i^{(n)})=\mathrm{dim}(W_j^{(n)})`$ for all $`i,j\{1,\mathrm{},c\}`$. Thus

$$\mathrm{dim}\left(V^n\right)\mathrm{dim}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{c}{}}W_i^{(n)}\right)c\mathrm{dim}\left(W_1^{(n)}\right)=c\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+\alpha 1}{\alpha 1}\right)$$

and $`d_V\left(n\right)c_{i=0}^n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i+\alpha 1}{\alpha 1}\right)`$, a polynomial of degree $`\alpha `$. It follows that $`\mathrm{GKdim}(G)\alpha `$. Hence, $`\mathrm{GKdim}(G)=\alpha =m(nm)+1`$.

For example, $`\mathrm{GKdim}(𝒢_q(2,4))=2(42)+1=5`$.

## 3 Noncommutative Dehomogenisation

If $`R`$ is a commutative $``$-graded algebra, and $`x`$ is a homogeneous nonzerodivisor in degree one, then the dehomogenisation of $`R`$ at $`x`$ is usually defined to be the factor algebra $`R/(x1)R`$, \[2, Appendix 16.D\]. This definition is unsuitable in a noncommutative algebra if the element $`x`$ is merely normal rather than central: in this case, the factor algebra is often too small to be useful. For example, let $`R`$ be the quantum plane $`k_q[x,y]`$ with $`xy=qyx`$ and $`q1`$. Setting $`x=1`$ forces $`y=0`$; so that the factor algebra $`R/x1`$ is isomorphic to $`k`$ rather than being a one-dimensional algebra, as one might hope. However, in the commutative case, an alternative approach is to observe that the localised algebra $`S:=R[x^1]`$ is $``$-graded, $`S=_iS_i`$, and that $`S_0R/(x1)R`$. If $`x`$ is a normal nonzerodivisor of degree one in a noncommutative $``$-graded algebra $`R=_iR_i`$, then one can form the Ore localisation $`R[x^1]=:S`$, and then this second approach does yield a useful algebra in the noncommutative case. Indeed, for $`i,j`$ denote by $`R_ix^j`$ the $`k`$-subspace of elements of $`S`$ that can be written as $`rx^j`$ with $`rR_i`$; clearly, $`R_ix^jR_{i+1}x^{(j+1)}`$. For $`l`$, set $`S_l=_{t0}R_{l+t}x^t=_{t0}R_{l+t}x^t`$. Then $`S`$ is a $``$-graded algebra with $`S=_lS_l`$.

###### Definition 3.1

Let $`R=R_i`$ be an $``$-graded $`k`$-algebra and let $`x`$ be a regular homogeneous normal element of $`R`$ of degree one. Then the dehomogenisation of $`R`$ at $`x`$, written $`\mathrm{Dhom}(R,x)`$, is defined to be the zero degree subalgebra $`S_0`$ of the $``$-graded algebra $`S:=R[x^1]`$.

It is easy to check that $`\mathrm{Dhom}(R,x)=_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}R_ix^i=_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}R_ix^i`$. In particular, if $`R=k[R_1]`$ then $`\mathrm{Dhom}(R,x)=_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}(R_1x^1)^i=_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}(R_1x^1)^i`$, and further, if $`R_1=ka_1+\mathrm{}+ka_s`$ then $`\mathrm{Dhom}(R,x)=k[a_1x^1,\mathrm{},a_sx^1]`$.

Denote by $`\sigma `$ the automorphism of $`S`$ given by $`\sigma (s)=xsx^1`$ for $`sS`$. Note that $`\sigma `$ induces an automorphism of $`S_0`$, also denoted by $`\sigma `$.

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`R`$ be an $``$-graded algebra and let $`x`$ be a regular normal homogeneous element of degree $`1`$. Then there is an isomorphism

$$\theta :\mathrm{Dhom}(R,x)[y,y^1;\sigma ]R[x^1]$$

which is the identity on $`\mathrm{Dhom}(R,x)`$ and sends $`y`$ to $`x`$.

Proof The existence of $`\theta `$ is clear from the universal property of skew-Laurent extensions. It is easy to check that $`\theta `$ is an isomorphism.

Some properties of dehomogenisation follow in an elementary way from this result.

###### Corollary 3.3

Let $`R=_{i0}R_i`$ be an $``$-graded algebra and let $`x`$ be a regular homogeneous normal element of degree one.
(i) $`R`$ is a domain if and only if $`\mathrm{Dhom}(R,x)`$ is a domain.
(ii) If $`R`$ is noetherian then $`\mathrm{Dhom}(R,x)`$ is noetherian.
(iii) If $`R`$ is locally finite (that is, $`dim(R_i)<\mathrm{}`$ for all $`i`$) then $`\mathrm{GKdim}(R)=\mathrm{GKdim}(\mathrm{Dhom}(R,x))+1`$.

Proof Point (i) follows at once from the isomorphism in Lemma 3.2.

(ii) If $`R`$ is noetherian then so is $`R[x^1]`$ and thus $`\mathrm{Dhom}(R,x)[y,y^1;\sigma ]`$ is noetherian, by Lemma 3.2. As is well-known, since $`\sigma `$ is an automorphism of $`\mathrm{Dhom}(R,x)`$, this implies that $`\mathrm{Dhom}(R,x)`$ is noetherian.

(iii) Let $`\sigma `$ be the automorphism of $`R`$ induced by conjugation by $`x`$. It is clear that $`\sigma `$ is a graded automorphism; and so from the local finiteness of $`R`$, we see that the elements $`x^i`$, for $`i1`$, are local normal elements in the sense of \[9, p168\]. By using \[9, 12.4.4\], it follows that $`\mathrm{GKdim}(R[x^1])=\mathrm{GKdim}(R)`$. On the other hand, the automorphism $`\sigma `$ induced on $`S_0`$ by conjugation by $`x`$ in $`S`$ is locally algebraic in the sense of \[9, p164\]. Indeed, $`S_0=_{t0}R_tx^t`$ and for all $`t`$ the $`k`$-subspace $`R_tx^t`$ is a finite dimensional $`\sigma `$-stable subspace of $`S_0`$. It follows from \[9, p164\] that $`\mathrm{GKdim}(S_0[y,y^1;\sigma ])=\mathrm{GKdim}(S_0)+1`$. The conclusion follows from Lemma 3.2.

## 4 Dehomogenisation of $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$

In the classical commutative theory it is a well-known and basic result that the dehomogenisation of the homogeneous coordinate ring of the $`m\times n`$ Grassmannian at the minor $`[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]`$ is isomorphic to the coordinate ring of $`m\times (nm)`$ matrices; that is,

$$\frac{𝒪(𝒢(m,n))}{[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]1}𝒪(M_{m,nm}(k)).$$

In this section, we show that the corresponding result holds for $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ when we use the noncommutative dehomogenisation defined in the previous section. Recall from Lemma 1.5 that $`[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]`$ is a normal element of $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$: in fact, it $`q`$-commutes with the other maximal minors, and this will be important in calculations.

Recall that we may consider $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ to be a $``$-graded algebra with each $`m\times m`$ quantum minor given degree $`1`$. Set $`x=[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]`$ and $`S:=𝒢_q(m,n)[x^1]`$, and note that $`\mathrm{Dhom}(𝒢_q(m,n),[nm+1,\mathrm{},n])=S_0`$ is generated by elements of the form $`\{I\}:=\left[I\right][nm+1,\mathrm{},n]^1`$ with $`I\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`|I|=m`$, see Section 3.

Now let $`u`$ be a positive integer and consider $`𝒪_q(M_u)`$. If $`I\{1,\mathrm{},u\}`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{I}:=\{1,\mathrm{},u\}\backslash I`$. In an exponent $`I`$ denotes the sum of the indices occuring in the index set $`I`$.

Let $`D_q`$ be the quantum determinant of $`𝒪_q(M_u)`$. Since $`D_q`$ is a central element, we can invert it to form the $`u\times u`$ quantum general linear group $`𝒪_q(GL_u):=𝒪_q(M_u)[D_q^1]`$. The algebra $`𝒪_q(GL_u)`$ is a Hopf algebra, with antipode $`S`$, and counit $`\epsilon `$.

There is a useful antiendomorphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:𝒪_q(M_u)𝒪_q(M_u)`$ defined on generators by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X_{ij})=(q)^{ij}[\stackrel{~}{\{j\}}|\stackrel{~}{\{i\}}]`$, see \[13, Corollary 5.2.2\]. We need to know the effect of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on quantum minors. This is given in the following lemma, which is presumably well-known but we give a proof since we have been unable to find a clear exposition. Recall that $`\mathrm{\Delta }([I|J])=_{|K|=|I|}[I|K][K|J]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the comultiplication map on $`𝒪_q(M_u)`$, by \[12, (1.9)\]. Recall also that $`\epsilon ([I|J])`$ equals $`1`$ if $`I=J`$ and $`0`$ otherwise.

###### Lemma 4.1

Let $`[I|J]`$ be an $`r\times r`$ quantum minor in $`𝒪_q(M_u)`$. Then,

(i) $`S([I|J])=(q)^{IJ}[\stackrel{~}{J}|\stackrel{~}{I}]D_q^1`$

(ii) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }([I|J])=(q)^{IJ}[\stackrel{~}{J}|\stackrel{~}{I}]D_q^{r1}`$

Proof We establish the first claim by calculating the expression

$$\underset{K,L}{}(q)^{LJ}S([I|K])[K|L][\stackrel{~}{J}|\stackrel{~}{L}]D_q^1$$

in two different ways.

First,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{K,L}{}}(q)^{LJ}S([I|K])[K|L][\stackrel{~}{J}|\stackrel{~}{L}]D_q^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{K}{}}S([I|K])\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}(q)^{LJ}[K|L][\stackrel{~}{J}|\stackrel{~}{L}]D_q^1\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{K}{}}S([I|K])\epsilon ([K|J])1=S([I|J]),`$
by using the first equality of \[13, 4.4.3\].

Secondly,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{K,L}{}}(q)^{LJ}S([I|K])[K|L][\stackrel{~}{J}|\stackrel{~}{L}]D_q^1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{K}{}}S([I|K])[K|L]\right\}(q)^{LJ}[\stackrel{~}{J}|\stackrel{~}{L}]D_q^1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}\epsilon ([I|L])(q)^{LJ}[\stackrel{~}{J}|\stackrel{~}{L}]D_q^1`$
$`=`$ $`(q)^{IJ}[\stackrel{~}{J}|\stackrel{~}{I}]D_q^1,`$
by using the defining property of the antipode.

The second claim follows easily from the first, since $`S([I|J])=\mathrm{\Gamma }([I|J])D_q^r`$ for $`r\times r`$ quantum minors $`[I|J]`$. This is easily established from the fact that it holds on the generators $`X_{ij}`$ and that $`S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are anti-endomorphisms.

We will need the anti-endomorphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau :𝒪_q(M_u)𝒪_q(M_u)`$ defined by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau (X_{ij})=(q)^{ji}[\stackrel{~}{\{i\}}|\stackrel{~}{\{j\}}]`$ for $`1i,ju`$. Here, $`\tau `$ is the transposition automorphism given in \[13, Proposition 3.7.1(1)\]. Note that, by Lemma 4.1, the effect of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau `$ on the $`r\times r`$ quantum minor $`[IJ]`$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau ([IJ])=(q)^{JI}[\stackrel{~}{I}\stackrel{~}{J}]D_q^{r1}`$.

Given $`I=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m\}\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ the set $`I\backslash \{i_k\}`$ is denoted by $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{i_k},\mathrm{},i_m\}`$. Given two sets $`I,J\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ recall that

$$\mathrm{}(I;J):=|\{(i,j)I\times J:i>j\}|.$$

In the next proof, and throughout the paper, $`(q)^{}`$ denotes a power of $`q`$ that is not necessary to keep track of explicitly.

###### Lemma 4.2

The $`k`$-algebra $`\mathrm{Dhom}(𝒢_q(m,n),[nm+1,\mathrm{},n])=S_0`$ is generated as an algebra by the elements $`\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{i}\mathrm{}n\}`$ for $`1jnm<in`$.

Proof We know that $`S_0`$ is generated by the elements $`\{I\}:=\left[I\right][nm+1,\mathrm{},n]^1`$, where $`I\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`|I|=m`$. We show that each such element can be expressed as a $`k`$-linear combination of products of elements of the form $`\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{i}\mathrm{}n\}`$, where $`1jnm<in`$. Denote by $`A`$ the subalgebra of $`S_0`$ generated by the elements $`\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{i}\mathrm{}n\}`$.

Let $`I=\{i_1\mathrm{}i_m\}\{nm+1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ be an ordered subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and let $`2tm+1`$ be such that $`i_tnm+1`$ but $`i_{t1}<nm+1`$; that is, $`I\{1,\mathrm{},nm\}=\{i_1,\mathrm{}i_{t1}\}`$. We will use induction on $`t`$ to show that $`\{I\}A`$.

If $`t=2`$, then $`I`$ is of the form $`\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{i}\mathrm{}n\}`$ and so $`\{I\}A`$. Consider a fixed $`t\{3,\mathrm{},m+1\}`$ and suppose that the result is true for $`t1`$. Now consider $`\left[I\right]=\left[i_1\mathrm{}i_m\right]`$ with $`I\{1,\mathrm{},nm\}=\{i_1,\mathrm{}i_{t1}\}`$. We use the generalised Quantum Plücker relations (Theorem 2.5) to rewrite the product $`[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]\left[i_1\mathrm{}i_m\right]`$.

Let $`K=\{i_1,nm+1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, $`J_1=\mathrm{}`$ and $`J_2=\{i_2,\mathrm{},i_m\}`$. Then

$`{\displaystyle \underset{K^{}K^{\prime \prime }=K}{}}\left(q\right)^{\mathrm{}(K^{};K^{\prime \prime })+\mathrm{}(K^{\prime \prime };J_2)}\left[K^{}\right]\left[K^{\prime \prime }J_2\right]=0`$
where either

$$K^{}=\{nm+1,\mathrm{},n\}\text{and}K^{\prime \prime }=\{i_1\},$$

or

$$K^{}=\{i_1\}\{nm+1,\mathrm{},\widehat{l},\mathrm{},n\}\text{and}K^{\prime \prime }=\{l\}$$

where $`nm+1ln`$ and $`l\{i_2,\mathrm{},i_m\}`$. Let $`S=\{nm+1,\mathrm{},n\}\{i_2,\mathrm{},i_m\}`$. By re-arranging the above equation, we obtain

$`[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]\left[i_1\mathrm{}i_m\right]={\displaystyle \underset{lS}{}}\left(q\right)^{}\left[i_1nm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{l}\mathrm{}n\right]\left[li_2\mathrm{}i_m\right].`$
Multiplying through by $`[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]^2`$ from the right, and using Lemma 1.5 gives

$`\{i_1\mathrm{}i_m\}={\displaystyle \underset{lS}{}}\pm \left(q\right)^{}\{i_1nm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{l}\mathrm{}n\}\{li_2\mathrm{}i_m\}.`$
Now $`\{l,i_2,\mathrm{},i_m\}\{1,\mathrm{},nm\}=\{i_2,\mathrm{},i_{t1}\}`$ and so, by the inductive hypothesis, $`\{li_2\mathrm{}i_m\}A`$. Clearly $`\{i_1nm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{l}\mathrm{}n\}A`$, therefore $`\{i_1\mathrm{}i_m\}A`$. This completes the inductive step and the result follows.

###### Theorem 4.3

There is an isomorphism

$$\rho :𝒪_q(M_{m,nm})\mathrm{Dhom}(𝒢_q(m,n),[nm+1,\mathrm{},n])$$

which is defined on generators by $`\rho (X_{ij})=\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{ni+1}\mathrm{}n\}`$, for $`1im`$ and $`1jnm`$.

Proof In order to show that $`\rho `$ is a homomorphism we have to show that the images of the $`X_{ij}`$ under $`\rho `$ still obey the relevant commutation relations. We will make repeated use of the anti-endomorphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau `$ defined before Lemma 4.2. There are four types of products to consider.

(1) Let $`1i<lm`$ and $`1jnm`$. Then $`X_{ij}X_{lj}=qX_{lj}X_{ij},`$ and so we must show that $`\rho \left(X_{ij}\right)\rho \left(X_{lj}\right)=q\rho \left(X_{lj}\right)\rho \left(X_{ij}\right)`$. Let $`t=n+1i`$ and $`s=n+1l`$. Note that $`s<t`$, and consider the product

$$\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right]\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\right]$$

in $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$. We can think of this as a product in $`𝒪_q(M_{m+1})`$ where the rows are indexed by $`1,\mathrm{},m+1`$ and the columns by $`j,nm+1,\mathrm{},n`$. Apply the anti-endomorphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau `$ to the commutation relation $`X_{m+1,s}X_{m+1,t}=qX_{m+1,t}X_{m+1,s}`$ we obtain:

$`\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right]\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\right]`$
$`=q\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\right]\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right].`$
Multiplying through this equation on the right by $`[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]^2`$ on each side and using Lemma 1.5 gives

$`\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\}\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\}`$
$`=q\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\}\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\};`$
that is, $`\rho \left(X_{ij}\right)\rho \left(X_{lj}\right)=q\rho \left(X_{lj}\right)\rho \left(X_{ij}\right)`$.

(2) Let $`1j<rnm`$ and $`1im`$. Then $`X_{ij}X_{ir}=qX_{ir}X_{ij}.`$ Let $`t=n+1i`$ and, as in (1), think of the product

$$\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right]\left[rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right]$$

as sitting inside $`𝒪_q(M_{m+1})`$ where the rows are indexed by $`1,\mathrm{},m+1`$ and the columns by $`j,r,nm+1,\mathrm{}\widehat{t},\mathrm{},n`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau `$ applied to the relation $`X_{m+1,j}X_{m+1,r}=qX_{m+1,r}X_{m+1,j}`$ in $`𝒪_q(M_{m+1})`$ gives us

$`\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right]\left[rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right]`$
$`=q\left[rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right]\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right].`$
Therefore, multiplying through this equation on the right by $`[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]^2`$ and using Lemma 1.5, we get

$`\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\}\{rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\}`$
$`=q\{rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\}\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\};`$
that is, $`\rho (X_{ij})\rho (X_{ir})=q\rho (X_{ir})\rho (X_{ij})`$

(3) Let $`1i<lm`$, and $`1j<rnm`$. Then

$$X_{ij}X_{lr}=X_{lr}X_{ij}+\left(qq^1\right)X_{lj}X_{ir}.$$

Let $`t=n+1i`$ and $`s=n+1l`$. Note that $`nm+1s<tn`$, and that $`j<r<s<t`$. Consider the product

$$\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right]\left[rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\right]$$

as a product in $`𝒪_q(M_{m+2})`$, where the $`m+2`$ rows are indexed by $`1,\mathrm{},m+2`$ and the columns by $`j,r,nm+1,\mathrm{},n`$.

The relation

$$\left[13\right]\left[24\right]=\left[24\right]\left[13\right]+\left(qq^1\right)\left[14\right]\left[23\right]$$

that we calculated earlier for $`𝒢_q(2,4)`$ shows that, in $`𝒪_q(M_{m+2})`$,

$$[Ijs][Irt]=[Irt][Ijs]+(qq^1)[Ijt][Irs]$$

where $`I=\{m+1,m+2\}`$, since $`j<r<s<t`$. By applying the anti-endomorphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau `$ to this relation, we obtain

$`\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right]\left[rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\right]`$
$`=\left[rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\right]\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right]`$
$`+\left(qq^1\right)\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\right]\left[rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right]`$
in $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$. Multiplying through by $`[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]^2`$ and using Lemma 1.5 we get

$`\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\}\{rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\}`$
$`=\{rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\}\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\}`$
$`+\left(qq^1\right)\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\}\{rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\};`$
that is, $`\rho (X_{ij})\rho (X_{lr})=\rho (X_{lr})\rho (X_{ij})+(qq^1)\rho (X_{lj})\rho (X_{ir})`$, as required.

(4) Let $`1i<lm`$ and $`1j<rnm`$. Then

$$X_{ir}X_{lj}=X_{lj}X_{ir}.$$

Let $`t=n+1i`$ and $`s=n+1l`$ so that $`nm+1s<tn`$ and $`j<r<s<t`$. Arguing as in (3), the relation $`[23][14]=[14][23]`$ in $`𝒢_q(2,4)`$ produces, in $`𝒪_q(M_{m+2})`$, the relation

$$[Irs][Ijt]=[Ijt][Irs].$$

Applying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\tau `$ to this relation gives

$`\left[rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right]\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\right]`$
$`=\left[jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\right]\left[rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\right].`$
Multiplying through by $`[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]^2`$ we get

$`\{rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\}\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\}`$
$`=\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{s}\mathrm{}n\}\{rnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\};`$
that is, $`\rho (X_{ir})\rho (X_{lj})=\rho (X_{lj})\rho (X_{ir})`$, as required.

Thus, $`\rho `$ extends to a homomorphism. The images of the generators under $`\rho `$ generate $`\mathrm{Dhom}(𝒢_q(m,n),[nm+1,\mathrm{},n])`$, by Lemma 4.2; so $`\rho `$ is surjective. We show that $`\rho `$ is injective by comparing Gelfand-Kirillov dimensions. If $`\rho `$ was not injective, then $`\mathrm{GKdim}(\mathrm{Dhom}(𝒢_q(m,n),[nm+1,\mathrm{},n])<\mathrm{GKdim}(𝒪_q(M_{m,nm}))=m(nm)`$, since $`𝒪_q(M_{m,nm})`$ is a domain. However, by Corollary 3.3 and Proposition 2.9, we know that $`\mathrm{GKdim}(\mathrm{Dhom}(𝒢_q(m,n),[nm+1,\mathrm{},n])=\mathrm{GKdim}(𝒢_q(m,n))1=m(nm)+11=m(nm)`$. Thus, $`\rho `$ is injective and hence $`\rho `$ is an isomorphism.

###### Corollary 4.4

Let $`\varphi `$ be the automorphism of $`𝒪_q(M_{m,nm})`$ defined by $`\varphi (X_{ij})=q^1X_{ij}`$, for $`1im`$ and $`1jnm`$. Then

$$𝒪_q(M_{m,nm})[y,y^1;\varphi ]𝒢_q(m,n)\left[[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]^1\right]$$

defined by $`X_{ij}\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{n+1i}\mathrm{}n\}`$ and $`y[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]`$ is an isomorphism of algebras.

Proof Recall from Lemma 3.2 that there is an isomorphism

$$\theta :\mathrm{Dhom}(𝒢_q(m,n),[nm+1,\mathrm{},n])[y,y^1;\sigma ]𝒢_q(m,n)\left[[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]^1\right]$$

given by $`y[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]`$ and $`\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\}\{jnm+1\mathrm{}\widehat{t}\mathrm{}n\}`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the automorphism of $`\mathrm{Dhom}(𝒢_q(m,n),[nm+1,\mathrm{},n])`$ given by conjugation by the quantum minor $`[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]`$. On the other hand, by Theorem 4.3, there is an isomorphism $`\rho :𝒪_q(M_{m,nm})\mathrm{Dhom}(𝒢_q(m,n),[nm+1,\mathrm{},n])`$, and it is easy to see, by using Lemma 1.5, that the automorphism induced in $`𝒪_q(M_{m,nm})`$ by $`\sigma `$ via $`\rho `$ is $`\varphi `$. Thus, $`\rho `$ extends to an isomorphism

$$\overline{\rho }:𝒪_q(M_{m,nm})[y,y^1;\varphi ]\mathrm{Dhom}(𝒢_q(m,n),[nm+1,\mathrm{},n])[y,y^1;\sigma ]$$

such that $`\overline{\rho }(y)=y`$. Clearly, $`\theta \overline{\rho }`$ is the desired isomorphism.

Note that in  Fioresi proves a restricted version of Theorem 4.3. More specifically, operating over the ring $`K[q,q^1]`$, where $`K`$ is algebraically closed of characteristic zero and $`q`$ is transcendental over $`K`$, she shows that $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$ is isomorphic to the subalgebra of $`𝒢_q(n,2n)[\left[n+1\mathrm{}2n\right]^1]`$ generated by the elements $`\{jn+1\mathrm{}\widehat{i}\mathrm{}2n\}`$, but does not show that this subalgebra is the dehomogenisation of $`𝒢_q(n,2n)`$ at $`\left[n+1\mathrm{}2n\right]`$.

Example Let $`S=𝒢_q(2,4)[\left[34\right]^1]`$. Then $`\mathrm{Dhom}(𝒢_q(2,4),\left[34\right])=S_0`$ and $`S_0`$ is generated by the elements

$$\left[12\right]\left[34\right]^1,\left[13\right]\left[34\right]^1,\left[14\right]\left[34\right]^1,\left[23\right]\left[34\right]^1,\left[24\right]\left[34\right]^1.$$

Recall that $`\{ij\}=[ij]\left[34\right]^1`$. From the commutation relations for $`𝒢_q(2,4)`$ given in the introduction, we can calculate the following commutation relations:

$$\{13\}\{23\}=q\{23\}\{13\};\{13\}\{14\}=q\{14\}\{13\};$$

$$\{13\}\{24\}=\{24\}\{13\}+\left(qq^1\right)\{23\}\{14\};$$

$$\{14\}\{23\}=\{23\}\{14\};\{14\}\{24\}=q\{24\}\{14\};\{23\}\{24\}=q\{24\}\{23\}$$

and from the Quantum Plücker relation;

$$\{12\}=\{13\}\{24\}q\{23\}\{14\}.$$

We can immediately see the correspondence (or we can use $`\rho `$ to find the correspondence):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒪_q(M(2))& & S_0\\ X_{11}& & \{13\}\\ X_{12}& & \{23\}\\ X_{21}& & \{14\}\\ X_{22}& & \{24\}\\ D_q& & \{12\},\end{array}$$

and from Theorem 4.3

$$\mathrm{Dhom}(𝒢_q(2,4),[34])𝒪_q(M(2)).$$

## 5 $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ as coinvariants of $`𝒪_q(SL_m)`$

Recall that the $`m\times m`$ quantum special linear group, $`𝒪_q(SL_m)`$, is defined by $`𝒪_q(SL_m):=𝒪_q(M_m)/D_q1`$.

In this section we show that $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is the algebra of coinvariants of a natural left coaction of $`𝒪_q(SL_m)`$ on $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$. There is a natural epimorphism $`\pi :𝒪_q(GL_m)𝒪_q(SL_m)`$ which sends $`D_q`$ to $`1`$. In order to distinguish generators in the various algebras, we will often denote the canonical generators in $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$ by $`X_{ij}`$, in $`𝒪_q(M_{nm})`$ by $`Y_{ij}`$, in $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ by $`Z_{ij}`$ and in $`𝒪_q(GL_m)`$ by $`T_{ij}`$. Further, set $`U_{ij}:=\pi (T_{ij})𝒪_q(SL_m)`$. Note that both $`𝒪_q(GL_m)`$ and $`𝒪_q(SL_m)`$ are Hopf algebras.

It is easy to check that one can define a morphism of algebras satisfying the following rule:

$$\lambda :𝒪_q(M_{mn})𝒪_q(GL_m)𝒪_q(M_{mn})Z_{ij}\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}T_{ik}Z_{kj}$$

and that this induces a morphism of algebras

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }:𝒪_q(M_{mn})𝒪_q(SL_m)𝒪_q(M_{mn}),Z_{ij}\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}U_{ik}Z_{kj}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:=(\pi \mathrm{id})\lambda `$.

The morphisms $`\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ endow $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ with left comodule algebra structures over $`𝒪_q(GL_m)`$ and $`𝒪_q(SL_m)`$, respectively. Recall that if $`H`$ is a Hopf algebra and $`M`$ is a left $`H`$-comodule via the coaction $`\gamma :MHM`$ then $`mM`$ is a coinvariant if $`\gamma (m)=1m`$. In this section we show that $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is the set of coinvariants of the $`𝒪_q(SL_m)`$-comodule $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ under the comodule map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In fact, this result is an easy consequence of \[8, Theorem 6.6\], once we have described the set-up of that paper.

The map $`Y_{ij}_{k=1}^mY_{ik}T_{kj}`$ induces a morphism of algebras $`\rho :𝒪_q(M_{nm})𝒪_q(M_{nm})𝒪_q(GL_m)`$ which endows $`𝒪_q(M_{nm})`$ with a right comodule algebra stucture over $`𝒪_q(GL_m)`$. Let $`𝒪_q(V)`$ denote the algebra $`𝒪_q(M_{nm})𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$. The coactions $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ defined above can be combined to give a left comodule structure on $`𝒪_q(V)`$ which we denote by $`\gamma `$. To be precise,

$$\gamma :𝒪_q(V)𝒪_q(GL_m)𝒪_q(V)$$

is given by the rule

$$\gamma (ab):=\underset{(a),(b)}{}S(a_1)b_1a_0b_0$$

for $`a𝒪_q(M_{nm})`$ and $`b𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$, where $`\lambda (b)=_{(b)}b_1b_0`$ and $`\rho (a)=_{(a)}a_0a_1`$. Here, we are using the Sweedler notation and $`S`$ is the antipode of $`𝒪_q(GL_m)`$. In turn, this coaction induces a coaction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:𝒪_q(V)𝒪_q(SL_m)𝒪_q(V)`$ given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:=(\pi \mathrm{id})\gamma `$; so that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(ab):=\underset{(a),(b)}{}\pi (S(a_1)b_1)a_0b_0.$$

The main results of  identify the coinvariants of the coactions $`\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In particular, Theorem 6.6 of  identifies the coinvariants of the coaction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the following way. There is a morphism of algebras $`\mu :𝒪_q(M_n)𝒪_q(V)=𝒪_q(M_{nm})𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ given by $`X_{ij}_{k=1}^mY_{ik}Z_{kj}`$. Let $`R`$ denote $`\mu (𝒪_q(M_n))`$. It is proved in  that $`R𝒪_q(M_n)/I`$, where $`I`$ is the ideal generated by the $`(m+1)\times (m+1)`$ quantum minors of $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$. We have the following theorem.

###### Theorem 5.1

\[8, Theorem 6.6\] Let $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ denote the respective grassmannian subalgebras of $`𝒪_q(M_{nm})`$ and $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ generated by all the $`m\times m`$ quantum minors. The set of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-coinvariants in $`𝒪_q(V)=𝒪_q(M_{nm})𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ is the subalgebra generated by $`G_1G_2`$ and $`R`$. More precisely,

$$\left(𝒪_q(M_{nm})𝒪_q(M_{mn})\right)^{\mathrm{co}𝒪_q(SL_m)}=\left(G_1G_2\right)R.$$

The result we are aiming for follows easily from this.

###### Theorem 5.2

$$\left(𝒪_q(M_{mn})\right)^{\mathrm{co}𝒪_q(SL_m)}=𝒢_q(m,n).$$

Proof It is easily seen that there is a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒪_q(M_{mn})& \stackrel{i}{}& 𝒪_q(M_{nm})𝒪_q(M_{mn})\\ & & \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }& & \mathrm{\Gamma }\\ & & \\ 𝒪_q(SL_m)𝒪_q(M_{mn})& \stackrel{\mathrm{id}i}{}& 𝒪_q(SL_m)𝒪_q(M_{nm})𝒪_q(M_{mn})\end{array}$$

where $`i`$ is the canonical injection. Moreover, let $`j:𝒪_q(M_{nm})𝒪_q(M_{mn})𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ be the canonical projection; that is,

$$j:𝒪_q(M_{nm})𝒪_q(M_{mn})\stackrel{p\mathrm{id}}{}k𝒪_q(M_{mn})𝒪_q(M_{mn})$$

where $`p`$ is the projection modulo the irrelevant ideal of $`𝒪_q(M_{nm})`$. Clearly, we have that $`ji=\mathrm{id}`$. We see from the above commutative diagram that, if $`b𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-coinvariant, then $`i(b)=1b`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-coinvariant. Thus, it follows from Theorem 5.1 that $`1b(G_1G_2).R`$. Hence, $`b=j(1b)j(G_1G_2)j(R)`$. Clearly, $`j(R)k`$ and $`j((G_1G_2))G_2`$; and so $`bG_2=𝒢_q(m,n)`$. This shows that $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})^{\mathrm{co}𝒪_q(SL_m)}𝒢_q(m,n)`$. Since it is clear that an $`m\times m`$ quantum minor of $`𝒪_q(M_{mn})`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-coinvariant, the converse inclusion follows from the fact that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a morphism of algebras.

Note that Fioresi and Hacon, , have a version of this result, with the usual restrictions as described earlier in this paper.

## 6 $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is a maximal order

Let $`R`$ be a noetherian domain with division ring of fractions $`Q`$. Then $`R`$ is said to be a maximal order in $`Q`$ if the following condition is satisfied: if $`T`$ is a ring such that $`RTQ`$ and such that there exist nonzero elements $`a,bR`$ with $`aTbR`$, then $`T=R`$. This condition is the natural noncommutative analogue of normality for commutative domains, see, for example, \[11, Section 5.1\].

Recall that an element $`d`$ in a ring $`R`$ is said to be left regular if $`rd=0`$ implies that $`r=0`$ for $`rR`$. The following is a general result that we will be able to apply to show that the quantum Grassmannian $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is a maximal order.

###### Proposition 6.1

Suppose that $`R`$ is a noetherian domain with division ring of fractions $`Q`$. Suppose that $`a,bR`$ are nonzero normal elements such that $`R[a^1]`$ and $`R[b^1]`$ are both maximal orders, that $`b`$ is left regular modulo $`aR`$ and that $`ab=\lambda ba`$ for some central unit $`\lambda R`$. Then $`R`$ is a maximal order.

Proof First, we show that $`R[a^1]R[b^1]=R`$. Suppose that this is not the case, and choose $`qR[a^1]R[b^1]\backslash R`$. Write $`q=ra^d=sb^e`$ with $`d,e1`$ and $`rR\backslash Ra`$, $`sR\backslash Rb`$. Cross multiply to get $`rb^e=\lambda ^{}sa^d`$ (remember that $`ab=\lambda ba`$). Since $`b`$ is left regular modulo $`aR`$, this gives $`rRa`$, a contradiction. Thus, $`R[a^1]R[b^1]=R`$.

Now, to show that $`R`$ is a maximal order, it is enough to show that if $`J`$ is a nonzero ideal of $`R`$ and $`qQ`$ with either $`qJJ`$ or $`JqJ`$ then $`qR`$, \[11, Proposition 5.1.4\]. Suppose, without loss of generality, that $`qJJ`$. By assumption, $`S:=R[a^1]`$ and $`T:=R[b^1]`$ are maximal orders. Also, $`SJ=JS`$ is an ideal of $`S`$ and $`TJ=JT`$ is an ideal of $`T`$. We have $`qJSJS`$ and so $`qS`$. Similarly, $`qT`$. Thus, $`qST=R`$; and so $`R`$ is a maximal order.

###### Theorem 6.2

$`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is a maximal order.

Proof We will apply the previous result to $`R:=𝒢_q(m,n)`$ with $`a:=[1,\mathrm{},m]`$ and $`b:=[nm+1,\mathrm{},n]`$. Observe that $`b`$ is normal by Lemma 1.5 and that $`a`$ is normal by Corollary 1.2. Note that $`ab=(q)^{}ba`$, by Lemma 1.5. First we observe that $`b`$ is left regular modulo $`aR`$. The reason is that since $`a`$ is the minimal minor in the preferred ordering, a basis for $`aR`$ is given by preferred products that start with $`a`$. If $`rR`$ is such that $`rbaR`$, then when we write $`r`$ as a linear combination of preferred products then multiplying each preferred product that occurs by $`b`$ on the right still gives a preferred product, since $`b`$ is the maximal element with respect to the preferred order. Thus, since $`rbaR`$ each of these preferred products must begin with $`a`$, and so the original ones also begin with $`a`$, hence $`raR`$.

In Corollary 4.4, we have shown that $`R[b^1]𝒪_q(M_{m,nm})[y,y^1;\varphi ]`$ and so $`R[b^1]`$ is a maximal order (\[10, V. Proposition 2.5, IV. Proposition 2.1\]). Also $`R[a^1]`$ is a maximal order by using the isomorphism $`\delta `$ introduced in Section 1 and the fact that $`R[b^1]`$ is a maximal order.

Thus, the hypotheses of Proposition 6.1 are satisfied, and we deduce that $`𝒢_q(m,n)`$ is a maximal order.

A. C. Kelly, T. H. Lenagan:
School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh,
James Clerk Maxwell Building, King’s Buildings, Mayfield Road,
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, Scotland
E-mail: ACK@bosinternet.com, tom@maths.ed.ac.uk
L. Rigal:
Université Jean Monnet (Saint-Étienne), Faculté des Sciences et
Techniques, Département de Mathématiques
23 rue du Docteur Paul Michelon
42023 Saint-Étienne Cédex 2,
France
E-mail: Laurent.Rigal@univ-st-etienne.fr


format: text

text:
# Differences Between Hole and Electron Doping of a Two-Leg CuO Ladder

## I Introduction

Two-leg CuO ladder materials are known to exhibit some of the basic physical properties of the high $`T_c`$ cuprates. Undoped two-leg ladder materials are found to be spin-gapped, charge transfer insulators HATB91 ; AHTIK94  and superconductivity has been observed in hole-doped ladders under high pressure. Ueh96 ; Iso98 ; May98  Moreover, ladder models have proved amenable to numerical studies, allowing one to explore the relationship between the parameters in the model and physical properties such as the charge and spin gaps of the insulating state and the pairing correlations in the doped state. Dag99 ; SW01  Here we continue this type of theoretical study by examining the properties of a CuO ladder using a density-matrix-renormalization-group (DMRG) analysis. Whi93  We will focus on the differences between hole and electron doping.

The geometry of the two-leg ladder which we will study is illustrated in Fig. 1. The Cu sites are characterized by a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ orbital, the rung O sites by a $`p_y`$ orbital, and the leg O sites by a $`p_x`$ orbital. The hole Hamiltonian for this model is given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}p_{i\sigma }^{}p_{i\sigma }t_{pd}{\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}\left(d_{i\sigma }^{}p_{j\sigma }+p_{j\sigma }^{}d_{i\sigma }\right)`$ (1)
$`t_{pp}{\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}\left(p_{i\sigma }^{}p_{j\sigma }+p_{j\sigma }^{}p_{i\sigma }\right)`$
$`+U_d{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d_i^{}d_id_i^{}d_i+U_p{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i^{}p_ip_i^{}p_i`$
Here $`t_{pd}`$ is the one-hole hopping matrix element between nearest-neighbor Cu and O sites and the first sum in Eq. (1) is over all nearest-neighbor sites. We will assume for simplicity that $`t_{pd}`$ has the same value between all the Cu and O sites. The second term in Eq. (1) sums over all nearest-neighbor pairs of O sites and $`t_{pp}`$ is the hopping matrix elements between these sites. We have chosen the phases of the orbitals such that the signs of the hopping matrix elements are constant and with the minus sign convention of Eq. (1), $`t_{pd}>0`$ and $`t_{pp}0`$. The energy difference between the O and Cu sites is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}=ϵ_pϵ_d>0`$ and $`U_d`$, and $`U_p`$ are the on-site Coulomb energies for Cu and O, respectively. In this model an undoped ladder corresponds to a density of one hole per Cu site. We will work in units where $`t_{pd}=1`$ and take as typical values $`U_d=8`$ and $`U_p=3`$, throughout.

Two of the authors previously studied a similar model JSW98  in which the outer O sites were missing and only the near-neighbor Cu-O hopping $`t_{pd}`$ was present. While this simplified form allowed one to compare a charge-gap-insulator model with the traditional one-band Hubbard and $`t`$-$`J`$ models, the absence of the outer O and the $`t_{pp}`$ hoppings altered the electronic structure. ALJP95 ; Mul98  In addition, the electron-doped pairing response of the model appeared to be quite different from the hole-doped behavior. Here, for the more realistic structure shown in Fig. 1, we return to the study of the two-leg CuO ladder in which the charge-transfer nature of the insulating state is treated along with the effects of the oxygen $`t_{pp}`$ hopping matrix elements. We also will study longer ladders with up to $`32\times 2`$ Cu atoms corresponding to 226 total O and Cu sites.

We calculate the static properties of the model (1) numerically using the DMRG method. Whi93  With this approach we obtain accurate ground state energies and expectation values (such as correlation functions) for a fixed number of holes of each spin. In the DMRG calculations, open-end boundary conditions are used so that when we discuss local quantities they will actually be averaged over the ladder and correlation functions will be calculated using distances taken about the midpoint. We have used up to $`m=2000`$ density matrix eigenstates to build the DMRG basis. Using an extrapolation of DMRG ground state energies to vanishing discarded weight, Bon00  we have obtained ground state energies and gaps which are accurate to parts in $`10^3t_{pd}`$. Although the largest source of errors in our calculations are finite size effects, we have been able to extrapolate a number of gap measurements to an infinite-size ladder.

In Sec. II we discuss our results for a filling of one hole per Cu, which corresponds to the undoped ladder. Our main interest is in the effect of the site energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}=ϵ_pϵ_d`$ and the oxygen hopping parameter $`t_{pp}`$. We will examine the charge and spin magnitudes on the various sites and the dependence of the charge and spin gaps on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ and $`t_{pp}`$. When $`U_d`$ is large compared with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}2t_{pp}`$, we find as expected that the ladder is a charge transfer insulator with a spin gap. By comparing the low-lying spin states of the CuO model with a two-leg Heisenberg model, we extract effective rung and leg exchange interactions. In Sec. III, we examine the charge and spin magnitude distributions for the doped case and find that, for typical parameters characteristic of the cuprates, the doped holes tend to be spread out on the O lattice while doped electrons tend to be localized on the Cu sites. We also study the effect of doping on the effective exchange interactions and on the local spin-spin correlations. We then turn to a study of the pairing correlations for both the hole-doped and the electron-doped ladder. We find a power law behavior with negative “$`d`$-wave-like”, Cu rung-leg pair correlations for both hole and electron doping. However, we find that the internal structure of a pair depends upon whether the system is electron- or hole-doped. In Sec. IV, we conclude with some further comments relating these results to the general problem posed by the cuprate materials.

## II The Undoped Ladder

We first investigate the properties of an undoped ladder. For local properties such as the charge and spin magnitude distributions on the sites and the spin correlations between sites, a ladder containing $`8\times 2`$ Cu sites is sufficiently long. In Fig. 2 we show the average ground state hole occupation of Cu sites $`n_{\text{Cu}}=d_i^{}d_i+d_i^{}d_i`$ and of the various O sites $`n_\text{O}=p_i^{}p_i+p_i^{}p_i`$ as a function of $`t_{pp}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$. In Fig. 2(a) the hole occupation is shown for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}=2.7`$ versus $`t_{pp}`$. As $`t_{pp}`$ increases the hole occupation on the Cu sites decreases and that on the O sites increases. In Fig. 2(b), the hole occupation is shown for $`t_{pp}=0.5`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$. Here as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ increases, the hole occupation on the Cu sites increases as one would expect. The hole occupation on the outer O sites is typically about half that on the other O sites. For $`t_{pp}=0.5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}=3`$, the holes are approximately 70% on the Cu sites and 30% on the O sites.

The average value of the square of the spin moment

$$𝑺_i^2=\frac{1}{4}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{i\alpha }^{}𝝈_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Psi }_{i\beta }\right)^2$$
(2)
on various sites is shown in Fig. 3 for the same parameters. Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i\alpha }^{}=d_{i\alpha }^{}`$ or $`p_{i\alpha }^{}`$ depending upon the site, $`𝝈`$ is the usual Pauli spin matrix, and the indices $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are summed over. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}=3`$ and $`t_{pp}=0.5`$, the average spin moment on the Cu site is 0.5. Dividing this by the average hole occupation for the Cu gives a squared spin moment of order 0.7 compared with 3/4 for a Heisenberg spin $`s=1/2`$. With $`U_d=8`$, the spin moment is well formed on the Cu site and $`𝑺_{\text{Cu}}^2`$ simply tracks $`n_{\text{Cu}}`$, the probability of having a hole on a Cu site.

The charge gap of an undoped ladder with $`L\times 2`$ Cu sites is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_c(L)=E_0(+2,L)+E_0(2,L)2E_0(0,L),$$
(3)
where $`E_0(N,L)`$ denotes the ground state energy of a ladder of length $`L`$ with $`N+2L`$ holes. Extrapolating the charge gap from numerical data for up to $`L=16`$, we find the results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(L\mathrm{})`$ plotted in Fig. 4. Here Fig. 4(a) shows $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(L\mathrm{})`$ versus $`t_{pp}`$ for various values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ and Fig. 4(b) shows $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c(L\mathrm{})`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ for various values of $`t_{pp}`$. From these results, we see that in order to have a charge gap, we need $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}2t_{pp}`$. Experimentally Pop00 ; Goz01 , $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ is of order 1.4 to 2 eV. If we take $`t_{pp}t_{pd}/2`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}3`$ gives a realistic charge gap with $`t_{pd}1.6`$eV. ALJP95

The lowest triplet spin excitation is gapped and localized on the Cu sites of the ladder (i.e., the spin density remains zero on the O sites in the triplet state). The spin gap is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_s(N,L)=E_0(\frac{N}{2}+1,\frac{N}{2}1,L)E_0(\frac{N}{2},\frac{N}{2},L),$$
(4)
where $`E_0(N_{},N_{},L)`$ is the ground state energy of an $`L\times 2`$ ladder with $`N_\sigma +L`$ holes of spin $`\sigma =,`$. We first discuss the spin gap of the undoped ladder ($`N=0`$). In this case we extrapolate the spin gap to an infinite ladder length using data for up to $`L=16`$. The dependence of the spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(L\mathrm{})`$ on $`t_{pp}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ is shown in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b), respectively. As for the charge gap, there is a spin gap only if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}2t_{pp}`$. For large $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ the spin gap decreases due to a decrease in the effective exchange coupling as observed in our previous work. JSW98  Thus the spin gap goes through a maximum at a finite value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}>2t_{pd}`$. Experimentally, Dag99 ; ALJP95  $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s0.030.05`$eV so that with $`t_{pd}1.6`$eV, we need $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s/t_{pd}0.03`$. This confirms that $`t_{pp}0.5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}3`$ represent appropriate choices, consistent with electronic band structure calculations. ALJP95

For a two-leg Heisenberg ladder, the spin gap is equal to approximately half of the exchange interaction. Thus from Fig. 5(a) we see that provided $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}2t_{pp}`$, the effective exchange interaction between Cu spins increases with $`t_{pp}`$. For example for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}=2.5`$, the spin gap and hence the effective Cu-Cu exchange increase by 40 % as $`t_{pp}`$ goes from 0 to 0.5. This is due to the additional exchange path through the O ions. This crucial role of the O-O hopping $`t_{pp}`$ in giving a large effective Cu-Cu exchange has been emphasized by Eskes and Jefferson. EJ93

The nearest-neighbor Cu spin-spin correlations $`𝑺_i𝑺_j`$ are antiferromagnetic in the undoped ladder. For a fixed value of $`t_{pp}`$, $`𝑺_i𝑺_j`$ increases with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ and tends to the value obtained for a two-leg Heisenberg ladder when $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}t_{pp}`$. This simply reflects the fact that increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ causes the holes to become more localized on the Cu sites, as shown by the increase of the Cu spin moments $`𝑺_i^2`$ in Fig. 3(b). For the same reason, for a fixed value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$, $`𝑺_i𝑺_j`$ decreases with increasing $`t_{pp}`$ and vanishes for $`t_{pp}\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$. This decrease is due to the reduction of the local magnetic moments $`𝑺_i^2`$ on the Cu sites as the holes spread further onto the O sites, as seen in Fig. 3(a).

The low energy properties of the spin degrees of freedom of the undoped $`d`$-$`p`$ Hubbard model (1) can be mapped onto an anisotropic Heisenberg ladder.

$$H=\underset{ij}{}J_{ij}𝑺_i𝑺_j.$$
(5)
Here $`ij`$ represent near-neighbor bonds along the legs and rungs of a 2-leg ladder with $`J_{ij}=J_{}`$ for the rungs and $`J_{}`$ for the legs. To estimate the parameters $`J_{}`$ and $`J_{}`$, we consider the low-energy states of the $`d`$-$`p`$ model for a $`\text{Cu}_{2L}\text{O}_{5L}`$ cluster ($`L\times 2`$ Cu ladder). Then by making a one-to-one correspondence of the states of this system to the $`L\times 2`$ Heisenberg ladder, we derive the $`J_{}`$ and $`J_{}`$ parameter of the anisotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian. These processes are performed for ladders of length $`L=8`$, 12, and 16 with the open boundary condition. We confirm that the low-lying spin states of the $`d`$-$`p`$ and Heisenberg clusters have the same quantum numbers and characters for all the three values of $`L`$. To make the mapping systematically with various system sizes, we extract the two lowest triplet excitation energies, $`E_{t1}=E_0(S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1)E_0(S_{\mathrm{tot}}=0)`$ and $`E_{t2}=E_1(S_{\mathrm{tot}}=1)E_0(S=0)`$. Here, $`E_n(S=S_{\mathrm{tot}})`$ is the energy of the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ excited state with total spin $`S`$. Then we determine $`J_{}`$ and $`J_{}`$ by fitting the excitation energies $`E_{t1}`$ and $`E_{t2}`$ with results obtained from $`d`$-$`p`$ clusters with the same $`L`$. In this way, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}=3`$ and $`t_{pp}=0.5`$, we find that $`J_{}=0.06t_{pd}(96`$meV) and $`J_{}=0.08t_{pd}(`$ 128meV), both of which are in a reasonable range as compared to experimental and theoretical results. Pop00 ; Goz01 ; Gra99

It is also interesting to examine the effect of $`t_{pp}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ on the effective exchange coupling anisotropy. From the nearest-neighbor Cu spin-spin correlation $`𝑺_i𝑺_j`$ we define

$$R=\frac{𝑺_i𝑺_j_{\text{rung}}}{𝑺_i𝑺_j_{\text{leg}}},$$
(6)
where we use an average of $`𝑺_i𝑺_j`$ over the ladder. For a Heisenberg ladder (5) with an exchange coupling $`J_{}`$ on the rungs and $`J_{}`$ on the legs, $`R`$ versus $`J_{}/J_{}`$ is shown in Fig. 6(a). Various experimental and theoretical estimates Pop00 ; Goz01 ; Gra99  suggest that values of $`J_{}/J_{}`$ ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 are appropriate for two-leg CuO ladders. Figure 6(a) shows that this corresponds to values of $`R`$ varying from 0.6 to 1.2. The ratio $`R`$ obtained for our CuO ladder are shown versus $`t_{pp}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ in Figs. 6(b) and 6(c), respectively. We see that the exchange coupling anisotropy is again consistent with parameter values $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}3`$ and $`t_{pp}0.5`$. In the absence of the outer O sites, the anisotropy ratio $`R`$ becomes significantly larger than the values shown in Figs. 6(b) and 6(c) for $`0<t_{pp}1`$. In the charge transfer insulating phase, one finds an effective exchange coupling ratio $`J_{}/J_{}>1`$ for realistic parameters, in disagreement with most experimental and theoretical estimates. Thus, it appears that it is important to include the outer O sites in order to obtain a qualitatively correct description of two-leg CuO ladders.

The dependence of the charge and spin magnitude distributions, the charge and spin gaps, and the spin-spin correlations on the parameters $`t_{pp}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ can be understood qualitatively. For $`t_{pp}\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}/2`$, the holes are delocalized on all Cu and O sites and the undoped CuO ladder is in a metallic phase. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}2t_{pp}`$, the holes tend to be localized on the Cu sites and the undoped system is a charge-transfer insulator. Low-energy spin excitations involve the holes on the Cu sites only. Thus, the spin degrees of freedom localized on the Cu sites lead to an effective two-leg spin ladder. Here, as noted, we are working in units where $`t_{pd}=1`$, $`U_d=8`$, and $`U_p=3`$. We have seen that the magnitudes of the charge and spin gaps as well as the site charge densities, spin moments, and effective exchange couplings are consistent with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}=3`$ and $`t_{pp}=0.5`$. We will now examine what happens when such a CuO ladder is doped with holes and electrons.

## III The Doped Ladder

Turning to the doped situation, we investigate the properties of the model (1) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}=3`$, $`U_d=8`$, $`U_p=3`$, and $`t_{pp}=0.5`$ for various hole concentrations (per Cu atom) $`x=1+N/(2L)`$, where $`N`$ is the number of doped holes ($`N>0,x>1`$) or doped electrons ($`N<0,x<1`$) in a ladder with $`L\times 2`$ Cu atoms. Results for the site occupations versus the doping are shown in Fig. 7(a). Here, we see that the slope of the hole occupation on the Cu site versus $`x`$ changes at $`x=1`$. For electron doping, the electrons are more likely to go on the Cu site than are the holes when the system is hole doped. This is, of course, what one would expect for a charge-transfer insulator. This is also consistent with Monte Carlo results for the 3-band Hubbard model Sca91 ; DMH92  as well as our previous DMRG results for the CuO ladder. JSW98  The variation of the local squared spin moments on the different sites versus doping are shown in Fig. 7(b). As discussed previously, in the charge transfer regime, where $`U_d`$ is large compared to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ is larger than several times $`t_{pp}`$, the spin moments are mainly on the Cu sites. When the system is electron doped, the electrons go onto the Cu sites eliminating their moments. Thus, the average moment on the Cu sites depends upon $`x`$ in the same way as the Cu site occupation $`n_{\text{Cu}}`$, and $`𝑺_{\text{Cu}}^2/n_{\text{Cu}}`$ remains essentially constant, of order 0.7. The change in the average moment shown in Fig. 7(b) simply reflects the fact that for the electron-doped case, spin moments at individual Cu sites are removed when electrons are added to those sites. Likewise, for the hole-doped situation the average spin moment on the Cu sites increases only slightly as $`x`$ increases and a few more Cu sites have holes.

In Fig. 8 we have plotted the average value of the nearest-neighbor Cu spin-spin correlations $`𝑺_i𝑺_j`$ on the rungs and legs versus doping. As electrons are doped onto the ladder and spin moments are removed from the Cu sites, the magnitude of the $`𝑺_i𝑺_j`$ correlations decrease on both the rungs and the legs. Similar results are observed for the nearest-neighbor spin-spin correlations in the $`tJ`$ model on a two-leg ladder as the hole concentration increases.

However, as holes are added to the CuO Hubbard model (1) and $`x`$ increases, the rung spin-spin correlations decrease more rapidly than those along the legs. As we have seen, the added holes tend to go onto the O sites which frustrates Aha88  or screens the exchange coupling between the Cu spins. A rough estimate of this can be seen by considering a $`\text{Cu}_4\text{O}_{12}`$ cluster with one hole or electron added. Calculating the low-lying states of the cluster and comparing the excitation energies with a 4-site $`t`$-$`J_{\text{eff}}`$ system we find that $`J_{\text{eff}}/t_{pd}`$ is 50% smaller for the one hole $`(x=1.25)`$ case relative to its value for the one electron $`(x=0.75)`$ case. Thus, in the hole-doped system, the effective exchange interaction between the spin moments on the Cu sites is weakened. Because this effective exchange is initially larger along the legs than across the rungs, the rung correlations decrease more rapidly than those along the legs. We note that the anisotropy in the reduction of the spin-spin correlations as a function of doping is much stronger than in a $`tJ`$ model on a two-leg ladder, even if one uses a strongly anisotropic exchange coupling $`J_{}J_{}`$.

The average values of the nearest-neighbor Cu-O spin-spin correlations increase rapidly with the number of holes in the ladder. For hole doping the appearance of strong nearest-neighbor Cu-O spin correlations corresponds to the formation of a Zhang-Rice singlet ZR88  in an isotropic two-dimensional $`\text{CuO}_2`$ lattice. In the two-leg CuO ladder, however, the strength of the Cu-O spin-spin correlation depends on the type of the O site considered. Rung Cu-O spin-spin correlations increase less rapidly than the other ones with increasing hole concentration $`x`$. This confirms the higher frustration of antiferromagnetic correlations in the rung direction than in the leg direction when an additional hole is placed between the two holes localized on nearest-neighbor Cu sites. Correspondingly, for hole doping the spin-spin correlation between a Cu site and its outer O site increases faster than for the other nearest-neighbor sites because of the absence of frustration for this type of O sites.

Turning next to the pairing correlations, we have calculated the Cu rung-rung pair field correlation function

$$D(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{\Delta }_{i+\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}$$
(7)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}=d_{i1}^{}d_{i2}^{}d_{i1}^{}d_{i2}^{}.$$
(8)
Here, $`d_{i\lambda s}^{}`$ creates an electron of spin $`s`$ on the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ rung and the $`\lambda =1`$ or 2 leg of the ladder. The pair field has “$`d`$-wave-like” structure in the sense that the rung-leg Cu-Cu pair field correlation function, has a negative sign while the rung-rung or leg-leg pairing correlations are positive. We have also examined other pair field correlation functions corresponding to pairs on diagonal Cu sites or pairs on O sites and found that they are either qualitatively similar to the Cu rung-rung pair field correlations or decrease much faster. Some results for the rung-rung pair field correlation function $`D(\mathrm{})`$ versus $`\mathrm{}`$ are shown in Fig. 9 for a ladder containing $`32\times 2`$ Cu sites. We have normalized $`D(\mathrm{})`$ with respect to its value at $`\mathrm{}=4`$. The pair field correlations in the undoped system decay rapidly (exponentially) with distance while, as shown in the inset, the pair correlations when two electrons are added or removed exhibit an approximate power law decay. (Qualitatively similar pair field correlation functions have been calculated in a $`tJ`$ two-leg ladder with two doped holes.) While the decay of the normalized rung-rung pair field correlations for the 2-electron and 2-hole doped ladders are similar in the CuO Hubbard model (1), the size of the rung-rung Cu pairing correlations are a factor of order 4 larger for the electron-doped case relative to the hole-doped one. This reflects the fact that for electron doping, the added carriers go primarily onto the Cu sites while for hole doping they go primarily onto the O sites. For higher doping ($`0.75x1.25`$) the Cu rung-rung pair field correlations are very similar to those shown in Fig. 9 for doped holes or electrons.

To determine whether doped holes or electrons form bound pairs we have first calculated the binding energy of two doped holes and electrons. The pair binding energy is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{pb}(L)=2E_0(\pm 1,L)E_0(\pm 2,L)E_0(0,L),$$
(9)
where $`E_0(N,L)`$ is the ground state energy of a ladder with $`L\times 2`$ Cu site and $`N+2L`$ holes. We could not extrapolate $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pb}(L)`$ to the $`L\mathrm{}`$ limit because finite-size effects are too irregular. However, we have found that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pb}(L\mathrm{})`$ is certainly positive both for hole and electron doping. Therefore, we expect two doped holes or electrons to build a bound pair in the CuO Hubbard ladder for the parameters we use here. As in our previous work, JSW98  the binding energy of two doped holes is of the order of the spin gap of the undoped ladder. For instance, for a $`16\times 2`$ Cu site ladder we have obtained $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pb}0.02t_{pd}`$, to be compared with the spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(L\mathrm{})=0.03t_{pd}`$. The binding energy of two electrons, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pb}0.04t_{pd}`$, is also of the order of the spin gap in the undoped ladder but twice as large as the hole pair binding energy. In our previous investigation of the two-leg CuO ladder JSW98  we found a vanishing pair binding energy for electron doping. To understand this change we have calculated the pair binding energy as a function of the various model parameters in a ladder with $`8\times 2`$ Cu sites. It appears that the difference between the present result and the previous one JSW98  is due to the nearest-neighbor O hopping $`t_{pp}`$. In fact, $`t_{pp}>0`$ is necessary to obtain a finite pair binding energy in the electron doped ladder. When the CuO model is reduced to a simple, one-band Hubbard model, $`t_{pp}>0`$ leads to an effective next-near-neighbor hopping $`t^{}`$ which favors pairing when the system is electron doped. WS99  In addition, as previously discussed, $`t_{pp}>0`$ leads to an enhanced Cu-Cu effective exchange.

In order to have a more detailed picture of the difference between the electron- and hole-doped pairs, we have investigated their internal structure. In a $`tJ`$ model or a spin-fermion model, it is easy to measure correlations between doped charges because there are no other itinerant charges (i.e., there are no charge fluctuations in the undoped system). In the CuO Hubbard model (1), however, bare electron-electron and hole-hole correlation functions give little information about the correlations between two doped charges because they are dominated by the quantum fluctuations of the other charges. Therefore, we have to project out the ground state of (1) onto a subspace with no charge fluctuation. For that purpose we consider a perturbation expansion in $`t_{pd}`$ and $`t_{pp}`$ of the Hamiltonian (1) with $`U_d>\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}>0`$ and $`x`$ close to 1. The ground state of the unperturbated Hamiltonian ($`t_{pd}=t_{pp}=0`$) is degenerate. For electron doping the ground state has at most one hole on each Cu site and no hole on any O site. The projection operator onto the ground-state subspace is

$$P_e=\underset{i}{}(1d_i^{}d_id_i^{}d_i)\underset{j}{}(p_jp_j^{}p_jp_j^{}).$$
(10)
For hole doping there is exactly one hole on each Cu site and no doubly occupied O site in the ground state of the unperturbated Hamiltonian. The projection operator onto the ground-state subspace is

$$P_h=\underset{i}{}(S_i^d+S_i^d)\underset{j}{}(1p_j^{}p_jp_j^{}p_j),$$
(11)
where $`S_{i\sigma }^d=d_{i\sigma }^{}d_{i\sigma }d_{i,\sigma }d_{i,\sigma }^{}`$. Using perturbation theory one could then derive effective Hamiltonians (a generalized $`tJ`$ model and a generalized spin-fermion model, respectively) in the subspace defined by $`P_e`$ and $`P_h`$, which approximately describe the low-energy properties of the CuO model (1) in the regime $`t_{pd},t_{pp}\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}<U_d`$ for electron doping and hole doping, respectively. Therefore, for the realistic parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}=3t_{pd}=6t_{pp}`$, we calculate the ground state $`|\psi `$ of (1) and then use the projected states $`P_e|\psi `$ and $`P_h|\psi `$ to determine the correlations between doped carriers (electrons or holes).

Figure 10(a) shows the electron-electron correlation function

$$C_e^n(m)=\frac{\psi |P_eE_nE_{n+m}P_e|\psi }{\psi |P_eE_nP_e|\psi },$$
(12)
where $`E_n=d_nd_n^{}d_nd_n^{}`$, calculated in a ladder with $`32\times 2`$ Cu atoms and two doped electrons. $`C_e^n(m)`$ measures the correlation between two added electrons on the Cu sites. Note that the most probable arrangement for the two electrons is on diagonal nearest-neighbor sites, which is similar to what is seen in t-J ladders. Results for the hole-doped case are shown in Fig. 10(b). Here the hole-hole correlation function is given by

$$C_h^n(m)=\frac{\psi |P_h_\sigma H_{n\sigma }H_{n+m,\sigma }P_h|\psi }{\psi |P_h_\sigma H_{n\sigma }P_h|\psi },$$
(13)
where the operator

$$H_{n\sigma }=\frac{1}{4}\underset{nj}{}p_{j\sigma }^{}p_{j\sigma }$$
(14)
measures the probability of finding a hole in an $`\text{O}_4`$ orbital around the Cu site with index $`n`$ (the sum runs over the four nearest-neighbor O sites of this Cu site). We average the density over four O sites around each Cu site because a doped hole is locked in a singlet state with another hole on a Cu site as in a $`\text{CuO}_4`$ cluster (i.e., in a Zhang-Rice singlet ZR88 ). This also facilitates the comparison with the electron-doped case and the $`tJ`$ two-leg ladder. $`C_h^n(m)`$ measures the correlation between two added holes in $`\text{O}_4`$ orbitals around different Cu sites. Figure 10(b) shows that the most probable arrangement for the holes is on diagonal next-nearest-neighbor $`\text{O}_4`$ orbitals.

For larger distance $`m`$, both $`C_e^n(m)`$ and $`C_h^n(m)`$ decrease approximately as $`\mathrm{exp}(|m|/\xi )`$ with correlation lengths (in units of the distance between two Cu rungs) $`\xi _e3.3`$ and $`\xi _h2.9`$, respectively. Note that these correlation lengths cannot be interpreted as the pair size because the exponential decay sets in only for $`m\xi _{e,h}`$. The average distance between doped carriers is given by

$$\overline{m}_{e,h}=\frac{_m|m|C_{e,h}(m)}{_mC_{e,h}(m)},$$
(15)
which yields $`\overline{m}_e4.5`$ and $`\overline{m}_h4.8`$ for the electron and hole pair, respectively.

A more intuitive picture of the difference in the internal pair structure between electron and hole doping is shown in Fig. 11. Here, we show the probability $`C_e(m)`$ \[$`C_h(m)`$\] of finding the second doped electron (hole) at a Cu site (in a $`\text{O}_4`$ orbital) when the first doped electron (hole) is located on the Cu site (in the $`\text{O}_4`$ orbital) marked by an open circle. The electron pair appears to be denser than the hole pair which is qualitatively consistent with the larger binding energy (9) calculated for the electron-doped case.

As we use open boundary conditions, the correlation functions $`C_{e,h}^n(m)`$ depend on the position (i.e., the index $`n`$) of the first doped carrier (electron or hole). We have checked the pair structure for different ladder sizes and at different positions on the ladder and have found significant variations close to the ladder ends. In Fig. 11 we show the pair structure in the middle of a ladder with $`32\times 2`$ Cu sites as finite-size and boundary effects are minimal there. We believe this structure to be representative of the pair structure in an infinite ladder.

As in the undoped ladder, the lowest triplet excitation in the doped ladder is gapped and involves only holes on the Cu sites. The spin gap (4) for the doped system versus $`x`$ is shown in Fig. 12. Here, we have extrapolated the spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(L)`$ to $`L\mathrm{}`$ for fixed hole concentrations $`x=0,\pm 1/8`$, and $`\pm 1/4`$ using numerical results for up to $`L=32`$. For the limit $`x1`$ we have extrapolated the spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s(L)`$ to $`L\mathrm{}`$ for the 2-hole and the 2-electron doped ladders with up to $`L=32`$. One sees that the value of the spin gap in the $`x1`$ limit differs from the $`x=1`$ undoped value. That is, the $`q=(\pi ,\pi )`$ magnon in the undoped system $`(x=1)`$ has a gap of order 0.03, while in the doped system the spin gap as $`x1`$ is of order 0.018. This behavior is similar to what has been found previously in studies of $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ ladders Poi00 .

An examination of the spin structure of the $`S_z=1`$ state containing two doped electrons or holes shows that the spin and added carriers are spatially correlated. Thus, the spin gap is set by the energy of a bound magnon-carrier pair. For instance, Figure 13 shows the spin density (on the Cu sites) of the $`S_z=1`$ state with two doped carriers (electrons or holes), when these doped carriers are in the configuration with the highest probability $`C_{e,h}(m)`$ (the pair structure of the triplet states is similar to that of the singlet states shown in Fig. 11). For electron doping, the spin structure shown in Fig. 13 is very similar to that found in $`t`$-$`t^{}`$-$`J`$ two-leg ladders. Poi00  For hole doping, however, the spin structure is quite different, which is only in part due to the difference in the carrier configuration. Even if we use the same carrier configuration as for the electron-doped case (i.e., two doped carriers on nearest-neighbor diagonal sites), the spin structure of the hole-doped system is different from that found in the electron-doped system or $`t`$-$`J`$ model. In particular, we note that there is a small spin density on the Cu sites in the center of the $`\text{O}_4`$ orbitals where the holes are located, which shows that in the magnon-carrier pair, holes on Cu and O sites are no longer completely locked in a Zhang-Rice singlet.

## IV Conclusion

Using the density matrix renormalization group, we have studied the structure of the charge, spin, and pairing correlations for a Hubbard-like model of a two-leg CuO ladder. This model allowed us to examine the differences between electron and hole doping that occur in a charge transfer insulator. For the undoped ladder, where there is one hole per Cu, we found that parameters obtained from LDA downfolding calculations ALJP95 ; Mul98  lead to reasonable charge and spin gaps. A typical parameter set in units of the Cu-O hopping $`t_{pd}`$ were a near-neighbor oxygen-oxygen hopping $`t_{pp}=0.5`$, an oxygen-copper site energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}=3`$, and on-site Cu and O Coulomb repulsions $`U_d=8`$ and $`U_p=3`$ respectively. With these parameters, the charge gap is determined primarily by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{pd}`$ rather than $`U_d`$ and the spin gap is set by the effective Cu-Cu exchange. We have found that the O-O hopping $`t_{pp}`$ plays a significant role in giving a large effective Cu-Cu exchange interaction.

For the undoped ladder, we found that the holes were distributed approximately 70% on the Cu sites and 30% on the O sites. The large on-site Coulomb interaction on the Cu site leads to the spin moment being dominantly on the Cu site. Basically, if the hole is on a Cu site, the square of the spin moment (0.7) has nearly its full value of 3/4. When electrons are added, they go primarily onto the Cu sites (of order 80% of the added charge goes onto the Cu sites). This is seen in both the decrease in the average Cu site hole occupation and the decrease in the average spin moment. Note that the decrease in the spin moment simply reflects the fact that there are fewer Cu<sup>++</sup> sites in the electron-doped system. Alternatively, when holes are added (electrons are removed), they go primarily onto the O sites (of order 20% of the holes go onto the Cu with 80% going onto the surrounding O sites). This leaves the local spin moments on the Cu sites.

Thus, the undoped CuO ladder is a spin-gapped insulator with a charge gap set by the oxygen-copper site energy difference. Magnetically the undoped ladder is essentially a Heisenberg ladder made up of hole spins localized on the Cu sites. When the ladder is electron doped, some of the holes (and spins) on the Cu sites are removed and pairing correlations develop. Because the doped electrons go primarily onto the Cu sites, the electron-doped system is closer to the one-band Hubbard or t-J models. When the ladder is hole doped, the holes go dominantly onto the O sites leading to a low-density gas of fermions delocalized over the O-site lattice and interacting by spin-exchange with the localized spins on the Cu sites. The local magnetic moments remain essentially unchanged on the Cu sites but the O holes frustrate the exchange coupling between the spins on the Cu sites.

This local, strong coupling picture focuses on the differences between the electron and hole-doped ladders. Nevertheless, on low energy scales, the spin gap and pairing correlations of the electron- and hole-doped systems are quite similar. Both exhibit $`d`$-wave like power law pairing correlations in which the pair field Cu-Cu rung-leg correlations are negative. The spin gap for both dopings is associated with a bound magnon-pair. However, the internal structure of the pairs differ for electron and hole doping.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to acknowledge useful discussions with O.K. Anderson, R. Martin, and G. Sawasky. DJS would like to acknowledge support under a Department of Energy Grant No. DE-FG03-85ER-45197.