Abstract
A polynomial has saturated Newton polytope (SNP) if every lattice point of the convex hull of its exponent vectors corresponds to a monomial. We compile instances of SNP in algebraic combinatorics (some with proofs, others conjecturally): skew Schur polynomials; symmetric polynomials associated to reduced words, Redfield–Pólya theory, Witt vectors, and totally nonnegative matrices; resultants; discriminants (up to quartics); Macdonald polynomials; key polynomials; Demazure atoms; Schubert polynomials; and Grothendieck polynomials, among others. Our principal construction is the Schubitope. For any subset of \([n]^2\), we describe it by linear inequalities. This generalized permutahedron conjecturally has positive Ehrhart polynomial. We conjecture it describes the Newton polytope of Schubert and key polynomials. We also define dominance order on permutations and study its poset-theoretic properties.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The Newton polytope of a polynomial \(f=\sum _{\alpha \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}^n}c_{\alpha } x^{\alpha }\in {\mathbb {C}}[x_1,\ldots ,x_n]\) is the convex hull of its exponent vectors, i.e.,
Definition 1.1
f has saturated Newton polytope (SNP) if \(c_{\alpha }\ne 0\) whenever \(\alpha \in \textsf { Newton}(f)\).
Example 1.2
\(f=\) the determinant of a generic \(n\times n\) matrix. The exponent vectors correspond to permutation matrices. \(\textsf { Newton}(f)\) is the Birkhoff polytope of \(n\times n\) doubly stochastic matrices. SNPness says there are no additional lattice points, which is obvious here. (The Birkhoff–von Neumann theorem states all lattice points are vertices.) \(\square \)
Generally, polynomials are not SNP. Worse still, SNP is not preserved by basic polynomial operations. For example, \(f=x_1^2+x_2x_3+x_2x_4+x_3x_4\) is SNP but \(f^2\) is not (it misses \(x_1 x_2 x_3 x_4\)). Nevertheless, there are a number of families of polynomials in algebraic combinatorics where every member is (conjecturally) SNP. Examples motivating our investigation include:
The Schur polynomials are SNP. This rephrases R. Rado’s theorem [35] about permutahedra and dominance order on partitions; cf. Proposition 2.5.
Classical resultants are SNP (Theorem 2.20). Their Newton polytopes were studied by I. M. Gelfand-M. Kapranov-A. Zelevinsky [16]. (Classical discriminants are SNP up to quartics — but not quintics; see Proposition 2.23.)
Cycle index polynomials from Redfield–Pólya theory (Theorem 2.30)
C. Reutenauer’s symmetric polynomials linked to the free Lie algebra and to Witt vectors [37] (Theorem 2.32)
J. R. Stembridge’s symmetric polynomials associated to totally nonnegative matrices [44] (Theorem 2.28)
R. P. Stanley’s symmetric polynomials [40], introduced to enumerate reduced words of permutations (Theorem 5.8)
Any generic (q, t)-evaluation of a symmetric Macdonald polynomial is SNP; see Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 3.6.
The key polynomials are \((\infty ,\infty )\)-specializations of non-symmetric Macdonald polynomials. These also seem to be SNP. We give two conjectural descriptions of the Newton polytopes. We determine a list of vertices of the Newton polytopes (Theorem 3.12) and conjecture this list is complete (Conjecture 3.13).
Schubert polynomials (Conjecture 5.1). We conjecturally describe the Newton polytope (Conjecture 5.13).
Inhomogeneous versions of Schuberts/keys are also conjecturally SNP (Conjectures 5.5 and 5.6).
The core part of our study concerns the Schubert and key polynomials. We conjecture a description of their Newton polytopes in terms of a new family of polytopes.
A diagram \(\textsf {D}\) is a subset boxes of an \(n \times n\) grid. Fix \(S\subseteq [n]:=\{1,2,\ldots ,n\}\) and a column \(c \in [n]\). Let \(\mathtt{word}_{c,S}(\textsf {D})\) be formed by reading c from top to bottom and recording
( if \((r,c) \notin \textsf {D}\) and \(r \in S\),
) if \((r,c) \in \textsf {D}\) and \(r \notin S\), and
\(\star \) if \((r,c) \in \textsf {D}\) and \(r \in S\).
(Nothing is recorded if \((r,c)\not \in D\) and \(r\not \in S\).) For \(\textsf {D}\) shown above, \(\mathtt{word}_{2,\{1,2\}}(\textsf {D})=\)“\((\ \star \ )\)”, \(\mathtt{word}_{3,\{1,2,3,4\}}(\textsf {D})=\)“\(\star \ (( \ \star \)”, \(\mathtt{word}_{3,\{1,2\}}(\textsf {D})=\)“\(\star \ (\ )\)”, and \(\mathtt{word}_{3,\{2,3\}}(\textsf {D})=\)“\()\ (\ (\ )\)”. Let
Set \(\theta _\textsf {D}(S) = \sum _{c \in [n]} \theta _\textsf {D}^c(S)\). For instance, \(\theta _\textsf {D}(\{ 2,4 \}) = 4\) above. Define the Schubitope as
Fix a partition \(\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\ldots ,\lambda _n)\). The \(\lambda \)-permutahedron, denoted \({\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda }\), is the convex hull of the \(S_n\)-orbit of \(\lambda \) in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\). The Schubitope is a generalization of the permutahedron (Proposition 5.23). We conjecture that the Schubitope for a skyline diagram and for a Rothe diagram respectively are the Newton polytopes of a key and Schubert polynomial. The figure to above depicts \({\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_{21543}}\), which is a three-dimensional convex polytope in \({\mathbb {R}}^4\). Conjecture 5.19 asserts that Ehrhart polynomials of Schubitopes \({\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_w}\) have positive coefficients; cf. [9, Conjecture 1.2].
A cornerstone of the theory of symmetric polynomials is the combinatorics of Littlewood–Richardson coefficients. An important special case of these numbers are the Kostka coefficients \(\textsf {K}_{\lambda ,\mu }\). The nonzeroness of \(\textsf { K}_{\lambda ,\mu }\) is governed by dominance order which is defined by the linear inequalities (2). Alternatively, Rado’s theorem [35, Theorem 1] states this order characterizes when \({\mathcal {P}}_{\mu }\subseteq {\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda }\). These two viewpoints on dominance order are connected since \({\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda }\) is the Newton polytope of the Schur polynomial \(s_{\lambda }(x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_n)\).
For Schubert polynomials, there is no analogous Littlewood–Richardson rule. However, with a parallel in mind, we propose a “dominance order for permutations” via Newton polytopes. The inequalities of the Schubitope generalize (2); see Proposition 5.23.
1.1 Organization
Section 2 develops and applies basic results about SNP symmetric polynomials. Section 3 turns to flavors of Macdonald polynomials and their specializations, including the key polynomials and Demazure atoms. Section 4 concerns quasisymmetric functions. Monomial quasisymmetric and Gessel’s fundamental quasisymmetric polynomials are not SNP, but have equal Newton polytopes. The quasisymmetric Schur polynomials [20] are also not SNP, which demonstrates a qualitative difference with Schur polynomials. Section 5 discusses Schubert polynomials and a number of variations. We define dominance order for permutations and study its poset-theoretic properties. We connect the Schubitope to work of A. Kohnert [22] and explain a salient contrast (Remark 5.21). Section 6 lists some advances connected to this paper since initial submission.
2 Symmetric functions
2.1 Preliminaries
The monomial symmetric polynomial for a partition \(\lambda \) is
where the sum is over distinct rearrangements of \(\lambda \). The set \(\{m_{\lambda }\}_{\ell (\lambda )\le n}\) forms a \({\mathbb {Z}}\)-basis of \(\textsf { Sym}_n\), the ring of symmetric polynomials in \(x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_n\) (here \(\ell (\lambda )\) is the number of nonzero parts of \(\lambda \)).
Identify a partition \(\lambda \) with its Young diagram (in English notation). A semistandard Young tableau T is a filling of \(\lambda \) with entries from \({\mathbb {Z}}_{>0}\) that is weakly increasing along rows and strictly increasing down columns. The content of T is \(\mu =(\mu _1,\mu _2,\ldots ,\mu _n)\) where \(\mu _i\) is the number of i’s appearing in T. The Schur polynomial is
where \(\textsf { K}_{\lambda ,\mu }\) is the number of semistandard Young tableaux of shape \(\lambda \) and content \(\mu \).
Let \(\textsf { Par}(d)=\{\lambda :\lambda \vdash d\}\) be the set of partitions of size d. Dominance order \(\le _D\) on \(\textsf { Par}(d)\) is defined by
Recall this result about tableaux (see e.g., [42, Proposition 7.10.5 and Exercise 7.12]):
Since \(\textsf { K}_{\lambda ,\lambda }=1\), it follows from (1) and (3) combined that \(\{s_{\lambda }\}_{\ell (\lambda ) \le n}\) also forms a basis of \(\textsf { Sym}_n\).
Setting \(x_{n+1}=0\) defines a surjective homomorphism \(\textsf { Sym}_{n+1}\twoheadrightarrow \textsf { Sym}_n\) for each \(n\ge 0\). Let \(\textsf { Sym}\) denote \(\underset{n}{\varprojlim }\ \textsf { Sym}_n\), the ring of symmetric functions in \(x_1,x_2,\ldots \). We refer the reader to [42, Chapter 7] for additional background.
2.2 Basic facts about SNP
Given \(f\in \textsf { Sym}\), let \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\in \textsf { Sym}_n\) be the specialization that sets \(x_{i}=0\) for \(i\ge n+1\). Whether \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\) is SNP depends on n (e.g., \(f=\sum _i x_i^2\)).
Definition 2.1
\(f\in \textsf { Sym}\) is SNP if \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)\) is SNP for all \(m\ge 1\).
Proposition 2.2
(Stability of SNP) Suppose \(f\in \textsf { Sym}\) has finite degree. Then f is SNP if there exists \(m\ge \deg (f)\) such that \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)\) is SNP.
Proof
We first show that if \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)\) is SNP, \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\) is SNP for any \(n \le m\). Suppose \(\alpha \in \mathtt{Newton}(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_n))\). Let \(\overline{\alpha }\in {\mathbb {R}}^m\) be \(\alpha \) with \(m-n\) many 0’s adjoined to the end. Since \(\alpha \) is a convex linear combination of exponent vectors \(\beta \) of \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\), and each \(\overline{\beta }\) is an exponent vector of \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)\), then \(\overline{\alpha }\in \mathtt{Newton}(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_m))\). Since \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)\) is SNP, \(x^{\overline{\alpha }}\) is a monomial of \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)\). Thus \(x^{\overline{\alpha }}\) is a monomial of \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_n,0,\ldots ,0)\) and hence \(x^{\alpha }\) is a monomial of \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\), as desired.
To complete the proof, we now show if \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)\) for \(m \ge \deg (f)\) is SNP, then \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\) is SNP for all \(n \ge m\). Suppose \(\alpha \in \mathtt{Newton}(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_n))\) and thus
where \(x^{\beta ^i}\) is a monomial of f. Since \(\alpha \in {\mathbb Z}_{\ge 0}^n\), by (4), there are at most \(\deg (f)\le m\) coordinates where \(\alpha _j > 0\), say \(j_1,\ldots ,j_m\). Furthermore, since each \(\beta ^i\) is nonnegative, if \(c_i > 0\), \(\beta _j^i = 0\) for \(j \ne j_1, \ldots , j_m\). Choose \(w \in S_n\) such that \(w(j_c) = c\) for \(c = 1,\ldots ,m\). Applying w to (4) gives
So nonzero coordinates of \(w(\alpha )\) only occur in positions \(1, \ldots , m\). Since \(f\in \textsf { Sym}\), each \(x^{w(\beta ^i)}\) is a monomial of \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)\), and so \(w(\alpha ) \in \mathtt{Newton}(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_m))\). Since \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)\) is SNP, \([x^{w(\alpha )}]f\ne 0\). Again, \(f\in \textsf { Sym}\) implies \([x^\alpha ]f\ne 0\). Hence, \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\) is SNP. \(\square \)
Remark 2.3
In the proof of Proposition 2.2, w is chosen so that the nonzero components of the vectors \(\alpha \) and \(w(\alpha )\) are in the same relative order. Thus the result extends to the quasisymmetric case of Sect. 4.\(\square \)
Remark 2.4
The stabilization constant \(\deg (f)\) is tight. Let \(f=s_{\lambda }-\textsf { f}^{\lambda }m_{(1^{|\lambda |})}\). Here \(\textsf { f}^{\lambda }=[m_{(1^{|\lambda |})}]s_{\lambda }\) (= the number of standard Young tableaux of shape \(\lambda \).) Then \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\) is SNP for \(n<|\lambda |=\deg (f)\) but not SNP for \(n\ge |\lambda |\). One can see this from the ideas in the next proposition.
Proposition 2.5
Suppose \(f\in \textsf { Sym}_n\) is homogeneous of degree d such that
Suppose there exists a \(\lambda \), such that \(c_{\lambda }\ne 0\) and \(c_\mu \ne 0\) only if \(\mu \le _D \lambda \). If \(n < \ell (\lambda )\), \(f = 0\). Otherwise:
- (I)
\(\textsf { Newton}(f) = {\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda }\subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\).
- (II)
The vertices of \(\textsf { Newton}(f)\) are rearrangements of \(\lambda \).
- (III)
If moreover \(c_{\mu }\ge 0\) for all \(\mu \), f has SNP.
Proof
If \(\mu \le _D \lambda \), \(\ell (\mu ) \ge \ell (\lambda )\). Thus if \(n < \ell (\lambda )\), \(s_\mu (x_1,\ldots ,x_n) \equiv 0\) for all \(\mu \) such that \(c_\mu \ne 0\). Otherwise, suppose \(n \ge \ell (\lambda )\).
(I): Since \(\displaystyle f = \sum _{\mu \le _D \lambda } c_\mu s_\mu \), by (3) we have
Clearly,
(by the definitions of both). Also,
Hence,
R. Rado’s theorem [35, Theorem 1] states:
Now \(\textsf { Newton}(f) = {\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda }\) holds by (6), proving (I).
(II): In view of (I), it suffices to know this claim for \({\mathcal P}_{\lambda }\). This is well-known, but we include a proof for completeness.
Since \({\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda }\) is the convex hull of the \(S_n\)-orbit of \(\lambda \), any vertex of \({\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda }\) is a rearrangement of \(\lambda \). It remains to show that every such rearrangement \(\beta \) is in fact a vertex. Thus it suffices to show there is no nontrivial convex combination
where the sum is over distinct rearrangements \(\gamma \ne \beta \) of \(\lambda \).
Let \(\lambda = (\Lambda _1^{k_1}\ldots \Lambda _m^{k_m})\) with \(\Lambda _1> \Lambda _2> \cdots > \Lambda _m\). Since \(\beta \) is a rearrangement of \(\lambda \), let \(i_1^1, \ldots , i_{k_1}^1\) be the positions in \(\beta \) of the \(k_1\) parts of size \(\Lambda _1\). Since \(\gamma _{i_j^1}\le \Lambda _1\) for all \(\gamma \) we have that \(c_{\gamma } = 0\) whenever \(\gamma \) satisfies \(\gamma _{i_j^1}\ne \Lambda _1\) for any \(1\le j\le k_1\).
Let \(i_1^2, \ldots , i_{k_2}^2\) be the positions in \(\beta \) of the \(k_2\) parts of size \(\Lambda _2\). Similarly, \(c_{\gamma }=0\) whenever \(\gamma \) satisfies \(\gamma _{i_j^2}\ne \Lambda _2\) for any \(1\le j\le k_2\). Continuing, we see that \(c_{\gamma }= 0\) for all \(\gamma \ne \beta \). That is, there is no convex combination (7), as desired.
(III): Suppose \(\alpha \) is a lattice point in \(\textsf { Newton}(f) = {\mathcal P}_{\lambda }\subset {\mathbb {R}}^{n}.\) Let \(\lambda (\alpha )\) be the rearrangement of \(\alpha \) into a partition. By symmetry, \({\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda (\alpha )} \subseteq {\mathcal P}_{\lambda }\). Then by (6), \(\lambda (\alpha ) \le _D \lambda \) and so by (3), \(\textsf { K}_{\lambda ,\lambda (\alpha )} \ne 0\). Since \(x^\alpha \) appears in \(m_{\lambda (\alpha )}(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\), \(x^\alpha \) appears in \(f(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\) (here we are using the Schur positivity of f and the fact \(\ell (\lambda (\alpha ))\le n\)). Thus f is SNP. \(\square \)
Example 2.6
(Schur positivity does not imply SNP) Let
It is enough to show \(f(x_1,x_2,x_3)\) is not SNP. Now, \(m_{(8,2,2)}(x_1,x_2,x_3)\) and \(m_{(6,6)}(x_1,x_2,x_3)\) appear in the monomial expansion of \(f(x_1,x_2,x_3)\). However, \(m_{(7,4,1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3)\) is not in \(f(x_1,x_2,x_3)\) since (7, 4, 1) is not \(\le _D\)-comparable with (8, 2, 2) nor (6, 6, 0). Yet, \((7,4,1)=\frac{1}{2}(8,2,2)+\frac{1}{2}(6,6,0)\in \textsf { Newton}(f(x_1,x_2,x_3))\). Hence f is not SNP. \(\square \)
Example 2.7
The Schur positivity assumption in Proposition 2.5(III) is necessary:
is not SNP. \(\square \)
Example 2.8
\(f\in \textsf { Sym}\) can be SNP without a unique \(\le _D\)-maximal term. For example,
is SNP but (2, 2, 2) and (3, 1, 1, 1) are \(\le _D\)-incomparable. An instance of this from “nature” is found in Example 2.34.\(\square \)
Proposition 2.9
(Products of Schur polynomials are SNP) \(s_{\lambda ^{(1)}}s_{\lambda ^{(2)}}\cdots s_{\lambda ^{(N)}}\in \textsf { Sym}\) is SNP for any partitions \(\lambda ^{(1)},\ldots ,\lambda ^{(N)}\).
Proof
We have
where \(\textsf { LR}_{\lambda ,\mu }^{\nu }\in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}\) is the Littlewood–Richardson coefficient. By homogeneity, clearly \(\textsf { LR}_{\lambda ,\mu }^{\nu }=0\) unless \(|\nu |=|\lambda |+|\mu |\). Let \(\lambda +\mu =(\lambda _1+\mu _1,\lambda _2+\mu _2,\ldots )\). It suffices to show \(\nu \le _D \lambda +\mu \) whenever \(\textsf { LR}_{\lambda ,\mu }^{\nu }\ge 0\). Actually, we show \(s_{\lambda +\mu }\) is the unique \(\le _D\)-maximal term in the Schur expansion of \(s_{\lambda }e_{\mu '}\). Indeed, since \(e_{\mu '}=s_{\mu }+\text {(positive sum of Schur functions)}\), this will suffice. The strengthening holds by an easy induction on the number of nonzero parts of \(\mu \) and the Pieri rule (in the form of [42, Example 7.15.8]). Alternatively, this is straightforward to prove from the Littlewood–Richardson rule. Iterating this argument shows that \(s_{\lambda ^{(1)}}\cdots s_{\lambda ^{(N)}}\) has unique \(\le _D\) maximal term \(s_{\lambda ^{(1)}+\cdots + \lambda ^{(N)}}\) and hence is SNP. \(\square \)
Let
be the power sum symmetric polynomial. Moreover, let
Proposition 2.10
Let
be not identically zero. Assume \(c_{\lambda }\ge 0\) for all \(\lambda \), and that f is Schur positive. Then f is SNP.
Proof
Recall, (n) indexes the trivial representation of \(S_n\) that sends each \(\pi \in S_n\) to the \(1\times 1\) identity matrix. The character value \(\chi ^{(n)}(\mu )\), being the trace of this matrix, is independent of \(\pi \)’s conjugacy class \(\mu \vdash n\). Hence \(\chi ^{(n)}(\mu )=1\).
We have
Therefore,
By hypothesis, each \(c_{\lambda }\ge 0\). Since \(f\not \equiv 0\), some \(c_{\lambda }>0\) and hence \(s_{(n)}\) appears. Now, (n) is the (unique) maximum in \((\textsf { Par}(n),\le _D)\). Also, since f is Schur positive, each \(d_{\lambda }\ge 0\). Hence the result follows from Proposition 2.5(III). \(\square \)
Let
be the involutive automorphism defined by
where \(\lambda '\) is the shape obtained by transposing the Young diagram of \(\lambda \).
Example 2.11
(\(\omega \) does not preserve SNP) Example 2.6 shows \(f=s_{(8,2,2)}+s_{(6,6)}\in \textsf { Sym}\) is not SNP. Now
To see that \(\omega (f)\) is SNP, it suffices to show that any partition \(\nu \) that is is a linear combination of rearrangements of \(\lambda =(3,3,1,1,1,1,1,1)\) and \(\mu =(2,2,2,2,2,2)\) satisfies \(\nu \le _D \lambda \) or \(\nu \le _D\mu \). We leave the details to the reader. \(\square \)
2.3 Examples and counterexamples
Example 2.12
(Monomial symmetric and forgotten symmetric polynomials) It is immediate from (5) and (6) that
The forgotten symmetric functions are defined by
where \(\varepsilon _{\lambda }=(-1)^{|\lambda |-\ell (\lambda )}\).
Proposition 2.13
\(f_{\lambda }\in \textsf { Sym}\) is SNP if and only if \(\lambda =(1^n)\).
Proof
(\(\Leftarrow \)) If \(\lambda =(1^n)\) then \(m_{\lambda }=s_{(1^n)}\) and \(f_\lambda =s_{(n,0,0,\ldots ,0)}\) which is SNP.
(\(\Rightarrow \)) We use the following formula [42, Exercise 7.9]:
where \(a_{\lambda \mu }\) is the number of distinct rearrangements \((\gamma _1,\ldots ,\gamma _{\ell (\lambda )})\) of \(\lambda =(\lambda _1,\ldots ,\lambda _{\ell (\lambda )})\) such that
Suppose \(\lambda \ne (1^n)\). If \(\mu =(1^n)\) then
On the other hand, \(\ell (\lambda )<n\) and hence the set on the lefthand side of (8) has size strictly smaller than n. Thus \(a_{\lambda ,(1^n)}=0\).
Now, \((1^n)\in {\mathcal {P}}_{\mu }\) for all \(\mu =(\mu _1,\ldots ,\mu _n)\vdash n\). Then since \(f_{\lambda }\) is m-positive, \((1^n)\in \textsf { Newton}(f_{\lambda })\) so long as we are working in at least \(\deg (f_{\lambda })\) many variables. If \(\lambda \ne (1^n)\) then \(a_{\lambda ,(1^n)}=0\) means \((1^n)\) is not an exponent vector of \(f_{\lambda }\). This proves the contrapositive of (\(\Rightarrow \)). \(\square \)
Example 2.14
(Elementary and complete homogeneous symmetric polynomials) The elementary symmetric polynomial is defined by
Also define
The complete homogeneous symmetric polynomial \(h_k(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\) is the sum of all degree k monomials. Also define
Proposition 2.15
Each \(e_{\lambda }\) and \(h_{\lambda }\) is SNP.
Proof
Since \(e_k=s_{(1^k)}\) and \(h_k=s_{(k)}\) the claim holds by Proposition 2.9. \(\square \)
The Minkowski sum of two polytopes \({\mathcal {P}}\) and \({\mathcal {Q}}\) is
It is a basic fact (see, e.g., [45, (1.6)]) that
By the Pieri rule,
In particular \(s_{(k,0,\ldots ,0)}\) appears on the right hand side. Since \(\lambda \le _D (k)\) for all \(\lambda \vdash k\), by Proposition 2.5(I) one recovers that the Minkowski sum of k regular simplices in \({\mathbb {R}}^n\) is \({\mathcal {P}}_{(k,0,\ldots ,0)}\). Similarly, by the argument of Proposition 2.9, \({\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda }=\textsf { Newton}(e_{\lambda '})\) and hence one recovers that \({\mathcal P}_{\lambda }\) is a Minkowski sum of hypersimplices. For earlier work see, e.g., [2, 10, 33].\(\square \)
Example 2.16
(e-Positivity does not imply SNP) \(f\in \textsf { Sym}\) is e -positive if \(f=\sum _{\lambda }a_{\lambda } e_{\lambda }\) where \(a_{\lambda }\ge 0\) for every \(\lambda \). (Since
e-positivity implies Schur positivity.) Look at
In the monomial expansion, \(m_{(8,2,2)}\) and \(m_{(6,6)}\) appear. However, \(m_{(7,4,1)}\) does not appear. This implies f is not SNP.\(\square \)
Example 2.17
(More on power sum symmetric polynomials) Recall the power sum symmetric polynomials defined immediately before Proposition 2.10. Clearly \(p_k\) is not SNP if \(k>1\) and \(n>1\). Also, \(p_{\lambda }\) is not SNP for \(n>1\) whenever \(\lambda _i\ge 2\) for all i. This is since \(x_1^{|\lambda |}\) and \(x_2^{|\lambda |}\) both appear as monomials in \(p_{\lambda }\) but \(x_1^{|\lambda |-1}x_2\) does not. Furthermore:
Proposition 2.18
\(p_\lambda \in \textsf { Sym}_n\) for \(n > \ell (\lambda )\) is SNP if and only if \(\lambda = (1^k)\).
Proof
(\(\Leftarrow \)) If \(\lambda = (1^k)\), \(p_\lambda = e_\lambda \) which is SNP by Proposition 2.15.
(\(\Rightarrow \)) Suppose \(\lambda _1 \ge 2\) and let \(\ell = \ell (\lambda )\). Then since \(n > \ell \), \(x_1^{\lambda _1}x_2^{\lambda _2}\cdots x_\ell ^{\lambda _\ell }\) and \(x_2^{\lambda _2}\cdots x_\ell ^{\lambda _\ell }x_{\ell + 1}^{\lambda _1}\) are monomials in \(p_\lambda \). Thus,
However, this point cannot be an exponent vector since it has \(\ell +1\) nonzero components whereas every monomial of \(p_\lambda \) uses at most \(\ell \) distinct variables. \(\square \)
Example 2.19
(The resultant, the Gale–Ryser theorem and (0, 1)-matrices) Let
be two polynomials of degree m and n respectively and with roots \(\{x_1,\ldots ,x_m\}\) and \(\{y_1,\ldots ,y_n\}\) respectively (not necessarily distinct). The resultant is
This polynomial is separately symmetric in the x and y variables. In [16] the Newton polytope of R(f, g) is determined; see also the book [17]. However, we are not aware of the following result appearing explicitly in the literature:
Theorem 2.20
R(f, g) is SNP.
Proof
Consider
In fact, \([x^{\alpha }y^{\beta }]F\) equals the number of (0, 1)-matrices of dimension \(m\times n\) whose row sums are given by \(\alpha \) and column sums are given by \(\beta \); see, e.g., [42, Proposition 7.4.3]. Let \(\textsf { M}(\alpha ,\beta )\) equal the number of these matrices. The Gale-Ryser theorem states
where \(\lambda (\gamma )\) is the partition obtained by sorting a nonnegative integer sequence in decreasing order. Call a pair of vectors \((\alpha ,\beta )\in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}^{m+n}\) a GR pair if it satisfies either of the equivalent conditions in (9).
In fact F is SNP. Suppose
are GR pairs and
with \(d_i\ge 0\) and \(\sum _{t=1}^N d_i=1\) be a convex combination. The SNPness of F is equivalent to the claim \((\alpha ,\beta )\) is a GR pair whenever \((\alpha ,\beta )\in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}^{m+n}\). The latter claim is immediate from [6, Theorem 3, part 1] which establishes the “approximate log-concavity” of \(\textsf { M}(\alpha ,\beta )\). We thank A. Barvinok for pointing out this reference to us. More exactly, in our notation, the stated result of A. Barvinok asserts there exists an absolute constant \(\gamma >0\) such that
Since by assumption each \(\textsf { M}(\alpha ^{(t)},\beta ^{(t)})>0\), we have \(\textsf { M}(\alpha ,\beta )>0\) as required.
Now notice that
The final equivalence is true since \(a_0,b_0\ne 0\) and the previous equivalence holds since the polynomials in the third and fourth lines clearly share the same monomials. This relation between F and R(f, g) appears in [16] where the authors use it to obtain a formula for the monomials of R(f, g) in terms of counts for (0, 1)-matrices. \(\square \)
Conjecture 5.2 claims a generalization of Theorem 2.20; see Example 5.4.\(\square \)
Example 2.21
(Powers of the Vandermonde) The Vandermonde determinant is
(This polynomial is only skew-symmetric.) It is known that
see e.g., [33, Proposition 2.3].
Proposition 2.22
\(a_{\delta _n}\) is SNP if and only if \(n \le 2\).
The classical discriminant is \(\Delta _n=\alpha _{\delta _n}^2\). Its Newton polytope was also determined by in work of I. M. Gelfand-M. Kapranov-A. V. Zelevinsky [16].
Proposition 2.23
\(\Delta _n\) is SNP if and only if \(n\le 4\).
Proposition 2.23 is a curious coincidence with the Abel–Ruffini theorem.
Our proofs of Propositions 2.22 and 2.23 will use this lemma:
Lemma 2.24
If \(a_{\delta _n}^k\) is not SNP, then \(a_{\delta _{n+1}}^k\) is not SNP.
Proof
Suppose \(a_{\delta _n}^k\) is not SNP. There exists a lattice point \(\alpha \in \textsf { Newton}(a_{\delta _n}^k)\) that is not an exponent vector of \(a_{\delta _n}^k\). Hence we have a convex combination
where \(\beta ^i\) is an exponent vector. For \(\gamma \in {\mathbb R}^n\), let \(\gamma '=(\gamma ,kn)\in {\mathbb {R}}^{n+1}\). Since
each \((\beta ^i)'\) is an exponent vector of \(a_{\delta _{n+1}}^k\) and hence \(\alpha '\) is a lattice point of \(\textsf { Newton}(a_{\delta _{n+1}}^k)\). Since \(x^{\alpha '} = x^\alpha x_{n+1}^{kn}\) and \(x_{n+1}\) does not appear in \(a_{\delta _{n}}^k\), if \(\alpha '\) is an exponent vector of \(a_{\delta _{n+1}}^k\), \(\alpha \) is an exponent vector of \(a_{\delta _n}^k\), a contradiction. Thus \(a_{\delta _{n+1}}^k\) is not SNP. \(\square \)
Proof of Propositions 2.22 and 2.23
Clearly, \(a_{\delta _n}\) is SNP for \(n =1,2\). One checks that \((1,1,1) \in \textsf { Newton}(a_{\delta _3})\) but is not an actual exponent vector. \(\square \)
Separately, one checks \(\Delta _n\) is SNP for \(n\le 4\). Also \(\Delta _5\) is not SNP. In fact, the only lattice points that are not exponent vectors are all 5! rearrangements of (1, 3, 4, 5, 7).
Now apply Lemma 2.24 to complete an induction argument for each of the two propositions being proved.\(\square \)
Conjecture 2.25
For all k, there exists \(N_k\) such that \(a_{\delta _n}^k\) is not SNP for any \(n \ge N_k\).
More precisely, for \(1\le j\le 4\) we computed \(N_{2j-1}=3\) and moreover that \((1,3j-2,3j-2)\) is a lattice point that is not an exponent vector. Moreover, \(N_2=5, N_4=4,N_6=4,N_8=3\). For more on (higher) powers of the Vandermonde, see, e.g., [5, 39].\(\square \)
Example 2.26
(q-Discriminant) The q -discriminant is \(\prod _{1\le i<j\le n}(x_i-qx_j)\). At \(q=-1\),
It is known that
Hence \(f_n\) is SNP and \(\textsf { Newton}(f_n)={\mathcal P}_{\rho _n}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\). \(\square \)
Example 2.27
(Totally nonnegative matrices) Let
be an \(n\times n\) totally nonnegative real matrix. That is, every determinant of a square submatrix is nonnegative. Define
where \(\lambda (w)\) is the cycle type of w.
Theorem 2.28
\(F_M\) is SNP.
Proof
By assumption, \(m_{ij}\ge 0\). A theorem of J. R. Stembridge [44] (cf. [42, Exercise 7.92]) states that \(F_{M}\) is also Schur positive. Now apply Proposition 2.10. \(\square \)
Example 2.29
(Redfield–Pólya theory) Let G be a subgroup of \(S_n\). The cycle index polynomial is
where \(\lambda (g)\) is the cycle type of g.
Theorem 2.30
\(Z_G\) has SNP.\(\square \)
Proof
It is true that
where each \(c_{\lambda }\in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}\); see [42, p. 396]: this positivity is known for representation-theoretic reasons (no combinatorial proof is available). Now use Proposition 2.10. \(\square \)
Example 2.31
(C. Reutenauer’s \(q_{\lambda }\) basis) C. Reutenauer [37] introduced a new basis \(\{q_{\lambda }\}\) of symmetric polynomials, recursively defined by setting
where \(q_{\lambda }=q_{\lambda _1}q_{\lambda _2}\ldots \).
Theorem 2.32
\(q_{\lambda }\) has SNP.
Proof
Reutenauer in loc. cit. conjectured that \(-q_{(n)}\) is Schur positive for \(n\ge 2\). Indeed,
Reutenauer’s conjecture was later established by W. M. Doran IV [11]. The proof sets
The argument inducts on n and proceeds by showing that
His induction claim is that \(-f(n,k)\) is Schur positive for \(k\ge 2\). Let us strengthen his induction hypothesis, and assume \(-f(n,k)\) is Schur positive with \(s_{(n-1,1)}\) as the unique \(\le _D\) maximal term. In the induction step, note each \(s_{\alpha }\) appearing in \(-f(i,i)\) has \(\alpha _1\le i-1\) and each \(s_{\beta }\) in \(-f(n-i,i)\) has \(\beta _1\le n-i-1\). Thus, by the argument of Proposition 2.9, if \(s_{\gamma }\) appears in \(s_{\alpha }s_{\beta }\) then \(\gamma _1\le n-2\), implying the strengthening we need.
It follows from the above argument and the Littlewood–Richardson rule that if \(\lambda =(\lambda _1, \ldots , \lambda _{\ell },1^r)\) where each \(\lambda _{i}\ge 2\) then \(q_{\lambda }\) has a unique \(\le _D\)-leading term \(s_{a,b}\) where \(a = |\lambda |-\ell \) and \(b = \ell \). Thus, \(q_{\lambda }\) has SNP by Proposition 2.5(III). \(\square \)
Example 2.33
(Stanley’s chromatic symmetric polynomial) For a graph G, let \(c_{G}(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\) be Stanley’s chromatic symmetric polynomial [41]. If \(G=K_{1,3}\),
is not SNP. \(\square \)
Example 2.34
(Kronecker product of Schur polynomials) The Kronecker product is
\(\textsf { Kron}_{\lambda ,\mu }^{\nu }\) is the Kronecker coefficient, the multiplicity of the \(S_n\)-character \(\chi ^{\nu }\) appearing in \(\chi ^\lambda \otimes \chi ^\mu \). We conjecture that \(s_{\lambda }*s_{\mu }\) is SNP. We have verified this for all \(\lambda ,\mu \in \textsf { Par}(n)\) for \(1\le n\le 7\). Consider
Notice (3, 3) and (4, 1, 1) are both \(\le _D\)-maximal. Hence in this case, SNPness cannot be blamed on Proposition 2.5(III); cf. [4, Lemma 3.2] and [46].\(\square \)
Example 2.35
(Lascoux–Leclerc–Thibon (LLT) polynomials) A. Lascoux-B. Leclerc-J. Y. Thibon [25] introduced \(G_{\lambda }^{(m)}(X;q)\). \(G_{\lambda }^{(m)}(X;1)\) is a product of Schur polynomials. Hence \(G_{\lambda }^{(m)}(X;1)\) is SNP by Proposition 2.9. \(G_{\lambda }^{(m)}(X;q)\in \textsf { Sym}_n[q]\) is not always SNP. One example is
LLT polynomials arise in the study of Macdonald polynomials, the topic of Sect. 3. (Another related topic is affine Schubert calculus; see the book [23].) \(\square \)
3 Macdonald polynomials
3.1 Symmetric and nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials
In [28], I. G. Macdonald introduced a family of polynomials depending of parameters q and t. Define an inner product \(\langle \bullet ,\bullet \rangle _{q,t}\) on Sym by
where
and
for \(\lambda =(1^{m_1}2^{m_2}\cdots )\). Macdonald polynomials \(\{P_{\mu }(X;q,t)\}\) are uniquely determined by
where \(\textsf { c}_{\lambda ,\mu }(q,t)\in {\mathbb {Q}}(q,t)\), together with
Theorem 3.1
\(P_{\lambda }(X;q=q_0,t=t_0)\) is SNP, and \(\textsf { Newton}(P_{\lambda }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n;q=q_0,t=t_0))={\mathcal P}_{\lambda }\subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\) whenever \(n\ge \ell (\lambda )\), for any \((q_0,t_0)\) in a Zariski open subset of \({\mathbb {C}}^2\).
Lemma 3.2
\(\textsf { Newton}(P_{\lambda }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n;q=q_0,t=t_0))={\mathcal P}_{\lambda }\subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\) whenever \(n\ge \ell (\lambda )\), for any \((q_0,t_0)\in {\mathbb {C}}^2\).
Proof
This is by (10) and Proposition 2.5(I). Since \(n\ge \ell (\lambda )\), \(s_{\lambda }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n) \not \equiv 0\). \(\square \)
Lemma 3.3
Fix \(q_0,t_0\in {\mathbb {C}}\). \(P_{\lambda }(X;q=q_0,t=t_0)\) is SNP if and only if \(\textsf { c}_{\lambda ,\mu }(q_0,t_0)\ne 0\) for all \(\mu <_D\lambda \).
Proof
(\(\Rightarrow \)) By Lemma 3.2, \(\textsf { Newton}(P_{\lambda }(X;q=q_0,t=t_0))={\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda }\). Thus each \(\mu <_D\lambda \) appears as a lattice point of \(\textsf { Newton}(P_{\lambda }(X;q=q_0,t=t_0))\). Since we assume \(P_{\lambda }(X;q=q_0,t=t_0)\) is SNP, \([x^{\mu }]P_{\lambda }(X;q=q_0,t=t_0)\ne 0\). Among monomial symmetric functions, \(x^\mu \) only appears in \(m_{\mu }\). Hence \(\textsf { c}_{\lambda ,\mu }(q_0,t_0)\ne 0\), as desired.
The proof of \((\Leftarrow )\) just reverses the above argument, using the fact that
for any rearrangement \(\alpha \) of \(\mu \in {\mathbb {R}}^n\). \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 3.1
The Newton polytope assertion is by Lemma 3.2. Now
and \(m_{\mu }\) appears in \(s_{\lambda }\) for every \(\mu <_D\lambda \). Hence \(\textsf { c}_{\lambda ,\mu }(q,t)\not \equiv 0\). Now choose q, t that is neither a pole nor a root of any of these rational functions (for \(\mu <_D\lambda \)). Therefore the SNP assertion follows from Lemma 3.3.\(\square \)
The Hall–Littlewood polynomial is \(P_{\lambda }(X;t):=P_{\lambda }(X,q=0,t)\). One has
where \(\textsf { K}_{\lambda ,\mu }(t)\) is the Kostka–Foulkes polynomial. It is known that
The sum is over all semistandard tableau T of shape \(\lambda \) and content \(\mu \). It is true that \(\mathrm{charge}(T)\in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}\). Since these tableaux can only occur if \(\mu \le _D \lambda \), \(\textsf { K}_{\lambda ,\mu }(t)\not \equiv 0\) if and only if \(\mu \le _D\lambda \). Hence we immediately obtain:
Proposition 3.4
If \(t_0>0\) then \(P_{\lambda }(X;t=t_0)\in \textsf { Sym}\) is SNP and \(\textsf { Newton}(P_{\lambda }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n;t=t_0)={\mathcal P}_{\lambda }\subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\) whenever \(n\ge \ell (\lambda )\).
The Schur \(P-\) polynomial is
The sum is over shifted semistandard Young tableaux of a partition \(\lambda \) with distinct parts. There is also the Schur \(Q-\) polynomial,
Proposition 3.5
\(SP_{\lambda }(X)\) and \(SQ_{\lambda }(S)\) are SNP and
Proof
In fact,
see [43]. Also \(K_{\lambda ,\lambda }(t)=1\). Now, \(SP_{\lambda }\) is Schur-positive; see, e.g., [43, p. 131–132]. Thus the result follows from Proposition 2.5(III). \(\square \)
The modified Macdonald polynomial \({\widetilde{H}}_{\lambda }(X;q,t)\) is a certain transformation of \(P_{\lambda }(X;q,t)\) also introduced in [28].
Proposition 3.6
For any \(q_0,t_0> 0\), \({\widetilde{H}}_{\lambda }(X;q=q_0,t=t_0)\) is SNP and \(\textsf { Newton}({\widetilde{H}}_{\lambda }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n;q=q_0,t=t_0))={\mathcal P}_{|\lambda |}\subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\) whenever \(n\ge |\lambda |\).
Proof
A formula of J. Hagland-M. Haiman-N. Loehr [18] states that
where \(\sigma \) is any assignment of positive integers to the boxes of \(\lambda \). Also, \(\mathrm{inv}(\sigma )\) and \(\mathrm{maj}(\sigma )\) are certain combinatorially defined statistics, whose specifics we do not need here. Thus, for \(q,t>0\), every monomial of degree \(|\lambda |\) appears. \(\square \)
In contrast, \({\widetilde{H}}_{(3,1,1)}(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5;q,t)\) is not SNP as it misses the monomial \(qtx_3x_4^4\). This example does not contradict Proposition 3.6 (which sets q and t to positive reals).
Example 3.7
(Modified q, t-Kostka polynomials are not SNP) Consider the expansion
The coefficients \({\widetilde{\textsf { K}}}_{\lambda ,\mu }(q,t)\) are the (modified) q , t -Kostka coefficients. Now,
Hence, \({\widetilde{\textsf { K}}}_{\lambda ,\mu }(q,t)\) need not be SNP.\(\square \)
Let \(\alpha \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}^n\). There is the nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomial \(E_{\alpha }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n;q,t)\); see [19] for details.
It is part of a definition that
where \(\textsf {d}_{\alpha ,\beta }(q,t)\in {\mathbb {Q}}(q,t)\). S. Sahi [38] proved each \(\textsf {d}_{\alpha ,\beta }(q,t)\not \equiv 0\). Here \(<_{S}\) is the ordering whose covering relations are that if \(\alpha _i<\alpha _j\) then \(t_{ij}(\alpha )<_S \alpha \) (where \(t_{ij}(\alpha )\) swaps positions i and j of \(\alpha \)). If also \(\alpha _j-\alpha _i>1\) then \(\alpha +e_i-e_j<_S t_{ij}(\alpha )\); see [19, Section 2.1]. Let \({\widehat{\mathcal P}_{\alpha }}\) be the convex hull of all \(\beta \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}^n\) such that \(\beta \le _S \alpha \). Thus \({\widehat{\mathcal P}_{\alpha }}\) is the Newton polytope of \(E_{\alpha }(X;q=q_0,t=t_0)\) for any generic choice of \((q_0,t_0)\in {\mathbb {C}}^2\). The conjecture below says \(E_{\alpha }(X;q,t)\) is “generically SNP”:
Conjecture 3.8
If \(\beta \in {\widehat{\mathcal {P}}_{\alpha }}\) and \(\beta \in {\mathbb Z}_{\ge 0}^n\) then \(\beta \le _S \alpha \).
Conjecture 3.8 has been checked for \(n\le 7\) and whenever \(|\alpha |\le 7\).
3.2 Keys and Demazure atoms
Complementing the above analysis, we now investigate SNP for two specializations of \(E_{\alpha }(X;q,t)\). The first is \(\kappa _{\alpha }=E_{\alpha }(X;q=\infty ,t=\infty )\) [21, Theorem 3]. The Demazure operator is
Let \(\alpha =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\ldots )\in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}^\infty \) and suppose that \(|\alpha |=\sum _i \alpha _i<\infty \). Define the key polynomial \(\kappa _{\alpha }\) to be
Otherwise, set
The key polynomials form a \({\mathbb {Z}}\)-basis of \({\mathbb Z}[x_1,x_2,\ldots ]\); see work of V. Reiner–M. Shimozono [36] (and references therein) for more on \(\kappa _{\alpha }\).
Define \(\textsf {D}_{\alpha }\) to be the “skyline” diagram with a left-justified row of \(\alpha _i\) boxes in row i.
Conjecture 3.9
\({\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_{\alpha }}=\textsf { Newton}(\kappa _{\alpha })\).
We have a proof (omitted here) of the “\(\supseteq \)” part of Conjecture 3.9. See Remark 5.22.
Conjecture 3.10
\(\kappa _{\alpha }\) has SNP.
We have a second conjectural description of \(\textsf { Newton}(\kappa _{\alpha })\). Let
Then for any composition \(\alpha \), let \(\beta <_{\kappa } \alpha \) if \(\beta \) can be generated from \(\alpha \) by applying a sequence of the moves \(t_{ij}\) for \(\alpha _i < \alpha _j\), and \(m_{ij}\) if \(\alpha _j - \alpha _i > 1\).
Conjecture 3.11
\(\kappa _\alpha = x^\alpha + \sum _{\beta <_{\kappa } \alpha } \textsf { Key}_{\alpha ,\beta } x^\beta \) with \(\textsf { Key}_{\alpha ,\beta } > 0\) for all \(\beta <_{\kappa } \alpha \).
(Observe that \(\beta <_{\kappa } \alpha \), then \(\beta <_S \alpha \). However, the converse fails as \(11 <_S 20\) but one does not have \(11 <_{\kappa } 20\).)
For two compositions \(\gamma \) and \(\alpha \) we write
Here \(\lambda (\gamma )\) is the partition obtained by resorting the parts of \(\gamma \). Also \(w(\gamma )\) is the shortest length permutation that sends \(\lambda (\gamma )\) to \(\gamma \). (Strong) Bruhat order refers to the ordering on permutations obtained as the closure of the relation \(w\le wt_{ij}\) if \(\ell (wt_{ij})=\ell (w)+1\) and \(t_{ij}\) is a transposition.
Theorem 3.12
If \(\beta \preceq \alpha \) then \(\beta \) is a vertex of \(\textsf { Newton}(\kappa _{\alpha })\).
Conjecture 3.13
The converse of Theorem 3.12 holds.
Our proof of Theorem 3.12 uses the other specialization of interest, namely \(E_{\alpha }(X;q=0,t=0)\). Let
and define the Demazure atom \(A_{\alpha }=x^{\alpha }\) if \(\alpha \) is weakly decreasing. Otherwise \(A_{\alpha }=\widehat{\pi _i}(A_{\widehat{\alpha }})\) where \(\widehat{\alpha }\) is defined as in (11). By the way,
Conjecture 3.14
\(A_{\alpha }\) has SNP.
That \(E_{\alpha }(X;q=0,t=0)=A_{\alpha }\) is [30, Theorem 1.1].
The five conjectures above, namely Conjectures 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.13 and 3.14 have been checked for \(|\alpha |\le 7\) where \(\alpha \) has at most three parts of size zero.
We will also use
One reference for (12) is [30, Section 1]; a proof is found in [34, Lemma 3.5].
Proposition 3.15
Suppose \(\beta \preceq \alpha \). Let \(\lambda =\lambda (\beta )=\lambda (\alpha )\). Then
where n is the position of the last nonzero part of \(\alpha \).
Proof
Using (12) twice, we have
Since each \(A_{\gamma }\) is monomial positive [30, Theorem 1.1],
Now, \(\lambda \) is \(\preceq \)-minimum among rearrangements of \(\lambda \). By definition \(\kappa _{\lambda }=x^{\lambda }\). This explains the leftmost containment.
Let \(\lambda ^\mathrm{rev}=(0,0,\ldots ,0,\ldots ,\lambda _3,\lambda _2,\lambda _1)\in {\mathbb Z}^n\). Then \(\lambda ^\mathrm{rev}\) is the \(\preceq \)-maximum among rearrangements of \(\lambda \) in \({\mathbb {Z}}^n\). Also, we have \(\kappa _{\lambda ^\mathrm{rev}} = s_\lambda \) (see, e.g., [30, Section 4] and references therein). However we know \(\textsf { Newton}(s_{\lambda })={\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda }\). \(\square \)
Lemma 3.16
Suppose \({\mathcal {P}}\) and \({\mathcal {Q}}\) are polytopes such that \({\mathcal {P}}\subseteq {\mathcal {Q}}\). If v is a vertex of \({\mathcal {Q}}\) and \(v\in {\mathcal {P}}\), then v is a vertex of \({\mathcal {P}}\).
Proof
v is a vertex of \({\mathcal {Q}}\) if and only if there is a separating hyperplane H, i.e., there exists a vector c such that \(\mathbf{c}'v<\mathbf{c}'y\) for all \(y\in {\mathcal {Q}}\). Since \({\mathcal P}\subseteq {\mathcal {Q}}\), H works for \({\mathcal {P}}\) also. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 3.12
Now,
see, e.g., [36, Corollary 7]. Hence, \(\alpha \) is in \(\textsf { Newton}(\kappa _{\alpha })\). By Proposition 3.15,
Again applying Proposition 3.15 we have that \(\textsf { Newton}(\kappa _{\alpha })\subseteq {\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda (\alpha )}\). Now we are done by combining Proposition 2.5(II) and Lemma 3.16. \(\square \)
4 Quasisymmetric functions
A power series \(f\in {\mathbb {Z}}[[x_1,x_2,\ldots ]]\) is quasisymmetric if
for any natural numbers \(i_1<i_2<\ldots <i_k\). As with \(\textsf { Sym}\), define a quasisymmetric function f to be SNP if \(f(x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_m,0,0,\ldots )\) is SNP for all \(m\ge 1\). In view of Remark 2.3, f is SNP if \(f(x_1,x_2,\ldots ,x_m,0,0,\ldots )\) is SNP for any \(m\ge \deg (f)\).
Let \(\alpha =(\alpha _1,\ldots ,\alpha _k)\in {\mathbb {Z}}_{>0}^k\). The monomial quasisymmetric function is defined as
Let \(\textsf { QSym}\) be the \({\mathbb {Q}}\)-span of all \(M_{\alpha }\).
Example 4.1
(\(M_{\alpha }\) need not be SNP) \(M_{(2)}=p_2=x_1^2+x_2^2+\cdots \) does not have SNP. \(\square \)
Another basis of \(\textsf { QSym}\) is given by Gessel’s fundamental quasisymmetric functions
Here, \(\beta \rightarrow \alpha \) means that \(\alpha \) is obtained by successively adding adjacent parts of \(\beta \).
For a composition \(\gamma \), let \(\gamma ^+\) be the composition formed by removing parts of size zero from \(\gamma \).
Theorem 4.2
\(\textsf { Newton}(F_{\alpha }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)) = \textsf { Newton}(M_{\alpha }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n))\subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\). The vertices of this polytope are \(\{ \gamma \in \mathbb {Z}_{\ge 0}^n : \gamma ^+ = \alpha \}\).
Proof
Each \(M_{\beta }\) is a positive sum of monomials. Also, \(\alpha \rightarrow \alpha \) so \(M_{\alpha }\) appears in the expansion (13). Therefore,
Suppose \({\beta }=(\beta _1,\beta _2,\ldots , \beta _k)\in {\mathbb Z}_{>0}^k\) and \(\widehat{\beta }\rightarrow \beta \) where
and \(\beta _i=\beta _i'+\beta _{i}''\).
We wish to show
By induction, this implies the remaining containment
Suppose
Thus,
where we are depicting the additional 0’s inserted between components of \({{\widehat{\beta }}}\) to obtain \({\widetilde{\beta }}\). In particular, \(x^{{\widetilde{\beta }}}\) appears in \(M_{{\widehat{\beta }}}\).
Now let
and
That is, \(\beta ^{\circ }\) differs from \({\widetilde{\beta }}\) only by replacing \(\beta _i'\) and \(\beta _i''\) by \(\beta _i\) and 0, respectively. Similarly, \(\beta ^{\bullet }\) differs from \({\widetilde{\beta }}\) only by replacing \(\beta _i'\) and \(\beta _i''\) by 0 and \(\beta _i\), respectively.
Since \(\beta _i',\beta _{i}''\ge 0\), we have that
is a convex combination. This proves (14) and hence the asserted equality of Newton polytopes.
Every monomial of \(M_{\alpha }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\) is a monomial of \(m_{\alpha }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\). Therefore,
Recall,
One knows the vertices of \({\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda (\alpha )}\) are all rearrangements of \(\alpha \) (thought of as a vector in \({\mathbb Z}^n_{\ge 0}\), where we concatenate 0’s as necessary); cf. Proposition 2.5(II). Thus, every exponent vector of \(m_{\alpha }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\) is also a vertex of \({\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda (\alpha )}\). Hence to obtain the final claim of the theorem we may appeal to Lemma 3.16. \(\square \)
Example 4.3
(\(F_{\alpha }\) need not be SNP) One can also check that
Thus, \((0,1,2,1) = \frac{1}{2}(0,2,2,0) + \frac{1}{2}(0,0,2,2) \in \textsf { Newton}(F_{(2,2)})\). However, (0, 1, 2, 1) is not an exponent vector of \(F_{(2,2)}\). Hence \(F_{(2,2)}\) is not SNP. \(\square \)
J. Hagland-K. Luoto-S. Mason-S. van Willigenburg [20] introduced the quasisymmetric Schur polynomial:
where the sum is over all compositions \(\gamma \) such that \(\gamma ^+=\alpha \) and where \(\gamma ^+\) is the composition \(\gamma \) with any 0 parts removed. \(\textsf { QSym}\) is also spanned by \(\{S_{\alpha }\}\). Also, recall \(A_{\gamma }\) is the Demazure atom defined in Sect. 3.2.
Many aspects of quasi-Schur theory are parallel to Schur theory [20]. For instance, consider the transition between the S and M bases of \(\textsf { QSym}\):
It is proved in loc. cit. that \({\overline{\textsf {K}}}_{\alpha ,\beta }\) counts composition tableaux. Hence \({\overline{\textsf {K}}}_{\alpha ,\beta }\) is an analogue of the Kostka coefficient. However, there are divergences from the perspective of Newton polytopes as seen in the next three examples:
Example 4.4
(\(S_{\alpha }\) need not be SNP) An example is \(S_{(2,1,3)}\). In at least four variables, \(x_1x_2^2x_3^2x_4\) does not appear but \(x_1^2x_2^2x_3^2\) and \(x_2^2x_3^2x_4^2\) both do. Nonetheless, it should be interesting to describe the Newton polytope, and to characterize when \(S_{\alpha }\) is SNP.\(\square \)
Example 4.5
In the symmetric function case,
However,
Hence \(\textsf { Newton}(S_{\alpha }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)) \ne \textsf { Newton}(M_{\alpha }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n))\) in general. \(\square \)
Example 4.6
We may define a dominance order \(\preceq _D'\) on strict compositions by \(\alpha \preceq _D' \beta \) if \(\textsf { Newton}(M_{\alpha })\subseteq \textsf { Newton}(M_{\beta })\). The above example shows that \({\overline{\textsf {K}}}_{\alpha ,\beta }>0\) if and only if \(\beta \preceq _D' \alpha \) is not generally true. This is in contrast with (6).\(\square \)
5 Schubert polynomials and variations
5.1 The Schubert SNP conjectures
A. Lascoux–M.-P. Schützenberger [26] introduced Schubert polynomials. If \(w_0=n \ n-1 \ \cdots 2 \ 1 \) (in one-line notation) is the longest length permutation in \(S_n\) then
Otherwise, \(w\ne w_0\) and there exists i such that \(w(i)<w(i+1)\). Then one sets
and \(s_i\) is the simple transposition swapping i and \(i+1\). Since \(\partial _i\) satisfies
the above description of \({\mathfrak {S}}_w\) is well-defined. In addition, under the inclusion \(\iota : S_n\hookrightarrow S_{n+1}\) defined by \(w(1)\cdots w(n) \mapsto w(1) \ \cdots w(n) \ n+1\), we have \({\mathfrak {S}}_w={\mathfrak {S}}_{\iota (w)}\). Thus one unambiguously refers to \({\mathfrak {S}}_w\) for each \(w\in S_{\infty }=\bigcup _{n\ge 1} S_n\).
Conjecture 5.1
\({\mathfrak {S}}_w\) has SNP.
We have checked Conjecture 5.1 for all \(w\in S_n\) where \(n\le 8\).
Let \(X=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots \}\) and \(Y=\{y_1,y_2,\ldots \}\). The double Schubert polynomial \({\mathfrak {S}}_{w}(X;Y)\) is defined by setting
and recursively determining \({\mathfrak {S}}_w(X;Y)\) for \(w\ne w_0\) precisely as for \({\mathfrak {S}}_w(X)\).
We have also checked for \(n\le 5\) (and many other cases) that:
Conjecture 5.2
\({\mathfrak {S}}_{w}(X;Y)\) is SNP.
Since \({\mathfrak {S}}_{w}(X;0)={\mathfrak {S}}_{w}(X)\), Conjecture 5.2 implies Conjecture 5.1.
Example 5.3
(\(\partial _i\) and \(\pi _i\) does not preserve SNP) This polynomial is SNP:
However
is not SNP.
Since \(\pi _i(g)=\partial _i(x_i\cdot g)\), if we set
we have \(\pi _1(g)=\partial _1(f)\). Hence, \(\pi _i\) does not preserve SNP. \(\square \)
Example 5.4
(Double Schubert polynomials are generalized resultants) Pick w to be the “dominant” permutation \(n+1 \ n+2 \ \cdots n+m \ 1 \ 2 \ \cdots \ n \in S_{n+m}\). Then
(One reference is [29, Proposition 2.6.7].) This has the same Newton polytope as R(f, g). Thus Conjecture 5.2 is proposes a generalization of Theorem 2.20.\(\square \)
A. Lascoux–M.-P. Schützenberger also introduced the family of Grothendieck polynomials [27]. These polynomials are defined using
For \(w_0\in S_n\) declare
If \(w\in S_n\) and \(w\ne w_0\), let
if i is an ascent of w. This is an inhomogenous analogue of the Schubert polynomial since
Like the Schubert polynomials, \({\mathfrak {G}}_w={\mathfrak {G}}_{\iota (w)}\), where \(\iota :S_n\hookrightarrow S_{n+1}\) is the natural inclusion. Hence it make sense to define \({\mathfrak {G}}_w\) for \(w\in S_{\infty }\).
Conjecture 5.5
\({\mathfrak {G}}_w\) has SNP.
Conjecture 5.5 has been exhaustively checked for \(n\le 7\). Conjecture 5.5 generalizes Conjecture 5.1 since
Grothendieck polynomials arise in combinatorial K-theory. Another family of polynomials from this topic was introduced by A. Lascoux in [24]. He defines \(\Omega _{\alpha }\) for \(\alpha =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\ldots ) \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}^{\infty }\) by replacing \(\pi _i\) in the definition of \(\kappa _{\alpha }\) with
The initial condition is \(\Omega _{\alpha }=x^{\alpha }(=\kappa _{\alpha }), \text { if }\alpha \text { is weakly decreasing}\). \(\Omega _{\alpha }\) is an inhomogeneous analogue of \(\kappa _{\alpha }\).
Conjecture 5.6
\({\Omega }_\alpha \) has SNP.
The Lascoux atom \({\mathcal {L}}_\alpha \) is defined [32] by replacing \(\pi _i\) in the definition of \(\kappa _\alpha \) with
Conjecture 5.7
\({\mathcal {L}}_\alpha \) has SNP.
\({\mathcal {L}}_{\alpha }\) is an inhomogeneous analogue of \(A_{\alpha }\).
Conjectures 5.6 and 5.7 have been verified for \(|\alpha |\le 7\) where \(\alpha \) has at most three parts of size zero.
5.2 Stanley polynomials and the stable limit of Conjecture 5.1
For \(w\in S_{n}\), let \(1^t\times w\in S_{t+n}\) be the permutation defined by \(1^t\times w(i)=i\) for \(1\le i\le t\) and \(1^t\times w(i)=n+i\) for \(t+1\le i\le t+n\). The Stanley symmetric polynomial (also known as the stable Schubert polynomial) is defined by
This power series is well-defined.
\(F_w\) was originally introduced by R. P. Stanley in [40]. Every \(w\in S_n\) can be expressed as a product of simple transpositions
When \(\ell =\ell (w)\) is the number of inversions of w, this factorization is reduced. Then \(s_{i_1}\cdots s_{i_{\ell }}\), or equivalently \((i_1,\ldots ,i_{\ell })\), is a reduced word for w. Let \(\#\mathrm{Red}(w)\) be the number of reduced words of w. In loc. cit. it is shown that
The next result is a “stable limit” version of Conjecture 5.13.
Theorem 5.8
\(F_{w}\in \textsf { Sym}\) is SNP.
Our proof rests on:
Theorem 5.9
(Theorems 3.2, 4.1, [40]) For
\(\textsf { a}_{w,\lambda } \ge 0\) and there exists \(\lambda (w)\) and \(\mu (w)\) such that \(a_{w,\lambda (w)}=a_{w,\mu (w)}=1\) and if \(\textsf { a}_{w,\lambda } \ne 0\), then \(\lambda (w) \le _D \lambda \le _D \mu (w)\).
Proof of Theorem 5.8
Combine Theorem 5.9 and Proposition 2.5(III).\(\square \)
Corollary 5.10
Any skew-Schur polynomial \(s_{\lambda /\mu }(X)\) has SNP.
Proof
To every skew shape \(\lambda /\mu \) there is a 321-avoiding permutation \(w_{\lambda /\mu }\) with the property that \(F_{w_{\lambda /\mu }}(X)=s_{\lambda /\mu }\) [8]. Now apply Theorem 5.8. \(\square \)
Let
Declare
Given a partition \(\lambda =(\lambda _1\ge \lambda _2\ge \cdots \ge \lambda _k>0)\), define \(w_{\lambda ,k}\in S_{\lambda _1+k}\) to be the unique permutation that satisfies
and is Grassmannian, i.e., it has at most one descent, at position k. Then one has
We now show that \((S_{\infty },\preceq _D)\) extends \((\textsf { Par}(n),\le _D)\):
Proposition 5.11
Suppose \(\lambda ,\mu \in \textsf { Par}(n)\) and let \(k=\max \{\ell (\lambda ),\ell (\mu )\}\). Then \(\lambda \le _D\mu \) if and only if \(w_{\lambda ,k}\preceq _D w_{\mu ,k}\).
Proof
Since \({\mathfrak {S}}_{w_{\lambda ,k}}(x_1,\ldots ,x_k)=s_{\lambda }(x_1,\ldots ,x_k)\) and \({\mathfrak {S}}_{w_{\mu ,k}}(x_1,\ldots ,x_k)=s_{\mu }(x_1,\ldots ,x_k)\),
The same statement holds where we replace \(\lambda \) by \(\mu \). Now apply Rado’s theorem (6). \(\square \)
Figure 2 shows part of \((S_{\infty ,2},\preceq _D)\). From this one can see that the poset is not graded, just like dominance order \(\le _D\) on partitions. Unlike \(\le _D\), it is not a lattice: in Fig. 2, the elements 231456 and 312456 do not have a unique least upper bound as 142356 and 214356 are incomparable minimal upper bounds.
Theorem 5.12
Every two elements \(u,v\in S_{\infty ,\ell }\) have an upper bound under \(\preceq _D\).
Proof
Suppose \(\{\alpha _i\}\) and \(\{\beta _j\}\) are the exponent vectors of \({\mathfrak {S}}_u\) and \({\mathfrak {S}}_v\), respectively. It suffices to show there exists \(w\in S_{\infty ,\ell }\) such that
We first show that there is a \(F_w\) such that each \(s_{\lambda (\alpha _i)}\) and \(s_{\lambda (\beta _j)}\) appear (possibly with multiplicity). A theorem of S. Fomin-C. Greene [15] states that
where \(\textsf { a}_{w,\nu }\) is the number of semistandard tableaux of shape \(\nu \) such that the top-down, right-to-left reading word is a reduced word for w. Let
Clearly this is a reduced word. All reduced words of w are obtained by permuting the simple transpositions.
Filling any shape of size \(\ell \) by successively placing \(1,3,5,\ldots ,2\ell -1\) along rows in left to right order gives a semistandard tableaux. Thus every \(s_{\mu }\) where \(\mu \vdash \ell \) appears in \(F_w\). In particular each \(s_{\lambda (\alpha _i)}\) and each \(s_{\lambda (\beta _j)}\) appears. Since \(x^{\lambda (\alpha _i)}\) appears in \(s_{\lambda (\alpha _i)}\), by symmetry of \(s_{\lambda (\alpha _i)}\), \(x^{\alpha _i}\) appears as well. That is, \(x^{\alpha _i}\) appears in \(F_w\). Similarly \(x^{\beta _j}\) appears in \(F_w\).
By definition, for any monomial \(x^\gamma \) appearing in \(F_w\), there is a finite \(N_\gamma \) such that \(x^\gamma \) appears in \({\mathfrak {S}}_{1^{N_\gamma }\times w}\). It suffices to pick N larger than all \(N_{\alpha _i}\) and \(N_{\beta _j}\). \(\square \)
5.3 Conjectural inequalities for the \(\textsf { Newton}({\mathfrak {S}}_w)\)
Let
be the Rothe diagram of a permutation \(w\in S_n\).
Conjecture 5.13
\({\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_{w}}=\textsf { Newton}({\mathfrak {S}}_w)\).
This has been checked for all \(w \in S_8\), as well as many larger instances. Notice that Conjecture 5.13 is equivalent to the assertion that \(w\preceq _D v\) if and only if \(\theta _{\textsf {D}_w}(S)\le \theta _{\textsf {D}_v}(S)\) for all \(S\subseteq [n]\).
Example 5.14
Suppose \(w=21543\), the Rothe diagram \(\textsf {D}_w\) is given by
One can check that the defining inequalities are
together with \(\alpha _i \ge 0\) for each i. The polytope is depicted in Sect. 1.\(\square \)
One can uniquely reconstruct \(u\in S_{\infty }\) with the defining inequalities.
Proposition 5.15
If \(u,v\in S_{n}\) are of the same length \(\ell =\ell (u)=\ell (v)\) and \(\theta _{\textsf {D}_{u}}(S)=\theta _{\textsf {D}_v}(S)\) for all \(S=\{i,i+1,\ldots ,n\}\) where \(1\le i\le n\), then \(u=v\).
Proof
Let
Thus \((c_1(\pi ),c_2(\pi ),\ldots )\) is the Lehmer code of \(\pi \). The Lehmer code uniquely determines \(\pi \in S_{\infty }\); see, e.g., [29, Proposition 2.1.2]. Hence it suffices to show the codes of u and v are the same. This follows from:
for \(i=1,2,\ldots n-1\). It remains to show (15). Now, \(\sum _{j=1}^i c_j(u)\) is by definition the number of boxes in the first i rows of \(\textsf {D}_u\). Since \(\ell =\ell (u)=\#\textsf {D}_{u}\), \(\sum _{j=1}^i c_j(u)=\ell -\xi _u(i)\) where \(\xi _u(i)\) is the number of boxes of \(\textsf {D}_u\) in rows \(i+1,i+2,\ldots n\). By definition, \(\theta ^c_{\textsf {D}_u}(\{i+1,i+2,\ldots ,n\})\) is the number of boxes of \(\textsf {D}_u\) in column c and rows \(i+1,i+2,\ldots ,n\) (the point being that no paired \((\ )\)’s can occur in \(\mathtt{word}_{c,\{i+1,i+2,\ldots ,n\}}(\textsf {D}_u)\) and each \(\star \) precisely corresponds to one of the said boxes). Hence \(\theta _{\textsf {D}_u}(\{i+1,i+2,\ldots ,n\})=\xi _u(i)\), proving the first equality of (15); the third equality is similar. The middle equality is by hypothesis. Thus (15) holds and we are done. \(\square \)
The inequalities of \({\mathcal {S}}_\textsf {D}\) are in general redundant. If
then the inequality
is unnecessary. Similarly, if
then the S-inequality is implied by the \(T_i\) inequalities.
Problem 5.16
Give the minimal set of inequalities associated to \(\textsf {D}_w\) (or more generally, any \(\textsf {D}\)).
Example 5.17
Continuing Example 5.14, minimal inequalities are
combined with positivity. This minimization is obtained using reductions (16) and (17).
Example 5.18
If \(w=23154\) then using the reductions (16) and (17) leaves:
However, \(\alpha _3+\alpha _4\le 1\) is actually not necessary.\(\square \)
Given a polytope P, recall its Ehrhart polynomial, denoted \(L_P(t)\), is the polynomial such that for \(t \in \mathbb {Z}_{\ge 1}\), \(L_P(t)\) equals the number of lattice points in the polytope tP. Ehrhart [12] showed that for a polytope of dimension d in \(\mathbb {R}^n\), \(L_P(t)\) is in fact a polynomial of degree d. For more see, e.g., [7].
Conjecture 5.19
If \(L_{{\mathcal {N}}({\mathcal {S}}_\textsf {D})}(t) = c_dt^d + \cdots + c_0\), then \(c_i > 0\) for \(i = 0,\ldots ,d.\)
Conjecture 5.19 also seems true for \({\mathcal {S}}_\textsf {D}\) where \(\textsf {D}\) is arbitrary. We have exhaustively checked this for \(n=4\) and many random cases for \(n=5\).
Below we give some data about the positive dimensional Schubitopes \({\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_w}\) for \(w\in S_4\):
w | \({\mathfrak {S}}_w\) | \(\dim {\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_w}\) | vertices of \({\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_w}\) | \(L_{{\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_w}}(t)\) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1243 | \(x_1 + x_2 + x_3\) | 2 | (1, 0, 0), (0, 1, 0), (0, 0, 1) | \( \frac{1}{2} t^2 + \frac{3}{2}t + 1\) |
1324 | \(x_1 + x_2\) | 1 | (1, 0), (0, 1) | \(t+1\) |
1342 | \(x_1x_2 + x_1x_3 + x_2x_3\) | 2 | (1, 1, 0), (1, 0, 1), (0, 1, 1) | \( \frac{1}{2} t^2 + \frac{3}{2}t + 1\) |
1423 | \(x_1^2 + x_1x_2 + x_2^2\) | 1 | (2, 0), (0, 2) | \(2t+1\) |
1432 | \(x_1^2x_2 + x_1x_2^2 + x_1^2x_3 + x_1x_2x_3 + x_2^2x_3\) | 2 | (2, 0, 1), (1, 2, 0), (2, 1, 0), (0, 2, 1) | \( \frac{3}{2} t^2 + \frac{5}{2}t + 1\) |
2143 | \(x_1^2 + x_1x_2 + x_1x_3\) | 2 | (2, 0, 0), (1, 1, 0), (1, 0, 1) | \( \frac{1}{2} t^2 + \frac{3}{2}t + 1\) |
2413 | \(x_1^2x_2 + x_1x_2^2\) | 1 | (2, 1), (1, 2) | \(t+1\) |
2431 | \(x_1^2x_2x_3 + x_1x_2^2x_3\) | 1 | (2, 1, 1), (1, 2, 1) | \(t+1\) |
3142 | \(x_1^2x_2 + x_1^2x_3\) | 1 | (2, 1, 0), (2, 0, 1) | \(t+1\) |
4132 | \(x_1^3x_2 + x_1^3x_3\) | 1 | (3, 1, 0), (3, 0, 1) | \(t+1\) |
5.4 Relationship of the Schubitope to Kohnert’s rule
A. Kohnert [22] conjectured a combinatorial rule for \({\mathfrak {S}}_w(X)\). Starting from \(\textsf {D}_{w}\) one moves the rightmost box in any row up to the southmost unoccupied square of \(n\times n\). Repeating this gives a finite set of diagrams \(\textsf { Koh}(w)=\{D\}\). Define
Let
The conjecture is that \({\mathfrak {S}}_w={\mathfrak {K}}_w\). For a proof see work of Winkel [47] and of Assaf [3]. With this in hand, one obtains part of Conjecture 5.1, i.e.,
Proposition 5.20
\({\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_w}\supseteq \textsf { Newton}({\mathfrak {K}}_w)\).
Proof
Consider a diagram \(D\in \textsf { Koh}(w)\) such that \(\mathtt{Kohwt}(D)=\alpha \). Each Kohnert move preserves the number of boxes. Hence \(\sum _{i=1}^n \alpha _i=\#\textsf {D}_{w}\) holds.
Now fix a column c and \(S\subseteq [n]\). Compare the positions of the boxes of D to the boxes of \(\textsf {D}_{w}\). Let
Let
Also, let \(U_{\textsf {D}_w,S,c}\) be the maximum size of any \(\textsf { X}_{\textsf {D}_w,S,c}\subseteq \textsf { V}_{\textsf {D}_w,S,c}\) such that if \((x,x'), (y, y')\in \textsf { X}_{\textsf {D}_w,S,c}\) then \(x\ne y\) and \(x'\ne y'\). Now, since Kohnert moves only bring boxes in from lower rows into higher rows (i.e., boxes migrate from the south),
Now it is easy to check from the definitions that
Since \(\alpha _i\) counts the number of boxes in row i of D, we have
as required. \(\square \)
Remark 5.21
Unlike the computation of each \(\theta _D^c(s)\), the Kohnert moves are not column independent. Perhaps surprisingly, Conjecture 5.1 says that the a priori coarse upper bound on \(\sum _{i\in s} \alpha _i\) captures all monomials appearing in the Schubert polynomial. \(\square \)
Remark 5.22
Kohnert’s rule extends to key polynomials (with proof). Hence a similar argument (which we omit) establishes the “\(\supseteq \)” containment of Conjecture 3.9. \(\square \)
Fix a partition \(\lambda =(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\ldots ,\lambda _n)\). Let \(\textsf {D}_{\lambda }\) be the Young diagram for \(\lambda \) (in French notation) placed flush left in \(n\times n\) (hence row n has \(\lambda _1\) boxes).
Proposition 5.23
(The Schubitope is a generalized permutahedron) \({\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_{\lambda }}={\mathcal {P}}_{\lambda }\subset {\mathbb {R}}^n\).
Lemma 5.24
If \(w(i) < w(i+1)\), \({\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_{w}}\) is symmetric about i and \(i+1\). That is,
Proof
Suppose \(S \subseteq [n]\) such that \(i \in S, i+1 \notin S\). Let \(S'\) be the set formed from S by replacing i with \(i+1\). Then it suffices to show for any column c,
Since \(w(i) < w(i+1)\), if \((i,c) \in \textsf {D}_w\), then \((i+1,c) \in \textsf {D}_w\) as well. There are three cases:
Case 1: (\((i,c), (i+1,c) \in {\textsf {D}_w}\)): in \(\mathtt{word}_{c,S}(\textsf {D}_w)\), rows \(i,i+1\) contribute \(\star )\) whereas in \(\mathtt{word}_{c,S'}(\textsf {D}_w)\) the contribution is \()\star \). The ) does not change whether or not it is paired and thus \(\theta _{\textsf {D}_w}^c(S) = \theta _{\textsf {D}_w}^c(S')\).
Case 2: (\((i,c) \notin \textsf {D}_w, (i+1,c) \in \textsf {D}_w\)): in \(\mathtt{word}_{c,S}(\textsf {D}_w)\), rows \(i,i+1\) contributes (). In \(\mathtt{word}_{c,S'}(\textsf {D}_w)\), the contribution is only ‘\(\star \)’. Both contribute 1 to \(\theta _{\textsf {D}_w}^c(S)\) and \(\theta _{\textsf {D}_w}^c(S')\) respectively. Hence \(\theta _{\textsf {D}_w}^c(S) = \theta _{\textsf {D}_w}^c(S')\).
Case 3: (\((i,c), (i+1,c) \notin \textsf {D}_w\)): in both \(\mathtt{word}_{c,S}(\textsf {D}_w)\) for rows \(i,i+1\) and \(\mathtt{word}_{c,S'}(\textsf {D}_w)\), rows i and \(i+1\) contribute (. The ( does not change whether or not it is paired and so \(\theta _{\textsf {D}_w}^c(S) = \theta _{\textsf {D}_w}^c(S')\). \(\square \)
Proof of Proposition 5.23
By Proposition 2.5(I),
Let \(w_{\lambda ,n}\) be the Grassmannian permutation associated to \(\lambda \). This permutation only has descent at position n. Then
We next show that
The “\(\supseteq \)” containment of (20) is given by Proposition 5.20. In the case at hand, this proposition can be deduced from A. Kohnert’s work [22] who proved his conjecture for Grassmannian permutations. Below we will use that in loc cit., A. Kohnert proved the Grassmannian case by giving a weight-preserving bijection \(\phi :\textsf { SSYT}(\lambda ,[n])\rightarrow \mathtt{Koh}(w_{\lambda ,n})\), where \(\textsf { SSYT}(\lambda ,[n])\) is the set of semistandard tableaux of shape \(\lambda \) with fillings using \(1,2,\ldots ,n\).
We now obtain the other containment of (20). Let \((\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\ldots ,\alpha _n)\in {\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_{w_{\lambda ,n}}}\). In fact, \(\textsf {D}_{w_{\lambda ,n}}\) differs from \(\textsf {D}_{\lambda }\) by removing empty columns and left justifying. Hence it is clear from the definition of \({\theta }_{\textsf {D}_{\lambda }}(S)\) that
Lemma 5.24 implies that \(\textsf {D}_{w_{\lambda ,n}}\) has an \(S_n\)-action by permutation of the coordinates. Hence if \(\beta =\lambda (\alpha )\) is the decreasing rearrangement of \(\alpha \), then \(\beta \) also satisfies (21), where \(\beta \) replaces \(\alpha \). That is, \(\beta \le _D\lambda \).
Therefore by (3), \(K_{\lambda ,\beta }\ne 0\) and there exists a semistandard tableau of shape \(\lambda \) and content \(\beta \). By symmetry of \(s_{\lambda }(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)\) (and the fact it is the weight-generating series for \(\textsf { SSYT}(\lambda ,[n])\)), there is a semistandard tableau U of shape \(\lambda \) and content \(\alpha \).
Now apply Kohnert’s bijection \(\phi \) to contain \(D\in \mathtt{Koh}(w_{\lambda ,n})\) with \(\mathtt{Kohwt}(D)=\alpha \), as desired. This completes the proof of (20).
Since \(\textsf {D}_w\) and \(\textsf {D}_{\lambda }\) only differ by a column permutation \({\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_{\lambda }}= {\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_{w_{\lambda ,n}}}\). Now combine this with (20), (19) and (18). \(\square \)
The above result can be also deduced by comparing the inequalities of \({\mathcal {S}}_{\textsf {D}_{\lambda }}\) with those for \({\mathcal P}_{\lambda }\). However, the above argument has elements that might apply more generally.
6 Post submission update (June 2019)
Since this paper was initially submitted (March 2017), a number of developments connected to this work have occurred. We briefly summarize these here, listed in arXiv chronological order:
- (a)
K. Mészáros and A. St. Dizier [31] prove Conjecture 5.5 for the special case when \(w=1w'\) and \(w'\) is 132-avoiding. This paper also contains a Conjecture (with A. Fink) that refines Conjecture 5.5.
- (b)
L. Escobar and the third author [13] prove the aforementioned conjecture (a) of A. Fink-K. Mészáros-A. St. Dizier, and thus Conjecture 5.5, in the case w is a Grassmannian permutation.
- (c)
A. Fink-K. Mészáros-A. St. Dizier [14] proved Conjectures 3.9, 3.10, 5.1 and 5.13.
- (d)
A. Woo and the third author [48] applied Corollary 5.10, and more precisely, Proposition 2.5 to disprove a Conjecture of D. Grigoriev-G. Koshevoy on the tropical semiring complexity of tropical skew Schur polynomials.
- (e)
A. Adve, C. Robichaux and the third author [1] propose a computational complexity significance of the notion of SNP. In addition, using the results from [14]. In addition [1] gives the first polynomial time algorithm for deciding if a monomial coefficient of \({\mathfrak {S}}_w\) is nonzero.
References
Adve, A., Robichaux, C., Yong, A.: Complexity, combinatorial positivity, and Newton polytopes, preprint 2018. arXiv:1810.10361
Agnarsson, G., Morris, W.D.: On Minkowski sums of simplices. Ann. Comb. 13, 271 (2009)
Assaf, S.: Combinatorial models for Schubert polynomials, preprint, 2017. arXiv:1703.00088
Avella-Alaminosa, D., Vallejo, E.: Kronecker products and the RSK correspondence. Discrete Math. 312(8), 1476–1486 (2012)
Ballantine, C.: Powers of the Vandermonde determinant, Schur Functions, and recursive formulas. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Formal Power Series and Algebraic Combinatorics (FPSAC) DMTCS Proceedings of FPSAC ’11, pp. 87–98 (2011)
Barvinok, A.: Matrices with prescribed row and column sums. Linear Algebra Appl. 436, 820–844 (2012)
Beck, M., Robins, S.: Computing the Continuous Discretely. Springer, Berlin (2007)
Billey, S., Jockush, W., Stanley, R.: Some combinatorial properties of Schubert polynomials. J. Algebr. Comb. 2(4), 345–374 (1993)
Castillo, F., Liu, F.: Berline–Vergne valuation and generalized permutohedra, preprint, 2015. arXiv:1509.07884
Croitoru, D.: Mixed Volumes of Hypersimplices, Root Systems and Shifted Young Tableaux, MIT PhD thesis (2010)
Doran IV, W.M.: A proof of Reutenauer’s \(-q_{(n)}\) conjecture. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 74, 342–344 (1996)
Ehrhart, E.: Sur les polyèdres rationnels homothétiques à \(n\) dimensions. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 254, 616–618 (1962)
Escobar, L., Yong, A.: Newton polytopes and symmetric Grothendieck polynomials. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 355(8), 831–834 (2017)
Fink, A., Mészáros, K., Dizier, A.S.: Schubert polynomials as integer point transforms of generalized permutahedra. Adv. Math. 332, 465–475 (2018)
Fomin, S., Greene, C.: Noncommutative Schur functions and their applications. Discrete Math. 193, 179–200 (1998). Selected papers in honor of Adriano Garsia (Taormina, 1994)
Gelfand, I.M., Kapranov, M.M., Zelevinsky, A.V.: Newton polytopes of the classical resultant and discriminant. Adv. Math. 84, 237–254 (1990)
Gelfand, I.M., Kapranov, M.M., Zelevinsky, A.V.: Discriminants, Resultants and Multi-Dimensional Determinants. Birkhäuser, Boston (1994)
Haglund, J., Haiman, M., Loehr, N.: A combinatorial formula for Macdonald polynomials. J. Am. Math. Soc. 18, 735–761 (2005)
Haglund, J., Haiman, M., Loehr, N.: A combinatorial formula for non-symmetric Macdonald polynomials Amer. J. Math. 130(2), 359–383 (2008)
Haglund, J., Luoto, K., Mason, S., van Willigenburg, S.: Quasisymmetric Schur functions. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 118, 463–490
Ion, B.: Nonsymmetric Macdonald polynomials and Demazure characters. Duke Math. J. 116, 299–318 (2003)
Kohnert, A.: Weintrauben, polynome, tableaux. Bayreuth Math. Schr. 38, 1–97 (1990). k-Schur Functions and Affine Schubert Calculus
Lam, T., Lapointe, L., Morse, J., Schilling, A., Shimozono, M., Zabrocki, M.: \(k\)-Schur Functions and Affine Schubert Calculus, Fields Institute Monographs, vol. 33. Springer, New York (2014)
Lascoux, A.: Transition on Grothendieck Polynomials, Physics and Combinatorics, 2000 (Nagoya), pp. 164–179. World Scientific Publishing, River Edge (2001)
Lascoux, A., Leclerc, B., Thibon, J.Y.: Ribbon tableaux, Hall–Littlewood functions, quantum affine algebras, and unipotent varieties. J. Math. Phys. 38(2), 1041–1068 (1997)
Lascoux, A., Schützenberger, M.-P.: Polynômes de Schubert. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 294, 447–450 (1982)
Lascoux, A., Schützenberger, M.-P.: Structure de Hopf de l’anneau de cohomologie et de l’anneau de Grothendieck d’une variété de drapeaux. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 295, 629–633 (1982)
Macdonald, I.G.: A new class of symmetric functions., Actes du 20e Séminaire Lotharingien, vol. 372/S-20, pp. 131–171. Publications I.R.M.A, Strasbourg (1988)
Manivel, L.: Symmetric Functions, Schubert Polynomials and Degeneracy Loci. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2001)
Mason, S.: An explicit construction of type \(A\) Demazure atoms. J. Algebr. Combin. 29, 295–313 (2009)
Mészráros, K., Dizier, A. St.: Generalized permutahedra to Grothendieck polynomials via flow polytopes, preprint, 2017. arXiv:1705.02418
Monical, C.: Set-Valued Skyline Fillings, preprint, 2016. arXiv:1611.08777
Postnikov, A.: Permutohedra, associahedra, and beyond (2005). arXiv: math.CO/0507163v1
Pun, A.: A deposition of the product of Demazure atoms and Demazure characters, preprint, 2016. arXiv:1606.02291
Rado, R.: An inequality. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 27, 1–6 (1952)
Reiner, V., Shimozono, M., Reiner, V., Shimozono, M.: Key polynomials and a flagged Littlewood–Richardson rule. J. Comb. Theory. Ser. A. 70, 107–143 (1995)
Reutenauer, C.: On symmetric functions, related Witt vectors, and the free Lie algebra. Adv. Math. 110, 234–246 (1995)
Sahi, S., Some Properties of Koornwinder Polynomials, q-Series from a Contemporary Perspective, (South Hadley, MA, 1998), Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 254. American Mathematical Society, Providence, pp. 395–411 (2000)
Scharf, T., Thibon, J., Wybourne, B.G.: Powers of the Vandermonde determinant and the quantum Hall effect. J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 27, 4211–4219 (1994)
Stanley, R.P.: On the number of reduced decompositions of elements of coxeter groups. Eur. J. Comb. 5(4), 359–372 (1984)
Stanley, R.P.: A symmetric function generalization of the chromatic polynomial of a graph. Adv. Math. 111, 166–194 (1995)
Stanley, R.P.: Enumerative Combinatorics (with an appendix by S. Fomin), vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)
Stembridge, J.R.: Shifted tableaux and the projective representation of symmetric groups. Adv. Math. 74, 87–134 (1989)
Stembridge, J.R.: Immanants of totally positive matrices are nonnegative. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 23(5), 422–428 (1991)
Sturmfels, B.: Polynomial equations and convex polytopes. Am. Math. Mon. 105(10), 907–922 (1998)
Vallejo, E.: Plane partitions and characters of the symmetric group. J. Algebr. Combin. 11, 79–88 (2000)
Winkel, R.: Diagram rules for the generation of Schubert polynomials. J. Combin. Theory A. 86, 14–48 (1999)
Winkel, R.: Tropicalization, symmetric polynomials, and complexity. J. Symb. Comput (2019). arXiv:1710.03312
Acknowledgements
We thank Alexander Barvinok, Laura Escobar, Sergey Fomin, Allen Knutson, Melinda Lanius, Fu Liu, Mark Shimozono, John Stembridge, Sue Tolman and Anna Weigandt for very helpful conversations. We thank Bruce Reznick specifically for his example of \(f=x_1^2+x_2 x_3+\cdots \) we used in the introduction. AY was supported by an NSF grant. CM and NT were supported by UIUC Campus Research Board Grants. We made significant use of SAGE during our investigations.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.