text:
# Long range correlations in the non-equilibrium quantum relaxation of a spin chain

\[

## Abstract

We consider the non-stationary quantum relaxation of the Ising spin chain in a transverse field of strength $`h`$. Starting from a homogeneously magnetized initial state the system approaches a stationary state by a process possessing quasi long range correlations in time and space, independent of the value of $`h`$. In particular the system exhibits aging (or lack of time translational invariance on intermediate time scales) although no indications of coarsening are present.

\]

Non-equilibrium dynamical properties of quantum systems have been of interest recently, experimentally and theoretically. Measurements on magnetic relaxation at low-temperatures show deviations from the classical exponential decay, which was explained by the effect of quantum tunneling. On the theoretical side, among others, integrable and non-integrable models were studied in the presence of energy or magnetic currents, as well as the phenomena of quantum aging in systems with long-range and short-range interactions.

Here we pose a different question: Consider a quantum mechanical interacting many body system described by a Hamilton operator $`\widehat{H}`$ without any coupling to an external bath, which means that the system is closed. Suppose the system is prepared in a specific state $`|\psi _0`$ at time $`t=0`$, which is not an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}`$. Then we are interested in the natural quantum dynamical evolution of this state which is described by the Schrödinger equation and is formally given by

$$|\psi (t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{H}t\right)|\psi _0.$$
(1)
Obviously the energy $`E=\psi _0|\widehat{H}|\psi _0`$ is conserved. In particular we want to study the time evolution of the expectation value $`A(t)`$ of an observable $`\widehat{A}`$ or the two-time correlation function $`C_{AB}(t_1,t_2)`$ of two observables $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$, defined by

$`A(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _0|\widehat{A}_H(t)|\psi _0`$ (2)
$`C_{AB}(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _0|\{\widehat{A}_H(t_1)\widehat{B}_H(t_2)\}_S|\psi _0,`$ (3)
where $`\widehat{A}_H(t)=\mathrm{exp}(+i\widehat{H}t)\widehat{A}\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{H}t)`$ is the operator $`\widehat{A}`$ in the Heisenberg picture (with $`\mathrm{}`$ set to unity) and $`\{\widehat{A}\widehat{B}\}_S=1/2(\widehat{A}\widehat{B}+\widehat{B}\widehat{A})`$ the symmetric product of two operators.

One should emphasize that in such a situation one does not expect time translational invariance to hold, which would manifest itself in, for instance, $`A(t)=A_0=\mathrm{const}.`$ and $`C_{AB}(t_1,t_2)=C_{AB}(t_1t_2)`$. There will be a transient regime in which these relations are violated and depending on the complexity of the system this non-equilibrium regime will extend over the whole time axis, in which we would denote it as quantum aging, as it can be observed for instance for the universe, which is (most probably) a closed system.

To be concrete we consider the prototype of an interacting quantum systems, the Ising model in a transverse field (TIM) in one dimension defined by the Hamiltonian:

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left[\underset{l=1}{\overset{L1}{}}\sigma _l^x\sigma _{l+1}^x+h\underset{l=1}{\overset{L}{}}\sigma _l^z\right],$$
(4)
where $`\sigma _l^{x,z}`$ are spin-$`1/2`$ operators on site $`l`$. We consider initial many body states that are eigenstates either of all local $`\sigma _l^x`$ or of all local $`\sigma _l^z`$ operators. We will mostly be concerned with fully magnetized initial states, either in the $`x`$ or the $`z`$ direction, which we denote with $`|x`$ and $`|z`$, respectively, and which obey $`\sigma _l^x|x=+|x`$ and $`\sigma _l^z|z=+|z`$, respectively.

In passing we note that one obtains the zero temperature equilibrium situation by choosing the ground state of the Hamiltonian (4) as the initial state. This ground state has a quantum phase transition at $`h=1`$ from a paramagnetic ($`h>1`$) to a ferromagnetic ($`h<1`$) phase, the latter being indicated by long range order in the $`x`$-component, i.e. a non-vanishing expectation value of $`\sigma ^x`$. Moreover, non-zero temperature equilibrium relaxation has been considered in .

The expectation values and correlation functions we are interested in are those that originate from these spin operators $`\sigma _l^x`$ and $`\sigma _l^z`$. In order to compute them, we have to express the Hamiltonian (4) in terms of fermion creation (annihilation) operators  $`\eta _q^+`$ ($`\eta _q`$)

$$H=\underset{q}{}ϵ_q\left(\eta _q^+\eta _q\frac{1}{2}\right).$$
(5)
The energy of modes, $`ϵ_q`$, $`q=1,2,\mathrm{},L`$ are given by the solution of the following set of equations

$`ϵ_q\mathrm{\Psi }_q(l)`$ $`=`$ $`h\mathrm{\Phi }_q(l)\mathrm{\Phi }_q(l+1),`$ (6)
$`ϵ_q\mathrm{\Phi }_q(l)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_q(l1)h\mathrm{\Psi }_q(l),`$ (7)
and we use free boundary conditions which implies for the components $`\mathrm{\Phi }_q(L+1)=\mathrm{\Psi }_q(0)=0`$. The spin-operators can then be expressed by the fermion operators as

$`\sigma _l^x`$ $`=`$ $`A_1B_1A_2B_2\mathrm{}A_{l1}B_{l1}A_l,`$ (8)
$`\sigma _l^z`$ $`=`$ $`A_lB_l,`$ (9)
with

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A_i\hfill & =& _{q=1}^L\mathrm{\Phi }_q(i)(\eta _q^++\eta _q),\hfill \\ B_i\hfill & =& _{q=1}^L\mathrm{\Psi }_q(i)(\eta _q^+\eta _q),\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
and the time-evaluation of the spin operators follows from that of the fermion operators: $`\eta _q^+(t)=e^{itϵ_q}\eta _q^+`$ and $`\eta _q(t)=e^{itϵ_q}\eta _q`$.

To calculate different non-equilibrium correlation functions we have developed a systematic method in which the time-dependent contractions are defined by:

$`A_lA_k_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{cos}(ϵ_qt)\mathrm{\Phi }_q(l)\mathrm{\Phi }_q(k),`$ (11)
$`A_lB_k_t`$ $`=`$ $`B_kA_l_t=i{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{sin}(ϵ_qt)\mathrm{\Phi }_q(l)\mathrm{\Psi }_q(k),`$ (12)
$`B_lB_k_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{cos}(ϵ_qt)\mathrm{\Psi }_q(l)\mathrm{\Psi }_q(k).`$ (13)
play a central role. For general position of the spin, $`l=O(L/2)`$, one finds simple formulas for the expectation values and correlation functions involving $`\sigma _l^z`$ operators, whereas the calculation of those involving $`\sigma _l^x`$ operators is a difficult task and the final result is complicated . However, both the surface-spin auto-correlations and the end-to-end correlations are given in quite simple form, both for the equilibrium  and for the non-equilibrium case.

First we study the $`x`$-end-to-end correlations defined by

$$C_L^{x,\psi }(t)=\psi _0|\{\sigma _1^x(t)\sigma _L^x(t)\}_S|\psi _0,$$
(14)
which contain information about the existence or absence of magnetic order in the $`x`$-direction. The single time $`t`$ at which the correlations between the two spins are measured indicates the age of the system after preparation. For the fully ordered initial state $`|\psi _0=|x`$ we obtain

$$C_L^{x,x}(t)=A_1A_1_tB_LB_L_t+|A_1B_L_t|^2,$$
(15)
The first term in the r.h.s. of Eq.(15) is the product of surface magnetizations at the two ends of the chain. Therefore $`lim_{L,t\mathrm{}}C_L^{x,x}(t)=\overline{m_1}^2`$ and the stationary state, starting with $`|x`$, has long-range order for $`h<1`$ as $`\overline{m_1}=1h^2`$. Thus the surface order-parameter, $`\overline{m_1}`$, vanishes continuously at the transition point, $`h_c=1`$, with a non-equilibrium exponent, $`\beta _1^{ne}=1`$.

The time dependence of the connected correlations (generally defined via 2 as $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{AB}(t_1,t_2)=C_{AB}(t_1,t_2)A(t_1)B(t_2)`$) $`\stackrel{~}{C}_L^{x,x}(t)=|A_1B_L_t|^2`$ shows the following features which can be read from fig. 1: 1) They are zero for times smaller than a time $`\tau _h(L)`$ which is equal to the system size $`L`$ for $`h1`$ and increases monotonically with decreasing $`h`$ for $`h<1`$. 2) At $`t=\tau _h(L)`$ a jump occurs to a value that decreases algebraically with the system size $`L`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{max}}^{x,x}(L)=\stackrel{~}{C}_L^{x,x}(t=\tau _h(L))L^a,$$
(16)
with $`a=2/3`$ for $`h=1`$ and $`a=1/2`$ for $`h>1`$. 3) For $`t\tau _h(L)`$ the correlations decay slower than exponentially, roughly with a stretched exponential. 4) For $`t=3\tau _h(L)`$ again a sudden jump occurs as for $`t=\tau _h(L)`$ followed by a slightly slower oscillatory decay. 5) This pattern is repeated for time $`t=5\tau _h(L),7\tau _h(L),\mathrm{}`$, but gets progressively smeared out by oscillations.

These features can be interpreted as follows: the elementary (tunnel) processes of the quantum dynamics of the Hamiltonian (4) are spin flips induced by the transverse field operator $`\sigma _l^z`$. In this picture two spins can only act coherently and thus give a contribution to the connected correlation function if the information about such a spin flip processes reaches the two spins simultaneously. Feature 1 tells us that signals generated in the center of the system travel with a speed of proportional to $`L/\tau _h(L)`$ to the boundary spins and reaches both simultaneously. At this moment $`\stackrel{~}{C}_L^{x,x}(t)`$ jumps to its maximum (see 2). After this, this signal is superposed by other more incoherent signals (see 3). However, the strongest initial signal is reflected at both boundaries and reaches the opposite boundary spins simultaneously again at time $`t=3\tau _h(L)`$ (see 4), and so on. Of course more and more incoherent processes occur in the meantime, giving rise to feature 5.

A similar behavior can be observed for the end-to-end correlations when starting with the state $`|z`$, which is

$$C_L^{x,z}(t)=\underset{k}{}\left(A_1B_k_tB_LA_k_tA_1A_k_tB_LB_k_t\right).$$
(17)
The only difference to the behavior of $`C_L^{x,x}(t)`$ reported above is a) its long time limit vanishes for all values of $`h`$ and b) $`\tau _h(L)`$, i.e. the earliest time at which the two boundary spins are correlated, is only half as big as in the previous case. Obviously it is easier to generate and to propagate spin flip signals when starting with a $`z`$-state.

Next we study the bulk behavior of the expectation values and correlations involving $`\sigma _l^z`$ operators. We start its non-equilibrium expectation value

$`e_l^\psi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _0|\sigma _l^z(t)|\psi _0`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left(A_lB_k_tB_lA_{i(k)}_tA_lA_{i(k)}_tB_lB_k_t\right),`$ (19)
with $`i(k)=k,(k+1)`$ for $`\psi =z,(x)`$. We note that the equilibrium (i.e. ground state) expectation value, $`e_l^0`$, corresponds to the energy-density in the two-dimensional classical Ising model and we use this terminology also in this non-equilibrium situation. For long times the non-equilibrium energy-density approaches a finite limit, $`\overline{e}_l^\psi `$, which for a bulk spin is a) for the initial state $`|\psi _0=|x`$ given by $`\overline{e^x}=h/2`$ for $`h1`$ and $`\overline{e^x}=1/(2h)`$ for $`h>1`$. and b) for the initial state $`|\psi _0=|z`$ by $`\overline{e^z}=1/2`$ for $`h1`$ and $`\overline{e^z}=11/2h^2`$ for $`h>1`$. Therefore the analogue to the specific heat $`c_v\overline{e^z}/h`$ is discontinuous at the transition point. The relaxation of the energy-density to its stationary value is algebraic and follows a $`t^{3/2}`$ low for any value of the transverse field, $`h`$. At the transition point, $`h=1`$, we have the analytical results in terms of the Bessel-function, $`J_\nu (x)`$: $`e_l^\psi (t)=1/2\pm J_1(4t)/4t`$, where the + (–) sign refer to $`\psi =z(x)`$.

The two-spin non-equilibrium dynamical and spatial correlations involve contributions from different processes described by the contractions (13) and the corresponding formulas are complicated, therefore they will be presented elsewhere. Here we report on the basic features of the asymptotic behavior of correlations. The two-time correlation function ($`t_1t_2`$),

$$G_l^{z,\psi }(t_1,t_2)=\psi _0|\{\sigma _l^z(t_1)\sigma _l^z(t_2)\}_S|\psi _0,$$
(20)
is non-stationary for intermediate times, $`t_1/(t_2t_1)=O(1)`$, which can be read off from our analytical result for the connected bulk auto-correlations at $`h=1`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_l^{z,\psi }(t_1,t_2)=J_0^2(2t_22t_1)\frac{1}{4}[f(t_2+t_1)\pm g(t_2t_1)]$$
(21)
where $`f(x)=J_2(2x)+J_0(2x)`$, $`g(x)=J_2(2x)J_0(2x)`$ and the + (–) sign refer to $`\psi =x(z)`$. Thus we conclude that for intermediate times there is aging in the $`z`$-component auto-correlation function, contrary to what is reported in . Asymptotically we have $`lim_{t_1\mathrm{}}G_l^{z,\psi }(t_1,t_2)=(\overline{e}^\psi )^2`$, and the connected two-time correlations depends only on the time difference, e.g. for $`h=1`$ via (21) $`lim_{t_1\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{G}_l^{z,\psi }(t_1,t_2)=J_0^2(2[t_2t_1])\{J_1^{}(2[t_2t_1])\}^2`$. For bulk spins this stationary correlation function decays algebraically as $`(t_2t_1)^2`$ for any value of $`h`$.

Next we consider the spatial equal-time correlations

$$C^{z,\psi }(r,t)=\psi _0|\{\sigma _{ir/2}^z(t)\sigma _{i+r/2}^z(t)\}_S|\psi _0,$$
(22)
where $`i=L/2`$ in a finite system. For long times they approach the stationary limit, $`lim_t\mathrm{}C^{z,\psi }(r,t)=(\overline{e}^\psi )^2`$, the same as for the auto-correlation function. For the connected correlation function $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{z,\psi }(r,t)=C^{z,\psi }(r,t)e_l^\psi (t)e_{l+r}^\psi (t)`$ we can derive an analytic expression at the transition point, $`h=1`$ in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$

$`\stackrel{~}{C}^{z,\psi }(r,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2t}}J_{2r}(4t)\right]^2`$ (23)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^21}{4t^2}}J_{2r+1}(4t)J_{2r1}(4t),`$ (24)
which is valid both for $`|\psi _0=|x`$ and $`|\psi _0=|z`$. In fig. 2 we show the $`r`$-dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{z,z}(r,t)`$ for various times $`t`$. We see that for fixed time $`t`$ the correlations increase proportional to $`r^2`$ for distances $`rt`$ to a maximum value $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{max}}^{z,z}(t)`$ at $`r=2t`$, which decreases with time proportional to $`t^1`$. For distances larger than $`r=2t`$ they drop rapidly, faster than exponentially, to zero.

The latter two features correspond perfectly to what we observed also for the $`z`$-end-to-end correlations, see eq(17): spins that are separated by a distance $`r`$ can only be correlated after the first signal from spin flip processes in between them reach simultaneously the two spins, i.e. for times $`t`$ larger than $`r/2`$ (for $`h=1`$ and $`|\psi _0=|z`$. The first feature, that correlations for distances smaller than $`2t`$ are diminished only algebraically rather than via a stretched exponential in the case of end-to-end correlations, is new and characteristic for bulk spins. For $`r2t`$ the correlation function $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{z,\psi }(r,t)`$ obeys the characteristic scaling form

$$\stackrel{~}{C}^{z,\psi }(r,t)=t^1g(r/t)$$
(25)
with $`g(x)x^2`$ for $`x1`$. The scaling parameter $`r/t`$ appearing in the scaling function $`g(x)`$ is reminiscent of the fact that space and time scales are connected linearly at the critical point in the transverse Ising chain since the dynamical exponent is $`z=1`$. Away from the critical point we have to evaluate our expressions  for $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{z,\psi }(r,t)`$ numerically for finite but large ($`L=512`$) system sizes. Essentially we observe the same scenario as at the critical point, the only difference being that the general functional dependency is superposed by strong oscillations. Moreover, starting with $`|\psi _0=|x`$ instead of $`|z`$ changes the correlations only by a constant factor.

We collect now our results for the maximum value for connected spin-spin correlations since they decay algebraically with various new exponents. we define ourselves to $`h1`$ since here the time $`\tau _h`$ of maximum correlation is fixed, whereas for $`h<1`$ the value of $`\tau _h`$ depends on $`h`$ and has to be determined numerically that renders the precise determination of the decay exponents difficult. We define the ratio $`\alpha =t/L`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}=\tau _h(L)/L`$ and consider equal time correlations for fixed values of $`\alpha `$. In the picture of a propagating front, that separates a region in the space-time diagram for the chain in which spins are uncorrelated from a region in which they are correlated, one observes quasi long range correlations on the front, the latter being defined by the ratio $`t/L=\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}`$. For distances smaller than the distance of maximum correlation or times larger than $`\tau _h`$ the correlations decay slower than exponential in time, e.g. algebraically for bulk spins ($`\stackrel{~}{C}^{z\psi }(t,r=\mathrm{fixed})t^2`$)). When we vary both space and time with fixed ratio $`t/L`$ or $`t/r`$ we get power laws, as long as we stay behind the front (i.e. $`t\tau _h`$). For $`\alpha >\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}`$ we observe again power laws, but with different exponents; they are listed in table 1.

To conclude we studied a novel type of dynamically produced long range correlations in a quantum relaxation process in a quantum spin chain. Starting with a homogeneous initial state the quantum mechanical time evolution according to the Schrödinger equation drives the system into a stationary state, which has algebraically decaying time-dependent autocorrelations but no critical fluctuations. However, during the relaxation process spin-spin correlation build up upon arrival of a front of coherent signals, which afterwards decay algebraically in the bulk. On the front and behind it for fixed ratio of space and time scales one observes quasi long range order. This does not depend on any external parameter like the transverse field. This type of algebraic correlation needs not to be triggered by some tuning parameter and is therefore reminiscent of phenomena in self organized criticality . The scenario we have reported here is a result of quantum interference and one may expect that a similar one holds for other quantum systems, too. At this point one should mention the possibility of coarsening in quantum systems as for instance reported in , which is different from the scenario we have reported here.

Acknowledgment: This study has been partially performed during our visits in Saarbrücken and Budapest, respectively. F. I.’s work has been supported by the Hungarian National Research Fund under grant No OTKA TO23642, TO25139, MO28418 and by the Ministery of Education under grant No. FKFP 0596/1999.

|  | | $`h=1`$ | | $`h>1`$ | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}`$ | $`\alpha `$=$`\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}`$ | $`\alpha >\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}`$ | $`\alpha `$=$`\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}`$ | $`\alpha >\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{C}_L^{xx}(t`$=$`\alpha L)`$ | $`1`$ | $`L^{2/3}`$ | $`L^1`$ | $`L^{1/2}`$ | $`L^1`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{C}_L^{xz}(t`$=$`\alpha L)`$ | $`1/2`$ | $`L^{1/4}`$ | $`L^{1/2}`$ | $``$ | $``$ |
| $`C_L^{z\psi }(t`$=$`\alpha L)`$ | $`1/2`$ | $`L^{5/4}`$ | $`L^1`$ | $`L^{5/8}`$ | $`L^1`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{C}^{z\psi }(t`$=$`\alpha r)`$ | $`1/2`$ | $`r^{4/3}`$ | $`r^1`$ | $`r^{2/3}`$ | $`r^1`$ |

TABLE I


format: text

text:
# Renormalization group study of the 1d polaron problem

\[

## Abstract

We investigate the one-dimensional polaron problem and calculate the ground state energy and the effective mass. We use a real-time renormalization group method and compare our results with first and second order perturbation theory, with Feynman’s variational principle and with the method of Lee, Low and Pines.

\]

Introduction. The polaron has often been examined since Fröhlich proposed the corresponding Hamiltonian . It serves as a standard model for various problems involving a nonrelativistic particle moving in a scalar field, e.g. the interaction between nucleons and scalar mesons or a single electron in a solid interacting with longitudinal optical phonons. The physical picture is that the particle polarizes the environment and must drag this polarization with it, which affects its energy and effective mass. To describe the polaron not only in the weak coupling limit one has to consider it beyond perturbation theory. The most successful methods for determining the ground state energy and effective mass of the polaron are those of Lee, Low and Pines , Pekar et al. , and Feynman . Since polaron effects have been observed in low-dimensional systems, the problem has also been studied in two dimensions .

In this paper we will examine the one-dimensional polaron problem. It can be realized e.g. for a Bloch-electron in a one-dimensional wire or macromolecular structure. The excitation of an electron will be strongly influenced by the interaction with optical phonons . If the conduction band is partially filled, one can linearize the electronic spectrum and the model is exactly solvable by using bosonization techniques . However, if the conduction band is empty, it is necessary to consider a quadratic spectrum for the electron with a bare mass $`m_0`$. This leads to the one-dimensional Fröhlich Hamiltonian with a constant coupling to the phonons. It is our purpose to examine the ground state energy and the effective mass of the electron for this problem. Thereby we will use a recently developed real-time renormalization group (RG) technique . While this method actually allows nonequilibrium descriptions , in the present paper we have only used it to determine spectral properties. Furthermore, we will compare our results with first and second order perturbation theory, with Feynman’s variational principle, and with the method of Lee, Low and Pines generalized to the one-dimensional case with finite band width. For not too large coupling constants we find a ground state energy near Feynman’s method and a value for the effective mass between the result of Feynman and the one of Lee, Low and Pines.

Model. The polaron problem is modelled by the Fröhlich Hamiltonian $`H=H_0+H_1`$ with

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}ϵ_kc_k^{}c_k+{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _qa_q^{}a_q`$ (1)
$`H_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,q}{}}M_k^q(a_q^{}+a_q)c_{k+q}^{}c_k.`$ (2)
$`c_k^{}(c_k)`$ is the creation (annihilation) operator of the electron, its energy $`ϵ_k`$ is given by the electron dispersion $`(\mathrm{}k)^2/2m_0`$, $`m_0`$ being the bare mass of the electron in the conduction band and $`a_q^{}(a_q)`$ creates (annihilates) a phonon with frequency $`\omega _q`$. Since the interaction is dominated by the longitudinal optical branch, we presume dispersionless phonons, i.e. $`\omega _q=\omega `$. While the electron-phonon interaction coefficients $`M_k^qM^q`$ are proportional to $`1/q`$ in case of the bulk polaron, the one-dimensional situation involves a $`q`$-independent coefficient $`M`$ . We define

$$M=(\frac{4m_0\omega }{\mathrm{}})^{\frac{1}{4}}\frac{\sqrt{\alpha }}{\sqrt{L}},$$

where $`L`$ is the one-dimensional normalization volume. In analogy to the three-dimensional case $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless coupling constant. In the following we choose units such that $`\mathrm{}=m_0=\omega =1`$. With these assumptions the perturbation theory produces the ground state energy $`E_g=\alpha `$ and the inverse effective mass $`1/m=1\alpha /2`$.

RG method. In the RG we consider the $`S`$-matrix

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`Te^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑tH(t)}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑tH_0}}Te^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑tH_1(t)_I}},`$ (4)
where $`H_1(t)_I`$ is the interaction part of the Hamiltonian taken in the interaction picture with respect to $`H_0`$. The idea of the RG is to leave the $`S`$-matrix invariant while successively integrating out diagrams of different time scales. The procedure is schematically shown in Fig. 1. For a given cutoff $`t_c`$ in time space, we allow only for correlation functions of the phonons with a time scale $`t>t_c`$. At zero temperature, the latter are given by

$`(a_q^{}+a_q)(t)(a_q^{}+a_q)=e^{i\omega t}.`$ (5)
All correlation functions with time scales shorter than $`t_c`$ are accounted for by renormalized energies and coupling constants. A change of $`t_c`$ to $`t_c+dt_c`$ is made by applying three steps : (i) expanding the second exponential in (4) and introducing normal ordering for the phonon operators using Wick’s theorem, (ii) integrating over the contractions with a time scale between $`t_c`$ and $`t_c+dt_c`$ and (iii) resumming the operators in an exponential form. Consequently these operators will not be limited to zero-phonon and one-phonon operators any more. But we shall see that a good approximation is achieved for not too large coupling constants if we neglect double or higher order vertex operators. One advantage of this method is that we only need to consider the operators of the electronic system, as the phonon degrees of freedom are integrated out in each $`t_c`$-step. For the polaron problem we start with $`t_c=0`$ involving the operators as in (1), (2) and end up with an effective Hamiltonian for $`t_c\mathrm{}`$. We obtain the following RG-equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ_k}{dt_c}}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_k^qt_c}M_{k+q}^qM_k^q`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dM_k^q}{dt_c}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{q^{}}{}}(M_{k+q+q^{}}^q^{}M_{k+q^{}}^qM_k^q^{}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_{k+q}^q^{}t_c}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_k^q^{}t_c}}{i(\mathrm{\Delta }_{k+q}^q^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_k^q^{})}}.`$ (8)
$`.+M_k^qM_{k+q^{}}^q^{}M_k^q^{}t_ce^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_k^q^{}t_c}).`$
Here we introduced

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_k^q=ϵ_{k+q}ϵ_k+\omega .`$

The $`(k,q)`$-dependence of the interaction coefficients is generated during the RG-flow. The second term in (8) is a correction term. It is due to the fact that a time interval connected with a contraction becomes a single point in time at one RG step. In the next step this leads to the generation of new terms which were previously not present. The level broadening is also included in (6) since all energies become complex. The terms that generate the double vertex operators are of fourth order in $`M`$. Therefore the equations (6) and (8) contain the order $`M^4`$ exactly.

Feynman’s method. To compare the results of the real-time RG we applied Feyman’s method to the one-dimensional polaron with a finite band-width. Feynman used a variational principle in the path-integral formalism. Within his two-particle approximation one obtains for the ground state energy

$`E_g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(vw)^2}{4v}}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{v}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau e^\tau `$ (10)
$`\times [g(\tau )]^{\frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{erf}({\displaystyle \frac{Dg(\tau )}{v^2}})^{\frac{1}{2}}]`$
with the band-width $`D`$, the error-function

$`\mathrm{erf}(\mathrm{x})={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^x}𝑑te^{t^2}`$

and

$`g(\tau )=\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^2w^2}{v}}\left(1e^{v\tau }\right)+w^2\tau \right).`$

$`v`$ and $`w`$ are chosen such that $`E_g`$ is minimum. For $`v=w`$ the result of the perturbation theory of first order in $`\alpha `$ is reproduced. Following Feynman we treat small couplings by setting $`v=(1+\delta )w`$ and $`w=1`$ . Considering $`\delta `$ small one can now expand the right-hand-side in (10) and minimize it with respect to $`\delta `$. The resulting energy is

$`E_g`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{D}\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi ^2}}(3\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{D}`$ (12)
$`2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{D}}{D+1}})^2.`$
Within Feynman’s approximation we obtain for the effective mass:

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\left(\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{D}+\sqrt{D}{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{(D+1)^2}}\right)`$ (16)
$`+\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi ^2}}\left(3\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{D}2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{D}}{D+1}}\right)`$
$`\times (3\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{D}+3\sqrt{2}\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}}`$
$`+\sqrt{D}^3{\displaystyle \frac{3D^3+18D^2+21D2}{(D+1)^3(D+2)^2}}).`$
Since (10) follows from a mininum principle Feynman’s method leads to more accurate results for the energy than for the mass (for quantitative studies concerning the accuracy in three dimensions see ).

Our results for the energy using Feynman’s approach as well as our values following from perturbation theory of second order are in good agreement with .

Results. The differential equations (6) and (8) are solved numerically. Regarding the oscillating terms in these equations one recognizes that given a certain discretization in $`q`$-space one obtains large errors with increasing frequency $`t_c`$. To avoid this the phase $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k^qt_c`$ has been interpolated in $`q`$-space.

Unfortunately (6) and (8) do not show a convergent behaviour for the ground state energy for $`t_c\mathrm{}`$. One reason is that there are undamped modes corresponding to high excitations in the $`q`$-sums leading to increasing effects on the ground state energy. In this context another problem arises from the fact that the correlation function in (5) is not decaying. As a consequence, oscillations decay as a function of $`t_c`$ but reoccur for sufficiently large $`t_c`$ . The idea of our solution is to neglect further renormalizaton effects of both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k^q`$ and $`M_k^q`$ for $`t_c`$ larger than a certain point $`t_f`$. By doing this we obtained a damped oscillation of the ground state energy $`ϵ_0`$ in $`t_c`$-space for $`t_c>t_f`$. Therefore (6) can be integrated analytically which leads to

$`E_g`$ $``$ $`\underset{t_c\mathrm{}}{lim}ϵ_0(t_c)`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`ϵ_0(t_f){\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_q^q(t_f)M_0^q(t_f)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0^q(t_f)}}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }_0^q(t_f)t_f}.`$ (18)
In Fig. 2 the solution of (18) is shown for different $`t_f`$. The problems mentioned above make it necessary to choose a finite $`t_f`$ where the renormalization effects beyond perturbation theory are contained but the numerical instabilities do not yet occur. We choose $`t_f=2.5`$ for all values of $`\alpha `$. At this point only low excitations ($`\mathrm{\Delta }<0.4`$) are not integrated out yet. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$ sets the scale for the first excited state, it is reasonable to assume that excited states do not have further important renormalization effects. The change of $`E_g`$ between $`t_f=2`$ and $`t_f=3`$ is approximately $`2\%`$ for $`\alpha =0.5`$.

The $`\alpha `$-dependence of $`E_g`$ is shown in Fig. 3. One notices that for $`\alpha <0.7`$ we obtain lower values for the ground state energy than those of Feynman’s method. For larger couplings our method is no longer reliable and yields worse results (see Fig. 3) which is not surprising since we neglected double and higher order vertex operators.

We also calculated $`E_g`$ for different band-widths $`D`$. As one can see in Fig. 4 for larger band-widths the deviation to the results of Feynman’s method grows.

Another quantity of interest is the mass of the polaron. If one differentiates (6) twice with respect to $`k`$ one obtains a differential equation for $`1/m`$. However, its solution oscillates with increasing amplitude. Therefore for determining the mass we calculate both the ground state energy and low excited energies using the same procedure as above. The resulting dispersion gives us a value for the mass. The accuracy for the mass is worse though. For $`\alpha =0.3`$ the change of $`1/m`$ is approximately $`6\%`$ between $`t_f=2`$ and $`t_f=3`$.

The results for different $`\alpha `$ are shown in Fig. 5. For small couplings ($`\alpha <0.4`$), we find a value for the mass between the variational principle of Feynman and the one of Lee, Low and Pines . For larger couplings the numerical solution is too unstable to make definite statements from the RG-approach. From Fig. 6 we see that our mass depends only slightly on the band-width.

In summary, we used a new renormalization group method to study the polaron problem. Although there arise some difficulties from the structure of the flow-equations, we were able to investigate the energy beyond perturbation theory. The mass was calculated as well, but its accuracy is worse than that of the energy. The results were compared to the values following from perturbation theory, Feynman’s method and the one of Lee, Low and Pines. The performance of the RG is good for couplings $`\alpha 0.5`$. This restriction is due to the neglecting of double and higher order vertex operators and the undamped oscillating correlation function of the phonons.

We acknowledge useful discussions with A. Mielke and K. Schönhammer. This work was supported by the ”Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft” as part of ”SFB 345” (M.K.) and “SFB 195” (H.S.)


text:
# Connected components of real double Bruhat cells

## 1. Introduction

The main geometric objects of study in this paper are *double Bruhat cells* $`G^{u,v}=BuBB_{}vB_{}`$ in a simply-connected connected complex semisimple group $`G`$; here $`B`$ and $`B_{}`$ are two opposite Borel subgroups in $`G`$, and $`u`$ and $`v`$ any two elements of the Weyl group $`W`$. Double Bruhat cells were introduced and studied in  as a geometric framework for the study of total positivity in semisimple groups; they are also closely related to symplectic leaves in the corresponding Poisson-Lie groups (see ). It will be convenient for us to replace $`G^{u,v}`$ with a reduced double Bruhat cell $`L^{u,v}`$ introduced in . The variety $`L^{u,v}`$ can be identified with the quotient of $`G^{u,v}`$ modulo the left (or right) action of the maximal torus $`H=BB_{}`$.

As shown in , an algebraic variety $`L^{u,v}`$ is biregularly isomorphic to a Zariski open subset of an affine space of dimension $`m=\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)`$, where $`\mathrm{}(u)`$ is the length of $`u`$ in the Coxeter group $`W`$. However, the smooth topology of $`L^{u,v}`$ can be quite complicated. A first step towards understanding this topology is enumerating the connected components of the real part $`L^{u,v}()`$. In the case when $`G`$ is simply-laced, a conjectural answer was given in \[15, Conjecture 4.1\]. Here we prove this conjecture and extend the result to an arbitrary semisimple group $`G`$. The answer is given in the following terms: as shown in  for $`G`$ simply-laced, every reduced word $`𝐢`$ of $`(u,v)W\times W`$ gives rise to a subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢(𝔽_2)GL_m(𝔽_2)`$ generated by symplectic transvections (here $`𝔽_2`$ is the $`2`$-element field). We extend the construction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢(𝔽_2)`$ to an arbitrary $`G`$ (it is still generated by transvections but not necessarily by symplectic ones). Extending \[15, Conjecture 4.1\], we show that the connected components of $`L^{u,v}()`$ are in a natural bijection with the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢(𝔽_2)`$-orbits in $`𝔽_2^m`$. As explained in , this provides a far-reaching generalization of the results in ; this also refines and generalizes results in .

Our proof uses methods and results developed in . First, it was shown there that every reduced word $`𝐢`$ of $`(u,v)W\times W`$ gives rise to a biregular isomorphism between the complex torus $`_0^m`$ and a Zariski open subset $`U_𝐢L^{u,v}`$. We refine this result by showing that the complement $`L^{u,v}U_𝐢`$ is the union of $`m`$ divisors $`\{M_{k,𝐢}=0\}`$, where $`M_{1,𝐢},\mathrm{},M_{m,𝐢}`$ are some irreducible regular functions on $`L^{u,v}`$. We further show that every $`𝐢`$-bounded index $`n[1,m]`$ (see Section 2 for the definition) gives rise to a regular function $`M_{n,𝐢}^{}`$ on $`L^{u,v}`$ such that replacing the divisor $`\{M_{n,𝐢}=0\}`$ with $`\{M_{n,𝐢}^{}=0\}`$ leads to another “toric chart” $`U_{n,𝐢}`$ in $`L^{u,v}`$. Then we prove that the connected components of the real part of the union of charts $`U_𝐢_nU_{n,𝐢}`$ are in a natural bijection with the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢(𝔽_2)`$-orbits in $`𝔽_2^m`$. Finally, we show that the complement in $`L^{u,v}`$ of this union of charts has codimension $`2`$, so the connected components of $`L^{u,v}()`$ are enumerated in the same way as those of the real part of $`U_𝐢_nU_{n,𝐢}`$.

According to , each $`M_{k,𝐢}`$ is a “twisted (generalized) minor” on $`G`$. We show that each $`M_{n,𝐢}^{}`$ is obtained by the same twist from a regular function on $`G`$ which is no longer a minor but can be expressed as a sum of two Laurent monomials in minors. These regular functions are of independent interest for the study of the dual canonical bases in the ring of regular functions $`[G]`$ and its $`q`$-deformation.

The paper is organized as follows. After recalling the necessary background, we formulate our main result (Theorem 2.2) in Section 2. In Section 3, we formulate a lemma (Lemma 3.1) that plays the crucial role in our proof of Theorem 2.2, and then show how this lemma implies the theorem. The proof of Lemma 3.1 is given in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 discusses some examples and applications of the results in Sections 3 and 4.

## 2. Main theorem

To formulate our main result, let us recall the necessary background from . Let $`G`$ be a simply connected semisimple algebraic group with the Dynkin graph $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Let $`B`$ and $`B_{}`$ be two $``$-split opposite Borel subgroups, $`N`$ and $`N_{}`$ their unipotent radicals, $`H=BB_{}`$ an $``$-split maximal torus of $`G`$, and $`W=\mathrm{Norm}_G(H)/H`$ the Weyl group of $`G`$. Let $`𝔤=\mathrm{Lie}(G)`$ be the Lie algebra of $`G`$, and $`𝔥=\mathrm{Lie}(H)`$ the Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔤`$. Let $`\{\alpha _i:i\mathrm{\Pi }\}`$ be the system of simple roots in $`𝔥^{}`$ for which the corresponding root subgroups are contained in $`N`$. Let $`\{\alpha _i^{}:i\mathrm{\Pi }\}`$ be the corresponding system of simple coroots in $`𝔥`$, and $`A=(a_{ij}=\alpha _j(\alpha _i^{}))`$ be the *Cartan matrix*. Thus, for $`ij`$ the indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ are adjacent in $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ if and only if $`a_{ij}a_{ji}0`$; we shall denote this by $`\{i,j\}\mathrm{\Pi }`$. For every $`i\mathrm{\Pi }`$, let $`\phi _i:SL_2G`$ denote the corresponding canonical $`SL_2`$-embedding.

The Weyl group $`W`$ is canonically identified with the Coxeter group $`W(A)`$ generated by the involutions $`s_i`$ for $`i\mathrm{\Pi }`$ subject to the relations $`(s_is_j)^{d_{ij}}=e`$ for all $`ij`$, where $`d_{ij}=2`$ (resp. $`3,4,6`$) if $`a_{ij}a_{ji}=0`$ (resp. $`1,2,3`$). A word $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)`$ in the alphabet $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is a *reduced word* for $`wW`$ if $`w=s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_m}`$, and $`m`$ is the smallest length of such a factorization. The length $`m`$ of any reduced word for $`w`$ is called the *length* of $`w`$ and denoted by $`m=\mathrm{}(w)`$. Let $`R(w)`$ denote the set of all reduced words for $`w`$. The identification $`W=W(A)`$ is given by $`s_i=\overline{s_i}H`$, where

$$\overline{s_i}=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array})\mathrm{Norm}_G(H).$$

The representatives $`\overline{s_i}G`$ satisfy the braid relations $`\overline{s_i}\overline{s_j}\overline{s_i}\mathrm{}=\overline{s_j}\overline{s_i}\overline{s_j}\mathrm{}`$ (with $`d_{ij}`$ factors on each side); thus, the representative $`\overline{w}`$ can be unambiguously defined for any $`wW`$ by requiring that $`\overline{uv}=\overline{u}\overline{v}`$ whenever $`\mathrm{}(uv)=\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)`$.

The “double” group $`W\times W`$ is also a Coxeter group. The corresponding graph $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ is the union of two disconnected copies of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. We identify the vertex set of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ with $`\{+1,1\}\times \mathrm{\Pi }`$, and write a vertex $`(\pm 1,i)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ simply as $`\pm i`$. For each $`i\mathrm{\Pi }`$, we set $`\epsilon (\pm i)=\pm 1`$ and $`|\pm i|=i`$. Thus, two vertices $`i`$ and $`j`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ are adjacent if and only if $`\epsilon (i)=\epsilon (j)`$ and $`\{|i|,|j|\}\mathrm{\Pi }`$. In this notation, a reduced word for a pair $`(u,v)W\times W`$ is an arbitrary shuffle of a reduced word for $`u`$ written in the alphabet $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and a reduced word for $`v`$ written in the alphabet $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

The group $`G`$ has two *Bruhat decompositions*, with respect to $`B`$ and $`B_{}`$:

$$G=\underset{uW}{}BuB=\underset{vW}{}B_{}vB_{}.$$

The *double Bruhat cells* $`G^{u,v}`$ are defined by $`G^{u,v}=BuBB_{}vB_{}`$.

Following , we define the *reduced double Bruhat cell* $`L^{u,v}G^{u,v}`$ as follows:

(2.1)
$$L^{u,v}=N\overline{u}NB_{}vB_{}.$$

The maximal torus $`H`$ acts freely on $`G^{u,v}`$ by left (or right) translations, and $`L^{u,v}`$ is a section of this action. Thus, $`G^{u,v}`$ is biregularly isomorphic to $`H\times L^{u,v}`$, and all properties of $`G^{u,v}`$ can be translated in a straightforward way into the corresponding properties of $`L^{u,v}`$ (and vice versa). In particular, Theorem 1.1 in  implies that $`L^{u,v}`$ is biregularly isomorphic to a Zariski open subset of an affine space of dimension $`\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)`$.

The *real part* of $`G`$ is the subgroup $`G()`$ of $`G`$ generated by all the subgroups $`\phi _i(SL_2())`$. For any subset $`LG`$, we define its real part by $`L()=LG()`$.

Now let us fix a pair $`(u,v)W\times W`$, and let $`m=\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)`$. Let $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)R(u,v)`$ be any reduced word for $`(u,v)`$. We associate to $`𝐢`$ an $`m\times m`$ matrix $`(C_{kl})`$ in the following way: set $`C_{kl}=1`$ if $`|i_k|=|i_l|`$ and $`C_{kl}=a_{|i_k|,|i_l|}`$ if $`|i_k||i_l|`$.

Following , we associate with $`𝐢`$ a directed graph $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)`$ on the set of vertices $`[1,m]=\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}`$. For $`l[1,m]`$, we denote by $`l^{}=l_𝐢^{}`$ the maximal index $`k`$ such that $`1k<l`$ and $`|i_k|=|i_l|`$; if $`|i_k||i_l|`$ for $`1k<l`$ then we set $`l^{}=0`$. The edges of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)`$ are now defined as follows.

###### Definition 2.1.

A pair $`\{k,l\}[1,m]`$ with $`k<l`$ is an edge of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)`$ if it satisfies one of the following three conditions:

(i) $`k=l^{}`$;

(ii) $`k^{}<l^{}<k`$, $`\{|i_k|,|i_l|\}\mathrm{\Pi }`$, and $`\epsilon (i_l^{})=\epsilon (i_k)`$;

(iii) $`l^{}<k^{}<k`$, $`\{|i_k|,|i_l|\}\mathrm{\Pi }`$, and $`\epsilon (i_k^{})=\epsilon (i_k)`$.

The edges of type (i) are called *horizontal*, and those of types (ii) and (iii) *inclined*. A horizontal (resp. inclined) edge $`\{k,l\}`$ with $`k<l`$ is directed from $`k`$ to $`l`$ if and only if $`\epsilon (i_k)=+1`$ (resp. $`\epsilon (i_k)=1`$). We shall write $`(kl)\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)`$ if $`kl`$ is a directed edge of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)`$.

We now associate to each $`n[1,m]`$ a transvection $`\tau _n=\tau _{n,𝐢}:^m^m`$ defined as follows: if $`\tau _n(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _m)=(\xi _1^{},\mathrm{},\xi _m^{})`$ then $`\xi _k^{}=\xi _k`$ for $`kn`$, and

(2.2)
$$\xi _n^{}=\xi _n\underset{(kn)\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)}{}C_{kn}\xi _k+\underset{(nl)\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)}{}C_{ln}\xi _l$$

(note that if $`G`$ is simply-laced then all the coefficients $`C_{kn}`$ and $`C_{ln}`$ in (2.2)are equal to $`1`$, so (2.2) becomes formula (2.4) in ). We call an index $`n[1,m]`$ *$`𝐢`$-bounded* if $`n^{}>0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢`$ denote the group of linear transformations of $`^m`$ generated by the transvections $`\tau _n`$ for all $`𝐢`$-bounded indices $`n[1,m]`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢(𝔽_2)`$ denote the group of linear transformations of the $`𝔽_2`$-vector space $`𝔽_2^m`$ obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢`$ by reduction modulo $`2`$ (recall that $`𝔽_2`$ is the $`2`$-element field).

We are finally ready to formulate our main result.

###### Theorem 2.2.

For every reduced word $`𝐢R(u,v)`$, the connected components of $`L^{u,v}()`$ are in a natural bijection with the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢(𝔽_2)`$-orbits in $`𝔽_2^m`$.

Note that in Theorem 2.2 we only need the modulo $`2`$ reductions of transvections $`\tau _n`$, so the formula (2.2) could be simplified as follows:

$$\xi _n^{}=\xi _n+\underset{(k,n)\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)}{}C_{kn}\xi _k.$$

We prefer the form (2.2) because it is suggested by the construction of toric charts in $`L^{u,v}`$ which is our main ingredient in proving Theorem 2.2.

## 3. Main lemma

As before, let $`G`$ be a simply connected connected complex semisimple group with the Dynkin graph $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. We fix a pair $`(u,v)W\times W`$, let $`m=\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)`$, and fix a reduced word $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)R(u,v)`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

There exist regular functions $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_m`$ on $`L^{u,v}`$ with the following properties:

(1) If $`k[1,m]`$ is not $`𝐢`$-bounded then $`M_k`$ vanishes nowhere on $`L^{u,v}`$.

(2) The map $`(M_1,\mathrm{},M_m):L^{u,v}^m`$ restricts to a biregular isomorphism $`U_𝐢_0^m`$, where $`U_𝐢`$ is the locus of all $`xL^{u,v}`$ such that $`M_k(x)0`$ for all $`k[1,m]`$.

(3) For every $`𝐢`$-bounded $`n[1,m]`$, the rational function $`M_k^{}`$ defined by

(3.1)
$$M_n^{}M_n=\underset{(kn)\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐢}{}M_k^{C_{kn}}+\underset{(nl)\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐢}{}M_l^{C_{ln}}$$

is regular on $`L^{u,v}`$.

(4) For every $`𝐢`$-bounded $`n[1,m]`$, the map $`(M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_n^{},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m):L^{u,v}^m`$ restricts to a biregular isomorphism $`U_{n,𝐢}_0^m`$, where $`U_{n,𝐢}`$ is the locus of all $`xL^{u,v}`$ such that $`M_n^{}(x)0`$ and $`M_k(x)0`$ for all $`k[1,m]\{n\}`$.

(5) The functions $`M_k`$ and $`M_n^{}`$ take real values on $`L^{u,v}()`$, and the biregular isomorphisms in (2) and (4) restrict to biregular isomorphisms $`U_𝐢()_0^m`$ and $`U_{n,𝐢}()_0^m`$.

The functions $`M_k=M_{k,𝐢}`$ in Lemma 3.1 were introduced in \[4, (4.13)\]. We recall the definition and prove Lemma 3.1 in the next section; in the rest of this section we show that it implies Theorem 2.2. To be more precise, we shall prove that the bijection in Theorem 2.2 can be defined as follows. For every $`\xi =(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _m)𝔽_2^m`$, let $`U_𝐢(\xi )`$ denote the set of all $`xU_𝐢()`$ such that $`(1)^{\xi _k}M_k(x)>0`$ for all $`k`$. For every $`YL^{u,v}()`$, let $`\overline{Y}`$ denote the closure of $`Y`$ in $`L^{u,v}()`$ in the real topology.

###### Theorem 3.2.

The correspondence $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\xi \mathrm{\Omega }}\overline{U_𝐢(\xi )}`$ is a bijection between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢(𝔽_2)`$-orbits in $`𝔽_2^m`$ and connected components of $`L^{u,v}()`$.

We split the proof of Theorem 3.2 into several lemmas. Let us abbreviate $`X=L^{u,v}`$, and let $`[X]`$ be the ring of regular functions on $`X`$. Since $`X`$ is isomorphic to a Zariski open subset of $`^m`$, the ring $`[X]`$ is a unique factorization domain. By property (1) in Lemma 3.1, if $`k`$ is not $`𝐢`$-bounded then $`M_k`$ is an invertible element of $`[X]`$.

###### Lemma 3.3.

A Laurent monomial $`P=M_1^{d_1}\mathrm{}M_m^{d_m}`$ is a regular function on $`X`$ if and only if $`d_n0`$ for any $`𝐢`$-bounded $`n`$.

###### Proof.

The “if” part is trivial. To prove the “only if” part, fix an $`𝐢`$-bounded index $`n`$, and consider the restriction of $`P`$ to the Zariski open subset $`U_{n,𝐢}X`$. By property (4) in Lemma 3.1, if $`P[X]`$ then $`M_n^{d_n}`$ is a regular function on $`U_{n,𝐢}`$ and so it must be a Laurent polynomial in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_n^{},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m`$. In view of (3.1), this implies that $`d_n0`$, as desired. ∎

###### Lemma 3.4.

For every $`𝐢`$-bounded $`n`$, the function $`M_n`$ is an irreducible element of $`[X]`$.

###### Proof.

Notice that every $`P[X]`$ restricts to a regular function on the Zariski open subset $`U_𝐢X`$. By property (2) in Lemma 3.1, $`P`$ is a Laurent polynomial in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_m`$. It follows that if $`M_n`$ is the product of two regular functions $`P`$ and $`Q`$ then both $`P`$ and $`Q`$ must be Laurent monomials in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_m`$. By Lemma 3.3, one of the factors $`P`$ and $`Q`$ must be a Laurent monomial in the variables $`M_k`$ for $`k`$ not $`𝐢`$-bounded, hence is an invertible element of $`[X]`$. Therefore, $`M_n`$ is irreducible. ∎

###### Lemma 3.5.

For every $`𝐢`$-bounded $`n`$, the function $`M_n^{}`$ is equal to some irreducible element $`M_n^{\prime \prime }[X]`$ times a Laurent monomial in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`P[X]`$ be an irreducible factor of $`M_n^{}`$. Restricting $`P`$ to $`U_{n,𝐢}`$, we conclude that $`P`$ is a Laurent monomial in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_n^{},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m`$. Restricting $`P`$ to $`U_𝐢`$ and using property (2) in Lemma 3.1, we see that $`P`$ must be also a Laurent polynomial in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_m`$. By (3.1), this implies that the exponent of $`M_n^{}`$ in $`P`$ written as a Laurent monomial in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_n^{},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m`$ must be nonnegative. It follows that there is an irreducible factor $`M_n^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`M_n^{}`$ which is equal to $`M_n^{}`$ times a Laurent monomial in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m`$, while the rest of the factors are just Laurent monomials in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m`$. ∎

We set $`U=U_𝐢_nU_{n,𝐢}`$.

###### Lemma 3.6.

The complement $`XU`$ is the locus of all $`xX`$ such that $`M_n(x)=M_k(x)=0`$ for two distinct $`𝐢`$-bounded indices $`n`$ and $`k`$, or $`M_n(x)=M_n^{\prime \prime }(x)=0`$ for some $`𝐢`$-bounded $`n`$. The variety $`XU`$ has (complex) codimension $`2`$ in $`X`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`xXU`$. Since $`xU_𝐢`$, property (1) in Lemma 3.1 implies that $`M_n(x)=0`$ for some $`𝐢`$-bounded $`n`$. Since $`xU_{n,𝐢}`$, it follows that either $`M_n^{\prime \prime }(x)=0`$, or $`M_k(x)=0`$ for some $`𝐢`$-bounded $`kn`$.

The converse inclusion is obvious. Finally, the statement that $`XU`$ has codimension $`2`$ in $`X`$ is clear since $`XU`$ is the union of finitely many subvarieties, each given by two (distinct) irreducible equations. ∎

Now consider the real part $`U()=U_𝐢()_nU_{n,𝐢}()`$. By Lemma 3.6 and property (5) in Lemma 3.1, the complement $`X()U()`$ has real codimension $`2`$ in $`X()`$. Therefore, the connected components of $`X()`$ (in the real topology) are closures of the connected components of $`U()`$. It remains to show that Theorem 3.2 holds with $`X()`$ replaced by $`U()`$. For a subset $`YU()`$ we now denote by $`\overline{Y}`$ the closure of $`Y`$ in $`U()`$. The role of transvections $`\tau _n`$ is explained by the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.7.

Let $`\xi ^{(1)}`$ and $`\xi ^{(2)}`$ be two distinct vectors in $`𝔽_2^m`$. Then $`\overline{U(\xi ^{(1)})}\overline{U(\xi ^{(2)})}\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`\xi ^{(2)}=\tau _n(\xi ^{(1)})`$ for some $`𝐢`$-bounded index $`n`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`xU()`$ belongs to the intersection $`\overline{U(\xi ^{(1)})}\overline{U(\xi ^{(2)})}`$. Then $`M_k(x)=0`$ whenever $`\xi _k^{(1)}\xi _k^{(2)}`$. Using Lemma 3.6, we see that there is a unique $`n`$ such that $`\xi _n^{(1)}\xi _n^{(2)}`$; furthermore, this index $`n`$ is $`𝐢`$-bounded, and $`M_n^{}(x)0`$. Since any neighborhood of $`x`$ intersects both $`U(\xi ^{(1)})`$ and $`U(\xi ^{(2)})`$, it follows that the two monomials on the right hand side of (3.1) must have opposite signs at $`x`$. Let us write $`\xi _k=\xi _k^{(1)}=\xi _k^{(2)}`$ for $`kn`$. Then we have

$$\xi _n^{(2)}\xi _n^{(1)}=1=\underset{(nl)\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)}{}C_{ln}\xi _l\underset{(kn)\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)}{}C_{kn}\xi _k.$$

Comparing this with (2.2), we conclude that $`\xi ^{(2)}=\tau _n(\xi ^{(1)})`$, as claimed.

Conversely, suppose $`\xi ^{(2)}=\tau _n(\xi ^{(1)})\xi ^{(1)}`$, and let $`\xi _k=\xi _k^{(1)}=\xi _k^{(2)}`$ for $`kn`$. Then

$$\underset{(nl)\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)}{}C_{ln}\xi _l\underset{(kn)\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)}{}C_{kn}\xi _k.$$

This implies that there exists a point $`xU_{n,𝐢}()`$ such that $`(1)^{\xi _k}M_k(x)>0`$ for all $`kn`$, and the right hand side of (3.1) vanishes at $`x`$. Then any neighborhood of $`x`$ contains points with the signs of all $`M_k`$ for $`kn`$ unchanged and with the right hand side of (3.1 positive (as well as negative). Thus, $`x\overline{U(\xi ^{(1)})}\overline{U(\xi ^{(2)})}`$, and we are done. ∎

Now we are ready to complete the proof of Theorem 3.2. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢(𝔽_2)`$-orbit in $`𝔽_2^m`$, and consider the corresponding closed subset $`Y_\mathrm{\Omega }=_{\xi \mathrm{\Omega }}\overline{U_𝐢(\xi )}`$ of $`U()`$. Each $`U_𝐢(\xi )`$ is a copy of $`_{>0}^m`$ and so is connected. Using the “if” part of Lemma 3.7, we conclude that $`Y_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is connected (since the closure of a connected set and the union of two non-disjoint connected sets are connected as well). On the other hand, by the “only if” part of the same lemma, all the sets $`Y_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are pairwise disjoint. Thus, they are the connected components of $`U()`$, and we are done.

## 4. Proof of Lemma 3.1

### 4.1. The functions $`M_k`$

We start by recalling the definition of the functions $`M_k=M_{k,𝐢}`$ given in \[4, (4.13)\]. First of all, recall that the *weight lattice* $`P`$ of $`G`$ can be thought of as the group of rational multiplicative characters of $`H`$ written in the exponential notation: a weight $`\gamma P`$ acts by $`aa^\gamma `$. The lattice $`P`$ is also identified with the additive group of all $`\gamma 𝔥^{}`$ such that $`\gamma (\alpha _i^{})`$ for all $`i\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Thus, $`P`$ has a $``$-basis $`\{\omega _i:i\mathrm{\Pi }\}`$ of *fundamental weights* given by $`\omega _j(\alpha _i^{})=\delta _{i,j}`$.

We now recall from  the definition of *generalized minors*. Denote by $`G_0=N_{}HN`$ the open subset of elements $`xG`$ that have Gaussian decomposition; this (unique) decomposition will be written as $`x=[x]_{}[x]_0[x]_+`$. For $`u,vW`$ and $`i\mathrm{\Pi }`$, the *(generalized) minor* $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{u\omega _i,v\omega _i}`$ is the regular function on $`G`$ whose restriction to the open set $`\overline{u}G_0\overline{v}^1`$ is given by

(4.1)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{u\omega _i,v\omega _i}(x)=(\left[\overline{u}^1x\overline{v}\right]_0)^{\omega _i}.$$

As shown in , $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{u\omega _i,v\omega _i}`$ depends on the weights $`u\omega _i`$ and $`v\omega _i`$ alone, not on the particular choice of $`u`$ and $`v`$. It is easy to see that the generalized minors are distinct irreducible elements of the ring $`[G]`$ of regular functions on $`G`$. In the special case $`G=SL_n`$, the generalized minors are nothing but the ordinary minors of a matrix.

According to \[4, Proposition 4.3\], an element $`xG^{u,v}`$ belongs to $`L^{u,v}`$ if and only if $`[\overline{u}^1x]_0=1`$, or equivalently if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{u\omega _i,\omega _i}(x)=1`$ for any $`i[1,r]`$.

We fix a pair $`(u,v)W\times W`$ and a double reduced word $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)R(u,v)`$. Recall from \[4, Definition 4.6 and Theorem 4.7\] that there is a biregular isomorphism $`\psi ^{u,v}`$ between $`L^{u,v}`$ and $`L^{v,u}`$ given by

(4.2)
$$\psi ^{u,v}(x)=[(\overline{v}x^\iota )^1]_+\overline{v}([\overline{u}^1x]_+)^\iota ;$$

here $`xx^\iota `$ is the involutive antiautomorphism of $`G`$ given by

(4.3)
$$\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array})^\iota =\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}d& b\\ c& a\end{array}).$$

Recall that the length $`m`$ of $`𝐢`$ is equal to $`\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)`$. For $`k[1,m]`$, denote

(4.4)
$$u_k=\underset{l=m,\mathrm{},k}{}_{i_l\mathrm{\Pi }}s_{|i_l|},v_{<k}=\underset{l=1,\mathrm{},k1}{}_{i_l\mathrm{\Pi }}s_{i_l}.$$

This notation means that in the first (resp. second) product in (4.4), the index $`l`$ is decreasing (resp. increasing); for example, if $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\{1,2,3\}`$ and $`𝐢=(2,1,3,3,2,1,2,1,1)`$, then, say, $`u_7=s_1s_2`$ and $`v_{<7}=s_1s_3s_2`$.

Following \[4, (4.13)\], we define a regular function $`M_k=M_{k,𝐢}`$ on $`L^{u,v}`$ by

(4.5)
$$M_k(x)=M_{k,𝐢}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{v_{<k}\omega _{|i_k|},u_k\omega _{|i_k|}}(\psi ^{u,v}(x)).$$

### 4.2. Properties (1), (2) and (5)

To prove property (1) in Lemma 3.1, notice that if $`k`$ is not $`𝐢`$-bounded and $`|i_k|=i`$ then (4.5) turns into $`M_{k,𝐢}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}(\psi ^{u,v}(x))`$. It remains to show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}`$ vanishes nowhere on $`L^{v,u}`$. In fact, a stronger statement holds: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}`$ vanishes nowhere on $`B_{}uB_{}`$. This follows from the definition (4.1) and the well-known inclusion $`B_{}uB_{}u^1G_0`$ (cf. \[6, Proposition 2.10\]).

As for property (2) in Lemma 3.1, it follows from the solution to the so-called factorization problem given in \[6, Theorem 1.9\] (or rather from its modification in \[4, Theorem 4.8\]). To formulate it, we need some notation.

For every $`i\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`t_0`$, we denote

$$x_i(t)=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}1& t\\ 0& 1\end{array}),y_i(t)=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ t& 1\end{array}),t^{\alpha _i^{}}=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}t& 0\\ 0& t^1\end{array});$$

following , we also denote

(4.6)
$$x_i(t)=y_i(t)t^{\alpha _i^{}}=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}t^1& 0\\ 1& t\end{array}).$$

For any word $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)`$ in the alphabet $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$, let us define the *product map* $`x_𝐢:_0^mG`$ by

(4.7)
$$x_𝐢(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)=x_{i_1}(t_1)\mathrm{}x_{i_m}(t_m).$$

For $`k[1,m]`$, we denote $`k^+=\mathrm{min}\{l:l>k,|i_l|=|i_k|\}`$, so that $`k^+`$ is the next occurrence of an index $`\pm i_k`$ in $`𝐢`$; if $`k`$ is the last occurrence of $`\pm i_k`$ in $`𝐢`$ then we set $`k^+=m+1`$. We also adopt the convention that $`M_{m+1}(x)=1`$.

The following reformulation of Theorem 4.8 in  provides a refinement of property (2) in Lemma 3.1.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)`$ be a double reduced word for $`(u,v)`$, and let $`(M_1,\mathrm{},M_m)_0^m`$. Then there is a unique $`xL^{u,v}`$ such that $`M_{k,𝐢}(x)=M_k`$ for $`k[1,m]`$. This element $`x`$ has the form $`x=x_𝐢(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)`$, with the factorization parameters $`t_k`$ given by: if $`i_k\mathrm{\Pi }`$ then

(4.8)
$$t_k=M_k/M_{k^+};$$

if $`i_k\mathrm{\Pi }`$ then

(4.9)
$$t_k=\frac{1}{M_kM_{k^+}}\underset{l:l^{}<k<l}{}M_l^{a_{|i_l|,i_k}}.$$

###### Remark 4.2.

We see that the parameters $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$ in the factorization $`x=x_𝐢(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)`$ are related to $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_m`$ by an invertible monomial transformation. The inverse of this monomial transformation can be computed explicitly: a direct calculation shows that

(4.10)
$$M_k=M_{k,𝐢}(x)=\underset{lk}{}t_l^{\epsilon (i_l)v_{<l}^1v_{<k}\omega _{|i_k|}(\alpha _{|i_l|}^{})}.$$

Finally, property (5) in Lemma 3.1 is clear since each $`M_k`$ is just a Laurent monomial in the factorization parameters $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$, while each $`M_n^{}`$ is the sum of two Laurent monomials; therefore they take real values when all $`t_k`$ are real.

### 4.3. Property (3)

To prove property (3) in Lemma 3.1, we shall construct a new family of regular functions on the whole group $`G`$. Let $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)`$ be a reduced word for $`(u,v)W\times W`$ such that $`|i_1|=|i_m|=i`$ for some $`i\mathrm{\Pi }`$, and $`|i_k|i`$ for $`1<k<m`$. Let $`E_\pm =\{k[2,m1]:\epsilon (i_k)=\pm 1\}`$, and let $`J_\pm =\{i\}\{|i_k|:kE_\pm ,k^+=m+1\}\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐢^{}`$ be the rational function on $`G`$ defined by one of the following four equations.

Case 1. If $`i_1=i_m=i`$ then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}{\displaystyle \underset{kE_+}{}_{k^+E_{}\{m+1\}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v_k\omega _{i_k},u_{>k}\omega _{i_k}}^{a_{i_k,i}}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,\omega _i}{\displaystyle \underset{kE_+}{}_{k^{}E_{}\{0\}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v_{<k}\omega _{i_k},u_{>k}\omega _{i_k}}^{a_{i_k,i}}.`$
Case 2. If $`i_1=i`$ and $`i_m=i`$ then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}{\displaystyle \underset{kE_+}{}_{k^+E_{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v_k\omega _{i_k},u_{>k}\omega _{i_k}}^{a_{i_k,i}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{kE_+}{}_{k^{}E_{}\{0\}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v_{<k}\omega _{i_k},u_{>k}\omega _{i_k}}^{a_{i_k,i}}{\displaystyle \underset{j\mathrm{\Pi }J_+}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}.`$
Case 3. If $`i_1=i`$ and $`i_m=i`$ then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,\omega _i}{\displaystyle \underset{kE_+}{}_{k^{}E_{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v_{<k}\omega _{i_k},u_{>k}\omega _{i_k}}^{a_{i_k,i}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{kE_{}}{}_{k^{}E_+\{0\}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v_{<k}\omega _{|i_k|},u_k\omega _{|i_k|}}^{a_{|i_k|,i}}{\displaystyle \underset{j\mathrm{\Pi }J_{}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}.`$
Case 4. If $`i_1=i_m=i`$ then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}{\displaystyle \underset{kE_{}}{}_{k^+E_+\{m+1\}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v_{<k}\omega _{|i_k|},u_{>k}\omega _{|i_k|}}^{a_{|i_k|,i}}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}{\displaystyle \underset{kE_{}}{}_{k^{}E_+\{0\}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v_{<k}\omega _{|i_k|},u_k\omega _{|i_k|}}^{a_{|i_k|,i}}.`$
###### Theorem 4.3.

In each of the above four cases, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐢^{}`$ is a regular function on $`G`$.

Before proving Theorem 4.3, we show that it implies property (3) in Lemma 3.1. Let $`(u,v)`$ be an arbitrary pair of elements of $`W`$, and fix a reduced word $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)R(u,v)`$. Let $`n`$ be an $`𝐢`$-bounded index in $`[1,m]`$, and let $`𝐢^{}`$ denote the subword $`(i_n^{},\mathrm{},i_n)`$ of $`𝐢`$. We claim that the rational function $`M_n^{}`$ on $`L^{u,v}`$ defined by (3.1) is given by

(4.11)
$$M_n^{}(x)=M_{n,𝐢}^{}(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐢^{}^{}(\overline{u_{>n}}^1\psi ^{u,v}(x)\overline{v_{<n^{}}}),$$

and so is regular. To see this, let us evaluate the defining equation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐢^{}^{}`$ at the point $`\overline{u_{>n}}^1\psi ^{u,v}(x)\overline{v_{<n^{}}}`$. Remembering the definition (4.1) of generalized minors, and the definition (4.5) of the functions $`M_k`$, a direct check shows that, in each of the above four cases, the corresponding equality turns into the equation (3.1) with $`M_n^{}`$ given by (4.11).

It remains to prove Theorem 4.3. Our main tool will be the following identity established in \[6, Theorem 1.17\]:

(4.12)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}\omega _i,u^{}\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}s_i\omega _i,u^{}s_i\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}s_i\omega _i,u^{}\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}\omega _i,u^{}s_i\omega _i}=\underset{j\mathrm{\Pi }\{i\}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{u^{}\omega _j,v^{}\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}$$

for any $`u^{},v^{}W`$ and $`i\mathrm{\Pi }`$ such that $`\mathrm{}(u^{}s_i)=\mathrm{}(u^{})+1`$ and $`\mathrm{}(v^{}s_i)=\mathrm{}(v^{})+1`$.

To prove that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐢^{}`$ is regular on $`G`$, we first consider the case when $`𝐢`$ is “non-mixed,” i.e., $`k<l`$ for each $`kE_{}`$ and $`lE_+`$. Then the defining equation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐢^{}`$ simplifies as follows. Denote $`S_\pm =\{|i_k|:kE_\pm \}\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

Case 1 (non-mixed). If $`i_1=i_m=i`$ then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}{\displaystyle \underset{jS_+}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,\omega _i}{\displaystyle \underset{jS_+}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}.`$
Case 2 (non-mixed). If $`i_1=i`$ and $`i_m=i`$ then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}+{\displaystyle \underset{j\mathrm{\Pi }\{i\}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}.`$
Case 3 (non-mixed). If $`i_1=i`$ and $`i_m=i`$ then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,\omega _i}{\displaystyle \underset{jS_+S_{}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{jS_{}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,u^1\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}{\displaystyle \underset{j\mathrm{\Pi }(S_{}S_+)}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}.`$
Case 4 (non-mixed). If $`i_1=i_m=i`$ then

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}{\displaystyle \underset{jS_{}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,u^1\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}{\displaystyle \underset{jS_{}}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,u^1\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}.`$
By (4.12), in Case 2 we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}`$. Cases 1 and 4 are equivalent to each other in view of the identity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\delta }(x^T)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\delta ,\gamma }(x)`$, where $`xx^T`$ is the involutive antiautomorphism of $`G`$ given by

$$\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array})^T=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}a& c\\ b& d\end{array})$$

(see \[6, Proposition 2.7\]). It remains to show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is regular in each of the cases 1 and 3.

Let us start with Case 3. Multiplying both monomials on the right hand side of the corresponding equation with the monomial

$$\underset{j\mathrm{\Pi }\{i\}(S_+S_{})}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}=\underset{j\mathrm{\Pi }\{i\}S_{}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,u^1\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}\underset{jS_{}S_+}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}$$

and using (4.12), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,\omega _i}\underset{j\mathrm{\Pi }\{i\}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}+\underset{j\mathrm{\Pi }\{i\}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,u^1\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}\underset{j\mathrm{\Pi }\{i\}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}$$

$$=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,\omega _i}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,s_i\omega _i})$$

$$+(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,u^1\omega _i})(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,s_i\omega _i})$$

$$=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}det\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}\\ 0& \mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,\omega _i}\end{array}\right).$$

Since all “principal minors” $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,\omega _j}`$ are distinct irreducible elements of $`[G]`$, it follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}`$ is relatively prime with $`_{j\mathrm{\Pi }\{i\}(S_+S_{})}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}`$. Therefore,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=det\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,u^1\omega _i}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}\\ 0& \mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}& \mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,\omega _i}\end{array}\right)/\underset{j\mathrm{\Pi }\{i\}(S_+S_{})}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}}$$

is a regular function on $`G`$, as required.

The argument in Case 1 is similar (and simpler). Let us only give the final answer: the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is now given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,s_i\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v\omega _i,\omega _i}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _i,s_i\omega _i})/\underset{j\mathrm{\Pi }\{i\}S_+}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,\omega _j}^{a_{ji}},$$

and it is again a regular function on $`G`$, as required.

We shall deduce the general case in Theorem 4.3 from the non-mixed case just considered. Note that every reduced word $`𝐢`$ in each of the cases 1 – 4 is obtained from the corresponding non-mixed word by a sequence of $`2`$-*moves* each of which interchanges a pair of consecutive indices $`i_k`$ and $`i_{k+1}`$ with $`kE_{}`$ and $`k+1E_+`$. It suffices to show that if $`𝐢^{}`$ is obtained from $`𝐢`$ by such a move then the regularity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐢^{}`$ implies that of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐢^{}^{}`$. We shall only treat Case 1; the argument in the other three cases is the same.

Let $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ (resp. $`P_1^{}`$ and $`P_2^{}`$) be two monomials in the right hand side of the defining equation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐢^{}`$ (resp. for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐢^{}^{}`$). Thus, we assume that $`P_1+P_2`$ is divisible by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}`$ in $`[G]`$, and need to show that the same is true for $`P_1^{}+P_2^{}`$. Let us abbreviate $`v^{}=v_{<k}`$ and $`u^{}=u_{>k+1}`$, where $`k`$ and $`k+1`$ are two positions involved in the $`2`$-move that turns $`𝐢`$ into $`𝐢^{}`$. It is clear from the definitions that $`P_1^{}=P_1`$ and $`P_2^{}=P_2`$ unless $`i_k=i_{k+1}=j`$ for some $`j\mathrm{\Pi }`$ such that $`a_{ji}<0`$. In the latter case, we have

$$P_1^{}=P_1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}s_j\omega _j,u^{}s_j\omega _j}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}\omega _j,u^{}s_j\omega _j}^{\delta _1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}s_j\omega _j,u^{}\omega _j}^{\delta _2}}\right)^{a_{ji}},P_2^{}=P_2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}\omega _j,u^{}s_j\omega _j}^{1\delta _1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}s_j\omega _j,u^{}\omega _j}^{1\delta _2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}\omega _j,u^{}\omega _j}}\right)^{a_{ji}},$$

where $`\delta _1=1`$ (resp. $`\delta _2=0`$) if $`k^{}>1`$ and $`i_k^{}=j`$ (resp. $`(k+1)^+<m`$ and $`i_{(k+1)^+}=j`$), otherwise $`\delta _1=0`$ (resp. $`\delta _2=1`$). Since the common denominator $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}\omega _j,u^{}s_j\omega _j}^{\delta _1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}s_j\omega _j,u^{}\omega _j}^{\delta _2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}\omega _j,u^{}\omega _j})^{a_{ji}}`$ of $`P_1^{}`$ and $`P_2^{}`$ is relatively prime with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}`$, it remains to show that

$$P_1(\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}\omega _j,u^{}\omega _j}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}s_j\omega _j,u^{}s_j\omega _j})^{a_{ji}}+P_2(\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}\omega _j,u^{}s_j\omega _j}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}s_j\omega _j,u^{}\omega _j})^{a_{ji}}$$

is divisible by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}`$. Since $`P_1+P_2`$ is divisible by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}`$, it suffices to show that

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}\omega _j,u^{}\omega _j}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}s_j\omega _j,u^{}s_j\omega _j})^{a_{ji}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}\omega _j,u^{}s_j\omega _j}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}s_j\omega _j,u^{}\omega _j})^{a_{ji}}$$

is divisible by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}`$. This in turn follows from the fact that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}\omega _j,u^{}\omega _j}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}s_j\omega _j,u^{}s_j\omega _j}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}\omega _j,u^{}s_j\omega _j}\mathrm{\Delta }_{v^{}s_j\omega _j,u^{}\omega _j}$$

is divisible by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}`$. But the last expression can be factored according to (4.12), and one of the factors is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{s_i\omega _i,\omega _i}^{a_{ij}}`$. This completes the proofs of Theorem 4.3 and property (3) in Lemma 3.1.

### 4.4. Property (4)

Let us fix a reduced word $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)R(u,v)`$, and an $`𝐢`$-bounded index $`n[2,m]`$. Let $`|i_n|=i\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Let $`^m`$ denote the $`m`$-dimensional vector space with coordinates $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_n^{},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m`$. Let $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_m`$ be rational functions on $`^m`$ given by (4.8) and (4.9), where $`M_n`$ is determined from (3.1). By Theorem 4.1, the map

$$\pi :(M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_n^{},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m)x_𝐢(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)$$

is a birational isomorphism $`^mL^{u,v}`$ inverse to the map

$$x(M_1(x),\mathrm{},M_{n1}(x),M_n^{}(x),M_{n+1}(x),\mathrm{},M_m(x)).$$

To prove property (4) in Lemma 3.1, it suffices to show that $`\pi `$ restricts to a regular map $`_0^mL^{u,v}`$.

Let us first show that $`\pi `$ restricts to a regular map $`_0^mG`$. In view of (4.8) and (4.9), if $`k<n^{}`$ or $`k>n`$ then $`t_k`$ is a Laurent monomial in the variables $`M_l`$ with $`ln`$. Thus we only need to show that the product $`x_{i_n^{}}(t_n^{})\mathrm{}x_{i_n}(t_n)`$ is a regular function on $`_0^m`$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $`n^{}=1`$. For each $`k=2,\mathrm{},n`$, we define $`p_k`$ and a rational map $`y_k:^mG`$ as follows:

$$p_k=t_1\underset{1<l<k}{}_{\epsilon (i_l)=1}t_l^{a_{|i_l|,i}},$$

while $`y_k=x_{i_1}(p_k)x_{i_k}(t_k)x_{i_1}(p_{k+1})^1`$ for $`k<n`$, and $`y_n=x_{i_1}(p_n)x_{i_n}(t_n)`$. Then we have $`x_{i_1}(t_1)\mathrm{}x_{i_n}(t_n)=y_2\mathrm{}y_n`$. Thus it suffices to show that each $`y_k`$ is a regular function on $`_0^m`$. As in section 4.3, we denote $`E_\pm =\{l[2,n1]:\epsilon (i_l)=\pm 1\}`$. Let us first prove that $`y_n`$ is a regular function on $`_0^m`$. We have four cases to consider.

Case 1: $`i_1=i_n=i`$. Then

$$y_n=x_i(p_n)x_i(t_n)=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}1& p_n\\ 0& 1\end{array})\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}1& t_n\\ 0& 1\end{array})=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}1& p_n+t_n\\ 0& 1\end{array}).$$

It remains to show that $`p_n+t_n`$ is a regular function on $`_0^m`$. This follows by a direct calculation using (4.8), (4.9) and (3.1): we obtain that

$$p_n+t_n=\frac{M_n^{}}{M_1M_{n^+}}\underset{l>n}{}_{l^{}E_{}\{0\}}M_l^{C_{ln}}\underset{lE_{}}{}_{l^{}E_+}M_l^{C_{ln}}$$

is a Laurent monomial in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_n^{},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m`$.

Case 2: $`i_1=i,i_n=i`$. Then

$$y_n=x_i(p_n)x_i(t_n)=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}1& p_n\\ 0& 1\end{array})\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}t_n^1& 0\\ 1& t_n\end{array})=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}p_n+t_n^1& p_nt_n\\ 1& t_n\end{array}).$$

It remains to show that each of $`t_n`$, $`p_nt_n`$, and $`p_n+t_n^1`$ is a regular function on $`_0^m`$. By a direct calculation, $`p_nt_n`$ and $`p_n+t_n^1`$ are Laurent monomials in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_n^{},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m`$, while $`t_n=M_n/M_{n^+}`$ is the sum of two such Laurent monomials; in fact, we have

$$p_n+t_n^1=\frac{M_n^{}}{M_1}\underset{lE_{}}{}_{l^{}E_+}M_l^{C_{ln}}.$$

Case 3: $`i_1=i,i_n=i`$. Then

$$y_n=x_i(p_n)x_i(t_n)=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}p_n^1& 0\\ 1& p_n\end{array})\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}1& t_n\\ 0& 1\end{array})=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}p_n^1& p_n^1t_n\\ 1& p_n+t_n\end{array}).$$

It remains to show that each of $`p_n^1`$, $`p_n^1t_n`$, and $`p_n+t_n`$ is a regular function on $`_0^m`$. By a direct calculation, $`p_n^1t_n`$ and $`p_n+t_n`$ are Laurent monomials in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_n^{},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m`$, while $`p_n^1`$ is the sum of two such Laurent monomials; in fact, we have

$$p_n+t_n=\frac{M_n^{}}{M_{n^+}}\underset{l>n}{}_{l^{}E_{}}M_l^{C_{ln}}.$$

Case 4: $`i_1=i_n=i`$. Then

$$y_n=x_i(p_n)x_i(t_n)=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}p_n^1& 0\\ 1& p_n\end{array})\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}t_n^1& 0\\ 1& t_n\end{array})=\phi _i(\begin{array}{cc}p_n^1t_n^1& 0\\ p_n+t_n^1& p_nt_n\end{array}).$$

It remains to show that each of $`(p_nt_n)^{\pm 1}`$ and $`p_n+t_n^1`$ is a regular function on $`_0^m`$. By a direct calculation, both $`p_nt_n`$ and $`p_n+t_n^1`$ are Laurent monomials in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_n^{},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m`$; in fact, we have

$$p_n+t_n^1=M_n^{}\underset{lE_{}}{}_{l^{}E_+\{0\}}M_l^{C_{ln}}.$$

Now let $`1<k<n`$, and suppose $`|i_k|=j\mathrm{\Pi }`$. To show that $`y_k`$ is a regular function on $`_0^m`$, we have to consider another four cases.

Case 1: $`i_1=i,i_k=j`$. Then $`y_k=x_i(p_k)x_j(t_k)x_i(p_k)`$. Let $`p=p_k^1,q=p_k^{a_{ij}}t_k`$. Clearly, both $`p`$ and $`q`$ are regular functions on $`_0^m`$. The desired regularity of $`y_k`$ becomes a consequence of the following lemma.

###### Lemma 4.4.

For any two distinct $`i,j\mathrm{\Pi }`$, the map $`_0\times N`$ given by $`(p,q)x_i(p^1)x_j(p^{a_{ij}}q)x_i(p^1)`$ extends to a regular map $`^2N`$.

In order not to interrupt the exposition, we will prove this lemma in the end of this section.

Case 2: $`i_1=i,i_k=j`$. Then

$$y_k=x_i(p_k)x_j(t_k)x_i(p_kt_k^{a_{ji}})^1=x_j(t_k)=x_j(M_k/M_{k^+})$$

(see \[4, Proposition 7.2\]), which is a regular function on $`_0^m`$.

Case 3: $`i_1=i,i_k=j`$. Then

$$y_k=x_i(p_k)x_j(t_k)x_i(p_k)^1=x_j(p_k^{a_{ij}}t_k)$$

(see \[4, Proposition 7.2\]), which is a regular function on $`_0^m`$ since $`p_k^{a_{ij}}t_k`$ is a Laurent monomial in $`M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m`$.

Case 4: $`i_1=i,i_k=j`$. Then

$$y_k=x_i(p_k)x_j(t_k)x_i(p_kt_k^{a_{ji}})^1.$$

Using (4.6) and the commutation relation \[6, (2.5)\], we can rewrite $`y_k`$ as follows:

$$y_k=y_i(p_k)y_j(p_k^{a_{ij}}t_k)y_i(p_k)t_k^{s_i\alpha _j^{}}.$$

The “Cartan factor” $`t_k^{s_i\alpha _j^{}}`$ is clearly a regular function on $`_0^m`$. As for the first factor $`y_i(p_k)y_j(p_k^{a_{ij}}t_k)y_i(p_k)`$, after applying the automorphism $`xx^\iota T`$ of $`G`$, it becomes $`x_i(p_k)x_j(p_k^{a_{ij}}t_k)x_i(p_k)`$, and its regularity follows from Lemma 4.4 with $`p=p_k^1`$ and $`q=t_k`$.

We have proved (modulo Lemma 4.4) that the map

$$\pi :(M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_n^{},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m)x_𝐢(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)$$

is a regular map $`_0^mG`$. To complete the proof of property (4), it remains to show that the image of $`\pi `$ is contained in $`L^{u,v}`$. By Theorem 4.1, this image is contained in the closure of $`L^{u,v}`$. Recall from  that $`L^{u,v}`$ is determined inside its closure by the conditions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,v^1\omega _j}(x)0`$ for all $`j`$. The results in  also imply that, for any $`xL^{u,v}`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,v^1\omega _j}(x)=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,u^1\omega _j}(\psi ^{u,v}(x)))^1=M_{k(j)}(x)^1`$, where $`k(j)`$ is the first occurrence of the index $`\pm j`$ in $`𝐢`$. It follows that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\omega _j,v^1\omega _j}(\pi (M_1,\mathrm{},M_{n1},M_n^{},M_{n+1},\mathrm{},M_m))=M_{k(j)}^10$$

on $`_0^m`$, and we are done.

Proof of Lemma 4.4. The proof below was suggested by N. Reshetikhin; it is simpler than the author’s original proof. Let $`\{e_i:i\mathrm{\Pi }\}`$ be the standard generators of the Lie algebra $`𝔫=\mathrm{Lie}(N)`$; thus, we have $`x_i(t)=\mathrm{exp}(te_i)`$ for every $`i\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`t`$. Let $`\mathrm{Ad}:G\mathrm{Aut}(𝔤)`$ be the adjoint representation of $`G`$, and $`\mathrm{ad}:𝔤\mathrm{End}(𝔤)`$ be the differential of $`\mathrm{Ad}`$; recall that these representations satisfy $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{Ad}(x)e)=x\mathrm{exp}(e)x^1`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ad}(e))=\mathrm{Ad}(\mathrm{exp}(e))`$ for $`xG`$ and $`e𝔤`$. It follows that

$$x_i(p^1)x_j(p^{a_{ij}}q)x_i(p^1)=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{Ad}(x_i(p^1))p^{a_{ij}}qe_j)$$

$$=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ad}(p^1e_i))p^{a_{ij}}qe_j)=\mathrm{exp}\left(q\underset{n0}{}\frac{p^{a_{ij}n}}{n!}\mathrm{ad}(e_i)^n(e_j)\right)$$

$$=\mathrm{exp}\left(q\underset{n=0}{\overset{a_{ij}}{}}\frac{p^{a_{ij}n}}{n!}\mathrm{ad}(e_i)^n(e_j)\right),$$

which is obviously regular in $`p`$ and $`q`$ (the last equality follows from Serre’s relation $`\mathrm{ad}(e_i)^{1a_{ij}}(e_j)=0`$).

Property (4) in Lemma 3.1, and Theorems 3.2 and 2.2 are finally proved.

## 5. Some examples and applications

### 5.1. Cones of regular monomials

Let us again fix a pair $`(u,v)W\times W`$, and a reduced word $`𝐢=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_m)R(u,v)`$. In view of Theorem 4.1, a generic element $`xL^{u,v}`$ has the form $`x=x_𝐢(t_1,\mathrm{},t_m)`$, so the factorization parameters $`t_k`$ are well-defined rational functions on $`L^{u,v}`$ given by (4.8) and (4.9). Combining these formulas with Lemma 3.3 yields the following corollary.

###### Proposition 5.1.

A Laurent monomial $`t_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}t_m^{a_m}`$ is a regular function on $`L^{u,v}`$ if and only if

(5.1)
$$\epsilon (i_n)a_na_n^{}+\underset{n^{}<k<n}{}_{\epsilon (i_k)=1}C_{nk}a_k0$$

for any $`𝐢`$-bounded $`n[1,m]`$.

Two special cases are worth mentioning. If $`v=e`$ then $`\epsilon (i_k)=1`$ for all $`k`$, and the inequalities (5.1) take the form $`a_na_n^{}`$. If $`u=e`$ then $`\epsilon (i_k)=1`$ for all $`k`$, and the inequalities (5.1) take the form

$$a_na_n^{}+\underset{n^{}<k<n}{}C_{nk}a_k0;$$

the cone defined by these inequalities appeared in a different context in , and also in .

### 5.2. Intersections of two open opposite Schubert cells

Let us illustrate Theorem 2.2 by the case when $`u=e`$ and $`w=w_0`$, the longest element in $`W`$. In this case, $`L^{u,v}`$ is biregularly isomorphic to the intersection of two open opposite Schubert cells $`C_{w_0}w_0C_{w_0}`$, where $`C_{w_0}=(Bw_0B)/B`$ is the open Schubert cell in the flag variety $`G/B`$. These opposite cells appeared in the literature in various contexts, and were studied (in various degrees of generality) in . Let $`C`$ denote the number of connected components of $`L^{e,w_0}()`$; to emphasize the dependency on $`G`$, we shall write $`C=C(X_r)`$, where $`X_r=A_r,B_r,\mathrm{},G_2`$ is the type of $`G`$ in the Cartan-Killing classification.

The numbers $`C(A_r)`$ were determined in : it turns out that $`C(A_1)=2,C(A_2)=6,C(A_3)=20,C(A_4)=52`$, and $`C(A_r)=32^r`$ for $`r5`$. Theorem 2.2 allows us to extend this result to all other simply-laced types.

###### Proposition 5.2.

If $`X_r`$ is one of the types $`A_r(r5),D_r(r4),E_6,E_7`$, or $`E_8`$ then $`C(X_r)=32^r`$.

###### Proof.

Following \[15, Definition 3.10\], we say that a graph is $`E_6`$-compatible if it is connected, and it contains an induced subgraph with $`6`$ vertices isomorphic to the Dynkin graph $`E_6`$ (see Fig. 1).

Combining Theorem 2.2 with \[15, Corollary 3.12\], we obtain the following sufficient condition for the equality $`C(X_r)=32^r`$: it holds provided $`G`$ is simply-laced, and there exists $`𝐢R(w_0)`$ such that the induced subgraph of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)`$ (see Definition 2.1) on the set of all $`𝐢`$-bounded vertices is $`E_6`$-compatible. In  this condition was checked for the type $`A_5`$. Therefore, it also holds for any simply-laced Dynkin graph that contains an induced subgraph of type $`A_5`$, that is, for $`A_r(r5),D_r(r6),E_6,E_7`$, and $`E_8`$. It remains to check this condition for the type $`D_4`$ (the statement for $`D_5`$ then follows). Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\{1,2,3,4\}`$ with the branching vertex $`3`$. Take the reduced word $`𝐢=(1,2,3,1,2,3,4,3,1,2,3,4)R(w_0)`$. By inspection, the induced subgraph of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐢)`$ with $`𝐢`$-bounded vertices $`4,5,9,10,11`$, and $`12`$ is isomorphic to the Dynkin graph $`E_6`$, and we are done. ∎

The numbers $`C(B_2)`$ and $`C(G_2)`$ were determined in : it turns out that $`C(B_2)=8`$ and $`C(G_2)=11`$. Theorem 2.2 gives a simpler way to prove these answers. In the case of $`B_2`$, take $`𝐢=(j,i,j,i)`$ with $`a_{ij}=2`$ and $`a_{ji}=1`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢(𝔽_2)`$ is the group of transformations of $`𝔽_2^4`$ generated by $`\tau _3:\xi _3\xi _3+\xi _1`$ and $`\tau _4:\xi _4\xi _4+\xi _3+\xi _2`$. It is easy to see that the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢(𝔽_2)`$ in $`𝔽_2^4`$ has $`8`$ orbits: four fixed points $`0000,0001,0110`$, and $`0111`$, two $`2`$-element orbits $`0010\stackrel{\tau _4}{}0011`$ and $`0100\stackrel{\tau _4}{}0101`$, and two $`4`$-element orbits $`1000\stackrel{\tau _3}{}1010\stackrel{\tau _4}{}1011\stackrel{\tau _3}{}1001`$ and $`1110\stackrel{\tau _3}{}1100\stackrel{\tau _4}{}1101\stackrel{\tau _3}{}1111`$.

The case of $`G_2`$ is treated in a similar fashion. Take $`𝐢=(j,i,j,i,j,i)`$ with $`a_{ij}=3`$ and $`a_{ji}=1`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢(𝔽_2)`$ is the group of transformations of $`𝔽_2^6`$ generated by the transvections $`\tau _n(3n6)`$ acting by $`\tau _n:\xi _n_{|kn|2}\xi _k`$. It is easy to see that the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝐢(𝔽_2)`$ in $`𝔽_2^6`$ has $`11`$ orbits: four fixed points $`000000,001001,001110`$, and $`000111`$; six $`8`$-element orbits, and one $`12`$-element orbit. The $`8`$-element orbits are depicted in Fig. 2 (one has to take the first depicted orbit together with its translates by the $`3`$ non-zero fixed vectors; and the second depicted orbit together with its translate by the vector $`001110`$); the $`12`$-element orbit is depicted in Fig. 3.

###### Remark 5.3.

Computing the numbers $`C(B_r)`$ and $`C(C_r)`$ for $`r3`$ seems to be a challenging problem. Since the transvections $`\tau _n`$ are no longer symplectic in this case, one cannot use \[15, Corollary 3.12\] (at least, not in a straightforward way).

### 5.3. Dual canonical basis for the type $`B_2`$

In conclusion, we briefly discuss a potential application of the above results. Let $`G/N`$ be the *base affine space* for $`G`$. It is well-known that the ring of regular functions $`[G/N]`$ (that is, regular functions on $`G`$ invariant under right translations by elements of $`N`$) is the multiplicity-free sum of all irreducible finite-dimensional representations of $`G`$. Let $`B`$ denote the *dual canonical basis* in $`[G/N]`$ (more precisely, $`B`$ is the “classical limit” of the dual canonical basis in the $`q`$-deformed ring $`_q[G/N]`$). Despite much progress in studying properties of the canonical bases, an explicit construction of $`B`$ still remains to be found. It is known that $`B`$ contains all “Plücker coordinates” $`P_\gamma =\mathrm{\Delta }_{\gamma ,\omega _i}`$ for $`i\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`\gamma W\omega _i`$. We suspect that $`B`$ also contains all functions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐢^{}`$ in Theorem 4.3 corresponding to reduced words $`𝐢`$ consisting of elements of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Thus, these functions together with the Plücker coordinates $`P_\gamma `$ are among the building blocks for $`B`$.

As an illustration, consider the case when $`G`$ is of type $`B_2`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\{i,j\}`$ with $`a_{ij}=2`$ and $`a_{ji}=1`$. The basis $`B`$ in this case was found in  (even before the “official” discovery of canonical bases). Translating the results in  into our present notation, we obtain the following.

There are $`8`$ Plücker coordinates: $`P_{\omega _i},P_{\omega _j},P_{s_i\omega _i},P_{s_j\omega _j},P_{s_js_i\omega _i},P_{s_is_j\omega _j},P_{w_0\omega _i}`$, and $`P_{w_0\omega _j}`$. Let us also denote $`Q_{\omega _j}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(i,j,i)}^{}`$ and $`Q_{2\omega _i}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(j,i,j)}^{}`$; thus, these functions are defined from the equations

(5.2)
$$Q_{\omega _j}P_{s_i\omega _i}=P_{s_is_j\omega _j}P_{\omega _i}+P_{\omega _j}P_{w_0\omega _i}$$

and

(5.3)
$$Q_{2\omega _i}P_{s_j\omega _j}=P_{s_js_i\omega _i}^2P_{\omega _j}+P_{\omega _i}^2P_{w_0\omega _j}.$$

The main result of  can be now summarized as follows.

###### Proposition 5.4.

The dual canonical basis $`B`$ of $`[G/N]`$ consists of all monomials in $`10`$ variables $`P_{\omega _i},\mathrm{},P_{w_0\omega _j},Q_{\omega _j},Q_{2\omega _i}`$ with the following property: if this monomial contains variables in two vertices of the “magical hexagon” in Fig. 4 then these two vertices are adjacent.

We see that $`B`$ is the union (not disjoint!) of six families of elements corresponding to the edges of the hexagon in Fig. 4: each family consists of all monomials in six variables $`P_{\omega _i},P_{\omega _j},P_{w_0\omega _i},P_{w_0\omega _j},P,Q`$, where $`P`$ and $`Q`$ lie in two adjacent vertices of the hexagon.

Note that the equations (5.2) and (5.3) can be now interpreted as expansions in the basis $`B`$ of two “forbidden” monomials corresponding to diagonals of the hexagon. There are 7 more such identities corresponding to the remaining 7 diagonals:

$$Q_{\omega _j}P_{s_js_i\omega _i}=P_{w_0\omega _j}P_{\omega _i}+P_{s_j\omega _j}P_{w_0\omega _i};$$

$$Q_{2\omega _i}P_{s_is_j\omega _j}=P_{w_0\omega _i}^2P_{\omega _j}+P_{s_i\omega _i}^2P_{w_0\omega _j};$$

$$P_{s_i\omega _i}P_{s_js_i\omega _i}=P_{\omega _i}P_{w_0\omega _i}+Q_{2\omega _i};$$

$$P_{s_j\omega _j}P_{s_is_j\omega _j}=P_{\omega _j}P_{w_0\omega _j}+Q_{\omega _j}^2;$$

$$P_{s_i\omega _i}P_{s_j\omega _j}=P_{s_js_i\omega _i}P_{\omega _j}+P_{\omega _i}Q_{\omega _j};$$

$$P_{s_js_i\omega _i}P_{s_is_j\omega _j}=P_{s_i\omega _i}P_{w_0\omega _j}+P_{w_0\omega _i}Q_{\omega _j};$$

$$Q_{2\omega _i}Q_{\omega _j}=P_{s_js_i\omega _i}P_{w_0\omega _i}P_{\omega _j}+P_{s_i\omega _i}P_{\omega _i}P_{w_0\omega _j}.$$

## Acknowledgements

I thank Arkady Berenstein, Nicolai Reshetikhin, Boris and Misha Shapiro, and Alek Vainshtein for helpful discussions.