Signature characters of invariant Hermitian forms on irreducible Verma modules and Hall–Littlewood polynomials
- 40 Downloads
The Unitary Dual Problem is one of mathematics’ most important open problems: classify the irreducible unitary representations of a group. The general approach has been to classify all representations admitting non-degenerate invariant Hermitian forms, compute the signatures of those forms, and then determine which forms are positive definite. Signature character algorithms and formulas arising from deforming representations and analysing changes at reducibility points, as in Adams et al. (Unitary representations of real reductive groups (ArXiv e-prints), 2012) and Yee (Represent Theory 9:638–677, 2005), produce very complicated formulas or algorithms from the resulting recursion. This paper shows that in the case of irreducible Verma modules all of the complexity can be encapsulated by the affine Hecke algebra: for compact real forms and for alcoves corresponding to translations of the fundamental alcove by a regular weight, signature characters of irreducible Verma modules are in fact “negatives” of Hall–Littlewood polynomial summands evaluated at \(q=-\,1\) times a version of the Weyl denominator, establishing a simple signature character formula and drawing an important connection between signature characters and the affine Hecke algebra. Signature characters of irreducible highest weight modules are shown to be related to Kazhdan-Lusztig basis elements. This paper also handles noncompact real forms. The current state of the art for the unitary dual is a computer algorithm for determining if a given representation is unitary. These results suggest the potential to move the state of the art to a closed form classification for the entire unitary dual.
Mathematics Subject ClassificationPrimary 22E50 Secondary 05E10
I would like to thank Jeff Adams for very helpful and supportive conversations. I would like to thank the numerous people, especially M, who supported and helped me through illness which ultimately made this paper possible. I would also like to thank the referee for very helpful comments.
- 2.Adams, J., van Leeuwen, M., Trapa, P., Vogan, D.A. : Jr. Unitary representations of real reductive groups (2012). (ArXiv e-prints) Google Scholar
- 3.Beilinson, A., Bernstein, J.: A proof of Jantzen conjectures. In I. M. Gelfand Seminar, Adv. Soviet Math., vol. 16, pp. 1–50. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence (1993)Google Scholar
- 4.Ciubotaru, D.: Tutorial on affine Hecke algebras. http://www2.ims.nus.edu.sg/Programs/016theory/files/dan.pdf, (2016). Accessed 25 Apr 2017
- 6.Dyer, M.J.: Hecke algebras and reflections in Coxeter groups, Ph.D. thesis. University of Sydney, Sydney (1987)Google Scholar
- 8.Gelfand, I.M.: Collected Papers, vol. I. Springer, Berlin. With remarks by V. W. Guillemin and S. Sternberg (1987)Google Scholar
- 10.Hall, P.: The Algebra of Partitions. Proceedings of the Fourth Canadian Mathematical Congress: Banff, pp. 147–159. University of Toronto Press, Toronto (1959)Google Scholar
- 15.Kuznetsov, V.B., Sahi, S. (eds.): Jack, Hall–Littlewood and Macdonald Polynomials. Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 417. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2006)Google Scholar
- 22.Macdonald, I.G.: Spherical functions on a group of \(p\)-adic type. Ramanujan Institute, Centre for Advanced Study in Mathematics, University of Madras, Madras. Publications of the Ramanujan Institute, No. 2 (1971)Google Scholar
- 23.Macdonald, I.G.: Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials. Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences, 2nd edn. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York (2015)Google Scholar
- 24.Nelsen, K., Ram, A.: Kostka–Foulkes polynomials and Macdonald spherical functions. In: Surveys in Combinatorics, 2003 (Bangor), London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 307, pp. 325–370. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
- 25.Ram, A.: Alcove walks, Hecke algebras, spherical functions, crystals and column strict tableaux. Pure Appl. Math. Q. 2(4, Special Issue: In honor of Robert D. MacPherson. Part 2), 963–1013 (2006)Google Scholar