Pieri algebras and Hibi algebras in representation theory

  • Roger HoweEmail author
Part of the Progress in Mathematics book series (PM, volume 257)


A class of algebras that unify a variety of calculations in the representation theory of classical groups is discussed. Because of their relation to the classical Pieri Rule, these algebras are called double Pieri algebras. A generalization of the standard monomial theory of Hodge is developed for double Pieri algebras, that uses pairs of semistandard tableaux, rather than a single one. SAGBI theory and toric deformation are key tools. The deformed double Pieri algebras are described using a doubled version of Gelfand–Tsetlin patterns. The approach allows the discussion to avoid dealing with relations between generators.


Pieri Rule Classical groups SAGBI theory Standard monomials  Toric deformation 

Mathematics Subject Classification 2010

13A50 15A72 20G05 22E46 22E47 


  1. 1.
    V. Alexeev and M. Brion, Toric degenerations of spherical varieties, Selecta Math. (N.S.) 10 (2004), 453–478.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Borel, Linear Algebraic Groups. Second edition. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 126. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay Rings, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Caldero, Toric degenerations of Schubert varieties, Trans. Groups 7 (2002), 51–60.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chirivi, R. LS algebras and application to Schubert varieties. Trans. Groups 5 (2000), 245–264.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Conca, J. Herzog and G. Valla, SAGBI basis with applications to blow-up algebras, J. Reine Angew. Math. 474 (1996), 113–138.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Cox, J. Little and D. O’Shea, Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms. An Introduction to Computational Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra, Second edition, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. DeConcini and C. Procesi, A characteristic-free approach to invariant theory, Adv. Math. 21 (1976), 330–354.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Dehy and R. W. T. Yu, Degeneration of Schubert varieties of SL nB to toric varieties, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 51 (2001), 1525–1538.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Désarménien, J. Kung, and G.-C. Rota, Invariant theory, Young bitableaux, and combinatorics, Adv. Math. 27 (1978), 63–92.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Doubilet, G.-C. Rota and J. Stein, Foundations of Combinatorial Theory, IX, Stud. in App. Math. 53 (1974), 185–216.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Fulton, Introduction to Toric Varieties, Ann. Math. Studies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1993.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    W. Fulton, Young Tableaux, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. Fulton, Eigenvalues, invariant factors, highest weights, and Schubert calculus, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 37 (2000), 209–249.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    N. Gonciulea and V. Lakshmibai, Degenerations of flag and Schubert varieties to toric varieties, Trans. Groups 1 (1996), 215–248.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    I. M. Gelfand and M. L. Tsetlin, Finite-dimensional representations of the group of unimodular matrices. (Russian) Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.) 71, (1950). 825–828. English translation: I. M. Gelfand, Collected Papers. Vol II. Edited by S. G. Gindikin, V. W. Guillemin, A. A. Kirillov, B. Kostant, and S. Sternberg. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988, 653–656.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    R. Goodman and N. Wallach, Representations and Invariants of the Classical Groups, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Hibi, Distributive lattices, affine semigroup rings and algebras with straightening laws, in: Commutative Algebra and Combinatorics, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., 11, 1987, 93–109.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    W. Hodge, Some enumerative results in the theory of forms, Proc. Cam. Phi. Soc. 39 (1943), 22–30.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R. Howe, Remarks on classical invariant theory, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 313 (1989), 539–570.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Howe, Perspectives on invariant theory, The Schur Lectures, I. Piatetski-Shapiro and S. Gelbart (eds.), Israel Mathematical Conference Proceedings, 1995, 1–182.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Howe, Weyl Chambers and Standard Monomial Theory for Poset Lattice Cones, Q. J. Pure Appl. Math. 1 (2005) 227–239.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    R. Howe, A Century of Lie theory. American Mathematical Society centennial publications, Vol. II (Providence, RI, 1988), Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1992, 101–320.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Howe, S. Jackson, S. T. Lee, E-C Tan and J. Willenbring, Toric degeneration of branching algebras, Adv. Math. 220 (2009), 1809–1841.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. Howe, S. Kim and S.T. Lee, Iterated Pieri algebras and Hibi algebras, preprint.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    R. Howe and S. T. Lee, Why should the Littlewood–Richardson rule be true?, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 49 (2012), 187–236.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    R. Howe, E-C. Tan and J. Willenbring, Reciprocity algebras and branching for classical symmetric pairs, in Groups and Analysis - the Legacy of Hermann Weyl, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series No. 354, Cambridge University Press, 2008, 191–231.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. Howe, E-C. Tan and J. Willenbring, Stable branching rules for classical symmetric pairs, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 357 (2005) 1601–1626.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    R. Howe, E-C. Tan and J. Willenbring, A basis for GL n tensor product algebra, Adv. in Math. 196 (2005), 531–564.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    M. Kashiwara, Crystallizing the q-analogue of universal enveloping algebras, Comm. Math. Phys. 133 (1990), 249–260.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    K. Kaveh, SAGBI bases and degeneration of spherical varieties to toric varieties, Michigan Math. J., 53 (2005), 109–121.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    S. Kim, Standard monomial theory for flag algebras of GL(n) and Sp(2n), J. Algebra 320 (2008), 534–568.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    S. Kim, Standard monomial bases and degenerations of SO m(C) representations, J. Algebra 322 (2009), 3896–3911.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    S. Kim, Distributive lattices, affine semigroups, and branching rules of the classical groups, preprint arXiv:1004.0054Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    S. Kim and S. T. Lee, Pieri algebras for the orthogonal and symplectic groups, Israel J. Math., 195 (2013), 215–245.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    S. Kim and O. Yacobi, A basis for the symplectic group branching algebra, J. Algebraic Combin., 35 (2012), 269–290.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    A. A. Kirillov, A remark on the Gelfand–Tsetlin patterns for symplectic groups. J. Geom. Phys. 5 (1988), 473–482.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    M. Kogan and E. Miller, Toric degeneration of Schubert varieties and Gelfand–Tsetlin polytopes, Adv. Math. 193 (2005), 1–17.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    V. Lakshmibai, The development of standard monomial theory, II. A tribute to C. S. Seshadri, (Chennai, 2002), Birkhäuser, Basel, 2003, 283–309.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    V. Lakshmibai and K. Raghavan, Standard Monomial Theory. Invariant theoretic approach. Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, 137. Invariant Theory and Algebraic Transformation Groups, 8. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    V. Lakshmibai, P. Littelmann, P. Magyar, Standard monomial theory and applications. Notes by Rupert W. T. Yu. NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci., 514; Representation theories and algebraic geometry (Montreal, PQ, 1997), Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1998, 319–364.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    P. Littelmann, Paths and root operators in representation theory, Ann. of Math. 142 (1995), 499–525.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    G. Lusztig, Canonical bases arising from quantized enveloping algebras, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 3 (1990), 447–498.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    I. Macdonald, Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials, Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    E. Miller and B. Sturmfels, Combinatorial Commutative Algebra, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 227, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    A. Molev, A basis for representations of symplectic Lie algebras, Comm. Math. Phys. 201 (1999), 591–618.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    R. Proctor, Odd symplectic groups. Invent. Math. 92 (1988), 307–332.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    R. Proctor, Young tableaux, Gelfand patterns, and branching rules for classical groups. J. Algebra 164 (1994), 299–360.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    V. Reiner, Signed posets. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 62 (1993), 324–360.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    L. Robbiano and M. Sweedler, Subalgebra bases, Proceedings Salvador 1988 Eds. W. Bruns, A. Simis, Lecture Notes Math 1430 (1990), 61–87.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    M. Schützenberger, La correspondance de Robinson, in Combinatoire et représentations du groupe symétrique (D. Foata, ed.), Lecture Notes in Mathematics 579, 1976, 59–113.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    R. Stanley, Enumerative Combinatorics, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    B. Sturmfels, Gröbner Bases and Convex Polytopes, Univ. Lecture Series, Vol. 8, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1996.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    S. Sundaram, Orthogonal tableaux and an insertion algorithm for SO(2n + 1). J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 53 (1990), 239–256.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    N. Wallach, Quantum computing and entanglement for mathematicians, in Representation theory and complex analysis, Lecture Notes in Math. 1931, Springer, Berlin, 2008, 345–376.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    H. Weyl, The Classical Groups, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1946.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    D. Zhelobenko, Compact Lie Groups and Their Representations, Translations of Mathematical Monographs 40, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1973.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    D. Zhelobenko, On Gelfand–Zetlin bases for classical Lie algebras, in: Kirillov, A. A. (ed.) Representations of Lie groups and Lie algebras, Budapest: Akademiai Kiado: 1985, 79–106.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations