Spectral Theory of the Nazarov-Sklyanin Lax Operator

rite \mu = \big(1^{d_1} 2^{d_2} \cdots\big) to denote a partition \mu of size | \mu | = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} k d_k with d_k parts of size k. For such \mu, let V_{\mu} = V_1^{d_1} V_2^{d_2} \cdots. The ring F in (?) has graded components F_n with \dim F_n = \mathsf{p}(n) since \{V_{\mu} \colon | \mu|=n\} is a basis of F_n. Similarly, F[w] in (?) has graded components F[w]_n with basis \big\{V_{\mu} w^l \colon | \mu | + l = n\big\} so (3.2) holds.

or any \eta \in Z(j_{\lambda}, {\mathcal{L}}), there is a polynomial P so \eta = P({\mathcal{L}}) j_{\lambda}. As a consequence, \pi_0 \eta is a finite linear combination of \pi_0 {\mathcal{L}}^{\ell} j_{\lambda} indexed by \ell \geq 0. Expanding the resolvent (u - {\mathcal{L}})^{-1}= \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} u^{-\ell-1} {\mathcal{L}}^{\ell}, part (1^{\vee}) of Theorem 2.2 implies all \pi_0 {\mathcal{L}}^{\ell} j_{\lambda} \in {\mathbb{C}} j_{\lambda}.

f \eta \in Z_{\lambda} = Z(j_{\lambda}, {\mathcal{L}}), since j_{\lambda} is cyclic, there is a polynomial P so that \eta = P({\mathcal{L}}) j_{\lambda}. Similarly, if \varphi \in Z_{\gamma} = Z(j_{\gamma}, {\mathcal{L}}), there is a polynomial Q so that \varphi = Q({\mathcal{L}}) j_{\gamma}. Then

since {\mathcal{L}}^{\dagger} = {\mathcal{L}} is self-adjoint in F[w]_n, \pi_0 Q({\mathcal{L}}) P({\mathcal{L}}) j_{\lambda} \in {\mathbb{C}} j_{\lambda} by (3.3), and \langle j_{\gamma} , j_{\lambda} \rangle_{\hbar} = 0.

ince \dim Z_{\lambda}<\infty by Lemma 3.2, we may apply the general linear algebra results in the appendix Section ? to the case W = Z_{\lambda}, J = j_{\lambda}, and L = {\mathcal{L}} |_{Z_{\lambda}}. From this perspective, formula (?) in (2^{\vee}) of Nazarov–Sklyanin’s Theorem 2.2 gives an exact formula for the Titchmarsh–Weyl function T(u) in (?), so (A.3) implies (?).

n any partition \lambda, the number of addable and removable corners always differ exactly by 1: (1.2) and (1.2) satisfy

By induction in n \geq 0, it is straightforward to prove the combinatorial identities

where \mathsf{p}(l) is the number of partitions of l. Indeed, (\lambda, s) \mapsto (\lambda \cup \{s\} , s) defines a bijection

By (3.2) and (I), \dim F[w]_n = \sum_{| \lambda| = n}\! | \mathcal{A}_{\lambda}|. By formula (?) of part (2) of Theorem 1.4 proved above, since {\mathcal{L}} |_{Z_{\lambda}} has simple spectrum indexed by \mathcal{A}_{\lambda}, \dim Z_{\lambda} = | \mathcal{A}_{\lambda}|. By the orthogonality in Lemma 3.5, \bigoplus_{| \lambda|=n} Z_{\lambda} \subseteq F[w]_n. However, since we’ve shown \dim F[w]_n = \sum_{| \lambda|=n} \dim Z_{\lambda}, we must have equality

which proves (?).

y Lemma 3.4, we may apply the general linear algebra results in the appendices Appendices ? and ? to the case W = Z_{\lambda}, J = j_{\lambda}, L = {\mathcal{L}} |_{Z_{\lambda}}, and \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle = \langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle_{\hbar}. Throughout Appendix ?, \dim W = m+1 and we index the L-eigenvector basis \psi^{(i)} by a superscript i \in \{0,1,\ldots, m\}. By the formula (?) of part (2) of Theorem 1.4 proven above, \dim Z_{\lambda} = | \mathcal{A}_{\lambda}|, so we may instead index the {\mathcal{L}}-eigenvector basis \psi_{\lambda}^s of Z_{\lambda} by superscripts {s \in \mathcal{A}_{\lambda}}. In this way, our desired normalization condition (?) on \psi_{\lambda}^s ( w, V_1, V_2, \ldots) follows immediately from (A.5). Likewise, the identities (?) and (?) follow directly from (A.7) and (?) using the aforementioned identification of (?) and (?). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.4.

ince \pi_0 \psi_{\lambda}^s = j_{\lambda}, the w=0 principal specialization formula (4.3) is an immediate consequence of the well-known principal specialization result for J_{\lambda} due to Stanley [Stanley]. To prove (4.3), let {\mathcal{L}}\equiv{\mathcal{L}}_{\overline{\varepsilon},\hbar} be the Lax operator in (1.1), with the choices (?) and (?). The eigenvalue equation is

Taking \pi_0 of both sides of (S), one can use \pi_0 \psi_{\lambda}^s = j_{\lambda} on the right side, then observe that we can replace \pi_0 {\mathcal{L}}_{\overline{\varepsilon},\hbar} by \pi_0 {\mathcal{L}}_{0,0} on the left side. Indeed, by inspecting the terms in (1.1) with \hbar and \overline{\varepsilon}, one has \pi_0 {\mathcal{L}}_{\overline{\varepsilon},\hbar} \eta = \pi_0 {\mathcal{L}}_{0,0} \eta for any \eta \in F[w]. As a consequence,

Since \pi_0 {\mathcal{L}}_{0,0} = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} V_k \pi_0 w^{-k}, if we expand our eigenfunction as

with each \pi_{l} \psi_{\lambda}^s \in F = {\mathbb{C}}[V_1, V_2, \ldots] homogeneous of degree n - l, (S) reads

On the other hand, the difference \psi_{\lambda}^s(1) - \psi_{\lambda}^s(0) between \psi_{\lambda}^s at w=1 and w=0 is

Equation (S) is an equality of polynomials in V_k which are homogeneous of degree n, whereas equation (S) is an equality of polynomials in V_k which are not homogeneous. If we evaluate V_k = z for all 1 \leq k \leq n in both (S) and (S) and assume z \neq 0, the left sides of each differ by an overall factor of z, so we can conclude that

Substituting Stanley’s result (4.3) into (S) yields (4.3).

or any \widetilde{\eta} \in {\widetilde{W}}, we need to find a polynomial \widetilde{P} so that

Choose \eta \in W such that {\widetilde{\Pi}} \eta = \widetilde{\eta}. Since W = Z(J,L), there is a polynomial P so that

Apply {\widetilde{\Pi}} to both sides of (F). One can then use the identity \textnormal{Id}_W = \Pi_J + {\widetilde{\Pi}}, (?), and (?) to prove that {\widetilde{\Pi}} L^{\ell} J for \ell = 0,1,2,\ldots are in the span of {\widetilde{J}}, {\widetilde{L}} {\widetilde{J}}, {\widetilde{L}}^2 {\widetilde{J}}, \ldots by induction on \ell, thus defining \widetilde{P} from P.

he following argument is standard both in the theory of Jacobi matrices and in the study of lattice paths, see, e.g., [Ke1, Lemma 6.3.2]. However, this result is usually presented in the context of a choice of a tridiagonal matrix representation of L and assuming that L is self-adjoint, neither of which is necessary for the argument below. Since a=0, u^{-2} \Pi_J L J = 0. Expanding the resolvent using a geometric series, (?) becomes

For terms in (T) with \ell \geq 2, use (?) to insert \ell-1 copies of \textnormal{Id}_W = \Pi_J + {\widetilde{\Pi}} between the \ell copies of L which appear in the expansion of L^{\ell}. This produces 2^{\ell-1} terms of the form \Pi_J \Pi_1 L \Pi_2 L \Pi_3 \cdots L \Pi_{\ell-1} L J with each \Pi_i \in \big\{\Pi_J, {\widetilde{\Pi}}\big\}. Group these terms by the minimum value of i so that \Pi_i = \Pi_J. Since a=0, we can assume i \geq 2. After relabeling indices, one checks (T) becomes T(u) = u^{-1} + u^{-1} {\widetilde{T}}(u) T(u) with {\widetilde{T}}(u) as defined in (?).

pply Cramer’s rule for \Pi_J of solutions \Phi(u) of the linear system (u - L) \Phi = J.

y the Cauchy interlacing theorem – e.g., [HornJohnsonBOOK, p. 242] or [Ke1, Section 6] – it remains to prove (A.5) and (A.5). For any basis of L eigenvectors \psi^{(i)}, since \Pi_J projects onto {\mathbb{C}} J,

for some \gamma^{(i)} \in {\mathbb{C}} for all i \in \{0,1,\ldots, m\}. We first argue that \gamma^{(i)}= 0 is not possible in (B), i.e., \Pi_J \psi^{(i)} \neq 0. Pairing (B) with J, using the inner product and the fact that the orthogonal projection \Pi_J is self-adjoint, one arrives at the identity

As a consequence, if we expand J in the \psi^s basis, formula (B) determines the coefficients

Since J is cyclic for L in W, its coefficients in the \psi^{(i)} basis are non-zero for all i \in \{0,1,\ldots, m\}, thus (B) guarantees \gamma^{(i)} \neq 0 for all i \in \{0,1,\ldots, m\}. Since the eigenvalues \sigma^{(i)} of L in W are distinct, the \psi^{(i)} are uniquely determined up to overall factors in {\mathbb{C}}^{\times}, so we can choose these factors uniquely so \gamma^{(i)} = 1 in (B), proving (A.5). By Proposition A.1, {\widetilde{L}} is cyclic in {\widetilde{W}} = ({\mathbb{C}} J)^{\perp}. Since {\widetilde{L}} = {\widetilde{L}}^{\dagger}, the same argument above repeated in {\widetilde{W}} instead of W, this time choosing \widetilde{\gamma}^{(i)} = \| J\|^2/ \| {\widetilde{J}} \|^2 instead of \gamma^{(i)} = 1, guarantees that if we consider {\widetilde{J}} \in {\widetilde{W}} in (?), there is a unique basis \widetilde{\psi}^{(i)} of {\widetilde{L}}-eigenvectors of {\widetilde{W}} with

Pairing both sides of (B) with {\widetilde{J}} and using the fact that the orthogonal projection \Pi_{{\widetilde{J}}} to {\mathbb{C}} {\widetilde{J}} is self-adjoint, (B) implies

At the same time, since {\widetilde{J}} = {\widetilde{\Pi}} L J holds by (?), L^{\dagger} = L, {\widetilde{\Pi}} = {\widetilde{\Pi}}^{\dagger}, and {\widetilde{\Pi}} \widetilde{\psi}^{(i)} = \widetilde{\psi}^{(i)}, we also have

Equating (B) and (B) implies \frac{ \langle {J} , L\widetilde{\psi}^{(i)} \rangle}{ \langle J, J \rangle } = 1 which is equivalent to (A.5).

resolutions of identities \textnormal{Id}_W, \textnormal{Id}_{{\widetilde{W}}}, we have

Substituting (For non-zero \eta \in W, let \Pi_\eta be the orthogonal projection onto \BC \eta defined by \Pi_\eta \xi\! = \!\frac\langle \eta, \xi \rangle \langle \eta, \eta \rangle \eta. Since the orthogonal bases \psi^(i), \widetilde\psi^(i) of W, \wtW determine) and (For non-zero \eta \in W, let \Pi_\eta be the orthogonal projection onto \BC \eta defined by \Pi_\eta \xi\! = \!\frac\langle \eta, \xi \rangle \langle \eta, \eta \rangle \eta. Since the orthogonal bases \psi^(i), \widetilde\psi^(i) of W, \wtW determine) into the inner product formulas (?) and (?) for T, {\widetilde{T}}, one may use the eigenvalue equations (A.5) and (A.5) and the orthogonality of eigenfunctions to get

Taking residues of (?) and (?) at eigenvalues \sigma^{(i)}, \widetilde{\sigma}^{(i)} gives

Finally, since the normalization conditions (A.5) and (A.5) and L = L^{\dagger} imply

substituting (?) and (?) into (?) and (?) completes the proof.

ormulas (A.6) and (?) imply \tau^{(i)} = \frac{\langle \psi^{(i)}, J \rangle}{ \langle \psi^{(i)}, \psi^{(i)} \rangle}. Hence (A.7), since

Similarly, combining formulas (A.6) and (?) implies (A.7).

e first prove (A.8). To begin, we observe that

since (?) implies that the left-hand side of (W) is -T(\widetilde{\sigma}^t) J, but we know that T(\widetilde{\sigma}^t)=0 since \widetilde{\sigma}^{(i)} \in {\textnormal{spec}}\big({\widetilde{L}}\big) is necessarily a zero of the rational function T by Proposition A.3. As a consequence of (W), {\widetilde{\Pi}} \frac{1}{ L - \widetilde{\sigma}^{(i)} } J = \frac{1}{ L - \widetilde{\sigma}^{(i)} } J which implies the eigenvalue relation

Finally, since formula (W) also implies that \Pi_J L \frac{1}{ L - \widetilde{\sigma}^{(i)}} J = \Pi_J J + \widetilde{\sigma}^{(i)} \Pi_J \frac{1}{ L - \widetilde{\sigma}^{(i)} } J = J, we have shown that \frac{1}{L - \widetilde{\sigma}^{(i)}} J is an {\widetilde{L}}-eigenvector with eigenvalue \widetilde{\sigma}^{(i)} satisfying (A.5). Since these properties uniquely characterize \widetilde{\psi}^{(i)}, we have proven (A.8). Next, we prove (A.8) assuming a=0 so that LJ = {\widetilde{J}} in (?). To begin, the resolvent of {\widetilde{L}} is well defined at u=\sigma^{(i)} since in Theorem A.5 we have seen that {\textnormal{spec}}(L) \cap {\textnormal{spec}}\big({\widetilde{L}}\big)= \varnothing. As a consequence, {\widetilde{J}} \in {\widetilde{W}} implies that \frac{1}{\sigma^{(i)} - {\widetilde{L}}} {\widetilde{J}} \in {\widetilde{W}}, hence the vector on the right-hand side of (A.8) satisfies

the normalization condition (A.5). To verify that this vector is indeed an L-eigenvector with eigenvalue \sigma^{(i)}, multiply by L then calculate its projections onto {\mathbb{C}} J and {\widetilde{W}} = ( {\mathbb{C}} J)^{\perp}. In the {\mathbb{C}} J projection, we can simplify using our assumption a=0 in (?), the definition (?) of {\widetilde{T}}(u), and {\widetilde{T}}\big(\sigma^{(i)}\big) = \sigma^{(i)} at the special value u = \sigma^{(i)} due to Corollary A.4:

In the {\widetilde{W}} = ({\mathbb{C}} J)^{\perp} projection, using \frac{1}{\sigma^{(i)} - {\widetilde{L}}} {\widetilde{J}} \in {\widetilde{W}}, {\widetilde{\Pi}} L {\widetilde{\Pi}} = {\widetilde{L}}, and {\widetilde{L}} = -\big({\sigma^{(i)}} - {\widetilde{L}}\big) + \sigma^{(i)},

Since (W) and (W) are \sigma^{(i)} times the same projections of J+ \frac{1}{ \sigma^{(i)} - {\widetilde{L}}} {\widetilde{J}}, (A.8) follows.