Elliptic extension of Gustafson's $q$-integral of type $G_2$
Masahiko Ito, Masatoshi Noumi

TL;DR
This paper proves an elliptic extension of Gustafson's $q$-integral of type $G_2$, expressing it via elliptic gamma functions and connecting it to known $q$-beta integrals as a special case.
Contribution
It introduces a new elliptic beta integral of type $G_2$ and provides a proof using elliptic gamma functions and existing $BC_1$ integrals.
Findings
Evaluation formula expressed with elliptic gamma functions
Includes Gustafson's $q$-beta integral as a limit case
Utilizes elliptic beta integral of type $BC_1$ in proof
Abstract
The evaluation formula for an elliptic beta integral of type is proved. The integral is expressed by a product of Ruijsenaars' elliptic gamma functions, and the formula includes that of Gustafson's -beta integral of type as a special limiting case as . The elliptic beta integral of type by van Diejen and Spiridonov is effectively used in the proof of the evaluation formula.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMathematical functions and polynomials · Advanced Mathematical Identities · Algebraic structures and combinatorial models
Elliptic extension of Gustafson’s -integral of type
Masahiko Ito and Masatoshi Noumi
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of the Ryukyus, Okinawa 903-0213, Japan
Department of Mathematics, Kobe University, Rokko, Kobe 657-8501, Japan
Abstract
The evaluation formula for an elliptic beta integral of type is proved. The integral is expressed by a product of Ruijsenaars’ elliptic gamma functions, and the formula includes that of Gustafson’s -beta integral of type as a special limiting case as . The elliptic beta integral of type by van Diejen and Spiridonov is effectively used in the proof of the evaluation formula.
000 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 33D67; Secondary 33D65, 39A13.000 Key words and phrases. elliptic beta integral, Gustafson’s -beta integral, root system of type 000 This work is supported by JSPS Kakenhi Grants (B)15H03626 and (C)18K03339.
1 Introduction
The Askey–Wilson integral is a complex integral given by
[TABLE]
where and is the unit circle traversed in the positive direction. Hereafter, for a fixed satisfying , we use the symbol and the abbreviation . The infinite product on the right-hand side of (1.1) is expressed by a product of -gamma functions. In this sense formula (1.1) can be regarded as a kind of beta integral, and in fact plays a fundamental role in the theory of Askey–Wilson -orthogonal polynomials [1]. This type of -beta integrals has been extended to multiple -beta integrals in the framework of Macdonald theory of multivariable -orthogonal polynomials associated with root systems. In this context the Askey–Wilson integral (1.1) is of type . In a series of pioneering works around 1990, Gustafson discovered various evaluation formulas for multiple -beta integrals associated with root systems, including several remarkable identities which are not covered by the so-called Macdonald constant terms. In the cases of non-simply laced root systems, there are basically two types in Gustafson’s multiple -beta integrals, which are later called type I and type II in the context of [15]. (See also [4] for their explicit forms.)
In the last two decades, several elliptic extensions of the -beta integrals have been studied, especially for those of type by van Diejen and Spiridonov [15], Spiridonov [14], Rains [11]. They include the elliptic extension of (1.1)
[TABLE]
where , under the balancing condition . Here, for fixed , satisfying , , we denote by the Ruijsenaars elliptic gamma function defined by
[TABLE]
We also use the notation . Note that satisfies
[TABLE]
where is a theta function satisfying , and also satisfies
[TABLE]
The Askey–Wilson integral (1.1) is obtained from (1.2) as a special case, first by replacing with and by taking the limit and consecutively.
Compared with the development in the cases of classical root systems, the elliptic extensions of the cases of exceptional root systems are not fully studied yet. The aim of this paper is to prove an elliptic extension of the following -integral formula of type (of type I) due to Gustafson [2, p. 101, Theorem 8.1] and [3].
Proposition 1.1** (Gustafson)**
Suppose that satisfy . Then we have
[TABLE]
where and is the 2-dimensional torus given by
[TABLE]
Our main result is
Theorem 1.2
Suppose that and satisfy . Under the balancing condition , we have
[TABLE]
In 2007 this formula was communicated as a conjecture by one of the authors (M. Ito) to V. P. Spiridonov. This conjecture was formulated by Spiridonov and Vartanov [12, 13] in the context of duality of superconformal indices. As far as we know, however, no proof of this formula has been given so far.
Remark 1. Gustafson’s formula (1.6) is included in (1.7) as a limiting case; first replace with , and then take the limit .
Remark 2. By (1.5), under the condition , where , the right-hand side of (1.7) is also expressed as
[TABLE]
This coincides with the expression in the conjecture [13, p. 213, (36)] when . Moreover, by the property , the right-hand side of (1.7) is rewritten into
[TABLE]
Remark 3. By the constraint , the integrand
[TABLE]
of the left-hand side of (1.7) is also expressed as
[TABLE]
This expression consists of two parts, one depending on the short roots and the other on the long roots . In the proof of (1.7) we will use the coordinates associated with the simple roots, defined as
[TABLE]
Theorem 1.2 will be proved in two steps. The first step is to show that both sides of (1.7) satisfy a common system of -difference equations, so that we can consequently confirm both sides coincide up to a constant. The second step is to analyze asymptotic behaviors of both sides at a singularity in order to determine the constant. This method is also applicable to other elliptic beta integrals. In particular, we refer to [8] for the case including the formula (1.2), which might be simpler than the case of this paper.
This paper is organized as follows. After defining basic terminology of the root system in Section 2, we first present in Section 3 the explicit forms of the -difference equations which the integral (1.7) satisfies (Proposition 3.1). In Section 4 we study the analytic continuation of the integral (1.7) as a meromorphic function of the parameters in a specific domain. We use this argument to show that the integral (1.7) is expressed as a product of elliptic gamma functions up to a constant. In Section 5 we explain a fundamental method, which corresponds to integration by parts in calculus, to deduce the -difference equations for the contour integral (1.7). This method is formulated in terms of a -difference coboundary operator , where and are defined as spaces of theta functions specified by individual quasi-periodicities. Section 6 is a technical part; we investigate in detail the source and target spaces , of the operator . We apply this argument to proving Lemma 3.2, which we used to derive the -difference equations in Proposition 3.1. Section 7 is devoted to asymptotic analysis of the contour integral (1.7) along the singularity . It is used to determine the explicit value of the constant, which was indefinite at the stage of Section 4. It should be noted that the elliptic beta integral (1.2) of type naturally arises in the process of calculation of the asymptotic behavior.
Lastly, we comment on our calculation of . For theta functions we need to expand as a linear combination of theta functions which belong to a particular basis of . In this paper we made use of the basis of that consists of the Lagrange interpolation functions associated with the specific points , , and defined in Section 6. (We constructed this basis in a heuristic way. See the set of theta functions , whose interpolation property is presented in the table below (6.16).) In the cases of and root systems in [6] and [5, 7, 8, 9], respectively, we remark that Lagrange interpolation functions in a space of theta functions of particular quasi-periodicity are introduced by systematically specifying a set of reference points in . It would be an interesting problem to find a universal way which produces adequate interpolation bases for general root systems.
2 Root system
Let be the standard basis of with the inner product satisfying , and let be the hyperplane in with equation , i.e.,
Let be the root system of type given by
[TABLE]
where . We refer the setting of the root system of type to Macdonald’s book [10]. We fix the set of simple roots given by
[TABLE]
The set of positive roots is given by
[TABLE]
We also fix the set of fundamental weights by , where . This implies that
[TABLE]
Let and be the weight lattice and root lattice defined by and , respectively. For the root system , the root lattice coincides with the weight lattice .
Let be the Weyl group of type generated by orthogonal reflections with respect to the hyperplane perpendicular to , which are given by . The group is generated by the reflections , and is isomorphic to the dihedral group of order 12.
[TABLE]
Moreover, is explicitly written as
[TABLE]
where coincide with the rotations around the origin through angle on and coincide with the reflections written as follows: , , , , , . We use the expression (2.1) of later. The element is the longest element of . Note also that the inner product and the reflections are uniquely extended linearly to .
We fix the set of fundamental coweights by , so that , Let be the coweight lattice defined by . For and we denote by the -shift operator with respect to for functions on by
[TABLE]
We also define action of the Weyl group on by
[TABLE]
We consider the mapping from to by
[TABLE]
If we write with the fundamental coweights by , then the above mapping is written as . For , we write . In particular, for we have the expression , where . Through (2.3) and (2.4), for we can define , i.e.,
[TABLE]
and we can also define for functions on as
[TABLE]
so that, for instance, we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We say that a function is -symmetric if for all . By chain rule for differential forms, we have
[TABLE]
We fix and , where and , respectively. If we consider a function on as the function on through (2.4), then the -shift operators for with respect to
[TABLE]
are induced by the -shift operators with respect to , respectively. The -shift operators for with respect to are also defined by the -shift operators with respect to , respectively.
Using the notation , we have and the variable change of , where
[TABLE]
which we saw in (1.11). Though using the coordinates with instead of we sometimes have simple expressions for functions on in appearance, like the integrands shown in (1.9) or (1.10) for instance, we use the coordinates of associated with simple roots in the succeeding sections.
3 ** elliptic Gustafson integral and its -difference equations**
Let be function in defined by
[TABLE]
where and
[TABLE]
with complex parameters . We also use the notation instead of when we need to make the dependence on the parameters explicit. Through (1.11), coincides with (1.9) or (1.10). For the function we investigate the double integral
[TABLE]
over a 2-cycle . (2.8) implies . (2.7) also implies , , so that is -symmetric. If the parameters satisfy the condition , then is holomorphic in the neighborhood of the 2-dimensional torus
[TABLE]
and hence the integral
[TABLE]
defines a holomorphic function on the domain
We now formulate a system of -difference equations for the integral . Our goal is to establish the following proposition. We use the abbreviation .
Proposition 3.1
Suppose that . Under the balancing condition , the integral satisfies the system of -difference equations
[TABLE]
for , provided that and .
Note that the condition is equivalent to under the balancing condition. We need to assume that satisfies to guarantee that the above equations hold in a nonempty region.
For let the function defined by
[TABLE]
which satisfies , and the three-term relation
[TABLE]
We use the notation
[TABLE]
for any meromorphic function on such that is holomorphic in a neighborhood of . Since satisfies that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
the integral satisfies
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.2
Under the condition , and , we have
[TABLE]
In other words,
[TABLE]
Proof. The proof of this lemma will be given later in Section 6.
In general, we have the following.
Lemma 3.3
Under the condition , and , the integral satisfies the two-term relations
[TABLE]
for .
Proposition 3.1 is obtained from Lemma 3.3 replacing by .
We now suppose that and regard , where , as a function of . Then the integral is defined on the nonempty open subset
[TABLE]
of . The -difference equations (3.3) for are defined on
[TABLE]
which is a nonempty open subset of , if .
4 Analytic continuation
The integral , regarded as a holomorphic function in , can be continued to a meromorphic function on . We prove this fact by means the -difference equations (3.3).
In view of Proposition 3.1 we consider the meromorphic function
[TABLE]
which is also written as (1.8) if , as is mentioned in the introduction. Then it turns out that satisfies the same -difference equations as (3.3). In fact, from (1.4) one has
[TABLE]
for . In the following we regard as a meromorphic function in through , where , as before. Noting that the integral is a holomorphic function on , we consider the meromorphic function
[TABLE]
on . This ratio has poles in possibly along the divisors
[TABLE]
where . Also, is -periodic with respect to in the sense that
[TABLE]
for .
Lemma 4.1
Suppose that . Then, under the condition , there exists an open subset of the form
[TABLE]
such that and that is holomorphic on .
Proof. Under the assumption , i.e., , one can choose positive number such that
[TABLE]
From the condition and (4.3) we have
[TABLE]
We first confirm that . Suppose that . Then, from (4.3) and (4.4) we have , which means that . We next show that is holomorphic in . For this purpose, from (4) we verify the following when :
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
For (4.6), since , it suffices to show , which is confirmed as follows. Using (4.4) and (4.5) we obtain
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
On the other hand, for (4.7), since , it suffices to show , which is confirmed as follows. Using (4.3), (4.4) and (4.5) we obtain
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
Theorem 4.2
Suppose that . Under the condition , the integral , regarded as a holomorphic function in , is expressed as
[TABLE]
for some constant independent of . In particular, is continued to a meromorphic function on .
*Proof. * By Lemma 4.1, there exists an open subset of the form (4.3) where is holomorphic and satisfies the -difference equations
[TABLE]
for . Note that is the product of copies of an annulus in which the ratio of the two radii is given by . Hence, by the -difference equations (4.8), the holomorphic function on is continued to a holomorphic function on the whole . It must be a constant, however, since the continued function is -periodic with respect to the variables . If we denote this constant by , we have as a holomorphic function on , and hence is continued to a meromorphic function on .
We compute the constant in Section 7, and we eventually see that . Once this constant has been determined, we see that the statement above is valid for without any particular restriction.
5 Coboundary operator
In this section we explain a fundamental method for deriving -difference equations of the contour integrals (3.6) based on an operator . This method corresponds to integration by parts in calculus, and will be used in the succeeding section for the proof of Lemma 3.2 presented in Section 3.
From the definition (3.1) of we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
From (2.5) and (2.6), we can immediately confirm that
[TABLE]
We remark that and have the quasi-periodicity
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
with respect to the -shifts, respectively.
We denote by the -vector space of meromorphic functions on , and by the -vector space of holomorphic functions on . For each function we define the function by
[TABLE]
and by the symmetrization of :
[TABLE]
where denotes the -vector space of -invariant meromorphic functions on .
Lemma 5.1
Suppose that . For any , we have and hence
Proof. From (3.1) and (5.1), we have
[TABLE]
From (5.3) we have
[TABLE]
Since if , when and is fixed as , the right-hand side of (5.10) as a function of has no poles in the annulus . Hence, by Cauchy’s integral theorem we have
[TABLE]
Combining (5.9) and (5.11), we have
[TABLE]
Since and are -symmetric, we therefore obtain
[TABLE]
Definition 5.2
We consider the -linear subspace consisting of all -invariant holomorphic functions such that
[TABLE]
We set , where is the longest element of . For we consider the -subspace consisting of all -invariant functions such that
[TABLE]
Remark. It can be verified directly that if has the quasi-periodicity (5.12), so does the function for any . Also if satisfies (5.13), so does for any .
Lemma 5.3
Under the condition , if , then .
Proof. Suppose that satisfies (5.13). Then we have
[TABLE]
Since satisfies (5.5), we have
[TABLE]
Similarly, from (5.6) we have
[TABLE]
Hence, under the condition , both and satisfy the same quasi-periodicity condition (5.12), as well as . This implies that satisfies (5.12), since this quasi-periodicity is preserved by the action of .
We introduce the elliptic version of the Weyl denominator
[TABLE]
which satisfies for all . Note that
[TABLE]
When belongs to , the numerator of the right-hand side is a quasi-periodic holomorphic function on . Since it is alternating with respect to the action of , it is divisible by . This means that is holomorphic on and belongs to the space .
Lemma 5.4
For , is expressed as
[TABLE]
where and are given by
[TABLE]
for .
Proof. From the definition (5.3) of , we have
[TABLE]
Since is invariant under , i.e., , for we have
[TABLE]
Applying (5.17) and (5.18) to the definition (5.7) of , for we have
[TABLE]
so that we have
[TABLE]
From the expression (2.1) of , this implies that
[TABLE]
Since is invariant under , i.e., , for we have
[TABLE]
From (5.4), (5.20) and (5.19), we therefore obtain , which coincides with (5.15).
6 Proof of Lemma 3.2
The goal of this section is to give a proof of Lemma 3.2 investigating the -linear mapping defined in the previous section. For that purpose we first clarify the structure of the target space in Definition 5.2.
Lemma 6.1
.
Proof. For arbitrary , since is a holomorphic function of , can be expanded as Laurent series , where .
Let be the set defined by , which is the set of points in the triangle area consisting of three lines , and . Then we can immediately confirm that . (See Figure 2.) Let be the -orbit of , i.e., , which is the set of points in the regular hexagon area consisting of six lines for . Since is -symmetric, i.e., for , we have for . This means that the coefficients for are determined by for . On the other hand, since satisfies that
[TABLE]
we have Equating the coefficients of on both sides, we have , i.e.,
[TABLE]
Moreover, applying (6.1) to , we also have , i.e.,
[TABLE]
where . Combining (6.2) and (6.3), for arbitrary we have
[TABLE]
so that the coefficients for are determined by for . Since the lattice is covered by the sets for , i.e., , the coefficients for are also determined by for , and consequently, determined by for . Therefore we obtain .
Remark. In the next proposition, we prove that . In general, we can consider the -linear subspace consisting of all -invariant holomorphic functions such that
[TABLE]
In the same way as above, it is actually confirmed that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Proposition 6.2
Let be functions defined in (3.8). For generic , the set is a -basis of the space , i.e.,
[TABLE]
In particular, .
In the rest of this section, we omit the base in the notation defined in (3.4), so that
[TABLE]
In order to prove Proposition 6.2, we define the points in given by
[TABLE]
i.e., , , if . By definition the values at are given by
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
This already implies that are linearly independent for generic . In fact, their values at are given as follows.
[TABLE]
Let be function defined by
[TABLE]
Lemma 6.3
For the function satisfies
[TABLE]
Moreover for and if then we have
[TABLE]
which is independent of . In particular, we have
[TABLE]
Proof. From (6.6) and (6.7), we have (6.8). Without loss of generality we prove (6.9) for . Using (6.5) we also have
[TABLE]
Denoting as a function of , from (6) we immediately see that is holomorphic on and satisfies
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
This implies that is divisible by , i.e.,
[TABLE]
where is a constant independent of . We evaluate in two ways. From (6) we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, (6.12) implies so that we have
[TABLE]
We therefore obtain
[TABLE]
which coincides with (6.9) for .
Proof of Proposition 6.2. From (6.8) and (6.10) of Lemma 6.3, we see that are linearly independent for generic .
[TABLE]
Hence are also linearly independent for generic . From Lemma 6.1, we therefore obtain that is a -basis of . This completes the proof of Proposition 6.2.
By the definition (6.7) of and Proposition 6.2, the set is also a -basis of the space , i.e., . Here we slightly deform in the set as follows. Let be points in given by
[TABLE]
so that , , if . We remark that and is evaluated as
[TABLE]
which is already confirmed in (6.13). We now define as
[TABLE]
which satisfies
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Therefore the set is also a -basis of the space , i.e.,
[TABLE]
which will be used in the proof of Lemma 6.5.
Let and be functions defined by
[TABLE]
From direct calculation we can immediately confirm that
[TABLE]
Proposition 6.4
For generic , the set is a -basis of the space . In particular, .
Remark. We omit the proof of this proposition since we need the fact (6.20) only for the succeeding discussions.
Lemma 6.5
Under the condition , and are expanded as
[TABLE]
where the coefficients are given by
[TABLE]
Proof. For we simply use notation
[TABLE]
where and are given in (5.16). Our aim is to confirm that and are expanded as the right-hand side of (6.21) and (6.22), respectively. Before that we evaluate the special values , and , .
First we evaluate and . From (6.4), if , then , . Hence, since , have factors and , have factors , we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
From (6.29), this implies that
[TABLE]
By definition we have and . If we put , then the explicit forms of and are given as
[TABLE]
so that we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, in the same way as above, if we put , then we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, if , then we eventually obtain , i.e.,
[TABLE]
for , in particular, .
Next we evaluate and . From (6.14), if , then , . Since , have factors and , have factors , we have
[TABLE]
From (6.29), this implies that
[TABLE]
When or the functions , and have factors , and , respectively. This implies and . We therefore obtain , i.e.,
[TABLE]
We now calculate the expansions of and From (6.17), are expanded in terms of , i.e.,
[TABLE]
where are some constants independent of . Our aim is to show that and the others are given by (6.23)–(6.28). Applying (6.6), (6.8) and (6.16) to (6.34), we have the expressions
[TABLE]
In particular, we immediately have because . Furthermore, from (6.5) and (6.32) we obtain
[TABLE]
which is equal to (6.24). Since is symmetric with respect to the transposition of and , we obtain the expression (6.23) of from (6.24) of interchanging and . From (6.15) and (6.33) we have
[TABLE]
which is equal to (6.25).
On the other hand, for , and we shall omit the process to calculate the expressions (6.26), (6.27) and (6.28) since it is almost the same way as above for , and .
Proposition 6.6
Under the condition , for we have
[TABLE]
where the constant is given as
[TABLE]
when . In particular, we have
[TABLE]
Proof. Since (6.37) follows from (6.36) by Lemma 5.1, we show (6.36). By the symmetry with respect to the indices , it suffices to consider the case where with
[TABLE]
From the condition , we suppose that , where . Then, by Lemma 6.5, we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where , are explicitly given by (6.23)–(6.28). Eliminating from the above equations, we have
[TABLE]
since one can verify in the course of computation. Therefore in (6.37) is calculated as
[TABLE]
where and are expressed as
[TABLE]
Here we can confirm that and are factorized as
[TABLE]
respectively. In fact, (6.42) is confirmed as follows. Denoting by the right-hand side of (6.40) as a function of , satisfies
[TABLE]
and . This implies that is divisible by , i.e.,
[TABLE]
where is a constant independent of . Evaluating in two ways, we have
[TABLE]
so that we have We therefore obtain
[TABLE]
which is equivalent to the right-hand side of (6.42). For the case (6.43) of , we can actually deduce it from (6.41) in the same way as (6.42) of above.
From (6), (6.42) and (6.43), we consequently obtain
[TABLE]
which coincides with (6.38) by using the identities
[TABLE]
and the relations
[TABLE]
under the condition . Thus we finally obtain the expression (6.38) of independent of .
Proof of Lemma 3.2. By Proposition 6.6, under the condition , we have the relation between and as , where
[TABLE]
Therefore we obtain and from (6.38) and (6.44) the coefficient coincides with that of (3.9) in Lemma 3.2.
*Remark. * The quotient space can be interpreted as the -difference de Rham cohomology associated with our integral . Note that Proposition 6.6 means . Although one can directly verify that , we omit the proof since Theorem 1.2 should eventually imply .
7 Computation of the constant
In this section we use the double-sign symbol like for abbreviation.
As before, we assume that the parameters satisfy the balancing condition , and regard , where , as a function of . By Theorem 4.2 we showed that the meromorphic functions and are related by the formula
[TABLE]
provided that is sufficiently small. To determine the constant , we investigate the behavior of these two functions along the divisor .
We first consider the limit of as . Since is written as
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Using this, from (4) we have
[TABLE]
where in the right-hand side should be understood as . Since we have in the limit , from the definition (1.3) of we obtain
[TABLE]
as . Using this, (7.3) implies
Lemma 7.1
In the limit as , the function satisfies that
[TABLE]
We next investigate the behavior of as , assuming that is sufficiently small so that equality (7.1) holds. Here, for convenience, we suppose that as in Theorem 4.2. We denote by the positively oriented circle with center and radius , i.e.,
[TABLE]
Under the condition with , we consider defined by (3.2) as the iterated integral
[TABLE]
where the integrand defined by (3.1) is written as
[TABLE]
The function is rewritten as
[TABLE]
where denotes the reciprocal of the denominator of in the expression (7.4). In fact, turns out to be a holomorphic function of , since it is computed as
[TABLE]
where is just the elliptic Weyl denominator introduced by (5.14) in Section 5, and (7.6) is immediately confirmed from (1.5). We also write as
[TABLE]
Since is rewritten from (7.4) as
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
is written as
[TABLE]
We now suppose . Then, the integral
[TABLE]
defines a holomorphic function of on the domain . For any satisfying , it is easy to see that there exists such that the circle in the -plane keeps the points , inside and , outside. Then, the integral in (7.9) is continued analytically to the domain by deforming to . Hence
[TABLE]
defines a meromorphic function on the domain .
Lemma 7.2
Suppose . The integral is also expressed as
[TABLE]
using a cycle defined by the homology equivalence
[TABLE]
where is sufficiently small.
Proof. Since by (7.11), from (7.7) we have
[TABLE]
Since is written as (7.5) with (7.6), using the formula (7.2), we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, in the same way as above, we also have
[TABLE]
which coincides with (7) up to sign, and
[TABLE]
which also coincides with (7) up to sign. Hence, applying (7)–(7.16) to (7.12), we see that is expressed as (7.10) in Lemma 7.2.
Lemma 7.3
Suppose . Then, it follows that
[TABLE]
using a cycle defined by the homological equivalence
[TABLE]
where is sufficiently small.
Proof. From Lemma 7.2, (7.7) implies that
[TABLE]
Since by (7.18), the initial term of the right-hand side of (7.19) is
[TABLE]
Since is written as (7.8), using (7.2), the second term in the right-hand side of (7.20) is calculated as
[TABLE]
Since the function
[TABLE]
of is now holomorphic at the points , which are avoided by the contour of the integral, we can deform the contour to the circle across these points, provided . This means that
[TABLE]
From (7.21) and (7.22), we therefore obtain
[TABLE]
In the same way as above, the third term in the right-hand side of (7.20) is also calculated as
[TABLE]
Hence, combining (7.19), (7.20), (7.23) and (7.24), we obtain the expression (7.17) of in Lemma 7.3.
Lemma 7.4
Suppose that and . Then it follows that
[TABLE]
Proof. Before taking the limit for , we need to extend by analytic continuation to the function of on the domain , provided . For satisfying , the integral of the first term of (7.17) in Lemma 7.3 can be extended by
[TABLE]
deforming the cycle to of the integral as Figure 5.
Since the integral (7.26) as a function of is regular at , the integral (7.26) itself has a finite limit as . Hence, using (7.2), (7.17) implies that
[TABLE]
where in the right-hand side should be understood as . Applying the variable changes
[TABLE]
to the integrals in (7.27), respectively from the top, we have
[TABLE]
whose contour is deformed from the contours or , since its integrand has no poles in the annulus , provided . Here the integral
[TABLE]
coincides with the elliptic integral (1.2) of type for specific parameters
[TABLE]
satisfying the balancing condition , and is evaluated as
[TABLE]
which is confirmed from the right-hand side of (1.2). Therefore, applying this to (7.28), we eventually obtain (7.25) in Lemma 7.4. This completes the proof.
Lastly we determine the constant independent of appearing in (7.1). Comparing both sides of (7.1) as using Lemmas 7.1 and 7.4, we obtain
[TABLE]
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the anonymous referee for valuable comments that have helped them improve the manuscript. This work is supported by JSPS Kakenhi Grants (B)15H03626 and (C)18K03339.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] R. Askey and J. Wilson: Some basic hypergeometric orthogonal polynomials that generalize Jacobi polynomials, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 54 (1985), no. 319, iv+55 pp.
- 2[2] R. A. Gustafson: Some q 𝑞 q -beta and Mellin–Barnes integrals on compact Lie groups and Lie algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 341 (1994), 69–119.
- 3[3] R. A. Gustafson: A summation theorem for hypergeometric series very-well-poised on G 2 subscript 𝐺 2 G_{2} , SIAM J. Math. Anal. 21 (1990), 510–522.
- 4[4] M. Ito: Askey–Wilson type integrals associated with root systems, Ramanujan J. 12 (2006), 131–151.
- 5[5] M. Ito and M. Noumi: A determinant formula associated with the elliptic hypergeometric integrals of type B C n 𝐵 subscript 𝐶 𝑛 BC_{n} , J. Math. Phys. 60 (2019), 071705, 31 pp.
- 6[6] M. Ito and M. Noumi: Connection formula for the Jackson integral of type A n subscript 𝐴 𝑛 A_{n} and elliptic Lagrange interpolation, SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 14 (2018), Paper No. 077, 42 pp.
- 7[7] M. Ito and M. Noumi: Derivation of a B C n 𝐵 subscript 𝐶 𝑛 BC_{n} elliptic summation formula via the fundamental invariants, Constr. Approx. 45 (2017), 33–46.
- 8[8] M. Ito and M. Noumi: Evaluation of the B C n 𝐵 subscript 𝐶 𝑛 BC_{n} elliptic Selberg integral via the fundamental invariants, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 145 (2017), 689–703.
