Enumerative combinatorics on determinants and signed bigrassmannian polynomials
Masato Kobayashi

TL;DR
This paper introduces signed bigrassmannian polynomials and a bigrassmannian determinant, providing new combinatorial tools and determinantal formulas related to permutations and Bruhat order.
Contribution
It presents the first definitions of signed bigrassmannian polynomials and the bigrassmannian determinant, expanding enumerative combinatorics with new algebraic and determinant-based methods.
Findings
Bigrassmannian determinant satisfies weighted condensation.
Determinantal expression for signed bigrassmannian polynomials.
Introduces a $q$-analog of the determinant related to permutation statistics.
Abstract
As an application of linear algebra for enumerative combinatorics, we introduce two new ideas, signed bigrassmannian polynomials and bigrassmannian determinant. First, a signed bigrassmannian polynomial is a variant of the statistic given by the number of bigrassmannian permutations below a permutation in Bruhat order as Reading suggested (2002) and afterward the author developed (2011). Second, bigrassmannian determinant is a -analog of the determinant with respect to our statistic. It plays a key role for a determinantal expression of those polynomials. We further show that bigrassmannian determinant satisfies weighted condensation as a generalization of Dodgson, Jacobi-Desnanot and Robbins-Rumsey (1986).
| 1234 | 0 | 0 | 2134 | 1 | 1 | 3124 | 2 | 3 | 4123 | 3 | 6 |
| 1243 | 1 | 1 | 2143 | 2 | 2 | 3142 | 3 | 5 | 4132 | 4 | 7 |
| 1324 | 1 | 1 | 2314 | 2 | 3 | 3214 | 3 | 4 | 4213 | 4 | 7 |
| 1342 | 2 | 3 | 2341 | 3 | 6 | 3241 | 4 | 7 | 4231 | 5 | 9 |
| 1423 | 2 | 3 | 2413 | 3 | 5 | 3412 | 4 | 8 | 4312 | 5 | 9 |
| 1432 | 3 | 4 | 2431 | 4 | 7 | 3421 | 5 | 9 | 4321 | 6 | 10 |
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
TopicsAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics · Advanced Mathematical Identities · Bayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Enumerative combinatorics on determinants and signed bigrassmannian polynomials
Masato Kobayashi
Department of Engineering
Kanagawa University, 3-27-1 Rokkaku-bashi, Yokohama 221-8686, Japan.
Abstract.
As an application of linear algebra for enumerative combinatorics, we introduce two new ideas, signed bigrassmannian polynomials and bigrassmannian determinant. First, a signed bigrassmannian polynomial is a variant of the statistic given by the number of bigrassmannian permutations below a permutation in Bruhat order as Reading suggested (2002) and afterward the author developed (2011). Second, bigrassmannian determinant is a -analog of the determinant with respect to our statistic. It plays a key role for a determinantal expression of those polynomials. We further show that bigrassmannian determinant satisfies weighted condensation as a generalization of Dodgson, Jacobi-Desnanot and Robbins-Rumsey (1986).
Key words and phrases:
Bigrassmannian permutations, Bruhat order, Permutation statistics, Robbins-Rumsey determinant, Symmetric Groups, Tournaments, Vandermonde determinant.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 20F55; Secondary 05A05, 11C20, 20B30.
This article is published as Math. J. Okayama Univ. 57 (2015), 159–172.
1. Introduction
The purpose of this article is to introduce two new ideas, signed bigrassmannian polynomials and bigrassmannian determinant as an application of linear algebra for enumerative combinatorics. We begin with explaining our motivation.
1.1. Reading’s problem (2002): bigrassmannian statistic
Permutation statistics has been of great importance in enumerative combinatorics; in particular, Mahonian and Eulerian statistics, such as inversions and descent numbers, are fundamental in the theory. Here what we deal with is a certain new statistic , which we call bigrassmannian statistic. Reading [11] suggested the following problem:
Problem 1.1**.**
Let be the number of join-irreducible (equivalently, bigrassmannian) permutations weakly below a permutation in Bruhat order. Find its generating function .
He gave examples of such generating functions for smaller ’s:
[TABLE]
Unfortunately, we failed to find any patterns of these coefficients nor factors of such polynomials. Instead, in this article, we study the following signed statistic (as signed Mahonian or signed Eulerian statistics):
[TABLE]
where is the number of inversions; let us call signed bigrassmannian polynomials. Fortunately, we could find satisfactory descriptions of such polynomials. It turned out that it is also worthwhile to study these polynomials with a connection to tournaments and Vandermonde determinant. Since each is a signed sum over the symmetric group, it is natural to come to this idea:
Main idea**.**
Use the determinant to find .
The determinant is usually a function which outputs a scalar. For our purpose to find , we introduce its -analog (Section 4); we call it bigrassmannian determinant.
As main results, we will prove three theorems:
- •
Theorem 3.12: a factorization of .
- •
Theorem 4.4: a determinantal expression of .
- •
Theorem 4.6: weighted condensation for bigrassmannian determinant.
In addition, we observe a corollary after each of these theorems.
1.2. Overview
In Section 2, we review some classic results on tournaments and Vandermonde determinant as mentioned above. These facts will play a fundamental role in the sequel. In Section 3, we introduce -statistic for tournaments as well as permutations. Then we find factors of using weighted Vandermonde determinant. Section 4 continues to study (from a little different aspect); we give a definition of bigrassmannian determinant for square matrices as a -analog of the original one. This new idea leads to a determinantal expression of as we shall see. Further, we prove that bigrassmannian determinant satisfies weighted condensation. It slightly generalizes the construction of Robbins-Rumsey’s -determinants [13]. We end with some comments for future work in Section 5.
2. Tournaments and Vandermonde determinant
We begin with combinatorics of tournaments and Vandermonde determinant.
2.1. Tournaments
Definition 2.1**.**
A tournament is a complete digraph with vertices labeled by . We denote by the set of all tournaments.
Example 2.2**.**
Here are eight elements in :
[TABLE]
Since there are two choices of direction for each pair such that , we have in total.
In what follows, the letter means an element of unless otherwise specified ( is for Graph).
Definition 2.3**.**
An inversion of is a directed edge with . The length is the number of inversions of . An upset of an inversion is a vertex . Define to be the outdegree of .
2.2. Cycle and transitivity
Below, we just say a “cycle” to mean a 3-cycle (which is the only kind of cycles we treat).
Definition 2.4**.**
Let be a triple such that . Suppose form a cycle in . Say the cycle is positive if ; it is negative if . Besides, say is transitive if it does not contain any cycles.
Observe that precisely six tournaments in Example 2.2 are transitive.
2.3. Permutations
By we mean the symmetric group on . The set of inversions of is
[TABLE]
Define the length to be . Let be the tournament such that is an inversion of . Say the tournament is induced from a permutation . Let us make sure the following:
Fact 2.5**.**
Bressoud [2, Exercise 2.4.2] There is a bijection between and transitive tournaments in .
Thanks to this result, we naturally view in what follows. In particular, .
2.4. Vandermonde determinant
Definition 2.6**.**
Let and be commutative variables. The -th Vandermond -determinant is
[TABLE]
This is a polynomial in ’s ( means such variables for short) and . We must explain why we used the word “determinant”: Following Robbins-Rumsey [13], we recursively define a determinant-like function for square matrices as follows. First, we formally define for the [math] by [math] matrix to be and for a by matrix to be itself. Now let be an by matrix for . Let denote the matrix that remains when we delete the -th row and -th column of . If we wish to delete more than one row (column), the numbers of the deleted rows (columns) are listed as subscripts (superscripts). The -determinant of is
[TABLE]
provided of all minors of are nonzero. In particular, recovers the original determinant (going back to Dodgson and Desnanot-Jacobi). From this point of view, we can understand as the -determinant of the Vandermonde matrix: .
Definition 2.7**.**
The Vandermonde monomial for is .
Proposition 2.8**.**
We have
[TABLE]
Proof.
To a tournament , assign a monomial with the choices of or from each factor of . Then in the monomial counts inversions and records the outdegree.
∎
Now, split the sum into two parts, transitive or not:
[TABLE]
Fact 2.9**.**
[TABLE]
Proof.
See Bressoud [2, Exercise 2.4.4]. ∎
3. Signed bigrassmannian statistic
3.1. Bigrassmannian statistic
Definition 3.1**.**
Define the bigrassmannian statistic for a tournament as
[TABLE]
Table 1 shows this (and inversion) statistic over .
Remark 3.2**.**
This statistic is named after the bigrassmannian permutations; say is bigrassmannian if there exists a unique pair such that and . We refer to Lascoux-Schützenberger [10], Geck-Kim [7], Reading [11] and the author [9] for combinatorics of these permutations.
Define Bruhat order on as the transitive closure of the following binary relation: meaning , for some , a transposition and . Let and set . The author [9] showed that
[TABLE]
Thus, we can compute simply as weighted enumeration of inversions:
[TABLE]
for example (Figure 1). From this point of view, our definition above is a natural extension of for tournaments. This statistic implicitly appeared also in the Gessel-Viennot’s lattice path counting context [2, Theorem 3.7] as the quantity :
Proposition 3.3**.**
For each , we have
- [ 1 ]
. 2. [ 2 ]
.
Proof.
(1) See [9] for the first equality. It follows that
[TABLE]
Next, (2) follows from the facts that (a) is an order-preserving automorphism in Bruhat order on , (b) is bigrassmannian so is ; we do not go into details here because the proof is not so important for our discussions below. ∎
Definition 3.4**.**
Let , and be commutative variables. The weighted Vandermonde monomial for is .
Definition 3.5**.**
The -th weighted Vandermonde determinant is
[TABLE]
Example 3.6**.**
[TABLE]
Proposition 3.7**.**
We have
[TABLE]
Proof.
The idea is similar to Proposition 2.8. ∎
Lemma 3.8**.**
[TABLE]
To prove this lemma, we need a further definition and proposition.
Definition 3.9**.**
For , define a map as follows: if form a cycle in , then is the tournament with all three edges in the cycle reversed and all other edges unchanged. If do not form a cycle in , then simply let .
Observe that is an involution.
Proposition 3.10**.**
Let . If form a cycle in , then and .
Proof.
A positive cycle contains two inversions whereas a negative cycle contains one. The map interchanges these so that lengths differ by one. However, is invariant because of the equality . ∎
Proof of Lemma 3.8.
Consider the lexicographic order on . We will construct a perfect matching on the set . First, choose all tournaments from such that is a cycle in . It is either positive or negative; hence gives a matching. Next, choose all tournaments from the remaining tournaments such that is a cycle in . Again, gives a matching. Continue this procedure up to . We certainly exhausted all tournaments in with the perfect matching constructed. As shown above, each pair has lengths of opposite parity and the same . Thus and yield zero. ∎
3.2. Signed bigrassmannian polynomials
Definition 3.11**.**
Let be a positive integer. The -th signed bigrassmannian polynomial is
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.12**.**
For all , we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
As before, split into two parts:
[TABLE]
With and , the second sum vanishes as shown in Lemma 3.8. As a result, we obtain
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
∎
Corollary 3.13**.**
For , we have
[TABLE]
In other words, the -statistic is sign-balanced.
Proof.
Note that has a factor with . Differentiate it once and let . Then we get zero, as required. ∎
Example 3.14**.**
(cf. Reading’s examples in Introduction)
[TABLE]
4. Bigrassmannian determinant
4.1. Definition
Next we want to understand as a new sort of a determinant as mentioned in Introduction. From now on, we assume that is an by matrix with entries being complex rational functions in (i.e., elements of ). The reason why we introduce and will be clearer in the next subsection.
Definition 4.1**.**
The bigrassmannian determinant of is
[TABLE]
We formally define bdet of the [math] by [math] matrix to be .
For example, , \text{bdet}\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}a_{11}&a_{12}\\ a_{21}&a_{22}\end{array}\right)=a_{11}a_{22}-qa_{12}a_{21} and
[TABLE]
4.2. Matrix deformation
We now give a more explicit description of the bigrassmannian determinant in terms of the original one. For this purpose, let us introduce a special term: a deformation of is a new matrix for some indexed family of rational functions . Note that the operation may not be -linear in any rows nor columns. Hence it is in general difficult to predict how determinants change under such an operation. However, as seen below, there are some nice cases:
Definition 4.2**.**
Let . The bigrassmannian deformation of is .
Proposition 4.3**.**
.
Proof.
By Proposition 3.3, we have
[TABLE]
∎
Theorem 4.4** (a determinantal expression of ).**
We have
[TABLE]
Proof.
. ∎
Observe determinantal expressions of and :
[TABLE]
We should now recognize that different deformations may give the same determinant: given a family , there possibly exists such that and for all matrices . In particular, this is the case for : Let and (here we need ). Then as shown just below; since we could not find any references mentioning this little invariance, we here record it as a Corollary.
Corollary 4.5**.**
(little invariance of the determinant)
[TABLE]
Proof.
We only prove the first equality.
[TABLE]
∎
Such “equivalent” deformations may be useful for evaluating and understanding combinatorial determinants (interpret as area of the triangle , and in ); see Bressoud [2, Section 3.3], Gessel-Viennot [8] and Stembridge [14], for details on Schur functions and nonintersecting lattice path counting by determinants. We will develop this idea in subsequent publications.
4.3. Weighted condensation
Our next task is to prove weighted condensation for bigrassmannian determinants; this is a natural idea as an analogy of the original determinant (and Robbins-Rumsey [13]). Let be an by matrix with . Recall that denotes the submatrix with the -th row and -th column deleted.
Theorem 4.6**.**
[TABLE]
Some comments before the proof: Let and . For simplicity, we use for the original determinant.
We will confirm the following five statements.
- [ 1 ]
. 2. [ 2 ]
. 3. [ 3 ]
. 4. [ 4 ]
. 5. [ 5 ]
.
Once we do this, then the conclusion follows from condensation for the original determinant:
[TABLE]
Proof.
(1) : an -entry of is .
[TABLE]
(2) : an -entry of is .
[TABLE]
(3) :this is similar to (2).
(4) : an -entry of is .
[TABLE]
(5) : this is similar to (4).
∎
Now we see an immediate consequence which is, however, not so obvious from the definition of .
Corollary 4.7**.**
Signed bigrassmannian polynomials can be defined recursively as follows: and for .
Proof.
Apply the weighted condensation to . All four determinants in the numerator are while the denominator is . ∎
5. Concluding remarks
In this article, we introduced two new ideas, signed bigrassmannian polynomials and bigrassmannian determinant. We made use of tournaments as well as Vandermonde determinant to find . Then we introduced bdet as a -analog of determinant as recovers the original one. Thanks to formulas of -statistic, we obtained a determinantal expression of . Moreover, we established weighted condensation as an analogy of Robbins-Rumsey. After all, we did not find the unsigned statistic . Now an easy guess is to use the permanent instead. We leave this problem here for our future research.
We end with some more comments for subsequent work.
- •
What is missing in our discussion is an alternating sign matrix (ASM) [3, 12]. Since inversions and bigrassmannian statistics also make sense for ASMs, we want to generalize some of our results to these matrices (note: we can extend for ASMs as the rank function of a distributive lattice). For example, what can we say about bdet for ASMs which are not permutations?.
- •
We can also define “-determinant” by replacing with in Robbins-Rumsey condensation (provided all such minors are nonzero). Then we would obtain polynomials of the form , say . Then we can show as Corollary 4.7 that polynomials satisfies
[TABLE]
Recently, there appeared such recursions and polynomials in the literature on Aztec diamonds, perfect matchings and domino tilings; see Brualdi-Kirkland [4], Ciucu [5] and Elkies-Kuperberg-Larsen-Propp [6], for example. It would be nice to give an explicit connection between such work and our results.
- •
As we mentioned Bruhat order, symmetric groups are Coxeter groups of type A. It makes sense to speak of a signed bigrassmannian statistic even in other situations: let be a finite Coxeter system with Coxeter generators specified and Bruhat order. Define and the sign of to be . Say is bigrassmannian if there exists a unique pair such that and . Define and in the same way. Find a statistic .
- •
We can think that each permutation gives a partition of an integer with parts as ; see Andrews-Eriksson [1] for the theory of integer partitions. Then, it is natural to come to the following idea: Rothe diagram for is the set . As is well-known, the cardinality of this set is . Figure 2 shows an example; seven circles which does not cross any lines are elements of Rothe diagram for (with ). Is there any formula to compute from Rothe diagrams?
Acknowledgement
The author thanks the anonymous referee for careful reading and advisory comments.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] G. E. Andrews and K. Eriksson, Integer partitions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
- 2[2] D. Bressoud, Proofs and confirmations, The story of the alternating sign matrix conjecture, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.
- 3[3] D. Bressoud and J. Propp, How the alternating sign matrix conjecture was solved, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 46 (1999), no. 6, 637–646.
- 4[4] R. Brualdi and S. Kirkland, Aztec diamonds and digraphs, and Hankel determinants of Schröder numbers, J. Comb. Th. Ser. B 94 (2005), no. 2, 334–351.
- 5[5] M. Ciucu, A complementation theorem for perfect matchings of graphs having a cellular completion, J. Comb. Th. Ser. A 81 (1998), no. 1, 34–68.
- 6[6] N. Elkies, G. Kuperberg, M. Larsen and J. Propp, Alternating sign matrices and domino tilings, Part I and II, J. Alg. Comb. 1 (1992), no. 2, 111–132 and no. 3, 219–234.
- 7[7] M. Geck and S. Kim, Bases for the Bruhat-Chevalley order on all finite Coxeter groups, J. Algebra 197 (1997), no. 1, 278–310.
- 8[8] I. Gessel and G. Viennot, Binomial determinants, paths, and hook length formulae. Adv. Math. 58 (1985), no. 3, 300–321.
