Hook-length Formulas for Skew Shapes
via Contour Integrals and Vertex Models
Abstract
The number of standard Young tableaux of a skew shape can be computed as a sum over excited diagrams inside . Excited diagrams are in bijection with certain lozenge tilings, with flagged semistandard tableaux and also nonintersecting lattice paths inside . We give two new proofs of a multivariate generalization of this formula, which allow us to extend the setup beyond standard Young tableaux and the underlying Schur symmetric polynomials. The first proof uses multiple contour integrals. The second one interprets excited diagrams as configurations of a six-vertex model at a free fermion point, and derives the formula for the number of standard Young tableaux of a skew shape from the Yang-Baxter equation.
1 Introduction
The hook-length formula of Frame-Robinson-Thrall [FRT1954hook] for the number of standard Young tableaux often goes with the adjective “celebrated”: it is a remarkably rare phenomenon for a class of partially ordered sets to have a product formula for the number of their linear extensions. For a partition , the number of standard Young tableaux (SYT) of shape is given by
| (HLF) |
where is the hook length of the box in the Young diagram of . This formula has seen many different proofs, from combinatorial to probabilistic and algebraic, each bringing out different ideas and properties.
The immediate generalization of standard Young tableaux, the skew standard Young tableaux, do not have such nice product formulas. The number of skew standard Young tableaux of shape is usually represented via determinants or sums of weighted Littlewood-Richardson coefficients. Ten years ago Naruse [naruse2014schubert], following work in [ikeda2009excited], announced a remarkable formula, which directly generalizes (HLF):
| (NHLF) |
where is the set of so called excited diagrams of inside , and is the hook length of the box within . The origins of this formula lay within equivariant Schubert calculus.
Formula (NHLF) attracted a lot of attention with its elegance and prompted a flurry of activity bringing in various proofs (including [MPP1, MPP2, konvalinka2020bijective, Darij_Naruse2023]), generalizations (among them [naruse2019skew, morales2020okounkov, morales2023minimal, suzuki2021hook, park2021naruse, kirillov2019hook, MPP4GrothExcited]), wide-ranging applications (see e.g. [HKYY2019reverse, jiradilok2023roots, morales2018asymptotics, felder2023hypergeometric, chan2021sorting, pak2021skew]) and other variations on the theme (e.g. [konvalinka2020hook, morales2023minimal]). Its multivariate version appeared in the proofs and applications of [MPP2, MPP3] in the context of lozenge tilings, but in its most explicit and general form it was stated and proved via elaborate but elementary combinatorial manipulations in [Darij_Naruse2023]:
| (1.1) |
where for every excited diagram , is the hook of within , and is the set of boxes in occupied by entries . In the case of this formula is due to Pak-Postnikov (see [Darij_Naruse2023] for a detailed account). Setting all recovers (NHLF).
In the present work, we give two completely self-contained and short proofs of formula (1.1), which are different in nature from the approaches so far and are not combinatorial. Our central identity in Theorem 1.1 below is equivalent111By setting , where , see Proposition 4.11. to (1.1), and we refer to it as the skew multivariate hook-length formula (skew-MHLF). Given a Young diagram with nonzero rows and formal variables , we set for , and set the remaining ’s equal to the variables : . For example, for , we have , , , and , , , and so on.
Theorem 1.1.
Let be two Young diagrams, and be formal variables. Then
| (MHLF) |
where for a skew Young diagram occupied by entries in a SYT , we set (by agreement, ), and denote . Here is the transpose of .
In Sections 2 and 3, we provide the necessary background and a general formalism for obtaining sums over skew standard Young tableaux from Pieri-type rules.
Our first proof of Theorem 1.1 given in Section 4 evaluates a contour integral of a multivariate rational function in two different ways. The first evaluation gives a recursion (Pieri-type formula) which builds up standard Young tableaux one box at a time, and produces the left-hand side of (MHLF). The second evaluation of that integral gives a determinant of weighted lattice path counts, which via the Gessel-Viennot formula is equivalent to a weighted enumeration of non-intersecting lattice paths inside , themselves equivalent to the excited diagrams in the right-hand side of (MHLF). We also derive in Proposition 4.12 an analogous multivariate version of the Okounkov-Olshanski formula studied in [morales2020okounkov].
The second proof of Theorem 1.1 given in Section 5 interprets the identity through integrable vertex models. More precisely, we interpret the sum over excited diagrams in the right-hand side of (MHLF) as a partition function in the six-vertex model at a free fermion point. The vertex model lives inside the Young diagram , and the boundary conditions depend on . Using the R-matrix and Yang-Baxter equation, we show that this partition function obeys a recursive formula, building up the SYTs in the left-hand side of (MHLF).
These proofs clear some of the hanging mysteries around the skew hook-length formula (NHLF). Both methods allow to generalize this formula to a sum over semistandard Young tableaux (SSYTs) instead of SYTs, as well as to other tableaux. See Appendix A for one possible generalization. Connecting vertex models to excited diagrams suggests a broad class of boundary conditions for the six-vertex model. It would be interesting to explore the corresponding partition functions beyond the free fermion point. Note also that both proofs suggest explicit ways of generalizing formula (MHLF) to the level of Hall-Littlewood and Macdonald polynomials. As an illustration, in Appendix B we produce an identity at the Macdonald level.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Darij Grinberg, Alejandro Morales, Slava Naprienko, Igor Pak, and Alexander Varchenko for helpful discussions. A part of this research was performed in Spring 2024 while the authors were visiting the program “Geometry, Statistical Mechanics, and Integrability” at the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics (IPAM), which is supported by the NSF grant DMS-1925919. GP was partially supported by the NSF grant CCF-2302174. LP was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS-2153869 and the Simons Collaboration Grant for Mathematicians 709055.
2 Background and definitions
boxsize=1ex
2.1 Partitions and Young tableaux
A partition of an integer is a sequence of integers , summing up to , i.e., . We denote by the length of the partition, and by its conjugate transpose, i.e. . We represent partitions graphically as Young diagrams, with top row having , and so on. For example has Young diagram . We use the same notation for the partition and its Young diagram (a set of boxes in ), and it would be clear from the context which one is meant.
A skew shape (diagram) is the set of boxes in the Young diagram of but not in the diagram of when both are drawn with top left corner coinciding. We view skew shapes as sets of boxes in . When using the notation , we always assume that , that is, for all . When , we have . Denote by the number of boxes in (called size).
boxsize=1em
A standard Young tableaux (SYT) of shape is a bijection , such that whenever . For example, all SYTs of shape are
A semistandard Young tableaux (SSYT) of shape and type is a map , such that for , , for and . The last condition means that the number of boxes filled with equals . Here is a composition (i.e., a partition without the ordering condition). A flagged SSYT [wachs1985flagged] of shape and flag is an SSYT , such that in addition, for every . We denote the sets of SYTs and SSYTs of shape by and respectively, and the set of flagged SSYTs of shape with flag by . By convention, all tableaux and skew tableaux are filled with numbers starting from .
boxsize=1.5ex
2.2 Excited diagrams, lozenge tilings and non-intersecting lattice paths
Excited diagrams have appeared many times in the literature, including e.g. [ikeda2009excited, knutson2009grobner, kreiman2005schubert, wachs1985flagged]. One definition uses the following recursive procedure. Let be a set of boxes in . An excited move on a box in shifts that box by one along its diagonal as long as none of its immediate neighbors below, to the right or down the diagonal are in :
Then the set is the set of all diagrams in which can be obtained from after performing a set of the above moves. For example, all excited diagrams in are
It was observed that excited diagrams in bijectively correspond to flagged SSYTs of shape with the flag condition . The correspondence is depicted on the left side of Figure 2, and is given as follows. For , create an SSYT given by , where is the row index of the location of the initial box from in the excited diagram . This is pictured in the second subfigure of Figure 1. \ytableausetupboxsize=1em
\ytableausetupboxsize=2em \ytableaushort112,234,45 \ytableausetupboxsize=1em
In [MPP2] and separately in [kreiman2005schubert], it was observed that excited diagrams are also in bijection with non-intersecting lattice paths within which start at the lower border and exit at the right border of . They are formed exactly by the squares in , as illustrated in the third subfigure of Figure 1.
It was then observed in [MPP3] that excited diagrams are in a bijective correspondence with restricted lozenge tilings of a region with lower boundary given by , which can be viewed in 3D as a stack of boxes in the corner of a room with base and height , which depends on . To see this, let be the flagged SSYT corresponding to , we then stack many boxes on the square of . The partition determines how low each column can be, see the last subfigure in Figure 1.
2.3 Symmetric functions
While the idea of the present paper is not to rely on any symmetric functions formalism and identities, many of them appear in our applications. For the background definitions we refer to [Macdonald1995, Stanley1999]. The elementary and (complete) homogeneous symmetric polynomials are
Their generating functions are, respectively,
The factorial Schur polynomials are defined as follows:
| (2.1) |
where is an arbitrary sequence of shifts, and
| (2.2) |
is the Vandermonde determinant. When all , we obtain the classical Schur polynomials, . Factorial Schur polynomials admit many nice properties common with the Schur polynomials [biedenharn1989new], [macdonald1992schur_Theme, 6th variation], [MolevSagan1999, molev2009comultiplication]. In particular, there is the following combinatorial formula:
| (2.3) |
where for a box in the Young diagram of , the content is , and is the value of in that box. The entries in must be .222It is possible to insert infinitely many variables into within the formalism of symmetric functions and drop the condition , but we do not need this here. We also employ interpolation Macdonald polynomials in Appendix B which admit a combinatorial formula similar to (2.3), but not a determinantal formula like (2.1).
3 How to get sums over skew standard Young tableaux
3.1 General formalism
Here we present a general formalism for obtaining summation formulas over skew standard Young tableaux (SYTs) which come from certain vanishing properties and Pieri rules. The main statement of this subsection, Proposition 3.2, appeared in the particular case of the factorial Schur functions in [MolevSagan1999, Proposition 3.2], with essentially the same proof.
Assume that is a function of two Young diagrams. It may be complex-valued, and can in addition depend on some parameters.
Remark 3.1.
In applications, we obtain as a specialization of a symmetric polynomial (like the factorial Schur polynomial (2.1)) into the variables , , which depend on . See Section 3.2 for a list of examples. However, a connection to symmetric polynomials is not necessary for the results of the present Section 3.1.
We assume that the quantities satisfy the following conditions:
-
(Vanishing property) if , and for all .
-
(Pieri rule) There exist quantities and constants such that for all and we have
(3.1) Here the sum is over all with which are obtained from by adding a box, and such that . We also assume that for all with . Note that the vanishing property and the Pieri rule imply that must be zero.
Proposition 3.2.
Under the vanishing property and the Pieri rule (3.1), we have for any pair of Young diagrams :
| (3.2) |
Here, for a skew Young diagram occupied by entries in a standard tableau , we set (by agreement, ).
Remark 3.3 (More general Pieri rule).
The Pieri rule may be extended to add more than one box at a time. If denotes the set of allowed Young diagrams , then (3.1) can be generalized to
| (3.3) |
If we apply (3.3) as in Proposition 3.2, we obtain a sum over plane partitions whose equal entries occupy shapes contained in . This can produce sums over semistandard Young tableaux (SSYTs), strict increasing tableaux (SIT) as in [MPP4GrothExcited], or other types of tableaux of skew shape . We present an example in Appendix A.
Proof of Proposition 3.2.
We have from (3.1):
Continuing this process for each , we add more boxes to the Young diagrams until we reach the Young diagram . Then we cannot add any more boxes due to the vanishing property of the interpolation symmetric functions. As a result, we obtain the desired sum over the skew standard Young tableaux of shape . This completes the proof. ∎
Under very general assumptions, Proposition 3.2 represents as a sum over SYTs as in the left-hand side of the multivariate hook-formula (MHLF). The right-hand side in formulas like (MHLF) usually has a combinatorial interpretation. Finding such an interpretation is a problem on its own.
3.2 Interpolation symmetric polynomials
Many examples of families satisfying vanishing and Pieri rule are provided by interpolation polynomials appearing in the theory of symmetric functions. Specializing the variables, we obtain
| (3.4) |
Interpolation properties of lead to the vanishing, and the Pieri rule is inherited from symmetric polynomials. Examples based on interpolation symmetric polynomials include:
-
Factorial Schur polynomials (2.1) is the main example we consider in the present paper. Note that in both our approaches (via integrals and vertex models), we reprove the required properties of factorial Schur polynomials from scratch, without using the theory of symmetric functions. From this point of view, the essence of the skew hook-length formula (MHLF) is the identification of the specialization (3.4), where , (the ’s are the shifts in the factorial Schur polynomials), with a sum over excited diagrams. The two proofs of this identification we present here did not explicitly appear in the literature.
-
Interpolation Macdonald polynomials and the corresponding symmetric functions [knop1997, knop1997symmetric, sahi1996interpolation, okounkov_newton_int, okounkov1998shifted], see also [olshanski2019interpolation]. For interpolation Macdonald polynomials, the quantities
(3.5) are multivariate -analogues of the binomial coefficients [okounkov1997binomial]. Note that the normalization in (3.5) differs from the one in our sum over SYTs (3.2). We discuss the Macdonald example in further detail in Appendix B. In particular, the specialization which ensures the interpolation is defined in (B.1).
-
Balanced elliptic interpolation functions [rains2006bcn], see also [coskun2006well].
-
Factorial Hall-Littlewood polynomials considered in [nakagawa2023universal].
-
Factorial Grothendieck polynomials [mcnamara2006factorial], see also [MPP4GrothExcited].
-
Inhomogeneous spin -Whittaker polynomials [korotkikh2024representation].
4 Proof by contour integrals
4.1 A family of integrals
Let be a family of polynomials in one variable depending on parameters . Define the following -fold contour integral indexed by a partition with :
| (4.1) |
where is a positively oriented contour which contains all the poles , and is the Vandermonde determinant (2.2).
In this section, we evaluate the integral (4.1) in two ways, via the residues at the ’s, and via the residues at , . Choosing appropriate polynomials produces a proof of the skew hook-length formula (MHLF) (Theorem 1.1). Namely, throughout the rest of this section, we set
| (4.2) |
Taking other polynomials in (4.1) produces generalizations of the skew hook-length formula (MHLF). We discuss one such generalization in Appendix A.
4.2 Determinant in disguise?
The integral defined via (4.1)–(4.2) can be identified with the factorial Schur polynomial (2.1). This fact is not needed for our proof of (MHLF), but we include it for completeness.
Theorem 4.1.
Proof.
We evaluate the integral (4.1) by the residue formula at poles for all possible assignments of the poles to the variables, which are encoded by . Note that if for some , then
as the Vandermonde factor vanishes. Thus, nonzero residues appear only when is a permutation. We then observe that
and summing over all permutations gives . Identifying that determinant with (2.1) and completes the proof. ∎
The rest of this section does not rely on Theorem 4.1.
4.3 Pieri rule
Proposition 4.2.
We have
| (4.3) |
where if is not a partition (i.e., does not weakly decrease).
The integral (4.1)–(4.2) is defined for any sequence which not necessarily a partition. Moreover, note that if for some , then , and so the product of the ’s contains two identical terms. Therefore, the integrand becomes antisymmetric in thanks to the factor coming from the Vandermonde. Since all integration contours are the same, the integral vanishes when . Thus, in (4.3), only the terms for which is a partition survive.
Proof of Proposition 4.2.
Identity (4.3) follows from the computation:333Notation means the indicator function of the condition .
In the first line, we used the fact that
which implies that
| (4.4) |
In the second line, we used the fact that nonzero residues appear only at permutations: , . The latter implies that . This completes the proof. ∎
The observation (4.4) is the crux of the proof of Proposition 4.2. We use a similar idea to get a generalization of the Pieri rule (and the skew hook-length formula) in Appendix A.
4.4 Lattice paths and SSYTs
Let us now evaluate the same integral (4.1)–(4.2) using the residues at . We then interpret the result in terms of weighted non-intersecting lattice paths. We consider a slightly more general setup. Let be a family of parameters, the polynomials be defined by (4.2), as before, and be a sequence of nonnegative integers. We define
| (4.5) |
where the contour encompasses all the poles . We recover the original definition (4.1) by setting and for all .
Proposition 4.3.
We have
| (4.6) |
where
| (4.7) |
Proof.
The integral (4.5) becomes, after changing the variables :
where the integration contour goes around in the negative direction, and leaves the poles outside. The integrand becomes
| (4.8) |
Expanding the Vandermonde determinant as , and further using the generating functions for the elementary and complete symmetric functions, we can continue (4.8) as
Taking the residue at all (note that is absorbed by changing the orientation of the contours), we arrive at the condition . Replacing by leads to a determinant of the ’s, which coincides with the desired expression. ∎
Remark 4.4.
If and , we have . Since in this case , we recover the classical Jacobi-Trudy identity [Macdonald1995, (II.3.4)].
Let us interpret (4.7) as a partition function of weighted lattice paths.
Lemma 4.5.
Let be indeterminates and be parameters. Consider directed lattice paths starting at and ending at , which make up and right steps (several such paths are in Figure 2, right). To each horizontal (right) step we assign the weight . Define the weight of a path by , where the product is over all horizontal steps of . Then
| (4.9) |
Proof.
The right-hand side of (4.9) can be rewritten as
The indices of the ’s define diagonal strips . Set . We create a path by greedily picking the horizontal steps from the vertical line at to the right as follows. If , then we add this step to with weight and continue. If it is in , then we find the largest index , such that , but , then we add to with weight and note that we must have . We then continue with starting from and build up via its horizontal steps. We see that the weight we picked up this way is obtained by selecting the corresponding terms from each of the brackets along the path, picking up a weight if the horizontal step is in and a weight otherwise.
This is a bijection with the monomials in the left-hand side of (4.9). Indeed, to see the inverse map, taking a path we select a term from each bracket. If we select the term at the ’th horizontal step (so th bracket), we set , where is the number of terms selected so far. We also set . The brackets where ’s were selected then produce the indices. ∎
Applying Lemma 4.5 with , and , we obtain the following interpretation:
Theorem 4.7.
We have the following combinatorial formula for the functions (4.5):
| (4.11) |
where is the set of all flagged semistandard Young tableaux (see Section 2.1) of shape and flag .
Proof.
The statement follows by combining Proposition 4.3 and Corollary 4.6. Starting from (4.6), let us rewrite this determinantal formula as a sum over lattice paths. This is possible thanks to the Lindström-Gessel-Viennot lemma [lindstrom1973vector, gessel1985binomial]. The lattice paths corresponding to the determinant have weights , start at , and end at . These lattice paths are in a well-known bijection with SSYTs: the path starting at is the th row of the SSYT , and the entries are the levels of the horizontal steps. The non-intersecting condition ensures that the columns are strictly increasing. If is a cell in an SSYT , then is equal to the height of the path starting at at its ’th step. Thus, if the step is , and the weight of this step is . See Figure 2 for an illustration. Since , this weight matches the tableau weight in the right-hand side of (4.11).
Note that nonintersecting conditions force the lattice path starting at to initially take vertical steps and continue through , which ensures that all indices of appearing in (4.11) are at least . ∎
boxsize=2em \ytableaushort112,234,45
As a hint to our final step, and for completeness, let us obtain as a corollary the combinatorial formula for factorial Schur polynomials (2.3):
Corollary 4.8.
Proof.
Theorem 4.7 applied to parameters with gives the desired right side, as the flag condition becomes trivial and we are summing over all SSYT of shape . To see the left side, we invoke Theorem 4.1 with , and observe that integral matches (4.5). ∎
4.5 Partition functions of excited diagrams
Here we specialize the parameters in the integral (4.1) into a sequence containing ’s and ’s, where the order of the variables is determined by another Young diagram . Namely, let the boundary of be a lattice path from to , encoded as a sequence of U(p) and H(orizontal) steps, so are the vertical (up) steps for . We write a variable for a horizontal step at column and a variable for the vertical step at height . See Figure 3 for an illustration. In detail, reading along , we record a sequence of ’s and ’s as the entries for :
| (4.12) |
We now consider the combinatorial interpretation of as excited diagrams.
Proposition 4.9.
Let be the set of excited diagrams of inside . Then
Proof.
Substituting into the initial integral formula (4.1), we obtain many cancellations. Denote , so is the row index where the diagonal from meets the outer boundary of the Young diagram (see Figure 3). We then observe that
that is, the last variable appearing is . We can cancel some of the terms in the integrand of formula (4.1) of as
Then the integral formula becomes
where is the generalized integral (4.5), with parameters replaced by .
We can now apply Theorem 4.7 to interpret as a sum over flagged SSYT. Our final step is to identify these flagged SSYT with excited diagrams with the corresponding weight. The map from an excited diagram to a flagged SSYT of shape and flag was discussed in Section 2.2. We observe that , so we have the same set of SSYTs. Finally, if for a box we have , then is the column index of the corresponding excited box and and is the corresponding box. This completes the proof. ∎
The interpolation property of the factorial Schur polynomials (see Theorem 4.1) can be derived directly from Proposition 4.9. This property is originally due to [okounkov_newton_int] (see also [Okounkov1996quantumImm, OkounkovOlshanski1996ShiftSchur]), and can be alternatively shown using the double alternant formula (2.1).
Corollary 4.10.
Let be a partition and be defined in (4.12). Then
Proof.
For , there are no allowable flagged SSYT/excited diagrams, and thus . For , the only possible flagged tableau is the one with , whose weight for the box is . This completes the proof. ∎
4.6 Proof of the generalized hook-length formula and Theorem 1.1
The generalized (multivariate) skew hook-length formulas (1.1), (MHLF) follow from evaluating in two different ways. One is recursively by the Pieri rule adding boxes to until it reaches , and the other is the combinatorial interpretation for given in Proposition 4.9. This approach closely follows the general formalism of Section 3.1. First, let us establish the equivalence of the two formulas:
Proof.
Throughout the proof, we use the notation from the Introduction (Section 1), more precisely, the definitions after formula (1.1) and in Theorem 1.1.
We start from the right-hand sides. Given shapes , set and . Given as in (1.1), set and for , so that . Next, rename , and denote the rest of by . That is, (4.12). Observe that with this notation, if is a box in , then we have telescoping along the hook:
In the last equality, we noted that , as this is the th horizontal step of , the outer boundary of the Young diagram .
For the left-hand sides, pick , and let be an intermediate shape occupied by the entries in . We have
which completes the proof. ∎
Applying Proposition 3.2 with the Pieri rule and the vanishing property for given in Proposition 4.2 and Corollary 4.10, respectively, we obtain (with ):
| (4.13) |
where for all , and so each such sequence corresponds to a standard Young tableau of shape . Dividing both sides by (given by Corollary 4.10), we identify the ratio as a sum over excited diagrams , thanks to Proposition 4.9. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.
4.7 The generalized Okounkov-Olshanski formula
In [morales2020okounkov], Morales and Zhu obtained a variant (via reverse excited diagrams in a shifted shape, or certain SSYTs) of (NHLF) which they coined as the Okounkov-Olshanski formula (OOF). The derivations above can be used to give a multivariate version of formula (4.13), too. This derivation was suggested by Alejandro Morales.
We start with equation (4.13) and the same notation. Let us apply the combinatorial formula (Corollary 4.8) to , where the variables can be reversed because these polynomials are symmetric in the ’s. Then, let us substitute . We obtain:
The terms in the product on the RHS can be written in terms of the parameters :
Substituting the value for from Corollary 4.10 we arrive at the following formula.
Proposition 4.12.
The tableaux appearing in the Okounkov-Olshanski formula are not all , as the terms involved vanish for some of them. Morales and Zhu have found several different characterizations of these tableaux and it remains to be understood whether any of these interpretation have nice meanings for the indices and . When we substitute , then are the arm lengths of certain cells in the reversed shifted excited diagrams of [morales2020okounkov]. The multivariate formula above reduces to the original Okounkov-Olshanski formula for in [okounkov1998shifted].
5 Proof via free fermion five-vertex model
In this section, we present the proof of Theorem 1.1 using the free fermion five-vertex model. This proof is completely independent of the one by contour integrals (Section 4), but we comment on the identification of certain quantities arising in both approaches.
5.1 Vertex weights and the Yang–Baxter equation
We begin by recalling the five-vertex weights which are related to the factorial Schur polynomials [lascoux20076, mcnamara2009factorial, bump2011factorial]. See also [ABPW2021free, Section 4.1] and [Naprienko2023] for generalizations connecting free fermion six-vertex model to most known Schur-type functions.
Consider the following vertex weights :
| (5.1) |
We also need the following dual weights :
| (5.2) |
We set for all choices of not listed in (5.1) and (5.2). Clearly, , but these weights play two very different roles, so we will keep this separate notation.
The weights (5.1)–(5.2) satisfy the Yang–Baxter equation with the following weights :
| (5.3) |
Like for (5.1)–(5.2), the weights (5.3) are nonzero on five out of six configurations which conserve the total number of incoming and outgoing paths at a vertex (that is, ). However, under , the paths are allowed to meet at a vertex.
Remark 5.1.
Each of the weights , and satisfies the free fermion condition
which allows to write many partition functions (i.e., sums of products of vertex weights over all configurations of paths in a region with fixed boundary conditions) as determinants. See [Naprienko2023] for the most general case of free fermion six-vertex model. Note that partition functions for the general six-vertex model also take determinantal form for special boundary conditions. The most well-known example of this phenomenon is the Izergin–Korepin determinant [korepin1982calculation, Izergin1987].
The spectral parameters in (5.1)–(5.3) may be thought of as generic complex numbers, and the Yang–Baxter equation holds under the condition that :
Proposition 5.2 (Yang–Baxter equation).
Proof.
For each , equation (5.4) is an identity of rational functions in which is directly checked. ∎
5.2 Excited diagrams as configurations of the five-vertex model
Fix two Young diagrams and such that . Recall the set of excited diagrams described in Section 2.2. Let be generic complex numbers such that for all . Define the following sum over excited diagrams:
| (5.5) |
When , we set .
Clearly,
| (5.6) |
and the sum in the right-hand side is the same as the right-hand side of the multivariate hook-length formula (MHLF). Our goal in the present Section 5 is to find a representation of as a sum over skew standard Young tableaux. For this, we will verify the vanishing property and a Pieri rule for , following the general strategy outlined in Section 3.1.
Remark 5.3 (Connection to factorial Schur polynomials).
The argument in this section is independent from the rest of the paper, and does not rely on properties of factorial Schur polynomials. More precisely, is a specialized factorial Schur polynomial . Here we use only these specialized quantities, and not the general parameters .
Remark 5.4.
The vanishing property for is a part of the definition (5.5), and we also immediately have
| (5.7) |
which is nonzero by our assumptions.
In the present Section 5.2, we identify the sum in (5.5) as a partition function of the five-vertex model with the weights (5.1). This is done in several steps.
Domain.
Let be the set of all boxes in the bottom right quadrant. Here and are the row and column coordinates, with increasing down, and increasing to the right. We will represent boxes by vertices in the five-vertex model, and in this way the domain becomes the quadrant in the square grid. Let
be the set of all boxes in the Young diagram , identified with a subset of the square grid. See Figure 5, right, for an illustration of for .
Weights.
Assign spectral parameters to the rows , and spectral parameters to the columns . Let the weight at each vertex be .
Consider a configuration of paths of the five-vertex model in , such that the paths travel in the up-right direction and are allowed to enter and exit only through the southeast broken line border of the Young diagram (i.e., not through the west and north straight boundaries of the quadrant in which is placed). Two paths are nonintersecting; that is, they are not allowed to pass through the same vertex because . Each configuration of paths is identified with an excited diagram whose boxes are precisely the empty vertices . Recall that , and the weights of all other vertices are . Thus, the weight of a five-vertex path configuration is equal to . See Figure 5 for an illustration.
boxsize=3.5ex
Boundary conditions.
An elementary diagonal move (Section 2.2) of a box in an excited diagram is the same as the flip of a path in the vertex model path configuration. Therefore, the set of all excited diagrams (for some ) is in bijection with the set of all path configurations in with a fixed boundary condition. Here by a boundary condition we mean a binary string along the southeast border of , where encodes a entering/exiting path, and means no path. For example, the boundary condition for the five-vertex model in Figure 5 is .
For an arbitrary Young diagram , let us define a rim-hook decomposition of into parallel translations of the first (infinite) outer rim-hook
where, by agreement, . Define by , , the parallel translation of by the vector (that is, by in the southeast direction). We refer to the ’s as the -rim-hooks. We have
See Figure 6 for an illustration.
Definition 5.5.
For two Young diagrams , the -boundary condition on is a binary string of length which records intersections of of the southeast border of with the -rim-hooks , . Namely, when a length segment of the boundary of intersects any -rim-hook , we put in the position of the string corresponding to this boundary segment. When a -boundary segment does not intersect a -rim-hook, we put in .
For example, in Figure 6 the -boundary condition is . Note that the diagram in Figure 6 differs from the inner diagram in Figure 5, which results in a different binary string .
Clearly, the boundary of intersects each rim-hook an even number of times. However, not every binary string of length with an even number of ’s is a valid -boundary condition (see Proposition 5.13 below for a precise description).
Proposition 5.6.
Proof.
This statement follows from the discussion above in the present Section 5.2. Indeed, observe that the configuration of rim-hooks inside is the same as a distinguished five-vertex model paths configuration. This distinguished configurations is minimal in the sense that all empty vertices are pushed in the northwest direction. The minimal configuration is identified with an initial excited diagram . A move of a box in an excited diagram (Section 2.2) corresponds to a flip of a path in the five-vertex model. All five-vertex model path configurations are obtained from the minimal one by a sequence of flips. Thus, the five-vertex model partition function is equal to the sum over all . This completes the proof. ∎
Remark 5.7.
The five-vertex model configurations in Proposition 5.6 are the same as the nonintersecting lattice path configurations discussed in Section 4.4 (and which we enumerated by a determinantal formula). Note that in the present Section 5, a key role in the analysis of the five-vertex model is played by the boundary conditions along the southeast border of . In particular, the dependence of these boundary conditions on is crucial for the Pieri rule.
5.3 Yang–Baxter moves sweeping a Young diagram
In this subsection, we apply the Yang–Baxter equation (Proposition 5.2) to express as a partition function in a larger domain with an additional strand of vertices along its southeast border. Throughout this subsection, is an auxiliary spectral parameter assumed to be a generic complex number. First, let us add a strand to the northwest boundary of .
Definition 5.8 (Domain ).
Fix , and consider a larger domain obtained by adding a single new strand of vertices along the northwest boundary of . Let the additional vertices , , have weights , and , , have weights . The northwest boundary of and the boundary conditions on the new strand are empty, while the southeast border carries the binary string . Inside , the weights are , as before. See Figure 7, left, for an illustration.
Lemma 5.9.
The partition function of the vertex model in is equal to .
Proof.
Due to the arrow preservation at each vertex , , the empty boundary conditions along the west boundary of lead to the empty boundary conditions entering . Note that , so the extra vertices at contribute a factor of to the partition function. Similarly, the arrow preservation and the fact that imply that the north boundary of gets an empty boundary condition, and the extra vertices at also contribute a factor of . Thus, the partition function in reduces to the one in , which is equal to . ∎
The lattice configuration in the extended domain now allows to apply the Yang–Baxter equation (Proposition 5.2). That is, we start in at the triangle formed by the vertices , and , and apply the Yang–Baxter equation to move the new strand one step in the southeast direction. Continuing in this way, the strand sweeps the Young diagram , and in the end it is located below the southeast border of . This results in a new domain for the vertex model:
Definition 5.10 (Domain ).
Let be obtained from the domain by adding one more vertex to each horizontal and vertical edge along the southeast border of . Let these new vertices be connected by a single new strand. When the new strand intersects a horizontal edge carrying a spectral parameter or a vertical edge carrying a spectral parameter , we assign the weight or , respectively, to the new vertex on this edge. The southeast border of the new domain carries the binary string , while the northwest boundary and the boundary conditions on the new strand are empty. The weights inside are , as before. See Figure 7, right, for an illustration.
Combining Lemma 5.9 with the Yang–Baxter equation, we immediately obtain:
Proposition 5.11.
The partition function of the vertex model in is equal to .
Remark 5.12.
In , the new strand may be thought of as the boundary of an empty Young diagram . Each application of the Yang–Baxter equation when passing from to may be thought of as adding a box to . When becomes , the new strand is located below the southeast border of . Since the Yang–Baxter equation is a local transformation, the order of adding boxes to in this growing process is irrelevant.
5.4 Boundary binary strings via Maya diagrams
For a Young diagram , denote
| (5.8) |
Encode the southeast border of via its (zero-charge) Maya diagram
| (5.9) |
The vertical and horizontal edges along the southeast border of correspond, respectively, to the elements of and . It is well-known that
| (5.10) |
where is the transposed Young diagram of .
We have . For our running example , we have
Maya diagrams help demystify the boundary binary string from Definition 5.5:
Proposition 5.13.
For any , we have
| (5.11) |
where denotes the symmetric difference of sets, and we interpret the binary string as a subset of .
Remark 5.14.
In (5.11) and throughout the rest of Section 5, we slightly abuse the notation by appending by zeros, if necessary, such that the set is treated a subset of . Note that may be strictly inside , but we never deal with the set of the inner Young diagram .
The number of elements in is equal to . One can check that for any , the number of elements of (viewed as a subset of ) is also equal to .
Continuing with our example , , we have
which agrees with .
Proof of Proposition 5.13.
Throughout the proof, we treat all equalities between subsets of as valid only when intersecting with (but do not explicitly include this intersection in the notation).
We argue by induction, by adding one box to . The base case is . The binary string arises from the usual hook decomposition of (cf. Figure 6). One readily sees that
as desired.
Now let are such that . In terms of Maya diagrams, this means that for some ,
| (5.12) |
There are four cases depending on whether and belong to . They are illustrated by local pictures in Figure 8 (an example of a global rim-hook configuration is in Figure 6). The four cases correspond to four possible directions of the southeast border of through and . Indeed, in (a) we have , and the boundary goes horizontally. The other cases are (b) , ; (c) , ; and (d) .
From the induction assumption, it follows that the configuration of -rim-hooks around the part of the southeast border of through and is the same in all four cases. Adding a box to changes the -rim-hook configuration to -rim-hooks in the same way in all cases, which results in the corresponding change of the boundary binary string . This completes the proof. ∎
5.5 Vertical strip expansion of the five-vertex partition function
Definition 5.15.
Fix a Young diagram . Let us define a transfer matrix which depends on the spectral parameter (and also on , but we suppress this in the notation), and has rows and columns indexed by Young diagrams . The value is a partition function of a single-row vertex model whose vertices are indexed by (5.8). The vertex weight at each has the form
| (5.13) |
The boundary conditions on the left and right of the row are empty, and boundary conditions on the top and bottom are given by and (viewed as subsets of ), respectively.
Remark 5.16.
The choice of a spectral parameter or at a point in can be uniformly written as
Clearly, for each , there is at most one path configuration with these boundary conditions. If there are no path configurations, we set , and otherwise we let to be the product of the weights of all vertices along . See Figure 9 for an illustration.
Recall that a vertical strip is a skew Young diagram which has at most one box in each row. We have the following expansion of the five-vertex model partition functions :
Proposition 5.17.
For any , we have
| (5.14) |
where is the transfer matrix from Definition 5.15. The vertical strip in (5.14) can be empty.
Proof of Proposition 5.17.
We start from Proposition 5.11 which states that is the partition function of the vertex model in the domain (see Definition 5.10), with the boundary conditions along the extra new strand of vertices carrying the weights and (see Figure 7, right). Peeling off this extra strand and summing over the binary strings between the strand and the southeast border of , we immediately get the following expansion:
| (5.15) |
Indeed, is the partition function of the five-vertex model in with some boundary conditions. The coefficients are determined from one-row partition functions with the following data:
-
The vertices on the row are indexed by .
-
At each , we put the reversed weight . Namely, paths at this vertex are oriented down and right.
-
At each , we put the usual weight , with the up and right path orientation.
-
The boundary conditions on the left and right of the row are empty.
-
The boundary conditions on the top and bottom of the row are given by the binary strings and , respectively.
See Figure 10 for an illustration.
In the partition function , we now reverse the orientation of all vertical edges carrying the weights . We obtain new weights which have the form
By Proposition 5.13, this reversal modifies the bottom and top boundary conditions to
Thus, we conclude that
It remains to show that the sum over in (5.15) is restricted to obtained from by adding a vertical strip. This follows from the fact that , which implies that horizontal paths in Figure 9 cannot travel by more than one horizontal step. This restriction implies that vanishes unless , and so we are done. ∎
5.6 Pieri rule and proof Theorem 1.1
We are now ready to establish the Pieri rule for the five-vertex partition functions (5.5). Together with vanishing (Remark 5.4), the general approach of Section 3.1 then guarantees that is expressed as a sum over skew standard Young tableaux of shape . This would complete the proof of the multivariate hook-length formula (MHLF).
Definition 5.18.
Let be two Young diagrams. Define
| (5.16) |
For example, for and , we have
Proposition 5.19 (Pieri rule for five-vertex partition functions).
Let be two Young diagrams. Then we have
Proof.
We employ Proposition 5.17 and consider the behavior of identity (5.14) as . Since and do not depend on , it suffices to look at the transfer matrix defined as the one-row partition function (see Figure 9).
Recall (Remark 5.14) that the number of paths in the one-row vertex model for is equal to . First, observe that
| (5.17) |
which behaves as as follows:
| (5.18) |
Indeed, the factors in (5.17) are in one-to-one correspondence with the summands by in (5.18), cf. Remark 5.16.
Proof of Theorem 1.1.
The Pieri rule of Proposition 5.19 together with the vanishing (Remark 5.4) and the general result of Proposition 3.2 imply that
Note that the Pieri coefficients are equal to in our case. We also employed the definition of as a sum over excited diagrams (5.6), and cancelled out the factor (5.7).
For any , let us denote by . Starting from (5.16), we can rewrite
Here
with the notation
We see that the expressions , where , coincide with the factors in the denominator in the left-hand side of the multivariate hook-length formula (MHLF). This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1. ∎
Appendix A A semistandard variant
Let us modify the polynomials (4.2) from Section 4, and investigate the resulting contour integrals defined in the same way as in (4.1). Denote the integrals by to avoid confusion. Let be a parameter, be a sequence of parameters as before, and be a sequence of nonnegative integers. Set
and
| (A.1) |
The contours are the same as in Section 4, they go around all the poles in the positive direction. Set for all , and omit from the notation.
Arguing as in Section 4.3, we obtain a Pieri-type rule:
Here . Next, if is not a partition, i.e. , we must have , and , and so . This makes the integral by skew symmetry. Therefore, the Pieri-type rule takes the form:
| (A.2) |
where the sum is over all partitions obtained from by adding a (possibly employ) vertical strip.
Similarly to Theorem 4.1, integral (A.1) can be rewritten as a determinant of the ’s:
| (A.3) |
In particular, when only the maximal degree terms in this determinant survive, so
| (A.4) |
Remark A.1.
The determinantal formula (A.3) is similar to the one for factorial Grothendieck polynomials of [mcnamara2006factorial] or [hwang2021refined]. However, in order to obtain the Grothendieck polynomials one needs to replace the polynomials with . The approach outlined here would lead to the identities in [MPP4GrothExcited] after some tedious manipulations.
Consider now the vanishing of for certain values of . Let . Then if .
Let be such that for some , we have , i.e., . Then we have for and , which implies that . On the other hand, if , then the matrix is lower triangular. This implies
Lemma A.2 (Vanishing property).
Let . Then
The Pieri-type rule (A.2) can be rewritten as , where the sum is over all such that is a nonempty vertical strip. Iterating this identity as in Section 3.1, we get the following result.
Theorem A.3.
Let and set . For a Young diagram , let
Then we have
| (A.5) |
where the sum is over all SSYT of shape , and means that the shape is filled with entries . By agreement, .
When , the RHS of (A.5) is a sum over , and the LHS is the product
To see excited diagrams in the left-hand side of (A.5), let . One can check that
where is the factorial Schur function from Section 4. Then , and we can rewrite (A.5) in terms of excited diagrams:
Theorem A.4.
Let be two sets of indeterminates, and set
where . With this notation, we have
Remark A.5.
Observe that . If we let , and perform cancelations with the factors which are of the form , the surviving terms above would be the ones where has a maximal number of different entries, so it is an SYT. This recovers the original formula of Theorem 1.1. We do not observe any substitutions that directly connect the formula in Theorem A.4 to the expression in [morales2023minimal, Theorem 9.3].
Appendix B Skew hook-length formula from Macdonald polynomials
Here we consider the example of interpolation Macdonald polynomials [knop1997, knop1997symmetric, sahi1996interpolation, okounkov_newton_int, okounkov1998shifted], and apply the general formalism of Section 3 to obtain a “skew hook-length type” formula involving summation over skew standard Young tableaux. The discussion in the current Appendix B does not rely on contour integral or vertex model techniques of Sections 4 and 5, respectively.
We denote the interpolation Macdonald polynomials by . Note that we work only with symmetric polynomials and not symmetric functions, so we drop the index (which is fixed) from the notation used in [olshanski2019interpolation]. Throughout the current Appendix B, we assume that .
The polynomials are inhomogeneous symmetric polynomials of degree whose top degree homogeneous part is the Macdonald symmetric polynomial [Macdonald1995, Ch. VI]. The substitution which ensures vanishing properties is
| (B.1) |
Note that here we use the normalization from [olshanski2019interpolation], which means that the substitution must be as in (B.1) (there are other equivalent variants in the literature).
Let us recall the vanishing property and a tableau formula for [okounkov_newton_int, okounkov1998shifted].
Proposition B.1.
-
1.
We have unless .
-
2.
The interpolation Macdonald polynomials admit the following tableau formula:
(B.2) where the sum is over all reverse semistandard tableaux of shape with values in (that is, the values in the tableau must weakly decay along the rows and strictly decay down the columns). The coefficients (where we view as a sequence of horizontal strips) are rational functions in given in [Macdonald1995, Ch. VI, (6.24)(ii) and (7.11’)].
-
3.
We have
(B.3) where is the transposed Young diagram of .
Formula (B.3) follows from (B.2) since for , there is a unique reverse tableau contributing a nonzero term to the sum, and for it we have .
A (one-box) Pieri formula for the (non-specialized) interpolation polynomials has the form
| (B.4) |
where are the rational functions in given in [Macdonald1995, Ch. VI, (6.24)(i)]. Identity (B.4) follows by comparing the degrees and top homogeneous components in both sides, and using the uniqueness of interpolation.
Remark B.2.
The Pieri rule can be generalized to a skew Cauchy type identity (also sometimes called Pieri rule) involving summation over horizontal strips [olshanski2019interpolation, Lemmas 5.5 and 5.9]:
Applying Proposition 3.2 together with the properties of the interpolation Macdonald polynomials in Proposition B.1, we immediately obtain the following skew hook-length type formula:
Proposition B.3 (Skew hook-length type formula with Macdonald parameters).
For any , we have
where the left-hand sum is over skew standard Young tableaux of shape , and the right-hand side sum is over reverse semistandard tableaux of shape with entries in .
References
G. Panova, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
E-mail: [email protected]
L. Petrov, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
E-mail: [email protected]