Let $s_{\lambda}$ and $m_{\lambda}$ be the Schur and monomial symmetric functions indexed by an integer partition $\lambda$ ($\ell(\lambda)$ is the number of parts of $\lambda$ and $m_i(\lambda)$ is the multiplicity of part $i$). By the hook-content formula we have: $$ s_{\lambda}(1^n) = \prod_{u\in \lambda} \frac{n+c(u)}{h(u)}, $$ where $c(u)$ and $h(u)$ are the content and hook length of the cell $u\in \lambda$.

Using $s_{\lambda} = \sum_{\mu} K_{\lambda \mu} m_{\mu}$ where $K_{\lambda \mu}$ is the Kostka number, the number of semistandard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda$ and type $\mu$. Then we get $\sum_{\mu} K_{\lambda \mu} m_{\mu}(1^n)=\prod_{u\in \lambda} \frac{n+c(u)}{h(u)}$. This counts semistandard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda$ and any type.

Does the sum $\sum_{\mu}K_{\lambda,\mu}$ have a known formula for $\ell(\lambda)\geq 2$? This would be the number of semistandard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda$ with partition type.


2 Answers 2


Let $k(\lambda)=\sum_\mu K_{\lambda\mu}$. Then we have the generating function $\sum_\lambda k(\lambda)s_\lambda = \prod_{n\geq 1} (1-h_n)^{-1}$.

  • $\begingroup$ Is there a known formula for $k(\lambda)$ expressed in terms of the entries $\lambda_i$? $\endgroup$ Sep 1, 2012 at 9:57

Why would it be? From rep. theoretic point of view, your sum is the multiplicity of an irreducible $S_n$-rep $\pi_\lambda$ in the sum of induced rep's $\rho_\mu$. But the latter is an ugly rep as you can easily see. For example, when $n=4$ you get $5$ partitions, and its dimension is: $$\sum_\mu dim(\rho_\mu) = dim (\rho_{4}) + dim (\rho_{31}) + dim (\rho_{22}) + dim (\rho_{21^2}) + dim (\rho_{1^4}) = 1 +4 + 2 + 12 + 24 = 43,$$ which is not very promising. Also, as you probably noticed yourself, the multiplicity of a trivial rep $\pi_{m}$ is the number of partitions of $n$, a nice number with no product formula (unless you start taking g.f.'s which is a completely different story - you can't really do that for general $\lambda$, except by adding squares in the first row, which is not what you want I think). In conclusion, it is unlikely a nice formula exists.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.