20
$\begingroup$

Recall the Schur polynomial in $n$ variables, indexed by the partition $\lambda$, with $\ell(\lambda) \leq n$, is given by \begin{equation} s_\lambda(x_1,\ldots, x_n) = a_{\lambda + \delta}(x_1, \ldots, x_n) / a_\delta (x_1, \ldots, x_n), \end{equation} where $\delta = (n-1,n-2,\ldots, 0)$ and $a_\lambda = \det (x_i^{\lambda_j})$ is the Vandermonde determinant of the $n \times n$ matrix whose $(i,j)$ element is $x_i^{\lambda_j}$. My notation here is consistent with Ian Macdonald's Hall polynomial book chapter 1.

Also let $e_j$ be the $j$th elementary symmetric polynomial in $n$ variables, $0 \le j \le n$. These are defined by \begin{equation} \prod_{i=1}^n (1 + x_i t) = \sum_{j=0}^n e_j(x_1,\ldots, x_n) t^j. \end{equation} By the Jacobi-Trudi formula we know that \begin{equation} s_\lambda = \det(e_{\lambda^t_i -i + j}), \end{equation} where $\lambda^t$ is the transpose of the partition $\lambda$, that is, $\lambda^t_i = \mid\{j: \lambda_j \geq i\}\mid$. Thus $s_{1^j} = e_j$, for $j \le n$.

Now we specialize to $x_i \in \mathbb{T}:= \{z \in \mathbb{C}: \mid z \mid = 1\}$. Given that \begin{equation} e_1(x_1, \ldots, x_n) = 0, \end{equation} that is, $\sum x_i = 0$, I am interested in bounding $s_\lambda$.

I have a conjecture for $\lambda = 1^{n/2}$, and $n = 4m$, $m \in \mathbb{N}$, namely, \begin{equation} \mid e_{n/2}(x_1, \ldots, x_n) \mid \le \binom{n/2}{n/4}. \end{equation} This is attained when $x_i = (-1)^i$, that is, when half of them equal $1$ and the other half equal $-1$, since \begin{equation} \prod_i (1 +x_i t) = (1-t)^{n/2} (1+t)^{n/2} = (1-t^2)^{n/2}. \end{equation}

I don't know if this conjecture is true for all qualifying $x_i$'s. Full credit will be given to solve this special case. However, I am also interested in a general conjecture for arbitrary $\lambda$.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Would an asymptotic bound be useful for you? I can see how to get a bound of $2^{n/2}$ which is along the right lines, and one can probably save the $\sqrt{n}$ too (to almost get your conjecture). $\endgroup$ – Lucia Sep 22 '15 at 0:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Lucia: $2^{n/2}$ is more than good enough for me! In fact, in general I am looking for a bound of the form $\mid s_\lambda(x_1, \ldots, x_n) \mid \leq \sqrt{\mid s_\lambda(1,\ldots, 1)\mid }$. $\endgroup$ – John Jiang Sep 22 '15 at 2:22
  • $\begingroup$ In fact for my actual application, I need to assume $\sum x_i = O(\log n)$ and just need to show $|s_\lambda(x_1,\ldots, x_n) / s_\lambda(1,\ldots, 1)|^4 s_\lambda(1,\ldots, 1) = o(1)$ uniformly over $\lambda$ as $n \to \infty$. $\endgroup$ – John Jiang Sep 22 '15 at 2:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The paper arxiv.org/pdf/1301.0634.pdf derives contour integral formulae for Schur functions that involve ratios $s_\lambda(x)/s_\lambda(1)$. These formulae might help in obtaining some of the bounds that you are after... $\endgroup$ – Suvrit Sep 23 '15 at 13:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Suvrit: Certainly. This is our paper on mixing time of random walk on $SO(n)$, arxiv.org/pdf/1211.2031v2.pdf. The contour formula for the type B root system case when $x_1 \neq 1$ but all other $x_i =1$ is lemma 2.1. We didn't look at type A, that is, Schur polynomial case. Also appendix B gives the more general case when $x_1, \ldots, x_k \neq 1$. I also found an interesting paper of yours ,suvrit.de/papers/sra_schur_published.pdf. It seems that HCIZ formula may be a good starting point for bounding $|s_\lambda(x_1, \ldots, x_n)|$ in the general case? $\endgroup$ – John Jiang Sep 27 '15 at 16:52
13
$\begingroup$

In the special case mentioned in the problem, I'll show the bound $$ |e_{n/2}(x_1,\ldots, x_n)| \le 2^{n/2}. $$ Let $$ F(z) = \prod_{j=1}^{n} (1+zx_j) = C \prod_{j=1}^{n} (z + \overline{x_j}), $$ where $C= \prod_{j} x_j$ has magnitude $1$. (The roots of $F$ are $-\overline{x_j}$.)

Now by Cauchy's theorem $$ e_{n/2}(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{|z|=1} \frac{F(z)}{z^{n/2+1}} dz $$ and so in magnitude this is bounded by $$ \le \sup_{|z|=1} |F(z)|. $$

Now we use a very nice Theorem of Carneiro and Vaaler (see Theorem 8.1 there), which gives a bound for the maximum of a polynomial whose roots are on the unit circle in terms of the first few symmetric power sums of the roots. Let me quote their result fully: Suppose $G(z) = \prod_{j=1}^{N}(z-\alpha_j)$ is a polynomial with $|\alpha_j| \le 1$ for all $j$. Then for any natural number $K$ we have $$ \sup_{|z|\le 1} \log |G(z)| \le \frac{N}{K+1} \log 2 + \sum_{k=1}^{K} \frac{1}{k} \Big| \sum_{j=1}^{N} \alpha_j^k \Big|. $$ This is Theorem 8.1, display (8.6) of their paper.

Apply this to our polynomial $F$, with $K=1$. Since the sum of the $x_j$ is zero, by assumption, we deduce that $$ \max_{|z|=1} \log |F(z)| \le \frac{N}{2} \log 2, $$ which proves the claimed estimate.

Maybe there is an easier proof of this particular bound, rather than appealing to the Carneiro-Vaaler work. I didn't see one immediately, and would be very interested if someone found an alternative approach.

Edit: In the particular case $K=1$, which is what is needed for this question, zeb kindly showed me the following one line proof: assuming $|\alpha_j|\le 1$ and $|z|\le 1$ we have $$ |G(z)|^2 =\prod_{j} |z-\alpha_j|^2 \le \prod_{j} (2-2\text{Re }\overline{z}\alpha_j) \le 2^N \prod_j \exp(-\text{Re }\overline{z}\alpha_j)\le 2^N \exp\Big(\Big| \sum_j \alpha_j\Big|\Big). $$

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for pointing out the nice harmonic analysis work of Carneiro and Vaaler. I wouldn't be able to find it myself in a million years. $\endgroup$ – John Jiang Sep 22 '15 at 3:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I hope it's useful to you in general; and also I found this problem very interesting, so thanks! $\endgroup$ – Lucia Sep 22 '15 at 3:08
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Lucia and Zeb! I tried saddle analysis for the special case of $s_\lambda = e_{(n-1)/2}$ in trying to get the $\sqrt{n}$ factor, but the main difficulty seems to be that there could be $O(n)$ saddles. I may be able get $2^{n/2}$ with some additional small factors, because the saddle points all lie on unit circle. This is not the case for $e_k$, $k \notin \{(n\pm 1)/2\}$. Any idea to chip away a slight generalization of the above problem would be awesome. $\endgroup$ – John Jiang Oct 18 '15 at 23:25
  • $\begingroup$ This $K = 1$ proof is exactly the same as Carneiro and Vaaler's proof of that case. In Theorem 1.5 there, you have the degree one trigonometric polynomial $u_1(x) = \big(\log{2} - (e(x) + e(-x))/2\big)/2$. This one has Fourier coefficients of $-1/4$ at $n = \pm 1$, which is better than the estimate (1.49); hence the improved coefficient under the exponential in zeb's bound. But it is the unique polynomial $u_1(x)$ for degree $N = 1$ in Carneiro and Vaaler's theorem 1.5, that zeb made explicit. $\endgroup$ – Vesselin Dimitrov Aug 31 '18 at 19:52

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.