As the title says, what methods exists for proving that a symmetric polynomial (or function) is Schur positive, perhaps involving extra parameters, in which case coefficients should be polynomials in the parameters with non-negative coefficients. This is what I have seen in the literature:

  • Representation-theoretical proof. Construct a (graded) $S_n$-module, and show that the Frobenius map of the decomposition into irreducibles gives the polynomial. This often involves finding recursions, and does not give formulas for the coefficients. Examples: Modified Macdonald polynomials, and things in diagonal harmonics. This MO-post.

  • RSK-type proof. This essentially gives a way to convert words to semi-standard tableaux, and is therefore a type of bijective proof. Examples: skew-Schur functions (and thus the Littlewoord-Richardson rule).

  • Via Gessel fundamental quasisymmetric expansion. It is usually easy to find the Gessel expansion of a combinatorially defined polynomial. Once this is known, the goal is to gather these pieces into Schur-polynomials. The 'Schur-expansion' is technically known from the Gessel expansion, but it is given in the form of functions $S_{\alpha}$, where one needs to modify the compositions $\alpha$ according to the 'slinky' rule to obtain partitions. This can introduce signs, that needs to be taken care of via a sign-reversing involution or similar.

  • Type-A crystal proof. If the polynomial is given as a sum over combinatorial objects, one can try to define a certain graph structure on these objects, fulfilling some combinatorial (fairly local) axioms (Stembridge did this characterization, if I recall). Each connected component of this graph will each correspond to a Schur polynomial in the Schur expansion. This is related to my old question, before I knew about crystals, and it turns out it is enough to consider three variables at a time (in the Stembridge axioms). Basically, if you can give a crystal graph in three variables, it should generalize to $n$ variables without any issue. The crystal structure is closely related to RSK, and also provides a representation-theoretical connection, as well as a (crystal) bijection to SSYTs. Examples: Stanley symmetric functions. Dual Grothendieck.

  • Dual equivalence graph, introduced by S. Assaf. Similar idea as crystals/RSK/Gessel. From the fundamental quasisymmetric expansion, define a graph structure that gathers these pieces into Schur-positive parts. Example: This article, which has a non-symmetric counterpart as well.

  • Implicit in many of the above, and perhaps too obvious to note: when the function can be expressed as a sum of symmetric functions that are already known to be Schur positive. – Zachary Hamaker Jun 19 '17 at 16:28
  • Sometimes you can write a symmetric function as a sum of products of Schur functions, which are then Schur positive (via LR-rule or representation theory, if you want). – Sam Hopkins Jun 19 '17 at 22:08
  • 1
    There is an identity of Kirillov that I like a lot: $(s_{c^r})^2 = s_{c^{r-1}}s_{c^{r+1}} + s_{(c-1)^r}s_{(c+1)^r}$. See: arxiv.org/abs/math/0004113. A consequence is that $(s_{c^r})^2-s_{c^{r-1}}s_{c^{r+1}}$ is Schur positive, which I think is not so obvious otherwise. See: arxiv.org/abs/math/0608134 (Conjecture 1) for an interesting conjecture about Schur positivity of expressions of this form. – Sam Hopkins Jun 19 '17 at 22:13

Gasharov's proof that Stanley's chromatic symmetric function is Schur-positive for incomparability graphs of (3+1)-free posets doesn't seem to fit neatly into any of your categories (Discrete Math. 157 (1996), 193–197). He expresses the coefficients of the Schur-function expansion as a signed sum of inner products with complete homogeneous symmetric functions. The summands have a combinatorial interpretation and he defines a sign-reversing involution on them to cancel out everything except certain positive terms. As a byproduct he obtains a combinatorial interpretation of the Schur-function coefficients.

More generally, if you have a combinatorial interpretation of the coefficients when the function is expanded in terms of some other symmetric function basis, then you can try applying the change-of-basis matrix (which in most cases has some kind of combinatorial interpretation, although sometimes it's very complicated), thereby expressing the Schur-function coefficients as some kind of signed sum of combinatorial objects. Then you can look for a sign-reversing involution or some other combinatorial argument to cancel stuff out.

  • Ah, right! Forgot about Gasharov's proof. His proof somehow produces the 'highest-weights' in a hypothetical crystal graph, but no-one has published a full crystal graph structure yet. – Per Alexandersson Jun 16 '17 at 6:05
  • 2
    @PerAlexandersson : If you will forgive a shameless plug, Brosnan and I have a preprint on the ArXiv proving a conjecture of Shareshian and Wachs about a representation-theoretic interpretation of those Schur-function coefficients. So this gives a representation-theoretic viewpoint, though I have to say that I haven't thought about this problem in terms of crystals. – Timothy Chow Jun 16 '17 at 14:03
  • Ah, right, the Hessenberg variety connection. I have worked a bit (on the combinatorial side), of similar functions. Perhaps there is some 'incomplete flag' Hessenberg variety explaining the various positivity conjectures/results in the paper w. G. Panova we recently put on arxiv.. – Per Alexandersson Jun 16 '17 at 15:27

There are also geometric arguments of Schur positivity. The outline is very similar to the representation-theoretic strategy. Construct a variety that deforms into a union of Grassmannians, and show that the cohomology class of the variety gives the polynomial. This often involves finding recursions, and does not give formulas for the coefficients. Examples: Stanley symmetric functions via the Lascoux-Schutzenberger tree, toric Schur functions and $k$-Schur functions.

Note, all I have done is replace "$Sn$-module" with "variety that deforms into a union of Grassmannians" and "Frobenius map of the decomposition into irreducibles" with "cohomology class of the variety" from your representation theoretic outline.

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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