arxiv: v1 [math.co] 24 Mar 2009

Transcription

1 BRANCHING RULES FOR SYMMETRIC MACDONALD POLYNOMIALS AND sl n BASIC HYPERGEOMETRIC SERIES arxiv: v1 [mathco] 24 Mar 2009 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR Abstract A one-parameter generalisation R (X; b) of the symmetric Macdonald polynomials and interpolations Macdonald polynomials is studied from the point of view of branching rules We establish a Pieri formula, evaluation symmetry, principal specialisation formula and q-difference equation for R (X; b) We also prove a new multiple q-gauss summation formula and several further results for sl n basic hypergeometric series based on R (X; b) 1 Introduction Let be a partition, ie, ( 1, 2, ) is a weakly decreasing sequence of nonnegative integers such that : is finite Let the length l() of be the number of nonzero i For x (x 1,,x n ) and l() n the Schur function s (x) is defined as (11) s (x) : det 1 i,j n(x j+n j i ) det 1 i,j n (x n j det 1 i,j n(x j+n j i ), (x) i ) where (x) : i<j (x i x j ) is the Vandermonde product If l() > n then s (x) : 0 From its definition it is clear that s (x) is a symmetric polynomial in x of homogeneous degree, and that {s l() n} forms a basis of the ring of symmetric functions Λ n : Z[x 1,,x n ] Sn A classical result for Schur functions is the combinatorial formula (12) s (x) T Here the sum is over all semi-standard Young tableau T of shape, and x T is shorthand for the monomial x 1 1 x2 2 xn n with i the number of squares of the tableau filled with the number i One of the remarkable facts of (12) is that it actually yields a symmetric function The conventional way to view a semi-standard Young tableau of shape (and length at most n) as a filling of a Young diagram with the numbers 1, 2,,n such that squares are strictly increasing along columns and weakly increasing along rows Given two partitions (or Young diagrams), write if and is a horizontal strip, ie, if the skew diagram contains at most one square in each column Then an alternative viewpoint is to consider a Young tableau of shape as a sequence of partitions x T (13) 0 (0) (1) (n), 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification 05E05, 33D52, 33D67 Work supported by the ANR project MARS (BLAN ) and the Australian Research Council 1

2 2 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR where 0 denotes the empty partition For example, for n 6 the tableau may be encoded as (3) (6, 2) (6, 2) (7, 3, 1) (7, 6, 2, 1) (8, 6, 3, 2, 1) The above description implies that a recursive formulation of the Schur functions, equivalent to the combinatorial formula (12), is given by the branching rule (14) s (x 1,,x n ) x n s (x 1,, x n 1 ), subject to the initial condition s ( ) δ,0 If we let be a pair of partitions and define the skew Schur function s / of a single variable z as s / (z) : { z if 0 otherwise, then the branching rule for Schur functions takes the more familiar form (15) s (x 1,, x n ) s / (x n )s (x 1,, x n 1 ) The Macdonald polynomials P (x) P (x; q, t) [11,12] are an important q, t- generalisation of the Schur functions, and the P for l() n form a basis of the ring Λ n,f : Λ n F, where F Q(q, t) A classical result in the theory is that the Macdonald polynomials satisfy a combinatorial formula not unlike that of the Schur functions; P (x) ψ T x T, T where ψ T ψ T (q, t) F is a function that admits an explicit combinatorial description Importantly, if T has no more than n rows it factorises as n ψ T ψ (i) / (i 1), where, as before, 0 (0) (n) is the sequence of partitions representing T Probably the simplest (albeit non-combinatorial) expression for ψ / is [12, Page 342] (16) ψ / 1 i j l() f(q i j t j i )f(q i j+1 t j i ) f(q i j t j i )f(q i j+1 t j i ), where f(a) (at) /(aq) with (a) i 0 (1 aqi ) (Note that ψ / F since ) It follows from the above that the Macdonald polynomials, like the Schur functions, can be described by a simple branching rule Namely, (17) P (x 1,,x n ) x n ψ / P (x 1,,x n 1 ),

3 BRANCHING RULES 3 subject to the initial condition P ( ) δ,0 Again we may define a single-variable skew polynomial P / (z) P / (z; q, t) for { z ψ / if (18) P / (z) : 0 otherwise to turn the branching formula for the Macdonald polynomials into (19) P (x 1,,x n ) P / (x n )P (x 1,,x n 1 ) In view of the above two examples of symmetric functions admitting a recursive description in the form of a branching formula, a natural question is Can one find more general branching-type formulas that lead to symmetric functions? To fully appreciate the question we should point out that it is not at all obvious that if one were to take (14) (or, equivalently, (15)) as the definition of the Schur functions or (17) (or (19)) as the definition of the Macdonald polynomials, that the polynomials in question are symmetric in x Assuming throughout that q < 1 let the (generalised) q-shifted factorials be defined as follows: (110a) (b) (b; q) : (1 bq i ), (110b) (110c) i0 (b) k (b; q) k : (b) (bq k ), l() (b) (b; q, t) : (bt 1 i ) i, and let (b 1,, b i ) k (b 1 ) k (b i ) k and (b 1,, b i ) (b 1 ) (b i ) Then probably the best-known example of a branching rule generalising (19) and resulting in symmetric polynomials is (111) M (x 1,, x n ) (t n 1 /x n ) (t n 1 /x n ) P / (x n )M (x 1,, x n 1 ) The M (x) M (x; q, t) are the interpolation Macdonald polynomials of Knop, Okounkov and Sahi [5,14,15,23], and (111) is [15, Proposition 53] For comparison with [15], we have M (x 1,, x n ) t (n 1) P (t1 n x 1,, t 1 x n 1, x n ) From (111) it is clear that the top-homogeneous component of M (x) is the Macdonald polynomial P (x) so that {M l() n} forms an inhomogeneous basis of Λ n,f For ( 1,, n ) and ( 1,, n 1 ) such that is a horizontal strip and such that 1 m denote by m n and m n 1 the partitions (m n,, m 1 ) and (m n 1,,m 1 ) Note that (m n ) (m n 1 ) is again a horizontal strip It follows from (16) that P (mn )/(m n 1 )(1/z; 1/q, 1/t) z m P / (z; 1/q, 1/t) z m P / (z)

4 4 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR for 1 m It also follows from (16) and (111) that M m n(1/x 1,,1/x n ; 1/q, 1/t) M m n 1(1/x 1,, 1/x n 1 ; 1/q, 1/t) x m n (x n; 1/q) m If we replace (x, q, t) (1/x, 1/q, 1/t) in (111) and then change (m n,, m 1 ) and (m n 1,, m 1 ) the branching rule for the interpolation Macdonald polynomials may thus be recast as (112) M mn (1/x 1,, 1/x n ; 1/q, 1/t) M m n(1/x 1,,1/x n ; 1/q, 1/t) (q 1 m x n /t) (q 1 m P / (x n ) M (1/x mn 1 1,, 1/x n 1 ; 1/q, 1/t) x n ) M m n 1(1/x 1,, 1/x n 1 ; 1/q, 1/t) In this paper we consider a generalisation R (x; b) R (x; b; q, t) of the Macdonald polynomials and the Macdonald interpolation polynomials defined recursively by the branching rule (113) R (x 1,, x n ; b) : (bx n /t) (bx n ) P / (x n )R (x 1,, x n 1 ; b) Our interest in the functions R (x; b) is not merely that they provide another example of a class of symmetric functions defined by a simple branching formula Indeed, it may be shown that the more general (114) R (x 1,,x n ; a, b) : (x n /a) (bx n /t) (x n /a) (bx n ) P / (a)r (x 1,, x n 1 ; at, b) is also symmetric Moreover R (x; a, b) is a limiting case (reducing BC n symmetry to S n symmetry and breaking ellipticity) of Rains BC n symmetric abelian interpolation functions [19,21] so that R (x; b) is not actually new However, it turns out that the function R (x; b) has a number of interesting properties, not shared by R (x; a, b) or the more general BC n abelian functions For example, R (x; b) satisfies a Pieri formula that not just implies the standard Pieri formulas for Macdonald polynomials, but also gives an sl n generalisation of the famous q-gauss summation formula Specifically, with R (x; b) a suitable normalisation of the functions R (x; b) defined in equation (51), and X an arbitrary finite alphabet, we prove that (115) ( c ab ) (a, b) R (X; c) (cx/a, cx/b) (cx, cx/ab) For X {1} this simplifies to the well-known q-gauss sum (a, b) ( k c ) k (c/a, c/b) (116) (q, c) k ab (c, c/ab) k0 2 Preliminaries on Macdonald polynomials We begin with a remark about notation If f is a symmetric function we will often write f(x) with X {x 1,, x n } (and refer to X as an alphabet) instead of f(x) with x (x 1,,x n ), the latter notation being reserved for function that are not (a priori) symmetric Following this notation we also use f(x + Y ) where

5 BRANCHING RULES 5 X +Y denotes the (disjoint) union of the alphabets X and Y, and f(x + z) where X + z denotes the alphabet X with the single letter z added In the following we review some of the basics of Macdonald polynomial theory, most of which can be found in [11,12] Let T q,xi be the q-shift operator acting on the variable x i : (T q,xi f)(x 1,, x n ) f(x 1,,x i 1, qx i, x i+1,, x n ) Then the Macdonald polynomials P (X) P (X; q, t) for X {x 1,,x n } are the unique polynomial eigenfunctions of the Macdonald operator (21) D n (c) : ( c) I t ( I 2 ) tx i x j T q,xi, x i x j i I I [n] where [n] : {1,,n} Explicitly, (22) D n (c)p (X) P (X) j I i I n (1 cq i t n i ) For later reference we state the coefficient of c 1 of this equation separately; if n (23) Dn 1 : ( ) tx i x j T q,xi, x i x j then j i (24) D 1 n P (X) P (X) n q i t n i For each square s (i, j) Z 2 in the (Young) diagram of a partition (ie, for each i {1,,l()} and j {1,, i }, the arm-length a(s), arm-colength a (s), leg-length l(s) and leg-colength l (s) are given by and a(s) i j, a (s) j 1 l(s) j i, l (s) i 1, where is the conjugate of, obtained by reflecting the diagram of in the main diagonal Note that the generalised q-shifted factorial (110c) can be expressed in terms of the colengths as (b) s (1 bq a (s) t l (s) ) With the above notation we define the further q-shifted factorials c c (q, t), c c (q, t) and b b (q, t) as c : (1 q a(s)+1 t l(s) ) and c : q s s (1 a(s) t l(s)+1 ) and b : c c Then the Macdonald polynomials Q (X) Q (X; q, t) are defined as Q (X) : b P (X)

6 6 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR We also need the skew Macdonald polynomials P / and Q / defined for by (25a) (25b) P (X + Y ) P / (Y )P (X) Q (X + Y ) Q / (Y )Q (X) Note that P /0 P and Q /0 Q, and that P / Q / 1 To simplify some later equations it will be useful to extend the definitions of P / and Q / to all partition pairs, by setting P / Q / 0 if From (21), (22) and (25) it follows that for a a scalar, (26a) (26b) P / (ax) a P / (X) Q / (ax) a Q / (X), where ax : {ax x X} For subsequent purposes it will be convenient to also introduce normalised (skew) Macdonald polynomials P / and Q / as (27a) P / (X) t n() n() c c P / (X) t n() n() c Q / (X) c (27b) where Q / (X) t n() n() c c Q / (X) t n() n() c P / (X), c n() : s l() l (s) (i 1) i Note that no additional factors arise in the normalised form of (25): P (X + Y ) Q (X + Y ) P / (Y )P (X) Q / (Y )Q (X), and that P /0 P and Q /0 Q If we define the structure constants fν fν (q, t) by (28) P (X)P ν (X) f ν P (X), then fν c tn()+n(ν) n() c f c ν, ν with fν the q, t-littlewood Richardson coefficients Below we make use of some limited -ring notation (see [6] for more details) Let p r be the rth power-sum symmetric function p r (X) : x r

7 BRANCHING RULES 7 and let p : i i p i Then the p (X) form a basis of Λ n where n X Given a symmetric function f(x) we define [ ] a b f : φ a,b (f), where φ a,b is the evaluation homomorphism given by (29) φ a,b (p r ) ar b r r In particular, f[( n )/()] f(1, t,,t n 1 ) is known as the principal specialisation, which we will also denote as f( 0 ), and f[1/(1 t)] f(1, t, t 2, ) From [7, Equation (624)] Q / [ a b ] a (b/a) ν fν, ν which, by f0ν δ ν, also implies that [ ] [ ] 1 a 1 a (210) Q (a) and P t 2n() (a) c c This last equation of yields the well-known principal specialisation formula P ( 0 ) t 2n() (tn ) c c The Cauchy identity for (skew) Macdonald polynomials is given by ( ) (txy) P / (X)Q /ν (Y ) P ν/ (X)Q / (Y ) (xy) y Y The product on the right-hand side may alternatively be expressed in terms of the power-sum symmetric functions as ( 1 r ) exp r 1 q r p r(x)p r (Y ) r1 It thus follows from (29) and (210), as well as some elementary manipulations, that application of φ a,c (acting on Y ) turns the Cauchy identity into [ ] ( a c ) (cx) [ ] a c (211) Q /ν P / (X) Q / P ν/ (X) (ax) For ν 0 (followed by the substitution X X/a and then a c/a) this is the q-binomial identity for Macdonald polynomials [4,13] (212) (a) P (X) (ax) (x) For later reference we also state the more general (, ν) (0, ) instance of (211) (213) P (X) (bx) (ax) [ ] a b Q / P (X) For reasons outlined below we will refer to this as a Pieri formula

8 8 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR Let φ / φ, (q, t) and ψ / ψ, (q, t) be defined by φ / : b b ψ / and ψ, (q, t) : ψ / (t, q) (For combinatorial expressions for all of ψ /, ψ / and φ /, see [12]) Further let g (r) (X) : P (r) (X)(t) r /(q) r and e r (X) the rth elementary symmetric function Then the Macdonald polynomials P (X) satisfy the Pieri formulas (214a) (214b) P (X)g r (X) P (X)e r (X) Now observe that (213) for b at yields r r φ / P (X) ψ / P (X) P (X) (atx) (ax) a Q / (1)P (X), whereas for a bq it yields P (X) (1 bx) [ ] q 1 b Q / P (X) Since r 0 a r g r (X) we therefore have and P (X)g r (X) (atx) (ax) r P (X)e r (X) ( 1) r and r 0( b) r e r (X) Q / (1)P (X) r [ ] q 1 Q / P (X), where we have also used (27b) Identifying { φ/ if Q / (1) 0 otherwise and [ ] q 1 (215) Q / { ( 1) ψ / if 0 otherwise these two formulas are equivalent to the Pieri rules of (214) (1 bx) The skew polynomials can be used to define generalised q-binomial coefficients [9,10,14] as [ ] [ ] [ ] 1 (216) : Q / q,t

9 In particular has [ ] 0 if and [ ] (m) k (k) BRANCHING RULES 9 1 q i+m k 1 q i [ ] m k with on the right the classical q-binomial coefficients [ [ m k] m k If (i) : ( 1,, i 1, i 1, i+1,, i ) then [9] [ ] (1 q)t i 1 c (i) c ψ / (i) (i) This, together with [9, Théorème 9, Bis] ( ) [ ] n [ (217) ω ω (1 q) q i t i n (i) where (218) ω ω (q, t) : n q i t i n, ][ (i) provides a simple recursive method to compute the generalised q-binomial coefficients Lemma 21 Assume that l(), l() n Then [ ] s ([ ]) ( 0 ) i + n i (219a) det s ( 0 ) 1 i,j n j + n j and (219b) [ ] n u + [ i u i ] ] q ], if t q if t 1 In the above u + denotes a sum over compositions u Nn in the S n orbit of Proof Assume that t q Then (216) simplifies to [ ] (220) q n() n() c c s / [ 1 1 q where we have also used (27b) and the fact that for t q the (skew) Macdonald polynomials reduce to the (skew) Schur functions Let h r (X) be the rth complete symmetric function By application of the Jacobi Trudi identity [12, Equation (I54)] s / det (h i 1 i,j n j i+j) for n l(), and the principal specialisation formula [12, page 44] (221) s ( 0 ) qn() c n (q) i+n i (q) n i the generalised q-binomial coefficient (220) can be expressed as a determinant [ ] s ( [ ]) ( 0 ) (q; q)i+n i 1 det h i s ( 0 ) 1 i,j n (q, q) j i+j j+n j 1 q ],

10 10 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR Since [ ] 1 h r 1 1 q (q) r this establishes the first claim The second claim follows in analogous manner Since making the substitution t 1 in the right-hand side of (216) is somewhat problematic it is best to first use the symmetry [14, Equation (212)] [ ] [ ] (222) Since we therefore get [ ] Using q 1,1 [ ] q,t t 1,q 1 P / (X; 1, t) e / (X) 1,q e / q n( ) n( ) c [ ] (1, q) 1 c (1, q) e / 1 q n u + e i u i for n l(), and [ ] 1 2) e r q(r 1 q (q; q) r as well as c (q, 1) i (q) i, it follows that [ ] n [ ] i q iui u i q 1,1 u + Finally replacing q 1/q yields the second claim 3 Symmetric functions and branching rules In this section we consider the question posed in the introduction: Can one find new(?) branching-type formulas, similar to (14), (17) and (111), that lead to symmetric functions? Assume that k is a fixed nonnegative integer, and let a (a 1, a 2,,a k ) denote a finite sequence of parameters Then we are looking for branching coefficients f / (z;a) such that (31a) f (x 1,, x n ;a) f / (x n ;a)f (x 1,,x n 1 ;a ), subject to the initial condition (31b) f ( ;a) δ,0 defines a symmetric function In the above a (a 1,,a k ) g(a) Of course, (31a) for n 1 combined with (31b) implies that f (z;a) f /0 (z;a) If one wishes to only consider symmetric functions with the standard property (32) f (x 1,, x n ;a) 0 if l() > n

11 BRANCHING RULES 11 then the additional condition f / (z;a) 0 if l() l() > 1 must be imposed Because we assume the branching coefficients to be independent of n, it may perhaps seem we are excluding interesting classes of symmetric functions such as the interpolation Macdonald polynomials As will be shown shortly, assuming n- independence is not actually a restriction, and (111) may easily be recovered as a special case of (31a) Now let us assume that (31a) yields a symmetric function f (x 1,, x n ;a) for all n N (For N 0 and N 1 this is obviously not an assumption) Then, f (x 1,,x n 1, y, z;a) f / (z;a)f (x 1,, x n 1, y;a ) ν f / (z;a)f /ν (y;a )f ν (x 1,, x n 1 ;a ) is a symmetric function in x 1,,x n 1, y (for n N) For it to also be a symmetric function in x 1,, x n 1, y, z we must have implying that for fixed ν f (x 1,,x n 1, y, z;a) f (x 1,, x n 1, z, y;a), f / (z;a)f /ν (y;a )f ν (x 1,,x n 1 ;a ) ν f / (y;a)f /ν (z;a )f ν (x 1,, x n 1 ;a ), where a : g(a ) Hence a sufficient condition for (31a) to yield a symmetric function is (33) f / (z;a)f /ν (y;a ) f / (y;a)f /ν (z;a ) ν ν for partitions, ν such that ν As a first example let us show how to recover the Macdonald interpolation polynomials of the introduction To this end we take a (a), a (a/t), and f / (z;a) f / (z; a) (a/z) (a/z) P / (z) Clearly, the resulting polynomials f (x; a) correspond to the interpolation polynomials after the specialisation a t n 1 To see that (33) is indeed satisfied we substitute the above choice for the branching coefficient (recall the convention that P / : 0 if ) to obtain (34) (a/z) (a/ty) (a/z) (a/ty) ν P / (z)p /ν (y) (a/y) (a/tz) (a/y) (a/tz) ν P / (y)p /ν (z)

12 12 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR The identity (34) is easily proved using Rains Sears transformation for skew Macdonald polynomials [20, Corollary 49] [ ] [ (aq/b, aq/c) (d, e) 1 aq/de aq/de a 2 q 2 ] /bcde (35) P / P /ν (aq/b, aq/c) (d, e) ν [ ] [ (aq/d, aq/e) (b, c) 1 aq/bc aq/bc a 2 q 2 ] /bcde P / P /ν (aq/d, aq/e) (b, c) ν After simultaneously replacing (a, b, c, d, e) (c, a/tz, cqz/a, a/ty, cqy/a) and taking the c limit we obtain (34) If, more generally, we let (a, b, c, d, e) (c, a/bz, cqz/a, a/by, cqy/a) in (35) and take the c limit we find that [ ] [ ] (a/z) (a/by) z bz y by P / P /ν (a/z) (a/by) ν (a/y) (a/bz) (a/y) (a/bz) ν P / [ ] [ ] y by z bz P /ν The Macdonald interpolation polynomials may thus be generalised by taking a (a, b), a (a/b, b) and f / (z;a) f / (z; a, b) z (a/z) [ ] 1 b P / (a/z) Proposition 31 The polynomials M (x 1,, x n ; a, b) M (x 1,,x n ; a, b; q, t) defined by M (x 1,, x n ; a, b) [ ] x (a/x n ) 1 b n P / M (x 1,, x n 1 ; a/b, b) (a/x n ) subject to M ( ;a, b) δ,0 are symmetric Moreover, the interpolation Macdonald polynomials corresponds to M (x 1,,x n ) M (x 1,,x n ; t n 1, t) The polynomials M (x 1,, x n ; a, b) are an example of a class of symmetric functions for which l() > n does not imply vanishing For example, [ ] 1 b M (z; a, b) z (a/z) P t n() z (a/z, b) c The next example corresponds to Okounkov s BC n symmetric interpolation polynomials [16] (see also [17,20]) Proposition 32 If we take take a (a, b), a (a/t, b/t) and f / (z;a) f / (z; a, b) (a/z, bz) (a/z, bz) P / (1/b) in (31a) then the resulting functions f (x; a, b) f (x; a, b; q, t) are symmetric Writing O (x; a, b) instead of f (x; a, b), the (Laurent) polynomials O (x; a, b) satisfy the symmetries ( a ) O ( a ) q 2n( O (x; a, b) (1/x; b, a) ) O (1/x; 1/a, 1/b; 1/q, 1/t) b b

13 BRANCHING RULES 13 (This follows easily using that P (X; 1/q, 1/t) P (X, q, t)) Moreover, Okounkov s BC n interpolation Macdonald polynomials P (x; q, t, s) follow as P (x 1, tx 2,, t n 1 x n ; q, t, s) q n( ) O (x; 1, s 2 t 2(n 1) ; q, t) (Since O (ax; a, b/a) a O (x; 1, b) the O (x; a, b) are not more general than the P (x; q, t, s)) Proof of Proposition (32) Substituting the claim in (33) and using (26) gives (a/z, bz) (a/yt, byt) (a/z, bz) (a/yt, byt) ν P / (1)P /ν (t) (a/y, by) (a/zt, bzt) (a/y, by) (a/zt, bzt) ν P / (1)P /ν (t) This is (35) with (a, b, c, d, e) (ab/qt, bz/t, a/zt, a/yt, by/t) Our final example will (in the limit) lead to the functions studied in the remainder of the paper Proposition 33 If we take a (a, b), a (at, b) and f / (z;a) f / (z; a, b) (z/a) (bz/t) (z/a) (bz) P / (a) in (31a) then the resulting functions f (x; a, b) f (x; a, b; q, t) are symmetric Proof Substituting the claim in (33) and using (26) gives (z/a, by) (bz/t, y/at) (z/a, by) (bz/t, y/at) ν P / (1)P /ν (t) (y/a, bz) (by/t, z/at) (y/a, bz) (by/t, z/at) ν P / (1)P /ν (t) This is (35) with (a, b, c, d, e) (byz/aqt, by/t, z/at, bz/t, y/at) If we write R (x; a, b) instead of f (x; a, b) the symmetric functions of Proposition 33 correspond to the functions described by the branching rule (114) of the introduction As already mentioned there, the R (x; a, b) are not new, and follow as a special limiting case of much more general functions studied by Rains [19, 21] More specifically, Rains defined a family of abelian interpolation functions R (n) (x; a, b) R (n) (x; a, b; q, t; p), where x (x 1,,x n ) The R (n) (x) are BC n symmetric and, apart from parameters a, b, q, t, depend on an elliptic nome p In [21, Theorem 416] Rains proved the branching rule R (n+1) (x 1,,x n+1 ; a, b) c (n) (x n+1; a, b)r (n) (x 1,, x n ; a, b), where the branching coefficient c (n) (z; a, b) c(n) (z; a, b; q, t; p) is expressed in terms of the elliptic binomial coefficient (see [19, Equation (42)]) as [a,b](v 1,,v k ) (36) c (n) (z; a, b) [at n /b,t](azt n,at n /z,pqa/tb)

14 14 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR If we define R (x; a, b) R (x; a, b; q, t) ( t 1 n ) P ( 0 ) lim R (n) b p 0 (p 1/4 x; p 1/4 at n 1, p 3/4 b/q; 1/q, 1/t; p) and compute the corresponding limit of (36) we obtain the branching rule (114) with n n The symmetric function R (x; b) In the remainder of the paper we consider the symmetric function R (X; b) ( 1) q n( ) t n() lim R (X; a, b) a 0 q n( ) t n()( ) t1 n P ( 0 ) (n : X ) b lim lim R (n) a 0 p 0 (p 1/4 X; p 1/4 at n 1, p 3/4 b/q; 1/q, 1/t; p) which, alternatively, is defined by the branching rule (113) Because R is a limiting case of the abelian interpolation function R (n) many properties of former follow by taking appropriate limits in the results of [19,21] For example, it follows from [21, Proposition 39] that the R (X; b) for X {x 1,,x n } satisfy a q-difference equation generalising (22) Specifically, with D n (b, c) the generalised Macdonald operator D n (b, c) ( 1) I t ( I 2 ) tx i x j bx j x i x j i I j I(1 ) (c bt 1 n x i )T q,xi i I we have I [n] j I (41) D n (b, c)r (X; b) R (X; bq) n (1 cq i t n i ) Below we will first prove a number of elementary properties of the functions R (X; b) using only the branching rule (113) Like the previous result, most of these can also be obtained by taking appropriate limits in results of Rains for the abelian interpolation functions R (n) (X; a, b) Then we give several deeper results for R (X; b) (such as Theorem 51 and Corollaries 52, 54 and 62) that, to the best of our knowledge, have no analogues for R (n) (X; a, b) or R (X; a, b) First however we restate the branching rule (113) in the equivalent form (42) R (X; b) (bz/t) (bz) P / (z)r (Y ; b), where X Y + z When X {z} we find from (42) that (43) R (k) (z; b) zk (bz) k

15 BRANCHING RULES 15 From this it is clear that R (k) (cz; b) c k R (k) (z; bc) and that in the c limit R (k) (cz; b) is given by ( b) k q (k 2) It also shows that R (k+1) (z; b) R (k) (z; bq) All three statements easily generalise to arbitrary X Lemma 41 For c a scalar, R (cx; b) c R (X; bc) Lemma 42 For c a scalar and n : X, ) q lim R (cx; b) ( t1 n n( ) t n() P ( 0 ) c b Lemma 43 Let n : X and a partition such that l() n Define : ( 1 1,, n 1) Then R (X; b) R (X; bq) x 1 bx This last result allows the definition of R (X; b) to be extended to all weakly decreasing integer sequences ( 1,, n ) Proof of Lemmas By (43) all three statements are obviously true for X a single-letter alphabet, and we proceed by induction on n, the cardinality of X By (42), (44) R (cx; b) (bcz/t) (bcz) P / (cz)r (cy ; b) Using (26) and the appropriate induction hypothesis this yields R (cx; b) c (bcz/t) (bcz) P / (z)r (Y ; bc) c R (X; bc), establishing the first lemma Taking the c limit on both sides of (44) and then using induction we get lim c R (cx; b) ( b) q n( ) n( ) t n() n() P / (1) lim c R (cy ; b) ( t1 n b ) q n () t n() P / (t n 1 )P (t n 2,, t, 1) ) q ( t1 n n () t n() P ( 0 ), b where the last equality follows from (25) To prove the final lemma we consider (44) with c 1 and, in accordance with the conditions of Lemma 43, with n 1 Since P /ν (a) vanishes unless ν is a horizontal strip this implies that ν n 1 1 The summand also vanishes if l(ν) > n 1 so that we we may assume that l(ν) n 1 Defining η (ν 1 1,, ν n 1 1) and ( 1 1,, n 1) and using induction, as well as (bz/t) ν 1 (bzq/t) η and P /ν (z) zp /η (z), (bz) 1 bz (bzq)

16 16 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR we get R (X; b) z ( 1 bz x Y R (X; bq) ) x (bzq/t) η P /η (z)r η (Y ; bq) 1 bx (bzq) η x 1 bx where in the final step we have used (42) and X Y + z Proposition 44 (Principal specialisation) For such that l() n, R ( 0 ; b) P ( 0 ) (bt n 1 ) tn() (t n ) (bt n 1 ) c By Lemma 41 this may be stated slightly more generally as (45) R (a 0 ; b) P (a 0 ) (abt n 1 ) Proof Iterating (113) using P /ν (X)P ν/ (Y ) P / (X + Y ), we obtain the generalised branching rule ν R (x 1,, x m, t n 1,, t, 1; b) (b/t) (bt n 1 ) P / ( 0 )R (x 1,, x m ; b), for l() n + m When m 0 this results in the claim Proposition 45 (Evaluation symmetry) For such that l() n set Then (q 1 t n 1,, q n 1 t, 1) R (a ; b) R (a 0 ; b) R (a ; b) R (a 0 ; b) Proof We may view the evaluation symmetry as a rational function identity in b Hence it suffices to give a proof for b q 1 m where m runs over all integers such that 1, 1 m But (see (112) and (113)) and so that we need to prove that R (X; q 1 m ) M m n (1/x 1,,1/x n ; 1/q, 1/t) M m n(1/x 1,, 1/x n ; 1/q, 1/t) M m n(1/x; 1/q, 1/t) x m (x; 1/q) m M mn (a ) M mn (a 0 ) M (a ) (aqt n 1 ) mn (aq 1 m t n 1 ) M mn (a 0 ) (aqt n 1 ) (aq 1 m t n 1 ) Making the substitutions m n, m n and a aq m t 1 n we get M (a/ ) M (aq m t 1 n 0 ) M (a/ ) (q m t n 1 /a) (t n 1 /a) M (aq m t 1 n 0 ) (q m t n 1 /a) (t n 1 q m( /a)

17 BRANCHING RULES 17 Finally, by the principal specialisation formula for the interpolation Macdonald polynomials [14], so that we end up with M (aq m t 1 n 0 ) M (a/ 0 ) (qm t n 1 /a) (t n 1 /a) q m M (a/ ) M (a/ 0 ) M (a/ ) M (a/ 0 ) This is the known evaluation symmetry of the interpolation Macdonald polynomials [14, Section 2] It is clear from (42) that R (X; 0) P (X) with on the right a Macdonald polynomial The Macdonald polynomials in turn generalise the Jack polynomials P (α) (α) (X), since P (X) lim q 1 P (X; q, q 1/α ) Combining the last two equations it thus follows that P (α) (X) lim R (X; 0; q, q 1/α ) q 1 Curiously, there is an alternative path from R (X; b) to the Jack polynomials as follows For X an alphabet let {( x ) } ˆX : x X 1 x Proposition 46 We have P (α) ( ˆX) lim R (X; 1; q, q 1/α ) q 1 Proof Let X Y + z be a finite alphabet Replacing (b, t) (1, q 1/α ) in (42) and taking the q 1 limit yields R (α) (X) (1 z) P (α) / (z)r(α) (Y ), where P (α) / is a skew Jack polynomial and R (α) (X) : lim R (X; 1; q, q 1/α ) q 1 Using the homogeneity of P (α) / the above can be rewritten as R (α) (X) ( P (α) z ) / R (α) (Y ) 1 z Comparing this with P (α) (X) P (α) (α) / (z)p (Y ) the proposition follows

18 18 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR 5 Cauchy, Pieri and Gauss formulas for R (X; b) Probably our most important new results for R (X; b) are generalisation of the skew Cauchy identity (211), the Pieri formula (213) and the q-gauss formula (115) Before we get to these result we first need a few more definitions First of all, in analogy with (27), we set (51) R (X; b) : t n() R (X; b) c so that (42) becomes R (X; b) (bz/t) (bz) P / (z)r (Y ; b) Furthermore, we also define the skew functions R / (X; b) by (52) R / (X; b) : ν (bz/t) ν (bz) P /ν (z)r /ν (Y ; b) and In other words, R / ( ; b) δ R / (X + Y ; b) ν R / (X; b)r /ν (Y ; b) and R / (X; 0) P / (X) Theorem 51 (Skew Cauchy-type identity) Let ab cd and X a finite alphabet Then [ ] (b/c) a c (53) Q /ν R / (X; b) (b/c) ν ( ) (cx, dx) [ ] (b/c) a c Q / R ν/ (X; d) (ax, bx) (b/c) Note that for b 0 the theorem simplifies to (211) We defer the proof of (53) till the end of this section and first list a number of corollaries Corollary 52 (Pieri formula) Let ab cd and X a finite alphabet Then (54) R (X; d) (cx, dx) [ ] (b/c) a c Q / R (X; b) (ax, bx) (b/c) This follows from the theorem by taking 0 and then replacing ν by When b, d 0 equation (54) yields the Pieri formula (213) for Macdonald polynomials When b, c 0 and a 1 such that b/c d equation (54) yields (after replacing d b) (55) (b) (b) [ ] P (X) R (X; b) (bx) (x)

19 BRANCHING RULES 19 For 0 this is the q-binomial formula for Macdonald polynomials (212), and for b 0 it is Lassalle s [9] [ ] P (X) P (X) 1 (x) The Jack polynomial limit of (55) is of particular interest To concisely state this we need some more notation Let ( ) (α) [ ] : lim q 1 q,q 1/α or, alternatively [3, 8, 18], P (α) (x 1 + 1,,x n + 1) P (α) (1n ) where n is any integer such that n l() Further let (b; α) : i 1(b + (1 i)/α)) i ( ) (α) P (α) (x 1,, x n ), P (α) (1 n ) with (b) k b(b + 1) (b + k 1), c (α) : s (a(s) l(s)/α) and P (α) (α) P (X) : (X) c (α) Using all of the above, replacing (b, q, t) in (55) by (q β, q, q 1/α ) and taking the (formal) limit q 1 with the aid of Proposition 46, we arrive at the following identity Corollary 53 (Binomial formula for Jack polynomials) For X a finite alphabet ( ) (α) (β; α) P (α) (X) P(α) (β; α) ( ˆX) 1 (1 x) β Another special case of (54) worth stating is the following multivariable extension of the 1 φ 1 summation [2, II5], which follows straightforwardly by taking the a, d 0 limit, (56) c (b/c) (b/c) Q / [ ] 0 1 R (X; b) P (X) (cx) (bx) This provides an expansion of the right-hand side different from (213) If we let ν 0 in Theorem 51, use (210) and then replace (a, b, c) (c/ab, c, c/a) we obtain ( c ab ) (a, b) For 0 we state this separately (a, b) R / (X; c) (cx/a, cx/b) (cx, cx/ab)

20 20 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR Corollary 54 (sl n q-gauss sum) For X a finite alphabet ( c ) (a, (57) b) R (X; c) (cx/a, cx/b) ab (cx, cx/ab) As mentioned in the introduction, for X {1} this simplifies to the standard q-gauss sum (116) thanks to (43) More generally, if we principally specialise X t 1 n 0 {1, t 1,, t 1 n } and use (45) the sl n q-gauss sum simplifies to Kaneko s q-gauss sum for Macdonald polynomials [4, Proposition 54] ( ct 1 n ) (a, b) P ( 0 ) ab (c) n (ct 1 i /a, ct 1 i /b) (ct 1 i, ct 1 i /ab) As another consequence of the theorem we obtain an explicit expression for the Taylor series of R (X; b) in b For let (1) / be defined as (1) / lim a 1 (a) /(a) That is (1) / (1 q a (s) t l (s) ) Corollary 55 We have s (58) R (X; b) or, equivalently, [b r ]R (X; b) r [ ] b (1) / P (X), [ ] (1) / P (X) Proof Replacing (c, X) (a/b, bx) in Lemma 41 and expressing the resulting identity in terms of the normalised function R (X; b) (see (51)) we get ( a ) R (59) R (ax; b) (bx; a) b Combined with (55) this implies that ( a ) ( ) (bx) R (ax; b) b (abx) b (a) (a) [ ] P (X) The summand vanishes unless and so we may add this as a restriction in the sum over Then the limit a 1 limit may be taken without causing ambiguities, and the claim follows Corollary 55 implies the following simple expressions for R (X; b) when t q (Schur-like case) or t 1 (monomial-like case) Proposition 56 Let X {x 1,, x n } Then (510a) and (510b) R (X; b) 1 (X) det 1 i,j n R (X; b) ( n ) x ui i (bx i ) ui u + ( x j+n j i (bx i ) j j+1 ) if t q if t 1

21 BRANCHING RULES 21 Proof Since the two claims are proved in almost identical fashion we only present a proof of (510a) The only significant difference is that the omitted proof of (510b) uses (219b) instead of (219a) Assume that t q Let ν (0, 1,,n 1) and suppose that ν n 0 Since for any k 0, one has the expansion x k+n 1 (bx) k the matrix (x νj+n 1 i ( ) x n 1+r i,,n r0,1, r0 [ ] k + r 1 x k+n 1+r, r /(bx i ) νj ) factorises into the product of rectangular matrices ( [ ]) k 1 and b r k r k r0,1, kν 1,,ν n According to Cauchy Binet theorem, the determinant on the right-hand side of (510a) factorises into a sum of products of minors of these two matrices On the other hand, by (11) and (219a), the expansion (58) gives ( ) R (X; b) (X) b (1) / det 1 i,j n 1 (q) i j i+j det 1 i,j n ( x j+n j), where we have also used (221) and (51) Using ν instead of, and η (0, 1,, n 1), this becomes R (X; b) (X) ([ ) ηi 1 ( det ]b ηi νj η det x j ) i, 1 i,j n ν η ν j 1 1 i,j n which is precisely the Cauchy Binet expansion The restriction ν n 0 is lifted using Lemma 43 Recall that the Macdonald polynomials are the eigenfunctions of the operator D 1 n, see (24) Because P (X; q, t) P (X; q 1, t 1 ) this can also be stated as D 1 np (X) ω P (X), where Dn 1 : D1 n (q 1 ; t 1 ) and ω is given in (218) A second consequence of Corollary 55 it a generalisation of this identity as follows Let and so that D 1 n(0) D 1 n Theorem 57 We have A i (x; t) : n j1 j i tx i x j x i x j n Dn 1 (b) : ( ( A i (x; t 1 ) 1 bx ) i T q q 1,x i + bx ) i, q D 1 n(b)r (X; b) ω R (X; b) Proof Define the operator E n as n E n : x i A i (x; t 1 ) ( T q 1,x i 1 ) i

22 22 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR Combining the (q, t) (q 1, t 1 ) instance of [9, Proposition 9] with (222) gives n [ ] E n P (X) (1 q) q i t i n (i) (1) (i) / P (i)(x), where (i) : ( 1,, i 1, i + 1, i+1,, i ) Since Dn(b) 1 Dn(0) 1 bq 1 E n this implies that n Dn 1 (b)p (X) ω P (X) b(1 q) q i 1 t i n (1) (i) / b q i t i n (1) / [ (i) [ (i) ] P (i)(x) By Corollary 55 we can now compute the action of Dn 1(b) on R (X; b): Dn 1 (b)r (X; b) [ ] b (1) / Dn 1 (b)p (X) [ ] b (1) / ω P (X) n [ ][ ] (1 q) b +1 q i 1 t i n (i) (1) (i) / P (i)(x) [ ] b (1) / ω P (X) n ][ ] (i) (1 q) P (X), where we have also used that (1) / (1) /ν (1) /ν for ν Recalling the recursion (217), the sum over i on the right can be performed to give Dn 1 (b)r [ ] (X; b) ω b (1) / P (X) Again using (58) completes the proof As a third and final application of Corollary 55 we derive a simple expression for D n (b, c)p (x), to be compared with (22) (obtained for b 0) or with (41) Proposition 58 We have D n (b, c)p (x) ( b) P (x)ψ / (1 cq i t n i ) (1 q i t 1 i ) i i i i Proof First we use (27b) and (215), as well as the fact that for a vertical strip (ie, i i 0, 1) (1 cq i t n i ) (1 q i t 1 i ) (cqtn 1 ) n (cqt n 1 (1) / (1 cq i t n i ), ) i i i i to put the proposition in the form ( n ) D n (b, c)p (x) (1 cq i t n i ) b (cqtn 1 ) (cqt n 1 ) (1) / Q / [ ] q 1 P (x)

23 BRANCHING RULES 23 Since M ν : [ ν] is lower-triangular (with M 1), it is invertible (for the explicit inverse see [14, page 540]) Since (1) / (1) /ν (1) /ν for ν the above equation is thus equivalent to (511) D n (b, c) [ b ν (1) /ν ν ν ( n ) (1 cq i t n i ) ν ] P (x) b ν (cqtn 1 ) (cqt n 1 ) (1) /ν [ ] [ ] q 1 Q / P (x) ν for fixed ν Taking (a, b, c, d) (cq, c, 0, 1) in [20, Corollary 49] in Rains generalised q- Pfaff Saalschütz sum [20, Corollary 49] (512) yields (a) (c) Q / (cq) (cq) ν [ a b ] Q /ν [ b c ] (a) ν(b) (b) ν (c) Q /ν [ ] [ ] q 1 Q / q ν (c) ν (c) ν [ ] ν [ ] a c This allows the sum over on the right of (511) to be carried out, leading to D n (b, c) [ ] b ν (1) /ν P (x) ν ν ( n ) (1 cq i t n i ) (bq) ν (ctn 1 ) (cqt n 1 [ ] ) ν (ct n 1 ) ν (cqt n 1 (1) /ν P (x) ) ν ν ( n ) [ ] (1 cq νi t n i ) (bq) ν (1) /ν P (x) ν ν By Corollary 55 this is the same as (41) 51 Proof of Theorem 51 To prove the theorem we first prepare the following result Proposition 59 For, ν partitions (a) ( c ) [ ] 1 b P / Q /ν (c) ab (a) (c/t) Note that for ν 0 this is (a, b) (c) (a) ν (c/a, c/b) (c/bt) ( c P (c/b) ν (c, c/ab) (a) ν/ ab ( c ) P / (c/a, c/b) (a, b), ab (c, c/ab) (c/t) which, for 0, simplifies to the q-gauss sum (116) ) [ ] 1 b Q /

24 24 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR Proof of Proposition 59 Key is the Cauchy-type identity for skew Macdonald polynomials due to Rains [22, Corollary 38]: 1 (513) q (a, b) [ ] [ ] 1 c 1 d P / Q /ν Z (e, f) ( q ) (a, b) ( q ) ν (a, b)ν c (e/c, f/c) d (e/d, f/d) ν ( cd ) [ ] [ ] (e/cd, f/cd) 1 c 1 d P ν/ Q /, q (a, b) provided that the sum on the left terminates and the balancing condition abcdq eft holds The prefactor Z refers to the sum on the left for ν 0, ie, to Z q (a, b) [ ] [ ] 1 c 1 d P Q (e, f) q (a, b, c, d) [ ] 1 P (e, f) Since (t) vanishes if l() > 1, and since [ ] 1 (t) (k) P (k) if follows that for (b, c) (q N, t) Z N k0 1 (q) k (a, d, q N ) k q k (q, e, adq 1 N /e) k (e/a, e/d) N (e, e/ad) N, where the second equality follows from the q-pfaff Saalschütz sum [2, Equation (II12)] To make the same (b, c) (q N, t) specialisation in the right-hand side of (513) we first replace the sum over by ν (using the fact that P ν/ (X) 0 if ν) Then (b) ν (1 bq a (s) t l (s) ) (b) q (a, q N ) (e, f) ( q t s ν is well-defined for b q N It thus follows that for for (b, c) (q N, t) (513) simplifies to [ ] 1 d P / (1)Q /ν ) (a, q N ) ( q ) ν (a, q N ) ν (e/t, f/t) d ( dt (e/a, e/d) N (e/d, f/d) ν (e, e/ad) N ) (e/dt, f/dt) q (a, q N P ν/ (1)Q / ) ν [ ] 1 d for adq 1 N ef Eliminating f, taking the limit N and using (26) this results in the claim with (b, c) (d, e) We are now prepared to prove Theorem 51

25 BRANCHING RULES 25 Proof We proceed by induction on n : X For n 0 we get the tautology [ ] (b/c) a c Q /ν (b/c) [ ] a c Q /ν (b/c) ν (b/c) ν For n 1 we compute the sum on the right-hand side of (53), assuming the formula is true for the alphabet Y (Recall that X Y +z) Using the branching rule (52) and (514) Q /ν [ a c we obtain S,ν (X; a, b, c) :,η ] [ ] 1 c/a P /η (z) a η ν Q /ν P /η (az) (b/c) (b/c) ν Q /ν a η ν (b/c) (bz/t) η (b/c) ν (bz),η [ ] a c R / (X; b) Q /ν [ ] 1 c/a P /η (az)r η/ (Y ; b) The sum over can be transformed by Proposition 59 with (a, b, c) (b/c, c/a, bz) and η As a result S,ν (X; a, b, c) (cz, dz) [ ] (b/c) η (dz/t) a c Q η/ P ν/ (z)r η/ (Y ; b) (az, bz) (b/c) (dz) ν (cz, dz) (az, bz) (dz/t) (dz) ν P ν/ (z)s, (Y, a, b, c), where once again we have used (514), and where d ab/c By the induction hypothesis, S, (Y, a, b, c) may be replaced by the right-hand side of (53) with (X,, ν) (Y, η, ), leading to S,ν (X; a, b, c) (cx, dx) (ax, bx),η One final application of (52) results in S,ν (X; a, b, c) (b/c) (dz/t) (b/c) η (dz) ν (cx, dx) (ax, bx) which is the right-hand side of (53) with η η Q /η (b/c) (b/c) η Q /η [ ] a c P ν/ (z)r /η (Y ; d) [ ] a c R ν/η (X; d), 6 Transformation formulas for sl n basic hypergeometric series In this final section we prove a number of additional identities for basic hypergeometric series involving the function R (X; b) For easy comparison with known results for one-variable basic hypergeometric series we define [ ] a1,,a r rφ s ; z; X b 1,, b s : (a 1,,a r ) (b 1,,b s 1 ) ( ( 1) q n( ) t n()) s r+1 z R (X; b s ),

26 26 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR where X is a finite alphabet There is some redundancy in the above definition since by Lemma 41 z R (X; b s ) R (zx; b s /z) Since R (X; b) vanishes if l() > X, and recalling R (k) (z; b) z k /(bz) k (see (43)), it follows that rφ s [ a1,, a r b 1,,b s ; z; {1} ] k0 (a 1,, a r ) ( k ( 1) k q (k 2) ) s r+1 z k (b 1,, b s ) k r φ s [ a1,, a r b 1,,b s ; z with on the right the standard notation for one-variable basic hypergeometric series (with dependence on the base q suppressed) The reader is warned that only in this degenerate case do the lower-parameters b 1,,b s enjoy full S s symmetry Using the above notation the q-gauss sum (57) may be stated as (61) 2Φ 1 [ a, b c ; c ab ; X ] ], (cx/a, cx/b) (cx, cx/ab) To generalise this result we first prove the following transformation formula Theorem 61 For f de/bc and a partition, [ ] (a, b) f/a cf/a Q / R (X; e) (d) (b) (d/c) ( (fx, ex/a) (ex, fx/a) ) (a, d/c) (d) Q / [ e/a cf/a ] R (X; f) Note that the substitution (b, c, e, f) (d/c, d/b, f, e) interchanges the left- and right-hand sides Proof We replace ν and then rename the summation index on the right as By the Pieri formula of Theorem 52 (with (a, b, c) (bc/d, e, a)) the term R (X; f) (fx, ex/a) (ex, fx/a) on the right-hand side can be expanded as [ ] (a) f/a e/a Q / R (X; e), (a) resulting in (a, b) (d) Q /ν (b) ν (d/c) ν [ f/a cf/a, (a) (d/c) (d) ] R (X; e) Q / [ f/a e/a ] [ ] e/a cf/a Q /ν R (X; e) By (512) with (a, b, c, d) (d/c, b, d, e/ab) the sum over can be carried out, completing the proof For 0 Theorem 61 simplifies to a multiple analogue of the q-kummer Thomae Whipple formula [2, Equation (III10)] (corresponding to the formula below when X {1})

27 BRANCHING RULES 27 Corollary 62 (sl n q-kummer Thomae Whipple formula) For f de/bc, [ a, b, c (62) 3Φ 2 d, e ; f ] ( ) [ a ; X (fx, ex/a) a, d/b, d/c 3Φ 2 ; e ] (ex, fx/a) d, f a ; X For d c this reduces to the q-gauss sum (61) If we let c, d 0 in Theorem 61 such that d/c bf/e and then replace (e, f) (c, az), we find z (a, b) (a, b) [ ] R (X; c) ( (cx/a, azx) (cx, zx) ) ( c ) (a, abz/c) a (a, abz/c) [ ] R (X; az) For 0 this is a multiple analogue of Heine s 2 φ 1 transformation [2, Equation (III2)] Corollary 63 (sl n Heine transformation) We have [ ] ( a, b ) [ 2Φ 1 c ; z; X (cx/a, azx) a, abz/c 2Φ 1 ; c ] (cx, zx) az a ; X Acknowledgements We thank Eric Rains for helpful comments on a preliminary draft of this paper References 1 G E Andrews, The Theory of Partitions, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Vol 2, (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1976) 2 G Gasper and M Rahman, Basic Hypergeometric Series, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Vol 35, second edition, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004) 3 J Kaneko, Selberg integrals and hypergeometric functions associated with Jack polynomials, SIAM J Math Anal 24 (1993), J Kaneko, q-selberg integrals and Macdonald polynomials, Ann Sci École Norm Sup 29 (1996), F Knop, Symmetric and non-symmetric quantum Capelli polynomials, Comment Math Helv 72 (1997), A Lascoux, Symmetric Functions and Combinatorial Operators on Polynomials, CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics 99, (AMS, Providance, Rhode Island, 2003) 7 A Lascoux, E M Rains and S O Warnaar, Nonsymmetric interpolation Macdonald polynomials and gl n basic hypergeometric series, Transform Groups, to appear; arxiv: M Lassalle, Une formule du binôme généralisée pour les polynômes de Jack, Rendus Acad Sci Paris, Sér I 310 (1990), M Lassalle, Coefficients binomiaux généralisés et polynômes de Macdonald, J Funct Anal 158 (1998), M Lassalle, Quelques valeurs prises par les polynômes de Macdonald décalés, Ann Inst Fourier 49 (1999), I G Macdonald, A new class of symmetric functions, Sém Lothar Combin B20a (1988), 41pp 12 I G Macdonald, Symmetric functions and Hall polynomials, second edition, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1995) 13 I G Macdonald, Hypergeometric series II, unpublished manuscript 14 A Okounkov, Binomial formula for Macdonald polynomials and applications, Math Res Lett 4 (1997), A Okounkov, (Shifted) Macdonald polynomials: q-integral representation and combinatorial formula, Compositio Math 112 (1998),

28 28 ALAIN LASCOUX AND S OLE WARNAAR 16 A Okounkov, BC-type interpolation Macdonald polynomials and binomial formula for Koornwinder polynomials, Transform Groups 3 (1998), A Okounkov, Combinatorial formula for Macdonald polynomials and generic Macdonald polynomials, Transform Groups 8 (2003), A Okounkov and G Olshanski, Shifted Jack polynomials, binomial formula, and applications, Math Res Lett 4 (1997), E M Rains, Transformations of elliptic hypergeometric integrals, Ann of Math, to appear; arxiv:mathqa/ E M Rains, BC n-symmetric polynomials, Transform Groups 10 (2005), E M Rains, BC n-symmetric abelian functions, Duke Math J 135 (2006), E M Rains, Elliptic Littlewood identities, arxiv: S Sahi, Interpolation, integrality, and a generalization of Macdonald s polynomials, Internat Math Res Notices (1996), CNRS, Institut Gaspard Monge, Université Paris-Est, Marne-La-Vallée, France School of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia