Chebyshev quotients, Demazure multiplicities, and Dyck-path models

Abstract.

We study Chebyshev quotients that arise in the representation theory of Lie algebras, specifically within the theory of Demazure flags for fusion products of $\mathfrak{sl}_{2}[t]$-modules. Using a recent formula that expresses numerical Demazure multiplicities as coefficients of such quotients, we prove a general eventual non-negativity theorem for the same rational functions that compute these multiplicities: each quotient either terminates or has strictly positive coefficients for sufficiently large degrees, which we in turn interpret in terms of matchings and bounded walks. In several natural infinite families, these are unsigned bounded Dyck path models, giving both a structural explanation for the observed positivity phenomenon and concrete combinatorial models for key families of Demazure multiplicities. The theorems in this paper were autonomously produced and formalized in Lean/Mathlib by AxiomProver from natural-language statements.

1. Introduction

Fusion products for $\mathfrak{sl}_{2}[t]$, in the sense of Chari and Venkatesh, give a representation-theoretic framework for many finite-dimensional graded current-algebra modules, including local Weyl modules and Demazure modules [2, 5, 7]. Let

$$\xi=(\xi_{1}\geq\cdots\geq\xi_{\ell}>0)$$

be a partition, and write $|\xi|=\xi_{1}+\cdots+\xi_{\ell}$. We denote by $V(\xi)$ the corresponding fusion product. If $m\geq\xi_{1}$, then $V(\xi)$ admits a level-$m$ Demazure flag, also called an excellent filtration, and the multiplicities of the graded shifts of $D(m,n)$ are independent of the chosen flag (see, for example, [4]).

The graded multiplicity polynomials arising from these filtrations encode refined structural information about the modules. They also interact with tensor product decompositions of irreducible integrable highest weight modules over affine Lie algebras through character identities, filtrations, and recursive structures; see [10]. Explicit combinatorial interpretations of their coefficients can therefore make these multiplicities more transparent and more computable.

Following the notation of [1], we write

(1.1) $$V_{n}^{\xi\to m}(q)=\sum_{p\geq 0}[V(\xi):\tau_{p}^{*}D(m,n)]\,q^{p}$$

for the associated graded multiplicity polynomial. The present paper concerns the numerical specialization $q=1$. The Chebyshev-quotient formula of [1], recalled in Proposition 1, shows that $V_{n}^{\xi\to m}(1)$ is obtained by extracting a single coefficient from a rational function built from a simple Chebyshev-type polynomial sequence. Our aim is to analyze these rational functions directly: we prove an eventual positivity dichotomy for their coefficient sequences, give an exact signed combinatorial formula for those coefficients, and isolate families in which the signs cancel to give bounded Dyck-path models.

The novelty of the present paper is not the Chebyshev-quotient formula itself, which is recalled from [1], but rather the systematic analysis of the coefficient sequences that arise from that formula. We prove that, after the evident cancellations, these quotients satisfy a sharp dichotomy: they either terminate or are eventually strictly positive. We then explain the coefficients by an explicit signed model involving matchings and bounded walks, and identify natural infinite families for which the quotient factors into Dyck-path-compatible pieces, yielding direct unsigned bounded-Dyck-path interpretations. Thus, this paper turns the Chebyshev quotient from a compact character-theoretic expression into a structural and combinatorial description of numerical Demazure multiplicities. In this way, the results refine the Demazure-flag multiplicity formulas arising from the Chari–Venkatesh framework by identifying the eventual sign behavior and by producing explicit path models for natural infinite families of numerical multiplicities.

We use the polynomial sequence

$$p_{0}(x)=p_{1}(x)=1,\qquad p_{r+1}(x)=p_{r}(x)-xp_{r-1}(x)\quad(r\geq 1),$$

and, for a partition $\xi=(\xi_{1}\geq\cdots\geq\xi_{\ell})$, set

(1.2) $$p_{\xi}(x):=\prod_{i=1}^{\ell}p_{\xi_{i}}(x).$$

For a power series $f(x)=\sum_{r\geq 0}c_{r}x^{r}$ and an integer $j$, we use the convention $[x^{j}]f(x)=c_{j}$ if $j\geq 0$, and $[x^{j}]f(x)=0$ otherwise. Throughout, $\binom{A}{B}=0$ unless $0\leq B\leq A$. The following fact was proved by the first author in earlier work (see Theorem 2.3 of [1]).

Proposition 1.

Let $\xi$ be a partition, let $m\geq\xi_{1}$, and let $\mu\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$. Write

$$\mu=\mu_{1}m+\mu_{0},\qquad 0\leq\mu_{0}<m.$$

Then

$$V_{\mu}^{\xi\to m}(1)=[x^{(|\xi|-\mu)/2}]\frac{p_{m-\mu_{0}-1}(x)p_{\xi}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{\mu_{1}+1}}.$$

The coefficient is understood to be $0$ if $(|\xi|-\mu)/2$ is not a nonnegative integer.

Proposition  1 is the bridge from Demazure flags to the Chebyshev-polynomial side. For fixed representation-theoretic data $(\xi,m,\mu)$, the numerical Demazure multiplicity $V^{\xi\to m}_{\mu}(1)$ is exactly the coefficient of degree $(|\xi|-\mu)/2$ in the quotient

$$\frac{p_{m-\mu_{0}-1}(x)p_{\xi}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{\mu_{1}+1}}.$$

Thus, every statement about the coefficient sequence of this quotient is, in particular, a statement about the Chebyshev expression that computes the corresponding Demazure-flag multiplicity. Theorem 1.1 should be understood in this sense: it identifies the eventual coefficient behavior of precisely the rational functions that occur in the Demazure multiplicity formula. Theorem 1.2 then explains these coefficients by a signed matching-and-walk model, while Theorem 1.3 identifies natural families in which this signed model becomes an unsigned bounded-Dyck-path model. Finally, Corollary 1.4 translates these quotient identities back into direct formulas for numerical Demazure multiplicities.

Theorem 1.1 is the structural result that underlies the rest of the paper. It applies not to an auxiliary family of generating functions, but directly to the Chebyshev quotients appearing in Proposition 1. Consequently, when $m\geq\xi_{1}$, it describes the eventual coefficient behavior of the very rational functions whose coefficient extractions compute the numerical Demazure multiplicities $V^{\xi\to m}_{\mu}(1)$.

1.1. Background, definitions, and statements

We begin with the basic combinatorial objects used in the second theorem.

Definition 1.

For an integer $r\geq 0$, let $P_{r}$ denote the path graph on vertices $1,2,\dots,r$, with edge set

$$\{\{i,i+1\}:1\leq i<r\}.$$

When $r=0$, we interpret $P_{0}$ as the empty graph. A matching in $P_{r}$ is a set of pairwise disjoint edges. We write $m_{r}(j)$ for the number of matchings in $P_{r}$ having exactly $j$ edges.

Definition 2.

Fix $m\geq 1$ and integers $0\leq a,b\leq m-1$. A strip walk of height $m-1$ from $a$ to $b$ is a finite sequence

$$(h_{0},h_{1},\dots,h_{L})$$

of integers such that

$$h_{0}=a,\qquad h_{L}=b,\qquad h_{i+1}-h_{i}\in\{\pm 1\}\ \text{for all }i,$$

and

$$0\leq h_{i}\leq m-1\qquad(0\leq i\leq L).$$

We denote by $w_{L}^{(m)}(a,b)$ the number of such walks of length $L$. When $a=0$ and $b=m-1$, we call these full-height strip walks.

Definition 3.

If $\gamma$ is a full-height strip walk of height $m-1$ and length $L$, then $L\equiv m-1\pmod{2}$. We define the excess of $\gamma$ by

$$e(\gamma):=\frac{L-(m-1)}{2}.$$

Thus $e(\gamma)$ is a nonnegative integer. More generally, if $\gamma$ is a strip walk from $a$ to $b$ with $0\leq a\leq b\leq m-1$ and length $L$, then $L\equiv b-a\pmod{2}$, and we define

$$e(\gamma):=\frac{L-(b-a)}{2}.$$

Again $e(\gamma)$ is a nonnegative integer.

Definition 4.

A Dyck path is a lattice path in $\mathbb{Z}^{2}$ starting at $(0,0)$, ending on the $x$-axis, using up-steps $U=(1,1)$ and down-steps $D=(1,-1)$, and never going below the $x$-axis; see, for example, [19]. Its semilength is half of its total number of steps. The height of a Dyck path is the largest $y$-coordinate reached along the path.

Fix $m\geq 1$ and integers $0\leq a,b\leq m-1$ with $a+b\leq m-1$. For $u\geq 0$, let $\mathcal{D}_{m}(a,b;u)$ be the set of Dyck paths of height at most $m-1$ and semilength $m-1-b+u$ whose first $a$ steps are up-steps and whose last $m-1-b$ steps are down-steps. We write

(1.3) $$D_{m}(a,b;u):=\#\mathcal{D}_{m}(a,b;u).$$

In particular, $\mathcal{D}_{m}(0,0;u)$ is the set of Dyck paths of height at most $m-1$ and semilength $m-1+u$ whose last $m-1$ steps are down-steps.

The first main result is the eventual-positivity dichotomy for these quotient coefficients.

Theorem 1.1.

Fix $m\geq 1$, let $\xi$ be a partition with $\xi_{i}\leq m$ for all $i$, and let $\mu\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$. Write

$$\mu=\mu_{1}m+\mu_{0},\qquad 0\leq\mu_{0}<m,$$

and set

$$F(x):=F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\frac{p_{m-\mu_{0}-1}(x)p_{\xi}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{\mu_{1}+1}}=\sum_{r\geq 0}a_{r}x^{r}.$$

If we let $t:=\#\{i:\xi_{i}=m\},$ then the following are true:

(1) If $m=1$, then $F_{\xi,1,\mu}(x)=1$.

(2) Assume that $m\geq 2$.

1. If $t\geq\mu_{1}+1$, then $F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)$ is a polynomial. In particular, $a_{r}=0$ for all sufficiently large $r$.

2. If $t\leq\mu_{1}$, then $a_{r}>0$ for all sufficiently large $r$.

In representation-theoretic terms, Theorem 1.1 separates the Chebyshev quotients arising from Demazure flags into two cases. If sufficiently many parts of $\xi$ are equal to the level $m$, then the denominator $p_{m}(x)^{\mu_{1}+1}$ is cancelled and the quotient is a polynomial; consequently only finitely many possible coefficient extractions can be nonzero. Otherwise the quotient has a genuine pole at the smallest positive root of $p_{m}$, and the resulting coefficient sequence is eventually strictly positive. Since Proposition 1 identifies the relevant Demazure multiplicity with one coefficient of this same quotient, Theorem 1.1 gives a structural explanation for why the Chebyshev expressions governing these multiplicities have eventual positivity after the evident cancellations.

The next theorem gives the promised combinatorial description of the coefficients. To state it, we use the notation of Theorem 1.1, and assume

$$k:=\mu_{1}+1-t\geq 0.$$

Let

$$\alpha_{0}:=m-\mu_{0}-1,$$

and let

$$\alpha_{1},\dots,\alpha_{L}$$

be the parts of $\xi$ that are strictly smaller than $m$, listed with multiplicity. Thus

$$p_{m-\mu_{0}-1}(x)\prod_{\xi_{i}<m}p_{\xi_{i}}(x)=\prod_{i=0}^{L}p_{\alpha_{i}}(x),$$

and

$$F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\frac{\prod_{i=0}^{L}p_{\alpha_{i}}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{k}}.$$

For $u\geq 0$, we define

$$B_{m}(u):=w_{m-1+2u}^{(m)}(0,m-1).$$

In words, $B_{m}(u)$ is the number of full-height strip walks whose excess is $u$.

Theorem 1.2.

With the notation above, for every $r\geq 0$ one has

$$a_{r}=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}j_{0},\dots,j_{L}\geq 0\\ u_{1},\dots,u_{k}\geq 0\\ j_{0}+\cdots+j_{L}+u_{1}+\cdots+u_{k}=r\end{subarray}}(-1)^{j_{0}+\cdots+j_{L}}\left(\prod_{i=0}^{L}\binom{\alpha_{i}-j_{i}}{j_{i}}\right)\left(\prod_{\nu=1}^{k}B_{m}(u_{\nu})\right).$$

Here, the second product is interpreted as $1$ when $k=0$. Equivalently, $a_{r}$ is the signed count of tuples

$$(M_{0},M_{1},\dots,M_{L},\gamma_{1},\dots,\gamma_{k})$$

with the following properties:

1. for each $0\leq i\leq L$, the object $M_{i}$ is a matching in the path graph $P_{\alpha_{i}}$;

2. for each $1\leq\nu\leq k$, the object $\gamma_{\nu}$ is a full-height strip walk of height $m-1$;

3. the total weight condition

   $$|M_{0}|+|M_{1}|+\cdots+|M_{L}|+e(\gamma_{1})+\cdots+e(\gamma_{k})=r$$

   holds;

4. the sign of such a tuple is

   $$(-1)^{|M_{0}|+|M_{1}|+\cdots+|M_{L}|}.$$

Remark 1.

For $m\geq 2$, Theorem 1.1 says that the only obstruction to strict eventual positivity is whether enough copies of $p_{m}$ cancel to make the rational function $F(x)$ a polynomial. Theorem 1.2 explains why positivity is not obvious term-by-term: in general the coefficients are not counting a single family of ordinary partitions or paths, but rather a signed combination of matchings and bounded walks.

The next result identifies families for which the quotient admits a factorization compatible with the denominator exponent $k$, leading to unsigned Dyck-path models.

Theorem 1.3.

Assume the notation in Theorem 1.2, so that

$$F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\frac{\prod_{i=0}^{L}p_{\alpha_{i}}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{k}}.$$

Assume that there exist integers

$$(a_{\nu},b_{\nu})\qquad(1\leq\nu\leq k)$$

such that

$$0\leq a_{\nu},b_{\nu}\leq m-1,\qquad a_{\nu}+b_{\nu}\leq m-1$$

for every $\nu$, and such that

$$\prod_{i=0}^{L}p_{\alpha_{i}}(x)=\prod_{\nu=1}^{k}p_{a_{\nu}}(x)p_{b_{\nu}}(x).$$

Because $p_{0}(x)=p_{1}(x)=1$, this factorization condition depends only on the polynomial product

$$\prod_{i=0}^{L}p_{\alpha_{i}}(x),$$

rather than on the particular presentation of that product by the multiset

$$\{\alpha_{0},\dots,\alpha_{L}\}.$$

However, the existence of a decomposition into exactly $k$ admissible pairs $(a_{\nu},b_{\nu})$ is itself a nontrivial restriction. Then we have

$$F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\prod_{\nu=1}^{k}\left(\sum_{u\geq 0}D_{m}(a_{\nu},b_{\nu};u)\,x^{u}\right).$$

In particular, $a_{r}$ is the number of $k$-tuples

$$(P_{1},\dots,P_{k})$$

in which each $P_{\nu}$ belongs to $\mathcal{D}_{m}(a_{\nu},b_{\nu};u_{\nu})$ for some $u_{\nu}\geq 0$ and

$$u_{1}+\cdots+u_{k}=r.$$

Hence all coefficients $a_{r}$ are nonnegative.

Moreover, this criterion produces the following explicit infinite families of unsigned quotient identities. In these three families, the quotient is $F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)$ with $\mu=|\xi|$. A notation such as $m^{t}$ records a multiset of parts; the corresponding partition is arranged in nonincreasing order.

1. Let

   $$\xi=(m^{t},1^{s}),$$

   and write

   $$s=qm+\rho,\qquad q\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0},\quad 0\leq\rho<m.$$

   Then, for every $N\geq 0$, $a_{N}$ counts tuples

   $$(P_{0},P_{1},\dots,P_{q})$$

   with the following properties:

   1. $P_{0}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(0,m-\rho-1;u_{0})$, so $P_{0}$ is a Dyck path of height at most $m-1$ and semilength $\rho+u_{0}$ whose last $\rho$ steps are down-steps;

   2. for $1\leq\nu\leq q$, one has $P_{\nu}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(0,0;u_{\nu})$, so $P_{\nu}$ is a Dyck path of height at most $m-1$ and semilength $m-1+u_{\nu}$ whose last $m-1$ steps are down-steps;

   3. $u_{0}+u_{1}+\cdots+u_{q}=N$.

2. Let

   $$\xi=(m^{t},r,1^{s}),\qquad 1\leq r\leq m-1.$$

   Write

   $$r+s=qm+\rho,\qquad q\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0},\quad 0\leq\rho<m.$$

   If $q=0$, equivalently if $r+s<m$, then, for every $u\geq 0$, $a_{u}$ counts Dyck paths in $\mathcal{D}_{m}(r,m-r-s-1;u)$. Equivalently, $a_{u}$ is the number of Dyck paths of height at most $m-1$ and semilength $r+s+u$ whose first $r$ steps are up-steps and whose last $r+s$ steps are down-steps.

   If $q\geq 1$, then, for every $N\geq 0$, $a_{N}$ counts tuples

   $$(P_{0},P_{1},\dots,P_{q})$$

   with the following properties:

   1. $P_{0}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(0,m-\rho-1;u_{0})$;

   2. $P_{1}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(r,0;u_{1})$, so $P_{1}$ is a Dyck path of height at most $m-1$ and semilength $m-1+u_{1}$ whose first $r$ steps are up-steps and whose last $m-1$ steps are down-steps;

   3. for $2\leq\nu\leq q$, one has $P_{\nu}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(0,0;u_{\nu})$;

   4. $u_{0}+u_{1}+\cdots+u_{q}=N$.

3. More generally, let

   $$\xi=(m^{t},r_{1},\dots,r_{d},1^{s}),\qquad 1\leq r_{i}\leq m-1,$$

   and write

   $$r_{1}+\cdots+r_{d}+s=qm+\rho,\qquad q\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0},\quad 0\leq\rho<m.$$

   If $q\geq d$, then, for every $N\geq 0$, $a_{N}$ counts tuples

   $$(P_{0},P_{1},\dots,P_{q})$$

   with the following properties:

   1. $P_{0}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(0,m-\rho-1;u_{0})$;

   2. for $1\leq i\leq d$, one has $P_{i}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(r_{i},0;u_{i})$;

   3. for $d+1\leq\nu\leq q$, one has $P_{\nu}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(0,0;u_{\nu})$;

   4. $u_{0}+u_{1}+\cdots+u_{q}=N$.

The factorization hypothesis is restrictive: it requires the numerator product to decompose into exactly $k$ admissible factors corresponding to the $k$ denominator copies of $p_{m}(x)$. The explicit families below are precisely situations where such a decomposition occurs naturally. In particular, when the number of numerator factors becomes large relative to the denominator exponent $k$, one cannot generally expect positivity for the coefficients of the corresponding Chebyshev quotient. The positivity phenomenon in Theorem 1.3 is also related to positive linearization formulas for orthogonal polynomials. Certain families, including the Chebyshev polynomials, admit expansions

$$p_{n}(x)p_{m}(x)=\sum_{k}c_{m,n}^{k}p_{k}(x),\qquad c_{m,n}^{k}\geq 0,$$

which allow products in the numerator to be reorganized combinatorially; see [17].

We now return from the quotient level to the representation-theoretic multiplicities themselves.

Corollary 1.4.

Fix $N\geq 0$ and set

$$n:=|\xi|-2N.$$

If $n\geq 0$, then we have the following formula for the Demazure multiplicity

$$V_{n}^{\xi\to m}(1).$$

1. Let

   $$\xi=(m^{t},1^{s}),$$

   and write

   $$s-2N=qm+\rho,\qquad q\in\mathbb{Z},\quad 0\leq\rho<m.$$

   Then we have

   $$V_{tm+s-2N}^{\xi\to m}(1)=[x^{N}]\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{q+1}}.$$

   If $q<0$, then

   $$V_{tm+s-2N}^{\xi\to m}(1)=0.$$

   If $q\geq 0$, then $V_{tm+s-2N}^{\xi\to m}(1)$ is the number of tuples

   $$(P_{0},P_{1},\dots,P_{q})$$

   for which

   $$P_{0}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(0,m-\rho-1;u_{0}),\qquad P_{\nu}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(0,0;u_{\nu})\ \ (1\leq\nu\leq q),$$

   and

   $$u_{0}+u_{1}+\cdots+u_{q}=N.$$

2. Let

   $$\xi=(m^{t},r,1^{s}),\qquad 1\leq r\leq m-1,$$

   and write

   $$r+s-2N=qm+\rho,\qquad q\in\mathbb{Z},\quad 0\leq\rho<m.$$

   Then we have

   $$V_{tm+r+s-2N}^{\xi\to m}(1)=[x^{N}]\frac{p_{r}(x)p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{q+1}}.$$

   If $q<0$, then

   $$V_{tm+r+s-2N}^{\xi\to m}(1)=0.$$

   If $q=0$ and $2N\leq s$, then

   $$V_{tm+r+s-2N}^{\xi\to m}(1)=D_{m}(r,m-r-s+2N-1;N).$$

   If $q\geq 1$, then $V_{tm+r+s-2N}^{\xi\to m}(1)$ is the number of tuples

   $$(P_{0},P_{1},\dots,P_{q})$$

   for which

   $$P_{0}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(0,m-\rho-1;u_{0}),\qquad P_{1}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(r,0;u_{1}),$$

   $$P_{\nu}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(0,0;u_{\nu})\ \ (2\leq\nu\leq q),$$

   and

   $$u_{0}+u_{1}+\cdots+u_{q}=N.$$

   When $q=0$ and $2N>s$, no unsigned Dyck-path model is asserted here; the displayed coefficient formula remains valid.

3. Let

   $$\xi=(m^{t},r_{1},\dots,r_{d},1^{s}),\qquad 1\leq r_{i}\leq m-1,$$

   and write

   $$r_{1}+\cdots+r_{d}+s-2N=qm+\rho,\qquad q\in\mathbb{Z},\quad 0\leq\rho<m.$$

   Then

   $$V_{tm+r_{1}+\cdots+r_{d}+s-2N}^{\xi\to m}(1)=[x^{N}]\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)\prod_{i=1}^{d}p_{r_{i}}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{q+1}}.$$

   If $q<0$, then

   $$V_{tm+r_{1}+\cdots+r_{d}+s-2N}^{\xi\to m}(1)=0.$$

   If $q\geq d$, then $V_{tm+r_{1}+\cdots+r_{d}+s-2N}^{\xi\to m}(1)$ is the number of tuples

   $$(P_{0},P_{1},\dots,P_{q})$$

   for which

   $$P_{0}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(0,m-\rho-1;u_{0}),\qquad P_{i}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(r_{i},0;u_{i})\ \ (1\leq i\leq d),$$

   $$P_{\nu}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(0,0;u_{\nu})\ \ (d+1\leq\nu\leq q),$$

   and

   $$u_{0}+u_{1}+\cdots+u_{q}=N.$$

   If $0\leq q<d$, no unsigned Dyck-path model is asserted here; the displayed coefficient formula remains valid.

Theorem 1.3 is deliberately a quotient statement. The point is that the same quotient can arise from different multiplicity problems once the target weight varies. Corollary 1.4 records the corresponding direct formulas for numerical Demazure multiplicities in the three families treated here.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 proves the eventual-positivity theorem by analyzing the roots of $p_{m}$. Section 3 interprets the basic generating-series factors in terms of matchings and bounded strip walks, and Section 4 combines these interpretations to prove the signed coefficient formula. Section 5 gives the unsigned bounded-Dyck-path quotient families and then translates them back to direct multiplicity statements. Finally, in Section 6 we discuss how AxiomProver, an AI tool for mathematics research, autonomously produced and formalized the theorems in this paper.

2. The root-theoretic proof of eventual positivity

In this section we prove Theorem 1.1. The argument separates the Chebyshev quotient into a cancellable polynomial part and a genuinely rational part, and then uses the smallest positive root of $p_{m}$ to control the eventual sign of the coefficients. This is the only place where we use the precise location of the roots of the Chebyshev-type polynomials.

We first record the structure of the roots of $p_{m}$ for $m\geq 2$.

Lemma 2.1.

Assume $m\geq 2$. The roots of $p_{m}(x)$ are

$$\rho_{j}=\frac{1}{4\cos^{2}\!\left(\frac{j\pi}{m+1}\right)},\qquad 1\leq j\leq\left\lfloor\frac{m}{2}\right\rfloor.$$

These roots are simple, positive, and satisfy

$$0<\rho_{1}<\rho_{2}<\cdots<\rho_{\lfloor m/2\rfloor}.$$

In particular, $\rho_{1}$ is the unique root of $p_{m}$ having smallest modulus.

Proof.

Set $x=z^{2}$. The recurrence for $p_{m}$ is equivalent to the standard identity

$$p_{m}(z^{2})=z^{m}U_{m}\!\left(\frac{1}{2z}\right),$$

where $U_{m}$ is the Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind. The zeros of $U_{m}$ are $\cos(j\pi/(m+1))$, $1\leq j\leq m$, and

$$U_{m}(\cos\theta)=\frac{\sin((m+1)\theta)}{\sin\theta}$$

[15, Ch. 2]. Since $p_{m}(0)=1$, every root of $p_{m}$ is nonzero. Thus a zero of $p_{m}(z^{2})$ satisfies

$$\frac{1}{2z}=\cos\left(\frac{j\pi}{m+1}\right)$$

for some $j$. If $m$ is odd, the value $j=(m+1)/2$ gives the zero $0$ of $U_{m}$ and hence no finite value of $z$. The remaining indices occur in pairs $j$ and $m+1-j$, and these two values of $z$ have opposite signs and hence the same value of $x=z^{2}$. Therefore the distinct roots of $p_{m}(x)$ are precisely

$$\rho_{j}=\frac{1}{4\cos^{2}(j\pi/(m+1))},\qquad 1\leq j\leq\lfloor m/2\rfloor.$$

The recurrence also gives $\deg p_{m}=\lfloor m/2\rfloor$, so the displayed distinct roots account for all roots and are simple.

Finally,

$$0<\frac{\pi}{m+1}<\frac{2\pi}{m+1}<\cdots\leq\frac{\lfloor m/2\rfloor\pi}{m+1}<\frac{\pi}{2},$$

and $\cos\theta$ is strictly decreasing on $(0,\pi/2)$. Hence the sequence $\cos(j\pi/(m+1))$ is strictly decreasing and the sequence $\rho_{j}$ is strictly increasing. Since all roots are positive, $\rho_{1}$ is the unique root of smallest modulus. ∎

Lemma 2.2.

Assume $m\geq 2$. Let $\theta=\pi/(m+1)$ and $\rho_{1}=1/(4\cos^{2}\theta)$. If $0\leq r<m$, then

$$p_{r}(\rho_{1})>0.$$

Proof.

Using the Chebyshev formula, with the positive square root,

$$p_{r}(x)=x^{r/2}U_{r}\!\left((2\sqrt{x})^{-1}\right),$$

so

$$p_{r}(\rho_{1})=\rho_{1}^{r/2}U_{r}(\cos\theta)=\rho_{1}^{r/2}\frac{\sin((r+1)\theta)}{\sin\theta}.$$

Since $0<\theta<\pi$ and $0<(r+1)\theta\leq m\theta=m\pi/(m+1)<\pi$ for $r<m$, both denominator and numerator are positive. Hence $p_{r}(\rho_{1})>0$. ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.1.

If $m=1$, then $\mu_{0}=0$, $p_{0}(x)=p_{1}(x)=1$, and every part of $\xi$ is equal to $1$. Hence $p_{\xi}(x)=1$ and therefore $F(x)=1$. This proves part (1).

Now assume $m\geq 2$. Write

$$s:=\mu_{1}+1.$$

Since $\xi_{i}\leq m$ for all $i$, we may factor

$$p_{\xi}(x)=p_{m}(x)^{t}H(x),$$

where

$$H(x)=\prod_{\xi_{i}<m}p_{\xi_{i}}(x)$$

is a polynomial all of whose factors have index $<m$. Hence

$$F(x)=\frac{p_{m-\mu_{0}-1}(x)H(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{s-t}}.$$

Set

$$G(x):=p_{m-\mu_{0}-1}(x)H(x).$$

Every factor of $G$ is of the form $p_{r}$ with $0\leq r<m$, because $m-\mu_{0}-1\in\{0,1,\dots,m-1\}$. By Lemma 2.2, each such factor is positive at $\rho_{1}$, so

$$G(\rho_{1})>0.$$

If $t\geq s$, then

$$F(x)=p_{m}(x)^{t-s}G(x)$$

is a polynomial, proving part (2a).

Now assume $t\leq\mu_{1}$, so that

$$k:=s-t\geq 1.$$

Then we have

$$F(x)=\frac{G(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{k}}.$$

By Lemma 2.1, with $J:=\lfloor m/2\rfloor$, we have

$$p_{m}(x)=\prod_{j=1}^{J}\left(1-\frac{x}{\rho_{j}}\right),$$

so

$$F(x)=\frac{G(x)}{\prod_{j=1}^{J}\left(1-\frac{x}{\rho_{j}}\right)^{k}}.$$

Because $G(\rho_{1})>0$, the function $F$ has a pole of order exactly $k$ at $x=\rho_{1}$.

If $J=1$, then $p_{m}(x)=1-x/\rho_{1}$, and so

$$F(x)=\frac{G(x)}{\left(1-\frac{x}{\rho_{1}}\right)^{k}}.$$

Write the Taylor expansion of $G$ at $x=\rho_{1}$ as

$$G(x)=\sum_{j\geq 0}c_{j}\left(1-\frac{x}{\rho_{1}}\right)^{j},$$

where $c_{0}=G(\rho_{1})>0$. Then

$$F(x)=\sum_{j\geq 0}c_{j}\left(1-\frac{x}{\rho_{1}}\right)^{j-k}.$$

Splitting off the terms $0\leq j\leq k-1$, we obtain

$$F(x)=P(x)+\sum_{\ell=1}^{k}\frac{A_{\ell}}{\left(1-\frac{x}{\rho_{1}}\right)^{\ell}},$$

where $P(x)$ is a polynomial and

$$A_{k}=c_{0}=G(\rho_{1})>0.$$

The coefficient of $x^{r}$ in $(1-x/\rho_{1})^{-\ell}$ is

$$\binom{r+\ell-1}{\ell-1}\rho_{1}^{-r}.$$

Hence the contribution from the pole at $\rho_{1}$ is

$$M_{r}:=\sum_{\ell=1}^{k}A_{\ell}\binom{r+\ell-1}{\ell-1}\rho_{1}^{-r}=Q(r)\rho_{1}^{-r},$$

where $Q(r)$ is a polynomial of degree $k-1$ with leading coefficient $A_{k}/(k-1)!>0$. Therefore $M_{r}>0$ for all sufficiently large $r$. Since the polynomial part contributes only finitely many nonzero coefficients, we conclude that $a_{r}>0$ for all sufficiently large $r$.

It remains to treat the case $J\geq 2$. Define

$$\Phi(x):=\frac{G(x)}{\prod_{j=2}^{J}\left(1-\frac{x}{\rho_{j}}\right)^{k}}.$$

Then $\Phi$ is analytic at $x=\rho_{1}$ and

$$\Phi(\rho_{1})=\frac{G(\rho_{1})}{\prod_{j=2}^{J}\left(1-\frac{\rho_{1}}{\rho_{j}}\right)^{k}}>0,$$

because $0<\rho_{1}<\rho_{j}$ for all $j\geq 2$. Thus, near $x=\rho_{1}$, we have

$$F(x)=\frac{\Phi(x)}{\left(1-\frac{x}{\rho_{1}}\right)^{k}}.$$

Therefore the partial fraction decomposition of $F$ contains a term

$$\sum_{\ell=1}^{k}\frac{A_{\ell}}{\left(1-\frac{x}{\rho_{1}}\right)^{\ell}}$$

with

$$A_{k}=\lim_{x\to\rho_{1}}\left(1-\frac{x}{\rho_{1}}\right)^{k}F(x)=\Phi(\rho_{1})>0.$$

Hence, we may write

$$F(x)=P(x)+\sum_{\ell=1}^{k}\frac{A_{\ell}}{\left(1-\frac{x}{\rho_{1}}\right)^{\ell}}+\sum_{j=2}^{J}\sum_{\ell=1}^{k}\frac{B_{j,\ell}}{\left(1-\frac{x}{\rho_{j}}\right)^{\ell}},$$

where $P(x)$ is a polynomial and the $B_{j,\ell}$ are constants.

The coefficient of $x^{r}$ in $(1-x/\rho)^{-\ell}$ is

$$\binom{r+\ell-1}{\ell-1}\rho^{-r}.$$

Hence the contribution from the pole at $\rho_{1}$ is again

$$M_{r}:=\sum_{\ell=1}^{k}A_{\ell}\binom{r+\ell-1}{\ell-1}\rho_{1}^{-r}=Q(r)\rho_{1}^{-r},$$

where $Q(r)$ is a polynomial of degree $k-1$ whose leading coefficient is $A_{k}/(k-1)!>0$. In particular, there exist constants $c>0$ and $R_{1}$ such that

$$M_{r}\geq c\,r^{k-1}\rho_{1}^{-r}\qquad(r\geq R_{1}).$$

Let $E_{r}$ denote the contribution from the polynomial part $P(x)$ and the poles $\rho_{j}$ with $j\geq 2$. Since the polynomial part contributes only finitely many nonzero coefficients, and since there are only finitely many pairs $(j,\ell)$ with $j\geq 2$, there exist constants $C>0$ and $R_{2}$ such that

$$|E_{r}|\leq C\,r^{k-1}\rho_{2}^{-r}\qquad(r\geq R_{2}).$$

Because $0<\rho_{1}<\rho_{2}$, we have $(\rho_{1}/\rho_{2})^{r}\to 0$. Therefore, for all sufficiently large $r$,

$$|E_{r}|\leq\frac{1}{2}M_{r}.$$

For such $r$, we have

$$a_{r}=M_{r}+E_{r}\geq M_{r}-|E_{r}|\geq\frac{1}{2}M_{r}>0.$$

This proves part (2b). ∎

3. Walk and matching interpretations of the basic factors

In this section we prove two standard facts: first, $1/p_{m}(x)$ and related quotients admit a transfer-matrix interpretation in terms of strip walks; second, $p_{r}(x)$ is the matching polynomial of a path graph after a simple change of variables. Both viewpoints are standard: see Flajolet [8] for transfer-matrix/continued-fraction methods and Godsil [9] for matching polynomials.

Remark 2.

The transfer-matrix interpretation underlying Corollary 3.2 is classical and extends more generally to orthogonal polynomials and continued fractions; see, for example, Theorem 10.11.1 of Krattenthaler [12]. Related determinant-based proofs appear already in Chapter V of Viennot’s monograph on orthogonal polynomials [16], and combinatorial proofs via heaps are discussed in Cigler and Krattenthaler [6].

Our purpose here is to specialize these methods to the Chebyshev quotients arising from Demazure multiplicities and to connect them with the signed and unsigned combinatorial models developed in later sections. More generally, quotient formulas of this type arise naturally in the theory of orthogonal polynomials and bounded Motzkin path enumeration. In Viennot’s framework [16], the generating function for bounded Motzkin paths can be expressed in terms of quotients of reciprocal orthogonal polynomials. See also Stanton and Kim [11] for a modern formulation of these results. The Chebyshev case considered here corresponds to the specialization $b_{n}=0$ and $\lambda_{n}=1$ (up to normalization), in which Motzkin paths reduce to Dyck paths.

Let $A_{m}$ be the adjacency matrix of the path graph on vertices $0,1,\dots,m-1$:

$$A_{m}=\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\ 1&0&1\\ &1&0&1\\ &&\ddots&\ddots&\ddots\\ &&&1&0\end{pmatrix}.$$

For an indeterminate $s$, define

$$K_{m}(s):=I-sA_{m}.$$

We also set

$$\Delta_{m}(s):=\det K_{m}(s),$$

with the convention $\Delta_{0}(s)=1$.

Lemma 3.1.

For every $m\geq 0$ one has

$$\Delta_{m}(s)=p_{m}(s^{2}).$$

Proof.

The determinant $\Delta_{m}(s)$ satisfies the same recurrence as $p_{m}(s^{2})$. Indeed, expanding $\Delta_{m+1}(s)$ along the last row (or last column) gives

$$\Delta_{m+1}(s)=\Delta_{m}(s)-s^{2}\Delta_{m-1}(s)\qquad(m\geq 1),$$

with initial values

$$\Delta_{0}(s)=1,\qquad\Delta_{1}(s)=1.$$

Since $p_{0}(s^{2})=p_{1}(s^{2})=1$ and

$$p_{m+1}(s^{2})=p_{m}(s^{2})-s^{2}p_{m-1}(s^{2}),$$

it follows by induction on $m$ that $\Delta_{m}(s)=p_{m}(s^{2})$ for all $m\geq 0$. ∎

Proposition 2.

Let $m\geq 1$ and $0\leq a\leq b\leq m-1$. Then

$$\bigl(K_{m}(s)^{-1}\bigr)_{a,b}=s^{b-a}\frac{p_{a}(s^{2})p_{m-1-b}(s^{2})}{p_{m}(s^{2})}.$$

By symmetry the same formula holds for $a\geq b$ after interchanging $a$ and $b$.

Proof.

By Cramer’s rule,

$$\bigl(K_{m}(s)^{-1}\bigr)_{a,b}=\frac{(-1)^{a+b}\det K_{m}(s)[b\mid a]}{\det K_{m}(s)},$$

where $K_{m}(s)[b\mid a]$ denotes the matrix obtained by deleting row $b$ and column $a$. When $a\leq b$, the tridiagonal shape of $K_{m}(s)$ implies that this minor is block upper triangular, with one $a\times a$ block equal to $K_{a}(s)$, one $(m-1-b)\times(m-1-b)$ block equal to $K_{m-1-b}(s)$, and a chain of $b-a$ off-diagonal $-s$ entries linking them. Consequently,

$$\det K_{m}(s)[b\mid a]=(-1)^{a+b}s^{b-a}\Delta_{a}(s)\Delta_{m-1-b}(s).$$

Using Lemma 3.1, we obtain

$$\bigl(K_{m}(s)^{-1}\bigr)_{a,b}=s^{b-a}\frac{p_{a}(s^{2})p_{m-1-b}(s^{2})}{p_{m}(s^{2})},$$

as claimed. ∎

Corollary 3.2.

Let $m\geq 1$ and $0\leq a\leq b\leq m-1$. Then

$$\frac{p_{a}(x)p_{m-1-b}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{r\geq 0}w_{b-a+2r}^{(m)}(a,b)\,x^{r}.$$

In particular, we have

$$\frac{1}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}B_{m}(u)x^{u}$$

and

$$\frac{p_{m-c-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}w_{c+2u}^{(m)}(0,c)x^{u}\qquad(0\leq c<m).$$

Proof.

Since the constant term of $K_{m}(s)$ is the identity matrix, the inverse exists as a formal power series and the Neumann-series identity gives

$$K_{m}(s)^{-1}=\sum_{L\geq 0}(sA_{m})^{L}.$$

The $(a,b)$-entry of $A_{m}^{L}$ counts walks of length $L$ from $a$ to $b$ on the path graph with vertex set $\{0,1,\dots,m-1\}$, and those walks are exactly the strip walks defined in Section 1. Therefore

$$\bigl(K_{m}(s)^{-1}\bigr)_{a,b}=\sum_{L\geq 0}w_{L}^{(m)}(a,b)s^{L}.$$

Combining this with Proposition 2 yields

$$\sum_{L\geq 0}w_{L}^{(m)}(a,b)s^{L}=s^{b-a}\frac{p_{a}(s^{2})p_{m-1-b}(s^{2})}{p_{m}(s^{2})}.$$

Now every strip walk from $a$ to $b$ has length congruent to $b-a\pmod{2}$, so writing $L=b-a+2r$ and substituting $x=s^{2}$ gives

$$\frac{p_{a}(x)p_{m-1-b}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{r\geq 0}w_{b-a+2r}^{(m)}(a,b)\,x^{r}.$$

Taking $(a,b)=(0,m-1)$ gives the formula for $1/p_{m}(x)$, while taking $(a,b)=(0,c)$ gives the second displayed identity. ∎

Remark 3.

Corollary 3.2 may be viewed as the Chebyshev specialization of more general bounded Motzkin-path generating functions associated with orthogonal polynomials; see Chapter V of [16].

Lemma 3.3.

For every $r\geq 0$, we have

$$p_{r}(x)=\sum_{j=0}^{\lfloor r/2\rfloor}(-1)^{j}\binom{r-j}{j}x^{j}.$$

Equivalently, we have

$$p_{r}(x)=\sum_{j\geq 0}(-1)^{j}m_{r}(j)x^{j},$$

where $m_{r}(j)$ is the number of $j$-edge matchings in the path graph $P_{r}$. In particular,

$$m_{r}(j)=\binom{r-j}{j}.$$

Proof.

The closed formula for $p_{r}(x)$ follows by an easy induction on $r$ from the recurrence $p_{r+1}=p_{r}-xp_{r-1}$. The resulting interpretation as a matching polynomial for a path graph is standard; see, for example, Godsil [9, Ch. 1]. For the matching interpretation, note that a $j$-edge matching in $P_{r}$ may be specified by choosing indices

$$1\leq i_{1}<i_{2}<\cdots<i_{j}\leq r-1$$

with the additional condition $i_{\ell+1}\geq i_{\ell}+2$, because adjacent edges cannot both belong to a matching. Setting

$$y_{\ell}:=i_{\ell}-(\ell-1)$$

produces a strictly increasing $j$-tuple

$$1\leq y_{1}<y_{2}<\cdots<y_{j}\leq r-j.$$

This construction is reversible, so the number of such matchings is

$$\binom{r-j}{j}.$$

Substituting this into the closed formula gives the stated matching-polynomial identity. ∎

4. Proof of the combinatorial coefficient formula

With the interpretations from the previous section in hand, the proof of Theorem 1.2 is a direct coefficient extraction. We expand the numerator factors using the matching model, expand each reciprocal factor using bounded strip walks, and then collect the coefficient of a fixed power of $x$.

Proof of Theorem 1.2.

By construction, we have

$$F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\frac{\prod_{i=0}^{L}p_{\alpha_{i}}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{k}}.$$

By Lemma 3.3, each factor $p_{\alpha_{i}}(x)$ has the expansion

$$p_{\alpha_{i}}(x)=\sum_{j_{i}\geq 0}(-1)^{j_{i}}\binom{\alpha_{i}-j_{i}}{j_{i}}x^{j_{i}},$$

where the binomial coefficient is automatically zero when $j_{i}>\lfloor\alpha_{i}/2\rfloor$. By Corollary 3.2, we also have

$$\frac{1}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}B_{m}(u)x^{u}.$$

Therefore, we have

$$F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\left(\prod_{i=0}^{L}\sum_{j_{i}\geq 0}(-1)^{j_{i}}\binom{\alpha_{i}-j_{i}}{j_{i}}x^{j_{i}}\right)\left(\sum_{u\geq 0}B_{m}(u)x^{u}\right)^{k}.$$

Expanding the product and collecting the coefficient of $x^{r}$ gives

$$a_{r}=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}j_{0},\dots,j_{L}\geq 0\\ u_{1},\dots,u_{k}\geq 0\\ j_{0}+\cdots+j_{L}+u_{1}+\cdots+u_{k}=r\end{subarray}}(-1)^{j_{0}+\cdots+j_{L}}\left(\prod_{i=0}^{L}\binom{\alpha_{i}-j_{i}}{j_{i}}\right)\left(\prod_{\nu=1}^{k}B_{m}(u_{\nu})\right),$$

which is the first assertion.

For the equivalent signed description, we interpret each factor combinatorially. By Lemma 3.3, the number of choices for a matching $M_{i}$ in $P_{\alpha_{i}}$ with $|M_{i}|=j_{i}$ is exactly $\binom{\alpha_{i}-j_{i}}{j_{i}}$. By definition of $B_{m}(u_{\nu})$, the number of choices for a full-height strip walk $\gamma_{\nu}$ with excess $u_{\nu}$ is exactly $B_{m}(u_{\nu})$. Thus each summand in the displayed formula counts tuples

$$(M_{0},\dots,M_{L},\gamma_{1},\dots,\gamma_{k})$$

with total weight

$$|M_{0}|+\cdots+|M_{L}|+e(\gamma_{1})+\cdots+e(\gamma_{k})=r,$$

and sign

$$(-1)^{|M_{0}|+\cdots+|M_{L}|}.$$

Summing over all allowable weight vectors yields exactly the signed count stated in the theorem. ∎

5. When the signed formula is manifestly positive

In this section we prove Theorem 1.3. The key point is that the strip-walk quotients from Corollary 3.2 are equivalent to families of bounded Dyck paths after a simple and explicit bijection.

Proposition 3.

Fix $m\geq 1$ and integers $0\leq a,b\leq m-1$ with $a+b\leq m-1$. For each $u\geq 0$, let $\mathcal{W}_{m}(a,b;u)$ be the set of strip walks of height $m-1$ from $a$ to $m-1-b$ and length

$$m-1-a-b+2u.$$

For $\gamma=(h_{0},h_{1},\dots,h_{L})\in\mathcal{W}_{m}(a,b;u)$, let $w(\gamma)$ denote the word in $\{U,D\}$ obtained by recording an up-step when $h_{i+1}=h_{i}+1$ and a down-step when $h_{i+1}=h_{i}-1$. Then the map

$$\Phi_{a,b,u}:\mathcal{W}_{m}(a,b;u)\longrightarrow\mathcal{D}_{m}(a,b;u),\qquad\Phi_{a,b,u}(\gamma):=U^{a}\,w(\gamma)\,D^{m-1-b},$$

is a bijection.

Proof.

Let $\gamma=(h_{0},h_{1},\dots,h_{L})\in\mathcal{W}_{m}(a,b;u)$. Since $\gamma$ starts at height $a$, ends at height $m-1-b$, and stays between heights $0$ and $m-1$, the word $w(\gamma)$ describes a lattice path that begins at height $a$, ends at height $m-1-b$, and remains inside the strip $0\leq y\leq m-1$. After prepending $a$ up-steps and appending $m-1-b$ down-steps, the resulting path never goes below the $x$-axis and never rises above height $m-1$. Thus $\Phi_{a,b,u}(\gamma)$ is a Dyck path of height at most $m-1$.

Its total length is

$$a+(m-1-a-b+2u)+(m-1-b)=2(m-1-b+u),$$

so its semilength is $m-1-b+u$. By construction, its first $a$ steps are up-steps and its last $m-1-b$ steps are down-steps. Hence $\Phi_{a,b,u}(\gamma)$ belongs to $\mathcal{D}_{m}(a,b;u)$.

Conversely, let $P\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(a,b;u)$. By definition, the first $a$ steps of $P$ are up-steps and the last $m-1-b$ steps are down-steps. Delete those initial and terminal blocks. The remaining middle segment starts at height $a$, ends at height $m-1-b$, and stays in the strip $0\leq y\leq m-1$. Its length is

$$2(m-1-b+u)-a-(m-1-b)=m-1-a-b+2u,$$

so it lies in $\mathcal{W}_{m}(a,b;u)$. This construction is plainly inverse to $\Phi_{a,b,u}$, so $\Phi_{a,b,u}$ is a bijection. ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.3.

Assume first that we are given integers $(a_{\nu},b_{\nu})$ for $1\leq\nu\leq k$ with

$$0\leq a_{\nu},b_{\nu}\leq m-1,\qquad a_{\nu}+b_{\nu}\leq m-1,$$

and

$$\prod_{i=0}^{L}p_{\alpha_{i}}(x)=\prod_{\nu=1}^{k}p_{a_{\nu}}(x)p_{b_{\nu}}(x).$$

Then, we have

$$F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\prod_{\nu=1}^{k}\frac{p_{a_{\nu}}(x)p_{b_{\nu}}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}.$$

Fix $\nu$. Since $a_{\nu}+b_{\nu}\leq m-1$, Corollary 3.2 with

$$a=a_{\nu},\qquad b=m-1-b_{\nu}$$

gives

$$\frac{p_{a_{\nu}}(x)p_{b_{\nu}}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}w_{m-1-a_{\nu}-b_{\nu}+2u}^{(m)}(a_{\nu},m-1-b_{\nu})\,x^{u}.$$

By Proposition 3, the coefficient on the right is exactly $D_{m}(a_{\nu},b_{\nu};u)$. Therefore

$$\frac{p_{a_{\nu}}(x)p_{b_{\nu}}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}D_{m}(a_{\nu},b_{\nu};u)\,x^{u}.$$

Multiplying these $k$ identities proves the product formula

$$F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\prod_{\nu=1}^{k}\left(\sum_{u\geq 0}D_{m}(a_{\nu},b_{\nu};u)\,x^{u}\right).$$

Now expand the product and collect the coefficient of $x^{r}$. One obtains

$$a_{r}=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}u_{1},\dots,u_{k}\geq 0\\ u_{1}+\cdots+u_{k}=r\end{subarray}}\prod_{\nu=1}^{k}D_{m}(a_{\nu},b_{\nu};u_{\nu}).$$

This is precisely the number of $k$-tuples $(P_{1},\dots,P_{k})$ such that $P_{\nu}\in\mathcal{D}_{m}(a_{\nu},b_{\nu};u_{\nu})$ for each $\nu$ and $u_{1}+\cdots+u_{k}=r$. In particular, all coefficients $a_{r}$ are nonnegative.

We now prove the three explicit families.

For part (a), let $\xi=(m^{t},1^{s})$ and write $s=qm+\rho$ with $q\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ and $0\leq\rho<m$. Then

$$\mu=s+tm=(t+q)m+\rho,$$

so

$$\mu_{1}=t+q,\qquad\mu_{0}=\rho.$$

Since $p_{1}(x)=1$, we have $p_{\xi}(x)=p_{m}(x)^{t}$, and therefore

$$F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{q+1}}=\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}\left(\frac{1}{p_{m}(x)}\right)^{q}.$$

The first factor is the case $(a,b)=(0,m-\rho-1)$ of the general criterion, while each factor $1/p_{m}(x)$ is the case $(a,b)=(0,0)$. Hence

$$\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}D_{m}(0,m-\rho-1;u)\,x^{u}$$

and

$$\frac{1}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}D_{m}(0,0;u)\,x^{u}.$$

Multiplying these series and extracting the coefficient of $x^{N}$ gives exactly the tuple count stated in part (a).

For part (b), let $\xi=(m^{t},r,1^{s})$ with $1\leq r\leq m-1$, and write $r+s=qm+\rho$ with $q\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ and $0\leq\rho<m$.

Assume first that $q=0$, so $r+s<m$ and $\rho=r+s$. Then

$$\mu=r+s+tm=tm+\rho,\qquad\mu_{1}=t,\qquad\mu_{0}=\rho=r+s.$$

Again $p_{1}(x)=1$, so

$$F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\frac{p_{m-r-s-1}(x)p_{r}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}.$$

This is the single-factor case of the general criterion with

$$a=r,\qquad b=m-r-s-1.$$

Therefore, we have

$$F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\sum_{u\geq 0}D_{m}(r,m-r-s-1;u)\,x^{u},$$

which is exactly the claimed Dyck-path description.

Now assume $q\geq 1$. Then

$$\mu=r+s+tm=(t+q)m+\rho,\qquad\mu_{1}=t+q,\qquad\mu_{0}=\rho,$$

and therefore

$$F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)p_{r}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{q+1}}=\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}\cdot\frac{p_{r}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}\cdot\left(\frac{1}{p_{m}(x)}\right)^{q-1}.$$

These factors correspond respectively to $(a,b)=(0,m-\rho-1)$, $(a,b)=(r,0)$, and $(a,b)=(0,0)$. Hence, we have

$$\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}D_{m}(0,m-\rho-1;u)\,x^{u},$$

$$\frac{p_{r}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}D_{m}(r,0;u)\,x^{u},$$

$$\frac{1}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}D_{m}(0,0;u)\,x^{u}.$$

Multiplying these series and extracting the coefficient of $x^{N}$ gives the tuple count stated in part (b).

For part (c), let $\xi=(m^{t},r_{1},\dots,r_{d},1^{s})$ with $1\leq r_{i}\leq m-1$, and write

$$r_{1}+\cdots+r_{d}+s=qm+\rho,\qquad q\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0},\quad 0\leq\rho<m.$$

Then we have

$$\mu=r_{1}+\cdots+r_{d}+s+tm=(t+q)m+\rho,$$

so

$$\mu_{1}=t+q,\qquad\mu_{0}=\rho.$$

Because $p_{1}(x)=1$, we have

$$F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)\prod_{i=1}^{d}p_{r_{i}}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{q+1}}.$$

If $q\geq d$, then we may rewrite this as

$$F_{\xi,m,\mu}(x)=\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}\prod_{i=1}^{d}\frac{p_{r_{i}}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}\left(\frac{1}{p_{m}(x)}\right)^{q-d}.$$

These factors correspond to $(a,b)=(0,m-\rho-1)$, to $(a,b)=(r_{i},0)$ for $1\leq i\leq d$, and to $(a,b)=(0,0)$ for the remaining factors. Therefore

$$\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}D_{m}(0,m-\rho-1;u)\,x^{u},$$

$$\frac{p_{r_{i}}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}D_{m}(r_{i},0;u)\,x^{u}\qquad(1\leq i\leq d),$$

$$\frac{1}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}D_{m}(0,0;u)\,x^{u}.$$

Multiplying these series and extracting the coefficient of $x^{N}$ gives the tuple count stated in part (c). ∎

Proof of Corollary 1.4.

When $n\geq 0$, the displayed coefficient formula in each case is obtained by applying Proposition 1 with

$$n=|\xi|-2N.$$

If $n<0$, the multiplicity is interpreted as zero as stated; in the subcases below this agrees with the displayed coefficient, because the same degree estimates show that the relevant coefficient vanishes when the Euclidean quotient $q$ is negative. We then rewrite the resulting quotient using the Euclidean division displayed in the statement. We also use the elementary bound $\deg p_{a}\leq a/2$, which follows immediately from the recurrence defining $p_{a}$.

For part (a), write

$$s-2N=qm+\rho,\qquad q\in\mathbb{Z},\quad 0\leq\rho<m.$$

Then we have

$$tm+s-2N=(t+q)m+\rho,$$

so Proposition 1 gives

$$V_{tm+s-2N}^{\xi\to m}(1)=[x^{N}]\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{q+1}}.$$

If $q\geq 0$, this is exactly the quotient appearing in Theorem 1.3(a), so the stated bounded-Dyck-path interpretation follows by extracting the coefficient of $x^{N}$. If $q<0$, write $q=-h-1$ with $h\geq 0$. Then

$$\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{q+1}}=p_{m-\rho-1}(x)p_{m}(x)^{h}$$

is a polynomial of degree at most

$$\frac{m-\rho-1+hm}{2}=\frac{(h+1)m-\rho-1}{2}<N,$$

because

$$2N=s+(h+1)m-\rho.$$

Hence, the coefficient of $x^{N}$ is zero.

For part (b), write

$$r+s-2N=qm+\rho,\qquad q\in\mathbb{Z},\quad 0\leq\rho<m.$$

Then we have

$$tm+r+s-2N=(t+q)m+\rho,$$

so Proposition 1 gives

$$V_{tm+r+s-2N}^{\xi\to m}(1)=[x^{N}]\frac{p_{r}(x)p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{q+1}}.$$

If $q\geq 1$, we factor the quotient as

$$\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}\cdot\frac{p_{r}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}\cdot\left(\frac{1}{p_{m}(x)}\right)^{q-1}$$

and apply the general criterion in Theorem 1.3 with the pairs

$$(0,m-\rho-1),\qquad(r,0),\qquad(0,0),\dots,(0,0).$$

This yields the stated tuple model.

Now assume $q=0$. Then

$$\rho=r+s-2N,\qquad m-\rho-1=m-r-s+2N-1.$$

If $2N\leq s$, then $m-r-s+2N-1=m-\rho-1$ lies between $0$ and $m-1$, and

$$r+(m-r-s+2N-1)=m-s+2N-1\leq m-1.$$

Thus Theorem 1.3 applies with the single pair

$$(a_{1},b_{1})=(r,m-r-s+2N-1),$$

and therefore

$$\frac{p_{r}(x)p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}=\sum_{u\geq 0}D_{m}(r,m-r-s+2N-1;u)x^{u}.$$

Extracting the coefficient of $x^{N}$ gives the stated formula. If instead $q<0$, write $q=-h-1$ with $h\geq 0$. Then

$$\frac{p_{r}(x)p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{q+1}}=p_{r}(x)p_{m-\rho-1}(x)p_{m}(x)^{h}$$

is a polynomial of degree at most

$$\frac{r+(m-\rho-1)+hm}{2}=\frac{r+(h+1)m-\rho-1}{2}<N,$$

because

$$2N=r+s+(h+1)m-\rho.$$

Hence the coefficient of $x^{N}$ is zero. The only remaining subcase is $q=0$ and $2N>s$, and there we make no unsigned Dyck-path claim.

For part (c), write

$$r_{1}+\cdots+r_{d}+s-2N=qm+\rho,\qquad q\in\mathbb{Z},\quad 0\leq\rho<m.$$

Then Proposition 1 gives

$$V_{tm+r_{1}+\cdots+r_{d}+s-2N}^{\xi\to m}(1)=[x^{N}]\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)\prod_{i=1}^{d}p_{r_{i}}(x)}{p_{m}(x)^{q+1}}.$$

If $q\geq d$, we rewrite this quotient as

$$\frac{p_{m-\rho-1}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}\prod_{i=1}^{d}\frac{p_{r_{i}}(x)}{p_{m}(x)}\left(\frac{1}{p_{m}(x)}\right)^{q-d}$$

and apply Theorem 1.3 with the pairs

$$(0,m-\rho-1),\qquad(r_{1},0),\dots,(r_{d},0),\qquad(0,0),\dots,(0,0).$$

This yields the stated tuple model. If $q<0$, write again $q=-h-1$ with $h\geq 0$. Then the quotient is the polynomial

$$p_{m-\rho-1}(x)\prod_{i=1}^{d}p_{r_{i}}(x)p_{m}(x)^{h},$$

of degree at most

$$\frac{(m-\rho-1)+r_{1}+\cdots+r_{d}+hm}{2}=\frac{r_{1}+\cdots+r_{d}+(h+1)m-\rho-1}{2}<N,$$

because

$$2N=r_{1}+\cdots+r_{d}+s+(h+1)m-\rho.$$

Hence the coefficient of $x^{N}$ is zero. This proves the corollary. ∎

Remark 4.

We emphasize that an alternative combinatorial model for the fat-hook families considered here was obtained in [3] in terms of admissible Dyck paths. That construction is different from the present one, which is designed to arise directly from the Chebyshev quotient.

The transfer-matrix and continued-fraction interpretations underlying Corollary 3.2 are classical. General forms for quotients associated with orthogonal polynomials appear, for example, in Krattenthaler [12, Theorem 10.11.1]; see also Chapter V of Viennot’s monograph [16]. Determinant-style proofs of this type are standard, while alternative combinatorial proofs using heaps are discussed in [6].

In [3], a co-major index statistic on admissible Dyck paths was shown to capture the full graded multiplicities. In contrast, for the combinatorial model introduced in this paper, the appropriate statistic that realizes the full graded multiplicities is not yet known. Determining such a statistic remains an interesting open problem.

6. Appendix: Autonomous proof production and formalization

At Axiom Math, we are developing AxiomProver, an AI system for mathematical research based on autoformalization. As a test case, we gave AxiomProver two tasks of autoformalizing Theorem 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 in this paper, offering examples of AI assistance in mathematical research. This appendix is separate from the rest of the manuscript. The prose exposition of this paper, including this appendix, was written without the use of AI. AxiomProver runs Lean, an interactive theorem prover and a functional programming language built on dependent type theory, designed to provide a rigorous computational framework for validating mathematical proofs [14]. This appendix is included not only to record that formal proofs were produced, but also to clarify the division of labor between the human-written mathematics and the AI-generated formalizations. The mathematical statements supplied to AxiomProver were written in natural language by the authors. AxiomProver’s role was to convert these statements into Lean and to construct machine-checkable formal proofs. Thus, in the tasks described below, AxiomProver was not being asked to choose the main theorems or to decide the final organization of the paper; it was being asked to produce complete formal proofs of the supplied statements.

Autoformalization involves automatically and autonomously converting natural-language mathematics into machine-verifiable formal language. Lean files are created to pass type checkers, while the natural language papers aim to communicate ideas to readers. Given problems in natural or formal language, AxiomProver attempts to generate a complete formal proof. When it succeeds, the system produces two files:

• problem.lean, which formalizes the problem statement if a formal problem statement is absent;

• solution.lean, which represents a complete proof in a formal language.

We now describe the two tasks in more detail:

Task 1 (Theorem 1.1). We give the following files as input for AxiomProver:

• task.md contains the informal statement of Theorem 1.1.

• .environment specifies the version used is 4.28.0.

Task 2 (Theorem 1.2 and 1.3). We give the following files as input for AxiomProver:

• source.tex contains the informal statement of Theorem 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3.

• theorem1.lean is a verbatim copy of the output from Task 1.

• task.md instructs AxiomProver to formalize Theorem 1.2 and 1.3 and informs AxiomProver that theorem1.lean is a formalization of Theorem 1.1.

• .environment specifies the version used is 4.28.0.

The two tasks should therefore be viewed as sequential, but not as a case in which the first task already contained the full content of the second. Task 1 concerned only the eventual-positivity dichotomy of Theorem 1.1. Its output, theorem1.lean, was supplied to Task 2 as a verified formal ingredient and as context for the notation and hypotheses already formalized. Task 2 then addressed the separate combinatorial assertions in Theorems 1.2 and 1.3. In particular, the formalization of Theorem 1.3 was not merely extracted from the formal proof of Theorem 1.1; it required AxiomProver to formalize additional objects and arguments, including the matching and bounded-walk interpretations and the quotient identities used in the unsigned Dyck-path cases.

At the time Task 2 was run, the detailed natural-language statements of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 had already been formulated by the authors and were included in source.tex. AxiomProver was therefore not used to discover the statement of Theorem 1.3. Rather, its contribution was to produce a machine-checkable Lean formalization and proof of the already supplied statement, using the formalization of Theorem 1.1 from Task 1 as an available input.

In both cases, AxiomProver autonomously produced Lean files that were accepted by the Lean type checker. Here “autonomously” means that, after receiving the specified input files, AxiomProver generated the corresponding problem.lean and solution.lean files without further mathematical intervention in the proof script. The authors did not hand-write or repair the Lean proofs line by line. The resulting formal proofs were then used as machine-checkable certificates for the stated theorems. The relevant files are posted in the following repository:

$$\texttt{https://github.com/AxiomMath/Biswal}.$$

At first glance, the proofs generated by AxiomProver do not resemble the narrative outlined in this paper. Converting a Lean file into a proof understandable by humans is challenging because Lean is designed as code for a type-checker, not as a reader-friendly explanation. It makes all the “obvious” bookkeeping explicit, such as rewrite steps, coercions, side conditions, and case splits, and tends to follow the most convenient lemmas and tactics for the library, rather than the most clear conceptual route. A mathematician can usually condense this significantly by relying on shared historical context, standard arguments, and informal identifications that Lean cannot assume. As a result, writing a paper from Lean files is not just about reformatting. The authors must understand the formal script, reconstruct the underlying ideas, and then translate the code into a narrative that emphasizes the key insights while safely omitting routine details.