Stability of the Heisenberg Product on Symmetric Functions
The Heisenberg product is an associative product defined on symmetric functions which interpolates between the usual product and the Kronecker product. In 1938, Murnaghan discovered that the Kronecker product of two Schur functions stabilizes. We prove an analogous result for the Heisenberg product of Schur functions.
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Aguiar, Ferrer Santos, and Moreira introduced a new product on symmetric functions (also on representations of symmetric group) \cite{M-2015}. Unlike the usual product and the Kronecker product, the terms appearing in Heisenberg product of two Schur functions have different degrees. The highest degree component is the usual product. When the Schur functions have the same degree, the lowest degree component of the Heisenberg product is their Kronecker product. In 1938, Murnaghan \cite{F-1938} found that the Kronecker product of two Schur functions stabilizes in the following sense. Given a partition $\lambda$ of $l$ and a large integer $n$, let $\lambda[n]$ be the partition of $n$ by prepending a part of size $n-l$ to $\lambda$. Given two partitions $\lambda$ and $\mu$, the coefficients appearing in the Schur expansion of the Kronecker product $s_{\lambda[n]}*s_{\mu[n]}$ do not depend upon $n$ when $n$ is large enough. 

The paper is organized as follows. In the second section, we give some basic notations and definitions. In the third section, we define the Aguiar coefficients and prove that low degree terms of the Heisenberg product also stabilize. Section 4 offers an example of stabilization. In the last section, we define the stable Aguiar coefficients, and show how to recover the usual Aguiar coefficients from the stable ones.


\section{Preliminaries}
\label{Preliminaries}

We begin by defining the Kronecker coefficients in terms of representations of symmetric groups. For any partition $\alpha$, let $V_\alpha$ denote the irreducible representation of $S_{|\alpha|}$ indexed by $\alpha$. Let $\lambda$, $\mu$ and $\nu$ be partitions of $n$ (written as $\lambda, \mu, \nu \vdash n$). While the tensor product $V_\lambda\otimes V_\mu$ is a representation of $S_n\times S_n$, it can also be considered as a representation of $S_n$ (by viewing $S_n$ as a subgroup of $S_n\times S_n$ through the diagonal map). Write it as $\text{Res}_{S_n}^{S_n\times S_n} (V_\lambda \otimes V_\mu)$. The Kronecker coefficient $g_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu$ is the multiplicity of $V_\nu$ in the decomposition of $\text{Res}_{S_n}^{S_n\times S_n} (V_\lambda \otimes V_\mu)$ into irreducibles. That is, 
$$\text{Res}_{S_n}^{S_n\times S_n} (V_\lambda \otimes V_\mu)=\bigoplus\limits_{\nu\vdash n} g_{\lambda, \mu}^{\nu} V_\nu.$$

There is one-to-one correspondence between irreducible representations and Schur functions by the Frobenius map, which sends $V_\lambda$ to the Schur function $s_\lambda$. So we could also express the Kronecker product (denoted by $*$) in terms of symmetric functions:
$$s_\lambda * s_\mu=\sum\limits_{\nu\vdash n} g_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu s_\nu.$$

We will switch between the two languages. 

Given a partition $\lambda=(\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \dotsc)$ and a positive integer $n$, let $\lambda[n]$ be the sequence $(n-|\lambda|,\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \dotsc)$. When $n \geq |\lambda| + \lambda_1$, $\lambda[n]$ is a partition of $n$. The stability of Kronecker coefficients says that for any partitions $\lambda$, $\mu$, $\nu$, the Kronecker coefficient $g_{\lambda[n], \mu[n]}^{\nu[n]}$ does not depend on $n$ when $n$ is large enough. Write $\overline{g}_{\lambda \mu}^\nu$ for the stable value of the above Kronecker coefficient and call it a reduced Kronecker coefficient. When all the Kronecker coefficients in $s_{\lambda[n]} * s_{\mu[n]}$ reach the reduced ones, we say that the Kronecker product stabilizes. Moreover, Murnahan \cite{F-1938} also claimed that $\overline{g}_{\lambda \mu}^\nu$ vanishes unless
$$|\lambda|\leq |\mu|+|\nu|,\hskip 5mm  |\mu|\leq |\lambda|+|\nu|,\hskip 5mm  |\nu|\leq |\lambda|+|\mu|,$$
which are triangle inequalities. When $|\nu|= |\lambda|+|\mu|$, $\overline{g}_{\lambda \mu}^\nu$ is equal to the Littlewood-Richardson coefficient $c_{\lambda \mu}^\nu$ \cite{F-1938}.

Briand et al.~\cite{E-2010} determined when the expansion of Kronecker product stabilizes and provide with another condition for the reduced Kronecker coefficient being nonzero.

\begin{prop}[\cite{E-2010} Theorem 1.2]
	Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be partitions. The expansion of the Kronecker product $s_{\lambda[n]} * s_{\mu[n]}$ stabilizes at $n=|\lambda|+|\mu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1$.
\end{prop}

\begin{prop}[\cite{E-2010} Theorem 3.2]
	Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be partitions, then
	$$\max\{|\nu|+\nu_1\arrowvert\, \nu \;\text{parition},\, \overline{g}_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu> 0\}=|\lambda|+|\mu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1.$$
\end{prop}

Other than stability, we do not know much about the Kronecker coefficients. Aguiar et al.~\cite{M-2015} introduced a new product which interpolates between the Kronecker and the usual product on symmetric functions.

\begin{defn}{(Heisenberg product)} Let $V$ and $W$ be representations of $S_n$ and $S_m$ respectively. Fix an integer $l\in[\text{max}\{m,n\}, m+n]$, and let $a=l-m$, $b=n+m-l$, and $c=l-n$. Observe that $S_x\times S_y$ is a subgroup of $S_{x+y}$: $S_x\times S_y\hookrightarrow S_{x+y}$, for any nonnegative integers $x$ and $y$. Also, $S_b$ can be considered as a subgroup of $S_b\times S_b$ through the diagonal embedding $\Delta_{S_b}: S_b\hookrightarrow S_b\times S_b$. We have the diagram of inclusions:	
\begin{equation}
\label{IncluDiag}
\raisebox{25pt}{
	\xymatrix{
		{S_a \times S_b \times S_b \times S_c} \ar@{^{(}->}[r] &{S_{a+b} \times S_{b+c} =S_n\times S_m}\\
		{S_a \times S_b \times S_c} \ar@{^{(}->}[u]^{id_{S_a}\times \Delta_{S_b}\times id_{S_c}} \ar@{^{(}->}[ur] \ar@{^{(}->}[r] &{S_{a+b+c} =S_l} 
		}}
\end{equation}
The Heisenberg product (denoted by $\sharp$) of $V$ and $W$ is
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
V \sharp W= \bigoplus\limits_{l=\text{max}(n,m)}^{n+m} (V\sharp W)_l,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
(V\sharp W)_l=\text{Ind}_{S_a\times S_b\times S_c}^{S_l}\text{Res}_{S_a\times S_b\times S_c}^{S_n\times S_m} (V\otimes W)
\end{equation}
is the degree $l$ component.
\end{defn}

When $l= m+ n$, $(V\sharp W)_l=\text{Ind}_{S_n\times S_m}^{S_{n+m}} (V\otimes W)$, which is the usual induction product of representations (corresponding to the usual product of symmetric functions); when $l=n=m$, $(V\sharp W)_l=\text{Res}_{S_l}^{S_l\times S_l} (V\otimes W)$, which is the Kronecker product of representations. The Heisenberg product connects the usual induction product and the Kronecker product. Remarkably, this product is associative (\cite{M-2015} Theorem 2.3, Theorem 2.4, Theorem 2.6.)
By the definition of the Heisenberg product, the lower degree components behave like the Kronecker product. A natural question is whether those components stabilize.
\begin{thm}
	Given nonnegative integers $d$ and $h$ and two partitions $\lambda$ and $\mu$, the expansion of $(V_{\lambda[n]}\sharp V_{\mu[n-d]})_{n+h}$ (degree $h$ higher than the lowest degree) stabilizes when $n \geq |\lambda| +|\mu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1+ 3h+ 2d$. Moreover, this is where the stabilization begins.
\end{thm}
\section{Proof of Theorem 2.3}
\label{Proof of Thm}

Let $\lambda$ be a partition. Define $\lambda^+$ to be the partition obtained from $\lambda$ by adding $1$ to the first part $\lambda^+= (\lambda_1+1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3, \dotsc)$; similarly, set $\lambda^-= (\lambda_1-1, \lambda_2, \lambda_3, \dotsc)$. Let $\overline{\lambda}=(\lambda_2, \lambda_3, \dotsc)$ be the partition obtained from $\lambda$ by removing the first part. For partitions $\lambda$ and $\mu$, we set $\lambda+\mu=(\lambda_1+\mu_1, \lambda_2+\mu_2, \dotsc)$ and $\lambda-\mu=(\lambda_1-\mu_1, \lambda_2-\mu_2, \dotsc)$.

\begin{lem}

Let $\lambda$, $\mu$ and $\nu$ be partitions with $|\nu|=|\lambda|+|\mu|$

(1) If $\nu_1-\nu_2\geq |\lambda|$, then $c_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu=c_{\lambda, \mu^+}^{\nu^+}$.

(2) If $\mu_1-\mu_2\geq |\lambda|$, then $c_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu=c_{\lambda, \mu^+}^{\nu^+}$

\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
 By the Littlewood-Richardson Rule, $c_{\alpha, \beta}^\gamma$ ($\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ are partitions) counts the number of semistandard skew tableaux of shape $\gamma/\beta$ and weight $\alpha$ whose row reading word is a lattice permutation (\cite{Mac}, Chapter 1 Section 9). Let $T_{\alpha, \beta}^\gamma$ be the set of these tableaux. We show that $|T_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu|=|T_{\lambda, \mu^+}^{\nu^+}|$.

Note that $T_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu= \emptyset$ unless $\mu \subset \nu$, and $\mu \subset \nu$ if and only if $\mu^+ \subset \nu^+$, hence it is enough to consider the case $\mu \subset \nu$.

The skew diagrams $\nu/\mu$ and ${\nu^+}/{\mu^+}$ differ only by a shift of the first row. Since $\nu_1-\nu_2\geq |\lambda|$, the first row (may be empty) of $\nu/\mu$ is disconnected from the rest of the skew diagram, and similarly for ${\nu^+}/{\mu^+}$. This gives us a natural bijection between $T_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu$ and $T_{\lambda, \mu^+}^{\nu^+}$. Hence 
$|T_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu|=|T_{\lambda, \mu^+}^{\nu^+}|$, and (1) is proved.

The proof of (2) is the same, as $\mu_1-\mu_2 \geq |\lambda|$ also implies that the first row of $\nu/\mu$ is disconnected from the rest of it.
\end{proof}

\begin{rem}
When $\lambda$, $\mu$, and $\nu$ do not satisfy the conditions in Lemma 3.1, the one unit shift of the first row may fail to be a bijection between $T_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu$ and $T_{\lambda, \mu^+}^{\nu^+}$. However, it is still a well defined injection from $T_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu$ to $T_{\lambda, \mu^+}^{\nu^+}$, which means $c_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu \leq c_{\lambda, \mu^+}^{\nu^+}$. In other words, the sequence $c_{\lambda, \overline{\mu}[n]}^{\overline{\nu}[n+|\lambda|]}$ is weakly increasing and is constant when $n$ is large.
\end{rem}

Brion \cite{Brion} and Manivel \cite{Manivel} provide with an analogous result for the Kronecker coefficients:

\begin{prop}
	Let $\lambda$, $\mu$, and $\nu$ be partitions. The sequence $g_{\lambda[n],\mu[n]}^{\nu[n]}$ is weakly increasing. 	
\end{prop}


The Aguiar coefficient $a_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu$ is the multiplicity of $V_\nu$ in $V_\lambda\sharp V_\mu$, i.e.
$$V_\lambda \sharp V_\mu = \bigoplus\limits_{l=\text{max}(n,m)}^{n+m} \bigoplus\limits_{\nu\vdash l} a_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu V_\nu.$$
and we set $a^{\nu}_{\lambda, \mu}=0$ if $\lambda$, $\mu$ or $\nu$ is not a partition. The first part of Theorem 2.3 states that when $n\geq |\lambda| +|\mu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1+ 3h+ 2d$,
\begin{equation}\label{Aguiar}
a_{\lambda[n], \mu[n-d]}^{\nu^-}= a_{\lambda[n+1], \mu[n-d+1]}^{\nu}
\end{equation}
for all $\nu\vdash n+h+1$.

To prove \eqref{Aguiar}, we first express the Aguiar coefficient in terms of the Littlewood-Richardson coefficients and the Kronecker coefficients.

\begin{lem}
	For each $\nu\vdash l$,
	\begin{equation}
	a_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu=\sum\limits_{\shortstack{\scriptsize {$\alpha \vdash a, \rho \vdash c$, \scriptsize $\tau \vdash n$}\\ \scriptsize {$\beta, \eta, \delta \vdash b$}}} c_{\alpha, \beta}^\lambda\,\, c_{\eta, \rho}^\mu\,\, g_{\beta, \eta}^\delta\,\, c_{\alpha, \delta}^\tau\,\, c_{\tau, \rho}^\nu
	\end{equation}
	where $\max(n,m)\leq l\leq n+m$, $a=l-m$, $b=m+n-l$, and $c=l-n$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Consider the diagram \eqref{IncluDiag} we used to define the Heisenberg product. Given partitions $\lambda\vdash n$ and $\mu\vdash m$, $V_\lambda \otimes V_\mu$ is a representation of $S_n\times S_m (=S_{a+b}\times S_{b+c})$. We compute the Heisenberg product of $V_\lambda$ and $V_\mu$ in three steps.
\begin{equation}
\label{Step}
\raisebox{40pt}{
\xymatrix{
	{S_a\! \times\! S_b\! \times\! S_b\! \times\! S_c} \ar@/_1pc/[d]_{(2)} &&{S_{a+b}\! \times\! S_{b+c} =S_n\!\times\! S_m} \ar@/_1pc/[ll]_{(1)} \ar@{^{(}->}[ll];[]\\
	{S_a \times S_b \times S_c} \ar@{^{(}->}[u]
	\ar@{^{(}->}[urr] \ar@{^{(}->}[rr]_{(3)} \ar@{^{(}->}[dr]^{(3.1)}&&{S_{a+b+c} =S_l}\\
	&{S_{a+b}\times S_c}  \ar@{^{(}->}[ur]^{(3.2)}& \hskip -40mm =S_n\times S_c
	}}
\end{equation}

First, we restrict the representation from $S_n\times S_m$ to $S_a\times S_b\times S_b\times S_c$,

\begin{equation}
\tag*{(1)}
\text{Res}_{S_a\times S_b\times S_b\times S_c}^{S_n\times S_m} (V_\lambda \otimes V_\mu)= \bigoplus\limits_{\shortstack{\scriptsize {$\alpha \vdash a$}\\ \scriptsize {$\beta \vdash b$}}} \bigoplus\limits_{\shortstack{\scriptsize {$\eta \vdash b$}\\\scriptsize {$\rho \vdash c$}}} c_{\alpha, \beta}^\lambda\,\, c_{\eta, \rho}^\mu\, V_\alpha\otimes V_\beta \otimes V_\eta \otimes V_\rho.
\end{equation}

Second, pull back to $S_a\times S_b\times S_c$ along the diagonal map of $S_b$. For $\alpha \vdash a$, $\rho \vdash c$, and $\beta, \eta\vdash b$ we have,

\begin{align}
\tag*{(2)}
\text{Res}_{S_a\times S_b\times S_c}^{S_a\times S_b\times S_b\times S_c} (V_\alpha\otimes V_\beta \otimes V_\eta \otimes V_\rho)= \bigoplus\limits_{\delta\vdash b} g_{\beta, \eta}^\delta\, V_\alpha\otimes V_\delta\otimes V_\rho.
\end{align}

The final step is the induction from $S_a\times S_b\times S_c$ to $S_{a+b+c} (=S_l)$. Break this step into two substeps as in \eqref{Step}. Given $\alpha \vdash a$, $\delta\vdash b$, and $\rho\vdash c$, we have:
\begin{align*}
\tag*{(3)}
	\text{Ind}_{S_a\times S_b\times S_c}^{S_l} (V_\alpha\otimes V_\delta\otimes V_\rho)&= \text{Ind}_{S_n\times S_c}^{S_l}\text{Ind}_{S_a\times S_b\times S_c}^{S_n\times S_{c}} (V_\alpha\otimes V_\delta\otimes V_\rho)\\
	&=\bigoplus\limits_{\shortstack{\scriptsize {$\tau \vdash n$}\\ \scriptsize {$\nu \vdash l$}}} c_{\alpha, \delta}^\tau\,\, c_{\tau, \rho}^\nu\,\, V_\nu.
\end{align*}

Combining $(1)$, $(2)$, and $(3)$ together, gives

\begin{align*}
	(V_\lambda\otimes V_\mu)_l&=\text{Ind}_{S_a\times S_b\times S_c}^{S_{l}} \text{Res}_{S_a\times S_b\times S_c}^{S_a\times S_b\times S_b\times S_c} \text{Res}_{S_a\times S_b\times S_b\times S_c}^{S_{n}\times S_{m}} (V_\lambda\otimes V_\mu)\\
	&=\bigoplus\limits_{\shortstack{\scriptsize {$\alpha \vdash a, \rho \vdash c, \tau \vdash n$}\\ \scriptsize ${\beta, \eta, \delta \vdash b, \nu\vdash l}$}} c_{\alpha, \beta}^\lambda\,\, c_{\eta, \rho}^\mu\,\, g_{\beta, \eta}^\delta\,\, c_{\alpha, \delta}^\tau\,\, c_{\tau, \rho}^\nu\,\, V_\nu 
\end{align*}
So for $\nu\vdash l$,
\begin{equation*}
a_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu=\sum\limits_{\shortstack{\scriptsize {$\alpha \vdash a, \rho \vdash c$, \scriptsize $\tau \vdash n$}\\ \scriptsize {$\beta, \eta, \delta \vdash b$}}} c_{\alpha, \beta}^\lambda\,\, c_{\eta, \rho}^\mu\,\, g_{\beta, \eta}^\delta\,\, c_{\alpha, \delta}^\tau\,\, c_{\tau, \rho}^\nu,
\end{equation*}
as claimed.
\end{proof}

We set $c_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu=0$ when $\lambda$, $\mu$, or $\nu$ is not a partition. Then (3.2) holds for all compositions $\nu$ of $l$. Combining (3.1) and (3.2), shows that to prove the first part of Theorem 2.3, it is enough to show that, when  $n\geq |\lambda| +|\mu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1+ 3h+ 2d$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sum_{(\alpha, \beta, \eta, \rho, \delta, \tau) \in T} &c_{\alpha, \beta}^{\lambda [n]}\,\, c_{\eta, \rho}^{\mu[n-d]}\,\, g_{\beta, \eta}^\delta\,\, c_{\alpha, \delta}^\tau\,\, c_{\tau, \rho}^{\nu^-}= 
\\
&\sum_{(\alpha^*, \beta^*, \eta^*, \rho^*, \delta^*, \tau^*)\in T^*} c_{\alpha^*, \beta^*}^{\lambda [n+1]}\,\, c_{\eta^*, \rho^*}^{\mu[n+1-d]}\,\, g_{\beta^*, \eta^*}^{\delta^*}\,\, c_{\alpha^*, \delta^*}^{\tau^*}\,\, c_{\tau^*, \rho^*}^{\nu}
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\noindent for all $\nu \vdash n+h+1$, where 
\begin{eqnarray*}
T&=&\{(\alpha, \beta, \eta, \rho, \delta, \tau)\mid\alpha \vdash d+h, \rho\vdash h, \tau\vdash n, \beta, \eta, \delta\vdash n-d-h \};\\
T^*&=&\{(\alpha^*, \beta^*, \eta^*, \rho^*, \delta^*, \tau^*)\mid
\alpha^* \vdash d+h, \rho^*\vdash h,\tau^*\vdash n+1,\\ &&\hskip 70mm\beta^*,\eta^*, \delta^* \vdash n-d-h+1\}.
\end{eqnarray*}

Define $f: T\longmapsto \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ and $f^*: T^*\longmapsto \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ as follows:
$$f(\alpha, \beta, \eta, \rho, \delta, \tau)=c_{\alpha, \beta}^{\lambda [n]}\,\, c_{\eta, \rho}^{\mu[n-d]}\,\, g_{\beta, \eta}^\delta\,\, c_{\alpha, \delta}^\tau\,\, c_{\tau, \rho}^{\nu^-},$$
$$f^*(\alpha^*, \beta^*, \eta^*, \rho^*, \delta^*, \tau^*)=c_{\alpha^*, \beta^*}^{\lambda [n+1]}\,\, c_{\eta^*, \rho^*}^{\mu[n+1-d]}\,\, g_{\beta^*, \eta^*}^{\delta^*}\,\, c_{\alpha^*, \delta^*}^{\tau^*}\,\, c_{\tau^*, \rho^*}^{\nu}.$$
Then equation (3.4) becomes:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sum_{(\alpha, \beta, \eta, \rho, \delta, \tau) \in T} f(\alpha, \beta, &\eta, \rho, \delta, \tau) =\\
&\sum_{(\alpha^*, \beta^*, \eta^*, \rho^*, \delta^*, \tau^*)\in T^*} f^*(\alpha^*, \beta^*, \eta^*, \rho^*, \delta^*, \tau^*).
\end{split}
\end{equation}

Some terms in the sums of (3.5) vanish. Let us consider only the nonvanishing terms. 

Let $T_0 =T \smallsetminus f^{-1}(0)$ and $T^*_0= T^*\smallsetminus {f^*}^{-1}(0)$, so that $T_0$ and $T^*_0$ index the nonzero terms. Then (3.5) becomes
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\sum_{(\alpha, \beta, \eta, \rho, \delta, \tau) \in T_0} f(\alpha, \beta, &\eta, \rho, \delta, \tau) =\\
&\sum_{(\alpha^*, \beta^*, \eta^*, \rho^*, \delta^*, \tau^*)\in T^*_0} f^*(\alpha^*, \beta^*, \eta^*, \rho^*, \delta^*, \tau^*).
\end{split}
\end{equation}

\begin{lem}
	The natural embedding $\varphi$ from $T$ to $T^*$:
	$$\varphi (\alpha, \beta, \eta, \rho, \delta, \tau)= (\alpha, \beta^+, \eta^+, \rho, \delta^+, \tau^+)$$ induces a map $\varphi|_{T_0}$ from $T_0$ to $T^*_0$. Moreover $f=f^*\circ \varphi|_{T_0}$.
\begin{displaymath}
\xymatrix{
	T \ar@{^{(}->}[rr]^\varphi& &T^*\\
	T_0 \ar@{^{(}->}[u] \ar@{^{(}->}[rr]^{\varphi|_{T_0}} \ar@{^{(}->}[urr]^{\varphi|_{T_0}}& &\varphi(T_0) \ar@{^{(}->}[u] 
}
\end{displaymath}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
For all $(\alpha, \beta, \eta, \rho, \delta, \tau)\in T_0$, we show that $\beta$, $\eta$, $\delta$, and $\tau$ have large enough first parts so that we can apply Proposition 2.1 and Lemma 3.1 to the Littlewood-Richardson coefficients and the Kronecker coefficients appearing in the definition of $f$.

Since $n \geq |\lambda| +|\mu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1+ 3h+ 2d$, we have
$$\lambda[n]_1- \lambda[n]_2 \geq n-|\lambda|-\lambda_1 \geq |\mu|+\mu_1+ 3h+ 2d \geq h+d \hskip 2mm (=|\alpha|)$$
and
$$\mu[n-d]_1- \mu[n-d]_2 \geq n-d- |\mu|-\mu_1 \geq |\lambda|+\lambda_1 + 3h+ d \geq h \hskip 2mm (=|\rho|).$$
Using Lemma 3.1 (1), we get
$$c_{\alpha, \beta}^{\lambda[n]}= c_{\alpha, \beta^+}^{\lambda[n+1]} \quad \text{and} \hskip 5mm c_{\eta, \rho}^{\mu[n-d]}=c_{\eta, \rho^+}^{\mu[n+1-d]}.$$

As $\beta \subset \lambda[n]$,  $|\overline{\beta}|\leq |\lambda| < n-d-h$ and $(\overline{\beta})_1\leq \lambda_1$. Similarly, we have $|\overline{\eta}|\leq |\mu| < n-d-h$ and $(\overline{\eta})_1\leq \mu_1$. Since $\beta$ and $\eta$ are both partitions of $n-d-h$, they can be written as $\beta=\overline{\beta}[n-d-h]$ and $\eta=\overline{\eta}[n-d-h]$ respectively. They both have large first parts. More specifically, we have
$$n-d-h\geq |\lambda|+|\mu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1+2h+d \geq |\overline{\beta}|+|\overline{\eta}|+(\overline{\beta})_1+(\overline{\eta})_1.$$
By Proposition 2.1, we have
$$g_{\beta, \eta}^\delta = g_{\beta^+, \eta^+}^{\delta^+}.$$

Followed from proposition 2.2, $$|\overline{\delta}|+(\overline{\delta})_1\leq |\overline{\beta}|+|\overline{\eta}|+(\overline{\beta})_1+(\overline{\eta})_1$$
for otherwise $g_{\beta, \eta}^\delta=0$, so thus $f$. Hence, 
$$|\delta|-\delta_1+\delta_2\leq |\lambda|+|\mu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1$$
which gives us
\begin{align*}
\delta_1-\delta_2 \geq n-d-h-|\lambda|-|\mu|-\lambda_1-\mu_1\geq 2h+d\geq |\alpha|
\end{align*}
Applying Lemma 3.1 (2), we get
$$c_{\alpha, \delta}^\tau= c_{\alpha, \delta^+}^{\tau^+}.$$
Also, by the Littlewood-Richardson rule, we have
$$\tau_2\leq \delta_2+|\alpha| \quad \text{and} \quad \tau_1\geq \delta_1.$$
So
\begin{align*}
\tau_1-\tau_2 \geq \delta_1-(\delta_2+|\alpha|) \geq 2h+d-h-d= h = |\rho|.
\end{align*}
Hence, by Lemma 3.1 (2), we get
$$c_{\tau, \rho}^{\nu^-}= c_{\tau^+, \rho}^{\nu}.$$
So
\begin{equation}
f(\alpha, \beta, \eta, \rho, \delta, \tau)=f^*(\varphi (\alpha, \beta, \eta, \rho, \delta, \tau)) (\neq 0),
\end{equation}
\noindent which means $\varphi (T_0) \subset T^*_0$ and $f=f^*\circ \varphi$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem 2.3]
The map of Lemma 3.4 is reversible as the map $(\alpha, \beta, \eta, \rho, \delta, \tau)\longrightarrow (\alpha, \beta^-,\eta^-, \rho, \delta^-, \tau^-)$ gives a well-defined injection from $T^*_0$ to $T_0$. So $\varphi\arrowvert_{T_0}$ is a bijection from $T_0$ to $T^*_0$. With this and (3.7), we prove (3.6), and hence the first part of Theorem 2.3.

To prove that the lower bound is where the stabilization begins, we just need show that there is $\nu\vdash n+h$ with $\nu_1=\nu_2$ such that $a_{\lambda[n], \mu[n-d]}^\nu\neq 0$ when $n = |\lambda| +|\mu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1+ 3h+ 2d$. We use the formula (3.2) for $a_{\lambda[n], \mu[n-d]}^\nu\neq 0$ (replace $\lambda$ and $\nu$ by $\lambda[n]$ and $\mu[n-d]$ respectively, and set $l=n+h$), and take
$$\alpha=(a)=(d+h), \rho=(c)=(h),$$ 
$$\beta=\lambda[n]-\alpha=(n-|\lambda|-d-h, \lambda_1, \lambda_2, \dots)=(|\mu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1+2h+d, \lambda_1, \dots),$$
$$\eta=\mu[n-d]-\rho=(n-d-|\mu|-h, \mu_1, \mu_2, \dots)=(|\lambda|+\lambda_1+\mu_1+2h+d, \mu_1, \dots),$$
$$\delta=(\overline{\beta}+\overline{\eta})[n-d-h]=(n-d-h-|\overline{\beta}|-|\overline{\eta}|,\beta_2+\eta_2, \beta_3+\eta_3, \dots)=(\lambda_1+\mu_1+2h+d,\lambda_1+\mu_1, \dots),$$
$$\tau=(\delta_1, \delta_2+|\alpha|, \delta_3, \dots)=(\lambda_1+\mu_1+2h+d, \lambda_1+\mu_1+d+h, \lambda_2+\mu_2, \dots),$$
$$\nu=(\tau_1, \tau_2+|\rho|, \dots)=(\lambda_1+\mu_1+2h+d, \lambda_1+\mu_1+2h+d, \lambda_2+\mu_2, \dots).$$

By the Pieri Rule, $1=c_{\alpha, \beta}^{\lambda[n]}=c_{\eta, \rho}^{\mu[n-d]}=c_{\alpha, \delta}^\tau=c_{\tau, \rho}^\nu$, as $\alpha$ and $\rho$ have only one part each. Since $|\overline{\delta}|=|\overline{\beta}|+|\overline{\eta}|$, we have $g_{\beta, \eta}^\delta=\overline{g}_{\overline{\beta}, \overline{\eta}}^{\overline{\delta}}=c_{\overline{\beta}, \overline{\eta}}^{\overline{\delta}}$ (note that $\overline{\delta}=\overline{\beta}+\overline{\eta}$) which is also nonzero due to the Littlewood-Richardson Rule.

So $a_{\lambda[n],\mu[n-d]}^{\nu}\neq 0$ and $\nu_1=\nu_2=\lambda_1+\lambda_2+2h+d$, this proves that $n = |\lambda| +|\mu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1+ 3h+ 2d$ is where the stabilization begins.
\end{proof}

When $n<|\lambda| +|\mu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1+ 3h+ 2d$, Lemma 3.4 is not true for some $\nu$. However, using Remark 3.1 and Proposition 3.2, we know that the map $\varphi$ in Lemma 3.4 induces an injection from $T_0$ to $T^*_0$ with $f\leq f^*\circ \varphi|_{T_0}$. This gives us the following corollary:

\begin{cor}
	Given three partitions $\lambda$, $\nu$, and $\mu$ and two nonnegative integers $d$ and $h$, the sequence $a_{\lambda[n],\mu[n-d]}^{\nu[n+h]}$ is weakly increasing.
\end{cor}




\section{Example}
\label{example}

We give an example of stabilization of the low degree terms of the Heisenberg product.

Let us take $\lambda=(1,1)$, $\mu=(1)$. We check the stability of the two lowest degree components of $s_{(1,1)[n]}\sharp s_{(1)[n-1]}$:

$s_{1,1,1}\sharp s_{1,1}=(s_{2,1,1,1}+s_{1,1,1,1,1})+\color{red}{(s_{3,1}+s_{2,2}+2s_{2,1,1}+s_{1,1,1,1})}\color{black}+\color{blue}{(s_3+s_{2,1})}$

$s_{2,1,1}\sharp s_{2,1}= (s_{4,2,1}+s_{4,1,1,1}+s_{3,3,1}+s_{3,2,2}+2s_{3,2,1,1}+s_{3,1,1,1,1}+s_{2,2,2,1}+s_{2,2,1,1,1})+\\
\color{red}{(s_5+5s_{4,1}+7s_{3,2}+9s_{3,1,1}+8s_{2,2,1}+7s_{2,1,1,1}+2s_{1,1,1,1,1})}\color{black}+\color{blue}{(s_4+3s_{3,1}+2s_{2,2}+3s_{2,1,1}+}\\
{s_{1,1,1,1})}$

The lowest degree component $(s_{(1,1)[n]}\sharp s_{(1)[n-1]})_n$ for $n\geq 5$:

$(s_{3,1,1}\sharp s_{3,1})_5= \color{blue}s_{5}+3s_{4,1}+4s_{3,2}+4s_{3,1,1}+4s_{2,2,1}+3s_{2,1,1,1}+s_{1,1,1,1,1}$

$(s_{4,1,1}\sharp s_{4,1})_6=\color{blue} s_6+ 3s_{5,1}+ 4s_{4,2}+ 4s_{4,1,1}+ 2s_{3,3}+ 5s_{3,2,1}+ 3s_{3,1,1,1}+ s_{2,2,2}+ 2s_{2,2,1,1}+ s_{2,1,1,1,1}$

$(s_{5,1,1}\sharp s_{5,1})_7 =\color{blue}s_7+ 3s_{6,1}+4s_{5,2}+4s_{5,1,1}+2s_{4,3}+5s_{4,2,1}+3s_{4,1,1,1}+s_{3,3,1}+s_{3,2,2}+2s_{3,2,1,1}+s_{3,1,1,1,1}$

$(s_{6,1,1}\sharp s_{6,1})_8 =\color{blue}s_8+ 3s_{7,1}+4s_{6,2}+4s_{6,1,1}+2s_{5,3}+5s_{5,2,1}+3s_{5,1,1,1}+s_{4,3,1}+s_{4,2,2}+2s_{4,2,1,1}+s_{4,1,1,1,1}$

$\cdots \cdots$

We create a table for this:

\begin{table}[htb]

\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
 \backslashbox{$n$}{$s_\nu$} & $n$ & $n-1$ & $n-2$ & $n-2$ & $n-3$ & $n-3$ & $n-3$ & $n-4$ & $n-4$ & $n-4$ & $n-4$\\
 	 &     & $1$   & $2$   & $1$   & $3$   & $2$   & $1$   & $3$   & $2$   & $2$   & $1$\\
	 &     &       &       & $1$   &       & $1$   & $1$   & $1$   & $2$   & $1$   & $1$\\
	 &     &       &       &       &       &       & $1$   &       &       & $1$   & $1$\\
	 &     &       &       &       &       &       &       &       &       &    & $1$\\\hline
  $3$& \cellcolor{yellow}$\color{red}1$ & $1$   &       &       &       &       &       &       &       &       &    \\\hline
  $4$& $\color{red}1$ & $\cellcolor{yellow}\color{red}3$   & $2$   &  $3$  &       &       &  $1$  &       &       &       &    \\\hline
  $5$& $\color{red}1$ & $\color{red}3$   & $\color{red}\cellcolor{yellow}4$   &  $\color{red}\cellcolor{yellow}4$  &  $\color{red}2$  &  $\color{red}5$  & $\color{red}\cellcolor{yellow}3$   &       &       &       & $\color{red}1$\\\hline
  $6$& $\color{red}1$ & $\color{red}3$   & $\color{red}4$   &  $\color{red}4$  &  $\color{red}\cellcolor{yellow}2$  &  $\color{red}\cellcolor{yellow}5$  & $\color{red}3$   &       &  $\color{red}\cellcolor{yellow}1$  & $\color{red}\cellcolor{yellow}2$   & $\color{red}\cellcolor{yellow}1$\\\hline
  $7$& $\color{red}1$ & $\color{red}3$   & $\color{red}4$   &  $\color{red}4$  &  $\color{red}2$  &  $\color{red}5$  & $\color{red}3$   &  $\color{red}\cellcolor{yellow}1$  &  $\color{red}1$  & $\color{red}2$   & $\color{red}1$\\\hline
  $8$& $\color{red}1$ & $\color{red}3$   & $\color{red}4$   &  $\color{red}4$  &  $\color{red}2$  &  $\color{red}5$  & $\color{red}3$   &  $\color{red}1$  &  $\color{red}1$  & $\color{red}2$   & $\color{red}1$\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$(s_{(1,1)[n]}\sharp s_{(1)[n-1]})_n$ for $3\leq n\leq 8$.}
\label{StableTable}
\end{table}
The first column gives the values of n. The first row lists all the terms which may appear in the component, and we use the indexing partitions to denote the corresponding Schur functions. We color a coefficient red if it reaches the stable value. From Table 1, we can see that different terms stabilizes at different steps, we give an estimate for this in the next section. The stabilization of the lowest degree component happens at $n=7$ (using Theorem 2.3 ($d=1$ and $h=0$), the stabilization begins at $n= 2+1+1+1+2=7$). When $n\geq 7$, we have 
\begin{eqnarray}\label{lowest}
\begin{split}
(s_{n-2,1,1}&\sharp s_{n-2,1})_{n}=s_{n}+3s_{n-1,1}+4s_{n-2,2}+4s_{n-2,1,1}+2s_{n-3,3}\\
&+5s_{n-3,2,1}+3s_{n-3,1,1,1}+s_{n-4,3,1}+s_{n-4,2,2}+2s_{n-4,2,1,1}\\
&+s_{n-4,1,1,1,1}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}

The second lowest degree component $(s_{(1,1)[n]}\sharp s_{(1)[n-1]})_{n+1}$ for $n\geq 5$:

$(s_{3,1,1}\sharp s_{3,1})_6=\color{red} s_6+7s_{5,1}+13s_{4,2}+16s_{4,1,1}+7s_{3,3}+24s_{3,2,1}+16s_{3,1,1,1}+7s_{2,2,2}+13s_{2,2,1,1}+7s_{2,1,1,1,1}+s_{1,1,1,1,1,1}$

$(s_{4,1,1}\sharp s_{4,1})_7=\color{red} s_7+ 7s_{6,1}+ 15s_{5,2}+17s_{5,1,1}+13s_{4,3}+33s_{4,2,1}+19s_{4,1,1,1}+17s_{3,3,1}+16s_{3,2,2}+26s_{3,2,1,1}+10s_{3,1,1,1,1}+8s_{2,2,2,1}+7s_{2,2,1,1,1}+2s_{2,1,1,1,1,1}$

$(s_{5,1,1}\sharp s_{5,1})_8 = \color{red} s_8+ 7s_{7,1}+15s_{6,2}+17s_{6,1,1}+15s_{5,3}+34s_{5,2,1}+19s_{5,1,1,1}+6s_{4,4}+26s_{4,3,1}+18s_{4,2,2}+29s_{4,2,1,1}+10s_{4,1,1,1,1}+10s_{3,3,2}+13s_{3,3,1,1}+12s_{3,2,2,1}+10s_{3,2,1,1,1}+2s_{3,1,1,1,1,1}+s_{2,2,2,2}+2s_{2,2,2,1,1}+s_{2,2,1,1,1,1}$

$(s_{6,1,1}\sharp s_{6,1})_9 =\color{red} s_9+7s_{8,1}+15s_{7,2}+17s_{7,1,1}+15s_{6,3}+34s_{6,2,1}+19s_{6,1,1,1}+8s_{5,4}+27s_{5,3,1}+18s_{5,2,2}+29s_{5,2,1,1}+10s_{5,1,1,1,1}+9s_{4,4,1}+12s_{4,3,2}+16s_{4,3,1,1}+12s_{4,2,2,1}+10s_{4,2,1,1,1}+2s_{4,1,1,1,1,1}+s_{3,3,3}+4s_{3,3,2,1}+3s_{3,3,1,1,1}+s_{3,2,2,2}+2s_{3,2,2,1,1}+s_{3,2,1,1,1,1}$

$(s_{7,1,1}\ s_{7,1})_{10} = \color{red} s_{10}+ 7s_{9,1}+15s_{8,2}+17s_{8,1,1}+15s_{7,3}+34s_{7,2,1}+19s_{7,1,1,1}+8s_{6,4}+27s_{6,3,1}+18s_{6,2,2}+29s_{6,2,1,1}+10s_{6,1,1,1,1}+2s_{5,5}+10s_{5,4,1}+12s_{5,3,2}+16s_{5,3,1,1}+12s_{5,2,2,1}+10s_{5,2,1,1,1}+2s_{5,1,1,1,1,1}+2s_{4,4,2}+3s_{4,4,1,1}+s_{4,3,3}+4s_{4,3,2,1}+3s_{4,3,1,1,1}+s_{4,2,2,2}+2s_{4,2,2,1,1}+s_{4,2,1,1,1,1}$

$(s_{8,1,1}\sharp s_{8,1})_{11} =\color{red} s_{11}+7s_{10,1}+15s_{9,2}+17s_{9,1,1}+15s_{8,3}+34s_{8,2,1}+19s_{8,1,1,1}+8s_{7,4}+27s_{7,3,1}+18s_{7,2,2}+29s_{7,2,1,1}+10s_{7,1,1,1,1}+2s_{6,5}+10s_{6,4,1}+12s_{6,3,2}+16s_{6,3,1,1}+12s_{6,2,2,1}+10s_{6,2,1,1,1}+2s_{6,1,1,1,1,1}+s_{5,5,1}+2s_{5,4,2}+3s_{5,4,1,1}+s_{5,3,3}+4s_{5,3,2,1}+3s_{5,3,1,1,1}+s_{5,2,2,2}+2s_{5,2,2,1,1}+s_{5,2,1,1,1,1}$

$(s_{9,1,1}\sharp s_{9,1})_{12} = \color{red} s_{12}+7s_{11,1}+15s_{10,2}+17s_{10,1,1}+15s_{9,3}+34s_{9,2,1}+19s_{9,1,1,1}+8s_{8,4}+27s_{8,3,1}+18s_{8,2,2}+29s_{8,2,1,1}+10s_{8,1,1,1,1}+2s_{7,5}+10s_{7,4,1}+12s_{7,3,2}+16s_{7,3,1,1}+12s_{7,2,2,1}+10s_{7,2,1,1,1}+2s_{7,1,1,1,1,1}+s_{6,5,1}+2s_{6,4,2}+3s_{6,4,1,1}+s_{6,3,3}+4s_{6,3,2,1}+3s_{6,3,1,1,1}+s_{6,2,2,2}+2s_{6,2,2,1,1}+s_{6,2,1,1,1,1}$

$\cdots \cdots$

This computation shows that the second lowest degree component of $s_{(1,1)[n]}\sharp s_{(1)[n-1]}$ stabilizes at $n=10$ (using Theorem 2.3 ($d=1$ and $h=1$), the stabilization begins at $n= 2+1+1+1+3+2=10$). When $n\geq 10$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{second}
\begin{split}
(s_{n-2,1,1}&\sharp s_{n-2,1})_{n+1}=s_{n+1}+7s_{n,1}+15s_{n-1,2}+17s_{n-1,1,1}+15s_{n-2,3}\\
&+34s_{n-2,2,1}+19s_{n-2,1,1,1}+8s_{n-3,4}+27s_{n-3,3,1}+18s_{n-3,2,2}\\&
+29s_{n-3,2,1,1}+10s_{n-3,1,1,1,1}+2s_{n-4,5}+10s_{n-4,4,1}\\&
+12s_{n-4,3,2}+16s_{n-4,3,1,1}+12s_{n-4,2,2,1}+10s_{n-4,2,1,1,1}\\&
+2s_{n-4,1,1,1,1,1}+s_{n-5,5,1}+2s_{n-5,4,2}+3s_{n-5,4,1,1}+s_{n-5,3,3}\\&
+4s_{n-5,3,2,1}+3s_{n-5,3,1,1,1}+s_{n-5,2,2,2}+2s_{n-5,2,2,1,1}\\&
+s_{n-5,2,1,1,1,1}.
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}


\section {Stable Aguiar Coefficients}
\label{StableAC}

Given partitions $\lambda$, $\mu$, and $\nu$, Theorem 2.3 tells us that the sequence $\{a_{\overline{\lambda}[n+|\lambda|],\overline{\mu}[n+|\mu|]}^{\overline{\nu}[n+|\nu|]}\}_{n=0}^\infty$ is eventually constant. We write $\overline{a}_{\lambda,\mu}^\nu$ for that constant value, and call it a stable Aguiar coefficient. By the way we define stable Aguiar coefficient, we have
$$\overline{a}_{\lambda,\mu}^\nu=\overline{a}_{\overline{\lambda}[n+|\lambda|],\overline{\mu}[n+|\mu|]}^{\overline{\nu}[n+|\nu|]}, \hskip 3mm \text{for all nonnegative integers} \hskip 2mm n.$$
The reason we restrict $n$ to nonnegative integers is that $\lambda[n+|\lambda|]$, $\mu[n+|\mu|]$ and $\nu[n+|\nu|]$ need to be partitions. But we can remove this restriction if we extend the definition of $\overline{a}_{\lambda,\mu}^\nu$ to the case where $\lambda$, $\mu$, and $\nu$, starting from the second position, are finite weakly decreasing sequences of positive integers, i.e. $\lambda_2\geq \lambda_3\geq \lambda_4\geq \cdots\geq 0$, $\mu_2\geq \mu_3\geq \mu_4\geq \cdots\geq 0$, and $\nu_2\geq \nu_3\geq \nu_4\geq \cdots\geq 0$. Then we have
$$\overline{a}_{\lambda,\mu}^\nu=\overline{a}_{\overline{\lambda}[n+|\lambda|],\overline{\mu}[n+|\mu|]}^{\overline{\nu}[n+|\nu|]}, \hskip 3mm \text{for all integers} \hskip 2mm n.$$

By the Jacob-Trudi determinant formula:
$$s_\lambda= \text{det} (h_{\lambda_j+i-j})_{i,j}$$
where $h_k$ is the complete homogeneous symmetric function, and we set $h_k=0$ when $k$ is negative and $h_0=1$. We no longer require $\lambda$ to be a partition, $\lambda$ can be any finite integer sequence. Then the Jacob-Trudi determinant will give us $0$ or $\pm 1$ times some Schur function.

Murnaghan \cite{F-1938} pointed out that the reduced Kronecker coefficients determine the Kronecker product. Analogously, the stable Aguiar coefficients also determine the Heisenberg product, even for small values of $n$. Consider the lowest degree component of $s_{2,1,1}\sharp s_{2,1}$ as an example. The formula \eqref{lowest} gives us (let $n=4$)
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
(s_{2,1,1}\sharp s_{2,1})_4&=s_{4}+3s_{3,1}+4s_{2,2}+4s_{2,1,1}+2s_{1,3}+5s_{1,2,1}\\&+3s_{1,1,1,1}+s_{0,3,1}+s_{0,2,2}+2s_{0,2,1,1}+s_{0,1,1,1,1}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Using Jacob-Trudi determinant, we have
$$s_{1,3}=-s_{2,2}, \hskip 3mm s_{0,3,1}=-s_{2,1,1}, \hskip 3mm s_{0,2,1,1}=-s_{1,1,1,1}, \hskip 3mm \text{and}$$
$$s_{1,2,1}=s_{0,2,2}=s_{0,1,1,1,1}=0.$$
So (5.1) gives us
$$(s_{2,1,1}\sharp s_{2,1})_4=s_4+3s_{3,1}+2s_{2,2}+3s_{2,1,1}+s_{1,1,1,1},$$
which coincides with the result we had in Section 4. This example shows the process to recover the Aguiar coefficients from the stable ones.

\begin{thm}
	Let $\lambda, \mu$, and $\nu$ be partitions with $|\nu|\geq |\lambda|\geq |\mu|$, then
\begin{equation}
a_{\lambda,\mu}^\nu=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{4|\nu|-|\lambda|-|\mu|} (-1)^{i-1}\overline{a}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu^{\dag i}},
\end{equation}
where $\nu^{\dag i}= (\nu_i-i+1, \nu_1+1, \nu_2+1, \dotsc, \nu_{i-1}+1, \nu_{i+1}, \nu_{i+2}, \dotsc)$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
From Theorem 2.3, we know that when $n\geq |\overline{\lambda}|+|\overline{\mu}|+\lambda_2+\mu_2+3(|\nu|-|\lambda|)+2(|\lambda|-|\mu|)-|\lambda|$, the Aguiar coefficients of $(s_{\overline{\lambda}[n+|\lambda|]}\sharp s_{\overline{\mu}[n+|\mu|]})_{n+|\nu|}$ stabilize, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
(s_{\overline{\lambda}[n+|\lambda|]}\sharp s_{\overline{\mu}[n+|\mu|]})_{n+|\nu|}&=\sum\limits_{\tau\vdash n+|\nu|} a_{\overline{\lambda}[n+|\lambda|],\overline{\mu}[n+|\mu|]}^\tau s_\tau
\\&=\sum\limits_{\tau\vdash n+|\nu|} \overline{a}_{\overline{\lambda}[n+|\lambda|],\overline{\mu}[n+|\mu|]}^\tau s_\tau
\\&=\sum\limits_{\tau\vdash n+|\nu|} \overline{a}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\overline{\tau}[-n+|\tau|]} s_\tau.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
So 
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
(s_\lambda\sharp s_\mu)_{|\nu|}=\sum\limits_{\tau\vdash n+|\nu|} \overline{a}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\overline{\tau}[-n+|\tau|]} s_{\overline{\tau}[-n+|\tau|]}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}

To get $a_{\lambda,\mu}^\nu$ from (5.3), we determine which $s_{\tau[-n+|\tau|]}$'s would give us $\pm s_\nu$. Suppose the length of $\tau$ is $l$. From the Jacobi-Trudi formula, we know that $s_{\overline{\tau}[-n+|\tau|]} = \pm s_\nu$ if and only if the length of $\nu$ is at most $l$ and $(\tau_1-n, \tau_2, \tau_3, \dotsc, \tau_l) + (l-1, l-2, \dotsc, 0)$ is a permutation of $(\nu_1, \nu_2, \dotsc, \nu_l)+(l-1, l-2, \dotsc, 0)$. This happens when there is an $i$ ($1\leq i\leq l$) such that
$$\tau_1-n+(l-1)=\nu_i+l-i,$$ 
$$\tau_j+(l-j)=\nu_{j-1}+(l-j+1), \hskip 2mm j=2,3,4,\dotsc, i,$$
$$\tau_j+(l-j)=\nu_j+(l-j), \hskip 2mm j=i+1, i+2, \dotsc, l,$$
which is equivalent to
$$\overline{\tau}[-n+|\tau|] = \nu^{\dag i},$$
and when this happens,
$$s_{\overline{\tau}[-n+|\tau|]}= (-1)^{i-1}s_\nu.$$
So the coefficient of $s_\nu$ in $(s_\lambda\sharp s_\mu)_{|\nu|}$ is
\begin{equation}
a_{\lambda,\mu}^\nu=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{l} (-1)^{i-1}\overline{a}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu^{\dag i}}.
\end{equation}
Take $n=3|\nu|-|\lambda|-|\mu|\geq |\overline{\lambda}|+|\overline{\mu}|+\lambda_2+\mu_2+3(|\nu|-|\lambda|)+2(|\lambda|-|\mu|)-|\lambda|$, since $l\leq |\tau|= n+|\nu|$, (5.4) can be written as
$$a_{\lambda,\mu}^\nu=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{4|\nu|-|\lambda|-|\mu|} (-1)^{i-1}\overline{a}_{\lambda,\mu}^{\nu^{\dag i}}.$$
\end{proof}

Consider an example. From Section~\ref{example}, we know that $a_{(2,1,1), (2,1)}^{(2,2)}=2$.
On the other hand, using the formula (5.2), we have
\begin{equation}
\label{key}
\begin{split}
a_{(2,1,1), (2,1)}^{(2,2)}&=\overline{a}_{(2,1,1), (2,1)}^{(2,2)}-\overline{a}_{(2,1,1), (2,1)}^{(1,3)}+\overline{a}_{(2,1,1), (2,1)}^{(-2,3,3)}
\\&-\overline{a}_{(2,1,1), (2,1)}^{(-3,3,3,1)}+\cdots.
\end{split}
\end{equation}

From \eqref{lowest}, we have $$\overline{a}_{(2,1,1), (2,1)}^{(2,2)}=4, \hskip 4mm \overline{a}_{(2,1,1), (2,1)}^{(1,3)}=2,$$ 
and
$$\overline{a}_{(2,1,1), (2,1)}^{(2,2)^{\dag i}}=0, \hskip 2mm \text{when} \hskip 2mm i\geq 3.$$
So \eqref{key} gives us
$$a_{(2,1,1), (2,1)}^{(2,2)}=4-2=2.$$

Now we use Theorem 5.1 to estimate when $a_{\lambda[n], \mu[n-d]}^{\nu[n+h]}$ stabilizes for given partitions $\lambda$, $\mu$, and $\nu$ and nonnegative integers $d$ and $h$. 
\begin{cor}
	The Aguiar coefficient $a_{\lambda[n], \mu[n-d]}^{\nu[n+h]}$ stabilizes when $n \geq \frac{1}{2}(|\lambda|+|\mu|+|\nu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1+\nu_1-1)+h+d$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
The formula (5.2) gives us

\begin{equation}
\label{specialstable}
a_{\lambda[n], \mu[n-d]}^{\nu[n+h]}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{2n+4h+d} (-1)^{i-1}\overline{a}_{\lambda[n],\mu[n-d]}^{{\nu[n+h]}^{\dag i}},
\end{equation}
So $a_{\lambda[n], \mu[n-d]}^{\nu[n+h]}$ reaches the stable value when $\overline{a}_{\lambda[n],\mu[n-d]}^{{\nu[n+h]}^{\dag i}}=0$ for all $i\geq 2$. By Theorem 2.3, $(s_{\lambda[n]}\sharp s_{\mu[n-d]})_{n+h}$ stabilizes at $n=|\lambda|+|\mu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1+3h+2d =:m$, so
$$\overline{a}_{\lambda[n],\mu[n-d]}^{{\nu[n+h]}^{\dag i}}=a_{\lambda[m], \mu[m-d]}^{\overline{{\nu[n+h]}^{\dag i}}[m+h]}.$$
Since for $i\geq 2$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\overline{{\nu[n+h]}^{\dag i}}[m+h]=&\overline{(\nu_{i-1}-i+1, n+h-|\nu|+1, \nu_1+1, \nu_2+1, \dotsc,\nu_{i-2}+1, \nu_{i}, }\\
&\hskip 88mm \overline{\nu_{i+1}, \dotsc)}[m+h]\\
=&\overline{(\nu_{i-1}-i+1+m-n, n+h-|\nu|+1, \nu_1+1, \nu_2+1, \dotsc,}\\
&\hskip 80mm \overline{\nu_{i-2}+1,\nu_{i}, \nu_{i+1}, \dotsc)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
When $n\geq \frac{1}{2}(|\lambda|+|\mu|+|\nu|+\lambda_1+\mu_1+\nu_1-1)+h+d$, we have
$$n+h-|\nu|+1>\nu_{i-1}-i+1+m-n, \hskip 3mm \text{for all} \hskip 3mm i\geq 2.$$
So $a_{\lambda[m], \mu[m-d]}^{\overline{{\nu[n+h]}^{\dag i}}[m+h]}$ for all $i\geq 2$, which proves the corollary.
\end{proof}

We go back to Table 1 and give yellow color to the cells corresponding to the lower bounds obtained from Corollary 5.2. By comparing the yellow cells and the red numbers, we can see that, in this case, the lower bounds are the places where the stabilizations of the Aguiar coefficients begin, except for $a_{(n-2,1,1), (n-2,1)}^{(n-3,3)}$, $a_{(n-2,1,1), (n-2,1)}^{(n-3,2,1)}$, and $a_{(n-2,1,1), (n-2,1)}^{(n-4,1,1,1,1)}$.


\bibliographystyle{amsplain}

2017-01-13T02:02:19.000
1701
1701.03203
en
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.03203
The Heisenberg product is an associative product defined on symmetric functions which interpolates between the usual product and the Kronecker product. In 1938, Murnaghan discovered that the Kronecker product of two Schur functions stabilizes. We prove an analogous result for the Heisenberg product of Schur functions.
Combinatorics (math.CO); Representation Theory (math.RT)
Stability of the Heisenberg Product on Symmetric Functions
Qwen/Qwen-72B
1. YES
2. YES