The mysterious story of square ice, piles of cubes, and bijections

Ilse Fischera,1 and Matjazˇ Konvalinkab,c

aFaculty of , University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria; bFaculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; and cInstitute of Mathematics, Physics and Mechanics, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Edited by Kenneth A. Ribet, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved August 10, 2020 (received for review May 4, 2020) When combinatorialists discover two different types of objects that are counted by the same numbers, they usually want to prove this by constructing an explicit bijective correspondence. Such proofs frequently reveal many more details about the relation between the two types of objects than just equinumerosity. A famous set of problems that has resisted various attempts to find bijective proofs for almost 40 y is concerned with alternating sign matrices (which are equivalent to a well-known physics model for two- dimensional ice) and their relations to certain classes of plane partitions. In this paper we tell the story of how the bijections were found.

alternating sign matrices | plane partitions | bijective proofs

1. Introduction All mathematicians recognize 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, ... as Fibonacci numbers, and many of them, especially combinatorialists, recognize 1, 1, 2, 5, 14, 42, 132, ... as Catalan numbers. Both sequences appear frequently in and other areas, they have many beautiful properties, and they are extremely well studied. However, there is the mysterious sequence 1, 1, 2, 7, 42, 429, 7,436, ..., whose terms are sometimes called Robbins numbers. They can be expressed with a product formula (Eq. 1), and the mystery comes from the fact that they count four different families of objects that, until now, could not be translated into one another. More precisely, there are many known objects enumerated by this sequence (13 of them are illustrated in different rows of Fig. 1). There are easy bijections between some of these objects, for example between alternating sign matrices and square ice configurations, and these bijections split the families of objects into four classes (separated by a line in Fig. 1): alternating sign matrices, descending plane partitions, totally symmetric self-complementary plane partitions, and alternating sign triangles. We invite readers looking for a challenge to try to guess the definitions of some of the objects in Fig. 1 that are not defined in this paper and to find bijections, for example, among the objects illustrated in the first six rows. However, until now, no bijection was known between any two of these four classes, despite the problem being open for almost four decades (for the first three classes; the fourth class was discovered only recently). In this paper, we describe such a bijection, one that connects alternating sign matrices and descending plane partitions. Let us emphasize right away that the bijection is far from simple. It is, however, completely explicit. We expect that the tools used in this paper can be used to find other complicated bijections. Let us mention that the combinatorial objects described are also commonly encountered in statistical mechanics, so this work has direct applications to questions in physics. 2. A Brief History An (ASM) is a square matrix with entries in {0, 1, −1} such that in each row and each column the nonzero entries alternate and sum up to 1. See row 1 of Fig. 1 for all ASMs of size 3 × 3. Robbins and Rumsey (1) introduced alternating sign matrices in the 1980s when studying their λ-determinant (a generalization of the classical determinant) and showing that the λ-determinant can be expressed as a sum over all alternating sign matrices of fixed size, thus generalizing the Leibniz formula that expresses the ordinary determinant as a sum over all permutations. Numerical experiments led Robbins and Rumsey (1) to conjecture that the number of n × n alternating sign matrices is given by the surprisingly simple product formula n−1 Y (3j + 1)! |ASMn | = . [1] (n + j )! j =0

Significance

In the early 1980s, it was discovered that alternating sign matrices (ASMs), which are also commonly encountered in statistical mechanics, are counted by the same numbers as two classes of plane partitions. Since then it has been a major open problem in this area to construct explicit bijections between the three classes of objects. In this paper we describe a bijective proof that relates ASMs to one of the two classes of plane partitions as well as a bijective proof of the fact that the numbers can be expressed by a simple product formula. The constructions are complicated, but they are completely explicit and also provided in the form of computer code.

Author contributions: I.F. and M.K. designed research, performed research, and wrote the paper.y The authors declare no competing interest.y This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.y Published under the PNAS license.y 1 To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: ilse.fi[email protected] First published September 2, 2020.y

23460–23466 | PNAS | September 22, 2020 | vol. 117 | no. 38 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2005525117 Downloaded by guest on September 25, 2021 Downloaded by guest on September 25, 2021 ice n Konvalinka and Fischer monotone dreams; pipe bumpless reduced) necessarily (not graph; ASTs. diamond partitions; Aztec plane the shifted of 12 matchings row perfect bottom of with classes triangles configurations; loop packed fully ice; 1. Fig. aiiso bet one ytesm nmrto oml,for formula, enumeration same the by counted objects of Families . . . Ps eti oitretn ah;ccial ymti oeg iig ihacnrlhl;TSPs eti triangular certain TSSCPPs; hole; central a with tilings lozenge symmetric cyclically paths; nonintersecting certain DPPs; n; n = :AM;tesxvre oe ihdmi albudr odtos square conditions; boundary wall domain with model six-vertex the ASMs; 3: PNAS | etme 2 2020 22, September | o.117 vol. | o 38 no. | 23461

MATHEMATICS They also conjectured a formula for the number of ASMs of size n × n with the unique 1 in the first row being in column i:

n+i−22n−i−1 n−1 n−1 n−1 Y (3j + 1)! |ASMn,i | = . [2] 3n−2 (n + j )! 2n−1 j =0

One of the two bijections we have discovered establishes a bijective proof of Eq. 2 which, by taking the union over all i, also leads to such a proof of Eq. 1. Back then the surprise was even bigger when Robbins and Rumsey (1), now joined by Mills, learned from Stanley (2, 3) that the product formula in Eq. 1 had recently also appeared in Andrews’ paper (4) on his proof of the weak Macdonald conjecture, which in turn provides a formula for the number of cyclically symmetric plane partitions (plane partitions can be visualized as piles of cubes stacked in the corner of a box). As a byproduct, Andrews had introduced descending plane partitions (DPPs), fillings of a shifted diagram with positive integers that decrease weakly along rows and strictly along columns, such that the first part in each row is greater than the length of its row and less than or equal to the length of the previous row; see row 8 of Fig. 1. Andrews proved that the number of DPPs with parts at most n is also equal to Eq. 1, and Mills, Robbins, and Rumsey (5) proved that Eq. 2 is the number of such DPPs with exactly i − 1 copies of n. Note that it is possible to interpret DPPs as certain sets of nonintersecting paths and as cyclically symmetric lozenge tilings with a central triangular hole of size 2; see rows 9 and 10 of Fig. 1. The latter objects are somewhat reminiscent of Penrose’s impossible stairs. Since then the problem of finding an explicit bijection between alternating sign matrices and descending plane partitions has attracted considerable attention from combinatorialists, and to many of them it is a miracle that such a bijection has not been found so far, all of the more so because Mills, Robbins, and Rumsey (6) also introduced several “statistics” on alternating sign matrices and on descending plane partitions for which they had strong numerical evidence that the joint distributions coincide as well. On the other hand, some believe that a natural bijection is in some sense impossible, but it is unclear how to interpret such a statement mathematically and even more unclear how to prove it. The second bijection we have discovered explains the relation between ASMs and DPPs bijectively. There were a few further surprises yet to come. Robbins introduced an additional operation on plane partitions, complementation, and had strong numerical evidence that totally symmetric self-complementary plane partitions (TSSCPPs) in a box of dimensions 2n × 2n × 2n are also counted by Eq. 1; see row 11 of Fig. 1. Note that a plane partition is totally symmetric if it is invariant under every permutation of the coordinate axes and that there is a simple bijection between TSSCPPs and certain triangular shifted plane partitions; see row 12 of Fig. 1. Again this was further supported by statistics that have the same joint distribution as well as certain refinements; see refs. 7–9, and C. Krattenthaler, A gog-magog conjecture (https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/∼kratt/artikel/magog.html). We still lack an explicit bijection between TSSCPPs and ASMs, as well as between TSSCPPs and DPPs, but we are optimistic that the methods we sketch in this paper will also lead to such bijections. In his collection of bijective proof problems (which is available from his web page, http://www-math.mit.edu/∼rstan/bij.pdf, p. 57) Stanley says the following about the problem of finding all these bijections: “This is one of the most intriguing open problems in the area of bijective proofs.” In Krattenthaler’s (ref. 8, p. 254) survey on plane partitions he expresses his opinion by saying, “The greatest, still unsolved, mystery concerns the question of what plane partitions have to do with alternating sign matrices.” Many of the abovementioned conjectures have since been proved by nonbijective means. Zeilberger (10) proved that n × n ASMs are counted by Eq. 1. Kuperberg (11) gave a shorter proof based on the remarkable observation that the six-vertex model (which had been introduced by physicists several decades earlier) with domain wall boundary conditions (row 2 of Fig. 1) is equivalent to ASMs, and he used the techniques that had been developed by physicists to study this model. Note that other equivalent ways to think about ASMs are the square ice model, fully packed loop configurations, classes of perfect matchings of the Aztec diamond graph, and (not necessarily reduced) bumpless pipe dreams; see rows 3 to 6 of Fig. 1. Andrews enumerated TSSCPPs in ref. 12. The equivalence of certain statistics for ASMs and of certain statistics for DPPs was proved in ref. 13, while for ASMs and TSSCPPs see refs. 14 and 15, and note in particular that already in Zeilberger’s (10) first ASM paper he could deal with an important refinement. Further work including the study of symmetry classes has been accomplished; for a more detailed description of this we defer to ref. 16. Then, in very recent work, alternating sign triangles (ASTs) were introduced in ref. 17, which establishes a fourth class of objects that are equinumerous with ASMs (row 13 of Fig. 1), and nobody has so far been able to construct a bijection. Also in this case, we expect that the approach presented in this paper will be used to construct such a bijection. In fact, the planned bijection between ASMs and TSSCPPs will be most likely via ASTs. Starting in around 2005, I.F. published a series of papers in which monotone triangles feature very prominently (18–25). Alluding to Krattenthaler’s (8) citation above, one could argue that among the objects that are in easy bijective correspondence with ASMs, monotone triangles are the closest to plane partitions. To define them note that a Gelfand–Tsetlin pattern (GT pattern) is a triangular array of integers that are weakly increasing along % and & diagonals. A monotone triangle is a GT pattern with strictly increasing rows. There are eight GT patterns with bottom row 123, and all but one of them (the one with two 2s in row 2) are monotone triangles; see row 7 of Fig. 1. There is an easy bijection between ASMs of size n × n and monotone triangles with bottom row 1, 2, ... , n: Add to each entry the entries that are above in the same column, and record the positions of the 1s in the rows of the new matrix. There is a simple product formula for the number of GT patterns with fixed bottom row, and I.F. found an operator formula for the number of monotone triangles with fixed bottom row. This formula will also be crucial in our construction (Eq. 7), which will give a bijective proof of the fact that the number of ASMs of size n × n equals the number of DPPs with entries at most n. Our method of proof involves signed sets and sijections (signed bijections). We are able to build complicated sijections out of simple building blocks by extending classical notions such as the Cartesian product, disjoint union, and composition to signed sets. In some sense, this framework is implicit in, say, the groundbreaking works of Garsia and Milne (26–28), but we needed to make it more explicit and to extend it to be able to deal with the more complicated situation. For example, the Garsia–Milne involution principle is equivalent to the special case of the composition of two sijections when only the “intermediate” set has a nonempty negative part. The “naturalness” of the composition might let us argue that the involution principle is not as bad as the reputation it sometimes has. After all, enumeration results often have natural extensions to certain signed sets, and then sijections and compositions thereof are unavoidable. We also believe that the tools employed in our constructions could prove very useful in the search for bijective proofs

23462 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2005525117 Fischer and Konvalinka Downloaded by guest on September 25, 2021 Downloaded by guest on September 25, 2021 Here sets. signed to extend sets ordinary of etc.) distributivity, (commutativity, sets examples. more and details the of all for 2 section 29, ref. to reader the refer and known. here turn which currently concepts in is I.F. can basic signs proof by the avoids nonbijective present proof that such We nonbijective proof No sets. the bijective signs. from possible avoids a developed that whether been proof of has computational size. question proof a the odd this into raises of also translated that set This be fact signs. a the involve with from that size stems calculations contains even This substantially. of quite set them a uses cancel to have We cancellations: right set the a find proving map we could that we means example, proof For “bijective” a case, this an in opsto swl so h atsa rdc n h ijituino ietossepooiin2o e.29. ref. of 2 proposition see sijections Konvalinka of and Fischer union disjoint the and product Cartesian the of as of well element as unique composition a to mapped are through of subset a on set the S on involution an is sijection A unions. size. disjoint same and the products have Cartesian sets using signed intervals two signed that from fact constructed usually are paper this in relevance of are Here sets signed of family a of union disjoint The i.e., sizes; sets signed of product Cartesian The the example, For pleasing. bring typically esthetically They usually circumstances: are most they in and best” generalizations, “the interesting are yield identities they of statement, proofs a bijective statement to that clarity combinatorics proofs most such in the as accepted (11), widely approach is model detailed It six-vertex Sijections as the and divisions), using Sets translating Signed not proofs for 3. ASM (but applicable transfer multiplications be to and should complicated argument. framework subtractions, interpolation more an the probably additions, employ is speaking, only typically it Roughly involve that combinatorialists. that Note to identities below. interest of of proofs are “computational” that identities other of hiefrhwt oti;ide,tecntuto sagnrlzto fteGri–in nouinpicpe o nilsrto of illustration an natural For one principle. only involution be Garsia–Milne to the seems of equinumerosity. There generalization show sijections. a to general composing is for While want construction 2, complicated sijections. the we Fig. composing more indeed, of which see slightly this; notion be this, for do a to need sets to out we how of turns bijections, for pairs two this choice the trivial, two construct course the to of sijections connecting is these bijections sets use to intermediate able several be to with However, sijections of chains two of parts T green) (resp. blue the between sijection a of existence set sign ordinary function sign a with + + niprattp fsge esi inditras For intervals: signed is sets signed of type important An set signed a of size The notions. related summarize signed We between sets: bijections finite signed disjoint sijections, of and pair sets signed a of is concepts set the signed introduce A briefly we section, this of remainder the In Eq. identity the Since identity the consider example, For signs. involves identity the when different little a are Things h oeo ietosfrsge esi lydb sge ietos”wihw alsjcin,adte r aiettoso the of manifestations are they and sijections, call we which bijections,” “signed by played is sets signed for bijections of role The ieto ewe w indst ihn eaieeeet sceryabjcin u w ietosaecntutdfrom constructed are bijections two Our bijection. a clearly is elements negative no with sets signed two between sijection A x n t (resp. 1 = S eeetst hl h ethn ieslt hmacrigt size. to according them splits side left-hand the while set, -element T [ {t a and − nteohrhn,abjciepofo hssaeeti h ipeosrainta h ih-adsd onsalsbesof subsets all counts side right-hand the that observation simple the is statement this of proof bijective a hand, other the On . , P } ϕ b ieto a lob huh fa olcino inrvrigivlto nasbe of subset a on involution sign-reversing a of collection a as of thought be also can sijection A . ] P S is k m (resp. tnsfrteuulitra in interval usual the for stands T =0 − S k n ({t =0 (−1) and is lasidcsasge set signed a induces always T hr ehv sijection a have we There Right. }, S ψ n inpeevn acigbtentermiigeeet of elements remaining the between matching sign-preserving a and , n k T ∅) t ,w aeabjcinbtentebu rs.gen at of parts green) (resp. blue the between bijection a have we ), k  − 2 = T n k if ).  (S = ϕ (−1) = n t 2 : : ∈ a epoe navreyo as .. yidcin rb nigteepninof expansion the finding by or induction, by e.g., ways, of variety a in proved be can S a osgs ro htwudaodsgsadcneltoswudb rfrbe u ro,however, proof, Our preferable. be would cancellations and signs avoid would that proof a signs, no has (S S T × {1, → ⇒ + + ({0}, m ∪ T and S A n indst r sal nelndtruhu hspprwt h olwn xeto:An exception: following the with paper this throughout underlined usually are sets Signed −1}. lal implies clearly m − −1 ∅)) S to S ) (∅,  − t and A S tn xr cost. extra no at ∪ (T or {t + {n \ (T S endwhen defined Z, }) |S T U and + S (S = × ∪ × + t is } if S [a nee ihasge set signed a with indexed T ({1}, S T or i natraigsqec fapiain of applications of sequence alternating an via S ϕ t (S = , , − − | ∈ × n nti aew identify we case this in and ∅), between b |S A = ) ] (resp. T T = | ihteproperty the with {n ∪ |S hs osrcin orsoda sa oaihei prtoso the on operations arithmetic to usual as correspond constructions These ∅)). + = − t G (S = ∈T ( , ϕ | · | oto h sa rpriso atsa rdcsaddson unions disjoint and products Cartesian of properties usual the of Most . | S [ (∅, ([a S eedn nwehro not or whether on depending }, from − S T S − T + a S + a t ) ϕ , , + | − | S is | b b = b with ≤ and × : ], (S = and |S 1, + ∈ S S t and [ b T ∅) ∈T S | define Z, oeta eawy have always we that Note . = to = − + T S T ⇒ (S a − | ∪ | T + = sldlns n sijection a and lines) (solid − S , − t |S T S S , ∩ n ewe h ih ry(ep akga)prsof parts gray) dark (resp. gray light the between and ) + { × |T 1]) ϕ(S + − , | − | S t T ). + × − T t | − | } + is = T S | if if ). = t − − qiaety indsti nt set finite a is set signed a Equivalently, ∅. a a T h poiesge e of set signed opposite The |. T , |S ≤ > S S − − | S PNAS + b b | + = ) with = × (resp. . |T |T T S | |. S − − nFg 2, Fig. In |. S . etme 2 2020 22, September t n ∪ U ihtermiigeeet of elements remaining the with ∈ T |[a S ,adalohreeet of elements other all and ), − hsmphsteaddbnfi of benefit added the has map This A. ϕ + , tflosta also that follows It . ψ b × and P ] | between T = k n =0 + ψ Left b h ijituino signed of union disjoint The ). o h omldfiiinof definition formal the For . S (−1) − inrvriginvolution sign-reversing a , a h ieto sabijection a is sijection the | 1 + T S k o.117 vol. 1+ (1 is and n k h indst that sets signed The .  0 = U x ) | ϕ(S for n dse lines); (dashed o 38 no. n plugging and n − S S ∈ + t together S Z T T | or + >0 The . + 23463 U and In . = ) [3] [4] −

MATHEMATICS Fig. 2. Illustration of a sijection (Left) and of composition of sijections (Right).

Just as jeu de taquin is a building block for several constructions in algebraic combinatorics, the fundamental sijection that is underlying many of our constructions is the following.

Problem 1 (ref. 29, problem 1). Given a, b, c ∈ Z, construct a sijection

α = αa,b,c :[a, c] =⇒ [a, b] t [b + 1, c] = [a, b] t −[c + 1, b].

Construction: The sijection is very simple, but we do have to split it into cases. If a ≤ b ≤ c, we take the natural bijection [a, c] → [a, b] t [b + 1, c]. If a ≤ c < b, then [a, b] = [a, c] ∪ [c + 1, b] and [b + 1, c] = (∅, [c + 1, b]), so we simply cancel the two copies of elements in [c + 1, b]. Other cases are similar. Note that to emphasize that we are not merely interested in the fact that two signed sets have the same size, but that we want to use the constructed signed bijection later on, we will be using a slightly unorthodox convention. Instead of listing our results as lemmas and theorems with their corresponding proofs, we will be using the problem–construction terminology. See for instance refs. 30 and 31. Finally, let us mention two crucial combinatorial objects: generalized GT patterns and generalized monotone triangles. The dif- ference is that now the rows are not necessarily increasing. For k ∈ Z, define GT(k) to have a single positive element, and for n k = (k1, ... , kn ) ∈ Z , define recursively G GT(k) = GT(k1, ... , kn ) = GT(l1, ... , ln−1).

l∈[k1,k2]×···×[kn−1,kn ]

n+1 One can think of an element of GT(k) as a triangular array A = (Ai,j )1≤j ≤i≤n of 2 numbers, where we have Ai,j ≤ Ai−1,j ≤ Ai,j +1 or Ai,j > Ai−1,j > Ai,j +1 whenever all three terms are defined, and the sign of a GT pattern is 1 if and only if the number of descents Ai,j > Ai,j +1 is even. We skip the full definition of a generalized monotone triangle and just reiterate that if the bottom row of a monotone triangle is strictly increasing, then a monotone triangle is simply a GT pattern with strictly increasing rows, and its sign is 1. 4. Main Steps of the Construction Recall that our goal is to find a bijective proof of the fact that the number of ASMs of size n × n equals the number of DPPs with Qn−1 (3j +1)! elements ≤n and also that this number equals j =0 (n+j )! . There are four main steps of the proof. The first step is described in detail in ref. 29, and the other three are in ref. 32. 1) First, we construct a sijection between generalized monotone triangles and a certain disjoint union of GT patterns (called shifted GT patterns). That alone is a sijective proof of the abovementioned operator formula for the number of monotone triangles with a fixed bottom row, but it allows us also to replace the complicated generalized monotone triangles with the more convenient shifted GT patterns in what follows. However, this is the first place in our proof where we produce signs; signs are necessary for shifted GT patterns even for strictly increasing bottom rows. 2) Then we show that the shifted GT patterns enjoy a certain rotational invariance (and, due to the sijection from the previous item, the same is true also for generalized monotone triangles). More precisely, performing a cyclic rotation of the prescribed bottom entries together with a certain shift leads, up to sign, to a signed set of the same size. This is proved by means of a sijection. For this step, it is necessary to allow also bottom rows that are not necessarily increasing (simply because the “rotation” of an increasing bottom row is not increasing) and this makes the use of signs again unavoidable. 3) In the next step, we use this sijection to construct “linear equations” for refined enumerations of ASMs. Such equations make sense for signed sets using the constructions we have introduced to mimic basic arithmetic operations (Eq. 4). 4) Finally, we use some “bijective linear algebra” (namely, we define the determinant of a family [P ]m of signed sets as a signed ij i,j =1 set in a natural way and then use a sijective version of Cramer’s rule) to “solve” the system of linear equations, i.e., to construct bijections

DPPn−1 × ASMn,i −→ ASMn−1 × DPPn,i , [5]

where ASMn is the set of all ASMs of size n × n, ASMn,i is the subset of those with 1 in position (1, i), DPPn is the set of all DPPs with elements ≤n, and DPPn,i is the subset of those with exactly i − 1 occurrences of n. The system of linear equations can also be used to construct bijections

23464 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2005525117 Fischer and Konvalinka Downloaded by guest on September 25, 2021 Downloaded by guest on September 25, 2021 rbe rf 9 rbe 4). problem 29, (ref. 3 Problem sijections use we then and let example, an As 2). triangles. problem monotone 29, for (ref. sijections construct 2 to construct Problem those to of those unions use disjoint to use construction. then to such and then one patterns, intervals), sketch GT signed us of of unions products arithmetic (Cartesian disjoint basic boxes for other signed sijections three of the unions as disjoint naturally for sijections as mimicked be cannot division because factors these (Eqs. keep operations to natural more somewhat is Eq. of proof bijective B where ice n Konvalinka and Fischer induction. by sijection a obtain we triangles, monotone generalized for recursion same the proves AR Here previously many uses construction the (29); identity recursive same the satisfy patterns GT as shifted such the sijections that constructed show to is part difficult The say, row, bottom the delete we If For easily: boxes. signed quite over understood union be can recursion the row, bottom increasing (k strictly a with triangles SGT by denoted to sijection a GT get we constructions, basic By where sijection a construct and l 1 1 ≤ Construction: ehdw s eea ie nse st s ijituin n atsa rdcso h sijection the of products Cartesian and unions disjoint use to is 1 step in times several use we method A Eqs. that Note fe eea uhrslscnenn h indst fG atrs ecnpoeta h indsto hfe Tpatterns, GT shifted of set signed the that prove can we patterns, GT of sets signed the concerning results such several After Construction: MT , hsi qa to equal is this , . . . k 2 S (k ≤ , i n k 1 ({a = l n ,i n , 2 β k )   ≤ sacran(ipe indsto ro os and rows, arrow of set signed (simple) certain a is stestof set the is 2 = famntn rage hnw banamntn ragewt e otmrw say, row, bottom new a with triangle monotone a obtain we then triangle, monotone a of , [a . . . k m∈[a β i 1 3 }, a,bx , = ) aifistesm eusv dniya h indsto eeaie oooetinlsMT triangles monotone generalized of set signed the as identity recursive same the satisfies (k), ≤ b 3 aeadson no poel end fsijections of defined) (properly union disjoint a Take h case The 5 ( ∅) 1 1 l and 3 l ] ,b and F n ( [ : ,...l × t l 1 −1 1 ( 2. ] a ,l ρ ×···×[a (∅, l 1 2 yacntuto o indsets. signed for construction a by 4) 1 n = 6 ≤ ,...l ) (2n , −1 G ∈[k b {b nov emnl neesr atr,wihcne hntkn adnlte.O h ee fbjcin it bijections of level the On cardinalities. taking when cancel which factors, unnecessary seemingly involve ρ k 1 α ) n a,bx n n ] 1 ∈S G i − −1 ,k from × · · · × n 2 = G and 1 + n Given −1 Given ρ 2 3 1) ) −1] eoi h eal eedet pc iiain,bttersligsjcini fteform the of is sijection resulting the but limitations, space to due here details the omit We . ×···×S 3 = : ∈S ,b }). scntutdin constructed is l∈[a ust of subsets l n 1 1 ×[k [ −1 a hswudbe would this , ×···×S < a 1 [a a [a 1 ] 2 , DPP n (a = ,b l (a = GT ,k 2 −1 b n 2 1 , 1 3 −1 < . . . < ] l ] ] ×···×[a 3 n = (m) MT to n 1 ] −1 , 1 , × · · · × −1 G b , Φ = Φ ,2, {1, . . . [a n . . . GT (l −1 F × 1 1 n ⇒ , , ( , l , −1 ] n B a a l (l a 1 l = −1 2 2 n k,x . . . m∈ For 1. Problem ,...l n n 1 ,b ) ⇒ ] −1 [l , −1 ,1 Γ = Γ n t t ti lopsil owietersligrcrinmr ovnetya disjoint a as conveniently more recursion resulting the write to possible also is It . n . . . F : −1 3n , × −1 n ) ( ) (−[b (l ( l −1 µ∈AR l 1 ∈ 1 ∈ ] 1 , ASM ,...l , G ,...l GT ,l l ) Z x k,x Z n 2 − ∈S ) −1 n ] 1 n   ∈[k n n n −1 2} = (l) −1 : 1, + 1 −1 −1 n l∈e , ×···×S t MT 1 x ,i , , e ) ihmedian with )∈ ,k G   G b ∈S ). G ( b (k, −→ ⇒ 2 k,µ) a S (b = = (k) ] n [a (b = 2 1 ×[k 1 ×···×S ] ×···×S ( n µ) ≥ 1 ) l −1 SGT DPP 1 , 2 and ,...l 1 b egt yidcin ieto to sijection a induction, by get, we 3, 1 +1,k ( ⇒ sacrandfrainof deformation certain a is , 1 , β l F 3 . . . ] . . . n eoti sijection a obtain we and , ,...l n n × = (l) n n SGT m∈[l [a −1 −1 3 −1 −1 ] , , 1 MT n b n ) b [l , 1 ∈S [l −1 n G × ⇒ n 1 b ,l (k) + 1 −1 ,l G −1 2 2 , ) 1 (l ASM 2 ] ∈S 1] + SGT i G l ×···×S ×···×[l ] ) 2 1 ×[l ) − ] , ∈ PNAS ∈ 3 × l ×···×S 2 2 tcnraiyb hce htti evsa a as serves this that checked be readily can It 1. Z Z ,l t n ) (k). [l 3 n ,1 n t n n 2 ] (−[b −1 −2 ×···×[l −1 −1 , | × (−[b   l 3 , n ,l , etme 2 2020 22, September GT B − ] −1 x n x 1 × · · · × −1 n ∈ (l 2 1, + ∈ ,i n (l 1 −2 ] 1, + , Z, ×[l ,l Z, 1 2 , ,l ) n osrc sijection a construct b . . . n ∈[k write oehrwt h ieto that sijection the with Together k. −1 2 −1 l [l 3 1] + 1 ] , ,x n ] ) ,k ×[l l −2 ] n × · · · × 2 S G GT −1 l −1] n respectively. ), , (l = i −1 l ({a = , n n ydfiiinof definition by and (m), ×[k x | −1 ,x 1 ), ] o.117 vol. , 2 ] GT [l . . . +1,k × i α n }, −1 [l o monotone For (k). (m). , ocntutsome construct to n 3 ∅) l , n ] −1 x MT −1 | t ] ,   o 38 no. (∅, ) x (l , ] where . 1 {b , l 2 i | ) 1 +   23465 k k . 1 [6] [7] }), = ≤

MATHEMATICS This allows one to prove statements for monotone triangles via GT patterns, which are much more accessible. For example, a crucial step in ref. 32 is the sijection MT(k) =⇒ (−1)n−1MT(rot(k)),

where rot(k) = (k2, ... , kn , k1 − n) (ref. 32, problem 16). Note that the construction is far from easy, even assuming that we have the map Γ. See ref. 32, section 6 for a proof. Following several other constructions, we arrive at the following system of “linear equalities,” i.e., sijections

n ! G j +1 [2n − i − 1] (−1) × ASMn,j =⇒ ASMn,i [8] n − i − j + 1 j =1

for i ∈ {1, ... , n} (ref. 32, problem 22). To complete the construction, we need, among some other results, a few ingredients from bijective linear algebra. Denote by Sm m the signed set of permutations (with the usual sign). Given signed sets P i,j , 1 ≤ i, j ≤ m, define the determinant of P = [P ij ]i,j =1 as the signed set det(P) = F P × · · · × P . Among other classical properties, we have the following version of Cramer’s π∈Sm 1,π(1) m,π(m) rule:

m Fm Problem 4. (ref. 32, problem 9). Given P = [P p,q ]p,q=1, signed sets X i , Y i , and sijections q=1 P i,q × X q ⇒ Y i for all i ∈ [m], construct sijections j det(P) × X j =⇒ det(P ), j j m j j where P = [P p,q ]p,q=1, P p,q = P p,q if q 6 =j , P p,j = Y p , for all j ∈ [m]. Essentially, sijections like the one in Problem 4 tell us that linear equalities for sijections like Eq. 8 can be used to find sijections on the signed sets involved. As a result, we get a sijection (and hence a bijection) between DPPn−1 × ASMn,j and ASMn−1 × DPPn,j . By induction, that implies that ASMn,j and DPPn,j have the same number of elements, so we have indeed constructed a bijective proof of this result. Similar considerations lead to the bijection Eq. 6. We expect that one can use similar techniques to find other elusive bijective proofs, both for results related to alternating sign matrices and in other areas of enumerative combinatorics. We intend to use them to connect ASMs and DPPs with the remaining two classes of objects mentioned here, TSSCPPs and ASTs.

Data Availability. There are no data underlying this work.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank Matija Pretnar, Alex Simpson, and for interesting conversations and helpful suggestions. We are also grateful to the referees for reading the manuscript so carefully and for a number of suggested improvements.

1. D. P. Robbins, H. Rumsey Jr, Determinants and alternating sign matrices. Adv. Math. 62, 169–184 (1986) 2. D. Bressoud, J. Propp, How the alternating sign matrix conjecture was solved. Not. Am. Math. Soc. 46, 637–646 (1999). 3. D. Bressoud, “Proofs and confirmations: The story of the alternating sign matrix conjecture” in MAA Spectrum (Mathematical Association of America and Cambridge University Press, Washington, DC, 1999), pp. xvi+274. 4. G. Andrews, Plane partitions III: The weak MacDonald conjecture. Invent. Math. 53, 193–225 (1979). 5. W. Mills, D. Robbins, H. Rumsey Jr, Proof of the MacDonald conjecture. Invent. Math. 66, 73–87 (1982). 6. W. Mills, D. Robbins, H. Rumsey Jr, Alternating sign matrices and descending plane partitions. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A. 34, 340–359 (1983). 7. W. Mills, D. Robbins, H. Rumsey Jr, Self-complementary totally symmetric plane partitions. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A. 42, 277–292 (1986). 8. C. Krattenthaler, “Plane partitions in the work of Richard Stanley and his school” in The Mathematical Legacy of Richard P. Stanley, P. Hersh, T. Lam, P. Pylyavskyy, V. Reiner, Eds. (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI), pp. 231–261 (2016). 9. P. Biane, H. Cheballah, Gog and GOGAm pentagons. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 138, 133–154 (2016). 10. D. Zeilberger, Proof of the alternating sign matrix conjecture. Electron. J. Comb. 13, 84 (1996). 11. G. Kuperberg, Another proof of the alternating-sign matrix conjecture. Int. Math. Res. Not., 1996, 139–150 (1996). 12. G. Andrews, Plane partitions V: The TSSCPP conjecture. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 66, 28–39 (1994). 13. R. Behrend, P. Di Francesco, P. Zinn-Justin, A doubly-refined enumeration of alternating sign matrices and descending plane partitions. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 120, 409–432 (2013). 14. D. Zeilberger, Proof of the refined alternating sign matrix conjecture. New York J. Math. 2, 59–68 (1996). 15. T. Fonseca, P. Zinn-Justin, On the doubly refined enumeration of alternating sign matrices and totally symmetric self-complementary plane partitions. Electron. J. Comb. 81, 35 (2008). 16. R. Behrend, I. Fischer, M. Konvalinka, Diagonally and antidiagonally symmetric alternating sign matrices of odd order. Adv. Math. 315, 324–365 (2017). 17. A. Ayyer, R. Behrend, I. Fischer, Extreme diagonally and antidiagonally symmetric alternating sign matrices of odd order. Adv. Math. 367, 1–56 (2020). 18. I. Fischer, A method for proving polynomial enumeration formulas. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 111, 37–58 (2005). 19. I. Fischer, The number of monotone triangles with prescribed bottom row. Adv. Appl. Math. 37, 249–267 (2006). 20. I. Fischer, A new proof of the refined alternating sign matrix theorem. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 114, 253–264 (2007). 21. I. Fischer, The operator formula for monotone triangles—Simplified proof and three generalizations. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 117, 1143–1157 (2010). 22. I Fischer, Refined enumerations of alternating sign matrices: Monotone (d, m) -trapezoids with prescribed top and bottom row. J. Algebr. Combin. 33, 239–257 (2011). 23. I Fischer, Linear relations of refined enumerations of alternating sign matrices. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 119, 556–578 (2012). 24. I. Fischer, Sequences of labeled trees related to Gelfand-Tsetlin patterns. Adv. Appl. Math. 49, 165–195 (2012). 25. I. Fischer, Short proof of the ASM theorem avoiding the six-vertex model. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 144, 139–156 (2016). 26. G. E. Andrews, “q-series: Their development and application in analysis, number theory, combinatorics, physics, and computer algebra” in CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics (Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1986), vol. 66, pp. xii+130. 27. A. M. Garsia, S. C. Milne, Method for constructing bijections for classical partition identities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 78, 2026–2028 (1981). 28. A. M. Garsia, S. C. Milne, A Rogers-Ramanujan bijection. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 31, 289–339 (1981). 29. I. Fischer, M. Konvalinka, A bijective proof of the ASM theorem, part I: The operator formula. Elect. J. Combin. 27, 3.35 (2020). 30. V. Voevodsky, C-systems defined by universe categories: Presheaves. Theory Appl. Categ. 32, 53–112 (2017). 31. A. Bauer, What is an explicit bijection? FPSAC 2019 invited lecture. http://videolectures.net/FPSAC2019 bauer explicit bijection/ (2019). 32. I. Fischer, M. Konvalinka, A bijective proof of the ASM theorem, part II: ASM enumeration and ASM-DPP relation. arXiv:1912.01354 (3 December 2019).

23466 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.2005525117 Fischer and Konvalinka Downloaded by guest on September 25, 2021