\section{Introduction}

The study of Eulerian partially ordered sets (posets) originated with Stanley
(\cite{Stanley-groups}).
Examples of Eulerian posets are the posets of faces of regular CW spheres.
These include face lattices of convex polytopes, the Bruhat order on
finite Coxeter groups, and the lattices of regions of oriented matroids.
(See \cite{Bjorner-CW} and \cite{BLVSWZ}.)

The flag $f$-vector (or simply flag vector) of a poset is a standard parameter
counting chains in the partially ordered set by ranks.
In the last twenty years there has grown a body of work on numerical conditions
on flag vectors of posets and complexes, especially those arising in geometric
contexts.
Early contributions are from Stanley on balanced Cohen-Macaulay complexes
(\cite{Stanley-balanced}) and Bayer and Billera on the linear equations on
flag vectors of Eulerian posets (\cite{Bayer-Billera}).
A major recent contribution is the determination of the closed
cone of flag vectors of all graded posets by Billera and Hetyei
(\cite{Billera-Hetyei}).
Results on flag vectors and other invariants of Eulerian posets and special
classes of them are surveyed in \cite{Stanley-Eulerian}.

Our goal has been to describe the closed cone
${\cal C}^{n+1}_{{\cal E}}$ of flag $f$-vectors
of Eulerian partially ordered sets.
This problem was posed explicitly in~\cite{Billera-Liu}.
The ideal description would give explicitly both the facets (i.e., crucial
inequalities on flag vectors) and posets that generate the extreme rays.
We have a complete solution only for rank at most seven.
For arbitrary ranks we give some of the facets and extreme rays.
The extreme rays of the general graded cone (\cite{Billera-Hetyei})
play an important role.
We introduce half-Eulerian partially ordered sets in order to incorporate
these limit posets in this work.

The remainder of this section provides definitions and other background,
and the definition of the flag $\mbox{$L$}$-vector, which simplifies the
calculations.
Section~\ref{half-Eul} describes the extreme rays of the general graded
cone, defines half-Eulerian posets,
identifies which limit posets are half-Eulerian, and computes the corresponding
$cd$-indices.
Section~\ref{sec-inequalities} gives two general classes of inequalities on
Eulerian flag vectors.
Section~\ref{sec-cone} shows that the half-Eulerian limit posets all give
extremes of
the Eulerian cone, identifies some inequalities in all ranks as facet-inducing,
and describes completely the cone for rank at most 7.

\subsection{Background}

\label{ss_gpo}
A {\em graded poset} $P$ is a finite
partially ordered set with a unique minimum element
$\hat{0}$, a unique maximum element $\hat{1}$, and a {\em rank function} $\rho:
P\longrightarrow \mbox{\bf N}$ satisfying $\rho (\hat{0})=0$, and
$\rho(y)-\rho(x)=1$ whenever $y\in P$ covers $x\in P$.
The {\em rank $\rho(P)$ of a graded poset $P$} is the rank of its maximum
element. Given a graded poset $P$
of rank $n+1$ and a subset $S$ of $\{1,2,\ldots,n\}$ (which we abbreviate
as $[1,n]$), define the {\em
$S$--rank--selected subposet of $P$} to be the poset
\[P_{S} := \{ x \in P\::\: \rho(x) \in S\} \cup \{ {\hat{0}},{\hat{1}}\}.\]
Denote by $f_S (P)$ the number of maximal chains of $P_S$. Equivalently,
$f_S(P)$ is the number of chains $x_1<\cdots<x_{|S|}$ in $P$ such that
$\{\rho(x_1),\ldots,\rho(x_{|S|})\}=S$. The vector
$\left(f_S (P)\::\: S\subseteq [1,n]\right) $
is called the {\em flag
$f$-vector} of $P$. Whenever it does not cause confusion, we write
$f_{s_1\,\ldots\, s_k}$ rather than $f_{\{s_1,\ldots,s_k\}}$; in particular,
$f_{\{m\}}$ is always denoted $f_m$.

Various properties of the flag $f$-vector are more easily seen in
different bases. An often used equivalent encoding is the {\em flag
$h$-vector}
\mbox{$(h_S(P)\::\: S\subseteq [1,n])$} given by the formula
\[h_S (P):= \sum _{T\subseteq S} (-1)^{|S\setminus T|} f_T(P),\]
or, equivalently,
\[f_S (P)= \sum _{T\subseteq S} h_T(P).\]
The {\em $ab$-index} $\Psi_P(a,b)$ of $P$ is a generating function
for the flag $h$-vector.
It is the following polynomial in the noncommuting variables $a$ and $b$:
\begin{equation}
\label{E_ab}
   \Psi_P(a,b)
  =
   \sum_{S \subseteq [1,n]} h_S (P)  u_S,
\end{equation}
where $u_S$ is the monomial $u_1 u_2\cdots u_n$ with $u_i=a$ if $i\not\in S$,
and $u_i=b$ if $i\in S$.

The {\em M\"obius function} of a graded poset
$P$ is defined recursively for any subinterval of $P$ by the formula
\[\mu ([x,y])=
\left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
1 & \mbox{if $x=y$},\\
-\sum_{x\le z<y} \mu([x,z]) &\mbox{otherwise}.\\
\end{array}
\right.
\]
Equivalently, by Philip Hall's theorem,
the M\"obius function of a
graded poset $P$ of rank $n+1$ is the
{\em reduced Euler characteristic} of the order complex, i.e.,
it is given by the formula
\begin{equation}
\label{E_MEc}
\mu (P)=\sum_{S\subseteq [1,n]} (-1)^{|S|+1} f_S(P).
\end{equation}
(See \cite[Proposition 3.8.5]{Stanley-EC}.)

A graded poset $P$ is {\em Eulerian} if the M\"obius function of every interval
$[x,y]$ is given by $\mu([x,y]) = (-1)^{\rho(x,y)}$.
(Here $\rho(x,y)=\rho([x,y])=\rho(y) - \rho(x)$.)

The first characterization of all linear equalities holding
for the flag $f$-vectors of all Eulerian posets was given by Bayer and
Billera in \cite{Bayer-Billera}.
The equations of the theorem are called the generalized Dehn-Sommerville
equations.
Call the subspace of ${\bf R}^{2^n}$ they determine the {\em Eulerian subspace};
its dimension is the Fibonacci
number $e_n$ ($e_0=e_1=1$, $e_n=e_{n-1}+e_{n-2}$).

\begin{theorem}[Bayer and Billera]
\label{T_BB}
Every linear equality holding for the flag $f$-vector of all Eulerian posets
of rank $n+1$ is a consequence of the equalities
\[\left((-1)^{i-1}+(-1)^{k+1}\right)f_S+\sum _{j=i}^k (-1)^j
f_{S\cup\{j\}}=0\]
for $S\subseteq [1,n]$ and
$[i,k]$ a maximal interval of $[1,n]\setminus S$.
\end{theorem}

Fine discovered that the $ab$-index of a polytope can be written as a
polynomial in the noncommuting variables $c:= a+b$ and $d:= ab + ba$.
Bayer and Klapper \cite{Bayer-Klapper} proved that for a graded poset $P$,
the equations of Theorem~\ref{T_BB} hold if and only if the $ab$-index is a
polynomial with integer coefficients in $c$ and $d$.
This polynomial is called the {\em $cd$-index} of $P$.
Stanley (\cite{Stanley-flag})
gives an explicit recursion for the $cd$-index in terms of intervals
of $P$ for Eulerian posets.
(He thus gives another proof of the existence of the $cd$-index for Eulerian
posets.)

\subsection{The flag \ensuremath{\ell}-vector and the flag  \mbox{$L$}-vector}
\label{s_ell}

The introduction of another vector equivalent to the flag $f$-vector
simplifies calculations.

\begin{definition}
\label{D_lv}
{\em
The {\em flag $\ensuremath{\ell}$-vector} of a graded partially ordered set $P$ of
rank $n+1$ is the vector $(\ensuremath{\ell}_S(P) \:: \: S\subseteq [1,n])$,
where
\[\ensuremath{\ell}_S(P):=
(-1)^{n-|S|} \sum_{T\supseteq [1,n]\setminus S}
(-1)^{|T|} f_T(P).\]
}
\end{definition}
As a consequence,
\begin{equation}
\label{E_fl}
f_S(P)=\sum _{T\subseteq [1,n]\setminus S} \ensuremath{\ell}_T(P).
\end{equation}
The flag $\ensuremath{\ell}$-vector was first considered by Billera and Hetyei
(\cite{Billera-Hetyei}) while
describing all linear inequalities holding for the flag $f$-vectors
of all graded partially ordered sets.
It turned out to give a sparse
representation of the cone of flag $f$-vectors described in that paper.

A variant significant for Eulerian posets is the flag $\mbox{$L$}$-vector.
\begin{definition}
\label{D_LV}
{\em
The {\em flag $\mbox{$L$}$-vector} of a graded
partially ordered set $P$ of
rank $n+1$ is the vector $(\mbox{$L$}_S(P) \::\: S\subseteq [1,n])$, where
\[\mbox{$L$}_S (P):= (-1)^{n-|S|}
\sum_{T\supseteq [1,n]\setminus S} \left(-{1\over 2}\right)^{|T|}
f_T(P).\]
}
\end{definition}

Inverting the relation of the definition gives
\[f_S(P)=2^{|S|}\sum _{T\subseteq [1,n]\setminus S} \mbox{$L$}_T(P).\]

When the poset $P$ is Eulerian,
the parameters $\mbox{$L$}_S (P)$ are actually the coefficients of the
{\em $ce$-index} of the poset $P$.
The $ce$-index was introduced by Stanley (\cite{Stanley-flag}) as an
alternative way of viewing the $cd$-index.
The letter $c$ continues to stand for $a+b$; now let $e:= a-b$.
The $ab$-index of a poset can be written in terms of $c$ and $d$ if and only
if it can be written in terms of $c$ and $ee$.
It is easy to verify that $\mbox{$L$}_S (P)$ is exactly the coefficient
in the \mbox{{\em $ce$-index}} of $P$ of the word
$u_S=u_1u_2\cdots u_n$ where
$u_i=c$ if $i\not\in S$,
and $u_i=e$ if $i\in S$.
Since the existence of the $cd$-index is equivalent to the validity of the
generalized Dehn-Sommerville equations, we get the following proposition.
(It can be proved directly from the definition of the
flag $\mbox{$L$}$-vector, yielding an alternative way to prove the
existence of the  $cd$-index for Eulerian posets.)
A subset $S\subseteq [1,n]$ is {\em even} if all the maximal intervals contained
in $S$ are of even length.

\begin{proposition}
\label{P_BBl}
The generalized Dehn-Sommerville relations hold for a poset $P$ if and only if
$\mbox{$L$}_S(P)=0$ whenever $S$ is not an even set.
\end{proposition}

The generalized Dehn-Sommerville relations hold (by chance) for some
nonEulerian posets.
A poset is Eulerian, however, if these relations hold for all intervals of
the poset.

\begin{corollary}
\label{P_EulerLV}
A graded partially ordered set is Eulerian if and only if
$\mbox{$L$}_S ([x,y])=0$
for every
interval $[x,y]\subseteq P$  and every subset $S$ of \mbox{$[1,\rho(x,y)-1]$}
that is not an even set.
\end{corollary}

\section{Half-Eulerian posets}
\label{half-Eul}

In this section we find special points in the closed cone of flag vectors
of Eulerian posets.
First consider the extremes of the closed cone of flag vectors of all graded
posets, found by Billera and Hetyei (\cite{Billera-Hetyei}).

\begin{definition}
{\em Given a graded
poset $P$ of rank $n+1$, an interval $I\subseteq [1,n]$, and a positive
integer $k$,
$\mbox{$D$}_I^k(P)$ is the graded poset obtained from $P$ by replacing
every $x\in P$ with rank in $I$ by $k$ elements $x_1,\ldots,x_k$
and by imposing the following relations.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[($i$)] If for  $x,y\in P$, $\rho(x)\in I$ and $\rho(y)\not\in I$,
then $x_i<y$ in $\mbox{$D$}_I^k(P)$ if and only if $x<y$ in $P$,
and $y<x_i$ in $\mbox{$D$}_I^k(P)$ if and only if $y<x$ in $P$.
\item[($ii$)] If $\{\rho (x),\rho (y)\}\subseteq I$, then $x_i<y_j$
in $\mbox{$D$}_I^k(P)$  if and only if $i=j$ and $x<y$ in $P$.
\end{enumerate}
}\end{definition}

Clearly $\mbox{$D$}_I^k P$
is a graded poset of the same rank as $P$.
Its flag $f$-vector can be computed from that of $P$ in a straightforward
manner.

An {\em interval system on $[1,n]$} is any set of subintervals of $[1,n]$
that form an antichain (that is, no interval is contained in another).
(Much of what follows holds even if the intervals do not form an antichain,
but the assumption simplifies the statements of some theorems.)
For any interval system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ on $[1,n]$, and any positive integer $N$,
the poset $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$ is defined to be the poset obtained from a chain
of rank $n+1$ by applying $\mbox{$D$}_I^N$ for all $I\in\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$.
It does not matter in which order these operators are applied.
(Different values of $N$ can be used for each interval $I$, but we do not
need that generality  here.)
Consider the sequence of posets for a fixed interval system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ as
$N$ goes to infinity.
Billera and Hetyei (\cite{Billera-Hetyei}) showed that the normalized flag
vectors of such a sequence converge to a vector on an extreme ray of the cone of
flag vectors of all graded posets.
More precisely,
\begin{theorem}[Billera and Hetyei]
\label{Billera-Hetyei theorem}
Suppose $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ is an interval system of $k$ intervals on $[1,n]$.
Then the vector
\[\left(\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} {1\over N^k}
f_S (P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}, N)):S\subseteq [1,n]\right)\]
generates an extreme ray of the cone of flag vectors of all graded posets.
Moreover, all extreme rays are generated in this way.
\end{theorem}

Unfortunately, none of the posets $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$ are Eulerian, and
none of these extreme rays are contained in the closed
cone of flag vectors of Eulerian posets.
However some of the posets are ``half-Eulerian'', and lead us to extreme
rays of the Eulerian cone.

For the interval system ${\cal I}=\{[1,1],[2,2],\ldots,[n,n]\}$,
abbreviate $\mbox{$D$}_{\cal I}^2(P)$ as $\mbox{$D$} P$, and call this the {\em horizontal
double} of $P$.
Thus the horizontal double of $P$ is the poset obtained
from $P$ by replacing every $x\in P\setminus \{\hat{0},\hat{1}\}$
with two elements $x_1,x_2$ such that $\hat{0}$ and $\hat{1}$ remain the minimum
and maximum elements of the partially ordered set, and
$x_i<y_j$ if and only if $x<y$ in $P$.
(In the Hasse diagram of $P$, every edge is replaced by $\Join$.)

\begin{definition}
{\em A {\em half-Eulerian poset} is a graded partially ordered set whose
horizontal double is Eulerian.
}\end{definition}
For more information on half-Eulerian posets, see \cite{Bayer-Hetyei}.

The flag $f$-vectors of $P$ and its
horizontal double are connected by the formula
$f_S (\mbox{$D$} P)=2^{|S|} f_S (P)$.
Thus,
\begin{equation} \label{elltoL}
\mbox{$L$}_S(\mbox{$D$} P)= \ensuremath{\ell}_S(P).\end{equation}

Applying the definition of Eulerian to the horizontal double of a poset
we get
\begin{proposition}
A graded partially ordered set $P$ is half-Eulerian if and only if for every
interval $[x,y]$ of $P$,
\[ \sum_{i=1}^{\rho(x,y)-1} (-1)^{i-1}  f_i ([x,y])=
 (1+(-1)^{\rho(x,y)})/2.\]
\end{proposition}

Corollary \ref{P_EulerLV}  can now be restated for half-Eulerian posets.
\begin{proposition}
\label{D_hE}
A graded partially ordered set is half-Eulerian if and only if
$\ensuremath{\ell}_S ([x,y])=0$
for every
interval $[x,y]\subseteq P$  and every subset $S$ of \mbox{$[1,\rho(x,y)-1]$}
that is not an even set.
\end{proposition}

The flag vectors of the horizontal doubles of half-Eulerian posets span
the Eulerian subspace, the subspace defined by the generalized
Dehn-Sommerville equations.
But the cones they determine may be different.
Recall ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal E}$ is the closed cone of
flag vectors of Eulerian posets.
Now write ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal D}$ for the closed cone of
flag vectors of horizontal doubles of half-Eulerian posets.
We do not know if the inclusion
${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal D}\subseteq {\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal E}$ is actually
equality.

For which interval systems $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ is $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$ half-Eulerian?

\begin{definition}
{\em
An interval system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ on $[1,n]$ is {\em even} if for every
pair of intervals $I,J\in \ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ the intersection $I\cap J$ has
an even number of elements. (In particular, $|I|$ must be even for every
$I\in \ensuremath{{\cal I}}$.)
}
\end{definition}

Our goal is to show that the posets $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$ are half-Eulerian if and
only if $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ is an even interval system.
For this we need to understand the intervals of the posets $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$.

\begin{proposition}
\label{P_limitint}
The interval $[x,y]\subseteq P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$ is isomorphic to \\
$P(\rho(x,y)-1,{\cal J},N)$, where
${\cal J}=\{I-\rho(x)\::\:
I\in \ensuremath{{\cal I}},\, I\subseteq [\rho (x)+1, \rho(y)-1] \}
$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\rho(x)=r$ and $\rho (y)=s$.
Construct $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$
by applying the operators $\mbox{$D$}_I^N$ for all $I\in\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ to a chain.
Since the order of applying these operators is arbitrary, we may
choose to apply first those for which $I$ is not a subset of
$[r+1,s-1]$.
At this point for every $x'$ of rank $r$ and $y'$ of rank $s$ with  $y'\ge x'$,
the interval $[x',y']$ is isomorphic to a chain of rank
$\rho (x',y')$. Applying the remaining operators $\mbox{$D$}_I^N$ leaves
the elements of rank at most $r$ or of rank at least $s$ unchanged, and
has the same effect on $[x',y']$ as applying the operators $\mbox{$D$}_{I-r}^N$
to a chain of rank $\rho (x',y')$.
\end{proof}

The effect on the flag $f$-vector of applying the operator $\mbox{$D$}_I^N$
to a poset of rank $n+1$ is given by the formula
\begin{equation}
\label{E_HDINf}
f_S (\mbox{$D$}_I^N(P))
=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
N f_S(P) & \mbox{if $I\cap S\neq \emptyset$,}\\
f_S(P) &\mbox{otherwise.}\\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
This enables us to write an \ensuremath{\ell}-vector formula.

\begin{lemma}
\label{E_HDINl}
For $P$ a graded poset of rank $n+1$, $S\subseteq [1,n]$, and $N$ a positive
integer,
\begin{equation}
\ensuremath{\ell}_S (\mbox{$D$}_I^N(P))
=N \ensuremath{\ell}_S(P)-(N-1)\sum_{T\cup I=S} \ensuremath{\ell}_T(P).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} From the definition of $\ell_S$ and equation~(\ref{E_HDINf}),
\begin{eqnarray*}
\ensuremath{\ell}_S(\mbox{$D$}_I^N(P))
&=&(-1)^{n-|S|} \sum_{R\supseteq [1,n]\setminus S}
(-1)^{|R|} f_R (\mbox{$D$}_I^N(P))\\
&=&(-1)^{n-|S|} \sum_{R\supseteq [1,n]\setminus S}
\!\!\! (-1)^{|R|} N f_R (P)  \\
& &
 \mbox{} -(-1)^{n-|S|} \sum_{R\supseteq [1,n]\setminus S \atop
   R\subseteq [1,n]\setminus I}
\!\!\!(-1)^{|R|} (N-1) f_R (P)\\
&=& N \ensuremath{\ell}_S(P)
 -(-1)^{n-|S|} \sum_{R\supseteq [1,n]\setminus S \atop
   R\subseteq [1,n]\setminus I}
(-1)^{|R|} (N-1) f_R (P)\\
\end{eqnarray*}
By (\ref{E_fl}), the coefficient in
$-(-1)^{n-|S|} \sum_{R\supseteq [1,n]\setminus S \atop
   R\subseteq [1,n]\setminus I} (-1)^{|R|} (N-1) f_R (P)$
of $\ensuremath{\ell}_T(P)$ is
\[ -(N-1)(-1)^{n-|S|} \sum_{R\supseteq [1,n]\setminus S \atop
   R\subseteq [1,n]\setminus (T\cup I)}
(-1)^{|R|}\, , \]
which is an empty sum if $(T\cup I)$ is not contained in
$S$, zero if $(T\cup I)$
is properly contained in $S$, and
$-(N-1)(-1)^{n-|S|}(-1)^{|[1,n]\setminus S|}=-(N-1)$ if
$(T\cup I)=S$.
This gives the recursion of the lemma.
\end{proof}

 From this we can determine which of the posets $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}, N)$ are half-Eulerian.

\begin{proposition}
\label{P_limitHE}
Let $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ be an interval system on $[1,n]$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ is an even system of intervals, then for all $N$ the partially
      ordered set $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$ is half-Eulerian.
\item If for some $N>1$, $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$ is half-Eulerian, then
      $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ is an even system of intervals.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Using Lemma~\ref{E_HDINl} we
can show by induction on $|\ensuremath{{\cal I}}|$ that for every $N$,
$\ensuremath{\ell}^{n+1}_S\left(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}, N)\right)$
is zero unless $S$ is the union of some intervals of $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$.
In particular, if $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ is an even system of intervals, then
$\ensuremath{\ell}_S\left(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}, N)\right)=0$ whenever $S$ is not an even set.
The same observation holds for every
interval $[x,y]\subseteq P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}, N)$ as well, since by
Proposition \ref{P_limitint} $[x,y]$ is isomorphic to $P(m,{\cal J}, N)$ for
some
$m\leq n$ and some even system of intervals $\cal J$. Therefore the
conditions of Proposition~\ref{D_hE} are satisfied by $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}, N)$ for
every $N$, if $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ is an even system of intervals.

Now assume $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ is a system of intervals that is not even.
First consider the case where $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$
contains an interval $I_m=[a,b]$ with $b-a$ even (hence $I_m$
is odd).
Let ${\cal J}=\{I_m-a+1\}=\{[1,b-a+1]\}$.
For $S$ nonempty, $f_S(P(b-a+1,{\cal J},N))=N$, so
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\ensuremath{\ell}_{[1,b-a+1]}(P(b-a+1,{\cal J},N))}\hspace*{.5in}\\
&=& \sum_{T\subseteq[1,b-a+1]} (-1)^{|T|}f_T(P(b-a+1,{\cal J},N))\\
   &=& 1+\sum_{{T\subseteq[1,b-a+1]}\atop{T\ne\emptyset}} (-1)^{|T|}N=1-N.
\end{eqnarray*}
So $\ensuremath{\ell}_{[1,b-a+1]}(P(b-a+1,{\cal J},N))\ne 0$ for $N>1$.
Fix $N>1$, and choose $x$ and $y$ in $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$ with $\rho(x)=a-1$,
$\rho(y)=b+1$, and $x\le y$.
Then by Proposition~\ref{P_limitint},
$\ensuremath{\ell}_{[1,\rho(x,y)-1]}([x,y])
=\ensuremath{\ell}_{[1,b-a+1]}(P(b-a+1,{\cal J},N))\ne 0$, with $|[1,b-a+1]|$ odd.
So $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$ is not half-Eulerian.

Now suppose $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ contains only even intervals, but some two intervals have an
odd overlap.
Let $I_p=[a,d]$ and $I_q=[c,b]$, where $a<c\le d<b$ and $d-a$ and $b-c$ are odd,
but $d-c$ is even.
Then $b-a$ is also even.
We show that we may assume no other interval of $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ is in the union
$I_p\cup I_q$.
Suppose $I_r=[e,f]$ is another interval of $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ with $[e,f]\subset [a,b]$
(and $f-e$ is odd).
Since $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ is an antichain, $a<e<c\le d<f<b$.
If $e-a$ is even, then
$|I_q\cap I_r|=|[c,f]|=f-c+1 = (f-e)+(e-a)-(d-a)+(d-c)+1$,
which is odd, because it is the sum of three odds and two evens.
If $e-a$ is odd, then $|I_p\cap I_r|=|[e,d]|=d-e+1=(d-a)-(e-a)+1$, which is odd
because it is the sum of three odds.
Thus, if two intervals of $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ have odd intersection and their union contains a
third interval of $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$, then two intervals of $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ with smaller union have
odd intersection.

So we may assume $I_p=[a,d]$ and $I_q=[c,b]$ have odd intersection, and their
union $[a,b]$ contains no other interval of $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$.
Let ${\cal J}
=\{I_p-a+1, \linebreak I_q-a+1\}
=\{[1,d-a+1],[c-a+1,b-a+1]\}
$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
f_S(P(b-a+1,{\cal J},N))}\hspace*{.5in}\\
&=&\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
             1 & \mbox{if $S=\emptyset$}\\
	     N^2 & \mbox{if $S\cap(I_p-a+1)\ne\emptyset$ and
			    $S\cap(I_q-a+1)\ne\emptyset$}\\
             N & \mbox{otherwise.}
             \end{array} \right.
\end{eqnarray*}
So
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
\ensuremath{\ell}_{[1,b-a+1]}(P(b-a+1,{\cal J},N))}\hspace*{.25in}\\
&=&
   \sum_{T\subseteq[1,b-a+1]} (-1)^{|T|}f_T(P(b-a+1,{\cal J},N))\\
   &=& \sum_{T\subseteq[1,b-a+1]} (-1)^{|T|}N^2
   + \sum_{T\subseteq[1,c-a]} (-1)^{|T|}(N-N^2)\\
   &+& \sum_{T\subseteq[d-a+2,b-a+1]} (-1)^{|T|}(N-N^2)
   + (1-2N+N^2) = (1-N)^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
So $\ensuremath{\ell}_{[1,b-a+1]}(P(b-a+1,{\cal J},N))\ne 0$ for $N>1$.
Fix $N>1$, and choose $x$ and $y$ in $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$ with $\rho(x)=a-1$,
$\rho(y)=b+1$, and $x\le y$.
Then by Proposition~\ref{P_limitint},
$\ensuremath{\ell}_{[1,\rho(x,y)-1]}([x,y])
=\ensuremath{\ell}_{[1,b-a+1]}(P(b-a+1,{\cal J},N))\ne 0$, with $|[1,b-a+1]|$ odd.
So $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$ is not half-Eulerian.
\end{proof}

As will be seen later, even interval systems give rise to extreme rays of the
cone of flag vectors of Eulerian posets.
It is of interest, therefore, to count them.

\begin{proposition}
The number of even interval systems on $[1,n]$ is
${n \choose \lfloor n/2\rfloor}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We define a one-to-one correspondence between even interval systems on $[1,n]$
and sequences $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_n)\in \{-1,1\}^n$
satisfying $\sum_i \lambda_i = 0$ if $n$ is even and
$\sum_i \lambda_i = 1$ if $n$ is odd.
Clearly there are ${n \choose \lfloor n/2\rfloor}$ such sequences.

For $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ an even interval system, define
$\lambda(\ensuremath{{\cal I}})=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_n)\in \{-1,1\}^n$,
where $\lambda_i = (-1)^i$ if $i$ is an endpoint of an interval
of $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$, and $\lambda_i = (-1)^{i-1}$ otherwise.
(Note that for an even interval system, no number can be an endpoint of
more than one interval.)
For \ensuremath{{\cal I}}\ an even interval system, summing $(-1)^i$ over the endpoints of
intervals gives 0.  So
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i &=& \sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^{i-1} +
			   \sum_{{\mbox{{\scriptsize $i$ endpoint}}}\atop
			     {\mbox{{\scriptsize of interval}}}}
                           2(-1)^i\\
                       &=&
			     \sum_{i=1}^n(-1)^{i-1}
		       = \left\{\begin{array}{rl}
				0 & \mbox{if $n$ is even}\\
				1 & \mbox{if $n$ is odd} \end{array}\right. .
\end{eqnarray*}

On the other hand, given a
sequence $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_n)\in \{-1,1\}^n$
satisfying $\sum_i \lambda_i = 0$ if $n$ is even and
$\sum_i \lambda_i = 1$ if $n$ is odd, construct an even interval system as
follows.
Let $s_1 < s_2 < \cdots < s_k$ be the sequence of indices $s$ for which
$\lambda_s = (-1)^s$.
Then
$ \sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^{i-1} =\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i
=\sum_{i=1}^n (-1)^{i-1} + \sum_{j=1}^k 2(-1)^{s_j}$, so
$ \sum_{j=1}^k (-1)^{s_j}=0$.
Thus the sequence of $s_j$'s contains the same number of even numbers as odd.
Construct an interval system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}} = \{[a_1,b_1], [a_2,b_2], \ldots, [a_m,b_m]\}$
($2m=k$) recursively as follows.
Let $a_1=s_1$ and let $b_1=s_j$ where $j$ is the least index such that $s_1$
and $s_j$ are of opposite parity.
Then $\ensuremath{{\cal I}} = {[a_1,b_1]}\cup \ensuremath{{\cal I}}'$, where $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}'$ is the interval system
associated with $s_2 < s_3 < s_4 <  \cdots < s_k$ with $b_1=s_j$ removed.
Clearly $[a_1,b_1]$ is of even length.
If $[a_1,b_1]\cap [a_i,b_i]\ne \emptyset$ for some interval $[a_i,b_i]$ of
$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}'$, then $a_i<b_1$, so by the choice of $b_1$, $a_i$ has the same parity
as $a_1$.  Thus $[a_1,b_1]\cap [a_i,b_i]=[a_i,b_1]$ is of even length.
Furthermore, $b_i$ and $b_1$ are of the same parity, since $a_i$ and $a_1$ are,
so again by the choice of $b_1$, $b_i>b_1$.
So the interval $[a_i,b_i]$ is not contained in the interval $[a_1,b_1]$.
The interval system $\{[a_m,b_m]\}$, is even, so by induction
$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ is an even interval system.

These constructions are inverses, giving the desired bijection.
\end{proof}

Recall that Billera and Hetyei (\cite{Billera-Hetyei}) found extremes of the
cone of flag vectors of graded
posets as limits of the normalized flag vectors of the posets $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$.
The next proposition follows easily by induction from Lemma~\ref{E_HDINl}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{P_limitl}
Let $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}=\{I_1,I_2,\ldots,I_k\}$ be a system of $k\geq 0$ intervals on~$[1,n]$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{
\lim_{N\longrightarrow \infty} {1\over N^k} \ensuremath{\ell}_S
\left(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}, N)\right)} \hspace*{.5in}\\
&=&\sum _{j=0}^k (-1)^j
\left|\left\{1\leq i_1<\cdots <i_j\leq k \::\:
I_{i_1}\cup \cdots \cup I_{i_j}=S
\right\}\right|.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}

Write $f_S(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}))=
\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} f_S(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N))/N^{|\ensuremath{{\cal I}}|}$.
The vector these form (as $S$ ranges over all subsets of $[1,n]$) is not the
flag $f$-vector of an actual poset, but it is in the closed cone of flag
$f$-vectors of all graded posets.
We call the symbol $P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}})$ a ``limit poset'' and refer to the flag vector
of the limit poset.
If $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ is an even interval system, then
$(f_S(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}})): S\subseteq [1,n])$ is in the closed cone of flag vectors
of half-Eulerian posets.
To get Eulerian posets the horizontal double operator is applied to
$P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}},N)$.
The vector $(f_S(\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}})): S\subseteq [1,n])$ is defined as a limit
of the resulting normalized flag $f$-vectors, and satisfies
$f_S(\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}))=2^{|S|}f_S(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}))$.
It lies in the cone ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{{\cal D}}$ of flag vectors of doubles of
half-Eulerian posets, a subcone of the Eulerian cone.

Recall (equation~(\ref{elltoL})) that the \ensuremath{\ell}-vector of a poset $P$ equals the
\mbox{$L$}-vector of its horizontal double $\mbox{$D$} P$.
The same holds after passing to the limit posets.
Thus, Proposition~\ref{P_limitl} gives
\[ L_S(\mbox{$D$} P(n,{\cal I}))
=\sum _{j=0}^k (-1)^j
\left|\left\{1\leq i_1<\cdots <i_j\leq k :\:
I_{i_1}\cup \cdots \cup I_{i_j}=S
\right\}\right|, \]
where $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}=\{I_1,I_2,\ldots,I_k\}$.

We look at the associated $cd$-indices of the ``doubled limit posets.''
Think of a word in $c$ and $d$ as a string with each $c$ occupying one position
and each $d$ occupying two positions.
The {\em weight} of a $cd$-word $w$ is then the number of positions of the
string.
Associated to each $cd$-word $w$ is the even set $S(w)$ consisting of the
positions occupied by the $d$'s.

\begin{proposition}
\label{cd}
For each $cd$-word $w$ with $k$ $d$'s and weight $n$, there exists an even
interval system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_w$ for which the $cd$-index of $\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_w)$ is $2^k w$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Fix a $cd$-word $w$ with $k$ $d$'s and weight $n$.
Write the elements of $S(w)$ in increasing order as $i_1$, $i_1+1$, $i_2$,
$i_2+1$, \ldots, $i_k$, $i_k+1$, and let $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_w$ be the interval system
$\{[i_1, i_1+1], [i_2, i_2+1], \ldots, [i_k, i_k+1]\}$.
Let $\Phi=2^k w$.  Rewrite the $cd$-polynomial $\Phi$ as a $ce$-polynomial.
Recall from Sections~\ref{ss_gpo} and~\ref{s_ell} that $c=a+b$, $d=ab+ba$, and
$e=a-b$, so $d = (cc-ee)/2$.
Thus, $\Phi$ is rewritten as a sum of $2^k$ terms. Each is the result of
replacing some subset of the $d$'s by $cc$, and the rest by $ee$; the
coefficient is $\pm 1$, depending on whether the number of $d$'s
replaced by $ee$ is even or odd.
Thus
\[ 2^k w = \sum_{J\subseteq [1,k]} (-1)^J w_J,\]
where $w_J=w_1w_2\cdots w_n$, with $w_{i_j}=w_{i_j+1}=e$ if $j\in J$
and the remaining $w_i$'s are $c$.
By the \mbox{$L$}-vector version of Proposition~\ref{P_limitl}, this is precisely the
$ce$-index of $\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}_w)$.
\end{proof}

In \cite{Stanley-flag} Stanley first found for each $cd$-word $w$ a
sequence of Eulerian posets whose normalized $cd$-indices converge to $w$.
Our limit posets are closely related to Stanley's, but this particular
construction highlights the important link between the half-Eulerian and
Eulerian cones.

Before turning to inequalities satisfied by the flag vectors of Eulerian
posets, we consider the question of whether the two cones
${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal D}$ and ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal E}$ are equal.
For low ranks the two cones are the same, as seen below.
We know of no example in any rank of an Eulerian poset whose flag vector
is not contained in the cone ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal D}$
of doubled half-Eulerian posets.
To look for such an example we turn to
the best known examples of Eulerian posets, the face lattices of polytopes.
In \cite{Stanley-flag} Stanley proved the nonnegativity of the
$cd$-index for ``$S$-shellable regular CW-spheres'', a class of Eulerian
posets that includes all polytopes.
By a result of Billera, Ehrenborg, and Readdy (\cite{Billera-Ehrenborg-Readdy}),
the lattice of regions of any oriented matroid also has a nonnegative
$cd$-index.
Proposition~\ref{cd} implies that nonnegative
$cd$-indices (and the associated flag vectors) are in the
cone generated by the $cd$-indices (flag vectors) of the doubles of limit posets
associated with even interval systems.
\begin{corollary}
${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal D}$
contains the flag vectors of all Eulerian  posets
with nonnegative $cd$-indices.
This includes the face lattices of polytopes and the lattices of regions of
oriented matroids.
\end{corollary}

\begin{conjecture}
The closed cone ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal E}$ of flag vectors of Eulerian posets is
the same as the closed cone ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal D}$
of flag vectors of horizontal doubles of half-Eulerian posets.
\end{conjecture}

\section{Inequalities}
\label{sec-inequalities}

Throughout this section we use the following notation.
\begin{definition}
{\em
The {\em interval system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[S]$ of a set $S\subseteq [1,n]$}  is the
family of intervals
$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[S]=\{[a_1,b_1],\ldots,[a_k,b_k]\}$, where
$S=[a_1,b_1]\cup \cdots\cup [a_k,b_k]$ and
$b_{i-1}<a_i-1$  for $i\geq 2$.
In other words, $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[S]$ is the collection of the maximal intervals contained
in $S$.
}
\end{definition}
Note that $S$ is an even set if and only if $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[S]$ is an even interval system.

The following flag vector forms can be proved nonnegative by writing them as
convolutions of basic nonnegative forms \cite{Billera-Liu,Kalai}. (See
\ref{S_ring}.)
The issue of whether they give all linear inequalities on flag vectors of
Eulerian posets was raised by Billera and Liu (see the discussion after
Proposition~1.3 in \cite{Billera-Liu}).
We give here a simple direct argument for their nonnegativity that avoids
convolutions.

\begin{proposition}[Inequality Lemma]
\label{ineqlemma}
Let $T$ and $V$ be subsets of $[1,n]$ such that for every
$I\in \ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V]$, $|I\cap T|\le 1$.
Write $S=[1,n]\setminus V$.
For $P$ any rank $n+1$ Eulerian poset,
\[\sum_{R\subseteq T}(-2)^{|T\setminus R| } f_{S\cup R}(P)\ge 0. \]
Equivalently,
\[ (-1)^{|T|}\sum_{T\subseteq Q\subseteq V} L_Q(P)\ge 0.\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The idea is that since no two elements of $T$ are in the same gap of $S$,
elements with ranks in $T$ can be inserted independently in chains with rank
set $S$.
For $C$ an $S$-chain (i.e., a chain with rank set $S$) and $t\in T$, let
$n_t(C)$ be the number of rank $t$ elements $x\in P$ such that $C\cup \{x\}$
is a chain of $P$.
Since every interval of an Eulerian poset is Eulerian, $n_t(C)\ge 2$ for all
$C$ and $t$.
So
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{R\subseteq T} (-2)^{|T\setminus R|} f_{S\cup R} (P)
&=& \sum_{R\subseteq T} (-2)^{|T\setminus R|}
    \sum_{\mbox{\scriptsize $C$ an $S$-chain}} \prod_{t\in R} n_t(C)\\
&=& \sum_{\mbox{\scriptsize $C$ an $S$-chain}}
    \sum_{R\subseteq T} (-2)^{|T\setminus R|} \prod_{t\in R} n_t(C)\\
&=& \sum_{\mbox{\scriptsize $C$ an $S$-chain}}
    \prod_{t\in T} (n_t(C)-2)\ge 0.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
So the flag vector inequality is proved.
The second inequality is simply the translation into \mbox{$L$}-vector form.
\end{proof}

Here are some new inequalities.

\begin{theorem}
\label{ijk-ineqs}
Let $1 \le i < j < k \le n$.
For $P$ any rank $n+1$ Eulerian poset,
\[ f_{ik}(P) - 2f_i(P) - 2f_k(P) + 2f_j(P) \ge 0. \]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First order the rank $j$ elements of $P$ in the following way.
Choose any order, $G_1$, $G_2$, \ldots, $G_m$ for the components of the Hasse
diagram of the rank-selected poset $P_{\{i,j,k\}}$.
For each rank $j$ element $y$ of $P$, identify the component containing $y$
by $y\in G_{g(y)}$.
Order the rank $j$ elements of $P$ in any way consistent with the ordering of
components.
That is, choose an order $y_1$, $y_2$, \ldots, $y_r$ such that $y_s<y_t$
implies $g(y_s)\le g(y_t)$.

A rank $i$ element $x$ {\em belongs} to $y_q$ if $q$ is the least index such
that $x < y_q$ in $P$.
Write $I_q$ for the number of rank $i$ elements belonging to $y_q$, and
$I'_q$ for the number of rank $i$ elements $x$ such that $x < y_q$, but $x$
does not belong to $y_q$.
Similarly,
a rank $k$ element $z$ {\em belongs} to $y_q$ if $q$ is the least index such
that $y_q  < z$ in $P$.
Write $K_q$ for the number of rank $k$ elements belonging to $y_q$, and
$K'_q$ for the number of rank $k$ elements $z$ such that $y_q  < z$, but $z$
does not belong to $y_q$.
Note that $I_q + I'_q \ge 2$ and $K_q + K'_q \ge 2$, since $P$ is Eulerian.
A flag $x<z$ {\em belongs} to $y_q$ if $x<y_q<z$ and $q$ is the least index such
that either $x<y_q$ or $y_q<z$.

Let $F= f_{ik}(P) - 2f_i(P) - 2f_k(P) + 2f_j(P)$.
Let $F_q$ be the contribution to $F$ by elements and flags belonging to $y_q$.
Thus,
\[F_q = I_q K_q + I'_q K_q + I_q K'_q - 2I_q - 2K_q + 2.\]

If $I'_q\ge 2$, then $F_q=I_q(K_q+K'_q-2)+(I'_q-2)K_q+2 \ge 2$.

If $I'_q=K'_q=0$, then $F_q=(I_q-2)(K_q-2)-2\ge -2$.

In all other cases it is easy to check that $F_q\ge 0$.

Suppose that the rank $j$ elements in component $G_\ell$ are
$y_s$, $y_{s+1}$, \ldots, $y_t$.
Then $I'_s = K'_s = 0$, so $F_s\ge -2$.
Furthermore, $I_t = K_t = 0$, because any rank $i$ element $x$ related to
$y_t$ must also be related to at least one other rank $j$ element, and it is in
the same component.
That rank $j$ element has index less than $t$, so $x$ does not belong to $y_t$.
This in turn implies $I'_t\ge 2$, so $F_t\ge 2$.
For all $q$, $s < q < t$, either $I'_q>0$ or $K'_q>0$, by the connectivity
of the component, so $F_q\ge 0$.
Thus $\sum_{q=s}^t F_q \ge 0$.
This is true for each component $G_\ell$, so $F=\sum_{q=1}^r F_q \ge 0$.
\end{proof}

These inequalities can be used to generate others by convolution (see
~\ref{S_ring}.)

Evaluating the flag vector inequalities of Proposition~\ref{ineqlemma} for the
horizontal double $\mbox{$D$} P$ of a half-Eulerian poset $P$ gives the inequalities,
for $S$ and $T$ satisfying the hypotheses of Proposition~\ref{ineqlemma},
\begin{equation}
\label{halfEulineq1}
\sum_{R\subseteq T}(-1)^{|T\setminus R| } f_{S\cup R}(P)\ge 0.
\end{equation}
These inequalities are valid not just for half-Eulerian posets but for {\em all}
graded posets.
The proof of Proposition~\ref{ineqlemma} uses only the fact that in every open
interval of an Eulerian poset there are at least two elements of each rank.
If the proof is rewritten using the assumption that in every open interval
there is at least one element of each rank, the
inequalities~(\ref{halfEulineq1}) are proved for all  graded posets.

Similarly, the flag vector inequalities of Theorem~\ref{ijk-ineqs} give
inequalities for half-Eulerian posets,
\[ f_{ik}(P) - f_i(P) - f_k(P) + f_j(P) \ge 0. \]
The proof of Theorem~\ref{ijk-ineqs} can be modified in the same way to show
these inequalities are valid for all graded posets.
The first instance of this class of inequalities was found by
Billera and Liu (\cite{Billera-Liu}).

We conjecture that all inequalities valid for half-Eulerian posets come from
inequalities valid for all graded posets.
Inequalities for half-Eulerian posets are to be interpreted as conditions in
the subspace of ${\bf R}^{2^n}$ spanned by flag vectors of half-Eulerian
posets, but we are describing them in ${\bf R}^{2^n}$.
Giving inequalities using linear forms in the flag numbers $f_S$ over
${\bf R}^{2^n}$, the statement is as follows.
\begin{conjecture}
Every linear form that is nonnegative for the flag vectors of all half-Eulerian
posets is the sum of a linear form that is nonnegative for all graded posets and
a linear form that is zero for all half-Eulerian posets.
\end{conjecture}

\section{Extreme Rays and Facets of the Cone}
\label{sec-cone}

We have described some points in the Eulerian cone ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{{\cal E}}$
and some inequalities satisfied by all points in the cone.
We turn now to identifying which of these give extreme rays and facets.

If $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ is an even interval system, then
$(f_S(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}})): S\subseteq [1,n])$
is on an extreme ray in the closed
cone of flag vectors of all graded posets, and is in the subcone of flag
$f$-vectors of half-Eulerian posets.
Therefore it is on an extreme ray of the subcone.

\begin{proposition}
For every even interval system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$, the flag vector of the limit poset
$P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}})$ generates an extreme ray of the cone of flag vectors of half-Eulerian
posets.
\end{proposition}

What does this say about the extreme rays of the cone of flag vectors of
Eulerian posets?
For every even interval system \ensuremath{{\cal I}},
the flag vector of $\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}})$ lies on an extreme ray of the subcone
${\cal C}^{n+1}_{{\cal D}}$, but we
cannot conclude directly that it lies on an extreme ray
of the cone ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{{\cal E}}$.
A separate proof is needed.

For the following proofs, we use the computation of $\ensuremath{\ell}_Q(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}))$
(and $\mbox{$L$}_Q(\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}))$)
from the decompositions of $Q$ as the union of intervals of $\cal I$
(Proposition~\ref{P_limitl}).

\begin{theorem}
For every even interval system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$, the flag vector of the doubled limit poset
$\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}})$ generates an extreme ray of the cone of flag vectors of
Eulerian posets.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We work in the closed cone of \mbox{$L$}-vectors of Eulerian posets.
The cone of \mbox{$L$}-vectors of Eulerian posets is contained in the subspace of
${\bf R}^{2^n}$ determined by the equations $L_S=0$ for $S$ not an even set.
To prove that  the \mbox{$L$}-vector of $\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}})$ generates an extreme ray,
we show that it lies on linearly independent supporting hyperplanes,
one for each nonempty even set $V$ in $[1,n]$.
Fix an even interval system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$.
For each nonempty even set $V\subseteq[1,n]$, we find a set $T$ such that
$T$ and $V$ satisfy the hypothesis of Proposition~\ref{ineqlemma} and
$\sum_{T\subseteq Q\subseteq V} L_Q(\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}))=0$.

{\em Case 1.} Suppose $V$ is the union of some intervals in \ensuremath{{\cal I}}.
Let $I_1$, $I_2$, \ldots, $I_k$ be all the intervals of \ensuremath{{\cal I}}\ contained in $V$.
Set $T=\emptyset$.
Then for each subset $J\subseteq [1,k]$, the corresponding union of intervals
contributes $(-1)^{|J|}$ to $L_Q(\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}))$, for $Q=\cup_{j\in J} I_j$.
Thus
$\sum_{T\subseteq Q\subseteq V} L_Q(\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}))=
\sum_{J\subseteq [1,k]}(-1)^{|J|}=0$.

{\em Case 2.} If $V$ is not the union of some intervals in \ensuremath{{\cal I}}, let $W$ be the
union of all those intervals of \ensuremath{{\cal I}}\ contained in $V$.
Choose $t\in V\setminus W$, and set $T=\{t\}$.
For $Q\subseteq V$, $L_Q(\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}))=0$ unless $Q\subseteq W$.
But if $Q\subseteq W$ then $t$ cannot be in $Q$.
So
$\sum_{\{t\}\subseteq Q\subseteq V} L_Q(\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}))=0$.

Now $\sum_{T\subseteq Q\subseteq V} L_Q(P)=0$ determines a
supporting hyperplane of the closed cone of \mbox{$L$}-vectors of Eulerian posets,
because the inequality of Proposition~\ref{ineqlemma} is valid, and the
poset $\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}})$ lies on the hyperplane.
The hyperplane equations each involve a distinct maximal set $V$, which is even,
so they are linearly independent on the subspace determined by the equations
$L_S=0$ for $S$ not an even set.
So the doubled limit poset $\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}})$ is on an extreme ray of the cone.
\end{proof}

Note how far we are, however, from a complete description of the extreme
rays.

\begin{conjecture}
For every positive integer $n$, the closed cone of flag $f$-vectors of
Eulerian posets of rank $n+1$ is finitely generated.
\end{conjecture}

\begin{lemma}[Facet Lemma]
\label{facetlemma}
Assume $\sum_{Q\subseteq[1,n]} a_QL_Q(P)\ge 0$ for all
Eulerian posets $P$ of
rank $n+1$.
Let $M\subseteq [1,n]$ be a fixed even set.
Suppose for all even sets $R\subseteq [1,n]$, $R\ne M$, there exists an
interval system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}(R)$ consisting of disjoint even intervals whose union is
$R$ and such that
$\sum_{Q\subseteq[1,n]} a_Q\ensuremath{\ell}_Q(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}(R)))= 0$.
Then
$\sum_{Q\subseteq[1,n]} a_QL_Q(P)= 0$ determines a facet of the
closed cone of \mbox{$L$}-vectors of Eulerian posets.
\end{lemma}
(Note that $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}(R)$ need not be $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[R]$.)

\begin{proof}
The dimension of the cone ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal E}$ equals the number of even
subsets (a Fibonacci number).
So it suffices to show that the vectors
$(\ensuremath{\ell}_Q(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}(R))))$ $\mbox{}=
(L_Q(\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}(R) )))$
are linearly independent.
To see this, note that
for every set $Q$ not contained in $R$, $\ensuremath{\ell}_Q(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}(R)))=0$.
By the disjointness of the intervals in $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}(R)$, there is a unique way to
write $R$ as the union of intervals in $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}(R)$.
So by Proposition~\ref{P_limitl}, $(\ensuremath{\ell}_R(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}(R))))=(-1)^{|\ensuremath{{\cal I}}(R)|}$.
Thus, $R$ is the unique maximal set $Q$ for which
$(\ensuremath{\ell}_Q(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}(R))))\ne 0$.
So the \mbox{$L$}-vectors of the posets $\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}(R))$, as $R$ ranges over sets
different from $M$, are linearly independent.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}
\label{ineq0}
The inequality
$\sum_{Q\subseteq[1,n]} L_Q(P)\ge 0$ (or, equivalently, \linebreak
$f_\emptyset(P)\ge 0$)
determines a facet of the closed cone of \mbox{$L$}-vectors of Eulerian posets of
rank $n+1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Apply the Facet Lemma~\ref{facetlemma} with $M=\emptyset$.
For a nonempty even set $R$, the interval system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[R]$ of $R$ is nonempty,
so $\sum_{Q\subseteq[1,n]} \ensuremath{\ell}_Q(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[R]))
=\sum_{{\cal J}\subseteq \ensuremath{{\cal I}}[R]} (-1)^{|{\cal J}|} =0$.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}
\label{facets}
Let $V$ be a subset of $[1,n]$ such that every
$I\in \ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V]$ has
cardinality at least $2$, and every $I\in \ensuremath{{\cal I}}[[0,n+1]\setminus V]$ has
cardinality at most $3$. Assume that $M$ is a subset of $V$ such that
every $[a,b]\in\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V]$ satisfies the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\em ($i$)}] $M\cap [a,b]= \emptyset,$ $[a,a+1]$, or $[b-1,b]$.
\item[{\em ($ii$)}] If $a\not \in M$ then $a-2\in \{-1\}\cup M$.
\item[{\em ($iii$)}] If $b\not \in M$ then $b+2\in \{n+2\}\cup M$.
\end{enumerate}
Then
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{facetineq}
(-1)^{|M|/2}\sum_{M\subseteq Q\subseteq V}L_Q(P)\ge 0
\end{eqnarray}
determines a facet of ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal E}$.
Furthermore, if we strengthen {\em ($i$)} by also requiring
$M\cap [a,a+2]=\emptyset$
for every $[a,a+2]\in\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V]$, then distinct pairs $(M,V)$ give distinct facets.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
If $M=\emptyset$, then conditions ($ii$) and ($iii$) force $V=[1,n]$ (or
$V=\emptyset$ if $n\le 1$).
The resulting inequality, $\sum_{Q\subseteq[1,n]} L_Q(P)\ge 0$, gives
a facet, as shown in Proposition~\ref{ineq0}.
Now assume that $M\neq\emptyset$.

Step 1 is to prove that inequality (\ref{facetineq}) holds for all Eulerian
posets.
Note that $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[M]$ is a nonempty collection of intervals of length two.  From
each such interval choose one endpoint adjacent to an element of
\mbox{$[0,n+1]\setminus V$}.
Let $T$ be the set of these chosen elements.
The Inequality Lemma \ref{ineqlemma} applies to these $T$ and $V$
because each interval of $V$ contains at most one interval of $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[M]$,
and hence at most one element of $T$.
The resulting inequality is
$(-1)^{|T|}\sum_{T\subseteq Q\subseteq V} L_Q \ge 0$.
Now $L_Q(P)=0$ for all $P$ if $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[Q]$ contains an odd interval.
So we can restrict the sum to even sets $Q$.
Since $Q$ must be contained in $V$, such a $Q$ must contain the
intervals of $M$.
Thus,
$(-1)^{|M|/2}\sum_{M\subseteq Q\subseteq V}L_Q(P)\ge 0$.

Step 2 is to prove that if $I\subseteq [1,n]$ is an interval of
cardinality at least 2 and $I$ contains an element $i$ not in $V$,
then $I$ contains an element adjacent to an interval of $M$.
If an interval from $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V]$ ends at $i-1$, then either $i-1\in M$ or
$i+1\in M$ by ($iii$) (since $i+1<n+2$).
Similarly, if an interval from $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V]$ begins at $i+1$, then either $i-1\in M$ or $i+1\in M$.
So assume no interval from $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V]$ begins at $i-1$ or ends at $i+1$.
The hypothesis of the theorem states that every interval from
$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[[0,n+1]\setminus V]$ has cardinality at most three.
Thus the
interval $[i-1,i+1]$ belongs to
$\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[[0,n+1]\setminus V]$. Hence $i-2\in \{-1\}\cup V$ and
$i+2\in \{n+2\}\cup V$. If $i-2=-1$ then $I\supseteq
[i,i+1]=[1,2]$, condition ($ii$) applied to $a=3$ yields $3\in M$, and
$2\in I$ is adjacent to $3$. The case when $i+2=n+2$ is dealt with
similarly. Finally, if $i-2$ and $i+2$ are both endpoints of
intervals from $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V]$, then, since $i\not\in M\cup\{-1,n+2\}$,
condition ($ii$) applied to $a=i+2$ and
condition ($iii$) applied to $b=i-2$ yield $i+2\in M$ and $i-2\in M$.
Either $i-1$ or $i+1$ belongs to $I$ and each of them is adjacent to
an element of $M$.

Recall that for $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ an even interval system, the vector
$(\ensuremath{\ell}_Q(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}})): \mbox{$Q\subseteq [1,n]$})$  is in the closed cone of
$\ensuremath{\ell}$-vectors of half-Eulerian posets.
Step 3 is to show that for each even set $R\ne M$, there exists an even
interval system $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ with $\cup_{i\in\ensuremath{{\cal I}}}I=R$ such that
$(-1)^{|M|/2}\sum_{M\subseteq Q\subseteq V}
\ensuremath{\ell}_Q(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}))=0$.

Let $R$ be an even set not equal to $M$.
If $M\not\subseteq R$, then for every $Q$ containing $M$,
$\ensuremath{\ell}_Q(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[R]))=0$.
Now suppose $M\subseteq R$, but $R\not\subseteq V$.
Let $I$ be an interval of $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[R]$ such that $I\not\subseteq V$.
Then $I$ contains an element adjacent to an interval of $M$.
Since $M\subseteq R$ and $I$ is a maximal interval in $R$,
$I\cap M\ne\emptyset$.
Thus every union of intervals of $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[R]$ containing $M$ must contain $I$ and
thus an element not in $V$.
So $\sum_{M\subseteq Q\subseteq V}\ensuremath{\ell}_Q(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[R]))=0$,
because all terms are zero.

Finally, suppose $M\subseteq R\subseteq V$ and $R\ne M$.
Let $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ be the interval system of $R$ consisting only of intervals of
length 2.
Then every interval of $M$ is in $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$.
This is because every interval of $M$ is of length 2, with at least one of
its endpoints adjacent to an element not in $V$.
So
$\sum_{M\subseteq Q\subseteq V} \ensuremath{\ell}_Q(P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}}))
=\sum_{\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[M]\subseteq {\cal J}\subseteq \ensuremath{{\cal I}}} (-1)^{|{\cal J}|}=0$,
since $R\ne M$ implies $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}\ne\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[M]$.

By the Facet Lemma \ref{facetlemma}, the inequality
$(-1)^{|M|/2}\sum_{M\subseteq Q\subseteq V}L_Q(P)\ge 0$
gives a facet of ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal E}$.

Now we show that under the added
condition $M\cap [a,a+2]=\emptyset$ for every $[a,a+2]\in \ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V]$,
the facets obtained are distinct.

Note that two $(M,V)$ pairs can give the same inequality only if they have the
same $M$, because $\mbox{$L$}_M$ is included in the linear form for $(M,V)$,
and $M$ is the minimal (by set inclusion) set for which $L_M$ is in the
form.
Now for fixed $M$, we show that $(M,V_1)$ and $(M,V_2)$ give distinct linear
inequalities when $V_1\neq V_2$. Since the sets $V_1$ and $V_2$ are
different, there is an interval $[a,b]$ such that
$[a, b]$ occurs in exactly one of $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V_1]$ or $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V_2]$. Let $[a,b]$
be a maximal interval with this property. Without loss of generality
assume $[a,b]\in\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V_1]$.
Then $[a,b]$ is contained in no interval of $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V_2]$.

{\em Case 1.} $M\cap [a,b]=\emptyset$.
Then for every $i$, $a\le i\le b-1$, the term $L_{[i,i+1]\cup M}$
occurs in the inequality for $(M,V_1)$.
At least one of these terms does  not occur in the inequality for
$(M,V_2)$, because $[a,b]\not\subseteq V_2$.

{\em Case 2.} $M\cap [a,b]=[a,a+1]$.
Since $M\subseteq V_2$ and $[a,b]\not\subseteq V_2$, $b>a+1$.
By the strengthened hypothesis on $M$,  $b\geq a+3$.
Then for every $i$, $a+2\le i\le b-1$, the term $L_{[i,i+1]\cup M}$
occurs in the inequality for $(M,V_1)$.
At least one of these terms does  not occur in the inequality for
$(M,V_2)$, because $[a,b]\not\subseteq V_2$.

{\em Case 3.} $M\cap [a,b]=[b-1,b]$.  The proof is similar to Case 2.

Thus, with the condition
$M\cap [a,a+2]=\emptyset$ for every $[a,a+2]\in \ensuremath{{\cal I}}[V]$, the facets given by
the theorem are all distinct.
\end{proof}

Theorem \ref{facets} may be restated and interpreted in terms of the
convolution of chain operators. We refer the interested reader to
\ref{S_ring} for that approach.

With the aid of PORTA (\cite{porta}), we verified that the theorems above
give all the extremes and facets of the Eulerian cone for rank at most 6.

\begin{theorem}
\label{rank6}
For rank $n+1\le 6$, the closed cone ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{{\cal E}}$
of flag vectors of Eulerian posets is finitely generated.
It has ${n \choose \lfloor n/2\rfloor}$
extreme rays, all generated by the flag vectors of the limit posets
$\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}})$ for $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ even interval systems on $[1,n]$.
It has ${n \choose \lfloor n/2\rfloor}$ facets, all
given by Proposition~\ref{ineq0} and Theorem~\ref{facets}.
\end{theorem}

At rank 7 the situation changes for both extreme rays and facets.

\begin{theorem}
\label{rank7}
{\em ($i$)} The cone ${\cal C}^7_{\cal E}$ is finitely generated,
with 24 extreme rays.
Twenty of the extreme rays are generated by
the flag vectors of the limit posets
$\mbox{$D$} P(n,\ensuremath{{\cal I}})$ for $\ensuremath{{\cal I}}$ even interval systems on $[1,6]$.

{\em ($ii$)} The cone ${\cal C}^7_{\cal E}$ has 23 facets.
Fifteen of the facets are given by the inequalities of
Theorem~\ref{facets}.
Four additional facets come from the Inequality
Lemma~\ref{ineqlemma}.
The remaining four come from Theorem~\ref{ijk-ineqs}.
\end{theorem}

The four special extreme rays of the rank 7 Eulerian cone have corresponding
rays in the half-Eulerian cone.
The generators for the half-Eulerian cone are all obtained by adding the
flag vectors of limit posets associated with noneven interval systems.
The  summands do not satisfy the conditions of Proposition~\ref{D_hE} for
half-Eulerian posets, but the sum does.
The calculations are easily done in terms of the $\ensuremath{\ell}$-vector, using
Proposition~\ref{P_limitl}.
Specific sequences of half-Eulerian posets have been constructed
whose flag vectors converge to these four extremes.
The half-Eulerian posets are obtained by ``gluing together'' posets
for each summand.
These are then converted to Eulerian posets by the horizontal doubling
operation.
Below are the sums of limit posets used.
Descriptions of the half-Eulerian posets are found in \ref{limit_posets}.

Extreme 1: $P\left(6,\{[1,2],[2,6]\}+\{[2,5],[5,6]\}\right)$

Extreme 2: $P\left(6,\{[1,3],[3,4],[4,6]\}+\{[1,2],[2,3]\}
+\{[4,5],[5,6]\}\right)$

Extreme 3: $P\left(6,\{[1,2],[3,4],[4,5]\}+\{[3,5],[5,6]\}
+\{[1,2],[2,5]\}\right)$

Extreme 4: $P\left(6,\{[1,2],[2,4]\}+\{[2,5],[5,6]\}
+\{[2,3],[3,4],[5,6]\}\right)$

\vspace{6pt}

Note that for rank at most 7, the two cones ${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal D}$ and
${\cal C}^{n+1}_{\cal E}$ are equal, because the generators of extreme rays
specified in Theorems~\ref{rank6} and~\ref{rank7} are horizontal doubles
of half-Eulerian limit posets.

Perhaps all the extreme rays of the half-Eulerian cone (if not the Eulerian
cone)
can be obtained by gluing together Billera-Hetyei limit posets.

A complete description of the closed cone of flag vectors of Eulerian
posets remains open, and, as mentioned before, the cone is not even known to be
finitely generated.
We do not know if convolutions of the inequalities of
Proposition~\ref{ineqlemma} and
Theorem~\ref{ijk-ineqs} completely determine the cone.
A better understanding of the construction of extreme rays as sums of
Billera-Hetyei limit posets would be valuable.

The study of Eulerian posets is motivated in part by questions about convex
polytopes.
Is the cone of flag vectors of all Eulerian posets the same as or close to the
cone of flag vectors of polytopes?
The answer is no.
The inequalities of Proposition~\ref{ineqlemma} can be strengthened considerably
for polytopes.
The proof of Proposition~\ref{ineqlemma} uses only the fact that in an Eulerian
poset each interval has at least two elements of each rank.
For convex polytopes, each interval is at least the size of a Boolean algebra
of the same rank.
Thus, for example, where Proposition~\ref{ineqlemma} gives that
$f_{1479}(P)-2f_{179}(P)\ge 0$ for Eulerian posets, for convex polytopes
the inequality $f_{1479}(P)-20f_{179}(P)\ge 0$ holds, because the rank 6
Boolean algebra has ${6\choose 3}=20$ elements of rank 3.
For ranks 4 through 7, we have verified that none of the extreme rays of the
Eulerian cone is in the closed cone of flag vectors of convex polytopes.


\section{#1}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

\sect{Introduction\label{intro}}

This paper is concerned with the level-one irreducible highest weight
representations and associated $q$-vertex operators of the simplest
quantum affine superalgebra $U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]$.

Free bosonic realization of level-one representations and the
corresponding $q$-vertex operators \cite{Fre92}
of quantum affine (bosonic) algebras have been investigated by a number
of groups (see e.g. \cite{Fre88,Ber89,Awa94,Jin95}). Such
kind of bosonization construction has been recently extended to the case of
type I quantum affine superalgebras $U_q[\widehat{sl(M|N)}],~M\neq N$
\cite{Kim97} and $U_q[\widehat{gl(N|N)}]$ \cite{Zha98a}. However,
the level-one irreducible highest weight representations and associated
$q$-vertex operators have been studied for $U_q[\widehat{sl(2|1)}]$
only \cite{Kim97,Yan99}. As is expected, the representation theory
of the super cases is much more complicated than that of the non-super cases.

It is well known by now that infinite dimensional irreducible highest weight
representations and associated $q$-vertex operators play a very
powerful role in the algebraic analysis of massive integrable systems (see e.g.
\cite{Dav93,Jim94,Koy94,Yan99,Hou99}). Under some reasonable assumptions
on the physical space of states, this algebraic analysis method
\cite{Dav93,Jim94}
based on the infinite dimensional non-abelian quantum affine
(super)algebra symmetries enables one to compute the correlation
functions and form factors of massive (super) integrable systems in the form of
integral representations.

In this paper we study in details the level-one
irreducible highest weight representations of  $U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]$
and associated vertex operators by using the free bosonic realization
given in \cite{Zha98a}.
We calculate  the exchange relations satisfied by the vertex operators,
and compute the characters and supercharacters associated with
these irreducible representations .

\sect{Bosonization of ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$ at Level-One}

\subsection{Drinfeld basis of  ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$}

The simple
roots for $\widehat{gl(1|1)}$  are
$\alpha_0=\delta-\varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_{2}$, $\alpha_1=\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_{2}$
with $\delta,~\{\varepsilon_1,~\varepsilon_2\}$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
(\delta,\delta)=(\delta,\varepsilon_k)=0,~~~~(\varepsilon_k,\varepsilon_{k'})=(-1)^{k+1}\delta_{kk'}, ~~
k,k'=1,2.
\end{equation}
The generalized symmetric Cartan matrix of
$\widehat{gl(1|1)}$  is degenerate. For the reason which will become clear
later in the construction of the vertex operator of ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$, we
extend the Cartan subalgebra \cite{Zha98a}
by adding to it the element $\alpha_2=\varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_2$.
The enlarged Cartan matrix of $\widehat{gl(1|1)}$ has elements
$a_{ij}=(\alpha_i,\alpha_j)$, $i,j=0,1,2$, so that the Cartan matrix
$(a_{ij}),~i,j=1,2$ of $gl(1|1)$ is invertible.
Denote by ${\cal H}$ the extended Cartan
subalgebra and by ${\cal H}^*$ the dual of ${\cal H}$.
Let $\{h_0,h_1,h_{2},d\}$ be a basis of ${\cal H}$, where  $d$
is the usual derivation operator.
Let $\{\Lambda_0,\Lambda_1,\Lambda_{2},\delta\}$
be the dual basis with $\Lambda_j$ being fundamental weights.
Explicitly \cite{Zha98a}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Lambda_{2}=\frac{\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_2}{2}, ~~~~
\Lambda_1=\Lambda_0+\frac{\varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_2}{2},~~~~\Lambda_0.
\end{eqnarray}
The quantum affine superalgebra ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$ is a quantum (or $q$-)
deformation of the universal enveloping algebra of $\widehat{gl(1|1)}$
 and is
generated by the Chevalley generators $\{e_i,\;f_i\;q^{h_j},\;d|
i=0,1,~j=0,1,2\}$.
The ${\bf Z}_2$-grading of the Chevalley generators is $[e_i]=[f_i]=1,~
i=0,1$ and zero
otherwise. The defining relations are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&hh'=h'h,~~~~~~\forall h\in {\cal H},\nonumber\\
&&q^{h_j}e_iq^{-h_j}=q^{a_{ij}}e_i,~~~~[d, e_i]=\delta_{i0}e_i,\nonumber\\
&&q^{h_j}f_iq^{-h_j}=q^{-a_{ij}}f_i,~~~~[d,f_i]=-\delta_{i0}f_i,\nonumber\\
&&[e_i,f_{i'}]=\delta_{ii'}\frac{q^{h_i}-q^{-h_i}}{q-q^{-1}},\nonumber\\
&&[e_i,e_{i'}]=[f_i,f_{i'}]=0,~~~~{\rm for}~~a_{ii'}=0,\nonumber\\
&&[[e_0,e_1]_{q^{-1}}, [e_0,e_{1}]_q]=0,~~
[[f_0,f_1]_{q^{-1}}, [f_0,f_{1}]_q]=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Here and throughout, $[a,b]_x\equiv ab-(-1)^{[a][b]}x ba$
and $[a,b]\equiv [a,b]_1$.

${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$ is a ${\bf Z}_2$-graded quasi-triangular Hopf algebra endowed with
the following coproduct $\Delta$, counit $\epsilon$ and antipode $S$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta(h)&=&h\otimes 1+1\otimes h,\nonumber\\
\Delta(e_i)&=&e_i\otimes 1+q^{h_i}\otimes e_i,~~~~
\Delta(f_i)=f_i\otimes q^{-h_i}+1\otimes f_i,\nonumber\\
\epsilon(e_i)&=&\epsilon(f_i)=\epsilon(h)=0,\nonumber\\
S(e_i)&=&-q^{-h_i}e_i,~~~~S(f_i)=-f_iq^{h_i},~~~~S(h)=-h,\label{e-s}
\end{eqnarray}
where $i=0,1$ and $h\in {\cal H}$.

${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$ can also be realized in terms of the Drinfeld generators
\cite{Dri88} $\{X^{\pm}_m,\; H^j_n,\; q^{\pm H^j_0}$, $c,\; d |
m\in {\bf Z},\; n\in{\bf Z}-\{0\},\;
j=1,2\}$.  The ${\bf Z}_2$-grading of the Drinfeld generators is
given by $[X^{\pm}_m]=1$, for $m\in{\bf Z}$ and
$[H^j_n]=[H^j_0]=[c]=[d]=0$ for all $j=1,2,\; n\in{\bf Z}-\{0\}$.
The relations
satisfied by the Drinfeld generators read \cite{Yam96,Zha97,Zha98a}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&[c,a]=[d,H^j_0]=[H^j_0, H^{j'}_n]=0,~~~~\forall a\in{U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}\nonumber\\
&&q^{H^j_0}X^{\pm}_nq^{-H^j_0}=q^{\pm a_{1j}}X^{\pm}_n,\nonumber\\
&&[d,X^{\pm}_n]=nX^{\pm}_n,~~~[d,H^j_n]=nH^j_n,\nonumber\\
&&[H^j_n, H^{j'}_m]=\delta_{n+m,0}\frac{[a_{jj'}n]_q[nc]_q}{n},\nonumber\\
&&[H^j_n,
   X^{\pm}_m]=\pm\frac{[a_{1j}n]_q}{n}X^{\pm}_{n+m}q^{\mp|n|c/2},\nonumber\\
&&[X^{+}_n, X^{-}_m]=\frac{1}{q-q^{-1}}\left(q^{\frac{c}{2}(n-m)}
  \psi^{+,1}_{n+m}-q^{-\frac{c}{2}(n-m)}\psi^{-,1}_{n+m}\right),\nonumber\\
&&[X^{\pm}_n, X^{\pm}_m]=0~~.
\label{drinfeld}
\end{eqnarray}
where $[x]_q=(q^x-q^{-x})/(q-q^{-1})$ and
 $\psi^{\pm,j}_{n}$ are related to $H^j_{\pm n}$ by relations
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n\in{\bf Z}}\psi^{\pm,j}_{n}z^{- n}=q^{\pm H^j_0}\exp\left(
  \pm(q-q^{-1})\sum_{n>0}H^j_{\pm n}z^{\mp n}\right).
\end{equation}
The Chevalley generators are related to the Drinfeld generators by the
formulae
\begin{eqnarray}
&&h_i=H_0^i,~~~e_1=X^{+}_0,~~~f_1=X^{-}_0,~~~
e_0=X^-_{1}q^{-H^1_0},~~~f_0=-q^{H^1_0}X^+_{-1},\nonumber\\
&&h_{2N}=H^{2N}_0,~~~h_0=c-H^1_0,
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Level-one free bosonic realization}
In this subsection, we briefly review the bosonization of
 ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$ at level one \cite{Zha98a}.

Let us introduce bosonic oscillators $\{a^j_n,\;c_n,\;Q_{a^j},\;
Q_{c}|n\in{\bf Z}, j=1,2,\}$ which
satisfy the commutation relations
\begin{eqnarray}
&&[a^i_n, a^{j}_m]=(-1)^{i+1}\delta_{ij}\delta_{m+n,0}\frac{[n]^2_q}{n},~~~~~
  [a^i_0, Q_{a^{j}}]=\delta_{ij},~~~~i,j=1,2,\nonumber\\
&&[c_n, c_m]=\delta_{n+m,0}\frac{[n]_q^2}{n},~~~~~
  [c_0, Q_{c}]=1.\label{oscilators}
\end{eqnarray}
The remaining commutation relations are zero. Corresponding to these
bosonic oscillators are the $q$-deformed free bosonic currents
\begin{eqnarray}
&&H^j(z;\kappa)=Q_{A^j}+A^j_0\ln z
   -\sum_{n\neq 0}\frac{A^j_n}{[n]_q}q^{\kappa |n|}z^{-n},\nonumber\\
&&c(z)=Q_{c}+c_0\ln z-\sum_{n\neq 0}\frac{c_n}{[n]_q}
   z^{-n},\nonumber\\
&&H^j_\pm(z)=
   \pm(q-q^{-1})\sum_{n>0}A^j_{\pm n}z^{\mp n}\pm A^i_0\ln q,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
&&A^1_n=a^1_n+a^{2}_n,~~~~
  A^{2}_n=\frac{q^n+q^{-n}}{2}(a^1_n-a^2_n),\nonumber\\
&&Q_{A^1}=Q_{a^1}-Q_{a^{2}},~~~~
  Q_{A^{2}}=Q_{a^1}+Q_{a^2}.\label{A-a}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent We introduce the Drinfeld currents or generating
functions
\begin{eqnarray}
X^{\pm}(z)=\sum_{n\in{\bf Z}}X^{\pm}_nz^{-n-1}~,~~
\psi^{\pm,j}(z)=\sum_{n\in{\bf Z}}\psi^{\pm,j}_nz^{-n}~, ~~j=1,2,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and the q-differential operator defined by
$\partial_zf(z)=\frac{f(qz)-f(q^{-1}z)}{(q-q^{-1})z}$.
Then ,
\begin{Theorem}\label{free-boson}(\cite{Zha98a}):
The Drinfeld generators of ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$  at level one are
realized by the free boson fields as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&c=1,\\
&&\psi^{\pm,j}(z)=e^{H^j_\pm(z)},~~~~j=1,2,\\
&&X^{+}(z)=:e^{ H^1(z;-\frac{1}{2})}\;e^{c(z)}:,\\
&&X^{-}(z)=:e^{ -H^1(z;\frac{1}{2})}\;\partial_z\{e^{-c(z)}\}:.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{Theorem}

\subsection{Bosonization of level-one vertex operators}

We consider the evaluation representation $V_z$ of ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$,
where $V$ is a two-dimensional graded
vector space with basis vectors $\{v_1,v_2\}$. The
${\bf Z}_2$-grading of the basis vectors is chosen to be $[v_j]=\frac{(-1)^j
+1}{2}$. Let $e_{j,j'}$ be the $2\times 2$ matrices satisfying
$e_{i,j}v_k=\delta_{jk}v_i$. Let $V^{*S}_z$ be the dual module of $V_z$
defined by $\pi_{V^{*S}}(a)=\pi_V(S(a))^{st},~ \forall a\in
U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]$, where $st$ is the supertransposition operation.

In the homogeneous gradation,
the Drinfeld generators are represented
on $V_z$ by \cite{Zha98a}
\begin{eqnarray}
H^1_m&=&\frac{[m]_q}{m}z^m
  (e_{1,1}+e_{2,2}),~H^{2}_m=-z^m\frac{[2m]_q}{m}q^me_{2,2},
~H^{2}_0=-2e_{2,2}\nonumber\\
H^1_0&=&e_{1,1}+e_{2,2},~X^{+}_m=(qz)^me_{1,2},~
  X^{-}_m=(qz)^me_{2,1},
\end{eqnarray}
and on $V^{*S}_z$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
H^1_m&=&-\frac{[m]_q}{m}z^m (e_{1,1}+e_{2,2}),~
H^{2}_m=z^m\frac{[2m]_q}{m}q^{-m}e_{2,2}~,
~~H^{2}_0=2e_{2,2},\nonumber\\
H^1_0&=&-e_{1,1}-e_{2,2},~~
X^{+}_m=q^{-1}(q^{-1}z)^me_{2,1},~
  X^{-}_m=-q(q^{-1}z)^me_{1,2}.
\end{eqnarray}

Now,  let
$V(\lambda)$ be the highest weight ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-module with the highest weight
$\lambda$. Consider the following intertwiners of ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules
\cite{Jim94}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi^{\mu V}_\lambda(z)&:&~~ V(\lambda)\longrightarrow V(\mu)\otimes V_z,
     \label{Phi}\\
\Phi^{\mu V^*}_\lambda(z)&:&~~ V(\lambda)\longrightarrow V(\mu)\otimes V^{*S}_z,
     \label{Phi*}\\
\Psi^{V\mu}_\lambda(z)&:&~~ V(\lambda)\longrightarrow V_z\otimes V(\mu),
     \label{Psi}\\
\Psi^{V^*\mu}_\lambda(z)&:&~~ V(\lambda)\longrightarrow V^{*S}_z\otimes V(\mu).
     \label{Psi*}
\end{eqnarray}
They are intertwiners in the sense that for any $x\in {U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$
\begin{equation}
\Xi(z)\cdot x=\Delta(x)\cdot\Xi(z),~~~~\Xi(z)=\Phi^{\mu V}_\lambda(z),~
   \Phi^{\mu V^*}_\lambda(z),~\Psi^{V\mu}_\lambda(z),~\Psi^{V^*\mu}_\lambda(z).
   \label{intertwiner1}
\end{equation}
These intertwiners are even operators, that is their gradings are
$[\Phi^{\mu V}_\lambda(z)] = [\Phi^{\mu V^*}_\lambda(z)] = [\Psi^{V\mu}_\lambda(z)]
= [\Psi^{V^*\mu}_\lambda(z)] = 0$. According to \cite{Jim94},
$\Phi^{\mu V}_\lambda(z)~\left(\Phi^{\mu V^*}_\lambda(z)\right)$ is called type I
(dual) vertex operator and
$\Psi^{V\mu}_\lambda(z)~\left(\Psi^{V^*\mu}_\lambda(z)\right)$ type II (dual) vertex
operator.
The vertex operators can be expanded in terms of the basis \cite{Jim94}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Phi^{\mu V}_\lambda(z)=\sum_{j=1}^{2}\,\Phi^{\mu V}_{\lambda,j}(z)
   \otimes v_j, ~~~~
\Phi^{\mu V^*}_\lambda(z)=\sum_{j=1}^{2}\,\Phi^{\mu V^*}_{\lambda,j}(z)
   \otimes v^*_j,\nonumber\\
&&\Psi^{V\mu}_\lambda(z)=\sum_{j=1}^{2}\,v_j\otimes \Psi^{V\mu}_{\lambda,j}(z),~~~~
\Psi^{V^*\mu}_\lambda(z)=\sum_{j=1}^{2}\,v^*_j\otimes \Psi^{V^*\mu}_{\lambda,j}(z).
\end{eqnarray}

The intertwining operators which satisfy (\ref{intertwiner1}) for
any $x\in U_q[\widehat{sl(1|1)}]$ have been constructed in \cite{Zha98a}.
We extend the construction to ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$ by requiring that the vertex
operators also obey (\ref{intertwiner1}) for the element $x=H^{2}_m$,
which extends  $U_q[\widehat{sl(1|1)}]$ to ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$.

Define
the even operators
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\phi(z)=\sum_{j=1}^{2}\,\phi_j(z)
   \otimes v_j, ~~~~
\phi^*(z)=\sum_{j=1}^{2}\,\phi^*_j(z)
   \otimes v^*_j,\nonumber\\
&&\psi(z)=\sum_{j=1}^{2}\,v_j\otimes \psi_j(z),~~~~
\psi^*(z)=\sum_{j=1}^{2}\,v^*_j\otimes \psi^*_j(z).
\end{eqnarray}
Assuming that $\phi(z)$, $\phi^*(z)$, $\psi(z)$ and $\psi^*(z)$
satisfy (\ref{intertwiner1}) for any $x\in{U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$ and  by using
the results in \cite{Zha98a} for $U_q[\widehat{sl(1|1)}]$, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\phi_{2}(z)=:e^{-H^{*,1}(qz;\frac{1}{2})+H^1(zq^2;\frac{1}{2})}
e^{c(qz)}:e^{-\sqrt{-1}\pi c_0},~~~~
-\phi_1(z)=[\phi_{2}(z)~,~f_1]_{q^{-1}},\nonumber\\
&&\phi^*_1(z)=:e^{H^{*,1}(qz;\frac{1}{2})}:e^{\sqrt{-1}\pi c_0},~~~~
q\phi^*_{2}(z)=[\phi^*_1(z)~,f_1]_{q},\nonumber\\
&&\psi_1(z)=:e^{-H^{*,1}(qz;-\frac{1}{2})}:
  e^{-\sqrt{-1}\pi c_0}~~,~~
  \psi_{2}(z)=[\psi_1(z)~,e_1]_{q},\nonumber\\
&&\psi^*_{2}(z)=:e^{H^{*,1}(qz;-\frac{1}{2})-H^1(z;-\frac{1}{2})}
\partial_z\{e^{-c(qz)}\}:e^{\sqrt{-1}\pi c_0},\nonumber\\~
&&q^{-1}\psi^*_1(z)=[\psi^*_{2}(z)~,~e_1]_{q^{-1}}.
\label{Vertex-operator}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where
\begin{eqnarray}
&&H^{*,1}(z;\kappa)=Q^*_{A^1}+A^{*1}_0\ln z-\sum_{n\neq
0}\frac{A^{*1}_n}{[n]_q} q^{k|n|}z^{-n},\\
&&A^{*1}_n=\frac{1}{q^n+q^{-n}}A^{2}_n,~~
A^{*2}_n=A^{1}_n,~~n\neq 0,\\
&&A^{*1}_0=\frac{1}{2}A^2_0,~~A^{*2}_0=\frac{1}{2}A^1_0,~~
  Q^*_{A^1}=\frac{1}{2}Q_{A^2},~~
  Q^*_{A^2}=\frac{1}{2}Q_{A^1}.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent Since $\phi(z)$, $\phi^*(z)$, $\psi(z)$ and $\psi^*(z)$
satisfy the same intertwining relations as $\Phi^{\mu V}_\lambda(z)$, $
\Phi^{\mu V^*}_\lambda(z)$, $\Psi^{V\mu}_\lambda(z)$ and $\Psi^{V^*\mu}_\lambda(z)$
respectively, we have
\begin{Proposition}:
The vertex operators $\Phi^{\mu V}_\lambda(z),\;
\Phi^{\mu V^*}_\lambda(z),\; \Psi^{V\mu}_\lambda(z)$ and $\Psi^{V^*\mu}_\lambda(z)$, if
they exist, have  the same bosonizaion as the operators
$\phi(z),\;\phi^*(z),\; \psi(z)$ and $\psi^*(z)$, respectively.
\end{Proposition}

\section{Exchange Relations of the Bosonized Vertex Operators}
In this section, we derive the exchange relations of the type I and
type II bosonized vertex operators of ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$. As expected, these
vertex operators satisfy the graded Faddeev-Zamolodchikov algebra.

Let $R(z) \in End(V\otimes V)$ be the R-matrix of  ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$,
defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
R(z)(v_i\otimes v_j)=\sum_{k,l=1}^{2}R^{ij}_{kl}(z)v_k\otimes v_l,~~~~
\forall v_i,v_j,v_k,v_l\in V,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where
\begin{eqnarray*}
& &R^{1,1}_{1,1}(z)=1,~~R^{2,2}_{2,2}(z)=
\frac{zq^{-1}-q}{zq-q^{-1}},~~
R^{21}_{12}(z)=\frac{q-q^{-1}}{zq-q^{-1}}~,\\
& &R^{12}_{12}(z)=R^{21}_{21}(z)=\frac{z-1}{zq-q^{-1}},~~
R^{12}_{21}(z)=\frac{(q-q^{-1})z}{zq-q^{-1}}~,
~~R^{ij}_{kl}(z)=0,~~{\rm otherwise}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent
The R-matrix satisfies the graded Yang-Baxter equation  on
 $V\otimes V\otimes V$
\begin{eqnarray*}
R_{12}(z)R_{13}(zw)R_{23}(w)=R_{23}(w)R_{13}(zw)R_{12}(z),
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent moreover enjoys : (i) initial condition, $R(1)=P$ with
$P$ being the graded permutation operator; (ii) unitarity condition,
$R_{12}(\frac{z}{w})R_{21}(\frac{w}{z})=1$ , where $R_{21}(z)=P
R_{12}(z)P$; and (iii) crossing-unitarity,
\begin{eqnarray*}
R^{-1,st_1}(z)R(z)^{st_1}=\frac{(z-1)^2}{(q^{-1}z-q)(zq-q^{-1})}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent The various supertranspositions of the R-matrix are given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
& &(R^{st_1}(z))^{kl}_{ij}=R^{il}_{kj}(z)(-1)^{[i]([i]+[k])},~~~~
(R^{st_2}(z))^{kl}_{ij}=R^{kj}_{il}(z)(-1)^{[j]([l]+[j])},\\
& &(R^{st_{12}}(z))^{kl}_{ij}=R^{ij}_{kl}(z)
(-1)^{([i]+[j])([i]+[j]+[k]+[l])}=R^{ij}_{kl}(z).
\end{eqnarray*}

Now we calculate the exchange relations of the type I and type
II bosonic vertex operators of ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$ in (\ref{Vertex-operator}).
Define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\oint dzf(z)=Res(f)=f_{-1},~~~~{\rm for~ a~ formal~ series~ function}
~ f(z)=\sum_{n\in {\bf Z}}f_nz^n.
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent Then, the Chevalley generators of ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$ can be expressed by
the integrals
\begin{eqnarray*}
e_1=\oint dz X^{+}(z),~~~~f_1=\oint dz X^{-}(z).
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent One can also get the integral expression of the bosonic vertex
operators $\phi(z)$, $\phi^*(z)$, $\psi(z)$ and $\phi^*(z)$ from
(\ref{Vertex-operator}). Using these integral expressions , we arrive at
\begin{Proposition}
: The bosonic vertex operators defined in (\ref{Vertex-operator})
satisfy the graded Faddeev-Zamolodchikov algebra
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\phi_j(z_2)\phi_i(z_1)=
\sum_{k,l=1}^{2}R^{kl}_{ij}(\frac{z_1}{z_2})
\phi_k(z_1)\phi_l(z_2)(-1)^{[i][j]},\label{ZF1}\\
&&\psi^*_i(z_1)\psi^*_j(z_2)=
\sum_{k,l=1}^{2}R^{ij}_{kl}(\frac{z_1}{z_2})
\psi^*_l(z_2)\psi^*_k(z_1)(-1)^{[i][j]},\\
&&\psi^*_i(z_1)\phi_j(z_2)=
\phi_j(z_2)\psi^*_i(z_1)(-1)^{[i][j]},\label{ZF2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and the following invertibility relations
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi_i(z)\phi^*_j(z)=-q\delta_{ij}~id.
\end{eqnarray*}

\end{Proposition}
In the derivation of this proposition the fact that $R^{kl}_{ij}(z)
(-1)^{[k][l]}=R^{kl}_{ij}(z)(-1)^{[i][j]}$ is helpful.

\sect{Irreducible Highest Weight ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules at Level-One }

In this section we study in details the irreducible ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-module structure
in the Fock  space.

We begin by defining the Fock module. Denote by
$F_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3}$ the bosonic Fock
spaces generated by $a_{-m}^i,c_{-m} (m>0)$
 over the vector $|\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3>$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
F_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3}=
{\bf C}[a^1_{-1},a^2_{-1}, a^1_{-2},a^2_{-2}, \cdots;c_{-1},c_{-2},\cdots]
|\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3>,
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent where
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3>=
e^{\sum_{i=1}^{2}\lambda_iQ_{a^i}+\lambda_3Q_{c}}|0>.
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent The vacuum vector $|0>$ is defined by
$a^i_m|0>=c_m|0>=0$ for $i=1,2$ and $m\geq 0$. Obviously,
\begin{eqnarray*}
a^i_m|\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3>=0,~~
c_m|\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3>=0,~~
{\rm for}~i=1,2~~{\rm
and}~~
m>0~~.
\end{eqnarray*}
To obtain the highest weight vectors of ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$, we impose the
conditions:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&e_i|\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3>=0,~~~i=0,1,~{\rm and}~~
h_j|\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3>=\lambda^j|\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3>,~~~
j=0,1,2.
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent Solving these equations, we obtain the following classification:
\begin{itemize}
\item $(\lambda_1,\lambda_2;\lambda_3)=(\beta-\alpha,-\beta;\alpha)$, where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are
arbitrary complex numbers. The weight of this vector is $(\lambda^0,\lambda^1,\lambda^2)$=$
(1+\alpha,-\alpha,2\beta-\alpha)$. We have
$|(1+\alpha)\Lambda_0-\alpha\Lambda_1+(2\beta-\alpha)\beta\Lambda_2>$=$|\beta-\alpha,-\beta;\alpha>$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent According to this classification, let us introduce the Fock
spaces
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}=\oplus_{i\in {\bf Z}}
F_{\beta-\alpha+i,\;-\beta-i;\;\alpha+i}~~.\label{Fack-space}
\end{eqnarray}
It can be shown that the bosonized action of ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$ on ${\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$
 is closed :${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]} {\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}={\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$.
Hence each Fack space (\ref{Fack-space})
constitutes a ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-module. However, these modules are  not
irreducible in general. To obtain the irreducible representations  , we
introduce a pair of fermionic currents \cite{Kim97,Yan99}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta(z)=\sum_{n\in {\bf Z}}\eta_nz^{-n-1}=:e^{c(z)}:~,~~
\xi(z)=\sum_{n\in {\bf Z}}\xi_nz^{-n}=:e^{-c(z)}:.
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent The mode expansion of $\eta(z)$ and $\xi(z)$ is well
defined on ${\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$ with
$\alpha\in {\bf Z}$, and
the modes satisfy the relations
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\xi_m\xi_n+\xi_n\xi_m=\eta_m\eta_n+\eta_n\eta_m=0~,~~
\xi_m\eta_n+\eta_n\xi_m=\delta_{m+n,0}~~.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, $\eta_0\xi_0$ and $\xi_0\eta_0$ qualify as
projectors . So we use them to decompose ${\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$ into a
direct sum ${\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}=\eta_0\xi_0{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}\oplus
\xi_0\eta_0{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$. Following \cite{Kim97},
$\eta_0\xi_0{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$ is referred to as $Ker_{\eta_0}$ and
 $\xi_0\eta_0{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}={\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}/\eta_0\xi_0{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$ as
$Coker_{\eta_0}$. Since $\eta_0$ commutes (anti-commutes) with
${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$, $Ker_{\eta_0}$ and $Coker_{\eta_0}$ are both
${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules.
\subsection{Characters and supercharacters}

In this subsection, we study the character and supercharacter formulas of
these ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules which are constructed in the bosonic Fock spaces.
We first of all bosonize the derivation operator $d$ as
\begin{eqnarray*}
d=-\sum_{1\leq m}\frac{m^2}{[m]_q[2m]_q}\{
A^1_{-m}A^2_m+A^2_{-m}A^1_m+\frac{[2m]_q}{[m]_q}c_{-m}c_m\}
-\frac{1}{2}\{A^1_0A^2_0+c_0(c_0+1)\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent One can  check that this $d$ obeys the commutation
relations
\begin{eqnarray*}
[d,h_i]=0,~~~~[d,h^i_m]=mh^i_m,~~~~[d,X^{\pm}_m]=mX^{\pm}_m,~~~
i=1,2,
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent as required. Moreover, we have $[d,\xi_0]=[d,\eta_0]=0$.

The character and supercharacter of a ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-module $M$ are defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&Ch_{M}(q,x,y)=tr_M(q^{-d}x^{h_1}y^{h_2})~,\\
&&Sch_{M}(q,x,y)=Str_M(q^{-d}x^{h_1}y^{h_2})=
tr_M((-1)^{N_f}q^{-d}x^{h_1}y^{h_2}),
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent respectively. The Fermi-number operator $N_f$ can be also
bosonized by $N_f=c_0$. Indeed, such a bosonized operator satisfies
\begin{eqnarray*}
(-1)^{N_f}\Xi(z)=(-1)^{[\Xi(z)]}\Xi(z),~{\rm for}~ \Xi(z)=X^{\pm,i}(z),
\phi_i(z),\phi^*_i,\psi_i(z),\psi^*_i(z),
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent as required. Then we have the following result:
\begin{itemize}
\item  (I) {\it Character of ${\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$ for $\alpha\not\in {\bf Z}$}. Since
$\eta_0$ is not defined on this module, it is expected
that ${\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$ is actually irreducible. We thus have
\end{itemize}

\begin{Proposition}:
The character and supercharacter of ${\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&Ch_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}(q,x,y)
=\frac{q^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha(2\alpha-2\beta+1)}}{\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^n)^3}
\sum_{i\in {\bf Z}}q^{\frac{1}{2}(i^2+i)}
x^{-\alpha}y^{2\beta-\alpha+2i},\nonumber\\
&&Sch_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}(q,x,y)
=\frac{q^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha(2\alpha-2\beta+1)}}{\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^n)^3}
\sum_{i\in {\bf Z}}(-1)^{\alpha+i}q^{\frac{1}{2}(i^2+i)}
x^{-\alpha}y^{2\beta-\alpha+2i}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{Proposition}

\begin{itemize}
\item (II) {\it Characters and supercharacters of $Ker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}$
and  $Coker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}$,
 for $ \alpha\in {\bf Z}$}. In this case, $\eta_0$ is well defined on
$Ker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}$
and  $Coker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}$. So we compute the characters and
supercharacters  of these modules
by using the BRST resolution \cite{Yan99}.
\end{itemize}

Let us define the Fock spaces, for $l\in{\bf Z}$
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal F}^{(l)}_{(\alpha;\beta)}=\oplus_{i\in {\bf Z}}F_{\beta-\alpha+i,\;-\beta-i;\;\alpha+i+l}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent We have ${\cal F}^{(0)}_{(\alpha;\beta)}={\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$.
It can be shown that
$\eta_0$  intertwine these Fock spaces as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\eta_0:~{\cal F}^{(l)}_{(\alpha;\beta)}\longrightarrow
{\cal F}^{(l+1)}_{(\alpha;\beta)}~,~~\\
&&\xi_0:~{\cal F}^{(l)}_{(\alpha;\beta)}\longrightarrow
{\cal F}^{(l-1)}_{(\alpha;\beta)}~.
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent We have the following  BRST complexes:
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\cdots &\stackrel{Q_{l-1}=\eta_0}{\longrightarrow}&
{\cal F}^{(l)}_{(\alpha;\beta)}&\stackrel{Q_{l}=\eta_0}{\longrightarrow}&
{\cal F}^{(l+1)}_{(\alpha;\beta)}&\stackrel{Q_{l+1}=\eta_0}{\longrightarrow}&
\cdots\\
&&|{\bf O}&&|{\bf O}&&\\
\cdots &\stackrel{Q_{l-1}=\eta_0}{\longrightarrow}&
{\cal F}^{(l)}_{(\alpha;\beta)}&\stackrel{Q_{l}=\eta_0}{\longrightarrow}&
{\cal F}^{(l+1)}_{(\alpha;\beta)}&\stackrel{Q_{l+1}=\eta_0}{\longrightarrow}&
\cdots
\end{array}\label{BRST}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where ${\bf O}$ is an operator such that
${\cal F}^{(l)}_{(\alpha;\beta)}\longrightarrow {\cal F}^{(l)}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$.
We can get
\begin{Proposition}\label{brst}
:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&Ker_{Q_l}=Im_{Q_{l-1}},~ ~{\rm for~ any~} l\in {\bf Z},~~~{\rm and }~~
\nonumber\\
&&tr({\bf O})|_{Ker_{Q_l}}=tr({\bf O})|_{Im_{Q_{l-1}}}
=tr({\bf O})|_{Coker_{Q_{l-1}}}~~.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{Proposition}
\noindent {\it Proof}. It follows from the fact that
$\eta_0\xi_0+\xi_0\eta_0=1$, $(\eta_0)^2=(\xi_0)^2=0$ and
$\eta_0\xi_0$ ($\xi_0\eta_0$) is the projection operator
from ${\cal F}^{(l)}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$ to $Ker_{Q_{l}}$
($Coker_{Q_{l}}$).

\vspace{0.4truecm}

In the following we simply write $Ker_{\eta_0}$
 and $Coker_{\eta_0}$  of ${\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}$ as $Ker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}$ and
$Coker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}$, respectively. By proposition \ref{brst},
we can compute the characters and
supercharacters of $Ker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}$ and  $Coker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}$,
for $  \alpha\in {\bf Z}$. We have
\begin{Proposition}
: The character and
supercharacter of $Ker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}$ and $Coker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}$
for $\alpha\in {\bf Z}$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&Ch_{Ker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}}(q,x,y)
=\frac{q^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha(2\alpha-2\beta+1)}}{\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^n)^3}
\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{l+1}q^{\frac{1}{2}(l^2-(1+2\alpha)l)}
\sum_{i\in
{\bf Z}}q^{\frac{1}{2}(i^2+(1-2l)i)}
x^{-\alpha}y^{2\beta-\alpha+2i},\nonumber\\
&&Ch_{Coker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}}(q,x,y)
=\frac{q^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha(2\alpha-2\beta+1)}}{\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^n)^3}
\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{l+1}q^{\frac{1}{2}(l^2+(1+2\alpha)l)}
\sum_{i\in
{\bf Z}}q^{\frac{1}{2}(i^2+(1+2l)i)}
x^{-\alpha}y^{2\beta-\alpha+2i},\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&Sch_{Ker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}}(q,x,y)
=-\frac{q^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha(2\alpha-2\beta+1)}}{\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^n)^3}
\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}q^{\frac{1}{2}(l^2-(1+2\alpha)l)}
\sum_{i\in
{\bf Z}}(-1)^iq^{\frac{1}{2}(i^2+(1-2l)i)}
(-x)^{-\alpha}y^{2\beta-\alpha+2i},\nonumber\\
&&Sch_{Coker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}}}(q,x,y)
=-\frac{q^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha(2\alpha-2\beta+1)}}{\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}(1-q^n)^3}
\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}q^{\frac{1}{2}(l^2+(1+2\alpha)l)}
\sum_{i\in
{\bf Z}}(-1)^iq^{\frac{1}{2}(i^2+(1+2l)i)}
(-x)^{-\alpha}y^{2\beta-\alpha+2i}.\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
\end{Proposition}
\noindent{\it Proof}.
Thanks to the resolution of BRST complexes (\ref{BRST}) ,
the trace over $Ker$ and $Coker$ can be
written as the sum of trace over ${\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}^{(l)}$.
The latter can be
computed by the technique introduced in \cite{Cla73}.

Note that ${\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}^{(1)}={\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta-1)}$, we have
\begin{Corollary}
: The following relations hold for any $\alpha\in {\bf Z}$ and $\beta$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&Ch_{Coker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta+1)}}}=Ch_{Ker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha,\beta)}}}~,\\
&&Sch_{Coker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta+1)}}}=Sch_{Ker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha,\beta)}}}~.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{Corollary}

\subsection{${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-module structure of ${\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta+\frac{3}{2}\alpha)}$}
It is easy to see  that the vector
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\beta+\frac{\alpha}{2},-\beta-\frac{3}{2}\alpha;\alpha>\in {\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta+\frac{3}{2}\alpha)}
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent plays the role of the highest weight vectors of ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules.
We  can also check that
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\eta_0|\beta+\frac{\alpha}{2},-\beta-\frac{3}{2}\alpha;\alpha>=0,~~~{\rm
for}~\alpha=0,1,2,3,\cdots,\label{Ker1}\\
&&\eta_0|\beta+\frac{\alpha}{2},-\beta-\frac{3}{2}\alpha;\alpha>\neq 0,~~~{\rm
for}~\alpha=-1,-2,-3,\cdots.\label{Ker2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent It follows that the modules
$Ker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta+\frac{3}{2}\alpha)}}~~(\alpha=0,1,2,3,\cdots)$  and
$Coker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta+\frac{3}{2}\alpha)}}~~(\alpha=-1,-2,-3,\cdots)$  are highest
weight ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules. Set
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{\alpha,\beta}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(1+\alpha)\Lambda_0-\alpha\Lambda_1+(2\beta+2\alpha)\Lambda_2& {\rm for }~~\alpha\not\in{\bf Z}\\
(1+\alpha)\Lambda_0-\alpha\Lambda_1+(2\beta+2\alpha)\Lambda_2& {\rm for }~~\alpha=0,1,2,3,\cdots\\
(1+\alpha)\Lambda_0-\alpha\Lambda_1+(2\beta+2\alpha+2)\Lambda_2& {\rm for }~~\alpha=-1,-2,-3,\cdots
\end{array}
\right..
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent Denote by $\overline{V}(\lambda_{\alpha,\beta})$ the highest weight
${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules with the highest weights $\lambda_{\alpha,\beta}$. From
(\ref{Ker1})-(\ref{Ker2}) and corollary 1, we obtain

\begin{Theorem}:
 We have the following identifications of the highest
weight ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules:
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{V}(\lambda_{\alpha;\beta})
&\cong& Ker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta+\frac{3}{2}\alpha) }}\equiv
 Coker_{{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta+\frac{3}{2}\alpha+1) }},~~ {\rm for}~~\alpha\in{\bf Z}\nonumber\\
&\cong&{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta+\frac{3}{2}\alpha) },~~~~{\rm for}~~~\alpha\not\in{\bf Z}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and when $\alpha\in{\bf Z}$ each Fock space
${\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta+\frac{3}{2}\alpha) }$
can also be
decomposed explicitly into a direct sum of the highest weight
${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta+\frac{3}{2}\alpha) }=\overline{V}(\lambda_{\alpha,\beta})\oplus \overline{V}(\lambda_{\alpha,\beta-1}),~~
  {\rm for}~~\alpha\in{\bf Z}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{Theorem}

It is expected that the modules  $\overline{V}(\lambda_{\alpha,\beta})$ are also irreducible with
respect to the action of ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$. We thus state

\vspace{0.4truecm}
\noindent{\bf Conjecture 1}: {\it
$\overline{V}(\lambda_{\alpha,\beta})$ are the
irreducible highest weight ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules with the highest weight
 $\lambda_{\alpha,\beta}$ , i.e
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\overline{V}(\lambda_{\alpha,\beta})=V(\lambda_{\alpha,\beta}),
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent where $V(\lambda)$ denotes the irreducible highest weight
${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-module with the highest weight $\lambda$.}

\subsection{Vertex operators  over the irreducible highest
weight ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules }
In this subsection we study the action of  type I and type II vertex
operators of ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$  on the irreducible highest weight ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules.

Using the bosonic representations of the vertex operators
 (\ref{Vertex-operator}), we have the homomorphisms of
${U_q[\widehat{gl(2|2)}]}$-modules:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\phi(z):~{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}\longrightarrow{\cal F}_{(\alpha+1;\beta)}\otimes
V_z~,~~
\psi(z):~{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}\longrightarrow
V_z\otimes{\cal F}_{(\alpha+1;\beta)}~,
\label{Inertwining-relation1}\\
&&\phi^*(z):~{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}\longrightarrow{\cal F}_{(\alpha-1;\beta
)}\otimes V^{*S}_z~,~~
\psi^*(z):~{\cal F}_{(\alpha;\beta)}\longrightarrow
V^{*S}_z\otimes{\cal F}_{(\alpha-1;\beta)}~.
\label{Intertwining-relation2}
\end{eqnarray}
We then  consider the vertex operators which intertwine the
irreducible highest
weight ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules. By  conjecture 1,
we can make  the fellowing identifications:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Phi_i(z)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\phi_i(z)&{\rm for }~~\alpha\not\in{\bf Z}\\
\eta_0\xi_0\phi_i(z)\eta_0\xi_0& {\rm for}~~\alpha\in{\bf Z}
\end{array}
\right.,~~~
\Phi^*_i(z)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\phi^*_i(z)&{\rm for }~~\alpha\not\in{\bf Z}\\
\eta_0\xi_0\phi^*_i(z)\eta_0\xi_0& {\rm for}~~\alpha\in{\bf Z}
\end{array}
\right.,\label{V1}
\nonumber\\
&&\Psi_i(z)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\psi_i(z)&{\rm for }~~\alpha\not\in{\bf Z}\\
\eta_0\xi_0\psi_i(z)\eta_0\xi_0& {\rm for}~~\alpha\in{\bf Z}
\end{array}
\right.,~~~
\Psi^*_i(z)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\psi^*_i(z)&{\rm for }~~\alpha\not\in{\bf Z}\\
\eta_0\xi_0\psi^*_i(z)\eta_0\xi_0& {\rm for}~~\alpha\in{\bf Z}
\end{array}
\right..\label{V2}\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent This implies  that  the following vertex operators
associated with the level-one irreducible highest weight
${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$-modules exist:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Phi(z)^{\lambda_{\alpha+1,\beta-3/2}~V}_{\lambda_{\alpha,\beta}}(z):~~~~
V(\lambda_{\alpha,\beta})\longrightarrow V(\lambda_{\alpha+1,\beta-3/2})\otimes
V_z,\nonumber\\
&&\Psi(z)_{\lambda_{\alpha,\beta}}^{V~\lambda_{\alpha+1;\beta-3/2}}:~~~~V(\lambda_{\alpha,\beta})\longrightarrow
V_z\otimes V(\lambda_{\alpha+1,\beta-3/2}),\nonumber\\
&&\Phi(z)^{\lambda_{\alpha-1,\beta+3/2}~V^*}_{\lambda_{\alpha,\beta}}(z):~~~~
V(\lambda_{\alpha,\beta})\longrightarrow V(\lambda_{\alpha-1,\beta+3/2})\otimes
V^{*S}_z,\nonumber\\
&&\Psi(z)_{\lambda_{\alpha,\beta}}^{V^*~\lambda_{\alpha-1;\beta+3/2}}:~~~~V(\lambda_{\alpha,\beta})\longrightarrow
V^{*S}_z\otimes V(\lambda_{\alpha-1,\beta+3/2}).
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent Moreover, the vertex operators defined by
(\ref{V2}) satisfy the graded Faddeev-Zamolodchikov
algbera (\ref{ZF1})-(\ref{ZF2}):
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\Phi_j(z_2)\Phi_i(z_1)=
\sum_{k,l=1}^{2}R^{kl}_{ij}(\frac{z_1}{z_2})
\Phi_k(z_1)\Phi_l(z_2)(-1)^{[i][j]}~~,\label{ZF3}\\
&&\Psi^*_i(z_1)\Psi^*_j(z_2)=
\sum_{k,l=1}^{2}R^{ij}_{kl}(\frac{z_1}{z_2})
\Psi^*_l(z_2)\Psi^*_k(z_1)(-1)^{[i][j]}~~,\\
&&\Psi^*_i(z_1)\Phi_j(z_2)=
\Phi_j(z_2)\Psi^*_i(z_1)(-1)^{[i][j]},\label{ZF4}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent and the following invertibility relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_i(z)\Phi^*_j(z)|_{V(\lambda_{\alpha,\beta})}=-q\delta_{ij}~id|
_{V(\lambda_{\alpha,\beta})}.
\end{eqnarray}

We can also generalize Miki's construction to the ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$ case. Define
\begin{eqnarray*}
& &L^+(z)^j_i=\Phi_i(zq^{1/ 2})\Psi^*_j(zq^{-1/2})~~,\\
& &L^-(z)^j_i=\Phi_i(zq^{-1/ 2})\Psi^*_j(zq^{1/2})~~.
\end{eqnarray*}
We have
\begin{Proposition}
: The L-operators $L^{\pm}(z)$ defined above give a realization of the
super Reshetikhin-Semenov-Tian-Shansky algebra \cite{Zha97} at level one  for
the quantum affine superalgebra ${U_q[\widehat{gl(1|1)}]}$
\begin{eqnarray*}
& &R(z/w)L^{\pm}_1(z)L^{\pm}_2(w)=L^{\pm}_2(w)L^{\pm}_1(z)R(z/w),\\
& &R(z^{+}/w^{-})L^{+}_1(z)L^{-}_2(w)=L^{-}_2(w)L^{+}_1(z)R(z^-/w^+),
\end{eqnarray*}
\noindent where $L^{\pm}_1(z)=L^{\pm}(z)\otimes 1$,
$L^{\pm}_2(z)=1\otimes L^{\pm}(z)$ and $z^{\pm}=zq^{\pm\frac{1}{2}}$.
\end{Proposition}

\noindent {\it Proof}. Straightforward by using (\ref{ZF3})-(\ref{ZF4}).

\vskip.3in
\subsection*{ Acknowledgements.}

This work has been financially supported by the Australian Research
Council large, small and QEII fellowship grants. We would like to
thank Ryu Sasaki for a careful reading of the manuscript and many
helpful comments. We thank Bo-Yu Hou for
encouragement and useful discussions. W.L.Yang thanks
Y.-Z.Zhang and department of Mathematics, University of Queensland,
for their kind  hospitality. W.L.Yang was also partially supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China.

\vskip.3in