Involution pipe dreams

Abstract: Involution Schubert polynomials represent cohomology classes of $K$-orbit closures in the complete flag variety, where $K$ is the orthogonal or symplectic group. We show they also represent $T$-equivariant cohomology classes of subvarieties defined by upper-left rank conditions in the spaces of symmetric or skew-symmetric matrices. This geometry implies that these polynomials are positive combinations of monomials in the variables $x_i + x_j$, and we give explicit formulas of this kind as sums over new objects called involution pipe dreams. Our formulas are analogues of the Billey-Jockusch-Stanley formula for Schubert polynomials. In Knutson and Miller's approach to matrix Schubert varieties, pipe dream formulas reflect Gröbner degenerations of the ideals of those varieties, and we conjecturally identify analogous degenerations in our setting.

\section{Introduction}

One can identify the equivariant cohomology rings for the spaces of symmetric and skew-symmetric complex matrices with multivariate polynomial rings.
Under this identification, we show
that the classes of certain natural subvarieties of (skew-)symmetric matrices are given by the \emph{involution Schubert polynomials} introduced by Wyser and Yong in \cite{wyser-yong-orthogonal-symplectic}.
These classes of varieties generalize various others studied in the settings of degeneracy loci and combinatorial commutative algebra, for instance the (skew-)symmetric determinantal varieties studied by Harris and Tu~\cite{harris-tu}.

Involution Schubert polynomials have a combinatorial formula for their monomial expansion~\cite{HMP1}.
As a consequence of our geometric results, they must also expand as sums of products of binomials $x_i + x_j$.
We give a combinatorial description of these expansions, which is a new analogue of the classic Billey-Jockusch-Stanley expansion for ordinary Schubert polynomials~\cite{BJK}.
This description is far more compact than the monomial expansion.
Our formulas involve novel objects that we call \emph{involution pipe dreams}.
Involution pipe dreams appear to be the fundamental objects necessary to replicate Knutson and Miller's program~\cite{knutson-miller} to understand our varieties from a commutative algebra perspective.

\subsection{Three flavors of matrix Schubert varieties}\label{intro1-sect}

Fix a positive integer $n$.
Let $\mathsf{GL}_n$ denote the general linear group of complex $n\times n$ invertible matrices, and write $B$ and $B^+$ for the Borel subgroups of lower- and upper-triangular matrices in $\mathsf{GL}_n$. Our work aims to extend what is known about the geometry of the $B$-orbits on matrix space to symmetric and skew-symmetric matrix spaces.

We begin with some classical background.
Consider the \emph{type A flag variety} $\Fl{n} = \mathsf{GL}_n / B$.
The subgroup $B^+$ acts on  $\Fl{n} $ with finitely many orbits, which are naturally indexed by permutations $w$ in the symmetric group  $S_n$
of permutations of $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$.
These orbits afford a CW decomposition of $\Fl{n}$, so the cohomology classes of their closures $X_w$, the \emph{Schubert varieties}, form a basis for the integral singular cohomology ring $H^*(\Fl{n})$.
Borel's isomorphism explicitly identifies $H^*(\Fl{n})$ with a quotient of the
polynomial ring $\mathbb{Z}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$, and the \emph{Schubert polynomials} $\mathfrak{S}_w \in \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ are (non-unique) representatives for the \emph{Schubert classes} $[X_w] \in H^*(\Fl{n})$.

The maximal torus $T$ of diagonal matrices in $\mathsf{GL}_n$ also acts on $\Fl{n}$, so we can instead consider the equivariant cohomology ring $H^*_T(\Fl{n})$.
Via an extension of Borel's isomorphism, this ring
is isomorphic to a quotient of $\mathbb{Z}[x_1, \ldots, x_n, y_1, \ldots, y_n]$.
Lascoux and Sch\"utzenberger \cite{lascoux1982structure} introduced the \emph{double Schubert polynomials} $\mathfrak{S}_w(x,y)$ to represent the
equivariant classes $[X_w]_T\in H^*_T(\Fl{n})$.
These representatives are distinguished in the following sense.

Let $\textsf{Mat}_n$ be the set of $n\times n$ complex matrices and write $\iota:\mathsf{GL}_n \hookrightarrow \textsf{Mat}_n$ for the obvious inclusion.
The product group $ T \times T$ acts on $A\in \textsf{Mat}_n$ by $(t_1, t_2) \cdot A = t_1 A t_2^{-1}$.
The \emph{matrix Schubert variety} of a permutation $w \in S_n$ is  $M\hspace{-0.5mm}X_w = \overline{\iota(X_w)}$.
Since $M_n$ is $T \times T$-equivariantly contractible, $H^*_{T \times T}(\textsf{Mat}_n) \cong H^*_{T \times T}(\text{point}) \cong \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\dots,x_n,y_1,\dots,y_n]$.
The following theorem is roughly equivalent to work of Fulton~\cite{fulton1992flags}, and stated explicitly in~\cite{knutson-miller};
see \cite[Chpt. 15]{miller2004combinatorial}.

\begin{thm}[\cite{fulton1992flags,knutson-miller}]
\label{t:fulton}
	For all $w \in S_n$, we have $\mathfrak{S}_w(x,y) = [M\hspace{-0.5mm}X_w] \in H^*_{T \times T}(\textsf{Mat}_n)$.
\end{thm}

Our results are related to the geometry of certain spherical varieties studied by Richardson and Springer in \cite{richardson-springer}.
Specifically, define the \emph{orthogonal group} $\O_n$ as the subgroup of $\mathsf{GL}_n$ preserving
a fixed nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form on $\mathbb{C}^n$, and when $n$ is even define the \emph{symplectic group} $\mathsf{Sp}_n$ as the subgroup of $\mathsf{GL}_n$
preserving a fixed nondegenerate skew-symmetric bilinear form.

We consider the actions of $\O_n$ and $\mathsf{Sp}_n$ (when $n$ is even) on $\Fl{n}$.
The associated orbit closures $\hat X_y$ and $\hat X^{\fpf}_z$ are indexed by arbitrary involutions $y$ and fixed-point-free involutions $z$ in $S_n$.
Let $\kappa(y)$ denote the number of 2-cycles in an involution $y=y^{-1} \in S_n$.
Wyser and Yong \cite{wyser-yong-orthogonal-symplectic} constructed certain polynomials $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y, \hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z \in \mathbb{Z}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$
and showed that
the classes $[\hat X_y]$ and $[\hat X^{\fpf}_z]$ are represented in $H^*(\Fl{n})$ by $2^{\kappa(y)}\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$ and $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z$.
We refer to $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$ and $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z$ as \emph{involution Schubert polynomials}; for their precise definitions, see Section~\ref{schub-sect}.

Write $\textsf{SMat}_n$ and $\textsf{SSMat}_n$ for the sets of symmetric and skew-symmetric $n\times n$ complex matrices.
Let $t \in T$ act on these spaces by $t\cdot A = tAt$.
One can identify  the $T$-equivariant cohomology rings of both spaces with $\mathbb{Z}[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$; see the discussion in Section~\ref{subsec:eq-cohom}.
For each involution $y \in S_n$, let $M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y = M\hspace{-0.5mm}X_y \cap \textsf{SMat}_n$.
Similarly, for each fixed-point-free involution $z \in S_n$, let $M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X^{\fpf}_z = M\hspace{-0.5mm}X_z \cap \textsf{SSMat}_n$.
Our first main result is a (skew-)symmetric analogue of Theorem~\ref{t:fulton}:

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:inv-schubert-classes}
For all involutions $y$ and fixed-point-free involution $z$ in $S_n$, we have
\[
2^{\kappa(y)}\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y = [M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y]   \in   H_T^*(\textsf{SMat}_n) \quad\text{and}\quad \hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z = [M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X^{\fpf}_z]  \in  H_T^*(\textsf{SSMat}_n).
\]
Thus, involution Schubert polynomials are also equivariant cohomology representatives for symmetric and skew-symmetric matrix varieties.
\end{thm}

Our proof of this theorem appears in Section~\ref{sec:inv-matrix-schubert}.

\begin{rmk}
Another family of varieties indexed by involutions in $S_n$ has been studied by Fink, Rajchgot and Sullivant~\cite{fink2016matrix}.
However, the varieties in \cite{fink2016matrix} are cut out by northeast rank conditions, while
$M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y$ and $M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X^{\fpf}_z$ are cut out by northwest rank conditions (see \eqref{imxy-eq} and \eqref{imxz-eq} in Section~\ref{ss:classes}).
\end{rmk}

\subsection{Three flavors of pipe dreams}

If $Z$ is a closed subvariety of $\textsf{SMat}_n$ or $\textsf{SSMat}_n$, then its $T$-equivariant cohomology class is a positive integer combination of products of binomials $x_i + x_j$ (see Corollary~\ref{cor:positivity}).
Our second main result gives a combinatorial description of such an expansion for $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$ and $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z$.

Let $[n] = \{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$
and $\raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,.25) -- (.25,.25) -- (0,0) -- (0,.25);}}\hspace{-0.5mm}_n =   \{(i,j) \in [n] \times [n] : i+j \leq n\}$.
Consider a subset $D\subseteq \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,.25) -- (.25,.25) -- (0,0) -- (0,.25);}}\hspace{-0.5mm}_n$.
One associates to $D$ a \emph{wiring diagram}
by replacing the cells $(i,j) \in \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,.25) -- (.25,.25) -- (0,0) -- (0,.25);}}\hspace{-0.5mm}_n$
by tiles of two types, given either by
a crossing of two paths (drawn as a
$\raisebox{-1pt}{\tikz[scale=0.7]{ \draw (-0.2,0) -- (0.2,0); \draw (0,-0.2) -- (0,0.2);}}$
tile) if $(i,j) \in D$
or
by two paths bending away from each other (drawn as a
$\raisebox{-1pt}{\tikz[scale=0.7]{ \draw (-0.2,0) to[bend right] (0,0.2); \draw (0,-0.2) to[bend left] (0.2,0); }}$
tile)
if $(i,j) \notin D$.
Connecting the endpoints of adjacent tiles yields a union of $n$ continuously differentiable paths,
which we refer to as ``pipes.''
For example:
\begin{equation}\label{first-wiring-eq}
    D=\{(1,3),(2,1)\}
    \qquad\text{corresponds to}
    \qquad
    \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(c.base)]
        \node at (-0.5,3.5) {$\scriptstyle 1$};
        \node (c) at (-0.5,2.5) {$\scriptstyle 2$};
        \node at (-0.5,1.5) {$\scriptstyle 3$};
        \node at (-0.5,0.5) {$\scriptstyle 4$};
        %
        \node at (0.5,4.5) {$\scriptstyle 1$};
        \node at (1.5,4.5) {$\scriptstyle 2$};
        \node at (2.5,4.5) {$\scriptstyle 3$};
        \node at (3.5,4.5) {$\scriptstyle 4$};

        \filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,3.5) to[bend right] (0.5,4)
        (0.5,3) to[bend left] (1,3.5);
        \filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,3.5) to[bend right] (1.5,4)
        (1.5,3) to[bend left] (2,3.5);
        \filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (2,3.5) to (3,3.5)
        (2.5,3) to (2.5,4);
        \filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
        \filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,2.5) to (1,2.5)
        (0.5,2) to (0.5,3);
        \filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
        (1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
        \filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
        \filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,1.5) to[bend right] (0.5,2)
        (0.5,1) to[bend left] (1,1.5);
        \filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
        \filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);

    \end{tikzpicture}
\end{equation}
\begin{defn}
A subset $D\subseteq \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,.25) -- (.25,.25) -- (0,0) -- (0,.25);}}\hspace{-0.5mm}_n$ is a \emph{reduced pipe dream} if no two pipes in the associated wiring diagram
cross more than once. %
\end{defn}

This condition holds in the example \eqref{first-wiring-eq}.
Pipe dreams as described here were introduced by Bergeron and Billey \cite{bergeron-billey}, inspired by related diagrams of Fomin and Kirillov \cite{fomin-kirillov-yang-baxter}. Bergeron and Billey originally referred to pipe dreams as \emph{reduced-word compatible sequence graphs} or \emph{rc-graphs} for short.

A reduced pipe dream $D$ determines a permutation $w \in S_n$
 in the following way.
Label the left endpoints of the pipes in $D$'s wiring diagram by $1, 2, \ldots, n$ from top to bottom, and the top endpoints by $1, 2, \ldots, n$ from left to right. Then the associated permutation
$w \in S_n$ is the element such that the pipe with left endpoint $i$ has top endpoint $w(i)$. For instance, the permutation of  $D=\{(1,3),(2,1)\}$ is $w
= 1423 \in S_4$.
Let $\mathcal{PD}(w)$ denote the set of all reduced pipe dreams associated to $w \in S_n$.

Pipe dreams are of interest for their role in formulas
for $\mathfrak{S}_w$ and $\mathfrak{S}_w(x,y)$.
Lascoux and Sch\"utzenberger's original definition of  these Schubert polynomials  in \cite{lascoux1983symmetry}
 is recursive in terms of \emph{divided difference operators}.
However, by results of Fomin and Stanley \cite[\S4]{fomin1994schubert} we also have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:double-schubert-def}
    \mathfrak{S}_w = \sum_{D \in \mathcal{PD}(w)} \prod_{(i,j) \in D} x_i \qquad\text{and}\qquad  \mathfrak{S}_w(x,y) = \sum_{D \in \mathcal{PD}(w)} \prod_{(i,j) \in D} (x_i - y_j).
\end{equation}
The first identity is the Billey-Jockusch-Stanley formula for Schubert polynomials from \cite{BJK}.

There are analogues of this formula for the involution Schubert polynomials $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$ and $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z$,
which involve the following new classes of pipe dreams.
A reduced pipe dream $D\subseteq \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,.25) -- (.25,.25) -- (0,0) -- (0,.25);}}\hspace{-0.5mm}_n$
is \emph{symmetric} if $(i,j) \in D$ implies $(j,i) \in D$,
and \emph{almost-symmetric} if both of the following properties hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $(i, j) \in D$ where $i<j$ then  $(j,i) \in D$.
\item If $(j, i) \in D$ where $i<j$ but $(i, j) \notin D$, then the pipes crossing at $(j, i)$
in the wiring diagram of $D$ are also the pipes that avoid each other at $(i, j)$.
\end{itemize}
Equivalently,
 $D$ is almost-symmetric if it is as symmetric as possible while respecting the condition that no two pipes cross twice, and any violation of symmetry forced by this condition takes the form of a crossing $(j,i)$ below the diagonal rather than at the transposed position $(i,j)$.

Let $\mathcal{I}_n=\{ w \in S_n : w=w^{-1}\}$ and write $\I^{\fpf}_n$ for the subset of fixed-point-free elements of $\mathcal{I}_n$.
Note that $n$ must be even for $\I^{\fpf}_n$ to be non-empty.
Also let
\[
\ltriang_n = \{(j,i) \in [n] \times [n] : i \leq j\}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n = \{(j,i) \in [n] \times [n] : i < j\}.
\]

\begin{defn} \label{defn:inv-pipe-dreams-1}
The set of \emph{involution pipe dreams} for $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ is
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{ID}(y) = \{D \cap \ltriang_n : D \in \mathcal{PD}(y) \text{ is almost-symmetric}\}.
\end{equation*}
The set of \emph{fpf-involution pipe dreams} for $z \in \I^{\fpf}_{n}$ is
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{FD}(z) = \{D \cap \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n : D \in \mathcal{PD}(z) \text{ is symmetric}\}.
\end{equation*}
By convention, (fpf-)involution pipe dreams are always instances of reduced pipe dreams.
It would be more precise to call our objects ``reduced involution pipe dreams,''
but since we will never consider any pipe dreams that are unreduced, we opt for
more concise terminology.
\end{defn}

We can now state our second main result, which will reappear
as Theorems~\ref{inv-pipe-schubert-thm} and \ref{fpf-pipe-schubert-thm}.

\begin{thm} \label{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula} If $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ and $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ then
\[
 \hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y = \sum_{D \in \mathcal{ID}(y)} \prod_{(i,j) \in D} 2^{-\delta_{ij}}(x_i + x_j)
 \quad\text{and}\quad
 \hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z = \sum_{D \in \mathcal{FD}(z)} \prod_{(i,j) \in D} (x_i + x_j)
\]
where $\delta_{ij}$ denotes the usual Kronecker delta function.
\end{thm}

\begin{ex}
    The involution $y = 1432 = (2,4) \in \mathcal{I}_4$ has five reduced pipe dreams:
    \begin{center}
        \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]

        \filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,3.5) to[bend right] (0.5,4)
        (0.5,3) to[bend left] (1,3.5);
        \filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,3.5) to[bend right] (1.5,4)
        (1.5,3) to[bend left] (2,3.5);
        \filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
        (2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
        \filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
        \filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,2.5) to (1,2.5)
        (0.5,2) to (0.5,3);
        \filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,2.5) to (2,2.5)
        (1.5,2) to (1.5,3);
        \filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
        \filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,1.5) to (1,1.5)
        (0.5,1) to (0.5,2);
        \filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
        \filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);

        \end{tikzpicture} \qquad
       \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]

        \filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,3.5) to[bend right] (0.5,4)
        (0.5,3) to[bend left] (1,3.5);
        \filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,3.5) to (2,3.5)
        (1.5,3) to (1.5,4);
        \filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (2,3.5) to (3,3.5)
        (2.5,3) to (2.5,4);
        \filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
        \filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,2.5) to[bend right] (0.5,3)
        (0.5,2) to[bend left] (1,2.5);
        \filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
        (1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
        \filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
        \filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,1.5) to (1,1.5)
        (0.5,1) to (0.5,2);
        \filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
        \filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);

        \end{tikzpicture} \qquad
        \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]

        \filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,3.5) to[bend right] (0.5,4)
        (0.5,3) to[bend left] (1,3.5);
        \filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,3.5) to (2,3.5)
        (1.5,3) to (1.5,4);
        \filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (2,3.5) to (3,3.5)
        (2.5,3) to (2.5,4);
        \filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
        \filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,2.5) to[bend right] (0.5,3)
        (0.5,2) to[bend left] (1,2.5);
        \filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,2.5) to (2,2.5)
        (1.5,2) to (1.5,3);
        \filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
        \filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,1.5) to[bend right] (0.5,2)
        (0.5,1) to[bend left] (1,1.5);
        \filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
        \filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);

        \end{tikzpicture} \qquad
        \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]

        \filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,3.5) to[bend right] (0.5,4)
        (0.5,3) to[bend left] (1,3.5);
        \filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,3.5) to[bend right] (1.5,4)
        (1.5,3) to[bend left] (2,3.5);
        \filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (2,3.5) to (3,3.5)
        (2.5,3) to (2.5,4);
        \filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
        \filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,2.5) to (1,2.5)
        (0.5,2) to (0.5,3);
        \filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
        (1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
        \filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
        \filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,1.5) to (1,1.5)
        (0.5,1) to (0.5,2);
        \filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
        \filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);

        \end{tikzpicture} \qquad
        \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3]

        \filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,3.5) to[bend right] (0.5,4)
        (0.5,3) to[bend left] (1,3.5);
        \filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,3.5) to (2,3.5)
        (1.5,3) to (1.5,4);
        \filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
        (2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
        \filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
        \filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,2.5) to (1,2.5)
        (0.5,2) to (0.5,3);
        \filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,2.5) to (2,2.5)
        (1.5,2) to (1.5,3);
        \filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
        \filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,1.5) to[bend right] (0.5,2)
        (0.5,1) to[bend left] (1,1.5);
        \filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
        \filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
        \draw
        (0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);

        \end{tikzpicture}
    \end{center}
    Only the last two of these are almost-symmetric, so
    $|\mathcal{ID}(y)| = 2$
    and     Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula} reduces to the formula  $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_{y} = (x_2+x_1)(x_3+x_1) + (x_2+x_1)(x_2 + x_2)/2 = (x_2 + x_1)(x_3 + x_1 +x_2)$.
    The monomial expansion has six terms, as opposed to two.
    In general, the expansion in Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula} uses roughly a factor of $2^{\deg \hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y}$ fewer terms.

\end{ex}

Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula} has equivalent formulations in terms of compatible sequences.
These descriptions more closely mirror the Billey-Jockusch-Stanley formula for $\mathfrak{S}_w$ from \cite{BJK}.

\begin{rmk}
There is an alternate path towards establishing the fact that the class of a matrix Schubert variety is represented by the weighted sum of
reduced pipe dreams.
The defining ideal of $M\hspace{-0.5mm}X_w$ has a simple set of generators due to Fulton~\cite{fulton1992flags}.
Knutson and Miller showed that Fulton's generators form a Gr\"obner basis with respect to any anti-diagonal term order~\cite{knutson-miller}.
The Gr\"obner degeneration of this ideal decomposes into a union of coordinate subspaces indexed by reduced pipe dreams.
Our hope is that a similar program can be implemented in the (skew-)symmetric setting, which would give a geometric proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula}.
We discuss this in greater detail in Section~\ref{sec:ideals}.
\end{rmk}

In addition to Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula},
we also prove a number of results about the properties of involution pipe dreams.
An outline of the rest of this article is as follows.

Section~\ref{prelim-sect} contains some preliminaries on involution Schubert polynomials
along with a proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-schubert-classes}.
In Section~\ref{sec:reduced-words}, we give several equivalent characterizations of $\mathcal{ID}(y)$ and $\mathcal{FD}(z)$ in terms of {reduced words} for
permutations.
Section~\ref{sec:inv-polynom} contains our proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula},
which uses ideas from recent work of Knutson~\cite{Knutson} along with certain transition equations for $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$ and $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z$ given in \cite{HMP3}.
In Section~\ref{sec:generating-pipe-dreams} we show that
both families of involution pipe dreams are obtained from distinguished ``bottom'' elements by repeatedly applying certain simple transformations.
These transformations are extensions of the \emph{ladder moves} for pipe dreams described by Bergeron and Billey in \cite{bergeron-billey}.
In Section~\ref{sec:future}, finally, we describe several related open problems and conjectures.

\subsection*{Acknowledgements}

The second author was partially supported by Hong Kong RGC Grant ECS 26305218.
We thank Allen Knutson for explaining to us his proof of Equation~(\ref{eq:double-schubert-def}) prior to the appearance of~\cite{Knutson}.

\section{Schubert polynomials and matrix varieties}\label{prelim-sect}

Everywhere in this paper,
$n$ denotes a fixed positive integer.
For convenience, we realize the symmetric group $S_n$
as the group of permutations of $\ZZ_{>0} = \{1,2,3,\dots\}$ fixing all $i>n$,
so that there is an automatic inclusion $S_n \subset S_{n+1}$.
In this section, we present some relevant background on involution Schubert polynomials
 and equivariant cohomology, and then prove Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-schubert-classes}.

\subsection{Involution Schubert polynomials}\label{schub-sect}

To start, we provide a succinct definition of $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$ and $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z$ in terms of the ordinary Schubert polynomials $\mathfrak{S}_w$ given by \eqref{eq:double-schubert-def}.
Let $s_i = (i,i+1) \in S_n$ for each $i \in [n-1]$.
A \emph{reduced word} for $w \in S_n$ is a minimal-length sequence $a_1a_2 \cdots a_l$ such that $w=s_{a_1}s_{a_2} \cdots s_{a_l}$. Let $\mathcal{R}(w)$ denote the set of reduced words for $w$.
The \emph{length} $\ell(w)$ of $w \in S_n$ is the  length of any word in $\mathcal{R}(w)$.
One has $\ell(ws_i)=\ell(w)+1>\ell(w)$ if and only if $w(i)<w(i+1)$.

\begin{prop}[{\cite[Thm. 7.1]{Humphreys}}]
\label{demazure-prop}
There is a unique associative operation $\circ : S_n \times S _n \to S_n$,
called the \emph{Demazure product},
with $s_i \circ s_i = s_i$ for all $i \in [n-1]$ and $v\circ w = vw$
for all $v,w \in S_n$ with $\ell(vw) = \ell(v)+\ell(w)$.
\end{prop}

An \emph{involution word} for $y \in \mathcal{I}_n = \{ w \in S_n : w=w^{-1}\}$ is a minimal-length word $a_1a_2 \cdots a_l$ with
\begin{equation}\label{iii-eq}
y = s_{a_l} \circ \cdots \circ s_{a_2}\circ  s_{a_1} \circ 1 \circ s_{a_1} \circ s_{a_2} \circ \cdots \circ s_{a_l}.
\end{equation}
An \emph{atom} for $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ is a minimal-length permutation $w \in S_n$ with
$
y =  w^{-1} \circ w.
$
Let $\hat{\mathcal{R}}(y)$ be the set of  involution words for $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ and
let $\mathcal{A}(y)$ be the set of atoms for $y$.
The associativity of the Demazure product implies that

\label{bigsqcup-eq}
 \hat{\mathcal{R}}(y) = \bigsqcup_{w \in \mathcal{A}(y)} \mathcal{R}(w)
$.

\begin{ex}
If $y = 1432 $ then $\hat{\mathcal{R}}(y) = \{  23, 32\}$ and $\mathcal{A}(y) = \{1342, 1423\}$.
\end{ex}

One can show that
$ \mathcal{I}_n = \{ w^{-1} \circ w : w \in S_n \}
$, so  $\hat{\mathcal{R}}(y)$ and $\mathcal{A}(y)$ are nonempty for all $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$.
 Involution words are a special case of a more general construction of Richardson and Springer \cite{richardson-springer}, and have been studied by various authors \cite{can-joyce-wyser, hansson-hultman, hu-zhang, hultman-twisted-involutions}. Our notation follows \cite{HMP2,HMP1}.

\begin{defn}\label{inv-sch-def}
The \emph{involution Schubert polynomial} of $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ is
$
\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y = \sum_{w \in \mathcal{A}(y)} \mathfrak{S}_w.
$
\end{defn}

Wyser and Yong \cite{wyser-yong-orthogonal-symplectic}
originally defined these polynomials
  recursively using divided difference operators; work of Brion \cite{brion} implies that our definition agrees with theirs.
For a detailed explanation of the equivalence among these definitions, see \cite{HMP1}.

\begin{ex} If $z = 1432 \in \mathcal{I}_4$ then $\mathcal{A}(z) = \{1342, 1423\}$ and
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_{z} = \mathfrak{S}_{1342} + \mathfrak{S}_{1423} = (x_2 x_3 + x_1 x_3 + x_1 x_2) + (x_2^2 + x_1 x_2 + x_1^2).
\end{equation*}
\end{ex}

Assume $n$ is even, so that $\I^{\fpf}_n = \{ z \in \mathcal{I}_n: i \neq z(i)\text{ for all $i \in [n]$}\}$ is nonempty, and let
\[1^{\fpf}_n = (1,2)(3,4)\cdots (n-1,n) = s_1s_3\cdots s_{n-1} \in \I^{\fpf}_n.\]
An \emph{fpf-involution word} for $z \in \I^{\fpf}_{n}$ is a minimal-length word $a_1a_2 \cdots a_l$ with
\[
z = s_{a_l}  \cdots   s_{a_2}   s_{a_1}  1^{\fpf}_n   s_{a_1}   s_{a_2} \cdots  s_{a_l}
.\]
This formulation avoids the Demazure product, but there is an equivalent definition that more closely parallels \eqref{iii-eq}.
Namely, by  \cite[Cor. 2.6]{HMP2},
an {fpf-involution word} for $z \in \I^{\fpf}_{n}$ is also a minimal-length word $a_1a_2 \cdots a_l$ with
$
z = s_{a_l}  \circ \cdots  \circ s_{a_2}   \circ s_{a_1} \circ   1^{\fpf}_n  \circ  s_{a_1}  \circ  s_{a_2} \circ  \cdots  \circ  s_{a_l}
$.

An \emph{fpf-atom} for $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ is
a minimal length permutation  $w \in S_n$ with
$z = w^{-1}  1^{\fpf}_n  w.$
Let $\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z)$ be the set of fpf-atoms for $z$,
and let
$
 \hat{\mathcal{R}}^{\fpf}(z) $ be the set of fpf-involution words for $z$.
The basic properties of reduced words imply that

 \hat{\mathcal{R}}^{\fpf}(z) = \bigsqcup_{w \in \mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z)} \mathcal{R}(w).
$

\begin{ex}
If $z = 4321 $ then $\hat{\mathcal{R}}^{\fpf}(z) = \{  23, 21\}$ and $\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z) = \{1342, 3124\}$.
\end{ex}

Note that $a_1a_2\cdots a_l $ belongs to $\hat{\mathcal{R}}^{\fpf}(z)$
if and only if $135\cdots(n-1)a_1a_2\cdots a_l $ belongs to $\hat{\mathcal{R}}(z)$.
Moreover, if $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ then
$\hat{\mathcal{R}}^{\fpf}(z) = \hat{\mathcal{R}}^{\fpf}(zs_{n+1}) $ and $ \mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z) = \mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(zs_{n+1}).$

Fpf-involution words are special cases of reduced words for \emph{quasiparabolic sets}
 \cite{RainsVazirani}.
Since $\I^{\fpf}_n$ is a single $S_n$-conjugacy class,
each $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$
has at least one fpf-involution word and fpf-atom.

\begin{defn}\label{fpf-inv-sch-def}
The \emph{fpf-involution Schubert polynomial} of $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ is
$
\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z = \sum_{w \in \mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z)} \mathfrak{S}_w.
$
\end{defn}

These polynomials were also introduced in \cite{wyser-yong-orthogonal-symplectic}.
Note that $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_{z} =\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_{zs_{n+1}}$ for all $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$.

\begin{ex} If $z = 532614 \in \I^{\fpf}_6$ then $\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z) = \{13452, 31254\}$ and
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_{z} &= \mathfrak{S}_{13452} + \mathfrak{S}_{31254}
= (x_2 x_3 x_4 + x_1 x_3 x_4 + x_1 x_2 x_4 + x_1 x_2 x_3) + (x_1^2 x_4 + x_1^2 x_3 + x_1^2 x_2 + x_1^3).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
\end{ex}

\subsection{Torus-equivariant cohomology}
\label{subsec:eq-cohom}

Suppose $V$ is a finite-dimensional rational representation of a torus $T \simeq (\mathbb{C}^\times)^n$. A character $\lambda \in \operatorname{Hom}(T, \mathbb{C}^\times)$ is a \emph{weight} of $V$ if the \emph{weight space} $V_\lambda = \{v \in V : \text{$tv = \lambda(t)v$ for all $t \in T$}\}$ is nonzero. Any nonzero $v \in V_{\lambda}$ is a \emph{weight vector}, and $V$ has a basis of weight vectors. Let $\wt(V)$ denote the set of weights of $V$. After fixing an isomorphism $T \simeq (\mathbb{C}^\times)^n$, we identify the character $(t_1, \ldots, t_n) \mapsto t_1^{a_1} \cdots t_n^{a_n}$ with the linear polynomial $a_1 x_1 + \cdots + a_n x_n \in \mathbb{Z}[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$.

The \emph{equivariant cohomology ring} $H_T(V)$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}[x_1, \ldots, x_n]$, an identification we make without comment from now on. Each $T$-invariant subscheme $X \subseteq V$ has an associated class $[X] \in H_T(V)$, which we describe following \cite[Chpt. 8]{miller2004combinatorial}.

First, if $X$ is a linear subspace then we define $[X] = \prod_{\lambda \in \wt(X)} \lambda$, where we identify $\lambda$ with a linear polynomial as above. More generally, fix a basis of weight vectors of $V$, and let $z_1, \ldots, z_n \in V^*$ be the dual basis; this determines an isomorphism $\mathbb{C}[V] = \operatorname{Sym}(V^*) \simeq \mathbb{C}[z_1, \ldots, z_n]$.

Choose a term order on monomials in $z_1, \ldots, z_n$, and let $\init(I)$ denote the ideal generated by the leading terms of all members of a given set $I \subseteq \mathbb{C}[V]$. Given that $\init(I)$ is a monomial ideal, one can show that each of its associated primes $\mathfrak{p}$ is also a monomial ideal, and hence of the form $\langle z_{i_1}, \ldots, z_{i_r} \rangle$. The corresponding subscheme $Z(\mathfrak{p})$ is a $T$-invariant linear subspace of $V$. Now define
\begin{equation} \label{eq:equivariant-class}
    [X] = \sum_{\mathfrak{p}} \operatorname{mult}_{\mathfrak{p}}(\init I(X)) [Z(\mathfrak{p})]
\end{equation}
where $I(X)$ is the ideal of $X$ and $\mathfrak{p}$ runs over the associated primes of $\init I(X)$.

\subsection{Classes of involution matrix Schubert varieties} \label{sec:inv-matrix-schubert}
\label{ss:classes}

The matrix Schubert varieties in Theorem~\ref{t:fulton} can be described in terms of rank conditions, namely:
\[
M\hspace{-0.5mm}X_w = \{A \in \textsf{Mat}_n: \text{$\rank A_{[i][j]} \leq \rank w_{[i][j]}$ for $i,j \in [n]$}\},
\]
where $\textsf{Mat}_n$ is the variety of $n\times n$ matrices, $A_{[i][j]}$ denotes the upper-left $i \times j$ corner of $A \in \textsf{Mat}_n$, and we identify $w \in S_n$ with the $n\times n$ permutation matrix having $1$'s in positions $(i,w(i))$.

The varieties $M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y$ and $M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X^{\fpf}_z$ from Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-schubert-classes} can be reformulated in a similar way.
Specifically,
we define the \emph{involution matrix Schubert variety} of $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ by
\begin{equation}\label{imxy-eq}
    M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y = M\hspace{-0.5mm}X_y \cap \textsf{SMat}_n = \{A \in \textsf{SMat}_n : \text{$\rank A_{[i][j]} \leq \rank y_{[i][j]}$ for $i,j \in [n]$}\},
\end{equation}
where $\textsf{SMat}_n$ is the subvariety of symmetric matrices in $\textsf{Mat}_n$.
When $n$ is even, we define the \emph{fpf-involution matrix Schubert variety} of $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ by
\begin{equation}\label{imxz-eq}
    M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X^{\fpf}_z = M\hspace{-0.5mm}X_z \cap \textsf{SSMat}_n = \{A \in \textsf{SSMat}_n : \text{$\rank A_{[i][j]} \leq \rank z_{[i][j]}$ for $i,j \in [n]$}\},
\end{equation}
where $\textsf{SSMat}_n$ is the subvariety of  skew-symmetric matrices in $\textsf{Mat}_n$.

\begin{ex}
Suppose $y = (2,3) =\left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix}\right]\in \mathcal{I}_3$. Setting $R_{ij} = \rank y_{[i][j]}$, we have $R = \left[\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 2\\ 1 & 2 & 3 \end{smallmatrix}\right]$. The conditions $\rank A_{[i][j]} \leq R_{ij}$ for $i,j \in [3]$ defining $M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y$ are all implied by the single condition $\rank A_{[2][2]} \leq R_{22} = 1$. Thus, $M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y = \left\{\left[\begin{smallmatrix} z_{11} & z_{21} & z_{31} \\ z_{21} & z_{22} & z_{32} \\ z_{31} & z_{32} & z_{33} \end{smallmatrix} \right] : z_{11}z_{22} - z_{21}^2 = 0\right\}$.
\end{ex}

Let $T \subseteq \mathsf{GL}_n$ be the usual torus of invertible diagonal matrices. Recall that $\kappa(y) = |\{ i : y(i) < i\}|$ for $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$, and that $ T$ acts on matrices in $ \textsf{Mat}_n$ by $t\cdot A = tA$ and on symmetric matrices in $ \textsf{SMat}_n$ by $t \cdot A = tAt$.
We can now prove Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-schubert-classes}, which states that
if $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ and $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ then
$2^{\kappa(y)}\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y = [M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y] \in H_T^*(\textsf{SMat}_n)$  while $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z = [M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X^{\fpf}_z] \in H_T^*(\textsf{SSMat}_n)$.

\begin{rmk}
It is possible, though a little cumbersome, to derive Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-schubert-classes} from \cite[Thm. 2.17 and Lem. 3.1]{MP2019}, which provide a similar statement in complex $K$-theory.
We originally announced Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-schubert-classes} in an extended abstract for this paper which
preceded the appearance of \cite{MP2019}.
However, as the argument below is similar to the proofs of the results in \cite{MP2019}, we will be somewhat curt here in our presentation of the details.
\end{rmk}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-schubert-classes}]
    If $X$ and $Y$ are complex varieties with $T$-actions, and $f : X \to Y$ is a $T$-equivariant morphism, then there is a pullback homomorphism $f^* : H_T^*(Y) \to H_T^*(X)$. If $f$ is a flat morphism (e.g., an inclusion of an open subset, a projection of a fiber bundle, or a composition of flat morphisms), then $f^*([Z]) = [f^{-1}(Z)]$ for any subscheme $Z \subseteq Y$.

 Because $T$ acts freely on $\mathsf{GL}_n$ and since $\mathsf{GL}_n/T \twoheadrightarrow \mathsf{GL}_n/B \simeq \Fl{n}$ is a homotopy equivalence (see, e.g., \cite[\S8.1]{McGovern}), one has $H_T^*(\mathsf{GL}_n) \simeq H^*(\mathsf{GL}_n/T) \simeq H^*(\Fl{n})$.

 If $Z \subseteq \mathsf{GL}_n$ is a $B$-invariant subvariety, then $[Z] \in H_T^*(\mathsf{GL}_n)$ corresponds to the class of $Z/B = \{gB : g \in Z\}$ in $H^*(\Fl{n})$.
    Fix $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ and define $\sigma : \mathsf{GL}_n \to \textsf{SMat}_n$ by $\sigma(g) = gg^T$. Let $\iota : \mathsf{GL}_n \hookrightarrow M_n$ be the obvious inclusion and consider the diagram
    \begin{equation}\label{cd-eq}
    \begin{CD}
        H_T^*(\textsf{SMat}_n) @>>\sigma^*> H_T^*(\mathsf{GL}_n) @>>\sim> H^*(\Fl{n})\\
        @AA\rotatebox{90}{$\sim$}A                     @AA\iota^*A\\
        \mathbb{Z}[x_1, \ldots, x_n] @>>\sim> H_T^*(M_n)
    \end{CD}
    \end{equation}
    Realize $\O_n$ as the group $\{g \in \mathsf{GL}_n : gg^T = 1\}$. The map $\sigma$ is flat because it is the composition $\mathsf{GL}_n \twoheadrightarrow \mathsf{GL}_n/\O_n \hookrightarrow \textsf{SMat}_n$, where the second map sends $g\O_n \mapsto gg^T$ and may be identified with the open inclusion $\mathsf{GL}_n \cap \textsf{SMat}_n \hookrightarrow \textsf{SMat}_n$. For fixed $i \in [n]$, one checks using the prescription of $\S \ref{subsec:eq-cohom}$ that $2x_i$ represents both the class of $Z = \{A \in \textsf{SMat}_n : A_{ii} = 0\}$ in $H_T^*(\textsf{SMat}_n)$ and the class of $Z' = \{A \in M_n : (AA^T)_{ii} = 0\}$ in $H_T^*(M_n)$. Since $\sigma^*[Z] = [\sigma^{-1}(Z)] = [\iota^{-1}(Z')] = \iota^*[Z']$, this calculation implies that \eqref{cd-eq} commutes.

    Now set
    $        \hat X_y = \sigma^{-1}(M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y)/B = \{gB \in \Fl{n} : \rank (gg^T)_{[i][j]} \leq \rank y_{[i][j]} \text{ for $i,j \in [n]$}\},$
    so that the path through the upper-left corner of \eqref{cd-eq} sends the polynomial $[M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y]$ to $[\hat X_y]$. The variety $\hat X_y$ is the closure of an $\O_n$-orbit on $\Fl{n}$ \cite[\S2.1.2]{wyser-degeneracy-loci}. The path through the lower-right corner of \eqref{cd-eq} is simply the classical Borel map $\mathbb{Z}[x_1, \ldots, x_n] \to H^*(\Fl{n})$, and it is known that $2^{\kappa(y)}\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$ is the \emph{unique} polynomial corresponding under the Borel map to every class $[\hat X_{y \times 1^m}]$, where $y \times 1^m$ is the permutation $y(1)\cdots y(n)(n+1)\cdots (n+m)$ \cite[Thm. 2]{wyser-yong-orthogonal-symplectic}. To conclude that $[M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y] = 2^{\kappa(y)}\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$, it therefore suffices to show that the polynomial $[M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_{y \times 1^m}]$ is constant for fixed $y$ and varying $m$.

    For $y \neq 1 \in S_n$, define $\operatorname{maxdes}(y) = \max \{i \in \ZZ_{\geq 0} : y(i) > y(i+1)\}$.
    Replacing $[n]$ in the definition \eqref{imxy-eq} by $[\operatorname{maxdes}(y)]$ yields exactly the same variety $M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y$. Since  $\operatorname{maxdes}(y \times 1^m)$ is independent of $m$, as is $\rank(y \times 1^m)_{[i][j]}$ for $i, j \in [\operatorname{maxdes}(y)]$, it follows that the ideals of $M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_{y \times 1^m}$ for fixed $y$ and varying $m$ have a common generating set. It is clear from \S \ref{subsec:eq-cohom} that this means that the polynomial $[M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_{y \times 1^m}]$ is independent of $m$.

    The proof for the skew-symmetric case is the same, replacing $\O_n$ by $\mathsf{Sp}_n$ and the map $\sigma : g \mapsto gg^T$ by $g \mapsto g\Omega g^T$, where $\Omega \in \mathsf{GL}_n$ is the
    nondegenerate skew-symmetric form preserved by $\mathsf{Sp}_n$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor} \label{cor:positivity} The polynomial $2^{\kappa(y)}\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$ (respectively, $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z$) is a positive integer linear combination of products of terms $x_i+x_j$ for $1 \leq i \leq j \leq n$ (respectively, $1 \leq i < j \leq n$).
\end{cor}

\begin{proof} The weights of $T$ acting on $\textsf{SMat}_n$ are $x_i+x_j$ for $1 \leq i \leq j \leq n$, while the weights of $\textsf{SSMat}_n$ are the same with the added restriction $i < j$. The expression \eqref{eq:equivariant-class} makes clear that the classes $[M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y]$ and $[M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X^{\fpf}_z]$ are positive integer linear combinations of products of these weights. \end{proof}

    \begin{rmk}
        Let $S$ be a maximal torus in $\O_n$. Let $T \times S$ act on $\mathsf{GL}_n$ by $(t,s) \cdot g = tgs^{-1}$ and on $\textsf{SMat}_n$ by $(t,s) \cdot A = tAt$. The map $\sigma : \mathsf{GL}_n \to \textsf{SMat}_n$, $g \mapsto gg^T$ considered above is then $T \times S$-equivariant. Since the second factor of $T \times S$ acts trivially on $\textsf{SMat}_n$, the polynomial $2^{\kappa(y)}\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$ still represents the class $[M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y] \in H_{T \times S}(\textsf{SMat}_n)$. It follows as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-schubert-classes} that $2^{\kappa(y)}\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$ also represents the class $[\hat X_y]_S \in H_{S}(\Fl{n})$. The latter fact was proven by Wyser and Yong \cite{wyser-yong-orthogonal-symplectic}, but our approach gives an explanation for the surprising existence of a representative for $[\hat X_y]_S$ not involving the $S$-weights. Similar remarks apply in the skew-symmetric case.
    \end{rmk}

\section{Characterizing pipe dreams} \label{sec:reduced-words}

The rest of this article is focused on the combinatorial properties of involution pipe dreams and
their role in the formulas in Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula}
that manifest Corollary~\ref{cor:positivity}.
In the introduction, we defined (fpf-)involution pipe dreams
via simple symmetry conditions.
In this section, we give an equivalent characterization
in terms of ``compatible sequences'' related to involution words.

\subsection{Reading words}

For $p \in \mathbb{Z}$, the \emph{$p\textsuperscript{th}$ antidiagonal}
(respectively, \emph{$p\textsuperscript{th}$ diagonal})
in $\ZZ_{>0} \times \ZZ_{>0}$ is the set
\[\{(i,j) \in \ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0} : i+j-1 = p\}
\qquad(\text{respectively, }\{(i,j)  \in \ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0}: j-i = p\}).\]
Labeling the elements of $\{1,2,3\}\times\{1,2,3\}$ by
their respective antidiagonal and diagonal  gives
\begin{equation*}
    \begin{array}{ccc}
        1 & 2 & 3\\
        2 & 3 & 4\\
        3 & 4 & 5\\
    \end{array} \qquad \text{and} \qquad
    \begin{array}{rrr}
        0 & -1 & -2\\
        1 & 0 & -1\\
        2 & 1 & 0
    \end{array}
\end{equation*}
Let $\textsf{adiag}: \ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0} \to \ZZ_{>0}$ be the map sending  $(i,j) \mapsto i+j-1$.

\begin{defn}
The \emph{standard reading word} of $D\subseteq [n]\times [n]$ is the sequence
\[ \textsf{word}(D) = \textsf{adiag}(\alpha_1) \textsf{adiag}(\alpha_2) \cdots \textsf{adiag}(\alpha_{|D|})\]
where $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\dots,\alpha_{|D|}$ are the positions of $D$
read row-by-row from right to left, starting with the top row.
\end{defn}

If one also records the row indices of the positions $\alpha_i$ as a second word,
then the resulting words uniquely determine $D$ and are the same data as a \emph{compatible sequence} for $\textsf{word}(D)$
(see \cite[(1)]{BJK}).

\begin{ex}
The subset $D= \{ (1,3),(1,2),(2,3),(2,2),(3,2)\}$ has $\textsf{word}(D) = 32434$.

\end{ex}

We introduce a more general class of reading words.
Suppose $\omega : [n] \times [n] \to [n^2]$ is a bijection.
For a subset $D \subseteq [n] \times [n]$ with $\omega(D) = \{ i_1 < i_2< \dots < i_{m}\}$, let
\[\textsf{word}(D,\omega) =\textsf{adiag}(\omega^{-1}(i_1))\textsf{adiag}(\omega^{-1}(i_2))\cdots \textsf{adiag}(\omega^{-1}(i_m)).\]
The standard reading word of $D\subseteq [n]\times [n]$
corresponds to
the bijection $\omega : (i,j) \mapsto ni - j + 1$.

\begin{ex} If $n=2$ and $\omega$ is such that
$
\left[ \begin{array}{rr}   \omega(1,1) &   \omega(1,2) \\    \omega(2,1) &   \omega(2,2) \end{array}\right] = \left[
 \begin{array}{cc}   3 &   1 \\    4 &   2 \end{array}
 \right]
 $
 then we would have $\textsf{word}([n]\times [n],\omega) = 2312$, while
 if
 $D
 = \{(1,1),(2,2)\}$
 then $\textsf{word}(D,\omega) = 31$.
 \end{ex}

For us, a \emph{linear extension} of a finite poset $(P,\preceq)$ with size $m=|P|$
is a bijection $\omega : P \to [m]$ such that $\omega(s) < \omega(t)$ whenever $s \prec t$ in $P$.

\begin{defn} A \emph{reading order} on $[n]\times[n]$ is a linear extension  of
the partial order $\leq_{\textsf{NE}}$ on $[n] \times [n]$ that has $(i,j) \leq_{\textsf{NE}} (i',j')$ if and only if both $i \leq i'$ and $j \geq j'$.
If $\omega$ is a reading order, then  we refer to $\textsf{word}(D,\omega)$
as a \emph{reading word} of $D\subseteq [n]\times [n]$. \end{defn}

The \emph{Coxeter commutation class} of a finite sequence of integers is its equivalence class
under the relation that lets adjacent letters commute if their positive difference is at least two.
For example, $\{1324, 3124,1342,3142, 3412\}$ is a single Coxeter commutation class.
Fix a set $D \subseteq [n] \times [n]$.

\begin{lem}\label{commutation-lem}
 All reading words of $D$
are in the same Coxeter commutation class.
 \end{lem}

This result can be derived using Viennot's theory of heaps of pieces; see \cite[Lem. 3.3]{Viennot}.

\begin{proof}
Let $s_p \in S_{n^2}$ be the simple transposition interchanging $p$ and $p+1$,
and choose a reading order $\omega$ on $[n]\times [n]$.
    The sequence $\textsf{word}(D, s_p \omega)$ is equal to $\textsf{word}(D, \omega)$ when $\{p,p+1\}\not\subset \omega(D)$,
    and otherwise is obtained by interchanging two adjacent letters in $\textsf{word}(D,\omega)$. In the latter case, if $\omega^{-1}(p) = (i,j)$ and $\omega^{-1}(p+1) = (i',j')$ are not in adjacent antidiagonals,
    then $\textsf{word}(D,\omega)$ and $\textsf{word}(D, s_p \omega)$ are in the same Coxeter commutation class.

    Now suppose $\upsilon$ is a second reading order on $[n]\times [n]$.
    We claim that one can pass from $\omega$ to $\upsilon$ by composing $\omega$ with a sequence of simple transpositions obeying the condition just described. To check this, we induct on the number of inversions in the permutation $\upsilon  \omega^{-1} \in S_{n^2}$. If $\upsilon \omega^{-1}$ is not the identity, then there exists $p$ with $\upsilon(\omega^{-1}(p)) > \upsilon(\omega^{-1}(p+1))$.
Since $\upsilon$ and $\omega$ are both linear extensions of $\leq_{\textsf{NE}}$,
we can have neither $\omega^{-1}(p) \leq_{\textsf{NE}} \omega^{-1}(p+1)$ nor $\omega^{-1}(p+1) \leq_{\textsf{NE}} \omega^{-1}(p)$, so the cells $\omega^{-1}(p)$ and $\omega^{-1}(p+1)$
are not in adjacent antidiagonals.
    Therefore $\textsf{word}(D,\omega)$ and $\textsf{word}(D, s_p  \omega)$ are in the same Coxeter commutation class, which by induction also includes $\textsf{word}(D,\upsilon)$.
\end{proof}

Each diagonal is an antichain for $\leq_{\textsf{NE}}$, so if $\omega$ first lists the elements on diagonal $-(n-1)$ in any order, then lists the elements on diagonal $-(n-2)$, and so on, then $\omega$ is a reading order.

\begin{defn}\label{unimodal-def}
The \emph{unimodal-diagonal reading order} on $[n]\times [n]$
is the reading order that lists the elements of the $p\textsuperscript{th}$ diagonal from bottom to top if $p < 0$, and from top to bottom if $p \geq 0$.     The \emph{unimodal-diagonal reading word} of $D\subseteq [n]\times[n]$, denoted $\textsf{udiag}(D)$, is
    the associated reading word.
    \end{defn}

    The unimodal-diagonal reading order
    on $\{1,2,3,4\} \times \{1,2,3,4\}$ has values
\begin{equation*}
    \begin{array}{ccccc}
        7 & 6 & 3 & 1 \\
       11 & 8 & 5 & 2 \\
       14 & 12& 9 & 4 \\
       16& 15& 13& 10 \\
      \end{array}
    \end{equation*}
and if
$D = \{1,2,3,4\} \times \{1,2,3,4\}$
then $\textsf{udiag}(D) = 4536421357246354$.

\subsection{Pipe dreams}

Recall the definitions of the sets of reduced words $\mathcal{R}(w)$, involution words $\hat{\mathcal{R}}(y)$, and fpf-involution words $\hat{\mathcal{R}}^{\fpf}(z)$
for $w \in S_n$, $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$, and $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ from Section~\ref{schub-sect}.
 The main results of this section are versions of the following theorem
 for involution pipe dreams and fpf-involution pipe dreams.

 \begin{thm}\label{pipe-thm}
A subset
$D \subseteq [n]\times [n]$
is a reduced pipe dream for $w \in S_n$
if and only if some (equivalently, every) reading word of $D$
is a reduced word for $w$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Fix $D \subseteq [n]\times [n]$ and $w \in S_n$.
The set $\mathcal{R}(w)$ is a union of Coxeter commutation classes, so
$\textsf{word}(D)\in\mathcal{R}(w)$ if and only every
reading word of $D$ belongs to $\mathcal{R}(w)$ by Lemma~\ref{commutation-lem}.
Saying that $D$ is a reduced pipe dream for $w$
if and only if $\textsf{word}(D) \in \mathcal{R}(w)$ is
Bergeron and Billey's original definition of an \emph{rc-graph}
in \cite[\S3]{bergeron-billey}, and it is clear from the basic properties of permutation wiring diagrams
that this is equivalent to the definition of a reduced pipe dream in the introduction.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}[{\cite[Lem. 3.2]{bergeron-billey}}]
\label{transpose-cor}
If $D$ is a reduced pipe dream for $w \in S_n$ then $D^T$ is a reduced pipe dream for $w^{-1}$.
\end{cor}

Recall that the set  $\mathcal{ID}(z)$ of
 \emph{involution pipe dreams}
for $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ consists of all intersections $D\cap \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n$
where $D$ is a reduced pipe dream for $z$ that is
almost-symmetric
and $\raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n = \{ (j,i) \in [n]\times [n] : i \leq j\}$.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:almost-symmetric}
Suppose $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ and $D \subseteq [n]\times [n]$. The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] Some reading word of $D$ is an involution word for $z$.
\item[(b)] Every reading word of $D$ is an involution word for $z$.
\item[(c)] The set $D$ is a reduced pipe dream for some atom of $z$.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if $D \subseteq \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n$ then $D\in \mathcal{ID}(z)$ if and only if these equivalent conditions hold.
\end{thm}

\begin{rmk}
Although this theorem implies that $\mathcal{ID}(z) \subseteq \bigsqcup_{w \in \mathcal{A}(z)} \mathcal{PD}(w)$,
 it is possible for an atom  $w \in \mathcal{A}(z)$  to have no reduced pipe dreams contained in $\raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n$,
in which case $\mathcal{ID}(z)$ and $\mathcal{PD}(w)$ are disjoint. See Example~\ref{3.10ex} for an illustration of this.
\end{rmk}

\begin{proof}
Recall that $\hat{\mathcal{R}}(z)$ is the disjoint union of the sets $\mathcal{R}(w)$, running over all atoms $w \in \mathcal{A}(z)$.
The equivalences (a) $\Leftrightarrow$ (b) $\Leftrightarrow$ (c) are clear from Lemma~\ref{commutation-lem} and Theorem~\ref{pipe-thm}.
Assume $D \subseteq \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n$.
To prove the final assertion,
it suffices to show that $D\in \mathcal{ID}(z)$
if and only if the unimodal-diagonal reading word of $D$ from Definition~\ref{unimodal-def}
is an involution word of $z$.

Suppose $|D| = m$ and $\textsf{udiag}(D)  = a_1a_2\cdots a_m$.
We construct a sequence $w_0,w_1,w_2,\dots,w_m$ of involutions as follows:
start by setting $w_0 = 1$, and for each $i \in [m]$ define  $ w_i = s_{a_i} w_{i-1} s_{a_i}$  if we have $w_{i-1} s_{a_i} \neq s_{a_i} w_{i-1}$, or else set $w_i = w_{i-1} s_{a_i} = s_{a_i} w_{i-1}$. For example, if $m=5$ and $a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5  =13235$ then this sequence has
\[w_1 =s_1,
\quad
w_2= s_1s_3,
\quad
w_3 =  s_2s_1s_3s_2,
\quad
w_4 = s_3 s_2s_1s_3s_2 s_3,
\quad\text{and}\quad
w_5 =s_3 s_2s_1s_3s_2 s_3 s_5.
\]
Let $b_l \cdots b_2 b_1$ be the subword of $a_m \cdots a_2 a_1$ which contains $a_i$ if and
only if $w_i = s_{a_i} w_{i-1} s_{a_i}$.
In our example with $m=5$ and $a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5= 13235$, we have
$l=2$ and $ b_2 b_1 = a_4a_3= 32$.
Let
$(p_1,q_1)$, $(p_2,q_2)$, \dots, $(p_m,q_m)$
be the cells in $D$ listed in the unimodal-diagonal reading order
and define $E = D\sqcup \{  (q_i,p_i) : w_i = s_{a_i} w_{i-1} s_{a_i}\}.$
If $\textsf{udiag}(D) = 13235$ then we could have
\[D = \left\{\begin{smallmatrix}
+ & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot \\
+ & +  & \cdot & \cdot \\
+ &  \cdot & \cdot & \cdot\\
\cdot & + & \cdot & \cdot
\end{smallmatrix}\right\}
\qquad\text{then}\qquad
E = \left\{\begin{smallmatrix}
+ & + & + & \cdot \\
+ & + & \cdot & \cdot \\
+ & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot \\
\cdot & + & \cdot & \cdot
\end{smallmatrix}\right\}.
\]
By construction $\textsf{udiag}(E) = b_l \cdots b_2 b_1 a_1a_2\cdots a_m$ is a reduced word for $z$.
It follows that $E$ is almost-symmetric since each $b_i$ has a corresponding $a_j$ and the associated cells are transposes of each other.

The exchange principle (see, e.g., \cite[Lem. 3.4]{hultman-twisted-involutions}) implies that
if $w \in \mathcal{I}_n$, $i \in [n-1]$, and $w(i)<w(i+1)$, then
either
 $s_i ws_i =w\neq ws_i =s_i w = s_i \circ w \circ s_i$ or $ s_iw s_i = s_i \circ w \circ s_i \neq w$.
From this, it is straightforward to show that $\textsf{udiag}(D) \in \hat{\mathcal{R}}(z) $ if and only if
$\textsf{udiag}(E) \in \mathcal{R}(z)$; this also follows from the results in \cite[\S2]{HMP2}.
Given the previous paragraph, we conclude that $\textsf{udiag}(D)\in \mathcal{R}(z)$ if and only if $D = E \cap \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n$ is an involution pipe dream for $z$.
\end{proof}

\begin{ex}\label{3.10ex}
Let $z = 1432 = (2,4) \in \mathcal{I}_4$. Since
$
z = s_3 \circ s_2 \circ 1 \circ  s_2 \circ s_3 = s_2 \circ s_3 \circ 1 \circ s_3 \circ s_2,$
we have $ 23 \in \hat{\mathcal{R}}(z)$ and $ 32\in \hat{\mathcal{R}}(z)$.
These  are the standard reading words of the involution pipe dreams
$\{(2,1),(3,1)\}$ and $\{(2,1),(2,2)\}$, which may be drawn as
\[
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
\node (b) at (0,2) {};
\filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,3.5) to[bend right] (0.5,4)
(0.5,3) to[bend left] (1,3.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,3.5) to[bend right] (1.5,4)
(1.5,3) to[bend left] (2,3.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
(2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
\filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,2.5) to (1,2.5)
(0.5,2) to (0.5,3);
\filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
(1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
\filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,1.5) to (1,1.5)
(0.5,1) to (0.5,2);
\filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
\filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
\node (b) at (0,2) {};
\filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,3.5) to[bend right] (0.5,4)
(0.5,3) to[bend left] (1,3.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,3.5) to[bend right] (1.5,4)
(1.5,3) to[bend left] (2,3.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
(2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
\filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,2.5) to (1,2.5)
(0.5,2) to (0.5,3);
\filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,2.5) to (2,2.5)
(1.5,2) to (1.5,3);
\filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
\filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,1.5) to[bend right] (0.5,2)
(0.5,1) to[bend left] (1,1.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
\filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
The only involution pipe dream for $y = 321 \in \mathcal{I}_3$  is  $\{(1,1),(2,1)\}$ which has standard reading word $12$.
Although $\hat{\mathcal{R}}(y) =\{12,21\}$, there is no involution pipe dream with standard reading word $21$.
\end{ex}

We turn to the fixed-point-free case.

\begin{lem}\label{diag-sym-lem}
Assume $n$ is even. Suppose $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ is an involution with a symmetric reduced pipe dream $D=D^T$.
Then $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ if and only if
$\{(i,i) : i \in [n/2]\}\subseteq D$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Since $D$ is symmetric, it is straightforward to check that the pipes in cell $(i,i)$ of the wiring diagram
of $D$
are labeled by fixed points of $z$ if and only if
$(i,i) \notin D$.
\end{proof}

Recall that the set $\mathcal{FD}(z)$ of
 \emph{fpf-involution pipe dreams}
for $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ consists of all intersections $D\cap \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n$
where $D$ is a reduced pipe dream for $z$
that is symmetric
and $\ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n = \{ (j,i) \in [n]\times [n] : i < j\}$.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:fpf-almost-symmetric}
Suppose $n$ is even, $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$, and $D \subseteq [n]\times [n]$. The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] Some reading word of $D$ is an fpf-involution word for $z$.
\item[(b)] Every reading word of $D$ is an fpf-involution word for $z$.
\item[(c)] The set $D$ is a reduced pipe dream for some fpf-atom of $z$.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if $D \subseteq \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n$ then $D\in \mathcal{FD}(z)$ if and only if these equivalent conditions hold.

\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Recall that $\hat{\mathcal{R}}^{\fpf}(z)$ is the disjoint union of the sets $\mathcal{R}(w)$, running over all fpf-atoms $w \in \mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z)$.
Properties (a), (b), and (c) are again equivalent
by Lemma~\ref{commutation-lem} and Theorem~\ref{pipe-thm}.
Assume $D \subseteq \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n$. To prove the final assertion, it suffices to check that
$D$ is an fpf-involution pipe dream for $z$ if and only if $\textsf{udiag}(D) \in \hat{\mathcal{R}}^{\fpf}(z)$.

To this end, first suppose $D = E \cap \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n$ where $E=E^T \in \mathcal{PD}(z)$.
Then $E$ is also almost-symmetric,
so
Theorem~\ref{thm:almost-symmetric} implies that $E\cap \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n\in \mathcal{ID}(z)$.
This combined with
Lemma~\ref{diag-sym-lem} implies that
$\textsf{udiag}(E\cap \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n) = 1 3 5 \cdots (n-1)\textsf{udiag}(D) \in \hat{\mathcal{R}}(z)$,
so $\textsf{udiag}(D)  \in \hat{\mathcal{R}}^{\fpf}(z)$.

Conversely, suppose every reading word of $D$ is an fpf-involution word for $z$,
so that $\textsf{udiag}(D) \in \hat{\mathcal{R}}^{\fpf}(z)$.
The set
$D' = D \sqcup \{(i,i) : i \in [n-1]\}$ then has $\textsf{udiag}(D') \in \hat{\mathcal{R}}(z)$,
so there exists an almost-symmetric
$D'' \in \mathcal{PD}(z)$ with $D'' \cap \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n = D'$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:almost-symmetric}.
By construction $D=D'' \cap \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n$, and
since $|D''| = \ell(z) =  2|D| + n/2$
it follows that $D''$ is actually symmetric.
Therefore $D\in \mathcal{FD}(z)$.
\end{proof}

  \begin{ex}
  Let $z =216543= (1,2)(3,6)(4,5) \in \I^{\fpf}_6$. Then $\ell(z) = 7$ and
  \[ z = s_3 \cdot s_4 \cdot (s _1 \cdot s_3 \cdot s_5) \cdot s_4\cdot s_3 =s_5 \cdot s_4 \cdot (s_1 \cdot s_3 \cdot s_5) \cdot s_4\cdot s_5,
  \]
  so $3413543$ and $5413545$ are reduced words for $z$. These words are the unimodal-diagonal reading words
  of the symmetric reduced pipe dreams
  \[
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
\node (b) at (0,3) {};
\filldraw (0.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,5.5) to (1,5.5)
(0.5,5) to (0.5,6);
\filldraw (1.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,5.5) to[bend right] (1.5,6)
(1.5,5) to[bend left] (2,5.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,5.5) to (3,5.5)
(2.5,5) to (2.5,6);
\filldraw (3.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,5.5) to[bend right] (3.5,6)
(3.5,5) to[bend left] (4,5.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,5.5) to[bend right] (4.5,6)
(4.5,5) to[bend left] (5,5.5);
\filldraw (5.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(5,5.5) to[bend right] (5.5,6);
\filldraw (0.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,4.5) to[bend right] (0.5,5)
(0.5,4) to[bend left] (1,4.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,4.5) to (2,4.5)
(1.5,4) to (1.5,5);
\filldraw (2.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,4.5) to (3,4.5)
(2.5,4) to (2.5,5);
\filldraw (3.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,4.5) to[bend right] (3.5,5)
(3.5,4) to[bend left] (4,4.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,4.5) to[bend right] (4.5,5);
\filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,3.5) to (1,3.5)
(0.5,3) to (0.5,4);
\filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,3.5) to (2,3.5)
(1.5,3) to (1.5,4);
\filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,3.5) to (3,3.5)
(2.5,3) to (2.5,4);
\filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
\filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,2.5) to[bend right] (0.5,3)
(0.5,2) to[bend left] (1,2.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
(1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
\filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,1.5) to[bend right] (0.5,2)
(0.5,1) to[bend left] (1,1.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
\filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
\node (b) at (0,3) {};
\filldraw (0.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,5.5) to (1,5.5)
(0.5,5) to (0.5,6);
\filldraw (1.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,5.5) to[bend right] (1.5,6)
(1.5,5) to[bend left] (2,5.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,5.5) to[bend right] (2.5,6)
(2.5,5) to[bend left] (3,5.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,5.5) to (4,5.5)
(3.5,5) to (3.5,6);
\filldraw (4.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,5.5) to (5,5.5)
(4.5,5) to (4.5,6);
\filldraw (5.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(5,5.5) to[bend right] (5.5,6);
\filldraw (0.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,4.5) to[bend right] (0.5,5)
(0.5,4) to[bend left] (1,4.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,4.5) to (2,4.5)
(1.5,4) to (1.5,5);
\filldraw (2.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,4.5) to[bend right] (2.5,5)
(2.5,4) to[bend left] (3,4.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,4.5) to[bend right] (3.5,5)
(3.5,4) to[bend left] (4,4.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,4.5) to[bend right] (4.5,5);
\filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,3.5) to[bend right] (0.5,4)
(0.5,3) to[bend left] (1,3.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,3.5) to[bend right] (1.5,4)
(1.5,3) to[bend left] (2,3.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,3.5) to (3,3.5)
(2.5,3) to (2.5,4);
\filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
\filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,2.5) to (1,2.5)
(0.5,2) to (0.5,3);
\filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
(1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
\filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,1.5) to (1,1.5)
(0.5,1) to (0.5,2);
\filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
\filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);
\end{tikzpicture}
\]
so
$\{(3,1),(3,2)\}$ and $\{(4,1),(5,1)\}$ are fpf-involution pipe dreams for $z$,
and their standard reading words $43$ and $45$ are fpf-involution words for $z$.
  \end{ex}

\section{Pipe dreams and Schubert polynomials}\label{sec:inv-polynom}

In this section, we derive the pipe dream formulas for involution Schubert polynomials
given in Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula}.
Our arguments are inspired by a new proof due to Knutson \cite{Knutson} of the
classical pipe dream formula \eqref{eq:double-schubert-def}.
Knutson's approach is inductive.
The key step in his argument is to show that the right side of \eqref{eq:double-schubert-def}
satisfies certain recurrences which also apply to double Schubert polynomials \cite[\S4]{kohnert1997using}.

Similar recurrences for $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$ and $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z$ appear in~\cite{HMP3}.
Adapting Knutson's strategy to our setting requires us to
show that the right hand expressions in Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula} satisfy
the same family of identities.
This is accomplished in Theorems~\ref{thm:inv-dominant-transition} and \ref{thm:fpf-dominant-transition}.
Proving these results involves a detailed analysis of the
maximal (shifted) Ferrers diagram contained in a reduced pipe dream,
which we refer to as the \emph{(shifted) dominant component}.
We gradually develop the technical properties of these components over the course of this section.

\subsection{Dominant components of permutations}

Let $\leq_{\textsf{NW}}$ be the partial order on $\ZZ_{>0} \times \ZZ_{>0}$ with $(i,j) \leq_{\textsf{NW}} (i',j')$ if $i \leq i'$ and $j \leq j'$,
i.e., if $(i,j)$ is northwest of $(i',j')$ in matrix coordinates.

\begin{defn}
The \emph{dominant component} $\dom{D}$ of a set $D \subseteq \ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0}$ is
the union of  all lower sets in $(\ZZ_{>0}\times\ZZ_{>0},\leq_{\textsf{NW}})$ that are contained in $D$.
\end{defn}

Equivalently,  the set $\dom{D}$ consists of all pairs $(i,j) \in D$ such that whenever $(i',j') \in \ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0}$ and $(i',j') \leq_{\textsf{NW}} (i,j)$
it holds that $(i',j') \in D$.
If $D$ is finite,
 then its dominant component $\dom{D}$ is the Ferrers diagram
$
\textsf{D}_\lambda = \{(i,j) : 1 \leq i \leq \ell(\lambda),\ 1 \leq j \leq \lambda_i\}
$
of some partition $\lambda$.
An \emph{outer corner} of $D$
is a pair $(i,j) \in (\ZZ_{>0} \times \ZZ_{>0}) \setminus D$ such that $\dom{D} \sqcup \{(i,j)\}$ is again a Ferrers diagram
of some partition.

For example, $(1,2)$ and $(2,1)$ are the outer corners of $D = \{(1,1),(1,3)\}$, since $\dom{D} = \{(1,1)\}$.

\begin{lem}\label{outer-corner-lem}
Suppose $w \in S_n$ and $(i,j)$ is an outer corner of some $D \in \mathcal{PD}(w)$.
Then $w(i) = j$ and $D\sqcup\{(i,j)\}$ is a reduced pipe dream (for a longer permutation).
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
By hypothesis, $D$ contains every cell above $(i,j)$ in the $j$th column
and every cell to the left of $(i,j)$ in the $i$th row.
This means that in the wiring diagram associated to $D$, the pipe leaving the top of position $(i,j)$ must continue straight up and terminate in column $j$ on the top side of $D$, and after leaving the left of position $(i,j)$, the same pipe
must continue straight left and terminate in row $i$ on the left side of $D$.
Thus $w(i) = j$ as claimed.
   Suppose the other pipe at position $(i,j)$ starts at $p$ on the left and ends at $q=w(p)$ on the top. As this pipe leaves  $(i,j)$ rightwards and downwards, we have $p > i$ and $q>j$, and the pipe only intersects $[i] \times [j]$ at $(i,j)$, where it avoids the other pipe. Hence $D\sqcup\{(i,j)\} \in \mathcal{PD}(w')$ for  $w' =(i,p)w = w(j,q)\in S_n$ since $\ell(w') > \ell(w)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{ex}
Suppose $w=426135 \in S_6$. If  $(i,j) = (2,2)$ and
\begin{equation*}\label{wiring-ex}
     D =  \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
         	  \node (b) at (0,3) {};

            \filldraw (0.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (0,5.5) to (1,5.5)
            (0.5,5) to (0.5,6);
            \filldraw (1.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (1,5.5) to (2,5.5)
            (1.5,5) to (1.5,6);
            \filldraw (2.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (2,5.5) to (3,5.5)
            (2.5,5) to (2.5,6);
            \filldraw (3.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (3,5.5) to[bend right] (3.5,6)
            (3.5,5) to[bend left] (4,5.5);
            \filldraw (4.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (4,5.5) to (5,5.5)
            (4.5,5) to (4.5,6);
            \filldraw (5.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (5,5.5) to[bend right] (5.5,6);
            \filldraw (0.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (0,4.5) to (1,4.5)
            (0.5,4) to (0.5,5);
            \filldraw (1.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (1,4.5) to[bend right] (1.5,5)
            (1.5,4) to[bend left] (2,4.5);
            \filldraw (2.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (2,4.5) to (3,4.5)
            (2.5,4) to (2.5,5);
            \filldraw (3.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (3,4.5) to[bend right] (3.5,5)
            (3.5,4) to[bend left] (4,4.5);
            \filldraw (4.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (4,4.5) to[bend right] (4.5,5);
            \filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (0,3.5) to (1,3.5)
            (0.5,3) to (0.5,4);
            \filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (1,3.5) to[bend right] (1.5,4)
            (1.5,3) to[bend left] (2,3.5);
            \filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
            (2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
            \filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
            \filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (0,2.5) to[bend right] (0.5,3)
            (0.5,2) to[bend left] (1,2.5);
            \filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
            (1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
            \filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
            \filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (0,1.5) to[bend right] (0.5,2)
            (0.5,1) to[bend left] (1,1.5);
            \filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
            \filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);

            \draw (-0.3,5.5) node {$\scriptstyle 1$};
            \draw (-0.3,4.5) node {$\scriptstyle 2$};
            \draw (-0.3,3.5) node {$\scriptstyle 3$};
            \draw (-0.3,2.5) node {$\scriptstyle 4$};
            \draw (-0.3,1.5) node {$\scriptstyle 5$};
            \draw (-0.3,0.5) node {$\scriptstyle 6$};

            \draw (0.5,6.3) node {$\scriptstyle 1$};
            \draw (1.5,6.3) node {$\scriptstyle 2$};
            \draw (2.5,6.3) node {$\scriptstyle 3$};
            \draw (3.5,6.3) node {$\scriptstyle 4$};
            \draw (4.5,6.3) node {$\scriptstyle 5$};
            \draw (5.5,6.3) node {$\scriptstyle 6$};
        \end{tikzpicture} \qquad \text{so that} \qquad D\sqcup\{(i,j)\} =
        \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
         	  \node (b) at (0,3) {};

            \filldraw (0.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (0,5.5) to (1,5.5)
            (0.5,5) to (0.5,6);
            \filldraw (1.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (1,5.5) to (2,5.5)
            (1.5,5) to (1.5,6);
            \filldraw (2.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (2,5.5) to (3,5.5)
            (2.5,5) to (2.5,6);
            \filldraw (3.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (3,5.5) to[bend right] (3.5,6)
            (3.5,5) to[bend left] (4,5.5);
            \filldraw (4.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (4,5.5) to (5,5.5)
            (4.5,5) to (4.5,6);
            \filldraw (5.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (5,5.5) to[bend right] (5.5,6);
            \filldraw (0.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (0,4.5) to (1,4.5)
            (0.5,4) to (0.5,5);
            \filldraw (1.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (1,4.5) to (2,4.5)
            (1.5,4) to (1.5,5);
            \filldraw (2.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (2,4.5) to (3,4.5)
            (2.5,4) to (2.5,5);
            \filldraw (3.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (3,4.5) to[bend right] (3.5,5)
            (3.5,4) to[bend left] (4,4.5);
            \filldraw (4.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (4,4.5) to[bend right] (4.5,5);
            \filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (0,3.5) to (1,3.5)
            (0.5,3) to (0.5,4);
            \filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (1,3.5) to[bend right] (1.5,4)
            (1.5,3) to[bend left] (2,3.5);
            \filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
            (2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
            \filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
            \filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (0,2.5) to[bend right] (0.5,3)
            (0.5,2) to[bend left] (1,2.5);
            \filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
            (1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
            \filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
            \filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (0,1.5) to[bend right] (0.5,2)
            (0.5,1) to[bend left] (1,1.5);
            \filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
            \filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
            \draw
            (0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);

            \draw (-0.3,5.5) node {$\scriptstyle 1$};
            \draw (-0.3,4.5) node {$\scriptstyle 2$};
            \draw (-0.3,3.5) node {$\scriptstyle 3$};
            \draw (-0.3,2.5) node {$\scriptstyle 4$};
            \draw (-0.3,1.5) node {$\scriptstyle 5$};
            \draw (-0.3,0.5) node {$\scriptstyle 6$};

            \draw (0.5,6.3) node {$\scriptstyle 1$};
            \draw (1.5,6.3) node {$\scriptstyle 2$};
            \draw (2.5,6.3) node {$\scriptstyle 3$};
            \draw (3.5,6.3) node {$\scriptstyle 4$};
            \draw (4.5,6.3) node {$\scriptstyle 5$};
            \draw (5.5,6.3) node {$\scriptstyle 6$};
        \end{tikzpicture}
 \end{equation*}
then in the notation of the proof, we have $p = 3$, $q=6$, and $w' = 462135$.
\end{ex}

Recall  that $D(w) = \{(i,j) \in [n] \times [n] : w(i) > j\text{, } w^{-1}(j) > i\}$ is the Rothe diagram of $w \in S_n$.

\begin{defn}
The \emph{dominant component}
of a permutation $w \in S_n$
is
$\dom{w} = \dom{D(w)}.$
We say that permutation $w \in S_n$ is \emph{dominant} if $\dom{w} \in \mathcal{PD}(w)$.
\end{defn}

It is more common to define $w$ to be dominant if $D(w)$ is the Ferrers diagram of a partition, or equivalently if $w$ is $132$-avoiding. The following lemma shows that our definition is equivalent.

\begin{lem}\label{dom1-lem}
A permutation $w \in S_n$ is dominant
if and only if it holds that $\mathcal{PD}(w) = \{ \dom{w}\}$, in which case $\dom{w} = D(w)$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
If $w \in S_n$ is dominant
then $\mathcal{PD}(w) = \{ \dom{w}\}= \{ D(w) \}$
since all reduced pipe dreams for $w$ have size $\ell(w) = |D(w)|$
and contain $\dom{w} \subseteq D(w)$.
\end{proof}

 \begin{cor}\label{sym-dom-cor}
 Let $w \in S_n$. Then $\dom{w^{-1}} = \dom{w}^T$.
If $w $ is dominant, then $\dom{w} = \dom{w}^T$ if and only if $w=w^{-1}$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
 The first claim holds since $D(w^{-1}) = D(w)^T$.
If $w$ is dominant and $\dom{w} = \dom{w}^T$, then $\dom{w} = D(w)$
by Lemma~\ref{dom1-lem}
 so $D(w) = D(w)^T = D(w^{-1})$ and therefore $w=w^{-1}$.
\end{proof}

We write $\mu \subseteq \lambda$ for partitions $\mu$ and $\lambda$
to indicate that $\textsf{D}_\mu \subseteq \textsf{D}_\lambda$.

\begin{prop}
If $\lambda$ is a partition with $\lambda \subseteq (n-1,\dots,3, 2,1)$ then there exists a unique dominant
permutation $w \in S_n$
with $\dom{w} = \textsf{D}_\lambda$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
This holds by induction as
adding an outer corner to the reduced pipe dream of a dominant permutation yields
a reduced pipe dream of a new dominant permutation.
\end{proof}

Write $\leq$ for the Bruhat order on $S_n$.
Since $v \leq w$ if and only if
some (equivalently, every) reduced word for $w$ has a subword that is a reduced word for $v$  \cite[\S5.10]{Humphreys},
Theorem~\ref{pipe-thm} implies:

\begin{lem}
If $v,w \in S_n$ then $v \leq w$ if and only if some (equivalently, every) reduced pipe dream for $w$ has a subset that is a reduced pipe dream for $v$.
\end{lem}

\begin{cor}\label{dom-subset-cor}
Let $v,w \in S_n$ with $v$ dominant.
Then $v\leq w$ if and only if $\dom{v} \subseteq D$ for some (equivalently, every) $D \in \mathcal{PD}(w)$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
This holds since a dominant permutation has only one reduced pipe dream.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{prop:dominant-independence}
If $w \in S_n$ and $D \in \mathcal{PD}(w)$ then $\dom{D} = \dom{w}$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
For each $D \in \mathcal{PD}(w)$ there exists a dominant permutation $v \in S_n$
with $\dom{v} = \dom{D}$ and $v \leq w$, in which case
$\dom{D} \subseteq \dom{E}$ for all $E \in \mathcal{PD}(w)$ by Corollary~\ref{dom-subset-cor}.
This can only hold if $\dom{D} = \dom{E}$ for all $E \in \mathcal{PD}(w)$.

To finish the proof, it suffices to show that $\dom{w} = \dom{D_{\text{bot}}(w)}$.
It is clear by definition that $\dom{w} \subseteq \dom{D_{\text{bot}}(w)}$.
Conversely,
each outer corner of $\dom{w}$ has the form $(i,w(i))$ for some $i \in [n]$
but no such cell is in $\dom{D_{\text{bot}}(w)}$,
so we cannot have $\dom{w} \subsetneq \dom{D_{\text{bot}}(w)}$.
\end{proof}

In the next sections, we define an \emph{outer corner} of $w \in S_n$ to be an outer corner of $\dom{w}$.

\subsection{Involution pipe dream formulas}

Recall that $\mathcal{I}_n = \{ w \in S_n : w=w^{-1}\}$ and $\raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n = \{ (j,i) \in [n]\times [n] : i\leq j\}$.

\begin{defn}
The  \emph{shifted dominant component} of $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ is the set
$ \shdom{z} = \dom{z} \cap \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n.$
\end{defn}

Fix $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$.
By Proposition~\ref{prop:dominant-independence}, we have
$\shdom{z} = \dom{D} \cap \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n$ for all $D \in \mathcal{PD}(z)$.
Recall that the \emph{shifted Ferrers diagram} of a strict partition $\lambda = (\lambda_1>\lambda_2 > \dots > \lambda_k >0)$
is the set \[ \textsf{SD}_\lambda = \{ (i, i+j-1) : 1 \leq i \leq k,\ 1\leq j \leq \lambda_i\},\]
which is formed from $\textsf{D}_\lambda$
by moving the boxes in row $i$ to the right by $i-1$ columns.
Since $\dom{z}$ is a Ferrers diagram,
the set $\shdom{z}$ is the transpose of the shifted Ferrers diagram of some strict partition.
A pair $(j,i) \in \ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0}$ with $i\leq j$ is an outer corner of $z$
if and only if
 the transpose of
$\shdom{z} \cup \{(j,i)\}$ is a shifted Ferrers diagram,
in which case $z(j) = i$.

\begin{lem}\label{double-lem}
If $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ then $\dom{z} = \shdom{z} \cup \shdom{z}^T$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
This holds since $z=z^{-1}$ implies that $\dom{z} = \dom{z}^T$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}\label{maximal-lower-cor}
If $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ then
$\shdom{z}$ is the union of all lower sets of $(\raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n,\leq_{\textsf{NW}})$ that are contained in some (equivalently, every) $D \in \mathcal{ID}(z)$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
This is clear from Proposition~\ref{prop:dominant-independence} and Lemma~\ref{double-lem}.
\end{proof}

The natural definition of ``involution'' dominance
turns out to be equivalent to the usual notion:

\begin{prop}\label{inv-dom-prop}
Let $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$. The following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] The permutation $z$ is dominant.
\item[(b)] It holds that $\mathcal{PD}(z) = \{ \dom{z}\}$.
\item[(c)] It holds that $\mathcal{ID}(z) = \{\shdom{z}\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We have (a) $\Leftrightarrow$ (b) by Lemma~\ref{dom1-lem} and (b) $\Leftrightarrow$ (c) by Lemma~\ref{double-lem}.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
If $\lambda$ is a strict partition with $\lambda \subseteq (n-1,n-3,n-5,\dots)$ then there exists a unique dominant
involution $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$
with $\shdom{z}^T =  \textsf{SD}_\lambda$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We have $\textsf{D}_\mu =  \textsf{SD}_\lambda \cup ( \textsf{SD}_\lambda)^T$ for some $\mu$.
Let $z \in S_n$ be dominant with $\dom{z} = \textsf{D}_\mu$.
Then $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ by Corollary~\ref{sym-dom-cor} and $\shdom{z}^T = (\textsf{D}_\mu \cap \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n)^T =  \textsf{SD}_\lambda$.
Uniqueness  holds by Lemma~\ref{double-lem}.
\end{proof}

If $y,z \in \mathcal{I}_n$,
then  $y \leq z$ in Bruhat order if and only if
some (equivalently, every) involution word for $z$ contains a subword that is an
involution word for $y$ (see either \cite[Cor. 8.10]{richardson-springer} with \cite{richardson-springer2},
or \cite[Thm. 2.8]{hultman-twisted-involutions2}).
The following is an immediate corollary of this property and Theorem~\ref{thm:almost-symmetric}.

\begin{lem}\label{inv-bruhat-lem}
Let $y,z \in \mathcal{I}_n$. Then $y \leq z$ if and only if
some (equivalently, every) involution pipe dream for $z$ has a subset that is an
 involution pipe dream for $y$.
\end{lem}

\begin{cor}\label{inv-dom-subset-cor}
Let $y,z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ with $y$ dominant.
Then $y\leq z$ if and only if $\shdom{y} \subseteq D$ for some (equivalently, every) $D \in \mathcal{ID}(z)$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
This is clear since if $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ is dominant then $|\mathcal{ID}(y)|=1$.
\end{proof}

We need to mention the following technical property of
the Demazure product from \cite{KM03}.

\begin{lem}[{\cite[Lem. 3.4(1)]{KM03}}]
\label{0-hecke-lem}
If $b_1b_2\cdots b_q$ is a subword of $a_1a_2\dots a_p$
where each $a_i \in [n-1]$,
then
$
s_{b_1} \circ s_{b_2}\circ \dots \circ s_{b_q} \leq s_{a_1} \circ s_{a_2}\circ \dots \circ s_{a_p} \in S_n.
$
\end{lem}

\begin{cor}\label{0-hecke-cor-0}
If $v',w',v,w \in S_n$ and $v \leq w$ and $v'\leq w'$ then $v' \circ v \leq w' \circ w$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
This is clear from Lemma~\ref{0-hecke-lem}
given the subword property of $\leq$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}\label{0-hecke-cor}
If $v,w \in S_n$ and $v \leq w$ then $v^{-1}\circ v \leq w^{-1} \circ w$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Apply Corollary~\ref{0-hecke-cor-0} with $v' = v^{-1}$ and $w'=w^{-1}$.
\end{proof}

Let $t_{ij} = (i,j) \in S_n$ for distinct $i,j \in [n]$.
It is well-known and not hard to check that if $w \in S_n$ then
$\ell(w t_{ij})  = \ell(w) +1$ if and only if $w(i)<w(j)$
and no  $i<e<j$ has $w(i) < w(e) < w(j)$.

Given $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ and $1\leq  i <j \leq n$, let
$\mathcal{A}_{ij}(y)= \{ w t_{ij} : w \in \mathcal{A}(y)\text{, }\ell(wt_{ij})=\ell(w)+1\}.$
Each covering relation in $(S_n,\leq)$ arises
as the image of right multiplication by some transposition $t_{ij}$.
The following theorem
characterizes certain operators $\tau_{ij}$
which play an analogous role for $(\mathcal{I}_n,\leq)$.

\begin{thm}[{See \cite[\S3]{HMP3}}]
\label{tau-thm}
For each pair of integers $1\leq i < j \leq n$, there
are unique maps $\tau_{ij} : \mathcal{I}_n \to \mathcal{I}_n$
with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] If $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ and
$\mathcal{A}_{ij}(y)\cap \mathcal{A}(z)\neq\varnothing $
for some $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$
then $\tau_{ij}(y)= z$.

\item[(b)] If $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ and
$\mathcal{A}_{ij}(y)\cap \mathcal{A}(z)=\varnothing$
for all $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$
then $\tau_{ij}(y)= y$.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ and $y \neq \tau_{ij}(y)=z$, then $y(i) \neq z(i)$ and $y(j)\neq z(j)$.
\end{thm}

This result has an extension for affine symmetric groups;
see \cite{M2018,MZ2018}.

\begin{rmk}
The operators $\tau_{ij}$, which first appeared in \cite{incitti},
 can be given a more explicit definition; see \cite[Table 1]{HMP3}.
However, our present applications only require the properties
in the theorem.
\end{rmk}

For $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$, let $\iell(y)$ denote the common value of $\ell(w)$ for any $w \in \mathcal{A}(y)$.
This  is also the size of any $D \in \mathcal{ID}(y)$, so $\iell(y) = |\hat c(y)| $.
By Lemma~\ref{inv-bruhat-lem},
if $y,z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ and $y<z$ then $\iell(y) < \iell(z)$.
Let
\begin{equation*
    \Psi(y,j) = \left\{
    z \in \mathcal{I}_{n+1} : z =\tau_{js}(y)\text{ and }\iell(z)=\iell(y)+1\text{ for some }s>j
    \right\}
\end{equation*}
for $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ and $j \in [n]$.
Since $S_n \subset S_{n+1}$ and $\mathcal{I}_n \subset \mathcal{I}_{n+1}$,
this set is well-defined.

\begin{thm}\label{thm:inv-dominant-transition}
    Let $(j,i) $ be an outer corner of $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ with $i\leq j$.
    \begin{enumerate}
    \item[(a)] The map
    $D \mapsto D \sqcup \{(j,i)\}$ is a bijection
$
        \mathcal{ID}(y) \to \bigsqcup_{z \in \Psi(y,j)} \mathcal{ID}(z)
$.
\item[(b)] If $i+j \leq n$ then $\Psi(y,j) \subset \mathcal{I}_n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
We have $y(j) = i$ and $y(i) = j$ by Lemma~\ref{outer-corner-lem}.
Suppose $v \in \mathcal{A}(y)$ and $D \in \mathcal{PD}(v) \cap \mathcal{ID}(y)$.
By considering the pipes crossing at position $(j,i)$ in
the wiring diagram of $D$, as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{outer-corner-lem},
it follows that
$D\sqcup \{(j,i)\}$ is a reduced pipe dream for a permutation
 $w$ that belongs to $\mathcal{A}_{js}(y)$ for some $j<s \leq n$.
Set $z = w^{-1}\circ w \in \mathcal{I}_n$.
We wish to show that $w \in \mathcal{A}(z)$,
since if this holds then $D\sqcup \{(j,i)\} \in \mathcal{ID}(z)$ and
Theorem~\ref{tau-thm} implies that $z \in \Psi(y,j)$.

To this end,
let $\tilde y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ be the dominant involution whose unique involution pipe dream
is  $\shdom{y} \sqcup\{(j,i)\}$
and let $\tilde v \in \mathcal{A}(\tilde y)$ be the (unique) atom with
 $\mathcal{ID}(\tilde y) \subseteq \mathcal{PD}(\tilde v) $.
Corollaries~\ref{dom-subset-cor} and \ref{inv-dom-subset-cor}
imply that  $\tilde y \not<y$, $\tilde v \leq w $, and $v<w$
since $\shdom{\tilde y} \not\subset \shdom{y}$
and $\shdom{\tilde y} \subseteq D\sqcup \{(j,i)\}$.
Hence, we have
$
\tilde y = {\tilde v}^{-1} \circ \tilde v \leq w^{-1} \circ w=z
$
and
$
y = v^{-1} \circ v \leq w^{-1} \circ w=z
$
by Corollary~\ref{0-hecke-cor}.
Putting these relations together gives
$\tilde y \not < y \leq z$
and
$\tilde y \leq z$, so we must have $y < z$ and $\ell(w) = \iell(y)+1  \leq \iell(z)$,
and therefore $w \in \mathcal{A}(z)$.

Thus, the map in part (a) at least has the desired codomain and
 is clearly injective.
To show that it is also surjective, suppose $E \in \mathcal{ID}(z)$ for some $z \in \Psi(y,j)$.
Lemma~\ref{inv-bruhat-lem} implies some $(l,k) \in E$
has $E \setminus \{(l,k)\} \in \mathcal{ID}(y)$.
Let $E' \in \mathcal{PD}(z)$ be the almost-symmetric reduced pipe dream with $E = E'\cap \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n$.
If $(j,i) \neq (l,k)$
then, since $\dom{y} = \shdom{y} \cup \shdom{y}^T \subset E'$,
it would follow by considering the wiring diagram of $E'$
that $z(j) = i = y(j)$,
contradicting the last assertion in Theorem~\ref{tau-thm}.
Thus $(j,i) = (l,k)$ so the map in part (a) is  surjective.
Part (b) holds because an involution belongs to $\mathcal{I}_n$
if any of its involution pipe dreams is contained in $\{ (j,i)  : i\leq j\text{ and }i +j \leq n\}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{ex}\label{inv-dom-ex}
If $y = 35142
= (1,3)(2,5)
 \in \mathcal{I}_5$
then
 \[
\mathcal{ID}(y) =
\left\{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
\node (b) at (0,2.5) {};
\filldraw (0.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,4.5) to (1,4.5)
(0.5,4) to (0.5,5);
\filldraw (1.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,4.5) to[bend right] (1.5,5)
(1.5,4) to[bend left] (2,4.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,4.5) to[bend right] (2.5,5)
(2.5,4) to[bend left] (3,4.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,4.5) to[bend right] (3.5,5)
(3.5,4) to[bend left] (4,4.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,4.5) to[bend right] (4.5,5);
\filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,3.5) to (1,3.5)
(0.5,3) to (0.5,4);
\filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,3.5) to (2,3.5)
(1.5,3) to (1.5,4);
\filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
(2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
\filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,2.5) to[bend right] (0.5,3)
(0.5,2) to[bend left] (1,2.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
(1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
\filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,1.5) to (1,1.5)
(0.5,1) to (0.5,2);
\filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
\filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);
\end{tikzpicture}
,\quad
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
\node (b) at (0,2.5) {};
\filldraw (0.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,4.5) to (1,4.5)
(0.5,4) to (0.5,5);
\filldraw (1.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,4.5) to[bend right] (1.5,5)
(1.5,4) to[bend left] (2,4.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,4.5) to[bend right] (2.5,5)
(2.5,4) to[bend left] (3,4.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,4.5) to[bend right] (3.5,5)
(3.5,4) to[bend left] (4,4.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,4.5) to[bend right] (4.5,5);
\filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,3.5) to (1,3.5)
(0.5,3) to (0.5,4);
\filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,3.5) to (2,3.5)
(1.5,3) to (1.5,4);
\filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
(2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
\filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,2.5) to[bend right] (0.5,3)
(0.5,2) to[bend left] (1,2.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,2.5) to (2,2.5)
(1.5,2) to (1.5,3);
\filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
\filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,1.5) to[bend right] (0.5,2)
(0.5,1) to[bend left] (1,1.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
\filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);
\end{tikzpicture}\
\right\}
\]
so the transpose of $\shdom{y}$ is the shifted Ferrers diagram of $(2,1)$,
and $(3,1)$ is an outer corner.
One can show that $\Psi(y,3) = \{53241,45312\}$,
and as predicted by Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-dominant-transition} with $(j,i) = (3,1)$,
both elements of $\Psi(y,3)$ are dominant with
\[
\mathcal{ID}(53241) =
\left\{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
\node (b) at (0,2.5) {};
\filldraw (0.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,4.5) to (1,4.5)
(0.5,4) to (0.5,5);
\filldraw (1.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,4.5) to[bend right] (1.5,5)
(1.5,4) to[bend left] (2,4.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,4.5) to[bend right] (2.5,5)
(2.5,4) to[bend left] (3,4.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,4.5) to[bend right] (3.5,5)
(3.5,4) to[bend left] (4,4.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,4.5) to[bend right] (4.5,5);
\filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,3.5) to (1,3.5)
(0.5,3) to (0.5,4);
\filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,3.5) to (2,3.5)
(1.5,3) to (1.5,4);
\filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
(2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
\filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,2.5) to (1,2.5)
(0.5,2) to (0.5,3);
\filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
(1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
\filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,1.5) to (1,1.5)
(0.5,1) to (0.5,2);
\filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
\filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);
\end{tikzpicture}\
\right\}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\mathcal{ID}(45312) =
\left\{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
\node (b) at (0,2.5) {};
\filldraw (0.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,4.5) to (1,4.5)
(0.5,4) to (0.5,5);
\filldraw (1.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,4.5) to[bend right] (1.5,5)
(1.5,4) to[bend left] (2,4.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,4.5) to[bend right] (2.5,5)
(2.5,4) to[bend left] (3,4.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,4.5) to[bend right] (3.5,5)
(3.5,4) to[bend left] (4,4.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,4.5) to[bend right] (4.5,5);
\filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,3.5) to (1,3.5)
(0.5,3) to (0.5,4);
\filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,3.5) to (2,3.5)
(1.5,3) to (1.5,4);
\filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
(2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
\filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,2.5) to (1,2.5)
(0.5,2) to (0.5,3);
\filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,2.5) to (2,2.5)
(1.5,2) to (1.5,3);
\filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
\filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,1.5) to[bend right] (0.5,2)
(0.5,1) to[bend left] (1,1.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
\filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);
\end{tikzpicture}\
\right\}.
\]
 \end{ex}

We may finally prove the pipe dream formula
in Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula} for the polynomials $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$.

\begin{thm}\label{inv-pipe-schubert-thm}
If $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ then $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_z = \sum_{D \in \mathcal{ID}(z)} \prod_{(i,j) \in D} 2^{-\delta_{ij}}(x_i+x_j)$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
We abbreviate by setting $x_{(i,j)} = 2^{-\delta_{ij}}(x_i+x_j)$, so that $x_{(i,j)} = x_i$ if $i=j$ and otherwise $x_{(i,j)} = x_i+x_j$.
It follows from \cite[Thm. 3.30]{HMP3} that
if $(j,i) \in \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n$ is an outer corner of $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ then
\begin{equation}\label{itransition-eq} 2^{-\delta_{ij}}(x_i+x_j) \hat{\mathfrak{S}}_z = \sum_{u \in \Psi(z,j)} \hat{\mathfrak{S}}_u.\end{equation}
On the other hand,
results of Wyser and Yong \cite{wyser-yong-orthogonal-symplectic} (see \cite[Thm. 1.3]{HMP1}) show that
\begin{equation}\label{inv-rev-eq}
\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_{n\cdots 321} = \prod_{1\leq i \leq j \leq n-i} x_{(i,j)}.\end{equation}
Let $\mathfrak{A}_z = \sum_{D \in \mathcal{ID}(z)} \prod_{(i,j) \in D} x_{(i,j)}$.
We show that $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_z = \mathfrak{A}_z$ by downward induction on $\iell(z)$.
If $\iell(z) = \max\{\iell(y): y \in \mathcal{I}_n\}$ then
$z=n\cdots 321$
and
the desired identity
is equivalent to \eqref{inv-rev-eq} since
$n\cdots 321$ is dominant.
Otherwise, the transpose of $\shdom{z}$ is a proper subset of $\shdom{n\cdots 321}^T=\textsf{SD}_{(n-1,n-3,n-5,\dots)}$
by Corollary~\ref{inv-dom-subset-cor},
so
$z$ must have an outer corner
$(j,i)$ with $i\leq j$ and $i+j \leq n$.
In this case we have
$x_{(i,j)} \hat{\mathfrak{S}}_z = \sum_{u \in \Psi(z,j)} \hat{\mathfrak{S}}_u= \sum_{u \in \Psi(z,j)} \mathfrak{A}_u = x_{(i,j)} \mathfrak{A}_z$
by \eqref{itransition-eq},
induction,
and Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-dominant-transition}.
Dividing by $x_{(i,j)}$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{ex}
Continuing Example~\ref{inv-dom-ex},
we have
\[
\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_{53241} = x_1x_2(x_2 + x_1)(x_3 + x_1)(x_4 + x_1)
\quad\text{and}\quad
\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_{45312} = x_1x_2(x_2 + x_1)(x_3 + x_1)(x_3 + x_2),
\]
so
$
\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_{35142} = \tfrac{1}{x_3 + x_1}\left(\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_{53241} + \hat{\mathfrak{S}}_{45312}\right)
=x_1x_2(x_2 + x_1)(x_1 + x_2+x_3 + x_4) .
$
 \end{ex}

\subsection{Fixed-point-free involution pipe dream formulas}

In this section, we assume $n$ is even.
Recall that
$\ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n = \{(j,i) \in [n] \times [n] : i<j\}$.
\begin{defn}
The \emph{strictly shifted dominant component} of
 $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ is
the set
$
\shdomneq{z} = \dom{z} \cap \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n,
$
which is also equal to
$ \dom{D} \cap \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n$ for all $D \in \mathcal{PD}(z)$
by Proposition~\ref{prop:dominant-independence}.
\end{defn}

\begin{cor}\label{fpf-maximal-lower-cor}
If $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ then
$\shdomneq{z}$ is the maximal lower set of the poset $(\ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n,\leq_{\textsf{NW}})$ contained in some (equivalently, every) $D \in \mathcal{FD}(z)$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
This is clear from Proposition~\ref{prop:dominant-independence}.
\end{proof}

For subsets $D \subseteq \mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{Z}$, define
$D^\uparrow = \{ (i-1,j): (i,j) \in D\}$
and
$D^{\uparrow T}  = (D^{\uparrow })^T.$
For example, if we have $z = (1,4)(2,6)(3,5) =465132 \in \I^{\fpf}_6$ then
the Rothe diagram is
\[
D(z)= \left\{\begin{smallmatrix}
+ & + & + & 1 & \cdot & \cdot \\
+ & +  & + & \cdot & + & 1 \\
+ &  + & + & \cdot & 1 & \cdot \\
1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot  & \cdot \\
\cdot & + & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot  \\
\cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot
\end{smallmatrix}\right\},
\]
with each $1$ indicating a position $(i,j) \in [n]\times [n]$ with $z(i) =j$ and each $+$ indicating a position in $ D(z)$.
The relevant dominant components are
 \[
\dom{z} =
\left\{\begin{smallmatrix}
+ & + & +  \\
+ & +  & + \\
+ &  + & +
\end{smallmatrix}\right\},
\quad
\shdomneq{z} = \left\{\begin{smallmatrix}
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot  \\
+ & \cdot  & \cdot   \\
+ &  + & \cdot   \\
\end{smallmatrix}\right\},
\quad\text{and}\quad
\shdomneq{z}^{\uparrow T} = \left\{\begin{smallmatrix}
+ & +  & \cdot\\
\cdot & + & \cdot  \\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot
\end{smallmatrix}\right\}.
\]
As we see in this example, if $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ is any fixed-point-free involution, then
$(\shdomneq{z})^{\uparrow T} $  is the shifted Ferrers diagram
of some strict partition.
Moreover,
a pair $(j,i) \in \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n$ is an outer corner of $z$
if and only if
$(\shdomneq{D} \sqcup \{(j,i)\})^{\uparrow T}
$ is again a shifted Ferrers diagram,
in which case $z(j) = i$ by Lemma~\ref{outer-corner-lem}.
The unique outer corner of $z = (1,4)(2,6)(3,5)$ in $\ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_6$ is $(4,1)$.

\begin{defn}
A fixed-point-free involution $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ is \emph{fpf-dominant} if $\shdomneq{z} \in \mathcal{FD}(z)$.
\end{defn}

This condition does not imply that $z$ is dominant in the sense of being $132$-avoiding.
For example, $z=s_1s_3\cdots s_{n-1} = 2143\cdots n(n-1) \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ is always fpf-dominant as $\shdomneq{z} = \varnothing$.

\begin{lem}\label{dom-fpf-lem}
If $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ is fpf-dominant then $\mathcal{FD}(z) = \{ \shdomneq{z}\}.$
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
This holds since
 $\shdomneq{z} \subseteq D$ for all
$D \in \mathcal{FD}(z)$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:dominant-independence}.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
If
$\lambda$ is a strict partition with
$\lambda \subseteq (n-2,n-4,\dots,4,2)$ then there exists a unique
fpf-dominant
$z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$
with $(\shdomneq{z})^{\uparrow T} =  \textsf{SD}_\lambda$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Uniqueness is clear from Lemma~\ref{dom-fpf-lem}.
If $\lambda \subseteq (n-2,n-4,\dots,2)$ is empty
then take $z=1^{\fpf}_n$.
Otherwise, let $\mu\subset \lambda $ be a strict partition
such that $ \textsf{SD}_\lambda =  \textsf{SD}_\mu\sqcup \{(i,j-1)\}$ where $i<j$.
By induction, there exists an fpf-dominant $y \in \I^{\fpf}_n$
with $(\shdomneq{y})^{\uparrow T} =  \textsf{SD}_\mu$.
Let $D \in \mathcal{PD}(y)$ be symmetric  with $D \cap \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n = \shdomneq{y}$.
Lemmas~\ref{diag-sym-lem} and \ref{outer-corner-lem}
imply that $ D \sqcup \{(j,i),(i,j)\}$ is a symmetric reduced pipe dream for some $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$,
which is the desired element.
\end{proof}

If $y,z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$,
then $y \leq z$ in Bruhat order if and only if
some (equivalently, every)
fpf-involution word for $z$ contains a subword that is an fpf-involution word for
$y$ \cite[Thm. 4.6]{HMP3}.
From this and Theorem~\ref{thm:fpf-almost-symmetric} we deduce the following:

\begin{lem}\label{fpf-bruhat-lem}
Suppose $y,z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$.
Then $y \leq z$ if and only if some (equivalently, every) fpf-involution pipe dream for $z$ has a subset that
is an
fpf-involution pipe dream for $y$.
\end{lem}

\begin{cor}\label{fpf-dom-subset-cor}
Let $y,z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ where $y$ is fpf-dominant.
Then $y\leq z$ if and only if $\shdomneq{y} \subseteq D$ for some (equivalently, every) $D \in \mathcal{FD}(z)$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
This is clear since if $y \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ is fpf-dominant then $|\mathcal{FD}(y)|=1$.
\end{proof}

    For $y \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ and $j \in [n]$,
    define
    $ \Psi^{\fpf}(y,j)$ to be the set
    of fixed-point-free involutions $z \in \I^{\fpf}_{n+2}$
     with length $\ell(z) = \ell(y)+2$ that
    can be written as
    $z = t_{js}\cdot ys_{n+1} \cdot t_{js}$ for an integer $s$ with $j < s \leq n+2$.
We have an analogue of Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-dominant-transition}:

\begin{thm}\label{thm:fpf-dominant-transition}
    Let $(j,i)$ be an outer corner of $y \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ with $i<j$.
    \begin{enumerate}
    \item[(a)] The map  $D \mapsto D \sqcup \{(j,i)\}$ is a bijection
  $
        \mathcal{FD}(y) \to \bigsqcup_{z \in  \Psi^{\fpf}(y,j)} \mathcal{FD}(z).
$
\item[(b)] If $i+j \leq n$ then $ \Psi^{\fpf}(y,j)\subset \left\{ z s_{n+1} : z \in \I^{\fpf}_{n}\right\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Our argument is similar to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-dominant-transition}.
Choose $D \in \mathcal{FD}(y) = \mathcal{FD}(ys_{n+1})$. Suppose $D' \in \mathcal{PD}(ys_{n+1})$ is the symmetric reduced pipe dream with $D = D' \cap \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_{n+2}$
and set $E = D\sqcup \{(j,i)\}$ and $E' = D' \sqcup \{(i,j),(j,i)\}$.
It follows Lemmas~\ref{diag-sym-lem} and \ref{outer-corner-lem}
that $E'$ is a reduced pipe dream for some element $z \in \I^{\fpf}_{n+2}$.
Since $E'$ is symmetric, one has
$E  = E' \cap \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n \in \mathcal{FD}(z)$.
Finally, by considering the pipes crossing at position $(j,i)$ in $E$ we deduce that $z \in  \Psi^{\fpf}(y,j)$.

Thus $D \mapsto D \sqcup \{(j,i)\}$ is a well-defined
map $\mathcal{FD}(y) \to \bigsqcup_{z\in  \Psi^{\fpf}(y,j)} \mathcal{FD}(z)$.
This map is clearly injective.
To show that it is also surjective, suppose $E \in \mathcal{FD}(z)$ for some $z \in  \Psi^{\fpf}(y,j)$.
Lemma~\ref{fpf-bruhat-lem} implies that there exists a position $(l,k) \in E$
such that $E \setminus \{(l,k)\} \in \mathcal{FD}(y)$. If $(j,i) \neq (l,k)$ then it would follow
as in the proof Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-dominant-transition}
that $z(j) = y(j)=ys_{n+1}(j)=i$, which is impossible if $z = t_{js}\cdot ys_{n+1}\cdot t_{js}$ where  $i =y(j) < j < s \leq n + 2$.
Thus $(j,i) = (l,k)$ so the map in part (a) is also surjective.
Part (b) holds because $\left\{  zs_{n+1} : z \in \I^{\fpf}_{n}\right\}$ contains all involutions in $\I^{\fpf}_{n+2}$
with fpf-involution pipe dreams that are subsets of $\{ (j,i)  : i\leq j, i +j \leq n\}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{ex}\label{fpf-dom-ex}
If $y = 351624
= (1,3)(2,5)
 \in \I^{\fpf}_6$
then
 \[
\mathcal{FD}(y) =
\left\{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
\node (b) at (0,3) {};
\filldraw (0.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,5.5) to[bend right] (0.5,6)
(0.5,5) to[bend left] (1,5.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,5.5) to[bend right] (1.5,6)
(1.5,5) to[bend left] (2,5.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,5.5) to[bend right] (2.5,6)
(2.5,5) to[bend left] (3,5.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,5.5) to[bend right] (3.5,6)
(3.5,5) to[bend left] (4,5.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,5.5) to[bend right] (4.5,6)
(4.5,5) to[bend left] (5,5.5);
\filldraw (5.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(5,5.5) to[bend right] (5.5,6);
\filldraw (0.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,4.5) to (1,4.5)
(0.5,4) to (0.5,5);
\filldraw (1.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,4.5) to[bend right] (1.5,5)
(1.5,4) to[bend left] (2,4.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,4.5) to[bend right] (2.5,5)
(2.5,4) to[bend left] (3,4.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,4.5) to[bend right] (3.5,5)
(3.5,4) to[bend left] (4,4.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,4.5) to[bend right] (4.5,5);
\filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,3.5) to[bend right] (0.5,4)
(0.5,3) to[bend left] (1,3.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,3.5) to[bend right] (1.5,4)
(1.5,3) to[bend left] (2,3.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
(2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
\filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,2.5) to (1,2.5)
(0.5,2) to (0.5,3);
\filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
(1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
\filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,1.5) to[bend right] (0.5,2)
(0.5,1) to[bend left] (1,1.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
\filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);
\end{tikzpicture}
,\quad
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
\node (b) at (0,3) {};
\filldraw (0.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,5.5) to[bend right] (0.5,6)
(0.5,5) to[bend left] (1,5.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,5.5) to[bend right] (1.5,6)
(1.5,5) to[bend left] (2,5.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,5.5) to[bend right] (2.5,6)
(2.5,5) to[bend left] (3,5.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,5.5) to[bend right] (3.5,6)
(3.5,5) to[bend left] (4,5.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,5.5) to[bend right] (4.5,6)
(4.5,5) to[bend left] (5,5.5);
\filldraw (5.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(5,5.5) to[bend right] (5.5,6);
\filldraw (0.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,4.5) to (1,4.5)
(0.5,4) to (0.5,5);
\filldraw (1.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,4.5) to[bend right] (1.5,5)
(1.5,4) to[bend left] (2,4.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,4.5) to[bend right] (2.5,5)
(2.5,4) to[bend left] (3,4.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,4.5) to[bend right] (3.5,5)
(3.5,4) to[bend left] (4,4.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,4.5) to[bend right] (4.5,5);
\filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,3.5) to[bend right] (0.5,4)
(0.5,3) to[bend left] (1,3.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,3.5) to (2,3.5)
(1.5,3) to (1.5,4);
\filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
(2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
\filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,2.5) to[bend right] (0.5,3)
(0.5,2) to[bend left] (1,2.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
(1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
\filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,1.5) to[bend right] (0.5,2)
(0.5,1) to[bend left] (1,1.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
\filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);
\end{tikzpicture}\
\right\}
\]
so $\shdom{y}=\{(2,1)\}$,
and  $(3,1)$ is an outer corner.
In this case, $ \Psi^{\fpf}(y,3) = \{532614,456123\}$.
As predicted by the theorem with $(j,i) = (3,1)$,
both elements of $ \Psi^{\fpf}(y,3)$ are fpf-dominant since
\[
\mathcal{FD}(532614) =
\left\{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
\node (b) at (0,3) {};
\filldraw (0.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,5.5) to[bend right] (0.5,6)
(0.5,5) to[bend left] (1,5.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,5.5) to[bend right] (1.5,6)
(1.5,5) to[bend left] (2,5.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,5.5) to[bend right] (2.5,6)
(2.5,5) to[bend left] (3,5.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,5.5) to[bend right] (3.5,6)
(3.5,5) to[bend left] (4,5.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,5.5) to[bend right] (4.5,6)
(4.5,5) to[bend left] (5,5.5);
\filldraw (5.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(5,5.5) to[bend right] (5.5,6);
\filldraw (0.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,4.5) to (1,4.5)
(0.5,4) to (0.5,5);
\filldraw (1.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,4.5) to[bend right] (1.5,5)
(1.5,4) to[bend left] (2,4.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,4.5) to[bend right] (2.5,5)
(2.5,4) to[bend left] (3,4.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,4.5) to[bend right] (3.5,5)
(3.5,4) to[bend left] (4,4.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,4.5) to[bend right] (4.5,5);
\filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,3.5) to (1,3.5)
(0.5,3) to (0.5,4);
\filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,3.5) to[bend right] (1.5,4)
(1.5,3) to[bend left] (2,3.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
(2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
\filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,2.5) to (1,2.5)
(0.5,2) to (0.5,3);
\filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
(1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
\filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,1.5) to[bend right] (0.5,2)
(0.5,1) to[bend left] (1,1.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
\filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);
\end{tikzpicture}\
\right\}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\mathcal{FD}(456123) =
\left\{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.3,baseline=(b.base)]
\node (b) at (0,3) {};
\filldraw (0.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,5.5) to[bend right] (0.5,6)
(0.5,5) to[bend left] (1,5.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,5.5) to[bend right] (1.5,6)
(1.5,5) to[bend left] (2,5.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,5.5) to[bend right] (2.5,6)
(2.5,5) to[bend left] (3,5.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,5.5) to[bend right] (3.5,6)
(3.5,5) to[bend left] (4,5.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,5.5) to[bend right] (4.5,6)
(4.5,5) to[bend left] (5,5.5);
\filldraw (5.5, 5.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(5,5.5) to[bend right] (5.5,6);
\filldraw (0.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,4.5) to (1,4.5)
(0.5,4) to (0.5,5);
\filldraw (1.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,4.5) to[bend right] (1.5,5)
(1.5,4) to[bend left] (2,4.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,4.5) to[bend right] (2.5,5)
(2.5,4) to[bend left] (3,4.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,4.5) to[bend right] (3.5,5)
(3.5,4) to[bend left] (4,4.5);
\filldraw (4.5, 4.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(4,4.5) to[bend right] (4.5,5);
\filldraw (0.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,3.5) to (1,3.5)
(0.5,3) to (0.5,4);
\filldraw (1.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,3.5) to (2,3.5)
(1.5,3) to (1.5,4);
\filldraw (2.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,3.5) to[bend right] (2.5,4)
(2.5,3) to[bend left] (3,3.5);
\filldraw (3.5, 3.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(3,3.5) to[bend right] (3.5,4);
\filldraw (0.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,2.5) to[bend right] (0.5,3)
(0.5,2) to[bend left] (1,2.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,2.5) to[bend right] (1.5,3)
(1.5,2) to[bend left] (2,2.5);
\filldraw (2.5, 2.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(2,2.5) to[bend right] (2.5,3);
\filldraw (0.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,1.5) to[bend right] (0.5,2)
(0.5,1) to[bend left] (1,1.5);
\filldraw (1.5, 1.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(1,1.5) to[bend right] (1.5,2);
\filldraw (0.5, 0.5) circle[radius=.6mm];
\draw
(0,0.5) to[bend right] (0.5,1);
\end{tikzpicture}\
\right\}.
\]
\end{ex}

We may now prove the second half of Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula},
concerning the polynomials $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z$.

\begin{thm}\label{fpf-pipe-schubert-thm}
If $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ then $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z = \sum_{D \in \mathcal{FD}(z)} \prod_{(i,j) \in D} (x_i + x_j)$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
It follows from \cite[Thm. 4.17]{HMP3} that
if $(j,i) \in \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n$ is an outer corner of $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$
then
\begin{equation}\label{ftransition-eq}  (x_i+x_j) \hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z = \sum_{u \in  \Psi^{\fpf}(z,j)} \hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_u.\end{equation}
Moreover, as $n$ is even, \cite[Thm. 1.3]{HMP1} implies that we have
\begin{equation}\label{fpf-rev-eq}
\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_{n\cdots 321} = \prod_{1\leq i < j \leq n-i} (x_i + x_j).\end{equation}
Let $\mathfrak{B}_z = \sum_{D \in \mathcal{FD}(z)} \prod_{(i,j) \in D} (x_i+x_j)$.
If $\ell(z) = \max\left\{\ell(y): y \in \I^{\fpf}_n\right\}$ then
$z=n\cdots 321$
and the identity
$\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z = \mathfrak{B}_z$
is equivalent to \eqref{fpf-rev-eq}.
Otherwise, the transpose of $\shdomneq{z}$ shifted up one row is a proper subset of
$\shdomneq{n\cdots 321}^{\uparrow T}=\textsf{SD}_{(n-2,n-4,\dots,4,2)}$ by Corollary~\ref{fpf-dom-subset-cor},
so $z$ has an outer corner
$(j,i) \in \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n$ with $i+j \leq n$.
In this case,
$(x_i+x_j) \hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z = \sum_{u \in  \Psi^{\fpf}(z,j)} \hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_u= \sum_{u \in  \Psi^{\fpf}(z,j)} \mathfrak{B}_u = (x_i+x_j) \mathfrak{B}_z$
by \eqref{ftransition-eq},
induction,
and Theorem~\ref{thm:fpf-dominant-transition}.
Dividing by $x_i+x_j$ completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{ex}
Continuing Example~\ref{fpf-dom-ex}, we have
\[
 \hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_{532614} =(x_2 + x_1)(x_3+ x_1)(x_4+x_1) \quad\text{and}\quad
\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_{456123} =(x_2 + x_1)(x_3 + x_1)(x_3 + x_2),
\]
so
$\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_{351624} = \frac{1}{x_3 + x_1}\left( \hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_{532614}+\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_{456123}\right) = (x_2  + x_1)(x_1 + x_2 + x_3 + x_4)$.
\end{ex}

\section{Generating pipe dreams}
\label{sec:generating-pipe-dreams}

Bergeron and Billey \cite{bergeron-billey} proved
that the set $\mathcal{PD}(w)$
 is generated by applying simple transformations to
a unique ``bottom'' pipe dream. Here, we derive versions of this result for
the sets of
involution pipe dreams $\mathcal{ID}(y)$ and $\mathcal{FD}(z)$.
This leads to algorithms for computing the sets $\mathcal{ID}(y)$ and $\mathcal{FD}(z)$
that are much more efficient than the
naive methods suggested by our original definitions.

\subsection{Ladder moves}

Let $D$ and $E$ be subsets of $\ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0}$,
depicted as positions marked by ``$+$'' in a matrix.
If
$E$ is obtained from $D$ by replacing a subset of the form
\[
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
 \begin{array}{cc}
 \cdot & \cdot \\
   + & + \\
   \vdots & \vdots \\
   + & + \\
   + & \cdot
   \end{array}
\qquad\text{by}\qquad
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
 \begin{array}{cc}
 \cdot & + \\
   + & + \\
   \vdots & \vdots \\
   + & + \\
   \cdot & \cdot
   \end{array} \]
   then we say that
$E$ is obtained from $D$ by a \emph{ladder move} and write $D \lessdot_\mathcal{PD} E$.
More formally:
\begin{defn}
We write $D \lessdot_\mathcal{PD} E$ if
for some
integers $i< j$ and $k$
the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item  One has $\{i+1,i+2,\dots,j-1\}\times\{k,k+1\} \subset D$.
\item It holds that $(j,k) \in D$ but $(i,k),(i,k+1),(j,k+1)\notin D$.
\item  One has $E = D\setminus \{(j,k)\} \cup \{(i,k+1)\}$.
\end{itemize}
One can have $i+1=j$ in this definition, in which case the first condition holds vacuously.
Let $<_\mathcal{PD}$ be the transitive closure of $\lessdot_\mathcal{PD}$.
This relation is a strict partial order.
Let $\sim_\mathcal{PD}$ denote the symmetric closure of the partial order $\leq_\mathcal{PD}$.
\end{defn}

The \emph{Rothe diagram} of  $w \in S_n$ is
$
D(w) = \{(i,j) \in [n] \times [n] : w(i) > j\text{ and } w^{-1}(j) > i\}.
$
It is often useful to observe that the set $D(w)$ is the complement in $[n]\times [n]$
of the union of the hooks
$\{ (x,w(i)) : i < x \leq n\} \sqcup \{ (i,w(i))\} \sqcup \{ (i,y) : w(i) < y \leq n\}$
for $i \in [n]$.
It is not hard to show that one always has $|D(w)| = \ell(w)$.

For each $i \in [n]$ let $c_i(w) =
|\{ j : (i,j) \in D(w)\}|.$
The \emph{code} of $w$ is the integer sequence
$ c(w) = (c_1(w), \ldots, c_n(w))$.
The \emph{bottom pipe dream} of $w$ is
the set
\beD_{\text{bot}}(w)=\{(i,j) \in [n]\times [n] :  j \leq c_i(w)\}
\end{equation} obtained by left-justifying $D(w)$.
It is not obvious that $D_{\text{bot}}(w) \in \mathcal{PD}(w)$.

\begin{ex}
\label{ex:pipedream}
If $w = 35142 \in S_5$, then $D(w)$ is the set of $+$'s below:
\begin{equation*}
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\def0.8{0.8}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
+ & + & 1 & \cdot & \cdot\\
+ & + & \cdot & + & 1\\
1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot\\
\cdot & + & \cdot & 1 & \cdot\\
\cdot & 1 & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot
\end{array}
\qquad \text{so we have} \qquad
c(w) = (2,3,0,1,0)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
D_{\text{bot}}(w) =
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{ccccc}
+ & + &  \cdot & \,\cdot\\
+ & + &  + & \,\cdot\\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \,\cdot \\
+ & \cdot & \cdot & \,\cdot \\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \,\cdot
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
\end{ex}

\begin{thm}[{\cite[Thm. 3.7]{bergeron-billey}}]\label{bb-thm}
Let $w \in S_n$. Then \[\mathcal{PD}(w)=
\left\{
E   : D_{\text{bot}}(w) \leq_\mathcal{PD} E
\right\}
=
\left\{
E  : D_{\text{bot}}(w) \sim_\mathcal{PD} E
\right\}
.\]
Thus $\mathcal{PD}(w)$ is an upper and lower set of $\leq_\mathcal{PD}$, with unique minimum $D_{\text{bot}}(w)$.
\end{thm}

Define $\leq^\textsf{chute}_\mathcal{PD}$ to be the partial order with $D \leq^\textsf{chute}_\mathcal{PD} E$ if and only if
$E^T \leq_\mathcal{PD} D^T$, and let  $D_{\text{top}}(w) = D_{\text{bot}}(w^{-1})^T$ for $w \in S_n$.
Then
 $\mathcal{PD}(w)=
\left\{
E   :   E \leq^\textsf{chute}_\mathcal{PD} D_{\text{top}}(w)
\right\}
$
by Corollary~\ref{transpose-cor} and Theorem~\ref{bb-thm}. Bergeron and Billey
\cite{bergeron-billey} refer to the covering relation in $\leq^\textsf{chute}_\mathcal{PD}$ as a \emph{chute move}.
In the next sections, we will see that there are natural versions of
$\leq_\mathcal{PD}$ and $D_{\text{bot}}(w)$ for (fpf-)involution pipe dreams. There do not seem to be good involution analogues of
$\leq^{\textsf{chute}}_\mathcal{PD}$ or $D_{\text{top}}(w)$, however.

\subsection{Involution ladder moves}
\label{ss:inv-ladder}

To prove an analogue of Theorem~\ref{bb-thm} for involution pipe dreams,
we need to introduce a more general partial order $<_\mathcal{ID}$ on subsets of $\ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0}$.
Again let $D$ and $E$ be subsets of $\ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0}$.
Informally, we define $<_\mathcal{ID}$
to be the transitive closure of $\lessdot_\mathcal{PD}$ and the relation that has
$D \lessdot_\mathcal{ID} E$ whenever $E$ is obtained from $D$ by replacing a subset of the form
\begin{equation}
    \def0.8{0.8}
\label{eq:inv-ladder}
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
 \begin{array}{cccccc}
   & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot\\
 \cdot & \cdot  & \cdot & \cdot\\
   + & \cdot  & \cdot\\
   + & + \\
   \vdots & \vdots \\
   + & +   \\
   + & \cdot & {\phantom{+}} &  {\phantom +} &  {\phantom+}
   \end{array}
\qquad\text{by}\qquad
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
 \begin{array}{cccccc}
   & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot\\
 \cdot & \cdot  & \cdot & \cdot\\
   + & +  & \cdot\\
   + & + \\
   \vdots & \vdots \\
   + & +   \\
   \cdot & \cdot & {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}
   \end{array}
\end{equation}
where the upper parts of the antidiagonals at the top are required to be empty.
For example,
\[
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
 \begin{array}{cccccc}
 \cdot & \cdot  & \cdot & \cdot\\
   + & \cdot  & \cdot & +\\
   + & \cdot & \cdot& \cdot\\
   \cdot& + & \cdot & \cdot
   \end{array}
\ \lessdot_\mathcal{ID}\
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
 \begin{array}{cccccc}
 \cdot & \cdot  & \cdot & \cdot\\
   + & +  & \cdot & +\\
   \cdot & \cdot & \cdot& \cdot\\
   \cdot & + & \cdot & \cdot
   \end{array}
   \qquad\text{and}\qquad
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
 \begin{array}{cccccc}
 \cdot & \cdot  & \cdot & \cdot\\
   + & \cdot  & \cdot & +\\
   + & + & \cdot& \cdot\\
   + & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot
   \end{array}
\ \lessdot_\mathcal{ID}\
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
 \begin{array}{cccccc}
 \cdot & \cdot  & \cdot & \cdot\\
   + & +  & \cdot & +\\
   + & + & \cdot& \cdot\\
   \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot
   \end{array}
\]
but
\[
   \arraycolsep=1.5pt
 \begin{array}{cccccc}
 \cdot & \cdot  & + & \cdot\\
   + & \cdot  & \cdot & \cdot \\
   + & + & \cdot& \cdot\\
   + & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot
   \end{array}
\ \not<_\mathcal{ID}\
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
 \begin{array}{cccccc}
 \cdot & \cdot  & + & \cdot\\
   + & +  & \cdot & \cdot\\
   + & + & \cdot& \cdot\\
   \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot
   \end{array}
   \qquad\text{and}\qquad
   \arraycolsep=1.5pt
 \begin{array}{cccccc}
 \cdot & \cdot  & \cdot & +\\
   + & \cdot  & \cdot & \cdot \\
   + & + & \cdot& \cdot\\
   + & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot
   \end{array}
\ \not<_\mathcal{ID}\
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
 \begin{array}{cccccc}
 \cdot & \cdot  & \cdot & +\\
   + & +  & \cdot & \cdot\\
   + & + & \cdot& \cdot\\
   \cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot
   \end{array}
   \]
   since the relevant antidiagonals in \eqref{eq:inv-ladder} are not empty.
The precise definition of $\lessdot_{\mathcal{ID}} $ is below:

\begin{defn}\label{i-ladder-def}
We write $ D \lessdot_{\mathcal{ID}} E$ if for some
integers $i< j$ and $k$ the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item  One has $\{i+1,i+2,\dots,j-1\}\times\{k,k+1\} \subset D$.
\item It holds that $(i,k),(j,k) \in D$ but $(i,k+1),(i,k+2),(j,k+1)\notin D$.
\item  One has $E = D\setminus \{(j,k)\} \cup \{(i,k+1)\}$.
\item The set $D$ contains no positions strictly northeast of and in the same antidiagonal as $(i,k-1)$, $(i,k)$, $(i,k+1)$, or $(i,k+2)$.
\end{itemize}
One may again have $i+1=j$, in which case the first condition holds vacuously.
We define $<_\mathcal{ID}$ to be the transitive closure of $\lessdot_\mathcal{PD}$ and $\lessdot_{\mathcal{ID}}$,
and write $\sim_\mathcal{ID}$ for the symmetric closure of
$\leq_\mathcal{ID}$.
\end{defn}

Our goal is to show that $<_\mathcal{ID}$ defines a partial order on $\mathcal{ID}(z)$;
for an example of this poset, see Figure~\ref{ip-fig}.
To proceed, we must recall a few nontrivial properties of the set $\mathcal{A}(z)$ from Section~\ref{schub-sect}.

\begin{lem}[{\cite[Lem. 6.3]{HMP2}}]
\label{l:321-atoms}
Let $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ and $w \in \mathcal{A}(z)$.
Then no subword $w(a)w(b)w(c)$ of $w(1)w(2)\cdots w(n)$ for $1\leq a<b<c\leq n$ has the form $(i-1)i(i+1)$
for any integer $1<i<n$.
\end{lem}

Fix $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$.
The \emph{involution code} of  $z $ is $\hat c(z) = (\hat c_1(z),\hat c_2(z),\dots,\hat c_n(z))$
with $\hat c_i(z)$ the number of integers $j>i$ with $z(i) > z(j)$ and $i\geq z(j)$.
 Note that we always have $\hat c_i(z) \leq i$.

Suppose $a_1<a_2<\dots<a_l$ are the integers $a\in [n]$ with $a \leq z(a)$
and  set $b_i = z(a_i)$.
Define $\alpha_{\min}(z) \in S_n$ to be the permutation
whose inverse is given in one-line notation by removing all repeated letters from
$b_1 a_1 b_2 a_2\cdots b_l a_l$.
For example, if $z = 4231 \in \mathcal{I}_4$ then the latter word is $412233$ and
$\alpha_{\min}(z) = (4123)^{-1} = 2341 \in S_4$.
Additionally, $\hat c(z) = c(\alpha_{\min}(z))$~\cite[Lem. 3.8]{HMP1}.

Finally, let $\prec_\mathcal{A}$ be the transitive closure of the relation on $S_n$ that has $v \prec_\mathcal{A} w$ whenever the inverses of
$v,w \in S_n$ have the same one-line representations outside of three consecutive positions where
$v^{-1} = \cdots cab\cdots $ and $ w^{-1}=\cdots bca\cdots$
for some integers $a<b<c$.
The relation $\prec_\mathcal{A}$ is a strict partial order.
Let $\sim_\mathcal{A}$ denote the symmetric closure of the partial order $\preceq_\mathcal{A}$.

\begin{thm}[{\cite[\S6.1]{HMP2}}]
\label{t:atoms} Let $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$. Then
\[
\mathcal{A}(z) = \{w \in S_n: \alpha_{\min}(z) \preceq_\mathcal{A} w\} = \{w \in S_n: \alpha_{\min}(z) \sim_\mathcal{A} w\}.
\]
Thus $\mathcal{A}(z)$ is an upper and lower set of $\preceq_\mathcal{A}$, with unique minimum $\alpha_{\min}(z)$.
\end{thm}

For $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$, let
$\mathcal{ID}^+(z) = \bigsqcup_{w \in \mathcal{A}(z)} \mathcal{PD}(w) $,
so that $\mathcal{ID}(z) = \{D \in \mathcal{ID}^+(z) : D \subseteq \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n\}$.

\begin{lem}\label{inv-ladder-lem}
Let $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$. Suppose $D$ and $E$ are subsets of $\ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0}$
with $D <_{\mathcal{ID}} E $. Then $D \in \mathcal{ID}^+(z)$ if and only if $E \in \mathcal{ID}^+(z)$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
If $D \lessdot_\mathcal{PD} E$ then
we have
$D \in \mathcal{ID}^+(z)$ if and only if $E \in \mathcal{ID}^+(z)$
by Theorem~\ref{bb-thm}.
Assume $D \lessdot_{\mathcal{ID}}E$ and
let $i<j$ and $k$ be as in Definition~\ref{i-ladder-def}.

Consider the reading order $\omega$ that lists the positions $(i,j)\in [n]\times [n]$ such that $(-j,i)$ increases lexicographically, i.e., the order that goes down column $n$, then down column $n-1$, and so on. In view of Theorem~\ref{thm:almost-symmetric},
we may assume without loss of generality that columns $1,2,\dots,k-1$
of $D$ and $E$ are both empty, since omitting these positions has the effect of truncating the same final sequence of letters from $\textsf{word}(D,\omega)$ and $\textsf{word}(E,\omega)$.

Suppose  $E \in \mathcal{PD}(w)\subseteq \mathcal{ID}^+(z)$  for some permutation $w \in \mathcal{A}(z)$.
To show that $D \in \mathcal{ID}^+(z)$, it
 suffices by Theorem~\ref{t:atoms}
to check that
$D \in \mathcal{PD}(v)$ for a permutation $v \prec_\mathcal{A} w$.

Consider the wiring diagram of $E$ and let $m,m+1$ and $m+2$ be the top  indices of the wires in the antidiagonals containing
the cells
$
(i,k),$ $(i,k+1)$, and $(i+1,k+1)
$,
respectively.
Since the northeast parts of these antidiagonals are empty,
it follows that as one goes from northeast to southwest,
wire $m$ of $E$ enters the top of the $+$ in cell $(i,k)$,
wire $m+1$ enters the top of the $+$ in cell $(i,k+1)$, and
wire $m+2$ enters the right of the $+$ in cell $(i,k+1)$.
Tracing these wires through the wiring diagram of $E$, we see that they exit column $k$ on the left in relative order $m+2,m,m+1$.
Since we assume columns $1,2,\dots,k-1$ are empty,
the wires must arrive at the far left in the same relative order.
This means that there are numbers $a<b<c$ such that $w^{-1}(m)w^{-1}(m+1)w^{-1}(m+2)=bca$.

Moving the $+$ in cell $(i,k+1)$ of $E$ to $(j,k)$ gives $D$ by assumption.
This transformation only alters the trajectories of wires $m$, $m+1$ and $m+2$
and causes no pair of wires to cross more than once, so $D$ is a
reduced pipe dream for some $v \in S_n$.
By examining the wiring diagram of $D$, we see that $v^{-1}(m)v^{-1}(m+1)v^{-1}(m+2)=cab$,
so $v \prec_\mathcal{A} w$ and $D \in \mathcal{ID}^+(z)$ as needed.
The same considerations show that if $D \in \mathcal{PD}(v)$ for some $v \in \mathcal{A}(z)$ then  $E \in \mathcal{PD}(w)$
for a permutation $w$ with $v \prec_\mathcal{A} w$. In this case, it follows that $w \in \mathcal{A}(z)$ by Theorem~\ref{t:atoms}
so $E \in \mathcal{ID}^+(z)$.
\end{proof}

We define the \emph{bottom involution pipe dream} of $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ to be the set
\begin{equation}
\hat D_{\text{bot}}(z) = \{(i,j) \in [n] \times [n]: j \leq \hat c_i(z)\} \subseteq \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n.
\end{equation}
Since  $\hat c(z) = c(\alpha_{\min}(z))$, it follows
by Theorem~\ref{thm:almost-symmetric} that $\hat D_{\text{bot}}(z)   = D_{\text{bot}}(\alpha_{\min}(z))\in \mathcal{ID}(z).$

\begin{thm}\label{pre-t:inv-ladder}
Let $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$. Then
$
\mathcal{ID}^+(z) = \left\{E : \hat D_{\text{bot}}(z) \leq_\mathcal{ID} E\right\}
= \left\{E  : \hat D_{\text{bot}}(z) \sim_\mathcal{ID} E\right\}.
$
Thus $\mathcal{ID}^+(z)$ is an upper and lower set of $\leq_\mathcal{ID}$, with unique minimum $\hat D_{\text{bot}}(z)$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Both sets are contained in $\mathcal{ID}^+(z)$ by Lemma~\ref{inv-ladder-lem}.
Note that $\mathcal{ID}^+(z)$ is finite since $\mathcal{A}(z)$ is finite and each set $\mathcal{PD}(w)$ is finite.
Suppose $ \hat D_{\text{bot}}(z) \neq E = D_{\text{bot}}(w)$ for some $w \in \mathcal{A}(z)$.
In view of Theorem~\ref{bb-thm},
we need only show that
there exists a subset $D\subset \ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0}$ with $D\lessdot_\mathcal{ID} E$.

As we assume $w \neq \alpha_{\min}(z)$,
it follows from Theorem~\ref{t:atoms}
that there exists some $p \in [n-2]$ with $w^{-1}(p{+}2) < w^{-1}(p) < w^{-1}(p{+}1)$.
Set $i = w^{-1}(p{+}2)$, and choose $p$ to minimize $i$.
We claim that if $h < i$ then $w(h) < p$.
To show this, we argue by contradiction.
Suppose there exists $1\leq h < i$ with $w(h) \geq p$.
Choose $h$ with this property so that $w(h)$ is as small as possible.
Then $w(h) > p+2 \geq 3$, and by the minimality of $w(h)$, the values $w(h){-}1$ and $w(h){-}2$ appear after position $h$ in the word $w(1)w(2)\cdots w(n)$.
Therefore, by Lemma~\ref{l:321-atoms}, the one-line representation of $w$ must have the form
$\cdots w(h) \cdots w(h){-}2\cdots w(h){-}1\cdots$.
This contradicts the minimality of $i$, so no such $h$ can exist.

Let $j > i$ be minimal with $w(j) < w(i)$ and define
$k = c_i(w) - 1$. It is evident from the definition of $i$ that such an index $j$ exists and that $k$ is positive.
Now consider Definition~\ref{i-ladder-def} applied to these values of $i<j$ and $k$.
It follows from the claim in the previous paragraph if $h<i$ then $c_h(w) - c_i(w) \leq  i-h -3$.
Therefore, we see that the required antidiagonals are empty.
The minimality of $j$ implies that $c_m(w) \geq c_i(w)$ for all $i < m < j$,
and since we must have $j \leq w^{-1}(p)$,
it follows that  $c_j(w) < c_i(w) - 1$.
We conclude that replacing position $(i,k+1)$ in $E$ by $(j,k)$
produces a subset $D$ with $D \lessdot_\mathcal{ID} E$, as we needed to show.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}
\label{t:inv-ladder}
If $z \in \mathcal{I}_n$ then
$ \mathcal{ID}(z) = \left\{ E \subseteq \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n : \hat D_{\text{bot}}(z) \leq_\mathcal{ID} E \right\}
=
 \left\{ E \subseteq \raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n : \hat D_{\text{bot}}(z) \sim_\mathcal{ID} E \right\}
.$
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
This is clear from Theorem~\ref{pre-t:inv-ladder} since
$\raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n$ is a lower set under $\leq_\mathcal{ID}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
{\small
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1.2,yscale=1.2]
\node at (0,0) (a) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  \\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
+ & \cdot   &\cdot   \\
+ & +    &\cdot   &\cdot\\
+ &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (-4,3) (b1) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  \\
\cdot & + &    &    \\
\cdot & \cdot   &\cdot   \\
+ & +   &\cdot  & \cdot   \\
+ &\cdot  &\cdot & \cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (0,3) (b2) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  \\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
+ & \cdot   & +  \\
+ & \cdot   & \cdot & \cdot  \\
+ &\cdot  & \cdot& \cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (4,3) (b3) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  \\
\cdot & \cdot  &  &    &    \\
+ & +  &\cdot    \\
+ & +      &\cdot& \cdot  \\
\cdot &\cdot  &\cdot & \cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (-4,6) (c1) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  \\
\cdot & + &    &    \\
\cdot & +   &\cdot   \\
+ & +    &\cdot  & \cdot  \\
\cdot &\cdot  &\cdot & \cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (0,6) (c2) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  \\
\cdot & + &    &    \\
\cdot & \cdot& +    \\
+ & \cdot & \cdot   & \cdot   \\
+ &\cdot  & \cdot& \cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (4,6) (c3) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  \\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
+ & +    & + \\
+ & \cdot    &\cdot& \cdot  \\
\cdot &\cdot  & \cdot& \cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (0,9) (d2) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  \\
\cdot & + &    &    \\
\cdot & + & +    \\
\cdot & \cdot  & \cdot & \cdot     \\
+ &\cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (4,9) (d3) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  \\
\cdot & + &    &    \\
+ & +    & + \\
\cdot & \cdot    &\cdot & \cdot \\
\cdot &\cdot  & \cdot& \cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (0,12) (e) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  \\
\cdot & + &    &    \\
\cdot & + & +    \\
\cdot & +  & \cdot  & \cdot    \\
\cdot &\cdot & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\draw[->] (a) -- (b1);
\draw[->] (a) -- (b2);
\draw[red,->,dashed] (a) -- (b3);

\draw[->] (b2) -- (c2);
\draw[->] (b1) -- (c2);
\draw[->] (b1) -- (c1);
\draw[red,->,dashed] (b3) -- (c3);

\draw[->] (c2) -- (d2);
\draw[->] (c3) -- (d3);
\draw[->] (d2) -- (e);

\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{center}
\caption{Hasse diagram of $(\mathcal{ID}(z), <_\mathcal{ID})$ for $z=(3,6)(4,5) \in \mathcal{I}_6$. The dashed red arrows indicate the covering relations of the form $D \lessdot_\mathcal{ID} E$.}
\label{ip-fig}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Fixed-point-free involution ladder moves}

In this subsection, we assume $n$ is a positive even integer.
Our goal is to replicate the results in Section~\ref{ss:inv-ladder} for fixed-point-free involutions.
To this end,
we introduce a third partial order $<_\mathcal{FD}$.
Again let $D$ and $E$ be subsets of $\ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0}$.
We define $<_\mathcal{FD}$ as the transitive closure of $\lessdot_\mathcal{PD}$ and
the relation that has $D \lessdot_\mathcal{FD} E$ whenever $E$ is obtained from $D $
by replacing a subset of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fpf-ladder}
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\def0.8{0.8}
 \begin{array}{ccccccc}
   {\phantom+} & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot &\cdot & \cdot \\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot  & \cdot & \cdot\\
\cdot &   + & \cdot  & \cdot\\
  & + & + \\
  & \vdots & \vdots \\
 &  + & +   \\
  & + & \cdot &  {\phantom+} & {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}&  {\phantom+}
      \end{array}
\qquad\text{by}\qquad
\arraycolsep=1.5pt
 \begin{array}{ccccccc}
  {\phantom+}  & \cdot & \cdot & \cdot &\cdot & \cdot \\
\cdot & \cdot & \cdot  & \cdot & \cdot\\
+ &   + & \cdot  & \cdot\\
  & + & + \\
  & \vdots & \vdots \\
 &  + & +   \\
  & \cdot & \cdot &  {\phantom+} & {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}&  {\phantom+}
      \end{array}
\end{equation}
Here, all positions containing ``$\ \cdot\ $'' should be empty, including
the five antidiagonals extending upwards.
The precise definition of $\lessdot_\mathcal{FD}$ is as follows:

\begin{defn}
\label{fpf-ladder-def}
We write $ D \lessdot_{\mathcal{FD}} E$ if for some
integers  $0<i<j$ and $k\geq 2$ the following holds:
\begin{itemize}
\item  One has $\{i+1,i+2,\dots,j-1\}\times\{k,k+1\} \subset D$.
\item It holds that $(i,k),(j,k) \in D$ but $(i,k-1),(i,k+1),(i,k+2),(j,k+1)\notin D$.
\item  One has $E = D\setminus \{(j,k)\} \cup \{(i,k-1)\}$.
\item The set $D$ contains no positions strictly northeast of and in the same antidiagonal as $(i,k-2)$, $(i,k-1)$, $(i,k)$, $(i,k+1)$, or $(i,k+2)$.
\end{itemize}
When $i+1=j$, the first condition holds vacuously; see the lower dashed arrow in Figure~\ref{fp-fig}.
Define $<_\mathcal{FD}$ to be the transitive closure of $\lessdot_\mathcal{PD}$ and $\lessdot_{\mathcal{FD}}$.
Write $\sim_\mathcal{FD}$ for the symmetric closure of
$\leq_\mathcal{FD}$.
\end{defn}

We will soon show that $<_\mathcal{FD}$ defines a partial order on $\mathcal{FD}(z)$, as one can see in the example
shown in Figure~\ref{fp-fig}.
For this, we will need a lemma from \cite{can-joyce-wyser} concerning the set $\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z)$.

\begin{lem}[{\cite[Cor. 2.16]{can-joyce-wyser}}]
\label{l:fpf-atoms}
Let $w \in S_{n}$ and $z \in \I^{\fpf}_{n}$.
Then $w \in \mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z)$ if and only if for all $a,b,c,d \in [n]$
with $a<b=z(a)$ and $c<d=z(c)$, the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] One has $w(a) = 2i-1$ and $w(b) = 2i$ for some $i \in [n/2]$.
\item[(2)] If $a<c$ and $b < d$, then $w(b) < w(c)$.
\end{enumerate}

\end{lem}

The involution code and partial order $\prec_\mathcal{A}$ both have fixed-point-free versions.
Fix $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$.
The \emph{fpf-involution code} of $z$ is the integer sequence
\[
\hat c^{\fpf}(z) = (\hat c^{\fpf}_1(z), \hat c^{\fpf}_2(z), \dots, \hat c^{\fpf}_n(z))
\] where $\hat c^{\fpf}_i(z)$ is the number of integers $j > i$ with $z(i) > z(j)$ and $i > z(j)$.
It always holds that $\hat c^{\fpf}_i(z) < i$.
If $a_1<a_2<\dots <a_{n/2}$ are the numbers $a\in [n]$ with $a< z(a)$ and $b_i = z(a_i)$,
then let
\[ \alpha^\fpf_{\min}(z) = (a_1b_1a_2b_2\dots a_{n/2} b_{n/2})^{-1}
= s_1  s_3 s_5\cdots s_{n-1}  \alpha_{\min}(z)
\in S_n.\]
For example, if $z = 632541 \in \I^{\fpf}_6$ then
we
have
$\alpha^\fpf_{\min}(z) = (162345)^{-1} = 134562 \in S_6$.
One can check that $\hat c^{\fpf}(z) = c(\alpha^\fpf_{\min}(z))$ \cite[Lem. 3.8]{HMP1}.

Define $\prec_{\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}}$ to be the transitive closure of the relation in $S_n$
that has
$v \prec_{\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}} w$ whenever the inverses of $v,w \in S_n$ have the same one-line representations outside of four consecutive positions where
$v^{-1} = \cdots adbc \cdots$ and $w^{-1} = \cdots bcad \cdots$ for some integers $a<b<c<d$.
This is a strict partial order on $S_n$.
Let $\sim_{\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}}$ denote the symmetric closure of the partial order $\preceq_{\Afpf}$.

\begin{thm}[{\cite[\S6.2]{HMP2}}]
\label{t:fpf-order}
Let $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$. Then
\[
\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z) = \left\{w \in S_n: \alpha^\fpf_{\min}(z) \preceq_{\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}} w \right\}
=
 \left\{w \in S_n: \alpha^\fpf_{\min}(z) \sim_{\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}} w \right\}
.
\]
Thus $\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z)$ is an upper and lower set of $\preceq_{\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}}$, with unique minimum $\alpha^\fpf_{\min}(z)$.
\end{thm}

For $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$, let $\mathcal{FD}^+(z) = \bigsqcup_{w\in\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z)} \mathcal{PD}(w)$,
so $\mathcal{FD}(z) = \mathcal{FD}^+(z) \cap \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n$.

\begin{lem}\label{fpf-ladder-lem}
Let $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$. Suppose $D$ and $E$ are subsets of $\ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0}$
with $D <_{\mathcal{FD}} E $. Then $D \in \mathcal{FD}^+(z)$ if and only if $E \in \mathcal{FD}^+(z)$.
\end{lem}

 \begin{proof}
If $D \lessdot_\mathcal{PD} E$ then
the result follows
by Theorem~\ref{bb-thm}.
Assume $D \lessdot_{\mathcal{FD}}E$ and
let $i<j$ and $k$ be as in Definition~\ref{fpf-ladder-def}.

As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{inv-ladder-lem}, consider the reading order $\omega$ that lists the positions $(i,j)\in [n]\times [n]$ such that $(-j,i)$ increases lexicographically.
In view of Theorem~\ref{thm:fpf-almost-symmetric},
we may assume without loss of generality
that columns $1,2,\dots,k-2$, as well as all positions below row $i$ in column $k-1$, are empty in both
of $D$ and $E$.
This follows since  omitting these positions has the effect of truncating the same final sequence of letters from $\textsf{word}(D,\omega)$ and $\textsf{word}(E,\omega)$.

Assume $E \in \mathcal{PD}(v) \subseteq \mathcal{FD}^+(z)$ for some $w \in \mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z)$.
To show that $D \in \mathcal{FD}^+(z)$,
we will check that $D \in \mathcal{PD}(v)$ for some $v\in S_n$ with $v \prec_{\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}} w$.

Consider the wiring diagram of $E$ and let $m$, $m+1$, $m+2$, and $m+3$ be the top indices of the wires in the antidiagonals containing the cells $(i,k-1)$, $(i,k)$, $(i,k+1)$, and $(i,k+2)$, respectively.
Since the northeast parts of these antidiagonals are empty,
it follows that as one goes from northeast to southwest,
wire $m$ of $E$
enters the top of the $+$ in cell $(i,k-1)$, wire $m+1$ enters the top of the $+$ is cell $(i,k)$,
wire $m+2$ enters the right of the $+$ in cell $(i,k)$, and wire $m+3$ enters the
top of cell $(i+1,k+1)$, which contains a $+$ if $i+1<j$.
Tracing these wires through the wiring diagram of $E$, we see that they exit column $k-1$ on the left in relative order $m+2$, $m$, $m+1$, $m+3$.
Since we assume that $D$ and $E$ contain no positions in the rectangle weakly southwest of $(i+1,k-1)$,
the wires must arrive at the far left in the same relative order.
This means that  $w^{-1}(m)w^{-1}(m+1) w^{-1}(m+2) w^{-1}(m+3) = bcad$
for some numbers $a<b<c<d$.

Moving the $+$ in cell $(i,k-1)$ of $E$ to $(j,k)$ gives $D$ by assumption. This transformation only alters the trajectories of wires $m$, $m+1$, $m+2$, and $m+3$
and causes no pair of wires to cross more than once, so $D$ is a
reduced pipe dream for some $v \in S_n$.
By examining the wiring diagram of $D$, it is easy to check that $v^{-1}(m)v^{-1}(m+1) v^{-1}(m+2) v^{-1}(m+3) = adbc$
so $v \prec_{\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}} w$ as needed.

If  instead $D \in \mathcal{PD}(v)\subset \mathcal{FD}^+(z)$
for some $v \in \mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z)$, then a similar argument shows that
$E \in \mathcal{PD}(w)$ for some $w \in S_n$ with $v \prec_{\mathcal{A}^{\fpf}} w$, which implies that $E \in \mathcal{FD}^+(z)$ by Theorem~\ref{t:fpf-order}.
\end{proof}

We define the \emph{bottom fpf-involution pipe dream} of $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ to be the set
\begin{equation}
\hat D_{\text{bot}}^{\fpf}(z)  =  \left\{(i,j) \in [n]\times [n]: j \leq \hat c^{\fpf}_i(z)\right\} \subseteq \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n.
\end{equation}
Since $\hat c^{\fpf}(z) = c(\alpha^\fpf_{\min}(z))$,
Theorem~\ref{thm:fpf-almost-symmetric} implies that
$
\hat D_{\text{bot}}^{\fpf}(z) = D_{\text{bot}}(\alpha^\fpf_{\min}(z)) \in \mathcal{FD}(z).
$

\begin{thm}\label{pre-t:fpf-ladder}
Let $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$. Then
$
\mathcal{FD}^+(z) = \left\{E : \hat D_{\text{bot}}^{\fpf}(z) \leq_\mathcal{FD} E\right\}
= \left\{E  : \hat D_{\text{bot}}^{\fpf}(z) \sim_\mathcal{FD} E\right\}.
$
Thus $\mathcal{FD}^+(z)$ is an upper and lower set of $\leq_\mathcal{FD}$, with unique minimum $\hat D_{\text{bot}}^{\fpf}(z)$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Both sets are contained in $\mathcal{FD}^+(z)$ by Lemma~\ref{fpf-ladder-lem},
and the set $\mathcal{FD}^+(z)$ is clearly finite.
Suppose $ \hat D_{\text{bot}}^{\fpf}(z) \neq E = D_{\text{bot}}(w)$ for some $w \in \mathcal{A}^{\fpf}(z)$.
As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{pre-t:inv-ladder},
it suffices to show that
there exists a subset $D\subset \ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0}$ with $D\lessdot_\mathcal{FD} E$.

Since  $w \neq \alpha^\fpf_{\min}(z)$,
 Lemma~\ref{l:fpf-atoms} and Theorem~\ref{t:fpf-order} imply
that there exists an odd integer $p \in [n - 3]$ such that $
w^{-1}(p)w^{-1}(p+1)w^{-1}(p+2)w^{-1}(p+3) = bcad$ for some numbers $a<b<c<d$.
Choose $p$ such that $a$ is as small as possible.
We claim that $a<w^{-1}(q)$ for all  $q$ with $p+3 <q \leq n$.
To show this, let $a_0=a$ and $b_0  =d$ and suppose $a_i $ and $b_i$ are the integers
such that
\[w^{-1}(p+2)w^{-1}(p+3)\cdots w^{-1}(n) = a_0b_0 a_1 b_1 \cdots a_k b_k.\]
Part (1) of Lemma~\ref{l:fpf-atoms} implies that $a_i < b_i =z(a_i)$ for all $i$, so it suffices to show
 that $a_0<a_i$ for $i \in [k]$. This holds since
if $i \in [k]$ were minimal with $a_i < a_0$,
then it would follow from part (2) of Lemma~\ref{l:fpf-atoms} that $a_i < a_{i-1} < b_{i-1}< b_i$,
contradicting the minimality of $a$.

Now, to match Definition~\ref{fpf-ladder-def}, let $i =  a=w^{-1}(p+2)$, define $j > i$ to be minimal with $w(j) < w(i)$, and set $k = c_i(w)$.
 It is clear from the definition of $i$ that such an index $j$ exists and that $k\geq 2$.
The claim in the previous paragraph shows that if $1\leq h < i$ then $h$ must appear before position $p$ in the one-line representation
of $w^{-1}$, which means that   $w(h)<p$ and therefore $c_h(w) - c_i(w) \leq i-h- 4$.
The antidiagonals described in Definition~\ref{fpf-ladder-def} are thus empty as needed.
Since  $j \leq b= w^{-1}(p)$,
it follows that  $c_j(w) < c_i(w)$;
moreover, if $i < m < j$ then $w(m) > w(d) = p+3$ so $c_m(w) \geq c_i(w) + 1$.
Collecting these observations,
we conclude that replacing $(i,k-1)$ in $E$ with $(j,k)$
gives a subset $D$ with $D \lessdot_\mathcal{ID} E$, as we needed to show.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}
\label{t:fpf-ladder}
If $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$ then
\[ \mathcal{FD}(z) = \left\{ E \subseteq \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n : \hat D_{\text{bot}}^{\fpf}(z) \leq_\mathcal{FD} E \right\}
=
 \left\{ E \subseteq \ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n : \hat D_{\text{bot}}^{\fpf}(z) \sim_\mathcal{FD} E \right\}
.\]
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
This is clear from Theorem~\ref{pre-t:fpf-ladder} since
$\ltriang^{\!\!\neq}_n$ is a lower set under $\leq_\mathcal{FD}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
{\scriptsize
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1.1,yscale=0.725]

\node at (0,0) (a) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
\cdot & \cdot   &\cdot   \\
+ & \cdot    &\cdot   &\cdot\\
+ &+  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot \\
+ &+  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (-4,4) (b1) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
\cdot & +   &\cdot   \\
\cdot & \cdot    &\cdot   &\cdot\\
+ &+  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot \\
+ &+  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (0,4) (b2) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
\cdot & \cdot   &\cdot   \\
+ & \cdot    &+   &\cdot\\
+ &\cdot &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot \\
+ &+  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (-4,8) (c1) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
\cdot & +   &\cdot   \\
\cdot & \cdot    &+   &\cdot\\
+ &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot \\
+ &+  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (0,8) (c2) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
\cdot & +   &\cdot   \\
\cdot & \cdot    &+   &\cdot\\
+ &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot \\
+ &+  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (4,8) (c3) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
\cdot & \cdot   &\cdot   \\
+ & \cdot    &+   &\cdot\\
+ &\cdot  &+ &\cdot&\cdot \\
+ &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (-4,12) (d1) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
\cdot & +   &\cdot   \\
\cdot & +    &+   &\cdot\\
\cdot &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot \\
+ &+  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (0,12) (d2) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
\cdot & +   &\cdot   \\
\cdot & \cdot    &+   &\cdot\\
+ &\cdot  &+ &\cdot&\cdot \\
+ &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (4,12) (d3) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
\cdot & \cdot   &\cdot   \\
+ & +    &+   &\cdot\\
+ &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot \\
+ &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (0,16) (e1) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
\cdot & +   &\cdot   \\
\cdot & +    &+   &\cdot\\
\cdot &\cdot  &+ &\cdot&\cdot \\
+ &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (4,16) (e2) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
\cdot & +   &\cdot   \\
+ & +    &+   &\cdot\\
\cdot &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot \\
+ &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (0,20) (f1) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
\cdot & +   &\cdot   \\
\cdot & +    &+   &\cdot\\
\cdot &+  &+ &\cdot&\cdot \\
\cdot &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (4,20) (f2) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
\cdot & +   &\cdot   \\
+ & +    &+   &\cdot\\
\cdot &+  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot \\
\cdot &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\node at (4,24) (g1) {
$\arraycolsep=1.5pt
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\cdot &  {\phantom+} &  {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}  & {\phantom+}\\
\cdot & \cdot &    &    \\
+ & +   &\cdot   \\
+ & +    &+   &\cdot\\
\cdot &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot \\
\cdot &\cdot  &\cdot &\cdot&\cdot & \cdot
\end{array}$
};

\draw[->] (a) -- (b1);
\draw[->] (a) -- (b2);

\draw[->] (b1) -- (c1);
\draw[->] (b2) -- (c2);
\draw[->] (b2) -- (c3);

\draw[->] (c1) -- (d1);
\draw[->] (c1) -- (d2);
\draw[->] (c2) -- (d1);
\draw[->] (c2) -- (d2);
\draw[->] (c3) -- (d2);
\draw[red,->,dashed] (c3) -- (d3);

\draw[->] (d1) -- (e1);
\draw[->] (d2) -- (e1);
\draw[->] (d3) -- (e2);

\draw[->] (e1) -- (f1);
\draw[->] (e2) -- (f2);

\draw[red,->,dashed] (f2) -- (g1);

\end{tikzpicture}}
\end{center}
\caption{Hasse diagram of $(\mathcal{FD}(z), <_\mathcal{FD})$ for $z=(1,2)(3,7)(4,8)(5,6) \in \I^{\fpf}_6$. The dashed red arrows indicate the covering relations of the form $D \lessdot_\mathcal{FD} E$.
}\label{fp-fig}
\end{figure}

\section{Future directions}
\label{sec:future}

In this final section we discuss some related identities and open problems.

\subsection{Enumerating involution pipe dreams}
\label{sec:enumeration}

Choose $w \in S_n$ and let $p =\ell(w)$.
Macdonald~\cite[(6.11)]{macdonald1991notes} proved that the following specialization of a Schubert
polynomial gives an exact formula for the number of reduced
pipe dreams for $w$:
\begin{equation}\label{bhy-eq}
|\mathcal{PD}(w)| = \mathfrak{S}_w(1,1,\dots,1) = \frac{1}{p!}\sum_{(a_1,a_2,\dots,a_{p}) \in \mathcal{R}(w)} a_1 a_2\cdots a_{p}.
\end{equation}
Recall that $\kappa(y)$ is the number of 2-cycles in $y \in\mathcal{I}_n$.
For $D \in \mathcal{ID}(y)$, define
$\wt(D) = 2^{\kappa(y) -d_D}$ where $d_D $ is the number of diagonal positions in $D$.
For  $\mathcal{X} \subseteq  \mathcal{ID}(y)$, define $\|\mathcal{X} \| = \sum_{D \in \mathcal{X}} \wt(D)$.
\begin{cor}\label{bhy-cor}
Suppose $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$, $z \in \I^{\fpf}_{2n}$, and $p = \iell(y) =\iellfpf(z)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $\|\mathcal{ID}(y)\| = 2^{\kappa(y)} \hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y(\tfrac{1}{2},\tfrac{1}{2},\dots,\tfrac{1}{2}) = \frac{1}{2^pp!}\sum_{(a_1,a_2,\dots,a_{p}) \in \hat{\mathcal{R}}(y)} 2^{\kappa(y)}a_1 a_2\cdots a_{p}$.

\item[(b)] $ |\mathcal{FD}(z)| =  \hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z(\tfrac{1}{2},\tfrac{1}{2},\dots,\tfrac{1}{2}) = \frac{1}{2^pp!}\sum_{(a_1,a_2,\dots,a_{p}) \in \hat{\mathcal{R}}^{\fpf}(z)} a_1 a_2\cdots a_{p}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
In both parts,
the first equality is immediate from Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula}
and the second equality is a consequence of \eqref{bhy-eq}, via Definitions~\ref{inv-sch-def} and \ref{fpf-inv-sch-def}.
\end{proof}

Billey, Holroyd, and Young gave the first bijective proof of \eqref{bhy-eq}
(and of a more general $q$-analogue) in the recent paper
 \cite{billey2019bijective}.
This follow-up problem is natural:

\begin{problem}
Find bijective proofs of the identities in Corollary~\ref{bhy-cor}.
\end{problem}

For some permutations, better formulas  than Equation~\ref{bhy-eq} are available.
A \emph{reverse plane partition} of shape $D \subset \ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0}$
is a map $T: D \to \ZZ_{\geq 0}$ such that
$ T(i,j) \geq T(i+1,j)$ and $T(i,j) \geq T(i,j+1)$
for all relevant $(i,j) \in D$.
If $\lambda$ is a partition,
then let $\mathsf{RPP}_\lambda(k)$ be the set of reverse plane partitions of Ferrers shape
$\textsf{D}_\lambda  = \{ (i,j) \in \ZZ_{>0}\times \ZZ_{>0} : j \leq \lambda_i\}$
 with entries in $\{0,1,\dots,k\}$.

Given $w \in S_n$ write $1^k \times w$ for the permutation in $S_{n+k}$
that fixes $1,2,\dots,k$ while mapping $i+k \mapsto w(i) + k$ for $i \in [n]$.
Fomin and Kirillov \cite[Thm. 2.1]{fomin1997reduced} showed that if $w \in S_n$ is dominant then
$
|\mathcal{PD}(1^k \times w)| = |\mathsf{RPP}_{\lambda}(k)|
$
for the partition $\lambda$ with $\dom{w} = \textsf{D}_\lambda$.
In particular:
\begin{equation}
|\mathcal{PD}(1^k \times n \cdots 321)| =  |\mathsf{RPP}_{(n-1,\dots,3,2,1)}(k)| = \prod_{1 \leq i < j \leq n} \frac{ i + j+2k -1}{i + j -1}.
\end{equation}
Serrano and Stump gave a  bijective proof of this identity in \cite{serrano2012maximal}.
There are similar formulas
counting (weighted) involution pipe dreams. For example:
\begin{prop}
Let  $g_n = (1,n+1)(2,n+2)\cdots(n,2n) \in \mathcal{I}_{2n}$.
Then
	\[|\mathcal{ID}(1^k \times g_n)| = |\mathsf{RPP}_{(n,\dots,3,2,1)}(\lfloor k/2 \rfloor)|
\quad\text{for all $k \in \ZZ_{\geq 0}$.}\]
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
It follows from Theorem~\ref{t:atoms}
that $\mathcal{A}(g_n) = \{w_n \}$ for $w_n = 246 \cdots (2n) 1 35 \cdots (2n-1) \in S_{2n}$, and that
$\mathcal{A}(1^k\times g_n) = \{1^k \times w_n\}$.
Moreover, we have $\hat D_{\text{bot}}(1^k\times g_n) = \{ (j+k,i) : 1 \leq i \leq j \leq n\}$.
From these facts, we see that
$\mathcal{ID}(1^k \times g_n)$ is connected by ordinary ladder moves that are \emph{simple} in that they replace a single cell $(i,j)$ by $(i-1,j+1)$.

Now consider all ways of filling the cells $(i,j)\in \hat D_{\text{bot}}(1^k\times g_n)$ by numbers  $a \in \{0,1,\dots,\lfloor k/2\rfloor\}$
such that rows are weakly increasing and columns are weakly decreasing.
The set of such fillings is obviously in bijection with $\mathsf{RPP}_{(n,\dots,3,2,1)}(\lfloor k/2 \rfloor)$.
On the other hand, we can transform such a filling into
a subset of $\raisebox{-0.5pt}{\tikz{\draw (0,0) -- (.25,0) -- (0,.25) -- (0,0);}}_n$ by replacing each cell $(i,j)$ filled with $a$ by $(i-a,j+a)$.
It is easy to see that this operation is a bijection from our set of fillings to  $\mathcal{ID}(1^k\times g_n)$.
\end{proof}

Computations indicate that
if $k,n \in \ZZ_{\geq 0}$ and $\{p,q\}= \{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor, \lceil n/2 \rceil\}$
then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pp}
\begin{aligned} |\mathcal{ID}(1^k \times n \cdots 321)| &= \prod_{i=1}^{p}
\prod_{j=1}^{q} \frac{i+j+k-1}{i+j-1}
\end{aligned}\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pp2}
\begin{aligned}
|\mathcal{FD}(1^{\fpf}_{2k} \times 2n \cdots 321)|
	 &= \prod_{\substack{i,j \in [n], i\neq j }} \frac{i + j +2k-1}{i + j -1}.
	 \end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The right-hand side of \eqref{eq:pp}
is the number of reverse plane partitions with entries at most $k$ of shifted shape $\textsf{SD}_\lambda= \{ (i,i+j-1) : (i,j) \in \textsf{D}_\lambda\}$ for
$\lambda= (p+q-1,p+q-3,p+q-5,\dots)$ \cite{proctor1983shifted}.
Similar formulas should  hold for
$\|\mathcal{ID}(1^k \times y)\|$ and $|\mathcal{FD}(1^{\fpf}_{2k} \times z)|$ when $y \in\mathcal{I}_n$ and $z \in \I^{\fpf}_{2n}$ are any (fpf-)dominant involutions.
We expect that one can prove such identities algebraically using the Pfaffian formulas  for $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$ and $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z$
in  \cite[\S5]{Pawlowski}.
A more interesting open problem is the following:

\begin{problem}
Find bijective proofs of \eqref{eq:pp} and \eqref{eq:pp2} and their dominant generalizations.
\end{problem}

\subsection{Ideals of matrix Schubert varieties} \label{sec:ideals}

Another open problem is to find a geometric explanation for the formulas in Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula}. Such an explanation exists in the double Schubert case, as we briefly explain.

Recall that $A_{[i][j]}$ denotes the upper-left $i\times j$ submatrix of a matrix $A$.
Let $\mathcal{Z}$ be the matrix of indeterminates $(z_{ij})_{i,j \in [n]}$. For $w \in S_n$, let $I_w \subseteq \mathbb{C}[z_{ij} : i,j \in [n]] = \mathbb{C}[\textsf{Mat}_n]$ be the ideal generated by all $(\rank w_{[i][j]}+1) \times (\rank w_{[i][j]}+1)$ minors of $\mathcal{Z}_{[i][j]}$ for $i,j \in [n]$.  The vanishing locus of $I_w$ in the space $\textsf{Mat}_n$
of $n\times n$ complex matrices is exactly the matrix Schubert variety $M\hspace{-0.5mm}X_w$.

Let $\init(I_w)$ be the \emph{initial ideal} of leading terms in $I_w$ with respect to any term order on $\mathbb{C}[z_{ij}]$ with the property that the leading term of $\det(A)$ for any submatrix $A$ of $\mathcal{Z}$ is the product of the antidiagonal entries of $A$. For instance, lexicographic order with the variable ordering $z_{1n} < \cdots < z_{11} < z_{2n} < \cdots < z_{21} < \cdots$ has this property.

\begin{thm}[\cite{knutson-miller}]
For each permutation $w \in S_n$, the ideal $I_w$ is prime,
and there is a prime decomposition
$
    \init(I_w) = \bigcap_{D \in \mathcal{PD}(w)} (z_{ij} : (i,j) \in D)
$.
\end{thm}

Given the description of the class $[M\hspace{-0.5mm}X_w]$ in \S \ref{subsec:eq-cohom}, this result implies the pipe dream formula \eqref{eq:double-schubert-def} for $[M\hspace{-0.5mm}X_w] = \mathfrak{S}_w(x,y)$.

Now let
 $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}$ be the symmetric matrix
 of indeterminates $[z_{\max(i,j), \min(i,j)}]_{i,j \in [n]}$.
 Define $\hat I_y \subseteq \mathbb{C}[z_{ij} : 1 \leq j < i \leq n] = \mathbb{C}[\textsf{SMat}_n]$ for $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$
 to be the ideal generated by all $(1+\rank y_{[i][j]}) \times (1+\rank y_{[i][j]})$ minors of $\hat{\mathcal{Z}}_{[i][j]}$ for $i,j \in [n]$.
 The vanishing locus of $\hat I_y$ is $M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y$.

\begin{conj} \label{conj:ideals} For $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$, the ideal $\hat I_y$ is prime, and there is a primary decomposition of $\init(\hat I_y)$ whose top-dimensional components are $\left(z_{ij}^{\cwt{i}{j}{D}} : (i,j) \in D\right)$ for $D \in \mathcal{ID}(y)$, where
$\cwt{i}{j}{D}=2$ if the pipes crossing at $(i,j)$ are labeled $p$ and $z(p)$ for some $p\in[n]$, and otherwise $\cwt{i}{j}{D}=1$.
 \end{conj}

As per \S\ref{subsec:eq-cohom}, the conjecture would give a direct geometric proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:inv-pipe-dream-formula}.

\begin{ex}
Let $y = 1243 = (3,4) \in \mathcal{I}_4$.  Then $A \in M\hspace{-0.5mm}\hat X_y$ if and only if $\rank A_{[i][j]} \leq m_{ij}$ for
\begin{equation*}
(m_{ij})_{1\leq i,j\leq 4} =
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
1 & 2 & 2 & 2\\
1 & 2 & 2 & 3\\
1 & 2 & 3 & 4
\end{array}\right).
\end{equation*}
These rank conditions all follow from $\rank A_{[3][3]} \leq 2$, so $\hat I_y$ is generated by $\det \hat{\mathcal{Z}}_{[3][3]}$.
 The ideals in the primary decomposition $\init(\hat I_y) = (z_{31}^2 z_{22}) = (z_{31}^2) \cap (z_{22})$ correspond to the two involution pipe dreams
in the set
$
\mathcal{ID}(y) = \{ \{ (3,1)\}, \{(2,2)\}\}
$ for $y=(3,4)$.
\end{ex}

\begin{ex}
Let $y = 14523 = (2,4)(3,5) \in \mathcal{I}_5$. One computes that
\begin{equation*}
\init(\hat I_y) = (z_{21}^2, z_{31} z_{21}, z_{22}z_{31}, z_{31}^2, z_{32}z_{31}, z_{32}^2) = (z_{21}^2, z_{31}, z_{32}^2) \cap (z_{21}, z_{22}, z_{31}^2, z_{32}).
\end{equation*}
There is a single involution pipe dream for $y$ given by $\{(2,1),(3,1),(3,2)\}.$
This pipe dream corresponds to the codimension $3$ component $(z_{21}^2, z_{31}, z_{32}^2)$ of $\init(\hat I_y)$, while the codimension $4$ component $(z_{21}, z_{22}, z_{31}^2, z_{32})$ does not correspond to a pipe dream of $y$.
\end{ex}
For $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$, the ideal generated by the $(\rank z_{[i][j]}+1) \times (\rank z_{[i][j]}+1)$ of a skew-symmetric matrix of indeterminates need not be prime, and we do not have an analogue of Conjecture~\ref{conj:ideals}.

\subsection{Pipe dream formulas for $K$-theory}
\label{sec:k-theory}

A third source of open problems
concerns pipe dreams for $K$-theory.
A subset  $D\subseteq [n]\times [n]$ is a \emph{$K$-theoretic pipe dream} for $w \in S_n$ if
$\textsf{word}(D) = (a_1,a_2,\dots,a_p)$
satisfies
$
s_{a_1} \circ s_{a_2} \circ \dots \circ s_{a_p} = w
$
where $\circ$ is
the Demazure product.
Let $\mathcal{KPD}(w)$ denote the set of $K$-theoretic pipe dreams of $w$.
Fomin and Kirillov \cite{FominKirillov94} introduce these objects in order
to state this formula for
the \emph{(generalized) Grothendieck polynomial} $\mathfrak{G}_w$ of
a permutation $w\in S_n$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:groth}
\mathfrak{G}_w = \sum_{D \in \mathcal{KPD}(w)} \beta^{|D| - \ell(w)} \prod_{(i,j) \in D} x_i \in \mathbb{Z}[\beta][x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n].
\end{equation}
This identity is nontrivial to derive from
 Lascoux and Sch\"utzenberger's original definition of Grothendieck polynomials in terms of isobaric divided difference operators~\cite{lascoux1990anneau,lascoux1983symmetry}.

 Grothendieck polynomials becomes Schubert polynomials on setting $\beta=0$.
 In \cite{MP2019}, continuing work of Wyser and Yong \cite{wyser-yong-orthogonal-symplectic}, the second two authors studied \emph{orthogonal} and \emph{symplectic Grothendieck polynomials} $\mathfrak{G}^{\O}_y$ and $\mathfrak{G}^{\mathsf{Sp}}_z$ indexed by $y \in \mathcal{I}_n$ and $z \in \I^{\fpf}_n$.
 These polynomials likewise recover the involution Schubert polynomials $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}_y$ and $\hat{\mathfrak{S}}^{\fpf}_z$ on setting $\beta=0$,
 and it would be interesting to know if they have analogous pipe dream formulas.

The symplectic case of this question is more tractable.
The polynomials $\mathfrak{G}^{\mathsf{Sp}}_z$ have a formulation in terms of isobaric divided difference operators due to Wyser and Yong \cite{wyser-yong-orthogonal-symplectic},
which suggests a natural $K$-theoretic variant of the set $\mathcal{FD}(z)$.
A formula for $\mathfrak{G}^{\mathsf{Sp}}_z$ involving these objects appears in \cite[\S4]{MP2020}.
 By contrast, no simple algebraic formula is known for the  polynomials $\mathfrak{G}^{\O}_y$.
It is a nontrivial problem even to identify
the correct $K$-theoretic generalization of $\mathcal{ID}(y)$.

 \begin{problem}
Find a pipe dream formula for
the polynomials $\mathfrak{G}^{\O}_y$
involving an appropriate ``$K$-theoretic'' generalization of the sets of involution pipe dreams
$\mathcal{ID}(y)$.
\end{problem}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Algebraic Geometry (math.AG); Representation Theory (math.RT)

Involution pipe dreams