Linear maps in minimal free resolutions of Stanley-Reisner rings
Lukas Katth\"an

TL;DR
This paper provides an elementary description of the linear part of minimal free resolutions for Stanley-Reisner rings, linking differentials to restriction maps in simplicial cohomology, and shows that linear strands of certain monomial ideals can be expressed with only ±1 coefficients.
Contribution
It offers a new, simplified description of the linear part of minimal free resolutions for Stanley-Reisner rings and reveals that linear strands of specific monomial ideals can be expressed with ±1 coefficients.
Findings
Linear differentials correspond to restriction maps in simplicial cohomology.
Linear strands of monomial ideals with degree 2 generators can be written with ±1 coefficients.
Elementary description simplifies understanding of minimal free resolutions.
Abstract
In this short note we give an elementary description of the linear part of the minimal free resolution of a Stanley-Reisner ring of a simplicial complex . Indeed, the differentials in the linear part are simply a compilation of restriction maps in the simplicial cohomology of induced subcomplexes of . Along the way, we also show that if a monomial ideal has at least one generator of degree , then the linear strand of its minimal free resolution can be written using only coefficients.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Linear maps in minimal free resolutions of Stanley-Reisner rings
Lukas Katthän
Goethe-Universität, FB 12 – Institut für Mathematik, Postfach 11 19 32, D–60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Abstract.
In this short note we give an elementary description of the linear part of the minimal free resolution of a Stanley-Reisner ring of a simplicial complex . Indeed, the differentials in the linear part are simply a compilation of restriction maps in the simplicial cohomology of induced subcomplexes of .
Along the way, we also show that if a monomial ideal has at least one generator of degree , then the linear strand of its minimal free resolution can be written using only coefficients.
Key words and phrases:
Monomial ideal; Stanley-Reisner ring; Linear Part
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary: 05E40; Secondary: 13D02,13F55.
1. Introduction
Let be a field and be a polynomial ring over it. Consider a finitely generated graded -module , and its minimal free resolution . The linear part [EFS03] of has the same modules as , and its differential is obtained from the differential of by deleting all non-linear entries in the matrices representing in some basis of .
The main result of this short note is an explicit description of in the case where is the Stanley-Reisner ring of a simplicial complex . It is well-known that is multigraded and generated as -module in squarefree multidegrees. For simplicity we identify squarefree multidegrees with subsets of . We are going to use Hochster’s formula, which states that
[TABLE]
where is a squarefree multidgree and is the restriction of . To simplify the notation, we set and for and . By Hochster’s formula, is isomorphic to the direct sum of modules of the form . The differential turns out to be simply a compilation of all the restriction maps , induced by the inclusions . In the following theorem, we use the notation , where .
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let be the Stanley-Reisner ring of a simplicial complex and let denote its minimal free resolution. The linear part of is isomorphic to the complex with modules
[TABLE]
and the components of the differential are given by
[TABLE]
This extends the result of Reiner and Welker [RW01, Theorem 3.2], which describes the maps in the linear strand of . An alternative description of in terms of the Alexander dual of was given by Yanagawa [Yan00, Theorem 4.1].
Example 1.2**.**
Let be the simplical complex with vertex set and facets , , and . Its Stanley-Reisner ideal is . A minimal free resolution is given by the following complex:
[TABLE]
The linear entries are marked in boldface. We indicate the relevant induced subcomplexes of in Figure 1. There, the arrows indicate non-zero linear entries in the matrices of . They correspond to non-zero restriction maps in the zero- or one-dimensional cohomology.
As a special case of Theorem 1.1, we obtain a very simple and explicit description of the -linear strand of (this is the strand containing the quadratic generators of ). In particular, we show that the maps in the -linear strand can always be written using only coefficients, see Corollary 3.2. This extends and simplifies the results of Horwitz [Hor07] and Chen [Che10], who constructed the minimal free resolution of under the assumption that is generated by quadrics and has a linear resolution.
This article is structured as follows. In Section 2 we set up notational conventions and recall various preliminaries. In the subsequent Section 3 we prove our main result. In the last section, we ask several open questions and pose a conjecture.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Vic Reiner and Srikanth Iyengar for inspiring discussions.
2. Notation and preliminaries
For we write . To simplify the notation, we set and for and .
Throughout the paper let denote a fixed field and be a polynomial ring over it. Further, we write
[TABLE]
for the unique maximal graded ideal in . We only consider the fine -grading on . Squarefree multidegrees are identified with subsets of . In particular, for , we write for the free cyclic -module whose generator is in degree .
2.1. The linear part
Let be a finitely generated graded -module. We consider its minimal free resolution
[TABLE]
There is a natural filtration on , which is given by
[TABLE]
The associated graded complex is called the linear part of . It was introduced in [EFS03], but see also [HSV83, Chapter 5]. Note that as -modules, but the differentials on the complexes are different. Indeed, can be constructed alternatively by choosing a basis for , representing its differential in this basis by matrices, and deleting all non-linear entries, that is, entries in .
2.2. Simplicial chains and cochains
Let be a simplicial complex with vertex set . For the convenience of the reader, we recall the definitions of the chain and cochain complexes of . For keeping track of the signs, we use the notation
[TABLE]
for subsets . We further set . The (augmented oriented) chain complex of is the complex of -vector spaces , where is the -vector space spanned by the -faces of , and the differential is given by
[TABLE]
Here, we consider the empty set as the unique face of dimension . Note that the definition of depends on the ordering of . The (augmented oriented) cochain complex of is the dual complex . We write for the basis element dual to a -face . In this basis, the differential on can be written as
[TABLE]
Here, we adopt the convention that if . The (reduced) simplicial cohomology of is .
For a subcomplex , there is a restriction map . If is a cochain and , then we write for the restriction of to .
3. Proof of the main result
Let be a simplicial complex with vertex set . Recall that the Stanley-Reisner ideal of is defined as , where . Further, the Stanley-Reisner ring is . Every squarefree monomial ideal arises as the Stanley-Reisner ideal of some simplicial complex, see [MS05, Theorem 1.7].
We are going to need an explicit version of Hochster’s formula. It is of course well-known, but we give the details for the convenience of the reader. Let be an -dimensional -vector space and let denote the exterior algebra over it. For with , we set . Then is the Koszul complex of .
Proposition 3.1** ([Hoc77]).**
For each squarefree multidegree , there is an isomorphism of complexes , given by .
Proof.
It suffices to show that the following diagram commutes:
[TABLE]
We only need to show that modulo . This follows from the following computation:
[TABLE]
Now we turn to the proof or Theorem 1.1, which we restate for convenience. See 1.1
Proof.
We follow the arguments of the proof of [Yan00, Theorem 4.1]. Following [HSV83] and [EFS03, p. 107–109], we consider the double complex , whose modules are given by and the differentials are
[TABLE]
It is not difficult to see that the homology of is isomorphic to . By [HSV83, Theorem 5.1], the linear part of the minimal free resolution is induced by .
Consider the sub-double complex of . As is non-zero in squarefree degrees only [MS05, Cor. 1.40], both and have the same homology with respect to .
By Proposition 3.1, is isomorphic to , where translates to the map
[TABLE]
Now the claim follows by taking homology with respect to and applying [HSV83, Theorem 5.1]. ∎
A particularly simple case of Theorem 1.1 is the following. See 4.3 for a conjectural improvement of this result.
Corollary 3.2**.**
Let be a monomial ideal and let be its minimal free resolution. Then one can choose a basis of such that the maps in its -linear strand have only coefficients in .
Proof.
We may assume that is squarefree by replacing it with its polarization [MS05, p. 44]. So it is the Stanley-Reisner ideal of some simplicial complex . By Theorem 1.1, maps in the -linear strand of its minimal free resolution are induced by the restriction maps for each .
For each subset we choose a distinguished connected component of . For each other connected component of it, let the function which is on the vertices of and [math] on the others. It is clear that the set forms a basis of .
We claim that in this basis, the differential has coefficients . For there are the following cases:
- (1)
for some , 2. (2)
, 3. (3)
splits into several connected components of with , 4. (4)
same as (3), with , 5. (5)
is the isolated vertex .
In each case, it is easy to see that is mapped to a linear combination of the with coefficients in . ∎
4. Questions and open problems
4.1. Affine monoid algebras
Recall that a (positive) affine monoid is a finitely generated submonoid of . The monoid algebras of affine monoids form a well-studied class of algebras. We refer the reader to [MS05] or [BH98, Chapter 6] for more information on these rings. Each positive affine monoid has a unique minimal generating set, which is called its Hilbert basis. It yields a set of generators for and thus a surjection from a polynomial ring . Moreover, carries a natural -multigrading. There is a combinatorial interpretation of the multigraded Betti numbers of , namely for a certain simplicial complex , see [MS05, Theorem 9.2].
Question 4.1**.**
Is there a topological interpretation of the linear part of the minimal free resolution of over ?
In this situation, a description along the lines of Theorem 1.1 would require a map , where is an element of the Hilbert basis such that . Here, is a subcomplex of , but in general it is neither a restriction nor a link.
4.2. Approximations of resolutions
Let be the Stanley-Reisner ideal of some simplicial complex and let denote the minimal free resolution of . Hochster’s formula can be interpreted as giving a description of the complex (with trivial differential). Our Theorem 1.1 extends this by (essentially) describing . These results can be considered as successive approximations of , so the following question seems natural:
Question 4.2**.**
Is there a combinatorial or topological description of ?
This seems to be substantially more difficult than describing . One reason for this is the following. Even though a minimal free resolution is unique up to isomorphism, if one wants to write it down explicitly one needs to choose an -basis for . This choice can be done in two steps. First choose a -basis for , and then choose a lifting of these elements to (any such lifting works due to Nakayama’s lemma). Hochster’s formula is a convenient tool for the first choice. Theorem 1.1 implies that the differential of does not depend on the second choice, but this is no longer true for .
4.3. Coefficients in resolutions
Let be a monomial ideal containing no variables, and let be its with minimal free resolution. We saw in Corollary 3.2 that the differential in the -linear strand of can be written using only coefficients . On the other hand, in [RW01, Section 5] Reiner and Welker gave an example where the differential on the -linear strand cannot be written using only coefficients . We believe that their example is optimal in that sense, and hence offer the following conjecture.
Conjecture 4.3**.**
Let be a monomial ideal. Then it is possible to choose a basis for its minimal free resolution , such that the differential on the -linear strand can be written using only coefficients .
Note that the first map in , , can always be written using coefficients from . This is easily seen by considering the Taylor resolution. Further, it is not difficult to explicitly give a basis for such that the differential has coefficients .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[BH 98] W. Bruns and J. Herzog “Cohen-Macaulay rings” Cambridge University Press, 1998
- 2[Che 10] Ri-Xiang Chen “Minimal free resolutions of linear edge ideals” In J. Algebra 324.12 , 2010, pp. 3591–3613 DOI: 10.1016/j.jalgebra.2010.09.013 · doi ↗
- 3[EFS 03] David Eisenbud, Gunnar Fløystad and Frank-Olaf Schreyer “Sheaf cohomology and free resolutions over exterior algebras” In Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355.11 , 2003, pp. 4397–4426 DOI: 10.1090/S 0002-9947-03-03291-4 · doi ↗
- 4[HSV 83] J. Herzog, A. Simis and W. V. Vasconcelos “Approximation complexes of blowing-up rings, II” In J. Algebra 82.1 , 1983, pp. 53 –83 DOI: 10.1016/0021-8693(83)90173-4 · doi ↗
- 5[Hoc 77] Melvin Hochster “Cohen-Macaulay rings, combinatorics, and simplicial complexes” In Ring theory II 26 , Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math. Dekker, New York, 1977, pp. 171–223
- 6[Hor 07] Noam Horwitz “Linear resolutions of quadratic monomial ideals” In J. Algebra 318.2 , 2007, pp. 981–1001 DOI: 10.1016/j.jalgebra.2007.06.006 · doi ↗
- 7[MS 05] E. Miller and B. Sturmfels “Combinatorial commutative algebra” Springer, 2005 DOI: 10.1007/b 138602 · doi ↗
- 8[RW 01] V. Reiner and V. Welker “Linear syzygies of Stanley-Reisner ideals” In Math. Scand. 89.1 , 2001, pp. 117–132 DOI: 10.7146/math.scand.a-14333 · doi ↗
