arXiv:1503.01950v3 [] 1 Dec 2015

GORENSTEIN BINOMIAL EDGE IDEALS ASSOCIATED WITH SCROLLS
AHMET DOKUYUCU, AJDIN HALILOVIC, RIDA IRFAN
A BSTRACT. Let IG be the binomial edge ideal on the generic 2 × n - Hankel matrix
associated with a closed graph G on the vertex set [n]. We characterize the graphs G for
which IG has maximal regularity and is Gorenstein.

I NTRODUCTION
Let K be a field and
n+1 ] the polynomial ring in n + 1 variables over
S = K[x1 , . . . , xn , x
x x · · · xn
the field K. Let X = 1 2
be the generic 2 × n - Hankel matrix and G a
x2 x3 · · · xn+1
closed graph on the vertex set [n], that is, a graph satisfying the following condition: there
exists a labeling of G with the property that if {i, j} and {i, k} are edges of G such that
either i < j < k or i > j > k, then { j, k} is an edge of G.
Closed graphs were introduced in [5] in order to characterize binomial edge ideals
which have a quadratic Gröbner basis. However, it turns out that these graphs were already known in combinatorics as indifference graphs. Namely, by [7, Theorem 1], a
graph G is an indifference graph if and only if for every edge {i, k} of G and every j with
i < j < k, also {i, j} and { j, k} are edges of G. The latter property can be easily shown to
be equivalent to the definition of a closed graph. On the other hand, the notion of indifference graph is equivalent to the notion of proper interval graph [8]. Indifference graphs
and, more general, interval graphs have been intensively studied from combinatorial and
algorithmic point of view; see [7] and the references therein.
In this paper, we will use the terminology closed graph.
In [2] there was considered the ideal IG ⊂ S which is generated by all the 2-minors
x
xj
gi j = i
of X which correspond to the edges {i, j} of G. The ideal IG is a natural
xi+1 x j+1
generalization of the ideal IC of the rational normal curve C ⊂ Pn . Indeed, if G = Kn , then
IG = IC . The minimal free resolution of S/IC is the Eagon-Northcott resolution.
In [2] it was shown that, for any closed graph G, the ideal IG has a quadratic Gröbner
basis with respect to the reverse lexicographic order on S induced by x1 > · · · > xn+1
and that IG is Cohen-Macaulay of dimension 1 + c where c is the number of connected
components of G.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13H10,13P10,13D02.
Key words and phrases. Rational normal scroll, closed graph, regularity, Gorenstein ring.
The third author acknowledges the support from Higher Education Commission of Pakistan.
1

In the same paper it was shown that the regularity of S/IG is bounded above by the
number of maximal cliques of the graph G. For a graph G, the collection of cliques of G
(i.e. the complete subgraphs of G) forms a simplicial complex ∆(G) which is called the
clique complex of G. We recall from [4] that G is a closed graph if and only if there exists
a labeling of G such that all facets of ∆(G) are intervals.
Let G be a closed graph on the vertex set [n] with ∆(G) = hF1 , . . . , Fr i where Fi = [ai , bi ]
for 1 ≤ i ≤ r and 1 = a1 < a2 < · · · < ar < br = n. Then, as it was shown in [2], we
have reg(S/IG) ≤ r. For the closed graphs G which satisfy the conditions ai+1 = bi for
1 ≤ i ≤ r − 1, it was shown that reg(S/IG) is exactly r.
In Section 1 we characterize the closed graphs G for which reg(S/IG ) is equal to r. Note
that, since IG and the initial ideal of IG with respect to the reverse lexicographic order,
inrev (IG ), are both Cohen-Macaulay, we have reg(S/IG ) = reg(S/ inrev (IG )) = degP(t),
where P(t) is the numerator polynomial of the Hilbert series HS/IG (t) = HS/ inrev (IG ) (t). In
Theorem 1.2 we show that IG has maximal regularity if and only if any three consecutive
maximal cliques of G have empty intersection.
From combinatorial point of view, the proof of Theorem 1.2 is quite simple. Once we
are given the intervals I1 , . . ., Ir , where I j = [a j + 1, b j ], for 1 ≤ j ≤ r, we may consider the
simplicial complex Σ of all subsets σ ⊂ {2, . . ., n} which contain at most one element from
each interval I j . The faces of Σ are in one-to-one correspondence with the monomials that
form a vector space basis of the algebra S/(inrev (IG ), x1 , xn+1 ). The proof of Theorem 1.2
actaully answers the following combinatorial question: when does there exist σ ∈ Σ of
cardinality r? The algebraic interpretation of this question is: when does IG have maximal
regularity?
In Section 2 we state and prove the main theorem of this paper which characterizes the
closed graphs G for which IG is a Gorenstein ideal. To this aim, in Lemma 2.1 we first
show for connected closed graphs G that, if IG is Gorenstein and it has maximal regularity,
then the following numerical conditions must hold:
a2 = 2, ai+2 = bi + 1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ r − 2, and br−1 = n − 1.
In Theorem 2.2 we then characterize all connected closed graphs G for which IG is
Gorenstein. Finally, in Proposition 2.8 we show that IG is Gorenstein if and only if the
associated ideal of each connected component of G is Gorenstein. Thus, a complete
characterization of closed graphs G for which IG is a Gorenstein ideal is given. The proof
uses in principal combinatorial techniques.
Coming back to the above combinatorial interpretation of the regularity of IG , note
that imposing the condition that Σ has a single facet of cardinality r does not solve our
problem, since the Gorensteiness of IG does not automatically imply maximal regularity.
This fact makes the proof of Theorem 2.2 much more complicated.

2

1. S CROLL

BINOMIAL EDGE IDEALS OF MAXIMAL REGULARITY

Let G be a closed graph on the vertex set [n] and with the clique complex ∆(G) =
hF1 , . . . , Fr i where Fi = [ai , bi ], for 1 ≤ i ≤ r, and 1 = a1 < a2 < · · · < ar < br = n. In [2] it
was shown that reg S/IG ≤ r. Moreover, in the same paper it was shown that if the cliques
of G satisfy the conditions ai+1 = bi for 1 ≤ i ≤ r − 1, then reg S/IG = r. In this section
we give a full characterization of the graphs G with the property that reg S/IG = r.
Before giving this characterization, we prove a nice property of the graphs considered
in [2]. The classical binomial edge ideals share a similar property; see [4, Proposition 3.2].
Proposition 1.1. Let G be a closed graph with the maximal cliques Fi = [ai , bi ] for 1 ≤
i ≤ r. If ai+1 = bi for 1 ≤ i ≤ r − 1, then, for all i, j, we have

βi j (S/IG ) = βi j (S/ inrev (IG )).
Proof. We essentially follow the proof of [4, Proposition 3.2].
For a graded S-module M, let BM (s,t) = ∑i, j βi j sit j be the Betti polynomial of M. We
have inrev (IG ) = (x2 , . . ., xa2 )2 + (xa2 +1 , . . . , xa3 )2 + · · · + (xar +1 , . . ., xn )2 . Let Mi be the
minimal monomial generating set of (xai +1 , . . . , xai+1 )2 for 1 ≤ i ≤ r, where a1 = 1 and
ar+1 = n. Then, for any i 6= j, we have Mi ∩ M j = 0.
/ It follows that
(1)

Tork (S/(Mi), S/(M j )) = 0 for all i 6= j and k > 0.

This implies that

r

BS/ inrev(IG ) (s,t) = ∏ BS/(Mi ) (s,t).
i=1

On the other hand, by [1, Proposition 3.13], relation (1) implies that Tork (S/IFi , S/IFj ) = 0
for all i 6= j and k > 0. Therefore, we get
r

(2)

BS/IG (s,t) = ∏ BS/IF (s,t).
i=1

i

In order to prove our statement, it is enough to show that, if G consists of a single
clique, then βi j (S/IG ) = βi j (S/ inrev (IG )). But, if G is a clique on the vertex set [n],
then inrev (IG ) = (x2 , . . . , xn )2 has a linear resolution. Then IG has a linear resolution as
well. Consequently, the Hilbert series of S/IG and S/ inrev (IG ) are determined by the
corresponding Betti numbers. As S/IG and S/ inrev (IG ) have the same Hilbert series, it

follows that βi j (S/IG ) = βi j (S/ inrev (IG )) for all i, j.
In what follows, we characterize the graphs G whose associated ideal IG has a maximal
regularity. First, we show that we may reduce to the connected case.
Let G be a closed graph on the vertex set [n] and with the connected components
G1 , . . ., Gc . Let ri be the number of cliques of Gi for 1 ≤ i ≤ c, and r = r1 + · · · + rc .
By the proof of [2, Theorem 2.7], it follows that
c

c

reg(S/IG ) ≤ ∑ reg(S/IGi ) ≤ ∑ ri = r.
i=1

i=1

3

Thus, IG has maximal regularity if and only if each IGi has maximal regularity.
We may prove now the main statement of this section.
Theorem 1.2. Let G be a closed graph on the vertex set [n] with the maximal cliques
F1 , . . ., Fr , where Fi = [ai , bi ] for 1 ≤ i ≤ r, 1 = a1 < a2 < · · · < ar < br = n. Then
reg(S/IG ) = r if and only if Fi ∩ Fi+1 ∩ Fi+2 = 0/ for 1 ≤ i ≤ r − 2.
Proof. By the above discussion, we may reduce the proof of the statement to the connected case. Therefore, in the proof we assume that G is connected. We know that
P(t)
HS/IG (t) = HS/ inrev (IG ) (t) = (1−t)2 with P(t) ∈ Z[t]. We have inrev (IG ) = inrev (IF1 ) + · · · +
inrev (IFr ) = (x2 , . . . , xb1 )2 + · · · + (xar +1 , . . ., xn )2 . As x1 , xn+1 is a regular sequence on
S/ inrev (IG ), we get
P(t) = HS/(inrev (IG ),x1 ,xn+1 ) (t) = h0 + h1t + · · · + hr t r ,
where hi = dim(S/(inrev (IG ), x1 , xn+1 ))i for 0 ≤ i ≤ r.
First suppose that reg(S/IG ) = r, that is, hr 6= 0. This implies that there exists a
monomial of degree r, say w, which does not belong to (inrev (IG ), x1 , xn+1 ). Observe
that any monomial that does not belong to (inrev (IG ), x1 , xn+1 ) is a square free monomial
in the variables x2 , . . . , xn . Let w = x j1 , . . . , x jr ∈
/ inrev (IG ) with 2 ≤ j1 < · · · < jr ≤ n.
Then we must have j1 ∈ F1 , j2 ∈ F2 \F1 , . . ., jr ∈ Fr \Fr−1 . Assume there exists i with
Fi ∩ Fi+1 ∩ Fi+2 6= 0,
/ where Fi = [ai , bi ], Fi+1 = [ai+1, bi+1 ], and Fi+2 = [ai+2, bi+2 ]. Since
Fi ∩Fi+1 ∩Fi+2 6= 0,
/ we observe that ai < ai+1 < ai+2 < bi < bi+1 < bi+2 which shows that
Fi+1 \Fi ⊂ Fi+2 . This implies that ji+1 , ji+2 ∈ Fi+2 , that is, x ji+1 x ji+2 ∈ inrev (IG ), which is
a contradiction to the choice of w.
Conversely, suppose that Fi ∩ Fi+1 ∩ Fi+2 = 0/ for all i. In other words, we have ai+1 ≥
bi + 1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ r − 2. Then, it is easily seen that the monomial w = x2 xb1 +1 · · · xbr−2 +1 xn
has degree r and it does not belong to (inrev (IG ), x1 , xn+1 ). Therefore, reg(S/IG ) = r.

2. G ORENSTEIN

BINOMIAL EDGE IDEALS ASSOCIATED WITH SCROLLS

In this section we characterize the closed graphs G with the property that IG is a Gorenstein ideal, that is, S/IG is Gorenstein.
We first consider the case when G is connected. We note that if ∆(G) consists of a single
clique, that is, G is the complete graph Kn , then IG has a linear resolution. Moreover, one
may easily derive that βn−1 (S/IG ) = n − 1, hence, unless G = K2 , S/IG is not Gorenstein.
Therefore, in what follows we consider that G has at least 2 cliques.
Lemma 2.1. Let G be a connected closed graph with r ≥ 2 maximal cliques F1 , . . . , Fr
with Fi = [ai , bi ] for 1 ≤ i ≤ r, 1 = a1 < a2 < · · · < ar < br = n. If IG is Gorenstein and
reg(S/IG ) = r, then the following equalities hold:
a2 = 2, ai+2 = bi + 1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ r − 2, br−1 = n − 1.
4

Proof. By Theorem 1.2, we have Fi ∩ Fi+2 = 0/ for 1 ≤ i ≤ r − 2; in other words, bi < ai+2
for 1 ≤ i ≤ r − 2.
As before, let P(t) = h0 +h1t +· · ·+hr t r be the numerator of the Hilbert series HS/IG (t) =
HS/ inrev (IG ) (t). Recall from the proof of Theorem 1.2 that P(t) = HS/(inrev (IG ),x1 ,xn+1 ) (t).
Since IG is Gorenstein, the h-vector (h0 , . . ., hs ) is symmetric. Therefore, since h0 = 1,
the leading coefficient hr of P(t) must be equal to 1, as well. This means that the last nonzero component of S/(inrev (IG ), x1 , xn+1 ) has dimension 1 as a vector space over K. In
other words, there must be exactly one squarefree monomial of degree r in the variables
x2 , . . . , xn which does not belong to inrev (IG ). One easily observes that the monomial
w = x2 xb1 +1 xb2 +1 · · · xbr−2 +1 xn does not belong to inrev (IG ). Now we will show that the
above equalities must hold in order to not have another squarefree monomial w′ of degree
r such that w′ ∈
/ inrev (IG ).
Let us first assume that a2 > 2. Then we find the monomial xa2 xb1 +1 xb2 +1 · · · xbr−2 +1 xn
which does not belong to inrev (IG ). Similarly, if br−1 < n − 1, then we find the monomial
x2 xb1 +1 xb2 +1 · · · xbr−2 +1 xn−1 ∈
/ inrev (IG ). Finally, if there exists 1 ≤ i ≤ r − 2 such that
ai+2 > bi + 1, then the monomial xbw+1 xbi +2 = x2 xb1 +1 · · · xbi−1 +1 xbi +2 xbi+1 +1 · · · xbr−2 +1 xn
does not belong to inrev (IG ).

i



We observe that x1 , xn+1 is a regular sequence on S/IG . Indeed, one easily sees that x1
is regular on S/ inrev (IG ), and hence on S/IG , and (inrev (IG ), x1 ) = inrev (IG , x1 ). As xn+1
is regular on S/ inrev (IG , x1 ), it follows that xn+1 is regular on S/(IG , x1 ), as well.
Therefore, the ring S/IG is Gorenstein if and only if S/(IG , x1 , xn+1 ) is Gorenstein. On
the other hand S/(IG , x1 , xn+1 ) ∼
= S̄/I¯G , where S̄ = K[x2 , . . . , xn ] and I¯G = IG mod(x1 , xn+1 ).
¯
We also observe that S̄/IG is a zero-dimensional ring. Thus, S̄/I¯G is Gorenstein if
and only if the socle of S̄/I¯G has dimension 1 as a K-vector space [3, Proposition 21.5].
Therefore, S/IG is Gorenstein if and only if dimK (I¯G : m/I¯G ) = 1, where m = (x2 , . . ., xn ).
The next theorem is the core of this section.
Theorem 2.2. Let G be a connected closed graph with r ≥ 2 maximal cliques F1 , . . . , Fr
with Fi = [ai , bi ] for 1 ≤ i ≤ r, 1 = a1 < a2 < · · · < ar < br = n. Then the following
statements are equivalent:
(a) IG is a Gorenstein ideal;
(b) The following equalities hold: a2 = 2, ai+2 = bi +1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ r −2, br−1 = n −1.
Proof. (a) ⇒ (b). Suppose that IG is a Gorenstein ideal. By the above observations, we
have dimK (I¯G : m/I¯G ) = 1, where S̄ = K[x2 , . . ., xn ], I¯G = IG mod(x1 , xn+1 ), and m =
(x2 , . . ., xn ).
We easily see that the reduced Gröbner basis of I¯G with respect to the reverse lexicographic order is obtained from the reduced Gröbner basis of IG by moding out x1 and
xn+1 . Therefore,
inrev (I¯G ) = (x2 , . . . , xb1 )2 + (xa2 +1 , . . ., xb2 )2 + · · · + (xar +1 , . . . , xn )2 .
5

Since S/IG is Gorenstein, recall from the proof of Lemma 2.1 that there must be exactly
one squarefree monomial in the maximal degree s = reg(S/IG) = reg(S̄/I¯G ) ≤ r in the
variables x2 , . . ., xn which does not belong to inrev (I¯G ). In other words, hs = 1, where hs
is the last component of the h-vector of S̄/ inrev (I¯G ), which coincides with the h-vector of
S/ inrev (IG ).
We will show that if hs = 1 and s < r, then dimK (I¯G : m/I¯G ) > 1. Once we prove this,
since S̄/I¯G is Gorenstein, it follows that we must have s = r and the proof of (a) ⇒ (b) is
completed by Lemma 2.1.
So, suppose that hs = 1 and s < r. Let w = x j1 x j2 · · · x js be the unique squarefree monomial of degree s with w ∈
/ inrev (I¯G ).
The uniqueness of w immediately implies that j1 = 2 and js = n. Indeed, if for
example j1 > 2, then w′ = x2 x j2 · · · x js ∈
/ inrev (I¯G ) and w′ 6= w, contradiction. Thus,
w = x2 x j2 · · · x js−1 xn . Moreover, we must have j2 ≥ b1 + 1 and, by the uniqueness of
w, we get j2 = b1 + 1.
Again by the uniqueness of w, it follows that a2 = 2 and br−1 = n − 1. Indeed, if,
for example a2 > 2, then w′ = x3 x j2 · · · x js−1 xn ∈
/ inrev (I¯G ) and w′ 6= w, which is again a
contradiction.
On the other hand, we observe that w must ”cover” every set Ai = {xai +1 , xai +2 , . . . , xbi }
for 1 ≤ i ≤ r in the sense that for each i with 1 ≤ i ≤ r there exists a variable x j ∈ Ai such
that x j | w. Indeed, let us assume that there exists i with 1 ≤ i ≤ r such that for all x j ∈ Ai ,
x j ∤ w. Then we may find an integer q such that jq < ai + 1 ≤ bi < jq+1 . It follows that
/ inrev (I¯G ) and deg(w′ ) = deg(w), a contradiction to the uniqueness of w.
w′ = xwj xai +1 ∈
q
In addition, the uniqueness of w implies that for all i with 1 ≤ i ≤ r − 2 we must have
ai+2 ≤ bi + 1. Indeed, let us assume that there exists an integer k such that ak+2 > bk + 1
and set i = min{k | ak+2 > bk +1}. There exists a unique q such that jq ≤ bi and jq+1 > bi .
If jq+1 = bi + 1, then w′ = x jw xbi +2 ∈
/ inrev (I¯G ) and deg(w′ ) = deg(w). If jq+1 > bi + 1,
q+1
then w′ = w xbi +1 ∈
/ inrev (I¯G ) and deg(w′ ) = deg(w).
x jq+1

Consequently, in what follows we assume that w covers every set Ai , i = 1, . . . , r, and
ai+2 ≤ bi + 1, for 1 ≤ i ≤ r − 2.
For 1 ≤ k ≤ s, we set i(k) = min{i | jk ∈ Ai }, that is, Ai(k) is the first set Ai containing
jk and ai(k) , bi(k) are the endpoints of the clique Fi(k) . For example, as j1 = 2, we have
i(1) = 1 and, since j2 = b1 + 1, we have i(2) = 2.
Since w covers each set Ai and by its uniqueness, we derive that for 3 ≤ k ≤ s the
following conditions must be fulfilled:
jk = max{bi | x jk−1 ∈ Ai } + 1 and ai(k) = jk−1 = bi(k−1)−1 + 1.
In particular, ar = bi(s−1)−1 + 1.
Note that I¯G : m/I¯G contains in its K-basis the monomial w of degree s = reg(S̄/I¯G ) < r.
We will show that under the above conditions, which are imposed by the uniqueness of
6

w, we may find another polynomial f of degree s − 1 in the K-basis of I¯G : m/I¯G , hence
obtaining dimK (I¯G : m/I¯G ) > 1, as claimed.
Recall that w = x2 x j2 · · · x js−1 xn with jk = bi(k)−1 + 1 for 2 ≤ k ≤ s − 1 and ai(k) =
bi(k−1)−1 + 1 for 2 ≤ k ≤ s.
Note that, since s = reg(S̄/I¯G ) = reg(S/IG ) < r, there must exist three consecutive
cliques with nonempty intersection. We may assume without loss of generality that the
intersection of the first 3 cliques is nonempty, that is, i(3) > 3.
We consider the following binomial of degree s − 1:
f = (x3 x j3 −1 − x2 x j3 )x j4 · · · x js−1 xn .
Obviously, inrev ( f ) = x3 x j3 −1 x j4 · · · x js−1 xn . We claim that inrev ( f ) ∈
/ inrev (I¯G ). Indeed, if inrev ( f ) ∈ inrev (I¯G ), then we should have either x3 x j3 −1 ∈ inrev (I¯G ) or x j3 −1 x j4 ∈
inrev (I¯G ). But, as i(3) > 3, j3 − 1 = bi(3)−1 > b2 , thus x3 x j3 −1 ∈
/ inrev (I¯G ). If x j3 −1 x j4 ∈
inrev (I¯G ), then x j3 x j4 ∈ inrev (I¯G ), impossible. Thus, inrev ( f ) ∈
/ inrev (I¯G ), which implies
¯
that f ∈
/ IG .
In order to obtain dimK (I¯G : m/I¯G ) > 1, it remains to show that xl f ∈ I¯G for 2 ≤ l ≤ n.
This will complete the proof of the theorem. (See Example 2.3 for an illustration of the
following technical procedure.)
Case 1: If 2 ≤ l ≤ b1 − 1, then x3 xl ≡ x2 xl+1 ∈ I¯G and x2 xl ∈ I¯G , thus xl f ∈ I¯G .
Case 2: If l = b1 , then
x3 xb1 x j3 −1 ≡ x2 xb1 +1 x j3 −1 ≡ x2 xb1 x j3 ∈ I¯G
and x2 xb1 ∈ I¯G , thus xb1 f ∈ I¯G .
Case 3: If l = b1 + 1, then
x3 xb1 +1 x j3 −1 ≡ x3 xb1 x j3 ≡ x2 xb1 +1 x j3 ,
the first congruence holding because b1 ∈ Fi(3)−1 . Therefore, xb1 +1 (x3 x j3 −1 − x2 x j3 ) ∈ I¯G ,
and thus xb1 +1 f ∈ I¯G .
Case 4: If l = b1 + 2, then
x3 xb1 +2 x j3 −1 ≡ x3 xb1 +1 x j3 ≡ x2 xb1 +2 x j3 .
As in the previous case it follows that xb1 +2 (x3 x j3 −1 − x2 x j3 ) ∈ I¯G , and thus xb1 +2 f ∈ I¯G .

7

Case 5: If b1 + 3 ≤ l ≤ j3 , since ai(3) = b1 + 1, we get:
x3 xl x j3 −1 x j4 · · · x js−1 xn ≡
≡ x3 xl−1 x j3 x j4 · · · x js−1 xn ≡
≡ x3 xl−2 x j3 +1 x j4 · · · x js−1 xn ≡
≡ x3 xl−2 x j3 x j4 +1 · · · x js−1 xn ≡
..
.
≡ x3 xl−2 x j3 x j4 · · · x js−1 +1 xn ≡
≡ 0 (mod I¯G ),
the last congruency holding because x js−1 +1 xn ∈ I¯G .
One shows similarily that x2 xl x j3 x j4 · · · x js−1 xn ∈ I¯G . Thus xl f ∈ I¯G .
Case 6: If jk−1 < l ≤ jk , where 4 ≤ k ≤ s, then
xl f ≡ (x3 x j3 −1 − x2 x j3 )x j4 · · · xl x jk x jk+1 · · · x js−1 xn ≡
≡ (x3 x j3 −1 − x2 x j3 )x j4 · · · xl−1 x jk +1 x jk+1 · · · x js−1 xn ≡
≡ (x3 x j3 −1 − x2 x j3 )x j4 · · · xl−1 x jk x jk+1 +1 · · · x js−1 xn ≡
..
.
≡ (x3 x j3 −1 − x2 x j3 )x j4 · · · x js−2 x js−1 +1 xn ≡
≡ 0 (mod I¯G ).
(b) ⇒ (a). Let us assume that F1 , . . . , Fr satisfy the numerical conditions of (b). We will
show that dimK (I¯G : m/I¯G ) = 1.
The hypothesis on G ensures the existence of a unique monomial w of degree r such
that w ∈
/ I¯G and mw ⊆ I¯G , namely, w = x2 xb1 +1 xb2 +1 · · · xbr−2 +1 xn . Therefore, it remains to
prove the following claim:
if f ∈ I¯G : m and deg( f ) ≤ r − 1, then f ∈ I¯G .
We prove this claim by contradiction. Let us assume that there exists a homogeneous
polynomial f ∈ I¯G : m with deg( f ) ≤ r − 1 such that f ∈
/ I¯G .
Let f = c1 u1 + c2 u2 + · · · + cm um , where u1 >rev u2 >rev · · · >rev um and ci ∈ K\{0} for
1 ≤ i ≤ m. By reducing f modulo I¯G , we may assume that no monomial in the support
of f belongs to inrev (I¯G ), and hence, each ui is a squarefree monomial in the variables
x2 , x3 , . . . , xn .
In order to reach the contradiction, we need to find a variable xk , with 2 ≤ k ≤ n, such
that xk f is congruent modulo I¯G to some polynomial g which does not belong to I¯G . We
use an inductive procedure to find the appropriate variable xk . (See Example 2.5 for an
illustration of this procedure.)
Step 1: Let us first assume that there exists some monomial uq ∈ Supp( f ) such that
uq does not cover the set A1 = {x2 , x3 , . . ., xb1 } and let i = min{q | uq does not cover A1 }.
8

Hence, for all xl ∈ A1 , xl ∤ ui , and i is the least index with this property. We have
x2 f = c1 x2 u1 + · · · + ci−1 x2 ui−1 + ci x2 ui + · · · cm x2 um .
Since for every j ≤ i − 1 there exists xl ∈ A1 such that xl | u j , it follows that x2 u j ∈ I¯G ,
because x2 xl ∈ I¯G . Hence, x2 f ≡ g = ci x2 ui + · · · cm x2 um (mod I¯G ). Now, since x2 ui =
inrev (g) ∈
/ inrev (I¯G ), it follows that g ∈
/ I¯G , thus x2 f ∈
/ I¯G .
Hence, in what follows, we assume that every ui ∈ Supp( f ) covers A1 .
Step 2: Let us first assume that there exists ui ∈ Supp( f ) such that xl | ui for some l
with 3 ≤ l ≤ b1 .
First, we suppose that we have in the support of f the monomials uq1 >rev · · · >rev uqs
which are divisible by xb1 . Then x3 f ≡ cq1 x3 uq1 + · · · + cqs x3 uqs , since x3 xl ∈ I¯G , for
2 ≤ l ≤ b1 − 1, that is




uq1
uqs
uqs
uq1
x3 f ≡ x3 xb1 cq1
+ · · · + cqs
≡ g = x2 xb1 +1 cq1
+ · · · + cqs
.
xb1
xb1
xb1
xb1
uq

Since inrev (g) = x2 xb1 +1 xb1 does not belong to inrev (I¯G ), we have g ∈
/ I¯G , and thus x3 f ∈
/ I¯G .
1

Next, we suppose that max{l ∈ A1 | xl divides ui for some 1 ≤ i ≤ m} = b1 − 1. If
uq1 >rev · · · >rev uqs are the monomials of the support of f which are divisible by xb1 −1 ,
then we consider x4 f and get


uqs
uq1
+ · · · + cqs
(mod I¯G ).
x4 f ≡ x4 xb1 −1 cq1
xb1 −1
xb1 −1
But x4 xb1 −1 ≡ x3 xb1 ≡ x2 xb1 +1 (mod I¯G ), thus


uqs
uq1
+ · · · + cqs
(mod I¯G ).
x4 f ≡ g = x2 xb1 +1 cq1
xb1 −1
xb1 −1
uq1

As inrev (g) = x2 xb1 +1 xb

1 −1

∈
/ inrev (I¯G ), we have g ∈
/ I¯G , and thus x4 f ∈
/ I¯G . Contradiction.

By repeating this procedure for max{l ∈ A1 | xl divides ui for some 1 ≤ i ≤ m} = b1 −2,
b1 − 3, . . ., 4, 3, and by using the congruences x2 xb1 +1 ≡ x3 xb1 ≡ x4 xb1 −1 ≡ x5 xb1 −2 ≡ · · · ,
we may find, in each case, a suitable variable xk such that xk f ∈
/ I¯G .
Therefore, we conclude that x2 | ui for all ui ∈ Supp( f ).
Step 3: By induction on j, we may assume that x2 xb1 +1 · · · xb j−2 +1 | ui for all ui ∈
Supp( f ).
Let us now first consider the case when there exists some monomial uq ∈ Supp( f )
which does not cover A j = {xa j +1 , . . ., xb j }. Let i = min{q | uq does not cover A j }. We
will show that xb j−1 +1 f ∈
/ I¯G .
For k ≤ i − 1, uk is of the form x2 xb1 +1 · · · xb j−2 +1 xl v for some monomial v and some
variable xl ∈ A j , with l ≥ b j−1 + 1.

9

We have
xb j−1 +1 uk = x2 xb1 +1 · · · xb j−2 +1 xb j−1 +1 xl v ≡
≡ x2 xb1 +1 · · · xb j−2 +1 xb j−1 xl+1 v ≡
≡ x2 xb1 +1 · · · xb j−2 xb j−1 +1 xl+1 v ≡
..
.
≡ x2 xb1 xb2 +1 · · · xb j−1 +1 xl+1 v ≡
≡ 0 (mod I¯G ),
the last congruence holding because x2 xb1 ∈ I¯G .
It follows that
xb j−1 +1 f ≡ g = ci xb j−1 +1 ui + · · · + cm xb j−1 +1 um .
By our assumption on ui , we have that inrev (g) = ci xb j−1 +1 ui ∈
/ inrev (I¯G ), thus g ∈
/ I¯G
and xb j−1 +1 f ∈
/ I¯G . Contradiction.
Finally, we consider the case when each uq ∈ Supp( f ) covers A j = {xa j +1 , . . . , xb j }.
In this case, either xb j−1 +1 divides each uq ∈ Supp( f ), which takes us back to the
beginning of Step 3 with j + 1 instead of j (a procedure which has to terminate), or
there is a monomial in the support of f which is divisible by some variable xl , where
b j−1 + 2 ≤ l ≤ b j .
In the latter case we proceed as in Step 2, by considering
max{l ∈ A j ∩ A j+1 | xl divides some ui ∈ Supp( f )}.
We illustrate the procedure when the above maximum is equal to b j . Let uq1 >rev
· · · >rev uqs be the monomials in the support of f which are divisible by xb j . The other
monomials in the support of f (if any) must be divisible by
x2 xb1 +1 · · · xb j−2 +1 xb j−1 +1 .
We will show that xb j−1 +2 f ∈
/ I¯G . First we observe that for 1 ≤ i ≤ s,
uq
uq
xb j−1 +2 uqi = xb j−1 +2 xb j i ≡ xb j−1 +1 xb j +1 i (mod I¯G ).
xb j
xb j
Note that the latter monomial is not in inrev (I¯G ). If we show that xb j−1 +2 u ≡ 0 (mod I¯G )
for any other monomial u ∈ Supp( f ), it will follow that


s
uqi
xb j−1 +2 f ≡ g = ∑ xb j−1 +1 xb j +1 ci
(mod I¯G ),
xb j
i=1
and, since inrev (g) ∈
/ inrev (I¯G ), we have g ∈
/ I¯G , and thus xb j−1 +2 f ∈
/ I¯G .

10

Let u be of the form x2 xb1 +1 · · · xb j−2 +1 xl v for some monomial v and some variable xl
with b j−1 + 2 ≤ l < b j . Then
xb j−1 +2 u = x2 xb1 +1 · · · xb j−2 +1 xb j−1 +2 xl v ≡
≡ x2 xb1 +1 · · · xb j−2 +1 xb j−1 +1 xl+1 v ≡
≡ x2 xb1 +1 · · · xb j−2 +1 xb j−1 xl+2 v ≡
≡ x2 xb1 +1 · · · xb j−2 xb j−1 +1 xl+2 v ≡
..
.
≡ x2 xb1 xb2 +1 · · · xb j−1 +1 xl+2 v ≡
≡ 0 (mod I¯G ),


This completes the proof of the theorem.

We now give two examples which illustrate the technical procedure of the first part of
the above proof. The first example illustrates the case which is considered in the proof,
that is, when the intersection of the first 3 cliques in nonempty, whereas the second example illustrates the case when 3 consecutive cliques with nonempty intersection occur
later, not at the beginning.
From these 2 examples it is clear how the polynomial f in the first part of the proof is
picked in general.
Example 2.3. Consider the graph G with the cliques F1 = [1, 5], F2 = [2, 6], F3 = [3, 8], F4 =
[4, 9], F5 = [6, 10], F6 = [7, 12], F7 = [8, 13], F8 = [10, 14]. Using the notation of the proof
of Theorem 2.2, we observe that x j1 x j2 x j3 x j4 = x2 x6 x10 x14 is the only monomial of degree
4 in I¯G : m/I¯G . We also note that bi(3) = 10, and hence bi(3)−1 = 9. Therefore, we consider
f = (x3 x9 − x2 x10 )x14 .
We see that inrev ( f ) = x3 x9 x14 does not belong to inrev (I¯G ). Hence, indeed, f ∈
/ I¯G . In
order to show that f ∈ I¯G : m/I¯G , hence obtaining dimK (I¯G : m/I¯G ) > 1, it remains to show
that xl f ∈ I¯G for 2 ≤ l ≤ 14.
Case 1: If 2 ≤ l ≤ b1 − 1 = 4, then x3 xl ≡ x2 xl+1 ∈ I¯G and x2 xl ∈ I¯G , thus xl f ∈ I¯G .
Case 2: If l = b1 = 5, then x3 x5 x9 ≡ x2 x6 x9 ≡ x2 x5 x10 ∈ I¯G and x2 x5 ∈ I¯G , thus x5 f ∈ I¯G .
Case 3: If l = b1 + 1 = 6, then we have x3 x6 x9 ≡ x3 x5 x10 ≡ x2 x6 x10 . It follows that
x6 (x3 x9 − x2 x10 ) ∈ I¯G , and thus x6 f ∈ I¯G .
Case 4: If l = b1 + 2 = 7, then x3 x7 x9 ≡ x3 x6 x10 ≡ x2 x7 x10 . As in the previous case it
follows that x7 f ∈ I¯G .
Case 5: If 8 = b1 + 3 ≤ l ≤ j3 = 10, say l = 8, we have
x3 xl x9 x14 = x3 x8 x9 x14 ≡ x3 x7 x10 x14 ≡ x3 x6 x11 x14 ≡ 0 (mod I¯G ).
Similarily,
x2 xl x10 x14 = x2 x8 x10 x14 ≡ x2 x7 x11 x14 ≡ 0 (mod I¯G ).
11

Thus x8 f ∈ I¯G .
Case 6: If 10 = j3 < l ≤ j4 = 14, then xl f = (x3 x9 − x2 x10 )xl x14 ≡ 0 (mod I¯G ), because
xl x14 ∈ I¯G .
Example 2.4. Consider the graph G with the cliques F1 = [1, 4], F2 = [2, 5], F3 = [5, 9], F4 =
[6, 10], F5 = [7, 12], F6 = [8, 13], F7 = [10, 14], F8 = [14, 15]. We observe that x2 x5 x6 x10 x14 x15
is the only monomial of degree 5 in I¯G : m/I¯G . We consider
f = x2 x5 (x7 x13 − x6 x14 )x15 .
We see that inrev ( f ) = x2 x5 x7 x13 x15 does not belong to inrev (I¯G ). Hence, f ∈
/ I¯G . In order
¯
¯
¯
¯
to show that f ∈ IG : m/IG , hence obtaining dimK (IG : m/IG ) > 1, it remains to show that
xl f ∈ I¯G for 2 ≤ l ≤ 15.
Case 1: If 2 = j1 ≤ l ≤ j2 = 5, then l = 5 is the nontrivial case. We have
x5 f = x2 x25 (x7 x13 − x6 x14 )x15 ≡ x2 x4 x6 (x7 x13 − x6 x14 )x15 ∈ I¯G .
Case 2: If 6 = j3 ≤ l ≤ bi(3) − 1 = 8, say l = 8, then
x8 x2 x5 x7 x13 x15 ≡ x2 x5 x6 x9 x13 x15 ≡ x2 x25 x10 x13x15 ≡ x2 x4 x6 x10 x13 x15 ∈ I¯G ,
and
x8 x2 x5 x6 x14 x15 ≡ x2 x25 x9 x14 x15 ≡ x2 x4 x6 x9 x14 x15 ∈ I¯G ,
hence, x8 f ∈ I¯G . By the same argument, we get x6 f ∈ I¯G and x7 f ∈ I¯G .
Case 3: If 9 = bi(3) ≤ l ≤ bi(3) + 2 = 11, say l = 9, then
x7 x9 x13 ≡ x7 x8 x14 ≡ x6 x9 x14 .
Therefore, x9 (x7 x13 − x6 x14 ) ∈ I¯G , and hence, x9 f ∈ I¯G . By the same argument, we get
x10 f ∈ I¯G and x11 f ∈ I¯G .
Case 4: If 12 = bi(3) + 3 ≤ l ≤ j5 = 14, say l = 12, then
x12 x2 x5 x7 x13 x15 ≡ x2 x5 x7 x11 x14 x15 ≡ x2 x5 x7 x10 x215 ∈ I¯G ,
and
x12 x2 x5 x6 x14 x15 ≡ x2 x5 x6 x11 x215 ∈ I¯G .
It follows that x12 f ∈ I¯G . By the same argument, we get x13 f ∈ I¯G and x14 f ∈ I¯G .
Case 5: If 14 = j5 < l ≤ j6 = 15, then x15 f = x2 x5 (x7 x13 − x6 x14 )x215 ∈ I¯G .
We now give an example which illustrates the technical procedure of the second part of
the above proof.
Example 2.5. Consider the graph G with the cliques F1 = [1, 5], F2 = [2, 9], F3 = [6, 14],
F4 = [10, 17], F5 = [15, 21], F6 = [18, 22], and consider the polynomial
f = x2 x6 x10 x15 + x2 x6 x11 x21 + x2 x6 x12 x21 + x2 x6 x13 x21 + x2 x6 x14 x21 .
We will show that there exists a variable xk such that xk f ∈
/ I¯G . Note that we are in the
last subcase of Step 3 with j = 3.
12

We observe that max{l ∈ A3 ∩A4 | xl divides some ui ∈ Supp( f )} = 14 = b3 . Therefore,
we multiply f by xb j−1 +2 = x11 and show that x11 f ∈
/ I¯G . We have
x11 u1 = x2 x6 x10 x11 x15 ≡ x2 x6 x9 x12 x15 ≡ x2 x5 x10 x12 x15 ≡ 0 (mod I¯G )
x11 u2 = x2 x6 x211 x21 ≡ x2 x6 x10 x12 x21 ≡ x2 x6 x9 x13 x21 ≡ x2 x5 x10 x13 x21 ≡ 0 (mod I¯G )
x11 u3 = x2 x6 x11 x12 x21 ≡ x2 x6 x10 x13 x21 ≡ x2 x6 x9 x14 x21 ≡ x2 x5 x10 x14 x21 ≡ 0 (mod I¯G )
x11 u4 = x2 x6 x11 x13 x21 ≡ x2 x6 x10 x14 x21 ≡ x2 x6 x9 x15 x21 ≡ x2 x5 x10 x15 x21 ≡ 0 (mod I¯G )
Finally, x11 u5 = x2 x6 x11 x14 x21 ≡ x2 x6 x10 x15 x21 (mod I¯G ). Since the latter monomial does
not belong to inrev (I¯G ), it is not in I¯G either. Hence, x11 u5 ∈
/ I¯G . It follows that x11 f ∈
/ I¯G ,
because, by the above four congruencies, x11 u5 ≡ x11 f (mod I¯G ).
An immediate consequence of Theorem 2.2 is the following
Corollary 2.6. If IG is Gorenstein, then IG has maximal regularity.
Example 2.7. Assume that G is connected and has two cliques, say, F1 = [1, b], F2 = [a, n].
By Theorem 2.2, IG is Gorenstein if and only if a = 2 and b = n−1. So there exists exactly
one Gorenstein ideal IG when G has two cliques. Since reg(S/IG) = 2, IG is extremal
Gorenstein ([9], [6]), and hence, according to [9, Theorem B], its Betti numbers are

 

n−1
n
βi,i+1(S/IG ) =
, for 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1,
i−
i−1
i+1

βi,i+2(S/IG ) = 0, for 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 2, and
βn−1,n+1 (S/IG) = 1.
The following proposition generalizes the above theorem to all closed graphs.
Proposition 2.8. Let G be a closed graph with the connected components G1 , . . . , Gc .
Then IG is Gorenstein if and only if IGi is Gorenstein for all 1 ≤ i ≤ c.
Proof. As in Section 1, let BM (s,t) = ∑i, j βi j sit j denote the Betti polynomial of a module
M. Let Mi be the minimal set of monomial generators of inrev (IGi ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ c. Then Mi ∩
M j = 0/ for all i 6= j. As in the proof of Proposition 1.1 we derive that Tork (S/IGi , S/IG j ) =
0 for k > 0 and i 6= j, hence
c

(3)

BS/IG (s,t) = ∏ BS/IG (s,t).
i=1

i

Let r = reg(S/IG ). Then IG is a Gorenstein ideal if and only if βn−c,n−c+r (S/IG ) = 1
and βn−c, j (S/IG ) = 0 for j ≤ n − c + r − 1. Let V (Gi ) = {ni−1 + 1, . . . , ni−1 + ni }, where
n0 = 0, and let ri = reg(S/IGi ), for 1 ≤ i ≤ c. Clearly, by equality (3), it follows that
βn−c,n−c+r (S/IG ) = 1 if and only if, for all 1 ≤ i ≤ c, βni −1,ni −1+ri (S/IGi ) = 1.
13

Now, if IGi is Gorenstein for all i, then βni −1,l (S/IGi ) = 0 for l < ni − 1 + ri . By using equality (3) again, this implies that βn−c, j (S/IG ) = 0 for j < n − c + r, thus IG is
Gorenstein.
For the converse, we argue by contradiction. Let us assume that IG is Gorenstein and
that there exists 1 ≤ i ≤ c such that IGi is not Gorenstein. Since βni −1,ni −1+ri (S/IGi ) = 1,
there exists an integer l < ri such that βni −1,ni −1+l (S/IGi ) ≥ 1. By using (3), we get:

βn−c,n−c+r−ri +l (S/IG) ≥ ∏ βn j −1,n j −1+r j (S/IG j ) · βni−1,ni −1+l (S/IGi ),
j6=i

thus, βn−c,n−c+r−ri +l (S/IG ) ≥ 1, which is a contradiction to our hypothesis on IG , since

r − ri + l < r. Therefore, IGi is Gorenstein for 1 ≤ i ≤ c.
R EFERENCES
[1] W. Bruns, A. Conca, Gröbner bases and determinantal ideals, In: Commutative Algebra, Singularities
ansd Computer Algebra, J. Herzog and V. Vuletescu, Eds., NATO Science Series 115, (2003), 9–66.
[2] F. Chaudhry, A. Dokuyucu, V. Ene, Binomial edge ideals and rational normal scrolls, to appear in Bull.
Iranian Math. Soc.
[3] D. Eisenbud, Commutative algebra with a view toward algebraic geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 150 Springer-Verlag, 1995.
[4] V. Ene, J. Herzog, T. Hibi, Cohen-Macaulay binomial edge ideals, Nagoya Math. J. 204 (2011), 57–68.
[5] J. Herzog, T. Hibi, F. Hreinsdotir, T. Kahle, J. Rauh, Binomial edge ideals and conditional independence
statements, Adv. Appl. Math. 45 (2010), 317–333.
[6] C. Kumar, P. Singh, A. Kumar, Nearly extremal Cohen-Macaulay and Gorenstein algebras, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 75 (2007), 211–220.
[7] P. J. Looges, S. Olariu, Optimal greedy algorithms for indifference graphs, Comput. Math. Appl. 25 no.
7 (1993), 15–25.
[8] F.S. Roberts, Graph Theory and Its Applications to Problems of Society, SIAM Press, Philadelphia, PA,
(1978).
[9] P. Schenzel, Über die freien Auflösungen extremaler Cohen-Macaulay-Ringe, J. Algebra 64 (1980),
93–101.
A HMET D OKUYUCU , L UMINA -T HE U NIVERSITY
64 B , B UCHAREST, ROMANIA
E-mail address: ahmet.dokuyucu@lumina.org

OF

S OUTH -E AST E UROPE , S OS . C OLENTINA NR .

A JDIN H ALILOVIC , L UMINA -T HE U NIVERSITY OF S OUTH -E AST E UROPE , S OS . C OLENTINA
64 B , B UCHAREST, ROMANIA
E-mail address: ajdin.halilovic@lumina.org

NR .

R IDA I RFAN , A BDUS S ALAM S CHOOL OF M ATHEMATICAL S CIENCES , GC U NIVERSITY, 68-B,
N EW M USLIM T OWN , L AHORE 54600, PAKISTAN
E-mail address: ridairfan 88@yahoo.com

14

