Free resolutions of orbit closures of Dynkin quivers
András C Lőrincz, Jerzy Weyman

arXiv:1801.00193v1 [math.AG] 30 Dec 2017

Abstract
We use the Kempf-Lascoux-Weyman geometric technique in order to determine the minimal free resolutions of some orbit closures of quivers. As a consequence, we obtain that for
Dynkin quivers orbit closures of 1-step representations are normal with rational singularities. For Dynkin quivers of type A, we describe explicit minimal generators of the defining
ideals of orbit closures of 1-step representations. Using this, we provide an algorithm for
type A quivers for describing an efficient set of generators of the defining ideal of the orbit
closure of any representation.

Introduction
The geometric properties of orbit closures of quivers (also known as quiver loci) have been studied
extensively, and it is an active area of research (see [28] for an exposition). Several results are
known in the Dynkin case. It has been shown (see [3, 5, 6, 12, 14]) that for quivers of type A
and D orbit closures have rational singularities (in particular, are normal and Cohen-Macaulay).
Furthermore, for equioriented type A quivers it was shown in [14] that singularities of orbit
closures are identical to singularities of Schubert varieties. For Dynkin quivers of type E, it
is still an open problem whether orbit closures are normal, Cohen-Macaulay or have rational
singularities, and only partial results are known ([16, 25, 27]).
The Kempf-Lascoux-Weyman geometric technique is a generalization of Lascoux’s calculation
of the resolutions of determinantal varieties [15]. In this paper we investigate the minimal free
resolutions of the defining ideals of orbit closures that are 1-step using this technique. This
was investigated before for source-sink quivers by K. Sutar [24, 25]. We generalize the results
in [25] and show, in particular, that 1-step orbit closures are normal with rational singularities
for all Dynkin quivers (Theorem 3). Besides yielding minimal free resolutions, this approach of
studying the geometry of orbit closures has also the advantage that it is uniform with respect to
all Dynkin types (and extend Dynkin types).
The article is organized as follows. In Section 1 we give a short background on quivers from
a geometric point of view. Then we define 1-step representations (Definition 1.1) and give some
criteria for representations to be 1-step (Propositions 1.2,1.3,1.4).
In Section 2 we consider the geometric technique in our context. The technique provides
a complex (2) whose terms are obtained from cohomologies on (products of) Grassmannians.
In good situations these complexes give minimal free resolutions of orbit closures. The terms
of the complex can be computed using Bott’s Theorem 2.2, which involves combinatorics with
partitions.
In Section 3 we provide the main results on minimal free resolutions. A sequence of lemmas
is followed by the main technical result (Theorem 3.5), which gives a direct relation between the
combinatorics behind Bott’s Theorem and the Euler form of Q. Using this, we readily prove that
1

1-step representations have rational singularities (in particular, are normal and Cohen-Macaulay)
when Q is a Dynkin quiver (Theorem 3). Moreover, we get minimal free resolutions whose terms
can be computed using Bott’s theorem. Also, we give the analogous results for the normalizations
of 1-step orbit closures in the extended Dynkin case (Theorem 3.7).
In Section 4 we give more explicit results for type A Dynkin quivers. Using the first term F1
in the minimal free resolution, we identify the minimal defining equations of 1-step orbit closures
as certain minors that come from rank conditions (Theorems 4.3,4.6). Using these results, prove
that the orbit closure of any representation for a type A quiver can be written as a schemetheoretic intersection of 1-step orbit closures (Theorem 4.7). This gives an algorithm for a type
A quiver for finding an efficient set of generators for the defining ideal of the orbit closure of any
representation.

1

Quivers and 1-step representations

Throughout we work over an algebraically closed field k of characteristic 0. A quiver Q is an
oriented graph, i.e. a pair Q = (Q0 , Q1 ) formed by a finite set of vertices Q0 and a finite set of
arrows Q1 . An arrow a has a head ha, and tail ta, that are elements in Q0 :
ta

a

/ ha

A representation V of Q is a family of finite dimensional vector spaces {Vx | x ∈ Q0 } together
with linear maps {V (a) : Vta → Vha | a ∈ Q1 }. The dimension vector dim V ∈ NQ0 of a representation V is the tuple dim V = (dim Vx )x∈Q0 . A morphism φ : V → W of two representations
V, W is a collection of linear maps φ = {φ(x) : Vx → Wx | x ∈ Q0 }, with the property that
for each a ∈ Q1 we have φ(ha)V (a) = W (a)φ(ta). Denote by HomQ (V, W ) the vector space of
Q0
morphisms of representations
from
X
X V to W . For two vectors α, β ∈ Z , we define the Euler
product hα, βi =
αx βx −
αta βha . The Euler form EQ of a quiver Q is the quadratic
x∈Q0

a∈Q1

map ZQ0 → Z given by EQ (α) = hα, αi.
It is known that EQ is positive definite (resp. positive semi-definite) iff Q is a Dynkin (resp.
extended Dynkin) quiver. For more on quivers cf. [4, 22].
We form the affine space of representations with dimension vector α ∈ NQ0 by
M
Rep(Q, α) :=
Hom(k αta , k αha ).
a∈Q1

The group
GL(α) :=

Y

GL(αx )

x∈Q0

acts by conjugation on Rep(Q, α) in the obvious way. Under the action GL(α) two elements lie
in the same orbit iff they are isomorphic as representations.
For any two representations V and W , we have the following exact sequence:
M
0 → HomQ (V, W ) −→
Hom(V (x), W (x))
x∈Q0

dV

W
−→

M

Hom(V (ta), W (ha)) −→ ExtQ (V, W ) → 0,

a∈Q1

where dVW is given by
{φ(x)}x∈Q0 7→ {φ(ha)V (a) − W (a)φ(ta)}a∈Q1 .
2

(1)

The exact sequence (1) gives hdim V, dim W i = dim HomQ (V, W ) − dim ExtQ (V, W ).
Taking V = W the map dVV is the differential at the identity of the orbit map
g 7→ g · V ∈ Rep(Q, dim V ),
and we have a natural identification of the normal space
ExtQ (V, V ) ∼
= Rep(Q, dim V )/TV (OV ),
where OV is the orbit of V . In particular, the codimension of the orbit closure O V in Rep(Q, α)
is equal to dim ExtQ (V, V ).
Take two dimension vectors β, γ with α = β + γ. In case of Dynkin quivers, M. Reineke
[19] constructs desingularizations of for all orbit closures. These are total spaces of some vector
bundles over a product of flag varieties. We consider the simplest non-trivial case when these
flag varieties are all Grassmannians, but relaxing the condition of desingularization. Then the
vector bundles are the incidence varieties Z(Q, βQ⊂ α) that were introduced in [23]. Namely, let
Gr(β, α) denote the product of Grassmannians x∈Q0 Gr(βx , αx ). Then the space Z(Q, β ⊂ α)
is the vector subbundle of
Rep(Q, α) × Gr(β, α)
consisting of points (V, {Rx }) such that the collection of subspaces {Rx }x∈Q0 forms a subrepresentation of V .
If Q is a Dynkin quiver then Rep(Q, α) has finitely many orbits. Hence the image under the
projection
q : Z(Q, β ⊂ α) → Rep(Q, α)
is an orbit closure for any β.
Definition 1.1. Let Q be any quiver. We say a representation V ∈ Rep(Q, α) (or the orbit
closure OV ) is 1-step if OV is the image of the projection
q : Z(Q, β ⊂ α) → Rep(Q, α)
for some dimension vector β.
We note that we do not require the projection above to be birational, hence generalizing the
definition in [25].
For Dynkin quivers any dimension vector β gives a 1-step representation.
For the A2 and non-equioriented A3 quivers all representations are 1-step (see [24]). However,
this fails for other quivers. For example, if we take the equioriented A3 quiver, then the sum of
simples V = S1 ⊕ S2 ⊕ S3 is not 1-step.
We say that a representation T is generic if Ext(M, M ) = 0, or equivalently, if the orbit OM
is open in Rep(Q, dim M ).
Now we recall generic extensions [18, Definition 2.2]. Let M, N be representations of a Dynkin
quiver Q. We say V is the generic extension of M by N if we have an exact sequence
0 → N → V → M → 0,
and for any other exact sequence 0 → N → W → M → 0 we have W ∈ OV . In this case we
write V := M ∗ N .
The following theorem follows essentially from [18, Proposition 2.4] and gives a more explicit
description of 1-step representations:
3

Proposition 1.2. Let Q be Dynkin quiver and V be the 1-step representation of Q with projection
q : Z(Q, β ⊂ α) ։ O V .
Consider the generic representations Tβ , Tγ with dimension vectors β, γ, respectively, where α =
β + γ. Then V = Tγ ∗ Tβ .
In other words, a representation V of a Dynkin quiver is 1-step if and only if it can be
decomposed as V = M ∗ N , where M and N are generic.
We note that the paper [18] provides a ’straightening’ algorithm for computing generic extensions, as well as there are several algorithms computing generic representations (e.g. see [9] –
for a simple algorithm for type A Dynkin quivers, see [1]).
Next, we give some more concrete examples of 1-step representations:
Proposition 1.3. Let Q be any quiver, and V a representation of Q with a decomposition
V = M ⊕ N , where M, N are generic and Ext(M, N ) = 0. Then V is a 1-step representation
with β = dim N and the fiber q −1 (V ) is irreducible.
Proof. We consider the proper map
q : Z(Q, β ⊂ α) → Rep(Q, α).
with β = dim N . Clearly, V ∈ Im q, hence OV ⊂ Im q. By the proof of [23, Theorem 3.3],
the codimension of Im q in Rep(Q, α) equals dim Ext(N, M ). But the codimension of O V in
Rep(Q, α) is dim Ext(V, V ) = dim Ext(N, M ), hence Im q = OV proving that V is 1-step.
To prove the second claim, we first show that if N ′ is a subrepresentation of V with N ′ ∈
Rep(Q, β), then we must have dim HomQ (N ′ , V ) = dim HomQ (N, V ).
We can write
Z(Q, β ⊂ α) = G ×P (Rep(Q, β) × Rep(Q, γ) × W ),
Q
where W is the affine space a∈Q1 Homk (k γta , k βha ) and P is the appropriate parabolic subgroup
of GL(α) (see [23]). The assumption on N ′ implies that the image of q restricted to the closed
subvariety
G ×P (O N ′ × Rep(Q, γ) × W )
is OV . The preimage of the open OV must intersect the open G ×P (ON ′ × OM × W ), hence we
have an exact sequence
0 → N ′ → V → M → 0.
Applying to the sequence the functor Hom(−, V ) and using that Ext(M, V ) = 0, we obtain
dim HomQ (N ′ , V ) = dim HomQ (N, V ).
Since N is generic, semi-continuity implies that the set
U := {X ∈ Rep(Q, β), | dim HomQ (X, V ) = dim HomQ (N, V )}
is an open subset of Rep(Q, β), hence an irreducible
variety.
L
Take the space of maps Hom(β, α) := x∈Q0 Hom(k βx , k αx ), and let Z be the closed subset
of the Rep(Q, β) × Hom(β, α) of elements (X, f ) such that f ∈ HomQ (X, V ). The subset Z 0 of Z
of pairs (X, f ) with f injective is open and non-empty. By [11], the fiber q −1 (V ) can be realized
as the geometric quotient of Z 0 by GL(β). Hence it is enough to show that Z 0 is irreducible.
By the above, the preimage p−1 (U ) of the projection p : Z → Rep(Q, β) satisfies Z 0 ⊂ p−1 (U ),
hence it is enough to see that p−1 (U ) is irreducible.
It is easy to see that p : p−1 (U ) → U is in fact a vector bundle (see [7, Lemma 2.1]). Since
U is irreducible, this implies that p−1 (U ) is irreducible as well.
4

We note the similarity of the above result regarding the fiber to [11, Proposition 3.1].
Not all 1-step representations are of the above form. For example, let Q be the equioriented
A4 quiver
1 → 2 → 3 → 4,
with V the 1-step representation obtained from β = (1, 0, 1, 0) and α = (1, 1, 1, 1). Then V
decomposes as V = 1000 ⊕ 0110 ⊕ 0001, but it cannot be written as a decomposition V = M ⊕ N
with M, N generic and Ext(M, N ) = 0.
Now let Q be an arbitrary quiver, T a generic representation with full support Q and
α = dim T . Writing T = T1λ1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Trλr with λi > 0 and T1 , . . . , Tr pair-wise non-isomorphic
indecomposables, we must have Ext(Ti , Tj ) = 0 for all i, j. We investigate the irreducible components of the complement of OT in Rep(Q, α). Whenever such a component is an orbit closure
O V of a representation V , we call V a subgeneric representation.
In [20] it is shown that if T is so-called stable, then all the irreducible components of the
complement of OT are orbit closures. Roughly speaking, T is stable when the multiplicities λi
are large enough (for a precise definition of stability, see [20]). In case of Dynkin quivers, any
generic representation is stable.
Sub-generic representations of codimension 1 are given by semi-invariants, and their geometry
has been studied using Bernstein-Sato polynomials [16, 17].
Proposition 1.4. Let T be a stable generic representation. Then subgeneric representations in
Rep(Q, dim T ) are 1-step.
Proof. Assume first that V is a subgeneric representation of codimension 1. By [20], V can be
written in the form V = T ′ ⊕ Z ⊕ R, with T ′ , Z, R generic and Ext(Z, T ′ ) = k. Hence we can
apply Proposition 1.3 with M = T ′ ⊕ R and N = Z.
Now if V is subgeneric of codimension larger than 1, then by [20] it can be written as either
V = Tiλi +1 ⊕ X ⊕ R, where the only non-trivial extension between Ti , X, R is Ext(Ti , X) = k,
or V = Tiλi +1 ⊕ Y ⊕ R with the only non-trivial extension group Ext(Y, Ti ) = k. We can apply
Proposition 1.3 in the former case with M = X and N = Tiλi +1 ⊕ R, while in the latter with
M = Tiλi +1 ⊕ R and N = Y .

2

The geometric technique

Throughout we incorporate much of the notation used in [25]. For more on the geometric
technique, see [26].
Let V ∈ Rep(Q, α) be a 1-step representation with
q : Z(Q, β ⊂ α) ։ O V
for some dimension vector β and let α = β + γ. L
∗
⊗Vha . Denote by A the coordinate
We can identify the affine space Rep(Q, α) with a∈Q1 Vta
ring of Rep(Q, α).
For a vertex x ∈ Q0 , denote by Rx (resp. Qx ) the tautological bundle (resp. factorbundle)
on Gr(βx , αx ). We view Rep(Q, α) × Gr(β, α) as the total space of the trivial bundle E and
Z(Q, β ⊂ α) as the total space of some subbundle S of E. Let ξ denote the dual of the factorbundle
E/S. More explicitly, it is given by
M
ξ=
Rta ⊗ Q∗ha .
a∈Q1

5

Applying [26, Theorem 5.1.2], we consider the complex F• with terms
Fi =

M

H j (Gr(β, α),

j≥0

i+j
^

ξ) ⊗ A(−i − j).

(2)

We use the following version of [26, Theorem 5.1.3] without assuming that q is birational.
Theorem 2.1. Using the notation above, we have the following:
(a) If Fi = 0 for all i < 0, and the fiber q −1 (V ) is connected, then F• is a finite minimal free
resolution of the normalization of OV , and the normalization has rational singularities.
(b) If Fi = 0 for all i < 0 and F0 = A, then O V is normal and it has rational singularities.
Proof.

(a) Put Z := Z(Q, β ⊂ α). We factor q through the normalization Y of O, then
f

apply Stein factorization to obtain Z −
→ Y ′ → Y , where Y ′ is an integral scheme with
′
f∗ OZ = OY ′ . The map Y → Y is birational since the general fiber of q is connected.
This shows that Y ′ ≃ Y . The statement about minimal free resolution follows as in [26,
Theorem 5.1.3]. and the statement about rational singularities follows from [13].
(b) Let O V = Spec A/I, where I is a prime ideal. Applying Stein factorization we have
Z → X → Spec A/I, where X is an integral affine scheme. Since F0 = A and Fi = 0 for
all i < 0, [26, Theorem 5.1.3] implies that X = Spec A/J for some prime ideal J. But
Spec A/J → Spec A/I is surjective, so it must be an isomorphism. The rest follows as in
part (a).
A partition (with n parts) λ = (λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λn ) is a non-increasing sequence of non-negative
integers. For a partition λ we associate its corresponding Young diagram that consists of λi
boxes in the ith row. We denote the number of boxes by |λ| := λ1 + · · · + λn . We denote by uλ
the size of the Durfee square of λ, that is, the biggest square fitting inside of the Young diagram
of λ. Its defining property is λuλ ≥ uλ and λuλ +1 ≤ uλ .
Let λ+ be the partition (λ1 − uλ , λ2 − uλ , . . . , λuλ − uλ ) and λ− the partition (λuλ +1 , . . . , λn ).
Hence we can view the Young diagram of λ as the composite of the 3 parts λ+ , λ− and a uλ × uλ
square:
uλ ×uλ λ+
λ:
λ−
The conjugate partition λ′ = (λ′1 , . . . , λ′m ) is a partition with λ′i being the number of boxes
in the ith column of the Young diagram of λ. Note that uλ = uλ′ .
Denote by −λ the non-increasing sequence of non-positive integers (−λn , −λn−1 , . . . , −λ1 ).
A weight (with n parts) is any sequence of integers δ := (δ1 , δ2 , . . . , δn ). For a weight δ and
a number u ∈ Z we denote by δ + u the weight (δ1 + u, δ2 + u, . . . , δn + u).
We consider the action of the symmetric group Σn on weights defined as follows: a transposition σi = (i, i + 1) acts according to the exchange rule
σi · δ = (δ1 , . . . , δi−1 , δi+1 − 1, δi + 1, δi+2 , . . . , δn ).
6

Let N (δ) be length of the (unique) permutation σ ∈ Σn such that the sequence σ · δ is nonincreasing, if there exists such a permutation, otherwise put N (δ) := −∞. In other words, N (δ)
is the minimal number of exchanges applied to δ that turn it non-increasing. Clearly, we have
N (δ) = N (δ + u), for any u ∈ Z.
For any partition
Vt λ, we denote by Sλ the corresponding Schur functor. Now for 1 ≤ t ≤ dim ξ,
ξ using Cauchy’s formula (see [26]) as in [25]:
we decompose
t
^

=

=

P

M

P

ξ=

P

a∈Q1ka =t

M

a∈Q1|λa |=t

O

|λa |=t x∈Q0

a∈Q1

M

O

ka
O ^

Rta ⊗ Q∗ha =

a∈Q1

Sλ(a) Rta ⊗ Sλ(a)′ Q∗ha =

a∈Q1




O

Sλ(a) Rx ⊗

a∈Q1 :ta=x

O

b∈Q1 :hb=x



Sλ(b)′ Q∗x  .

(3)

For any arrow a ∈ Q1 , we choose a partition λ(a) with its Young diagram having at most βta
rows and at most γha columns. Now to any vertex x ∈ Q0 , we associate two partitions µ(x) and
ν(x) as follows. Let a1 , . . . , ak be all outgoing arrows and b1 , . . . , bl all the incoming arrows at
x. Then choose µ(x) (resp. ν(x)) a partition corresponding to any Young diagram occurring in
the Littlewood-Richardson product of λ(a1 ), . . . , λ(ak ) (resp. λ(b1 )′ , . . . , λ(bl )′ ) with at most βx
rows (resp. γx rows). Denote the collection of all these partitions by
λ := ((λ(a))a∈Q1 , (µ(x))x∈Q0 , (ν(x))x∈Q0 ).

(4)

To compute the cohomology of a factor Sµ(x) Rx ⊗ Sν(x) Q∗x of a summand in (3), we apply
Bott’s Theorem. Namely, consider the corresponding weight
δ(x) := (−ν(x), µ(x)),
where −ν(x) has γx parts and µ(x) has βx parts (appending with zeroes, if necessary). We have
(see [26, Corollary 4.1.7, Corollary 4.1.9]):
Theorem 2.2. The cohomologies H i (Gr(βx , αx ), Sµ(x) Rx ⊗ Sν(x) Q∗x ) vanish when i 6= N (δ(x)),
and
H N (δ(x)) (Gr(βx , αx ), Sµ(x) Rx ⊗ Sν(x) Q∗x ) = Sτ Vx ,
where τ is the non-increasing sequence obtained from δ(x).

3

Minimal free resolutions of 1-step orbit closures

We start with some preliminary lemmas.
Lemma 3.1. Let λ, µ be two partitions and n the number of parts of µ. Then N (λ, µ + n) ≤ |µ|.
Proof. We can assume WLOG that N (λ, µ + n) ≥ 0. We proceed by induction on n. Write
λ = (λ1 , . . . , λm ) and pick k ∈ N to be the largest number with the property λm−k+1 + k ≤ µn
(here set λm+1 := 0). Then we must have λm−k + k − 1 ≥ µn . Applying n · k exchanges we arrive
at the sequence
(λ1 , . . . , λm−k , µ1 + n − k, µ2 + n − k, . . . , µn + n − k, λm−k+1 + n, λm−k+2 + n, . . . , λm + n),
7

and we see that the last k + 1 elements of the sequence are in their final places. We have the
following
N (λ, µ + n) = n · k + N (λ1 , . . . , λm−k , µ1 + n − k, . . . , µn + n − k, λm−k+1 + n, . . . , λm + n) =
= n · k + N (λ1 , . . . , λm−k , µ1 + n − k, . . . , µn−1 + n − k) =
= n · k + N (λ1 + k − 1 − µn , . . . , λm−k + k − 1 − µn , µ1 − µn + n − 1, . . . , µn−1 − µn + n − 1).
Now the induction hypothesis is satisfied and we obtain
N (λ1 + k − 1 − µn , . . . , λm−k + k − 1 − µn , µ1 − µn + n − 1, . . . , µn−1 − µn + n − 1) ≤ |µ| − n · µn .
Hence we obtain
N (λ, µ + n) ≤ |µ| + n(k − µn ) ≤ |µ|.

Lemma 3.2. For two partitions λ, µ we have N (−λ, µ) ≤ |λ+ | + |µ+ | + uλ · uµ .
Proof. Put λ = (λ1 , . . . , λm ), µ = (µ1 , . . . , µn ) and u := uλ , v := uµ . After u · v exchanges we get
N (−λ, µ) = u · v + N (−λm , . . . , −λu+1 , µ1 − u, . . . , µv − u, −λu + v, . . . , −λ1 + v, µv+1 , . . . , µn ) =
= u · v + N (−λm , . . . , −λu+1 , µ1 − u, . . . , µv − u) + N (−λu + v, . . . , −λ1 + v, µv+1 , . . . , µn ).
Now using Lemma 3.1 we have
N (−λm , . . . , −λu+1 , µ1 − u, . . . , µv − u) = N (−λm + u, . . . , −λu+1 + u, µ1 , . . . , µv ) ≤ |µ+ |.
Similarly, we have N (−λu + v, . . . , −λ1 + v, µv+1 , . . . , µn ) ≤ |λ+ |, hence the conclusion.
The following result is well-known (cf. [10]):
Lemma 3.3. Suppose ν is a partition occurring in the Littlewood-Richardson product of λ and
µ. Then for any k ∈ N
ν1 + ν2 + · · · + νk ≤ λ1 + · · · + λk + µ1 + · · · + µk .
Definition 3.4. Let Q be any quiver, and take λ an associated collection of partitions as in (4).
Set
X
X
D(λ) :=
|λ(a)| −
N (−ν(x), µ(x)),
a∈Q1

and define the dimension vector uλ ∈ N

x∈Q0

Q0

by

(uλ )x := max(uµ(x) , uν(x) ).
Using Theorem 2.2 and the Künneth formula in Section 2, we see that a collection λ contributes precisely to the term FD(λ) in the complex F• . Now we can state the main result of this
section, generalizing [25, Proposition 3.4]:
Theorem 3.5. Let Q be any quiver, and λ an associated collection of partitions. Then
D(λ) ≥ EQ (uλ ).
8

Proof. Using Lemma 3.2 we have
X
X
D(λ) ≥
|λ(a)| −
|ν(x)+ | − |µ(x)+ | − uµ(x) · uν(x) .
a∈Q1

x∈Q0

For an x ∈ Q0 , we have by Lemma 3.3 the inequalities
X
(|λ(a)+ | + uµ(x) uλ(a) ),
|µ(x)+ | ≤ −u2µ(x) +
a∈Q1 |ta=x

X

|ν(x)+ | ≤ −u2ν(x) +

(|λ(b)− | + uλ(b) uν(x) ).

b∈Q1 |hb=x

Hence we get
D(λ) ≥

X

(u2µ(x) + u2ν(x) − uµ(x) uν(x) ) +

x∈Q0

X

(u2λ(a) − uµ(ta) uλ(a) − uλ(a) uν(ha) ).

a∈Q1

From (uµ(ta) − uλ(a) )(uν(ha) − uλ(a) ) ≥ 0 we get
X
X
D(λ) ≥
(u2µ(x) + u2ν(x) − uµ(x) uν(x) ) −
uµ(ta) uν(ha) .
x∈Q0

(5)

a∈Q1

For any x ∈ Q0 , let Ax (resp. Bx ) be any number with Ax ≥ uµ(x) (resp. Bx ≥ uν(x) ).
Now fix a vertex x ∈ Q0 , and assume uµ(x) ≥ uν(x) . We show that we have the following
inequality
X
X
Ata uµ(x) ,
(6)
Ata uν(x) ≥ −
u2ν(x) − uµ(x) uν(x) −
a∈Q1 |ha=x

a∈Q1 |ha=x

which is equivalent to
(uµ(x) − uν(x) )(

X

Ata − uν(x) ) ≥ 0.

a∈Q1 |ha=x

This holds, for
X

a∈Q1 |ha=x

Ata ≥

X

uµ(ta) ≥

X

uλ(a) ≥ uν(x) ,

a∈Q1 |ha=x

a∈Q1 |ha=x

where the last inequality follows from Lemma 3.3. Similarly, in the case uµ(x) ≤ uν(x) we have
X
X
uν(x) Bha .
(7)
uµ(x) Bha ≥ −
u2µ(x) − uµ(x) uν(x) −
a∈Q1 |ta=x

a∈Q1 |ta=x

The proof follows from the successive application over all vertices of the inequalities (6) or (7)
to the RHS of (5).
We have the following immediate consequences:
Theorem 3.6. Let Q be a Dynkin quiver, and V a 1-step representation. Then OV is normal,
has rational singularities, and the complex F• gives the minimal free resolution of its defining
ideal.
Proof. Since Q is Dynkin, EQ is a positive definite quadratic form [22]. We apply Bott’s theorem
2.2 to compute the non-positive cohomologies in (3). Using Theorem 3.5, we obtain Fi = 0 for
i < 0, and F0 = A, which proves the claim by Theorem 2.1 (b).
9

We note that the theorem above generalizes [25, Theorem 3.5], and [16, Theorem 3.5] as well
by Proposition 1.4. For concrete examples of resolutions, see [24, 25].
Theorem 3.7. Let Q be an extended Dynkin quiver, V a 1-step representation and assume that
the fiber q −1 (V ) is connected. Then the normalization of OV has rational singularities, and the
complex F• gives the minimal free resolution of the normalization.
Proof. Since Q is extended Dynkin, EQ is a positive semi-definite quadratic form [22]. As above,
we obtain Fi = 0 for i < 0 which proves the claim by part of Theorem 2.1 (a).
We note that in the case of 1-step representations V as in Proposition 1.3, the condition on
the fiber in the theorem above is automatically satisfied.
First introduced in [23], a quiver Grassmannian is a fiber of the map q. The geometry of these
have been extensively studied recently (e.g. [11]). The following is immediate from Theorem 3
together with Zariski’s Theorem:
Corollary 3.8. All quiver Grassmannians of Dynkin quivers are connected varieties.

4

Type A quivers

Given a quiver Q and a representation V with dim V = α, it is an interesting problem to find
(preferably minimal) generators for the defining ideal IV = I(O V ) of the orbit closure O V in
Rep(Q, α). For Dynkin quivers, set-theoretic equations are known by [7] and come from rank
conditions. These are indeed defining equations (i.e. they generate a radical ideal) when Q is of
the type A by [14],[21].
For 1-step orbit closures, the defining ideal IV can be described in some cases by identifying
explicitly the minimal generators in the term F1 of the minimal free resolution. This has been
done for the non-equioriented quiver of type A3 in [24]. We are considering the situation more
generally for type A quivers, and describe minimal generators of 1-step orbit closures explicitly.
Fix Q a type An quiver with underlying Dynkin diagram
1
•

2
•

3
•

···

n−1
•

n
•

and arbitrary orientation. The orientation determines a sequence (1 = s1 < s2 < · · · < sk − 1 <
sk = n) of vertices that are sources or sinks.
For a pair of integers (p, q) with 1 ≤ p ≤ q ≤ n let rpq ∈ Nn denote the positive root of the
Dynkin diagram of Q, with rip,q = 1 if p ≤ i ≤ q, and rip,q = 0 otherwise. The indecomposable
representations Ep,q of Q are in bijection with the positive roots rp,q via dim Ep,q = rp,q .
Let α be a dimension vector for Q. For an arrow a ∈ Q1 , we write Xa for the generic matrix
aj−1
aj
ai+1
ai
• −−−→ . . . −−−→ • −→ •, we denote
of variables of size αha × αta . For a sequence of arrows • −→
the composition by Xtai ,haj = Xaj ◦ Xaj−1 ◦ · · · ◦ Xai+1 ◦ Xai .
Fix a non-simple root rp,q , where 1 ≤ p < q ≤ n. We consider the generic matrix Xp,q of the
linear maps that go from the sources of the support of rp,q to the sinks of the support of rp,q .
Explicitly, assume WLOG that we have si−1 ≤ p < si and sj < q ≤ sj+1 with si−1 a source and
sj+1 a sink (the other cases are analogous). Then


0
...
0
Xsi+1 ,si
Xp,si
 0
0 
Xsi+1 ,si+2 Xsi+3 ,si+2 . . .


 0
.
.
.
0 
0
X
si+3 ,si+4
Xp,q = 
.
 ..
..
..
.. 
..
 .
.
.
.
. 
0
0
0
. . . Xsj ,q
10

Clearly, a rank condition rank Xp,q ≤ r gives a closed subscheme of Rep(Q, α) by the (r +
1) × (r + 1) minors of Xp,q . We will give minimal generators of the defining ideals of 1-step orbit
closures that are among minors of this type.
There is a more representation-theoretic interpretation of the maps Xp,q . We denote by Px
the projective cover of the simple module at a vertex x. Let E be the representation defined by
the cokernel of the natural map between projectives:
M
M
Py →
0→
Px → E → 0.
(8)
y sink
in supp r p,q

x source
in supp r p,q

It is easy to see that E is indecomposable. Applying HomQ (−, X) to this sequence, we obtain
(as in the sequence (1)) the exact sequence
M
M
Xp,q
0 → HomQ (E, X) →
Xy → ExtQ (E, X) → 0.
(9)
Xx −−−→
x source
in supp r p,q

y sink
in supp r p,q

Conversely, for any non-projective indecomposable E we can construct a corresponding map Xp,q
by taking the minimal projective resolution of E.
Now we define the following quantities inductively:
γ p,si = min{γp+1 , γp+2 , . . . , γsi }, γ si+1 ,si = min{γsi+1 −1 , . . . , γsi +1 , γsi − γp },
γ si+1 ,si+2 = min{γsi+1 +1 , . . . , γsi+2 }, γ si+3 ,si+2 = min{γsi+3 −1 , . . . , γsi+2 +1 , γsi+2 −γsi+1 +γ si+1 ,si },
. . . , γ sj ,sj−1 = min{γsj −1 , . . . , γsj−1 +1 , γsj−1 − γsj−2 + γ sj−2 ,sj−3 }, γ sj ,q = min{γsj +1 , . . . , γq },
and similarly,
β p,si = min{βp , . . . , βsi −1 }, β si+1 ,si = min{βsi+1 , βsi+1 −1 , . . . , βsi +1 },
β si+1 ,si+2 = min{βsi+1 − βsi + β p,si , βsi+1 +1 , . . . , βsi+2 −1 }, β si+3 ,si+2 = min{βsi+3 , . . . , βsi+2 +1 },
. . . , β sj ,sj−1 = min{βsj , . . . , βsj−1 +1 }, β sj ,q = min{βsj − βsj−1 + β sj−2 ,sj−1 , βsj +1 , . . . , βq−1 }.
Let e = j − i + 2, which is the number of “equioriented parts” of the support of rp,q . Denote
by Bp,q the set of all sequences RC of pairs of non-negative integers
RC = ((R1 , C1 ), (R2 , C2 ), . . . , (Re , Ce )),
satisfying the following inequalities and equations:
R1 < γ p,si , R2 < γ si ,si+1 , . . . , Re < γ sj ,q and C1 < β p,si , C2 < β si ,si+1 , . . . , Ce < β sj ,q ,
R1 = γp , R1 + R2 < γsi , R2 + R3 = γsi+1 − 1, . . . , Re−1 + Re = γsj − 1,
C1 + C2 = βsi − 1 , C2 + C3 < βsi+1 , . . . , Ce−1 + Ce < βsj , Ce = βq .
Definition 4.1. For 1 ≤ p < q ≤ n as above, we call rp,q relevant if the following inequalities
hold:
γp < γ p,si , γsi+1 < γ si+1 ,si + γ si+1 ,si+2 , . . . , γsj < γ sj ,sj−1 + γ sj ,q ,
βsi < β p,si + β si+1 ,si , . . . , , βsj−1 < β sj−2 ,sj−1 + β sj ,sj−1 , βq < β sj ,q .
11

The inequalities are analogous for the other cases (i.e. p source and q source, p sink and q
source, p sink and q sink in the support of rp,q ). It is easy to see that the set Bp,q is non-empty
if and only if rp,q is relevant. For illustration, we consider the following example:
Example 4.2. Consider the following quiver of type A7 .
1❈
❈❈
❈❈
❈❈
!

2❈
❈❈
④
❈❈
④④
❈❈ ④④④
! }④
3

7
5❈
④④
④④ ❈❈❈
④
④
❈❈
④
④④
❈! }④④④
}④
④
6
4

Suppose α = γ + β, where γ, β are the following dimension vectors:
γ = (2, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, 0) and β = (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2)
In the notation above, we have p = 1, si = 3, si+1 = 5, si+2 = 6, q = 7 and e = 4. We show that
the root r1,7 is relevant. We have:
γ 1,3 = min{γ2 , γ3 } = 3 , γ 5,3 = min{γ4 , γ3 − γ1 } = 1,
γ 5,6 = min{γ6 } = 1 , γ 7,6 = min{γ6 − γ5 + γ 5,3 } = 1.
Clearly, the inequalities as in Definition 4.1 involving γ are satisfied:
γ1 = 2 < 3 = γ 1,3 , γ5 = 1 < 2 = γ 5,3 + γ 5,6 , γ7 = 0 < 1 = γ 7,6 .
Similarly, we have
β 1,3 = min{β1 , β2 } = 1 , β 5,3 = min{β5 , β4 } = 1,
β 5,6 = min{β5 − β3 + β 1,3 } = 1 , β 7,6 = min{β7 } = 2.
The inequalities as in Definition 4.1 involving β are satisfied as well:
β3 = 1 < 2 = β 1,3 + β 5,3 , β6 = 2 < 3 = β 5,6 + β 7,6 .
Hence rp,q is relevant. Moreover, we can see easily that there is only one tuple RC ∈ B1,7 :
((2, 0), (0, 0), (0, 0), (0, 1)).
Now we can formulate the main theorem of this section:
Theorem 4.3. Let Q be a type A Dynkin quiver and V ∈ Rep(Q, α) a 1-step representation
with
q : Z(β ⊂ α) ։ OV ,
and write α = β + γ. Then minimal generators of the defining ideal of OV are given by
γp +C1 +1 R1 +R2 +βsi +1

F1 =

M

M

r p,q RC∈Bp,q
relevant

^

Vp ⊗

^

γsi+1 +C2 +C3 +1

γsj +Ce−1 +Ce +1

Re +βq +1

^

^

^

Vs∗i ⊗

Vsi+1 ⊗· · ·⊗

Vsj ⊗

Vq∗ ⊗A(−dRC ).

In other words, for each relevant rp,q , a collection RC ∈ Bp,q gives generators that are (m + 1) ×
(m + 1) minors of Xp,q (see Remark 4.4) of some degree dRC , where
X
X
m=1+
γx +
βy .
x source
in supp r p,q

12

y sink
in supp r p,q

Proof. We use the notation from the previous sections. To find the defining equations, we
compute explicitly the first term F1 from the minimal free resolution of OV . Let λ be a collection
of partitions as in (4), and assume D(λ) = 1 (i.e. λ contributes to F1 , see Definition 3.4). By
Theorem 3.5, uλ must be a root, say uλ = rp,q , for some 1 ≤ p ≤ q ≤ n. Clearly, this implies by
the construction of uλ that there is at least one arrow a ∈ Q1 such that the Durfee size of λ(a)
is uλ(a) = 1. Then (uλ )ta = (uλ )ha = 1, hence rp,q is not a simple root, i.e. p 6= q.
Let si−1 ≤ p < si and sj < q ≤ sj+1 , and assume WLOG that si−1 a source and sj+1 a sink.
Let Q′ denote the subquiver of Q that supports rp,q . We have the following by construction:
• If a ∈ Q′1 with ta = p (resp. ha = q), then we have that µ(p) = λ(a) and ν(p) is trivial
(resp. ν(q) = λ(a) and µ(q) is trivial).
b

a

• If x ∈ Q′0 is not source/sink with −
→x−
→, then we have µ(x) = λ(a) and ν(x) = λ(b).
a

b

b

a

2
1
2
1
then µ(x) is in
x ←−),
(resp. sink −→
x −→
• If x = sl ∈ Q′0 with i ≤ l ≤ j is a source ←−
the Littlewood-Richardson product of λ(a1 ) and λ(a2 ), and ν(x) is trivial (resp. ν(x) is in
the L.-R. product of λ(b1 ) and λ(b2 ), and µ(x) is trivial).

Clearly, if a ∈
/ Q′1 , then uλ(a) = 0, hence λ(a) is trivial, and if a ∈ Q′1 , then uλ(a) ≤ 1. In fact,
we show that in the latter case we must have uλ(a) = 1. This is clear if ta = p or ha = q, so take
a ∈ Q′1 not of this type and assume by contradiction that λ(a) is trivial. Removing the arrow
a from Q′ we obtain two connected components, say Q′1 and Q′2 . Since λ(a) is trivial, we can
divide the collection of partitions λ into two non-trivial collections λ1 , λ2 on Q′1 , Q′2 , respectively.
But then using Theorem 3.5 we get 1 = D(λ) = D(λ1 ) + D(λ2 ) ≥ 1 + 1, a contradiction.
Hence for any a ∈ Q′1 , λ(a) is a hook, say λ(a) = (r(a) + 1, 1c(a) ), with r(a) + 1 ≤ γha and
c(a) + 1 ≤ βta . Similarly, if x is a source (resp. sink) in Q′ , we put µ(x) = (r(x) + 1, 1c(x) ) with
c(x) + 1 ≤ βx (resp. ν(x) = (r(x) + 1, 1c(x) ) with c(x) + 1 ≤ γx ).
Since we have equality D(λ) = EQ (uλ ) in Theorem 3.5, each inequality used in its proof must
be an equality. It is easy to see that we have equality already in (5). Next, we must have equality
in Lemma 3.3 for k = 1 whenever it is used. This implies that if x = sl ∈ Q′0 with i ≤ l ≤ j
b

a

a

b

2
1
2
1
then r(x) = r(a1 ) + r(a2 ) + 1 and, consequently
x ←−)
(resp. sink −→
x −→
is a source ←−
c(x) = c(a1 ) + c(a2 ) (resp. r(x) = c(b1 ) + c(b2 ) + 1 and c(x) = r(b1 ) + r(b2 ) ). Notice that such
µ(x) (resp. ν(x)) appears indeed with multiplicity 1 in the L.-R. product of λ(a1 ) and λ(a2 )
(resp. λ(b1 )′ and λ(b2 )′ ). Now we are left so see the implications of equality in Lemma 3.2
whenever it is used in the proof of Theorem 3.5. We check the implications case by case:

• If x is a source (resp. sink) in Q′ then we get r(x) = γx (resp. r(x) = βx ). Moreover,
after performing the exchanges we arrive to the sequence τ (x) = (1γx +c(x)+1 ) (resp. τ (q) =
(−1βq +c(x)+1 ) ).
b

a

• If x ∈ Q′0 is not source/sink, say −
→ x −
→, then we get µ(x) = ν(x)′ , i.e. λ(b) = λ(a).
Moreover, after performing the exchanges we arrive to the trivial partition.
Recall that e = j − i + 2. Now choose an arrow a1 , a2 , . . . , ae between p and si , si and si+1 ,
. . . , sj and sq , respectively. Then we put Ri = r(ai ) and Ci = c(ai ). Putting the inequalities
obtained together we see that ((R1 , C1 ), (R2 , C2 ), . . . , (Re , Ce )) ∈ Bp,q . Moreover the collection
λ contributes to F1 with the cohomology:
γp +C1 +1

R1 +R2 +βsi +1

γsi+1 +C2 +C3 +1

γsj +Ce−1 +Ce +1

Re +βq +1

^

^

^

^

^

Vp ⊗

Vs∗i ⊗

Vsi+1 ⊗ · · · ⊗
13

Vsj ⊗

Vq∗ .

Using Cauchy’s formula (see [26]), it is easy to see that the multiplicity of this representation
∗
) is 1, and it is spanned by minors of Xp,q (see
in the coordinate ring A = Sym(⊕a∈Q1 Vta ⊗ Vha
Remark 4.4). Also, their degree is
dRC =

X

|λ(a)| =

e
X

Nt (Rt + Ct + 1),

t=1

a∈Q′1

where N1 , N2 , . . . , Ne are the number of arrows between p and si , si and si+1 , . . . , sj and sq ,
respectively.
Remark 4.4. We can describe explicitly the minimal generating minors spanning F1 as in
Theorem 4.3. The matrix


0
...
0
Xsi+1 ,si
Xp,si
 0
0 
Xsi+1 ,si+2 Xsi+3 ,si+2 . . .


 0
0 
0
Xsi+3 ,si+4 . . .
Xp,q = 
.
 ..
..
..
.. 
..
 .
.
.
.
. 
0
0
0
. . . Xsj ,q
is formed by the obvious blocks. We divide the rows and columns into blocks accordingly. Then
a collection RC = ((R1 , C1 ), (R2 , C2 ), . . . , (Re , Ce )) gives precisely those minors that we get by
choosing γp + C1 + 1 columns of the first block, R1 + R2 + βsi + 1 rows of the first block,
γsi+1 + C2 + C3 + 1 columns of the second block etc.
Example 4.5. We consider the A7 quiver as in Example 4.2. We saw that r1,7 is relevant, and
it gives only one tuple ((2, 0), (0, 0), (0, 0), (0, 1)). This tuple gives in Theorem 4.3 precisely the
determinant of the matrix


X1,3 X5,3
0
.
0
X5,6 X7,6
Recall that Tβ ∈ Rep(Q, β) and Tγ ∈ Rep(Q, γ) denote the generic representations. Using
the notation above, we get:
Theorem 4.6. The rank conditions
X
{rank Xp,q ≤
γx +
x source
in supp r p,q

X

βy | where p < q such that rp,q relevant}

y sink
in supp r p,q

define the 1-step orbit closure OV in Rep(Q, α). Moreover, X ∈ O V if and only if we have
dim HomQ (E, X) ≥ hdim E, βi,
for all indecomposable E that satisfy:
• HomQ (E, Tγ ) = 0, and for all (non-zero) indecomposable quotient modules E ′ of E, we
have ExtQ (E ′ , Tγ ) 6= 0, and
• ExtQ (E, Tβ ) = 0, and for all (non-zero) indecomposable submodules E ′′ of E, we have
HomQ (E ′′ , Tβ ) 6= 0.
14

Proof. Fix rp,q a relevant root. Let E be the representation defined as in (8). We want to show
that E satisfies all the listed properties. We check only the first claim, as the other can be showed
analogously. Note that by (9), HomQ (E, Tγ ) = 0 is equivalent to (Tγ )p,q being injective. Now
let E ′ be an arbitrary (non-zero) indecomposable quotient representation of E. Then taking a
minimal projective resolution of E ′ (as in (8)) and applying HomQ (−, X), we obtain (as in (9))
another map Xp′ ,q′ with p ≤ p′ ≤ q ′ ≤ q and the property that the sources in the support of
′ ′
rp ,q are among the sources of the support of rp,q (moreover, any such map can be obtained in
this way from a quotient of E). As in (9), we see that ExtQ (E ′ , Tγ ) 6= 0 if and only if Tp′ ,q′ is
not surjective. So all the claimed properties of E depend only on the support of rp,q .
So we can assume that Q is equal to the support of rp,q . We use the same notation for
the restrictions of the representations Tλ , Tβ to this support (they remain generic). WLOG, we
assume that q is a source. First, assume that p is a source as well. Applying the construction in
(8) to this quiver, we obtain E = Ep,q . Let E ′ be a quotient of Ep,q corresponding to Xp′ ,q′ as
in (9). In order to show that Tγ )p,q is injective and Tp′ ,q′ is not surjective, by (9) we must show
that HomQ (Ep,q , Tγ ) = 0 and ExtQ (E ′ , Tγ ) 6= 0.
We recall the notion of reflection functors (for more, see [4]): when applied to a source
x ← s → y, the reflection changes the quiver by reversing all arrows going to s, so: x → s ← y.
When applied to a generic representation Tγ of the original quiver, the reflection functor Rs gives
a new generic representation Rs (Tγ ) = Tγ ′ with γs′ = γx + γy − γs whenever this is non-negative
(at the other vertices γ does not change). Moreover, Rs does not change the dimension of the
morphisms and extensions between generic representations.
As mentioned, we work on the support of rp,q . First, we show that HomQ (Ep,q , Tγ ) = 0. We
apply reflections successively at the vertices p, p + 1, . . . , si − 1. Since γp < γ p,si , the generic
representation Tγ will be sent to another generic representation Tγ ′ , and γs′ i −1 = γsi − γp . The
indecomposable Ep,q will be sent to Esi ,q , and dim HomQ (Ep,q , Tγ ) = dim HomQ (Esi ,q , Tγ ′ ).
Since si − 1 is a sink, we can delete the vertices p, p + 1, . . . si − 2, and not change the dimension
of morphisms. Moreover, it is easy to see that rsi −1,q is relevant with respect to γ ′ , that is,
the inequalities involving γ ′ necessary for rsi −1,q to be relevant are satisfied (see Definition
4.1). Applying the construction (8) for this smaller quiver, we get precisely E = Esi ,q−1 . So
we reduced the argument to the case when the quiver starts with a sink. More precisely, we
can assume from the onset p is a sink in the support of rp,q with p < si , where si a source,
γ a dimension vector and rp,q is relevant with respect to γ. In the construction (8), we have
E = Ep+1,q . We want to prove that dim HomQ (Ep+1,q , Tγ ) = 0. We proceed by induction on
the number of vertices. If si = q, then the quiver is equioriented in which case the result is
easy to check directly. Otherwise, we reflect successively on the vertices si , si−1 , . . . , p + 1 and
obtain a dimension vector γ ′′ . Since γsi < γ si ,sp + γ si ,si+1 , we see that γ ′′ has positive entries,
in particular Tγ is sent to a generic representation Tγ ′′ . Also, Ep+1,q is sent to Ep+2,q , so we can
delete the vertex p without changing the dimension of morphisms. Moreover, it is easy to see that
rp+1,q is relevant with respect to γ ′′ . Hence we conclude by induction that HomQ (Ep,q , Tγ ) = 0.
Now to see that ExtQ (E ′ , Tγ ) 6= 0, we note that the equioriented case is easy to see directly. In
the induction process above we always worked with roots relevant with respect to γ, and the
reflection functor applied to a source preserves the dimensions of extensions whenever E ′ is not
a simple representation at a source. Similarly, it is easy to see that the deleted vertices in the
process did not change Ext(E ′ , Tγ ). So we only need to check that if E ′ is a simple representation
at a source and the inequalities for γ as in Definition 4.1 are satisfied, then Ext(E ′ , Tγ ) 6= 0.
This is easy to see directly.
Now let Q denote our original quiver. If rp,q is relevant, and E is obtained by the construction in (8), we showed that HomQ (E, Tγ ) = 0 and ExtQ (E, Tβ ) = 0. Applying the functor
HomQ (E, −) to the exact sequence 0 → Tβ → V → Tγ → 0, we obtain that dim HomQ (E, V ) =
15

dim HomQ (E, Tβ ) = hdim E, βi. Using this, by (9) we get for rp,q relevant that
X
X
rank Vp,q =
γx +
βy .
x source
in supp r p,q

y sink
in supp r p,q

Using Theorem 4.3, we obtain the conclusion.
For any representation Y of a quiver of type An , it is known (see [2]) that X ∈ OY if and
only if rank Xp,q ≤ rank Yp,q , for all 1 ≤ p < q ≤ n. In fact, the rank conditions give defining
equations of O Y by [21, Theorem 6.4]. Using the 1-step representations, we give an alternative
proof of this fact. Moreover, the proof we give is an effective algorithm for producing a smaller
set of minors coming from rank conditions that generate the defining ideal of the orbit closure
of a representation:
Theorem 4.7. Let Q be a quiver of type An and Y ∈ Rep(Q, α) be an arbitrary representation.
Then O Y can be written as a (scheme-theoretic) intersection of n − 1 one-step orbit closures. In
particular, some rank conditions generate the defining ideal of O Y .
Proof. First, we show that such a set-theoretic intersection exists. Fix a vertex p ∈ {1, 2, . . . , n −
p
=
1}. We construct a 1-step representation W p ∈ Rep(Q, α) such that Y ∈ O W p and rank Wp,q
rank Yp,q , for any q ∈ {p + 1, . . . , n}. As usual, we assume WLOG that si−1 ≤ p < si with si−1
a source. We construct a subrepresentation Z p of Y as follows. First, if x ≤ p, put Zxp = Yx . In
the support of rp,n the subrepresentation Z p of Y looks as follows:
Yp

❀❀
❀❀
❀❀
❀❀
❀
Yp,p+1 (Yp )
❀❀
❀❀
❀❀
❀❀


(Yp,si (Yp ))
Ys−1
i+1 ,si
❀❀
✄
✄
❀❀
✄
❀❀
✄✄
✄
❀❀
✄✄

.
.
.
(Yp,si (Yp )))
Ysi+1 ,si+1 +1 (Ys−1
i+1 ,si
✄
❀❀
✄
❀❀
✄✄
❀❀
✄✄
❀❀
✄
✄

✄

..
..
.
.❀
Ys−1
(Y
))
(Y
p
p,si
i +1,si
❀❀
✄
❀❀
✄✄
❀❀
✄✄
❀❀
✄
❀ ✄✄✄
Yp,si (Yp )

Here the maps between the vector spaces are just the restrictions of the maps of Y . Now put
β p = dim Z p and consider the 1-step representation W p obtained by
Z(β ⊂ α) ։ O W p .
By construction, Y ∈ O W p . Pick any q ∈ {p + 1, . . . , n}. Let E the indecomposable assop
ciated to the map Xp,q as in (8) and (9). We want to show that rank Wp,q
= rank Yp,q , or
p
equivalently HomQ (E, W ) = HomQ (E, Y ). Since Y ∈ OW p , we have dim HomQ (E, W p ) ≤
dim HomQ (E, Y ).
It is easy to see directly that we have HomQ (E, Y /(Z p )) = 0, hence dim HomQ (E, Y ) =
dim HomQ (E, Z p ).
Let Tβ ∈ Rep(Q, β) be the generic representation. Since Tβ ⊂ W p , we get dim HomQ (E, Tβ ) ≤
p
dim HomQ (E, W p ). Note that Zp,q
is surjective, hence by (9) we have Ext(E, Z p ) = 0. Since
16

Tβ is generic, we must have Ext(E, Tβ ) = 0 as well, hence by (9) again dim HomQ (E, Z p ) =
dim HomQ (E, Tβ ). So we obtained
dim HomQ (E, Y ) = dim HomQ (E, Z p ) = dim HomQ (E, Tβ ) ≤ dim HomQ (E, W p ),
p
showing that rank Wp,q
= rank Yp,q .
Now consider the intersection of n − 1 one-step orbit closures

X =

n−1
\

OW p .

p=1

Clearly, O Y ⊂ X . In order to see the reverse inclusion, pick any M ∈ X . Then for any p, q with
p
1 ≤ p < q ≤ n, we must have rank M ≤ rank Wp,q
= rank Yp,q . By [2], this implies M ∈ OY .
Hence X = O Y .
Now we want to see that the intersection is in fact scheme-theoretic. We note that the defining
equations of a 1-step orbit closure are defined over Z (see Remark 4.4). Reducing this scheme
modulo p for any prime p ≫ 0, we obtain a geometrically reduced 1-step orbit closure. By [12],
over a perfect field of characteristic p there is a Frobenius splitting on Rep(Q, α) that compatibly
splits all orbit closures. In particular, the intersection of (1-step) orbit closures is reduced over
such a field by [8, Proposition 1.2.1]. We can lift this result to characteristic 0 (as in [8, Corollary
1.6.6]), finishing the proof.
Remark 4.8. The argument above using Frobenius splitting fails for other Dynkin types. The
first author constructed in [16] an example of a nullcone of a type E8 quiver that is not reduced. But this nullcone is the intersection of the codimension 1 orbit closures (which are in fact
subgeneric, hence 1-step by Proposition 1.4).

References
[1] S. Abeasis, Codimension 1 orbits and semi-invariants for the representations of an oriented
graph of type An , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 282 (1984), no. 2, 463–485.
[2] S. Abeasis and A. Del Fra, Degenerations for the representations of a quiver of type Am , J.
Algebra 93 (1985), 376–412.
[3] S. Abeasis, A. Del Fra, and H. Kraft, The geometry of representations of Am , Mathematische
Annalen 256 (1981), no. 3, 401–418.
[4] I. Assem, D. Simson, and A. Skowroński, Elements of the representation theory of associative
algebras, Vol. 1, Techniques of representation theory, London Mathematical Society Student
Texts, vol. 65, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
[5] G. Bobiński and G. Zwara, Normality of orbit closures for Dynkin quivers of type An ,
Manuscripta Math. 105 (2001), 103–109.
[6]

, Schubert varieties and representations of Dynkin quivers, Colloq. Math. 94 (2002),
285–309.

[7] K. Bongartz, On degenerations and extensions of finite dimensional modules, Adv. Math.
121 (1996), 245–287.
17

[8] M. Brion and S. Kumar, Frobenius splitting methods in geometry and representation theory,
Progress in Mathematics, vol. 231, Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA.
[9] H. Derksen and J. Weyman, On the canonical decomposition of quiver representations, Compos. Math. 133 (2002), 245–265.
[10] W. Fulton, Eigenvalues of sums of Hermitian matrices (after A. Klyachko), Séminaire Bourbaki. Vol. 1997/98, Astérisque (1998), no. 252, 255–269, Exp. 845.
[11] G. C. Irelli, E. Feigin, and M. Reineke, Quiver Grassmannians and degenerate flag varieties,
Algebra Number Theory 6 (2012), no. 1, 165–194.
[12] R. Kinser and J. Rajchgot, Type A quiver loci and Schubert varieties, J. Commut. Algebra
7 (2015), no. 2, 265–301.
[13] S. Kovács, A characterization of rational singularities, Duke Math. J. 102 (2000), no. 2,
187–191.
[14] V. Lakshmibai and P. Magyar, Degeneracy schemes, quiver schemes, and Schubert varieties,
Int. Res. Res. Not. 1998 (1998), no. 12, 627–640.
[15] A. Lascoux, Syzygies des variétés déterminantales, Adv. Math. 30 (1978), no. 3, 202–237.
[16] A. C. Lőrincz, Singularities of zero
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.04170v2.pdf.
[17]

sets

of

semi-invariants

for

quivers,

, The b-functions of semi-invariants of quivers, J. Algebra 482 (2017), 346–363.

[18] M. Reineke, Generic extensions and multiplicative bases of quantum groups at q = 0, Represent. Theory 5 (2001), 147–163.
[19]

, Quivers, desingularizations and canonical bases, Studies in memory of Issai Schur
(Boston), Progress in Mathematics, vol. 210, Birkhäuser, 2003, pp. 325–344.

[20] C. Riedtmann and A. Schofield, On open orbits and their complements, J. Algebra 130
(1990), 388–411.
[21] C. Riedtmann and G. Zwara, Orbit closures and rank schemes, Comment. Math. Helv. 88
(2013), 55–84.
[22] C. M. Ringel, Tame algebras and integral quadratic forms, Lecture Notes in Mathematics,
vol. 1099, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.
[23] A. Schofield, General representations of quivers, Proc. London Math. Soc. s3-65 (1992),
no. 1, 46–64.
[24] K. Sutar, Resolutions of defining ideals of orbit closures for quivers of type A3 , J. Commut.
Algebra 5 (2013), no. 3, 441–475.
[25]

, Orbit closures of source-sink Dynkin quivers, Int. Math. Res. Not. 2015 (2015),
no. 11, 3423–3444.

[26] J. Weyman, Cohomology of vector bundles and syzygies, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics,
vol. 149, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003.
18

[27] G. Zwara, Orbit closures for representations of Dynkin quivers are regular in codimension
two, J. Math. Soc. Japan 57 (2005), 859–880.
[28]

, Singularities of orbit closures in module varieties, Representations of Algebras and
Related topics, EMS Series of Congress Reports, European Mathematical Society, 2011,
pp. 661–725.

19

