ON QUASICOHERENT SHEAVES
ON TORIC SCHEMES
FRED ROHRER

arXiv:1212.3956v2 [math.AG] 2 Apr 2014

Dành riêng cho tất cả người bạn Việt của tôi
Abstract. A correspondence between quasicoherent sheaves on
toric schemes and graded modules over some homogeneous coordinate ring is presented, and the behaviour of several ﬁniteness
properties under this correspondence is investigated.

Introduction
Toric varieties are probably well-known to anyone working in algebraic geometry. A lot is known about them, and a lot still gets published about them. Their theory was generalised in several directions,
and this often also led to a better understanding of classical toric varieties. The most natural generalisation seems to be the study of toric
varieties from a scheme-theoretical point of view. It is clear that to
do this, one has to be able to make arbitrary base changes. Hence,
instead of considering toric varieties over an algebraically closed ﬁeld
(or, as often done, over the ﬁeld of complex numbers ), one needs
to study toric schemes, i.e., “toric varieties over arbitrary base rings”.
With this motivation it is not hard to see that our toric schemes have
to be deﬁned as being constructed from a fan in the same way as the
classical toric varieties. Special cases of this generalisation were mentioned brieﬂy in [2, §4] (for regular fans and mainly over the ring of
integers). Of course, one could also consider the equivalent description
of toric varieties over in terms of torus operations, and try to replace
by more general base rings. The case of discrete valuation rings was
treated in [9, IV.3], and more general valuation rings are considered in

C

C

C

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 14M25; Secondary 13A02.
Key words and phrases. Toric scheme, Cox ring, Cox scheme, graded module,
quasicoherent sheaf, ﬁniteness condition.
This text is a slight update of the author’s contribution to the proceedings of the 7th Japan-Vietnam Joint Seminar on Commutative Algebra,
which itself was partially an update of parts of the author’s contribution
to the proceedings of the 6th Japan-Vietnam Joint Seminar on Commutative Algebra. The author was supported by the Swiss National Science
Foundation.
1

2

FRED ROHRER

recent work by Gubler [7, Chapters 6–7]. However, this approach leads
to a diﬀerent class of schemes and hence diﬀers heavily from ours, as it
requires for example the consideration of a bigger or otherwise diﬀerent
class of fans.
Besides yielding a better understanding of the geometry of toric varieties, there are concrete applications of the above generalisation, as the
following remark shows. Let X be the toric variety over an algebraically
closed ﬁeld K associated with a fan Σ. A fundamental question in algebraic geometry is then whether the Hilbert functor HilbX/K of X
over K is representable, i.e., whether the Hilbert scheme of X exists
(cf. [6]). If X is projective then this is indeed the case and follows from
Grothendieck’s more general result [6, Théorème 3.1]. However, toric
varieties are not necessarily projective (nor quasiprojective), and in
general it is not known whether their Hilbert schemes exist. Studying
HilbX/K amounts to studying quasicoherent sheaves on the base change
X ⊗K R for every K-algebra R, and it turns out that X ⊗K R is precisely
the toric scheme over R associated with Σ. Hence, in order to study
Hilbert functors of toric varieties it is necessary to study toric schemes
over more general bases than just over algebraically closed fields.
Here we give an overview of some results about quasicoherent sheaves
on toric schemes. They generalise results by Cox [1] and Mustaţǎ [10],
and they extend some results presented at the 6th Japan-Vietnam Joint
Seminar on Commutative Algebra [12]. Furthermore, they are mostly
inspired by well-known analogous results about projective schemes as
given in [5, Chapitre II]. The corresponding proofs are still unpublished0 .
1. Toric schemes
We start by brieﬂy describing the construction of toric schemes from
fans. For unexplained terminology and notation from polyhedral geometry we refer the reader to [12], [11, Chapter II] (available from the
author’s homepage), or [13].

R

• From now on let V be an -vector space of finite dimension n, let
N be a -structure on V (i.e., a subgroup of rank n of the additive
group underlying V with hNiR = V ), let M := N ∗ denote the dual of
N, which is a -structure on the dual V ∗ of V , let Σ be an N-fan in
V , and let R be a ring 1.

Z

Z

0Not

anymore – see F. Rohrer, Quasicoherent sheaves on toric schemes.
Expo. Math. 32 (2014) 33–78.
1Rings, groups and monoids are understood to be commutative, and algebras
are understood to be commutative, unital and associative.

ON QUASICOHERENT SHEAVES ON TORIC SCHEMES

3

If σ ∈ Σ then σ ∨ ∩ M is a torsionfree, cancellable, ﬁnitely generated
submonoid of M, and if τ is a face of σ then σ ∨ ∩ M is a submonoid
of τ ∨ ∩ M. Taking spectra of algebras of monoids over R and setting
Xσ (R) := Spec(R[σ ∨ ∩ M]) for σ ∈ Σ we get an inductive system

Xσ (R) → Spec(R) σ∈Σ
of R-schemes over Σ. Its inductive limit exists and is an R-scheme
denoted by
XΣ (R) → Spec(R)
and called the toric scheme over R associated with Σ (and N). It can be
understood as obtained by gluing (Xσ (R))σ∈Σ along (Xσ∩τ (R))(σ,τ )∈Σ2 .
The above construction of toric schemes gives rise to a contravariant
functor XΣ from the category of rings to the category of schemes together with a morphism XΣ → Spec. This functor is compatible with
base change in the sense that there is a canonical isomorphism
XΣ (•) ∼
= XΣ (R) ⊗R •
of contravariant functors from the category of R-algebras to the category of R-schemes.
The ﬁrst important question is now of course how the base ring aﬀects
the geometry of a toric scheme. It turns out that all toric schemes share
some basic properties and thus are not too ugly. For example, the
R-scheme XΣ (R) → Spec(R) is separated, quasicompact, ﬂat, and of
ﬁnite presentation, and it is faithfully ﬂat if and only if Σ 6= ∅ or R = 0.
However, a lot of other basic properties are respected and reﬂected by
XΣ . For example, the scheme XΣ (R) is reduced, connected, normal,
or Noetherian if and only if R is so or Σ = ∅, and it is irreducible
or integral if and only if R is so and Σ 6= ∅. Finally, some properties
depend also on the fan. For example, the R-scheme XΣ (R) → Spec(R)
is proper if and only if Σ is complete, or Σ = ∅, or R = 0. (More results
of this type can be found in [12] and [13].)
The above examples show in particular that on general toric schemes
no satisfying theory of Weil divisors is available. Since a lot of results
about toric varieties were proved by heavy use of Weil divisor techniques (see e.g. [1], [4]), one has to come up with new proofs in order
to generalise these results to toric schemes.
2. Sheaves on toric schemes
Generalising work of Cox [1] and Mustaţǎ [10] we introduce a notion
of Cox ring (not to be confused with the one introduced in [8]) and
describe quasicoherent modules on toric schemes in terms of graded

4

FRED ROHRER

modules over these rings. In order to do so we need to deﬁne some
objects encoding the combinatorics of the fan Σ.
We denote by Σ1 the set of 1-dimensional cones in Σ, and for ρ ∈ Σ1
by ρN its unique minimal N-generator. There is an exact sequence of
groups
c
a
M −→ Σ1 −→ A −→ 0,

Z

where c(u) := (u(ρN ))ρ∈Σ1 for u ∈ M and where a is deﬁned as the
cokernel of c. Note that c is a monomorphism if and only if Σ is full,
S
i.e., h ΣiR = V . We denote by (δρ )ρ∈Σ1 the canonical basis of Σ1
and set αρ := a(δρ ) for ρ ∈ Σ1 .

Z

• From now on let B ⊆ A be a subgroup.
We denote by S the polynomial algebra R[(Zρ )ρ∈Σ1 ] in indeterminates (Zρ )ρ∈Σ1 over R, furnished with the A-graduation induced by
a, i.e., such that deg(Zρ ) = αρ for ρ ∈ Σ1 . For σ ∈ Σ we set
Q
Zbσ := ρ∈Σ1 \σ1 Zρ ∈ S (where σ1 denotes the set of 1-dimensional
faces of σ). Finally we deﬁne a graded ideal I := hZbσ | σ ∈ ΣiS .
L
The B-graded R-algebra SB := α∈B Sα obtained from S by degree
restriction to B is called the B-restricted Cox ring over R associated
with Σ1 (and N), and its graded ideal IB := I ∩ SB is called the
B-restricted irrelevant ideal over R associated with Σ (and N); it is
generated by ﬁnitely many monomials.
To proceed we need to “invert the monomials Zbσ in the B-restricted
Cox ring”, and hence we have to assure that some powers of these
monomials lie in SB . This amounts to requiring B to be big, i.e., to
have ﬁnite index in A.
• From now on suppose that B is big, so that there exists m ∈
with Zbσm ∈ SB for every σ ∈ Σ.

N0

For σ ∈ Σ the B-graded ring of fractions (SB )Zbσm is independent of
the choice of m, and it is denoted by SB,σ . Its component of degree 0
is independent of the choice of B and is denoted by S(σ) . Moreover, for
a face τ of σ there is a canonical morphism of rings S(σ) → S(τ ) , which
is independent of m and B. Taking spectra and setting Y(σ) (R) :=
Spec(S(σ) ) for σ ∈ Σ we obtain an inductive system

Yσ (R) → Spec(R) σ∈Σ
of R-schemes over Σ. Its inductive limit exists and is an R-scheme
denoted by
YΣ (R) → Spec(R)
and called the Cox scheme over R associated with Σ (and N). It can be
understood as obtained by gluing (Yσ (R))σ∈Σ along (Yσ∩τ (R))(σ,τ )∈Σ2 .

ON QUASICOHERENT SHEAVES ON TORIC SCHEMES

5

The above construction of Cox schemes gives rise to a contravariant
functor YΣ from the category of rings to the category of schemes together with a morphism YΣ → Spec. This functor is compatible with
base change in the sense that there is a canonical isomorphism
YΣ (•) ∼
= YΣ (R) ⊗R •
of contravariant functors from the category of R-algebras to the category of R-schemes.
Cox schemes are closely related to toric schemes as follows. The
morphism of groups c : M → Σ1 induces for σ ∈ Σ a morphism
of rings R[σ ∨ ∩ M] → S(σ) , and these morphisms induce a canonical
morphism of contravariant functors γ : YΣ → XΣ . It turns out that
this morphism is an isomorphism if and only if Σ is full.
Therefore, using a straightforward (but necessarily noncanonical)
procedure to consider a toric scheme associated with a nonfull fan
as a toric scheme associated with a full fan it is suﬃcient to study
henceforth Cox schemes instead of toric schemes. (Note that this reduction demands a base change and is in general not available for toric
varieties.)

Z

Now we are ready to explain how B-graded SB -modules give rise to
quasicoherent sheaves on Y := YΣ (R). We denote by GrModB (SB ) and
QCMod(OY ) the categories of B-graded SB -modules and of quasicoherent OY -modules, respectively. Moreover, for a B-graded SB -module F
we denote by F(σ) the component of degree 0 of the B-graded module of
fractions FZbσm = F ⊗SB (SB )Zbσm , and for an S(σ) -module G we denote by
e the OYσ (R) -module associated with G. There exists a unique functor
G
SB : GrModB (SB ) → QCMod(OY )

g
with SB (F ) ↾Yσ (R) = F
(σ) for every σ ∈ Σ and every B-graded SB module F . Since SB coincides locally with the well-known equivalence
between modules and quasicoherent sheaves on aﬃne schemes it is exact
and commutes with inductive limits.
Denoting by •(α) the functor of shifting degrees by α, we can construct a functor
M

ΓB
Γ Y, • ⊗OY SB (SB (α))
∗ (•) :=
α∈B

for SB , called the first total functor of sections associated with Σ and
B over R, and show that there is an isomorphism of functors
βB : SB ◦ ΓB
∗ → IdGrModB (SB ) .

6

FRED ROHRER

Thus, we get the following generalisation of [10, Theorem 1.1], itself a
generalisation of [1, Theorem 3.2].
(1) Theorem The functor SB : GrModB (SB ) → QCMod(OY ) is essentially surjective.
Keeping in mind that the functor SB is exact (and also keeping
in mind the analogous results in the case of projective schemes) we
look now at the following situation. Let F be a B-graded SB -module.
A graded sub-SB -module G ⊆ F is said to be IB -saturated (in F )
S
if G = m∈N (G :F IBm ), where the right hand side can be shown to
be the smallest graded sub-SB -module of F containing G that is IB saturated. We denote by eF , F , and sat
F the sets of quasicoherent
sub-OY -modules of SB (F ), of graded sub-SB -modules of F , and of IB saturated graded sub-SB -modules of F , respectively. Then, the functor
SB induces a map ΞF : F → eF , and this map restricts to a map
sat
e
Ξsat
F : F → F.
The question is now whether the maps ΞF or Ξsat
F are surjective or
injective. In case F = SB , i.e., when we consider only ideals, this was
already settled in [12]. There, the result about injectivity required the
big subgroup B not to be “too big”. More precisely, B is called small
(with respect to Σ) if it is contained in the Picard group Pic(Σ) of Σ,
as introduced in [3, V.5] (see also [12]). Then, we gave the following
result.
(2) Proposition a) The map ΞSB : SB → eSB is surjective.
b) The map Ξsat : sat → eS is surjective, and if B is small then it

J J

J

J

J

SB

is bijective.

JS

B

J

J

J

J

J

B

To get a generalisation for arbitrary F we need a further ingredient, namely the second total functor of sections. (In [12] this was
introduced and used in the context of cohomology to get the toric
Serre-Grothendieck correspondence.) We deﬁne a functor
B
B
ΓB
∗∗ (•) : GrMod (SB ) → GrMod (SB ),

called the second total functor of sections associated with Σ and B over
R, by setting
M

Γ Y, SB (•(α)) .
ΓB
∗∗ (•) :=
α∈B

(Despite its name it is deﬁned on the category GrModB (SB ), but by
(1) this is merely a technical point.) The reason that there are two
(in general diﬀerent) total functors of sections is that the canonical

ON QUASICOHERENT SHEAVES ON TORIC SCHEMES

7

morphism
SB (•) ⊗OYΣ (R) SB (SB (α)) → SB (•(α))
is not necessarily an isomorphism, and thus the induced morphism of
functors
B
δB : ΓB
∗ ◦ SB → Γ∗∗
is not necessarily an isomorphism. However, after composing it with
SB it turns into an isomorphism. More precisely, there is a canonical
morphism of functors
ηB : IdGrModB (SB ) → ΓB
∗∗ ,
and we have the following result.
(3) Proposition The diagram of functors
SB ◦ ΓB
∗ ◦ SB
r

βB ◦SB rrr

SB

rr
rr
r
r
x
r

❖❖❖
❖❖S❖B ◦δB
❖❖❖
❖❖'
SB ◦ηB
/ SB

◦ ΓB
∗∗

commutes, and all occuring morphisms are isomorphisms.
This result is the key observation for the following generalisation of
(2).
(4) Theorem Let F be a B-graded SB -module.
a) The map ΞF : F → eF is surjective.
sat
e
b) The map Ξsat
F : F → F is surjective, and if B is small then it
is bijective.
c) If F is an IB -torsion module then it holds SB (F ) = 0, and if B
is small then the converse is true.

J
J

J

J

Keeping in mind that Pic(Σ) is big if and only if Σ is simplicial and
that Pic(Σ) ∼
= Pic(XΣ ( )) ([3, Theorem VII.2.15]), we get back [1,
Corollary 3.9] as a special case.

C

3. Finiteness conditions
Even when working in great generality, it is sometimes convenient
to know something about ﬁniteness conditions. Motivated by the fact
that a homogeneous coordinate ring of a projective scheme can always
be chosen such that it is of ﬁnite type over the base ring, we start by
giving a condition such that the restricted Cox ring SB is of ﬁnite type
over R. Recall that a B-graded R-algebra T is said to be positively
graded if Tα 6= 0 and T−α 6= 0 for α ∈ B implies α = 0.

8

FRED ROHRER

(5) Proposition If the cone and the vector space generated by Σ
coincide, then SB is a positively B-graded R-algebra of finite type.
Next we ask how certain ﬁniteness conditions behave under the functor SB . Making use of (4) and quasicompacity of Y we ﬁrst get the
following result.
(6) Proposition If F is a B-graded SB -module and G ∈ eF is of

finite type, then there exists G ∈

JF

J

of finite type with SB (G) = G .

If we want to know whether SB preserves some ﬁniteness conditions,
it turns out that we need to make some hypothesis on the subgroup B.
More precisely, we need the graded rings of fractions SB,σ for σ ∈ Σ to
be strongly graded, and this is fulﬁlled if B is small. Note that since B
is big this implies that Σ is simplicial. The ﬁniteness conditions that
we consider here are being of ﬁnite type or of ﬁnite presentation, and
being pseudocoherent or coherent. Recall that a graded module or a
sheaf of modules is called pseudocoherent if its subobjects of ﬁnite type
are of ﬁnite presentation, and coherent if it is pseudocoherent and of
ﬁnite type. (For sheaves this deﬁnition coincides with the usual one
found in [5, Chapitre 0].)
(7) Proposition Suppose that B is small, and let F be a B-graded
SB -module. If F is of finite type, of finite presentation, pseudocoherent,
or coherent, then so is SB (F ).
As an application of (7) we get a criterion for the structure sheaf
OY to be coherent. Recall that a ring T is called stably coherent if
polynomial algebras in ﬁnitely many indeterminates over T are coherent. Stable coherence is strictly weaker than coherence, but it is shared
for example by absolutely ﬂat rings, valuation rings, or semihereditary
rings.
(8) Corollary If Σ is N-regular and R is stably coherent, then OY
is coherent.
(The regularity hypothesis comes from the fact that it is equivalent
to Pic(Σ) = A, so that choosing B = Pic(Σ) = A it follows that SB is
a polynomial algebra over R.)
References
[1] D. A. Cox, The homogeneous coordinate ring of a toric variety. J. Algebraic
Geom. 4 (1995) 17–50.
[2] M. Demazure, Sous-groupes algébriques de rang maximum du groupe de Cremona. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 3 (1970) 507–588.

ON QUASICOHERENT SHEAVES ON TORIC SCHEMES

9

[3] G. Ewald, Combinatorial convexity and algebraic geometry. Grad. Texts in
Math. 168, Springer, New York, 1996.
[4] W. Fulton, Introduction to toric varieties. Ann. of Math. Stud. 131, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1993.
[5] A. Grothendieck, J. A. Dieudonné, Éléments de géométrie algébrique. I: Le langage des schémas (seconde édition). Grundlehren Math. Wiss. 166, Springer,
Berlin, 1971; II: Étude globale élémentaire de quelques classes de morphismes.
Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 8 (1961) 5–222.
[6] A. Grothendieck, Techniques de construction et théorèmes d’existence en géométrie algébrique. IV: Les schémas de Hilbert. Séminaire Bourbaki 6, Exp. 221
(249–276), Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1995.
[7] W. Gubler, A guide to tropicalizations. In: Algebraic and combinatorial aspects
of tropical geometry. Contemp. Math. 589 (2013) 125–189.
[8] Y. Hu, S. Keel, Mori dream spaces and GIT. Michigan Math. J. 48 (2000) 331–
348.
[9] G. Kempf, F. F. Knudsen, D. Mumford, B. Saint-Donat, Toroidal embeddings I.
Lecture Notes in Math. 339, Springer, Berlin, 1973.
[10] M. Mustaţǎ, Vanishing theorems on toric varieties. Tohoku Math. J. (2) 54
(2002) 451–470.
[11] F. Rohrer, Toric schemes. Dissertation, Universität Zürich, 2010.
[12] F. Rohrer, On toric schemes. Proceedings of the 32nd Symposium and 6th
Japan-Vietnam Joint Seminar on Commutative Algebra (Hayama, Japan,
2010). arXiv:1107.2713.
[13] F. Rohrer, The geometry of toric schemes. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 217 (2013)
700–708.
Universität Tübingen, Fachbereich Mathematik, Auf der Morgenstelle 10, 72076 Tübingen, Germany
E-mail address: fredrohrer0@gmail.com

