DEGREE AND ALGEBRAIC PROPERTIES OF LATTICE AND MATRIX
IDEALS

arXiv:1303.5382v3 [] 13 Jan 2014

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL
Abstract. We study the degree of non-homogeneous lattice ideals over arbitrary fields, and
give formulae to compute the degree in terms of the torsion of certain factor groups of Zs
and in terms of relative volumes of lattice polytopes. We also study primary decompositions
of lattice ideals over an arbitrary field using the Eisenbud-Sturmfels theory of binomial ideals
over algebraically closed fields. We then use these results to study certain families of integer
matrices (PCB, GPCB, CB, GCB matrices) and the algebra of their corresponding matrix ideals.
In particular, the family of generalized positive critical binomial matrices (GPCB matrices) is
shown to be closed under transposition, and previous results for PCB ideals are extended to
GPCB ideals. Then, more particularly, we give some applications to the theory of 1-dimensional
binomial ideals. If G is a connected graph, we show as a further application that the order of its
sandpile group is the degree of the Laplacian ideal and the degree of the toppling ideal. We also
use our earlier results to give a structure theorem for graded lattice ideals of dimension 1 in 3
variables and for homogeneous lattices in Z3 in terms of critical binomial ideals (CB ideals) and
critical binomial matrices, respectively, thus complementing a well-known theorem of Herzog on
the toric ideal of a monomial space curve.

1. Introduction
Let S = K[t1 , . . . , ts ] be a polynomial ring over a field K. As usual, m will denote the
maximal ideal of S generated by t1 , . . . , ts . For an arbitrary ideal I of S there are various ways of
introducing the notion of degree; let us briefly recall one of them. The vector space of polynomials
in S (resp. I) of degree at most i is denoted by S≤i (resp. I≤i ). If HIa (i) := dimK (S≤i /I≤i ) is
the affine Hilbert function of S/I and k is the Krull dimension of S/I, the positive integer
deg(S/I) := k! lim HIa (i)/ik
i→∞
= ⊕∞
i=0 Si

is called the degree or multiplicity of S/I. If S
has the standard grading and I ⊂ S is
a graded ideal, then HIa is the Hilbert-Samuel function of S/I with respect to m in the sense of
[35, Definition B.3.1]. The notion of degree plays a central role in this paper. One of our aims
is to give a formula for the degree when I is any lattice ideal.
The set of nonnegative integers (resp. positive integers) is denoted by N (resp. N+ ). A
binomial is a polynomial of the form tb − tc , where b, c ∈ Ns and where, if c = (ci ) ∈ Ns , we set
tc = tc11 · · · tcss . We use the term “binomial” as a shorthand for what elsewhere has been called
pure difference binomial [10, p. 2] or unital binomial [18]. A binomial ideal is an ideal generated
by binomials. The set {i | ci 6= 0}, denoted by supp(c), is called the support of c.
Consider an s × m integer matrix L with column vectors a1 , . . . , am . Each ai can be written
−
+
−
s
uniquely as ai = a+
i − ai , where ai and ai are in N and have disjoint support. The matrix
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13F20; Secondary 13A15, 13H15, 13P05, 05E40, 14Q99.
Key words and phrases. Lattice ideal, graded binomial ideal, degree, primary decomposition, PCB ideal.
The second author was partially supported by the MTM2010-20279-C02-01 grant. The third author was
partially supported by SNI.
1

2

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL
+

−

+

−

ideal of L, denoted by I(L), is the ideal of S generated by ta1 − ta1 , . . . , tam − tam . A matrix
ideal is an ideal of the form I(L) for some L. Matrix ideals are a special class of binomial ideals.
Some of our results concern certain integer matrices and the algebra of their matrix ideals.
A subgroup L of Zs is called a lattice. A lattice ideal, over the field K, is an ideal of S of
−
+
the form I(L) = (ta − ta | a ∈ L) for some lattice L in Zs . Let L be the lattice generated by
the columns a1 , . . . , am of an integer matrix L. It is well-known that I(L) and I(L) are related
by the equality I(L) = (I(L) : (t1 · · · ts )∞ ) and that I(L) is also a matrix ideal. The class of
lattice ideals has been studied in many places, see [27] and the references there. This concept is
a natural generalization of a toric ideal.
Using commutative algebra methods and the Eisenbud-Sturmfels theory of binomial ideals
over algebraically closed fields [10], in this paper we study algebraic properties and primary
decompositions of lattice ideals and binomial ideals of a variety of types. By and large, we focus
on the structure of the class of graded binomial ideals I that satisfy the vanishing condition
V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i, where V (·) is the variety of (·). This class of ideals includes the graded
lattice ideals of dimension 1 [20], the vanishing ideals over finite fields of algebraic toric sets [33],
the toric ideals of monomial curves [16], the Herzog-Northcott ideals [29], the PCB ideals [30]
and the Laplacian ideals of complete graphs [23]. We will also present some other interesting
families of ideals that satisfy this hypothesis. In particular, for s = 3, we completely determine
the structure of any graded lattice ideal in terms of critical binomial ideals and also the structure
of any homogeneous lattice in Z3 . The transpose of L is denoted by L⊤ . If I(L⊤ ) is graded,
following [30], we study when I(L) is also graded.
The contents of this paper are as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the notion of degree via
Hilbert polynomials and observe that the degree is independent of the base field K (Proposition 2.8). We present some of the results on lattice ideals that will be needed throughout the
paper, introduce some notation, and recall how the structure of T (Zs /L), the torsion subgroup
of Zs /L, can be read off from the normal form of L. All results of this section are well-known.
In Section 3, we study primary decompositions of lattice ideals. The first main result is an
auxiliary theorem that relates the degree of S/I(L) and the torsion of Zs /L to the primary
decomposition of I(L) over an arbitrary field K (Theorem 3.2). If K is algebraically closed, the
primary decomposition of I(L) is given in [10, Corollary 2.5] in terms of lattice ideals of partial
characters of the saturation of L. In this situation, the primary components are generated by
polynomials of the form ta − λtb , where 0 6= λ ∈ K. Let γ be the order of T (Zs /L). If K is a
field containing the γ-th roots of unity with char(K) = 0 or char(K) = p, p a prime with p ∤ γ,
it is well-known that I(L) is a radical ideal (see Theorem 2.7). Assuming that I(L) is a graded
lattice ideal of dimension 1, following [30] we give explicitly the minimal primary decomposition
of I(L) in terms of the normal decomposition of L (Theorem 3.3).
Section 4 is devoted to developing a formula for the degree of any lattice ideal. First, we
exhibit a formula for the degree that holds for any toric ideal (Theorem 4.5), the graded case
was shown in [34, Theorem 4.16, p. 36] and [12]. If S has the standard grading and I(L) is a
graded lattice ideal of dimension 1, the degree of S/I(L) is the order of T (Zs /L) [21]. As usual,
we denote the relative volume of a lattice polytope P by vol(P) and the convex hull of a set A
by conv(A).
We come to the main result of Section 4.
Theorem 4.6 (a) If rank(L) = s, then deg(S/I(L)) = |Zs /L|.
(b) If rank(L) < s, there is an integer matrix A of size (s − r) × s with rank(A) = s − r such
that we have the containment of rank r lattices L ⊂ kerZ (A).

3

(c) If rank(L) < s and v1 , . . . , vs are the columns of A, then
deg(S/I(L)) =

|T (Zs /L)|(s − r)!vol(conv(0, v1 , . . . , vs ))
.
|T (Zs−r /hv1 , . . . , vs i)|

One can effectively use Theorem 4.6 to compute the degree of any lattice ideal (Examples 4.11
and 4.12). For certain families, we show explicit formulae for the degree (Corollary 4.9). For
a 1-dimensional lattice ideal I(L), not necessarily homogeneous, we can express the degree in
terms of a Z-basis of the lattice L (Corollary 4.10, Example 8.14).
Section 5 focuses on graded binomial ideals satisfying the vanishing condition V (I, ti ) = {0}
for all i. For ideals of this type, we characterize when they are lattice ideals (Proposition 5.3).
This enables us to present some applications of the main result of Section 3 to the theory of
binomial ideals.
We show the following result on the structure of graded matrix ideals I, writing Hull(I) for
the intersection of the isolated primary components of I.
Proposition 5.7 Let I be the matrix ideal of an s × m integer matrix L and let L be the lattice
spanned by the columns of L. Suppose that I is graded and that V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i. Then:
(a) I has a minimal primary decomposition either of the form I = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qc , if I is
unmixed, or else I = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qc ∩ q, if I is not unmixed, where the qi are pi -primary
ideals with ht(pi ) = s − 1, and q is an m-primary ideal.
(b) I(L) = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qc = Hull(I).
(c) rank(L) = s − 1 and there exists d ∈ Ns+ with dL = 0.
(d) If I is not unmixed and h = t1 · · · ts , there exists a ∈ N+ such that I(L) = (I : ha ),
q = I + (ha ) is an irredundant m-primary component of I and I = I(L) ∩ q.
(e) Either c ≤ |T (Zs /L)|, if char(K) = 0, or else c ≤ |G|, if char(K) = p, p a prime, where
G is the unique largest subgroup of T (Zs /L) whose order is relatively prime to p. If K
is algebraically closed, then equality holds.
As a consequence, for the family of matrix ideals satisfying the hypotheses of Proposition 5.7,
we obtain the following formula for the degree:
deg(S/I) = max{d1 , . . . , ds }|T (Zs /L)|,
where d = (d1 , . . . , ds ) ∈ Ns+ is the weight vector, with gcd(d) = 1, that makes the matrix ideal
I homogeneous (Corollary 5.9).
In Section 6 we restrict our study to matrix ideals associated to square integer matrices of a
certain type. Throughout, set 1 = (1, . . . , 1).
Definition 1.1. Let ai,j ∈ N, i, j = 1, . . . , s, and let L be an s × s matrix of the following special
form:


a1,1 −a1,2 · · · −a1,s
 −a2,1
a2,2 · · · −a2,s 


(1.1)
L=
..  .
..
..

. 
.
···
.
−as,1 −as,2 · · ·

as,s

The matrix L is called: (a) a pure binomial matrix (PB matrix, for short) if aj,j > 0 for all j,
and for each column of L at least one off-diagonal entry is non-zero; (b) a positive pure binomial
matrix (PPB matrix) if all the entries of L are non-zero; (c) a critical binomial matrix (CB
matrix) if L is a PB matrix and L1⊤ = 0; (d) a positive critical binomial matrix (PCB matrix
[30]) if all the entries of L are non-zero and L1⊤ = 0; (e) a generalized critical binomial matrix

4

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

(GCB matrix), if L is a PB matrix and there exists b ∈ Ns+ such that Lb⊤ = 0; and (f) a
generalized positive critical binomial matrix (GPCB matrix) if all the entries of L are non-zero
and there exists b ∈ Ns+ such that Lb⊤ = 0.
If L is a PB matrix, we will call I(L) = (f1 , . . . , fs ) the PB ideal associated to L, where
fi is the binomial defined by the i-th column of L (see Definition 5.4). We will use similar
terminology when L is a PPB, CB, PCB, GCB or GPCB matrix.
Summarizing, we have the following inclusions among these classes of matrices and ideals:
CB ⊂ GCB ⊂ PB
∪
∪
∪
PCB ⊂ GPCB ⊂ PPB
It turns out that L is a CB matrix if and only if L is the Laplacian matrix of a weighted digraph
without sinks or sources (see Section 7). Thus, in principle, we can and will use the techniques
of algebraic graph theory [4, 14], matrix theory [3] and digraph theory [2] to study CB and GCB
matrices and their matrix ideals.
The support of a polynomial f , denoted by supp(f ), is the set of variables that occur in f . If
I(L) = (f1 , . . . , fs ) is the matrix ideal of a PB matrix L and |supp(fj )| ≥ 4, for j = 1, . . . , s, we
show that I(L) is not a lattice ideal (Proposition 6.1). Let g1 , . . . , gs be the binomials defined
by the rows of a GCB matrix L and let I be the matrix ideal of L⊤ . If V (I, ti ) = {0} and
|supp(gi )| ≥ 3 for all i, we show that I is not a complete intersection (Proposition 6.2).
The GPCB matrices (resp. ideals) are a generalization of the PCB matrices (resp. ideals)
introduced and studied in [30]. The origin of this generalization is in the overlap between the
results in [21, Section 3] and the results in [30, Section 5] (see [30, Remark 5.8]). While the class
of PCB matrices is easily seen not to be closed under transposition, the wider class of GPCB
matrices is shown to be closed under transposition (Theorem 6.3).
We are also interested in displaying new families of binomial ideals verifying the usual hypotheses above, namely, graded matrix ideals I of integer matrices such that V (I, ti ) = {0} for
all i. Some new such families are the GPCB ideals (Remark 6.6), the Laplacian ideals associated
to connected weighted graphs (Proposition 7.1) and the GCB ideals that arise from matrices
with strongly connected underlying digraphs (Proposition 7.6). Thus we can apply to these
families some of the results of this article.
In the rest of Section 6, we extend to GPCB ideals some properties that hold for PCB ideals.
We give an explicit syzygy among the generators of a GPCB ideal (Proposition 6.7). This will be
used to give an explicit description of an irredundant embedded component of a GPCB ideal in
at least 4 variables (Theorem 6.11). We give an explicit description of the hull of a GPCB ideal
and, if s ≥ 4, of an irredundant embedded component (Proposition 6.10 and Theorem 6.11).
For s = 2, we give a description of a GPCB ideal I(L) and its hull in terms of the entries of
the matrix L (Lemma 6.12). This description will be used in Section 8 (see Proposition 8.8) to
characterize when I(L) is a lattice ideal.
In Section 7 we show how our results apply to matrix ideals arising from Laplacian matrices
of weighted graphs and digraphs. We are interested in relating the combinatorics of a graph
(resp. digraph) to the algebraic invariants and properties of the matrix ideal associated to the
Laplacian matrix of the graph (resp. digraph). Let G = (V, E, w) be a weighted simple graph,
where V = {t1 , . . . , ts } is the set of vertices, E is the set of edges and w is a weight function
that associates a weight we with every e ∈ E. The Laplacian matrix of G, denoted by L(G),
is a prime example of a CB matrix. Laplacian matrices of complete graphs are PCB matrices;

5

this type of matrix occurs in [23]. The matrix ideal I ⊂ S of L(G) is called the Laplacian ideal
of G. If I ⊂ S is the Laplacian ideal of G, the lattice ideal I(L) = (I : (t1 · · · ts )∞ ) is called the
toppling ideal of G [23, 32]. If G is connected, the toppling ideal has dimension 1.
The torsion subgroup of the factor group Zs /Im(L(G)), denoted by K(G), is called the critical
group or the sandpile group of G [1, 22]. The group K(G) is equal to the torsion subgroup of
Zs /L. Below, we denote the set of edges of G incident to ti by E(ti ). Thus we can give an
application of our earlier results to this setting.
Proposition 7.1 Let G = (V, E, w) be a connected weighted simple graph with vertices t1 , . . . , ts
and let I ⊂ S be its Laplacian ideal. Then the following hold.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)

V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i.
deg(S/I) = deg(S/I(L)) = |K(G)|.
Hull(I) = I(L).
If |E(ti )| ≥ 3 for all i, then I is not a lattice ideal.
If G = Ks is a complete graph, then deg(S/I) = ss−2 .

As another application, we show that the Laplacian ideal is an almost complete intersection
for any connected simple graph without vertices of degree 1 (Proposition 7.3).
Given a square integer matrix L, we denote its underlying digraph by GL (Definition 7.4). If L
is a GCB matrix and GL is strongly connected, we show that L⊤ is a GCB matrix (Theorem 7.5).
If L is a GCB matrix, we show that GL is strongly connected if and only if V (I(L), ti ) = {0}
for all i (Proposition 7.6). Thus, the results of the previous sections can also be applied to GCB
ideals that arise from matrices with strongly connected underlying digraphs.
Finally, in Section 8 we focus on matrix ideals with s = 3 and apply our earlier results in this
setting. From [31, Theorem 6.1], it follows that graded lattice ideals of height 2 in 3 variables are
generated by at most 3 binomials. The main results of Section 8 uncover the structure of this
type of ideal and the structure of graded lattices of rank 2 in Z3 . We show that a graded lattice
ideal in K[t1 , t2 , t3 ] of height 2 is generated by a full set of critical binomials (Definition 8.1,
Theorem 8.2); our proof follows that of [19, pp. 137–140]. This result complements the wellknown result of Herzog [16] showing that the toric ideal of a monomial space curve is generated
by a full set of critical binomials.
It is easy to see that an ideal I ⊂ K[t1 , t2 ] is a graded lattice ideal of dimension 1 if and only
if I is a PCB ideal. The main result of Section 8 is the analogue of this result in the case of
3 variables. Concretely, an ideal I ⊂ K[t1 , t2 , t3 ] is a graded lattice ideal of dimension 1 if and
only if I is a CB ideal (Theorem 8.6). Then we show that the graded lattices of rank 2 in Z3
are precisely the lattices generated by the columns of a CB matrix of size 3 (Corollary 8.7). As
a corollary of Theorem 8.6, and for s = 3, we deduce a characterization of the structure of the
hull of a GCB ideal (Corollary 8.9).
For all unexplained terminology and additional information, we refer to [10, 27, 36] (for the
theory of binomial and lattice ideals), [9, 15] (for Gröbner bases and Hilbert functions) and
[5, 25, 38] (for commutative algebra).

2. Preliminaries
In this section, we present some of the results that will be needed throughout the paper and
introduce some more notation. All results of this section are well-known. To avoid repetitions,
we continue to employ the notations and definitions used in Section 1.

6

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

Let S = K[t1 , . . . , ts ] be a polynomial ring over a field K and let I be an ideal of S. As usual,
m will denote the maximal ideal of S generated by t1 , . . . , ts . The vector space of polynomials
in S (resp. I) of degree at most i is denoted by S≤i (resp. I≤i ). The functions
HIa (i) = dimK (S≤i /I≤i )

and HI (i) = HIa (i) − HIa (i − 1)

are called the affine Hilbert function and the Hilbert function of S/I respectively.
Let k = dim(S/I) be the Krull dimension of S/I. According to [15, Remark 5.3.16, p. 330],
P
Pk−1 j
there are unique polynomials haI (t) = kj=0 aj tj ∈ Q[t] and hI (t) = j=0
cj t ∈ Q[t] of degrees
k and k − 1, respectively, such that haI (i) = HIa (i) and hI (i) = HI (i) for i ≫ 0. By convention,
the zero polynomial has degree −1. Notice that ak (k!) = ck−1 ((k − 1)!) for k ≥ 1. If k = 0, then
HIa (i) = dimK (S/I) for i ≫ 0.
Definition 2.1. The integer ak (k!), denoted by deg(S/I), is called the degree of S/I.
Remark 2.2. If S = ⊕∞
i=0 Si has the standard grading and I ⊂ S is a graded ideal, then HI (i)
is equal to dimK (Si /Ii ) for all i, and HIa is the Hilbert-Samuel function of S/I with respect to
m in the sense of [35, Definition B.3.1].
We will use the following multi-index notation: for a = (a1 , . . . , as ) ∈ Zs , set ta = ta11 · · · tas s .
±1
Notice that ta is a monomial in the Laurent polynomial ring T := K[t±1
1 , . . . , ts ]. If ai ≥ 0 for
a
all i, t is just a monomial in S.
Definition 2.3. The graded reverse lexicographical order (GRevLex for short) on the monomials
of S is defined as tb ≻ ta if and only if deg(tb ) > deg(ta ), or deg(tb ) = deg(ta ) and the last nonzero
entry of b − a is negative.
Let ≻ be a monomial order on S and let I ⊂ S be an ideal. As usual, if g is a polynomial of
S, we will denote the leading term of g by in(g) and the initial ideal of I by in(I). We refer to
[9] for the theory of Gröbner bases. Let u = ts+1 be a new variable. For f ∈ S of degree e define
f h = ue f (t1 /u, . . . , ts /u) ;
that is, f h is the homogenization of the polynomial f with respect to u. The homogenization of
I is the ideal I h of S[u] given by I h = (f h | f ∈ I), and S[u] is given the standard grading.
The Gröbner bases of I and I h are nicely related.
Lemma 2.4. Let I be an ideal of S and let ≻ be the GRevLex order on S and S[u] respectively.
(a) If g1 , . . . , gr is a Gröbner basis of I, then g1h , . . . , grh is a Gröbner basis of I h .
(b) HIa (i) = HI h (i) for i ≥ 0.
(c) deg(S/I) = deg(S[u]/I h ).
Proof. (a): This follows readily from [36, Propositions 2.4.26 and 2.4.30]. (b): Fix i ≥ 0. The
mapping S[u]i → S≤i induced by mapping u 7→ 1 is a K-linear surjection. Consider the induced
composite K-linear surjection S[u]i → S≤i → S≤i /I≤i . An easy check shows that this has kernel
Iih . Hence, we have a K-linear isomorphism of finite-dimensional K-vector spaces
S[u]i /Iih ≃ S≤i /I≤i .
Thus HIa (i) = HI h (i). (c): From classical theory [38, p. 192], dim(S[u]/I h ) is equal to dim(S/I)+
1. Hence the equality follows from (b).


7

Proposition 2.5. Let I be an ideal of S and let p1 , . . . , pr be the set of associated primes of I
of dimension dim(S/I). If I = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qm isP
a minimal primary decomposition of I such that
rad(qi ) = pi for i = 1, . . . , r, then deg(S/I) = ri=1 deg(S/qi ).

Proof. By [38, p. 181, [7]–[9]] and [38, top of p. 192], qh1 , . . . , , qhr are the primary components
of I h of maximal dimension. Hence, by (part of) the associativity law of multiplicities (cf. [15,
Lemma 5.3.11, p. 327]), we get
P
deg(S[u]/I h ) = ri=1 deg(S[u]/qhi ).
P
Hence, by Lemma 2.4(c), deg(S/I) = ri=1 deg(S/qi ).


Definition 2.6. The torsion subgroup of an abelian group (M, +), denoted by T (M ), is the set
of all x in M such that ℓx = 0 for some ℓ ∈ N+ .
Binomial and lattice ideals. Let L ⊂ Zs be a lattice and let I(L) ⊂ S be its lattice ideal. It
is well-known that the height of I(L) is the rank of L and that I(L) is a toric ideal if and only
if Zs /L is free as a Z-module [27, p. 131]. Let p be the characteristic of the field K. The next
result will be relevant in our context because it says that when p = 0, or when p > 0 and p is
relatively prime to the cardinality of the torsion subgroup of Zs /L, then I(L) is a radical ideal
and hence I(L) has a unique minimal primary decomposition (see Theorem 3.3).
Theorem 2.7. [13, pp. 99-106] If p = 0, then rad(I(L)) = I(L), and if p > 0, then
rad(I(L)) = (ta − tb | pr (a − b) ∈ L for some r ∈ N).
The degree is independent of the base field K.
Proposition 2.8. If IQ (L) is the lattice ideal of L over the field Q, then
deg(S/I(L)) = deg(Q[t1 , . . . , ts ]/IQ (L)).

Proof. Let ≻ be the GRevLex order on S and SQ = Q[t1 , . . . , ts ], and on the extensions S[u]
and SQ [u], respectively. Let GQ be the reduced Gröbner basis of IQ (L). We set I = I(L) and
IQ = IQ (L). Notice that Z/pZ ⊂ K, where p = char(K). Hence SZ = Z[t1 , . . . , ts ] maps into S.
If G denotes the image of GQ under this map, then using Buchberger’s criterion [9, p. 84], it is
seen that G is a Gröbner basis of I. Hence, by Lemma 2.4(a), GhQ and Gh are Gröbner basis of
IQh and I h , respectively, where Gh is the set of all f h with f ∈ G. Therefore, the rings SQ [u]/IQh
and S[u]/I h have the same Hilbert function. Thus, by Lemma 2.4, the result follows.

If I ⊂ S is an ideal and h ∈ S, we set (I : h) := {f ∈ S| f h ∈ I}. This is the colon ideal of I
k
relative to h. The saturation of I with respect to h is the ideal (I : h∞ ) := ∪∞
k=1 (I : h ).
The following is a well-known result that follows from [10, Corollary 2.5].
Theorem 2.9. [10] Let I be a binomial ideal of S. Then the following are equivalent.
(a) I is a lattice ideal; (b) I = (I : (t1 · · · ts )∞ ); (c) ti is a non-zero-divisor of S/I for all i.
Lemma 2.10. [20] Let L ⊂ Zs be a lattice. Then L is generated by a1 , . . . , am if and only if
+

−

+

−

((ta1 − ta1 , . . . , tam − tam ) : (t1 · · · ts )∞ ) = I(L).
If B is a subset of Zs , hBi will denote the subgroup of Zs generated by B. Let T be the
±1
Laurent polynomial ring K[t±1 ] = K[t±1
1 , . . . , ts ]. As usual, if I is an ideal of S, IT will denote
its extension in T . Part (b) of the next result can be applied to any matrix ideal.

8

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL
+

−

m
Corollary 2.11. (a) If I(L) = ({tai − tai }m
i=1 ), then L = h{ai }i=1 i.
+

−

m
(b) If I = ({tai − tai }m
i=1 ) ⊂ S and L = h{ai }i=1 i, then I(L) = IT ∩ S.

Proof. (a): By Theorem 2.9, (I(L) : (t1 · · · ts )∞ ) = I(L). Hence, by Lemma 2.10, L = h{ai }m
i=1 i.
(b): See [10, Corollary 2.5] and its proof.

Normal forms and critical groups. Let L ⊂ Zs be a lattice of rank r generated by a1 , . . . , am
and let L be the s × m matrix of rank r with column vectors a1 , . . . , am .
There are invertible integer matrices P and Q such that P LQ = Γ, where Γ is a s × m
“diagonal” matrix Γ = diag(γ1 , γ2 , . . . , γr , 0, . . . , 0), with γi ∈ N+ and γi | γj if i ≤ j. The
matrix Γ is called the normal form of L and the expression P LQ = Γ the normal decomposition
of L (Γ is also called the Smith normal form of L). The integers γ1 , . . . , γr are the invariant
factors of L. The greatest common divisor of all the non-zero i × i sub-determinants of L will
be denoted by ∆i (L). The cardinality of a finite set C is denoted by |C|.
Definition 2.12. The group T (Zs /L) is called the critical group of L or the critical group of L.
Critical groups of lattices will play an important role in several parts of the paper. Their
structure can easily be determined using the next result, which follows from the fundamental
structure theorem for finitely generated abelian groups [17]. Thus, using any algebraic system
that computes normal forms of matrices, Maple [7] for instance, one can determine the structure
of critical groups.
Theorem 2.13. (a) [17, Theorem 3.9] γ1 = ∆1 (L), γi = ∆i (L)∆i−1 (L)−1 for i = 2, . . . , r.
(b) [17, pp. 187-188] Zs /L ≃ Z/(γ1 ) ⊕ Z/(γ2 ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ Z/(γr ) ⊕ Zs−r .
(c) T (Zs /L) ≃ Z/(γ1 ) ⊕ Z/(γ2 ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ Z/(γr ).
(d) ∆r (L) = |T (Zs /L)| = γ1 · · · γr .
(e) |T (Zs /L)| = |T (Zm /L⊤ )|, where L⊤ is the lattice of Zm spanned by the rows of L.
If m = s, let hi,j be the (i, j)-minor of L, i.e., the determinant of the matrix obtained
from L by eliminating the i-th row and the j-th column of L. Let Li,j = (−1)i+j hj,i and set
adj(L) = (Li,j ), the adjoint matrix of L. Note that Li,i = hi,i . The adjoint matrix will come up
later in Theorem 6.3 and Proposition 7.6.
3. Degree and torsion in primary decompositions
In this section, we study primary decompositions of lattice ideals over an arbitrary field,
using the Eisenbud-Sturmfels theory of binomial ideals over algebraically closed fields [10]. For
a graded lattice ideal of dimension 1, we give the explicit minimal primary decomposition over
a field with enough roots of unity.
Lemma 3.1. Let F be a field extension of K, let B = F [t1 , . . . , ts ] be a polynomial ring with
coefficients in F and let I be an ideal of S. Then the following hold.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

IB ∩ S = I.
deg(S/I) = deg(B/IB).
If q is a p-primary ideal of B, then q ∩ S is a p ∩ S-primary ideal of S.
If IB = ∩ri=1 qi is a primary decomposition of IB, then I = ∩ri=1 (qi ∩ S) is a primary
decomposition of I such that rad(qi ∩ S) = rad(qi ) ∩ S.
(e) If I is the lattice ideal of L in S, then IB is the lattice ideal of L in B.

9

Proof. Let G = {g1 , . . . , gm } be a Gröbner basis of I with respect to the GRevLex order. By
Buchberger’s criterion [9, Theorem 6, p. 84], G is also a Gröbner basis for IB with respect to
the GRevLex order on B.
(a): Note that K ֒→ F is a faithfully flat extension. Apply the functor (−) ⊗K S. By Base
Change, it follows that S ֒→ B is a faithfully flat extension. Hence, by [25, Theorem 7.5(ii)],
I = IB ∩ S for any ideal I of S.
h }, and Gh is a
(b): By Lemma 2.4(a), I h and IB h are both generated by Gh = {g1h , . . . , gm
Gröbner basis for IB h . Hence, by Lemma 2.4(b), we get
a
HIa (i) = HI h (i) = dimK (S[u]/I h )i = dimF (B[u]/IB h )i = HIB h (i) = HIB
(i)

for i ≥ 0. Therefore, one has the equality deg(S/I) = deg(B/IB).
(c): This is well-known and not hard to show.
(d): This follows from (a) and (c).
+

−

+

−

(e): Let ta1 − ta1 , . . . , tam − tam be a set of generators of I. This set also generates IB. Then,
by Lemma 2.10, one has
(∗)

(IB :

B

(t1 · · · ts )∞ ) = IB ,

where IB is the lattice ideal of L in B. We claim that ti is not a zero-divisor of B/IB for
i = 1, . . . , s. Note that since S ֒→ B is a flat extension, applying the functor (−) ⊗S S/I and
using Base Change, we deduce that S/I ֒→ B/IB is a flat extension. Hence since the map
ti
ti
S/I −→
S/I is injective, by Theorem 2.9, so is the map B/IB −→
B/IB. Consequently, by the
claim, the left hand side of Eq. (∗) is equal to IB and we get the equality IB = IB .

We come to the first main result of this section.
Theorem 3.2. Let I(L) be a lattice ideal of S over an arbitrary field K of characteristic p, let
c be the number of associated primes of I(L), and for p > 0, let G be the unique largest subgroup
of T (Zs /L) whose order is relatively prime to p. Then
(a) All associated primes of I(L) have height equal to rank(L).
(b) |T (Zs /L)| ≥ c if p = 0 and |G| ≥ c if p > 0, with equality if K is algebraically closed.
(c) deg(S/I(L)) ≥ |T (Zs /L)| if p = 0 and deg(S/I(L)) ≥ |G| if p > 0.
Proof. Let K be the algebraic closure of K and let S = K[t1 , . . . , ts ] be the corresponding
polynomial ring with coefficients in K. Thus, we have an integral extension S ⊂ S of normal
domains. We set I = I(L) and I = IS, where the latter is the extension of I to S. The ideal
I is the lattice ideal of L in S (see Lemma 3.1(e)). Hence, as K is algebraically closed, by [10,
Corollaries 2.2 and 2.5] I has a unique minimal primary decomposition
(†)

I = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qc1 ,
|T (Zs /L)|

where c1 =
if p = 0 and c1 = |G| if p > 0. Notice that c1 = |T (Zs /L)| if p is
relatively prime to |T (Zs /L)|. Furthermore, also by [10, Corollaries 2.2 and 2.5], one has that if
pi = rad(qi ) for i = 1, . . . , c1 , then p1 , . . . , pc1 are the associated primes of I and ht(pi ) = rank(L)
for i = 1, . . . , c1 . Hence, by Lemma 3.1(d), one has a primary decomposition
(‡)

I = (q1 ∩ S) ∩ · · · ∩ (qc1 ∩ S)

such that rad(qi ∩ S) = rad(qi ) ∩ S = pi ∩ S. We set pi = pi ∩ S and qi = qi ∩ S for i = 1, . . . , c1 .
(a): Since S is a normal domain and S ⊂ S is an integral extension, we get ht(pi ) = ht(pi ) =
rank(L) for all i (see [24, Theorems 5 and 20]).

10

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

(b): By Eq. (‡), the associated primes of I are contained in {p1 , . . . , pc1 }. Thus, c1 ≥ c,
which proves the first part. Now, assume that K = K. By (a), we may assume that p1 , . . . , pc
are the minimal primes of I. Consequently I has a unique minimal primary decomposition
I = Q1 ∩ · · · ∩ Qc such that Qi is pi -primary and ht(pi ) = rank(L) for i = 1, . . . , c. As I = I,
from Eq. (†), we get that c1 = c.
(c): Using Lemma 3.1(b), Eq. (†) that was stated at the beginning of the proof, and the
additivity of the degree (Proposition 2.5), we get
P1
deg(S/I) = deg(S/I) = ci=1
deg(S/qi ) ≥ c1 ,
as required.



Primary decompositions of graded lattice ideals. The aim here is to give explicitly the
minimal primary decomposition of a graded lattice ideal of dimension 1 in terms of the normal
decomposition of an integer matrix (see Section 2).
Let L be a lattice in Zs of rank s − 1 generated by a1 , . . . , am and let L be the s × m matrix
with column vectors a1 , . . . , am . There are invertible integer matrices P = (pij ) and Q such
that P LQ = Γ, where Γ = diag(γ1 , γ2 , . . . , γs−1 , 0, . . . , 0), with γi ∈ N+ and γi | γj if i ≤ j.
The torsion subgroup of Zs /L has order γ := γ1 · · · γs−1 . If pi,∗ denotes the i-th row of P , then
the last row of P satisfies gcd(ps,∗ ) = 1, ps,∗ L = 0 and L ⊂ ker(ps,∗ ). This follows using the
technique described in [28, p. 37] to solve systems of linear equations over the integers. Thus
ker(ps,∗ ) is equal to Ls , the saturation of L in the sense of [10]. For convenience recall that Ls
is the set of all a ∈ Zs such that ηa ∈ L for some 0 6= η ∈ Z.
For the rest of this section we suppose that K is a field containing the γs−1 -th roots of
unity with char(K) = 0 or char(K) = p, p a prime with p ∤ γs−1 . Under this assumption, the
lattice ideal I(L) is radical because char(K) = 0 or gcd(p, |T (Zs /L|) = 1 (see Theorem 2.7),
and for each i the polynomial z γi − 1 has
γi distinct roots in K. Write Λi to denote the set
Qs−1
of γi -th roots of unity in K and Λ = i=1
Λi . The set Λ is a group under componentwise
multiplication and |Λ| = γ. We also suppose that I(L) is graded with respect to a weight vector
d = (d1 , . . . , ds ) in Ns+ with gcd(d) = 1. Notice that d = ±ps,∗ . This means that in the nongraded case, ±ps,∗ can play the role of d. Consider a polynomial ring K[x1 ] in one variable. For
any λ = (λ1 , . . . , λs−1 ) ∈ Λ, there is an homomorphism of K-algebras
ϕλ : S → K[x1 ],

p

p

s−1,i di
ti 7−→ λ11,i · · · λs−1
x1 ,

i = 1, . . . , s.

The kernel of ϕλ , denoted by aλ , is a prime ideal of S of height s − 1 [30]. This type of ideal
was introduced in [30] to study the algebraic properties of PCB ideals.
The primary decomposition of an arbitrary lattice ideal over an algebraically closed field is
given in [10, Corollary 2.5]. This decomposition will be used to prove Theorem 4.6(c). The next
result shows an explicit primary decomposition for the class of ideals under consideration.
Theorem 3.3. If I(L) is a graded lattice ideal of dimension 1, then I(L) = ∩λ∈Λ aλ is the
minimal primary decomposition of I(L) into exactly γ primary components.
Proof. First of all, recall from Theorem 2.7 that I(L) is a radical ideal. For any λ = (λ1 , . . . , λs−1 )
in Λ, let ρλ : Ls → K ∗ be the partial character of Ls given by
Qs−1 pi,1 α1 +···+pi,s αs
λi
ρλ (α) = i=1
,
where α = (α1 , . . . , αs ).

Clearly ρλ is a group homomorphism. First we show the following two conditions: (i) ρλ (α) = 1
for α ∈ L; (ii) If ρλ (α) = 1 for all α ∈ Ls , then λ = (1, . . . , 1).

11

(i): Take α = (α1 , . . . , αs ) in L. To show ρλ (α) = 1 it suffices to prove:
(3.1)

pi,1 α1 + · · · + pi,s αs ≡ 0 mod(γi ) for all i.

As α is a linear combination of the columns of L, one has α⊤ = Lµ⊤ = P −1 ΓQ−1 µ⊤ for some
µ ∈ Zm . Hence
P α⊤ = ΓQ−1 µ⊤ = (η1 γ1 , . . . , ηs−1 γs−1 , 0)⊤
for some ηi ’s in Z. Thus Eq. (3.1) holds, as required.
(ii): Fix k such that 1 ≤ k ≤ s − 1. We set P −1 = (rij ) and denote by r∗,k the k-th column
−1 = I,
⊤
of P −1 . Then P −1 e⊤
k = r∗,k and P r∗,k = ek , where ek is the k-th unit vector. Since P P
we get that hpi,∗ , r∗,k i is 1 if i = k and is 0 otherwise. In particular hps,∗ , r∗,k i = 0, i.e, r∗,k is in
Ls = ker(ps,∗ ). Setting α⊤ = r∗,k and using that ρλ (α) = 1, we get that λk = 1.
+

−

Let Iλ be the ideal of S generated by all tα − ρλ (α)tα with α ∈ Ls . Let us see that
I(L) ⊂ Iλ ⊂ aλ for all λ ∈ Λ. The first inclusion follows from (i). To show the second inclusion
+
−
take f = tα − ρλ (α)tα in Iλ , with α ∈ Ls . It is easy to see that f ∈ ker(ϕλ ) using that
α ∈ ker(d) and the definition of ρλ . Hence, as aλ is a prime ideal of height s − 1 for all λ ∈ Λ,
we get that aλ is a primary component of I(L) for all λ ∈ Λ. We claim that aλ 6= aυ if λ 6= υ
and λ, υ ∈ Λ. To show this assume that aλ = aυ . Take an arbitrary α = (αi ) in Ls . Then
−
+
f = tα − ρλ (α)tα is in Iλ ⊂ aλ . Thus f ∈ aυ = ker(ϕυ ). It follows readily that ρλ (α) = ρυ (α).
Therefore ρλυ−1 (α) = 1 for all α ∈ Ls , and by (ii) λ = υ. This proves the claim. Altogether I(L)
has at least γ prime components and by Theorem 3.2(b) it has at most γ prime components.
Thus I(L) = ∩λ∈Λ aλ .

Remark 3.4. The ideal Iλ is called the lattice ideal of Ls relative to the partial character ρλ
−
+
[10]. Since aλ is a prime ideal generated by “binomials” of the form tα − ηtα , with η ∈ K ∗ , it
follows that the inclusion Iλ ⊂ aλ is an equality.
4. The degree of lattice and toric ideals
In this section we show that the homogenization of a lattice ideal (resp. toric ideal) is again
a lattice ideal (resp. toric ideal). For any toric or lattice ideal, we give formulae to compute the
degree in terms of the torsion of certain factor groups of Zs and in terms of relative volumes
of lattice polytopes. A general reference for connections between monomial subrings, Ehrhart
rings, polyhedra and volume is [5, Chapters 5 and 6] (see also [12, 34, 37]).
Let L ⊂ Zs be a lattice and
ei be the i-th unit vector in Zs+1 . For a = (ai ) ∈ Zs
Plet
s
define the value of a as |a| =
i=1 ai , and the homogenization of a with respect to es+1 as
h
a = (a, 0) − |a|es+1 if |a| ≥ 0 and ah = (−a)h if |a| < 0. The choice of the last coordinate of ah
is a convenience. The homogenization of L, denoted by Lh , is the lattice of Zs+1 generated by
all ah such that a ∈ L.
Lemma 4.1. Let I(L) ⊂ S be a lattice ideal and let f1 , . . . , fr be a set of binomials such that
the terms of fi have disjoint support for all i. Then the following hold.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

I(L)h ⊂ S[u] is a lattice ideal.
If L = hb1 , . . . , br i, then Lh = hbh1 , . . . , bhr i.
I(Lh ) = I(L)h .
If ((f1 , . . . , fr ) : (t1 · · · ts )∞ ) = I(L), then ((f1h , . . . , frh ) : (t1 · · · ts u)∞ ) = I(L)h .

Proof. We set I = I(L). Let ≻ denote the GRevLex order on S and on S[u], and let g1 , . . . , gm
h is a Gröbner basis of I h .
be the reduced Gröbner basis of I. By Lemma 2.4(a), g1h , . . . , gm

12

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

(a): As I h is a binomial ideal, by Theorem 2.9 we need only show that ti is a non-zero-divisor
of S[u]/I h for i = 1, . . . , s + 1, where ts+1 = u. First, we show the case i = s + 1. Assume that
uf ∈ I h for some f ∈ S[u]. By the Division Algorithm [11, Theorem 2.11], we can write
h
f = h1 g1h + · · · + hm gm
+ f,
h.
where h1 , . . . , hm , f are in S[u] and f is not divisible by any of the leading terms of g1h , . . . , gm
We claim that f = 0. If f 6= 0, then uf ∈ I h and consequently u in(f) ∈ in(I h ), where in(f) is the
leading term of f and in(I h ) is the initial ideal of I h . Hence, u in(f) is a multiple of in(gℓh ) for
some ℓ. Since u does not appear in the monomial in(gℓ ) = in(gℓh ), we get that in(f) is divisible by
in(gℓh ), a contradiction. Thus, f = 0 and f ∈ I h , as required. Next, we show the case 1 ≤ i ≤ s.
Assume that ti g ∈ I h for some i and some g in S[u]. As I h is graded, we may assume that g is
homogeneous of degree δ. Since u is a non-zero-divisor of S[u]/I h , we may assume that u does
not divides the leading term of g. If f = g(t1 , . . . , ts , 1), then deg(f ) = δ, f h = g and ti f ∈ I.
Hence f ∈ I. Therefore, as g1 , . . . , gm is a Gröbner basis, we can write f = h1 g1 + · · · + hm gm ,
where deg(f ) ≥ deg(hj gj ) for all j. It is not hard to see that g = f h ∈ I h , as required.
(b): By changing the sign of bi , if necessary, we may assume that |bi | ≥ 0 for all i. Clearly
h
L contains hbh1 , . . . , bhr i. Indeed, since bi ∈ L for all i, we get bhi ∈ Lh for all i. Now, we prove
that Lh is contained in hbh1 , . . . , bhr i. It suffices to show that ch ∈ hbh1 , . . . , bhr i for any c ∈ L
with |c| ≥ 0. By hypothesis, we can write c = λ1 b1 + · · · + λr br for some integers λ1 , . . . , λr .
Hence |c| = λ1 |b1 | + · · · + λr |br |. From the last two equalities, we obtain that ch is equal to
λ1 bh1 + · · · + λr bhr , as required.
+

−

(c): We can write gi = tai − tai , with |ai | ≥ 0, for i = 1, . . . , m. By Corollary 2.11, L is
generated by a1 , . . . , am . Then, by part (b), Lh is generated by ah1 , . . . , ahm . Notice that gih is
h −
h +
equal to t(ai ) − t(ai ) for all i. Therefore, using part (a) and Lemma 2.10, we get
I(L)h = (I(L)h : (t1 · · · ts u)∞ )
h +

h −

h

+

h

−

= ((t(a1 ) − t(a1 ) , . . . , t(am ) − t(am ) ) : (t1 · · · ts u)∞ ) = I(Lh ).
(d): This part follows from Lemma 2.10 and part (b).



±1
n
Let H = {xv1 , . . . , xvs } ⊂ K[x±1
1 , . . . , xn ] be a set of Laurent monomials, where vi ∈ Z , and
let K[H] be the K-subalgebra generated by H. There is an epimorphism of K-algebras

ϕ : S = K[t1 , . . . , ts ] −→ K[H],

ti 7−→ xvi .

The kernel of ϕ, denoted by P , is called the toric ideal of K[H]. In general, P is not a graded
ideal. Since S/P ≃ K[H], the degree of K[H] is defined to be the degree of S/P .
Lemma 4.2. Let P h ⊂ S[u] be the homogenization of P . Then the following hold.
(a) P h is the toric ideal of K[H ′ ] := K[z, xv2 −v1 z, . . . , xvs −v1 z, x−v1 z].
(b) The toric ideal of K[xv1 z, . . . , xvs z, z] is the toric ideal P h of K[H ′ ].
Proof. (a): The toric ideal of K[H ′ ], denoted by P ′ , is the kernel of the map ϕ : S[u] → K[H ′ ]
induced by ti 7→ xvi −v1 z for i = 1, . . . , s + 1, where vs+1 = 0 and ts+1 = u. Let G be the reduced
Gröbner basis of P with respect to the GRevLex order. First, we show the inclusion P h ⊂ P ′ .
Take an element f of G. By Lemma 2.4(a), it suffices to show that f h is in P ′ . We can write
−
+
+
−
+
f = ta − ta with in(f ) = ta . Thus, |a+ | ≥ |a− | and f h = ta − ta u|a| , where a = a+ − a− .
We set a = (a1 , . . . , as ). From the equality
0 = a1 v1 + · · · + as vs = a2 (v2 − v1 ) + · · · + as (vs − v1 ) + (a1 + · · · + as )v1 ,

13

we get that f h ∈ P ′ , as required. Let G′ be the reduced Gröbner basis of P ′ with respect to
the GRevLex order. Next we show the inclusion P ′ ⊂ P h . Take an element f ′ of G′ . It suffices
to show that f ′ is in P h . As f ′ is homogeneous in the standard grading of S[u], we can write
+
−
+
f ′ = tc − tc u|c| with in(f ′ ) = tc and c = (c1 , . . . , cs ). Since f ′ ∈ P ′ , we get
+

+

+

−

−

−

(z c1 )(xv2 −v1 z)c2 · · · (xvs −v1 z)cs = (z c1 )(xv2 −v1 z)c2 · · · (xvs −v1 z)cs (x−v1 z)|c| .
Hence, c2 (v2 − v1 ) + · · · + cs (vs − v1 ) = −|c|v1 . Consequently, c1 v1 + · · · + cs vs = 0, that is, the
−
+
binomial f = tc − tc is in P . As f ′ = f h , we get f ′ ∈ P h .
(b): The map that sends z to xv1 z induces an isomorphism K[H ′ ] → K[H ′′ ]. So this part is
an immediate consequence of (a).

Proposition 4.3. ([12, Proposition 3.5], [37, Corollary 5.35]) Let A = {α1 , . . . , αm } be a set of
points of Zn and let P = conv(A) be the convex hull of A. Then
|T (Zn /(α1 − αm , . . . , αm−1 − αm ))| deg(K[xα1 z, . . . , xαm z]) = r!vol(P),
where r = dim(P), vol(P) is the relative volume of P and z is a new variable.
Definition 4.4. The term r!vol(P) is called the normalized volume of P.
The next result holds for any toric ideal.
Theorem 4.5. Let P be the toric ideal of K[H] = K[xv1 , . . . , xvs ], let A be the n × s matrix
with column vectors v1 , . . . , vs and let r be the rank of A. Then
|T (Zn /hv1 , . . . , vs i)| deg(S/P ) = r!vol(conv(v1 , . . . , vs , 0)).
Proof. By Lemma 2.4(c), deg(S/P ) = deg(S[u]/P h ). On the other hand, by Lemma 4.2(b), P h
is the toric ideal of the monomial subring:
K[H ′′ ] = K[xv1 z, . . . , xvs z, z].
Hence S[u]/P h ≃ K[H ′′ ]. Therefore, setting m = s + 1, αi = vi for i = 1, . . . , m − 1, αm = 0
and A = {α1 , . . . , αm }, the result follows readily from Proposition 4.3.

We come to the main result of this section.
Theorem 4.6. Let L ⊂ Zs be a lattice of rank r. Then the following hold.
(a) If r = s, then deg(S/I(L)) = |Zs /L|.
(b) If r < s, there is an integer matrix A of size (s − r) × s with rank(A) = s − r such that
we have the containment of rank r lattices L ⊂ kerZ (A), with equality if and only if Zs /L
is torsion-free.
(c) If r < s and v1 , . . . , vs are the columns of A, then
deg(S/I(L)) =

|T (Zs /L)|(s − r)!vol(conv(0, v1 , . . . , vs ))
.
|T (Zs−r /hv1 , . . . , vs i)|

Proof. (a): By Lemma 2.4(c), deg(S/I(L)) = deg(S[u]/I(L)h ), and by Lemma 4.1(c), I(L)h =
I(Lh ). Since S[u]/I(Lh ) has dimension 1, by [21, Theorem 3.12] the degree of S[u]/I(Lh )
−
+
−
+
is |T (Zs+1 /Lh )|. Let ta1 − ta1 , . . . , tam − tam be a set of generators of I(L). By Corollary 2.11, L is generated by a1 , . . . , am . We may assume that |ai | ≥ 0 for all i. Then, by
Lemma 4.1(b), Lh is generated by ah1 , . . . , ahm . Let A and Ah be the matrices with rows a1 , . . . , am
and ah1 , . . . , ahm , respectively. Notice that Ah is obtained from A by adding the column vector
b = (−|a1 |, . . . , −|am |)⊤ . Since b is a linear combination of the columns of A, by the fundamental

14

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

theorem of finitely generated abelian groups (see [17, p. 187] and Theorem 2.13), we get that
the groups Zs /L and Zs+1 /Lh have the same torsion. Thus, |Zs /L| is equal to |T (Zs+1 /Lh )|.
Altogether, the degree of S/I(L) is the order of Zs /L.
(b): We may assume that L = Zα1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Zαr , where α1 , . . . , αs is a Q-basis of Qs . Consider
the hyperplane Hi of Qs generated by α1 , . . . , α
bi , . . . , αs . Note that the subspace of Qs generated
by α1 , . . . , αr is equal to Hr+1 ∩ · · · ∩ Hs . There is a normal vector wi ∈ Zs such that
Hi = {α ∈ Qs | hα, wi i = 0}.

It is not hard to see that the matrix A with rows wr+1 , . . . , ws is the matrix with the required
conditions, because, by construction, αi ∈ Hj for i 6= j and consequently wr+1 , . . . , ws are
linearly independent. In particular we have the equality rank(L) = rank(kerZ (A)).
(c): By Proposition 2.8 and Lemma 3.1(b), we may assume that K is algebraically closed of
characteristic zero. Let P be the toric ideal of K[xv1 , . . . , xvs ] over the field K. By Theorem 4.5,
we need only show the equality
deg(S/I(L)) = |T (Zs /L)| deg(S/P ).
Let Ls = {a ∈ Zs | ηa ∈ L for some η ∈ Z \ {0}} be the saturation of L. By part (b), Ls is
equal to kerZ (A). We set c = |T (Zs /L)|. Notice that T (Zs /L) = Ls /L. Recall that a partial
character of Ls is a homomorphism from the additive group Ls to the multiplicative group
K ∗ = K \ {0}. According to [10, Corollaries 2.2 and 2.5], there exist distinct partial characters
ρ1 , . . . , ρc of Ls , extending the trivial character ρ(a) = 1 for a ∈ L, such that the minimal
primary decomposition of I(L) is given by
I(L) = Iρ1 (Ls ) ∩ · · · ∩ Iρc (Ls ),
+

−

where Iρi (Ls ) is a prime ideal generated by all ta − ρi (a)ta with a ∈ Ls . As P is a minimal
prime of I(L) by part (b), we may assume ρ1 (a) = 1 for a ∈ Ls , i.e., P = Iρ1 (Ls ). By the
additivity of the degree (see Proposition 2.5), we get
deg(S/I(L)) = deg(S/Iρ1 (Ls )) + · · · + deg(S/Iρc (Ls )).
Therefore, it suffices to show that deg(S/P ) = deg(S/Iρk (Ls )) for k = 1, . . . , c. The ideal
Iρk (Ls ) contains no monomials because it is a prime ideal. Let ≻ be the GRevLex order on
S and let G = {g1 , . . . , gm } be the reduced Gröbner basis of P with respect to ≻. We can
−
+
+
−
+
write gi = tai − tai for i = 1, . . . , m, with in(gi ) = tai . We set gi′ = tai − ρk (ai )tai and
′ }. Next, we show that G is a Gröbner basis of I (L ). Let f 6= 0 be an
Gk = {g1′ , . . . , gm
ρk
s
k
arbitrary (non-necessarily pure) binomial of Iρk (Ls ). We claim that f reduces to zero with
respect to Gk in the sense of [11, p. 23]. By the Division Algorithm (see [11, Theorem 2.11]),
we can write
′
f = h1 g1′ + · · · + hm gm
+ g,
′
where in(f ) ≻ in(hi gi ) for all i, and g is a binomial (non-necessarily pure) in Iρk (Ls ) such that
+
+
none of the two terms of g is divisible by any of the monomials ta1 , . . . , tam . We can write
+

−

g = µ(ta − λtb ) = µtδ (tu − λtu ),
+

−

with µ, λ ∈ K ∗ and a − b = u+ − u− . As tu − λtu is in Iρk (Ls ), it can be seen that u = u+ − u−
−
+
is in Ls . Since tu − ρk (u)tu ∈ Iρk (Ls ), we get that λ = ρk (u). If g 6= 0, we obtain that
+
+
−
+
tu − tu , being in P , has one of its terms in the ideal in(P ) = (ta1 , . . . , tam ), a contradiction.
Thus, g must be zero, i.e., f reduces to zero with respect to Gk . This proves the claim. In
particular, we obtain that Iρk (Ls ) is generated by Gk . To show that Gk is a Gröbner basis, note

15

that the S-polynomial of gi′ and gj′ is a binomial; thus, by the claim, it reduces to zero with
respect to Gk . Therefore by Buchberger’s criterion [9, Theorem 6, p. 84], Gk is a Gröbner basis
of Iρk (Ls ). Hence, S/P and S/Iρk (Ls ) have the same degree.

Remark 4.7. Part (b) is well-known. The proof given here is constructive and can be used—in
one of the steps—to compute the degree of an arbitrary lattice ideal (see Example 4.12).
The program Normaliz [6] computes normalized volumes of lattice polytopes using polyhedral
geometry. Thus we can compute the degree of any lattice ideal using Theorem 4.6. Next we
give some applications and present some examples.
Corollary 4.8. If d1 , . . . , ds are positive integers and I is the toric ideal of K[xd11 , . . . , xd1s ], then
gcd(d1 , . . . , ds ) deg(S/I) = max{d1 , . . . , ds }.
Proof. We may assume that d1 ≤ · · · ≤ ds . The order of T (Z/hd1 , . . . , ds i) is gcd(d1 , . . . , ds ).
Then, by Theorem 4.5, we get that gcd(d1 , . . . , ds ) deg(S/I) is vol([0, ds ]) = ds .

Corollary 4.9. If I(L) is a lattice ideal of dimension 1 which is homogeneous with respect to a
positive vector (d1 , . . . , ds ), then
gcd(d1 , . . . , ds ) deg(S/I(L)) = max{d1 , . . . , ds }|T (Zs /L)|.
Proof. Let A be the 1 × s matrix (d1 , . . . , ds ). By hypothesis L ⊂ kerZ (A). The order of
T (Z/hd1 , . . . , ds i) is gcd(d1 , . . . , ds ). Then, by Theorem 4.6, we get
deg(S/I(L)) =

T (Zs /L)vol(conv(0, d1 , . . . , ds ))
|T (Zs /L)| max{d1 , . . . , ds }
=
,
T (Z/hd1 , . . . , ds i)
gcd(d1 , . . . , ds )

as required.



For 1-dimensional lattice ideals that are not necessarily homogeneous, we can express the
degree in terms of a basis of the lattice (see Example 8.14).
Corollary 4.10. Let L ⊂ Zs be a lattice of rank s − 1 and let α1 , . . . , αs−1 be a Z-basis of L. If
αi = (α1,i , . . . , αs,i ), for i = 1, . . . , s − 1, and


α1,1
 ..
 .

αi−1,1
i
vi = (−1) det 
αi+1,1

 .
 ..
αs,1


α1,s−1

..

.

. . . αi−1,s−1 
 , for i = 1, . . . , s,
. . . αi+1,s−1 


..

.
. . . αs,s−1

...

then deg(S/I(L)) = max{v1 , . . . , vs , 0} − min{v1 , . . . , vs , 0}.
Proof. Let B be the s × (s − 1) matrix with columns α1 , . . . , αs−1 and let A be the 1 × s matrix
(v1 , . . . , vs ). We set r = s − 1. The order of T (Zs /L) is equal to gcd(v1 , . . . , vs ), the gcd of
the r × r minors of B. The order of T (Z/hv1 , . . . , vs i) is also equal to gcd(v1 , . . . , vs ). Since
AB = 0, we obtain that L ⊂ ker(A). Hence, by Theorem 4.6, we get that deg(S/I(L)) is equal
to vol(conv(0, v1 , . . . , vs )) which is equal to max{v1 , . . . , vs , 0} − min{v1 , . . . , vs , 0}.

The next examples illustrates how to use Theorems 4.5 and 4.6 to compute the degree.

16

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

Example 4.11. Let P be the toric ideal of the monomial subring
−1
−1
−1
−1
−1
−1
K[H] = K[x2 x−1
1 , x3 x2 , x4 x3 , x1 x4 , x5 x2 , x3 x5 , x4 x5 ].

We employ the notation of Theorem 4.5. The rank of A is 4 and the height of P is 3. Using
Normaliz, we get
4!vol(conv(v1 , . . . , v7 , 0)) = 11.
5
As the group Z /hv1 , . . . , v7 i is torsion free, by Theorem 4.5 we have deg(K[t1 , . . . , t7 ]/P ) = 11.
Example 4.12. Let K be the field of rational numbers and let L be the lattice generated by
a1 = (2, 1, 1, 1, −1, −1, −1, −2),
a3 = (2, −1, 1, −2, 1, −1, 1, −1),

a2 = (1, 1, −1, −1, 1, 1, −1, −1),
a4 = (5, −5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0).

We use the notation of Theorem 4.6. The lattice L has rank 4 and a1 , . . . , a4 , e1 , e3 , e4 , e5 form
a Q-basis of Q8 . In this case we obtain the matrix


4 4 0 0 0 −1
1
6
 0 0 1 0 0
1
0
0 

A=
 0 0 0 4 0
7
9 −6 
0 0 0 0 2 −3 −3
2

whose columns are denoted by v1 , . . . , v8 . Let P be the toric ideal of K[xv1 , . . . , xv8 ]. Therefore,
by Theorem 4.6, we get
(5)(200)
5(4)!vol(conv(0, v1 , . . . , v8 ))
=
= 125.
deg(S/I(L)) = |T (Z8 /L)| deg(S/P ) =
4
|T (Z /hv1 , . . . , v8 i)|
8
The normalized volume of the polytope conv(0, v1 , . . . , v8 ) was computed using Normaliz [6].
5. Primary decompositions of homogeneous binomial ideals

In this part we present some applications of the main result of Section 3 to the theory of
graded binomial ideals and graded lattice ideals of dimension 1. We continue to employ the
notations and definitions used in Section 2.
Given a subset I ⊂ S, its variety, denoted by V (I), is the set of all a ∈ AsK such that f (a) = 0
for all f ∈ I, where AsK denotes affine s-space over K. In this section we focus on homogeneous
binomial ideals I of S with V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i.
Lemma 5.1. Let I be a homogeneous binomial ideal of S such that V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i.
Then, for any associated prime p of I, either p = m, or else p ( m, ti 6∈ p for all i and
ht(p) = s − 1. Moreover, ht(I) = s − 1.
Proof. Since I is homogeneous, any associated prime p of I is homogeneous too. Hence I ⊂ p ⊂
m. In particular, (I, t1 ) ⊂ m. Let q be any minimal prime ideal over (I, t1 ). By [20, Lemma 2.6],
q = m and so s = ht(I, t1 ) ≤ ht(I) + 1 (here we use the fact that I is homogeneous). Thus
ht(I) ≥ s − 1. Suppose that p is an associated prime of I, p 6= m. Then ti 6∈ p for all i, because
if some ti ∈ p, (I, ti ) ⊂ p, and by [20, Lemma 2.6] again, p would be equal to m. In particular,
ht(p) = s − 1. Finally ht(I) = s − 1, otherwise m would be the only associated prime of I. Thus
m = rad(I), a contradiction because I cannot contain a power of ti for any i = 1, . . . , s.

The assumption that I is homogeneous in the result above is crucial.
Example 5.2. Let S = K[t1 , t2 , t3 ] and I = (t1 t2 t3 − 1)m. Clearly V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i.
However, ht(I) = 1 and ht(I, ti ) = 3 for all i.

17

An ideal I is said to be unmixed if all of its associated primes have the same height (see, e.g.,
[38, p. 196]). We write Hull(I) for the intersection of the isolated primary components of I.
Proposition 5.3. Let I be a graded binomial ideal of S such that V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i. The
following conditions are equivalent:
(a) I is a lattice ideal; (b) I = (I : (t1 · · · ts )∞ ); (c) ti is regular modulo I for all i;
(d) I = (I : t1 ); (e) I is Cohen-Macaulay; (f ) I is unmixed; (g) I = Hull(I).
Proof. The equivalences among (a), (b) and (c) follow from Theorem 2.9. By Lemma 5.1, (f ) and
(g) are equivalent. Clearly (c) ⇒ (d). By Lemma 5.1, ht(I) = s−1 and, for any associated prime
p of I, either p = m, or else p ( m, ht(p) = s − 1 and t1 · · · ts 6∈ p. Therefore I has a minimal
primary decomposition either of the form I = q1 ∩ · · ·∩ qc = Hull(I), or else I = q1 ∩ · · ·∩ qc ∩ q =
Hull(I) ∩ q, where the qi are pi -primary ideals with ht(pi ) = s − 1, and q is m-primary. Therefore
c
∞
c
(e) and (f ) are equivalent. Moreover, either (I : t∞
1 ) = ∩i=1 (qi : t1 ) = ∩i=1 qi = Hull(I), or
∞
c
∞
∞
c
∞
else (I : t1 ) = ∩i=1 (qi : t1 ) ∩ (q : t1 ) = ∩i=1 qi = Hull(I), since (q : t1 ) = S. In both cases,
Hull(I) = (I : t∞
1 ).
Suppose (d) holds. Then I = (I : t1 ) = (I : t∞
1 ) = Hull(I) and I is unmixed. Thus (d) ⇒ (f ).
Suppose (f ) holds. Then m is not an associated prime of I, and, by Lemma 5.1, ti cannot be in
any associated prime of I, so each ti is regular modulo I and (c) holds.

Definition 5.4. Let L be an s × m integer matrix, let l∗,i be the i-th column of L and let
+

−

fi = tl∗,i − tl∗,i be the binomial of S = K[t1 , . . . , ts ] defined by l∗,i . We call I(L) := (f1 , . . . , fm )
the matrix ideal associated to L.
Whenever I(L) is graded with respect to a weight vector d = (d1 , . . . , ds ) ∈ Ns+ , we can and
will suppose, without loss of generality, that gcd(d) = 1.
Definition 5.5. [30, p. 397] Let d = (d1 , . . . , ds ) ∈ Ns+ . The Herzog ideal associated to d,
denote by pd , is the toric ideal of K[xd11 , . . . , xd1s ], where x1 is a variable.
Remark 5.6. Let I(L) = (f1 , . . . , fm ) be the matrix ideal associated to an s × m integer matrix
L. The following conditions are equivalent.
(a) There exists an N-grading of S, with each ti of weight di > 0, under which each fi is
homogeneous of positive degree;
(b) There exists d = (d1 , . . . , ds ) ∈ Ns+ such that dL = 0;
(c) There exists d = (d1 , . . . , ds ) ∈ Ns+ with I(L) ⊂ pd , the Herzog ideal associated to d.
We give now a result on the structure of graded matrix ideals.
Proposition 5.7. Let I be the matrix ideal of an s × m integer matrix L and let L be the lattice
spanned by the columns of L. Suppose that I is graded and that V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i. Then:
(a) I has a minimal primary decomposition either of the form I = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qc , if I is
unmixed, or else I = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qc ∩ q, if I is not unmixed, where the qi are pi -primary
ideals with ht(pi ) = s − 1, and q is an m-primary ideal.
(b) For all g ∈ m \ ∪ci=1 pi , I(L) = (I : (t1 · · · ts )∞ ) = (I : g ∞ ) = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qc = Hull(I).
(c) rank(L) = s − 1 and there exists a unique Herzog ideal pd containing I.
(d) If I is not unmixed and h = t1 · · · ts , there exists a ∈ N+ such that I(L) = (I : ha ),
q = I + (ha ) is an irredundant m-primary component of I and I = I(L) ∩ q.

18

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

(e) Either c ≤ |T (Zs /L)|, if char(K) = 0, or else c ≤ |G|, if char(K) = p, p a prime, where
G is the unique largest subgroup of T (Zs /L) whose order is relatively prime to p. If K
is algebraically closed, then equality holds.
Proof. We set h = t1 · · · ts . Item (a) follows from Lemma 5.1 (see the proof of Proposition 5.3).
By Lemma 2.10, I(L) = (I : h∞ ), which proves the first equality in (b). Let g ∈ m \ ∪ci=1 pi .
Suppose that I = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qc . Then, for any a ∈ N+ , we have (I : ga ) = ∩cj=1 (qj : ga ) = ∩cj=1 qj ,
because ga 6∈ pj and qj is pj -primary. Suppose that I = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qc ∩ q. Then, for a ≫ 0,
(I : ga ) = (I : g ∞ ) and g a ∈ ma ⊂ q, so that (q : ga ) = S. Thus (I : ga ) = ∩cj=1 (qj : ga )∩(q : ga ) =
∩cj=1 qj . In either case, one has the equality (I : g∞ ) = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qc , which coincides with Hull(I).
By a similar calculation, we get (I : h∞ ) = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qc .
In particular, using (b), ht(I) = ht(I(L)). Since ht(I(L)) = rank(L) = rank(L), it follows
that rank(L) = s − 1. Since I is homogeneous, by Remark 5.6, there exists d ∈ Ns+ such that
I ⊂ pd , the Herzog ideal associated to d. Since rank(L⊤ ) = rank(L) = s − 1, then ker(L⊤ ) is
generated as a Q-linear subspace by d⊤ . Thus pd is the unique Herzog ideal containing I (see
[30, Remark 3.2]). This proves (c).
Suppose that I is not unmixed. As S is a Noetherian ring, there exists a ∈ N+ such that
(I : ha ) = (I : h∞ ). By [10, Proposition 7.2], I = (I : ha ) ∩ (I + (ha )), where (I : ha ) = I(L) is the
hull of I. Since I is not unmixed, I + (ha ) must be irredundant. Moreover, by [20, Lemma 2.6],
the only prime ideal containing I + (ha ) is m. It follows that I + (ha ) is m-primary. This proves
(d). Finally, (e) follows from Theorem 3.2(b).

Let I be the matrix ideal associated to an s × m integer matrix L. The conditions I homogeneous and rank(L) = s − 1 do not imply that V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i.
Example 5.8. L be the matrix with column vectors (2, −2, 0) and (−2, 1, 1) and let I be its
matrix ideal (t21 − t22 , t21 − t2 t3 ). Clearly I is homogeneous (with the standard grading) and
rank(L) = 2. However (0, 0, λ) ∈ V (I, t1 ) for any λ ∈ K.
As a consequence of the previous result, we obtain the following.
Corollary 5.9. Let I = I(L) be the matrix ideal associated to an s × m integer matrix L. Let
L be the lattice spanned by the columns of L. Suppose that I is homogeneous with respect to a
weight vector d = (d1 , . . . , ds ) ∈ Ns+ and that V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i. Then
deg(S/I) = max{d1 , . . . , ds }|T (Zs /L)| = max{d1 , . . . , ds }∆s−1 (L).
Proof. By Proposition 5.7, Hull(I) = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qc = I(L). Thus, by Proposition 2.5,
P
deg(S/I) = cj=1 deg(S/qj ) = deg(S/I(L)).

By Corollary 4.9, we have deg(S/I(L)) = max{d1 , . . . , ds }|T (Zs /L)|. To complete the proof
notice that, by Theorem 2.13, one has |T (Zs /L)| = ∆s−1 (L) .

6. Generalized positive critical binomial ideals
We continue to employ the notations and definitions used in Section 1. In this section we
restrict to the study of certain classes of square integer matrices (see Definition 1.1) and their
corresponding matrix ideals.
Recall that the support of a polynomial f ∈ S, denoted by supp(f ), is defined as the set of
all variables ti that occur in f .

19

Proposition 6.1. Let I = I(L) = (f1 , . . . , fs ) be the matrix ideal associated to an s × s PB
matrix L. Suppose that |supp(fj )| ≥ 4, for all j = 1, . . . , s. Then:
(a) I is not a lattice ideal.
(b) If V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i, then m is an associated prime of I.
(c) If I is graded and V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i, then I has a minimal primary decomposition
of the form I = q1 ∩ · · · ∩ qc ∩ q, where the qi are pi -primary ideals with ht(pi ) = s − 1,
and q = (I, (t1 · · · ts )a ) is an m-primary ideal, for some a ∈ N+ . Moreover, I has at
most |T (Zs /L)| + 1 primary components.
a

a

a

Proof. Assume that I is a lattice ideal. There is k > 1 such that f1 = t11,1 − tkk,1 · · · ts s,1 and
a
ak−1,k ak+1,k
a
a
tk+1 · · · ts s,k , with ak,1 > 0. We claim that a1,1 > a1,k . If a1,1 ≤ a1,k ,
fk = tkk,k − t11,k · · · tk−1
then from the equality
a

a

a
ak−1,k ak+1,k
−a1,1 a2,k
tk+1 · · · ts s,k
t2 · · · tk−1
ak−1,k ak+1,k
a
a
tk+1
+(tkk,k − t11,k · · · tk−1
ak−1,k ak,1 ak+1,k +ak+1,1
a +a
· · · tk−1
tk tk+1
· · · ts s,k s,1
a

a

(t11,1 − tkk,1 · · · ts s,1 )t11,k
a

a

tkk,k − t11,k

−a1,1 a2,k
t2

a

· · · ts s,k ) =
=: tk g 6= 0,

one has tk g ∈ I. As tk is a nonzero divisor of S/I, we get g ∈ I. Thus, g is a linear combination
a −1
a −1
is a
with coefficients in S of f1 , . . . , fs . Since tkk,k is a term of g, we conclude that tkk,k
multiple of some term of fi for some i 6= k, a contradiction to the fact that, a fortiori, supp(fi )
has at least 3 variables. This proves a1,1 > a1,k . Moreover, from the equality
a

a

a

a

a

a

k+1,k
k−1,k
· · · ts s,k )t11,1
tk+1
(tkk,k − t11,k · · · tk−1

a

a

a

−a1,k

a

a

a

a

k+1,k
k−1,k
· · · ts s,k =
tk+1
+(t11,1 − tkk,1 · · · ts s,1 )t22,k · · · tk−1

a

a

tkk,k t11,1

−a1,k

a

a

a

a

−1 a

−a

k+1,k
k−1,k
tkk,1 tk+1
− t22,k · · · tk−1

a

+ak+1,1

a

· · · ts s,k

+as,1

=: tk g ′ 6= 0,

the argument above shows that tkk,k t11,1 1,k is a multiple of some term of fi for some i, a
contradiction to the fact that supp(fi ) has at least 4 variables. Hence I is not a lattice ideal.
Since I is not a lattice ideal, ti is a zero divisor of S/I for some i. Then some associated
prime p of I contains ti . Hence, by [20, Lemma 2.6], p is equal to m, which proves (b). Since
I is not a lattice ideal, I is not unmixed (see Proposition 5.3). The rest follows on applying
Proposition 5.7.

Proposition 6.2. Let g1 , . . . , gs be the binomials defined by the rows of a GCB matrix L and
let I be the ideal generated by g1 , . . . , gs . If V (I, ti ) = {0} and |supp(gi )| ≥ 3 for all i, then I is
not a complete intersection.
Proof. We may assume that gi corresponds to the i-th row of L. We proceed by contradiction.
Assume that I is a complete intersection. As I is graded, since L is a GCB matrix, and the
height of I is s − 1, we may assume that g1 , . . . , gs−1 generate I. Hence, we can write
a

a

a

s,s−1
gs = ts s,s − t1s,1 · · · ts−1
= h1 g1 + · · · + hs−1 gs−1

a

for some h1 , . . . , hs−1 in S, where as,s > 0. Therefore, the monomial ts s,s has to occur in the
right hand side of this equation, a contradiction to the fact that |supp(gi )| ≥ 3 for all i.

In what follows, we examine GPCB matrices—a natural extension of the PCB matrices introduced in [30]—and the algebra of their matrix ideals. The class of GPCB matrices is closed
under transposition, as the next result shows.

20

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

Theorem 6.3. Let L be an integer matrix of size s × s with rows ℓ1 , . . . , ℓs and let (Li,j ) be the
adjoint matrix of L. Suppose Lb⊤ = 0 for some b in Ns+ . The following hold.
(a) If rank(ℓ1 , . . . , ℓbi , . . . , ℓs ) = s − 1 and Li,i ≥ 0 for all i, then cL = 0 for some c ∈ Ns+ .
(b) If Li,i > 0 for all i, then cL = 0 for some c ∈ Ns+ .
(c) If L is a GCB matrix and rank(ℓ1 , . . . , ℓbi , . . . , ℓs ) = s − 1 for all i, then L⊤ is a GCB
matrix.
(d) If L is a GPCB matrix, then rank(L) = s − 1 and L⊤ is a GPCB matrix.
(e) If s = 3 and L is a GCB matrix, then rank(L) = 2 and L⊤ is a GCB matrix.
Proof. (a): Let Li be the i-th column of adj(L) = (Li,j ). Since ℓ1 , . . . , ℓbi , . . . , ℓs are linearly
independent, we get Li 6= 0. The vector b generates kerQ (L) because L has rank s − 1 and
Lb⊤ = 0. Then, because of the equality Ladj(L) = 0, we can write Li = µi b for some µi ∈ Q.
Notice that µi > 0 because Li,i ≥ 0 and b ∈ Ns+ . Hence, all entries of adj(L) are positive
integers. If c is any row of adj(L), we get cL = 0 because adj(L)L = 0.
(b): For any i, the vectors are ℓ1 , . . . , ℓbi , . . . , ℓs are linearly independent because Li,i > 0.
Thus this part follows from (a).
(c): Let L be a GCB matrix as in Definition 1.1, Eq. (1.1). (c1 ): First we treat the case
b = 1 = (1, . . . , 1), i.e., the case where L is a CB matrix. By part (a) it suffices to show that
Li,i ≥ 0 for all i. Let Hi,i be the submatrix of L obtained by eliminating the i-th row and i-th
column. By the Gershgorin Circle Theorem, every (possibly complex) eigenvalue
λ of Hi,i lies
P
within at least one of the discs {z ∈ C| kz − aj,j k ≤ rj }, j 6= i, where rj = u6=i,j | − aj,u | ≤ aj,j
since L1⊤ = 0 and ai,j ≥ 0 for all i, j. If λ ∈ R, we get |λ − aj,j | ≤ aj,j , and consequently
λ ≥ 0. If λ ∈
/ R, then since Hi,i is a real matrix, its conjugate λ must also be an eigenvalue of
Hi,i . Since det(Hi,i ) is the product of the s − 1 (possibly repeated) eigenvalues of Hi,i , we get
Li,i ≥ 0. This argument is adapted from the proof of [30, Lemma 2.1]. (c2 ): Now, we treat the
general case. Let B be the s × s diagonal matrix diag(b1 , . . . , bs ), where b = (b1 , . . . , bs ), and
e = LB. Notice that L1
e ⊤ = 0 because Lb⊤ = 0, and L
e is a CB matrix because L is a GCB
let L
e i,j ) be the adjoint matrix of L.
e Since bi > 0 for all i, by the multilinearity of the
matrix. Let (L
e i,j 6= 0. Hence, any set of s − 1 rows of L
e is
determinant, it follows that Li,j 6= 0 if and only if L
e we obtain that L
e ⊤ is a GCB matrix.
linearly independent. Therefore, applying case (c1 ) to L,
⊤
s
e = 0. Then, cL = 0, i.e., L is a GCB matrix, as required.
Thus, there is c ∈ N+ such that cL
(d): Let L be a GPCB matrix. By the argument given in (c1 ), it follows readily that Li,i > 0
for all i. In particular the rank of L is s − 1. Hence, by part (b), L⊤ is a GPCB matrix.
(e): Let L be a GCB matrix with s = 3. It is easy to see that Li,j > 0 for i 6= j. In particular
L has rank 2 and any two rows of L are linearly independent. Then by (c), L⊤ is a GCB
matrix.

e := LB the associated CB matrix of L.
Following the proof of (c) above, we call L

Lemma 6.4. Let L be a GCB matrix of size s × s. If rank(L) = s − 1, then any set of s − 1
columns is linearly independent.
Proof. Let ℓ∗,1 , . . . , ℓ∗,s be the columns of L. By hypothesis, there is b = (b1 , . . . , bs ) ∈ Ns+ such
that Lb⊤ = 0. Thus it suffices to observe that b1 ℓ∗,1 + · · · + bs ℓ∗,s = 0.


21

Example 6.5. Let L be the 4 × 4 integer matrix of rank 3:

5 −2
0 −1
 0
1 −1
0 

L=
 0 −1
1
0 
−1
0 −1
4


Then L is a GCB matrix, where Lb⊤ = 0 if b = (9, 19, 19, 7) but L⊤ is not a GCB matrix
because rows 2, 3 and 4 are linearly dependent (see Lemma 6.4).
Remark 6.6. Observe that if I = I(L) is a GPCB ideal associated to a GPCB matrix L, then
a
a
(I, t1 ) = (t1 , t22,2 , . . . , ts s,s ), rad(I, t1 ) = m and V (I, t1 ) = {0} (and similarly V (I, ti ) = {0} for
all the other variables). Moreover, by Theorem 6.3, I is homogeneous. Therefore, one can apply
to GPCB ideals most of the results of the previous section.
In what follows, we extend to GPCB ideals some properties that hold for PCB ideals. First
of all, using Theorem 6.3, we get that [30, Proposition 3.3(a)–(c)] holds for any GPCB ideal
provided that we assume s ≥ 3 in part (c). Regarding the (un)mixedness property of GPCB
ideals, observe that Proposition 5.7 generalizes [30, Proposition 4.1].
To simplify notations and to avoid repetitions, for the rest of this section we assume that L
is a GPCB matrix with b = (b1 , . . . , bs ) ∈ Ns+ , gcd(b) = 1 and Lb⊤ = 0. If char(K) = p, p a
prime, since gcd(b) = 1, then on reordering the variables, one can always suppose without loss
of generality that p ∤ bs . From now on and until the end of the section, we will suppose that, if
char(K) = p > 0, then p ∤ bs . The entries of L are denoted by ai,i and −ai,j if i 6= j. As in the
e := LB, where B := diag(b1 , ..., bs ), denotes the so-called
proof of Theorem 6.3(c), the matrix L
PCB matrix associated to L.
Proposition 6.7. (cf. [30, Remark 3.4]) Let I = I(L) = (f1 , . . . , fs ) be the ideal of a GPCB
e be the PCB matrix associated to L. For i = 1, . . . , s, let xi = tai,i and
matrix L and let L
i
a1,i
ai−1,i ai+1,i
a
yi = t1 · · · ti−1 ti+1 · · · ts s,i be the two terms of fi , so that fi = xi − yi . If bi = 1, set gi = 1
P i −1 bi −1−j j−1
Pi
jxi
yi ∈ S and
xbi i −j yij−1 ∈ S. Let qi = bj=1
and qi = 0. If bi > 1, set gi = bj=1
b(1) = (0, 0, b3,3 − b3,4 − · · · − b3,s − b3,1 , b4,4 − b4,5 − · · · − b4,s − b4,1 , . . . , bs,s − bs,1 ) ∈ Ns ,
b(2) = (b1,1 − b1,2 , 0, 0, b4,4 − b4,5 − · · · − b4,s − b4,1 − b4,2 , . . . , bs,s − bs,1 − bs,2 ) ∈ Ns ,
b(3) = (b1,1 − b1,2 − b1,3 , b2,2 − b2,3 , 0, 0, . . . , bs,s − bs,1 − bs,2 − bs,3 ) ∈ Ns , . . . ,
b(s − 1) = (b1,1 − b1,2 − · · · − b1,s−1 , . . . , bs−2,s−2 − bs−2,s−1 , 0, 0) ∈ Ns and
b(s) = (0, b2,2 − b2,3 − · · · − b2,s , b3,3 − b3,4 − · · · − b3,s , . . . , bs−1,s−1 − bs−1,s , 0) ∈ Ns ,

e Then, for each i = 1, . . . , s,
where bi,i and −bi,j , i 6= j, are the entries of L.
(a) gi is homogeneous and tb(1) g1 f1 + . . . + tb(s) gs fs = 0;
(b) qi fi = gi − bi yibi −1 .

In particular, bi yibi −1 tb(i) fi ∈ (f1 , . . . , fi−1 , fi+1 , . . . , fs ) + I 2 .
e the PCB matrix associated to L, one gets the syzygy
Proof. Applying [30, Remark 3.4] to L,
b(1)
b(s)
e
e
e
e Note that
t f1 + . . . + t fs = 0, where fi is the binomial defined by the i-th column of L.
b
−j
j
b
b
b
−1
b
−1
fei = fel∗,i = xi i − yi i = (xi − yi )(xi i + · · · + xi i yi + · · · + yi i ) = fi gi (even if bi = 1). It
follows that tb(1) g1 f1 + . . . + tb(s) gs fs = 0. Since dL = 0 for some d ∈ Ns+ (see Theorem 6.3),

22

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

e = 0 and fei is homogeneous. Since fei = fi gi and S is a domain, gi is homogeneous
clearly dL
too. This proves (a). On the other hand, one has the following identity:
qi fi = (xbi i −2 + 2xbi i −3 yi + · · · + (bi − 1)yibi −2 )(xi − yi ) =

xbi i −1 + xbi i −2 yi + · · · + xi yibi −2 − (bi − 1)yibi −1 = gi − bi yibi −1 .
To see where this equality comes from, consider the polynomials f = X − Y and g = X b−1 +
X b−2 Y + · · · + Y b−1 in a polynomial ring K[X, Y ], where b is a positive integer. Set Z = X/Y
and dehomogenize f and g to obtain u = Z − 1 and v = Z b−1 + Z b−2 + · · · + 1 in the Euclidean
domain K[Z]. If char(K) = 0 or char(K) = p, p a prime with p ∤ b, u and v are relatively prime.
The Euclidean Algorithm explicitly gives us two polynomials α, β ∈ K[Z] with αu + βv = 1.
On rehomogenizing and multiplying by b one gets the desired identity, which holds in any
characteristic. This proves (b). Finally, on multiplying the equality qi fi = gi − bi yibi −1 by tb(i) fi ,
one gets bi yibi −1 tb(i) fi = tb(i) gi fi − qi tb(i) fi2 ∈ (f1 , . . . , fi−1 , fi+1 , . . . , fs ) + I 2 .

Lemma 6.8. Let I(L) = (f1 , . . . , fs ) be the ideal of a GPCB matrix L. Then, any subset of
s − 1 elements of f1 , . . . , fs is a regular sequence in S.
Proof. The ideal I(L) is graded by Theorem 6.3. Thus the lemma follows using the proof of [30,
Proposition 3.3].

The following result generalizes [30, Proposition 3.5].
Corollary 6.9. Let I = I(L) be the ideal of a GPCB matrix L. Then the following hold.
(a) For any associated prime p of I, either ht(p) = s − 1 and ti 6∈ p, for all i = 1, . . . , s, or
else p = m.
(b) For any minimal prime ideal p over I, ISp is a complete intersection.
(c) If s ≥ 3, I is an almost complete intersection.
Proof. Item (a) follows from Remark 6.6, Theorem 6.3 and Lemma 5.1. Item (c) follows from
Proposition 6.2. To prove (b), let I = (f1 , . . . , fs ), let p be an arbitrary minimal prime over I,
so ti 6∈ p for all i = 1, . . . , s. Either char(K) = 0, or else we may suppose that char(K) = p, p a
prime with p ∤ bs , because gcd(b) = 1 (and s ≥ 2). In particular, by Proposition 6.7, bs ysbs −1 6∈ p
(otherwise, if we had bs ysbs −1 ∈ p, it would follow that ys is in p, so one of t1 , . . . , ts−1 is
/ p and it follows from
in p, a contradiction) and gs = qs fs + bs ysbs −1 6∈ p. Therefore tb(s) gs ∈
Proposition 6.7(a) and Lemma 6.8 that ISp = (f1 , . . . , fs−1 )Sp is generated by a regular sequence
in Sp .

In the next pair of results, we give an explicit description of the hull of a GPCB ideal and, if
s ≥ 4, of an irredundant embedded component.
Proposition 6.10. (cf. [30, Proposition 4.4]) Let I = I(L) = (f1 , . . . , fs ) be the ideal of a
GPCB matrix L. Set J = (f1 , . . . , fs−1 ). Suppose that g ∈ (J : fs ) is such that g 6∈ p for any
minimal prime p over I. Then the following hold.
(a) I(L) = Hull(I) = (I : g) = (J : g).
(b) For b(s) ∈ Ns and gs ∈ S as in Proposition 6.7, I(L) = (I : tb(s) gs ) = (J : tb(s) gs ).
Proof. Since J is a graded complete intersection and fs 6∈ J, (J : fs ) ⊂ m and g ∈ m. By
Proposition 5.7, I(L) = Hull(I) = (I : g ∞ ). Hence I ⊂ (J : g) ⊂ (I : g) ⊂ (I : g ∞ ) = I(L). To
finish the proof of (a), just proceed as in [30, Proposition 4.4]. By Proposition 6.7, tb(s) gs ∈
(J : fs ) and tb(s) gs ∈ m \ p, for all minimal prime ideals p over I. Thus (b) follows from (a). 

23

Theorem 6.11. (cf. [30, Theorem 4.10]) Let s ≥ 4. Let I = I(L) = (f1 , . . . , fs ) be the ideal
of a GPCB matrix L. Suppose that (I : g) = (I : g ∞ ) for some g ∈ m, g 6∈ p for any minimal
prime ideal p over I. Then the following hold.
(a) I + (g) is an irredundant m-primary component of I;
(b) For b(s) ∈ Ns and gs ∈ S as in Proposition 6.7, I +(xb(s) gs ) is an irredundant m-primary
component of I.
Proof. This is an straightforward extension of [30, Theorem 4.10].



In the light of the preceding results, and taking into account Theorem 3.3 and Proposition 5.7,
it is not hard to see that analogues of [30, Theorem 6.5 and Theorem 7.1] hold for GPCB ideals.
The details are left to the interested reader.
For s = 2, we now give an explicit description of a GPCB ideal and its hull in terms of the
entries of the corresponding GPCB matrix. This description will be used later in Section 8 (see
Proposition 8.8).
Lemma 6.12. Let I = I(L) = (f1 , f2 ) be a GPCB ideal associated to a 2 × 2 GPCB matrix
L and let L be the lattice of Z2 spanned by the columns of L. Then there exists (c1 , c2 ) ∈ N2+
such that I(L) = (tc11 − tc22 ). Moreover, either I is a PCB ideal, I is principal and I = I(L) is
a lattice ideal, or else I is not a PCB ideal, I is not principal and I is not a lattice ideal.
Proof. Set b = (b1 , b2 ) ∈ N2+ , gcd(b) = 1, with Lb⊤ = 0. Then a1,1 b1 = a1,2 b2 and a2,1 b1 =
a2,2 b2 . Since gcd(b) = 1, this forces a1,1 = b2 c1 , a1,2 = b1 c1 , for some c1 ∈ N+ , and a2,1 = b2 c2 ,
a2,2 = b1 c2 , for some c2 ∈ N+ . Therefore,

 

a1,1 −a1,2
b2 c1 −b1 c1
L=
=
.
−a2,1
a2,2
−b2 c2
b1 c2
(b −1)c

(b −j)c

(b −1)c

1
1 jc2
2
Set h := tc11 − tc22 and gi := t1 i
+ · · · + t1 i
t2 + · · · + t2 i
, for i = 1, 2 (if bi = 1,
b2 c1
b2 c2
we understand that gi = 1). Then f1 = t1 − t2
= hg2 and f2 = tb21 c2 − tb11 c1 = −hg1 .
Hence I = I(L) = (hg2 , hg1 ) and I ⊂ (h). Since gcd(b) = 1, there exist v1 , v2 ∈ Z such that
1 = v1 b1 + v2 b2 . Hence

v2 (a1,1 , −a2,1 ) − v1 (−a1,2 , a2,2 ) = v2 (b2 c1 , −b2 c2 ) − v1 (−b1 c1 , b1 c2 ) = (c1 , −c2 ),
and L = h(a1,1 , −a2,1 ), (−a1,2 , a2,2 )i = h(c1 , −c2 )i. Therefore I = I(L) ⊂ I(L) = (tc11 −tc22 ) = (h).
If b1 = 1 or b2 = 1, then g1 = 1 or g2 = 1 and I = (hg1 , hg2 ) = (h) = I(L). Moreover I is the
PCB ideal associated to the PCB matrix with columns (c1 , −c2 )⊤ and (−c1 , c2 )⊤ .
Suppose that b1 , b2 > 1, with gcd(b) = 1. Then b1 ∤ b2 and b2 ∤ b1 . It follows that f2 ∤ f1
and f1 ∤ f2 (see, e.g., [29, Lemma 8.2]). Since I = (f1 , f2 ) is homogeneous, f1 , f2 is a minimal
homogeneous system of generators of I. Hence I is not principal and h ∈ I(L) \ I. In particular,
I is not a PCB ideal (by [30, Remark 2.3]) and is not a lattice ideal (see Proposition 5.7(b)). 
We finish the section with an example.
Example 6.13. Let L be the following PCB matrix and let I = I(L) and I ⊤ = I(L⊤ ) be the
matrix ideals of L and L⊤ , respectively.


4 −2 −1 −1
 −1
4 −2 −1 
.
L=
 −1 −1
3 −1 
−1 −1 −1
3

24

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

Observe that L1⊤ = 0 and L⊤ b⊤ = 0, with b = (20, 24, 31, 25) and 1 = (1, 1, 1, 1). Let L and
L⊤ be the lattices spanned by the columns of L and L⊤ , respectively. Here ∆3 (L) = 1. By
Corollary 5.9, deg(S/I) = 31 and deg(S/I ⊤ ) = 1. Moreover I = pb ∩ q and I ⊤ = p1 ∩ q′ are
minimal primary decompositions of I and I ⊤ , respectively, where I(L) = pb is the Herzog ideal
associated to b, I(L⊤ ) = p1 is the Herzog ideal associated to 1, and q and q′ are m-primary
ideals which can be calculated explicitly (see Theorem 6.11).
7. Laplacian matrices and ideals
In this section we show how our results can be applied to an interesting family of binomial
ideals arising from Laplacian matrices.
Connecting combinatorial properties of graphs to linear-algebraic properties of Laplacian matrices has attracted a great deal of attention [4, 14, 26]. We are interested in relating the
combinatorics of the graph with the algebraic invariants and properties of the binomial ideals
associated to Laplacian matrices.
Let S = K[t1 , . . . , ts ] be a polynomial ring over a field K and let G = (V, E, w) be a weighted
connected simple graph, where V = {t1 , . . . , ts } is the set of vertices, E is the set of edges and
w is a weight function that associates a weight we with every edge e in the graph. Edges of G
are unordered pairs {ti , tj } with i 6= j. To define the Laplacian matrix, recall that the adjacency
matrix A(G) of this graph is given by

we
if e = {ti , tj } ∈ E,
A(G)i,j :=
0
otherwise.
Now, the Laplacian L(G) of the graph G is defined as L(G) := D(G)
P − A(G), where D(G) is
a diagonal matrix with entry D(G)i,i equal to the weighted degree e∈E(ti ) we of the vertex ti .
Here, we denoted by E(ti ) the set of edges adjacent (incident) to ti . One can check that the
entries of the Laplacian are given by
 P
if i = j,

e∈E(ti ) we
L(G)i,j :=
−we
if i 6= j and e = {ti , tj } ∈ E,

0
otherwise.

Notice that L(G) is symmetric and 1L(G) = 0. The Laplacian matrix is a prime example of a
CB matrix. The Laplacian matrices of complete graphs are PCB matrices; this type of matrix
occurs in [23]. The binomial ideal I ⊂ S defined by the columns of L(G) is called the Laplacian
ideal of G. If I ⊂ S is the Laplacian ideal of G, the lattice ideal I(L) = (I : (t1 · · · ts )∞ ) is called
the toppling ideal of the graph [23, 32]. If G is connected, the toppling ideal is a lattice ideal of
dimension 1.
The torsion subgroup of the factor group Zs /Im(L(G)), denoted by K(G), is called the critical
group or the sandpile group of G (see [1, 22] for additional information). Notice that K(G) is
the torsion subgroup of Zs /L. The structure, as a finite abelian group, of K(G) is only known
for a few families of graphs (see [1] and the references there). If G is regarded as a multigraph
(where each edge e occurs we times), then by the Kirchhoff’s matrix tree theorem, the order of
K(G) is the number of spanning trees of G and this number is equal to the (i, j)-entry of the
adjoint matrix of L(G) for any (i, j) (see [4, Theorem 6.3, p. 39] and [26, Theorem 1.1]).
Next we give an application of our earlier results to this setting.
Proposition 7.1. Let G = (V, E, w) be a connected weighted simple graph with vertices t1 , . . . , ts
and let I ⊂ S be its Laplacian ideal. Then the following hold.

25

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)

V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i.
deg(S/I) = deg(S/I(L)) = |K(G)|.
Hull(I) = I(L).
If |E(ti )| ≥ 3 for all i, then I is not a lattice ideal.
If G = Ks is a complete graph, then deg(S/I) = ss−2 .
If G is a tree, then deg(S/I) = deg(S/I(L)) = 1.

Proof. (a): For 1 ≤ k ≤ s, let fk be the binomial defined by the k-th column of L(G). Fix
i such that 1 ≤ i ≤ s. Clearly {0} is contained in V (I, ti ) because I is graded. To show the
reverse containment, let α = (α1 , . . . , αs ) be a point in V (I, ti ). If {ti , tk } ∈ E(ti ), we claim that
αk = 0. We can write
P
Y
e∈E(tk ) we
e
−
tw
f k = tk
j .
e∈E(tk ), tj ∈e

P

) we

Q

e
k
= {e∈E(tk ), tj ∈e} αw
Using that fk (α) = 0, we get αk
j . Since {ti , tk } is in E(tk ) and
using that αi = 0, we obtain that αk = 0, as claimed. Let ℓ be an integer in {1, . . . , s}. Since
the graph G is connected, there is a path {v1 , . . . , vr } joining ti and tℓ , i.e., v1 = ti , vr = tℓ
and {vj , vj+1 } ∈ E(G) for all j. There is a permutation π of V such that π(1) = i, π(r) = ℓ
and vj = tπ(j) for j = 1, . . . , r. Then tπ(j) ∈ E(tπ(j−1) ) for j = 2, . . . , r. Applying the claim
successively for j = 2, . . . , r, we obtain απ(2) = 0, απ(3) = 0, . . . , απ(r) = 0. Thus, αℓ = 0. This
proves that α = 0.
(b) and (c): These two parts follow from Proposition 2.5, Corollary 4.9 and Proposition 5.7(a),
since L(G) is homogeneous with respect to the weight vector 1.
(d): This part follows from Proposition 6.1(a).
(e): By part (b) one has deg(S/I) = |K(G)|, and by [4, p. 39] one has |K(G)| = ss−2 .
(f): Since |K(G)| is the number of spanning trees of the graph G, this number is equal to 1.
Thus, K(G) = {0}, i.e., K(G) is torsion free. By (b), we get that deg(S/I) = 1.

e∈E(t

Example 7.2. Let G be the weighted graph of Figure 1 and let I be its Laplacian ideal. Then
I = (t31 − t2 t23 , t82 − t1 t33 t44 , t63 − t21 t32 t4 , t54 − t42 t3 ), deg(S/I) = 67 and
Hull(I) = I(L) = (t31 − t2 t23 , t1 t43 − t42 t4 , t42 t3 − t54 , t63 − t21 t32 t4 , t82 − t1 t33 t44 , t21 t72 − t53 t44 ).
If K = Q, the toppling ideal I(L) has two primary components of degrees 66 and 1.
1

t2 s

s t1
❅ 2
3 ❅
❅st3

❅
❅
4
1
❅s t
4


3 −1 −2
0
 −1
8 −3 −4 

L(G) = 
 −2 −3
6 −1 
0 −4 −1
5


Figure 1. Weighted graph G.
As another application, by Proposition 6.2, the Laplacian ideal is an almost complete intersection for any connected simple graph without vertices of degree 1.
Proposition 7.3. Let G = (V, E, w) be a connected weighted simple graph with vertices t1 , . . . , ts
and let I ⊂ S be its Laplacian ideal. If |E(ti )| ≥ 2 for all i, then I is an almost complete
intersection.

26

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

The notion of a Laplacian matrix can be extended to weighted digraphs, see [8] and the
references there. Let G = (V, E, w) be a weighted digraph without loops and with vertices
t1 , . . . , ts , let w(ti , tj ) be the weight of the directed arc from ti to tj and let A(G) be the
adjacency matrix of G given by A(G)i,j = w(ti , tj ). The Laplacian matrix of G is given by
L(G) = D + (G) − A(G), where D + (G) is the diagonal matrix with the out-degrees of the vertices
of G in the diagonal entries. Note that L(G)1⊤ = 0 and that the Laplacian matrix of a digraph
may not be symmetric (see Example 7.8). If ti is a sink, i.e., there is no arc of the form (ti , tj ),
then the i-th row of L(G) is zero. Thus, the rank of L(G) may be much less than s − 1. When
G is a strongly connected digraph, it is well-known that the rank of L(G) is s − 1. This follows
from the Perron-Frobenius theorem; see the proof of Theorem 7.5 .
Let G be a weighted digraph without sources or sinks, i.e., for each vertex ti there is at least
one arc of the form (tj , ti ) and one arc of the form (ti , tk ). Then L(G) is a CB matrix. Conversely
if L is a CB matrix as in Definition 1.1, then L is the Laplacian matrix of the weighted digraph
G defined as follows. A pair (ti , tj ) is an arc of G if and only if i 6= j and ai,j 6= 0. The weight
of the arc (ti , tj ) is ai,j .
Definition 7.4. [14, p. 175, p. 29] Let A = (ai,j ) be an s × s real matrix. The underlying
digraph of A, denoted by GA , has vertex set {t1 , . . . , ts }, with an arc from vertex ti to vertex
tj if and only if ai,j 6= 0. Note that this digraph may have loops. A digraph is called strongly
connected if any two vertices can be joined by a directed path.
The underlying digraph of the matrix of Example 7.2 is strongly connected. If G is a weighted
digraph and L is its Laplacian matrix, then G is obtained from the underlying digraph GL of L
by removing all loops of GL .
Theorem 7.5. Let L be a GCB matrix and let G be its underlying graph. If G is strongly
connected, then rank(L) = s − 1 and L⊤ is a GCB matrix.
e we may assume that L is a CB matrix (see the
Proof. By passing to the associated CB matrix L,
proof of Theorem 6.3(c)). Let L be a CB matrix as in Definition 1.1. We can write L = D − A,
where D = diag(a1,1 , . . . , as,s ) and A is the matrix whose i, j entry is ai,j if i 6= j and whose
diagonal entries are equal to zero. We set δi = ai,i for i = 1, . . . , s. By hypothesis L1⊤ = 0,
hence rank(L) ≤ s − 1. There exists a nonzero vector b ∈ Zs such that bL = 0. Therefore
bD = bA = bD(D −1 A).
Since L1⊤ = 0, we get that D1⊤ = A1⊤ or equivalently (D −1 A)1⊤ = 1⊤ . Thus, as the entries of
D −1 A are nonnegative, the matrix B := D −1 A is stochastic. It is well-known that the spectral
radius ρ(B) of a stochastic matrix B is equal to 1 [3, Theorem 5.3], where ρ(B) is the maximum
of the moduli of the eigenvalues of B. As the diagonal entries of B are zero and δi > 0 for
all i, the underlying digraph GB of B is equal to the digraph obtained from G by removing all
loops of G. Since G is strongly connected so is GB , and by the Perron-Frobenius Theorem for
nonnegative matrices [14, Theorem 8.8.1, p. 178], ρ(B) = 1 and 1 is a simple eigenvalue of B
(i.e., the eigenspace of B relative to ρ(B) = 1 is 1-dimensional), and if z is an eigenvector for
ρ(B) = 1, then no entries of z are zero and all have the same sign. Applying this to z = bD,
we get that bi 6= 0 for all i and all entries of b have the same sign. Hence, ker(L⊤ ) = (b⊤ ) for
any non-zero vector b such that bL = 0, so L⊤ is a GCB matrix of rank s − 1.

The results of the previous sections can also be applied to GCB ideals that arise from matrices
with strongly connected underlying digraphs.

27

Proposition 7.6. Let L be a GCB matrix of size s × s, let GL be the underlying digraph of L
and let I = I(L⊤ ) be the matrix ideal of L⊤ . The following conditions are equivalent.
(a) GL is strongly connected.
(b) V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i.
(c) Li,j > 0 for all i, j, where adj(L) = (Li,j ) is the adjoint of L.
e we may assume that L is a CB matrix (see the
Proof. By passing to the associated matrix L,
proof of Theorem 6.3(c)).
(a) ⇒ (b): Since any two vertices can be joined by a directed path, the proof follows adapting
the argument given to prove Proposition 7.1(a).
(b) ⇒ (a): We proceed by contradiction. Assume that GL is not strongly connected. Without
loss of generality we may assume that there is no directed path from t1 to ts . Let W be the set
of all vertices ti such that there is a directed path from ti to ts , the vertex ts being included in
W . The set W is nonempty because GL has no sources or sinks by definition of a CB matrix,
and the vertex t1 is not in W . Consider the vector α ∈ K s defined as αi = 1 if ti ∈
/ W and
αi = 0 if ti ∈ W . To derive a contradiction it suffices to show that all binomialsQof I(L⊤ ) vanish
a
a
at the nonzero vector α. Let L be as in Definition 1.1 and let fk = tkk,k − j6=k tj k,j be the
binomial defined by the k-row of L. If tk ∈ W , there is a directed path P from tk to ts . Then tj
is part of the path P for some j such that ak,j > 0. Thus, since tj ∈ W , fk (α) = 0. If tk ∈
/ W,
then tj is not in W for any j such that ak,j > 0, because if ak,j > 0, the pair (tk , tj ) is an arc of
GL . Thus, fk (α) = 0.
(a) ⇒ (c): By the proof of Theorem 6.3(c)), one has that Li,i ≥ 0 for all i. By Theorem 7.5
and using the proof of Theorem 6.3(a), we get that Li,j > 0 for all i, j.
(c) ⇒ (a): We proceed by contradiction. Assume that GL is not strongly connected. We may
assume that there is no directed path from t1 to ts . Let W be as above and let W c = {ti | ti ∈
/ W}
be its complement. We can write W c = {tℓ1 , . . . , tℓr }. Consider the r × r submatrix B obtained
from L by fixing rows ℓ1 , . . . , ℓr and columns ℓ1 , . . . , ℓr . Notice that by the arguments above
W c = ∪tk ∈W c (supp(fk )). Hence any row of B extends to a row of L by adding 0’s only, and
consequently the sum of the columns of B is zero. Hence det(B) = 0. By permuting rows and
columns, L can be brought to the form


C 0
′
L =
C ′ C ′′
where C and C ′′ are square matrices of orders r and s − r, respectively, and det(C) = 0. Hence
the adjoint of L′ has a zero entry, and so does the adjoint of L, a contradiction.

Corollary 7.7. Let L be a GCB matrix of size s × s and let (Li,j ) be its adjoint. If GL is
strongly connected, then
gcd({Li,k }si=1 ) deg(S/I(L⊤ )) = max({Li,k }si=1 ) gcd({Li,j }) for any k.
Proof. By Proposition 7.6, all entries of adj(L) are positive and any column of adj(L) gives a
grading for I(L⊤ ). Hence the formula follows from Corollary 5.9.

Example 7.8. Let G be the weighted digraph of Figure 2 and let L be its Laplacian matrix.
The digraph GL is not strongly connected, the CB ideal I(L⊤ ) is graded but I(L) is not.

28

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

3
t1
4
t2

1
1
1

t4
1
t3




5 −4
0 −1
 0
1 −1
0 

L = L(G) = 
 0 −1
1
0 
−3
0 −1
4

Figure 2. A weighted digraph G with four vertices and its Laplacian matrix.
8. Homogeneous lattice ideals of dimension 1 in 3 variables
The main results of this section uncover the structure of lattice ideals of dimension 1 in 3
variables and the structure of the homogeneous lattices of rank 2 in Z3 .
Definition 8.1. Let I be a binomial ideal of S and let f = ta − tb ∈ I. We will say that:
(a) f is ti -pure if ta and tb are non-constant, have no common variables and supp(a) = {i};
(b) f is ti -critical if f is ti -pure and for any other ti -pure binomial g = tci i − td of I, ci ≥ ai ;
(c) A full set of pure (respectively, critical) binomials of I is a family f1 , . . . , fs of binomials
where each fi is a ti -pure (respectively, ti -critical) binomial of I.
We begin with a result that complements the well-known result of Herzog [16] that shows
that the toric ideal of a monomial space curve is generated by a full set of critical binomials.
Theorem 8.2. Let S = K[t1 , t2 , t3 ] and let I be a homogeneous lattice ideal of S of height
2. Then I is generated by a full set of critical binomials. Concretely, and with a suitable
renumbering of the variables, only the two following cases can occur:
(a) I is minimally generated by f1 = ta11 − tc33 and f2 = tb22 − tb11 tb33 , with 0 ≤ b1 ≤ a1 ,
a1 , b2 , c3 > 0 and b1 + b3 > 0;
(b) I is minimally generated by f1 = ta11 − ta22 ta33 , f2 = tb22 − tb11 tb33 and f3 = tc33 − tc11 tc22 , with
0 < a2 < b2 , 0 < a3 < c3 , 0 < b1 < a1 , 0 < b3 < c3 , 0 < c1 < a1 and 0 < c2 < b2 .
Moreover, a1 = b1 + c1 , b2 = a2 + c2 and c3 = a3 + b3 .
Proof. Let d = (d1 , d2 , d3 ), gcd(d) = 1, be the grading in S under which I is homogeneous.
Since I is a lattice ideal, ti is a non-zero divisor of S/I for i = 1, 2, 3. In particular, I can be
generated by pure binomials, i.e., binomials of the form te11 − te22 te33 , with e1 > 0, and similarly
for i = 2, 3.
Since I is a homogeneous lattice ideal of height 2, by [20, Proposition 2.9], V (I, ti ) = {0} for
all i. In particular, I contains ti -pure binomials, for i = 1, 2, 3. Indeed, if I contains no t3 -pure
binomials, say, then V (I, t1 ) ⊃ V (t1 , t2 ) 6= {0}, a contradiction.
Therefore there exist f1 = ta11 − ta22 ta33 , f2 = tb22 − tb11 tb33 and f3 = tc33 − tc11 tc22 , a full set of
critical binomials of I; i.e., a1 , b2 , c3 > 0 and for any t1 -pure binomial of I of the form te11 − te22 te33 ,
one has e1 ≥ a1 , and similarly with the other variables t2 and t3 . Notice that one could have
fj = −fi for j 6= i.
Following the proof of Kunz in [19, pp. 137–140], one can show that I is generated by a full
set of critical binomials. For the sake of clarity, we outline the main details of the proof.
After renumbering the variables one may suppose that f1 is the one of least degree among
f1 , f2 and f3 . Then a2 ≤ b2 and a3 ≤ c3 . Moreover, a2 = b2 is equivalent to a3 = 0, and, in
this case, −f1 = tb22 − ta11 is t2 -critical and one may choose f2 to be −f1 . Similarly, a3 = c3 is

29

tc33

ta11

equivalent to a2 = 0, and, in this case, −f1 =
−
is t3 -critical and one may choose f3 to
be −f1 .
If a2 = b2 , (i.e., a3 = 0), we may interchange the numbering of the variables t2 and t3 so that,
in the new numbering, a3 = c3 and a2 = 0. Hence, there are only the following two cases for f1 :
(a): f1 = ta11 − tc33 , if a2 = 0 and a3 = c3 ;
(b): f1 = ta11 − ta22 ta33 , with 0 < a2 < b2 and 0 < a3 < c3 .
Case (a). Here f1 = ta11 − tc33 , f2 = tb22 − tb11 tb33 and f3 = tc33 − ta11 = −f1 , with deg(f1 ) ≤ deg(f2 ).
Moreover, one can suppose that 0 ≤ b1 ≤ a1 .
In a rather long, but not difficult way, one proves that for any pure binomial f of I, either f
is in (f1 , f2 ) or f modulo (f1 , f2 ) is a multiple of a binomial g of I with deg(g) < deg(f ). One
starts by taking f = te11 − te22 te33 ∈ I, with e1 ≥ a1 , and proving that f − t1e1 −a1 f1 is a multiple of
a binomial g ∈ I with deg(g) < deg(f ). There is an analogous argument if f = te22 − te11 te33 ∈ I
or f = te33 − te11 te22 ∈ I.
One concludes that I = (f1 , f2 ). Indeed, suppose not and take f a pure binomial in I \ (f1 , f2 )
of the smallest possible degree. We have seen that there exists h ∈ (f1 , f2 ) such that f − h is
a multiple of a binomial g ∈ I with deg(g) < deg(f ). Since f is the element in I \ (f1 , f2 )
of the smallest possible degree, this forces g to be in (f1 , f2 ). Hence f ∈ (g, h) ⊂ (f1 , f2 ), a
contradiction.
Case (b). Here f1 = ta11 − ta22 ta33 , f2 = tb22 − tb11 tb33 and f3 = tc33 − tc11 tc22 , with 0 < a2 < b2 and
0 < a3 < c3 .
Possibly after renumbering t2 and t3 , one can assume that the degree of f2 is smaller than
the degree of f3 . Observe that b1 < a1 and, in particular, b3 > 0. Analogously, c1 < a1 and,
in particular, c2 > 0. Moreover b3 ≤ c3 , and b3 = c3 is equivalent to b1 = 0. In this case,
−f2 = tc33 − tb22 is t3 -critical and one may choose as f3 the binomial −f2 .
Therefore, there are only the following two cases for f2 :
(b.1): f2 = tb22 − tc33 , if b1 = 0 and b3 = c3 ;
(b.2): f2 = tb22 − tb11 tb33 , with 0 < b1 < a1 and 0 < b3 < c3 .
Case (b.1). Here f1 = ta11 − ta22 ta33 , f2 = tb22 − tc33 and f3 = tc33 − tb22 = −f2 , with 0 < a2 < b2 ,
0 < a3 < c3 and deg(f1 ) ≤ deg(f2 ). Similarly to the proof of Case (a), one can show that
I = (f1 , f2 ) (although now the doubly-pure binomial has bigger degree than the other binomial).
Case (b.2). Here f1 = ta11 − ta22 ta33 , f2 = tb22 − tb11 tb33 and f3 = tc33 − tc11 tc22 , with 0 < a2 < b2 ,
0 < a3 < c3 , 0 < b1 < a1 and 0 < b3 < c3 . Moreover, 0 ≤ c1 < a1 , c2 > 0 and deg(f1 ) ≤
deg(f2 ) ≤ deg(f3 ). Since b3 > 0, then c2 < b2 . Since b3 < c3 (and b1 6= 0), then c1 > 0.
As in Case (a), one can prove that, for each pure binomial f of I, either f is in (f1 , f2 , f3 ) or
f modulo (f1 , f2 , f3 ) is a multiple of a binomial g of I with deg(g) < deg(f ). One concludes, as
before, that I = (f1 , f2 , f3 ).
In Case (b.2), I is minimally generated by f1 , f2 and f3 . Indeed, if f3 ∈ (f1 , f2 ), say, then on
taking t1 = 0 and t2 = 0, one would get a contradiction.
Finally, a1 = b1 + c1 , b2 = a2 + c2 and c3 = a3 + b3 (see, here, [19, p 139, line 15]). Indeed, let
α1 := a1 − b1 − c1 , α2 := b2 − a2 − c2 and α3 := c3 − a3 − b3 . Clearly α1 d1 + α2 d2 + α3 d3 = 0.
We may suppose that α2 and α3 , say, have the same sign. Then necessarily α1 = 0, because
2 −α3
if not, since f1 is t1 -critical and either tα1 1 − t−α
t3
∈ I or t1−α1 − tα2 2 tα3 3 ∈ I, we get that
2

30

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

either α1 ≥ a1 or −α1 ≥ a1 , which would imply that either −b1 − c1 ≥ 0 or b1 + c1 ≥ 2a1 , in a
contradiction to 0 < b1 < a1 and 0 < c1 < a1 . Thus α1 = 0, so α2 = 0 and α3 = 0.

Corollary 8.3. If I is a lattice ideal of dimension 0 and s = 2, then I is generated by at most
3 binomials.
Proof. By Lemma 4.1, I h ⊂ S[u] is a graded lattice ideal of dimension 1. Thus, the result follows
from Theorem 8.2.

Before proceeding with the main result of the section, we state some properties of GCB and
CB binomial ideals in the case s = 3.
Lemma 8.4. Let I = I(L) be the GCB ideal associated to a 3 × 3 GCB matrix L. Then I is
homogeneous and V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i.
Proof. Let L be a 3 × 3 GCB matrix, where b = (b1 , b2 , b3 ) ∈ N3+ , gcd(b) = 1 and Lb⊤ = 0,


a1,1 −a1,2 −a1,3
a2,2 −a2,3  .
L =  −a2,1
−a3,1 −a3,2
a3,3

If L is a GPCB matrix, I = I(L) is homogeneous and V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i (see Remark 6.6).
Suppose that L is not a GPCB matrix, but a GCB matrix. After renumbering the variables,
one may suppose that a2,1 = 0. In particular, a3,1 > 0, a1,2 + a3,2 > 0 and b2 a2,2 = b3 a2,3 , so
a2,3 > 0. Let h∗,3 be the third row of adj(L), the adjoint matrix of L:
h∗,3 = (a2,2 a3,1 , a1,1 a3,2 + a1,2 a3,1 , a1,1 a2,2 ).
It follows that h∗,3 ∈ N3+ . Set d = h∗,3 / gcd(h∗,3 ). Then d ∈ N3+ , gcd(d) = 1 and dL = 0. Hence
I = I(L) is homogeneous. Moreover,
a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

I = (t11,1 − t33,1 , t22,2 − t11,2 t33,2 , t33,3 − t11,3 t22,3 ).
Clearly rad(I, t1 ) = m and rad(I, t3 ) = m. Since a2,3 > 0, it follows that rad(I, t2 ) = m too.
Thus V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i.

Proposition 8.5. Let I = I(L) be the CB ideal associated to a 3 × 3 CB matrix L. Then the
following conditions hold.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)

a

a

a

a

a

a

t22,3 f1 + t33,1 f2 + t11,2 f3 = 0 and t33,2 f1 + t11,3 f2 + t22,1 f3 = 0;
For {i, j, k} = {1, 2, 3}, then fi , fj , tk is a regular sequence (in any order);
I is either a complete intersection or an almost complete intersection;
I is an unmixed ideal of height 2;
I is a homogeneous lattice ideal and I = I(L) = (I : (t1 t2 t3 )∞ ) = Hull(I).

Proof. The proof of (a) follows from a simple check. By Lemma 8.4, S can be graded, with
t1 , t2 , t3 and f1 , f2 , f3 homogeneous elements of positive degree. Using [29, Proposition 4.2, (c)],
one deduces (b). If I is a PCB ideal, by Corollary 6.9, I is an almost complete intersection of
height 2. If I is not a PCB ideal, ai,j = 0, for some i 6= j. Using (a), I is generated by two of
the three f1 , f2 , f3 . In particular, by (b), I is a complete intersection. This proves (c). If I is a
PCB ideal, by [30, Remark 4.7 and Proposition 3.3], I is an unmixed ideal of height 2. If I is
not a PCB ideal, ai,j = 0, for some i 6= j, by (c), I is a complete intersection, hence unmixed
too. This proves (d). By Lemma 8.4, I = I(L) is graded and V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i. Moreover
I = I(L) is an unmixed binomial ideal associated to an integer matrix L (in fact a CB matrix).
By Proposition 5.7, I = I(L) = (I : (t1 t2 t3 )∞ ) = Hull(I) is a homogeneous lattice ideal.


31

As a consequence of Theorem 8.2 and Proposition 8.5, we obtain the main result of the section.
Theorem 8.6. Let S = K[t1 , t2 , t3 ] and let I be an ideal of S. Then I is a homogeneous lattice
ideal of dimension 1 if and only if I is a CB ideal.
Proof. Suppose that I is a homogeneous lattice ideal of S of dimension 1. By Theorem 8.2, only
two cases can occur for I. In the first case, I = (f1 , f2 ), where f1 = ta11 − tc33 and f2 = tb22 − tb11 tb33 ,
with 0 ≤ b1 ≤ a1 and a1 , b2 , c3 > 0. Then I is the CB ideal associated to the CB matrix L,
where


a1 −b1 −a1 + b1
,
0
b2
−b2
L=
−c3 −b3
b3 + c3

because f3 = −tb33 f1 − ta11 −b1 f2 ∈ (f1 , f2 ).

In the second case, I = (f1 , f2 , f3 ), where f1 = ta11 −ta22 ta33 , f2 = tb22 −tb11 tb33 and f3 = tc33 −tc11 tc22 ,
with 0 < a2 < b2 , 0 < a3 < c3 , 0 < b1 < a1 , 0 < b3 < c3 , 0 < c1 < a1 and 0 < c2 < b2 , with
a1 = b1 + c1 , b2 = a2 + c2 and c3 = a3 + b3 . Then I is the PCB ideal associated to the PCB
matrix L, where


a1 −b1 −c1
b2 −c2  .
L =  −a2
−a3 −b3
c3

Conversely, if I is a CB ideal, I is a graded lattice ideal of dimension 1 by Proposition 8.5.



Next, we show that the homogeneous lattices of rank 2 in Z3 are precisely the lattices generated
by the columns of a CB matrix.
Corollary 8.7. Let L be a lattice of rank 2 in Z3 . Then, L is homogeneous if and only if L is
generated by the columns of a CB matrix.
Proof. If L is homogeneous of rank 2, I(L) is homogeneous of height 2. By Theorem 8.6, I(L) is
a CB ideal. Hence, by Corollary 2.11, L is generated by the columns of a CB matrix. Conversely,
let L be the lattice generated by the columns of a 3 × 3 CB matrix L. Clearly L has rank 2 and,
by Proposition 8.5, dL = 0 for some d ∈ N3+ . In particular, L is homogeneous.

In the next result we add a new condition for a GPCB ideal to be a lattice ideal (see Proposition 5.3 and Proposition 5.7 (b)).
Proposition 8.8. Let I = I(L) be the binomial ideal associated to an s × s GPCB matrix L.
Then I is a lattice ideal if and only if s ≤ 3 and I is a PCB ideal.
Proof. ⇒) Assume that I is a lattice ideal. By Proposition 6.1, s ≤ 3. If s = 2, by Lemma 6.12,
I is a PCB ideal. If s = 3, by Theorem 6.3, I is a graded lattice ideal. Hence, by Proposition 6.2,
I cannot be a complete intersection. Applying Theorem 8.2, we get as in the final paragraph of
the proof of Theorem 8.6 that I is a PCB ideal.
⇐) Assume that I is a PCB ideal. In particular I is a CB ideal. If s = 3, by Theorem 8.6, I
is a lattice ideal. If s = 2, by Lemma 6.12, I is a lattice ideal.

As a corollary of Theorem 8.6 we deduce the structure of the hull of a GCB ideal.
Corollary 8.9. Let I = I(L) be the GCB ideal associated to a 3 × 3 GCB matrix L. Then I(L)
is a CB ideal.

32

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

Proof. By Lemma 8.4, I is homogeneous with V (I, ti ) = {0} for all i. Therefore, I(L) is a
homogeneous lattice ideal of dimension 1 (see Proposition 5.7). Thus, by Theorem 8.6, I(L) is
a CB ideal.

We deduce a method to find a generating set for the hull of a GCB ideal.
Procedure 8.10. Given a 3 × 3 GCB matrix L,
(a) Find a CB matrix M such that M = L, where M and L are the lattices of Z3 spanned
by the columns of M and L, respectively. Equivalently, find a CB matrix M and a 3 × 3
integer matrix Q with det(Q) = 1, such that LQ = M .
(b) By Proposition 8.5, I(M ) is a lattice ideal and I(M ) = I(M). Hence I(L) = I(M ).
We illustrate this method with some examples.
Example 8.11. Let I = (f1 , f2 , f3 ) = (t41 −t2 t3 , t32 −t51 t3 , t33 −t31 t2 ) be the GPCB ideal associated
to the GPCB matrix


4 −5 −3
3 −1  .
L =  −1
−1 −1
3
Here Lb⊤ = 0, with b = (2, 1, 1). We have (−1, 2, −2) = (4, −1, −1)+(−5, 3, −1) ∈ L. Therefore
L = h(4, −1, −1), (−1, 2, −2), (−3, −1, 3)i. Take


4 −1 −3
2 −1  ,
M =  −1
−1 −2
3
which is a PCB matrix. Hence I(L) = I(M) = I(M ) = (t41 − t2 t3 , t22 − t1 t23 , t33 − t31 t2 ). In this
example, the hull of a GPCB ideal is a PCB ideal.
Example 8.12. Let I = (f1 , f2 , f3 ) = (t41 −t22 t3 , t32 −t1 t3 , t3 −t1 t2 ) be the GPCB ideal associated
to the GPCB matrix


4 −1 −1
3 −1  .
L =  −2
−1 −1
1
Here Lb⊤ = 0, with b = (2, 3, 5). Let Q and M be the 3 × 3 integer matrices:




1 1 0
1
0 −1
2 −1  , a CB matrix; LQ = M.
Q =  1 2 0  , det(Q) = 1; M =  −1
2 2 1
0 −1
1
Hence I(L) = I(M) = I(M ) = (t1 − t2 , t22 − t3 , t3 − t1 t2 ). In this example, the hull of a GPCB
ideal is a CB ideal.
Example 8.13. Let L = h(−2, 4, −2), (−2, −3, 4)i, which is a rank 2 homogeneous lattice with
respect to the vector (5, 6, 7). Thus the lattice ideal I(L) of L is a graded lattice ideal of
dimension 1. By Theorem 8.2, I(L) is generated by a full set of critical binomials and, by
Theorem 8.6, I(L) is a CB ideal (here a PCB ideal). Concretely
I(L) = ((t42 − t21 t23 , t21 t32 − t43 ) : (t1 t2 t3 )∞ ) = (t41 − t2 t23 , t42 − t21 t23 , t21 t32 − t43 ).

33

To obtain the above generating set one may “complete” the two generators of L to a CB (in
fact a PCB) matrix M , namely,


4 −2 −2
4 −3  ,
M =  −1
−2 −2
4
and apply Procedure 8.10. The degree of S/I is 14. If K = Q, then I = p1 ∩ p2 , where p1 , p2
are prime ideals of degree 7.
Example 8.14. Let L = h(2, −1, −1), (−3, 1, −1)i, which is a rank 2 non-homogeneous lattice.
The lattice ideal I(L) of L is a non-graded lattice ideal of height 2. By Theorem 8.6, I(L)
cannot be a CB ideal. Concretely
I(L) = ((t21 − t2 t3 , t2 − t31 t3 ) : (t1 t2 t3 )∞ ) = (t21 − t2 t3 , t1 t23 − 1)
If we apply Corollary 4.10 with v1 = −2, v2 = −5 and v3 = 1, we get that I(L) has degree 6.
Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank the referees for their careful reading of
the paper and for the improvements that they suggested.
References
[1] C. Alfaro and C. E. Valencia, On the sandpile group of the cone of a graph, Linear Algebra Appl. 436 (2012),
no. 5, 1154–1176.
[2] J. Bang-Jensen and G. Gutin, Digraphs. Theory, Algorithms and Applications, Springer Monographs in
Mathematics, Springer, 2nd printing, 2006.
[3] A. Berman and R. J. Plemmons, Nonnegative matrices in the mathematical sciences, Classics in Applied
Mathematics 9, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 1994.
[4] N. Biggs, Algebraic Graph Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
[5] W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay Rings, Revised Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[6] W. Bruns and B. Ichim, Normaliz 2.0, Computing normalizations of affine semigroups, 2008. Available
from http://www.math.uos.de/normaliz.
[7] B.W. Char, K.G. Geddes, G.H. Gonnet, S.M. Watt, Maple V Language Reference Manual, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1991.
[8] H. Corrales and C. E. Valencia, On the critical ideals of graphs, Linear Algebra Appl. 439 (2013), no. 12,
3870–3892.
[9] D. Cox, J. Little and D. O’Shea, Ideals, Varieties, and Algorithms, Springer-Verlag, 1992.
[10] D. Eisenbud and B. Sturmfels, Binomial ideals, Duke Math. J. 84 (1996), 1–45.
[11] V. Ene and J. Herzog, Gröbner Bases in Commutative Algebra, Graduate Studies in Mathematics 130,
American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012.
[12] C. Escobar, J. Martı́nez-Bernal and R. H. Villarreal, Relative volumes and minors in monomial subrings,
Linear Algebra Appl. 374 (2003), 275–290.
[13] R. Gilmer, Commutative Semigroup Rings, Chicago Lectures in Math., Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago,
1984.
[14] C. Godsil and G. Royle, Algebraic Graph Theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 207, Springer, 2001.
[15] G. M. Greuel and G. Pfister, A Singular Introduction to Commutative Algebra, 2nd extended edition, Springer,
Berlin, 2008.
[16] J. Herzog, Generators and relations of abelian semigroups and semigroup rings, Manuscripta Math. 3 (1970),
175–193.
[17] N. Jacobson, Basic Algebra I , Second Edition, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1996.
[18] T. Kahle and E. Miller, Decompositions of commutative monoid congruences and binomial ideals. Preprint,
2012, arXiv:1107.4699v3.
[19] E. Kunz, Introduction to Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1985.
[20] H. H. López and R. H. Villarreal, Complete intersections in binomial and lattice ideals, Internat. J. Algebra
Comput. 23 (2013), no. 6, 1419–1429.

34

LIAM O’CARROLL, FRANCESC PLANAS-VILANOVA, AND RAFAEL H. VILLARREAL

[21] H. H. López and R. H. Villarreal, Computing the degree of a lattice ideal of dimension one, J. Symbolic
Comput., to appear. Preprint, 2012, arXiv:1206.1892.
[22] D. Lorenzini, Smith normal form and Laplacians, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 98 (2008), 1271–1300.
[23] M. Manjunath and B. Sturmfels, Monomials, binomials and Riemann-Roch, J. Algebraic Combin. 37 (2013),
no. 4, 737–756.
[24] H. Matsumura, Commutative Algebra, Benjamin-Cummings, Reading, MA, 1980.
[25] H. Matsumura, Commutative Ring Theory, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 8, Cambridge
University Press, 1986.
[26] R. Merris, Laplacian matrices of graphs: a survey, Linear Algebra Appl. 197/198(1994), 143–176.
[27] E. Miller and B. Sturmfels, Combinatorial Commutative Algebra, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 227,
Springer, 2004.
[28] M. Newman, Integral Matrices, Pure and Applied Mathematics 45 , Academic Press, New York, 1972.
[29] L. O’Carroll and F. Planas-Vilanova, Ideals of Herzog-Northcott type, Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. 54 (2011),
161–186.
[30] L. O’Carroll and F. Planas-Vilanova, The primary components of positive critical binomial ideals, J. Algebra
373 (2013), no. 1, 392–413.
[31] I. Peeva and B. Sturmfels, Syzygies of codimension 2 lattice ideals, Math. Z. 229 (1998), no. 1, 163–194.
[32] D. Perkinson, J. Perlman and J. Wilmes, Primer for the algebraic geometry of sandpiles. Preprint, 2011,
arXiv:1112.6163v2.
[33] C. Renterı́a, A. Simis and R. H. Villarreal, Algebraic methods for parameterized codes and invariants of
vanishing ideals over finite fields, Finite Fields Appl. 17 (2011), no. 1, 81–104.
[34] B. Sturmfels, Gröbner Bases and Convex Polytopes, University Lecture Series 8, American Mathematical
Society, Rhode Island, 1996.
[35] W. V. Vasconcelos, Computational Methods in Commutative Algebra and Algebraic Geometry, SpringerVerlag, 1998.
[36] R. H. Villarreal, Monomial Algebras, Monographs and Textbooks in Pure and Applied Mathematics 238,
Marcel Dekker, New York, 2001.
[37] R. H. Villarreal, Monomial Algebras and Polyhedral Geometry, in Handbook of Algebra, Vol. 3 (M. Hazewinkel
Ed.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2003, pp. 257–314.
[38] O. Zariski and P. Samuel, Commutative Algebra, Vol. II, Reprint of the 1960 edition, Graduate Texts in
Mathematics 29, Springer-Verlag, 1975.
Maxwell Institute for Mathematical Sciences, School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, Edinburgh, Scotland
E-mail address: L.O’Carroll@ed.ac.uk
Departament de Matemàtica Aplicada 1, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Diagonal 647,
ETSEIB, 08028 Barcelona, Catalunya
E-mail address: francesc.planas@upc.edu
Departamento de Matemáticas, Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN,
Apartado Postal 14–740, 07000 Mexico City, D.F.
E-mail address: vila@math.cinvestav.mx

