arXiv:1110.0698v3 [] 30 Jul 2012

UPGRADED METHODS FOR THE EFFECTIVE COMPUTATION OF MARKED
SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL
CRISTINA BERTONE, FRANCESCA CIOFFI, PAOLO LELLA, AND MARGHERITA ROGGERO
Abstract. Let J ⊂ S = K[x0 , . . . , xn ] be a monomial strongly stable ideal. The collection Mf(J)
of the homogeneous polynomial ideals I, such that the monomials outside J form a K-vector basis
of S/I, is called a J-marked family. It can be endowed with a structure of affine scheme, called
a J-marked scheme. For special ideals J, J-marked schemes provide an open cover of the Hilbert
scheme Hilbn
p(t) , where p(t) is the Hilbert polynomial of S/J. Those ideals more suitable to this
aim are the m-truncation ideals J ≥m generated by the monomials of degree ≥ m in a saturated
strongly stable monomial ideal J. Exploiting a characterization of the ideals in Mf(J ≥m ) in terms
of a Buchberger-like criterion, we compute the equations defining the J ≥m -marked scheme by a new
reduction relation, called superminimal reduction, and obtain an embedding of Mf(J ≥m ) in an affine
space of low dimension. In this setting, explicit computations are achievable in many non-trivial cases.
Moreover, for every m, we give a closed embedding φm : Mf(J ≥m ) ֒→ Mf(J ≥m+1 ), characterize those
φm that are isomorphisms in terms of the monomial basis of J, especially we characterize the minimum
integer m0 such that φm is an isomorphism for every m ≥ m0 .

Introduction
Let J be a monomial ideal of the polynomial ring S = K[x0 , . . . , xn ] in n+1 variables over a field K.
In this paper, we refine and develop the study begun in [7] to characterize the homogeneous polynomial
ideals I ⊂ S such that the monomials outside J form a K-vector basis of the K-vector space S/I. If
J is strongly stable, such homogeneous ideals constitute a family Mf(J), that is called a J-marked
family and that can be endowed in a very natural way with a structure of affine scheme, called a
J-marked scheme, which turns out to be homogeneous with respect to a non-standard grading and
flat at J (see [7]). Moreover, J-marked schemes generalize the notion of Gröbner strata [15] because
Mf(J) contains all the ideals having J as initial ideal with respect to some term order; however in
general Mf(J) contains also ideals which do not belong to a Gröbner stratum.
In this paper we focus on a particular class of strongly stable ideals: letting J be a saturated
strongly stable ideal, we will consider the truncations J ≥m , for every positive integer m, because in
this setting marked schemes give a theoretical and effective alternative to the study of Hilbert schemes
as subvarieties of a Grassmannian. Theorem 3.3 and Example 3.4 show the reason for the choice of
this special setting. Let Hilbnp(t) be the Hilbert scheme that parameterizes all subschemes of Pn with

Hilbert polynomial p(t), r be the Gotzmann number of p(t) and q(t) = |St | − p(t) = n+t
− p(t) be
n
the volume polynomial. By theoretical results in [4, 7, 6] we are able to compute first the set Bp(t) of
all saturated strongly stable ideals J in S, such that p(t) is the Hilbert polynomial of S/J ; then, for
every ideal J ∈ Bp(t) , we compute explicit equations of degree ≤ deg(p(t)) + 2 defining Mf(J ≥r ) as an
affine subscheme of Ap(r)q(r) . In particular, every Mf(J ≥r ) can be embedded in Hilbnp(t) as an open
subscheme and moreover, as J varies in Bp(t) , the J ≥r -marked schemes Mf(J ≥r ) form an open cover
of Hilbnp(t) , up to changes of coordinates in Pn . Observe that this is not true for Mf(J ), because in
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 14C05, 14Q20, 13P10.
Key words and phrases. Hilbert scheme, strongly stable ideal, polynomial reduction relation.
1

2

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

general Mf(J) is not isomorphic to an open subset of Hilbnp(t) (see Example 6.1 and [24, Section 5]).
Such computational method is effective because the dimension p(r)q(r) of the affine space in which the
|Sr | 
J ≥r -marked schemes Mf(J ≥r ) are embedded is significantly lower than the number q(r)
of Plücker
coordinates. However there is room for further significant improvements.
The present paper is inspired by two questions raised, on the one hand, by similarities of marked
schemes with Gröbner strata and, on the other hand, by experimental observations on examples.
First, we observed that we could eliminate a significant number of variables from the equations
defining Mf(J ≥m ) as an affine subscheme of Ap(m)q(m) , computed using the method developed in [7];
in this way we obtain equations of higher degree than the starting ones, but often more convenient to
use (for example, see [7, Appendix]). This feature has already been observed and studied for Gröbner
strata in [15]. The bottleneck is that elimination of variables is too time-consuming. From this we
wondered how to obtain this new set of equations using in the computations only necessary variables,
avoiding the elimination process.
Our second observation is that, for a fixed J ∈ Bp(t) , as the integer m grows, the families parameterized by marked schemes Mf(J ≥m ) become larger, up to a certain value of m bounded by r. The study
of relations among marked schemes Mf(J ≥m ) as m varies can improve the efficiency of the computational methods in [7]: indeed, if Mf(J ≥m ) and Mf(J ≥m′ ) are isomorphic for some integers m′ < m,
then we can choose to compute defining equations that involve a lower number of variables, that is
′
′
equations for Mf(J ≥m′ ) ⊆ Ap(m )q(m ) . In particular, for applications to the study of Hilbert schemes,
we would like to determine a priori the minimum integer m0 for which Mf(J ≥m0 ) is isomorphic to an
open subset of Hilbnp(t) , that is Mf(J ≥m0 ) ≃ Mf(J ≥r ).
In this paper, considering truncated ideals J ≥m , we answer to both questions by a new reduction
algorithm, called superminimal reduction, that uses, for every I ∈ Mf(J ≥m ), its J ≥m -superminimal
basis (see Definition 3.9), a special subset of the J ≥m -marked basis of I.
For every strongly stable monomial ideal J, the notion of J-marked basis (Definition 1.8) is the
main tool for the study of marked schemes in [7] and also the starting point of the present paper.
Indeed a homogeneous ideal I belongs to Mf(J) if and only if I is generated by a J-marked basis G
(Proposition 1.11). This basis resembles a reduced Gröbner basis for I, where J plays the role of the
initial ideal and the strongly stable property plays the role of the term order.
Indeed, similarly to a reduced Gröbner basis, G is a system of generators of I that contains a
polynomial fα for every term xα in the monomial basis of J: fα = xα − T (fα ) where no monomial
appearing in T (fα ) belongs to J. Moreover, G is characterized by a Buchberger-like criterion (Theorem
2.11) and allows to compute the J-reduced form modulo I of every polynomial in S, by a Noetherian
reduction process (Proposition 2.3).
The J-superminimal basis of I introduced in the present paper is a special subset sG of G containing
a polynomial for every term in the monomial basis of the saturated ideal J (for the details, see
Definitions 3.5 and 3.9): the two sets G and sG are equal if and only if J = J. Using only polynomials
sG∗

in sG and the strongly stable property of J, we define a special process of reduction −−−→ called
superminimal reduction.
In the special case when J is a truncation J ≥m of a saturated strongly stable ideal J, the J ≥m superminimal basis sG has very interesting properties. First of all in this case (but not in general) the
sG∗

superminimal reduction −−−→ turns out to be Noetherian (see Theorem 3.14, (i) and Example 3.13).
Moreover, although in general sG is not a system of generators of I, it completely determines the ideal
sG∗
I because we can solve the ideal-membership problem by the superminimal reduction process −−−→
(Theorem 3.14, (iv)). This allows to compute equations for Mf(J ≥m ) as a subscheme of an affine

UPGRADED METHODS FOR MARKED SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL

3

space of dimension far lower than p(m)q(m), without any variable elimination process (Theorem 5.4),
answering the first question above.
In this new setting, in Theorem 5.7 we compare the J ≥m -marked schemes Mf(J ≥m ) for a fixed
saturated J as m varies, using superminimal bases. We prove that for every m there is a closed
scheme-theoretical embedding φm : Mf(J ≥m−1 ) ֒→ Mf(J ≥m ). Moreover, we provide an easy criterion
on the monomial basis of J to characterize the integers m for which φm is an isomorphism. Especially,
this criterion allows to determine the minimum integer m0 such that φm is an isomorphism for every
m ≥ m0 , and in particular Mf(J ≥m0 ) is isomorphic to an open subset of Hilbnp(t) (see [4]).
Our investigation on marked schemes lies in the framework of the methods and results obtained in
the last years by several authors [5, 10, 15, 20, 23, 24] about families of ideals with a fixed monomial
basis for the quotient. Another close framework is the one in [2, 19], where the authors study the
collection of all monomial ideals J that are initial ideals of a fixed homogeneous ideal I w.r.t. some
term order.
In [4], the results of [7] and the ones of the present paper are applied to study relations among
marked schemes and Hilbert schemes; in particular, in [4] the authors study how marked schemes can
be used to obtain a computable open cover of Hilbnp(t) that has also interesting theoretical features.
We are confident that these results, both theoretical and computational ones, may be helpful in the
solution of some open problems about Hilbert schemes; indeed, they have been already applied in
order to investigate the locus of points of the Hilbert scheme with bounded regularity (see [1]); the
ideas and strategies used by [11] to study deformations of ACM curves are inspired by the ones in the
present paper; in [16] the authors apply the computational strategy to the Hilbert scheme of locally
CM curves. Other investigations led by these tools are in progress. In the future, we are interested in
deeply comparing marked bases with other kinds of Gröbner-like bases, referring to [18].
In Section 1, we introduce notations and basic results and, in Section 2, we recall the Buchber-gerlike criterion described in [7], with some development that involves the Eliahou and Kervaire syzygies
of a strongly stable ideal (Theorem 2.11, (iii) and Corollary 2.13). Moreover, we compute sets of
generators of the ideal AJ that defines the structure of affine scheme of Mf(J) (see Corollary 2.17 and
Remark 2.18).
In Section 3, we define the superminimal reduction (Definition 3.11) and investigate its properties.
In Section 4 we describe a new Buchberger-like criterion for J ≥m -marked bases (Theorem 4.5) and
some variants of it (Corollary 4.6 and Theorem 4.7). In particular, the second variant leads to a
remarkable improvement of the efficiency of explicit computational procedures.
In Section 5, we focus on the ideal that defines the structure of affine scheme of Mf(J ≥m ) and
we characterize the integers m, m′ , m > m′ , such that the schemes Mf(J ≥m ) and Mf(J ≥m′ ) are
isomorphic (Theorem 5.7).
Finally, in Section 6 we provide examples in which we apply the proved results and we compute the
equations defining the affine structure of a J ≥m -marked scheme in a “small” affine space, using the
Algorithm that we describe in the Appendix.
1. Notations and generalities
Let K be an algebraically closed field and S := K[x0 , . . . , xn ] (K[x] for short) the polynomial ring
in n + 1 variables with x0 < · · · < xn . We will denote by xα = xα0 0 · · · xαnn every monomial in S, where
α = (α0 , . . . , αn ) is its multi-index and |α| is its degree.
We say that a monomial xγ is divisible by xα (xα | xγ for short) if there exists a monomial xβ such
that xα · xβ = xγ . If such monomial does not exist, we will write xα ∤ xγ . For every monomial xα 6= 1,
we set min(xα ) := min{xi : xi | xα } and max(xα ) := max{xi : xi | xα }.

4

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

We will denote by >Lex the usual lexicographic order on the monomials of S: in our setting xα >Lex
if the last non-null element of α − β is positive.
L
We consider the standard grading on S =
L m∈Z Sm , where Sm is the additive group of homogeneous
polynomials of degree m; we let S>m = m′ ≥m Sm′ and in the same way, for every subset A ⊆ S,
we let Am = A ∩ Sm and A>m = A ∩ S>m . Elements and ideals in S are always supposed to be
homogeneous.
We will say that a monomial xβ can be obtained by a monomial xα through an elementary move
if xα xj = xβ xi for some variables xi 6= xj . In particular, if i < j, we say that xβ can be obtained
α
by xα through an increasing elementary move and we write xβ = e+
i,j (x ), whereas if i > j the move
−
is said to be decreasing and we write xβ = ei,j (xα ). The transitive closure of the relation xβ > xα if
α
xβ = e+
i,j (x ) gives a partial order on the set of monomials of a fixed degree, that we will denote by
>B and that is often called Borel partial order :
xβ

γt
α
β
+
xβ >B xα ⇐⇒ ∃ xγ1 , . . . , xγt such that xγ1 = e+
i0 ,j0 (x ), . . . , x = eit ,jt (x )

for suitable indexes ik , jk . In analogous way, we can define the same relation using decreasing moves:
−
β
α
δs
xβ >B xα ⇐⇒ ∃ xδ1 , . . . , xδs such that xδ1 = e−
h0 ,l0 (x ), . . . , x = ehs ,ls (x )

for suitable indexes ik , jk . Note that every term order ≻ is a refinement of the Borel partial order >B ,
that is xβ >B xα implies that xβ ≻ xα .
Definition 1.1. An ideal J ⊂ K[x] is said to be strongly stable if every monomial xβ such that
xβ >B xα , with xα ∈ J, belongs to J.
A strongly stable ideal is always Borel fixed, that is fixed by the action of the Borel subgroup of
upper triangular matrices of GL(n + 1). If ch(K) = 0, also the vice versa holds (e.g. [8]) and [13]
guarantees that in generic coordinates the initial ideal of an ideal I, w.r.t. a fixed term order, is a
constant Borel fixed monomial ideal called the generic initial ideal of I.
If J is a monomial ideal in S, BJ will denote its monomial basis and N (J) its sous-escalier, that is
the set of monomials not belonging to J.
An homogeneous ideal I is m-regular if the i-th syzygy module of I is generated in degree ≤ m + i,
for all i ≥ 0. The regularity of I is the smallest integer m for which I is m-regular; we denote it by
reg(I). The saturation of a homogeneous ideal I is I sat = {f ∈ S | ∀ j = 0, . . . , n, ∃ r ∈ N : xrj f ∈ I}.
The ideal I is saturated if I sat = I and is m-saturated if (I sat )t = It for each t ≥ m. The satiety of I
is the smallest integer m for which I is m-saturated; we denote it by sat(I).
We recall that if J is strongly stable then reg(J) = max{deg xα : xα ∈ BJ } [3, Proposition 2.9]
and sat(J) = max{deg xα : xα ∈ BJ and x0 | xα } (for example, see [14, Corollary 2.10]).
Lemma 1.2. Let J be a strongly stable ideal in K[x0 , . . . , xn ]. Then:
xα
(i) xα ∈ J \ BJ ⇒
∈ J;
min(xα )
(ii) xβ ∈ N (J) and xi xβ ∈ J ⇒ either xi xβ ∈ BJ or xi > min(xβ ).
Proof. Both properties follow from Definition 1.1.



Definition 1.3. For every monomial xα in S we denote by xα the monomial obtained putting x0 = 1.
Analogously, if J is a monomial ideal in K[x], we denote by J the ideal in K[x] generated by {xα :
xα ∈ BJ }.
If J is strongly stable, then J sat = J (this follows straightforwardly from [14, Corollary 2.10]); in
particular, the set {xα : xα ∈ BJ } of the monomials xα , such that xα = xα · xt0 belongs to BJ for a
suitable t ≥ 0, contains the monomial basis BJ .

UPGRADED METHODS FOR MARKED SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL

5

Many tools we are going to use were introduced in [22] and developed in [7]. For this reason, we
now resume some notations and definitions given in those papers.
Definition 1.4. For any non-zero homogeneous polynomial f ∈ S, the support of f is the set Supp(f )
of monomials that appear in f with a non-zero coefficient.
Definition 1.5 ([22]). A marked polynomial is a polynomial f ∈ S together with a specified monomial
of Supp(f ) that will be called head term of f and denoted by Ht(f ).
Remark 1.6. Although in this paper we use the word “monomial”, we say “head term” for coherency
with the notation introduced by [22]. Anyway, in this paper there will be no possible ambiguity on
the meaning of “head term of f ”, because we will always consider marked polynomials f such that
the coefficient of Ht(f ) in f is 1.
Definition 1.7 ([7]). Given a monomial ideal J and an ideal I, a polynomial is J-reduced if its support
is contained in N (J) and a J-reduced form modulo I of a polynomial h is a polynomial h0 such that
h − h0 ∈ I and Supp(h0 ) ⊆ N (J). If there is a unique J-reduced form modulo I of h, we call it
J-normal form modulo I and denote it by Nf(h).
Note that every polynomial h has a unique J-reduced form modulo an ideal I if and only if N (J)
is a K-basis for the quotient S/I or, equivalently, S = I ⊕ hN (J)i as a K-vector space. If moreover
I is homogeneous, the J-reduced form modulo I of a homogeneous polynomial is supposed to be
homogeneous too. These facts motivate the following definitions.
P
Definition 1.8. A finite set G of homogeneous marked polynomials fα = xα − cαγ xγ , with Ht(fα ) =
xα , is called a J-marked set if the head terms Ht(fα ) form the monomial basis BJ of a monomial ideal
J, are pairwise different and every xγ belongs to N (J), i.e. |Supp(fα ) ∩ J| = 1. We call tail of fα
the polynomial T (fα ) := Ht(fα ) − fα , so that Supp(T (fα )) ⊆ N (J). A J-marked set G is a J-marked
basis if N (J) is a basis of S/(G) as a K-vector space.
Definition 1.9. The collection of all the homogeneous ideals I such that N (J) is a basis of the
quotient S/I as a K-vector space will be denoted by Mf(J) and called a J-marked family. If J is a
strongly stable ideal, then Mf(J) can be endowed with a natural structure of scheme (see [7, Section
4]) that we call J-marked scheme.
Remark 1.10.
(i) The ideal (G) generated by a J-marked basis G has the same Hilbert function of J, hence
dimK Jm = dimK (G)m , by the definition of J-marked basis itself. Moreover, note that a Jmarked basis is unique for the ideal that it generates, by the uniqueness of the J-normal forms
modulo I of the monomials in BJ .
(ii) Mf(J) contains every homogeneous ideal having J as initial ideal w.r.t. some term order, but it
might also contain other ideals: see [7, Example 3.18].
(iii) When J is a strongly stable ideal, all homogeneous polynomials have J-reduced forms modulo
every ideal generated by a J-marked set G (see [7, Theorem 2.2]).
Proposition 1.11. Let J be a strongly stable ideal, I be a homogeneous ideal generated by a J-marked
set G. The following facts are equivalent:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

I ∈ Mf(J)
G is a J-marked basis;
dimk It = dimK Jt , for every integer t;
if h ∈ I and h is J-reduced, then h = 0.

6

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

Proof. For the equivalence among the first three statements, see [7, Corollaries 2.3, 2.4, 2.5]. For
the equivalence among (i) and (iv), observe that if I ∈ Mf(J), then every polynomial has a unique
J-reduced form modulo I; so, the J-reduced form modulo I of a polynomial of I must be null. Vice
versa, it is enough to show that every polynomial f has a unique J-reduced form modulo I. Let f¯
and f¯ be two J-reduced forms modulo I of f . Then, f¯ − f¯ is a J-reduced polynomial of I because
f − f¯ and f − f¯ belong to I by definition. We are done, because f¯ − f¯ is null by the hypothesis. 
2. Background on Buchberger-like criterion for J-marked bases and some
developments
In this section we recall and develop some results of [7]. Throughout this section, J is a strongly
stable ideal and G is a J-marked set.
Definition 2.1. Let mJ := min{t : Jt 6= (0)} be the initial degree of J. For every ℓ ≥ mJ we define
the set
Wℓ := {xδ fα | fα ∈ G and | δ + α| = ℓ}
that becomes a set of marked polynomials by letting Ht(xδ fα ) = xδ+α . We set W = ∪ℓ Wℓ . For every
ℓ ≥ mJ we also define a special subset of Wℓ :
Vℓ := {xδ fα ∈ Wℓ | xδ = 1 or max(xδ ) ≤ min(xα )}.
We let V = ∪ℓ Vℓ . Moreover, hV i denotes the vector space generated by the polynomials in V and
V

ℓ
−→
is the reduction relation on homogeneous polynomials of degree ℓ defined in the usual sense of
Gröbner basis theory (see also [7, Proposition 3.6]).

The above Definition is equivalent to the Definition 3.2 in [7] due to Remark 3.3 of the same paper.
Note that (G)ℓ is generated by Wℓ as a K-vector space.
Lemma 2.2. Let J be a strongly stable ideal. An ideal I generated by a J-marked set G belongs to
Mf(J) if and only if hW i = hV i as K-vector spaces.
Proof. It is sufficient to observe that for every ℓ ≥ mJ , the number of elements in Vℓ is equal to the
number of monomials in Jℓ , so dimhVℓ i ≤ dim Jℓ . On the other hand, dimhWℓ i = dim Iℓ ≥ dim Jℓ by
[7, Corollary 2.3]. By Proposition 1.11 we get the equivalence of the statements.

We have already recalled that, when J is a strongly stable ideal, every homogeneous polynomial
has a J-reduced form modulo an ideal generated by a J-marked set G (Remark 1.10 (iii)). Further, a
V

ℓ
J-reduced form of a homogeneous polynomial can be constructed by the reduction relation −→,
as it
is recalled by next Proposition.

Proposition 2.3. [7, Proposition 3.6] With the above notation, every monomial xβ ∈ Jℓ can be
reduced to a J-reduced form modulo (G) in a finite number of reduction steps, using only polynomials
V

ℓ
of Vℓ . Hence, the reduction relation −→
is Noetherian.

V

ℓ
The Noetherianity of the reduction relation −→
provides an algorithm that reduces every homogeneous polynomial of degree ℓ to a J-reduced form modulo (G) in a finite number of steps. We note
that on the one hand it is convenient to substitute the polynomials in Vℓ by their J-reduced normal
forms for an efficient implementation of a reduction algorithm, but, on the other hand, in the proofs
it is convenient to use the polynomials of Vℓ as constructed in Definition 2.1.

UPGRADED METHODS FOR MARKED SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL

7

V

ℓ
2.1. Order on Wℓ . Using the Noetherianity of the reduction relation −→,
we can recognize when a
J-marked set is a J-marked basis by a Buchberger-like criterion (see [7, Theorem 3.12]). To this aim
we need to set an order on the set Wℓ .
The order that we are going to define on Wℓ in Definition 2.7 is based on the following Definition
and Lemma that are inspired by [9] and [17, Lemma 2.11].

Definition 2.4. Given a strongly stable monomial ideal J in S, with monomial basis BJ , and a
monomial xγ ∈ J, we define
xγ = xα ∗J xη ,

with γ = α + η, xα ∈ BJ and min(xα ) ≥ max(xη ).

This decomposition exists and is unique (see [9, Lemma 1.1]).
Lemma 2.5. Let J be a strongly stable ideal. If xǫ belongs to N (J) and xǫ · xδ = xǫ+δ belongs to J
for some xδ , then xǫ+δ = xα ∗J xη with xη <Lex xδ . Furthermore:
(i) if |δ| = |η|, then xη <B xδ ; and
(ii) xη <Lex xδ .
Proof. We can assume that xδ and xη are coprime; indeed, if this is not the case, we can divide
the involved equalities of monomials by gcd(xδ , xη ). If xη = 1, all the statements are obvious. If
xη 6= 1, then min(xδ )|xα because xδ and xη are coprime, hence min(xδ ) ≥ min(xα ) ≥ max(xη ) and
so min(xδ ) > max(xη ) because they cannot coincide. This inequality implies both xη <Lex xδ and
xη <Lex xδ . Moreover, if |δ| = |η|, this is also sufficient to conclude that xη <B xδ .

Remark 2.6. Observe that if gβ = xδ fα belongs to Vℓ , then xβ = xα ∗J xδ .
′

Definition 2.7. Let ≥ be any order on G and xδ fα , xδ fα′ be two elements of Wℓ . We set
′

′

′

xδ fα ℓ xδ fα′ ⇔ xδ >Lex xδ or xδ = xδ and fα ≥ fα′ .
Lemma 2.8.
′
(i) For every two elements xδ fα , xδ fα′ of Wℓ we get
′

′

xδ fα ℓ xδ fα′ ⇒ ∀xη : xδ+η fα ℓ′ xδ +η fα′ ,
where ℓ′ = |δ + η + α|.
(ii) Every polynomial gβ ∈ Vℓ is the minimum w.r.t. ℓ of the subset Wβ of Wℓ containing all
polynomials of Wℓ with xβ as head term.
(iii) If xδ fα belongs to Wℓ \ Gℓ and xβ belongs to Supp(xδ T (fα )) with gβ ∈ Vℓ , then xδ fα ≻ℓ gβ .
Proof.
(i) This follows by the analogous property of the term order >Lex .
′
′
′
(ii) Let gβ = xδ fα′ be the polynomial of V such that xβ = xα ∗J xδ and xδ fα be another polynomial
′
of Wβ . We can assume that xδ and xδ are coprime; otherwise, we can divide the involved
′
inequalities of monomials by gcd(xδ , xδ ). By Remark 2.6 and Definition 2.4, we have that
′
′
′
max(xδ ) ≤ min(xα ) and max(xδ ) > min(xα ). Then, we get max(xδ ) > max(xδ ) because
′
′
′
xα ∤ xα and xα ∤ xα . Thus, xδ >Lex xδ .
′
′
(iii) If xβ belongs to BJ we are done. Otherwise, let xβ = xα ∗J xδ and note that every monomial
of Supp(xδ fα ) is a multiple of xδ , in particular xβ = xδ+γ for some xγ ∈ N (J). By Lemma 2.5,
′

we get xδ <Lex xδ .
Remark 2.9. We point out that the order defined in [7, Definition 3.9] does not satisfy the conditions
listed in Lemma 2.8 and in [7, Lemma 3.10]. These conditions have a crucial role in the proof of
[7, Theorem 3.12] and for this reason it has been a mistake to use the order of [7, Definition 3.9] in

8

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

that Theorem. So, here we replace such order by that defined in new Definition 2.7. Aside the order,
the original reduction and Buchberger criterion are the same, as we will state in Theorem 2.11, (i)
and (ii). Also, we give an improvement by Theorem 2.11, (iii) and by Corollary 2.13. Moreover, we
observe that for the same reason the results about syzygies of the ideal I generated by a J-marked
basis proposed in [7, Section 3] hold by using the order on Wℓ of Definition 2.7 and do not hold by
using the order of [7, Definition 3.9].
2.2. Improved Buchberger-like criterion for J-marked bases.
Definition 2.10. The S-polynomial of two elements fα , fα′ of a J-marked set G is the polynomial
′
′
′
′
S(fα , fα′ ) := xγ fα − xγ fα′ , where xγ+α = xγ +α = lcm(xα , xα ).
Theorem 2.11. (Buchberger-like criterion) Let J be a strongly stable ideal and I the homogeneous
ideal generated by a J-marked set G. With the above notation, TFAE:
(i) I ∈ Mf(J);
V

ℓ
0;
(ii) ∀fα, fα′ ∈ G, S(fα , fα′ ) −→
P
′
′
aj xηj fαj , with xηj <Lex maxLex {xγ , xγ } and
(iii) ∀fα, fα′ ∈ G, S(fα , fα′ ) = xγ fα − xγ fα′ =
xηj fαj ∈ Vℓ .

Proof. For the equivalence between (i) and (ii), we refer to the proof of [7, Theorem 3.12] by using
Definition 2.7 instead of [7, Definition 3.9].
V

ℓ
Statement (ii) implies (iii) by the definition of the reduction relation −→
and by Lemma 2.8 (iii).
It remains to prove that statement (iii) implies (i).
We want to prove that I = hV i or, equivalently by Lemma 2.2, that hV i = hW i. It is sufficient
to prove that xη · V ⊆ hV i, for every monomial xη . We proceed by induction on the monomials xη ,
ordered according to Lex. The thesis is obviously true for xη = 1. We then assume that the thesis
′
′
holds for any monomial xη such that xη <Lex xη .
If |η| > 1, we can consider any product xη = xη1 · xη2 , xη1 and xη2 non-constant. Since xηi <Lex
η
x , i = 1, 2, we immediately obtain by induction

xη · V = xη1 · (xη2 · V ) ⊆ xη1 hV i ⊆ hV i.
If |η| = 1, then we need to prove that xi · V ⊆ hV i. Since x0 V ⊆ V , it is then sufficient to prove the
′
thesis for xη = xi , assuming that the thesis holds for every xη <Lex xi . We consider gβ = xδ fα ∈ V ,
where max(xδ ) ≤ min(xα ). If xi gβ does not belong to V , then max(xi ·xδ ) > min(xα ), so xi > min(xα ).
In particular, xi > min(xα ) ≥ max(xδ ), so xi >Lex xδ : by induction, it is now sufficient to prove the
thesis for xi fα .
We consider an S-polynomial S(fα , fα′ ) = xi fα − xγ fα′ such that xγ <Lex xi . Such S-polynomial
′
′
′
always exists: for instance, we can consider xi xα = xα ∗J xη . By the hypothesis xi fα − xη fα′ =
P
′
′
′

aj xη j fαj where xη fα′ , xη j fαj ∈ Vℓ and then xi fα belongs to hV i.
For any strongly stable ideal J, with monomial basis BJ = {xα1 , . . . , xαr }, we can consider the set
of syzygies of the following kind
xj eαi − xη eαk , with xj > min(xαi ) and xj xαi = xαk ∗J xη .
This set of syzygies is actually a minimal set of generators for the first module of syzygies of J; this
is due to Eliahou and Kervaire (see [9] and [14, Theorem 1.31]).
Definition 2.12. We call Eliahou-Kervaire couple of the J-marked set G any couple of polynomials
fα , fβ , Ht(fα ) = xα , Ht(fβ ) = xβ , such that
xj xα = xβ ∗J xη for some xj > min(xα ).

UPGRADED METHODS FOR MARKED SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL

9

We call Eliahou-Kervaire S-polynomial (EK-polynomial, for short) of G an S-polynomial among an
Eliahou-Kervaire couple of polynomials fα and fβ . We denote such S-polynomial by S EK (fα , fβ ).
Observe that, thanks to the definition, an EK-polynomial is of kind
S EK (fα , fβ ) = xj fα − xη fβ , for some xj > min(xα ), with xj xα = xβ ∗J xη .
In the proof of Theorem 2.11, it is sufficient to assume that (iii) holds only for EK-polynomials, as
stated in the following result.
Corollary 2.13. With the same notation of Theorem 2.11,
V

ℓ
I ∈ Mf(J) ⇔ for every EK-polynomial between elements of G, S EK (fα , fβ ) −−→
0.

Proof. In the proof of Theorem 2.11 the crucial point is the existence of an S-polynomial of kind
xi fα − xη fβ with xη <Lex xi , and we used exactly an EK-polynomial.

2.3. The scheme structure of Mf(J). Now, we recall and develop some features of the affine
scheme structure of Mf(J). Let p(t) the Hilbert polynomial of S/J and r its Gotzmann number. In
the following we will denote by G the J-marked set:
o
n
X
(1)
G = Fα = xα −
Cαγ xγ : Ht(Fα ) = xα ∈ BJ , xγ ∈ N (J)|α|
and by IJ the ideal generated by G in the ring K[C, x], where C is a compact notation for the set of
new variables Cαγ .
For every polynomial H ∈ K[C, x], we denote by Suppx (H) the set of monomials in the variables
xi that appear in H with non-null coefficients and by Coeffx (H) ⊂ K[C] the set of such coefficients,
that we call x-coefficients.
Let Vℓ and Wℓ be the analogous for G of Vℓ and of Wℓ , respectively, for any J-marked set G. We
will denote by AJ the ideal of K[C] generated by the x-coefficients of the J-reduced forms, obtained
V

V

ℓ
ℓ
by −−→
, of the S-polynomials S(Fα , Fα′ ) among elements of G. This ideal does not depend on −−→
EK
|C|
and defines the subscheme structure of Mf(J) in the affine space A (see [7, Theorem 4.1]). Let AJ
be the ideal of K[C] generated by the x-coefficients of the J-reduced forms of the EK-polynomials of

V

ℓ
G obtained by −−→
.
It is clear that AEK
⊆ AJ . Anyway, we will prove that AEK
and AJ are the same ideal, although
J
J
AJ is defined by a set of generators bigger than the set of generators of AEK
J . More precisely, we prove
EK
that the ideal AJ contains the x-coefficients of every J-reduced polynomial in IJ .

Lemma 2.14.
(i) For every monomial xβ = xα ∗J xδ ∈ J, there is a formula of type
X
xβ =
ai xγi Fαi + Hβ ,

with ai ∈ K[C], xγi Fαi ∈ V, xγi ≤Lex xβ and Suppx (Hβ ) ⊂ N (J).
(ii) For every polynomial xi Fα ∈ W \ V, there is a formula of type
X
xi Fα =
aj xηj Fαj + Hi,α ,

with aj ∈ K[C], xηj Fαj ∈ V, xηj <Lex xi , Suppx (Hi,α ) ⊂ N (J) and Coeffx (Hi,α ) ⊂ AEK
J .
V

ℓ
and by Lemma
Proof. Statement (i) follows from the existence of J-reduced forms obtained by −−→
EK
2.8, (iii). Statement (ii) follows also from the definition of AJ .


10

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

Proposition 2.15. For every polynomial xδ Fα ∈ W \ V, we have
X
(2)
xδ Fα =
bj xηj Fαj + Hδ,α ,

with bj ∈ K[C], xηj Fαj ∈ V, xηj <Lex xδ , Suppx (Hδ,α ) ⊂ N (J) and Coeffx (Hδ,α ) ⊂ AEK
J .
Proof. For |δ| = 1 it is enough to use Lemma 2.14 (ii). Assume that |δ| > 1 and that the thesis holds
δ
′
′
′
for every xδ <Lex xδ . Let xi = min(xδ ) and xδ = xxi , so that xδ Fα belongs to W \ V.
P
′
′
′
′
By the inductive hypothesis, we have xδ Fα = b′j xηj Fαj +Hδ′ ,α , with xηj <Lex xδ . So, multiplying
P ′
′
′
by xi , we obtain xδ Fα =
bj xi xηj Fαj + xi Hδ′ ,α and the thesis holds for every polynomial xi xηj Fαj
′

′

that belongs to W \ V because xi xηj <Lex xi xδ = xδ . Then, we replace such polynomials by formulas
of type (2) and obtain
X
xδ Fα =
bs xηs Fαs + H ′ + xi Hδ′ ,α

where the first sum satisfies the conditions of (2) and H ′ is J-reduced with Suppx (H ′ ) ⊂ N (J) and
Coeffx (H ′ ) ⊂ AEK
J .
Note that Coeffx (xi Hδ′ ,α ) = Coeffx (Hδ′ ,α ) ⊂ AEK
J , but we do not know if Suppx (xi Hδ′ ,α ) ⊂ N (J).
′
′
If xβ ∈ Suppx (Hδ′ ,α ) has x-coefficient b in Hδ′ ,α and xβ = xi xβ belongs to J, then we can use Lemma
P
′
2.14 (i) obtaining bxβ =
bak xγi Fαk + bHβ . Moreover, if xβ = xα ∗J xǫ , then xγi ≤Lex xǫ <Lex
′
xi <Lex xδ , where the second inequality is due to the fact that xβ ∈ N (J) and to Lemma 2.5, and all
the x-coefficients of Hβ belong to AEK
because they are divisible by b. Replacing all such monomials
J
xβ , we obtain the thesis and Hδ,α is J-reduced with x-coefficients in AEK
J , because it is the sum of
EK
J-reduced polynomials with x-coefficients in AJ .

P
Corollary 2.16. Every polynomial of IJ can be written in a unique way as
bj xηj Fαj + H, with
bj ∈ K[C], xηj Fαj ∈ V and H J-reduced. Moreover, we obtain also that Coeffx (H) ⊂ AEK
J .

Proof. By definition, every polynomial of IJ is a linear combination of polynomials of V ∪ (W \V) with
x-coefficients in K[C] and, by Proposition 2.15, every such polynomial can be written has described
in the P
statement. Hence, we have only to prove the uniqueness of this writing.
Let
bj xηj Fαj + H = 0 be the difference between two writings of the same polynomial of IJ , with
bj 6= 0, xηj Fαj ∈ V pairwise different and H J-reduced. Let xη1 xα1 the maximum of the monomials
w.r.t. the order for which xηi xαi is lower than xηj xαj if xηi <Lex xηj or xηi = xηj and xαi < xαj , where
< is any order fixed on BJ . By definition of V, the unique polynomial of V with head term xη1 xα1 is
xη1 Fα1 . Moreover, the monomial xη1 xα1 does not appear with a non-null coefficient in any polynomial
of the sum because every other monomial belongs to N (J) or is lower than it, by construction. Further,
xη1 xα1 does not belong to Suppx (H) because Suppx (H) ⊂ N (J) and xη1 xα1 ∈ J. Thus, we obtain a
contradiction to the fact that bj 6= 0.

Corollary 2.17. The ideal AEK
contains the x-coefficients of every J-reduced polynomial of IJ . In
J
EK
particular, AJ = AJ .
P
Proof. Let F be a J-reduced polynomial of IJ and let F =
bj xηj Fαj + H as in Corollary 2.16. Since
F itself is J-reduced, also F = 0 + F is a formula as described in Corollary 2.16 and we obtain that
F = H, by the uniqueness of this formula. Hence, we have Coeffx (F ) = Coeffx (H) ⊂ AEK
J . The last
assertion is due to the definition of AJ .

b J ⊆ AJ ⊆ K[C] such that condition (ii) of Lemma 2.14 holds,
Remark 2.18. Actually, for every ideal A
also Corollary 2.17 holds. We are then allowed to choose different sets of S-polynomials of G in order
to obtain generators of the ideal AJ .

UPGRADED METHODS FOR MARKED SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL

11

3. Superminimal generators and reduction
In this section we introduce the notion of m-truncation ideal and a new polynomial reduction
process, that we call superminimal reduction, useful to find a new set of equations to define a marked
scheme. From the next section on, we will focus on J-marked schemes with J a strongly stable mtruncation. The reason is twofold: on the one hand, strongly stable m-truncation ideals have a good
behavior also from the geometric point of view (Theorem 3.3 and Example 3.4); on the other hand, the
superminimal reduction is Noetherian when we take a strongly stable m-truncation ideal (Theorem
3.14), but it is not if we just consider a strongly stable ideal (Example 3.13).
3.1. Truncation strongly stable ideals.
Definition 3.1. Let J ⊆ S be a monomial ideal. We will say that J is an m-truncation if J is the
truncation of J sat in degree m, that is J = (J sat )≥m .
We observe that an m-truncation ideal J is strongly stable if and only if J sat is and that if J is
strongly stable, then J sat = J .
The following Lemma highlights some simple features of m-truncation strongly stable ideals, which
will turn out to be crucial in the proofs of our main results.
Lemma 3.2. Let J be a strongly stable m-truncation. Then:
(i) BJ ∩ BJ = (BJ )≥m .
m−|β|
(ii) ∀xβ ∈ BJ \ BJ : xβ x0
∈ BJ .
γ
(iii) ∀x ∈ S≥m , ∀t ∈ N : xγ xt0 ∈ J ⇔ xγ ∈ J.
(iv) N (J)≥m = N (J )≥m .
(v) ∀ h ∈ S≥m : h is J-reduced ⇔ h is J-reduced.
(vi) If I belongs to Mf(J), then for every homogeneous polynomial h of degree ≥ m, J-normal forms
modulo I satisfy: Nf(xt0 · h) = xt0 · Nf(h).
Proof. Facts (i) and (ii) are straightforward consequences of the definition of m-truncations.
For (iii), we only prove the non trivial part “⇒”. If xγ xt0 ∈ J, then xγ belongs to J. Since J is an
m-truncation and xγ ∈ S≥m , then xγ ∈ J too.
Statements (iv) and (v) are obviously equivalent to (iii).
For (vi), we recall that the J-reduced form modulo I of any polynomial is unique since I belongs to
Mf(J). By (iii), both Nf(xt0 · h) and xt0 · Nf(h) are J-reduced forms of xt0 h and then they coincide. 
Theorem 3.3. Let J be a strongly stable m-truncation ideal. Two different ideals a and b of Mf(J)
give rise to different subschemes of Pn , thus they correspond to different points of the Hilbert scheme
Hilbnp(t) with p(t) the Hilbert polynomial of S/J.
Proof. By the uniqueness of the reduced form, there is a monomial xα ∈ BJ such that the corresponding polynomials fαa and fαb of the J-marked bases of a and b, respectively, are different and moreover
such that fαa 6∈ b and fαb 6∈ a. If a and b defined the same projective scheme, we would have ar = br
for some r ≫ 0. Hence x0r−m fαa − x0r−m fβb = x0r−m (−T (fαa ) + T (fβb )) is a non-zero polynomial that
belongs (for instance) to a. Moreover, due to Lemma 3.2, (iii), x0r−m (−T (fαa ) + T (fβb )) is J-reduced
modulo a: this is impossible because of Proposition 1.11, (iv).

The following example shows that, if J is a strongly stable ideal but not an m-truncation, different
ideals in Mf(J) may define the same subscheme in Pn . This is the first reason why we will focus
mainly on strongly stable m-truncations.
Example 3.4. In the ring S = K[x0 , x1 , x2 ], let us consider the strongly stable ideal J = (x2 , x21 ,
x1 x0 ) and for every c ∈ K the ideal ac = (x2 + cx1 , x21 , x1 x0 ). An easy computation shows that the

12

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

ideals ac belong to Mf(J) and are pairwise different. However, x22 , x2 x1 , x2 x0 belong to ac : indeed
x22 = (x2 + cx1 )(x2 − cx1 ) + c2 x21 , x2 x1 = (x2 + cx1 )x1 − cx21 , x2 x0 = (x2 + cx1 )x0 − cx1 x0 ; hence
the saturation of ac is J. Then, the subschemes Proj (S/ac ) of P2 coincide. We can observe that
the difference between the ideals ac disappears if we only consider their homogeneous components of
degree ≥ 2.
3.2. Superminimals. In the following we will use the notation stated in Definition 1.3.
Definition 3.5. Let J be a strongly stable ideal. The set of superminimal generators of J is
sBJ = {xβ ∈ BJ | xβ ∈ BJ }.
Remark 3.6. Another special set of monomials for a strongly stable ideal J is the so-called set of Borel
generators (see [12]), namely the smallest subset of BJ such that J is the minimum strongly stable
ideal containing them. Although there is a clear analogy between the ideas underlying the definition
of superminimal generators and that of Borel generators, however they do not coincide in general.
Example 3.7. Consider J := (x32 , x22 x1 , x2 x21 , x61 ) ⊆ K[x0 , x1 , x2 ] and its 5-truncation ideal J := J >5 .
The set of superminimal generators of J is sBJ = {x32 x20 , x22 x1 x20 , x2 x21 x20 , x61 }, while the set of Borel
3 2
2 2
generators of J is {x2 x21 x20 , x61 }, because x2 x21 x20 ∈ J imposes x22 x1 x20 = e+
1,2 (x2 x1 x0 ) ∈ J and x2 x0 =
+
+
2
2
e1,2 ◦ e1,2 (x2 x1 x0 ) ∈ J.
Example 3.8. Consider J := (x22 , x2 x21 , x2 x1 x0 , x2 x20 ) ⊆ K[x0 , x1 , x2 ] whose saturation is J = (x2 ).
The set of superminimal generators of J is sBJ = {x2 x20 }, while the set of Borel generators of J is
{x22 , x2 x20 }.
P
Definition 3.9. Let J be a strongly stable ideal. A finite set of marked polynomials fβ = xβ − cβγ xγ ,
with Ht(fβ ) = xβ , is a J-marked superminimal set if the head terms form the set of superminimal
generators sBJ of J, they are pairwise different, and xγ ∈ N (J). We call tail of fβ the homogeneous
polynomial T (fβ ) := xβ − fβ .
Every J-marked set G contains a (unique) subset sG of this type, that is called the set of superminimals of G; if G is a J-marked basis, sG is called J-superminimal basis.
Remark 3.10. If Γ is a J-marked superminimal set, it can always be completed to a (non-unique)
J-marked set G. For instance G = Γ ∪ (BJ \ sBJ ).
On the other hand, if I ∈ Mf(J), then its J-superminimal basis is the only J-marked superminimal
set contained in I. In fact, for every xβ ∈ sBJ , if fβ belongs to both I and a J-marked superminimal
set, then xβ − fβ has to be a J-reduced form of xβ modulo I, which is the unique normal form Nf(xβ )
modulo I.
Definition 3.11. Consider a strongly stable ideal J, a J-marked set G and two polynomials h and
h1 . We say that h is in sG∗ -relation with h1 if there is a monomial xγ ∈ Supp(h) ∩ J, c = Coeff(xγ ),
such that xγ is divisible by a superminimal generator xα of J, with xγ = xα ∗J xη = xα · xǫ and
h1 = h − c · xǫ fα , that is h1 is obtained by replacing the monomial xγ in h by xǫ · T (fα ). We call
sG∗

superminimal reduction the transitive closure of the above relation and denote it by −−−→. Moreover,
we say that:
sG∗

sG∗

- h can be reduced to h1 by −−−→ if h −−−→ h1 ;
sG∗
sG∗
- h is non-reducible w.r.t. −−−−
→ if no step of reduction on h by −−−→ can be performed;
sG∗
- h is strongly reduced if for every t, xt0 · h is non-reducible w.r.t. −−−→.
Remark 3.12.

UPGRADED METHODS FOR MARKED SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL

13

sG∗

(i) We use the notation −−−→ to underline that this reduction also involves the decomposition ∗J
of Definition 2.4 and it is not the usual polynomial reduction w.r.t. a set of marked polynomials
sG∗
sG. Indeed even if a polynomial h is non-reducible w.r.t. −−−→, its support can contain some
monomial which is multiple of a monomial in sBJ (see Example 3.15); hence h would be reducible
sG

w.r.t. the usual reduction −−−→.
(ii) A homogeneous polynomial h is strongly reduced if and only if no monomial in Supp(h) is divisible
by a monomial of BJ , that is h is J-reduced. In fact, if xγ ∈ Supp(h) ∩ J then xγ = xα ∗J xη and
sG∗

there is t such that xα = xt0 xα ∈ BJ . Thus xt0 h can be reduced by −−−→ using the polynomial
fα .
sG∗
(iii) The polynomials xǫ fα that we use for the reduction procedure −−−→ have head terms pairwise
sG∗

different. Moreover, if xδ fα′ is used in the −−−→ reduction of xǫ T (fα ) then xδ <Lex xǫ .
If we consider a strongly stable ideal J with no further hypothesis, we cannot generalize the propVℓ
sG∗
erties of the reduction −−→
to −−−→, as shown in the following example.
Example 3.13. In the ring S = K[x0 , x1 , x2 ] (with x2 > x1 > x0 ) let us consider the strongly stable
ideal J = (x32 , x22 x1 , x2 x21 , x22 x0 , x2 x1 x0 , x41 , x31 x0 , x21 x20 ) and its saturation J = (x22 , x2 x1 , x21 ). The set
of superminimals of J is sBJ = {x22 x0 , x2 x1 x0 , x21 x20 }. Let us consider the J-marked superminimal set
sG = {fx22 x0 = x22 x0 , fx2x1 x0 = x2 x1 x0 − x31 , fx21 x20 = x21 x20 − x2 x30 }. The superminimal reduction w.r.t.
sG is not Noetherian. For instance:
sG∗

sG∗

x31 x20 −−−→T (fx21 x20 ) · x1 = x2 x30 x1 −−−→T (fx2 x1 x0 ) · x20 = x31 x20 .
However, if we assume that the strongly stable ideal J is also an m-truncation ideal, then the
sG∗
reduction −−−→ turns out to be Noetherian and satisfies several good properties, similar to the ones
V
of −−ℓ→.
Theorem 3.14. Let J be a strongly stable m-truncation ideal and sG be a J-marked superminimal
set. Then:
sG∗
(i) −
−−−→ is Noetherian.
(ii) For every homogeneous polynomial h there exist t and a unique polynomial h(t) strongly reduced
sG∗

such that xt0 · h −−−−
→ h(t). If t is the minimum one and h̄ := h(t), then h(t) = x0t−t̄ · h̄ for every
t ≥ t̄. There is an effective procedure that computes t̄ and h̄.
If moreover sG is the superminimal basis of an ideal I of Mf(J), then:
sG∗

(iii) −
−−−→ computes the J-normal forms modulo I. More precisely, for every homogeneous polynomial
h:
(
h,
if deg(h) < m
Nf(h) =
sG∗
h̄/xt̄0 , if deg(h) ≥ m and xt0 · h −
−−−
→ h̄
sG∗

(iv) −
−−−→ solves the ideal-membership problem for I: for every homogeneous polynomial h:
sG∗

h ∈ I ⇔ deg(h) ≥ m and xt0 · h −−−−
→0
(v) There is a one-to-one correspondence between ideals in Mf(J) and J-superminimal bases.
Proof.
(i) Since J is a strongly stable and m-truncation ideal, then N (J)≥m = N (J)≥m (Lemma 3.2, (iv)).
sG∗

If −−−→ was not Noetherian, by Lemma 2.5 applied to J, we would be able to find infinite
descending chains of monomials w.r.t. <Lex .

14

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

(ii) It is sufficient to prove the thesis for monomials xγ in J. Let xγ = xα ∗J xη . If xη = 1, then
sG∗

xα = xt0α · xα is in sBJ , fα belongs to sG and xt0α · xα −−−→ T (fα ), where Supp(T (fα )) ⊆ N (J).
In this case h = T (fα ) and t = tα . If xη 6= 1, we can assume that the thesis holds for any
′
′
′
monomial xγ = xβ ∗J xη , such that xη <Lex xη .
sG∗

We perform a first reduction xt0α · xγ −−−→ xη · T (fα ). If xη · T (fα ) is strongly reduced, we
′
|η|
are done. Otherwise, we have xη 6= x0 . For every monomial xγ ∈ Supp(xη · T (fα )) ∩ J we have
′
′
′
′
′
xγ = xβ ∗J xη , with xη <Lex xη by Lemma 2.5. So, we have also xt0 · xη <Lex xη , for every t.
By the inductive hypothesis we can find a suitable power t of x0 such that every monomial in
sG∗
xt0 · xη · T (fα ) can be reduced by −−−→ to a strongly reduced polynomial.
It remains to prove the uniqueness of the strongly reduced polynomial h(t). Let us consider
sG∗

two different strongly reduced −−−→ reductions of xt0 h: their difference is again strongly reduced
and can be written as Σai xηi fαi with ai ∈ K, ai 6= 0 and xηi fαi pairwise different. Let xη1 fα1
be such that for every i ≥ 2, either xη1 >Lex xηi or xη1 = xηi and xα1 >Lex xαi . Then xη1 xα1
should cancel with a monomial in Supp(xηi T (fαi )) for some i, but this is impossible as observed
in Remark 3.12, (iii).
′
Observe that, though for a fixed xγ = xα ∗J xη , there are infinitely many monomials xγ =
′
′
β
x ∗J xη such that xη <Lex xη , we use the inductive hypothesis only with respect to the finite
number of them that appear on the support of ·xη · T (fα ). For this reason our procedure is
effective.
sG∗

From now on we consider I ∈ Mf(J); therefore if h is a homogeneous polynomial and h −−−→ h1
with h1 strongly reduced, then by uniqueness of J-normal forms modulo I we have h1 = Nf(h).
sG∗

(iii) If deg h < m we are done. Otherwise from (ii) we have that xt0 · h −−−→ h and h̄ is a J-reduced
form modulo I. Thus xt0 · Nf(h) is J-reduced too (Lemma 3.2, (iii)) and we get the desired
equality by uniqueness of J-normal forms modulo I.
(iv) This is a consequence of (iii) and of Proposition 1.11 (iv).

(v) This is the straightforward consequence of (iv).
Whenever J is a strongly stable m-truncation ideal and sG is the superminimal basis of an ideal
I ∈ Mf(J), then sG is a subset of the set V of Definition 2.1. Nevertheless, it is interesting to notice
V

sG∗

that not every step of reduction by −−−→ is also a step of reduction by −−ℓ→, as shown in the following
example.
Example 3.15. Consider J = (x21 , x0 x2 , x1 x2 , x22 ) which is a strongly stable ideal and a 2-truncation of
J = (x2 , x21 ) in K[x0 , x1 , x2 ]. Let G be a J-marked set.
• The monomial x2 · x21 is non-reducible w.r.t. sG, because the only monomial of sBJ dividing
V

it is x21 , but x2 x21 = x2 ∗J x21 . On the other hand, x2 x21 = x2 x1 ∗J x1 , so x2 x21 −−3→ x1 T (f )
where f ∈ V2 , Ht(f ) = x2 x1 .
V

• The only way to reduce x0 · x22 via −−3→ leads to x0 · T (f ′ ), where f ′ is the unique polynomial
of V2 such that Ht(f ′ ) = x22 . Moreover, x0 · T (f ′ ) is not further reducible, because all the
monomials of its support belong to N (J). On the other hand, according to Definition 3.11, a
sG∗

sG∗

first step of reduction of the monomial x0 · x22 via −−−→ is x0 x22 −−−→ x2 · T (f ′′ ), where f ′′ is
the polynomial in sG with Ht(f ′′ ) = x0 · x2 . Since x2 is a monomial of BJ , every monomial
appearing in Supp(x2 · T (f ′′ )) belongs to J, and so we will need further steps of reduction via
sG∗

−−−→ to compute a polynomial non-reducible w.r.t. sG.

UPGRADED METHODS FOR MARKED SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL

15

4. Buchberger-like criterion by superminimal reduction
In the present and following sections, we assume that J ⊆ S is a strongly stable m-truncation ideal,
in order to apply the main results of Section 3, mainly those concerning the new reduction process
sG∗
−−−→ (Theorem 3.14). We will also use the sets of polynomials V and W which are defined from a
V

ℓ
J-marked set G (see Definition 2.1), and the reduction relation −−→.
In Section 2, we proved that J-marked bases are characterized by a Buchberger-like criterion on the
Vℓ
reduction of S-polynomials between elements of G by −−→
(Theorem 2.11). Afterwards, in Section 3 we
showed that every homogeneous ideal I in Mf(J) is completely determined by its superminimal basis

sG∗

sG and that J-normal forms modulo I can be computed using −−−→, that is again using polynomials
in the subset sG of G (Theorem 3.14).
Therefore, it is natural to ask whether one can obtain a Buchberger-like criterion only considering
S-polynomials among elements in sG. Unfortunately, the answer is negative, as clearly shown by
Example 4.1. However, we can prove a few variants of the Buchberger-like criterion of Theorem 2.11,
sG∗
in which the set of superminimals sG and the superminimal reduction process −−−→ replace G and
Vℓ
−−→.
Using these new criteria in the next section we will be able to obtain sets of equations defining
Mf(J) in a smaller set of variables than those of Subsection 2.3.
Example 4.1. We consider the strongly stable 2-truncation ideal
J = (x23 , x3 x2 , x3 x1 , x3 x0 , x22 ) ⊆ K[x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ]
whose saturation is J = (x3 , x22 ). In this case, sBJ contains only two monomials, x3 x0 and x22 . If G is
any J-marked set, then sG = {fx3 x0 , fx22 }. The unique S-polynomial among superminimal elements is
S(fx3 x0 , fx22 ) = x22 fx3 x0 − x3 x0 fx22 = x3 x0 · T (fx22 ) − x22 · T (fx3 x0 ).
Any monomial appearing in Supp(T (fx3 x0 )) is in N (J)2 = K[x0 , x1 , x2 ]2 \ {x22 }. Then any monomial
V

sG∗

appearing in Supp(x22 · T (fx3 x0 )) is further reduced by fx22 , obtaining by −−4→ or −−−→
S(fx3 x0 , fx22 ) = x3 x0 · T (fx22 ) − T (fx22 ) · T (fx3 x0 ) = T (fx22 ) · fx3 x0 → 0.
Nevertheless, even if the only S-polynomial among superminimal generators reduces to 0, if we consider
sG = {fx3 x0 , fx22 } with fx3 x0 = x3 x0 + x21 and fx22 = x22 , then for any choice of fx23 , fx3 x2 , fx3 x1 , the
S-polynomial among fx3 x1 and fx3 x0 does not reduce to 0:
X
ai xαi x0 − x31 .
S(fx3 x1 , fx3 x0 ) = x0 fx3 x1 − x1 fx3x0 =
xαi ∈N (J)2

The monomials xαi x0 are in N (J)3 and are strongly reduced. Furthermore, x31 does not appear among
monomials xαi x0 , so it is not canceled, and it is strongly reduced too. Therefore, for any choice of
coefficients in the tail of fx3 x1 , we have an S-polynomial which is not reducible to 0, and any J-marked
set containing fx3 x0 = x3 x0 + x21 is not a J-marked basis.
sG∗

4.1. Buchberger-like criteria via −−−−→: first variant. In this subsection we prove that the
Buchberger-like criterion of Theorem 2.11 and Corollary 2.13 can be rephrased in terms of the reduction
sG∗
process −−−→ . The involved S-polynomials will be all those between elements in G (Theorem 4.5),
or only EK-polynomials between elements of G (Corollary 4.6). We will need a few lemmas.
Lemma 4.2. Let J be a strongly stable m-truncation ideal, G be a J-marked set and h be a homogeneous polynomial of degree ℓ ≥ m. Then:
h ∈ hVℓ i ⇔ x0 · h ∈ hVℓ+1 i.

16

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

Proof. If h ∈ hVℓ i, then x0 · h ∈ hVℓ+1 i by definition of V .
Vℓ+1

Vice versa, assume that x0 · h ∈ hVℓ+1 i. This is equivalent to x0 · h −−−−→ 0. Every monomial in
Supp(x0 · h) can be written as x0 · xǫ ; observe that x0 · xǫ ∈
/ BJ , because deg(x0 · xǫ ) > m, by Lemma
ǫ
3.2, (i). Then, if x0 · x belongs to J, we can decompose it as x0 · xǫ = xα ∗J xη , xα ∈ BJ and xη 6= 1.
′
Since min(xα ) ≥ max(xη ), we have that xη is divisible by x0 . So xη = x0 · xη .
Summing up, in order to reduce the monomial x0 · xǫ of Supp(x0 · h) using V , we use the polynomial
′
x0 · xη · fα ∈ V , Ht(fα ) = xα . If the coefficient of x0 · xǫ in x0 · h is a, we obtain
Vℓ+1

′

x0 · h −−−→ x0 · (h − a · xη fα ).
At every step of reduction, we obtain a polynomial which is divisible by x0 . In particular,
X
x0 · h ∈ hVℓ+1 i ⇒ x0 · h = x0 ·
ai xηi fαi , where x0 · xηi fαi ∈ Vℓ+1 .
P
Then we have that h = ai xηi fαi and xηi fαi ∈ Vℓ , that is h ∈ hVℓ i.



γ′

γ′

Consider fα , fα′ ∈ G, the S-polynomial S(fα , fα′ ) = xγ fα − x fα′ and assume that x <Lex xγ . By
P
Vℓ
Lemma 2.8, (iii), if S(fα , fα′ ) −−→
aj xδj fβj with xδj fβj ∈ Vℓ , xδj <Lex xγ .
h, then S(fα , fα′ ) − h =
sG∗

Now we show that a similar result holds for the superminimal reduction −−−→.

Lemma 4.3. Let J be a strongly stable m-truncation ideal, G be a J-marked set and fα , fα′ be two
′
′
polynomials belonging to G. Consider the S-polynomial S(fα , fα′ ) = xγ fα − xγ fα′ , with xγ <Lex xγ .
P
sG∗
aj xηj fβj with fβj ∈ sG, xηj <Lex xγ and
−−−→ h, then xt0 · S(fα , fα′ ) − h =
If xt0 · S(fα , fα′ ) −
ηj
γ
x <Lex x .

Proof. Every monomial xt0 · xγ · xǫ in Supp(xt0 · xγ · T (fα )) ∩ J decomposes as xt0 · xγ · xǫ = xβ ∗J xη ,
xη <Lex xt0 xγ and xη <Lex xγ by Lemma 3.2, (iv) and Lemma 2.5. The same holds for any further
′

reduction and the same argument applies to monomials appearing in Supp(xt0 · xγ · T (fα′ )).
We point out that Lemma 4.3 does not hold without the hypothesis that J is an m-truncation ideal,
as shown by the following example.
Example 4.4. In S = K[x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ], consider the strongly stable ideal
J = (x23 , x3 x2 , x3 x1 )≥4 + (x22 )≥6 ,

whose saturation is J = (x23 , x2 x3 , x1 x3 , x22 ). J is not an m-truncation for any m. Consider a J-marked
set G and fα , fβ ∈ G such that Ht(fα ) = x20 x2 x3 and Ht(fβ ) = x20 x1 x3 and consider x42 ∈ Supp(T (fβ )).
sG∗

Then S(fα , fβ ) = x1 fα − x2 fβ . If we apply Definition 3.11, we reduce x42 ∈ Supp(S(fα , fβ )) by −−−→,
pre-multiplying by x40 . We get that x40 x42 belongs to Supp(x40 S(fα , fβ )) and x40 x42 = x22 ∗J x40 x22 . But
x22 >Lex x2 .
Theorem 4.5. Let J be a strongly stable m-truncation ideal, G be a J-marked set and I be the
homogeneous ideal generated by G. The followings are equivalent:
(i) I ∈ Mf(J);
sG∗

→ 0;
(ii) ∀fα, fα′ ∈ G, ∃ t such that xt0 · S(fα , fα′ ) −−−−
P
′
(iii) ∀fα, fα′ ∈ G, ∃ t such that xt0 · S(fα , fα′ ) = xt0 (xγ fα − xγ fα′ ) =
aj xηj fαj , with xηj <Lex
′
maxLex {xγ , xγ } and fαj ∈ sG.
Proof. If I ∈ Mf(J), we can apply Theorem 3.14, (iv) because any S-polynomial among elements in
G belongs to I.
If statement (ii) holds, then we get (iii) by Lemma 4.3.

UPGRADED METHODS FOR MARKED SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL

17

We now assume that statement (iii) holds and by Lemma 2.2 it is sufficient to prove that hV i = hW i
using an argument analogous to that applied in the proof of Theorem 2.11. It is sufficient to prove
that xη · V ⊆ hV i, for every monomial xη . We proceed by induction on the monomials xη , ordered
according to >Lex . The thesis is obviously true for xη = 1. We then assume that the thesis holds for
′
′
any monomial xη such that xη <Lex xη .
If |η| > 1, we can consider any product xη = xη1 · xη2 , xη1 and xη2 non-constant. Since xηi <Lex
xη , i = 1, 2, we immediately obtain by induction
xη · V = xη1 · (xη2 · V ) ⊆ xη1 hV i ⊆ hV i.
If |η| = 1, then we need to prove that xi · V ⊆ hV i. Since x0 V ⊆ V , it is then sufficient to prove
′
the thesis for xη = xi , i ≥ 1, assuming that the thesis holds for every xη <Lex xi . We consider
gβ = xδ fα ∈ V , where max(xδ ) ≤ min(xα ). If xi gβ does not belong to V , then max(xi · xδ ) > min(xα ),
so xi > min(xα ) because max(xδ ) ≤ min(xα ) by construction. In particular, xi > min(xα ) ≥ max(xδ ),
so xi >Lex xδ and it is sufficient to prove the thesis for xi fα .
We consider an S-polynomial S(fα , fα′ ) = xi fα − xγ fα′ such that xγ <Lex xi . Such S-polynomial
′
′
always exists: for instance, we can consider xi xα = xα ∗J xη .
P
′
′
′
′
By hypothesis there is t such that xt0 S(fα , fα′ ) = xt0 (xi fα − xη fα′ ) = aj xη j fαj where xt0 xη , xη j
′
′
are lower than xi w.r.t. Lex. Then xt0 xη fα′ , xη j fαj belong to hV i by induction and we conclude that
xi fα ∈ hV i, by Lemma 4.2.

sG∗

The previous theorem is the analogous of Theorem 2.11 for the reduction process −−−→. As stated
V
in Corollary 2.13 concerning the Buchberger-like criterion for the reduction −−ℓ→, also in Theorem 4.5
it would be sufficient to assume statement (iii) only for EK-polynomials.
Corollary 4.6. With the same notations of Theorem 4.5, the followings are equivalent:
(i) I ∈ Mf(J)
sG∗

−−−→ 0.
(ii) for every EK-polynomial between elements of G, ∃ t : xt0 S EK (fα , fα′ ) −
t
(iii) for every EK-polynomial between elements of G, ∃ t such that x0 · S EK (fα , fα′ ) = xt0 (xi fα −
P
′
aj xηj fαj , with xηj <Lex xi and fαj ∈ sG.
xγ fα′ ) =
sG∗

4.2. Buchberger-like criteria via −−−−→: second variant. As before, let J be a strongly stable mtruncation ideal. By Example 4.1, we have already shown that reductions of S-polynomials between
elements of sG are not sufficient to characterize ideals of Mf(J); hence some more conditions are
necessary. To this aim, we add some further S-polynomials.
Indeed, Theorem 4.7 uses the set L1 of some couples of polynomials of sG and the set L2 of some
particular couples of elements of G of minimal degree m to obtain a new characterization of Mf(J).
Actually the elements of L1 are not all the possible couples of elements in sG, but a subset of them,
corresponding to a minimal set of generators for the first module of syzygies of the Eliahou-Kervaire
resolution of J.
Theorem 4.7. Consider a strongly stable m-truncation ideal J and G a J-marked set. Let us define
the following sets:
n
o
′
L1 := (fα , fα′ ) | fα , fα′ ∈ sG and xi xα = xα ∗J xη ,


α′
α
α
L2 := (fα , fα′ ) | fα , fα′ ∈ Gm and xi x = x0 x , xi = min{xj : xj | x } .
j>0

Then:

sG∗

→ 0.
I ∈ Mf(J) ⇔ ∀ (fα , fα′ ) ∈ L1 ∪ L2 , ∃ t such that xt0 · S(fα , fα′ ) −−−−

18

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

Proof. If I belongs to Mf(J), then it is enough to apply Theorem 4.5, (ii).
Vice versa, by Lemma 2.2 it is sufficient to prove that hV i = hW i, that is xi · V ⊆ hV i for every
i = 0, . . . , n. We proceed by induction on the variables. By construction we have x0 · V ⊆ hV i. We
now assume that (x0 , . . . , xi−1 )V ⊆ hV i and we prove that xi · V ⊆ hV i. Consider xδ fβ ∈ V . The
thesis is that xi ·xδ fβ is contained in hV i. If xi xδ fβ does not belong to V , then max(xi ·xδ ) > min(xβ ),
so xi > min(xβ ) because max(xδ ) ≤ min(xβ ) by construction. In particular, xi > min(xβ ) ≥ max(xδ ),
so that it is sufficient to prove the thesis for xi fβ , because by induction then we have xδ xi fβ ∈ hV i.
Consider xβ = xα ∗J xη .
We have a first case when xη = 1. Then xβ = xα and fβ belongs to sG. We consider xα xi =
′
′
′
′
xα ∗J xη . Observe that since xi > min(xα ) then xi does not divide xη and max(xη ) < xi . Consider
′
′
t ′
xα = xα · x0α , so that we can take the polynomial fα′ ∈ sG. The pair (fβ , fα′ ) belongs to L1 , hence,
by the hypothesis and by Lemma 4.3, there is t such that
X
′
t ′
aj xηj fαj ,
xt0 S(fβ , fα′ ) = xt0 (x0α xi fβ − xη fα′ ) =
′

with xηj <Lex xi and fαj ∈ sG. Hence we obtain that both xηj fαj and xη fα′ belong to hV i by
induction on the variables, and so xi fβ belongs to hV i (by Lemma 4.2).
We have a second case when xη = xt0 , t > 0. Then, |β| = m and fβ belongs to sG. Let xi xβ =
′
′
′
′
xα ∗J xη . If xi > min(xα ), then xη is not divisible by xi and we repeat the argument above.
′
′
′
′
Otherwise, xi ≤ min(xα ) and xi does not divide xη , so that xi = min(xα ) and xη <Lex xi . Then, we
β
′
take xβ = xx0 · xi that belongs to BJ because it has degree m. The pair (fβ , fβ ′ ) belongs to L2 and
we repeat the same reasoning above.
′
′
′
′
We now assume the thesis holds for every fβ ′ such that xβ = xα ∗J xη with xη <Lex xη . By the
base of the induction, we can suppose that xη ≥Lex x1 ; so, fβ does not belong to sG and it has degree
m. Let xj := minl>0 {xl : xl | xβ }.
Observe that if x0 does not divide xβ , then xj = min(xβ ); in this case, we have xi > xj because
xi > min(xβ ). Anyway, first we suppose that xi ≤ xj ; xj > min(xβ ) and x0 divides xβ . We consider
β
′
xβ = xx0 · xi , the pair (fβ , fβ ′ ) that belongs to L2 and we repeat the argument of the previous case.
′

We now assume that xi > xj and consider xβ =
′

η

xβ
xj

′

′

′

· x0 = xα ∗J xη . Observe that xη <Lex xη as

xη = xxj · x0 . Therefore the pair (fβ ′ , fβ ) belongs to L2 ; by the hypothesis and by Lemma 4.3, there
is an integer t such that
X
al xηl fαl
(3)
xt0 S(fβ ′ , fβ ) = xt0 (xj fβ ′ − x0 fβ ) =

with xηl <Lex xj , fαl ∈ sG. We now multiply (3) by xi . We observe that xi fαl belongs to hV i, because
′
fαl ∈ sG and by the first two cases. Also xi fβ ′ belongs to hV i because xη <Lex xη <Lex xi . Moreover,
xj xi fβ ′ belongs to hV i by induction on the variables. Finally xi fβ belongs to hV i thanks to Lemma
4.2.

5. Embedding of Mf(J) in affine linear spaces of low dimension
In this section we continue to consider a strongly stable m-truncation ideal J = J ≥m and, as in
Subsection 2.3, we work again with J-marked sets G where the coefficients of the monomials in the
tails are considered as parameters.
Definition 5.1. If G is the set of marked polynomials given as in (1) for the ideal J, we will call set
of superminimals, and denote it by sG, the subset of G made up of Fα ∈ G with Ht (Fα ) ∈ sBJ . We
e the set of
will denote by C the set of variables appearing in the tails of the polynomials in G and by C

UPGRADED METHODS FOR MARKED SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL

19

variables appearing in the tails of the polynomials in sG. AJ is the ideal defining the affine subscheme
Mf(J) in the ring K[C].
Observe that the J-marked basis G of every I ∈ Mf(J) is obtained by specializing in a suitable
way the variables C in G and that the set of superminimals sG of I is obtained in the same way by
e
sG through the same specialization of the variables C.

5.1. The new embedding of Mf(J). In this subsection we answer to the first question raised in the
Introduction. In Theorem 5.4 we prove that the set of equations in K[C] defining Mf(J) allows the
e Furthermore, using results
elimination of a large number of parameters, more precisely those of C \ C.
of previous sections about the superminimal reduction, we are able to determine a set of equations
e avoiding at all the introduction of parameters in C \ C.
e This fact combined
defining Mf(J) in K[C]
with the choice of a small set of S-polynomials (according to Corollary 4.6 or Theorem 4.7) will turn
out to be significantly useful in projecting an effective algorithm for the computation of such equations.
Furthermore, this new sets of equations turns out to be more suitable in order to compare marked
schemes of m-truncation ideals of a strongly stable saturated ideal J as m varies.
sG∗

Definition 5.2. Let xα ∈ BJ and t be an integer such that xt0 · xα −−−→ Hα ∈ K[C̃, x], with Hα
strongly reduced (the integer t exists by Theorem 3.14). We can write Hα = Hα′ + xt0 · Hα′′ , where no
monomial appearing in Hα′ is divisible by xt0 . We will denote by:
• B = {Cαγ − φαγ : xα ∈ BJ \ sBJ , xγ ∈ N (J)|α| } the set of the x-coefficients of T (Fα ) − Hα′′
for every xα ∈ BJ ;
e the set of the x-coefficients of Hα′ for every xα ∈ BJ \ sBJ ;
• D1 ⊂ K[C]
e x].
• D2 the set of the x-coefficients of the strongly reduced polynomials in (sG)K[C,

Remark 5.3. Observe that not only D2 but also B and D1 are well-defined thanks to the uniqueness
of Hα , by Theorem 3.14, (ii).
e J := AJ ∩ K[C]
e as subscheme
Theorem 5.4. The J-marked scheme Mf(J) is defined by the ideal A
P
e
e =
of the affine space A|C| , where |C|
xα ∈sBJ |N (J)|α| |. Moreover AJ = (B ∪ D1 ∪ D2 )K[C] and
e
e
AJ = (D1 ∪ D2 )K[C].

Proof. For the first part it is sufficient to prove that AJ contains B and so it contains an element of
e where φαγ ∈ K[C],
e that allows the elimination of the
the type Cαγ − φαγ , for every Cαγ ∈ C \ C,
e
variables Cαγ ∈ C \ C.
e x] and that both xt · T (Fα )
It is clear by the construction in Definition 5.2 that Hα belongs to K[C,
0
t
and Hα are strongly reduced. Thus their difference x0 · T (Fα ) − Hα is strongly reduced and moreover
it belongs to IJ , because xt0 · T (Fα ) − Hα = −xt0 · Fα + (xt0 · xα − Hα ). Hence, by Corollary 2.17, its
x-coefficients belong to AJ and in particular the coefficient of xt0 · xγ is of the type Cαγ − φαγ , with
eJ .
e Then AJ ⊇ B and AJ is generated by B ∪ A
φαγ ∈ K[C].
e = (D1 ∪ D2 )K[C].
e
To prove the second part, it is sufficient to show that AJ ∩ K[C]
t
“⊇” Taking the x-coefficients in x0 · T (Fα ) − Hα of monomials that are not divisible by xt0 , we see
e ⊇ D1 , because Hα′ ∈ K[C,
e x].
that AJ contains the x-coefficients of Hα′ . Then AJ ∩ K[C]
Moreover we recall that AJ is made by all the x-coefficients in the polynomials of IJ that are
strongly reduced. Indeed, AJ is made by all the x-coefficients of the polynomials of IJ that are Jreduced. Since the degree of the monomials in the variables x of every polynomial in IJ is ≥ m,
then “J-reduced” is equivalent to “J -reduced”, that it is strongly reduced, by Lemma 3.2, (iv). Then
e ⊇ D2 , because (sG)K[C,
e x] ⊂ IJ .
AJ ∩ K[C]

20

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

e x] obtained
“⊆” For every polynomial F ∈ K[C, x], let us denote by F φ the polynomial in K[C,
e by φαγ ; if F is strongly reduced, then F φ is strongly reduced too.
substituting every Cαγ ∈ C \ C
e x].
Observe that for every xα ∈ BJ we have Fαφ = xα −Hα′′ and moreover xt0 (xα −Hα′′ )−Hα′ ∈ (sG)K[C,
φ
α
′′
′
t
t
In particular x0 Fα and x0 (x − Hα ) − Hα are equal modulo D1 .
e can be obtained modulo D1 as a x-coefficient
It remains to prove that every element w ∈ AJ ∩ K[C]
e We know that w is a x-coefficient in
in some strongly reduced polynomial of the ideal (sG) ⊂ K[C].
a stronglyP
reduced polynomial D ∈ IJ .
If D = Dα Fα ∈ IJ , then for a suitable t,
X

Dαφ · xt0 · (xα − Hα′′ ) − Hα′
xt0 · D φ =
mod D1

and the polynomial in the right-hand side of the equality is strongly reduced and it belongs to
e x]. Therefore w is still one of the x-coefficients of D φ since it does not contain any variable
(sG)K[C,
e and it remains unchanged. Then w ∈ (D1 ∪ D2 )K[C].
e
in C \ C


e J be as in Theorem 5.4 and let U be any ideal in K[C].
e Assume that U ⊆ A
eJ
Proposition 5.5. Let A
and that the following conditions hold:
(i) For every monomial xβ ∈ BJ \ sBJ , xβ = xα ∗J xδ ∈ J, there exists t such that we have a formula
of type
X
xt0 · xβ =
bi xηi Fαi + Hβ ,

e Fα ∈ sG, xηi ≤Lex xδ , xηj +αj = xαj ∗J xηj and Hβ = H ′ + xt · H ′′ , with Hβ
with ai ∈ K[C],
0
i
β
β
strongly reduced, xt0 does not divide any monomial in Supp(Hβ′ ) and Coeffx (Hβ′ ) ⊆ U.
(ii) For every polynomial Fα ∈ sG and for every xi > min(xα ) there exists t such that we have a
formula of type
X
xt0 xi Fα =
bj xηj Fαj + Hi,α

e Fα ∈ sG, xηj <Lex xi , xηj +αj = xαj ∗J xηj , Hi,α strongly reduced and
where bj ∈ K[C],
j
Coeffx (Hi,α ) ⊆ U.
eJ .
Then U = (D1 ∪ D2 ) = A

Proof. Thanks to (i), we immediately have that D1 ⊆ U.
For the inclusion D2 ⊆ U, observe that if (i) and (ii) hold for U, then we can use the same arguments
of Proposition 2.15 and obtain that:
for every Fα ∈ sG, for every xδ , there exists t such that
X
bj xηj Fαj + H
(4)
xt0 xδ Fα =
η +α

η

e Fα ∈ sG, xηj <Lex xδ , x j j = xαj ∗J x j Suppx (Hδ,α ) ⊆ N (J) and Coeffx (Hδ,α) ⊆ U.
with bj ∈ K[C],
j
We can also prove the uniqueness of such a rewriting: thanks to the uniqueness of the decomposition
by ∗J , the polynomials xηj Fαj that can appear in (4) have pairwise different head terms. So an
analogous of Corollary 2.16 holds for this setting.
Thanks to this uniqueness, as in Corollary 2.17, we get the non trivial inclusion of the thesis. 

Proposition 5.5 is very important from the computational point of view. Indeed, its condition (i)
e x],
allows to explicitely construct the set of polynomials B, namely to write a J-marked set Ge in K[C,
e x], we can use either Theorem 4.5
whose superminimal set is sG. Using such a J-marked set in K[C,
e J . For instance, the algorithm
or Corollary 4.6 or Theorem 4.7 to obtain a set of generators for A
presented in the Appendix is based on Theorem 4.7 and the proof of its correctness on Proposition
5.5. In the future, we will investigate which is the best set of polynomials to start from in order to

UPGRADED METHODS FOR MARKED SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL

21

get a performing algorithm for the computation of equations for Mf(J). The correctness of such an
algorithm will be verified by the conditions of Proposition 5.5.

5.2. Relations among Mf(J ≥m ) as m varies. In this subsection we will compare the marked
schemes constructed from different truncations of a saturated strongly stable ideal J. Let us consider
two integers m′ , m, (m′ < m). If I is an ideal in the J ≥m′ -marked family Mf(J ≥m′ ), then it is not
difficult to show that I≥m belongs to the marked family Mf(J ≥m ), namely that there is a injective
map of sets Mf(J ≥m′ ) → Mf(J ≥m ). Aim of the present subsection is a scheme theoretical version of
this fact; indeed we will prove that there is a closed embedding of schemes Mf(J ≥m′ ) ֒→ Mf(J ≥m )
that induces the previous one on the sets of closed points. It is sufficient to prove the existence of such
a closed embedding for m′ = m − 1; in this case we denote the embedding map by φm . Furthermore,
we characterize the cases in which φm is a isomorphism.
To this purpose, the main tool we will use is the set of defining equations for a J-marked scheme
e J ; moreover we will consider at the Zariski
obtained by superminimal reduction, namely the ideal A
tangent space of Mf(J ≥m ) at the origin, denoted by T0 (Mf(J ≥m )).
Remark 5.6. As for any affine variety, if Mf(J) is defined by an ideal U as a subscheme of an affine
space AN , then the Zariski tangent space T0 (Mf(J)) is defined by the linear part of a set generators
of U so that it can be identified to a linear subspace of AN . In the special case of marked schemes,
it is quite easy to compute a set of generators for T0 (Mf(J)), using the properties and techniques of
[15, Definition 3.4 and Proposition 4.3], [24, Proposition 3.4] and [10, Theorem 3.2].
Theorem 5.7 is inspired by an analogous result proved for Gröbner Strata in [15, Theorem 4.7].
Given a monomial ideal J, the Gröbner Stratum St(J, ≺) of J w.r.t. a term order ≺ can be isomorphically projected in its Zariski tangent space at the origin T0 (St(J, ≺)) (see [15, Proposition 4.3]).
Furthermore, if the origin is a smooth point, then St(J, ≺) is isomorphic to this tangent space. Unluckily, it is not true that for every strongly stable ideal J there exists a term order ≺ such that
Mf(J) ≃ St(J, ≺), as shown in [7, Appendix], so in general we cannot project isomorphically Mf(J)
into T0 (Mf(J)).
We introduce some useful notations: once fixed a saturated strongly stable ideal J and a positive
integer m, we denote by
[m]

• G [m] a J ≥m -marked set as in (1) and with Fβ

a marked polynomial belonging to G [m] ;

[m]

• C [m] the set of parameters Cαγ appearing in the tails of the marked polynomials in G [m] ;
• sG [m] the set of superminimals of G [m] ;
[m]
e [m] the subset of C [m] containing only the parameters C
eαγ
• C
appearing in the tails of marked
[m]
polynomials in sG ;
e [m] is the ideal in K[C
e [m] ] defining Mf(J ) as a subscheme in A|Ce [m] | (defined in Theorem
• A
≥m
5.4).
Theorem 5.7. Let J be a saturated strongly stable ideal and let m be any integer. With the previous
notations, the followings hold:
(i) Mf(J ≥m−1 ) is a closed subscheme of Mf(J ≥m ) cut out by a suitable linear space. More precisely,
e [m−1] can be identified with a suitable subset of C
e [m] so that the following diagram of schemes
C
commutes:

22

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

Mf(J ≥m−1 )

e [m−1] |

A|C

(5)

φm

Mf(J ≥m )

e [m] |

A|C

(ii) Let Ω be the number of monomials xα ∈ BJ of degree m+1 divisible by x1 and Θ := |BJ ∩S≤m−1 |;
then,
dim T0 (Mf(J ≥m )) ≥ dim T0 (Mf(J ≥m−1 )) + Ω · Θ.
(iii) Mf(J ≥m−1 ) ≃ Mf(J ≥m ) if and only if either J ≥m−1 = J ≥m or no monomial of degree m + 1 in
BJ is divisible by x1 .
In particular:
Mf(J ≥ρ−1 ) ≃ Mf(J ≥m ), for every m ≥ ρ
where ρ is the maximal degree of monomials divisible by x1 in BJ .
Proof.
(i) Thanks to Theorem 5.4, a J ≥m -marked scheme is defined by an ideal generated by polynomials
e [m] ] that are constructed using only the superminimals. So, now it is enough to prove that
of K[C
e [m] , in
the set of superminimals sG [m−1] corresponds to sG [m] modulo a subset of the variables C
the following sense.
[m]
Consider xα ∈ sBJ ≥m−1 . If |α| ≥ m, then xα belongs to sBJ ≥m and we can identify Fα ∈
[m−1]
[m]
[m−1]
eαγ
eαγ
sG [m] and Fα
∈ sG [m−1] (and in particular the variables in their tails: C
=C
).
[m]

If |α| = m − 1, then we can consider the corresponding superminimal element Fβ ∈ sG [m] ,
e [m]′ , which is the coefficient of a monomial
with xβ = x0 · xα . Then we identify the variable C
βδ
′
[m]
δ
δ
e [m−1] which is the coefficient of the
in Suppx (F ) of kind x = x0 · x , with the variable C
β
xδ

αδ

[m−1]
Suppx (Fα
).

monomial
in
[m]
e [m]
the subset of C
We repeat this identifications for all xα ∈ sBJ ≥m−1 and we denote by C
e [m−1] , that is the variables appearing as
containing the variables non-identified with variables of C
coefficients of monomials not divisible by x0 in the tails of polynomials in sG [m] \ sG [m−1] . Now,
[m]
every polynomial in sG [m] mod (C ) either belongs to sG [m−1] or is a polynomials of sG [m−1]
multiplied by x0 . Thanks to Theorem 5.4, we have that


e [m−1] .
e [m] + C [m] ≃ A
A

This relation among the ideals induces the embeddings of scheme of diagram (5).
(ii) We now consider xγ ∈ BJ , |γ| = m + 1, xγ divisible by x1 . We define xβ := xγ /x1 ; observe that
xβ ∈ N (J ). Furthermore, xβ is not divisible by x0 , otherwise xγ would be too.
[m]
m−|α|
[m]
Then, for every xα ∈ BJ with |α| ≤ m−1, there is Fα = xα x0
−T (Fα ) ∈ sG [m] such that
[m]
e [m]
e [m] of xβ . Since xβ is not divisible by x0 , C
xβ ∈ Suppx (T (Fα )). We focus on the coefficient C
αβ
αβ
[m−1]

m−|α|−1

[m−1]

− T (Fα
) ∈ sG [m−1] .
cannot be identified with a coefficient appearing in Fα
= xα x0
[m]
[m]
e
So C
defined in the proof of (i).
αβ belongs to the subset of variables C
We now use the construction of T0 (Mf(J ≥m )) recalled in Remark 5.6. If we think about
[m]

syzygies of the ideal J ≥m , we can see that in a S-polynomial, Fα

is multiplied by a monomial xδ

UPGRADED METHODS FOR MARKED SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL

23

divisible by xi , i > 0. In particular, xδ ·xβ belongs to J ≥m : if xi = x1 we are done by construction,
γ
otherwise we apply the strongly stable property because x1 xβ xδ = xxi x1 xδ belongs to J ≥m . This
e [m] does not appear in any equation defining T0 (Mf(J ≥m )).
means that the coefficient C
αβ

Applying this argument to the Ω monomials in BJ of degree m + 1 which are divisible by x1
and to the Θ monomials in BJ of degree ≤ m − 1, we obtain the result.
(iii) If J ≥m = J ≥m−1 , obviously Mf(J ≥m ) = Mf(J ≥m−1 ). We now assume that J ≥m 6= J ≥m−1 and
no monomial of degree m + 1 in the monomial basis of J is divisible by x1 ; we prove that every
polynomial in sG [m] either belongs to sG [m−1] or it is the product of x0 by the “corresponding”
polynomial in sG [m−1] .
[m]
[m−1]
If xα ∈ sBJ ≥m−1 and |α| ≥ m, then Fα ∈ sG [m] and Fα
∈ sG [m−1] have the same shape
[m]
[m−1]
eαγ
eαγ
and we can identify them letting C
=C
, as done in the proof of (i). If |α| = m − 1, then
[m−1]

xβ = x0 · xα ∈ sBJ ≥m and all the monomials in the support of x0 · Fα

appear in the support

[m]
Fβ

[m]
Fβ

there are also some
(and we identify their coefficients as above). In the support of
of
more monomials that are not divisible by x0 . We will prove now that the coefficients of these
e [m] .
last monomials in fact belong to A
Consider the monomial x0 · x1 · xα . If we perform its reduction using sG [m] , the first step of
reduction will lead to
sG [m] ∗

[m]

x0 · x1 · xα −−−−−→ x1 T (Fβ ).
[m]

′

′

Let xγ be a monomial of Supp(T (Fβ )). If x1 · xγ ∈ J ≥m , then x1 · xγ = xα ∗J xη , with xα ∈ BJ
′
and xη <Lex x1 . If xη = 1, then |α′ | = m + 1 and xα is divisible by x1 , against the hypothesis.
Then xη = xt0 , with t > 0, and so the monomial x1 · xγ ∈ J ≥m is actually divisible by x0 . If
x1 · xγ ∈ N (J ≥m ), then this monomial is not further reducible, so that its coefficient belongs to
e [m] .
A
Vice versa, by contradiction suppose now that J ≥m−1 6= J ≥m and that there exists xα ∈ BJ
divisible by x1 , |α| = m + 1. Using (ii), we have that T0 (Mf(J ≥m−1 )) 6≃ T0 (Mf(J ≥m )) because
dim T0 (Mf(J ≥m−1 )) < dim T0 (Mf(J ≥m )), and so Mf(J ≥m−1 ) 6≃ Mf(J ≥m ).
For the last part of the statement, note that if ρ is the maximal degree of a monomial divisible by
x1 in the monomial basis of J , for every m ≥ ρ, applying iteratively (iii) we obtain
Mf(J ≥ρ−1 ) ≃ Mf(J ≥m ).



In the above setting, if p(t) is the Hilbert polynomial of S/J and r is its Gotzmann number, it is
worth considering the r-truncation of J. Indeed, in [4] the authors prove that Mf(J ≥r ) is naturally
isomorphic to an open subset of the Hilbert scheme Hilbnp(t) . We recall that r is the maximum among
the regularities of ideals that are closed points of Hilbnp(t) ; hence, r ≥ reg(J ) ≥ ρ − 1. Then Theorem
5.7 allows us to study such an open subset of Hilbnp(t) embedded in an affine space of lower dimension
than the expected one. More precisely:
Corollary 5.8. Let J be a saturated strongly stable ideal, and let ρ be the maximal degree of monomials
divisible by x1 in BJ . For every m ≥ ρ − 1, Mf(J ≥m ) can be embedded in an affine space of dimension
X
e [ρ−1] | =
|N (J)|α| | ≤ |BJ | · p(r ′ ),
(6)
|C
xα ∈sBJ ≥ρ−1

where r ′ = reg(J ) and p(t) is the Hilbert polynomial of S/J .

24

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

Proof. The equality of (6) directly follows from Theorem 5.7. For the inequality, we simply need to
observe that the regularity r ′ of a strongly stable ideal is simply the maximum of the degrees of its
monomial generators; hence every monomial in sBJ ≥ρ−1 has degree ≤ r ′ . Furthermore r ′ is greater
than or equal to the regularity of the Hilbert function of S/J, thus |N (J )|α| | ≤ N (J r′ ) = p(r ′ ).

An equivalent proof follows from the diagram (5) of Theorem 5.7.
6. Examples
In the hypothesis that the field K has characteristic 0, the methods of computations developed
in the previous sections can be applied to the study of Hilbert schemes: indeed, for m big enough,
Mf(J ≥m ) corresponds to an open subset of the Hilbert scheme parameterizing the ideals having the
same Hilbert polynomial as S/J (see [4]).
Now we give some examples for applications of the obtained results, mainly Theorem 4.5, Theorem
4.7 and Theorem 5.7. We keep on using the notations introduced before Theorem 5.7.
Example 6.1. Let J be the saturated strongly stable ideal (xn , . . . , x2 , xµ1 ) ⊆ S = K[x0 , . . . , xn ].
Observe that J is a Lex-segment, the Hilbert polynomial of S/J is p(t) = µ, the regularity of J is
r ′ = µ, and also ρ = µ. By Corollary 5.8, Mf(J) can be embedded into an affine space of dimension
2n − 2 + µ. Using the criterion of Theorem 4.5, we can see that actually Mf(J) ≃ A2n−2+µ , as shown
also in [24]. By Theorem 5.7, (iii), Mf(J ≥m ) is isomorphic to Mf(J) for every m ≤ µ − 2.
It is well-known that Proj (S/J ) is the Lex-point of Hilbnµ and lies on a component of dimension nµ
(see [21]). Then Mf(J ≥m ) is not isomorphic to an open subset of Hilbnµ for every m ≤ µ − 2.
On the other hand, the same reasonings above leads to Mf(J ≥µ ) ≃ Anµ so that Mf(J ≥µ ) is an
open subset of Hilbnµ . This is shown also in [24].
Example 6.2. We consider the strongly stable saturated ideal
J = (x32 , x1 x22 , x21 x2 , x51 ) ⊆ K[x0 , x1 , x2 ].
It corresponds to a point of Hilb28 , with Gotzmann number r = 8, the regularity r ′ of J is 5, and
the same value for ρ. By Theorem 5.7 we have that Mf(J ≥4 ) ≃ Mf(J ≥r ). Observe that J ≥4 is not
segment w.r.t. any term order (see [7, Appendix]), hence in this case the results of [15] do not apply.
In [7, Appendix], the authors first consider Mf(J ≥4 ) as an affine subscheme of A64 and then show
that 45 of the variables can be eliminated, but using a time-consuming process of elimination of
variables. By Corollary 5.8, we can directly embed Mf(J ≥r ) in an affine space of dimension 32, and
we have to eliminate only 13 of the remaining variables.


Example 6.3. We take p(t) = 4t, n = 3, q(t) = 3+t
− p(t) = 3+t
− 4t; the Gotzmann number
3
3
3
of p(t) is r = 6. The Hilbert scheme Hilb4t can be considered as a subscheme of the Grassmannian
G = G(q(6), K[x]6 ) of linear spaces of dimension q(6) = 60 in the vector space K[x]6 of dimension
3+6
= 84 (see [4, Section 1] for some details about this construction). Therefore equations for Hilb34t
3

20 Plücker coordinates. We can obtain an open cover of Hilb3 by the
involve E = 84
4t
60 − 1 ∼ 6 · 10
non-vanishing of each Plücker coordinate of G: we get E open subsets, each of them isomorphic to a
subscheme of A1440 .
In [4] the authors consider a different open cover (up to the action of P GL(4)) of Hilb34t , formed by
4 open subsets only, isomorphic to a marked scheme of a suitable truncation of the saturated strongly
stable monomial ideals J i , i = 1, 2, 3, 4 in K[x]. We can choose for every i the truncation m = r = 6,
nevertheless in order to perform computations with a lower number of variables, it is better to choose
the truncations according to Theorem 5.7.
We denote the cardinality of the monomial basis of J i by σi . In the following table we list the
dimensions of the different affine spaces where we can embed the marked schemes, using Theorem 5.7

UPGRADED METHODS FOR MARKED SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL

25

and Corollary 5.8.

Monomial basis of J i
J1

x23 , x3 x2 , x32

J2


reg(J i ) σi ρi − 1 σi p reg(J i )

e [ρi −1]
C

3

3

−1

36

x23 , x3 x2 , x3 x21 , x42

4

4

2

64

44

J3

x23 , x3 x2 , x3 x1 , x52 , x42 x1

5

5

4

100

88

J4

x3 , x52 , x42 x21

6

3

5

72

64

28

Observe that for J 1 and J 2 , the truncation giving an open subset of Hilb34t is exactly the saturated
ideal.
J 4 is the Lex-segment ideal: Mf((J 4 )≥5 ) is isomorphic to A23 (see [15, Theorem 7.3]). In this case
we should further eliminate 41 variables. This means that our bounds are not in general “sharp”,
however the computational consequences of Theorem 5.7 are significant and our results allow the
treatment of non-trivial cases that cannot be handled with “classical” techniques.

Appendix. A pseudocode description of the algorithm for computing a J-marked
scheme
We now describe a prototype of the algorithm for computing J-marked families based on Proposition
5.5 and on the analogous of the set L1 defined in Theorem 4.7. The ideal J is always supposed to be
a strongly stable m-truncation ideal.
Let us suppose that the following functions are made available.
• generators(J). It determines the monomial basis of J.
• superminimalGenerators(J). It determines the superminimal generators of J.
• superminimalReduction(H, sG). Given a J-marked superminimal set sG and a polynomial
H, it returns a pair (t, h) where t is the minimal power of x0 such that there is a superminimal reduction of xt0 H to a strongly reduced polynomial and h is such polynomial, namely
sG∗

xt0 H −−−→ h (as in Theorem 3.14, (ii)).
• quotientAndRemainder(H, t). Given a polynomial H and a non-negative integer t, it
returns the pair of polynomials (H ′ , H ′′ ) such that H = H ′ + H ′′ xt0 .
• pairsL1(sG). Given a J-marked superminimal set sG, it computes the pairs of polynomials
belonging to the set L1 (analogous of the set L1 of Theorem 4.7).
• coeff(H, xα ). It returns the coefficient of the monomial xα in the polynomial H (obviously
0 if xα ∈
/ Supp(H)).

26

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

1: markedScheme(J)
Input: J ⊂ K[x0 , . . . , xn ] strongly stable m-truncation ideal.
Output: an ideal defining the marked scheme Mf(J).
2: BJ ← generators(J);
3: sBJ ← superminimalGenerators(J);
e ← ∅; sG ← ∅;
4: G
5: for all xα ∈ sBJ do
6:
Fα ← xα ;
7:
for all xβ ∈ N (J)|α| do
eαβ xβ ;
8:
Fα ← Fα + C
9:
end for
10:
Ge ← Ge ∪ {Fα };
11:
sG ← sG ∪ {Fα };
12: end for
13: equations ← ∅;
14: B J ← BJ \ sBJ ;
15: for all xα ∈ B J do
16:
(t, H) ← superminimalReduction(xα , sG);
17:
(H ′ , H ′′ ) ← quotientAndRemainder(H, t);
18:
for all xη ∈ Supp(H ′ ) do
19:
equations ← equations ∪ {Coeff(H ′ , xη )};
20:
end for
21:
Ge ← Ge ∪ {xα − H ′′ };
22: end for
23: L1 ← pairsL1(sG);
24: for all (Fα , Fα′ ) ∈ L1 do

25:
(t, H) ← SuperminimalReduction S(Fα , Fα′ ), sG ;
26:
for all xη ∈ Supp(H) do
27:
equations ← equations ∪ {Coeff(H, xη )};
28:
end for
29: end for
30: return (equations);

Theorem A.1. The algorithm markedScheme is correct.
Proof. To prove that the algorithm terminates it is sufficient to recall that the superminimal reduction
is Noetherian (Theorem 3.14 (i)).
Now we show that the algorithm markedScheme returns a set of generators for the ideal defining
Mf(J). The starting point is the J-marked superminimal set sG given in Definition 5.1 , having
e as coefficients of every monomial in the tails and get a set equations of polynomials
parameters in C
e J of Theorem
e
in K[C]. We claim that the ideal U generated by equations coincides with the ideal A
5.4, by Proposition 5.5.
Indeed in the first part (lines 15-22), the algorithm computes the superminimal reduction H of each
monomial xα ∈ BJ \ sBJ and it imposes the conditions required by Proposition 5.5 (i), in other words
e J of Definition 5.2. At the same time, the algorithm constructs
the algorithm computes the set D1 ⊆ A
e x].
the J-marked set Ge ⊂ K[C,

UPGRADED METHODS FOR MARKED SCHEMES ON A STRONGLY STABLE IDEAL

27

In the second part (lines 23-29), the algorithm considers pairs of superminimal generators (Fα , Fα′ )
′
such that xi xα = xα ∗J xη . Recall that xη <Lex xi by Lemma 2.5. These couples of polynomials in
sG correspond to the couples of the set L1 in Theorem 4.7.
At line 25 of the algorithm we compute the superminimal reduction of the associated S-polynomial
′
′


′
′
lcm(xα , xα ) η t′′
′′
lcm(xα , xα )
sG∗
xi xt0 =
xt0 S(Fα , Fα′ ) = xt0 xi xt0 Fα − xη xt0 Fα′ −−−→ H
,
x
x
=
0
xα
xα′
that is applying Lemma 4.3
X
′
′′
bj xηj Fβj = H
xt0 (xt0 xi Fα − xt0 xη Fα′ ) −
e Fβ ∈ sG, xηj <Lex xi xt′ and xηj <Lex xi , so that
with bj ∈ K[C],
0
j
X
t
bj xηj Fβj + H.
x0 xi Fα = xη Fα′ +

e x], then its x-coefficients
The polynomial H is strongly reduced and it belongs to the ideal (sG) ⊆ K[C,
eJ .
belong to D2 ⊆ A
e J and it satisfies the condition required by
Then by construction (lines 26-28), U is contained in A
eJ .
Proposition 5.5 (ii), hence U = A


We are convinced that this version can be strongly strengthened drawing inspiration from some of
the improvements studied for the computation of Gröbner bases and border bases. In this direction, we
have already developed a first prototype which is giving good and promising results. In the following
table, we report the results of the computation of the marked schemes considered in Example 6.3.
The algorithm has been run on a MacBook Pro with a 2,4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor.
Parameters Equations
Mf(J 1 )
Mf(J 2 )
Mf (J 3 )≥4



Time

28

28

0.165568 seconds

44

64

0.295802 seconds

88

228

110050 seconds

The prototype of the algorithm is available at
www.personalweb.unito.it/paolo.lella/ HSC/Documents/MarkedSchemes.m2
Acknowledgments
The first, third and fourth authors were supported by the PRIN “Geometria delle varietà algebriche
e dei loro spazi di moduli”, cofinanced by MIUR (Italy) (cofin 2008). The second author was supported
by the PRIN “Geometria Algebrica e Aritmetica, Teorie Coomologiche e Teoria dei Motivi”, cofinanced
by MIUR (Italy) (cofin 2008) and by FARO (Finanziamento per l’Avvio di Ricerche Originali), Polo
delle Scienze e delle Tecnologie, Univ. di Napoli Federico II, co-financed by Compagnia San Paolo
(2009).
References
[1] Edoardo Ballico, Cristina Bertone, and Margherita Roggero. The locus of points of the Hilbert scheme with bounded
regularity. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2007, 2011. Preprint.
[2] David Bayer and Ian Morrison. Standard bases and geometric invariant theory. I. Initial ideals and state polytopes.
J. Symbolic Comput., 6(2-3):209–217, 1988. Computational aspects of commutative algebra.
[3] David Bayer and Michael Stillman. A criterion for detecting m-regularity. Invent. Math., 87(1):1–11, 1987.
[4] Cristina Bertone, Paolo Lella, and Margherita Roggero. Borel open covering of Hilbert schemes. Available at
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2184, 2011. Preprint.

28

C. BERTONE, F. CIOFFI, P. LELLA, AND M. ROGGERO

[5] Giuseppa Carrà Ferro. Gröbner bases and Hilbert schemes. I. J. Symbolic Comput., 6(2-3):219–230, 1988. Computational aspects of commutative algebra.
[6] Francesca Cioffi, Paolo Lella, Maria Grazia Marinari, and Margherita Roggero. Segments and Hilbert schemes of
points. Discrete Math., 311(20):2238–2252, 2011.
[7] Francesca Cioffi and Margherita Roggero. Flat families by strongly stable ideals and a generalization of Gröbner
bases. J. Symbolic Comput., 46(9):1070–1084, 2011.
[8] Todd Deery. Rev-lex segment ideals and minimal Betti numbers. In The Curves Seminar at Queen’s, Vol. X
(Kingston, ON, 1995), volume 102 of Queen’s Papers in Pure and Appl. Math., pages 193–219. Queen’s Univ.,
Kingston, ON, 1996.
[9] Shalom Eliahou and Michel Kervaire. Minimal resolutions of some monomial ideals. J. Algebra, 129(1):1–25, 1990.
[10] Giorgio Ferrarese and Margherita Roggero. Homogeneous varieties for Hilbert schemes. Int. J. Algebra, 3(9-12):547–
557, 2009.
[11] Gunnar Floystad and Margherita Roggero. Borel Degenerations of Arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay curves in p3 .
Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2754, 2011.
[12] Christopher A. Francisco, Jeffrey Mermin, and Jay Schweig. Borel generators. J. Algebra, 332:522–542, 2011.
[13] André Galligo. Théorème de division et stabilité en géométrie analytique locale. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble),
29(2):107–184, 1979.
[14] Mark L. Green. Generic initial ideals. In Six lectures on commutative algebra, Mod. Birkhäuser Class., pages 119–186.
Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2010.
[15] Paolo Lella and Margherita Roggero. Rational components of Hilbert schemes. Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Padova,
126:11–45, 2011.
[16] Paolo Lella and Enrico Schlesinger. The Hilbert schemes of locally Cohen-Macaulay curves in p3 may after all be
connected. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2611, 2012. to appear on Collectanea Mathematica.
[17] Ezra Miller and Bernd Sturmfels. Combinatorial commutative algebra, volume 227 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics.
Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005.
[18] Teo Mora. Solving polynomial equation systems. II, volume 99 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005. Macaulay’s paradigm and Gröbner technology.
[19] Teo Mora and Lorenzo Robbiano. The Gröbner fan of an ideal. J. Symbolic Comput., 6(2-3):183–208, 1988. Computational aspects of commutative algebra.
[20] Roberto Notari and Maria Luisa Spreafico. A stratification of Hilbert schemes by initial ideals and applications.
Manuscripta Math., 101(4):429–448, 2000.
[21] Alyson Reeves and Mike Stillman. Smoothness of the lexicographic point. J. Algebraic Geom., 6(2):235–246, 1997.
[22] Alyson Reeves and Bernd Sturmfels. A note on polynomial reduction. J. Symbolic Comput., 16(3):273–277, 1993.
[23] Lorenzo Robbiano. On border basis and Gröbner basis schemes. Collect. Math., 60(1):11–25, 2009.
[24] Margherita Roggero and Lea Terracini. Ideals with an assigned initial ideals. Int. Math. Forum, 5(53-56):2731–2750,
2010.
Dipartimento di Matematica dell’Università di Torino, Via Carlo Alberto 10, 10123 Torino, Italy
E-mail address: cristina.bertone@unito.it
Dipartimento di Matematica e Applicazioni dell’Università di Napoli Federico II,, via Cintia, 80126
Napoli, Italy
E-mail address: francesca.cioffi@unina.it
Dipartimento di Matematica dell’Università di Torino, Via Carlo Alberto 10, 10123 Torino, Italy
E-mail address: paolo.lella@unito.it
URL: http://www.personalweb.unito.it/paolo.lella
Dipartimento di Matematica dell’Università di Torino, Via Carlo Alberto 10, 10123 Torino, Italy
E-mail address: margherita.roggero@unito.it

