QUESTIONS ABOUT BOIJ–SÖDERBERG THEORY

arXiv:1606.01867v1 [] 6 Jun 2016

DANIEL ERMAN AND STEVEN V SAM

1. Background on Boij–Söderberg Theory
Boij–Söderberg theory focuses on the properties and duality relationship between two types
of numerical invariants. One side involves the Betti table of a graded free resolution over
the polynomial ring. The other side involves the cohomology table of a coherent sheaf on
projective space. The theory began with a conjectural description of the cone of Betti tables
of finite length modules, given in [10]. Those conjectures were proven in [25], which also
described the cone of cohomology tables of vector bundles and illustrated a sort of duality
between Betti tables and cohomology tables.
The theory itself has since expanded in many directions: allowing modules whose support
has higher dimension, replacing vector bundles by coherent sheaves, working over rings other
than the polynomial ring, and so on. But at its core, Boij–Söderberg theory involves:
(1) A classification, up to scalar multiple, of the possible Betti tables of some class of
objects (for example, free resolutions of finitely generated modules of dimension ≤ c).
(2) A classification, up to scalar multiple, of the cohomology tables of some class of
objects (for examples, coherent sheaves of dimension ≤ n − c).
(3) Intersection theory-style duality results between Betti tables and cohomology tables.
One motivation behind Boij and Söderberg’s conjectures was the observation that it would
yield an immediate proof of the Cohen–Macaulay version of the Multiplicity Conjectures of
Herzog–Huneke–Srinivasan [44]. Eisenbud and Schreyer’s [25] thus yielded an immediate
proof of that conjecture, and the subsequent papers [11, 26] provided a proof of the Multiplicity Conjecture for non-Cohen–Macaulay modules. Other applications of the theory
involve Horrocks’ Conjecture [32], cohomology of tensor products of vector bundles [29],
sparse determinantal ideals [12], concavity of Betti tables [47] and more. In fact, Boij–
Söderberg theory has grown into an active area of research in commutative algebra and
algebraic geometry. See §9 or [36, 39] for a summary of many of the related papers. In
addition, many features from the theory have been implemented via Macaulay2 packages
such as BoijSoederberg.m2, BGG.m2, and TensorComplexes.m2 [42].
In this paper, we focus on discussing several open questions related to Boij–Söderberg
theory. Of course, the choice of topics reflects our own bias and perspective. We also briefly
review some of the major aspects of the theory, but those interested in a fuller expository
treatment should refer to [27] or [36].
1.1. Betti tables. Let S = k[x0 , . . . , xn ] with the grading deg(xi ) = 1 for all i, and with
k any field. Let M be a finitely generated graded module over S. Since M is graded, it
admits a minimal free resolution F = [F0 ← F1 ← · · · ← Fp ← 0]. The Betti table of
M is a vector whose coordinates βi,j (M) encode the numerical data of the minimal free
Date: June 6, 2016.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13D02.
DE was partially supported by NSF DMS-1302057 and SS was partially supported by NSF DMS-1500069.
1

2

DANIEL ERMAN AND STEVEN V SAM

resolution of M. Namely, since each Fi is a graded free module, we can
Llet βi,j (M)βi,jbe the
number of degree j generators of Fi ; equivalently, we can write Fi = j∈Z S(−j) ; also
equivalently, the Betti numbers come from graded Tor groups with respect to the residue
field: βi,j (M) := dim Tori (F, k)j .
For example, if S = k[x0 , x1 ] and M = S/(x0 , x21 ) then the minimal free resolution of M
is a Koszul complex
S 1 (−1)
F = S ←− ⊕ ←− S 1 (−3) ←− 0.
S 1 (−2)
The Betti table of M is traditionally displayed as the following array or matrix:


β0,0 β1,1 . . . βp,p
β(M) = β0,1 β1,2 . . . βp,p+1 .
..
..
..
.
.
.
In the example above, we thus have




1 1 −
β(M) =
.
− 1 1

There is a huge literature on the properties of Betti tables, and we refer the reader to
[18] as a starting point. Yet there are also many fundamental open questions about Betti
tables. The most notable question is Horrocks’ Conjecture, due to Horrocks [43, Problem
24] and Buchsbaum-Eisenbud [13, p. 453], which proposes that the Koszul complex is the
“smallest” free resolution.
More precisely, one version of the conjecture proposes that if
P
c = codim M, then i,j βi,j (M) ≥ 2c . The conjecture is known in five variables and other
special cases [3, 14] but remains wide open in general.
Boij and Söderberg proposed taking the convex cone spanned by the Betti tables, and
then focusing on this cone. This is like studying Betti tables “up to scalar multiple”, which
would remove the subtleties behind questions like Horrocks’ Conjecture. Note that convex
combinations are natural in this context, as β(M ⊕ M ′ ) = β(M) + β(M ′ ). We define B c (S)
as the convex cone spanned by the Betti tables of all S-modules of codimension ≥ c:
B c (S) := Q≥0 {β(M) | codim M ≥ c} ⊆

n+1 M
M

Q.

i=0 j∈Z

Boij and Söderberg’s original conjectures described the cone B n+1 (S), which is the case of
finite length S-modules [10]. This description was based on the notion of a pure resolution of
type d = (d0 , . . . , dn+1) ∈ Zn+2 , which is an acyclic complex where the i’th term is generated
entirely in degree di ; in other words, it is a minimal free complex of the form:
S(−d0 )β0,d0 ←− S(−d1 )β1,d1 ←− S(−d2 )β2,d2 ←− . . . ←− S(−dp )βn+1,dn+1 ←− 0.
Any such resolution must satisfy d0 < d1 < · · · < dn+1 , and Boij and Söderberg conjectured
that for any strictly increasing vector (d0 , . . . , dn+1 ) there was such a pure resolution. It
was known that if such a resolution existed, then the vector d determined a unique ray
in B n+1 (S) [10, §2.1], and Boij and Söderberg conjectured that these were precisely the
extremal rays of B n+1 (S). So the extremal rays of B n+1 (S) should be in bijection with
strictly increasing vectors (sometimes called degree sequences) d = (d0 , . . . , dn+1). With the

QUESTIONS ABOUT BOIJ–SÖDERBERG THEORY

3

(1, 3)

(1, 3)
(0, 3)

(0, 3)
(1, 2)
(0, 2)

(1, 2)
(0, 2)

Figure 1. For a cone of Betti tables, the extremal rays come from Cohen–Macaulay
modules with pure resolutions. The rays may thus be labelled by strictly increasing sequences of integers, as illustrated on the left. The cone has a simplicial fan structure, where
simplices correspond to increasing chains of integers with respect to the partial order, as
illustrated on the right.

advent of hindsight, this is a natural guess: pure resolutions will give the Betti tables with
the fewest possible nonzero entries, and so they will always produce extremal rays.
There is a natural termwise partial order on such vectors, where d ≤ d′ if di ≤ d′i for
all i, and Boij and Söderberg also conjectured that this partial order endowed B n+1 (S)
with the structure of a simplicial fan, where B n+1 (S) is the union of simplicial cones and
the simplices correspond to maximal chains of degree sequences with respect to the partial
order. For instance, the cone in Figure 1 decomposes as the union of two simplicial cones;
the two cones correspond to the chains (0, 2) < (1, 2) < (1, 3) and (0, 2) < (0, 3) < (1, 3).
The existence of pure resolutions was first proven in [22] in characteristic zero and in [25]
in arbitrary characteristic; further generalizations appear in [7, 38]. The rest of Boij and
Söderberg’s conjectures were proven in [25] and the theory has since been extended from finite
length modules to finitely generated modules [11] and to bounded complexes of modules [19].
One of the most striking corollaries of Boij–Söderberg theory is the resulting decomposition
of Betti tables. The simplicial structure of the cone of Betti tables provides an algorithm for
writing a Betti table β(M) as a positive, rational sum of the Betti tables of pure resolutions.
For instance, returning to our example of M = k[x, y]/(x, y 2), we have:






1 2 3 −
1 1 − −
1 1 −
(1)
β(M) =
=
+
− 1 1
3 − − 1
3 − 3 2
The decomposition of β(M) will always be a finite sum, which is an immediate consequence
of the fact that every Betti table has only finitely many nonzero entries, and there are thus
a finite number of extremal rays which could potentially contribute to that Betti table. This
decomposition algorithm is implemented in Macaulay2, and it is extremely efficient.
These decompositions provide a counterintuitive aspect of Boij–Söderberg theory.
Example 1.1. Let S = k[x, y] and M = S/(x, y 2 ). The pure resolutions appearing on the
′
2
right-hand side
 of (1)are resolutions of actual modules. If we let M = S/(x, y) and
x y 0
M ′′ := coker
then we have:
0 x y
β(M) = 31 β(M ′ ) + 31 β(M ′′ ).

Yet the above equation is purely numerical: Boij and Söderberg did not address whether the
free resolution of M could be built from the free resolutions of M ′ and M ′′ , and Eisenbud
and Schreyer’s proof provides no such categorification. We discuss this in more detail in §2.

4

DANIEL ERMAN AND STEVEN V SAM

If we study finitely generated modules which are not necessarily of finite length, then the
description of the cone of Betti tables is a bit more subtle. For the cone B c (S) of Betti
tables of modules of modules of codimension ≥ c, the extremal rays still correspond to
pure resolutions of Cohen–Macaulay modules, but now the modules may have codimension
between c and n + 1. For instance, if we consider the non-Cohen–Macaulay, cyclic module
M = k[x, y, z]/(x2 , xy, xz, yz), then the Boij–Söderberg decomposition will be:






1 1 − − −
2 1 − −
1 − − −
β(M) =
=
+
.
− 4 4 1
3 − 6 8 3
3 − 3 2

The Betti tables on the right can be realized as the Betti tables of S/(x1 , x2 , x3 )2 and
S/(x1 , x2 )2 , which are Cohen–Macaulay modules of codimension 3 and 2, respectively. We
denote these as pure resolutions of type (0, 2, 3, 4) and type (0, 2, 3, ∞) respectively, because
under this convention, the termwise partial order still induces a simplicial fan structure on
B c (S).
Even more generally, we could leave the world of modules and look instead at bounded
complexes of free modules or equivalently at elements of Db (S). The corresponding cone
is yet again spanned by pure resolutions of Cohen–Macaulay modules, but where we also
allow homological shifts. With the right conventions, the whole story carries over in great
generality in this context, including the decomposition theorem. For instance, on S = k[x, y]
we could take the complex




−y 2 xy
y
(x)
(x y)
xy −x2


F := S 1 ←−−−−− S 2 (−1) ←−−−−− S 2 (−3) ←−−−−− S 1 (−4) ,
which has finite length homology H0 F = k, H1 F = k(−2). We then have the decomposition:






1 − 1 − −
1 2 3 − −
1 2 − −
β(F) =
=
+
.
− − 2 1
2 − − 3 2
2 − − 1 −

See [19] for more on Boij–Söderberg theory for complexes.
1.2. Cohomology tables. On the sheaf cohomology side, we fix a coherent sheaf E on Pnk .
We define the cohomology table of E as a vector whose coordinates γi,j (E) encode graded
sheaf cohomology groups of E. In particular, γi,j (E) := dimk Hi (Pn , E(j)).
When displaying cohomology tables, we follow the tradition introduced in [21] and write:
. . . γn,−n−2 γn,−n−1
γn,−n
γn,−n+1
. . . γn−1,−n−1 γn−1,−n γn−1,−n+1 γn−1,−n+2
..
γ(E) =
.
...
γ1,−3
γ1,−2
γ1,−1
γ1,0
...
γ0,−2
γ0,−1
γ0,0
γ0,1

...
...
...
...

Thus for instance, if E = OP2 then we have:
... 3 1 − − − − ...
γ(OP2 ) = . . . − − − − − − . . .
. . . − − 1 3 6 10 . . .
where the 3 on the bottom row corresponds to γ0,1 (OP2 (1)) = dim H0 (P2 , OP2 (1)) = 3.

QUESTIONS ABOUT BOIJ–SÖDERBERG THEORY

5

While sheaf cohomology is central to all of modern algebraic geometry, the research on
cohomology tables is nowhere near as extensive as the work on Betti tables. In fact, cohomology tables seem to have first appeared in [21], where the cohomology table of a sheaf F
is written as the Betti table of the corresponding Tate resolution over the exterior algebra.
As with Betti tables, there are many open questions related to cohomology tables. One
notable question is whether there exists a non-split rank 2 vector bundle on Pn for any
n ≥ 5. This question could be answered entirely with information in the cohomology table.
A coherent sheaf on Pn is a vector bundle if and only if there are only finitely many zero
entries in the cohomology table in the rows corresponding to Hi where i = 1, 2, . . . , n − 1;
and it is a sum of line bundles if and only if all of those intermediate entries are zero. And
since the cohomology table is a refinement of the Hilbert polynomial, the rank of the vector
bundle can be read off from the cohomology table as well.
Inspired by the Boij–Söderberg conjectures, Eisenbud and Schreyer introduced the convex
cone spanned by the cohomology tables. We start by focusing on vector bundles; define
Cvb (Pn ) as the convex cone spanned by the cohomology tables of all vector bundles on Pn :
n

n

Cvb (P ) := Q≥0 {γ(E) | E is a vector bundle on P } ⊆

n+1
YY

Q.

i=0 j∈Z

Eisenbud and Schreyer give a complete description of this cone in [25]. A supernatural
bundle is a vector bundle with as few nonzero cohomology groups as possible; more precisely,
E is supernatural of type f = (f1 , . . . , fn ) ∈ Zn if


i = n and j < fn
i
n
H (P , E(j)) 6= 0 ⇐⇒ 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1 and fi+1 < j < fi

i = 0 and j > f .
1

Any such bundle must satisfy f1 > f2 > · · · > fn and such a strictly decreasing sequence
of integers is called a root sequence. Eisenbud and Schreyer proved that there exists a
supernatural bundle with any specified root sequence; as was the case with pure resolutions,
the vector f thus determines a unique ray in Cvb (Pn ), and Eisenbud and Schreyer proved
that these were precisely the extremal rays of that cone. Again with the advent of hindsight,
this is a natural guess: supernatural bundles give the cohomology tables with the fewest
possible nonzero entries, and so they will always produce extremal rays.
The termwise partial order on root sequences then induces a simplicial fan structure on
Cvb (Pn ) in a manner entirely parallel to the story for the cone of Betti tables.
Example 1.2. Let E be the cokernel of a generic map φ : OP2 (−2)2 → OP2 (−1)5 .
a rank 3 bundle on P2 . A computation in Macaulay2 yields the decomposition


. . . 20 10 3 − − − − . . .
γ(E) = . . . − − 1 2 − − − . . .
. . . − − − − 5 13 24 . . .

 
. . . 15 6 − − − − − . . .
. . . 15 8 3 − − −
1


... − − 3 3 − − − ... + ... − − − 1 − −
=
3 . . . − − − − 6 15 27 . . .
... − − − − 3 8

Then E is


− ...
− . . . ,
15 . . .

6

DANIEL ERMAN AND STEVEN V SAM

where the tables used in the decomposition can be realized as cohomology tables of supernatural bundles. In fact, if E ′ := (Sym2 Ω1P2 )(2) and E ′′ := Ω1P2 (1), then we have
= 31 γ(E ′) + 13 γ(E ′′ ).
We return to this example in §2.
All of the results about vector bundles can be extended to coherent sheaves as well. Let
C(Pn ) be the cone of cohomology tables of coherent sheaves F on Pn . In [26], Eisenbud
and Schreyer describe this cone in detail. Every extremal ray comes from a sheaf E, which
is supported on a linear subspace Pa ⊆ Pn for some a ≤ n, and where E is a supernatural
vector bundle on Pa . As in the case of vector bundles, the extremal rays thus correspond to
root sequences, and an appropriate partial order induces a simplicial fan structure on C(Pn ).
But there is one key difference for coherent sheaves: the decomposition might involve an
infinite number of summands [26, Example 0.3]. There are open questions even in this case.
Question 1.3. Under what conditions will an infinite sum of supernatural sheaves correspond
to a cohomology table, at least up to scalar multiple?
2. Categorification
The most natural and mysterious question raised by Boij–Söderberg theory has to do with
categorifying the decompositions into pure/supernatural tables.
Question 2.1. (1) For a graded module M, does the decomposition of β(M) into pure
Betti tables “lift” to a corresponding decomposition of the module M itself ?
(2) For a vector bundle E, does the decomposition of γ(E) into supernatural cohomology
tables “lift” to a corresponding decomposition of the bundle E itself ?
Let us return to Examples 1.1 and 1.2, and continue with that notation. On the module
side, we had the decomposition
β(M) = 13 β(M ′ ) + 31 β(M ′′ )
and on the vector bundle side we had
γ(E) = 31 γ (E ′ ) + γ(E ′′ ).
If we want to decompose M or E into pieces corresponding to the Boij–Söderberg decomposition, then there are three challenges:
(1) Denominators: Is there a natural way to systematically clear the denominators
that arise in these sorts of decompositions?
(2) Moduli: Modules with pure resolutions and supernatural bundles can have nontrivial moduli. Namely, there can be a lot of modules/vector bundles with the same pure
Betti table/supernatural cohomology table, or even the same table up to scalar multiple.1 How do we select the appropriate module or bundle to represent the summands
appearing in the decomposition?
(3) Filtration: Even if we overcome the first two obstacles, we still need to assemble
these pieces, perhaps through a filtration. How do we build such a filtration?
1For

example, if φ is any sufficiently general 2×4 matrix of linear forms on S = k[x, y, z], then the cokernel
of φ will define a pure resolution with degree sequence (0, 1, 3, 4). Varying φ produces non-isomorphic pure
resolutions. Similar constructions work for supernatural bundles [29, §6].

QUESTIONS ABOUT BOIJ–SÖDERBERG THEORY

7

On the module side, almost nothing is known. Eisenbud, Erman and Schreyer obtain
categorifications under highly restrictive hypotheses in [20], but their techniques avoid the
issues raised by denominators and moduli.
The example above is already challenging. We might clear denominators by replacing M
by M ⊕3N for some N. This would yield:

 

2N 3N −
N − −
⊕3N
β(M
)=
+
.
− − N
− 3N 2N

The diagrams on the righthand correspond to unique modules. Continuing with the notation
of Example 1.1, the diagrams on the right must correspond to (M ′ )⊕N and (M ′′ )⊕N . We
would thus want to realize M ⊕3N as an extension of (M ′ )⊕N and (M ′′ )⊕N . Since there are
no nonzero extensions of M ′ by M ′′ , the only possibility is an extension
0 → (M ′ )⊕N → M ⊕N → (M ′′ )⊕N → 0.

As originally observed by Sam and Weyman [53], this is also impossible: M ⊕N is annihilated
by the linear form x whereas the submodule (M ′ )⊕N is not annihilated by any linear form.
However, on the vector bundle side (in characteristic 0), some recent progress was made.
In fact, the first two issues now seem to have a satisfactory answer. The most naive idea for
clearing denominators is to take direct sums of E, which is equivalent to applying E 7→ E ⊗
O⊕N . Instead, we introduce a collection of Fourier–Mukai transforms which can be thought
of as “twisting” by something like an Ulrich sheaf. These transforms clear denominators
in exactly the way one would hope for [34, Corollary 1.4]. In addition, these functors also
resolve the moduli issue, as they send every supernatural bundle to a direct sum of the
GL-equivariant supernatural bundles [34, Corollary 1.10].
In the case of Example 1.2, this is sufficient to categorify the decomposition. In fact, after
applying an appropriate Fourier–Mukai transform Φ, we obtain
Φ(E) ∼
= E ′ ⊕ E ′′⊕3 .
However, beyond the cases covered in [34, Corollary 1.9], there is no general procedure for
producing a filtration from the various supernatural pieces.
Conjecture 2.2. Fix a vector bundle E on Pn . Let f be the root sequence corresponding
to the first step of the Boij–Söderberg decomposition of E and let Ff be the equivariant
supernatural bundle of type f constructed in [26, Theorem 6.2].
Then there exists r > 0, a Fourier–Mukai transform Φ, and a short exact sequence
0 → Ff⊕r → Φ(E) → E ′ → 0
where:
(1) The cohomology table of Φ(E) is a scalar multiple of the cohomology table of E, and
(2) γ(E) = γ(Ff⊕r ) + γ(E ′ ).
In essence, the conjecture says that the Fourier–Mukai transforms constructed in [34] can
be used to categorify the first step of the Boij–Söderberg decomposition of any vector bundle.
If true, one could iterate this to categorify the entire decomposition.
We can ask for similar results for modules. Even finding a natural categorification in the
single case of Example 1.1 would represent significant progress.
Problem 2.3. Find an operation, other than direct sums, which naturally clears denominators on the module side.

8

DANIEL ERMAN AND STEVEN V SAM

3. Boij–Söderberg theory and the tails of infinite resolutions
The first major progress in extending Boij–Söderberg theory to other projective varieties
was due to Eisenbud and Schreyer, who observed that the cone of cohomology tables depends
only mildly on the projective scheme [28, Theorem 5]. In particular, they show that if
X ⊆ Pn is a projective, d-dimensional subscheme which has an Ulrich sheaf, then the cone
of cohomology tables on X (with respect to OX (1)) equals the cone of cohomology tables
for Pd . This provides further motivation for Eisenbud and Schreyer’s question about the
existence of Ulrich sheaves [24, p. 543].
Question 3.1 (Eisenbud-Schreyer). Does every X ⊆ Pn have an Ulrich sheaf ?
Eisenbud and Erman extended Boij–Söderberg theory to many other graded rings, but only
if one restricts to Betti tables of perfect complexes with finite length homology [19, Theorem 0.8]. Their result is similar to the Eisenbud and Schreyer result, but with a linear Koszul
complex replacing the Ulrich sheaf. Namely, they show that if R is a graded ring of dimension
d which has d independent linear forms, then the cone of Betti tables of perfect complexes
F where all homology modules of F have finite length lines up with the corresponding cone
of Betti tables for k[x1 , . . . , xd ].
Restricting to perfect complexes makes the situation much simpler, as one entirely avoids
the complications involved in the study of infinite resolutions [2, 50]. While the cone of Betti
tables of resolutions has been worked out for some other graded rings [4, 40, 45], these are all
fairly simple rings which avoid many of the complexities of infinite resolutions since they have
finite Cohen–Macaulay representation type (i.e., there are only finitely many isomorphism
classes of indecomposable maximal Cohen–Macaulay modules). Some natural next cases
here are other rings of finite Cohen–Macaulay representation type: quadric hypersurfaces
and the Veronese surface.
In addition, recent work of Avramov, Gibbons, and Wiegand provides the first examples
beyond the case of finite Cohen–Macaulay representation type. More than just the cone,
they work out the full semigroup of Betti tables for graded, Gorenstein algebras with Hilbert
series 1 + es + s2 for some e; when e ≥ 3, these rings have wild representation type.
Remark 3.2. In [40, 45], the extremal rays of the Boij–Söderberg cone are still pure free
resolutions. These can be constructed for the quadric hypersurface k[x0 , . . . , xn ]/(x20 ) when
k is a field of characteristic 0 by noting that this ring is the symmetric algebra on a super
vector space with 1 odd variable x0 and n even variables x1 , . . . , xn and then applying
[22, Theorem 0.1]. However, we have been unable to deform these resolutions to get pure
free resolutions over higher rank quadrics.
An alternate approach, and one which is common in the study of infinite resolutions,
would be to focus on the tails of the infinite resolutions. In other words, we could define a
cone of Betti tables where we only focus on modules M which arise as “sufficiently high”
syzygy modules. The notion of “sufficiently high” will depend on the context, though [23, §7]
provides a notion in the case where R is a complete intersection ring, and this is a natural
starting point.
Problem 3.3. Let R be a graded complete intersection R = S/(f1 , . . . , fc ) and let Btail (R)
be the cone of Betti tables β(M) where M is a sufficiently high syzygy module. Describe
Btail (R).

QUESTIONS ABOUT BOIJ–SÖDERBERG THEORY

9

Again, there are many natural variants of this problem, such as where R is: a Golod ring,
a ring defined by a toric or monomial ideal, or the homogeneous coordinate ring of a curve
under a very positive embedding. In a different direction, see [6, Conjecture 1.6] for an open
question about the local ring case.
4. Exact sequences
The long exact sequence in cohomology provides a central tool for studying the cohomology
of a coherent sheaf, and it could thus be extremely fruitful to develop machinery that explores
Boij–Söderberg theory in exact sequences. The main challenge is that cohomology tables (or
Betti tables) are subadditive, but not necessarily additive, over short exact sequences.
Suppose we have a short exact sequence of coherent sheaves on Pn
0→A→E →B→0
where we fully understand the sheaf cohomology of A and B. A good example to keep in
mind is the case where A and B are supernatural bundles. After twisting by O(j) we get a
long exact sequence in cohomology:
· · · → Hi (E(j)) → Hi (B(j)) → Hi+1 (A(j)) → Hi+1 (E(j)) → · · ·
If all connecting maps in cohomology are zero, then this maximizes all entries in the cohomology table of E in the sense that Hi (E(j)) ∼
= Hi (A(j)) ⊕ Hi (B(j)). If this holds for all j
then we have γ(E) = γ(A) + γ(B). On the other hand, if some of the connecting maps were
nonzero, then this reduces the cohomology table of γ(E) via “consecutive cancellations”, i.e.,
by simultaneously reducing Hi (E(j)) and Hi+1 (E(j)) by the same amount.2
We thus expect some ambiguities in the cohomology table of an extension bundle like E,
and here is where Boij–Söderberg theory might help. Some patterns of consecutive cancellations will yield tables which lie inside the cone C(Pn ) of genuine cohomology tables, whereas
other patterns might lie outside of that cone. The following notation will be helpful.
Notation 4.1. For a root sequence f we write σf for the supernatural cohomology table of
rank one and with root sequence f . If f has one entry, so f = (i), then we simply use σi .
Example 4.2. Consider a rank 10 extension bundle:
0 → OP51 (−2) → E → OP51 (2) → 0.
The maximal possible cohomology table is if the extension splits:
· · · 50 40 30 20 15 10 5 − − − · · ·
.
· · · − − − 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 · · ·
However, there might be some consecutive cancellations, and taking into account the symmetry imposed by Serre duality, the possibilities are:
· · · 50 40 30 20 15 − a 10 − b 5 − a − − − · · ·
.
· · · − − − 5 − a 10 − b 15 − a 20 30 40 50 · · ·
But which pairs a and b can actually arise? It takes a bit of work to answer this. If we want
the cohomology table to remain inside the cone then we get:
10 − b ≥ 2(5 − a);
2The

equivalently, 2a ≥ b.

terminology of consecutive cancellations is common in the literature on Betti tables, but does not
appear to have been used in discussion of sheaf cohomology.

10

DANIEL ERMAN AND STEVEN V SAM

• 10σ−1

b

•
5σ−2 + 5σ0

• 5σ−3 + 5σ1

a

Figure 2. The potential cohomology tables for an extension bundle form a polytope in
the cone of cohomology tables; with E as in Example 4.2, the polytope is a triangle.
This turns out to be the only constraint, and the range of possibilities for the cohomology
table of E can thus be described by a triangle in the cone of cohomology tables, with corners
corresponding to (a, b) = (0, 0), (5, 5) and (5, 10). The corners of that triangle correspond to
sums of supernatural tables, as illustrated in Figure 2.
More generally, if E is an extension of two sheaves A and B, then the possible cohomology
tables of E is a polytope inside of C(Pn ).
Problem 4.3. Fix a short exact sequence of vector bundles
0 → A → E → B → 0.
(1) Assume that A is supernatural of type f and B is supernatural of type f ′ . Describe
the polytope of possible cohomology tables of E in terms of supernatural tables σg for
various root sequences g.
(2) For more general bundles A and B, describe the polytope of possible cohomology tables
of E in terms of the Boij–Söderberg decompositions of A and B.
There are many natural variants of this question. For instance, one could aim to describe
the potential cohomology tables of A in terms of E and B; one could work with longer exact
sequences; or one could pose analogous questions about Betti tables.
5. Boij–Söderberg theory over a DVR
Fix a coherent sheaf F on PnZp that is flat over Zp . How much can the cohomology table
of F “jump” when you pass from the generic point Qp to the special fiber Fp ? Are there any
restrictions other than having a constant Hilbert polynomial? A version of Boij–Söderberg
theory with Zp -coefficients would offer insights into this question.
More generally, fix a DVR R and let S := R[x0 , . . . , xn ], where deg(xi ) = 1 for all i.
In place of finite length modules, consider graded S-modules which are finite rank, free
R-modules.
Problem 5.1. Let S = R[x0 , . . . , xn ] with R a DVR. Describe:
(1) The cone of Betti tables of finitely generated, graded S-modules M which are flat and
finitely generated as R-modules.
(2) The cone of cohomology tables of vector bundles on PnR .
The functorial approach in [19] offers a possible approach.

QUESTIONS ABOUT BOIJ–SÖDERBERG THEORY

11

Problem 5.2. With notation as above:
(1) Extend the construction of the functor Φ from [19, §2] to a pairing of derived categories:
ΦR : Db (R[x0 , . . . , xn ]) × Db (PnR ) → Db(R[t]).
(2) Give explicit formulas, extending [19, Theorem 2.3], that relate the numerical invariants of ΦR (F, E) to the numerical invariants of F and E.
Even more generally, one might allow R to be a regular local ring of dimension > 1.
However when R is a DVR, the target of the functor Φ has global dimension 2. Since much
more is known about Betti tables in this context, we expect that the case where R is a DVR
is more tractable.
6. Non-commutative analogues
Consider the degree sequence (0, 1, 3, 4). The Herzog–Kühl equations state that any finite
length module over a polynomial ring in 3 variables with a pure resolution of type (0, 1, 3, 4)
is a multiple of the following table:


1 2
(2)
.
2 1
One can easily deduce that this Betti table is non-realizable: this would be the Betti table of
k[x, y, z]/I where I is generated by two linear forms, which must then have a linear Koszul
relation.
However, there is a way to realize this as the Betti table of a finite length module if we
are willing to replace k[x, y, z] by another algebra. In particular, define a 3-dimensional Lie
algebra H (Heisenberg Lie algebra) with basis {x, y, z} and the following multiplication
[x, y] = z,

[x, z] = [y, z] = 0.

Recall that given any Lie algebra g, its universal enveloping algebra U(g) is the tensor algebra
on g modulo the relations x ⊗ y − y ⊗ x = [x, y] for all x, y ∈ g. In general, U(g) is only a
filtered algebra, and the associated graded algebra is the symmetric algebra Sym(g) by the
Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorem. However, if g is graded, then the same is true for U(g).
In our case, H is graded via deg(x) = deg(y) = 1 and deg(z) = 2. In this case, minimal free
resolutions of graded modules are well-defined.
The Chevalley–Eilenberg complex (which becomes the usual Koszul complex under the
PBW degeneration mentioned above) always gives a free resolution of the residue field, but
is not necessarily minimal. For H, the Chevalley–Eilenberg complex looks like:
U(H)(−1)⊕2
U(H)(−2)
⊕
⊕
→ U(H).
→
0 → U(H)(−4) →
U(H)(−2)
U(H)(−3)⊕2
The two terms of degree 2 cancel since it corresponds to the redundancy xy − yx = z. So
we get the following minimal free resolution:
0 → U(H)(−4) → U(H)(−3)⊕2 → U(H)(−1)⊕2 → U(H)
and hence we can realize (2).
This suggests that non-realizable integral points in the Boij–Söderberg cone may be realizable over U(g) for a Z>0 -graded Lie algebra g. Note that a finite-dimensional Z>0 -graded
Lie algebra g is necessarily nilpotent since [g, gi ] ⊂ gi+1 . Also, a standard graded polynomial

12

DANIEL ERMAN AND STEVEN V SAM

ring in n variables is U(kn ) where kn is the abelian Lie algebra of dimension n concentrated
in degree 1.
In dimension 2, every nilpotent Lie algebra is abelian, and in dimension 3, the only possibilities are k3 and H (to normalize, we insist that the generators of the Lie algebra consist
of degree 1 elements). It is easy to see that every integral point on a pure ray in the Boij–
Söderberg cone in 2 variables is realizable, so we offer the following question:
Question 6.1. For every degree sequence (d0 , d1 , d2 , d3 ), and every integral point on the
corresponding ray in the Boij–Söderberg cone, is there a finite length module either over
k[x, y, z] or U(H) whose Betti table is that integral point?
Of course, there is a natural extension for any number of variables:
Question 6.2. For every degree sequence (d0 , . . . , dn ), and every integral point on the corresponding ray in the Boij–Söderberg cone, does there exist an n-dimensional Z>0 -graded Lie
algebra g generated in degree 1, and a finite length module over U(g) whose Betti table is
that integral point?
One source of examples for Z>0 -graded Lie algebras are the nilpotent radicals of parabolic
subalgebras of (split) reductive Lie algebras. For example, parabolic subalgebras of gln
are subalgebras of block upper-triangular matrices (where the block sizes are fixed) the
nilpotent radical is the subalgebra where the diagonal blocks are identically 0. Over a field
of characteristic 0, Kostant’s version of the Borel–Weil–Bott theorem (see [52, §2] for a
convenient reference and combinatorial details for the symplectic Lie algebra which will be
mentioned below) calculates the Tor groups of the restriction of an irreducible representation
from the reductive Lie algebra to the nilpotent one. In fact, the EFW complexes are a
special case of Kostant’s calculation where the reductive Lie algebra is gln+1 and we take
the nilpotent radical of the subalgebra of block upper-triangular matrices with block sizes 1
and n (in this case, the nilpotent radical is abelian).
Furthermore, one can construct many kinds of pure resolutions using this construction,
though not necessarily all degree sequences are realizable (in the EFW case, they are). We
point out that H can be realized as the nilpotent radical for a parabolic subalgebra of the
symplectic Lie algebra sp4 (see [52, §2.2]), and using this representation-theoretic perspective,
one can realize more integral points which are not realizable over k[x, y, z] than the example
presented above. Details will appear in forthcoming work of the second author.
Remark 6.3. We are appealing to the fact that U(g) “looks like” a graded polynomial algebra,
which is made precise by the Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorem. One could also study other
non-commutative algebras that look like graded polynomial algebras. One desirable property
is finite global dimension. As a starting point, one may consider Artin–Schelter algebras,
see [1].
7. Connection with Stillman’s Conjecture
Let Sb := k[x0 , x1 , x2 , . . . ] and fix positive integers e1 , . . . , er . Let I be an ideal with
generators in degrees e1 , . . . , er . Stillman’s Conjecture asks whether there is an upper bound
b which depends only on e1 , . . . , er ; in particular, the bound
for the projective dimension of S/I
should not depend on the ideal I [51, Problem 3.14].
Caviglia has shown that a positive answer to Stillman’s Conjecture is equivalent to the
b which depends only on e1 , . . . , er [50,
existence of an upper bound on the regularity of S/I

QUESTIONS ABOUT BOIJ–SÖDERBERG THEORY

13

Theorem 29.5]. This allows us to rephrase Stillman’s conjecture as a finiteness statement
about Betti tables. For simplicity, we focus on the case where all of the ei have the same
value e. Then Stillman’s conjecture is equivalent to the following:
Conjecture 7.1 (Alternate Stillman). There are only finitely many Betti tables β(M) of
b
S-modules
M satisfying:
(
(
1 j=0
r j=e
β0,j (M) =
and
β1,j (M) =
.
0 j 6= 0
0 j 6= e
b
Note that any finitely presented S-module
has a presentation matrix that involves only
b
finitely many variables. Hence the Betti table of every S-module
can be decomposed as a
sum of the Betti tables of Cohen–Macaulay modules with pure resolutions. Thus, by taking
the union of the cones of Betti tables of resolutions over k[x0 , x1 , . . . , xn ] as n → ∞, we will
b of resolutions of Betti tables of finitely presented S-modules.
b
obtain the cone B(S)
One could then imagine trying to prove Stillman’s Conjecture via Boij–Söderberg theory
b that satisfy the conditions
by showing that there are only finitely many lattice points in B(S)
of the conjecture. However, this turns out to be false.

Proposition 7.2. Fix any e ≥ 1 and r ≥ 2. Then there exist infinitely many lattice points
b which satisfy
D ∈ B(S)
(
(
1 j=0
r j=e
β0,j (D) =
and
β1,j (D) =
.
0 j 6= 0
0 j 6= e
b that look like the Betti
In other words, there exist infinitely many lattice points in D ∈ B(S)
table of an algebra generated by r forms of degree e. In fact, there exist infinitely many D
satisfying the above and which also look like pure resolutions.
Yet this may not be the end of the story. Remark 7.4 shows that the “virtual” Betti
tables constructed in the proof of the proposition cannot arise as the Betti table of an actual
module, and we know of no other such infinite families.
Question 7.3. Ignoring pure Betti table counterexamples, like those constructed in Proposib that look like the Betti table
tion 7.2, do there exist finitely many lattice points in D ∈ B(S)
of an algebra generated by r forms of degree e?

A positive answer to this question would certainly be interesting as it would imply Stillman’s Conjecture. But a negative answer would also be interesting for a different reason:
assuming that we also believe Stillman’s Conjecture, a negative answer to Question 7.3 would
suggest that almost all lattice points in the cone of Betti tables that “look like” the Betti
table of a cyclic module do not come from an actual Betti table. In other words, a negative
answer would suggest that the “noise” of the fake Betti tables inside the cone overwhelms
the “signal” of the actual Betti tables, at least for some questions.
Proof of Proposition 7.2 (sketch). Fix p ≥ 0 and let n := r + p(r − 1). For each such p, we
will define a degree sequence d(p) ∈ Zn+1 , and we will show that for infinitely many of these
degree sequences, the smallest integral pure diagram of type d(p) satisfies the conditions of
(p)
(p)
(p)
the proposition. We set d0 = 0 and d1 = e. For i = 2, . . . , n we then set di := e(p + i).

14

DANIEL ERMAN AND STEVEN V SAM

We let π be the normalized pure diagram of type d(p) , so that β0,0 (π) = 1 by assumption.
It follows from [10, §2.1] that
Qn
(p)
j6=0 dj
.
βi,d(p) = Qn
(p)
(p)
i
|d
−
d
|
j
j6=i i

To complete the proof we must show that each of these expressions is an integer. Since
every entry of d(p) is divisible by e, we can reduce to the case where e = 1. A detailed but
elementary computation then confirms that each of these expressions is an integer.

Remark 7.4. For a given r ≥ 2 and p > 0, the virtual Betti table constructed in the proof of
Proposition 7.2 would correspond to a module with codimension r + p(r − 1). But this would
be the Betti table of a module β(S/I) where I is an ideal with r generators. In particular,
the codimension of S/I is bounded above by r, which is a contradiction. Thus, the pure
Betti tables constructed in the proof of Proposition 7.2 cannot correspond to an actual Betti
table. Of course, some scalar multiple of each table does come from an actual Betti table.
Example 7.5. We consider the examples from the proof of Proposition 7.2 in the case e = 2
and r = 3. These would correspond to algebras S/I where I is generated by three quadrics.
For any prime p, there is a pure diagram with degree sequence
d(p) := (0, 2, 4 + 2p, 6 + 2p, . . . , 6 + 6p) ∈ Z2p+4
that looks like the Betti table of such an algebra. With p = 3, this yields


1















3

42
126
168
120
45
7







.







Yet a result of Eisenbud and Huneke implies that such an algebra has projective dimension
at most 4 [48, Theorem 3.1], and so Stillman’s Conjecture is true in this case, despite the
presence of these “fake” Betti tables.
8. Extremal rays
A number of questions remain about the extremal rays. To begin with, Eisenbud, Fløystad,
and Weyman conjecture that every sufficiently large integral point on an extremal ray comes
from an actual Betti table [22, Conjecture 6.1]. This conjecture remains open, though it is
known to be false for interior rays in the cone [20, Example 1.7]. One could ask a similar
question for cohomology tables.
In addition, GL-equivariance plays a serendipitous role in Boij–Söderberg theory. We restrict to characteristic zero and to the finite length cone Bn+1 (S) and the vector bundle cone
Cvb (Pn ). One can construct each extremal ray of these two cones by a GLn+1 -equivariant

QUESTIONS ABOUT BOIJ–SÖDERBERG THEORY

15

object: see [22, §3] for the equivariant pure resolutions and [25, Theorem 6.2] for the equivariant supernatural bundles. An immediate corollary is that every ray in Bn+1 (S) or Cvb (Pn )
can be realized by an equivariant object:
Corollary 8.1. Let k be a field of characteristic 0 and let S = k[x0 , . . . , xn ].
(1) For any finite length, graded, S-module M, there exists a finite length, graded, and
GLn+1 -equivariant module N such that β(N) is a scalar multiple of β(M).
(2) For any vector bundle E on Pnk , there is a GLn+1 -equivariant vector bundle F on Pn
such that γ(E) is a scalar multiple of γ(F ).
Question 8.2. Is there an intrinsic reason why every Betti table of a finite length module,
and every cohomology table of a vector bundle, can be realized (up to scalar multiple) by an
equivariant object? Is there a simpler proof of this fact?
9. More topics
9.1. Toric Boij–Söderberg theory. Many researchers have observed that it would be
natural to try to extend Boij–Söderberg theory to toric varieties and free complexes over
their multigraded Cox rings. Eisenbud and Schreyer have made a conjecture about the
extremal rays of the cone of cohomology on P1 × P1 [28]; several authors have partial results
for cones of Betti tables over a polynomial ring with Z2 or Zs grading [5, 8, 35]; and [19, §11]
develops some of the duality aspects for toric varieties. Yet even taken together, these results
are far from providing a complete picture for any toric variety, and it appears to be quite
challenging to develop such a picture even for P1 × P1 . A different possible direction is to
extend Boij and Smith’s work on cones of Hilbert functions to the multigraded case; see their
remarks in [9, p. 10,317].
9.2. Equivariant Boij–Söderberg theory. Since pure free resolutions over a polynomial
ring have equivariant realizations over a field of characteristic 0, one can ask whether there
is a meaningful description of the cone of “equivariant Betti tables”. See [53, §4] for the
setup and partial progress. A natural variant is to work on a Grassmannian and to focus
on GL-equivariant free resolutions and GL-equivariant cohomology tables. There is work in
progress in this direction due to Ford–Levinson and Ford–Levinson–Sam.
9.3. Monomial ideals and combinatorics. A number of authors have explored the boundary between Boij–Söderberg theory and combinatorial commutative algebra. One remarkable
recent result is Mayes-Tang’s proof [46] of Engström’s Conjecture on stabilization of decompositions of powers of monomial ideals [30]. This raises the question of whether similar
asymptotic stabilization results can be expected in other contexts.
In another direction, Fløystad [38] has proposed a vast generalization of Boij–Söderberg
cones by moving from Betti tables to certain triples of homological data which are defined
on the category of squarefree monomial modules. This in turn has relations to the cone
of hypercohomology tables of complexes of coherent sheaves and Tate resolutions [37], and
Fløystad formulates many fascinating questions in those papers.
See [15,31,41,49] for some other work that mixes Boij-Söderberg theory and combinatorics.
9.4. Asymptotic Boij–Söderberg decompositions of Veroneses. Let X be a smooth
projective variety with a very ample divisor A. For any d > 0 we can embed X ⊆ Prd
by the complete liner series |dA| and study the syzygies of X. Ein and Lazarsfeld ask: as

16

DANIEL ERMAN AND STEVEN V SAM

d → ∞, which Betti numbers of X will be nonzero? They show that in the limit, the answer
only depends on the dimension of the variety of X, and not on any more refined geometric
properties about X [17]. A natural followup is to ask about the asymptotic behavior of the
Boij–Söderberg decomposition of these Betti tables. See [16, Problem 3.6] and [33].

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the participants of the Boij–Söderberg Theory group at the Bootcamp for the 2015 Algebraic Geometry Summer Research Institute, whose ideas and questions informed this note. Several of these questions were developed in speculative conversations with colleagues, and we also thank those individuals, including: Christine Berkesch
Zamaere, Mats Boij, David Eisenbud, Courtney Gibbons, Jason McCullough, Frank-Olaf
Schreyer, Greg Smith, Jerzy Weyman, and many more.

References
[1] Michael Artin and William F. Schelter, Graded algebras of global dimension 3, Adv. in Math.
66 (1987), no. 2, 171–216. ↑12
[2] Luchezar L. Avramov, Infinite free resolutions, Six lectures on commutative algebra (Bellaterra,
1996), Progr. Math., vol. 166, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1998, pp. 1–118. ↑8
[3] Luchezar L. Avramov and Ragnar-Olaf Buchweitz, Lower bounds for Betti numbers, Compositio Math. 86 (1993), no. 2, 147–158. ↑2
[4] Christine Berkesch, Jesse Burke, Daniel Erman, and Courtney Gibbons, The cone of Betti
diagrams over a hypersurface ring of low embedding dimension, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 16
(2012), 121–141. arXiv:1109.5198v2. ↑8
[5] Christine Berkesch, Daniel Erman, and Manoj Kummini, Three flavors of extremal Betti tables,
Commutative algebra, Springer, New York, 2013, pp. 99–121. arXiv:1207.5707v1. ↑15
[6] Christine Berkesch, Daniel Erman, Manoj Kummini, and Steven V Sam, Shapes of free resolutions over a local ring, Math. Ann. 354 (2012), no. 3, 939–954. arXiv:1105.2244v2. ↑9
[7] Christine Berkesch Zamaere, Daniel Erman, Manoj Kummini, and Steven V Sam, Tensor
complexes: multilinear free resolutions constructed from higher tensors, J. Eur. Math. Soc.
(JEMS) 15 (2013), no. 6, 2257–2295. arXiv:1101.4604v5. ↑3
[8] Mats Boij and Gunnar Fløystad, The cone of Betti diagrams of bigraded Artinian modules of
codimension two, Combinatorial aspects of commutative algebra and algebraic geometry, Abel
Symp., vol. 6, Springer, Berlin, 2011, pp. 1–16. arXiv:1001.3238v1. ↑15
[9] Mats Boij and Gregory G. Smith, Cones of Hilbert functions, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 20
(2015), 10314–10338. arXiv:1404.7341v1. ↑15
[10] Mats Boij and Jonas Söderberg, Graded Betti numbers of Cohen-Macaulay modules
and the multiplicity conjecture, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 78 (2008), no. 1, 85–106.
arXiv:math/0611081v2. ↑1, 2, 14
[11] Mats Boij and Jonas Söderberg, Betti numbers of graded modules and the multiplicity conjecture in the non-Cohen-Macaulay case, Algebra Number Theory 6 (2012), no. 3, 437–454.
arXiv:0803.1645v1. ↑1, 3
[12] Adam Boocher, Free resolutions and sparse determinantal ideals, Math. Res. Lett. 19 (2012),
no. 4, 805–821. arXiv:1111.0279v2. ↑1
[13] David A. Buchsbaum and David Eisenbud, Algebra structures for finite free resolutions, and
some structure theorems for ideals of codimension 3, Amer. J. Math. 99 (1977), no. 3, 447–485.
↑2

QUESTIONS ABOUT BOIJ–SÖDERBERG THEORY

17

[14] H. Charalambous and E. G. Evans Jr., Problems on Betti numbers of finite length modules,
Free resolutions in commutative algebra and algebraic geometry (Sundance, UT, 1990), 1992,
pp. 25–33. ↑2
[15] David Cook II, The structure of the Boij–Söderberg posets, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 139 (2011),
no. 6, 2009–2015. arXiv:1006.2026v1. ↑15
[16] Lawrence Ein, Daniel Erman, and Robert Lazarsfeld, Asymptotics of random Betti tables, J.
Reine Angew. Math. 702 (2015), 55–75. arXiv:1207.5467v1. ↑16
[17] Lawrence Ein and Robert Lazarsfeld, Asymptotic syzygies of algebraic varieties, Invent. Math.
190 (2012), no. 3, 603–646. arXiv:1103.0483v3. ↑16
[18] David Eisenbud, The geometry of syzygies, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 229, SpringerVerlag, New York, 2005. A second course in commutative algebra and algebraic geometry. ↑2
[19] David Eisenbud and Daniel Erman, Categorified duality in Boij–Söderberg theory and invariants of free complexes (2012). arXiv:1205.0449v2. ↑3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15
[20] David Eisenbud, Daniel Erman, and Frank-Olaf Schreyer, Filtering free resolutions, Compos.
Math. 149 (2013), no. 5, 754–772. arXiv:1001.0585v3. ↑7, 14
[21] David Eisenbud, Gunnar Fløystad, and Frank-Olaf Schreyer, Sheaf cohomology and free resolutions over exterior algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003), no. 11, 4397–4426.
arXiv:math/0104203v2. ↑4, 5
[22] David Eisenbud, Gunnar Fløystad, and Jerzy Weyman, The existence of equivariant pure free
resolutions, Annales de l’institut Fourier 61 (2011), no. 3, 905–926. arXiv:0709.1529v5. ↑3,
8, 14, 15
[23] David Eisenbud and Irena Peeva, Matrix Factorizations for Complete Intersections and Minimal Free Resolutions (2013). arXiv:1306.2615v4. ↑8
[24] David Eisenbud and Frank-Olaf Schreyer, Resultants and Chow forms via exterior syzygies, J.
Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (2003), no. 3, 537–579. arXiv:math/0111040v1. ↑8
[25] David Eisenbud and Frank-Olaf Schreyer, Betti numbers of graded modules and cohomology of
vector bundles, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 22 (2009), no. 3, 859–888. arXiv:0712.1843v4. ↑1, 3, 5,
15
[26] David Eisenbud and Frank-Olaf Schreyer, Cohomology of coherent sheaves and series of supernatural bundles, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 12 (2010), no. 3, 703–722. arXiv:0902.1594v1.
↑1, 6, 7
[27] David Eisenbud and Frank-Olaf Schreyer, Betti numbers of syzygies and cohomology of coherent
sheaves, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, 2010. Hyderabad, India,
arXiv:1102.3559v1. ↑1
[28] David Eisenbud and Frank-Olaf Schreyer, Boij–Söderberg theory, Combinatorial aspects of
commutative algebra and algebraic geometry, Abel Symp., vol. 6, Springer, Berlin, 2011,
pp. 35–48. ↑8, 15
[29] David Eisenbud and Frank-Olaf Schreyer, The banks of the cohomology river, Kyoto J. Math.
53 (2013), no. 1, 131–144. arXiv:1109.4591v1. ↑1, 6
[30] Alexander Engström, Decompositions of Betti diagrams of powers of monomial ideals: a stability conjecture, Combinatorial methods in topology and algebra, Springer INdAM Ser., vol. 12,
Springer, Cham, 2015, pp. 37–40. arXiv:1312.6981v1. ↑15
[31] Alexander Engström and Matthew T. Stamps, Betti diagrams from graphs, Algebra Number
Theory 7 (2013), no. 7, 1725–1742. arXiv:1210.8069v3. ↑15
[32] Daniel Erman, A special case of the Buchsbaum-Eisenbud-Horrocks rank conjecture, Math. Res.
Lett. 17 (2010), no. 6, 1079–1089. arXiv:0902.0316v2. ↑1
[33] Daniel Erman, The Betti table of a high-degree curve is asymptotically pure, Recent advances
in algebraic geometry, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 417, Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, 2015, pp. 200–206. arXiv:1308.4661v2. ↑16

18

DANIEL ERMAN AND STEVEN V SAM

[34] Daniel Erman and Steven V Sam, Supernatural analogues of Beilinson monads, Compos. Math.
arXiv:1506.07558v1. ↑7
[35] Gunnar Fløystad, The linear space of Betti diagrams of multigraded Artinian modules, Math.
Res. Lett. 17 (2010), no. 5, 943–958. arXiv:1001.3235v2. ↑15
[36] Gunnar Fløystad, Boij–Söderberg theory: Introduction and survey, Progress in Commutative
Algebra 1, Combinatorics and homology, 2012, pp. 1-54. arXiv:1106.0381v2. ↑1
[37] Gunnar Fløystad, Zipping Tate resolutions and exterior coalgebras, J. Algebra 437 (2015),
249–307. arXiv:1212.3675v3. ↑15
[38] Gunnar Fløystad, Triplets of pure free squarefree complexes, J. Commut. Algebra 5 (2013),
no. 1, 101–139. arXiv:1207.2071v3. ↑3, 15
[39] Gunnar Fløystad, Jason McCullough, and Irena Peeva, Three themes of syzygies, Bull. Amer.
Math. Soc. 53 (2016), 415–435. ↑1
[40] Iulia Gheorghita and Steven V Sam, The cone of Betti tables over three non-collinear points
in the plane, J. Commut. Alg. arXiv:1501.00207v1. ↑8
[41] Courtney Gibbons, Jack Jeffries, Sarah Mayes, Claudiu Raicu, Branden Stone, and Bryan
White, Non-simplicial decompositions of Betti diagrams of complete intersections, J. Commut.
Algebra 7 (2015), no. 2, 189–206. arXiv:1301.3441v3. ↑15
[42] Daniel R. Grayson and Michael E. Stillman, Macaulay 2, a software system for research in
algebraic geometry. Available at http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/. ↑1
[43] Robin Hartshorne, Algebraic vector bundles on projective spaces: a problem list, Topology 18
(1979), no. 2, 117–128. ↑2
[44] Jürgen Herzog and Hema Srinivasan, Bounds for multiplicities, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 350
(1998), no. 7, 2879–2902. ↑1
[45] Manoj Kummini and Steven V Sam, The cone of Betti tables over a rational normal
curve, Commutative Algebra and Noncommutative Algebraic Geometry, 2015, pp. 251–264.
arXiv:1301.7005v2. ↑8
[46] Sarah Mayes-Tang, Stabilization of Boij-Söderberg decompositions of ideal powers.
arXiv:1509.08544v1. ↑15
[47] Jason McCullough, A polynomial bound on the regularity of an ideal in terms of half of the
syzygies, Math. Res. Lett. 19 (2012), no. 3, 555–565. arXiv:1112.0058v1. ↑1
[48] Jason McCullough and Alexandra Seceleanu, Bounding projective dimension, Commutative
algebra, Springer, New York, 2013, pp. 551–576. ↑14
[49] Uwe Nagel and Stephen Sturgeon, Combinatorial interpretations of some Boij-Söderberg decompositions, J. Algebra 381 (2013), 54–72. arXiv:1203.6515v1. ↑15
[50] Irena Peeva, Graded syzygies, Algebra and Applications, vol. 14, Springer-Verlag London Ltd.,
London, 2011. ↑8, 12
[51] Irena Peeva and Mike Stillman, Open problems on syzygies and Hilbert functions, J. Commut.
Algebra 1 (2009), no. 1, 159–195. ↑12
[52] Steven V Sam, Homology of analogues of Heisenberg Lie algebras, Math. Res. Lett. 22 (2015),
no. 4, 1223–1241. arXiv:1307.1901v2. ↑12
[53] Steven V Sam and Jerzy Weyman, Pieri resolutions for classical groups, J. Algebra 329 (2011),
222–259. arXiv:0907.4505v5. ↑7, 15
Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
E-mail address: derman@math.wisc.edu
URL: http://www.math.wisc.edu/~derman/
Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
E-mail address: svs@math.wisc.edu
URL: http://www.math.wisc.edu/~svs/

