Divisionally free arrangements of hyperplanes
arXiv:1502.07520v4 [] 17 Jan 2017

Takuro Abe

∗

April 5, 2018

Abstract
Let (A, A′ , AH ) be the triple of hyperplane arrangements. We
show that the freeness of AH and the division of χ(A; t) by χ(AH ; t)
imply the freeness of A. This “division theorem” improves the famous
addition-deletion theorem, and it has several applications, which include a definition of “divisionally free arrangements”. It is a strictly
larger class of free arrangements than the classical important class of
inductively free arrangements. Also, whether an arrangement is divisionally free or not is determined by the combinatorics. Moreover, we
show that a lot of recursively free arrangements, to which almost all
known free arrangements are belonging, are divisionally free.

1

Main results

Let V be an ℓ-dimensional vector space over an arbitrary field K with ℓ ≥ 1,
S = Sym(V ∗ ) = K[x1 , . . . , xℓ ] its coordinate ring and Der S := ⊕ℓi=1 S∂xi
the module of K-linear S-derivations. A hyperplane arrangement A is a
finite set of hyperplanes in V . We say that A is central if every hyperplane is
linear. In this article every arrangement is central unless otherwise specified.
In the central cases, we fix a linear form αH ∈ V ∗ such that ker(αH ) = H
for each H ∈ A. An ℓ-arrangement is an arrangement in an ℓ-dimensional
vector space. Let L(A) := {∩H∈B H | B ⊂ A} be an intersection lattice.
L(A) has a partial order by reverse inclusion, which equips L(A) with a poset
structure. For X ∈ L(A), define the localization AX of A at X by AX :=
{H ∈ A | H ⊃ X}, which is a subarrangement of A. Also, the restriction
AX of A onto X is defined by AX := {H ∩ X | H ∈ A \ AX }, which is an
Institute of Mathematics for Industry, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan.
Email:abe@imi.kyushu-u.ac.jp 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 32S22, 52S35.
∗

1

arrangement in X ≃ Kdim X . Let Li (A) := {X ∈ L(A) | codimV X = i}.
Also, we use some notations in §2.
In the study of hyperplane arrangements, its algebraic structure D(A) is
well-studied. The logarithmic derivation module D(A) is defined by
D(A) := {θ ∈ Der S | θ(αH ) ∈ S · αH (∀H ∈ A)}.
We say that A is free with exponents exp(A) = (d1 , . . . , dℓ ) if D(A) is generated as an S-module by S-independent homogeneous generators θ1 , . . . , θℓ
with deg θi = di (i = 1, . . . , ℓ). The study of free arrangements was initiated
by Terao in [19], and has been playing the central role in this area. Recently,
there have been several studies to determine when A is free, e.g., [2], [9], [21],
[22] and so on. However, it is still very difficult to determine the freeness.
Freeness of arrangements implies several interesting geometric and combinatorial properties of A. For example, see [1], [2] and [20]. In particular, the
most important result among them is Terao’s factorization theorem (Theorem
2.5) in [20], which asserts that if A is free with exp(A) = (d1 , . . . , dℓ ), then its
characteristic polynomial χ(A; t) (essentially this is the same as the topological Poincarè polynomial π(A; t) of the complement
Qℓ M(A) := V \ ∪H∈A H
6 ∅,
of A in V when K = C) factorizes into χ(A; t) = i=1 (t − di ). When A =
it is known that (t − 1) divides χ(A; t). Let χ0 (A; t) := χ(A; t)/(t − 1) when
A 6= ∅.
The most useful method to construct free arrangements is the additiondeletion theorems (Theorem 2.3) by Terao in [19]. Let us recall it. For a
central arrangement A and H ∈ A, define A′ := A \ {H}. Combining this
with the restriction AH of A onto H ∈ A, we call (A, A′, AH ) the triple. The
addition-deletion theorem enables us to determine the freeness of all these
three when we know the freeness of any two of them with some information
on exponents. For example, the addition theorem asserts that if both A′
and AH are free with exp(A′ ) ⊃ exp(AH ), then A is also free with certain
exponents. By the factorization theorem above, in this case, it follows that
χ(AH ; t) divides χ(A′ ; t) (the division of polynomials is often denoted by
χ(AH ; t) | χ(A′ ; t)). Since there is a famous deletion-restriction formula (see
Theorem 2.2)
χ(A; t) = χ(A′ ; t) − χ(AH ; t),
it holds that χ(AH ; t) also divides χ(A; t) in this case. So the additiondeletion theorem contains a statement about divisions of polynomials, but
these divisions have not been studied so much.
The aim of this article is to give a consideration on this aspect, i.e., the
division of characteristic polynomials of these triples. The main result in this
article is as follows.
2

Theorem 1.1 (Division theorem)
Let A be a central ℓ-arrangement. Assume that there is a hyperplane H ∈ A
such that χ(AH ; t) divides χ(A; t) and that AH is free. Then A is free.
Theorem 1.1 has several advantages compared to previous results in both
theoretical and practical senses. First, let us show a practical advantage of
Theorem 1.1 in the following example.
Example 1.2
Let us consider the arrangement B in R4 defined by
B=(

4
Y
i=1

Y

xi )

(x1 + a2 x2 + a3 x3 + a4 x4 ) = 0.

a2 ,a3 ,a4 ∈{±1}

B is a restriction of the famous counterexample to Orlik’s famous conjecture
by Edelman and Reiner in [12] onto a coordinate hyperplane. B is known to
be free. Here we can check it soon by Theorem 1.1 combinatorially. Let
C := Bx4 =0 = (

3
Y
i=1

xi )

Y

(x1 + a2 x2 + a3 x3 ) = 0.

a2 ,a3 ∈{±1}

Then it is easy to check that
(1.1)

χ(B; t) = (t − 1)(t − 3)2 (t − 5),
χ(C; t) = (t − 1)(t − 3)2 ,
χ(C x3 =0 ; t) = (t − 1)(t − 3).

Since every 2-central arrangment is free (e.g., see Lemma 3.1), applying Theorem 1.1 twice shows that B is free. Note that the freeness of B is checked
by using only combinatorial information L(B).
There are several ways to understand Theorem 1.1. If we emphasize the
aspect of a generalization of the addition-deletion theorem 2.3, Theorem 1.1
can be formulated as Theorems 3.10 and 3.11. Also, it can be regarded as
a modified converse of Orlik’s conjecture, see Remark 3.8. Here we focus on
the relation between the freeness and combinatorics.
As in Example 1.2, Theorem 1.1 allows us to check the freeness of A by
constructing a divisional “tower” of characteristic polynomials as in (1.1). In
other words, we obtain the following completely combinatorial algorithm to
show freeness:

3

Theorem 1.3
An ℓ-arrangement A is free if there is a flag
V = X0 ⊃ X1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ Xℓ−2
such that Xi ∈ Li (A) for i = 0, . . . , ℓ − 2 and χ(AXi+1 ; t) | χ(AXi ; t) for
i = 0, . . . , ℓ − 3. Let us call this flag a divisional flag.
Apparently, whether A has a divisional flag or not is purely combinatorial. Hence Theorem 1.3 gives us purely combinatorial method to check the
freeness. One of these theoretical applications is to investigate the relation
between freeness and combinatorics of the famous Shi arrangements (see §6
for the notation):
Theorem 1.4
The extended Shi arrangement has a divisional flag. Hence the freeness of
Shi arrangement depends only on its intersection lattice.
To determine the relation between freeness and combinatorics has been an
imporant but very hard problem. However, in this article, we can show the
similar results as in Theorem 1.4 due to Theorem 1.1 (e.g., Example 4.6 and
Theorem 5.6), which is very useful for that purpose. To make this framework
systematically, we may introduce a new class of free arrangements, called the
class of divisionally free arrangements.
Definition 1.5 (Divisionally free arrangements)
We say that an ℓ-arrangement A is divisionally free if A has a divisional
flag in Theorem 1.3, which is combinatorially determined by L(A). The set
DF ℓ consists of all the divisionally free ℓ-arrangements, and DF := ∪ℓ≥1 DF ℓ .
For details on divisionally free arrangements, see Theorem 4.4. The most
famous and important class of free arrangements with the same properties
is the class of inductively free arrangements introduced by Terao in [19] (see
Definition 4.2). Let IF denote the class of inductively free arrangements. In
fact, the class of divisionally free arrangements is strictly larger than that of
inductively free arrangements.
Theorem 1.6
IF ( DF.
To prove Theorem 1.6, recent developments on the freeness of unitary
reflection arrangements (e.g., [10], [13]) play the key roles. Hence Theorem
1.1 develops the theory of free arrangements from the viewpoint of Terao’s
4

conjecture (Conjecture 4.1) by strictly enlarging the inductively free arrangements. Also, we can show that a lot of recursively free arrangements are
divisionally free in Theorem 5.5. Moreover, as in Theorem 1.4, applications
to those related to root systems are also given. Hence Theorem 1.1 and the
divisionally free arrangements give rise to an essential progress to the theory
of free arrangements and its combinatorics.
To prove Theorem 1.1, the key ingredient is the following fact that, the
division of characteristic polynomial commutes with localizations along the
hyperplane in codimension-three :
Theorem 1.7 (Localization and Remainder Theorem)
Let A be a central ℓ-arrangement and H ∈ A. Let us consider the polynomial
division
χ0 (A; t) = (t − (|A| − |AH |))χ0 (AH ; t) + r(t)
Pℓ−3
(−1)i ri tℓ−3−i . Then r0 ≥ 0. Moreover, if
with the remainder r(t) = i=0
H
r0 = 0, then χ(AX ; t) divides χ(AX ; t) for all X ∈ L2 (AH ), and A is locally
free along H in codimension three. In particular, if χ(AH ; t) divides χ(A; t)
for a hyperplane H ∈ A, then the same statement holds.
The statement in Theorem 1.7 is non-trivial. For example, even when A
is free, that statement does not hold in general, e.g, see Example 3.7. Also,
a certain converse of Theorem 1.7 holds, see Theorem 3.13.
If χ(AH ; t) divides χ(A; t), then clearly r0 = 0. Hence the first part of
Theorem 1.7 implies the second one. The meaning of r0 ≥ 0 in Theorem 1.7
can be seen in Remark 2.8.
Remark 1.8
As in Theorem 1.7, the condition χ(AH ; t) | χ(A; t) in Theorem 1.1 can be
replaced by r0 = 0 in terms of Theorem 1.7.
Following Remark 1.8, we can show the following equivalent condition to
divisionally free arrangements.
Theorem 1.9
The following three conditions are equivalent:
(1) A is divisionally free.
(2) There is a flag V = X0 ⊃ X1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ Xℓ−2 such thatQXi ∈ Li (A) (i =
ℓ−3
(t − (|AXi | −
0, . . . , ℓ − 2) and that χ0 (A; t) = (t − (|AXℓ−2 | − 1)) i=0
|AXi+1 |)).

5

(3) There is a flag V = X0 ⊃ X1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ Xℓ−2 such that Xi ∈ Li (A) (i =
0, . . . , ℓ − 2) and that
b2 (dA) =

ℓ−3
X

(|AXi | − |AXi+1 |)(|AXi+1 | − 1),

i=0

where b2 (dA) is the coefficient of tℓ−3 in χ0 (A; t).
Hence to determine whether A ∈ DF, it suffices to compute b2 (dA), the
second Betti number of the complement of A when K = C, and the number
of restricted hyperplanes |AXi |, which are numerical and combinatorial. We
hope that Theorem 1.9 (3) enables us to make an efficient computer program
to check the divisional freeness.
Though Theorem 1.1 is a generalization of the addition-deletion theorems,
the proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.7 deeply depend on the new development of
the theory of multiarrangements, i.e., we use the defintion of multiarrangements by Ziegler in [23], Yoshinaga’s criterion in [21] and its refinement in
[9], development of basic tools to treat them in [7] and [8], and the same
statement as Theorem 1.1 when ℓ = 3 in [2]. It is interesting to see that in
the statement of Theorem 1.1 there are no multiarrangements.
The organization of this article is as follows. In §2 we introduce several
results used for the proof of results in §1. In §3 we prove our main theorems
in §1. In §4 we investigate the most important application; the definition
of divisionally free arrangements in Definitions 1.5 and 4.3. We show that
divisionally free arrangements contain all the inductively free arrangements,
and whether an arrangement is divisionally free or not is determined by only
combinatorics. Moreover, there is a divisionally free arrangement which is
not inductively free. In §5 we consider the relation between divisionally and
recursively free arrangements to which almost all known free arrangments belong. In §6 we give applications to the arrangements related to root systems.
In particular, we prove that Shi arrangements are divisionally free.

2

Preliminaries

Let us review several definitions and results used in the rest of this article.
We use the notation and definitions appeared in §1. We use [15] as a general
reference in this section. Define the P
Möbius function µ : L(A) → Z by
µ(X) = 1 if X = V and µ(X) = − X(Y ∈L(A) µ(Y ) if X 6= V . Then the
characteristic polynomial χ(A; t) and the Poincarè polynomial π(A; t)

6

are defined by
χ(A; t) : =

X

µ(X)tdim X ,

X∈L(A)

π(A; t) : =

X

µ(X)(−t)codim X .

X∈L(A)

As mentioned in §1, π(A; t) equals to the topological Poincarè polynomial of
M(A) when K = C. Also, it is easy to see that χ(A) is divisible by (t − 1)
if A =
6 ∅. Write and define
χ(A; t) =

ℓ
X

bi (A)(−1)i tℓ−i ,

i=0

χ0 (A; t) : = χ(A; t)/(t − 1) =

ℓ−1
X

bi (dA)(−1)i tℓ−1−i .

i=0

Remark 2.1
The reason why we use the terminology bi (dA) is as follows. Fix a hyperplane
H0 ∈ A. Then we may consider the operation named deconing dA of A
with respect to H0 . Namely, dA is a set of affine hyperplanes obtained as
intersections of αH0 = 1 with all hyperplanes L ∈ A \ {H0 }. Then it is
known that χ(dA; t) = χ0 (A; t). See [15] for example. This is the reason of
the notation above.
P
Let θE := ℓi=1 xi ∂xi be the Euler derivation. Let us recall several results
on these polynomials and freeness:
Theorem 2.2 (Deletion-restriction formula, e.g., [15], Corollary 2.57)
Let (A, A′, AH ) be a triple. Then it holds that
χ(A; t) = χ(A′ ; t) − χ(AH ; t),
χ0 (A; t) = χ0 (A′; t) − χ0 (AH ; t).

Theorem 2.3 (Addition-deletion theorem, [19])
Let (A, A′, AH ) be a triple. Then any two of the following three imply the
third:
(1) A is free with exp(A) = (d1 , . . . , dℓ−1 , dℓ ).
(2) A′ is free with exp(A′ ) = (d1 , . . . , dℓ−1, dℓ − 1).
7

(3) AH is free with exp(AH ) = (d1 , . . . , dℓ−1).
Theorem 2.4 (Restriction Theorem, [19])
In the notation of Theorem 2.3, assume that both A and A′ are free. Then
all the statements (1), (2), and (3) in Theorem 2.3 hold. Moreover, we may
choose a basis θ1 , . . . , θℓ for D(A) such that αH divides θℓ and π(θ1 ), . . . , π(θℓ−1 )
form a basis for D(AH ), where π is a residue map D(A) → D(AH ).
Theorem 2.5 (Factorization theorem, [20], MainQTheorem)
If A is free with exp(A) = (d1 , . . . , dℓ ), then χ(A; t) = ℓi=1 (t − di ).
When ℓ = 3, the addition-deletion theorem 2.3 has the following simple
form.
Theorem 2.6 ([2], Theorem 1.1 (3))
Let A be a central arrangement in V = K3 . Then two of the following three
imply all the statements (1), (2) and (3) in Theorem 2.3:
(a) χ(A; t) = (t − 1)(t − d1 )(t − d2 ).
(b) χ(A′ ; t) = (t − 1)(t − d1 )(t − (d2 − 1)).
(c) |AH | = d1 + 1.
Among the equivalent conditions in Theorem 2.6, we can find several
divisions of characteristic polynomials, and they imply the freeness of each
member in the triple (A, A′, AH ). From this point of view, Theorem 1.1 is
a generalization of Theorem 2.6. Also, if we regard these freeness as a local
freeness in codimension three in K3 , then Theorem 1.7 is also a generalization
of Theorem 2.6. The following is also in [2] with a different formulation.
Theorem 2.7 ([2], Theorem 1.1)
Assume that ℓ = 3 and let us consider the division
χ0 (A; t) = (t − (|AH | − 1))(t − (|A| − |AH |)) + a.
Then a = χ0 (A; |AH | − 1) ≥ 0. Moreover, a = 0 implies that A is free.
Remark 2.8
Theorem 2.7 says that the integer a can be regarded as the remainder of
the polynomial division of χ0 (A; t) by t − (|AH | − 1) = χ0 (AH ; t). The nonnegativity of a in the above was generalized in [2], Theorem 7.1 for an arbitrary ℓ ≥ 3 just as an inequality. However, from the viewpoint of polynomial
8

divisions, we may understand the non-negativity as that of the leading term
of the remainder of a characteristic polynomial division naturally. Hence the
non-negativity r0 ≥ 0 in Theorem 1.7 can be regarded as a generalization of
Theorem 2.7.
Now let us explain the freeness criterion by using multiarrangements.
A multiarrangement (A, m) is a pair consisting
of an ℓ-arrangement A
P
and a function m : A → Z>0 . Let |m| := H∈A m(H). For L ∈ A, let
δL : A → {0, 1} be a characteristic multiplicity of L defined by δL (H) = 1
only when H = L (hence δL (H) = 0 for all A ∋ H 6= L). For (A, m), we can
define the logarithmic derivation module D(A, m) by
m(H)

D(A, m) := {θ ∈ Der S | θ(αH ) ∈ SαH

(∀H ∈ A)}.

Also, its freeness and exponents can be defined in the same manner as for
A and
PℓD(A). When (A, m) is free with exp(A, m) = (d1 , . . . , dℓ ), it holds
that i=1 di = |m|. For two multiplicities mi : A → Z>0 (i = 1, 2), m1 ≤ m2
denotes m1 (H) ≤ m2 (H) for all H ∈ A. Then the following is the most basic
method to determine the freeness.
Theorem 2.9 (Saito’s criterion, [16])
Let θ1 , . . . , θℓ ∈ D(A, m). Then (A, m) is free if and only if θ1 , . . . , θℓ are
P
S-independent and ℓi=1 deg θi = |m|.
Not only the freeness, but also a characteristic polynomial χ(A, m; t)
for a multiarrangement (A, m) can be defined too. Let us write
χ(A, m; t) =

ℓ
X

bi (A, m)(−1)i tℓ−i .

i=0

Also, there is the factorization theorem for free multiarrangements as for the
arrangement cases, i.e., if (A, m) is free with exp(A, m) = (d1 , . . . , dℓ ), then
ℓ
Y
χ(A, m; t) =
(t − di ).
i=1

For details, see Definition 2.1 and Theorem 4.1 in [7]. Contrary to χ(A; t),
to compute χ(A, m; t) when m is not identically 1 is very difficult. In fact, it
is not combinatorial (see [7]). However, it is easy to check that b1 (A, m) =
|m|. Moreover, b2 (A, m) can be computed by using the following local-global
formula.

9

Theorem 2.10 (Local-global formula, [7], Theorem 3.3)
Let (A, m) be a multiarrangement. For X ∈ L2 (A), denote exp(AX , m|AX ) =
X
(dX
1 , d2 , 0, . . . , 0). Then
X
X
X
b2 (A, m) =
dX
d
=
b2 (AX , m|AX ).
1 2
X∈L2 (A)

X∈L2 (A)

From a central arrangement A and a hyperplane H ∈ A, we may define
an induced multiarrangement (AH , mH ) (called the Ziegler restriction of
A onto H) by
mH (K) := |{L ∈ A′ | L ∩ H = K}|.
The multiplicity mH is called the Ziegler multiplicity. By definition,
|mH | = |A′ | = |A| − 1. Then Ziegler showed the following fundamental
fact.
Theorem 2.11 ([23])
Assume that A is free with exp(A) = (1, d2 , . . . , dℓ ). Then the Ziegler restriction (AH , mH ) onto an arbitrary H ∈ A is free with exp(AH , mH ) =
(d2 , . . . , dℓ ).
We say that A is locally free in codimension i along H ∈ A if AX
is free for all X ∈ Li (A) with X ⊂ H (equivalently, for all X ∈ Li−1 (AH )).
By using this notion, as a converse of Theorem 2.11, the following freeness
criterion is known.
Theorem 2.12 ([9], Theorem 5.1)
Let A =
6 ∅ and H ∈ A. Then b2 (dA) ≥ b2 (AH , mH ), and the equality holds
if and only if A is locally free in codimension three along H. Moreover, if
the Ziegler restriction (AH , mH ) is free, then the following conditions are
equivalent:
(1) A is free.
(2) b2 (dA) = b2 (AH , mH ).
(3) AX is free for any X ∈ L2 (AH ), i.e., A is locally free in codimension
three along H.
Also, let us recall the addition-deletion theorem for multiarrangements
(A, m) from [8]. For H ∈ A, we may define a restriction (AH , m∗ ) of the
multiarrangement (A, m) onto H, which is called the Euler restriction of

10

(A, m) onto H. Also, the new multiplicity m∗ is called the Euler multiplicity. Let us explain the definition of m∗ since it will be used for the proofs of
main results.
For X ∈ L2 (A) with X ⊂ H, let mX denote the restriction of m
onto AX . Then the multiarrangement (AX , mX ) is a direct product of a
2-multiarrangement and the (ℓ − 2)-empty arrangement. It is well-known
that every 2-arrangement is free. Hence we may define exp(AX , mX ) =
X
(dX
1 , d2 , 0, . . . , 0). Therefore, there is a homogeneous free basis θ1 , θ2 , ϕ1 , . . . , ϕℓ−2
for D(AX , mX ) such that deg θi = di (i = 1, 2) and deg ϕj = 0 (j =
1, . . . , ℓ − 2). By the same reason, there are free basis θ1′ , θ2′ , ϕ′1 , . . . , ϕ′ℓ−2
for D(AX , mX − δH ) such that deg θi′ = d′i (i = 1, 2) and deg ϕ′j = 0 (j =
1, . . . , ℓ − 2), here exp(AX , mX − δH ) = (d′1 , d′2, 0, . . . , 0). It was shown in [8]
that we may assume d1 = d′1 + 1 and d2 = d′2 . Moreover, we may choose
bases in such a way that
θ1 = αH θ1′ , θ2 = θ2′ , ϕj = ϕ′j (j = 1, . . . , ℓ − 2).
Recall that X ∈ L2 (A) with X ⊂ H ⇐⇒ X ∈ AH . Now define
m∗ (X) := deg θ2 . For more details of these definitions, see [8]. By using
these definitions, we have the addition-deletion theorem for multiarrangements as follows.
Theorem 2.13 ([8], Theorem 0.8)
Let (A, m) be a multiarrangement, H ∈ A and (AH , m∗ ) the Euler restriction
of (A, m) onto H. Then any two of the following three imply the third:
(1) (A, m) is free with exp(A, m) = (d1 , . . . , dℓ−1 , dℓ ).
(2) (A, m − δH ) is free with exp(A, m − δH ) = (d1 , . . . , dℓ−1 , dℓ − 1).
(3) (AH , m∗ ) is free with exp(AH , m∗ ) = (d1 , . . . , dℓ−1 ).
Moreover, if both (A, m) and (A, m − δH ) are free, then all the three hold
true.

3

Proofs of results

Let us start the proof of main results in §1. Let us add one notation. For
an ℓ-multiarrangement (A, m) and X ∈ Li (A), assume that (AX , mX ) is free
with exp(AX , mX ) = (d1 , . . . , di , 0, . . . , 0). Then the set exp∗ (AX , mX ) :=
{d1 , . . . , di }.
First, we introduce a lemma which is used without referring in the rest
of this article.
11

Lemma 3.1
A 2-multiarrangement (A, m) is free. Let exp(A, m) = (d1 , d2 ). Then for
H ∈ A, it holds that exp(A, m − δH ) = (d1 − 1, d2) or (d1 , d2 − 1).
Proof. For example, see Lemma 2.7 in [2].



Second we need the following lemmas.
Lemma 3.2
Let A be a 2-arrangement. Then exp(A, m) = (|m| − |A| + 1, |A| − 1)
when |m| ≤ 2|A| − 1. If |m| ≥ 2|A|, then di ≥ |A| − 1 (i = 1, 2) for
exp(A, m) = (d1 , d2 ) with d1 ≤ d2 .
Proof. This result is well-known. Here we give a short proof. For a complete
proof, see Lemma 2.10 in [2] for example.
First consider the case |m| ≤ 2|A| − 1. Then clearly
Y m(H)−1
θ1 := (
αH
)θE ∈ D(A, m).
H∈A

Note that deg θ1 = |m| − |A| + 1. Also the definition of D(A, m) shows
that there are no θ ∈ D(A, m) such that θ | θ1 . Since d1 + d2 = |m| by
Theorem 2.9, it has to hold that |m| − |A| + 1 = d1 , or |m| − |A| + 1 = d2 ,
or d2 < |m| − |A| + 1. The third case contradicts Saito’s criterion 2.9.
Second assume that |m| ≥ 2|A| and take multiplicities m′ ≤ m such
that |m′ | = 2|A| − 1. Then the first assertion shows that exp(A, m′ ) =
(|A| − 1, |A|). Since D(A, m′) ⊃ D(A, m), it holds that |A| − 1 ≤ d1 ≤ d2 .
Lemma 3.3
Let (A, m) be a multiarrangement and fix H ∈ A with m(H) ≥ 2. Then
(1) if A is a 2-arrangement, then b2 (A, m)−b2 (A, m−δH ) = exp∗ (A, m)∩
exp∗ (A, m − δH ), and
(2) b2 (A, m) − b2 (A, m − δH ) ≥ |A| − 1.
Proof.
(1) Immediate by the definition of b2 (A, m) and Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2.
(2) Let us compute b2 (A, m) − b2 (A, m − δH ) by using the local-global
formula 2.10. Since (AX , mX ) = (AX , (m − δH )X ) for L2 (A) ∋ X 6⊂ H, it
holds that
X
(3.1) b2 (A, m) − b2 (A, m − δH ) =
(b2 (AX , mX ) − b2 (AX , (m − δH )X )).
X∈AH

Now apply (1) and Lemma 3.2 to show that
X
(3.1) ≥
(|AX | − 1) = |A| − 1,
X∈AH

12

which completes the proof.



Lemma 3.4
Let (A, m) be a multiarrangement and fix H ∈ A with m(H) ≥ 2. Let m∗
be the Euler multiplicity of (A, m) onto H. Then
(1) m∗ (X) ≥ |AX | − 1 for all X ∈ AH , m∗ (X) = exp∗ (AX , mX ) ∩
exp∗ (AX , mX − δH ) and
(2) if m∗ (X) 6= |AX | − 1 for some X ∈ AH , then b2 (A, m) − b2 (A, m −
δH ) > |A| − 1.
Proof. (1) When |mX | ≤ 2|AX | − 1, the explicit construction of θ1 in the
proof of Lemma 3.2 shows that m∗ (X) = |AX | − 1. If |mX | ≥ 2|AX |, then
Lemma 3.2 shows that d ≥ |AX | − 1 for all d ∈ exp∗ (AX , mX ). Hence the
definition of m∗ shows that m∗ (X) ≥ |AX |−1. The second statement follows
immediately by the same proof as Lemma 3.3 (1).
(2) By the assumption, (1) and Lemma 3.3 (1), m∗ (Y ) = b2 (AY , mY ) −
b2 (AY , (m−δH )Y ) > |AY |−1 for some Y ∈ AH . Then apply this and Lemma
3.3 (2) to the local-global formula 2.10 to obtain
X
b2 (A, m) − b2 (A, m − δH ) =
(b2 (AX , mX ) − b2 (AX , (m − δH )X ))
X∈AH

>

X

(|AX | − 1) = |A| − 1.

X∈AH


Lemma 3.5
Let (A, m) be an ℓ-multiarrangement, H ∈ A with m(H) > 1, X ∈ L2 (AH )
and (AH , m∗ ) the Euler restriction of A onto H. Then
(3.2)

H
∗
b2 (AH
X , mX ) − b2 (AX , (m − δH )X ) = m (X).

Proof. Immediate from Lemmas 3.3 (1) and 3.4 (1).
Proposition 3.6
In the setup of Theorem 1.7, it holds that
(3.3)

b2 (AH ) + (|AH | − 1)(|A| − |AH | − 1) + r0
= b2 (dA) ≥ b2 (AH , mH )
≥ b2 (AH ) + (|AH | − 1)(|A| − |AH | − 1).
13



In particular, when r0 = 0, for a multiplicity m on AH such that 1 ≤ m ≤
mH , it holds that
b2 (AH , m) − b2 (AH , m − δL ) = |AH | − 1,
H
H
b2 (AH
X , mX ) − b2 (AX , (m − δL )X ) = |AX | − 1

(3.4)
(3.5)

for L ∈ AH , X ∈ L2 (AH ) with X ⊂ L and m(L) > 1.
Proof. Recall the division of characteristic polynomials:
H

H

χ0 (A; t) = χ0 (A ; t)(t − (|A| − |A |)) +

ℓ−3
X

ri tℓ−3−i .

i=0

Now let us introduce three (in)equalities:
First inequality. b2 (dA) ≥ b2 (AH , mH ). This is a part of Theorem
2.12.
Second inequality. b2 (AH , mH ) ≥ b2 (AH ) + (|AH | − 1)(|A| − |AH | − 1).
First note that |mH | − |AH | = |A| − |AH | − 1. By definition, there are a
sequence of hyperplanes L1 , . . . , L|A|−|AH |−1 ∈ AH such that mH = 1 + δL1 +
· · · + δL|A|−|AH |−1 . Hence Lemma 3.3 (2) implies that
|A|−|AH |−1

(3.6)

H

H

b2 (A , m ) =

X

(b2 (AH , 1 + δL1 + · · · + δLi )

i=1

−b2 (AH , 1 + δL1 + · · · + δLi−1 )) + b2 (AH )
|A|−|AH |−1

≥

X

(|AH | − 1) + b2 (AH )

i=1
H

= b2 (A ) + (|A| − |AH | − 1)(|AH | − 1).
Third equality. b2 (dA) = b2 (AH ) + (|AH | − 1)(|A|P
− |AH | − 1) + r0 .
ℓ−3
H
H
ri tℓ−3 . Hence
First, note that χ0 (A; t) = (t − (|A| − |A |))χ0 (A ; t) + i=0
comparing the coefficients of tℓ−3 implies
b2 (dA) = (|A| − |AH |)(|AH | − 1) + b2 (dAH ) + r0 .
Since χ(AH ; t) = (t−1)χ0 (AH ; t), it holds that b2 (AH ) = b2 (dAH )+|AH |−1.
Hence
b2 (dA) = (|A| − |AH | − 1)(|AH | − 1) + b2 (AH ) + r0 .
Now we have three (in)equalities. Combine these three to obtain
b2 (AH ) + (|AH | − 1)(|A| − |AH | − 1) + r0
= b2 (dA) ≥ b2 (AH , mH )
≥ b2 (AH ) + (|AH | − 1)(|A| − |AH | − 1),
14

which is the first statement in this proposition.
Now assume that r0 = 0. Then the inequalities above are all equalities.
Hence
(3.7)
(3.8)

b2 (dA) = b2 (AH , mH )
= b2 (AH ) + (|A| − |AH | − 1)(|AH | − 1).

Let us show b2 (AH , m) − b2 (AH , m − δL ) = |AH | − 1 for a multiplicity
1 ≤ m ≤ mH and L ∈ AH with m(L) > 1. We know that b2 (AH , m) −
b2 (AH , m − δL ) ≥ |AH | − 1 by Lemma 3.3 (2). If this inequality is strict,
then again Lemma 3.3 (2) and (3.6) show that the equality (3.8) cannot hold,
which is a contradiction.
H
H
Next let us show that b2 (AH
X , mX )−b2 (AX , (m−δL )X ) = |AX |−1 for X ∈
L2 (AH ) with X ⊂ L. By the above, we know that b2 (AH , m) − b2 (AH , m −
δL ) = |AH | − 1. So the local-global formula 2.10 shows that
X
H
b2 (AH , m) − b2 (AH , m − δL ) =
(b2 (AH
X , mX ) − b2 (AX , (m − δL )X ))
X∈(AH )L

= |AH | − 1 =

X

(|AH
X | − 1).

X∈(AH )L
H
H
Since b2 (AH
X , mX ) − b2 (AX , (mX − δL )X ) ≥ |AX | − 1 by Lemma 3.3 (2), this
inequality has to be an equality, which completes the proof.


Now let us prove Theorem 1.7.
Proof of Theorem 1.7. The nonnegativity r0 ≥ 0 holds immediately
from the inequality in Proposition 3.6. Assume that r0 = 0. Then we
have the equation (3.7). Thus Theorem 2.12 shows that A is locally free
in codimension three along H. Hence to complete the proof by applying
Theorem 2.12, it suffices to show that χ(AH
X ; t) divides χ(AX ; t) for all X ∈
L3 (A) with X ⊂ H.
H
H
H
H
We show that exp(AH
X , (m )X ) = (|AX | − 1, |(m )X | − |AX | + 1) by
applying Theorem 2.13. First, note that ((AH )X , (mH )X ) coincides with the
Ziegler restriction of AX onto H ⊃ X by definition. Hence let us express
H
this multiarrangement by (AH
X , mX ). Now we need to compute the Euler
multiplicity m∗ , which can be obtained as the Euler restriction of AX onto
H. Recall that we have the equation (3.5). Hence Lemma 3.5 shows that
(3.9)

H
H
m∗ (X) = b2 (AH
X , mX ) − b2 (AX , (m − δL )X ) = |AX | − 1

for L ∈ AH and X ∈ (AH )L as in the notation of Proposition 3.6.
15

H
Since exp∗ (AH
X ) = (1, |AX | − 1) by Lemma 3.2, Theorem 2.13 shows that
H
H
H
H
H
H
exp(AX , (m )X ) = (|(m )X |−(|AH
X |−1), |AX |−1) = (|AX |−|AX |, |AX |−1).
Because A is locally free in codimension three along H by (3.7), Theorems
2.5 and 2.11 show that
H
χ(AX ; t) = (t − 1)(t − (|AH
X | − 1))(t − (|AX | − |AX |)),
H
χ(AH
X ; t) = (t − 1)(t − (|AX | − 1)),

which completes the proof.



Example 3.7
Let A be a plane arrangement consisting of the cone of all edges and diagonal
lines of a regular pentagon. Hence |A| = 11. It is well-known that (for
example, see [15], Example 4.54) A is free with exp(A) = (1, 5, 5) and |AH | =
5 for any H ∈ A. Let B be the coning of A, hence free with exp(A) =
(1, 1, 5, 5). Let H0 ∈ B be the infinite line in A and let X ∈ L2 (AH0 ) be a
flat which is contained in all the cone of planes belonging to A. Then it is
H0
easy to see that BX = A × ∅1 and BX
consists of five linear lines in a plane.
Hence
H0
χ(BX ; t) = (t − 1)(t − 5)2 , χ(BX
; t) = (t − 1)(t − 4).
H0
So clearly χ(BX
; t) ∤ χ(BX ; t).

Proof of Theorem 1.1. By Theorems 1.7 and 2.12, it suffices to show that
the Ziegler restriction (AH , mH ) of A onto H is free. By theQassumption
ℓ−1
(t − di ),
and Terao’s factorization theorem 2.5, it holds that χ(AH ; t) = i=1
H
H
where d1 = 1 and exp(A ) = (d1 , . . . , dQℓ−1 ). Since χ(A ; t) | χ(A; t), we
may write χ(A; t) = (t − dℓ )χ(AH ; t) = ℓi=1 (t − di ) for dℓ := |A| − |AH | ∈
Z≥0 . In fact, we show that, for every multiplicity m with 1 ≤ m ≤ mH ,
the multiarrangement (AH , m) is free with exp(AH , m) = (|m| − |AH | +
1, d2 , . . . , dℓ−1).
We show by induction on |m|. If m is a constant multiplicity 1, then the
statement holds true by the assumption. Assume that the statement holds
true for all m with |m| − |AH | < n (n ∈ Z≥1 ). Take an arbitrary m satisfying
the condition above and |m| − |AH | = n. We may choose a hyperplane L ∈
AH such that m(L) ≥ 2. By the induction hypothesis, the multiarrangement
(AH , m − δL ) is free with exp(AH , m − δL ) = (n, d2 , . . . , dℓ−1 ). Let us apply
the addition theorem for multiarrangements (Theorem 2.13) to confirm that
(AH , m) is free with exp(AH , m) = (n + 1, d2 , . . . , dℓ−1 ).
For that purpose, we need to compute the Euler restriction ((AH )L , m∗ )
of (AH , m) onto L. By the assumption, Proposition 3.6, the equation (3.5)
and Lemma 3.5, the equation (3.9) also follows here, i.e.,
H
∗
H
b2 (AH
X , mX ) − b2 (AX , (m − δL )X ) = m (X) = |AX | − 1

16

for all X ∈ (AH )L . On the other hand, by definition, mL (X) = |AH
X| − 1
for X ∈ (AH )L , where ((AH )L , mL ) is the Ziegler restriction of AH onto L.
Hence in this case, these two restrictions coincide; ((AH )L , mL ) = ((AH )L , m∗ ).
Since AH is free with exp(AH ) = (1, d2, . . . , dℓ−1 ), Theorem 2.11 shows that
((AH )L , mL ) = ((AH )L , m∗ ) is free with exponents (d2 , . . . , dℓ−1). Hence the
assumption on the freeness and exponents on (AH , m − δL ), and Theorem
2.13 show that (AH , m) is also free with exp(AH , m) = (n + 1, d2, . . . , dℓ−1 ).
Now apply this argument to (AH , mH ). Then we obtain that (AH , mH )
is free with
exp(AH , mH ) = (|mH | − |AH | + 1, d2, . . . , dℓ−1 )
= (|A| − |AH |, d2, . . . , dℓ−1 )
= (d2 , . . . , dℓ−1, dℓ ),
which completes the proof. When the condition χ(AH , t) | χ(A; t) is replaced
by r0 = 0 as mentioned in Remark 1.8, the proof is totally the same, so we
left it to the reader.

Proof of Theorem 1.3. Apply Theorem 1.1 repeatedly with Lemma 3.1.

Remark 3.8
Theorem 1.1 can be regarded as a modified converse of the famous Orlik’s
conjecture, which asserted that AH is free if A is free. To this conjecture, a
counter example was found by Edelman and Reiner in [12]. This conjecture
was asserting that global freeness implies restricted freeness. Though this
is not true, Theorem 1.1 asserts that the modified converse is true, i.e.,
restricted freeness with a combinatorial condition implies global freeness.
As a corollary of the proof above, the following is immediate.
Corollary 3.9
(1) Assume that χ(AH ; t) | χ(A; t). Then (AH , mH ) is free if AH is free.
(2) Assume that there is H ∈ A such that the Ziegler restriction (AH , mH )
is free and χ(AH ; t) | χ(A; t). Then A is free.
(3) Assume that AH is free. If r0 = 0 in the division
χ0 (A; t) = (t − (|A| − |AH |))χ0 (AH ; t) +

ℓ−3
X

ri tℓ−3−i ,

i=0

then r1 = · · · = rℓ−3 = 0. Equivalently, χ(AH ; t) divides χ(A; t).
If we emphasize the aspect as the addition-deletion theorems, we may
have the following formulations too.
17

Theorem 3.10
Let A be an ℓ-central arrangement. Assume that there is a hyperplane L 6∈ A
such that χ((A ∪ {L})L ; t) divides χ(A; t) and that (A ∪ {L})L is free. Then
A is free.
Proof. Apply the same proof as that of Theorem 1.1 to A ∪ {L} to obtain
that A ∪ {L} is free since χ((A ∪ {L})L ; t) | χ(A ∪ {L}; t) by Theorem 2.2.
Now apply Theorem 2.3 to complete the proof.

Theorem 3.11
Let (A, A′, AH ) be the triple with respect to H ∈ A. Assume that AH is
free. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(1) A is free and exp(A) ⊃ exp(AH ).
(2) A′ is free and exp(A′ ) ⊃ exp(AH ).
(3) All the three of A, A′ and AH are free.
(4) χ(AH ; t) divides χ(A; t).
(5) χ(AH ; t) divides χ(A′ ; t).
(6) χ(A; t) and χ(A′ ; t) have a GCD of degree ℓ − 1.
(7) In the division χ0 (A; t) = χ0 (AH ; t)(t − (|A| − |AH |)) +
it holds that r0 = 0.
(8) In the division χ0 (A′; t) = χ0 (AH ; t)(t − (|A′| − |AH |)) +
it holds that r0′ = 0.

Pℓ−3
i=0

ri tℓ−3−i ,

Pℓ−3

ri′ tℓ−3−i ,

i=0

Proof. The equivalences among (1), (2) and (3) follow immediately from
the addition-deletion theorem 2.3. Those among (4), (5) and (6) follow from
the deletion-restriction theorem 2.2. Since χ0 (A; t) = χ0 (A′ ; t) − χ0 (AH ; t),
that between (7) and (8) is easy. Both (1) ⇐⇒ (4) and (1) ⇐⇒ (7) follow
by Theorem 1.1 and Remark 1.8, which completes the proof.

The conditions (1), (2) and (3) are the addition-deletion theorems that
contain freeness conditions. However, the others are just combinatorial ones.
Also, the freeness is assumed for an (ℓ − 1)-arrangement AH to check the
freeness of ℓ-arrangement A, which enables us an inductive argument.
The following result is a corollary of the proofs of Theorems 1.7 and 1.1.

18

Corollary 3.12
Let A be a free ℓ-arrangement with exp(A) = (1, d2, . . . , dℓ ) and let m : A →
Z>0 . Let us consider the division
χ(A, m; t) = (t − (|m| − |A| + 1))χ0 (A; t) +

ℓ−2
X

si tℓ−2−i .

i=0

If s0 = 0, then (A, m) is free with exp(A, m) = (|m| − |A| + 1, d2 , . . . , dℓ ).
The following is a certain converse of Theorem 1.7.
Corollary 3.13
Let A be an ℓ-arrangement.
(1) Assume that there is H ∈ A such that χ(AH
X ; t) divides χ(AX ; t) for
H
H
all X ∈ L2 (A ), and A is free. Then A is free.
(2) If there is a flag V = X0 ⊃ X1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ Xℓ−2 with Xi ∈ Li (A) (i =
0, . . . , ℓ − 2) such that, for Ai := AXi (i = 0, . . . , ℓ − 2), χ((Ai+1 )Y ; t)
dividies χ((Ai )Y ; t) for all Y ∈ L2 (Ai+1 ) and for i = 0, . . . , ℓ − 3. Then
A is free.
Proof. (1) By the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 1.1, it holds
that
b2 (A, m) − b2 (A, m − δL ) = |AH | − 1
and
H
∗
H
b2 (AH
X , mX ) − b2 (AX , (m − δL )X ) = m (X) = |AX | − 1

for all m : AH → Z with 1 ≤ m ≤ mH , all L ∈ AH with m(L) > 1 and
X ∈ (AH )L . Hence Theorems 2.11 and 2.13 complete the proof. (2) is an
immediate consequence of (1).

Without the freeness of AH , Corollary 3.13 (1) does not hold. See the
following example.
Example 3.14
Let A := {xyzw(x + y + z + w) = 0} and H := {w = 0} ∈ A. Then it is easy
2
H
to check that χ(AX ; t) = (t − 1)3 and χ(AH
X ; t) = (t − 1) for all X ∈ L2 (A ).
Also, it is easy to compute
χ(A; t) = (t − 1)(t3 − 4t2 + 6t − 4),

χ(AH ; t) = (t − 1)(t2 − 3t + 3).

Hence AH is not free and χ(AH ; t) ∤ χ(A; t), and Theorem 3.13 (1) does not
hold.
19

4

Divisionally free arrangements

In this section we give the main application of main results in this article.
Before that, let us recall Terao’s conjecture.
Conjecture 4.1 (Terao)
Let A, B be two ℓ-arrangements such that L(A) ≃ L(B) as posets and that
A is free. Then B is also free.
Conjecture 4.1 is still open even when ℓ = 3. To approach Conjecture 4.1,
it is one way to construct a class of free arrangements such that whether an
arrangement belongs to that class or not can be determined by combinatorics.
If we can find such a class and show that all free arrangements are in it, then
Conjecture 4.1 is settled positively. Also, how many free arrangements could
belong to such a class is an interesting problem itself. For that purpose,
Terao introduced a class of inductively free arrangements by using Theorem
2.3 which satisfies the properties written above. First recall the definition of
the inductively free arrangements.
Definition 4.2 ([19])
The set IF ℓ of ℓ-arrangements consists of the following:
(1) If ℓ = 1, 2, then all arrangements are in IF ℓ .
(2) Assume that ℓ ≥ 3. Then A ∈ IF ℓ if A = ∅ℓ , or there is H ∈ A such
that A′ := A \ {H} ∈ IF ℓ , AH ∈ IF ℓ−1 and χ(AH ; t) | χ(A′ ; t).
By Theorem 2.3, A ∈ IF ℓ is free. An arrangement A is called inductively
free (IF) if A ∈ IF := ∪ℓ≥1 IF ℓ .
Hence to approach Conjecture 4.1, to enlarge the class IF is an interesting strategy. For that purpose, we introduce the class of divisionally free
arrangements. Though it has been already defined in Definition 1.5, let us
give an another equivalent definition of it similar to Definition 4.2.
Theorem-Definition 4.3
The set DF ℓ of ℓ-arrangements can be also defined as follows:
(1) When ℓ = 1 and 2, all arrangements are in DF ℓ .
(2) Assume that ℓ ≥ 3. Then A ∈ DF ℓ if A = ∅ℓ , or there is H ∈ A such
that χ(AH ; t) | χ(A; t) and AH ∈ DF ℓ−1 .
An arrangement A is called divisionally free (DF) if A ∈ DF := ∪ℓ≥1 DF ℓ .

20

Comparing Definition 4.2 with Definition 4.3, it can be seen that the divisionally free arrangement is an analogy of the inductively free arrangement
by replacing the addition-deletion theorem 2.3 by Theorem 1.1.
By the Definitions 1.5, 4.3, Theorems 2.3, 1.1 and 1.3, the following is
clear.
Theorem 4.4
(1) If A ∈ DF, then A is free.
(2) IF ⊂ DF.
(3) Whether A ∈ DF or not depends only on L(A).
Hence to check the divisional freeness of an arrangement gives one method
to check the “dependency of that freeness on combinatorics”.
Recall that every inductively free arrangement has to be constructed from
the empty arrangement by the addition theorem. On the other hand, a
divisionally free arrangement need not. In fact, the class DF is strictly
larger than IF . Let us show it as Theorem 1.6.
Proof of Theorem 1.6. It suffices to find an arrangement A ∈ DF \ IF .
We can find such an example among the reflecting hyperplanes of a unitary
reflection group.
Let G31 be a finite unitary reflection group acting on C4 , where we use
the labeling of such groups due to Shephard and Todd in [17]. Let A be the
unitary reflection arrangement in V = C4 corresponding to G31 . Then it is
shown that A is free with exp(A) = (1, 13, 17, 29) (see [15], Table C. 12 for
example), but A is not inductively free ([13], Theorem 1.1).
However, Lemma 3.5 in [13] showed that there is H ∈ A such that AH is
free with exp(AH ) = (1, 13, 17). Also, Lemma 4.1 in [10] shows that there is
L ∈ AH such that |(AH )L | = 14. Hence Theorem 2.5 shows that χ(AH ; t) |
χ(A; t) and χ((AH )L ; t) | χ(AH ; t), which implies that A is divisionally free
by Theorem 1.3. Therefore, IF ( DF.
Also, the intermediate arrangements Akℓ (r) ∈ DF \ IF if k 6= 0, ℓ ≥ 3.
See Theorem 5.6 for details.

One example to which the divisional freeness is applied is as follows:
Example 4.5
It is known that all the freeness of Weyl arrangements depends only on its
combinatorics. Here we show the same statement, for certain cases, by using
divisionally free arrangements.
Let Bℓ be the Weyl arrangement of the type Bℓ defined by
ℓ
Y
i=1

xi

Y

(x2i − x2j ) = 0.

1≤i<j≤ℓ

21

Then immediately Bℓxℓ =0 = Bℓ−1 . Also, we may compute
χ(Bℓ ; t) = (t − 1)(t − 3) · · · (t − (2ℓ − 1)).
Hence it follows that
χ(Bi−1 ; t) | χ(Bi ; t) (i = 3, . . . , ℓ).
Therefore, Bℓ ∈ DF. The same proof works for the root systems of the types
A and C.
Example 4.6
By the proof of Theorem 1.6, A(G31 ) ∈ DF.
For the finite unitary reflection arrangements, inductive freeness and divisional freeness almost coincide:
Corollary 4.7
Let W be a finite irreducible complex reflection group and A = A(W ) its
corresponding reflection arrangement. Then A ∈ IF or W = G31 if and only
if A ∈ DF.
Proof. Let W 6= G31 . Then Corollary 1.3 in [13] shows that A = A(W ) ∈
IF if and only if exp(AH ) ⊂ exp(A) for any H ∈ A. Since A is free, this
is also equivalent to say that A ∈ DF. Hence the proof of Theorem 1.6
completes the proof.

It seems interesting to study the (non-)divisional freeness of several noninductively free arrangements around complex reflection arrangements which
appeared in the recent development. See [10], [13] for example.
Recalling the fact that there have been several developments on how to
check the inductively freeness of several arrangements due to [10], [13] and
so on, practically, the following formulation of Theorem 1.3 is also useful.
Theorem 4.8
A ∈ DF if and only if A has a flag V = X0 ⊃ X1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ Xℓ−2 with
Xi ∈ Li (A) such that χ(AXi+1 ; t) divides χ(AXi \{Xi+1}; t) for i = 0, . . . , ℓ−3
and that A \ {X1 } is free.
Proof. Follows immediately from Theorems 1.1, 1.3, 2.3 and Definitions 1.5
and 4.2.

Corollary 4.9
A ∈ DF if and only if A has a flag V = X0 ⊃ X1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ Xℓ−2 with Xi ∈
Li (A) such that AXi is all free for i = 1, . . . , ℓ − 2, exp(AXi+1 ) ⊂ exp(AXi )
for i = 1, . . . , ℓ − 3 and that A \ {X1} is free with exp(A \ {X1}) ⊃ exp(AX1 ).

22

Proof. Apply the same proof as that of Theorem 4.8.



The points in Theorem 4.8 and Corollary 4.9 are, though we have to check
the freeness of some arrangements, we do not have to check anything else on
them contrary to inductively free arrangements. Corollary 4.9 is useful when
we have a list of free arrangements.
In the end of this section let us prove Theorem 1.9.
Proof of Theorem 1.9. Let A be an arrangement and H ∈ A. Recall
that, if both A and AH are free with exp(AH ) ⊂ exp(A), then χ0 (A; t) =
(t − (|A| − |AH |))χ0 (AH ; t) by the deletion theorem (Theorem 2.3) and the
factorization theorem (Theorem 2.5). Hence the implication (1) to (2) is
immediate by the definition of divisional free. Assume (2). Let us agree that
Xℓ−1 is an arrangemnet of one point on a line, we have
X
b2 (dA) =
(|AXi | − |AXi+1 |)(|AXj | − |AXj+1 |)
0≤i<j≤ℓ−2

=

ℓ−3
X

=

ℓ−3
X

Xi

(|A | − |A

Xi+1

i=0

|)

ℓ−2
X

(|AXj | − |AXj+1 |)

j=i+1

(|AXi | − |AXi+1 |)(|AXi+1 | − 1),

i=0

which implies (3).
Finally, assume (3). Applying Theorem 1.8 to AXi and AXi+1 , it holds
that
(4.1)

b2 (dAXi ) ≥ b2 (dAXi+1 ) + (|AXi | − |AXi+1 |)(|AXi+1 | − 1).

Taking the sum from i = 0 to i = ℓ − 3 of the equation (4.1), we have
ℓ−3
X
b2 (dA) ≥
(|AXi | − |AXi+1 |)(|AXi+1 | − 1).
i=0

Here we used the fact that b2 (dAXℓ−2 ) = 0 since χ0 (AXℓ−2 ; t) = t−|AXℓ−2 |+1.
Since (3) assumes the above inequality is the equality, all the inequalities in
(4.1) have to be the equalities. Now apply Theorem 1.3 to each AXi to show
that they are all divisionally free, which completes the proof.

The following is an immediate corollary of the proof of Theorem 1.9.

23

Corollary 4.10
In the notation of Theorem 1.9, let V = X0 ⊃ X1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ Xℓ−2 be an
arbitrary flag with Xi ∈ Li (A). Then
ℓ−3
X
b2 (dA) ≥
(|AXi | − |AXi+1 |)(|AXi+1 | − 1).
i=0

5

Recursively and divisionally free arrangements

First let us recall the definition of the recursively free arrangements.
Definition 5.1 (Recursively free arrangements)
A set of ℓ-arrangements RF ℓ is defined by,
(a) all arrangements are in RF ℓ when ℓ = 1, 2, and
(b) for ℓ ≥ 3, A ∈ RF ℓ if A = ∅ℓ , or there is a hyperplane H ∈ A such
that AH ∈ RF ℓ−1 , A \ {H} ∈ RF ℓ and χ(AH ; t) | χ(A; t), or there is
a hyperplane L 6∈ A such that (A ∪ {L}) ∈ RF ℓ , (A ∪ {L})L ∈ RF ℓ−1
and χ((A ∪ {L})L ; t) | χ(A; t).
By Theorem 2.3, A is free if A ∈ RF . We say that an arrangement A is
recursively free if A ∈ RF := ∪ℓ≥1 RF ℓ .
Remark 5.2
The definition of recursively free arrangements may seem to be artificial.
However, this contains almost all of known free arrangements. There are
only three arrangements known which are free but non-recursively free. The
first one is found by Cuntz and Hoge in [11], and the other two are in [4].
Though some free arrangements (like A(G31 ) in the previous section) are not
known whether it is recursively free or not (see [10], Corollary 4.3), by these
known results on RF , it is worth considering Conjecture 4.1 for recursively
free arrangements.
Contrary to the inductively free arrangements, it is not yet known whether
the freeness of recursively free arrangements depends only on the combinatorics.
Problem 5.3
Does the freeness of recursively free arrangements depend only on its combinatorics?
24

We will show that a lot of recursively free arrangements are in fact divisionally free. For that purpose, let us introduce a definition.
Definition 5.4
Let RF = ∪ℓ≥1 RF ℓ denote the class of recursively free arrangements. Define
RF ∗1 := RF 1 , RF ∗2 := RF 2 , and
RF ∗ℓ : = {A ∈ RF ℓ | ∃H ∈ A such that χ(AH ; t) | χ(A; t)
and AH ∈ RF ∗ℓ−1 } (ℓ ≥ 3),
and put RF ∗ := ∪ℓ≥1 RF ∗ℓ . We call RF ∗ the class of recursively free
arrangements at the hill. If A ∈ RF \ RF ∗ , then we say that A is a
recursively free arrangement at the valley.
As far as we know, there have been no answer to Problem 5.3. Here we
give the first partial answer to Problem 5.3 asserting that recursively free
arrangements not at the valley are divisionally free.
Theorem 5.5
RF ∗ ⊂ DF.
Proof. We show by induction on ℓ. When ℓ = 1, 2, then there is nothing to
show. Assume that ℓ ≥ 3 and A ∈ RF ∗ℓ . Then there is H ∈ A such that
χ(AH ; t) | χ(A; t) and AH ∈ RF ∗ℓ−1 ⊂ DF ℓ−1 by the induction hypothesis.
Hence Definition 4.3 shows that A ∈ DF ℓ .

An example of non-inductively free A ∈ RF ∗ is intermediate arrangements. Let Akℓ (r) (ℓ ≥ 2, 0 ≤ k ≤ ℓ) be an ℓ-arrangement defined by
k
Y
i=1

xi

Y

(xi − ζ n xj ) = 0,

1≤i<j≤ℓ, 0≤n<r

where ζ is a primitive r-th root of unity. They are called intermediate
arrangements, and first studied by Orlik and Solomon in [14]. They interpolate between the reflection arrangements corresponding to monomial
groups, and they are all free arrangements (Propositions 2.11 and 2.13, [14]).
The inductive freeness of intermediate arrangements is studied in [10], and
showed that Akℓ (r) is not inductively free if and only if r ≥ 3 and 0 ≤ k ≤ ℓ−3
(Theorem 3.6, [10]). On their divisional freeness, we have the following.
Theorem 5.6
Let ℓ ≥ 3. Then Akℓ (r) ∈ DF if and only if k 6= 0.

25

Proof. Let H ∈ Akℓ (r) be an arbitrary coordinate hyperplane. When k = 0,
by Corollary 1.3 in [13], there are no H ∈ A such that AH is free and
χ(AH ; t) | χ(A; t). Hence A0ℓ (r) is not divisionally free. Assume that k 6=
0. Then for a coordinate hyperplane H ∈ A, by the result in [14] (see
ℓ−1
Proposition 3.1 in [10] too), it holds that (Akℓ (r))H ≃ Aℓ−1
(r), and
j−1
exp(Akℓ (r)) ⊃ exp(Akℓ (r)H ), exp(Ajj (r)) ⊃ exp(Aj−1
(r)) (j = 3, . . . , ℓ).

Hence Theorem 1.3 shows that Akℓ (r) ∈ DF.



As shown in Theorem 3.6 in [10], Akℓ (r) (0 < k < ℓ − 2, ℓ ≥ 3) are
not inductively free but recursively free. By Theorem 5.6, the conditions in
Theorem 5.5 are satisfied. Hence Akℓ (r) ∈ RF ∗ . So only the arrangement
A0ℓ (r) which is at the the valley of free paths of arrangements Akℓ (r) (k ≥ 0)
is not divisionally free.
Also, following the definition based on the addition-deletion theorems, we
can define the following class of free arrangements.
Definition 5.7
(1) A set of ℓ-arrangements MF ℓ is defined by,
(a) all arrangements are in MF ℓ when ℓ = 1, 2, and
(b) for ℓ ≥ 3, A ∈ MF ℓ if there is a hyperplane H ∈ A such that AH ∈
MF ℓ−1 and χ(AH ; t) | χ(A; t), or there is a hyperplane L 6∈ A such
that (A ∪ {L})L ∈ MF ℓ−1 and χ((A ∪ {L})L ; t) | χ(A; t).
We say that an arrangement A is multiplicatively free if A ∈ MF :=
∪ℓ≥1 MF ℓ .
(2) An ℓ-arrangement is hereditarily divisionally free if AX is divisionally free for all X ∈ L(A).
Recall that the definition of hereditarily inductively free, where the definition of hereditarily divisionally free generalizes it. An arrangement A is
hereditarily inductively free if AX is inductively free for all X ∈ L(A).
Clearly, hereditarily inductively free arrangements are hereditarily divisionally free.
Proposition 5.8
There is an arrangement A which is not hereditarily inductively free but
hereditarily divisionally free.
Proof. Let us again use a divisionally free, but not inductively free unitary
reflection arrangement A = A(G31 ) in the proof of Theorem 1.6. By Theorem
1.2 in [10], every AX is inductively free for X ∈ L3 (A). Since A is a 4arrangement and IF ( DF by Theorem 4.4, the proof is completed.

26

Remark 5.9
Apparently multiplicatively free arrangements are generalizations of recursively free arrangements. The former contains the latter. By the result in
[11], there is a free arrangement which is not multiplicatively free. Hence
there is a free arrangement which is not either divisionally nor multiplicatively free.
By Theorem 5.5, if there exists a counterexample to Conjecture 4.1 in
RF , then that has to be at the valley. So we may pose a problem.
Problem 5.10
Does the freeness of a recursively free arrangement at the valley depend only
on its combinatorics?
Even if Problem 5.10 is settled positively, Conjecture 4.1 seems to be still
difficult. However, Problem 5.10 is a natural one based on the results in this
article. Based on several examples, we pose the following conjecture:
Conjecture 5.11
(1) RF ∗ ( DF .
(2) RF ( MF.
To settle Conjecture 5.11 (1) positively, for example, recalling the proof
of Theorem 1.6, it suffices to show that A(G31 ) is not recursively free, which
is not yet known (see [10], Corollary 4.3). It seems natural to believe that
Conjecture 5.11 (1) is true. On Conjecture 5.11 (2), it seems still difficult
to check since there are few known examples of a free arrangement which is
non-recursively free (see [11], [4]).

6

Application to Weyl arrangements

In this section assume that K = R and consider a real irreducible crystallographic reflection arrangements and its deformations.
First let us recall a notation on root systems and related Weyl arrangements. Let Φ be a real irreducible crystallographic root system of rank
ℓ with the Coxeter number h. Fix a positive system Φ+ of Φ and let
∆ = {α1 , . . . , αℓ } ⊂ Φ+ the associated simple system. Let W be the corresponding Weyl group and Hα the reflecting hyperplane with respect to the
root α ∈ Φ+ in V = Rℓ . Then the Weyl arrangement AW of Φ+ is defined
by
AW := {Hα | α ∈ Φ+ }.

27

Also, the k-extended Shi arrangement Shik is defined by the equation
[
Shik := {z = 0} {Hαj }α∈Φ+ , −k+1≤j≤k ,
where z is a new coordinate added to the vector space spanned by α1 , . . . , αℓ ,
and Hαj := {α = jz} for α ∈ Φ+ and j ∈ Z. The Shi arrangement was
introduced by J.-Y Shi in [18], and has been well-studied by several mathematicians. See [6] and [21] for example. It is proved by Yoshinaga in [21]
that Shik is free with exponents (1, kh, . . . , kh). We can show that Shik is
divisionally free, which implies Theorem 1.4 by Theorem 4.4.
Theorem 6.1
Shik ∈ DF.
To prove Theorem 6.1, we need a theorem.
Theorem 6.2
Let K be an arbitrary field, V = Kℓ and A be an ℓ-arrangement in V .
Assume that A is free with exp(A) = (1, d1 . . . , dℓ−1 ), and that there are
distinct hyperplanes H1 , . . . , Hℓ−1 ∈ A such that,
(1) A′i := A\{Hi } is free with exp(A′i ) = (1, d1, d2 , . . . , di−1, di −1, di+1 , . . . , dℓ−1)
for i = 1, . . . , ℓ − 1.
(2) A′ := A\{H1 , . . . , Hℓ−1} is free with exp(A′) = (1, d1−1, d2 −1, . . . , dℓ−1 −
1).
Then A ∈ DF .
ℓ−1
Proof. Let Xi := ∩j=ℓ−i
Hj (i = 1, . . . , ℓ − 1). We show that V = X0 ⊃
X1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ Xℓ−1 is a divisional flag. Let αj := αHj for j = 1, . . . , ℓ − 1.
For that purpose, at first, we show that A is free with exp(A) = (1, d1, d2 , . . . , dℓ−1)
with a special basis. By the assumption, there is a derivation θi ∈ D(A′i ) (i =
1, . . . , ℓ − 1) of degree di − 1 such that θi 6∈ D(A), αi θi ∈ D(A) and that
θE , θj are a part of a basis for D(A′j ) for j = 1, . . . , ℓ − 1. We show that
θE , θ1 , . . . , θℓ−1 form a basis for P
D(A′). We may assume that 1 ≤ deg θ1 ≤
ℓ−1
deg θi = |A′| and deg θj = dj − 1 for
· · · ≤ deg θℓ−1 . Note that 1 + i=1
j = 1, . . . , ℓ − 1. Hence by Proposition 4.42 in [15], it suffices to show
that hθE , θ1 , . . . , θi−1 iS 6∋ θi for i = 1, . . . , ℓ − 1. If θ1 ∈ SθE , then it contradicts the fact P
that θE , θ1 form a part of basis for D(A′1 ). Now assume
that θi = f θE + i−1
j=1 fj θj (f, fj ∈ S). By the choice of θi , θk (αj ) ∈ Sαj
∗
if and only
Pi−1if k 6= j. Since θE (α) = α for any α ∈ V , it holds that
(f θE + j=1 fj θj )(αi ) ∈ Sαi , but θi (αi ) 6∈ Sαi , which is a contradiction.

28

Hence D(A′) has a basis θE , θ1 , . . . , θℓ−1 with the properties above. Moreover, the construction implies that θE , α1 θ1 , . . . , αℓ−1 θℓ−1 form a basis for
D(A). By using these bases, we show that V = X0 ⊃ X1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ Xℓ−1 is a
divisional flag.
First, we show that AX1 is free with exp(AX1 ) = (1, d1, d2 , . . . , dℓ−1). Let
π : D(A) → D(AX1 ) be the restriction map defined by π(θ)(f ) := θ(f )
modulo αℓ−1 . By Terao’s restriction theorem 2.4, the derivations
π(θE ), π(α1 θ1 ), . . . , π(αℓ−2 θℓ−2 )
form a free basis for D(AX1 ), hence exp(AX1 ) = (1, d1 , d2 , . . . , dℓ−2).
Second, the arrangement AX1 in Hℓ−1 = Kℓ−1 , hyperplanes H1 ∩Hℓ−1 , . . . , Hℓ−2∩
Hℓ−1 ∈ AX1 and derivations π(θE ), π(α1 θ1 ), . . . , π(αℓ−2θℓ−2 ) satisfy the same
assumptions as for A, H1 , H2 , . . . , Hℓ−1, θE , α1 θ1 , . . . , αℓ−1 θℓ−1 . For f ∈ S, let
f denote the image of f by the canonical surjection S → S/(αℓ−1 ). Since
αi | θi , clearly αi | π(θi ) for i = 1, . . . , ℓ − 2. Also, we can show that αi =
0 (i = 1, . . . , ℓ − 2) define distinct hyperplanes in AX1 . Assume not. Then we
may assume that α2 = α3 . Then for B1 := AX1 \ {H2 ∩ Hℓ−1 = H3 ∩ Hℓ−1 },
the derivations
π(θE ), π(α1 θ1 ), π(θ2 ), π(θ3 ), π(α4 θ4 ), . . . , π(αℓ−2θℓ−2 )
form a basis for D(B1 ). Since the sum of degrees of the derivations above
is |AX1 | − 2 = |B1 | − 1, this contradicts Saito’s criterion 2.9. Hence H1 ∩
Hℓ−1 , · · · , Hℓ−2 ∩ Hℓ−1 are distinct. Hence these satisfy the same assumption
in the previous paragraph.
Now apply the same arguments inductively to AX1 , AX2 , · · · , AXℓ−2 with
Theorem 2.5 to show that χ(AXi+1 ; t) | χ(AXi ; t) for i = 0, . . . , ℓ − 3. Hence
Theorem 1.3 shows that A ∈ DF.

Proof of Theorem 6.1. First recall the result on simple-root basis in [5].
It asserts that, there are derivations φ1 , . . . , φℓ ∈ D(Shik ) of degree kh such
that θE , φ1 , . . . , φℓ form a homogeneous basis for D(Shik ) and (αi − kz) |
φi (i = 1, . . . , ℓ). We call this basis a simple-root basis minus (see [5] for
details).
By the property of simple root basis, the Shi arrangement and hyperplanes αi − kz = 0 (i = 1, . . . , ℓ) clearly satisfy the assumptions in Theorem
6.2, which implies that Shik ∈ DF.

If we use some specific basis for the derivation module, then we can show
the following corollary similar to Theorem 6.2.

29

Corollary 6.3
Let K be an arbitrary field, V = Kℓ and A be a free ℓ-arrangement in V
with exp(A) = (1, d, d2, . . . , dℓ−1 ). Assume that there are distinct hyperplanes H2 , . . . , Hℓ−1 ∈ A and derivations θE , ϕ, θ2 , . . . , θℓ−1 for D(A) such
that deg ϕ = d, deg θi = di (i = 2, . . . , ℓ − 1) and αi := αHi divides θi for
i = 2, . . . , ℓ − 1. Then A ∈ DF.
Proof. The proof is the same as that of Theorem 6.2.



Let ∆j be the set of all positive roots of height j. By applying the same
proofs as in Theorem 6.2 with Corollary 6.3, the following statements are
easy to show by using results in [3] and [6].
Corollary 6.4
The following arrangements are divisionally free.
(1) A = {Hα0 }α∈∆1 ∪ {Hβ0}β∈Σ for any subset Σ ⊂ ∆2 .
(2) A = {Hα0 }α∈∆1 ∪∆2 ∪∆3 .
Proof. (1) By [3], A is free with basis θ1 , . . . , θℓ−σ , ϕ1 , . . . , ϕσ for D(A) with
σ := |Σ| such that deg θi = 1 (i = 1, . . . , ℓ − σ), deg ϕj = 2 (j = 1, . . . , σ)
and that βj | ϕj for j = 1, . . . , σ and Σ2 = {β1 , . . . , βσ }. By the argument in
the proof of Theorem 6.2, we can construct a divisional flag V = X0 ⊃ X1 ⊃
· · · ⊃ Xσ = X, where Xi = ∩ij=1 Hβj . Since AX is a Boolean arrangement, it
is divisionally free. So A is divisionally free.
(2) By [3], A has a free basis for D(A) satisfying the condition in Corollary 6.3. Hence A is divisionally free.

Corollary 6.5
The following arrangements are divisionally free.
(1) Shik \{Hαk } for α ∈ ∆1 .
(2) Shik \{Hαk }α∈∆1 .
(3) Shik ∪{Hα−k }α∈∆1 .
(4) Shik ∪{Hα−k }α∈∆1 \ {Hβ−k } for β ∈ ∆1 .
(5) Shik ∪{Hα−k }α∈∆1 ∪∆2 .
Proof. It was shown in [6] that all the above cases have the free bases
satisfying the condition in Corollary 6.3. Hence they are all divisionally free.

30

Based on the arguments in this section, [3], [6] and [21], we pose a conjecture. For that purpose, let us recall terminologies. For α, β ∈ Φ+ For the
terminology, we say α ≥ β if α − β is a linear combination of simple roots
with non-negative coefficients. An ideal I ⊂ Φ+ is defined by, if α, β ∈ Φ+
with α ≥ β and α ∈ I implies β ∈ I. Then an ideal-subarrangement
AI ⊂ AW is defined by AI := {Hα0 | α ∈ I}. Also, ideal-Shi arrangement
Shik±I is defined by
Shik+I : = Shik ∪{Hα−k }α∈I ,
Shik−I : = Shik \{Hαk }α∈I .
For details, see [3] and [6].
Conjecture 6.6
All ideal-subarrangments AI and ideal-Shi arrangements Shik±I are divisionally free.
Acknowledgements. The author is partially supported by by JSPS Grantsin-Aid for Young Scientists (B) No. 24740012. Also, the author is grateful
to Torsten Hoge for his pointing out an error in Theorem 6.2.

References
[1] T. Abe, Chambers of 2-affine arrangements and freeness of 3arrangements. J. Alg. Combin., 38 (2013), no. 1, 65–78.
[2] T. Abe, Roots of characteristic polynomials and and intersection
points of line arrangements. J. Singularities, 8 (2014), 100–117.
[3] T. Abe, M. Barakat, M. Cuntz, T. Hoge, H. Terao, The freeness
of ideal subarrangements of Weyl arrangements. arXiv:1304.8033.
J. Eur. Math. Soc., to appear.
[4] T. Abe, M. Cuntz, H. Kawanoue and T. Nozawa, Non-recursive
freeness and non-rigidity of plane arrangements. arXiv:1411.3351.
[5] T. Abe and H. Terao, Simple-root basis for Shi arrangements. J.
Alegbra, 422 (2015), 89-104
[6] T. Abe and H. Terao, The freeness of ideal-Shi arrangements and
free paths in affine Weyl arrangements. arXiv:1405.6379.
[7] T. Abe, H. Terao and M. Wakefield, The characteristic polynomial
of a multiarrangement. Adv. in Math., 215 (2007), 825–838.
31

[8] T. Abe, H. Terao and M. Wakefield, The Euler multiplicity
and addition-deletion theorems for multiarrangements. J. London
Math. Soc., 77 (2008), no. 2, 335–348.
[9] T. Abe and M. Yoshinaga, Free arrangements and coefficients of
characteristic polynomials. Math. Z., 275 (2013), Issue 3, 911-919.
[10] N. Amend, T. Hoge and G. Röhrle, On inductively free restrictions
of reflection arrangements. J. Algebra, 418 (2014), 197–212.
[11] M. Cuntz and T. Hoge, Free but not recursively free arrangements.
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 143 (2015), 35–40.
[12] P. H. Edelman and V. Reiner, A counterexample to Orlik’s conjecture. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 118 (1993), 927–929.
[13] T. Hoge and G. Röhrle, On inductively free reflection arrangements. J. Reine Angew. Math., to appear. arXiv:1208.3131.
[14] P. Orlik and L. Solomon, Arrangements defined by unitary reflection groups. Math. Ann., 261 (1982), 339–357.
[15] P. Orlik and H. Terao, Arrangements of hyperplanes. Grundlehren
der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 300. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1992.
[16] K. Saito, Theory of logarithmic differential forms and logarithmic
vector fields. J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo 27 (1980), 265–291.
[17] G.C. Shehpard and J.A. Todd, Finite unitary reflection groups,
Canadian J. Math., 6 (1954), 274–304.
[18] J.-Y. Shi, The Kazhdan-Lusztig cells in certain affine Weyl groups.
Lecture Notes in Math., 1179, Springer-Verlag, 1986.
[19] H. Terao, Arrangements of hyperplanes and their freeness I, II. J.
Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo 27 (1980), 293–320.
[20] H. Terao, Generalized exponents of a free arrangement of hyperplanes and Shephard-Todd-Brieskorn formula. Invent. Math. 63
(1981), 159–179.
[21] M. Yoshinaga, Characterization of a free arrangement and conjecture of Edelman and Reiner. Invent. Math. 157 (2004), no. 2,
449–454.
32

[22] M. Yoshinaga, On the freeness of 3-arrangements. Bull. London
Math. Soc. 37 (2005), no. 1, 126–134.
[23] G. M. Ziegler, Multiarrangements of hyperplanes and their freeness. Singularities (Iowa City, IA, 1986), 345–359, Contemp.
Math., 90, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1989.

33

