arXiv:1609.00849v1 [] 3 Sep 2016

A GKM DESCRIPTION OF THE EQUIVARIANT COINVARIANT
RING OF A PSEUDO-REFLECTION GROUP
CHRIS MCDANIEL
Abstract. We identify the equivariant coinvariant ring of a pseudo-reflection
group with its image under the localization map. We then show that this
image can be realized as the equivariant cohomology of a sort linear hypergraph, analogous to a GKM 1-skeleton.

1. Introduction
Let F be an algebraically closed field, V = Fn a finite dimensional vector
space over that field, and let R = F[V] be the ring of polynomial functions
on V. Let W ⊂ GL(V) be any finite group with |W| ∈ F× . Then W acts
on R by w · f (v) = f (w−1 (v)). Let RW ⊂ R denote
the graded subring of
+
W
W-invariant polynomials, and let JW ≔ R
· R denote the ideal in R
generated by the W-invariants of strictly positive degree. Let RW ≔ R/JW
denote the coinvariant ring of W. The equivariant coinvariant ring of W is
the ring R ⊗RW R. A theorem of Chevalley and Shephard-Todd states that RW
is a polynomial ring (which implies that R is a free module over RW ), if and
only if W is generated by pseudo-reflections. It follows that the equivariant
coinvariant ring of a pseudo-reflection group is free as a left R module.
For each x ∈ W define the twisted multiplication map µx : R ⊗RW R → R
by µx ( f ⊗ g) ≔ f · x(g). Putting these maps together yields the localization
map
L
/
R
(1.1)
µ : R ⊗RW R
x∈W
F✤

(µx (F)) x∈W
L
R with the ring Maps(W, R)
It will be convenient to identify the ring
x∈W
consisting of all maps from W into R, so that a tuple (F x )x∈W is identified
with the map {x 7→ F x }.
A co-root associated to a pseudo-reflection s ∈ W is any non-zero linear
function ℓ s ∈ V ∗ which vanishes on the s-fixed hyperplane H s ⊂ V. A coroot also has an associated map Ls : W → R defined by Ls (x) = x(ℓ s ). Let
s(W) ⊂ W denote the set of all pseudo-reflections in W and for any group
element x ∈ W let |x| ∈ N denote its order.
/

1

2

CHRIS MCDANIEL

Here is our main result:
Theorem 1.1. The localization map is injective, and its image is equal to
the subset


|s|−1


X


F(x · s j )


F
:
W
→
R
.
HW = 
∈
R
∀
x
∈
W,
∀
s
∈
s(W),
∀
i
≤
|s|
−
1



i
j


L (x · s )
j=0

s

The proof of Theorem 1.1 comes in two parts: Injectivity of the localization map and identification of the image. We derive injectivity of the
localization map by identifying the equivariant coinvariant ring R ⊗RW R
with the ring of regular functions on the union of graphs, i.e.
[n
o
mSpec(R ⊗RW R) 
(M, x−1 (M)) M ∈ mSpec(R) .
x∈W

While this fact has been pointed out by others before, e.g. [8, 9], we give a
careful proof of it here, and this is the bulk of the work we do in Part I.
In Part II we identify the image of the localization map as HW . To this
end, we define operators i A s : Maps(W, R) → Maps(W, Quot(R)) by
(1.2)

i A s (F)(x) =

|s|−1
X
F(x · s j )
Lis (x · s j )
j=0

so that HW consists of the maps F ∈ Maps(W, R) for which i A s (F) ∈
Maps(W, R) too. These operators are equivariant versions of the so-called
generalized ∆ operators i ∆s : RW → RW (−i) introduced by McDaniel and
Smith in their (forthcoming) paper [6]. From this observation we deduce
containment in one direction, namely
µ(R ⊗RW R) ⊆ HW .

We show that the set HW is closed under the operators i A s . We then use
these “restricted” operators i A s : HW → HW (−i) to deduce containment in
the other direction.
If W is a Weyl group associated to a compact semi-simple Lie group
G and a Cartan subgroup T ⊂ G, then GKM theory computes the T equivariant cohomology of the homogeneous space X = G/T from the moment graph of the (left) T -action on X which, in this case, agrees with our
set HW . On the other hand, the Borel description of the equivariant cohomology of X identifies it as the equivariant coinvariant ring of W, R ⊗RW R,
and reconciling these two distinct points of view recovers the isomorphism
from Theorem 1.1:
HW  R ⊗RW R.
See the paper by Guillemin, Holm, and Zara [1] for further details and references.

EQUIVARIANT COINVARIANT RING

3

In a series of papers [2–4] Guillemin and Zara introduced a combinatorial analogue of the moment graph of a GKM T -manifold, consisting of a
regular graph Γ = (V, E) and a linear function α : E → P(V ∗ ) assigning
a linear subspace in V ∗ to every edge of Γ satisfying certain compatibility
conditions. They called the pair (Γ, α) a GKM 1-skeleton, and defined its
equivariant cohomology to be the subset of polynomial maps on the vertex set V such that on adjacent vertices, the polynomials agree along the
annihilator of the linear subspace assigned to that edge, i.e.
(1.3)
o
n
H(Γ, α) = F : V → R F(q) − F(p) = c pq · α(pq), ∀ pq ∈ E, some c pq ∈ R .

If W is an arbitrary Coxeter group, there is an associated graph ΓW =
(VW , EW ) with vertex set VW given by the elements of the group W, and
edge set EW given by (right) reflection orbits os (x) ≔ {x, x · s}. Further,
an axial function on ΓW is given by the function α(os (x)) = F · x(ℓ s ). In
this case it is straight forward to see that equivariant cohomology of the
resulting GKM 1-skeleton, (ΓW , αW ) is equal to our set HW .
If W is an arbitrary pseudo-reflection group, then the reflection orbits
os (x) may have more than two vertices, making ΓW into a hypergraph.
Moreover the equivariant cohomology of the object (ΓW , αW ) as defined
in Equation (1.3) is no longer isomorphic to the equivariant coinvariant
ring R ⊗RW R. For example consider the cyclic group W = hsi generated by a single pseudo-reflection of order d > 2. In this case the equivariant
coinvariant ring
n
o is generated by powers of a single linear element
i
1 ⊗ ℓ s |0 ≤ i ≤ |s| − 1 while generators of the module H(ΓW , αW ) given in
Equation (1.3) all have degree one.
Following Guillemin and Zara [4], we give an alternative definition of the
equivariant cohomology of a hyperedge e ∈ E by first specifying a generating class τe : Ve → α(e) then taking the freen R-submoduleo of Maps(Ve , R)
generated by powers of the generating class 1, τ, . . . , τ|e|−1 , i.e.


|e|−1


X




i
H(e, τe ) = 
G
=
g
τ
,
some
constants
g
∈
R
G
:
V
→
R
.

i
i
e
e




j=0

If τ = {τe }e∈E is a compatible system of generating classes for (Γ, α) we
say that the triple (Γ, α, τ) is a linear hypergraph and we define its equivariant cohomology to be those polynomial maps on V whose restriction
to each hyperedge gives an element in the equivariant cohomology of that
hyperedge, i.e.
(1.4)

H(Γ, α, τ) = {F : V → R |ρe (F) ∈ H(e, τe ), ∀ e ∈ E } .

We show for any finite pseudo-reflection group W, there is a natural choice
for a compatible system of generating classes τW for (ΓW , αW ) such that

4

CHRIS MCDANIEL

the equivariant cohomology H(ΓW , αW , τW ) as defined in Equation (1.4) actually does coincide with our set HW from Theorem 1.1. The resulting
isomorphism from Theorem 1.1 and the above identification, i.e.
H(ΓW , αW , τW )  R ⊗RW R

(1.5)

then gives us our so-called GKM description of the equivariant coinvariant
ring of the pseudo-reflection group W.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we prove injectivity of
the localization map. In Section 3, we identify the image of the localization
map with our subset HW . In Section 4, we define linear hypergraphs and
their equivariant cohomology, we describe the linear hypergraph associated
to a psuedo-reflection group W, and we identify its equivariant cohomology
with our set HW .
2. Part One: Injectivity of the Localization Map
Let F, V, R, W be as above. If S ⊂ R is any F subalgebra, we can form
the tensor product R ⊗S R. The tensor product comes with “factor maps”
πS ,1 , πS ,2 : R → R ⊗S R defined by πS ,1 (r) = r ⊗ 1 and πS ,2 (r) = 1 ⊗ r. The
tensor product and its factor maps satisfy the following universal property:
Universal Property of Tensor Products. If A is any F algebra, and if there
exist maps of F algebras φ1 , φ2 : R → A such that φ1 |S = φ2 |S , then there
exists a unique map of F algebras Φ : R ⊗S R → A making the following
diagram commute:
❃❃φ2
❯❯❯❯πS ,2
①①
❤1 ❤❤❤
❯❯❯❯
❃
①① ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
❯
①
❯
❯❯❯❯❃❃
①①❤❤❤❤❤
❯
❤
i❙❙❙
♦7 R
♦
❙❙❙
♦
♦
❙❙❙
♦
♦
♦
❙❙❙
♦♦
❙❙❙
♦♦♦
❙❙❙
❙ ♦♦♦
πS ,1

R

Φ
R; ⊗S R j❯❴❯❴ ❴ ❴ ❴❤❤❴❤❤❴❤/4 A ^❃
❯
❃❃
❯❤❯❤❯❤❯❤❤
①①
φ

S

In particular, note that if S ′ ⊆ S is any F subalgebra, there is a unique
surjective map of F algebras qS ′ ,S : R⊗S ′ R → R⊗S R defined by qS ′ ,S ( f ⊗g) =
f ⊗ g. In case S ′ = F, we will denote this map qS : R ⊗ R → R ⊗S R, where
by R ⊗ R we mean R ⊗F R. In the special case where S = RW , we write
qW : R ⊗ R → R ⊗RW R and we set IW ≔ ker(qW ) ⊂ R ⊗ R.
Note that in the universal property, we may also take A = R and φi = idR
to get the multiplication map µ̂ : R⊗R → R, µ̂( f ⊗g) = f ·g. More generally,
if x : R → R is an F-algebra automorphism, we can define the x-twisted
multiplication map µ̂x : R ⊗ R → R, µ̂x ( f ⊗ g) = f · x(g). Let Ix ⊂ R ⊗ R be
the kernel of µ̂x . If that automorphism x ∈ Aut(R) fixes the subring S , i.e.

EQUIVARIANT COINVARIANT RING

5

x|S = idS , then we get x-twisted S -multiplication maps µS ,x : R ⊗S R → R,
µS ,x ( f ⊗ g) = f · x(g). In particular we have µS ,x ◦ qS = µ̂x . In the special
case where S = RW , we simply write the x-twisted S -multiplication map as
µx : R ⊗RW R → R.
L
WR →
R and the lifted localizaDefine the localization
map
µ
:
R⊗
R
x∈W
L
R by µ(F) = (µx (F))x∈W and µ̂(F) = (µ̂x (F)) x∈W ,
tion map µ̂ : R⊗R →
x∈W
respectively. Then clearly we have
µ ◦ qW = µ̂,

and hence in order to see that the localization map
we need to
T is injective,T
show that ker(qW ) = ker(µ̂). Note that ker(µ̂) = x∈W ker(µ̂x ) = x∈W Ix and
ker(qW ) = IW . Thus we need to show that
\
(2.1)
IW =
Ix .
x∈W

We can prove Equation (2.1) using some basic facts from commutative
algebra. For a commutative ring A define mSpec(A) to be the set of maximal
ideals or the maximal spectrum of A. For I ⊆ A an ideal define the subset
Vm (I) ⊂ mSpec(A) to be the set of maximal ideals in A containing I. Note
there is a bijection between the sets mSpec(A/I) and Vm (I). We give some
basic properties of the operator Vm :
Lemma 2.1. Let A be a commutative ring, and let I, J ⊆ A be ideals
(i) If I ⊆ J then Vm (I) ⊇ Vm (J).
(ii) We have Vm (I ∩ J) = Vm (I) ∪ Vm (J).
(iii) If A is a√finitely
√ generated F algebra, then Vm (I) = Vm (J) if and
only if I = J.
Proof. If I ⊆ J, and M ∈ mSpec(A) is a maximal ideal containing J, then
certainly M must also contain I. Hence Vm (J) ⊆ Vm (I). If M ∈ mSpec(A)
is a maximal ideal containing either I or J, then certainly M must also
contain I ∩ J. Conversely if M contains I ∩ J and M + J take b ∈ J \ M.
Then for each a ∈ I, we have a · b ∈ I ∩ J ⊆ M and since M is prime and
b < M we must therefore have a ∈ M. Since this holds for each a ∈ I, we
conclude that I ⊂ M. This shows that Vm (I ∩ J) = Vm (I) ∪ Vm (J). Finally,
if A is a finitely generated F-algebra recall that the radical of an ideal is the
intersection of maximal ideals containing it [5, Theorem 5.5]. Now suppose
that Vm (I) = Vm (J). Then certainly we have the equality
\
\
√
√
I=
M=
M = J.
M∈Vm (I)

M∈Vm (J)

√
√
Conversely suppose that I = J and let M ∈ Vm (I). If b ∈ J ⊆ J = I
then bN ∈ I ⊆ M for some N > 0. But M is prime thus b ∈ M and this holds
√

√

6

CHRIS MCDANIEL

for all b ∈ J hence J ⊆ M. This shows Vm (I) ⊆ Vm (J) and we may repeat
the argument replacing I with J to find that Vm (J) ⊆ Vm (J)as well.

Recall that if φ : A → B is a map of finitely generated F algebras and F
is algebraically closed, then φ induces a map φ∗ : mSpec(B) → mSpec(A),
φ∗ (M) = φ−1 (M) (this is a direct consequence of Zariski’s Lemma [5, Theorem 5.3]).
Let R be the polynomial ring as above. Let πi : R → R ⊗ R be the ith factor
map as above, and consider the map
(2.2)

(π∗1 , π∗2 ) : mSpec(R ⊗ R) → mSpec(R) × mSpec(R)

We claim that the map in Equation (2.2) is a bijection. Despite its intuitive feel, this fact is not quite obvious. To prove it, we need the following
lemma.
Lemma 2.2. If M1 , M2 ∈ mSpec(R) then the ideal M = M1 ⊗ R + R ⊗ M2 ⊆
R ⊗ R is the kernel of the map
φ : R ⊗ R → R/M1 ⊗ R/M2  F.

In particular, M is a maximal ideal. Moreover we have π−1
1 (M) = M1 and
−1
π2 (M) = M2 .
Proof. Certainly M ⊂ ker(φ). By way of contradiction, assume that ker(φ) *
M and suppose
PK that x ∈ ker(φ) \ M. We may write x as a sum of simple
fi ⊗ gi for fi , gi ∈ R and some positive integer K. To get
tensors x = i=1
the contradiction we assume that we have chosen our x with K as small as
possible. Note that φ : R ⊗ R → R/M1 ⊗ R/M2 factors through the maps
φ1 : R ⊗ R → R ⊗ R/M2 and φ2 : R ⊗ R/M2 → R/M1 ⊗ R/M2 . We have
K
K
X
X
φ1 (x) =
fi ⊗ ḡi =
fi · ḡi ⊗ 1.
i=1

i=1

PK

Now since φ2 (φ1 (x)) = φ(x) = 0 the sum i=1 fi · ḡi must lie in the maximal
ideal M1 . If ḡi = 0 for all i then gi ∈ M2 for all i, and x ∈ R ⊗ M2 ⊂ M,
contrary to our choice of x. On the other hand, if ḡ j , 0 for some index
1 ≤ j ≤ K then we may eliminate the index j from our sum and replace it
by an element of M, i.e.
!
K
X
ḡi
x=
fi ⊗ gi − · g j +m
ḡ j
i=1
i, j

|

{z
x′

}

for some m ∈ M. But now we have found another element x′ ∈ ker(φ) \
M that can be represented as a sum of fewer simple tensors than x, again
contrary to our choice of x. Thus we must have ker(φ) ⊂ M.


EQUIVARIANT COINVARIANT RING

7

Lemma 2.3. The map in Equation (2.2) is bijective.
Proof. Lemma 2.2 implies that the map is surjective. To see that it is injective, fix maximal ideals M1 , M2 ∈ mSpec(R) and M = M1 ⊗ R + R ⊗ M2 ∈
mSpec(R ⊗ R) and suppose that M̂ ∈ mSpec(R ⊗ R) is another maximal
−1
ideal such that π−1
1 ( M̂) = M1 and π2 ( M̂) = M2 . Then certainly we have
the containment M ⊆ M̂. But since M and M̂ are both maximal ideals, the
containment must be an equality.

Let S ⊂ R be any F subalgebra as above with qS : R ⊗ R → R ⊗S R.
mSpec(R
We want to understand the subset q∗S mSpec(R ⊗S R) ⊂
 ⊗ R), or,

  ∗
∗
∗
∗
equivalently, the subset (π1 , π2 )◦qS mSpec(R ⊗S R) = πS ,1 , πS ,2 mSpec(R ⊗S R) .

Lemma 2.4. The image (π∗S ,1 , π∗S ,2 ) mSpec(R ⊗S R) is equal to the set
(2.3)

mSpec(R)×S mSpec(R) ≔ (M1 , M2 ) ∈ mSpec(R) × mSpec(R) |M1 ∩ S = M2 ∩ S .
Proof. Containment in one direction is easy:

(π∗S ,1 , π∗S ,2 ) mSpec(R ⊗S R) ⊆ mSpec(R) ×S mSpec(R).

Indeed for any M ∈ mSpec(R ⊗S R), and any x ∈ π−1
S ,1 (M) ∩ S , we have
πS ,1 (x) =x ⊗ 1
=1 ⊗ x
=πS ,2 (x)

hence x ∈ π−1
S ,2 (M) ∩ S as well, and this argument can be repeated, replacing
−1
−1 −1
πS ,1 with πS ,2 . Hence π−1
1 (q (M)) ∩ S = π2 (q (M)) ∩ S .
Conversely, fix (M1 , M2 ) ∈ mSpec(R) × mSpec(R) such that M1 ∩ S =
M2 ∩ S . We must find a maximal ideal M ⊂ R ⊗S R such that π−1
S ,i (M) = Mi
for i = 1, 2. Define the maps φ1 , φ2 : R → R/M1 ⊗R/M2 by φ1 (r) = r̄ ⊗1 and
φ2 (r) = 1 ⊗ r̄¯ where r̄ is reduction of r modulo M1 and r̄¯ is reduction of r
modulo M2 . Note that S ∩M1 is a maximal ideal in S (by Lemma 2.5 below),
hence the inclusion map S ֒→ R induces an isomorphism S /S ∩ M1 →
R/M1, and similarly for M2 . Since S ∩ M1 = S ∩ M2 , we must therefore
have s̄ = s̄¯ for each s ∈ S , which means that φ1 |S = φ2 |S . Hence by
the universal property for tensor products, there exists a unique map of F
algebras Φ : R ⊗S R → R/M1 ⊗ R/M2 such that Φ( f ⊗ g) = f¯ ⊗ ḡ¯ . Hence
M ≔ ker(Φ) is a maximal ideal in R ⊗S R. And since the map Φ clearly
factors through the obvious map Φ′ : R ⊗ R → R/M1 ⊗ R/M2 via qS , it
follows that q−1
S (M) = M1 ⊗ R + R ⊗ M2 , and the result follows from Lemma
2.2.

For a proof of the following lemma we refer the reader to Smith’s book
on invariant theory [7], specifically Lemma 5.4.1 and Theorem 5.4.5.

8

CHRIS MCDANIEL

Lemma 2.5. Suppose that A and B are finitely generated F algebras, and
A ⊂ B with B integral over A. Further suppose that their respective fields
of fractions KA ⊂ KB is a Galois extension with Galois group G. Then the
Galois group G acts transitively on the set of prime ideals in B lying over a
given prime ideal P ⊂ A. (Also in this situation, given a prime ideal P ⊂ B
lying over a given prime ideal Q ⊂ A, P is maximal if and only if Q is
maximal.)
Recall that RW and R are both finitely generated F algebras, and that the
extension RW ⊂ R is integral. Moreover if LW is the field of fractions of
RW and L is the field of fractions of R then LW ⊂ L is the field fixed by
W viewed as a group of field automorphisms of L. Hence the extension
LW ⊂ L is Galois with Galois group W. Hence by Lemma 2.5 the group
W acts transitively on the set of maximal ideals in R lying over a given
maximal ideal in S = RW . Hence for any pair M1 , M2 ∈ mSpec(R) such that
M1 ∩ RW = M2 ∩ RW there exists x ∈ W such that M2 = x(M1 ). Replacing
S by RW in Lemma 2.4 we thus obtain

π∗1 , π∗2 (Vm (IW )) = mSpec(R) ×RW mSpec(R)
o
n
= (M, x(M)) M ∈ mSpec(R), x ∈ W
[n
o
(2.4)
=
(M, x(M)) M ∈ mSpec(R) .
x∈W

Finally note that

(2.5)


(π∗1 , π∗2 ) (Vm (Ix )) =(π∗1 , π∗2 ) µ̂∗x mSpec(R)
n
o
= (M, x−1 (M)) M ∈ mSpec(R)

Indeed recall that µ̂x ◦ π1 = idR and µ̂x ◦ π2 = x. Thus given any maximal
−1
−1
−1
−1
ideal M ∈ mSpec(R) we have π−1
1 ◦ µ̂ x (M) = M and π2 ◦ µ̂ x (M) = x (M).
Combining Equation (2.4) and (2.5) we see that
[
(π∗1 , π∗2 ) (Vm (IW )) =
(π∗1 , π∗2 ) (Vm (Ix ))
x∈W

or, equivalently,
(2.6)

Vm (IW ) =

By Lemma 2.1, we deduce that
p

IW =

[
x∈W

Vm (Ix ).

s\

Ix .

x∈W

pT
T
Note that Ix is prime though, hence
x∈W I x =
x∈W I x since the intersection of prime ideals is always radical. Therefore in order to prove that the

EQUIVARIANT COINVARIANT RING

9

localization map is injective, we need only show that IW is also radical, or
equivalently, that R ⊗RW R is reduced. To wit:
Lemma 2.6. The ring R ⊗RW R is reduced, i.e. it has no nilpotent elements.
Proof. Recall that R is a finitely generated free module over the subalgebra
RW ⊂ R. Choose and fix a basis, say {e1 , . . . , eN } ⊂ R. Thus R ⊗RW R is a
finitely generated free left R module with a basis {1 ⊗ e1 , . . . , 1 ⊗ eN }.
Now suppose, by way of contradiction, that R ⊗RW R is not reduced. Then
there is a non-zero nilpotent element, say F ∈ R ⊗RW R. Since R ⊗RW R is
graded, we may assume that F is homogeneous and for argument’s sake,
we may assume that it has minimal degree.
First note that if F ∈ R ⊗RW R is nilpotent, then so is φ s,1 (F) for each
s ∈ W, since φ s,1 is a ring homomorphism. But then F − φ s,1 (F) and hence
∆s,1 (F) must also be nilpotent for each pseudo-reflection s ∈ W. On the
other hand, since the degree of ∆s,1 (F) is strictly less than the degree of
F and since we chose F to have minimal degree, we must conclude that
∆s,1 (F) zero for each pseudo-reflection s ∈ W. Hence we must have that
φ s,1 (F) = F for all pseudo-reflections s ∈ W.
Now write F in terms of our fixed basis above, i.e.
F=

N
X
i=1

fi (1 ⊗ ei ) =

N
X
i=1

fi ⊗ ei ,

fi ∈ R.

Note that since {1 ⊗ e1 , . . . , 1 ⊗ eN } are linearly independent, φ s,1 (F) = F
implies that for 1 ≤ i ≤ N we have s( fi ) = fi . But since this holds for each
pseudo-reflection s ∈ W, and since W is generated by its pseudo-reflections,
we must conclude that fi ∈ RW for each 1 ≤ i ≤ N. Therefore we may write

 N
N
X

X
fi · ei  .
F=
fi ⊗ ei = 1 ⊗ 
i=1

i=1

This means that F is in the image of the factor map πW,2 : R → R ⊗RW R. On
the other hand, the factor map is injective–simply compose it with the usual
multiplication
PN map to get the identity map on R! Hence if
PFN is nilpotent,

then so is i=1 fi · ei ∈ R, and if F is non-zero, then so is i=1 fi · ei . But
this is impossible since R is reduced, and there is our contradiction!

Remark 2.1. Lemma 2.6 was also proved by J. Watanabe using a different
argument [9].
We have thus proved the following result.
Proposition 2.1. The localization map µ : R ⊗RW R →

L

x∈W

R is injective.

10

CHRIS MCDANIEL

3. Part II: The Image of the Localization Map
L
R. It is a graded ring with
We consider the set Maps(W, R) 
x∈W
addition and multiplication defined pointwise, i.e.
(F + G)(x) =F(x) + G(x)
(F · G)(x) =F(x) · G(x)
We endow it with an R-module structure by taking the diagonal action, i.e.
(r · F)(x) = r · F(x).
In fact, regarding R ⊂ Maps(W, R) as the constant maps gives Maps(W, R)
the structure of an R-algebra.
There is also right action of W on the ring Maps(W, R) given by
(3.1)

(F · w)(x) ≔ F(x · w−1 ).

The corresponding action of W on R ⊗RW R, i.e. the one that makes the
localization map W-equivariant, is given by
(3.2)

( f ⊗ g) · w ≔ f ⊗ w−1 (g).

For each pseudo-reflection s ∈ s(W) choose and fix a co-root ℓ s ∈ V ∗.
This choice determines a map Ls : W → R defined by
Ls (x) ≔ x (ℓ s ) .
Let s ∈ s(W) be any pseudo-reflection, and let i ∈ Z be any integer.
Define the operator i A s : Maps(W, R) → Maps(W, Q) by
(3.3)

i A s (F)(x)

=

|s|−1
X
j=0

F · s− j
(x).
L s · s− j

Define the subset HW ⊂ Maps(W, R) by
HW = { F : W → R| i A s (F)(x) ∈ R, ∀ x ∈ W, ∀ s ∈ s(W), ∀ i ≤ |s| − 1} .
The first thing we note is that HW is an R-submodule of Maps(W, R),
because the operator i A s : HW → Maps(W, R)(−i) is an R-module map. In
fact we can say a bit more:
Lemma 3.1. The constant map 1 : W → R assigning the value 1 ∈ F to
each x ∈ W is in the subset HW .

EQUIVARIANT COINVARIANT RING

11

Proof. For s ∈ s(W) and i ≤ |s| − 1 we have
i A s (1)(x)

=

=

|s|−1
X

1
· s j)

Lis (x
j=0

|s|−1
X

ij
j=0 λ s

1
· x(ℓ s )i

|s|−1
1 X −i j
λ
=
x(ℓ s )i j=0 s

=0
and the result follows.



It follows that the subset HW contains all constant maps.
We also note that the subset HW is closed under the W-action.
Lemma 3.2. If F ∈ HW then so is F · w ∈ HW for any w ∈ W.
Proof. Fix s ∈ s(W) and i ≤ |s| − 1. For each x ∈ W we have
i A s (F · w)(x) =

=

=

|s|−1
X
j=0

(F · w)(x · s j )
Lis (x · s j )

|s|−1
X

F(x · s j · w−1 )
x · s j (ℓ s )i
j=0


|s|−1
X F(x · w−1 · w · s j · w−1 )

λisj x · w−1 (w(ℓ s ))i


|s|−1
X F(x · w−1 · w · s j · w−1 )
j=0

=

λisj x · w−1 (c · ℓwsw−1 )i


|s|−1
X F(x · w−1 · w · s j · w−1 )
=

i
−1 ws j w−1 (ℓ
wsw−1 )
j=0 c · x · w
j=0

1
= · i Awsw−1 (F)
c
which is clearly in R since F ∈ HW .



Note that for each pseudo-reflection s ∈ s(W) and each integer i ≤ |s| − 1,
the map i A s (F) : W → R is s-invariant. Also, if F ∈ HW is s-invariant
already, then we have
i A s (F) = F · i A s (1).

12

CHRIS MCDANIEL

The operators i A s can be viewed as projection operators onto the s-invariant
pieces of HW .
Lemma 3.3. If F ∈ HW then we have
1
F=
|s|
Proof. We compute the RHS:
|s|−1
X
j=0

j A s (F)

· Lsj =
=

=





|s|−1
X |s|−1
X
j=0

k=0

|s|−1
|s|−1
XX

j=0 k=0

j=0


F · s  j
 · Ls
L j · s−k 
−k

s

F · s−k

jk
j=0 k=0 λ s

|s|−1
|s|−1
XX

|s|−1

X

j 

· 
A
(F)
·
L
.
j s
s 


·

Lsj

· Lsj

λ−s jk F · s−k


|s|−1

X
=
F · s−k  λ−s jk 
j=0
k=0
|s|−1 
 |s|−1
|s|−1
X 
 X
X
F · s−k  λ sjk  =
=F · s0 ·  λ sj·0  +
|s|−1
X

j=0

k=1

j=0

and the result follows.

F · |s|


The following lemma is analogous to the usual Leibniz rule for ordinary
∆ operators.
Lemma 3.4. If F, G ∈ HW then we have
i A s (F

· G) =

|s|−1
X
a=0

a A s (F)

· i−a A s (G).

P
a
Proof. By Lemma 3.3 we may write F = |s|1 |s|−1
a=0 a A s (F) · L s . Note that
a
a A s (F) is s-invariant. Also note that i A s (L s · G) = i−a A s (G) for every G and

EQUIVARIANT COINVARIANT RING

13

every a. Putting it all together, we have
 |s|−1

 1 X

a



A
(F
·
G)
=
A
A
(F)
·
L
·
G
i s
i s
a s
s
 |s|

a=0
=

|s|−1


1 X
a
i A s a A s (F) · L s · G
|s| a=0
|s|−1

1 X
a
=
a A s (F) · i A s (L s · G)
|s| a=0
|s|−1

1 X
=
a A s (F) · i−a A s (G)
|s| a=0
as claimed.



Note that an immediate consequence of Lemma 3.4 is that the subset
HW is closed under multiplication. In particular, we see that the subset
HW ⊂ Maps(W, R) is an R-subalgebra. The next proposition is fundamental
to our main results.
Proposition 3.1. If F ∈ HW then so is i A s (F) ∈ HW .
Proof. We need to show that for any other pseudo-reflection t ∈ s(W) and
any integer j ≤ |t| − 1, if F ∈ HW , then for every x ∈ W the sum of rational
functions

(3.4)

|t|−1
−b
X
i A s (F) · t
b=0

Ltj · t−b

(x)

is actually a polynomial. There are two cases to consider here:
Q
b
Case 1: |s|−1
b=0 x · t (ℓ s ) ∈ hx(ℓt )i. In this case, we must have L s = Lt and
either hsi ⊆ hti or hti ⊆ hsi. In the latter case, i A s is t-invariant hence the
sum in Equation (3.4) is equal to zero. In the former case, suppose we must
have s = ta for some a > 1. Expanding the i A s (F) term in Equation (3.4),

14

CHRIS MCDANIEL

we get
|t|−1
−b
X
i A s (F) · t
b=0

Ltj · t−b

(x) =

|t|−1 |s|−1
X
X
b=0 c=0

=

a |−1
|t|−1 |tX
X

b=0 c=0

=

a |−1
|t|−1 |tX
X

b=0 c=0

=

F(xtb sc )
Lis (xtb sc ) · Ltj (xtb )
F(xtb tac )
Lit (xtb tac ) · Ltj (xtb )
j
F(xtb tac ) · λac
t

Lit (xtb tac ) · Ltj (xtb tac )

a |−1
|t|−1 |tX
X
F(xtb tac ) · λac j

b=0 c=0

t
i+ j
b
ac
Lt (xt t )



|t|−1
b+ac
X


F(xt
)
note that the sum

is
independent
of
c


i+ j
b+ac
)
b=0 Lt (xt
|ta |−1

|t|−1
X
F(xtb+ac )  X ac j 

=
λt 
i+ j
b+ac ) 
(xt
L
c=0
b=0 t
=0.

Hence in either
i A s (F)(x) ∈ R in this case.
Q|t|−1subcase
b
Case 2: b=0 x · t (ℓ s ) < hx(ℓt )i. In this case, it will suffice to show that
the product

 |t|−1
|t|−1
Y
X i A s (F)(xtb ) 
i
a

Ls (xt ) · 
L j (xtb ) 
a=0

b=0

t

is in R. Expanding we get
 |t|−1 |s|−1
 |t|−1
|t|−1
X λ−ic Q Li (xta ) · F(xtb sc )
Y
X i A s (F)(xtb )  X
a,b s
s
i
a


 =
Ls (xt ) · 
j
Lt (xtb )
Ltj (xtb )
b=0 c=0
b=0
a=0

 |t|−1 Q
|s|−1
X
X a,b Li (xta ) · (F · sc )(xtb ) 
s


=
λ−ic
s 


j
b
Lt (xt )
c=0
b=0
 |t|−1 Q

|s|−1
X
X a,0 (Li · ta )(xtb ) · (F · sc )(xtb ) 
s


=
λ−ic
s 

j

b
Lt (xt )
c=0
b=0
 
 
|s|−1
X
 Y i a
 
−ic 
−c
=
λ s  j At  (Ls · t ) · (F · s ) (x)
c=0

a,0

which is in R because HW is closed under multiplication.
Thus in every case, if F ∈ HW then so is i A s (F) for each pseudo-reflection
s ∈ s(W) and each integer i ≤ |s| − 1.


EQUIVARIANT COINVARIANT RING

15

It turns out that the operators i A s : HW → HW (−i) are equivariant analogues of the so-called generalized ∆-operators i ∆s : R → R(−i) introduced
by Smith and McDaniel [6]. We review this construction now.
For each pseudo-reflection s ∈ s(W) and any integer i ∈ Z, we define the
operator i ∆s : R → Quot(R)(−i) as follows: For any homogeneous polynomial f ∈ R, define
(3.5)

i ∆s ( f )

=

|s|−1
X
j=0

|s|−1
s j( f )
1 X −i j j
= i
λ · s ( f ).
s j ℓis
ℓ s j=0 s

Lemma 3.5. For any s ∈ s(W) and any integer i ≤ |s| − 1 we have
i ∆s ( f )

∈ R ∀ f ∈ R.

Proof. We refer the reader to the paper [6] for details.



We call the operators i ∆s : R → R(−i) generalized ∆-operators for s ∈
s(W) and i ≤ |s| − 1.
Lemma 3.6. The following diagram commutes:
R ⊗RW R

µ

/

Maps(W, R)

1⊗i ∆ s

i As





R ⊗RW R(−i)

µ

/

Maps(W, R)(−i).

Proof. It suffices to show that
(i A s ◦ µ) ( f ⊗ g)(x) = (µ ◦ (1 ⊗ i ∆s )) ( f ⊗ g)(x)
for every simple tensor f ⊗ g ∈ R ⊗RW R and every x ∈ W. On the LHS we
have
(i A s ◦ µ) ( f ⊗ g)(x) =

|s|−1
X
(µ( f ⊗ g)) (x · s j )
Lis (x · s j )
j=0

|s|−1
X
f · (x · s j )(g)
=
Lis (x · s j )
j=0

|s|−1
X
x(s j (g))

j ℓi
x
s
s
j=0
|s|−1

X s j (g) 
 ,
= f · x 

j (ℓi ) 
s
s
j=0

=f ·

16

CHRIS MCDANIEL

whereas on the RHS we have
(µ ◦ (1 ⊗ i ∆s )) ( f ⊗ g)(x) =µ ( f ⊗ i ∆s (g)) (x)
= f · x (i ∆s (g))

|s|−1
X s j (g) 
 .
= f · x 

j (ℓi ) 
s
s
j=0



Note that an immediate consequence of Lemma 3.6 is that the image of
the localization map µ (R ⊗RW R) is contained in our set HW .
Let us pause for a moment and take stock.LWe know by Proposition
R is injective. As we
2.1 that the localization map µ : R ⊗RW R →
x∈W
pointed out above, Lemma 3.6 implies that the image is contained in the
subset HW . Moreover µ is W-equivariant, which implies that the image
µ (R ⊗RW R) ⊂ HW is a W-invariant subspace. Thus the quotient of graded
vector spaces HW /µ (R ⊗RW R) is a graded vector space itself which also
carries a W-action. We would like to show that this quotient space is zero,
and hence that the image of µ is equal to HW . We will use our operators
i A s : HW → HW (−i).
Proposition 3.2. The localization map µ : R ⊗RW R → HW is surjective.
Proof. Suppose by way of contradiction that HW /µ(R ⊗RW R) is not the zero
space. Then since it is non-negatively graded, we may choose a homogeneous nonzero element F̄ ∈ HW /µ(R⊗RW R) of smallest degree. Let F ∈ HW
be a homogeneous representative of F̄. For each pseudo-reflection s ∈ s(W)
and for each integer 1 ≤ i ≤ |s| − 1, it then follows from the minimality of
the degree of F that the polynomial i A s (F), being of degree strictly less than
that of F, must lie in the image µ(R ⊗RW R) ⊂ HW . But now by Lemma 3.3,
we deduce that the difference
1
F − 0 A s (F)
|s|
must also lie in the image µ(R ⊗RW R). But this means that in the quotient space HW /µ(R ⊗RW R), which carries a W-action, F̄ is s-invariant since
0 A s (F) is. But this holds for all pseudo-reflections, and since W is generated by pseudo-reflections, we see that F̄ is actually W-invariant. Upstairs
in HW we can reformulate this by writing
(3.6)

F − F · w ∈ µ(R ⊗RW R) ∀w ∈ W.

Summing Equation (3.6) over all w ∈ W and dividing by |W| we get that
1 X
F−
F · w ∈ µ(R ⊗RW R).
|W| w∈W

EQUIVARIANT COINVARIANT RING

17

The problem with the last displayed equation is that the map
1 X
F · w: W → R
|W| w∈W
is W-invariant hence it must be a constant map, which is also in the image
µ(R ⊗RW R). Hence F is forced to lie in the image as well, which is the
desired contradiction.

We have thus proved Theorem 1.1.
4. Equivariant Cohomology of Linear Hypergraphs
By a hypergraph we mean a pair Γ = (V, E) consisting of a (finite) vertex
set V, and collection of subsets E of V called the hyperedges. For e ∈ E
we write |e| for the number of vertices in e, and we write Ve ⊂ V for the
underlying vertex set. For p ∈ V we write E p ⊂ E to mean the subset of
hyperedges containing the vertex p.
An axial function on Γ is a function α : E → P(V ∗ ) which assigns a linear
subspace in V ∗ to each edge. Given (Γ, α), a generator class for a given
hyperedge e ∈ E is an injective map τe : Ve → α(e) where α(e) is the linear
subspace assigned to e by α. Denote by τ the collection of maps {τe }e∈E .
The triple (Γ, α, τ) is what we will refer to as a linear hypergraph.
We define the equivariant cohomology of a fixed hyperedge e ∈ E as the
subset of Maps(Ve , R) given by
(4.1)


|e|−1


X




i
G
:
V
→
R
.
G
=
H(e, τe ) ≔ 
g
·
τ
,
for
some
constants
g
∈
R

e
i
i
e




i=0

For every hyperedge e ∈ E there is a natural restriction map ρe : Maps(V, R) →
Maps(Ve , R). Taking Equation (4.1) into account, we define the equivariant cohomology of the linear hypergraph (Γ, α, τ) as the set of Maps(V, R)
given by
(4.2)

H(Γ, α, τ) ≔ {F : V → R |ρe (F) ∈ H(e, τe ), for each e ∈ E } .

Remark 4.1. Guillemin and Zara [4] encountered linear hypergraphs as
cross sections of a GKM 1-skeleton, analogous to the reduced spaces of a
symplectic manifold with a Hamiltonian circle action. In their paper they
defined the equivariant cohomology of their linear hypergraphs using an
analogue of the Kirwan map. On the other hand, their Theorem 7.1 states
that their definition of equivariant cohomology of linear hypergraph actually agrees with the one given in Equation (4.2).

18

CHRIS MCDANIEL

Let W ⊂ GL(V) be a finite psuedo-reflection group as above. Define a
hypergraph ΓW = (VW , EW ) as follows. Set the vertex set VW = W. Denote
by os (x) the right s-orbit containing x, i.e.
o
n
os (x) = x, x · s, · · · x · s|s|−1 .
We then define the hyperedge set EW to be the set of all right s-orbits, i.e.
EW = {os (x) |s ∈ s(W), x ∈ W } .
Define an axial function α : EW → P(V ∗ ) by
(4.3)

αW (os (x)) = F · x(ℓ s ),

and for each hyperedge os (x) define the generating class τos (x) = Ls : os (x) →
α(osH (x)), i.e. τos (x) (x · si ) = λis · x(ℓ s ). Set τW = {τe }e∈EW . Then the triple
(ΓW , αW , τW ) is the linear hypergraph associated to W.
Proposition 4.1. The sets HW and H(ΓW , αW , τW ) coincide.
Proof. The condition that a map F : W → R be in H(ΓW , αW , τW ) is that
for every hyperedge e = os (x), the restriction ρe (F) be in H(e, τe ) where
τe = Ls , or, equivalently that
ρe (F) =

|e|−1
X
i=0

gi · τie ,

for some constants gi ∈ R. On the other hand, recall Lemma 3.3 which says
that if F ∈ HW then
|s|−1

1 X
i
F=
i A s (F) · L s .
|s| i=0
If follows that HW ⊆ H(ΓW , αW , τW ).
Conversely, suppose that F ∈ H(ΓW , αW , τW ). Then for each hyperedge
P
i
e ∈ EW we have ρe (F) = |e|−1
i=0 fi τe for some constants fi ∈ R. On the other
hand, Guillemin and Zara have shown that for any map G : Ve → R, the
P
i
condition that G = |e|−1
i=0 gi τe for some constants gi ∈ R is equivalent to the
condition that the sum of rational functions
Z
X
G(p) · τe (p)k
(4.4)
G · τke ≔
Q
q∈Ve (τe (p) − τe (q))
e
p∈V
e

q,p

EQUIVARIANT COINVARIANT RING

19

is a polynomial for each k ≥ 0, c.f. [4, Lemma 4.1]. Taking e = os (x) and
τe = Ls : os (x) → R, and G = ρe (F), Equation (4.4) becomes
Z
X
ρe (F)(p) · τke (p)
Q
ρe (F) · τke =
q∈Ve (τe (p) − τe (q))
e
p∈V
e

=

|s|−1
X
j=0

=

|s|−1
X
j=0

|s|−1
X

q,p

Q

F(x · s j ) · Lks (x · s j )
j
a
a, j (L s (x · s ) − L s (x · s ))

F(x · s j ) · λks j · x(ℓ s )k

Q 
x(ℓ s )|s|−1 · a, j λ sj − λas

F(x · s j ) · λks j · x(ℓ s )k
=
 j |s|−1 Q 
j=0 x(ℓ s )|s|−1 · λ s
a, j 1 −


!
a
Y


λ
s
note that

=
|s|
1
−
j

λ
s
a, j

λas
j
λs



|s|−1

F(x · s j )
1 X
=
|s| j=0 x(ℓ s )|s|−1−k · λ sj·(|s|−1−k)
|s|−1

1 X F(x · s j )
=
|s| j=0 L|s|−1−k
(x · s j )
s
=

1
|s|−1−k A s (F)(x)
|s|

Thus if F ∈ H(ΓW , αW , τW ) then |s|−1−k A s (F)(x) ∈ R for each x ∈ W, each
s ∈ s(W), and each k ≥ 0, which implies that F ∈ HW as well.

References
[1] V. Guillemin, T. Holm, and C. Zara. A GKM description of the equivariant cohomology ring of a homogeneous space. J. Algebraic Combin., 23(1):21–41, 2006.
[2] V. Guillemin and C. Zara. Equivariant de Rham theory and graphs. Asian J. Math.,
3(1):49–76, 1999. Sir Michael Atiyah: a great mathematician of the twentieth century.
[3] V. Guillemin and C. Zara. 1-skeleta, Betti numbers, and equivariant cohomology. Duke
Math. J., 107(2):283–349, 2001.
[4] Victor Guillemin and Catalin Zara. The existence of generating families for the cohomology ring of a graph. Adv. Math., 174(1):115–153, 2003.
[5] Hideyuki Matsumura. Commutative ring theory. Transl. from the Japanese by M. Reid.
1986.
[6] Chris McDaniel and Larry Smith. A bott-samelson like embedding of coinvariants of
reflection groups. in preparation.

20

CHRIS MCDANIEL

[7] Larry Smith. Polynomial invariants of finite groups. Wellesley, MA: A. K. Peters,
1995.
[8] Wolfgang Soergel. The combinatorics of Harish-Chandra bimodules. J. Reine Angew.
Math., 429:49–74, 1992.
[9] J Watanabe. Some remarks on cohen-macaulay rings with many zero divisors and an
application. Journal of Algebra, 39(1):1 – 14, 1976.
Dept. of Math. and Comp. Sci., Endicott College, Beverly, MA 01915
E-mail address: cmcdanie@endicott.edu

