UNIFORMLY COLUMN SIGN-COHERENCE AND THE EXISTENCE
OF MAXIMAL GREEN SEQUENCES

arXiv:1712.00973v1 [math.RT] 4 Dec 2017

PEIGEN CAO

FANG LI

Abstract. In this paper, we prove that each matrix in Mm×n (Z≥0 ) is uniformly column signcoherent (Definition 2.2 (ii)) with respect to any n×n skew-symmetrizable integer matrix (Corollary
3.3 (ii)). Using such matrices, we introduce the definition of irreducible skew-symmatrizable matrix
(Definition 4.1). Based on this, the existence of a maximal green sequence for a skew-symmetrizable
matrices is reduced to the existence of a maximal green sequence for irreducible skew-symmetrizable
matrices.

1. introduction
C-matrices (respectively, G-matrices) [2] are important research objects in the theory of cluster
algebras. It is known that C-matrices (respectively, G-matrices) are column (respectively, row) signcoherent (see Definition 2.2 (i)). In this paper, we consider the matrices which have the similar
property with C-matrices. This property is called uniformly column sign-coherence (see Definition
2.2 (ii)). By the definition of uniformly column sign-coherence and a result in [3] (see Theorem 2.4
below), we know that In is uniformly column sign-coherent using the terminology in this paper.
The motivation to consider the uniformly column sign-coherence comes from Proposition 3.6,
which indicates if some submatrix of a skew-symmetrizable B is uniformly column sign-coherent,
then there is another submatrix of B is invariant under any particular sequence of mutations.
It is natural to ask that when a matrix is uniformly column sign-coherent. This is actually a hard
question. However, we can turn our mind to the other side to think about how to produce new
uniformly column sign-coherent matrices from a given one. Theorem 3.2 in this paper is an answer
to this. As a corollary, matrices in Mm×n (Z≥0 ) are proved to be uniformly column sign-coherence
(Corollary 3.3).
Maximal green sequences are particular sequences of mutations of skew-symmetrizable matrices
introduced by Keller [5]. Such particular sequences have numerous applications, including the computations of spectrums of BPS states, Donaldson-Thomas invariants, tilting of hearts in derived
categories, and quantum dilogarithm identities.
A very important problem in cluster algebra theory is to determine when a given skew-symmetrizable
matrix B has a maximal green sequence. In [6] (Theorem 9), Greg Muller proved that if B has a
maximal green sequence, so is any principal submatix of B. Conversely, if some principal submatrices of B have a maximal green sequence, how about the existence of maximal green sequence of
B? An answer to this question is given in this paper, based on the discussion of uniformly column
sign-coherence. One can refer to Theorem 4.5 for this.
Thanks to Theorem 4.5 in this paper, and Theorem 9 of [6], we reduce the existence of a maximal
green sequence for skew-symmetrizable matrices to the existence of a maximal green sequence for
Mathematics Subject Classification(2010): 13F60, 05E40
Keywords: cluster algebra, sign-coherence, maximal green sequence, green-to-red sequence.
Date: version of December 5, 2017.

1

2

PEIGEN CAO

FANG LI

irreducible skew-symmetrizable matrices (Definition 4.1). And we give a characteristic for irreducible
skew-symmetrizable matrices (Proposition 4.2).
Note that a special case of Theorem 4.5 has been given in [4]. The authors proved that if both
quivers Q1 and Q2 have a maximal green sequences, then so is the quiver Q which is a t-colored
direct sum of quivers Q1 and Q2 (Theorem 3.12 of [4]). And the authors believe this result also holds
for any direct sum of Q1 and Q2 (Remark 3.13 of [4]). Theorem 4.5 in this paper actually gives an
affirm answer to this.
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, some basic definitions are given. In Section 3, we
give a method to produce uniformly column sign-coherent matrices from a given one (Theorem 3.2).
Thus we prove that each matrix in Mm×n (Z≥0 ) is uniformly column sign-coherent (Corollary 3.3). In
Section 4, we give the definition of irreducible skew-symmetrizable matrix and their characterization.
Then we reduce the existence of a maximal green sequence for skew-symmetrizable matrices to the
existence of a maximal green sequence for irreducible skew-symmetrizable matrices.
2. Preliminaries
Recall that an integer matrix Bn×n = (bij ) is called skew-symmetrizable if there is a positive integer diagonal matrix S such that SB is skew-symmetric, where S is said to be the skewsymmetrizer of B. In this case, we say that B is S-skew-symmetrizable. For an (m + n) × n integer
matrix B̃ = (bij ), the square submatrix B = (bij )1≤i,j≤n is called the principal part of B̃. Abusing
terminology, we say that B̃ itself is skew-symmetrizable or skew-symmetric if its principal part B is
so.
Definition 2.1. Let B̃(m+n)×n = (bij ) be S-skew-symmetrizable, the mutation of B̃ in the direction
k ∈ {1, 2, · · · , n} is the (m + n) × n matrix µk (B̃) = (b′ij ), where

−b ,
i = k or j = k;
ij
b′ij =
(1)
bij + sgn(bik )max(bik bkj , 0), otherwise.
It is easy to see that µk (B̃) is still S-skew-symmetrizable, and µk (µk (B̃)) = B̃.

Definition 2.2. (i) For m, n > 0, an m × n integer matrix A is called column sign-coherent
(respectively, row sign-coherent) if any two nonzero entries of A in the same column (respectively,
row) have the same sign.
(ii) Let B1 be an n × n skew-symmetrizable matrix, and B2 ∈ Mm×n (Z) be a column sign-coherent
matrix. B2 is called uniformly column sign-coherent with respect to
! B1 if for any sequence of
B1
is column sign-coherent.
mutations µks · · · µk2 µk1 , the lower m × n submatrix of µks · · · µk2 µk1
B2
Remark 2.3. Note that the uniformly column sign-coherence of B2 is invariant up to permutation
of its row vectors, by the equality (1).
!
!
B
Bσ
Given an S-skew-symmetrizable matrix B̃ =
be the matrix
∈ M2n×n (Z), let B̃σ =
Cσ
In
obtained from B̃ by a sequence of mutations σ := µks · · · µk2 µk1 . Recall that the lower part Cσ of
B̃σ is called a C-matrix of B, see [2].
Theorem 2.4. ([3]) Using the above notations, for the skew-symmetrizable matrix B ∈ Mn (Z), each
C-matrix Cσ of B is column sign-coherent.

UNIFORMLY COLUMN SIGN-COHERENCE AND THE EXISTENCE

OF MAXIMAL GREEN SEQUENCES

3

Remark 2.5. By Definition 2.2, this theorem means that In is uniformly column sign-coherent with
respect to the skew-symmetrizable matrix B.
Thanks to Theorem 2.4, one can define the sign functions on the column vectors of a C-matrix
of a !
skew-symmetrizable matrix
B. For a sequence of mutations σ := µks · · · µk2 µk1 , denote by
!
B
Bσ
:= µks · · · µk2 µk1
. If the entries of j-th column of Cσ are all nonnegative (respectively,
Cσ
In
nonpositive), the sign of the j-th column of Cσ is defined as εσ (j) = 1 (respectively, εσ (j) = −1).
Definition 2.6. Let Cσ be the C-matrix of B given by a sequence of mutations σ, a column index
j ∈ {1, · · · , n} of Cσ is called green (respectively, red) if εσ (j) = 1 (respectively, εσ (j) = −1).
Note that, by Theorem 2.4, the column index of a C-matrix Cσ is either green or red.
Definition 2.7. Let B be a skew-symmetrizable matrix, and k = (k1 , · · · , ks ) be a sequence of
column index of B. Denote by Cσj the C-matrix of B given by σj := µkj · · · µk2 µk1 .
(i) k = (k1 , · · · , ks ) is called a green-to-red sequence of B if each column index of the C-matrix
Cσs is red, i.e., Cσs ∈ Mn×n (Z≤0 ).
(ii) k = (k1 , · · · , ks ) is called a green sequence of B if ki is green in the C-matrix Cσi−1 for
i = 2, 3, · · · , s.
(iii) k = (k1 , · · · , ks ) is called maximal green sequence of B if it is both a green sequence and
a green-to-red sequence of B.


0
1 −1


Example 2.8. Let B = −1 0
1 , and k = (2, 3, 1, 2).
1 −1 0










0 −1 0
0 −1 0
0
1
0
0 −1 1
0
1 −1










1
1
0 −1
1
1 0 −1
1 0
−1 0
1
−1 0










 1 −1 0  µ2 0 1
0
0
−1 0 
1
0
µ3 0 −1
µ1  0
µ2 −1



 −→ 
−


.

→
−→ 
−→ 
1 0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0

1 0
−1 0
−1 0
















0 −1 1 
0 0 −1
0
0
0
1
0
0 −1
0 −1
0
0
1
0 0
1
0 1 −1
0
1 −1
0 −1 0
Hence, k = (2, 3, 1, 2) is a maximal green sequence of B.

3. Uniformly column sign-coherence of B2
In this section, we give a method to produce uniformly column sign-coherent matrices from a
known one (Theorem 3.2). Then it is shown that all non-negative matrices and rank ≤ 1 column
sign-coherent matrices are uniform column sign-coherent (Corollary 3.3 and Corollary 3.4).
Lemma 3.1. Let P = (pij ) ∈ Mp×m (Z≥0 ), p, m > 0, and B1 be an n×n skew-symmetrizable matrix.
If B2 ∈ Mm×n (Z) is column sign-coherent, then for 1 ≤ k ≤ n,
!
!
!
!
!
In 0
B1
B1
B1
In 0
µk (
) = µk
=
µk
.
0 P
B2
P B2
B2
0 P
!
!
!
!
B1
B1
B1
B1
′
= (a′ij ). Clearly,
= (aij ), µk
= (bij ),
= (bij ), µk
Proof. Denote by
P B2
P B2
B2
B2
!
!
!
B1
B1
In 0
the principal parts of µk
and
µk
are equal. It suffices to show the lower
P B2
B2
0 P

4

PEIGEN CAO

!
B1
In
parts of µk
and
P B2
0
By equation (1), for i > n,

0
P

!

µk

a′ij = aij + sgn(aik )max(aik bkj , 0) =

B1
B2

!

m
X
l=1

FANG LI

are equal. We know that for i > n, aij =

m
P

pil bn+l,j .

l=1

m
m
X
X
pil bn+l,k bkj , 0).
pil bn+l,k )max(
pil bn+l,j + sgn(
l=1

l=1

Because B2 is column sign-coherent and P ∈ Mp×m (Z≥0 ), we know that (pil1 bn+l1 ,k )(pil2 bn+l2 ,k ) ≥
m
P
0, 1 ≤ l1 , l2 ≤ m. Thus if pil1 bn+l1 ,k 6= 0, then sgn(pil1 bn+l1 ,k ) = sgn( pil bn+l,k ). So
l=1

a′ij

=
=
=
=

m
X

l=1
m
X

l=1
m
X

l=1
m
X

m
X

pil bn+l,j + sgn(

pil bn+l,k )max(

l=1

pil bn+l,j +

m
X

m
X

pil bn+l,k bkj , 0)

l=1

sgn(pil bn+l,k )max(pil bn+l,k bkj , 0)

l=1

pil (bn+l,j + sgn(bn+l,k )max(bn+l,k bkj , 0)),
pil b′n+l,j .

l=1

Then the result follows.



Theorem 3.2. Let P ∈ Mp×m (Z≥0 ) for p, m > 0, and B1 be an n × n skew-symmetrizable matrix.
If B2 ∈ Mm×n (Z) is uniformly column sign-coherent with respect to B1 , then so is P B2 .
!
B1
Proof. For any sequence of mutation µks · · · µk2 µk1 , the lower part of µks · · · µk2 µk1
is column
B2
sign-coherent, by
! the uniformly column
! sign-coherence of B2 with respect to B1 . Clearly, the lower
B1
In 0
µks · · · µk2 µk1
part of
is also column sign-coherent. By Lemma 3.1, we have
0 P
B2
!
!
!
!
B1
In 0
B1
In 0
.
µks · · · µk2 µk1
)=
µks · · · µk2 µk1 (
B2
B2
0 P
0 P
!
!
In 0
B1
) is also column sign-coherent. Thus P B2 is
So the lower part of µks · · · µk2 µk1 (
B2
0 P
uniformly column sign-coherent with respect to B1 .

Corollary 3.3. Let B1 be an n × n skew-symmetrizable matrix. Then any matrix P ∈ Mm×n (Z≥0 )
is uniformly column sign-coherent with respect to B1 .
Proof. By Remark 2.5, In is uniformly column sign-coherent with respect to B1 . Then the result
follows from Theorem 3.2 since P = P In .

Corollary 3.4. Let B1 be an n × n skew-symmetrizable matrix, and B2 be an m × n column signcoherent integer matrix. If rank(B2 ) ≤ 1, then B2 is uniformly column sign-coherent with respect to
B1 .
Proof. Because rank(B2 ) ≤ 1, B2 has the form of
 
c1
.
.
B2 = 
 .  α,
cn

UNIFORMLY COLUMN SIGN-COHERENCE AND THE EXISTENCE

OF MAXIMAL GREEN SEQUENCES

5

where α is a row vector, c1 , c2 , · · · , cm ∈ Q. Because B2 is column sign-coherent, we can assume
that c1 , c2 , · · · , cm ≥ 0. Clearly, α is uniformly column sign-coherent with respect to B1 . Then by
Theorem 3.2, B2 is uniformly column sign-coherent with respect to B1 .

Following these two corollaries, there is a natural problem about uniformly column sign-coherent
matrices.
Problem 3.5. Give all matrices B2 , which are uniformly column sign-coherent with respect to B1 .
!
B1 n×n B3 n×m
be a skew-symmetrizable matrix. Then B2 is
Proposition 3.6. Let B =
B2 m×n B4 m×m
uniformly column sign-coherent with respect to B1 if and only if B4 is invariant under any sequence
of mutations µks · · · µk2 µk1 with 1 ≤ ki ≤ n, i = 1, 2, · · · , s.
Proof. Let B = (bij ), and µk (B) = (b′ij ), 1 ≤ k ≤ n. We know for any i, j,
b′ij = bij + sgn(bik )max(bik bkj , 0).
Then b′ij = bij if and only if bik bkj ≤ 0, and then if and only if bik bjk ≥ 0 because either bkj bjk < 0
or bkj = bjk = 0 holds.
So, B4 is invariant under the mutation µk (B) = (b′ij ), 1 ≤ k ≤ n if and only if b′ij = bij for
n + 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n + m, and then if and only if bik bjk ≥ 0 for n + 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n + m, 1 ≤ k ≤ n, which
means that B2 is column sign-coherent. The result follows.

4. the existence of maximal green sequences
Based on the discussion about uniformly column sign-coherence, in this section, we reduce the
existence of maximal green sequences for skew-symmetrizable matrices to the existence of maximal
green sequences for irreducible skew-symmetrizable matrices.
4.1. Irreducible skew-symmetrizable matrices. In this subsection, we give the definition of
irreducible skew-symmetrizable matrices and their characteristic.
Let B = (bij )n×n be a matrix, and n1 , n2 be two positive integers. For 1 ≤ i1 < · · · < in2 ≤ n
i ,··· ,i
and 1 ≤ j1 < · · · < jn1 ≤ n, denote by Bj11 ,··· ,jnn2 the submatrix of B with entries bij , where
1

i ,··· ,i

i = i1 , · · · , in2 and j = j1 , · · · , jn1 . If n2 < n or n1 < n, the corresponding submatrix Bj11 ,··· ,jnn2 is a
1
proper submatrix of B. If n2 = n1 and {i1 , · · · , in2 } = {j1 , · · · , jn1 }, the corresponding submatirx
is a principal submatirx of B. Clearly, any principal submatrix of a skew-symmetrizable matrix is
still skew-symmetrizable.
Definition 4.1. A skew-symmetrizable matrix B = (bij )n×n is called reducible, if B has a proper
i ,··· ,i
submatrix Bj11 ,··· ,jnn2 satisfying
1

i ,··· ,i

i ,··· ,i

(i). Bj11 ,··· ,jnn2 is a nonnegative matrix, i.e., Bj11 ,··· ,jnn2 ∈ Mn2 ×n1 (Z≥0 ).
1
1
(ii). {i1 , · · · , in2 } ∪ {j1 , · · · , jn1 } = {1, 2, · · · , n} and {i1 , · · · , in2 } ∩ {j1 , · · · , jn1 } = φ.
Otherwise, B is said to be irreducible if such proper submatrix does not exist.
Clearly, B is reducible if and only if up to renumbering the row-column indexes of B, B can be
written as a block matrix as follows
!
B1n1 ×n1 B3n1 ×n2
,
B=
B2 n2 ×n1 B4 n2 ×n2
such that the proper submatirx B2 of B is a nonnegative matrix, i.e., B2 ∈ Mn2 ×n1 (Z≥0 ).

6

PEIGEN CAO

FANG LI

In the skew-symmetric case, the definition of irreducibility for quiver version, has been given in
[4].
For a skew-symmetrizable matrix B, we can encode the sign pattern of entries of B by the quiver
Γ(B) with the vertices 1, 2, · · · , n and the arrows i → j for bij > 0. We call Γ(B) the underlying
quiver of B. If Γ(B) is an acyclic quiver, then B is said to be acyclic. If Γ(B) is a connected
quiver, then B is said to be connected. Clearly, if B is an irreducible skew-symmetrizable matrix,
then it must be connected.
For a quiver Q, if there exists a path from a vertex a to a vertex b, then a is said to be a
predecessor of b, and b is said to be a successor of a. For a vertex a in Q, denote by M (a), N (a)
the set of predecessors of a and the set of successors of a respectively. Note that a ∈ M (a) ∩ N (a).
Proposition 4.2. Let B = (bij )n×n be a connected skew-symmetrizable matrix. Then B is irreducible if and only if each arrow of the quiver Γ(B) is in some oriented cycles.
Proof. Suppose that B is reducible, then B can be written as a block matrix
!
B1n1 ×n1 B3n1 ×n2
,
B=
B2 n2 ×n1 B4 n2 ×n2
such that B2 ∈ Mn2 ×n1 (Z≥0 ), up to renumbering the row-column indexes of B. Since B is connected,
B2 can not be a zero matrix. So there exist i > n1 , j ≤ n1 such that bij 6= 0. In fact bij > 0, since
B2 ∈ Mn2 ×n1 (Z≥0 ). We know that the arrow i → j is not in any oriented cycles of Γ(B), because
B2 ∈ Mn2 ×n1 (Z≥0 ).
Suppose that there exists an arrow i → j is not in any oriented cycles of Γ(B). We know that
i can not be a successor of j, i.e., i ∈
/ N (j). Let n1 be the number of elements of N (j). Clearly,
1 ≤ n1 ≤ n − 1. We can renumber the row-column indexes of B such that the elements of N (j) are
indexed by 1, 2, · · · , n1 . B can be written as a block matrix
!
B1 B3
B=
.
B2 B4
We claim that B2 ∈ M(n−n1 )×n1 (Z≥0 ). Otherwise, there exists k1 > n1 and k2 ≤ n1 , i.e.,
k1 ∈
/ N (j), k2 ∈ N (j) such that bk1 k2 < 0. Thus k1 is a successor of k2 , so is a successor of j, by
k2 ∈ N (j). This contradicts k1 ∈
/ N (j). So B2 ∈ M(n−n1 )×n1 (Z≥0 ) and B is reducible. The proof is
finished.



0
1 −1


Example 4.3. Let B = −2 0
2 . It is a skew-symmetrizable matrix. The quiver Γ(B) is
2 −2 0

2

1 ^❃^
❃❃
❃❃
❃❃
❃
// 3

Since any arrow of Γ(B) is in an oriented cycle, B is irreducible.
4.2. Reduction of the existence maximal green sequences. In this subsection, we reduce the
existence of maximal green sequences for skew-symmetrizable matrices to the existence of a maximal
green sequences for irreducible skew-symmetrizable matrices.

UNIFORMLY COLUMN SIGN-COHERENCE AND THE EXISTENCE

OF MAXIMAL GREEN SEQUENCES

7

Lemma 4.4. Let B be a skew-symmetrizable
(k1 , · · · , ks+1 ) be a sequence of
! matrix and σs+1 := !
B
Bσi
:= µki · · · µk2 µk1
column indexes of B. Denote by B̃σi =
, i = 1, · · · , s + 1. If ks+1 is a
In
Cσi
green column index of Cσs , then any green column index j of Cσs , with j 6= ks+1 , must be green in
Cσs+1 .
Proof. It can be proved in the same with that of Lemma 2.16 of [1]. For the convenience of readers,
we give the proof here.
Because j and ks+1 are green column indexes of Cσs , we know that (Cσs )ij ≥ 0 and (Cσs )iks+1 ≥ 0.
By the definition of mutation, we have
(Cσs+1 )ij

=

(Cσs )ij + sgn((Cσs )iks+1 )max((Cσs )iks+1 (Cσs )ks+1 j , 0)

≥

(Cσs )ij ≥ 0.

So, j is green in Cσs+1 .



Theorem 4.5. Let B =

B1 n×n
B2 m×n

B3 n×m
B4 m×m

!

= (bij ) be a skew-symmetrizable matrix, and k̃ be

a sequence k̃ = (k1 , · · · , ks , ks+1 , · · · , ks+p ), with 1 ≤ ki ≤ n, and n + 1 ≤ kj ≤ m + n for i =
1, · · · , s, and j = s + 1, · · · , s + p, and denote by k = (k1 , · · · , ks ), j = (ks+1 , · · · , ks+p ). If B2 is in
Mm×n (Z≥0 ), then k̃ is a maximal green sequence of B if and only if k = (k1 , · · · , ks ) (respectively,
j = (ks+1 , · · · , ks+p )) is a maximal green sequence of B1 (respectively, B4 ).


B1 B3
B B 
 2
4
Proof. Let B̃ = 
 and Bσi = µki · · · µk2 µk1 (B̃), i = 1, · · · , s, s + 1, · · · , s + p. By B2 ∈
 In
0
0

Im


B2
 
Mm×n (Z≥0 ) and Corollary 3.3, we know that  In  is uniformly column sign-coherent with respect
0
 
B4
 
to B1 . By the same argument in Proposition 3.6, we know that the submatrix  0  of B̃ is invariant
Im
under the sequence of mutations µks · · · µk2 µk1 , 1 ≤ ki ≤ n for i = 1, 2, · · · , s. So for i ≤ s the matrix
Bσi has the form of


B1;σi B3;σi

B
 2;σi B4;σi 
(2)
Bσi = 
.
C1;σi
0 


0

Im

“ ⇐= ”: Because k = (k1 , k2 , · · · , ks ) is a maximal green sequence
  of B1 , we know that C1;σs ∈
B2
 
Mn×n (Z≤0 ). Thus by the uniformly column sign-coherence of  In  with respect to B1 , we know
0


B2;σs


that C1;σs  ∈ M(2m+n)×n (Z≤0 ). By B2;σs ∈ Mm×n (Z≤0 ) and that the principal part of Bσs
0
is skew-symmetrizable, we can know B3;σs ∈ Mn×m (Z≥0 ). Then by Corollary 3.3, we know that

8

PEIGEN CAO

FANG LI


B3;σs


 0  ∈ M(2n+m)×m (Z≥0 ) is uniformly column sign-coherent with respect to B4 . By the same
Im


B1;σs


argument in Proposition 3.6 again, we know that the submatrix C1;σs  of Bσs is invariant under
0
the sequences of mutations µks+p · · · µks+2 µks+1 (Bσs ), n + 1 ≤ ki ≤ n + m for i = s + 1, · · · , s + p. So
for i ≥ s + 1, the matrix Bσi has the form of


B1;σs B3;σi

B
 2;σi B4;σi 
Bσi = 
.
C1;σs
0 


0

C4;σi

Because j = (j1 , j2 , · · · , jp ) is a maximal green sequence
! of B4 , we know that C4;σs+p ∈ Mm×m (Z≤0 ).
Thus the lower part of Bσs+p is

C1;σs
0

0

C4;σs+p

∈ M(m+n)×(m+n) (Z≤0 ). It can be seen that

k̃ = (k, j) is a green sequence of B, so it is maximal.


B1;σs B3;σs

B
 2;σs B4;σi 
“ =⇒ ”By (2), Bσs = 
 . Clearly, k = (k1 , · · · , ks ) is a green sequence of B1 and
C1;σs
0 
0
Im
j = (ks+1 , · · · , ks+p ) is a maximal green sequence of B4 .
We claim that each l ∈ {1, 2, · · · , n} is red in C1;σs , i.e., C1;σs ∈ Mn×n (Z≤0 ), and thus k =
(k1 , · · · , ks ) is a maximal green sequence of B1 . Otherwise,
there will exist a l0 ∈ {1, 2, · · · , n}
!
C1;σs 0
which is green in C1;σs . Thus l0 is green in
the lower part of Bσs . By Lemma 4.4
0
Im
!
C1;σs+p C3;σs+p
the
and l0 ≤ n < ks+i , i = 1, 2, · · · , p, we know that l0 will remain green in
C2;σs+p C4;σs+p
lower part of Bσs+p . It is impossible since (k1 , · · · , ks , ks+1 , · · · , ks+p ) is a maximal green sequence
of B.

When B is skew-symmetric and B2 is a matrix over {0, 1}, the above theorem has been actually given in Theorem 3.12 of [4]. The authors of [4] believed that the result also holds for
B2 ∈ Mm×n (Z≥0 ), but they did not have a proof. We in fact have given the proof for this in the
skew-symmetrizable case.
Remark 4.6. Note that the ” ⇐= ” part of the proof of the above theorem also holds if we replace
maximal green sequences with green-to-red sequences, and the proof is identical. We are thankful to
Fan Qin for pointing out this.
!
0 −2
Example 4.7. Let B =
. Here B1 = 0 = B4 , B2 = 3 ≥ 0. The column index set of B1 is
3 0
{1} and the column index set of B4 is {2}. It is known that (1) is a maximal green sequence of B1
and (2) is a maximal green sequence of B4 . Then by Theorem 4.5, (1, 2) is a maximal green sequence

UNIFORMLY COLUMN SIGN-COHERENCE AND THE EXISTENCE

OF MAXIMAL GREEN SEQUENCES

9

of B. Indeed,




0 −2
0
3 0 
−3

 µ1 

 −→ 
1 0 
−1
0 1
0




2
0 −2

0
0
 µ2  3

 −→ 
.
−1 0 
0
1
0 −1


0
1 −1 −2 −2


!
 −1 0
1
0 −4 


B
B
1
3

Example 4.8. Let B = 
 1 −1 0 −3 0  = B B where B1 is of order 3×3 and
2
4


0
3
0 −2 
 2
1
2
0
1
0
B4 is of order 2 × 2. Clearly, B is skew-symmetrizable with skew-symmetrizer S = diag{1, 1, 1, 1, 2}
and B2 ∈ M2×3 (Z≥0 ). The column index set of B1 is {1, 2, 3} and the column index set of B4 is
{4, 5}. By Example 2.8 (respectively, Example 4.7), (2, 3, 1, 2) (respectively, (4, 5)) is a maximal
green sequence of B1 (respectively, B4 ). Then by Theorem 4.5, (2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 5) is a maximal green
sequence of B. Indeed,


B̃ :=





























































0
−1
1

1
0
−1

−1
1
0

−2
0
−3

−2
−4
0

2
1

0
2

3
0

0
1

−2
0

1
0
0

0
1
0

0
0
1

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
0

0
1

0
−1
0

1
0
−1

0
1
0

2
−3
3

2
0
4

−2
−1

3
0

−3
−2

0
1

−2
0

−1
0
0

0
0
1

0
−1
−1

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
0

0
1

0
1
−1

−1
0
1

1
−1
0

−2
−3
0

−2
0
−4

2
1

3
0

0
2

0
1

−2
0

−1
0
0

0
0
−1

0
−1
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

−1
0

0
−1











µ2
−→



















µ2
−→




















.



















































0
1
0

−1
0
1

0
−1
0

−2
0
−3

−2
4
−4

2
1

0
−2

3
2

0
1

−2
0

1
0
0

0
−1
0

0
1
1

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
0

0
1

0
1
−1

−1
0
1

1
−1
0

2
3
0

2
0
4

−2
−1

−3
0

0
−2

0
1

−2
0

−1
0
0

0
0
−1

0
−1
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
0

0
1











µ3
−→



















µ4
−→



















































0
1
0

−1
0
−1

0
1
0

−2
−3
3

−2
0
4

2
1

3
0

−3
−2

0
1

−2
0

1
0
0

0
0
1

0
−1
−1

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

1
0

0
1

0
1
−1

−1
0
1

1
−1
0

−2
−3
0

2
0
4

2
−1

3
0

0
−2

0
−1

2
0

−1
0
0

0
0
−1

0
−1
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

−1
0

0
1











µ1
−→



















µ5
−→










10

PEIGEN CAO

FANG LI

4,5,6,7,8,9,10
Denote by B̃ ′ = µ2 µ2 µ3 µ2 (B̃). It is can be seen that the submatrix B̃4,5
of B̃ is invariant
1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10

along the mutation sequence (2, 3, 1, 2) and the submatrix B̃ ′ 1,2,3
of B̃ ′ is invariant along the
mutation sequence (4, 5).
The following lemma is the skew-symmetrizable version of Theorem 9 and Theorem 17 of [6].
Although these results in [6] were verified for the situation of quivers, or say, in skew-symmetric
case, the method of their proofs in [6] can be naturally extended to the skew-symmetrizable case.
Lemma 4.9. Let B be a skew-symmetrizable matrix. If B admits a maximal green sequence (respectively, green-to-red sequence), then any principal submatrix of B also has a maximal green sequence
(respectively, green-to-red sequence).
Theorem 4.10. Let B be a skew-symmetrizable matrix. Then B has a maximal green sequence
(respectively, green-to-red sequence) if and only if any irreducible principal submatrix of B has a
maximal green sequence (respectively, green- to-red sequence).
Proof. It follows from Lemma 4.9, Theorem 4.5 and Remark 4.6.



Remark 4.11. By the above theorem, we can give our explanation of the existence of maximal green
sequences for acyclic skew-symmetrizable matrices. Because any irreducible principal submatrix of
an acyclic skew-symmetrizable matrix B is only a 1 × 1 zero matrix, and it always has a maximal
green sequence, we then know that by Theorem 4.10 any acyclic skew-symmetrizable matrix admits
a maximal green sequence.
By Theorem 4.10, we reduce the existence of maximal green sequences (respectively, green-to-red
sequences) for skew-symmetrizable matrices to the existence of maximal green sequences (respectively, green-to-red sequences) for irreducible skew-symmetrizable matrices B, i.e. those B whose all
arrows of Γ(B) are in oriented cycles, by Proposition 4.2. In [4], the authors classified the irreducible
principal submatrices of the skew-symmetric matrices of type A and proved any such an irreducible
matrix has a maximal green sequence. Therefore, the authors get that any skew-symmetric matrix
of type A has a maximal green sequence. Inspired by this and Theorem 4.5, we propose the following problem as an attempt to end the discussion on the existence of maximal green sequences
(respectively, green-to-red sequences).
Problem 4.12. When does an irreducible skew-symmetrizable matrix admit a maximal green sequence (respectively, green-to-red sequence)?
Acknowledgements: This project is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (No.11671350 and No.11571173).
References
[1] T. Brüstle, G. Dupont, and M. Pérotin, On maximal green sequences, International Mathematics Research
Notices, 2014(16):4547C4586, 2014.
[2] S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky. Cluster algebras. IV. Coefficients. Compos. Math. 143(2007), 112-164.
[3] M. Gross, P. Hacking, S. Keel, M. Kontsevich, Canonical bases for cluster algebras, arXiv:1411.1394
[math.AG].
[4] A. Garver and G. Musiker, On maximal green sequences for type A quiver, J. Algebraic Combin. 45 (2017),
no. 2, 553C599.
[5] B. Keller, On cluster theory and quantum dilogarithm identities, Representations of algebras and related
topics, 85-116, EMS Series OF Congress Report, European Mathematical Society, Zürich, 2011.
[6] G. Muller, The existence of a maximal green sequence is not invariant under quiver mutation. Electron. J.
Combin., 23 (2016), no. 2, Paper 2.47, 23pp.

UNIFORMLY COLUMN SIGN-COHERENCE AND THE EXISTENCE

OF MAXIMAL GREEN SEQUENCES 11

Peigen Cao
Department of Mathematics, Zhejiang University (Yuquan Campus), Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310027, P.R.China
E-mail address: peigencao@126.com
Fang Li
Department of Mathematics, Zhejiang University (Yuquan Campus), Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310027, P.R.China
E-mail address: fangli@zju.edu.cn

