GENERALIZED LYUBEZNIK NUMBERS

arXiv:1208.5500v2 [] 23 Oct 2012

LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT AND EMILY E. WITT

Abstract. Given a local ring containing a field, we define and investigate a family of invariants that includes the Lyubeznik numbers, but that captures finer information. These
generalized Lyubeznik numbers are defined as lengths of certain iterated local cohomology
modules in a category of D-modules, and in order to define them, we develop the theory of a
functor Lyubeznik utilized in proving that his original invariants are well defined. In particular, this functor gives an equivalence of categories with a category of D-modules. These new
invariants are indicators of F -regularity and F -rationality in characteristic p > 0, and have
close connections with characteristic cycle multiplicities in characteristic zero. We compute
the generalized Lyubeznik numbers associated to monomial ideals using interpretations as
lengths in a category of straight modules, as well as provide examples of these invariants
associated to certain determinantal ideals.

1. Introduction
The aim of this article is to define and study a family of invariants of a local ring containing
a field that includes the Lyubeznik numbers, but that captures finer information. These
invariants are defined in terms of lengths of certain local cohomology modules in a category
of D-modules.
To prove that these generalized Lyubeznik numbers are well defined, we formalize and
develop the theory of a functor that Lyubeznik utilized to show that his original invariants
are well defined [Lyu93]. In particular, the definition of these new invariants relies heavily
on the fact that this functor gives, in fact, a category equivalence with a certain category
of D-modules. As a consequence of this new approach, our work also gives a different proof
that the original Lyubeznik numbers are well defined.
Some properties analogous to those of the original invariants hold for the generalized
Lyubeznik numbers; however, results on curves and on hypersurfaces show that, unlike the
original invariants, the generalized Lyubeznik numbers can differentiate one-dimensional
rings, and complete intersection rings.
Results of Blickle [Bli04] enable straightforward characterizations of F -regularity and F rationality in terms of certain generalized Lyubeznik numbers. Moreover, recent results of the
first author and Pérez [NBP12] imply that certain generalized Lyubeznik numbers measure
how “far” an F -pure hypersurface is from being F -regular. We compute the generalized
Lyubeznik numbers associated to monomial ideals as certain lengths in a category of straight
modules, and in characteristic zero, with characteristic cycle multiplicities as well. The study
of the generalized Lyubeznik numbers associated to certain determinantal ideals provides
further examples of these new invariants, some striking.
If (R, m, K) is a local ring admitting a surjection from an n-dimensional regular local ring
(S, η, K) containing a field, and I is the kernel of the surjection, recall that the Lyubeznik
number of R with respect to i, j ∈ N, which depends only on R, i, and j, is defined as
MSC classes: 13D45, 13N10, 13H99.
1

2

LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT AND EMILY E. WITT


λi,j (R) := dimK ExtiS K, HIn−j (S) . If (R, m, K) is any local ring containing a field, we
b [Lyu93, Theorem 4.1]. If d = dim R, then λi,j (R) = 0 for
may define λi,j (R) := λi,j (R)
j > d, and λd,d (R) 6= 0 [Lyu93, Properties 4.4i, 4.4iii]. If R is Cohen-Macaulay, λd,d (R) =
1 [Kaw02, Theorem 1]. Moreover, the Lyubeznik numbers have extensive geometric and
topological interpretations, including connections with étale cohomology, and interpretations
as the number of connected components of certain punctured spectra. (See, for example,
[BB05, GLS98, Kaw00, Wal01, Zha07].)
1.1. Main Results. A crucial component in proving that the generalized Lyubeznik numbers are well defined is the following equivalence of categories.
Theorem (See Theorems 3.4 and 4.1). Let R be a Noetherian ring, and let S = R[[x]].
Let C denote the category of R-modules and D the category of D(S, R)-modules that are
supported on V(xS), the Zariski closed subset of Spec(S) given by xS. Then the functor
G:C→D
M 7→ M ⊗R Sx /S
e : D → C given by G(N)
e
is an equivalence of categories, with inverse functor G
= AnnN (xS).
Moreover, if R = K[[y1 , . . . , yn ]], K a field, then S = K[[y1 , . . . , yn , x]], and G is an
equivalence of categories between the category of D(R, K)-modules and the category of
D(S, K)-modules supported on V(xS).
To define the generalized Lyubeznik numbers, we depend on the fact that certain local
cohomology modules have finite length as D(S, K)-modules (cf. Section 2.1), where K is
a field and S = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]] for some n [Lyu00a, Corollary 6]. These new invariants
depend on the local ring R containing a field, a collection of ideals I1 , . . . , Is of R, as well as
j1 , . . . , js ∈ N. The definition is as follows.
Theorem/Definition (See Theorem 4.2, Definition 4.3). Let (R, m, K) be a local ring
b of R at m admits a surjective ring map π : S ։ R,
b
containing a field, so that the completion R
where S = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]] for some n. Fix I1 , . . . , Is ideals of R and i1 , . . . , is ∈ N. If
b . . . , Is R
b in S, then the generalized
J1 , . . . , Js denote the corresponding preimages of I1 R,
Lyubeznik number of R with respect to I1 , . . . , Is and i1 , . . . , is is defined as
i2
n−i1
is
1
λIiss,...,i
,...,I1 (R) := lengthD(S,K) HJs · · · HJ2 HJ1 (S).

1
Moreover, λIiss,...,i
,...,I1 (R) is finite and depends only on R, I1 , . . . , Is , and i1 , . . . , is , but neither
on S nor on π.

We show that the family of generalized Lyubeznik numbers does, in fact, contain the
original Lyubeznik numbers (see Proposition 4.5). As a consequence of this proof, we give a
new proof of the fact that the Lyubeznik numbers are well defined.
We prove generalizations of some vanishing results for the original invariants (see Proposition 4.7). We also investigate the behavior of the generalized Lyubeznik numbers under
finite field extensions, as well as derive an inequality of the generalized Lyubeznik numbers
with characteristic cycle multiplicity in characteristic zero (see Propositions 4.9 and 4.10).
Unlike the original Lyubeznik numbers, results on curves and on hypersurfaces show that
the new invariants can differ for one-dimensional and complete intersection rings (see Propositions 4.11 and 4.12), confirming that the generalized Lyubeznik numbers capture finer

GENERALIZED LYUBEZNIK NUMBERS

3

information than do the original ones. We also define a new invariant, the Lyubeznik characteristic, in terms of certain generalized Lyubeznik numbers (see Definition 4.13).
We investigate further properties of the generalized Lyubeznik numbers in several of cases.
We point out characterizations of F -regularity and F -rationality in terms of these invariants
that follow from work of Blickle (see Proposition 5.2 and Corollary 5.3) [Bli04]. We use
this, and recent results of the first author and Pérez to point out that certain generalized
Lyubeznik numbers measure how “far” an F -pure hypersurface is from being F -regular (see
Remark 5.6).
We also compute certain generalized Lyubeznik numbers corresponding to ideals of maximal minors (see Section 6). In particular, these give a striking illustration of the generalized
Lyubeznik numbers’ strong characteristic dependence (see Remark 6.4).
Finally, we study the generalized Lyubeznik numbers corresponding to monomial ideals.
In particular, it is possible to compute these invariants as certain lengths in the category of
straight modules, and in terms of characteristic cycle multiplicities in characteristic zero (see
Theorem 7.10). Using work of Àlvarez-Montaner, we bound certain generalized Lyubeznik
numbers in terms of the minimal primes of the corresponding monomial ideal [AM00]. We
also compute the Lyubeznik characteristic of Stanley-Reisner rings in terms its faces of (see
Theorem 7.24); Interestingly, this invariant is characteristic independent in this case, even
though the original Lyubeznik numbers are not (see Remark 7.26).
1.2. Outline. Section 2 gives relevant background on D-modules (2.1) and on positive characteristic methods (2.2). In Section 3, we develop the theory of a functor that Lyubzenik
used to show that the original Lyubeznik numbers are well defined [Lyu93]. Theorem 3.4,
and Theorem 4.1 in Section 4, show that this functor gives an equivalence of categories with
a category of D-modules. In Section 4, the results on this functor are critically used to define
the generalized Lyubeznik numbers (see Theorem 4.2 and Definition 4.3); Proposition 4.5
shows that these invariants include the original Lyubeznik numbers. Here, we also give some
properties of the generalized Lyubeznik numbers and define the Lyubeznik characteristic.
Section 5 states interpretations of F -rationality and F -regularity in terms of certain generalized Lyubeznik numbers through results of Blickle [Bli04]. In Section 6, we give examples
of generalized Lyubeznik numbers corresponding to the maximal minors of a generic matrix.
Finally, in Section 7, we compute these invariants associated to monomial ideals using the
theory of straight modules, and in terms of characteristic cycle multiplicities in characteristic
zero. We also compute the Lyubeznik characteristic of Stanley-Reisner rings.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. D-modules. Given rings A ⊆ S, we define the ring of A-linear differential operators
of S, D(S, A), as the subring of HomA (S, S) defined inductively as follows: the differential
operators of order zero are induced by multiplication by elements in S. An element θ ∈
HomA (S, S) is a differential operator of order less than or equal to k + 1 if, for every r ∈ S,
[θ, r] := θ · r − r · θ is a differential operator of order less than or equal to k. From the
definition, we have that if B is a subring A, we have that D(S, A) ⊆ D(S, B).
If M is a D(S, A)-module, then Mf has the structure of a D(S, A)-module such that,
for every f ∈ S, the natural morphism M → Mf is a morphism of D(S, A)-modules. As
a result, since S is a D(S, A)-module, for all ideals I1 , . . . , Is ⊆ S, and all i1 , . . . is ∈ N,
HIiℓℓ · · · HIi22 HIi11 (S) is also a D(S, A)-module [Lyu93, Example 2.1(iv)].

4

LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT AND EMILY E. WITT

By [Gro67, Theorem 16.12.1], if S = A[[x1 , . . . , xn ]], then


1 ∂t
D(S, A) = S
| t ∈ N, 1 ≤ i ≤ n ⊆ HomA (S, S).
t! ∂xi t
Moreover, if A = K is a field, then Sf has finite length in the category of D(S, K)-modules
for every f ∈ S. Consequently, every module of the form HIiss · · · HIi22 HIi11 (S) also has finite
length in this category [Lyu00a, Corollary 6].
Hypothesis 2.1. Throughout the rest of Section 2.1, we will assume that S is either or
K[x1 , . . . , xn ] or K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]], where K is a field of characteristic 0. Let D = D(S, K).
We recall some relevant definitions and properties of D-modules, and refer the reader
toD[Bjö79, Bjö72,
E Cou95, MNM91] for details. Under Hypothesis 2.1, we know that D =
∂
∂
S ∂x1 , . . . , ∂xn ⊆ HomK (S, S), and there is an ascending filtration
Γi := {δ ∈ D | ord(δ) ≥ i} =

M

α1 +...+αn ≤i

R·

∂α
.
∂xαi

Moreover, grΓ (D) ∼
= S[y1 , . . . , yn ], a polynomial ring over S. SA filtration Ω = {Ωj } of Smodules on a D-module M is a good filtration if Ωj ⊆ Ωj+1 ,
Ωj = M, Γi Ωj ⊆ Ωi+j , and
j∈N
L
grΩ (M) =
Ωj+1 /Ωi is a finitely generated grΓ (D(S, K))-module.
j∈N

If Γ is a good filtration, neither dimgrΓ (D) grΩ (M) nor Rad(AnngrΓ (D) grΩ (M)) depend on
the choice of good filtration. For the sake of clarity, we will omit the filtration when referring
to the associated graded ring or module.
A finitely generated D-module M is holonomic if either M = 0 or dimgr(D) gr(M) = n.
The holonomic D-modules form a full abelian subcategory of the category of D-modules, and
every holonomic D-module has finite length as a D-module. Moreover, if M is holonomic,
then Mf is also holonomic for every f ∈ S. As a consequence, since S is holonomic, every
module of the form HIiℓℓ · · · HIi22 HIi11 (S) is also.

Definition 2.2 (Characteristic variety, characteristic cycle, characteristic cycle multiplicity).
Given a holonomic D-module, the characteristic variety of M is

C(M) = V Rad Anngr(D(S,K)) gr(M) ⊆ Spec gr(D),
P
and its characteristic cycle is CC(M) =
mi Vi , where the sum is taken over all the irreducible components Vi of C(M), and mi is the corresponding
multiplicity. We define the
P
(characteristic cycle) multiplicity of M by e(M) = mi .
Remark 2.3. If 0 → M ′ → M → M ′′ → 0 is an exact sequence of holonomic D-modules,
then CC(M) = CC(M ′ ) + CC(M ′′ ); as a consequence, e(M) = e(M ′ ) + e(M ′′ ). In addition,
CC(M) = 0 if and only if M = 0, so that e(M) = 0 if and only if M = 0 as well.
Now let S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ], and take f ∈ S. Let N[s] be the free Sf [s]-module generated
by a symbol f s . We give N[s] a left Df [s]-module structure as follows:


∂
g s
g ∂f
1 ∂g
f −s .
· ℓf =
−s
ℓ
∂xi f
f ∂xi
f ∂xi

GENERALIZED LYUBEZNIK NUMBERS

5

There exist a polynomial 0 6= b(s) ∈ Q[s] and an operator δ(s) ∈ D[s] that satisfy
(2.3.1)

δ(s)f · (1 ⊗ f s ) = b(s)(1 ⊗ f s )

in N[s] [Cou95, Chapter 10].
Given ℓ ∈ Z, we define the specialization map φℓ : N[s] → Rf by φℓ (vsi ⊗ f s ) = ℓi vf ℓ .
Thus, φℓ (δ(s)v) = δ(ℓ)φℓ (v). Then, by applying this morphism to the result, we have
δ(ℓ)f ℓ+1 = b(ℓ)f ℓ .
The set of all polynomials h(s) ∈ Q[s] that satisfy Equation 2.3.1 forms an ideal of Q[s].
We call the minimal monic polynomial satisfying it the Bernstein-Sato polynomial of f , and
denote it bf (s).
2.2. Methods in positive characteristic. We briefly recall several methods used in the
study of rings of positive characteristic. Our summary is based on [Fed87] for F -purity
and F -injectivity, [PS73] for the Frobenius functor, [Bli03] for R[F e ]-modules, [Yek92] for
D-modules in positive characteristic, and [HH90, HH94, Smi94] for tight closure. We refer
the reader to these articles for details.
Throughout this section, R is a ring of characteristic p > 0 and F : R → R denotes the
Frobenius morphism, r 7→ r p . If R is reduced, we define R1/q as the ring of formal q th -roots
of S. A ring R is F -finite if R1/p is a finitely generated R-module.
We say that R is F -pure if for every R-module M, the morphism induced by the inclusion
of R ֒→ R1/p , M ⊗R R → M ⊗R R1/p , is injective. If M is an R-module, then F acts naturally
on it. If (R, m, K) is local, we say that a ring is F -injective if the induced Frobenius map
i
i
F : Hm
(R) → Hm
(R) is injective for every i ∈ N. F -purity implies F -injectivity, and in a
Gorenstein ring, these properties are equivalent [Fed87, Lemma 3.3].
An R[F e ]-module is an R-module M with an R-linear map ν e : F e∗ M → M. If ν e is an
isomorphism, then (M, ν e ) is called a unit R[F e ]-module. By adjointness there is a one-toe
e
one correspondence between maps νM
∈ Hom(F e∗ M, M) and maps FM
∈ Hom(M, F e∗ M),
e
e
where FM
(u) = νM
(1 ⊗ u). An element u ∈ M of an R[F e ]-module (M, ν e ) is called F eℓ
nilpotent if F (u) = 0 for some ℓ ∈ N; M is called S
F -nilpotent if F eℓ (M) = 0.
If R is a reduced F -finite ring, then D(R, Z) = e∈N HomRpe (R, R). Moreover, if K is a
perfect field and R = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]], then D(R, Z) = D(R, K).
If I is an ideal of R, the tight closure I ∗ of I is the ideal of R consisting of all those
elements z ∈ R for which there exists some c ∈ R, c not in any minimal prime of R, such
that cz q ∈ I [q] for all q = pe ≫ 0, where I [q] denotes the ideal of R generated by q th powers
of elements in I.
We say that R is weakly F -regular if I = I ∗ for every ideal I of R. If every localization of
R is weakly F -regular, then R is F -regular. In general, tight closure does not commute with
localization, and it is unknown whether the localization of a weakly F -regular ring must
again be weakly F -regular; this explains the use of the adjective “weakly.” If R is a local
ring, we say that the ring is F -rational if for every parameter ideal I, I = I ∗ .
A ring R is strongly F -regular if for all c ∈ R not in any minimal prime, there exists some
q = pe such that the R-module map R → R1/q sending 1 7→ c1/q splits. Strong F -regularity
is preserved under localization. In a Gorenstein ring, F -rationality, strong F -regularity, and
weak F -regularity are equivalent.
Given a Noetherian ring R of prime characteristic p > 0, if N ⊆ M is an inclusion of
∗
R-modules, then the tight closure NM
of N in M consists of all elements u ∈ M, such

6

LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT AND EMILY E. WITT
[pe ]

that for some c not in any minimal prime of R, cuq ∈ NM := Im (F e (N) → F e (M)) ⊆
F e (M) for all pe ≫ 0.
3. A Key Functor
In this section, we study a functor utilized by Lyubeznik to prove that his original invariants are well defined (cf. [Lyu93, Lemma 4.3]). In order to prove that the generalized
Lyubeznik numbers are well defined, significant development of the theory of this functor is
necessary. The fact that this functor gives, in fact, an equivalence with a certain category
of D-modules is essential to the results here, as we will see in Theorem 3.4.
Definition 3.1 (Key functor G). Let R be a Noetherian ring, and let S = R[[x]]. Let
G : R -mod → S -mod be the functor given by G(−) = (−) ⊗R Sx /S.
We note that the functor G is reminiscent of the “direct image” functor utilized by Àlvarez
Montaner, by differs due to the base ring in the tensor product [ÀM04].
Remark 3.2. For every element in u ∈ G(M) there exist ℓ, α1 , . . . , αℓ ∈ N, m1 , . . . , mℓ ∈ M,
uniquely determined, such that u = mℓ ⊗ x−αℓ + . . . + m1 ⊗ x−α1 and mℓ 6= 0 because
!
M
M

M ⊗ Rx−α .
(3.2.1)
G(M) = M ⊗R Sx /S = M ⊗R
Rx−α =
α∈N

α∈N

Moreover, G is an exact functor and commutes with local cohomology.

Remark 3.3. In fact, G is a functor from the category R-modules to the category of D(S, R)∂t
modules: Let M be a D(S, R)-module. Since D(S, R) = Sh t!1 ∂x
t | t ∈ Ni ⊆ HomK (S, S), it
1 ∂t
−α
is enough to give an action of each t! ∂xt on G(M). If m ⊗ x ∈ G(M), we define





1 ∂t
α+t−1
t
−α−t
−α
·
(−1)
m
⊗
x
.
·
(m
⊗
x
)
=
t
t! ∂xt
In particular, taking α =1 and t = β, we see that, for every β ∈ N,
(3.3.1)

m ⊗ x−β =

(−1)β−1 ∂ β−1
(m ⊗ x−1 ).
(β − 1)! ∂xβ−1

Similarly, for every morphism of R-modules ϕ, G(ϕ) = ϕ ⊗R Sx /S is a morphism of
D(S, R)-modules.
Moreover, G is an equivalence of certain categories:
Theorem 3.4. Let R be a Noetherian ring, and let S = R[[x]]. Let C denote the category
of R-modules and D denote the category of D(S, R)-modules that are supported on V(xS),
the Zariski closed subset of Spec(S) given by xS. Then G : C → D as in Definition 3.1 is
e : D → C given by G(M)
e
an equivalence of categories with inverse functor G
= AnnM (xS).

e
Proof. It is clear that for every R-module M, G(G(M))
is naturally isomorphic to M. It
e
suffices to prove that for every D(S, R)-module N with support on V(xS), G(G(N))
is
e
naturally isomorphic to N. Let M = G(N)
= AnnN (xS), and let φ : G(M) → N be the
α−1
∂ α−1
m. We will
morphism of R-modules defined on simple tensors by m ⊗ x−α 7→ (−1)
(α−1)! ∂xα−1
prove, in steps, that φ is an isomorphism of D(S, R)-modules.

GENERALIZED LYUBEZNIK NUMBERS

7
t

∂
First, we will show that φ is a morphism of D(S, R)-modules. Since D(S, R) = Sh t!1 ∂x
t | t ∈
1 ∂t
Ni, it is enough to show that φ commutes with multiplication by x and by any t! ∂xt .
∂t
We first prove commutativity with t!1 ∂x
t . For any t ∈ N,






1 ∂t
α+t−1
t
−α−t
−α
(−1) m ⊗ x
φ
(m ⊗ x ) = φ
t
t! ∂xt


(−1)α−1 ∂ α+t−1
α+t−1
m
=
(α + t − 1)! ∂xα+t−1
t
1 (−1)α−1 ∂ α+t−1
=
m
t! (α − 1)! ∂xα+t−1


1 ∂ t (−1)α−1 ∂ α−1
=
m
t! ∂xt (α − 1)! ∂xα−1
1 ∂t
φ(m ⊗ x−α ),
=
t! ∂xt
which is sufficient.
We now prove that the morphism commutes with x. Note that

x

1 ∂t
1
∂ t−1
1 ∂t
−
x
=
−
t! ∂xt t! ∂xt
(t − 1)! ∂xt−1

as differential operators for every t ∈ N. We conclude that


(−1)α−2 ∂ α−2 −1
−α
−α+1
φ(x(m ⊗ x )) = φ(m ⊗ x
)=φ m⊗
x
(α − 2)! ∂xα−2
(−1)α−2 ∂ α−2
(3.4.1)
φ(m ⊗ x−1 )
=
(α − 2)! ∂xα−2
(−1)α−1 ∂ α−1
(−1)α−1 ∂ α−1
−1
=x
φ(m ⊗ x ) −
xφ(m ⊗ x−1 )
α−1
α−1
(α − 1)! ∂x
(α − 1)! ∂x
α−1
α−1
∂
(−1)
φ(m ⊗ x−1 )
=x
(α − 1)! ∂xα−1
(−1)α−1 ∂ α−1 −1
= xφ(m ⊗
(3.4.2)
x )
(α − 1)! ∂xα−1
= xφ(m ⊗ x−α ),
t

∂
where (3.4.1) and (3.4.2) are due to the commutativity of t!1 ∂x
t.
It remains to prove that φ is bijective; we proceed by contradiction. Suppose that there
exists u = mℓ ⊗ x−αℓ + . . . + m1 ⊗ x−α1 ∈ Ker(φ) such that mℓ 6= 0. Then φ(mℓ ⊗ x−1 ) =
φ(xℓ−1 u) = xℓ−1 φ(u) = 0. Thus, mℓ = 0 because φ|M ⊗Rx−1 is bijective, and we get a
contradiction.
We now see that φ(AnnG(M ) (xj S)) = AnnN (xj S) for every j ≥ 1 by induction, which
will imply that φ is surjective (since N is supported on V(xS)). Since φ(AnnG(M ) (xj S)) ⊆
AnnN (xj S) for all j, we seekthe opposite inclusion. For j = 1, take n ∈ M = AnnN (xS);
then n ⊗ x−1 ∈ G(M), so φ(n ⊗ x−1 ) = n. Now take any j ≥ 1 and assume the statement
holds for j − 1. For any u ∈ AnnN (xj S), xu ∈ AnnN (xj−1 S), so xu = φ(v) for some
v = mj−1 ⊗ x−j+1 + . . . + m1 ⊗ x−1 ∈ G(M) by the inductive hypothesis. Let w = mj−1 x−j +

8

LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT AND EMILY E. WITT

. . . + m1 ⊗ x−2 . Thus, xφ(w) = φ(xw) = φ(v) = xu. This means that x(φ(w) − u) = 0, and
so φ(w) − u ∈ AnnN (xS) = φ(AnnG(M ) (xS)) and φ(m′ ⊗ x−1 ) = φ(w) − u for some m′ ∈ M
by the base case. Therefore, u = φ(w − m ⊗ x−1 ) ∈ φ(AnnG(M ) (xj S)).

Proposition 3.5. Let R be a Noetherian ring, and let S = R[[x]]. Then M is a finitely
generated R-module if and only if G(M) is a finitely generated D(S, R)-module.
Proof. Given m1 , . . . , ms ∈ M, generators for M as R-module, m1 ⊗ x−1 , . . . , ms ⊗ x−1
β−1
∂ β−1
generate G(M) as a D(S, R)-module: by (3.3), for β ∈ N, mi ⊗x−β = (−1)
(mi ⊗x−1 ),
(β−1)! ∂xβ−1
and the set {mi ⊗ x−β | 1 ≤ i ≤ s, β ∈ N} generates G(M) as an R-module.
If u1 , . . . , us ∈ G(M) is a set generators for G(M) as a D(S, R)-module, then each ui
can be written as ui = mi,1 ⊗ x−1 + mi,2 ⊗ x−2 + . . . + mi,ℓi ⊗ x−ℓi for some ℓi ∈ N and
mi,j ∈ M. Then {mi,j ⊗ x−j | 1 ≤ i ≤ s, 1 ≤ j ≤ ℓi } is also a set of generators for G(M) as
j−1
∂ j−1
a D(S, R)-module. Since mi,j ⊗ x−j = (−1)
(mi,j ⊗ x−1 ), the decomposition in (3.2.1)
(j−1)! ∂xj−1
implies that the mi,j must generate M.

Corollary 3.6. Let R be a Noetherian ring, M an R-module, and S = R[[x]]. Then
lengthR (M) = lengthD(S,R) G(M).
Proof. If M is a simple nonzero R-module, then G(M) is a simple D(S, R)-module since
the D(S, R)-submodules of G(M) correspond precisely to R-submodules of M by Theorem 3.4. Now say that lengthR (M) = h < ∞, so that we have a filtration of R-modules
0 = M0 ( M1 ( . . . ( Mh = M such that each Mj+1 /Mj is a simple R-module. Then
0 = G(M0 ) ⊆ G(M1 ) ⊆ . . . ⊆ G(Mh ) = G(M) is a filtration of D(S, R)-modules such
that G(Mj+1 )/G(Mj ) ∼
= G(Mj+1 /Mj ) is a simple D(S, R)-module for every j by our initial argument. Therefore, lengthD(S,R) (G(M)) = h. Similarly, if lengthR (M) = ∞, then
lengthD(S,R) (G(M)) = ∞.

Remark 3.7. In the following work, we often make use of the following observation: for R
a ring and S = R[[x]], if P is a prime ideal of R, then (P, x)S is a prime ideal of S since
S/(P, x)S = R/P is a domain.
Proposition 3.8. Let R be a Noetherian ring, M an R-module, and S = R[[x]]. Then
AssS G(M) = {(P, x)S | P ∈ AssR M}.
0
Proof. Let Q ∈ AssS G(M), so that Q = AnnS u for some u ∈ G(M). As HxS
(G(M)) =
∼
G(M), x ∈ Q. Thus, u ∈ AnnG(M ) xS = M (the isomorphism is due to Theorem 3.4).
Moreover, we have the natural epimorphism R ։ S/Q with kernel P = AnnR u ∈ AssR M.
Thus, Q = (P, x)S.
Take Q = (P, x)S, where P = AnnR u ∈ AssR M, u ∈ M. Then Q = AnnS (u ⊗ x−1 ).
Hence, Q ∈ AssS G(M).


Lemma 3.9. Let R be a Noetherian ring,
M an R-module, and S = R[[x]]. Then for every

j+1
ideal I ⊆ R and all j ∈ N, G HIj (M) = H(I,x)S
(M ⊗R S).
Proof. Since S and Sx are flat R-algebras and Sx /S is a free R-module, we know that
j
j
HIj (M) ⊗R S = HIS
(M ⊗R S), HIj (M) ⊗R Sx = HIS
(M ⊗R Sx ) and HIj (M) ⊗R Sx /S =
j
HIS
(M ⊗R Sx /S). Moreover, the sequence
(3.9.1)

j
j
j
0 → HIS
(M ⊗R S) → HIS
(M ⊗R Sx ) → HIS
(M ⊗R Sx /S) → 0

GENERALIZED LYUBEZNIK NUMBERS

9

j
j
is exact, so G(HIj (M)) = HIS
(M ⊗R Sx )/HIS
(M ⊗R S).
On the other hand, we have a long exact sequence
j
j
j
· · · → H(I,x)S
(M ⊗R S) → HIS
(M ⊗R S) → HIS
(M ⊗R Sx ) → · · · .
j
j
Since HIS
(M ⊗R S) → HIS
(M ⊗R Sx ) is injective by (3.9.1), the long sequence splits into
short exact sequences
j
j
j+1
0 → HIS
(M ⊗R S) → HIS
(M ⊗R Sx ) → H(I,x)S
(M ⊗R S) → 0.

j+1
Hence, G HIj (M) = H(I,x)S
(M ⊗R S).



Proposition 3.10. Let (R, m, K) be a Noetherian local ring, M an R-module, and S =
R[[x]]. Fix I1 , . . . , Is ideals of R and j1 , . . . js ∈ N. Then


j
j +1
j
G HIjss · · · HIj22 HIj11 (M )) ∼
= H(Iss ,x)S · · · H(I22 ,x)S H(I11 ,x)S (M ⊗R S).

Proof. We proceed by induction on s. If s = 1, the statement follows from Lemma 3.9.
Suppose it holds for some s ≥ 1. Let Nℓ = HIjℓℓ . . . HIj22 HIj11 (M) for 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ s + 1, so we need
j
to prove that G(Ns+1 ) ∼
(G(Ns )). Now,
= H(Is+1
s+1 ,x)S
js+1
js+1
js+1
G(Ns+1 ) = HIs+1
(Ns ) ⊗R Sx /S ∼
= HIs+1
S (Ns ⊗R Sx /S) = HIs+1 S (G(Ns )).

Consider the long exact sequence of functors
(3.10.1)

j

j

j

s+1
s+1
s+1
. . . → HIs+1
S (−) → H(Is+1 ,x)S (−) → HIs+1 S (− ⊗S Sx ) → . . . .

Since G(Ns ) is supported on V(xS), HIis+1 S (G(Ns )⊗S Sx ) = 0 for all i ∈ N, and G(Ns )⊗S Sx =
js+1
∼ js+1
∼ js+1
0. Moreover, HIs+1

S (G(Ns )) = H(Is+1 ,x)S (G(Ns )). Hence, G(Ns+1 ) = H(Is+1 ,x)S (G(Ns )).
As G is an equivalence of categories, G(HomR (M, N)) = HomD(S,R) (G(N), G(M)). Thus,
M is an injective R-module if and only if G(M) is an injective object in D, the category of
D(S, R)-modules supported at V(xS). We now characterize precisely when G(M) is injective
as an S-module:
Proposition 3.11. Let S = R[[x]], where R is a Gorenstein ring. Given a prime ideal
P of R, let ER (R/P ) denote the injective hull of R/P over R. Then G(ER (R/P )) =
ES (S/(P, x)S). Moreover, M is an injective R-module if and only if G(M) is an injective S-module.
Proof. Let d = dim(RP ). Since R is a Gorenstein ring, Sx /S a flat R-module, and G(HPd (R)) ∼
=
d+1
H(P,x)S (S) by Lemma 3.9, we have that
G(ER (R/P )) ∼
= G(HPd RP (RP )) ∼
= G(HPd (R) ⊗R RP )
d+1
∼
(SP ).
= G(HPd (R)) ⊗R RP ∼
= H(P,x)S
As SP /(P, x)SP ∼
= RP /P RP , (P, x)SP is a maximal ideal of the Gorenstein ring SP , so
d+1
H(P,x)S
(SP ) = ESP (SP /(P, x)SP ) = ES (S/(P, x)S) .

Therefore, G (ER (R/P )) = ES (S/(P, x)S). Moreover, G sends injective R-modules to injective S-modules because every injective R-module is a direct sum of injective hulls of prime
ideals.

10

LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT AND EMILY E. WITT

It remains to prove that if G(M) is an injective S-module, then M is an injective Rmodule. This follows because M = AnnG(M ) (xS) by Theorem 3.4: any injection of Rmodules ι : N ֒→ N ′ is also an injection of S-modules, where x acts by zero. Then any Smodule map f : N → G(M) is an R-module map and must have image in AnnG(M ) (xS) = M,
so the induced map g : N → M is a map of R-modules such that f = g ◦ ι.

Proposition 3.12. Let R be a Gorenstein ring, and let S = R[[x]]. Since R = S/xS, every
R module has an structure of S-module via extension of scalars. For R-modules M, N and
i, j ∈ N,
ExtiS (M, G(N)) = ExtiR (M, N).
Proof. Let E ∗ = E 0 → E 1 → . . . → E i → . . . be an injective R-resolution of N. Then G(E ∗ )
is an injective S-resolution for G(N) by Proposition 3.11. We notice that HomS (M, −) =
HomS (M, HomS (R, −)) as functors. Then
HomS (M, G(E ∗ )) = HomS (M, HomS (R, G(E ∗ )) = HomS (M, E ∗ ) = HomR (M, E ∗ ),
and the result follows.


4. Definitions and First Properties

Theorem 4.1. Let K be a field, let R = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]], and let S = R[[xn+1 ]]. Let C denote
the category of D(R, K)-modules, and let D denote the category of D(S, K)-modules that are
supported on V(xS). Then
(i) G : C → D given by G(M) = M ⊗R Sxn+1 /S is an equivalence of categories with
e : D → C, where G(N)
e
inverse G
= AnnN (xS),
(ii) M is a finitely generated D(R, K)-module if and only if G(M) is a finitely generated
D(S, K)-module, and
(iii) lengthD(R,K) M = lengthD(S,K) G(M).
Proof. The proofs of the statements are analogous to the those of Theorem 3.4, Proposition
3.5, and Corollary 3.6, respectively.

b
Theorem 4.2. Let (R, m, K) be a local ring containing a field, so that the completion R
b where S = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]] for some n ∈ N. Fix
admits a surjective ring map π : S ։ R,
ideals I1 , . . . , Is of R and j1 , . . . , js ∈ N. Let J1 , . . . , Js be the corresponding preimages of
b . . . , Is R
b in S. Then
I1 R,
1
lengthD(S,K) HJjss · · · HJj22 HJn−j
(S)
1
is finite and depends only on R, I1 , . . . , Is and j1 , . . . , js , but neither on S nor on π.

Proof. We may assume without loss of generality that R is complete. We know that
1
lengthD(S,K) HJjss . . . HJj22 HJn−j
(S) is finite by [Lyu00a, Corollary 6]. Let π ′ : S ′ → R be
1
′
another surjection, where S = K[[y1 , . . . , yn′ ]].Let J1′ , . . . , Js′ be the corresponding preimages of I1 , . . . , Is in S ′ .
Let S ′′ = K[[z1 , . . . , zn+n′ ]]. Let π ′′ : S ′′ → R be the surjection defined by π ′′ (zj ) =
π(xj ) for 0 ≤ j ≤ n and π ′′ (zj ) = π ′ (yj−n ) for n + 1 ≤ j ≤ n + n′ . Let J1′′ , . . . , Js′′ be
the corresponding preimages of I1 , . . . , Is in S ′′ under π ′′ . Let α : S → S ′′ be the map
defined by α(xj ) = zj . We note that π ′′ α = π. There exists f1 , . . . , fn′ ∈ S such that
π ′′ (zn+j ) = π(fj ) for j ≤ n′ . Then zn+j − α(fj ) ∈ Ker(π ′′ ). We note that β : S ′′ → S

GENERALIZED LYUBEZNIK NUMBERS

11

defined by sending zj → xj for j ≤ n and zn+j → fj for j ≤ n′ is an splitting of α. Then
Ji′′ = (α(Ji ), zn+1 − α(f1 ), . . . , zn′ +n − α(fn′ ))S ′′ . Since
z1 , . . . , zn , zn+1 − α(f1 ), . . . , zn′ +n − α(fn′ )
form a regular system of parameters, we obtain that
(4.2.1)

′

1
lengthD(S ′′ ,K) HJjss′′ . . . HJj2′′ HJn′′+n−j1 (S ′′ ) = lengthD(S,K) HJjss . . . HJj22 HJn−j
(S)
1
2

1

′

by Proposition 3.10 and Theorem 4.1. Similarly, lengthD(S,K) HJjss′ . . . HJj2′ HJn′ −j1 (S ′ ) also
1
2
equals (4.2.1), and the result follows.

Definition 4.3 (Generalized Lyubeznik numbers). Let (R, m, K) be a local ring containing
a field. Fix I1 , . . . , Is ideals of R and i1 , . . . , is ∈ N. Let π, S, n, and J1 , . . . , Js as in Theorem
4.2. The following invariant, which is well defined by Theorem 4.2, is called the generalized
Lyubeznik number of R with respect to I1 , . . . , Is and i1 , . . . , is :
i2
n−i1
is
1
λIiss,...,i
,...,I1 (R) := lengthD(S,K) HJs · · · HJ2 HJ1 (S).

Remark 4.4. In Definition 4.3, we may assume that I1 ⊆ . . . ⊆ Iℓ , because if an R-module
i
M is such that HI0 (M) = M for some ideal I of R, then HJi (M) = HI+J
(M) for every ideal
is ,...,i1
is ,...,i1
J of S. In addition, λIs,...,I1 (R) = λIs ,...,I2 ,0 (R/I1 ).
Proposition 4.5. If (R, m, K) be a local ring containing a field, then λi,j (R) = λi,j
m,0 (R).
Proof. Since completion is flat and the Bass numbers are not affected by completion, we may
assume that R is complete. Take S = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]] such that there exist a surjective ring
map π : S ։ R. Set I = Ker(π), the preimage of the zero ideal in R. We notice that the
maximal ideal, η, of S is the preimage of the maximal ideal, m, of R. By [Lyu93, Lemma
1.4],
λi,j (R) = dimK ExtiS (K, HIn−j (S)) = dimK HomS (K, Hηi HIn−j (S)).
Since Hηi HIn−j (S) is a finite direct sum of copies of ES (K) by [Lyu93, Corollary 3.6], and
ES (K) is a simple D(S, K)-module (cf. [Lyu00b]), we obtain that
dimK HomS (K, Hηi HIn−j (S)) = lengthD(S,K) Hηi HIn−j (S) = λi,j
m,0 (R),
and we are done.



Remark 4.6. In characteristic zero, Àlvarez Montaner introduced a family of invariants
using the multiplicities of the characteristic cycle of local cohomology modules [ÀM04]. Like
ours, this family includes the original Lyubeznik numbers; however, this definition does not
include rings of prime characteristic.
Proposition 4.7. Given I1 ⊆ . . . ⊆ Is ideals of a local ring (R, m, K) containing a field, we
have that
1
(i) λIiss,...,i
,...,I1 (R) = 0 for i1 > dim(R/I1 ),
1
(ii) λIiss,...,i
,...,I1 (R) = 0 for ij > dim(R/Ij−1 ), 2 ≤ j ≤ ℓ,
(iii) λiI22,i,I11 (R) = 0 for i2 > i1 ,
(iv) λiI11 (R) 6= 0 for i1 = dim(R/I1 ), and
(v) λiI22,i,I11 (R) 6= 0 if i2 = dim(R/I1 ) − dim(R/I2 ) and i1 = dim(R/I1 ).

12

LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT AND EMILY E. WITT

Proof. We may assume that R is complete, so that it admits a surjective ring map π : S ։ R,
where S = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]] for some n. Let J1 , . . . , Js be the corresponding preimages of
I1 , . . . , Is in S.
As S is Cohen-Macaulay, depthJ1 (S) = codim(S/J1 ) = n − dim(S/J1 ) = n − dim(R/I1 ),
depth (S)
so that (i) and (iv) hold since HJi11 (S) = 0 if i < depthJ1 (S) and HJ1 I (S) 6= 0.
To see (ii), note that
i

i

1
1
inj. dim HJj−1
. . . HJi22 HJn−i
(S) ≤ dim(Supp HJj−1
. . . HJi22 HJn−i
(S))
1
1
j−1
j−1

≤ dim(S/Jj−1 ) = dim(R/Ij−1)
1
1
by [Lyu00a]. Similarly, (iii) follows because inj. dim HJn−i
(S) ≤ dim(Supp HJn−i
(S)) ≤ i1 .
1
1
To prove (v), choose a minimal prime P of J2 . Now, Rad(J1 SP ) = P SP in SP . Then
dim(S )−q
HPp SP HJ1SP P (SP ) 6= 0 when p = q = dim(SP /J1 SP ) by [Lyu93, Property 4.4(iii)]. Noting
that

dim(SP ) = dim(S) − dim(S/P ) = dim(S) − dim(S/J1 ) = n − dim(R/I1 ), and
dim(SP /J1 SP ) = dim(S/J1 ) − dim(S/J2 ) = dim(R/I1 ) − dim(R/I2 ),
we see that HJi22 HJi11 (S) ⊗S SP 6= 0 if i2 = dim(R/I1 ) − dim(R/I2 ) and i1 = dim(R/I1 ).



Lemma 4.8. Given an extension of fields K ⊆ L, let R = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]] and S =
L[[x1 , . . . , xn ]]. Let R → S denote the map induced by the field extension. If M is a simple
D(R, K)-module, then M ⊗R S is a simple D(S, L)-module.
Proof. We have that S = R⊗K L because the field extension is finite. Then M ⊗R S = M ⊗K L
and the action of ∂ ∈ D(S, L) is given by ∂(v ⊗ a) = ∂(v) ⊗ a. Let e1 , . . . , eh be a basis for
L as K-vector space. If v ∈ M ⊗K L is not zero, then v = w1 ⊗ e1 + . . . + wh ⊗ eh for some
wi ∈ M, where at least one wj is not zero. We assume that w1 6= 0, an there exist operators
δj ∈ D(R, K) such that wj = δj w1 because M is simple. Let δ = δ1 + . . . δh and u = e1 . . . eh .
Then v = δ(w1 ⊗ a) = aδ(w1 ⊗ 1). Since v 6= 0, δ(w1 ) 6= 0 and there exist ∂ ∈ D(S, L)
such that ∂δw1 = w1 . Then u−1 ∂v = w1 ⊗ 1. Therefore for every v ∈ M ⊗K L not zero,
v ∈ D(S, L) · w1 ⊗ 1 and w1 ⊗ 1 ∈ D(S, L) · v. Hence, M ⊗K L is a simple D(S, L)-module. 
Proposition 4.9. Let K ֒→ L be a finite field extension, R = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]], and S =
L[[x1 , . . . , xn ]]. Then for all ideal I1 , . . . , Is of R and all i1 , . . . , is ∈ N,
is ,...,i1
1
λIiss,...,i
,...,I1 (R) = λIs S,...,I1 S (S).

Proof. We have that S = R ⊗K L because the field extension is finite. Let
1
(S)
0 = M1 ( . . . ( Mℓ = HIiss · · · HIi22 HIn−i
1

be a filtration of D(R, K)-modules such that Mi+1 /Mi is a simple D(R, K)-module. Since
S is a faithfully flat R-algebra, Mi+1 /Mi ⊗K L = Mi+1 ⊗K L/Mi ⊗K L is a simple D(S, L)is ,...,i1
1
module. Thus, λiIss,...,i
,...,I1 (R) = ℓ = λIs S,...,I1 S (S).

Proposition 4.10. Let I1 , . . . , Iℓ be ideals of S = K[[x1 , . .. , xn ]], where K is a field of
iℓ
i2 n−i1
1
(S) .
characteristic zero. Then λIiℓℓ,...,i
,...,I1 (S) ≤ e HIℓ · · · HI2 HI1

1
(S) is a holonomic D(S, K)-module, the claim follows from
Proof. Since HIiℓℓ · · · HIi22 HIn−i
1
Remark 2.3.


GENERALIZED LYUBEZNIK NUMBERS

13

For R a one-dimensional or complete intersection ring, λi,j (R) = 1 if i = j = dim R,
and vanishes otherwise. However, Propositions 4.11 and 4.12 will show that the generalized
Lyubeznik numbers capture finer information that can distinguish these cases.
Proposition 4.11. Let (R, m, K) be a complete local ring containing a field such that
dim(R) = 1. Let P1 , . . . Pℓ be all the minimal primes of R. Then
λ10 (R) = λ10 (R/P1 ) + . . . + λ10 (R/Pℓ ) + ℓ − 1.
Proof. We proceed by induction on ℓ. Suppose ℓ = 1, and take a surjection π : S =
K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]] ։ R ∼
= S/I where I = Ker(π). If P is the minimal prime of R, then
−1
π (P ) = Rad(I) is the only minimal prime of I. Then
1
λ10 (R) = lengthD(S,K) HIn−1(S) = lengthD(S,K) Hπn−1
−1 (P ) (S) = λ0 (R/P ).

Now suppose that the formula holds for ℓ − 1. There exists a surjection π : S ։ R ∼
= S/I,
where S = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]]. Let η denote the maximal ideal of S. Let Qi = π −1 (Pi ), so that
Rad(I) = Q1 ∩ . . . ∩ Qℓ . Let J denote Q1 ∩ · · · ∩ Qℓ−1 .
Since Rad(J + Qℓ ) = η, the Mayer-Vietoris sequence in local cohomology with respect to
J and Qℓ gives the following exact sequence:
0 → HJn−1 (S) ⊕ HQn−1
(S) → HIn−1 (S) → Hηn (S) → 0.
ℓ
n
where HI+J
(S) ∼
= ES (K), a simple D(S, K)-module (cf. [Lyu00b]). Then λ10 (R) equals

lengthD(S,K) HIn−1 (S) = lengthD(S,K) HJn−1(S) + lengthD(S,K) HQn−1
(S) + 1
ℓ
= λ10 (S/J) + λ10 (S/Qℓ ) + 1, and inductively,

= λ10 (S/Q1 ) + . . . + λ10 (S/Qℓ ) + ℓ − 2 + λ10 (S/Qℓ ) + 1
= λ1 (R/P1 ) + . . . + λ1 (R/Pℓ ) + ℓ − 1, as R/Pi ∼
= S/Qi .
0

0


Proposition 4.12. Let S = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]], where K is a field. Let f1 , . . . , fℓ ∈ S be
irreducible, and f = f1α1 · · · fℓαℓ , where each αi ∈ N. Then
λ0n−1 (S/f ) ≥ λ0n−1 (S/f1 ) + . . . + λ0n−1 (S/fℓ ) + ℓ − 1.
i
Proof. Since HIi (S) = H√
(S) for every ideal I ⊆ S, we may assume that α1 = . . . = αℓ = 1.
I
Our proof will be by induction on ℓ. If ℓ = 1, it is clear. We suppose that the formula holds
for ℓ − 1 and we will prove it for ℓ. Let g = f1 · · · fℓ−1 . Since fℓαℓ , g form a regular sequence,
we obtain the exact sequence
1
2
0 → HgS
(S) ⊕ Hf1ℓ S (S) → Hf1S (S) → H(g,f
(S) → 0
ℓ )S
2
by the Mayer-Vietoris sequence. Since H(g,f
(S) 6= 0, we have that
ℓ )S
2
lengthD(S,K) H(g,fℓ )S (S) ≥ 1. Moreover,

λ0n−1 (S/f S) = lengthD(S,K) Hf1S (S)
1
≥ lengthD(S,K) HgS
(S) + lengthD(S,K) Hf1ℓ S (S) + 1

= λ0n−1 (S/gS) + λ0n−1 (S/fℓ ) + 1, and inductively,
≥ λ0n−1 (S/f1 ) + . . . + λ0n−1 (S/fℓ−1 S) + ℓ − 2 + λ0n−1 (S/fℓ S) + 1
= λ0n−1 (S/f1 S) + . . . + λ0n−1 (S/fℓ S) + ℓ − 1.

14

LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT AND EMILY E. WITT


Definition 4.13 (Lyubeznik characteristic). Let (R, m, K) be a local ring containing a field
such that dim(R) = d. We define the Lyubeznik characteristic of R by
χλ (R) =

d
X

(−1)i λi0 (R).

i=0

Proposition 4.14. Let I and J be ideals of a local ring (R, m, K) containing a field. Then
χλ (R/I) + χλ (R/J) = χλ (R/(I + J)) + χλ (R/I ∩ J).
Proof. This an immediate consequence of the Mayer-Vietoris associated sequence for local
cohomology with respect to I and J.

Proposition 4.15. If I = (f1 , . . . , fℓ ) an ideal of S = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]], where K is a field,
then
ℓ
X
X

n
(−1)j λ0n−1 S/(fi1 · . . . · fij ) .
χλ (S/I) = (−1)
j=0 1≤i1 <...<ij ≤ℓ

In particular, if f1 , . . . , fℓ form a regular sequence or if char(k) = p > 0 and S/I is a CohenMacaulay ring of dimension d, then λ0n−ℓ (S/(f1 , . . . , fℓ )S), or λd0 (S/I), respectively, equals
ℓ

P
P
(−1)n−d+j λ0n−1 S/(fi1 · . . . · fij ) .
j=0 1≤i1 <...<ij ≤ℓ

Proof. For brevity, let D = D(S, K). By the additivity of lengthD (−) on short exact seℓ
P
quences and the Čech-like complex definition of local cohomology,
(−1)j lengthD HIj (S) =
j=0

ℓ
P

(−1)j

P

lengthD
j=0
1≤i1 <...<ij ≤ℓ
1
(S) → 0 indicates
H(f
i1 ·...·fij )

Sfi1 ·...·fij . Moreover, the short exact sequence 0 → S → Sg →

1
+ 1. The first statethat lengthD Sfi1 ·...·fij = lengthD H(f
i1 ·...·fij )
ment then follows from a straightforward calculation from the definition of Lyubeznik characteristic using these two observations.
The statement for a regular sequence is an immediate consequence, and the final statement follows since the only nonvanishing local cohomology module is HIn−d(S) by [PS73,
Proposition 4.1], since S/I is Cohen-Macaulay.


5. Relations with F -rationality and F -regularity
We recall Blickle’s results [Bli04, Theorem 4.9, Corollaries 4.10 and 4.16].
Theorem 5.1 (Blickle). Let (S, m, K) be a regular local F -finite ring of characteristic p > 0.
Let I be an ideal such that R = S/I is a domain of dimension d and codimension c. Then
HIc (S) is a simple D(S, Z)-module if and only if 0∗H d (R) is F -nilpotent. As consequences,
m

(1) If R is F -rational, then HIc (S) is a simple D(S, Z)-module. If R is F -injective, then
R is F -rational if and only if HIc (S) is a simple D(S, Z)-module.
(2) If d = 1, then HIc (S) is a simple D(S, Z)-module if and only if R is unibranch.
These results indicate that the generalized Lyubeznik numbers detect F -regularity and
F -rationality, as we see in the following proposition.

GENERALIZED LYUBEZNIK NUMBERS

15

Proposition 5.2. Let (R, m, K) be a complete local domain of characteristic p > 0 and of
dimension d, such that K is F -finite. The following hold.
(i) If λd0 (R) = 1, then 0∗H d (R) is F -nilpotent.
m
(ii) If R is F -injective and λd0 (R) = 1, then R is F -rational.
In addition, if K is perfect, then:
(iii) λd0 (R) = 1 if and only if 0∗H d (R) is F -nilpotent.
m
(iv) If R is F -rational, then λd0 (R) = 1.
(v) If R is F -injective, then λd0 (R) = 1 if and only if R is F -rational.
Moreover, if R is one-dimensional, we have that:
(vi) If λd0 (R) = 1, then R is unibranch.
(vii) If K is perfect, then λd0 (R) = 1 if and only if R is unibranch.
Proof. Take any surjective ring map π : S ։ R, where S = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]], and let I =
Ker(π). Since D(S, Z) ⊆ D(S, K), lengthD(S,K) HIn−d(S) = λd0 (R) = 1 implies that HIn−d(S)
is a simple D(S, Z)-module. Then (i) and (ii) are consequences of the main statement and
part (1) of Theorem 5.1, respectively.
If K is perfect, D(S, Z) = D(S, K) by [Yek92], so 1 = λd0 (R) = lengthD(S,K) HIn−d (S) precisely when HIn−d (S) is a simple D(S, Z)-module. Then (iii), (iv), and (v) are consequences
of the main statement and part (1) of Theorem 5.1. Similarly, (vi) and (vii) follow from

Theorem 5.1 (3).
Corollary 5.3. Let (R, m, K) be a complete local Gorenstein domain of characteristic p > 0,
of dimension d, and such that K is F -finite. The following hold:
(i) If R is F -pure and λd0 (R) = 1, then R is F -regular.
(ii) If R is F -pure and K is perfect, then R is F -regular if and only if λd0 (R) = 1.
Proof. For a Gorenstein ring, F -rationality and F -regularity are equivalent [HH94]; additionally, F -injectivity and F -purity are equivalent [Fed87, Lemma 3.3]. The result follows. 
Remark 5.4. Let R = K[X] be the polynomial ring over a perfect field K of characteristic
p > 0 in the entries of an r × r matrix X of indeterminates. Let m denote its homogeneous
maximal ideal, and let ∆ denote the principal ideal of R generated by the determinant of X.
Then R/∆ is F -rational [GS95, Theorem 9], so by Proposition 5.2 (iv), λd0 (Rm /∆Rm ) = 1.
Remark 5.5. In general, the Lyubeznik number λd0 (R) is bounded by below by the number
of minimal primes of R that have dimension d. Let (R, m, K) be a complete local ring of
dimension d. Take any surjective ring map π : S ։ R, where S = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]] for some
n. Let I denote the kernel of the surjection. Let P1 , . . . , Pℓ be the minimal primes of I. By
iteratively using the Mayer-Vietoris sequence, we find that HPd1 (S) ⊕ . . . ⊕ HPdℓ (S) ⊆ HId (S).
Therefore, λd0 (R) ≥ ℓ.
As a consequence, R is a domain if it is equimensional and λd0 (R) = 1. Thus, several results
of Proposition 5.2 can be obtained by assuming only that R is equidimensional.
Remark 5.6. Let I be an ideal of an F -finite regular local ring S, and suppose that the
quotient ring S/IS is F -pure. Let τ1 denote the pullback of the test ideal of S/I to S,
and inductively let τi denote the pullback of the test ideal of the ring S/τi−1 to S. As
demonstrated by Vassilev, the corresponding chain of ideals is of the form
(5.6.1)

I ( τ1 ( τ1 ( . . . ( τℓ = S

16

LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT AND EMILY E. WITT

for some ℓ ≥ 1, and each quotient S/τi is F -pure [Vas98]. The following result, which
connects this filtration with the generalized Lyubeznik numbers, is due to the first author
and Pérez [NBP12]: If I = (f ) is principal and ℓ is the length of the chain determined by
the τi as in (5.6.1), then if d = dim(S/f S), λd0 (S/f S) ≥ ℓ.
By definition of the test ideals, we see that ℓ = 1 if and only if the quotient S/f S is F regular, and so the inequality above shows that the generalized Lyubeznik number λd0 (S/f S)
must be large whenever S/f S is “far” from being F -regular. This bound also shows that
the hypersurface S/f S must be F -regular if λd0 (S/f S) = 1; Corollary 5.3 provides a partial
converse to this statement.
6. Generalized Lyubeznik Numbers of Ideals Generated by
Maximal Minors
Lemma 6.1. Suppose that K is a field of characteristic zero, R = K[x1 , . . . , xn ], and S =
K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]]. Let f ∈ R be homogeneous. Let DR and DS denote D(S, K) and D(S, K),
respectively. If for some N ∈ N, DS f1N = Sf , then DR f1N = Rf .
E
D
P ∂α
Proof. For every r ∈ N, there exists δ =
gα ∂xα ∈ DS = S ∂x∂ 1 , . . . , ∂x∂n such that
1
. In addition, there exist µ ∈ N
fr
P
α
∂
1
hα
= f µ , so δ f1N = α gα hf αµ = f1r .
∂xα f N
P
We have that
gα hα = f µ−r , and there
α
∞
P

δ f1N =

gα =

α

and homogeneous hα ∈ R such that µ > r and

exist homogeneous gα,t ∈ R of degree t such that

gα,t . If tα = (µ − r) deg(f ) − deg(hα ), then

t=0

f µ−r =

X
α

gα hα =

∞
XX
α

t=0

because f and hα are homogeneous polynomials.
P
α
Let δe = gα,tα ∂ α ∈ DR . Then
α

Hence,

1
fr

gα,t hα =

X

gα,tα hα

α

∂x

X
X
1
∂α 1
hα
δe N =
gα,tα α N =
gα,tα µ =
f
∂x f
f
α
α

∈ DR f1N , and the result follows.

P

α

gα,tα hα
f µ−r
1
=
= r.
µ
µ
f
f
f


Remark 6.2. The conclusion of Lemma 6.1 is not necessarily true if f is not a homogeneous
polynomial. Let m denote the homogeneous maximal ideal of R. If f ∈ R is any polynomial
such that Rm /f Rm is a regular local ring, then even if D(R, K) f1N 6= Rf , we have that
D(S, K) f1 = Sf .
Remark 6.3. Let bf (s) denote the Bernstein-Sato polynomial of f ∈ R over R (cf. Section
1
2.1). If N = max{j ∈ N | bf (−j) = 0}, then D(R, K) f N−1
6= Rf [Wal05, Lemma 1.3].
1
Therefore, if f ∈ R is homogeneous, lengthD(S,K) H(f ) (S) ≥ 2 by Lemma 6.1.
Example 6.4. Let R = K[X] be the polynomial ring over a field K in the entries of an
r × r matrix X of indeterminates, and let m denote its homogeneous maximal ideal. Let ∆
denote the principal ideal of R generated by the determinant of X. If K has characteristic
zero, the Bernstein-Sato polynomial of the determinant of X over R is bdet(X) (s) = (s +

GENERALIZED LYUBEZNIK NUMBERS

17

2

1)(s + 2) · · · (s + r), so by Remark 6.3, λ0r −1 (Rm /∆Rm ) ≥ 2. In stark contrast, by Remark
2
5.4, if K is instead a perfect field of characteristic p > 0, then λ0r −1 (Rm /∆Rm ) = 1. In
particular, even when a specific Lyubeznik number is nonzero in both characteristic zero and
characteristic p > 0, their values may differ.
Example 6.5. Now let R be the polynomial ring over a field K of characteristic zero in
the entries of X = [xij ], an r × s matrix of indeterminates, where r < s. Let m denote
its homogeneous maximal ideal, and let It be the ideal generated by the t × t minors of X,
and let I = Ir be the ideal generated by the maximal minors of X. By [Wit11, Theorem
r(s−r)+1
1.1], HI
(R) ∼
= ER (R/It+1 ) for it = (r − t)(s −
= ER (K), 0 6= HIit (R) ֒→ HIit (R)It+1 ∼
0,r 2 −1
r 2 −1
i
r) + 1, 0 ≤ t < r, and all other HI (R) = 0. Thus, λ0 (Rm /IRm ) = λm,0
(Rm /IRm ) (=
0,i
2
λ0,r2 −1 (Rm /IRm )) = 1, and λm,0 (Rm /IRm ) = 0 for every i 6= r − 1.
1,rs−it
Let it = (r − t)(s − r) + 1, t > 0, and suppose that λm,0
(Rm /IRm ) = 0. Let C be the
it
cokernel of the injection HI (R) ֒→ ER (R/It+1 ), so the short exact sequence 0 → HIit (R) →
ER (R/It+1 ) → C → 0 gives rise to the long exact sequence in local cohomology:
0
GF
@A

//

//

0
Hm
HIit (R)

//

0
Hm
(ER (R/It+1 ))

0
Hm
HIit (R)

//

1
Hm
(ER (R/It+1 ))

//

0
Hm
(C)

//

BC
ED

...

Since the It+1 is the only associated prime of ER (R/It+1 ) and of HIit (R),
0
0
1
Hm
HIit (R) = Hm
(ER (R/It+1 )) = Hm
(ER (R/It+1 )) = 0,
0
0
HIit (R) = 0.
so Hm
(C) ∼
= Hm
If for some indeterminate xαβ , the localization map HIi (R) → HIi (R)xαβ has a nonzero
N
element u in the kernel, then xN
αβ · u = 0 for some N. But then, by symmetry, xαβ · u = 0
for all indeterminates xαβ , forcing every element of HIit (R) to be killed by a power of m, a
contradiction. Similarly, the map HIit (R)x11 → HIi (R)x11 ·x12 is injective, and by induction,
the composition of these localizations, HIi (R) →THIi (R)x11 x12 ·...·xrs will also be injective. In
HIi (R)xαβ ֒→ HIi (R)x11 ·x12 ·...·xrs .
particular, HIi (R)xαβ ֒→ HIi (R)x11 ·x12 ·...·xrs , and
α,β
T i
Let M denote
HI (R)xαβ . Since xαβ ∈
/ It+1 HIi (R)It+1 ∼
= ER (R/It+1 ), M injects into
α,β

ER (R/It+1 ), and M/HIi (R) injects into ER (R/It+1 )/HIi (R) = C. Since every element of
0
0
M/HIi (R) is killed by a power of m, M/HIi (R) = Hm
(M/HIi (R))) ֒→ Hm
(C)) = 0. Thus,
i
M = HI (R).

Theorem 6.6. Continuing with the notation above, if r = 2 and s > 2, then
s−1,s+1
(Rm /IRm ) = 1,
(Rm /IRm ) = λs+1,s+1
λ0,3
m,0
m,0 (Rm /IRm ) = λm,0
1,i
and all other λi,j
m,0 (Rm /IRm ) = 0. In particular, each λm,0 (Rm /IRm ) = 0.

Proof. By [Wit11, Theorem 1.1], the only two nonzero local cohomology modules HIi (R)
are HI2s−3 (R) ∼
= ER (k) and HIs−1 (R) ֒→ ER (R/I). Replace R by its localization at m,
p
p
p+q
p,q
and consider the spectral sequence E2p,q = Hm
HIq (R) =⇒ Hm
(R) = E∞
[Har67]. Now,
0,3
2s−3
2s−3
0
p
∼
Hm HI
(R) = ER (k) and Hm HI
(R) = 0 for p > 0. In particular, λ0,m (R/I) = 1. Also
note that dim R/I = s + 1, since if a 2 × s matrix has vanishing 2 × 2 minors, the second row

18

LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT AND EMILY E. WITT

p
Figure 6.6.1. E2p,q = Hm
HIq (R).

q
2s − 2

..
.

..
.

..
.

0

0

0

..
.

..
.

..
.

..
.

0

0

0

0

···

0
0▼
0▼ · · ·
▲▲▲ ▼▼▼▼▼ ▼▼▼▼▼
▲0▲▲
▼
▼
▲▲▲ 0▼▼▼▼▼ ▼▼▼▼▼0

0

0

0

···

0
..
.

0
..
.

0
..
.

···

0

···

2s − 3 ER (k)▲
2s − 4
..
.

0
..
.

..
.

s

0

s−1

E20,s−1

0

s−2
..
.

0
..
.

0
..
.

0

1

d0,2s−3
s−1

d1,2s−3
s−1

d2,2s−3
s−1

▼▼▼
▲▲▲
▼▼▼
▼▼
▼▼▼
▲▲▲
▲▲▲ 0 ▼▼▼ 0▼▼▼▼
0
▼&&
%%
&&

0

···

· · · E2s−1,s−1 E2s,s−1 E2s+1,s−1

0

···

0
..
.

···

0
..
.

···

2

··· s − 1

E21,s−1 E22,s−1

0
..
.

0
..
.
s

0
..
.

s+1 s+2

p

p
is a multiple of the first row. Since AssR HIs−1 (R) = {I}, Hm
HIs−1 (R) = 0 for p > s + 1.
These observations are indicated in Figure 6.6.1.
2s
As Hm
(R) ∼
= ER (k) is the only nonzero local cohomology module of R with support in m.
p
s+1 s−1
The only possibly nonzero E2p,q = Hm
HIq (R) such that p + q = 2s is Hm
HI (R), and so,
s−1
s+1
since the spectral sequence maps to and from Hm HI (R) must all be zero (since the terms
s+1 s−1
s+1,s−1
from which they come or go are zero), we must have that Hm
HI (R) ∼
= ER (k),
= E∞
s+1,s+1
p,q
(R/IR) = 1. Moreover, every other E∞
must
so that, as dim R − (s − 1) = s + 1, λm,0
vanish.
0,2s−3 ∼
Since Es−1
= ER (k), we see that the sole differential that is (possibly) nonzero is
0,2s−3
0,2s−3 ∼
s−1,s−1
ds−1 : Es−1 = ER (k) → Es−1
. After taking cohomology with respect to the dp,q
s−1
0,2s−3
must be an
we must get zero at both the (s − 1, s − 1) and (0, 2s − 3) spots, so ds−1
s−1,s−1 ∼
s−1 s−1
isomorphism, and Hm
HI (R) = Es−1
= ER (k), so that, as dim R − (s − 1) = s + 1,
s−1,s+1
λm,0
(R/IR) = 1. Since all other maps are the zero map, and after taking cohomology
with respect to dp,q
s−1 we must also get zero, all remaining local cohomology modules of the
p q
form HI Hm (R) must vanish (i.e., all except p = 0, q = 3, and p = s − 1, q = s − 1 and

p = s + 1, q = s − 1), so that in these cases, λp,q
m,0 (R/I) = 0.

7. Generalized Lyubeznik Numbers of Monomial Ideals
In this section we characterize the generalized Lyubeznik numbers associated to monomial
ideals. To do so, we make use of the categories of square-free and straight modules introduced by Yanagawa [Yan00, Yan01]; we begin with some definitions and notation he first
introduced.
Notation 7.1. Let S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ], K a field, and consider the natural Nn -grading on
S. For α = (α1 , . . . , αn ) ∈ Zn , we define Supp(α) = {i | αi > 0} ⊆ [n] = {1, . . . , n}. For a
monomial xα = xα1 1 · · · xαnn , Supp(xα ) := Supp(α). We say that xα is square-free if, for every
i ∈ [n], αi either vanishes or equals one. Let ei denote the vector (0, . . . , 0, 1, 0 . . . , 0) ∈ Nn ,

GENERALIZED LYUBEZNIK NUMBERS

19

where “1” is in the ith entry. If F ⊆ [n], let PF denote
the prime ideal generated
P
Q by
{xi | i 6∈ F }. If F ⊆ [n], we will often use F instead of
ei ; for instance, xF denotes
xi .
i∈F

i∈F

Given a Zn -graded S-module M, and β ∈ Z, M(β) denotes the Nn -graded S-module
that has underlying S-module M, but with a shift in the grading: M(β)α = Mα+β . Let
ωS = S(−1, . . . , −1) denote the canonical module of S, and let *Mon denote the category
of Zn -graded S-modules.
L
Definition 7.2 (Square-free monomial module). An Nn -graded S-module M =
Mβ is
β∈Nn

·xi

square-free if it is finitely generated, and the multiplication map Mα −→ Mα+ei is bijective
for all α ∈ N, and all i ∈ Supp(α). The category of square-free S-modules is denoted Sq, a
subcategory of *Mon.

If I is a square-free monomial ideal, then both I and S/I are square-free modules. Moreover, if 0 → M ′ → M → M ′′ → 0 is a short exact sequence in *Mon, then M is a
square-free module if and only if both M ′ and M ′′ are square-free modules. In addition, if
M is a square-free module, then ExtiS (M, ωS ) is a square-free module for every i ∈ N [Yan00].
Additionally, for any subset G ⊆ F ⊆ [n], S/PF (−G) is a square-free module (where the
grading of PF (−G) satisfies [PF (−G)]ℓ = [PF ]ℓ−G ).
Remark 7.3. An Nn -graded square-free S-module M is a simple square-free module if it has
no proper square-free non-trivial submodules. In fact, such a square-free module is simple if
and only if it is isomorphic to S/PF (−F ) for some F ⊆ [n] [Yan00].
Proposition 7.4 ([Yan00, Proposition 2.5]). An Nn -graded S-module M is square-free if
and only if there exists a filtration of Nn -graded submodules 0 = M0 ( M1 ( . . . ( Mt = M
such that, for each i (0 ≤ i ≤ t − 1), M i = Mi /Mi+1 ∼
= S/PFi (−Fi ) for some Fi ⊆ [n] (and
so is, in particular, a simple square-free module).
As a consequence of Proposition 7.4, every square-free module M has finite length in Sq.
We now recall the following definition [Yan01].
L
Mβ is straight if
Definition 7.5 (Straight module). A Zn -graded S-module M =
β∈Zn
·xi

dim(Mβ ) < ∞ for all β ∈ Z , and the multiplication map Mα −→ Mα+ei is bijective
for all α ∈ Zn and all i ∈ Supp(α). The category of straight S-modules is denoted Str, a
subcategory of *Mon.
L
Remark 7.6. If M =
Mβ is a straight module, then M denotes the Nn -graded (squaren
L β∈Z
Mβ . On the other hand, if M is a square-free module, we can define
free) submodule
n

β∈Nn

f as follows: For α ∈ Nn , let M
fα be a vector space isomorphic
the straight hull of M, M,
f
to MSupp(α) , and let φα : Mα → MSupp(α) denote such an isomorphism. Let β = α + ei for
φα
·xi f
fα −→
fα −→
some i ∈ [n]. If Supp(α) = Supp(β), we define M
Mβ by the composition M
φ−1
β

φα
·xi f
xi
fβ ; otherwise, we define M
fα −→
fα −→
MSupp(α) −→ M
Mβ by the composition M
MSupp(α) −→
φ−1

β
fβ . Then M
f is straight, and its Nn -graded part is isomorphic to M.
MSupp(β) −→ M

20

LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT AND EMILY E. WITT

Proposition 7.7 ([Yan01, Proposition 2.7]). Continuing with the notation above, the functor Str → Sq defined by M → M is an equivalence of categories with inverse functor
e.
N →N

Remark 7.8. Let L[F ] denote the straight hull of PF (−F ). By Proposition 7.7 (noting
Remark 7.3), L[F ] is a simple straight module. We have that L[F ]α = k if Supp(α) = F ,
and is zero otherwise [Yan01]. Thus, L[F ] ∼
= HPℓ F (ωS ), where ℓ = n − |F |.
Remark 7.9. Any straight module M may be given the structure of a D(S, K)-module. It
t
suffices to define an action of t!1 ∂x∂ i t , for every 1 ≤ i ≤ n and t ≥ 1: Take v ∈ Mα , where
t
α = (α1 , . . . , αn ). If 1 ≤ αi ≤ t, we define t!1 ∂x∂ i t v = 0. Otherwise, there exist w ∈ Mα−tei


t
t
such that xti w = v, and we define t!1 ∂x∂ i t v = αti w if αi > 0 and t!1 ∂x∂ i t v = (−1)−αi +1 −αt i w
if αi < 0. This observation extends in [Yan01, Remark 2.12] to any field. We note that
giving this D(S, K)-structure gives an exact faithful functor from Str to the category of
D(S, K)-modules.

Theorem 7.10. Let K be a field, S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ], and Sb = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]]. Let I1 , . . . , Is ⊆
S be ideals generated by square-free monomials. Then
X

 is
i2 n−i1
i2 n−i1
is
1 b
λIiss,...,i
·
·
·
H
H
(ω
)
=
.
(
S)
=
length
H
dim
·
·
·
H
H
(ω
)
H
S
k
S
Str
I2 I1
Is
,...,I1
I2 I1
Is
−α
α∈{0,1}n

i2 n−i1
is
s b
Moreover, if char(K) = 0, then λIi11,...,i
(S)), where e(−) denotes
,...,Is (S) = e(HIs · · · HI2 HI1
D(S, K)-module multiplicity (see Definition 2.2).

s b
1
M. By applying
(S), so that λiI11,...,i
Proof. Let M = HIiss · · · HIi22 HIn−i
b
,...,Is (S) = lengthD(S,K)
1
i2 n−i1
is
[Yan01, Corollary 3.3] iteratively, we see that HIs · · · HI2 HI1 (ωS ) is an straight module.
By Propositions 7.4 and 7.7, there is a strict ascending filtration of Nn -graded submodules 0 =
M0 ( M1 ( . . . ( Mt = M such that each quotient Mi /Mi+1 is isomorphic to PF^
(−Fi ) ∼
=
i
n−|Fi |
HPF (ωS ), and is also a filtration of D(S, K)-modules by Remark 7.9. Moreover,
i

0 = M0 ⊗S Sb ( M1 ⊗S Sb ( . . . ( Mt ⊗S Sb = M ⊗S Sb

 

b K)-modules such that M
fi ⊗S Sb / M
fi−1 ⊗S Sb ∼
is a filtration of D(S,
(−Fi ) ⊗S Sb ∼
= PF^
=
i
n−|Fi | b
n−|Fi | b
b K)-module for every F ⊆ [n], length b M ⊗S
H
(S). Since H
(S) is a simple D(S,
PF i

PF i

D(S,K)

Sb = t as well.
If K has characteristic zero, due to the filtration above and noting Remark 2.3,
t
t



 X
X
n−|F |
f
f
CC HPF i (S) ,
CC Mi /Mi−1 =
CC(M) =
i

i=1

i=1

where CC(−) denotes the characteristic
cycle (see Definition 2.2). By [AM00, Corollary
3.3


n−|F |
n−|Fi |
∗
=
= T{xi =0|xi ∈PF } Spec(S). As a result, each e HPF
and Remark 3.4], each CC HPF
i
i
i1 ,...,is b

(S) = lengthSq M = lengthStr M = e(M).
1 and so e(M) = t. Then λ
I1 ,...,Is

Remark 7.11. The Lyubeznik numbers with respect to monomial ideals may depend on
the field, as shown in [ÀMV, Example 4.6].

GENERALIZED LYUBEZNIK NUMBERS

21

Remark 7.12. For K a field of characteristic zero, let S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ], and take I ⊆ S
an ideal generated by monomials. Let Sb = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]]. Combining work of Álvarez
Montaner in [AM00, Theorem 3.8 and Algorithm 1] with Theorem 7.10 provides an algorithm
b S)
b in terms of P1 , . . . , PN , the minimal primes of I. A consequence of
to compute λi0 (S/I
this algorithm is the following inequality:
b S)
b
λj0 (S/I

≤

N
X

X

δij1 ,...,iℓ ,

ℓ=0 1≤i1 <...<iℓ <N

where δij1 ,...,iℓ = 1 if ht(Pi1 + . . . + Piℓ ) = j + ℓ − 1, and equals zero otherwise.
Remark 7.13. By Corollary 7.12, there is a straightforward algorithm to compute the
b S)
b using the minimal primes of I.
λi0 (S/I

Lemma 7.14. Let S = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]], K a field. For a monomial f with | Supp(f )| = j,
lengthD(S,K) Sf = 2j .
1
Proof. By 7.10, lengthD(S,K) H(x
i

1

1
of radical, Hf1 (S) = H(x
i

1

·...·xij )

·...·xij )

(S) = 2j − 1. Since local cohomology is independent

(S) = 2j − 1. Due to the exact sequence 0 → S → Sf →

Hf1 (S) → 0 and the fact that S is a simple D(S, K)-module, we have that lengthD(S,K) Sf =
lengthD(S,K) S + lengthD(S,K) Hf1 (S) = 2j .

Proposition 7.15. Let K be a field, and let S = K[[x1 , . . . , xn ]], and let I be an ideal of S
generated by square-free monomials f1 , . . . , fℓ ∈ S. Then
χλ (S/I) = (−1)

n

ℓ
X

X

(−1)j 2deg lcm(fi1 ,...,fij ) .

j=0 1≤i1 <...<ij ≤ℓ

Moreover, if S/I is also Cohen-Macaulay, the above equation equals (−1)d λd0 (S/I). If, furℓ
Q
ther, f1 , . . . , fℓ form a regular sequence, this equals (−1)n−1 (2deg fi − 1)ℓ .
i=1

Proof. Since | Supp(fi1 · . . . · fij )| = deg lcm(fi1 , . . . , fij ), the first statement follows from
Lemma 7.14 and Proposition 4.15.
If S/I is Cohen-Macaulay, then by [AM00, Proposition 3.1] (which is stated in characteristic zero, although the argument is characteristic independent), HIj (S) = 0 for all
j 6= ht I = n − d, and the statement follows. If the fi also form a regular sequence, lcm(f
·
!i1
. . .·fij ) = fi1 ·. . .·fij and deg(fi1 ·. . .·fij ) =
ℓ
Q

(1 − 2deg fi )ℓ = −

i=1

ℓ
Q

(2deg fi − 1)ℓ .

j
P

r=1

deg fir , and

ℓ
P

P

(−1)j 2

j=0 1≤i1 <...<ij ≤ℓ

j
P

r=1

deg fir

=



i=1

7.1. Lyubeznik characteristic of Stanley-Reisner rings.
Definition 7.16 (Simplicial complex, faces/simplices, dimension of a face, i-face, facet). A
simplicial complex ∆ on the vertex set [n] = {1, . . . , n} is a collection of subsets, called faces
or simplices, that are closed under taking subsets. A face σ ∈ ∆ of cardinality |σ| = i + 1 is
said to have dimension i, and is called an i-face of ∆. The dimension of ∆, dim(∆), is the

22

LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT AND EMILY E. WITT

maximum of the dimensions of its faces (or −∞ if ∆ = ∅). We denote the set of faces of
dimension i of ∆ by Fi (∆). A face is a facet if it is not contained in any other face.
Remark 7.17. If ∆1 and ∆2 are simplicial complexes on the vertex set [n], then ∆1 ∩ ∆2
and ∆1 ∪ ∆2 are also simplicial complexes.
Definition 7.18 (Simple simplicial complex). We say that a simplicial complex ∆ on the
vertex set [n] is simple if it is equal to P(σ), the power set of a subset σ of [n].
Remark 7.19. If σ1 , . . . , σℓ are the maximal facets of ∆, then ∆ = P(σ1 ) ∪ . . . ∪ P(σℓ ). In
particular, a simplicial complex is determined by its facets.
σ
Notation
Q 7.20. If ∆ is a simplicial complex on the vertex set [n] and σ ∈ ∆, then x
denotes
xi ∈ K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
i∈σ

Definition 7.21 (Stanley-Reisner ideal of a simplicial complex). The Stanley-Reisner ideal
of the simplicial complex ∆ is the square-free monomial ideal I∆ = (xσ | σ 6∈ ∆) of
K[x1 , . . . , xn ]. The Stanley-Reisner ring of ∆ is K[x1 , . . . , xn ]/I∆ .
Theorem 7.22 ([MS05, Theorem 1.7]). The correspondence ∆ 7→ I∆ defines a bijection from
simplicial complexesTon the vertex set [n] to square-free monomial ideals of K[x1 , . . . , xn ].
Furthermore, I∆ =
(x[n]\σ ).
σ∈∆

Proposition 7.23. Under the correspondence in Theorem 7.22, I∆1 ∩∆2 = I∆1 + I∆2 and
I∆1 ∪∆2 = I∆1 ∩ I∆2 for all simplicial complexes ∆1 and ∆2 .
Proof. For the first statement, we see that
xσ ∈ I∆1 ∩∆2 ⇔ σ 6∈ ∆1 ∩ ∆2 ⇔ σ 6∈ ∆1 or σ 6∈ ∆2
⇔ xσ ∈ I∆1 or xσ ∈ I∆1 ⇔ xσ ∈ I∆1 + I∆2 .
The proof of the second statement is analogous.



Theorem 7.24. Take a simplicial complex ∆ on the vertex set [n]. Let R be the StanleyReisner ring of ∆, and let m be its maximal homogeneous ideal. Then
n
X
χλ (Rm ) =
(−2)i+1 |Fi (∆)|.
i=−1

Proof. Let S = K[x1 , . . . , xn ], and let η be its maximal homogeneous ideal. We proceed by
induction on d := dim(∆). If d = 0, then ∆ = {∅}. Then I∆ = η, and R = K, so that
n
P
χλ (Rm ) = 1 = (−2)0 =
(−2)i+1 |Fi (∆)|.
i=−1

Assume that the formula holds for all simplicial complexes of dimension less or equal to
d. Take a simplicial complex ∆ of dimension d + 1. Consider all its facets, σ1 , . . . , σℓ . We
now proceed by induction on ℓ. If ℓ = 1, suppose that ∆1 = P(σ1 ), where σ1 = {i1 , . . . , ij }
and dim(σ1 ) = j. Then I∆1 = (xi | i 6∈ σ1 )S, R ∼
= K[x1 , . . . , xn−j ], and
cη ) = (−1)j = (1 − 2)j
χλ (Rm ) = lengthD(Scη ,K) HIj∆ (S
1


 
j−1
j−1
j
X
X
X
j
k+1
j−k
k j
(−2)k+1 |Fk (∆)|.
=
(−2)
=
1 (−2)
=
k+1
k
k=−1
k=−1
k=0

GENERALIZED LYUBEZNIK NUMBERS

x1
x2

b

b

x5

23

x3

b

b

b

x4

Figure 7.25.1. Simplicial complex in Example 7.25.
Assume that the formula is true for simplicial complexes of dimension d + 1 with ℓ facets,
and take a simplicial complex ∆ of dimension d + 1 with ℓ + 1 facets, σ1 , . . . , σℓ . Let
∆i = P(σi ) and ∆′ = ∆1 ∪ . . . ∪ ∆ℓ . Then ∆ = ∆′ ∪ ∆ℓ+1 . We may assume, by renumbering,
that dim(∆ℓ ) = dim(∆). Then dim(∆′ ∩ ∆ℓ ) < dim(∆ℓ ) by our choice of ∆ℓ and as we chose
the decomposition given by the maximal facets. Therefore χλ (Rm ) equals
χλ ((S/I∆′ ∪∆ℓ )η ) = χλ ((S/I∆′ ∩ I∆ℓ )η ) by Proposition 7.23

= χλ ((S/I∆′ )η ) + χλ ((S/I∆ℓ )η ) − χλ ((S/(I∆′ + I∆ℓ ))η ) by Proposition 4.14
= χλ ((S/I∆′ )η ) + χλ ((S/I∆ )ℓ )η ) − χλ ((S/(I∆′ ∩∆ℓ ))η ) by Proposition 7.23
n
n
n
X
X
X
i+1
′
i+1
=
(−2) |Fi (∆ )| +
(−2) |Fi (∆ℓ )| −
(−2)i+1 |Fi (∆′ ∩ ∆ℓ )|

=
=

i=−1
n
X

i=−1

i=−1

(−2)i+1 (|Fi (∆′ )| + |Fi (∆ℓ )| − |Fi (∆′ ∩ ∆ℓ )|)

i=−1
n
X

(−2)

i=−1

i+1

′

|Fi (∆ ∪ ∆ℓ )| =

n
X

(−2)i+1 |Fi (∆)|.

i=−1



The above computation is related to work in [ÀMGLZA03].
Example 7.25. Let K be a field, S = K[x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 ], and m = (x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 , x5 ).
Consider the ideal I = (x1 x3 , x1 x4 , x2 x3 , x2 x4 , x2 x5 ) = (x1 , x2 , x5 ) ∩ (x3 , x4 , x5 ) of S. Note
that R := S/I is the Stanley-Reisner ring of the simplicial complex in Figure 7.25.1. Using
Theorem 7.24, we see that χλ (Rm ) = 5+(−2)·5+4·1 = −1. Moreover, if K has characteristic
b S)
b = 0,
b S)
b = 2, λ4 (S/I
b S)
b = 1, and all other λj (S/I
zero, Corollary 7.12 implies that λ30 (S/I
0
0
confirming the calculation of the Lyubeznik characteristic.
Remark 7.26. In characteristic zero, Àlvarez Montaner has given formulas for |Fk (∆)| in
terms of the characteristic cycle multiplicities of HI1∆ (K[x1 , . . . , xn ]) (cf. [AM00, Proposition
6.2])
Remark 7.27. Theorem 7.24 shows that the Lyubeznik characteristic of Stanley-Reisner
rings does not depend on their characteristic, although their Lyubeznik numbers do have
such a dependence (cf. [ÀMV, Example 4.6]).
Acknowledgments
Many thanks go to Josep Àlvarez Montaner, Xavier Gómez-Mont, Daniel Hernández,
Mel Hochster, Gennady Lyubeznik, and Felipe Pérez for useful mathematical conversations

24

LUIS NÚÑEZ-BETANCOURT AND EMILY E. WITT

related to this work. We are also grateful to the American Mathematical Society and their
Mathematical Research Communities program for supporting meetings between the authors;
we also thank the organizers of the aforementioned program. The first author also thanks
the National Council of Science and Technology of Mexico for its support through grant
210916.

References
[AM00]

Josep Àlvarez Montaner. Characteristic cycles of local cohomology modules of monomial
ideals. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 150(1):1–25, 2000. 3, 20, 21, 23
[ÀM04]
Josep Àlvarez Montaner. Some numerical invariants of local rings. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.,
132(4):981–986 (electronic), 2004. 6, 11
[ÀMGLZA03] Josep Àlvarez Montaner, Ricardo Garcı́a López, and Santiago Zarzuela Armengou. Local
cohomology, arrangements of subspaces and monomial ideals. Adv. Math., 174(1):35–56, 2003.
23
[ÀMV]
J. Àlvarez Montaner and A. Vahidi. Lyubeznik numbers of monomial ideals. Preprint. 20, 23
[BB05]
Manuel Blickle and Raphael Bondu. Local cohomology multiplicities in terms of étale cohomology. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 55(7):2239–2256, 2005. 2
[Bjö72]
Jan-Erik Björk. The global homological dimension of some algebras of differential operators.
Invent. Math., 17:67–78, 1972. 4
[Bjö79]
J.-E. Björk. Rings of differential operators, volume 21 of North-Holland Mathematical Library.
North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1979. 4
[Bli03]
Manuel Blickle. The D-module structure of R[F ]-modules. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,
355(4):1647–1668, 2003. 5
[Bli04]
Manuel Blickle. The intersection homology D-module in finite characteristic. Math. Ann.,
328(3):425–450, 2004. 1, 3, 14
[Cou95]
S. C. Coutinho. A primer of algebraic D-modules, volume 33 of London Mathematical Society
Student Texts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. 4, 5
[Fed87]
Richard Fedder. F -purity and rational singularity in graded complete intersection rings. Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc., 301(1):47–62, 1987. 5, 15
[GLS98]
R. Garcı́a López and C. Sabbah. Topological computation of local cohomology multiplicities.
Collect. Math., 49(2-3):317–324, 1998. Dedicated to the memory of Fernando Serrano. 2
[Gro67]
A. Grothendieck. Éléments de géométrie algébrique. IV. Étude locale des schémas et des
morphismes de schémas IV. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (32):361, 1967. 4
[GS95]
Donna Glassbrenner and Karen E. Smith. Singularities of certain ladder determinantal varieties. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 101(1):59–75, 1995. 15
[Har67]
Robin Hartshorne. Local cohomology, volume 1961 of A seminar given by A. Grothendieck,
Harvard University, Fall. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1967. 17
[HH90]
Melvin Hochster and Craig Huneke. Tight closure, invariant theory, and the Briançon-Skoda
theorem. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 3(1):31–116, 1990. 5
[HH94]
Melvin Hochster and Craig Huneke. F -regularity, test elements, and smooth base change.
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 346(1):1–62, 1994. 5, 15
[Kaw00]
Ken-ichiroh Kawasaki. On the Lyubeznik number of local cohomology modules. Bull. Nara
Univ. Ed. Natur. Sci., 49(2):5–7, 2000. 2
[Kaw02]
Ken-ichiroh Kawasaki. On the highest Lyubeznik number. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos.
Soc., 132(3):409–417, 2002. 2
[Lyu93]
Gennady Lyubeznik. Finiteness properties of local cohomology modules (an application of
D-modules to commutative algebra). Invent. Math., 113(1):41–55, 1993. 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 12
[Lyu00a]
Gennady Lyubeznik. Finiteness properties of local cohomology modules: a characteristic-free
approach. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 151(1):43–50, 2000. 2, 4, 10, 12
[Lyu00b]
Gennady Lyubeznik. Injective dimension of D-modules: a characteristic-free approach. J.
Pure Appl. Algebra, 149(2):205–212, 2000. 11, 13

GENERALIZED LYUBEZNIK NUMBERS

[MNM91]

[MS05]
[NBP12]
[PS73]

[Smi94]
[Vas98]
[Wal01]
[Wal05]
[Wit11]
[Yan00]
[Yan01]
[Yek92]
[Zha07]

25

Z. Mebkhout and L. Narváez-Macarro. La thèorie du polynôme de Bernstein-Sato pour les
algèbres de Tate et de Dwork-Monsky-Washnitzer. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4), 24(2):227–
256, 1991. 4
Ezra Miller and Bernd Sturmfels. Combinatorial commutative algebra, volume 227 of Graduate
Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005. 22
Luis Núñez-Betancourt and Felipe Pérez. F -jumping and F -Jacobian ideals for hypersurfaces.
Preprint, 2012. 1, 16
C. Peskine and L. Szpiro. Dimension projective finie et cohomologie locale. Applications à
la démonstration de conjectures de M. Auslander, H. Bass et A. Grothendieck. Inst. Hautes
Études Sci. Publ. Math., (42):47–119, 1973. 5, 14
K. E. Smith. Tight closure of parameter ideals. Invent. Math., 115(1):41–60, 1994. 5
Janet Cowden Vassilev. Test ideals in quotients of F -finite regular local rings. Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc., 350(10):4041–4051, 1998. 16
Uli Walther. On the Lyubeznik numbers of a local ring. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 129(6):1631–
1634 (electronic), 2001. 2
Uli Walther. Bernstein-Sato polynomial versus cohomology of the Milnor fiber for generic
hyperplane arrangements. Compos. Math., 141(1):121–145, 2005. 16
Emily E. Witt. Local cohomology with support in ideals of maximal minors. Preprint, 2011.
17
Kohji Yanagawa. Alexander duality for Stanley-Reisner rings and squarefree Nn -graded modules. J. Algebra, 225(2):630–645, 2000. 18, 19
Kohji Yanagawa. Bass numbers of local cohomology modules with supports in monomial
ideals. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 131(1):45–60, 2001. 18, 19, 20
Amnon Yekutieli. An explicit construction of the Grothendieck residue complex. Astérisque,
(208):127, 1992. With an appendix by Pramathanath Sastry. 5, 15
Wenliang Zhang. On the highest Lyubeznik number of a local ring. Compos. Math., 143(1):82–
88, 2007. 2

Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043,
USA.
Email address: luisnub@umich.edu
Department of Mathematics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455,
USA.
Email address: ewitt@umn.edu

