INVERSION OF ADJUNCTION FOR RATIONAL AND DU BOIS PAIRS

arXiv:1311.7193v5 [math.AG] 16 May 2016

SÁNDOR J KOVÁCS AND KARL SCHWEDE
Abstract. We prove several results about the behavior of Du Bois singularities and
Du Bois pairs in families. Some of these generalize existing statements about Du Bois
singularities to the pair setting while others are new even in the non-pair setting. We
also prove a new inversion of adjunction result for Du Bois and rational pairs. In the
non-pair setting this asserts that if a family over a smooth base has a special fiber X0 with
Du Bois singularities and the general fiber has rational singularities, then the total space
has rational singularities near X0 .

1. Introduction
Rational singularities have been the gold-standard for “mild” singularities in algebraic
geometry for several decades. Whenever a new class of varieties with singularities is discovered, the first question usually asked is whether or not the new varieties have rational
singularities. A key reason for this is that varieties with rational singularities behave cohomologically as if they were smooth. However, for many purposes rational singularities are
not broad enough. For instance, nodes are not rational singularities, and more generally,
singularities appearing on stable varieties, that is, mild degenerations of smooth ones that
are necessary to consider in order to compactify moduli spaces are not always rational.
The class of Du Bois (or DB) singularities is slightly more inclusive than rational singularities. Du Bois singularities behave cohomologically as if they had simple normal crossing
singularities (i.e., a higher dimensional version of nodes).
Recently, Kollár and the first named author [Kov11a, Kol13] have introduced the notions
of rational and Du Bois pairs (X, D) for a normal variety X and a reduced divisor D ⊆ X.
These notions are philosophically distinct from the singularities considered typically in the
minimal model program since (X, D) having rational (respectively Du Bois) singularities
does not generally imply that the ambient space X has rational (respectively Du Bois)
singularities [Kol13, Remark 2.81(2)] (respectively Example 2.10, Example 2.14, [GK14]).
Instead the singularities of (X, D) measure the connection between the singularities of X
and D (a notion obviously connected with problems related to inversion of adjunction).
Furthermore, like Du Bois singularities, if (X, Z) is a Du Bois pair then the ideal sheaf of
Z satisfies various Kodaira-type vanishing theorems, an observation which we hope will be
useful in the future.
Even though a priori rational and Du Bois singularities are not part of the class one usually associates with the minimal model program (mmp), these singularities play important
roles in both the mmp and moduli theory via the fact that (semi-)log canonical singularities
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 14F18, 14B07, 14D05, 14E15, 14J17, 14B05.
Key words and phrases. Du Bois singularities, rational singularities, inversion of adjunction, vanishing
theorem.
The first named author was supported in part by NSF Grant DMS-0856185 and DMS-1301888 and the
Craig McKibben and Sarah Merner Endowed Professorship in Mathematics at the University of Washington.
The second named author was supported in part by the NSF grant DMS #1064485, NSF FRG Grant
DMS #1501115, NSF CAREER Grant DMS #1501102 and a Sloan Fellowship.
1

2

S. J KOVÁCS AND K. SCHWEDE

are Du Bois [KSS10, KK10]. In addition, Du Bois singularities have also played important
roles in various other contexts recently. They are arguably the largest class of singularities
for which we know that Kodaira vanishing holds [Pat15], they appear in proofs of extension
and other vanishing theorems [GKKP11], positivity theorems [Sch12], categorical resolutions [Lun12], log canonical compactifications [HX13] and many other results more directly
related to the minimal model program.
It is now a basic tenet of the minimal model program that the right way to study singularities is via pairs cf. [Kol97, Kol13]. This allows for more freedom in applications and
makes inductive arguments easier. The same is true for rational and Du Bois singularities.
The introduction of Du Bois pairs streamlined some existing proofs cf. [Kol13, Chapter 6]
and extended the realm of applications.
In this paper we extend several recent results on Du Bois singularities to the context of
Du Bois pairs, notably the recent results on deformations of Du Bois singularities found
in [KS11a] and the requisite injectivity theorem, a result of Kollár and Kovács on the
behavior of depth in Du Bois families, and the characterization of Cohen-Macaulay Du Bois
singularities of [KSS10].
Furthermore, we prove a new inversion of adjunction statement for rational and Du Bois
pairs. This statement is new even in the non-pair setting. Roughly speaking, in the nonpair setting it says that if f : X −
→ B is a family over a smooth base such that the general
fiber has rational singularities and the special fiber has Du Bois singularities, then X has
rational singularities in a neighbourhood of the special fiber. See Theorem E below for the
general statement.
We state each of these theorems below. We begin with the deformation statement.
Theorem A (Theorem 4.2). Let X be a reduced scheme essentially of finite type over C,
Z ⊆ X is a reduced subscheme and H a reduced effective Cartier divisor on X that does
not contain any component of Z. If (H, Z ∩ H) is a Du Bois pair, then (X, Z) is a Du Bois
pair near H.
Just as in the non-pair setting, to prove this we first show an injectivity theorem.
Theorem B (Theorem 3.2). Let X be a reduced scheme over C and Z ⊆ X a reduced
subscheme. Then the natural map
Φj : Ext jOX (Ω0X,Z , ωX ) ֒−→ Ext jOX (IZ , ωX )
q

q

is injective for every j ∈ Z.
Here Ext jOX ( , ωX ) is shorthand to denote hj (R Hom OX ( , ωX )).
We also generalize some of the results of [KK10] for families to the context of Du Bois
pairs.
q

q

Theorem C (Corollary 5.6). Let f : (X, Z) −→ B be a flat projective family with OZ , IZ
flat over B as well. Assume that all the fiber pairs (Xb , Zb ) are Du Bois. Assume also that
V is connected and the generic fibers (IZ )gen are Cohen-Macaulay, then all the fibers (IZ )b
are Cohen-Macaulay.
We have a multiplier ideal/module like characterization of Du Bois pairs.
Theorem D (Theorem 6.3). Let X be a normal variety and Z ⊆ X a divisor. Further
e −→ X be a log resolution of (X, Z) with E = π −1 (Z)red ∨ exc(π). If IZ is
let π : X
Cohen-Macaulay then (X, Z) is Du Bois if and only if
π∗ ωXe (E) ≃ ωX (Z).

INVERSION OF ADJUNCTION FOR RATIONAL AND DU BOIS PAIRS

3

All of the results above are used in the proof of our inversion of adjunction result.
Theorem E (Theorem 7.1). Let f : X −→ B be a flat projective geometrically integral
family over a smooth connected base B with dim B ≥ 1, H = f −1 (0) the special fiber, and
D a reduced codimension 1 subscheme of X which is flat over B. Assume that (H, D|H ) is
a Du Bois pair and that (X \ H, D \ H) is a rational pair. Then (X, D) is a rational pair.
This last result is new even in the case D = 0, see Corollary 7.8. In the special case when
X \ H is smooth and D = 0, Theorem E follows from [Sch07, Theorem 5.1].
Statements similar to Theorem E have been proved in many related situations. For
instance, assume D = 0, X \ H is canonical and H is semi-log canonical, then it follows
from inversion of adjunction that X has canonical singularities, see [KSB88, Theorem 5.1],
[Kar00, Theorem 2.5], [Kaw07]. Here is a non-exhaustive list of some of other related results:
[FW89, Proposition 2.13], [Sch09], [Hac14] and [Eri14].
Acknowledgements: The authors thank Zsolt Patakfalvi for several useful discussions and
the referee for numerous helpful comments and corrections.
2. Definitions and basic properties
2.A. Rational pairs. First we recall the notion of rational pairs defined by the first named
author and Kollár as described in [Kol13, Chapter 2]. Note that a similar notion was defined
by the second named author and Takagi in [ST08]. The two notions are closely related but
different. Their relationship is similar to how dlt singularities compare to klt singularities.
Here we will discuss the former notion which in the dlt vs klt analogy corresponds to dlt.
In this subsection we work over an algebraically closed field k although in the rest of the
paper we restrict to working over the complex numbers.
Definition 2.1. Let X be a normal variety and D ⊆ X an integral Weil divisor on X.
π /
(X, D) is a resolution of singularities such that DY is the
A log resolution (Y, DY )
strict transform of D, and such that (DY )red ∪ exc(π) is a simple normal crossing divisor.
Definition 2.2. A reduced pair (X, D) consists of a normal variety X and a reduced divisor
D on X. For the definition of an snc pair, the strata of an snc pair and other normal crossing
conditions please refer to [Kol13, Definition 1.7].
One frequently wants log resolutions that do not blowup unnecessary centers. One good
way to achieve this is with a thrifty resolution.
Definition 2.3 (Thrifty resolution [Kol13, Definition 2.79]). Let (X, D) be a reduced pair.
A thrifty resolution of (X, D) is a resolution π : Y −
→ X such that:
−1
(a) DY = π∗ D is a simple normal crossing divisor:
(b) π is an isomorphism over the generic point of every stratum of the snc locus of
(X, D) and π is an isomorphism at the generic point of every stratum of (Y, DY ).
Item (b) can also be replaced by:
(b′ ) The exceptional set E of π does not contain any stratum of (Y, DY ) and π(E) does
not contain any stratum of the simple normal crossing locus of (X, D).
We can now define rational pairs [Kol13, Section 2.5].
Definition 2.4 (Rational pairs). A reduced pair (X, D) is called a rational pair if there
exists a thrifty resolution π : (Y, DY ) −
→ (X, D) such that
(i) OX (−D) ≃ π∗ OY (−DY ).

4

S. J KOVÁCS AND K. SCHWEDE

(ii) R i π∗ OY (−DY ) = 0 for all i > 0.
(iii) R i π∗ ωY (DY ) = 0 for all i > 0.
If (X, D) is a rational pair, and is in characteristic zero, then every thrifty resolution
satisfies the properties (i), (ii), (iii) above [Kol13, Corollary 2.86]. Even better though,
property (iii) always holds in characteristic zero as we point out below, whether or not
(X, D) is a rational pair.
Theorem 2.5. Assume that char k = 0 and let (X, D) be a reduced pair and π : (Y, DY ) −→
(X, D) a thrifty resolution. Then R i π∗ ωY (DY ) = 0 for all i > 0.
Proof. This follows from [Kol13, Theorem 10.39]. Alternatively, one can prove this directly:
Claim 2.6. Let π : E −→ D be a proper birational map between reduced equidimensional
C-schemes of finite type such that E is a simple normal crossing divisor in some smooth
ambient space. Assume that π is birational onto its image when restricted to every strata
of E (in particular, also each irreducible component of E). Then R i π∗ ωE = 0 for i > 0.
Proof of Claim 2.6. We proceed by induction on dim D and the number of irreducible components of E, and note that the base case is simply Grauert-Riemenschneider vanishing
[GR70]. Write E = E0 ∪ E ′ where E0 is an irreducible component of E and E ′ are the
remaining irreducible components. We have a short exact sequence
→ 0.
→ OE0 ∩E ′ −
0−
→ OE −
→ OE0 ⊕ OE ′ −
Dualizing we obtain
→ 0.
→ ωE −
→ ωE0 ∩E ′ −
0−
→ ω E0 ⊕ ω E ′ −
Notice that E0 ∩ E ′ is a simple normal crossings divisor in the smooth ambient space E0 .
E0 ∩ E ′ is also a union of strata of E and hence π is still birational when restricted to each
strata of E ′ ∩ E0 . Applying R i π∗ and the inductive hypothesis to E0 , E ′ and E0 ∩ E ′ proves
the claim.

Alternative Proof of Theorem 2.5. Push forward the short exact sequence 0 −
→ ωY −
→
ωY (DY ) −
→ ω DY −
→ 0 via π and apply the claim to ωDY and ωY . Note that the thrifty
resolution hypothesis guarantees that π is birational when restricted to any strata of DY
(since it isomorphism at the generic point of each strata).

This gives us the following criterion.
Proposition 2.7. Let (X, D) be a reduced pair and π : (Y, DY ) −→ (X, D) a thrifty resolution. Then (X, D) is a rational pair if and only if

R Hom OX (OX (−D), ωX ) ≃ R π∗ ωY (DY )[dim X] ≃ π∗ ωY (DY )[dim X]
q

q

for some thrifty resolution. Furthermore, in characteristic zero the second isomorphism is
automatic.
Proof. Observe that the conditions (i) and (ii) of Definition 2.4 are equivalent to the isomorphism R π∗ OY (−DY ) ≃ OX (−D). Applying Grothendieck duality and condition (iii)
to this isomorphism yields the statement. The characteristic zero statement is simply
Theorem 2.5.


INVERSION OF ADJUNCTION FOR RATIONAL AND DU BOIS PAIRS

5

2.B. Notation. Throughout the rest of this paper, all schemes will be assumed to be
1
Noetherian
separated
P
P schemes and essentially of finite type over C. Given divisors D =
′
ai Di and
define
PD = bi Di on a normal ′variety
P (possibly allowing ai , bj to be zero), we
D ∨ D′ =
max(ai , bi )Di and D ∧ D =
min(ai , bi )Di . Of course, if D and D ′ have no
common components then D ∨ D ′ = D + D ′ and D ∧ D ′ = 0. On a scheme X essentially
q
q
of finite type over C, we use D( ) = R Hom OX ( , ωX ) to denote the Grothendieck duality
functor.
2.C. Du Bois pairs. The notion of Du Bois singularities is becoming more and more part
of the basic knowledge in higher dimensional geometry. In particular, for the notion of the
Deligne-Du Bois complex of a scheme of finite type over C and its degree zero associated
graded complex, denoted by Ω0X , we refer the reader to [Kol13, Section 6.1].
In contrast, the notion of Du Bois pairs is relatively new and so here we discuss some of
its basic properties.
b (X),
Given a (possibly non-reduced) subscheme Z ⊆ X one has an induced map in Dcoh
→ Ω0Z ,
Ω0X −
noting that by definition Ω0Z = Ω0Zred . Then Ω0X,Z is defined to be the object in the derived
category making the following an exact triangle:
+1

→ Ω0Z −−→ .
Ω0X,Z −
→ Ω0X −

(2.7.1)

If IZ is the ideal sheaf of Z, then it is easy to see that there is a natural map IZ −
→ Ω0X,Z ,
[Kov11a, Section 3.D].
Definition 2.8. [Kov11a, Definition 3.13] We say that (X, Z) is a Du Bois pair (or simply
a DB pair ) if the above map IZ −
→ Ω0X,Z is a quasi-isomorphism.
In the original definition of a Du Bois pair in [Kov11a] it was assumed that Z is reduced.
As it turns out, this is not a necessary hypothesis.
Lemma 2.9. If (X, Z) is a Du Bois pair and X is reduced, then Z is reduced.
Proof. Note that Ω0Z = Ω0Zred and so Ω0X,Z ≃ Ω0X,Zred . On the other hand, we also have an
exact sequence:
0

/ h0 (Ω0 )
X,Z

/ h0 (Ω0 )
X

≃

0

/ h0 (Ω0 )
Z

≃

≃





/I
Im(Z SN )⊆X SN

/ O SN
X

red


/ O SN
Z

red

SN are the seminormalizations of X and Z
where X SN , Zred
red respectively, and the right two
SN in X SN is
isomorphisms come from [Sai00]. Note that the scheme theoretic image of Zred
reduced. The fact that the left-most vertical map is an isomorphism implies that h0 (Ω0X,Z )
is a radical ideal in OX SN . Since (X, Z) is Du Bois, we see that h0 (Ω0X,Z ) = IZ⊆X and

hence IZ⊆X is radical in OX SN and hence also in OX = OX red as desired.

Frequently we will take the Grothendieck dual of Ω0X,Z . Hence, following the notation of
[KS11a] we will write
(2.9.1)

ω X,Z := R Hom OX (Ω0X,Z , ωX ).
q

1that is, a localization of a finite type scheme

q

q

6

S. J KOVÁCS AND K. SCHWEDE

The reader is referred to [Kol13, Section 6.1] for basic properties of Du Bois pairs. As
mentioned in the introduction, this notion of pairs is somewhat different in flavor from the
definition of (X, Z) being log canonical or log terminal. Being a Du Bois pair is more a
statement about the relationship between X and Z, not an absolute statement about the
singularities of X or Z separately. In particular, Example 2.10 and Example 2.14 show that
(X, Z) being Du Bois does not imply that X is Du Bois.
Example 2.10 (A Du Bois pair whose ambient space is not Du Bois). Let R denote the
pullback of the following diagram:
k[x] ≃ k[x, y]/hyi o

k[x, y]

k[x2 , x3 ] o

R

O

O

where the non-dotted arrows are induced in the obvious ways. It is easy to see that R =
k[x2 , x3 , y, yx]. By construction X = Spec R is not Du Bois since it is not seminormal.
However, we claim that the pair (Spec R, V (hy, yxiR )) is Du Bois. Consider the following
diagram:
/R
/0
/ hy, yxiR
/ k[x2 , x3 ]
0
α

0

γ

β





/ hyik[x,y]

/ k[x, y]


/ k[x]

/ 0.

The maps labeled β and γ are the seminormalizations but α is an isomorphism. On the
other hand, we know that Ω0X = Ω0X sn in general since they have the same hyperresolution.
Therefore, up to harmless identification of modules with sheaves on an affine scheme, we
see Ω0Spec R ≃ k[x, y] and Ω0Spec k[x2,x3 ] ≃ k[x] and so
hy, yxiR = hyik[x,y] ≃ Ω0Spec R,V (hy,yxiR ) .
This proves that (Spec R, V (hy, yxiR )) is Du Bois and completes the example.
Next we will give an example of a normal Du Bois pair whose ambient space is not
Du Bois. To this end we will use a criterion for a cone being a Du Bois pair. In order to do
that we need to recall a definition [Kol13, III.3.8]:
Let X be a projective scheme and L an ample line bundle on X. We will need the
spectrum of the section ring of L ,
M
H 0 (X, L p ),
Ca (X, L ) := Speck
p≥0

which is also called the (generalized) ample cone over X with co-normal bundle L . If
no confusion is likely, in particular when L is fixed, we will use the shorthand of CX :=
Ca (X, L ). Notice that for a subscheme Z ⊆ X there is a natural map ι : Ca (Z, L |Z ) −
→
Ca (X, L ) which is a closed embedding away from the vertex P ∈ CX. By a slight abuse
of notation we will also use (CX, CZ) to denote the pair (Ca (X, L ), ι(Ca (Z, L |Z ))).
Now we are ready to state the needed Du Bois criterion:
Proposition 2.11. ([GK14] cf. [Ma15]) Let X be a smooth projective variety, Z ⊂ X an
snc divisor (possibly the empty set), and L an ample line bundle on X. Then (CX, CZ)
is a Du Bois pair if and only if
H i (X, L m (−Z)) = 0

INVERSION OF ADJUNCTION FOR RATIONAL AND DU BOIS PAIRS

7

for all i, m > 0.
Proof. In the case Z = ∅ this follows from [Ma15, Theorem 4.4]. The general case works

similarly. For a direct proof see [GK14, Theorem 2.5].
While the above is sufficient for our purposes, we also obtained independently a slightly
different statement using similar methods.
Lemma 2.12 (Du Bois pairs for graded rings). Let X be a projective variety with Du Bois
singularities, L an ample line bundle and D a reduced connected divisor on X. Assume
that D also has only Du
the corresponding section ring S =
L
LBois singularities. Form
i
i
i≥0 Γ(X, L ) and I =
i≥0 Γ(X, OX (−D) ⊗ L ). Fix m = S+ to be the irrelevant ideal.
Set Y = CX = Spec S and Z = CD = Spec(S/I). If
(2.12.1)
for i ≥ 0 so that S/I ≃

L

H 1 (X, OX (−D) ⊗ L i ) = 0
i≥0 Γ(D, L

i| )
D

then for all i ≥ 1 we have

hi (Ω0Y,Z ) ≃ [Hmi+1 (I)]>0 .

Again under the hypothesis (2.12.1), we see immediately that (Y, Z) is Du Bois if and only
if [Hmi (I)]>0 = 0 for every i > 0.
Proof. First observe that both Y and Z are seminormal since they are saturated section
rings over seminormal schemes. L. Ma showed in [Ma15, Equation (4.4.4) in the proof of
Theorem 4.4] that
hi (Ω0Y ) ≃ [Hmi+1 (S)]>0

(2.12.2)

for i > 0. Likewise hi (Ω0Z ) = [Hmi+1 (S/I)]>0 for i > 0. Now we analyze hi+j (R Γm (Ω0Y )) via
a spectral sequence. Since Y is Du Bois outside of the origin V (m), we see that hj (Ω0Y ) is
supported only at the origin for j > 0. It follows that the E2 -page of the spectral sequence
Hmi (hj (Ω0Y )) ⇒ hi+j (R Γm (Ω0Y ))
looks like
...

...

...

...

...

...

h3 (Ω0Y )

0

0

0

0

...

h2 (Ω0Y )

0

0

0

0

...

0

0

...

Hm3 (S)

Hm4 (S)

...

h1 (Ω0Y ) ❯❯
0
0
❯❯❯❯
❯❯❯❯
❯❯❯❯
* 2
0
Hm1 (S)
Hm (S)

Here we are using the fact that S is seminormal, and so h0 (Ω0Y ) = S. It is not difficult to
see that the unique nonzero map of the (i − 1)st page of this spectral sequence induces the
isomorphism of (2.12.2), and so those unique non-zero maps are injective. Thus the spectral
sequence contains the data of a long exact sequence
0−
→ Hm1 (S) ։ H1m (Ω0Y ) −
→ h1 (Ω0Y ) ֒→ Hm2 (S) ։ H2m (Ω0Y ) −
→ h2 (Ω0Y ) ֒→ Hm3 (S) ։ . . .
Hence Him (Ω0Y ) = [Hmi (S)]≤0 for i ≥ 2 and H1m (Ω0Y ) ≃ Hm1 (S). Likewise Him (Ω0Z ) =
[Hmi (S/I)]≤0 for i ≥ 2 and H1m (Ω0Z ) ≃ Hm1 (S/I). Furthermore, since Y and Z are seminormal we see that h0 (Ω0X,Z ) = I and so the same spectral sequence argument implies that

8

S. J KOVÁCS AND K. SCHWEDE

we have a long exact sequence
0−
→ Hm1 (I) ։ H1m (Ω0Y,Z ) −
→ h1 (Ω0Y,Z ) −
→ Hm2 (I) ։ H2m (Ω0Y,Z ) −
→ h2 (Ω0Y,Z ) −
→ Hm3 (I) ։ . . .
We still have the labeled surjectivities by the Matlis dual of Theorem 3.2, which we will
prove later (we assume it for now). Thus it is enough to see that the maps above make the
identification Him (Ω0Y,Z ) = [Hmi (I)]≤0 for i ≥ 2.
We consider the diagram with distinguished triangles as rows
I

/S

/ S/I




/ Ω0
Y


/ Ω0
Z

Ω0Y,Z

+1

+1

/

/.

We will apply the functor R Γm ( ) and take cohomology i ≥ 1 to obtain:
Hmi (S)
α

/ H i (S/I)
m

γ

β



/ H i+1 (I)
m



Him (Ω0Y )

/ Hi (Ω0 )
m
Z

[Hmi (S)]≤0

[Hmi (S/I)]≤0

/ H i+1 (S)
m

ǫ

δ



/ Hi+1 (Ω0 )
m
Y,Z

/ H i+1 (S/I)
m



/ Hi+1 (Ω0 )
m
Y


/ Hi+1 (Ω0 )
m
Z

[Hmi+1 (S)]≤0

[Hmi+1 (S/I)]≤0

Note that γ is the map we already identified as surjective above. It is easy to see that the
vertical maps α, β, δ, ǫ are the projections and so [α]≤0 , [β]≤0 , [δ]≤0 , and [ǫ]≤0 are isomorphisms. Thus [γ]≤0 is also an isomorphism. But from the second row we see that Him (Ω0Y,Z )
is of non-positive degree so that Him (Ω0Y,Z ) = [Hmi (I)]≤0 for i ≥ 2 which completes the
proof.

Remark 2.13. It would be natural to try to prove a common generalization of the (independently obtained) Proposition 2.11 and Lemma 2.12.
Example 2.14 (A normal Du Bois pair whose ambient space is not Du Bois). Let W be
an arbitrary smooth canonically polarized variety, that is, W is smooth and projective and
ωW is ample. Further let n > 1, set X = W × Pn and L = π1∗ ωW ⊗ π2∗ OPn (1). Finally,
let K ⊆ Pn be a smooth hypersurface of degree n + 1, that is, OPn (K) ≃ ωP−1
n , and let
Z = W × K. We claim that, using the above notation, (CX, CZ) is a Du Bois pair, while
CX itself is not. Note also, that by construction CX is normal.
Consider H 1 (X, OX (−Z) ⊗ L j ) for j ≥ 0 and observe that
j
j
⊗ π2∗ OPn (j − n − 1).
⊗ π2∗ OPn (j) = π1∗ ωW
OX (−Z) ⊗ L j = π2∗ OPn (−n − 1) ⊗ π1∗ ωW

Now H 1 (Pn , OPn (j − n − 1)) = 0 for all j ≥ 0 and H 0 (Pn , OPn (j − n − 1)) = 0 for j ≤ n. But
j
if j > n ≥ 1, then H 1 (W, ωW
) = 0 by Kodaira vanishing and so it follows by the Künneth
1
formula that H (X, OX (−Z) ⊗ L j ) = 0 for all j ≥ 0, so the hypotheses of Lemma 2.12 are
satisfied.
Let r = dim W and consider H r (X, L ). By the Künneth formula
H r (X, L ) ⊇ H r (W, ωW ) ⊗ H 0 (Pn , OPn (1)) 6= 0,
and hence by Proposition 2.11 CX is not Du Bois.

INVERSION OF ADJUNCTION FOR RATIONAL AND DU BOIS PAIRS

9

On the other hand we have that
(2.14.1)

L (−Z) ≃ π1∗ ωW ⊗ π2∗ OPn (1 − n − 1) ≃ ωX ⊗ π2∗ OPn (1).

Now observe that H q (Pn , OPn (1 − n − 1)) = 0 for all q ≥ 0, so, again by the Künneth
formula it follows that H i (X, L (−Z)) = 0 for all i > 0.
In order to conclude that (CX, CZ) is a Du Bois pair we need that H i (X, L m (−Z)) = 0
for all i, m > 0. We just showed that H i (X, L (−Z)) = 0 for all i > 0 which handles the
m = 1 case. If m > 1 then M := L m−1 ⊗ π2∗ OPn (1) is ample on X and by (2.14.1) and
Kodaira vanishing we have that
H i (X, L m (−Z)) = H i (X, L (−Z) ⊗ L m−1 ) ≃ H i (X, ωX ⊗ M ) = 0
and hence it follows from Proposition 2.11 that (CX, CZ) is indeed a Du Bois pair.
We will find the following lemma useful, cf. [Esn90, Sch07].
Lemma 2.15. Assume that (X, Z) is a pair with Z ⊆ X reduced schemes. Assume further
that X ⊆ Y where Y is smooth. Let π : Ye −→ Y be a log resolution of both X and Z
in Y and set X and Z to be the reduced preimages of X and Z in Ye respectively. Then
Ω0X,Z ≃ R π∗ IZ⊆X where IZ⊆X is the ideal of Z in X.
Proof. Consider the diagram
Ω0X,Z

/ Ω0
X

α

/ Ω0
Z

R π∗ Ω0X,Z
R π∗ IZ⊆X





R π∗ Ω0X
/

/

/

γ

β



+1

R π∗ OX
/

/

R π∗ Ω0Z
R π∗ OZ

+1

+1

/

/

The vertical arrows β and γ are quasi-isomorphisms by [KS11b, Theorem 6.4] (also see
[Sch07, Theorem 4.3]) since X and Z are SNC and hence Du Bois. The second row of
equalities also follows since X and Z are Du Bois. Then α is a quasi-isomorphism as well
and hence the lemma follows.

There are some situations when a pair being Du Bois implies that the ambient space is
also Du Bois. It is proved in [GK14] that this happens if X is Gorenstein, but that X being
Q-Gorenstein is not sufficient. Another simple situation in which this holds is the following:
Lemma 2.16. Let X be a reduced C-scheme essentially of finite type and H a Cartier
divisor. If (X, H) is a Du Bois pair then X (and hence H) is also Du Bois.
Proof. The statement is local and so we may assume that X = Spec R is affine. We know
→ Ω0X,H ⊗ OX (H).
that OX (−H) −
→ Ω0X,H is a quasi-isomorphism and thus so is OX −
0
We will show that this map factors through OX −
→ ΩX which will complete the proof by
[Kov99, Theorem 2.3].
Embed X ⊆ Y as a smooth scheme and let π : Ye −
→ Y be a simultaneous log resolution
of (Y, X) and (Y, H) with X, H the reduced total transforms of X and H respectively. Then
Ω0X,H = R π∗ IH⊆X by Lemma 2.15. Fix X ′ to be the components of X which are not also
components of H and we see that IH⊆X ≃ OX ′ (−H|X ′ ). Thus
Ω0X,H ⊗ OX (H) ≃ R π∗ OX ′ ((π ∗ H − H)|X ′ ).

10

S. J KOVÁCS AND K. SCHWEDE

Since π ∗ H − H is effective, we obtain a map
→ R π∗ OX ′ ((π ∗ H − H)|X ′ ) ≃ Ω0X,H ⊗ OX (H).
→ R π∗ OX ′ −
Ω0X ≃ R π∗ OX −
This map obviously factors the quasi-isomorphism OX −
→ Ω0X,H ⊗ OX (H) and hence the
proof is complete.

We recall properties of Ω0X,Z that we will need later.
Lemma 2.17. Let X be a scheme over C and Z ⊆ X is a closed subscheme and j : U =
X \ Z ֒→ X the complement of Z. Then:
(a) If in addition X is proper, then H i (X, IZ ) −→ Hi (X, Ω0X,Z ) is surjective for all
i ∈ Z, [Kov11a, Corollary 4.2], [Kol13, Theorem 6.22].
(b) If H is a general member of a base point free linear system then Ω0X,Z ⊗ OH ≃
Ω0H,H∩Z , [Kov11a, Proposition 3.18], [Kol13, Theorem 6.5(6)].
(c) If X = U ∪ V is a decomposition into closed subschemes and Z ⊆ X is another
closed subscheme, then we have a distinguished triangle:
+1

Ω0U ∪V,Z −→ Ω0U,Z∩U ⊕ Ω0V,Z∩V −→ Ω0U ∩V,Z∩U ∩V −−→
cf. [Kol13, Theorem 6.5(11)].
(d) Let X = U ∪ V be a decomposition of X into closed subschemes. Then
Ω0U ∪V,V ≃ Ω0U,U ∩V .
cf. [Kov11a, Proposition 3.19], [Kol13, Theorem 6.17].
Proof. Parts (a) and (b) follow from the references in their statement. For (c), the included
reference only states the triangle in the case that Z = ∅. However, this more general version
follows easily from the following diagram:
Ω0U ∪V,Z

0
/ Ω0
U,Z∩U ⊕ ΩV,Z∩V

/ Ω0
U ∩V,Z∩U ∩V




/ Ω0 ⊕ Ω0
U
V


/ Ω0
U ∩V


/ Ω0
⊕
Ω0Z∩V
Z∩U


/ Ω0
Z∩U ∩V

Ω0U ∪V


Ω0Z
+1

+1



+1

+1

/

+1

/

/

+1





and the 9-lemma in triangulated categories [Kov13, B.1].
+1

/ of
/ Ω0 ⊕ Ω0
/ Ω0
For (d) consider the distinguished triangle Ω0U ∪V
U
V
U ∩V
part (c) with Z = ∅ and [KK10, Lemma 2.1] implies that the left vertical arrow of the
following diagram is an isomorphism:

Ω0U ∪V,V

/ Ω0
U ∪V

/ Ω0
V


/ Ω0
U


/ Ω0
U ∩V

+1

/

≃



Ω0U,U ∩V

+1

/

For more details see the proof in the references and replace Ω× with Ω0 .



INVERSION OF ADJUNCTION FOR RATIONAL AND DU BOIS PAIRS

11

We have one more lemma which constructs a natural exact triangle for Du Bois pairs.
Lemma 2.18. Let X be a scheme and W, Z ⊆ X subschemes. Then there is a distinguished
triangle
+1

Ω0X,W ∪Z −→ Ω0X,Z −→ Ω0W,Z∩W −−→ .
In particular, because there is also a short exact sequence:
0 −→ IW ∪Z⊆X −→ IZ⊆X −→ IZ∩W ⊆W −→ 0,

if any two of (X, W ∪ Z), (X, Z), (W, Z ∩ W ) are Du Bois, so is the third.
Proof. We begin with a diagram of distinguished triangles as columns and rows (cf. [Kol13,
Theorem 6.5.11] and [Kov13, Thm. B1]):
Ω0X,W ∪Z


id ⊕ id

Ω0X


/ Ω0 ⊕ Ω0
X,Z
X,W

−


/ Ω0 ⊕ Ω0
X
X

−


/ Ω0 ⊕ Ω0
Z
W

Ω0W ∪Z

+1
/ Ω0
X,Z∩W

−


/ Ω0
X

+1


/ Ω0
Z∩W

+1

/

/

/

Note the second column of horizontal maps in the diagram above are each obtained by
subtracting the canonical maps on each factor of the direct sum, hence the − signs. The
octahedral axiom implies that there exists a diagram of distinguished triangles,
Ω0X,W ∪Z

/ Ω0
X,Z





/Kq

+1

/

∼

Ω0X,W

/ Ω0
X,Z∩W

 q

/K

/

+1

We need to identify K . Notice that the bottom row also fits into another diagram of
distinguished triangles (cf. [Kov13, Thm. B1]):
q

Ω0X,W


Ω0X


Ω0W
+1

∼

/Kq


/ Ω0
X


/0


/ Ω0
Z∩W


/ Ω0
W,Z∩W [1]

+1

/

/

+1

/

+1

+1



+1

/ Ω0
X,Z∩W





Hence K ≃ Ω0W,Z∩W and the lemma follows.
q



Finally, note that being Du Bois is a direct generalization of being rational for pairs.
Theorem 2.19. ([Kov11a, Corollary 5.6], cf. [Kol13, Corollary 6.25]) If (X, D) is a rational
pair then (X, D) is also a Du Bois pair.

12

S. J KOVÁCS AND K. SCHWEDE

3. An injectivity theorem
A key ingredient of the proof that Du Bois singularities are deformation invariant was an
injectivity theorem [KS11a, Theorem 3.3]. In this section, we generalize that result to the
context of pairs.
Lemma 3.1. (cf. [KS11a, Lemma 3.1]) Let X be a reduced scheme, Z ⊆ X a reduced
subscheme and L a semi-ample line bundle. Let s ∈ L n be a general global section for
some n ≫ 0 and take the nth -root of this section as in [KM98, Definition 2.50]:
η : Y = Spec

n−1
M

L −i −→ X.

i=0

η −1 (Z)

Set W =
(with the induced scheme structure). Note that the restriction satisfies
Ln−1 −i
η|W : W = Spec i=0
L |Z −→ Z. Then as before, writing η∗ = R η∗ ,
η∗ Ω0Y,W

≃

Ω0X,Z

⊗ η∗ OY ≃

n−1
M

(Ω0X,Z ⊗ L −i ),

i=0

and this direct sum decomposition is compatible with the decomposition η∗ OY =

Ln−1
i=0

L −i .

Proof. Although not explicitly stated, it is easy to see that [KS11a, Lemma 3.1] is functorial
in that it is compatible with the map Z −
→ X. Then by applying Lemma 2.17(b), the result
follows from the diagram:
η∗ Ω0Y,W
O

Ω0X,Z ⊗ η∗ OY

/ η∗ Ω0
O Y

/ η∗ Ω0
O W

≃

≃

/ Ω0 ⊗ η∗ OY
X

+1

/ Ω0 ⊗ η∗ OY ≃ Ω0 ⊗O η∗ OZ
Z
Z
Z

/

+1

/.


Setting ω X,Z = R Hom OX (Ω0X,Z , ωX ) as in (2.9.1), we easily obtain the following.
q

q

q

Theorem 3.2. Let X be a reduced scheme over C and Z ⊆ X a reduced subscheme. Then
the natural map
q
q
Φj : hj (ω X,Z ) ֒−→ hj (R Hom OX (IZ , ωX ))
is injective for every j ∈ Z.
Proof. The proof is essentially the same as in [KS11a, Theorem 3.3] so we only sketch it
briefly. First, since the question is local and compatible with restricting to an open subset,
we may assume that X is projective with ample line bundle L . It follows from taking a
cyclic cover with respect to a general section of L n , for n ≫ 0, and applying Lemma 2.17(a)
Ln−1 −i
Ln−1 −i
and Lemma 3.1 that H j (X, IZ ⊗ i=0
L )−
→ Hj (X, Ω0X,Z ⊗ i=0
L ) surjects for all
j
−i
j
0
−i
j ≥ 0. Therefore H (X, IZ ⊗ L ) −
→ H (X, ΩX,Z ⊗ L ) surjects for all i, j ≥ 0.
By an application of Serre-Grothendieck duality we obtain an injection
(3.2.1)

→ Hj (X, R Hom OX (IZ , ωX ) ⊗ L i )
Hj (X, ω X,Z ⊗ L i ) ֒−
q

q

q

for all i, j ≥ 0. But for i ≫ 0, by Serre vanishing, we obtain that
(3.2.2)

H 0 (X, hj (ω X,Z ) ⊗ L i ) ֒−
→ H 0 (X, hj (R Hom OX (IZ , ωX )) ⊗ L i )
q

q

q

is injective as well (since the spectral sequence computing (3.2.1) degenerates). On the
q
q
q
other hand, if hj (ω X,Z ) −
→ hj (R Hom OX (I , ωX )) is not injective, for some i ≫ 0 neither is

(3.2.2). This completes the proof.

INVERSION OF ADJUNCTION FOR RATIONAL AND DU BOIS PAIRS

13

4. Deformation of Du Bois pairs
In [KS11a, Corollary 4.2], we showed the following result: Let f : X −
→ B be a flat
proper family over a smooth curve B with a fiber X0 , 0 ∈ B, having Du Bois singularities.
Then there is an open neighborhood 0 ∈ U ⊆ B such that the fibers Xu have Du Bois
singularities for u ∈ U . In this section, we generalize this result to Du Bois pairs. We
mimic our previous approach as much as possible.
First we need a lemma which is presumably well known but for which we know no
reference.
Lemma 4.1. Let X be a reduced scheme and Z ⊆ X a reduced subscheme with ideal sheaf
IZ . Further let H ⊆ X be an effective Cartier divisor with ideal sheaf IH such that H
does not contain any irreducible components of either X or Z. Then
IH ∩ IZ = IH · IZ .
Proof. This is left as an exercise to the reader. Earlier versions of this paper, which are
available on the arXiv, also contain a detailed proof.


Now we prove that if a special fiber supports a Du Bois pair, so does the total space
near that fiber. Recall that effective Cartier divisors on a possibly non-normal scheme are
simply subschemes locally defined by a single non-zero-divisor near every point.
Theorem 4.2. Let X be a reduced scheme essentially of finite type over C, Z ⊆ X a
reduced subscheme and H a reduced effective Cartier divisor on X that does not contain
any component of Z. If (H, Z ∩ H) is a Du Bois pair, then (X, Z) is a Du Bois pair near
H. It then follows from Lemma 2.18 that (X, Z ∪ H) is Du Bois near H.
Proof. We follow very closely the proof of [Kov00, Theorem 3.2] and [KS11a, Theorem 4.1],
which are based on [Elk78]. Choose a closed point q of X contained within H. It is sufficient
to prove that (X, Z) is Du Bois at q. Let R denote the stalk OX,q and replace X by Spec R.
Choose f ∈ R to denote a defining equation of H in R. Consider the following diagram
b (X):
whose rows are distinguished triangles in Dcoh

IZ

×f

/ IZ

/ IZ /(f · IZ )

+1

/

ρ



Ω0X,Z

(4.2.1)



×f

/ Ω0
X,Z


/ Aq

+1

/

≃

τ

 

Ω0H,Z∩H
where A is the term completing the second row to a distinguished triangle. We claim we
have a map τ as above such that τ ◦ ρ is a quasi-isomorphism. Certainly we have a diagram
q

14

S. J KOVÁCS AND K. SCHWEDE

with distinguished triangles for rows and columns
Ω0X,Z

×f

/ Ω0
X,Z

/ Aq

+1

/
τ

. Ω0
H,Z∩H


Ω0X

×f


/ Ω0
X


/Bq

+1

/
κ



Ω0Z

×f

+1


/ Ω0
Z
+1




/Cq

+1

/

+1




/ Ω0
H


. Ω0
Z∩H

µ



+1



and the existence of τ follows immediately from the existence of κ and µ whose existence
follows from the proof of [KS11a, Theorem 4.1]. Note that the assumptions imply that
H|Z = H ∩ Z is a Cartier divisor on Z, so we may indeed use [KS11a, Theorem 4.1] for
both X and Z. Since IZ /(f · IZ ) = IZ /((f ) ∩ IZ ) by Lemma 4.1 and because (H, Z ∩ H) is
a Du Bois pair, we see τ ◦ ρ is an isomorphism as claimed.
q
q
Next we apply the Grothendieck duality functor D( ) = R HomR ( , ωR ) to (4.2.1) and
take cohomology:
... o

hi (D(IZ )) o
O

... o

?
q
hi (ω X,Z ) o

×f

hi (D(IZ )) o
O

Φi

hi (D(IZ /(f · IZ )) o
OO

αi

×f
hi−1 (D(IZ )) o
hi−1 (D(IZ )) o
O
O

γi

Φi

×f

δi

?
q
hi (ω X,Z ) o

q
hi (D(A )) o

Φi−1

βi

?
q
hi−1 (ω X,Z ) o

···

Φi−1

×f

?
q
hi−1 (ω X,Z )

where the Φ are injective by Theorem 3.2 and γi , which was obtained from ρ, is surjective
since τ ◦ ρ is an isomorphism.
The proof now follows exactly as the main theorem of [KS11a], or dually of [Kov00,
q
Theorem 3.2]. Fix z ∈ hi−1 (D(IZ )). Pick w ∈ hi (D(A )) such that αi (z) = γi (w). Since
q
δi (αi (z)) = 0 and Φi is injective, it follows that there exists a u ∈ hi−1 (ω X,Z ) such that
βi (u) = w. Therefore, αi (Φi−1 (u)) = αi (z) and so
q

(4.2.2)

z − Φi−1 (u) ∈ f · hi−1 (D(IZ )).

Now, fix Ei−1 to be the cokernel of Φi−1 and set z ∈ Ei−1 to be the image of z. Equation
×f

/ Ei−1 is then
(4.2.2) then guarantees that z ∈ f · Ei−1 . The multiplication map Ei−1
surjective and so Nakayama’s lemma guarantees that Φi−1 is also surjective. Therefore
q
ω X,Z −
→ D(IZ ) is a quasi-isomorphism which implies that (X, Z) is a Du Bois pair.


We immediately obtain:
Corollary 4.3. Let f : X −→ B be a flat proper family of varieties over a smooth onedimensional scheme B essentially of finite type over C (for instance, a smooth curve).
Further let Z ⊆ X be a subscheme such that no component of Z is contained in any component of any fiber of f and b ∈ B a closed point such that (Xb , Zb ) is a Du Bois pair. Then
there exists a neighborhood b ∈ U ⊆ B such that
(a) (X, Z) is Du Bois over U , and
(b) the fibers (Xu , Zu ) are Du Bois for all u ∈ U .

INVERSION OF ADJUNCTION FOR RATIONAL AND DU BOIS PAIRS

15

Proof. The non-Du Bois locus T of (X, Z) is closed, and since f is proper, f (T ) is also
closed. Hence (a) follows from Theorem 4.2 and by replacing B with an open set, we may
assume that (X, Z) is Du Bois. Then the Bertini type theorem Lemma 2.17(b) implies that
(b) follows after possibly shrinking U .

Corollary 4.4. Let f : X −→ B be a flat proper family of varieties over a smooth scheme
B essentially of finite type over C. Further let Z ⊆ X be a subscheme which is also flat
over B and b ∈ B a closed point such that (Xb , Zb ) is a Du Bois pair. Then there exists a
neighborhood b ∈ U ⊆ B such that (X, Z) is Du Bois over U .
Proof. We may assume that B is affine and let d = dim B. We first show that (X, Z) itself is
Du Bois in a neighborhood of (Xb , Zb ). Let H1 , . . . , Hd be general smooth subschemes going
through b whose local defining equations generate the maximal ideal of b (i.e., locally analytically they are coordinate hyperplanes). The pair (Xb , Zb ) = (XH1 ∩H2 ∩...∩Hd , ZH1 ∩H2 ,∩...∩Hd )
is Du Bois by assumption, hence since Xb = XH1 ∩...∩Hd is a hypersurface in XH2 ∩...Hd
it follows that the pair (XH2 ∩...∩Hd , ZH2 ,∩...∩Hd ) is Du Bois in a neighborhood of Xb by
Corollary 4.3. Let W1 denote the non-Du Bois locus of (XH2 ∩...∩Hd , ZH2 ,∩...∩Hd ). Since W1
is closed and f is proper, we see that f (W1 ) is closed in H2 ∩ . . . ∩ Hd and doesn’t contain b.
Shrinking B if necessary, we may assume that W1 is empty. Next observe that H2 ∩ . . . ∩ Hd
is a hypersurface in H3 ∩. . .∩Hd and so again we see that (XH3 ∩...∩Hd , ZH3 ,∩...∩Hd ) is Du Bois
in a neighborhood of XH2 ∩...∩Hd by Corollary 4.3. Set W2 to be the non-Du Bois locus of
(XH3 ∩...∩Hd , ZH3 ,∩...∩Hd ) and note that f (W2 ) does not intersect H2 ∩ . . . ∩ Hd . We shrink
B again if necessary so that W2 = ∅. Iterating this procedure proves the statement.

In order to extend Corollary 4.3(b) to families over arbitrary dimensional bases we need
the following lemma.
Lemma 4.5. Let f : X −→ B be a flat proper family of varieties over a scheme B essentially
of finite type over C. Further let Z ⊆ X be a subscheme which is also flat over B and assume
that (X, Z) is a Du Bois pair. Then
V = {b ∈ B|(Xb , Zb ) is a Du Bois pair}
is a constructible set in B. Furthermore, if B is smooth, then V is open.
Proof. We use induction on the dimension of B.
Let π : B ′ −
→ B be a resolution of singularities and consider the base change f ′ : X ′ =
′
→ B , a flat proper family over B ′ and with Z ′ = ZB ′ ⊆ X ′ subscheme flat over B ′ .
XB ′ −
Notice that all the fibers of f ′ : X ′ −
→ B ′ appear as fibers of f : X −
→ B (up to harmless
′
′
−1
field extension), so b ∈ V = π (V ) ⊆ B ′ if and only if the fiber (Xb′ ′ , Zb′ ′ ) is a Du Bois
pair. It follows from Corollary 4.4 that by replacing B ′ with an open subset we may assume
that (X ′ , Z ′ ) is a Du Bois pair. It also follows that it is enough to prove the statement over
a smooth irreducible base. Indeed, that implies that V ′ is open in B ′ and hence V = f (V ′ )
is constructible.
To simplify notation we will replace B with B ′ and assume that B is smooth and irreducible, but use the inductive hypothesis without these additional assumptions.
The Bertini type statement Lemma 2.17(b) implies that, if V 6= ∅, there is a dense open
subset U ⊆ B contained in V . The case dim B = 1 follows immediately via the fact that in
a curve any set containing a dense open set is itself open.
In general, it follows that dim(B \ U ) < dim B so by induction V \ U is a constructible set
in B\U and hence V is constructible in B. In the case of a smooth base Corollary 4.4 implies
that V is stable under generalization and since we have just proved that it is constructible
it follows that it is open.


16

S. J KOVÁCS AND K. SCHWEDE

Corollary 4.6. Let f : X −→ B be a flat proper family of varieties over a smooth scheme
B essentially of finite type over C. Further let Z ⊆ X be a subscheme which is also flat
over B and b ∈ B a closed point such that (Xb , Zb ) is a Du Bois pair. Then there exists a
neighborhood b ∈ U ⊆ B such that (Xu , Zu ) is a Du Bois pair for all u ∈ U .
Proof. Observe that the non-Du Bois locus W of (X, Z) is closed in X and since f is proper,
f (W ) is also closed in B. Note that f (W ) does not contain b so it also does not contain
the generic point of B. Hence by replacing B by a neighborhood U ⊆ B of b ∈ B, we may
assume that (X, Z) is Du Bois. Then the statement follows from Lemma 4.5.

Remark 4.7. One can recover special cases of inversion of adjunction for log canonicity
[Kaw07] easily from Theorem 4.2. For instance, let (X, D + H) be a pair with KX , D and
H Cartier and assume that (H, D|H ) is slc or equivalently Du Bois [Kol13]. Then (X, D+H)
is Du Bois or equivalently lc by Theorem 4.2.
5. A result of Kollár-Kovács for pairs
The following was shown in [KK10, Theorem 7.12]: Let f : X −
→ B be a flat projective
family of varieties with Du Bois singularities. Then if B is connected and the general fiber
is Cohen-Macaulay, then all the fibers are Cohen-Macaulay.
We would like to generalize this to the context of Du Bois pairs, at least in the case
when Z is a divisor. We recommend for the reader to have a copy of [KK10] available when
reading this section as we refer to a number of lemmas therein. We begin by generalizing a
result of Du Bois and Jarraud to pairs cf. [DJ74], [DB81, Théormè 4.6].
Theorem 5.1. Let f : X −→ B be a flat proper morphism between schemes of finite type
over C. Assume that B is smooth and let Z ⊆ X be a subscheme that is flat over B.
Further assume that the geometric fibers (Xb , Zb ) −→ b are Du Bois. Then R i f∗ IZ is
locally free of finite rank and furthermore compatible with base change for all i, in other
words (R i f∗ IZ )T ≃ R i f∗ IZT for any morphism T −→ B.
Proof. For some b ∈ B, let m be the maximal ideal of OB,b and S = Sn = Spec OB,b /mn+1
for n ∈ N. Further let IZb resp. IZS denote the ideal sheaf of Zb in Xb resp. ZS in XS .
Consider the following commutative diagram:
Hci ((XS \ ZS )an , C)

H i (XS , IZS )

❙❙❙
❙❙❙ α
❙❙❙
❙❙❙
❙❙)

♠♠
♠♠♠
♠
♠
♠♠
♠
v ♠♠
β

H i (XSan , IZS )

λ

ν





Hci ((Xb \ Zb )an , C)

H i (Xb , IZb )

µ

❙❙❙
❙❙❙
❙❙❙
γ ❙❙❙❙❙
)



♠♠♠
♠♠♠
♠
♠
♠
v ♠♠ δ
♠

H i (Xban , IZb ).

Observe that λ is an isomorphism since XS and Xb have the same support. By [Kov11a,
Theorem 4.1] cf. [Kol13, Theorem 6.8] γ is surjective, so γ ◦ λ = µ ◦ α is surjective and hence
µ is surjective. By Serre’s GAGA principle [Ser56] β and δ are isomorphisms and hence
ν is surjective. Finally, the statement follows by Cohomology and Base Change [Gro63,
7.7].


INVERSION OF ADJUNCTION FOR RATIONAL AND DU BOIS PAIRS

17

Next we prove the analogue of the main flatness and base change result of Kollár-Kovács
for Du Bois pairs [KK10, Theorem 7.9] .
Theorem 5.2. Let f : X −→ B be a flat projective morphism between schemes of finite
type over C and assume that B is smooth. Let Z ⊆ X be a closed subscheme that is flat
over B and L a relatively ample line bundle on X. Assume (X, Z) is Du Bois. Then
q
q
(a) the sheaves h−i (R Hom OX (IZ , ωf )) are flat over B for all i.

q
q
(b) the sheaves f∗ h−i R Hom OX (IZ , ωf )) ⊗ L q are locally free and compatible with
arbitrary base change for all i > 0 and q ≫ 0.
(c) for any base change ϑ : T −→ B and for all i > 0,
q
q
q
q 
h−i (R Hom OX (IZ , ωf )) T ≃ h−i (R Hom OX (IZT , ωfT )).
T

Proof. We follow the proof of [KK10, Theorem 7.9]. We may assume that B = Spec R is
affine and hence that L m is globally generated for m ≫ 0. For such an m ≫ 0, choose a
general section σ ∈ H 0 (X, L m ) and consider the cyclic cover induced by σ:
m−1
m−1
.
M
M
−j
L −j tj (tm − σ).
L ≃
A =
j=0

j=0

h−1 Z

Set h : Y = SpecX A −
→ X, and ZY =
with the induced reduced scheme structure.
Then the geometric fibers of the composition (Y, ZY ) −
→ B are also Du Bois by [Kol13,
L
−j . Hence R i h I
Corollary 6.21]. Note that by construction IZY = m−1
∗ ZY is
j=0 IZ ⊗ L
locally free of finite rank and compatible with arbitrary base change by Theorem 5.1. It
follows that the summands of these modules, the R i f∗ (IZ ⊗ L −j ), are also locally free and
compatible with base change. Since we may choose m arbitrarily large, this holds for all
j ∈ N. It follows immediately that Hom OB (R i f∗ (IZ ⊗ L −j ), OB ) is also locally free and
compatible with base change.
By Grothendieck duality and [KK10, Lemma 7.3] (cf. proof of [KK10, Lemma 7.2]) it
follows that

Hom OB (R i f∗ (IZ ⊗ L −q ), OB ) ≃


q
q
q
q
≃ f∗ h−i (R Hom OX (IZ , ωf ⊗ L q )) ≃ f∗ h−i (R Hom OX (IZ , ωf ) ⊗ L q )

and hence (b) is proven. Just as in [KK10, Theorem 7.9], (a) follows from (b) by an
argument similar to [Har77, Chapter III, Theorem 9.9].
Finally we prove (c). Since f : X −
→ B is projective and B is affine, we may factor f as
π
i
n
→ B. It then suffices to show that
X−
→ PB −

q
q
̺−i : h−i (R Hom OPn (IZ , ωπ [n])) T −
→ h−i (R Hom OPn (IZT , ωπ [n]))
B

T

is an isomorphism. As in [KK10, Theorem 7.9], we proceed by descending induction on i
(the base case where i ≫ 0 is obvious). We observe that IZ is flat since so are OX and OZ
q
and assume that ̺−(i+1) is an isomorphism by induction. Since h−i R Hom OPn (IZ , ωπ [n])
B

is flat by (a), we may apply [AK80, Theorem 1.9] which completes the proof.



The following is the analog of [KK10, Theorem 7.11] for pairs.
Theorem 5.3. Let f : X −→ B be a flat projective morphism between schemes of finite
type over C. Assume that B is smooth and let Z ⊆ X be a subscheme that is flat over B.
Let x ∈ X be a closed point and let b = f (x). Then IZb ⊆ OXb is Sk at x if and only if
q
q 
(5.3.1)
h−i (R Hom OX (IZ , ωf )) y = 0

18

S. J KOVÁCS AND K. SCHWEDE

for i < min(k + dim {y}, dimx X) for all y ∈ Xb such that x ∈ {y}. In particular, IZb is Sk
if and only if (5.3.1) holds for i < min(k + dim {y}, dimx X) for all y ∈ Xb (not restricted
to closed points).
First we prove a lemma.
Lemma 5.4. Let X be a scheme that admits a dualizing complex ωX . Let x ∈ X and F a
coherent sheaf on X. Then F is Sk at x ∈ X if and only if
q
q 
h−i (R Hom OX (F , ωX )) y = 0
q

for i < min(k, dim Fy ) + dim {y} for all y ∈ X such that x ∈ {y}.
Proof. This is a direct consequence of local duality [Har66] and the cohomological criterion
for depth, see for instance [Kov11b, Proposition 3.2].

Proof of Theorem 5.3. By the lemma, IZb ⊆ OXb is Sk at x if and only if
q
q 
h−i (R Hom OX (IZb , ωXb )) y = 0
b

for i < min(k, dim(IZb )y ) + dim {y} = min(k + dim {y}, dimx X) for all y ∈ Xb such that
x ∈ {y}. By Theorem 5.2,


q
q
q 
q 
h−i (R Hom OX (IZb , ωXb )) y ≃ h−i (R Hom OX (IZ , ωf )) b ≃
b
y


q
q 
≃ h−i (R Hom OX (IZ , ωf )) y .
b
q
q 
−i
But notice that the right side is zero if and only if h (R Hom OX (IZ , ωf )) y is zero by
Nakayama’s lemma. This implies the desired statement.

Finally, we describe how the Sk condition behaves for pairs in families where the fibers
are Du Bois.
Theorem 5.5. Let f : (X, Z) −→ B be a flat projective family with OZ (and hence IZ )
flat over B as well. Assume that all the fiber pairs (Xb , Zb ) are Du Bois. Assume also that
B is connected and the generic fibers (IZ )gen are Sk , then all the fibers (IZ )b are Sk .
Proof. By working with one component of B at a time, we may assume that B is irreducible
and hence that X is equidimensional. If (IZ )b ≃ IZb (by flatness of OZ ) is not Sk at some
q
q
point y ∈ Xb , then by Theorem 5.3, h−i (R Hom OX (IZ , ωf )) 6= 0 near y for some i < min(k+
q
q 
dim {y}, dim X). Fix an irreducible component W ⊆ supp h−i (R Hom OX (IZ , ωf )) and
q
q
observe that dim Wb is constant for b ∈ B since h−i (R Hom OX (IZ , ωf )) is flat by Theorem 5.2(a).
q
q
However, in that case it follows that h−i (R Hom OX (IZ , ωf )) is non-zero near some point
η ∈ Xgen such that dim {η} = dim {y} which contradicts the assumption that the generic

fiber is Sk by Theorem 5.3.
We immediately obtain the following.
Corollary 5.6. Let f : (X, Z) −→ B be a flat projective family with OZ (and hence IZ )
flat over B as well. Assume that all the fiber pairs (Xb , Zb ) are Du Bois. Assume also that
B is connected and the generic fibers (IZ )gen are Cohen-Macaulay, then all the fibers (IZ )b
are Cohen-Macaulay.
At this point it is natural to ask the next question.

INVERSION OF ADJUNCTION FOR RATIONAL AND DU BOIS PAIRS

19

Question 5.7. Assume that (X, Z) is a pair and that H ⊆ X is a Cartier divisor such that
(H, Z ∩ H) is a Du Bois pair. If IZ |X\H is Cohen-Macaulay then is it true that IZ is
Cohen-Macaulay?
In the case that Z = ∅, the analogous result holds in characteristic p > 0 for F -injective
singularities by [HMS14, Appendix by K. Schwede and A. K. Singh].
6. A result of Kovács-Schwede-Smith for pairs
The goal of this section is to prove the analog of the main result of [KSS10] for pairs
(X, Z).
Lemma 6.1. Let X be a normal d-dimensional variety, Z ( X a reduced closed subscheme
e −→ X
and Σ ( X a codimension ≥ 2 subset containing the singular locus of X. Let π : X
−1
be a log resolution of (X, Σ ∪ Z) with E = π (Σ ∪ Z)red . Then
(a) Ω0X,Σ∪Z ≃ R π∗ OXe (−E), and
q
(b) h−d (ω X,Z ) ≃ π∗ ωXe (E).
Proof. First we claim that both R π∗ OXe (−E) and π∗ ωXe (E) are independent of the choice
of π. This was proved for R π∗ OXe (−E) on pages 67-68 in the proof of [KS11b, Theorem 6.4]
and for π∗ ωXe (E) in [KSS10, Lemma 3.12]. Therefore we are free to choose π and hence we
may assume that it is an isomorphism outside of Σ ∪ Z. We have the distinguished triangle
Ω0X

R π∗ Ω0Xe ⊕ Ω0Σ∪Z
/

≃

≃



/

/

≃



Ω0X

+1

R π∗ Ω0E
/

R π∗ OXe ⊕ Ω0Σ∪Z



+1

R π∗ OE
/

/

e and E are Du Bois. In the next diagram the first two rows
The isomorphisms follow since X
are distinguished triangles by definition cf. (2.7.1). The third row is simply the pushforward
e The previous diagram and [KK10, Lemma 2.1]
of a natural short exact sequence from X.
(or simply the octahedral axiom) implies that α below is an isomorphism. The other two
e and E are Du Bois. Note that the columns are not
isomorphisms again follow since X
exact.
+1
/ Ω0
/ Ω0
/
Ω0X,Σ∪Z
X
Σ∪Z
≃ α





R π∗ Ω0X,E
e
/

R π∗ Ω0Xe



R π∗ Ω0E
/

≃


/

/

≃



R π∗ OXe (−E)

+1

R π∗ OXe


/

R π∗ OE

+1

/

It follows that the dotted arrow and hence its composition with α are also isomorphisms.
This proves (a).
In order to prove (b), consider the map Ω0X,Σ∪Z −
→ Ω0X,Z obtained in
Ω0X,Σ∪Z


Ω0X,Z

/ Ω0
X

/ Ω0
Σ∪Z

/ Ω0
X


/ Ω0
Z

+1

+1

/

/.

20

S. J KOVÁCS AND K. SCHWEDE

Now we have a distinguished triangle
+1

→ Ω0X,Z −
Ω0X,Σ∪Z −
→ C −−→ .

(6.1.1)

q

Claim 6.2. With notation above, 0 = h−d (D(C )) = h−d+1 (D(C )).
q

q

Proof of claim. Consider the following diagram with distinguished triangles as rows and
columns:
+1
/
/ Ω0 [−1]
/ Ω0
Ω0Σ∪Z [−1]
Z
Σ∪Z,Z



/ Ω0
X,Z

Ω0X,Σ∪Z


/Cq

+1

/



Ω0X

Ω0X

+1

+1





It follows from [Kov13, Theorem B.1] that C ≃ Ω0Σ∪Z,Z . On the other hand, by Lemma 2.17(d)
q
Ω0Σ∪Z,Z ≃ Ω0Σ,Σ∩Z and hence C ≃ Ω0Σ,Σ∩Z .
Next recall that by Theorem 3.2 there exists a natural injective map

q
q 
→ h−j R Hom OΣ (I(Σ∩Z)⊆Σ , ωΣ ) .
(6.2.1)
h−j D(Ω0Σ,Σ∩Z ) ֒−
q

Since dim Σ ≤ d − 2, the right hand side of (6.2.1) is zero for j ≥ d − 1. This completes the
proof of the claim.

Grothendieck duality and part (a) implies that h−d (ω X,Σ∪Z ) ≃ π∗ ωXe (E) and it follows
q
q

from Claim 6.2 that h−d (ω X,Σ∪Z ) ≃ h−d (ω X,Z ), which in turn implies part (b).
q

e −→ X be a log
Theorem 6.3. Let X be a normal variety and Z ⊆ X a divisor. Let π : X
−1
resolution of (X, Z) with E = π (Z)red ∨ exc(π). If IZ is Cohen-Macaulay then (X, Z) is
Du Bois if and only if
π∗ ωXe (E) ≃ ωX (Z).
Proof. Since IZ is Cohen-Macaulay, R Hom OX (IZ , ωX ) ≃ Hom OX (IZ , ωX )[dim X] by the
local dual of the local cohomology criterion for Cohen-Macaulayness. Because the map
q

(6.3.1)

q

ω X,Z −
→ R Hom OX (IZ , ωX )
q

q

q

is injective on cohomology by Theorem 3.2, it follows that hi (ω X,Z ) = 0 for i 6= − dim X and
q
hence (X, Z) is Du Bois if and only if h− dim X (ω X,Z ) −
→ Hom OX (IZ , ωX ) ≃ ωX (Z) is an
q
−
dim
X
(E)
by
Lemma 6.1, so the statement follows. 
isomorphism. But h
(ω X,Z ) ≃ π∗ ωXe
q

7. An inversion of adjunction for rational and Du Bois pairs
In this final section of the paper, we will prove the following theorem.
Theorem 7.1. Let f : X −→ B be a flat projective family with geometrically integral
fibers over a smooth connected base B, A ⊆ B a smooth closed subscheme containing no
component of B and H = f −1 A = X ×B A (with the induced scheme-theoretic structure).
Let D be a reduced codimension 1 subscheme of X which is flat over B. Assume that for
every s ∈ A, (Xs , Ds ) is Du Bois and that (X \ H, D \ H) is a rational pair. Then (X, D)
is a rational pair.

INVERSION OF ADJUNCTION FOR RATIONAL AND DU BOIS PAIRS

21

Remark 7.2. In the introduction, A was assumed to be a closed point. This version is more
general and more convenient for our proof.
Remark 7.3. The assumptions also imply the following auxiliary conditions:
(a) Since X −
→ B has geometrically integral fibers and H is obtained by base change
with a smooth subscheme, H is reduced.
(b) ID is flat over B and no component of D contains a fiber of f . In particular D and
H have no common components.
(c) As for any s ∈ A, Hs = Xs , it follows that (H, D ∩ H) is Du Bois by Corollary 4.4.
(d) X \ H is normal by the definition of a rational pair.
Before embarking on proving the theorem, we will first prove several lemmas that show
that our situation is simpler than it might first appear.
First we show that we may assume that A is a divisor in B.
Lemma 7.4. In order to prove Theorem 7.1 it is sufficient to assume that A is a smooth
Cartier divisor in B.
Proof. The statement is local over the base so we may assume that B is affine. Additionally,
since we only need to work in a neighborhood of a point a ∈ A, we may assume that (X, D)
is Du Bois and all the fibers (Xb , Db ) for all b ∈ B are Du Bois by Corollary 4.4 and
Corollary 4.6. Choose a general hypersurface G containing A and note that since A is
smooth we may assume that G is smooth. Then the hypotheses of the theorem are satisfied
for G replacing A as well since X \ f −1 (G) ⊆ X \ f −1 (A) and since we already assumed
that all the fibers (Xb , Db ) over all points b ∈ B were Du Bois.

From this point forward, we will assume that B is a smooth affine scheme, A is a smooth
hypersurface in B and H = f ∗ A.
Next we show that under the assumptions of the theorem we have the following:
Lemma 7.5. X is normal and thus D is also a divisor.
Proof. Since H is reduced, every point η ∈ H has depth at least min(1, dim OH,η ). Because
f :X −
→ B is flat, the local defining equation of H is a regular element in OX , so any point
η ∈ X that lies in H has depth at least min(2, dim OX,η ). Since X \ H is normal it is S2
and so X is S2 everywhere. Finally observe that H is reduced, hence generically regular
and X \ H is R1 . As H is Cartier, this implies that X is also R1 and therefore normal. 
Now observe that the fact that (H, D ∩ H) is Du Bois (cf. Remark 7.3(b)) says something
about the structure of D on X.
Lemma 7.6. With notation as in Theorem 7.1, no stratum of the snc locus of (X, D) can
be contained inside H.
Proof. Assume to the contrary that there exists a stratum Z of the snc locus of (X, D)
contained in H. Let η be the generic point of Z. By assumption η ∈ H and (X, D) is snc at
η, so OX,η is a regular ring. Let n = dim OX,η . Replace X by Spec OX,η and H and D by
their pullbacks to this local scheme (in this step we lose projectivity, but we will not need
that for now). Note that D is now Cartier and in fact snc. Furthermore D + H has n + 1
irreducible components containing η, so (X, D + H) cannot be Du Bois (or equivalently log
canonical since X is Gorenstein). But as we observed, (H, D ∩ H) is a Du Bois pair. Then
by Theorem 4.2 again we see that (X, D+H) is Du Bois as well. This is a contradiction. 

22

S. J KOVÁCS AND K. SCHWEDE

Next we setup the notation for the proof of Theorem 7.1. Let Σ denote the non-snc locus
of (X, D). Observe that as X is normal and D is a reduced divisor by Lemma 7.5, we have
that codimX (Σ) ≥ 2.
Additionally assume that π : Y −
→ X is a log resolution of (X, D ∪ H ∪ Σ) which
simultaneously gives a thrifty resolution of (X, D). To see such a π exists, first take a thrifty
resolution (U, DU ) of (X, D) and then perform a log resolution of the scheme-theoretic
preimages of H and Σ on U (while keeping the strict transform DU snc). The result can be
assumed to be a thrifty resolution of (X, D) since the preimages of Σ and H do not contain
any strata of (U, DU ) by Lemma 7.6.
Set H to be the reduced total transform of H and D the reduced
total transform of D,

set DY to be the strict transform of D and set E to be π −1 (Σ) red .
Proof of Theorem 7.1. Clearly (X, D) is a Du Bois pair and all the fibers (Xb , Db ) are
Du Bois by Corollary 4.4 and Corollary 4.6 (possibly after shrinking the base B around A).
By Corollary 5.6, we know that OX (−D) is Cohen-Macaulay. Thus by the local dual version
q
q
of the local-cohomological criterion for Cohen-Macaulayness, R Hom OX (OX (−D), ωX ) has
cohomology only in one term. In particular,
(7.6.1)

R Hom OX (OX (−D), ωX ) ≃ Hom OX (OX (−D), ωX )[dim X] ≃ ωX (D)[dim X].
q

q

Therefore by Proposition 2.7 it suffices to show that ωX (D) ≃ π∗ ωY (DY ).
Next observe that (H, D|H ) is a Du Bois pair by Corollary 4.4 and hence by Lemma 2.18
we see that (X, D ∪ H) = (X, D + H) is a Du Bois pair.
Claim 7.7. With notation as above, π∗ ωY (DY ∨ H ∨ E) ≃ π∗ ωY (DY + H).
Note that DY + H = DY ∨ H since the divisors have no common components.
Proof of Claim 7.7. The containment ⊇ is obvious since D and H do not share a component
(cf. Remark 7.3(a)) so choose f ∈ π∗ ωY (DY ∨ H ∨ E). We observe that
divY (f ) + KY + DY ∨ H ∨ E = divY (f ) + KY + DY + H ∨ E ≥ 0.
Working on U = Y \ H = π −1 (X \ H) we see that divU (f ) + KU + DY |U + E|U ≥ 0. But
since (X \ H, D \ H) is a rational pair,
π∗ ωU (DY |U ) = π∗ ωU (DY |U + E) = ωX\H (D|X\H ),
so divU (f ) + KU + DY |U + E|U ≥ 0 is equivalent to divU (f ) + KU + DY |U ≥ 0. Because
the components of E that lie over H are also components of H, it follows that divY (f ) +

KY + DY + H ≥ 0. This proves Claim 7.7.
By Lemma 6.1 we see that h− dim X (ω X,D+H ) ≃ π∗ ωY (DY ∨ H ∨ E) which agrees with
q
π∗ ωY (DY + H) by the claim. Since (X, D + H) is a Du Bois pair, h− dim X (ω X,D+H ) ≃
ωX (D + H) and so in conclusion we have that
q

ωX (D + H) ≃ π∗ ωY (DY + H).
Twisting both sides by −H and using the projection formula we see that
ωX (D) ≃ π∗ ωY (DY − (π ∗ H − H)) ⊆ π∗ ωY (DY )
since π ∗ H − H is effective. But π∗ ωY (DY ) ⊆ ωX (D) for any normal pair (X, D) and so
ωX (D) ≃ π∗ ωY (DY ) as desired.

Setting D = 0 we obtain the following:

INVERSION OF ADJUNCTION FOR RATIONAL AND DU BOIS PAIRS

23

Corollary 7.8. Let f : X −→ B be a flat projective family over a smooth base B and
H = f −1 (0) a special fiber. Assume that H has Du Bois singularities and that X \ H has
rational singularities. Then X has rational singularities.
There is a variant of our inversion of adjunction theorem that we would also like to prove
(even in the D = 0 case).
Conjecture 7.9. Assume (X, D) is a pair with D a reduced Weil divisor. Further assume
that H is a Cartier divisor on X not having any components in common with D such that
(H, D ∩ H) is Du Bois and such that (X \ H, D \ H) is a rational pair. Then (X, D) is a
rational pair.
The only place where our proof above does not work in this situation is when we prove
that OX (−D) is Cohen-Macaulay. In particular, to accomplish this generalization, we would
simply need a version of Corollary 5.6 that is not tied to a projective or proper family. What
is missing is exactly a positive answer to Question 5.7.
References
[AK80]
[DB81]
[DJ74]

A. B. Altman and S. L. Kleiman: Compactifying the Picard scheme, Adv. in Math. 35 (1980),
no. 1, 50–112. 555258 (81f:14025a)
P. Du Bois: Complexe de de Rham filtré d’une variété singulière, Bull. Soc. Math. France 109
(1981), no. 1, 41–81. MR613848 (82j:14006)
P. Dubois and P. Jarraud: Une propriété de commutation au changement de base des images
directes supérieures du faisceau structural, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A 279 (1974), 745–747.
0376678 (51 #12853)

[Elk78]

R. Elkik: Singularités rationnelles et déformations, Invent. Math. 47 (1978), no. 2, 139–147.
MR501926 (80c:14004)

[Eri14]
[Esn90]

L. Erickson: Deformation invariance of rational pairs, arXiv:1407.0110 [math.AG].
H. Esnault: Hodge type of subvarieties of Pn of small degrees, Math. Ann. 288 (1990), no. 3,
549–551. 1079878 (91m:14075)
[FW89]
R. Fedder and K. Watanabe: A characterization of F -regularity in terms of F -purity, Commutative algebra (Berkeley, CA, 1987), Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., vol. 15, Springer, New York,
1989, pp. 227–245. MR1015520 (91k:13009)
[GK14]
P. Graf and S. J. Kovács: Potentially Du Bois spaces, J. Singul. 8 (2014), 117–134. 3395242
[GR70]
H. Grauert and O. Riemenschneider: Verschwindungssätze für analytische Kohomologiegruppen auf komplexen Räumen, Invent. Math. 11 (1970), 263–292. MR0302938 (46 #2081)
[GKKP11] D. Greb, S. Kebekus, S. J. Kovács, and T. Peternell: Differential forms on log canonical
spaces, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. (2011), no. 114, 87–169. MR2854859
[Gro63]
A. Grothendieck: Éléments de géométrie algébrique. III. Étude cohomologique des faisceaux
cohérents. II, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. (1963), no. 17, 91. MR0163911 (29 #1210)
[Hac14]
C. D. Hacon: On the log canonical inversion of adjunction, Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. (2) 57
(2014), no. 1, 139–143. 3165017
[HX13]
C. D. Hacon and C. Xu: Existence of log canonical closures, Invent. Math. 192 (2013), no. 1,
161–195. 3032329
[Har66]
R. Hartshorne: Residues and duality, Lecture notes of a seminar on the work of A.
Grothendieck, given at Harvard 1963/64. With an appendix by P. Deligne. Lecture Notes in
Mathematics, No. 20, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1966. MR0222093 (36 #5145)
[Har77]
R. Hartshorne: Algebraic geometry, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977, Graduate Texts in
Mathematics, No. 52. MR0463157 (57 #3116)
[HMS14] J. Horiuchi, L. E. Miller, and K. Shimomoto: Deformation of F -injectivity and local cohomology, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 63 (2014), no. 4, 1139–1157. 3263925
[Kar00]
K. Karu: Minimal models and boundedness of stable varieties, J. Algebraic Geom. 9 (2000),
no. 1, 93–109. MR1713521 (2001g:14059)
[Kaw07]
M. Kawakita: Inversion of adjunction on log canonicity, Invent. Math. 167 (2007), no. 1,
129–133. MR2264806 (2008a:14025)

24

[KSB88]
[Kol97]
[Kol13]

S. J KOVÁCS AND K. SCHWEDE

J. Kollár and N. I. Shepherd-Barron: Threefolds and deformations of surface singularities,
Invent. Math. 91 (1988), no. 2, 299–338. MR922803 (88m:14022)
J. Kollár: Singularities of pairs, Algebraic geometry—Santa Cruz 1995, Proc. Sympos. Pure
Math., vol. 62, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997, pp. 221–287. MR1492525 (99m:14033)
J. Kollár: Singularities of the minimal model program, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol.
200, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013, With the collaboration of Sándor Kovács.
3057950

[KK10]
[KM98]

[Kov99]
[Kov00]
[Kov11a]

J. Kollár and S. J. Kovács: Log canonical singularities are Du Bois, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 23
(2010), no. 3, 791–813. 2629988
J. Kollár and S. Mori: Birational geometry of algebraic varieties, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 134, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998, With the collaboration of C.
H. Clemens and A. Corti, Translated from the 1998 Japanese original. MR1658959 (2000b:14018)
S. J. Kovács: Rational, log canonical, Du Bois singularities: on the conjectures of Kollár and
Steenbrink, Compositio Math. 118 (1999), no. 2, 123–133. MR1713307 (2001g:14022)
S. J. Kovács: Rational, log canonical, Du Bois singularities. II. Kodaira vanishing and small
deformations, Compositio Math. 121 (2000), no. 3, 297–304. MR1761628 (2001m:14028)
S. J. Kovács: Du Bois pairs and vanishing theorems, Kyoto J. Math. 51 (2011), no. 1, 47–69.
2784747

[Kov11b]
[Kov13]
[KS11a]
[KS11b]

[KSS10]
[Lun12]
[Ma15]

S. J. Kovács: Irrational centers, Pure Appl. Math. Q. 7 (2011), no. 4, Special Issue: In memory
of Eckart Viehweg, 1495–1515. 2918171
S. J. Kovács: Singularities of stable varieties, Handbook of Moduli, Volume II., Advanced
Lectures in Mathematics, vol. 25, International Press, Somerville, MA, 2013, pp. 159–203.
S. J. Kovács and K. Schwede: Du Bois singularities deform, arXiv:1107.2349, to appear in
Advanced Studies in Pure Mathematics.
S. J. Kovács and K. Schwede: Hodge theory meets the minimal model program: a survey of log
canonical and Du Bois singularities, Topology of Stratified Spaces (G. Friedman, E. Hunsicker,
A. Libgober, and L. Maxim, eds.), Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., vol. 58, Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, 2011, pp. 51–94.
S. J. Kovács, K. Schwede, and K. E. Smith: The canonical sheaf of Du Bois singularities,
Adv. Math. 224 (2010), no. 4, 1618–1640. 2646306
V. A. Lunts: Categorical resolutions, poset schemes, and Du Bois singularities, Int. Math. Res.
Not. IMRN (2012), no. 19, 4372–4420. 2981713
L. Ma: F -injectivity and Buchsbaum singularities, Math. Ann. 362 (2015), no. 1-2, 25–42.
3343868

[Pat15]
[Sai00]

Zs. Patakfalvi: Semi-negativity of Hodge bundles associated to Du Bois families, J. Pure Appl.
Algebra 219 (2015), no. 12, 5387–5393. 3390027
M. Saito: Mixed Hodge complexes on algebraic varieties, Math. Ann. 316 (2000), no. 2, 283–331.
MR1741272 (2002h:14012)

[Sch12]
[Sch07]
[Sch09]

G. Schumacher: Positivity of relative canonical bundles and applications, Invent. Math. 190
(2012), no. 1, 1–56. 2969273
K. Schwede: A simple characterization of Du Bois singularities, Compos. Math. 143 (2007),
no. 4, 813–828. MR2339829
K. Schwede: F -adjunction, Algebra Number Theory 3 (2009), no. 8, 907–950. 2587408
(2011b:14006)

[ST08]
[Ser56]

K. Schwede and S. Takagi: Rational singularities associated to pairs, Michigan Math. J. 57
(2008), 625–658.
J.-P. Serre: Géométrie algébrique et géométrie analytique, Ann. Inst. Fourier, Grenoble 6
(1955–1956), 1–42. 0082175 (18,511a)

SJK: Department of Mathematics, University of Washington, Box 354350, Seattle, Washington, 98195 USA
E-mail address: skovacs@uw.edu
KS: Department of Mathematics, The University of Utah, 155 S 1400 E Room 233, Salt Lake
City, UT 84112, USA
E-mail address: schwede@math.utah.edu

