DETECTING THE INTEGER DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY AND EHRHART
UNIMODALITY IN REFLEXIVE SIMPLICES

arXiv:1608.01614v2 [math.CO] 8 Dec 2017

BENJAMIN BRAUN, ROBERT DAVIS, AND LIAM SOLUS
Abstract. A long-standing open conjecture in combinatorics asserts that a Gorenstein lattice polytope
with the integer decomposition property (IDP) has a unimodal (Ehrhart) h∗ -polynomial. This conjecture
can be viewed as a strengthening of a previously disproved conjecture which stated that any Gorenstein
lattice polytope has a unimodal h∗ -polynomial. The first counterexamples to unimodality for Gorenstein
lattice polytopes were given in even dimensions greater than five by Mustaţǎ and Payne, and this was
extended to all dimensions greater than five by Payne. While there exist numerous examples in support of
the conjecture that IDP reflexives are h∗ -unimodal, its validity has not yet been considered for families of
reflexive lattice simplices that closely generalize Payne’s counterexamples. The main purpose of this work is
to prove that the former conjecture does indeed hold for a natural generalization of Payne’s examples. The
second purpose of this work is to extend this investigation to a broader class of lattice simplices, for which
we present new results, data from computational experiments, and open problems.

1. Introduction
Two well-studied properties of the coefficients of polynomials with non-negative integer coefficients are
symmetry and unimodality. A polynomial a0 + a1 z + · · · + ad z d with ad 6= 0 is called symmetric if ai = ad−i
for all i ∈ [d]. A polynomial a0 + a1 z + · · · + ad z d with ad 6= 0 is called unimodal if there exists an index j
such that ai ≤ ai+1 for all i < j and ai ≥ ai+1 for all i ≥ j.
Given a finitely generated C-algebra A = ⊕∞
i=0 Ai , we say A is standard if A is generated by A1 and
semistandard if A is integral over the subalgebra generated by A1 . The Hilbert series of a graded algebra A
is the generating function
P
∞
j
X
j hj z
i
.
dimC (Ai )z =
H(A; z) :=
(1 − z)dim(A)
i=0
P
j
The polynomial h(A; z) :=
j hj z is called the h-polynomial of A. When A is Cohen-Macaulay, each
hj ∈ Z≥0 . An active topic of research is developing combinatorial interpretations of the h-polynomial
coefficients and their distribution. It is known that the h-polynomial of A is symmetric when A is Gorenstein,
but the unimodality property is more subtle. A long-standing open problem is the following conjecture posed
by Brenti [5, Conjecture 5.1], inspired by a conjecture of Stanley [18]. It also appears in [10, Conjecture 1.5].
Conjecture 1.1 (Brenti, [5]). For a standard graded Gorenstein integral domain A, h(A; z) is unimodal.
A subset P ⊂ Rn is a d-dimensional convex lattice polytope if P arises as the convex hull of finitely
many points in Zn that together span an affine d-flat in Rn . The Ehrhart function of P is the lattice point
enumerator i(P ; t) := |tP ∩ Zn |, where tP := {tp : p ∈ P } denotes the tth dilate of the polytope P . It is
well-known [8] that i(P ; t) is a polynomial in t of degree d, and the corresponding Ehrhart series of P is the
rational function
X
h∗ + h∗1 z + · · · + h∗d z d
EhrP (z) :=
i(P ; t)z t = 0
,
(1 − z)d+1
t≥0

where the coefficients h∗0 , h∗1 , . . . , h∗d are all nonnegative integers [17]. The polynomial h∗ (P ; z) := h∗0 +
h∗1 z + · · · + h∗d z d is called the (Ehrhart) h∗ -polynomial of P . Analogously, the coefficient vector h∗ (P ) :=
(h∗0 , h∗1 , . . . , h∗d ) is called the (Ehrhart) h∗ -vector of P . We will often say P is h∗ -unimodal whenever h∗ (P ; z)
is unimodal. Since h∗ (P ; z) arises via the enumeration of combinatorial data and has only nonnegative
Date: 8 December 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 52B20, 05E40, 05A20, 05A15.
Benjamin Braun was partially supported by grant H98230-16-1-0045 from the U.S. National Security Agency. Liam Solus
was partially supported by an NSF Division of Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Fellowship (DMS - 1606407).
1

2

BENJAMIN BRAUN, ROBERT DAVIS, AND LIAM SOLUS

integer coefficients, researchers have studied combinatorial interpretations of the h∗ -coefficients and their
distribution. A current challenge in Ehrhart theory is to understand the geometric properties of a polytope
that are necessary and/or sufficient for h∗ (P ; z) to be simultaneously symmetric and unimodal [3].
While Ehrhart series arise from a combinatorial context in polyhedral geometry, there is a well-known
connection to commutative algebra. The cone over P is
cone (P ) := spanR≥0 {(1, p) : p ∈ P } ⊂ R × Rn
where we consider the new variable to be indexed at 0, i.e. x ∈ R×Rn = R1+n is written x = (x0 , x1 , . . . , xn ).
Given a lattice polytope P in Rn , the semigroup algebra associated to P is C[P ] := C[xv : v ∈ cone (P )∩Z1+n ].
mn
0
We grade C[P ] by deg(xm
0 · · · xn ) = m0 . With this grading, C[P ] is a semistandard semigroup algebra,
where the algebra generated by C[P ]1 is C[xv : v ∈ (1, P ) ∩ Z1+n ], i.e. the semigroup algebra generated
by integer points in (1, P ). Given this, Conjecture 1.1 manifests itself in the setting of polytopes that have
symmetric h∗ -polynomials and the integer decomposition property, which is defined as follows.
Definition 1.2. A polytope P has the integer decomposition property, or is IDP, if for
P every positive integer
m and each x ∈ mP ∩ Zn , there exist m points x1 , . . . , xm ∈ P ∩ Zn for which x = xi .

It is straightforward to verify that a lattice polytope P is IDP if and only if C[P ] is standard. Regarding
symmetry, a lattice polytope P ⊆ Rn containing 0 in its interior is called reflexive if its polar P ∗ := {y ∈
Rn : xT y ≤ 1 for all x ∈ P } is also a lattice polytope. In [12], it is shown that a lattice polytope P ⊂ Rn
is reflexive if and only if P is full-dimensional (i.e. d = n), the origin is in its interior, and h∗ (P ; z) is
symmetric. Reflexive polytopes are a special case of the full-dimensional polytopes P ⊂ Rn for which
h∗ (P ; z) is symmetric, known as Gorenstein polytopes. In this setting, Conjecture 1.1 translates to the
following statement, which is often attributed to Hibi and Ohsugi [15].
Conjecture 1.3. If P is Gorenstein and IDP, then h∗ (P ; z) is unimodal.
As in the case of graded Cohen-Macaulay algebras, unimodality of h∗ (P ; z) has proven to be a more elusive
property to characterize than symmetry when using only the geometry of P . Since the symmetry property
of h∗ (P ; z) reduces the number of inequalities to be verified by one-half, there has been much research into
when h∗ (P ; z) is both symmetric and unimodal [3]. It was shown by Mustaţǎ and Payne [13] that there exist
reflexive polytopes whose h∗ -polynomials are not unimodal. These results were then extended to reflexive
simplices in every dimension greater than five by Payne [16]. This disproved the following (earlier) conjecture
of Hibi [11].
(Disproved) Conjecture 1.4 (Hibi, [11]). If P is Gorenstein then h∗ (P ; z) is unimodal.
Thus, Conjecture 1.3 is a reasonable strengthening of Conjecture 1.4 to consider in light of the counterexamples presented by Payne [16] and its previous proposal in the algebraic context by Brenti (Conjecture 1.1).
Indeed, one may show that none of the counterexamples provided by Mustaţǎ and Payne are IDP. While the
literature is ripe with examples of lattice polytopes supporting Conjecture 1.3, surprisingly, there has been
little investigation as to whether or not the conjecture holds for reflexive lattice simplices that closely generalize the counterexamples constructed by Payne. The purpose of the present paper is to carefully identify a
natural generalization of Payne’s examples, and prove that Conjecture 1.3 does indeed hold for this family
of reflexive lattice simplices.
The generalization of Payne’s examples that we will consider here is a subcollection Q of the reflexive
lattice simplices whose associated toric varieties are weighted projective spaces. Consequently, each simplex
∆ ∈ Q can be associated to an integer partition q(∆) by using a classification system for reflexive simplices
developed by Conrads [7]. The collection Q can be stratified by the number of parts used in the integer
partitions q(∆). We will see that Payne’s examples live within the subcollection of Q for which q(∆) is an
integer partition with two parts, making this subcollection a close generalization of Payne’s counterexamples.
Our first main result is to show that Conjecture 1.3 holds for this subcollection. Our second contribution is
to show that Conjecture 1.3 holds for many simplices in Q for which q(∆) is an integer partition with three
parts, and to provide both computational and theoretical evidence of the challenges that exist for proving
Conjecture 1.3 completely in this setting.
The remainder of this paper is outlined as follows: In Subsection 2.1, we recall the counterexamples to
Conjecture 1.4 presented by Payne in [16], and we present the generalizing family Q. In Subsections 2.2

DETECTING THE INTEGER DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY

3

and 2.3, we present a formula for the h∗ -polynomial and a characterization of IDP for all simplices in Q,
respectively. In Section 3, we will prove some first results on IDP and h∗ -unimodality for simplices in Q
whose associated integer partitions q(∆) have a fixed set of parts. In Section 4, we prove Conjecture 1.3 for
our closest generalization of Payne’s examples; i.e., for all simplices ∆ ∈ Q whose associated partitions q(∆)
have two parts. In Section 5, we extend the results of Section 4 by proving Conjecture 1.3 holds for simplices
in Q whose integer partitions q(∆) contain three parts in a number of fundamental cases. We then end with
a brief discussion of future directions in Section 6.
2. IDP and Ehrhart Theory for the Reflexive Simplices ∆(1,q)
2.1. The reflexive simplices ∆(1,q) . Given a polytope P ⊆ Rn with vertices v0 , . . . , vk , the height of
a point x ∈ cone (P ) is its first coordinate x0 . If P is a lattice simplex with vertices v0 , v1 , . . . , vn , the
fundamental parallelepiped of cone (P ) is
)
( n
X
λi (1, vi ) : 0 ≤ λi < 1 .
ΠP :=
i=0

The fundamental parallelepiped tiles cone (P ) through nonnegative integer combinations of {(1, vi )}ni=0 .
Consequently, if P is a lattice simplex then
X
(1)
h∗ (P ; z) =
z m0 .
m∈ΠP ∩Zn

In this paper, we will focus on a family of reflexive simplices Q that can be defined as follows. Let
q = (q1 , q2 , . . . , qn ) be a weakly increasing sequence of positive integers satisfying the condition
X
qj | (1 +
qi )
i6=j

for all j = 1, . . . , n. For such a vector, the simplex
(

∆(1,q) := conv e1 , e2 , . . . , en , −

n
X
i=1

qi ei

)

,

where ei ∈ Rn is the i-th standard basis vector, is reflexive.
When the q-vector is understood, we will often
P
label the vertices of ∆(1,q) as vi := ei and v0 := − ni=1 qi ei . The collection of simplices Q is important
in algebra and geometry since it is contained in the family of simplices whose associated toric varieties are
weighted projective spaces [7]. Combinatorially, they are significant since they contain the counterexamples
to Conjecture 1.4 developed by Payne [16]. In particular, Payne showed that for integers r ≥ 0, s ≥ 3, and
k ≥ r + 2 the reflexive simplex ∆(1,q) for
(2)

q = (1, 1, . . . , 1, s, s, . . . , s) .
| {z } | {z }
sk−1 times

r+1 times

is not h∗ -unimodal.
It follows from (1) that the normalized volume of ∆(1,q) (i.e. the value h∗ (∆(1,q) ; 1) = n! Vol(∆(1,q) )) is
equal to 1 + q1 + · · · + qn [14, Proposition 4.4]. Consequently, the simplices ∆(1,q) are naturally stratified
via their normalized volume by way of integer partitions; i.e., for every ∆(1,q) there exists a partition of the
integer n! Vol(∆(1,q) ) − 1 with parts r1 < r2 < · · · < rk such that
q = (r1x1 , r2x2 , . . . , rkxk ) := (r1 , r1 , . . . , r1 , r2 , r2 , . . . , r2 , . . . , rk , rk , . . . , rk ).
|
|
{z
} |
{z
}
{z
}
x1 times

x2 times

xk times

So as to speak formally from this perspective, we make the following definition.

Definition 2.1. We say that both q and ∆(1,q) are supported by the vector r = (r1 , . . . , rk ) (or the integers
therein) if there exist positive integers r1 < r2 < · · · < rk and x1 , . . . , xk such that
q = (q1 , . . . , qn ) = (r1x1 , r2x2 , . . . , rkxk ).
An r-vector is any vector of positive integers r = (r1 , . . . , rk ) in which r1 < r2 < · · · < rk .

4

BENJAMIN BRAUN, ROBERT DAVIS, AND LIAM SOLUS

It follows that the natural generalization of Payne’s examples are those ∆(1,q) supported by two integers.
In Section 4, we will prove Conjecture 1.3 for this generalization of Payne’s examples. In Section 3, we will
prove some results about q-vectors with a fixed support r, and in Section 5, we will extend many of the
results in Section 4 to those simplices supported on three integers.
2.2. The h∗ -polynomials for ∆(1,q) . In this subsection, we establish basic properties of ∆(1,q) with respect
to h∗ -polynomials. We begin with a formula for h∗ (∆(1,q) ; z) in terms of the entries of the vector q.
Theorem 2.2. The h∗ -polynomial of ∆(1,q) is
h∗ (∆(1,q) ; z) =

q1 +···+q
X n

z w(b)

b=0

where
w(b) := b −

n 
X
i=1

Proof. Let v1 , v2 , . . . , vn , v0 denote the columns

1 1
 1 0

 0 1

 0 0

 .. ..
 . .
0

qi b
1 + q1 + · · · + qn



.

of
1
0
0
1
..
.

0 0

···
···
···
···
..
.

1
0
0
0
..
.

1
−q1
−q2
−q2
..
.

· · · 1 −qn







.




By [14, Proposition 4.4] and Cramer’s rule, every point in Π∆(1,q) is of the form
p :=

n
X

λi (1, vi )

i=0

where 0 ≤ λi < 1 for all i and λi =
follow that for i ≥ 1

bi
1+q1 +···+qn

for some bi = 0, 1, . . . , q1 + · · · + qn . If p ∈ Z1+n , then it must

λi = qi λ0 − ⌊qi λ0 ⌋ .
Hence, the choice of λ0 determines the point p, and we write
b
λ0 :=
.
1 + q1 + · · · + qn
The height of the point corresponding to a given value of b is the first coordinate, which is easily computed
to be

n 
X
qi b
.
b−
1 + q1 + · · · + qn
i=1
Recalling equation (1) completes the proof.



2.3. The Integer Decomposition Property and ∆(1,q) . The following theorem (Theorem 2.3) provides
a characterization of IDP reflexive ∆(1,q) in terms of the vector q. Our main tool for investigating ∆(1,q) is
given by Corollary 2.4 below, a necessary but not sufficient relaxation of Theorem 2.3.
Theorem 2.3. The reflexive simplex ∆(1,q) is IDP if and only if for every j = 1, . . . , n, for all b =
0, 1, . . . , qj − 1 satisfying
P
 X 

1 + i6=j qi
bqi
−
≥2
(3)
b
qj
qj
i6=j

there exists a positive integer c < b satisfying the following equations, where the first is considered for all
1 ≤ i ≤ n with i 6= j:
    

bqi
cqi
(b − c)qi
(4)
−
=
, and
qj
qj
qj

DETECTING THE INTEGER DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY

(5)

c



1+

P

i6=j

qi

qj



−

X  cqi 
i6=j

qj

5

= 1.

Proof. Recall that IDP for a lattice simplex P is equivalent to the property that every lattice point in
ΠP arises as a sum of lattice points in (1, P ). Let g ∈ Π∆(1,q) . Since ∆(1,q) is reflexive, we may subtract

(1, 0, 0, . . . , 0) from g until we reach a lattice point p on the boundary of cone ∆(1,q) . This point p must lie
in the fundamental parallelepiped for a face of ∆(1,q) , hence ∆(1,q) is IDP if and only if every facet of ∆(1,q)
is IDP.
Observe that the facet with vertices {e1 , . . . , en } is unimodular, hence it is IDP. The remaining facets are
of the form
)
(
n
X
qi ei
Fj := conv e1 , . . . , ej−1 , ej+1 , . . . , en , −
i=1

for j = 1, . . . , n. Thus we areP
looking for necessary and sufficient conditions for Fj to be IDP. For i ∈ [n]\{j},
n
set vi := ei , and set v0 := − i=1 qi ei . Every lattice point in ΠFj is of the form
X
r=
λi vi .
0≤i≤n
i6=j

Since the vector (1, ej ) is not a summand for r, and since r is an integer point, λ0 · (−qj ) must be an integer.
Hence, λ0 = b/qj for some b in {0, 1, 2, . . . , qj − 1}. Note that if b = 0, r is in the fundamental parallelepiped
for the facet with vertices {e1 , . . . , en }, and hence equal to the zero vector.
We next show that for every choice of b between 1 and qj − 1, setting λ0 = b/qj yields a unique lattice
point of ΠFj . Since every entry of r is integral and 0 ≤ λi < 1, it follows that
 
bqi
bqi
λi =
.
−
qj
qj
Thus, as in the proof of Theorem 2.2, the value of λ0 determines the remaining λi ’s. When λ0 = b/qj , the
height of the resulting point is
X  bqi  bqi 
b
,
+
−
qj
qj
qj
1≤i≤n
i6=j

which is an integer if and only if
P


1 + 1≤i≤n qi
X
b
bqi
i6=j

+
= b
qj
qj
qj
1≤i≤n
i6=j

is an integer. Since ∆(1,q) is reflexive, we know that qj divides 1 +

X

qi , and thus this height is an integer.

0≤i≤n
i6=j

Hence, for every choice of b above, r is a lattice point given by
  1+P q  P j k
bqi
i6=j i
− i6=j
b
qj
qj

k
j

bq
1

− qj


..

. k

j

bqj−1

− qj

r = rb := 

−b


k
j

bq
− qj+1

j


..


j. k
− bqqjn













.










6

BENJAMIN BRAUN, ROBERT DAVIS, AND LIAM SOLUS

The simplex Fj is IDP if and only if for every rb at height greater than or equal to two, there exists an
rc ∈ ΠFj at height one and an rd ∈ ΠFj such that rb − rc = rd . Given b and considering this vector equation
entry-by-entry, this is equivalent to solving the following system with integers c and d between 1 and qj − 1:


P
P
 X 
 X



1 + i6=j qi
1 + i6=j qi
bqi 
dqi

(6)
−
−
=d
−1 + b
qj
qj
qj
qj
i6=j



(7)

(8)

c



1+

P

i6=j

qi

qj

i6=j

   

bqi
cqi
dqi
−
=
, i 6= j
qj
qj
qj



−

X  cqi 
qj

i6=j

=1

Substituting (8) for the “1” on the left-hand side of (6), and substituting (7) for each of the “

j

dqi
qj

k

” on

the right-hand side of (6), yields b − c = d. Thus, we can reduce this system of equations to an equivalent
system of equations:
    

bqi
cqi
(b − c)qi
(9)
−
=
, i 6= j
qj
qj
qj
(10)

c



1+

P

i6=j

qj

qi



−

X  cqi 
qj

i6=j

=1

Hence, ∆(1,q) is IDP if and only if each of its facets is IDP, which occurs if and only if for every j = 1, . . . , n,
for all b = 1, . . . , qj − 1 corresponding to a lattice point at height at least two there exists a positive integer
c solving (9) and (10).

At this point, we will frequently write

a
b

to denote the fractional part of a/b.

Corollary 2.4. Let ∆(1,q) be reflexive. If ∆(1,q) is IDP then for all j = 1, 2, . . . , n
X  qi 
1
= 1.
+
qj
qj
i6=j

For any vector q of increasing positive integers that satisfies these equations for all j = 1, 2, . . . , n, the simplex
∆(1,q) is reflexive. However, this condition is necessary but not sufficient for ∆(1,q) to be IDP.
Proof. By Theorem 2.3, ∆(1,q) is IDP if for all j = 1, . . . , n we have that for all b = 0, 1, . . . , qj − 1 satisfying
equation (3) there exists 0 < c < b satisfying equations (4) and (5). Therefore, if b = 1 satisfies (3) then
trivially no such c exists, meaning ∆(1,q) cannot be IDP. Thus, whenever ∆(1,q) is IDP, b = 1 must not
satisfy (3). Moreover, since the left-hand side of (3) is equivalent to
X  qi 
1
+
qj
qj
i6=j

and q1 , q2 , . . . , qn > 0 then if (3) is not satisfied for b = 1 it must be that
X  qi 
1
= 1.
+
qj
qj
i6=j

To see that these equations
imply reflexivity of ∆(1,q) , note that the j-th equation verifies that the divisibility
P
condition qj | (1 + i6=j qi ) holds. As this holds for all j, we conclude that ∆(1,q) is reflexive.

DETECTING THE INTEGER DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY

7

Finally, to show that this condition is not sufficient to establish IDP, consider the vector q = (2, 2, 15, 20, 20).
It is straightforward to compute that the lattice points in ∆(1,q) are the columns of the following matrix.


1 0 0 0 0 −2 0 0
0
0
0
0
−1 −1 −1
 0 1 0 0 0 −2 0 0
0
0
0
0
−1 −1 −1 


 0 0 1 0 0 −15 0 0 −1 −1 −2 −3 −7 −8 −9  .


 0 0 0 1 0 −20 0 −1 −1 −2 −3 −4 −10 −11 −12 
0 0 0 0 1 −20 0 −1 −1 −2 −3 −4 −10 −11 −12
Further, the point








1
0
0
0
0

0
1
0
0
0

0
0
1
0
0

0
0
0
1
0

0
0
0
0
1

−2
−2
−15
−20
−20





1/15
1/15
0
2/3
2/3
8/15













 
 
=
 
 


−1
−1
−8
−10
−10





 ∈ 2∆(1,2,2,15,20,20) .



It is straightforward to verify that this point is not the sum of exactly two lattice points in ∆(1,2,2,15,20,20) ,
and thus this simplex is not IDP. However, (2, 2, 15, 20, 20) satisfies our linear system.

Remark 2.5. An equivalent formulation of Corollary 2.4 is that if q corresponds to a reflexive IDP simplex,
then for each j = 1, . . . , n the sum
X
1+
(qi mod qj )
i6=j

must be equal to qj . In order for the reflexive condition to be satisfied, this sum must be equal to a
multiple of qj . Thus, this necessary condition for IDP reflexive is a strengthening of the divisibility condition
characterizing reflexivity.
Remark 2.6. Corollary 2.4 implies that for IDP ∆(1,q) and b = 2, 3, . . . , qj − 1 the choice of c = 1 is always
a potential solution to (4), as it satisfies equation (5).
Example 2.7 (Revisiting Payne’s simplices). Recall that Payne presented the simplices ∆(1,q) with q as
defined in equation (2) as counterexamples to Conjecture 1.4. Using Proposition 2.2, we see that
s(k+r+1)−1
∗

h (∆(1,q) ; z) =

X

z b−(r+1)⌊sb/s(k+r+1)⌋

b=0

from which it is straightforward to compute that

h∗ (∆(1,q) ; z) = (1 + z k + z 2k + · · · + z (s−1)k )(1 + z + z 2 + · · · + z k+r ) .
Non-unimodality for most of these simplices follows immediately from the conditions on r, b, and s. One can
verify that ∆(1,q) is not IDP using the property that h∗1 = 1. Since this implies that the only lattice points
in ∆(1,q) are the vertices and the unique interior point of ∆(1,q) . Hence the vector (1, 0, 0, . . . , 0) is the only
vector in Π∆(1,q) at height 1. This prevents the existence of the “c” value required in Theorem 2.3.
3. q-Vectors With Fixed Support
In Subsection 2.1, we established a stratification of the simplices ∆(1,q) in terms of their support vectors
r. In this section, we present some first results on the IDP and h∗ -unimodality conditions for ∆(1,q) from
this perspective. Our observations in this section center around the interplay between ∆(1,q) admitting an
affine free sum decomposition into lower-dimensional ∆(1,q) and exhibiting IDP and/or h∗ -unimodality. As
described below, admitting the former property can allow one to recursively detect the latter properties. In
this section, we will show that only finitely many reflexive IDP ∆(1,q) with support vector r fail to admit
such a free sum decomposition. This suggests that the stratification of ∆(1,q) by their support vectors is a
desirable perspective from which to analyze Conjecture 1.3 for reflexive ∆(1,q) . In particular, we will use
these results to prove Conjecture 1.3 for ∆(1,q) supported on two integers in Section 4.
Our first two results in this section establish that there are infinitely many reflexive simplices supported
by each r-vector, and that the r-vector and multiplicity vector (x1 , . . . , xk ) can be used to test our necessity
condition for IDP.

8

BENJAMIN BRAUN, ROBERT DAVIS, AND LIAM SOLUS

Proposition 3.1. Fix an r-vector r = (r1 , . . . , rk ) with gcd(r1 , . . . , rk ) = 1. There are infinitely many
reflexive ∆(1,q) supported by r.
Proof. By the positive solution to the Frobenius coin exchange problem [2, Chapter 1], there exists a positive
Pk
integer M such that for all m ≥ M , there exist positive integers x1 , . . . , xk such that m = 1 + i=1 xi ri .
Thus, there exists a positive integer L such that for all ℓ ≥ L, there exist positive integers x1 , . . . , xk such
Pk
that ℓ lcm(r1 , . . . , rk ) = 1 + i=1 xi ri . For any such ℓ, for all i = 1, . . . , k we have that
ri | ℓ lcm(r1 , . . . , rk ) = 1 +

k
X

xj rj .

j=1

Hence, there are infinitely many q = (r1x1 , r2x2 , . . . , rkxk ) such that the divisibility condition for reflexivity of
∆(1,q) is satisfied.

The following lemma is equivalent to Corollary 2.4.
Lemma 3.2. If the r-vector r = (r1 , . . . , rk ) supports a reflexive IDP simplex ∆(1,q) then there exists a
vector of positive integers x = (x1 , . . . , xk ) satisfying the k × k system of linear equations Rx = b where
bi := ri − 1
and
Rj,i


 0
ri
:=

ri mod rj

if i = j
if i < j
if i > j

.

If a solution to this system of equations consisting of positive integers exists, then it corresponds to a reflexive
∆(1,q) . However, this condition is necessary but not sufficient to establish IDP.
Proof. This lemma is a restatement of Corollary 2.4 using the notation (r1x1 , r2x2 , . . . , rkxk ).



It is important to observe that some reflexive IDP ∆(1,q) ’s admit decompositions into reflexive IDP
∆(1,q) ’s of smaller dimension, in the following sense. Let P, Q ⊂ Rn be two lattice polytopes. We say that
P ⊕ Q := conv {P ∪ Q} is an affine free sum if, up to unimodular equivalence, P ∩ Q = {0} and the affine
span of P and Q are orthogonal coordinate subspaces of Rn . Suppose further that P ⊂ Rn and Q ⊂ Rm are
reflexive polytopes with 0 ∈ P and the vertices of Q labeled as v0 , v1 , . . . , vm . For every i = 0, 1, . . . , m, we
define the polytope
P ∗i Q := conv {(P × 0m ) ∪ (0n × Q − vi )} ⊂ Rn+m .
The following theorem indicates that affine free sum decompositions can be detected from the q-vector
defining ∆(1,q) .
Theorem 3.3 (Braun, Davis [4]). If ∆(1,p) and ∆(1,q) are full-dimensional reflexive simplices with p =
(p1 , . . . , pn ) and q = (q1 , . . . , qm ), respectively, then ∆(1,p) ∗0 ∆(1,q) is a reflexive simplex ∆(1,y) with y =
Pn
(p1 , . . . , pn , sq1 , . . . , sqm ) where s = 1 + j=1 pj . Moreover, if ∆(1,y) arises in this form, then it decomposes
as a free sum. Further, if ∆(1,p) and ∆(1,q) are reflexive, IDP and h∗ -unimodal, then so is ∆(1,p) ∗0 ∆(1,q) .
Thus, many reflexive, IDP, h∗ -unimodal ∆(1,q) ’s have these properties because they arise as affine free
sums. If a reflexive IDP ∆(1,q) is an affine free sum of two reflexive IDP ∆(1,q) ’s of smaller dimension, then
in order to infer h∗ -unimodality of the sum, this property of the summands must be separately verified.
Nonetheless, it is reasonable to focus attention on those reflexive IDP ∆(1,q) ’s that do not arise as affine free
sums, as these are fundamental examples that must be dealt with in any proof of Conjecture 1.3. Fortunately,
as the following two results indicate, for each r-vector there are at most finitely many such reflexive IDP
simplices to consider.
Proposition 3.4. Fix an r-vector r = (r1 , . . . , rk ) for which ri | rk for all i ∈ {1, . . . , k − 1}. If q =
(r1x1 , . . . , rkxk ) corresponds to a reflexive IDP simplex, then ∆(1,q) is an affine free sum of the simplices defined
xk−1
xk−1
)
) and (1xk ). Further, the simplices defined by the q-vectors (r1x1 , . . . , rk−1
by the q-vectors (r1x1 , . . . , rk−1
and (1xk ) are both IDP reflexive simplices.

DETECTING THE INTEGER DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY

9

Proof. Using the notation of Lemma 3.2, observe that after canceling denominators in Rx = b our matrix
equation has the form


0 r2 mod r1 r3 mod r1 · · ·
rk−1 mod r1
0
..  


 
 r1
. 
0
r3 mod r2 · · ·
rk−1 mod r2
r1 − 1

 x1

..
..   x   r − 1 
..
 r1
2 
.
r2
0
.
. 

 2



 r3 − 1 

x


3
.
.
.
.
=
.



.
.
.
.
 r1
.
.
r2
.
. 

..
..  






.
.
 .

.
.
.
.
..
.. r
..
.. 
 ..
mod
r
k−1
k−2
rk − 1

 xk
 r1
r2
r3
···
0
0 
r1
r2
r3
···
rk−1
0

Notice that the upper-left block of this matrix and the first k − 1 entries of the right-hand vector form the
system from Lemma 3.2 for the values r1 < r2 < · · · < rk−1 . Thus, the existence of a positive integer
solution (x1 , . . . , xk ) to our matrix equation above implies that (x1 , . . . , xk−1 ) are the multiplicities of a qvector supported by (r1 , r2 , . . . , rk−1 ). Further, the final row of the matrix equation above implies that rk =
Pk−1
xk−1
1 + i=1 xi ri , from which it follows that q = (r1x1 , . . . , rkxk ) arises from the free sum of p = (r1x1 , . . . , rk−1
)
xk
and q = (1 ) by Theorem 3.3.
It is straightfoward to see that the simplex defined by (1xk ) is always reflexive and IDP, so it only remains
xk−1
to check that the simplex given by (r1x1 , . . . , rk−1
) has the same properties. We know that ∆(1,q) = ∆(1,p) ∗0
xk−1
x1
∆(1,h) where we set p := (r1 , . . . , rk−1 ) and h := (1xk ). By the definition of affine free sums, we know the
free sum ∆(1,p) ∗0 ∆(1,h) is structured so that ∆(1,p) is a face of ∆(1,q) . We know that ∆(1,q) = ∆(1,p) ∗0 ∆(1,h)
is IDP, and so each of its faces must also be IDP. The reflexive condition follows immediately from the
analysis in the previous paragraph.


The final result in this section shows that for an r-vector such that ri ∤ rk for some i, there are at most
finitely many such IDP reflexive simplices supported on that vector. Each of these simplices may or may
not be decomposable as an affine free sum.
Theorem 3.5. For a fixed support vector r, there exist only finitely many reflexive and IDP ∆(1,q) supported
by r that do not admit a free sum decomposition into lower dimensional ∆(1,q) .
Proof. Fix a support vector r = (r1 , . . . , rk ). By Proposition 3.4 we know that if ri | rk for all i ∈
{1, . . . , k − 1}, then any ∆(1,q) supported by r is an affine free sum of lower-dimensional ∆(1,q) . Thus, it
remains to show that if ri ∤ rk for at least one i in {1, . . . , k − 1} then there are at most finitely many reflexive
and IDP ∆(1,q) such that q is supported by r = (r1 , . . . , rk ). To see this, notice that if ∆(1,q) is reflexive
and IDP and supported by r, then using the notation from Lemma 3.2 there is a positive integer vector x
that satisfies Rx = b. The set of ∆(1,q) that are reflexive and IDP and supported by r corresponds to the
integer points in Rk>0 ∩ (x + ker(R)). Since ker(R) is orthogonal to the image of RT , it follows from ri ∤ rk
for some i that there exists a strictly positive vector a ∈ im(RT ) orthogonal to ker(R), namely the vector a
obtained as the sum of the transpose of the k-th row of R and the transpose of the i-th row of R. Hence,
Rk>0 ∩ (x + ker(R)) is bounded, and therefore contains at most a finite number of integer points.

4. q-Vectors With Support on Two Integers
Using the results established in Sections 2 and 3, we are now able to prove our main theorem; i.e., we will
prove that all IDP and reflexive ∆(1,q) supported on two integers are h∗ -unimodal. Let q = (r1x1 , r2x2 ) denote
a q-vector supported on two vectors. By Lemma 3.2, in order to capture all IDP and reflexive simplices
supported on two integers we need to consider two cases given by the possible divisibility relations between
r1 and r2 . Table 1 summarizes the results of this section. For the two possible cases of q-vectors satisfying
the conditions of Lemma 3.2, the table indicates if these simplices exhibit h∗ -unimodality, the IDP, and/or
a known free sum decomposition.
We now classify all IDP and reflexive simplices supported on two integers in Theorem 4.1. We see there
are exactly two types of IDP and reflexive q-vectors, the former corresponding to the divisibility pattern
r1 | r2 and the latter corresponding to r1 ∤ r2 .

10

BENJAMIN BRAUN, ROBERT DAVIS, AND LIAM SOLUS

Case
(1) r1 | r2
(2) r1 ∤ r2

h∗ -unimodal
all vectors
all vectors

IDP
all vectors
all vectors

known free sum decomposition
all vectors
none

Table 1. IDP and h∗ -unimodality for q-vectors supported on two integers. The results are
classified by the two divisibility cases of Lemma 3.2.

Theorem 4.1. Let r < s be positive integers and let
q = (r, r, . . . , r, s, s, . . . , s) = (rm , sx ) .
| {z } | {z }
m times

x times

Then ∆(1,q) is reflexive if and only if r | (1 + sx) and s | (1 + rm). Further, ∆(1,q) is IDP and reflexive if
and only if either r 6= 1 with s = 1 + rm and x = r − 1 or r = 1 with s = 1 + m and x arbitrary.
Proof. The claim regarding reflexivity follows immediately from the condition that ∆(1,q) is reflexive if and
only if qj | (1 + q1 + · · · + qn ) for all j. To show that ∆(1,q) being reflexive IDP implies s = 1 + rm and
x = r − 1 when r 6= 1, we apply Corollary 2.4. First, applying the corollary with qj = s we see that
nro
n s o 1 + mr
1
+m
= 1,
+x
=
s
s
s
s
and thus we have 1 + mr = s. Second, setting qj = r and applying the corollary yields


nso 1
nro
1+x
1
1 + mr
+x
= +x
=
+m
= 1,
r
r
r
r
r
r

from which it follows that x = r − 1. A similar argument shows that if r = 1, then 1 + m = s and x can be
an arbitrary positive integer.
Next, assume that s = 1 + mr and q is formed with x = r − 1, which Corollary 2.4 guarantees to be
reflexive. To verify that ∆(1,q) is IDP in this case, we will directly apply Theorem 2.3. Consider the case
where qj = r, hence b = 0, 1, . . . , r − 1. In this case, since 0 ≤ b < r, it follows that (3) reduces to


brm + b
= b(rm − m + 1) − (r − 1)bm = b .
b(rm − m + 1) − (r − 1)
r
Thus, in this case, our only option for the c value in equations (4) and (5) is c = 1. When qi = r it is
immediate that cancellation implies (4). We therefore need to check that (4) holds when qi = rm + 1, c = 1,
and b = 2, 3, . . . , r − 1, which follows since
m + (b − 1)m = bm
if and only if

if and only if



 

(b − 1)mr + (b − 1)
brm + b
m+
=
r
r


 
 

rm + 1
(b − 1)(mr + 1)
b(rm + 1)
+
=
.
r
r
r

Next consider the case where qj = rm + 1, hence b = 0, 1, 2, . . . , rm. For this value of qj , (3) reduces to
the following expression, which we denote by h(b):


br
(11)
h(b) := b − m
mr + 1
It is straightforward to verify that when b = km + l with 0 ≤ l < m, we have h(0) = 0, we have h(km) = m
when l = 0, and we have
h(km + l) = l
for l 6= 0, which follows directly from the following claim.

DETECTING THE INTEGER DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY

Claim: If k < r, then



kmr + r
mr + 1



11

= k. This follows from the inequality

k(mr + 1) < kmr + r < (k + 1)(mr + 1) .
Thus, the viable candidates for c-values in (4) and (5) are
c = 1, m + 1, 2m + 1, . . . , (r − 1)m + 1 ,
and all other values of b give values greater than or equal to two. To complete our proof, we need to check
(4) and (5) for these values of b. We will show that for any such value of b, every viable c less than b will
satisfy these equations.
Fix b = am + d with 2 ≤ d ≤ m and 0 ≤ a ≤ (r − 1), and fix c = km + 1 with k ≤ a, which ensures that
c < b.


(am + d)r
= a. To prove this, we use the division algorithm to evaluate this quotient and
Claim:
rm + 1
obtain
amr + dr = a(rm + 1) + (dr − a) .
Because of the bounds on a and d we see that 0 ≤ dr − a ≤ mr, thus this is the correct representation using
the divisionalgorithm, hence theclaim follows.
r[(a − k)m + d − 1]
Claim:
= a − k. To prove this, we again use the division algorithm to evaluate
rm + 1
this quotient and obtain
(a − k)mr + (d − 1)r = (a − k)(rm + 1) + ((d − 1)r − (a − k)) .
Because of the bounds on a, d, and k, it follows that
1 ≤ (d − 1)r − (a − k) ≤ (m − 1)r ,
and thus this is the correct representation using the division algorithm. The claim follows.
Because k ≤ a < r, it follows that


(km + 1)r
= k.
rm + 1
Combining this with our two claims above, it follows that

 



(km + 1)r
r[(a − k)m + d − 1]
(am + d)r
+
= k + (a − k) = a =
,
rm + 1
rm + 1
rm + 1
which completes the proof. Note that this holds for any choice of k ≤ a, hence for all c < b with h(c) = 1.
Theorem 3.3 tells us that if q = (1m , (1 + m)x ) for any positive integer x, then ∆(1,q) is reflexive IDP.

To prove our main result, it remains to establish that all IDP reflexive ∆(1,q) supported on two integers
are h∗ -unimodal.
Theorem 4.2. Let ∆(1,q) be a reflexive simplex supported on two integers. If ∆(1,q) is IDP then it is
h∗ -unimodal.
Proof. By Theorem 4.1, we know that ∆(1,q) with q = (rm , sx ) is reflexive and IDP if and only if either r 6= 1
with s = 1 + rm and x = r − 1 or r = 1 with s = 1 + m and x arbitrary. In the latter case, ∆(1,q) is the
affine free sum ∆(1,q1 ) ∗0 ∆(1,q2 ) , where q1 = (1m ) and q2 = (1x ). By Theorem 3.3 it follows that ∆(1,q) is
h∗ -unimodal. Thus, it only remains to prove h∗ -unimodality for the former case.
For the sake of clarity, in the following we will let ∆r,m denote the simplex ∆(1,q) , where q = (rm , (rm +
r−1
1) ) with r 6= 1. We will also let
⌊ r+m−1
⌋
r−1
2
X
X
i
(i + 1)z + r
pr,m (z) :=
αi z i
i=0

where

αi :=

(

i=1

min{i, m − 1} if m < r,
min{i, r}
if m ≥ r.

12

BENJAMIN BRAUN, ROBERT DAVIS, AND LIAM SOLUS

To prove the desired result, it then suffices to show that
h∗∆r,m (z) = pr,m (z) + z r+m−1 pr,m

 
1
,
z

and that this sum is unimodal. To begin, recall that the formula given in Theorem 2.2 reduces to
r(rm+1)−1

h∗∆r,m (z)

=

X

z ω(b) ,

b=0

where
ω(b) = b − (r − 1)



 
b
b
−m
.
r
rm + 1

To compute the desired formula for h∗∆r,m (z) we first consider the sequence

 r(rm+1)−1
b
W := b − (r − 1)
.
r b=0
We will now group the terms in this sequence into subsequences of length r, and collect these into blocks of
m subsequences as this will help make the desired
k more apparent. Following this, we will subtract
j formula
b
in order to produce the desired powers w(b), but
from each number in the sequence the value m rm+1
organized in a fashion which reveals the desired polynomial structure. We first note that

 r(rm+1)−1
b
W = b − (r − 1)
r b=0

rm−1
r−1
= (i + j)j=0
i=0

s+m−1 r−1
r−1
=
(i + j)j=0
.
i=s

s=0

In this grouping, each sequence of m sequences of length r

s+m−1
r−1
Ws := (i + j)j=0
i=s

k
j
b
from each
accounts for rm powers w(b). To compute the powers of h∗∆r,m (z) we must subtract m rm+1
j
k
b
term in W . Since this subtraction causes the term to decrease by m each time rm+1
increases by 1 then
for all s = 0, 1, . . . , r − 1, for every i > sm


b
r−1
= (i + j − sm)r−1
(i + j)j=0 − m
j=0 .
rm + 1
Whereas, for i = sm
r−1

(i + j)j=0 − m



 
 

b
s−1
r
s−1
r
= (sm + j − (s − 1)m)j=0 , (j)j=s = (m + j)j=0 , (j)j=s .
rm + 1

So for every s = 0, 1, 2, . . . , r − 1, we have that

 
 
m−1 
b
s−1
r
r−1
Ws − m
=
(m + j)j=0 , (j)j=s , (i + j)j=0
.
rm + 1
i=1
Ps−1
s−1
r
Notice that the sequence of coefficients (m + j)j=0 gives the polynomial z m j=0 z j , and the sequence (j)j=s
Pr
yields j=s z j . Varying over s = 0, 1, . . . , r − 1, the sum of these polynomials is
(12)

r−1
X
i=0

(i + 1)z i + z r+m−1

r−1
X
i=0

(i + 1)

 i
1
.
z

DETECTING THE INTEGER DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

r1
r1
r1
r1
r1
r1

| r2
| r2
∤ r2
∤ r2
∤ r2
∤ r2

Case
r1 | r3
r1 | r3
r1 | r3
r1 | r3
r1 ∤ r3
r1 ∤ r3

r2
r2
r2
r2
r2
r2

| r3
∤ r3
| r3
∤ r3
| r3
∤ r3

h∗ -unimodal
all vectors
all vectors
all vectors
some but not all
all vectors
?

IDP
all vectors
all vectors
all vectors
some but not all
all vectors
?

13

known free sum decomposition
all vectors
all vectors
all vectors
?
none
?

Table 2. IDP and h∗ -unimodality for q-vectors supported on three integers. The results
are classified by the six divisibility cases of Lemma 3.2 that capture IDP simplices.


m−1
The sequence of coefficients (i + j)r−1
yields the polynomial
j=0
i=1

z

r−1
X

zj + z2

r−1
X

z j + · · · + z m−1

zj ,

j=0

j=0

j=0

r−1
X

or equivalently,
(13)

⌊ r+m−1
⌋
2
X
j=1

i

αi z + z

r+m−1

⌊ r+m−1
⌋
2
X
i=1

αi

 i
1
.
z

Since the sum of one copy of (12) and r copies of (13) is a unimodal polynomial and gives the desired formula
for h∗∆r,m (z), this completes the proof.

5. q-Vectors With Support on Three Integers
In this section, we study Conjecture 1.3 for the next most general family of ∆(1,q) in regards to Payne’s
counterexamples to Conjecture 1.4. Namely, we analyze IDP and h∗ -unimodality for reflexive ∆(1,q) supported on three integers r1 < r2 < r3 . Lemma 3.2 implies that in order for an r-vector r = (r1 , r2 , r3 ) to
be a candidate for supporting an IDP and reflexive ∆(1,q) , it must satisfy the following linear system with a
positive integer solution:
 



0 r2 mod r1 r3 mod r1
r1 − 1
x1
 r1
0
r3 mod r2   x2  =  r2 − 1  .
r1
r2
0
x3
r3 − 1
It is not clear in general how to identify the r-vectors for which a positive integer solution to this system
exists, let alone those for which both reflexivity and IDP hold. Thus, we consider our analysis by cases
based on divisibility among the ri ’s. Given that it is not possible for r1 | r2 , r2 | r3 , and r1 ∤ r3 , there are
seven possible divisibility relations among the ri ’s, leading to seven cases in which to consider the application
of Lemma 3.2. Furthermore, we will see in Proposition 5.1 that there are no IDP and reflexive simplices
supported on an r-vector satisfying r1 | r2 , r1 ∤ r3 , and r2 ∤ r3 . Thus, there are a total of six cases for
which we must check the validity of Conjecture 1.3, and they are numbered (1) to (6) in Table 2. Table 2
further indicates if the simplices satisfying each case exhibit h∗ -unimodality, IDP, and/or a known free sum
decomposition. As can be seen from this table, we will prove Conjecture 1.3 for cases (1), (2), (3), and (5).
Cases (1), (2), and (3) will be discussed in Subsection 5.1, case (5) will be discussed in Subsection 5.2, and
cases (4) and (6) will be discussed in Subsection 5.3. These results suggest that Conjecture 1.3 holds in the
next most general family of ∆(1,q) in relation to Payne’s counterexamples to Conjecture 1.4.
To begin, our first proposition shows that the linear system from Lemma 3.2 need not have a positive
integer solution, thereby eliminating the case r1 | r2 , r1 ∤ r3 , and r2 ∤ r3 (and so it is not presented in
Table 2).
Proposition 5.1. Suppose the r-vector r = (r1 , r2 , r3 ) satisfies r1 | r2 , r1 ∤ r3 , and r2 ∤ r3 . If r also satisfies
Lemma 3.2, then r does not support any q-vectors.

14

BENJAMIN BRAUN, ROBERT DAVIS, AND LIAM SOLUS

Proof. If such a q-vector were to exist, it would have the form
q = (sx1 , (st)x2 , ((mt + k)s + r)x3 )
for some integers s, m ≥ 1, t ≥ 2, 0 ≤ k < t, 0 < r < s, and x1 , x2 , x3 > 0. To solve for the xi ’s we consider


 

0 0
r
x1
s−1
 s 0 ks + r   x2  = 
.
st − 1
s st
0
x3
(mt + k)s + r − 1

Solving the first row of this system forces rx3 = s − 1, hence there must exist some s − 1 ≥ d ≥ 1 such that
rd = s − 1, hence x3 = d. This forces the second row to imply x1 = t − kd − 1; if x1 is to be positive, this
implies t − kd − 1 > 0. These values of x2 and x3 lead to the third row having the form
mts + ks + r − 1 − st − skd − s
.
st
Since 0 < r < s and we must have that s divides the numerator of this expression, it follows that r = 1,
which forces d = s − 1, and thus s ≥ 2. Thus, the above fraction simplifies to
x2 =

x2 =

t(m − 1) + k − (kd + 1)
.
t

If x2 is to be a positive integer, we must have that t divides the numerator, hence t | k−(kd+1) = k(2−s)−1.
Since s ≥ 2, we have 2 − s ≤ 0, and hence
0 ≥ k(2 − s) − 1 = k − (kd + 1) ≥ −(kd + 1) < −t .
Thus t divides k(2 − s) − 1 only if k(2 − s) = 1, which is impossible since k > 0 and 2 − s ≤ 0. Thus, there
is no vector of this type supporting an IDP reflexive.

5.1. Cases (1), (2), and (3) by way of affine free sum decompositions. Propositions 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4
prove Conjecture 1.3 for cases (1), (2), and (3) of Table 2, respectively. The proofs utilize the affine free sum
construction, Theorem 3.3, and Proposition 3.4.
Proposition 5.2. Suppose the r-vector r = (r1 , r2 , r3 ) satisfies r1 | r2 | r3 . If r also satisfies the Lemma 3.2,
then any q-vector supported on r has the following form. For each s, m, x such that s, m, x > 1, set
q = (1m−1 , ms−1 , (sm)x ) .
Moreover, these simplices are all IDP and have unimodal h∗ -vectors.
Proof. Our linear system from Lemma 3.2 is

0 0
 r1 0
r1 r2

of the form

 

0
x1
r1 − 1
0   x2  =  r2 − 1  .
0
x3
r3 − 1

Thus, r1 = 1, hence x1 = r2 − 1 and x3 = x can be arbitrary. Setting (r1 , r2 , r3 ) = (1, m, ms), it follows that
q = (1m−1 , ms−1 , (sm)x ) .

Using Proposition 3.4, we know that these simplices may be expressed as the affine free sum (∆(1,q1 ) ∗0
∆(1,q2 ) ) ∗0 ∆(1,q3 ) , where q1 = (1m−1 ), q2 = (1s−1 ), and q3 = (1x ). From Theorem 3.3, we see that these
simplices are IDP, reflexive, and h∗ -unimodal.

Proposition 5.3. Consider r-vectors r = (r1 , r2 , r3 ) satisfying r1 | r2 , r1 | r3 , and r2 ∤ r3 . For any k, d > 1
such that kd = r, the vector (1k−1 , rm , (mr + k)d−1 ) corresponds to a reflexive simplex, and these are the only
reflexive simplices ∆(1,q) that simultaneously satisfy these divisibility conditions and Lemma 3.2. Moreover,
each of these simplices is IDP and h∗ -unimodal.
Proof. If r1 | r2 and r1 | r3 , then it follows that r1 = 1 by the first line of Rx = b, so we are in the case
where (r1 , r2 , r3 ) = (1, r, mr + k) for 0 < k < r. By Theorem 3.5, there are at most a finite number of
IDP reflexives supported by this vector. We first apply Lemma 3.2 to identify potential x1 , x2 , x3 -values; if

DETECTING THE INTEGER DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY

15

(1x1 , rx2 , (mr + k)x3 ) corresponds to an IDP reflexive, then there must be a positive integer solution to the
linear system
 



0
0
0
1 − 1/1
x1


1/r
0
k/r   x2  = 
1 − 1/r
1/(mk + r) r/(mk + r)
0
x3
1 − 1/(mr + k)
Noting that the first row is a zero equation, and scaling the other two rows to clear denominators, we obtain



 x1


1 0 k 
r−1
x2  =
1 r 0
mr + k − 1
x3

Because any solution to this system is restricted to positive integers, the first equation above forces 0 <
x1 < r − 1, which in turn when combined with the second equationforces x2 = m. Hence x1 = k − 1 and
x3 = (r − k)/k. Thus, if a positive integer solution is possible, it must be that k | r is a proper divisor of
r. Thus, for any k, d > 1 such that kd = r, we see that the vector (1k−1 , rm , (mr + k)d−1 ) corresponds to a
reflexive simplex.
Note that q1 = (1k−1 )and q2 = (dm , (md + 1)d−1 ) are both valid q-vectors. The former is well-known
to have an h∗ -vector of (1, . . . , 1). The latter corresponds to an IDP, reflexive, and h∗ -unimodal simplex
by Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.2. Thus, (1k−1 , rm , (mr + k)d−1 ) arises as the q-vector of the affine free
sum ∆(1,q1 ) ∗0 ∆(1,q2 ) , and from Theorem 3.3 we draw the conclusion that ∆(1,q) is also reflexive, IDP, and
h∗ -unimodal.

Proposition 5.4. Suppose the r-vector r = (r1 , r2 , r3 ) satisfies r1 ∤ r2 , r1 | r3 , and r2 | r3 . If r also satisfies
Lemma 3.2, then any q-vector supported on r has the following form. For each s, m, x such that s, m ≥ 1
and x ≥ 0, set
q = (sm , (ms + 1)s−1 , (s(ms + 1))x ) .
Moreover, these simplices are all IDP and have unimodal h∗ -vectors.
Proof. Suppose we set r1 = s, r2 = ms + t, and r3 = u(ms + t) for some 0 ≤ t < s and u ≥ 1. The second
equation in the linear system from Lemma 3.2 is of the form
sx1 = ms + t − 1.
This implies s | t − 1, but since t < s and s 6= 1, t must be 1. Therefore, x1 = m, and the first line of the
linear system is simply x2 = s − 1.
The last equation in the system gives
ms + (ms + 1)(s − 1) = u(ms + 1) − 1.
Solving for u, we get s = u, so then r3 = s(ms + 1). Since x3 is a free variable, we may have as many copies
of s(ms + 1) in q as we like.
Note that by Proposition 3.4, q = (sm , (ms + 1)s−1 , (s(ms + 1))x ) arises as the affine free sum (∆(1,q1 ) ∗0
∆(1,q2 ) ), where q1 = (sm , (ms + 1)s−1 ) and q2 = (1x ). This implies that these simplices are reflexive, IDP,
and h∗ -unimodal.

5.2. Proving Conjecture 1.3 for Case (5). Theorems 5.5 and 5.7 together establish that Conjecture 1.3
holds for all ∆(1,q) captured by case (5) of Table 2.
Theorem 5.5. Suppose the triple r1 < r2 < r3 satisfies r1 ∤ r2 , r1 ∤ r3 , and r2 | r3 . Every q-vector supported
on three integers satisfying these conditions that also satisfies Lemma 3.2 has the following form. For each
s, t, r such that s > 1, 0 < t < s with t | s, and r ≥ 1, set
q = (sr , (rs + 1)t−1 , (t(rs + 1))s/t−1 ) .
For every such q, ∆(1,q) is IDP.
Proof. Since r1 does not divide either of r2 , r3 , we see that r1 > 1. Thus, the divisibility conditions imply
that (r1 , r2 , r3 ) is of the form (s, rs + k, mrs + ℓs + t) for some s > 1, r ≥ 1, m > 1, where km = ℓs + t with
0 < k < s and 0 < t < s. Lemma 3.2 implies that our necessary linear system is


 

0
k
t
x1
s−1
 s
.
0
0   x2  = 
rs + k − 1
s rs + k 0
x3
mrs + ℓs + t − 1

16

BENJAMIN BRAUN, ROBERT DAVIS, AND LIAM SOLUS

Gaussian elimination on this system leads to the solutions
rs + k − 1
x1 =
,
s
((m − 1)r + ℓ)s + t − k
x2 =
,
rs + k
and
(s − 1)(rs + k) − k[((m − 1)r + ℓ)s + t − k]
.
x3 =
t(rs + k)
Since x1 must be a positive integer, we see that s | k − 1; by assumption 0 < k − 1 < s − 1, hence k = 1.
Thus, x1 = r. Knowing that k = 1, x2 simplifies to m − 1 and x3 = s−m
t . Since x3 is a positive integer, we
need that t | (s − m), which forces m < s. However, m = ℓs + t and m < s implies m = t. Thus, x2 = t − 1
and x3 = st − 1, which implies that t | s, completing the identification of the necessary x-values.
We next verify IDP using Theorem 2.3. Throughout, we use the notation
P
 X 

1 + i6=j qi
bqi
h(b) := b
−
.
qj
qj
i6=j

Case: qj = s. It is straightforward to verify that

h(b) = b − (s/t − 1)
and using this formula one can check that



bt
s



,

h(ks/t) = k .
Combining these two observations, it follows that h(b) = 1 only when b = 1 and b = s/t, thus identifying
the b-values we are required to check in (3). To verify that (4) always has the desired solution, we consider
three cases. If qi = s, the result is trivial. If qi = rs + 1, then we may select c = 1, from which it follows that
both sides of (4) are equal to r(b − 1). If qi = t(rs + 1), then we set c = s/t, from which it is straightforward
to compute that both sides of (4) are equal to btr − rs − 1 + ⌊bt/s⌋. This completes our first case.
Case: qj = rs + 1. It is straightforward to verify that


bs
.
h(b) = b − r
rs + 1
As we are considering values of b ranging from 1 to rs, we see that this analysis is identical to that undertaken
in the proof of Theorem 4.1 starting from (11). To verify that (4) always has the desired solution, we
consider three cases. If qi = rs + 1, the result is trivial. If qi = s, then the analysis is identical to that
given following (11) in our proof of Theorem 4.1. If qi = t(rs + 1), then we can set c = 1 and the result is
immediate. This completes our second case.
Case: qj = t(rs + 1). Set d = s/t. We first identify those values of b that satisfy (3) and (5). It is
straightforward to verify that


 
bd
b
h(b) = b − r
− (t − 1)
.
rs + 1
t
Writing b = mt + ℓ where 0 ≤ m ≤ rs and 0 ≤ ℓ ≤ t, it follows that


ms + ℓd
h(b) = h(mt + ℓ) = m + ℓ − r
.
rs + 1
We can now further divide into cases: either we have m = rs or we have m = kr + w where 0 ≤ k < s and
0 ≤ w < r, which yields


ws + ℓd − k
h(b) = h((kr + w)t + ℓ) = w + ℓ − r
.
rs + 1
For m j6= rs, observe
k that since 0 ≤ ws ≤ r−1 and 0 ≤ ℓd < s, with 0 ≤ k < s, we have that 0 ≤ ws+ℓd < rs.
ws+ℓd−k
is equal to either 0 or −1.
Thus,
rs+1
Subcase 1 of 3: Suppose m = rs. Since 0 ≤ ℓd < s, we have


ℓd − s
= ℓ + r.
h(srt + ℓ) = ℓ − r
rs + 1

DETECTING THE INTEGER DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY

17

If this is equal to 1, then it must be that ℓ = 0 and r = 1. Thus, if r = 1, we have that h(st) = 1.
Subcase 2 of 3: Suppose now that m 6= rs and that


ws + ℓd − k
= −1 .
rs + 1
Then since w, ℓ ≥ 0 and r ≥ 1, we have h(b) = w + ℓ + r = 1 which forces w = ℓ = 0 and r = 1. In this case,
h(kt) = 1 any time that k > 0. Thus, if r = 1, we have that h(kt) = 1 when 0 < k < s.
Subcase 3 of 3: Suppose again that m 6= rs and that


ws + ℓd − k
= 0.
rs + 1
Then 0 ≤ k ≤ ws + ℓd, which implies that either (A) 0 < w < r with 0 ≤ ℓ < t or (B) w = 0 with k ≤ ℓd.
If (A) holds, then h(b) = w + ℓ = 1 forces w = 1 and ℓ = 0 since w > 0, which means that h(b) = 1 when
b = (kr + 1)t for 0 ≤ k < s. If (B) holds, then our same equation forces w = 0 and ℓ = 1 when k ≤ d, which
means that h(b) = 1 when b = krt + 1 for 0 ≤ k < s and k ≤ d.
We summarize the values of b for which h(b) = 1 that were just derived:
• If r = 1 and 0 < k ≤ s we have b = kt.
• If r ≥ 1 and 0 ≤ k < s, we have b = (kr + 1)t.
• If r ≥ 1 and 0 ≤ k < s and k ≤ d, we have b = krt + 1.
Our next goal is to establish that (4) is always satisfied; recall that we are in the case where qj = t(rs + 1).
If qi = t(rs + 1), then (4) is trivially satisfied. If qi = rs + 1, we write b = mt + ℓ where 0 ≤ m < rs + 1 and
0 ≤ ℓ < t. Substituting this form of b into (4) yields the equation
jck ℓ − c
−
=
.
t
t

If b > t, we set c = t and the equation is satisfied. If 2 < b < t, then we set c = 1 and the equation is
satisfied.
If qi = s, the analysis becomes more complicated. We first define d = s/t and write b = mt + ℓ where
0 ≤ m < d and 0 ≤ ℓ < t. Our argument will proceed by considering r = 1 and r > 1 separately.
Suppose r = 1. Then the left-hand-side of (4) is reduced to
 


cd
ℓd − m
−
s+1
s+1
and the right-hand-side to




ℓd − m − cd
.
s+1
Since m < d, if ℓd − m < 0 this forces ℓ = 0 and 0 < m, thus b is a multiple of t, and we found earlier that
h(mt) = 1. Thus, we need proceed
no
j
k further. If ℓd − m ≥ 0, then since m < d we must have ℓ ≥ 1, and we
ℓd−m
also have ℓd − m < s. Thus, s+1 = 0, from which it follows that (4) reduces to
 


ℓd − m − cd
cd
=
.
−
s+1
s+1
If m = 0, set c = 1 and this equation is solved. If m ≥ 1, set c = mt + 1 which is less than b in this case,
and this equation is again satisfied. This completes our proof for r = 1.
We next consider when r ≥ 2, maintaining our previous notation of b = mt + ℓ. Write m = f r + g where
0 ≤ f ≤ ⌊d/r⌋ and 0 ≤ g < r except in the case where f = ⌊d/r⌋ in which case g is bounded above by
d − d⌊d/r⌋. This leads to the left-hand-side of (4) having the form
 


cd
gs + ℓd − f
−
f+
rs + 1
rs + 1
while the right-hand-side has the form
f+



gs + ℓd − f − cd
rs + 1



.

18

BENJAMIN BRAUN, ROBERT DAVIS, AND LIAM SOLUS

We thus need to solve the equation
 
 


cd
gs + ℓd − f − cd
gs + ℓd − f
−
=
rs + 1
rs + 1
rs + 1
subject to the constraints 0 ≤ g < r (with the exception mentioned above), 0 ≤ ℓ ≤ t, and ≤ f ≤ ⌊d/r⌋.
Note that the first two inequalities imply that 0 ≤ gs + ℓd < rs, and also f ≤ ⌊d/r⌋ ≤ s, hence

 
gs + ℓd − f
0
if gs + ℓd ≥ f
=
−1 if gs + ℓd < f
rs + 1
Subcase 1 of 2: Suppose gs + ℓd − f ≥ 0. Then (4) reduces to
 


gs + ℓd − f − cd
cd
=
.
−
rs + 1
rs + 1
Note that f ≤ ⌊d/r⌋ < d, and thus we can set c = f rt + 1 which is less than b. The left-hand-side of our
above equation is given by






f rs + d
−f rs + f + d − f
(f rt + 1)d
−
=−
=−
= −f .
rs + 1
rs + 1
rs + 1
Similarly, the right-hand-side of our equation is given by




f − d + gs + ℓd − f
−d + gs + ℓd
−f +
= −f +
,.
rs + 1
rs + 1

Since h(b) is assumed to be at least 2, we have that one or both of g and ℓ are non-zero. Combining
this observation with gs + ℓd − f ≥ 0 it follows that gs + ℓd > 0. Note that d | (gs + ℓd), and thus
rs + 1 > gs + ℓd − d ≥ 0, which forces the right-hand-side of our equation to equal −f , satisfying (4).
Subcase 2 of 2: Suppose gs + ℓd − f < 0. Note that since g, s, ℓ, d ≥ 0, it follows that f ≥ 1 and thus
b = (f r + g)t + ℓ ≥ t. Set c = t, which is less than b. With these conditions, the left-hand-side of (4) is
easily seen to equal −1. The right-hand-side of (4) is given by


gs + ℓd − f − s
.
rs + 1
Since gs + ℓd − f < 0 and −s < 0, the numerator above is strictly negative. Also, since g, s, ℓ, d ≥ 0, the
numerator is minimized by −f − s > −d − s ≥ −2s. But, since we assumed that r ≥ 2, it follows that
rs + 1 > 2s and thus the floor function above is equal to −1, satisfying equality for (4).
This completes the proof establishing IDP.


Remark 5.6 (IDP and reflexive ∆(1,q) that do not decompose as affine free sums). Note that the previous
theorem establishes that, in the case of q-vectors with support on three integers, classes of IDP reflexive
simplices arise that do not all decompose as affine free sums. For example, setting s = 6, t = 3, r = 1 in
Theorem 5.5 yields q = (6, 7, 7, 21) with h∗ -polynomial 1 + 11z + 18z 2 + 11z 3 + z 4 . Since this h∗ -polynomial
is irreducible over the integers, ∆(1,6,7,7,21) does not admit a free sum decomposition [1]. Note, however, the
close resemblance between these vectors and those formed by the affine free sum construction.
To prove Conjecture 1.3 for the ∆(1,q) satisfying case (5) of Table 2, it only remains to prove that they
are h∗ -unimodal. This is the content of the following theorem, for which the utilized proof techniques are
essentially the same as those of Theorem 4.2.
Theorem 5.7. For each triplet of integers s, t, and r satisfying s > 1, 0 < t < s with t | s, and r ≥ 1 the
reflexive lattice simplex ∆(1,q) with
q = (sr , (rs + 1)t−1 , (t(rs + 1))s/t−1 )
has a unimodal h∗ -polynomial.
Proof. Let s = φt for some integer φ > 1. Notice first that 1+

Pn

i=1 qi

s(rs+1)−1

h∗ (∆(1,q) ; z) =

X
b=0

z ω(b) ,

= s(rs+1). Therefore, by Theorem 2.2

DETECTING THE INTEGER DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY

where

Consider the sequence

19




 
 
b
b
b
ω(b) = b − r
− (t − 1)
− (φ − 1)
.
rs + 1
s
φ


 s(rs+1)−1
b
.
b − (φ − 1)
φ b=0
We first group W into subsequences of length φ, which we then group into sequences of φ-sequences of length
t (so each t-sequence of φ-sequences consists of s terms of W ). Since W consists of s(rs + 1) terms, there are
exactly sr + 1 of these t-sequences. We group the first rs of these t-sequences into sequences of r t-sequences.
This presentation of W looks like


!

ℓt+t−1 kr+r−1 s−1 
t−1
φ−1
φ−1
.
W =
(i + j)j=0
, (srt + i + j)j=0
W :=

i=ℓt

ℓ=kr

i=0

k=0

 
b
from each term in W . Since this subtraction causes each term to decrease by
We then subtract (t − 1)
s
 
b
(t − 1) every time
increases by 1, which happens at the start of each new t-sequence then
s


!

ℓt+t−1 kr+r−1 s−1 
t−1
φ−1
φ−1
,
W =
(i + j + ℓ(t − 1))j=0
, (srt + i + j − rs(t − 1))j=0
i=ℓt



=



(i + j +

φ−1
ℓ)j=0

t−1 kr+r−1
i=0

ℓ=kr

ℓ=kr

!s−1

k=0



i=0

k=0




t−1
φ−1
.
, (i + j + rs)j=0
i=0



b
. Thus, we subtract one more copy of r each time
Now, from each term in W we must subtract r
sr + 1




b
b
increases by 1. For the first sr t-sequences (containing s elements of W each), the value
sr + 1
sr + 1
increases at the (ksr + k)th term of W for k = 1, 2, . . . , s − 1, and therefore is constant on each t-sequence
in the r-sequence

t−1 kr+r−1
φ−1
(i + j + ℓ)j=0
i=0

ℓ=kr

except for the very first t-sequence, corresponding to ℓ = kr. Thus, for a fixed k ∈ [s − 1], and all ℓ > kr we
subtract kr from each term of the t-sequence:

t−1 kr+r−1 
t−1 r−1
φ−1
φ−1
(14)
(i + j + ℓ − kr)j=0
=
(i + j + ℓ)j=0
.
i=0

i=0

ℓ=kr+1

ℓ=1

th

Similarly, when k = 0, this reduction applies to all t-sequences in the 0 r-sequence:

t−1 kr+r−1 
t−1 r−1
φ−1
(15)
(i + j + ℓ − kr)φ−1
=
(i
+
j
+
ℓ)
.
j=0
j=0
i=0

i=0

ℓ=kr+1

ℓ=0

As for the first t-sequence ofall r-sequences
with k = 1, 2, . . . , s − 1, the location of the (ksr + k)th term of W

b
increases from k − 1 to k. Notice, we can consider the final t-sequence
determines precisely where
sr + 1
(i.e. the (sr + 1)st t-sequence) with this collection simply by letting k = 1, 2, . . . , s. So we must determine
which φ-sequence of the t-sequence contains this term.
Recall that s = φt and k = 1, 2, . . . , s. So when the integer k lies in the interval [(α − 1)φ + 1, αφ] then the

b
first α − 1 φ-sequences lose r(k − 1) and the last t − α φ-sequences lose rk when we subtract off
.
sr + 1
Consider a fixed ℓ = kr for a fixed k = 1, 2, . . . , s. The corresponding t-sequence is

t−1
φ−1
(i + j + kr)j=0
.
i=0

20

BENJAMIN BRAUN, ROBERT DAVIS, AND LIAM SOLUS

As α ∈ [t] varies, we get the sequences

α−2 
α−2
φ−1
φ−1
(i + j + kr − r(k − 1))j=0
= (i + j + r)j=0
,
i=0

i=0

th

for the φ-sequences before the α φ-sequence and

t−1 
t−1
φ−1
φ−1
(i + j + kr − kr)j=0
= (i + j + r)j=0
,
i=α

i=α

for the φ-sequences following the αth φ-sequence. In consideration of all α ∈ [t] this collectively yields the
polynomial


t−1 φ−1
α−2
t
X
X
X
X φ−1
X
z r
z i+j  .
z i+j +
(16)
α=1

i=α j=0

i=0 j=0

Finally, we must consider the αth φ-sequence for each fixed k = 1, 2, . . . , s. Here, the index i = α − 1,
whenever k lies in the corresponding interval [(α − 1)φ + 1, αφ]. Since k is fixed, then ℓ = kr is also fixed,
so the corresponding αth φ-sequence looks like
φ−1

(j + kr + α − 1)j=0 .
If α = (α − 1)φ + β for β ∈ [φ] then this φ-sequence is
φ−1

(j + αφ + β − 1)j=0 .
So from the first β − 1 terms we must subtract r(k − 1) and from the last z − β + 1 terms we must subtract
kr. Thus, this φ-sequence becomes


β−2
φ−1
(j + r + α − 1)j=0 , (j + α − 1)j=β−1 .

In consideration of all α ∈ [t] and β ∈ [φ] this yields the polynomial


!
φ−1
φ−1
φ−1
φ
β−2
t
t X
X  1 i
X
X
X
X
X
z α+r−1
(i + 1)z i + xr+φ−1
z α−1
z i + xα−1
zi =
(17)
.
z
α=1
α=1
i=0
i=0
i=0
i=β−1

β=1

Combining the results of equations (14), (15), (16), and (17), we see that h∗ (∆(1,q) ; z) is given by summing
equations (18), (19), and (20) presented below. Equation (18) accounts for both equations (14) and (15).
(18)

1 + ((r − 1)s)

r−1 X
t−1 φ−1
X
X

z i+j+ℓ .

ℓ=1 i=0 j=0

t
X

(19)

α=1

(20)

t
X

z



z r

α−1

α=1

α−2
X
X φ−1

t−1 φ−1
X
X

z i+j +

i=α j=0

i=0 j=0

φ−1
X

i

r+φ−1

(i + 1)z + x

i=0



z i+j  .

φ−1
X
i=0

1
z

i !

.

Analogously, to the conclusion of Theorem 4.2 the sum of these three polynomials is unimodal.



5.3. Cases (4) and (6) of Table 2. In the following two remarks, we discuss the remaining divisibility
cases, which are significantly more complicated. While it would be interesting to observe that Conjecture 1.3
holds for all ∆(1,q) supported on three integers, it appears that new methods must be developed to deal with
these remaining two, and much more unruly, cases.
Remark 5.8 (Case (4) in Table 2). Suppose the r-vector r = (r1 , r2 , r3 ) satisfies r1 ∤ r2 , r1 | r3 , and r2 ∤ r3 .
Then r1 , r2 , and r3 are of the forms r1 = s for some s > 1, r2 = ms + t for some m ≥ 1 and 0 < t < s, and
r3 = u(ms + t) + v for some u ≥ 1 and 0 < v < ms + t. Moreover, since r1 | r3 , we must have ut + v = ks
for some k ∈ Z. Every q-vector supported on r1 , r2 , r3 that also satisfies Lemma 3.2 has the following form:
q = (smu+k−1−

m(s−1)
t

, (ms + t)(s−1)/t , (u(ms + t) + v)α ),

DETECTING THE INTEGER DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY

21

1
where α = tv
(ms(t − tu + s − 1) + t(t − 1 − s(k − 1))).
To see this, note that, since r3 mod r1 = 0, the linear system of Lemma 3.2 reduces to

  

0
t
0
s−1
x1
s
.
0
v  x2  = 
ms + t − 1
s ms + t 0
x3
u(ms + t) + v − 1

The first equation of this system gives us tx2 = s − 1, so x2 = (s − 1)/t. The third equation of the system
gives sx1 + (ms + t)x2 = u(ms + t) + v − 1, so solving for x1 , we get
x1

=
=
=
=
=

u(ms + t) + v − 1 − (ms + t) s−1
t
s
tu(ms + t) + tv − t − (ms + t)(s − 1)
st
−t − ms(s − 1) − t(s − 1)
mu + k +
st
−st − ms(s − 1)
mu + k +
st
m(s − 1)
mu + k − 1 −
.
t

Finally, the second equation of the linear system will give sx1 + vx3 = ms + t − 1, so solving for x3 yields
)
ms + t − 1 − s(mu + k − 1 − m(s−1)
t
v
tms + t2 − t − mstu − kst + st + ms(s − 1)
=
tv
ms(t − tu + s − 1) + t(t − 1 − s(k − 1))
.
=
tv
Unlike our previous cases, the above conditions on x1 , x2 , and x3 are necessary for ∆(1,q) to be IDP
but are not sufficient. For example, the vector q = (2, 2, 15, 20, 20) examined in the proof of Corollary 2.4
does produce a reflexive simplex ∆(1,q) and does satisfy the conditions of the previous result, yet fails
to be IDP. However, it is straightforward to verify that the h∗ -polynomial for ∆(1,2,2,15,20,20) has coefficients (1, 9, 20, 20, 9, 1), hence is unimodal. Other non-IDP q-vectors with unimodal h∗ -polynomials, all
found via computer search, include (2, 9, 12, 12), (2, 2, 15, 20, 20), (2, 2, 2, 21, 28, 28), (2, 15, 18, 18, 18, 18), and
(3, 16, 16, 36, 36, 36).
Even more striking is that the vector q = (3, 20, 24, 24, 24, 24) satisfies these divisibility conditions and
Lemma 3.2, yet is non-IDP and has a non-unimodal h∗ -vector, specifically
x3

=

h∗ (∆(1,q) ; z) = z 6 + 16z 5 + 29z 4 + 28z 3 + 29z 2 + 16z + 1 .
It remains a challenge to provide a more clear classification and description of the behavior of the q-vectors
satisfying Lemma 3.2 in this case.
Remark 5.9 (Case (6) in Table 2). The last case to check is when r1 ∤ r2 , r1 ∤ r3 , and r2 ∤ r3 . If we proceed
as usual, using Lemma 3.2, the linear system we produce is rather unwieldy. Computational data suggests
that when this is the support of q, the corresponding reflexive simplex is IDP. This has been checked using,
in part, the Normaliz interface in Macaulay2 [9] for all possible r1 = s, r2 = ms + t, r3 = u(ms + t) + v with
s ≤ 25 and m, u ≤ 10 satisfying r1 ∤ r2 , r1 ∤ r3 , and r2 ∤ r3 , and for every resulting q-vector ∆(1,q) was both
IDP and h∗ -unimodal. However, this search only resulted in 33 distinct reflexive simplices, listed in Table 3.
The main difficulty in verifying additional cases is due to having more lattice points in the high-dimensional
simplices than the software can handle.
Although the general status of Conjecture 1.3, remains very open, based on the observations and computational results given in this section, we believe the following conjecture should have a positive answer.
The comments given in Remark 5.8 and 5.9 suggest that new methodology must be developed to prove or
disprove it.
Conjecture 5.10. All reflexive IDP ∆(1,q) supported on three integers are h∗ -unimodal.

22

BENJAMIN BRAUN, ROBERT DAVIS, AND LIAM SOLUS

r-vector
(65 , 621 , 931 )
(64 , 501 , 751 )
(63 , 381 , 571 )
(62 , 261 , 391 )
(61 , 141 , 211 )
(105 , 1022, 2551 )
(104 , 822 , 2051)
(103 , 622 , 1551)
(102 , 422 , 1051)
(101 , 222 , 551 )
(123 , 1111, 1482 )
(122 , 751 , 1002)
(121 , 391 , 522 )
(145 , 1423, 4971 )
(144 , 1143, 3991 )
(143 , 863 , 3011)
(142 , 583 , 2031)
(141 , 303 , 1051)
(185 , 1824, 8191 )
(184 , 1464, 6571 )
(183 , 1104, 4951 )
(182 , 744 , 3331)
(181 , 384 , 1711)
(202 , 1641, 2053 )
(201 , 841 , 1053)
(213 , 1922, 4482 )
(212 , 1292, 3012 )
(211 , 662 , 1542)
(225 , 2225, 12211)
(224 , 1785, 9791 )
(223 , 1345, 7371 )
(222 , 905 , 4951)
(221 , 465 , 2531)

h∗ (∆(1,q) )
(1, 20, 36, 36, 36, 36, 20, 1)
(1, 20, 36, 36, 36, 20, 1)
(1, 20, 36, 36, 20, 1)
(1, 20, 36, 20, 1)
(1, 20, 20, 1)
(1, 28, 76, 100, 100, 100, 76, 28, 1)
(1, 28, 76, 100, 100, 76, 28, 1)
(1, 28, 76, 100, 76, 28, 1)
(1, 28, 76, 76, 28, 1)
(1, 28, 52, 28, 1)
(1, 40, 109, 144, 109, 40, 1)
(1, 40, 109, 109, 40, 1)
(1, 40, 74, 40, 1)
(1, 36, 100, 164, 196, 196, 164, 100, 36, 1)
(1, 36, 100, 164, 196, 164, 100, 36, 1)
(1, 36, 100, 164, 164, 100, 36, 1)
(1, 36, 100, 132, 100, 36, 1)
(1, 36, 68, 68, 36, 1)
(1, 44, 124, 204, 284, 324, 284, 204, 124, 44, 1)
(1, 44, 124, 204, 284, 284, 204, 124, 44, 1)
(1, 44, 124, 204, 244, 204, 124, 44, 1)
(1, 44, 124, 164, 164, 124, 44, 1)
(1, 44, 84, 84, 84, 44, 1)
(1, 72, 203, 268, 203, 72, 1)
(1, 72, 137, 137, 72, 1)
(1, 61, 225, 385, 385, 225, 61, 1)
(1, 61, 225, 329, 225, 61, 1)
(1, 61, 169, 169, 61, 1)
(1, 52, 148, 244, 340, 436, 436, 340, 244, 148, 52, 1)
(1, 52, 148, 244, 340, 388, 340, 244, 148, 52, 1)
(1, 52, 148, 244, 292, 292, 244, 148, 52, 1)
(1, 52, 148, 196, 196, 196, 148, 52, 1)
(1, 52, 100, 100, 100, 100, 52, 1)

Table 3. The 33 reflexive simplices described in Remark 5.9 and their h∗ -polynomials.

6. Future Directions
The results of this paper set the stage for a detailed investigation of Conjecture 1.3 in the special case of
the reflexive simplices of the form ∆(1,q) . As such, these results provide some obvious directions for future
work in discrete geometry as outlined by the following questions.
First, Remark 5.8 demonstrates that a q-vector satisfying Lemma 3.2 need not be h∗ -unimodal. However,
it is not clear in general what role Lemma 3.2 plays regarding h∗ -unimodality and the structure of Hilbert
bases for ∆(1,q) , leading to the following question.
Question 6.1. Suppose r = (r1 , . . . , rk ) supports a reflexive
simplex ∆(1,q) with q-vector satisfying Lemma 3.2.

What constraints on the Hilbert basis of cone ∆(1,q) , if any, are implied by the linear system in Lemma 3.2?
Further, for which divisibility patterns in the r-vector, if any, is Lemma 3.2 sufficient to imply h∗ -unimodality
for ∆(1,q) ? Which families of q-vectors, if any, both satisfy Lemma 3.2 and fail to be h∗ -unimodal?
Second, in Sections 4 and 5, h∗ -unimodality for some but not all of the cases studied follows from an affine
free sum decomposition of the simplices. Free sum constructions were used by Payne [16] to produce reflexive
polytopes with non-unimodal h∗ -polynomials, and by Braun and Davis [4] to study the IDP condition

DETECTING THE INTEGER DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY

23

for reflexive simplices. Given this, it is natural to ask when the free sum construction underlies the h∗ unimodality observed in the context of Section 3.
Question 6.2. For each fixed dimension d, what fraction of reflexive IDP simplices of the form ∆(1,q) arise
via affine free sums?
Third, the reflexive simplices satisfying the necessary condition of Lemma 3.2 correspond to positive
integral solutions to multivariate systems of algebraic equations. A full understanding of these simplices
may require tools from algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory.
Question 6.3. What are the integral solutions to the multivariate system of algebraic equations arising from
Lemma 3.2?
Fourth, as far as the authors know, in all published proofs that a family of polytopes is both IDP and
h∗ -unimodal, IDP and h∗ -unimodality are established separately. Thus, the IDP has only been observed to
correlate with h∗ -unimodality; no proofs have shown a causal link between the two properties. For example,
in well-known work of Bruns and Römer [6], the IDP condition is a consequence of the existence of a
regular unimodular triangulation, while h∗ -unimodality is established by using that triangulation to induce
an application of the g-theorem. Thus, there is a need for proofs that demonstrate explicitly how the IDP
condition might be used to prove h∗ -unimodality directly. The following question is a step in this direction.
Question 6.4. Do there exist q-vectors for which h∗ -unimodality of ∆(1,q) can be established using only the
conditions of Theorem 2.3?
As a final remark, the results of this paper offer new avenues by which to search for counterexamples to
Conjecture 1.3. In the special case of the simplices ∆(1,q) , the expression of the h∗ -polynomial arising from
Theorem 2.2 provides a direct link between the structure of a q-vector and the behavior of the associated h∗ polynomial. A deeper study of general polynomials of the form given in Theorem 2.2 might provide insight
leading to a counterexample, if one exists. Another possible direction in which to search for counterexamples
is suggested by Question 6.1, through the identification of broad families of q-vectors that simultaneously
satisfy Lemma 3.2 and fail to be h∗ -unimodal. Even if a counterexample is found to the general conjecture,
improved explanations of the broadly-observed h∗ -unimodality for reflexive polytopes, including in the special
case of ∆(1,q) , is needed.
References
[1] Matthias Beck, Pallavi Jayawant, and Tyrrell B. McAllister. Lattice-point generating functions for free sums of convex
sets. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 120(6):1246–1262, 2013.
[2] Matthias Beck and Sinai Robins. Computing the continuous discretely. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer,
New York, second edition, 2015. Integer-point enumeration in polyhedra, With illustrations by David Austin.
[3] Benjamin Braun. Unimodality problems in Ehrhart theory. In Recent trends in combinatorics, volume 159 of IMA Vol.
Math. Appl., pages 687–711. Springer, [Cham], 2016.
[4] Benjamin Braun and Robert Davis. Ehrhart series, unimodality, and integrally closed reflexive polytopes. Ann. Comb.,
20(4):705–717, 2016.
[5] Francesco Brenti. Log-concave and unimodal sequences in algebra, combinatorics, and geometry: an update. In Jerusalem
combinatorics ’93, volume 178 of Contemp. Math., pages 71–89. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994.
[6] Winfried Bruns and Tim Römer. h-vectors of Gorenstein polytopes. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 114(1):65–76, 2007.
[7] Heinke Conrads. Weighted projective spaces and reflexive simplices. Manuscripta Math., 107(2):215–227, 2002.
[8] Eugène Ehrhart. Sur les polyèdres rationnels homothétiques à n dimensions. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 254:616–618, 1962.
[9] Daniel R. Grayson and Michael E. Stillman. Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry. Available at
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/.
[10] Takayuki Hibi. Flawless O-sequences and Hilbert functions of Cohen-Macaulay integral domains. J. Pure Appl. Algebra,
60(3):245–251, 1989.
[11] Takayuki Hibi. Algebraic Combinatorics on Convex Polytopes. Carslaw Publications, Australia, 1992.
[12] Takayuki Hibi. Dual polytopes of rational convex polytopes. Combinatorica, 12(2):237–240, 1992.
[13] Mircea Mustaţǎ and Sam Payne. Ehrhart polynomials and stringy Betti numbers. Math. Ann., 333(4):787–795, 2005.
[14] Benjamin Nill. Volume and lattice points of reflexive simplices. Discrete Comput. Geom., 37(2):301–320, 2007.
[15] Hidefumi Ohsugi and Takayuki Hibi. Special simplices and Gorenstein toric rings. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 113(4):718–
725, 2006.
[16] Sam Payne. Ehrhart series and lattice triangulations. Discrete Comput. Geom., 40(3):365–376, 2008.
[17] Richard P. Stanley. Decompositions of rational convex polytopes. Ann. Discrete Math., 6:333–342, 1980. Combinatorial
mathematics, optimal designs and their applications (Proc. Sympos. Combin. Math. and Optimal Design, Colorado State
Univ., Fort Collins, Colo., 1978).

24

BENJAMIN BRAUN, ROBERT DAVIS, AND LIAM SOLUS

[18] Richard P. Stanley. Log-concave and unimodal sequences in algebra, combinatorics, and geometry. In Graph theory and
its applications: East and West (Jinan, 1986), volume 576 of Ann. New York Acad. Sci., pages 500–535. New York Acad.
Sci., New York, 1989.
Department of Mathematics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506–0027
E-mail address: benjamin.braun@uky.edu
Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
E-mail address: davisr@math.msu.edu
Matematik, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden
E-mail address: solus@kth.se

