DEPTH OF F -SINGULARITIES AND BASE CHANGE OF RELATIVE
CANONICAL SHEAVES

arXiv:1207.1910v3 [math.AG] 4 Feb 2013

ZSOLT PATAKFALVI AND KARL SCHWEDE
Abstract. For a characteristic p > 0 variety X with controlled F -singularities, we state
conditions which imply that a divisorial sheaf is Cohen-Macaulay or at least has depth
≥ 3 at certain points. This mirrors results of Kollár for varieties in characteristic zero. As
an application, we show that relative canonical sheaves are compatible with arbitrary base
change for certain families with sharply F -pure fibers.

1. Introduction
In the paper [Kol11b], Kollár proved that sheaves OX (−D) satisfy strong depth conditions
if D is locally Q-linearly equivalent to a divisor ∆ such that (X, ∆) is SLC or KLT. These
results generalized [Ale08, Lemma 3.2], [Fuj09] and [KM98, Corollary 5.25]. Because depth
conditions can be interpreted as vanishing of local cohomology, these results were described
as a local version of the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem.
In this paper, we obtain characteristic p > 0 analogs of the main results of [Kol11b]. This
is particularly interesting because the (global) Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem is false
in positive characteristic [Ray78]. We replace the KLT and SLC conditions by strongly F regular and sharply F -pure singularities respectively (such characteristic p > 0 singularity
classes are known as F -singularities). For the convenience of the reader, we recall that by
[HW02, MS12]
◦ KLT pairs correspond philosophically to strongly F -regular pairs, and
◦ SLC pairs correspond philosophically to sharply F -pure pairs.
Similar to [Kol11b], we can apply our results on depth to prove base change for relative
canonical sheaves.
(A special case of ) Corollary 4.13. (cf. [Kol11b, 4.3]) Let f : X −→ Y be a flat morphism
of finite type with S2 , G1 equidimensional fibers to a smooth variety and let ∆ ≥ 0 be a Qdivisor on X avoiding all the codimension zero and the singular codimension one points of
the fibers. Further suppose that KX + ∆ is Q-Cartier, p 6 | ind(KX + ∆) and (Xy , ∆y ) is
sharply F -pure for every y ∈ Y . Then ωX/Y is flat over Y and compatible with arbitrary base
change.
Corollary 4.13 is hoped to be useful in constructing a moduli space for varieties of general
type in positive characteristics. See [Pat10] for further explanation, and also for examples for
which the above compatibility does not hold. We also remark here that ωX/Y behaves surprisingly well with respect to base-change. It obeys base-change for example when the fibers are
Cohen-Macaualay [Con00, Theorem 3.6.1]. In particular, this pertains to families of normal
[m]
surfaces. In contrast, the higher reflexive powers, ωX/Y for m > 1, are not compatible with
base change in the surface case [HK10, Section 14.A]. Similar differences between canonical
and pluricanonical sheaves have been observed earlier [Kol87, page 2], [Kol90, Remark 4.4].
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13A35, 14J10, 14J17, 14F18, 13C14, 13C15.
Key words and phrases. depth, Cohen-Macaulay, F -singularities, base change, relative canonical sheaf.
The second author was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS #1064485.
1

2

ZSOLT PATAKFALVI AND KARL SCHWEDE

The technical result on depth used to prove Corollary 4.13 is as follows. It is a characteristic
p > 0 version of [Kol11b, Theorem 3(1)], also compare with [Ale08, Lemma 3.2], [Fuj09,
Theorem 4.21], [AH11, Theorem 1.5] and [Kov11, Theorem 1.2, 1.5].
Theorem 3.8. (cf. [Kol11b, Theorem 3(1)]) Suppose that R is local, S2 and G1 and that
0 ≤ ∆ is an R-divisor on X = Spec R with no common components with the singular locus of
X and such that (X, ∆) is sharply F -pure. Set x ∈ X to be the closed point and assume that
x is not an F -pure center of (X, ∆). Suppose that 0 ≤ ∆′ ≤ ∆ is another R-divisor and that
r∆′ is integral for some r > 0 relatively prime to p. Further assume that M is any rank-1
reflexive subsheaf of K(X) such that M (−r) ∼
= OX (r∆′ ) (here (·) denotes reflexive power).
Then
depthx M ≥ min{3, codimX x}.
Another interesting depth statement, again completely analogous to a theorem of Kollár
is below. In the introduction we phrase it in the language of Frobenius splittings [BK05], but
in the text it is phrased slightly more generally.
Theorem 3.6, Remark 3.7. (cf. [Kol11b, Theorem 3(2)]) Suppose that (R, m) is an S2 local
ring with Frobenius splitting ϕ : F∗e R −→ R which is not compatibly split with m. Additionally
suppose that Z is any union of compatibly ϕ-split subvarieties of X = Spec R such that
no irreducible component of Z coincides with an irreducible component of X. Suppose that
IZ ⊆ R is the ideal defining Z, then
depthm IZ ≥ min{3, 1 + codimZ x}.
The other main statement on depth we obtain, Theorem 3.1, asserts that if (X, ∆) is
strongly F -regular and (pe − 1)D is an integral divisor linearly equivalent to (pe − 1)∆, then
OX (−D) is Cohen-Macaulay. Compare with [Kol11b, Theorem 2].
Remark 1.1. One should also compare the above results on depth, as well as the related
characteristic zero results, to [AE05, Theorem 4.8(vi)] where Aberbach and Enescu showed
that the depth of an F -pure ring R is always ≥ than the dimension of the minimal F -pure
center (ie, of the dimension of R modulo the splitting prime, which we know is equal to the
s-dimension of [AE05] by [BST11]).
Acknowledgements:
The authors began working on this project at the workshop ACC for minimal log discrepancies and termination of flips held at the American Institute of Mathematics and organized
by Tommaso de Fernex and Christopher Hacon. The authors would also like to thank Florian
Enescu for valuable discussions as well as thank the referee, János Kollár and Sándor Kovács
for many useful comments on a previous draft.
2. Preliminaries on F -singularities
Notation 2.1. Throughout this paper, all schemes are Noetherian, separated, of equal characteristic p > 0 and F -finite.1 Note that any such scheme X is automatically locally excellent
by [Kun76] and also has a dualizing complex by [Gab04]. In particular, we are implicitly
assuming all schemes are locally excellent and possess dualizing complexes. Little will be lost
to the reader if he or she considers only schemes that are essentially of finite type over a
perfect field.
1Meaning the Frobenius morphism is a finite morphism.

DEPTH OF F -SINGULARITIES AND BASE CHANGE OF RELATIVE CANONICAL SHEAVES

3

We remind the reader of some special divisors on non-normal schemes.
Definition 2.2 (Divisors on non-normal schemes). We follow the notation of [K+92, Section
16]. For an S2 reduced local ring R, set X = Spec R. We define a W-divisor (or Weil divisor )
to be a formal sum of codimension one subsets of X whose generic points are not singular
points of X. This has the same data as divisors on the regular locus of X or as rank-1 S2
submodules M of K(R) (the total ring of fractions of R) such that Mη = Rη as a subset
of K(R), for every codimension 1 singular point η of X. Later in the paper, we will need
to instead work with the more general notion of Weil divisorial sheaves WSh(X), rank one
reflexive subsheaves of K(X) that are invertible in codimension 1.
In the non-local setting, such divisors are simply formal sums of irreducible subschemes that
satisfy this definition locally. We now set WDivQ (X) := WDiv(X)⊗Z Q and WDivR (X) :=
WDiv(X) ⊗Z R. Note we have containments:
WDiv(X) ⊆ WDivQ (X) ⊆ WDivR (X).
One can also form WShQ (X) := WSh(X) ⊗Z Q and WShZ(p) (X) := WShZ(p) (X) ⊗Z Z(p)
similarly, but the natural maps WSh(X) −
→ WShZ(p) (X) −
→ WShQ (X) are not necessarily
P
injective [K+92, Section 16]. Given
i ai Di = ∆ ∈ WDivR (X), we use ⌈∆⌉ to denote
P
⌈a
⌉D
(such
roundings
are
not
necessarily
well defined for WShZ(p) (X) or WShQ (x)).
i
i i
Finally, given D ∈ WDiv(X), we use OX (D) (or R(D)) to denote the corresponding subsheaf
of K (X) (or of K(R)) in the usual way. Note that D is effective if and only if OX (D) ⊇ OX .
Now we move away from divisors. Suppose that R is a ring of characteristic p > 0. Following
[Sch11, Bli09], we say a Cartier subalgebra C is a graded subring of the graded ring
M
HomR (F∗e R, R) =: C R
e≥0

where multiplication is done by Frobenius twisted composition2 such that the zeroth graded
piece [C ]0 = HomR (R, R) ∼
= R. We note that even though we call C a Cartier subalgebra, it
is not an R-algebra because R ∼
= [C ]0 is not necessarily central.
Example 2.3 (Cartier subalgebra associated to a divisor). Given an S2 and G1 ring R, set
X = Spec R and assume that 0 ≤ ∆ ∈ WDivR (X) on X (for example, if R is normal, ∆ is
simply an R-divisor). We can form the Cartier subalgebra C ∆ where
[C ∆ ]e := HomR (F∗e R(⌈(pe − 1)∆⌉), R) ⊆ HomR (F∗e R, R).
Example 2.4 (Cartier subalgebra generated by a map). Suppose that C R is as above and
ϕ ∈ [C R ]e for some e > 0. Then we can form the Cartier subalgebra Rhϕi generated by
R = [C ]0 and ϕ. Explicitly, this is the direct sum R ⊕ (ϕ · (F∗e R)) ⊕ (ϕ2 · (F∗2e R)) ⊕ · · · .
Now we define sharply F -pure pairs and F -pure centers.
Definition 2.5 (Sharply F -pure pairs). If C is a Cartier subalgebra on R, then we say that
the pair (R, C ) is sharply F -pure if there exists some ϕ ∈ [C ]e for some e ≥ 1 such that
ϕ(F∗e R) = R.
In particular, if (R, ∆) is a pair as in Example 2.3, then we say that (R, ∆) is sharply
F -pure if the associated (R, C ∆ ) is sharply F -pure.
If (R, C R ) is sharply F -pure, then we simply say that R is F -pure.
Definition 2.6 (Compatible ideals and F -pure centers). If (R, C ) is a pair as above, then
an ideal I ⊆ R is called C -compatible if ϕ(F∗e I) ⊆ I for all ϕ ∈ [C ]e and all e ≥ 0. In the
case that C = Rhϕi, we will sometimes simply say that I is ϕ-compatible.
2If ϕ ∈ [C R ] and ψ ∈ [C R ] , then ϕ · ψ = ϕ ◦ (F e ψ). See the aforementioned sources for more details.
e
d
∗

4

ZSOLT PATAKFALVI AND KARL SCHWEDE

An irreducible closed set W = V (Q) ⊆ Spec R = X, for some Q ∈ Spec R, is called an
F -pure center if the following two conditions hold:
(a) The localization (RQ , CQ ) is sharply F -pure, and
(b) For every for e ≥ 0 and ϕ ∈ [C ]e , we have ϕ(F∗e Q) ⊆ Q (in other words, if Q is
C -compatible).
Likewise we say that W is an F -pure center of (R, ∆) if it is an F -pure center of (R, C ∆ )
where C ∆ is associated to ∆ as in Example 2.3.
We also define strongly F -regular pairs.
Definition 2.7 (Strongly F -regular pairs). If R is a local ring, a pair (R, C ) is called strongly
F -regular if the only proper C -compatible ideals of R are 0 and R itself. If R is not local,
then we say (R, C ) is strongly F -regular if every localization is.
A pair (R, ∆) is strongly F -regular if (R, C ∆ ) is strongly F -regular.
Remark 2.8. Given a pair (X, ∆), all of the above definitions generalize to the non-affine
setting by requiring them to hold at each stalk. The notion of Cartier subalgebras is somewhat
more subtle in the non-affine setting however (but we will not need such generalities).
We recall some facts about compatible ideals and F -pure centers.
Lemma 2.9. Suppose that (R, C ) is a pair and I ⊆ J ⊆ R are ideals.
(i) The set of C -compatible ideals are closed under sum and intersection.
(ii) A prime ideal Q is C -compatible if and only if QRQ is CQ -compatible.
(iii) If C ′ ⊆ C are Cartier subalgebras and I is C -compatible, then I is C ′ -compatible.
(iv) Given ϕ ∈ HomR (F∗e R, R), we have ϕ(F∗e J) ⊆ J if and only if J is Rhϕi-compatible.
(v) Suppose that ϕ : F∗e R −→ R is surjective. Some Q ∈ Spec R is ϕ-compatible if and
only if it is ϕn -compatible where
(n−1)e

ϕn := ϕ ◦ (F∗e ϕ) ◦ · · · ◦ (F∗
{z
|
n-times

ϕ)
}

(vi) If I is ϕ-compatible, then there exists a map ϕ/I : F∗e (R/I) −→ (R/I) such that the
following diagram commutes:
F∗e R

ϕ



F∗e (R/I)

ϕ/I

// R

// (R/I).

Furthermore, J ⊇ I is ϕ-compatible if and only if J/I is ϕ/I-compatible. (This statement can also be done with Cartier subalgebras, but we will not need it).
(vii) (R, C ) is strongly F -regular if and only if for every c ∈ R \ {minimal primes}, there
exists a ϕ ∈ [C ]e for e > 0, in fact one may take e to be any larger multiple, such that
ϕ(F∗e c) = 1.
Proof. (v) follows from the argument of [Sch10, Proposition 4.1]. (vii) can be found in this

generality in [Sch11, Proposition 3.23]. The rest are obvious.
Our next goal is to give an example of a ϕ-compatible ideal that will be crucial in later
sections. The main idea is that Frobenius maps and Frobenius splittings induce maps on local
cohomology. Those induced maps can then be thought of as acting directly and explicitly on
Čech classes. For the convenience of the reader not already familiar with this construction,
recall that if X = Spec R and U = Spec R \ {m}, then for any coherent OX -module M , we

DEPTH OF F -SINGULARITIES AND BASE CHANGE OF RELATIVE CANONICAL SHEAVES

5

have Hmi (M ) = H i−1 (U, M ) for i > 1 and also that Hm1 (M ) = H 0 (U, M )/ image(H 0 (X, M )).
We can then use the Čech cohomology description of sheaf cohomology to define Hmi (M ).
For a more thorough description of local cohomology by the Čech complex, see for example
[BH93, Section 3.5].
We now consider Frobenius action on local cohomology. The Frobenius map R −
→ F∗ R
→ Hmi (F∗ R) ∼
yields Ψ : Hmi (R) −
= Hmi (R). Given a Čech class [z] = [. . . , zj , . . . ] ∈ Hmi (R), we
e
e
have Ψ([z]) ∈ Hmi (F∗ R). But certainly Ψ([z]) = F∗e [z]p = F∗e [. . . , zjp , . . . ] is identified with
raising the entries of [z] to the pe th power.
Now we do the same computation with a Frobenius splitting. Suppose that ϕ : F∗e R −
→R
ϕ
i
e
i
→ Hm (R) induced by ϕ.
is an R-linear Frobenius splitting, and so we have a map Hm (F∗ R) −
Certainly ϕ(F∗e [. . . , yj , . . . ]) = [. . . , ϕ(F∗e yj ), . . . ]. But now observe that for any [z] ∈ Hmi (R)
and r ∈ R we have that
e

e

ϕ(F∗e (r · [z]p )) = ϕ(F∗e [. . . , rzjp , . . . ]) = [. . . , ϕ(F∗e r)zj , . . . ] = ϕ(F∗e r)[z].
Lemma 2.10. (cf. [EH08, Theorem 4.1]) Suppose that (R, m) is a local ring. Then AnnR Hmi (R)
is compatible with every splitting3 ϕ : F∗e R −→ R of Frobenius R −→ F∗e R.
Proof. We have the following composition

1

ϕ

// F e R
∗

R
✤

// F e 1
∗

// R
// 1.

✤

Now suppose that r ∈ AnnR Hmi (R). Then choose [z] ∈ Hmi (R). We want to show that
ϕ(F∗e r).[z] = 0. Now, it follows from the Čech cohomology description of local cohomology,
and ϕ’s action on it, that
e

0 = ϕ(F∗e 0) = ϕ(F∗e (r.[z]p )) = ϕ(F∗e r).[z]
which completes the proof.

We also recall the following fact. We include the proof because the method will be generalized later.
Lemma 2.11. If (R, C ) is strongly F -regular, then R is normal and Cohen-Macaulay.
Proof. We first note that by Lemma 2.9(vii), the strong F -regularity hypothesis implies that
ψ

→ R is an isomorphism for some
there exists a Frobenius splitting ψ such that R −
→ F∗e R −
e > 0. It then easily follows that R must be reduced since if not, the map R −
→ F∗e R is not
injective. Normality follows since the conductor ideal is compatible with every ϕ ∈ C R by the
argument of [BK05, Proposition 1.2.5]. For the Cohen-Macaulay condition, by working locally
we assume that (R, m) is a local domain. By local duality [Har66, Chapter V, Theorem 6.2],
q
q
each Hmi (R) is Matlis dual to hi−dim R ωR for some normalized dualizing complex ωR . Since
an element c ∈ R annihilates a finitely generated R-module if and only if c annihilates the
Matlis dual of a module, it follows that there exists 0 6= c ∈ R such that c · Hmi (R) = 0 for all
i < dim R. Lemma 2.9(vii) then implies that there exists ϕ ∈ [C ]e such that the composition
F e (·c)

R−
→ F∗e R −−∗−−→ F∗e R −
→R
is an isomorphism. Taking local cohomology for i < dim R gives us an isomorphism:
F e (·c)

Hmi (R) −
→ Hmi (F∗e R) −−∗−−→ Hmi (F∗e R) −
→ Hmi (R)
where the middle map is the zero map. Thus Hmi (R) = 0 which completes the proof.
3A splitting is simply a map ϕ : F e R −
→ R that sends F∗e 1 to 1. Splittings are necessarily surjective.
∗



6

ZSOLT PATAKFALVI AND KARL SCHWEDE

We also state a generalization of [SS10, Theorem 4.3], similar computations were done in
[MS12].
Lemma 2.12. Suppose that X = Spec R is S2 and G1 and sharply F -pure. Then there exists
an element 0 ≤ ∆ ∈ WDivQ (X) such that (pe − 1)(KX + ∆) is Q-Cartier and (X, ∆) is
sharply F -pure.
Proof. A surjective map ϕ ∈ HomR (F∗e R, R) ∼
= H 0 (X, F∗e OX ((1 − pe )KX )) induces an effec4
tive Weil divisorial sheaf Γϕ by [Har94, Proposition 2.9] such that (pe − 1)KX + Γϕ ∼ 0. We
would like to show that Γϕ can be identified with an element of WDiv(X). At the singular
height one points η of X, OX,η is already Gorenstein. Thus we can consider the map Φη
which generates HomOX,η (F∗e OX,η , OX,η ) as an F∗e OX,η -module. Set m to be the maximal
ideal of OX,η and notice that m is the conductor ideal since F -pure rings are seminormal
[HR76] and in particular the conductor is radical. But then Φ(F∗e m) ⊆ m by the proof of
→ OX,η is equal to Φ(F∗e (r · )) for
[BK05, Proposition 1.2.5]. Now, we know ϕη : F∗e OX,η −
some r ∈ OX,η . We want to show that r is a unit, which would prove that Γϕ is trivial at
η. Since ϕη is surjective, we see that r ∈
/ m and thus r is a unit. This implies that the Weil
divisorial sheaf (Γϕ )η coincides with OX,η and thus Γϕ ∈ WDiv(X) as desired. Finally, set
∆ = pe1−1 Γϕ .

We conclude by recalling a well known lemma on the height of annihilators of local cohomology modules. However, because we lack a reference, we provide a proof.
Lemma 2.13. Suppose that (R, m) is a local ring and suppose that M is a finitely generated
R-module which is Sn in the sense5 of [BH93]. Set Yi = V AnnR (Hmi (M )) ⊆ Spec R = X.
Suppose that d is the minimum over the dimensions of the components of Supp M . Then
dim Yi ≤ i − n for i < d.
Remark 2.14. Note Yi may not be the same as Supp Hmi (M ) since Hmi (M ) is not finitely
generated.
Proof. Set ωX to be a normalized dualizing complex on X (recall that all our rings are
excellent and possess dualizing complexes). By local duality in the form of [Har66, Chapter
q
V, Theorem 6.2], it is equivalent to prove that dim Supp h−i R HomR (M, ωR ) ≤ i−n. Suppose
q
this is false, and thus that W ⊆ Supp h−i R HomR (M, ωR ) is an irreducible component of
dimension t > i − n for some i < d. Set γ to be the generic point of W (which we also view
as a prime ideal). By localizing at γ, we see that
q

(h−i R HomR (M, ωR ))γ = h−i R HomRγ (Mγ , ωRγ [t])) = h−i+t R HomRγ (Mγ , ωRγ ))
q

q

q

is supported at a point. The shift by [t] is necessary to keep the dualizing complexes normalized. Thus Hγi−t (Mγ ) 6= 0 by local duality again. Now, i − t < n. Also observe that
dim Mγ ≥ d − t (this is why the d is necessary since we do not know what component
of Supp M we will be restricting to). Since Mγ is still Sn , we see that Hγj (Mγ ) = 0 for
j < min(n, dim Mγ ). But then
min(n, dim Mγ ) ≥ min(n, d − t) > i − t
since n > i − t and d > i. Setting j = i − t we obtain a contradiction.



4in the terminology of [K+92, Section 16]
5In other words, depth M ≥ min(n, dim M ) for all z ∈ Spec R. Note that here we use dim M not dim R .
z
z
z
z

DEPTH OF F -SINGULARITIES AND BASE CHANGE OF RELATIVE CANONICAL SHEAVES

7

3. Depth and F -singularities
Our goal in this section is to prove several results on the depths of sheaves on schemes
with controlled F -singularities. First we prove our result for pairs (R, ∆) which are strongly
F -regular, this is the simplest case.
Theorem 3.1. (cf. [Kol11b, Theorem 2]) Suppose that (R, m) is local and that (X = Spec R, ∆)
is strongly F -regular. Further suppose that 0 ≤ ∆′ ≤ ∆ is such that rD ∼ r∆′ for some
integral divisor D and some integer r > 0 realtively prime to p. Then OX (−D) is CohenMacaulay.
Proof. By possibly multiplying r with an integer, we may assume that r = pe − 1. Choose,
using Lemma 2.13, 0 6= c ∈ R \ {minimal primes} such that c · Hmi (OX (−D)) = 0 for all
′
i < dim R. Note that since ∆′ ≤ ∆, C ∆ ⊆ C ∆ and then (X, ∆′ ) is strongly F -regular as well
by Lemma 2.9(iii). Therefore, by Lemma 2.9(vii) there exists an e > 0 and a splitting ϕ such
that the composition
F e (·c)

ϕ

OX −
→ F∗e OX −
→ F∗e OX ((pe − 1)∆′ ) −−∗−−→ F∗e OX ((pe − 1)∆′ ) −
→ OX
is an isomorphism. By replacing e by a multiple if necessary, we may assume that this e > 0
also satisfies the condition from the hypothesis.
Twisting by OX (−D), reflexifying, and applying Hmi ( ) we obtain the following composition which is also an isomorphism.
Hmi (OX (−D))
−
→ Hmi (F∗e OX ((pe − 1)(∆′ − D) − D))

F e (·c)

−−∗−−→ Hmi (F∗e OX ((pe − 1)(∆′ − D) − D))
ϕ
−
→ Hmi (OX (−D))
However, the map labeled F∗e (·c) is the zero map for i < dim X since
Hmi (F∗e OX ((pe − 1)(∆′ − D) − D)) = Hmi (F∗e OX (−D)).
Thus Hmi (OX (−D)) = 0 as desired.



Remark 3.2. If one assumes that (X, ∆) is purely F -regular (an analog of purely log terminal
[Tak08]), the same result holds by the same proof. The point is that we may take c annihilating
Hmi (R) and which simultaneously doesn’t vanish along the support of any component of ∆′ .
Corollary 3.3. (cf. [KM98, Corollary 5.25]) If (R, m) is local and (X = Spec R, ∆) is strongly
F -regular, then for every Q-Cartier integral divisor D, OX (−D) is Cohen-Macaulay.
Proof. If the index of D is not divisible by p then the statement is a special case of Theorem 3.1
by setting ∆′ := 0. Hence assume that the index m of D is divisible by p. Choose then an
effective divisor E linearly equivalent to D and set r := ms + 1, ∆′ := 1r E for some integer
s ≫ 0. In this situation r is relatively prime to p and


1
E = r∆′ .
rD = (ms + 1)D ∼ D ∼ E = r
r

Furthermore, for s ≫ 0, X, ∆ + 1r E is strongly F -regular. Hence, we may apply Theorem 3.1
for ∆ replaced by ∆+ 1r E and the above choices of r, D and ∆′ . This concludes our proof. 
Before moving on to the sharply F -pure pairs, we need a Lemma on the existence of certain
Frobenius splittings.
Lemma 3.4. Suppose that (R, C ) is any pair where C is a Cartier subalgebra on a local ring (R, m). Suppose m is not C -compatible. Then there exists some Frobenius splitting
ϕ : F∗e R −→ R such that ϕ(F∗e m) = R ) m.

8

ZSOLT PATAKFALVI AND KARL SCHWEDE

Proof. There obviously exists a map in [C ]e , ψ : F∗e R −
→ R, such that ψ(F∗e m) 6⊆ m. It follows
e
that ψ(F∗ m) = R. We have two cases:
Case 1: Suppose that there is a unit d ∈ R \ m such that ψ(F∗e d) = u ∈
/ m. Thus
e
e
ψ(F∗e (u−p d)) = 1. Consider the map ϕ(F∗e ) = ψ(F∗e ((u−p d)· )) and notice that ϕ(F∗e 1) =
1 which shows that ϕ is a splitting. Also notice that m is not ϕ-compatible since ϕ is a unit
multiple of ψ. Thus we have found our ϕ.
Case 2: Since we have already handled Case 1, we may assume that ψ(F∗e d) ∈ m for all
units d ∈ R. Choose c ∈ m such that ψ(F∗e c) = 1. Now then ψ(F∗e 1) ∈ m since 1 is a unit.
Thus
ψ(F∗e (c + 1)) = ψ(F∗e c) + ψ(F∗e 1) ∈ 1 + m 6⊆ m
is a unit. But this is a contradiction since c is assumed not be a unit and so c+ 1 is a unit. 
Remark 3.5. If, in addition to the hypotheses of Lemma 3.4, R is S2 and G1 , then by applying
the argument of Lemma 2.12 to the splitting ϕ constructed in the proof of Lemma 3.4, we
obtain a Q-divisor ∆ on X = Spec R such that
◦ (pe − 1)(KX + ∆) is Cartier.
◦ (X, ∆) is sharply F -pure.
◦ x = V (m) is not an F -pure center of (X, ∆).
The second two statements follow since ϕ ∈ [C ∆ ]e .
Theorem 3.6. (cf. [Kol11b, Theorem 3(2)]) Suppose that (R, m) is a local S2 -ring, and C
is a Cartier-subalgebra on R such that (R, C ) is sharply F -pure and V (m) is not an F -pure
center. Additionally suppose that Z ( X = Spec R is any union of F -pure centers of (R, C ).
We also assume that Z and X have no common irreducible components. If IZ is the (radical)
ideal defining Z, then
depthm IZ ≥ min{3, 1 + codimZ x}.
→ R
Proof. Since shrinking C is harmless, we set C = Rhϕi for some splitting ϕ : F∗e R −
which by Lemma 3.4 is not compatible with the origin V (m). Indeed, by Lemma 2.9(iii) we
can only increase the number of centers when restricting a Cartier subalgebra.
We have the long exact sequence:
· · · Hm1 (IZ ) −
→ Hm1 (R) −
→ Hm1 (R/IZ ) −
→ Hm2 (IZ ) −
→ Hm2 (R) −
→ Hm2 (R/IZ ) −
→ Hm3 (IZ ) −
→ ···
and recall we are trying to show that Hmi (IZ ) = 0 for i < min{3, 1 + codimZ x}. Since R is S2 ,
Hm1 (R) = Hm0 (R) = 0. Since Z 6= V (m) and Z is reduced, Hm0 (OZ ) = 0 and so Hm1 (IZ ) = 0.
Thus depthm IZ ≥ 2. It is now sufficient to prove the case when codimZ x ≥ 2. This implies
that dim X ≥ 3 (since Z and X have no common components).
Furthermore, we can assume that every component of Z has dimension at least 2. Indeed,
suppose that Z1 is an irreducible component of Z such that dim Z1 = 1. If Z2 is the union of
the other components of Z and Z2 6= ∅, then Z1 ∩ Z2 = x (for dimension reasons and since
we working in a local ring). But this implies that x is an F -pure center since intersections
of F -pure centers are unions of F -pure centers by Lemma 2.9(i). Thus we can assume that
Z1 = Z is 1-dimensional. But then codimZ x = 1, which contradictions our assumption.
By Lemma 2.10, we know that AnnR (Hm2 (R)) is compatible with
p (R, C ) = (R, Rhϕi).
2
However, if Hm (R) 6= 0, then since R is S2 and of dimension ≥ 3, AnnR (Hm2 (R)) = m by
Lemma 2.13. But AnnR (Hm2 (R)) is radical (since C is sharply F -pure) so AnnR (Hm2 (R)) = m.
But V (m) is not an F -pure center, this is a contradiction. We conclude that Hm2 (R) = 0.
Now we come to Hm1 (R/IZ ). Again, since R/IZ is reduced, R/IZ is S1. Furthermore, since Z
has no 1-dimensional components we can apply Lemma 2.13 to conclude that AnnR Hm1 (R/IZ )
can either be m-primary or R. Suppose it is m-primary. Since ϕ|Z is still a splitting, it follows
that AnnR/IZ Hm1 (R/IZ ) is ϕ|Z -compatible and also radical and so equal to m/IZ . But then

DEPTH OF F -SINGULARITIES AND BASE CHANGE OF RELATIVE CANONICAL SHEAVES

9

m is ϕ-compatible by basic facts about Frobenius splitting or by Lemma 2.9(vi). We conclude
that Hm1 (R/IZ ) = 0. This forces Hm2 (IZ ) to be zero and completes the proof.

Remark 3.7. Another way to state a special case of Theorem 3.6 using the language of Frobenius splittings is as follows:
Suppose that (R, m) is an S2 local ring with Frobenius splitting ϕ : F∗e R −→ R which is not
compatibly split with m. Additionally suppose that Z is any union of compatibly split subvarieties of X = Spec R such that no irreducible component of Z coincides with an irreducible
component of X. Suppose that IZ ⊆ R is the ideal defining Z, then
depthm IZ ≥ min{3, 1 + codimZ x}.
Now we come to our main technical result on depth. It is a characteristic p > 0 version of
[Kol11b, Theorem 3(1)] but also compare with [Ale08, Lemma 3.2], [Fuj09, Theorem 4.21],
[AH11, Theorem 1.5] and [Kov11, Theorem 1.2, 1.5].
Theorem 3.8. (cf. [Kol11b, Theorem 3(1)]) Suppose that R is local, S2 and G1 , X = Spec R
and that 0 ≤ ∆ ∈ WDivR (X) is such that (R, ∆) is sharply F -pure. Set x ∈ X to be the
closed point and assume that x is not an F -pure center of (R, ∆). Suppose that 0 ≤ ∆′ ≤ ∆
is another element of WDivR (X) and that r∆′ is integral for some r > 0 relatively prime
to p. Further assume that M is any rank-1 (along each component of X) reflexive coherent
subsheaf of K(X) such that M (−r) ∼
= OX (r∆′ ) (here (·) denotes reflexive power).6 Then
depthx M ≥ min{3, codimX x} = min{3, dim R}.
Proof. First observe that it is harmless to assume that dim R ≥ 3 since otherwise the statement is trivial since M is reflexive and thus S2 by [Har94, Theorem 1.9]. We may also assume
that M ⊆ OX is an ideal sheaf since we are working locally. We thus identify M with an
ideal of R also denoted by M . Finally, by replacing r by a power if necessary, we may assume
that r = pe − 1 for some e > 0.
Using Lemma 3.4, we can find ϕ a splitting, not compatible with m, making the following
composition an isomorphism:
ϕ

OX −
→ F∗e OX ֒→ F∗e OX ((pe − 1)∆′ ) ֒→ F∗e OX (⌈(pe − 1)∆⌉) −
→ OX .
Twisting by M and reflexifying (which we denote by

∗∗ ),

we obtain

M
e
−
→ F∗e (M (p −1) ⊗ M )∗∗
e
֒→ F∗e (OX ((pe − 1)∆′ ) ⊗ M (p −1) ⊗ M )∗∗
e
֒→ F∗e (OX (⌈(pe − 1)∆⌉) ⊗ M (p −1) ⊗ M )∗∗
ϕ
−−M
→ M.
Using the fact that (OX ((pe − 1)∆′ ) ⊗ M (p

e −1)

)∗∗ ∼
= OX , we have a composition

M−
→ F∗e M −
→M
that is an isomorphism (note the first map is not the usual inclusion of ideal sheaves via
Frobenius).
Certainly Hm1 (M ) = 0 since M is reflexive and thus S2 by [Har94, Theorem 1.9]. We now
study Hm2 (M ). Since M is S2 , it follows that either AnnR Hm2 (M ) is equal to R or it is mprimary by Lemma 2.13. Since we have an injection Hm2 (M ) −
→ Hm2 (F∗e M ), it follows that
e
2
2
p
AnnR Hm (M ) is at the very least radical (since if r kills Hm (M ), so does r). In particular,
if AnnR Hm2 (M ) 6= R, then it must be m.
6Note that it is also common to use the notation
confused with Frobenius power.

[·]

. We do not use that notation since it might be

10

ZSOLT PATAKFALVI AND KARL SCHWEDE

Fix [z] ∈ Hm2 (M ), and recall that we are considering M as an ideal. If zj ∈ Γ(U, M )7, then
since ∆′ ≥ 0 we have
e

e

zjp ∈ Γ(U, M (p ) ) ⊆ Γ U, (OX ((pe − 1)∆′ ) ⊗ M (p

e −1)


⊗ M )∗∗ .

Thus we have a class
e

[F∗e z p ] ∈ Hm2 F∗e (OX ((pe − 1)∆′ ) ⊗ M (p

e −1)


⊗ M )∗∗ .
e

Now, when we apply ϕM to this class, it is just applied component-wise. Thus ϕM ([F∗e z p ]) =
e
[z]. For any r ∈ m, it follows that ϕM ((F∗e r).[F∗e z p ]) = ϕ(F∗e r).[z]. In particular, if an
e
arbitrary F∗e r ∈ F∗e m annihilates all classes [y] ∈ Hm2 (F∗e (OX ((pe − 1)∆′ ) ⊗ M (p −1) ⊗ M )∗∗ ) ∼
=
Hm2 (F∗e M ), then ϕ(F∗e r) also annihilates all such [z] ∈ Hm2 (M ).
This proves that m is ϕ-compatible, a contradiction.


4. Applications
Here we list the most important corollaries of the results of Section 3. The characteristic
zero analog of many of them are already mentioned in [Kol11b]. We still state them here for
the sake of completeness and we give a full proof of our main motivation, the compatibility
of the relative canonical sheaf with base change. In Section 4.A some lemmas are gathered
while in Section 4.B the promised corollaries are presented.

4.A. Auxilliary results. In this section, we prove a series of lemmas culminating with a
base change statement for relative canonical sheaves for families with sharply F -pure fibers
Lemma 4.7.

4.A.1. Basic lemmas on depth and relative canonical sheaves. We begin with a short section
where we make note of some simple results on depth and relative canonical sheaves that we
will use.
Fact 4.1. [BH93, Theorem 1.2.5] Let F be a coherent sheaf on a Noetherian scheme X, H
a Cartier divisor on X containing a point P , such that the local equation of H at P is not a
zero divisor of FP (in other words, it is a regular element for Fp ). Then
(a) depth FP ≥ d ⇔ depth(F |H )P ≥ d − 1,
(b) depth FP ≥ min{d, dim FP } ⇔ depth(F |H )P ≥ min{d − 1, dim(F |H )P }.
Lemma 4.2. If f : X −→ Y is a morphism of Noetherian schemes, F 6= 0 is a coherent
sheaf on X flat over Y , such that F |Xy is Sd for every y ∈ Y (i.e., F is relatively Sd over
Y ) and G 6= 0 is an Sd coherent sheaf on Y , then F ⊗ f ∗ G is Sd as well.

7Here U = X \ {x}, and local cohomology classes are treated as Čech classes on U as explained earlier.

DEPTH OF F -SINGULARITIES AND BASE CHANGE OF RELATIVE CANONICAL SHEAVES

11

Proof. Fix an arbitrary P ∈ X and set Q := f (P ) and F := XQ . Then
depthOX,P (F ⊗ f ∗ G )P
= depthOF,P (F |F )P + depthOY,Q GQ
|
{z
}
F is flat over Y & [Gro65, Proposition 6.3.1]


≥ min d, dimOF,P (F |F )P
{z
|

F |F is Sd



+ depthOY,Q GQ
}

= min d + depthOY,Q GQ , dimOF,P (F |F )P + depthOY,Q GQ

≥ min d + depthOY,Q GQ , dimOF,P (F |F )P + min{d, dimOY,Q GQ }
|
{z
}
G is Sd



= min d + depthOY,Q GQ , min{dimOF,P (F |F )P + d, dimOF,P (F |F )P + dimOY,Q GQ }

= min d + depthOY,Q GQ , min{dimOF,P (F |F )P + d, dimOX,P (F ⊗ f ∗ G )P }
|
{z
}
F is flat over Y and [Gro65, Corollaire 6.1.2]



≥ min d + depthOY,Q GQ , min{d, dimOX,P (F ⊗ f ∗ G )P }

≥ min d, dimOX,P (F ⊗ f ∗ G )P .



Lemma 4.3. If f : X −→ Y is a flat morphism of finite type to a Gorenstein scheme, then
q
q
ωX/Y and ωX [− dim Y ] are locally isomorphic. In particular if X is relatively Gorenstein over
Y , then it is Gorenstein, and ωX/Y and ωX are locally isomorphic over Y .
Proof. Locally on Y the following isomorphisms hold.
q
q
q
ωX/Y = f ! OY ∼
= ωX [− dim Y ]
= f ! ωY ∼
= f ! ωY [− dim Y ] ∼

Before continuing, let us remind ourselves of how F -adjunction works and how it can allow
us to restrict divisors.
4.A.2. Restricting divisors by F -adjunction: the F -different. Suppose that ∆ ≥ 0 is a Qdivisor on an S2 and G1 variety X and that (pe − 1)(KX + ∆) is Cartier. In fact, everything
we say even holds more generally if ∆ ≥ 0 is a Z(p) -Weil divisorial sheaf, which is intuitively
something like a Weil divisor having components also in the singular locus8. Further suppose
that D is a reduced Cartier divisor on X that is itself S2 and G1 and which has no common
components with ∆. We now explain how we can construct a canonical Z(p) -Weil divisorial
sheaf (not necessarily a Z(p) -Weil divisor) which we call Diff F,D ∆ on D. Here the subindex
F means that this is the F -singularity counterpart of the usual different known from minimal model program theory. However, contrary to the usual different, the construction of
Dif fF,D ∆ goes through without any further assumption requiring that ∆ is Q-Cartier at
certain points.
Without loss of generality we can assume that X = Spec R and that R is a local ring
and that D = V (f ). The fact that the divisor (pe − 1)(KX + ∆) is Cartier implies that
HomR (F∗e R((pe − 1)∆), R) is a free F∗e R-module. Choose a generator of this module ϕ, which
8See [K+92] and [MS12] for definitions, in the latter source these are called Z -AC-divisors.
(p)

12

ZSOLT PATAKFALVI AND KARL SCHWEDE

we can also view as an element of HomR (F∗e R, R) since ∆ is effective. Now define a new map
e
e
ψ : F∗e R −
→ R by the rule ψ(F∗e ) = ϕ(F∗e (f p −1 · )). Certainly ψ(F∗e hf i) = ϕ(F∗e hf p i) ⊆
hf i and thus ψ induces a map ψ ∈ HomR/hf i (F∗e R/hf i, R/hf i).
Note that for every height one prime η containing f ∈ R, i.e., a minimal associated prime
of D, we have that ∆η = 0 (since ∆ and D have no common components). Furthermore, Rη
is regular (since Rη /hf i is reduced and zero dimensional and hence regular). It follows from
inspection that ψ is non-zero at every such η. By [MS12, Theorem 2.4], it follows that ψ
induces an effective Z(p) -Weil divisorial sheaf on D. It is straightforward to verify that ∆|D
is independent of the choice of e and ϕ and so:
Definition 4.4. We use Diff F,D ∆ to denote the effective Z(p) -Weil divisorial sheaf described
above which coincides with ψ.
We also observe:
Observation 4.5 (F -adjunction [Sch09]). Notice now additionally that ψ (corresponding to
Diff F,D ∆) is surjective if and only if ψ (corresponding to ∆+D) is surjective. In other words,
(X, ∆ + D) is sharply F -pure near D if and only if (D, Diff F,D ∆) is sharply F -pure.
It will be useful for us to note that if (D, Diff F,D ∆) is sharply F -pure, then Diff F,D ∆
is in fact an honest Z(p) -Weil divisor and not just a Z(p) -divisorial sheaf. Suppose not, then
the Weil divisorial sheaf (pe − 1)(Diff F,D ∆) must properly contain OD , even at some generic
point of the non-normal locus. A contradiction can then be obtained from the fact that the
conductor is already compatible with every ϕ ∈ C R (this last fact follows from the argument
of [BK05, Proposition 1.2.5]).
The above introduced F -different Diff F,D ∆ is equal to ∆|D in most cases when the latter
is defined.
Lemma 4.6. With the notation above, suppose additionally that ∆ is Z(p) -Cartier at all of
the height-two primes primes of R containing f (the codimension 2 points of X that are
contained inside D). Then Diff F,D ∆ coincides with the restriction ∆|D of ∆ to D.
Proof. At each of those codimension 2 points q ∈ Spec R, Rq is already Gorenstein (since
R/hf i is G1 and so Rq /hf i is Gorenstein). It is enough to prove the result at each such q,
so fix one such q. Further choose e > 0 as above and also sufficiently divisible such that
(pe − 1)D is Cartier at q. We can thus write (pe − 1)∆ = divSpec Rq (g) for some g ∈ Rq .
Since Rq is Gorenstein, we can choose Φ ∈ HomRq (F∗e Rq , Rq ) generating the set as an F∗e Rq e
→ Rq defined by the rule Ψ(F∗e ) = Φ(F∗e (f p −1 · )).
module. Consider the map Ψ : F∗e Rq −
Certainly Ψ restricts to a map Ψ ∈ HomRq /hf i (F∗e (Rq /hf i), Rq /hf i) as above. Furthermore, Ψ
generates the F∗e (Rq /hf i)-module HomRq /hf i (F∗e (Rq /hf i), Rq /hf i) by the diagrams in [Sch09,
Proof of Proposition 7.2]. It follows that ψ = (F∗e g) · Ψ restricts to ϕ = (F∗e g) · Ψ and hence
corresponds to the naive restriction ∆|W . This proves the lemma.

4.A.3. The relative canonical sheaf. We apply the above ideas on F -different to the following.
It is the inductional step in the proof of Corollary 4.13.
Lemma 4.7. Let f : X −→ Y be a flat morphism of finite type with S2 , G1 equidimensional
fibers to a smooth variety9 Y and ∆ ∈ WDivQ (X), such that KX + ∆ is Q-Cartier and
p 6 | ind(KX + ∆). Assume also that Z ⊆ Y is a smooth Cartier divisor such that for
W := X ×Y Z, ∆ does not contain any component of W and (W, Diff F,W ∆) is sharply
F -pure.10 Then ωX/Y |W ∼
= ωW/Z .
9Variety here means a separated, integral scheme of finite type over an algebraically closed base-field.
10The fact that (W, Diff
F,W ∆) is sharply F -pure implies that Diff F,W ∆ is a Z(p) -divisor and not simply a

Z(p) -Weil divisorial sheaf.

DEPTH OF F -SINGULARITIES AND BASE CHANGE OF RELATIVE CANONICAL SHEAVES

13

Proof. By Lemma 4.2, both X and W are S2 . Similarly, both are G1 by Lemma 4.3. By F adjunction Observation 4.5, cf. [Sch09, Main Theorem, Proposition 7.2, Remark 7.3], (X, ∆+
W ) is sharply F -pure in a neighborhood of W . Hence, so is (X, ∆). We now claim:
Claim 4.8. No F -pure center of (X, ∆) is contained in W .
Proof of claim. Suppose that Z ⊆ X was an F -pure center of (X, ∆) contained in W . Let
η denote the generic point of Z and now we work in R = OX,η with maximal ideal m
→ OX,η of [C ∆ ]e , we
corresponding to η. For any element ϕ : F∗e OX,η ⊆ F∗e OX,η (⌈(pe −1)∆⌉) −
e
notice that ϕ(F∗ m) ⊆ m since Z is an F -pure center. Choose f ∈ m to be the defining equation
e
of the Cartier divisor W in OX,η . It follows from construction that (F∗e f p −1 ) · [C ∆ ]e =
e
[C ∆+W ]e . In other words, for any ψ ∈ [C ∆+W ]e , we can write ψ(F∗e ) = ϕ(F∗e (f p −1 · ))
e
for some ϕ ∈ [C ∆ ]e . With this notation, for any r ∈ R we have ψ(F∗e r) = ϕ(F∗e (f p −1 r)) ∈
ϕ(F∗e m) ⊆ m. This proves that (X, ∆ + W ) is not sharply F -pure at η, the generic point of
Z. But we assumed that (X, ∆ + W ) was sharply F -pure, a contradiction which proves the
claim.

We return to the proof of Lemma 4.7. By Theorem 3.8 then, for every x ∈ W ,
depthx ωX ≥ min{3, codimX x} = min{3, dim ωX,x }.
However, by Lemma 4.3, ωX and ωX/Y are isomorphic locally, and then in the above inequality ωX can be replaced by ωX/Y . Then by Fact 4.1, ωX/Y |W is S2 . To be precise, to apply
Fact 4.1, one needs to prove a priori that the local equation of W is not a zero-divisor of ωX/Y .
For this it is enough to show that ωX/Y is S1 , which follows using again that locally ωX/Y
and ωX are isomorphic and that ωX is S2 by [KM98, Corollary 5.69]. Therefore ωX/Y |W is S2
indeed. However, so is ωW/Z by using [KM98, Corollary 5.69] again. Furthermore, ωX/Y |W
and ωW/Z are isomorphic on the relative Gorenstein locus, since the relative canonical sheaf
is compatible with base-change for Gorenstein morphisms [Con00, Theorem 3.6.1]. Therefore

[Har94, Theorems 1.9 and 1.12] yields the statement of the lemma.
The next lemma is used in Corollary 4.15. It allows us to cite [Kol11a].
Lemma 4.9. Suppose that Y is a scheme of finite type over an algebraically closed field. If
f : X −→ Y is a projective, flat, relatively S2 and G1 , equidimensional morphism, then ωX/Y
is reflexive.
Proof. According to [HK04, Corollary 3.7], it is enough to exhibit an open set U contained
in the relative Gorenstein locus, such that
(a) for Z := X \ U , codimXy Zy ≥ 2 for every y ∈ Y and
(b) for the inclusion of open set j : U ֒→ X, the natural homomorphism ωX/Y −
→
j∗ (ωX/Y |U ) is an isomorphism.
Let W be the non-relatively Gorenstein locus. Fix a finite surjective morphism π : X −
→ PnY
over Y , after possibly shrinking Y (cf. [Kol11b, proof of Corollary 24]). Set then Z :=
π −1 (π(W )), V := PnY \ π(W ). Let q : V −
→ PnY be the natural inclusion. With the above
choices, codimXy Zy ≥ 2 is satisfied for all y ∈ Y . For the other condition, notice that it
is enough to prove that the natural homomorphism π∗ ωX/Y −
→ π∗ j∗ (ωX/Y |U ) is an isomorphism. However
π∗ j∗ (ωX/Y |U ) ∼
= q∗ ((π∗ ωX/Y )|V ) ∼
= q∗ Hom V ((π∗ OX )|V , ωV /Y )
{z
}
|
Grothendieck duality

∼
= Hom X (π∗ OX , q∗ ωV /Y ) ∼
=
|
{z
}
adjoint functors

Hom X (π∗ OX , ωPn /Y )

|

{z

Y

}

[HK04, Proposition 3.5] using that
ωPn /Y is flat and relatively S2
Y

∼
= π∗ ωX/Y ,

14

ZSOLT PATAKFALVI AND KARL SCHWEDE

and the composition of the above isomorphisms is the natural homomorphism π∗ ωX/Y −
→
π∗ j∗ (ωX/Y |U ).

4.B. Consequences.
We begin with a simple consequence on the depth of OX and ωX .
Corollary 4.10. (cf. [Ale08, Lemma 3.2], [Fuj09, Theorem 4.21], [Kol11b, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3],
[AH11, Theorem 1.5], [Kov11, Theorem 1.2, 1.5]) Suppose that X = Spec R is S2 and G1 . If
X is F -pure and x ∈ X is not an F -pure center of X, then
depthx OX ≥ {3, codimX x} and depthx ωX ≥ min{3, codimX x}.
Proof. We may assume that X = Spec R for a local ring (R, m) with x = V (m). Since X
is S2 and G1 , by using Remark 3.5, we can assume that there exists some ∆ ≥ 0 such that
(pe − 1)(KX + ∆) is Cartier, such that (X, ∆) is sharply F -pure and such that x is not
an F -pure center of (X, ∆). Now the second statement follows from Theorem 3.8 by setting
M = OX (KX ) and setting ∆′ = ∆. The first statement also follows from Theorem 3.8 by
setting M = OX and ∆′ = 0.

Question 4.11. Suppose that (R, m) is F -injective. If m is not an annihilator of any F -stable
submodule of Hmi (R), does that imply any depth conditions on R or ωR ?
To prove our main corollary, we need to introduce a generalization of Diff F,D ∆ to the case
when D has higher codimension. We focus only on our case of interest, that is, when D is
the fiber over a smooth base.
Definition 4.12. Let f : X −
→ Y be a flat morphism of finite type with S2 , G1 equidimensional fibers. Further suppose that Y is a smooth variety, and ∆ ∈ WDivQ (X) is such that
∆ does not contain any component of any fiber. Fix a point y ∈ Y . Working locally, we may
assume that Y = Spec A and X = Spec R for local rings (A, n) and (R, m). Further assume
that n = hf1 , . . . , fn i is regular system of generators with Yi = V (f1 , . . . , fi ) regular. Then,
let ∆i := Diff F,Yi ∆i−1 and define then Diff F,Xy ∆ := ∆n .
The only question is whether this construction of Diff F,Xy ∆ is independent of the choice of
fi . Following the method of F -adjunction, multiplying by each fi successively, we take a map
corresponding to ∆ and ϕ : F∗e R −
→ R and obtain another map ψf : F∗e R −
→ R defined by
e
e
e
the rule ψf (F∗ ) = ϕ(F∗ ((f1 · · · fn )p −1 · )). We then restrict this map to Xy by modding
out by n and so obtain ψ f .
Choosing different Yi ’s is simply choosing a different set of generators {g1 , . . . , gn } for n
which yields ψ g . To complete the proof of the claim, it is sufficient to show that these maps
e
differ only by multiplication by a unit. We use n[p ] to denote the ideal generated by the pe th
e
e
e
e
e
powers of the generators of n. Since n[p ] : n = h(f1 · · · fn )p −1 i+n[p ] = h(g1 · · · gn )p −1 i+n[p ] ,
e
e
see for example [Fed83, Proposition 2.1], it follows that (f1 · · · fn )p −1 = u(g1 · · · gn )p −1 +
P
e
vi hpi for some unit u ∈ A, elements vi ∈ A and hi ∈ n. But now we see that ψ f = (F∗e u)·ψ g
e
since any multiple of hpi will be sent into nR. This completes the proof.
Corollary 4.13. (cf. [Kol11b, 4.3]) Let f : X −→ Y be a flat morphism of finite type with
S2 , G1 , equidimensional fibers to a smooth variety and let ∆ ∈ WDivQ (X) be such that it
does not contain any component of any fiber. Additionally assume that KX + ∆ is Q-Cartier,
p 6 | ind(KX + ∆) and (Xy , Diff F,Xy ∆) is sharply F -pure for every y ∈ Y . Then ωX/Y is flat
over Y and compatible with arbitrary base change.
Proof. We claim that ωX/Y is flat over Y and relatively S2 . By [BHPS12, Lemma 2.13],
flatness follows as soon as we prove that the restriction of ωX/Y to every fiber is S1 . On

DEPTH OF F -SINGULARITIES AND BASE CHANGE OF RELATIVE CANONICAL SHEAVES

15

the other hand relatively S2 means the stronger condition that the above restrictions are S2 .
Therefore to show the claim, it is enough to prove that ωX/Y |Xy is S2 for every y ∈ Y . By
[KM98, Corollary 5.69], ωXy is S2 and hence, it is enough to show that ωX/Y |Xy ∼
= ωXy locally
around every point x ∈ Xy . We thus replace both X and Y by Spec OX,x and Spec OY,y ,
respectively. Therefore, we may assume that there is a sequence of smooth subvarieties:
Y = Y0 ⊇ Y1 ⊇ · · · ⊇ Ym−1 ⊇ Ym = {y}, such that Yi−1 is a Cartier divisor in Yi . Set
Xi := XYi and ∆i := Diff F,Xi ∆i−1 with ∆0 = ∆. Note that then Deltam = Diff F,Xy ∆.
By applying Observation 4.5 (backwards) inductively and possibly further restricting X
around x, one obtains that (Xi , ∆i + Xi−1 ) and hence (Xi , ∆i ) is sharply F -pure for all i
(in fact, this also implies all the Z(p) -Weil divisorial sheaves ∆i are honest divisors). Finally,
applying Lemma 4.7 inductively again yields that ωXi /Yi |Xi−1 ∼
= ωXi−1 /Yi−1 for all i, and
consequently ωX/Y |Xy ∼
= ωXy . This finishes the proof of our claim.
By our claim and [HK04, Corollary 3.8] ωX/Y and all its pullbacks are reflexive. Hence, by
restricting to the relatively Cohen-Macaulay locus (whose complement has codimension ≥ 2)
and using [HK04, Proposition 3.6], for any morphism Z −
→ Y , ωXZ /Z ∼

= (ωX/Y )Z .
Remark 4.14. By Lemma 4.6, the appearance of Diff F,Xy ∆ can be replaced by an actual
“geometric” restriction, if we assume the following:
(1)

for each y ∈ Y , there is some r > 0 relatively prime to p such that r∆ is
Cartier at the codimension 1 points of the fiber Xy ⊆ X.

In particular, this is satisfied if Supp ∆ does not contain the singular codimension one points
of the fibers. Indeed, let ξ be a codimesnion 1 point of a fiber Xy . If ξ is in the singular locus
of Xy , then ξ 6∈ Supp ∆ and hence ∆ is Cartier at ξ. Otherwise, X is smooth around ξ, and
hence KX is Cartier at ξ. In particular then by p 6 | ind(KX + ∆), we obtain that ∆ is Z(p)
Cartier at ξ. In either cases ∆ satisfies (1), and therefore in the special case of Corollary 4.13
stated in Section 1, the use of ordinary restriction of ∆ was legitimate.
When f is projective, the compatibility of Corollary 4.13 follows for arbitrary reduced base
by an important result of Kollár [Kol11a].
Corollary 4.15. Let f : X −→ Y be a flat projective morphism with S2 , G1 equidimensional
fibers. Further suppose that Y is a reduced, separated scheme of finite type over an algebraically
closed field, and ∆ a Q-Weil-divisor that avoids all the codimension zero and the singular
codimension one points of the fibers. Additionally assume that there is a p 6 | N > 0, such
[N ]
that N ∆ is Cartier in relative codimension one and ωX/Y (N ∆) 11 is a line bundle and that
(Xy , ∆y ) is sharply F -pure for every y ∈ Y . Then ωX/Y is flat and compatible with arbitrary
base change.
Proof. First, we need some preparation about pulling back ∆. Suppose τ : Y ′ −
→ Y is a
′
′
′
′
′
′
morphism and set X := X ×Y Y , π : X −
→ X, and f : X −
→ Y the induced morphisms.
Then a natural pullback ∆′ of ∆ can be defined as follows. Let U ⊆ X be the open set
where f is Gorenstein and ∆ is Q-Cartier. Then, pull ∆|U back to π −1 U , and finally extend
it uniquely over X ′ . This extension is unique, since codimX ′ X ′ \ π −1 U ≥ 2. We claim that
(2)

[N ]
[N ]
π ∗ ωX/Y (N ∆) ∼
= ωX ′ /Y ′ (N ∆′ ).

11 Let U be the intersection of the relative Gorenstein locus and the locus where N ∆ is Cartier. Set
[N]

N
ι : U −→ X for the natural inclusion. The sheaf ωX/Y (N ∆) is the reflexive hull of ωU/Y
(N ∆|U ), i.e. the
N
unique reflexive sheaf that restricts on U to the above sheaf. It can be obtained as ι∗ (ωU/Y (N ∆|U )). Indeed,
N
ι∗ (ωU/Y
(N ∆|U )) is reflexive by [HK04, Corollary 3.7] and it is unique by [HK04, Proposition 3.6].

16

ZSOLT PATAKFALVI AND KARL SCHWEDE
[N ]

[N ]

Indeed, notice that by construction π ∗ ωX/Y (N ∆) and ωX ′ /Y ′ (N ∆′ ) agree over π −1 U , that
[N ]

is, in relative codimension one. Notice also that since ωX/Y (N ∆) is assumed to be a line
[N ]

[N ]

bundle, so is π ∗ ωX/Y (N ∆), and therefore π ∗ ωX/Y (N ∆) is reflexive. On the other hand, since
[N ]

ωX ′ /Y ′ (N ∆′ ) is defined as a pushforward of a line bundle from relative codimension one,
it is reflexive by [HK04, Corollary 3.7]. Therefore by [HK04, Proposition 3.6], (2) holds. In
[N ]
particular, ωX ′ /Y ′ (N ∆′ ) is a line bundle.
The main consequence of the previous paragraph, is that the conditions of the corollary
are invariant under pullback to another reduced, separated scheme Y ′ of finite type over k.
That is, X ′ , f ′ and ∆′ defined above satisfy all the assumptions of the corollary. Let us turn
now to the actual proof of the corollary. First, we may assume that Y is connected. Second,
according to [Kol11a, Corollary 24] and Lemma 4.9, there is a locally closed decomposition
∐Yi −
→ Y , such that if T −
→ Y , then ωXT /T is flat and commutes with base-change if and
only if T −
→ Y factors through some Yi −
→ Y . Now, for every irreducible component Y ′ of Y ,
→S
there is a regular alteration S −
→ Y ′ [dJ96, Thorem 4.1]. By the above discussion XS −
satisfies the assumptions of the corollary, and hence also of Corollary 4.13. Therefore, ωXS /S
is flat and compatible with arbitrary base-change. Hence S −
→ Y factors through one of the
Yi . In particular, since the image of S −
→ Y is the component Y ′ , Y ′ ⊆ Yi . That is, every
irreducible component of Y is contained in one Yi . However, Y is connected, therefore all
irreducible components of Y are contained in the same Yi , and hence by the reducedness of
Y , Yi = Y .

Remark 4.16. In the case of dim Y = 1, if instead of assuming that Xy is sharply F -pure,
one assumes that (X, Xy ) is F -pure for all y ∈ Y , the p 6 | ind(KX + ∆) assumption can be
dropped from the above corollaries using the trick of Lemma 2.12.
Question 4.17. Does the compatibility of the relative canonical sheaf with base change stated
in Corollary 4.13 hold for singular Y (with the adequate modification in the setup as in
Corollary 4.15)? From the modular point of view, especially interesting would be the case of
non-reduced Y . This case is open even in the projective case.
Remark 4.18. It should be noted that the characteristic zero analogue of Corollary 4.13 is
known if f is projective and Y is arbitrary [KK10, Theorem 7.9]. That is, the answer to the
characteristic zero analogue of Question 4.17 is positive when f is projective.
Question 4.19. Can one replace sharply F -pure by log-canonical (still assuming positive
characteristic) in the statement of Corollary 4.13? This would also be important from the
modular point of view, since sharply F -pure varieties can be deformed to log-canonical but
not sharply F -pure varieties.
Question 4.20. Can one remove the divisibility by p condition from the statement of Corollary 4.13?
Remark 4.21. [Kol11b, 4.10] The sheaf OX (−D) in Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 3.8 cannot be
replaced by OX (D) as shown in [Kol11b]. We refer to [Kol11b] for the actual example.
References
[AE05]

I. M. Aberbach and F. Enescu: The structure of F -pure rings, Math. Z. 250 (2005), no. 4,
791–806. MR2180375
[Ale08]
V. Alexeev: Limits of stable pairs, Pure Appl. Math. Q. 4 (2008), no. 3, Special Issue: In honor
of Fedor Bogomolov. Part 2, 767–783. 2435844 (2009j:14020)
[AH11]
V. Alexeev and C. Hacon: Non-rational centers of log canonical singularities, arXiv:1109.4164.
[BHPS12] B. Bhatt, W. Ho, Zs. Patakfalvi, and C. Schnell: Moduli of products of stable varieties,
arXiv:1206.0438.

DEPTH OF F -SINGULARITIES AND BASE CHANGE OF RELATIVE CANONICAL SHEAVES

[Bli09]
[BST11]
[BK05]

17

M. Blickle: Test ideals via algebras of p−e -liner maps, arXiv:0912.2255, to appear in J. Algebraic
Geom.
M. Blickle, K. Schwede, and K. Tucker: F -signature of pairs and the asymptotic behavior of
Frobenius splittings, arXiv:1107.1082.
M. Brion and S. Kumar: Frobenius splitting methods in geometry and representation theory, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 231, Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 2005. MR2107324
(2005k:14104)

[BH93]
[Con00]
[dJ96]
[EH08]
[Fed83]

W. Bruns and J. Herzog: Cohen-Macaulay rings, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics,
vol. 39, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. MR1251956 (95h:13020)
B. Conrad: Grothendieck duality and base change, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1750,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000. MR1804902 (2002d:14025)
A. J. de Jong: Smoothness, semi-stability and alterations, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math.
(1996), no. 83, 51–93. 1423020 (98e:14011)
F. Enescu and M. Hochster: The Frobenius structure of local cohomology, Algebra Number
Theory 2 (2008), no. 7, 721–754. MR2460693 (2009i:13009)
R. Fedder: F -purity and rational singularity, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 278 (1983), no. 2, 461–480.
MR701505 (84h:13031)

[Fuj09]
[Gab04]
[Gro65]

O. Fujino: Introduction to the log minimal model program for log canonical pairs, arXiv:0907.1506.
O. Gabber: Notes on some t-structures, Geometric aspects of Dwork theory. Vol. I, II, Walter de
Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin, 2004, pp. 711–734.
A. Grothendieck: Éléments de géométrie algébrique. IV. Étude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas. II, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. (1965), no. 24, 231. 0199181 (33
#7330)

[HK10]
[HW02]
[Har66]

[Har94]

[HK04]
[HR76]
[Kol87]

C. D. Hacon and S. J. Kovács: Classification of higher dimensional algebraic varieties, Oberwolfach Seminars, vol. 41, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2010. 2675555 (2011f:14025)
N. Hara and K.-I. Watanabe: F-regular and F-pure rings vs. log terminal and log canonical
singularities, J. Algebraic Geom. 11 (2002), no. 2, 363–392. MR1874118 (2002k:13009)
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)
R. Hartshorne: Generalized divisors on Gorenstein schemes, Proceedings of Conference on Algebraic Geometry and Ring Theory in honor of Michael Artin, Part III (Antwerp, 1992), vol. 8, 1994,
pp. 287–339. MR1291023 (95k:14008)
B. Hassett and S. J. Kovács: Reflexive pull-backs and base extension, J. Algebraic Geom. 13
(2004), no. 2, 233–247. MR2047697 (2005b:14028)
M. Hochster and J. L. Roberts: The purity of the Frobenius and local cohomology, Advances
in Math. 21 (1976), no. 2, 117–172. MR0417172 (54 #5230)
J. Kollár: Subadditivity of the Kodaira dimension: fibers of general type, Algebraic geometry,
Sendai, 1985, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., vol. 10, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987, pp. 361–398.
MR946244 (89i:14029)

[Kol90]

J. Kollár: Projectivity of complete moduli, J. Differential Geom. 32 (1990), no. 1, 235–268. 1064874
(92e:14008)

[Kol11a]
[Kol11b]
[K+92]

J. Kollár: Hulls and husks, arXiv:0805.0576.
J. Kollár: A local version of the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem, Pure Appl. Math. Q. 7
(2011), no. 4, Special Issue: In memory of Eckart Viehweg, 1477–1494. 2918170
J. Kollár and 14 coauthors: Flips and abundance for algebraic threefolds, Société Mathématique
de France, Paris, 1992, Papers from the Second Summer Seminar on Algebraic Geometry held at
the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, August 1991, Astérisque No. 211 (1992). MR1225842
(94f:14013)

[KK10]
[KM98]

[Kov11]
[Kun76]

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. Kovács: Irrational centers, Pure Appl. Math. Q. 7 (2011), no. 4, Special Issue: In memory of
Eckart Viehweg, 1495–1515. 2918171
E. Kunz: On Noetherian rings of characteristic p, Amer. J. Math. 98 (1976), no. 4, 999–1013.
MR0432625 (55 #5612)

18

ZSOLT PATAKFALVI AND KARL SCHWEDE

[MS12]
[Pat10]
[Ray78]

[Sch09]
[Sch10]
[Sch11]
[SS10]
[Tak08]

L. E. Miller and K. Schwede: Semi-log canonical vs F -pure singularities, J. Algebra 349 (2012),
150–164. 2853631
Zs. Patakfalvi: Base change behavior of the relative canonical sheaf related to higher dimensional
moduli, arXiv:1005.5207, to appear in Algebra Number Theory.
M. Raynaud: Contre-exemple au “vanishing theorem” en caractéristique p > 0, C. P.
Ramanujam—a tribute, Tata Inst. Fund. Res. Studies in Math., vol. 8, Springer, Berlin, 1978,
pp. 273–278. 541027 (81b:14011)
K. Schwede: F -adjunction, Algebra Number Theory 3 (2009), no. 8, 907–950. 2587408 (2011b:14006)
K. Schwede: Centers of F -purity, Math. Z. 265 (2010), no. 3, 687–714. 2644316 (2011e:13011)
K. Schwede: Test ideals in non-Q-Gorenstein rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 363 (2011), no. 11,
5925–5941.
K. Schwede and K. E. Smith: Globally F -regular and log Fano varieties, Adv. Math. 224 (2010),
no. 3, 863–894. 2628797 (2011e:14076)
S. Takagi: A characteristic p analogue of plt singularities and adjoint ideals, Math. Z. 259 (2008),
no. 2, 321–341. MR2390084 (2009b:13004)

Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08542, USA
E-mail address: pzs@princeton.edu
Department of Mathematics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802,
USA
E-mail address: schwede@math.psu.edu

