SINGULARITIES OF GENERIC LINKAGE OF ALGEBRAIC VARIETIES

arXiv:1207.1082v2 [math.AG] 18 Jun 2013

WENBO NIU
Abstract. Let Y be a generic link of a subvariety X of a nonsingular variety A. We give
a description of the Grauert-Riemenschneider canonical sheaf of Y in terms of the multiplier
ideal sheaves associated to X and use it to study the singularities of Y . As the first application,
we give a criterion when Y has rational singularities and show that log canonical threshold
increases and log canonical pairs are preserved in generic linkage. As another application
we give a quick and simple liaison method to generalize the results of de Fernex-Ein and
Chardin-Ulrich on the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity bound for a projective variety.

1. Introduction
Let A be either a nonsingular affine variety or a projective space Pn over the field of complex
number C. Two closed subvarieties of A are said to be geometrically linked if the union of
them is a complete intersection in A. Let us fix a reduced equidimensional subscheme X of
A of codimension c for now. By choosing c equations carefully among the defining equations
of X we define a complete intersection V and obtain a subscheme Y as the closure of the
complement of X in V . Then Y is geometrically linked to X via V , i.e., Y ∪ X = V and Y
has no common irreducible components with X. If such complete intersection V is chosen to
be as general as possible, then Y is called a generic link of X.
The study of linkage, or the theory of liaison, of algebraic varieties can be traced back to
hundreds of years ago. The recent work in this area was initiated by Peskine and Szpiro [PS74].
After that, linkage has attracted considerable attention and has been developed widely and
deeply from both geometric and algebraic point of views.
Let us state the construction of a generic link more concretely to make our introduction
clear. Assume further that X is defined by an ideal IX generated by equations f1 , · · · , ft . The
essential point is to create a general complete intersection V by using the equations fi ’s. There
are three situations in current research to do this, which we list as follows.
Situation A. Suppose A = Spec R is affine. A complete intersection V is defined by the
equations αi = Ui,1 f1 + · · · + Ui,t ft , for i = 1, · · · , c, where Ui,j ’s are variables. V is actually
defined in an extended space Spec R[Ui,j ]. By abuse of notation, we still write A = Spec R[Ui,j ]
and X is defined by IX [Uij ]. This only occurs in the introduction. New notation which avoids
any ambiguity will be introduced in Definition 2.3 and adopted henceforth.
Situation B. Suppose A = Spec R is affine. A complete intersection V is defined by the
equations αi = ai,1 f1 + · · · + ai,t ft , for i = 1, · · · , c, where ai,j ’s are general scalars in C.
Situation C. Suppose A = Pn and the homogeneous equations fi ’s of X have degrees d1 ≥
d2 ≥ · · · ≥ dt . A complete intersection V is defined by choosing general equations αi from
H 0 (Pn , IX (di )), for i = 1, · · · , c.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13C40, 14M06.
Key words and phrases. Generic linkage, singularity, log canonical pair, multiplier ideal sheaf, CastelnuovoMumford regularity.
1

In each of the three situations, once having a complete intersection V in hand, a generic link
Y of X can be obtained by algebraic construction, namely, by an ideal IY := (IV : IX ). (We
sometimes use sheaf notation, e.g. IX , to view an ideal as a sheaf.)
The terminology of generic linkage usually refers to Situation A. The theory based on this
setting has been founded and developed deeply by Huneke and Ulrich in the last three decades,
mainly from algebraic side of the story (e.g. [HU88], [HU87]). Situation C was studied from the
geometric side. The book of Miglior [Mig98] gives a outline of the theory along this direction.
It is worth mentioning that the way to construct a generic link in Situation C is quite classical
and a typical application can be found in the work of Betram, Ein and Lazarsfeld [BEL91] on
the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity bound for a smooth projective variety. Situation B can
be considered as a specialization of Situation A as well as a local version of Situation C. As
an important technique it has been used in recent studies of singularities, for instance, in the
work of de Fernex and Docampo [dFD12] and the work of Ein and Mustata [EM09].
However, in contrast to the quick and deep development of singularity theories in the past
decades, much less has been known about the singularities in generic linkage. A few special
examples have drawn attention recently. One important case, which serves as a guideline of
this paper, is a result of Chardin and Ulrich [CU02] that if X is a local complete intersection
and has rational singularities then a generic link of X has rational singularities. But the machinery behind the result seems quite mysterious from the geometric point of view. Meanwhile,
experience gained from research in the past gives the intuition that the singularities of a generic
link seem to be worse than X itself.
The main theorem of this paper in the context of Situations A, B and C is the following.
Recall that A is either a nonsingular affine variety or a projective space and X is a reduced
equidimensional subscheme of codimension c. We simply write them as a pair (A, cX).
Theorem 1.1. Let Y be a generic link (if it is nonempty) to a pair (A, cX) via V . Then Y
is reduced equidimensional of codimension c, its Grauert-Riemenschneider canonical sheaf is
ωYGR ≃ I (A, cX) · OY ⊗ ωV ,
where I (A, cX) is the multiplier ideal sheaf associated to the pair (A, cX) and ωV is the
dualizing sheaf of V , and it fits into the following commutative diagram
(1.1.1)

ωYGR


≃

_

// I (A, cX) · OY ⊗ ωV
_

tr

i



ωY

≃



// IX · OY ⊗ ωV

where the bottom isomorphism is canonical, tr is the trace map, and the inclusion i is induced
by I (A, cX) ֒→ IX (cf. Lemma 2.5). Furthermore, we have inequalities for log canonical
thresholds of pairs as
lct(A, Y ) ≥ lct(A, X).
It should be noticed that in the application of the theorem the dualizing sheaf ωV can be
replaced by ωA |V in Situations A and B and by ωPn (d1 + · · · + dc )|V in Situation C. Also the
generic link Y could be reducible in Situations B and C. There are some special case in which
Y is irreducible discussed in Section 4.
The aforementioned result of Chardin and Ulrich is an immediate consequence of the theorem. Also the problem that when a generic link has rational singularities now becomes clear.
Furthermore the theorem also implies that log canonical pairs are preserved in generic linkage.
It should be mentioned that, as pointed out by the referee, the inequality of log canonical
thresholds in the theorem is rather straightforward in Situations B and C.
2

As another application of the theorem in Situation C of projective spaces, we can generalize
and extend the results of de Fernex and Ein [dFE10] and Chardin and Ulrich [CU02] on the
Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity bound for a projective variety. The proof is based on liaison
theory and provides a natural, geometric approach to study regularity. The original proofs in
[CU02] and [dFE10] were very different, and the new proof here finds its way somewhere in the
middle, leading to a statement which recovers both results. This was kindly suggested by the
referee. The following is a simple version and we will give its full general version in Corollary
4.3.
Corollary 1.2. Let X ⊂ Pn be a reduced equidimensional subscheme of codimension c defined
by the equations of degree d1 ≥ d2 ≥ · · · ≥ dt and assume that the pair (Pn , cX) is log canonical
except possibly at finitely many points. Then
reg X ≤

c
X

di − c + 1

i=1

and equality holds if and only if X is a complete intersection in Pn .
We conclude this introduction by briefly stating the organization of this paper. We take Situation A as our framework, following the footprints of Huneke and Ulrich. We prove Theorem
1.1 in Situations A and B in Section 3. Section 4 is devoted to the case of projective varieties
and the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity bound.
Acknowledgement. Special thanks are due to professor Bernd Ulrich who introduced the
author to this subject and spent his valuable time on discussion. This paper would not be
possible without his generous help and encouragement. The author also would like to thank
professor Lawrence Ein for his insightful knowledge and inspiring suggestions which enrich the
paper. The author’s thanks also goes to professor Joseph Lipman for his patient reading and
kind suggestions, and goes to the referee for his nice comments and suggestions which improve
the quality of the paper.
2. Generic linkage, singularities and multiplier ideal sheaves
Throughout this paper, we work over the field k := C. By a variety we mean a reduced
irreducible scheme of finite type over k. A subscheme is always assumed to be closed. We
shall briefly review basic facts about linkage, singularities and multiplier ideal sheaves in this
section.
Definition 2.1. Let A be either a nonsingular affine variety over k or a projective space Pnk .
Let X and Y be two subschemes of A. We say that X and Y are geometrically linked if X ∪ Y
is a complete intersection V in A and X and Y are equidimensional, no embedded components
and have no common irreducible components. We also say Y is linked to X via V , or vice
versa.
Suppose Y is geometrically linked to X via V in A as defined above. Let ωY be a dualizing
sheaf of Y (in this paper, we use dualizing sheaf and canonical sheaf interchangeably). One
important fact is an isomorphism ωY ≃ IX · OV ⊗ ωV , where IX is the defining ideal sheaf
of X in A and ωV is a dualizing sheaf of V . If A is an affine nonsingular variety, then one can
deduce that
(2.1.1)

ωY ≃ IX · OY ⊗ ωA ,
3

where ωA is a dualizing sheaf of A. If A is a projective space Pnk and V is cut out by homogeneous equations of degrees d1 ≥ d2 ≥ · · · ≥ dc , where c = codim V , then one has
(2.1.2)

ωY ≃ IX · OY ⊗ ωA (d1 + · · · + dc ).

It is also well-know that Y is Cohen-Macaulay if and only if X is Cohen-Macaulay. The modern
approach to study linkage goes back to Peskine and Szpiro [PS74], and we refer to their work
for more general theory of linkage.
Definition 2.1 suggests that the study of linkage involves an ambient space containing the
varieties concerned. Thus it is natural to consider a variety and its ambient space as a pair.
Besides, the concept of pairs is a successful approach to study singularities of varieties, which
is the main motivation of this paper.
Definition 2.2. A pair (A, cX) contains a nonsingular variety A over k, a subscheme X and
a nonnegative real number c. If A = Spec R is affine and X is defined by an ideal IX , then we
c ).
say the pair (A, cX) is an affine pair and also use an alternative notation (R, IX
Now we give the definition of generic linkage mentioned in Situation A and take it as our
framework in Section 3.
c ) be an affine pair such that X is reduced equidiDefinition 2.3. Let (Ak , cXk ) = (Rk , IX
k
k
mensional and c = codimAk Xk . We construct a generic link of Xk as follows. Fix a generating
set (f1 , · · · , ft ) of IXk . Let (Uij ), 1 ≤ i ≤ c, 1 ≤ j ≤ t, be a c × t matrix of variables. Set
R := Rk [Uij ] and IX := IXk · Rk [Uij ] and define A = Spec R and X = Spec R/IX . Notice that
IX is still generated by (f1 , · · · , ft ) in R. We define a complete intersection V inside A by an
ideal
IV := (α1 , · · · , αc ) = (Ui,j ) · (f1 , · · · , ft )T ,
that is
αi := Ui,1 f1 + Ui,2 f2 + · · · + Ui,t ft ,
for 1 ≤ i ≤ c.
Then a generic link Y to Xk via V is defined by an ideal IY := (IV : IX ).

Remark 2.4. In the definition above, the subscheme V is a complete intersection in A [Hoc73].
The subschemes Y and X of A are geometrically linked so that IY = (IV : IX ), IX = (IV : IY )
and IV = IX ∩ IY and therefore Y is equidimensional without embedded components and has
no common components with X [HU85, 2.1, 2.5]. Furthermore Y is actually integral [HU85,
2.6]. In the sequel we only need the fact that Y is reduced equidimensional. It is from (2.1.1)
that a dualizing sheaf ωY of Y is ωY ≃ IX · OY ⊗ ωA , where ωA is a dualizing sheaf of A.
Let A be a nonsingular variety over k and {Xi }, i = 1, · · · , m, are m subschemes of A. By
Hironaka’s resolution of singularities, there is a birational
projective morphism f : A′ −→ A
P
′
−1
such that A is a nonsingular variety, f (Xi ) =
ai,j Ej for i = 1, · · · , m, where ai,j ’s are
nonnegative integers and Ej ’s are prime divisors of A′ such that the union of Ej ’s with the
exceptional locusP
Exc(f ) is a simple normal crossing divisor. The morphism f is called a log
resolution of (A, i Xi ).
′
A of (A, X) such that f −1 (X) =
PsLet (A, cX) be a pair. Take a log resolution f : AP−→
s
i=1 ai Ei and the relative canonical divisor KA′ /A =
i=1 ki Ei . We say that the pair (A, cX)
is log canonical if ki − c · ai ≥ −1 for all i. The log canonical threshold of (A, X) is defined to
be
ki + 1
}.
lct(A, X) := min{
i
ai
The multiplier ideal sheaf I (A, cX) associated to the pair (A, cX) is defined to be
X
ai Ei ⌋),
I (A, cX) := f∗ OA′ (KA′ /A − ⌊c
4

where ⌊c

P

ai Ei ⌋ is the round down of the Q-divisor c

P

ai Ei .

Lemma 2.5. Let A be a nonsingular variety over k and X ⊂ A be a reduced equidimensional
subscheme of codimension c defined by an ideal sheaf IX . Let I (A, cX) be the multiplier ideal
sheaf associated to the pair (A, cX). Then I (A, cX) ⊆ IX .
Proof. Since at each generic point p of X one has I (A, cX)p = IX,p and IX is radical the
result is then clear.

The following lemma is due to Lawrence Ein, which gives a criterion to compare multiplier
ideal sheaves with ideal sheaves.
Ein’s Lemma. Let A be a nonsingular variety and X ⊂ A be a reduced equidimensional
subscheme of codimension c defined by an ideal sheaf IX . Then I (A, cX) = IX if and only
if I (A, (c−1)X) = OA . In particular if the pair (A, cX) is log canonical then I (A, cX) = IX .
Proof. The inclusion I (A, cX) ⊆ IX is from Lemma 2.5. It then suffices to show that IX ⊆
I (A, cX) if and only if I (A, (c − 1)X) is trivial. If c = 1, then there is nothing to prove. So
in the sequel we assume c > 1. We shall follow notation and terminologies in [EM09, Section
7].
The inclusion IX ⊆ I (A, cX) is true if and only if for any prime divisor E over X we
have an inequality ordE IX + ordE K /A − c · ordE IX ≥ 0. This is equivalent to the inequality
ordE K /A − (c − 1) · ordE IX ≥ 0, which is equivalent to I (A, (c − 1)X) is trivial.
Now suppose (A, cX) is log canonical. This means that for any prime divisor E over X
we have ordE K /A − c · ordE IX ≥ −1. If the center of E is outside X then ordE IX = 0
and ordE K /A ≥ 0 since A is nonsingular. And thus ordE K /A − c · ordE IX ≥ −ordE IX .
On the other hand, if the center of E is inside X, then ordE IX ≥ 1 and again we have
ordE K /A −c·ordE IX ≥ −1 ≥ −ordE IX . Hence in any case we have ordE K /A −c·ordE IX ≥
−ordE IX , which implies, as showed above, that I (A, (c − 1)X) is trivial.

Definition 2.6. Let A be a nonsingular variety over k and X a reduced subscheme of A. A
morphism ϕA : A −→ A is a factorizing resolution of X inside A if the following hold:
(1) ϕA is an isomorphism at the generic point of every irreducible component of X. In
particular, the strict transform X of X is defined.
(2) The morphism ϕA and ϕX := ϕA |X are resolution of singularities of A and X, respectively, and the union of X with the exceptional locus Exc(ϕA ) has simple normal
crossings.
(3) If IX and IX are the defining ideals of X and X in A and A, respectively, then there
exists an effective divisor G on A such that
IX · OA = IX · OA (−G).
The divisor G is supported on Exc(ϕA ) and hence has normal crossing with X.
Remark 2.7. The above definition is borrowed from [EIM11, Definition 2.10]. The existence
of a factorizing resolution is proved in [BVU03, Theorem 1.2]. In addition, we can assume that
the morphism ϕA is isomorphic over the open set A \ X.
Let us conclude this section by briefly reviewing the definition of rational singularities and
Grauert-Riemenschneider canonical sheaves. Let X be a reduced equidimensional scheme of
finite type over k. Let f : X ′ −→ X be a resolution of singularities of X. Then the GrauertGR of X is defined to be ω GR := f ω ′ , where ω ′ is the
Riemenschneider canonical sheaf ωX
∗ X
X
X
GR is independent on the choice of the
canonical sheaf of X ′ . It turns out that the sheaf ωX
5

GR is canonically a subsheaf of ω , a
resolution of singularities f (cf. [Laz04a]). Furthermore ωX
X
GR
dualizing sheaf of X, via a trace map tr : ωX ֒→ ωX . Recall that X has rational singularities
if f∗ OX ′ = OX and Ri f∗ OX ′ = 0 for i > 0. It is well-know that X has rational singularities if
GR = ω (cf. [Kol97]).
and only if X is Cohen-Macaulay and ωX
X

3. Generic linkage of affine varieties
In this section, we first study the singularities of generic linkages under the framework of
Huneke and Ulrich as Definition 2.3 in Situation A. In this case, Theorem 1.1 will be proved
by using Proposition 3.1, Proposition 3.2 and Proposition 3.7. Some direct consequences will
also be given which describe singularities of generic linkage. Then we specialize our results to
a Zariski open set of a scalar matrices space, which takes care of Situation B.
Proposition 3.1. With notation as in Definition 2.3 let Y be a generic link to a pair (Ak , cXk ).
Then
ωYGR ≃ I (A, cX) · OY ⊗ ωA ,
where I (A, cX) is the multiplier ideal sheaf associated to the pair (A, cX).
Proof. Let ϕk : Ak −→ Ak be a factorizing resolution of singularities of Xk inside Ak , so that
IXk · OAk = IX k · OAk (−Gk ) where X k is the strict transform of Xk , Gk is an effective divisor
supported on the exceptional locus of ϕk , and furthermore X k and the exceptional locus of ϕk
are simple normal crossings. The morphism ϕk can be assumed to be an isomorphism over the
open set Ak \Xk (cf. Definition 2.6 and Remark 2.7).
By tensoring k[Uij ] to the factorizing resolution ϕk , we obtain a factorizing resolution of
singularities of X inside A as
ϕ : A −→ A,
such that IX · OA = IX · OA (−G), where X is the strict transform of X, G is an effective
divisor supported on the exceptional locus of ϕ, and X and exceptional locus of ϕ are simple
normal crossings. Notice that by the construction, we actually have A = Ak ⊗k Spec k[Uij ],
X = X k ⊗k Spec k[Uij ] and G = Gk ⊗k Spec k[Uij ].
Claim 3.1.1.

The ideal sheaf IV · OA has a decomposition as
IV · OA = IV · OA (−G)

where IV is an ideal sheaf on A and is a local complete intersection.
Proof of Claim 3.1.1. The question is local. Recall that ϕk : Ak −→ Ak is the factorizing
resolution of singularities of Xk inside Ak . Let U k = Spec Rk be an affine open set of Ak such
that the effective divisor Gk is defined by an equation g ∈ Rk and we have a decomposition
IXk · Rk = IX k · (g) on U k . Now since IXk · Rk = (f1 , · · · , ft ) · Rk we can write fi = f i g where
f i ∈ Rk for i = 1, · · · , t so that IX k = (f 1 , · · · , f t ).
Recall that the factoring resolution ϕ : A −→ A is obtained by tensoring Spec k[Uij ] to the
factoring resolution ϕk . Write R = Rk ⊗ k[Uij ] which is a faithfully flat ring extension of Rk
and then U = U k ⊗ Spec k[Uij ] = Spec R is an affine open set of A. Notice that on U the
ideal IX = IX k · R and the effective divisor G is still generated by the equation g. Recall
that the ideal IV = (α1 , · · · , αc ), where αi = Ui,1 f1 + Ui,2 f2 + · · · + Ui,t ft . Thus if write
αi = Ui,1 f 1 + Ui,2 f 2 + · · · + Ui,t f t and set IV = (α1 , · · · , αc ), then IV is a complete intersection
on U and we have a decomposition IV ·R = IV ·(g) on U , which finishes the proof of Claim 3.1.1.
6

e −→ A be the blowing-up of A along X such that I · O e = O e(−T ), where
Now let µ : A
X
A
A
e −→ A. Notice that the supports of
T is an exceptional divisor of µ. Denote by ψ = (φ ◦ µ) : A
divisors T , µ∗ (G) and the exceptional locus of ψ are simple normal crossings. We write KA/A
e
to be the relative canonical divisor of the morphism ψ.
Claim 3.1.2.

We have the following statements.

(1) The ideal sheaf IV · OAe can be decomposed as
IV · OAe = IVe · OAe(−T ).
e and defines a local complete intersection Ve of codiwhere IVe is an ideal sheaf on A
mension c.
(2) The scheme Ve is nonsingular and irreducible and its dualizing sheaf is
− c(T + µ∗ G)) ⊗ ψ ∗ ωA ,
ωVe ≃ OVe (KA/A
e

where ωA is a dualizing sheaf of A.
(3) The scheme Ve is the strict transform of Y via ψ.
Proof of Claim 3.1.2. We work locally on affine open sets as in the proof of Claim 3.1.1.
Assume that Ak = Spec Rk and A = Spec R, where R = Rk ⊗k k[Uij ]. Recall that, as we
showed in the proof of Claim 3.1.1, the ideal IX = (f 1 , · · · , f t ) · R where for each i the
generator f i is in the ring Rk , and that the complete intersection IV = (α1 , · · · , αc ), where
e say
αi = Ui,1 f 1 + Ui,2 f 2 + · · · + Ui,t f t for i = 1, · · · , c. Now take a canonical affine cover of A,
U = Spec R[f 2 /f 1 , · · · , f t /f 1 ] such that the exceptional divisor T is given by the element f 1
α1 , · · · , α
ec ).
on U . For i = 1, · · · , c write α
ei = Ui,1 + Ui,2 f 2 /f 1 + · · · + Ui,t f t /f 1 and set IVe = (e
Then on the open set U we have IV · OU = IVe · (f1 ) and IVe defines an irreducible nonsingular
variety of Ve on U , which prove the statement (1) and the first part of the statement (2) in the
claim.
Next we compute the dualizing sheaf of Ve . Notice that we have IV ·OAe = IVe ·OAe(−T −µ∗ G).
Since IV is a complete intersection in A of codimension c we have a surjective morphism
e a surjective morphism
⊕c OA −→ IV −→ 0, which induces on A
c
M

OAe(T + µ∗ G) −→ IVe −→ 0.

e is
Thus it is clear that the determinant of the normal bundle of Ve inside A
det NVe /Ae = OVe (−c(T + µ∗ G)).

Then by the adjunction formula, we have
− c(T + µ∗ G)) ⊗ ψ ∗ ωA ,
ωVe ≃ ωAe ⊗ det NVe /Ae = OVe (KA/A
e
which proves the second part of the statement (2) in the claim. For the statement (3), just
notice that the morphism ψ is an isomorphism at the generic point of Y . Thus we finish the
proof of Claim 3.1.2.
Now twisting the short exact sequence 0 −→ IVe −→ OAe −→ OVe −→ 0 by the divisor
− c(T + µ∗ G)) ⊗ ψ ∗ ωA , we obtain an exact sequence
OAe(KA/A
e
∗
∗
∗
∗
(3.1.3) 0 → IVe ·OAe(KA/A
e −c(T +µ G))⊗ψ ωA → ωVe → 0.
e(KA/A
e −c(T +µ G))⊗ψ ωA → OA
7

Push down this sequence via ψ. Notice that by the definition of multiplier ideal sheaves, we
obtain
− c(T + µ∗ G)) = I (A, cX).
ψ∗ OAe(KA/A
e
Now we make the following claim.
Claim 3.1.4.

We have the following statements for the sequence 3.1.3.

(1) Let I (A, cV ) be the multiplier ideal sheaf associated to the pair (A, cV ), then
− c(T + µ∗ G))) = I (A, cV ).
ψ∗ (IVe · OAe(KA/A
e
(2) We have the vanishing
− c(T + µ∗ G)) = 0,
Ri ψ∗ (IVe · OAe(KA/A
e

for i > 0.

e be the blowing-up of A
e along Ve such that I e ·
Proof of Claim 3.1.4. Let ν : A′ −→ A
V
OA′ = OA′ (−S), where S is an exceptional divisor of ν. Notice that KA′ /Ae = (c − 1)S and
KA′ /A = KA′ /Ae + ν ∗ KA/A
e . Thus we have
− cν ∗ (T + µ∗ G) = KA′ /A − c(S + ν ∗ T + (µ ◦ ν)∗ G).
−S + ν ∗ KA/A
e
Write the divisor D := (S + ν ∗ T + (µ ◦ ν)∗ G). We notice that IV · OA′ = OA′ (−D). Since
ν∗ OA′ (−S) = IVe and Ri ν∗ OA′ (−S) = 0 for i > 0, we obtain that
− c(T + µ ∗ G))
ν∗ OA′ (KA′ /A − cD) = IVe · OAe(KA/A
e
and
Ri ν∗ OA′ (KA′ /A − cD) = 0,

for i > 0.

Write f := ψ ◦ ν : A′ −→ A. The divisor −D is f -nef and then by the Kawamata-Viehweg
vanishing theorem we have
Ri f∗ OA′ (KA′ /A − cD) = 0,

for i > 0.

Also by the definition of multiplier ideal sheaves we have f∗ OA′ (KA′ /A − cD) = I (A, cV ).
Now by using the spectral sequence
E2p,q = Rp ψ∗ (Rq ν∗ OA′ (KA′ /A − cD)) ⇒ Rp+q f∗ OA′ (KA′ /A − cD),
we immediately have that
− c(T + µ∗ G)) = 0,
Ri ψ∗ (IVe · OAe(KA/A
e

for i > 0,

and
− c(T + µ∗ G))) = I (A, cV ),
ψ∗ (IVe · OAe(KA/A
e
which finish the proof of Claim 3.1.4.
Finally, we push down the sequence (3.1.3) via ψ to obtain an exact sequence
0 −→ I (A, cV ) ⊗ ωA −→ I (A, cX) ⊗ ωA −→ ωYGR −→ 0.
Thus by restricting to Y we see I (A, cX) · OY ⊗ ωA ≃ ωYGR , which proves the proposition.

8

Next we show that the isomorphism proved in Proposition 3.1 is canonical in the sense
that it fits into the commutative diagram 1.1.1. To this end, we need to track carefully the
isomorphisms constructed in the proposition. Since canonical sheaves are only unique up to
isomorphism we need to fix our canonical sheaves uniformly in arguments. There is a canonical
canonical sheaf, namely sheaf of regular differential forms, developed by Kunz [KW88], offering
a concrete way to do so. We follow the notation of Lipman [Lip84] to denote by ω
e the sheaf of
regular differential forms.
Let Z be a reduced of pure dimension d scheme of finite type over k. Denote by KZ the locally
constant sheaf of total quotient ring of OZ . Its ring of global sections is K(Z) := KZ (Z) which
is a product of residue fields of the generic points of Z. Let ΩdZ/k := ∧d Ω1Z/k be the d-th exterior
power of the sheaf of Kählar differential one-form. Let Ω̄dK(Z)/k be the locally constant sheaf
of meromorphic d-forms on Z so that its module of global sections is Ω̄dK(Z)/k (Z) = ΩdK(Z)/k .
The sheaf ω
eZ of regular differential forms of degree d of Z is defined in [KW88, Section 3] and
it is a subsheaf of Ω̄dZ/k . Now let f : Z ′ −→ Z be a resolution of singularities of Z so that f is
isomorphic at the generic points of Z. Then pushdown the inclusion ω
eZ ′ ֒→ Ω̄dK(Z ′ )/k via f we
have f∗ ω
eZ ′ ֒→ f∗ Ω̄dK(Z ′ )/k . But since f is generically isomorphism we see that K(Z ′ ) = K(Z)
and f∗ Ω̄dK(Z ′ )/k = Ω̄dK(Z)/k . Thus f∗ ω
eZ ′ is naturally included in Ω̄dK(Z)/k as a subsheaf. The
eZ is then the natural inclusion as subsheaves of Ω̄dK(Z)/k .
trace map tr : f∗ ω
eZ ′ ֒→ ω

Proposition 3.2. With notation as in Proposition 3.1, the isomorphism ωYGR ≃ I (A, cX) ·
OY ⊗ ωA is canonical in the sense that it fits into the following commutative diagram
ωYGR


(3.2.1)

≃

// I (A, cX) · OY ⊗ ωA
_

_

tr

i



≃

ωY



// IX · OY ⊗ ωA

where the bottom isomorphism is given by 2.1.1, tr is the trace map, and the inclusion i is
induced by I (A, cX) ֒→ IX (cf. Lemma 2.5).
Proof. Keep notation and construction as in the proof of Proposition 3.1. Assume that d :=
dim X. We first make the adjunction isomorphism ωV ≃ ωA ⊗OA OV precisely by using
regular differential forms mentioned above. Recall that V is a complete intersection defined
by IV = (α1 , · · · , αc ). Then it is clear that IV /IV2 = ⊕OV ᾱi . Following notation of [Lip84,
Section 13] we set a sheaf
eA /IV ω
eA ),
HV,A := H omOV (∧c IV /IV2 , ω

which is torsion free since ω
eA is locally free. Notice that HV,A = det NV /A ⊗OA ω
eA where NV /A
is the normal sheaf of V in A. We have the following commutative diagram
(3.2.2)

ω
eV _


Ω̄dK(V )/k

≃

// HV,A

≃

// ω
eA ⊗OA OV

iV
≃
aV



// HV,A ⊗O KV
V

jV

≃
bV



// ω
eA ⊗OA KV

where the left commutative square follows from [HS97, Theorem 2.3] (see also [Lip84, Corollary
13.7]) and the right commutative square is a consequence of that the sheaves inside H om are
all locally free and det NV /A ≃ OV . The morphism iV and jV are injective because HV,A
and ω
eA ⊗OA OV are torsion free. Furthermore the vertical morphisms in the diagram can
9

be thought of induced by tensoring with the natural inclusion OV ֒→ KV . Thus HV,A and
ω
eA ⊗OA OV are naturally as subsheaves of those locally constant sheaves at the bottom of the
−1
diagram. The adjunction isomorphism ω
eV ≃ ω
eA ⊗OA OV is then induced by a−1
V ◦ bV , i.e.
−1
ωA ⊗OA OV ). The isomorphisms aV and bV can be described precisely and
ω
eV = (a−1
V ◦ bV )(e
determined completely at each generic point of V . Assume v is one generic point of V with the
residue field k(v). The local ring OA,v has a regular system of parameters α1 , · · · , αc , x1 , · · · , xd .
Then locally at an open set of V containing only v the sheaf Ω̄dK(V )/k = k(v)dx̄1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx̄d ,
the sheaf HV,A ⊗ KV = k(v)ξ where ξ maps ᾱ1 ∧ · · · ∧ ᾱc to dα1 ∧ · · · dαc ∧ dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxd and
the sheaf ω
eA ⊗OA KV = k(v)dα1 ∧ · · · dαc ∧ dx1 ∧ · · · ∧ dxd . Then on this open neighborhood
of v the bottom line of the diagram 3.2.2 can be written as
k(v)dx̄1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx̄d −→ k(v)ξ −→ k(v)dα1 ∧ · · · ∧ dαc ∧ dx1 · · · ∧ dxd .
The isomorphisms aV and bV are defined in the way that aV (dx̄1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx̄d ) = ξ and bV (ξ) =
dα1 ∧ · · · ∧ dαc ∧ dx1 · · · ∧ dxd .
Next we need to make the isomorphism ωY ≃ IX · OY ⊗ ωA clearly. Write the sheaf
HY,V := H omOY (OY , ω
eV /IY /V ω
eV )
where IY /V = IY · OV . It is a torsion free since ω
eV is locally free. There is a fundamental local
homomorphism (cf. [Lip84, 13.1])
h : H omOV (OY , ω
eV ) −→ HY,V
which in our case is induced by the natural quotient morphism ω
eV −→ ω
eV /IY /V ω
eV . We have
the following commutative diagram
(3.2.3)

ω
eY _

≃

// H omO (OY , ω
eV )
V

// ω
eV ⊗OV IX · OV





uY

h

≃

HY,V

// ω
eV ⊗OV OY
jY

iY



Ω̄dK(Y )/k

≃
aY



// HY,V ⊗O KY
Y

≃
bY



// ω
eV ⊗OV KY .

The left hand side big square is commutative checked by definition directly. The right two
small squares are commutative because ω
eV is locally free and H omOV (OY , OV ) = IX · OV .
The morphisms iY and iY ◦ h are injective since sheaves involved are all torsion free. Now let v
be a generic point of Y which is also a generic point of V . Suppose that the local ring OA,v has a
regular system of parameters α1 , · · · , αc , x1 , · · · , xd . Then locally at an open set of Y containing
only v we see that the sheaves Ω̄dK(Y )/k = k(v)dx̄1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx̄d , HY,V ⊗OY KY = k(v)ξY where ξY
maps 1 to dx̄1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx̄d , and ω
eV ⊗OV KY = k(v)dx̄1 ∧ · · · ∧ dx̄d . Thus it is easy to check that
the morphism bY ◦aY is the identity. Hence in the locally constant sheaf Ω̄dK(Y )/k = ω
eV ⊗OY KY
the canonical sheaf ω
eY is exactly the sheaf ω
eV ⊗OV IX · OV . Furthermore since Y is generic
linked to X via V we see that IX · OV = IX · OY .
10

Now tensoring the diagram (3.2.2) with OY over OV . Notice that KV ⊗OV OY = KY since
IY /V · KV = KX . And combining the diagram (3.2.3) together we have
(3.2.4)

=

ω
eY _

// ω
eV ⊗OV IX · OV

// ω
eA ⊗OA IX · OV




// ω
eA ⊗OA OY

uY

ω
eV ⊗OV OY
jY





=

Ω̄dK(Y )/k

bY ◦aY

≃

// ω
eV ⊗OV KY

(bV ◦aV )⊗1Y


// ω
eA ⊗OA KV ⊗OV OY .

The two horizontal morphisms on the top and right of the diagram can be thought of as the
restriction of the right bottom morphism of locally constant sheaves on their subsheaves. Thus
the sheaf ω
eY is the image of IX ⊗ ω
eA under the following morphisms
(3.2.5)

(bV ◦aV )⊗1−1

Y
IX ⊗ ω
eA ֒→ ω
eA −→ ω
eA ⊗ OY −→ ω
eA ⊗OA KY −−−−−−−−
→ Ω̄dK(Y )/k

where except (bV ◦ aV ) ⊗ 1−1
Y the rest morphisms are all natural ones.
Now we look at the canonical sheaf ω
eVe . Denote by E := T + µ∗ G an effective divisor on
e Recall that Ve is locally a complete intersection on A
e and ∧c I e /I 2 = O e(cE). The normal
A.
A
V
Ve
sheaf NVe /Ae = OVe (−cE). We define the sheaf
eAe)
eAe/IVe ω
HVe ,Ae = H omOVe (∧c IVe /IV2e , ω

which is torsion free since ω
eAe is free. Exactly as in the situation of V on A, we have the
following commutative diagram
(3.2.6)

ω
eVe

≃

_

Ω̄d



K(Ve )/k

≃
aVe

≃

// H e e
V ,A

// ω
eAe ⊗O e OVe (−cE)
A


// H e e ⊗O K e
e
V ,A
V
V

≃
bVe


// ω
eA ⊗OA KV

eAe(−cE) under the morphisms
Thus the sheaf ω
eVe is the image of the sheaf ω
(3.2.7)

(a e ◦b e )−1

V
V
eAe ⊗OAe KVe −−−
eAe ⊗ OVe −→ ω
eAe −→ ω
ω
eAe(−cE) ֒→ ω
−−
−−→ Ω̄dK(Ve )/k

where except of (aVe ◦ bVe )−1 all morphisms are natural ones. Push down (3.2.7) via ψ. Notice
eA . Also since the birational morphism ψ
eA and ψ∗ ω
eAe = ω
that ψ∗ (e
ωAe(−cE)) = I (A, cX) ⊗ ω
is an isomorphism over A\X so it is an isomorphism around generic points of Y and Ve and
eA ⊗OA KY and ψ∗ Ω̄d e
therefore ψ∗ (e
ωAe ⊗OAe KVe ) = ω
= Ω̄dK(Y )/k as locally constant sheaves.
K(V )/k

Furthermore at one generic point v of Y which is identical to a generic point of Ve since ψ is
an isomorphism around v, we can choose the same local equation of the local ring OA,v and
−1
OA,v
e , for instance, α1 , · · · , αc , x1 , · · · , xd . Then we can check that the morphism (aVe ◦ bVe )
eVe is the image
is the same as the morphism (bV ◦ aV ) ⊗ 1−1
Y . Thus we see that the sheaf ψ∗ ω
of I (A, cX) ⊗ ωA under the morphisms
(3.2.8)

(bV ◦aV )⊗1−1

Y
eA ⊗OA KY −−−−−−−−
→ Ω̄dK(Y )/k.
I (A, cX) ⊗ ω
eA ֒→ ω
eA −→ ψ∗ (e
ωAe ⊗ OVe ) −→ ω

11

The fact that I (A, cX) ⊗ ω
eA is mapped surjectively to ψ∗ ω
eVe is guaranteed by Claim 3.1.4 in
the proof of Proposition 3.1.
e
Finally we compare (3.2.5) with (3.2.8). We have the following commutative diagram on A

(3.2.9)

ψ∗ ω
eA

// ψ ∗ ω
eA ⊗ OVe

// ψ ∗ ω
eA ⊗OAe KVe




// ω
eAe ⊗ OVe

// ω
eAe ⊗OAe KVe

ω
eAe

where the vertical morphisms are induced by the morphism ψ ∗ Ω1A/k −→ Ω1e . Push down the
A/k

eA then we have the commutative diagram
diagram and notice that ψ∗ ω
eAe = ω
(3.2.10)

ω
eA

ω
eA ⊗ ψ∗ OVe

// ω
eA ⊗OA KY

V

// ω
eA ⊗OA KY

99
g ssss
s
sss

sss
// ψ∗ (e
ω e ⊗ Oe )
A

eA −→
Since ω
eA ⊗ ψ∗ OVe is naturally a OY -module the morphism g then factors through ω
ω
eA ⊗ OY −→ ω
eA ⊗ ψ∗ OVe . Now it is clear that the proposition follows from (3.2.5) and
(3.2.8).

Corollary 3.3. With notation as in Definition 2.3, let Y be a generic link to an affine pair
(Ak , cXk ). Then ωYGR = ωY if and only if IXk = I (Ak , cXk ), where I (Ak , cXk ) is the
multiplier ideal sheaf associated to the pair (Ak , cXk ).
Proof. Let I (A, cX) be the multiplier ideal sheaf associated to the pair (A, cX). By the
commutative diagram (3.2.1) we have ωYGR = ωY if and only if I (A, cX) · OY = IX · OY if and
only if IX + IY = I (A, cX) + IY . Intersecting with IX and noticing that IX ∩ IY = IV and
I (A, cX) ⊆ IX , we see that IX + IY = I (A, cX) + IY if and only if IX = I (A, cX) + IV .
Now since the morphism A −→ Ak is smooth, we then have I (A, cX) = I (Ak , cXk ) · OA
by [Laz04b, 9.5.45]. Also notice that IX = IXk · OA and the ring extension OAk −→ OA is
faithfully flat. Thus intersecting with OAk , we conclude that IX = I (A, cX) + IV if and only
if IXk = I (Ak , cXk ).

Now we can easily deduce a criterion when a generic link has rational singularities. It turns
out that multiplier ideal sheaves determine rational singularities of a generic link.
Corollary 3.4. With notation as in Definition 2.3, let Y be a generic link to an affine pair
(Ak , cXk ). Then Y has rational singularities if and only if Xk is Cohen-Macaulay and IXk =
I (Ak , cXk ), where I (Ak , cXk ) is the multiplier ideal sheaf associated to the pair (Ak , cXk ).
Proof. Y has rational singularities if and only if Y is Cohen-Macaulay and ωYGR = ωY . Then
the result is clear from above.

Corollary 3.5. With notation as in Definition 2.3, let Y be a generic link to an affine pair
(Ak , cXk ). Suppose that the pair (Ak , cXk ) is log canonical and Xk is Cohen-Macaulay. Then
Y has rational singularities.
Proof. By Ein’s Lemma, that (Ak , cXk ) is log canonical implies IXk = I (Ak , cXk ). Then the
result follows from above.

Remark 3.6. Let us go back to the result of Chardin and Ulrich mentioned in Introduction.
Still with notation as in Definition 2.3 suppose that Xk is a local complete intersection with
12

rational singularities. Then by the inversion of adjunction [EM09] the pair (Ak , cXk ) is log
canonical. Thus Corollary 3.4 says that a generic link Y of Xk has rational singularities.
Proposition 3.7. With notation as in Definition 2.3 let (Ak , cXk ) be an affine pair and let
Y be a generic link to X via a complete intersection V . Then
lct(A, Y ) ≥ lct(A, V ) = lct(A, X) = lct(Ak , Xk ).
Proof. Keep notation and construction as in the proof of Proposition 3.1. First of all it is clear
that lct(A, X) = lct(Ak , Xk ) and since IV ⊆ IY we have lct(A, Y ) ≥ lct(A, V ). Thus it suffices
to show lct(A, V ) = lct(A, X).
Recall that ϕk : Ak −→ Ak is a factorization resolution of singularities of Xk inside Ak and
X k is the strict transform of Xk . Denote by Exc(ϕk ) = ∪si=1 Eik the exceptional locus of ϕk
with
where Eik are prime divisors with normal crossing support. Then X k has normal
Pcrossing
s
k
k
k
E1 , · · · , Es (cf. Definition 2.6). We then can write the effective divisor Gk = i=1 ai Ei and
P
the relative canonical divisor KAk /Ak = si=1 ki Eik
Recall also that the factorizing resolution of singularities ϕ : A −→ A of X inside A is
then obtained by tensoring Spec k[Uij ] with the resolution ϕk . Write Ei := Eik ⊗k Spec k[Uij ]
for i = 1, · · · , s. Then it is clear that the exceptional locus of ϕ is Exc(ϕ) = ∪si=1 Ei with
X of X has normal crossing with
simple normal crossing support, and the strict transform
Ps
E1 , · · · , E
.
Furthermore
the
effective
divisor
G
=
a
E
s
i=1 i i and the relative canonical divisor
P
s
KA/A = i=1 ki Ei .
e −→ A is the composition of ϕ with the blowing-up µ : A
e −→ A
Now the morphism ψ : A
∗
ei = µ (Ei ) for i = 1, · · · , s. Since X has
along X with the exceptional divisor T . We set E
e
ei has simple
normal crossing with Ei we see that Ei is a prime divisor and Exc(ψ) = T ∪si=1 E
e −→ A is a log resolution of X inside A. Notice that
normal crossing support. Thus ψ : A
= (c − 1)T . We then can write
KA/A
e
(3.7.1)

= (c − 1)T +
KA/A
e

s
X
i=1

ei ,
ki E

ψ −1 (X) = T +

s
X
i=1

ei .
ai E

e (cf. Claim
Claim 3.7.2. Recall that Ve is nonsingular locally complete intersection on A
e1 , · · · , E
es .
3.1.2). Then Ve has normal crossing with T, E
Proof of Claim 3.7.2. The question is local so we just need to look at local equations. Let
U k = Spec Rk be an affine open set of Ak such that IX k = (f 1 , · · · , f t ) ⊂ Rk and Eik has a
local equation hi ∈ Rk for i = 1, · · · , s (cf. proof of Claim 3.1.1). Let U = U k ⊗ Spec k[Uij ] be
the corresponding affine open set in A. Write R = Rk ⊗ k[Uij ]. Then IX = (f 1 , · · · , f t ) · R and
each Ei is still defined by the equation hi in the ring R. Now let U1 = Spec R[f 2 /f 1 , · · · , f t /f 1 ]
e over U . Then on U1 the divisor T is defined by the equation f 1 .
be one canonical cover of A
e
Notice that each Ei is still defined by the local equation hi ∈ R[f 2 /f 1 , · · · , f t /f 1 ]. On U1 the
α1 , · · · , α
ec ), where
variety Ve is defined by IVe = (e
α
ei = Ui,1 + Ui,2 f 2 /f 1 + · · · + Ui,t f 2 /f 1 ,

for i = 1, · · · , c.

Now we just need to show on U1 , IVe , f 1 , h1 , · · · , hc are normal crossings. Notice that
f 1 , h1 , · · · , hc are already normal crossings by the construction and they all sit in the ring
ei ’s over Rk . Thus a local calculation shows
Rk . But IVe is essentially defined by variables α
that IVe meets f 1 , h1 , · · · , hc as normal crossings. This finishes the proof of Claim 3.7.2.
13

e along Ve with the exceptional divisor S and
Now recall ν : A′ −→ A is the blowing-up of A
′
′
∗
ei for i = 1, · · · , s and T ′ = ν ∗ T . By Claim 3.7.2 above we
f = ν ◦ ψ : A −→ A. Write Ei = ν E
see that T ′ , E1′ , · · · , Es′ are all prime divisors and Exc(f ) = S ∪ T ′ ∪si=1 Ei′ are simple normal
crossings. Thus f : A′ −→ A is a log resolution of (A, V + X), which we use to compute log
canonical thresholds. Notice that KA′ /Ae = (c − 1)S. From (3.7.1) we can write
KA′ /A = (c − 1)S + (c − 1)T ′ +

s
X

ki E ′ ,

f −1 (X) = T ′ +

s
X

ai Ei′ .

i=1

i=1

Since IV · OAe = IVe · OAe(−ψ −1 (X)) (cf. Claim 3.1.1 and 3.1.2) we then have
f −1 (V ) = S + T ′ +

s
X

ai Ei′ .

i=1

Finally by the definition of log canonical threshold we see that
lct(A, X) = min{

ki + 1 (c − 1) + 1 (c − 1) + 1
,
,
}
ai
1
0

and
ki + 1 (c − 1) + 1 (c − 1) + 1
,
,
}.
ai
1
1
Therefore lct(A, X) = lct(A, V ) as required.
lct(A, V ) = min{



Corollary 3.8. With notation as in Definition 2.3, if IX = I (A, cX), where I (A, cX) is the
multiplier ideal sheaf associated to the pair (A, cX), then
IV = I (A, cV ) and IY = I (A, cY ),
where I (A, cV ) and I (A, cY ) are multiplier ideal sheaves associated to the pairs (A, cV ) and
(A, cY ), respectively.
Proof. By Ein’s Lemma, IX = I (A, cX) if and only if I (A, (c−1)X) = OA . Thus lct(A, X) >
(c − 1) and therefore by Theorem 3.7 lct(A, Y ) ≥ lct(A, V ) = lct(A, X) > (c − 1). Hence the
multiplier ideal sheaves I (A, (c − 1)Y ) and I (A, (c − 1)V ) are all trivial. The result then
follows by using Ein’s Lemma again.

Remark 3.9. In the above corollary, the equality IX = I (A, cX) is equivalent to the equality
IXk = I (Ak , cXk ), where I (Ak , cXk ) is the multiplier ideal sheaf associated to the pair
(Ak , cXk ). This is because the morphism A −→ Ak is smooth and the ring extension Rk −→ R
is faithfully flat.
Corollary 3.10. With notation as in Definition 2.3, let Y be a generic link to an affine pair
(Ak , cXk ). Suppose that the pair (Ak , cXk ) is log canonical. Then the pair (A, cY ) is also log
canonical.
Proof. Since, by assumption, (Ak , cXk ) is log canonical and, by Lemma 2.5, I (Ak , cXk ) ⊆ IXk
we see that lct(Ak , Xk ) = c. Thus by Theorem 3.7, we have lct(A, Y ) ≥ c. But by Lemma 2.5,
we have lct(A, Y ) ≤ c. Therefore lct(A, Y ) = c and thus (A, cY ) is log canonical.

Proof of Theorem 1.1 in Situation A. First of all in this case, Y cannot be empty. The
fact that Y is reduced is standard by [HU85, 2.6]. The rest of the theorem follows from
Proposition 3.1, Proposition 3.2 and Proposition 3.7.

14

Remark 3.11. Using results established above, we then look at a sequence of generic linkages.
Precisely, let (Ak , cXk ) be an affine pair as in Definition 2.3 and set Y0 := Xk and A0 := Ak .
We denote a generic link of Y0 to be Y1 , which is in a nonsingular ambient space A1 . We
can continue to construct a generic link of Y1 as Y2 in an nonsingular ambient space A2 .
Consequently, we get a sequence Y0 , Y1 , · · · , such that each Yi is a generic link of Yi−1 and is
in a nonsingular variety Ai . Now we list some interesting consequences from the above results
as follows.
(1) If IY0 = I (A0 , cY0 ), then IYi = I (Ai , cYi ), i.e. equality of multiplier ideal with ideal
is preserved by generic linkages.
(2) If (A0 , cY0 ) is log canonical then (Ai , cYi ) is log canonical, i.e. log canonical pair is
preserved by generic linkage.
(3) If (A0 , cY0 ) is log canonical and Y0 is rational then (Ai , cYi ) is log canonical and Yi is
rational, i.e. log canonical plus rational is preserved by generic linkages.
(4) lct(A0 , Y0 ) ≤ lct(A1 , Y1 ) ≤ · · · ≤ c, i.e. log canonical thresholds increase in generic
linkages but bounded above by c.
Notice that in (4) we get an increasing but bounded above sequence. Thus it must have a
limit, which we denoted by lct∞ (A0 , Y0 ). It would be very interesting to know if lct∞ (A0 , Y0 )
is independent on the choice of generic linage sequence Y1 , Y2 , · · · . It has been conjectured by
the author that after finitely many steps of generic link sequences we will have lct∞ (A0 , Y0 ) = c.
However, it was pointed out by Bernd Ulrich that the conjecture is not true because otherwise
if we start with a Cohen-Macaulay Y0 we will end up with a variety Y which has rational
singularities, but it is not the case.
Remark 3.12. There is a conjecture made by the author in [Niu11, Conjecture 1.4] which
asserts that if X is a local complete intersection with log canonical singularities then a generic
link Y of X is also a local complete intersection with log canonical singularities. Now it is clear
that this conjecture is false. One main reason is that Y cannot be a local complete intersection.
However, Corollary 3.10 says that the log canonical pair is preserved by generic linkages and
in the conjecture the pair (A, cX) is actually log canonical.
In the last of this section, we consider specialization problem stated in Situation B. It is
a direct consequence of Situation A by restricting to the general fiber over Spec k[Ui,j ]. This
quick proof of the theorem was suggested by the referee.
Proof of Theorem 1.1 in Situation B. Keep the notation and construction in the proof of
Proposition 3.1. Let A = Spec k[Ui,j ] be the affine space parameterizing the scalar matrices
(ai,j )c×t . Recall that we have the following diagram
(3.12.1)


Ve 

e
// A

 




ψ

Y

// A

where Ve is the embedded resolution of Y (cf. Claim 3.1.2). It is a diagram over A. Thus it
is enough to prove the theorem for a general fiber of this diagram over A. Since we assume a
general fiber of Y over A is nonempty the morphism Y −→ A must be dominant. (In fact the
only case that a general fiber of Y is empty is that Xk is a complete intersection. In this case
we cannot make generic link under Situation B.) Thus the image of Y must contain a open
set U of A. By replacing A by this open set we may assume that the morphism Y −→ A is
15

surjective. Now over a general point p ∈ A, the diagram is

Vep 

ep
// A

 




ψp

Yp

// Ap

ep is the blowing-up of Ak along X k and the morphism ψp is
Notice that by the construction A
an isomorphism over Ak /Xk . Also by the generic smoothness Vep is the embedded resolution of
Yp . Thus Yp is generically reduced. But Yp does not have embedded components and therefore
is reduced. Now the rest of the argument is exact the same as the proof of the theorem in
Situation A.

Remark 3.13. Corollary 3.5, 3.8 and 3.10 are still true in Situation B. However, in Corollary
3.3 and 3.4 the “if” parts are still true but “only if” parts are not in general.
Remark 3.14. As in Remark 3.11 (4), we can look at an increasing sequence of log canonical
thresholds lct(A, Y0 ) ≤ lct(A, Y1 ) ≤ · · · ≤ c, in which Yi is a generic link of Yi−1 in Situation B.
It was pointed out by Lawrence Ein that by using ACC for log canonical thresholds [dFEM10],
after finitely many steps the number lct becomes stable in the sequence, which we denoted by
lct∞ (A, Y0 ). At the moment, it is not clear to us if this number depends on the specific linkage
sequence or not. It would be very interesting to have a further investigation on this number.
We hope that this new invariant will have some application in linkage classes of varieties.
4. Generic linkage of projective varieties and Castelnuovo-Mumford
regularity
In this section, we study a generic link of a subvariety of Pn in Situation C. The main idea is
inspired by the work of Betram, Ein and Lazarsfeld [BEL91]. Thus we shall be brief in proofs.
Throughout this section, we assume that A is a projective nonsingular variety over k and L
is a line bundle on A generated by its global sections. We shall prove the following theorem
which can be applied to a slightly more general case than Situation C.
Theorem 4.1. Suppose that X ⊂ A is a reduced equidimensional subscheme of codimension
c scheme-theoretically defined by the t sections si ∈ H 0 (A, Ldi ) with d1 ≥ d2 ≥ · · · ≥ dt . Take
c general sections αi ∈ H 0 (A, IX ⊗ Ldi ) for i = 1, · · · , c and let V be a complete intersection
defined by the vanishing of α1 , · · · , αc . Let Y be a subscheme of A defined by IY := (IV : IX ).
Then either Y is empty or else:
(1) Y is reduced equidimensional of codimension c (possibly reducible) geometrically linked
to X via V .
(2) ωYGR ≃ I (A, cX) · OY ⊗ ωA ⊗ Ld1 +···+dc , where I (A, cX) is the multiplier ideal sheaf
associated to the pair (A, cX), and it fits into the following commutative diagram
ωYGR


≃

_

// I (A, cX) · OY ⊗ ωA ⊗ Ld1 +···+dc
_

tr

i



ωY

≃



// IX · OY ⊗ ωA ⊗ Ld1 +···+dc

where the bottom one is given by 2.1.2, tr is the trace map, and the inclusion i is
induced by I (A, cX) ֒→ IX (cf. Lemma 2.5).
(3) lct(A, Y ) ≥ lct(A, V ) = lct(A, X).
16

Proof. Take a log resolution of singularities for the pair (A, X) as f : A −→ A such that
IX · OA = OA (−E) where E is an effective divisor and Exc(f ) ∪ E is a divisor with simple
normal crossing support. We may also assume that the morphism f is an isomorphism over
the open set A\X.
For i = 1, · · · , t we denote by bi the sub-linear system of |Ldi | determined by the vector
space H 0 (A, IX ⊗ Ldi ). We use notation (si )0 to be the effective divisor in the linear system
bi defined by the zero locus of the section si . Since X is defined by the vanishing of sections
(s1 ,··· ,st )

si we have a surjective morphism ⊕t L−di −−−−−−→ IX −→ 0. Pulling back this surjective
morphism via f , we then obtain a surjective morphism
(4.1.1)

t
M

(f ∗ s1 ,··· ,f ∗ st )

f ∗ L−di −−−−−−−−−→ OA (−E) −→ 0.

(Since f is dominant the induced morphism on the linear system f ∗ : bi −→ |f ∗ Ldi | is actually
injective. So we think of bi naturally as a sub-linear system of |f ∗ Ldi | under f ∗ .) Denote
by Bi = f ∗ bi − E the sub-linear system of |f ∗ Ldi (−E)| obtained from f ∗ bi by removing the
base locus divisor E. Then the section f ∗ si naturally gives rise to a section σi of f ∗ Ldi (−E)
defining an effective divisor Fi in the linear system Bi . Thus from the surjectivity of (4.1.1),
we deduce a surjection
t
M
(σ1 ,··· ,σt )
f ∗ L−di (E) −−−−−−→ OA −→ 0,
and therefore we have
(4.1.2)

F1 ∩ F2 ∩ · · · ∩ Ft = φ.

We make the following observation.
Claim 4.1.3. For each i = 1, · · · , t, one has
(a) The system B1 is base point free.
(b) For each i ≥ 1, the base locus Bs(Bi ) of the system Bi is inside the support of the
divisor Fj for j ≥ i.
Proof of Claim 4.1.3. For the statement (a), by the definition of X, we see that the sheaf
IX ⊗ Ld1 is generated by its global sections. Let W1 = H 0 (A, IX ⊗ Ld1 ) so that b1 = |W |. So
we have a surjective morphism W1 ⊗ Ld1 −→ IX −→ 0. Thus we have a surjective morphism
W1 ⊗ f ∗ L−d1 −→ OA (−E) −→ 0, i.e., W1 ⊗ f ∗ L−d1 (E) −→ OA −→ 0. Thus we see that B1 is
base point free.
For the statement (b), notice that when i = 1 the result is trivial from (a). We prove the
first nontrivial case when i = 2. It is from the definition of base loci that Bs(B2 ) ⊂ F2 . Now we
show Bs(B2 ) ⊂ F3 . Denote by δ32 the linear system |Ld2 −d3 | which is base point free. Notice
that we have an inclusion δ32 + (s3 )0 ⊂ b2 . Thus pulling back via f , we have the inclusion
f ∗ δ32 + f ∗ (s3 )0 ⊂ f ∗ b2 and therefore by subtracting the divisor E we see f ∗ δ32 + f ∗ (s3 )0 − E ⊂
f ∗ b2 − E. Recall that F3 = f ∗ (s3 )0 − E and B2 = f ∗ b2 − E. Thus we have an inclusion
f ∗ δ32 + F3 ⊂ B2 .
From this, the linear system B2 − F3 contains the system f ∗ δ32 , which is base point free. Thus
the base locus Bs(B2 ) is contained in F3 . Similar argument works for all j ≥ i, which proves
the Claim 4.1.3.
Now since B1 is base point free, by Bertini’s theorem (Cf. [Har77, Corollary III.10.9]) we
can take a general element D1 ∈ B1 such that (i) D1 is nonsingular and equidimensional; (ii)
17

no components of D1 are contained in the support of E ∪ Exc(f ); (iii) D1 has normal crossing
with Exc(f ); (iv) D1 ∩ F2 ∩ · · · ∩ Ft = φ. Here the reason for (iv) is that since the section σ1
is nowhere vanishing on F2 ∩ · · · ∩ Ft , the general section of B1 is then nowhere vanishing on
F2 ∩ · · · ∩ Ft .
Now by Claim 4.1.3 the base locus Bs(B2 ) is inside Fj for j ≥ 2. Thus we have Bs(B2 ) ⊂
F2 ∩ F3 ∩ · · · ∩ Ft . By the fact (4.1.2) and the choice of D1 , the linear system B2 is base
point free on D1 . Thus by Bertini’s theorem again we can choose a general element D2 ∈ B2
such that (i) D1 ∩ D2 is nonsingular and equidimensional; (ii) no components of D1 ∩ D2 are
contained in the support of E ∪ Exc(f ); (iii) D1 ∩ D2 has normal crossing with Exc(f ); (iv)
D1 ∩ D2 ∩ F3 ∩ · · · ∩ Ft = φ.
We then can iterate such argument by c times to end up with a subscheme
Y := D1 ∩ D2 ∩ · · · ∩ Dc
of A such that Y is either empty or else (i) Y is nonsingular and equidimensional; (ii) no
component of Y is contained in the support of E ∪ Exc(f ); (iii) Y has normal crossing with
Exc(f ); (iv) Y ∩ Fc+1 ∩ · · · ∩ Ft = φ. Notice that each effective divisor Di is a general element
in the linear system Bi .
Now each Di naturally corresponds to a general section αi ∈ H 0 (A, IX ⊗ Ldi ). (Recall that
the divisor Di + E is in f ∗ bi .) Those α1 , · · · , αc cut out a complete intersection V on A. Let Y
be the subscheme of A linked to X via V , i.e., Y is defined by an ideal sheaf IY := (IV : IX ).
It is well-know that Y is equidimensional of codimension c without embedded components and
with no common components with X. Notice that at least set-theoretically Y = f (Y ). Recall
that the morphism f is an isomorphism over the open set A\X. Thus by the construction
of Y we see that Y ∩ f −1 (U ) is isomorphic to Y ∩ U . Therefore f is an isomorphism at the
generic points of Y and then Y is the strict transform of Y . Thus Y is generically smooth and
therefore is reduced. The rest of the statement (1) are all standard result, so we would not
repeat here.
By the construction of Y , we have a surjective morphism ⊕c f ∗ L−di (E) −→ IY −→ 0. Thus
the normal bundle of Y inside A can be easily calculated and the rest argument for (2) is
exactly the same as the proof of Propositions 3.1 and 3.2. The reducedness of Y in (1) is also
clear since Y is generic reduced and has no any embedded components. Finally, the statement
(3) has the same proof as in Proposition 3.7 so we would not repeat here.

Remark 4.2. If A = Pn , we can actually reduce Situation C to Situation B, at least in the case
that all equations have the same degree. This was kindly suggested by the referee. Here let us
explain this reduction briefly. We choose general homogeneous coordinates for Pn so that all
the equations fi ’s restricted to the same degree polynomials, say gi ’s, on the standard charts.
Then we choose a general matrix B = (bij )c×t and we can find a invertible lower triangular
c × c matrix A so that A · B = (B1 |B2 ), where B1 is a c × c upper triangular matrix. Now the
complete intersection (β1 , · · · , βc ) = A · B · (g1 , · · · , gt )T will give back general sections αi in
H 0 (Pn , IX (di )).
As an application of above theorem, using an idea of [CU02] we can generalize results
of de Fernex and Ein [dFE10, Corollary 1.4] and Chardin and Ulrich [CU02, Theorem 0.1]
on the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity bound. The bound was first established in [BEL91]
for nonsingular case and then generalized in [CU02] for rational singular case. [BEL91] and
[CU02] allow variety to have some not too bad very singular loci but [dFE10] cannot allow this
situation, which we are able to handle now (cf. [dFE10, Remark 5.2]). Recall that a coherent
sheaf F on the projecive space Pn is said to be m-regular if H i (Pn , F (m − i)) = 0 for all
18

i > 0. The minimal such number m is called the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of F and is
denoted by reg F . If X is a subscheme of Pn defined by an ideal sheaf IX then the regularity
of X is defined to be reg X = reg IX .
Corollary 4.3. Let X ⊂ Pn be a reduced equidimensional subscheme of codimension c defined
by the equations of degree d1 ≥ d2 ≥ · · · ≥ dt and let Z = Supp(IX /I (Pn , cX)) where
I (Pn , cX) is the multiplier ideal sheaf. Assume that dim Z ≤ 1 and each one dimensional
irreducible component of Z has at least one point at which X is a local complete intersection.
Then
c
X
di − c + 1
reg X ≤
i=1

and equality holds if and only if X is a complete intersection in Pn .
Proof. If X is a complete intersection then the result is clear. So in the sequel we assume X
is not a complete intersection. Then take a generic link Y of X via a complete intersection V
cut out by the general equations of X of degree d1 ≥ d2 ≥ · · · ≥ dc . By the assumption on
Z we can choose V general such that Y ∩ Z has dimension ≤ 0, i.e. no any dimension one
irreducible component of Z can be contained in Y . This means that from Theorem 4.1 we
have the following exact sequence
(4.3.1)

0 −→ ωYGR −→ ωY −→ Q −→ 0

where dim Supp Q ≤P0.
c
Denote by d :=
j=1 dj and r := dim V = dim X = dim Y . It is clear that from the
Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem we can deduce reg ωYGR = r + 1 and therefore reg ωY =
r + 1 by the sequence (4.3.1). Now recall ωY = IX · OV ⊗ ωV . Since V is a complete
intersection we see reg IV = d − c + 1 and ωV = OV (d − n − 1) by Koszul resolution and thus
ωY = IX · OV (d − n − 1). Now from the exact sequence
0 −→ IV −→ IX −→ IX · OV −→ 0,
it is immediately that reg IX ≤ d − c.



Remark 4.4. In the corollary, by Ein’s Lemma the set Z can be equivalently defined as
Z := {x ∈ Pn | I (Pn , (c − 1)X) is non trivial at x}.
The condition on Z in the corollary already includes conditions discussed in de Fernex and Ein
[dFE10] and Chardin and Ulrich [CU02] and is certainly more general. It is worth mentioning
that the above liaison method to bound the regularity also can be used directly to study so
called multiregularity once the correct corresponding form of generic linkage can be built.
In Theorem 4.1, a generic link Y is usually not necessarily irreducible. One important
case in applications is when X is cut out by sections of the same degree, i.e., d1 = · · · = dt .
If the defining ideal sheaf IX has enough sections then it is possible that a generic link Y
is irreducible. One way to see this is by using the s-invariant of IX with respect to L,
which measures the positivity of IX . We recall its definition and refer to [Laz04a] for further
reference.
Definition 4.5. Given an ideal sheaf I on A let µ : W = BlI A −→ A be the blowing-up of A
along the ideal I with an exceptional Cartier divisor E on W , such that I · OW = OW (−E).
Let L be an ample line bundle on A. We define the s-invariant of I with respect to L to be
the positive real number
sL (I ) := min{ s | sµ∗ L − E is nef }.
19

Here sµ∗ L − E is considered as an R-divisor on W .
Remark 4.6. For example, in the projective space case the line bundle is usually taken to be
the hyperplane divisor and simply write the s-invariant as s(I ). In this case suppose that d is
an integer such that I (d) is generated by global sections, then it is easy to see that s(I ) ≤ d,
i.e., the s-invariant of I is always bounded by a generating degree of I . There is an example
in [CEL01] showing that the s-invariant could be an irrational number.
Corollary 4.7. With notation and assumption as in Theorem 4.1 assume further that L is
ample and X is cut out by the sections of the same degree, i.e., d1 = · · · = dt = d. If
the s-invariant of IX with respect to L is strictly smaller than d, then Y is nonempty and
irreducible.
Proof. We keep notation as in the proof of Theorem 4.1 but set d1 = · · · = dt = d. Now this
time the linear systems B1 , · · · , Bt are all the same as the linear system B := f ∗ b − E, where
b is the sub-linear system of |Ld | determined by the vector space H 0 (A, IX ⊗ Ld ). Notice that
B is a sub-linear system of |f ∗ Ld (−E)| and is base point free. Also notice that dim B = dim b
since f is dominant and E is the basic locus of f ∗ b.
All we need is to show the subscheme Y , which is the intersection of c general divisors
Di ∈ B, is irreducible. Recall that B is base point free, it then gives a morphism to a
projective space
φB : A −→ Pr ,
where r = dim B such that f ∗ Ld (−E) = φ∗B OPr (1). We claim that the morphism φB is
generically finite. To see this, let µ : A′ = BlX A −→ A be the blowing up of A along X
with an exceptional divisor F such that IX · OA′ = OA′ (−F ). By the universal property of
blowing-ups we have g : A −→ A′ such that f = g ◦µ and g ∗ F = E. Notice that g is generically
finite. Now the system B′ := µ∗ b − F is base point free and then gives a morphism φB′ to Pr ,
which commutes with φB , i.e. φB = φB′ ◦ g
A❄

❄❄
❄❄
❄
g ❄❄


φB

A′

// Pr
>>
⑥
⑥⑥
⑥
⑥⑥
⑥⑥ φB′

Since the s-invariant of IX with respect to L is strictly smaller than d the line bundle µ∗ Ld (−F )
is ample. But µ∗ Ld (−F ) = φ∗B′ OPr (1) so the morphism φB′ is finite. Thus φB is generically
finite and we have dim φB (A) = dim A. Now by the theorem of [Laz04a, 3.3.1], the subscheme
Y is nonempty and irreducible since dim φB (A) > c. Therefore the generic link Y to X is also
nonempty and irreducible.

Remark 4.8. Having Theorem 4.1 in hand, it is then easy to get those similar corollaries
mentioned in the previous sections (cf. Remark 3.11, 3.13 and 3.14). So we leave them to the
reader.
References
[BEL91]
[BVU03]
[CEL01]

Aaron Bertram, Lawrence Ein, and Robert Lazarsfeld. Vanishing theorems, a theorem of Severi, and
the equations defining projective varieties. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 4(3):587–602, 1991.
A. Bravo and O. Villamayor U. A strengthening of resolution of singularities in characteristic zero.
Proc. London Math. Soc. (3), 86(2):327–357, 2003.
Steven Dale Cutkosky, Lawrence Ein, and Robert Lazarsfeld. Positivity and complexity of ideal
sheaves. Math. Ann., 321(2):213–234, 2001.
20

[CU02]

Marc Chardin and Bernd Ulrich. Liaison and Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity. Amer. J. Math.,
124(6):1103–1124, 2002.
[dFD12] Tommaso de Fernex and Roi Docampo. Jacobian discrepancies and rational singularities. 2012.
[dFE10] Tommaso de Fernex and Lawrence Ein. A vanishing theorem for log canonical pairs. Amer. J. Math.,
132(5):1205–1221, 2010.
[dFEM10] Tommaso de Fernex, Lawrence Ein, and Mircea Mustaţă. Shokurov’s ACC conjecture for log canonical thresholds on smooth varieties. Duke Math. J., 152(1):93–114, 2010.
[EIM11] Lawrence Ein, Shihoko Ishii, and Mircea Mustata. Multiplier ideals via Mather discrepancy. Arxiv,
2011.
[EM09]
Lawrence Ein and Mircea Mustaţă. Jet schemes and singularities. In Algebraic geometry—Seattle
2005. Part 2, volume 80 of Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., pages 505–546. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence,
RI, 2009.
[Har77]
Robin Hartshorne. Algebraic geometry. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 52.
[Hoc73]
M. Hochster. Properties of Noetherian rings stable under general grade reduction. Arch. Math.
(Basel), 24:393–396, 1973.
[HS97]
Reinhold Hübl and Gerhard Seibert. The adjunction morphism for regular differential forms and
relative duality. Compositio Math., 106(1):87–123, 1997.
[HU85]
Craig Huneke and Bernd Ulrich. Divisor class groups and deformations. Amer. J. Math., 107(6):1265–
1303 (1986), 1985.
[HU87]
Craig Huneke and Bernd Ulrich. The structure of linkage. Ann. of Math. (2), 126(2):277–334, 1987.
[HU88]
Craig Huneke and Bernd Ulrich. Algebraic linkage. Duke Math. J., 56(3):415–429, 1988.
[Kol97]
János Kollár. Singularities of pairs. In Algebraic geometry—Santa Cruz 1995, volume 62 of Proc.
Sympos. Pure Math., pages 221–287. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997.
[KW88]
Ernst Kunz and Rolf Waldi. Regular differential forms, volume 79 of Contemporary Mathematics.
American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1988.
[Laz04a] Robert Lazarsfeld. Positivity in algebraic geometry. I, volume 48 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und
ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics [Results in Mathematics
and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
2004. Classical setting: line bundles and linear series.
[Laz04b] Robert Lazarsfeld. Positivity in algebraic geometry. II, volume 49 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und
ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics [Results in Mathematics
and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
2004. Positivity for vector bundles, and multiplier ideals.
[Lip84]
Joseph Lipman. Dualizing sheaves, differentials and residues on algebraic varieties. Astérisque,
(117):ii+138, 1984.
[Mig98]
Juan C. Migliore. Introduction to liaison theory and deficiency modules, volume 165 of Progress in
Mathematics. Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1998.
[Niu11]
Wenbo Niu. A bound for the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of log canonical varieties. J. Pure
Appl. Algebra, 215(9):2180–2189, 2011.
[PS74]
C. Peskine and L. Szpiro. Liaison des variétés algébriques. I. Invent. Math., 26:271–302, 1974.
Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2067, USA
E-mail address: niu6@math.purdue.edu

21

