CELLULAR RESOLUTIONS FROM MAPPING CONES

arXiv:1311.4599v1 [] 19 Nov 2013

ANTON DOCHTERMANN AND FATEMEH MOHAMMADI
Abstract. One can iteratively obtain a free resolution of any monomial ideal I by considering the mapping cone of the map of complexes associated to adding one generator at
a time. Herzog and Takayama have shown that this procedure yields a minimal resolution
if I has linear quotients, in which case the mapping cone in each step cones a Koszul complex onto the previously constructed resolution. Here we consider cellular realizations of
these resolutions. Extending a construction of Mermin we describe a regular CW-complex
that supports the resolutions of Herzog and Takayama in the case that I has a ‘regular decomposition function’. By varying the choice of chain map we recover other known cellular
resolutions, including the ‘box of complexes’ resolutions of Corso, Nagel, and Reiner and the
related ‘homomorphism complex’ resolutions of Dochtermann and Engström. Other choices
yield combinatorially distinct complexes with interesting structure, and suggests a notion
of a ‘space of cellular resolutions’.

1. Introduction
Let R = k[x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ] be the graded polynomial ring over a field k, and let I ⊂ R be
an ideal generated by monomials I = hm1 , m2 , . . . , mk i. A popular game in combinatorial
commutative algebra is to understand minimal graded resolutions of the monomial ideal I
under various restrictions. In [HT02] Herzog and Takayama describe a general ‘mapping
cone’ procedure for constructing a free resolution of a monomial ideal I. The basic idea is to
utilize the short exact sequences that arise from adding one generator of I at a time, and to
iteratively build the resolution as a mapping cone of an appropriate map between previously
constructed complexes.
If the ideal I has linear quotients with respect to some ordering of its generators, the
complexes and maps in question are particularly well-behaved, and this case the mapping
cone construction leads to a minimal resolution of I. The class of ideals with linear quotients
includes stable ideals, squarefree stable ideals, as well as matroidal ideals (relevant definitions below). Stable monomial ideals themselves have a well-known minimal resolution first
described in [EK90], and the mapping cone construction generalizes this so-called EliahouKervaire (EK) resolution. In this context there is a natural choice of homogeneous basis for
each free module in the resolution of I. In the case that the ideal I has linear quotients, and
furthermore has a regular decomposition function, the differentials in the free resolution can
also be described explicitly. We review these concepts in Section 2.1.
One way to describe the resolution of a (monomial) ideal is through the construction of a
CW-complex whose vertices index the generators of I, and whose higher dimensional faces
index the syzygies. These so-called cellular resolutions were first introduced by Bayer and
Sturmfels in [BS98]. A natural question to ask is if the mapping cone construction can be
Date: March 22, 2018.
Key words and phrases. cellular resolution, mapping cone, linear quotients.
1

realized cellularly. In [Mer10] Mermin shows that the EK resolution is indeed cellular, and
in the case that I is generated in a fixed degree d, is in fact supported on a subcomplex of
a suitably subdivided dilated simplex.
In this paper we combine methods from [HT02] and [Mer10] to show that one can obtain a
larger class of cellular resolutions via the mapping cone construction. Although the mapping
cones of [HT02] are purely algebraic objects, they have a geometric interpretation which,
in the context of ideals with linear quotients, we seek to combine with the decomposition
function approach from [HT02]. The basic idea is that if I is an ideal with linear quotients
then the mapping cone construction can be realized as an iterative procedure where in each
step a geometric simplex is glued in a certain way onto the existing cellular resolution.
In Section 3 we extend Mermin’s result to the case of ideals with linear quotients. Our
main result from that section is the following1.
Theorem 1.1. (Theorem 3.10) Suppose I has linear quotients with respect to some ordering
(m1 , . . . , mk ) of the generators, and furthermore suppose that I has a regular decomposition
function. Then the minimal resolution of I obtained as an iterated mapping cone is cellular
and supported on a regular CW -complex.
In Section 4 we investigate other combinatorial types of cellular resolutions that can be
recovered from the mapping cone construction. In particular, we are interested in a family
of cellular resolutions in the literature ([CN09], [NR09], [Sin08], [DE12]) that all have similar
combinatorial structure. These complexes go by various names and are applied to different
classes of ideals, including the complexes of boxes resolutions of strongly stable and squarefree
strongly stable ideals from [NR09], as well as the homomorphism complex resolutions of
cointerval hypergraph edge ideals of [DE12]. For a fixed ideal I the combinatorial types
of these complexes more or less coincide, but they look much different than the polyhedral
complex obtained as the realization of the EK resolution described above (see examples
below).
We seek to relate these constructions. In Section 4 we show that the homomorphism
complex resolution can be obtained as an iterated mapping cone with a different choice of
‘decomposition function’; in essence a different way to glue in the simplex at each step in
the construction. In this way we provide a uniform description of various cellular cellular
resolutions from the literature, answering a question of Mermin from [Mer10]. Our main
result from that section is the following (see Section 4 for definitions).
Theorem 1.2. (Theorem 4.13) Suppose I = IH is a cointerval ideal associated to a cointerval
hypergraph H, and let XH be the homomorphism complex supporting its minimal resolution.
Then under the lexicographic ordering of the generators of I, the iterated mapping cone
resolution of I is supported on XH .
The choices involved in realizing the mapping cone as a cellular resolution lead to a natural
question of what all possible realizations look like. In Section 4.2 we fix a choice of basis
for each free module in the mapping cone construction and consider the family of geometric
1While

preparing this paper we learned of the recent preprint [Goo13] of Goodarzi, where similar results
were independently obtained.
2

realizations obtained by choosing different regular decomposition functions. The gluing of
the simplex at each step amounts to the choice of a map of chain complexes that lifts the
given map of R-modules. Finally, in Section 4.3 we investigate the extent to which these
choices can be realized as a single space of resolutions.
Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank Alexander Engström, Jürgen Herzog,
and Volkmar Welker for helpful conversations.
2. Preliminaries
For some fixed field k, we let R = k[x1 , . . . , xn ] denote the polynomial ring on n variables
with its usual Zn -grading, and let I ⊂ R be a monomial ideal. We will be interested in
describing (minimal) graded free resolutions of the ideal I.
2.1. Mapping cones and linear quotients. We begin by recalling the mapping cone
resolutions from [HT02]. For this, let I ⊂ R be a monomial ideal with an ordered set of
generators G(I) = (m1 , . . . , mk ) and define Ij = (m1 , . . . , mj ). Then for each j there are
exact sequences
0 → R/(Ij−1 : mj ) → R/Ij−1 → R/Ij → 0.
Suppose we have we have resolutions G and F of, respectively, the R-modules in the first
two positions of the sequence. We then obtain a resolution of R/Ij as a mapping cone of
a homomorphism of complexes ψ : G → F , where ψ is a lift of the map of R-modules
R/(Ij−1 : mj ) → R/Ij−1 .
Recall that if ψ : G → F is a map of chain complexes then C(ψ), the mapping cone of ψ,
is the chain complex defined by
C(ψ) = G[1] ⊕ F,
with differential

dC(ψ) (g n+1 , f n ) = − dG (g n+1 ), ψ(g n+1 ) + dF (f n ) .
In general the resolution of R/Ij obtained from a mapping cone is not minimal, and so
we search for a class of ideals where one can inductively describe both the resolution of
R/(Ij−1 : mj ) as well as the comparison map ψ. In [HT02] the authors restrict to a class of
ideals for which each of the colon ideals Ij−1 : mj are generated by subsets of the variables, in
which case the resolution of R/(Ij−1 : mj ) is resolved by a Koszul complex. This motivates
the following.
Definition 2.1. A monomial ideal I ⊂ R is said to have linear quotients if there exists an
ordering of the generators I = (m1 , . . . , mk ) such that for each j the colon ideal Ij : mj is
generated by a subset of the variables, so that
Ij : mj = hxj1 , . . . , xjr i.
One can check (see [HT02], attributed to Skölberg) that an ideal I has linear quotients if
and only if the first syzygy module of I has a quadratic Gröbner basis. In the case that I
is squarefree, and hence I is the Stanley-Reisner ideal I∆ of a simplicial complex ∆, this is
equivalent to the Alexander dual ∆∗ being (nonpure) shellable.
3

The property of having linear quotients is itself a generalization of the notion of a stable
ideal, as introduced in [EK90]. If w is a monomial in the polynomial ring R = k[x1 , . . . , xn ]
we let max(w) denote the largest index of the variables dividing w. A monomial ideal I ⊂ R
is called stable if for every monomial w ∈ I and index i < m = max(w), we have that the
monomial xi w/xm belongs to I. Stable ideals are in turn generalizations of strongly stable
(or sometimes shifted, or 0-Borel fixed ) ideals. An ideal I is strongly stable if whenever w ∈ I
with xj dividing I, we have xi w/xj ∈ I for all i < j. Note that j is not required to be the
largest index of variables dividing w, as in the definition of stable ideals.
To summarize, we have the following hierarchy of ideal containments:
{strongly stable} ⊂ {stable} ⊂ {having linear quotients}.
In [HT02] the authors seek minimal resolutions of ideals obtained from the mapping
cone construction; this amounts to finding an explicit description of the comparison maps
ψ : G → F introduced above. The approach taken in [HT02] is to first restrict to ideals
with linear quotients since in this case one can provide a description of the bases of the free
modules in a free resolution. We first establish some terminology.
Definition 2.2. Suppose I has linear quotients with respect to the sequence (m1 , . . . , mk )
of its generators, and for each j with 1 ≤ j ≤ k let Ij = hm1 , . . . , mj i. Let M (I) denote the
set of all monomials in I. For each generator mj , with j = 1, . . . , k, we define
set(mj ) = {k ∈ [n] : xk ∈ hm1 , . . . , mj−1 i : mj }.
In the case that I has linear quotients, it is shown in [HT02] that the mapping cone
construction produces a minimal free resolution of I, and furthermore that a basis for each
free module Fi in the minimal free resolution can be explicitly described as follows.
Lemma 2.3. [HT02, Lemma 1.5] Let I be a monomial ideal with linear quotients. Then the
iterated mapping cone F , derived from the sequence m1 , . . . , mk , is a minimal graded free
resolution of R/I, and for all i > 0, the symbols
(m; α),

where m ∈ G(I)

α ⊂ set(m),

|α| = i − 1, ,

form a homogeneous basis of the ith module in the minimal resolution of R/I.
In [HT02] the authors also provide an explicit description of the differentials in these resolutions for a certain subclass of ideals that satisfy an extra condition. In this context, let
M (I) denote the set of all monomials in I, and define the decomposition function of I to be
the assignment b : M (I) → G(I) given by: define b(m) = mj if j is the smallest number such
that m ∈ hm1 , . . . , mj i. The decomposition function is similar to the description of the differentials in the EK resolution of stable ideals introduced in [EK90]. Indeed, when restricted
to the class of stable ideals, the mapping cone construction recovers the EK resolution. To
describe the differentials from [HT02] we will need to assume one further condition.
Definition 2.4. The decomposition function of I is said to be regular if for each m ∈ G(I)
and every t ∈ set(m) we have
set(b(xt m)) ⊆ set(m).
In this case for each m ∈ G(I) and t, s ∈ set(m) we have
(∗)

b(xs b(xt m)) = b(xt b(xs m)).
4

Note that in degree two for t, s ∈ set(m), in the case that b(xt b(xs m)) 6= b(xt m), we have
b(xt b(xs m)) = b(xs b(xt m)) = xt xs .
Example 2.5. Consider the ideal I = hx1 x3 x4 , x1 x3 x5 , x1 x2 x4 , x1 x4 x5 , x2 x3 x4 , x2 x3 x5 i. Then
I has linear quotients with respect to this order of generators, where for instance I5 :
(x2 x3 x5 ) = hx1 , x4 i. In addition, one can check that the decomposition function b for this
ideal is regular, where for example b(x2 x3 (x1 x4 x5 )) = b(x3 x2 (x1 x4 x5 )). One can also check
that I is not stable and also not cointerval (see Section 4.1 for a definition of the latter).
For the class of ideals with linear quotients and regular decomposition functions we have
the following result.
Theorem 2.6. [HT02, Theorem 1.12.] Let I be a monomial ideal with linear quotients,
and F the graded minimal free resolution of R/I. Suppose the decomposition function b :
M (I) → G(I) is regular. Then the chain map d of F is given by
X
X
xj i m
(b(xji m); α \ ji )
d(m; α) = −
(−1)i−1 xji (m; α \ ji ) +
(−1)i−1
b(xji m)
ji ∈α
ji ∈α
X
X
xj i m
=
(−1)i xji (m; α \ ji ) −
(−1)i
(b(xji m); α \ ji )
b(xji m)
j ∈α
j ∈α
i

i

if σ 6= ∅, where α = {j1 , . . . , jp } ⊂ set(m) with j1 < · · · < jp , and d(m, ∅) = m otherwise.
There are several classes of ideals that are known to have linear quotients that admit
regular decomposition functions. These include stable ideals and matroidal ideals (as shown
in ([HT02]), as well as completely lexsegment ideals [EOS10] and the Alexander dual of the
generalized Hibi ideals from [EHM11].
2.2. Cellular resolutions. One natural way to describe a resolution of an ideal I is through
the construction of a polyhedral (or more general CW-) complex XI whose faces (vertices,
edges, and higher dimensional cells) are labeled by monomials in such a way that the chain
complex determining the cellular homology of X realizes a graded free resolution of I. The
study of cellular resolutions was first explicitly initiated in [BS98] (to where we refer for
further details). Cellular resolutions have the advantage that algebraic resolutions can in
some sense be given a global description, and they also lead to combinatorially interesting
geometric complexes.
The well-known Taylor resolution [Tay66] guarantees that all monomial ideals have a
(usually far from minimal) cellular resolution supported on a simplex. In this case that I
is generated by variables, the Taylor resolution is in fact minimal, and recovers the Koszul
resolution of I. This fact will be used heavily in our construction of the resolution of ideals
with linear quotients, where by definition certain colon ideals are generated by variables.
Not all minimal free resolutions of monomial ideals are supported by a CW-complex, as is
shown in [Vel08], but a natural question to ask is which algebraic complexes can be realized
cellularly (and to provide a geometric/combinatorial description). In [BW02] Batzies and
Welker develop an algebraic version of Discrete Morse theory and construct CW complexes
that support minimal cellular resolutions of shellable ideals (which can be seen to coincide
with the class of ideals with linear quotients). However, there construction is not explicit
and they make no claims regarding the regularity of their complexes.
5

As mentioned in the introduction, Mermin [Mer10] has shown that the Eliahou-Kervaire
resolution of a stable ideal I is cellular and supported on a regular CW-complex. In the
case that I is generated in a fixed degree one can realize the supporting complex as a
subcomplex of a certain subdivision of a dilated simplex (see the next section for details).
In [Sin08] Sinefakopoulos describes cellular resolutions of the class of strongly stable ideals
generated in a fixed degree but obtains combinatorially distinct complexes. In the case that
I = hx1 , . . . xn id , the dth power of the maximal graded ideal in R, the complexes are different
subdivisions of a dilated simplex. In [DE12] the authors describe cellular resolutions of what
they call cointerval ideals via spaces of graph homomorphisms, extending the ‘complexes of
boxes’ constructions from [NR09] and [CN09]. In [NPS02] the authors construct minimal
cellular resolutions of monomial ideals arising from matroids and oriented matroids. In
[DJS12] methods from tropical convexity are employed to build cellular resolutions of a
certain class of monomial ideals. For a particular ideal, these constructions can lead to
(geometric) complexes with different combinatorial structure.
As we will see in Section 4, many of these constructions can be realized as different
instances of the cellular mapping cone construction.
3. The generalized Eliahou Kervaire cellular resolution
In this section we show that the generalized Eliahou-Kervaire (EK) resolution described in
Theorem 2.6 is supported on a cellular complex. We will extend the construction of Mermin
[Mer10] (where the case of stable ideals was considered) to realize the supporting space as
a CW -complex obtained by gluing together certain simplices corresponding to data coming
from the generators of I.
Throughout this section we will use the notation and terminology from Section 2.1. In
particular we assume that our ideal I is a monomial ideal with linear quotients with respect
to the sequence of generators G(I) = (m1 , . . . , mk ), where we use m1 > m2 > · · · > mk to denote the ordering of the generators defining the linear quotient (this will be convenient when
we no longer have indices on the generators). We furthermore assume that its decomposition
function b : M (I) → G(I) is regular (see 2.4).
3.1. Cellular construction. In a description of any cellular resolution we need to label the
0-cells of a CW-complex with monomials corresponding to generators of I. We first note that
each monomial m = xa11 xa22 · · · xann ∈ G(I) can be regarded as a point (a1 , a2 , . . . an ) ∈ Rn
by considering its exponent vector. We will often abuse notation and use m to denote this
point in Rn .
Now, for each m ∈ G(I) and α = {j1 , . . . , jp } ⊂ set(m) with j1 < · · · < jp , we let
σ = (σ1 , . . . , σp ) be a permutation of {j1 , . . . , jp }. We define ch(m, α, σ) to be the subset of
Rn obtained as the convex hull of the subset of generators of I that we reach by applying
the decomposition function in the order prescribed by the permutation σ:

ch(m, α, σ) = Conv m, b(xσ1 m), b(xσ2 xσ1 m), . . . , b(xσp · · · xσ1 m)
Here we use the shorthand notation b(xσ2 xσ1 m) = b(xσ2 b(xσ1 m)). We say that ch(m, α, σ)
is nondegenerate if there are no repetitions of monomials involved in the description of
ch(m, α, σ); otherwise we say that ch(m, α, σ) is degenerate (see Example 3.2). We will see
in Corollary 3.4 that in this case ch(m, α, σ) is in fact a p-dimensional simplex.
6

x1x4x5
3

2

x1x4x5

x1x2x4
3

x1x3x4

x1x3x4

Figure 1. The degenerate simplex ch(x1 x4 x5 , {2, 3}, (32)) on the left, and
the nondegenerate ch(x1 x4 x5 , {2, 3}, (23)) on the right.
Lemma 3.1. Let m ∈ G(I), α ⊂ set(m), and σ a permutation of α. If ch(m, α, σ) is
degenerate then there exists a permutation σ 0 of α such that ch(m, α, σ 0 ) is nondegenerate
and ch(m, α, σ) is a face of ch(m, α, σ 0 ).
Proof. Suppose that ch(m, α, σ) is degenerate. Let s be the first index with the property
that applying b does not lead to a new generator, so that
b(xσs+1 b(xσs · · · xσ1 m)) = b(xσs · · · xσ1 m).
Let σ 0 = (σ1 , . . . , σs−1 , σs+1 , σs , . . . , σp ) be the permutation obtained from σ from switching
positions s and s + 1.
If b(xσs+1 b(xσs−1 · · · xσ1 m)) 6= b(xσs−1 · · · xσ1 m) then we get that ch(m, α, σ) is a face of
ch(m, α, σ 0 ). Otherwise we push σs+1 further back by switching σs−1 and σs+1 to get the
permutation σ 00 = (σ1 , . . . , σs+1 , σs−1 , σs , . . . , σp ). We then apply the above argument for
s − 1 (instead of s) and in order to find a permutation σ 00 such that ch(m, α, σ 00 ) contains
ch(m, α, σ 0 ) as a face. In the worst case we consider the permutation (σs+1 , σ1 , . . . , σp ) and
we have b(xσs+1 m) 6= m as desired.
By continuing the same argument, we keep increasing dimensions and we get a nondegenerate ch(m, α, σ 0 ) containing ch(m, α, σ) as a face.

Example 3.2. We return to the ideal I from Example 2.5, where
I = hx1 x3 x4 , x1 x3 x5 , x1 x2 x4 , x1 x4 x5 , x2 x3 x4 , x2 x3 x5 i
has linear quotients with respect to the given ordering of the generators. One can check
that set(x1 x4 x5 ) = {2, 3}. The simplices corresponding to the permutations σ = (23) and
σ 0 = (32) are described below.
(i) The simplex ch(x1 x4 x5 , {2, 3}, (32)) is degenerate since it is the convex hull of the
vectors corresponding to x1 x4 x5 and x1 x3 x4 = b(x3 (x1 x4 x5 )). Here the fact that
2 6∈ set(x1 x3 x4 ) implies degeneracy (see Figure 3.1).
(ii) Switching the positions of 2 and 3 gives us the permutation σ 0 = (32). The resulting simplex ch(x1 x4 x5 , {2, 3}, (32)) is then nondegenerate since it is the convex
hull of the vectors corresponding to x1 x4 x5 , x1 x2 x4 = b(x2 (x1 x4 x5 )), and x1 x3 x4 =
b(x3 (x1 x2 x4 )). Note that ch(x1 x4 x5 , {2, 3}, σ) is a face of ch(x1 x4 x5 , {2, 3}, σ 0 ).
7

Lemma 3.3. Suppose ch(m, α, σ) is nondegenerate. Then for each ` and j with j < ` we
have
b(xσj xσj−1 · · · xσ1 m) 6= xσj b(xσj−1 · · · xσ1 m)/xσ` .
Proof. By contradiction assume that for some j < ` we have
b(xσj m0 ) = xσj m0 /xσ` ,
where m0 = b(xσj−1 · · · xσ1 m). Then by our assumption of regularity (∗) we can push σ` back
until it meets σj as follows:
b(xσ` · · · xσ1 m) = b(xσ` b(xσ`−1 · · · xσj+1 b(xσj m0 )))
= b(xσ`−1 b(xσ` xσ`−2 · · · xσj+1 b(xσj m0 )))
= ···
= b(xσ`−1 b(xσ`−2 · · · xσj+1 xσ` b(xσj m0 )))
= b(xσ`−1 · · · xσj+1 xσ` (xσj m0 /xσ` ))
= b(xσ`−1 · · · xσ1 m),
which is a contradiction by our assumption that ch(m, α, σ) is nondegenerate.



As a consequence of Lemma 3.3 we have
Corollary 3.4. Suppose that | set(m)| = p and ch(m, set(m), σ) is nondegenerate. Then
ch(m, set(m), σ) is a simplex of dimension p.
Proof. Let v0 = (v0,1 , v0,2 , . . . , v0,n ) be the exponent vector of m and vi = (vi,1 , vi,2 , . . . , vi,n )
be the exponent vector of b(xσi · · · xσ1 m) for each i > 0. We will show that v0 , v1 , . . . , vp are
affinely independent. Assume that λ0 v0 + λ1 v1 + · · · + λp vp = 0 and λ0 + λ1 + · · · + λp = 0.
Then by Lemma 3.3 we know that for each `,
(
v`−1,σ` ,
if i < `;
vi,σ` =
v`−1,σ` + 1, if i ≥ `.
In particular vp,σp = v`,σp + 1 for all ` < p. Therefore, we have
(vp,σp − 1)(λ0 + λ1 + · · · + λp−1 ) + vp,σp λp = 0
which implies that λp = 0. A similar argument shows that λi = 0 for all i.



As we have seen, for each subset α ⊂ set(m) of size q we have some permutation σ of α
such that the simplex ch(m, α, σ) is of dimension q − 1.
Definition 3.5. Suppose m is a generator of I and α ⊂ set(m). Let F be a facet of the
(possibly degenerate) simplex ch(m, α, σ). We say that F is an exterior facet if it is not
a facet of ch(m, α, σ 0 ) for some other permutation σ 0 of α. Otherwise we say that F is an
interior facet.
Corollary 3.6. Let α ∈ set(m), let σ be some permutation of α, and suppose F is a facet of
the simplex ch(m, α, σ) = Conv{m, m1 , . . . , mp }. Then F is exterior if and only if m` 6∈ F
for some 1 < ` < p and σ` ∈ set(b(xσ`+1 m`−1 )). If F is interior, then there exist exactly two
nondegenerate simplices containing F : the simplex ch(m, α, σ) and the simplex ch(m, α, σ 0 ),
where σ 0 = (σ1 , . . . , σ`−1 , σ`+1 , σ` , . . . , σp ).
8

Proof. Let ch(m, α, σ) = hm, m1 , . . . , mp i be a nondegenerate simplex which contains F as a
facet with m` 6∈ F for some 1 < ` < p. Now we consider the following two cases:
Case (i). Suppose σ` ∈ set(b(xσ`+1 m`−1 )). Then b(xσ` xσ`+1 m`−1 ) 6= b(xσ`+1 m`−1 ) and so
F is also a facet of ch(m, set(m), σ 0 ), where σ 0 = (σ1 , . . . , σ`−1 , σ`+1 , σ` , . . . , σp ). Therefore F
is an interior facet.
By contradicton assume that ch(m, set(m), σ 00 ) is another nondegenerate simplex containing F as a facet such that σi00 = σ` . If i < `, then the corresponding simplex does not contain
m`−1 . If i > `, then m`+1 does not appear among the vertices, a contradiction.
Case (ii). Suppose σ` 6∈ set(b(xσ`+1 m`−1 )). In this case we have b(xσ` xσ`+1 m`−1 ) =
b(xσ`+1 m`−1 ). Assume that ch(m, set(m), σ 0 ) = hw0 , w1 , . . . , wp i is another simplex containing
F as a facet and let wi 6∈ {m, m1 , . . . , mp }. We wish to show that i = 0. By contradiction
we suppose i ≥ 1 and note that b(xσ` wi−1 ) = wi . Our assumption that b(xσ` xσ`+1 m`−1 ) =
b(xσ`+1 m`−1 ) implies that σ` ∈ set(mi ) for all i ≤ ` and σ` 6∈ set(mi ) for all i > `. On the other
hand, σ` ∈ set(wi−1 ) which implies that i < ` and σ`+1 ∈ set(wi ). Thus wi+1 = b(xσ`+1 wi ) is
not equal to m`+1 which implies that wi , wi+1 6∈ F , a contradiction.
Therefore we have ` = 0 so that F = hm1 , . . . , mp i is the facet of ch(m, α, σ) obtained by
removing the vertex m. We conclude that F is not a facet of any other simplex of the form
ch(m, α, σ 0 ) = hm, m01 , . . . , m0p i, and hence F is exterior.

We next construct the cells that will serve as basis elements of the free modules in our
resolution. We obtain these by gluing together the simplices ch(m, α, σ) corresponding to
the different choices of the permutation σ. For this we define the cell U (m, α) as the union
over all permutations σ of α.
[
U (m, α) =
ch(m, α, σ).
σ a permutation of α

Note that by Lemma 3.1, U (m, α) can be written (as a subset of Rn ) as the union of
nondegenerate simplices ch(m, α, σ).
3.2. Orientation of ch(m, set(m), σ):
Definition 3.7. For each p ≥ 1 we fix the permutation (p, . . . , 1). Then for each permutation
σ of {1, . . . , p} we define
(σ) = sgn(σ, (p, . . . , 1))
where sgn(−, −) denotes the standard sign function for permutations.
Lemma 3.8. There exists an orientation on the simplices ch(m, set(m), σ) such if F in an
interior facet belonging to both ch(m, set(m), σ) and ch(m, set(m), σ 0 ), then F has the same
induced orientation if and only if the the simplices themselves have opposite orientations.
Proof. By Lemma 3.6 each interior facet F belongs to exactly two simplices ch(m, set(m), σ)
and ch(m, set(m), σ 0 ). Therefore the orientation of each interior facet F can be determined
uniquely by the simplices containing F .
For each two nondegenerate simploices G = ch(m, set(m), σ) and G0 = ch(m, set(m), σ 0 )
there exists a chain G0 = G, G1 , . . . , Gr = G0 such that Gi+1 is obtained from Gi by swapping
two suitable indices.
9

These two facts show that the orientations on the simplices can be determined uniquely.

Notation. Assume that F is a facet of ch(m, set(m), σ) = hm = m0 , m1 , . . . , mp i. When F
is an exterior facet, or when the simplex containing F is clear, we denote o(F ) to denote the
the orientation of F that is determined by sgn(σ) and the missing vertex in F .
The following is our main technical lemma regarding the differential maps.
Lemma 3.9. The topological differentials of each cell U (m, α) with subset α = {j1 , . . . , jp }
of set(m) are
X
X
d(U (m, α)) =
(−1)i U (m, α\ji ) −
(−1)i U (b(xji m), α\ji ) .
i

i

Proof. For the simplex hm0 , m1 , . . . , mp i, the boundary map is given by
d(hm0 , m1 , . . . , mp i) =

p
X

(−1)p−i hm0 , . . . , m
ci , . . . , mp i

i=0

For α ⊂ set(m), the cell U (m, α) for α ⊆ set(m) is the union of all nondegenerate simplices
ch(m, α, σ), and is oriented as
X
U (m, α) =
o(F )F,
F =ch(m,α,σ)
nondegenerate

where o(F ) denotes the unique orientation given by Lemma 3.8. So the topological differentials of the cell α ⊆ set(m) are given by
X
d(U (m, α)) =
o(F )d(F ).
F =ch(m,α,σ)
nondegenerate

Now corresponding to the fixed simplex ch(m, α, σ) = hm0 , m1 , . . . , mp i we have the following terms in the differential of U (m, α):
Case 1. i = 0. The term corresponding to i = 0 is (−1)p sgn(σ)hm1 , . . . , mp i.
Let σ 0 = (σ2 , . . . , σp ) and π be the permutation such that πσ 0 = (p, . . . , σb1 , . . . , 1). Then
(σ1 , p)(σ1 , p − 1) · · · (σ1 , σ1 + 1)πσ 0 = (p, . . . , 1)
shows that sgn(σ) = sgn(σ 0 )(−1)p−σ1 . Thus the corresponding term is
(−1)σ1 sgn(σ 0 ) ch(b(xjσ1 m), α\jσ1 , σ 0 ).
This face can not be obtained from the differential of any other simplex in U (m, α) by
Lemma 3.6.
Case 2. i = p. In this case the term corresponding to i = p is sgn(σ)hm0 , . . . , mp−1 i.
Then again this face can not be obtained from the differential of any other simplex in U (m, α).
As in Case 1 we have sgn(σ) = sgn(σ 0 )(−1)σp +1 , where σ 0 = (σ1 , . . . , σp−1 ). Thus this term
can be written as
(−1)σp +1 sgn(σ 0 ) ch(m, α\jσp , σ 0 ).
10

Case 3. 0 < i < p. The corresponding term is
(−1)p−i sgn(σ)hm0 , . . . , m
ci , . . . , mp i.
Now we have two subcases:
Case 3.1. First suppose σi ∈ set(b(xjσi+1 mi−1 )). Thus b(xσi b(xjσi+1 mi−1 )) 6= b(xjσi+1 mi−1 ).
We set σ 0 = (σ1 , . . . , σi−1 , σi+1 , σi , . . . , σp ). Our condition guarantees that ch(m, α, σ 0 ) is
nondegenerate. Note that ch(m, α, σ 0 ) = hm0 , . . . , mi−1 , m0i , mi+1 , . . . , mp i for some m0i . Now
by removing the ith vertex of ch(m, α, σ 0 ) we get
c0 , . . . , mp i.
(−1)p−i sgn(σ 0 )hm0 , . . . , m
i
Since sgn(σ 0 ) = − sgn(σ), when we take the sum over all possible permutations of α given
nondegenerate cells, these two terms will be canceled.
Case 3.2. Next suppose σi 6∈ set(b(xjσi+1 mi−1 )). Then b(xσi b(xjσi+1 mi−1 )) = b(xjσi+1 mi−1 )
and the corresponding term is
(−1)p−i sgn(σ) ch(m, α\jσi , σ 0 ),
where σ 0 = (σ1 , . . . , σbi , . . . , σp ). Since (−1)p−i−σi +1 sgn(σ 0 ) = sgn(σ), we can write this term
as
(−1)σi +1 ch(m, α\jσi , σ 0 ).
P
Now by considering
d(o(F )F ) over all non-degenerate cells F we find that the remaining terms are the sum of
o(σ 0 ) ch(b(xji m), α\ji , σ 0 ),

(1)

P

i

(2)

P

i+1

i (−1)

(3.2)

i (−1)

o(σ 0 ) ch(m, α\ji , σ 0 ), where ji ∈ set(b(xji+1 b(xji−1 · · · xj1 m))),

i+1
o(σ 0 ) ch(m, α\ji , σ 0 ),
i (−1)

P

where ji 6∈ set(b(xji+1 b(xji−1 · · · xj1 m)))

over all σ 0 P
where the corresponding facet is nondegenerate. Then the first sum can be
i
written
P as i+1i (−1) U (b(xji m), α\ji ) and the sums coming from (2) and (3.2) can be written
as i (−1) U (m, α\ji ). Therefore
X
X
d(U (m, α)) =
(−1)i U (b(xji m), α\ji ) +
(−1)i+1 U (m, α\ji ),
i

i

as desired. This completes the proof.
With these preliminaries in place we can establish the main result of this section.
Theorem 3.10. Suppose I has linear quotients with respect to some ordering (m1 , . . . , mk )
of the generators, and furthermore suppose that I has a regular decomposition function. Then
the minimal resolution of I obtained as an iterated mapping cone is cellular and supported
on a regular CW -complex.
11

x3x5
x2x5

2

1

x1x5

x1x5

2

x1x2

2

x1x3

x2x3

x1x5

x2x5

3

3

x2x3

1

x1x3

x1x2

x1x3

x1x2
x4x5
2

x1x5
1

3

1

x3x5
x2x5

x1x2

x1x3

x2x3

x1x5

x1x3

x1x2

x2x3

x1x2

x1x3

Figure 2. The resolution of I = hx1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x5 , x2 x3 , x2 x5 , x3 x5 , x4 x5 i
built from an iterated mapping cone. At each step we have labeled the newly
added edges with the elements of set(mj ).
Proof. Adding the monomial coefficients to the differential map from Lemma 3.9 we obtain
X
X
xj i m
d(U (m, α)) =
(−1)i (
(−1)i xji U (m, α\ji ).
)U (b(xji m), α\ji ) −
b(x
m)
j
i
i
i
This is precisely the minimal free resolution of I described in Theorem 2.6. Therefore the
complex constructed as the union of the cells U (m, α) supports the minimal free resolution
of I, as desired. Moreover this resolution in the closed form looks like the Eliahou-Kervaire
resolution.
Note that for any two simplices G = ch(m, set(m), σ) and G0 = ch(m, set(m), σ 0 ) there
exists the chain G0 = G, G1 , . . . , Gr = G0 where Gi+1 can be obtained from Gi by swapping
two suitable indices. This implies that U (m, set(m)) is a shellable for all m. Hence the
constructed resolution is regular, by Lemma 3.6 and [DK73, Proposition 1.2].

Remark 3.11. We note that in the proofs of Theorem 3.10 and the related lemmas, the only
property of the decomposition function that we use is its regularity, and not its definition
in terms of assigning a particular generator to a monomial. Hence we obtain similar results
for any decomposition type function that satisfies the regularity property. We return to this
point in Section 4.2 where we vary the decomposition function to obtain combinatorially
distinct cellular resolutions.
4. Other cellular realizations of the mapping cone
In each step of the mapping cone construction we need to choose the homomorphism of
complexes ψ : G → F that lifts the map of R-modules R/(Ij−1 : fj ) → R/Ij−1 . In the context
of the generalized EK resolution described above, this choice was encoded in the definition of
12

the decomposition function ψ. We will see that varying the decomposition function leads to
combinatorially distinct geometric complexes supporting cellular resolutions, recovering the
results from the papers mentioned above. We view the cellular mapping cone construction
as a means of unifying the various constructions of cellular resolutions from the literature.
4.1. The complex of boxes (homomorphism) resolution. In this section we show how
a different choice of decomposition function in the mapping cone construction recovers the
cellular resolutions of [Sin08], of [CN09] and [NR09] (where they are called ‘complex of
boxes’ resolutions), and of [DE12] (where they are constructed as ‘homomorphism complex’
resolutions).
In this context we restrict our attention to cointerval ideals, a class of hypergraph edge
ideals introduced in [DE12] and [MKM10] that generalize squarefree strongly stable ideals.
Recall that a (regular) d–graph H on vertex set [n] is a collection of subsets of [n] =
{1, 2, . . . , }, each of cardinality d. A d-graph H naturally gives rise to a (square-free) monomial ideal IH by taking generators to be the edges of H. To describe the class of cointerval
graphs we need the following notion.
Definition 4.1. Let H be a d–graph and let v ∈ V (H) ⊆ Z be some vertex. Then the
v–layer of H is a (d − 1)–graph on V \ v with edge set
{v1 v2 · · · vd−1 | vv1 v2 · · · vd−1 ∈ E(H) and v < v1 , v2 , . . . , vd−1 }.
Definition 4.2. The class of cointerval d–graphs is defined recursively as follows.
Any 1–graph is cointerval. For d > 1, a finite regular d–graph H with vertex set V (H) ⊆ Z
is cointerval if
(1) for every i ∈ V (H) the i–layer of H is cointerval;
(2) for every pair i < j of vertices, the j–layer of H is a subgraph of the i–layer of H.
When d = 2 the class of cointerval graphs can be seen to coincide with the well-studied
complements of interval graphs of structural graph theory (hence the name). One can see
that cointerval d–graphs generalize the class of (pure) shifted simplicial complexes. Given a
cointerval d-graph H, we will often refer to the associated edge ideal IH as a cointerval ideal.
In [MKM10] the authors work with a class of ideals they call generalized Ferrers ideals
which can be seen to coincide with the class of cointerval ideals. We recall the equivalent
definition here.
Lemma 4.3. A squarefree monomial ideal I (generated by monomials of degree d) is cointerval if and only if for any monomial m = xi1 xi2 · · · xid ∈ I we also have
xj1 xj2 · · · xjt xit+1 · · · xid ∈ I,
where (i1 , i2 , . . . , id ) and (j1 , j2 , . . . , jd ) are such that j1 ≤ i1 , j2 ≤ i2 , . . . , jt ≤ it for some
t ≤ d.
From [MKM10] we also take the following result.
Theorem 4.4. [MKM10, Theorem 2.5] Let IH be the edge ideal of a generalized d-Ferrers
hypergraph H, so that IH is a cointerval ideal. Then IH is weakly polymatroidal, and in
particular has linear quotients with respect to lexicographic order on its generators.
13

Next we recall the construction of the polyhedral complex XH that supports a minimal
free resolution of the cointerval ideal associated to the hypergraph H. For subsets σi , σj ⊂
[n] = {1, 2, . . . , n} we say that σi < σj if x < y for all x ∈ σi and y ∈ σj . We use the notation
∆S to denote the simplex with vertex set S.
Definition 4.5. Let H be a d–graph on vertex set V (H) = {v1 , v2 . . . , vn }. The polyhedral
complex XH is defined to be the subcomplex of the product
d
Y

∆V (H)

i=1

satisfying
(1) The vertices of XH are vi1 × vi2 × · · · × vid , where vi1 vi2 · · · vid is an edge of H;
(2) For σi ⊆ V (H), the cells σ1 × σ2 × · · · × σd satisfy σ1 < σ2 < · · · < σd .
Note that for any d-graph H, the faces of the complex XH are naturally labeled by
monomials. In particular, the vertices are labeled by monomials corresponding to the edges
of H (i.e. the generators of IH ), and the higher dimensional faces F = σ1 × σ2 × · · · × σd are
labeled by
d Y
Y
xj ,
i=1 vj ∈σi

which can be seen as equal to the least common multiple of the monomial labels on the
vertices of F .
Remark 4.6. Viewing H as a directed d-graph (with orientation on the edges given by the
integer labels on the vertices), one can regard XH as a ‘space of directed edges’ of H. Indeed,
if we let E denote the d-graph with vertex set [d] consisting of a single edge {1, 2, . . . , d},
then XH = Hom(E, H), a space of directed graph homomorphisms from E to H analogous to the undirected Hom complexes of [BK06]. This perspective was also employed in
[BBK12] where the authors study ideals arising from more general (nondegenerate) simplicial
homomorphisms.
The main result from [DE12] is that these complexes support minimal cellular resolutions
of cointerval ideals.
Theorem 4.7. [DE12, Theorem 4.1] Let H be a cointerval d–graph on vertex set [n]. Then
the polyhedral complex XH supports a minimal cellular resolution of the edge ideal IH .
One nice thing about the spaces XH is tdhat the differential maps are so easy to describe.
Indeed, if σ1 × σ2 × · · · × σd is a cell of XH , we can write d σ1 × σ2 × · · · × σd as:

(1)

d
X
`=1

(−1)`−1

X
(−1)j+|σ1 |+···+|σ`−1 | σ1 × σ2 × · · · × {σ`1 , σ`2 , . . . , σc
`j , . . . , σ`k } × · · · × σd .
j

Here we remove the element σij only if it leaves a nonempty subset, that is if |σi | ≥ 2.
These are the differential maps we wish to recover in Theorem 4.13, where we show that the
homomorphism complex XH can in fact also be realized as an iterated geometric mapping
cone construction. We first need another description of the basis elements.
14

Lemma 4.8. Let I = IH be a cointerval ideal associated to the cointerval d–graph H, and
let F be its minimal free resolution. Then the basis elements for each free R-module Fi
determined by the cellular resolution XH correspond to the symbols
(m; α),

where m ∈ G(I),

α ⊂ set(m),

|α| = i − 1.

Proof. Suppose IH is a cointerval ideal with monomial generators m1 , m2 , . . . , mk listed in
lexicographical order. From Lemma 4.3 we see that for any generator m = xi1 xi2 · · · xid we
have
set(m) = {j ∈ [n] : j < i1 or for some t ≥ 1 we have it < j < it+1 , xi1 · · · xit xj xit+2 · · · xid ∈ I}.
Since XH supports a minimal cellular resolution of IH , we have that a basis for Fi is given
by the number of i − 1 dimensional faces of XH . From Definition 4.5 we have an explicit
description of these faces, which we now want to show are naturally labeled by the symbols
(m; α).
Suppose m = xi1 xi2 · · · xid ∈ G(I) and α ⊂ set(m). We associate the symbol (m; α) to the
face σ1 × σ2 × · · · × σd , where for 1 ≤ ` ≤ d we define σ` = {i` } ∪ {j ∈ α : i`−1 < j < i` }
(by convention we set i0 = 0). To see that this assignment defines a bijection we describe
the inverse. For this, suppose σ1 × σ2 × · · · × σd is a face of XH . Define m = xi1 xi2 · · · xid ,
where for each ` with 1 ≤ ` ≤ d we set i` = max(σ` ). Then define
α=

[

(σ` \i` ).

`

One can check that these assignments are inverses of one another.



The differentials of the resolution supported on the homomorphism complex are described
by the incidence face structure of the polyhedral complex XH . To recover these differentials
as an iterated mapping cone, we need a new notion of decomposition function.
Let I be a cointerval monomial ideal with the sequence of generators m1 , m2 , . . . , mk listed
in lexicographical order. As above let G(I) be the set of all monomials in I. Let xG(I) be
the set of all products xi mj , where mj ∈ G(I) is a generator of I, and xi is a variable in the
polynomial ring such that i ∈ set(mj ).
Definition 4.9. With the notation established a above, the map c : xG(I) → G(I) is
defined as follows. Suppose mj = xj1 xj2 · · · xjd , with j1 < j2 < · · · < jd and let xi such that
i ∈ set(m). Pick the minimum jk such that jk−1 < i ≤ jk , and define c(xi m) = xi m/xjk .
We note that this assignment is different than the decomposition function from [HT02].
In particular, our assignment does not in general satisfy
c(xs c(xt m)) = c(xt c(xs m))
(the edge ideal of the complete 3-graph on n = 5 vertices provides a counterexample,
where set(x3 x4 x5 ) = {1, 2}).
We will use this new decomposition function c to encode the map of chain complexes ψ
involved in the mapping cone construction. We first set up some further notation. For any
generator m = xi1 xi2 · · · xid of I we decompose set(m) as
set(m) = A1 ∪ A2 ∪ · · · ∪ Ad ,
15

where
A` = {j ∈ [n] : i`−1 < j < i` such that we have xi1 · · · xi`−1 xj xi`+1 · · · xid ∈ I}.
Notation. Let α ⊂ set(m). For each 1 ≤ ` ≤ d, let s` denote the maximum element of
α ∩ A` , and s0` denote the maximum element of α ∩ (A` \{s` }). Let T (α) = {s1 , . . . , sd }.
Example 4.10. Consider again our running example
I = hx1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x5 , x2 x3 , x2 x5 , x3 x5 , x4 x5 i.
We see that for m = x2 x5 and α = set(x2 x5 ) = {1, 3}, we have T (α) = {1, 3}. On the other
hand, for m = x3 x5 and α = set(x3 x5 ) = {1, 2}, we get T (α) = {2}.
Remark 4.11. Let t, s ∈ A` for some ` and t > s. Then c(xs (xt m)) = c(xs m), since i`−1 <
s < t < j` . Here we again employ the shorthand notation c(xs (xt m)) = c(xs c(xt m)).
Remark 4.12. Note that (1) can be written as
d
X
`=1

`−1

(−1)

s
X̀
(−1)j+|σ1 |+···+|σ`−1 | σ1 × σ2 × · · · × {σ`1 , σ`2 , . . . , σc
`j , . . . , σ`k } × · · · × σd
j=1

+

d
X

(−1)`−1+|σ1 |+···+|σ` | σ1 × σ2 × · · · × σ` \ max(σ` ) × · · · × σd .

`=1
|A` |>0

Recall from Lemma 4.8 that each σ1 × σ2 × · · · × σd corresponds to a symbol (m; α). The
first summand above is taken over all elements of α and the second summand is over the
indices of the elements of supp(m). The second summand can be also considered over the
elements of T (α) since in case that |T (α) ∩ A` | > 0 we have that c(xs` m) = xs` m/xmax(σ` ) .
Theorem 4.13. Let I = IH be the monomial edge ideal associated to a cointerval d-graph H,
and F the graded minimal free resolution of R/I obtained from the homomorphism complex
XH . Then F is realized as an iterated mapping cone, with the basis for each module Fi as
above. The chain map d of F is given by
X
X
xj i m
(c(xji m); α \ ji )
d(m; α) =
(−1)i xji (m; α \ ji ) +
(−1)i−1
c(xji m)
j ∈α
ji ∈T (α)

i

if σ 6= ∅, where α = {j1 , . . . , jp } ⊂ set(m) with j1 < · · · < jp , and d(m, ∅) = m otherwise.
Proof. We follow the strategy of the proof of Theorem 1.12 in [HT02]. Let I = IH be a cointerval interval ideal associated to the cointerval d-graph H, and let XH be its homomorphism
complex. We show by induction on j that the complex F (j) has the desired boundary map.
By definition F (j+1) is the mapping cone of ψ (j) : K (j) → F (j) so that F (j) is a subcomplex
of F (j+1) and hence it is enough to check the formula on the basis elements (m, α).
The definition of the mapping cone differential gives d(mj+1 ; α) = −dK (mj+1 ; α)+ψ (j) (mj+1 ; α),
where dK is the differential of the relevant Koszul complex K (j) .
Hence it is enough to show that we can define ψ (j) according to
X
xji mj+1
ψ (j) (mj+1 ; α) =
(−1)i−1
(c(xji mj+1 ); α \ ji ),
c(xji mj+1 )
ji ∈T (α)

16

x3x5

2

x2x5

1

x1x5

x1x5

x2x3

x1x3

x1x2

x1x3

x2x3

1

2

x1x3
x1x2
x4x5

x1x2
x1x5
2

3

x2x5

3

1

x3x5

3

x1x2

2

x1x5

1

x2x5

x1x3
x2x3

x1x5

x1x3
x2x3

x1x2

x1x3
x1x2

Figure 3. The resolution of I = hx1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x5 , x2 x3 , x2 x5 , x3 x5 , x4 x5 i
built from an iterated mapping cone as a realization of the homomorphism
complex.
if α 6= ∅, and otherwise ψ (j) (mj+1 ; ∅) = mj+1 .
For this we must verify that ψ (j) ◦ dK = d ◦ ψ (j) . To simplify notation we let m = mj+1
and ψ = ψj+1 .
For t ∈ set(m) a singleton element we have
ψ ◦ dK





(m; {t}) = ψ xt (m; ∅) = xt m,

and on the other hand

xt m
xt m
(c(xt m); ∅) =
c(xt m) = xt m.
c(xt m)
c(xt m)
For larger subsets of set(m), next consider σ ⊂ set(m) with |σ| ≥ 2. In this case we have


d ◦ ψ (m; {t}) = d


 X

ψ ◦ dk (m; α) =
(−1)(α;t) xt ψ (m; α\t)
t∈α

(2)

=

X

=

X X

(−1)(α;t) xt (

t∈α

X

(−1)(α\t;s)

s∈T (α\t)

(−1)(α;t)+(α\t;s)

t∈α s∈T (α\t)

17

xs m
(c(xs m); α\{s, t})
c(xs m)

xt xs m
(c(xs m); α\{s, t}).
c(xs m)

Here we use the notation (α; t) = |{s ∈ α : s < t}|.
The other composition gives us
X


xt m
d ◦ ψ) (m; α) =
(−1)(α;t)
d (c(xt m); α\t) ,
c(xt m)

(3)

t∈T (α)

where
X

d (c(xt m); α\t) =
(−1)(α\t;s) xs (c(xt m); α\{s, t})
s∈α\t

X

+


xs c(xt m)
c(xs c(xt m)); α\{s, t} .
c(xs c(xt m))

(−1)(α\t;s)

s∈T (α\t)

Therefore Equation 3 becomes
X
(4)

(−1)(α;t)

t∈T (α)

X

xt m
xs c(xt m)
(−1)(α\t;s)
c(xs c(xt m)); α\{t, s}
c(xt m)
c(xs c(xt m))
s∈T (α\{t})
X

xt m X
+
(−1)(α;t)
(−1)(α\t;s) xs c(xt m); α\{t, s} .
c(xt m)
t∈T (α)

s∈α\{t}


Now note that the first summand expressing d ◦ ψ) (m; α) in Equation (4) can be written
X
X

xs xt m
c(xs c(xt m)); α\{t, s} ,
(−1)(α;t)+(α\t;s)
c(xs c(xt m))
t∈T (α) s∈T (α\{t})

which can be expanded as
d XX
X
`=1 t=s`

(5)
+

(−1)(α;t)+(α\t;s)

s=sk
k6=`

d XX
X

(−1)(α;t)+(α\t;s)

`=1 t=s` s=s0`


xs xt m
c(xs c(xt m)); α\{t, s}
c(xs c(xt m))


xs xt m
c(xs c(xt m)); α\{t, s} .
c(xs c(xt m))

Exchanging the role of ` and k in the first summand of 5 shows that it is ‘zero’.
The second summand of 4 can be written
X X

xt xs m
(−1)(α;t)+(α\t;s)
c(xt m); α\{t, s} ,
c(xt m)
t∈T (α) s∈α\{t}

and after applying the observation from Remark 4.11 we obtain

(6)

d XX

 X
xs x t m
d ◦ ψ) (m; α) =
(−1)(α;t)+(α\t;s)
c(xs m); α\{t, s}
c(xs m)
`=1 t=s` s=s0`
X X

xt xs m
+
(−1)(α;t)+(α\t;s)
c(xt m); α\{t, s} .
c(xt m)
t∈T (α) s∈α\{t}

18

Next we compare the indices
appearing in the non-zero summands
corresponding to Equa

tion 2 for ψ ◦ dk ) (m; α) and Equation
6
for
d
◦
ψ)
(m;
α)
,
The
indices
appearing in the

non-zero summands of ψ ◦ dk ) (m; α) consist of
[ 
[ 

(t, sk ) : t ∈ A` , ` 6= k
(t, s` ) : t ∈ A` \s`
(s` , s0` )}.
Recall our notation, here sk denotes the maximum element of α ∩ Ak , and s0` denotes the
maximum element of α ∩ A` \s` .

On the other hand the indices appearing in the non-zero summands of d ◦ ψ) (m; α)
consist of
[ 
[ 

(sk , j) : j ∈ A` , ` 6= k
(s` , j) : j ∈ A` \s` .
(s` , s0` )
Exchanging the roles of s and t completes the proof.



Remark 4.14. The cells that serve as basis elements of the free modules in the resolution
constructed in Theorem 4.13 can also be obtained by gluing together the simplices ch(m, α, σ)
corresponding to the different choices of permutations σ of α from the set A, where
A = {σ = (σ1 , . . . , σp ) : if σi , σj ∈ A` for some ` and σi > σj then i < j}.
For this we define the cell U (m, α) as the union over all permutations σ ∈ A of α.
U (m, α) =

[

ch(m, α, σ).

σ∈A

4.2. Other regular decomposition functions. Describing all possible cellular realizations of the mapping cone resolution of an ideal I with linear quotients seems to be difficult
(even for a fixed ordering of the generators). Perhaps a more manageable task would be to
restrict to those cellular resolutions one obtains from regular decomposition functions.
For an ideal I with linear quotients and a regular decomposition function, Herzog and
Takayama in [HT02, Theorem 1.12] provide an explicit description of the differential map
of the resolution of an ideal I obtained from an iterated mapping cone. One can check
that the proof of the theorem (and the related lemmas) relies only on the regularity of
the decomposition function b, and not the definition of b in terms of assigning a particular
generator of I to every monomial. Similarly, our cellular realization in Theorem 3.10 only
relies on the regularity property. Hence we can vary the decomposition function in each step
and apply those results to obtain combinatorially distinct geometric complexes that support
resolutions, as the next example illustrates.
Example 4.15. Consider the ideal given by I = hx1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x5 , x2 x3 , x2 x5 , x3 x5 , x4 x5 i.
One can check that I has linear quotients with respect to this ordering. We construct a
resolution of I via the iterated mapping cone procedure, and by choosing different regular decomposition functions at each step we arrive at a family of combinatorially distinct
complexes supporting the resolution.
19

45

45

35

35
25

23

15

13

12

35

25

23

15

23

15

13

13

12
45

35
15

12

25

45

35

23

13

12

45

25

45

35

25

15

23

13
12

25

15

23

13
12

Figure 4. The family of cellular resolutions obtained by considering all
possible regular decompositions of the ideal I with linear quotient order
(x1 x2 , x1 x3 , x1 x5 , x2 x3 , x2 x5 , x3 x5 , x4 x5 ). Here we use the notation ij to denote the variable xi xj . The first complex is the generalized EK resolution
from Section 3 and the last is the homomorphism complex of Section 4.
4.3. Further questions - a space of resolutions? In each step of the mapping cone
construction we have a choice of homomorphism of complexes ψ : G → F that lifts the map
of R-modules R/(Ij−1 : fj ) → R/Ij−1 . As we have seen, this choice of homomorphism can
be encoded in the cellular structure of the Koszul simplex that is glued onto the previously
constructed resolution. After fixing a basis the collection of all such choices of bluings forms
a finite set, but can we understand them as comprising some geometric object and hence
obtain a ‘space of mapping cone resolutions’ ?
We note that if I = hx1 , x2 , . . . , xn id is a power of the graded maximal ideal, a certain space
of cellular resolutions of I is in fact described in [DJS12]. In this context a cellular resolution
of I is obtained by a generic arrangement of tropical hyperplanes, which in turn corresponds
to a regular triangulation of the product of simplices ∆n−1 × ∆d−1 . The collection of all
regular triangulations of ∆n−1 × ∆d−1 (or any polytope) has a natural polyhedral structure
known as a secondary polytope.
A natural question arrises: if we fix the linear quotient order on the generators of an ideal
I, what are the possible combinatorial types of complexes that we see as we attach a simplex
in each step of the cellular mapping cone construction? How many different choices do we
have to glue in the simplex? At one extreme sits the maximal ideal I = hx1 , x2 , . . . xn i, where
20

we have no choice but to build another simplex of one more dimension in each step. The
space of resolutions in this case is a single point. As seen in [DJS12], already for the square
of the maximal ideal in 4 variables we see distinct complexes arising.
References
[BBK12] Benjamin Braun, Jonathan Browder, and Steven Klee, Cellular resolutions of ideals defined by
nondegenerate simplicial homomorphisms, Israel Journal of Mathematics (2012), 1–24. ↑4.6
[BK06] Eric Babson and Dmitry N. Kozlov, Complexes of graph homomorphisms, Israel Journal of Mathematics 152 (2006), no. 1, 285–312. ↑4.6
[BS98] Dave Bayer and Bernd Sturmfels, Cellular resolutions of monomial modules, J. Reine Angew.
Math. 502 (1998), 123–140. MR1647559 (99g:13018) ↑1, 2.2
[BW02] Ekkehard Batzies and Volkmar Welker, Discrete Morse theory for cellular resolutions, J. Reine
Angew. Math. 543 (2002), 147–168. MR1887881 (2003b:13017) ↑2.2
[CN09] Alberto Corso and Uwe Nagel, Monomial and toric ideals associated to Ferrers graphs, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 361 (2009), no. 3, 1371–1395. ↑1, 2.2, 4.1
[DE12] Anton Dochtermann and Alexander Engström, Cellular resolutions of cointerval ideals, Mathematische Zeitschrift 270 (2012), no. 1-2, 145–163. ↑1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.1, 4.7
[DJS12] Anton Dochtermann, Michael Joswig, and Raman Sanyal, Tropical types and associated cellular
resolutions, Journal of Algebra 356 (2012), no. 1, 304–324. ↑2.2, 4.3
[DK73] Gopal Danaraj and Victor Klee, Shellings of spheres and polytopes, DTIC Document, 1973. ↑3.2
[EHM11] Viviana Ene, Jürgen Herzog, and Fatemeh Mohammadi, Monomial ideals and toric rings of Hibi
type arising from a finite poset, Eur. J. Comb. 32 (2011), no. 3, 404–421. ↑2.1
[EK90] Shalom Eliahou and Michel Kervaire, Minimal resolutions of some monomial ideals, J. Algebra
129 (1990), no. 1, 1–25. MR1037391 (91b:13019) ↑1, 2.1, 2.1
[EOS10] Viviana Ene, Anda Olteanu, and Loredana Sorrenti, Properties of lexsegment ideals, Osaka J.
Math. 47 (2010), no. 1, 67–87. ↑2.1
[Goo13] Afshin Goodarzi, Cellular structure for the Herzog–Takayama Resolution, 2013. Preprint available
at arXiv:1305.4302. ↑1
[HT02] Jürgen Herzog and Yukihide Takayama, Resolutions by mapping cones, Homology, Homotopy and
Applications 4 (2002), no. 2, 277–294. ↑1, 2.1, 2.1, 2.1, 2.3, 2.1, 2.6, 2.1, 4.1, 4.1, 4.2
[Mer10] Jeffrey Mermin, The Eliahou-Kervaire resolution is cellular, Journal of Commutative Algebra 2
(2010), no. 1, 55–78. ↑1, 1, 2.2, 3
[MKM10] Fatemeh Mohammadi, Dariush Kiani, and Somayeh Moradi, On the Betti numbers of the edge
ideals of some hypergraphs, Contributions to Algebra and Geometry 51 (2010), no. 2, 467–475.
↑4.1, 4.1, 4.1, 4.4
[NPS02] Isabella Novik, Alexander Postnikov, and Bernd Sturmfels, Syzygies of oriented matroids, Duke
Math. J. 111 (2002), no. 2, 287–317. MR1882136 (2003b:13023) ↑2.2
[NR09] Uwe Nagel and Victor Reiner, Betti numbers of monomial ideals and shifted skew shapes, Electron.
J. Combin 16 (2009), no. 2, 59. ↑1, 2.2, 4.1
[Sin08] Achilleas Sinefakopoulos, On Borel fixed ideals generated in one degree, Journal of Algebra 319
(2008), no. 7, 2739–2760. ↑1, 2.2, 4.1
[Tay66] Diana K. Taylor, Ideals generated by monomials in an R-sequence, Ph.D. thesis, University of
Chicago, Department of Mathematics, 1966. ↑2.2
[Vel08] Mauricio Velasco, Minimal free resolutions that are not supported by a CW-complex, Journal of
Algebra 319 (2008), no. 1, 102–114. ↑2.2
Department of Mathematics, University of Miami, USA
E-mail address: anton@math.miami.edu
Institut für Mathematik, Universität Osnabrück, Germany
E-mail address: fatemeh@msri.org

21

