STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

arXiv:1711.11080v1 [math.AT] 29 Nov 2017

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN
Abstract. Let R be a (not necessarily commutative) ring whose additive group is finitely
generated and let Un (R) ⊂ GLn (R) be the group of upper-triangular unipotent matrices
over R. We study how the homology groups of Un (R) vary with n from the point of view of
representation stability. Our main theorem asserts that if for each n we have representations
Mn of Un (R) over a ring k that are appropriately compatible and satisfy suitable finiteness
hypotheses, then the rule [n] 7→ Hi (Un (R), Mn ) defines a finitely generated OI-module. As
a consequence, if k is a field then dim Hi (Un (R), k) is eventually equal to a polynomial in
n. We also prove similar results for the Iwahori subgroups of GLn (O) for number rings O.

Contents
1
4
7
10
12
26
30
31

1. Introduction
2. Representations of categories
3. The category OI and variants
4. The category OVI and its variants
5. Noetherianity of OVI-modules
6. Homology of OVI-modules
7. Application to Iwahori subgroups
References

1. Introduction
Let Un ⊂ GLn be the group of upper-triangular unipotent matrices and let R be a ring
(not necessarily commutative). In this paper, we study how the homology groups of Un (R)
vary as n changes. The following is a special case of one of our main theorems:
Theorem 1.1. Let R be a ring whose additive group is finitely generated and let k be a field.
For all i ≥ 0, there exists some fi (t) ∈ Q[t] such that dim Hi (Un (R), k) = fi (n) for n ≫ 0.
For instance, the ring R in Theorem 1.1 could be a number ring. We prove this using the
methods of representation stability: we endow the sequence of groups {Hi (Un (R), k)}n≥0
with additional structure (in this case, that of an OI-module), and deduce concrete results
like the above theorem from the existence of this structure. An interesting feature here is
that, unlike in similar results proved under the aegis of representation stability, the individual
homology groups Hi (Un (R), k) themselves are not representations of a sequence of groups.
Date: November 28, 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 16P40, 20J05.
AP was partially supported by NSF DMS-1737434.
SS was partially supported by NSF DMS-1500069, DMS-1651327, and a Sloan research fellowship.
AS was partially supported by NSF DMS-1303082, DMS-1453893, and a Sloan research fellowship.
1

2

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

Example 1.2. The case R = Z and k = Q of Theorem 1.1 follows from work of Dwyer [D,
Theorem 1.1]. He shows that the dimension of Hi (Un (Z), Q) is the number of permutations
in Sn with length i, where the length of a permutation σ is the number of pairs i < j such
that σ(i) > σ(j). Denote this number by I(i, n). We claim that n 7→ I(i, n) is a polynomial
of degree i for n ≫ 0. As an aside, this shows that the degree of the polynomials fi (t) in
Theorem 1.1 cannot be bounded as we let i vary. We prove the claim by induction. For
i = 1, we have I(1, n) = n − 1 for n > 0. In general, we have the identity
X
I(i, n)q i = (1 + q)(1 + q + q 2 ) · · · (1 + q + q 2 + · · · + q n−1 );
i≥0

P
see [St, Corollary 1.3.13]. It follows that I(i, n) − I(i, n − 1) = i−1
j=0 I(j, n − 1) for n > i.
By induction, the right hand side is a polynomial of degree i − 1 for n ≫ 0. Hence I(i, n) is
a polynomial of degree i for n ≫ 0, as claimed.


1.1. Main results. Our main result is a refined version of Theorem 1.1 where we allow
systems of non-trivial coefficients and give a stronger conclusion. To formulate this, we must
make sense of a “system” of representations of Un (R). For this, we introduce the category
OVI(R). An object of OVI(R) is a finite rank free R-module equipped with a totally ordered
basis. A morphism of OVI(R) is a map of R-modules that is upper-triangular with respect
to the distinguished ordered bases (see §4.1). An OVI(R)-module over a commutative ring
k is a functor OVI(R) → Modk . Every object in OVI(R) is isomorphic to Rn equipped
with its standard basis for some n, and the automorphism group of this object is the group
Un (R). Thus an OVI(R)-module M gives rise to a sequence {Mn }n≥0 , where Mn = M(Rn )
is a representation of Un (R), and therefore provides a reasonable notion of a system of Un (R)
representations.
Let M be an OVI(R)-module, and fix i ≥ 0. For each n, we consider the homology
group Hi (Un (R), Mn ). Letting [n] denote the ordered set {1, . . . , n}, if [n] → [m] is an orderpreserving injection of finite sets then there is an associated morphism Rn → Rm in OVI(R).
This gives a map Mn → Mm , which induces a map Hi (Un (R), Mn ) → Hi (Um (R), Mm ). This
suggests that [n] 7→ Hi (Un (R), Mn ) defines an OI-module, where OI is the category whose
objects are finite totally ordered sets and whose morphisms are order-preserving injections.
We show that this is indeed the case, and denote this OI-module by Hi (U, M).
We can now state our main theorem:
Theorem 1.3. Let R be a ring whose additive group is finitely generated, let k be a noetherian commutative ring, and M be a finitely generated OVI(R)-module over k. Then
Hi (U, M) is a finitely generated OI-module for all i ≥ 0.
Theorem 1.1 follows immediately from this theorem by taking Mn to be the trivial representation of Un (R) for all n and appealing to the fact that a finitely generated OI-module over
a field has eventually polynomial dimension (see Proposition 3.5 below).
A key result used in the proof of Theorem 1.3 is the following noetherianity result:
Theorem 1.4. Let R be a ring whose additive group is finitely generated and let k be a
noetherian commutative ring. Then the category of OVI(R)-modules over k is locally noetherian, that is, any submodule of a finitely generated module is finitely generated.
A surprising aspect of Theorem 1.4 is that, in contrast to previous work on categories of Rmodules in representation stability (for instance, the results of [PuSa] and [SaSn]), the ring

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

3

R is allowed to be infinite. The groups of automorphisms studied in this previous work were
GLn (R) and its relatives, and R was required to be finite since the group ring of GLn (R)
is not noetherian when R is infinite. In our situation, the automorphism groups are Un (R).
When the additive group of R is finitely generated, these groups are virtually polycyclic,
and a classical result of Philip Hall [Ha] says that group rings of virtually polycyclic groups
are noetherian. Our proof of Theorem 1.4 is inspired in part by Hall’s proof of this fact.
Remark 1.5. It is easy to see that this result is false if the additive group of R is not finitely
generated (see §5.4).

Remark 1.6. When the ring R is finite, we in fact show that the category of OVI(R)modules is quasi-Gröbner in the sense of [SaSn, §4], which implies local noetherianity (but
is stronger). In the general case, we do not show that the category of OVI(R)-modules is
quasi-Gröbner (and expect that it is not), and the proof of local noetherianity is far more
difficult.

Remark 1.7. OI-modules are closely related to the FI-modules of Church–Ellenberg–Farb
[CEF]. The second two authors used OI-modules in [SaSn, §7] to study FI-modules. However, as far as we are aware, Theorem 1.3 is the first time OI-modules have been used as the
primary structure in representation stability.

Remark 1.8. An OI-module is the same as a semi-simplicial object of Modop
k .



1.2. Application to Iwahori groups. Let O be a number ring and let k be a commutative
noetherian ring. A classical result of van der Kallen [VdK] says that the homology of the
group GLn (O) stabilizes: for any fixed i the canonical map
Hi (GLn (O), k) → Hi (GLn+1 (O), k)
is an isomorphism for n ≫ 0. In particular, if k is a field then the dimension of Hi (GLn (O), k)
is eventually constant.
Now let a be a nonzero proper ideal in O and let GLn (O, a) be the principal congruence
subgroup of level a, i.e., the subgroup of GLn (O) consisting of matrices that are congruent to
the identity modulo a. The homology of these groups does not stabilize; for instance, for ℓ ≥ 2
2
and n ≥ 3 the abelianization of GLn (Z, ℓZ) is (Z/ℓ)n −1 (see [LSz]). Building on work of the
first author [Pu], Church–Ellenberg–Farb–Nagpal [CEFN] proved instead that the homology
of GLn (O, a) satisfies a version of representation stability: the rule [n] 7→ Hi (GLn (O, a), k)
defines a finitely generated FI-module. Consequently, when k is a field, the dimension is
eventually polynomial.
The Iwahori subgroup GLn,0 (O, a) is the subgroup of GLn (O) consisting of matrices that
are upper-triangular modulo a. Using Theorem 1.3, we prove an analog of Church–Ellenberg–
Farb–Nagpal’s result for GLn,0 (O, a):
Theorem 1.9. Let O be a number ring, let a ⊂ O be a nonzero proper ideal, and let k be a
commutative noetherian ring. Then the following hold for all i ≥ 0.
• The rule [n] 7→ Hi (GLn,0(O, a), k) defines a finitely generated OI-module over k.
• If k is a field then there is a polynomial f ∈ Q[t] such that dim Hi (GLn,0 (O, a), k) =
f (n) for n ≫ 0.
1.3. Outline. In §2 we review generalities on modules over categories. In §3 we introduce
the category OI and its variants OI(d) and establish basic results about them. In §4 we

4

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

introduce the category OVI(R) and its variants OVI(R, d) and establish basic results about
them. In §5, we prove the main noetherianity result for OVI(R) (Theorem 1.4). In §6 we
prove the main result of the paper (Theorem 1.3). Finally, in §7 we prove Theorem 1.9.
1.4. Notation. Throughout, k denotes a commutative ring, typically noetherian. Unless
otherwise specified, 1 6= 0 in all of our rings. For a fixed category C, we write k for the
constant functor C → Modk taking everything to k and all morphisms to the identity. We
let Bn ⊂ GLn be the group of upper-triangular matrices, and Un ⊂ Bn the subgroup where
the diagonal entries are equal to 1. We use R to denote the ring appearing in the definition
of OVI(R), and that is typically plugged in to Un or Bn . We generally do not require it
to be commutative. We set [0] = ∅, and if n is a positive integer, then [n] denotes the set
{1, . . . , n}.
Acknowledgments. We thank Benjamin Steinberg for pointing out a significant simplification to the proof of Lemma 5.4.
2. Representations of categories
2.1. Generalities. Let C be a category and let k be a noetherian commutative ring. A Cmodule over k is a functor M : C → Modk . For an object x ∈ C, we denote by Mx the image
of x under M. Denote the category of C-modules by Repk (C). It is an abelian category.
For each x ∈ C, we define a C-module Px via the formula (Px )y = k[Hom(x, y)]. One easily
sees that for any C-module M one has a natural identification Hom(Px , M) = Mx . It follows
that Px is a projective C-module; we call it the principal projective L
at x. A general Ck
module M is finitely generated if and only if there exists a surjection
i=1 Pxi → M for
some x1 , . . . , xk ∈ C. A C-module is said to be noetherian if all of its submodules are
finitely generated, and the category Repk (C) is said to be locally noetherian if all finitely
generated objects are noetherian.
If Φ : C → D is a functor and M is a D-module then the pullback of M along Φ, denoted
Φ∗ (M), is the C-module defined via the formula Φ∗ (M) = M ◦ Φ, so that Φ∗ (M)x = MΦ(x) .
We now review how the pullback operation interacts with finite generation. The following
definition is [SaSn, Def. 3.2.1]:
Definition 2.1. We say that a functor Φ : C → D satisfies property (F) if the following
condition holds for all y ∈ D. There exist finitely many objects x1 , . . . , xn ∈ C together
with morphisms fi : y → Φ(xi ) in D with the following property: for any x ∈ C and any
morphism f : y → Φ(x) in D, there exists an i, and a morphism g : xi → x in C, such that
f = Φ(g) ◦ fi .

Definition 2.2. A category C satisfies property (F) if the diagonal C → C × C satisfies
property (F).

The importance of these definitions is due to the following results.
Proposition 2.3. A functor Φ : C → D satisfies property (F) if and only if Φ∗ (M) is a
finitely generated C-module for all finitely generated D-modules M.
Proof. See [SaSn, Prop. 3.2.3].



Recall that a functor Φ : C → D is essentially surjective if for all y ∈ D, there exists
some x ∈ C such that Φ(x) is isomorphic to y.

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

5

Proposition 2.4. Let C be a category such that Repk (C) is locally noetherian and let
Φ : C → D be an essentially surjective functor satisfying property (F). Then Repk (D) is
locally noetherian.
Proof. See [SaSn, Cor. 3.2.5].



If C is a category and M1 and M2 are C-modules, then we define M1 ⊗ M2 to be the
C-module defined by the formula (M1 ⊗ M2 )x = (M1 )x ⊗ (M2 )x for all x ∈ C.
Proposition 2.5. Let C be a category that satisfies property (F) and let M and N be finitely
generated C-modules. Then M ⊗ N is finitely generated.
Proof. See [SaSn, Prop. 3.3.2].



We require a slight variant of the above proposition. We say that a C-module M is
generated in finite degrees if there
L exist x1 , . . . , xk ∈ C such that M is generated by
the Mxi , that is, the canonical map ki=1 Mxi ⊗ Pxi → M is surjective. Note that if M is
generated in finite degrees and Mx is a finitely generated k-module for all x ∈ C then M is
finitely generated.
Proposition 2.6. Let C be a category that satisfies property (F) and let M and N be Cmodules generated in finite degrees. Then M ⊗ N is generated in finite degrees.
Proof. Observe that (a) a finite sum of C-modules generated in finite degrees is generated
in finite degrees; (b) if K is a C-module generated in finite degrees and U is any k-module
then U ⊗ K is generated in finite degrees; (c) any quotient of a C-module generated in finite
Lk
degrees is generated in finite degrees. Now, choose surjections
i=1 Vi ⊗ Pxi → M and
Lℓ
j=1 Wj ⊗ Pyj → N, where the xi and yj are objects of C and the Vi and Wj are k-modules
(one can take Vi = Mxi and Wj = Nyj ). We thus have a surjection
M
Vi ⊗ Wj ⊗ Pxi ⊗ Pyj → M ⊗ N.
i,j

Since C satisfies property (F), each Pxi ⊗ Pyj is finitely generated (Proposition 2.5). Thus
each term in the sum is generated in finite degrees by (b); since the sum is finite, it is
generated in finite degree by (a); and so we conclude M ⊗ N is generated in finite degrees
by (c).

Now we recall the notion of a Gröbner category. See [SaSn, §4.3] for more details.

Definition 2.7. Let C be an essentially small category, i.e., there exists a set I containing a unique representative of each isomorphism class in C. For x ∈ C, define |Sx | =
∐y∈I Hom(x, y). Partially order |Sx | by defining f  g if there exists a morphism h such
that g = hf . We say that C is Gröbner if the following holds for all x ∈ C.
• The poset (|Sx |, ) is noetherian.
• |Sx | admits a total ordering ≤ with the following two properties.
– The ordering ≤ is compatible with left composition, i.e., f ≤ g implies hf ≤ hg.
– The restriction of ≤ to each Hom(x, y) is a well-ordering.
We say that C is quasi-Gröbner if there exists a Gröbner category C′ and an essentially
surjective functor C′ → C satisfying property (F).

The key result about quasi-Gröber categories is the following [SaSn, Theorem 4.3.2]:

6

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

Theorem 2.8. Let C be a quasi-Gröbner category. Then for any noetherian commutative
ring k, the category Repk (C) is locally noetherian.
2.2. Kan extension. Let Φ : C → D be a functor. The pullback functor Φ∗ on modules
admits a left adjoint Φ! called the left Kan extension. It also admits a right adjoint Φ∗
called the right Kan extension, but we will not need this.
The left Kan extension can be described explicitly as follows. Let y be an object of D.
Define a category C/y as follows. An object of C/y is a pair (x, f ), where x is an object of C
and f : Φ(x) → y is a morphism in D. A morphism (x′ , f ′ ) → (x, f ) in C/y is a morphism
g : x′ → x in C such that f ′ = f ◦ Φ(g). Suppose now that M is a C-module over k. For
y ∈ D, define M|C/y to be the C/y -module defined via the formula (M|C/y )(x,f ) = Mx . We
then have
Φ! (M)y = colim(M|C/y ).
That is, the value of Φ! (M) on y is the colimit of the functor M|C/y : C/y → Modk . In certain
cases, there is an even nicer description:
Proposition 2.9. Let Φ : C → D be a faithful functor. Assume that for all x′ , x ∈ C, the
Aut(Φ(x))-orbit of any element of HomD (Φ(x′ ), Φ(x)) contains an element of the form Φ(f )
for some f ∈ HomC (x′ , x) that is unique up to the action of Aut(x). Let M be a C-module.
Then for all x ∈ C we have a canonical isomorphism
Aut(Φ(x))

Ψ! (M)Φ(x) = IndAut(x)

(Mx ).

Proof. Let {hi }i∈I be a set of coset representatives for Aut(Φ(x))/ Aut(x). For each i ∈ I,
we thus have an object (x, hi ) of C/Φ(x) . Consider an object (x′ , g) of C/Φ(x) . To prove the
proposition, it is enough to prove that there is a unique i ∈ I and a unique morphism
(x′ , g) → (x, hi ) of C/Φ(x) .
By definition, g is a morphism Φ(x′ ) → Φ(x) in D. By assumption, we can factor g as
hΦ(f ) for some h ∈ Aut(Φ(x′ )) and some f ∈ HomC (x′ , x). Moreover, this factorization is
unique up to the action of Aut(x). It follows that there is a unique factorization of the form
hi Φ(f ). The morphism f now furnishes a map (x′ , g) → (x, hi ) in C/Φ(x) . It is clear from
the discussion that this is the unique i for which there is such a morphism, and that f is the
unique such morphism.

Left Kan extensions can be used to construct principal projectives, as follows. Let x ∈ C,
let pt be the point category (one object, one morphism), and let ix : pt → C be the functor
taking the object of pt to x. Regarding k as a pt-module, we have (ix )! (k) = Px . Indeed, if
M is a C-module, then by definition
HomRepk (C) ((ix )! (k), M) = HomRepk (pt) (k, i∗x (M)) = Mx ,
and thus (ix )! (k) represents the same functor as Px .
Return now to the setting of a functor Φ : C → D. Put y = Φ(x). Then Φ ◦ ix = iy , so
(2.10)

Py = (iy )! (k) = Φ! ((ix )! (k)) = Φ! (Px ).

We thus see that the left Kan extension takes principal projectives to principal projectives.
Since Φ! is right exact, it follows from this that Φ! takes finitely generated C-modules to
finitely generated D-modules.

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

7

2.3. C-groups and their representations. Let C be a category. A C-group is a functor
from C to the category of groups. Fix a C-group G. A G-module over k is a C-module
M equipped with a k-linear action of Gx on Mx for all x ∈ C, such that for all morphisms
f : x → y in C the induced morphism f∗ : Mx → My is compatible with the actions via
the induced homomorphism f∗ : Gx → Gy . In other words, for m ∈ Mx and g ∈ Gx we
have f∗ (gm) = f∗ (g)f∗(m). The category Repk (G) of G-modules is a Grothendieck abelian
category.
Let M be a G-module. For x ∈ C, let Hi (G, M)x be the group homology Hi (Gx , Mx ). If
f : x → y is a morphism in C, then the induced morphisms f∗ : Gx → Gy and f∗ : Mx → My
together induce a morphism f∗ : Hi (G, M)x → Hi (G, M)y . This yields a C-module structure
on Hi (G, M). If k is a commutative ring, then we will denote by k the constant C-module
defined via the formula kx = k. We then have Hi (G, k)x = Hi (Gx , k).
The following proposition concerns the homology of a semi-direct product of C-groups.
Proposition 2.11. Let G and E be C-groups, and let π : G → E and ι : E → G be morphisms of C-groups such that π ◦ ι = id. Let K = ker(π), which is also a C-group. Then we
have the following:
(1) Hi (K, k) is naturally an E-module.
(2) As a C-module, Hi (E, k) is a direct summand of Hi (G, k) via ι∗ and π∗ .
(3) Write Hr (G, k) = Hr (E, k)⊕M as in (2). Then M admits a C-module filtration where
the graded pieces are subquotients of Hi (E, Hr−i(K, k)) with 0 ≤ i ≤ r − 1.
Proof. (1) The conjugation action of G on K is C-linear. On homology, K acts trivially, and
hence this action descends to give an E-module structure on Hi (K, k).
(2) This is clear.
(3) For x ∈ C we have a short exact sequence of groups 1 → Kx → Gx → Ex → 1, which
gives a Hochschild–Serre spectral sequence
E2p,q = Hp (Ex , Hq (Kx , k)) =⇒ Hp+q (Gx , k).
The spectral sequence is functorial in x, and so we get a spectral sequence of C-modules
E2p,q = Hp (E, Hq (K, k)) =⇒ Hp+q (G, k).
In particular, Hr (G, k) has a filtration by subquotients of the terms E2i,r−i . The edge map
Hr (G, k) → Hr (E, H0 (K, k)) coincides with the map on Hr induced by π (see [W, §6.8.2])
which we know is a split surjection, so the kernel M has a filtration by subquotients of E2i,r−i
for 0 ≤ i ≤ r − 1.

3. The category OI and variants
3.1. Definitions and first results. Let OI be the category whose objects are finite totally
ordered sets and whose morphisms are order-preserving injections. For a non-negative integer
d, we define a variant OI(d) as follows. An object of OI(d) is a pair (S, λ) where S is a
totally ordered set and λ = (λ1 < · · · < λd ) is an increasing d-tuple in S. A morphism
(S, λ) → (T, µ) in OI(d) is an order-preserving injection f : S → T satisfying f (λ) = µ.
Note that OI = OI(0). There is a functor Φ : OI(d) → OI given by Φ(S, λ) = S. We will
continue to use the notation Φ for this functor throughout the paper (and use it for all values
of d).

8

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

Remark 3.1. We introduce OI(d) to help us study an analogous category OVI(R, d), the
motivation for which is discussed in Remark 4.1 below.

Recall that [n] denotes the ordered set {1, . . . , n}. Given an OI-module M, we will write
Mn for M[n] . The category OI is equivalent to its full subcategory spanned by the [n], so
the data of an OI-module M is equivalent to the data of the Mn together with the maps
f∗ : Mn → Mm induced by the order preserving maps f : [n] → [m]. Similarly, if M is an
OI(d)-module and λ is an increasing d-tuple in [n], then we will write Mn,λ for M([n],λ) .
Proposition 3.2. There is an equivalence of categories OI(d) = OId+1 .
Proof. Let (S, λ) be an object of OI(d). For 1 ≤ i ≤ d + 1, let Si be the set of elements
x ∈ S such that λi−1 < x < λi where, by convention, λ0 < x < λd+1 for all x. One easily
verifies that (S, λ) 7→ (S1 , . . . , Sd+1 ) is an equivalence.

Corollary 3.3. The category OI(d) is Gröbner. In particular, the category of OI(d)-modules
is locally noetherian.
Proof. By [SaSn, Theorem 7.1.2] the category OI is Gröbner, and by [SaSn, Proposition 4.3.5]
a finite product of Gröbner categories is Gröbner, so by Proposition 3.2 the category OI(d) is
Gröbner. The assertion about finitely generated OI(d)-modules now follows from Theorem
2.8.

Corollary 3.4. The category OI(d) satisfies Property (F). In particular, the tensor product of finitely generated OI(d)-modules is a finitely generated OI(d)-module and the tensor
product of OI-modules that are generated in finite degree is also generated in finite degree.
Proof. The category OI satisfies Property (F): this can be proved similarly to [SaSn, Proposition 7.3.1]. One easily sees that a finite product of categories satisfying Property (F) again
satisfies Property (F), which combined with Proposition 3.2 yields the fact that OI(d) satisfies Property (F). The assertion about tensor products of finitely generated OI(d)-modules
now follows from Proposition 2.5, and the assertion about tensor products of OI-modules
that are generated in finite degree follows from Proposition 2.6.

Finally, we state a result about the growth of finitely generated OI-modules over fields.
Proposition 3.5. Let M be a finitely generated OI-module over a field k. Then the function
n 7→ dimk Mn is a polynomial function for n ≫ 0.
Proof. By [SaSn, Theorem 7.1.2], OI is an “O-lingual category”, and by [SaSn, Theorem
6.3.2], this implies the polynomiality statement.

3.2. Kan extension. We now study left Kan extensions along the functor Φ : OI(d) → OI.
L
Proposition 3.6. Let M be an OI(d)-module. Then Φ! (M)n = λ Mn,λ , where the sum is
taken over all increasing d-tuples λ in [n].

Proof. By §2.2, we see that Φ! (M)n is colim(M|OI(d)/[n] ). The category OI(d)/[n] can be
viewed as consisting of triples (S, µ, f ), where (S, µ) ∈ OI(d) and f : S → [n] is a morphism
in OI. For an increasing d-tuple λ in [n], let OI(d)/[n],λ be the full subcategory of OI(d)/[n]
spanned by triples (S, µ, f ) such that f takes µ to λ. Then OI(d)/[n] is the disjoint union of
its subcategories OI(d)/[n],λ. Furthermore, ([n], λ, id) is the final object of OI(d)/[n],λ. The
result now follows.

Corollary 3.7. The functor Φ! is exact.

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

9

3.3. Shift functors. Fix a functorial coproduct ∐ on the category of finite sets. For finite
sets S and T , we view S ∐ T as the disjoint union of S and T ; of course, this requires
care when S and T share elements. Consider the functor Σ0 : OI(d) → OI(d) given by
Σ0 (S, λ) = (S ∐ {∞}, λ), where S ∐ {∞} is given a total order by setting x < ∞ for all
x ∈ S. Given an OI(d)-module M, we define the shift of M, denoted Σ(M), to be Σ∗0 (M).
There is a map (S, λ) → (S ∐ {∞}, λ) in OI(d) induced by the inclusion S ֒→ S ∐ {∞}.
This map induces a map M → Σ(M) of OI(d)-modules. We let Σ(M) denote the cokernel
of this map. We call it the reduced shift of M. This has the following nice property:
Proposition 3.8. Suppose that M is an OI-module such that M0 is a finitely generated
k-module and Σ(M) is a finitely generated OI-module. Then M is a finitely generated OImodule.
Proof. By assumption, we can find x1 , . . . , xm with xi ∈ Mni such that the following holds.
Let xi ∈ Σ(M)ni −1 ∼
= Mni be the associated element. Then the images of {x1 , . . . , xm } in
Σ(M) generate Σ(M). We claim that {x1 , . . . , xm } together with a spanning set of M0 is a
generating set for M. Consider y ∈ Mn for some n ≥ 0. We must show that y is in the span
of the indicated elements. We will do this by induction on n. The base case n = 0 being
trivial, we can assume that n ≥ 1. Let y ∈ Σ(M)n−1 ∼
= Mn be the associated element. The
image of y in Σ(M)n is in the span of the images of {x1 , . . . , xm }. It follows that we can write
y = y ′ + y ′′, where y ′ is in the span of {x1 , . . . , xm } and y ′′ is in the image of the composition
Mn−1 → Σ(M)n−1 ∼
= Mn . By induction, y ′′ is in the span of {x1 , . . . , xm } together with a
spanning set of M0 , so y is as well.

There is a similar functor ∆0 : OI(d − 1) → OI(d) defined by ∆0 (S, λ) = (S ∐ {∞}, λ′),
where λ′ is obtained by appending ∞ to the end of λ. For an OI(d)-module M, we let
∆(M) = ∆∗0 (M), which is an OI(d −1)-module. For d = 0, we put ∆(M) = 0 by convention.
The following result shows how the shift functor interacts with the Kan extension along
the functor Φ : OI(d) → OI.
Proposition 3.9. Let M be an OI(d)-module. Then there is a natural isomorphism
Σ(Φ! (M)) ∼
= Φ! (Σ(M)) ⊕ Φ! (∆(M)).
Moreover, if α : Φ! (M) → Σ(Φ! (M)) and β : M → Σ(M) denote the natural maps, then the
diagram
Φ! (M) ❘
r

α rrrr

rr
xrrr

∼
=

Σ(Φ! (M))

❘❘❘
❘❘Φ❘! (β)⊕0
❘❘❘
❘❘❘
❘)
/ Φ! (Σ(M)) ⊕ Φ! (∆(M))

commutes. In particular, we have a natural isomorphism
Σ(Φ! (M)) = Φ! (Σ(M)) ⊕ Φ! (∆(M)).
Proof. Using Proposition 3.6, we have
Σ(Φ! (M))n ∼
=

M

Mn+1,λ ,

λ

where the sum is over all increasing d-tuples λ in [n + 1]. Similarly, we have
M
Mn+1,λ ,
Φ! (Σ(M))n ∼
=
λ

10

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

where the sum is over all increasing d-tuples λ in [n]. Finally, using the obvious analogue of
Proposition 3.6 for ∆ we have
M
Mn+1,λ ,
Φ! (∆(M))n ∼
=
λ

where the sum is over all increasing d-tuples λ in [n] that end in n + 1. Combining these
isomorphisms, we obtain an identification
Σ(Φ! (M))n ∼
= Φ! (Σ(M))n ⊕ Φ! (∆(M))n .

It is clear that this identification comes from an isomorphism of OI-modules. The rest of
the proposition follows easily.

4. The category OVI and its variants
4.1. Definitions. Fix a ring R (always assumed to be associative and unital, though not
necessarily commutative). Define OVI(R) to be the following category. The objects are
ordered free R-modules, that is, pairs (V, {vi }i∈I ) where V is a finite rank free left Rmodule and {vi } is a basis indexed by a totally ordered set I. The morphisms (V, {vi }i∈I ) →
(W, {wj }j∈J ) are pairs (f, f0 ), where f : V → W P
is a linear map and f0 : I → J is an orderpreserving injection, such that f (vi ) = wf0 (i) + j<f0(i) ai,j wj for scalars ai,j . In words, f
takes the ith basis vector of V to the f0 (i)th basis vector of W up to “lower order” terms.
We note that f0 can be recovered from f , so it is often omitted. Furthermore, f is necessarily
a split injection. If the ring R is clear, we will just write OVI.
For a non-negative integer n, we regard Rn as an ordered free module by endowing it
with the standard basis. Every object of OVI is isomorphic to Rn for a unique n. For
an OVI-module M, we write Mn for its value on Rn . The automorphism group of Rn in
OVI is Un (R), which we denote simply by Un in this section. It is the subgroup of GLn (R)
consisting of upper unitriangular matrices.
Let d be a non-negative integer. We define a variant OVI(R, d) = OVI(d) as follows.
An object is a tuple (V, {vi }i∈I , λ) where (V, {vi }i∈I ) is an ordered free module and λ is
an increasing d-tuple in I. A morphism (V, {vi }i∈I , λ) → (W, {wj }j∈J , µ) is a morphism
(f, f0 ) : (V, {vi }) → (W, {wj }) in OVI such that f0 (λ) = µ and such that f (vi ) = wf0 (i) for
all i appearing in λ (i.e., no lower terms are allowed on marked basis vectors).
For a tuple λ = (1 ≤ λ1 < · · · < λd ≤ n) we have an object (Rn , λ) of OVI(d). Every
object of OVI(d) is isomorphic to a unique (Rn , λ). For an OVI(d)-module M, we write
Mn,λ for its value on (Rn , λ). We let Un,λ be the automorphism group of (Rn , λ) in OVI(d).
It is the subgroup of Un fixing the basis vectors eλi for 1 ≤ i ≤ d.
Remark 4.1. We introduce OVI(d) as a technical device for proving Theorem 1.3, which
concerns the homology groups Hi (U, M) for OVI(R)-modules M. We will see in Corollary 6.5 that the homology of the principal projective OVI module at d can be understood
in terms of the homology of the trivial OVI(d)-module, a helpful simplification.

There are several functors to mention:
• There is a functor OI → OVI taking a totally ordered set S to the ordered free
module R[S] with basis S. There is a similar functor OI(d) → OVI(d).
• There is a functor OVI → OI taking an ordered free module (V, {vi }i∈I ) to the totally
ordered set I and a morphism (f, f0 ) to f0 . There is a similar functor OVI(d) →
OI(d).

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

11

• There is a functor Ψ : OVI(d) → OVI given by forgetting λ. We continue to use the
notation Ψ for this functor throughout the paper.
We have the following basic fact that follows from interpreting left multiplication by a
matrix as a sequence of row operations.
Proposition 4.2. Every morphism ϕ : (Rn , λ) → (Rm , µ) in OI(d) has a unique factorization ϕ = ψf where ψ ∈ Aut(Rm , µ) and f is in the image of the functor OI(d) → OVI(d).
4.2. The case where R is finite. The purpose of this section is to prove the following
fundamental result:
Theorem 4.3. If |R| < ∞, then the category OVI is quasi-Gröbner. In particular, by
Theorem 2.8 the category Repk (OVI) is locally noetherian when k is noetherian.
Proof. An ordered surjection f : S → T of totally ordered finite sets is a surjection such
that for all i < j in T we have min f −1 (i) < min f −1 (j). We let OS be the category whose
objects are finite totally ordered sets and whose morphisms are ordered surjections. This
category is known to be Gröbner [SaSn, Theorem 8.1.1]. Given a totally ordered set S, we
will regard the dual R[S]∗ = HomR (R[S], R) as an element of OVI as follows. Let S ∗ ⊂ R[S]∗
be the dual basis to the basis S, and for s ∈ S, write s∗ ∈ S ∗ for the dual element. Then we
order S ∗ via the rule
s∗1 < s∗2

(4.3.a)

when

s2 < s1 .

op

Using this convention, there is a functor OS → OVI taking a totally ordered set S to
R[S]∗ and an ordered surjection T → S to the dual of the induced surjective linear map
R[T ] → R[S]. We will show that this functor satisfies property (F), which will complete the
proof.
Let V be an object of OVI. Let T1 , . . . , Tn ∈ OS be objects and fi : V → R[Ti ]∗ be OVImorphisms such that that the fi are an enumeration of all possible morphisms satisfying the
following condition:
• The set Ti is a total ordering of a finite subset of V ∗ that spans V ∗ and fi : V → R[Ti ]∗
is an OVI-morphism that is dual to the natural surjection R[Ti ] → V .
Since V is finite, there are only finitely many such fi . Now consider some S ∈ OS and an
OVI-morphism f : V → R[S]∗ . To prove that our functor satisfies property (F), it is enough
to prove that for some 1 ≤ i ≤ n we can write f = g ◦ fi , where g : R[Ti ]∗ → R[S]∗ is
dual to an OS-morphism S → Ti . Let T ⊂ V ∗ be the image of S under the dual surjection
f ∗ : R[S] → V ∗ . Let h : S → T be the resulting surjection. Order T via the rule
(4.3.b)

t1 < t2

when

min h−1 (t1 ) < min h−1 (t2 ),

which makes h an OS-morphism. Combining (4.3.b) with (4.3.a) (applied to order both S ∗
and T ∗ ), we see that T ∗ has the ordering
(4.3.c)

t∗1 < t∗2

when

max{s∗ | s ∈ h−1 (t1 )} < max{s∗ | s ∈ h−1 (t2 )};

Let g : R[T ]∗ → R[S]∗ be the OVI-morphism dual to h, so
X
(4.3.d)
g(t∗ ) =
s∗
(t ∈ T ).
s∈h−1 (t)

Finally, let F : V → R[T ]∗ be the injection dual to the surjection R[T ] → V ∗ induced by the
inclusion T ֒→ V ∗ , so f = g ◦ F . The fact that f is an OVI-morphism together with (4.3.c)

12

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

and (4.3.d) implies that F is an OVI-morphism. This implies that for some 1 ≤ i ≤ n we
have T = Ti and F = fi , and we are done.

Remark 4.4. By making use of a variant OS(d) of OS, one can prove a version of the above
theorem for OVI(d). Since we do not need this, we omit the details.

4.3. Kan extension. We now study left Kan extensions along the functor Ψ : OVI(d) →
OVI.
Proposition 4.5. Let M be an OVI(d)-module. Then
M
Ψ! (M)n =
IndUUnn,λ (Mn,λ ),
λ

the sum taken over all increasing sequences 1 ≤ λ1 < · · · < λd ≤ n.
Proof. Let OVI(d)′ be the category whose objects are those of OVI(d) and where a morphism
(V, {vi }i∈I , λ) → (W, {wj }j∈J , µ) is a morphism (f, f0 ) as in OVI (ignoring the λ and µ) such
that f0 is a morphism in OI(d). The automorphism groups in OVI(d)′ are the Un ’s. The
functor Ψ factors as Ψ2 ◦ Ψ1 , where Ψ1 : OVI(d) → OVI(d)′ and Ψ2 : OVI(d)′ → OVI are
the natural functors. Proposition 2.9 applies to the functor Ψ1 , and so we find
(Ψ1 )! (M)n,λ = IndUUnn,λ (Mn,λ ).

Arguing exactly as in the proof of Proposition 3.6, we find
M
(Ψ2 )! (N)n =
Nn,λ
λ

′

for any OVI(d) -module N. The result follows.



4.4. OVI-modules and representations of U. Define an OI(d)-group Ud by (Ud )n,λ =
Un,λ . If M is an OVI(d)-module then we can regard it as an OI(d)-module via the functor
OI(d) → OVI(d), and as such it has the structure of a Ud -module. We thus have a functor
{OVI(d)-modules} → {Ud -modules}.
One can show that the above functor is fully faithful. We do not need this result, so we do
not include a proof. We write U in place of U0 .
5. Noetherianity of OVI-modules
The goal of this section is to prove Theorem 1.4, which we recall says that if R is a ring
whose underlying additive group is finitely generated and k is a commutative noetherian ring,
then the category of OVI(R)-modules over k is locally noetherian, that is, any submodule
of a finitely generated module is finitely generated. The ring R here is not required to be
commutative. When R is finite, this follows from the much easier Theorem 4.3. We will
also prove a converse to this result that says that (ignoring degenerate cases) the category
Repk (OVI(R)) is locally noetherian only if k is noetherian and the additive group of R
is finitely generated. We thus have a complete characterization of when Repk (OVI(R)) is
locally noetherian.
This section has four subsections. We begin in §5.1 by describing a toy version of our
proof. We then prove a technical ring-theoretic result in §5.2. The proof of Theorem 1.4 is
in the long §5.3. Finally, in §5.4 we prove the aforementioned converse to Theorem 1.4.

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

13

5.1. A toy version of Theorem 1.4. In the next sections, we prove Theorem 1.4. The
proof is a bit lengthy and heavy on notation, but the idea behind it is not too complicated.
In this section we sketch the proof of a simpler result that illustrates the main ideas.
Theorem 1.4 (with R = Z) implies that the group algebra k[Un (Z)] is left-noetherian,
provided k is noetherian. Let us try to prove this for n = 3. The group algebra can be
identified, as a k-module, with
±1 ±1
Q = x2 y3 k[x±1
1 , y1 , y2 ],

which we treat as a k-submodule of the Laurent polynomial ring in the five variables. The
monomials in this module correspond to the group elements in k[U3 (Z)]; the exponents of
the x’s give the second column, while the exponents of the y’s gives the third.
We must show that any U3 (Z)-submodule of Q is finitely generated. Let M be a given
submodule. Let Q+ be the k-submodule of Q where only positive powers of the variables
appear. We would like to associate to M a monomial ideal in Q+ , and then use the noetherianity of monomial ideals to conclude that M is finitely generated. By “ideal” here we really
mean k[x1 , y1, y2 ]-submodule. The obvious attempt at this is to first form M+ = M ∩Q+ and
then take its initial module in(M+ ), the k-span of the initial terms of its elements under some
monomial order. The problem with this is that in(M+ ) need not be an ideal. For example,
suppose that M+ contains the element f = x2 y3 (y2 + 1), with initial term in(f ) = x2 y2 y3 .
Let’s try to find x1 in(f ) in in(M+ ). If we apply the matrix


1 1 0
0 1 0
0 0 1
to f , we get the element f ′ = x1 x2 y3 (y1y2 + 1), with initial term x1 x2 y1 y2 y3 . This is equal
to x1 y1 in(f ), so we now need to get rid of the y1 . We therefore apply the matrix


1 0 −1
0 1 0 
0 0 1

to f ′ , to get the element f ′′ = x1 x2 y1−1y3 (y1 y2 + 1). This has the correct leading term.
However, it no longer belongs to M+ : the power of y in the non-leading term is negative.
Thus in(f ′′ ) does not give an element of in(M+ ). There does not seem to be a way to produce
x1 in(f ) in in(M+ ).
Remark 5.1. This approach is really attempting to show that the monoid algebra Q+ =
k[U3 (Z≥0 )] is noetherian.
In fact, it is not noetherian. For example, the left ideal generated


1 n 0
by the matrices 0 1 1 for n ≥ 0 in Q+ is not finitely generated.

0 0 1

To overcome this problem, we take a more subtle approach. Let Q∗ be the submodule
of Q where the exponent of y2 is positive, but we still allow negative powers of x1 and y1 .
Given M ⊂ Q, let M∗ = M ∩ Q∗ . We can then form the initial module with respect to y2
(that is, we treat the other variables as constants); call this in2 (M∗ ). Since we allow negative
powers of y1 , the issue in the previous paragraph does not arise, and in2 (M∗ ) is closed under
±1
multiplication by x±1
1 , y1 , and y2 . We now intersect in2 (M∗ ) with M+ and then take initial
terms with respect to x1 and y1 . The result is a monomial ideal of Q+ . Call this monomial

14

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

ideal I(M). One can show that if M ⊂ M ′ and I(M) = I(M ′ ) then M = M ′ . Since Q+ is
noetherian as a k[x1 , y1 , y2 ]-module, this proves that Q is noetherian as a k[U3 (Z)]-module.
The same approach works for k[Un (Z)], but the process is more involved. Let Q be the
group algebra, which we identify with a k-submodule of the Laurent polynomial ring in
variables xi,j with i ≤ j. We let Q(k) be the k-submodule where the exponents of xi,j with
i ≥ k are positive. Thus Q(n) = Q and Q(0) is what we would call Q+ . Let M be a Un (Z)submodule of Q. We obtain a monomial ideal in Q+ as follows: intersect with Q(n−1) and
take the initial submodule with respect to x•,n ; then intersect with Q(n−2) and take the initial
submodule with respect to x•,n−1 ; and so on. After n steps we obtain a monomial ideal in
Q+ . The argument then proceeds as in the previous case.
Remark 5.2. The strategy employed here has some parallels with Hall’s proof [Ha, Lemma
3] that the group ring k[Γ] of a polycyclic group Γ is noetherian. There the key point is to
take a normal subgroup Γ′ such that Γ/Γ′ ∼
= Z and treat each element of k[Γ] as a Laurent
polynomial in x with coefficients in k[Γ′ ] (where x is some generator for Z) and argue by
passing to initial terms.

The proof for OVI(R) differs from the above in only two respects. First, there is a great
deal of additional bookkeeping. Second, we need a noetherianity result for the kind of OImonomial ideals that appear in the reduction. This follows easily from Higman’s lemma,
and is closely related to the theorem (of Cohen [Co] and Aschenbrenner–Hillar–Sullivant
[AHi, HilSu]) that k[xi ]i∈N is Inc(N)-noetherian, where Inc(N) is the monoid of increasing
functions N → N.
5.2. Eliminating additive torsion. For technical reasons, Theorem 1.4 is easier to prove
when R is a ring whose additive group is a finitely generated free abelian group. In this
section, we show how to reduce to that case. Our main tool is the following lemma.
Lemma 5.3. Let S be a ring and let k be a commutative ring such that the category of
OVI(S)-modules over k is locally noetherian. Assume that S surjects onto a ring R. Then
the category of OVI(R)-modules over k is locally noetherian.
Proof. The surjection S → R induces a functor Φ : OVI(S) → OVI(R). By Proposition 2.4,
it is enough to show that Φ satisfies property (F). For some d ≥ 1, let Pd be the principal
projective OVI(R)-module associated to Rd , so
(Pd )n = k[HomOVI(R) (Rd , Rn )]

(n ≥ 1).

By Proposition 2.3, to prove that Φ satisfies property (F) it is enough to prove that Φ∗ (Pd )
is finitely generated. Since the map S → R of rings is surjective, the induced map
HomOVI(S) (S d , S n ) → HomOVI(R) (Rd , Rn )
is also surjective for all n ≥ 1. This implies that there is a surjective map from the principal projective OVI(S)-module associated to S d to Φ∗ (Pd ), and thus that Φ∗ (Pd ) is finitely
generated, as desired.

Lemma 5.4. Let R be a ring whose additive group is finitely generated. Then there exists a
ring S and a surjection S → R such that the additive group of S is free and finitely generated.
Proof. Let Rtor be the torsion subgroup of the additive group of R and let N ≥ 1 be the
exponent of Rtor , i.e., the minimal number such that NRtor = 0. The proof is by induction
on N. In the base case where N = 1, the group Rtor is trivial and there is nothing to prove.

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

15

Assume, therefore, that N > 1 and that the lemma is true for all smaller exponents. Let
p be a prime dividing N. The ring R/pR is a finite ring. Let Z[R/pR] be the monoid ring
of the multiplicative monoid underlying R/pR, so Z[R/pR] consists of finite sums of formal
symbols {[x] | x ∈ R/pR} with the ring structure defined by [x][y] = [xy]. The additive
group of the ring Z[R/pR] is free abelian with basis in bijection with the elements of R/pR,
and there exists a ring surjection Z[R/pR] → R/pR taking [x] ∈ Z[R/pR] to x ∈ R/pR. Let
R′ be the fiber product of the surjections Z[R/pR] → R/pR and R → R/pR, so we have a
cartesian square
R′
/

Z[R/pR]




R
/

R/pR.

Concretely,
R′ = {(x, r) ∈ Z[R/pR] × R | x and r map to same element of R/pR}.
Since the maps R → R/pR and Z[R/pR] → R/pR are surjective, so is the map R′ → R.
Since the additive group underlying Z[R/pR] is torsion-free, the torsion subgroup (R′ )tor
consists of pairs (0, r) ∈ Z[R/pR] × Rtor such that r ∈ Rtor maps to 0 in R/pR. It follows
that
(R′ )tor ∼
= Rtor ∩ pR = pRtor .
The exponent of (R′ )tor is thus N/p, so by induction there exists a ring S whose additive
group is finitely generated and free together with a surjection S → R′ . The desired surjection
to R is then the composition S → R′ → R.

5.3. The proof of Theorem 1.4. We now commence with the proof of Theorem 1.4, which
we recall says that if R is a ring whose underlying additive group is finitely generated and
k is a commutative noetherian ring, then the category of OVI(R)-modules over k is locally
noetherian. By Lemmas 5.3 and 5.4, we can assume that the additive group of R is a finitely
generated free abelian group (this assumption will first be used in Substep 2a below). Fix
some d ≥ 0 and let Pd be the principal projective of OVI(R) defined by the formula
(Pd )n = k[HomOVI(R) (Rd , Rn )]

(n ≥ 1).

To prove the theorem, it is enough to prove that the poset of OVI(R)-submodules of Pd is
noetherian, i.e., has no infinite strictly increasing sequences. This is trivial for d = 0, so we
can assume that d ≥ 1.
Say that a map f : I → J of posets is conservative if for all i, i′ ∈ I satisfying i ≤ i′
and f (i) = f (i′ ), we have i = i′ . If J is a noetherian poset and f : I → J is a conservative
map, then I is also noetherian. Our strategy will be to use a sequence of conservative poset
maps to reduce proving that the poset of OVI(R)-submodules of Pd is noetherian to proving
that another easier poset M(0) is noetherian. To help the reader understand its structure,
we divide our proof into three steps (each of which is divided into a number of substeps).
Since we will introduce a lot of notation, to help the reader recall the meanings of symbols
we will list the notation that is defined in each substep.
Step 1. We construct a poset M and reduce the theorem to showing that M is noetherian.

16

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

As in the toy version of our proof, the first step will be to relate the poset of OVI(R)submodules of Pd to a poset M constructed using certain “generalized polynomial rings”. In
fact, M will be a poset of certain special OI(d)-submodules of an OI(d)-module Q. There are
three substeps: in Substep 1a we construct the OI(d)-module Q, in Substep 1b we construct
the poset M of special OI(d)-submodules of Q, and then finally in Substep 1c we construct
a conservative poset map from the poset of OVI(R)-submodules of Pd to M.
Substep 1a. We construct the OI(d)-module Q.
r
Notation defined: Λn , Ti,j
, Tn , Λn (S), Λn,α , Tn,α, Q, Qn,α
We will want to view matrices with entries in R as certain kinds of “monomials”. Since
we will be focusing on Pd , the relevant matrices will have d columns and some number n ≥ 1
of rows. To that end, we make the following definition:
r
• Define Λn to be the commutative monoid generated by the set of formal symbols Ti,j
r1 r2
r1 +r2
with 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ j ≤ d and r ∈ R subject to the relations Ti,j
Ti,j = Ti,j
,
where 1 ≤ i ≤ n and 1 ≤ j ≤ d and r1 , r2 ∈ R.
r
Elements of Λn are thus “monomials” in the Ti,j
, and are naturally in bijection with n × d
matrices with entries in R: given such a matrix (ri,j ), the associated element of Λn is
r
the product of the Ti,ji,j , where i ranges over 1 ≤ i ≤ n and j ranges over 1 ≤ j ≤ d.
The monoid product in Λn corresponds to matrix addition. For later use, setting Tn =
{Ti,j | 1 ≤ i ≤ n, 1 ≤ j ≤ d}, for S ⊂ Tn we define Λn (S) to be the submonoid of Λn generr
ated by {Ti,j
| Ti,j ∈ S, r ∈ R}.
Now consider an element f ∈ HomOVI(R) (Rd , Rn ). By definition, f is a linear map Rd →
Rn such that there exists a strictly increasing sequence α = (α1 , . . . , αd ) of d elements of
[n] = {1, . . . , n} with the following property:
• For 1 ≤ i ≤ d, the map f takes the ith basis element of Rd to the sum of the αi th
basis element of Rn and an R-linear combination of the basis elements of Rn that
occur before αi .
Define Λn,α to be the subset of Λn consisting of elements associated to n × d matrices of this
form. Defining
Tn,α = {Ti,j | 1 ≤ j ≤ d, 1 ≤ i < αj },
an element τ ∈ Λn,α can be written as
(5.5)

τ = Tα11 ,1 Tα12 ,2 · · · Tα1d ,d τ ′

with τ ′ ∈ Λn (Tn,α ).

We thus have a bijection of sets
HomOVI(R) (Rd , Rn ) ∼
=

G

Λn,α ,

α

where the disjoint union ranges over the strictly increasing sequences α of d elements of [n].
It follows that
M
(5.6)
(Pd )n = k[HomOVI(R) (Rd , Rn )] =
k[Λn,α ].
α

The various k[Λn,α ] fit together into an OI(d)-module Q with
Qn,α = k[Λn,α ]

((n, α) ∈ OI(d)).

Substep 1b. We construct a poset M of OI(d)-submodules of Q.
r
Notation defined: M, Ei,α
j

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

17

Consider an OVI(R)-submodule M of Pd . We say that M is a homogeneous OVI(R)submodule of Pd if for all n ≥ 1, the k-submodule Mn of (Pd )n splits according to the
decomposition (5.6), i.e., for all (n, α) ∈ OI(d) there exists some k-submodule Mn,α of k[Λn,α ]
such that
M
Mn,α .
Mn =
α

In this case, the various Mn,α fit together into an OI(d)-submodule of Q. We thus get a
poset injection
{homogeneous OVI(R)-submodules of Pd } ֒→ {OI(d)-submodules of Q}.

The image of this injection consists of all OI(d)-submodules M of Q such that each Mn,α ⊂
Qn,α is preserved by the action of Un (R), which acts on Qn,α via the identification of Qn,α
with the set of formal k-linear combinations of appropriate n × d matrices.
For the sake of our later arguments, we will actually consider a larger collection of submodules. Define M to be the poset of all OI(d)-submodules M of Q such that the following
hold. Consider (n, α) ∈ OI(d) with α = (α1 , . . . , αd ). Let {~e1 , . . . , ~en } be the standard basis
r
for Rn . For 1 ≤ j ≤ d and 1 ≤ i < αj and r ∈ R, define Ei,α
∈ Un (R) to be the element
j
that takes ~eαj to r~ei + ~eαj and fixes all of the other basis vectors. We then require that Mn,α
r
be preserved by all of the Ei,α
for 1 ≤ j ≤ d and 1 ≤ i < αj and r ∈ R. The construction
j
in the previous paragraph gives a poset injection
(5.7)

{homogeneous OVI(R)-submodules of Pd } ֒→ M.

Substep 1c. We construct a conservative poset map {OVI(R)-submodules of Pd } −→ M.
Notation defined: none
By (5.7), it is enough to construct a conservative poset map
(5.8)

{OVI(R)-submodules of Pd } → {homogeneous OVI(R)-submodules of Pd }.

For each n ≥ 1, put a total ordering on the set of all strictly increasing sequences α of d
′
elements of [n] using the lexicographic ordering: α < α′ if the first nonzero entry αP
− α is
positive. Given a nonzero element f ∈ (Pd )n , use the identification (5.6) to write f = α fn,α
with fn,α ∈ k[Λn,α ]. Define in(f ) = fn,α0 , where α0 is the largest index such that fn,α0 6= 0.
Given an OVI(R)-submodule M of Pd and some n ≥ 1, define in(M)n to be the k-span
of {in(f ) | f ∈ Mn }. It is easy to see that in(M) is also an OVI(R)-submodule of Pd .
Moreover, by construction in(M) is homogeneous. The map M 7→ in(M) is thus a poset
map as in (5.8). We must prove that it is conservative. Assume otherwise, and let M and
M ′ be OVI(R)-submodules of Pd such that M ( M ′ and in(M) = in(M ′ ). Let n ≥ 1 be
such that Mn ( Mn′ . Let x ∈ Mn′ \ Mn be such that in(x) lies in k[Λn,α ] with α as small as
possible. Since in(M) = in(M ′ ), we can find some x′ ∈ Mn with in(x) = in(x′ ). But then
x − x′ ∈ Mn′ \ Mn , while in(x − x′ ) lies in k[Λn,α′ ] with α′ < α, a contradiction.
Step 2. We construct a poset M(0) and reduce the theorem to showing that M(0) is noetherian.
In Step 1, we reduced the theorem to showing that the poset M constructed in Substep
1b is noetherian. The goal of this step is to construct a conservative poset map from M to
a simpler poset M(0) . This will be done in a sequence of steps. Recall that M is a subposet

18

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

of the poset of OI(d)-submodules of an OI(d)-module Q. In Substep 2a we will construct
an OI(d)-module filtration
Q(0) ⊂ Q(1) ⊂ · · · ⊂ Q(d) = Q.
Next, in Substeps 2b and 2c we will construct two posets M(k) and N(k) of special OI(d)submodules of Q(k) such that M(d) = M. Finally, in Substeps 2d and 2e we will construct a
sequence of conservative poset maps
M = M(d) → N(d−1) → M(d−1) → N(d−2) → · · · → N(0) → M(0) .
This reduces the theorem to showing that the poset M(0) is noetherian.
Substep 2a. We construct an OI(d)-module filtration
Q(0) ⊂ Q(1) ⊂ · · · ⊂ Q(d) = Q.
(k)

Notation defined: (R, +) = (Zλ , +), R≥0 , Λn,α,k+, Λn,α,+ , Λn,+ , Λn,+ (S), Q(k) , Qn,α
This step is where we use the fact that the additive group of R is a finitely generated free
abelian group. Fix an identification of this additive group with Zλ for some λ ≥ 1 such that
the multiplicative identity 1 ∈ R is identified with an element of (Z≥0 )λ . Let R≥0 be the
submonoid of the additive group of R corresponding to (Z≥0 )λ . The monoid R≥0 contains
1 ∈ R, but is not necessarily closed under multiplication.
Consider (n, α) ∈ OI(d) with α = (α1 , . . . , αd ). For 0 ≤ k ≤ d, define Λn,α,k+ to be the set
r
of all τ ∈ Λn,α such that if Ti,j
appears in τ with i ≥ αk , then r ∈ R≥0 . For k = 0, we use the
convention α0 = 0, and we will also frequently omit the k, so Λn,α,+ is the set of all τ ∈ Λn,α
r
such that if Ti,j
appears in τ , then r ∈ R≥0 . We will similarly define Λn,+ and Λn,+ (S) for
S ⊂ Tn . We then define Q(k) to be the OI(d)-submodule of Q where for all (n, α) ∈ OI(d),
we have
Q(k)
n,α = k[Λn,α,k+ ].
We thus have Q(d) = Q. Moreover,
Q(0)
n,α = k[Λn,α,+ ].
Substep 2b. For 0 ≤ k ≤ d, we construct a subposet M(k) of the poset of OI(d)-submodules
of Q(k) such that M(d) = M.
Notation defined: M(k) , (a.ik ), (a.iik ), (bk ), (ck )
We begin with some terminology. A k-submodule X of k[Λn ] is homogeneous with
respect to S ⊂ Tn if the following holds for all x ∈ X. Write
m
X
x=
τq yq ,
q=1

where for all 1 ≤ q ≤ m we have the following:
• τq ∈ Λn (S), and the different τq are all distinct.
• yq ∈ k[Λn (Tn \ S)].
We then require that τq yq ∈ X for all 1 ≤ q ≤ m.
Now consider some 0 ≤ k ≤ d. Define M(k) to be the set of all OI(d)-submodules M of
Q(k) such that for all (n, α) ∈ OI(d) with α = (α1 , . . . , αd ), the following conditions (a.ik ),
(a.iik ), (bk ), and (ck ) hold. To simplify our notation, we will set α0 = 0.

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

19

(a) The k-module Mn,α ⊂ k[Λn,α,k+ ] is closed under multiplication by the following elements:
r
(ik ) Ti,j
with k ≤ j ≤ d and 1 ≤ i < αk and r ∈ R.
r
(iik ) Ti,j with k + 1 ≤ j ≤ d and αk ≤ i < αj and r ∈ R≥0 .
r
(bk ) The k-module Mn,α is closed under the operators Ei,α
with 1 ≤ j ≤ k and 1 ≤ i < αj
j
and r ∈ R.
(ck ) The k-module Mn,α ⊂ k[Λn,α,k+ ] is homogeneous with respect to
{Tαj ,j | 1 ≤ j ≤ d} ∪ {Ti,j | k + 1 ≤ j ≤ d and max(αk , 1) ≤ i < αj }.
We claim that M(d) = M. Condition (bd ) implies that M(d) ⊂ M, so we must only prove
that M ⊂ M(d) . Consider M ∈ M and (n, α) ∈ OI(d) with α = (α1 , . . . , αd ). We must
verify that Mn,α satisfies the properties above:
r
• For (a.id ), we must show that Mn,α is closed under multiplication by Ti,d
for 1 ≤ i < αd
r
and r ∈ R. But this can be achieved using the operator Ei,αd , and by the definition
of M the k-module Mn,α is closed under this operator, so (a.id ) follows.
• No pairs (i, j) satisfy the conditions of (a.iid ), so that condition is trivial.
• Condition (bd ) is a special case of the condition defining M, so it follows.
• The set referred to in condition (cd ) consists only of
{Tαj ,j | 1 ≤ j ≤ d},
and by definition every element of k[Λn,α ] is homogeneous with respect to these variables (see (5.5)), so that condition follows.
Substep 2c. For 0 ≤ k < d, we construct a subposet N(k) of the poset of OI(d)-submodules
of Q(k) .
Notation defined: N(k) , (a′ .i′k ), (a′ .ii′k ), (b′k ), (c′k )
Our definition of N(k) will be a slight modification of our definition of M(k) . Define N(k)
to be the set of all OI(d)-submodules N of Q(k) such that for all (n, α) ∈ OI(d) with
α = (α1 , . . . , αd ), the following conditions (a′ .i′k ), (a′ .ii′k ), (b′k ), and (c′k ) hold. To simplify
our notation, we will set α0 = 0.
(a′ ) The k-module Nn,α ⊂ k[Λn,α,k+ ] is closed under multiplication by the following elements:
r
(i′k ) Ti,j
with k + 1 ≤ j ≤ d and 1 ≤ i < αk and r ∈ R.
′
r
(iik ) Ti,j
with k + 1 ≤ j ≤ d and αk ≤ i < αj and r ∈ R≥0 .
r
′
with 1 ≤ j ≤ k and 1 ≤ i < αj
(bk ) The k-module Nn,α is closed under the operators Ei,α
j
and r ∈ R.
(c′k ) The k-module Nn,α ⊂ k[Λn,α,k+ ] is homogeneous with respect to
{Tαj ,j | 1 ≤ j ≤ d} ∪ {Ti,j | k + 2 ≤ j ≤ d and αk+1 ≤ i < αj }.
Substep 2d. For 1 ≤ k ≤ d, we construct a conservative poset map M(k) → N(k−1) .
Notation defined: none.
Consider M ∈ M(k) , so M is an OI(d)-submodule of Q(k) . Define N = M ∩ Q(k−1) . We
claim that N ∈ N(k−1) . This requires checking the conditions (a′ .i′k−1 ), (a′ .ii′k−1 ), (b′k−1 ), and
(c′k−1 ). Consider some (n, α) ∈ OI(d) with α = (α1 , . . . , αd ).
r
with k ≤
• Condition (a′ .i′k−1 ) asserts that Nn,α is closed under multiplication by Ti,j
j ≤ d and 1 ≤ i < αk−1 and r ∈ R. This follows from the fact that both Mn,α and

20

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN
(k−1)

(k−1)

Qn,α are closed under multiplication by these elements. This is immediate for Qn,α .
For Mn,α , it follows from (a.ik ), which says that Mn,α is closed under multiplication
r
by Ti,j
with k ≤ j ≤ d and 1 ≤ i < αk and r ∈ R.
r
• Condition (a′ .ii′k−1 ) asserts that Nn,α is closed under multiplication by Ti,j
with k ≤
j ≤ d and αk−1 ≤ i < αj and r ∈ R≥0 . This follows from the fact that both Mn,α
(k−1)
and Qn,α are closed under multiplication by these elements. This is immediate for
(k−1)
Qn,α . For Mn,α , it follows from a combination of (a.ik ), which handles the cases
where αk−1 ≤ i < αk and gives the stronger conclusion that we can use r ∈ R instead
of just r ∈ R≥0 , and (a.iik ), which handles the cases where αk ≤ i < αj . Here one
might worry that (a.iik ) requires k + 1 ≤ j ≤ d instead of k ≤ j ≤ d; however, the
case j = k is not needed since no i satisfies αk ≤ i < αk .
r
• Condition (b′k−1 ) asserts that Nn,α is closed under the operators Ei,α
with 1 ≤ j ≤
j
(k−1)

k − 1 and 1 ≤ i < αj and r ∈ R. This follows from the fact that both Mn,α and Qn,α
(k−1)
are closed under these operators. This is immediate for Qn,α . For Mn,α , it follows
r
with 1 ≤ j ≤ k
from (bk ), which says that Mn,α is closed under the operators Ei,α
j
and 1 ≤ i < αj and r ∈ R.
• Condition (c′k−1) asserts that Nn,α is homogeneous with respect to
{Tαj ,j | 1 ≤ j ≤ d} ∪ {Ti,j | k + 1 ≤ j ≤ d and αk ≤ i < αj }.
Condition (ck ) says that Mn,α is homogeneous with respect to this same set, and this
(k−1)
homogeneity is preserved when we intersect Mn,α with Qn,α .
We thus can define a poset map M(k) → N(k−1) taking M ∈ M(k) to M ∩ Q(k−1) . We
claim that this poset map is conservative. In fact, it is even injective. Indeed, consider
M, M ′ ∈ M(k) . Let N = M ∩ Q(k−1) and N ′ = M ′ ∩ Q(k−1) , and assume that N = N ′ .
We claim that M = M ′ . By symmetry, it is enough to prove that M ⊂ M ′ . Consider
(k)
′
(n, α) ∈ OI(d) and x ∈ Mn,α . We must prove that x ∈ Mn,α
. We have x ∈ Qn,α . Setting
S = {Ti,j | 1 ≤ j ≤ d, 1 ≤ i < αj , αk−1 ≤ i < αk }
= {Ti,j | k ≤ j ≤ d, αk−1 ≤ i < αk },
(k−1)

there exists some τ ∈ Λn,α(S) such that τ x ∈ Qn,α . By (a.ik ), we have τ x ∈ Mn,α , and
′
thus τ x ∈ Nn,α . Since N = N ′ ⊂ M ′ , we deduce that τ x ∈ Mn,α
. Define τ −1 ∈ Λn,α (S) to be
−r
r
the result of replacing all the Ti,j terms in τ with Ti,j . Another application of (a.ik ) shows
′
that τ −1 τ x = x ∈ Mn,α
, as desired.
Substep 2e. For 0 ≤ k ≤ d − 1, we construct a conservative poset map N(k) → M(k) .
Notation defined: none.
Fix some (n, α) ∈ OI(d) with α = (α1 , . . . , αd ). The most important difference between
M(k) and N(k) is that by (ck ) the k-modules making up M(k) must be homogeneous with
respect to
Sn,α,k = {Tαj ,j | 1 ≤ j ≤ d} ∪ {Ti,j | k + 1 ≤ j ≤ d and αk ≤ i < αj and i ≥ 1},
while by (c′k ) the k-modules making up N(k) must only be homogeneous with respect to
Sn,α,k+1 = {Tαj ,j | 1 ≤ j ≤ d} ∪ {Ti,j | k + 2 ≤ j ≤ d and αk+1 ≤ i < αj }.

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

21

The main function of our poset map N(k) → M(k) will be to achieve the needed increase in
homogeneity.
(k)
(k)
For x ∈ Qn,α , we will define an “initial term” in(x) ∈ Qn,α as follows. Define
S′n,α,k = Sn,α,k \ Sn,α,k+1 = {Ti,j | k + 1 ≤ j ≤ d and max(αk , 1) ≤ i < αk+1}.
Recall that R is identified as an additive group with Zλ and that R≥0 = (Z≥0 )λ ⊂ R. Using
the identification R = Zλ , we will frequently speak of the coordinates of elements of R. We
define a total order on Λn,+ (S′n,α,k ) in two steps:
• We first order S′n,α,k by letting Ti,j < Ti′ ,j ′ if either i < i′ or if i = i′ and j < j ′ .
• We then order Λn,+ (S′n,α,k ) as follows. Consider distinct τ, τ ′ ∈ Λn,+ (S′n,α,k ). Enumerating the elements of S′n,α,k in increasing order as Ti1 ,j1 , . . . , Tip ,jp , we can uniquely
write
r

τ = Tir11,j1 · · · Tipp,jp

r′

r′

and τ ′ = Ti11,j1 · · · Tipp,jp .

for some ri , rj′ ∈ R≥0 . Let 1 ≤ q ≤ p be the minimal number such that rq 6= rq′ . We
then say that τ < τ ′ if the first nonzero coordinate of rq′ − rq ∈ R = Zλ is positive.
(k)
For nonzero x ∈ Qn,α , we can uniquely write
x=

m
X

τq yq ,

q=1

where for all 1 ≤ q ≤ m we have the following:
• τq yq 6= 0 for all q.
• τq ∈ Λn,+ (S′n,αk ), and the τq are enumerated in increasing order τ1 < τ2 < · · · < τm .
• yq ∈ k[Λn (Tn \ S′n,α,k )].
(k)
We then define in(x) = τm ym ∈ Qn,α . We also set in(0) = 0. We will call τm the initial
variable of x, though we remark that this terminology will not be used again until the final
paragraph of this substep.
We now construct the poset map N(k) → M(k) as follows. Consider N ∈ N(k) . For
(k)
(n, α) ∈ OI(d), define in(N)n,α ⊂ Qn,α to be the k-span of {in(x) | x ∈ Nn,α }. It is easy to
see that in(N) is an OI(d)-submodule of Q(k) . We claim that in(N) ∈ M(k) . To see this, we
must check the conditions (a.ik ), (a.iik ), (bk ), and (ck ). Consider some (n, α) ∈ OI(d) with
α = (α1 , . . . , αd ).
• We delay (a.ik ) until the end, so we start by verifying condition (a.iik ), which asserts
r
that in(N)n,α is closed under multiplication by Ti,j
with k+1 ≤ j ≤ d and αk ≤ i < αj
′ ′
and r ∈ R≥0 . This is immediate from (a .iik ), which asserts that N is closed under
multiplication by these same elements.
r
• Condition (bk ) asserts that in(N)n,α is closed under the operators Ei,α
with 1 ≤
j
′
j ≤ k and 1 ≤ i < αj and r ∈ R. Condition (bk ) says that Nn,α is closed under
these operators. To prove that this implies that in(N)n,α is also closed under these
(k)
operators, it is enough to prove that for x ∈ Qn,α , we have
r
r
in(Ei,α
(x)) = Ei,α
(in(x)).
j
j

To help the reader understand the argument below, we recommend reviewing the
correspondence between elements of Λn and n × d matrices from Substep 1a. For

22

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

nonzero x, write
x=

m
X

τq yq ,

q=1

where for all 1 ≤ q ≤ m we have the following:
– τq yq 6= 0 for all q.
– τq ∈ Λn,+ (S′n,α,k ), and the τq are enumerated in increasing order τ1 < τ2 < · · · <
τm .
– yq ∈ k[Λn (Tn \ S′n,α,k )].
Since i < αj ≤ αk , for all 1 ≤ q ≤ m we have
r
Ei,α
(τq ) = τq τq′
j

r
and Ei,α
(yq ) = yq yq′
j

for some τq′ ∈ Λn (Tn \ S′n,α,k ) and yq′ ∈ k[Λn (Tn \ S′n,α,k )]. We thus have
r
Ei,α
(x)
j

=

m
X

r
Ei,α
(τq )
j

·

r
Ei,α
(yq )
j

=

m
X

τq (τq′ yq yq′ )

q=1

q=1

and
r
′
′
r
in(Ei,α
(x)) = τm (τm
ym ym
) = Ei,α
(in(x)),
j
j

as desired.
• Condition (ck ) asserts that in(N)n,α is homogeneous with respect to
Sn,α,k = {Tαj ,j | 1 ≤ j ≤ d} ∪ {Ti,j | k + 1 ≤ j ≤ d and αk ≤ i < αj and i ≥ 1}.
By (c′k ), the k-module Nn,α is homogeneous with respect to Sn,α,k+1, and the very
definition of in(N)n,α is designed to improve this to Sn,α,k .
• We now finally verify (a.ik ), which asserts that in(N)n,α is closed under multiplication
r
by Ti,j
with k ≤ j ≤ d and 1 ≤ i < αk and r ∈ R. Condition (a′ .i′k ) says that Nn,α
r
is closed under multiplication by Ti,j
with k + 1 ≤ j ≤ d and 1 ≤ i ≤ αj and
r ∈ R, and this is preserved when we pass to in(N)n,α . We thus must only verify that
r
in(N)n,α is closed under multiplication by Ti,k
with 1 ≤ i < αk and r ∈ R. Consider
r
some x ∈ in(N)n,α . We must show that Ti,k x ∈ in(N)n,α . Using the already verified
condition (ck ), we can assume that x = τ y with
τ ∈ Λn,α(Sn,α,k ) and y ∈ k[Λn,α (Tn \ Sn,α,k )].
r
Using the already verified condition (bk ), we know that Ei,α
(x) ∈ in(N)n,α . We then
k
calculate that
r
r
r
r
r ′
Ei,α
(x) = Ei,α
(τ y) = Ei,α
(τ )Ei,α
(y) = (τ Ti,k
τ ) · y,
k
k
k
k
′

′
′
r
where τ ′ is a product of elements of {Ti,j
′ | k + 1 ≤ j ≤ d, r ∈ R} that depends on τ
−r ′
′
r′
and r and i and k. Letting (τ ′ )−1 be the result of replacing each Ti,j
′ in τ with Ti,j ′ ,
our already verified cases of (a.ik ) imply that in(N)n,α is closed under multiplication
by (τ ′ )−1 . In particular,
r
r ′
r
r
(τ ′ )−1 · Ei,α
(x) = (τ ′ )−1 · (Ti,k
τ τ ) · y = Ti,k
τ y = Ti,k
x ∈ in(N)n,α ,
k

as desired.

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

23

The map N 7→ in(N) is thus a poset map from N(k) to M(k) .
We claim that this is a conservative poset map. Indeed, consider N1 , N2 ∈ N(k) such that
N1 ⊂ N2 and in(N1 ) = in(N2 ). We must prove that N1 = N2 . Assume otherwise. Let
(n, α) ∈ OI(d) be such that (N1 )n,α ( (N2 )n,α . Pick x ∈ (N2 )n,α such that x ∈
/ (N1 )n,α and
such that the initial variable (see the second paragraph of this substep for the definition of
this) of x is as small as possible among elements with these properties (this is possible since
with the above ordering Λn,+ (S′n,α,k ) does not have any infinite strictly decreasing chains).
Since in(N1 ) = in(N2 ), we can find some x′ ∈ (N1 )n,α such that in(x′ ) = in(x). But then
x − x′ ∈ (N2 )n,α and x − x′ ∈
/ (N1 )n,α, while the initial variable of x − x′ is strictly smaller
than the initial variable of x, a contradiction.
Step 3. We prove that M(0) is noetherian.
In Step 2, we reduced the theorem to showing that M(0) is noetherian. In this step, we
will prove this. Defining
G
Λ+ =
Λn,α,+ ,
(n,α)∈OI(d)

in Substep 3a we first construct a useful partial ordering on Λ+ and prove that it is a well
partial ordering (see below for the definition of this). In Substep 3b, we use this partial
ordering to prove that M(0) is noetherian.
Substep 3a. We construct a partial ordering on Λ+ and prove that it is a well partial
ordering.
Notation defined: none.
We define a partial ordering on Λ+ as follows. Consider τ, τ ′ ∈ Λ+ . We say that τ  τ ′ if
the following condition is satisfied:
• Let (n, α), (n′ , α′) ∈ OI(d) be such that τ ∈ Λn,α,+ and τ ′ ∈ Λn′ ,α′ ,+ . We then require
that there exists an OI(d)-morphism ι : (n, α) → (n′ , α′ ) and some τ ′′ ∈ Λn′ ,α′ ,+ such
that τ ′ = τ ′′ · ι∗ (τ ).
It is clear that this is a partial ordering.
The main goal of this substep (which we will accomplish at the end after a number of
preliminaries) is to prove that this partial ordering on Λ+ is a well partial ordering, whose
definition is as follows. A poset (P, ≺) is well partially ordered if every infinite sequence
of elements of P contains an infinite weakly increasing subsequence. See [K] for a survey
about well partial orderings. If P and P′ are posets, then we will endow P × P′ with the
ordering where (p1 , p′1 )  (p2 , p′2 ) if and only p1  p2 and p′1  p′2 . If P and P′ are both well
partially ordered, then so is P × P′ (quick proof: given an infinite sequence in P × P′ , first
pass to a subsequence to make the first coordinate weakly increasing, then pass to a further
subsequence to make the second coordinate also weakly increasing).
Recall that we have identified the additive group of R with Zλ and that R≥0 = (Z≥0 )λ .
Using these identifications, we will speak of the coordinates of elements of R and R≥0 . Endow
the set R≥0 ∪ {♠} with the following partial ordering:
• ♠ is not comparable to any element of R≥0 .
• For r1 , r2 ∈ R≥0 , let r1  r2 if all the coordinates of r2 − r1 are nonnegative.
Since the usual ordering on Z≥0 is a well partial ordering, the restriction of our partial
ordering to R≥0 = (Z≥0 )λ is also a well partial ordering. From this, it is easy to see that
our partial ordering on R≥0 ∪ {♠} is also a well partial ordering. The product ordering on
(R≥0 ∪ {♠})d is thus also a well partial ordering.

24

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

Let W denote the set of finite words in the alphabet (R≥0 ∪ {♠})d . Endow W with the
partial ordering where w1 , w2 ∈ W satisfy w1  w2 if and only if the following condition
is satisfied. Write w1 = ℓ1 · · · ℓn and w2 = ℓ′1 · · · ℓ′n′ with each ℓi and ℓ′i′ an element of
(R≥0 ∪ {♠})d . We then require that there exists a strictly increasing function ι : [n] ֒→ [n′ ]
such that ℓi  ℓ′ι(i) for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n. This partial ordering on W is a well partial ordering
by Higman’s lemma [Hig, Theorem 4.3].
As promised, we now prove that the partial ordering on Λ+ defined above is a well partial
ordering. Let Ψ : Λ+ → W be the following set function. Consider τ ∈ Λn,α,+ ⊂ Λ+ . Write
α = (α1 , . . . , αd ), and expand out τ as
Y r
Ti,ji,j
(ri,j ∈ R≥0 ).
τ=
1≤j≤d
1≤i≤αj

For 1 ≤ j ≤ d and 1 ≤ i ≤ αj , define ri,j ∈ R≥0 ∪ {♠} via the formula
(
ri,j if 1 ≤ i < αj ,
r i,j =
♠ if i = αj .
We remark that by definition we have rαj ,j = 1 for all 1 ≤ j ≤ d. For 1 ≤ i ≤ n, we define
ℓi = (r i,1 , ri,2 , . . . , r i,d ) ∈ (R≥0 ∪ {♠})d .
Finally, we define
Ψ(τ ) = ℓ1 ℓ2 · · · ℓn .
It is clear that Ψ is injective. What is more, it is immediate from the definitions that for all
τ, τ ′ ∈ Λ+ we have
τ  τ ′ if and only if Ψ(τ )  Ψ(τ ′ ).
The key point here is that if we interpret elements of Λ+ as matrices with d columns and
entries in R+ , the effect of an OI(d)-morphism on these matrices is to insert extra rows of
zeros. Since Ψ is injective and W is well partially ordered, so is Λ+ , as claimed.
Substep 3b. We prove that the poset M(0) is noetherian.
Notation defined: none.
Let (Λ+ , <) be the partially ordered set constructed in Substep 3a. By definition, M(0)
is the poset of all OI(R)-modules M ⊂ Q(0) such that for all (n, α) ∈ OI(d) with α =
(α1 , . . . , αd ), the k-module Mn,α ⊂ k[Λn,α,+ ] satisfies the following two properties:
r
(†) It is closed under multiplication by Ti,j
for all 1 ≤ j ≤ d and 1 ≤ i < αj and r ∈ R≥0 .
(††) It is homogeneous with respect to all the possible Ti,j , i.e., with respect to
{Ti,j | 1 ≤ j ≤ d and 1 ≤ i ≤ αj }.
Property (††) implies that Mn,α is spanned as a k-module by elements of the form c · τ with
c ∈ k and τ ∈ Λn,α,+ . Property (†) implies the following:
(† † †) Let τ1 ∈ Λn1 ,α1 ,+ ⊂ Λ+ and τ2 ∈ Λn2 ,α2 ,+ ⊂ Λ+ and c ∈ k be such that c · τ1 ∈ Mn1 ,α1
and τ1 ≤ τ2 . Then c · τ2 ∈ Mn2 ,α2 .
Now assume for the sake of contradiction that M(0) is not noetherian. Let
M1 ( M2 ( M3 ( · · ·

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

25

be an infinite strictly ascending chain in it. By (††), for all i ≥ 1 there exists some (ni , αi ) ∈
OI(d) and some τi ∈ Λni ,αi ,+ and some ci ∈ k such that
(5.9)

ci · τi ∈ (Mi )ni ,αi \ (Mi−1 )ni ,αi .

Since our partial ordering on Λ+ is a well partial ordering, we can replace our sequence
{Mi }∞
i=1 with a subsequence and assume that
τ1 ≤ τ2 ≤ τ3 ≤ · · · .
For i ≤ i′ , condition († † †) implies that
ci · τi′ ∈ (Mi )ni′ ,αi′ .
For all q ≥ 1, applying this repeatedly with i′ = q + 1 we see that for all 1 ≤ q ′ ≤ q we have
cq′ · τq+1 ∈ (Mq′ )nq+1 ,αq+1 ⊂ (Mq )nq+1 ,αq+1 .
Defining Iq to be the ideal of k generated by {c1 , . . . , cq }, this implies that for all d ∈ Iq we
have
d · τq+1 ∈ (Mq )nq+1 ,αq+1 .
Since k is noetherian, we can pick q ≫ 0 such that Iq = Iq+1 ; in particular, cq+1 ∈ Iq . But
this implies that
cq+1 · τq+1 ∈ (Mq )nq+1 ,αq+1 ,
contradicting (5.9).
5.4. A converse to Theorem 1.4. We now prove a converse to Theorem 1.4:
Proposition 5.10. Let R be a ring and k be a commutative ring such that the category of
OVI(R)-modules over k is locally noetherian. Then k is noetherian and the additive group
of R is finitely generated.
Proof. Let P be the principal projective OVI(R)-module associated to R2 and let P + be the
submodule of P generated by all elements lying in Pn with n > 2. Then P/P + is a finitely
generated OVI(R)-module with
(
k[U2 (R)] if n = 2,
(P/P + )n =
0
otherwise.
It follows that an OVI(R)-submodule of P/P + is exactly the same thing as a left ideal in
k[U2 (R)], so k[U2 (R)] is a left-Noetherian ring. The group U2 (R) is simply the additive
group underlying R, so the proposition follows from the following lemma.

Lemma 5.11. Let k be a commutative ring and let A be an abelian group such that k[A] is
noetherian. Then k is noetherian and A is finitely generated.
Proof. Since k is a quotient of the noetherian ring k[A] via the augmentation homomorphism,
it is noetherian. For a subgroup B of A, let IB be the ideal of k[A] generated by [b] − [0] with
b ∈ B. Then k[A]/IB = k[A/B], and so B can be recovered from IB as the elements b ∈ A
such that [b] − [0] ∈ IB . Suppose that B• is an ascending chain of subgroups of A. Then IB•
is an ascending chain of ideals in k[A] and thus stabilizes. Thus the chain B• stabilizes as
well, and so A is noetherian (and thus finitely generated) as an abelian group.


26

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

6. Homology of OVI-modules
In this section, R denotes a (not necessarily commutative) ring whose additive group is
a finitely generated abelian group and k denotes a commutative noetherian ring. Our goal
is to prove Theorem 1.3 from the introduction, which says that if M is a finitely generated
OVI-module then Hi (U, M) is a finitely generated OI-module for all i ≥ 0. This theorem is
proved in §6.3 below after some preliminaries. We then prove in §6.4 an analogue of Theorem
1.3 where we allow upper triangular matrices that are not necessarily unipotent.
6.1. Homology of some OI-groups. Recall that a group Γ is of type FP over k if the trivial
k[Γ]-module k admits a projective resolution P• such that each Pi is a finitely generated
k[Γ]-module. In fact, it is equivalent to ask that each Pi be a finitely generated free module;
see [B, Theorem VIII.4.3]. Many natural classes of groups are of type FP including finite
groups, finitely generated abelian groups, and lattices in semisimple Lie groups. See [B,
Chapter VIII] for more information.
Proposition 6.1. Let A be a group of type FP over k and let E be the OI-group [n] 7→ An .
Let M be an E-module which is finitely generated as an OI-module. The following then hold.
(a) The OI-module Hi (E, M) is finitely generated for all i ≥ 0.
(b) Suppose A is abelian. Let C ⊂ A be a finite index subgroup, let AnC denote the subgroup
{(a1 , . . . , an ) ∈ An | a1 + · · · + an ∈ C}, and let EC be the OI-group [n] 7→ AnC . Then
the OI-module Hi (EC , M) is finitely generated for all i ≥ 0.
Proof. Pick a free resolution F• of the k[A]-module k such that each Fi is a finitely generated
k[A]-module and such that F0 = k[A]. For each n ≥ 0, the complex (F⊗n )• is a free resolution
of the k[An ]-module k.
For each i ≥ 0, we assemble the ith terms of (F⊗n )• into an OI-module X(i) as follows.
First, define
M
X(i)n = (F⊗n )i =
Fi1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Fin .
i1 +···+in =i

Next, given an OI-morphism f : [n] → [m], define f∗ : X(i)n → X(i)m in the following way.
Consider a summand Fi1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Fin of X(i)n . For 1 ≤ a′ ≤ m, define
(
ia if a′ = f (a) for some a ∈ [n],
′
ia′ =
0 otherwise.

We thus obtain a summand Fi′1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Fi′m of X(i)m . Define f∗ : X(i)n → X(i)m to be the
map that takes Fi1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Fin to Fi′1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ Fi′m by inserting terms that equal 1 ∈ k[A] = F0
into the needed places.
For each i ≥ 0, define Y (i) to be the OI-module [n] 7→ (X(i)n ⊗Mn )An , where the subscript
indicates that we are taking the An -coinvariants. The Y (i) form a complex
· · · −→ Y (3) −→ Y (2) −→ Y (1) −→ Y (0) −→ 0
of OI-modules, and the OI-module Hi (E, M) is the ith homology group of this complex. By
the local noetherianity of OI (Corollary 3.3), to prove that Hi (E, M) is a finitely generated
OI-module for all i ≥ 0, it is enough to prove that each Y (i) is a finitely generated OImodule, which we now do.
For each i ≥ 0, the OI-module X(i) is generated in finite degree (in fact, only terms of
degree at most i are needed). Since M is finitely generated as an OI-module, it is in particular

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

27

generated in finite degree, so by Corollary 3.4 the OI-module X(i) ⊗ M is also generated in
finite degree. This implies that Y (i) is also generated in finite degree. Since Fi is a finitely
generated k[A]-module for each i ≥ 0 and Mn is a k[An ]-module that is finitely generated
as a k-module for each n ≥ 0, it follows that the k-module Y (i)n = ((F⊗n )i ⊗ Mn )An is a
finitely generated k-module for all i, n ≥ 0. Combining this with the fact that each Y (i) is
generated in finite degree, we deduce that the OI-module Y (i) is finitely generated for all
i ≥ 0, as desired.
For the second statement, the restriction of F⊗n to AnC is still finitely generated since AnC
is a finite index subgroup in An , and we can proceed as before.

Proposition 6.2. Let A be a group of type FP over k and let E′ be the OI(d)-group given
by E′n,λ = An . Then Hi (E′ , k) is a finitely generated OI(d)-module for all i ≥ 0.
Proof. The OI(d)-group E′ is the pullback of the OI-group E from Proposition 6.1 through
the forgetful functor Φ : OI(d) → OI. Thus Hi (E′ , k) is the pullback to OI(d) of the OImodule Hi (E, k), which is finitely generated by that proposition. The result now follows
from the fact that Φ satisfies Property (F), which follows easily from Proposition 3.2.

6.2. A filtration. Our goal in this section is to prove the following result. Recall that Σ is
the reduced shift functor on OI-modules, i.e., the cokernel of the canonical map M → Σ(M).
Also, Pd is the principal projective OVI-module associated to the object Rd of OVI.
Proposition 6.3. The OI-module Σ(Hi (U, Pd )) has a filtration where the graded pieces are
subquotients of OI-modules of the form Hi (U, Pe ) with e < d or Hj (U, M) with j < i and
M a finitely generated OVI-module.
We begin with a number of lemmas. Recall that Φ : OI(d) → OI and Ψ : OVI(d) → OVI
are the forgetful functors. Also, Ud is the OI(d)-group (Ud )n,λ = Un,λ , where Un,λ is the
group discussed in §4.1. Finally, the subscript ! is used to denote the left Kan extension
discussed in §2.2.
Lemma 6.4. Let M be an OVI(d)-module. We have an isomorphism of OI-modules
Φ! (Hi (Ud , M)) ∼
= Hi (U, Ψ! (M)).
Proof. Recall from Proposition 4.5 that
Ψ! (M)n =

M

IndUUnn,λ (Mn,λ ).

λ

Thus, by Shapiro’s lemma we have

Hi (U, Ψ! (M))n = Hi (Un , Ψ! (M)n ) =

M

Hi (Un,λ , Mn,λ ),

λ

and this is exactly Φ! (Hi (Ud , M)) by Proposition 3.6. This shows that Φ! (Hi (Ud , M)) and
Hi (U, Ψ! (M)) agree on objects, and a moment’s reflection shows that they also agree on
morphisms.

Corollary 6.5. We have Hi (U, Pd ) = Φ! (Hi (Ud , k)).
Proof. Let x = (Rd , {ei }, λ) ∈ OVI(d) where ei is the standard basis and λ = (1 < 2 < · · · <
d). Set y = (Rd , {ei }) ∈ OVI. Then Ψ! (Px ) = Py by (2.10). Since x is the initial object of
OVI(d), we have Px (y) = k[Hom(x, y)] = k for all y, so Px = k. We thus have Ψ! (k) = Pd .
Using the fact that Py is just another name for Pd , the result now follows from Lemma 6.4
with M = k.


28

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

Let U′d = Σ(Ud ). This is the OI(d)-group given by (U′d )n,λ = Un+1,λ . The group Un+1,λ
is the semi-direct product Un,λ ⋉ Rn , and this description is functorial. More precisely, let
Ed be the OI(d)-group given by (Ed )n,λ = Rn . We then have homomorphisms of OI(d)groups i : Ud → U′d and p : U′d → Ud with pi = id and ker(p) = Ed . We observe that Ed
is in fact naturally an OVI(d)-group, and thus Hi (Ed , k) is naturally an OVI(d)-module.
Proposition 6.2 says that Hi (Ed , k) is finitely generated as an OI(d)-module, so it is also
finitely generated as an OVI(d)-module.
Lemma 6.6. The OI(d)-module Σ(Hr (Ud , k)) admits a filtration where the graded pieces
are subquotients of Hi (Ud , Hr−i (Ed , k)) with 0 ≤ i ≤ r − 1.
Proof. The module Σ(Hr (Ud , k)) is the cokernel of the map
Hr (Ud , k) → Hr (U′d , k)
induced by the homomorphism i : Ud → U′d . The result therefore follows from Proposition 2.11, taking G = U′d and K = Ud and E = Ed .

Recall that if M is an OI(d)-module, then right before Proposition 3.9 we defined an
OI(d − 1)-module ∆(M).
Lemma 6.7. We have Φ! (∆(Hi (Ud , k))) = Φ! (Hi (Ud−1 , k)).
Proof. By definition,
∆(Hi (Ud , k))n,λ = Hi (Ud , k)[n]∐{∞},λ∐{∞} = Hi (U[n]∐{∞},λ∐{∞} , k).
Since {∞} is the maximal element of [n] ∐ {∞}, we have
U[n]∐{∞},λ∐{∞} ∼
= Un,λ .
Thus by Proposition 3.6 we have
Φ! (∆(Hi (Ud , k))) =

M

Hi (Un,λ , k),

λ

the sum taken over appropriate d − 1 tuples λ. Again using Proposition 3.6, this is exactly
Φ! (Hi (Ud−1 , k)).

Proof of Proposition 6.3. We have Hr (U, Pd ) = Φ! (Hr (Ud , k)) by Corollary 6.5. Thus by
Proposition 3.9, we have
Σ(Hr (U, Pd )) = Σ(Φ! (Hr (Ud , k))) = Φ! (Σ(Hr (Ud , k))) ⊕ Φ! (∆(Hr (Ud , k))).
By Lemma 6.7, the second term on the right is Φ! (Hr (Ud−1 , k)). By Corollary 6.5, this equals
Hr (U, Pd−1 ). By Lemma 6.6, the first term admits a filtration where the graded pieces are
subquotients of Φ! (Hi (Ud , Hr−i (Ed , k))) with 0 ≤ i ≤ r − 1. Setting Ni = Hr−i (Ed , k),
Proposition 6.2 implies that Ni is a finitely generated OVI(d)-module. Set Mi = Ψ! (Ni ), so
Mi is a finitely generated OVI-module. By Lemma 6.4, we have
Φ! (Hi (Ud , Ni )) = Hi (U, Mi ).
Combining all of the above, Σ(Hr (U, Pd )) admits a filtration where one graded piece is
Hr (U, Pd−1 ) and the other graded pieces are subquotients of Hi (U, Mi ) for 0 ≤ i ≤ r − 1.
The result follows.


STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

29

6.3. Proof of Theorem 1.3. We now prove Theorem 1.3. Recall the statement: if R
is a ring whose additive group is a finitely generated abelian group, k is a commutative
noetherian ring, and M is a finitely generated OVI-module, then Hi (U, M) is a finitely
generated OI-module for all i ≥ 0. Fix such k and R for the rest of this section. Consider
the following statement:
(Si ) For a finitely generated OVI-module M, the OI-module Hi (U, M) is finitely generated.
Let i be given and suppose that (Sj ) is true for all j < i (a vacuous condition if i = 0). We
will prove (Si ), and this will establish the theorem.
We first show by induction on d that Hi (U, Pd ) is a finitely generated OI-module for all
d. Suppose therefore that Hi (U, Pe ) is a finitely generated OI-module for e < d (a vacuous
condition for d = 0), and let us prove that Hi (U, Pd ) is a finitely generated OI-module. By
Proposition 6.3, the OI-module Σ(Hi (U, Pd )) has a filtration where each graded piece is a
subquotient of an OI-module of the form Hi (U, Pe ) with e < d or Hj (U, M) with j < i and
M finitely generated. By the two inductive hypotheses in force, both of these kinds of OImodules are finitely generated. Using the local noetherianity of OI-modules (Corollary 3.3),
it follows that Σ(Hi (U, Pd )) is a finitely generated OI-module. By Proposition 3.8, this
implies that the OI-module Hi (U, Pd ) is finitely generated, as desired.
Let M be a finitely generated OVI-module. Consider an exact sequence
0→K→P →M →0
where P is a finite direct sum of principal projective OVI-modules. Since the category of
OVI-modules is locally noetherian (Theorem 1.4), the OVI-module K is finitely generated.
We obtain an exact sequence
Hi (U, P ) → Hi (U, M) → Hi−1 (U, K).
By the previous paragraph, the OI-module Hi (U, P ) is finitely generated. By our inductive
hypothesis (Si−1 ), the OI-module Hi−1 (U, K) is finitely generated. Using the local noetherianity of OI (Corollary 3.3), it follows that the OI-module Hi (U, M) is finitely generated.
We have thus established (Si ), and the proof is complete.
Remark 6.8. The dimension shifting step in the third paragraph above is the only place in
the proof of the theorem where the noetherianity of OVI is used. We never need noetherianity of OVI(d).

Remark 6.9. Suppose the additive group of R is a finite rank free abelian group. We
outline an alternative way to get finite generation of the OI-module [n] 7→ Hi (Un (R); k). Let
un (R) be the Lie algebra of strictly upper-triangular n × n matrices over R. By [G, Theorem
4.3], there is a spectral sequence beginning with the Lie algebra homology of un (R) which
converges to Hi (Un (R); k). The Lie algebra homology of un (R) can be computed from the
Koszul complex, whose terms are exterior powers of un (R), and hence are finitely generated
OI-modules (this is similar to the OI-structure on F⊗n in the proof of Proposition 6.1). By
noetherianity, Hi (Un (R); k) is a finitely generated OI-module.

6.4. A variant: relaxing unipotence. For each n, we let Bn (R) denote the group of
upper-triangular invertible n × n matrices with entries in R. We denote the OI-group [n] 7→
Bn (R) by B. Also, if R is commutative and C ⊂ R× is a subgroup, then let BnC (R) ⊂ Bn (R)

30

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

be the subgroup whose determinant lies in C. We denote the OI-subgroup [n] 7→ BnC (R) by
BC .
The goal of this section is to prove Theorem 6.11 below, which is an analogue of Theorem
1.3 for BC . This requires the following lemma.
Lemma 6.10. If R is commutative and the additive group of R is finitely generated, then
the group of units R× is also finitely generated.
Proof. If R is a domain, then it is either a subring of the ring of integers of a number field,
in which case the statement follows from the Dirichlet unit theorem, or it is a finite field, in
which case there is nothing to prove.
Q
If R is reduced, then we have an injection R → P R/P where the product
is over the
Q
×
finitely many associated primes of R. Thus we have an injection R → P (R/P )× , and
hence R× is finitely generated.
Finally, in general we have an exact sequence of groups
0 → N(R) → R× → (R/N(R))× → 0,
where N(R) is the nilradical of R equipped with the group structure x ∗ y = x + y +
xy, and the first map takes x to 1 + x. (We note that the right map is surjective since
any lift of a unit in R/N(R) to R is automatically a unit.) By the previous cases, the
abelian group (R/N(R))× is finitely generated. The fact that the additive group of R is
finitely generated implies that R is noetherian, so N(R)n = 0 for some n. For each k,
the ∗ operation on N(R) descends to ordinary addition on N(R)k /N(R)k+1. Since the
additive group N(R)k /N(R)k+1 is a subquotient of the finitely generated additive group of
R, the additive group N(R)k /N(R)k+1 is finitely generated. Lifting additive generators for
N(R)/N(R)2 , N(R)2 /N(R)3 , . . . , N(R)n−1/N(R)n = N(R)n−1 to N(R) gives generators for
N(R) with respect to the operation ∗. We conclude that R× is a finitely generated group. 
Theorem 6.11. Suppose that R is commutative and C ⊂ R× is a subgroup. If M is a Bmodule which is finitely generated as an OI-module, then Hi (BC , M) is a finitely generated
OI-module for any i ≥ 0.
Proof. Let (R× )nC denote the subgroup of (R× )n consisting of sequences whose product lies
in C. We have a short exact sequence of groups
1 → Un (R) → Bn (R) → (R× )nC → 1.
The group R× is finitely generated by Lemma 6.10, and thus so is (R× )nC . The corollary
now follows from the the Hochschild–Serre spectral sequence together with Theorem 1.3 and

Proposition 6.1.
7. Application to Iwahori subgroups
The goal of this section is to prove Theorem 1.9, whose statement we now recall. Let O be
a number ring, let a ⊂ O be a nonzero proper ideal, and let k be a commutative noetherian
ring. For i ≥ 0, let X(i) be the OI-module defined by the rule [n] 7→ Hi (GLn,0 (O, a), k).
We must prove that X(i) is a finitely generated OI-module and that if k is a field then
dim X(i)n equals a polynomial in n for n ≫ 0. The polynomiality assertion follows from the
finite generation assertion together with Proposition 3.5, so we must only prove that each
X(i) is a finitely generated OI-module.

STABILITY IN THE HOMOLOGY OF UNIPOTENT GROUPS

31

Define R = O/a and let C ⊂ R× be the image of O× under the quotient map O → R. Let
GLC
n (R) be the subgroup of GLn (R) consisting of matrices whose determinant lies in C.
Strong approximation (see, e.g., [PlR, Chapter 7]) implies that the map SLn (O) → SLn (R)
is surjective. This implies that the map GLn (O) → GLC
n (R) is surjective, which implies
that the map GLn,0(O, α) → BnC (R) is surjective.
We thus have a short exact sequence
1 −→ GLn (O, a) −→ GLn,0 (O, a) −→ BnC (R) −→ 1.
The associated Hochschild–Serre spectral sequence is of the form
Hi (BnC (R), Hj (GLn (O, a), k)) =⇒ Hi+j (GLn,0(O, a), k) = X(i + j)n .
Let M(j) be the OVI(R)-module defined by M(j)n = Hj (GLn (O, a), k). Naturality of the
above spectral sequence induces a spectral sequence
(7.1)

Hi (BnC , M(j)) =⇒ X(i + j)

of OI-modules.
Letting FI be the category of finite sets and injections, the rule defining M(j) also endows
it with an FI-module structure, which is finitely generated by [CEFN, Theorem D]. The
inclusion OI → FI satisfies Property (F) (see [SaSn, Theorem 7.1.4]), so by Proposition
2.3 the induced OI-module structure on M(j) is also finitely generated. This implies in
particular that M(j) is a finitely generated OVI(R)-module. Theorem 6.11 now implies
that Hi (B C (R), M(j)) is a finitely generated OI-module. Since the category of OI-modules
is locally noetherian (see Corollary 3.3), we can now deduce from (7.1) that each X(i) is a
finitely generated OI-module, as desired.
References
[AHi]

M. Aschenbrenner, C. J. Hillar, Finite generation of symmetric ideals, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 359
(2007), no. 11, 5171–5192, arXiv:math/0411514v3.
Erratum: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 361 (2009), no. 10, 5627.
[B]
K. Brown, Cohomology of Groups, corrected reprint of the 1982 original, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 87, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994.
[CEF] T. Church, J. Ellenberg, B. Farb, FI-modules and stability for representations of symmetric groups,
Duke Math. J. 164 (2015), no. 9, 1833–1910, arXiv:1204.4533v4.
[CEFN] T. Church, J. Ellenberg, B. Farb, Rohit Nagpal, FI-modules over Noetherian rings, Geom. Top. 18
(2014), 2951–2984, arXiv:1210.1854v2.
[Co]
D. E. Cohen, On the laws of a metabelian variety, J. Algebra 5 (1967), 267–273.
[D]
W. G. Dwyer, Homology of integral upper-triangular matrices, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 94 (1985),
no. 3, 523–528.
[G]
L. Grünenfelder, On the homology of filtered and graded rings, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 14 (1979),
21–37.
[Ha]
P. Hall, Finiteness conditions for soluble groups, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 4 (1954), 419–436.
[Hig]
G. Higman, Ordering by divisibility in abstract algebras, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 2 (1952),
326–336.
[HilSu] C. Hillar, S. Sullivant, Finite Gröbner bases in infinite dimensional polynomial rings and applications, Adv. Math. 221 (2012), 1–25, arXiv:0908.1777v2.
[K]
J. B. Kruskal, The theory of well-quasi-ordering: A frequently discovered concept, J. Combinatorial
Theory Ser. A 13 (1972), 297–305.
[LSz]
R. Lee, R. H. Szczarba, On the homology and cohomology of congruence subgroups, Invent. Math.
33 (1976), no. 1, 15–53.

32

ANDREW PUTMAN, STEVEN V SAM, AND ANDREW SNOWDEN

[PlR]
[Pu]
[PuSa]
[SaSn]
[St]
[VdK]
[W]

V. Platonov, A. Rapinchuk, Algebraic Groups and Number Theory, translated from the 1991 Russian
original by R. Rowen, Pure and Applied Mathematics, 139, Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1994.
A. Putman, Stability in the homology of congruence subgroups, Invent. Math. 202 (2015), no. 3,
987–1027, arXiv:1201.4876v5.
A. Putman, S. Sam, Representation stability and finite linear groups, Duke Math. J. 166 (2017),
no. 13, 2521–2598, arXiv:1408.3694v3.
S. Sam, A. Snowden, Gröbner methods for representations of combinatorial categories, J. Amer.
Math. Soc. 30 (2017), 159–203, arXiv:1409.1670v3.
R. Stanley, Enumerative Combinatorics. Volume 1. Second edition, Cambridge Studies in Advanced
Mathematics 49, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.
W. van der Kallen, Homology stability for linear groups, Invent. Math. 60 (1980), no. 3, 269–295.
C. Weibel, An introduction to homological algebra, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics
38, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994.

Department of Mathematics, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN
E-mail address: andyp@nd.edu
URL: http://www.nd.edu/~andyp/
Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
E-mail address: svs@math.wisc.edu
URL: http://math.wisc.edu/~svs/
Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
E-mail address: asnowden@umich.edu
URL: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~asnowden/

