HOPF ALGEBRAS FOR MATROIDS OVER HYPERFIELDS

arXiv:1712.08903v1 [math.CO] 24 Dec 2017

CHRISTOPHER EPPOLITO, JAIUNG JUN, AND MATT SZCZESNY

Abstract. Recently, M. Baker and N. Bowler introduced the notion of matroids over hyperfields as a unifying theory of various generalizations of matroids. In this paper we generalize the notion of minors and direct sums from
ordinary matroids to matroids over hyperfields. Using this we generalize the
classical construction of matroid-minor Hopf algebras to the case of matroids
over hyperfields.

1.

Introduction

A basic result in algebraic geometry is that the category Affk of affine schemes over a field
k is equivalent to the opposite category Algop
k of the category of commutative k-algebras.
When one enhances Affk to affine group schemes over k, one obtains Hopf algebras as an
enrichment of commutative k-algebras. In fact, Hopf algebras naturally appear not only in
algebraic geometry, but also in various fields of mathematics including (but not limited to)
algebraic topology, representation theory, quantum field theory, and combinatorics. For a
brief historical background for Hopf algebras, we refer the readers to [4]. For a comprehensive
introduction to Hopf algebras in combinatorics, we refer the readers to [12]. In this paper,
our main interest is in Hopf algebras arising in combinatorics, namely those obtained from
matroids (or more generally matroids over hyperfields).
Matroids are combinatorial objects arising in two main ways: (1) as a model of cycle
structures in graphs and (2) as combinatorial abstractions of linear independence properties
in vector spaces. While matroids have their own charms, it is their rich interplay with other
areas of mathematics which makes them truly interesting. For instance, N. Mnëv’s universality
theorem [16] roughly states that any semi-algebraic set in Rn is the moduli space of realizations
of an oriented matroid (up to homotopy equivalence). There is an analogue in algebraic
geometry known as Murphy’s Law by R. Vakil [21] for ordinary matroids. Valuated matroids
(a generalization of matroids by giving certain “weights” to bases) are analogous to “linear
spaces” in the setting of tropical geometry. Indeed a moduli space of valuated matroids (a
tropical analogue of a Grassmannian), called a Dressian, has received much attention.
Hopf algebras arising in combinatorics are usually created to encode the basic operations of
an interesting class of combinatorial objects. Matroids have several basic operations, the most
basic of which are deletion, contraction, and direct sum; an iterated sequence of deletions and
contractions on a matroid results in a minor of the matroid. The Hopf algebra associated
to a set of isomorphism classes of matroids closed under taking minors and direct sums is
called a matroid-minor Hopf algebra. In this paper, we generalize the construction of the
matroid-minor Hopf algebra to the setting of matroids over hyperfields, first introduced by
M. Baker and N. Bowler in [5].
Date: December 27, 2017.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 05E99(primary), 16T05(secondary).
Key words and phrases. matroid, hyperfield, matroid over hyperfields, Hopf algebra, minor, direct sum.
1

Remark 1.1. In fact, many combinatorial objects posses notions of “deletion” and “contraction” and hence one can associate Hopf algeras (or bialgebras in the disconnected case).
In [10], C. Dupont, A. Fink, and L. Moci associate a universal Tutte character to such combinatorial objects specializing to Tutte polynomials in the case of matroids and graphs (among
others) generalizing the work [14] of T. Krajewski, I. Moffatt, and A. Tanasa. See §6.3 in
connection with our work.
Hyperfields were first introduced by M. Krasner in his work [15] on an approximation of
a local field of positive characteristic by using local fields of characteristic zero. Krasner’s
motivation was to impose, for a given multiplicative subgroup G of a commutative ring A,
“ring-like” structure on the set of equivalence classes A/G (G acts on A by left multiplication). Krasner abstracted algebraic properties of A/G and defined hyperrings, in particular,
hyperfields. Roughly speaking, hyperfields are fields with multi-valued addition. For instance,
when A = k is a field and G = k − {0}, one has k/G = {[0], [1]}, where [0] (resp. [1]) is
the equivalence of 0 (resp. 1). Then one defines [1] + [1] = {[0], [1]}. This structure is called
the Krasner hyperfield (see, Example 2.12). After Krasner’s work, hyperfields (or hyperrings, in general) have been studied mainly in applied mathematics. Recently several authors
(including the second author of the current paper) began to investigate hyperstructures in
the context of algebraic geometry and number theory. Furthermore, very recently M. Baker
(later with N. Bowler) employ hyperfields in combinatorics: Baker and Bowler found a beautiful framework which simultaneously generalizes the notion of linear subspaces, matroids,
oriented matroids, and valuated matroids. In light of various fruitful applications of Hopf
algebra methods in combinatorics, one might naturally ask the following:
Question. Can we generalize matroid-minor Hopf algebras to the case of matroids over hyperfields?
We address this question in this paper. We first define minors for matroids over hyperfields
which generalize the definition of minors for ordinary matroids:
Theorem A (§3). Let H be a hyperfield. There are two cryptomorphic definitions (circuits
and Grassmann-Plücker functions) of minors of matroids over H. Furthermore, if M is a
weak (resp. strong) matroid over H, then all minors of M are weak (resp. strong).
Next, we introduce the notion of direct sums of matroids over hyperfields and prove that
direct sums preserve the type (weak or strong) of matroids over hyperfields in the following
sense:
Theorem B (§3). Let H be a hyperfield. There are two cryptomorphic definitions (circuits
and Grassmann-Plücker functions) of direct sums of matroids over H. Furthermore, if M1
and M2 are (weak or strong) matroids over H, then the direct sum M = M1 ⊕ M2 is always
a weak matroid over H and M is strong if and only if both M1 and M2 are strong.
Remark 1.2. We note that our definition of direct sum is a natural generalization of the
direct sum of ordinary matroids. It also meshes nicely with the definition of direct sums for
matroids over fuzzy rings in [9].
By appealing to the above results, we define Hopf algebras for matroids over hyperfields in
§5. Finally, in §6, we explain how our current work can be thought in views of matroids over
fuzzy rings as in Dress-Wenzel theory [9], matroids over partial hyperfields [6], and universal
Tutte characters [10] as well as Tutte polynomials of Hopf algebras [14].
2

Acknowledgments
The first author would like to thank Laura Anderson for many helpful comments and conversations as well as much patience and support. The second author would like to thank Boston
University for their support during his visit. The third author gratefully acknowledges the
support of a Simons Foundation Collaboration Grant.
2.

Preliminaries

In this section, we recall the definitions of the following for readers who are not familiar
with these key notions:
• Matroids.
• Hyperfields and matroids over hyperfields.
• Hopf algebras and matroid-minor Hopf algebras.
In what follows, we will only consider matroids on a finite set unless otherwise stated. For
infinite matroids in the context of the current paper, we refer readers to [8].
Notice that we let N = Z≥0 .
2.1 Matroids. This section is intended as a brief refresher on the basic notions and operations in matroid theory. Readers familiar with matroid theory may skip this section. We
refer readers to [17] and [22] for further details and proofs of the facts from this section.
A matroid is a combinatorial model for the properties of linear independence in a (finite
dimensional) vector space and for the properties of cycles in combinatorial graphs. It is wellknown that there are several “cryptomorphic” definitions for matroids. Chief among these are
the notions of bases and circuits.
Let E be a finite set (the ground set of a matroid). A nonempty collection B ⊆ P(E),
where P(E) is the power set of E, is a set of bases of a matroid when B satisfies the basis
exchange axiom, given below:
(1) For all X, Y ∈ B and all x ∈ X \ Y there is an element y ∈ Y \ X such that
(X \ {x}) ∪ {y} ∈ B.
In the context of (finite dimensional) vector spaces, any pair of bases B1 , B2 of a given subspace
satisfies this property by the Steinitz Exchange Lemma. In the context of finite graphs, this
is a corollary of the Tree Exchange Property satisfied by the edge sets of spanning forests in
the graph.
A collection C ⊆ P(E) is a set of circuits of a matroid on E when C satisfies the following
three axioms:
(1) (Nondegeneracy) ∅ ∈
/ C.
(2) (Incomparability) If X, Y ∈ C and X ⊆ Y , then X = Y .
(3) (Circuit elimination) For all X, Y ∈ C and all e ∈ X ∩ Y , there is a Z ∈ C such that
Z ⊆ (X ∪ Y ) \ {e}.
In the context of (finite) graphs, circuits are precisely the edge sets of cycles in the graph. In
the context of (finite dimensional) vector spaces, circuits correspond with minimal dependence
relations on a finite set of vectors.
Remark 2.1. There is a natural bijection between sets of circuits of a matroid on E and sets
of bases of a matroid on E. Given a set C of circuits of a matroid, we define B C to be the set
of maximal subsets of E not containing any element of C. Likewise, given a set B of bases
of a matroid, we define C B to be the set of minimal nonempty subsets of E which are not
contained in any element of B. It is a standard exercise to show that (1) B C is a set of bases
of a matroid, (2) C B is a set of circuits of a matroid, and (3) both B C B = B and C BC = C.
3

In this sense B and C B carry the same information as C B and B C respectively; these are thus
said to determine the same matroid on E “cryptomorphically.”
Example 2.2. The motivating examples of matroids (hinted at above) are given as follows:
(1) Let V be a finite dimensional vector space and E ⊆ V a spanning set of vectors.
The bases of V contained in E form the bases of a matroid on E, and the minimal
dependent subsets of E form the circuits of a matroid on E. Furthermore, these are
the same matroid.
(2) Let Γ be a finite, undirected graph with edge set E (loops and parallel edges are
allowed). The sets of edges of spanning forests in Γ form the bases of a matroid on
E, and the sets of edges of cycles form the circuits of a matroid on E. Furthermore,
these are the same matroid (called the graphic matroid of Γ).
One can define the notion of isomorphisms of matroids as follows.
Definition 2.3. Let M1 (resp. M2 ) be a matroid on E1 (resp. E2 ) defined by a set B1 (resp. B2 )
of bases. We say that M1 is isomorphic to M2 if there exists a bijection f : E1 → E2 such
that f (B) ∈ B2 if and only if B ∈ B1 . In this case, f is said to be an isomorphism.
Example 2.4. Let Γ1 and Γ2 be finite graphs and M1 and M2 be the corresponding graphic
matroids. Every graph isomorphism between Γ1 and Γ2 gives rise to a matroid isomorphism
between M1 and M2 , but the converse need not hold.
Recall that given any base B ∈ B(M ) and any element e ∈ E \ B, there is a unique circuit
(fundamental circuit ) CB,e of e with respect to B such that CB,e ⊆ B ∪ {e}.
One can construct new matroids from given matroids as follows:
Definition 2.5 (Direct sum of matroids). Let M1 and M2 be matroids on E1 and E2 given
by bases B1 and B2 respectively. The direct sum M1 ⊕ M2 is the matroid on E1 ⊔ E2 given
by the bases B = {B1 ⊔ B2 | Bi ∈ Bi for i = 1, 2}.
Remark 2.6. One can easily check that M1 ⊕ M2 is indeed a matroid on E1 ⊔ E2 .
Definition 2.7 (Dual, Restriction, Deletion, and Contraction). Let M be a matroid on a
finite set EM with the set BM of bases and the set CM of circuits. Let S be a subset of EM .
(1) The dual M ∗ of M is a matroid on EM given by bases
BM ∗ := {EM − B | B ∈ BM } .
(2) The restriction M |S of M to S is a matroid on S given by circuits
C M |S = {D ⊆ S | D ∈ C M } .
(3) The deletion M \ S of S is the matroid M \ S := M |(E \ S).
(4) The contraction of M by S is M/S := (M ∗ \ S)∗ .
It is easy to show that M |S, M ∗ , and M/S are indeed matroids. A minor of a matroid M
is any matroid obtained from M by a series of deletions and/or contractions. Basic properties
of these operations are given below:
Proposition 2.8. Let M be a matroid on E. We have the following for all disjoint subsets
S and T of E:
(1) M/∅ = M = M \ ∅
(2) (M \ S) \ T = M \ (S ∪ T )
(3) (M/S)/T = M/(S ∪ T )
(4) (M \ S)/T = (M/T ) \ S
In particular, the minors of a matroid are in one-to-one correspondence with the ordered pairs
of disjoint subsets of the ground set by deleting the first and contracting the second.
4

2.2 Matroids over hyperfields. In this section, we review basic definitions and properties
for matroids over hyperfields first introduced by Baker and Bowler in [5]. Let’s first recall
the definition of a hyperfield. By a hyperaddition on a nonempty set H, we mean a function
+ : H × H → P ∗ (H) such that +(a, b) = +(b, a) for all a, b ∈ H, where P ∗ (H) is the set of
nonempty subsets of H. We will simply write a + b for +(a, b). A hyperaddition + on H is
associative if the following condition holds: for all a, b, c ∈ H,
(1)

a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c.

S
Note that in general for subsets A and B of H, we write A + B := a∈A,b∈B a + b and hence
the notation in (1) makes sense. Also, we will always write a singleton {a} as a.
Definition 2.9. Let H be a nonempty set with an associative hyperaddition +. We say that
(H, +) is a canonical hypergroup when the following conditions hold:
• ∃! 0 ∈ H such that a + 0 = a for all a ∈ H; existence of identity.
• ∀ a ∈ H, ∃! b (=: −a) ∈ H such that 0 ∈ a + b; existence of inverses.
• ∀ a, b, c ∈ H, if a ∈ b + c, then c ∈ a + (−b); ‘hyper-subtraction’ or reversibility.
We will write a − b instead of a + (−b) for brevity of notation.
Definition 2.10. By a hyperring, we mean a nonempty set H with a binary operation · and
hyperaddition + such that (H, +, 0) is a canonical hypergroup and (H, ·, 1) is a commutative
monoid satisfying the following conditions: for all a, b, c ∈ H,
a · (b + c) = a · b + a · c,

0 · a = 0,

and 1 6= 0.

When (H − {0}, ·, 1) is a group, we call H a hyperfield.
Definition 2.11. Let H1 and H2 be hyperrings. A homomorphism of hyperrings from H1 to
H2 is a function f : H1 → H2 such that f is a monoid morphism with respect to multiplication
satisfying the following conditions:
f (0) = 0 and f (a + b) ⊆ f (a) + f (b), ∀a, b ∈ H1 .
The following are some typical examples of hyperfields found in the literature:
Example 2.12 (K; Krasner hyperfield). Let K := {0, 1} and impose the usual multiplication
0 · 0 = 0, 1 · 1 = 1, and 0 · 1 = 0. Hyperaddition is defined as 0 + 1 = 1, 0 + 0 = 0, and
1 + 1 = K. The structure K is the Krasner hyperfield.
Example 2.13 (S; hyperfield of signs). Let S := {−1, 0, 1} and impose multiplication in
a usual way following the rule of signs; 1 · 1 = 1, (−1) · 1 = (−1), (−1) · (−1) = 1, and
1 · 0 = (−1) · 0 = 0 · 0 = 0. Hyperaddition also follows the rule of signs as follows:
1 + 1 = 1, (−1) + (−1) = (−1), 1 + 0 = 1, (−1) + 0 = (−1), 0 + 0 = 0, 1 + (−1) = S.
The structure S is the hyperfield of signs.
Example 2.14 (P; phase hyperfield). Let P := S 1 ∪ {0}, where S 1 is the unit circle in the
complex plane. The multiplication on P is the usual multiplication of complex numbers.
Hyperaddition is defined by:

{−a, 0, a}
if a = −b (−b as a complex number)
a+b=
the shorter open arc connecting a and b if a 6= −b,
The structure P is the phase hyperfield.
5

Example 2.15 (T; tropical hyperfield). Let G be a (multiplicative) totally ordered abelian
group. Then one can enrich the structure of G to define a hyperfield. To be precise, let
Ghyp := G ∪ {−∞} and define multiplication via the multiplication of G together with the
rule g · (−∞) = −∞ for all g ∈ G. Hyperaddition is defined as follows:

max{a, b} if a 6= b
a+b=
[−∞, a]
if a = b,

where [−∞, a] := {g ∈ Ghyp | g ≤ a} with −∞ the smallest element. Then one can easily
see that Ghyp is a hyperfield. When G = R, the set of real numbers (considered as a totally
ordered abelian group with respect to the usual addition), we let T := Rhyp . The structure T
is the tropical hyperfield.

Remark 2.16. One easily observes that for any hyperfield H, there exists a unique homomorphism ϕ : H → K sending every nonzero element to 1 and 0 to 0. In other words, K is
the final object in the category of hyperfields.
In what follows, let (H, ⊞, ⊙) be a hyperfield, H × = H − {0H }, r a positive integer,
[r] = {1, ..., r}, x an element of E r such that x(i) ∈ E is the ith coordinate of x unless otherwise stated. Now we recall the two notions (weak and strong) of matroids over hyperfields
introduced by Baker and Bowler. These notions are given cryptomorphically by structures
analogous to the bases and circuits of ordinary matroids. Their definition simultaneously generalizes several existing theories of “matroids with extra structure,” evidenced by the following
examples:
Example 2.17. Matroids over the following hyperfields have been studied in the past:
• A (strong or weak) matroid over a field K is a linear subspace.
• A (strong or weak) matroid over the Krasner hyperfield K is an ordinary matroid.
• A (strong or weak) matroid over the hyperfield of signs S is an oriented matroid.
• A (strong or weak) matroid over the tropical hyperfield T is a valuated matroid.
We first recall the generalization of bases to the setting of matroids over hyperfields. This
is done via Grassmann-Plücker functions.
Definition 2.18. Let H be a hyperfield, E a finite set, r a nonnegative integer, and Σr the
symmetric group on r letters with a canonical action on E r (acting on indices).
(1) A function ϕ : E r → H is a nontrivial H-alternating function when:
(G1) The function ϕ is not identically zero.
(G2) For all x ∈ E r and all σ ∈ Σr we have ϕ(σ · x) = sgn(σ)ϕ(x).
(G3) If x ∈ E r has x(i) = x(j) for some i < j, then ϕ(x) = 0H .
(2) A nontrivial H-alternating function ϕ : E r → H is a weak-type Grassmann-Plücker
function over H when:
(WG) For all a, b, c, d ∈ E and all x ∈ E r−2 we have
0H ∈ ϕ(a, b, x)ϕ(c, d, x) − ϕ(a, c, x)ϕ(b, d, x) + ϕ(b, c, x)ϕ(a, d, x).
(3) A nontrivial H-alternating function ϕ : E r → H is a strong-type Grassmann-Plücker
function over H when:
(SG) For all x ∈ E r+1 and all y ∈ E r−1 we have
0H ∈

r+1
X
(−1)k ϕ(x|[r+1]\{k} )ϕ(x(k), y).
k=1

(4) The rank of a Grassmann-Plücker function ϕ : E r → H is r.
(5) Two Grassmann-Plücker functions ϕ, ψ : E r → H are equivalent when there is an
element a ∈ H × with ψ = a ⊙ ϕ.
6

A matroid over H is an H × -equivalence class [ϕ] of a Grassmann-Plücker function ϕ.
Before presenting circuits of matroids over hyperfields, we need the following technical
definition.
Definition 2.19. Let S be a collection of inclusion-incomparable subsets of a set E. A
modular pair in S is a pair of distinct elements X, Y ∈ S such that for all A, B ∈ S, if
A ∪ B ⊆ X ∪ Y , then A ∪ B = X ∪ Y .
Having Definition 2.19, we can now give definitions P
of collections of circuits for matroids
over hyperfields. In what follows, we will simply write
instead of ⊞ if the context is clear.

Definition 2.20. Let E be a finite set, (H, ⊞, ⊙) a hyperfield, H E the set of functions from
E to H, and for any X ∈ H E , we define supp(X) := {a ∈ E | X(a) 6= 0H }.
(1) A collection C ⊆ H E is a family of pre-circuits over H when it satisfies the following
axioms:
(C1) 0 ∈
/C
×
(C2) H ⊙ C = C
(C3) For all X, Y ∈ C, if supp(X) ⊆ supp(Y ), then Y = a ⊙ X for some a ∈ H × .
(2) A pre-circuit set C over H is a weak-type circuit set when it satisfies the following
additional axiom:
(WC) ∀ X, Y in C such that {supp(X), supp(Y )} forms a modular pair in supp(C) :=
{supp(X) | X ∈ C} and for all e ∈ supp(X) ∩ supp(Y ), there is a Z ∈ C such
that
Z(e) = 0H and Z ∈ X(e) ⊙ Y − Y (e) ⊙ X,
i.e., for all f ∈ E, Z(f ) ∈ X(e) ⊙ Y (f ) − Y (e) ⊙ X(f ).
(3) A pre-circuit set C over H is a strong-type circuit set when it satisfies the following
additional axioms:
(SC1) The set supp(C) is the set of circuits of an ordinary matroid MC .
(SC2) For all bases B ∈ B C and all X ∈ C we have
X
X∈
X(e) ⊙ YB,e ,
e∈E\B

where YB,e is the (unique) element of C with YB,e (e) = 1 and supp(YB,e ) is the
fundamental circuit of e with respect to B.
Remark 2.21. The definition of strong-type circuit sets given above is not the original definition; rather this is equivalent to the original (much less intuitive) definition by [5, Theorem
3.8, Remark 3.9]. For our purposes, we shall use the definition given above.
The following result is proved in [5]:
Proposition 2.22. Let H be a hyperfield. The H × -orbits of Grassmann-Plücker functions
over H are in natural one-to-one correspondence with the H-circuits of a matroid, preserving
both ranks and types (weak and strong).
The correspondence is described as follows:
Given a Grassmann-Plücker function ϕ over H, one first shows that the collection of subsets
B ⊆ E for which an ordering B has ϕ(B) 6= 0H forms a set of bases for an ordinary matroid
Mϕ . Next, one can define a set of H-circuits by defining for all ordered bases B of Mϕ and
all e ∈ E \ B a function X = XB,e supported on the fundamental circuit for e by B via the
equality
X(B(i))X(e)−1 = (−1)i ϕ(e, B|[r]\{i} )ϕ(B)−1
(2)
7

This equality uniquely determines X : E → H, up to the multiplicative action of H × . The
collection of all such X is a collection of H-circuits of the same type as ϕ.
Constructing a Grassmann-Plücker function from circuits is more difficult to describe, and
requires the additional notion of dual pairs. An explicit description of this construction is
unnecessary for our purposes; the interested reader is referred to [5].
We now describe the duality operation for matroids over hyperfields in terms of GrassmannPlücker functions and subsequently in terms of circuits. It should be noted that the duality
described in [5] incorporates a notion of conjugation generalizing the complex conjugation.
This changes the duality operation, but the change is equally well described by another
operation (called “pushforward through a morphism”) as noted in a footnote in [5, §6]. Our
treatment will also assume that the conjugation is trivial.
Fix a total ordering ≤ of E. A dual of a Grassmann-Plücker function ϕ over H is defined by
the equation ϕ∗ (B) := sgn≤ (B, E \ B)ϕ(E \ B) for all cobases B of the underlying matroid
of ϕ, using the convention that S denotes the ordered tuple with coordinates the elements
of S arranged according to our fixed total ordering on E and sgn≤ (B, E \ B) denotes the
sign of the permutation given by the word (B, E \ B) with respect to the ordering ≤. The
definition can be uniquely extended to the set E #E−r by alternation and the degeneracy
conditions for Grassmann-Plücker functions over H. It is relatively easy to see that if ϕ is
a Grassmann-Plücker function, then ϕ∗ is a Grassmann-Plücker function of the same type.
Notice that this duality is well-defined up to the chosen ordering; a different ordering will
induce a Grassmann-Plücker function which is multiplied by the sign of the permutation used
to translate between the two orderings. In particular, this notion of duality is constant on
the level of H × -orbits of Grassmann-Plücker functions, and thus sends an H-matroid M to
an H-matroid M ∗ of the same type despite the fact that there is no canonical dual to the
original Grassmann-Plücker function.
The dual of a circuit set requires some more care to define; it is here that the contrast
between weak and strong H-matroids is most stark.
Definition 2.23. Let H be a hyperfield and E a finite set.
(1) The dot product of two functions X, Y : E → H is the following subset of H:
X
X(e)Y (e).
X · Y :=
e∈E

(2) Two functions X and Y are strong orthogonal, denoted X ⊥s Y , when
0H ∈ X · Y.

(3) Two functions X and Y are weak orthogonal, denoted X ⊥w Y , when either X ⊥s Y
or the following condition holds:
#(supp(X) ∩ supp(Y )) > 3.
(4) Let C be a set of strong H-circuits on E, we define the following subset of H E :
C ⊥s := {X : E → H | X ⊥s Y for all Y ∈ C} .
(5) Let C be a set of weak H-circuits, we define the following subset of H E :
C ⊥w := {X : E → H | X ⊥w Y for all Y ∈ C} .
For ease of notation the symbol ⊥ is to be understood in context as either ⊥s or ⊥w .
Definition 2.24. Let H be a hyperfield and M be a weak (resp. strong) H-matroid with the
set C of weak type (resp. strong type) H-circuits. The cocircuits of C, denoted by C ∗ , are the
elements of the perpendicular set C ⊥w (resp. C ⊥s ) with minimal support.
8

Remark 2.25. In [5, §6.6], Baker and Bowler show that this determines an H-matroid with
the properties supp(C ∗ ) = (supp(C))∗ and C ∗∗ = C; in other words, the underlying matroid of
the dual is the dual of the underlying matroid and the double dual is identical to the original
H-matroid.
Remark 2.26. From an algebraic geometric view point, Baker and Bowler’s definition of
matroids over hyperfields can be considered as points of a Grassmannian over a hyperfield
H. Motivated by this observation, in [13], the second author proves that certain topological
spaces (the underlying spaces of a scheme, Berkovich analytificaiton of schemes, real schemes)
are homeomorphic to sets of rational points of a scheme over a hyperfield. Also, recently
L. Anderson and J. Davis defined and investigated hyperfield Grassmannians in connection
to the MacPhersonian (from oriented matroid theory) in [2].
2.3 Matroid-Minor Hopf algebras. In this subsection, we recall the definition of matroidminor Hopf algebras. First we briefly recall the definition of Hopf algebras; interested readers
are referred to [7] for more details.
Definition 2.27. Let k be a field. A commutative k-algebra A is a Hopf algebra if A is
equipped with maps
(1) (Comultiplication) ∆ : A → A ⊗k A,
(2) (Counit) ε : A → k,
(3) (Antipode) S : A → A
such that the following diagrams commute:
A ⊗k A

∆⊗id

id ⊗∆

∆

A

A ⊗k A ⊗k A

∆

A ⊗k A,

A ⊗k A

ε⊗id

k ⊗k A
≃

∆
id

A

A,

A ⊗k A

µ◦(S⊗id)

i

∆

A

A

ε

k,

where µ : A⊗k A → A is the multiplication of A. If A is only equipped with ∆ and ε satisfying
the first two commutative diagrams, then A is a bialgebra.
Definition 2.28. Let (A, µ, ∆, η, ε) be a bialgebra over a field k.
L
(1) A is graded if there is a grading A = i∈N Ai which is compatible with the bialgebra
structure of A, i.e., µ, ∆, η, and ε are graded k-linear maps.
(2) A is connected if A is graded and A0 = k.
Definition 2.29. Let A1 and A2 be Hopf algebras over a field k. A homomorphism of Hopf
algebras is a k-bialgebra map ϕ : A1 → A2 which preserves the antipodes, i.e., SA1 ϕ = ϕSA2 .
The following theorem shows that indeed there is no difference between bialgebra maps
and Hopf algebra maps.
Theorem 2.30. [7, Proposition 4.2.5.] Let A1 and A2 be Hopf algebras over a field k. Let
ϕ : A1 → A2 be a morphism of k-bialgebras. Then ϕ is indeed a homomorphism of Hopf
algebras.
We also introduce the following notation:
Definition 2.31. Let A be a Hopf algebra over a field k and i ∈ Z≥1 .
(1) (Iterated multiplication): µi : A⊗(i+1) → A is defined inductively as
µi := µ ◦ (id ⊗µ(i−1) ).
(2) (Iterated comultiplication): ∆i : A → A⊗(i+1) is defined inductively as
∆i := (id ⊗∆(i−1) ) ◦ ∆.
9

Now, let’s recall the definition of matroid-minor Hopf algebras, first introduced by W. R. Schmitt
in [18]. Let M be a collection of matroids which is closed under taking minors and direct
sums. Let Miso be the set of isomorphism classes of matroids in M. For a matroid M in
M, we write [M ] for the isomorphism class of M in Miso . One easily see that Miso can be
enriched to a commutative monoid with the direct sum:
[M1 ] · [M2 ] := [M1 ⊕ M2 ]
and the identity [∅], the equivalence class of the empty matroid (considered as the unique
matroid associated to the empty ground set). Let A be the monoid algebra k[Miso ] over a
field k.
For any matroid M , let EM denote the ground set of M . Consider the following maps:
• (Comultiplication)
X
∆ : k[Miso ] → k[Miso ] ⊗k k[Miso ], [M ] 7→
[M |S ] ⊗ [M/S].
S⊆EM

• (Counit)
ε : k[Miso ] → k,

[M ] 7→



1 if EM = ∅
0 if EM 6= ∅,

Under the above maps, k[Miso ] becomes a connected bialgebra; k[Miso ] is graded by cardinalities of ground sets. It follows from the result of M. Takeuchi [20] that k[Miso ] has a
unique Hopf algebra structure with a unique antipode S given by:
X
S=
(−1)i µi−1 ◦ π ⊗i ◦ ∆i−1 ,
(3)
i∈N

µ−1

where
is a canonical map from k to k[Miso ], ∆−1 := ε, and π : k[Miso ] → k[Miso ] is the
projection map defined by

id if n ≥ 1
π|An
0 if n = 0,
and extended linearly to k[Miso ], where An is the nth graded piece of A.
3.

Minors and sums of matroids over hyperfields

In this section we explicitly write out the constructions of restriction, deletion, contraction,
and direct sums for matroids over hyperfields. We do this cryptomorphically via both circuits
and Grassmann-Plücker functions in both the weak and strong cases. Primarily, we define
the restriction, and subsequently use our characterization to derive the other cryptomorphic
descriptions of minors. It should be noted that formulas for deletion and contraction in the
case of phirotopes are given in [3] for phased matroids and in [5] for general Grassmann-Plücker
function without proof.1 For completeness, we give full proofs and expand the previous work
by giving formulas for the circuits of these objects as well.
3.1 Circuits of H-Matroid Restrictions. Let H be a hyperfield, E be a finite set, C be
a set of (either weak-type or strong-type) H-circuits on E, and S ⊆ E. Recall that H S is the
set of functions from S to H. We define the following notation:

C |S := X|S ∈ H S X ∈ C and supp(X) ⊆ S .
(4)

We have the following:

1There is an error in [3]; in particular, the authors make the false assumption that the Axiom (WG) implies

Axiom (SG). Thus they fail to handle the weak case separately from the strong case. While [5] fixes this issue,
the authors merely state this result without presenting details.
10

Proposition 3.1. Let C be a set of weak-type (resp. strong-type) H-circuits of a matroid M
over H on a ground set E.
(1) ∀ S ⊆ E, the set C |S is a set of weak-type (resp. strong-type) H-circuits on S.
(2) The underlying matroid of the H-matroid M determined by C |S is precisely the restriction of the underlying matroid supp(M )|S. In other words, the restriction commutes
with the push-forward operation to the Krasner hyperfield K.
Proof. One can easily see that if C is a set of circuits of an H-matroid, then
supp(C |S) = supp(C)|S
and hence supp(C |S) is the set of circuits of the restriction of the ordinary matroid; in
particular, the second statement follows immediately from the first statement.
Now, we prove the first statement. Suppose that X, Y ∈ C have supp(X), supp(Y ) ⊆ S. In
this case, we have that
supp(X|S ) = supp(X) and supp(Y |S ) = supp(Y ).

(5)

We first claim that if C is a set of pre-circuits over H on E, then C |S is also a set of pre-circuits
over H on S. Indeed, since supp(X) ⊆ S and X 6= 0, we have that X|S 6= 0 and
(a ⊙ X|S ) ∈ C |S,

∀a ∈ H × .

Finally, if supp(X|S ) ⊆ supp(Y |S ), then
supp(X) = supp(X|S ) ⊆ supp(Y |S ) = supp(Y )
yields Y = a ⊙ X for some a ∈ H × and hence Y |S = a ⊙ X|S as desired. This proves that
C|S is a set of pre-circuits over H on S.
Next we prove that if C is a set of weak-type H-circuits on E, then C |S is also a set of weaktype H-circuits on S. In fact, if X|S and Y |S form a modular pair in C |S, then (5) implies
immediately that X and Y are a modular pair as well in C. More precisely, in this case, the
condition
A ∪ B ⊆ supp(X) ∪ supp(Y ) ⊆ S, A, B ⊂ supp(C)
implies that A, B ⊆ S. Thus, ∀ e ∈ supp(X) ∩ supp(Y ), there exists Z ∈ C such that
Z(e) = 0 and Z ∈ X(e)Y − Y (e)X.

(6)

On the other hand, if a ∈
/ supp(X) ∪ supp(Y ), then
X(e)Y (a) − Y (e)X(a) = {0}.
Thus, for A ∈ C, A ∈ X(e)Y − Y (e)X implies that
supp(A) ⊆ supp(X) ∪ supp(Y ) ⊆ S.
Hence, supp(Z) ⊆ S and Z|S ∈ C|S . One can easily see that C |S satisfies the Axiom (WC).
This proves that C|S is a set of weak-type H-circuits on S.
Finally, we show that if C is a set of strong-type H-circuits on E, then C |S is also a set of
strong-type H-circuits on S. As we mentioned before, supp(C |S) = supp(C)|S is a set of
circuits of a matroid as these are given by the same formula and supp C is a set of circuits
of an ordinary matroid; in particular C |S satisfies axiom (SC1). Let B C |S (resp. BC ) be the
set of bases of an underlying matroid MC |S (resp. MC ) given by the set supp(C |S) (resp.
supp(C)) of circuits. If B ∈ BC |S , then we have that
B = B̃ ∩ S for some B̃ ∈ BC .
It follows from (SC2), applied to C with B̃ and X, that
X
X∈
X(e) ⊙ YB̃,e .
e∈E\B̃

11

(7)

Now YB̃,e |S = YB,e by incomparability of circuits in ordinary matroids, and thus we see (7)
implies that
X
X|S ∈
X|S (e) ⊙ YB,e .
e∈E\B

It follows that the axiom (SC2) holds for C |S and hence C |S is a strong-type H-circuit set,
as claimed.

Now, thanks to Proposition 3.1, the following definition makes sense.
Definition 3.2. Let M be a matroid over hyperfield H on a ground set E given by weak
(resp. strong) H-circuits C, and let S be a subset of E. The restriction of matroid M to S is
the matroid M |S over H given by weak (resp. strong) H-circuits C |S.
3.2 Grassmann-Plücker Functions of H-Matroid Restrictions. We now describe restriction of H-matroids via Grassmann-Plücker functions. Let H be a hyperfield, E a finite
set, r a positive integer, and ϕ a (weak-type or strong-type) Grassmann-Plücker function over
H on E of rank r. Let Mϕ denote the underlying matroid of ϕ given by bases:
B ϕ = {{b1 , · · · , br } ⊆ E | ϕ(b1 , · · · , br ) 6= 0} .
Recall that for any ordered basis B = {b1 , b2 , · · · , bk } of Mϕ /(E \ S), we let
B = (b1 , b2 , ..., bk ) ∈ E k .
Now, for any subset S ⊆ E and any (ordered) basis B = {b1 , b2 , · · · , bk } of Mϕ /(E \ S), we
define
ϕB : S r−k −→ H,

A 7→ ϕ(A, B).

(8)

Proposition 3.3. Let ϕ be a weak-type (resp. strong-type) Grassmann-Plücker function over
H on E of rank r and let S ⊆ E. For all ordered bases B of Mϕ /(E \ S), the function ϕB is a
weak-type (resp. strong-type) Grassmann-Plücker function. Moreover, all such ϕB determine
the H-circuits C |S of M |S.
Proof. For the notational convenience, we let [n] = {1, 2, · · · , n} and we regard B as a function
B : [k] → E. First, one can observe that ϕB is a nontrivial H-alternating function as ϕB is
a restriction of a nontrivial H-alternating function to a subset containing a base of Mϕ . We
claim that if ϕ is a weak-type Grassmann-Plücker function over H, then ϕB is also a weaktype Grassmann-Plücker function over H. To see this, let a, b, c, d ∈ E and Y : [r −k −1] → E
be given. Applying Axiom (WG) to a, b, c, d ∈ E and x = (Y, B) ∈ E r−2 , we obtain the
following:
0H ∈ ϕ(a, b, Y, B)ϕ(c, d, Y, B) − ϕ(a, c, Y, B)ϕ(b, d, Y, B) + ϕ(a, d, Y, B)ϕ(b, c, Y, B)
= ϕB (a, b, Y)ϕB (c, d, Y) − ϕB (a, c, Y)ϕB (b, d, Y) + ϕB (a, d, Y)ϕB (b, c, Y).
This shows that Axiom (WG) holds for ϕB and hence ϕB is a weak-type Grassmann-Plücker
function over H.
We next show that if ϕ is a strong-type Grassmann-Plücker function over H, then ϕB is
also a strong-type Grassmann-Plücker function over H. Indeed, let X : [r − k + 1] → S and
Y : [r − k − 1] → S be given. Applying Axiom (SG) to x := (X, B) and y := (Y, B), we
12

obtain the following:
X
X
0H ∈
(−1)j ϕ(X|[r−k+1]\{j} , B)ϕ(X(j), Y, B) +
(−1)r−k+1+j ϕ(X, B|[k]\{j} )ϕ(B(j), Y, B)
j∈[r−k+1]

=

X

j∈[k]

(−1)j ϕ(X|[r−k+1]\{j} , B)ϕ(X(j), Y, B) +

j∈[r−k+1]

=

X

X

(−1)r−k+1+j 0H

j∈[k]

(−1)j ϕB (X|[r−k+1]\{j} )ϕB (X(j), Y).

j∈[r−k+1]

This shows that Axiom (SG) holds for ϕB and hence ϕB is a strong-type Grassmann-Plücker
function over H.
′
Finally, we show that ϕB determines the same set of circuits as ϕB for all ordered bases B
and B′ of Mϕ /(E \ S). Indeed, we show that the circuits determined by ϕB are precisely C |S.
Fix an ordered base A of Mϕ |S. Now, y := (A, B) is an ordered base of Mϕ . Moreover, for
all e ∈ S \ A, the fundamental H-circuit X = XA∪B,e satisfies
X|S (A(i))X|S (e)−1 = X(y(i))X(e)−1
= (−1)i ϕ(e, A|[r−k]\{i} , B)ϕ(A, B)−1
= (−1)i ϕB (e, A|[r]\{i} )ϕB (A)−1 .
for all i ∈ [r−k] by the cryptomorphism relating C and ϕ. On the other hand, X|S = XA∪B,e |S
is the fundamental H-circuit for e by the basis A in C |S. Hence C |S is the set of H-circuits
determined by the Grassmann-Plücker function ϕB for all ordered bases B of Mϕ /(E \S). 
We summarize our results from this section as follows:
Proposition 3.4. The restriction of an H-matroid to a subset is well-defined, and admits
cryptomorphic description in terms of Grassmann-Plücker functions over H and H-circuits.
Furthermore, this correspondence preserves types and all such restrictions have underlying
matroid the ordinary restriction. Finally, we have the following:
(1) The restriction M |S is given by H-circuits
C |S = {X|S | X ∈ C and supp(X) ⊆ S} .
(2) The restriction M |S is obtained by fixing any base B = (b1 , b2 , · · · , bk ) of Mϕ /(E \ S)
and defining:
ϕB : S r−k −→ H, x 7→ ϕ(x, B).
In particular, the H-matroid M |S is determined by the H × -class [ϕB ] of any such B.
3.3 Deletion and Contraction. As noted previously, deletion and contraction for Hmatroids were defined by Baker and Bowler in [5] by using Grassmann-Plücker functions.
In this section, we also provide a cryptomorphic definition for deletion and contraction via
H-circuits by appealing to the definitions of dual H-matroids and restrictions. Throughout
let H be a hyperfield, E a finite set, r a positive integer, and M be a matroid over H on
ground set E of rank r with circuits C and a Grassmann-Plücker function ϕ
Definition 3.5. Let S be a subset of E.
(1) The deletion M \ S of S from M is the H-matroid M |(E \ S).
(2) The contraction M/S of S from M is the H-matroid (M ∗ \ S)∗ .
Remark 3.6. It follows from Definition 3.5 that if M is a weak-type (resp. strong-type), then
the deletion M \ S and the contraction M/S are also weak-type (resp. strong-type).
Proposition 3.7. Let S be a subset of E.
13

(1) The deletion M \ S is given by H-circuits

C |(E \ S) = X|E\S X ∈ C and S ∩ supp(X) = ∅ .

(9)

(2) The deletion M \ S is obtained by fixing base B = (b1 , b2 , · · · , br−k ) of Mϕ /S and
letting ϕB : (E \ S)k → H : x 7→ ϕ(x, B). The H-matroid M \ S is determined by the
H × -class [ϕB ] for any such B.

Proof. The first statement is immediate from the definition of the deletion and the second
statement directly follows from Proposition 3.4.

A description of contractions is a bit more complicated.
Proposition 3.8. Let S be a subset of E.
(1) The contraction M/S is given by H-circuits C ′′ = (C ∗ |(E \ S))∗ . More explicitly


Z ⊥ X|E\S for all X ∈ H E \ {0}
′′
E\S
C = min Z ∈ H
\ {0}
. (10)
with supp(X) ∩ S = ∅ and X ⊥ Y for all Y ∈ C
(2) The contraction M/S is given by the class of Grassmann-Plücker functions ((ϕ∗ )E\S )∗ .
More explicitly, let B = (b1 , · · · , bk ) be an ordered basis of Mϕ |S. A representative of
the H × -orbit of Grassmann-Plücker functions determining M/S is given by
ϕ′′ : (E \ S)r−k −→ H,

x 7→ ϕ(B, x).

(11)

Proof. We note that the formula for ϕ′′ in (11) is given in [5], with proof deferred to [3]; we
give a new proof here.
Proof of (1): Since M/S := (M ∗ \ S)∗ , the formula C ′′ = (C ∗ |(E \ S))∗ follows from the
duality cryptomorphism and the restriction constructions of Propositions 3.4 and 3.7. Recall
that

C ∗ = min X ∈ H E \ {0} X ⊥ Y for all Y ∈ C ,
where “min” means minimal support. Now, the following shows (10):

(C ∗ |(E \ S))∗ = (min X ∈ H E \ {0} X ⊥ Y for all Y ∈ C |(E \ S))⊥

⊥
E
E\S X ∈ H \ {0} and supp(X) ∩ S = ∅
= min X|E\S ∈ H
and X ⊥ Y for all Y ∈ C


Z ⊥ X|E\S for all X ∈ H E \ {0}
E\S
= min Z ∈ H
\ {0}
with supp(X) ∩ S = ∅ and X ⊥ Y for all Y ∈ C

Proof of (2): We prove that ϕ′′ is the Grassmann-Plücker function determined by C ′′ . Let
B be a base of the ordinary matroid Mϕ |S. Then, for any base A of the ordinary matroid
Mϕ /S, A∪ B is a base of Mϕ . Let e ∈ (E \S)\A be given, and let C̃A∪B,e be the fundamental
circuit of e with respect to A ∪ B in M (see, (2) and the paragraph before it). Now suppose
X ∈ H E \ {0} satisfies the conditions that:
supp(X) ∩ S = ∅,

X ⊥ Y ∀ Y ∈ C.

In particular, X ⊥ C̃A∪B,e since C̃A∪B,e ∈ C. On the other hand, as X(s) = {0} ∀ s ∈ S, we
have that
X|E\S ⊥ C̃A∪B,e |E\S .
Hence C̃A∪B,e |E\S = CA,e is the fundamental H-circuit of e ∈ E \ S with respect to A in
M/S by incomparability of supports of elements in C ′′ and the fact that supp(C̃A∪B,e |E\S )
14

is precisely the fundamental circuit of e by A in the underlying matroid of the contraction.
What remains is a computation:
(−1)i ϕ′′ (e, A|[r−k]\{i} )ϕ′′ (A)−1 = (−1)i ϕ(B, e, A|[r−k]\{i} )ϕ(B, A)−1
= C̃A∪B,e (A(i))C̃A∪B,e (e)−1
= CA,e (A(i))CA,e (e)−1 .



3.4 Elementary Properties of Minors. We summarize the constructions of the preceding sections below for easy reference:
Proposition 3.9. Let H be a hyperfield, E a finite set, r a positive integer, and M be a
matroid over H of rank r with circuits C and a Grassmann-Plücker function ϕ. Let S be a
subset of E.
(1) The restriction M |S is given by H-circuits:
C S = {X|S | X ∈ C and supp(X) ⊆ S} .
(2) The restriction M |S is obtained by fixing an ordered base B = (b1 , b2 , · · · , bk ) of the
underlying matroid Mϕ /(E \ S) and defining:
ϕB : S r−k −→ H,

x 7→ ϕ(x, B).

In particular, the H-matroid M |S is determined by the H × -class [ϕB ] of any such B.
(3) The deletion M \ S is given by H-circuits:

C |(E \ S) = X|E\S X ∈ C and S ∩ supp(X) = ∅ .

(4) The deletion M \ S is obtained by fixing an ordered base B = (b1 , b2 , · · · , br−k ) of
Mϕ /S and defining:
ϕB : (E \ S)k −→ H,

x 7→ ϕ(x, B).

In particular, the H-matroid M \ S is determined by the H × -class [ϕB ] of any B.
(5) The contraction M/S is given by H-circuits C = (C ∗ |(E \ S))∗ . More explicitly,


Z ⊥ X|E\S for all X ∈ H E \ {0}
′′
E\S
C = Z ∈H
\ {0}
with supp(X) ∩ S = ∅ and X ⊥ Y for all Y ∈ C

(6) The contraction M/S is given by the class of Grassmann-Plücker functions ((ϕ∗ )E\S )∗ .
More explicitly, let B = (b1 , · · · , bk ) be an ordered basis of Mϕ |S. A representative of
the H × -orbit of Grassmann-Plücker functions determining M/S is given by
ϕ′′ : (E \ S)r−k −→ H,

x 7→ ϕ(B, x).

Using the constructions above, one can easily verify that the following properties hold (cf.
the properties of minors in ordinary matroids):
Corollary 3.10. Let M be an H-matroid on E with S, T ⊆ E disjoint. We have
(1) M/∅ = M = M \ ∅
(2) (M \ S) \ T = M \ (S ∪ T )
(3) (M/S)/T = M/(S ∪ T )
(4) (M \ S)/T = (M/T ) \ S
Proof. The proof of parts (1)-(3) is clear by choosing an appropriate Grassmann-Plücker
function to represent both sides of the equalities using our characterization in Proposition
3.9. To see (4), one can calculate the H-circuits of these and obtain that they are equal. 
Finally, we have the following corollary stating that restriction, deletion, and contraction
commute with pushforwards:
15

Corollary 3.11. The following all hold:
(1) The pushforward of a restriction is the restriction of the pushforward.
(2) The pushforward of a deletion is the deletion of the pushforward.
(3) The pushforward of a contraction is the contraction of the pushforward.
Proof. One trivially verifies that the statements hold on Grassmann-Plücker functions.



Example 3.12. Recall that the Krasner hyperfield K is the final object in the category of
hyperfields. Let H be a hyperfield and f : H → K be the canonical map. For any H-matorid
M , the pushforward f∗ M is just the underlying matroid of M . In this case, one can clearly
see Corollary 3.11.
3.5 Direct sums of Matroids over Hyperfields. For matroids over hyperfields, we
provide two cryptomorphic definitions (Grassmann-Plücker functions and circuits) for direct
sum. Let M and N be H-matroids. To state a precise formula for a sum of GrassmannPlücker functions, we will need some additional notation. Fix a total order ≤ on EM ⊔ EN
such that x < y whenever x ∈ EM and y ∈ EN . Now for every x ∈ (EM ⊔ EN )rM +rN either
x has exactly rM components in EM or not. If so, we let σx denote the unique permutation
of [rM + rN ] such that σx · x is monotone increasing with respect to ≤. Now, we have the
following:
Proposition 3.13. Let H be a hyperfield and M (resp. N ) be H-matroids of rank rM
(resp. rN ) given by a Grassmann-Plücker function ϕM (resp. ϕN ). The function ϕM ⊕ ϕN ,
defined by the following formula (a) is a weak-type Grassmann-Plücker function on (EM ⊔
EN )rM +rN :
ϕM ⊕ ϕN : (EM ⊔ EN )rM +rN → H,
(
0, if x does not have precisely rM components in EM
x 7→
sgn(σx )ϕM ((σx · x)|[rM ] )ϕN ((σx · x)|[rM +rN ]\[rM ] ), otherwise.

(a)

Furthermore, ϕM ⊕ ϕN is of strong-type precisely when both ϕM and ϕN are of strong-type.
Moreover, the H × -class of ϕM ⊕ ϕN depends only on M and N .
Proof. Let ϕ := ϕM ⊕ ϕN . We first show that ϕ is a nondegenerate H-alternating function.
Indeed, the function ϕ is clearly nontrivial. To see that ϕM ⊕ ϕN is H-alternating, we let τ be
an arbitrary permutation of [rM + rN ]; note that x does not have precisely rM components in
EM if and only if τ · x does not have precisely rM components in EM . If x does have precisely
rM components in EM , then στ ·x = σx τ −1 and so the following completes the proof of our
claim:
(ϕM ⊕ ϕN )(τ · x) = sgn(στ ·x )ϕM ((στ ·x · τ · x)|[rM ] )ϕN ((στ ·x · τ · x)|[rM +rN ]\[rM ] )
= sgn(σx · τ −1 )ϕM ((σx · τ −1 · τ · x)|[rM ] )ϕN ((σx · τ −1 · τ · x)|[rM +rN ]\[rM ] )
= sgn(τ ) sgn(σx )ϕM ((σx · x)|[rM ] )ϕN ((σx · x)|[rM +rN ]\[rM ] )
= sgn(τ )(ϕM ⊕ ϕN )(x).
Next, we prove that if ϕM and ϕN are weak-type Grassmann-Plücker functions, then ϕ is
also a weak-type Grassmann-Plücker function; we should show that the 3-term GrassmannPlücker relation (WG) holds. In other words, we have to show that ∀ a, b, c, d ∈ EM ⊔ EN
and y ∈ (EM ⊔ EN )(rM +rN )−2 ,
0H ∈ ϕ(a, b, y)ϕ(c, d, y) − ϕ(a, c, y)ϕ(b, d, y) + ϕ(a, d, y)ϕ(b, c, y).

(WG)

Before proceeding, notice that we may assume a < b < c < d and y is strictly increasing
with respect to the ordering ≤ by alternation and degeneration conditions. We may further
16

assume that none of a, b, c, d are coordinates of y by degeneracy.
Case 1 : Suppose all of a, b, c, d belong to the same part of EM ⊔ EN (either EM or EN ). In
this case, we may assume that a, b, c, d ∈ EM . If y does not have exactly rM − 2 components
in EM , then the relation follows trivially as all terms are zero. Otherwise, notice that σx is
identity on the components with elements from EN and ϕN contributes the same constant
to the relation in each term (namely ϕN (y[rM +rN −2]\[rM −2] )2 ). Thus we may reduce to a
consideration of the terms contributed by ϕM , namely
0H ∈ ϕM (ρa,b · (a, b, y′ ))ϕM (ρc,d · (c, d, y′ ))
−ϕM (ρa,c · (a, c, y′ ))ϕM (ρb,d · (b, d, y′ )) + ϕM (ρa,d · (a, d, y′ ))ϕM (ρb,c · (b, c, y′ )),
where ρp,q = σ(p,q,y)|[rM ] and y′ = y|[rM ] . For each p ∈ {a, b, c, d} let

δp := # i ∈ [rM ] y′ (i) < p .

Now one permutes the coordinates in the expression in the following manner. First permute
d to the front of all terms which contain it; this results in a global change of sign (−1)δd +1 as
d must pass over δd coordinates of y′ and the coordinates c in the first term, b in the second
term, and a in the third term. Next permute c to the front of all terms which contain it;
in each term the sign changes by (−1)δc +1 as c must pass over δc coordinates of y′ and the
coordinates d in the first, a in the second, and b in the third. Next permute b to the front
of all terms which contain it; in each term the sign changes by (−1)δb +1 as b must pass over
δb coordinates of y′ and the coordinates a in the first, d in the second, and c in the third.
Finally permute a to the front of all terms which contain it; in each term the sign changes by
(−1)δa +1 as a must pass over δa coordinates of y′ and the coordinates b in the first, c in the
second, and d in the third. Hence permuting coordinates in this way we arrive at the relation
(WG) for ϕM up to a global sign change of (−1)δa +δb +δc +δd +4 . Hence Axiom (WG) holds in
this case.
Case 2 : Suppose not all of a, b, c, d belong to the same part of EM ⊔ EN . By our arrangement
of a < b < c < d and our choice of order ≤ as above we see that a ∈ EM and d ∈ EN . If
y does not have precisely rM − 1 components in EM , then the relation holds trivially as all
terms are zero. Thus, we may further assume that y has precisely rM − 1 components in EM
(and thus precisely rN − 1 components in EN ). Now if b and c belong to the same part of
EM ⊔ EN , again we see that the relation trivially holds as all terms are zero. Thus we can
reduce to the case that b ∈ EM and c ∈ EN . We must see the following to conclude our
desired result:
ϕ(a, c, y)ϕ(b, d, y) = ϕ(a, d, y)ϕ(b, c, y).
(12)
We now obtain the relation by a similar trick as in the first case, “walking” each of d, c, b, a
back to the first coordinate in that order to obtain the relation by corresponding relations on
ϕM and ϕN .
Next, we prove that ϕ is strong-type only if ϕM and ϕN are strong-type. Suppose ϕP is weaktype but not strong-type for either P = M or P = N . Then there is an (rP + 1)-tuple x and
(rP − 1)-tuple y for which (SG) is violated. Pick any ordered basis z of the other H-matroid
P ′ ; trivially ϕM ⊕ ϕN fails (SG) for (x, z) and (y, z), as this reduces to the ϕP ′ (z)-multiple
of the failing relation for ϕP ; this yields that ϕM ⊕ ϕN is weak-type but not strong-type. On
the other hand, if ϕM and ϕN are both strong-type, then the relations required by (SG) for
ϕM ⊕ ϕN can be rewritten as a constant times an (SG)-relation for M plus a constant times
an (SG)-relation for N . This immediately implies that ϕM ⊕ ϕN is strong-type.
Finally, invariance of the resulting H × -class is immediate from the following:
αϕM ⊕ βϕN = αβ(ϕM ⊕ ϕN ),
17

∀ α, β ∈ H × .



Proposition 3.14. Let M and N be H-matroids of rank rM and rN on disjoint ground sets
EM and EN given by H-circuits C M and C N respectively. Define


either both X|EM ∈ C M and X|EN = 0
C M ⊕ C N = X : EM ⊔ EN → H
or both X|EM = 0 and X|EN ∈ C N
Then, C M ⊕ C N is a set of H-circuits. Furthermore, C M ⊕ C N is of strong-type exactly when
both C M and C N are of strong-type.
Proof. That C M ⊕ C N is a set of pre-circuits over H follows trivially from its definition. Moreover, one can see easily see that
supp(C M ⊕ C N ) = supp(C M ) ⊔ supp(C N )

(13)

and hence the underlying matroid of the H-matroid determined thereby is the direct sum of
the underlying matroids of the summands. It follows that every modular pair in C M ⊕ C N
reduces to two modular pairs, one in C M and one in C N . Thus (WC) holds by noting that
any modular pair with nontrivial intersection is either a modular pair in C M or a modular
pair in C N . If C M and C N are both strong, then by (13), (SC1) holds. Moreover (SC2) holds
by noting that the computation reduces to a computation in precisely one of C M or C N . 
The next result shows that the direct sum of H-matroids admits the cryptomorphic descriptions given in this section.
Proposition 3.15. If M is an H-matroid given by H-circuits C M and Grassmann-Plücker
function ϕM on EM and N is an H-matroid given by H-circuits C N and Grassmann-Plücker
function ϕN on EN such that EM ∩EN = ∅. Then, ϕM ⊕ϕN and C M ⊕ C N both determine the
same H-matroid under cryptomorphism. Furthermore, this matroid has underlying matroid
the direct sum of the underlying matroids of M and N .
Proof. We must verify that C M ⊕ C N is cryptomorphically determined by ϕM ⊕ ϕN . Let BM
and BN be any bases of the underlying matroids of M and N , respectively. Notice that for
all e ∈ (EM ⊔ EN ) \ (BM ⊔ BN ), the fundamental circuit XBM ∪BN ,e has support contained
in EM or in EN . Thus, the cryptomorphism relation required reduces to the relation on
the fundamental circuit the part contiaining e ∈ EM ⊔ EN . Hence ϕM ⊕ ϕN and C M ⊕ C N
determine the same H-matroid as desired.

Corollary 3.16. The pushforward of a direct sum of matroids is the direct sum of the pushforwards. In other words, direct sum commutes with pushforwards.
Proof. This is trivially verified on Grassmann-Plücker functions.



Example 3.17. The case when we pushforward to the Krasner hyperfield K, i.e., taking
underlying matroids, is directly proven in terms in H-circuits in Proposition 3.15.
4.

Isomorphisms of matroids over hyperfields

In this section, we introduce a notion of isomorphisms of matroids over hyperfields which
generalizes the definition of isomorphisms of ordinary matroids. We will subsequently use this
definition to construct matroid-minor Hopf algebras for matroids over hyperfields in §5.
Definition 4.1 (Isomorphism via Grassmann-Plücker function). Let E1 and E2 be finite
sets, r be a positive integer, and H be a hyperfield. Let M1 (resp. M2 ) be a matroid on
E1 (resp. E2 ) of rank r over H which is represented by a Grassmann-Plücker function ϕ1
18

(resp. ϕ2 ). We say that M1 and M2 are isomorphic if there is a bijection f : E1 → E2 and
an element α ∈ H × such that the following diagram commutes:
E1r

ϕ1

H
⊙α

fr

E2r

ϕ2

(14)

H

Proposition 4.2. Definition 4.1 is well-defined.
Proof. Let ϕ′1 and ϕ′2 be different representatives of M1 and M2 . In other words, there exist
β, γ ∈ H × such that ϕ′1 = β ⊙ ϕ1 and ϕ′2 = γ ⊙ ϕ2 . In this case, we have that
γ −1 ⊙ ϕ′2 ◦ f r = ϕ2 ◦ f r = α ⊙ ϕ1 = (α ⊙ β −1 ) ⊙ ϕ′1
It follows that ϕ′2 ◦ f r = (γ ⊙ α ⊙ β −1 ) ⊙ ϕ′1 and hence Definition 4.1 is well-defined.



Proposition 4.3. Let H and K be hyperfields and g : H → K be a morphism of hyperfields.
If M1 and M2 are matroids over H which are isomorphic, then the pushforwards g∗ M1 and
g∗ M2 are isomorphic as well.
Proof. Let M1 (resp. M2 ) be represented by a Grassmann-Plücker function ϕ1 (resp. ϕ2 ).
Since M1 and M2 are isomorphic, there exist a ∈ H × and a bijection f : E1 → E2 such
that ϕ2 ◦ f r = a ⊙ ϕ1 . Notice that the pushforward g∗ M1 (resp. g∗ M2 ) is represented by the
Grassmann-Plücker function g ◦ ϕ1 (resp. g ◦ ϕ2 ), we obtain
(g ◦ ϕ2 ) ◦ f r = g ◦ (ϕ2 ◦ f r ) = g ◦ (a ⊙ ϕ1 ) = g(a) ⊙ (g ◦ ϕ1 ).



One notes that in the special case K = K, the underlying matroids of two isomorphic
matroids are isomorphic in the classical sense. Therefore, our definition of isomorphisms
generalizes the definition of isomorphisms of ordinary matroids.
Proposition 4.4. If M and M ′ (resp. N and N ′ ) are isomorphic H-matroids, then M ⊕ N
and M ′ ⊕ N ′ are isomorphic H-matroids.
Proof. Consider Grassmann-Plücker functions ϕM , ϕM ′ , ϕN , and ϕN ′ . By assumption there
′ and constants α , α ∈ H × such that
are bijections fM : EM → EM ′ and fN : EN → EN
M
N
rN
rM
αM ⊙ ϕM = ϕM ′ ◦ fM and αN ⊙ ϕN = ϕN ′ ◦ fN . Let fM ⊔ fN : EM ⊔ EN → EM ′ ⊔ EN ′
denote the obvious bijection. Then, we have
αM αN ⊙ (ϕM ⊕ ϕN ) = (αM ⊙ ϕM ) ⊕ (αN ⊙ ϕN )
rN
rM
)
) ⊕ (ϕN ′ ◦ fN
= (ϕM ′ ◦ fM

= (ϕM ′ ⊕ ϕN ′ ) ◦ (fM ⊔ fN )rM +rN .



Remark 4.5. Although we stick with Definition 4.1 in this paper, any ⊕-congruence relation
could be used in place of “isomorphism” for matroids over hyperfields; indeed, all that we will
need from our notion of isomorphism is that M ∼ M ′ and N ∼ N ′ implies M ⊕ N ∼ M ′ ⊕ N ′
to define Hopf algebras for matroids over hyperfields.
Remark 4.6. Our initial definition for isomorphism was as follows: M1 and M2 are isomorphic if there is a bijection f : E1 → E2 and an automorphism g : H → H such that the
following diagram commutes:
E1r

ϕ1

g

fr

E2r

H

ϕ2
19

H

This definition was inspired by the classical notion of semilinear maps, i.e., linear maps up
to “twist” of scalars by the automorphisms of a ground field. Unfortunately, this is not
well-defined on the level of H × -equivalence classes and hence we use the current definition.
Although we do not pursue this line of thought in this paper, it seems really interesting to
investigate a notion of general linear groups over hyperfields. For instance, a proper notion
of general linear groups over hyperfields is needed to study matroid bundles (a combinatorial
analogue of vector bundles, as in [1]) for matroids over hyperfields.
5.

The matroid-minor Hopf algebra associated to a matroid over a hyperfield

In this section, by appealing to Definition 4.1, Propositions 3.13 and 3.14, we generalize the
classical construction of matroid-minor Hopf algebras to the case of matroids over hyperfields.
Let H be a hyperfield. Let M be a set of matroids over H which is closed under taking direct
sums and minors. Let Miso be the set of isomorphisms classes of elements in M, where the
isomorphism class is defined by Definition 4.1. Then, Miso has a canonical monoid structure
as follows:
· : Miso × Miso → Miso , ([M1 ], [M2 ]) 7→ [M1 ⊕ M2 ].
(15)
Note that (15) is well-defined thanks to Proposition 4.4 and the isomorphism class of the empty
matroid [∅] becomes the identity element. Let k be a field. Then we have the monoid algebra
k[Miso ] over k with the unit map η : k → k[Miso ] sending 1 to [∅] and the multiplication:
µ : k[Miso ] ⊗k k[Miso ] → k[Miso ], generated by [M1 ] ⊗ [M2 ] 7→ [M1 ⊕ M2 ].
Proposition 5.1. Let k be a field and H be a hyperfield. Let (Miso , ·) be the monoid and
k[Miso ] be the monoid algebra over k as above. Then H := k[Miso ] is a bialgebra with the
following maps:
• (Comultiplication)
∆ : H −→ H ⊗k H,

[M ] 7→

X

[M |A ] ⊗k [M/A].

(16)

A⊆E

• (Counit)
ε : H −→ k,

[M ] 7→



1 if EM = ∅
0 if EM 6= ∅,

(17)

Furthermore, H is graded and connected and hence has a unique Hopf algebra structure.
Proof. There is a canonical grading on H via the cardinality of the underlying set of each
element [M ] and this is clearly compatible with the bialgebra structure of H. In this case, [∅]
has a degree 0 and hence H is connected. The last assertion simply follows from the result
of [20].

Example 5.2. Let H be the hyperfield which is obtained from Q as in Example 2.15 (considered as a totally ordered abelian group) and k be a field. Let M = U11 (the uniform rank-1
matroid on one element) and Miso be the free monoid generated by the isomorphism class
[M ] of M . Then one can easily see that the Hopf algebra k[Miso ] is just k[T ], where T is the
isomorphism class of U11 .
Let X be the set of matroids over H whose pushforward is U11 . Let [M1 ], [M2 ] ∈ X. Then
M1 and M2 are isomorphic if and only if there exists q ∈ H × = Q such that a ⊙ ϕ1 = ϕ2 ,
where ϕ1 (resp. ϕ2 ) is a Grassmann-Plücker function for M1 (resp. M2 ). It follows that the
free monoid MH
iso , which is generated by the isomorphisms classes of X, is as follows:
n

j
n1 n2
MH
iso = {Tq1 Tq2 · · · Tqj | ni , j ∈ N, qi ∈ Q}.

20

Hence, the Hopf algebra k[MH
iso ] is just k[Tq ]q∈Q . One then has the following surjection:
π : k[MH
iso ] = k[Tq ]q∈Q −→ k[Miso ] = k[T ],

Tq 7→ T.

Note that the map π is a surjection since any matroid in Miso is realizable over H by some
matroid in MH
iso . One can easily see that Ker(π) is generated by elements of the form Tq1 −Tq2
for qi ∈ Q.
6.

Relations to other generalizations

6.1 Relation to matroids over fuzzy rings. In this section, we investigate the results
in previous sections in a view of matroids over fuzzy rings, introduced by A. Dress in [8] (and
later with W. Wenzel in [9]). We will employ the functor, which is constructed by the second
author together with J. Giansiracusa and O. Lorscheid, from the category of hyperfields to
the category of fuzzy rings for this purpose. We note that the most recent work of Baker and
Bowler [6] generalizes matroids over hyperfields and matroids over fuzzy rings at the same
time. For the brief overview of this approach in connection to our previous work, see §6.2.
We first review the definition of matroids over fuzzy rings. In what follows, we let E
be a finite set, K a fuzzy ring, and K × the group of multiplicatively invertible elements of
K, unless otherwise stated. Roughly speaking a fuzzy ring K is a set, equipped with two
binary operations +, · such that (K, +, 0K ) and (K, ·, 1K ) are commutative monoids (but not
assuming that two binary operations are compatible), together with a distinguished subset
K0 and a distinguished element ε, satisfying certain list of axioms. The element ε of K plays
the role of the additive inverse of 1 and K0 is “the set of zeros”; this is where the term “fuzzy”
came from. For the precise definition of fuzzy rings, we refer the readers to [11, §2.3.].
Remark 6.1. We restrict ourselves to the case that E is a finite set to make an exposition
simpler, although one interesting facet of Dress and Wenzel’s theory is that E does not have
to be finite.
Definition 6.2. Let E be a finite set and (K; +, ·; ε, K0 ) a fuzzy ring.
(1) The unit-support of a function f : E → K is defined by
usupp(f ) := f −1 (K × ).
(2) The inner product of two functions f, g : E → K is defined by
X
hf, gi :=
f (e) · g(e).
e∈supp (f )∩supp (g)

(3) Two functions f, g : E → K are orthogonal, denoted f ⊥ g, when hf, gi is an element
of K0 .
(4) The wedge of f, g : E → K is the function
(
0
if x = y
f ∧ g : E × E → K, (x, y) 7→
(18)
f (x) · g(y) + εf (y) · g(x) otherwise
Clearly, we have usupp(f ) ⊆ supp(f ). The following lemma now directly follows from the
definition:
Lemma 6.3. Let f, g, h : E → K be functions. Suppose that f is orthogonal to both g and h.
If
supp (f ) ∩ (supp (g) ∪ supp (h)) ⊆ usupp (f ),
then for all x ∈ E the function (g ∧ h)|{x}×E is orthogonal to f .
21

We further define for all R ⊆ K E ,
^
R := {f1 ∧ f2 ∧ · · · ∧ fn | n ∈ N and for all i ∈ [n], we have fi ∈ R} .
For each R ⊆ K E , we let
n
[R] := r|(x1 ,x2 ,··· ,xn−1 )×E

r = f1 ∧ f2 ∧ · · · ∧ fn ∈

For S ⊆ E and R ⊆ K E , we define

^

o
R and xi ∈ E for i ∈ [n] .

(19)

(20)

RS := {f ∈ R | supp (f ) ∩ S = usupp (f ) ∩ S} .
Definition 6.4. A matroid over K on E is presented by (X, R) if
(1) X ⊆ P(E) is a set of bases of an ordinary matroid,
(2) R is a subset of (K E ) satisfying the following: for any n ∈ N, f = f1 ∧ f2 ∧ · · · ∧ fn
with fi ∈ R for i = 1, ..., n, and (x1 , ..., xn ) ∈ E n with xn ∈ Y for Y ∈ X such that
f (x1 , ..., xn ) ∈
/ K0 , there exists g ∈ R|Y such that
xn ∈ supp(g) ∩ Y ⊆ supp(f ).
Remark 6.5. Two different data (X, R) and (X ′ , R′ ) on E may present the same matroid
over K (see, [8]). Also, it is not difficult to see that the set of circuits of a matroid over K
(i.e. the set of support minimal elements of R) has a supports set which is the set of circuits
of an ordinary matroid.
We now review the functors constructed in [11] to link matroids over hyperfields and matroids over fuzzy rings. Note that Dress and Wenzel also introduced the cryptomorphic
description of matroids over fuzzy rings by using Grassmann-Plücker functions in [9]. There
are two types of morphisms for fuzzy rings (called weak and strong morphisms in [11]). We let
Hyperfields be the category of hyperfields, FuzzyRingswk the category of fuzzy rings with
weak morphisms, and FuzzyRingsstr the category of fuzzy rings with strong morphisms.
Then, one has the following:
Theorem 6.6. [11, §3] There exists a fully faithful functor from Hyperfields to FuzzyRingswk .
The construction goes as follows. For a hyperfield (H, ⊞, ⊙), we let K := P ∗ (H) and
impose two binary operations + and · as follows: for all A, B ⊆ H,
[
A + B :=
a ⊞ b, A · B := {a ⊙ b | a ∈ A, b ∈ B}.
a∈A,b∈B

Then, (K, +, {0H }) and (K, ·, {1H }) become commutative monoids. It is shown in [11] that
with K0 = {A ⊆ H | 0H ∈ A} and ε = {−1H }, (K, +, ·, ε, K0 ) becomes a fuzzy ring. For any
hyperfield H, we let F(H) be the fuzzy ring defined in this way. For morphisms and more
details, we refer the readers to [11].
Remark 6.7. It is also shown in [11] that there exists a quasi-inverse G of the functor F.

Now, we employ the functor F to yield minors of matroids over fuzzy rings as in Dress and
Wenzel from minors of matroids over hyperfields as in Baker and Bowler. In what follows, all
matroids over hyperfields are assumed to be strong. One has the following:
Theorem 6.8. [11, §7.2] Let E be a finite set, H be a hyperfield, K = F(H) be the fuzzy
ring obtained from H, and r a positive integer. Then a function
ϕ : E r −→ H × = F(H)×
is a Grassmann-Plücker function over the fuzzy ring K = F(H) in the sense of Dress and
Wenzel in [9] if and only if ϕ is a strong-type Grassmann-Plücker function over H.
22

For a matroid M over H we abuse notation and let F(M ) be the corresponding matroid
over the fuzzy ring F(H). One has the following corollary:
Corollary 6.9. Let E be a finite set, H a hyperfield, K = F(H) the fuzzy ring obtained from
H, r a positive integer, and S a subset of E. Then, we have
(1) F(M |S) = F(M )|S.
(2) F(M \S) = F(M )\S.
(3) F(M/S) = F(M )/S.
In particular, if N is a minor of M , then F(N ) is a minor of F(M ).
Proof. This directly follows from the Grassmann-Plücker function characterizations of minors
for matroids over hyperfields in §3 and for matroids over fuzzy rings in [9, §5].

Remark 6.10. By using the quasi-inverse G constructed in [11], for field-like fuzzy rings
(see, [11, §4] for the definition), one can also obtain minors of matroids over hyperfields from
minors of matroids over fuzzy rings.
Remark 6.11. One can use our definition of direct sums of matroids over hyperfields in §3.5
to define direct sums for matroids over fuzzy rings and hence obtain matroid-minor Hopf
algebras for matroids over fuzzy rings.
6.2 Relation to matroids over partial hyperfields. In this section, we review Baker
and Bowler’s more generalized framework, namely matroids over partial hyperfields [6] and
explain how our work can be generalized in this setting.
Definition 6.12. [6, §1] A tract is an abelian group G together with a designated subset
NG of the group semiring N[G] such that
(1) 0N[G] ∈ NG and 1G 6∈ NG .
(2) ∃ ! ε ∈ G such that 1 + ε ∈ NG .
(3) G · NG = NG .
The idea is similar to fuzzy rings; ε plays the role of −1 and NG encodes “non-trivial
dependence” relations; in the case of fuzzy rings, one has a designated subset K0 of “zeros”,
however, by using ε one can always change K0 to NG as above.
For a hyperfield (H, ⊞, ⊙), one can canonically associate a tract (G, NG ); this is very similar
to the functor from the category of hyperfield
to the category of fuzzy rings in §6.1. To be
P
precise, one sets G = H × , and lets f =
ai gi ∈ N[G] be in NG if and only if
0H ∈ ⊞(ai ⊙ gi )

(as elements of H).

(21)

Recall that partial fields are introduced by C. Semple and G. Whittle in [19] to study realizability of matroids. A partial field (G ∪ {0R }, R) consists of a commutative ring R and
a multiplicative subgroup G of R× such that −1 ∈ G and G generates R. Inspired by this
definition (along with hyperfields), Baker and Bowler define the following:
Definition 6.13. [6, §1] A partial hyperfield is a hyperdomain R (a hyperring without zero
divisors) together with a designated subgroup G of R× .
One can naturally associate a tract to a partial hyperfield (G, R)
P in a manner similar to
the previous association of a tract to a hyperfield by stating that
ai gi ∈ N[G] if and only
if (21) holds.
With tracts (or partial hyperfields), Baker and Bowler generalize their previous work on
matorids over hyperfields. Their main idea is that in their proofs for matroids over hyperfields,
one only needs the three conditions of tracts given in Definition 6.12. Therefore, although we
only focus on the case of matroids over hyperfields, one can easily generalize our results to
the case of matroids over partial hyperfields.
23

6.3 Tutte polynomials of Hopf algebras and Universal Tutte characters. The Tutte
polynomial is one of the most interesting invariants of graphs and matroids. In [14], T. Krajewsky, I. Moffatt, and A. Tanasa introduced Tutte polynomials associated to Hopf algebras.
More recently, C. Dupont, A. Fink, and L. Moci introduced universal Tutte characters generalizing [14]. In fact, both [10] and [14] consider the case when one has combinatorial objects
which have notions of “deletion” and “contraction” (e.g. graphs and matroids). In the context
of our work, the following is straightforward.
Proposition 6.14. Let H be a hyperfield. A set Miso of isomorphisms classes of matroids
over H, which is stable under taking direct sums and minors, satisfies the axioms of a minor
system in [14, Definition 2.].
Proof. This directly follows from Corollary 3.10.



The term a minors system is used in [10] to define universal Tutte characters. The following
is an easy consequence of §3.
Proposition 6.15. Let H be a hyperfield and MatH be the set species such that MatH (E) is
the set of matroids over H with an underlying set E. Then MatH is a connected multiplicative
minors system as in [10, Definition 2.6. and 2.8.].
Proof. Let S := MatH . Clearly, S is connected since the empty matroid over H is the only
object of S[∅]. Multiplicative structure of S comes from direct sums. The axioms (M1)-(M3),
(M4′-M8′) can be easily checked as in the ordinary matroids case.

Remark 6.16. It follows from the above observations that the construction in [14, §2] can
be applied to define the Tutte polynomial for k[Miso ]. Furthermore, one can also associate
the universal Tutte characters in our setting.
References
[1] Laura Anderson, Matroid bundles, New perspectives in algebraic combinatorics (1999), 1–21.
[2] Laura Anderson and James F Davis, Hyperfield grassmannians, arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.00016 (2017).
[3] Laura Anderson and Emanuele Delucchi, Foundations for a theory of complex matroids, Discrete & Computational Geometry 48 (2012), no. 4, 807–846.
[4] Nicolás Andruskiewitsch and Walter Ferrer Santos, The beginnings of the theory of Hopf algebras, Acta
applicandae mathematicae 108 (2009), 3–17.
[5] Matthew Baker and Nathan Bowler, Matroids over hyperfields, arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.01204 (2016).
, Matroids over partial hyperstructures, arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.09707 (2017).
[6]
[7] Sorin Dascalescu, Constantin Nastasescu, and Serban Raianu, Hopf algebra: An introduction, CRC Press,
2000.
[8] Andreas Dress, Duality theory for finite and infinite matroids with coefficients, Advances in Mathematics
59 (1986), no. 2, 97–123.
[9] Andreas Dress and Walter Wenzel, Grassmann-Plücker relations and matroids with coefficients, Advances
in Mathematics 86 (1991), no. 1, 68–110.
[10] Clément Dupont, Alex Fink, and Luca Moci, Universal Tutte characters via combinatorial coalgebras,
arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.09028 (2017).
[11] Jeffrey Giansiracusa, Jaiung Jun, and Oliver Lorscheid, On the relation between hyperrings and fuzzy
rings, Beiträge zur Algebra und Geometrie / Contributions to Algebra and Geometry 58, no. 4, 735–764.
[12] Darij Grinberg and Victor Reiner, Hopf algebras in combinatorics, arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.8356 (2014).
[13] Jaiung Jun, Geometry of hyperfields, arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.09348 (2017).
[14] Thomas Krajewski, Iain Moffatt, and Adrian Tanasa, Hopf algebras and Tutte polynomials, arXiv preprint
arXiv:1508.00814 (2015).
[15] Marc Krasner, Approximation des corps valués complets de caractéristique p 6= 0 par ceux de caractéristique 0, Colloque d’algébre supérleure (Bruxelles), 1956.
[16] Nikolai E Mnëv, The universality theorems on the classification problem of configuration varieties and
convex polytopes varieties, Topology and geometry–Rohlin seminar, 1988, pp. 527–543.
[17] James G Oxley, Matroid theory, Vol. 3, Oxford University Press, USA, 2006.
24

[18] William R Schmitt, Incidence Hopf algebras, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 96 (1994), no. 3,
299–330.
[19] Charles Semple and Geoff Whittle, Partial fields and matroid representation, Advances in Applied Mathematics 17 (1996), no. 2, 184–208.
[20] Mitsuhiro Takeuchi, Free Hopf algebras generated by coalgebras, Journal of the Mathematical Society of
Japan 23 (1971), no. 4, 561–582.
[21] Ravi Vakil, Murphy’s law in algebraic geometry: badly-behaved deformation spaces, Inventiones mathematicae 164 (2006), no. 3, 569–590.
[22] Dominic Welsh, Matroid theory, Courier Corporation, 2010.
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, 13902,
USA
E-mail address: eppolito@math.binghamton.edu
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, 13902,
USA
E-mail address: jjun@math.binghamton.edu
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Bostin University, 111 Cummington Mall, Boston,
USA
E-mail address: szczesny@math.bu.edu

25

