Subspace arrangements and motives
of classifying stacks of reflection groups

arXiv:1507.03486v2 [math.AG] 8 Sep 2017

Emanuele Delucchi, Ivan Martino
September 12, 2017
Abstract
We study some combinatorial aspects of a subspace arrangement associated to every faithful representation of finite groups, with a view on the
triviality problem for motivic classes of classifying stacks. In particular,
for finite reflection groups we reduce this problem to a conjecture which
would generalize a theorem by Aluffi.

In this paper we unfold the combinatorics underlying the computation of
the motivic class {BG} of the classifying stack of a finite group G in the
Grothendieck ring of algebraic stacks K0 (Stackk ). In the case of complex reflection groups, we reduce it to the following conjecture.
Conjecture. Let W ⊂ GL(V ) be a finite complex reflection group and let AW
be the arrangement of hyperplanes associated to W (see Definition 1.3). Call Ve
the open complement of this arrangement and call Ve/W its quotient under the
action of W .
Then, the motivic class {Ve/W } is a polynomial in L, the class of the affine
line. More precisely, it has the following form:
{Ve/W } = χAW /W (L),
where χAW /W (L) denote the characteristic polynomial of the quotient arrangement.
This conjecture generalizes a theorem of Aluffi [1] asserting that {Ve } = χAW (L).
Before we go any further, let us put this in context and explain our motivation.
The Noether Problem. Let k be a any field and G be a finite group. A
century ago, Emmy Noether [11] studied the rationality of the field extension
k(V )G /k, where k(V )G denotes the invariants of the field of rational functions
k(V ) over the regular representation V of G. This rationality question became
known as the Noether problem and no counterexamples to the rationality were
found for more than 50 years.
In fact, the first such counterexample came in 1969 with work of Swan [16]
Z
proving that the extension Q(V ) /47Z /Q is not rational. In the Eighties, several
other non rational extensions were found over the complex field by Saltman [13]
and Bogomolov [2] for certain p-groups of order p9 and of order p6 , respectively.
More recently Hoshi, Kang and Kunyavskii [7] studied the order p5 cases with
non rational extension C(V )G /C.
1

The triviality of the motivic class of BG. In 2009, Ekedahl [4] showed
that the Noether problem relates to the computation of a certain second degree
cohomology of the motivic class {BG}. Each group of this cohomology is called
an Ekedahl invariant of G in [10, 9], to which we refer for an overview of the
topic. A motivic class is said to be trivial if it coincides with the class of a point
{Spec(k)}, that we denote for simplicity by 1 because it is the neutral element
with respect to the product in K0 (Stackk ). In all above-mentioned nonrational
instances of the Noether Problem, {BG} is not trivial in K0 (Stackk ).
A further point of interest in this triviality problem comes from recent work of
Totaro [17] which relates it with other five properties of finite groups: stable
rationality of quotient varieties V /G, triviality for the birational motive of the
quotient varieties V /G, the weak Chow Künneth property of BG, the Chow
Künneth property of BG and the mixed Tate property of BG.
The known instances of triviality for {BG} are
– the finite subgroups G ⊂ GL1 (k) (see [4, Proposition 3.2]);
– the symmetric groups Sn (see [4, Theorem 4.3]);
– all finite subgroups of the group of affine transformations of A1k , assuming
k algebraically closed (see [4, Example ii) on page 8]).
– the finite subgroups G ⊆ GL3 (k), if char(k) = 0 [9, Theorem 2.4].
Our results. The computation of the motivic class of {BG} relates to an orbit
stratification of the quotient stack [V /G] for any faithful representation ρ of G
in GL(V ). In this paper we focus on the combinatorics of such stratification.
We say that a subgroup H of G is a stabilizer subgroup if there exists v ∈ V
stabilized only by H, that is Stabρ (v) = H (see Definition 1.4). The set of
stabilizer subgroups Pρ with reverse inclusion has a natural poset structure (see
Definition 1.4).
Moreover the group G acts on Pρ by conjugation and so we denote by
P̃ρ := Pρ/G
the set of conjugacy classes of stabilizer subgroups. It will be useful to denote
by P̃ρ′ the poset of all all conjugacy classes of stabilizer subgroups.
Under certain group theoretic and geometric conditions, we reduce the computation of {BG} to the knowledge of the combinatorics of P̃ρ′ . In order to state
our first result, let us denote by ∆ρ the order complex of P̃(G) (this is the set
of its ordered chains, that is the set of flags f as H0 < H1 < · · · < Hk ), and call
NG (f ) the intersection of all normalizer subgroups NG (Hi ) with Hi stabilizer
subgroup in the flag.
Theorem A. Let ρ : G → GL(V ) be a faithful representation of a finite group
G such that
(1) {BNG (f )} = 1 for all f ∈ ∆ρ and
(2) {V /NG (H)} = Ldim V
H

H

for all nontrivial stabilizer subgroups H ∈ P̃ ′ (G).

Then,
{BG}ϕρ (L) = ϕρ (L),
where ϕρ is the characteristic polynomial of ρ. (see Definition 1.6).
2

Notice that, ϕρ (t) is a polynomial defined only using the combinatorial information of P̃(G). As a token of motivation let us emphasize the following
fact: under the hypothesis of Theorem A, if ϕρ (L) is invertible in K0 (Stackk ),
then {BG} = 1.
Finite reflection groups are a distinguished family of finite subgroups of
the general linear group, which contains the symmetric groups and all cyclic
groups. This fact already suggests finite reflection groups as sensible candidates for the study of {BG}. Moreover, the wealth of combinatorial, geometric and representation-theoretic results about finite reflection groups provides
many useful tools. In particular, to every finite reflection group W is associated
a reflection arrangement, i.e., the arrangement of hyperplanes defined by the
fix-point sets of the reflections in W . Reflection arrangements lie at the roots
of the general theory of hyperplane arrangements, for an introduction to which
we point to the textbook [12].
For this class of groups, we are able to identify a combinatorial property of
the poset of stabilizer subgroups (Definition 1.4) which allows us to explicitly
compute the polynomial ϕρ (t) for the standard linear representation of finite
reflection groups.
Theorem B. If W is a d-dimensional irreducible finite reflection group in
GL(V ) that fulfills the hypothesis of Theorem A, then ϕW (t) = td − 1.
Using the fact that Ld − 1 is invertible in K0 (Stackk ), these computations
allow us to pave the way for the proof of the triviality of the motivic class for
the reflection groups.
The missing part is precisely the proof of the conjecture, affirming that
{Ve/W } = χAW /W (L).
We stress that χAW /W (L) = χP̃(W ) (L).
Theorem C. If the Conjecture holds, then {BW } = 1 in K0 (Stackk ).
This type of rationality problems have also been studied in literature by
different authors. For instance, Looijenga [8, Lemma 5.1] has shown that
{V /G} = Ln for every abelian group acting linearly on a n-dimensional kvector space, where k is a field of characteristic zero containing a root of unity
of degree the order of G.
However, this condition fails for the counterexamples to the Noether problem
given by Saltman [13], Bogomolov [2] and Hoshi, Kang and Kunyavskii [7]. Usm
ing [4, Proposition 3.1], one shows that for m large enough {V /G} = {BG}Lmn
in the Kontsevich value ring of algebraic varieties. Since {BG} is not trivial then
m
{V /G} is not Lmn in the K0 (VarC ).
This rationality problem has also been studied by Esnault and Viehweg (see
Lemma 1.1 and Proposition 1.3 in [6]).
To conclude, we do not know whether the conjecture might be true for a
class of group larger than that of the reflection groups. Indeed, the hypothesis
of Theorem A seem very restrictive and may well characterize finite reflection
groups.
The structure of the paper is the following. First, in Section 1 we review
some basics on subspace arrangements, partially ordered sets, Motivic classes
3

and reflection groups. We present the new Conjecture in Section 2 and then in
Section 3 we prove Theorem A. In section 4, we study the poset of conjugacy
classes of stabilizer subgroups for a complex reflection group and we show Theorem B. Finally in Section 4.1, we prove that the conjecture implies that the
class of the classifying stack of W is trivial, that is Theorem C.
Acknowledgements. We thank Emanuele Ventura for pointing out the reference
[1]. We are very thankful to an anonymous referee who pointed out a mistake
in a older version of this manuscript.
Both authors have been partially supported by the Swiss National Science
Foundation Professorship grant PP00P2 150552/1. The second author have
been partially supported by the Zelevinsky Research Instructor Fund, by the
Knut and Alice Wallenberg Fundation and by the Royal Swedish Academy of
Science.

1
1.1

Preliminaries and generalities
Combinatorics of subspace arrangements

The main combinatorial structure of interest in this paper is that of a partially
ordered set or, for short, poset. In this section we briefly review some basic
terminology and the results we will need later. For more background, a standard
reference is [15, Chapter 3].
A poset is a pair (P, ≤) consisting of a set P with a partial order relation ≤.
In what follows the set P will always be finite and the order relation will be
understood (so we will just say ”the poset P ” referring to (P, ≤)). If p, q ∈ P
are such that p ≤ q, the interval determined by p and q is the subset [p, q] :=
{r ∈ P | p ≤ r ≤ q}. The set of all intervals of P is denoted I(P ). A lattice is a
poset where every pair of elements has a unique minimal upper bound as well
as a unique maximal lower bound. For example, the poset LG of all subgroups
of a given finite group G, ordered by inclusion, is a lattice.
The Möbius function of the poset P is the function µP : I(P ) → Z defined
recursively as follows:
X

µ(p, p) =

1 for all p ∈ P ;

µ(p, r)

0 for all p < q in P.

=

r∈[p,q]

If the poset P has a unique minimal element (i.e., an element 0̂ with p ≤ 0̂ for
all p ∈ P \ {0̂}), for every p ∈ P we will write µP (p) as a shorthand for µP (0̂, p).
To every poset P is associated the poset ∆(P ) of all chains of P . Precisely,
this is the set
∆(P ) := {{p1 , p2 , . . . , pk } ⊆ P | p1 < p2 < . . . < pk }
ordered by inclusion. If the poset P has a unique minimal element 0̂ and a
b ) := ∆(P \ {0̂, 1̂}).
unique maximal element 1̂, we define also ∆(P
Since every subset of a totally ordered set is again totally ordered, ∆(P ) and
ˆ ) are naturally abstract simplicial complexes. Their topology is related to
∆(P
the Möbius function as follows.
4

Theorem 1.1. For every p ≤ q in a poset P , µP (p, q) is the reduced Euler
P
b
characteristic of ∆([p,
q]), that is µP (p, q) = ω∈∆([p,q])
(−1)|ω|−1 .
b

We will be concerned with posets arising from subspace arrangements. Let
k be a field, V a k-vector space of dimension d. An arrangement of subspaces
in V is a finite set A of linear subspaces of V ; its poset of intersections is the
set
\
L(A) := {
W | X ⊆ A}
(1)
W ∈X

ordered by reverse inclusion: for x, y ∈ L(A), x ≤ y if x ⊇ y. These posets
are always lattices, and in particular they have a unique minimal element 0̂
(corresponding
T to the intersection of the empty family) and a unique maximal
element 1̂ = W ∈A W . The arrangement is called essential if dim ∩A = 0. The
characteristic polynomial of the arrangement A is
X
µ(x)tdim x .
χA (t) =
x∈L(A)

1.2

The subspace arrangement of a representation

Fix a field k. Let G be a finite group and let ρ : G → GL(V ) be a krepresentation of G. For every g ∈ G and v ∈ V , we write the action as
g · v = ρ(g)v for every g ∈ G and v ∈ V , where gv is the usual matrix-vector
product.
Following [4], for any v ∈ V and for any subgroup H ⊆ G we define the
following objects.
NG (H)
Stabρ (v)
VH
VH

:= {g ∈ G | gH = Hg} ⊆ G
:= {g ∈ G | g · v = v} ⊆ G
:= {v ∈ V | H = Stabρ (v)} ⊆ V
:= {v ∈ V | H ⊆ Stabρ (v)} ⊆ V.

In other words, NG (H) is the normalizer of the subgroup H in G; V H is the
k-vector subspace of V of all points fixed (at least) by all elements of H; VH is
the set of points that are fixed exactly by the elements of H.
Definition 1.2. We say that a subgroup H is a stabilizer subgroup with respect
to the representation ρ if VH is not empty.
Definition 1.3. The arrangement of subspaces of the representation ρ is
Aρ := {V H | H 6= {e} and H is a stabilizer subgroup with respect to ρ}.
The set Aρ is ordered by reverse inclusion similar to L(A) in (1). It is useful to
observe that V e = V and so the poset Aρ ∪ {V e } as a minimal unique element.
Notice that every VH is the complement of the union of a set of subspaces inside
V H.
Definition 1.4. The poset of stabilizer subgroups of the representation ρ is
Pρ := {H | H is a stabilizer subgroup with respect to ρ},
ordered by inclusion H1 ≤ H2 if H1 ⊆ H2 .
5

Then one has:
Aρ ∪ {V e } ≃ L(Aρ ) ≃ Pρ
The first isomorphism is proven essentially by definition and by observing that
V e = V is the only missing subspace in Aρ . For the second isomorphism,
consider the function
Pρ

→ L(Aρ )

H

7→ V H .

This is order-preserving and bijective. Indeed, if V H1 = V H2 for two stabilizer
subgroups, then, by definition, they contain each other. Moreover, every intersection S in L(Aρ ) is of the form ∩H∈X V H , where X is a finite set of subgroups.
′
Thus, there exists a maximal H ′ containing all H in X, with S = V H . Since
both posets are finite, then it is an isomorphism of posets. In particular, if ρ is
a representation of a reflection group, then Pρ is a lattice.
The group G acts on Pρ by conjugation.
Definition 1.5. Define
P̃ρ := Pρ/G,
i.e., the set of all orbits under the G-action, ordered according to G·H1 ≤ G·H2
if H1 ≤ g · H2 in Pρ for some g ∈ G.
It will be useful to denote by P̃ρ′ the poset of all all nontrivial stabilizer subgroups
H. We close this section by recalling a definition due to Ekedahl [4].
Definition 1.6. Let Ñρ denote the poset of normal stabilizer subgroups of G
ordered by reverse inclusion. The following is the characteristic polynomial of
ρ:
X
X
H
(−1)dim f (tdim V − 1).
ϕρ (t) =
H∈Ñρ f ∈∆(P̃ρ ),
max f =H

Assumption. From now on we will assume that the representation ρ is faithful,
i.e. Ker ρ = {e}. Moreover, notice that, given such a representation of G, we
can always reduce to the case where dim VG = 0 and, when this happens, we
say that this representations is essential (because Aρ is). If the representation
is faithful and clear from the context, we write AG instead of Aρ and, similarly,
for AG , PG , and P̃G .

1.3

Motivic classes of classifying stacks, Ekedahl’s formula

The aim of this section is to briefly introduce the motivic classes of the classifying
stack of a group and to present and to collect the necessary tools for this paper.
As a general reference for a more comprehensive introduction we point to [10].
We begin by recalling that the Grothendieck ring of algebraic varieties K0 (Vark )
is the group generated by the isomorphism classes {X} of algebraic k-varieties
X, under the relation
{X} = {Y } + {X \ Y }, for all closed subvarieties Y of X.
The ring structure of K0 (Vark ) is given by {X} · {Z} = {X × Z}.
6

Like algebraic varieties, algebraic stacks also have their own Grothendieck
ring. In [5, Theorem 4.1] it is proved that
K0 (Stackk ) = K0 (Vark )[L−1 , (Ln − 1)−1 , ∀n ∈ N],
where the symbol L stands for the class of the affine line A1k .
The classifying stack of the group G is usually defined as the stack quotient
of the point Spec(k) by the group G, i.e. BG := [Spec(k)/G]. Its motivic class is
denoted by {BG} ∈ K0 (Stackk ).
Ekedahl in [4] proposed a combinatorial way to approach the computation
of {BG}. Here we present his theorem in purely combinatorial terms, after a
preparatory definition.
Definition 1.7. Given a representation ρ : G → GL(V ) of a finite group G, we
write
b P̃ρ )
∆ρ := ∆(

and, for any f = {H1 ⊆ H2 ⊆ . . . ⊆ Hm } ∈ ∆ρ , dim f := |f | − 1, df := dim V Hm ,
and NG (f ) = ∩m
i=1 NG (Hi ).

Theorem 1.8 ([4, Theorem 3.4]). Let G be a finite group and let ρ : G →
GL(V ) be a faithful and essential representation of dimension d. Then
X
{BG}(Ld − 1) = {Ve/G} +
(−1)dim(f ) {BNG (f )}(Ldf − 1).
f ∈∆ρ

Remark 1.9. We point out that in the statement of Theorem 3.4 in [4] Ekedahl
uses the term stabilizer flag instead of our chain for f .

1.4

Characteristic classes of subspace arrangements

An arrangement of hyperplanes in kd is an arrangement of subspaces all whose
elements have codimension 1. In this section we recall a result of Aluffi [1] linking
the characteristic polynomial of a hyperplane arrangement to the characteristic
class of its complement M (A). We reproduce its proof in order to show that it
immediately generalizes to the case of subspace arrangements.
Theorem 1.10 ([1, Theorem 2.1]). Let L be the class of the affine line in the
Grothendieck ring of algebraic k-varieties, K0 (Vark ). Let A be an arrangement
of hyperplanes in kn . Then, we have the following equality in K0 (Vark ):
{M (A)} = χA (L).
Proof. Consider the intersection lattice L(A) defined in (1 and pick an element
x ∈ L(A). We set xo = x \ ∪y>x y, that is the complement in x of the union of
all intersections inside x. Trivially {x} = Ldim x .
Every P
element y in L(A) is the disjoint union of all xo with
Px > y, that is
{y} = x≥y {xo }. Now, by Möbius inversion we have {y o } = x≥y µ(y, x){x},
and therefore we can compute
X
X
µ(x)Ldim x = χA (L).
µ(0̂, x){x} =
{M (A)} = {0o } =
x∈L(A)

x≥0̂

7

It is now apparent that Aluffi’s argument also proves the following stronger
statement.
Theorem 1.11. Let B denote a subspace arrangement in kd . Then, with notations as above,
{M (B)} = χB (L) in K0 (Vark ).


2

Towards the conjecture

We now focus on the case of finite groups which admit representations whose
associated subspace arrangement is the set of intersections of an arrangement
of hyperplanes. These are the so-called finite reflection groups. A detailed
treatment of geometric and combinatorial aspects of hyperplane arrangements
associated to reflection groups is [12, Chapter 6]. Here we only sketch some
basics we’ll have use for.
Let V be a k-vector space. Any g ∈ GL(V ) is called a reflection if it has
finite order and it fixes a subspace of codimension 1 (which is then called the
reflecting hyperplane of g). Following [12, Section 6.2], we call reflection group
any finite group W ⊆ GL(V ) whose order is not divisible by char k and which is
generated by reflections. The Chevalley-Shephard-Todd theorem [3, 14] shows
that W is a finite reflection group exactly if and only if V /W is isomorphic to
affine space.
From now on when we talk about a finite reflection group W , we consider
the obvious representation ρ given by the inclusion in GL(V ) and we write AW
omitting reference to the representation.
In particular, we are interested in the quotient arrangement in V ≃ V /W :
AW /W

:= {X/W , X ∈ AW }.

Even if V /W ≃ V , this is not anymore an arrangement of subspaces in V , but
an arrangement of quotient varieties.
We can now state a conjecture that aims at generalizing Theorem 1.11.
Conjecture. If W is a finite complex reflection group, then,
{Ve/W } = χAW /W (L).
The statement of the conjecture would for instance follow from the existence
of a faithful representation of the group W such that one of the two following
conditions are satisfied for all nontrivial stabilizer subgroups H:
A {V /NG (H)} = Ldim V
H

B

V H/NG (H)

≃ Akdim V

H

H

for all H ∈ P̃ ′ (G);

for all H ∈ P̃ ′ (G).

In what follows we are going to show that the proof of this conjecture will have
immediate application in the study of the motivic class of the classifying stack
of a finite group. It is worth to note that any of the above conditions will imply
that the hypothesis of Theorem A are satisfied.

8

3

An inductive criterion

In this section we are going to prove Theorem A. For this we need two technical
results: the first one deals with the motivic class of the open complement Ve/G
and the second one relates this result to the class of BG.
Here and in what follows, µ denotes the Möbius function of P̃(G).
Lemma 3.1. Let ρ : G → GL(V ) be a d-dimensional faithful representation of
a finite group G. Then
X
H
µ(H){V /NG (H)}.
{Ve/G} =
H∈P̃ρ

Proof. We follow the same step of the proof in Theorem 1.10 and we have that
X
X
H
H
µ(H){V /NG (H)}.
µ({e}, H){V /NG (H)} =
{Ve/G} =
H≥{e}

H∈P̃ρ

Let us apply this to the computation of the class of BG.
Proposition 3.2. Let ρ : G → GL(V ) be a d-dimensional faithful representation of a finite group G. Then
X X
X
H
H
(−1)dim f {BNG (f )}(Ldim V −1).
µ(H){V /NG (H)}+
{BG}(Ld −1) =
H∈P̃ρ′

H∈P̃ρ

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H

Proof. We use Theorem 1.8 and Proposition 3.1 and we obtain the following.
X
X
H
(−1)dim(f ) {BNG (f )}(Ldf − 1),
µ(H){V /NG (H)} +
{BG}(Ld − 1) =
f ∈∆ρ

H∈P̃ρ

which readily implies the claim.
The next theorem is an inductive triviality criterion. Together with the
statement of the Conjecture presented in Section 2, it opens an avenue for
inductive proofs of triviality of the motivic class of BG. We will explain more
about this strategy in Section 4.1.
Theorem A. Let ρ : G → GL(V ) be a d-dimensional faithful and essential
representation of a finite group G such that
(1) {BNG (f )} = 1 for all f ∈ ∆ρ and
(2) {V /NG (H)} = Ldim V
H

H

for all nontrivial stabilizer subgroups H ∈ P̃ ′ (G).

Then,
{BG}ϕρ (L) = ϕρ (L),
where ϕρ is the characteristic polynomial of ρ (see Definition 1.6).

9

Proof. We start our computation by expanding the formula of Proposition 3.2:
{BG}(Ld − 1) =

Ld + µ(G)
X
H
µ(H)Ldim V

+

H∈P̃ρ′

X

+

H∈P̃ρ′

X

−

H∈P̃ρ′

X

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H



X



H
(−1)dim f {BNG (f )}Ldim V


(−1)dim f {BNG (f )}.

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H

Now isolate on the right hand side all the terms containing the motivic class of
BG:
{BG}(Ld − 1) =
+

Ld + µ(G)
X
H
µ(H)Ldim V
H∈P̃ρ′

+



X 

{BG}Ldim V H


H∈P̃ ′
ρ



+


X 



′
H∈P̃
ρ

−

X

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H
NG (f )6=G

X

{BG}

X

X

H∈P̃ρ′

−

H∈P̃ρ′



(−1)dim f 



X

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H
NG (f )=G





H
(−1)dim f {BNG (f )}Ldim V 



X

(−1)dim f

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H
NG (f )=G

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H
NG (f )6=G






(−1)dim f {BNG (f )}.

Using assumption (1) we can continue the computation as follows.
{BG}(Ld − 1) =
+

Ld + µ(G)
X
H
µ(H)Ldim V
H∈P̃ρ′

+

X


dim V H

{BG}L

H∈P̃ρ′

10







X

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H
NG (f )=G



dim f

(−1)







X

+

 X



 f ∈∆ρ

dim V H

L

H∈P̃ρ′

−

X

{BG}

X

X

H∈P̃ρ′

Now we add and subtract

X

(−1)dim f

(−1)dim f

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H
NG (f )6=G

X

X

X

(−1)

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H
NG (f )=G

H∈P̃ρ′ max f =H,
NG (f )=G

and

dim f

max f =H
NG (f )6=G

H∈P̃ρ′

−





X

H∈P̃ρ′ max f =H,
NG (f )=G












(−1)dim f ,


H
(−1)dim f Ldim V .

Remark also that, for all x 6∈ {{e}, G}, by Theorem 1.1.
X
X
(−1)dim f +1 = −µ(x).
(−1)dim f =
f ∈∆ρ
max f =x

′
f ∈P̃ρ,<x

Using this identity, we can rewrite as follows.
{BG}(Ld − 1) =
+

Ld + µ(G)
X
H
µ(H)Ldim V

H∈P̃ρ′

+



X

({BG} − 1)L

X

µ(H)Ldim V

X

({BG} − 1)

X

µ(H).

dim V H

H∈P̃ρ′

−

H∈P̃ρ′

+

+

X

dim f

(−1)

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H
NG (f )=G







H

X

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H
NG (f )=G

H∈P̃ρ′









(−1)dim f



H∈P̃ρ′

The defining identity of the Möbius function implies µ(G) +
µ(e) = 0. Thereby, we simplify as follows:
{BG}(Ld − 1) =

Ld − 1
11

P

H∈P̃ρ′

µ(H) +

+



X

({BG} − 1)L

X

({BG} − 1)

dim V H

H∈P̃ρ′

+

X

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H
NG (f )=G

H∈P̃ρ′







X

f ∈∆ρ
max f =H
NG (f )=G



dim f

(−1)








(−1)dim f .

The claim now follows by regrouping terms and noticing that NG (f ) = G implies
that all elements of f are normal subgroups.

4

The conjugacy classes stabilizer poset for W

Let us now focus on finite reflection groups. The following is a useful fact in
order to study P̃W .
Proposition 4.1. If W is a finite reflection group in GL(V ), then N is a
normal stabilizer subgroup if and only if W/N is a reflection group.
Proof. Let N be a normal subgroup of W . The subspace V N fixed by N is an
element of the lattice of intersections of AW , thus V N = ∩ni=1 Ri where Ri are
the reflecting hyperplanes of the reflections ri ∈ N . Call t1 , . . . , ts the reflections
that are not in N and Tj the reflecting hyperplane of tj .
If N is a normal stabilizer subgroup, then V N is a faithful representation of
W/N by Lemma 3.3 in [4]. Moreover, W/N is generated by τj = tj + N . Each τj
fixes V N ∩ Tj , a subspace of codimension one in V N .
For the reverse implication assume that W/N is generated by the reflections
γ1 , . . . , γk but N is not a normal stabilizer subgroup. Call N ′ the stabilizer
′
′
subgroup N ⊆ N ′ such that V N = V N . The G-orbit of V N consists of the
H
′
′
subspaces V with H in the same conjugacy class of N . If N is not a normal
subgroup then this orbit consists of at least two distinct subspaces. But this
′
goes against the fact that V N = V N and the orbit of V N consists only of the
N
points of V because N is normal. Thus N ′ needs to be normal. Since N ′ is
′
also a stabilizer subgroup, then (by the proof of the first implication) V N is a
faithful representation of the reflection group W/N ′ ≃ W/N/(N ′/N ). We know that
V N = ∩ni=1 Ri because W/N is generated by reflections, and similarly deduce
′
that V N is the intersection of ∩ni=1 Ri with certain Tj s (at least one), and this
is not possible. Therefore N ′ = N .
So we can compute the poset of conjugacy classes for a complex reflection
group.
Proposition 4.2. If W is an irreducible finite reflection group in GL(V ), then
ÑW = P̃W ∩ NW = {e, W }.
Proof. In order to prove the statement, we observe that if N is a non trivial
normal subgroup of W , then because of Proposition 4.1, the representation
decomposes in the sum of two representations V = V N ⊕ (V N )⊥ . This is
against the fact that W is an irreducible reflection group.

12

Hence, under the hypothesis of Theorem A, one can compute the main ingredient for the computation of BW .
Theorem B. If W is a d-dimensional irreducible finite reflection group in
GL(V ) that fulfills the hypothesis of Theorem A, then ϕW (t) = td − 1.
Proof. The proof of the results comes directly by combining Proposition 4.2 and
Theorem A.

4.1

The reduction to the conjecture

We are ready to show that if the conjecture holds, the motivic class of the
classifying stack of BW is trivial in the Grothendieck group of algebraic stacks.
Theorem C. If W is a finite reflection group such that Conjecture holds, then
{BW } = 1 in K0 (Stackk ).
Proof. Every reflection group is product of irreducible ones and we observe that
B(W1 × W2 ) = BW1 × BW2 and so {B(W1 × W2 )} = {BW1 }{BW2 }. Hence
we assume without loss of generality that W is an irreducible complex reflection
group.
One then easily proves the statement for small (inclusion-minimal) reflection
groups and proceeds by using the induction step as in the previous computations.
Then {BW }pW (L) = pW (L) and so by Proposition 4.2
{BW }(Ld − 1) = (Ld − 1).
The claim now readily follows since the polynomial Ld − 1 is clearly invertible
in K0 (Stackk ) = K0 (Vark )[L−1 , (Ln − 1)−1 ].

References
[1] P. Aluffi, Grothendieck classes and Chern classes of hyperplane arrangements, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (2013), pp. 1873–1900.
[2] F. A. Bogomolov, The Brauer group of quotient spaces of linear representations, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 51 (1987), pp. 485–516, 688.
[3] C. Chevalley, Invariants of finite groups generated by reflections, Amer.
J. Math., 77 (1955), pp. 778–782.
[4] T. Ekedahl, A geometric invariant of a finite group. arXiv:0903.3148v1,
2009.
[5]

, The Grothendieck group of algebraic stacks. arXiv:0903.3143v2, 2009.

[6] H. Esnault and E. Viehweg, On a rationality question in the
Grothendieck ring of varieties, Acta Math. Vietnam., 35 (2010), pp. 31–
41.
[7] A. Hoshi, M.-C. Kang, and B. E. Kunyavskii, Noether’s problem and
unramified Brauer groups, Asian J. Math., 17 (2013), pp. 689–713.

13

[8] E. Looijenga, Motivic measures, Astérisque, (2002), pp. 267–297.
Séminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 1999/2000.
[9] I. Martino, The Ekedahl invariants for finite groups, J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 220 (2016), pp. 1294–1309.
[10]

, Introduction to the Ekedahl invariants, Math. Scand., 120 (2017),
pp. 211–224.

[11] E. Noether, Gleichungen mit vorgeschriebener Gruppe, Math. Ann., 78
(1917), pp. 221–229.
[12] P. Orlik and H. Terao, Arrangements of hyperplanes, vol. 300 of
Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles
of Mathematical Sciences], Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
[13] D. J. Saltman, Noether’s problem over an algebraically closed field, Invent. Math., 77 (1984), pp. 71–84.
[14] G. C. Shephard and J. A. Todd, Finite unitary reflection groups, Canadian J. Math., 6 (1954), pp. 274–304.
[15] R. P. Stanley, Enumerative combinatorics. Volume 1, vol. 49 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, second ed., 2012.
[16] R. G. Swan, Invariant rational functions and a problem of Steenrod, Invent. Math., 7 (1969), pp. 148–158.
[17] B. Totaro, The motive of a classifying space. arXiv:1407.1366, 2014.

Emanuele Delucchi
Department of Mathematics, University of Fribourg,
1700 Fribourg, Switzerland.
E-mail address: emanuele.delucchi@unifr.ch
Ivan Martino
Department of Mathematics, Northeastern University,
Boston, MA 02115, USA.
E-mail address: i.martino@northeastern.edu

14

