MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS WITH
RATIONAL SINGULARITIES

arXiv:1412.3605v2 [math.AG] 4 May 2016

MARIA ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, JOSEP ÀLVAREZ MONTANER,
AND FERRAN DACHS-CADEFAU
Abstract. The aim of this paper is to study jumping numbers and multiplier ideals
of any ideal in a two-dimensional local ring with a rational singularity. In particular
we reveal which information encoded in a multiplier ideal determines the next jumping
number. This leads to an algorithm to compute sequentially the jumping numbers and
the whole chain of multiplier ideals in any desired range. As a consequence of our method
we develop the notion of jumping divisor that allows to describe the jump between two
consecutive multiplier ideals. In particular we find a unique minimal jumping divisor
that is studied extensively.

1. Introduction
Let X be a complex algebraic variety with mild singularities and OX,O the local ring
of a point O ∈ X. To any ideal a ⊆ OX,O one may associate a family of multiplier ideals
J (aλ ) parametrized by positive rational numbers λ ∈ Q>0 . Indeed, they form a nested
sequence of ideals
OX,O ! J (aλ1 ) ! J (aλ2 ) ! ... ! J (aλi ) ! ...
and the rational numbers 0 < λ1 < λ2 < · · · where the multiplier ideals change are
called jumping numbers. The first jumping number λ1 is also known as the log-canonical
threshold. Multiplier ideals and their associated jumping numbers have proven to be a
powerful tool to understand the geometry of singularities. They are defined using a logresolution of the pair (X, a). In fact, smaller or more dense jumping numbers can be
thought to correspond to “worse“ singularities.
The aim of this paper is to present a new approach to the understanding of multiplier
ideals and jumping numbers of any ideal a in the local ring OX,O of a complex surface X
having at worst a rational singularity at O. This is a case, especially when X is smooth,
that has received a lot of attention in recent years because of the interesting properties
these invariants satisfy (see the works of Favre-Jonsson [8], [9], Lipman-Watanabe[20] or
Tucker [24]). This is also one of the few cases where explicit computations have been
done.
All three authors were partially supported by Generalitat de Catalunya 2014 SGR-634 project and Spanish
Ministerio de Economı́a y Competitividad MTM2012-38122-C03-01/FEDER. FDC is also supported by
the KU Leuven grant OT/11/069. MAC is also with the Institut de Robòtica i Informàtica Industrial
(CSIC-UPC) and the Barcelona Graduate School of Mathematics (BGSMath).
1

2

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

For simple complete ideals or irreducible plane curves in a smooth surface, Järviletho
[15] and Naie [21] provide a closed formula for the set of jumping numbers in terms of
some invariants of the singularity, the Zariski exponents. To give a closed formula for any
general ideal is beyond the scope of this work. A formula for the log-canonical threshold
already becomes quite complicated as one may see in the papers of Kuwata [16] and
Galindo-Hernando-Monserrat [11].
For the case of any ideal in a surface with a rational singularity we must refer to the work
of Tucker [25] where he gives a simple algorithm to compute the set of jumping numbers.
To such purpose, he developed the notion of divisors that (critically) contribute, building
upon previous work of Smith-Thompson [23]. We may interpret jumping numbers as being
parametrized by contributing divisors and critical divisors are more economic to detect
since the complete ideals they define are very close to their corresponding multiplier ideal.
The algorithm he proposes uses a characterization of critical divisors that allows them to
be found and consequently allows the corresponding jumping numbers to be computed.
A similar strategy is used by Hyry-Järvilehto in [14] where they proved that jumping
numbers are parameterized by more general complete ideals1. Moreover, they provide a
combinatorial criterion to detect a suitable ideal and its corresponding jumping number.
The aim of this paper is to understand the whole change between a multiplier ideal to
the next one, and to reveal what information encoded in a multiplier ideal determines the
next jumping number. This is done in our main result Theorem 3.5 and it gives rise to
an algorithm to compute the ordered sequence of multiplier ideals in any desired range
of the real line. The algorithm avoids considering candidates and computes sequentially
at each step a jumping number and its associated multiplier ideal. This new algorithm
improves in efficiency the computation of jumping numbers when compared with Tucker’s
algorithm.
Perhaps the most important contribution of our method lies in finding a divisor, that
we name the minimal jumping divisor, tightly related to the aforementioned algorithm,
which enables one to obtain a multiplier ideal from the previous one, and vice versa. This
jumping divisor is studied, in particular its geometric structure on the dual graph, and it
is compared with the previously known critically contributing divisors.
The structure of this paper is as follows: In Section §2 we introduce the basics of the
theory of multiplier ideals and some of the tools in the theory of singularities that we
will need in the rest of the paper. We pay special attention to the equivalence between
complete ideals and antinef divisors developed by Lipman in [19] since this is the way
we will present multiplier ideals. In particular we provide a new method to compute the
antinef closure of any given divisor, generalizing previous versions of Casas-Alvero [5] and
Reguera [22].

1Contributing

divisors describe complete ideals nested in between consecutive multiplier ideals. The
ideals considered in [14] are not necessarily nested.

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

3

In Section §3 we present the main result of this paper in Theorem 3.5. It gives a
generalization of a well-known formula for the log-canonical threshold and allows us to
compute a jumping number from the data given by the preceding a multiplier ideal. This
leads to the desired algorithm that computes sequentially the chain of multiplier ideals.
In Section §4 we develop the theory of jumping divisors that allows us to describe the
whole jump between two consecutive multiplier ideals. Quite surprisingly, the algorithm
we develop in Section §3 allows us to construct the unique minimal jumping divisor
associated to every jumping number. It is minimal in the sense that no proper subdivisor
gives the jump between consecutive multiplier ideals. Moreover, we prove in Theorem 4.11
that minimal jumping divisors are generically invariant with respect to log-resolutions of
the ideal and they satisfy some nice geometric properties when viewed in the dual graph.
Finally, in Section §5 we present the theory of jumping divisors in a more general
framework that we develop using the results of Hyry-Järvilehto [14] and their relation
with the theory of contributing divisors of Tucker [25]. The main result of this section is
the fact that, among all the contributing divisors associated to a jumping number that
give the same ideal, there is a minimal one. For example, critical divisors are of this type.
It turns out that these minimal contributing divisors are all contained in the minimal
jumping divisor and inherit the same invariance property with respect to log-resolutions
of the ideal.
Acknowledgments: We wish to thank Vı́ctor González Alonso for uncountable discussions that we had with him during the realization of this work. The authors would
also like to thank Pierrette Cassou-Nogués and Wim Veys for the comments received and
Manuel González-Villa for a careful reading of a previous version of the manuscript.

2. Preliminaries
Let X be a normal surface and O a point where X has at worst a rational singularity.
That is, there exists a desingularization π : X ′ → X such that the stalk at O of the higher
direct image R1 π∗ OX ′ is zero. This property is then satisfied for any desingularization.
The theory of rational singularities was introduced by Artin in [4] and further developed
by Lipman in [19]. Another reference that we will follow closely is [22].
Let a ⊆ OX be an ideal sheaf. Denote m = mX,O ⊆ OX,O the maximal ideal of the local
ring OX,O at O. Throughout this work we will often consider the case where a ⊆ m is an
m-primary ideal, which can be identified with an ideal sheaf that equals OX outside the
point O (we will use both languages interchangeably, depending on the context). Recall
that a log-resolution of the pair (X, a) (or of a, for short) is a proper birational morphism
π : X ′ → X such that
i) X ′ is smooth,
ii) the preimage of a is locally principal, that is, a · OX ′ = OX ′ (−F ) for some effective
Cartier divisor F , and

4

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

iii) F + E is a divisor with simple normal crossings support where E = Exc (π) is the
exceptional locus.
From now on, consider a given log-resolution of a. Since the point O has (at worst) a
rational singularity, the exceptional locus E is a tree of smooth rational curves E1 , . . . , Er .
Furthermore, the matrix of intersections (Ei · Ej )16i,j6r is negative-definite.
P
Let Div(X ′ ) be the group of integral divisors in X ′ , i.e. divisors of the form D = i di Ei
where the Ei are pairwise different (non necessarily exceptional) prime divisors and di ∈ Z.
Among them, we will consider divisors in the lattice Λ := ZE1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ ZEr of exceptional
divisors and we will simply refer them as divisors with exceptional support. Any divisor
D ∈ Div(X ′ ) has a decomposition D = Dexc + Daff into its exceptional and affine part2
according to its support. Our main example is the divisor F such that a·OX ′ = OX ′ (−F ).
In this case we will denote its exceptional and affine part as
Fexc =

r
X

ei Ei

and

i=1

Faff =

s
X

ei Ei

i=r+1

where, by definition, the ei are non-negative integers. Whenever a is an m-primary ideal,
the divisor F is just supported on the exceptional locus. i.e. F = Fexc .
Remark 2.1. Let C : f = 0 be a curve defined by an element f ∈ OX,O . The total
transform of C is the pull-back C := π ∗ C and its strict transform C ′ is the closure
P of
π −1 (C − {O}). The total transform has a presentation C = C ′ + C exc = C ′ + di Ei
where the weights vi (f ) := di are the values of the curve C at Ei . Recall that f ∈ a
whenever C ′ + C exc > F and f is generic in a if C exc = Fexc and C ′ − Faff has no singular
points.
More generally, we will also consider Q-divisors in DivQ (X ′ ) = Div(X ′ ) ⊗Z Q or divisors
in the Q-vector space ΛQ := QE1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ QEr . The main example will be the relative
canonical divisor Kπ . Indeed, the definition of Kπ is quite subtle if O is singular, because at
first sight one can only define a canonical divisor KX of X as a Weil divisor. Since rational
singularities are in particular Q-factorial, there exists a positive integer m such that mKX
is Cartier, which can be pulled back to X ′ and allows to define Kπ = KX ′ − m1 π ∗ (mKX ).
Alternatively,
r
X
Kπ =
ki Ei
i=1

is supported on the exceptional locus E, and must satisfy
!
r
X
(2.1)
(Kπ + Ei ) · Ei =
kj Ej · Ei + Ei2 = −2
j=1

2We

follow the terminology of Lipman-Watanabe [20]

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

5

for every exceptional component Ei because of the adjunction formula. This property indeed characterizes Kπ because the intersection form on E is negative-definite, and therefore the system defined by equations (2.1) has a unique solution (k1 , . . . , kr ). However, the
ki are not necessarily integral, and can even be negative. In the case that ki > −1 (resp.
ki > −1) for all Ei , one says that X has a log-terminal singularity (resp. log-canonical
singularity) at O.
P
For any Q-divisor D = i di Ei ∈ DivQ (X ′ ), we denote its round-down and round-up
as
X
X
⌊D⌋ =
⌊di ⌋ Ei and ⌈D⌉ =
⌈di ⌉ Ei .
i

i

P

The fractional part of D is then {D} = D − ⌊D⌋ = i {di } Ei . In the sequel we will
denote the value of each component Ei of D as vEi (D) := di . If no confusion arises, we
will simply denote the value of the components as vi (D) := vEi (D).

2.1. Dual graph. The combinatorics of the log-resolution of a can be encoded using the
so-called dual graph. This is a rooted tree where the vertices represent the irreducible
components Ei 6 F and two vertices are joined by an edge if the corresponding divisors
intersect.
Given any component Ei , we will denote by Adj (Ei ) the set of components Ej , j 6= i,
sharing an edge with Ei , i.e. Ei · Ej = 1, and by

a (Ei ) = #Adj (Ei ) = Ei · F red − Ei

the number of such components which is the valence of the vertex representing Ei , where
F red denotes de reduced divisor with the same support as F . An end of the dual graph is
nothing but a vertex with valence 1, i.e. a vertex Ei such that a (Ei ) = 1. More generally,
for any effective subdivisor D = Ei1 + · · · + Eim 6 F we define
AdjD (Ei ) = {Ej 6 D | Ei · Ej = 1}
and aD (Ei ) = #AdjD (Ei ). We denote by vD = m (resp. aD ) the number of components
of D (resp. the number of intersections between two components of D). Since the dual
graph is a tree it is clear that
X
aD (Ei ) = 2aD
Ei 6D

and that vD − aD equals the number of connected components of D. An end of the
subgraph associated to D is a vertex with valence 1 or 0. The later meaning that Ei is
an isolated component of D.
For any exceptional component Ei , we define the excess (of a) at Ei as ρi = −F · Ei .
It can be interpreted as the number of branches of the strict transform of a curve defined
by a generic element f ∈ a that intersect the component Ei . Indeed, if its total transform
is C = C ′ + F then 0 = C · Ei = C ′ · Ei + F · Ei = C ′ · Ei − ρi , which proves the claim.
There are two kinds of exceptional divisors that will play a special role:

6

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

• A component Ei of E is a rupture component if a (Ei ) > 3, that is, it intersects at
least three more components of E (different from Ei ).
• We say that Ei is dicritical if ρi > 0. By [19], dicritical components correspond to
Rees valuations.
We also mention that non-exceptional components also correspond to Rees valuations.
P
2.2. Complete ideals and antinef divisors. Given an effective Q-divisor D =
di Ei ∈
DivQ (X ′ ) we may consider its associated (sheaf) ideal π∗ OX ′ (−D) := π∗ OX ′ (−⌈D⌉). Its
stalk at O is
ID := {f ∈ OX,O | vi (f ) > ⌈di ⌉ for all Ei 6 D}.
This is a complete ideal of OX,O that is m-primary whenever D has exceptional support,
i.e. D ∈ ΛQ . Any two divisors D, D ′ ∈ DivQ (X ′ ) defining the same complete ideal
π∗ OX ′ (−D) = π∗ OX ′ (−D ′ ) are called equivalent divisors.
In the equivalence class of a given divisor one may find a unique maximal representative.
First, recall that an effective divisor with integral coefficients D ∈ Div(X ′ ) is called antinef
if −D · Ei > 0, for every exceptional prime divisor Ei . It is worth to point out that the
affine part of D = Dexc + Daff satisfies Daff · Ei > 0. Therefore D is antinef whenever
−Dexc · Ei > Daff · Ei .
In the work of Lipman (see [19, §18]) one may find the following correspondence that
we will heavily use throughout this work.
Theorem 2.2. There is a one to one correspondence between antinef divisors in Div(X ′ )
and complete ideals in OX,O . In particular, antinef divisors in Λ correspond to m-primary
complete ideals.
In order to find the representative in the equivalence class of a given divisor D ∈
e The existence of such divisor is
DivQ (X ′ ) we will consider its so-called antinef closure D.
a consequence of the following results that can be found in [19, §18], but we also refer to
[24] and [20] for more insight.
Lemma 2.3. For any effective Q-divisor D ∈ DivQ (X ′ ) there exists a unique minimal
e ∈ Div(X ′ ) satisfying D
e > D that is called the antinef closure
integral antinef divisor D
e>D
of D. In particular, any antinef divisor D ′ such that D ′ > D must satisfy D ′ > D
e ∈
Proposition 2.4. An effective Q-divisor D ∈ DivQ (X ′ ) and its antinef closure D
′
Div(X ) are equivalent, i.e.
e
π∗ OX ′ (−D) = π∗ OX ′ (−D).
One of the advantages of working with antinef divisors is that they provide the following
characterization for the inclusion (or strict inclusion) of two given complete ideals.
Proposition 2.5. Let D1 , D2 be two antinef divisors in Div(X ′ ). Then:
i) π∗ OX ′ (−D1 ) ⊇ π∗ OX ′ (−D2 ) if and only if D1 6 D2 .
ii) π∗ OX ′ (−D1 ) ! π∗ OX ′ (−D2 ) if and only if D1 < D2 .

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

7

For non-antinef divisors we can only claim the following implication:
Proposition 2.6. Let D1 , D2 be two divisors in DivQ (X ′ ) such that D1 6 D2 . Then:
i) π∗ OX ′ (−D1 ) ⊇ π∗ OX ′ (−D2 ).
f1 6 D
f2 .
ii) D
The converses to these results are no longer true.
In general, the divisors that will be considered in this work are not antinef. In order
to compute their antinef closure we will use an inductive procedure called unloading
that was already described in the work of Enriques [7, IV.II.17] (for the case of smooth
varieties) and Laufer’s procedure to compute the fundamental cycle [17] (for varieties with
rational singularities). Here we will present a new version that is a generalization of both
the unloading procedures described by Casas-Alvero [5, §4.6] (for smooth varieties) and
Reguera [22] (for varieties with rational singularities).
Unloading procedure: Let D ∈ DivQ (X ′ ) be any Q-divisor. Its excess at the exceptional prime divisor Ei is the integer ρi = −⌈D⌉ · Ei . Denote by Θ the set of exceptional
components Ei 6 D with negative excesses, i.e.
Θ := {Ei 6 Dexc | ρi = −⌈D⌉ · Ei < 0}.
To unload values on this set is to consider the new divisor
X
D ′ = ⌈D⌉ +
ni Ei ,
where ni =

l

ρi
Ei2

m

Ei ∈Θ

. Notice that ni is the least integer number such that
(⌈D⌉ + ni Ei ) · Ei = −ρi + ni Ei2 6 0.

Remark 2.7. Casas-Alvero considered at each step just one component with negative
excess. Reguera also considered one component with negative excess but in her case she
also imposed ni = 1 at each step. In this sense, our approach is more economic from a
computational point of view. Furthermore, our procedure allows unloading on divisors
with affine part3, which will enable us to treat in a unified way multiplier ideals of both
curves and not necessarily m-primary complete ideals.
The correctness of the unloading procedure is a consequence of the following results.
Proposition 2.8. Let D ′ be the divisor obtained from a divisor D ∈ DivQ (X ′ ) after one
single unloading step. Then ID′ = ID .
Proof. It is clear from its construction that ID′ ⊆ ID . Pick f ∈ ID and let C = C ′ + C exc
be the total transform of the curve C defined by f = 0. We have vi (f ) > vi (⌈D⌉) > vi (D)
for all Ei . Consider any exceptional divisor Ei where D has negative excess, from the
inequality (C exc − vi (f )Ei ) · Ei > (⌈D⌉ − vi (⌈D⌉)Ei ) · Ei we deduce
−vi (f )Ei · Ei > (⌈D⌉ − vi (⌈D⌉)Ei ) · Ei
3Our

method also differs from the one considered by Lipman-Watanabe in [20].

8

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

just because C exc · Ei 6 0. Equivalently (⌈D⌉ + (vi (f ) − vi (⌈D⌉))Ei ) · Ei 6 0 so it follows
that ni 6 vi (f ) − vi (⌈D⌉). In particular ni + vi (⌈D⌉) 6 vi (f ) and f ∈ ID′ .

e of a divisor D ∈ DivQ (X ′ ) is achieved after
Proposition 2.9. The antinef closure D
finitely many unloading steps.
Proof. We want to show that the divisors in the sequence

D 6 D1 = ⌈D⌉ < · · · < Dt < Dt+1 < · · ·
e then
obtained during the unloading procedure are all contained in the antinef closure D,
e
the result will follow since both D1 and D have integral coefficients and the inequalities
e and suppose that Dt 6 D.
e Notice
in the unloading sequence are strict. Clearly D1 6 D
e − Dt ) · Ei 6 −Dt · Ei .
that for any component Ei 6 Dt with negative excess we have (D
P
e − Dt =
Then, if we denote D
i mi Ei , the previous inequality becomes
e − Dt ) · Ei = (mi Ei + P mj Ej ) · Ei
(D
P j6=i
= mi Ei2 + j6=i mj Ej · Ei 6 −Dt · Ei .
P
Then, using that j6=i mj Ej · Ei > 0, we get


−Dt · Ei
mi >
,
Ei2
e have integer coefficients. It follows that Dt+1 is
where we used the fact that Dt and D
e
also contained in D.


2.3. Multiplier ideals. Let π : X ′ → X be a log-resolution of an ideal a ⊆ OX and let
F be the divisor such that a · OX ′ = OX ′ (−F ). The multiplier ideal (sheaf ) associated to
a and some rational number λ ∈ Q>0 is defined as4

J aλ = π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉) .
For a detailed overview of the theory of multiplier ideals and the properties they satisfy,
we must refer to the book of Lazarsfeld [18]. For more details in the case that X has
rational singularities we also recommend to take a look at [24] and [25].

The definition of multiplier ideals is independent of the choice of log resolution. For
simplicity, we will always fix a given resolution. Multiplier ideals are complete and they are
invariants up to integral closure, i.e. J (aλ ) = J (aλ ), therefore, without loss of generality,
we may always assume that the ideal a is complete.
Moreover, if a is m-primary it follows

that its associated multiplier ideals J aλ are m-primary as well.
Some other important properties of multiplier ideals that we will use in this work are:
• Local vanishing theorem: Ri π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉) = 0 for all i > 0 and all λ ∈ Q>0 .
• Skoda’s theorem: J aλ = a · J aλ−1 for all λ > dim OX,O = 2.


an abuse of notation, we will also denote J aλ its stalk at O so we will omit the word ”sheaf” if
no confusion arises.
4By

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

9

For the case
 of principal ideals there is another version of Skoda’s theorem that states
that J aλ = a · J aλ−1 for all λ > 1. In particular, we have peridiocity of jumping
numbers.
Multiplier ideals come with an attached set of invariants that were studied systematically by Ein-Lazarsfeld-Smith-Varolin in [6]. Clearly
⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ > ⌈Kπ − (λ + ε) F ⌉
for any ε > 0, with equality if ε is small enough. Therefore the multiplier ideals form a
discrete nested sequence of ideals
OX,O ⊇ J (aλ0 ) ! J (aλ1 ) ! J (aλ2 ) ! ... ! J (aλi ) ! ...
indexed by an increasing sequence of rational numbers 0 = λ0 < λ1 < λ2 < . . . such that
for any c ∈ [λi , λi+1 ) it holds
J (aλi ) = J (ac ) ! J (aλi+1 ).
The λi are the so-called jumping numbers of the ideal a and the first jumping number
λ1 = lct(a) is the log-canonical threshold of a.
2.4. Contributing divisors. The jumps between multiplier ideals necessarily must occur at rational numbers λ ∈ Q which cause the strict inclusion of divisors
⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ < ⌈Kπ − (λ − ε) F ⌉
for any ε. If we take a close look at F = Fexc + Faff these rational numbers must belong
to the set of candidate jumping numbers


ki + m
| m ∈ Z>0
ei

Notice that for non-exceptional
components
Ei 6 Faff we have ki = 0 and their correo
n
m
sponding candidates ei | m ∈ Z>0 are indeed jumping numbers.
It is easy to check that not every candidate jumping number (coming from the exceptional part) is necessarily a jumping number. To separate the wheat from the chaff,
Tucker [25] developed the notion of divisor that contributes to a jumping number, building
upon previous work by Smith-Thompson [23].

Definition 2.10. A positive rational number λ is a candidate jumping number for a
reduced divisor G 6 F if it satisfies λei − ki ∈ Z>0 for any component Ei 6 G.
Definition 2.11. [25, Def. 3.1] A reduced divisor G 6 F for which λ is a candidate
jumping number is said to contribute to λ if
π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G) ! J (aλ )
Moreover, this contribution is critical if for any divisor 0 6 G′ < G we have
π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G′ ) = J (aλ ).

10

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

Most often we will simply say that G is just a contributing or a critical divisor associated to λ. Critical divisors define complete ideals very close to a multiplier ideal in a
precise sense that will be explained in the forthcoming Corollary 5.5 in Section §5. One
may identify critical divisors with exceptional support through the following numerical
characterization.
Proposition 2.12. [25, Thm. 4.3] Let λ be a candidate jumping number for a reduced
divisor G ∈ Λ with connected support.
· If G = Ei is prime, then Ei is a critical divisor for λ if and only if
(⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Ei ) · Ei > 0.
· If G is reducible, then G is a critical divisor for λ if and only if
(⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G) · Ei = 0
for all divisors Ei in the support of G.
Moreover, critical divisors with exceptional support satisfy a nice geometric property
when viewed in the dual graph.
Proposition 2.13. [25, Cor. 4.2 & Thm 5.1] Let G be a critical divisor for a jumping
number λ. Then G is a connected chain in the dual graph of the log-resolution of a whose
ends must be either rupture or dicritical divisors.
Using all these properties, Tucker provides a simple algorithm to compute the set of all
jumping numbers (see [25, §6]). It boils down to the following steps:
Algorithm 2.14. (Jumping Numbers)
Input: A log-resolution of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O .
Output: List of Jumping Numbers of a.
• Jumping number:
· Compute the candidate jumping numbers for Fexc .
· Find all possible critical divisors using Prop. 2.13.
· Find which candidate jumping numbers can be realized as jumping number
associated to these critical divisors using Prop. 2.12.
· Plug in those jumping numbers coming from Faff .
3. An algorithm to compute jumping numbers and multiplier ideals
The aim of this section is to compute the jumping numbers and their corresponding
multiplier ideals of any given ideal a ⊆ OX,O . To such purpose, we fix a log-resolution
π : X ′ −→X of our ideal a. The
are the
Pr main ingredients we will have to deal with
′
relative canonical divisor Kπ = i=1 ki Ei ∈ ΛQ , and the divisor F ∈ Div(X ) such that
aOX ′ = OX ′ (−F ). Recall that we have a decomposition
s
r
X
X
ei Ei +
ei Ei
F = Fexc + Faff =
i=1

i=r+1

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

11

in terms of its exceptional and affine support.
We will provide a very simple algorithm that allows one to construct sequentially the
chain of multiplier ideals5
OX,O ⊇ J (aλ0 ) ! J (aλ1 ) ! J (aλ2 ) ! ... ! J (aλi ) ! ...
When X is a smooth surface, or even when X has a log-terminal singularity at O, the
multiplier ideal associated to λ0 = 0 is the whole ring, i.e. OX,O = J (aλ0 ). In general,
when X has a rational singularity we may have an strict inclusion OX,O ! J (aλ0 ). The
startingP
point of our method will be describing this ideal by means of the antinef closure
Dλ0 =
eλi 0 Ei of ⌊−Kπ ⌋ that we compute using the unloading procedure described in
Section §2.2.

As a consequence of our main result (see Theorem 3.5), the log-canonical threshold
satisfies the following formula6


ki + 1 + eλi 0
.
(3.1)
λ1 = lct(a) = min
i
ei

Then we describe its associated multiplier ideal J (aλ1 ) just computing the antinef
closure Dλ1 of ⌊λ1 F − Kπ ⌋ using the unloading procedure. Once we have the divisor
Dλ1 , we use an extension of Formula 3.1 given by Theorem 3.5, that computes the next
jumping number λ2 . Then we only have to follow the same strategy: the antinef closure
Dλ2 of ⌊λ2 F − Kπ ⌋, i.e. the multiplier ideal J (aλ2 ), will allow us to compute λ3 and so
on.
The main idea behind our method is a simple comparison between complete ideals.
Whenever we have two antinef divisors it is easy to check whether their corresponding
complete ideals satisfy a strict inclusion (see Proposition 2.5). To compare the ideals
associated to an antinef and a non-antinef divisor is more subtle and this is the situation
that we will have to deal with in this section.
To address this problem we will need some preliminary technical results.
Lemma 3.1. Let D1 , D2 be two divisors in Div(X ′ ) such that D1 6 D2 . Then, they have
f1 = D
f2 if and only if D
f1 > D2 .
the same antinef closure D

f1 6 D
f2 just because D1 6 D2 .
Proof. Recall that, by Proposition 2.6, we already have D

f1 > D2 then, by the definition of antinef closure (see Lemma 2.3), we also
Assume D
f1 > D
f2 > D2 and thus D
f1 = D
f2 . On the other hand, assume that D
f1 = D
f2 .
have D
5In

fact, we can compute the chain inside any desired fixed range [c, c′ ] ⊆ R:
′

J (ac ) = J (aλ0 ) ! J (aλ1 ) ! ... ! J (aλr ) = J (ac ) .
6When

X is smooth, or even when it has log-terminal singularities, we have Dλ0 = 0 so one recovers the
well-known formula for the log-canonical threshold.

12

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

f1 = D
f2 > D2 as
Then, since the antinef closure of a divisor always contains it, we have D
desired.

f1 < D
f2
Corollary 3.2. Let D1 , D2 be two divisors in Div(X ′ ) such that D1 6 D2 . Then, D
f1 ) < vi (D2 ) for some Ei .
if and only if vi (D

f1 6 D
f2 also holds. The result then follows from
Proof. As D1 6 D2 , the inclusion D
Lemma 3.1.


Translated into the language of complete ideals, these results give a characterization of
the jump between two nested ideals, which will be a key ingredient in the proof of our
results.
Proposition 3.3. Let D1 , D2 be two divisors in Div(X ′ ) such that D1 6 D2 . Then:
f1 > D2 .
i) π∗ OX ′ (−D1 ) = π∗ OX ′ (−D2 ) if and only if D
f1 ) < vi (D2 ) for some Ei .
ii) π∗ OX ′ (−D1 ) ! π∗ OX ′ (−D2 ) if and only if vi (D

For convenience we also present this result in the form we will most commonly use it.
P ′
Corollary 3.4. Let λ′ < λ be rational numbers. Let Dλ′ = eλi Ei be the antinef closure
of ⌊λ′ F − Kπ ⌋. Then:
′
′
i) J (aλ ) = J (aλ ) if and only if ⌊λei − ki ⌋ 6 eλi for all Ei .
′
′
ii) J (aλ ) ! J (aλ ) if and only if ⌊λei − ki ⌋ > eλi for some Ei .
With the technical tools stated above we are ready for the main result of this section.
P ′
Theorem 3.5. Let a ⊆ OX,O be an ideal and let Dλ′ = eλi Ei be the antinef closure of
⌊λ′ F − Kπ ⌋ for a given λ′ ∈ Q>0 . Then,

′
ki + 1 + eλi
λ = min
i
ei
′
is the jumping number consecutive to λ .
Proof. Let us check first that λ′ < λ. Indeed, by the definition of antinef closure, the
′
′
integers eλi satisfy ⌊λ′ ei − ki ⌋ 6 eλi for any Ei , and hence:
′

λ′ <

ki + 1 + eλi
.
ei
′

Thus, we have an inclusion of ideals J (aλ ) ⊇ J (aλ ). Notice that for those divisors Ei
where the minimum is achieved we have
′

′

⌊λei − ki ⌋ = 1 + eλi > eλi

so the above inclusion of ideals is strict by Corollary 3.4. To conclude that λ is the jumping
number immediately after λ′ , we have to show that for any c ∈ R with λ′ 6 c < λ we
′
′
have J (aλ ) = J (ac ). Suppose the contrary, i.e., J (aλ ) ! J (ac ). By Corollary 3.4,
′

k +1+eλ

′

this c should satisfy ⌊λei − ki ⌋ > eλi or equivalently c > i ei i for some Ei , and this
contradicts the fact that λ is the minimum of these rational numbers.


MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

13

The above result for the case λ′ = 0 gives a mild generalization of the well-known
formula for the log-canonical threshold in the smooth case. We point out that the antinef
closure of ⌊−Kπ ⌋ is 0 whenever X is smooth or, more generally, when it has log-terminal
singularities.
P λ0
ei Ei be the antinef closure of
Corollary 3.6. Let a ⊆ OX,O be an ideal. Let Dλ0 =
⌊−Kπ ⌋. Then,


ki + 1 + eλi 0
lct(a) = min
.
i
ei
Another easy application of the results above is the following result that should be
well-known to experts.
Corollary 3.7. Let λ1 be the log-canonical threshold of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O and assume
that X has at most a log-terminal singularity at O. Then J (aλ1 ) = m.
Proof. Since X has at most a log-terminal singularity, the log-canonical threshold is


ki + 1
lct(a) = λ1 = min
i
ei

for any divisor Ei and equality is achieved at least for a given
so it satisfies λ1 6 kie+1
i
divisor. In particular, for all Ei we have
⌊λ1 ei − ki ⌋ 6 1.
It follows from Proposition 2.6 that m ⊆ J (aλ1 )

OX,O and we get the desired result. 

For non log-terminal singularities we may find examples where the codimension as
C-vector spaces of J (aλ0 ) ! J (aλ1 ) might be bigger than 1 (see Example 3.10).
Combining Theorem 3.5 and the unloading procedure described in Section §2.2 we can
describe a very simple algorithm that allows us to compute the chain of multiplier ideals:
Algorithm 3.8. (Jumping Numbers and Multiplier Ideals)
Input: A log-resolution of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O .
Output: List of Jumping Numbers of a and its corresponding Multiplier Ideals.
P
Set λ0 = 0 and compute the antinef closure Dλ0 = eλi 0 Ei of ⌊−Kπ ⌋ using the unloading procedure. From j = 1 , incrementing by 1

(Step j)

· Jumping number: Compute
)
(
λ
ki + 1 + ei j−1
λj = min
.
i
ei

· Multiplier ideal: Compute the antinef closure Dλj =
using the unloading procedure.

P

λ

ei j Ei of ⌊λj F −Kπ ⌋

14

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

Notice that we may also find all the multiplier ideals in any given interval [c′ , c] of the
real line. In this case, our starting point would be computing the antinef closure Dc′ of
⌊c′ F − Kπ ⌋. To illustrate this method we consider an easy example in a smooth variety.
Example 3.9. Consider the ideal a = (x2 y 2 , x5 , y 5, xy 4 , x4 y) ⊆ C{x, y}. We represent
the relative canonical divisor Kπ and the divisor F in the dual graph as follows:

E2

E3

E1

E5

Vertex ordering

E4

2

4

1

4

2

5

10

4

10

5

Kπ

F
The blank dots correspond to dicritical divisors and their excesses are represented by
broken arrows7. For simplicity we will collect the values of any divisor in a vector. To
start with we have Kπ = (1, 2, 4, 2, 4) and F = (4, 5, 10, 5, 10). In the algorithm we will
have to perform some unloading steps so we will have to consider the intersection matrix
M = (Ei · Ej )16i,j65


−5
0
1
0
1
 0 −2
1
0
0 


1 −1
0
0 
M =
.
 1
 0
0
0 −2
1 
1
0
0
1 −1
The algorithm is performed as follows:
• We start computing the log-canonical threshold:




ki + 1
1
2 3 5 3 5
λ1 = lct(a) = min
= min
= .
, , , ,
i
i
ei
4 5 10 5 10
2
The divisor ⌊ 12 F − Kπ ⌋ = (1, 0, 1, 0, 1) is not antinef since it has excess −1 at E2 and E4 .
The first unloading step is to consider the divisor ⌊ 12 F − Kπ ⌋ + E2 + E4 = (1, 1, 1, 1, 1).
This divisor has excess −1 at E3 and E5 so we need to perform a second unloading step
to obtain the antinef closure Dλ1 = (1, 1, 2, 1, 2).
• The second Jumping Number is:




7
2+1 3+1 5+2 3+1 5+2
ki + 1 + eλi 1
λ2 = min
= min
= .
,
,
,
,
i
i
ei
4
5
10
5
10
10
7
Then we get ⌊ 10
F −Kπ ⌋ = (1, 1, 3, 1, 3). It has excess −1 at E1 , E2 and E4 and we obtain
the divisor (2, 2, 3, 2, 3) after the first unloading step. This divisor has excess −1 at E3 and
E5 and, after a second unloading step, we obtain the antinef closure Dλ2 = (2, 2, 4, 2, 4).
7The

broken arrows also represent the branches of the strict transform of a curve defined by a generic
f ∈ a.

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

15

• The third Jumping Number is:




9
2+2 3+2 5+4 3+2 5+4
ki + 1 + eλi 2
= min
= .
,
,
,
,
λ3 = min
i
i
ei
4
5
10
5
10
10
9
Then we get ⌊ 10
F − Kπ ⌋ = (2, 2, 5, 2, 5) that has excess −1 at E3 and E5 . After a single
unloading step we get the antinef closure Dλ3 = (2, 3, 5, 3, 5).

• The fourth Jumping Number is:




ki + 1 + eλi 3
2+2 3+3 5+5 3+3 5+5
λ4 = min
= min
= 1.
,
,
,
,
i
i
ei
4
5
10
5
10
Then we get ⌊F − Kπ ⌋ = Dλ4 = (3, 3, 6, 3, 6) since this divisor is antinef.
• The fifth Jumping Number is:




11
2+3 3+3 5+6 3+3 5+6
ki + 1 + eλi 4
= min
= .
λ5 = min
,
,
,
,
i
i
ei
4
5
10
5
10
10
F − Kπ ⌋ = (3, 3, 7, 3, 7) and, after a single unloading step, we obtain the
Then we get ⌊ 11
10
antinef closure Dλ5 = (3, 4, 7, 4, 7).
Now we will compute the chain of multiplier ideals of the plane curve defined by f =
(x − y 3)(y 2 − x3 ) ∈ C{x, y}. The product of two cusps sharing the origin O is a generic
element of the ideal a = (x2 y 2 , x5 , y 5 , xy 4, x4 y) considered above, so J (f λ ) = J (aλ )
for λ < 1. This example will illustrate how the non-exceptional components affect the
unloading procedure and, consequently, the list of jumping numbers for λ > 1.
2

Denote the total transform of the curve defined by f simply as F . We represent the
relative canonical divisor Kπ and the divisor F in the dual graph as follows:
E6

E2

0

E7

E3

E1

E5

Vertex ordering

E4

2

0
4

1
Kπ

4

2

1
5

1
10

4

10

5

F

The gray dots will represent here the affine components belonging to the strict transform
of the curve. The intersection matrix is now


−5
0
1
0
1 0 0
 0 −2
1
0
0 0 0 



1 −1
0
0 1 0 
M = 1
.
 0
0
0 −2
1 0 0 
1
0
0
1 −1 0 1

16

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

The algorithm is performed as follows:
• The log-canonical threshold is:




1
2 3 5 3 5 1 1
ki + 1
= min
= .
, , , , , ,
λ1 = lct(a) = min
i
i
ei
4 5 10 5 10 1 1
2
We get ⌊ 12 F − Kπ ⌋ = (1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0) and, as in the previous example, its antinef closure
is Dλ1 = (1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 0, 0).
• The second Jumping Number is:




ki + 1 + eλi 1
7
2+1 3+1 5+2 3+1 5+2 1 1
λ2 = min
= min
= .
,
,
,
,
, ,
i
i
ei
4
5
10
5
10 1 1
10
7
Then we get ⌊ 10
F −Kπ ⌋ = (1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 0, 0) and its antinef closure Dλ2 = (2, 2, 4, 2, 4, 0, 0).

• The third Jumping Number is:




9
2+2 3+2 5+4 3+2 5+4 1 1
ki + 1 + eλi 2
= min
= .
,
,
,
,
, ,
λ3 = min
i
i
ei
4
5
10
5
10 1 1
10
9
Then we get ⌊ 10
F −Kπ ⌋ = (2, 2, 5, 2, 5, 0, 0) and its antinef closure Dλ3 = (2, 3, 5, 3, 5, 0, 0).

• The fourth Jumping Number is:




2+2 3+3 5+5 3+3 5+5 1 1
ki + 1 + eλi 3
= min
= 1.
,
,
,
,
, ,
λ4 = min
i
i
ei
4
5
10
5
10 1 1
Then we get ⌊F − Kπ ⌋ = (3, 3, 6, 3, 6, 1, 1) but this divisor is not antinef because of the
non-exceptional components. Namely, we have excess −1 at E3 and E5 . To obtain the
antinef closure Dλ4 = (4, 5, 10, 5, 10, 1, 1) we need to perform seven unloading steps with
the intermediate divisors:
· (3, 3, 7, 3, 7, 1, 1) with excess −1 at E2 and E4 .
· (3, 4, 7, 4, 7, 1, 1) with excess −1 at E3 and E5 .
· (3, 4, 8, 4, 8, 1, 1) with excess −1 at E1 .
· (4, 4, 8, 4, 8, 1, 1) with excess −1 at E3 and E5 .
· (4, 4, 9, 4, 9, 1, 1) with excess −1 at E2 and E4 .
· (4, 5, 9, 5, 9, 1, 1) with excess −1 at E3 and E5 .
If we compare with the m-primary ideal a we should notice that the affine components
of ⌊F − Kπ ⌋ force us to add more exceptional components when computing its antinef
closure and consequently, this will give a different jumping number in the next step.
• The fifth Jumping Number is:




ki + 1 + eλi 4
3
2 + 4 3 + 5 5 + 10 3 + 5 5 + 10 2 2
λ5 = min
= min
= .
,
,
,
,
, ,
i
i
ei
4
5
10
5
10 1 1
2
Then we get ⌊ 23 F −Kπ ⌋ = (5, 5, 11, 5, 11, 1, 1) and its antinef closure Dλ5 = (5, 6, 12, 6, 12, 1, 1).

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

17

Consider a normal surface X with a singularity at O. Given a minimal resolution
π : X ′ −→X of X, Artin [4] introduced the fundamental cycle as the unique smallest nonzero effective divisor with exceptional support that is antinef. Moreover he proved that
the singularity is rational if and only if the arithmetical genus of the fundamental cycle
is zero.
We have that π is also a minimal log-resolution of the maximal ideal m ⊆ OX,O and
the fundamental cycle is the divisor F such that m · OX ′ = OX ′ (−F ). To compute its
)·F
arithmetical genus we can use the formula pa (F ) = 1 + (Kπ +F
(see [3]).
2
This characterization gives us a good source of examples of surfaces with rational singularities.
Example 3.10. Consider a surface X with a rational singularity at O whose minimal
resolution π : X ′ −→X has six exceptional components E1 , . . . , E6 with the following dual
graph and intersection matrix:









E3

E4

E5

E2

E1

E6

−4
1
1
1
1
1
1 −5
0
0
0
0
1
0 −5
0
0
0
1
0
0 −5
0
0
1
0
0
0 −5
0
1
0
0
0
0 −5









The fundamental cycle is the divisor F = (2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) and the relative canonical
14
divisor is Kπ = (− 35 , − 14
, − 14
, − 15
, − 14
, − 14
) so the singularity is not even log-canonical.
15
15
15
15
The multiplier ideals corresponding to λ0 = 0 and λ1 = lct(m) = 94 are given by the
antinef divisors Dλ0 = (2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) and Dλ1 = (3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1). Notice that J (mλ0 ) = m
and, using the techniques of [1], we get that the codimension between these multiplier
ideals is 4.
3.1. Implementation. We have implemented Algorithm 3.8 in the Computer Algebra
system Macaulay 2 [12]. The scripts of the source code as well as the output in full detail
of some examples are available at the web page
www.pagines.ma1.upc.edu/~jalvz/multiplier.html
We implemented Tucker’s Algorithm 2.14 as well in order to compare both approaches.
Of course, once we have the list of jumping numbers we may use the unloading procedure
of Section §2.2 to describe the corresponding multiplier ideals. We have also implemented
this extended version of Tucker’s algorithm and it turns out that our method is much
faster.

18

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

For example, we have tested the case of an m-primary ideal a whose corresponding
dual graph has 35 vertices distributed in three branches only sharing the origin and each
branch has three rupture divisors.
E3

E1

E5

E2

E4

E6

E8

E22

E23

E25

E27

E9

E10

E11

E7
E26
E28

E16

E29

E24

E31

E30

E32

E15

E14

E13

E17

E19

E21
E18

E34

E33

E35

E12

E20

This example has 56986 jumping numbers in the interval (0, 2]. Using the extended
version of Tucker’s algorithm it takes 897.298 seconds to compute the whole list of jumping
numbers and their corresponding multiplier ideals. Using our method it only takes 372.165
seconds, i.e. it is roughly 9 minutes faster.
The main difference between the two algorithms stems in the fact that Tucker needs
to find first all the possible critical divisors. We will see in the next section that our
algorithm can be understood as a method to find a unique and very precise contributing
divisor.
The input that we use in both algorithms, i.e. the log-resolution π : X ′ → X of an
ideal a ⊆ OX , is encoded using the intersection matrix and the vector of values for the
divisor F such that a · OX ′ = OX ′ (−F ). An algorithm to compute this data from a set
of generators of the ideal a has been described in [2]. An implementation in Macaulay
2 will be available soon. For principal ideals this can be done using the Singular [13]
package alexpoly.lib.
4. Jumping Divisors
The theory of critical divisors developed by Tucker [25] focuses on complete ideals very
close to a given multiplier ideal. The aim of this section is to understand the whole jump
between two consecutive multiplier ideals. To such purpose we introduce the following
natural definition:
Definition 4.1. Let λ be a jumping numbers of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O . A reduced divisor
G 6 F for which λ is a candidate jumping number is called a jumping divisor for λ if
J (aλ−ε ) = π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G),
for ε small enough. We say that a jumping divisor is minimal if no proper subdivisor is
a jumping divisor for λ, i.e.
J (aλ−ε ) ! π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G′ )

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

19

for any 0 6 G′ < G.
Remark 4.2. Any reduced divisor G 6 F for which λ is a candidate jumping number
defines an ideal nested between two consecutive multiplier ideals
J (aλ−ε ) ⊇ π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G) ⊇ J (aλ ).
Hence, a jumping divisor for λ is a contributing divisor to λ. In particular, a minimal
jumping divisor can be understood as the minimal contribution which defines the preceding multiplier ideal.
It is a striking fact that the methods used in the previous section, in particular our
main result Theorem 3.5, will allow us to construct the unique minimal jumping divisor
associated to a jumping number. In fact, we will see in Corollary 4.7 that the only jumping
divisors are those reduced divisors D 6 F satisfying Gλ 6 D 6 Hλ , where Gλ and Hλ
are defined as follows:
P
Definition 4.3. Let λ be a jumping number of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O . Let Dλ−ε = eλ−ε
Ei
i
be the antinef closure of ⌊(λ − ε)F − Kπ ⌋ for ε small enough. Then we define:
· Maximal jumping divisor: Is the reduced divisor Hλ 6 F supported on those
components Ei for which λei − ki ∈ Z>0 . Equivalently
Hλ = ⌈Kπ − (λ − ε)F ⌉ − ⌈Kπ − λF ⌉.
· Minimal jumping divisor: Is the reduced divisor Gλ 6 F supported on those
components Ei for which
ki + 1 + eλ−ε
i
,
ei
i.e. supported on those divisors where the minimum considered in Theorem 3.5 is
achieved.
λ=

It is clear that Hλ is a jumping divisor and Gλ 6 Hλ . In fact, any reduced divisor
G 6 F that contributes to λ satisfies G 6 Hλ . We will prove next that Gλ deserves the
given name.
Proposition 4.4. Let λ be a jumping number of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O . The reduced divisor
Gλ is a jumping divisor.
Proof. Since Gλ 6 Hλ , we have ⌊(λ − ε)F − Kπ ⌋ 6 ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − Gλ and therefore
J (aλ−ε ) ⊇ π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ).
P
For the reverse inclusion, let Dλ−ε = eλ−ε
Ei be the antinef closure of ⌊(λ−ε)F −Kπ ⌋.
i
We want to check that ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − Gλ 6 Dλ−ε . To this purpose we only need to consider
the following cases:
· If Ei 6 Gλ then we have λ =

ki +1+eλ−ε
i
.
ei

In particular ⌊λei − ki ⌋ − 1 = eλ−ε
.
i

20

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

· If Ei 66 Gλ then we have λ <
follows.

ki +1+eλ−ε
i
.
ei

Thus ⌊λei − ki ⌋ < 1 + eλ−ε
and the result
i


The unicity of the jumping divisor Gλ is a consequence of the following more general
statement
Theorem 4.5. Let λ be a jumping number of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O . Any contributing divisor
G 6 F associated to λ satisfies either:
· J (aλ−ε ) = π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G) ! J (aλ ) if and only if Gλ 6 G, or
· J (aλ−ε ) ! π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G) ! J (aλ ) otherwise.
Proof. Since G 6 Hλ , we have ⌊(λ − ε)F − Kπ ⌋ 6 ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G and therefore
J (aλ−ε ) ⊇ π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G).
Now assume Gλ 6 G. Then ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G 6 ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − Gλ , and using the fact
that Gλ is a jumping divisor we obtain the equality J (aλ−ε ) = π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G).
If Gλ 66 G we may consider a component Ei 6 Gλ such that Ei 66 G. Notice that we
have
vi (Dλ−ε ) = eλ−ε
= λei − ki − 1 < λei − ki = vi (⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G)
P λ−ε i
where Dλ−ε =
ei Ei is the antinef closure of ⌊(λ − ε)F − Kπ ⌋. Therefore, by Proposition 3.3, we get the strict inclusion
J (aλ−ε ) ! π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G).


Corollary 4.6. Let λ be a jumping number of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O . Then Gλ is the unique
minimal jumping divisor associated to λ.
Notice that Theorem 4.5 also describes all the jumping divisors associated to a given
jumping number. Namely, we have
Corollary 4.7. Let λ be a jumping number of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O . Then, any reduced
divisor in the interval Gλ 6 D 6 Hλ is a jumping divisor.
It is clear from its definition that maximal jumping divisors are periodic, i.e. Hλ =
Hλ+1 for any jumping number λ. On the other hand, critical divisors do not satisfy any
periodicity condition. One may find examples where a divisor G is a critical divisor for
the jumping number λ but not for λ + 1 and vice versa. For minimal jumping divisors we
have:
Proposition 4.8. Let λ be a jumping number of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O and Gλ its associated
minimal jumping divisor. Then we have:
i) If λ 6 1 then Gλ 6 Gλ+1 .
ii) If λ > 1 then Gλ = Gλ+1 .

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

Proof. Assume that there exists a prime divisor Ei 6 Gλ such that Ei
a sufficiently small ε > 0 we have
ki + 1 + eλ−ε
i
λ=
ei

21

Gλ+1 . Then, for

(λ−ε)+1

and

ki + 1 + ei
λ+1<
ei

P λ−ε
where Dλ−ε =
ei Ei denotes the antinef closure of ⌊(λ − ε)F − Kπ ⌋ and equivalently,
P (λ−ε)+1
D(λ−ε)+1 = ei
Ei is the antinef closure of ⌊((λ − ε) + 1)F − Kπ ⌋.
Therefore

(λ−ε)+1

ki + 1 + ei
ki + 1 + eλ−ε
i
+1<
ei
ei
(λ−ε)+1

or equivalently eλ−ε
+ ei < ei
i
contradiction.

. Then we have a · J (aλ−ε ) 6⊆ J (a(λ−ε)+1 ) so we get a
(λ−ε)+1

For λ > 1 we have an equality eλ−ε
+ ei = ei
i
result follows.

because of Skoda’s theorem so the


Let λ′ < λ be two consecutive jumping numbers of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O . It is quite
surprising that the minimal jumping divisor Gλ gives such nice approach to the under′
standing of the jump from J (aλ ) to its preceding multiplier ideal J (aλ ). Taking into
account that its construction is based on Theorem 3.5, where λ is obtained from the an′
tinef divisor associated to J (aλ ), it would seem more natural to consider the jump in the
′
other direction. It turns out that the jump from J (aλ ) to J (aλ ) does not behave that
nicely.
Proposition 4.9. Let λ′ < λ be two consecutive jumping numbers of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O
and Dλ′ be the antinef closure of ⌊λ′ F − Kπ ⌋. Then we have:
′
i) J (aλ ) ! π∗ OX ′ (−Dλ′ − Gλ ) = J (aλ ).
′
ii) J (aλ ) ! π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − (λ − ε)F ⌉ − Gλ ) = J (aλ )
P λ′
P λ
ei Ei , Dλ =
Proof. Let Dλ′ =
ei Ei be the antinef closures of ⌊λ′ F − Kπ ⌋ and
⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ respectively.

i) Since Gλ is a jumping divisor we have ⌊λF −Kπ ⌋−Gλ 6 Dλ′ , and hence ⌊λF −Kπ ⌋ 6
Dλ′ + Gλ . This gives the inclusion π∗ OX ′ (−Dλ′ − Gλ ) ⊆ J (aλ ).
In order to check the reverse inclusion π∗ OX ′ (−Dλ′ − Gλ ) ⊇ J (aλ ), it is enough, using
Proposition 3.3, to prove vi (Dλ′ + Gλ ) 6 vi (Dλ ) = eλi for any component Ei . We have
′
′
eλi 6 eλi just because J (aλ ) ! J (aλ ) and the inequality is strict when Ei 6 Gλ , so the
result follows.
ii) Let D ′ be the antinef closure of ⌊(λ − ε)F − Kπ ⌋ + Gλ . Since Gλ 6 Hλ we have
⌊(λ − ε)F − Kπ ⌋ + Gλ 6 ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ 6 Dλ
so the inclusion π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ −(λ−ε)F ⌉−Gλ ) ⊇ J (aλ )Pholds. In order to prove the reverse
inclusion we will introduce an auxiliary divisor D =
di Ei ∈ Λ defined as follows:

22

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

· di = ⌊(λ − ε)ei − ki ⌋ + 1 if Ei 6 Gλ ,
′
· di = eλi
if Ei 6 Hλ but Ei 66 Gλ ,
· di = ⌊(λ − ε)ei − ki ⌋
otherwise.
Clearly we have ⌊(λ − ε)F − Kπ ⌋ + Gλ 6 D, but we also have ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ 6 D. Indeed,
· For Ei 6 Gλ we have ⌊λei − ki ⌋ = λei − ki = ⌊(λ − ε)ei − ki ⌋ + 1 = di .
′
· If λ is a candidate for Ei but Ei 66 Gλ , ⌊λei − ki ⌋ = λei − ki < 1 + eλi , hence
′
⌊λei − ki ⌋ 6 eλi = di .
· Otherwise ⌊λei − ki ⌋ = ⌊(λ − ε)ei − ki ⌋ = di .
e On the other hand D 6 D ′ .
Therefore, taking antinef closures, we have D ′ 6 Dλ 6 D.
′
λ′
′
Namely, vi (D ) > ei at any Ei because ⌊λ F − Kπ ⌋ 6 ⌊(λ − ε)F − Kπ ⌋ + Gλ . Moreover,
vi (D ′ ) > ⌊(λ − ε)ei − ki ⌋ + δiGλ by definition of antinef closure. Here, δiGλ = 1 if Ei 6 Gλ
e 6 D ′ , which
and zero otherwise. Thus vi (D ′ ) > vi (D) as desired. As a consquence D
e gives D
e = D ′ = Dλ and the result follows. 
together with the previous D ′ 6 Dλ 6 D,

Remark 4.10. Contrary to the case of Theorem 4.5, Gλ may not be minimal. In fact, we
will see in Example 5.8 a divisor G < Gλ satisfying:
′

J (aλ ) = π∗ OX ′ (−Dλ′ ) ! π∗ OX ′ (−Dλ′ − G) = J (aλ ) .
Despite the fact that the antinef closure of both ⌊(λ −ε)F −Kπ ⌋ and ⌊λ′ F −Kπ ⌋ is Dλ′ ,
it is quite remarkable that the above jumping property does not hold taking ⌊λ′ F − Kπ ⌋,
i.e. the equality π∗ OX ′ (⌊λ′ F − Kπ ⌋ − Gλ ) = J (aλ ) is not always true.
4.1. Invariance of the minimal jumping divisor with respect to the log-resolution.
Multiplier ideals and jumping numbers are known to be independent of the chosen logresolution of the initial ideal a ⊆ OX,O . The aim of this section is to prove that the
minimal jumping divisor is generically independent of the log-resolution in a sense that
we will make precise below. As a consequence of Proposition 5.6 and Corollary 5.5 in Section §5, critical divisors will also be generically independent of the log-resolution. This is
a remarkable fact since, as it was pointed out by Tucker in [25, Remark 3.4], there is no
reason to believe that critical divisors (and by extension minimal jumping divisors) are
independent of the resolution since they depend on all the divisorial valuations appearing
in F .
We start fixing some notation that we will use in this section. Let π ′ : X ′ −→X be the
minimal log-resolution of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O . Any other log-resolution π : Y −→X factors
through π ′ , i.e. there is a birational morphism g : Y −→X ′ such that π = π ′ ◦ g (see [19,
Theorem 4.1]).
For a given jumping number λ of a we will denote G′λ the minimal jumping divisor of π ′
and E1′ , . . . , Er′ the exceptional components of E ′ = Exc(π ′ ). If Gλ and E1 , . . . , Es are the
minimal jumping divisor and the exceptional components of E = Exc(π) for any other
log-resolution π, we will enumerate them setting Ei equal to the strict transform by g of

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

23

Ei′ forP1 6 i 6 r. If no confusion arise, we will use
Pthe same symbol to denote a divisor
D = ri=1 di Ei′ on X ′ or its strict transform D = ri=1 di Ei on Y .

Theorem 4.11. With the previous notations, Gλ is independent of the log-resolution
π if and only if π does not include any blowing-up at points in the intersection of two
components of the minimal jumping divisor G′λ of the minimal log-resolution.
Actually, from the proof of this result, we can express the minimal jumping divisor of
any resolution. To such purpose we need to fix some notation:
A reduced divisor with exceptional support D = Ei1 + · · · + Eim 6 E is a chain with
ends Ei1 and Eim if aD (Ei1 ) = aD (Eim ) = 1 and aD (Eik ) = 2 for any other 1 < k < m.
Given Ej1 , Ej2 6 E, we say that the chain above connects Ej1 and Ej2 if Ej1 ∈ Adj (Ei1 )
and Ej2 ∈ Adj (Eim ). Observe that if Ej1 and Ej2 are adjacent in E, a chain connecting
them will be D = 0.
Corollary 4.12. Keeping the above notations we have
(4.1)

Gλ = G′λ +

X

Dij

E ′ +E ′ 6G′
i
j
λ
Ei′ ·Ej′ =1

where Dij is a chain connecting Ei and Ej .
Consider generic log-resolutions as those obtained from a minimal one by further
blowing-ups at simple (and hence generic) points on the exceptional components. Then,
Theorem 4.11 states that generic log-resolutions have the same minimal jumping divisor. This generictiy may be formulated, when X is smooth, in terms of valuations in the
valuative tree V of Favre-Jonsson [8]. Consider the dual graphs Γ and Γ′ of E and E ′
respectively, embedded in the valuative tree V as in [8, Chapter 6] and let νi denote the
divisorial valuation centered at Ei .
Corollary 4.13. The minimal jumping divisor Gλ of π equals the minimal jumping divisor
G′λ if and only if Γ has no vertex inside any segment ]νi , νj [ for which Ei′ and Ej′ are
adjacent in E ′ and belong to G′λ .
Proof of Theorem 4.11.
Let λ′ < λ be two consecutive jumping numbers of a. We
will argue by induction on the number of blowing-ups needed to reach Y from a minimal
resolution. In order to simplify the notation, we will assume throughout this proof that X ′
also dominates a minimal log-resolution and that Y is obtained from X ′ by one blowingup g : Y −→X ′ at a closed point p ∈ X ′ giving the exceptional component Es . Assume
that (4.1) holds on X ′ and let us prove it on Y . Notice that, keeping the notation used
in this section, we are in the case r + 1 = s.
P
P
Let F ′ = ri=1 ei Ei′ and F = si=1 ei Ei be the divisors in X ′ and Y respectively such
′
′ (−F ) and aOY = OY (−F ).
′
We also consider the antinef divisors
that aO
P
PXr =λ′OX
′
′
′
′
Dλ′ = i=1 ei Ei and Dλ′ = si=1 eλi Ei for which J (aλ ) = π∗′ OX ′ (−Dλ′ ′ ) = π∗ OY (−Dλ′ )

24

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

sharing the first r coefficients since multiplier ideals are independent of the log-resolution.
Moreover, by Theorem 3.5


′
′
ki + 1 + eλi
ki + 1 + eλi
= min
,
λ = min
16i6s
16i6r
ei
ei

clearly demonstrating that the strict transform of G′λ is contained in Gλ . In particular,
′
′
λei − ki = 1 + eλi if and only if Ei 6 Gλ and λei − ki < 1 + eλi otherwise.
We distinguish two cases:

i) The closed point p lies only on one exceptional divisor Ej′ . Then we have es = ej ,
′
′
ks = kj + 1 and eλs = eλj and thus
′

′

vs (⌊λF − Kπ ⌋) = ⌊λes − ki ⌋ = ⌊λej − kj ⌋ − 1 6 eλj = eλs .
Hence Es can not belong to Gλ .
ii) The closed point p lies on the intersection of two exceptional divisors Ej′ 1 and Ej′ 2 .
′
′
′
Then we have es = ej1 + ej2 , ks = kj1 + kj2 + 1 and eλs = eλj1 + eλj2 so
′

′

′

vs (⌊λF − Kπ ⌋) = ⌊λes − ks ⌋ = ⌊λej1 − kj1 + λej2 − kj2 ⌋ − 1 6 eλj1 + eλj2 + 1 = eλs + 1,
and equality holds if and only if Ej′ 1 + Ej′ 2 6 Gλ . In particular, Es does not belong to Gλ
whenever none or just one of the components Ej′ 1 , Ej′ 2 belong to G′λ .

4.2. Geometric properties of minimal jumping divisors in the dual graph. Assume that a critical divisor G associated to a jumping number λ has exceptional support.
One of the key ingredients in Tucker’s algorithm for the computation of jumping numbers
is that G satisfies some nice geometric conditions when viewed in the dual graph: G is a
connected chain and its ends must be either rupture or dicritical divisors (see Proposition
2.13). Then, it is natural to ask whether jumping divisors satisfy analogous properties.
Throughout this section we will also assume that the minimal jumping divisor Gλ has
exceptional support. Then, it may have several connected components in the dual graph
and these components are not necessarily chains. However, we can still control the ends
of each component. To prove the main result of this section (see Theorem 4.17) we need
some preliminary results first. Keep the notations of Section §2.
Lemma 4.14. Let λ be a jumping number of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O . For any component Ei
of the minimal jumping divisor Gλ we have
X
(⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) · Ei = −2 + λρi +
{λej − kj } + aGλ (Ei ) .
Ej ∈Adj(Ei )

Proof. For any Ei 6 Gλ we have
(⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) · Ei = ((Kπ − λF ) + {−Kπ + λF } + Gλ − Ei + Ei ) · Ei =
= (Kπ + Ei ) · Ei − λF · Ei + {λF − Kπ } · Ei + (Gλ − Ei ) · Ei .

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

25

Let us now compute each summand separately. Firstly, the adjunction formula gives
(Kπ + Ei ) · Ei = −2 because Ei ∼
= P1 . As for the second and fourth terms, the equality −λF · Ei = λρi follows from the definition of the excesses, and clearly aGλ (Ei ) =
(Gλ − Ei ) · Ei because Ei 6 Gλ .
Therefore it only remains to prove that
X
(4.2)
{λF − Kπ } · Ei =
{λej − kj } ,
Ej ∈Adj(Ei )

which is also quite immediate. Indeed, writing
{λF − Kπ } =

r
X

{λej − kj } Ej ,

j=1

equality (4.2) follows by observing that (for j 6= i), Ej ·Ei = 1 if and only if Ej ∈ Adj (Ei ),
and the term corresponding to j = i vanishes because we have λei − ki ∈ Z.

Remark
4.15. It is important to notice that (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) · Ei ∈ Z, that is −2 +
P
Ej ∈Adj(Ei ) {λej − kj } + λρi + aGλ (Ei ) ∈ Z.
The following result is an analogue of the numerical conditions that critical divisors
satisfy (see Proposition 4.19). Unfortunately it does not provide a characterization of
minimal jumping divisors.

Proposition 4.16. Let λ be a jumping number of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O . For any component
Ei 6 Gλ of the minimal jumping divisor Gλ we have
(⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) · Ei > 0.
Proof. Let Gλ be the minimal jumping divisor. Given a prime divisor Ei 6 Gλ we consider
the short exact sequence
0 −→ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ − Ei ) −→ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) −→
−→ OEi (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) −→ 0
Pushing it forward to X we get
0 −→ π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ − Ei ) −→ π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) −→
−→ H 0 (Ei , OEi (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ )) ⊗ CO ,
where CO denotes the skyscraper sheaf supported at O with fibre C. The minimality of
Gλ (see Theorem 4.5) implies that
π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ − Ei ) 6= π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) .
Thus H 0 (Ei , OEi (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ )) 6= 0, or equivalently (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ )·Ei > 0. 
With the above ingredients we can provide the following geometric property of minimal
jumping divisors when viewed in the dual graph.

26

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

Theorem 4.17. Let Gλ be the minimal jumping divisor associated to a jumping number
λ of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O . Then the ends of a connected component of Gλ must be either
rupture or dicritical divisors.
Proof. Assume that an end Ei of a connected component of Gλ is neither a rupture nor a
dicritical divisor. It means that Ei has no excess, i.e. ρi = 0, and that it has one or two
adjacent divisors, say Ej and El , in the dual graph but at most one of them belongs to
Gλ .
For the case that Ei has two adjacent divisors Ej and El the formula given in lemma
4.14 reduces to (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) · Ei = −2 + {λej − kj } + {λel − kl } + λρi + aGλ (Ei ).
Then:
· If Ei has valence one in Gλ , e.g. El 66 Gλ then
(⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) · Ei = −2 + {λel − kl } + 1 < 0.
· If Ei is an isolated component of Gλ , i.e., Ej , El 66 Gλ then
(⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) · Ei = −2 + {λej − kj } + {λel − kl } < 0.
If Ei has just one adjacent divisor Ej , i.e. Ei is an end of the dual graph, the formula
reduces to (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) · Ei = −2 + {λej − kj } + λρi + aGλ (Ei ). Then:
· If Ei has valence one in Gλ then (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) · Ei = −2 + 1 < 0
· If Ei is an isolated component of Gλ then
(⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) · Ei = −2 + {λej − kj } < 0.
In any case we get a contradiction with Proposition 4.16.



Remark 4.18. It follows from [26, Theorem 3.3] that the minimal jumping divisor associated to the log-canonical threshold is connected in the case that X is smooth.
As a consequence we may also give the following refinement of Proposition 4.16.
Proposition 4.19. Let λ be a jumping number of an m-primary ideal a ⊆ OX,O . If
Ei 6 Gλ is neither a rupture nor a dicritical component of the minimal jumping divisor
Gλ we have
(⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) · Ei = 0.
Proof. Assume that Ei 6 Gλ is neither a rupture or a dicritical component. In particular,
it is not the end of a connected component of Gλ . Thus, Ei has exactly two adjacent
components Ej and El in Gλ , and its excess is ρi = 0. The formula given in Lemma 4.14
reduces to
(⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) · Ei = −2 + λρi + {λej − kj } + {λel − kl } + aGλ (Ei ) .
Notice that aGλ (Ei ) = 2, and also {λej − kj } = {λel − kl } = 0 because Ej and El are
components of Gλ , so finally (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + Gλ ) · Ei = 0.


MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

27

5. Minimal contributing divisors
The theory of minimal jumping divisors introduced in Section §4 can be included in a
more general framework that we will describe in this section. To such purpose we will give
our own perspective of the work of Hyry-Järviletho [14] and its relation with the theory
of contributing divisors of Tucker [25].
Let λ be a jumping number of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O . Recall that a reduced divisor G 6 F
that contributes to λ defines an ideal nested between two consecutive multiplier ideals
J (aλ−ε ) ⊇ π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G) ! J (aλ ).
We may interpret that λ is parametrized by the set of nested ideals defined by contributions
but this is far from being a one-to-one correspondence. An easy way to detect such a
nested ideal is finding a suitable critical divisor using Tucker’s algorithm. The approach
given in the previous sections is more economical in the sense that each jumping number
is parametrized by its unique minimal jumping divisor Gλ or equivalently, its preceding
multiplier ideal.
Hyry-Järviletho [14] give a similar approach where jumping numbers are parametrized
by general antinef divisors8, or equivalently complete ideals not necessarily nested in the
chain of multiplier ideals. We should point out that their results also hold for the case that
X has rational singularities since
are based on divisorial considerations.
P their arguments
′
Given any antinef divisor D = di Ei ∈ Div(X ), they considered the following notions:
· Jumping number corresponding to D:


ki + 1 + d i
.
λD := min
i
ei

· Support of a jumping number corresponding to D:


ki + 1 + d i
.
SD := i | λD =
ei
· Contributing divisor associated to D:
GD :=

X

Ei .

i∈SD

Hyry-Järviletho proved in [14, Proposition 1] that all jumping numbers of a can be
obtained in this way: as λD for a suitable antinef divisor D ∈ Div(X ′ ) (or equivalently
a complete ideal ID ). Moreover, they give in [14, Theorem 1] a combinatorial criterion
that detects the existence of such antinef divisors. The simplest parametrizations they
used to describe the set of jumping numbers are given by antinef divisors corresponding
to critical divisors (see [14, Theorem 2]).
8Hyry-Järviletho

only consider the case of m-primary ideals on smooth surfaces and consequently antinef
divisors with exceptional support but their ideas also hold in general

28

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

In general, the complete ideal ID associated to an antinef divisor D ∈ Div(X ′ ) satisfies
J (aλD −ε ) ⊇ ID but does not necessarily contain J (aλD ). However, if ID is nested in
between two consecutive multiplier ideals
J (aλ−ε ) ⊇ ID ! J (aλ )
then it must satisfy λ = λD .
Remark 5.1. One can also interpret this framework through the generalized version of logcanonical thresholds already introduced by Järviletho in [15]. Namely, the log-canonical
threshold with respect to any other ideal b ⊆ OX,O is defined as follows:
lctb (a) := inf{c ∈ Q>0 | J (ac ) 6⊃ b}
Notice that whenever ID is the complete ideal associated to an antinef divisor D ∈
Div(X ′ ), then λD = lctID (a).
Hyry-Järviletho [14, Lemma 11] proved that if D ∈ Div(X ′ ) is an antinef divisor then
GD is a contributing divisor for λD . In fact, the contributing divisors obtained in this
way satisfy some nice properties as we will see next.
Proposition 5.2. Let G be a contributing divisor associated to a jumping number λ. Let
D be the antinef closure of ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G. Then GD 6 G.
P
Proof. Let D =
di Ei be the antinef closure of ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G. Since ID is a nested
ideal in the chain of multiplier ideals, then we have


ki + 1 + d i
λ = λD = min
.
i
ei

Hence λei − ki 6 1 + di and equality holds if and only if i ∈ SD . In order to prove
GD 6 G we will show that Ei 66 G implies Ei 66 GD . Indeed, if Ei 66 G and Ei 6 GD then
⌊λei − ki ⌋ 6 di (just because ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G 6 D by Lemma 2.3) and λei − ki − 1 = di
so we get a contradiction.


Proposition 5.3. Let λ = λD′ be a jumping number associated to an antinef divisor
D ′ ∈ Div(X ′ ). Let D be the antinef closure of ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − GD′ . Then we have D 6 D ′ ,
λD = λD′ , SD = SD′ and GD = GD′ .
Proof. Using the definition of antinef closure (see Lemma 2.3),
order to get D 6 D ′ we
P in
′
′
′
only need to prove that ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − GD′ 6 D . Set D = di Ei . By hypothesis


ki + 1 + d′i
λ = λD′ = min
i
ei

therefore we have ⌊λei − ki ⌋ 6 d′i if i 6∈ SD′ , whereas ⌊λei − ki ⌋ − 1 = d′i if i ∈ SD′ as
desired.

Notice then that we have J (aλ−ε ) ⊇ ID ⊇ ID′ so, given the fact that ID′ 6⊆ J (aλ ), we
get λD = λ. Now, the inclusion of divisors D 6 D ′ having the same minimum λD = λD′ ,
gives the inclusion of supports SD ⊇ SD′ and equivalently GD > GD′ . On the other hand,

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

29

taking G = GD′ in Proposition 5.2, we get the reverse inequality of divisors GD 6 GD′ so
we are done.

The main result of this section is that we can find a minimal contributing divisor among
all contributing divisors defining the same nested ideal.
Theorem 5.4. Let G be a contributing divisor associated to a jumping number λ. Let D
be the antinef closure of ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G, which gives a nested ideal
J (aλ−ε ) ⊇ ID = π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G) ! J (aλ ).
Then we also have ID = π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + GD ). Furthermore, GD is the minimal
contributing divisor associated to λ that defines the same ideal ID , that is:
· Any contribution G′ to λ defining ID = π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G′ ) must satisfy
GD 6 G′ .
· Any proper subdivisor G′ < GD defines an strictly included ideal
ID ! π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G′ ) .
Proof. Let D ′ be the antinef closure of ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − GD . We will see first that D = D ′
thus giving the desired equality of ideals
ID = π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G) = π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + GD ) = ID′ .
In virtue of Proposition 5.2, we have GD 6 G so ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G 6 ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − GD and
D 6 D ′ . The reverse inequality D > D ′ is a consequence of Proposition 5.3.
To show that GD is the minimal contributor to the jumping number λ that defines the
same ideal ID we will prove the following equivalent result:
Claim: Any contributor G′ to λ for which ID ⊇ π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G′ ) also satisfies
the reverse inclusion ID ⊆ π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G′ ) if and only if GD 6 G′ .
Proof of Claim: Suppose first that GD 6 G′ . Then ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G′ 6 ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − GD
and hence D ′′ 6 D ′ = D, where D ′′ is the antinef closure of ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G′ . Therefore
ID ⊆ ID′′ as wanted.
Assume now that GD 66 G′ and pick a component Ei 6 GD such that Ei 66 G′ . By
hypothesis ID ⊇ ID′′ and equivalently D 6 D ′′ but in fact D < D ′′ since
vi (D) = λei − ki − 1 < λei − ki = vi (⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G′ ) 6 vi (D ′′ ).
The result follows then from Proposition 3.3.



It turns out that critical divisors are also minimal in the above sense as we can see in
the following generalization of [14, Proposition 3].
Corollary 5.5. Let G be a contributing divisor associated to a jumping number λ. Let
D be the antinef closure of ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G. Then G is a critical divisor if and only if
GD = G and ID and J (aλ ) do not admit strictly nested ideals between them defined by
contributors to λ.

30

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

Proof. Assume first that GD = G. Then, by Theorem 5.4, any proper subdivisor 0 6 G′ <
G defines an ideal strictly included in ID ! π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G′ ) ⊇ J (aλ ). Since ID
and J (aλ ) do not admit strictly nested ideals between them coming from contributors,
we get π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G′ ) = J (aλ ) so G is a critical divisor.
Assume now that G is a critical divisor. By Proposition 5.2 we have GD 6 G. Both
divisors define the same ideal by Theorem 5.4 so they must be equal otherwise we would
have a contradiction with the fact that G is a critical divisor.
Finally we will see that there is no contributing divisor G′ associated to λ defining a
strictly nested ideal
ID ! π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G′ ) ! J (aλ ).
Assume that such G′ exists and let D ′ be the antinef closure of ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G′ .
Then the inclusion of divisors D < D ′ having the same minimum λD = λD′ = λ implies
SD′ ⊆ SD and GD′ 6 GD . Since G = GD is minimal, applying Theorem 5.4, we must
have G = GD = GD′ 6 G′ contradicting the starting hypothesis of inclusion of ideals. 
The minimal jumping divisor introduced in Section §4 fits nicely in this theory. Given
a jumping number λ of an m-primary ideal a ⊆ OX,O , let Dλ−ε be the antinef closure of
⌊(λ − ε)F − Kπ ⌋ for ε > 0 small enough. Then we have λ = λDλ−ε and the unique minimal
jumping divisor is Gλ = GDλ−ε .
In general, a divisor G ∈ Λ that contributes to the jumping number λ might not be
contained in Gλ . For minimal contributing divisors we have the following:
Proposition 5.6. Let λ be a jumping number of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O and Gλ be its associated minimal jumping divisor. Then GD 6 Gλ for any antinef divisor D ∈ Div(X ′ ) such
that λ = λD .
Proof. Let D ′ be the antinef closure of ⌊λF −Kπ ⌋−GD . By Proposition 5.3 we have GD =
GD′ and λ = λD = λD′ . Since the ideals J (aλ−ε ) ⊇ ID′ are nested, their corresponding
antinef divisors satisfy Dλ−ε 6 D ′ and they reach the same minimum λDλ−ε = λD′ = λ.

Hence, SD′ ⊆ SDλ−ε which implies GD = GD′ 6 Gλ as we wanted.
Corollary 5.7. Let λ be a jumping number of an ideal a ⊆ OX,O . Then we have G 6 Gλ
for any critical divisor G associated to λ.
The reduced sum of all critical divisors equals the jumping divisor Gλ for simple complete ideals (see [10, Thm. 2.3] for the smooth case). However this is no longer true in
general.
Example 5.8. Let X be a smooth surface and consider the m-primary ideal a ⊆ OX,O
whose dual graph is

E3

E4

E2

E1

E6

Vertex ordering

E5

3

6

2

1
Kπ

4

2

14

28

12

8
F

20

10

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

31

The multiplier ideals corresponding to the consecutive jumping numbers

7

14

6

4

10

5

8

15

7

5

11

5
7

<

3
4

are:

6

3
4

5
7

⊇
J (a )
J (a )
The minimal jumping divisor corresponding to λ = 43 is G 3 = E1 + E2 + E4 + E6 but
4
the only critical divisors are E4 and E6 . In particular
5
3
J (a 7 ) ! π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − F ⌉ + E4 + E6 ).
4
It is worth pointing out that
3

π∗ OX ′ (−D 5 − E4 − E6 ) = π∗ OX ′ (−D 5 − G 3 ) = J (a 4 )
7

7

4

where D 5 is the antinef closure of ⌊ 57 F − Kπ ⌋. So minimality is not always achieved for
7
the divisor Gλ in Proposition 4.9.
In general, not every nested ideal between two consecutive multiplier ideals is given by
a contributing divisor. The following result identifies them precisely.
Proposition 5.9. Any nested ideal J (aλ−ε ) ⊇ ID′ ! J (aλ ) comes from a contributing
divisor G associated to λ, i.e. ID′ = π∗ OX ′ (⌈Kπ − λF ⌉ + G), if and only if D ′ = D where
D is the antinef closure of ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G and in this case G = GD′ .
Proof. Let D ′ be the antinef closure of ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G. By Proposition 5.3 we have
D 6 D ′ . On the other hand, Proposition 5.2 implies GD′ 6 G which gives
⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − G 6 ⌊λF − Kπ ⌋ − GD′
and hence D ′ 6 D so we get the desired result. The reverse implication is straightforward.

Proposition 5.10. Let ID be the ideal associated to an antinef divisor D ∈ Λ. Then, ID is
a multiplier ideal for the ideal a ⊆ OX,O if and only if D is contained in the antinef closure
of ⌊(λD −ε)F −Kπ ⌋. If this is the case, D is also the antinef closure of ⌊λD F −Kπ ⌋−GD .
Proof. By definition, we have ⌊(λD − ε)F − Kπ ⌋ 6 D because J (aλD −ε ) ⊇ ID . We
also have ID 6⊆ J (aλD ) so the only possibility for ID of being a multiplier ideal is when
J (aλD −ε ) = ID so, applying Lemma 3.1, D must be contained in the antinef closure
of⌊(λD − ε)F − Kπ ⌋. The rest of the statement follows from Theorem 5.4.

References
[1] M. Alberich-Carramiñana, J.Àlvarez Montaner, F. Dachs-Cadefau and V. González-Alonso, Poincaré
series of multiplier ideals in two-dimensional local rings with rational singularities, preprint available
at arXiv:1412.3607. 17
[2] M. Alberich-Carramiñana, J.Àlvarez Montaner and G. Blanco, Effective computation of base points
of two-dimensional ideals, preprint. 18

32

M. ALBERICH-CARRAMIÑANA, J. ÀLVAREZ MONTANER, AND F. DACHS-CADEFAU

[3] M. Artin, Some numerical criteria for contractability of curves on algebraic surfaces, Amer. J. Math.
84 (1962), 485–496. 17
[4] M. Artin, On isolated rational singularities of surfaces, Amer. J. Math. 88 (1966), 129–136. 3, 17
[5] E. Casas-Alvero, Singularities of plane curves, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series, 276, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. 2, 7
[6] L. Ein, R. Lazarsfeld, K. Smith and D. Varolin, Jumping coefficients of multiplier ideals, Duke
Math. J. 123 (2004), 469–506. 9
[7] F. Enriques and O. Chisini, Lezioni sulla teoria geometrica delle equazioni e delle funzioni algebriche,
N. Zanichelli, Bologna, (1915). 7
[8] C. Favre and M. Jonsson, The valuative tree, Lect. Notes Math.,1853 (2004). Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
xiv+234 pp. 1, 23
[9] C. Favre and M. Jonsson, Valuations and multiplier ideals, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 18 (2005), 655–684.
1
[10] C. Galindo and F. Monserrat, The Poincaré series of multiplier ideals of a simple complete ideal in
a local ring of a smooth surface, Adv. Math. 225 (2010), 1046–1068. 30
[11] C. Galindo, F. Hernando and F. Monserrat, The log-canonical threshold of a plane curve, Preprint
available at arXiv:1211.6274. 2
[12] D. Grayson and M. Stillman, Macaulay 2. Available at: http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2. 17
[13] G.-M. Greuel, G. Pfister, and H. Schönemann, Singular 2.0.5 A Computer Algebra System
for Polynomial Computations. Centre for Computer Algebra, University of Kaiserslautern (2003).
http://www.singular.uni-kl.de. 18
[14] E. Hyry and T. Järviletho, Jumping numbers and ordered tree structures on the dual graph,
Manuscripta Math. 136 (2011), 411–437. 2, 3, 27, 28, 29
[15] T. Järviletho, Jumping numbers of a simple complete ideal in a two-dimensional regular local ring,
Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 214 (2011), no. 1009, viii+78 pp. 2, 28
[16] T. Kuwata, On log canonical thresholds of reducible plane curves, Amer. J. Math. 121 (1999),
701–721. 2
[17] H. Laufer, On rational singularities, Amer. J. Math. 94 (1972), 597–608. 7
[18] R. Lazarsfeld, Positivity in algebraic geometry II, volume 49, (2004), Springer-Verlag, xviii+385. 8
[19] J. Lipman, Rational singularities, with applications to algebraic surfaces and unique factorization,
Inst. Hautes tudes Sci. Publ. Math. 36 (1969) 195–279. 2, 3, 6, 22
[20] J. Lipman and K. I. Watanabe, Integrally closed ideals in two-dimensional regular local rings are
multiplier ideals, Math. Res. Lett. 10 (2003) 423–434. 1, 4, 6, 7
[21] D. Naie, Jumping numbers of a unibranch curve on a smooth surface, Manuscripta Math. 128 (2009),
33–49. 2
[22] A. J. Reguera, Curves and proximity on rational surface singularities, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 122
(1997) 107–126. 2, 3, 7
[23] K. E. Smith and H. Thompson, Irrelevant exceptional divisors for curves on a smooth surface. in:
Algebra, geometry and their interactions, Contemp. Math. 448 (2007), 245–254. 2, 9
[24] K. Tucker, Integrally closed ideals on log terminal surfaces are multiplier ideals, Math. Res. Lett. 16
(2009), 903–908. 1, 6, 8
[25] K. Tucker, Jumping numbers on algebraic surfaces with rational singularities, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 362 (2010), 3223–3241. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 18, 22, 27
[26] W. Veys, Determination of the poles of the topological zeta function for curves, Manuscripta Math.
87 (1995), 435–448. 26

Departament de Matemàtiques, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Av. Diagonal
647, Barcelona 08028, Spain
E-mail address: Maria.Alberich@upc.edu, Josep.Alvarez@upc.edu

MULTIPLIER IDEALS IN TWO-DIMENSIONAL LOCAL RINGS

33

KU Leuven, Department of Mathematics, Celestijnenlaan 200B box 2400, BE-3001 Leuven, Belgium
E-mail address: Ferran.DachsCadefau@wis.kuleuven.be

