arXiv:1212.0515v2 [math.AC] 23 Mar 2013

Apolarity for determinants and permanents of generic
matrices
Masoumeh (Sepideh) Shafiei
Department of Mathematics, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA

March 2013
Abstract
We show that the apolar ideals to the determinant and permanent of a generic
matrix, the Pfaffian of a generic skew symmetric matrix and the Hafnian of a generic
symmetric matrix are each generated in degree two. In each case we specify the generators and a Gröbner basis of the apolar ideal. As a consequence, using a result of
K. Ranestad and F.-O. Schreyer we give lower bounds to the cactus rank and rank of
each of these invariants. We compare these bounds with those obtained by J. Landsberg
and Z. Teitler.

1

Introduction

This paper is originally motivated by a question from Zach Teitler about the generating
degree of the annihilator ideal of the determinant and the permanent of a generic n × n
matrix. Here annihilator is meant in the sense of the apolar pairing, i.e. Macaulay’s
inverse system. Our main result is that the apolar ideals of the determinant and of the
permanent of a generic matrix are generated in degree 2 (Theorems 2.12 and 2.13). The
reason for Teitler’s interest in this problem is the recent paper by Kristian Ranestad and
Frank-Olaf Schreyer [RS], which gives a lower bound for smoothable rank, border rank and
cactus rank of a homogeneous polynomial in terms of the generating degree of the apolar
ideal and the dimension of the Artinian apolar algebra defined by the apolar ideal. We
apply this and our result to bounding the scheme/cactus length of the determinant and the
permanent of the generic matrix (Theorem 3.5). In section 4 we give the analogous result
for the annihilator ideal of the Pfaffian of a generic skew symmetric matrix (Theorem 4.11)
and the annihilator of the Hafnian of a generic symmetric matrix (Theorem 4.14)
In a sequel paper [Sh2] we study the apolar ideal of the determinant and permanent of the
generic symmetric matrix.

1

Let k be a field of characteristic zero or characteristic p > 2, and let A = (aij ) be a square
matrix of size n with n2 distinct variables. The determinant and permanent of A are
homogeneous polynomials of degree n. Let R = k[aij ] be a polynomial ring and S = k[dij ]
be the ring of inverse polynomials associated to R, and let Rk and Sk denote the degree-k
homogeneous summands. Then S acts on R by contraction:
(
a`−k
uv
(dij )k ◦ (auv )` =
0

if (i, j) = (u, v),
otherwise.

(1)

If h ∈ Sk and F ∈ Rn , then we have h ◦ F ∈ Rn−k . This action extends multilinearly to the
action of S on R. When the characteristic of the field k is zero or chark = p greater than
the degree of F , the contraction action can be replaced by the action of partial differential
operators without coefficients ([IK], Appendix A, and [Ge]).
Definition 1.1. To each degree-j homogeneous element, F ∈ Rj we associate I = Ann(F )
in S = k[dij ] consisting of polynomials Φ such that Φ ◦ F = 0. We call I = Ann(F ), the
apolar ideal of F ; and the quotient algebra S/Ann(F ) the apolar algebra of F .
Let F ∈ R, then Ann(F ) ⊂ S is an ideal and we have
(Ann(F ))k = {h ∈ Sk |h ◦ F = 0}.
Remark 1.2. Let φ : (Si , Ri ) → k be the pairing φ(g, f ) = g ◦ f , and V be a vector
subspace of Rk , then we have
dimk (V ⊥ ) = dimk Sk − dimk V.

(2)

For V ⊂ Rk , we denote by V ⊥ = Ann(V ) ∩ Sk .
Let F be a form of degree j in R. We denote by < F >j−k the vector space Sk ◦ F ⊂ Rj−k .
([IK]).
We denote by Mk (A) the vector subspace of R spanned by the k × k minors of A.
Lemma 1.3.
Sk ◦ (det(A)) = Mn−k (A) ⊂ Rn−k .
Proof. It is easy to see that
Sk ◦ (det(A)) ⊂ Mn−k (A) ⊂ Rn−k .

2

(3)

For the other inclusion, let MI,
b Jb(A), I = (i1 , . . . , ik ), J = (j1 , . . . jk ), 1 ≤ i1 ≤ i2 ≤ · · · ≤
ik ≤ n, 1 ≤ j1 ≤ j2 ≤ · · · ≤ jk ≤ n be the (n − k) × (n − k) minor of A one obtains by
deleting the I rows and J columns of A. Now it is easy to see that
MI,
b Jb = ±(di1 ,j1 · di2 ,j2 · · · dik ,jk ) ◦ det(A).
Hence MI,
b Jb ∈ Sk ◦ (det(A)).

Remark 1.4. (see [IK], page 69, Lemma 2.15) Let F ∈ R and deg F = j and k ≤ j. Then
we have
(Ann(F ))k = {h ∈ Sk |h ◦ S j−k F = 0} = (Ann(S j−k F ))k .

(4)

Remark 1.5. By Lemma 1.3 and Remark 1.4 we have
Ann(det(A))k = Mk (A)⊥ .

Example 1.6. Let n = 3,



a11 a12 a13
A =  a21 a22 a23 .
a31 a32 a33
Let Pij and Mij be respectively the permanent and the determinant corresponding to the
entry aij . Question: Does P11 = d22 d33 + d32 d23 annihilate det(A) = a11 M11 + a12 M12 +
a13 M13 ? The following computations allow us to answer this.
P11 ◦ a11 M11 = (d22 d33 + d23 d32 ) ◦ (a11 a22 a33 − a11 a23 a32 ) = a11 − a11 = 0.
P11 ◦ a12 M12 = (d22 d33 + d23 d32 ) ◦ (a12 a21 a33 − a12 a23 a31 ) = 0.
P11 ◦ a13 M13 = (d22 d33 + d23 d32 ) ◦ (a13 a21 a32 − a13 a22 a31 ) = 0.
Hence P11 annihilates the determinant.
It is easy to see that when n = 3, Pij ◦ Mkl = 0 for each 1 ≤ i, j, k, l ≤ 3. So in the case
n = 3 the annihilator of the determinant of a generic matrix certainly contains all its 2 × 2
permanents.

3

Acknowledgment. I am deeply grateful to my advisor Prof. Anthony Iarrobino whose
help, stimulating ideas and encouragement helped me in working on this problem and writing
this paper. I am very thankful to Prof. Zach Teitler for suggesting this problem and his
helpful comments and also Prof. Aldo Conca and Prof. Larry Smith for their valuable
comments and suggestions. I also gratefully acknowledge support in summer 2012 from the
Ling-Ma fellowship.

2

The apolar algebras associated to the n × n generic matrix

In this section we determine the annihilator ideals of the determinant and the permanent
of a generic n × n matrix. In section 2.1 we review the dimension of the subspace of
k × k minors and permanents of an n × n generic matrix. In section 2.2 we determine the
generators of the apolar ideal to the determinant and permanent of a generic matrix.
We continue to employ the notations of section 1, so R = k[aij ] is a polynomial ring
and S = k[dij ] is the ring of inverse polynomials associated to R, and S acts on R by
contraction.

2.1

Hilbert function and dimension of spaces of minors and permanents

Denote by AA = S/(Ann(det(A)) the apolar algebra of the determinant of the matrix
A. Recall that the Hilbert function of AA is defined by H(AA )i = dimk (AA )i for all
i = 0, 1, . . . .
Definition 2.1. Let F be a polynomial in R, we define the deg(Ann(F )) to be the length
of S/Ann(F ).
2
The number of the k ×k minors and permanents of a generic n×n matrix is nk . The k ×k
minors form a linearly independent set ([BC] Theorem 5.3 and Remark 5.4), and the k × k
permanents form another linearly independent set. To show the linearly independence of
these two sets we choose a term order, for example the diagonal order where the main
diagonal term is a Gröbner initial term. Now the initial terms give a basis for the two
spaces ([LS], page 197). So the dimension of the space of k × k minors of an n × n matrix
2
and the dimension of the space of k × k permanents of an n × n matrix are both nk . By
Lemma 1.3 and Remark 1.5 we have
 2
n
H(S/Ann(det A))k = H(S/Ann(P ermA))k =
.
(5)
k
4

So the length dimk (AA ) satisfies
dimk (AA ) =

k=n
X
k=0

n
k

2


=


2n
.
n

(6)

A combinatorial proof of the Equation 6 can be found in [ST], Example 1.1.17.

2.2

Generators of the apolar ideal

In this section we determine the generators of the apolar ideal of the determinant and
permanent of a generic matrix.
Notation. For a generic n × n matrix A = (aij ), the permanent of A is a polynomial of
degree n defined as follows:
Per(A) =

X

Πai,σ(i)

σ∈Sn

Lemma 2.2. Let A = (aij ) be a generic n × n matrix. Then each 2 × 2 permanent of
D = (dij ) annihilates the determinant of A.
Proof. Assume we have an arbitrary 2 × 2 permanent dij dkl + dil dkj corresponding to

P =

dij
dkj

dil
dkl



P
Reacll that det(A) = σ∈Sn Sgn(σ)Πai,σ(i) . There are n! terms in the expansion of the
determinant. If a term does not contain the monomial aij akl or the monomial ail akj then
the result of the action of the permanent dij dkl + dil dkj on it will be zero. There are
(n − 2)! terms which contain the monomial aij akl and (n − 2)! terms which contain the
monomial ail akj . So assume we have a permutation σ1 of n objects having aij and akl
respectively in it’s i − th and k − th place. Corresponding to σ1 we also have a permutation
σ2 = τ σ1 , where τ = (j, l) is a transposition and sgn(σ2 ) = sgn(τ σ1 ) = −sgn(σ1 ). Thus
corresponding to each positive term in the determinant which contains the monomial aij akl
or the monomial ail akj we have the same term with the negative sign, thus the resulting
action of the permanent dij dkl + dil dkj on det(A) is zero.

5

Definition 2.3. Let A = (aij ) and D = (dij ) be two generic matrices with entries in the
polynomial ring R = k[aij ], and in the ring of differential operators S = k[dij ], respectively.
Let {PA }, {MA }, {PD } and {MD } denote the set of all 2 × 2 permanents and the set of all
2 × 2 minors of A and D, respectively. And let PA , MA = M2 (A), PD and MD = M2 (D)
denote the spaces they span, respectively.
Corollary 2.4. Each 2 × 2 permanent of D annihilates MA
Proof. By Lemma 2.2, PD ◦ det(A) = 0. Let F = det(A). We have
(AnnF )2 = (Ann(Sj−2 ◦ F ))2 .
Hence
PD ◦ det(A) = 0 ⇐⇒ PD ◦ Sj−2 (det(A)) = 0 ⇐⇒ PD ◦ MA = 0.

We also know that the square of an element, or any product of two or more elements of
the same row or column of D annihilates det(A).
Definition 2.5. A monomial in the n2 variables of the ring S = k[dij ] is acceptable, if it
is square free and has no two variables from the same row or column of D. A polynomial
is acceptable if it can be written as the sum of acceptable monomials.
We denote by < X > the k-vector space span of the set X.
Lemma 2.6. PD ⊕ MD =<degree 2 acceptable polynomials in S >.
Proof. Let dij dkl be an arbitrary acceptable monomial of degree 2. Since char(k) 6= 2 we
have:
dij dkl = 1/2((dij dkl − dij dkl ) + (dij dkl + dij dkl )).
By Equation 5

dim PD = dim MD =

 2
n
.
2

Let Ψ =<degree 2 acceptable polynomials in S >. Then
 2

 
n +1
n
2
dim Ψ = dim S2 − dim UD =
− (n +
(2n)).
2
2

6

So we have

dim(PD + MD ) =

 2

 
n +1
n
− (n2 +
(2n)) = dim PD + dim MD .
2
2

Hence PD ∩ MD = 0.

Denote the space of all unacceptable polynomials of degree 2 by UD . We have shown that
(PD + UD ) ◦ MA = 0 so PD + UD ⊂ Ann(MA ). Then Equation 2 implies
dimk (Ann(MA ))2 = dimk S2 − dimk MA .
Lemma 2.7. Ann(MA ) ∩ S2 = PD + UD .
Proof. By Lemma 2.6 we have PD + MD is complementary to UD . So we have
dim((Ann(MA ))2 ) = dim S2 − dim MA = dim PD + UD .

Notation. We define the homomorphism ξ : R → S by setting ξ(aij ) = dij ; for a monomial
v ∈ R we denote by v̂ = ξ(v) the corresponding monomial of S.
P
Remark 2.8. Let f = i=k
i=1 αi vi ∈ Rn with αi ∈ k and with vi ’s linearly independent
monomials. Then we will have:
Ann(f ) ∩ Sn =< αj vˆ1 − α1 vˆj , < v1 , ..., vk >⊥ >,

(7)

where < v1 , ..., vk >⊥ = Ann(< v1 , ..., vk >) ∩ Sn .
Lemma 2.9.
(PD + UD )k ⊂ Ann(Mk (A)) ∩ Sk .
Proof. We have:
(1) PD ◦ det(A) = 0 ⇐⇒ PD ◦ Sn−2 (det(A)) = 0 ⇐⇒ PD ◦ MA = 0.
(2) (Ann(det(A))) ∩ S2 = PD + UD ⇒ Sk−2 (PD + UD ) ◦ (Sn−k ◦ det(A)) = 0.
⇒ Sk−2 (PD + UD ) ◦ Mk (A) = 0.
⇒ (PD + UD )k ◦ Mk (A) = 0. (By Remark 1.4)
7

(8)

So Equation 8 holds.

Proposition 2.10. For a generic n × n matrix A with n ≥ 2, we have
(PD + UD )n = Ann(det(A)) ∩ Sn .
Proof. Using Equation 8 we only need to show
(PD + UD )n ⊃ Ann(det(A)) ∩ Sn .
We use induction on n. For n = 2 the equality is easy to see. Next we verify that
the proposition holds for the case n = 3. We need to see that the space of 2 × 2
permanents of D generates Ann(det(A))3 /UD , i.e., Ann(M3 (A))3 /UD . Corresponding
to each term in the determinant, there is a permutation of three objects σ such that
we can write the term as a1σ(1) a2σ(2) a3σ(3) . Consider the degree three binomial b =
a1σ(1) a2σ(2) a3σ(3) − a1τ (1) a2τ (2) a3τ (3) , where τ 6= σ. Without loss of generality we can
assume that σ is the identity, so we consider the binomial b = a11 a22 a33 − a1τ (1) a2τ (2) a3τ (3) .
If these two monomials have a common variable i.e., τ (i) = i for some i = 1, 2, 3, then
the binomial will be of the form b = aii (ajj akk − ajk akj ), 1 ≤ i, j, k, l ≤ 3, so we will have
b = aii Mii and, as we have shown previously, Pii = djj dkk − djk dkj annihilates it. Assume
that the monomials a11 a22 a33 and a1τ (1) a2τ (2) a3τ (3) do not have any common factor. We
can add and subtract another term a1β(1) a2β(2) a3β(3) , where β is a permutation, such that it
will have one common factor with a11 a22 a33 and one common factor with a1τ (1) a2τ (2) a3τ (3) .
By reindexing we can take β(1) = τ (1), β(2) = 2 and then we can determine β(3) according
to the other two choices. Then by factorizing we get a binomial of the form aij Mij +akl Mkl ,
where the first term can be annihilated by the permanent of the matrix D corresponding
to dij and the second term can be annihilated by the permanent of the matrix D corresponding to the element dkl . So by Equation 7 we are done. For example, if we have
the binomial a11 a22 a33 − a13 a21 a32 we can add and subtract the term a11 a23 a32 which has
one common factor with a11 a22 a33 and one common factor with a13 a21 a32 so we will get
a11 (a22 a33 − a23 a32 ) + a32 (a11 a23 − a13 a21 ) which is a11 M11 + a32 M32 . And as we have
shown before it can be annihilated by the space of 2 × 2 permanents. So by Equation 7 we
are done.
When n is larger than 3 then by the induction assumption we can assume that the proposition holds for all k ≤ n − 1. By the Remark 2.8 it is enough to show that if b is a binomial
of the form Equation 7, in Ann(det(A)) ∩ Sn , then b ∈ (PD + UD )n . Assume b = b1 + b2
is of degree n. If the two terms, b1 and b2 are monomials in S and have a common factor
l, i.e., b1 = la1 and b2 = la2 , then b = l(a1 + a2 ) where a1 and a2 are of degree at most
n − 1. So by the induction assumption the proposition holds for the binomial a1 + a2 , i.e.
a1 + a2 ∈ (PD + UD )n−1 . Hence we have
b = l(a1 + a2 ) ∈ l(PD + UD )n−1 ⊂ (PD + UD )n .
8

If the two terms, b1 and b2 do not have any common factor then with the same method as
above we can rewrite the binomial b by adding and subtracting a term of the determinant,
m of degree n, which has a common factor m1 with b1 and a common factor m2 with b2 .
Then we will have
b1 + b2 = b1 + m + b2 − m = m1 (c1 + m0 ) + m2 (c2 − m00 ),
where b1 = m1 c1 , m = m1 m0 = m2 m00 and b2 = m2 c2 . Since c1 + m0 and c2 − m00 are of
degree at most n − 1, the induction assumption yields
b1 + b2 = m1 (c1 + m0 ) + m2 (c2 − m00 ) ∈ (PD + UD )n .
This completes the induction step and hence the proof of the proposition.

Corollary 2.11. For a generic n × n matrix A and each integer k, 1 ≤ k ≤ n, we have
(PD + UD )k = Ann(det(A)) ∩ Sk .
We also have (UD )n+1 = Sn+1 .
Proof. Using equation 8 we only need to show that
Ann(det(A)) ∩ Sk ⊂ (PD + UD )k .
By Lemma 1.3 and Remark 1.4 we have
(Ann(det(A)))k = (Ann(Sn−k ◦ (det(A))))k = (Ann(Mk (A)))k
If we label the k × k minors of A by f1 , ..., fs we have

(Ann(Mk (A)))k = Ann(< f1 , ..., fs >)k = (

i=s
\

(Ann(fi ))k

i=1

But for each fi if we denote the ring of variables of fi by Ri , then by Proposition 2.10 we
have
i
i
(PD
+ UD
)k = Ann(fi ) ∩ Ski .
Hence
Ann(det(A)) ∩ Sk ⊂ (PD + UD )k .
9

Finally, every monomial of degree larger than n will be unacceptable. So we have (UD )n+1 =
Sn+1 .

Theorem 2.12. Let A be a generic n × n matrix. Then the apolar ideal Ann(det(A)) ⊂ S
is the ideal (PD + UD ), and is generated in degree two.
Proof. This follows directly from the Proposition 2.10 and Corollary 2.11.
Theorem 2.13. Let A be a generic n × n matrix. Then the apolar ideal Ann(Per(A)) ⊂ S
to Per(A) ∈ R is the ideal (MD + UD ), generated in degree two.
Proof. The proof follows directly from the proof of the Proposition 2.10 and Corollary 2.11,
by interchanging the determinants and the permanents.
Corollary 2.14. Let A = (aij ) be an m × n matrix where n ≥ m. Let N denote the space
generated by all m × m minors of A. Then Ann(N ) is generated in degree two by all 2 × 2
permanents of A and the degree two unacceptable monomials.
Proof. Let s =

n
m



, and f1 , ..., fs denote the m × m minors of A. We have

Ann(N ) = Ann(< f1 , ..., fs >) =

i=s
\

(Ann(fi )).

i=1

Let Ri denote the ring of variables of fi . Hence by Theorem 2.12 we have Ann(fi ) ∩ S i is
generated in degree 2. So we have Ann(N ) is also generated in degree 2.

3

Application to the ranks of the determinant and the permanent

Notation. Let F ∈ R = k[aij ] be a homogeneous form of degree d. A presentation
F = l1d + ... + lsd with li ∈ R1 .

10

(9)

is called a Waring decomposition of length s of the polynomial F . The minimal number s
that satisfies the Equation 9 is called the rank of F .
The apolarity action of S = k[dij ] on R, defines S as a natural coordinate ring on the
projective space P(R1 ) of 1-dimensional subspaces of R1 and vice versa. A finite subscheme
Γ ⊂ P(R1 ) is apolar to F if the homogeneous ideal IΓ ⊂ S is contained in Ann(F )
([IK],[RS]).
Remark 3.1. (([IK] Def. 5.66,[RS])) Let Γ = {[l1 ], ..., [ls ]} be a collection of s points in
P(R1 ). Then
F = c1 l1d + ... + cs lsd with ci ∈ k.
if and only if
IΓ ⊂ Ann(F ) ⊂ S
Definition 3.2. We have the following ranks ([IK] Def. 5.66 , [BR] and [RS]). Here Γ
is a punctual scheme (possibly not smooth), and the degree of Γ is the number of points
(counting multiplicities) in Γ.
a. the rank r(F ):
r(F ) = min{deg Γ|Γ ⊂ P(R1 ) smooth, dim Γ = 0, IΓ ⊂ Ann(F )}.
Note that when Γ is smooth, it is the set of points in the Remark 3.1 ([IK], page 135).
b. the smoothable rank sr(F ):
sr(F ) = min{deg Γ|Γ ⊂ P(R1 ) smoothable, dim Γ = 0, IΓ ⊂ Ann(F )}.
Note that for the smoothable rank one considers the smoothable schemes, that are the
schemes which are the limits of smooth schemes of s simple points ([IK], Definition 5.66).
c. the cactus rank (scheme length in [IK], Definition 5.1 page 135) cr(F ):
cr(F ) = min{deg Γ|Γ ⊂ P(R1 ), dim Γ = 0, IΓ ⊂ Ann(F )}.
d. the differential rank (Sylvester’s catalecticant or apolarity bound) is the maximal dimension of a homogeneous component of S/Ann(F ):
ldif f (F ) = max{(H(S/Ann(F )))i }.
i∈N0

Note that we give a lower bound for the cactus rank of the determinant and permanent
of the generic matrix. We do not have information on the smoothable rank of the generic
11

determinant or permanent. It is still open to find a bound for the smoothable rank. The
work of A. Bernardi and K. Ranestad [BR] in the case of generic forms of a given degree
and number of variables show that the cactus rank and smoothable rank can be very
different.
Proposition 3.3. ([IK], Proposition 6.7C) The above ranks satisfy
ldif f (F ) ≤ cr(F ) ≤ sr(F ) ≤ r(F ).
Proposition 3.4. (Ranestad-Schreyer) If the ideal of Ann(F ) is generated in degree d
and Γ ⊂ P(T1 ) is a finite (punctual) apolar subscheme to F , then
deg Γ ≥

1
deg(Ann(F )),
d

where deg(Ann(F )) = dim(S/Ann(F )) is the length of the 0-dimensional scheme defined
by Ann(F ).
If in Proposition 3.4 we take F = det(A) or F = Per(A), since we have found that for
the determinant and the permanent of a matrix we have d = 2; we can use the above
proposition to find a lower bound for the above ranks of F .
Theorem 3.5. Let F be the determinant or permanent of a generic n × n matrix A. We
have
 
1 2n
≤ cr(F ) ≤ sr(F ) ≤ r(F ).
2 n
Proof. By Theorems 2.12 and 2.13, Propositions 3.4 and 3.3,and Equations 5 and 6 we
have for an apolar punctual scheme Γ,
deg Γ ≥

 
k=n  
1
1 X n 2 1 2n
deg(Ann(F ) =
=
.
d
2
k
2 n
k=0

Notation. [LT] Let Φ ∈ S d Cn be a polynomial, we can polarize Φ and consider it as a
multilinear form Φ̃ where Φ(x) = Φ̃(x, ..., x) and consider the linear map Φs,d−s : S s Cn∗ →
S d−s Cn , where Φs,d−s (x1 , ..., xs )(y1 , ..., yd−s ) = Φ̃(x1 , ..., xs , y1 , ...yd−s ). Define
Zeros(Φ) = {[x] ∈ PCn∗ |Φ(x) = 0} ⊂ PCn∗ .
12

Let x1 , ..., xn be linear coordinates on Cn∗ and define
Σs (Φ) := {[x] ∈ Zeros(Φ)|

∂I Φ
(x) = 0, ∀I, such that |I| ≤ s}.
∂xI

In this notation Φs,d−s is the map from Ss → Rn−s taking h to h ◦ Φ, hence its rank is
H(AA )s .
In the following theorem we use the convention that dim ∅ = −1.
Theorem 3.6. (Landsberg-Teitler)([LT]) Let Φ ∈ S d Cn , Let 1 ≤ s ≤ d. Then
rank(Φ) ≥ rankΦs,d−s + dim Σs (Φ) + 1.
Remark. (Z. Teitler) If we define Σs (Φ) to be a subset of affine rather than projective
space, then the above theorem does not need +1 at the end, and does not need the statement
that the dimension of the empty set is −1.
Applying this theorem for the determinant yields
Corollary 3.7. (Landsberg-Teitler)([LT])
2
n
+ n2 − (bn/2c + 1)2 .
bn/2c


r(detn ) ≥

Proposition 3.8. (Bernardi-Ranestad)([BR], Theorem 1) Let F ∈ Rs be a homogeneous form of degree d, and let l be any linear form in S1s . Let Fl be a dehomogenization
of F with respect to l. Denote by Diff(F ) the subspace of S s generated by the partials of F
of all orders. Then
cr(F ) ≤ dimk Diff(Fl )
We thank Pedro Marques for pointing out that it is easy to show that the length of a
polynomial is an upper bound for the length of any dehomogenization of that polynomial.
So we have
cr(F ) ≤ dimk Diff(F ) = deg(Ann(F ))
(10)

13

Proposition 3.9. For the monomial m = xb11 ...xbnn , where 1 ≤ b1 ≤ ... ≤ bn we have
(a) ([CCG])
r(xb11 ...xbnn ) = Πi=n
i=2 (bi + 1)
(b) ([RS])
i=n−1
(bi + 1)
sr(xb11 ...xnbn ) = cr(xb11 ...xbnn ) = Πi=1

(c)([BBT2]) Let d = b1 + . . . + bn , and m = l1d + . . . + lsd with r(m) = s. Let I ⊂ S be
the homogeneous ideal of functions vanishing on Q = {[l1 ], . . . , [ls ]} ⊂ Pn−1 . Then I is a
complete intersection of degrees b2 + 1, . . . , bn + 1 generated by
y2b2 +1 − Φ1 y1b1 +1 , . . . , ynbn +1 − Φn y1b1 +1 ,
for some homogeneous polynomials Φi ∈ S of degree bi − b1 .
Example 3.10. Let n = 2, and

A=

a b
c d


,

det(A) = ad − bc = (a + d)2 − (a − d)2 + (b − c)2 − (b + c)2 so r(det(A)) = 4.
The corresponding Hilbert sequence for n = 2 is (1, 4, 1). We have ldif f (det(A)) = 4. Using
Theorem 3.5 we have:
cr(det(A)) ≥

1
1
deg(Ann(det(A))) = (6) = 3.
d
2

So the lower bound we obtain using Theorem 3.5 is 3.
Using Corollary 3.7 (Landsberg-Teitler) we obtain:

r(det2 ) ≥

2
b2/2c

2

+ 22 − (b2/2c + 1)2 = 4 + 4 − 4 = 4.

On the other hand we have
det(A) = ad − bc = 1/4((a + d)2 − (a − d)2 ) − 1/4((b + c)2 − (b − c)2 ).
Hence
r(det(A)) = cr(det(A)) = sr(det(A)) = ldif f (det(A)) = 4.
Example 3.11. Let n = 3, and
14




a b e
A =  c d f ,
g h i
det(A) = g(bf − de) − h(af − ce) + i(ad − bc).
Using Macaulay2 for the calculations we obtain the Hilbert sequence (1, 9, 9, 1), and by
Theorem 3.5 we have:
1
1
cr(det(A)) ≥ deg(Ann(det(A))) = (20) = 10.
d
2
So the lower bound we find using the Theorem 3.5 is 10, which is greater than the
ldif f (det(A)) = 9, so it is a better lower bound for the cactus and smoothable ranks
introduced above.
Using Corollary 3.7 we have:

r(det3 ) ≥

3
b3/2c

2

+ 32 − (b3/2c + 1)2 = 9 + 9 − 4 = 14.

On the other hand, for every x, y and z, it is easy to see that r(xyz) ≤ 4:
xyz = 1/24((x + y + z)3 + (x − y − z)3 − (x − y + z)3 − (x + y − z)3 ).
Hence 14 ≤ r(det(A)) ≤ 24.
If a = 1 in det(A), we have that the punctual scheme Ann(det Aa=1 ) of degree 18 with
Hilbert function (1, 8, 8, 1). So by Proposition 3.8 we have:
cr(det(A)) ≤ 18.
Example 3.12. Let n = 4, and


a
 c
A=
 g
m


b e j
d f k 
,
h i l 
n o p

Using Macaulay2 for the calculations we obtain the Hilbert sequence (1, 16, 36, 16, 1). By
Theorem 3.5,
1
1
cr(det(A)) ≥ deg(Ann(det(A))) = (70) = 35.
d
2
which is less than the ldif f (det(A)) = 36. So in this case ldif f is a better lower bound for
the cactus rank.
15

Using Corollary 3.7 (Landsberg-Teitler) we have:

r(det4 ) ≥

2
4
+ 42 − (b4/2c + 1)2 = 36 + 16 − 9 = 43.
b4/2c

So the lower bound found by Corollary 3.7 (Landsberg-Teitler) is a better lower bound for
the rank in this case.
Now using Proposition 3.9 we have
r(det4 ) ≤ (4!)(23 ) = 192
Example 3.13. Let n = 5, and



A=



a
c
g
m
u

b e
d f
h i
n o
v w

j
k
l
p
x

q
r
s
t
y




,



Using Macaulay2 for the calculations we obtain the Hilbert sequence (1, 25, 100, 100, 25, 1).
By Theorem 3.5
1
1
deg(Ann(det(A))) = (252) = 126,
d
2

cr(det(A)) ≥

which is greater than the ldif f (det(A)) = 100. So it is a better lower bound for cactus rank
than ldif f .
Using Corollary 3.7 (Landsberg-Teitler) we have:
2
5
+ 52 − (b5/2c + 1)2 = 116.
b5/2c


r(det5 ) ≥

So for the first time at n = 5 Theorem 3.5 gives us a better lower bound for the rank than
Corollary 3.7 (Landberg-Teitler).
Now using Proposition 3.9 we have
r(det5 ) ≤ (5!)(24 ) = 1920

16

Example 3.14. Let n = 6. Using Macaulay2 for the calculations we obtain the Hilbert
sequence
H(S/Ann(det A)) = (1, 36, 225, 400, 225, 36, 1).
Now using Theorem 3.5 we have:
cr(det(A)) ≥

1
1
deg(Ann(det(A))) = (924) = 462.
d
2

So the lower bound we can find using Theorem 3.5 is 462, which is greater than the
ldif f (det(A)) = 400, and therefore is a better lower bound for cactus rank than ldif f .
Using Corollary 3.7 (Landsberg-Teitler) we have:

r(det6 ) ≥

2
6
+ 62 − (b6/2c + 1)2 = 420.
b6/2c

So again at n = 6 Theorem 3.5 give us a better lower bound than Corollary 3.7 (LandbergTeitler).
Now using Proposition 3.9 we have
r(det6 ) ≤ (6!)(25 ) = 23040
√

n
Remark 3.15. (a)Using Stirling’s formula, n! ∼ 2πn ne , we can approximate 2n
n for
√
large n by 4n / nπ. Hence for large n Theorem 3.5 gives us a lower bound asymptotic
√
to 4n /2 nπ ≤ cr(det(A)), and the Landsberg-Teitler formula gives us the lower bound
2 · 4n /(nπ) ≤ r(det(A)). The Landsberg-Teitler lower bound for r(det(A)) is also asymp2
n
totic to ldif f (det(A)) = bn/2c
, which is a lower bound for cr(det(A)). These are also
lower bounds for the corresponding ranks of the permanent of a generic n × n matrix.
(b) Using Proposition 3.9 the upper bound for the rank of the determinant and permanent
of a generic n × n matrix
by (n!)2n−1 . This can be approximated for large n, using
√ is given
Stirling’s formula, by 2πn( ne )n (2n−1 ).
(c) By Equation 10 an upper bound for the cactus rank of both the determinant and
n √
permanent of a generic n × n matrix is 2n
n , which is asymptotic to 4 / nπ.
In the following table we give lower bounds for the ranks of the determinant and permanent
of an n × n generic matrix.

17

Table 1: The determinant of
n
lower bound for cr(det(A)) by Theorem 3.5
lower bound for r(det(A)) by Corollary 3.7
ldif f (det(A))

4

the
2
3
4
4

generic matrix
3
4
5
6
10 35 126 462
14 43 116 420
9 36 100 400

n0
√
4n /2 nπ
4n /2nπ
2
n
bn/2c

Annihilator of the Pfaffian and Hafnian

In this section we discuss the annihilator ideals of the Pfaffians and of the Hafnians. We
show that the annihilator ideal of the Pfaffian of a generic skew symmetric 2n × 2n matrix
and the annihilator ideal of the Hafnian of generic symmetric 2n × 2n matrix are both
generated in degree 2.
sk = (x ) with x = −x be an m×m skew symmetric
In the following discussion we let Xm
ij
ij
ji
matrix of indeterminates in the polynomial ring Rsk = k[xij ], Let Ymsk = (yij ) with
yij = −yji be an m × m skew symmetric matrix of indeterminates in the ring of differential
sk by P f (X sk ). It is well
operators S sk = k[yij ]. We denote the Pfaffian of the matrix Xm
m
sk ) = 0. It is also well known that
known that for any odd number m we have det(Xm
the square of the Pfaffian is equal to the determinant of a skew symmetric matrix. So in
the following we are going to consider the annihilator of the Pfaffian of generic m × m
skew symmetric matrices, where m = 2n is an even number. Recall that

Notation. Let F2n ⊂ S2n be the set of all permutations σ satisfying the following conditions:
(1) σ(1) < σ(3) < ... < σ(2n − 1)
(2) σ(2i − 1) < σ(2i) for all 1 ≤ i ≤ n
• For a 2n×2n generic skew symmetric matrix X sk , we denote by P f (X sk ) the Pfaffian
of X sk defined by
P f (X s ) =

X

sgn(σ)xσ(1)σ(2) xσ(3)σ(4) ...xσ(2n−1)σ(2n)

(11)

σ∈F2n

• ([IKO]) We denote by Hf (X s ) the Hafnian of a generic symmetric 2n × 2n matrix
X s defined by
Hf (X s ) =

X

xσ(1)σ(2) xσ(3)σ(4) ...xσ(2n−1)σ(2n)

σ∈F2n

18

(12)

sk )). We first give some examples and then some partial results
Let J2n = Ann(P f (X2n
sk )). Using Macaulay2 for calculations we have the following reconcerning Ann(P f (X2n
sults:

(a) Let X2 be a generic skew symmetric 2 × 2 matrix, then we have H(S sk /J2 ) = (1, 1).
And the maximum degree of the generators of the annihilator ideal J2 is 2. So using the
Ranestad-Schreyer Proposition we have:
cr(P f (X2sk ) ≥

1
1
deg(Ann(P f (X2sk ))) = (2) = 1,
d
2

which is the same as the differential length in this case. Evidently, in this case r(P f (X2sk ) = 1,
so we have
r(P f (X2sk ) = cr(P f (X2sk ) = sr(P f (X2sk ) = ldif f (P f (X2sk ) = 1.
(b) Let X4 be a generic skew symmetric 4 × 4 matrix. Using Macaulay2 for calculations we
have H(S sk /J4 ) = (1, 6, 1), and the maximum degree of the generators of the annihilator
ideal J4 is 2. Using the Ranestad-Schreyer Proposition we have:
cr(P f (X4sk ) ≥

1
1
deg(Ann(P f (X4sk ))) = (8) = 4,
d
2

which is less than ldif f = 6.
(c) Let X6 be a generic skew symmetric 6 × 6 matrix. Using Macaulay2 for calculations
we have H(S sk /J6 ) = (1, 15, 15, 1), and the maximum degree of the generators of the
annihilator ideal J6 is 2. Using the Ranestad-Schreyer Proposition we have:
cr(P f (X6sk ) ≥

1
1
deg(Ann(P f (X6sk ))) = (32) = 16,
d
2

which is larger than ldif f = 15.
(d) Let X8 be a generic skew symmetric 8 × 8 matrix. Using Macaulay2 for calculations
we have H(S sk /J8 ) = (1, 28, 70, 28, 1), and the maximum degree of the generators of the
annihilator ideal J8 is 2. From the Ranestad-Schreyer Proposition we have:
cr(P f (X8sk ) ≥

1
1
deg(Ann(P f (X8sk ))) = (128) = 64,
d
2

which is less than ldif f = 70.
(e) Let X10 be a generic skew symmetric 10 × 10 matrix. Using Macaulay2 for calculations
we have
H(S sk /J10 ) = (1, 45, 210, 210, 45, 1).
19

The maximum degree of the generators of the annihilator ideal J10 is 2. From the RanestadSchreyer Proposition we have:
sk
cr(P f (X10
)≥

1
1
sk
))) = (512) = 256,
deg(Ann(P f (X10
d
2

which is larger than ldif f = 210.
Remark 4.1. The Hilbert sequence
for the P
apolar algebra
of the Pfaffian of a generic

t=n 2n
2n−1 .
2n × 2n matrix is given by 2n
,
and
we
have
=
2
t=0 2t
2t
Definition 4.2. A 2t-Pfaffian minor of a skew symmetric matrix X is a Pfaffian of a
submatrix of X consisting of rows and columns indexed by i1 , i2 , ..., i2t for some i1 < i2 <
... < i2t .

The number of 2t-Pfaffian minors of a 2n × 2n skew symmetric matrix is clearly 2n
2t .
We denote by {P2t (X sk )} the set of the 2t-Pfaffians of X sk . Furthermore, we denote by
P2t (X sk ) the vector space generated by {P2t (X sk )} in Rtsk and we denote by (P2t (X sk )) the
ideal generated by {P2t (X sk )} in Rsk . Let τ be the lexicographic term order on Rsk = k[xij ]
induced by the following order on the indeterminates:
x1,2n ≥ x1,2n−1 ≥ ... ≥ x1,2 ≥ x2,2n ≥ x2,2n−1 ≥ ... ≥ x2n−1,2n .
Theorem 4.3. (Herzog-Trung [HT], Theorem 4.1) The set {P2t (X)} of the 2t-Pfaffians
of the matrix X sk is a Gröbner basis of the ideal (P2t (X)) with respect to τ .
Corollary 4.4. The dimension
 of the space of 2t × 2t Pfaffians of a 2n × 2n generic skew
symmetric matrix X sk is 2n
2t . So we have
dim(S sk /Ann(P f (X sk ))) = 22n−1 .
Proof. The proof follows directly from the Theorem 4.3 and the combinatorial identity:

t=n 
X
2n
t=0

2t

= 22n−1 .

This identity is easy to show; e.g., it follows immediately by evaluating at x = 1 and
x = −1 the binomial expansion of (x + 1)2n .

20

The examples strongly suggest that the apolar ideal of the Pfaffian is generated in degree 2.
In the remaining part of this section we prove that this is always the case.
Definition 4.5. Let W be the vector subspace of S sk spanned by degree 2 elements of
type (a), (b) and (c) defined as follows
(a) square of each element of Y sk . The number of these monomials is 2n2 − n.
(b) product of each element of Y sk with another element in the same row or column of the
matrix Y sk . The number these monomials is (2n2 − n)(2n − 2).
(c) Given any 4 × 4 submatrix of X sk of the rows and columns i1 , i2 , i3 and i4 ,


x i1 i3 x i1 i4
0
x i1 i2
 −xi1 i2
0
x i2 i3 x i2 i4 
,
Q=
 −xi1 i3 −xi2 i3
0
x i3 i4 
−xi1 i4 −xi2 i4 −xi3 i4
0
we have P f (Q) = xi1 i2 xi3 i4 − xi1 i3 xi2 i4 + xi1 i4 xi2 i3 . Corresponding to P f (Q) we have
3 binomials which annihilate P f (Q) hence annihilate P f (X sk ). These binomials are
yi1 i2 yi3 i4 + yi1 i3 yi2 i4 , yi1 i2 yi3 i4 − yi1 i4 yi2 i3 and yi1 i3 yi2 i4 + yi1 i4 yi2 i3 . However these three
binomials are not linearly independent, and we can write one of them as the sum of the
other 2 binomials. So corresponding to each 4 × 4 Pfaffian we have 2 linearly independent
binomials
 in the annihilator ideal, and using Theorem 4.3, the number of these binomials
2n
is 2 · 4 .
Remark. For a 2n × 2n skew symmetric matrix X sk , we have W ⊂ Ann(P f (X sk )).
Lemma 4.6. For the generic skew symmetric 2n × 2n matrix X sk , we have
W = Ann(P4 (X sk )) ∩ S2sk .
Proof. The monomials of type (a) and (b) correspond to unacceptable monomials discussed
earlier and are linearly independent from any binomial in (c). The binomials in (c) are
linearly independent by Theorem 4.3. Hence we have

 
 2
  
2n
2n − n + 1
2n
2
2
dimk (W ) = 2
+ (2n − n)(2n − 2) + 2n − n =
−
.
4
2
4
According to Remark 1.4 we have

21

(13)

dimk (Ann(P4 (X sk ))) ∩ S2sk = dimk S2sk − dimk (P4 (X sk )).
So we have
sk

dimk (Ann(P4 (X ))) ∩

S2sk

 2
  
2n − n + 1
2n
=
−
.
2
4

(14)

Using Equations 13 and 14 we obtain
dimk (W ) = dimk (Ann(P4 (X sk ))) ∩ S2sk .

(15)

On the other hand, evidently we have
W ⊂ Ann(P4 (X sk ))) ∩ S2sk .

(16)

Using Equations 15 and 16 we have
W = Ann(P4 (X sk )) ∩ S2sk .
Lemma 4.7. Let X sk be a 2n × 2n skew symmetric matrix (n ≥ 2). We have,
Sn−2 ◦ P f (X sk ) = P4 (X sk ) ⊂ R2sk .
Proof. First we show
Sn−2 ◦ P f (X sk ) ⊃ P4 (X sk ).

(17)

We use induction on the size of the matrix.
The first step is 2n = 6. We denote by f = [i1 , i2 , i3 , i4 ] ∈ P4 (X sk
 ) the Pfaffian of the sub
6
matrix with the rows and columns i1 , i2 , i3 and i4 . We have 4 = 15 choices for f . For
any of these choices we get the Pfaffian of a 2 × 2 sub matrix of the form


0 x
−x 0

22


,

as the coefficient of f in the Pfaffian of the matrix X sk . So if we differentiate the 6 × 6
Pfaffian with respect to that variable x, we get the 4 × 4 Pfaffian f = [i1 , i2 , i3 , i4 ].
Assume that Equation 17 holds for the generic skew symmetric (2n − 2) × (2n − 2) matrix.
We want to show it holds for the 2n × 2n generic skew symmetric matrix. The Pfaffian of
the skew symmetric 2n × 2n matrix X sk can be computed recursively as

sk

P f (X ) =

i=2n
X

sk
(−1)i xsk
1i P f (X1̂î ),

(18)

i=2

where X1̂skî denotes the matrix X sk with both the first and the i-th rows and columns
removed. So X1̂skî is a (2n − 2) × (2n − 2) matrix and Equation 17 holds for it. So for
each choice of [i1 , i2 , i3 , i4 ] of the matrix X1̂skî we can find n − 3 variables of X1̂skî such that
differentiating P f (X1̂skî ) with respect to those variables gives us [i1 , i2 , i3 , i4 ]. If we call
those variable a1 ,...,an−3 , then using Equation 18 if we add xsk
1i to our set of n − 3 variables
we will have a set of n − 2 variables such that differentiating P f (X sk ) with respect to those
n − 2 variables we will get [i1 , i2 , i3 , i4 ]. Since we could write the recursive formula for the
Pfaffian with respect to any other row or column, the result follows.
For the opposite inclusion to Equation 17 we have
W ⊂ (Ann(P f (X sk )))2 ⊂ (Ann(P4 (X sk )))2 .
But we have shown in Lemma 4.6 that
W = (Ann(P4 (X sk ))2 .
So we have
(Ann(P f (X sk )))2 = (Ann(P4 (X sk )))2 .
By Remark 1.4 we have
(Ann(P f (X sk )))2 = Ann(Sn−2 ◦ (P f (X sk ))).
Hence we have
Sn−2 ◦ P f (X sk ) = P4 (X sk ).

23

Recall that we denote by P2k (X sk ) the vector subspace of Rsk spanned by the 2k−Pfaffian
minors of X sk [Definition 4.2].
Lemma 4.8. For 1 ≤ k ≤ n − 1 we have
Sk ◦ (P f (X sk )) = P2n−2k (X sk ).

(19)

Proof. First we want to show
Sk ◦ (P f (X sk )) ⊂ P2n−2k (X sk ).
We use induction on k. For k = 1, we need to prove
S1 ◦ (P f (X sk )) ⊂ P2n−2 (X sk ).
so we need to show for any monomial yij ∈ S1 we have
yij ◦ (P f (X sk )) ⊂ P2n−2 (X sk ).
It is enough to show the above inclusion holds for y12 . Using equation 18 we have
sk

i=2n
X

sk
(−1)i xsk
1i P f (X1̂î )

y12 ◦(P f (X )) = y12 ◦

=

P f (X1̂sk2̂ )+

i=2n
X

sk
sk
(−1)i xsk
1i P f (X1̂î ) ∈ P2n−2 (X ).

i=3

i=2

So indeed
S1 ◦ (P f (X sk )) ⊂ P2n−2 (X sk ).
Next assume Sk ◦ (P f (X sk )) ⊂ P2n−2k (X sk ). We want to show
Sk+1 ◦ (P f (X sk )) ⊂ P2n−2k−2 (X sk ).
We have
Sk+1 ◦ (P f (X sk )) = S1 ◦ (Sk ◦ (P f (X sk )) ⊂ S1 ◦ (P2n−2k (X sk ) ⊂ P2n−2k−2 (X sk ).
For the other inclusion, we again use induction on k. First we show the inclusion holds for
k = 1. Let η ∈ P2n−2 (X sk ) be a (2n − 2) × (2n − 2) Pfaffian minor of X sk . Corresponding
to η there exists a 2 × 2 matrix of the form


0 x
−x 0
24


,

where x is not in the 2n − 2 rows and columns of η. If we differentiate the Pfaffian of X sk
with respect to x we will get η. So we have η ∈ S1 ◦ (P f (X sk )).
Next assume P2n−2k (X sk ) ⊂ Sk ◦ (P f (X sk )), we have

P2n−2k−2 (X sk ) ⊂ S1 ◦ (P2n−2k (X sk )) ⊂ S1 ◦ (Sk ◦ (P f (X sk ))) = Sk+1 ◦ (P f (X sk )).
Thus by induction the equality holds.

Recall that (W ) is the ideal of S sk spanned by degree 2 elements of type (a), (b) and (c)
as in Definition 4.5.
Proposition 4.9. For the 2n × 2n generic skew symmetric matrix X sk we have
(W )n = Ann(P f (X sk )) ∩ Snsk

(20)

Proof. Let 2 ≤ k ≤ n. By Remark 1.4 and Lemma 4.8 we have
sk P f (X sk ) = 0 ⇐⇒ W ◦ P (X sk ) = 0.
(1) W ◦ P f (X sk ) = 0 ⇐⇒ W ◦ Sn−2
4

(2) (Ann(P f (X sk ))) ∩ S2 = W ⇒ Sk−2 W ◦ (Sn−k ◦ P f (X sk )) = 0.
⇒ Sk−2 (W ) ◦ P2k (X sk ) = 0.
⇒ (W )k ◦ P2k (X sk ) = 0.
Therefore for all integers k, 2 ≤ k ≤ n, we have
(W )k ⊂ Ann(P2k (X sk )) ∩ Sksk .

(21)

(W )n ⊃ Ann(P f (X sk )) ∩ Snsk .

(22)

We need to show

We use induction on n. For n = 1, 2, we have the 2 × 2 and 4 × 4 skew symmetric matrices
and the equality is easy to see. Now we want to show that the proposition holds for n = 3.
We use the Remark 2.8. Let η be a binomial in Ann(P f (X sk )) ∩ S3sk . Without loss of
generality we can write
η = y12 y34 y56 − yσ(1)σ(2) yσ(3)σ(4) yσ(5)σ(6) .

25

Where σ ∈ S6 , sgn(σ) = 1 and we have σ(1) < σ(3) < σ(5) and σ(1) < σ(2), σ(3) < σ(4)
and σ(5) < σ(6).
If the two terms of the binomial η have a common factor then without loss of generality
we can assume that the common factor is y12 so we can write η as
η = y12 (y34 y56 − yσ(3)σ(4) yσ(5)σ(6) )
But by the definition of (W )3 the monomial y34 y56 − yσ(3)σ(4) yσ(5)σ(6) is included in W
since it is of the form (c). So we have η ∈ (W )3 .
On the other hand, assume that the two terms of η, i.e. y12 y34 y56 and yσ(1)σ(2) yσ(3)σ(4) yσ(5)σ(6)
do not have any common factor. We can add and subtract another term of the Pfaffian
τ = yβ(1)β(2) yβ(3)β(4) yβ(5)β(6) such that β is a permutation in S6 and we have β(1) < β(3) <
β(5) and β(1) < β(2), β(3) < β(4) and β(5) < β(6). and τ has one common factor with
y12 y34 y56 and one common factor with yσ(1)σ(2) yσ(3)σ(4) yσ(5)σ(6) . Without loss of generality
we can take β(5) = 5, β(6) = 6 and β(1) = σ(1), β(2) = σ(2). So we have
η − τ + τ = η − yσ(1)σ(2) yβ(3)β(4) y5,6 + yσ(1)σ(2) yβ(3)β(4) y5,6 .
Hence we have
η = y5,6 (y12 y34 − yσ(1)σ(2) yβ(3)β(4) ) + yσ(1)σ(2) (yβ(3)β(4) y5,6 − yσ(3)σ(4) yσ(5)σ(6) ).
But by the definition of W we know that y12 y34 − yσ(1)σ(2) yβ(3)β(4) and yβ(3)β(4) y5,6 −
yσ(3)σ(4) yσ(5)σ(6) are both elements of W of type (c). So we have η ∈ (W )3 .
When n is larger than 3 then by the induction assumption we can assume that the proposition holds for all integers k ≤ n − 1. Again we use the Remark 2.8. Assume b = b1 + b2 is
of degree n. If the two terms, b1 and b2 are monomials in S sk and have a common factor
l, i.e. b1 = la1 and b2 = la2 , then b = l(a1 + a2 ) where a1 and a2 are of degree at most
n − 1. By the induction assumption the proposition holds for the binomial a1 + a2 , i.e.,
a1 + a2 ∈ Wn−1 , hence we have
b = l(a1 + a2 ) ∈ l(W )n−1 ⊂ (W )n .
If the two terms, b1 and b2 do not have any common factor then with the same method
as above we can rewrite the binomial b by adding and subtracting a term m of degree n,
which has a common factor m1 with b1 and a common factor m2 with b2 , and we will have
b1 + b2 = b1 + m + b2 − m = m1 (c1 + m0 ) + m2 (c2 − m00 ),
26

where b1 = m1 c1 , m = m1 m0 = m2 m00 and b2 = m2 c2 . Since c1 + m0 and c2 − m00 are of
degree at most n − 1, the induction assumption yields
b1 + b2 = m1 (c1 + m0 ) + m2 (c2 − m00 ) ∈ (W )n .
This completes the induction step and the proof of the proposition.
Corollary 4.10. For 1 ≤ k ≤ n we have
(W )k = Ann(P f (X sk )) ∩ Sksk
sk .
We also have (W )n+1 = Sn+1

Proof. Using Equation 21 we only need to show that
Ann(P f (X sk )) ∩ Sksk ⊂ (W )k
By Remark 1.4 and Lemma 4.8 we have
(Ann(P f (X sk )))k = (Ann(Sn−k ◦ P f (X sk )))k = (Ann(P2k (X sk )))k
Now if we label the 2k × 2k Pfaffians of X sk by f1 , ..., fs we have

Ann(P2k (X sk )))k = (Ann < f1 , ..., fs >)k = (

i=s
\

(Ann(fi ))k

i=1

Let Ri denote the ring in the variables of fi and W (i) the fi variables that are involved.
By Proposition 4.9 we have
(W (i))k = Ann(fi ) ∩ Ski
So we have
Ann(P f (X sk )) ∩ Sksk ⊂ (W )k
To prove the second part, it is easy to see that every monomial of degree larger than n will
sk .
be unacceptable, of type (a) or (b), so in W , and we have (W )n+1 = Sn+1
Theorem 4.11. Let X sk be a generic skew symmetric 2n × 2n matrix. Then the apolar
ideal Ann(P f (X sk )) is the ideal W and is generated in degree 2.
27

Proof. This follows directly from Proposition 4.9 and Corollary 4.10.
Corollary 4.12. Let X sk be a 2n × 2n generic skew symmetric matrix. We have
22n−2 ≤ cr(P f (X sk )) ≤ 2n−1

(23)

Proof. By the Ranestad-Schreyer Proposition, Corollary 4.4 and Theorem 4.11 we have
cr(P f (X sk )) ≥

1
1
dim(S sk /Ann(P f (X sk ))) = (22n−1 ) = 22n−2 .
2
2

The second inequality is true by Equation 10.
Remark 4.13. For n ≥ 5 it can be easily seen that
 the lower bound for the cactus rank
2n
given by Corollary 4.12 is larger than ldif f = 2t
, where t0 = bn/2c.
0
Theorem 4.14. Let X s be a generic symmetric 2n × 2n matrix. Then the apolar ideal
Ann(Hf (X s )) is generated in degree 2, and the inequality 23 also holds for (Hf (X s )).
Proof. By the definition of the Hafnian, it is easy to see that none of the diagonal elements
appear in Hf (X s ), so for 1 ≤ i ≤ 2n we have
yii ◦ Hf (X s ) = 0
Hence without loss of generality we can restrict our discussion to the case where X s is a
generic zero-diagonal symmetric matrix. By changing the Pfaffians to Hafnians and vice
versa, the proof follows directly from the proofs that we have for the Pfaffian of a generic
skew symmetric matrix.

5

Gröbner bases

In Section 2 we have shown that for A a generic n×n matrix Ann(det(A)) = (PD +UD ). In
[LS], R. Laubenbacher and I. Swanson give a Gröbner bases for the ideal of 2×2 permanents
of a matrix. In this section we first review their result (Theorem 5.2) and then state our
result for the ideal Ann(det(A)) and prove it independently (Theorem 5.3).

28

Definition 5.1. ([LS], page 197) Let D = (dij ) be the matrix of the differential operators as
defined in section 1. A monomial order on the dij is diagonal if for any square submatrix
of D, the leading term of the permanent (or of the determinant) of that submatrix is
the product of the entries on the main diagonal. An example of such an order is the
lexicographic order defined by:
dij < dkl if and only if l > jor l = j and k > i.
Throughout this section we use a lexicographic diagonal ordering.
Theorem 5.2. ([LS], page 197) The following collection G of polynomials is a minimal
reduced Gröbner basis for PD , with respect to any diagonal ordering:
(1) The subpermanents dij dkl + dkj dil , i < k,j < l;
(2) di1 j1 di1 j2 di2 j3 , i1 > i2 , j1 < j2 < j3 ;
(3) di1 j1 di2 j2 di2 j3 , i1 > i2 , j1 < j2 < j3 ;
(4) di1 j1 di2 j1 di3 j2 , i1 < i2 < i3 , j1 > j2 ;
(5) di1 j1 di2 j2 di3 j2 , i1 < i2 < i3 , j1 > j2 ;
(6) dei11j1 dei22j2 dei33j3 , i1 < i2 < i3 , j2 > j3 , e1 e2 e3 = 2.
Monomials of type (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) in the above theorem are in the ideal generated
by all unacceptable monomials.
Theorem 5.3. The collection of unacceptable degree 2 monomials and 2×2 subpermanents
of D, form a Gröbner basis for Ann(det(A)) with respect to any diagonal ordering.
Proof. We will denote UD and PD by U, P respectively in the following, where D is understood.
The elements of (U + P) generate Ann(det(A)). Since U is a set of monomials, it is already
Gröbner. We use Buchberger’s algorithm to find a Gröbner basis for P + U. We consider
several cases:
a) Let F and G be distinct permanents of D. Let F = aik ajl + ail ajk and G = auz avw +
auw avz be two permanents in P.

F = perm

aik ail
ajk ajl

and
29


.


G = perm

auz auw
avz avw


.

Let f1 = aik ajl be the leading term of F , and g1 = auz avw be the leading term of G with
respect to the given diagonal ordering. Denote the least common multiple of f1 and g1 by
h11 . Let
S(F, G) = (h11 /f1 )F − (h11 /g1 )G = auz avw ail ajk − aik ajl auw avz .
Now using the multivariate division algorithm, reduce all the S(F, G) relative to the set
of all permanents. When there is no common factor in the initial terms of F and G the
reduction is zero, as one can use F and G again as we show. First we reduce S(F, G)
dividing by F ∈ P, so we will have
S(F, G) + auw avz (aik ajl + ail ajk ) = auz avw ail ajk + auw avz ail ajk .
Then we reduce the result using G this time, so we will have
auz avw ail ajk + auw avz ail ajk − ail ajk (auz avw + auw avz ) = 0.
So we have shown that for all pairs F , G of distinct permanents of D, the S-polynomials
S(F, G) reduces to zero with respect to P.
b) Let F = aik ajl + ail ajk and G = aik ajm + aim ajk be two permanents so that their initial
terms have a common factor. We have
S(F, G) = ail ajk ajm − aim ajk ajl ∈ U.
c) Let F = aim ajn + ain ajm be a permanent and M = atk atl be an unacceptable monomial.
We have
S(F, M ) = atk atl ajm ain ∈ U.
d) Let F = ail ajm + aim ajl be a permanent and M = (akn )2 be an unacceptable monomial.
We have
S(F, M ) = aim ajl (akn )2 ∈ U.
e) Let F = ail ajm + aim ajl be a permanent and M = (ail )2 be an unacceptable monomial
which has a common factor with the initial term of F . We have
30

S(F, M ) = ail aim ajl ∈ U.
f) Let F = ail ajm + aim ajl be a permanent and M = ajn akn be an unacceptable monomial.
We have
S(F, M ) = aim ajl ajn akn ∈ U.
This exhausts all possibilities, so the generating set P + U is itself a Gröbner basis by
Buchberger’s algorithm.

5.1

Discussion of connected sum

Definition 5.4. ([MS]) A polynomial F in r variables is a connected sum if we can write
F = F 0 + F 00 with F 0 and F 00 in r0 and r00 variables, where r0 + r00 = r.
Let A be a generic 2×2 matrix, we can write the determinant A is a sum of two polynomials
in complementary sets of variables.
Proposition 5.5. (Buczyńska, Buczyński,Teitler ([BBT]) If a form F of degree d is a
connected sum, then the apolar ideal has a minimal generator in degree d. (The converse
does not hold.)
In particular, since the generic determinant and permanent of size n ≥ 3 have their annihilating ideals generated in degree 2, therefore they are not connected sums. This is also
true for the Pfaffian of skew symmetric matrices and Hafnian of symmetric matrices of size
n ≥ 6.

References
[BBT] W. Buczyńska, J. Buczyński, and Z. Teitler: Apolarity criteria for connected sum
decomposability of polynomials, in preparation (2012).
[BBT2] W. Buczyńska, J. Buczyński, and Z. Teitler: Waring decompositions of monomials,
Journal of Algebra 378 (2013): 45-57. arXiv:1201.2922.
31

[BC] W. Bruns and A. Conca: Gröbner bases and determinantal ideals, Commutative
algebra, singularities and computer algebra (J. Herzog et al., eds.), NATO Sci. Ser. II
Math. Phys. Chem., 115, pp. 9–66, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2003.
[BR] A. Bernardi and K. Ranestad: On the cactus rank of cubic forms, Journal of Symbolic
Computation,10.1016/j.jsc.2012.08.001, arXiv:1110.2197.
[CCG] E. Carlini, M. V. Catalisano and A. V. Geramita: The solution to Waring problem
for monomials, arXiv: 1110.0745v1(2011).
[Ge] A. V. Geramita: Inverse Systems of Fat Points: Waring’s Problem, Secant Varieties
of Veronese Varieties and Parameter Spaces for Gorenstein Ideals, Queen’s Papers in
Pure and Applied Mathematics, 102, pp. 3-104 (1996).
[HT] J. Herzog and N. Trung: Gröbner bases and multiplicity of Determinantal and Pfaffian ideals, Advances in Mathematics 96, 1-37 (1992).
[IK] A. Iarrobino and V. Kanev: Power Sums, Gorenstein Algebras, and Determinantal
Varieties, (1999), 345+xxvii p., Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics #1721.
[IKO] M. Ishikawa, H. Kawamuko and S. Okada: A Pfaffian-Hafnian analogue of Borchardt’s identity, Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 12, Note 9 (2005).
[LS] R.C. Laubenbacher and I. Swanson: Permanental Ideals, Journal of Symbolic Computation 30, 195-205 (2000).
[LT] J.M. Landsberg and Z. Teitler: On the ranks and border ranks of symmetric tensors,
Foundations of Computational Mathematics 10.3, 339-366 (2010).
[MS] D. Meyer and L. Smith: Poincare Duality Algebras, Macaulay’s Dual Systems, and
Steenrod Operations, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, 167. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2005.
[RS] K. Ranestad and F.-O. Schreyer: On the rank of a symmetric form, Journal of Algebra
346 (2011), 340-342. arXiv:1104.3648 (2011).
[Sh2] M. Shafiei: Apolarity for determinants and permanents of generic symmetric matrices, arXiv:1303.1860 (2013).
[ST] R. Stanley: Enumerative combinatorics, Volume 1. Second edition. Cambridge Studies
in Advanced Mathematics, 49. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012.

32

