TRUNCATED MODULES AND
LINEAR PRESENTATIONS OF VECTOR BUNDLES

arXiv:1505.04204v3 [math.AG] 4 Feb 2017

ADA BORALEVI, DANIELE FAENZI, AND PAOLO LELLA
Abstract. We give a new method to construct linear spaces of matrices of constant rank, based
on truncated graded cohomology modules of certain vector bundles as well as on the existence
of graded Artinian modules with pure resolutions. Our method allows one to produce several
new examples, and provides an alternative point of view on the existing ones.

Introduction
A space of matrices of constant rank is a vector subspace V , say of dimension n + 1, of the set
Ma,b (k) of matrices of size a × b over a field k, such that any element of V \ {0} has fixed rank r.
It is a classical problem, rooted in work of Kronecker and Weierstrass, to look for examples of such
spaces of matrices, and to give relations among the possible values of the parameters a, b, r, n.
One can see V as an a × b matrix whose entries are linear forms (a “linear matrix”), and
interpret the cokernel as a vector space varying smoothly (i.e. a vector bundle) over Pn . In
[EH88, IL99, Syl86] the relation between matrices of constant rank and the study of vector bundles
on Pn and their invariants was first studied in detail. This interplay was pushed one step further
in [BFM13, BM15], where the matrix of constant rank was interpreted as a 2-extension from the
two vector bundles given by its cokernel and its kernel. This allowed the construction of skewsymmetric matrices of linear forms in 4 variables of size 14 × 14 and corank 2, beyond the previous
“record” of [Wes96]. In this paper we turn the tide once again and introduce a new effective
method to construct linear matrices of constant rank; our method not only allows one to produce
new examples beyond previously known techniques, but it also provides an alternative point of
view on the existing examples.
The starting point of our analysis is that linear matrices of relatively small size can be cooked
up with two ingredients, namely two finitely generated graded modules E and G over the ring
R = k[x0 , . . . , xn ], admitting a linear resolution up to a certain step. Here, the module G should
be thought of as a “small perturbating factor” of the resolution of E, in such a way that G does
not affect the local behavior of E (in other words G should be Artinian). Then, under suitable
conditions, the kernel F = ker(µ) of a surjective map µ : E → G will only have linear and quadratic
syzygies; by imposing further constraints we obtain a presentation matrix for F that is not only
linear, but also of smaller size than that of E, as the presentation matrix of G is “subtracted” from
that of E. The key idea here is that, in order for E to fit our purpose, it is necessary to truncate
it above a certain range, typically its regularity, which ensures linearity of the resolution, while
leaving the rank of the matrix presenting E unchanged. To connect this result with linear matrices
of constant rank, one takes E and G such that their sheafifications are vector bundles over Pn ;
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13D02, 16W50, 15A30, 14J60.
Key words and phrases. Graded truncated module, linear presentation, matrix of constant rank, vector bundle,
instanton bundle.
Research partially supported by MIUR funds, PRIN 2010-2011 project “Geometria delle varietà algebriche”,
FIRB 2012 “Moduli spaces and Applications”, GEOLMI ANR-11-BS03-0011, J. Draisma’s Vidi grant from the
Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and Università degli Studi di Trieste – FRA 2011 project
“Geometria e topologia delle varietà”. All authors are members of GNSAGA.
1

2

ADA BORALEVI, DANIELE FAENZI, AND PAOLO LELLA

this, together with one more technical assumption, guarantees that the presentation matrix of E,
as well as that of any of its higher truncation, actually has constant rank. This is the content of
our two main results, Theorems 1.1 and 1.3.
In order to obtain interesting matrices via our method, we analyze Artinian modules G with
pure resolution, exploiting some basic results of Boij-Söderberg theory [BS08, EFW11, ES09, ESS].
Note that the choice of where one needs to truncate is arbitrary here; in this sense we define a
tree structure associated with any linearly presented module E, rooted in E, whose nodes are the
possible forms of linear matrices whose sheafified cokernel is Ẽ, and whose edges correspond to
the Artinian modules with pure resolution that we use in the construction of the matrices.
To appreciate the validity of our approach one should compare it with previously known techniques, namely “ad hoc” constructions and projection from bigger size matrices. Our graded
modules go sometimes beyond, and in particular allow one to achieve the construction of matrices
with “small constant corank” with respect to the size, which is where the projection method fails,
and which is one of the hardest tasks in this type of problems, especially so when n > 3. (See §5
for such a comparison, as well as a more precise definition of small corank.)
One of the goals of this paper is to provide a list of matrices of constant rank arising from vector
bundles over projective spaces. We concentrate here on the most classical constructions (instantons,
null-correlation bundles and so forth). To our knowledge however, among the examples of matrices
of constant rank that we construct from these bundles, very few were known before. All this is
developed in §3.
The paper also contains a discussion about linear matrices of constant rank with extra symmetry
properties: in §4 we examine the conditions needed for a constant rank matrix A constructed with
our method to be skew-symmetric in a suitable basis (we call such matrix skew-symmetrizable).
This is tightly related with the results of [BFM13]; indeed the outcomes of this section should be
seen as a parallel of those of [BFM13] which complements and explains the techniques used there,
relying on commutative algebra rather than derived categories.
Another advantage of our technique is that it is algorithmic, and can be implemented in a very
efficient way. This not only provides a detailed explanation of the algorithm appearing in [BFM13,
Appendix A], but allows to construct infinitely many examples of skew-symmetric 10 × 10 matrices
of constant rank 8 in 4 variables; up to now, the only example of such was that of [Wes96].
Finally, let us note that all these examples, and many more, can be explicitly constructed
thanks to the Macaulay2 [GS] package ConstantRankMatrices implementing our algorithms. The
interested reader can find it at the website www.paololella.it/EN/Publications.html.
1. Main results
1.1. Notation and preliminaries. Let R := k[x0 , . . . , xn ] be a homogeneous polynomial ring
over an algebraically closed field k of characteristic other than 2. The ring R comes with a grading
R = R0 ⊕ R1 ⊕ . . ., with R0 = k.
All R-modules here are finitely generated and graded. If M is such a module, and p, q are
integers, we denote by M p the p-th graded component of M , so that M = ⊕p M p , and by M (q)
the qth shift of M , defined by the formula M (q)p = M p+q . Finally, the module M >m = ⊕p>m M p
is the truncation of M at degree m.
A module M is free if M ≃ ⊕i R(qi ) for suitable qi . Given any other finitely generated graded
R-module N , we write HomR (M , N ) for the set of homogeneous maps of all degrees, which is
again a graded module, graded by the degrees of the maps. Since graded free resolutions exist, this
construction extends to a grading on the modules ExtqR (M , N ). The same holds true for M ⊗R N
and Tor(M , N ). For any R-module M , we denote by βi,j (M ) the graded Betti numbers of the
minimal resolution of M , i.e.
M
M
M
R(−j0 )β0,j0 −→ M −→ 0.
R(−j1 )β1,j1 −→
R(−ji )βi,ji −→ · · · −→
· · · −→
ji

j1

j0

3

For p ≫ 0, the Hilbert function dimk M p is a polynomial in p. The degree of this polynomial,
increased by 1, is dim M , the dimension of M . The degree of M is by definition (dim M )! times
the leading coefficient of this polynomial.
We say that M has m-linear resolution over R if the minimal graded free resolution of M reads:
· · · −→ R(−m − 2)β2,m+2 −→ R(−m − 1)β1,m+1 −→ R(−m)β0,m −→ M −→ 0
for suitable integers βi,m+i . In other words, M has a m-linear resolution if M r = 0 for r < m, M
is generated by M m , and M has a resolution where all the maps are represented by matrices of
linear forms. In the case where only the first k maps are matrices of linear forms then M is said
to be m-linear presented up to order k, or just linearly presented when k = 1.
A module M is m-regular if, for all p, the local cohomology groups Hpm (M )r vanish for r =
m−p+1 and also H0m (M )r = 0 for all r > m+1. The regularity of a module is denoted by reg(M )
and can be computed from the Betti numbers as max{j −i | βi,j 6= 0}. Note that M >reg(M) always
has m-linear resolution.
1.2. Main Theorems. Let E and G be finitely generated graded R-modules with minimal graded
free resolutions as follows:
e

e

g1

g0

(1.1)

0
1
E −→ 0, and
E 0 −→
· · · −→ E 1 −→

(1.2)

· · · −→ G1 −→ G0 −→ G −→ 0.

A morphism µ : E → G induces maps µi : E i → Gi , determined up to chain homotopy.
Note that, in case E and G are linearly presented up to order j, the maps µi are uniquely
determined for i 6 j − 1. Indeed, by induction on i we may look at the difference δ i between
two morphisms µi and µ̂i satisfying gi µi = µi−1 ei = gi µ̂i . This lifts to a map E i → ker(gi ) and
therefore to a map E i → Gi+1 . But if i 6 j − 1 and E and G are linearly presented up to order
j, this map is zero and µi = µ̂i .
Theorem 1.1. Let E and G be m-linearly presented R-modules, respectively up to order 1 and 2.
Let µ : E → G be a surjective morphism and consider the induced maps µi ’s. Then F = ker(µ) is
generated in degree m and m + 1, and:
i) if µ1 is surjective, F is generated in degree m and has linear and quadratic syzygies.
Furthermore β0,m (F ) = β0,m (E) − β0,m (G);
ii) if moreover µ2 is surjective, F is linearly presented and β1,m+1 (F ) = β1,m+1 (E)−β1,m+1 (G).
Proof. Set J i = im(ei ) and K i = im(gi ). The map µ induces an exact commutative diagram:
0

J1
ν

0

K1

E0
1

E
0

µ

G0

0

µ

G

0

Note that E 0 → G is surjective. Hence also µ0 has to be surjective for otherwise the generators
of G lying in G0 and not hit by µ0 would be redundant, contradicting the minimality of G0 → G.
Setting α0 = β0,m (E) and γ0 = β0,m (G), we have E 0 = R(−m)α0 and G0 = R(−m)γ0 because
E and G are m-linearly presented. So by the obvious exact sequence
0 −→ ker(µ0 ) −→ R(−m)α0 −→ R(−m)γ0 −→ 0,
we deduce ker(µ0 ) ≃ R(−m)α0 −γ0 . Hence, applying snake lemma to the previous diagram, we get:
(1.3)

0 −→ ker(ν 1 ) −→ R(−m)α0 −γ0 −→ F −→ coker(ν 1 ) −→ 0.

The R-module J 1 is generated in degree m+1 and coker(ν 1 ) is a quotient of J 1 , so also coker(ν 1 )
is generated in degree m + 1. Therefore, by (1.3), we get that F is generated in degree m and
m + 1, which proves the first statement.

4

ADA BORALEVI, DANIELE FAENZI, AND PAOLO LELLA

Let us now prove i). Assume that µ1 is surjective, and write the exact commutative diagram:
0

J2
ν2

0

K2

E1

J1
1

µ

G1

0

ν1

K1

0

Since µ1 is surjective, we get that ν 1 is surjective as well, so that coker(ν 1 ) = 0. By (1.3), this
says that F is generated in degree m. Moreover, we obtain β0,m (F ) = α0 − γ0 , indeed ker(ν 1 ) sits
in J 1 , which is minimally generated in degree m + 1, so R(−m)α0 −γ0 → F is minimal.
Setting α1 = β1,m+1 (E) and γ1 = β1,m+1 (G), as before we get ker(µ1 ) ≃ R(−m − 1)α1 −γ1 .
Again by snake lemma we obtain the exact sequence:
(1.4)

0 −→ ker(ν 2 ) −→ R(−m − 1)α1 −γ1 −→ ker(ν 1 ) −→ coker(ν 2 ) −→ 0.

As before, coker(ν 2 ) is generated in degree m + 2, so that F has linear and quadratic syzygies,
whereby proving i).
Finally, to prove ii), if µ2 is surjective then coker(ν 2 ) = 0, and therefore F is linearly presented
by (1.4). Moreover β1,m+1 (F ) = β1,m+1 (E) − β1,m+1 (G). Note that the presentation of F is
necessarily minimal in this case.

Example 1.2. In this example, we show that the rank of µ2 depends on the map µ and on the
module E in a rather subtle way, even assuming µ1 surjective and G = k, the residual field. It
is exactly this subtlety that, in a previous version of this paper, lead us to the false belief that
this surjectivity condition, and the subsequent inequality on the Betti numbers of E and G, were
sufficient for F to have linear presentation.
Let n = 2 and consider positive integers a and b with b − a > 2. Let E be defined by a linear
matrix A of size a × b of constant rank b − a, so that E is a linearly presented module of rank b − a.
The module E is associated with a Steiner bundle E of rank b − a on P2 , see §3.2. Take G = k.
Any non-zero map µ : E → k is surjective and is uniquely defined by the choice of a non-zero
linear form θ : kb → k representing a linear combination of the rows of A.
The kernel of the obvious Koszul syzygy R(−1)3 → R of k is the module associated with the
sheaf of differential forms ΩP2 . The map µ1 : R(−1)a → R(−1)3 commuting with this syzygy
is defined by a scalar matrix ka → k3 , whose image is nothing but the linear span in k3 of the
linear forms θA : R(−1)a → k. Indeed, the desired map ka → k3 is just the a × 3 matrix of the
coefficients of θA.
The possible values for the corank v of this map sit between max{0, 3 − a} and 2. Indeed, the
map is non-zero (i.e. v 6 2) as otherwise two rows of A would be linearly dependent and E could
not be locally free of rank 2. But A may have the same linear form appearing in every entry of
the first row, in which case choosing θ as (1, 0, . . . , 0) we get v = 2, and so forth. As the value v
changes, we get a minimal resolution for ker(µ) of the form:
0 −→ R(−3) −→ R(−2)3 ⊕ R(−1)a+v−3 −→ R(−1)v ⊕ Rb−1 −→ ker(µ) −→ 0.
In terms of vector bundles, this reads:
0 −→ ΩP2 ⊕ OP2 (−1)a+v−3 −→ OP2 (−1)v ⊕ OPb−1
−→ E −→ 0.
2
The cokernel of the map ν 2 is Rv , which of course is Artinian if and only if v = 0. If v 6= 0, then
µ2 is not surjective. If v = 0, the linear matrix R(−1)a−3 → Rb−1 has constant rank b − a + 2.
The previous example does not comply with condition ii) of Theorem 1.1, so we cannot produce
a second linear matrix of constant corank 2. However, the linear part of the presentation matrix
of ker(µ) still has constant rank. This is explained by our next main result.

5

Theorem 1.3. In the assumptions and notations of Theorem 1.1, item i), suppose furthermore
that:
i) the sheaves E = Ẽ and G = G̃ are vector bundles on Pn of rank r and s respectively;
ii) the map ν 2 has Artinian cokernel.
Set a = β0,m (E) − β0,m (G) and b = β1,m+1 (E) − β1,m+1 (G). Then the presentation matrix A of
F = ker(µ) has a linear part of size a × b and constant corank r − s. Moreover the sheafification
F = F̃ of F is isomorphic to the kernel of µ̃ : E → G.
Proof. The module F has a minimal generators, all of degree m, by Theorem 1.1. We have also
seen that the syzygies of these generators are precisely the module ker(ν 1 ), and that coker(ν 1 ) = 0.
For i > 0, set αi = βi,m+i (E) and γi = βi,m+i (G). From the proof of Theorem 1.1, we extract the
following commutative diagram:
0

(1.5)

0

ker(ν 2 )

R(−m − 1)b

0

J2

R(−m − 1)α1

ν

0

A

0

0

R(−m)a

F

R(−m)α0

E

1

2

µ0

µ

0
0

µ

K2

R(−m − 1)γ1

R(−m)γ0

G

coker(ν 2 )

0

0

0

0

Here, exactness of the diagram takes place everywhere except at R(−m − 1)b . We have also
seen that the syzygy module for the generators R(−m)a → F is ker(ν 1 ) and in turn this module
fits into the exact sequence (1.4). Equivalently, coker(ν 2 ) is the homology at R(−m − 1)b of the
complex:
(1.6)

0 → ker(ν 2 ) → R(−m − 1)b → R(−m)a → F → 0.

Recall that coker(ν 2 ) has generators of degree m + 2, so the linear part of the presentation of
F is the a × b matrix A appearing in the diagram. Note that this holds independently of E being
locally free.
Now since coker(ν 2 ) is Artinian, specializing (1.6) and (1.5) to any closed point of Pn we see
that the matrix A presents F = ker(µ̃) as a coherent sheaf over Pn . The fact that A has constant
corank r − s follows. Indeed, the sheaves E and G are locally free and the induced map µ̃ : E → G
is surjective, so also F = ker(µ̃) is locally free, clearly of rank r − s. Also, since A presents F
e , a locally free sheaf of rank r − s. In other
modulo the Artinian module coker(ν 2 ), we have F ≃ F
words, A has constant corank r − s.


Remark 1.4. We will mostly use this theorem in the case G = 0, i.e. when G is also Artinian. Of
course, a way to guarantee that ν 2 has Artinian cokernel is to assume that µ2 is surjective as in
Theorem 1.1.
2. A closer look at the modules E and G

Keeping in mind our goal of constructing explicit examples of constant rank matrices, we now
want to investigate some modules satisfying Theorem 1.1’s and Theorem 1.3’s hypotheses. In
particular, we seek numerical ranges for Betti numbers β0,m and β1,m+1 of modules E and G.
Once one determines two modules E and G that numerically provide the desired size of the
presentation matrix of the module F , one can look explicitly for a surjective morphism µ.

6

ADA BORALEVI, DANIELE FAENZI, AND PAOLO LELLA

2.1. The module E. We start with a vector bundle E or rank r on Pn and its module H0∗ (E) =
⊕t H0 (E(t)) of global sections. For high enough m, the truncation H0∗ (E)>m is linearly presented.
By Theorem 1.3, the presentation matrix will indeed have corank r.
In what follows it will be useful to know the Betti numbers of all truncations of a module
(without needing to determine them explicitly).
Lemma 2.1. Let M be a finitely generated graded R-module and let m > reg(M ) be an integer.
The truncated module M >m is m-regular, and assume that it has linear resolution:
0 → R(−m − n)βn,m+n → · · · → R(−m − i)βi,m+i → · · · → R(−m)β0,m → M >m → 0.
Then the truncated module M >m+k , with k > 1, has regularity m + k and linear resolution:
0 → R(−m − k − n)βn,m+n+k → · · · → R(−m − k)β0,m+k → M >m+k → 0
with
(i)

(i)

(i)

βi,m+i+k = ak β0,m − ak−1 β1,m+1 + . . . + (−1)n ak−n βn,m+n =

n
X

(i)

(−1)j ak−j βj,m+j ,

j=0

(i) 

where for all i = 0, . . . , n, the sequence ak
(
RSn :=

(ak )

(i) 

belongs to the set of recursive sequences:
)

Pn
j n+1
ak+1 = j=0 (−1) j+1 ak−j .

More in detail, ak
(2.1)

(i)

a1

is defined by the initial values:


n+1
(i)
(i)
=
, a−i = (−1)i and a−j = 0 for j 6= −1, i and j < n.
i+1

Proof. The exact sequence 0 → M >m+k+1 → M >m+k → M m+k → 0 induces the long exact
sequence (see [Pee11, Theorem 38.3]):

(2.2)

···

Tor2 (M >m+k , k)

Tor2 (M m+k , k)

Tor1 (M >m+k+1 , k)

Tor1 (M >m+k , k)

Tor1 (M m+k , k)

Tor0 (M >m+k+1 , k)

Tor0 (M >m+k , k)

Tor0 (M m+k , k)

0

where the modules Tori (•, k) are graded of finite length and the dimensions of the homogeneous
pieces are equal to the Betti numbers of the minimal free resolutions of the modules [Pee11, Theorem 11.2]. Hence, one determines the relation between Betti numbers of consecutive truncations
working recursively with this sequence, keeping in mind that the modules M >m+k and M m+k
have (m + k)-linear resolution while M >m+k+1 has (m + k + 1)-linear resolution.

By induction on n one can also prove the following Lemma.
Lemma 2.2. Any recursive sequence (ak ) ∈ RSn has a degree n polynomial as its generating func(i) 
tion. In particular, the generating function of the sequence ak defined in (2.1) is the following:

 k+n
(i)
pn (k) = ni k+n−1
n
k+i .
(0)

Remark that in the case i = 0 one gets that pn (k) =

k+n
n


.

7

Example 2.3. Consider the polynomial ring R = k[x0 , x1 , x2 ]. As module over itself, R is 0-regular
with resolution 0 → R → R → 0 (β0,0 = 1, β1,1 = 0, β2,2 = 0). By Lemma 2.1 and 2.2, the
resolution of R>k for every k > 0 is
0 → R(−k − 2)β2,k+2 → R(−k − 1)β1,k+1 → R(−k)β0,k → R>k → 0,
where
β0,k =
(2.3)

(0)
ak β0,0

−

(0)
ak−1 β1,1

+

(0)
ak−2 β2,2

(1)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(2)

(2)

β1,k+1 = ak β0,0 − ak−1 β1,1 + ak−2 β2,2
β2,k+2 = ak β0,0 − ak−1 β1,1 + ak−2 β2,2



1
k+2
=
=
= (k 2 + 3k + 2),
2
2
 

2
k
+
1
k+2
(1)
= k 2 + 2k,
= p2 (k) =
k+1
1
2
 

2 k+1 k+2
1
(2)
= p2 (k) =
= (k 2 + k).
2
2
k+2
2
(0)
p2 (k)

For instance, we can predict the resolution of R>10 :

0 → R(−12)55 → R(−11)120 → R(−10)66 → R>10 → 0.
2.2. The module G. As we pointed out at the end of §1, we will often consider Artinian modules
for the module G, so that the corank of the presentation matrices of E and F is the same. Another
advantage of using Artinian modules is that we can exploit many results from Boij-Söderberg theory
about the Betti numbers of a module with given degrees of the maps in the complex, as well as
explicit methods for the construction of such modules [ESS].
We recall some basic results about Artinian modules with pure resolution. We can use them as
building blocks for general Artinian modules. The resolution of an Artinian module G is called
pure with degree sequence (d0 , . . . , dn+1 ), d0 < · · · < dn+1 if it has the shape:
0 → R(−dn+1 )βn+1,dn+1 → · · · → R(−d1 )β1,d1 → R(−d0 )β0,d0 → G → 0.
The Betti numbers of such a module solve the so-called Herzog-Kühl equations:
Q
1
(2.4)
βi,di = q n+1
i = 0, . . . , n + 1, for some q ∈ Q.
j=0 |dj −di | ,
j6=i

Whether or not an Artinian module with pure resolution exists has been discussed in several papers;
a positive answer can be found in particular for special degree sequences [BS08, Proposition 3.1] or
for special solutions of the Herzog-Kühl equations, see [ES09, Theorem 5.1] and [EFW11, Theorem
0.1].
Since we are interested in modules with linear presentation up to order 2, we may assume d0 = 0,
d1 = 1 and d2 = 2. In this case, the first three Betti numbers turn out to be
q
q
q
(2.5) β0,0 =
,
β1,1 =
,
β2,2 =
,
2d3 · · · dn+1
(d3 − 1) · · · (dn+1 − 1)
2(d3 − 2) · · · (dn+1 − 2)
where q is a multiple of:
Q

2<i<j6n+1



|di − dj | · lcm di , di − 1, di − 2 | i = 3, . . . , n + 1 .

3. Construction of special linear presentation of vector bundles

Let us spell out clearly our strategy to construct linear matrices of constant rank. Suppose that,
for a given triple of integers (ρ, a, b) with ρ < min{a, b}, we want to construct an a × b matrix
of linear forms of constant rank ρ in the polynomial ring with n + 1 variables. Then we have to
search for an a × b matrix of linear forms presenting a vector bundle E of rank r = a − ρ on Pn .
In general, if E is a vector bundle of rank r, its module of global sections E will not be linearly
presented. Nevertheless, we are free to truncate E in such a way that it is linearly presented. By
Theorem 1.3, the presentation matrix will indeed have corank r. However, it is unlikely that its
size equals a × b. Here is where Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.3 come into play, as we may remove

8

ADA BORALEVI, DANIELE FAENZI, AND PAOLO LELLA

a 2-linearly presented Artinian module from our truncation of E in order to reduce the size of our
presentation matrix, and hopefully arrive at size a × b.
Note that, given E, there are infinitely many truncations of E = H0∗ (E). For each truncation
E >k : firstly, one can look at the finitely many Artinian modules with pure resolution and Betti
numbers compatible with the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, and secondly one needs to look for a
surjective homomorphism µ inducing a surjective map µ1 and a map ν 2 with Artinian cokernel.
Moreover, we can repeat the same procedure for each module with linear presentation obtained in
this way, and so on.
We illustrate these possibilities with a tree structure, that the reader can find in Figure 1 and
then again in Figures 3-6:
• the root of the tree is the truncation E >k for some k of the module E = H0∗ (E) of global
sections of a vector bundle E. In Figures 3-6, we specify the dimension of the presentation
matrix (the map e1 in (1.1)) and its rank; in Figure 1, we specify the Betti numbers of the
complete resolution in order to better illustrate the role of all maps µ0 , µ1 , µ2 and ν 2 from
Theorems 1.1 and 1.3. We adopt the standard notation for Betti tables (see e.g. [BS08]).
• The arrows starting from each root represent an application of Theorem 1.3: more precisely,
we used the computer algebra system Macaulay2 to compute all the solutions to the HerzogKühl equations (2.4) such that an Artinian module with given pure resolution exists and
the map µ1 can be surjective. In Figure 1, we give even more details by labeling the arrows
with the Betti table of the resolution of the Artinian modules.
• All the arrows starting from the root end in a node; such node is either the module F
obtained as kernel a random homomorphism µ from E >k to a random Artinian module
G, just like in Theorem 1.3, or a failure message when the map ν 2 associated to a random
morphism does not have Artinian cokernel. Again, in Figure 1 the modules are described by
their Betti tables, while in Figures 3-6 we report the dimension and rank of the presentation
matrix.
• If the module F is linearly presented up to order 2, the procedure can be repeated; this
is illustrated in our figures any time another arrow starts from a node different from the
root, with the same notation as above.
• Each linear matrix of constant rank appearing as outcome of the algorithms is labeled
either by its size and rank (a × b, ρ) or by the leftmost part of a give Betti table, the corank
beign the rank of the vector bundle. For instance Figure 1 is associated with TP2 , so the
corank is 2, hence at the end of the first line we see a linear matrix of size 20 × 26 of
constant corank 2.
The reduction process represented by a sequence of arrows can be thought as equivalent to a single
step of reduction done using the module G obtained as direct sum of the modules corresponding
to the arrows in the sequence. Thus, we simplify the tree by not allowing paths corresponding to
permutations of the arrows or paths with multiple arrows corresponding to resolutions with the
same degree sequence.
The matrices we find are associated with different kinds of bundles, so let us summarize here
the outcome of our search for examples. We start in §3.1 with the case of line bundles. In §3.2 we
use Steiner bundles on Pn , i.e. bundles with a two-step resolution. Here the corank is relatively
high, as Steiner bundles must have rank at least n.
We then start the study of matrices having corank smaller than n—in §5 we will call these
matrices of “small” corank. In §3.3 and 3.4 we produce many matrices arising from instantons
and other kinds of bundles. The hardest examples to construct are matrices of big size, having
corank smaller than the dimension of the ambient space, and of shape close to being square. We
highlighted in boldface the examples that seem most interesting to us, namely those of a × b
matrices of constant rank r with small b − r and a − r.

9

E >2

1 3 3 1

24 37 15

23 34 12


1

3 8 6 
   2

6 16 12 


 2
6 15 10 






 1

2 6 6 2

22 31 9

 2

3 8 6 
   1
6 16 12 


 2

6 15 10 






 1

3 9 9 3

21 28 6

 3

4 12 12 4

20 25 3

 4

5 15 15 5

19 22 

 5

6 18 18 6

7 21 21 7

3 8 6 
   1

6 16 12 


 2
9 24 18 


 3
6 15 10 






 1
10 24 15 










 1

3 8 6 
   1
6 15 10 






 1
3 8 6 
   1
3 8 6 
   1

20 26 6

 1

 1
17 18 

 1

 2
17 19 2

 1




 1
19 23 3

 2

 1
ν 2 does not
have Artinian
cokernel
16 16  


 

 1 


 

 2 1
18 20 

 3

 1
ν 2 does not
have Artinian
cokernel
ν 2 does not
have Artinian
cokernel
ν 2 does not
have Artinian
cokernel

18 19  


 


 

 6 3
ν 2 does not
have Artinian
cokernel
21 29 9




 1

6 15 10 






 1

ν 2 does not
have Artinian
cokernel

18 21 3




 2
ν 2 does not
have Artinian
cokernel
18 22 5







 1
14 13 










 1

Figure 1. The set of constant rank matrices that can be produced
with our

method applied to the truncation E >2 = ⊕t>2 H0 TP2 (t − 1) the module of
global sections of a twist of the tangent bundle E = TP2 (−1).

10

ADA BORALEVI, DANIELE FAENZI, AND PAOLO LELLA

3.1. Line bundles. To give a first application of Theorem 1.3, we show how to produce a subspace
of dimension 3 of (2s + 1) × (2s + 1) matrices of constant rank 2s. Such spaces are an example of
those determined by Westwick in [Wes90]; we will illustrate more details on his method in §5.
We consider as E the module of sections of a line bundle OP2 (l) over P2 . The resolution of
the general truncation E >k was described in Example 2.3. As for G, we consider pure Artinian
modules with degree sequence (k, k + 1, k + 2, k + d); in this case, the general solution of the
Herzog-Kühl equations is
d2 − 3d + 2
, β1,k (G) = q(d2 − 2d),
2
Hence, we look for positive integers k, d, q such that
β0,k (G) = q

β2,k (G) = q

d2 − d
,
2

β3,k (G) = q.

k 2 + 3k + 2
d2 − 3d + 2
−q
= 2s + 1,
2
2
β1,k (E >k ) − β1,k (G) = k 2 + 2k − q(d2 − 2d) = 2s + 1.

β0,k (E >k ) − β0,k (G) =

It is easy to show that for every s, we have the solution k = s, d = s + 1 and q = 1, and a
module with such resolution always exists (see for instance [ES09, Theorem 5.1]). Finally, one has
to determine a morphism µ : E >k → G satisfying the assumption of Theorem 1.3. Figure 2 shows
what happens in the case s = 2. Then, the morphism µ : E >2 → G defined by the map between
[0 0 −1 1 0 0]

the generators R(−2)6 −−−−−−−−→ R(−2) satisfies the hypotheses of Theorems 1.1 and 1.3 so that
the presentation of ker µ is a 5 × 5 matrix of constant rank 4 that looks exactly like the matrix
H2,2 defined in [Wes90]:


−x1 −x2 0
0
0
 x0 −x1 −x2 0
0 


 0
x0
0 −x2 0 

.
 0
0
x0 x1 −x2 
0
0
0
x0 x1
3.2. Steiner bundles, linear resolutions and generalizations. In “classical” literature a vector bundle E on Pn having a linear resolution of the form:
0 → OPn (−1)s → OPs+r
→ E → 0,
n
with s > 1 and r > n integers, is called a (rank r) Steiner bundle, see [DK93, Bra08] among many
other references. This motivates the following definition.
(m)

Definition 3.1. Let r > n and s > 1 be integers. The cokernel Es,r of an everywhere injective
morphism:
φ

→ OPs+r
OPn (−m − 1)s −
n
is a vector bundle on Pn , that we call a Steiner bundle. Because of the assumption r > n, the
matrices φ which are not everywhere injective form a proper closed subset of all matrices φ.
(0)

“Classical” Steiner bundles are of the form Es,r . Note that these are not Steiner bundles in
the sense of [MRS09], unless m < n. Given a (generalized) Steiner bundle, the graded module
(m)
E (m) := H0∗ (Es,r ) has the following resolution:
(3.1)

0 → R(−m − 1)s → Rs+r → E (m) → 0,

and its regularity is exactly equal to m. Remark though that the module E (m) does not fit the
bill for our purposes: first of all for m 6= 0 its resolution is not linear, and even in the case m = 0
one has Tor2 (E (0) , k)2 = 0. For this reason we need to truncate it in higher degree, as explained
in the following lemma.

11


µ3
 −µ1
µ0

R(−4)3


x2
 0

 −x1

 x0

 0
 0

 0
0

0
x2
0
0
−x1
x0
0
0

0
0
0
−x2
x2
0
−x1
x0
















−x1
 x0
0

µ1
 −µ0
0

−x1
 x0

 0

 0
 0
0

0
−x1
x0
0
0
0

−x2
0
0
x0
0
0

0
−x2
0
x1
0
0

µ2
−µ1
0

0
−x2
0
0
x0
0

x2
0

x0 x1

x2
1

x0 x2

x1 x2

0
µ3
−µ1

µ3
0
−µ0

0
0
−x2
0
x1
0

0
0
0
−x2
0
x0



µ1

R(−2)6


R(−4)3





R(−3)8


µ5
−µ4 
µ3

µ4
−µ2
µ1

x2
2

µ0

µ4
0
−µ1

0
0
0
0
−x2
x1

µ2

0
µ4
−µ2

µ5
0
−µ3

−x2
0
x0


0
−x2 
x1


0
µ5 
−µ4

R(−3)3









µ3



µ4

µ5

x0

x1

x2



R(−2)





µ

E >2

G

0

0

Figure 2. Description of the general morphism µ between the module E >2 ,
where E = R = k[x0 , x1 , x2 ], and G = k(−2). Any non-zero morphism µ is
surjective. If µ−1 (1) = hx2i i for some i, the morphisms µ1 and µ2 are not surjective
and the presentation of ker µ is R(−4)2 ⊕ R(−3)6 → R(−3) ⊕ R(−2)5 . If µ−1 (1) =
hxi xj i, i 6= j, then µ1 is surjective but µ2 is not, and the presentation turns out to
be R(−4) ⊕ R(−3)5 → R(−2)5 → ker µ. Finally, for a generic morphism µ, both
µ1 and µ2 are surjective and ker µ is linearly presented (R(−3)5 → R(−2)5 ).
(m)

Lemma 3.2. Let Es,r be a rank r Steiner bundles, with graded modules of sections E (m) =
(m)
(m)
H0∗ (Es,r ). The linear resolution of the truncation E >m is of the form:
(m)

(m)

(m)

0 → · · · → R(−m − i)αi,m → · · · → R(−m)α0,m → E >m → 0
where:
(m)

(i)
αi,m = p(i)
n (m)(s + r) − pn (−1)s.

(3.2)

(m)

Proof. Looking at the homogeneous piece of degree m + i of the resolution of E >m :
(m)

α

(m)

α

(m) 
m+i

i,m
0,m
0 → · · · → R(−m − i)m+i
→ · · · → R(−m)m+i
→ E >m

we deduce that:
(m)
αi,m

=

i
X
j=1

(−1)j−1

n+j
n

 (m)
(m) 
αi−j,m + (−1)i dimk E >m m+i .

→ 0,

12

ADA BORALEVI, DANIELE FAENZI, AND PAOLO LELLA
(m) 
m+i

Since E >m

= E (m)

of degree m + i of

(m)
E >m



m+i

, for all i > 0, we compute the dimension of the homogeneous piece

from the simpler resolution (3.1):


= dimk E (m) m+i = n+m+i
(s + r) −
n

(m) 
dimk E >m m+i

n+i−1
n


s.

We now proceed by induction on i; for i = 0, we have:


(m) 
(m)
(0)
(0)
α0,m = dimk E >m m = n+m
(s + r) − n−1
n
n s = pn (m)(s + r) − pn (−1)s.

By inductive hypothesis, (3.2) holds for 0, . . . , i − 1. We get:
i

X
  (i−j)
(m)
(i−j)
p
(m)(s
+
r)
−
p
(−1)s
+
(−1)j−1 n+j
αi,m =
n
n
n
j=1

n+m+i
n

(−1)i

=

i
hX


(s + r) −

(−1)j−1

n+j
n

(−1)j−1

n+j
n

j=1

i
hX
j=1

n+i−1
n

 
s =

 (i−j)
pn (m) + (−1)i

 (i−j)
pn (−1) + (−1)i

i

n+m+i
n

n+i−1
n

(s + r) −

i
s.

(i)

The result follows from the observation that the univariate polynomial pn (k) coincides with:
i
X

(−1)j−1

n+j
n

j=1

 (i−j)
pn (k) + (−1)i

n+k+i
n


,

because both polynomials have degree n and take the same value at k = 0, −1, . . . , −n.

E >1
(12×14, 10)

E >2
(30×42, 27)

(26×31, 23)

(29×39, 26)

(11×11, 9)

(23×23, 20)
(23×24, 20)

E >2
(22×32, 20)

(21×29, 19)

(18×21, 16)

(20×26, 18)

(17×18, 15)

(28×36, 25)

(25×28, 22)
(22×21, 19)

(19×23, 17)
(18×20, 16)

(27×33, 24)

(24×25, 21)

(26×30, 23)

(23×22, 20)

(25×27, 22)

(17×17, 15)

(24×24, 21)

(19×24, 17)

(27×34, 24)

(16×16, 14)

(24×26, 21)

(16×17, 14)

(24×27, 21)
(20×18, 17)

(1)

(1)

(2)

(a) E = H0∗ (E2,2 ), with E2,2 over P2 .
E >1
(16×25, 13)

(15×21, 12)

E >1
(18×30, 15)

(2)

(b) E = H0∗ (E2,3 ), with E2,3 over P2 .
(17×26, 14)

E >1
(19×30, 15)

(18×26, 14)

(14×17, 11)

(16×22, 13)

(13×13, 10)

(15×18, 12)

(16×18, 12)

(14×14, 11)

(15×14, 11)

(14×15, 11)

(15×15, 11)

(1)

(0)

(17×22, 13)

(0)

(c) E = H0∗ (E1,3 ), with

(d) E = H0∗ (E2,3 ), with

(e) E = H0∗ (E1,4 ), with

(1)
E1,3

(0)
E2,3

(0)
E1,4

over P3 .

over P3 .

over P3 .

Figure 3. Examples of possible constant rank matrices arising from generalized
Steiner bundles. The triple (a×b, ρ) indicates an a × b matrix of constant rank ρ.



13

3.3. Linear monads and instanton bundles. Mathematical instanton bundles were first introduced in [OS86] as rank 2m bundles on P2m+1 satisfying certain cohomological conditions. They
generalize particular rank 2 bundles on P3 whose study was motivated by problems from physics,
see [AHDM78]. They can also be defined as cohomology of a linear monad. Here we consider
a definition in the spirit of [Jar06]. Define a monad (on Pn ) as a three-term complex of vector
bundles A B, C on Pn :
f

g

A−
→B−
→ C,

with g ◦ f = 0,

where g surjective and such that im f is a subbundle of ker g, i.e. f : A → ker g is fiberwise injective.
Its cohomology is the vector bundle E = ker g/ im f .
Definition 3.3. An instanton bundle is a rank r vector bundle E(r,k) on Pn , r > n − 1, which is
the cohomology of a linear monad of type:
f

g

→ OP2k+r
−
→ OPn (1)k .
OPn (−1)k −
n

(3.3)

In this case, k = dim H1 (E(r,k) (−1)) and is called the charge of E(r,k) . E(r,k) is sometimes called
a k-instanton.
According to [Flø00], the condition r > n − 1 is equivalent to the existence of a monad of type
(3.3). It should be noted however that, in this range, the degeneracy locus of the map f : A → ker g
has expected codimension r + 1. So one has to chose f and g carefully, as for randomly taken f
and g in this range with g ◦ f = 0, it may happen that ker g/ im f is not locally free.
Figure 4 contains examples of sizes and ranks of matrices that can arise from instantons.

E >2
(12×18, 10)

E >3
(20×34, 18)

(11×14, 9)

(19×30, 17)
(18×26, 16)

(10×10, 8)

(15×16, 13)

(17×22, 15)
E >2
(30×62, 28)

(29×58, 27)

(28×54, 26)

(21×28, 19)

(16×19, 14)

(19×22, 17)

(b) E = H0∗ (E(2,4) ), where E(2,4) is a classical (rank 2) instanton bundle over P3 of
charge 4.

(24×39, 22)
(20×24, 18)

(27×50, 25)

(16×18, 14)

(25×43, 23)

(23×35, 21)
(19×20, 17)

(26×46, 24)

(22×31, 20)

(25×42, 23)

(21×27, 19)

(24×38, 22)

(20×23, 18)

(23×34, 21)

(20×24, 18)

(22×30, 20)

(19×20, 17)

(21×26, 19)
(20×22, 18)
(26×47, 24)
(22×32, 20)
(20×26, 18)

H0∗ (E(2,2) ),

(a) E =
where E(2,2) is a classical (rank 2) instanton bundle over P3 of
charge 2.

E >2
(22×38, 19)

(21×34, 18)

(17×19, 14)

(20×30, 17)
(19×26, 16)

(16×16, 13)

(18×22, 15)
(17×18, 14)
(18×23, 15)

H0∗ (E(3,2) ),

(c) E =
where E(3,2) is a rank
3 instanton bundle over P3 .

Figure 4. Examples of possible constant rank matrices that can be obtained
from instanton bundles. The notation is the same as in Figure 3.

14

ADA BORALEVI, DANIELE FAENZI, AND PAOLO LELLA

3.4. Null-correlation, Tango, and the Horrocks-Mumford bundle. Null-correlation bundles are examples of rank n−1 bundles on Pn for n odd: they are constructed as kernel of the bundle
epimorphism TPn (−1) → OPn (1). A construction due to Ein [Ein88] generalizes this definition on
P3 :
Definition 3.4. [Ein88] A rank 2 vector bundle E(e,d,c) on P3 is said to be a generalized nullcorrelation bundle if it is given as the cohomology of a monad of the form:
OP3 (−c) → OP3 (d) ⊕ OP3 (e) ⊕ OP3 (−e) ⊕ OP3 (−d) → OP3 (c),
where c > d > e > 0 are given integers. This way, E0,0,1 is a classical null-correlation bundle on
P3 .
Figure 5 shows possible sizes of matrices appearing from null-correlation bundles.
A construction of Tango [Tan76] produces an indecomposable rank n − 1 bundle over Pn , for
all Pn , defined as a quotient En′ of the dual of the kernel of the evaluation map of Ω1Pn (2), which
is a globally generated bundle. More in detail, one starts by constructing the rank n2 bundle En
from the exact sequence:
(n+1)
(3.4)
0 → TPn (−2) → OPn2 → En → 0,
and then takes its quotient En′ :
(3.5)

(n)−n
0 → OPn2
→ En → En′ → 0,

that turns out to be a rank n indecomposable vector bundle on Pn containing a trivial subbundle
of rank 1. A Tango bundle Fn is defined as the quotient of En′ by its trivial subbundle, and thus
has rank n − 1.
Indecomposable rank n − 2 bundles on Pn are even more difficult to construct; on P4 there is
essentially only one example known, whose construction is due to Horrocks and Mumford [HM73].
It is an indecomposable rank 2 bundle that can be defined as the cohomology of the monad:
OP4 (−1)5 → (Ω2P4 (2))2 → OP54 .
Figures 6(a) and 6(b) show possible examples of constant rank matrices that can be constructed
starting from a Tango and the Horrocks-Mumford bundle respectively.

15

E >4
(46×100, 44)

(45×96, 43)

(41×81, 39)

(31×45, 29)

(37×66, 35)

(27×30, 25)

(33×51, 31)
(29×36, 27)
(35×60, 33)
(44×92, 42)

(40×77, 38)

(30×41, 28)

(36×62, 34)
(32×47, 30)
E >2
(16×29, 14)

(28×32, 26)

(15×25, 13)

(34×56, 32)

(14×21, 12)
(43×88, 41)

(13×17, 11)

(39×73, 37)

(29×37, 27)

(35×58, 33)

(12×13, 10)

(31×43, 29)

(12×14, 10)

(27×28, 25)
(33×52, 31)
E >3
(35×76, 33)

(34×72, 32)

(30×57, 28)

(20×21, 18)

(42×84, 40)

(32×48, 30)

(24×36, 22)
(29×53, 27)

(41×80, 39)

(31×44, 29)

(23×32, 21)
(40×76, 38)

(28×31, 26)

(22×28, 20)

(30×40, 28)

(27×45, 25)
(23×30, 21)

(39×72, 37)

(29×36, 27)

(26×41, 24)
(22×26, 20)

(29×52, 27)

(38×68, 36)

(28×32, 26)

(21×22, 19)
(37×64, 35)

(27×28, 25)

(26×40, 24)
(36×60, 34)

(25×36, 23)

(32×45, 30)
(28×30, 26)

(24×32, 22)
(23×28, 21)
(22×24, 20)
(21×25, 19)

(27×46, 25)
(23×31, 21)
(25×40, 23)

H0∗ (NC ),

(33×49, 31)
(29×34, 27)

(27×44, 25)

(31×61, 29)

(34×53, 32)
(30×38, 28)

(25×37, 23)

(28×48, 26)

(35×57, 33)
(31×42, 29)

(21×24, 19)
(30×56, 28)

(36×61, 34)
(32×46, 30)

(24×34, 22)
(31×60, 29)

(27×29, 25)

(29×35, 27)

(21×23, 19)
(28×49, 26)

(37×65, 35)
(33×50, 31)

(25×38, 23)

(32×64, 30)

(28×33, 26)

(30×39, 28)

(22×27, 20)
(33×68, 31)

(38×69, 36)
(34×54, 32)

(26×42, 24)

(a) E =
where NC = E(0,0,1) is a null
correlation bundle over P3 .

(35×56, 33)

(31×41, 29)

(34×52, 32)

(30×37, 28)

(33×48, 31)

(29×33, 27)

(32×44, 30)

(28×29, 26)

(31×40, 29)
(30×36, 28)
(29×32, 28)
(42×85, 40)

(32×49, 30)

(38×70, 36)

(28×35, 26)

(34×55, 32)
(30×40, 28)
(36×64, 34)
(26×28, 24)
(26×30, 24)

H0∗ (E(0,0,2) ),

(b) E =
where E(0,0,2) is a generalized
null correlation bundle over P3 .

Figure 5. Size and rank of matrices of constant rank that can be constructed
from null correlation bundles. The notation is the same as in Figure 3.

16

ADA BORALEVI, DANIELE FAENZI, AND PAOLO LELLA

E >−1
(30×69, 27)

(29×64, 26)

(24×40, 21)

(28×59, 25)

(23×35, 20)

(27×54, 24)
(26×49, 23)

E >4
(35×75, 33)

(34×70, 32)

(29×46, 27)

(33×65, 31)

(28×41, 26)

(22×30, 19)

(32×60, 30)

(27×36, 25)

(21×25, 18)

(31×55, 29)

(26×31, 24)

(25×44, 22)

(30×50, 28)

(24×39, 21)

(29×45, 27)

(23×34, 20)

(28×40, 26)

(22×29, 19)

(27×35, 25)

(21×24, 18)

(26×30, 24)

(25×45, 22)

(30×51, 28)

(20×21, 17)

(25×27, 23)

(a) E = H0∗ (F4 ), where F4 is a Tango bundle over P4 .

(b) E = H0∗ (HM ), where HM is the
Horrocks-Mumford bundle.

Figure 6. Examples of size and rank of matrices that can be constructed from
Tango and Horrocks-Mumford bundles. The notation is the same as in Figure 3.
4. Skew-symmetric matrices
As suggested in the introduction, the idea of using vector bundles to study and then explicitly
construct linear matrices of constant rank dates back to the 80’s. Indeed an n + 1–dimensional
linear space of a × b matrices of constant rank ρ gives rise to an exact sequence:
(4.1)

A

0 −→ K −→ OPn (−1)b −→ OPan −→ E −→ 0.

The kernel and cokernel sheaves K and E of such a matrix are tightly related to one another,
and the matrix itself is expressed by an extension class Ext2 (E, K). In this section we consider
linear matrices of constant rank with extra symmetry properties and connect this with our previous
results.
Definition 4.1. Let E and K be vector bundles on Pn . For t ∈ Z, consider the Yoneda map:
υt : H0 (E(t)) ⊗ Ext2 (E, K) → H2 (K(t)).
Set E = H0∗ (E) and M = H2∗ (K). Define Φ as the linear map induced by the υt :
Φ : Ext2 (E, K) −→ HomR (E, M )0 .
Theorem 4.2. Assume n > 3 and let A : R(−m − 1)b → R(−m)a be skew-symmetrizable of
constant rank. Set K = ker A and E = coker A. Then K ≃ E ∗ (−2m − 1), and there is an element
η lying in H2 (S 2 E ∗ (−2m − 1)) under the canonical decomposition
Ext2 (E, E ∗ (−2m − 1)) ≃ H2 (S 2 E ∗ (−2m − 1)) ⊕ H2 (∧2 E ∗ (−2m − 1)),
such that A presents ker Φ(η). Conversely, if η ∈ H2 (S 2 E ∗ (−2m−1)), µ = Φ(η) : E → M satisfies
the assumptions of Theorem 1.3, and ker A ≃ E ∗ (−2m − 1), then A is skew-symmetrizable.
The same holds for a symmetrizable A, once the above condition on η is replaced with η ∈
H2 (∧2 E ∗ (−2m − 1)).
Proof. Let us check the first statement. Assume thus that A is skew-symmetric. Then, sheafifying
the matrix A provided by Theorem 1.3 we get a long exact sequence of type (4.1), where we have
already noticed that, since A has constant rank, E and K are locally free. Hence:
Exti (E, OPn ) = Exti (K, OPn ) = 0,
for all i > 0. Therefore, dualizing the above sequence and twisting by OPn (−2m − 1)we get:
−A

0 −→ E ∗ (−2m − 1) −→ OPn (−m − 1)a −→ OPn (−m)a −→ K ∗ (−2m − 1) −→ 0

17

Since the image E of A is the same as the image of −A, these exact sequences can be put
together to get K ≃ E ∗ (−2m − 1). We may thus rewrite them as:
A

0 −→ E ∗ (−2m − 1) −→ OPn (−m − 1)a −→ OPn (−m)a −→ E −→ 0.
This long exact sequence represents an element η ∈ Ext2 (E, E ∗ (−2m−1)) ≃ H2 (E ∗ ⊗E ∗ (−2m−1)).
By looking at the construction of [BFM13, Lemma 3.1], it is now clear that for A to be skewsymmetric η should lie in H2 (S 2 E ∗ (−2m − 1)).
To understand why A presents ker Φ(η), let us first expand some details of the definition of Φ.
Let again E be the image of A and write for any integer t the exact commutative diagram:
0

K(t)

OPn (−m − 1 + t)a

A

OPn (−m + t)a

E(t)

0.

E(t)
0

0

Taking cohomology, we get maps:
(4.2)

µt : H0 (E(t))

H2 (K(t)).
H1 (E(t))

Remark that sequence (4.1) corresponds to η ∈ Ext2 (E, K). Cup product with η induces via
Yoneda’s composition the linear maps µt ’s of (4.2). But these maps are obtained from the υt by
transposition, so cup product with η gives:
µ = ⊕t µt = Φ(η) : H0∗ (E) = E → M = H2∗ (E ∗ (−2m − 1)).
This is obviously a morphism, homogeneous of degree 0. Notice that as soon as n > 3, both
groups H1 (OPn (−m + t)) and H2 (OPn (−m − 1 + t)) vanish for all values of t, hence µ is surjective.
By construction A appears as presentation matrix of F = ker µ.
For the converse statement, the element η corresponds to a length-2 extension of E ∗ (−2m − 1)
by E. Set µ = Φ(η). Theorem 1.3 gives a linear matrix A of constant rank presenting F = ker µ.
Note that sheafifying F we get back the bundle E, as M = H2∗ (E ∗ (−2m − 1)) is Artinian. On the
other hand, since ker A ≃ E ∗ (−2m − 1), the matrix A represents the extension class η. Therefore,
A is skew-symmetrizable by [BFM13, Lemma 3.5 (iii)]. Part (i) of the same lemma says that, when
dealing with symmetric matrices, one should replace the condition η ∈ H2 (S 2 E ∗ (−2m − 1)) with
η ∈ H2 (∧2 E ∗ (−2m − 1)). The theorem is thus proved.

There are particularly favorable situations, for instance when E is an instanton bundle of charge
2 or a general (in the sense of [HH82]) instanton bundle of charge 4. Both these types of bundles
have natural cohomology, see [Har78, HH82], and their resolution is known from [Rah97]. Using
this information, one can check that the map Φ is a surjection, see [BFM13, Theorem 5.2 and
Theorem 6.1]. This makes the search for an element η corresponding to a skew-symmetric matrix
of the prescribed size and constant rank considerably easier.
Example 4.3. Let us work out the case of general instantons of rank 2, and write down an explicit
10 × 10 skew-symmetric matrix of constant rank 8. This complements (and corrects a typo in)
[BFM13, §5.2]. Let E be a rank 2 instanton bundle of charge 2 on P3 , obtained as cohomology
of a monad of type (3.3). It turns out that a general section of E(1) vanishes along the union Z
of three skew lines, which are contained in a (unique) smooth quadric Q. Under the isomorphism
Q ≃ P1 × P1 , we may write Z as a divisor of bidegree (3, 0) of Q. This gives rise to the exact
sequence:
0 → OP3 (−1)2 → E → OQ (−2, 1) → 0.

18

ADA BORALEVI, DANIELE FAENZI, AND PAOLO LELLA

Now let E := H0∗ (E) be the module of global sections of E. It is easy to compute the resolution of
the module of global sections of OQ (−2, 1), and to deduce from it the following resolution of E:
0 → R(−4)2 → R(−3)6 → R(−2)4 ⊕ R(−1)2 → E → 0.
We truncate it in degree m = 2 in order to get a 2-linear resolution. We easily get:
0 → R(−5)2 → R(−4)10 → R(−3)18 → R(−2)12 → E >2 → 0.
Now we take the 2nd graded cohomology module H2∗ (E), which is a module of length 2, and we
set G := (H2∗ (E)(−5))>2 . The truncated module G has length 1. From [Dec90, HR91] we deduce
the resolution:
(4.3)

0 → R(−6)2 → R(−5)8 → R(−4)12 → R(−3)8 → R(−2)2 → G → 0.

To do this explicitly via Macaulay2, one can take a special 2-instanton, as described in [AO95];
its monad has maps:

0
x1
 x1 x0 




 x0
0 
x2 x3 0 x0 x1 0


f =
 and g = 0 x2 x3 0 x0 x1 .
 0 −x3 
 −x3 −x2 
−x2 0


Now let us look at our theorems. The hypotheses of Theorem 1.1, item ii) cannot be satisfied
and the presentation of ker µ2 for a generic morphism µ2 : E >2 → M is not linear:
R(−4)2
⊕
−→ R(−2)10 −→ ker µ2 −→ 0.
10
R(−3)
Nevertheless, µ2 satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem 1.3, item ii). Hence, if we restrict to the linear
part of the presentation A : R(−3)10 → R(−2)10 , we obtain a 10 × 10 matrix of constant rank 8.
Such a matrix A does not enjoy any particular symmetry property. But if we can make sure that
the map E → M comes indeed from an element of H2 (S 2 E ∗ (−5)), then Theorem 4.2 will guarantee
that this matrix is skew-symmetrizable. By [BFM13, Theorem 5.2] we know that H2 (S 2 E ∗ (−5))
surjects onto HomR (E, H2∗ (E)(−5))0 , and in fact any element there will have the same kernel as
its truncation in degree 2 µ2 , because the map is an isomorphism in degree 1. We can thus take
a random element in HomR (E, H2∗ (E)(−5))0 and our construction will work without us having to
truncate.
A remark here is that, to get the correct argument for [BFM13, Theorem 5.2], one should apply
it to the second symmetric power of (4.3), which reads:
0 → R(−6)2 → R(−5)8 → R(−4)12 → R(−3)8 → R(−2)2 → G → 0.

19

An explicit example of this procedure yields the matrix A = A0 x0 + A1 x1 + A2 x2 + A3 x3 , where:
 0 108 594 54 36 876 108 18 0 0 





A0 = 














A1 = 






0









and A3 = 






0 −18 192 0 −36 0 0
0 36 192 0
18 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
18 18
0 0 0
0 −48 −36 0 0
0 −36 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0

0 −324 162 0 −64 −492 −324 − 193
4
0
0 0 −16 48
0
− 41
2
163
0 0 −16 264
0
− 4
0 0
24
0
− 94
0
16
4
0
0
−48 − 89
2
0
− 17
2
0






,





0
0
0
0
0
0
0

27
2

0

0






A2 = 






0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0









,






−36 −324 54
−438 −534 −108 −36 −1590 − 495
2
0
300
0
18
0
−75 18
0
0
−36
0
0
0
−54 −36 −876 − 705
2
0
0
0
− 27
0
0
0
2
0
−18
−18
0
0
0
0
−219 18
0
0
0
18
81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

64 1058
−438 64 0
0
0 −498 978 319
4
3
368
0
612 23
16
−48
16
0
0
2
3
0 − 35
16 − 2116
−444 16 0
0
4
3
1
0
0 − 23
0 27
0
2
2
2
0
−16
−4
0
0
0
0
− 128
16 144 −24
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0










,












.






Remark 4.4. In principle, the construction of Figure 4(b) should work for the module of global
sections E of an arbitrary instanton bundle E of charge 4, as we use truncation E >2 , which
has linear resolution for any such bundle. However, the explicit algorithm depends on a randomly
chosen 4-instanton, and as such only tells us about the behavior of general 4-instantons. Moreover,
to ensure that Theorem 4.2 actually applies, and hence that our map is skew-symmetrizable, we
need that E is general enough to satisfy D’Almeida’s involution [D’A00].
5. Comparison with other strategies
Recall from §4 that an n + 1–dimensional linear space of matrices of constant rank gives rise to
an exact sequence of type (4.1), and thus to two vector bundles K = ker A of rank r = b − ρ and
E = coker A of rank s = a − ρ.
It is well known that the smaller the difference n − r is, the easier it becomes to find indecomposable (nontrivial) rank r bundles on Pn , see for example [OSS80, Chapter 4]. As a consequence,
one has more hopes to construct examples of the type we are after by first building a bigger matrix

20

ADA BORALEVI, DANIELE FAENZI, AND PAOLO LELLA

of size α × β and constant rank ρ, and then projecting it to a smaller a × b matrix of the same
rank ρ. Cutting down columns (respectively rows) is equivalent to taking a quotient of the rank
β − ρ bundle K (respectively the rank α − ρ bundle E), as shown in the following commutative
diagram (or in an equivalent one for cutting down rows):
0

0

OPb−β
n (−1)

OPb−β
n (−1)

0

K

OPb n (−1)

A

OPan

0

Q

OPβn (−1)

A′

OPαn

0

0

E

0

coker(A′ )

0

This technique was used for example in [FM11, BM15]. So what is the advantage of our method
over that of projecting bigger matrices? The following result answers the question.
Proposition 5.1. Let A be a linear space of a×b matrices of constant rank ρ, and dim(A) = n+1.
A induces by projection a space A′ of α × β matrices of the same constant rank ρ and dimension
n + 1 for any α > ρ + n and β > ρ + n.
Proposition 5.1 generalizes a similar result for skew-symmetric matrices appearing in [FM11].
An immediate consequence is that n + 1-dimensional spaces of matrices of constant rank cannot
be constructed via projection as soon as n is bigger than min{α − ρ, β − ρ}; on the contrary, our
method works for many such cases, as we hope was apparent in the previous sections. We call the
examples where n > min{α − ρ, β − ρ} of small corank.
Proof. We will prove the result working on the number of columns; the other proof is identical.
The space PA lies in the stratum
σρ (Seg(Pa−1 × Pb−1 )) \ σρ−1 (Seg(Pa−1 × Pb−1 )) ֒→ P(ka ⊗ kb )
of the ρth secant variety to the Segre variety Seg(Pa−1 × Pb−1 ) minus its singular locus. We prove
that PA can be isomorphically projected to σρ (Seg(Pa−1 × Pn+ρ )).
Taking a quotient Q of the bundle K as above corresponds to projecting Pb−1 onto Pβ−1 from
the span of b − β independent points O := hx1 , . . . , xb−β i; let us call this projection πO . This in
turn induces a projection πSO : P(ka ⊗ kb ) → P(kα ⊗ kb ), whose center SO is the image of Pa−1 × O
in P(ka ⊗ kb ) through the Segre embedding.
Now let ω ∈ PA be any point; then ω = [v1 ⊗ w1 + . . . + vρ ⊗ wρ ] where vi ⊗ wi are independent,
and in particular w1 , . . . , wρ are independent vectors in kb . Thus they generate a subspace Lω in
Pb−1 of dimension ρ − 1.
Claim. Given O ⊂ Pb−1 such that PA ∩ SO = ∅, the matrices πSO (PA) have constant rank ρ if
and only if O does not intersect the union of the spaces Lω , as ω varies in PA.
To prove the claim, notice that πSO (PA)(ω) = [v1 ⊗ M w1 + . . . + vρ ⊗ M wρ ], where M is the
matrix representing πO . But then its rank is strictly less than ρ if and only if the wi ’s can be chosen
in a way that some summand vi ⊗ M wi vanish. On the other hand, the entry locus of ω is exactly
the Segre variety Seg(Pa−1 × Lω ) ֒→ Seg(Pa−1 × Pb−1 ). So a point of Seg(Pa−1 × Pb−1 ) belongs
to some ρ-secant plane to the Segre, and containing ω, if and only if it belongs to Seg(Pa−1 × Lω ).
In other words the existence of a choice of w1 , . . . , wρ such that some vi ⊗ M wi vanish is
equivalent to saying that O intersects Lω . This proves the claim.

21

To finish the proof of Proposition 5.1, just notice that:
S
dim ω∈PA Lω 6 dim(PA) + dim(Lω ) = n + ρ − 1.



Let us also mention a problem related to our work. Given integers 2 6 r 6 a 6 b, one would like
to determine the maximal dimension l(a, b, r) of a space of a × b matrices of rank r. By [Wes87],
one has:
b − r + 1 6 l(a, b, r) 6 a + b − 2r + 1,
and moreover l(a, b, r) = b − r + 1 whenever b − r + 1 does not divide (a − 1)!/(r − 1)!. In particular,
the value l(r + 1, r + n − 1, r) can be either n or n + 1. An explicit computation performed in
[Wes90] gives the l(r + 1, r + n − 1, r) = n + 1. This goes as follows. Fix n + 1 independent variables
x0 , . . . , xn and define the matrix (kn + 1) × (kn + n − 1) matrix Hn,k = (hij ) as:


if 0 6 j − i + 1 6 n and j 6≡ 0 mod (k + 1),
xj−i+1 ,
hi,j = (a − j + i − 1)xj−i+1 , if 0 6 j − i + 1 6 n and j = a(k + 1),


0,
otherwise.

It is not too hard to see that the rank of Hn,k is at least kn; by constructing an appropriate
annihilator for Hn,k one is then able to conclude that the rank is indeed kn.
Although the geometric meaning of this computation is still obscure to us, we are able to recover
matrices of the same size and rank as Hn,k and which are moreover equivariant for a certain action
of SL2 – this will appear elsewhere. However, matrices of size a × b and rank b − r = n − 1 over Pn
will be probably difficult to find, especially so if a < b, as in this case the cokernel will be a bundle
of rank n − 1 − (b − a) 6 n − 2, on Pn , and these bundles are notoriously hard to construct.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to Emilia Mezzetti for introducing us to this problem.
We thank Philippe Ellia for pointing out a mistake in a previous version of this paper. The current
version of our main results are deeply inspired on his remarks. We thank the referees for their
careful reading of our manuscript and constructive comments to improve the exposition.
References
[AHDM78] M. F. Atiyah, N. J. Hitchin, V. G. Drinfel′ d, and Y. I. Manin, Construction of instantons, Phys. Lett.
A 65 (1978), no. 3, 185–187.
[AO95]
V. Ancona and G. Ottaviani, On moduli of instanton bundles on P2n+1 , Pacific J. Math. 171 (1995),
no. 2, 343–351.
[BFM13] A. Boralevi, D. Faenzi, and E. Mezzetti, Linear spaces of matrices of constant rank and instanton
bundles, Adv. Math. 248 (2013), 895–920.
[BM15]
A. Boralevi and E. Mezzetti, Planes of matrices of constant rank and globally generated vector bundles,
Ann. Inst. Fourier 65 (2015), no. 5, 2069–2089.
[Bra08]
M.C. Brambilla, Cokernel bundles and Fibonacci bundles, Math. Nach. 281 (2008), 499–516.
[BS08]
M. Boij and J. Söderberg, Graded Betti numbers of Cohen-Macaulay modules and the multiplicity
conjecture, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 78 (2008), no. 1, 85–106.
[D’A00]
J. D’Almeida, Une involution sur un espace de modules de fibrés instantons, Bull. Soc. Math. France
128 (2000), no. 4, 577–584.
[Dec90]
W. Decker, Monads and cohomology modules of rank 2 vector bundles, Compositio Math. 76 (1990),
no. 1–2, 7–17.
[DK93]
I. Dolgachev and M. Kapranov, Arrangements of hyperplanes and vector bundles on Pn , Duke Math.
J. 71 (1993), no. 3, 633–664. MR 1240599 (95e:14029)
[EFW11] D. Eisenbud, G. Fløystad, and J. Weyman, The existence of equivariant pure free resolutions, Ann.
Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 61 (2011), no. 3, 905–926.
[EH88]
D. Eisenbud and J. Harris, Vector spaces of matrices of low rank, Adv. in Math. 70 (1988), no. 2,
135–155.
[Ein88]
L. Ein, Generalized null correlation bundles, Nagoya Math. J. 111 (1988), 13–24.

22

[ES09]
[ESS]
[Flø00]
[FM11]
[GS]
[Har78]
[HH82]
[HM73]
[HR91]
[IL99]
[Jar06]
[MRS09]
[OS86]
[OSS80]
[Pee11]
[Rah97]
[Syl86]
[Tan76]
[Wes87]
[Wes90]
[Wes96]

ADA BORALEVI, DANIELE FAENZI, AND PAOLO LELLA

D. Eisenbud and F-O. Schreyer, Betti numbers of graded modules and cohomology of vector bundles, J.
Amer. Math. Soc. 22 (2009), no. 3, 859–888.
D. Eisenbud, F-O. Schreyer, and M. Stillman, BoijSoederberg, a Macaulay2 package available at
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/doc/Macaulay2-1.8.2/share/doc/Macaulay2/BoijSoederberg/html/.
G. Fløystad, Monads on projective spaces, Comm. Algebra 28 (2000), no. 12, 5503–5516, Special issue
in honor of Robin Hartshorne.
M.L. Fania and E. Mezzetti, Vector spaces of skew-symmetric matrices of constant rank, Linear Algebra
Appl. 434 (2011), 2383–2403.
D.R. Grayson and M.E. Stillman, Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry,
Available at http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/.
R. Hartshorne, Stable vector bundles of rank 2 on P3 , Math. Ann. 238 (1978), no. 3, 229–280.
R. Hartshorne and A. Hirschowitz, Cohomology of a general instanton bundle, Ann. scient. Éc. Norm.
Sup. 15 (1982), 365–390.
G. Horrocks and D. Mumford, A rank 2 vector bundle on P 4 with 15,000 symmetries, Topology 12
(1973), 63–81. MR 0382279
R. Hartshorne and A.P. Rao, Spectra and monads of stable bundles, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 31 (1991),
no. 3, 789–806.
B. Ilic and J.M. Landsberg, On symmetric degeneracy loci, spaces of symmetric matrices of constant
rank and dual varieties, Math. Ann. 314 (1999), no. 1, 159–174.
M. Jardim, Instanton sheaves on complex projective spaces, Collect. Math. 57 (2006), no. 1, 69–91.
R.M. Miró-Roig and H. Soares, Cohomological characterisation of Steiner bundles, Forum Math. 21
(2009), 871–891.
C. Okonek and H. Spindler, Mathematical instanton bundles on P2n+1 , J. Reine Angew. Math. 364
(1986), 35–50.
C. Okonek, M. Schneider, and H. Spindler, Vector bundles on complex projective spaces, Progress in
Mathematics, no. 3, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1980.
I. Peeva, Graded syzygies, Algebra and Applications, vol. 14, Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London,
2011.
O. Rahavandrainy, Résolution des fibrés instantons généraux, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 325
(1997), no. 2, 189–192.
J. Sylvester, On the dimension of spaces of linear transformations satisfying rank conditions, Linear
Algebra Appl. 78 (1986), 1–10.
H. Tango, An example of indecomposable vector bundle of rank n − 1 on P n , J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 16
(1976), no. 1, 137–141.
R. Westwick, Spaces of matrices of fixed rank, Lin. and Multilin. Algebra 20 (1987), no. 2, 171–174.
, Examples of constant rank spaces, Lin. and Multilin. Algebra 28 (1990), 155–174.
, Spaces of matrices of fixed rank. II, Linear Algebra Appl. 235 (1996), 163–169.

Dipartimento di Scienze Matematiche “Giuseppe Luigi Lagrange”, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca
degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy
E-mail address: ada.boralevi@polito.it
Institut de Mathématiques de Bourgogne, UMR CNRS 5584, Université de Bourgogne et Franche
Comté, 9 Avenue Alain Savary, BP 47870, 21078 Dijon Cedex, France
E-mail address: daniele.faenzi@u-bourgogne.fr
INdAM, Unità di Ricerca del Dipartimento di Matematica “G. Peano”, Università degli Studi di
Torino, Via Carlo Alberto 10, 10123 Torino, Italy
E-mail address: paolo.lella.math@gmail.com
URL: http://www.paololella.it/

