THE VANISHING CONJECTURE FOR MAPS OF TOR AND DERIVED
SPLINTERS

arXiv:1509.04400v2 [math.AC] 4 Dec 2015

LINQUAN MA

Abstract. We say an excellent local domain (S, n) satisfies the vanishing conditions for
maps of Tor, if for every A → R → S with A regular and A → R module-finite torsionA
free extension, and every A-module M , the map TorA
i (M, R) → Tori (M, S) vanishes for
every i ≥ 1. Hochster-Huneke’s conjecture (theorem in equal characteristic) thus states
that regular rings satisfy such vanishing conditions [HH95]. The main theorem of this paper
shows that, in equal characteristic, rings that satisfy the vanishing conditions for maps
of Tor are exactly derived splinters in the sense of Bhatt [Bha12]. In particular, rational
singularities in characteristic 0 satisfy the vanishing conditions. This greatly generalizes
Hochster-Huneke’s result [HH95] and Boutot’s theorem [Bou87]. Moreover, our result leads
to a new (and surprising) characterization of rational singularities in terms of splittings in
module-finite extensions.

1. Introduction
In [HH95], Hochster and Huneke proved the following extremely strong vanishing result
in equal characteristic:
Theorem 1.1 (cf. Theorem 4.1 in [HH95]). Let A be an equal characteristic regular domain,
let R be a module-finite and torsion-free extension of A, and let R → S be any homomorphism from R to a regular ring S. Then for every A-module M and every i ≥ 1, the map
A
TorA
i (M, R) → Tori (M, S) vanishes.
It is also conjectured by Hochster and Huneke that Theorem 1.1 holds in mixed characteristic. This is one of the well-known homological conjectures: the vanishing conjecture for
maps of Tor. The importance of Theorem 1.1, as well as the corresponding conjecture in
mixed characteristic, lies in the fact that, in any characteristic, it implies both the direct
summand conjecture and the conjecture that direct summands of regular rings are CohenMacaulay [HH95]. Indeed, it was shown in [Ran00] that the vanishing conjecture for maps
of Tor is equivalent to a strong form of the direct summand conjecture (we refer to [Ran00]
for details).
In fact, results very similar to Theorem 1.1 were first proved in [HH93], in characteristic
p > 0 only, using tight closure and phantom homology theory.1 The proof given in [HH95]
makes crucial use of the existence of weakly functorial balanced big Cohen-Macaulay algebras
in equal characteristic. In characteristic p > 0, the existence of such algebras follows directly
from [HH92], where it was shown that the absolute integral closure R+ is such an algebra. In
1It

is pointed out in the introduction of [HH93] that by reduction to characteristic p > 0, one can develop
the corresponding theory in characteristic 0. The full results in [HH93] are, in some sense, even stronger
than Theorem 1.1, but are slightly technical to state here. However we point out that all these (stronger)
results can be established by the argument used in [HH95]. Our method can provide generalizations of these
results also, both in characteristic p > 0 and characteristic 0, see Remark 5.6.
1

characteristic 0, the construction of weakly functorial balanced big Cohen-Macaulay algebras
depends on a very delicate and difficult reduction to characteristic p > 0 argument (we refer
to Section 3 of [HH95] for details). In mixed characteristic, the analogy of Theorem 1.1
is known when A, R, S all have dimension less than or equal to three [Hoc02], based on
Heitmann’s results [Hei02]. However, in general the vanishing conjecture for maps of Tor is
wide open in mixed characteristic.
In this paper, we investigate Theorem 1.1 in some new and different ways. We study the
“converse” of Theorem 1.1 in the following sense: in a given characteristic, for which local
A
domain S, the map TorA
i (M, R) → Tori (M, S) vanishes for every A → R → S and every
A-module M (where A is regular and A → R is a module-finite torsion-free extension)? We
will say such S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of Tor (see Section 2 for precise
definitions). We will show that, in all characteristics, such vanishing conditions imply S
has only pseudo-rational singularities, which is a characteristic-free analogue of rational
singularities. Our main result in equal characteristic is the following:
Theorem 1.2 (=Theorem 5.5). Let S be a local domain that is essentially of finite type over
a field. The following are equivalent:
(1) S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of Tor.
(2) S is a derived splinter.
(3) For every regular local ring A with S = A/P and every module-finite torsion-free
extension A → B with Q ∈ Spec B lying over P , P → Q splits as A-modules.
We note that derived splinters are formally introduced by Bhatt in [Bha12], and are well
understood in equal characteristic: they are equivalent to rational singularities in characteristic 0 [Kov00], [Bha12] and in characteristic p > 0, they turn out to be the same as splinters
[Bha12] (see Section 2 for precise definitions for splinters and derived splinters). In fact, at
least in characteristic 0, the idea of derived splinters plays a crucial role in our proofs.
As regular local rings in equal characteristic are derived splinters, Theorem 1.2 (1) ⇔ (2)
greatly extends Theorem 1.1. We will see in Remark 5.7 that Theorem 1.2 also generalizes
Boutot’s theorem that direct summands of rational singularities are rational singularities
[Bou87] (Boutot’s theorem follows from the vanishing of Tor applied to M = EA , the injective
hull of A). Moreover, as an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.2 (2) ⇔ (3), we obtain
the following new characterization of rational singularities. We find this characterization
surprising as it only addresses splittings in module-finite extensions.
Corollary 1.3 (=Corollary 5.8). Let (S, n) be a local domain essentially of finite type over
a field of characteristic 0. Then S has rational singularities if and only if for every regular
local ring A with S = A/P , every module-finite torsion-free extension A → T , and every
Q ∈ Spec T lying over P , the map P → Q splits as a map of A-modules.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we recall and review the basic theories,
and we introduce two important concepts: the vanishing conditions for maps of Tor and
the vanishing conditions for maps of local cohomology. The rest of the paper is devoted to
the proof of Theorem 1.2. In Section 3 we show that the vanishing conditions for maps of
Tor implies pseudo-rationality. In Section 4 we prove (1) ⇔ (3) in Theorem 1.2. Finally, in
Section 5 we prove (1) ⇔ (2) in Theorem 1.2 and we also prove some partial results in mixed
characteristic: for example, we show that the vanishing conjecture for maps of Tor implies
the derived direct summand conjecture. Throughout this paper, unless otherwise stated, we
2

will make the following assumptions on commutative rings and schemes (we will sometimes
repeat and emphasize these conditions):
(1) All rings are Noetherian, excellent and are homomorphic image of regular rings.
(2) All schemes are Noetherian, separated, excellent that admit dualizing complexes.
(3) In characteristic 0, all rings and schemes are essentially of finite type over a field.
We point out that (1) and (2) are very mild conditions (e.g., all rings essentially of finite
type over a complete local ring satisfy (1)). We make the assumption (3) mainly because
we need to apply the Grauert-Riemenschneider type vanishing theorems [GR70], [Kol86] in
characteristic 0.
2. Definitions and Preliminaries
We begin with some basic definitions of plus closure. Let S be an integral domain and
I ⊆ S be an ideal. The plus closure of I, I + , is the set of elements x ∈ S such that x ∈ IT
for some module-finite extension T of S. I is called plus closed if I + = I. The absolute
integral closure of S, denoted by S + , is the integral closure of S in the algebraic closure of
the fraction field of S, which is also the direct
T limit of all the module-finite domain extensions
of S [HH92]. It follows that I + = IS + S. The plus closure of 0 in Hnd (S), the top local
= ker(Hnd (S) → Hnd (S + )).
cohomology module, is defined as 0+
Hnd (S)
A domain S (resp., An integral scheme X) is called a splinter, if for every module-finite
extension T of S (resp., every finite surjective map Y → X), the natural map S → T (resp.,
OX → OY ) is split in the category of S-modules (resp., OX -modules). It is easy to see that
S is a splinter if and only if every ideal in S is plus closed.
Let (S, n) be an excellent local domain of characteristic p > 0. The top local cohomology
module Hnd (S) has a natural Frobenius action. In this situation, there is a unique largest
proper submodule of Hnd (S) that is stable under the Frobenius action, which is 0∗H d (S) , the
n
tight closure of 0 in Hnd (S) [Smi97]. (S, n) is called F -rational, if it is Cohen-Macaulay and
0∗H d (S) = 0 [HH94], [Smi97]. This is not the original definition of F -rationality, but it turns
n
out to be extremely useful in many applications. It is worth mentioning that a deep result
of Smith [Smi94] shows that 0∗H d (S) = 0+
, which we will need in Section 5.
Hnd (S)
n
We make some more comments on splinters. In equal characteristic 0, using the trace
map, it is straightforward to check that splinters are exactly normal schemes. However, even
in equal characteristic p > 0 in the affine case, splinters are quite mysterious. It is known
that affine splinters in characteristic p > 0 are always F -rational [Smi94] [Bha12], and it is
conjectured that they are F -regular, which is a natural strengthening of F -rationality and an
important concept in tight closure theory.2 We refer to [Sin99] and [CEMS14] for the best
partial results on this conjecture. In mixed characteristic, our knowledge about splinters
is minimal: Hochster’s famous direct summand conjecture asserts that regular local rings
are splinters. This conjecture is known in dimension ≤ 3 [Hei02], and is open (in mixed
characteristic) in dimension ≥ 4.
Following [Bha12], we say an integral scheme X is a derived splinter, if for any proper
surjective map f : Y → X, the pullback map OX → Rf∗ OY is split in the derived category
D(Coh(X)) of coherent sheaves on X. This is the same as requiring OX → Rf∗ OY to split
2As

we will not use deep results in tight closure theory, we omit the precise definition of F -regularity (and
the original definition of F -rationality). We refer to [HH90] for details on tight closure theory.
3

in D(QCoh(X)), the derived category of quasi-coherent sheaves on X. It is easy to see
that derived splinters are splinters. It was first observed in [Kov00] that derived splinters
in characteristic 0 coincide with rational singularities,3 while it was shown in [Bha12] that,
quite surprisingly, derived splinters are equivalent to splinters in characteristic p > 0.
Next we recall pseudo-rational singularities [LT81]: A d-dimensional local ring (R, m)
is called pseudo-rational if it is normal, Cohen-Macaulay, analytically unramified (i.e., the
b is reduced), and if for every proper, birational map π: W → Spec R with W
completion R
normal, the canonical map Hmd (R) → HEd (W, OW ) is injective where E = π −1 (m) denotes
the closed fibre. Pseudo-rationality is a property of local rings which is an analog of rational
singularities for more general schemes, e.g., rings which may not have a desingularization.
When the ring is essentially of finite type over a field of characteristic 0, pseudo-rational
singularities are the same as rational singularities. In characteristic p, pseudo-rationality is
slightly weaker than F -rationality [Smi97], [Har98].
We summarize the relations between these concepts. In characteristic 0, we have:
derived splinter = rational singularities = pseudo-rational =⇒ splinter.
In characteristic p > 0, we have:
derived splinter = splinter =⇒ F -rational =⇒ pseudo-rational.
Now we introduce the central concepts that we will study in this paper:
Definition 2.1. We say a local domain (S, n) satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps
of Tor, if for every A → R → S such that A is a regular domain, A → R is a modulefinite torsion-free extension, and A, R, S have the same characteristic,4 the natural map
A
TorA
i (M, R) → Tori (M, S) vanishes for every A-module M and every i ≥ 1.
It is also quite natural to ask that: if (R, m) ։ (S, n) is a surjection of local domains,
when does Hmj (R) → Hnj (S) vanish for every j < dim R? (this is inspired by Corollary 4.24
of [HH93], which itself is a consequence of Theorem 1.1). Hence similar to the vanishing
conditions for maps of Tor, we want to introduce certain vanishing conditions for maps of
local cohomology. Since there are several equivalent ways to define this, we summarize them
into a proposition.
Proposition/Definition 2.2. Let (S, n) be a local domain of dimension d. Then the following are equivalent (we always assume R, S have the same characteristic):
(1) For every surjection (R, m) ։ (S, n) with (R, m) equidimensional, the induced map
Hmj (R) → Hnj (S) vanishes for every j < dim R.
(2) For every surjection (R, m) ։ (S, n) with (R, m) a local domain, the induced map
Hmj (R) → Hnj (S) vanishes for every j < dim R.
(3) S is Cohen-Macaulay and for every surjection (R, m) ։ (S, n) such that (R, m) is a
local domain with dim R > d, the induced map Hmd (R) → Hnd (S) vanishes.
(4) S is Cohen-Macaulay and for every surjection (R, m) ։ (S, n) such that dim R/P > d
for every minimal prime of P of R, the induced map Hmd (R) → Hnd (S) vanishes.
3This

was proved in [Kov00] when Y → X has connected fibres (which was suffices for the applications in
[Kov00]). A complete proof was given in Theorem 2.12 in [Bha12].
4This means A, R, S all have equal characteristic, i.e., they all contain a field, or they all have mixed
characteristic (i.e., the characteristic of the ring is different from that of its residue field).
4

We say (S, n) satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of local cohomology, if it satisfies
the above equivalent conditions.
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2): This is obvious.
(2) ⇒ (3): Applying (2) to R = S, we get that the identity map Hnj (S) → Hnj (S) vanishes
for every j < dim S = d. Thus S is Cohen-Macaulay. The remaining part is obvious (note
that one cannot apply (3) to R = S, because the hypothesis on R in (3) forces dim R > d).
(3) ⇒ (4): Since S is a domain, every surjection R ։ S factors through R ։ R′ ։ S,
where R′ = R/P for some minimal prime P of R. Now (3) implies Hmd (R′ ) → Hnd (S) vanishes
because dim R′ = dim R/P > d. Thus Hmd (R) → Hnd (S) also vanishes.
(4) ⇒ (1): If dim R = dim S = d (i.e., R = S) in (1), then Hmj (R) → Hnj (S) vanishes
for every j < dim R = d because Hnj (S) = 0 (S is Cohen-Macaulay). Otherwise we have
dim R > d. Since R is equidimensional, dim R/P > d for every minimal prime P of R. Thus
applying (4), we know that Hmd (R) → Hnd (S) vanishes.

Remark 2.3. One cannot expect that Hmd (R) → Hnd (S) vanish for all R ։ S with dim R > d,
k[[x,y,z]]
T
even when S is regular. For example, let R = (x,y)
and S = k[[z]]. We know that
(z)
dim R = 2 and dim S = 1. But it is easy to check that Hm1 (R) → Hn1 (S) is surjective and
hence does not vanish. The trouble here is that there is a component of R that has the same
dimension as S. Thus the hypotheses in Definition 2.2 (1)–(4) are necessary.
We will see in later sections that the vanishing conditions for Tor and for local cohomology
are deeply related: Proposition 3.4, Theorem 5.10.
3. Vanishing of Tor, vanishing of local cohomology and pseudo-rationality
In this section we will show that the vanishing conditions for maps of Tor implies pseudorationality, which will be a crucial ingredient in proving (1) ⇒ (2) in Theorem 1.2. We also
obtain many characteristic-free results of independent interest.
Lemma 3.1. Let (S, n) be a local domain that is a homomorphic image of a regular ring.
Then we have:
X
(3.1.1)
im(Hmd (R) → Hnd (S)) ⊇ 0+
H d (S)
n

R

where the sum is taken over all R ։ S such that dim R/P > dim S = d for every minimal
prime P of R. In particular, if (S, n) satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of local
cohomology, then we have 0+
= 0.
H d (S)
n

Proof. Since 0+
= ker(Hnd (S) → Hnd (S + )) = ∪T ker(Hnd(S) → Hnd (T )) where T runs over
Hnd (S)
P
all module-finite domain extensions of S. It suffices to show that R im(Hmd (R) → Hnd (S)) ⊇
ker(Hnd (S) → Hnd (T )) for every such T .
We write S = A/P for some regular local ring A such that dim A ≥ d + 1. Let t1 , . . . , tn
be a set of generators of T over S. Since T is integral over S, each ti satisfies a monic
1 ,...,xn ]
polynomial fi over S. We can lift each fi to A and form the ring B = A[x
. We have a
(f1 ,...,fn )
natural surjective map B ։ T with kernel Q ∈ Spec B. It is clear that Q lies over P in A.
5

Let R = A + Q ⊆ B. We know that R/Q = A/P = S. In sum, we have:
0
/

QO

BO
/

TO
/

/

0.

∼
=

0
/

Q
/

R
/

S
/

0

Let m be the pre-image of n in R. Because B is free over A and R is a subring of B, R is
torsion-free over A. Now localizing at m if necessary, we know that (R, m) is equidimensional
and dim R = dim B = dim A ≥ d + 1. This guarantees that dim R/P > d for every minimal
prime P of R. The induced long exact sequences on local cohomology gives:
Hmd (B)

Hmd (T ) = Hnd (T )
/

/

Hmd+1 (Q)

O

/

Hmd+1 (B) .

O
∼
=

Hmd (R)
/

Hmd (S) = Hnd (S)
/

Hmd+1 (Q)

Chasing this diagram, it is easy to see that:
ker(Hnd (S) → Hnd (T )) ⊆ im(Hmd (R) → Hnd (S)).
This proves (3.1.1). Finally, if S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of local coho= 0.

mology, then the left hand side of (3.1.1) is 0 by Definition 2.2 (4), thus 0+
H d (S)
n

Corollary 3.2. If (S, n) satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of local cohomology, then
every ideal generated by a full system of parameters in S is plus closed. In particular this
implies S is normal.
Proof. Let I = (x1 , . . . , xd ) be any ideal generated by a full system of parameters of S.
Consider the commutative diagram:
Hnd (S) 


/

Hnd (S + ) .
O

O

?

S/I
/

S + /IS +

The left vertical map is injective because S is Cohen-Macaulay by Definition 2.2, and the map
in the top row is injective by Lemma 3.1. Chasing this diagram we know that S/I ֒→ S + /IS +
is injective. This proves that I is plus closed.
Finally, every ideal generated by a system of parameters is plus closed implies that every
ideal generated by part of a system of parameters is plus closed: suppose (x1 , . . . , xt ) is part
of a system of parameters, contained in (x1 , . . . , xt , xt+1 , . . . , xd ). If y ∈ (x1 , . . . , xt )+ , then
y ∈ (x1 , . . . , xt , xst+1 , . . . , xsd )+ = (x1 , . . . , xt , xst+1 , . . . , xsd ) for every s > 0. So
\
y ∈ (x1 , . . . , xt , xst+1 , . . . , xsd ) = (x1 , . . . , xt ).
s

In particular, we know that every principal ideal is plus closed. Let y ∈ (x), the integral
closure of the ideal generated by x. Then y ∈ (x)R+ = (x)R+ because R+ is integrally
closed. So y ∈ (x)+ = (x). This proves every principal ideal is integrally closed and hence S
is normal.

6

Lemma 3.3. If S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of local cohomology, then S is
pseudo-rational.
Proof. By our general assumption on commutative rings, S is an excellent local domain hence
is analytically unramified. By Definition 2.2 and Corollary 3.2, S is Cohen-Macaulay and
normal. To check the last condition of pseudo-rationality, we let W → Spec S be a proper
birational map with W normal, and we can assume this map is projective and birational by
Chow’s Lemma. Therefore W → Spec S is just the blow up of some ideal J in S, i.e.,
W = Proj S ⊕ Jt ⊕ J 2 t2 ⊕ · · · := Proj R.
Now we apply the Sancho de Salas exact sequence (see page 202 of [SdS87], or take cohomology of (5.11.1) in Section 5) to W = Proj R → Spec S to get (d = dim S):
HEd−1 (W, OW )
/

d
[Hn+R
(R)]0
>0


/

Hnd (S)
/

HEd (W, OW )
/

d+1
[Hn+R
(R)]0
>0

_

∼
=



d
Hn+R
(R)
>0

0

/



Hnd (S)

Since R has dimension d + 1 and S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of local cohomology, the bottom map is the zero map. By the commutativity of the above diagram, we
d
see the map [Hn+R
(R)]0 → Hnd (S) vanishes. Therefore Hnd (S) → HEd (W, OW ) is injective.
>0
This finishes the proof.

Proposition 3.4. When S is a complete local domain, S satisfies the vanishing conditions
for maps of Tor implies S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of local cohomology.
Hence both implies S has only pseudo-rational singularities.
Proof. Let (R, m) ։ (S, n) be a surjection with R a domain. We may complete R to get
b ։ Sb = S. Since R is excellent by our general assumptions on commutative rings, R
b is
R
′
b ։ S factors through R
b ։ R ։ S where
equidimensional. Since S is a domain, the map R
′
j
b
b
R = R/P for P a minimal prime of R. Thus in order to show Hm (R) → Hnj (S) vanishes for
j < dim R, it suffices to show Hmj (R′ ) → Hnj (S) vanishes for j < dim R′ . Hence without loss
of generality, we may replace R by R′ and assume R is a complete local domain.
Now by Cohen’s structure theorem, we have (A, m0 ) ֒→ (R, m) a module-finite extension
with (A, m0 ) regular local. Let EA = EA (A/m0 ) ∼
= Hmn0 (A) be the injective hull of the residue
∼
field of A. Since the Čech complex gives a flat resolution of EA , we know that TorA
i (EA , R) =
A
n−i
n−i
Hm (R) and Tori (EA , S) ∼
= Hm (S). Since S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps
A
of Tor, by considering the map A → R → S, we have TorA
i (EA , R) → Tori (EA , S) vanishes
for every i ≥ 1. Hence Hmj (R) → Hnj (S) vanishes for j < n = dim R. The last assertion then
follows from Lemma 3.3.

Remark 3.5. We assume (S, n) is complete in the proof of Proposition 3.4 because we use
Cohen’s structure theorem to find A → R module-finite with A regular. Hence the conclusion
of Proposition 3.4 still holds when we work with rings that are essentially of finite type over
a field (we can use Noether normalization instead).
7

4. Vanishing conditions for maps of Tor and the splitting property
The goal of this section is to prove (1) ⇔ (3) in Theorem 1.2. As a corollary we will see
that if S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of Tor then S is a splinter. We start with
a lemma by restating (4.5) in [HH95]. This was stated only in the complete case in [HH95],
however the same argument works for rings essentially of finite type over a field (one needs
to replace Cohen’s structure theorem by Noether normalization in [HH95]).
Lemma 4.1 (cf. (4.5) in [HH95]). Let (S, n) be either complete or essentially of finite type
over a field. To show (S, n) satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of Tor in a given
characteristic, we may assume A is local, R is a domain, A → S is surjective and M is
finitely generated. Furthermore, it suffices to prove the vanishing of Tor for i = 1.
Remark 4.2. Suppose A → R → S satisfies that A → R is module-finite and torsion-free,
and the composite map A → S is surjective. In this situation, if we set S = A/P = R/Pe,
then modulo Pe, elements of R come from elements of A. Thus in this case R = A + Pe.

Theorem 4.3. Let (S, n) be either complete or essentially of finite type over a field.
(1) S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of Tor.
(2) For every regular local ring A with S = A/P , and every module-finite torsion-free
extension A → B with Q ∈ Spec B lying over P , P → Q splits as A-modules.
(3) For every regular local ring A with S = A/P , every module-finite torsion-free extension A → B that splits as A-modules, and every Q ∈ Spec B lying over P , the map
P → Q splits as A-modules.
Then we have (2) ⇒ (1) ⇒ (3). In particular, (1) ⇔ (2) ⇔ (3) in equal characteristic.
Proof. Let S = A/P with A regular. Let A → B be a module-finite torsion-free extension
with Q ∈ Spec B lying over P . We form the ring R0 = A + Q ⊆ B. Then R0 is also a
module-finite torsion-free extension of A and we have R0 /Q = A/P = S. Now we look at
the following commutative diagram:
0

QO
/

α

0
/

RO 0
/

/

/

0.

/

0

∼
=

β

P

SO
/

A
/

S

Tensoring the above diagram with an arbitrary A-module M, we get:
TorA
1 (M, R0 )

ϕM

/

TorA
1 (M, S)
∼
=

0

Q ⊗AO M
/

O

/

/

/

P ⊗A M
/

A ⊗A M

/

0.

/

0

S ⊗AO M
∼
=

β⊗idM

α⊗idM

TorA
1 (M, S)

R0 ⊗O A M
/

/

S ⊗A M

By a diagram chasing, one can see that
(4.3.1)

α ⊗ idM is injective ⇐⇒ ϕM = 0 and β ⊗ idM is injective

(1) ⇒ (3): Suppose A → B splits (i.e., we are in condition (3)), then A → R0 also splits,
in particular β ⊗ idM is injective. Applying the vanishing conditions for maps of Tor to
α⊗id
→ Q ⊗A M is injective for
A → R0 → S, we know ϕM = 0. Now (4.3.1) implies P ⊗A M −−−−M
8

every M. But this implies P → Q splits by Corollary 5.2 in [HR76] since Q/P is a finitely
generated A-module.
(2) ⇒ (1): By Lemma 4.1, we may assume A → R → S satisfies A ։ S is surjective.
Now we set B = R and Q = ker(R → S) in the above discussion. By Remark 4.2, we have
Q = Pe and hence R = A + Pe = A + Q = R0 in this situation. Now (2) implies P → Q
splits, in particular α ⊗ idM is injective. Thus (4.3.1) implies
A
A
ϕM : TorA
1 (M, R) = Tor1 (M, R0 ) → Tor1 (M, S)

vanishes for every M. This proves S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of Tor, since
it is enough to check the vanishing of Tor for i = 1 by Lemma 4.1.
Finally, in equal characteristic, every module-finite extension A → B splits when A is
regular. So (2) ⇔ (3) and hence (1) ⇔ (2) ⇔ (3).

We next prove a lemma.
Lemma 4.4. Let A → B be a module-finite extension. Suppose Q ∈ Spec B lies over
P ∈ Spec A. If P → Q splits as A-modules and depthP A ≥ 2, then A → B splits compatibly
with P → Q, i.e., there exists a splitting θ: B → A such that θ(Q) = P . In particular,
A/P → B/Q splits as A-modules.
Proof. Let φ: Q → P be a splitting. The exact sequences 0 → Q → B → B/Q → 0 and
0 → P → A induce a commutative diagram:
HomA (B, A)
/

HomA (Q, A)
O

/

Ext1A (B/Q, A) .

?

HomA (Q, P )
Since B/Q is a finitely generated A-module annihilated by P and depthP A ≥ 2, we
know that Ext1A (B/Q, A) = 0 by Proposition 18.4 in [Eis95]. Hence HomA (B, A) maps onto
HomA (Q, A), in particular it maps onto the image of HomA (Q, P ). Thus there is a map θ:
B → A such that θ|Q = φ. We show that θ has to be a splitting from B to A. Suppose
θ(1) = a ∈ A, for every nonzero element r ∈ P , we have
ra = rθ(1) = θ(r) = φ(r) = r.
So a = 1 and hence θ is a splitting from B to A such that θ(Q) = P , i.e., θ compatibly splits

P → Q. Finally θ gives a splitting from B/Q → A/P . This finishes the proof.
Corollary 4.5. If S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of Tor, then S is a splinter.
Proof. We use a construction similar to the one used in the proof of Lemma 3.1. We write
S = A/P such that A is a regular local ring with depthP A ≥ 2 (this can be achieved, for
example, by adding indeterminants). Let S → T be a module-finite domain extension. Let
t1 , . . . , tn be a set of generators of T over S = A/P . Each ti satisfies a monic polynomial fi
1 ,...,xn ]
over S. We lift each fi to A and form the ring B = A[x
. We have a natural surjection
(f1 ,...,fn )
B ։ T with kernel Q ∈ Spec B. It is straightforward to check that Q lies over P .
Since B is finite free over A, we know that A → B splits as a map of A-modules. Now
applying (1) ⇒ (3) of Theorem 4.3, P → Q is split. Since depthP A ≥ 2, by Lemma 4.4,
S = A/P → B/Q = T splits as a map of A-modules (hence also as a map of S-modules).
As this is true for any module-finite domain extension T of S, S is a splinter.

9

Remark 4.6. Applying Corollary 4.5 with S a regular local ring, we see that the vanishing
conjecture for maps of Tor implies the direct summand conjecture in all characteristics.
Although this is well known, we want to point out that the original proof given in [HH95]
and [Ran00] depends on applying the vanishing conjecture to the map A → R → S = R/m,
i.e., studying the map from a mixed characteristic ring (R, m) to its residue field S = R/m.
Such a map, though being very natural, does not preserve the characteristic of the rings!
Our above theorem gives a totally different proof, and it shows that the vanishing conjecture
for maps of Tor, even if we restrict to A → R → S all of the same characteristic, still implies
the direct summand conjecture.
5. Main results
In this section we prove our main theorem in equal characteristic. We begin by recalling
some facts about dualizing complexes. For an integral scheme X, a normalized dualizing com•
b
plex ωX
is an object in DCoh
(X) which has finite injective dimension, such that the canonical
•
•
b
map OX → R H omX (ωX , ωX
) is an isomorphism in DCoh
(X), and the first nonzero coho•
•
mology of ωX lies in degree − dim X. Note that under this definition, if ωX
is a normalized
•
dualizing complex, then so is ωX ⊗ L for any line bundle L (in fact this is all the ambiguity
for a connected scheme [Har66]).
To clear this ambiguity, notice that all our rings and schemes in this section are essentially
of finite type over a field k (or over a fixed scheme Spec S as in Theorem 5.11 and Remark
•
5.13). Therefore we simply define ωX
= π ! k (resp., π ! ωS• for some chosen ωS• ), where π: X →
Spec k (resp., X → Spec S) is the structural map and π ! is the functor from Grothendieck
•
duality theory [Har66]. By standard duality theory, ωX
is a normalized dualizing complex
discussed in the previous paragraph. Moreover, after this choice, we have
• ∼
R H omX (Rf∗ OY , ωX
) = Rf∗ ωY•

for any proper and dominant morphism of integral schemes f : Y → X, where X, Y are both
essentially of finite type over a field k or over a fixed scheme Spec S. We refer to [Har66]
for details on Grothendieck duality theory and to Section 2.3 in [BST15] for a very nice
summary.
Next we recall that for an excellent local domain A, a complex
α

αn−1

α

α

n
2
1
F• = 0 → Abn −→
Abn−1 −−−→ · · · −→
Ab1 −→
Ab0 → 0

of finitely generated free A-modules is said to satisfy the standard conditions for rank and
height (resp. rank and depth) if, for every 1 ≤ i ≤ n, rank αi + rank αi+1 = bi and the height
(resp. the depth) of the ideal Irank αi (αi ) is at least i where It (αi ) denotes the ideal generated
by the size t minors of a matrix for αi : it is independent of the choice of bases for Fi and
Fi−1 (rank αi is the largest integer r such that Ir (αi ) 6= 0). We use the convention that
I0 (αi ) = R and the unit ideal has height infinity.
Remark 5.1. Let F• be a complex of finite free A-modules. It is well known that F• is acyclic
(which means F• is exact except possibly in degree 0) if and only if F• satisfies the standard
conditions on rank and depth. Moreover, in characteristic p > 0, F• satisfies the standard
conditions for rank and height if and only if F• is phantom acyclic. We refer to [HH93] and
[Abe94] for details on phantom homology.
10

Now we are ready to state and prove our key theorem that implies (and is in fact much
stronger than) (2) ⇒ (1) of Theorem 1.2.
Theorem 5.2 (Key Theorem). Let (A, m) be a local domain that is essentially of finite type
over a field and F• : 0 → Fn → · · · → F1 → F0 → 0 be a complex of finitely generated free
f0
f
A-modules that satisfies the standard conditions on rank and height. Let X −
→Y −
→ Spec A
be maps of integral schemes such that Y → Spec A is proper surjective and X is a derived
splinter. Then the natural map
h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ OY ) → h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ Rf0 ∗ OX )
induced by the pull back f0∗ is the zero map for every i > 0 (note that Fi has cohomological
degree −i).
Proof. As the methods we use in characteristic 0 and p > 0 are very different, we separate
the proof in two parts.
Proof in characteristic 0: We assume (A, m) is of equal characteristic 0. Let p: Z → Y
be a resolution of singularities and let W = X ×Y Z. We have the following diagram:
Zo
✇
✇
✇
✇✇
p
✇✇ g
✇
✇

{
Spec A o
Y o
f

W .

f1

q



X

f0

Since p is a resolution of singularities, the map q obtained by base change is proper and
surjective. Because X is a derived splinter, the natural map q ∗ : OX → Rq∗ OW has a
splitting η in the derived category D(Coh(X)), i.e., η ◦ q ∗ = id. Therefore we have the
following commutative diagram in D(QCoh(Spec A)):
Rg∗O OZ

f1∗

/

Rg∗Rf1 ∗ OW = Rf∗ Rf0 ∗ Rq∗ OW .
O

p∗

η

q∗

Rf∗ OY

f0∗



Rf∗ Rf0 ∗ OX
/

Now we tensor the above diagram with F• in D(QCoh(Spec A)) and take cohomology in
negative degree, we get a commutative diagram (since F• is a complex of free A-modules,
⊗L is the same as ⊗):
h−i (F• ⊗ Rg∗ OZ )

f1∗

O

/

h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ Rf0 ∗ Rq∗ OW ) .
O

p∗

h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ OY )

η

q∗
f0∗


/

h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ Rf0 ∗ OX )

Since η ◦ q ∗ = id, in order to show f0∗ induces the zero map, it is enough to show η ◦ f1∗ ◦ p∗
induces the zero map by the above commutative diagram. We will show this by proving that
h−i (F• ⊗ Rg∗ OZ ) = 0 for every i > 0, when F• satisfies the standard conditions for rank and
height and Z → Spec A is proper surjective with Z smooth.
We use induction on the dimension of A. When dim A = 0, (A, m) is Artinian and it is easy
to see that every complex F• that satisfies the standard conditions on rank and height is split
11

exact except at the zeroth spot. Hence the complex F• ⊗Rg∗ OZ ∼
= An ⊗Rg∗ OZ = ⊕n Rg∗ OZ
−i
has no negative degree part, so h (F• ⊗ Rg∗ OZ ) = 0 for every i > 0.
Now let dim A = d. We set G• = F• ⊗ Rg∗ OZ . Let x = x1 , . . . , xd denote a full system of
parameters of A and let C • (x, A) be the Čech complex associated to x. We also let
e• = G• ⊗L C • (x, A) = G• ⊗ C • (x, A).
G
e• ) using spectral sequences of the double complex:
We compute h−i (G
O

···
/

O

Gp+1 ⊗ C q (x, A)

Gp+1 ⊗ C q+1 (x, A)
/

O

···
/

···
/

O

Gp ⊗ C q (x, A)
/

Gp ⊗ C q+1 (x, A)

···
/

O
O

Each C q (x, A) is a direct sum of localizations of A, in particular it is flat over A. So when
we take the cohomology of the columns, we get
E1pq = hp (G• ) ⊗ C q (x, A).
Note that, when q = 0, this is just hp (G• ) while when q > 0, this is a direct sum of proper
localizations of hp (G• ). However, when p < 0, hp (G• ) = hp (F• ⊗ Rg∗ OZ ) is supported
only at the maximal ideal m by the induction hypothesis. Because if it is supported at
another prime ideal, say P , then hp ((F• )P ⊗ Rg∗ OZ×Spec R Spec RP ) 6= 0. But (F• )P satisfies
the standard conditions for rank and height as a free complex over RP (the ranks of all
the Fi are preserved and the height of an ideal does not decrease when we localize) and
Z ×Spec R Spec RP is smooth, we thus got a contradiction since dim RP < d. Hence we know
that E1pq = 0 when p < 0 and q > 0. In sum, the E1 -stage of the spectral sequence looks
like:
···
E100 = h0 (G• )
E1−1,0 = h−1 (G• )
E1−2,0 = h−2 (G• )

/

/

/

E101
/

E102

···
/

E10d

E1−1,1 = 0
/

E1−1,2 = 0
/

···
/

E1−1,d = 0

E1−2,1 = 0
/

E2−2,2 = 0
/

···
/

E1−2,d = 0

···
From this we know that
(5.2.1)

/

e • ) = E −i,0 = h−i (G• )
h−i (G
1
12

for every i > 0. This is because E1−i,0 = h−i (G• ) is the only nontrivial term that contributes
e• ) when i > 0, and all the further differentials at this spot:
to h−i (G
Er−i+r−1,−r → Er−i,0 → Er−i−r+1,r ,

vanish since Er−i+r−1,−r = Er−i−r+1,r = 0 when i > 0 and r ≥ 1.
Rewriting (5.2.1), we have:
(5.2.2)

h−i (F• ⊗ Rg∗ OZ ) = h−i (F• ⊗ Rg∗ OZ ⊗ C • (x, A)).
∼
=

Since we have functorial isomorphism RΓm (−) −
→ C • (x, A) ⊗ − in D(QCoh(Spec A)) by
Proposition 3.1.2 in [Lip02]. The above yields:
(5.2.3)

h−i (F• ⊗ Rg∗ OZ ) ∼
= h−i (F• ⊗ RΓm Rg∗ OZ ).

By local duality, we have that
(5.2.4)

hj (RΓm Rg∗ OZ ) = h−j (R Hom(Rg∗ OZ , ωA• ))∨ = h−j (Rg∗ωZ• )∨

where ωA• , ωZ• are the normalized dualizing complexes of Spec A and Z. Since Z is smooth,
ωZ• ∼
= ωZ [n] where n = dim Z. Hence h−j (Rg∗ ωZ• ) = hn−j (Rg∗ ωZ ) = 0 when n − j > n − d
(equivalently, j < d) by Theorem 2.1 in [Kol86].5 Now from (5.2.4), we know that
(5.2.5)

hj (RΓm Rg∗OZ ) = 0, ∀j < d.

On the other hand, we know that F• satisfies the standard conditions for rank and height.
This implies Irank αn (αn ) must be the unit ideal when n > d because there are no proper
ideals in R with height strictly bigger than the dimension of R. From this it follows that F•
is split exact at cohomological degree −n when n > d by Lemma 1 in [BE73]. Therefore, in
D(Coh(Spec A)) or D(QCoh(Spec A)), F• is quasi-isomorphic to a free complex
H• : 0 → Hk → Hk−1 → · · · → H1 → H0 → 0
with k ≤ d and Hj has cohomological degree −j. Now from (5.2.5), it is straightforward to
check that
h−i (F• ⊗ RΓm Rg∗OZ ) = h−i (H• ⊗ RΓm Rg∗OZ ) = 0
for every i > 0. Hence by (5.2.3) we know that h−i (F• ⊗ Rg∗OZ ) = 0 for every i > 0. This
finishes our proof in equal characteristic 0.
Proof in characteristic p > 0: Now we assume (A, m) is of equal characteristic p > 0.
By Theorem 1.5 in [Bha12], there exists a finite surjective morphism π: Z → Y such
∗
that the pullback π≥1
: τ≥1 Rf∗ OY → τ≥1 Rf∗ π∗ OZ is the zero map. From this it follows
(see the proof of Theorem 1.4 in [Bha12] or Lemma 5.1 in [BST15]) that the natural map
Rf∗ OY → Rf∗ π∗ OZ factors through
(5.2.6)

θ

ι

Rf∗ OY −
→ (f ◦ π)∗ OZ −
→ Rf∗ π∗ OZ .

5In

[Kol86], the main theorem requires that the schemes are projective, but this is not essential. One can
refer to Corollary 6.11 in [EV92].
13

Let g = f ◦ π. We know that g∗ OZ is a module-finite extension of A, as Z → Spec A is
proper. Let W = Z ×Y X. We have the following commutative diagram:
Spec(g∗ OZ ) o

o
tZ
tt
t
t
π
tt
tt g
t
 yt

Spec A o
Y o
f

f1

W .


f0

X

This together with (5.2.6) tell us that there is a commutative diagram in D(QCoh(Spec A)):
(5.2.7)

g∗ OZ d■

ι

/

Rg∗O OZ

f1∗

/

Rf∗ Rf0 ∗ π∗ OW .
O

■■
■■
■■ π∗
θ ■■

f0∗

Rf∗ OY

/

Rf∗ Rf0 ∗ OX

Now we pick an arbitrary element x ∈ h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ OY ) for an arbitrary i > 0. We want
to show that x maps to 0 in h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ Rf0 ∗ OX ). To prove this, we first look at the image
of x under the map
θ

h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ OY ) −
→ h−i (F• ⊗ g∗ OZ ).
Let y = θ(x). Since we are in equal characteristic p > 0 and A → g∗ OZ is a modulefinite extension, A+ = (g∗ OZ )+ is a balanced big Cohen-Macaulay algebra over A [HH92].
Since F• satisfies the standard conditions for rank and height and (g∗ OZ )+ is big CohenMacaulay, it follows from the generalized Buchsbaum-Eisenbud criterion (see Theorem 1.2.3
in [Abe94]) that h−i (F• ⊗ (g∗ OZ )+ ) = 0 for i > 0. In particular, we know that there exists
a module-finite extension B of g∗ OZ such that the image of y in h−i (F• ⊗ B) is 0. Let
W ′ = W ×Spec(g∗ OZ ) Spec B. We know π ′ : W ′ → W → X is a finite surjective map of
schemes. Since X is a derived splinter, in particular a splinter, we know that OX → π∗′ OW ′
has a splitting η. In sum, after tensoring (5.2.7) with F• in D(QCoh(Spec A)) and taking
cohomology, we get a commutative diagram:
h−i (F• ⊗ B)

h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ Rf0 ∗ π∗′ OW ′ )
/

h−i (F• ⊗ g∗ OZ )

.

O

O

f1∗ ◦ι

O

/

h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ Rf0 ∗ π∗ OW )

η

O

θ

h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ OY )

f0∗

t
/

h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ Rf0 ∗ OX )

From this diagram, it is easy to see that the image of x ∈ h−i (F• ⊗Rf∗ OY ) maps to 0 under
f0∗ , because by our construction, the image of x in h−i (F• ⊗ B) is 0. Since our choice of x and
i > 0 are arbitrary, this proves that the map f0∗ : h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ OY ) → h−i (F• ⊗ Rf∗ Rf0 ∗ OX )
is the zero map for every i > 0. This finishes our proof in equal characteristic p > 0.

Remark 5.3. Note that in the above proof, in equal characteristic p > 0, we only need to
assume X is a splinter. But splinters and derived splinters are the same in characteristic
p > 0 [Bha12]. In fact, in the course of our proof we use Theorem 1.5 of [Bha12], which
14

is a key ingredient in proving splinters and derived splinters are equivalent in characteristic
p > 0. We refer to [Bha12] for details.
In the case of maps between rings instead of schemes, our Key Theorem 5.2 specializes to
the following corollary:
Corollary 5.4. Let (A, m) be a local domain that is essentially of finite type over a field
and let M be a finitely generated A-module of finite projective dimension. Let A → R → S
be ring homomorphisms such that A → R is a module-finite domain extension and S is a
derived splinter. Then the natural map:
A
TorA
i (M, R) → Tori (M, S)

is the zero map for every i > 0.
Proof. Since M has a finite projective dimension, it has a finite free resolution F• . As F• is
acyclic, it satisfies the standard conditions for rank and depth and hence also the standard
conditions for rank and height. Applying Theorem 5.2 to F• , Y = Spec R, X = Spec S and
noticing that there are no higher direct images because all the maps are affine, we find that
−i
h−i (F• ⊗ R) → h−i (F• ⊗ S) vanishes for every i > 0. But TorA
i (M, R) = h (F• ⊗ R) and
−i
TorA

i (M, S) = h (F• ⊗ S), so the conclusion follows.
Now we state and prove our main theorem.
Theorem 5.5. Let S be a local domain that is essentially of finite type over a field. The
following are equivalent:
(1) S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of Tor.
(2) S is a derived splinter.
(3) For every regular local ring A with S = A/P and every module-finite torsion-free
extension A → B with Q ∈ Spec B lying over P , P → Q splits as A-modules.
Proof. We already know (1) ⇔ (3) by Theorem 4.3. Moreover, recall that derived splinters
are the same as rational singularities (equivalently, pseudo-rational singularities) in characteristic 0, and are equivalent to splinters in characteristic p > 0. Hence (1) ⇒ (2) follows from
Remark 3.5 and Corollary 4.5 in characteristic 0 and characteristic p > 0 respectively. Finally we prove (2) ⇒ (1). Suppose we have A → R → S with A regular and R module-finite
A
and torsion-free over A. To check TorA
i (M, R) → Tori (M, S) vanishes, we can assume A is
local, R is a domain and M is a finitely generated A-module by Lemma 4.1. Since A is regA
ular, M has finite projective dimension. Hence the vanishing of TorA
i (M, R) → Tori (M, S)
follows immediately from Corollary 5.4.

Remark 5.6.
(1) We point out that in Theorem 5.5, (2) ⇒ (1) in characteristic p > 0
also follows directly from the fact that R+ is a balanced big Cohen-Macaulay algebra:
one can use the same argument as in Theorem 4.1 in [HH95] and simply notice that
the map S → S + is always pure when S is a splinter in characteristic p > 0.
(2) However, our method in characteristic 0 is of great interest: it gives the first proof
of Theorem 1.1 (even in the regular case) in characteristic 0 without using reduction
to characteristic p > 0. In fact, our result in characteristic 0 doesn’t even seem to
follow from reduction to characteristic p > 0. It is well known from [Smi97] and
[Har98] that a local ring essentially of finite type over a field of characteristic 0 has
15

rational singularities if and only if its mod p reductions, for all sufficiently large p, are
F -rational. But F -rationality is known to be weaker than being a derived splinter in
characteristic p > 0 and hence F -rational rings do not satisfy the vanishing conditions
for maps of Tor in general by Theorem 5.5.
(3) Moreover, equal characteristic regular local rings satisfying the vanishing conditions
for maps of Tor is a very special case of our Key Theorem 5.2: the case that A is
regular with F• a free resolution of a finitely generated A-module M, Y → Spec A
is finite surjective and X is regular affine. So our Theorem 5.2 greatly extends
Hochster-Huneke’s Theorem 1.1, and actually it also generalizes the main theorems
of [HH93].
Remark 5.7. We point out that Boutot’s theorem that direct summands of rational singularities are rational singularities [Bou87] follows from our vanishing conditions for maps of
Tor applied to M = EA , the injective hull of A. Let (R, m) → (S, n) be a split map of local
rings essentially of finite type over a field of characteristic 0 and let S have rational singularities. For every surjection (B, m1 ) ։ (R, m) with B equidimensional, we can find (A, m0 ) →
(B, m1 ) module-finite with (A, m0 ) regular by Noether normalization. Now we consider the
map A → B → R → S. Since S has rational singularities, it satisfies the vanishing condiA
A
tions for maps of Tor by Theorem 5.5. Hence TorA
i (EA , B) → Tori (EA , R) → Tori (EA , S)
A
A
vanishes for i ≥ 1. This implies Tori (EA , B) → Tori (EA , R) vanishes for i ≥ 1 because
R → S splits. Hence R satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of local cohomology (recall
d−i
that TorA
i (EA , B) = Hm (B)). Therefore by Lemma 3.3, R has rational singularities.
As a consequence of Theorem 5.5, we obtain a new characterization of rational singularities:
Corollary 5.8. Let (S, n) be a local domain essentially of finite type over a field of characteristic 0. Then S has rational singularities if and only if for every regular local ring A with
S = A/P , every module-finite torsion-free extension A → T , and every Q ∈ Spec T lying
over P , the map P → Q splits as a map of A-modules.
Proof. This follows immediately from (2) ⇔ (3) in Theorem 5.5, and the result that derived
splinters are exactly rational singularities in equal characteristic 0.

We next want to prove a theorem that characterizes the vanishing conditions for maps
of local cohomology in equal characteristic. We first prove a lemma that is of independent
interest. Recall that in characteristic p > 0, 0∗H d (S) (the tight closure of 0) is the largest
n
proper submodule of Hnd (S) that is stable under the natural Frobenius action [Smi97].
Lemma 5.9. Let (S, n) be a local domain of equal characteristic p > 0. Then we have:
X
(5.9.1)
im(Hmd (R) → Hnd (S)) = 0∗Hnd (S)
R

where the sum is taken over all (R, m) ։ (S, n) such that dim R/P > dim S = d for every
minimal prime P of R.
Proof. Take a surjection (R, m) → (S, n), we first prove that the image of Hmd (R) → Hnd (S)
is contained in 0∗H d (S) . Since dim R/P > d for every minimal prime P of R, R → S obviously
n
factors through R → R′ → S for some domain R′ with dim R′ = d + 1. Hence the image of
Hmd (R) → Hnd (S) is contained in the image of Hmd (R′ ) → Hnd (S), which is clearly a submodule
16

of Hnd (S) stable under the Frobenius action. Thus it is contained in 0∗H d (S) as long as it is
n
not equal to Hnd (S). Therefore, it suffices to show that Hmd (R′ ) → Hnd (S) is not surjective.
Write S = R′ /Q for some height one prime ideal Q of R′ , we have the long exact sequence
of local cohomology:
(5.9.2)

· · · → Hmd (R′ ) → Hnd (S) → Hmd+1 (Q) → Hmd+1 (R′ ).

Since R′ has dimension d + 1 and Q is a height one prime, Hmd+1 (Q) → Hmd+1 (R′ ) is not
injective by Lemma 3.3 in [Ma14]. Therefore Hmd (R′ ) → Hnd (S) is not surjective by (5.9.2).
Hence we have proved
X
im(Hmd (R) → Hnd (S)) ⊆ 0∗Hnd (S) .
R

On the other hand, Lemma 3.1 shows that that
X
= 0∗Hnd (S)
im(Hmd (R) → Hnd (S)) ⊇ 0+
H d (S)
n

R

where the last equality follows from the main theorem of [Smi94]. This finishes the proof. 
Theorem 5.10. Let (S, n) be a local domain that is essentially of finite type over a field.
In characteristic 0, S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of local cohomology if and
only if S has rational singularities, while in characteristic p > 0, S satisfies the vanishing
conditions for maps of local cohomology if and only if S is F -rational.
Proof. The characteristic 0 assertion follows (implicitly) from the proof of Theorem 5.5, as
S satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of local cohomology implies S has rational
singularities by Lemma 3.3. It remains to prove the characteristic p > 0 statement. But this
follows immediately from Lemma 5.9 and Definition 2.2, since when S is Cohen-Macaulay,
S is F -rational if and only if 0∗H d (S) = 0 [HH94], [Smi97].

n

Finally, it is quite natural to ask whether our main theorem, Theorem 5.5, holds in mixed
characteristic. By Theorem 4.3, (3) ⇒ (1) always holds and the main obstruction of (1) ⇒
(3) is the direct summand conjecture in mixed characteristic. Below we give a partial answer
of (1) ⇒ (2). We believe this result and its proof is of independent interest (for example, see
Remark 5.12 and 5.13).
Theorem 5.11. If (S, n) is a quasi-Gorenstein complete local domain (of mixed characteristic) that satisfies the vanishing condition for maps of Tor, then S is a derived splinter.
Proof. We first note that the conditions imply S is Cohen-Macaulay (and thus Gorenstein)
by Proposition 3.4 because S is complete and satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of
Tor.
Let π: X → Spec S be a proper surjective map, we want to show S → Rπ∗ OX splits in
the derived category of S-modules. By Chow’s Lemma we may assume that X is projective.
I claim we may reduce to the case that X → Spec S is a projective and generically finite map
between integral schemes.6 We first find an irreducible component W of X and an affine
open U = Spec B of W that dominates Spec S. It follows that B is a domain containing S,
finitely generated as an S-algebra. Let L be the fraction field of S, we have dim(L ⊗ B) =
6This

should be well known. We provide the argument because we cannot find a good reference for this in
mixed characteristic.
17

dim B −dim S by Theorem 13.8 in [Eis95]. Hence if dim B −dim S ≥ 1, then dim(L⊗B) ≥ 1.
This means there exist nonzero primes in B that contract to 0 in S. Pick such a prime Q, we
have S ֒→ B/Q is injective. Thus V = Spec B/Q still dominates Spec S. Taking the closure
of V in W , call it X ′ , we have X ′ → Spec S is projective and surjective with dim X ′ < dim X.
We could repeat this process until we get dim X = dim S, i.e., X → Spec S is projective and
generically finite. Next we consider the Stein factorization:
X → Spec(π∗ OX ) → Spec S.
Let T = π∗ OX . We know that T is a module-finite domain extension of S. In particular,
since S is complete, this implies T is a local ring and nT is primary to the maximal ideal of
T . The map X → Spec T is projective and birational, thus it is just the blow-up of some
ideal J ⊆ T . Let R = T [Jt] = T ⊕ Jt ⊕ J 2 t2 ⊕ · · · and we have X = Proj R.
Pick f1 , . . . , fn ∈ Jt = [R]1 such that U = {Ui = Spec[Rfi ]0 } is an affine open cover of X.
We have an exact sequence of chain complexes (see page 150 of [Lip94]):
0 → Č • (U, OX )[−1] → [C • (f1 , . . . , fn , R)]0 → T → 0.
Since Č • (U, OX ) ∼
= Rπ∗ OX , the above sequence gives us (after rotating) an exact triangle:
+1

[RΓR>0 R]0 = [C • (f1 , . . . , fn , R)]0 → T → Rπ∗ OX −→
Applying RΓn , we get:
(5.11.1)

+1

[RΓn+R>0 R]0 → RΓn T → RΓn Rπ∗ OX −→ .

Let d = dim S = dim T and d + 1 = dim R. Next I prove two claims:
d+1
Claim 5.11.2. [Hn+R
(R)]0 = 0, thus [RΓn+R>0 R]0 lives in degree [0, 1, . . . , d].
>0

Proof. This is well known, because the a-invariant of the Rees ring is always −1 (for example,
see 2.4.2 and 2.5.2 of [HS03]). For the sake of completeness we point out that this also follows
from (5.11.1). By local duality, the dual of hd (RΓn T ) → hd (RΓn Rπ∗ OX ) is the natural
inclusion π∗ ωX ֒→ ωT (since X → Spec T is birational). Hence
d+1
[Hn+R
(R)]0 = hd+1 ([RΓn+R>0 R]0 ) = 0.
>0


Claim 5.11.3. There exists an S-linear surjection φ: T ։ S such that the composite:
φ

d
[Hn+R
(R)]0 → Hnd (T ) −
→ Hnd (S)
>0

is the zero map (the first map is induced by the natural surjection R ։ T ).
Proof. Let R′ = S ⊕ Jt ⊕ J 2 t2 ⊕ · · · be the subring of R (they only differ at the degree
0 spot). We note that since J is a finitely generated S-module, R′ is a Noetherian graded
domain over S. We have the following commutative diagram:
0
/

R>0
O
/

RO
/

TO
/

0

S
/

0

∼
=

0
/

′
R>0

/

R′

18

/

Viewing everything as modules or algebras over R′ , the above diagram induces a commutative
diagram of local cohomology:
f

d
[Hn+R
(R)]0
>0

Hnd (T )
/

d+1
[Hn+R
(R>0 )]0
>0

/

O

O

/

d+1
[Hn+R
(R)]0 = 0
>0

O
∼
=

d
[Hn+R
(R′ )]0
>0

0

/

Hnd (S) 



d+1
′
[Hn+R
(R>0
)]0
>0

/

The rightmost 0 on the first line comes from Claim 5.11.2 and the first map on the second
line is 0 because S is complete and satisfies the vanishing conditions for maps of Tor, hence
in particular it satisfies the vanishing conditions of local cohomology by Proposition 3.4.
Chasing the diagram it follows immediately that Hnd (S) ֒→ Hnd (T )/ im(f ). Since S is quasiGorenstein, Hnd (S) ∼
= ES is an injective S-module. So there is a map g: Hnd (T )/ im(f ) →
d
Hn (S) such that the composite:
g

Hnd (S) → Hnd (T ) → Hnd (T )/ im(f ) −
→ Hnd (S)
φ

is the identity. In particular, there is an splitting Hnd (T ) −
→ Hnd (S) of Hnd (S) ֒→ Hnd (T ) such
f

φ

d
that the composite [Hn+R
(R)]0 −
→ Hnd (S) is the zero map. However, it follows
→ Hnd (T ) −
>0
from the following commutative diagram:

HomS (Hnd (T ), Hnd(S))
/

HomS (Hnd (S), Hnd(S))

∼
=

∼
=




HomS (T, S)
/

HomS (S, S)

φ

φ

that every splitting Hnd (T ) −
→ Hnd (S) comes from some surjection T −
→ S.



Now we return to the proof of Theorem 5.11. I claim that the composite map:
φ

[RΓn+R>0 R]0 → RΓn T → Hnd (T )[−d] −
→ Hnd (S)[−d] ∼
= RΓn S
is the zero map in the derived category: it induces zero on the d-th cohomology by Claim
5.11.3, but by Claim 5.11.2, [RΓn+R>0 R]0 lives in degree [0, 1, ..., d] while Hnd (S)[−d] lives
only in degree d, so the map is zero in the derived category. The last isomorphism follows
because S is Cohen-Macaulay.
Let φ be the surjection in Claim 5.11.3. There exits t ∈ T such that φ(t) = 1 ∈ S, in
·t

φ

particular the composite S −
→T −
→ S is the identity. From the above discussion and (5.11.1),
we have a natural diagram in the derived category of S-modules:
[RΓn+R>0 R]0

RΓnU T
/

0

φ

&

·t



RΓn S
19

/

RΓn Rπ∗ OX

+1

/

Taking Matlis dual and applying local duality, we get:
(5.11.4)

•
Rπ∗ ωX

/

ωT•
/

T

φ∨

·t∨

[RΓn+R>0 R]∨0

+1

/

9

0



ωS•
•
From (5.11.4) it follows that φ∨ factors through a map ωS• → Rπ∗ ωX
such that the composite:
·t∨

•
ωS• → Rπ∗ ωX
→ ωT• −→ ωS•

is the identity. Applying R HomS (−, ωS• ), we obtain:
·t

S−
→ T = π∗ OX → Rπ∗ OX → S
·t

such that the composite is the identity. But this implies S → Rπ∗ OX −
→ Rπ∗ OX → S is the
·t
identity (the second map is induced by OX −
→ OX viewing t as a section of X → Spec S).
Hence S → Rπ∗ OX splits in the derived category of S-modules. Therefore S is a derived
splinter, as desired.

At the moment we don’t see how to drop the quasi-Gorenstein hypothesis on S in Theorem
5.11, the subtle point seems to be Claim 5.11.3. However, the above result and its proof
already have some interesting consequences.
Remark 5.12. Since regular local rings are certainly quasi-Gorenstein, Theorem 5.11 immediately implies that Hochster-Huneke’s vanishing conjecture for maps of Tor (or equivalently,
the strong direct summand conjecture [Ran00]) implies the derived direct summand conjecture of Bhatt [Bha12].
Remark 5.13. The argument used in Theorem 5.11 gives a new proof that splinters and
derived splinters are the same in characteristic p > 0 for all local rings that are homomorphic
image of Gorenstein local rings. First of all it is well known that splinters are CohenMacaulay in characteristic p > 0 (we don’t need completeness [HL07], [HH92]). Now the
only place in the argument that we use the vanishing conditions for maps of Tor and the
quasi-Gorenstein hypothesis seriously is in the proof of Claim 5.11.3. But this claim is clear
in characteristic p > 0 and we give a short argument as follows: by Theorem 2.1 of [HL07]
we know that there exists a module-finite extension B of R such that the induced map
d
d
Hn+R
(R) → Hn+R
(B) is zero. Since B ⊗R T is a module-finite extension of T and hence
>0
>0
a module-finite extension of S, the map S → B ⊗R T splits as S-modules. Let
g

φ : T → B ⊗R T −
→S
be the composite map for some splitting g: B ⊗R T → S. We have the following commutative
diagram:
d
/ H d (B ⊗R T )
Hn+R
(B)
n
>0
O
d
[Hn+R
(R)]0
>0

O

▼▼▼
▼▼▼g
▼▼▼
▼▼&
φ
/ H d (T )
/ H d (S)
n

n

Since the left vertical map is the zero map by our choice of B, chasing through the diagram it
φ
d
is clear that the composite [Hn+R
(R)]0 → Hnd (T ) −
→ Hnd (S) is the zero map. Hence Claim
>0
20

5.11.3 holds in characteristic p > 0 as long as S is a splinter (without any quasi-Gorenstein
or complete hypothesis).
Acknowledgement
It is a pleasure to thank Mel Hochster for several enjoyable discussions on the vanishing
conjecture for maps of Tor and other homological conjectures. I want to thank Karl Schwede
for reading a preliminary version of the paper and for his valuable comments. I would also
like to thank Bhargav Bhatt and Anurag Singh for some helpful discussions. Finally I want
to thank the referee, whose comments and suggestions lead to improvement of the paper.
References
[Abe94]

I. M. Aberbach: Finite phantom projective dimension, Amer. J. Math. 116 (1994), no. 2,
447–477.
[Bha12]
B. Bhatt: Derived splinters in positive characteristic, Compos. Math. 148 (2012), no. 6, 1757–
1786.
[BST15] M. Blickle, K. Schwede, and K. Tucker: F -singularities via alterations, Amer. J. Math
137 (2015), no. 1, 61–109.
[Bou87]
J.-F. Boutot: Singularités rationnelles et quotients par les groupes réductifs, Invent. Math. 88
(1987), no. 1, 65–68.
[BE73]
D. A. Buchsbau and D. Eisenbud: What makes a complex exact?, J. Algebra (1973), 259–268.
[CEMS14] A. Chiecchio, F. Enescu, L. E. Miller, and K. Schwede: Test ideals in rings with finitely
generated anti-canonical algebras, arXiv: 1412.6453.
[Eis95]
D. Eisenbud: Commutative algebra with a view toward algebraic geometry, Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1995.
[EV92]
H. Esnault and E. Viehweg: Lectures on vanishing theorems, DMV Seminar, vol. 20,
Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1992.
[GR70]
H. Grauert and O. Riemenschneider: Verschwindungssätze für analytische Kohomologiegruppen auf komplexen Räumen, Invent. Math. 11 (1970), 263–292.
[Har98]
N. Hara: A characterization of rational singularities in terms of injectivity of Frobenius maps,
Amer. J. Math. 120 (1998), no. 5, 981–996.
[Har66]
R. Hartshorne: Residues and duality, Lecture notes of a seminar on the work of A.
Grothendieck, given at Harvard 1963/64. With an appendix by P. Deligne. Lecture Notes in
Mathematics, No. 20, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1966.
[Hei02]
R. C. Heitmann: The direct summand conjecture in dimension three, Ann. of Math. (2) 156
(2002), no. 2, 695–712.
[Hoc02]
M. Hochster: Big Cohen-Macaulay algebras in dimension three via Heitmann’s theorem, J.
Algebra 254 (2002), no. 2, 395–408.
[HH90]
M. Hochster and C. Huneke: Tight closure, invariant theory, and the Briançon-Skoda theorem, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 3 (1990), no. 1, 31–116.
[HH92]
M. Hochster and C. Huneke: Infinite integral extensions and big Cohen-Macaulay algebras,
Ann. of Math. (2) 135 (1992), no. 1, 53–89.
[HH93]
M. Hochster and C. Huneke: Phantom homology, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 103 (1993),
no. 490, vi+91.
[HH94]
M. Hochster and C. Huneke: F -regularity, test elements, and smooth base change, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 346 (1994), no. 1, 1–62.
[HH95]
M. Hochster and C. Huneke: Applications of the existence of big Cohen-Macaulay algebras,
Adv. Math. 113 (1995), no. 1, 45–117.
[HR76]
M. Hochster and J. L. Roberts: The purity of the Frobenius and local cohomology, Adv.
Math. 21 (1976), no. 2, 117–172.
[HL07]
C. Huneke and G. Lyubeznik: Absolute integral closure in positive characteristic, Adv. Math.
210 (2007), no. 2, 498–504.
21

[HS03]
[Kol86]
[Kov00]
[Lip94]
[Lip02]

[LT81]
[Ma14]
[Ran00]
[SdS87]

[Sin99]
[Smi94]
[Smi97]

E. Hyry and K. E. Smith: On a non-vanishing conjecture of Kawamata and the core of an
ideal, Amer. J. Math. 125 (2003), no. 6, 1349–1410.
J. Kollár: Higher direct images of dualizing sheaves I, Ann. of Math. (2) 123 (1986), no. 1,
11–42.
S. Kovács: A characterization of rational singularities, Duke Math. J. 102 (2000), no. 2, 187–
191.
J. Lipman: Cohen-Macaulayness in graded algebras, Math. Res. Lett. 1 (1994), no. 2, 149–157.
J. Lipman: Lectures on local cohomology and duality, Local cohomology and its applications
(Guanajuato, 1999), Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., vol. 226, Dekker, New York, 2002,
pp. 39–89.
J. Lipman and B. Teissier: Pseudorational local rings and a theorem of Briançon-Skoda about
integral closures of ideals, Michigan Math. J. 28 (1981), no. 1, 97–116.
L. Ma: A sufficient condition for F -purity, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 218 (2014), 1179–1183.
N. Ranganathan: Splitting in module-finite extension rings and the vanishing conjecture for
maps of Tor, Thesis, University of Michigan (2000).
J. B. Sancho de Salas: Blowing-up morphisms with Cohen-Macaulay associated graded rings,
Géométrie algébrique et applications, I (La Rábida, 1984), Travaux en Cours, vol. 22, Hermann,
Paris, 1987, pp. 201–209.
A. K. Singh: Q-Gorenstein splinter rings of characteristic p are F -regular, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. (1999), no. 2, 201–205.
K. E. Smith: Tight closure of parameter ideals, Invent. Math. 115 (1994), no. 1, 41–60.
K. E. Smith: F -rational rings have rational singularities, Amer. J. Math. 119 (1997), no. 1,
159–180.

Department of Mathematics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
E-mail address: lquanma@math.utah.edu

22

