ASYMPTOTICS OF RANDOM BETTI TABLES

arXiv:1207.5467v1 [math.AG] 23 Jul 2012

LAWRENCE EIN, DANIEL ERMAN, AND ROBERT LAZARSFELD

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we present a conjecture to the effect that the
ranks of the syzygy modules of a smooth projective variety become normally distributed as the
positivity of the embedding line bundle grows. Then, in an attempt to render the conjecture
plausible, we prove a result suggesting that this is in any event the typical behavior from
a probabilistic point of view. Specifically, we consider a “random” Betti table with a fixed
number of rows, sampled according to a uniform choice of Boij-Söderberg coefficients. We
compute the asymptotics of the entries as the length of the table goes to infinity, and show
that they become normally distributed with high probability.
Turning to details, we start by discussing at some length the geometric questions underlying the present work. Let X be a smooth projective variety of dimension n defined over some
field k, and for d > 0 put
Ld = dA + P
where A is a fixed ample divisor and P is an arbitrary divisor on X. We assume that d is
sufficiently large so that Ld defines a normally generated embedding
X ⊆ Prd , where r = rd =def h0 (X, Ld ) − 1 = O(dn ).

Write S = Sym H 0 X, Ld for the homogeneous coordinate ring of Prd , denote by J = JX ⊆ S
the homogeneous ideal of X, and consider the minimal graded free resolution E• = E• (X; Ld )
of J:
0o

JX o

⊕S(−a1,j ) o

⊕S(−a2,j ) o

E1

E2

... o

⊕S(−ar,j ) o

As customary, it is convenient to define
Kp,q X; Ld



=

n

minimal generators of o
.
Ep (X; Ld ) of degree p + q

Research of the first author partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1001336.
Research of the second author partially supported by the Simons Foundation.
Research of the third author partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1159553.
1

Er

0.

2

LAWRENCE EIN, DANIEL ERMAN, AND ROBERT LAZARSFELD

Thus Kp,q (X; Ld ) is a finite-dimensional vector space, and
M
Ep (X; Ld ) =
Kp,q (X; Ld ) ⊗k S(−p − q).
q

We refer to an element of Kp,q as a pth syzygy of weight q. The dimensions
kp,q (X; Ld ) =def dim Kp,q (X; Ld )
are the Betti numbers of Ld ; they are the entries of the Betti table of Ld . The basic problem
motivating the present paper (one that alas we do not solve) is to understand the asymptotic
behavior of these numbers as d → ∞.
Elementary considerations of Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity show that if d  0 then
Kp,q (X; Ld ) = 0 for q > n + 1.
Furthermore Kp,n+1 (X; Ld ) 6= 0 if and only if
rd − n − (pg − 1) ≤ p ≤ rd − n,
where pg = h0 (X, ωX ). So the essential point is to understand the groups Kp,q (K, Ld ) for
1 ≤ q ≤ n and p ∈ [1, rd ]. The main result of [5] is that as d → ∞ these groups become nonzero for “essentially all” values of the parameters. Specifically, there exist constants C1 , C2 > 0
(depending on X and the choice of the divisors A, P appearing in the definition of Ld ) such
that if one fixes 1 ≤ q ≤ n, then
Kp,q (X; Ld ) 6= 0
for every value of p satisfying
C1 · dq−1 ≤ p ≤ rd − C2 · dn−1 .
However the results of [5] do not say anything quantitative about the asymptotics in p of the
corresponding Betti numbers kp,q (X; Ld ) for fixed weight q ∈ [1, n] and d  0.
The question is already interesting in the case n = 1 of curves: here it is only the kp,1 that
come asymptotically into play.1 Figure 1 shows plots of these Betti numbers for a divisor of
degree 75 on a curve of genus 0, and on a curve of genus 10. The figure suggests that the kp,1
become normally distributed, and we prove that this is indeed the case:
Proposition A. Let Ld be a divisor of large degree d on a smooth projective curve X of genus
g, so that rd = d − g. Choose a sequence {pd } of integers such that
√
rd
rd
pd →
+a·
2
2
1If

X is a curve of genus g > 2 and Ld is a divisor of degree d  0 on X, then the Betti numbers kp,1 (X; Ld )
depend on the geometry of X and Ld – in a manner that is not completely understood – when rd −g ≤ p ≤ rd −1.
However elementary estimates show that when d is large the invariants in question are exponentially smaller
than the kp,1 for p ≈ r2d , and so they do not show up in the asymptotic picture. See Remark 2.4.

10
In[4]:=

20

30

40

50

60

70

Betti@d_, g_D :=
Table@ Binomial@d - g, pD Hd - HHp * dL ê Hd - gL L +
Binomial@d - g + 1, p + 1D, 8p, 1, d - g - 1<D

ASYMPTOTICS OF RANDOM
BETTI TABLES
3
In[6]:= ListPlotBBetti@75, 10D, PlotRange Ø All, PlotStyle Ø 8Black<, Data
1 µ 1020

1.2 µ 1023
8 µ 1019

1.0 µ 1023
6 µ 1019

8.0 µ 1022
Out[6]=

Out[7]= 6.0 µ 1022

4 µ 1019

22

4.0 µ 10

2 µ 1019

2.0 µ 1022
10

20

30

40

50

!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!g = 0
In[4]:= Betti@d_, g_D :=

60

70

10

20

30

40

50

g = 10!

60

!

Table@ Binomial@d
g, pD
Hd - HHp
dLcurves
ê Hd - gL
L + 1 0- and
gL 10
Figure 1. Betti
numbers
kp,1*on
of genus
Binomial@d - g + 1, p + 1D, 8p, 1, d - g - 1<D
In[6]:=

ListPlotBBetti@75, 10D, PlotRange Ø All,

PlotStyle Ø

8Black<, DataRange Ø 80, 64< F

1 µ 10
d
= a). Then as d → ∞,
for some
fixed number a (ie. limd→∞ 2p√d −r
rd
r 

8 µ 10
1
2π
2
·
· kpd ,1 (X; Ld ) → e−a /2 .
r
6 µ 10
2d
rd
20

19

19

Out[6]=

4 µ 1019

At the risk of some recklessness, we conjecture that the picture seen in dimension one
2 µ 10
holds universally:
19

40
50
60
Conjecture B.10 Let 20X be30a smooth
projective
variety of dimension n, and fix a weight 1 ≤
q ≤ n. Then there is a normalizing function Fq (d) (depending on X and geometric data) such
that
2
Fq (d) · kpd ,q (X; Ld ) −→ e−a /2

as d → ∞ and pd →

rd
2

√

+ a·

rd
.
2

In other words, the prediction is that as d → ∞ one gets the same sort of normal distribution
of the Betti numbers kp,q (X; Ld ), considered as functions of p, as that which occurs in the case
of curves. Put another way, the conjecture asserts that the rows of the Betti table of any very
positive embedding display roughly the pattern that one would see in a large Koszul complex.
As an illustration, we plot in Figure 2 the Betti numbers kp,1 for the embedding P2 ⊂ P14
defined by OP2 (4), which is the largest example we were able to run on Macaulay2. We hope
that the reader will agree that these data at least seem consistent with the conjectured picture.

Concerning the Conjecture, the first point to stress is that we don’t know how to verify
it for any variety of dimension n ≥ 2. For example, it already seems a very interesting and
challenging problem to compute the asymptotics of the Betti numbers of the d-fold Veronese
embeddings of P2 . In view of this state of affairs, it then becomes natural to ask whether
one can give any indirect evidence supporting the conjecture. For example, if one considers
resolutions with syzygies having fixed weights 1 ≤ q ≤ n and lets the length of the resolution

4

LAWRENCE EIN, DANIEL ERMAN, AND ROBERT LAZARSFELD
8000

æ
æ
æ

6000

æ

4000
æ

2000

æ
æ
æ
æ

æ

æ

2

4

6

8

10

æ

æ

p

12

Figure 2. Betti numbers kp,1 of 4-fold Veronese embedding of P2 .
grow, are the asymptotics predicted by the conjecture “typical” in some sense? Our main
purpose here is to prove a result suggesting that this is indeed the case: with high probability,
the entries in the rows of a “random” Betti table become normally distributed as the length
of the table goes to infinity.
In order to make this precise we start by introducing a model for the resolutions in question;
we will then apply the Boij-Söderberg theory established by Eisenbud and Schreyer [9] to
construct a sample space for studying random Betti tables. Specifically, fix a natural number
n ≥ 2 and let R = k[x1 , . . . , xr−n ] be a polynomial ring in r − n variables, where r is a large
integer that will later go to infinity. Consider now a finite-length graded R-module M with
the property that
(1)

Kp,q (M ) = 0 for q 6∈ [1, n]

and for every 0 ≤ p ≤ n − r. We think of M as having a resolution that models in a slightly
simplified manner the resolutions that occur for very positive embeddings of smooth projective
varieties of dimension n. In the geometric setting, if X carries a line bundle B such that
H i (X, B) = 0 for all i – for instance B = OPn (−1) on X = Pn – then modules as in (*)
can be constructed by starting with the graded S-module associated to B and modding out
by n + 1 general linear forms.
The theory of Eisenbud-Schreyer asserts that the Betti numbers kp,q (M ) are determined
by the Betti numbers of modules having a pure resolution. By definition, this is a module Π
with the property that the pth syzygies of Π all occur in a single weight q = q(p). Pure modules
satisfying (1) are then described by an (n − 1)-element subset I ⊆ [r]
 =def {1, . . . , r} encoding
[r]
the values of p at which the weight q(p) jumps: we denote by n−1 the collection of all such
I. The corresponding module ΠI is not unique, but its Betti numbers kp,q (ΠI ) are determined
up to a scalar that is normalized by fixing the multiplity of each ΠI . The main result of [9]
implies that given M as above, there exist non-negative rational numbers xI ∈ Q such that
X
(2)
kp,q (M ) =
xI · kp,q (ΠI )
[r]
I∈(n−1)

ASYMPTOTICS OF RANDOM BETTI TABLES

5

for all p ∈ [0, r − n] and q ∈ [1, n].2 In other words, the resolution of M is numerically a
Q-linear combination of the resolutions of the ΠI . Conversely, after possibly scaling one can
find a module M that realizes given non-negative rational numbers xI . Thus up to scaling, the
possible numerical types of n-weight resolutions are parametrized by vectors
x = {xI }I∈( [r] )
n−1

of Boij-Söderberg coefficients xI ∈ Q≥0 .3 In order to emphasize the dependence on r, which
will shortly become important, we will henceforth write xr = {xr,I } to denote these coefficients
and Πr,I to denote the corresponding module.
We assume now (by scaling) that each xr,I ≤ 1, and since we are interested in numerical
questions we allow the xr,I to be real. Denote by
r
Ωr = Ωr,n =def [0, 1](n−1)

the cube parametrizing the resulting coefficient vectors xr = {xr,I }. Then given
xr = {xr,I } ∈ Ωr ,
set
kp,q (xr ) =

X
I∈(

xr,I · kp,q (Πr,I ).

[r]
n−1

)

Thus the kp,q are functions on Ωr computing the Betti numbers of a module described by a
Boij-Söderberg coeffient vector xr .4
We next imagine chosing xr ∈ Ωr uniformly at random. The resulting real numbers kp,q (xr )
can then be thought of as the entries of a random (and hence “typical”) Betti table with n
rows and r + 1 − n columns. This is illustrated when n = 2 in Figure 3, which shows plots of
kp,1 (xr ) for random vectors xr ∈ Ωr with r = 14 and r = 60. Fixing q ∈ [1, n], our main result
describes the asymptotics in p of the numbers kp,q (xr ) for such a randomly chosen coefficient
vector xr as r gets very large. It implies in particular that when r → ∞, the Betti numbers
kp,q (xr ) become normally distributed with high probability.
We start with a somewhat informal statement.
2The

set of indices I that arise here form in a natural way the vertices of a simplicial complex, and if one
takes into account the simplicial structure one can arrange that the expression in (2) is unique. However for
reasons that we will discuss in Remark 1.3, we prefer to allow the indices I to vary independently. Therefore
when n ≥ 3 the coefficients xI are not uniquely determined by M .
3As explained in the previous footnote, this parametrization involves some repetitions.
4In the following, we choose normalizations in such a way that each Π
r,I has formal multiplicity = 1. There
may be no actual module with this property, but since we are working only up to scale, this doesn’t cause any
problems.

6

LAWRENCE EIN, DANIEL ERMAN, AND ROBERT LAZARSFELD
æ
æ

2000

ææ
æ

2.0 ´ 1017

æ

æ

æ
æ

1500
æ

æ

æ

1.5 ´ 1017
1000

æ

æ

1.0 ´ 1017

æ

æ

æ

æ

500

æ

æ

5.0 ´ 1016
æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

æ
æ

æ

æ

æ

2

4

6

8

10

æ

p

æææææææææææææææææ

12

10

ææ

æ

æ

20

30

ææææææææææææææææææææ

40

p

50

Figure 3. Betti numbers kp,1 of random Betti tables with r = 14 and with r = 60.
Theorem C. Fix a weight q ∈ [1, n]. If one chooses xr ∈ Ωr randomly, then as r → ∞ one
expects

  q−1

r−n
p
· (r − p − n)n−q
1
·
(3)
kp,q (xr ) ∼ n ·
p
2
(q − 1)! · (n − q)!
provided that

p
r

is bounded away from 0 and 1.

More precisely, given ε > 0 denote by
Σp,r,n (ε) ⊆ Ωr
the set of all coefficient vectors xr = {xr,I } ∈ Ωr such that
kp,q (xr )
 − 1 > ε.
RHS of (3)
Now suppose that {pr } is a sequence of positive integers 0 ≤ pr ≤ r − n with the property that
pr
c <
< 1−c
r
for some small c > 0. Put the standard Lebesgue measure on the cube Ωr , so that vol(Ωr ) = 1.
Then the assertion of the Theorem is that

lim vol Σpr ,r,n (ε) = 0,
r→∞

and that moreover the convergence is uniform in pr (given the bounding constant c).
The crucial term in (3) is the binomial coefficient. Stirling’s formula then implies that as
functions of p, the kp,q (x) display the sort of normal distribution predicted by the Conjecture
with high probability.
Corollary D. Fix n and q ∈ [1, n]. There exists a function F (r) = Fq,n (r) with the property
that if {pr } is a sequence with
√
r
r
+ a·
pr →
2
2

ASYMPTOTICS OF RANDOM BETTI TABLES

7

for some a, then
2 /2

F (r) · kpr ,q (xr ) → e−a
for “most” choices of xr ∈ Ωr .

We refer to §2 for the precise meaning of the last phrase.
Returning to the setting of Conjecture B, one most likely wouldn’t expect the modules
arising from geometry to be described by the sort of uniform choice of Boij–Söderberg coefficients built into Theorem C and Corollary D. However it seems that the qualitative picture
coming out of our model is rather robust, and persists for other probability measures on Ωr .
We prove a specific result in this direction in §3.1.
The sort of probabilistic model discussed in the present paper is very different from the
notion of genericity that traditionally comes up in commutative algebra. Specifically, the
standard perspective is to consider moduli spaces parametrizing flat families of graded modules
(or graded free resolutions) with fixed numerical invariants, and to examine what happens at
a general point of this moduli space. The random Betti tables studied here behave quite
differently than what one expects in the algebraic setting. For example, these two approaches
display essentially opposite semicontinuity properties. A random Betti table in our sense will
be drawn from the interior of the cone of Betti tables, and thus “more random Betti table
= less sparse Betti table.” By contrast, in the classical moduli perspective each individual
Betti number is lower semicontinuous, and thus “more generic resolution = more sparse Betti
table.” We analyze this tension more explicitly in a particular case in §3.2. From this viewpoint,
Conjecture B predicts that the resolutions arising from geometry are extremely non-generic
algebraically.5
We close with a philosophical remark. Based on experience with the case of curves, it was
expected in some quarters that high degree embeddings of algebraic varieties would display
rather sparse Betti tables. However the results of [5] showed that this is not at all the case.
On the other hand, the results of that paper do suggest that the syzygies of very positive
embeddings exhibit uniform asymptotic behavior. If one believes this, it becomes somewhat
hard to guess – given the computations here for random Betti tables – what one might expect
other than a statement along the lines of Conjecture B.
Concerning the organization of the paper, in §1 we introduce random Betti diagrams and
carry out the computations leading to Theorem C. These are recast using Stirling’s formula
in §2, where we prove Corollary D and Proposition A. Finally, §3 is devoted to some variants
and open problems.
The computer algebra programs Macaulay2 [12] and Mathematica [18] provided useful
assistance in studying examples. We also thank David Eisenbud, Milena Hering and Claudiu
5It

is not surprising that this should be so. For instance, the ideal of a very positive embedding of any variety
is generated by quadrics, but of course the subspace spanned by these quadrics sits in very special position
within the linear system of all quadrics on the ambient projective space.

8

LAWRENCE EIN, DANIEL ERMAN, AND ROBERT LAZARSFELD

Raicu for valuable suggestions. We have particularly profitted from discussions with Kyungyong Lee, who helped us to understand the direction this project should take.

1. Random Betti Tables
In this section we introduce some notation and definitions concerning Betti tables, and
carry out the main computations.
We fix once and for all a positive integer n ≥ 2, and denote by r a large natural number
that will eventually go to infinity. Generally speaking we will render dependence on r visible
in the notation, but leave dependence on n implicit. We shall be concerned with n × (r + 1 − n)
matrices of real numbers: the columns will be numbered 0, . . . , r − n and the rows 1, . . . , n. As
in the Introduction such Betti diagrams arise upon tabulating the Betti numbers of a finitelength graded module over the polynomial ring k[x1 , . . . , xr−n ], but in fact we will only be
concerned with the tables themselves. Given a Betti table B, we denote by kp,q (B) the entry
of B in the q th row and pth column. (Some authors work instead with βp,j (B) = kp,j−p (B).)
The theorem of Eisenbud-Schreyer [9] implies that the cone of all Betti tables of modules
as in the Introduction is spanned by so-called pure diagrams π(r, I) constructed as follows. Fix
an (n − 1)-element subset
I = (i1 < . . . < in−1 )
of [r] =def {1, . . . , r}, and write
{1, . . . , r} − I = {d0 , . . . , dr−n },
with d0 < d1 < . . . < dr−n . Then π(r, I) is the Betti diagram with kp,j = 0 for j 6= dp − p, and
!
Y

1
(1.1)
kp,dp −p π(r, I) = (r − n)! ·
.
|d
` − dp |
`6=p
In other words, π(r, I) is (up to scaling) the Betti table of a module all of whose syzygy modules
are generated in a single degree. The integers (d0 < . . . < dr−n ) are the degree sequence of
π(r, I), and the subset I ⊆ [r] determines the values of p at which the degree sequence skips
an integer. The numerical factors in (1.1) are such that π(r, I) has (formal) multiplicity = 1.
(This follows from the formula for the multiplicity of a module with a pure resolution; see, for
instance, [2, p. 88].)
Example 1.1. Consider the table π(7, {2, 4}). This corresponds to the degree sequence
{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} \ {2, 4} = {1, 3, 5, 6, 7},
and one has:
0


1
10

1
π(7, {2, 4}) = 2 −
3 −

1 2 3 4

− − − −
1
− − − . 
2
− 32 85 21

ASYMPTOTICS OF RANDOM BETTI TABLES

9

It will be useful to have an alternative expression for the entries of π(r, I). As a matter of
notation, for m ∈ Z, write
m+ = max {m, 0}.
Then (1.1) yields the following, whose proof we leave to the reader:
Lemma 1.2. The entries of π(r, I) are given by
Qq−1
Qn−1

α=1 (p + q − iα )+ ·
α=q (iα − p − q)+
(1.2)
kp,q π(r, I) = (r − n)! ·
.
(p + q − 1)! · (r − p − q)!




[r]
We next consider random Betti tables. For each I ∈ n−1
, let XI be a random variable
uniformly distributed on [0, 1]. We take the XI to be independent. Then put
X
(1.3)
Br = Br,n =
XI · π(r, I).
[r]
I∈(n−1)
Heuristically, one thinks of Br as the Betti table obtained by choosing independent random
Boij-Söderberg coefficients xI ∈ [0, 1]. More formally, Br is a random n × (r + 1 − n) matrix,
and for each p, q the entry kp,q (Br ) is a random variable. We write ep,q (Br ) for the expected
value of this variable, i.e.

(1.4)
ep,q (Br ) =def E kp,q (Br ) .

Remark 1.3. When n = 2 the pure tables are indexed by a single integer i ∈ [1, r] = [r]
.
1
In this case the π(r, i) are linearly independent, and there is a unique way to express every
Betti table as a linear combination of pure diagrams. However when n ≥ 3 chains in the set
of degree sequences determine the simplices of a simplicial complex whose structure must be
taken into account to get a unique decomposition. (See [2] or [9] for further details.) Here
we have chosen to ignore this additional structure. In large part this is motivated just by
the desire to simplify the statements and computations. However there is emerging evidence
from other directions that it can be advantageous to deal with all possible pure Betti tables,
instead of just collections from a single simplex. For instance, the recent work [11] provides
a pleasingly simple description of a pure table decomposition of any complete intersection,
but this description relies on a collection of pure Betti tables that do not come from a single
simplex.
Our main result computes ep,q (Br ), and shows that if we fix q and let r tend to infinity,
then kp,q (Br,n ) converges (up to an essentially polynomial factor) to a binomial distribution in
p.
Theorem 1.4. The expected entries of Br are given by the formula

  q−1

1
r−n
p
· (r − p − n)n−q
n−1
(1.5)
ep,q (Br ) = n ·
·
+ o p, r − p)
,
p
2
(q − 1)! · (n − q)!
where the error term the right indicates a quantity that is o(pi (r − p)j ) for some i + j = n − 1.

10

LAWRENCE EIN, DANIEL ERMAN, AND ROBERT LAZARSFELD

Remark 1.5. Note that we could replace the factor (r − p − n) in (1.5) by (r − p) without
changing the statement. However we prefer to emphasize the symmetry between (p, q) and
(r − n − p, n + 1 − q) inherent in the situation.
With n and q fixed, write
(1.6)

µ(r, p) = µq,n (r, p) =

1 pq−1 · (r − p − n)n−q
·
2n
(q − 1)! · (n − q)!

for the expression appearing on the right in (1.5). The law of large numbers then implies that
kp,q (Br,n ) converges to ep,q (Br,n ). In fact:
Corollary 1.6. Fix a weight q ∈ [1, n], and let {pr } be any sequence of positive integers
0 ≤ pr ≤ r − n such that
pr
c ≤
≤1−c
r
for some small c > 0. Then as r → ∞,
kpr ,q (Br )

r−n
· µ(r, pr )
pr

−→ 1

in probability, and moreover the convergence is uniform in pr (for given c).
In other words, given ε, η > 0, one can find an integer R such that if r ≥ R then
!
kpr ,q (Br )

− 1 > ε < η,
P
r−n
· µ(r, pr )
pr
and furthermore one can take R to be independent of pr provided that c < pr /r < 1 − c.6 A
more concrete interpretation of this assertion is spelled out following the statement of Theorem
C in the Introduction.
Turning to the proof of Theorem 1.4, we begin with an elementary lemma. As a matter
of [a], write
of notation, given positive integers a ≥ b, and a b-element subset J ∈ [a]
b
J = {j1 < . . . < jb } for the elements of J in increasing order.
Lemma 1.7. For fixed b ≥ 0, consider the function σb : Z≥b −→ Z given by
X
σb (a) =
j1 j2 . . . jb .
[a]
J∈( b )
Then
1 a2b
·
+ S2b−1 (a),
b! 2b
where S2b−1 (x) ∈ Q[x] is a polynomial of degree 2b − 1.
σb (a) =

6Here

and subsequently, we are writing P to denote the probability of an event.

ASYMPTOTICS OF RANDOM BETTI TABLES

11

Proof. Observe to begin with that
X
J∈(

[a]
b

1
·
b! j

j1 j2 · · · jb =
)

X
1 ,...,jb

j1 j2 · · · jb .

distinct

On the other hand

X

(*)

j1 j2 · · · jb = 


X

!
X

j1 j2 · · · jb  −

j1 ,...,jb ∈[1,a]

j1 ,...,jb distinct

j1 j2 · · · jb

.

two or more jk coincident

But first term on the right in (*) is
b
Y

a
X

k=1

jk =1

!
jk


=

(a + 1)a
2

b
,

while by induction on b (and descending induction on the number of coincidences) the second
term is of the form R2b−1 (a) for some R2b−1 (x) ∈ Q[x] of degree 2b−1. The Lemma follows. 

Proof of Theorem 1.4. Throughout the proof we fix n and q ∈ [1, n]. Note first from Lemma
1.2 that

kp,q (π(r, I)) =

Given I ∈

[r]
n−1



(p + q − i1 )+ · · · (p + q − iq−1 )+ · (iq − p − q)+ · · · (in−1 − p − q)+
(p + q − 1) · · · (p + 1) · (r − p − q) · · · (r − p − (n − 1))

define


(1.7)



r−n
.
p

YI,r,p =

(p + q − i1 )+ · · · (p + q − iq−1 )+ · (iq − p − q)+ · · · (in−1 − p − q)+
(p + q − 1) · · · (p + 1) · (r − p − q) · · · (r − p − (n − 1))


· XI .

Thus for fixed p, q and r:
kp,q (Br )

=
r−n
· µ(r, p)
p

(1.8)

P

[r]
I∈(n−1
)

YI,r,p

µ(r, p)

,

where µ(r, p) is the quantity from (1.6).
Now since E(XI ) = 12 , for fixed r, p and I, we have:
1
E(YI,r,p ) =
·
2



(p + q − i1 )+ · · · (p + q − iq−1 )+ · (iq − p − q)+ · · · (in−1 − p − q)+
(p + q − 1) · · · (p + 1) · (r − p − q) · · · (r − p − (n − 1))


.

12

LAWRENCE EIN, DANIEL ERMAN, AND ROBERT LAZARSFELD

Hence for fixed p and r:

 X
r−n
ep,q (Br,n ) =
·
E (YI,r,p )
p
[r]
I∈(n−1)
P


[r] (p + q − i1 )+ · · · (p + q − iq−1 )+ · (iq − p − q)+ · · · (in−1 − p − q)+
I∈(n−1
)
r−n
1
=
· ·
2
(p + q − 1) · · · (p + 1) · (r − p − q) · · · (r − p − (n − 1))
p



P
P
0
0


j1 j2 · · · jq−1
j1 · · · jn−q
J∈([p+q−1]
J 0 ∈([r−p−q]
r−n
1
q−1 )
n−q )
=
· ·
2 (p + q − 1) · · · (p + 1) · (r − p − q) · · · (r − p − (n − 1))
p
 

P
P
0
0


[p+q−1] j1 j2 · · · jq−1
[r−p−q] j1 · · · jn−q
0
J ∈( n−q )
J∈( q−1 )
r−n
1
·
.
=
· ·
2
(p + q − 1) · · · (p + 1)
(r − p − q) · · · (r − p − (n − 1))
p

Lemma 1.7 then implies that


r−n
(1.9)
ep,q (Br ) =
· µ(r, p) ·
p

1+
1+

A2q−3 (p)
p2q−2
B2q−3 (p)
p2q−2

!
·

1+
1+

C2n−2q−1 (r−p) !
(r−p)2n−2q
,
D2n−2q−1 (r−p)
2n−2q
(r−p)

where A, B, C, and D are polynomials of the indicated degrees whose coefficients depend on
n and q. The Theorem follows.

Remark 1.8. For later reference, we record a consequence of the proof just completed. Specifically, suppose given a sequence {pr } with
pr
c ≤
≤1−c
r
for some c > 0. Then it follows from (1.9) that

P
E(YI,r,pr )
= 1,
(1.10)
lim
r→∞
µ(r, pr )
and that moreover the convergence is uniform in pr given c.
Proof of Corollary 1.6. This is essentially just the weak law of large numbers, but for keeping
track of the dependence in p it is quickest to go through the argument leading to that result,
as in [3, §5.1]. As before, we fix n and q at the outset. Note to begin with that the coefficient
of XI in (1.7) is ≤ 1, and hence
1
Var(YI,r,p ) ≤
3
for every I, r and p. Furthermore, since the XI are independent, for given r and p the YI,r,p
are uncorrelated. Therefore, with r and p fixed and δ > 0, Chebyschev’s inequality yields:
P
 P

X

YI,r,p − E ( YI,r,p )
1
P
> δ
≤ 2
·
Var
Y
I,r,p
µ(r, p)
δ · µ(r, p)2

r
1
n−1
≤ 2
·
.
δ · µ(r, p)2
3

ASYMPTOTICS OF RANDOM BETTI TABLES

Now fix a sequence {pr } with

pr
r

13

bounded away from 0 and 1. Then

C1 · rn−1 ≤ µ(r, pr ) ≤ C2 · rn−1
for suitable positive constants C1 , C2 independent of pr . Hence there is a constant C3 , independent of pr , such that
P
 P

YI,r,pr − E ( YI,r,pr )
C3
> δ
≤ 2 n−1 .
(1.11)
P
µ(r, pr )
δ ·r
Note that as r → ∞, the term on the right → 0. Moreover, as we saw in Remark 1.8
P
E ( YI,r,pr )
= 1,
lim
r→∞
µ(r, pr )
uniformly in pr . It follows that given ε > 0:
P


E( YI,r,pr )
lim P
−1 > ε
= 0,
r→∞
µ(r, pr )
uniformly in pr . Recalling finally that
P
ep ,q (Br,n )
E( YI,r,pr )
= r−nr
,
µ(r, pr )
· µ(r, pr )
p
we arrive at the required statement.



2. Betti Asymptotics
This section contains two applications of Stirling’s formula. First, we recast the computations of the previous section to give asymptotic expressions for the entries of a random Betti
table. Then we return to the case of curves, and prove Proposition A from the Introduction.
In order to get clean statements for the Betti tables it will be helpful to replace convergence
in probability with almost everywhere convergence. So we start with some definitions and
observations in this direction. As before we fix once and for all an integer n ≥ 2. Denote by


[∞]
n−1
the set of all (n − 1)-element subsets of Z>0 , so that


[  [r] 
[∞]
=
.
n−1
n
−
1
r≥n−1
Then put
[∞]
Ω = [0, 1](n−1) .
This is a countable product of copies of the unit interval, and there are natural projections

ρr : Ω −→ Ωr .
By a standard procedure (Kolmogorov’s Extension Theorem, [4, Thm. A.3.1]) there is a unique
probability measure on Ω compatible with pull-backs of the standard measures on the Ωr . Via

14

LAWRENCE EIN, DANIEL ERMAN, AND ROBERT LAZARSFELD

composition with ρr , the various functions considered in the previous section – notably XI ,
YI,r,p and kp,q (Br ) – determine measureable functions on Ω. In other words, all these quantities
are random variables on Ω, and the computations of expectations and probablities carried out
in the previous section remain valid in this new setting. As a matter of notation, for x ∈ Ω,
we write xr = ρr (x) ∈ Ωr , and set
kp,q (x; r) =def kp,q (Br ) (xr ) .
Thus kp,q (x; r) is the indicated entry of the finite Betti table determined by the Boij-Söderberg
coefficient vector xr ∈ Ωr .
The computations of the previous section then lead to the following:
Theorem 2.1. Fix a weight q ∈ [1, n], and a sequence {pr } with
c ≤ pr ≤ 1 − c
for some small c > 0. Then for almost all x ∈ Ω :
kp ,q (x; r)
lim r−nr
= 1.
r→∞
· µ(r, pr )
pr
Sketch of Proof. Assuming first that n ≥ 3, one can simply modify slightly the first part of the
proof of [3, Theorem 5.1.2]. In fact, keeping the notation of the previous section, put

P
)
−
E(Y
Y
[r]
I,r,p
I,r,p
r
r
I∈(n−1
)
.
Zr =def
µ(r, pr )
In view of equations (1.8) and (1.10), it suffices to show that Zr → 0 almost everywhere on Ω.
But when n ≥ 3, it follows directly from (1.11) that given δ > 0:
X

P |Zr | > δ < ∞,
r

and as in [3] this implies the desired convergence. When n = 2 this argument does not work
because the right-hand side of (1.11) then has order r−1 . However in this case one can for
example adapt in a similar fashion the proof (cf. [4, Theorem 2.3.5]) of the strong law of large
numbers for independent random variables with finite second and fourth moments. We leave
details to the reader.

Stirling’s formula now implies the following, which in particular proves Corollary D from
the Introduction:
Corollary 2.2. Fix n and q, and let {pr } be a sequence such that
√
r
r
pr →
+ a·
2
2
for some a ∈ R. Then for almost all x ∈ Ω :
!
√
(q − 1)! · (n − q)! · 2πr
2
· kpr ,q (x; r) → e−a /2 .
r+2−3n
n−1
2
·r

ASYMPTOTICS OF RANDOM BETTI TABLES

15

Remark 2.3. To simplify the formulas a bit, we have chosen to break the symmetry between
(p, q) and (r − n − p, n + 1 − q). One could obtain a similar formula for
√
r−n
r−n
pr −→
+b·
.
2
2
Proof of Corollary 2.2. First, note that


 
r−n
r
(r − p − n + 1) · . . . · (r − p − 1) · (r − p)
=
·
,
p
p
(r − n + 1) · . . . · (r − 1) · r
and hence

r−n
pr

r
pr



lim

r→∞

=

1
.
2n

Next, observe that
(**)

1
µ(r, pr )
= 2n−1
.
n−1
r→∞ r
2
· (q − 1)! · (n − q)!
lim

Finally, recall (cf. [4, Theorem 3.1.2]) that
√
 
r
2πr
2
(***)
lim r+1 ·
= e−a /2 .
r→∞ 2
pr
The Corollary follows upon putting these together with Theorem 2.1.



Changing gears slightly, we conclude this section by working out the asymptotics for the
Betti numbers of large degree embeddings of curves. In particular, we prove Proposition A
from the Introduction.
Let X be a smooth projective curve of genus g, and let Ld be a divisor of degree d  0
on X, so that

rd =def h0 X, Ld − 1 = d − g.
The first point is to compute kp,1 (X; Ld ). This appears in [17, Prop. 3.2], but for the benefit of
the reader we recall the derivation. In fact, let Md be the rank rd vector bundle on X defined
as the kernel of the evaluation mapping

ev : H 0 X, Ld ⊗ OX −→ Ld .
Then, a well-known argument with Koszul cohomology (cf [5, §3]) shows that
kp,1 (X; Ld ) = h0 (Λp Md ⊗ Ld ) − dim Λp+1 H 0 (Ld )
kp−1,2 (X; Ld ) = h1 (Λp ML ⊗ Ld ).
Furthermore,
kp−1,2 (X, Ld ) = 0 for p ≤ rd − g
thanks to a theorem of Green [13, Theorem 4.a.1]. Thus for p ≤ rd − g:



rd + 1
p
(*)
kp,1 (X; Ld ) = χ X, Λ Md ⊗ Ld −
.
p+1

16

LAWRENCE EIN, DANIEL ERMAN, AND ROBERT LAZARSFELD

On the other hand, the Euler characteristic in (*) can be computed by Riemann-Roch. In fact,
−d
µ(Md ) = d−g
, and hence


p
p
χ (Λ Md ⊗ Ld ) = rank (Λ Md ) · p · µ(Md ) + µ(Ld ) + 1 − g



d−g
−pd
=
+ (d + 1 − g) .
p
d−g
Writing


rd + 1
p+1





d−g
d+1−g
=
·
,
p
p+1

we find finally that



d−g
−pd
d+1−g
kp,1 (X; Ld ) =
+ (d + 1 − g) −
p
d−g
p+1
provided that p ≤ rd − g. Proposition A from the Introduction then follows as in the proof of
Corollary 2.2 by an application of Stirling’s formula.
Remark 2.4. When p > rd −g = d−2g, the Betti number kp,1 (X; Ld ) depends on X and Ld in a
manner that is not yet completely understood. On the other hand, the computation of syzygies
as Koszul cohomology groups shows that Kp,1 (X; Ld ) is a sub-quotient of Λp H 0 (Ld ) ⊗ H 0 (Ld ),
and therefore


d+1−g
kp,1 (X; Ld ) ≤
· (d + 1 − g).
p
For p > d − 2g this becomes a polynomial upper bound that is much smaller than the value
of kp,1 for p ≈ d−g
. Thus as far as asymptotics are concerned, the Kp,1 with p > d − 2g are
2
essentially negligible. Of course in the statement of Proposition A these ambiguities don’t even
enter the picture.

3. Complements and Open Questions
In this section we establish some related results, and propose some open problems for
further research.
3.1. Weight Functions. Here we discuss the possibility of generalizing our results by taking
non-uniform probability measures on Ωr . We will assume for simplicity
that n = 2: in this

case pure diagrams are labeled by a single integer i ∈ [1, r] = [r]
.
1
Fix a function
h : [0, 1] −→ [0, 1].
Then we can use h to define the weighted random Betti table
r
X
h
Br =def
h( ri ) · Xi · π(r, i),
i=1

ASYMPTOTICS OF RANDOM BETTI TABLES
1.0

æ
æ
æ
æ
æ æ

æ

æ

0.8

æ

æ

ææ
æ
æ
æ

æ

6 ´ 10149

æ æ

æ

æ
æ
æ
æ æ æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
ææ
ææ æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ ææ
æ
æ
ææ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ æ
æ
æ æ
æ
æ
æ
æ ææ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ æ
æ
ææ
æ
æ
ææ
æ
æ
æ æ ææ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ æ æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ æ æ
ææ
æ
æ æ
æ
ææ æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ ææ
æ
æ
ææ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æææææ
æ
æ æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ æ
æ
æ ææ æ
æ
æ
æ æ æ
æ
æ
æ
ææ
ææ
æ
æ æ
æ
æ æ
æ
æ
ææ
æ
æ
ææ
æ
ææ
ææ æ
æ
æ æ
æ
ææ
ææ æ
æ
æ æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ æ
æ ææ
æ
ææ æ
æ
æ æ æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ æ æ
æ
æ æ ææ æ æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
ææ æ
æ
ææ æ æ
æ
æ
æ
ææ ææ æ
ææ æ æææ
æ
æ
æææ æ
æ
æ
æ æ
æ
æ ææ æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
ææ
æ æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
ææ æ æ æ æ
æ
æ æ
æ æ
æ
æ
æ ææææ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ æ
ææ æ
ææ æ
æ
ææ æ
æ
æ
ææ æ
ææ
ææ æ
æ æ
ææ
æ æ ææ
æ ææ
æææ æ
ææ
æ
ææ
æ æææ
æ
ææ
æ
æææ
æææ æ
æ æææ
æææ
æ
æ
ææææ æ
æ
æ
æ æ ææ
æ
æ
ææ
ææ æ ææ ææææ
æ æ ææ
æ
æ
æ æ
æ
æ
ææææ
æ
ææ
æ
æ
æ
æ æ æ ææ
æ
æææ
æææ
æ
æ
ææ
æ
æ
ææ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
ææ
æ
æ
æ
æ æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æææ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ

æ

æ

æ

æ

0.6

0.4

0.2

æ

ææ
æ

æ
æ
æ æ

100

200

300

17

400

500

i

æ
æ
æ
æ
ææ
ææ
ææ
ææ
5 ´ 10149
æ æ
æ æ
æ æ
æ æ
4 ´ 10149
æ æ
æ æ
æ
æ
3 ´ 10149
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
2 ´ 10149
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
1 ´ 10149
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ
æ

100

200

300

400

p

500

Figure 4. Weighted random Betti table with h(t) = sin2 (2π(t − .35)) and r = 500

where Xi (1 ≤ i ≤ r) as above are independent random variables uniformly distributed on
[0, 1]. Equivalently, we are weighting the pure diagram π(r, i) with a random variable uniformly
distributed on the interval [0, h( ri )]. This procedure is illustrated in Figure 4, which shows a
random Betti table with r = 500 weighted according to the somewhat whimsical choice
h(t) = sin2 (2π(t − .35)).
The plot on the left displays random coefficients xi (1 ≤ i ≤ 500) chosen uniformly in the
interval [0, h(i/500)]. The resulting Betti numbers kp,1 are plotted on the right.
Now for arbitrary h one can’t expect the rows of Bhr (x) to be normally distributed for most
x. For example if supp(h) ⊂ [0, 21 ], then

kp,1 Bhr (x) = 0
for every x whenever p > 2r . However if h is smooth, and if one rules out the sort of problem just
illustrated, then the qualitative results established in the previous section – which correspond
to the case h(t) ≡ 1 – do remain valid.
Theorem 3.1. Assume that h : [0, 1] −→ [0, 1] is smooth, and that it is not identically zero on
[0, 12 ] or on [ 12 , 1]. There exist functions F1 (r), F2 (r) with the property that if pr is a sequence
with
√
r
r
pr → + a ·
2
2
for some a ∈ R, then


2
2
F1 (r) · kpr ,1 Bhr (x) → e−a /2 , F2 (r) · kpr ,2 Bhr (x) → e−a /2
for almost all x ∈ Ω.
This suggests that the picture established in the previous section is actually quite robust.
Remark 3.2. Alternatively, one could consider the “deterministic” Betti diagram
r
X
h( ri ) · π(r, i).
i=1

18

LAWRENCE EIN, DANIEL ERMAN, AND ROBERT LAZARSFELD

An evident analogue of the theorem remains true in this setting. See Problem 3.6 for the
potential interest in statements of this sort.
Remark 3.3. When n ≥ 3 one expects that a similar result holds if one uses a smooth function
h : [0, 1]n−1 −→ [0, 1]
to weight XI (I ∈


) by h( ir1 , . . . , in−1
).
r

[r]
n−1

Sketch of Proof of Theorem 3.1. We will assume q = 1, the case q = 2 being similar. Set
R1
p+1
) dt
p+1 h(t) · (t −
r
r
.
(3.1)
H(r, p) =
2(1 − p+1
)
r
Observe that H(r, 2r ) 6= 0 for r  0 thanks to the
fact that h is smooth and does not vanish
√
r
1
r
identically on [ 2 , 1]. Furthermore, if pr → 2 + a · 2 then H(r, pr ) −→ H(r, 2r ). Now, as in the
proof of Theorem 1.4:

 Pr
h( i )(i − p − 1)+
r−2
h
ep,1 (Br ) =
· i=1 r
p
2(r − p − 1)

 Pr
i
r−2
i=p+2 h( r )(i − p − 1)
=
·
p
2(r − p − 1)
!
!


r
X
r−2
1
 ·
=
·
) .
h( ri )( ri − p+1
r
p
2 1 − p+1
r
i=p+2
But the product of the two righthand terms is a Riemann sum for r · H(r, p), and one checks
that with pr as above one in fact has
epr ,1 (Bhr )

→ 1
r−2
· r · H(r, 2r )
pr

as

r → ∞.

On the other hand, as in Theorem 2.1,

kpr ,1 Bhr (x)
→ 1
epr ,1 (Bhr )
for almost all x ∈ Ω. One then concludes with an application of Stirling’s formula as in the
proof of Corollary 2.2.

3.2. Some generic 2-regular modules. As noted in the Introduction, it is interesting to
compare the “random” Betti tables studied here with those arising from modules that are
generic in a more traditional sense. Once again we will assume that n = 2, where the algebraic
situation is particularly clear.
Consider then a finite-length graded module M over the polynomial ring R = k[x1 , . . . , xr−2 ],
with
kp,q (M ) = 0 for q 6= 1 , 2.

ASYMPTOTICS OF RANDOM BETTI TABLES

19

Such a module is 2-regular, and so is given by two vector spaces M1 , M2 , say of dimensions
m1 , m2 , together with a mapping:
M1 ⊗ R1 −→ M2

(*)

determining the R-module structure. After choosing bases, (*) is in turn equivalent to specifying an m2 × m1 matrix φ of linear forms. We will write Mφ for the module corresponding to
a matrix φ. Note that the possible choices of φ are parametrized by an irreducible variety.
Returning for a moment to the setting of §1, fix now a Boij-Söderberg coefficient vector
x = (x1 , . . . , xr ) ∈ Ωr = [0, 1]r ,
and consider the corresponding Betti table. This is a sum of r pure tables, and the expected
value of each xi is 21 . Thus the expected formal multiplicity of the table in question is 2r ,
and the expected formal Hilbert function has values 4r in degrees 1 and 2, and 0 for all other
degrees. This leads us to consider modules M with
dim M1 = dim M2 = s
for some integer s, which are described by an s × s matrix φ of linear forms.
We prove:
Proposition 3.4. There are arbitrarily large integers s with the property that if φ is a general
s × s matrix of linear forms, then the Betti table of Mφ is a sum of pure tables of type


π r, b r+1
c and π r, d r+1
e .
2
2
In particular, if r is odd then Mφ has a pure resolution.
We note that a conjecture of Eisenbud–Fløystad–Weyman [8, Conjecture 6.1] implies that the
statement should hold for all sufficiently large s. In any event, the Proposition shows that
genericity in the module-theoretic sense can lead to completely different behavior than that
which occurs for the random tables considered above. Observe that this does not contradict
Conjecture B: in fact, the results of [5] imply that the resolutions arising in the geometric
setting are very far from pure.
Proof of Proposition 3.4. For any given s, it suffices (by the semicontinuity of Betti numbers)
to produce one example where the statement holds. We will prove the theorem when s = r − 1.
Then by taking direct sums, this will imply the statement for any s that is a multiple of r − 1.
We henceforth assume that s = r − 1.
Using the notation of [7, A2.6], we consider the direct sum of free resolutions
 r−3

r−3
C b 2 c ⊕ C d 2 e ⊗R R(−1)
derived from a general map Rr−1 (−1) → R2 . The module M resolved by this free complex
has regularity 2 and satisfies dim M1 = dim M2 = r − 1. Since the Betti table of the complex
C i ⊗R R(−1) equals (r − 1) · π(r, i + 2), the statement follows immediately.


20

LAWRENCE EIN, DANIEL ERMAN, AND ROBERT LAZARSFELD

3.3. Open Questions. We conclude by proposing a few problems.
First, the reader will note that all our arguments are purely numerical in nature – they
don’t give an a priori sense why one would expect to see normal distibution of Betti numbers.
Problem 3.5. Find a probabilistic (or other) model that explains the behavior that we have
established for random Betti tables.
Returning to the geometric questions motivating the present work, consider as in the
Introduction a smooth projective variety
X ⊆ Prd

of dimension n embedded by Ld = dA + P . Assuming for instance that H i X, OX = 0 for
0 < i < n, so that X is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay when d  0, one can consider the
Boij-Söderberg decomposition of the resolution of X. We pose the somewhat vague
Problem 3.6. Can one find a “nice” function h that governs this decomposition as in §3.1?
If so, what are its properties?
The problem is most immediately meaningful in the case n = 2, in which case Boij-Söderberg
coefficients xi are well-defined for each i ∈ [1, rd − 2]. The question then becomes whether they
interpolate a fixed smooth or continuous function h.7 At the moment an affirmative solution
seems out of reach, since a good answer to the Problem would presumably imply Conjecture B.
On the other hand, the question is philosophically in keeping with recent work on linear series
(eg [14, Chapter 2.2.C], [6], [15]) and Hilbert series (eg [1], [16]), where it has become apparent
that one can often define asymptotic invariants that behave surprisingly well. The asymptotic
Boij-Söderberg coefficients of large degree embeddings of curves have been analyzed by the
second author [10].
Finally, we expect that Conjecture B, if true, is esentially an algebraic fact.
Problem 3.7. Find a purely algebraic statement that implies, or runs parallel to, Conjecture
B.

References
[1] Matthias Beck and Alan Stapledon, On the log-concavity of Hilbert series of Veronese subrings and
Ehrhart series, Math. Z. 264 (2010), no. 1, 195207.
[2] Mats Boij and Jonas Söderberg, Graded Betti numbers of Cohen-Macaulay modules and the multiplicity
conjecture,J. Lond. Math. Soc. 78 (2008), 85–106.
[3] Kai Lai Chung, A Course in Probability Theory, Third Edition, Academic Press, San Diego, 2001.
[4] Rick Durrett, Probability: Theory and Examples, Fourth Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010.
7It

is possible that the scaling chosen above is not the appropriate one to use.

ASYMPTOTICS OF RANDOM BETTI TABLES

21

[5] Lawrence Ein and Robert Lazarsfeld, Asymptotic syzygies of algebraic varieties, to appear in Invent.
Math.
[6] Lawrence Ein, Robert Lazarsfeld, Mircea Mustaţă, Michael Nakamaye and Mihnea Popa, Asymptotic
invariants of line bundles, Pure Appl. Math. Q. 1 (2005), 397–403.
[7] David Eisenbud, Commutative Algebra, Springer GTM No. 150, New York, 1995.
[8] David Eisenbud, Gunnar Fløystad and Jerzy Weyman, The existence of equivariant pure free resolutions,
Ann. Inst. Fourier 61 (2011), 905–926.
[9] David Eisenbud and Frank Schreyer, Betti numbers of graded modules and cohomology of vector bundles, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 22 (2009), 859–888.
[10] Daniel Erman, in preparation.
[11] Courtney Gibbons, Jack Jeffries, Sarah Mayes, Claudiu Raicu, Branden Stone and Brian White, in
preparation.
[12] Daniel Grayson and
algebraic geometry.

Michael

Stillman,

Macaulay2, a software system for research in

[13] Mark Green, Koszul cohomology and the geometry of projective varieties, J. Diff. Geom. 19 (1984),
125–171.
[14] Robert Lazarsfeld, Positivity in Algebraic Geometry, I, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004.
[15] Robert Lazarsfeld and Mircea Mustaţă, Convex bodies associated to linear series, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm.
Supér. 42 (2009), 783–835.
[16] Adam McCabe and Gregory G. Smith, Log-concavity of asymptotic multigraded Hilbert series,
arXiv:1109.4135 (2011).
[17] Montserrat Teixidor I Bigas, Syzygies using vector bundles, Trans. Am. Math.Soc. 359 (2007), 897–908.
[18] Wolfram Research Inc., Mathematica, Version 8.0, 2010.

Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois at Chicago, 851 South Morgan St.,
Chicago, IL 60607
E-mail address: ein@uic.edu

Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
E-mail address: erman@umich.edu

Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
E-mail address: rlaz@umich.edu

