MARKED BASES OVER QUASI-STABLE MODULES
MARIO ALBERT, CRISTINA BERTONE, MARGHERITA ROGGERO, AND WERNER M. SEILER

arXiv:1511.03547v2 [math.AC] 2 Mar 2016

Abstract. Let K be a field of any characteristic, A a Noetherian K-algebra and consider the
polynomial ring A[x0 , . . . , xn ]. The present paper deals with the definition of marked bases for
free A[x0 , . . . , xn ]-modules over a quasi-stable monomial module and the investigation of their
properties. The proofs of our results are constructive and we can obtain upper bounds for the
main invariants of an ideal of A[x0 , . . . , xn ] generated by a marked basis, such as Betti numbers,
(Castelnuovo-Mumford) regularity or projective dimension.

Introduction
Marked bases may be considered as a form of Gröbner bases which do not depend on a term
order. Instead one chooses for each generator some term as head term such that the head terms
generate a prescribed monomial ideal. For a long time, it was believed that it was not possible to
find marked bases which are not Gröbner bases for some term order. Indeed, in [16] it was shown
that the standard normal form algorithm always terminates, if and only if the head terms are
chosen via a term order. However, [16] contains no results about other normal form algorithms
and in [4, 9] it was proven that the involutive normal form algorithm for the Pommaret division
will terminate, whenever the head terms generate a strongly stable ideal over a coefficient field
of characteristic zero.
The present work is concerned with generalizing the results of [4, 9] in several directions. Let
K be a field of any characteristic and A a Noetherian K-algebra. For variables x := {x0 , . . . , xn },
m
we consider submodules of the graded A[x]-module A[x]m
d := ⊕i=1 A[x](−di ) with a weight vector
d = (d1 , . . . , dm ) ∈ Zm . We will define marked bases over a quasi-stable monomial module U ,
i. e. over monomial modules possessing a Pommaret basis, for free submodules of A[x]m
d and
investigate to what extent the algebraic properties of Pommaret bases shown in [18] carry over
to marked bases. It will turn out that marked bases provide us with simple upper bounds on
some homological invariants of the module generated by a marked basis such as Betti numbers,
(Castelnuovo-Mumford) regularity or projective dimension (Corollary 5.8).
Marked bases are of no interest for typical applications of Gröbner bases like normal form
computations, as their construction is more involved. In particular, it takes some effort to
determine reasonable monomial modules U . However, marked bases provide the central tool for
the derivation and the study of low degree equations for the classical Hilbert Scheme and of
special loci on it, as shown in [1, 6] for the characteristic zero case. In a forthcoming paper, we
will use the results obtained here to generalize the ideas in [1, 6] to positive characteristic and
extend them to other special loci of the Hilbert Scheme. Another possible development of our
investigations is the explicit study of Quot Schemes [15].
After summarizing the main properties of quasi-stable ideals and modules (Section 2), we fix
m
a graded quasi-stable submodule U of A[x]m
d and we define a marked set G ⊂ A[x]d over the
Pommaret basis P(U ) of U . By the properties of Pommaret bases, it is natural to define a
reduction relation which uses the elements of the A[x]-module hGi. This relation is Noetherian
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13P10, 13D02.
Key words and phrases. polynomial module, quasi-stable module, reduction relation, free resolution, Betti
numbers, regularity, projective dimension.
The first author is supported by a fellowship by the Otto-Braun-Fonds. The second and third author are member of GNSAGA (INdAM, Italy), which partially funded the second author during the preparation of this article.
The third author was partially supported by the framework of PRIN 2010-11 “Geometria delle varietà algebriche”,
cofinanced by MIUR. Mutual visits of the authors were funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
1

2

M. ALBERT, C. BERTONE, M. ROGGERO, AND W. M. SEILER

and confluent (Proposition 3.8). Given a P(U )-marked set G, we define the notion of a P(U )marked basis and provide a number of equivalent characterizations (Theorem 3.11) involving
some A[x]-modules which can be constructed starting from G. Nevertheless, the equivalent
properties of Theorem 3.11 are not sufficient to explicitely check whether a marked set is a
basis. Theorem 3.16 gives such an explicit check and allows us to prove that the family Mf(U )
containing all modules generated by a P(U )-marked basis is naturally endowed with an affine
scheme structure (Theorem 4.2).
In Section 5 we prove that if G ⊂ A[x] is a P(J)-marked basis, where J is a quasi-stable
ideal in A[x], then the module of first syzygies of hGi ⊂ A[x]m
d is generated by a P(U )-marked
basis, for a suitable quasi-stable module U (Theorem 5.5). Iterating these arguments to the
i-th syzygy module of the ideal I generated by the P(J)-marked basis G, we obtain a graded
free resolution of I (Theorem 5.6). Although this resolution is not minimal (see Example 5.9),
it gives upper bounds on the Betti numbers, regularity and projective dimension of the ideal I
(Corollary 5.8).
In Section 6, we consider the truncated ideal J>m , where J is a saturated quasi-stable ideal,
and prove that the polynomials in a marked basis over P(J>m ) have a special “shape”. More
precisely, we prove that for suitable values of m, if G is a P(J>m )-marked basis, then every term
in the support of f ∈ G (excluding the head term) has a minimal variable which is not greater
than the minimal variable of the head term (Theorem 6.4). As a consequence, for m big enough,
if the head term of f ∈ G is divisible by x0 , then all the other terms in the support of f are also
divisible by x0 (Corollary 6.6).
1. Notations and Generalities
For every n > 0, we consider the variables x0 , . . . , xn , ordered as x0 < · · · < xn−1 < xn (see
[17, 18]). This is a non-standard way to sort the variables, but it is suitable for our purposes. In
some of the papers we refer to, variables are ordered in the opposite way, hence the interested
reader should pay attention to this when browsing a reference. A term is a power product
xα = xα0 0 · · · xαnn . We denote by T the set of terms in the variables x0 , . . . , xn . We denote
by max(xα ) the largest variable that appears with non-zero exponent in xα and, analogously,
α
min(xα ) is the smallest
Pn variable that appears with non-zero exponent in x . The degree of a
α
term is deg(x ) = i=0 αi = |α|.
Let K be a field and A be a Noetherian K-algebra. Consider the polynomial ring A[x] :=
A[x0 , . . . , xn ] with the standard grading: for every a ∈ A, deg(a) = 0. We write A[x]t for
the set of homogeneous polynomials of degree t in A[x]. Since A[x] = ⊕i>0 A[x]i , we define
A[x]>t := ⊕i>t A[x]i . The ideals we consider in A[x] are always homogeneous. If I ⊂ A[x] is a
homogeneous ideal, we write It for I ∩A[x]t and I>t for I ∩A[x]>t . The ideal I>t is the truncation
of I in degree t. If F ⊂ A[x] is a set of polynomials, we denote by (F ) the ideal generated by F .
The ideal J ⊆ A[x] is monomial if it is generated by a set of terms. The monomial ideal
J has a unique minimal set of generators made of terms and we call it the monomial basis of
J, denoted by BJ . We define N (J) ⊆ T as the set of terms in T not belonging to J. For
everyP
polynomial f ∈ A[x], Supp(f ) is the set of terms appearing in f with non-zero coefficient:
f = xα ∈Supp(f ) cα xα , where cα ∈ A is non-zero. In the sequel, we will simply write module
(resp. submodule) for A[x]-modules (resp. submodules of a A[x]-module). For modules and
submodules over other rings, we will explicitly state the ring.
A module M is graded if M has a decomposition
M = ⊕j∈N Mj such that A[x]i Mj ⊆ Mi+j .

(1.1)

As usual, if M is a graded module, the module M (d) is the graded module isomorphic to
M such that M (d)e = Md+e . We fix m > 1 and d = (d1 , . . . , dm ) ∈ Zm . We consider the
m
free graded A[x]-module A[x]m
d := ⊕i=1 A[x](−di )ei , where e1 , . . . , em are the standard free
generators. Every submodule of A[x]m
d is finitely generated and from now on we will only
m
consider graded submodules of A[x]d .
If F is a set of homogeneous elements of A[x]m
d , we write hF i for the graded A[x]-module
.
If
the
elements
in
F
have
the same degree s, we denote by hF iA the
generated by F in A[x]m
d

MARKED BASES OVER QUASI-STABLE MODULES

3

A-module generated by F in (A[x]m
d )s . In particular, if M is a graded submodule, every graded
component Mj has the structure of A-module.
α
Following [10, Chapter 15], a term of A[x]m
d is an element of the form t = x ei for i ∈
α
m
m
{1, . . . , m} and x ∈ T. Furthermore, we denote by T the set of terms in A[x]d . Observe that
α
β
m
α
β
α
β
Tm = ∪m
i=1 Tei . For x ei , x ej in T we say that x ei divides x ej if i = j and x divides x .
m
m
A submodule U of A[x]d is monomial, if it is generated by elements in T . Any monomial
submodule U of F can be written as
(k)
U = ⊕m
ek ⊂ ⊕A[x](−dk )ek = A[x]m
k=1 J
d,

(1.2)

where J (k) is the monomial ideal generated by the terms xα such that xα ek ∈ U . We define
(k) )e , where N (J (k) ) ⊆ T.
N (U ) := ∪m
k
k=1 N (J
m
If M ⊂ A[x]d is a submodule such that for every degree s, the homogeneous component Ms is
a free A-module, we define the Hilbert function of M as hM (s) = rk(Ms ), which is the number of
generators contained in an A-basis of Ms . In this case, we will also say that M admits a Hilbert
function. In this setting, this definition corresponds to the classical one (e.g. [10, Chapter 12]),
considering the localization of A in any of its maximal ideals. If wePconsider a monomial module
(k) as in
U , every component Us is always a free A-module and hU (s) = m
k=1 hJ (k) (s), with J
(1.2).
If A = K, then Hilbert’s Syzygy Theorem guarantees that every module M ⊆ A[x]m
d has a
graded free resolution of length at most n. If A is an arbitrary K-algebra, there exist generally
modules in A[x]m
d whose minimal free resolution has an infinite length (see [10, Chapter 6,
Section 1, Exercise 11]).
Assume that the module M ⊆ A[x]m
d has the following graded minimal free resolution
0 → Ep → · · · → E1 → E0 → M → 0,
where Ei = ⊕j A[x](−j)bi,j . The Betti numbers of the module M are the set of positive integers
{bi,j }06i6p,j∈Z . The module M is t-regular if t > j − i for every i, j such that bi,j 6= 0. The
(Castelnuovo-Mumford) regularity of M , denoted by reg(M ), is the smallest t for which M
is t-regular (see for instance [11]). If M ⊂ A[x]m
d admits a Hilbert function, we recall that
hA[x]m /M (s) = P (s) for all degrees s > reg(M ). The projective dimension of M , denoted by
pdim(M ), is defined as the length of the graded minimal free resolution, i. e. pdim(M ) = p.
If I and J are homogenous ideals in A[x], we define (I : J) as the ideal {f ∈ A[x] | f J ⊆ I};
we will briefly write (I : xi ) for (I : (xi )). Further, we define (I : J ∞ ) := ∪j>0 (I : J j ); again, we
∞
∞
will write (I : x∞
i ) for (I : (xi ) ). The ideal I ⊂ A[x] is saturated if I = (I : (x0 , . . . , xn ) ).
sat
∞
sat
The saturation of I is I = (I : (x0 , . . . , xn ) ) and I is m-saturated if It = It for every t > m.
2. Pommaret basis, Quasi-Stability and Stability
We now recall the definition and some properties of the Pommaret basis of a monomial ideal.
Several of the following definitions and properties hold in a more general setting, namely for
arbitrary involutive divisions. For a deeper insight into this topic, we refer to [17, 18] and the
references therein. For a set of terms M ⊂ T, we denote by (M ) the ideal generated by M in
the polynomial ring A[x].
For an arbitrary term xα ∈ T, we define the following sets:
• the multiplicative variables of xα : XP (xα ) := {xi | xi 6 min(xα )},
• the nonmultiplicative variables of xα : X P (xα ) := {x0 , . . . , xn } \ XP (xα ).
Definition 2.1. [17] Consider xα ∈ T. The Pommaret cone of xα ∈ T is the set of terms
CP (xα ) = {xα xδ | xδ ∈ A[XP (xα )]}. Let M ⊂ T be a finite set. The Pommaret span of M is
[
hM iP :=
CP (xα ).
(2.1)
xα ∈M

The finite set of terms M is a weak Pommaret basis if hM iP = (M ) ∩ T and it is a
Pommaret basis if the union on the right hand side of (2.1) is disjoint.

4

M. ALBERT, C. BERTONE, M. ROGGERO, AND W. M. SEILER

If J is a monomial ideal, we denote its Pommaret basis (if it exists) by P(J). The existence of
the Pommaret basis of a monomial ideal in A[x] is equivalent to the concept of quasi-stability.1
We recall here the definition of quasi-stable and stable monomial ideals. Both properties do not
depend on the characteristic of the underlying field. A thorough reference on this subject is
again [18].
Definition 2.2. [8, Definition 4.4] Let J ⊂ A[x] be a monomial ideal.
(i) J is quasi-stable if for every term xα ∈ J ∩ T and for every non-multiplicative variable
xj ∈ X P (xα ) of it, there is an exponent s > 0 such that xsj xα / min(xα ) ∈ J.
(ii) J is stable if for every term xα ∈ J∩T and for every non-multiplicative variable xj ∈ X P (xα )
of it we have xj xα / min(xα ) ∈ J.
Remark 2.3. In order to establish whether J is quasi-stable or stable it is sufficient to check
the conditions of Definition 2.2 on the terms xα ∈ BJ contained in the minimal basis.
Theorem 2.4. [18, Proposition 4.4][14, Remark 2.10] Let J ⊂ A[x] be a monomial ideal. J is
quasi-stable if and only if it has a (finite) Pommaret basis, denoted by P(J). Furthermore, J is
stable if and only if P(J) = BJ .
Remark 2.5. Products, intersections, sums and quotients of quasi-stable ideals are again quasistable (see [18, Lemma 4.6]). In particular, if J ⊂ A[x] is quasi-stable, then any truncation J>m
is quasi-stable, too.
The following lemma collects some properties of Pommaret bases and of the ideals generated by
them. They show in particular that certain invariants can be directly read off from a Pommaret
basis.
Lemma 2.6. Let J be a quasi-stable ideal in A[x].
(i) The satiety of J is the maximal degree of a term in P(J) which is divisible by the smallest
variable in the polynomial ring.
(ii) The regularity of J is the maximal degree of a term in P(J).
(iii) The projective dimension of J is n − D where D = min{min(xα ) | xα ∈ P(J)}.
(iv) If xα ∈ J \ P(J), then xα / min(xα ) ∈ J.
(v) If xη ∈
/ J and xi xη ∈ J, then either xi xη ∈ P(J) or xi ∈ X P (xη ).
′
′
′
(vi) If xη ∈
/ J and xη · xδ = xδ xα ∈ J with xα ∈ P(J) and xδ ∈ A[XP (xα )], then xδ <lex xδ .
Proof. Items (i), (ii) and (iii) are proven in [18, Lemma 4.11, Theorems 9.2 and 8.11]. Items (iv)

and (v) are shown in [3, Lemma 3], item (vi) is a consequence of (v).
Definition 2.7. Let J be a quasi-stable ideal in A[x]. We define for every index 1 6 i 6 n the
following two sets of terms:
P(J)(i) := {xα ∈ P(J) | min(xα ) = xi },

 α
x
α
| x ∈ P(J)(i) .
P(J)(i) :=
xαi i
Lemma 2.8. [18, Lemma 4.11]. Let J be a quasi-stable ideal in A[x] with Pommaret basis P(J)
and consider an index 0 6 j 6 n.
(i) The set
n
[
P(J)(i);
P(J)(j) ∪
i=j+1

is a weak Pommaret basis of the ideal J : (xn , . . . , xj )∞ .
(ii) If J is a saturated ideal, then no term in P(J) is divisible by x0 .
Proposition 2.9. [18, Lemma 2.2, Lemma 2.3, Theorem 9.2, Proposition 9.6]
1In the literature, one can find a number of alternative names for quasi-stable ideals like weakly stable ideals[7],
ideals of nested type [2] or ideals of Borel type [12].

MARKED BASES OVER QUASI-STABLE MODULES

5

(i) Let M ⊂ T be a finite set of terms of degree s. If for every term xα ∈ M and for every
non-multiplicative variable xj ∈ X P (xα ) of it the term xj xα / min(xα ) also lies in M , then
M is a Pommaret basis.
(ii) Let J ⊂ A[x] be a quasi-stable ideal generated in degrees less than or equal to s. The ideal
J is s-regular if and only if J>s is stable.
(iii) Let J be a quasi-stable ideal in A[x] and consider a degree s > reg(J). Then J>s is stable
and the set of terms Js ∩ T is its Pommaret basis.
Finally, we consider briefly the extension of these results to the module case.
m
Definition 2.10. Let U be a monomial submodule of A[x]m
d and let T ⊂ T be a finite set of
monomial generators for U . For every τ = xα ek in T , we define the Pommaret cone in A[x]m
d of
τ as
CPm (τ ) := {xγ ek | xγ ∈ CP (xα ) ⊂ A[x]} ⊂ Tek .
We say that T is a Pommaret basis of U if
G
U ∩ Tm =
CPm (τ ).
τ ∈T

The monomial submodule U ⊆

A[x]m

is quasi-stable, if it is generated by a Pommaret basis.

All the notions of this section are readily extended to a monomial submodule U ⊆ A[x]m :
(k) e , with J (k)
indeed, recalling that the monomial module U can be written as U = ⊕m
k
k=1 J
suitable monomial ideals in A[x] (see (1.2)), it is immediate to state that the monomial module
U is quasi-stable if and only if J (k) is a quasi-stable ideal for every k ∈ {1, . . . , m}.
3. Marked Modules
In this section, we extend the notions of a marked polynomial, a marked basis and a marked
family, investigated in [4, 8, 9, 13] for ideals, to finitely generated modules in A[x]m
d . Let
m J (k) e , with J (k) monomial ideal in A[x].
be
a
monomial
module,
so
that
U
=
⊕
U ⊂ A[x]m
k
k=1
d
If U is a quasi-stable module, we denote by P(U ) the Pommaret basis of U .
Definition 3.1. [16] A marked polynomial is a polynomial f ∈ A[x] together with a fixed term
xα in Supp(f ) whose coefficient is equal to 1A . This term is called head term of f and denoted
by Ht(f ). With a marked polynomial f , we associate the following sets:
• the multiplicative variables of f : XP (f ) := XP (Ht(f ));
• the nonmultiplicative variables of f : X P (f ) := X P (Ht(f )).
Definition 3.2. A marked homogeneous module element is a homogeneous module element in
A[x]m
d with a fixed term in its support whose coefficient is 1A and which is called head term.
More precisely, a marked homogeneous module element is of the form
X
fαk = fαek −
gl el ∈ A[x]m
d
l6=k

where fα is a marked polynomial with Ht(fα ) = xα , and Ht(fαk ) = Ht(fα )ek = xα ek .
The following definition is fundamental for this work. It is modelled on a well-known characteristic property of Gröbner bases.
Definition 3.3. Let T ⊂ Tm be a finite set and U the module generated by it in A[x]m
d.
k with
A T -marked set is a finite set G ⊂ A[x]m
of
marked
homogeneous
module
elements
f
α
d
Ht(fαk ) = xα ek ∈ T and Supp(fαk − xα ek ) ⊂ hN (U )i (obviously, |G| = |T |).
The T -marked set G is a T -marked basis, if N (U )s is a basis of (A[x]m
d )s /hGis as A-module,
A for all s.
)
=
hGi
⊕
hN
(U
)
i
i. e. if (A[x]m
s
s
d s
Lemma 3.4. Let T ⊂ Tm be a finite set and U the module generated by it in A[x]m
d . Let M ⊆
m ) /M .
A[x]m
be
a
module
such
that
for
every
s
the
set
N
(U
)
generates
the
A-module
(A[x]
s
s
d
d s
m
Then for every degree s there exists a Us ∩ T -marked set F = Fs contained in Ms such that
A
A
(A[x]m
d )s = hF i ⊕ hN (U )s i .

6

M. ALBERT, C. BERTONE, M. ROGGERO, AND W. M. SEILER

Proof. Let π be the usual projection morphism of A[x]m
A[x]m
d onto the quotient P
d /M . For every
η
α
m
α
α
x ek ∈ Us ∩T , we consider π(x ek ) and choose a representation π(x ek ) = xη el ∈N (U )s cαk
ηl x el ,
m
cαk
ηl ∈ A, which exists as N (U )s generates (A[x]d )s /Ms as an A-module. We consider the set of
marked module elements F = {fαk }xα ek ∈Us , where fαk := xα ek − π(xα ek ) and Ht(fαk ) = xα ek .
A
A
m
We now prove that A[x]m
s = hF i ⊕ hN (U )s i . We first prove that every term in Ts belongs
to hF iA + hN (U )s iA . If xβ el ∈ N (U )s , there is nothing to prove. If xβ el ∈ Us , then there is
fβl ∈ F such that Ht(fβl ) = xβ el , hence we can write xβ el = fβl + (xβ el − fβl ) = fβl + π(xβ el ).
m
We conclude proving that hF iA ∩ hN (U )s iA = {0m
A }. Let g ∈ A[x]d be an element belonging
P
A
A
k
to hF i ∩ hN (U )s i : g = fαk ∈F λαk fα ∈ hN (U )s i. Since the head terms of fαk cannot cancel
each other, λαk = 0 for every α and k and hence g = 0.

We specialize now to the case that U is a quasi-stable module and T = P(U ) its Pommaret
basis. We study a reduction relation naturally induced by any basis marked over such a set T .
In particular, we show that it is confluent and Noetherian just as the familiar reduction relation
induced by a Gröbner basis.
Definition 3.5. Let U ⊆ A[x]m
d be a quasi-stable module and G be a P(U )-marked set in
m
A[x]d . We introduce the following sets:

• G(s) := xδ fαk fαk ∈ G, xδ ∈ A[XP (fαk )], deg xδ fαk = s, ;


b(s) := xδ fαk fαk ∈ G, xδ ∈
• G
/ A[XP (fαk )], deg xδ fαk = s = xδ fαk fαk ∈ G, xδ fαk ∈
/ G(s) ;
• N (U, hGi) := hGi ∩ hN (U )i.
Lemma 3.6. Let U ⊆ A[x]m
d be a quasi-stable module and G a P(U )-marked set. For every
k
δ
k
product x fα with fα ∈ G, each term in Supp(xδ xα ek − xδ fαk ) either belongs to N (U ) or is of
the form xη xν el ∈ CPm (xν el ) with xν el ∈ P(U ) and xη <lex xδ .
Proof. It is sufficient to consider xδ xβ el ∈ Supp(xδ xα ek − xδ fαk ) ∩ U . Then xδ xβ ∈ J (l) for some
quasi-stable ideal J (l) ⊂ A[x] appearing in (1.2). Therefore there exists xγ ∈ P(J (l) ) such that
xδ xβ ∈ CP (xγ ). More precisely, if xη := xδ xβ /xγ , then xη <lex xδ by Lemma 2.6 (vi).

Note in the next definition the use of the set G(s) , which means that we use here a generalization of the involutive reduction relation associated with the Pommaret division and not of
the standard reduction relation in the theory of Gröbner bases. This modification is the key
for circumventing the restrictions imposed by the results of [16]. It also entails that if a term is
reducible, then there is only one element in the marked basis which can be used for its reduction.
Definition 3.7. Let U ⊆ A[x]m
d be a quasi-stable module and G a P(U )-marked set. We
G(s)

G(s)

denote by −−→ the transitive closure of the relation h −−→ h − λxη fαk where xη xα ek is a term
that appears in h with a non-zero coefficient λ ∈ A and which satisfies deg(xη xα ek ) = s and
G(s)

G(s)

xη fαk ∈ G(s) . We will write h −−→∗ g if h −−→ g and g ∈ hN (U )i. Observe that if h ∈ (A[x]m
d )s ,
G(s)

then h −−→ g ∈ (A[x]m
d )s .
Proposition 3.8. Let U ⊆ A[x]m
d be a quasi-stable module and G a P(U )-marked set. The
G(s)

reduction relation −−→ is confluent and Noetherian.
Proof. It is sufficient to prove that for every term xγ ek in U , there is a unique g ∈ A[x]m
d such
G(s)

that xγ ek −−→∗ g and g ∈ hN (U )iA .
Since xγ ek ∈ U , there exists a unique xδ fαk ∈ G(s) such that xδ Ht(fαk ) = xγ ek . Hence,
G(s)

xγ ek −−→ xγ ek − xδ fαk . If we could proceed in the reduction without obtaining an element in
hN (U )i, we would obtain by Lemma 3.6 an infinite lex-descending chain of terms in T which is
G(s)

impossible since lex is a well-ordering. Hence −−→ is Noetherian. Confluence is immediate by
the uniqueness of the element of G(s) that is used at each step of reduction.


MARKED BASES OVER QUASI-STABLE MODULES

7

Proposition 3.9. Let U ⊆ A[x]m be a quasi-stable module and G be a P(U )-marked set. Every
term xβ ek ∈ Tm
s of degree s can be uniquely expressed in the form
X
xβ el =
λδi αi ki xδi fαkii + g,
i

where λδi αi ki ∈ A \ {0A }, xδi fαkii ∈ G(s) , g ∈ hN (U )iA and the terms xδi form a sequence which
is strictly descending with respect to lex.
Proof. For terms in N (U ), there is nothing to prove. For xβ el ∈ U , it is sufficient to consider
G(s)

g ∈ hN (U )iA such that xβ el −−→∗ g. The polynomials xδi fαkii ∈ G(s) are exactly those used
G(s)

during the reduction −−→. They fulfill the statement on the terms xδi by Lemma 3.6.



Corollary 3.10. Let U ⊆ A[x]m
module and G be a P(U )-marked set. Consider
d be a quasi-stable P
m
δi ki
δi ki
such
that
g
=
a homogeneous element g ∈ A[x]m
i=1 λi x fαi , with λi ∈ A \ {0} and x fαi ∈
d
G(s) with s = deg(g) and xδi fαkii pairwise different. Then g 6= 0m
/ hN (U )iA .
A and g ∈
G(s)

Proof. The statement follows from the definition of G(s) and the properties of −−→.



The following theorem and corollary collect some basic properties of sets marked over a Pommaret basis. They generalize analogous statements in [13, Theorems 1.7, 1.10] which consider
only ideals and marked bases where the head terms generate a strongly stable ideal.
Theorem 3.11. Let U ⊂ A[x]m
d be a quasi-stable module and G a P(U )-marked set. Then, we
have for every degree s the following decompositions of A-modules:
A
b(s) A ;
(i) hGis = G(s) + G

(s) A
A
(ii) (A[x]m
d )s = hG i ⊕ hN (U )s i ;
A
(iii) the A-module G(s)
is free of rank equal to |G(s) | = rk(Us ) and it is generated (as an
e(s) ;
A-module) by a unique Us ∩ Tm -marked set G
A
(iv) hGis = G(s) ⊕ N (U, hGi)s .

Moreover, the following conditions are equivalent:
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)

G is a P(U )-marked basis;
A
for all degrees s, hGis = G(s) ;
N (U, hGi) = {0m
A };
VQ(s)+1
hGis = 0A , where Q(s) := rk(Us ).
for all s,

Proof. Item (i): immediate.
Item (ii) is a consequence of Proposition 3.9 and Corollary 3.10.
Item (iii): we can repeat the arguments of [13, Theorem 1.7]: for every s, we may construct a
e(s) such that (A[x]m )s = hG
e(s) iA ⊕ hN (U )s iA using Lemma 3.4. By item
Us ∩ Tm -marked set G
d
e(s) is unique and furthermore hG
e(s) iA = hG(s) iA .
(ii), the Us ∩ Tm -marked set G
(s)
A
e i + hG
b(s) iA . Recalling that hG
e(s) iA ∩
Item (iv): by items (i) and (iii), we have hGis = hG
b(s) A
hN (U )s iA = {0m
A } by Lemma 3.4, it is sufficient to show that every g ∈ hG i can be written
e(s) iA and h ∈ hN (U )s iA : we express every term xβ el ∈ Us appearing in g
g = f + h with f ∈ hG
with non-zero coefficient in the form xβ el = feβl + (xβ el − feβl ) where feβl is the unique polynomial
e(s) with Ht(fel ) = xβ el . By construction, h ∈ N (U, hGi)s . By item (ii), we obtain the
in G
β
assertion.
Items (v), (vi), (vii) are equivalent by the previous items, using again the same proof as in
[13, Theorem 1.7].
With respect to [13], the only new item is (viii), which is obviously equivalent to (vi) and (vii).
A
A
In fact, by (iii) and (iv) we find that hGis = G(s) ⊕ N (U, hGi)s and rk G(s) = rk(Us ) =
Q(s).


8

M. ALBERT, C. BERTONE, M. ROGGERO, AND W. M. SEILER

Remark 3.12. If G ⊂ A[x]m is a P(U )-marked basis, then, by Theorem 3.11 (ii), (iii) and (vi),
then the A[x]-module hGi admits a Hilbert function, which is the same as the Hilbert function
of the monomial module U .
Corollary 3.13. Let U ⊂ A[x]m
d be a quasi-stable module and G be a P(U )-marked set. The
following conditions are equivalent:
(i) G is a P(U )-marked basis;
A
(ii) hGis = G(s)
for every s 6 reg(U ) + 1;
(iii) N (U, hGi)s = {0m
A } for every s 6 reg(U ) + 1;
V
(iv) Q(s)+1 hGis = 0A for every s 6 reg(U ) + 1 .

Proof. By the second part of Theorem 3.11, item (i) implies item (ii) and items (ii), (iii), (iv)
are equivalent. For the proof that item (ii) implies (i), it is sufficient to repeat the arguments of

[13, Theorem 1.10].
(k) e with J (k)
Corollary 3.14. Let U ⊂ A[x]m
k
d be a quasi-stable module, such that U = ⊕J
saturated ideal for every k, and G be a P(U )-marked set. Then the following conditions are
equivalent:
(i) G is a P(U )-marked basis;
A
(ii) hGireg(U )+1 = G(reg(U )+1) ;
(iii) N (U, hGi)reg(U )+1 = {0m
A };
VQ+1
hGireg(U )+1 = 0A , where Q := rk(Ureg(U )+1 ).
(iv)

Proof. The equivalence among items (ii), (iii) and (iv) is immediate by Theorem 3.11. We only
prove that items (i) and (iii) are equivalent. If G is a P(U )-marked basis, then by Theorem 3.11
we have N (U, hGi)reg(U )+1 = {0m
A }.
m
We now assume that N (U, hGi)reg(U )+1 = {0m
A } and prove that N (U, hGi) = {0A } . By
m
Corollary 3.13, it is sufficient to prove that N (U, hGi)s = {0A } for every s 6 reg(U ). If
reg(U )+1−s
f ∈ N (U, hGi)s , with s 6 reg(J), then x0
f ∈ N (U, hGi)reg(U )+1 , by Lemma 2.8 (ii)
and Lemma 2.6 (v) applied to U . Hence f = 0m
.

A
m
Corollary 3.15. Let U ⊂ A[x]m
d be a quasi-stable module and W ⊂ A[x]d be a finitely generated
A
graded submodule such that (A[x]m
d )s = Ws ⊕ hN (U )s i for every s. Then W is generated by a
P(U )-marked basis.

Proof. The statement is an easy consequence of Theorem 3.11 as soon as we define a P(U )marked set generating W .
By the hypotheses, for every degree s and every monomial xα ek ∈ P(U ) there is a unique
element hkα ∈ hN (U )s iA such that xα ek − hkα ∈ Ws .
The collection G of the elements xα ek − hkα is obviously a P(U )-marked set and generates
A = hG(s) iA ⊕ hN (U ) iA .
a graded submodule of W . Moreover, (A[x]m
s
d )s = Ws ⊕ hN (U )s i
Therefore, Ws = hG(s) iA ⊆ Gs ⊆ Ws , so that G generates W as a graded A[x]-module.

Finally, we give an algorithmic method to check whether a marked set is a marked basis using
the reduction process introduced in Definition 3.7.
Theorem 3.16. Let U ⊂ A[x]m
d be a quasi-stable module and G be a P(U )-marked set. The set
G is a P(U )-marked basis if and only if
G(s)

∀fαk ∈ G, ∀xi ∈ X P (fαk ) : xi fαk −−−→ 0m
A.
Proof. We can repeat the arguments used in [8, Theorem 5.13] for the ideal case.



4. The scheme structure of Mf(P(U ))
We now exhibit a natural scheme structure on the set containing all modules generated by a
P(U )-marked basis with U a quasi-stable module as in the previous section. Let P(U ) ⊂ Tm

MARKED BASES OVER QUASI-STABLE MODULES

9

be the Pommaret basis of the quasi-stable module U ⊆ A[x]m
d . We consider the functor of the
marked bases on P(U ) from the category of Noetherian K-algebras to the category of sets
m,d
Mf P(U
) : Noeth K−Alg −→ Sets

that associates to any Noetherian K-algebra A the set
m,d
m
Mf P(U
) (A) := {G ⊂ A[x]d | G is a P(U )-marked basis} ,

or, equivalently by Corollary 3.15,
m,d
m
Mf P(U
) (A) := {W ⊂ A[x]d | W is generated by a P(U )-marked basis} ,

and to any morphism σ : A → B the map
m,d
m,d
m,d
Mf P(U
) (σ) : Mf P(U ) (A) −→ Mf P(U ) (B)

7−→

G

σ(G) .

Note that the image σ(G) under this map is indeed again a P(U )-marked basis, as we are
(s) A
A
applying the functor − ⊗A B to the decomposition (A[x]m
d )s = hG i ⊕ hN (U )s i for every
degree s.
Corollary 4.1. Let P(U ) ⊂ Tm be the Pommaret basis of the quasi-stable module U ⊆ A[x]m
d.
m,d
Then every module W ∈ Mf P(U ) (A) has the same Hilbert function as U .
Proof. This is a simple reformulation of Remark 3.12.



The above introduced functor turns out to be representable by an affine scheme that can be
explicitly constructed by the following
procedure. We consider the K-algebra K[C] where C

denotes the finite set of variables Cαηkl | xα ek ∈ P(U ), xη el ∈ N (U ), deg(xη el ) = deg(xα ek )
and construct the P(U )-marked set G ⊂ K[C][x]m
d consisting of all elements


X
X
Fαk = xα −
Cαηkk xη ek −
Cαηkl xη el
(4.1)
xη ∈N (J (k) )|α|

l6=k,xη el ∈N (J (l) )el
deg(xη el )=deg(xα ek )

G (s)

with xα ek ∈ P(U ). Then, we compute all the complete reductions xi Fαk −−→∗ L for every term
xα ek ∈ P(U ) and every non-multiplicative variable xi ∈ X P (Fαk ) and collect the coefficients of
the monomials xη ej ∈ N (U ) of all the reduced elements L in a set R ⊂ K[C].
m,d
m,d
Theorem 4.2. The functor Mf P(U
) is represented by the scheme Mf P(U ) := Spec(K[C]/hRi).

Proof. We observe that each element fαk of a P(U )-marked set G in A[x]m
d can be written in the
following form:


X
X
fαk = xα −
cαηkk xη  ek −
cαηkl xη el , cαηkl ∈ A.
xη ∈N (J (k) )|α|

l6=k,xη el ∈N (J (l) )el
deg(xη el )=deg(xα ek )

Therefore, G can be obtained by specializing in G the variables Cαηkl to the constants cαηkl ∈ A.
G(s)

Moreover, G is a P(U )-marked basis if and only xi fαk −−→∗ 0 for every xα ek ∈ P(U ) and
xi ∈ X P (fαk ). Equivalently, G is a P(U )-marked basis, if and only if the evaluation morphism
ϕ : K[C] → A, ϕ(Cαηkl ) = cαηkl , factors through K[C]/hRi, namely, if and only if the following
diagram commutes



ϕ

// A .
::
✈✈
✈
✈
✈✈
✈✈
✈✈

K[C]

K[C]/hRi


10

M. ALBERT, C. BERTONE, M. ROGGERO, AND W. M. SEILER

Remark 4.3. The arguments presented in the proof of Theorem 4.2 generalize those presented
in [8, 13] for ideals to our more general framework of modules.
As a consequence of this result we know that the scheme defined as Spec(K[C]/hRi) only
depends on the submodule U and not on the possibly different procedures for constructing
it: any other procedure that gives a set of “minimal” conditions on the coefficients C that are
necessary and sufficient to guarantee that a P(U )-marked set G is a P(U )-marked basis generates
an ideal R′ such that K[C]/hRi ≃ K[C]/hR′ i.
5. P(U )-marked Bases and Syzygies
We now study syzygies of a P(U )-marked basis and we formulate a P(U )-marked version of
the involutive Schreyer theorem [18, Theorem 5.10]. For notational simplicity, this section is
formulated for ideals in A[x], but it is straightforward to extend everything to submodules of
free modules A[x]m
d.
Let J be a quasi-stable monomial ideal in A[x] and I an ideal in A[x] generated by a P(J)marked basis G. Let m be the cardinality of P(J). We denote the terms in P(J) by xα(k) and
the polynomials in G by fα(k) , with k ∈ {1, . . . , m}.
P
Lemma 5.1. Every polynomial f ∈ I can be uniquely written in the form f = m
l=1 Pl fα(l) with
fα(l) ∈ G and Pl ∈ A[XP (fα(l) )].
Proof. This is a consequence of Proposition 3.9 and Theorem 3.11 (vi).



Take an arbitrary element fα(k) ∈ G and choose an arbitrary non-multiplicative variable
G

xi ∈ X P (fα(k) ) of it. We can determine, via the reduction process −
→, for each fα(l) ∈ G a unique
Pm
k;i
k;i
polynomial Pl ∈ A[XP (fα(l) )] such that xi fα(k) = l=1 Pl fα(l) . This relation corresponds to
the syzygy
m
X
Plk;i el .
Sk;i = xi ek −
l=1

We denote the set of all thus obtained syzygies by
GSyz = {Sk;i | k ∈ {1, . . . , m}, xi ∈ X P (fα(k) )}.
α(1) ), . . . , deg(xα(m) )).
We consider the syzygies in GSyz as elements of A[x]m
d with d = (deg(x
P
Lemma 5.2. Let S = m
l=1 Sl el be an arbitrary syzygy of the P(J)-marked basis G with coefficients Sl ∈ A[x]. Then Sl ∈ A[XP (fα(l) )] for all 1 6 l 6 m if and only if S = 0m
A.
Pm
Proof. If S ∈ Syz(G), then l=1 Sl fα(l) = 0. According to Lemma 5.1, each f ∈ I can be
Pm
uniquely written in the form f =
l=1 Pl fα(l) with fα(l) ∈ G and Pl ∈ A[XP (fα(l) )]. In
particular, this holds for 0A ∈ I. Thus 0A = Sl ∈ A[XP (fα(l) )] for all l and hence S = 0m

A.
α(l) ))e where (X (xα(l) )) is the
Lemma 5.3. Let U be the monomial module U = ⊕m
P
l
l=1 (X P (x
α(l)
ideal generated by X P (x ) in A[x]. Then U is a quasi-stable module with Pommaret basis
P(U ) = {xi el | 1 6 l 6 m, xi ∈ X P (fα(l) )} and GSyz is a P(U )-marked set in A[x]m
d.

Proof. By [18, Lemma 5.9] we can immediately conclude that U is a quasi-stable module and
that the set {xi el | 1 6 l 6 m, xi ∈ X P (fα(l) )} is the Pommaret basis of U .
We define Ht(Si;l ) = xi el and easily see that GSyz is a P(U )-marked-set: by definition of U ,
every term xµ ek in Supp(Sl;i − xi el ) belongs to N (U ), because xµ ∈ XP (fα(k) ).

Observe that for every Sk;i ∈ GSyz , XP (Sk;i ) = {x0 , . . . , xi }. As in Section 3, we define for
every degree s the following set of polynomials in hGSyz i:
(s)

GSyz = {xδ Sk;i | Sk;i ∈ GSyz , xδ ∈ XP (Sk;i ), deg(xδ Sk;i ) = s}.
(s)

Lemma 5.4. The set GSyz generates the A-module Syz(G)s for every s.

MARKED BASES OVER QUASI-STABLE MODULES

11

P
Proof. Let S = m
l=1 Sl el be an arbitrary non-vanishing syzygy in Syz(G)s . By Lemma 5.2,
there is at least one index k such that the coefficient Sk contains a term xµ depending on a
non-multiplicative variable xi ∈ X P (fα(k) ). Among all such values of k and µ we choose the
term xµ ek which is lexicographically maximal. Then, xµ ek belongs to the quasi-stable module
(s)
U , hence there is xδ Sk;j ∈ GSyz such that xδ xj = xµ . We define S ′ = S − λxδ Sk;j , where λ 6= 0A
is the coefficient of xµ ek in S.
Now we have to show that for every xν which is contained in a term λxν el in Supp(S ′ ) ∩ U ,
ν
x is lexicographically smaller than xµ . The terms of Supp(S) ∩ U contained in Supp(S ′ ) are by
P
(k;j)
el .
assumption lexicographically smaller than xµ ek . Every other term arises from xδ m
l=1 Pl
Pm
′
(k;j)
(k;j)
ν
is lexicographically
fα(l) . In particular, a term x in Pl
We know that xj fα(k) = l=1 Pl
Pm
(k;j)
δ
eβ is lexicographically
smaller than xj , by Lemma 3.9. Therefore every term in x
l=1 Pl
δ
µ
′
smaller than x xj = x . If S 6= 0, again by Lemma 5.2, we iterate the procedure on a lexicographical maximal term of S ′ containing a nonmultiplicative variable. Since all new nonmultiplicative terms introduced are lexicographically smaller, the reductionPprocess must stop
after a finite number of steps. As a result we get a representation S ′ = ll=1 Sl′ el such that

Sl′ ∈ A[XP (fα(l) )] for all 1 6 l 6 m. But Lemma 5.2 says that this sum must be zero.
Theorem 5.5 (P(U )-marked Schreyer Theorem). Let G = {fα(1) , . . . fα(m) } be a P(J)-marked
basis. Then GSyz is a P(U )-marked basis of Syz(G), with U as in Lemma 5.3 .
Proof. By Lemma 5.3, we know that GSyz is a P(U )-marked set. By Lemma 5.4, we know that
(s)

hGSyz iA = hSyz(G)s iA and we conclude by Theorem 3.11 (vi).
Iterating this result, we arrive at a (generally non-minimal) free resolution. In contrast to
the classical Schreyer Theorem for Gröbner bases, we are able to determine the ranks of all
appearing free modules without any further computations.
Theorem 5.6. Let G = {fα(1) , . . . , fα(m) }, deg(fα(i) ) = di , be a P(J)-marked basis and I the
(k)

ideal generated by G in A[x]. We denote by β0,j the number of terms xα ∈ P(J) such that
deg(xα ) = j and min(xα ) = xk and set D = minxα ∈P(J) {i | xi = min(xα )}. Then I possesses a
finite free resolution
M
M
M
A[x](−j)r1,j −→
A[x](−j)r0,j −→ I −→ 0 (5.1)
0 −→
A[x](−j)rn−D,j −→ · · · −→
of length n − D where the ranks of the free modules are given by

n−i 
X
n − k (k)
β0,j−i .
ri,j =
i
k=1

Proof. According to Theorem 5.5, GSyz is a P(U )-marked basis for the module Syz1 (I), with U
as in Lemma 5.3. Applying the theorem again, we can construct a marked basis of the second
syzygy module Syz2 (I) and so on. Recall that for every index 1 6 l 6 m and for every nonmultiplicative variable xk ∈ X P (fα(l) ) we have min(Ht(Sl;k )) = k > min(Ht(fα(l) )). If D is the
index of the minimal variable appearing in a head term in G, then the index of the minimal
variable appearing in a head term in GSyz is D + 1. This observation yields the length of the
resolution (5.1). Furthermore deg(Sk;i ) = deg(fα(i) ), e. g. from the i-th to the (i + 1)th module
the degree from the basis element to the corresponding syzygies grows by one.
The ranks of the modules follow from a rather straightforward combinatorial calculation. Let
(k)
βi,j denote the number of generators of degree j of the i-th syzygy module Syzi (G) with minimal
variable in the head term xk . By definition of the generators Sl;k , we find
(k)

βi,j =

k−1
X

(n−t)

βi−1,j−1

t=1

as each generator with minimal variable smaller than k and degree j − 1 in the marked basis
of Syzi (G) contributes one generator of minimal variable k and degree j to the marked basis of

12

M. ALBERT, C. BERTONE, M. ROGGERO, AND W. M. SEILER
(k)

(k)

Syzi (G). A simple but lengthy induction allows us to express βi,j in terms of β0,j :

k−i 
X
k − l − 1 (t)
(k)
βi,j =
β0,j−i
i−1
t=1

Now we are able to compute the ranks of the free modules via


k−i 
n X
n
n−i 
X
X
X
k − t − 1 (t)
n − k (n−k)
(k)
βi,j =
ri,j =
β0,j−i =
β0,j−i .
i−1
i
k=1 t=1

k=1

t=1

The last equality follows from a classical identity for binomial coefficients.



Remark 5.7. Observe that the direct summands in the resolution (5.1) depend only on the
Pommaret basis P(J) and not on the ideal I.
Corollary 5.8. Let G be a P(J)-marked basis and I the ideal generated by G in A[x]. Define
ri,j as in Theorem 5.6 and let bi,j be, as usual, the Betti numbers of I. Then
• bi,j 6 ri,j for all i, j;
• reg(I) 6 reg(J);
• pdim(I) 6 pdim(J).
Proof. The three inequalities follow from the free resolution (5.1) of I, recalling that reg(J) :=
maxxα ∈P(J) {deg(xα )} and pdim(J) = n − minxα ∈P(J) {i | xi = min(xα )}.

If G is even a Pommaret basis for the reverse lexicographic term order, i. e. if J is the leading
ideal ideal of I for this order, then we obtain the stronger results reg(I) = reg(J) and pdim(I) =
pdim(J) (for other term orders we also get only estimates) [18, Corollaries 8.13, 9.5].
Example 5.9. Let A[x] = K[x0 , x1 , x2 ], J the monomial ideal with Pommaret basis P(J) =
{x32 , x22 x1 , x2 x1 , x1 x0 , x21 } and I the polynomial ideal generated by G = {g1 = x32 , g2 = x22 x1 , g3 =
x2 x1 , g4 = x1 x0 + x22 , g5 = x21 }. One easily checks that G is a P(J)-marked basis.
We explicit compute the multiplicative representations of x2 · g2 , x2 · g3 , x1 · g4 , x2 · g4 , x2 · g5 ,
that give the set GSyz = {S2;2 , S3;2 , S4;1 , S4;2 , S5;2 } ⊂ A[x]5 :
x2 · g2
x2 · g3
x1 · g4
x2 · g4
x2 · g5

= x1 · g1 ,
= g2 ,
= x0 · g5 + g2 ,
= x0 · g3 + g1 ,
= x1 · g3 ,

S2;2
S3;2
S4;1
S4;2
S5;2

= x2 · e2 − x1 · e1 ,
= x2 · e3 − e2 ,
= x1 · e4 − x0 · e5 − e2 ,
= x2 · e4 − x0 · e3 − e1 ,
= x2 · e5 − x1 · e3 .

The only nonmultiplicative variable for GSyz is X P (S4;1 ) = {x2 }.
Therefore we have to compute the reduction of x2 S4;1 which is x2 S4;1 = x1 S4;2 − S2;2 − x0 S5;2
and hence GSyz2 = {x2 e3 − x1 e4 − e1 − x0 e5 } ⊂ A[x]5 .
This leads to the following free resolution of I of length two:
δ

δ

δ

2
1
0
0 −→ A[x](−4) −−−−
−→ A[x](−4) ⊕ A[x](−3)4 −−−−
−→ A[x](−3)2 ⊕ A[x](−2)3 −−−−
−→ I −→ 0,

where


x32 x22 x1 x2 x1 x1 x0 + x22 x21 ,




−x1 0
0
−1
0
1
 x2 −1 −1
 0 
0
0 







x2
0
−x0 −x1  , δ2 = 
δ1 =  0
 x2  .
 0
 −x1 
0
x1
x2
0 
0
0 −x0
0
x2
x0
This free resolution is obviously not minimal. Minimizing the resolution leads to the minimal
free resolution of I of length one:
δ0 =

δ′

δ′

1
0
0 −→ A[x](−3)2 −−−−
−→ A[x](−2)3 −−−−
−→ I −→ 0.

Hence in the present example, we have 1 = pdim(I) < pdim(J) = 2 and 2 = reg(I) < reg(J) = 3.

MARKED BASES OVER QUASI-STABLE MODULES

13

Example 5.10. Let A[x] = K[x0 , x1 , x2 ], J the monomial ideal with Pommaret basis P(J) =
{x2 x1 , x22 x1 , x32 , x31 , x22 x0 , x21 x0 } and I be the ideal generated by the P(J)-marked basis G =
{g1 = x2 x1 − x22 − x21 , g2 = x22 x1 , g3 = x32 , g4 = x31 , g5 = x22 x0 , g6 = x21 x0 }, where Ht(g1 ) = x2 x1 .
Observe that G is not a Gröbner basis, for any term order, due to the terms in x2 x1 − g1 .
By Theorem 5.6, we construct the following free resolution of I:
δ

δ

δ

2
1
0
0 −→ A[x](−5)2 −−−−
−→ A[x](−3) ⊕ A[x](−4)6 −−−−
−→ A[x](−2) ⊕ A[x](−3)5 −−−−
−→ I −→ 0.
(5.2)
The above resolution is obviously not minimal. The minimal free resolution of I is

δ′

δ′

δ′

2
1
0
0 −→ A[x](−5)2 −−−−
−→ A[x](−4)6 −−−−
−→ A[x](−2) ⊕ A[x](−3)4 −−−−
−→ I −→ 0.

In this case, although the resolution (5.2) is not minimal, the bounds on projective dimension
and regularity given in Corollary 5.8 are sharp.
6. Marked Bases over Truncated Quasi-Stable Ideals
We now assume that the quasi-stable ideal J is saturated and we investigate for a degree m > 0
some special features of P(J>m )-marked bases. Recall from Lemma 2.8 that for a saturated ideal
the Pommaret basis P (J) contains no term divisible by x0 . As a first tool, we relate P(J>m ) to
P(J).
Lemma 6.1. [5, Proposition 2.10] Let J be a quasi-stable ideal. For every m > 0, we have


[
CP (xα )m  .
P(J>m ) = P(J)>m+1 ∪ 
(6.1)
xα ∈P(J)6m

We define for every i ∈ {1, . . . , n} the integer ρi as max{deg(xα ) | xα ∈ P(J), αi > 1}.
Proposition 6.2. Assume m > max{ρ1 , . . . ρi } for a fixed index 1 6 i 6 n and consider
the P(J>m )-marked set G whose marked polynomials are defined as in (4.1). Consider a term
xα ∈ P(J>m ) such that min(xα ) 6 xi−1 . We have a unique representaiton
X
xi Fα =
(6.2)
pα′ j xj Fα′ + Hiα
α′ ,j

where xj ∈ {x0 , . . . , xi−1 }, pα′ j ∈ K[C], xj Fα′ ∈ G (m+1) , Hiα ∈ hN (J)m+1 iA .
Proof. First, we observe that since min(xα ) 6 xi−1 , we find that deg(Fα ) = m by the assumption
on m and Lemma 6.1. Furthermore, N (J>m )s = N (J)s for every s > m.
We obtain a unique representation of xi Fα in hG (m+1) iA ⊕ hN (J)m+1 iA using the reduction
G (m+1)

relation −−−−−−→. We now prove that this representation has exactly the features of (6.2) under
the made assumptions.
′
Consider any term xi xη in supp(xi Fα ) ∩ J>m (xi xα included): xi xη ∈ CP (xα ) and xi xη =
′
′
′
′
′
xα xδ for some generator xα ∈ P(J>m ). If xδ = 1, then xα ∈ P(J>m )m+1 = P(J)m+1 (by
Lemma 6.1). This contradicts the fact that m > ρi . Hence |δ′ | > 1. If we consider xi xα , then
′
′
xi divides xα , since xi > min(xα ), and does not divide xδ , as otherwise xα would be a multiple
′
of another term in P(J>m ). Hence, xi >Lex xδ . If we are considering xi xη with xη ∈ N (J), by
′
Lemma 2.6 (vi), xi >Lex xδ . Furthermore, since deg(Fα ) > m for every Fα ∈ G, we have that
′
′
deg(xδ ) = 1. Summing up, xδ = xj ∈ {x0 , . . . , xi−1 }.
′
′
If xj (xα − Fα′ ) belongs to hN (J>m )iA , there is nothing more to prove. If for some xη ∈
′′
′′
′′
′
′′
′
′
supp(xα − Fα′ ), xj xη ∈ CP (xα ) and xj xη = xα xδ ∈ J>m , then xj >Lex xδ , again by Lemma
′′
′′
2.6 (vi), and xδ 6= 1 because m > max{ρ1 , . . . , ρi } > ρj hence xδ ∈ T ∩ K[x0 , . . . , xj−1 ]. Again
′′
observing that deg(Fα ) > m for every Fα ∈ G, we have xδ = xj ′ ∈ {x0 , . . . , xj−1 }. We can
iterate this argument, and obtain the representation (6.2). The uniqueness of this representation
is a straightforward consequence of Theorem 3.11 (ii).


14

M. ALBERT, C. BERTONE, M. ROGGERO, AND W. M. SEILER

Corollary 6.3. Assume m > reg(J) and consider the P(J>m )-marked set G whose marked
polynomials are defined as in (4.1). Consider xα ∈ P(J>m ) and xi > min(xα ), we have a unique
representation
X
(6.3)
xi Fα =
Pα′ ℓ xℓ Fα′ + Hiα ,
where Pα′ ℓ ∈ K[C], xℓ Fα′ ∈ G (m+1) , xℓ ∈ {x0 , . . . , xi−1 }, Hiα ∈ hN (J>m )iA .

Theorem 6.4. Assume m > reg(J) and G is a P(J>m )-marked basis in A[x]. Given any term
xα ∈ P(J>m ), we find for every term xη in Supp(xα − fα ) that min(xη ) 6 min(xα ).
Proof. By Theorem 4.2, G is a P(J>m )-marked basis if the values {cαη } ⊆ A appearing as coefficients in the polynomials fα ∈ G cancel the generators of the ideal U defined at the beginning
of Section 4. Hence, if we consider xα ∈ P(J>m ) and we denote by xj the smallest variable in
xα , by Corollary 6.3 applied with xj+1 > min(xα ), we obtain the following representation:
X
xj+1 fα =
pα′ ℓ xℓ fα′
with xℓ ∈ {x0 , . . . min(xα )} and xℓ fα′ ∈ G(m+1) . After cancellations on the right-hand side of
the equality, every remaining term can be divided by xj+1 . After this division, we find
X
′
xα − f α =
pα′ δ′ xℓ xη

which implies our claim.



Corollary 6.5. Consider the P(J>m )-marked set G whose marked polynomials are defined as
in (4.1). Assume m > ρ1 .
Consider Fα ∈ G such that min(xα ) = x0 . We have a unique representation
X
x1 Fα =
pα′ x0 Fα′ + H1α ,
where pα′ ∈ K[C], H1α ∈ hN (J>m )i.

Corollary 6.6. Assume that m > ρ1 and G is a J>m -marked basis in A[x]. If xα ∈ P(J>m )
and min(xα ) = x0 , then x0 divides fα .
Proof. This is a consequence of Corollary 6.5 arguing as in Theorem 6.4.



7. Conclusions
In this paper, we defined and investigated properties of marked bases over a quasi-stable
monomial module U ⊆ A[x]m
d . The family of all modules generated by a marked basis over P(U )
possesses a natural structure as an affine scheme (Theorem 4.2). In particular, we proved that
the quasi-stable module U provides upper bounds on some homological invariants of any module
generated by a P(U )-marked basis such as Betti numbers, regularity or projective dimension
(Corollary 5.8). Furthermore, we go into detail on the shape of marked bases on truncated
quasi-stable ideals (Corollaries 6.3, 6.5, 6.6).
In a forthcoming paper we will exploit these properties and constructions to obtain local and
global equations of Hilbert schemes and of special loci of them, such as those given by bounds on
the invariants involved in Corollary 5.8. In this way, we will generalize to arbitrary characteristic
and extend ideas and results in [1, 6]. Furthermore, we will also apply the techniques developed
in the present paper to the investigation of Quot Schemes [15].
References
1. Edoardo Ballico, Cristina Bertone, and Margherita Roggero, The locus of points of the Hilbert scheme with
bounded regularity, Comm. Algebra 43 (2015), no. 7, 2912–2931.
2. I. Bermejo and P. Gimenez, Saturation and Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity, J. Alg. 303 (2006), 592–617.
3. Cristina Bertone, Quasi-stable ideals and Borel-fixed ideals with a given Hilbert polynomial, Appl. Algebra
Engrg. Comm. Comput. 26 (2015), 507–525.
4. Cristina Bertone, Francesca Cioffi, Paolo Lella, and Margherita Roggero, Upgraded methods for the effective
computation of marked schemes on a strongly stable ideal, J. Symbolic Comput. 50 (2013), 263–290.
5. Cristina Bertone, Francesca Cioffi, and Margherita Roggero, Macaulay-like marked bases, Available at
arXiv:1211.7264 [math.AC], 2015.

MARKED BASES OVER QUASI-STABLE MODULES

15

6. Jerome Brachat, Paolo Lella, Bernard Mourrain, and Margherita Roggero, Extensors and the Hilbert scheme,
Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe di Scienze (2015), Article in Press, doi:10.2422/20362145.201407 003.
7. G. Caviglia and E. Sbarra, Characteristic-free bounds for the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity, Compos. Math.
141 (2005), 1365–1373.
8. Michela Ceria, Teo Mora, and Margherita Roggero, Term-ordering free involutive bases, J. Symbolic Comput.
68 (2015), no. part 2, 87–108.
9. Francesca Cioffi and Margherita Roggero, Flat families by strongly stable ideals and a generalization of Gröbner
bases, J. Symbolic Comput. 46 (2011), no. 9, 1070–1084.
10. David Eisenbud, Commutative algebra, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 150, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1995, With a view toward algebraic geometry.
11.
, The geometry of syzygies, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 229, Springer-Verlag, New York,
2005, A second course in commutative algebra and algebraic geometry.
12. Jürgen Herzog, Dorin Popescu, and Marius Vladoiu, On the Ext-modules of ideals of Borel type, Commutative
Algebra: Interactions with Algebraic Geometry (L.L. Avramov, M. Chardin, M. Morales, and C. Polini, eds.),
Contemp. Math. 331, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 2003, pp. 171–186.
13. Paolo Lella and Margherita Roggero, On the functoriality of marked families, Available at arXiv:1307.7657
[math.AG], 2013.
14. Daniel Mall, On the relation between Gröbner and Pommaret bases, Appl. Algebra Engrg. Comm. Comput.
9 (1998), no. 2, 117–123.
15. Nitin Nitsure, Construction of Hilbert and Quot schemes, Fundamental algebraic geometry, Math. Surveys
Monogr., vol. 123, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005, pp. 105–137.
16. Alyson Reeves and Bernd Sturmfels, A note on polynomial reduction, J. Symbolic Comput. 16 (1993), no. 3,
273–277.
17. Werner M. Seiler, A combinatorial approach to involution and δ-regularity. I. Involutive bases in polynomial
algebras of solvable type, Appl. Algebra Engrg. Comm. Comput. 20 (2009), no. 3-4, 207–259.
18.
, A combinatorial approach to involution and δ-regularity. II. Structure analysis of polynomial modules
with Pommaret bases, Appl. Algebra Engrg. Comm. Comput. 20 (2009), no. 3-4, 261–338.

Cristina Bertone and Margherita Roggero, Dipartimento di Matematica, Università degli Studi
di Torino, Via Carlo Alberto 10, 10123 Torino, Italy
E-mail address: cristina.bertone@unito.it, margherita.roggero@unito.it
Mario Albert and Werner M. Seiler, Institut für Mathematik, Universität Kassel, 34132 Kassel, Germany
E-mail address: albert@mathematik.uni-kassel.de,seiler@mathematik.uni-kassel.de

