arXiv:1803.04016v2 [math.AC] 17 Mar 2018

HOMOLOGICAL INVARIANTS OF POWERS OF FIBER
PRODUCTS
HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU
Dedicated to Professor Lê Tuấn Hoa on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday
Abstract. Let R and S be polynomial rings of positive dimensions over a field
k. Let I ⊆ R, J ⊆ S be non-zero homogeneous ideals none of which contains
a linear form. Denote by F the fiber product of I and J in T = R ⊗k S. We
compute homological invariants of the powers of F using the data of I and J.
Under the assumption that either char k = 0 or I and J are monomial ideals,
we provide explicit formulas for the depth and regularity of powers of F . In
particular, we establish for all s ≥ 2 the intriguing formula depth(T /F s ) = 0.
If moreover each of the ideals I and J is generated in a single degree, we show
that for all s ≥ 1, reg F s = maxi∈[1,s] {reg I i + s − i, reg J i + s − i}. Finally,
we prove that the linearity defect of F is the maximum of the linearity defects
of I and J, extending previous work of Conca and Römer. The proofs exploit
the so-called Betti splittings of powers of a fiber product.

1. Introduction
In this paper, we are concerned with the theory of powers of ideals. There is
many work on the asymptotic properties of powers of ideals; see, e.g., [9, 12, 18,
22, 23, 31, 34, 37]. The reader is referred to a recent survey of Chardin [13] for an
overview of work on regularity of powers of ideals. The novel feature of the present
work is its focus on exact formulas for homological invariants of all the powers,
under some fairly general circumstances.
Let R, S be standard graded polynomial rings over a field k. Denote by m and
n the corresponding graded maximal ideals of R and S, and T = R ⊗k S. Let
I ⊆ m2 , J ⊆ n2 be homogeneous ideals. By abuse of notation, we also denote by I
and J the extensions of these ideals to T . In [29] and [45], formulas for the depth and
regularity of powers of I + J were provided. One motivation for both papers is that
the sum I + J defines a fundamental operation on the k-algebras R/I and S/J,
namely their tensor product. Among others, fiber product is also a fundamental
operation on k-algebras. Indeed, fiber products of algebras (and more generally, of
rings) were investigated by many authors; see, for example, [4, 17, 19, 38, 41, 42].
Now the fiber product of the k-algebras R/I and S/J is defined by F = I + J + mn,
which accordingly is called the fiber product of I and J. To avoid triviality, we will
assume in the rest of this introduction that m, n 6= 0, i.e. R and S have positive
Krull dimensions. Our goal is to study some important homological invariants of
the powers of F given the knowledge of I and J.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13D02, 13C05, 13D05, 13H99.
Key words and phrases. Powers of ideals; fiber product; depth; regularity; Castelnuovo–
Mumford regularity, linearity defect.
1

2

HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU

For a finitely generated graded R-module M , we denote by reg M, depth M ,
and ldR M the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity, depth, and linearity defect of M ,
respectively (see Section 2). Our main contributions are explicit formulas or sharp
bounds for reg F s , depth F s , and ldT F s via the data of I and J.
Theorem 1.1 (Corollary 5.2). Assume that either char k = 0 or I and J are
monomial ideals. Moreover, assume that each of I and J is generated by forms of
the same degree. Then for all s ≥ 1, there is an equality

reg F s = max reg I i + s − i, reg J i + s − i .
i∈[1,s]

We also have an explicit formula for reg F s even if I and J are not generated
by forms of the same degree (Theorem 5.1). The general formula is slightly more
complicated; after all, the conclusion of Theorem 1.1 no longer holds true in full
generality.
Lescot’s work [38] on fiber products of local rings implies the formula
depth(T /F ) = min{1, depth(R/I), depth(S/J)}.
The study of depth(T /F s ) provides the following (at least to us) surprising result.
Theorem 1.2 (Theorem 6.1). Assume that either char k = 0 or I and J are
monomial ideals. Moreover, assume that not both I and J are zero. Then for all
s ≥ 2, there is an equality depth(T /F s ) = 0.
We recall that the linearity defect measures ldR M how far M is from having a
linear free resolution: M is componentwise linear in the sense of Herzog and Hibi
[30] if and only if ldR M = 0. Our third main result is
Theorem 1.3 (Theorems 3.4 and 7.1). We always have ldT F = max{ldR I, ldS J}.
Assume further that either char k = 0 or I and J are monomial ideals. Then for
all s ≥ 2, there are inequalities

max{ldR I s , ldS J s } ≤ ldT F s ≤ max ldR (ms−i I i ), ldS (ns−i J i ) .
i∈[1,s]

The first assertion of Theorem 1.3 generalizes a result of Conca and Römer [17,
Theorem 4.1] which says that ldT F = 0 if and only if ldR I = ldS J = 0. We
anticipate that the inequality on the right
 in Theorem 1.3 is always an equality,
namely for all s ≥ 2, ldT F s = maxi∈[1,s] ldR (ms−i I i ), ldS (ns−i J i ) .
We are tempted to conjecture that our main results remain valid in positive
characteristic.
Similarly to [45], our main tool for proving Theorems 1.1–1.3 is the Tor-vanishing
of certain injective maps. Let φ : M → N be a map of finitely generated graded
R-modules. We say that φ is Tor-vanishing if TorR
i (k, φ) = 0 for all i. If φ is injective, the Tor-vanishing of φ implies strong relationship between various invariants
of M, N and Coker φ. For that reason, the explicit formulas for the depth and
regularity of (I + J)s in [45] follow from
Lemma 1.4 (Ahangari Maleki [1, Proof of Theorem 2.5], Nguyen–Vu [45, Theorem
4.5]). Let (R, m) be a polynomial ring over k, and I ⊆ m a homogeneous ideal.
Assume that either char k = 0 or I is a monomial ideal. Then for all s ≥ 1, the
map I s → I s−1 is Tor-vanishing.
For the same reason, Theorems 1.1–1.3 in the present paper follow from

POWERS OF FIBER PRODUCTS

3

Lemma 1.5 (Lemma 4.1). Let (R, m) be a polynomial ring over k, and I ⊆ m2 a
homogeneous ideal. Assume that either char k = 0 or I is a monomial ideal. Then
for all 1 ≤ t ≤ s, the map ms−t I t → ms−t+1 I t−1 is Tor-vanishing.
Speaking more precisely, the importance of Lemma 1.4 to [45] is that it gives rise
to certain decomposition, the so-called Betti splitting of (I + J)s . (Betti splittings
are discussed in Section 2.3.) In the same manner, Lemma 1.5 gives rise to certain
Betti splitting of F s , from which we deduce Theorems 1.1–1.3.
It is well-known that for all sufficiently large s, reg I s is a linear function [18, 37].
From Theorem 1.1, we can determine the asymptotic value of reg F s as follows.
Corollary 1.6 (Corollary 5.6). Assume that either char k = 0 or I and J are
monomial ideals. Assume that, moreover, each of I and J is generated in a single
degree. Then for all s ≫ 0, there is an equality reg F s = max{reg I s , reg J s }.
We present an example showing that the conclusion of Corollary 1.6 is not true
for arbitrary I and J (Remark 5.7). Denote the first point where reg I s becomes
a linear function by rstab(I). If all the minimal homogeneous generators of I and
J have the same degree, we can present a sharp upper bound for rstab(F ). Somewhat unexpectedly, rstab(F ) can be arbitrarily larger than max{rstab(I), rstab(J)}
(Remark 5.9).
Let us mention two applications of our main results. Both require no assumption
on the characteristic.
Corollary 1.7 (Corollary 7.2). For every s ≥ 1, the following statements are
equivalent:
(i) F i is componentwise linear for all 1 ≤ i ≤ s;
(ii) I i and J i are componentwise linear for all 1 ≤ i ≤ s.
In particulars, all the powers of F are componentwise linear if and only if all the
powers of I and of J are so.
Let G = (V, E) be a finite simple graph with the vertex set V = {1, 2, . . . , n}
(where n ≥ 1) and the edge set E. The edge ideal of G is the following monomial
ideal in k[x1 , . . . , xn ]: I(G) = (xi xj : {i, j} ∈ E). In [7, Question 7.12], it was asked
whether for any non-trivial graph G, the function reg I(G)s is strictly increasing.
As a second application, we can answer this question positively in a special case.
Theorem 1.8 (Corollary 8.2). Let G = (V, E) be a graph. Assume that V is a
disjoint union of two non-empty subsets V1 , V2 such that G contains the complete
bipartite graph with the bipartition V1 ∪V2 as a subgraph. Then the function reg I(G)s
is strictly increasing.
Note that the regularity of powers of a monomial ideal generated in a single
degree need not be weakly increasing (see Remark 5.9).
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is devoted to some prerequisites. In
Section 3, we determine the regularity and linearity defect of fiber products. We also
give a short derivation of the depth of fiber products. The regularity, depth, and
linearity defect of higher powers of a fiber product are studied in Sections 5, 6, and
7, respectively. The common method rests on a result on the Betti splitting of F s
in Section 4. An application to the regularity of powers of edge ideals is presented
in Section 8. We prove the correctness of the example in Remark 5.7 mentioned
above in Appendix A.

4

HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU

2. Background
We will employ standard terminology and facts of commutative algebra, as in
the books of Bruns and Herzog [10] and Eisenbud [20]. For standard knowledge of
homological commutative algebra, we refer to the monographs of Avramov [5] and
Peeva [46].
In the following, we let (R, m) be a noetherian local ring with the unique maximal
ideal m and the residue field k = R/m, or a standard graded algebra over a field
k, with the graded maximal ideal m. In the second situation, it is understood that
R is an N-graded ring with R0 = k, and R is generated as a k-algebra by finitely
many elements of degree 1.
2.1. Linearity defect. We recall the notion of linearity defect, introduced by Herzog and Iyengar [33], who took motivation from work of Eisenbud, Fløystad and
Schreyer [21].
Let (R, m) be a noetherian local ring with the residue field k = R/m, and M a
finitely generated R-module. Let X be the minimal free resolution of M :
∂

∂

∂

∂

∂

X : · · · −→ Xi −→ Xi−1 −→ · · · −→ X1 −→ X0 −→ 0.
The projective dimension of M over R is
pdR M = sup{i : Xi 6= 0} = sup{i : TorR
i (k, M ) 6= 0}.
The minimality of X induces for each i ≥ 0 a subcomplex
F i X : · · · → Xi+1 → Xi → mXi−1 → · · · → mi−1 X1 → mi X0 → 0.
Associate with the filtration
X = F 0X ⊇ F 1X ⊇ F 2X ⊇ · · ·
the complex
linR X =

∞
M
F iX
.
F i+1 X
i=0

We call linR X the linear part of X. Let
grm (M ) =

M mi M
mi+1 M
i≥0

be the associated graded module of M with respect to the m-adic filtration. The
linear part linR X is a complex of grm (R)-modules, with
(linR X)i = (grm (Xi ))(−i) for all i.
The linearity defect of M as an R-module is
ldR M = sup{i : Hi (linR X) 6= 0}.
By convention, ldR (0) = 0. In the graded situation, we define the linear part of a
minimal graded free resolution, and the linearity defect of a graded module similarly.
The linearity defect can be characterized by the vanishing of certain maps of Tor
[49, Theorem 2.2]. This characterization gives rise to the following "depth lemma"
for the linearity defect.

POWERS OF FIBER PRODUCTS

5

Lemma 2.1 (Nguyen, [43, Proposition 2.5]). Let (R, m) be a noetherian local ring
with the residue field k. Consider an exact sequence 0 −→ M −→ P −→ N −→ 0
of finitely generated R-modules. Denote
R
dP = inf{m ≥ 0 : TorR
i (k, M ) −→ Tori (k, P ) is the zero map for all i ≥ m},
R
dN = inf{m ≥ 0 : TorR
i (k, P ) −→ Tori (k, N ) is the zero map for all i ≥ m},
R
dM = inf{m ≥ 0 : TorR
i+1 (k, N ) −→ Tori (k, M ) is the zero map for all i ≥ m}.

Then there are inequalities
ldR P ≤ max{ldR M, ldR N, min{dM , dN }},
ldR N ≤ max{ldR M + 1, ldR P, min{dM + 1, dP }},
ldR M ≤ max{ldR P, ldR N − 1, min{dP , dN − 1}}.
2.2. Koszul modules. Let (R, m) be a graded k-algebra, M a finitely generated
graded R-module. The regularity of M over R is the following number
regR M = sup{j − i : TorR
i (k, M )j 6= 0}.
If R is a polynomial ring, regR M is the same as the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity
reg M of M . However, they differ in general.
We call R a Koszul algebra if regR (R/m) = 0. We say that M is a Koszul module
if ldR M = 0. (In previous work of Şega [48], Koszul modules are called modules
with linear resolution.)
In this paper, we say that M has a linear resolution if there exists an integer
d such that M is generated in degree d, and regR M = d. In that case, we say M
has a d-linear resolution. Following Herzog and Hibi [30], we call M componentwise
linear if for each d, the submodule (Md ) has a d-linear resolution. If R is a Koszul
algebra, then M is a Koszul module if and only if it is componentwise linear (see
[47, Theorem 3.2.8] and [50, Proposition 4.9]).
2.3. Tor-vanishing morphisms and Betti splittings. Let (R, m) be a noetherian local ring with the residue field k. Let φ : M → P be a morphism of finitely
generated R-modules. We say that φ is Tor-vanishing if for all i ≥ 0, it holds that
TorR
i (k, φ) = 0.
Let P, I, J 6= (0) be proper ideals of R such that P = I + J. Following [26], the
decomposition of P as I + J is called a Betti splitting if for all i ≥ 0, the following
equality of Betti numbers holds: βi (P ) = βi (I) + βi (J) + βi−1 (I ∩ J). Here, as usual,
βi (M ) = dimk TorR
i (k, M ).
Betti splittings are closely related to the Tor-vanishing of certain maps.
Lemma 2.2 (Francisco, Hà, and Van Tuyl [26, Proposition 2.1]). The following
are equivalent:
(i) The decomposition P = I + J is a Betti splitting;
(ii) The morphisms I ∩ J → I and I ∩ J → J are Tor-vanishing;
(iii) The mapping cone construction for the map I ∩ J → I ⊕ J yields a minimal
free resolution of P .
In particular, if P = I + J is a Betti splitting, then for all i, the natural maps
R
R
R
TorR
i (k, I) → Tori (k, P ) and Tori (k, J) → Tori (k, P ) are injective.
Let R = k[x1 , . . . , xn ] be a standard graded polynomial ring, m = R+ and I ⊆ m
a homogeneous ideal of R. Denote by ∂(I) the ideal generated by ∂f /∂xi , where

6

HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU

f runs through the minimal homogeneous generators of I and 1 ≤ i ≤ n. The
following differential criteria for detecting Tor-vanishing homomorphisms will be
useful.
Lemma 2.3 (Ahangari Maleki [1, Theorem 2.5 and its proof]). Assume that k has
characteristic zero. Let I1 and I2 be homogeneous ideals of R such that ∂(I1 ) ⊆ I2 .
Then I1 ⊆ mI2 and the map I1 → I2 is Tor-vanishing.
If f is a monomial of R, then the support of f , denoted supp f , refers to the set
of variables dividing f . If I is a monomial ideal, the support of I, denoted supp I,
is the union of the supports of its minimal monomial generators. For a monomial
ideal I, we denote by ∂ ∗ (I) the ideal generated by the monomials f /xi , where f ∈ I
and xi ∈ supp f . By Lemma 4.2 and Proposition 4.4 in [45], we have
Lemma 2.4 (Nguyen–Vu). Let I1 and I2 be monomial ideals of R such that
∂ ∗ (I1 ) ⊆ I2 . Then I1 ⊆ mI2 and the map I1 → I2 is Tor-vanishing.
Another source of Tor-vanishing maps is given by
Lemma 2.5. Let (R, m) be a Koszul local ring and M a finitely generated R-module
which is Koszul. Then the map mM → M is Tor-vanishing and mM is also Koszul.
Proof. This follows from the proof of [43, Corollary 3.8].



2.4. Elementary facts.
Lemma 2.6. Let R, S be affine k-algebras. Let I, J be ideals of R, S, respectively.
Then in T = R ⊗k S, there is an equality I ∩ J = IJ.
This standard fact follows from [45, Lemma 2.2(i)].
Lemma 2.7. Let R, S be standard graded k-algebras, and M, N be finitely generated
graded modules over R, S, respectively. Then for T = R ⊗k S, there are equalities
depth(M ⊗k N ) = depth M + depth N,
pdT (M ⊗k N ) = pdR M + pdS N,
regT (M ⊗k N ) = regR M + regS N,
ldT (M ⊗k N ) = ldR M + ldS N.
This lemma is folklore. The first part follows from the description of local cohomology of tensor product due to Goto and Watanabe [27, Theorem 2.2.5]. For the
remaining assertions, see [45, Lemma 2.3].
θ

Recall that a morphism of noetherian local rings (R, m) −
→ (S, n) is an algebra
φ

retract if there exists a local homomorphism (S, n) −
→ (R, m) such that φ ◦ θ is the
identity map of R. In that case, φ is called the retraction map of θ.
θ

→ (S, n) be an algebra retract of noeLemma 2.8 ([45, Lemma 2.4]). Let (R, m) −
φ

therian local rings with the retraction map S −
→ R. Let I ⊆ m be an ideal of R. Let
J ⊆ n be an ideal containing θ(I)S such that φ(J)R = I. Then there are inequalities
ldR (R/I) ≤ ldS (S/J),
ldR I ≤ ldS J.

POWERS OF FIBER PRODUCTS

7

3. Fiber products
Let (A, mA ) and (B, mB ) be noetherian local rings with the same residue field
k = A/mA ∼
= B/mB . Let εA : A → A/mA and εB : B → B/mB be the canonical
maps. The fiber product A ×k B of A and B over k fits into the following pullback
diagram.
πA
/A
A ×k B
πB


B

εA
εB


/k

Hence A ×k B = {(x, y) ∈ A × B : εA (x) = εB (y)}. Denote P = A ×k B. From [4,
Lemma 1.2], P is a local ring with the maximal ideal mA ⊕ mB . We can check that
πA , πB are surjective and Ker πA = mB , Ker πB = mA . In particular, they induce
ring isomorphisms P/mB ∼
= B.
= A and P/mA ∼
We have an exact sequence of P -modules
(εA ,−εB )

0 −→ A ×k B −→ A ⊕ B −−−−−−→ k −→ 0.

(3.1)

The following result due to Lescot is well-known; see for example [14, (3.2.1)]. We
include another elementary proof for it.
Lemma 3.1 (Lescot). There is an equality
depth(A ×k B) = min{1, depth A, depth B}.
Proof. If min{depth A, depth B} ≥ 1, using the depth lemma for the sequence (3.1),
we get depth(A ×k B) = 1.
Assume that min{depth A, depth B} = 0, for example depth A = 0. Then there
exists x ∈ mA such that annA (x) = mA . Since (x, 0) belongs to the maximal ideal
of P , and annP ((x, 0)) ⊇ mA ⊕ mB , we deduce depth P = 0.

Now we turn to the case of graded algebras. Let A = k[x1 , . . . , xm ]/I and
B = k[y1 , . . . , yn ]/J be standard graded k-algebras, where I ⊆ (x1 , . . . , xm )2 ,
ι
J ⊆ (y1 , . . . , yn )2 are homogeneous ideals. The homomorphism k −
→ A ×k B given
by u 7→ (u, u) makes A ×k B into a k-algebra.
Denote m = (x1 , . . . , xm ), n = (y1 , . . . , yn ) and
P = k[x1 , . . . , xm , y1 , . . . , yn ]/(I + J + mn).
Write a for the residue class of a in a suitable quotient ring. Any element u ∈ P can
be written uniquely as u = c + f (x) + g(y), where f ∈ m, g ∈ n. The homomorphism
from P to A ×k B sending u to (c + f (x), c + g(y)) is an isomorphism. Hence we
have
Lemma 3.2. There is an isomorphism of k-algebras P ∼
= A ×k B.
In the remaining of this section, we determine the linearity defect and regularity
of fiber products of ideals over polynomial rings, or more generally, Koszul algebras.
Notably, the result does not depend on the characteristic of the base field.
Proposition 3.3. Let (R, m) and (S, n) be standard graded algebras over k. Let
I ⊆ m2 , J ⊆ n2 be homogeneous ideals. Denote T = R ⊗k S and F = I + J + mn ⊆ T
the fiber product of I and J.

8

HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU

(i) There is an equality depth(T /F ) = min{1, depth(R/I), depth(S/J)}.
If moreover, (R, m) and (S, n) are standard graded polynomial rings of
positive dimension, and I and J are not both zero, then
depth F = min{2, depth I, depth J}.
(ii) Assume additionally that R and S are Koszul algebras. Then there is an
equality regT F = max{regR I, regS J}.
Proof. (i) This is essentially a translation of Lemma 3.1 to the graded case.
(ii) From (3.1), we have an exact sequence
R S
T
→
⊕ → k → 0.
(3.2)
F
I
J
By the assumption and Lemma 2.7, regT (T /(m + n)) = 0. Since regR (R/I),
regS (S/J) ≥ 1, from the sequence (3.2), we get
0→

regT (T /F ) = max{regT (R/I), regT (S/J)}.
Since 0 = regS (S/n) = regT (T /nT ) = regT R, by [16, Proposition 3.3], regT (R/I) =
regR (R/I). Similarly, regT (S/J) = regS (S/J). So regT (T /F ) = max{regR (R/I),
regS (S/J)}, consequently
regT F = max{regR I, regS J}.
The proof is completed.



Recall from Section 2.2 that over a Koszul algebra, componentwise linear modules and Koszul modules are the same objects. Hence Theorem 3.4 below is a
generalization of Conca and Römer’s [17, Theorem 4.1]. Observe that the condition R and S are Koszul in 3.4 is irredundant: if one of these rings is not Koszul,
then the fiber product of I = (0) and J = (0) is not Koszul, since by Lemma 2.7,
ldT (mn) = ldR m + ldS n ≥ 1.
Theorem 3.4. Let (R, m), (S, n) be Koszul algebras over k. Let I ⊆ m2 , J ⊆ n2 be
homogeneous ideals of R, S, respectively. Denote F = I + J + mn the fiber product
of I and J in T = R ⊗k S. Then there is an equality
ldT F = max{ldR I, ldS J}.
Proof. By the graded analog of Lemma 2.8, we have max{ldR I, ldS J} ≤ ldT F . It
remains to show the reverse inequality.
Step 1: Denote H = I + mn. We claim that F = H + J is a Betti splitting. First
we note that H ∩ J = mJ.
Indeed, mJ ⊆ mn ⊆ H, hence mJ ⊆ H ∩ J. Conversely, as I ⊆ m,
H ∩ J ⊆ m ∩ J = mJ,
thanks to Lemma 2.6.
Now by Lemma 2.2, we need to show that the map mJ → H and mJ → J are
Tor-vanishing. Clearly the map m → R is Tor-vanishing, so applying − ⊗k J, we
get that mJ → J is Tor-vanishing.
Since n is Koszul and J ⊆ n2 , by Lemma 2.5, the map J → n is Tor-vanishing.
Applying − ⊗k m, we get that mJ → mn is Tor-vanishing. Since mn ⊆ H, the map
mJ → H is Tor-vanishing as well. Thus F = H + J is a Betti splitting.

POWERS OF FIBER PRODUCTS

9

Step 2: There is a short exact sequence
J
J
=
−→ 0.
H ∩J
mJ
Since F = H + J is a Betti splitting, by Lemma 2.2, TorTi (k, H) → TorTi (k, F )
is injective for all i ≥ 0. In particular, the connecting map TorTi (i, J/mJ) →
TorTi−1 (k, H) is zero for all i. Applying Lemma 2.1, we get


J
ldT F ≤ max ldT H, ldT
= max{ldT H, ldS J}.
mJ
The equality follows from Lemma 2.7 and the fact that R is Koszul.
0 −→ H −→ F −→

Step 3: Arguing similarly as above, we have a Betti splitting H = I + mn and
ldT H ≤ max{ldT (mn), ldR I} = ldR I.
The equality follows from Lemma 2.7 and the fact that R and S are Koszul.
From Steps 2 and 3, we get ldT H ≤ max{ldR I, ldS J}, as desired.



4. Betti splittings for powers of fiber products
The following lemma is the crux of our results on higher powers of fiber products.
Lemma 4.1. Let (R, m) be a standard graded polynomial ring over k, and I ⊆ m2 a
homogeneous ideal. Let s ≥ 1 be an integer. Assume further that one of the following
conditions hold:
(i) char k = 0;
(ii) I is a monomial ideal;
(iii) I t is Koszul for all 1 ≤ t ≤ s.
Then for every 1 ≤ t ≤ s, the map ms−t I t → ms−t+1 I t−1 is Tor-vanishing.
Proof. First assume that char k = 0. We apply the criterion of Lemma 2.3. Note
that
∂(ms−t I t ) ⊆ ∂(ms−t )I t + ms−t ∂(I t ) ⊆ ms−t−1 I t + ms−t ∂(I)I t−1 ,
which is contained in ms−t+1 I t−1 , since I ⊆ m2 .
If I is a monomial ideal, we argue as above, replacing Lemma 2.3 by Lemma 2.4.
Finally, assume that I t is Koszul for all 1 ≤ t ≤ s. By the graded analogue of
Lemma 2.5, ms−t+1 I t−1 is Koszul. Since I ⊆ m2 , ms−t I t ⊆ m(ms−t+1 I t−1 ). Hence
again by Lemma 2.5, the map ms−t I t → ms−t+1 I t−1 is Tor-vanishing.

We know of no instance where the conclusion of Lemma 4.1 fails in positive
characteristic.
Question 4.2. Let (R, m) be a standard graded polynomial ring over k, and I ⊆ m2
a homogeneous ideal. Is it true that for all 1 ≤ t ≤ s, the map ms−t I t → ms−t+1 I t−1
is Tor-vanishing?
It is convenient for the subsequent discussions to introduce
Notation 4.3. Let (R, m), (S, n) be standard graded polynomial rings over k such
that their Krull dimensions are positive. Let I ⊆ m2 and J ⊆ n2 be homogeneous
ideals of R and S. Denote T = R ⊗k S and F = I + J + mn the fiber product of I
and J. Denote H = I + mn.
The important consequence of Lemma 4.1 is

10

HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU

Proposition 4.4. Employ Notation 4.3. Let s ≥ 1 be an integer.
P
(1) There is an equality F s = H s + si=1 (mn)s−i J i .
Pt
(2) For each 1 ≤ t ≤ s, denote Gt = H s + i=1 (mn)s−i J i . Denote G0 = H s .
Then for every 1 ≤ t ≤ s, there is an equality
Gt−1 ∩ (mn)s−t J t = ms−t+1 ns−t J t .
(3) Assume further that one of the following conditions holds:
(i) char k = 0;
(ii) J is a monomial ideal;
(iii) J t is Koszul for all 1 ≤ t ≤ s.
Then for all 1 ≤ t ≤ s, the decomposition Gt = Gt−1 + (mn)s−t J t is a Betti
splitting.
Proof. (1) We use induction on s ≥ 1. For s = 1, the equality F = H + J is obvious.
Assume that the equality holds for s ≥ 1, we prove it for s + 1.
We have F s+1 = H s+1 + JF s . Using the induction hypothesis,
s

s

JF = JH +

s
X

s−i

(mn)

J

i+1

s

= JH +

s

Now H = (mn) +

Ps−1
j=1

j

s−j

I (mn)

. Hence

F s+1 = H s+1 + JF s = H s+1 +

s+1
X
i=1

It remains to show that
for any 1 ≤ j ≤ s − 1,

Ps−1
j=1

(mn)s+1−i J i .

i=2

i=1

s

s+1
X

(mn)s+1−i J i +

s−1
X

JI j (mn)s−j .

j=1

JI j (mn)s−j ⊆ H s+1 . Indeed, since I ⊆ m2 , J ⊆ n2 ,

JI j (mn)s−j = (JI)I j−1 (mn)s−j ⊆ I j−1 (mn)s+2−j ⊆ H s+1 .
This finishes the induction.
(2) Note that (mn)s−t+1 J t−1 ⊆ Gt−1 , so ms−t+1 ns−t J t ⊆ Gt−1 ∩ (mn)s−t J t . For
the reverse inclusion, using H ⊆ m, we have
Gt−1 = H s +

t
X

(mn)s−t+1 J t−1 ⊆ ms−t+1 .

i=1

Hence
Gt−1 ∩ (mn)s−t J t ⊆ ms−t+1 ∩ ns−t J t = ms−t+1 ns−t J t ,
where the equality holds by Lemma 2.6.
(3) To prove that Gt = Gt−1 + (mn)s−t J t is a Betti splitting, by Lemma 2.2,
we have to show that ms−t+1 ns−t J t → Gt−1 and ms−t+1 ns−t J t → (mn)s−t J t are
Tor-vanishing maps.
Since ms−t is Koszul, we have that ms−t+1 → ms−t is Tor-vanishing. Applying
− ⊗k (ns−t J t ), we get that ms−t+1 ns−t J t → (mn)s−t J t is Tor-vanishing.
Since the inclusion ms−t+1 ns−t J t → Gt−1 factors through ms−t+1 ns−t J t →
(mn)s−t+1 J t−1 , it remains to show that the last map is Tor-vanishing. As the
map − ⊗k ms−t+1 is flat, we reduce to showing that ns−t J t → ns−t+1 J t−1 is Torvanishing. This follows from Lemma 4.1. The proof is concluded.


POWERS OF FIBER PRODUCTS

11

5. Regularity
Now we determine the regularity of higher powers of fiber products.
Theorem 5.1. Employ Notation 4.3. Let s ≥ 1 be an integer. Assume that one of
the following conditions holds:
(i) char k = 0;
(ii) I and J are monomial ideals;
(iii) I t and J t are Koszul for all 1 ≤ t ≤ s.
Then there is an equality

reg F s = max reg(ms−i I i ) + s − i, reg(ns−i J i ) + s − i .
i∈[1,s]

Proof. We apply Proposition 4.4 and employ the notation there. For each 1 ≤ t ≤ s,
we have Gt = Gt−1 + (mn)s−t J t and Gt−1 ∩ (mn)s−t J t = ms−t+1 ns−t J t . Thus we
get an induced exact sequence
0 → Gt−1 → Gt →

(mn)s−t J t
→ 0.
ms−t+1 ns−t J t

By Proposition 4.4 and Lemma 2.2, for all i, the map TorTi (k, Gt−1 ) → TorTi (k, Gt )
is injective. This yields an exact sequence


(mn)s−t J t
T
T
T
0 → Tori (k, Gt−1 ) → Tori (k, Gt ) → Tori k, s−t+1 s−t t → 0.
m
n J
Hence


(mn)s−t J t
reg Gt = max reg Gt−1 , reg s−t+1 s−t t
m
n J


 s−t 
m
s−t t
+
reg(n
J
)
= max reg Gt−1 , reg
ms−t+1

= max reg Gt−1 , reg(ns−t J t ) + s − t .

The second equality follows from Lemma 2.7. Now as Gs = F s and G0 = H s , we
conclude that
reg F s = max{reg H s , reg(ns−t J t ) + s − t : 1 ≤ t ≤ s}.
Now H = I + mn can be viewed as the fiber product of I and (0) ⊆ S. Arguing as
above, we get
reg H s = max{reg(mn)s , reg(ms−t I t ) + s − t : 1 ≤ t ≤ s}
= max{2s, reg(ms−t I t ) + s − t : 1 ≤ t ≤ s}
= max{reg(ms−t I t ) + s − t : 1 ≤ t ≤ s}.
The last equality holds since reg(I s ) ≥ 2s. Putting everything together, we get
reg F s = max{reg(ms−t I t ) + s − t, reg(ns−t J t ) + s − t : 1 ≤ t ≤ s}.
The proof is concluded.



If each of I and J is generated by forms of the same degree, then the formula in
Theorem 5.1 can be simplified.

12

HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU

Corollary 5.2. Keep using Notation 4.3. Assume that either char k = 0 or I and
J are monomial ideals. Assume further that each of I and J is generated by forms
of the same degree. Then for all s ≥ 1, there is an equality

reg F s = max reg I i + s − i, reg J i + s − i .
i∈[1,s]

To prove the corollary, first we describe the effect on the regularity of a module
after multiplying it with the graded maximal ideal. Let (R, m) be a standard graded
k-algebra. For a finitely generated graded R-module M , denote t0 (M ) = sup{i :
(M/mM )i 6= 0}, the maximal degree of a minimal homogeneous generator of M .
The following lemma essentially follows from the proof of Eisenbud–Ulrich’s [23,
Proposition 1.4]. For the sake of clarity, we present the detailed argument. Part (ii)
of it follows from a result of Şega [48, Theorem 3.2(1)]. However, one should note
that ibid. deals with local rings and what is written as regR (M ) there really means
reg grm (M ) in our situation. Hence the result of Şega does not imply part (i) of
Lemma 5.3, as grm (M ) need not be isomorphic to a shifted copy of M if the latter
is not generated in a single degree.
Lemma 5.3 (Eisenbud–Ulrich). Let (R, m) be a standard graded k-algebra. Let
M 6= 0 be a finitely generated graded R-modules such that depth M ≥ 1.
(i) For every i ≥ 1, there is an equality


M
i
reg(m M ) = max reg M, reg i + 1 .
mM
In particular, setting i = 1, we get
reg(mM ) = max{reg M, 1 + t0 (M )}.
(ii) (See Şega [48, Theorem 3.2(1)].) Assume further that M is generated in a
single degree. Then for all i ≥ 1,
reg(mi M ) = max{reg M, i + t0 (M )}.
In particular, for all i ≥ reg M − t0 (M ), mi M has a linear resolution.
Proof. (i) Let r ∈ m be an M -regular element. Then ri M 6= 0 for all i ≥ 1. Hence
mi M 6= 0 for all i ≥ 1. Consider the exact sequence
M
0 → mi M → M → i
→ 0.
mM
0
Since Hm
(M ) = 0, we get an exact sequence
0
1
1
0 → Hm
(M/mi M ) = M/mi M → Hm
(mi M ) → Hm
(M ) → 0,
ℓ
i
ℓ
∼ H (M ). This implies that
and for all ℓ ≥ 2, we have Hm (m M ) =
m
1
reg(mi M ) ≥ max{u + 1 : Hm
(mi M )u 6= 0} ≥ reg(M/mi M ) + 1,

reg(mi M ) ≥ reg M.
Therefore



M
reg(m M ) = max reg M, reg i + 1 .
mM
Setting i = 1, we get the remaining assertion.
(ii) If M is generated in a single degree, then clearly
i

reg(M/mi M ) = max{t : (M/mi M )t 6= 0} = i + t0 (M ) − 1.

POWERS OF FIBER PRODUCTS

13

Hence by part (i), for all i ≥ 1,

reg(mi M ) = max reg M, i + t0 (M ) .

The last assertion follows easily.



Remark 5.4. For i ≥ 2, the equality reg(mi M ) = max{reg M, i + t0 (M )} in Lemma
5.3(ii) does not hold in general, when M is not generated in a single degree. For
example, let I = (a3 , ab2 , ac2 , a2 bc) ⊆ R = k[a, b, c] and i = 2. Then reg(m2 I) =
5 < max{reg I, 2 + t0 (I)} = 6.
Proof of Corollary 5.2. In view of Theorem 5.1, it suffices to show that
max {reg(ms−i I i ) + s − i} = max {reg I i + s − i}.

i∈[1,s]

i∈[1,s]

(The same equality holds for J.) Assume that I is generated by forms of degree
p ≥ 2. By Lemma 5.3, reg(ms−i I i ) = max{reg I i , s + (p − 1)i}. Hence
max {reg(ms−i I i ) + s − i} = max {reg I i + s − i, 2s + (p − 2)i}.

i∈[1,s]

i∈[1,s]

It remains to notice that for 1 ≤ i ≤ s, 2s + (p − 2)i ≤ ps ≤ reg I s .



Remark 5.5. In view of Theorem 5.1, Lemma 5.3, we see that if either char k = 0
or I and J are monomial ideals, then
reg F s ≥ max {reg I i + s − i, reg J i + s − i}.
i∈[1,s]

One may ask whether the equality always happens, as in Corollary 5.2. The answer
is "No". Choose R = k[a, b, c], I = (a4 , a3 b, ab3 , b4 , a2 b2 c4 ), S = k[x], J = (x4 ). We
have reg I = reg I 2 = 8, reg(mI) = 9. The fiber product F satisfies
reg F 2 = reg(mI) + 1 = 10 > max {reg I i + 2 − i, reg J i + 2 − i} = 9.
i∈[1,2]

By results of Cutkosky-Herzog-Trung [18] and Kodiyalam [37], there exist constants p, q such that reg I s = ps + q for all s ≫ 0. Denote by rstab(I) the minimal
positive integer m such that for all s ≥ m, reg I s = ps + q. In many interesting
situations, we have a simple asymptotic formula for reg F s .
Corollary 5.6. Keep using Notation 4.3. Assume that either char k = 0 or I and J
are monomial ideals. Assume further that both I and J satisfy one of the following
conditions:
(i) All the minimal homogeneous generators have degree 2;
(ii) All the minimal homogeneous generators have degree at least 3;
(iii) The subideal generated by elements of degree 2 is integrally closed, e.g. I
and J are squarefree monomial ideals.
Then for all s ≫ 0, there is an equality reg F s = max{reg I s , reg J s }.
Proof. It suffices to show that with the extra hypothesis, we have for all s ≫ 0 the
equality
reg I s = max {reg(ms−i I i ) + s − i}.
i∈[1,s]

(And the same equality holds for J.)
Let p be the minimal number such that I is contained in the integral closure of
I≤p = (x ∈ I : deg x ≤ p). By Kodiyalam’s [37, Theorem 5], there exist integral
constants d ≥ 1 and q ≥ 0 such that reg I n = pn+q for all n ≥ d. By the hypothesis,

14

HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU

either p ≥ 3, or p = 2 and I is generated in degree 2. Indeed, this is clear if I satisfies
either (i) or (ii). Assume that I satisfies (iii). If p ≥ 3, we are done. If p = 2, by the
hypothesis I≤2 is integrally closed, so I = I≤2 , namely I is generated in degree 2.
If I is generated in a single degree, by Lemma 5.3, there exists an integer N such
that for every 1 ≤ i ≤ d − 1, mn I i has a linear resolution for all n ≥ N .
Take s ≥ max{N + d − 1, reg I i − 2i : 1 ≤ i ≤ d}. We show that
reg I s = max {reg(ms−i I i ) + s − i}.
i∈[1,s]

For d ≤ i ≤ s, using successively the exact sequence
0 → mM → M → M/mM → 0,
we get reg(m

s−i i

I ) ≤ s − i + reg I i . Hence

reg(ms−i I i ) + s − i ≤ 2s + reg I i − 2i = 2s + (p − 2)i + q ≤ ps + q = reg I s .
For 1 ≤ i ≤ d − 1, consider first the case p ≥ 3. As above, we get reg(ms−i I i ) +
s − i ≤ 2s + reg I i − 2i ≤ ps for all 1 ≤ i ≤ d − 1, thanks to the fact that p ≥ 3 and
the choice of s. Hence we are done in this case.
Now assume that p = 2 and I is generated in degree 2. For 1 ≤ i ≤ d − 1, we
have s − i ≥ s − d + 1 ≥ N . Hence ms−i I i has a linear resolution. The ideal ms−i I i
is generated in degree s + i, so
reg(ms−i I i ) + s − i = 2s ≤ reg I s ,
as desired. This concludes the proof.



Remark 5.7. The following example shows that the conclusion of Corollary 5.6 is
not true for arbitrary I and J, even if both of them are monomial ideals. Consider
R = Q[a, b, c, d, x, y, z, t], m = R+ and
I = (a2 , b2 , c2 , d2 , abx, cdx, acy, bdy, adz, bcz, cdyzt).
Consider S = Q[u], n = (u) and J = (u2 ). It can be shown that for all s ≥ 3,
reg I s = 2s + 3 < 2s + 4 = reg(ms−2 I 2 ) + s − 2.
Since the proof is long and technical (about seven pages), we defer the detailed
argument to Theorem A.1 in Appendix A.
Let F = I + J + mn be the fiber product of I and J. Then from Theorem 5.1,
for all s ≥ 3,
reg F s ≥ reg(ms−2 I 2 ) + s − 2 = 2s + 4 > 2s + 3 = max{reg I s , reg J s }.
If moreover, I and J are both generated in a common degree, we can give a sharp
bound for rstab(F ) in terms of the data of I and J.
Corollary 5.8. Keep using Notation 4.3. Assume that either char k = 0 or I and
J are monomial ideals. Assume further that both I and J are generated in the
same degree p ≥ 2. Denote g = max{reg I i − i, reg J j − j : 1 ≤ i ≤ rstab(I) −
1, 1 ≤ j ≤ rstab(J) − 1}. Denote q1 = reg I r − pr, q2 = reg J r − pr where r =
max{rstab(I), rstab(J)}. Then for all s ≥ max{rstab(I), rstab(J), ⌈g/(p − 1)⌉},
there is an equality
reg F s = ps + max{q1 , q2 }.
In particular, rstab(F ) ≤ max{rstab(I), rstab(J), ⌈g/(p − 1)⌉}.

POWERS OF FIBER PRODUCTS

15

Proof. By Corollary 5.2,
reg F s = max {reg I i + s − i, reg J i + s − i}.
i∈[1,s]

Denote N = max{rstab(I), rstab(J), ⌈g/(p − 1)⌉}. It suffices to show that for all
s ≥ N,
reg I s = max {reg I i + s − i}.
(5.1)
i∈[1,s]

(The similar equality holds for J.) Indeed, for s ≥ N and 1 ≤ i ≤ rstab(I) − 1, we
have
reg I s ≥ ps ≥ s + g ≥ reg I i + s − i.
For rstab(I) ≤ i ≤ s, we have reg I i + s − i = (p − 1)i + q1 + s ≤ ps + q1 = reg I s .

Hence (5.1) is true.
Remark 5.9. The following example shows that the bound for rstab(F ) in Corollary
5.8 is sharp, and that the difference rstab(F ) − max{rstab(I), rstab(J)} can be
arbitrarily large. Let n ≥ 2 be an integer, R = k[a, b, x1 , . . . , xn ],
I = (a4 , a3 b, ab3 , b4 )(x1 , . . . , xn )2 + a2 b2 (x21 , . . . , x2n ).
Let S = k[y] and J = (y 6 ). Both I and J are generated in degree 6. We show that
in this case rstab(I) = 2, rstab(J) = 1, while the fiber product satisfies rstab(F ) =
⌈(n + 4)/5⌉. Indeed, we will prove the following claims:
(1) I s = (a, b)4s (x1 , . . . , xn )2s for all s ≥ 2.
(2) reg I = n + 5, reg I s = 6s for all s ≥ 2.
(3) reg F s = max{n + 4 + s, 6s} for all s ≥ 1.
From (2), we get rstab(I) = 2 and from (3), rstab(F ) = ⌈(n + 4)/5⌉.
For (1): Let H = (a4 , a3 b, ab3 , b4 ). Then H 2 = (a, b)8 , H 3 = (a, b)12 , whence
s
H = (a, b)4s for all s ≥ 2.
From H(x1 , . . . , xn )2 ⊆ I ⊆ (a, b)4 (x1 , . . . , xn )2 , we obtain
(a, b)4s (x1 , . . . , xn )2s = H s (x1 , . . . , xn )2s ⊆ I s ⊆ (a, b)4s (x1 , . . . , xn )2s .
This proves (1).
For (2): By part (1) and Lemma 2.7, we get for all s ≥ 2
reg I s = reg(a, b)4s + reg(x1 , . . . , xn )2s = 6s.
To prove reg I = n + 5, first we observe that
(a4 , a3 b, ab3 , b4 )(x1 , . . . , xn )2 ∩ a2 b2 (x21 , . . . , x2n ) = a2 b2 (a, b)(x21 , . . . , x2n ).
The right hand side clearly is contained in the left hand side. The other containment
follows from the next display
(a4 , a3 b, ab3 , b4 )(x1 , . . . , xn )2 ∩ a2 b2 (x21 , . . . , x2n )
⊆ (a3 , b3 ) ∩ (a2 b2 ) ∩ (x21 , . . . , x2n )
= a2 b2 (a, b) ∩ (x21 , . . . , x2n ) = a2 b2 (a, b)(x21 , . . . , x2n ),
where the last equality holds by Lemma 2.6.
The last observation yields an exact sequence
0 → U = (a4 , a3 b, ab3 , b4 )(x1 , . . . , xn )2 → I →

a2 b2 (x21 , . . . , x2n )
= V → 0.
a2 b2 (a, b)(x21 , . . . , x2n )

16

HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU

Using Lemma 2.7,
reg U = reg(a4 , a3 b, ab3 , b4 ) + reg(x1 , . . . , xn )2 = 7,
reg V = reg

a2 b 2
+ reg(x21 , . . . , x2n ) = 4 + (n + 1) = n + 5.
(a, b)a2 b2

Since reg U ≤ reg V , we conclude that reg I = reg V = n + 5.
For (3): Since I and J are monomial ideals generated in degree 6, by Corollary
5.2, for all s ≥ 1,
reg F s = max {reg I i + s − i, reg J i + s − i}.
i∈[1,s]

The desired conclusion follows from (2).
6. Depth
Next we have the following intriguing result.
Theorem 6.1. Employ Notation 4.3. Assume that not both I and J are zero.
Assume further that either char k = 0 or I and J are monomial ideals. Then for
all s ≥ 2, there is an equality depth F s = 1.
Proof. It suffices to prove that depth F s ≤ 1 for all s ≥ 2. For this, we show that
for all s ≥ 2, there is an equality

depth F s = min 2, depth(ms−i I i ), depth(ns−i J i ) .
i∈[1,s]

The proof is similar to that of Theorem 5.1. We only need to observe additionally that thanks to the hypothesis dim R, dim S ≥ 1 and Lemma 2.7, we have
depth(ms ns ) = depth ms + depth ns = 2.
It is harmless to assume that I 6= (0). Then depth(ms−i I i ) = 1 for any 1 ≤ i ≤
s − 1, by the easy Lemma 6.2 below. The proof is concluded.

Lemma 6.2. Let (R, m) be a noetherian local ring. Let M 6= 0 be a finitely generated
R-module such that depth M ≥ 1. Then depth(mM ) = 1.
M
→
Proof. Apply the depth lemma to the exact sequence 0 → mM → M →
mM
0.

7. Linearity defect
The main result of this section is
Theorem 7.1. Employ Notation 4.3. Let s ≥ 1 be an integer. Then there is an
inequality max{ldR I s , ldS J s } ≤ ldT F s .
Assume further that one of the following conditions holds:
(i) char k = 0;
(ii) I and J are monomial ideals;
(iii) I i and J i are Koszul for all 1 ≤ i ≤ s.
Then there is an upper bound for ldT F s :

ldT F s ≤ max ldR (ms−i I i ), ldS (ns−i J i ) .
i∈[1,s]

POWERS OF FIBER PRODUCTS

17

Proof. By the graded analog of Lemma 2.8, we get the first inequality
max{ldR I s , ldS J s } ≤ ldT F s .
For the remaining inequality, we argue similarly as for Theorem 5.1. We apply
Proposition 4.4 and employ the notation there. For each 1 ≤ t ≤ s, there is an
exact sequence
(mn)s−t J t
0 → Gt−1 → Gt → s−t+1 s−t t → 0.
m
n J
By Proposition 4.4 and Lemma 2.2, the connecting map


(mn)s−t J t
TorTi k, s−t+1 s−t t → TorTi−1 (k, Gt−1 )
m
n J
is zero for all i. Hence by Lemma 2.1,


(mn)s−t J t
ldT Gt ≤ max ldT Gt−1 , ldT s−t+1 s−t t = max{ldT Gt−1 , ldS (ns−t J t )}.
m
n J
The equality follows from Lemma 2.7. Now as Gs = F s and G0 = H s , we conclude
that
ldT F s ≤ max{ldT H s , ldS (ns−t J t ) : 1 ≤ t ≤ s}.
Now H = I + mn can be viewed as the fiber product of I and (0) ⊆ S. Arguing as
above, we get
ldT H s ≤ max{ldT (mn)s , ldR (ms−t I t ) : 1 ≤ t ≤ s}
= max{ldR (ms−t I t ) : 1 ≤ t ≤ s}.
The last equality holds since thanks to Lemma 2.7, ldT (mn)s = ldR ms + ldS ns = 0.
Putting everything together, we get
ldT F s ≤ max{ldR (ms−t I t ), ldS (ns−t J t ) : 1 ≤ t ≤ s}.
The proof is concluded.



Corollary 7.2. Employ Notation 4.3. For any given integer s ≥ 1, the following
statements are equivalent:
(i) For all 1 ≤ i ≤ s, I i and J i are Koszul ideals.
(ii) For all 1 ≤ i ≤ s, F i is a Koszul ideal.
Proof. (ii) =⇒ (i): Use the first inequality in Theorem 7.1.
(i) =⇒ (ii): We prove that ldT F i = 0 for i = s. The same argument works for
the smaller is. By Theorem 7.1,
ldT F s ≤ max{ldR (ms−i I i ), ldS (ns−i J i ) : 1 ≤ i ≤ s}.
Now apply Lemma 2.5, ldR (ms−i I i ) = ldS (ns−i J i ) for every 1 ≤ i ≤ s. Hence
ldT F s = 0.

Although we can only provide an upper bound for ldT F s , we know of no example
where the strict inequality occurs. Hence we ask
Question 7.3. Employ Notation 4.3. Is it true that for every s ≥ 1, the equality
ldT F s = max{ldR (ms−i I i ), ldS (ns−i J i ) : 1 ≤ i ≤ s}
holds?
Similarly, we wonder if the formulas for depth F s and reg F s in Theorems 5.1
and 6.1 always hold regardless of the characteristic of k.

18

HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU

8. An application to edge ideals
An immediate consequence of Theorem 5.1 is that the regularity of powers of a
fiber product is always increasing, at least in characteristic 0.
Corollary 8.1. Let (R, m) and (S, n) be standard graded polynomial rings of positive dimensions over k. Let I ⊆ m2 , J ⊆ n2 be homogeneous ideals, and F their
fiber product in R ⊗k S. Assume that either char k = 0 or I and J are monomial
ideals. Then for all s ≥ 1, there is an inequality reg F s < reg F s+1 .
Proof. Applying Lemma 5.3 for M = ms−i I i , we get for all 1 ≤ i ≤ s that
reg(ms+1−i I i ) ≥ reg(ms−i I i ). In particular, reg(ms+1−i I i )+s+1−i > reg(ms−i I i )+
s − i. Taking the maximum over all 1 ≤ i ≤ s and using Theorem 5.1, we get
reg F s+1 > reg F s .

Note that the regularity of powers of a monomial ideal need not be increasing,
even if it is generated in a single degree. A counterexample is the ideal I in Remark
5.9 for n ≥ 8.
A (finite, simple) graph G is a pair (V, E), where V is a finite set, and E is a
set consisting of two-element subsets of V . We call V the set of vertices and E the
set of edges of G. We say that G is bipartite if V can be written as a disjoint union
V1 ∪ V2 such that for every i ∈ {1, 2}, no edge of E connects two vertices in Vi .
In that case, we call V1 ∪ V2 a bipartition of G. If additionally E = V1 × V2 then
we say that G is a complete bipartite graph. A graph G′ = (V ′ , E ′ ) is said to be a
subgraph of G if V ⊆ V ′ and E ⊆ E ′ .
If G = (V, E) is a graph with the vertex set V = {1, . . . , n}, where n ≥ 1, the
edge ideal of G is
I(G) = (xi xj : {i, j} ∈ E) ⊆ k[x1 , . . . , xn ].
It is known that the function reg I(G)s is weakly increasing in the following cases:
(1) The complement graph of G is chordal [32, Theorem 3.2];
(2) G is 2K2 -free and cricket free [6, Theorems 3.4 and 6.17];
(3) Certain classes of bipartite graph including unmixed, weakly chordal and
P6 -free bipartite graphs [35, Corollary 5.1];
(4) G contains a leaf [11, Theorem 5.1]. This subsumes the class of whiskered
graphs treated in [35, Corollary 5.1(2)].
For related work on some more special cases, we refer to [2, 3, 8, 15, 24, 25, 36, 39,
40].
We can provide a class of graphs G for which the function reg I(G)s is strictly
increasing.
Corollary 8.2. Let G = (V, E) be a graph. Assume that V can be written as a
disjoint union of two non-empty subsets V1 and V2 such that G contains the complete bipartitie graph with the bipartition V1 ∪ V2 as a subgraph. Then the function
reg I(G)s is strictly increasing.
Proof. For i = 1, 2, let Ei be the subset of E consisting of edges with both vertices
lying in Vi , and Gi = (Vi , Ei ). Denote Ii = I(Gi ). Then the assumption implies
that I(G) is the fiber product of I1 and I2 . Since I1 and I2 are monomial ideals,
the result follows from Corollary 8.1.


POWERS OF FIBER PRODUCTS

19

Appendix A. A special monomial ideal
Our goal in this section is to prove
Theorem A.1. Let k = Q, R = k[a, b, c, d, x, y, z, t], m = R+ , and
I = (a2 , b2 , c2 , d2 , abx, cdx, acy, bdy, adz, bcz, cdyzt).
Then reg I n = 2n+3 for all n ≥ 3 and reg(ms I 2 ) = s+8 for all s ≥ 0. In particular,
for all n ≥ 3,
reg I n = 2n + 3 < 2n + 4 = reg(mn−2 I 2 ) + n − 2.
The proof is not difficult, but technically involved.
First, we have the following standard lemma.
Lemma A.2. Let M be a monomial ideal in a polynomial ring R over k, and
x1 , . . . , xn pairwise distinct variables of R. Then there is an inequality




 
Y
xj + n − s .
reg M ≤
max
reg (M, xi1 , . . . , xis ) :

0≤s≤n

j∈[n]\{i1 ,...,is }

1≤i1 <···<is ≤n

Proof. We use induction on n ≥ 1. For n = 1, we have to show

reg M ≤ max{reg(M, x1 ), reg(M : x1 ) + 1},

(A.1)

which is immediate from the exact sequence
0→

R
R
R
(−1) →
→
→ 0.
M : x1
M
(M, x1 )

For n ≥ 2, we only need to use (A.1) and the induction hypothesis for each of the
ideals (M, x1 ), M : x1 and the variables x2 , . . . , xn . It is useful to note that since
M is a monomial ideal, for all 2 ≤ i1 < · · · < is ≤ n,
(M : x1 ) + (xi1 , . . . , xis ) = (M, xi1 , . . . , xis ) : x1 .
The desired inequality then follows.
We also need some elementary computations.
Notation A.3. Let q = (a, b, c, d), H = (a2 , b2 , c2 , d2 ). Furthermore, denote
K = (a2 , b2 , c2 , d2 , abx, cdx),
L = (a2 , b2 , c2 , d2 , ab, cd),
V1 = H 2 + H(a, b)(c, d) + ab(c2 , d2 ) + (a2 , b2 )cd,
V2 = H 2 + H(a, c)(b, d) + ac(b2 , d2 ) + (a2 , c2 )bd.
For each s ≥ 0, denote Ws = H s+1 abcd(y, z) + tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 .
Lemma A.4. With Notation A.3, the following hold:
(i) I 4 = HI 3 .
(ii) I 3 : xyz = q6 .
(iii) K 3 : x2 = L3 .
(iv) K 3 : x + (x) = H 2 L + (x).
(v) For each s ≥ 1, q2s+1 ⊆ Ls .



20

HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU

Proof. The equalities (i)–(iv) can be checked by inspection or with Macaulay2 [28].
For (v): this follows from the more general observation: For two arbitrary ideals
J1 , J2 , and all s ≥ 1, we have
(J1 + J2 )2s+1 ⊆ (J12 + J22 )s .
In our case J1 = (a, b), J2 = (c, d).
To prove the observation, we show for all a, b ≥ 0 with a + b = 2s + 1 that
J1a J2b ⊆ (J12 + J22 )s . Without loss of generality, we can assume that a is odd and b
is even. So a = 2i + 1, b = 2j, where i, j ≥ 0 and i + j = s. Now the conclusion
follows from the fact that
J1a J2b = J12i+1 J22j ⊆ (J12 )i (J22 )j ⊆ (J12 + J22 )s .
The proof is completed.



Lemma A.5. With Notation A.3, the following hold:
(i) q5 ⊆ V1 .
(ii) (I 3 , x) : (yz) = (x) + HV1 + W0 .
(iii) (I 3 , y) : (xz) = (y) + HV2 + Habcd(x, z).
(iv) For all s ≥ 0,
(H s I 3 , x) : (yz) = (x) + H s+1 V1 + Ws .
(v) For all s ≥ 0,
H s+1 V1 ∩ H s+1 abcd(y, z) = qH s+1 abcd(y, z).
(vi) For all s ≥ 0,
H s+1 V1 ∩ Ws = qWs .
(vii) (Recall that Ws = H s+1 abcd(y, z) + tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 .) For all s ≥ 0,
H s+1 abcd(y, z) ∩ tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 = abcd(y, z)t(c2 , d2 )s+2 ⊆ qWs ,
H s+1 abcd(y, z) ∩ qWs = qH s+1 abcd(y, z),
tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 ∩ qWs = qtcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 .
Proof. The relations (i)–(iii) can be checked by inspection or with Macaulay2 [28].
(iv) Since supp H ∩ {x, y, z} = ∅, we get
(H s I 3 , x) : (yz) = H s ((I 3 , x) : (yz)) + (x) = (x) + H s+1 V1 + H s W0
= (x) + H s+1 V1 + H s+1 abcd(y, z) + tcd(c2 , d2 )2 H s .
The second equality follows from part (ii).
Since (c2 , d2 ) ⊆ H,
Ws = H s+1 abcd(y, z) + tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 ⊆ H s+1 abcd(y, z) + tcd(c2 , d2 )2 H s .
Hence
(x) + H s+1 V1 + Ws ⊆ (H s I 3 , x) : (yz).
To prove the reverse inclusion, we only need to show that
tcd(c2 , d2 )2 H s ⊆ H s+1 V1 + tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 .
We have H s = (c2 , d2 )s + (a2 , b2 )H s−1 , hence
tcd(c2 , d2 )2 H s = tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 + tcd(c2 , d2 )2 (a2 , b2 )H s−1 .

(A.2)

POWERS OF FIBER PRODUCTS

21

Since cd(a2 , b2 ) ⊆ V1 and (c2 , d2 ) ⊆ H, we get
tcd(c2 , d2 )2 (a2 , b2 )H s−1 = tcd(a2 , b2 )(c2 , d2 )2 H s−1 ⊆ V1 H s+1 ,
which yields (A.2).
(v) First we prove the inclusion
H s+1 V1 ∩ H s+1 abcd(y, z) ⊇ qH s+1 abcd(y, z).
This follows from the chain
qabcd ⊆ (a2 , b2 )cd + ab(c2 , d2 ) ⊆ V1 .
For the reverse inclusion, take a monomial f ∈ H s+1 V1 ∩ H s+1 abcd(y, z), and
assume that f ∈
/ qH s+1 abcd(y, z). We can write f = abcduv, where u ∈ {y, z}
s+1
and v ∈ H
. Since f ∈
/ qH s+1 abcd(y, z), v ∈
/ qH s+1 . Hence v = v1 v2 , where
supp v2 ∩ {a, b, c, d} = ∅ and v1 is a minimal generator of H s+1 . Without loss of
generality, let u = y. Now
f = abcdyv1 v2 = (yv2 )abcdv1 ∈ H s+1 V1 ,
so abcdv1 ∈ H s+1 V1 . On the other hand, any minimal monomial generator of
H s+1 V1 is divisible by a polynomial of a2 , b2 , c2 , d2 of degree s + 2. Hence abcdv1 ∈
/
H s+1 V1 . This contradiction finishes the proof of (v).
(vi) Since Ws = H s+1 abcd(y, z)+tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 , from (v), it suffices to show that
H s+1 V1 ∩ tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 = qtcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 .
First we show that the containment "⊇". Note that
qcd(c2 , d2 ) = (c2 , d2 )cd(a, b) + (c2 , d2 )cd(c, d) ⊆ H(a, b)(c, d) + (c2 , d2 )2 ⊆ V1 .
As (c2 , d2 )s+1 ⊆ H s+1 , we get the desired containment.
For the reverse containment, take a monomial f ∈ H s+1 V1 ∩ tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 , and
assume that f ∈
/ qtcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 . Lemma 2.6 yields
(a, b) ∩ tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 = (a, b)tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 ⊆ qtcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 ,
hence f ∈
/ (a, b). Note that H ⊆ (a, b) + (c2 , d2 ), V1 ⊆ (a, b) + (c2 , d2 )2 , so
H s+1 V1 ⊆ (a, b) + (c2 , d2 )s+3 .
This implies f ∈ (c2 , d2 )s+3 . Together with the fact that f ∈ tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 , we see
that
f ∈ tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 (c, d) ⊆ qtcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 .
This contradicts the assumption f ∈
/ qtcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 . Hence (vi) is established.
(vii) For the first assertion, it suffices to prove the equality. Applying Lemma
2.6, we have
H s+1 abcd(y, z) ∩ tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 ⊆ ab(y, z) ∩ tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2
= abcd(y, z)t(c2 , d2 )s+2 .
Clearly
abcd(y, z)t(c2 , d2 )s+2 ⊆ qH s+1 abcd(y, z) ∩ qtcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 ,
hence the reverse containment is true.
Next we prove the second assertion
H s+1 abcd(y, z) ∩ qWs = qH s+1 abcd(y, z).

(A.3)

22

HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU

Since Ws = H s+1 abcd(y, z) + tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 , this reduces to
H s+1 abcd(y, z) ∩ qtcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 ⊆ qH s+1 abcd(y, z).
This follows from the first assertion and the containment (A.3). The third assertion
is proved similarly.

Lemma A.6. Keep using Notation A.3. Then for all s ≥ 1 and all i ≥ 0, the
following hold:
(i) reg(H s qi ) = max{2s + 3, 2s + i}.
(ii) reg H s Li+1 ≤ 2s + 2i + 3.
(iii) reg H s V1 ≤ 2s + 5.
Proof. All the relevant ideals are supported in S = k[a, b, c, d], hence to prove the
assertions it suffices to work in S.
(i) For i = 0, the equality reg H s = 2s + 3 holds, for example, by inspecting the
Eagon-Northcott resolution. Using Lemma 5.3(ii), we get
reg H s qi = max{reg H s , 2s + i} = max{2s + 3, 2s + i}.
(ii) Since L ⊆ q2 , there is an exact sequence
H s q2i+2
→ 0.
H s Li+1
By Lemma A.4(v), q2i+3 ⊆ Li+1 , hence H s q2i+2 /(H s Li+1 ) is killed by q. Hence it
has regularity 2s + 2i + 2. From part (i),
0 → H s Li+1 → H s q2i+2 →

reg(H s q2i+2 ) = max{2s + 3, 2s + 2i + 2} ≤ 2s + 2i + 3.
Therefore from the last exact sequence, reg H s Li+1 ≤ 2s + 2i + 3.
(iii) Consider the exact sequence
0 → H s V1 → H s q4 →

H s q4
→ 0.
H s V1

By Lemma A.5(i), H s q4 /(H s V1 ) is killed by q. Hence it has regularity 2s + 4. From
part (i), reg H s q4 = 2s + 4, so reg H s V1 ≤ 2s + 5, as desired.

Proof of Theorem A.1. We proceed through several steps.
Step 1: First we start with the easier statement that reg(ms I 2 ) ≥ s + 8 for all
s ≥ 0. In fact, it suffices to show that f = abcdxyzts+1 ∈ ms I 2 \ (ms+1 I 2 ), since
deg f = s + 8.
Clearly f = ts (abx)(cdyzt) ∈ ms I 2 . Assume that f ∈ ms+1 I 2 for some s ≥
0. There are two minimal generators u1 , u2 ∈ I such that f = gu1 u2 where
g ∈ ms+1 . As each of a2 , b2 , c2 , d2 does not divide f , both u1 and u2 belong to
{abx, cdx, acy, bdy, adz, bcz, cdyzt}. We claim that either u1 or u2 must be cdyzt.
Indeed, assume the contrary. Then either both u1 and u2 are divisible by one of
the variables a, b, c, d, or both of them are divisible by one of the variables x, y, z.
In both case, we get a contradiction, as f ∈
/ (a2 , b2 , c2 , d2 , x2 , y 2 , z 2 ). Thus we can
assume u1 = cdyzt. This forces u2 ∈
/ (c, d), so the only option is u2 = abx. But then
g = f /(u1 u2 ) = ts ∈
/ ms+1 . This contradiction shows that f ∈
/ ms+1 I 2 .
s 2
Now we show by induction on s ≥ 0 that reg(m I ) ≤ s + 8. The case s = 0 can
be checked directly with Macaulay2 [28]. For s ≥ 1, we have
reg(ms I 2 ) ≤ s + reg I 2 = s + 8.

POWERS OF FIBER PRODUCTS

23

Therefore reg(ms I 2 ) = s + 8 for all s.
Step 2: We show that reg I n ≥ 2n + 3 for all n ≥ 3. It suffices to show that
f1 = c2n−1 dyzt ∈ I n \ (mI n ), since deg f1 = 2n + 3.
Clearly f1 = (c2 )(n−1) (cdyzt) ∈ I n . Assume that f1 ∈ mI n for some n ≥ 3. Since
f1 ∈
/ (a, b, d2 , x), we must have
f1 ∈ m(c2 , cdyzt)n .
We can write f1 = vu1 · · · un , where v ∈ m, ui ∈ {c2 , cdyzt}. One of the ci s must be
cdyzt, otherwise f1 ∈ (c2n ). Assume that un = cdyzt. Then vu1 · · · un−1 = c2n−2 .
Since deg ui ≥ 2 and deg v ≥ 1, we get
2n − 2 = deg(c2n−2 ) ≥ 1 + 2(n − 1) = 2n − 1,
a contradiction. Hence f1 ∈
/ mI n .
Step 3: The remaining space is devoted to the more tricky statement that reg I n ≤
2n + 3 for all n ≥ 3. We will keep using Notation A.3. Thanks to Lemma A.4,
I s+3 = H s I 3 for all s ≥ 0, so it suffices to show that reg H s I 3 ≤ 2s + 9 for all such
s.
Using Lemma A.2 for M = H s I 3 and the variables x, y, z, we get
reg M ≤

max reg(M, x, y, z), reg(M, y, z) : x + 1, reg(M, x, z) : y + 1, reg(M, x, y) : z + 1,
reg(M, x) : (yz) + 2, reg(M, y) : (xz) + 2, reg(M, z) : (xy) + 2,

reg(M : xyz) + 3 .
We show that for every s ≥ 0, each term in the right-hand side is at most 2s + 9.
Step 4: Since x, y, z ∈
/ supp H, using Lemma A.4(ii), we get
M : xyz = H s (I 3 : xyz) = H s q6 .
By Lemma A.6(i), if s ≥ 1, reg(M : xyz) + 3 = 2s + 9. If s = 0 clearly the same
thing is true.
Step 5: Clearly (M, x, y, z) = (x, y, z) + H s+3 , hence
reg(M, x, y, z) = reg H s+3 = 2(s + 3) + 3 = 2s + 9.
Step 6: We show that reg(M, y, z) : x + 1 ≤ 2s + 9.
We have (M, y, z) : x = (y, z) + H s (K 3 : x). As y and z do not belong to the
support of H s (K 3 : x), we deduce reg(M, y, z) : x = reg H s (K 3 : x). It remains to
show that
reg H s (K 3 : x) ≤ 2s + 8.
(A.4)
By Lemma A.4(iii)–(iv), we have
K 3 : x2 = L3 ,
K 3 : x + (x) = H 2 L + (x).

24

HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU

This yields the third equality in the following chain
reg H s (K 3 : x) = reg(H s K 3 : x)


s 3
2
s 3
≤ max reg(H K : x ) + 1, reg(H K : x + (x))



s
3
2
s
3
= max reg H (K : x ) + 1, reg H (K : x + (x)) + (x)



s 3
s+2
= max reg H L + 1, reg H
L + (x)


s 3
s+2
= max reg H L + 1, reg H
L .
Now (A.4) follows since by Lemma A.6(ii)
max{reg H s L3 , reg H s+2 L} ≤ 2s + 7.
Step 7: Denote K1 = (a2 , b2 , c2 , d2 , acy, bdy) and K2 = (a2 , b2 , c2 , d2 , adz, bcz). Arguing as in Step 6, we have
(M, x, z) : y = (x, z) + H s (K13 : y),
(M, x, y) : z = (x, y) + H s (K23 : z).
Following the same step, we deduce
max{reg(M, x, z) : y + 1, reg(M, x, y) : z + 1} ≤ 2s + 9.
Step 8: Next we show that
reg(M, x) : (yz) + 2 ≤ 2s + 9.

(A.5)

From Lemma A.5(iv),
(M, x) : (yz) = (x) + H s+1 V1 + W,
where for simplicity W = H s+1 abcd(y, z) + tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2 . As x does not belong to
the support of H s+1 V1 + W , reg(M, x) : (yz) = reg(H s+1 V1 + W ). The equality
H s+1 V1 ∩ W = qW
from Lemma A.5(vi) yields an exact sequence
0 → H s+1 V1 → H s+1 V1 + W →

W
→ 0.
qW

So we obtain
reg(M, x) : (yz) = reg(H

s+1



W
s+1
V1 + W ) ≤ max reg H
V1 , reg
.
qW

By Lemma A.5(vii) we get the first equality in the following display
W
H s+1 abcd(y, z) M tcd(c2 , d2 )s+2
=
qW
qH s+1 abcd(y, z)
qtcd(c2 , d2 )s+2
 s+1
M
H
abcd
cd(c2 , d2 )s+2
∼
(−1).
⊗
(y,
z)
=
k
qH s+1 abcd
qcd(c2 , d2 )s+2
Working in S, we get
reg

H s+1 abcd
cd(c2 , d2 )s+2
= 2s + 6,
=
reg
qH s+1 abcd
qcd(c2 , d2 )s+2

(A.6)

POWERS OF FIBER PRODUCTS

25

hence together with Lemma 2.7, reg(W/qW ) = 2s + 7. Thanks to (A.6), in order
to get (A.5), we are left with the inequality
reg H s+1 V1 ≤ 2s + 7.
The latter follows from Lemma A.6(iii).
Step 9: Next we show that
reg(M, y) : (xz) + 2 ≤ 2s + 9.

(A.7)

By Lemma A.5(iii),
(M, y) : (xz) = H s ((I 3 , y) : (xz)) + (y) = H s+1 V2 + H s+1 abcd(x, z) + (y).
As y does not belong to the support of H s+1 V2 + H s+1 abcd(x, z),
reg(M, y) : (xz) = reg(H s+1 V2 + H s+1 abcd(x, z)).
By symmetry, we deduce from Lemma A.5(v) the equality
H s+1 V2 ∩ H s+1 abcd(x, z) = qH s+1 abcd(x, z).
The latter yields an exact sequence
0 → H s+1 V2 → H s+1 V2 + H s+1 abcd(x, z) →

H s+1 abcd(x, z)
→ 0.
qH s+1 abcd(x, z)

The last term in the sequence is isomorphic to
H s+1 abcd
⊗k (x, z).
qH s+1 abcd
Clearly
reg

H s+1 abcd
= 2s + 6,
qH s+1 abcd

so by Lemma 2.7,
H s+1 abcd
⊗k (x, z) = 2s + 7.
qH s+1 abcd
Therefore from the last exact sequence, we reduce (A.7) to showing that
reg

reg H s+1 V2 ≤ 2s + 7.
This follows by symmetry from Lemma A.6(iii).
Step 10: By symmetry, arguing as in Step 9, we get reg(M, z) : (xy) + 2 ≤ 2s + 9.
Putting everything together, we get reg M ≤ 2s + 9, as desired.

Final remark. Some discussions in this paper, for instance a slightly more general form
of Corollary 7.2, appeared in Section 5 of the unpublished preprint [44]. Nevertheless, we
have better proofs and much more interesting materials to present here, thanks to the
additional input brought in by Section 4.

Acknowledgments
The first named author is grateful to the hospitality and support of the Department of Mathematics, Otto von Guericke Universität Magdeburg, where large
parts of this work were finished. The second named author is partially supported by
the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development under
grant number 101.04-2016.21.

26

HOP D. NGUYEN AND THANH VU

References
[1] R. Ahangari Maleki, Golod property of powers of ideals and of ideals with linear resolutions.
Preprint (2015), http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.04435.
[2] A. Alilooee and A. Banerjee, Powers of edge ideals of regularity three bipartite graphs. J.
Commut. Algebra 9, no. 4 (2017), 441–454.
[3] A. Alilooee, S. Beyarslan, and S. Selvaraja, Regularity of powers of unicyclic graphs. Preprint
(2017), https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00916.
[4] H. Ananthranayan, L.L. Avramov and W. Frank Moore, Connected sums of Gorenstein local
rings. J. Reine Angew. Math. 667 (2012), 149–176.
[5] L.L. Avramov, Infinite free resolution. in Six lectures on Commutative Algebra (Bellaterra,
1996), 1–118, Progr. Math., 166, Birkhäuser (1998).
[6] A. Banerjee, The regularity of powers of edge ideals. J. Algebr. Combin. 41 (2015), 303–321.
[7] A. Banerjee, S. Beyarslan and H.T. Hà, Regularity of edge ideals and their powers. Preprint
(2017), https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.00887.
[8] S. Beyarslan, H.T. Hà, and T.N. Trung, Regularity of powers of forests and cycles. J. Algebr.
Combin. 42 (2015), 1077–1095.
[9] M. Brodmann, The asymptotic nature of the analytic spread. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos.
Soc. 86 (1979), no. 1, 35–39.
[10] W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay rings. Rev. ed.. Cambridge Studies in Advanced
Mathematics 39, Cambridge University Press (1998).
[11] G. Caviglia, H.T. Hà, J. Herzog, M. Kummini, N. Terai, and N.V. Trung, Depth and regularity
modulo a principal ideal. To appear in J. Algebraic Combin.,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10801-018-0811-9.
[12] M. Chardin, Powers of ideals and the cohomology of stalks and fibers of morphisms. Algebra
Number Theory 7 (2013), no. 1, 1–18.
[13] M. Chardin, Powers of ideals: Betti numbers, cohomology and regularity. in Commutative
Algebra, Springer (2013), 317–333.
[14] L.W. Christensen, J. Striuli and O. Veliche, Growth in the minimal injective resolution of a
local ring. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 81 (2010), no. 1, 24–44.
[15] Y. Cid-Ruiz, S. Jafari, N. Nemati and B. Picone, Regularity of bicyclic graphs and their
powers. Preprint (2018), https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07202.
[16] A. Conca, E. De Negri and M. E. Rossi, Koszul algebra and regularity. in Commutative
Algebra, Springer (2013), 285–315.
[17] A. Conca and T. Römer, Generic initial ideals and fibre products. Osaka J. Math. 47 (2010),
17–32.
[18] S.D. Cutkosky, J. Herzog and N.V. Trung, Asymptotic behaviour of the Castelnuovo-Mumford
regularity. Compositio Math. 118 (1999), no. 3, 243–261.
[19] A. Dress and H. Krämer, Bettireihen von Faserprodukten lokaler Ringe. Math. Ann. 215
(1975), 79–82.
[20] D. Eisenbud, Commutative algebra. With a view toward algebraic geometry. Graduate Texts
in Mathematics 150. Springer-Verlag, New York (1995).
[21] D. Eisenbud, G. Fløystad and F. -O. Schreyer, Sheaf cohomology and free resolutions over
exterior algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003), 4397–4426.
[22] D. Eisenbud and J. Harris, Powers of ideals and fibers of morphisms. Math. Res. Lett. 17
(2010), 267–273.
[23] D. Eisenbud and B. Ulrich, Notes on regularity stabilization. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 140,
no. 4 (2012), 1221–1232.
[24] N. Erey, Powers of edge ideals with linear resolutions. To appear in Comm. Algebra,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00927872.2018.1430810.
[25] N. Erey, Powers of ideals associated to (C4 , 2K2 )-free graphs. Preprint (2017),
https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.08535.
[26] C. Francisco, H.T. Hà, and A. Van Tuyl, Splittings of monomial ideals. Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 137 (2009), 3271–3282.
[27] S. Goto and K. Watanabe, On graded rings, I. J. Math. Soc. Japan 30 (1978), no. 2, 179–212.
[28] D. Grayson and M. Stillman, Macaulay2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry. Available at http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2.

POWERS OF FIBER PRODUCTS

27

[29] H.T. Hà, N.V. Trung and T.N. Trung, Depth and regularity of powers of sums of ideals.
Math. Z. 282 (2016), no. 3–4, 819–838.
[30] J. Herzog and T. Hibi, Componentwise linear ideals. Nagoya Math. J. 153 (1999), 141–153.
[31] J. Herzog and T. Hibi, The depth of powers of an ideal. J. Algebra 291 (2005), no. 2, 534–550.
[32] J. Herzog, T. Hibi, and X. Zheng, Monomial ideals whose powers have a linear resolution.
Math. Scand. 95 (2004), 23-32.
[33] J. Herzog and S.B. Iyengar, Koszul modules. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 201 (2005), 154–188.
[34] J. Herzog, T.J. Puthenpurakal and J.K. Verma, Hilbert polynomials and powers of ideals.
Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 145 (2008), no. 3, 623–642.
[35] A.V. Jayanthan, N. Narayanan, and S. Selvaraja, Regularity of powers of bipartite graphs. J.
Algebr. Combin. 47 (2018), 17–38.
[36] A.V. Jayanthan and S. Selvaraja, Asymptotic behavior of Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of
edge ideals of very well-covered graphs. Preprint (2017), https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.06883.
[37] V. Kodiyalam, Asymptotic behaviour of Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity. Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 128 (2000), no. 2, 407–411.
[38] J. Lescot, La série de Bass d’un produit fibré d’anneaux locaux. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I
Math. 293 (1981), no. 12, 569–571.
[39] J. Martínez-Bernal, S. Morey, R.H. Villarreal, and C.E. Vivares, Depth and regularity of monomial ideals via polarization and combinatorial optimization. Preprint (2018),
https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.02017.
[40] M. Moghimian, S. A. Seyed Fakhari, and S. Yassemi, Regularity of powers of edge ideal of
whiskered cycles. Comm. Algebra 45, no. 3 (2017), 1246–1259.
[41] W. Frank Moore, Cohomology over fiber products of local rings. J. Algebra 321 (2009), 758–
773.
[42] S. Nasseh and S. Sather-Wagstaff, Vanishing of Ext and Tor over fiber products. Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 145 (2017), no. 11, 4661–4674.
[43] H.D. Nguyen, Notes on the linearity defect and applications. Ill. J. Math. 59 (2015), 637–662.
[44] H.D. Nguyen and T. Vu, Linearity defects of powers are eventually constant. Preprint (2015),
http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.04853v1.
[45] H.D. Nguyen and T. Vu, Powers of sums and their homological invariants, Preprint (2016),
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.07380.
[46] I. Peeva, Graded syzygies. Algebra and Applications. Volume 14, Springer, London (2011).
[47] T. Römer, On minimal graded free resolutions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essen (2001)
[48] L.M. Şega, Homological properties of powers of the maximal ideal of a local ring. J. Algebra
241, 827–858 (2001).
[49] L.M. Şega, On the linearity defect of the residue field. J. Algebra 384 (2013), 276–290.
[50] K. Yanagawa, Alexander duality for Stanley–Reisner rings and squarefree Nn -graded modules.
J. Algebra 225 (2000), 630–645.
Fakultät für Mathematik, Otto von Guericke Universität Magdeburg, Universitätsplatz
2, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany
E-mail address: ngdhop@gmail.com
E-mail address: vuqthanh@gmail.com

