format: text

text:
# Geometry of graph varieties

## 1. Introduction

This paper initiates the study of certain algebraic varieties that parametrize plane pictures $`𝐏`$ of a given graph $`G`$, with vertices $`v`$ and edges $`e`$ represented respectively by points $`𝐏(v)^2`$ and lines $`𝐏(e)`$ connecting them in pairs. Three such varieties naturally arise. First of all, there is the picture space $`𝒳(G)`$ of all pictures of $`G`$. Usually, $`𝒳(G)`$ is not irreducible. It is therefore natural to restrict attention to a second variety, namely the irreducible component of $`𝒳(G)`$ containing as a dense set those pictures in which the points $`𝐏(v)`$ are all distinct. This most generic component of the picture space is called the picture variety $`𝒱(G)`$. As we shall see in Theorems 5.4 and 5.6, $`𝒱(G)`$ is cut out in $`𝒳(G)`$ purely by equations relating the slopes of the lines $`𝐏(e)`$. The crucial matter for the whole study is to understand the relations among these slopes. This leads us to consider the slope variety $`𝒮(G)`$, which is essentially the projection of $`𝒱(G)`$ on coordinates $`m_e`$ giving the slopes of the lines $`𝐏(e)`$.

In a sequel to this paper , we study intensively the case where $`G`$ is the complete graph $`K_n`$. There we obtain very precise results, including the proof for $`K_n`$ of some conjectures mentioned below, along with remarkable connections to the combinatorics of matchings and planar trees. Note that the problem of describing the slope variety $`𝒮(K_n)`$ is of a very classical kind: it is exactly the problem of determining all relations among the slopes of the $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)`$ lines connecting $`n`$ general points in the plane.

Here we consider the features of varieties associated with an arbitrary graph $`G=(V,E)`$. In Section 3, we define precisely the varieties $`𝒳(G)`$, $`𝒱(G)`$ and $`𝒮(G)`$ and give a fundamental construction, the decomposition of the picture space into locally closed pieces which we call cellules. In Section 4, we show that the generic rigidity matroid $`(V)`$ studied by Laman et. al. (see ) appears as the algebraic dependence matroid of the slopes (Theorem 4.5).

The heart of the paper is Section 5. For each set of edges forming a circuit in the matroid $`(V)`$, we can write down an explicit determinantal formula for the essentially unique polynomial relation among the corresponding slopes $`m_e`$. The slope relation induced by each circuit in $`(V)`$ turns out to be a remarkable polynomial. All its terms are squarefree, and they have a surprising combinatorial interpretation in terms of decompositions of the given circuit into pairs of complementary spanning trees (Theorem 5.4). Moreover, we prove that precisely these relations cut out $`𝒱(G)`$ in $`𝒳(G)`$ set-theoretically (Theorem 5.6).

In Section 6, we show how the full component structure of $`𝒳(G)`$ can be economically described in terms of the rigidity matroid (Theorem 6.4), and show that when $`𝒳(G)=𝒱(G)`$, this variety has Cohen-Macaulay singularities (Theorem 6.8). We conjecture that the slope relations should cut out $`𝒱(G)`$ scheme-theoretically as well as set-theoretically. We further suspect that they may always form a universal Gröbner basis for the ideal of the slope variety, and moreover, that both $`𝒮(G)`$ and $`𝒱(G)`$ are always Cohen-Macaulay.

When we first embarked upon the study of graph varieties, before obtaining the results indicated above, we already had some reasons to think they might be interesting. Since these reasons remain relevant, let us mention them briefly. Graph varieties are a particular class of configuration varieties—subvarieties in a product of Grassmannians defined by containment conditions among various subspaces of a fixed space. Other examples of configuration varieties are Bott-Samelson-Demazure varieties and somewhat more general varieties introduced and studied by Magyar . The latter have very special geometric properties, and it is natural to inquire to what extent these are shared by more general configuration varieties. Graph varieties provide the simplest non-trivial examples not fitting into Magyar’s framework. Furthermore, for $`G=K_n`$, the picture variety $`𝒱(G)`$ is a blowdown of the Fulton-Macpherson compactification of configuration space , which desingularizes it. For general $`G`$, the same relation holds between $`𝒱(G)`$ and the DeConcini-Procesi wonderful model of subspace arrangements . We expect that $`𝒱(G)`$ should not only be Cohen-Macaulay but should have rational singularities. This would be equivalent to a cohomology vanishing theorem for certain line bundles on the wonderful model, raising an important question for further study.

This paper is essentially Chapter 1 of the author’s Ph.D. dissertation , written under the supervision of Mark Haiman. The author wishes to thank Prof. Haiman for his advice and encouragement.

## 2. Definitions

We work over an algebraically closed field $`𝐤`$. Affine and projective $`n`$-space over $`𝐤`$ are denoted by $`𝔸^n`$ and $`^n`$ respectively.

A graph is a pair $`G=(V,E)`$, where $`V=V(G)`$ is a finite set of vertices and $`E=E(G)`$ is a set of edges, or unordered pairs of distinct vertices $`\{v,w\}`$. We frequently abbreviate $`\{v,w\}`$ by $`vw`$ when no confusion can arise (for instance, when the vertices are one-digit positive integers). The vertices $`v,w`$ are called the endpoints of the edge $`vw`$. A subgraph of $`G`$ is a graph $`G^{}=(V^{},E^{})`$ with $`V^{}V`$ and $`E^{}E`$. We define

$$K(V^{})=\{vwv,wV^{},vw\}$$

and

$$E(V^{})=EK(V^{}).$$

The complete graph on $`V`$ is the graph $`(V,K(V))`$. We write $`K_n`$ for the complete graph on $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. For $`E^{}E`$ and $`vV`$, the valence of $`v`$ with respect to $`E^{}`$ is

$$val_E^{}(v)=\left|\{eE^{}ve\}\right|$$

and the vertex support of $`E^{}`$ is

$$V(E^{})=\{vVval_E^{}(v)>0\}.$$

For $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_sV`$, we set

$$(v_1,\mathrm{},v_s)=\{v_1v_2,v_2v_3,\mathrm{},v_{s1}v_s\}E.$$

If the $`v_i`$ are all distinct, then $`(v_1,\mathrm{},v_s)`$ is called a path. If $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{s1}`$ are distinct and $`v_1=v_s`$, then $`(v_1,\mathrm{},v_s)`$ is called a polygon or $`(s1)`$-gon. A polygon is more commonly called a “cycle” or “circuit,” but we wish to reserve these words for other uses.

A graph $`G=(V,E)`$ is connected if every pair of vertices are joined by a path, and is a forest if at most one such path exists for every pair. A connected forest is called a tree. A spanning tree of $`G`$ (or of $`V`$) is a tree $`TE`$ with $`V(T)=V`$. A connected component of $`G`$ is a maximal connected subgraph; every graph has a unique decomposition into connected components (where some components may be isolated vertices).

A partition of a finite set $`V`$ is a set $`𝒜=\{A_1,\mathrm{},A_s\}`$ of pairwise disjoint subsets of $`V`$ whose union is $`V`$. The sets $`A_i`$ are called the blocks of $`𝒜`$. We write $`_𝒜`$ for the equivalence relation on $`V`$ whose equivalence classes are the blocks of $`𝒜`$. We distinguish two extreme cases: the discrete partition $`𝒟_V`$, all of whose blocks are singletons, and the indiscrete partition $`_V`$, which has only one block. Finally, if $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are partitions of $`V`$, then we say that $`𝒜`$ refines $``$, written $`𝒜`$, if every block of $`𝒜`$ is contained in some block of $``$. It is elementary that refinement is a partial ordering.

## 3. The Picture Space and Picture Variety of a Graph

Throughout this section, we consider a graph $`G=(V,E)`$ with $`|V|=n`$ and $`|E|=r`$. Define

(3.1)
$$Gr(G)=\underset{vV}{}^2\times \underset{eE}{}\widehat{}^2,$$

where $`\widehat{}^2`$ denotes the dual projective plane of lines in $`^2`$.

For $`𝐏Gr(G)`$, $`vV`$, and $`eE`$, we write $`𝐏(v)`$ and $`𝐏(e)`$ for the projections of $`𝐏`$ on the indicated factors in (3.1).

###### Definition 3.1.

A picture of $`G`$ is a point $`𝐏Gr(G)`$ such that $`𝐏(v)𝐏(e)`$ whenever the vertex $`v`$ is an endpoint of the edge $`e`$. The picture space $`𝒳(G)`$ is the set of all pictures of $`G`$.

Note that $`𝒳(G)`$ is Zariski closed in $`Gr(G)`$, since the incidence conditions may be expressed in terms of the Plücker coordinates. Note also that if $`G_1,\mathrm{},G_s`$ are the connected components of $`G`$, then

$$𝒳(G)𝒳(G_1)\times \mathrm{}\times 𝒳(G_s).$$

The equations defining $`𝒳(G)`$ in homogeneous coordinates are awkward to work with explicitly. However, all the geometric information we will require about $`𝒳(G)`$ can be recovered from the following affine open subset of it, on which the defining equations assume a more manageable form.

###### Definition 3.2.

Fix homogeneous coordinates $`[a_0:a_1:a_2]`$ on $`^2`$, identifying $`𝔸^2`$ with the points for which $`a_00`$ and giving $`x=a_1/a_0`$, $`y=a_2/a_0`$ as affine coordinates on $`𝔸^2`$. The affine picture space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$ is the open subvariety of $`𝒳(G)`$ consisting of pictures $`𝐏`$ such that all points $`𝐏(v)`$ lie in $`𝔸^2`$ and no line $`𝐏(e)`$ is parallel to the $`y`$-axis.

Note that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$ is open and dense in $`𝒳(G)`$, and that $`𝒳(G)`$ is covered by finitely many copies of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$. In addition $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$ has affine coordinates

$$\{x_v,y_vvV\}\{m_e,b_eeE\},$$

where $`m_e`$ and $`b_e`$ denote respectively the slope and $`y`$-intercept of the line $`𝐏(e)`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$ is the vanishing locus (in $`𝔸^{2n+2r}`$, identified with an open subset of $`Gr(G)`$) of the ideal generated by the $`2r`$ equations

(3.2)
$$\begin{array}{c}y_v=m_ex_v+b_e,\\ y_w=m_ex_w+b_e,\end{array}$$

for each edge $`e=vw`$. Eliminating the variables $`b_e`$ from (3.2) produces $`r`$ equations

(3.3)
$$(y_vy_w)=m_e(x_vx_w).$$

We may also eliminate the variables $`y_v`$. For each polygon $`P=(v_1,\mathrm{},v_s,v_1)`$ of $`G`$, we sum the equations (3.3) over the edges of $`P`$, obtaining the equation

(3.4)
$$L(P)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}m_{e_i}(x_{v_i}x_{v_{i+1}})=0.$$

where $`e_i=v_iv_{i+1}`$ and the indices are taken modulo $`s`$. Given a solution in $`\{m_e,x_v\}`$ of the equations (3.4), we may choose one $`y`$-coordinate arbitrarily and use (3.2) and (3.3) to recover the coordinates $`y_v`$ and $`b_e`$. Thus, putting

$$R_G^{}=𝐤[m_e,x_veE,vV],$$

we see that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)𝔸^1\times X`$, where $`X`$ is the subscheme of $`SpecR_G^{}𝔸^{|V|+|E|}`$ defined set-theoretically by the equations (3.4). We will show eventually that in fact, the equations defining the varieties $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$ lie in the subring

$$R_G=𝐤[m_eeE].$$

There is a natural decomposition of $`𝒳(G)`$ into locally closed irreducible nonsingular subvarieties, which we call cellules. The decomposition is somewhat analogous to the decomposition of a flag variety into Schubert cells.

###### Definition 3.3.

Let $`𝒜=\{A_1,\mathrm{},A_s\}`$ be a partition of $`V`$. The cellule of $`𝒜`$ in $`𝒳(G)`$ is the quasiprojective subvariety

$$𝒳_𝒜(G)=\{𝐏𝒳(G)𝐏(v)=𝐏(w)v_𝒜w\}.$$

Unlike a Schubert cell, a cellule $`𝒳_𝒜(G)`$ is not isomorphic to an affine space. It is, however, a smooth fiber bundle. To see this, let $`𝐏𝒳_𝒜(G)`$ and $`e=vwE`$. If $`v_𝒜w`$, then the set of lines in $`^2`$ through $`𝐏(v)=𝐏(w)`$ is isomorphic to $`^1`$, and $`𝐏(e)`$ may take any value in that set. If on the other hand $`v\sim ̸_𝒜w`$, then $`𝐏(e)`$ is determined uniquely by $`𝐏(v)`$ and $`𝐏(w)`$. Therefore, putting

$$q=\left|\{vwEv_Aw\}\right|$$

and

$$U=\{(p_1,\mathrm{},p_s)(^2)^sijp_ip_j\},$$

we see that $`𝒳_𝒜(G)`$ has the bundle structure

(3.5)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}(^1)^q& & 𝒳_A(G)\\ & & \\ & & U\end{array}.$$

In particular, this yields the useful formula

(3.6)
$$dim𝒳_𝒜(G)=2s+\left|\{vwEv_𝒜w\}\right|.$$

###### Definition 3.4.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$. A picture $`𝐏𝒳(G)`$ is called generic if no two of the points $`𝐏(v)`$ coincide. The discrete cellule $`𝒱^{}(G)`$ is defined as the set of all generic pictures of $`G`$. Note that $`𝒱^{}(G)=𝒳_𝒟(G)`$, where $`𝒟=𝒟_V`$ is the discrete partition of $`V`$ (the partition into singleton sets). The picture variety of $`G`$ is defined as the closure of the discrfete cellule:

$$𝒱(G)=\overline{𝒱^{}(G)}.$$

This is an irreducible component of $`𝒳(G)`$. By (3.6), we have

$$dim𝒱(G)=dim𝒱^{}(G)=2|V(G)|.$$

The affine picture variety of $`G`$ is defined as

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)=𝒱(G)\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G).$$

###### Remark 3.5.

For $`G=(V,E)`$ and $`WV`$, define the coincidence locus of $`W`$ as

(3.7)
$$C_W(G)=\{𝐏𝒳(G)𝐏(v)=𝐏(w)\text{for all}v,wW\}.$$

Let $`G_0`$ be the graph with vertices $`V=V(G)`$ and no edges. We may regard $`𝒱(G)`$ as the simultaneous blowup of $`(^2)^n=𝒳(G_0)`$ along the coincidence loci $`C_{\{e\}}(G)`$ for all edges $`e`$. Indeed, the further blowup of $`(^2)^n`$ along all $`C_W`$, where $`WV`$ is connected, is an instance of the “wonderful model of subspace arrangements” of DeConcini and Procesi . This blowup is a desingularization of $`𝒱(G)`$. When $`G`$ is the complete graph $`K_n`$, this is the “compactification of configuration space” of Fulton and MacPherson .

Note that the only cellule which is closed in $`𝒳(G)`$ is the indiscrete cellule $`𝒳_{}(G)`$, where $`=_V`$ is the indiscrete partition of $`V`$ (the partition with just one block).

###### Example 3.6.

Let $`G=K_2`$. Denote by $`𝒟`$ and $``$ respectively the discrete and indiscrete partitions of $`V=V(G)=\{1,2\}`$. The picture space $`𝒳(K_2)`$ is the blowup of $`^2\times ^2`$ along the diagonal

$$\{(p_1,p_2)^2\times ^2p_1=p_2\}.$$

The blowup map

$$𝒳(K_2)^2\times ^2$$

is just the projection on the vertex coordinates. The exceptional divisor of the blowup is the indiscrete cellule, which has dimension 3. Since there are no partitions of $`V`$ other than $`𝒟`$ and $``$, the complement of $`𝒳_{}(K_2)`$ is $`𝒱^{}(K_2)`$, which has dimension 4 and is dense in $`𝒳(K_2)`$. Thus $`𝒱(K_2)=𝒳(K_2)`$.

###### Example 3.7.

In general, the picture space $`𝒳(G)`$ is not irreducible. The first example, and in many ways the fundamental one, is the graph $`K_4`$. Denote by $`𝒟`$ and $``$ respectively the discrete and indiscrete partitions of $`\{1,2,3,4\}`$. The data for a picture in $`𝒳_{}(K_4)`$ consists of six lines, each passing through one free point in the plane, so

$$dim𝒳_{}(K_4)=8=dim𝒱^{}(K_4)$$

(this follows also from (3.6)). In particular, $`𝒳_{}(K_4)`$ is too big to be contained in the closure of $`𝒱^{}(K_4)`$. Hence $`𝒱(K_4)𝒳(K_4)`$. In fact, the irreducible components of $`𝒳(K_4)`$ are precisely $`𝒱(K_4)`$ and $`𝒳_{}(K_4)`$ (see Lemma 6.2).

We will soon see that the polynomials defining $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ as a subvariety of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$ involve only the variables $`m_e`$. In order to study these polynomials in isolation, we define a third type of graph variety. As before, we identify $`𝔸^2`$ with an open affine subset of $`^2`$.

###### Definition 3.8.

Let $`U`$ be the (dense) set of pictures $`𝐏𝒱(G)`$ such that no $`𝐏(e)`$ is the line at infinity. Accordingly, for each $`e`$, $`𝐏(e)𝔸^2`$ is an affine line of the form

$$\{(x,y)\alpha _ex+\beta _ey=1\},$$

with a well-defined “slope” $`[\alpha _e:\beta _e]^1`$. Forgetting all the data of $`𝐏`$ except the slopes gives a map

(3.8)
$$\varphi :U(^1)^r.$$

We define the slope variety $`𝒮(G)`$ as the image of $`\varphi `$. An element of $`𝒮(G)`$ is called a slope picture of $`G`$. If $`a_1^e0`$ for all $`e`$, then we have an affine slope picture. Setting $`m_e=a_0^e/a_1^e`$, we may regard an affine slope picture as a point $`𝐦=(m_eeE)`$ of $`SpecR_G`$. The algebraic set $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$ of all affine slope pictures is called the affine slope variety of $`G`$. $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$ may also be defined as the projection of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ on the coordinates $`m_e`$; since $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ is irreducible, so is $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$.

###### Remark 3.9.

Restricting $`\varphi `$ to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ produces a surjective map

(3.9)
$$\varphi :\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G).$$

Note that every fiber of $`\varphi `$ has dimension at least 3, because translation and scaling do not affect slopes of lines.

We will show that the same ideal of $`R_G`$ cuts out $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$ set-theoretically as a subvariety of $`SpecR_G`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ as a subvariety of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$. To study this ideal, we use tools from the theory of combinatorial rigidity.

## 4. Combinatorial Rigidity Theory

The behavior of graph varieties is governed in various ways by a certain combinatorial object, the generic rigidity matroid. Accordingly, we begin this section by sketching the elements of rigidity theory, collecting several facts which we will need later. (Our treatment here is necessarily brief; for a detailed exposition, see  or .) The main new result of this section, Theorem 4.5, describes the fundamental connection between the purely combinatorial theory of rigidity and the geometry of graph varieties.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$ be a connected graph, and $`𝐏`$ a generic picture of $`G`$. For the sake of easy visualization, we may take $`k=`$ for the moment (the requirement that $`k`$ be algebraically closed is not needed for the notion of rigidity). Imagine a physical model of $`𝐏`$ in which the vertices and edges are represented by “ball joints” and “rods” respectively. The rods are considered to be fixed in length, but are free to rotate about the joints in the plane of the picture. Intuitively, $`G`$ is length-rigid, or simply rigid, if the physical realization of any generic picture of $`G`$ “holds its shape.” More precisely, $`G`$ is rigid if the distance between any two vertices in a generic picture is determined by the lengths of the edges in $`E`$, up to finitely many possibilities. (This property is called “generic rigidity” in , as distinguished from other types of rigidity which we will not need here.)

For instance, let $`G`$ be the $`4`$-gon on vertices $`1,2,3,4`$. $`G`$ is not rigid, since there are infinitely many incongruent rhombuses with equal side lengths, as shown in Figure 1.

However, the graph $`G^{}=(V,E\{24\})`$ is rigid, because a generic affine picture of $`G^{}`$ is determined by the lengths of its edges, up to isometries of $`𝔸^2`$ and finitely many possibilities.

###### Definition 4.1.

The length-rigidity matroid $`(V)`$ (called in ) the 2-dimensional generic rigidity matroid) is the algebraic dependence matroid on the squares of lengths of edges

$$(x_vx_w)^2+(y_vy_w)^2,v,wV.$$

We may regard $`(V)`$ as a matroid on $`K(V)`$, associating the above polynomial with the edge $`vw`$. Accordingly, we say that a set of edges is independent in $`(V)`$, or rigidity-independent, if and only if the corresponding set of squared lengths is algebraically independent over $``$. Thus an edge set $`E`$ is rigid if and only if $`E`$ is a spanning set of $`(V)`$.

A fundamental result of rigidity theory is the following characterization of the independent sets and bases of $`(V)`$, originally due to G. Laman \[3, Theorem 4.2.1\]. An edge set $`EK(V)`$ is rigidity-independent if and only if it satisfies Laman’s condition:

(4.1)
$$|F|2|V(F)|3\text{for all}FE.$$

Furthermore, a rigidity-independent set $`E`$ is a basis of $`(V)`$ if and only if

(4.2)
$$|E|=2|V|3.$$

In addition, $`E`$ is a rigidity circuit—a minimal dependent set of $`(V)`$—if and only if $`|E|=2|V(E)|2`$ and every proper subset $`F`$ of $`E`$ satisfies Laman’s condition (4.1) \[3, Theorem 4.3.1\].

The rigidity circuits (called “rigidity cycles” in ) may be described another way. Define a rigidity pseudocircuit to be an edge set $`E`$ equal to the edge-disjoint union of two spanning trees of $`V(E)`$. Then a rigidity circuit is a minimal rigidity pseudocircuit \[3, Lemma 4.9.3 and Theorem 4.9.1\].

###### Example 4.2.

Let $`r3`$. The $`r`$-wheel is the graph $`W_r`$ with vertices

$$\{v_0,v_1,\mathrm{},v_r\}$$

and edges

$$\{v_1v_2,v_2v_3,\mathrm{},v_rv_1\}\{v_0v_1,v_0v_2,\mathrm{},v_0v_r\}.$$

For all $`r3`$, $`W_r`$ is a rigidity circuit \[3, Exercise 4.13\]. (In fact, $`W_3K_4`$ and $`W_4`$ are the only rigidity circuits on 5 or fewer vertices.) On the other hand, let $`G^{}`$ be the graph given in Figure 2. This is a rigidity pseudocircuit, since its edges are the disjoint union of the spanning trees $`\{12,23,34,45\}`$ and $`\{13,14,24,35\}`$, but it is not a rigidity circuit since it contains $`K_4`$ as a proper subgraph.

###### Definition 4.3.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$ be a rigidity pseudocircuit. A coupled spanning tree of $`G`$ is an edge set $`TE`$ such that both $`T`$ and $`T^{}=ET`$ are spanning trees of $`V`$. The set of coupled spanning trees of $`G`$ is denoted by $`Cpl(G)`$. The pair $`T,T^{}`$ is called a 2-tree decomposition of $`E`$ (or of $`G`$).

The coupled spanning trees of a rigidity circuit play a fundamental role in describing the equations which define $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$.

Our local affine coordinates on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$ measure the slopes of edges rather than their lengths, leading to an alternate notion of rigidity.

###### Definition 4.4.

The slope-rigidity matroid $`^s(V)`$ on $`K(V)`$ is the algebraic dependence matroid on the rational functions

$$m_{vw}=\frac{y_wy_v}{x_wx_v}.$$

###### Theorem 4.5.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$. The following are equivalent:

(i) $`E`$ is independent in $`(V)`$;

(ii) $`E`$ is independent in $`^s(V)`$;

(iii) $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)=SpecR_G`$ ($`𝔸^{|E|}`$);

(iv) $`𝒱(G)=𝒳(G)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`n=|V|`$ and $`r=|E|`$.

(i) $``$ (iv): Since $`𝒳(G)`$ is defined locally by $`2r`$ equations among $`2n+2r`$ coordinates, we have

$$dimX2n=dim𝒱(G)$$

for every irreducible component $`X`$ of $`𝒳(G)`$. Therefore $`𝒱^{}(G)`$ is dense in $`𝒳(G)`$ if and only if every nondiscrete cellule has dimension $`<2n`$.

Suppose $`E`$ is rigidity-independent, hence satisfies Laman’s condition (4.1). Let $`𝒜`$ be a partition of $`V`$ which is not the discrete partition. The blocks of $`𝒜`$ may be numbered $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_s`$ so that

$$\begin{array}{cc}|A_i|=1\hfill & \text{for }1it,\hfill \\ |A_i|>1\hfill & \text{for }t+1is.\hfill \end{array}$$

We may rewrite the cellule dimension formula (3.6) as

$$dim𝒳_𝒜(G)=2s+\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}|K(A_i)E|.$$

If $`it`$, then $`K(A_i)=\mathrm{}`$, while if $`i>t`$, then $`|K(A_i)E|2|A_i|3`$ by Laman’s condition (4.1). Hence

(4.3)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill dim𝒳_𝒜(G)& 2s+\underset{i=t+1}{\overset{s}{}}(2|A_i|3)=2s+(2(nt)3(st))\hfill \\ & =2ns+t<2n.\hfill \end{array}$$

as desired.

(iv) $``$ (iii): No nonzero element of $`R_G`$ vanishes on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$, since the projection of the indiscrete cellule $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_{}(G)`$ on the second factor in (3.1) is surjective. On the other hand, every element of $`R_G`$ that vanishes on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$ vanishes on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$. We conclude that if (iii) fails, then (iv) fails as well.

(iii) $``$ (ii): This is essentially the definition of the slope-rigidity matroid.

(ii) $``$ (i): Suppose that $`E`$ is independent in $`^s(V)`$. Let $`FE`$, and let $`H`$ be the graph $`(V(F),F)`$. Then $`dim\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(H)=2|V(F)|`$, and all fibers of the canonical surjection $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(H)\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(H)`$ have dimension $`3`$ (since translation and scaling do not affect slope), whence

(4.4)
$$dim\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(H)2|V(F)|3.$$

On the other hand, $`F`$ is independent in $`^s(V)`$, so $`\{m_ffF\}`$ is algebraically independent, and these variables form a system of parameters for $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(H)`$, so

(4.5)
$$|F|dim\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(H).$$

Together, (4.4) and (4.5) imply Laman’s condition (4.1) for $`E`$. ∎

We have recovered the following fact. <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1During the refereeing process, the author learned that his result had already appeared in the literature: see, e.g., \[10, Corollary 4.1.3\]. The author wishes to thank Walter Whiteley for helpful conversations on this topic.

###### Corollary 4.6.

For every vertex set $`V`$, the length-rigidity matroid $`(V)`$ and the slope-rigidity matroid $`^s(V)`$ are equal.

## 5. The Equations Defining $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$

Let $`G=(V,E)`$ be a connected graph. In this section, we explicitly construct an ideal $`I=I_G`$ defining the affine picture and affine slope varieties of $`G`$ set-theoretically. The generators of $`I`$ turn out to have an elegant combinatorial description: their terms enumerate coupled spanning trees of the rigidity circuit subgraphs of $`G`$.

We begin with some computations which are most conveniently expressed in terms of the homology of $`G`$, considered as a 1-dimensional simplicial complex.

A directed edge of $`G`$ is a symbol $`[v,w]`$, where $`vwE`$. An orientation of an edge $`e=vw`$ is chosen by putting either $`e=[v,w]`$ or $`e=[w,v]`$. In addition, for $`e=[v,w]E`$, we define

$$x_f=x_wx_v.$$

In what follows, we fix an arbitrary orientation for each edge of $`G`$. Let $`C`$ be the free $``$-module on the directed edges of $`G`$, modulo the relations

$$[w,v]=[v,w].$$

Homologically, $`C`$ is the group of 1-chains. The subgroup of 1-cycles is

(5.1)
$$Z=\{\underset{e}{}c_eeC\underset{e}{}c_ex_e=0\}.$$

Note that $`Z`$ is generated by the cycles

(5.2)
$$z(P)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}[v_i,v_{i+1}]$$

where $`P=(v_1,\mathrm{},v_s,v_{s+1}=v_1)`$ is a polygon of $`G`$.

The support of a chain is defined by

(5.3)
$$supp\left(\underset{eE}{}c_ee\right)=\{eEc_e0\}.$$

Note that if $`\gamma Z`$ and $`supp(\gamma )T`$ for some tree $`T`$, then $`\gamma =0`$.

Let $`T`$ be a spanning tree of $`G`$ and $`S=ET`$. Fix an orientation for each edge of $`E`$. For each edge $`e=[v,w]S`$, the edge set $`T\{e\}`$ contains a unique polygon of the form

(5.4)
$$P_T(e)=(v=v_1,\mathrm{},v_s=w,v).$$

There is a corresponding cycle

(5.5) $`z_T(e)`$ $`=`$ $`[v_1,v_2]+\mathrm{}+[v_{s1},v_s]+[v_s,v_1]`$
$`=`$ $`[v,w]+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s1}{}}}[v_i,v_{i+1}]`$
$`=`$ $`e+{\displaystyle \underset{fT}{}}c_{ef}^Tf`$
where $`c_{ef}^T\{0,1,1\}`$ for all $`f`$. Note that for every spanning tree $`T`$ of $`G`$, the set

$$\{z_T(e)eT\}$$

generates $`Z`$. Indeed, if $`\zeta =_{eE}b_ee`$ is a cycle, then

$$\zeta ^{}=\zeta +\underset{eET}{}b_ez_T(e)$$

is a cycle with support contained in $`T`$, so $`\zeta ^{}=0`$.

There is an injective map of $``$-modules $`CR_G^{}`$ sending

(5.6)
$$[v,w]m_{vw}(x_vx_w)$$

for all directed edges $`[v,w]`$. The image of $`Z`$ under this map contains all polynomials $`L(P)`$ defined in (3.4). Therefore, for every spanning tree $`T`$, the set $`\{L(P_T(e))eS\}`$ generates an ideal defining $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$ set-theoretically.

Let $`e=[a,b]S`$, and let $`P_T(e)`$ be the polygon of (5.4). Then

(5.7) $`L(P_T(e))`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s1}{}}}m_{e_i}x_{e_i}\right)+m_ex_e`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{fT}{}}c_{ef}^Tm_fx_f+m_e{\displaystyle \underset{fF}{}}c_{ef}^Tx_f`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{fT}{}}c_{ef}^T(m_em_f)x_f.`$
Collecting the equations (5.7) for all edges of $`S`$, we obtain a matrix equation

(5.8)
$$\left[L(P_T(e))\right]_{eS}=M_TX_T=\left(D_SC_TC_TD_T\right)X_T.$$

These matrices are defined as follows: $`M_T=[c_{ef}^T(m_em_f)]_{eS,fT}`$; $`X_T`$ is the column vector $`\left[x_f\right]_{fT}`$; $`C_T=[c_{ef}^T]_{eS,fT}`$; and $`D_T`$ (resp. $`D_S`$) is the diagonal matrix with entries $`m_f`$, $`fT`$ (resp. $`m_e`$, $`eS`$). Accordingly, the equations (3.4) defining $`𝒳(G)`$ are equivalent to the single matrix equation

(5.9)
$$M_TX_T=0.$$

###### Example 5.1.

Let $`G=K_4`$. Orient each edge $`abE(G)`$ as $`[a,b]`$, where $`a<b`$. Let $`T=\{[1,2],[1,3],[1,4]\}`$. For $`e=[v,w]T`$, we have

$$P_T(e)=[v,w]+[w,1]+[1,v]=[v,w]\left([1,w][1,v]\right),$$

so the matrix $`C_T`$ is

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & f& \\ & \hfill [1,2]& [1,3]& [1,4]\hfill \\ & & & \\ \begin{array}{cc}& [2,3]\\ e& [2,4]\\ & [3,4]\end{array}& \hfill [\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\end{array}],\hfill \end{array}$$

the polynomials of (5.7) are

$$L\left(P_T\left([a,b]\right)\right)=m_{ab}(x_bx_a)+m_{1b}(x_bx_a)+m_{1b}(x_ax_b)$$

for $`[a,b]S=\{[2,3],[2,4],[3,4]\}`$, and the matrix of (5.8) is

$$M_TX_T=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}m_{12}m_{23}& m_{23}m_{13}& 0\\ m_{12}m_{24}& 0& m_{24}m_{14}\\ 0& m_{13}m_{34}& m_{34}m_{14}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}x_2x_1\\ x_3x_1\\ x_4x_1\end{array}\right].$$

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$ be a rigidity circuit, $`T`$ a coupled spanning tree, and $`S=ET`$. (Recall that $`S`$ is also a spanning tree of $`G`$, and that $`M_T`$, $`C_T`$, and $`C_S`$ are $`(|V|1)\times (|V|1)`$ square matrices.) Then $`C_T=C_S^1`$.

###### Proof.

Replacing each edge $`f`$ on the right side of (5.5) with $`f+z_S(f)`$, we see that

$$e\underset{fT}{}c_{ef}^T\underset{gS}{}c_{fg}^Sg=e\underset{gS}{}g\underset{fT}{}c_{ef}^Tc_{fg}^SZ.$$

This cycle is zero, because its support is contained in $`S`$. Hence, for all $`e,gS`$,

$$\underset{fT}{}c_{ef}^Tc_{fg}^S=\delta _{eg},$$

the Kronecker delta. This is precisely the statement that $`C_T=C_S^1`$. ∎

Somewhat more generally, if $`G`$ is a rigidity pseudocircuit and $`T,U`$ are two spanning trees of $`G`$, then every polynomial in the set

$$\{L(P_U(e))eEU\}$$

may be expressed as an integer linear combination of the polynomials

$$\{L(P_T(e))eET\},$$

and vice versa. In addition, each of these sets is linearly independent, since, e.g., for $`eT`$, each variable $`m_e`$ appears in exactly one $`L(P_T(e))`$. Therefore

$$M_TX_T=BM_UX_U$$

for some invertible integer matrix $`B`$. In particular $`detB=\pm 1`$, so the polynomial $`detM_T`$ is independent, up to sign, of the choice of $`T`$. This motivates the following definition:

###### Definition 5.3.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$ be a connected graph with $`|E|=2|V|2`$ (so that $`M_T`$ is a $`(|V|1)\times (|V|1)`$ square matrix) and let $`T`$ be a spanning tree. The tree polynomial of $`G`$ is defined up to sign as

$$\tau (G)=detM_T$$

where $`M_T`$ is the matrix of (5.8).

It is immediate from the construction of $`M_T`$ that $`\tau (G)`$ is homogeneous of degree $`|V|1`$. The name “tree polynomial” is justified by the following theorem. One more piece of notation: to each edge set $`FE`$, we associate the squarefree monomial

$$m_F=\underset{fF}{}m_f.$$

###### Theorem 5.4.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$ be a graph with $`|V|=n`$ and $`|E|=2n2`$. The tree polynomial of $`G`$ can be expressed as the sum

$$\tau (G)=\underset{TCpl(G)}{}\epsilon (T)m_T$$

of signed squarefree monomials for coupled spanning trees $`T`$, where $`\epsilon (T)\{1,1\}`$, and $`\epsilon (ET)=(1)^{n1}\epsilon (T)`$. The tree polynomial vanishes on both $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$. Moreover, $`\tau (G)`$ is nonzero if and only if G is a rigidity pseudocircuit, and irreducible if and only if $`G`$ is a rigidity circuit. In particular, if $`G^{}`$ is a rigidity pseudocircuit subgraph of $`G`$, then $`\tau (G^{})`$ divides $`\tau (G)`$.

###### Proof.

Fix a spanning tree $`T`$, so that $`\tau (G)=\pm detM_T`$. Let $`S=ET`$. For each edge $`e`$, if $`eT`$ then the variable $`m_e`$ appears in only one column of $`M_T`$, while if $`eS`$ then $`m_e`$ appears in only one row of $`M_T`$. It follows that $`\tau (G)`$ is squarefree.

Each nonzero term in the determinant expansion of $`\tau (G)`$ is of the form

$$(m_{1,1}m_{1,2})\mathrm{}(m_{n1,1}m_{n1,2})$$

where the $`m_j`$ are all distinct. This may be expressed as a sum of binomials of the form

$$m_F+(1)^{n1}m_{EF},$$

where each $`F`$ is a subset of $`E`$ of cardinality $`n1`$. It follows that $`\epsilon (F)=(1)^{n1}\epsilon (F)`$ for all $`F`$. In particular, $`\epsilon (S)=detC_T`$ by the definition of $`M_T`$ (5.8). If $`S`$ is also a tree, then by Lemma 5.2, $`C_T`$ is an invertible integer matrix, so its determinant is $`\pm 1`$.

Now suppose that $`FE`$ has cardinality $`n1`$, but is not a tree. We will show that $`\epsilon (F)=0`$. Let $`AF`$ be a minimal set of edges such that $`FA`$ is a forest; in particular $`A`$ is nonempty. Let $`T`$ be a spanning tree of $`G`$ containing $`FA`$; then

$$T(EF)=T(FA)\mathrm{}.$$

Let $`S=ET`$ ($`A`$). The matrix $`C_T`$ constructed in (5.8) has the property that $`c_{ab}^T=0`$ whenever $`aA`$ and $`bT(EF)`$, because the unique circuit of $`T\{a\}`$ is contained in $`FA\{a\}`$. Accordingly, for each $`aA`$, every entry of the corresponding row of $`M_T`$ is either zero or of the form $`\pm (m_am_f)`$, where $`fFA`$. In particular, no variable dividing $`m_{EF}`$ appears in that row. Hence $`\epsilon (EF)=0`$, and $`\epsilon (F)=(1)^{n1}\epsilon (EF)=0`$ as well. We have obtained the desired equation

$$\tau (G)=\underset{TCpl(G)}{}\epsilon (T)m_T.$$

By definition, the right side is nonzero if and only if $`G`$ is a rigidity pseudocircuit.

We next show that the tree polynomial vanishes on the affine picture and slope varieties. Since the generic affine pictures are dense in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$, and their image under the natural surjection $`\varphi `$ 3.8 is dense in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$, it suffices to show that $`\tau (G)`$ vanishes at each $`𝐏𝒱^{}(G)\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$. Indeed, $`M_T(𝐏)X_T(𝐏)=0`$ and $`X_T(𝐏)0`$, so $`\tau (G)=detM_T`$ vanishes at $`𝐏`$.

Suppose that $`G`$ contains a rigidity circuit $`G^{}=(V^{},E^{})`$ as a proper subgraph. Let $`T^{}`$ be a spanning tree of $`G^{}`$ and $`TT^{}`$ a spanning tree of $`G`$. Put $`S=ET`$ and $`S^{}=E^{}T^{}`$. Then the matrix $`M_T`$ has the form

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}M_T^{}& 0\\ & \end{array}\right]$$

where the $`|V^{}|1`$ uppermost rows correspond to edges in $`S^{}`$ and the $`|V^{}|1`$ leftmost columns correspond to edges in $`T^{}`$. It follows that $`\tau (G^{})`$ is a proper divisor of $`\tau (G)`$. In particular, if $`\tau (G)`$ is irreducible then $`G`$ is a rigidity circuit.

On the other hand, suppose that $`G`$ is a rigidity circuit and $`\tau (G)=f_1f_2`$. For every $`eE`$, we have

$$\mathrm{deg}_{m_e}(\tau (G))=\mathrm{deg}_{m_e}(f_1)+\mathrm{deg}_{m_e}(f_2)=1,$$

so $`E`$ may be expressed as a disjoint union $`E_1E_2`$, where $`E_i=\{eE\mathrm{deg}_{m_e}(f_i)=1\}`$. Let $`G_i=(V,E_i)`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$ is an irreducible variety, either $`f_1`$ or $`f_2`$ must vanish on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$; assume without loss of generality that $`f_1`$ does so. Then $`f_1`$ vanishes on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G_1)`$ as well via the natural surjection $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G_i)`$. By Theorem 4.5, $`E_1`$ must be rigidity-dependent. But $`E`$ contains no proper rigidity-dependent subset, so we must have $`E_1=E`$. Therefore $`E_2=\mathrm{}`$ and the factorization of $`\tau (G)`$ is trivial. ∎

###### Example 5.5.

Let $`G=K_4`$. Let $`T`$, $`M_T`$, $`X_T`$ be as in Example 5.1. There are two kinds of spanning trees of $`G`$: paths $`(a,b,c,d)`$, and “stars,” such as $`T`$. The paths are coupled; the stars are not. There are $`4!/2=12`$ paths, and the sign of a path is given by the sign of the corresponding permutation in the symmetric group $`S_4`$, that is,

$$\tau (K_4)=detM_T=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\sigma S_4}{}sgn(\sigma )m_{\sigma _1\sigma _2}m_{\sigma _2\sigma _3}m_{\sigma _3\sigma _4}.$$

On the other hand, if $`G^{}`$ is the graph of Example 4.2 (a rigidity pseudocircuit which is not a circuit), then

$$\tau (G^{})=\pm \left(m_{35}m_{45}\right)\tau (K_4).$$

###### Theorem 5.6.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$ be a graph. Let $`I=I_G`$ be the ideal of $`R_G`$ generated by all tree polynomials $`\tau (C)`$, where $`C`$ is a rigidity circuit subgraph of $`G`$. Then:

1. $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ is the vanishing locus of $`IR_G^{}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$.
2. $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$ is the vanishing locus of $`I`$ in $`SpecR_G`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume without loss of generality that $`G`$ is connected, since every rigidity circuit is connected and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ is the product of the picture varieties of its connected components. Let $`n=|V|`$, $`r=|E|`$.

Let $`Y`$ be the vanishing locus of $`IR_G^{}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$. For each rigidity circuit subgraph $`C`$ of $`G`$, the tree polynomial $`\tau (C)`$ vanishes on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(C)`$ by Theorem 5.4, so it vanishes on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ as well. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)Y`$.

We now establish the reverse inclusion, proceeding by induction on $`n`$. By Theorem 4.5, there is nothing to prove when $`E`$ is rigidity-independent, in particular when $`n3`$.

Let $`𝐏Y𝒳_𝒜(G)`$, where $`𝒜=\{A_1,\mathrm{},A_s\}`$ is a partition of $`V`$ with $`s`$ parts. We wish to show that $`𝐏\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$.

Case 1: $`s=n`$. Here $`𝒜`$ is the discrete partition, so $`𝐏\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ by definition.

Case 2: $`2sn1`$. For $`1is`$, define a subgraph

$$G_i=(A_i,EK(A_i))$$

and let

$$U=\underset{𝒜}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_{}(G)=\{𝐏^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)𝐏^{}(v)𝐏^{}(w)\text{if}v\sim ̸_𝒜w\},$$

an open subset of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$ containing $`𝐏`$. There is a natural open embedding

(5.10)
$$\theta :U\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G_i).$$

Note that $`I_{G_i}IR_G`$ for all $`i`$. By induction, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G_i)`$ is the vanishing locus of $`I_{G_i}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G_i)`$. Therefore

$$𝐏\theta ^1\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G_i)\right).$$

This set is irreducible and contains $`𝒱^{}(G)`$ as an open, hence dense, subset. Therefore $`𝐏\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ as desired.

Case 3: $`s=1`$. That is, $`𝒜`$ is the indiscrete partition of $`V`$. Fix a spanning tree $`T`$ of $`G`$ and let $`M_T`$ be the matrix defined in (5.8). Recall that $`M_T`$ is an $`(rn+1)\times (n1)`$. The rows and columns of $`M_T`$ are indexed by the edges of $`ET`$ and $`T`$, respectively. In addition, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$ is defined by the matrix equation (5.9), and $`X_T(𝐏)`$ is the zero matrix.

We claim that

(5.11)
$$rankM_T<n1.$$

If $`M_T`$ has fewer than $`n1`$ rows then there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, let $`M^{}`$ be any $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ submatrix $`M^{}`$ of $`M_T`$, with rows indexed by the elements of some edge set $`SET`$. Then $`|TS|=2n2`$, so $`|TS|`$ does not satisfy Laman’s condition (4.1) and must contain some rigidity circuit $`C`$. By Theorem 5.4, $`\tau (C)`$ divides $`detM^{}`$, establishing (5.11).

It follows from (5.11) that the nullspace of $`M_T(𝐏)`$ contains a nonzero vector $`X^{}`$. For every $`\lambda 𝐤`$, we have $`(M_T)(\lambda X^{})=0`$, so there is a picture $`𝐏_\lambda `$ with the same slope coordinates as $`𝐏`$ and $`x`$-coordinates of vertices given by $`\lambda X^{}`$. The $`𝐏_\lambda `$ form an affine line in $`Y`$ with $`𝐏_0=𝐏`$. Moreover, if $`\lambda 0`$, then $`𝐏_\lambda 𝒳_𝒜(G)`$, hence $`𝐏_\lambda \stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ by the previous two cases. Therefore $`𝐏_0=𝐏\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$ as well.

We now turn to the second assertion of the theorem. Let $`Z`$ be the vanishing locus of $`I`$ in $`SpecR_G`$. It is immediate from Definition 3.8 that $`Z\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$. Now suppose that $`𝐦Z`$, i.e., $`𝐦`$ is an affine slope picture at which all tree polynomials vanish. Fix a spanning tree $`T`$ of $`G`$ and let $`X`$ be a nullvector of the matrix $`M_T(𝐦)`$. Together, $`𝐦`$ and $`X`$ define an affine line in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)`$; by part (i) of the theorem, the line is contained in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$. Therefore $`𝐦\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)`$. ∎

We have proven that

(5.12)
$$\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)𝔸^1\times SpecR_G^{}/\sqrt{J_G}$$

and

(5.13)
$$\stackrel{~}{𝒮}(G)SpecR_G/\sqrt{I_G}$$

as reduced schemes, where $`J_G=I_GR_G^{}+(L(P))`$. However, we do not yet know whether the ideals $`J_G`$ and $`I_G`$ are radical. In the special case that $`G`$ is a rigidity cycle, the ideal $`I_G`$ is radical because it is principal, generated by the irreducible polynomial $`\tau (G)`$. We prove in a separate paper  that $`I_G`$ is radical when $`G`$ is the complete graph $`K_n`$.

## 6. Further Geometric Properties of $`𝒳(G)`$ and $`𝒱(G)`$

In this section, we use the algebraic results of the previous sections to prove certain geometric facts about the picture space. First, we give a combinatorial condition which describes when one cellule of $`𝒳(G)`$ is contained in the closure of another cellule. Using this result, we can give a complete combinatorial description of the irreducible components of the picture space. Second, we present an inductive criterion on $`G`$ which implies that $`𝒱(G)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay; one consequence of this result is that $`𝒱(G)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay whenever $`G`$ is rigidity-independent.

###### Definition 6.1.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$ be a graph, $`FE`$, and $`𝒜`$ a partition of $`V`$. We say that $`𝒜`$ collapses $`F`$ if all vertices of $`V(F)`$ are contained in the same block of $`𝒜`$.

In this case, the equations defining $`𝒳(G)`$ impose no restrictions on the slopes of the lines $`𝐏(e)`$ for pictures $`𝐏𝒳_𝒜(G)`$ and edges $`eF`$.

###### Lemma 6.2.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$ be a rigidity circuit. Then the picture space $`𝒳(G)`$ has two irreducible components, both of dimension $`2|V|`$: the picture variety $`𝒱(G)`$ and the indiscrete cellule $`𝒳_{}(G)`$.

###### Proof.

The cellule dimension formula (3.6) gives $`dim𝒳_{}(G)=dim𝒱^{}(G)=2n`$. The indiscrete cellule is itself closed, so it is an irreducible component of $`𝒳(G)`$. On the other hand, if $`𝒜`$ is neither the discrete nor indiscrete partition, then $`dim𝒳_𝒜(G)<2n`$ by (4.3) (since Laman’s condition (4.1) holds for every proper subset of a rigidity circuit). Since all components of $`𝒳(G)`$ have dimension at least $`2n`$, we must have $`𝒳_𝒜(G)𝒱(G)`$ for every such $`𝒜`$, which implies the desired result. ∎

###### Theorem 6.3.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$ be a graph, $`𝒜`$ a partition of $`V`$, and $`𝒳_𝒜(G)`$ the corresponding cellule. Then $`𝒳_𝒜(G)𝒱(G)`$ if and only if no rigidity circuit of $`G`$ is collapsed by $`𝒜`$.

###### Proof.

If $`G`$ is rigidity-independent, then this is immediate from Theorem 4.5, while if $`G`$ is a rigidity circuit then the desired statement follows from Lemma 6.2. In general, by Theorem 5.6, it is enough to prove that for every rigidity circuit $`C`$ of $`G`$, $`\tau (C)`$ vanishes on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_𝒜(G)`$ if and only if $`𝒜`$ does not collapse $`C`$. One direction is immediate: if $`𝒜`$ collapses $`C`$, then $`\tau (C)`$ does not vanish on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_𝒜(G)`$ and consequently $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_𝒜(G)\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G)`$. On the other hand, suppose that $`𝒜`$ does not collapse $`C`$. Consider the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_𝒜(G)\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(C)`$. The image of this map does not intersect the indiscrete cellule of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(C)`$. By Lemma 6.2, $`\tau (C)`$ vanishes on the image, hence on $`𝒳_𝒜(G)`$. ∎

Given a graph $`G=(V,E)`$ and a partition $`𝒜=\{A_1,\mathrm{},A_s\}`$ of $`V`$, let $`G/𝒜`$ denote the graph whose vertices are the blocks of $`𝒜`$ and whose edges are

$$\{\{A_i,A_j\}vwE\text{for some}vA_i,wA_j\}.$$

Also, if $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are partitions of $`V`$ with $`𝒜`$, then we write $`/𝒜`$ for the partition on the blocks of $`𝒜`$ setting two blocks equivalent if both are subsets of the same block of $``$.

###### Theorem 6.4.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$ be a graph, $`𝒜`$ and $``$ partitions of $`V`$, and $`𝒳_𝒜(G)`$ and $`𝒳_{}(G)`$ the corresponding cellules. Then $`𝒳_{}(G)\overline{𝒳_𝒜(G)}`$ if and only if the following conditions hold:

(a) $`𝒜`$;

(b) No rigidity circuit of $`G/𝒜`$ is collapsed by $`/𝒜`$; and

(c) If $`A_i`$ and $`A_j`$ are distinct blocks of $`𝒜`$ contained in the same block of $``$, then $`E`$ contains at most one edge between $`A_i`$ and $`A_j`$ (i.e., with one endpoint in each set).

Consequently, the irreducible components of $`𝒳(G)`$ are exactly the subvarieties $`\overline{𝒳_𝒜(G)}`$, where $`𝒜`$ is maximal with respect to the partial order just described.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`𝒳_{}(G)\overline{𝒳_𝒜(G)}`$. If $`v_𝒜w`$, the equation $`𝐏(v)=𝐏(w)`$ holds on $`𝒳_{}(G)`$, so $`v_{}w`$, establishing (a). For each rigidity circuit $`C`$ of $`G/𝒜`$, the function $`\tau (C)`$ vanishes on $`𝒳_{}(G)`$, so $`/𝒜`$ cannot collapse $`C`$. Finally, if $`A_i`$ and $`A_j`$ are contained in the same block of $``$ and $`E`$ contains two distinct edges $`e,e^{}`$ between $`A_i`$ and $`A_j`$, then the equation $`𝐏(e)=𝐏(e^{})`$ holds on $`𝒳_𝒜(G)`$ but not on $`𝒳_{}(G)`$, a contradiction.

Now suppose that conditions (a), (b) and (c) hold. It is harmless to replace $`𝒳_𝒜(G)`$ and $`𝒳_{}(G)`$ with the affine cellules

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_𝒜(G)`$ $`=𝒳_𝒜(G)\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_{}(G)`$ $`=𝒳_{}(G)\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G).`$
Let $`E^{}=\{vwEv_𝒜w\}`$ (that is, the edges corresponding to “free lines” in $`𝒳_𝒜(G)`$). Let $`U=𝔸^{|E^{}|}`$ and

$$Z=\underset{𝒜}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_{}(G)=\{𝐏\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G)𝐏(v)=𝐏(w)\text{if}v_𝒜w\}.$$

Observe that the data for an affine picture $`𝐏Z`$ is the same as that describing a picture of $`G/𝒜`$ together with the slopes of the lines $`𝐏(e)`$ for $`eE^{}`$. Hence we have an isomorphism

$$\psi :Z\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G/𝒜)\times U,$$

Restricting $`\psi `$ to the cellules under consideration, we have a commutative diagram of quasiaffine varieties:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_𝒜(G)& & \overline{\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_𝒜(G)}& & Z& & \stackrel{~}{𝒳}_{}(G)\\ & & & & & & \\ \stackrel{~}{𝒱}^{}(G/𝒜)\times U& & \stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G/𝒜)\times U& & \stackrel{~}{𝒳}(G/𝒜)\times U& & \stackrel{~}{𝒳}_{/𝒜}(G/𝒜)\times U\end{array}$$

where the vertical arrows are isomorphisms. This implies that

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_{}(G)\overline{\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_𝒜(G)}\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_{/𝒜}(G/𝒜)\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(G/𝒜)$$

which is in turn equivalent to condition (b) by Theorem 6.3. ∎

###### Remark 6.5.

The notion of a pseudocircuit may be extended to multigraphs: a multigraph $`(V,E)`$ is called a pseudocircuit if $`|E|=2|V|2`$ and $`|F|2|V(F)|2`$ for all $`\mathrm{}FE`$ \[3, p. 118\]. For instance, a double edge is a pseudocircuit. In the previous theorem, we may consider $`G/𝒜`$ as a multigraph, in which the multiplicity of an edge $`\{A_i,A_j\}`$ is the number of edges in $`E`$ with one endpoint in each of $`A_i`$ and $`A_j`$. Then conditions (b) and (c) together are equivalent to the single condition that $`/𝒜`$ collapse no multigraph pseudocircuit of $`G/𝒜`$.

We next consider the Cohen-Macaulay property. Our main tool is the fact that if $`X`$ is a Cohen-Macaulay scheme and $`Z`$ is a “strongly Cohen-Macaulay” subscheme of $`X`$, then the blowup of $`X`$ along $`Z`$ is Cohen-Macaulay \[4, Theorem 4.2\] (see also ). In particular, a local complete intersection subscheme of a Cohen-Macaulay scheme is strongly Cohen-Macaulay.

###### Lemma 6.6.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$, $`e=vwE`$, and $`H=(V,E\{e\})`$. Suppose that $`𝒱(H)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay and that $`𝒱(H)𝒳_𝒜(H)`$ has codimension $`2`$ in $`𝒱(H)`$ for all partitions $`𝒜`$ of $`V`$ with $`v_𝒜w`$. Then $`𝒱(G)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay.

###### Proof.

Let $`Z`$ be the (possibly non-reduced) intersection $`𝒱(H)C_e(H)`$, where $`C_e(H)=C_{\{e\}}(H)`$ is the coincidence locus defined in (3.7). $`Z`$ is defined in local affine coordinates by two equations, namely $`x_v=x_w`$ and $`y_v=y_w`$, so each of its components has codimension $`2`$. On the other hand, $`C_{\{e\}}(H)`$ is set-theoretically the union of cellules $`𝒳_A(H)`$ with $`v_𝒜w`$. Therefore

$$codimZcodimC_{\{e\}}(H)2.$$

In particular, $`Z`$ is a local complete intersection in $`𝒱(H)`$, and $`𝒱(G)`$ is the blowup of $`𝒱(H)`$ along $`Z`$, so $`𝒱(G)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay. ∎

###### Proposition 6.7.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$, $`e=vwE`$, and $`H=(V,E\{e\})`$. If $`𝒱(H)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay and $`e`$ is not contained in any rigidity circuit subgraph of $`G`$, then $`𝒱(G)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a partition of $`V`$ with $`v_𝒜w`$. The cellule $`𝒱_𝒜(G)=𝒳_𝒜(G)𝒱(G)`$ has codimension $`1`$ in $`𝒱(G)`$. Since no rigidity circuit contains $`e`$, the equations defining $`𝒱_𝒜(G)`$ impose no constraints on the line $`𝐏(e)`$. Therefore

$$𝒱_𝒜(G)𝒱_𝒜(H)\times ^1.$$

In particular $`𝒱_𝒜(H)`$ has codimension $`2`$ in $`𝒱(H)`$, since $`dim𝒱(G)=dim𝒱(H)=2|V|`$. Thus $`𝒱(G)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay by Lemma 6.6. ∎

###### Theorem 6.8.

Let $`G=(V,E)`$. If $`G`$ is rigidity-independent, then $`𝒱(G)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay.

###### Proof.

If $`E=\mathrm{}`$, the result is trivial since $`𝒱(G)(^2)^{|V|}`$. Otherwise, we add one edge at a time, applying Proposition 6.7 at each stage. ∎


text:
# Pure homology of algebraic varieties

## 1 Introduction

The mixed Hodge theory was developed by P. Deligne to study extraordinary properties of cohomology of complex algebraic varieties. One of the ingredients of mixed Hodge structure is the weight filtration. We will focus on the dual filtration in homology. We will find a relation between intersection homology defined by M. Goresky–R. MacPherson and the weight filtration. The main result of the paper says that if a variety is complete, then the pure part of homology $`W^kH_k(X)`$ is the image of intersection homology. This shows topological invariance of pure homology. An attempt to give a topological description or at least estimate the weight filtration was undertaken by C. McCrory (). If $`X`$ is a complete smooth divisor with normal crossings then the weight filtration coincides with the Zeeman filtration given by ”codimension of cycles”. In general there is an inclusion (the terms of the weight filtration are bigger). It is a result of McCrory for hypersurfaces and of F. Guillen () in general. For complete, normal and equidimensional varieties all we can deduce from Zeeman filtration for the pure term of the weight filtration is the following: the image of the Poincaré duality map is contained in $`W^kH_k(X)`$. This is exactly what follows from the weight principle. Our description of $`W^kH_k(X)`$ is complete and still purely topological. Other terms of the weight filtration do not have such description. They are not topologically invariant.

In the course of the proof at some points we do not have to assume that the variety is complete. Therefore we organize the paper as follows. Let $`X`$ be a complex algebraic variety. We will define certain subspaces of homology

$$IM_k(X)H_k(X)$$

for each $`k𝐍`$, which we will call image homology. We assume that homology has coefficients in a field of characteristic zero. We will show that:

###### Theorem 1.1

The image homology satisfies the conditions:

If $`X`$ is smooth, then $`IM_k(X)=H_k(X)`$,

If $`f:XY`$ is an algebraic map then $`f_{}IM_k(X)IM_k(Y)`$,

If $`f:XY`$ is an algebraic map which is proper and surjective then $`f_{}IM_k(X)=IM_k(Y)`$.

By Hironaka resolution of singularities every algebraic variety is dominated by a smooth one. Therefore the conditions of Theorem 1.1 determine $`IM_k(X)`$. Of course it is not clear whether $`IM_k(X)`$ satisfying (a)-(c) exists. If $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are complete then the existence of such subspaces is a consequences of mixed Hodge theory,  §8.2.

###### Theorem 1.2

If $`X`$ is complete, then $`IM_k(X)`$ coincides with $`W^kH_k(X)`$, the pure weight subspace of homology.

We prove that $`IM_k(X)`$ is the image of intersection homology:

###### Theorem 1.3

If $`X`$ is equidimensional, then

$$IM_k(X)=im(\iota _X:IH_k(X)H_k(X)).$$

We will explain the objects appearing in (d) and (e) below:

$`W^kH_k(X)=W_kH_k(X)`$ is the $`k`$-th term of the weight filtration in homology of $`X`$. It is the annihilator of $`W_{k1}H^k(X)`$, the subspace of cohomology of the weight $`k1`$, defined in . If $`X`$ is complete then $`W^kH_k(X)`$ is the lowest possibly nonzero term. Then it is pure. In general the weight filtration is not a topologically invariant, see .

$`IH_k(X)`$ is the intersection (co)homology group (with respect to the middle perversity) defined in  and developed in . It is a cohomology theory adapted to tackle singular varieties. It is equipped with canonical maps:

$$H_c^{2dim(X)k}(X)\stackrel{\iota _X^{}}{}IH_c^{2dim(X)k}(X)=IH_k(X)\stackrel{\iota _X}{}H_k(X)$$

factorizing Poincaré duality map $`[X]`$. (The subscript $`c`$ stands for compact supports.) Intersection (co)homology is a topological invariant of $`X`$. According to  or  one can construct a weight filtration in $`IH_k(X)`$. If $`X`$ is complete, then $`IH_k(X)`$ is pure of weight $`k`$.

We deduce a striking property of image homology.

###### Theorem 1.4 (Topological Invariance)

The image homology is a topological invariant of $`X`$. This means, that if $`f:XY`$ is a homeomorphism which does not have to be an algebraic map then $`f_{}IM_k(X)=IM_k(Y)`$.

Theorem 1.4 follows from (e). As a corollary we obtain an unusual property of the pure term of the weight filtration:

###### Corollary 1.5

If X is a complete algebraic variety, then $`W^kH_k(X)`$ is topologically invariant.

A topological description of $`W^kH_k(X)`$ is the following

###### Corollary 1.6

If X is a complete and equidimensional algebraic variety, then

$$W^kH_k(X)=im(\iota _X:IH_k(X)H_k(X)).$$

We also define parallel or dual variants of $`IM_k(X)`$:

$`IM_k^{BM}(X)H_k^{BM}(X)`$, a subspace of Borel-Moore homology satisfying the properties (a)-(f) (with (b) for proper maps),

$`KER^k(X)H^k(X)`$, kernel cohomology, a subspace of cohomology satisfying dual properties,

$`KER_c^k(X)H_c^k(X)`$, a subspace of cohomology with compact supports satisfying dual properties (with (b’) for proper maps).

The dual properties are the following:

###### Theorem 1.7

The kernel cohomology $`KER^k(X)H^k(X)`$ satisfies the conditions:

If $`X`$ is smooth, then $`KER^k(X)=0`$,

If $`f:XY`$ is an algebraic map then $`f^{}KER^k(Y)KER^k(X)`$,

If $`f:XY`$ is an algebraic map which is proper and surjective then $`(f^{})^1KER^k(X)=KER^k(Y)`$,

If $`X`$ is complete, then $`KER^k(X)=W_{k1}H^k(X)`$, the subspace of cohomology of the weight $`k1`$,

If $`X`$ is equidimensional, then

$$KER^k(X)=ker(\iota _X^{}:H^k(X)IH^k(X)),$$

The kernel cohomology is a topological invariant of $`X`$.

Instead of $`KER`$ groups one can consider the image of cohomology in intersection cohomology. We will focus on the case when $`X`$ is equidimensional. The property (d’) can be restated:

###### Theorem 1.8

If $`X`$ is complete and equidimensional then the image $`im(\iota _X^{}:H^k(X)IH^k(X))`$ is isomorphic to the pure quotient $`H^k(X)/W_{k1}H^k(X)`$.

Combining (a’) and (c’) we obtain

###### Corollary 1.9

If $`X`$ is smooth, $`Y`$ is equidimensional and the map $`f:XY`$ is proper and surjective, then the image $`f^{}(H^{}(Y))`$ is isomorphic to the image $`\iota _X^{}`$.

Corollary 1.9 (and an analogous one for homology) allows us to think about intersection cohomology as a substitute for the cohomology of a minimal resolution.

The main tool of the proofs is the Decomposition Theorem of  or . We will rely only on one corollary:

###### Corollary 1.10 (from the Decomposition Theorem)

Let $`f:XY`$ be a proper surjective map of algebraic varieties. Then $`IC_Y`$ is a retract of $`Rf_{}IC_X`$, i.e. there exist maps $`i:IC_YRf_{}IC_X`$ (inclusion) and $`r:Rf_{}IC_XIC_Y`$ (retraction) such that $`ri=Id_{IC_Y}`$.

Here $`IC_X`$ is the intersection complex. It is an object of the derived category $`D(X)`$ of sheaves of vector spaces over $`X`$ and $`X`$ is assumed to have pure dimension $`n`$. The hypercohomology of $`IC_X`$ is the intersection (co)homology:

$$H^k(X;IC_X)=IH^k(X)=IH_{2nk}^{BM}(X),$$

$$H_c^k(X;IC_X)=IH_c^k(X)=IH_{2nk}(X).$$

Due to methods of  we are forced to use complex coefficients (or $`\overline{𝐐}_{\mathrm{}}`$), but once we prove the Theorems 1.1-1.4 for $`𝐂`$ they will automatically follow for arbitrary field of characteristic zero. We will also apply a result of  concerning (non canonical) functoriality of intersection (co)homology. As it is shown in  the result of  is a formal consequence of 1.10. On the other hand Corollary 1.10 can be deduced from . We present this reasoning in the Appendix. This is the only non topological ingredient we use. The methods presented here are applied to study residues on singular hypersurfaces in .

## 2 Definition through (e)

The starting point of our definition is the property (e). We cannot say that $`IM_k(X)`$ is just the image of $`IH_k(X)`$ since intersection homology is defined only for equidimensional varieties. Therefore we decompose $`X`$ into irreducible components $`X=_{iI}X_i`$.

###### Definition 2.1

Let $`\iota _i:IH_k(X_i)H_k(X)`$ be the composition of the natural transformation $`\iota _{X_i}`$ with the map induced by the inclusion of the component. The image homology of $`X`$ is defined by

$$IM_k(X)=\underset{iI}{}im(\iota _i)H_k(X).$$

If $`X`$ is equidimensional we do not have to decompose $`X`$ into components since

$$IH_k(X)=IH_k(\widehat{X})=\underset{iI}{}IH_k(X_i),$$

where $`\widehat{X}`$ is the normalization of $`X`$, which is also the normalization of $`_{iI}X_i`$. This proves the property (e).

We can give a direct description of image homology in terms of cycles. Our description is based on the elementary definition of intersection homology introduced in . We fix a stratification $`\{S_\alpha \}_{\alpha J_i}`$ of each $`X_i`$. We assume that the stratification is locally topologically trivial. A homology class of $`H_k(X)`$ belongs to $`IM_k(X)`$ if it is represented by a cycle $`\xi `$ which

can be decomposed into a sum of cycles $`\xi =_{iI}\xi _i`$, with $`|\xi _i|X_i`$.

the component $`\xi _i`$ is allowable in $`X_i`$, i.e.

$$dim_𝐑(|\xi _i|S_\alpha )kc1$$

if $`S_\alpha `$ is a singular stratum of $`X_i`$ with complex codimension $`c=dim(S_\alpha )dim(X_i)`$ .

## 3 Proof of (f)

By  or  intersection homology is a topological invariant. It is enough to show that the decomposition into irreducible components is topologically invariant. Indeed, let $`X_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ be the set of points of $`X`$ at which $`X`$ is a topological manifold (the dimension may vary from a point to a point). The set $`X_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ decomposes into a set of components $`X_{i,\mathrm{reg}}`$. The irreducible components of $`X`$ are the closures of $`X_{i,\mathrm{reg}}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Proof of (a)

If $`X`$ is smooth, then $`\iota _X:IH_k(X)H_k(X)`$ is an isomorphism. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.1

It is enough to assume that $`X`$ is a rational homology manifold to have $`IM_k(X)=H_k(X)`$. Also some information about local homology allows to deduce an isomorphism in certain degrees. For example if $`X`$ has isolated singularities, then $`IM_k(X)=H_k(X)`$ for $`k>\mathrm{max}_i(dim(X_i))`$.

## 5 Proof of (b)

At this point for the first time we have to use highly nontrivial results concerning intersection homology. Let $`f:XY`$ be an algebraic map. Let us recall the main theorem of .

###### Theorem 5.1

There is a map $`\beta `$ making the following diagram commute:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}IH_k(X)& \stackrel{\iota _X}{}& H_k(X)\\ \beta & & f_{}\\ IH_k(Y)& \stackrel{\iota _Y}{}& H_k(Y)& .\end{array}$$

The choice of $`\beta `$ is not canonical, but its existence is enough to deduce (b). $`\mathrm{}`$

In some cases we can prove more:

###### Proposition 5.2

If $`X`$ is complete, then $`f_{}`$ strictly preserves image homology:

$$im(f_{})IM_k(Y)=f_{}(IM_k(X)).$$

We will deduce 5.2 from mixed Hodge theory of  provided we know (c) and (d).

Proof. Let $`\mu :\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ be a resolution of singularities. By (c) $`IM_k(Y)`$ is the image of $`\mu _{}`$. Therefore $`IM_k(Y)W^kH_k(Y)`$. The map $`f_{}`$ strictly preserves weights

$$im(f_{})W^kH_k(Y)=f_{}(W^kH_k(X)).$$

By (d) we have $`W^kH_k(X)=IM_k(X)`$. We obtain the inclusion

$$im(f_{})IM_k(Y)f_{}(IM_k(X)).$$

The converse inclusion follows from (b). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 Proof of (c)

We assume that $`f:XY`$ is proper and surjective. It is enough to prove (c) for irreducible $`X`$ and $`Y`$. We will show that the map $`\iota _Y:IH_k(Y)H_k(Y)`$ factors through $`IH_k(X)`$. Our argument is dual to the one of . We will construct a map $`\alpha `$ which will fit to the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}IH_k(X)& \stackrel{\iota _X}{}& H_k(X)\\ \alpha & & f_{}\\ IH_k(Y)& \stackrel{\iota _Y}{}& H_k(Y)& .\end{array}$$

It will come from a map $`\overline{\alpha }`$ at the level of derived category of sheaves:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Rf_{}IC_X[2n]& \stackrel{Rf_{}(\iota _X)}{}& Rf_{}ID_X\\ \overline{\alpha }& & f_{}\\ IC_Y[2m]& \stackrel{\iota _Y}{}& ID_Y& .\end{array}$$

Here $`n=dim(X)`$, $`m=dim(Y)`$ and $`ID_X`$ (resp. $`ID_Y`$) denotes the dualizing sheaf. It is equal to $`𝐂_X[2n]`$ (resp. $`𝐂_Y[2m]`$) at smooth points. By the Corollary from the Decomposition Theorem 1.10 there is a retraction $`r:Rf_{}IC_XIC_Y`$. Let

$$\overline{\alpha }:IC_Y[2m]=DIC_Y\stackrel{Dr}{}DRf_{}IC_X=Rf_{}DIC_X=Rf_{}IC_X[2n]$$

be the Verdier dual of the retraction. We obtain two maps: $`\iota _Y`$ and the composition $`f_{}Rf_{}(\iota _X)\overline{\alpha }:IC_Y[2m]ID_Y`$. We can rescale $`\overline{\alpha }`$ and assume that these two maps coincide on an open set. We will show that they coincide on the whole $`X`$. The conclusion will follow.

###### Proposition 6.1

Suppose $`Y`$ is irreducible. Then every two maps in the derived category $`\iota _1,\iota _2:IC_YID_Y`$ which coincide on an open set are equal.

Proof. It is more convenient to prove the dual statement: Every two maps $`D\iota _1,D\iota _2:𝐂_YIC_Y`$ which coincide on an open set are equal. Indeed

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{D(Y)}(𝐂_Y,IC_Y)=R^0Hom(𝐂_Y,IC_Y)=H^0(Y;IC_Y)=IH^0(Y)𝐂$$

and the same for $`U`$. The restriction map $`IH^0(Y)IH^0(U)`$ is an isomorphism. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 6.2

Another possible proof is to show that $`\beta `$ in 5.1 may be chosen to be surjective.

###### Remark 6.3

Since the factorization of $`\iota _Y`$ was constructed on the sheaf level we obtain the statement for arbitrary supports of the homology:

$$f_{}IM_k^{f^1(\varphi )}(X)=IM_k^\varphi (Y)H_k^\varphi (Y),$$

where $`\varphi `$ is a family of supports in $`Y`$. In particular

$$f_{}IM_k^{BM}(X)=IM_k^{BM}(Y)H_k^{BM}(Y),$$

provided that the map $`f`$ is proper.

###### Remark 6.4

Every algebraic subvariety $`AY`$ of dimension $`k`$ defines a class in $`IM_{2k}^{BM}(Y)`$. It is easy to show a class in $`IM_{2k}^{BM}(X)`$ which is mapped to $`[A]`$. To construct it we choose an open and dense subset $`UA`$ and a subvariety $`Bf^1U`$ such that $`f_{|B}:BU`$ is finite, say of degree $`d`$. Let $`C`$ be the closure of $`B`$ in $`X`$. Then the class $`\frac{1}{d}[C]IM_{2k}^{BM}(X)`$ is the desired lift of $`[A]`$.

###### Remark 6.5

The property (c) does not hold for the maps which are not algebraic. Example: Let $`N`$ be the rational node, i.e. $`𝐏^1`$ with two points identified. It is homeomorphic with the famous pinched torus, i.e. $`S^1\times S^1`$ with $`S^1\times pt`$ shrunk. The quotient map $`S^1\times S^1N`$ is surjective on $`H_1(N)𝐂`$, but $`IM_1(N)=H_1(𝐏^1)=0`$.

Let us note that the property (c) does not hold in the analytic category, even in the smooth case.

###### Example 6.6

Let $`X=(𝐂^2\{0\})/𝐙`$, where $`k𝐙`$ acts on $`𝐂^2`$ via the multiplication by $`2^k`$. The tautological bundle factors through $`f:X𝐏^2=Y`$. The map $`f`$ is a complex analytic locally trivial fibration with fibers $`𝐂^{}/𝐙`$ which is an elliptic curve (a compact torus). Topologically $`f:XS^3\times S^1S^2Y`$ is the projection on the first factor composed with the Hopf fibration. The induced map is not surjective on $`H_2(Y)`$.

## 7 Proof of (d)

We recall that the weight filtration in the homology of a complete variety is such, that $`W^{k+1}H_k(X)=0`$ and $`W^kH_k(X)`$ is pure of weight $`k`$. Our proof is based on the following description of $`W^kH_k(X)`$ (see  p.218): Assume that $`X`$ is contained in a smooth variety $`M`$. Let $`\mu :\stackrel{~}{M}M`$ be a resolution of $`(M,X)`$ in the sense that $`\mu ^1X`$ is a smooth divisor with normal crossings. Let $`\overline{X}`$ be the disjoint union of the components of $`\mu ^1X`$. Then we have an equality

$$W^kH_k(X)=\mu _{}(W^kH_k(\mu ^1X))=\nu _{}(H_k(\overline{X})),$$

where $`\nu :\overline{X}X`$ is the obvious map. On the other hand by (a) and (c)

$$\nu _{}(H_k(\overline{X}))=IM_k(X).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 7.1

By the dual of , 8.2.5 we can replace $`\nu :\overline{X}X`$ by any surjective map from a complete and smooth variety.

###### Remark 7.2

In general, if $`X`$ is possibly not complete then

$$IM_k(X)W^kH_k(X).$$

The equality does not have to hold. Example: Let $`X=𝐂^{}\times N`$, where $`N`$ is the rational node (see 6.5). Then $`W^2H_2(X)=H_2(X)𝐂^2`$, but $`IM_2(X)H_2(𝐂^{}\times 𝐏^1)𝐂`$.

## 8 Borel-Moore homology

Proof of the properties (a), (d), (e) and (f) are the same. Concerning (b) and (c), as we have remarked in 6.3, we can use any kind of supports, since the maps are constructed on the level of sheaves.

## 9 Dual $`KER`$ groups

Intersection cohomology is a module over $`H^{}(X)`$. Since the natural transformation $`\iota _X`$ preserves the module structure we have:

###### Proposition 9.1

The kernel $`ker(\iota _X)=KER^{}(X)`$ is an ideal in the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X)`$. Moreover $`KER^0(X)=0`$.

Due to nondegeneracy of the pairing in intersection (co)homology we can describe kernel cohomology as annihilators

$$KER^k(X)=Ann(IM_k(X)),KER_c^k(X)=Ann(IM_k^{BM}(X)).$$

Properties of (a’)-(f’) can be obtained by duality. A short way to prove (c’) is to show that $`\beta `$ in the dual of the diagram 5.1 may be chosen to be injective. The inclusion of 1.10 is a good choice. We will comment on (d’): We recall that the weight filtration in the cohomology of a complete variety is such, that $`W_kH^k(X)=H^k(X)`$ and the quotient $`W_kH^k(X)/W_{k1}H^k(X)`$ is pure. Combining (d’) and (e’) we have:

###### Theorem 9.2

If $`X`$ is complete and equidimensional, then

$$W_{k1}H^k(X)=ker(\iota _X^{}:H^k(X)IH^k(X))$$

This gives a positive answer to a question stated in .

## 10 Differential

By the property (b) the image homology is functorial. (We recall that it is not possible to chose maps of intersection homology to make it functor, see .) Moreover the map $`\iota _i:_{iI}IH_k(X_i)H_k(X)`$ comes from a map of sheaves $`\iota _i:_{iI}IC_{X_i}ID_X`$. Therefore $`(IM_k(X))IM_{k1}(AB)`$ in the Mayer-Vietoris sequence associated to the open covering $`X=AB`$. Of course the sequence of $`IM`$ groups does not have to be exact. Example: Let $`X`$ the sum of two copies of $`𝐏^1`$ glued along two pairs points. Denote by $`a`$ and $`b`$ be the points of the identification. The Mayer-Vietoris sequence for $`A=X\{b\}`$, $`B=X\{a\}`$ is not exact at $`IM_0(AB)`$.

On the other hand one can consider the case when $`A`$ and $`B`$ are closed subvarieties. Then the differential for intersection homology vanishes.

## 11 Appendix

The most frequently applied corollary from the Decomposition Theorem is 1.10. Its proof does not demand all the machinery of . The Corollary 1.10 can be deduced from functoriality of intersection cohomology, which in turn relies only on a certain vanishing statement called Local Hard Lefschetz in . We want to show how to construct inclusion and retraction in 1.10 using the induced maps constructed in .

We assume that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are irreducible, $`dim(X)=n`$ and $`dim(Y)=m`$. The map $`f:XY`$ is proper and surjective.

Inclusion: $`IC_Y\stackrel{i}{}Rf_{}IC_X`$ is a map realizing $`f^{}:IH^{}(Y)IH^{}(X)`$. Such a map exists by

Retraction: $`Rf_{}IC_X\stackrel{r}{}IC_Y`$. Let $`Z`$ be a subvariety of $`X`$ such, that $`f_{|Z}`$ is surjective and $`dim(Z)=dim(Y)`$. Such a construction has already been applied in Remark 6.4 and  p. 173. We consider the sheaf $`IC_Z`$ as a sheaf on $`X`$ supported by $`Z`$. As in §6 we construct a map $`\alpha :IC_YRf_{}IC_Z`$. We obtain a map of Verdier dual sheaves

$$Rf_{}IC_Z[2m]=Rf_{}DIC_Z=DRf_{}IC_Z\stackrel{D\alpha }{}DIC_Y=IC_Y[2m].$$

Again, there exists a map $`\beta :IC_XIC_Z`$ which agrees with the restriction of the constant sheaf $`𝐂_X𝐂_Z`$. We compose $`Rf_{}\beta `$ with $`D\alpha [2n]`$ and obtain a map $`r^{}:Rf_{}IC_XIC_Y`$. Generically the composition $`r^{}i`$ is the multiplication by the degree of $`f_{|Z}`$. We define $`r=\mathrm{deg}(f_{|Z})^1r^{}`$. Now, $`ri:IC_YIC_Y`$ is generically identity. By , V.9.2 p.144 each morphism of intersection complexes is determined by its restriction to an open set, therefore $`ri=Id_{IC_Y}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 11.1

The existence of the induced maps constructed in  follows from local vanishing (Local Hard Lefschetz ). Therefore these maps exist with rational coefficients. Our inclusion and retraction are constructed for rationals as well.

###### Remark 11.2

The assumption that we stay in the algebraic category is essential. In the Example 6.6 there is a natural map $`𝐂_Y=IC_YRf_{}IC_X=Rf_{}𝐂_X`$, but it is not split injective. The construction of a retraction breaks down since one cannot find a subvariety $`ZX`$ with the desired properties.

Andrzej Weber

Instytut Matematyki, Uniwersytet Warszawski

ul. Banacha 2, 02–097 Warszawa, Poland

e-mail: aweber@mimuw.edu.pl