arXiv:1601.06688v1 [math.AG] 25 Jan 2016

BERNSTEIN–SATO POLYNOMIALS FOR MAXIMAL MINORS AND SUB–MAXIMAL
PFAFFIANS
ANDRÁS C. LŐRINCZ, CLAUDIU RAICU, ULI WALTHER, AND JERZY WEYMAN
Abstract. We determine the Bernstein-Sato polynomials for the ideal of maximal minors of a generic m × n
matrix, as well as for that of sub-maximal Pfaffians of a generic skew-symmetric matrix of odd size. As a
corollary, we obtain that the Strong Monodromy Conjecture holds in these two cases.

1. Introduction
Consider a polynomial ring S = C[x1 , · · · , xN ] and let D = S[∂1 , · · · , ∂N ] denote the associated Weyl
∂
algebra of differential operators with polynomial coefficients (∂i = ∂x
). For a non-zero element f ∈ S, the
i
set of polynomials b(s) ∈ C[s] for which there exists a differential operator Pb ∈ D[s] such that
Pb · f s+1 = b(s) · f s

(1.1)

form a non-zero ideal. The monic generator of this ideal is called the Bernstein–Sato polynomial (or the
b-function) of f , and is denoted bf (s). The b-function gives a measure of the singularities of the scheme
defined by f = 0, and its zeros are closely related to the eigenvalues of the monodromy on the cohomology
of the Milnor fiber. In the case of a single hypersurface, its study has originated in [Ber72, SS74], and
later it has been extended to more general schemes in [BMS06] (see Section 2.5). Despite much research,
the calculation of b-functions remains notoriously difficult: several algorithms have been implemented to
compute b-functions, and a number of examples have been worked out in the literature, but basic instances
such as the b-functions for determinantal varieties are still not understood. In [Bud13] and [Bud15], Budur
posed as a challenge and reviewed the progress on the problem of computing the b-function of the ideal of
p × p minors of the generic m × n matrix. We solve the challenge for the case of maximal minors in this
paper, and we also find the b-function for the ideal of 2n × 2n Pfaffians of the generic skew-symmetric matrix
of size (2n + 1) × (2n + 1). For maximal minors, our main result is as follows:
Theorem on Maximal Minors (Theorem 4.1). Let m ≥ n be positive integers, consider the generic m × n
matrix of indeterminates (xij ), and let I = In denote the ideal in the polynomial ring S = C[xij ] which is
generated by the n × n minors of (xij ). The b-function of I is given by
bI (s) =

m
Y

(s + i).

i=m−n+1

When m = n, I is generated by a single equation – the determinant of the generic n × n matrix – and
the formula for bI (s) is well-known (see [Kim03, Appendix] or [Rai15, Section 5]). For general m ≥ n, if we
let Zm,n denote the zero locus of I, i.e. the variety of m × n matrices of rank at most n − 1, then using
Date: January 26, 2016.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 13D45, 14F10, 14M12, 32C38, 32S40.
Key words and phrases. Bernstein–Sato polynomials, b-functions, determinantal ideals, local cohomology.
1

2

ANDRÁS C. LŐRINCZ, CLAUDIU RAICU, ULI WALTHER, AND JERZY WEYMAN

Qn−1
the renormalization (2.28) our theorem states that the b-function of Zm,n is i=0
(s + i). It is interesting to
note that this only depends on the value of n and not on m.
The statement of the Strong Monodromy Conjecture of Denef and Loeser [DL92] extends naturally from
the case of one hypersurface to arbitrary ideals, and it asserts that the poles of the topological zeta function
of I are roots of bI (s). We verify this conjecture for maximal minors and sub-maximal Pfaffians in Section 5.
When I = In is the ideal of maximal minors of (xij ), the methods of [Doc13] can be used to show that the
set of poles of the topological zeta function of I is {−m, −m + 1, · · · , −m + n − 1}, and therefore it coincides
precisely with the set of roots of bI (s). If we replace I by the ideal Ip of p × p minors of (xij ), 1 < p < n,
then this is no longer true: as explained in [Bud15, Example 2.12], a computer calculation of T. Oaku shows
that for m = n = 3 one has bI2 (s) = (s + 9/2)(s + 4)(s + 5), while [Doc13, Thm. 6.5] shows that the only
poles of the zeta function of I2 are −9/2 and −4. Besides the Strong Monodromy Conjecture which predicts
some of the roots of bIp (s), we are not aware of any general conjectural formulas for bIp (s) when 1 < p < n.
In the case of Pfaffians we prove:
Theorem on sub–maximal Pfaffians (Theorem 3.9). Let n be a positive integer, and with the conventions
xii = 0, xij = −xji , consider the generic (2n+1)×(2n+1) generic skew-symmetric matrix of indeterminates
(xij ). If we let I denote the ideal in the polynomial ring S = C[xij ] which is generated by the 2n×2n Pfaffians
of (xij ) then the b-function of I is given by
bI (s) =

n−1
Y

(s + 2i + 3).

i=0

If we write Zn for the zero locus of I, i.e. the variety of (2n+1)×(2n+1) skew-symmetric matrices of rank
Qn−1
at most (2n − 2), then by (2.28) we get bZn (s) = i=0
(s + 2i). By [Kim03, Appendix] or [Rai15, Section 6],
this is the same as the b-function of the hypersurface of singular 2n × 2n skew-symmetric matrices.
Organization. In Section 2 we review some generalities on representation theory and D-modules, we recall
the necessary results on invariant differential operators and their eigenvalues, and we state the basic results
and definitions regarding b-functions of arbitrary ideals. In Section 3 we illustrate some methods for bounding
the b-function of an ideal: for upper bounds we use invariant differential operators, while for lower bounds we
show how non-vanishing of local cohomology can be used to exhibit roots of the b-functions. These methods
allow us to compute the b-function for sub-maximal Pfaffians, and to bound from above the b-function for
maximal minors. In Section 4 we employ the SLn -symmetry in the definition of the b-function of maximal
minors in order to show that the upper bound obtained in Section 3 is in fact sharp. In Section 5 we give a
quick derivation, based on our main results, of the Strong Monodromy Conjecture for maximal minors and
sub-maximal Pfaffians.

Notation and conventions. We write [N ] for the set {1, · · · , N }, and for k ≤ N we let [Nk ] denote
the collection of k-element subsets of [N ]. Throughout the paper, X = AN is an affine space, and S =
C[x1 , · · · , xN ] denotes the coordinate ring of X. We write DX or simply D for the Weyl algebra of differential
∂
. In order to distinguish between the various kinds of
operators on X: DX = S[∂1 , · · · , ∂n ] where ∂i = ∂x
i
tuples that arise in this paper, we will try as much as possible to stick to the following conventions: we write
• f = (f1 , · · · , fr ) ∈ S r for a tuple of polynomials in S.
• ĉ = (c1 , · · · , cr ) ∈ Zr for a tuple of integers indexing the operators in the definition of b-functions.
• s = (s1 , · · · , sr ) for a tuple of independent variables used to define b-functions.
• α = (α1 , · · · , αr ) ∈ Zr when αi are exponents which arise as specializations of the variables si .
• λ = (λ1 , · · · , λr ) ∈ Zr for a dominant weight or partition.

BERNSTEIN–SATO POLYNOMIALS FOR MAXIMAL MINORS AND SUB–MAXIMAL PFAFFIANS

3

2. Preliminaries
2.1. Representation Theory. We consider the group GLN = GLN (C) of invertible N × N complex
matrices, and denote by TN the maximal torus of diagonal matrices. We will refer to N –tuples λ =
(λ1 , · · · , λN ) ∈ ZN as weights of TN and write |λ| for the total size λ1 + · · · + λN of λ. We say that λ is a
dominant weight if λ1 ≥ λ2 ≥ · · · ≥ λN and denote the collection of dominant weights by ZN
dom . A dominant
weight with λN ≥ 0 is a partition, and we write P N for the set of partitions in ZN
.
We
will implicitly
dom
identify P N −1 with a subset of P N by setting λN = 0 for any λ ∈ P N −1 . For 0 ≤ k ≤ N and a ≥ 0 we
write (ak ) for the partition λ ∈ P k ⊂ P N with λ1 = · · · = λk = a. Irreducible rational representations of
GLN (C) are in one-to-one correspondence with dominant weights λ. We denote by Sλ CN the irreducible
V
representation associated to λ, often referred to as a Schur functor, and note that S(1k ) CN = k CN is the
k-th exterior power of CN for every 0 ≤ k ≤ N . When m ≥ n, we have Cauchy’s formula [Wey03, Cor. 2.3.3]
Sym(Cm ⊗ Cn ) =

M

Sλ C m ⊗ Sλ C n .

(2.1)

λ∈P n

If we identify Cm ⊗ Cn with the linear forms on the space X = Xm×n of m × n complex matrices, then (2.1)
is precisely the decomposition into irreducible GLm × GLn representations of the coordinate ring of X. For
a partition λ we write λ(2) = (λ1 , λ1 , λ2 , λ2 , · · · ) for the partition obtained by repeating each part of λ twice.
The skew-symmetric version of Cauchy’s formula [Wey03, Prop. 2.3.8(b)] yields
!
2
M
^
2n+1
=
C
Sym
(2.2)
Sλ(2) C2n+1 .
λ∈P n

V
If we identify 2 C2n+1 with the linear forms on the space X = Xn of (2n + 1) × (2n + 1) skew-symmetric
matrices, then (2.2) describes the decomposition into irreducible GL2n+1 -representations of the coordinate
ring of X.
2.2. Invariant operators and D-modules. Throughout this paper we will be studying various (left) DX modules when X is a finite dimensional representation of some connected reductive linear algebraic group G.
Differentiating the G-action on X yields a map from the Lie algebra g into the vector fields on X, which in
turn induces a map
τ : U (g) −→ DX ,
(2.3)
where U (g) denotes the universal enveloping algebra of g. In particular, any DX -module M inherits via τ
the structure of a g-representation: if g ∈ g and m ∈ M then g · m = τ (g) · m. In order to make the action
of DX on M compatible with the g-action we need to consider the action of g on DX given by
g • p = τ (g) · p − p · τ (g) for g ∈ g and p ∈ DX .

(2.4)

The induced Lie algebra action of g on the tensor product DX ⊗ M makes the multiplication DX ⊗ M → M
into a g-equivariant map: g · (p · m) = (g • p) · m + p · (g · m) for g ∈ g, p ∈ DX , m ∈ M.
We also use the symbol • to avoid a possible source of confusion that may arise as follows. Since S is both
a DX -module and a subset of DX , the multiplication of an element p ∈ DX with an element f ∈ S can have
two meanings: we write p • f for the result of applying the operator p to f , and p · f for the multiplication
of p with f inside DX . The operation p • f is only used twice in our paper: to discuss the pairing between
differential operators and polynomials (see (2.7)), and in Section 2.5 when we refer to ∂i • fj , the i-th partial
derivative of fj .

4

ANDRÁS C. LŐRINCZ, CLAUDIU RAICU, ULI WALTHER, AND JERZY WEYMAN

For a Lie subalgebra a ⊂ g, and a DX -module M, we consider the collection Ma of a-invariant sections
in M:
Ma = {m ∈ M : τ (a) · m = 0 for all a ∈ a}.
The main examples that we study arise from a tuple f = (f1 , · · · , fr ) ∈ S r of polynomial functions on X,
where each fi is a-invariant, and M = Sf1 ···fr is the localization of S at the product f1 · · · fr . In this case
we have that Ma = (Sf1 ···fr )a coincides with (S a )f1 ···fr , the localization of S a at f1 · · · fr .
a (not to be confused with Ma for M = D
The ring of a-invariant differential operators on X, denoted by DX
X
as defined above), are defined via
a
DX
= {p ∈ DX : a • p = 0 for all a ∈ a},

(2.5)

a -module whenever M is a D -module. If we write ZU (a) for the center of U (a) then it
and Ma is a DX
X
follows from (2.4) and (2.5) that
a
τ (ZU (a)) ⊆ DX
.
(2.6)
An alternative way of producing a-invariant differential operators is as follows. Let P = C[∂1 , · · · , ∂N ] and
write Sk (resp. Pk ) for the subspace of S (resp. P ) of homogeneous elements of degree k. The action of P
on S by differentiation induces a-equivariant perfect pairings h , i : Pk × Sk → C for each k ≥ 0, namely
hw, vi = w • v. If V ⊂ Sk , W ⊂ Pk are dual a-subrepresentations, with (almost dual) bases v = (v1 , · · · , vt )
and w = (w1 , · · · , wt ), such that for some non-zero constant c

hwi , vj i = 0 for i 6= j,
then we can define elements of

a
DX

hwi , vi i = c for all i,

(2.7)

via

Dv,w =

t
X

vi · wi ,

Dw,v =

t
X

wi · vi .

(2.8)

i=1

i=1

In the examples that we consider, the basis w will have a very simple description in terms of v. For
p = p(x1 , · · · , xN ) ∈ S, we define p∗ = p(∂1 , · · · , ∂N ) ∈ P . For the tuples of maximal minors and submaximal Pfaffians, it will suffice to take wi = vi∗ in order for (2.7) to be satisfied, in which case we’ll simply
write Dv instead of Dw,v and Dv∗ or Dw instead of Dv,w .
We specialize our discussion to the case when X = Xm,n is the vector space of m × n matrices, m ≥ n,
and G = GLm × GLn , g = glm ⊕ gln . The coordinate ring of X is S = C[xij ] with i ∈ [m], j ∈ [n]. We
consider the tuple of maximal minors d = (dK )K∈([m]) of the generic matrix of indeterminates (xij ), where
n

dK = det(xij )i∈K,j∈[n],

(2.9)

and the tuple ∂ = (∂K )K∈([m]) of maximal minors in the dual variables
n

∂K = d∗K = det(∂ij )i∈K,j∈[n],

(2.10)
Vn

Vn

Cn in (2.1), indexed by
Cm ⊗
The elements dK form a basis for the irreducible representation V =
n
the partition λ = (1 ), while ∂K form a basis for the dual representation W . If we let c = n! then it follows
from Cayley’s identity [CSS13, (1.1)] that (2.7) holds for the tuples d and ∂, so we get g-invariant operators
X
X
D∂ =
dK · ∂K , Dd =
∂K · dK .
(2.11)
K∈([m]
n )

K∈([m]
n )

If we consider sln ⊂ gln ⊂ g, the special linear Lie algebra of n × n matrices with trace 0, then

 
[m]
sln
S = C dK : K ∈
n

BERNSTEIN–SATO POLYNOMIALS FOR MAXIMAL MINORS AND SUB–MAXIMAL PFAFFIANS

5

is the C-subalgebra of S generated by the maximal minors dK . Moreover, S sln can be identified with the
homogeneous coordinate ring of the Grassmannian G(n, m) of n-planes in Cm . We let
p0 = d[n] , and pij = d[n]\{i}∪{j} , for i ∈ [n], j ∈ [m] \ [n],

(2.12)

and note that pij /p0 give the coordinates on the open Schubert cell defined by p0 6= 0 inside G(n, m). It

follows that if we take any K ∈ [m]
n , set |[n] \ K| = k, and enumerate the elements of the sets [n]\K =
{i1 , · · · , ik } and K\[n] = {j1 , · · · , jk } in increasing order, then:


p i1 j 1 · · · p i1 j k

..  .
..
(2.13)
dK = p01−k · det  ...
.
. 
p ik j 1 · · · p ik j k

It will be important in Section 4 to note moreover that p0 , pij are algebraically independent and that




sln

Y
cij
c0
p0 ·
pij : c0 , cij ∈ Z forms a C-basis of Sp0 ·Qi,j pij
.
(2.14)


i∈[n],j∈[m]\[n]

2.3. Capelli elements, eigenvalues, and the Fourier transform [HU91]. Throughout the paper, by
the determinant of a matrix A = (aij )i,j∈[r] with non-commuting entries we mean the column-determinant:
if Sr is the symmetric group of permutations of [r], and sgn denotes the signature of a permutation, then
X
sgn(σ) · aσ(1)1 · aσ(2)2 · · · aσ(n)n .
(2.15)
col-det(aij ) =
σ∈Sr

We consider the Lie algebra glr and choose a basis {Eij : i, j ∈ [r]} for it, where Eij is the matrix whose
only non-zero entry is in row i, column j, and it is equal to one. We think of Eij as the inputs of an
r × r matrix E with entries in U (glr ). We consider an auxiliary variable z, consider the diagonal matrix
∆ = diag(r − 1 − z, r − 2 − z, · · · , 1 − z, −z) and define the polynomial C(z) ∈ U (glr )[z] using notation (2.15):
C(z) = col-det(E + ∆).

(2.16)

For a ≥ 0 we write
[z]a = z(z − 1) · · · (z − a + 1)
(2.17)
and define elements Ca ∈ U (glr ), a = 0, · · · , r, by expanding the polynomial C(z) into a linear combination
C(z) =

r
X
(−1)r−a Ca · [z]r−a .

(2.18)

a=0

In the case when r = 2 we obtain


E11 + 1 − z
E12
C(z) = col-det
= [z]2 − (E11 + E22 ) · [z] + ((E11 + 1) · E22 − E21 · E12 ), thus
E21
E22 − z
C0 = 1, C1 = E11 + E22 , C2 = (E11 + 1) · E22 − E21 · E12 .
The elements Ca , a = 1, · · · , r are called the Capelli elements of U (glr ), and ZU (glr ) is a polynomial algebra
with generators C1 , · · · , Cr . For λ ∈ Zrdom , let Vλ denote an irreducible glr -representation of highest weight
λ, and pick vλ ∈ Vλ to be a highest weight vector in Vλ , so that
Eii · vλ = λi · vλ ,

Eij · vλ = 0 for i < j.

(2.19)

Since Ca are central, their action on Vλ is by scalar multiplication, and the scalar (called the eigenvalue of Ca
on Vλ ) can be determined by just acting on vλ . To record this action more compactly, we will consider how

6

ANDRÁS C. LŐRINCZ, CLAUDIU RAICU, ULI WALTHER, AND JERZY WEYMAN

C(z) acts on vλ . Expanding C(z) via (2.15), it follows from (2.19) that the only term that doesn’t annihilate
vλ is the product of diagonal entries in the matrix E + ∆, hence
C(z) acts on Vλ [z] by multiplication by

r
Y

(λi + r − i − z).

(2.20)

i=1

We can think of U (glr ) in terms of generators and relations as follows: it is generated as a C-algebra by
Eij , i, j ∈ [r], subject to the relations
[Eij , Ekl ] = δjk · Eil − δil · Ekj ,

(2.21)

where [a, b] = ab − ba denotes the usual commutator, and δ is the Kronecker delta function. For every
complex number u ∈ C, the substitutions
Eij −→ −Eji for i 6= j,

Eii −→ −Eii − u

preserve (2.21), so they define an involution Fu : U (glr ) −→ U (glr ) which we call the Fourier transform with
parameter u. We can apply Fu to C(z) and obtain
Fu C(z) = col-det(−E t − u · Idr +∆),

(2.22)

where E t

is the transpose of E, and Idr denotes the r×r identity matrix. The Fourier transforms Fu C1 , · · · , Fu Cr
of the Capelli elements form another set of polynomial generators for ZU (glr ), hence they act by scalar multiplication on any irreducible glr -representation Vλ . To determine the scalars, we will consider the action on
a lowest weight vector wλ ∈ Vλ , so that
Eii · wλ = λr+1−i · wλ ,

Eji · wλ = 0 for i < j.

(2.23)

Expanding (2.22) via (2.15), it follows from (2.23) that the action of Fu Ca on Vλ is encoded by the fact that
Fu C(z) acts on Vλ [z] by multiplication by

r
Y
(−λr+1−i − u + r − i − z).

(2.24)

i=1

Lemma 2.1. For s ∈ Z, let λ = (sr ) denote the dominant weight with all λi = s, and for a = 1, · · · , r let
Pa (s) (resp. Fu Pa (s)) denote the eigenvalue of Ca (resp. Fu Ca ) on Vλ . We have that Pa (s) and Fu Pa (s) are
polynomial functions in s, and as such Fu Pa (s) = Pa (−s − u).
P
Proof. If we let P (s, z) = ra=0 (−1)r−a Pa (s) · [z]r−a then it follows from (2.18) and (2.20) that
P (s, z) =

r
Y
(s + r − i − z).
i=1

Expanding the right hand side as a linear combination of [z]0 , [z]1 , · · · , [z]r shows that Pa (s) is a polynomial
in s. We define Fu P (s, z) by replacing Pa (s) with Fu Pa (s) and obtain using (2.24) that
Fu P (s, z) =

r
Y
(−s − u + r − i − z).
i=1

Since Fu P (s, z) = P (−s − u, z), the conclusion follows.



Lemma 2.2. For s ∈ Z≥0 , let λ = (sr−1 ) denote the partition with λ1 = · · · = λr−1 = s, λr = 0, and for
a = 1, · · · , r let Qa (s) (resp. Fr−1 Qa (s)) denote the eigenvalue of Ca (resp. Fr−1 Ca ) on Vλ . We have that
Qa (s) and Fr−1 Qa (s) are polynomial functions in s, and as such Fr−1 Qa (s) = Qa (−s − r).

BERNSTEIN–SATO POLYNOMIALS FOR MAXIMAL MINORS AND SUB–MAXIMAL PFAFFIANS

7

Proof. We define Q(s, z) and Fr−1 Q(s, z) as in the proof of Lemma 2.1 and obtain using (2.20), (2.24) that
!
r−1
Y
(s + r − i − z) · (0 − z) = (s + r − 1 − z) · (s + r − 2 − z) · · · (s + 1 − z) · (−z),
Q(s, z) =
i=1

Fr−1 Q(s, z) = (−0 − (r − 1) + r − 1 − z) ·

!
r
Y
(−s − (r − 1) + r − i − z)
i=2

= (−z) · (−s − 1 − z) · (−s − 2 − z) · · · (−s − r + 1 − z).

It is immediate to check that Fr−1 Q(s, z) = Q(−s − r, z), from which the conclusion follows.



2.4. A little linear algebra. We let Xm,n , m ≥ n, denote the vector space of m × n matrices, write Zm,n
for the subvariety of Xm,n consisting of matrices of rank at most n − 1, and let U ⊂ Xm,n denote the open
affine subset consisting of matrices u = (uij ) with u11 6= 0.
Lemma 2.3. There exists an isomorphism of algebraic varieties
π : U ∩ Zm,n −→ C∗ × Cm−1 × Cn−1 × Zm−1,n−1 .
Proof. We define π : U → C∗ × Cm−1 × Cn−1 × Xm−1,n−1 via π(u) = (t, ~c, ~r, M ) where if u = (uij ) then
t = u11 , ~c = (u21 , u31 , · · · , um1 ), ~r = (u12 , u13 , · · · , u1n ),
Mij = det{1,i+1},{1,j+1} for i ∈ [m − 1], j ∈ [n − 1],
where det{1,i+1},{1,j+1} = u11 ·ui+1,j+1 − u1,j+1 ·ui+1,1 is the determinant of the 2× 2 submatrix of u obtained
by selecting rows 1, i + 1 and columns 1, j + 1. It follows for instance from [Joh03, Section 3.4] that the
map π is an isomorphism, and that it sends U ∩ Zm,n onto C∗ × Cm−1 × Cn−1 × Zm−1,n−1 , which yields the
desired conclusion.

We let Xn denote the vector space of (2n + 1) × (2n + 1) skew-symmetric matrices, and define Zn ⊂ Xn
to be the subvariety of matrices of rank at most (2n − 2). We let U ⊂ Xn denote the open affine subset
defined by matrices (uij ) with u12 6= 0.
Lemma 2.4. There exists an isomorphism of algebraic varieties
π : U ∩ Zn −→ C∗ × C2n−1 × C2n−1 × Zn−1 .
Proof. We define π : U → C∗ × C2n−1 × C2n−1 × Xn−1 via π(u) = (t, ~c, ~r, M ) where if u = (uij ) then
t = u12 , ~c = (u13 , u14 , · · · , u1,2n+1 ), ~r = (u23 , u24 , · · · , u2,2n+1 ),
Mij =

Pf {1,2,i+2,j+2}
for 1 ≤ i, j ≤ 2n − 1,
u12

where Pf {1,2,i+2,j+2} is the Pfaffian of the 4×4 principal skew-symmetric submatrix of u obtained by selecting
the rows and columns of u indexed by 1, 2, i + 2 and j + 2. Since
Mij = ui+2,j+2 − (u1,i+2 · u2,j+2 − u1,j+2 · u2,i+2 )/u12

8

ANDRÁS C. LŐRINCZ, CLAUDIU RAICU, ULI WALTHER, AND JERZY WEYMAN

one can solve for ui+2,j+2 in terms of the entries of M, ~r, ~c and u12 in order to define the inverse of π, which
is therefore an isomorphism. We consider the (2n + 1) × (2n + 1) matrix


u24 /u12 · · · u2,2n+1 /u12
0
1 u23 /u12
 1/u12 0 −u13 /u12 −u14 /u12 · · · −u1,2n+1 /u12 


 0

0
1
0
···
0


C= 0

0
0
1
·
·
·
0




..
..
..
..
..
..


.
.
.
.
.
.
0

0

0

0

···

1

Writing ~0 for zero row/column vectors of size (2n − 1), we have (see also [JP79, Lemma 1.1])


0 −1 ~0
~0 
Ct · u · C =  1 0
~0 ~0 M

Since rank(u) = rank(C t ·u·C) = rank(M )+2, it follows that π sends U ∩Zn onto C∗ ×C2n−1 ×C2n−1 ×Zn−1 ,
so it restricts to the desired isomorphism.

2.5. The b-function of an affine scheme. In this section we review the results and definitions from
[BMS06] that are most relevant for our calculations. Let X = AN be the N -dimensional affine space, and
∂
)
write S = C[x1 , · · · , xN ] for the coordinate ring of X, and DX = C[x1 , · · · , xN , ∂1 , · · · , ∂N ] (∂i = ∂x
i
for the corresponding Weyl algebra of differential operators. For a collection f = (f1 , · · · , fr ) of non-zero
polynomials in S, we consider a set of independent commuting variables s1 , · · · , sr , one for each fi . We form
the DX [s1 , · · · , sr ]-module
(2.25)
Bsf = Sf1 ···fr [s1 , · · · , sr ] · f s ,
s
where Sf1 ···fr denotes the localization of S at the product of the fi ’s, and f stands for the formal product
f1s1 · · · frsr . Bsf is a free rank one Sf1 ···fr [s1 , · · · , sr ]-module with generator f s , which admits a natural action
of DX : the partial derivatives ∂i act on the generator f s via
r
X
sj · (∂i • fj ) s
∂i · f =
·f .
fj
s

j=1

Writing s = s1 + · · · + sr , the Bernstein–Sato polynomial (or b-function) bf (s) is the monic polynomial of
the lowest degree in s for which bf (s) · f s belongs to the DX [s1 , · · · , sr ]-submodule of Bsf generated by all
expressions
r
Y
ĉs ·
fisi +ci ,
i=1

Zr

where ĉ = (c1 , · · · , cr ) runs over the r-tuples in
with c1 + · · · + cr = 1 (for short |ĉ| = 1), and
Y
ĉs =
si · (si − 1) · · · (si + ci + 1).

(2.26)

ci <0

Equivalently, bf (s) is the monic polynomial of lowest degree for which there exist a finite set of tuples ĉ ∈ Zr
with |ĉ| = 1, and corresponding operators Pĉ ∈ DX [s1 , · · · , sr ] such that
X
ĉ

Pĉ · ĉs ·

r
Y
i=1

fisi +ci = bf (s) · f s .

(2.27)

BERNSTEIN–SATO POLYNOMIALS FOR MAXIMAL MINORS AND SUB–MAXIMAL PFAFFIANS

9

Just as in the case r = 1 (of a single hypersurface), bf (s) exists and is a polynomial whose roots are
negative rational numbers. Moreover, bf (s) only depends on the ideal I generated by f1 , · · · , fr , which is
why we’ll often write bI (s) instead of bf (s). Furthermore, if we let Z ⊂ X denote the subscheme defined by
f1 , · · · , fr , and if we define
bZ (s) = bI (s − codimX (Z))
(2.28)
then bZ (s) only depends on the affine scheme Z and not on its embedding in an affine space. The polynomial
bZ (s) is called the Bernstein–Sato polynomial of Z (or the b-function of Z), and is meant as a measure of the
singularities of Z: the higher the degree of bZ (s), the worse are the singularities of Z. For instance, one has
that T is smooth if and only if bT (s) = s. Moreover, it follows from [BMS06, Theorem 5] that for any Z and
any smooth T we have
bZ×T (s) = bZ (s).
(2.29)
It will be important to note also that if Z is irreducible and Z = Z1 ∪ · · · ∪ Zk is an open cover of Z then
bZ (s) = lcm{bZi (s) : i = 1, · · · , k}.

(2.30)

A modification of the above formula is shown in [BMS06] to hold even when Z is reducible, and in fact
can be used to define a b-function for not necessarily affine or irreducible schemes Z: this generality is not
relevant for this article so we won’t discuss it further. Combining (2.29) and (2.30) with the results and
notation from Section 2.4, we conclude that
bZm−1,n−1 (s) divides bZm,n (s), and bZn−1 (s) divides bZn (s).

(2.31)

3. Bounding the b-function
In this section we discuss some methods for bounding the b-function from above and below. As a consequence we obtain formulas for the b-function of the ideal of maximal minors of the generic (n + 1) × n
matrix, and for the b-function of the ideal of sub-maximal Pfaffians of a generic skew-symmetric matrix of
odd size.
3.1. Lower bounds. In order to obtain lower bounds for a b-function, it is important to be able to identify
certain factors of the b-function which are easier to compute. One instance of this is given in equation (2.30):
the b-function of Z is divisible by the b-function of any affine open subscheme. In this section we note that
sometimes it is possible to identify roots of the b-function (i.e. linear factors) by showing an appropriate
inclusion of D-modules. As before f = (f1 , · · · , fr ) ∈ S r , and I ⊂ S is the ideal generated by the fi ’s.
For α ∈ Z we define Fα to be the DX -submodule of Sf1 ···fr generated by
fα =

r
Y

fiαi , where α = (α1 , · · · , αr ) ∈ Zr , α1 + · · · + αr = α.

i=1

It is clear that Fα+1 ⊆ Fα for every α ∈ Z. We have moreover:
Proposition 3.1. If α ∈ Z and if there is a strict inclusion Fα+1 ( Fα then α is a root of bf (s).
Proof. By the definition of bf (s), there exist tuples ĉ and operators Pĉ ∈ DX [s1 , · · · , sr ] such that (2.27) holds.
Assume now that Fα+1 ( Fα for some α ∈ Z, and consider any integers α1 , · · · , αr with α1 + · · · + αr = α.
There is a natural DX -module homomorphism
π : Sf1 ···fr [s1 , · · · , sr ] · f s −→ Sf1 ···fr , defined by π(si ) = αi .
fα

(3.1)

∈ Fα+1 . If bf (α) 6= 0 then we can divide by bf (α) and obtain
Applying π to (2.27) we find that bf (α) ·
α
that f ∈ Fα+1 for all α with |α| = α. Since the elements f α generate Fα it follows that Fα ⊆ Fα+1 which
is a contradiction. We conclude that bf (α) = 0, i.e. that α is a root of bf (s).


10

ANDRÁS C. LŐRINCZ, CLAUDIU RAICU, ULI WALTHER, AND JERZY WEYMAN

We write HI• (S) for the local cohomology groups of S with support in the ideal I. Proposition 3.1
combined with non-vanishing results for local cohomology can sometimes be used to determine roots of the
b-function as follows:
Corollary 3.2. If bI (s) has no integral root α with α < −r, and if HIr (S) 6= 0 then bI (−r) = 0.
Proof. For every α ∈ Z, α < −r, and every α = (α1 , · · · , αr ) with α = α1 + · · · + αr , we can apply the
specialization map (3.1) to the equation (2.27) to conclude that bI (α) · f α ∈ Fα+1 . Since bI (α) 6= 0 by
assumption, we conclude that f α ∈ Fα+1 for all such α, and therefore Fα = Fα+1 . It follows that
F−r = F−r−1 = F−r−2 = · · · = Sf1 ···fr ,
since the localization Sf1 ···fr is the union of all Fα , α ≤ −r.
By Proposition 3.1, in order to show that bI (−r) = 0, it is enough to show that F−r+1 ( F−r , which by
the above is equivalent to proving that F−r+1 does not coincide with the localization Sf1 ···fr . Consider any
generator f α of F−r+1 , corresponding to a tuple α ∈ Zr with α1 + · · · + αr = −r + 1. At least one of the
αi ’s has to be nonnegative, so that f α belongs to Sf1 ···fˆi ···fr , the localization of S at a product of all but one
of the generators fi . This shows that
r
X
(3.2)
Sf1 ···fˆi ···fr .
F−r+1 ⊆
i=1

Using the Čech complex description of local cohomology, and the assumption that HIr (S) 6= 0, we conclude
that there is a strict inclusion
r
X
Sf1 ···fˆi ···fr ( Sf1 ···fr .
i=1

Combining this with (3.2) we conclude that F−r+1 ( F−r = Sf1 ···fr , as desired.



3.2. Upper bounds. Obtaining upper bounds for b-functions is in general a difficult problem, since most
of the time it involves determining the operators Pĉ in (2.27). In the presence of a large group of symmetries,
invariant differential operators are natural candidates for such operators, and the problem becomes more
tractable. As in Section 2.2, G is a connected reductive linear algebraic group, and g is its Lie algebra.
Definition 3.3. A tuple f = (f1 , · · · , fr ) ∈ S r is said to be multiplicity-free (for the G-action) if
(a) For every nonnegative integer α, the polynomials
f α = f1α1 · · · frαr , for α = (α1 , · · · , αr ) ∈ Zr≥0 satisfying α1 + · · · + αr = α,
span an irreducible G-subrepresentation Vα ⊂ S.
(b) For every α ∈ Z≥0 , the multiplicity of Vα inside S is equal to one.
A typical example of a multiplicity-free tuple arises in the case r = 1 from a semi-invariant on a prehomogeneous vector space. In this case the computations for the Bernstein-Sato polynomials have been pursued
thoroughly (see for example [Kim82, Kim03]). Our definition gives a natural generalization to tuples with
r > 1 entries. We have the following:
Proposition 3.4. Consider
a multiplicity-free tuple f = (f1 , · · · , fr ) for some G, and a G-invariant differP
ential operator Df = ri=1 gi · fi , where gi ∈ DX . If we let s = s1 + · · · + sr then there exists a polynomial
Pf (s) ∈ C[s] such that
Df · f s = Pf (s) · f s ,
and moreover we have that bf (s) divides Pf (s).

BERNSTEIN–SATO POLYNOMIALS FOR MAXIMAL MINORS AND SUB–MAXIMAL PFAFFIANS

11

Proof. Since the action of Df preserves Bsf , there exists an element Q ∈ Sf1 ···fr [s1 , · · · , sr ] with the property
Df · f s = Q · f s .
The goal is to show that, as a polynomial in s1 , · · · , sr , Q = Q(s1 , · · · , sr ) has coefficients in C, and moreover
that it can be expressed as a polynomial only in s = s1 + · · · + sr . For this, it suffices to check that:
(a) Q(α1 , · · · , αr ) ∈ C for every α1 , · · · , αr ∈ Z≥0 .
(b) For αi as in (a), Q(α1 , · · · , αr ) only depends on α = α1 + · · · + αr .
Let α1 , · · · , αr be arbitrary non-negative integers, and write α = α1 + · · · + αr . Since Vα is irreducible,
hVα , Si = 1, and Df is G-invariant, it follows from Schur’s Lemma that Df acts on Vα by multiplication by
a scalar, i.e. Q(α1 , · · · , αr ) ∈ C is a scalar that only depends on α, so conditions (a) and (b) are satisfied.
To see that bf (s) divides Pf (s), it suffices to note that Df · f s = Pf (s) · f s can be rewritten in the
form (2.27), where the sum is over tuples ĉ = (0, · · · , 0, 1, 0, · · · , 0) with ci = 1, cj = 0 for j 6= i, with
corresponding operator Pĉ = gi . Since bf (s) is the lowest degree polynomial for which (2.27) holds, it follows
that bf (s) divides Pf (s).

3.3. Maximal minors. In this section X = Xm,n is the vector space of m × n matrices, m ≥ n. The group
G = GLm × GLn acts on X via row and column operations. The coordinate ring of X is S = C[xij ], and we
consider the tuple d = (dK )K∈([m]) of maximal minors defined in (2.9). The tuple d is multiplicity-free for
n

the G-action, where for α ∈ Z≥0 , the corresponding representation Vα in Definition 3.3 is S(αn ) Cm ⊗ S(αn ) Cn
from (2.1) (see for instance [dCEP80, Thm. 6.1]). We associate to d the invariant differential operator Dd
in (2.11) and by Proposition 3.4 there exists a polynomial Pd (s) with
Dd · ds = Pd (s) · ds .
Theorem 3.5. With the notation above, we have that
m
Y
Pd (s) =

(3.3)

(s + i).

(3.4)

i=m−n+1


Proof. In order to compute Pd (s), it suffices to understand the action of Dd on dsL for some fixed L ∈ [m]
n
(this corresponds to letting sK = 0 for K 6= L in (3.3)). We consider instead the action of the operator D∂
in (2.11), and note that by Cayley’s identity [CSS13, (1.1)] one has
!
n−1
Y
s−1
s
s
,
(s + i) · dL
∂K · dL = 0 for K 6= L, ∂L · dL =
i=0

which implies

D∂ · dsL =

n−1
Y

!

(s + i)

i=0

· dsL .

(3.5)

Let F : DX −→ DX denote the (usual) Fourier transform, defined by F(xij ) = ∂ij , F (∂ij ) = −xij , and note
that Dd = (−1)n · F(D∂ ). We will obtain Pd (s) by applying the Fourier transform to (3.5).
For i, j ∈ [n], we consider the polarization operators
m
X
Eij =
xki · ∂kj .
k=1

The action of the Lie algebra gln ⊂ glm ⊕ gln on X induces a map τ : U (gln ) → DX as in (2.3), sending
τ (Eij ) = Eij for all i, j. The Fourier transform sends
F(Eij ) = −Eji for i 6= j,

F(Eii ) = −Eii − m,

12

ANDRÁS C. LŐRINCZ, CLAUDIU RAICU, ULI WALTHER, AND JERZY WEYMAN

so using the notation in Section 2.3 we obtain a commutative diagram
U (gln )

Fm

/ U (gl )
n

τ

τ



DX



F

/ DX

Since D∂ is in τ (ZU (gln )) (it is in fact equal to τ (Cn ) by [HU91, (11.1.9)]), it follows from (3.5), from the
commutativity of the above diagram and from Lemma 2.1 with r = n and u = m that
!
!
m
n−1
Y
Y
(s + i) · dsK ,
(−s − m + i) · dsK =
Dd · dsK = (−1)n
i=m−n+1

i=0

which concludes the proof of our theorem.



Remark 3.6. A more direct way to prove (3.4) is to use for instance [CSS09, Prop. 1.2] in order to obtain a
determinantal representation for the operator Dd , namely


E11 + m
E12
···
E1n
 E21

E22 + m − 1 · · ·
E2n


Dd = col-det 
,
..
..
..
..


.
.
.
.
En1
En2
· · · Enn + m − n + 1
from which the conclusion follows easily. The advantage of our proof of Theorem 3.5 is that it applies equally
to the case of sub-maximal Pfaffians in Section 3.4, where we are not aware of a more direct approach.

Almost square matrices. In the case of (n + 1) × n matrices, we can show that the lower and upper
bounds obtained by the techniques described above agree, and we obtain the following special instance of
the Theorem on Maximal Minors described in the Introduction:
Theorem 3.7. If d is the tuple of maximal minors of the generic (n + 1) × n matrix then its b-function is
bd (s) =

n+1
Y

(s + i).

i=2

Proof. We have by Proposition 3.4 and Theorem 3.5 that bd (s) divides the product (s + 2) · · · (s + n + 1).
If we write Zn+1,n for the variety of (n + 1) × n matrices of rank smaller than n as in Section 2.4 then the
defining ideal of Zn+1,n is generated by the entries of d. Since Zn+1,n has codimension two inside Xn+1,n ,
bZn+1,n (s) = bd (s − 2) by (2.28), and thus it suffices to show that
bZn+1,n (s) is divisible by

n−1
Y

(s + i).

(3.6)

i=0

Qn−2
(s + i). Taking into account (2.31) we are left with
By induction on n, we may assume that bZn,n−1 = i=0
proving that (−n + 1) is a root of bZn+1,n (s), or equivalently that (−n − 1) is a root of bd (s). To do this we
apply Corollary 3.2 with r = n + 1, and I the defining ideal of Zn+1,n . It follows from [Wit12, Thm. 5.10]

or [RWW14, Thm. 4.5] that HIn+1 (S) 6= 0, so the Corollary applies and concludes our proof.
Remark 3.8. An alternative approach to proving Theorem 3.7 goes by first computing the b-function of
several variables associated to d1 , · · · , dn+1 (see [Lőr13, Lemma 1.9]). The space Xn+1,n is prehomogeneous
under the action of the smaller group (C∗ )n+1 × GLn (C). We will use freely some notions from [Lőr13]. The

BERNSTEIN–SATO POLYNOMIALS FOR MAXIMAL MINORS AND SUB–MAXIMAL PFAFFIANS

13

maximal minors d1 , · · · , dn+1 can be viewed as semi-invariants for the following quiver with n + 2 vertices
and dimension vector
1 gPPP 1 `❇
···
1
71
❇
⑤>
♥♥♥
P
⑤⑤ ♥♥♥
⑤⑤♥♥♥♥
⑤
⑤♥⑤♥♥♥

PPP ❇❇
PPP ❇❇
PPP❇❇
P

n
The dimension vector is preinjective, hence by [Lőr13, Proposition 5.4(b)] we can compute the b-function
of several variables using reflection functors [Lőr13, Theorem 5.3]:
,1
1,0,··· ,0
,0
,1
bd (s) = [s]1,1,···
· [s]0,1,···
· · · [s]0,0,···
.
n−1,n · [s]1
1
1

This means that we have formulas
d∗i · di · ds = (si + 1)(s + 2)(s + 3) · · · (s + n) · ds ,
which, together with Lemma 4.4 below gives readily the Bernstein-Sato polynomial of the ideal. Such relations between b-functions of several variables and Bernstein-Sato polynomials of ideals have been investigated
in [Lőr15].
3.4. Sub-maximal Pfaffians. In this section X = Xn is the vector space of (2n + 1) × (2n + 1) skewsymmetric matrices, with the natural action of G = GL2n+1 . The coordinate ring of X is S = C[xij ] with
1 ≤ i < j ≤ 2n + 1. We consider the tuple d = (d1 , d2 , · · · , d2n+1 ), where di is the Pfaffian of the skewsymmetric matrix obtained by removing the i-th row and column of the generic skew-symmetric matrix
(xij )i,j∈[2n+1] (with the convention xji = −xij and xii = 0). The tuple d is multiplicity-free for the G-action,
where for α ∈ Z≥0 , the corresponding representation Vα in Definition 3.3 is S(α2n ) C2n+1 from (2.2) (see for
instance [ADF80, Thm. 4.1]). We associate to d the invariant differential operator
Dd =

2n+1
X

d∗i · di ,

i=1

and by Proposition 3.4 there exists a polynomial Pd (s) with
Dd · ds = Pd (s) · ds .

(3.7)

Theorem 3.9. If d is the tuple of sub-maximal Pfaffians of the generic (2n + 1) × (2n + 1) skew-symmetric
matrix, then
n−1
Y
(s + 2i + 3).
(3.8)
bd (s) = Pd (s) =
i=0

Proof. We begin by showing, using the strategy from the proof of Theorem 3.5, that Pd (s) =
We have a commutative diagram
U (gl2n+1 )

F2n

τ



DX
If we let Dd∗ =

i=1

i=0

/ U (gl
2n+1 )

τ

P2n+1

Qn−1

F



/ DX

di · d∗i then Dd = (−1)n · F(Dd∗ ). It follows from [CSS13, Thm. 2.3] that
!
n−1
Y
∗
s
∗
s
(s + 2i) · d0s−1 ,
di · d0 = 0 for i 6= 0, d0 · d0 =
i=0

(s+2i+3).

14

ANDRÁS C. LŐRINCZ, CLAUDIU RAICU, ULI WALTHER, AND JERZY WEYMAN

from which we obtain
n−1
Y

Dd∗ · ds0 =

!

(s + 2i)

i=0

· ds0 .

Since Dd∗ is in τ (ZU (gl2n+1 )) by [HU91, Cor. 11.3.19], it follows from Lemma 2.2 with r = 2n + 1 that
!
n−1
Y
(−s − 2n − 1 + 2i) · ds0 ,
Dd · ds0 = (−1)n ·
i=0

from which we obtain

Pd (s) =

n−1
Y

(s + 2i + 3).

(3.9)

i=0

Using the notation in Section 2.4 we have that bd (s) = bZn (s + 3) since Zn has codimension three in Xn ,
Qn−1
Qn−2
so (3.8) is equivalent to bZn (s) = i=0
(s + 2i). By induction on n we have bZn−1 (s) = i=0
(s + 2i), which
divides bZn (s) by (2.31). This shows that −3, −5, · · · , −2n + 1 are roots of bd (s), and since bd (s) divides
Pd (s), it follows from (3.9) that the only other possible root is −2n − 1. Using [RWW14, Thm. 5.5] and
Corollary 3.2 with r = 2n + 1 and I being the ideal generated by the di ’s, it follows that −2n − 1 is indeed
a root of bd (s), hence (3.8) holds.

Remark 3.10. The method described in Remark 3.8 can be used in this case as well. Using the decomposition
(2.2) and the Littlewood-Richardson rule, we see that d∗i · S((α+1)2n ) C2n+1 ⊂ S(α2n ) C2n+1 for α ∈ Z≥0 .
Moreover, under the action of diagonal matrices the weights of d1 , · · · , d2n+1 are linearly independent. Hence
the tuple d = (d1 , d2 , · · · , d2n+1 ) has a b-function of several variables, and as in the proof of [Lőr13, Theorem
5.1] we obtain the formulas
d∗i · di · ds = (si + 1)(s + 3)(s + 5) · · · (s + 2n − 1) · ds .
Together with the analogue of Lemma 4.4 below, this gives the Bernstein-Sato polynomial of the ideal.
4. Bernstein–Sato polynomials for maximal minors
In this section we generalize Theorem 3.7 to arbitrary m × n matrices. We use the notation from Sections 2.2 and 3.3: in particular d = (dK )K∈([m]) is the tuple of maximal minors as in (2.9).
n

Theorem 4.1. The Bernstein–Sato polynomial of the tuple of maximal minors of the generic m×n matrix is
bd (s) =

m
Y

(s + i).

i=m−n+1

Q
We know by Proposition 3.4 and Theorem 3.5 that bd (s) divides m
i=m−n+1 (s + i). By induction, we also
Qm−1
know from (2.31) that bd (s) is divisible by i=m−n+1 (s + i), so we would be done if we can show that −m
is a root of bd (s). This would follow from Proposition 3.1 if we could prove the following:
Conjecture 4.2. If we associate as in Section 3.1 the D-modules Fα , α ∈ Z, to the tuple d of maximal
minors of the generic m × n matrix, then there exists a strict inclusion F−m+1 ( F−m .
We weren’t able to verify this conjecture when m > n + 1, so we take a different approach. We consider
the (1 + n · (m − n))-tuple
p = (p0 , pij ) ∈ S 1+n·(m−n) ,

BERNSTEIN–SATO POLYNOMIALS FOR MAXIMAL MINORS AND SUB–MAXIMAL PFAFFIANS

15

as in (2.12) and associate to p0 a variable s0 , and to each pij a variable sij . We write s = (s0 , sij ) and
consider Bsp as defined in (2.25). Inside Bsp , we consider the C[s]-submodule




Y
s +c
Aps = C[s] · ps+ĉ = p0s0 +c0 ·
pijij ij : ĉ = (c0 , cij ) ∈ Z1+n·(m−n) .
(4.1)


i∈[n],j∈[m]\[n]

A more invariant way of describing Aps follows from the discussion in Section 2.2:

Aps consists precisely of the sln -invariants inside the DX -module Bsp .
(4.2)

sln
sln
for every K ∈ [m]
-module. Since ∂K ∈ DX
It follows that Aps is in fact a DX
n , we can make the following:
P
Definition 4.3. We let s = s0 + i,j sij and define ap (s) to be the monic polynomial of the lowest degree
in s for which ap (s) · ps belongs to

 

[m]
s+ĉ
C[s] · ∂K · p
:K∈
, |ĉ| = 1 .
n
With Pd (s) as computed in Theorem 3.5 we will prove that
ap (s) divides bd (s), and

(4.3)

Pd (s) divides ap (s).

(4.4)

Combining (4.3) with (4.4), and with the fact that bd (s) divides Pd (s), concludes the proof of Theorem 4.1.
It follows from (2.14) that the elements ps+ĉ in (4.1) in fact give a basis of Aps as a C[s]-module. We have
M
Aps =
Aps (α)
α∈Z

which we can think of as a weight space decomposition, where
n
o
Aps (α) = C[s] · ps+ĉ : |ĉ| = α

(4.5)

is the set of elements in Aps on which g ∈ gln acts by multiplication by tr(g) · (s + α), and in particular each
gl
Aps (α) is preserved by DXn . Using (2.13) we obtain that multiplication by dK sends Aps (α) into Aps (α + 1).
gl
Since dK · ∂K ∈ DXn , it then follows that multiplication by ∂K sends Aps (α + 1) into Aps (α). We obtain:
Lemma 4.4. The polynomial ap (s) is the monic polynomial of lowest degree for which there exist a finite
collection of tuples ĉ ∈ Z1+n·(m−n) with |ĉ| > 0 and corresponding operators Qĉ ∈ DX [s] such that
X
Qĉ · ps+ĉ = ap (s) · ps .
(4.6)
ĉ

sln
[s]. Since
Proof. Using the fact that ps+ĉ and ap (s) · ps are sln -invariants, we may assume that Qĉ ∈ DX
sln
can be expressed as a linear combination of products Q1 · Q2 · Q3 , where Q1 is a
every element in DX
gl
product of ∂K ’s, Q2 is a product of dK ’s, and Q3 ∈ DXn , the conclusion follows from the observation that
gl
DXn preserves each weight space, dK increases the weight by one, while ∂K decreases the weight by one. 

We are now ready to prove that ap (s) divides bd (s):

16

ANDRÁS C. LŐRINCZ, CLAUDIU RAICU, ULI WALTHER, AND JERZY WEYMAN
[m]

Proof of (4.3). Using (2.27) with s = (sK )K∈([m]) we can find a finite collection of tuples ĉ ∈ Z( n ) with
n

|ĉ| = 1, and corresponding operators Pĉ ∈ DX [s] such that we have an equality inside Bsd :
X
ĉs · Pĉ · ds+ĉ = bd (s) · ds .

(4.7)

ĉ

Note that by (2.26), setting sK = 0 makes ĉs = 0 whenever ĉ is such that cK < 0. We apply to (4.7) the
specialization
sK = 0 whenever |K ∩ [n]| ≤ n − 2, s[n] = s0 , and s[n]\{i}∪{j} = sij for i ∈ [n], j ∈ [m] \ [n].

(4.8)

We then use the equalities p0 = d[n] , pij = d[n]\{i}∪{j} and (2.13), and regroup the terms to obtain (with
an abuse of notation) a finite collection of tuples ĉ = (c0 , cij ) ∈ Z1+n·(m−n) with |ĉ| = 1, and corresponding
operators Qĉ ∈ DX [s], where s denotes now the tuple of variables (s0 , sij ), such that the following equality
holds in Bsp :
X
Qĉ · ps+ĉ = bd (s) · ps .
ĉ

Using Lemma 4.4 it follows that ap (s) divides bd (s) as desired.



We conclude by proving (4.4), but before we establish a preliminary result. For |ĉ| = 1 we observe that
ps+ĉ ∈ Aps (1), thus ∂K · ps+ĉ can be expressed as a C[s]-linear combination of the basis elements of Aps (0).
We define QK,ĉ ∈ C[s] to be the coefficient of ps in this expression, and write ê = (1, 0n·(m−n) ).
Lemma 4.5. Write Q0K,ĉ ∈ C[s0 ] for the result of the specialization sij = −1 for all i ∈ [n], j ∈ [m] \ [n],
applied to QK,ĉ. We have that Q0K,ĉ = 0 unless K = [n] and ĉ = ê.
Proof. Since the specialization map commutes with the action of DX , we have that


s0
Y
p
c −1
pijij  .
inside ∂K · p0s0 +c0 ·
Q0K,ĉ is the coefficient of Q 0
i,j pij
i,j

Suppose first that ĉ is a tuple with some entry ci0 j0 ≥ 1: we show that for any K, Q0K,ĉ = 0. To see this,
Q
c −1
note that applying any sequence of partial derivatives to p0s0 +c0 · i,j pijij won’t turn the exponent of pi0 j0
sln
, we may then assume that
negative. Since ∂K ∈ DX


Y c −1
Y d
pijij  = p0s0 +d0 ·
∂K · p0s0 +c0 ·
pijij · F,
(4.9)
i,j

i,j

where d0 , dij ∈ Z, di0 j0 = 0, and F ∈ S sln [s0 ] is a polynomial in s0 whose coefficients are sln -invariant. Since
, we can apply (2.13) to rewrite the right hand side of (4.9) as
S sln is generated by the maximal minors
Q dK
e
a C[s0 ]-linear combination of ps00 +e0 · i,j pijij where e0 , eij ∈ Z and ei0 j0 ≥ 0. We conclude that Q0K,ĉ = 0.
From now on we assume that ĉ is has all cij ≤ 0. Since |ĉ| = 1, we must have c0 ≥ 1. We look at weights
under the action of the subalgebra




t · In 0
Tt =
: t ∈ C ⊂ glm ,
0
0

BERNSTEIN–SATO POLYNOMIALS FOR MAXIMAL MINORS AND SUB–MAXIMAL PFAFFIANS

and note that


Tt · p0s0 +c0 ·

Y
i,j



c −1 

pijij



= t · (s0 + c0 ) · n + (n − 1)

X
i,j

 

(cij − 1) · p0s0 +c0 ·

Tt • ∂K = −t · |K ∩ [n]| · ∂K , using notation (2.4), and


!
!
s0
s0
X
p0
p
Tt · Q
(−1) · Q 0
= t · s0 · n + (n − 1)
.
i,j pij
i,j pij

Y
i,j

17



c −1 

pijij

,

i,j

It follows that Q0K,ĉ can be non-zero only when
X
X
(s0 + c0 ) · n + (n − 1)
(cij − 1) − |K ∩ [n]| = s0 · n + (n − 1)
(−1),
i,j

i,j

P

which using the fact that c0 + i,j cij = 1 is equivalent to c0 + (n − 1) = |K ∩ [n]|. Since c0 ≥ 1 this equality
can only hold when c0 = 1 (which then forces all cij = 0), and K = [n].

Proof of (4.4). Using Definition 4.3, we can find finitely many tuples ĉ ∈ Z1+n·(m−n) with |ĉ| = 1, and

such that
polynomials PK,ĉ ∈ C[s] for K ∈ [m]
n
X
PK,ĉ · ∂K · ps+ĉ = ap (s) · ps .
(4.10)
K,ĉ

Using the definition of QK,ĉ, we obtain
X

PK,ĉ · QK,ĉ = ap (s).

K,ĉ

Applying the specialization sij = −1 for all i ∈ [n], j ∈ [m]\[n], it follows from Lemma 4.5 that
X
0
0
· Q0K,ĉ = ap (s0 − n · (m − n)),
P[n],ê
· Q0[n],ê =
PK,ĉ
K,ĉ

0
0 ∈ C[s ] is (just as Q0 ) the specialization of P
where PK,ĉ
0
K,ĉ . We will show that Q[n],ê = Pd (s0 −n·(m−n)),
K,ĉ
from which it follows that Pd (s0 − n · (m − n)) divides ap (s0 − n · (m − n)). Making the change of variable
s = s0 − n · (m − n) proves that Pd (s) divides ap (s), as desired.
To see that Q0[n],ê = Pd (s0 − n · (m − n)), we consider the action of Dd on ps : using (3.4), Theorem 3.5,
and applying the specialization (4.8) as before, we obtain
X
∂K · dK · ps = Dd · ps = Pd (s) · ps .
K∈([m]
n )

Using (2.13), we can rewrite the above equality as
X
RK,ĉ · ∂K · ps+ĉ = Pd (s) · ps ,
∂[n] · ps+ê +
K6=[n]
ĉ with |ĉ|=1

for some RK,ĉ ∈ C[s]. We now apply the same argument as we did to (4.10): we consider the further
specialization sij = 0 and use Lemma 4.5 to obtain Q0[n],ê = Pd (s0 −n·(m−n)), which concludes our proof. 

18

ANDRÁS C. LŐRINCZ, CLAUDIU RAICU, ULI WALTHER, AND JERZY WEYMAN

5. The Strong Monodromy Conjecture for maximal minors and sub-maximal Pfaffians
Let X = CN and Y ⊂ X a closed subscheme with defining ideal I. Consider a log resolution f : X ′ → X
of the ideal I (or of the pair (X, Y ); see for instance [Laz04, Sec. 9.1.B]), i.e. a proper birational morphism
f : X ′ → X such that IOX ′ defines an effective Cartier divisor E, f induces an isomorphism f : X ′ \ E →
X \ Y , and the divisor KX ′ /X + E has simple normal crossings support. Write Ej , j ∈ J , for the irreducible
components of the support of E, and express
X
X
E=
aj Ej , KX ′ /X =
kj · Ej .
j∈J

j∈J

The topological zeta function of I (or of the pair (X, Y )) is defined as [DL92, DL98, Vey06]
X
Y
1
,
(5.1)
ZI (s) =
χ(EI◦ ) ·
ai · s + ki + 1
I⊆J
i∈I
T
S
where χ denotes the Euler characteristic and EI◦ = ( i∈I Ei ) \ ( i∈I
/ Ei ). The topological zeta function is
independent of the log resolution, and the Strong Monodromy Conjecture asserts that the poles of ZI (s) are
roots of bI (s), and in an even stronger form that
bI (s) · ZI (s) is a polynomial.

(5.2)

We verify (5.2) for maximal minors and sub-maximal Pfaffians as a consequence of Theorems 3.9 and 4.1, by
taking advantage of the well-studied resolutions given by complete collineations in the case of determinantal
varieties, and complete skew forms in the case of Pfaffian varieties [Vai84, Tha99, Joh03].
5.1. Maximal minors. Let m ≥ n and X = Xm,n denote the vector space of m × n matrices as before.
Denote by Y the subvariety of matrices of rank at most n − 1, and let I be the ideal of maximal minors
defining Y . It follows from [Joh03, Cor. 4.5 and Cor. 4.6] that I has a log resolution with J = {0, · · · , n − 1}
and
n−1
n−1
X
X
((m − i)(n − i) − 1) · Ei .
(n − i) · Ei , KX ′ /X =
E=
i=0

i=0

It follows that ki + 1 = (m − i)(n − i), and ai = n − i for i = 0, · · · , n − 1, and therefore by our Theorem 4.1
the denominator of every term in (5.1) divides bI (s). This is enough to conclude (5.2).

5.2. Sub-maximal Pfaffians. Let X = Xn be the vector space of (2n + 1) × (2n + 1) skew-symmetric
matrices. Denote by Y the subvariety of matrices of rank at most 2(n − 1) and let I denote the ideal of
sub-maximal Pfaffians defining Y . As shown below, there is a log resolution of I with J = {0, · · · , n−1} and
E=

n−1
X

(n − i) · Ei ,

i=0

KX ′ /X =

n−1
X

(2(n − i)2 + (n − i) − 1) · Ei .

(5.3)

i=0

It follows that (ki + 1)/ai = 2(n − i) + 1 for i = 0, · · · , n − 1, and thus our Theorem 3.9 implies (5.2).
We sketch the construction of the log resolution, based on the strategy in [Joh03, Chapter 4]: this is
perhaps well-known, but we weren’t able to locate (5.3) explicitly in the literature. We write Yi ⊂ X for the
subvariety of (2n + 1) × (2n + 1) skew-symmetric matrices of rank at most 2i. We define the sequence of
transformations πi : X i+1 → X i , fi = π0 ◦ π1 ◦ · · · ◦ πi : X i+1 → X 0 , where X 0 = X, X 1 is the blow-up of
X 0 at Y0 , and in general X i+1 is the blow-up of X i at the strict transform Y i of Yi along fi−1 . The desired
log resolution is obtained by letting X ′ = X n and f = fn−1 : X ′ → X. Each Y i is smooth (as we’ll see
shortly), so the same is true about the exceptional divisor Ei of the blow-up πi . We abuse notation and
write Ei also for each of its transforms along the blow-ups πi+1 , · · · , πn−1 . It follows from the construction

BERNSTEIN–SATO POLYNOMIALS FOR MAXIMAL MINORS AND SUB–MAXIMAL PFAFFIANS

19

below that the Ei ’s are defined locally by the vanishing of distinct coordinate functions, so f : X ′ → X is
indeed a log resolution.
We show by induction on i = n, n − 1, · · · that X n−i admits an affine open cover where each open set V
in the cover has a filtration V = Vi ⊃ Vi−1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ V0 , isomorphic to
i
(Yii ⊃ Yi−1
⊃ · · · ⊃ Y0i ) × C4i+3 × · · · × C4(n−1)−1 × C4n−1 ,

(5.4)

where Yin = Yi and more generally
Yji is the variety of (2i + 1) × (2i + 1) matrices of rank at most 2j.
The key property of the filtration (5.4) is that for each j = 0, · · · , i, Vj is obtained by intersecting V with
the strict transform of Yn−i+j along fn−i−1 . In particular V0 = V ∩ Y n−i is (on the affine patch V ) the
center of blow-up for πi . Since Y00 is just a point, V0 is an affine space and hence smooth.
When i = n, X n−i = X, so we can take V = X and (5.4) to be the filtration X = Yn ⊃ Yn−1 ⊃ · · · ⊃ Y0 .
We discuss the first blow-up (i = n − 1) and the associated filtration, while for i < n − 1 the conclusion
follows from an easy iteration of our argument. We write xij (resp. yij ), 1 ≤ i < j ≤ 2n + 1 for the
coordinate functions on X (resp. on PX, the projectivization of X). X 1 is defined inside X × PX by the
equations xij ykl = xkl yij , and we choose V ⊂ X 1 to be the affine patch where y12 6= 0 (similar reasoning
applies on each of the affine patches yij 6= 0). The coordinate functions on V are t0 = x12 and uij = yij /y12
for (i, j) 6= (1, 2). Setting u12 = 1, we get that the map π0 : V → X 0 corresponds to a ring homomorphism
π0∗ : C[xij ] −→ C[t0 , uij ] given by xij 7→ t0 · uij ,
and E0 ∩ V is defined by the equation t0 = 0. With the usual conventions uji = −uij , uii = 0, we write
Mij = Pf {1,2,i+2,j+2} for the Pfaffian of the 4 × 4 principal skew-symmetric submatrix of (uij ) obtained by
selecting the rows and columns of u indexed by 1, 2, i + 2 and j + 2, 1 ≤ i, j ≤ 2n − 1. Using the calculation
in the proof of Lemma 2.4, we obtain that {Mij : 1 ≤ i < j ≤ 2n − 1} ∪ {t0 } ∪ {u1i , u2i : i = 3, · · · , 2n + 1}
is a system of coordinate functions on V , and moreover
π0∗ (Ip+1 (xij )) = tp+1
· Ip (Mij ), for p = 1, · · · , n,
0

(5.5)

where Ip (aij ) denotes the ideal generated by the 2p × 2p Pfaffians of the skew-symmetric matrix (aij ).
Thinking of {t0 } ∪ {u1i , u2i : i = 3, · · · , 2n + 1}, as the coordinate functions on C4n−1 , and of {Mij } as the
n−1
n−1
coordinate functions on Xn−1 = Yn−1
, we identify Yp−1
with the zero locus of Ip (Mij ) for p = 1, · · · , n, and
note that by (5.5) it is the strict transform of Yp which is the variety defined by Ip+1 (xij ). This yields the
filtration (5.4) for i = n − 1. By letting p = n − 1 in (5.5) and noting that I = In (xij ), we obtain that the
inverse image π0−1 (I) = IOX 1 vanishes with multiplicity n along E0 . Iterating this, we obtain the formula
(5.3) for the exceptional divisor E. Pulling back the standard volume form dx = dx12 ∧ · · · ∧ dxn−1,n on X
along π0 , we obtain (on the affine patch V )
π0∗ (dx) = t02n
which vanishes with multiplicity

2n2

2 +n−1

· dt0 ∧ du13 ∧ · · · ∧ dun−1,n ,

+ n − 1 along E0 . Iterating this, we obtain formula (5.3) for KX ′ /X .
Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Nero Budur for many interesting conversations and helpful suggestions. Experiments
with the computer algebra software Macaulay2 [GS] have provided numerous valuable insights. Raicu
acknowledges the support of the National Science Foundation under grant DMS-1458715. Walther acknowledges the support of the National Science Foundation under grant DMS-1401392. Weyman acknowledges

20

ANDRÁS C. LŐRINCZ, CLAUDIU RAICU, ULI WALTHER, AND JERZY WEYMAN

the support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and of the National Science Foundation under
grant DMS-1400740.

References
[ADF80] S. Abeasis and A. Del Fra, Young diagrams and ideals of Pfaffians, Adv. in Math. 35 (1980), no. 2, 158–178, DOI
10.1016/0001-8708(80)90046-8. MR560133 (83f:14040)
[Ber72] I. N. Bernšteı̆n, Analytic continuation of generalized functions with respect to a parameter, Funkcional. Anal. i Priložen.
6 (1972), no. 4, 26–40. MR0320735 (47 #9269)
[Bud13] Nero Budur, Bernstein-Sato polynomials (2013). Lecture notes: Summer School on Algebra, Algorithms, and Algebraic
Analysis, Rolduc Abbey, Netherlands.
[Bud15]
, Bernstein-Sato polynomials and generalizations, available at
https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~ u0089821/Barcelona/BarcelonaNotes.pdf (2015). Lecture notes, UPC Barcelona.
[BMS06] Nero Budur, Mircea Mustaţǎ, and Morihiko Saito, Bernstein-Sato polynomials of arbitrary varieties, Compos. Math.
142 (2006), no. 3, 779–797, DOI 10.1112/S0010437X06002193. MR2231202 (2007c:32036)
[CSS09] Sergio Caracciolo, Alan D. Sokal, and Andrea Sportiello, Noncommutative determinants, Cauchy-Binet formulae,
and Capelli-type identities. I. Generalizations of the Capelli and Turnbull identities, Electron. J. Combin. 16 (2009),
no. 1, Research Paper 103, 43. MR2529812 (2010g:15003)
[CSS13]
, Algebraic/combinatorial proofs of Cayley-type identities for derivatives of determinants and Pfaffians, Adv.
in Appl. Math. 50 (2013), no. 4, 474–594, DOI 10.1016/j.aam.2012.12.001. MR3032306
[dCEP80] C. de Concini, David Eisenbud, and C. Procesi, Young diagrams and determinantal varieties, Invent. Math. 56 (1980),
no. 2, 129–165, DOI 10.1007/BF01392548. MR558865 (81m:14034)
[DL92] J. Denef and F. Loeser, Caractéristiques d’Euler-Poincaré, fonctions zêta locales et modifications analytiques, J. Amer.
Math. Soc. 5 (1992), no. 4, 705–720, DOI 10.2307/2152708 (French). MR1151541 (93g:11118)
[DL98] Jan Denef and François Loeser, Motivic Igusa zeta functions, J. Algebraic Geom. 7 (1998), no. 3, 505–537. MR1618144
(99j:14021)
[Doc13] Roi Docampo, Arcs on determinantal varieties, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 365 (2013), no. 5, 2241–2269, DOI
10.1090/S0002-9947-2012-05564-4. MR3020097
[HU91] Roger Howe and Tōru Umeda, The Capelli identity, the double commutant theorem, and multiplicity-free actions,
Math. Ann. 290 (1991), no. 3, 565–619, DOI 10.1007/BF01459261. MR1116239 (92j:17004)
[GS] Daniel R. Grayson and Michael E. Stillman, Macaulay 2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry,
Available at http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/.
[Joh03] Amanda Ann Johnson, Multiplier ideals of determinantal ideals, ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2003. Thesis (Ph.D.)–
University of Michigan. MR2704808
[JP79] Tadeusz Józefiak and Piotr Pragacz, Ideals generated by Pfaffians, J. Algebra 61 (1979), no. 1, 189–198, DOI
10.1016/0021-8693(79)90313-2. MR554859 (81e:13005)
[Kim82] Tatsuo Kimura, The b-functions and holonomy diagrams of irreducible regular prehomogeneous vector spaces, Nagoya
Math. J. 85 (1982), 1–80. MR648417 (84j:32017)
[Kim03]
, Introduction to prehomogeneous vector spaces, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, vol. 215, American
Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003. Translated from the 1998 Japanese original by Makoto Nagura and
Tsuyoshi Niitani and revised by the author. MR1944442 (2003k:11180)
[Laz04] Robert Lazarsfeld, Positivity in algebraic geometry. II, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge.
A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas. 3rd Series. A Series of
Modern Surveys in Mathematics], vol. 49, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004. Positivity for vector bundles, and multiplier
ideals. MR2095472 (2005k:14001b)
[Lőr13] András C. Lőrincz, The b-functions of quiver semi-invariants, arXiv 1310.3691 (2013).
[Lőr15]
, Singularities of zero sets of semi-invariants for quivers, arXiv 1509.04170 (2015).
[Rai15] Claudiu Raicu, Characters of equivariant D-modules on spaces of matrices, arXiv 1507.06621 (2015). To appear in
Compos. Math.
[RWW14] Claudiu Raicu, Jerzy Weyman, and Emily E. Witt, Local cohomology with support in ideals of maximal minors and
sub-maximal Pfaffians, Adv. Math. 250 (2014), 596–610, DOI 10.1016/j.aim.2013.10.005. MR3122178
[SS74] Mikio Sato and Takuro Shintani, On zeta functions associated with prehomogeneous vector spaces, Ann. of Math. (2)
100 (1974), 131–170. MR0344230 (49 #8969)

BERNSTEIN–SATO POLYNOMIALS FOR MAXIMAL MINORS AND SUB–MAXIMAL PFAFFIANS

21

[Tha99] Michael Thaddeus, Complete collineations revisited, Math. Ann. 315 (1999), no. 3, 469–495, DOI
10.1007/s002080050324. MR1725990 (2000j:14081)
[Vai84] Israel Vainsencher, Complete collineations and blowing up determinantal ideals, Math. Ann. 267 (1984), no. 3, 417–
432, DOI 10.1007/BF01456098. MR738261 (85f:14053)
[Vey06] Willem Veys, Arc spaces, motivic integration and stringy invariants, Singularity theory and its applications, Adv.
Stud. Pure Math., vol. 43, Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2006, pp. 529–572. MR2325153 (2008g:14023)
[Wey03] Jerzy Weyman, Cohomology of vector bundles and syzygies, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 149, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2003. MR1988690 (2004d:13020)
[Wit12] Emily E. Witt, Local cohomology with support in ideals of maximal minors, Adv. Math. 231 (2012), no. 3-4, 1998–
2012, DOI 10.1016/j.aim.2012.07.001. MR2964631
Department of Mathematics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269
E-mail address: andras.lorincz@uconn.edu
Department of Mathematics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556
Institute of Mathematics “Simion Stoilow” of the Romanian Academy
E-mail address: craicu@nd.edu
Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
E-mail address: walther@math.purdue.edu
Department of Mathematics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269
E-mail address: jerzy.weyman@uconn.edu

