text:
# Determinantal Varieties Over Truncated Polynomial Rings

## 1. Introduction

Let $`F`$ be an algebraically closed field and $`𝐀_F^k`$ the affine space of dimension $`k`$ over $`F`$. The varieties $`𝒵_r^{m,n}𝐀_F^{mn}`$ consisting of $`m\times n`$ matrices ($`mn`$) with entries in $`F`$ and of rank at most $`r1`$ are of course a natural and very well understood class of objects; their various geometric and algebraic properties and their connections to representation theory and combinatorics have been extensively studied (see  for instance). By contrast, very little is known about the following class of objects $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ that are very closely related to the classical varieties $`𝒵_r^{m,n}`$: Consider the truncated polynomial ring $`R=F[t]/(t^k)`$ ($`k=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$), and let $`X(t)`$ be the generic $`m\times n`$ matrix over this ring; thus, each entry of $`X`$ is of the form $`x_{i,j}(t)=x_{i,j}^{(0)}+x_{i,j}^{(1)}t+\mathrm{}+x_{i,j}^{(k1)}t^{k1}`$. Each $`r\times r`$ minor of this matrix is an element of $`R=F[t]/(t^k)`$. Let $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ be the ideal of $`F[\{x_{i,j}^{(l)},1im,1jn,0l<k\}]`$ generated by the coefficients of $`t`$ in each $`r\times r`$ minor of the generic matrix $`X(t)`$, and define $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}𝐀_F^{nmk}`$ to be the zero set of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$. These varieties $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ are therefore natural generalizations of the classical varieties $`𝒵_r^{m,n}`$, and when $`k=1`$, of course, we simply recover the original $`𝒵_r^{m,n}`$.

Our interest in these varieties arises from previous work on commuting triples of matrices. In the paper , the second author and Neubauer determined the variety of commuting pairs in the centralizers of $`2`$-regular matrices (a matrix is said to be $`r`$-regular if each eigenspace is at most $`r`$ dimensional). They observed there that when $`C`$ is a $`2`$-regular $`n\times n`$ matrix, the variety of commuting pairs in the centralizer of $`C`$ is the product of $`𝐀_F^p`$ (for suitable $`p`$) and the subvariety of $`2\times 3`$ matrices over $`F[t]/(t^k)`$ where the coefficients of $`t`$ of all $`2\times 2`$ minors vanish. This second factor is of course just the variety $`𝒵_{2,k}^{2,3}`$ introduced above. It was then natural to recognize $`𝒵_{2,k}^{2,3}`$ as belonging to the larger class of varieties $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$, and to commence a program to study this larger family.

It is worth giving a geometric interpretation to these varieties $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ as suitable “bundles” over the classical objects $`𝒵_r^{m,n}`$. Suppose $`f(x,y,\mathrm{})`$ is an irreducible polynomial, and suppose we were to replace the variables $`x`$ by $`_0^{k1}x^{(i)}t^i`$, $`y`$ by $`_0^{k1}y^{(i)}t^i`$, and so on, and suppose we were to expand the polynomial in powers of $`t`$ and write it as $`f_0+f_1t+f_2t^2+\mathrm{}`$. (Note that $`f_0`$ will just be $`f`$.) Setting each of $`f_0`$, $`f_1`$, $`f_2`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`f_{k1}`$ to zero is to ask for a point $`(x^{(0)},y^{(0)},\mathrm{})`$ on the hypersurface $`f=0`$, and then to ask for those degree $`k1`$ curves $`x=x^{(0)}+_1^{k1}x^{(i)}t^i`$, $`y=y^{(0)}+_1^{k1}y^{(i)}t^i`$, and so on, parameterized by $`t`$, that vanish on the variety of $`f`$ at that point up to order $`k`$. Applying these considerations to the equations defining our varieties $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ (and recalling that the obvious defining equations for $`𝒵_r^{m,n}`$ also generate the ideal of $`𝒵_r^{m,n}`$), it is clear then that $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ consists of the classical varieties $`𝒵_r^{m,n}`$, and at each point of $`𝒵_r^{m,n}`$, those parameterized degree $`k1`$ curves vanishing on $`𝒵_r^{m,n}`$ at that point to order $`k`$. In particular, when $`k=2`$, $`𝒵_{r,2}^{m,n}`$ may be considered as the ”tangent bundle” to the classical determinantal variety $`𝒵_r^{m,n}`$. Of course, this is not really a bundle in the usual sense, since different fibers will have different dimensions, but we will use the words tangent bundle freely in the paper. (More accurately, $`𝒵_{r,2}^{m,n}`$ is the variety associated to the symmetric algebra on the module of derivations of the classical determinantal variety $`𝒵_r^{m,n}`$.)

In a different language, the varieties $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ appear as the $`(k1)`$-th jet scheme of the classical determinantal varieties $`𝒵_r^{m,n}`$ \[6, §1\]. From another point of view, the varieties $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ are the restriction (or direct image) from $`R`$ to $`F`$, in the sense of Weil (\[4, I, §1, 6.6\]) of the scalar extension of the classical varieties $`𝒵_r^{m,n}\times _FR`$.

Since in general the fibers over the base $`𝒵_r^{m,n}`$ will not all be of the same dimension, it is not a priori clear whether the assemblage of the base space and its fibers should be reducible or irreducible. We show here that if we set all maximal minors to zero (that is, if we take $`r=m`$), then $`𝒵_{m,k}^{m,n}`$ is indeed irreducible, but if we consider submaximal minors (that is, if we take $`rm1`$), then $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ breaks up into several components, not all of the same dimension. In fact, we have a complete picture of what these various components look like in the case when $`r=2`$, i.e., in the case of $`2\times 2`$ minors (for any $`k`$); we also have a complete picture of the components when $`k=2`$ (for any $`r`$). In both these situations, there are exactly $`k/2+1`$ components (so in particular the tangent bundle has two components), and we have formulas for their dimensions in terms of $`k`$, $`m`$, and $`n`$. In general, we show that when $`r<m`$, the minimum number of components must be $`k/2+1`$. Also, from the fact that these components intersect nontrivially, we are able to show that in the submaximal minors case, our varieties are not normal, and that since the components (with one exception) are of different dimensions, that our varieties (with one possible exception) are not Cohen-Macaulay.

In the special case where $`m=n`$, and where we consider maximal minors, we are able to say considerably more. We show in that case that the defining equations form a Groebner basis (with respect to a suitable ordering) for the ideal generated by these equations, and we are then able to show that the ideal is actually prime. It follows easily that the coordinate ring is a complete intersection ring. Moreover, the quotient of the polynomial ring in $`m^2k`$ variables by the ideal generated by the leading terms of these equations turns out to be the Stanley-Reisner ring of a particularly nice simplicial complex, and from the combinatorics of that complex, we are able to determine the Hilbert polynomial of our original ideal $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$.

We introduce here some alternative notation for the entries of the generic matrix that will be of much use: We will denote the $`i`$-th row of the matrix $`X(t)`$ over $`F[t]/(t^k)`$ by $`𝐮_i(t)`$: this is an element of $`(F[t]/t^k)^n`$. We will write $`𝐮_i(t)=_{l=0}^{k1}𝐮_i^{(l)}t^l`$, so the various $`𝐮_i^{(l)}`$ are row vectors from $`F^n`$. We will sometimes refer to $`𝐮_i^{(l)}`$ by itself as the “row $`𝐮_i^{(l)}`$.” We will also refer to a vector of the form $`𝐮_i^{(l)}`$ as being “of degree $`l`$.” In a similar vein, we will talk of a variable of the form $`x_{i,j}^{(l)}`$ as being of “of degree $`l`$.” In particular, when we talk of a “degree zero” minor, we will mean a minor of the matrix $`X(0)=((x_{i,j}^{(0)}))`$.

The methods we use in the paper are totally elementary. We also note that the paper  discusses a related set of objects: the quantum Grassmannians, whose coordinate rings are the subalgebras of $`F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]`$ generated by the coefficients of $`t`$ of the various $`m\times m`$ minors of an $`m\times n`$ matrix.

## 2. The Fundamental Reduction Process

We describe here a reduction process that exhibits our varieties $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ to be a union of two subvarieties, one isomorphic to $`𝒵_{r,kr}^{m,n}\times 𝐀^{mn(r1)}`$ (or to $`𝐀^{mn(k1)}`$ when $`kr`$), and another whose components are in one-to-one correspondence with the components of $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$, and which, in fact, is birational to $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}\times 𝐀^{(m+n1)k}`$. This reduction will be a key tool in understanding the components of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$.

###### Lemma 2.1.

The subvariety of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ where all $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ are zero is isomorphic to $`𝒵_{r,kr}^{m,n}\times 𝐀^{mn(r1)}`$ when $`k>r`$, and isomorphic to $`𝐀^{mn(k1)}`$ when $`kr`$.

###### Proof.

This can be seen easily by writing the equations defining $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ in terms of the rows $`𝐮_i^{(l)}`$. Our determinantal equations read

(1)
$$𝐮_{i_1}𝐮_{i_2}\mathrm{}𝐮_{i_r}=\mathrm{𝟎}$$

for all $`1i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_rm`$. This is an equation in $`^r(F[t]/(t^k))^n`$, which expands to a set of $`k`$ equations in $`^rF^n`$, one for the coefficient of each power of $`t`$. The equation for the coefficient of $`t^l`$ reads

(2)
$$\underset{d_1+d_2+\mathrm{}+d_r=l}{}𝐮_{i_1}^{(d_1)}𝐮_{i_2}^{(d_2)}\mathrm{}𝐮_{i_r}^{(d_r)}=\mathrm{𝟎},l=0,\mathrm{},k1.$$

It is clear that if all $`𝐮_i^{(0)}`$ are zero, then all terms in the coefficients of $`t^l`$, for $`l=0,1,\mathrm{},r1`$ become zero, since any $`r`$-fold product of degree at most $`r1`$ must contain at least one term of degree $`0`$. If $`kr`$, this just means that there are no equations governing the remaining variables $`x_{i,j}^{(l)}`$ for $`l1`$, so the subvariety is isomorphic to $`𝐀^{mn(k1)}`$. When $`k>r`$, the equation for the coefficient of $`t^l`$ for $`l=r,r+1,\mathrm{},k1`$ now reads (after all terms involving any $`𝐮_i^{(0)}`$ have been removed)

(3)
$$\underset{\stackrel{d_1+d_2+\mathrm{}+d_r=l}{d_11,\mathrm{},d_r1}}{}𝐮_{i_1}^{(d_1)}𝐮_{i_2}^{(d_2)}\mathrm{}𝐮_{i_r}^{(d_r)}=\mathrm{𝟎},l=r,\mathrm{},k1.$$

Observe that none of the rows $`𝐮_i^{(k1)}`$, $`𝐮_i^{(k2)}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`𝐮_i^{(k(r1))}`$ show up in these equations. For, every summand is an $`r`$-fold wedge product of degree $`l`$, and if, for instance, $`𝐮_i^{(k(r1))}`$ were to appear in a summand, then the minimum degree of that summand would be $`k(r1)+(r1)=k>k1`$. Thus, there are no equations governing the variables $`x_{i,j}^{(l)}`$ for $`k(r1)lk1`$, which accounts for the factor $`𝐀^{mn(r1)}`$. Setting $`e_i=d_i1`$, these equations can be rewritten as

(4)
$$\underset{\stackrel{e_1+e_2+\mathrm{}+e_r=lr}{e_i0}}{}𝐮_{i_1}^{(e_1+1)}𝐮_{i_2}^{(e_2+1)}\mathrm{}𝐮_{i_r}^{(e_r+1)}=\mathrm{𝟎},l=r,\mathrm{},k1,$$

or what is the same thing,

(5)
$$\underset{\stackrel{e_1+e_2+\mathrm{}+e_r=l^{}}{e_i0}}{}𝐮_{i_1}^{(e_1+1)}𝐮_{i_2}^{(e_2+1)}\mathrm{}𝐮_{i_r}^{(e_r+1)}=\mathrm{𝟎},l^{}=0,\mathrm{},kr1.$$

But these are precisely the equations that one would obtain if one were to consider the generic matrix $`m\times n`$ matrix with rows $`𝐮_i^{(1)}+𝐮_i^{(2)}t+\mathrm{}+𝐮_i^{(kr)}t^{kr1}`$ ($`1im`$) and set determinants of $`r\times r`$ minors to zero modulo $`t^{kr}`$. This proves the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Our next theorem will be crucial to understanding the closure of the open set where at least one $`x_{i,j}^{(l)}`$ is nonzero. It is merely an extension to the case $`k>1`$ of a result that is well known in the classical case (see \[2, Prop. 2.4\], for instance).

We first need the following:

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`R`$ be a ring, and let $`I`$ be an ideal of $`R[t]/(t^k)`$. Let $`I`$ be generated by $`a_1(t),\mathrm{},a_u(t)`$, with each $`a_i=_0^{k1}a_i^{(l)}t^l`$. Let $`J`$ be the ideal of $`R`$ generated by the various $`a_i^{(l)}`$. Then $`J=K`$, where $`K`$ is the set of all $`rR`$ such that $`r`$ is the coefficient of $`t^l`$, for some $`l`$, in some element of $`I`$. In particular, if $`I`$ is also generated by $`b_1(t),\mathrm{},b_v(t)`$ with $`b_i=_0^{k1}b_i^{(l)}t^l`$, then the ideal of $`R`$ generated by the various $`b_i^{(l)}`$ also equals $`J`$.

###### Proof.

This is elementary. $`\mathrm{}`$

Write $`S=F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]`$, and observe that in the ring $`S[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1][t]/(t^k)`$, the element $`x_{m,n}(t)`$ is invertible. If we were to perform row reduction in $`S[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1][t]/(t^k)`$ on the matrix $`X`$ to bring all the elements in the last column above $`x_{m,n}`$ to zero, we would subtract from row $`𝐮_i`$ the row $`𝐮_m`$ multiplied by $`x_{m,n}^1x_{i,n}`$. Thus, we would replace $`X`$ by a matrix

$$Y=((y_{i,j})),$$

where

(6)
$$y_{i,j}=\{\begin{array}{cc}x_{i,j}x_{m,j}x_{i,n}x_{m,n}^1\hfill & \text{ for }1im1,1jn1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for }j=n\text{ and }1im1\hfill \\ x_{i,j}\hfill & \text{for }i=m\text{ and }1jn\hfill \end{array}$$

Since the inverse of $`x_{m,n}(t)`$ can be written as a polynomial in the various entries $`x_{m,n}^{(l)}`$ (for $`1lk1`$) and various negative powers of $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}`$, we find that each $`y_{i,j}^{(l)}`$, for $`1im1,1jn1`$ can be written in terms of the $`x_{i,j}^{(l)}`$ in the form

(7)
$$y_{i,j}^{(l)}=x_{i,j}^{(l)}q_{i,j}^{(l)}(x_{m,j}^{(p)},x_{i,n}^{(r)},x_{m,n}^{(s)},(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1),$$

for a suitable polynomial expression $`q_{i,j}^{(l)}`$ in the indicated variables ($`0p,r<k`$, $`1s<k`$).

With the observations above about row reduction as our motivation, and continuing with the same notation, we have the following:

###### Theorem 2.3.

(see \[2, Prop. 2.4\]) Assume $`r2`$. Let $`z_{i,j}^{(l)}`$, $`1im1,1jn1`$, $`0l<k`$ be a new set of variables, and write $`T`$ for the ring $`F[z_{i,j}^{(l)}]`$, and $`T^{}`$ for the ring $`F[z_{i,j}^{(l)},x_{1,n}^{(l)},\mathrm{},x_{m,n}^{(l)},x_{m,1}^{(l)},\mathrm{},x_{m,n1}^{(l)}]`$ ($`0l<k`$). Also, write $`Z`$ for the $`m1\times n1`$ matrix $`((z_{i,j}(t)))`$ over $`T[t]/(t^k)`$, where $`z_{i,j}(t)=_{l=0}^{k1}z_{i,j}^{(l)}t^l`$. We have an isomorphism

$$S[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1]T^{}[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1],$$

given by

$`f:x_{i,n}^{(l)}`$ $``$ $`x_{i,n}^{(l)}1im`$
$`x_{m,j}^{(l)}`$ $``$ $`x_{m,j}^{(l)}1jn1`$
$`x_{i,j}^{(l)}`$ $``$ $`z_{i,j}^{(l)}+q_{i,j}^{(l)}(x_{m,j}^{(p)},x_{i,n}^{(r)},x_{m,n}^{(s)},(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1),0p,r<k,1s<k,`$
for $`1im1,1jn1`$, $`0l<k`$.
Under this isomorphism, the localization of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ at $`(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1`$ corresponds to the localization of the ideal $`_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}T^{}`$ at $`(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1`$, where $`_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$ is the ideal of $`T`$ determined by the coefficients of $`t`$ of the various $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minors of the matrix $`Z`$. Moreover, this gives a one-to-one correspondence between the prime ideals $`P`$ of $`S`$ that are minimal over $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ and do not contain $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}`$ and the prime ideals $`Q`$ of $`T`$ that are minimal over $`_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}.`$ In this correspondence, if $`P`$ corresponds to $`Q`$, then the codimension of $`P`$ in $`S`$ equals the codimension of $`Q`$ in $`T`$.

###### Proof.

The fact that $`f`$ is an isomorphism is clear, since the map

$`\stackrel{~}{f}:x_{i,n}^{(l)}`$ $``$ $`x_{i,n}^{(l)}1im`$
$`x_{m,j}^{(l)}`$ $``$ $`x_{m,j}^{(l)}1jn1`$
$`z_{i,j}^{(l)}`$ $``$ $`x_{i,j}^{(l)}q_{i,j}^{(l)}(x_{m,j}^{(p)},x_{i,n}^{(r)},x_{m,n}^{(s)},(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1),0p,r<k,1s<k,`$
for $`1im1,1jn1`$, $`0l<k`$
provides the necessary inverse.

As for the second assertion, write $`I`$ for the localization of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ at $`(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1`$ and $`J`$ for the localization of the $`_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}T^{}`$ at $`(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1`$. We wish to show that $`f(I)=J`$. Subtracting a multiple of the $`m`$-th row from the $`i`$-th row of a matrix preserves the ideal of $`S[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1][t]/(t^k)`$ generated by $`r\times r`$ minors, so by Lemma 2.2, the coefficients of $`t`$ of the various $`r\times r`$ minors of the matrix $`Y`$ can be taken as the generators of $`I`$. Write $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ for the upper-left $`m1\times n1`$ block of $`Y`$. Recall that $`r2`$. The $`r\times r`$ minors of $`Y`$ fall into two classes. The first class consists of minors that involve the last column of $`Y`$, so by Laplace expansion, these minors are either zero or of the form $`x_{m,n}(t)`$ times an $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minor of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. Since $`x_{m,n}(t)`$ is invertible, we find that up to multiplication by a unit, this class of generators is precisely the set of all $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minors of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. The second class of generators of $`I`$ consists of minors that do not involve the last column of $`Y`$. By Laplace expansion, these minors can be written as $`S[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1]`$ linear combinations of suitable $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minors of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. It follows that $`I`$ is generated precisely by the set of all $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minors of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. On the other hand, $`J`$ is generated by all $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minors of the matrix $`Z`$. Thus, under the map $`f`$, these generators of $`I`$ map precisely to generators of $`J`$, so $`f(I)=J`$.

As for the last assertion, we have a one-to-one correspondence between the minimal primes of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ that do not contain $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}`$ and the minimal primes of the localized ideal $`I`$ in $`S[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1]`$. By the isomorphism described above, these are in one-to-one correspondence with the minimal primes of the ideal $`J`$ of $`T^{}[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1]`$. These, in turn, are in one-to-one correspondence with the minimal primes of the ideal $`_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}T^{}`$ of $`T^{}`$ that do not contain $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}`$. But since $`T^{}`$ is just an extension of $`T`$ obtained by adding the indeterminates $`x_{1,n}^{(l)}`$, $`\mathrm{},`$ $`x_{m,n}^{(l)},`$ $`x_{m,1}^{(l)}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`x_{m,n1}^{(l)}`$, the minimal primes of $`_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}T^{}`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the minimal primes of $`_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$ in $`T`$; specifically, the minimal prime $`Q`$ of $`_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$ corresponds to $`Q[x_{1,n}^{(l)},\mathrm{},x_{m,n}^{(l)},x_{m,1}^{(l)},\mathrm{},x_{m,n1}^{(l)}]`$. Moreover, tracing through this correspondence, since localization and adding indeterminates does not change the codimension of a prime ideal that avoids the localization set, we find that the correspondence preserves the codimension of the respective prime ideals in their respective rings. This gives us the assertion. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.4.

The theorem above shows that there is a birational isomorphism between $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ and $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}\times 𝐀^{k(m+n1)}`$, with the domain of definition of this isomorphism being the open set of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ where $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}0`$, and the image being the open set of $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}\times 𝐀^{k(m+n1)}`$ where the “free” variable $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}0`$.

###### Remark 2.5.

Notice that there is nothing special in these considerations about the variable $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}`$. Essentially the same result holds for localization at any other variable $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$. The matrix $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ in that case would arise from the removal of the $`j`$-th column and $`i`$-th row of the matrix $`X`$.

The ideas in the proof of the theorem above also lead to the following:

###### Proposition 2.6.

Let $`S=F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]`$ as before. Let $`P`$ be a minimal prime ideal of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$. Then for any two pairs of indices $`(i,j)`$ and $`(i^{},j^{})`$, $`P`$ contains $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ iff it contains $`x_{i^{},j^{}}^{(0)}`$.

###### Proof.

It is sufficient to prove this for the case where $`(i^{},j^{})=(m,n)`$. Let $`P`$ be a prime ideal minimal over $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ that does not contain $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}`$. Assume to the contrary that it contains $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$. Then the localization $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ of $`P`$ at $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}`$ will also contain $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$, and will be minimal over the localization of $`I`$ of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$. Hence, the ideal $`f(\stackrel{~}{P})`$, where $`f`$ is as in the theorem above, will contain $`f(x_{i,j}^{(0)})=z_{i,j}^{(0)}+q_{i,j}^{(0)}`$, and will be minimal over $`J=f(I)`$. But as is readily seen, $`q_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ is just $`x_{i,n}^{(0)}x_{m,j}^{(0)}(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1`$. Since $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}`$ is a unit, it follows that $`f(P)`$ will contain $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}z_{i,j}^{(0)}+x_{i,n}^{(0)}x_{m,j}^{(0)}`$. Under the localization map from $`T^{}`$ to $`T^{}[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1]`$, $`f(P)`$ will correspond to a prime ideal $`Q^{}`$ of $`T^{}`$, that is minimal over the ideal $`_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}T^{}`$. Moreover, $`Q^{}`$ will contain $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}z_{i,j}^{(0)}+x_{i,n}^{(0)}x_{m,j}^{(0)}`$. As we saw in the proof of the last assertion of Theorem 2.3 above, $`Q^{}`$ must be of the form $`Q[x_{1,n}^{(l)},\mathrm{},x_{m,n}^{(l)},x_{m,1}^{(l)},\mathrm{},x_{m,n1}^{(l)}]`$ for some minimal prime $`Q`$ of the ideal $`_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$ of $`T`$. But this is impossible, since the $`Q`$ coefficient of $`x_{i,n}^{(0)}x_{m,j}^{(0)}`$ in the element $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}z_{i,j}^{(0)}+x_{i,n}^{(0)}x_{m,j}^{(0)}`$, namely, $`1`$, is not in $`Q`$. Hence $`P`$ cannot contain $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$.

Conversely, if $`P`$ is a minimal prime ideal of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ that does not contain $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ but contains $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}`$, then the same argument as above, applied to the corresponding isomorphism obtained on localizing at $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ (see Remark (2.5) above), gives us a contradiction. This proves the corollary. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now ready to decompose our variety $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ as described at the beginning of this section. Let $`Z_0`$ represent the union of the zero sets of all those minimal prime ideals of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ in $`S=F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]`$ that do not contain some $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ (and hence, by Proposition 2.6 above, do not contain any $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ for $`1im`$, $`1jn`$). $`Z_0`$ is not empty: There are clearly points in our variety where $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ is not zero, hence there exist minimal primes of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ that do not contain $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ (for any $`(i,j)`$). The following is elementary:

###### Lemma 2.7.

For any pair $`(i,j)`$, let $`U_{i,j}`$ represent the open set of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ where $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}0`$, and let $`U`$ represent the open set of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ where no $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ (for $`1im`$, $`1jn`$) is zero. Then $`Z_0=\overline{U_{i,j}}=\overline{U}`$, where the bar represents the closure of the respective sets.

###### Proof.

It is clear that $`U_{i,j}Z_0`$, from which it follows that $`\overline{U_{i,j}}Z_0`$. For any minimal prime $`P`$ of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ that does not contain $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$, let $`Z(P)`$ denote its zero set. Then $`U_{i,j}Z(P)`$ is nonempty, since otherwise, $`Z(P)Z(<x_{i,j}^{(0)}>)`$, which would force $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}P`$. Hence, $`U_{i,j}Z(P)`$ is dense in $`Z(P)`$, so $`\overline{U_{i,j}}`$ must contain all of $`Z(P)`$. This shows that $`\overline{U_{i,j}}=Z_0`$. A similar argument shows that $`\overline{U}=Z_0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now let $`Z_1`$ represent the subvariety of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ where all $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$, for $`1im`$, $`1jn`$, are zero. If there are minimal prime ideals of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ in $`S=F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]`$ that contain some $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ (and hence, by Proposition 2.6 above, contain all $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ for all $`i,j`$), then the zero sets of such prime ideals will clearly be components of $`Z_1`$. (These zero sets will also be components of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$, of course. If no such minimal primes exist, then $`Z_1`$ will be contained in $`Z_0`$.)

Since every minimal prime ideal of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ either contains some (hence all) $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ or does not contain some (hence any) $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$, we have the following:

###### Theorem 2.8.

The variety $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ is the union of two subvarieties $`Z_0`$ and $`Z_1`$. The variety $`Z_0`$ is the closure of any of the open sets $`U_{i,j}`$ ($`1im`$, $`1jn`$) of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ where $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ is nonzero (as also the closure of the open set $`U`$ where all $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ are nonzero). $`Z_0`$ is also the union of the components of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ that correspond to minimal primes of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ that do not contain some (hence do not contain any) $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$. Such components always exist, and are in one-to-one correspondence with the components of the variety $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$. The correspondence preserves the codimension (in $`𝐀^{mnk}`$ and $`𝐀^{(m1)(n1)k}`$ respectively) of the components. In fact, $`Z_0`$ is birational to $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}\times 𝐀^{(m+n1)k}`$. The variety $`Z_1`$ is the subvariety of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ where all $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ are zero, and is isomorphic to $`𝒵_{r,kr}^{m,n}\times 𝐀^{mn(r1)}`$ when $`k>r`$, and isomorphic to $`𝐀^{mn(k1)}`$ when $`kr`$.

The subvariety $`Z_1`$ will be wholly contained in $`Z_0`$ precisely when there are no minimal primes of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ that contain some (hence all) $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$. If there exist minimal primes of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ that contain some (hence all) $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$, then these will correspond to some (possibly all) components of $`Z_1`$.

###### Proof.

This is just a summary of the discussions in this section. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. The Case of Maximal Minors

When $`r=m`$, i.e., when we consider the situation where we set all maximal minors to zero, we have the following easy result:

###### Theorem 3.1.

The varieties $`𝒵_{m,k}^{m,n}`$ are all irreducible, of codimension $`k(nm+1)`$.

###### Proof.

We prove the irreducibility by induction on $`m`$. If $`m=1`$, then the varieties $`𝒵_{1,k}^{1,n}`$ (for any $`n`$ and $`k`$) are clearly irreducible, in fact, $`𝒵_{1,k}^{1,n}`$ is just the origin in $`𝐀^{nk}`$. So assume that $`𝒵_{m1,k}^{m1,n1}`$ is irreducible. Then there is only one minimal prime ideal lying over the ideal $`_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$ in the ring $`T=F[z_{i,j}^{(l)}]`$ (see the statement of Theorem 2.3 for notation). Tracing through the isomorphism of Theorem 2.3 above, the localization of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ at $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}`$ has only one minimal prime ideal, so in particular, there is only one minimal prime ideal of $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ in $`S=F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]`$ that does not contain $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}`$. As in the discussion in Section 2 (in particular, see Theorem 2.8), this means that subvariety $`Z_0`$ is irreducible. It is now sufficient to show that $`Z_1Z_0`$. We will do this by showing that each point in $`Z_1`$ is on a line, all but a finite number of points of which lie inside one of the open sets $`U_{i,j}`$. Since $`Z_0`$ is the closure of any of the open sets $`U_{i,j}`$, this will establish that $`Z_1Z_0`$.

Let $`Q`$ be a point in $`Z_1`$. If $`Q`$ is the origin in $`𝐀^{mnk}`$, then $`Q`$ lies on the line $`\lambda P`$ ($`\lambda F`$) for any $`P`$ in any $`U_{i,j}`$. (Recall that $`U_{i,j}`$ is nonempty.) Since for $`\lambda 0`$ the point $`\lambda P`$ is in $`U_{i,j}`$, our point $`Q`$ must lie in the closure of $`U_{i,j}`$.

Now assume $`Q`$ is not the origin. In the representation of $`Q`$ as rows $`(𝐮_1(t),\mathrm{},𝐮_m(t))^T`$, with $`𝐮_i(t)=_l𝐮_i^{(l)}t^l`$ (see the notation introduced just before Lemma 2.1), $`𝐮_i^{(0)}=0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Since $`Q`$ is not the origin, some $`𝐮_i^{(s)}0`$ for some $`i`$ with $`1im`$, and some $`s`$ with $`1s<k`$ and with $`s`$ minimal for this $`i`$. Write $`𝐯(t)`$ for the vector $`𝐮_i^{(s)}+𝐮_i^{(s+1)}t+\mathrm{}+𝐮_i^{(k1)}t^{ks1}`$ in $`(F[t]/(t^k))^n`$. Consider the point $`P(\lambda )=(𝐮_1(t),\mathrm{},𝐮_i(t),𝐮_{i+1}(t)+\lambda 𝐯(t),𝐮_{i+2}(t)\mathrm{},𝐮_m(t))^T`$ (with the understanding that if $`i=m`$, then $`P(\lambda )=(𝐮_1(t),\mathrm{},𝐮_{m2}(t),𝐮_{m1}(t)+\lambda 𝐯(t),𝐮_m(t)^T`$). Then the $`m`$-fold wedge product of these vectors contains two summands: $`𝐮_1(t)\mathrm{}𝐮_i(t)𝐮_{i+1}(t)\mathrm{}𝐮_m(t)`$, and $`\lambda 𝐮_1(t)\mathrm{}𝐮_i(t)𝐯(t)\mathrm{}𝐮_m(t)`$ (suitably modified if $`i=m`$). The first is zero, since $`Q`$ is in $`𝒵_{m,k}^{m,n}`$, and the second is zero since $`𝐮_i(t)=t^s𝐯(t)`$. Thus, the point $`P(\lambda )`$ is in $`𝒵_{m,k}^{m,n}`$. When $`\lambda 0`$, $`P(\lambda )`$ is actually in $`U_{i,l}`$ for some $`l`$ (corresponding to any one coordinate of $`𝐮_{i,s}`$ that is nonzero). Hence, the point $`Q=P(0)`$ is in the closure of $`U_{i,l}`$, which is $`Z_0`$.

As for the codimension, the codimension of $`_{m,k}^{m,n}`$ is the codimension of its unique minimal prime ideal. Tracing through the localization correspondence of Theorem 2.3, this is the same as the codimension of $`_{m1,k}^{m1,n1}`$. Continuing this localizing process, we find that the codimension of $`_{m,k}^{m,n}`$ is the same as the codimension of $`_{1,k}^{1,nm+1}`$, which is clearly $`k(nm+1)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.2.

Notice how this proof technique breaks down when considering $`r`$-fold wedge products with $`r<m`$: if one were to consider a wedge product that includes the $`i`$-th row but not the $`(i+1)`$-th row (or contains the $`m`$-th row but not the $`(m1)`$-th row if $`i=m`$), then the second summand of the wedge product need not be zero, so the point $`P(\lambda )`$ need not be in our variety at all.

### 3.1. Square Matrices

When $`m=n`$, i.e., when our matrices are square, and when we are still in the situation of maximal minors, we can say considerably more. Let us denote the $`k`$ coefficients of $`t`$ of the determinant of our square matrix $`X(t)`$ by $`d_l`$, $`l=0,\mathrm{},k1`$. It is easy to determine the structure of the polynomial expressions $`d_l`$. The first term $`d_0`$ is just the determinant of the matrix $`X(0)=((x_{i,j}^{(0)}))_{1i,jm}`$. The remaining terms can be obtained by the following process: Every monomial appearing in $`d_0`$ is the form

$$m_\sigma =x_{\sigma (1),1}^{(0)}x_{\sigma (2),2}^{(0)}\mathrm{}x_{\sigma (m),m}^{(0)}$$

for some permutation $`\sigma `$ of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}`$. Given such a monomial, we define

$$\mu _s(m_\sigma )=\underset{k_i0,{\scriptscriptstyle k_i}=s}{}x_{\sigma (1),1}^{(k_1)}x_{\sigma (2),2}^{(k_2)}\mathrm{}x_{\sigma (m),m}^{(k_m)}$$

We then find

$$d_s=\underset{\sigma S_n}{}\mu _s(m_\sigma )sgn(\sigma )$$

We will prove that the ideals $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ are prime and that the coordinate rings of the varieties $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,m}`$ are complete intersection rings and hence Cohen-Macaulay. We will do so by showing that the $`d_l`$ form a Groebner basis for $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ with respect to a suitable monomial ordering.

We consider the graded reverse lexicographic ordering (grevlex) on the monomials on $`S=F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]`$ given by the following scheme: $`x_{1,1}^{(k1)}>x_{1,2}^{(k1)}>\mathrm{}>x_{1,m}^{(k1)}>x_{2,1}^{(k1)}>\mathrm{}>x_{m,m}^{(k1)}>x_{1,1}^{(k2)}>x_{1,2}^{(k2)}>\mathrm{}>x_{1,m}^{(k2)}>x_{2,1}^{(k2)}>\mathrm{}>x_{m,m}^{(k2)}>\mathrm{}>x_{m,m}^{(1)}>x_{1,1}^{(0)}>\mathrm{}>x_{1,m}^{(0)}>x_{2,1}^{(0)}>\mathrm{}>x_{m,m}^{(0)}`$.

(Recall that in the graded reverse lexicographic ordering the monomials of $`S`$ are first ordered by the total degree, and for two monomials $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ of the same degree, $`\alpha `$ is greater than $`\beta `$ if the rightmost nonzero element in $`\alpha \beta `$ (with $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ thought of as elements of $`^{km^2}`$) is negative—see \[3, Chapter 2, §2\], for instance.)

###### Theorem 3.3.

Under the grevlex ordering on $`S`$ described above, the generators $`d_l`$, $`l=0,1,\mathrm{},k1`$ of the ideal $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ form a Groebner basis for $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$.

###### Proof.

The grevlex order is designed so as to favor monomials in which the lower order variables do not appear. It is easy to see then that the leading monomials (lm) of the various $`d_l`$ are as follows:

$`\text{lm}(d_0)`$ $`=`$ $`x_{1,m}^{(0)}x_{2,m1}^{(0)}\mathrm{}x_{m,1}^{(0)}`$
$`\text{lm}(d_1)`$ $`=`$ $`x_{1,m1}^{(0)}x_{2,m2}^{(0)}\mathrm{}x_{m1,1}^{(0)}x_{m,m}^{(1)}`$
$`\text{lm}(d_2)`$ $`=`$ $`x_{1,m2}^{(0)}x_{2,m3}^{(0)}\mathrm{}x_{m2,1}^{(0)}x_{m1,m}^{(1)}x_{m,m1}^{(1)}`$
$`\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}`$
$`\text{lm}(d_{m1})`$ $`=`$ $`x_{1,1}^{(0)}x_{2,m}^{(1)}x_{3,m1}^{(1)}\mathrm{}x_{m,2}^{(1)}`$
$`\text{lm}(d_m)`$ $`=`$ $`x_{1,m}^{(1)}x_{2,m1}^{(1)}\mathrm{}x_{m,1}^{(1)}`$
$`\text{lm}(d_{m+1})`$ $`=`$ $`x_{1,m1}^{(1)}x_{2,m2}^{(1)}\mathrm{}x_{m1,1}^{(1)}x_{m,m}^{(2)}`$
$`\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}`$
so in general, we have

(8)
$$\text{lm}(d_{\lambda m+\mu })=x_{1,m\mu }^{(\lambda )}x_{2,m\mu 1}^{(\lambda )}\mathrm{}x_{m\mu ,1}^{(\lambda )}x_{m\mu +1,m}^{(\lambda +1)}x_{m\mu +2,m1}^{(\lambda +1)}\mathrm{}x_{m,m\mu +1}^{(\lambda +1)},$$

where $`0\mu m1`$.

It is clear that the leading monomials of $`d_i`$ and $`d_j`$, for distinct $`i`$ and $`j`$, are formed of sets of variables that are disjoint from one another. Hence, the leading terms of the various $`d_k`$ are all pairwise relatively prime. It follows, e.g. from \[3, Chapter 2, §9, Prop. 4 and Theorem 3\], that the $`d_l`$ form a Groebner basis for $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now ready to prove our main result about the ideals $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$.

###### Theorem 3.4.

The ideals $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ are prime ideals, of codimension $`k`$. The coordinate rings of the varieties $`𝒵_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ are consequently complete intersection rings, and hence Cohen-Macaulay.

###### Proof.

Since the polynomials $`d_l`$ form a Groebner basis for $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$, and since the lead terms of these $`d_l`$ in (3.1) are obviously square free, it follows that the ideals $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ are radical. (This is well known and easy: if $`f^r_{m,k}^{m,m}`$, then $`(\text{lm}(f))^r<\text{lm}(d_0),\mathrm{},\text{lm}(d_{k1})>`$, so $`\text{lm}(d_i)`$ divides $`(\text{lm}(f))^r`$ for some $`i`$. Since $`\text{lm}(d_i)`$ is square free, this means that $`\text{lm}(d_i)`$ divides $`\text{lm}(f)`$, so $`\text{lm}(d_i)e=\text{lm}(f)`$ for some monomial $`e`$. Then $`fed_i`$ is also in the radical of $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$, and has lower lead monomial. We proceed thus to find that $`f`$ is in $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$.) But we have already seen in Theorem 3.1 above that the radical of $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ must be prime. It follows that the ideals $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ are prime and that their codimension is equal to $`k`$. Then, by the definition of a complete intersection ring, it follows that the coordinate ring $`S/_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ of the variety $`𝒵_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ is a complete intersection ring. By e.g. \[5, Chapter 18, Prop. 18.13\], it is Cohen-Macaulay. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can obtain more insights into $`𝒵_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ by considering the quotient ring of $`F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]`$ by the ideal $`\text{lm}(_{m,k}^{m,m})`$ generated by the leading monomials of the elements of $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$. By Theorem 3.3, the generators of $`\text{lm}(_{m,k}^{m,m})`$ are given by (8) above. As is well known, the Hilbert function of $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ is the same as that of $`\text{lm}(_{m,k}^{m,m})`$. In turn, because $`\text{lm}(_{m,k}^{m,m})`$ is generated by the squarefree monomials in (8), we may consider the simplicial complex attached to $`F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]/\text{lm}(_{m,k}^{m,m})`$, for which this ring is the Stanley-Reisner ring. (The connection between simplicial complexes and its associated Stanley-Reisner ring may be found, for instance, in \[1, Chap. 5 \]. Briefly, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a simplicial complex on the vertex set $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$, then the Stanley-Reisner ring associated to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the ring $`F[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]/I_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`I_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is generated by all monomials $`x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_s}`$, $`sn`$, such that $`x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_s}`$ is not a face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This correspondence can be reversed: given an ideal $`I`$ of $`F[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ such that $`I(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)^2`$ and such that $`I`$ is generated by squarefree monomials, then we take $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to be the simplicial complex on the vertex set $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_n\}`$ whose faces are all those subsets $`\{x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_s}\}`$, $`sn`$, such that $`x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_s}`$ is not in $`I`$.)

We first determine the simplicial complex attached to $`\text{lm}(_{m,k}^{m,m})`$. We start with the following trivial observation:

###### Lemma 3.5.

The ring $`F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]/\text{lm}(_{m,k}^{m,m})`$ is isomorphic to $`L[x_{km+1},\mathrm{},x_{km^2}]`$, where $`L`$ is isomorphic to $`F[y_1,\mathrm{},y_{km}]`$ modded out by the ideal generated by $`y_1y_2\mathrm{}y_m,`$ $`y_{m+1}y_{m+2}\mathrm{}y_{2m},`$ $`\mathrm{},`$ $`y_{(k1)m+1}y_{(k1)m+2}\mathrm{}y_{km}`$. (Here, $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_{km}`$ are variables.)

###### Proof.

Notice from Equality (8) that the leading monomials of the generators of $`_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ only involve $`km`$ variables. The form of the leading monomials now gives us the result above. $`\mathrm{}`$

For any $`l1`$, write $`C_l`$ for the simplicial complex defined by the set of all subsets of the $`l`$ element set $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_l\}`$, and write $`S_l`$ for the simplicial complex defined by the set of all subsets of the $`l`$ element set $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_l\}`$ except the full set $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_l\}`$. (Thus, $`S_l`$ is the skeleton of the complex $`C_l`$.) Let $`S_l^k`$ be the join of $`k`$ disjoint copies of $`S_l`$. (The join of two simplicial complexes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ on the disjoint vertex sets $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ is the complex on the vertex set $`V_1V_2`$ with faces $`F_1F_2`$, where $`F_1`$ is a face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`F_2`$ is a face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$.) We now have the following essentially trivial result:

###### Lemma 3.6.

The simplicial complex whose Stanley-Reisner ring is the ring $`F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]/\text{lm}(_{m,k}^{m,m})`$ is the complex $`S_m^kC_{k(m^2m)}`$, where $``$ denotes the join.

###### Proof.

This is clear from Lemma 3.5 above. $`\mathrm{}`$

Recall that the face vector $`f(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ of a simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of dimension $`d1`$ is the $`d`$-tuple $`(f_0,f_1,\mathrm{},f_{d1})`$, where $`f_i`$ is the number of $`i`$ dimensional faces of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Recall too that a face of dimension $`s`$ corresponds to a subset of cardinality $`s+1`$. Hence, for the simplicial complex $`S_m`$, $`f_0=m`$, $`f_1=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{2}\right)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`f_{m2}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{m1}\right)`$. We have the following:

###### Lemma 3.7.

The $`f`$-vector of the simplicial complex $`S_m^k`$ is determined by the coefficients of $`x^l`$, $`l=1,\mathrm{},k(m1)`$, in the $`k`$-th power of the polynomial $`(1+mx+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{2}\right)x^2+\mathrm{}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{m1}\right)x^{m1})`$.

###### Proof.

This is clear from the definition of the join of two simplicial complexes, and that the fact that the coefficients $`m`$, $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{2}\right)`$, etc. in the polynomial above are just the components of the face vector of $`S_m`$. Note that an $`(s1)`$-dimensional face of $`S_m^k`$ (which corresponds to a subset of cardinality $`s`$) arises from a choice of an $`(s_11)`$ dimensional face from the first copy of $`S_m`$ (corresponding to a subset of cardinality $`s_1`$), an $`(s_21)`$ dimensional face from the second copy of $`S_m`$ (corresponding to a subset of cardinality $`s_2`$), and so on, to a choice of an $`(s_k1)`$ dimensional face from the $`k`$-th copy of $`S_m`$ (corresponding to a subset of cardinality $`s_k`$), where $`s_1+s_2+\mathrm{}+s_k=s`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

In the same vein, we have the following, which gives us the $`f`$-vector for the simplicial complex attached to $`F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]/\text{lm}(_{m,k}^{m,m})`$:

###### Proposition 3.8.

Write $`b`$ for $`k(m^2m)`$. Then, the $`f`$-vector of the simplicial complex attached to $`F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]/\text{lm}(_{m,k}^{m,m})`$ is determined by the coefficients of $`x^l`$, $`l=1,\mathrm{},k(m^21)`$, in the polynomial $`(1+mx+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{2}\right)x^2+\mathrm{}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{m1}\right)x^{m1})^k(1+bx+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b}{2}\right)x^2+\mathrm{}+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b}{b1}\right)x^{b1}+x^b)`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is similar to the proof of the lemma above. The simplicial complex attached to $`F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]/\text{lm}(_{m,k}^{m,m})`$ is the join of $`S_m^k`$ and $`C_b`$ by Lemma 3.6 above. The $`f`$-vectors for $`S_m^k`$ are determined by Lemma 3.7 above. The $`f`$-vectors of $`C_b`$ are easy to determine: the number of $`s1`$ dimensional faces is the number of subsets of a $`b`$ element set of cardinality $`s`$, so it is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{b}{s}\right)`$. The rest of the argument is the same. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note immediately that the dimension of the simplicial complex attached to $`F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]/\text{lm}(_{m,k}^{m,m})`$ is $`k(m1)+b1=k(m^21)1`$, and that $`f_{k(m^21)1}=m^k`$. From the connection between the face vector of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the Hilbert polynomial of the associated Stanley Reisner ring (see \[1, p. 204\] for instance), and from the fact that the Hilbert function of $`F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]/\text{lm}(_{m,k}^{m,m})`$ and $`F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]/_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ are the same, we have the following:

###### Proposition 3.9.

The (projective) Hilbert polynomial of $`F[x_{i,j}^{(l)}]/_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ is given by $`H(n)=_{i=0}^{k(m^21)1}f_i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{i}\right)`$, where the $`f_i`$ are the components of the face vector of the simplicial complex $`S_m^kC_{k(m^2m)}`$ determined by Proposition 3.8. In particular, the degree of $`𝒵_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ is $`m^k`$.

###### Proof.

The degree of $`𝒵_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ is just the coefficient $`f_{k(m^21)1}`$ attached to the highest degree term $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{d1}\right)`$ in the (projective) Hilbert polynomial when it is expressed as a linear combination of the polynomials $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n1}{i}\right)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.10.

The Hilbert polynomial above also shows the (projective) dimension of $`𝒵_{m,k}^{m,m}`$ to be $`k(m^21)1`$, which is consistent with Theorem 3.1.

## 4. Equations for Some Open Sets of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$

In this section, we will derive the key equations that will hold in certain open sets of our variety and will enable us to show that our varieties are reducible when $`r<m`$ (i.e., we set submaximal minors to zero).

We start with an elementary and well-known result:

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`R`$ be a commutative ring, and $`R^n`$ the free module of rank $`n`$. Suppose $`𝐮_1,\mathrm{},𝐮_{r1}R^n`$ are such that for some $`𝐰_1,\mathrm{},𝐰_{nr+1}R^n`$, the product $`𝐮_1\mathrm{}𝐮_{r1}𝐰_1\mathrm{}𝐰_{nr+1}R^{}`$ (i.e., the elements $`𝐮_1,\mathrm{},𝐮_{r1}`$ can be extended to a basis of $`R^n`$). Here $`R^{}`$ denotes the set of all invertible elements of $`R`$. If $`𝐮_1\mathrm{}𝐮_{r1}𝐯=0`$ for some element $`𝐯R^n`$, then $`𝐯=_{i=1}^{r1}\alpha _i𝐮_i`$ for some $`\alpha _iR`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`𝐮_1\mathrm{}𝐮_{r1}𝐰_1\mathrm{}𝐰_{nr+1}`$ is the determinant of the matrix $`[𝐮_1,\mathrm{},𝐮_{r1},𝐰_1,\mathrm{},𝐰_{nr+1}]`$, the hypothesis shows that this matrix is invertible in $`R`$. Hence we can find the unique solution $`𝐱=(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n)^T`$ to the equation

$$[𝐮_1,\mathrm{},𝐮_{r1},𝐰_1,\mathrm{},𝐰_{nr+1}]𝐱=𝐯$$

by Cramer’s rule. But the assumption $`𝐮_1\mathrm{}𝐮_{r1}𝐯=0`$ shows that $`\alpha _j`$ must be zero for $`j=r,\mathrm{},n`$, since for such $`j`$, one of the $`𝐰_i`$ will be replaced by $`v`$ during the solution. Hence $`𝐯=_{i=1}^{r1}\alpha _i𝐮_i`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For the rest of this section we will write $`R`$ for the polynomial ring $`F[t]`$, and write $`\overline{R}`$ for the ring $`F[t]/(t^k)`$. Let $`M`$ be the free $`R`$ module of rank $`n`$, and $`\overline{M}=M_RF[t]/(t^k)`$ be the free $`\overline{R}`$ module of rank $`n`$. For any $`vM`$, write $`\overline{v}`$ for the image of $`v`$ under the map $`M\overline{M}=M/t^kM`$.

Lemma 4.1 leads to the following:

###### Corollary 4.2.

Suppose $`𝐮_1,\mathrm{},𝐮_r\overline{M}`$ are such that $`𝐮_1\mathrm{}𝐮_r=0`$ and $`𝐮_1^{(0)}\mathrm{}𝐮_{r1}^{(0)}0`$ in $`^{(r1)}F^n`$ (here, $`𝐮_j=_{l=0}^{k1}𝐮_j^{(l)}t^l+t^kM`$). Then, there are $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{r1}\overline{R}`$ such that $`𝐮_r=_{i=1}^{r1}\alpha _i𝐮_i`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`𝐮_1^{(0)}\mathrm{}𝐮_{r1}^{(0)}0`$ in $`^{(r1)}F^n`$, there are elements $`𝐰_1,`$ $`\mathrm{},`$ $`𝐰_{nr+1}F^n`$ such that $`𝐮_1^{(0)},\mathrm{},𝐮_{r1}^{(0)},𝐰_1,\mathrm{},𝐰_{nr+1}`$ form a basis for the vector space $`F^n`$. In particular, $`𝐮_1^{(0)}\mathrm{}𝐮_{r1}^{(0)}𝐰_1\mathrm{}𝐰_{nr+1}0`$ in $`F`$. Thus, the constant term in the wedge product $`𝐮_1\mathrm{}𝐮_{r1}𝐰_1\mathrm{}𝐰_{nr+1}`$ will be nonzero, so $`𝐮_1\mathrm{}𝐮_{r1}𝐰_1\mathrm{}𝐰_{nr+1}`$ is in $`\overline{R}^{}`$. The result now follows from Lemma 4.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

We now come to the main result that generates equations for certain open sets of our variety:

###### Theorem 4.3.

Suppose $`𝐮_1,\mathrm{},𝐮_mR^n`$ (with $`mn`$) are of degree at most $`k1`$ (that is, each component of each $`𝐮_j`$ is a polynomial of degree at most $`k1`$ in $`t`$), and suppose that $`\overline{𝐮_{j_1}}\mathrm{}\overline{𝐮_{j_r}}=0`$ for all sequences $`1j_1<\mathrm{}<j_rm`$. Further, assume that $`𝐮_1^{(0)}\mathrm{}𝐮_{r1}^{(0)}0`$ (here, $`𝐮_j=_{l=0}^{k1}𝐮_j^{(l)}t^l`$). Then

$$𝐮_{j_1}\mathrm{}𝐮_{j_r}𝐮_{j_{r+1}}t^{2k}\stackrel{r+1}{}M$$

for all sequences $`1j_1<\mathrm{}<j_r<j_{r+1}m`$.

###### Proof.

Applying Corollary 4.2 to the elements $`\overline{𝐮_1}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\overline{𝐮_{r1}}`$, $`\overline{𝐮_j}`$ ($`rjm`$), we find

$$\overline{𝐮_j}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r1}{}}\alpha _{j,i}\overline{𝐮_i}$$

for elements $`\alpha _{j,i}`$ in $`\overline{R}`$. If $`\alpha _{j,i}=p_{j,i}(t)+t^kR`$ for uniquely determined polynomials $`p_{j,i}R`$ of degree at most $`k1`$, define

$$𝐯_j=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝐮_j\hfill & j=1,\mathrm{},r1,\hfill \\ _{i=1}^{r1}p_{j,i}𝐮_i\hfill & j=r,r+1,\mathrm{},m.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then, since the $`𝐯_j`$ depend linearly on the $`r1`$ vectors $`𝐯_1,\mathrm{},𝐯_{r1}`$, we find, this time in $`M`$, that

(9)
$$𝐯_{j_1}\mathrm{}𝐯_{j_r}𝐯_{j_{r+1}}=0$$

for all sequences $`1j_1<\mathrm{}<j_r<j_{r+1}m`$.

Now, for any $`j`$, $`𝐮_j`$ and $`𝐯_j`$ are equal modulo $`t^k`$, so we may write $`𝐮_j=𝐯_j+t^k𝐲_j`$ for suitable $`𝐲_j`$. Then,

$$𝐮_{j_1}\mathrm{}𝐮_{j_r}𝐮_{j_{r+1}}=(𝐯_{j_1}+t^k𝐲_{j_1})\mathrm{}(𝐯_{j_{r+1}}+t^k𝐲_{j_{r+1}}).$$

Expanding the right side, we get the following: a term $`𝐯_{j_1}\mathrm{}𝐯_{j_r}𝐯_{j_{r+1}}`$ which is zero by Equality (9), a sum of terms of the form $`t^k(\pm 𝐲_{j,i})𝐯_{j_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{𝐯_{j_i}}\mathrm{}𝐯_{j_{r+1}}`$ (where the hat denotes the omission of the term under the hat), and then terms that are clearly in $`t^{2k}^{r+1}M`$ or higher. But the product $`𝐯_{j_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{𝐯_{j_i}}\mathrm{}𝐯_{j_{r+1}}`$ is already in $`t^k^rM`$, since on reduction modulo $`t^k`$, this is just the $`r`$-fold wedge product of the various $`\overline{𝐮_j}`$. It follows that $`𝐮_{j_1}\mathrm{}𝐮_{j_r}𝐮_{j_{r+1}}`$ is in $`t^{2k}^{r+1}M`$. This proves the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 4.4.

Assume the $`𝐮_j`$ ($`1jm`$) are as in the preceding theorem. Then,

(10)
$$\underset{\stackrel{l_1+\mathrm{}l_{r+1}=w}{0l_j<k}}{}𝐮_{j_1}^{(l_1)}\mathrm{}𝐮_{j_r}^{(l_r)}𝐮_{j_{r+1}}^{(l_{r+1})}=0$$

for each $`w`$ such that $`0w<2k`$, and for all sequences $`1j_1<\mathrm{}<j_r<j_{r+1}m`$. In particular, when $`r=2`$,

(11)
$$\underset{\stackrel{l_1+l_2+l_3=w}{0l_1,l_2,l_3<k}}{}𝐮_{j_1}^{(l_1)}𝐮_{j_2}^{(l_2)}𝐮_{j_3}^{(l_3)}=0$$

on the subvariety $`Z_0`$ of $`𝒵_{2,k}^{m,n}`$, for each $`w`$ such that $`0w<2k`$, and for all sequences $`1j_1<j_2<j_3m`$.

###### Proof.

The expressions on the left hand side of the equalities (10) are merely the coefficients of $`t^w`$, $`0w<2k`$, of $`𝐮_{j_1}\mathrm{}𝐮_{j_r}𝐮_{j_{r+1}}`$, so by the previous theorem these are zero whenever $`𝐮_1^{(0)}\mathrm{}𝐮_{r1}^{(0)}0`$. When $`r=2`$, the subvariety $`Z_0`$ is the closure of the open set where $`𝐮_1^{(0)}0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.5.

There is another set of equations that hold on the closure of the open set of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ where $`𝐮_1^{(0)}\mathrm{}𝐮_{r1}^{(0)}0`$. By Corollary 4.2, all other vectors $`𝐮_i`$ can be expressed as an $`R`$-linear combination of $`𝐮_1,\mathrm{},𝐮_{r1}`$. In particular, all other vectors $`u_i^{(l)}`$ can be expressed as an $`F`$-linear combination of the $`k(r1)`$ vectors $`𝐮_1^{(l)},\mathrm{},𝐮_{r1}^{(l)}`$, $`l=0,\mathrm{},k1`$. It follows that the $`(k(r1)+1)`$-fold wedge product of any of the vectors $`𝐮_i^{(l)}`$ must be zero on this closure, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$ and for $`l=0,\mathrm{},k1`$. This will be trivially true if $`(k(r1)+1)>n`$.

## 5. The Case of $`2\times 2`$ Submaximal Minors

In this section, we will completely describe the components of the variety $`𝒵_{2,k}^{m,n}`$ when $`nm3`$ and $`k2`$.

For this section, we will write $`Y_0`$ for our variety $`𝒵_{2,k}^{m,n}`$, and $`X_0`$ for the closure $`Z_0`$ of any of the open sets $`U_{i,j}`$ described in Theorem 2.8. We will write $`Y_1`$ for the subvariety $`Z_1`$ of Theorem 2.8 where all $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ are zero. We will also write $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ for the set $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},k1\}`$.

Now $`Y_1`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒵_{2,k2}^{m,n}\times 𝐀^{mn}`$ when $`k>2`$, and isomorphic to $`𝐀^{mn}`$ when $`k=2`$.

In particular, recall from the proof of Lemma 2.1 that in the case $`k>2`$, the variety $`Y_1`$ is really determined by considering the generic $`m\times n`$ matrix with rows $`𝐮_i^{(1)}+𝐮_i^{(2)}t+\mathrm{}+𝐮_i^{(k2)}t^{k3}`$ ($`1im`$) and setting determinants of $`2\times 2`$ minors to zero modulo $`t^{k2}`$. We will write $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ for the set $`\{1,\mathrm{},k2\}`$ which indexes the powers of $`t`$ from each row of the original matrix which are now governed by determinantal equations modulo $`t^{k2}`$, and we will write $`W_1`$ for the factor isomorphic to $`𝒵_{2,k2}^{m,n}`$ determined by these rows.

Notice that if $`k=3`$, the factor $`W_1`$ is the classical determinantal variety of $`2\times 2`$ minors of the generic matrix $`((x_{i,j}^{(1)}))`$, and this variety is known to be irreducible (). Hence, when $`k=3`$, $`Y_1`$ is just an irreducible variety cross an affine piece, and is hence irreducible.

Figure 1: Irreducible components of $`𝒵_{2,k}^{m,n}`$

If $`k>3`$, we will write $`T_1`$ for the subvariety “$`Z_0`$” of $`W_1`$, i.e., the closure in $`W_1`$ of the open set where some $`x_{i,j}^{(1)}0`$. Also, we will write $`X_1`$ for the closure of any of the open sets of $`Y_1`$ where some $`x_{i,j}^{(1)}0`$. It is clear that $`X_1`$ is just $`T_1\times 𝐀^{mn}`$.

Write $`k=2L+1`$ or $`k=2L`$ according to whether $`k`$ is odd or even. Proceeding thus, we will have subvarieties $`Y_s`$, $`X_s`$, for $`s=0,1,\mathrm{},L=k/2`$. We have the following:

* $`Y_0`$, $`X_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=\{0,1,\mathrm{},k1\}`$ are as already described.
* (For $`0<s<L`$) On $`Y_s`$, all row vectors $`𝐮_i^{(0)},\mathrm{},𝐮_i^{(s1)}`$ are zero, $`1im`$. The various rows $`𝐮_i^{(s)},\mathrm{},𝐮_i^{((k1)s)}`$, $`1im`$, are governed by the condition that all $`2\times 2`$ minors of the matrix with rows $`𝐮_i^{(s)}+𝐮_i^{(s+1)}t+\mathrm{}+𝐮_i^{((k1)s)}t^{k2s1}`$ are zero modulo $`t^{k2s}`$. We write $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$ for the set $`\{s,\mathrm{},k1s\}`$ which indexes these rows. The rows $`𝐮_i^{(ks)},\mathrm{},𝐮_i^{(k1)}`$, $`1im`$, are all free. Hence, $`Y_sW_s\times 𝐀^{mns}`$ $`𝒵_{2,k2s}^{m,n}\times 𝐀^{mns}`$. We write $`T_s`$ for the subvariety “$`Z_0`$” of $`W_s`$, this is the closure in $`W_s`$ of the open set where some $`x_{i,j}^{(s)}0`$.
* (For $`0<s<L`$) $`X_s`$ is the closure of any of the open sets of $`Y_s`$ where some $`x_{i,j}^{(s)}0`$. It is clear that $`X_s`$ is just $`T_s\times 𝐀^{mns}`$.
* If k = 2L, then $`Y_L`$ is given by setting all row vectors $`𝐮_i^{(0)},\mathrm{},𝐮_i^{(L1)}`$ to zero, $`1im`$, with all remaining row vectors $`𝐮_i^{(L)},\mathrm{},𝐮_i^{(k1)}`$, $`1im`$, being free. Thus, $`Y_L𝐀^{mnL}`$.
* If k = 2L +1, then on $`Y_L`$, all row vectors $`𝐮_i^{(0)},\mathrm{},𝐮_i^{(L1)}`$ are zero, $`1im`$. The row vectors $`𝐮_i^{(L)}`$, $`1im`$, satisfy the classical determinantal equations for the $`2\times 2`$ minors of the generic $`m\times n`$ matrix $`((x_{i,j}^{(L)}))`$. $`W_L`$ will denote the classical determinantal variety determined by the $`𝐮_i^{(L)}`$. The various row vectors $`𝐮_i^{(L+1)},\mathrm{},𝐮_i^{(k1)}`$, $`1im`$, are all free. Thus, $`Y_LW_L\times 𝐀^{mnL}`$, and since $`W_L`$ is a classical determinantal variety, $`Y_L`$ is itself irreducible ().

Our result is the following:

###### Theorem 5.1.

The variety $`𝒵_{2,k}^{m,n}`$ ($`nm3`$, $`k2`$) is reducible. Its components are the subvarieties $`X_0`$, $`X_1`$, $``$, $`X_{L1}`$, and $`Y_L`$ described above. The components $`X_s`$, $`s=0,1,\mathrm{},L1`$, have codimension $`(m1)(n1)(k2s)+mns`$. If $`k=2L`$, $`Y_L`$ has codimension $`mnL`$, while if $`k=2L+1`$, $`Y_L`$ has codimension $`(m1)(n1)+mnL`$.

###### Proof.

The fact that the various $`X_s`$ and $`Y_L`$ are irreducible and have the stated codimension follows easily from the descriptions of the various $`X_s`$ and $`Y_L`$ above and from Theorem 2.3. We have seen that for $`0s<L`$, $`X_sT_s\times 𝐀^{mns}`$, and that $`X_s`$ sits in the portion of $`𝐀^{mn(k2s)}`$ determined by setting all rows $`𝐮_i^{(l)}`$ to zero, $`l=0,1,\mathrm{},s1`$ (when $`s=0`$ this condition is vacuous). Recall, too, that $`T_s`$ is the closure of the open set of $`𝒵_{2,k2s}^{m,n}`$ where some $`x_{i,j}^{(s)}0`$. By Theorem 2.3, we have a one-to-one correspondence between the components of $`T_s`$ and the components of $`𝒵_{1,k2s}^{m1,n1}`$, a correspondence which preserves codimension in the respective spaces $`𝐀^{mn(k2s)}`$ and $`𝐀^{(m1)(n1)(k2s)}`$. Since $`𝒵_{1,k2s}^{m1,n1}`$ is clearly irreducible of codimension $`(m1)(n1)(k2s)`$ (it is the origin in $`𝐀^{(m1)(n1)(k2s)}`$), we find that each $`X_s`$ is irreducible. It follows too that $`X_s`$ has codimension $`(m1)(n1)(k2s)+mns`$ in $`𝐀^{mnk}`$, where the extra summand $`mns`$ accounts for the rows $`𝐮_i^{(0)}\mathrm{}𝐮_i^{(s1)}`$ set to zero.

As for $`Y_L`$, we have already observed in the discussion before this theorem that it is irreducible. In the case $`k=2L`$, $`Y_L`$ is just $`𝐀^{mnL}`$. It follows that $`Y_L`$ has codimension $`mnL`$ (corresponding to the rows $`𝐮_i^{(0)}\mathrm{}𝐮_i^{(L1)}`$ set to zero). If $`k=2L+1`$, then the codimension of $`Y_L`$ is $`mnL`$ plus the codimension of the variety $`W_L`$. But this is known to be $`(m1)(n1)`$ (see  for instance, this can also be derived from Theorem 2.3).

We will now prove that the components of $`𝒵_{2,k}^{m,n}`$ are as described. It is easily seen from the codimension formulas above that except when $`(m,n)=(3,3)`$ or $`(m,n)=(3,4)`$, the codimension decreases as a function of $`s`$. This shows that if $`s^{}>s`$, then $`X_s^{}`$ (or $`Y_L`$) cannot be contained in $`X_s`$. Since the reverse containment is ruled out as $`x_{i,j}^{(s)}0`$ on $`X_s`$, we find that the components of $`𝒵_{2,k}^{m,n}`$ are indeed as described, except in the two special cases.

To take care of these two special cases, we will use results from Section 4. (The proof works for all $`(m,n)`$ pairs actually.) Using reverse induction on $`s`$, we will show that at the $`s`$-th stage, $`s=L,L1,\mathrm{},0`$, the components of $`Y_s`$ are $`X_s,X_{s+1}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`X_{L1}`$, and $`Y_L`$. We have already observed that $`Y_L`$ is irreducible, so assume that $`s<L`$. Note that $`Y_s`$ is the union of $`X_s`$ and $`Y_{s+1}`$, and by induction, $`Y_{s+1}`$ will have components $`X_{s+1}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`X_{L1}`$, and $`Y_L`$. We will prove that none of these subvarieties $`X_{s+1}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`X_{L1}`$, and $`Y_L`$ can be contained in $`X_s`$. The reverse containment is once again ruled out, and we will indeed find that $`Y_s`$ has components $`X_s,X_{s+1}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`X_{L1}`$, and $`Y_L`$.

We will first show that no $`X_{s+\alpha }`$ ($`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},Ls1`$) can be contained in $`X_s`$. For, assume to the contrary. Recall that $`X_{s+\alpha }`$ decomposes as $`T_{s+\alpha }\times 𝐀^{mn(s+\alpha )}`$, where the factor $`T_{s+\alpha }`$ comes from the various entries of the rows $`𝐮_i^{(l)}`$, $`1im`$, $`l=s+\alpha ,\mathrm{},k1(s+\alpha )`$, and the factor $`𝐀^{mn(s+\alpha )}`$ comes from the various entries of the rows $`𝐮_i^{(l)}`$, $`1im`$, $`l=k(s+\alpha ),\mathrm{},k1`$. Recall too that $`T_{s+\alpha }`$ is the closure in $`W_{s+\alpha }`$ where some $`𝐮_i^{(s+\alpha )}0`$, where $`W_{s+\alpha }`$ has the description given earlier. The following point $`P`$ is therefore in $`X_{s+\alpha }`$: $`𝐮_1^{(s+\alpha )}=(1,0,0,\mathrm{})`$, $`𝐮_2^{(k(s+\alpha ))}=(0,1,0,\mathrm{})`$, $`𝐮_3^{(k1s)}=(0,0,1,0,\mathrm{})`$, and all other rows of all possible degrees zero. (The nonzero coordinates coming from the row $`𝐮_1^{(s+\alpha )}`$ belong to $`T_s`$ while those coming from $`𝐮_2^{(k(s+\alpha ))}`$ and $`𝐮_3^{(k1s)}`$ belong to the other factor $`𝐀^{mn(s+\alpha )}`$.)

Now $`X_s`$ decomposes as $`T_s\times 𝐀^{mns}`$, where the factor $`T_s`$ comes from the various entries of $`𝐮_i(l)`$, $`1im`$, $`l=s,\mathrm{},k1s`$. Since $`PX_s`$ by assumption, an examination of its coordinates show that $`P`$ is in the subvariety $`T_s\times 𝐎`$, where we have written $`𝐎`$ for the origin in $`𝐀^{mns}`$. Thus, the coordinates of $`P`$ coming from the rows $`𝐮_i(l)`$, $`1im`$, $`l=s,\mathrm{},k1s`$ must satisfy Equations (11) in Corollary 4.4 which hold on $`T_s`$. In particular, the specific equation in (11) that holds for the coefficient of $`t^{2(k2s)1}`$, on specializing to the rows $`𝐮_1`$, $`𝐮_2`$, and $`𝐮_3`$, reads

(12)
$$\underset{\stackrel{a+b+c=2\left(k2s\right)1}{0a,b,c<k2s}}{}𝐮_1^{(s+a)}𝐮_2^{(s+b)}𝐮_3^{(s+c)}=0$$

Examining the coordinates of $`P`$, and recognizing that $`𝐮_2^{(k(s+\alpha ))}=𝐮_2^{(s+(k2s\alpha ))}`$ and $`𝐮_3^{(k1s)}=𝐮_3^{(s+(k12s))}`$ we find that the only wedge product that is nonzero in this equation is $`𝐮_1^{(s+\alpha )}𝐮_2^{(k(s+\alpha ))}𝐮_3^{(k1s)}`$. But by our choice of these rows, this wedge product is clearly nonzero. This shows that $`X_{s+\alpha }`$ is not contained in $`X_s`$.

To show that $`Y_L`$ is not contained in $`X_s`$, consider first the case $`k=2L+1`$. Then $`Y_L𝒵_{2,1}^{m,n}\times 𝐀^{mnL}`$, where the factor $`𝒵_{2,1}^{m,n}`$ comes from the entries of $`𝐮_i(L)`$, $`1im`$, and the factor $`𝐀^{mnL}`$ comes from the entries of $`𝐮_i(l)`$, $`1im`$, $`l=L+1,\mathrm{},2L`$. Choose $`P`$ to be the point with $`𝐮_1^{(L)}=(1,0,0,\mathrm{})`$, $`𝐮_2^{(L+1)}=(0,1,0,\mathrm{})`$, $`𝐮_3^{(k1s)}=(0,0,1,0,\mathrm{})`$, and all other rows of all possible degrees zero. (The nonzero coordinates coming from the row $`𝐮_1^{(L)}`$ belong to $`𝒵_{2,1}^{m,n}`$ while those coming from $`𝐮_2^{(L+1)}`$ and $`𝐮_3^{(k1s)}`$ belong to the other factor $`𝐀^{mnL}`$.) Exactly as before, this point $`P`$ is in $`Y_L`$, but we find that $`P`$ does not satisfy Equation (11) for $`T_s`$.

When $`k=2L`$, we take $`P`$ to be the point with $`𝐮_1^{(L)}=(1,0,0,\mathrm{})`$, $`𝐮_2^{(L)}=(0,1,0,\mathrm{})`$, $`𝐮_3^{(k1s)}=(0,0,1,0,\mathrm{})`$, and all other rows of all possible degrees zero. Once again, this point $`P`$ is in $`Y_L`$ but does not satisfy Equation (11) for $`T_s`$. This completes the proof.

$`\mathrm{}`$

We get the following corollary from this:

###### Corollary 5.2.

The variety $`𝒵_{2,k}^{m,n}`$ has $`1+k/2`$ components. The codimension of $`𝒵_{2,k}^{m,n}`$ (in $`𝐀^{mnk}`$) is $`(m1)(n1)+mnk/2`$ if $`k`$ is odd and the codimension is $`mnk/2`$ if $`k`$ is even, except in the case where $`(m,n)=(3,3)`$ or $`(m,n)=(3,4)`$. In these two special cases, $`𝒵_{2,k}^{3,3}`$ has codimension $`4k`$, while $`𝒵_{2,k}^{3,4}`$ has codimension $`6k`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 5.1, $`𝒵_{2,k}^{m,n}`$ clearly has $`1+k/2`$ components. These have codimension $`(m1)(n1)(k2s)+mns`$, for $`s=0,1,\mathrm{},L=mnk/2`$ (the case $`s=L`$ corresponds to the component $`Y_L`$, but is also covered by this formula). This is linear in $`s`$, and as already observed, is decreasing in $`s`$ except when $`(m,n)=(3,3)`$ or $`(m,n)=(3,4)`$. It follows that except for these two cases, the component $`Y_L`$, has the least codimension. This yields the formula for the codimension of $`𝒵_{2,k}^{m,n}`$ in the general case. In the two special cases, the component $`X_0`$ must have least codimension. Hence, the codimension of $`𝒵_{2,k}^{m,n}`$ in these cases is given by the codimension of $`X_0`$, which is $`(m1)(n1)k`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 5.3.

Note that when $`(m,n)=(3,4)`$, the codimension of the components is constant in $`s`$. Hence, in this case, all components have the same dimension.

## 6. Submaximal Minors: The General Situation

In this section, we will use Theorem 5.1 as a building block to derive results about $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ in general, when $`r<m`$. The first one is easy:

###### Theorem 6.1.

The variety $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ in the submaximal case ($`r<m`$) has at least $`1+k/2`$ components.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2.8, $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ has at least as many components as its subvariety $`Z_0`$, and the components of this subvariety are in one-to-one correspondence with those of $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$. Proceeding thus, $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ has at least as many components as $`𝒵_{2,k}^{mr+2,nr+2}`$, and this last variety has $`1+k/2`$ components. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is quite clear that the components of $`𝒵_{2,k}^{m,n}`$ intersect one another. For instance, the origin is in $`Y_L`$ and is also in each of the $`X_s`$. (For, as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, the line between the origin and any point $`PT_s`$ with some $`x_{i,j}^{(s)}0`$ has to lie in $`X_s`$.) But, as well, it is quite easy to find lots of other points of intersection between the various components. For example, if $`k4`$, then there are at least three components, $`X_0`$, $`X_1`$ and $`Y_L`$. The rows $`𝐮_i^{(k1)}`$ are free on both $`X_1`$ and $`Y_L`$, and it is then easy to see that the point with zeros in all rows except in the rows $`𝐮_i^{(k1)}`$ is in both $`X_1`$ and $`Y_L`$. If $`k=2`$, then the components are $`X_0`$ and $`Y_1`$. For any nonzero $`\lambda F`$ and for any point $`PX_0`$ with some $`𝐮_i^{(0)}0`$, the point with coordinates $`\lambda 𝐮_i^{(0)},𝐮_i^{(1)}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, also satisfies the equations of $`𝒵_{2,2}^{m,n}`$, so when $`\lambda `$ equals zero, we get a point in $`X_0Y_1`$. Similarly, if $`k=3`$, then the point with coordinates $`\lambda ^2𝐮_i^{(0)},\lambda 𝐮_i^{(1)},𝐮_i^{(2)}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, also satisfies the equations of $`𝒵_{2,3}^{m,n}`$, so once again, if we start with a point in $`X_0`$ with some $`𝐮_i^{(0)}0`$ and let $`\lambda `$ equal zero, we get a point in $`X_0Y_1`$.

From this, we get the following trivially:

###### Theorem 6.2.

The varieties $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ when $`r<m`$ are not normal. They are also not Cohen-Macaulay, except possibly in the case where $`(m,n)=(1+r,2+r)`$.

###### Proof.

In the case of $`2\times 2`$ minors, the fact that the varieties are not normal follows from the fact that we have explicitly found components that intersect nontrivially, while the fact that they are not Cohen-Macaulay except possibly when $`(m,n)=(3,4)`$ follows from the fact that components with different dimensions intersect nontrivially (see Remark 5.3). In the general case, we repeatedly invoke the birational isomorphism of Theorem 2.3 between the subvariety $`Z_0`$ (which is a union of some of the components of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$) and the variety $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}\times 𝐀^{k(m+n1)}`$, and then reduce to the case $`𝒵_{2,k}^{mr+2,nr+2}`$. Note that the image of the birational isomorphism is the open subset of $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}\times 𝐀^{k(m+n1)}`$ where the free variable $`x_{m,n}^{(0)}0`$ (see Remark 2.4), so any intersection between components of $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$ of dimensions $`d_1`$ and $`d_2`$ will indeed manifest itself as an intersection between components of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ (in fact of the subvariety $`Z_0`$ of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$) of dimensions $`d_1+k(m+n1)`$ and $`d_2+k(m+n1)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For $`r3`$ (and $`r<m`$), it is somewhat more difficult (and cumbersome) to determine explicitly the components of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$. Recall that our variety $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ decomposes into $`Z_0`$ and $`Z_1`$ as in Theorem 2.8. The components of $`Z_0`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with those of $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$, while the components of $`Z_1`$ are determined by those of $`𝒵_{r,kr}^{m,n}`$ when $`k>r`$, and of course, when $`kr`$, $`Z_1`$ is isomorphic to $`𝐀^{mn(k1)}`$ (by Lemma 2.1). Now, even if we are able to determine inductively the components of $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$ and those of $`𝒵_{r,kr}^{m,n}`$ (when $`k>r`$), it is quite difficult to determine how these various components sit inside $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$. Specifically, it is quite difficult to determine if any of the components of $`Z_1`$ live inside any of the components of $`Z_0`$. (It is clear that no component of $`Z_0`$ can live inside any component of $`Z_1`$, since every component of $`Z_0`$ contains points with $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}0`$.) But there is one special situation where one can indeed answer this question explicitly, and this is in the case where $`k<r`$. We have the following:

###### Proposition 6.3.

In the case where $`k<r`$, the subvariety $`Z_1`$ of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ is contained in $`Z_0`$. The components of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ and their codimensions in $`𝐀^{mnk}`$ in this case are hence determined completely by the components of $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$ and their codimensions in $`𝐀^{(m1)(n1)k}`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the subvariety $`V`$ of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ defined by setting all $`2\times 2`$ minors of degree zero to zero, i.e., defined by setting all $`𝐮_i^{(0)}𝐮_j^{(0)}=0`$ for all $`1i<jm`$. The equations for $`V`$ are thus the standard equations for $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ along with all $`2\times 2`$ minors of degree zero. It is clear that every point on $`Z_1`$ satisfies these equations, so $`Z_1V`$. Since $`r(k1)+2`$, every $`r`$-fold wedge product of vectors $`𝐮_i^{(l)}`$ of total degree at most $`k1`$ must contain at least two factors of degree zero. It follows that $`_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ is already contained in the ideal generated by all $`2\times 2`$ minors of degree zero, which is an ideal that is known classically to be prime, . Hence, $`V`$ is an irreducible variety, isomorphic to $`𝒵_{2,1}^{m,n}.`$ The components of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ come from either $`Z_1`$ or $`Z_0`$. Since $`V`$ cannot be contained wholly in any component of $`Z_1`$ (as there are clearly points on $`V`$ where not all $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ are zero), we find $`VZ_0`$. It follows that $`Z_1Z_0`$. Thus the components of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ all come from $`Z_0`$, and Theorem 2.8 now finishes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

We use the result above to determine the components of the tangent bundle to the classical determinantal varieties in the case of submaximal minors:

###### Corollary 6.4.

When $`k=2`$ (i.e., when we consider the tangent bundle to $`𝒵_{r,1}^{m,n}`$), and when $`r<m`$, $`𝒵_{r,2}^{m,n}`$ has exactly two components. One of them is the closure of any of the open sets $`U_{[i_1,\mathrm{},i_{r1}|j_1,\mathrm{},j_{r1}]}`$ of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$, where the $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minor of degree zero determined by rows $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_{r1}`$ and columns $`j_1,\mathrm{},j_{r1}`$ is nonzero, and hence also of their union. This component has codimension $`2(mr+1)(nr+1)`$. The other is the subvariety defined by setting all $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minors of degree zero to zero, and has codimension $`(mr+2)(nr+2)`$.

###### Proof.

The number of components and their codimension comes from repeated applications of Proposition 6.3 above. By the proposition, the components of $`𝒵_{r,2}^{m,n}`$ are in one-to-one correspondence (via the birational isomorphism of Theorem 2.3) to the components of $`𝒵_{r1,2}^{m1,n1}`$. If $`r1=2`$, then the components of $`𝒵_{r1,2}^{m1,n1}`$ and their codimensions are described by Theorem 5.1. Otherwise, we repeat the process, until we come to $`𝒵_{2,2}^{mr+2,nr+2}`$.

It remains to establish the description of the components. We proceed by induction on $`r`$. When $`r=2`$, this is precisely the content of Theorem 5.1, as also of Lemma 2.7. Note that if $`P_0`$ is the prime corresponding to $`Z_0`$, then $`P_0`$ does not contain any $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$, while if $`P_1`$ is the prime corresponding to $`Z_1`$, then $`P_1`$ is the minimal prime of $`_{2,2}^{m,n}`$ that contains all $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ (Lemma 2.6). Now assume that the theorem is true for the variety $`𝒵_{r1,2}^{m1,n1}`$. We will invoke the notation of Theorem 2.3. The assumption shows that there are exactly two minimal primes of $`_{r1,2}^{m1,n1}`$ in $`T`$. One of them, call it $`Q_0`$, does not contain any $`(r2)\times (r2)`$ minors of the degree zero matrix $`((z_{i,j}^{(0)}))`$ ($`1im1,1jn1`$), since otherwise, the component $`Z(Q_0)`$ corresponding to $`Q_0`$ cannot contain the open set where this minor is nonzero. The other, call it $`Q_1`$ is the unique minimal prime over the ideal of $`T`$ generated by $`_{r1,2}^{m1,n1}`$ and the various $`(r2)\times (r2)`$ minors of the degree zero matrix $`((z_{i,j}^{(0)}))`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_1`$ in $`S[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1]`$ be the images (respectively) of $`Q_0T^{}[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1]`$ and $`Q_1T^{}[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1]`$ under the inverse map $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$. Notice that the various $`(r2)\times (r2)`$ minors of the degree zero matrix $`((z_{i,j}^{(0)}))`$ are just the generators of the ideal $`_{r2,1}^{m1,n1}`$. By the proof of Theorem 2.3, these generators go to the generators of $`_{r1,1}^{m,n}[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1]`$ under the inverse map $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$. Thus, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_1`$ contains all generators of $`_{r1,1}^{m,n}[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1]`$. On the other hand, the standard generators for $`_{r1,1}^{m,n}[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1]`$ are those that come from $`_{r,1}^{m,n}`$: these are just the various $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minors of our $`m\times n`$ degree zero matrix $`X(0)=((x_{i,j}^{(0)}))`$. Thus, the pullback of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_1`$, call it $`P_1`$, contains all $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minors of degree zero of $`X(t)`$. Moreover, since $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_1`$ is the unique minimal ideal of $`S[(x_{m,n}^{(0)})^1]`$ lying over the ideal generated by $`_{r,1}^{m,n}`$ and the $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minors of degree zero of $`X(t)`$, $`P_1`$, being its pullback, is the unique minimal prime of $`_{r,1}^{m,n}`$ lying over the ideal generated by $`_{r,1}^{m,n}`$ and the $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minors of degree zero of $`X(t)`$. Thus, the component corresponding to $`P_1`$ is the subvariety of $`𝒵_{r,2}^{m,n}`$ obtained by setting all $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minors of degree zero to zero.

As for the description of $`P_0`$, it is clear that $`P_0`$ cannot contain any $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minor $`[i_1,\mathrm{},i_{r1}|j_1,\mathrm{},j_{r1}]`$ of degree zero, since this minor is already in $`P_1`$ and would hence be zero on all of $`𝒵_{r,2}^{m,n}`$ if it were also in $`P_0`$, a contradiction. Recasting this in the language of open sets, for any $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minor of degree zero of $`X(t)`$ indexed by rows $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_{r1}`$ and columns $`j_1,\mathrm{},j_{r1}`$, we must have $`U_{[i_1,\mathrm{},i_{r1}|j_1,\mathrm{},j_{r1}]}Z(P_0)`$, since $`𝒵_{r,2}^{m,n}=Z(P_0)Z(P_1)`$ and since the minor $`[i_1,\mathrm{},i_{r1}|j_1,\mathrm{},j_{r1}]`$ is zero on $`Z(P_1)`$. Because $`Z(P_0)`$ is irreducible and $`U_{[i_1,\mathrm{},i_{r1}|j_1,\mathrm{},j_{r1}]}`$ is clearly nonempty, the closure of $`U_{[i_1,\mathrm{},i_{r1}|j_1,\mathrm{},j_{r1}]}`$ must be all of $`Z(P_0)`$. This must then trivially be true of the union of all these open sets indexed by these minors. (As well, this is true of their intersection, as the intersection is also nonempty). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 6.5.

Except when $`(m,n)=(1+r,1+r)`$ or $`(m,n)=(1+r,2+r)`$, the corollary can be obtained very easily without recourse to the machinery of this paper. Write $`U`$ for the union of the open sets where some $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ degree zero minor of $`X(0)`$ is nonzero. Note that the portion of the classical degree zero variety $`𝒵_{r,1}^{m,n}`$ where some $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minor is nonzero is precisely the set of smooth points of $`𝒵_{r,1}^{m,n}`$. The variety $`𝒵_{r,2}^{m,n}`$ is the union of two subvarieties: one, call it $`X`$, is the closure of $`U`$, and the other, call it $`Y`$ is the subvariety where all $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ degree zero minors of $`X(0)`$ are zero. It is easy to see that $`U`$ is irreducible of the stated codimension, since the fibers over any point of $`𝒵_{r,1}^{m,n}`$ where some $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ is nonzero are all linear spaces of the same dimension. Hence $`X`$ is irreducible of the stated codimension. It is also easy to see that the Jacobian matrix defining tangent spaces to classical variety $`𝒵_{r,1}^{m,n}`$ is zero when all $`(r1)\times (r1)`$ minors are zero, so indeed, the tangent spaces at such points are simply copies of $`𝐀^{mn}`$. Since the base space $`𝒵_{r1,1}^{m,n}`$ is irreducible, $`Y`$ is irreducible as well, and it has the stated codimension. It is clear that $`X`$ cannot be contained in $`Y`$ as $`U`$ is nonempty. Except for the given exceptional values of $`(m,n)`$, the dimension of $`Y`$ is greater than that of $`X`$, so $`Y`$ cannot be contained in $`X`$ as well. It follows that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are precisely the components of $`𝒵_{r,2}^{m,n}`$.

We end this section with an inductive scheme for computing the codimension of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ in the case $`r<m`$. The induction is based on $`r`$, and we will assume that for all $`r^{}`$ with $`2r^{}<r`$ and for all $`m`$, $`n`$ with $`r^{}<mn`$, and for all $`k2`$, we know the codimension of $`𝒵_{r^{},k}^{m,n}`$. (The starting point for the induction is Theorem 5.1, and the ideas here parallel the codimension computations of Theorem 5.1.)

Write $`k=\lambda r+\mu `$, for $`\lambda 1`$, and $`0\mu <k`$. (When $`k<r`$, we already know that the components, and their codimensions, are determined by those of $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$, thanks to Proposition 6.3 above.) We now have the following sequence of subvarieties:

* We will write $`Y_0`$ for our variety $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$, and $`X_0`$ for its subvariety $`Z_0`$. Thus, $`X_0`$ is birational to $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}\times 𝐀^{k(m+n1)}`$. Write $`c_0`$ for the codimension of $`𝒵_{r1,k}^{m1,n1}`$ in $`𝐀^{(m1)(n1)k}`$. Then $`X_0`$ also has codimension $`c_0`$. We will assume that $`c_0`$ is known by induction.
* We will write $`Y_1`$ for the subvariety $`Z_1`$ of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$—this is obtained by setting all $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ to zero. $`Y_1`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒵_{r,kr}^{m,n}\times 𝐀^{mn(r1)}`$. We will write $`X_1`$ for the subvariety “$`Z_0`$” of $`Y_1`$. It is birational to $`𝒵_{r1,kr}^{m1,n1}\times 𝐀^{m+n1}`$. Write $`c_1`$ for the codimension of $`𝒵_{r1,kr}^{m1,n1}`$ in $`𝐀^{(m1)(n1)(kr)}`$. Then the codimension of $`X_1`$ is $`c_1+mn`$, where the extra codimension $`mn`$ comes from the fact that $`X_1`$ sits in the portion of $`𝐀^{mnk}`$ where all $`x_{i,j}^{(0)}`$ are zero. We will assume that $`c_1`$ is known.
* Proceeding thus, let $`Y_s`$ ($`s=1,\mathrm{},\lambda 1`$) be the subvariety of $`Y_{s1}`$ where all $`x_{i,j}^{(s1)}`$ are zero, and, let $`X_s`$ be the subvariety “$`Z_0`$” of $`Y_s`$. Then $`X_s`$ has codimension $`c_s+smn`$, where $`c_s`$ is the codimension of $`𝒵_{r1,krs}^{m1,n1}`$ in $`𝐀^{(m1)(n1)(krs)}`$. We will assume that $`c_s`$ is known.
* If $`\mu =0`$, i.e., if $`k=\lambda r`$, then $`Y_\lambda `$, the subvariety of $`Y_{\lambda 1}`$ where all $`x_{i,j}^{(\lambda 1)}`$ are zero, is already an affine space of codimension $`mn\lambda `$ in $`𝐀^{mnk}`$. For convenience we will take $`c_\lambda =0`$ in this case, so the codimension of $`Y_\lambda `$ may be written for this case as $`c_\lambda +\lambda mn`$.
* If $`\mu >0`$, then $`Y_\lambda `$ is isomorphic to $`𝒵_{r,\mu }^{m,n}\times 𝐀^{\lambda (r1)mn}`$. Since $`\mu <r`$, we can reduce its codimension computations to that of $`𝒵_{r1,\mu }^{m1,n1}`$ by Proposition 6.3, so we will assume that $`c_\lambda `$, the codimension of $`𝒵_{r,\mu }^{m,n}`$ is known. It follows that the codimension of $`Y_\lambda `$ is $`c_\lambda +\lambda mn`$. ($`X_\lambda `$ in this case will equal $`Y_\lambda `$ by Proposition 6.3.)

Our result is the following:

###### Theorem 6.6.

The codimension of $`𝒵_{r,k}^{m,n}`$ in the case $`r<m`$ is the minimum of the numbers $`c_s+smn`$, $`s=0,1,\mathrm{},\lambda `$.

###### Proof.

We will show that the codimension of the subvariety $`Y_s`$, $`s=0,1,\mathrm{},\lambda `$ is the minimum of $`c_s^{}+s^{}mn`$, $`s^{}=s,s+1,\mathrm{},\lambda `$. When $`s=\lambda `$ the result is clear. For $`s<\lambda `$, the codimension of $`Y_{s+1}`$, by reverse induction, is the minimum of $`c_s^{}+s^{}mn`$, $`s^{}=s+1,\mathrm{},\lambda `$. For such $`s`$, the codimension of $`Y_s`$ is the minimum of the codimension of $`Y_{s+1}`$ and $`X_s`$, since $`Y_s`$ is the union of $`Y_{s+1}`$ and $`X_s`$. Putting this together with our inductive result, the codimension of $`Y_s`$, is the minimum of $`c_s^{}+s^{}mn`$, $`s^{}=s,s+1,\mathrm{},\lambda `$.

$`\mathrm{}`$


format: text

text:
# Enhanced nonperturbative effects in jet distributions

## Abstract

We consider the triple differential distribution $`\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }/\text{d}E_J\text{d}m_J^2\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_J`$ for two-jet events at center of mass energy $`M`$, smeared over the endpoint region $`m_J^2M^2`$, $`\left|2E_JM\right|\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}\mathrm{\Delta }M`$. The leading nonperturbative correction, suppressed by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, is given by the matrix element of a single operator. A similar analysis is performed for three jet events, and the generalization to any number of jets is discussed. At order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, non-perturbative effects in four or more jet events are completely determined in terms of two matrix elements which can be measured in two and three jet events.

This paper studies the semi-inclusive two-jet distribution $`\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }/(\text{d}E_J\text{d}m_J^2\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_J)`$ in high energy processes such as $`Zq\overline{q}`$, where $`E_J`$ and $`m_J`$ are the energy and invariant mass of one of the jets, $`J`$. No restriction is placed on the kinematics of the second jet, $`J^{}`$. We are interested in non-perturbative effects that are enhanced in the endpoint region $`\left|2E_JM\right|M`$, $`m_J^2M^2`$. In the endpoint region the jet $`J`$ is narrow, and has energy close to $`M/2`$. At leading order in the parton model description, the quark and antiquark each have energy $`M/2`$, and $`m_J^2=0`$. Gluon radiation and non-perturbative effects such as hadronization can cause $`E_J`$ and $`m_J^2`$ to deviate from their leading order parton model values. The aim of this letter is to characterize these non-perturbative effects in QCD in terms of operator matrix elements and study the relationship between nonperturbative effects in two jets, and events with three or more jets. These non-perturbative effects do not depend on the precise jet definition; for example, a suitable choice is the Sterman-Weinberg prescription SW .

In the endpoint region, the decay distribution for two jet events can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\text{d}E_J\text{d}m_J^2\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_J}}=T(M,\mathrm{\Omega }_J)J(M,m_J^2/M)`$ (1)
$`\times {\displaystyle }\text{d}k^+J(M,k^+)S(2E_JMk^+m_J^2/\left(2E_J\right)).`$
Here the hard function $`T`$ and the jet function $`J`$ are calculable perturbatively and $`S`$ is a nonperturbative shape function. The precise form of the perturbative expansions of these functions depends on the jet definition used. In the endpoint region this distribution must be smeared over a suitable region of $`E_J`$ and $`m_J^2`$ to be physically meaningful. This general form for the decay distribution has been obtained EventShapes  previously using standard “diagrammatic” factorization methods review . We begin this paper by reviewing the derivation of Eq. (1) using soft collinear effective field theory (SCET).

The effective field theory SCET scet1 ; bs ; bpssoft  is appropriate for the kinematic region of interest. SCET describes the interaction of collinear and ultrasoft (usoft) degrees of freedom with momenta scaling as $`p_c=(np,\overline{n}p,p^{})M(\lambda ^2,1,\lambda )`$ and $`p_{us}M(\lambda ^2,\lambda ^2,\lambda ^2)`$. The light-like vectors $`n`$ and $`\overline{n}`$ satisfy $`n^0=\overline{n}^0=1`$ and $`𝐧=\overline{𝐧}`$ and the perpendicular components of any four vector $`V`$ are defined by $`V_{}^\mu =V^\mu (nV)\overline{n}^\mu /2(\overline{n}V)n^\mu /2`$. For our analysis, $`\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Delta }/M1`$. The effective theory provides a simple method for the factorization of hard, collinear and usoft degrees of freedom at the operator level. For example, the factorization of usoft degrees of freedom arises because they can be decoupled from the collinear degrees of freedom using a simple field redefinition. SCET gives field theoretical definitions of the various ingredients in Eq. (1).

The first step in the SCET derivation of Eq. (1) is matching the full theory current $`j^\mu `$ onto SCET. The current in the effective theory at leading order in $`\lambda `$ is

$`j^\mu =[\overline{\xi }_{\overline{n}}W_{\overline{n}}]\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu C(𝒫^{},\overline{𝒫})[W_n^{}\xi _n],`$ (2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =g_V\gamma _{}^\mu +g_A\gamma _{}^\mu \gamma _5`$, $`g_{V,A}`$ are the vector and axial couplings of the quarks to the $`Z`$ boson, and $`C(𝒫^{},\overline{𝒫})`$ is the matching coefficient which is one at tree level. The field $`\xi _n`$ denotes a collinear fermion in the $`n`$ direction, and we have used the convention

$`\xi _n(x)={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{p}}{}}e^{i\stackrel{~}{p}x}\xi _{n,\stackrel{~}{p}}(x),`$ (3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ is the label momentum which contains components of order $`1`$ and order $`\lambda `$. The order $`\lambda ^2`$ components are associated with the spacetime dependence of the fields.

The label operators $`𝒫`$, $`\overline{𝒫}`$ pick out the order one momenta of the collinear fields and $`W_n(x)`$ denotes a Wilson line of collinear gluons along the path in the $`\overline{n}`$ direction. The Wilson lines $`W_{n,\overline{n}}`$ are required to ensure gauge invariance of the current in the effective theory bs . The Lagrangian of the effective theory does not contain any direct coupling of collinear particles moving in the two separate directions defined by $`n`$ and $`\overline{n}`$ bfprs , however they can still interact with one another via the emission of usoft gluons. The coupling of collinear and usoft degrees of freedom in the Lagrangian can be eliminated via the BPS field redefinition bpssoft

$`\xi _nY_n^{}\xi _n,A_nY_n^{}A_nY_n`$ (4)
where

$`Y_n(z)=\mathrm{exp}\left[ig{\displaystyle \text{d}snA_{us}(ns+z)}\right]`$ (5)
denotes a path-ordered Wilson line of usoft gluons in the $`n`$ direction from $`s=0`$ to $`s=\mathrm{}`$, since we are dealing with final state collinear fields. \[For annihilation, $`Y_n`$ is from $`s=\mathrm{}`$ to $`s=0`$.\] It is well known from the “diagrammatic” approach to factorization that the usoft degrees of freedom couple to collinear degrees of freedom via a Wilson line pink .

To derive the factorized form in Eq. (1), we start from the general expression

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\text{d}^4r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle \underset{JX}{}}(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(Mp_Jp_X)\delta ^4(rp_J)`$ (6)
$`\times \left|ϵ_\mu J,X|j^\mu |0\right|^2,`$
where the sum includes the phase space integrations over all the particles in the final state, $`j^\mu `$ denotes the current producing the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair, and $`ϵ_\mu `$ is the polarization of the decaying particle. The final state hadrons have been divided into those in the quark jet $`J`$, with total momentum $`r`$ and the remaining hadrons (including the antiquark jet) which form $`X`$.

Using these definitions, the matrix element of the current in Eq. (6) becomes

$`JX|j^\mu |0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{q}_1\stackrel{~}{q}_2}{}}C(q_1^+,q_2^{})J|T\left\{[\overline{\xi }_{\overline{n}}W_{\overline{n}}]_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1\alpha }^a\right\}|0\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_{\alpha \beta }`$ (7)
$`\times X\left|T\left\{[Y_{\overline{n}}Y_n^{}]_a{}_{}{}^{b}[W_n^{}\xi _n]_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2\beta b}^{}\right\}\right|0,`$
where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ $`(a,b)`$ denote spin (color) indices, and the subscript $`[]_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ denotes the total label momentum of the operator inside. In Eq. (7), and in the subsequent equations, we will use the notation $`npp^+`$, $`\overline{n}pp^{}`$ for any four-momentum $`p`$.

The operators inside the matrix elements in Eq. (7) are time-ordered. The operator $`T\left\{Y_n\right\}`$ is a Wilson line where the operator time-ordering agrees with the path-ordering of matrix multiplication, $`T\left\{Y_n\right\}=Y_n`$. The operator $`T\left\{Y_n^{}\right\}`$ has operator time-ordering in the opposite order as the path-ordering of matrix multiplication. The two orderings can be made to coincide by taking the transpose of all the matrix indices, so that $`T\{Y_{na}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\}`$ is the Wilson line in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ representation, i.e., $`T\{Y_{na}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\}=\overline{Y}_n{}_{}{}^{b}_a`$. Similar results hold for the anti-time ordered products.

Using Eq. (7), the differential distribution becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\text{d}^4r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M}}{\displaystyle \text{d}^4s(2\pi )^4\delta ^4(Mrs)}`$ (8)
$`ϵ_\mu ϵ^\nu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \right)_{\alpha \beta }\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\nu \right)_{\rho \sigma }\left|C(r^+,s^{})\right|^2`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}\delta ^4(sp_X)\left|X|T\left\{[Y_{\overline{n}}Y_n^{}][W_n^{}\xi _n]_{\stackrel{~}{s}}|0\right\}\right|^2\right]_{\beta \rho a}^c`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \underset{J}{}}\delta ^4(rp_J)\left|J|T\left\{[\overline{\xi }_{\overline{n}}W_{\overline{n}}]_{\stackrel{~}{r}}|0\right\}\right|^2\right]_{\sigma \alpha c}^a.`$
The two terms in square bracket can be simplified, following Ref. bpssoft . For the second term we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{J}{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \text{d}^4ze^{i(rp_J)z}\left[\left|J|T\left\{[\overline{\xi }_{\overline{n}}W_{\overline{n}}]_{\stackrel{~}{r}}|0\right\}\right|^2\right]_{\sigma \alpha c}^a}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}/}{2}}\right)_{\sigma \alpha }\delta _c^aJ_{\stackrel{~}{r}}(r^{}),`$
where the last equality defines $`J_{\stackrel{~}{r}}(r^{})`$.

Combining the first term with the $`\delta _c^a`$ in Eq. (9) gives

$`{\displaystyle \underset{X}{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \text{d}^4ze^{i(sp_X)z}\left[\left|X|T\left\{[Y_{\overline{n}}Y_n^{}][W_n^{}\xi _n]_{\stackrel{~}{s}}\right\}|0\right|^2\right]_{\beta \rho a}^a}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle \text{d}k^+J_{\stackrel{~}{s}}(k^+)S(s^+k^+)\left(\frac{n/}{2}\right)_{\beta \rho }}.`$
The shape function $`S(k^+)`$ is defined by EventShapes

$`S(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}u}{2\pi }e^{iku}0\left|\text{Tr}\overline{T}\left\{[Y_nY_{\overline{n}}^{}](nu)\right\}T\left\{[Y_{\overline{n}}Y_n^{}](0)\right\}\right|0}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}0|\overline{Y}_n^c{}_{a}{}^{}Y_{\overline{n}c}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}\delta (kin)Y_{\overline{n}}{}_{b}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{e}\overline{Y}_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}{}_{e}{}^{}|0.`$
The Wilson loop, shown in Fig. 1, is regulated to preserve reparametrization invariance rpi , and is a function of $`\overline{n}nu`$. $`S(k)`$ is normalized so that $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\text{d}kS(k)=1.`$

The jet function in Eq. (9) depends on $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$, which has both $`+`$ and $``$ components. One can align $`\overline{n}`$ with the jet-axis, i.e. choose $`𝐫_{}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. With this choice, we write

$`J(r^+,r^{})=J_{r^+,\mathrm{𝟎}_{}}(r^{}).`$ (12)
Combining Eqs. (8)–(12) and using $`\text{d}^4r=(M/4)\text{d}E_J\text{d}m_J^2\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_J`$ gives Eq. (1) with the hard function defined by

$`T(M,\mathrm{\Omega }_J)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{512\pi ^4}}|C(M,M)|^2ϵ_\mu ϵ^\nu \text{Tr}[\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu n/\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\nu \overline{n}/].`$ (13)
The simple form for the shape function in Eq. (11) arises because the decay distribution is totally inclusive on the unobserved usoft degrees of freedom and on the other jet $`J^{}`$. This would not be the case for the thrust distribution near $`T=1`$, since the deviation of $`T`$ from unity depends on the momentum of the usoft degrees of freedom.

We can simplify the discussion by restricting ourselves to the leading order in perturbation theory, where

$`C(M,M)=1,J(M,k^+)=2\pi \delta (k^+).`$ (14)
Perturbative corrections to this result can be included by calculating the two jet functions $`J`$ and the Wilson coefficient $`T`$ to higher orders in perturbation theory. For Sterman-Weinberg jets SW , the perturbative corrections contain logarithms of the cone angle $`\delta `$ and the minimum energy cut $`E_c`$. In the effective theory, logarithms of $`\delta `$ arise for precisely the same reason as in the full theory; one has to separate three collinear-field final states into two-jet and three-jet events. Logarithms of $`E_c`$ arise in the effective theory from the separation into soft and collinear fields. One can sum these logarithms using renormalization group methods in the effective theory.

Integrating Eq. (1) over $`m_J^2`$ using Eq. (14) gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\text{d}E_J\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_J}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_J}}S(2E_JM)+\mathrm{}`$ (15)
where $`\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}/\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_J`$ is the parton model differential decay rate and the ellipsis denotes subdominant perturbative and power corrections. To this order the shape of the jet energy spectrum is determined entirely by the non-perturbative shape function. Non-perturbative usoft radiation is not preferentially directed along the jet directions and will reduce the energy associated with the jets. Thus, $`S(k)=0`$ for $`k>0`$.

To proceed further we consider observables in which we smear the jet energy distribution over a region $`|2E_JM|\mathrm{\Delta }M`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ 111Smearing Eq. (1) over an energy region of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ misses corrections suppressed by powers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/M`$. For example, operators with $`𝐃_{}`$ are suppressed, and so are dropped in the definition of the jet function in SCET. These effects are calculable perturbatively and can easily be included.. In this region there are enhanced non-perturbative corrections suppressed only by powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Note that for the total rate the non-perturbative corrections are much smaller since they are suppressed by powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/M`$. To be more precise, consider a smooth window function $`w_\mathrm{\Delta }(E_J)`$ which when integrated over $`E_J`$ is normalized to unity and has support concentrated in the region $`|E_JM/2|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then,

$$\left(\frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_J}\right)_\mathrm{\Delta }=𝑑E_Jw_\mathrm{\Delta }(E_J)\frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\text{d}E_J\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_J},$$
(16)
is such an observable. For it we can expand the shape function in a power series, given by

$`S(k)=\delta (k)\delta ^{}(k)0|O_1|0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta ^{\prime \prime }(k)0|O_2|0+\mathrm{}`$ (17)
where

$`O_m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{Tr}\left[Y_{\overline{n}}^{}(inD)^mY_{\overline{n}}\right]`$ (18)
We can rewrite $`O_1`$ as

$`O_1=O_1^q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\text{d}s𝒢_{n\overline{n}}(\overline{n}s),`$ (19)
where

$`𝒢_{n_1n_2}(\overline{n}s)=Y_{\overline{n}}(\overline{n}s,0)^{}n_1^\mu n_2^\nu G_{\mu \nu }Y_{\overline{n}}(\overline{n}s,0).`$ (20)
Here, $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ is the gluon field-strength (with a factor of the strong coupling absorbed into it) and $`Y_{\overline{n}}(\overline{n}s,0`$) denotes a usoft Wilson line along the $`\overline{n}`$ direction from $`0`$ to $`\overline{n}s`$. Note that the Fourier transform of $`S(k)`$ is a function only of the combination $`\left(\overline{n}n\right)u`$, so the matrix element of $`O_m`$ must have the form

$`0|O_m|0=\left(\overline{n}n\right)^m𝒜_m^q,`$ (21)
where $`𝒜_m^q`$ is a number of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^m`$. If the observed jet is the antiquark jet, then $`in`$ in Eq. (19) is replaced by $`i\overline{n}`$, and the leading correction is given by the vacuum matrix element of the antiquark operator

$`O_m^{\overline{q}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{Tr}[\overline{Y}_n^{}(i\overline{n}D)^m\overline{Y}_n],`$ (22)
which is $`\left(\overline{n}n\right)𝒜_m^{\overline{q}}`$. By charge conjugation invariance, $`𝒜_m^{\overline{q}}=𝒜_m^q`$.

The nonperturbative corrections to the differential decay rate in Eq. (15) are singular at $`E_J=M/2`$. This is also the case for the perturbative corrections. However for the smeared observable in Eq. (16) the expansion of the shape function gives,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_J}}\right)_\mathrm{\Delta }=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_J}}\right)\left[1+w_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(M/2)𝒜_1^q+\mathrm{}\right].`$ (23)
Since the matrix elements of the operators scale as $`𝒜_m^q\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^m`$ and the $`m`$’th derivative of the window function (evaluated at $`E_J=M/2`$) scales as $`1/\mathrm{\Delta }^m`$, the square brackets on the right hand side of Eq. (23) contain an expansion in powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

A similar calculation also applies for events with more than two jets in the final state. For example, three jet events contain an energetic gluon radiated off one of the quarks at large angle. The subscripts $`1,2,3`$ refer to the quark, gluon and antiquark jets, respectively. One of the jets is unobserved, and is summed over. Consider the case where the antiquark jet (jet 3) is unobserved, and the quark and gluon jet are observed. The light like vectors $`n_{1,2}`$ are defined by $`n_1=(1,𝐧_1)`$, $`n_2=(1,𝐧_\mathrm{𝟐})`$ where $`𝐧_{1,2}`$ are unit vectors in the direction of the two observed jets. One can the construct the third vector

$`n_3^0=1,𝐧_3={\displaystyle \frac{E_1𝐧_1+E_2𝐧_2}{\left|E_1𝐧_1+E_2𝐧_2\right|}},`$ (24)
using only information from the two observed jets. A similar argument holds if the quark jet, or the gluon jet, is the unobserved jet.

Let $`i`$ and $`j`$ denote the two observed jets, and $`r`$ denote the unobserved jet, where $`(i,j,r)`$ is some permutation of $`(1,2,3)`$. We find at tree level that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}}{\text{d}E_i\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_i\text{d}E_j\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_j}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{(0)}}{\text{d}E_id\mathrm{\Omega }_i\text{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_j}}n_rn_j`$
$`\times S_{ij}\left(n_rn_iE_i+n_rn_jE_jM\right),`$
for the differential decay distribution for the observed jets $`i`$ and $`j`$ in terms of a non-perturbative shape function $`S_{ij}`$.

In the three-jet case, the current in SCET contains the gluon field $`A_{n_2}`$. Factoring the usoft degrees of freedom results in the shape function

$`S_{ij}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}u}{2\pi }e^{iku}\mathrm{Tr}0\left|\overline{T}\left\{[Y_{n_3}Y_{n_2}^{}T^AY_{n_2}Y_{n_1}^{}](un_r)\right\}T\left\{[Y_{n_1}Y_{n_2}^{}T^AY_{n_2}Y_{n_3}^{}](0)\right\}\right|0}.`$ (26)
Thus, a different shape function determines the usoft physics in three-jet events, and in general a new nonperturbative function is required for each additional jet. This is not surprising since the color structure is very different for events with different numbers of jets. The time-ordered product $`T\{Y_{na}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}Y_{nc}^{}{}_{}{}^{d}\}`$ is equal to $`(1/3)\delta _a^d\delta _c^b+2𝒴_{nAB}\left(T^A\right)_c{}_{}{}^{b}\left(T^B\right)_{a}^{}^d`$ where $`𝒴_n`$ is the adjoint Wilson line from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ in the $`n`$ direction.

In the kinematic region $`|ME_in_rn_iE_jn_rn_j|\mathrm{\Delta }`$ an expansion of $`S_{ij}(k)`$ analogous to the one in Eq. (17) can be performed, and the first correction to the smeared rate is determined by the operator

$`O_1^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{Tr}Y_{n_1}^{}\left(in_rD\right)Y_{n_1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{Tr}\overline{Y}_{n_3}^{}\left(in_rD\right)\overline{Y}_{n_3}`$ (27)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{Tr}𝒴_{n_2}^{}\left(in_rD\right)𝒴_{n_2}.`$
The matrix element of this operator is given by

$`0|O_1^{(3)}|0`$ $`=`$ $`n_r(n_1+n_3)𝒜_1^q+n_rn_2𝒜_1^g.`$ (28)
where $`𝒜_1^q`$ is the same number that occurs in two-jet events, and is defined by Eq. (21) and $`A_1^g`$ is a new number of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$.

In three jet events with an unobserved gluon jet, $`n_r=n_2`$ and the vacuum matrix element of $`O_1^{(3)}`$ is $`n_2\left(n_1+n_3\right)A_1^q`$, and is completely determined by the two jet case. If the unobserved jet is the quark jet, then $`n_r=n_1`$, and the vacuum matrix element of $`O_1^{(3)}`$ is $`\left(n_1n_2\right)A_1^g+\left(n_1n_3\right)A_1^q`$, and if the unobserved jet is the antiquark jet, the vacuum matrix element of $`O_1^{(3)}`$ is $`\left(n_3n_2\right)A_1^g+\left(n_1n_3\right)A_1^q`$. If one cannot distinguish quark and gluon jets, then the three jet distributions are given by averaging over the unobserved jet being the quark, gluon or antiquark jet.

One can repeat the above analysis for events with four or more jets. In the endpoint regions, the generalized shape functions can be expanded as in Eq. (17), and the leading non-perturbative corrections are expressed in terms of $`𝒜_1^q`$ and $`𝒜_1^g`$ which characterize two and three-jet events. An important feature is that, even though the shape functions for events with different numbers of jets are very different, at order $`\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ no new non-perturbative quantities enter for four or more jets *after smearing* by an amount $`M\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ over the endpoint region. The reason is that the only Wilson lines that can arise from hard quark anti-quark and gluon radiation are in the $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ representations, and these already occur in the two and three jet cases. One can also predict the distributions for two jets plus a hard photon in terms of $`𝒜_1^q`$ measured in two jet events, since the adjoint Wilson line from gluon emission does not enter.

$`𝒜_1^q`$ and $`𝒜_1^g`$ can be determined by fitting to the experimental data on two and three-jet events. They can also be computed numerically by light-cone lattice gauge theory methods lattice , since they only involve Wilson lines along light-like directions.

This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under grants DOE-FG03-97ER40546 and DOE-FG03-92ER40701. We would like to thank S. Ellis, G. Korchemsky, G. Sterman, and I.W. Stewart for helpful discussions.