text:
# Gröbner bases and regularity of Rees algebras

## Introduction

Let $`B=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a polynomial ring over a field $`k`$ and $`A=B/J`$ a quotient ring of $`B`$ by a homogeneous ideal $`J`$. Let $`𝔪`$ denote the maximal graded ideal of $`A`$. Then the Rees algebra $`R=A[𝔪t]`$ may be considered a standard graded $`k`$-algebra and has a presentation $`B[y_1,\mathrm{},y_n]/I_J`$. For instance, if $`A=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, then

$$Rk[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n]/(x_iy_jx_jy_i|i,j=1,\mathrm{},n).$$

In this paper we want to compare the ideals $`J`$ and $`I_J`$ as well as their homological properties.

The generators of $`I_J`$ can be easily described as follows. For any homogeneous form $`f=_{1i_1\mathrm{}i_dn}a_{i_1\mathrm{}i_d}x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_d}B`$ of degree $`d`$ we set

$$f^{(k)}:=\underset{1i_1\mathrm{}i_dn}{}a_{i_1\mathrm{}i_d}x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_{dk}}y_{i_{dk+1}}\mathrm{}y_{i_d}$$

for $`k=0,\mathrm{},d`$. For any subset $`LB`$ of homogeneous polynomials in $`S`$ we set

$$L^{}:=\{f^{(k)}|fL,k=0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{deg}f\},$$

and let

$$H:=\{x_iy_jx_jy_i|1i<jn\}.$$

If $`L`$ is a minimal system of generators of $`I`$, then $`L^{}H`$ is a minimal system of generators of $`I_J`$ (Proposition 1.1). We will show that if $`L`$ is Gröbner basis of $`J`$ for the reverse lexicographic order induced by $`x_1>\mathrm{}>x_n>y_1>\mathrm{}>y_n`$, then $`L^{}H`$ is Gröbner basis of $`I_J`$ (Theorem 1.3). As a consequence, if $`J`$ has a quadratic Gröbner basis, then so does $`I_J`$.

The main concern of this paper is however the regularity which is a measure for the complexity of the resolution of a standard graded algebra (see \[EiG\], \[BM\]). Recall that the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of $`A`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{reg}(A):=\mathrm{max}\{b_ii|i>0\},$$

where $`b_i`$ denotes the largest degree of a generator of the $`i`$th syzygy module of $`A`$. The regularity and related invariants of a graded $`k`$-algebra (for example, the extremal Betti numbers introduced in \[BCP\]) can be expressed in terms of the cohomological invariants $`a_i=\mathrm{max}\{a|H^i(A)_a0\}`$, where $`H^i(A)`$ denotes the $`i`$th local cohomology of $`A`$ with support $`𝔪`$ (see Section 2 for more details). For instance, $`\mathrm{reg}(R)=\mathrm{max}\{a_i+i|i0\}`$. In particular, we will also study the invariant

$$a^{}(A):=\mathrm{max}\{a_i|i0\}=\mathrm{max}\{b_i|i0\}n,$$

which is another kind of regularity for $`A`$ \[Sh\], \[T2\], \[T3\]. Our results are based on the observation that the local cohomology of $`R`$ can be estimated in terms of the local cohomology of $`A`$.

If $`R`$ is the Rees algebra of an arbitrary homogeneous ideal $`I`$ of $`A`$ generated by forms of the same degree, then $`R`$ is still a standard $`k`$-algebra. In this case, we have the following estimations:

$`a^{}(A)s`$ $``$ $`a^{}(R)\mathrm{max}\{a^{}(A),a^{}(G)\},`$
$`\mathrm{reg}(A)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{reg}(R)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}(A)+1,\mathrm{reg}(G)\},`$
where $`s`$ is the minimal number of generators of $`I`$ and $`G`$ denotes the associated graded ring of $`I`$ (Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 3.5). These bounds are sharp. In particular, if $`R`$ is the Rees algebra of the graded maximal ideal of $`A`$, then

$`a^{}(A)n`$ $``$ $`a^{}(R)a^{}(A),`$
$`\mathrm{reg}(A)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{reg}(R)\mathrm{reg}(A)+1.`$
It is shown in Theorem 5.3 and Theorem 5.7 that $`a^{}(R)=a^{}(A)`$ if and only if $`a^{}(A)1`$ and that $`\mathrm{reg}(R)=\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$ if and only if there is an integer $`i`$ such that $`\mathrm{reg}(A)=a_i+i`$ and $`a_i2`$. The proofs follow from the fact that the bigraded components of the local cohomology of $`R`$ can be expressed completely by the graded components of the local cohomology of $`A`$ (see Theorem 4.2). In particular, we can show that $`\mathrm{reg}(R)=\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$ if $`\mathrm{reg}(A)=b_ii`$ and $`b_in2`$ for some index $`i`$ at which $`A`$ has an extremal Betti number (Corollary 5.9). However, an example shows that this condition is only sufficient. As applications, we compare the regularity of the Rees algebra of the ring $`B/\mathrm{in}(I)`$, where $`\mathrm{in}(I)`$ denotes the initial ideal of $`I`$, with that of $`R`$ and we estimate this regularity for the generic initial ideal $`\mathrm{Gin}(J)`$ with respect to the reverse lexicographic term order.

We will also compute the projective dimension of $`I_J`$. In Proposition 4.3 we give a precise formula for the depth of $`R`$ in terms of invariants of $`A`$. In fact,

$$\mathrm{depth}R=\mathrm{max}\{i|H_𝔪^j(A)_a=0\text{for}a1,j<i1,\text{and}a_{i1}<0\}.$$

This formula is better than Huckaba and Marley’s estimation for the depth of the Rees algebra of an arbitrary ideal in a local ring \[HM\]. Inspired by a construction of Goto \[G\] we give examples showing that for arbitrary positive numbers $`2r<d`$ there exists a standard graded $`k`$-algebra $`A`$ of dimension $`d`$ with $`\mathrm{depth}A=r`$ and $`\mathrm{depth}R=d+1`$. In these examples $`R`$ is Cohen-Macaulay, since $`dimR=d+1`$. Though the difference between the depth of $`A`$ and of $`R`$ may be large, this is not the case for the Rees ring $`R^{}`$ of a polynomial ring extension $`A[z]`$ of $`A`$. Here we have that $`\mathrm{depth}R^{}=\mathrm{depth}A+1`$ if $`a_s0`$ and $`\mathrm{depth}A[z]=\mathrm{depth}A+2`$ if $`a_s<0`$ (Corollary 4.4).

We would like to mention that if $`R`$ is the Rees algebra of a homogeneous ideal generated by forms of different degree, $`R`$ is not a standard $`k`$-algebra. Since $`R`$ is a standard graded algebra over $`A`$, one can still define the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity and the $`a^{}`$-invariant of $`R`$ with respect to this grading. These invariants have been studied recently by several authors (see e.g. \[JK\], \[Sh\], \[T1\], \[T2\]).

Acknowledgement. This paper was completed during a visit of Ngô Viêt Trung to the University of Essen im summer 2000. He would like to express his sincere thanks to the Research Group ”Arithmetic and Geometry” and to J. Herzog for support and hospitality.

## 1. Gröbner basis of Rees algebras

Let $`A`$ be a standard graded $`k`$-algebra with graded maximal ideal $`𝔪=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$. Then $`A=B/J`$ where $`B=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ is a polynomial ring, and $`JB`$ a graded ideal. The Rees algebra $`R=A[𝔪t]`$ may be considered as a bigraded module over the bigraded polynomial ring $`S=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n]`$ (where $`\mathrm{deg}x_i=(1,0)`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}y_i=(1,1)`$ for all $`i`$) via the bigraded epimorphism $`\varphi :SR`$ with $`\varphi (x_i)=x_i`$ and $`\varphi (y_i)=x_it`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Let $`I_J`$ denote the kernel of this epimorphism.

We are interested in the generators and the Gröbner basis of $`I_J`$. In order to describe $`I_J`$ we introduce the following notations.

Let $`f=_{1i_1\mathrm{}i_dn}a_{i_1\mathrm{}i_d}x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_d}B`$ be homogeneous of degree $`d`$. For $`k=0,\mathrm{},d`$ we set

$$f^{(k)}=\underset{1i_1\mathrm{}i_dn}{}a_{i_1\mathrm{}i_d}x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_{dk}}y_{i_{dk+1}}\mathrm{}y_{i_d}.$$

Notice that $`f^{(k)}`$ is bihomogeneous of degree $`(d,k)`$. For any subset $`LB`$ of homogeneous polynomials in $`S`$ we set

$$L^{}:=\{f^{(k)}|fL,k=0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{deg}f\}.$$

We further let

$$H:=\{x_iy_jx_jy_i|1i<jn\}.$$

With these notations we have

###### Proposition 1.1.

Let $`L`$ be a (minimal) system of generators of $`J`$, then $`L^{}H`$ is a (minimal) system of generators of $`I_J`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`P=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,x_1t,\mathrm{},x_nt]k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,t]`$, and $`\varphi _1:SP`$, $`\varphi _2:PR`$ be the $`k`$-algebra homomorphisms given by $`\varphi _1(x_i)=x_i`$, $`\varphi _1(y_i)=x_it`$, and $`\varphi _2(x_i)=\overline{x}_i`$, $`\varphi _2(x_it)=\overline{x}_it`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. We have $`\varphi =\varphi _2\varphi _1`$, and since $`\varphi `$ is bigraded, the ideal $`I_J`$ is bigraded. We clearly have $`L^{}HI_J`$. Let $`fI_J`$ be bigraded with $`\mathrm{deg}f=(a,b)`$. Then $`\varphi _1(f)=f(x,xt)=f(x,x)t^b`$, and so $`0=\varphi (f)=f(\overline{x},\overline{x})t^b`$, that is, $`f(\overline{x},\overline{x})=0`$. Therefore, there exist homogeneous elements $`g_iB`$ and $`f_iJ`$ such that $`f(x,x)=_{i=1}^mg_if_i`$. Let $`b_i=\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{deg}f_i,b\}`$. Then

$$\varphi _1(f)=f(x,x)t^b=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(g_it^{bb_i})(f_it^{b_i})=\varphi _1(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}g_i^{(bb_i)}f_i^{(b_i)}),$$

and so $`fL^{}H`$, since $`\mathrm{Ker}\varphi _1`$ is generated by $`H`$.

Now let $`L`$ be a minimal system of generators of $`J`$. We first show that $`\varphi _1(L^{})`$ is a minimal system of generators of the ideal $`L_J=\varphi _1(I_J)`$ in $`P`$. Indeed, $`\varphi _1(L^{})=\{f_it^b|f_iL,b=0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{deg}f_i\}`$. Suppose this is not a minimal system of generators of $`L_J`$. Then there exists an equation

$$f_it^b=\underset{j}{}\underset{k}{}(f_jt^{b_{jk}})(g_{jk}t^{c_{jk}}),$$

where $`b_{jk}\mathrm{deg}f_j`$, $`b_{jk}+c_{jk}=b`$ and $`f_jt^{b_{jk}}f_it^b`$ for all $`j`$ and $`k`$, and where all summands are bihomogeneous of degree $`(d,b)`$ with $`d=\mathrm{deg}f_i`$. Notice that the right hand sum contains no summand of the form $`(f_it^{b_{ik}})(g_{ik}t^{c_{ik}})`$. In fact, otherwise we would have $`\mathrm{deg}g_{ik}t^{c_{ik}}=(0,bb_{ik})`$, and so $`b_{ik}=b`$ which is impossible. It follows that $`f_i=_{ji}(_kg_{jk})f_j`$, a contradiction.

Now suppose that $`L^{}H`$ is not a minimal system of generators of $`I_J`$. If one of the $`f_i^{(k)}`$ is a linear combination of the other elements of $`L^{}H`$, then $`\varphi _1(L^{})`$ is not a minimal system of generators of $`L_J`$, a contradiction. Next suppose one of the elements of $`H`$, say, $`x_1y_2x_2y_1`$ is a linear combination of the other elements of $`L^{}H`$. Only the elements of bidegree $`(2,1)`$ can be involved in such a linear combination. In other words,

$$x_1y_2x_2y_1=\lambda _ff^{(1)}+h\text{with}\lambda k.$$

Here the sum is taken over all $`fL`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}f=2`$, and $`h`$ is a $`k`$-linear combination of the polynomials $`x_iy_jx_jy_i`$ different from $`x_1y_2x_2y_1`$. Since the monomial $`x_2y_1`$ does not appear in any polynomial on the right hand side of the equation, we get a contradiction. ∎

We will now compute a Gröbner basis of $`I_J`$. For the proof we will use the following Gröbner basis criterion.

###### Lemma 1.2.

Let $`Q=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_r]`$ be the polynomial ring, $`IQ`$ a graded ideal and $`L`$ a finite subset of homogeneous elements of $`I`$. Given a term order $`<`$, there exists a unique monomial $`k`$-basis $`C`$ of $`Q/(\mathrm{in}(L))`$ (which we call a “standard basis” with respect to $`<`$ and $`L`$). This $`k`$-basis $`C`$ is a system of generators for the $`k`$-vector space $`Q/I`$, and $`L`$ is a Gröbner basis of $`I`$ with respect to $`<`$, if and only if $`C`$ is a $`k`$-basis of $`Q/I`$.

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`<`$ be the reverse lexicographic order induced by $`x_1>\mathrm{}>x_n>y_1>\mathrm{}>y_n`$. If $`L`$ is a Gröbner basis of $`J`$ with respect to the term order $`<`$ restricted to $`B`$, then $`L^{}H`$ is a Gröbner basis of $`I_J`$ with respect to $`<`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`C`$ be a standard basis of $`B`$ with respect to $`<`$ and $`L`$, and set

$$C^{}:=\{u^{(k)}|uC,k=0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{deg}u\}.$$

We will show that

1. $`C^{}`$ is a standard basis with respect to $`<`$ and $`L^{}H`$, and
2. $`C^{}`$ is a $`k`$-basis of $`R`$.

Let $`v`$ be a monomial of $`T`$ which does not belong to the ideal $`(\mathrm{in}(L^{})\mathrm{in}(H))`$. Since $`v(\mathrm{in}(H))`$, it follows that $`v=u^{(k)}`$ for some monomial $`uS`$. Suppose that $`uC`$. Then $`u\mathrm{in}(L)`$, and since $`\mathrm{in}(L^{})=\mathrm{in}(L)^{}`$ it follows that $`u^{(k)}(\mathrm{in}(L^{}))`$, a contradiction. Thus $`uC`$, and hence $`vC^{}`$.

Conversely, if $`vC^{}`$, then $`v=u^{(k)}`$ for some $`uC`$. Monomials of the form $`u^{(k)}`$ cannot be multiples of monomials of $`\mathrm{in}(H)`$. Suppose $`u^{(k)}`$ is a multiple of a monomial $`w\mathrm{in}(L)^{}`$. Then $`w=v^{(l)}`$ for some $`v\mathrm{in}(L)`$ and some $`l`$, and $`v^{(l)}`$ divides $`u^{(k)}`$. It follows that $`v`$ divides $`u`$, a contradiction. This proves (i).

Let $`C_i=\{uC|\mathrm{deg}u=i\}`$, and similarly $`C_i^{}=\{uC^{}|\mathrm{deg}u=i\}`$. Since $`C`$ is a $`k`$-basis of $`A`$, it follows that $`|C_i|=dim_kA_i`$, and since $`C_i^{}=\{u^{(k)}|uC,k=0,\mathrm{},i\}`$, it follows that $`|C_i^{}|=(i+1)|C_i|=(i+1)dim_kA_i`$. It is easy to show that $`dim_kR_i=(i+1)dim_kA_i`$, $`|C_i^{}|=dim_kR_i`$ for all $`i`$. This shows that the elements of $`C^{}`$ are $`k`$-linearly independent, and proves (ii). Hence the desired conclusion follows from Lemma 1.2. ∎

###### Corollary 1.4.

If $`J`$ has a quadratic Gröbner basis, then so does $`I_J`$.

We would like to remark that if $`L`$ is a reduced Gröbner basis, then $`L^{}H`$ need not be reduced.

Example. Let $`A=k[x_1,x_2,x_3]/(x_1x_2x_3^2)`$. Then $`L=\{x_1x_2x_3^2\}`$ is a reduced Gröbner basis of $`J`$, but $`L^{}H`$ is not reduced, since $`x_1y_2=\mathrm{in}(x_1y_2x_3y_3)`$ appears in $`x_1y_2x_2y_1`$.

## 2. Regularity and local cohomology of graded algebras

The aim of this section is to prepare some facts on the relationships between the regularities and local cohomology modules of a graded module.

Let $`B=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a polynomial ring over a field $`k`$. Let $`E`$ be a finitely graded module over $`B`$. Let $`𝔽:0F_r\mathrm{}F_1F_0E0`$ be a minimal free resolution of $`E`$. For all integer $`i`$ we denote by $`b_i(E)`$ the largest degree of the generators of $`F_i`$, where $`b_i(E):=\mathrm{}`$ for $`i<0`$ or $`i>r`$. The Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of $`E`$ \[EiG\] is defined by

$$\mathrm{reg}(E):=\mathrm{max}\{b_i(E)i|i0\}.$$

This notion is refined by D. Bayer, H. Charalambous, and S. Popescu \[BCP\] as follows. For any integer $`j`$ let

$$j\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(E):=\mathrm{max}\{b_i(E)i|ij\}.$$

Similarly, we can define the invariants

$`b^{}(E)`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{b_i(E)|i0\},`$
$`b_j^{}(E)`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{b_i(E)|ij\}.`$
It is known that these invariants can be also characterized by means of the graded local cohomology modules of $`E`$.

Let $`A=B/J`$ be any graded quotient ring of $`B`$. Let $`E`$ now be a finitely generated module over $`A`$. Let $`𝔪`$ denote the maximal graded ideal of $`A`$. For any integer $`i`$ we denote by $`H_𝔪^i(E)`$ the $`i`$th local cohomology module of $`E`$. Since $`H_𝔪^i(E)`$ is a graded artinian $`A`$-module, $`H_𝔪^i(E)_a=0`$ for $`a`$ large enough. Therefore we can consider the largest non-vanishing degree $`a_i(E):=\mathrm{max}\{a|H_𝔪^i(E)_a0\}`$, where $`a_i(E)=\mathrm{}`$ if $`H_𝔪^i(E)=0`$. Note that $`H_𝔪^i(E)=0`$ for $`i<0`$ and $`i>d:=dimE`$ and that $`a_d(E)`$ is the $`a`$-invariant of $`E`$ \[GW\]. For any integer $`j`$ we define

$`a_j^{}(E)`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{a_i(E)|ij\},`$
$`\mathrm{reg}_j(E)`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{a_i(E)+i|ij\}.`$
In particular, we set

$$a^{}(E):=\mathrm{max}\{a_i(E)|i0\}.$$

These cohomological invariants do not depend on the presentation of $`A`$. See \[Sh\], \[T1\], \[T2\], \[T3\] for more information on these invariants.

###### Theorem 2.1.

\[T3, Theorem 3.1\] For any integer $`j`$ we have

(i) $`b_j^{}(E)=a_{nj}^{}(E)+n`$,

(ii) $`j\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(E)=\mathrm{reg}_{nj}(E)`$.

Theorem 2.1 has the following immediate consequence.

###### Corollary 2.2.

(i) $`b^{}(E)=\mathrm{max}\{a_i(E)|i0\}+n=a^{}(E)+n,`$

(ii) $`\mathrm{reg}(E)=\mathrm{max}\{a_i(E)+i|i0\}`$ \[EG, Theorem 1.2\].

¿From Theorem 2.1 we also obtain the following relationship between the invariants $`b_j(E)`$ and $`a_{nj}(E)`$. Following \[BCP\] we say that $`E`$ has an extremal Betti number at $`j`$ if $`b_j(E)j>b_i(E)i`$ for all $`i>j`$ or, equivalently, $`j\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(E)>(j+1)\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(E)`$.

###### Corollary 2.3.

Assume that $`E`$ has an extremal Betti number at $`j`$. Then $`b_j(E)=a_{nj}(E)+n`$.

###### Proof.

By the assumption, $`j\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(E)=b_j(E)j`$. By Theorem 2.1,

$$\mathrm{reg}_{nj}(E)=j\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(E)>(j+1)\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(E)=\mathrm{reg}_{nj1}(E).$$

Therefore, $`\mathrm{reg}_{nj}(E)=a_{nj}(E)+nj`$. ¿From this it follows that $`b_j(E)=a_{nj}(E)+n`$. ∎

For later applications we also prepare some facts on the regularity of polynomial extensions and quotient modules.

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`A[z]`$ be a polynomial ring over $`A`$ in one variable. Let $`𝔫`$ denote the maximal graded ideal of $`A[z]`$. Put $`E[z]=EA[z]`$ and $`E[z^1]=EA[z^1]`$. For every integer $`i1`$ we have

$$H_𝔫^i(E[z])=H_𝔪^{i1}(E)(1)[z^1].$$

###### Proof.

By local duality (see e.g. \[BH, Theorem 3.6.19\]) we know that

$`H_𝔪^i(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Ext}_B^{ni}(E,B(n))^{},`$
$`H_𝔫^i(E[z])`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Ext}_{B[z]}^{n+1i}(E[z],B[z](n1))^{},`$
where  denotes the Matlis duality. Since $`BB[z]`$ is a flat extension, we have

$$\mathrm{Ext}_{B[z]}^{n+1i}(E[z],B[z])=\mathrm{Ext}_B^{n+1i}(E,B)[z].$$

From this it follows that

$`H_𝔫^i(E[z])`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Ext}_B^{n+1i}(E,B(n1))^{}[z^1]`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Ext}_B^{n+1i}(E,B(n))^{}(1)[z^1]=H_𝔪^{i1}(E)(1)[z^1].`$
###### Proposition 2.5.

With the above notation we have

(i)  $`a_i(E[z])=a_{i1}(E)1`$ for all $`i0`$,

(ii)  $`a^{}(E[z])=a(E)1`$,

(iii)  $`\mathrm{reg}(E[z])=\mathrm{reg}(E)`$.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 2.4 we have

$$H_𝔫^i(E[z])_n=\underset{an1}{}H_𝔪^{i1}(E)_a.$$

Hence (i) is immediate. The formulas (ii) and (iii) are consequences of (i). ∎

###### Proposition 2.6.

Assume that $`\mathrm{depth}E>0`$ and $`fA`$ is a regular form of degree $`c`$ for $`E`$. Then

(i)  $`a^{}(E/fE)=a^{}(E)+c`$,

(ii)  $`\mathrm{reg}(E/fE)=\mathrm{reg}(E)+c1`$.

###### Proof.

From the exact sequence $`0E(c)\stackrel{f}{}EE/fE0`$ we obtain the following exact sequence of local cohomology modules:

$$H_𝔪^i(E)_aH_𝔪^i(E/fE)_aH_𝔪^{i+1}(E)_{ac}H_𝔪^{i+1}(E)_a.$$

From this it immediately follows that $`a_i(E/fE)\mathrm{max}\{a_i(E),a_{i+1}(E)+c\}.`$ For $`aa_i(E/fE)`$, the map $`H_𝔪^{i+1}(E)_{ac}H_𝔪^{i+1}(E)_a`$ is injective. Since $`H_𝔪^{i+1}(E)_a=0`$ for all large $`a`$, this injective map yields $`H_𝔪^{i+1}(E)_{ac}=0`$. Therefore, we get $`a_{i+1}(E)+ca_i(E).`$ Taking the maxima over $`i`$ of the inequalities

$$a_{i+1}(E)+ca_i(E/fE)\mathrm{max}\{a_i(E),a_{i+1}(E)+c\}$$

we will get (i). For (ii) we only need to take the maxima over $`i`$ of the inequalities

$$a_{i+1}(E)+i+ca_i(E/fE)+i\mathrm{max}\{a_i(E)+i,a_{i+1}(E)+i+c\}.$$

## 3. Rees algebras of ideals generated by forms of the same degree

Let $`A`$ be a standard graded algebra over a field. Let $`I=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_s)`$ be a homogeneous ideal in $`A`$ such that $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_m`$ have the same degree. Then the Rees algebra $`R=A[It]`$ can be considered as a standard $``$-graded algebra over $`k`$. Let $`M`$ denote the maximal graded ideal of $`R`$.

Let $`𝔪=(\overline{x}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{x}_n)`$ be the maximal homogeneous ideal of $`A`$. We can refine the $``$-graded structure of $`R`$ by a bigrading with

$`\mathrm{bideg}\overline{x}_i`$ $`=`$ $`(1,0),i=1,\mathrm{},r,`$
$`\mathrm{bideg}f_jt`$ $`=`$ $`(1,1),j=1,\mathrm{},s.`$
It is easy to verify that if $`zR`$ is a bihomogeneous element with $`\mathrm{bideg}z=(a,b)`$, then $`\mathrm{deg}z=a`$. There is also the natural bigrading $`\mathrm{bideg}\overline{x}_i=(1,0)`$ and $`\mathrm{bideg}f_jt=(0,1)`$. But we shall see that the first bigrading is more suitable for our investigation.

Let $`E`$ be any bigraded $`R`$-module. Then $`E`$ has the natural $``$-graded structure $`E_a=_bE_{(a,b)}`$. In particular, $`H_M^i(E)`$ is both a bigraded $`R`$-module and a $``$-graded $`R`$-module with

$$H_M^i(E)_a=\underset{b}{}H_M^i(E)_{(a,b)}.$$

Let $`R_+`$ denote the ideal of $`R`$ generated by the elements $`f_jt`$. Let $`G=_{n0}I^n/I^{n+1}`$ be the associated graded ring of $`I`$. To estimate $`a_i(R)`$ we consider the following two short exact sequences of bigraded $`R`$-modules:

$`0R_+RA0,`$
$`0R_+(0,1)RG0.`$
¿From the above short exact sequences we obtain the following long exact sequences of bigraded local cohomology modules:

(1) $`\mathrm{}H_M^{i1}(A)_{(a,b)}H_M^i(R_+)_{(a,b)}H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}H_M^i(A)_{(a,b)}\mathrm{}`$
(2) $`\mathrm{}H_M^{i1}(G)_{(a,b)}H_M^i(R_+)_{(a,b+1)}H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}H_M^i(G)_{(a,b)}\mathrm{}`$
These sequences allow us to study the vanishing of the bigraded local cohomology modules of $`R`$ by means of those of $`A`$ and $`G`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

For a fixed integer $`a`$ assume that there is an integer $`b_0`$ such that

(i) $`H_M^{i1}(A)_{(a,b)}=0`$ for $`bb_0`$,

(ii) $`H_M^i(G)_{(a,b)}=0`$ for $`b>b_0`$.

Then $`H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}=0`$ for $`bb_0`$.

###### Proof.

The assumptions (i) and (ii) implies that for $`bb_0`$,

(i’) $`H_M^i(R_+)_{(a,b)}H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}`$ is injective,

(ii’) $`H_M^i(R_+)_{(a,b+1)}H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}`$ is surjective.

Since $`H_M^i(R)`$ is an artinian $`R`$-module, $`H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}=0`$ for $`b`$ large enough. Once we have $`H_M^i(R)_{(a,b+1)}=0`$ for some integer $`bb_0`$, we can use (i’) and (ii’) to deduce first that $`H_M^i(R_+)_{(a,b+1)}=0`$ and then that $`H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}=0`$. This can be continued until $`b=b_0`$. ∎

###### Proposition 3.2.

$`a_i(R)\mathrm{max}\{a_{i1}(A),a_i(G)\}`$.

###### Proof.

Fix an arbitrary integer $`a>\mathrm{max}\{a_{i1}(A),a_i(G)\}`$. Since $`a>a_{i1}(A)`$, $`H_M^{i1}(A)_a=0`$. Therefore,

$$H_M^{i1}(A)_{(a,b)}=0\text{for all}b.$$

Since $`a>a_i(G)`$, $`H_M^i(G)_a=0`$. Therefore,

$$H_M^i(G)_{(a,b)}=0\text{for all}b.$$

By Lemma 3.1 we obtain $`H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}=0`$ for all $`b`$. That implies $`H_M^i(R)_a=0`$ or, equivalently, $`a_i(R)\mathrm{max}\{a_{i1}(A),a_i(G)\}`$. ∎

On the other hand, there is the following relation between the maximal shifts of the terms of the minimal free resolutions of $`A`$ and $`R`$.

###### Proposition 3.3.

$`b_i(R)b_i(A)`$.

###### Proof.

We consider a minimal free resolution $`𝔽:0F_l\mathrm{}F_0R`$ of $`R`$ as a bigraded module over the polynomial ring $`S:=k[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n,Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_s]`$. Let $`𝔽^{}`$ denote the exact sequence:

$$0\underset{a}{}(F_l)_{(a,0)}\mathrm{}\underset{a}{}(F_0)_{(a,0)}\underset{a}{}R_{(a,0)}=A$$

It is clear that $`𝔽^{}`$ is a free resolution of $`A`$ as a graded module over the polynomial ring $`B=k[X_1,\mathrm{},X_n]`$.

To estimate the shifts of the twisted free modules of $`𝔽^{}`$ we consider a twisted free $`S`$-module $`S(c,d)`$. Then $`(S(c,d))_{(a,0)}=S_{(ac,d)}`$ is a direct sum of $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{sd1}{s1}\right)`$ copies of $`B_{ac+d}=B((cd))_a`$, where we set $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{sd1}{s1}\right)=0`$ if $`d>0`$. Therefore, $`_a(S(c,d))_{(a,0)}`$ is the direct sum of $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{sd1}{s1}\right)`$ copies of $`B((cd))`$. If $`S(c,d)`$ runs over all twisted free modules of $`F_i`$, then $`b_i(R)=\mathrm{max}\{c\}\mathrm{max}\{cd\}.`$ Since $`\mathrm{max}\{cd\}`$ is the maximum shift of the $`i`$th term of $`𝔽^{}`$, we have $`\mathrm{max}\{cd\}b_i(A)`$. So we obtain $`b_i(R)b_i(A)`$. ∎

¿From the above propositions we can easily derive upper and lower bounds for $`a^{}(R)`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(R)`$ in terms of $`A`$ and $`G`$.

###### Theorem 3.4.

Let $`s`$ denote the minimal number generators of $`I`$. Then

$$a^{}(A)sa^{}(R)\mathrm{max}\{a^{}(A),a^{}(G)\}.$$

###### Proof.

By definition we have $`a^{}(E)=\mathrm{max}\{a_i(E)|i0\}`$ for any finitely generated graded $`R`$-module $`E`$. Therefore, from Proposition 3.2 we immediately obtain the upper bound $`a^{}(R)\mathrm{max}\{a^{}(A),a^{}(G)\}.`$ On the other hand, by Corollary 2.2 we have

$`a^{}(A)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{b_i(A)|i0\}n,`$
$`a^{}(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{b_i(R)|i0\}ns.`$
Therefore, from Proposition 3.3 we can immediately deduce the lower bound $`a^{}(A)sa^{}(R)`$. ∎

###### Theorem 3.5.

$`\mathrm{reg}(A)\mathrm{reg}(R)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}(A)+1,\mathrm{reg}(G)\}`$

###### Proof.

By Corollary 2.2 we have $`\mathrm{reg}(E)=\mathrm{max}\{a_i(E)+i|i0\}`$ for any finitely generated graded $`R`$-module $`E`$. By Proposition 3.2, $`a_i(R)+i\mathrm{max}\{a_{i1}(A)+i,a_i(G)+i\}`$. Hence we get the upper bound $`\mathrm{reg}(R)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}(A)+1,\mathrm{reg}(G)\}.`$ On the other hand, using Proposition 3.3 we obtain the lower bound

$`\mathrm{reg}(A)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{b_i(A)+i|i0\}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{max}\{b_i(R)+i|i0\}=\mathrm{reg}(R).`$
###### Corollary 3.6.

Let $`I`$ be an ideal generated by a regular sequence of $`s`$ forms of degree $`c`$. Then

(i)  $`a^{}(A)sa^{}(R)a^{}(A)+s(c1),`$

(ii)  $`\mathrm{reg}(A)\mathrm{reg}(R)\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{reg}(A)+1,\mathrm{reg}(A)+s(c1)\}`$.

###### Proof.

We have $`G(A/I)[z_1,\mathrm{},z_s]`$, where $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_s`$ are indeterminates. By Proposition 2.5, this implies $`a^{}(G)=a^{}(A/I)s`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(G)=\mathrm{reg}(A/I)`$. On the other hand, Proposition 2.6 gives $`a^{}(A/I)=a^{}(A)+sc`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(A/I)=\mathrm{reg}(A)+s(c1)`$. Therefore, $`a^{}(G)=a^{}(A)+s(c1)`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(G)=\mathrm{reg}(A)+s(c1)`$. Hence the conclusion follows from Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 3.5. ∎

The following example shows that the above upper and lower bounds for $`a^{}(R)`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(R)`$ are sharp.

Example. Let $`A=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ and $`I=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$. By Proposition 2.5 we have $`a^{}(A)=n`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(A)=0`$. In the next sections we shall see that

$`a^{}(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}2\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & n=1,\hfill \\ n\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & n>1.\hfill \end{array}`$
$`\mathrm{reg}(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & n=1,\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & n>1.\hfill \end{array}`$
## 4. Local cohomology of Rees algebras of maximal graded ideals

Let $`A`$ be a standard graded algebra over a field $`k`$. Let $`𝔪`$ be the maximal graded ideal of $`A`$. From now on, $`R`$ will denote the Rees algebra $`A[𝔪t]`$.

We first note that $`R`$ has a bigraded automorphism $`\psi `$ induced by the map $`\psi (x)=xt`$ and $`\psi (xt)=x`$ for any element $`x𝔪`$. It is clear that if $`fR`$ is a bihomogeneous element with $`\mathrm{bideg}f=(a,b)`$, then $`\mathrm{bideg}\psi (f)=(a,ab)`$. In particular, $`\psi `$ induces an isomorphism between $`A`$ and $`G`$ as $`R`$-modules.

Since $`A`$ concentrates only in degree of the form $`(a,0)`$, we have

$$H_M^i(A)_{(a,b)}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & b0,\hfill \\ H_𝔪^i(A)_a\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & b=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

¿From this it follows that

$$H_M^i(G)_{(a,b)}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & ba,\hfill \\ H_𝔪^i(A)_a\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & b=a.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, using (1) and (2) we obtain

(5) $`H_M^i(R_+)_{(a,b)}H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}\text{for}b0,`$
(6) $`H_M^i(R_+)_{(a,b+1)}H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}\text{for}ba.`$
The following lemma gives a complete description of the bigraded local cohomology modules of $`R`$ in terms of those of $`A`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

For any integer $`a`$ we have

$$H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & b\mathrm{max}\{0,a+1\},\hfill \\ H_𝔪^i(A)_a\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & 0b<\mathrm{max}\{0,a+1\},\hfill \\ H_𝔪^{i1}(A)_a\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & \mathrm{min}\{0,a+1\}b<0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & b<\mathrm{min}\{0,a+1\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

By (3) and (4), $`H_M^{i1}(A)_{(a,b)}=0`$ for $`b>0`$ and $`H_M^i(G)_{(a,b)}=0`$ for $`ba+1`$. Therefore, using Lemma 3.1 we get $`H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}=0`$ for $`b\mathrm{max}\{0,a+1\}`$. By the above automorphism of $`R`$, this implies $`H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}=0`$ for $`ab\mathrm{max}\{0,a+1\}`$ or, equivalently, for $`b<\mathrm{min}\{0,a+1\}`$.

To prove that $`H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}=H_𝔪^i(A)_a`$ for $`0b<\mathrm{max}\{0,a+1\}`$ we may assume that $`a+1>0`$. By (2) we have the exact sequence

$$H_M^i(R_+)_{(a,a+1)}H_M^i(R)_{(a,a)}H_M^i(G)_{(a,a)}H_M^{i+1}(R_+)_{(a,a+1)}.$$

By (5) we have $`H_M^j(R_+)_{(a,a+1)}H_M^j(R)_{(a,a+1)}=0`$ for all $`j`$. Therefore,

$$H_M^i(R)_{(a,a)}H_M^i(G)_{(a,a)}=H_𝔪^i(A)_a.$$

Using (5) and (6) we obtain $`H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}H_M^i(R)_{(a,b+1)}`$ for $`0b<a`$. Thus, $`H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}H_𝔪^i(A)_a`$ for $`0b<a+1=\mathrm{max}\{0,a+1\}`$.

To prove that $`H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}=H_𝔪^{i1}(A)_a`$ for $`\mathrm{min}\{0,a+1\}b<0`$ we may assume that $`a+1<0`$. By (1) we have the exact sequence

$$H_M^{i1}(R)_{(a,0)}H_M^{i1}(A)_{(a,0)}H_M^i(R_+)_{(a,0)}H_M^i(R)_{(a,0)}.$$

Since $`a+1<0`$, we have $`H_M^j(R)_{(a,0)}=0`$ for all $`j`$. Therefore,

$$H_M^i(R_+)_{(a,0)}H_M^{i1}(A)_{(a,0)}=H_𝔪^{i1}(A)_a.$$

By (2) we have the exact sequence

$$H_M^{i1}(G)_{(a,1)}H_M^i(R_+)_{(a,0)}H_M^i(R)_{(a,1)}H_M^i(G)_{(a,1)}.$$

By (4) we have $`H_M^j(G)_{(a,1)}=0`$ for all $`j`$. Therefore,

$$H_M^i(R)_{(a,1)}H_M^i(R_+)_{(a,0)}H_𝔪^{i1}(A)_a.$$

Using (5) and (6) we obtain $`H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}H_M^i(R)_{(a,b+1)}`$ for $`a+1b<1`$. Thus, $`H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}H_𝔪^{i1}(A)_a`$ for $`\mathrm{min}\{0,a+1\}=a+1b1`$. ∎

The above lemma on the bigraded local cohomology modules of $`R`$ can be formulated for the $``$-graded structure as follows.

###### Theorem 4.2.

$$H_M^i(R)_a=\{\begin{array}{ccc}_{a+1\text{copies}}H_𝔪^i(A)_a\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & a0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & a=1,\hfill \\ _{(a+1)\text{copies}}H_𝔪^{i1}(A)_a\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & a2.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

The statement follows from the formula

$$H_M^i(R)_a=\underset{b}{}H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}$$

and Lemma 4.1. Indeed, if $`a0`$, $`\mathrm{max}\{0,a+1\}=a+1`$ and $`\mathrm{min}\{0,a+1\}=0`$. Therefore,

$$H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & ba+1,\hfill \\ H_𝔪^i(A)_a\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & 0ba,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & b<0.\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`a=1`$, $`\mathrm{max}\{0,a+1\}=\mathrm{min}\{0,a+1\}=0`$. Hence $`H_M^i(R)_{(1,b)}=0`$ for all $`b`$. If $`a2`$, we have

$$H_M^i(R)_{(a,b)}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & b0,\hfill \\ H_𝔪^{i1}(A)_a\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a+1b<0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & ba.\hfill \end{array}$$

In the following we will denote $`a_j(A)`$ by $`a_j`$ for all $`j`$. An immediate consequence of Theorem 4.2 is the following formula for the depth of the Rees algebra (see \[HM\] for the depth of the Rees algebra of an arbitrary ideal).

###### Proposition 4.3.

$$\mathrm{depth}R=\mathrm{max}\{i|H_𝔪^j(A)_a=0\text{for}a1,j<i1,\text{and}a_{i1}<0\}.$$

In particular, $`\mathrm{depth}R\mathrm{depth}A.`$

###### Proof.

We have $`H_M^i(R)=0`$ if and only if $`H_𝔪^{i1}(A)_a=0`$ for $`a2`$ and $`H_𝔪^i(A)_a=0`$ for $`a0`$. Putting this in the formula

$$\mathrm{depth}R=\mathrm{max}\{i|H_M^j(R)=0\text{for}j<i\}.$$

we obtain the conclusion. ∎

If $`\mathrm{depth}A=0`$, we must have $`\mathrm{depth}R=0`$. If $`\mathrm{depth}A=1`$, we can not have $`H_𝔪^1(A)_a=0`$ for $`a1`$. For, we have $`H_𝔪^1(A)_1H_𝔪^0(A/xA)_0=0`$, where $`x`$ is a regular linear form of $`A`$. Therefore, Proposition 4.3 gives $`\mathrm{depth}R=1`$ if $`\mathrm{depth}A=1`$. If $`\mathrm{depth}A2`$, $`\mathrm{depth}R`$ can be arbitrarily large than $`\mathrm{depth}A`$.

Example. Let $`2r<d`$ be arbitrary positive numbers. We will construct a graded algebra $`A`$ with $`\mathrm{depth}A=r`$ and $`\mathrm{depth}R=d+1`$ (i.e. $`R`$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ring).

Let $`T=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$ and $`𝔫`$ the maximal graded ideal of $`T`$. Let $`E`$ be the $`r`$th syzygy module of $`k`$ over $`T`$. Then $`H_𝔫^i(E)=0`$ for $`ir,d`$,

$$H_𝔫^r(E)_a=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a0,\hfill \\ k\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`H_𝔫^d(E)=H_𝔫^d(T)`$.

Let $`C`$ be the idealization of the graded $`T`$-module $`E(r1)`$ (see e.g. \[N, p.2\]). Since $`E`$ is generated by elements of degree $`r`$, $`E(r1)`$ is generated by elements of degree 1. Hence $`C`$ is a standard graded algebra over $`k`$. By the construction of the idealization we have a natural exact sequence of the form $`0E(r1)CT0`$, where all homomorphisms have degree 0. Let $`𝔪_C`$ denote the maximal graded ideal of $`C`$. Then $`H_{𝔪_C}^i(C)=H_𝔫^i(E(r1))`$ for $`id`$ and there is the exact sequence $`H_𝔫^d(E(r1))H_{𝔪_C}^d(C)H_𝔫^d(T)0.`$ From this it follows that $`H_{𝔪_C}^i(C)=0`$ for $`ir,d`$,

$$H_{𝔪_C}^r(C)_a=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a1r,\hfill \\ k\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a=1r,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`a_d(C)=a_d(T)=d`$.

Now let $`A`$ be the $`(r1)`$th Veronese subring of $`C`$. Then $`H_𝔪^i(A)_a=H_{𝔪_C}^i(C)_{a(r1)}`$ \[GW, Theorem 3.1.1\]. Hence $`H_𝔪^i(A)=0`$ for $`ir,d`$,

$$H_𝔪^r(A)_a=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a1,\hfill \\ k\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a=1,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`a_d1`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{depth}A=r`$ and $`\mathrm{depth}R=d+1`$ by Proposition 4.3.

Remark. The above example is inspired by Goto’s construction of Buchsbaum local rings of minimal multiplicity with local cohomology modules of given lengths \[G, Example (4.11)(2)\]. Evans and Griffith \[EvG\] have constructed graded domains $`A`$ whose local cohomology modules $`H_𝔪^i(A)`$, $`i<d`$, are isomorphic to given graded modules of finite length with a shifting. Since the shift could not be computed explicitly, we can not use their construction for our purpose.

Despite the eventually big difference between the depths of a given ring and its Rees algebra, the depth of the Rees algebra of a polynomial extension $`A[z]`$ of $`A`$ is rather rigid.

###### Corollary 4.4.

Let $`R^{}`$ denote the Rees algebra of a polynomial ring $`A[z]`$ over $`A`$ in one variable. Put $`s=\mathrm{depth}A`$. Then

$$\mathrm{depth}R^{}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}s+1\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & a_s0,\hfill \\ s+2\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & a_s<0.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

By Proposition 2.4, $`H_𝔫^i(A[z])=0`$ if $`H_𝔪^{i1}(A)=0`$ and $`H_𝔫^i(A[z])`$ is a module of infinite length with $`a_i(A[z])=a_{i1}1`$ if $`H_𝔪^{i1}(A)0`$. As a consequence, $`H_𝔫^i(A[z])_a=0\text{for}a1`$ if and only if $`H_𝔪^{i1}(A)=0`$. Therefore,

$`\mathrm{depth}R^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{i|H_𝔫^j(A[z])_a=0\text{for}a1,j<i1,\text{and}a_{i1}<0\}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{i|H_𝔪^j(A)=0\text{for}j<i2,\text{and}a_{i2}<0\}`$
Since $`s=\mathrm{max}\{i|H_𝔪^j(A)=0\text{for}j<i\}`$, we get

$$\mathrm{max}\{i|H_𝔪^j(A)=0\text{for}j<i2,\text{and}a_{i2}<0\}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}s+1\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & a_s0,\hfill \\ s+2\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & a_s<0.\hfill \end{array}$$

The following criterion for the Cohen-Macaulayness of $`R`$ can be also derived from a more general criterion for the Cohen-Macaulayness of the Rees algebra of an arbitrary ideal of Trung and Ikeda \[TI\].

###### Corollary 4.5.

$`R`$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ring if and only if $`H_𝔪^j(A)_a=0`$ for $`a1`$, $`j<d`$, and $`a_d<0`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from Proposition 4.3 (the case $`\mathrm{depth}R=d+1`$). ∎

Another consequence of Theorem 4.2 is the following formula for $`a_i(R)`$. This formula is crucial for the estimation of $`a^{}(R)`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(R)`$ in the next section.

###### Proposition 4.6.

$$a_i(R)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}a_i\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & a_i0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{max}\{a|a2\text{and}H_𝔪^{i1}(A)_a0\}\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & a_i<0.\hfill \end{array}$$

In particular, $`a_i(R)=a_{i1}`$ if $`a_{i1}2`$ and $`a_i<0`$.

###### Proof.

Note that $`H_𝔪^j(A)_a=0`$ for $`a>a_j`$ and $`H_𝔪^i(A)_{a_j}0`$ if $`a_j\mathrm{}`$. If $`a_i0`$, using Theorem 4.2 we get $`H_M^i(R)_a=0`$ for $`a>a_i`$ and $`H_M^i(R)_{a_i}0`$, hence $`a_i(R)=a_i`$. If $`a_i<0`$, we get $`H_M^i(A)_a=0`$ for $`a1`$. For $`a2`$, $`H_M^i(R)_a0`$ if and only if $`H_𝔪^{i1}(A)_a0`$. Therefore, $`a_i(R)=\mathrm{max}\{a|a2\text{and}H_𝔪^{i1}(A)_a0\}`$, which is exactly $`a_{i1}`$ if $`a_{i1}2`$. ∎

From Proposition 4.6 we immediately obtain the following bounds for $`a_i(R)`$.

###### Corollary 4.7.

(i) $`a_i(R)\mathrm{max}\{a_{i1},a_i\}`$ for $`id`$,

(ii) $`a_{d+1}(R)\mathrm{min}\{2,a_d\}`$.

Example.  Let $`A=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. We know that $`a_i=\mathrm{}`$ for $`in`$ and $`a_n=n`$ with $`H_𝔪^n(A)_a0`$ for $`an`$. Therefore, $`a_i(R)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`in+1`$ and

$$a_{n+1}(R)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}2\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & n=1,\hfill \\ n\hfill & \text{if}\hfill & n>1.\hfill \end{array}$$

One may expect that $`a_i(R)=2`$ if $`a_{i1}>2`$ and $`a_i<0`$. But the following example shows that is not always the case.

Example. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the simplicial complex on ten vertices $`\{1,\mathrm{},10\}`$ with the maximal faces

$$\{1,2,6\},\{2,6,7\},\{2,3,7\},\{3,7,8\},\{3,4,8\},\{4,5,8\},\{1,4,5\},\{9,10\}.$$

Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is topologically the disjoint union of a circle and a point.

Let $`T=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{10}]`$ and $`𝔫`$ the maximal graded ideal of $`T`$. Let $`I`$ be the monomial ideal of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`T`$:

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`(x_2x_{10},x_2x_9,x_2x_8,x_2x_5,x_2x_4,x_3x_{10},x_3x_9,x_3x_5,`$
$`x_1x_3,x_5x_{10},x_4x_{10},x_1x_{10},x_5x_9,x_4x_9,x_1x_9,x_1x_8,x_8x_9,x_8x_{10},`$
$`x_1x_7,x_4x_7,x_5x_7,x_7x_9,x_7x_{10},x_3x_6,x_4x_6,x_5x_6,x_6x_8,x_6x_9,x_6x_{10}).`$
By Hochster’s formula for the local cohomology modules of the Stanley-Reisner ring $`k[\mathrm{\Delta }]=T/I`$ (see e.g. \[BH, Theorem 5.8\]) we have $`H_𝔫^0(k[\mathrm{\Delta }])=0`$,

$$H_𝔫^1(k[\mathrm{\Delta }])_a=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a0,\hfill \\ k\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

$$H_𝔫^2(k[\mathrm{\Delta }])_a=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a>0\text{and}a=1,\hfill \\ k\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a=0\text{and}a2,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`H_𝔫^3(k[\mathrm{\Delta }])_a=0`$ for $`a>2`$, while $`H_𝔫^3(k[\mathrm{\Delta }])_a0`$ for $`a2`$. From the short exact sequence $`0ITk[\mathrm{\Delta }]0`$ we get $`H_𝔫^i(I)=0`$ for $`i2,3,4,10`$,

$$H_𝔫^2(I)_a=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a0,\hfill \\ k\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

$$H_𝔫^3(I)_a=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a>0\text{and}a=1,\hfill \\ k\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a=0\text{and}a2,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`H_𝔫^4(I)_a=0`$ for $`a>2`$, $`H_𝔫^4(I)_a0`$ for $`a2`$, $`H_𝔫^{10}(I)_a=0`$ for $`a>10`$, $`H_𝔫^{10}(I)_a0`$ for $`a10`$.

Let $`A`$ be the idealization of the graded $`T`$-module $`I(1)`$ (see e.g. \[N, p.2\]). Since $`I(1)`$ is generated by elements of degree 1, $`A`$ is a standard graded algebra over $`k`$. By the construction of the idealization we have a natural exact sequence of the form $`0I(1)AT0`$, where all homomorphisms are of degree 0. This exact sequence yields $`H_𝔪^i(A)=H_𝔫^i(I(1))`$ for $`i10`$ and the exact sequence $`H_𝔫^d(I(1))H_𝔪^d(A)H_𝔫^d(T)0.`$ Using the above formula for $`H_𝔫^i(I)`$ we get $`H_𝔪^i(A)=0`$ for $`i2,3,4,10`$,

$$H_𝔪^2(A)_a=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a1,\hfill \\ k\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a=1,\hfill \end{array}$$

$$H_𝔫^3(A)_a=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a>1\text{and}a=2,\hfill \\ k\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & a=1\text{and}a3,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`H_𝔪^4(A)_a=0`$ for $`a>3`$, $`H_𝔪^4(A)_a0`$ for $`a3`$, $`H_𝔪^{10}(A)_a=0`$ for $`a>10`$, $`H_𝔫^{10}(A)_{10}0`$. In particular, $`a_i=\mathrm{}`$ for $`i2,3,4,10`$, $`a_2=a_3=1`$, $`a_4=3`$, $`a_{10}=10`$. Applying Proposition 4.6 we obtain $`a_i(R)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`i4,5,11`$ and $`a_4(R)=a_5(R)=3`$, $`a_{11}(R)=10`$. In particular, $`a_4(R)=3`$ though $`a_3=1`$ and $`a_4=3<0`$.

## 5. Regularity of Rees algebras of maximal graded ideals

As in the last section, let $`R=A[𝔪t]`$ be the Rees algebra of the maximal graded ideal $`𝔪`$ of a standard graded algebra $`A`$ over a field. The goal of this section is to estimate $`a^{}(R)`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(R)`$ in terms of $`a^{}(A)`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(A)`$.

Let $`n`$ be the embedding dimension of $`A`$, that is, $`n=dim_kA_1`$. We can consider $`A`$ as a module over the polynomial ring $`B=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ and $`R`$ as a module over the polynomial ring $`S=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n]`$.

We have the following relationships between the invariants $`a_j^{}(A)`$ and $`a_j^{}(R)`$.

###### Proposition 5.1.

For any integer $`j0`$ we have

(i) $`a_{jn}^{}(A)na_j^{}(R)a_j^{}(A)`$.

(ii) $`a_j^{}(R)=a_j^{}(A)`$ if and only if $`a_j^{}(A)0`$ or $`a_{j1}^{}(A)=a_j^{}(A)2`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2.1(i) and Proposition 3.3 we have

$$a_j^{}(R)=b_{2nj}^{}(R)2nb_{2nj}^{}(A)2n=a_{jn}^{}(A)n.$$

Since $`GA`$, Theorem 3.5 implies $`a_i(R)\mathrm{max}\{a_{i1}(A),a_i(A)\}`$ for all $`i`$. From this it follows that $`a_j^{}(R)a_j^{}(A)`$. So we obtain (i).

To prove (ii) we choose $`ij`$ such that $`a_j^{}(A)=a_i`$.

If $`a_j^{}(A)0`$, then $`a_i(R)=a_i`$ by Corollary 4.6. Hence $`a_j^{}(R)a_i(R)=a_j^{}(A)`$. By (i) this implies $`a_j^{}(R)=a_j^{}(A)`$.

If $`a_j^{}(A)=1`$, $`a_i(R)2`$ for all $`ij`$ by Proposition 4.6. Hence $`a_j^{}(R)2<a_j^{}(A)`$.

If $`a_{j1}^{}(A)=a_j^{}(A)2`$, we may assume that $`i<j`$. Then $`a_{i+1}a_i2`$. Hence $`a_{i+1}(R)=a_i`$ by Proposition 4.6. Thus, $`a_j^{}(R)a_{i+1}(R)=a_j^{}(A)`$. By (i) this implies $`a_j^{}(R)=a_j^{}(A)`$.

If $`a_{j1}^{}(A)<a_j^{}(A)2`$, we have $`a_{j1}<a_j=a_j^{}(A)2`$. By Proposition 4.6, this implies $`a_j(R)=a_{j1}<a_j^{}(A)`$. By (i), $`a_{j1}^{}(R)a_{j1}^{}(A)`$. Therefore, $`a_j^{}(R)=\mathrm{max}\{a_{j1}^{}(R),a_j(R)\}<a_j^{}(A).`$ So we have proved (ii). ∎

Proposition 5.1 can be formulated in terms of the maximal shifts of the minimal free resolution of $`A`$ as follows.

###### Corollary 5.2.

For any integer $`j0`$ we have

(i) $`b_j^{}(A)b_j^{}(R)b_{jn}^{}(A)+n`$,

(ii) $`b_j^{}(R)=b_{jn}^{}(A)+n`$ if and only if $`b_{jn}^{}(A)n`$ or $`b_{jn+1}^{}(A)=b_{jn}^{}(A)n2.`$

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2.1(i) we have

$$b_j^{}(A)=a_{nj}^{}(A)+n,b_j^{}(R)=a_{2nj}^{}(R)+2n,b_{jn}^{}(A)=a_{2nj}^{}(A)+n.$$

Therefore, the conclusion follows from Proposition 5.1. ∎

###### Theorem 5.3.

(i) $`a^{}(A)na^{}(R)a^{}(A)`$.

(ii) $`a^{}(R)=a^{}(A)`$ if and only if $`a^{}(A)1`$.

###### Proof.

From Proposition 5.1(i) we immediately obtain (i). To prove (ii) we assume first that $`a^{}(A)1`$. Choose $`j`$ such that $`a^{}(A)=a_{j1}^{}(A)=a_j^{}(A)`$. Then $`a_j^{}(R)=a_j^{}(A)`$ by Proposition 5.1(ii). It follows that

$$a^{}(R)a_j^{}(A)=a^{}(A).$$

By (i) this implies $`a^{}(R)=a^{}(A)`$. Now assume that $`a^{}(A)=1`$. Then $`a_j^{}(A)1`$ for all $`j`$. If $`a_j^{}(A)2`$, we have $`a_j^{}(R)a_j^{}(A)2`$ by Theorem 5.1(i). If $`a_j^{}(A)=1`$, then Theorem 5.1(ii) implies $`a_j^{}(R)<a_j^{}(A)`$. Thus, $`a^{}(R)2`$. So we have proved that $`a^{}(R)=a^{}(A)`$ if and only if $`a^{}(A)1`$. ∎

Example. Let $`A=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. From the formula for $`a_i(A)`$ and $`a_i(R)`$ in the last section we get $`a^{}(A)=n`$ while

$$a^{}(R)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}2\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & n=1,\hfill \\ n\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & n>1.\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`a^{}(A)=1`$, we may expect that $`a^{}(R)=2`$. But that is not always the case. For instance, in the last example of Section 4 we have $`a^{}(A)=1`$ and $`a^{}(R)=3`$.

We may also formulate Theorem 5.3 in terms of the maximal shifts of the minimal free resolution of $`A`$ as follows.

###### Corollary 5.4.

(i) $`b^{}(A)b^{}(R)b^{}(A)+n.`$

(ii) $`b^{}(R)=b^{}(A)+n`$ if and only if $`b^{}(A)n1.`$

###### Proof.

By Corollary 2.2(i) we have $`b^{}(A)=a^{}(A)+n`$ and $`b^{}(R)=a^{}(R)+2n`$. Hence the conclusion follows from Theorem 5.3. ∎

Now we study the relationships between the partial regularities of a given graded algebra $`A`$ and its Rees algebra $`R`$.

###### Proposition 5.5.

For any integer $`j0`$ we have

(i) $`\mathrm{reg}_{jn}(A)\mathrm{reg}_j(R)\mathrm{reg}_j(A)+1`$.

(ii) $`\mathrm{reg}_j(R)=\mathrm{reg}_j(A)+1`$ if and only if there is an integer $`i<j`$ such that $`\mathrm{reg}_j(A)=a_i+i`$ and $`a_i2`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2.1(ii) and Proposition 3.3 we have

$$\mathrm{reg}_j(R)=(2nj)\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(R)(2nj)\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(A)=\mathrm{reg}_{jn}(A).$$

Since $`GA`$, Theorem 3.5 implies $`a_i(R)\mathrm{max}\{a_{i1}(A),a_i(A)\}`$ for all $`i`$. From this it follows that $`\mathrm{reg}_j(R)\mathrm{reg}_j(A)+1`$. So we obtain (i).

To prove (ii) we assume first that $`\mathrm{reg}_j(R)=\mathrm{reg}_j(A)+1`$. Let $`ij`$ be an integer such that $`\mathrm{reg}_j(R)=a_i(R)+i`$. Then $`a_i(R)=\mathrm{reg}_j(A)i+1`$. On the other hand, $`a_i(R)\mathrm{max}\{a_{i1},a_i\}`$ by Proposition 3.2. Since $`a_{i1}\mathrm{reg}_j(A)i+1`$ and $`a_i\mathrm{reg}_j(A)i`$, we must have $`a_i(R)=a_{i1}`$. This implies $`\mathrm{reg}_j(A)=a_{i1}+i1`$ and, by Proposition 4.6, $`a_{i1}2`$.

Conversely, assume that there is an integer $`i<j`$ such that $`\mathrm{reg}_j(A)=a_i+i`$ and $`a_i2`$. Then $`a_{i+1}+i+1a_i+i`$. Therefore, $`a_{i+1}a_i1<0`$. By Corollary 4.6, we get $`a_{i+1}(R)=a_i`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{reg}_j(R)a_{i+1}(R)+i+1=a_i+i+1=\mathrm{reg}_j(A)+1.$$

By (i) this implies $`\mathrm{reg}_j(R)=\mathrm{reg}_j(A)`$. ∎

We may formulate Proposition 5.5(i) for the partial regularity $`j\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(R)`$ of Bayer, Charalambous, and Popescu (see Section 1). But, unlike the estimation for $`b_j^{}(R)`$, we are not able to express the condition of Proposition 5.5(ii) in terms of the maximal shifts of the minimal free resolution of $`A`$.

###### Corollary 5.6.

For any integer $`j0`$ we have

(i) $`j\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(A)j\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(R)(jn)\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$.

(ii) $`j\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(R)=(jn)\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$ if $`(jn)\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(A)=b_i(A)i`$ and $`b_i(A)n2`$ for some index $`i>jn`$ at which $`A`$ has an extremal Betti number.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2.1(ii) we have

$$j\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(A)=\mathrm{reg}_{nj}(A),j\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(R)=\mathrm{reg}_{2nj}(R),(jn)\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(A)=\mathrm{reg}_{2nj}(A).$$

Therefore, (i) follows from Proposition 5.5(i). For (ii) we have $`b_i(A)=a_{ni}+n`$ by Corollary 2.3, hence $`\mathrm{reg}_{2nj}(A)=a_{ni}+ni`$ and $`a_{ni}2`$. By Theorem 5.5(ii) this implies $`\mathrm{reg}_{2nj}(R)=\mathrm{reg}_{2nj}(A)+1`$. Thus, $`j\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(R)=(jn)\text{-}\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$. ∎

The following result which is an immediate consequence of Proposition 5.5 gives precise information on the value of the regularity of the Rees algebra of the maximal graded ideal.

###### Theorem 5.7.

(i) $`\mathrm{reg}(A)\mathrm{reg}(R)\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$.

(ii) $`\mathrm{reg}(R)=\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$ if and only if there is an integer $`i`$ such that $`\mathrm{reg}(A)=a_i+i`$ and $`a_i2`$.

Example. Let $`A=k[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. We have $`\mathrm{reg}(A)=0`$ with $`a_i=\mathrm{}`$ for $`i<n`$ and $`a_n=n`$. Therefore,

$$\mathrm{reg}(R)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & n=1,\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & n>1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`T=A[z_1,\mathrm{},z_s]`$ be a polynomial ring over $`A`$. Let $`R_s`$ denote the Rees algebra of $`T`$ with respect to the maximal graded ideal. It is well known that $`\mathrm{reg}(T)=\mathrm{reg}(A)`$. However, the regularities of the Rees algebras $`R_s`$ and $`R`$ need not to be the same. In fact, it may happen that $`\mathrm{reg}(R)=\mathrm{reg}(A)`$ but $`\mathrm{reg}(R_s)=\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$.

###### Corollary 5.8.

Let $`i=\mathrm{max}\{j|\mathrm{reg}(A)=a_j+j\}`$. Put $`c=\mathrm{max}\{0,a_i2\}`$. Then

$$\mathrm{reg}(R_s)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{reg}(A)\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & s<c,\hfill \\ \mathrm{reg}(A)+1\hfill & \text{for}\hfill & sc.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

By Proposition 2.5 we have $`a_{j+s}(T)=a_js`$ for all $`j0`$. Since $`\mathrm{reg}(T)=\mathrm{reg}(A)`$, we have $`\mathrm{reg}(T)=a_{j+s}(T)+(j+s)`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{reg}(A)=a_j+j`$. If $`s<c`$, then $`a_js>a_ic2`$ for all $`j`$ with $`\mathrm{reg}(A)=a_j+j`$. ¿From this it follows that $`a_{j+s}(T)>2`$ for all $`j`$ with $`\mathrm{reg}(T)=a_{j+s}(T)+(j+s)`$. If $`sc`$, then $`\mathrm{reg}(T)=a_{i+s}(T)+(i+s)`$ with $`a_{i+s}(T)=a_is2`$. Now we only need to apply Theorem 5.7(ii) to get the conclusion. ∎

There is the following sufficient condition for the equality $`\mathrm{reg}(R)=\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$ in terms of the maximal shifts of the minimal free resolution of $`A`$.

###### Corollary 5.9.

$`\mathrm{reg}(R)=\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$ if $`\mathrm{reg}(A)=b_i(A)i`$ and $`b_i(A)n2`$ for some index $`i`$ at which $`A`$ has an extremal Betti number.

###### Proof.

By Corollary 2.3 we have $`b_i(A)=a_{ni}+n`$, hence $`\mathrm{reg}(A)=a_{ni}(A)+ni`$ and $`a_{ni}2`$. By Proposition 5.5 this implies $`\mathrm{reg}(R)=\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$. ∎

Corollary 5.9 is not a necessary condition for the equality $`\mathrm{reg}(R)=\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$.

Example. Let $`A=k[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the simplicial complex on 7 vertices $`\{1,2,3,4,5,6,7\}`$ with the maximal faces $`\{1,2,3\}`$, $`\{4,5,6\}`$ and $`\{5,6,7\}`$. Using Hochster’s formula for the local cohomology modules of $`k[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ (see e.g. \[BH, Theorem 5.8\]) we get $`H_𝔪^i(A)=0`$ for $`i1,3`$, $`H_𝔪^1(A)_a=0`$ for $`a0`$, $`H_𝔪^3(A)_a0`$ for $`a2`$ and $`H_𝔪^3(A)_a=0`$ for $`a>2`$. From this it follows that $`a_i(A)=\mathrm{}`$ for $`i1,3`$, $`a_1(A)=0`$ and $`a_3(A)=2`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{reg}(A)=1`$ and, by Theorem 5.7, $`\mathrm{reg}(R)=2`$. On the other hand, $`A`$ has a $`2`$-linear $`R`$-resolution since $`\mathrm{reg}(A)=1`$. Hence the condition that $`\mathrm{reg}(A)=b_i(A)i`$, and that $`A`$ has an extremal Betti number at $`i`$ is satisfied for $`i=6`$. But we have $`b_6(A)=7>n2=5`$.

As applications, we will study the regularity of the Rees algebra $`R_{\mathrm{in}}:=B[𝔪_{\mathrm{in}}t]`$ of the algebra $`A_{\mathrm{in}}:=B/(\mathrm{in}(J))`$, where $`\mathrm{in}(J)`$ denotes the initial ideal of $`J`$ with respect to an arbitrary term order and $`𝔪_{\mathrm{in}}`$ is the maximal graded ideal of $`A_{\mathrm{in}}`$.

###### Proposition 5.10.

(i) $`a_i(R)a_i(R_{\mathrm{in}})`$ for all $`i0`$,

(ii) $`a^{}(R)a^{}(R_{\mathrm{in}})`$,

(iii) $`\mathrm{reg}(R)\mathrm{reg}(R_{\mathrm{in}})`$.

###### Proof.

We only need to prove (i). Note that $`a_ia_i(A_{\mathrm{in}})`$ by \[Sb, Theorem 3.3\]. If $`a_i0`$, then $`a_i(A_{\mathrm{in}})0`$. Applying Proposition 4.6 we obtain

$$a_i(R)=a_ia_i(A_{\mathrm{in}})=a_i(R_{\mathrm{in}}).$$

If $`a_i<0`$ and $`a_i(A_{\mathrm{in}})<0`$, then

$`a_i(R)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{a|a2\text{and}H_𝔪^{i1}(A)_a0\}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{max}\{a|a2\text{and}H_𝔪^{i1}(A_{\mathrm{in}})_a0\}=a_i(R_{\mathrm{in}}).`$
If $`a_i<0`$ and $`a_i(A_{\mathrm{in}})0`$, we apply Proposition 4.6 again to see that

$$a_i(R)2<a_i(A_{\mathrm{in}})=a_i(R_{\mathrm{in}}).$$

For the generic initial ideal $`\mathrm{Gin}(J)`$ of $`I`$ with respect to the reverse lexicographic term order, we set $`A_{\mathrm{Gin}}:=B/\mathrm{Gin}(J)`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{Gin}}:=B[𝔪_{\mathrm{Gin}}t]`$, where $`𝔪_{\mathrm{Gin}}`$ is the maximal graded ideal of $`A_{\mathrm{Gin}}`$. The following results show that in this case, $`a^{}(R_{\mathrm{Gin}})`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(R_{\mathrm{Gin}})`$ share the same lower and upper bounds of $`a^{}(R)`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(R)`$ as in Theorem 5.3 and Theorem 5.7. In particular, $`\mathrm{reg}(R_{\mathrm{Gin}})`$ differs from $`\mathrm{reg}(R)`$ at most by 1.

###### Proposition 5.11.

(i) $`a^{}(A)na^{}(R_{\mathrm{Gin}})a^{}(A)`$,

(ii) $`a^{}(R_{\mathrm{Gin}})=a^{}(A)`$ if and only if $`a^{}(A)1`$.

###### Proof.

By \[T3, Corollary 1.4\] we have $`a^{}(B/\mathrm{Gin}(J))=a^{}(A)`$. Therefore, the conclusion follows from Theorem 5.3. ∎

###### Proposition 5.12.

(i) $`\mathrm{reg}(A)\mathrm{reg}(R_{\mathrm{Gin}})\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$,

(ii) $`\mathrm{reg}(R_{\mathrm{Gin}})=\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$ if there is an integer $`i`$ such that $`\mathrm{reg}(A)=a_i+i`$ and $`a_i(A)2`$.

###### Proof.

By \[T3, Corollary 1.4\] we have $`\mathrm{reg}(A_{\mathrm{Gin}})=\mathrm{reg}(A)`$. Therefore, (i) follows from Theorem 4.3(i). By Theorem 5.7(ii), the condition of (ii) implies that $`\mathrm{reg}(R)=\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$. By Proposition 5.10, we have $`\mathrm{reg}(R)\mathrm{reg}(R_{\mathrm{Gin}})\mathrm{reg}(A)+1`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{reg}(R_{\mathrm{Gin}})=\mathrm{reg}(A)+1.`$

Remark. In spite of the above results one may ask whether $`a^{}(R)=a^{}(R_{\mathrm{Gin}})`$ and $`\mathrm{reg}(R)=\mathrm{reg}(R_{\mathrm{Gin}})`$ always hold. Unfortunately, we were unable to settle this question.

## References

\[BM\] D. Bayer and D. Mumford, What can be computed in algebraic geometry? In ”Computational Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra, Proceedings, Cortona, 1991” (D. Eisenbud and L. Robbiano, Eds.), pp. 1-48, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993.

\[BCP\] D. Bayer, H. Charalambous and S. Popescu, Extremal Betti numbers and applications to monomial ideals, J. Algebra 221 (1999), 497-512.

\[BH\] W. Bruns and J. Herzog, Cohen-Macaulay rings, Cambridge, 1998.

\[EiG\] D. Eisenbud and S. Goto, Linear free resolutions and minimal multiplicities, J. Algebra 88 (1984), 89-133.

\[EvG\] E. G. Evans and P. .A. Griffith, Local cohomology modules for normal domains, J. London Math. Soc. 19 (1979), 277-284.

\[G\] S. Goto, On the associated graded rings of parameter ideals in Buchsbaum rings, J. Algebra 85 (1980), 490-534.

\[GW\] S. Goto and K. Watanabe, On graded rings I, J. Math. Soc. Japan 30 (1978), 179-213.

\[HM\] S. Huckaba and T. Marley, Depth formulas for certain graded rings associated to an ideal, Nagoya Math. J. 133 (1994), 57-69.

\[JK\] B. Johnston and D. Katz, Castelnuovo regularity and graded rings associated to an ideal. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 123 (1995), no. 3, 727–734.

\[N\] M. Nagata, Local rings, New York-London, 1962.

\[Sb\] E. Sbarra, Upper bounds for local cohomology modules of rings with a given Hilbert function, Thesis, University of Essen, 2000.

\[Sh\] R. Y. Sharp, Bass numbers in the graded case, $`a`$-invariant formulas, and an analogue of Faltings’ annihilator theorem. J. Algebra 222 (1999), 246-270.

\[T1\] N. V. Trung, The Castelnuovo regularity of the Rees algebra and the associated graded ring, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 350 (1998), 2813-2832.

\[T2\] N. V. Trung, The largest non-vanishing degree of graded local cohomology modules, J. Algebra 215 (1999), 481-499.

\[T3\] N. V. Trung, Gröbner bases, local cohomology and reduction number, to appear in Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.

\[TI\] N. V. Trung and S. Ikeda, When is the Rees algebra Cohen-Macaulay?, Comm. Algebra 17 (12) (1989), 2893-2922.


format: text

text:
# Effects of Gauge Interactions on Fermion Masses in Models with Fermion Wavefunctions Separated in Higher Dimensions

## Abstract

We consider models that generate hierarchies via the separation of fermion wavefunctions in higher-dimensional spaces. We calculate the effects of gauge interactions between fermions and show that these are important and could help to explain (i) why the heaviest known fermion is a charge 2/3 quark, rather than a charge $`1/3`$ quark or a lepton, (ii) why this fermion has a mass $`m_t`$ comparable to the electroweak symmetry breaking scale $`M_{ew}`$, (iii) the patterns $`m_t>>m_b>m_\tau `$ and $`m_c>>m_s>m_\mu `$, and (iv) the smallness of neutrino masses.

The explanation of the spectrum of quark and charged lepton masses and the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) quark mixing matrix is an outstanding challenge that requires physics beyond the standard model (SM). There are several general features that one would like to understand. Why is the heaviest known fermion a charge 2/3 quark, rather than a charge $`1/3`$ quark or a lepton? Why does this heaviest known fermion, the top quark, have a mass that is comparable to the electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB) scale $`M_{ew}=v/\sqrt{2}=174`$ GeV, where $`v=2^{1/4}G_F^{1/2}=246`$ GeV? Why, in each generation, are the quarks heavier than the leptons and why, in the heavier two generations, is the mass of the charge 2/3 quark greater than the mass of the charge $`1/3`$ quark? Why are neutrino masses, for which there is increasingly strong evidence, so much smaller than the masses of quarks and charged leptons? Recently, a new approach to fermion mass hierarchies has been studied, in which one assumes an underlying higher-dimensional spacetime and obtains the hierarchies from the localization of fermion wavefunctions at different points in the higher dimensions -. Here we study effects of gauge interactions between fermions in this type of theory. We show that these effects are important and could help to explain the above-mentioned features of fermion masses. We use the notation $`u_i`$, $`d_i`$, and $`e_i`$ with $`i=1,2,3`$ to refer, respectively, to $`u,c,t`$, $`d,s,b`$, and $`e,\mu ,\tau `$.

Let us briefly describe the framework. For each generation, we denote the left-handed fermion fields as $`Q_i`$ and $`L_i`$ for the quark and lepton SU(2) doublets and $`u_i^c`$, $`d_i^c`$, and $`e_{iL}^c`$ for the SU(2) singlets. Usual spacetime coordinates are denoted as $`x_\nu `$, $`\nu =0,1,2,3`$ and the $`n`$ extra coordinates as $`y_\lambda `$; for definiteness, the latter are taken to be compact. Generic fermions fields are denoted $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=\psi (x)\chi (y)`$. In the extra dimensions the gauge, Higgs, and fermion fields are assumed to have support in an interval $`0y_\lambda L`$. The $`d=4+n`$-dimensional fields thus have Kaluza-Klein (KK) mode decompositions. We shall work in a low-energy effective field theory (EFT) approach. The gauge fields extend over the interval $`0<y_\lambda <L`$, consistent with the observed universality of gauge-fermion couplings. A similar assumption is made for the Higgs field(s). The fermion wavefunctions are localized at different values of $`y_\lambda `$. This could occur in string theories , but here, for technical simplicity, we assume that it occurs in a field-theoretic manner. For example, for the case $`n=1`$, before the inclusion of gauge interactions, consider the action for the quarks:

$`S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4xdy[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{Q_i}(i\gamma +L^{1/2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,Q_i})\mathrm{\Psi }_{Q_i}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{f=u,d}{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{f_i^c}(i\gamma +L^{1/2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,f_i})\mathrm{\Psi }_{f_i^c}`$ (3)
$`+L^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}(\kappa _{d,ij}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Q_i}^TC_5\mathrm{\Psi }_{d_j^c}H_d+\kappa _{u,ij}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Q_i}^TC_5\mathrm{\Psi }_{u_j^c}H_u+h.c.)]`$
where $`\gamma `$ and $`C_5`$ are the five-dimensional Dirac operator and charge conjugation matrix. In (3), in the SM, $`H_d=H^{}`$ and $`H_u=\stackrel{~}{H}^{}`$, with $`H`$ being the SM Higgs and $`\stackrel{~}{H}=i\sigma _2H^{}`$; more generally, $`H_u`$ and $`H_d`$ may be independent Higgs fields, as in the minimal supersymmetric SM (MSSM). A similar formula holds for leptons. The proportionality factor in (3) is chosen to yield a canonically normalized 4D action. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)`$ has the usual kink solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\mathrm{tanh}(\mu y)`$, this traps each fermion to a domain wall at $`y_{f_i}=\mathrm{}_{f_i}=_{0,f_i}/\mu ^2`$  with localization length $`\mu ^1`$. Starting with Dirac fermions in the five-dimensional space, this trapping mechanism yields a chiral theory in which only left-handed fermions are trapped on the physical 4D domain wall. In the standard model, the fermions trapped to the physical domain wall are then $`Q_i`$, $`u_i^c`$, $`d_i^c`$, $`L_i`$, and $`e_i^c`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. More generally, one considers the possibility of fermion localization with $`n>1`$. In the quark sector, for $`N_g`$ generations, one can choose the values of the $`n(3N_g1)`$ coordinate differences for the wavefunction centers $`\mathrm{}_{f_i}`$ to fit the $`2N_g`$ quark masses and $`(N_g1)^2`$ parameters determining the CKM matrix, i.e. the $`N_p=N_g^2+1`$ physical parameters.

If $`\mu ^1<<L`$; then, to a good approximation, a generic fermion wavefunction is a gaussian of the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=\psi (x)\chi (y)`$ with $`\chi (y)e^{\mu ^2(y\mathrm{})^2/2}`$, where $`(y\mathrm{})^2=_{\lambda =1}^n(y_\lambda \mathrm{}_\lambda )^2`$. Performing the integration over $`y`$, one obtains the 4D quark Yukawa couplings

$$S_Y=\underset{i,j}{}\kappa _{d,ij}^{(4D)}d^4x\overline{\psi }_{d_jR}(x)\psi _{Q_iL}(x)H_d(x)+\underset{i,j}{}\kappa _{u,ij}^{(4D)}d^4x\overline{\psi }_{u_jR}(x)\psi _{Q_iL}(x)\stackrel{~}{H}_u(x)+h.c.$$
(4)
where

$$\kappa _{f,ij}^{(4D)}=e^{\mu ^2(\mathrm{}_{Q_i}\mathrm{}_{f_j^c})^2/4}\kappa _{f,ij}.$$
(5)
Thus, separations $`|\mathrm{}_{Q_i}\mathrm{}_{f_j^c}|`$ that are moderate in units of $`\mu ^1`$ produce a strong gaussian suppression of fermion overlaps and hence of the associated 4D Yukawa couplings. Similar comments apply for the charged leptons. Since the purpose of this type of model is to derive a hierarchy without putting it in initially, one takes the $`\kappa _{f,ij}O(1)`$. By choosing the different separations, one can account for the observed fermion mass and mixing angle hierarchies in terms of the relative locations of fermions in the extra dimensions and further explain proton longevity and the weakness of flavor-changing neutral current processes. This type of model involves three general length scales: $`L`$, $`\mu ^1`$, and, since it is a low-energy effective field theory (EFT), a high-energy cutoff, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Besides the $`\mu ^1<<L`$ condition, one requires $`\mu <<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for the self-consistency of the theory. Possible values for these parameters, consistent with experimental constraints are sim $`L^1100`$ TeV, $`\mu /L^130`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu 20`$ -,

We proceed to incorporate the SM SU(3) $`\times `$ SU(2) $`\times `$ U(1)Y gauge interactions. Our notation is indicated by the covariant derivative on quarks, $`D_\mu =_\mu ig_3C_\mu ig_2A_\mu P_Li(g^{}/2)(Y_LP_L+Y_RP_R)B_\mu `$, where $`C_\mu =_{a=1}^8C_\mu ^a(\lambda _a/2)`$, $`A_\mu =_{a=1}^3A_\mu ^a(\tau _a/2)`$, $`C_\mu ^a`$, $`A_\mu ^a`$, and $`B_\mu `$ are the SU(3) color, SU(2)L, and weak hypercharge gauge bosons, and $`P_{L,R}`$ are chiral projection operators. Thus, $`g^{}/g_2=\mathrm{tan}\theta _W`$ and $`g^{}=(3/5)^{1/2}g_1`$, where $`g_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ are the couplings that would unify ($`=g`$) at a high mass scale in a grand unified theory .

Because the fermions are localized in the higher dimensions, with the wavefunction factorization given above, they are essentially static as functions of $`y`$, so we need only consider the Coulombic interaction between them. Since $`\mu ^1<<L`$, the Coulomb potential is that for the full $`d=4+n`$ dimensional space. Also $`\mu >>L^1>>M_{ew}`$, so (i) the relevant gauge fields are massless on this scale, and (ii) the color contribution is perturbatively calculable to good accuracy. The Yukawa operators $`\overline{d}_{jR}Q_{iL}H_d`$ and $`\overline{u}_{jR}Q_{iL}H_u`$ yield, via the Higgs vevs, the bilinears $`\overline{d}_{jR}d_{iL}`$ and $`\overline{u}_{jR}u_{iL}`$. Each of these bilinears involves only the one SU(2) nonsinglet fermion, $`Q_{iL}`$, so only the (vectorial) SU(3)c color and (chiral) U(1)Y hypercharge interactions between these fermions contribute. The distance between the centers of the wavefunctions of the fermions $`f_{iL}`$ and $`f_{jL}^c`$ at $`(x,\mathrm{}_{f_i})`$ and $`(x,\mathrm{}_{f_j^c})`$ is $`d_{f,ij}=|\mathrm{}_{f_i}\mathrm{}_{f_j^c}|`$. Using $`Y_{Q_L}=1/3`$, $`Y_{L_L}=1`$, $`Y_{f_R}=2Q_f`$, the Coulomb interaction energy of $`f_{iL}`$ and $`\overline{f}_{jR}`$ is

$$V_{Coul}(y)=\frac{a_fL^n}{|y|^{1+n}}$$
(6)
with $`|y|=d_{f,ij}`$, where $`a_f=c_f/A_{3+n}`$, $`A_{\mathrm{}}=2\pi ^{\mathrm{}/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}/2)`$ is the area of the unit sphere $`S^{\mathrm{}}`$, and

$$c_u=\frac{4}{3}g_3^2+\frac{4}{15}g_1^2,$$
(7)
$$c_d=\frac{4}{3}g_3^2\frac{2}{15}g_1^2,$$
(8)
$$c_e=\frac{6}{5}g_1^2.$$
(9)
For example, in the operator $`\overline{u}_{jR}u_{iL}`$ one has two fundamental representations of color SU(3) contracted to a singlet, so the color interaction is attractive, and the coupling constant dependence is $`(4/3)g_3^2`$ . Since the hypercharges $`Y`$ of the $`u_{iL}`$ and $`\overline{u}_{jR}`$ are 1/3 and $`4/3`$, the hypercharge interaction is $`(1/3)(4/3)(g^{})^2=(4/15)g_1^2`$, as given above. The normalization in (6) satisfies the requirement that as $`|y|`$ increases through the value $`L`$ beyond which the effective dimension of spacetime is 4, the potential matches the usual 4D Coulomb potential. Note the general inequality

$$c_u>c_dc_e.$$
(10)
If one makes the additional assumption of gauge coupling unification $`g_i=g`$ at some scale $`M_U`$ with $`\mu >M_U\stackrel{>}{}L^1`$, then for distances $`d`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1<d<M_U^1`$, $`c_u=(8/5)g^2`$ and $`c_d=c_e=(6/5)g^2`$.

Before inclusion of gauge interactions, the suppression in (5) can be treated as the result of the tunnelling of each fermion to the midpoint of the line joining $`\mathrm{}_{f_i}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_{f_j^c}`$, located at a distance $`d_{f,ij}/2`$ from each . The WKB tunnelling amplitude  for each fermion is $`\mathrm{exp}(_0^{d_{f,ij}/2}V(r)𝑑r)=\mathrm{exp}((\mu d_{f,ij})^2/8)`$, yielding, for the total suppression, the factor $`\mathrm{exp}((\mu d_{f,ij})^2/4)`$, in agreement with (5).

We now consider the effect of the Coulomb interactions. Since $`L/d_{f,ij}`$ values are reasonably large, the effects of the boundary conditions on the gauge fields, e.g., image charges, are small, and we neglect them. Given that the fermions have the same localization lengths, the tunnelling can be treated in a symmetric way for each pair. The full potential energy for $`f_i`$ at a distance $`r`$ outward from its wavefunction center toward $`f_j^c`$ is $`V_f(r)=V_{trap}(r)+V_{Coul}(d_{f,ij}r)`$, where $`V_{trap}(r)=\mu ^2r`$. The resultant restoring force in the $`\widehat{𝐫}`$ direction is $`F=\mu ^2+a_f(n+1)L^n/(d_{f,ij}r)^{n+1}`$. The most dramatic effect occurs if $`F(r=0^+)=\mu ^2+a_f(n+1)L^n/(d_{f,ij})^{n+2}`$ is positive, i.e.,

$$(\mu d_{f,ij})^2<a_f(n+1)\left(\frac{L}{d_{f,ij}}\right)^n;$$
(11)
here, the Coulomb attraction overwhelms the trapping potential and causes $`f_i`$ and $`f_j^c`$ to have wavefunctions that are centered at the same location, at least to within the distance $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ down to which the EFT applies. Hence in this case there is no suppression of the Yukawa coupling $`\kappa _{f,ij}^{(4D)}`$, so that, if the higher-dimensional coupling $`\kappa _{f,ij}O(1)`$, then the resultant fermion mass is of order $`M_{ew}`$. Let us first concentrate on the third generation and neglect small mixing effects. We further focus on the $`n=2`$ case since a successful fit was found for this case in  (before the inclusion of gauge interactions). This fit yielded $`\mu d_{u,33}=0.9005`$, $`\mu d_{d,33}=3.00`$, and $`\mu d_{e,33}=3.15`$, with $`\mu L18`$. We use the illustrative gauge-coupling unification value $`g_i=g`$ with $`g^2/(4\pi )0.04`$, so that $`a_u=0.030`$ and $`a_d=a_e=0.023`$. Then $`(\mu d_{u,33})^2=0.81`$, which is smaller than the RHS of (11), viz., 46, while $`(\mu d_{f,33})^2>`$ RHS(11) for $`f=d,e`$. Thus, with these input values, the Coulomb interactions cause $`t_L`$ and $`t_L^c`$ wavefunctions to be centered essentially on top of each other, but do not overwhelm the trapping of other fermions to their domain walls. Generalizing, we can say that if a fermion has $`\mu d_{f,33}\stackrel{<}{}O(1)`$, i.e., is moderately heavy, then, for a value of $`\mu L20`$ that is phenomenologically acceptable, LHS(11) $`<`$ RHS(11), so that the Coulomb interaction can dominate over the trapping interaction with $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and cause the chiral components of this fermion to lie essentially on top of each other, leading to $`m_fM_{ew}`$ if $`\kappa _{f,33}O(1)`$. For plausible input values, this can happen for a charge 2/3 quarks while the charge $`1/3`$ quarks and leptons remain trapped on their domain walls. This could thus help to explain the fact that the heaviest known fermion, and the only fermion with a mass comparable to the EWSB scale $`M_{ew}`$, is a charge 2/3 quark, rather than a charge $`1/3`$ quark or a charged lepton and thus could provide deeper insight into properties (i) and (ii) in the abstract.

Although we have discussed this Coulomb-induced collapse in the model of , we also note that, more generally, gauge interactions could also be relevant to models with dynamical EWSB involving multifermion operators in which a $`\overline{f}f`$ condensate forms. We suggest that these gauge interactions and the inequality (10) could explain why in such dynamical EWSB models it is the $`\overline{t}t`$ condensate that forms rather than a $`\overline{b}b`$ or $`\overline{\tau }\tau `$ condensate.

Just as a WKB approximation can be used to infer the result (5) before inclusion of the Coulomb effects, so also it can be used to calculate the latter effects. We next do this for fermions for which this attraction does not overwhelm the trapping to domain walls. Consider the symmetric path where $`f_i`$ and $`f_j^c`$ each tunnel a distance $`r`$ toward each other from their respective centers $`(x,\mathrm{}_{f_i})`$ and $`(x,\mathrm{}_{f_j^c})`$ so that they are a distance $`2ϵ_{f,ij}=d_{f,ij}2r`$ apart. The classical turning points $`(r_t)_{f,ij}`$ occur where the total potential energy

$$V_{tot}(r)=2\mu ^2r\frac{a_fL^n}{(d_{f,ij}2r)^{n+1}}$$
(12)
vanishes. We have $`ϵ_{f,ij}=(1/2)d_{f,ij}(r_t)_{f,ij}`$ and define $`\eta _{f,ij}=2ϵ_{f,ij}/d_{f,ij}`$. Then the equation for the turning point becomes

$$\eta _{f,ij}^{n+1}(1\eta _{f,ij})=b_f$$
(13)
where $`b_f=a_f(\mu d_{f,ij})^2(L/d_{f,ij})^n`$. Since the mutual tunnelling by the fermions does not have to proceed further than to the midpoint between them, we are only interested in the range $`0\eta _{f,ij}1`$. For this range, the LHS of (13) increases from 0 to a maximum value $`b_{f,m}=(n+1)^{n+1}/(n+2)^{n+2}`$ at $`(\eta _{f,ij})_m=(n+1)/(n+2)`$ and then decreases to 0 again at $`\eta _{f,ij}=1`$. If $`b_fb_{f,m}`$, (13) has physical solutions. For $`b_f=b_{f,m}`$, there is a unique physical solution, $`\eta _{f,ij}=(\eta _{f,ij})_m`$. For $`0<b_f<b_{f,max}`$, the two turning points are given by $`r_{f,ij}^{(1,2)}=(1\eta _{f,ij}^{(2,1)})d_{f,ij}/2`$ with $`0\eta _{f,ij}^{(1)}<(n+1)/(n+2)<\eta _{f,ij}^{(2)}<1`$. The relation between the higher-dimensional and 4D Yukawa couplings is then given by

$$\kappa _{f,ij}^{(4D)}=w_{f,ij}\kappa _{f,ij}$$
(14)
where the overlap factor is, in the WKB approximation, $`w_{f,ij}=\mathrm{exp}(J_{f,ij})`$, with

$`J_{f,ij}={\displaystyle _{r_{f,ij}^{(1)}}^{r_{f,ij}^{(2)}}}V_{tot}(r)𝑑r`$ (15)
(16)
$`=(\eta _{f,ij}^{(2)}\eta _{f,ij}^{(1)})\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu d_{f,ij}}{2}}\right)^2[2(\eta _{f,ij}^{(1)}+\eta _{f,ij}^{(2)})]{\displaystyle \frac{a_f}{2n\eta _{f,ij}^{(1)}\eta _{f,ij}^{(2)}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{d_{f,ij}}}\right)^n\right].`$ (17)
The integral extends over the classically forbidden region between the two turning points . For the $`n=2`$ parameters above, we find that the gauge interaction increases the overlap factors $`w_{d,33}`$ and $`w_{e,33}`$ relevant for $`m_b`$ and $`m_\tau `$ by 22 % from 0.77 to 0.98 and from 0.76 to 0.93, respectively. Thus, gauge interactions have a significant enhancement effect on the wavefunction overlaps and hence Yukawa couplings. Although we have concentrated on the case $`g_3=g_1`$, the more general case $`g_3>g_1`$ would lead to further enhancement of the masses of the charge 2/3 and $`1/3`$ quarks relative to those of the charged leptons. Of course, this is not an ab initio calculation of the fermion mass spectrum, since it depends on initial inputs for the relative distances $`d_{f,ij}`$. What our calculations show is that gauge interactions, together with the inequality (10), could help to explain why the quarks of a given generation are heavier than the charged lepton and why, at least for the higher two generations, $`m_{Q=2/3}>m_{Q=1/3}`$, i.e. property (iii).

For the first generation, given the smallness of $`m_u`$ and $`m_d`$ , a model for these masses should take account of the off-diagonal quantities $`\kappa _{f,ij}^{(4D)}`$, $`ij=12,21`$. Indeed, if the $`N_g=1,2`$ subsectors of the mass matrices for the charge 2/3 and $`1/3`$ quarks have the form (after allowed rephasings so that $`A_{22}^{(f)}`$ is real and positive)

$`M^{(f)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& A_{12}^{(f)}\\ A_{21}^{(f)}& A_{22}^{(f)}\end{array}\right)`$ (18)
where $`|A_{ij}^{(f)}|/A_{22}^{(f)}<<1`$ for $`ij=12,21`$ and $`0`$ means a negligibly small entry, the eigenvalues have the form $`\lambda _2^{(f)}A_{22}^{(f)}`$ and $`|\lambda _1^{(f)}||A_{12}^{(f)}A_{21}^{(f)}|/A_{22}^{(f)}`$ (with $`\lambda _2^{(u)}=m_c`$, $`\lambda _2^{(d)}=m_s`$, $`|\lambda _1^{(u)}|=m_u`$, $`|\lambda _1^{(d)}|=m_d`$). Since $`A_{22}^{(u)}m_c>>A_{22}^{(d)}m_s`$ and since these enter in the denominators of the expressions for the lighter eigenvalues, if $`A_{ij}^{(u)}`$ and $`A_{ij}^{(d)}`$, $`ij=12,21`$ are not too different, this seesaw effect could accomodate the fact that $`m_u<m_d`$. That is, these lightest quark masses could arise primarily by mixing, and hence could avoid the generic pattern $`m_{u_i}>m_{d_i}>m_{e_i}`$ for the heavier two generations $`i=2,3`$.

An important comment concerns the calculability of these gauge interaction effects. The fact that fermions with stronger gauge interactions (color and $`U(1)_Y`$ or $`U(1)_{em}`$) are more massive is very suggestive. Yet conventional attempts to explain this via radiative corrections in usual quantum field theory encounter the obstacle that perturbative gauge boson couplings preserve chirality and cannot generate masses from originally massless fermions. Once fermion masses are generated, by the Higgs mechanism or in some other way, radiative gauge boson corrections modify the tree-level masses; however, these corrections are divergent, so that the physical masses are arbitrary numbers which are inserted to fit experiment. In contrast, our effects are calculable and finite. Even in the case where they overwhelm the domain-wall trapping, and hence there can be sensitivity to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, this just results in $`w_{f,ij}1`$.

We next consider neutrinos. In the minimal approach, where one avoids electroweak-singlet neutrinos, the Majorana mass term $`\nu _{iL}^TC(M_L)_{ij}\nu _{jL}`$ would arise from the operator

$$𝒪=\frac{1}{M_X}\underset{i,j}{}h_{ij}(ϵ_{ap}ϵ_{bq}+ϵ_{aq}ϵ_{bp})L_i^{Ta}C_dL_j^bH^pH^q+h.c.$$
(19)
(where $`a,b,p,q`$ are SU(2) indices) via the vevs of the Higgs. Here, $`M_X`$ could be $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Since $`L_i^a`$ and $`L_j^b`$ are coupled to $`I=1`$ and since they have the same hypercharge ($`Y=1`$), both the SU(2) and U(1)Y Coulomb interactions are repulsive for the $`L_i^a`$, $`L_j^b`$ pair, separated by the distance $`d_{LL,ij}`$. This would tend to move the corresponding wavefunctions farther apart and thereby suppress the wavefunction overlap, naturally leading to small 4D operator coefficients. For the case $`i=j`$, the Coulomb self-energy is especially large, $`g_k^2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`k=1,2`$. This would strongly suppress the diagonal contributions to the left-handed neutrino Majorana mass matrix. In turn, this could naturally lead to large mixing. Given that the leptonic mixing matrix $`U=U_\nu U_e^{}`$, if $`U_e`$ has only small mixing, a (2,3) subsector of the $`\nu _{iL}`$ Majorana mass matrix $`M_L`$ (which always satisfies $`(M_L)_{ij}=(M_L)_{ji}`$) of the form

$`(M_L)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& C\\ C& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (20)
will yield maximal $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ mixing, in agreement with the atmospheric neutrino data .

Some of the features that we have found may well transcend the specific EFT approach used here. Indeed, the latter leaves a number of open questions. Why are there three generations of standard model fermions standard model with light neutrinos? What are the implications of the fact that the theory is nonrenormalizable in $`d>4`$ dimensions? What further insights can these models give to EWSB (e.g. ) ? What physics gives rise to the restriction of the gauge and matter fields to $`M\times [0,L]^n`$, where $`M`$ is Minkowski space, and to the localization of the fermion wavefunctions? The latter problem may well be related to the open string/brane construction of gauge theories. We speculate that the localization of fermions and resultant gaussian profile might be achieved without introducing the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ field and higher-dimensional Yukawa couplings and masses and will return to this issue later, together with further study of quark and lepton masses and mixing.

In summary, we have shown that the inclusion of gauge interactions in models with fermion wavefunctions separated in extra dimensions has important consequences and could help to provide an explanation of several of the most basic features of the known fermion masses. This explanation is pleasingly minimal in that it makes use only of the established SM gauge transformation properties of the known fermions, albeit in a new context.

S. N. would like to thank the Israeli Academy for Fundamental Research for a grant. The research of R. S. was partially supported by the NSF grant PHY-97-22101. S. N. thanks the Yang ITP for hospitality in Sept.-Oct. 2000, and R. S. thanks Tel Aviv University for hospitality during visits when parts of this research were carried out.