text:
# Geometrical Conditions for CPTP Maps and their Application to a Quantum Repeater and a State-dependent Quantum Cloning Machine

## I Introduction

Suppose that we receive a quantum state which is drawn from a parametrized set $`\{\widehat{f}_i\}`$ with known a priori probabilities, $`\{p_i\}`$, and that we have another set of states $`\{\widehat{g}_i\}`$, which we call templates, at our disposal. Our task is to output an appropriate state function of the templates that best matches the input. The meaning of best matching  depends on the task that we are going to pursue. For example, we may consider an eavesdropping strategy in a quantum cryptosystem, an action of a quantum repeater in a communication channel, a state-dependent cloning process, and so on.

The best matching process is generally described by a completely positive trace preserving (CPTP) map from the input to the output state sets. Unfortunately, however, the problem of finding the optimal CPTP mapping between given sets of quantum states is still poorly understood. For example, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a CPTP mapping between generic mixed states are known only for binary sets of states in a two dimensional space, $`\{\widehat{f}_1,\widehat{f}_2\}`$ and $`\{\widehat{g}_1,\widehat{g}_2\}`$ albertiuhlmann  (with $`\widehat{g}_i[\widehat{I}+\stackrel{}{g_i}\widehat{\sigma }]/2`$ and, without lack of generality, $`\stackrel{}{g_1}^2=\stackrel{}{g_2}^2=g^2`$, and $`g[0,1]`$). This result has never been exploited for practical purposes of quantum information processing.

In this paper, we derive a simple geometrical framework for the general theorem on the existence of CPTP mappings, and then apply it to the problem of designing a quantum optimal repeater for relaying classical information over a lossy quantum channel, and to describe a special kind of state-dependent quantum cloning machine.

Let us suppose that we are at an intermediate station and receive very weak coherent states $`\widehat{f}_1=|\alpha \alpha |`$ and $`\widehat{f}_2=|\alpha \alpha |`$ and that we must replace these weak signals with stronger ones consisting of the templates $`\widehat{g}_1=|\beta \beta |`$ and $`\widehat{g}_2=|\beta \beta |`$ (where the strict inequality $`|\beta |>|\alpha |`$ holds) to improve the transmission performance through the second channel which is assumed to be lossy.

We consider CPTP mappings from the inputs to not only the given template elements but also a classical mixture of them. This setting is especially motivated by a practical scenario where one should find appropriate repeating states for the second lossy channel and design the optimal mapping for outputting those states. Actually, such states will be more or less semi-classical ones based on Gaussian states because there will be no much merit to use any non-classical states for a long-haul lossy channel, as non-classical states will decohere rapidly and result in semi-classical ones. What remains in practice is then to find an appropriate mixture of coherent state templates. Thus, we are to design the optimal CPTP map acting on the input $`\widehat{f}_i`$, that outputs a quantum state $`\widehat{\rho }_i`$ of the form

$$\widehat{f}_i\widehat{\rho }_i=\underset{j}{}p_{ij}\widehat{g}_j.$$
(1)
Another ansatz is then that of quantum cloning. We are concerned with the special case where, given $`N`$ identical inputs $`\widehat{f}_i^N`$, we are only able to construct outputs which are classical mixtures of the templates consisting of $`M`$ copies $`\widehat{g}_i^M`$. This is a more restricted model than the ones studied in the literature to date. However, as seen in section IV, our model provides a reasonable cloning performance compared with that of more general models known so far. In particular, when one considers the use of quantum cloning for a lossy quantum channel based on Gaussian states, our model can be a good practical scenario as mentioned in the previous paragraph. An advantage of our method is that we just have to maximize the chosen figure of merit along a certain curve specifying the boundary of the allowed CPTP mappings, unlike the conventional methods that rely on dealing with all the inequalities for the constraints imposed by unitarity over extended Hilbert spaces with ancilla.

## II CPTP Mapping Existence Condition

The necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a CPTP mapping between the sets of 2-dim states derived by Alberti and Uhlmann albertiuhlmann  are expressed in the form

$$d_{tr}(\widehat{f}_1,t\widehat{f}_2)d_{tr}(\widehat{\rho }_1,t\widehat{\rho }_2);t^+,$$
(2)
where the trace norm distance between two operators $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$ is defined as $`d_{tr}(\widehat{A},\widehat{B})\mathrm{Tr}[(\widehat{A}\widehat{B})^{}(\widehat{A}\widehat{B})]^{1/2}`$.

Let us then write the output states as

$`\widehat{\rho }_1`$ $`=`$ $`p|g_1g_1\left|+(1p)\right|g_2g_2|,`$
$`\widehat{\rho }_2`$ $`=`$ $`q|g_2g_2\left|+(1q)\right|g_1g_1|,`$ (3)
with the output probabilities $`(p,q)[0,1]`$. The above condition Eq. (2) implies a complicated set of constraints on the parameters describing generical mixed input and output states, and on the probability distributions $`p,q`$, but it can be explicitly calculated within a nice geometrical framework.

In particular, in the most general model of mixed ‘initial’ and ‘template’ states defined by an arbitrary vector in the Bloch sphere, $`\widehat{f}_i[\widehat{I}+\stackrel{}{f_i}\widehat{\sigma }]/2`$ and $`\widehat{g}_i[\widehat{I}+\stackrel{}{g_i}\widehat{\sigma }]/2`$, respectively, Alberti and Uhlmann’s condition can be rewritten as

$`h(\widehat{p},\widehat{q};\stackrel{}{f_i},\stackrel{}{g_i};t)`$ $``$ $`h^B|h^B|`$ (4)
$``$ $`R(h^A|h^A|)0;t^+`$
where, using the new coordinates $`\widehat{p}p1/2`$, $`\widehat{q}q1/2`$ ($`(\widehat{p},\widehat{q})[1/2,1/2]`$) to simplify the notation, we have introduced the parabolic functions of $`t`$ as

$`h^A(X;t)`$ $``$ $`X2(2+X)t+Xt^2`$
$`h^B(\widehat{p},\widehat{q};Y_0;t)`$ $``$ $`(Y_04\widehat{p}^2)2(Y_0+4\widehat{p}\widehat{q})t`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`(Y_04\widehat{q}^2)t^2,`$
and the parameters

$`R`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }{g^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}0,`$
$`X`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1f^2}{f^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi }}0,`$
$`Y_0`$ $``$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1g^2}{g^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}1,`$ (6)
with $`2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 1\stackrel{}{g_1}\stackrel{}{g_2}/g^2`$, $`2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi 1\stackrel{}{f_1}\stackrel{}{f_2}/f^2`$ and $`\varphi ,\theta [0,\pi ]`$.

Now let us turn to the analysis of condition (4). This can be seen to reduce to the following constraints

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_+`$ $``$ $`t_+^At_+^B0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{}`$ $``$ $`t_{}^Bt_{}^A0,`$ (7)
where $`t_\pm ^A`$ and $`t_\pm ^B`$ are the zeros of $`h^A`$ and $`h^B`$, respectively, and

$`H(\widehat{p},\widehat{q},R,X,Y_0;t)`$ $`=`$ $`(Y_{0X}4\widehat{p}^2)2[Y_{2X}+4\widehat{p}\widehat{q}]t`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`(Y_{0X}4\widehat{q}^2)t^20;`$
$`\text{for }t_{}^Btt_+^B,`$
where, for ease of presentation, we have defined $`Y_{nX}Y_0(n+X)R`$. After some algebra and the analysis of a few geometrical constraints in the parameter space $`(p,q)`$, one finally obtains that the Alberti-Uhlmann condition can be satisfied in certain geometrically simple $`(p,q)`$ parameter regions, classified according to the values of $`R,X`$ and $`Y_0`$ (see Appendix).

## III Repeater in Lossy Quantum Channel

In the model for the repeater in a quantum lossy channel, the input states are pure, and the Alberti and Uhlmann condition can be greatly simplified as the well known fidelity criterion uhlmann

$$F(\widehat{f}_1,\widehat{f}_2)F(\widehat{\rho }_1,\widehat{\rho }_2).$$
(9)
Given the output states (3), it is easy to evaluate the fidelities so that the CPTP mapping existence condition (9) can be explicitly rewritten as

$`pq+(1p)(1q)R2\sqrt{p(1p)q(1q)},`$ (10)
where we have introduced the parameters

$$R\frac{1\kappa ^2}{1K^2}<1,\kappa \alpha |\alpha ,K\beta |\beta .$$
(11)
The inequality (10) is trivially satisfied when its l.h.s. is negative definite, i.e. when

$`q`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2R1}{2p1}}+1\right](0<p<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$ (12)
$`q`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2R1}{2p1}}+1\right]({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<p<1).`$ (13)
Otherwise,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q)(p+q+R1)^24Rpq0,$$
(14)
should hold. Collecting these two cases together, we finally conclude that the CPTP mapping existence condition (10) is satisfied for the range of parameters $`(p,q)`$ contained within the shaded area shown in Fig. 1. The upper boundary is specified by

$$\begin{array}{cc}q\hfill & =1(0pR),\hfill \\ q\hfill & =1R(12R)p+2\sqrt{R(1R)p(1p)}\hfill \\ & (Rp1),\hfill \\ 0\hfill & qR(\mathrm{at}p=1),\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
while the lower boundary is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & Rq1(\mathrm{at}p=0),\hfill \\ q\hfill & =1R(12R)p2\sqrt{R(1R)p(1p)}\hfill \\ & (0p1R),\hfill \\ q\hfill & =0(1Rp1).\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
### III.1 Optimal Repeater

Now we apply the above results to derive the optimal repeater for the second channel which is assumed to be a simple lossy channel described by

$$\widehat{}(|\pm \gamma \pm \gamma |)=|\pm \eta \gamma \pm \eta \gamma |,$$
(17)
for any coherent state $`|\gamma `$ and $`0<\eta <1`$. We consider two kinds of measures of the transmission performance through the lossy channel, i.e. the average bit error rate $`P_\mathrm{e}`$ and the Holevo capacity $`\chi ()`$ for the output ensemble from the channel, $`=\{\widehat{\rho }_1^{},\widehat{\rho }_2^{};1\xi ,\xi \}`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }_i^{}\widehat{}(\widehat{\rho }_i)`$ and

$`\widehat{\rho }_1`$ $``$ $`p|\beta \beta \left|+(1p)\right|\beta \beta |,`$
$`\widehat{\rho }_2`$ $``$ $`q|\beta \beta \left|+(1q)\right|\beta \beta |,`$ (18)
$`1\xi `$ and $`\xi `$ being the a priori probabilities for $`\widehat{\rho }_1^{}`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_2^{}`$, respectively, as well as for $`|\alpha `$ and $`|\alpha `$.

We first consider minimizing the average error probability $`P_\mathrm{e}`$ with respect to a POVM $`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1,\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2\}`$

$`P_\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ $``$ $`\underset{\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1,\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2\}}{\mathrm{min}}\left[(1\xi )\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1\widehat{\rho }_1^{})+\xi \mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2\widehat{\rho }_2^{})\right]`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`1\xi +\underset{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1}{\mathrm{min}}\left[\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\right],`$
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\xi \widehat{\rho }_2^{}(1\xi )\widehat{\rho }_1^{}`$ and we have used the property $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1+\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2=\widehat{I}`$. The minimum error is then found by taking $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1=|\lambda _{}\lambda _{}|`$, where $`|\lambda _{}`$ is the negative eigenvalue eigenstate of the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. We then have

$`P_\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{min}}(p,q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{1[(2\xi 1)^2K^2`$ (20)
$`+`$ $`[2\xi q+2(1\xi )p1]^2(1K^2)]^{\frac{1}{2}}\},`$
with $`K^{}\eta \beta |\eta \beta `$. So clearly we are to find the optimal repeater maximizing the quantity

$$S(p,q)\xi q+(1\xi )p.$$
(21)
Since the latter is an increasing function in both $`p`$ and $`q`$, it can be maximized under the CPTP map existence constraints by use of the standard Lagrange multiplier method, i.e. by solving the following set of equations

$$S(p,q)=\lambda [\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q)];\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q)=0,$$
(22)
where $`\lambda `$ is a constant. Solving Eqs. (22) with the aid of Eq. (14) and Fig. 1, it is readily shown that the optimal bit error rate is obtained for:

$$p_{\mathrm{opt}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\frac{c_{}}{\sqrt{c}}\right];q_{\mathrm{opt}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+\frac{c_+}{\sqrt{c}}\right],$$
(23)
for $`0<R<1`$ and $`0<\xi <1`$, where

$`c_\pm `$ $``$ $`R\pm (2\xi 1)(1R),`$
$`c`$ $``$ $`14\xi (1\xi )(1R).`$ (24)
Furthermore, for the optimal pair (23) we have

$$S_{\mathrm{opt}}=C+D[\sqrt{c}1]/2.$$
(25)
Note that in the particular case of equiprobably distributed inputs, i.e. when $`\xi =1/2`$, we have that $`c_+=c_{}=c=R`$ and then the optimal point for $`0<R<1`$ explicitly reads $`p_{\mathrm{opt}}=q_{\mathrm{opt}}=(1+\sqrt{R})/2`$.

With $`(p,q)`$ evaluated as the optimal pair (23) we get

$$P_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{CPTP}}^{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{1}{2}\{1\sqrt{14\xi (1\xi )[1(1K^2)R]}\}.$$
(26)
We compare this with the average bit error rate in the case of no action by the repeater, i.e. with final states given by $`|\pm \eta \alpha \pm \eta \alpha |`$, which is expressed by

$$P_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{NOACT}}[1\sqrt{14\xi (1\xi )\kappa ^2}]/2.$$
(27)
where $`\kappa ^{}\eta \alpha |\eta \alpha `$. As it can be simply proved and directly seen from Fig. 2, the optimal error probability $`P_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{CPTP}}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ is always smaller than $`P_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{NOACT}}`$ for any choice of initial probability distributions $`\xi `$, $`0<\eta <1`$ and $`|\beta |>|\alpha |`$. That is, the intermediate action of the repeater with optimal CPTP mapping on the initial states reduces the final error probability of detecting the original states.

Now we turn our attention to the problem of maximizing the Holevo capacity

$$\chi ()S(\widehat{\rho }^{})\underset{k}{}\xi _kS(\widehat{\rho }_k^{})=\underset{k}{}\xi _kD(\widehat{\rho }_k^{}||\widehat{\rho }^{}),$$
(28)
where $`\widehat{\rho }^{}=_k\xi _k\widehat{\rho }_k^{}`$, $`S(\widehat{\rho }^{})`$ is the von Neumann entropy, and $`D(\widehat{\rho }_k^{}||\widehat{\rho }^{})`$ is the relative entropy. First notice that $`\chi ()`$ is maximized at the extreme points of the convex set $`(p,q)`$ of the region allowed by the Alberti-Uhlmann condition, because $`\chi ()`$ is a downward convex function with respect to the pair $`(p,q)`$. In fact, let $`(p_\mathrm{E},q_\mathrm{E})`$ and $`(p_\mathrm{A},q_\mathrm{A})`$ be extreme and interior points, respectively. Define the corresponding ensembles as $`^\mathrm{E}=\{\widehat{\rho }_k^\mathrm{E};\xi _k\}`$ and $`^\mathrm{A}=\{\widehat{\rho }_k^\mathrm{A};\xi _k\}`$. Then for another interior point,

$$\widehat{\rho }_k^\mathrm{B}=(1\zeta )\widehat{\rho }_k^\mathrm{E}+\zeta \widehat{\rho }_k^\mathrm{A}$$
(29)
(where $`0<\zeta <1`$), we have

$$\chi (^\mathrm{B})(1\zeta )\chi (^\mathrm{E})+\zeta \chi (^\mathrm{A}),$$
(30)
due to the joint convexity of the relative entropy.

The problem of maximization of the Holevo capacity $`\chi _{\mathrm{CPTP}}`$ along the (elliptic) boundary of the CPTP allowed region in the $`(p,q)`$ parameter space for general initial probability distributions $`\xi `$ is still quite cumbersome but can be solved numerically. For the sake of clarity we explicitly show here a practical case of equiprobably distributed inputs, $`\xi =1/2`$ (maximum amount of information encoded in the inputs). It is quite easy to check that in this case the channel capacity is zero along the line $`q=1p`$ and symmetric with respect to the lines $`q=p`$ and $`q=1p`$, and monotonically increasing towards the points $`(1,1)`$ and $`(0,0)`$. In particular, its maximum is achieved at the optimal point $`p_{\mathrm{opt}}=q_{\mathrm{opt}}=(1+\sqrt{R})/2`$ on the boundary of the allowed region. Its behaviour as a function of $`\kappa `$ is shown in Fig. 3, where it is also compared with the channel capacity

$$\chi _{\mathrm{NOACT}}(\lambda _{\kappa +}\mathrm{log}\lambda _{\kappa +}+\lambda _\kappa \mathrm{log}\lambda _\kappa )$$
(31)
(with $`\lambda _{\kappa \pm }(1\pm \kappa )/2`$) for the case of no action by the repeater and the Holevo bound for the input states, i.e.

$$\chi _{\mathrm{INPUT}}(\lambda _{\kappa ^{}+}\mathrm{log}\lambda _{\kappa ^{}+}+\lambda _\kappa ^{}\mathrm{log}\lambda _\kappa ^{})$$
(32)
(with $`\lambda _{\kappa ^{}\pm }(1\pm \kappa ^{})/2`$).

As one can see, there are both parameter ($`\beta /\alpha ,\eta `$) regions where $`\chi _{\mathrm{CPTP}}>\chi _{\mathrm{NOACT}}`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{CPTP}}<\chi _{\mathrm{NOACT}}`$. In particular, defining $`\kappa _0`$ as the intercept point between the curves $`\chi _{\mathrm{CPTP}}`$ and $`\chi _{\mathrm{NOACT}}`$ (i.e. such that $`\chi _{\mathrm{CPTP}}(\kappa _0)\chi _{\mathrm{NOACT}}(\kappa _0)`$), for $`0<\kappa <\kappa _0<1`$ the accessible information is bigger when amplifying the signals at the repeater, while for $`\kappa _0<\kappa <1`$ the best performance is obtained without amplification. This behavior can be explained as follows: for small $`\kappa `$ the inputs tend to be more orthogonal and the quantum repeater helps; on the other hand, for larger $`\kappa `$, the inputs tend to overlap and there is no gain in using the quantum repeater. Furthermore, one can easily check that, as $`\eta `$ decreases (the channel becomes more lossy), although the absolute channel capacity performance decreases, the range of $`\kappa `$ for which $`\chi _{\mathrm{CPTP}}>\chi _{\mathrm{NOACT}}`$ also becomes larger ($`\kappa _0`$ increases): for very noisy channels the amplification by the repeater is essential even for the case when the inputs are almost completely overlapping.

The different behavior measured by the minimum bit error rate and the Holevo capacity may be also interpreted as follows: the Helstrom bound specifies the performance of a single shot measurement on each signal state, while the Holevo capacity is a measure for the coding by a large scale collective measurement where the coherence involved in sequences of signal states must be fully used to extract as much information as possible. So, preparing mixed state signals at the repeater could spoil in some cases the coherence involved in sequences of pure state signals $`|\pm \eta \alpha `$, leading to the reduction of the Holevo capacity.

For the near future optical communications based on classical coding, the bit error rate is of greater interest, and the optimal repeater derived here will be useful. When the template states $`\{|\beta ,|\beta \}`$ can be prepared with enough power such as $`K0`$, then the optimal repeating strategy is simply realized by the intercept-resend (IR) strategy. That is, we first discriminate $`\{|\beta ,|\beta \}`$ by the minimum error measurement, and then assign an appropriate template state based on the measurement results. In the case of $`\xi =1/2`$, the repeating states are specified by Eq. (18) with the parameters

$$p=q=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{1\kappa ^2}\right),$$
(33)
and the final bit error rate is

$$P_{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{IR}}^{\mathrm{min}}=\frac{1}{2}\{1\sqrt{(1\kappa ^2)(1K^2)]}\}.$$
(34)
When, on the other hand, the non-orthogonality of the template states should be taken into account, we have to consider quantum processes which do not include any intermediate measurement process. One possible implementation is given by the quantum network shown in Fig. 4. The computational basis is made up of the so called even and odd coherent states,

$`|0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1+\kappa )}}}(|\alpha +|\alpha ),`$
$`|1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1\kappa )}}}(|\alpha |\alpha ).`$ (35)
The controlled rotations are defined by

$`\widehat{R}(\theta _\pm )\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _\pm & \mathrm{sin}\theta _\pm \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _\pm & \mathrm{cos}\theta _\pm \end{array}\right),`$ (38)
where $`\theta _\pm (\mathrm{arcsin}K/\kappa \pm \pi /2)/2`$. The ancilla qubit is initialized in the even coherent state $`|0_b`$, where the subscript $`b`$ refers to a particular mode of the coherent template states. The repeating states are simply obtained at the output port in mode b by tracing out the states in mode $`a`$. Unfortunately, this type of quantum circuit still requires hypothetical non-linear processes to generate the even and odd coherent states as well as the cross Kerr effect between mode a and b sasaki ; Cochrane99 .

## IV State-dependent Quantum Cloning

Another interesting application of the CPTP mapping results is in state-dependent cloning. As it is well known, an arbitrary unknown quantum state cannot be cloned wootterszurek . It is possible, however, to produce imperfect copies of quantum states, both deterministically (when the cloning machine can only perform unitary operations) and probabilistically (where via postselection measurements in an ancillary space, faithful copies of the input are obtained with non zero success probability). Several results on quantum cloning are already known by now (for a selected, though not exhaustive, bibliography, see, e.g., Refs. fanmatsumotowadati ).

In this section we will exploit the geometric results concerning the existence of a CPTP map between 2-d quantum systems section to describe an $`NM`$ (anti) cloning state-dependent machine. In particular, we assume that the input states are pure and given as an $`N`$-fold tensor product $`|f_i^N`$, while the ‘templates’ $`\widehat{g}_i`$ are pure ($`g=1`$) and $`M`$-copies clones ($`MN1`$) of the input states $`|f_i`$, i.e.

$$|f_i|\stackrel{~}{f}_i|f_i^N;|g_i|f_i^M.$$
(39)
We then restrict our analysis to the special case in which we assumed that we are only able to construct outputs which are classical mixtures of these templates, that is the outputs are given again by Eq. (3). More general cloner models (including the state-dependent copiers which unitarily map pure initial states to a pure state superposition of clones as in Refs. bruss1 ; chefles2 ) will be considered elsewhere. In our ansatz, then, it is straightforward to see, by using the Bloch sphere parametrization for $`\widehat{g}_i`$ and noting that the states $`\{|g_i\}`$ (as well as the states $`\{|f_i\}`$) span a 2-d Hilbert space, that the overlaps must be

$$|\stackrel{~}{f}_1|\stackrel{~}{f}_2|=\mathrm{cos}^N\varphi ;|g_1|g_2|=\mathrm{cos}\theta =\mathrm{cos}^M\varphi .$$
(40)
The case of pure $`|g_i`$ can be also immediately handled within the framework discussed in the previous section provided that we take $`Y_0=1`$ (see Eq. (24)). Therefore, for the parameter $`R`$ of Eq. (6), we obtain

$$R=\frac{1\mathrm{cos}^{2N}\varphi }{1\mathrm{cos}^{2M}\varphi },$$
(41)
with $`R[N/M,1]`$. In order to evaluate the efficiency of the cloning machine, we can now either choose as the figure of merit the ‘global’ fidelity (see, e.g., Refs. bruss1 ; chefles2 )

$$\overline{F}_G(1\xi )\stackrel{~}{f}_1|\widehat{\rho }_1|\stackrel{~}{f}_1+\xi \stackrel{~}{f}_2|\widehat{\rho }_2|\stackrel{~}{f}_2,$$
(42)
which can be easily seen to correspond (taking $`g=Y_0=1`$, and $`\theta `$ and $`R`$ as defined in Eqs. (40)-(41)) to

$$\overline{F}_G=Z^M+(1Z^M)[(1\xi )p+\xi q],$$
(43)
with $`Z\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi `$, and then essentially the same as the score $`S(p,q)`$ of the previous section, with the same maximum at the optimal points $`(p_{opt},q_{opt})`$ of Eq. (23), finally giving (note that for cloning, $`R<1`$, see Eq. (41) and Fig. 2a, and the condition $`Y_0=1`$ also implies that $`\xi _0=0`$):

$`\overline{F}_{G,opt}(Z;\xi ,`$ $`N`$ $`,M)=1{\displaystyle \frac{(1Z^M)}{2}}`$ (44)
$``$ $`\left[1\sqrt{14\xi (1\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{(Z^NZ^M)}{(1Z^M)}}}\right].`$
Otherwise, we could choose the ‘local’ fidelity (see, e.g., Refs. bruss1 ; chefles2 )

$$\overline{F}_L(1\xi )F_1(\widehat{f}_1,\widehat{f}_1^{out})+\xi F_2(\widehat{f}_2,\widehat{f}_2^{out}),$$
(45)
where $`F_i(\widehat{f}_i,\widehat{f}_i^{out})`$ is the fidelity between the reduced density operator for one single copy of the initial state (i.e., $`\widehat{f}_i`$) and the reduced density operator for one single copy of the final state (i.e., $`\widehat{f}_i^{out}`$, obtained tracing out any $`M1`$ qubits from $`\widehat{\rho }_i`$, and which is independent of the choice of the remaining copy). Since the output reduced density operators (cf. Eq. (3)) are given by

$`\widehat{f}_1^{out}`$ $`=`$ $`p\widehat{f}_1+(1p)\widehat{f}_2,`$
$`\widehat{f}_2^{out}`$ $`=`$ $`q\widehat{f}_2+(1q)\widehat{f}_1,`$ (46)
a short calculation shows that

$$\overline{F}_L=Z+(1Z)[(1\xi )p+\xi q],$$
(47)
which is again optimized by the parameters of Eq. (23) and finally reads

$`(1Z^M)(1\overline{F}_{L,opt}(Z;\xi ,N,M))=`$ (48)
$`(1Z)(1\overline{F}_{G,opt}(Z;\xi ,N,M)).`$
Since the ‘local’ and ‘global’ fidelities are linearly correlated, it is enough in the following to study the behaviour of one of them, e.g. $`\overline{F}_L`$. First of all, cloning is not allowed for the set of parameters $`(p,q)`$ outside the shaded region of Fig. 2a. Then, considered as a function of $`\xi `$, $`\overline{F}_{L,opt}`$ is further maximized (as expected) for the trivial choices $`\xi =0`$ or $`\xi =1`$ (only one ‘input’ state), for which $`\overline{F}_{L,opt}=1`$. It is also easy to see that the optimal $`\overline{F}_{L,opt}(\xi )`$ is bounded below by $`\overline{F}_{L,opt}(\xi =1/2)`$, i.e. for the choice of equiprobabilistically distributed input states $`\{|f_i\}`$. This case is important because for $`\xi =1/2`$ the maximum amount of information is encoded in the input states. It is easily seen that this fidelity is an increasing function of $`N`$ and a decreasing function of $`M`$. As a function of $`Z`$ at fixed $`N,M`$ it decreases from the maximum $`\overline{F}_{L,opt}(Z;1/2,N,M)=1`$ at $`\varphi =0`$ (the case for maximally indistinguishable initial states) until it reaches a minimum around $`\varphi _{min}\pi /4`$ (for $`N=1`$ and $`M=2`$, at which $`\overline{F}_{L,opt}0.95`$) and then again increases towards $`\overline{F}_{L,opt}(Z;1/2,N,M)=1`$ at $`\varphi =\pi /2`$ (the case for orthogonal, classical inputs). In the asymptotic case of $`M\mathrm{}`$ the ‘local’ fidelity has a similar shape, with the minimum (for $`N=1`$) $`\overline{F}_{L,opt}=25/270.92`$ at $`\varphi _{min}=\mathrm{arccos}\sqrt{5/9}\pi /4`$. The optimal ‘local’ average fidelity $`\overline{F}_{L,opt}(Z;1/2,N,M)`$ is plotted as a function of $`Z`$ for $`N=1`$ and $`M=2,\mathrm{}`$ in Fig. 4. Also note that, in the asymptotic limit of $`M\mathrm{}`$, the ‘global’ fidelity reaches the Helstrom bound

$$2\overline{F}_{\mathrm{Helstrom}}1+\left[14\xi (1\xi )\stackrel{~}{f}_1|\stackrel{~}{f}_2\right]^{1/2},$$
(49)
which is the maximum probability to distinguish the two states $`|\stackrel{~}{f}_1`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{f}_2`$. Quantum cloners with state dependent fidelity were already considered in the literature, see, e.g., Refs. bruss1 ; chefles2 ; buzekhillery1 . One of their most important practical use is for eavesdropping strategies in some quantum cryptographic system. As Fig. 4 shows, our local and global fidelities for $`\xi =1/2`$ are smaller than, respectively, the optimal eavesdropping strategy fidelity described in Ref. bruss1  and the global one of Ref. chefles2 . As we have already stressed, this is just a consequence of the peculiarity of our output states, which are a classical mixture of the perfect clones $`|f_i^M`$, while in Refs. bruss1 ; chefles2  the optimization is over a unitary transformation between arbitrary initial and final pure states. The evident advantage of our optimal CPTP mapping method in a general cloning machine relies in not having to deal with all the inequalities which derive from the constraints on the unitarity of transformations over extended Hilbert spaces with ancilla qubits, as we just have to maximize the chosen figure of merit along a certain curve specifying the boundary of the allowed CPTP mappings between the initial and the output (mixed) states.

The importance and relation of different ‘quality’ measures for cloning other than fidelity, and for instance the realization that generally copiers quantum optimized with respect to fidelity are not optimal with respect to information transfer measures, and viceversa, was stressed, e.g., in Ref. deuar ; footnote . In particular, another measure of the quality of the performance of our copier can be given in terms of the Holevo bound on the copied information for the reduced density outputs (46), i.e. (for the optimal point given by Eq. (23))

$`I_H(Z;\xi ,N,M)`$ $``$ $`S({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i\widehat{f}_i^{out}){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_iS(\widehat{f}_i^{out})`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\pm ;i=1,2,3}{}}P_i\lambda _\alpha ^i\mathrm{log}\lambda _\alpha ^i`$
where

$`2\lambda _\pm ^1`$ $``$ $`1\pm \{[c_{}^2+4\xi ^2R(1R)Z]/c\}^{1/2},`$
$`2\lambda _\pm ^2`$ $``$ $`1\pm \{[c_+^2+4(1\xi )^2R(1R)Z]/c\}^{1/2},`$
$`2\lambda _\pm ^3`$ $``$ $`1\pm \{[(12\xi )^2+4\xi (1\xi )RZ]/c\}^{1/2},`$ (51)
$`P_1=1\xi ,P_2=\xi ,P_3=1`$ and $`c_\pm ,c`$ and $`R`$ are given, respectively, by Eqs. (24) and (41). This should be compared with the maximum information extractable from the original states, given by

$$I_H^{in}(Z;\xi )S(\underset{i}{}p_i\widehat{f}_i)=\underset{\alpha =\pm }{}\lambda _\alpha ^{in}\mathrm{log}\lambda _\alpha ^{in},$$
(52)
with

$$2\lambda _\pm ^{in}1\pm [(12\xi )^2+4\xi (1\xi )Z]^{1/2}.$$
(53)
These figures of merit are shown in Fig. 5 for $`\xi =1/2`$, $`N=1`$ and $`M=2,\mathrm{}`$, and compared with the Holevo bound of the Wooters and Zurek model wootterszurek  (which, in this sense, is nearly optimal as it allows to extract as much information from the copies as from the originals deuar ).

Completely similar considerations can be extended to the case in which the input and the template states are, respectively, the coherent states $`|\pm \alpha `$ and $`|\pm \beta `$, just by replacing in the previous formulas for $`ZZ_{coh}|\alpha |\alpha |^2=Exp[4|\alpha |^2]`$. Furthermore, with the same methods we can also consider a special type of copier called $`NK+L`$ (with $`K+LN`$) ‘anti-cloning’ machine songhardy . In this ansatz, a set of unknown ‘input’ states $`\{|f_i^N\}`$ is transformed into the tensor product of $`K`$ copies of the input $`|f_i`$ times $`L`$ copies of a state $`|f_i\overline{\beta }_i|0\overline{\alpha }_i|1`$ which has opposite spin direction with respect to the input one. This type of cloning is physically interesting for a number of information theoretic reasons (see, e.g., Refs. gisinpopescu ).

The pure ‘templates’ are thus chosen as $`|g_i|f_i^K|f_i^L`$, such that now $`|g_1|g_2|=\mathrm{cos}^{K+L}\varphi `$ and $`R=[1\mathrm{cos}^{2N}\varphi ]/[1\mathrm{cos}^{2(K+L)}\varphi ]`$, with $`R[N/(K+L),1]`$. The analysis of the optimal efficiency of the anti-cloning machine then follows similar lines to those of the previous cloning machine case, just provided that one makes the substitution $`MK+L`$.

## V Discussion

We have considered the constraints on the existence of CPTP mappings between two arbitrary initial pure states and two arbitrary final mixed states using Uhlmann’s theorem uhlmann  and interpreting them within a simple geometrical picture. Exploiting these results, we then studied the model of a quantum communication channel where a set of coherent states are sent by Alice, eventually transformed by an intermediate repeater who can perform an optimal CPTP mapping and, after going through a lossy channel $``$, are finally received by Bob with a certain error probability. We have shown that when the intermediate repeater performs the optimally CPTP mapping, the final error probability is always smaller than in the case when no action is taken at the intermediate stage. In other words, we can have a gain when the optimal mapping strategy is applied to repeat or amplify the input signals in the channel. This is a new and intriguing result for quantum communication, showing the potential relevance of the optimal CPTP mapping strategy.

Furthermore, the optimal CPTP mapping constraints have been used to analyze state-dependent optimal cloners where the output is a classical mixture of exact copies of the initial inputs, and the ‘local’ and ‘global’ fidelity between the copies and the input, and an information theoretic ‘quality’ measure given by the Holevo bound on the mutual information between the density operators for the input and the copies reduced states have been discussed. Although our copiers do not achieve the performance of other state-dependent cloners known in the literature (because of the special choice of our outputs), our results (which are new for the anti-cloning machine case) are still interesting as they show that the CPTP mapping ‘geometrical’ methods are simpler and more direct than the study of the several constraints inherent to the extended Hilbert space approaches. It would be interesting to compare our results on cloning with the conditions discussed in Refs. cerf1  for Pauli cloning machines, which seem to derive, albeit using a different analysis, an intriguely similar geometric picture.

Finally, It should be also mentioned that the use of squeezers has been studied as another kind of repeater for coherent states hirota . In particular, it was shown that by optimizing a cascade of squeezers the communication performance of the coherent state channel can be improved. This method is based on the unitary transformation of the squeezer as a noiseless amplifier. Therefore the state overlap between the signal states is not changed, which meens that the Helstrom bound cannot be improved. However, considering homodyne detection (which is a practical detection scheme with the present technology), the improvement in the signal-to-noise ratio brought by the cascade of the squeezers will be very useful. It would be an interesting problem to study quantum repeaters combining our non-unitary repeater with the squeezer repeater for a lossy channel with homodyne detection.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors acknowledge Prof. R. Jozsa for providing the original motivation of this work and for crucial comments. They also thank Dr. A. Chefles and Prof. O. Hirota for valuable comments.

## Appendix A

The solutions to the constraints (7) and (8) for the variables $`p`$ and $`q`$ in terms of the parameters $`R,X`$ and $`Y_0`$ given by eq. (6) can be summarized, after some lengthy but straightforward algebra, by the geometrical pictures shown in Figs. A1-A7. In particular, the allowed regions for the existence of the CPTP maps between arbitrary mixed initial and final states are the shaded regions in these figures, bounded by the following sets of curves:

a) the lines:

$`\widehat{q}_{1\pm }(\widehat{p})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_\pm }{X}}(\sqrt{Y_0}+a_\pm \widehat{p}),`$
$`\widehat{q}_{2\pm }(\widehat{p})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_\pm }{X}}(\sqrt{Y_0}a_\pm \widehat{p}),`$ (54)
(where we have defined $`a_\pm 1\pm \sqrt{1+X}`$) and

$$\widehat{q}_{3\pm }\pm \frac{\sqrt{Y_{0X}}}{2};$$
(55)
b) the conic (an ellipse for $`R<Y_0/(1+X)`$):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_M(\widehat{p},\widehat{q})Y_{0X}(\widehat{p}^2+\widehat{q}^2)+2Y_{2X}\widehat{p}\widehat{q}RY_{1X}.$$
(56)
The allowed regions for the variables $`p`$ and $`q`$ can then be classified in different sets, defined by certain ranges for the values of the parameters $`R,X`$ and $`Y_0`$, and depending on the type of intersections among the above curves and the global geometrical shape of the allowed region itself. In more details, we distinguish among the following sets of parameters:

$`1a)`$ $`Y_0>2;0<X<Y_02;0<R<1;`$ (57)
$`1b)`$ $`\mathrm{max}(Y_02,0)<X<Y_01;0<R<{\displaystyle \frac{Y_0}{2+X}};`$ (58)
$`1c)`$ $`Y_01<X<\sqrt{Y_0}(\sqrt{Y_0}+2);0<R<{\displaystyle \frac{(Y_01)}{1+X}};`$ (59)
$`1d)`$ $`X>\sqrt{Y_0}(\sqrt{Y_0}+2);0<R<{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{Y_0}(\sqrt{Y_0}1)}{\sqrt{1+X}(\sqrt{1+X}1)}}`$ (60)
(see Fig. 7) or:

$`2a)`$ $`Y_0>2;0<X<Y_02;0<R<1;`$ (61)
$`2b)`$ $`\mathrm{max}(Y_02,0)<X<Y_01;{\displaystyle \frac{Y_01}{X}}<R<{\displaystyle \frac{Y_0}{X}};`$ (62)
$`2c)`$ $`Y_01<X<4\sqrt{Y_0}(\sqrt{Y_0}1);R_0<R<{\displaystyle \frac{Y_0}{X}}`$ (63)
(see Fig. 8) or:

$`3a)`$ $`Y_0>2;0<X<Y_02;0<R<1;`$ (64)
$`3b)`$ $`\mathrm{max}(Y_02,0)<X<Y_01;1<R<{\displaystyle \frac{Y_01}{X}}`$ (65)
(see Fig. 9) or:

$$4)X>Y_01;\frac{\sqrt{Y_0}(\sqrt{Y_0}1)}{\sqrt{1+X}(\sqrt{1+X}1)}<R<\frac{Y_01}{X}$$
(66)
(see Fig. 10) or:

$$5)Y_01<X<X_0;\frac{Y_01}{X}<R<\frac{Y_0}{1+X}$$
(67)
(see Fig. 11) or:

$`6)`$ $`X>4\sqrt{Y_0}(\sqrt{Y_0}1);{\displaystyle \frac{Y_0}{1+X}}<R<{\displaystyle \frac{Y_0}{X}}`$ (68)
(see Fig. 12) or, finally:

$`7)`$ $`X>X_0;R_0<R<{\displaystyle \frac{Y_0}{1+X}}`$ (69)
(see Fig. 13). The values of $`X_0`$ and $`R_0`$ are to be determined numerically. For instance, in the case $`Y_0=4`$ we obtain $`X_020`$ and $`R_0(X)=[3X^2+4(X2)\sqrt{1+X}8]/X^3`$.


format: text

text:
# Gorenstein Biliaison and ACM Sheaves

## 0 Introduction

Liaison has become an established technique in algebraic geometry. See, for example, the excellent book of Migliore  for an introduction and more than 200 references.

More recently many people have studied Gorenstein liaison and the important open question, whether every arithmetically Cohen–Macaulay (ACM) subscheme of $`^n`$ is in the Gorenstein liaison class of a complete intersection (see, for example, ).

In this paper we study Gorenstein biliaison, defined as the equivalence relation generated by elementary Gorenstein biliaisons (see \[14, 5.4.7\], \[9, 1.1\], \[7, §3\]) on a normal arithmetically Cohen–Macaulay (ACM) projective scheme $`X`$. We give a new approach to biliaison by relating it to the category of ACM sheaves on $`X`$. Note in this paper biliaison is not a synonym for even liaison.

Our main theorems $`(4.2)`$, $`(4.3)`$ give a criterion for all codimension two ACM subschemes of $`X`$ to be in the same Gorenstein biliaison class, in terms of two conditions on the category of arithmetically Cohen–Macaulay (ACM) sheaves on $`X`$. These sheaves correspond to maximal Cohen–Macaulay (MCM) modules on the homogeneous coordinate ring $`S`$ of $`X`$. Theorem $`(4.7)`$ gives a criterion for the biliaison class of curves on a three-fold to be determined by their Rao modules. Then making use of previous work on MCM modules over local rings (see for example the book of Yoshino ) we are able to conclude results about Gorenstein biliaison of points and curves on certain projective surfaces and three-folds. In particular, we show that all zero-schemes on a non-singular quadric surface in $`^3`$ $`(5.1)`$ or on a cubic scroll in $`^4`$ $`(5.4)`$ are in the same Gorenstein biliaison class. On the cone in $`^4`$ over a non-singular quadric surface in $`^3`$, we show that two curves are in the same Gorenstein biliaison class if and only if their Rao modules are isomorphic $`(6.2)`$. This allows us to give a new proof and extend a theorem of Lesperance concerning biliaison of curves that are disjoint unions of two plane curves in $`^4`$ $`(6.4)`$, $`(6.5)`$.

Our hope is that a better understanding of biliaison of codimension two subschemes of hypersurfaces will lead to more insight into the problems of biliaison of codimension three subschemes of projective space. In a separate article  we discuss Gorenstein liaison (as opposed to biliaison) and give an analogous criterion in terms of ACM sheaves for all codimension two ACM schemes to be in the same $`G`$-liaison class.

Sections 1 and 2 are introductory. Section 3 contains a criterion for biliaison. Section 4 contains the main theorems and their proofs. Sections 5 and 6 contain applications to particular surfaces and three-folds in projective space.

Acknowledgement: The first author would like to thank the Department of Mathematics at the University of California at Berkeley for the warm welcome during the period this research was done.

## 1 Biliaison

Let $`V_1,V_2`$ be equidimensional closed subschemes of dimension $`r`$, without embedded components, of $`_k^n`$, the $`n`$-dimensional projective space over an algebraically closed field $`k`$.

Definition. A closed subscheme $`X_k^n`$ is arithmetically Cohen–Macaulay (ACM) if its homogeneous coordinate ring $`S(X)=k[x_0,\mathrm{},x_n]/I_X`$ (where $`I_X`$ is the saturated ideal of $`X`$) is a Cohen–Macaulay ring. This is equivalent to saying $`H_{}^1(_{X,^n})=0`$ and $`H_{}^i(𝒪_X)=0`$ for $`0<i<dimX`$. (For any coherent sheaf $``$ we denote by $`H_{}^i()`$ the sum $`_{\mathrm{}}H^i((\mathrm{}))`$.)

Definition. We say $`V_2`$ is obtained by an elementary biliaison of height $`m`$ from $`V_1`$ if there exists an ACM scheme $`Y^n`$, of dimension $`r+1`$ containing $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$, such that $`V_2V_1+mH`$ on $`Y`$. (Here $``$ means linear equivalence of divisors on $`Y`$ in the sense of  and .) The equivalence relation generated by elementary biliaisons is called simply biliaison. If $`Y`$ is a complete intersection scheme in $`^n`$, we speak of $`CI`$-biliaison. If $`Y`$ is ACM and satisfies $`G_0`$ (Gorenstein in codimension zero) we speak of Gorenstein biliaison or $`G`$-biliaison. If $`V_1,V_2,Y`$ are contained in some projective scheme $`X^n`$, we speak of biliaison (resp. $`CI`$-biliaison, $`G`$-biliaison) on X.

Note that $`CI`$-biliaison in $`^n`$ is equivalent to even $`CI`$-liaison (in the sense of \[14, 5.1.2\]) \[6, 4.4\]. However, on a projective scheme $`X`$, the notions of $`CI`$-biliaison, $`G`$-biliaison, and even $`G`$-liaison on $`X`$ (in the sense of \[14, 5.1.2\]) are all three distinct. So we emphasize that the word “biliaison” is not a synonym for “even liaison”. Recall, however, that every $`G`$-biliaison is an even $`G`$-liaison \[7, 3.6\].

Examples 1.1. If $`X`$ is a non-singular quadric surface in $`^3`$, then $`CI`$-biliaison of zero-schemes on $`X`$ preserves parity of the length of the zero-scheme. But on a line in $`X`$ one can make a biliaison from one point to two points. So $`CI`$-biliaison and $`G`$-biliaison are not equivalent.

If $`X`$ is a non-singular quadric three-fold in $`^4`$, then $`\text{Pic }X=`$, so every surface in $`X`$ is a complete intersection. Thus $`CI`$-biliaison and $`G`$-biliaison coincide on $`X`$. But if one takes a rational quartic curve $`C`$ in $`X`$, and a line $`L`$ in $`X`$ meeting $`C`$ in two points, then $`CL`$ is an arithmetically Gorenstein scheme, so $`C`$ can be linked to $`L`$ by one Gorenstein liaison. Since $`L`$ can be linked to another line $`L^{}`$ by another liaison, $`C`$ and $`L^{}`$ are evenly $`G`$-linked, but are not equivalent for $`G`$-biliaison, since in this case $`G`$-biliaison preserves parity of degree.

In this paper we will study biliaison of codimension two subschemes of a normal ACM projective scheme $`X`$. Note that the condition of normality implies every divisor on $`X`$ satisfies $`G_0`$, so any biliaison of codimension two subschemes of $`X`$ is a $`G`$-biliaison, and therefore also an even $`G`$-liaison \[7, 3.6\].

For a curve $`C`$ in $`^n`$, we define as usual the Rao module of $`C`$ to be $`M(C)=H_{}^1(_{C,^n})=_{\mathrm{}}H^1(_{C,^n}(\mathrm{}))`$. If $`C`$ is contained in an ACM scheme $`X`$ of dimension $`2`$, note that the Rao module $`M(C)`$ can also be computed as $`H_{}^1(_{C,X})`$.

Proposition 1.2. If curves $`C,C^{}`$ in $`^n`$ are equivalent for biliaison, then $`M(C^{})M(C)(h)`$ for some integer $`h`$.

Proof. It is enough to check this for one elementary biliaison. So suppose $`C^{}C+mH`$ on an ACM surface $`Y`$. Then we can compute $`M(C)=H_{}^1(_{C,Y})`$ and $`M(C^{})=H_{}^1(_{C^{},Y})`$. But $`_{C^{},Y}_{C,Y}(m)`$, so the two Rao modules are isomorphic up to a shift by $`m`$.

## 2 ACM sheaves

Let $`X`$ be an ACM subscheme of $`^N`$.

Definition. A coherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ is an ACM sheaf if it is locally Cohen–Macaulay on $`X`$ and $`H_{}^i()=_{\mathrm{}}H^i(X,(\mathrm{}))=0`$ for $`0<i<n=dimX`$.

Proposition 2.1. There is a one-to-one correspondence between ACM sheaves on $`X`$ and graded MCM (maximal Cohen–Macaulay) modules on $`S(X)`$ given by $`H_{}^0()=E`$ and $`EE^{}`$.

Proof. Let $``$ be an ACM sheaf. Then $`E`$ is a finitely generated graded $`S(X)`$-module with $`H_𝔪^0(E)=H_𝔪^1(E)=0`$ by construction, where $`𝔪`$ is the irrelevant ideal of $`S(X)`$. Furthermore there are isomorphisms $`H_{}^i()H_𝔪^{i+1}(E)`$ for $`i1`$. Thus $`E`$ is an MCM module by the local cohomology criterion of depth.

Conversely, if $`E`$ is graded MCM module, let $`=E^{}`$ be the associated sheaf. Since $`E`$ is an MCM module, $``$ will be a locally CM sheaf, and the same isomorphisms as above show $`H_{}^i()=0`$ for $`0<i<dimX`$.

Remark 2.2. In the definition of ACM sheaf, we could omit the requirement $``$ locally CM, if we add a condition $`H^0((\mathrm{}))=0`$ for $`\mathrm{}0`$. Because then $`E=H_{}^0()`$ will be a finitely generated module on $`S(X)`$, the condition $`H_{}^i()=0`$ for $`0<i<dimX`$ makes it an MCM module, and then $`=E^{}`$ will be locally CM.

Proposition 2.3. Let $`\omega `$ be a dualizing sheaf on the ACM scheme $`X`$. For any coherent sheaf $``$ denote by $`^\omega `$ the sheaf $`om(,\omega )`$. Then

* The functor $`^\omega `$ is a contravariant, exact functor on the category of locally Cohen–Macaulay sheaves on $`X`$.
* For any such $``$, there is a natural isomorphism $`^{\omega \omega }`$.
* Serre duality gives $`H^i(^\omega )`$ dual to $`H^{ni}()`$ for any such $``$, where $`n=dimX`$.
* $``$ is ACM if and only if $`^\omega `$ is ACM.

Proof. If $``$ is locally CM, then by local duality at the various points of $`X`$ we find $`xt^i(,\omega )=0`$ for all $`i>0`$. Thus the spectral sequence of local and global Ext degenerates and we find $`\text{Ext}^i(,\omega )=H^i(^\omega )`$ for all $`i`$. Serre duality then says $`H^i(^\omega )`$ is dual to $`H^{ni}()`$, where $`n=dimX`$. Furthermore, $``$ locally CM implies $`^\omega `$ locally CM (repeat the proof of \[6, 1.13,1.14\] with $`^\omega `$ in place of $`^{}`$). The functor is exact, because if

$$0^{}^{\prime \prime }0$$

is an exact sequence of locally CM sheaves, then there is an exact sequence

$$0^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{\omega }^\omega ^{}{}_{}{}^{\omega }xt^1(^{\prime \prime },\omega )=0.$$

It is well-known that $`^{\omega \omega }`$ (see, for example, \[7, 1.5\]). Finally, Serre duality shows that $``$ is ACM if and only if $`^\omega `$ is ACM.

Corollary 2.4. If $`X`$ is arithmetically Gorenstein, the dual of an ACM sheaf is again an ACM sheaf.

Proof. Indeed, $`^\omega `$ will be a twist of $`^{}`$.

Remark 2.5. If $`Y`$ is a codimension one ACM subscheme of the ACM scheme $`X`$, then the ideal sheaf $`_Y`$ of $`Y`$ on $`X`$ is an ACM sheaf on $`X`$. Conversely, if $`X`$ is normal and ACM, every rank one ACM sheaf on $`X`$ is isomorphic to an almost Cartier divisor, and the effective ones correspond to the codimension one ACM subschemes of $`X`$ \[6, 2.7\].

Definition. An ACM sheaf $``$ on a normal ACM scheme $`X`$ is layered if there exists a filtration

$$0=_0_1\mathrm{}_r=$$

whose quotients $`_i/_{i1}`$ are rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves on $`X`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$.

Definition. If $``$ is a torsion-free sheaf of rank $`r`$ on a normal scheme $`X`$ we define its first Chern class $`c_1()`$ to be the double dual of the highest exterior power $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^r`$ of $``$. We consider $`c_1()`$ as an element of the group APic $`X`$ of almost Cartier divisors modulo linear equivalence. We say $``$ is orientable if $`c_1()𝒪_X(\mathrm{})`$ is a multiple of the hyperplane class $`𝒪_X(1)`$, for some $`\mathrm{}`$.

Definition. We say a coherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ is dissocié if $`_{i=1}^r𝒪_X(a_i)`$ for some $`a_i`$.

## 3 A criterion for biliaison

We give a criterion for when two codimension $`2`$ subschemes $`V,V^{}`$ of a normal ACM projective scheme $`X`$ are in the same $`G`$-biliaison class.

Theorem 3.1. Let $`V,V^{}`$ be codimension $`2`$ subschemes without embedded components of a normal projective ACM scheme $`X`$. Then $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are in the same $`G`$-biliaison equivalence class on $`X`$ if and only if there exist resolutions on $`X`$

$$0𝒩_V(a)0$$

$$0^{}𝒩_V^{}(a^{})0$$

with $`a,a^{}`$, the same coherent sheaf $`𝒩`$ in the middle, and where $`,^{}`$ are layered ACM sheaves (cf. §2) on $`X`$, of the same rank, and the rank $`1`$ factors of the layerings of $``$ and $`^{}`$ are isomorphic, up to twist, in some order.

Proof. First suppose $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are equivalent by biliaison. We proceed by induction on the number of elementary biliaisons required.

If $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are related by a single elementary biliaison, then there is an ACM divisor $`Y`$ in $`X`$, containing $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$, and $`V^{}V+mH`$ on $`Y`$ for some $`m`$. This gives an isomorphism of ideal sheaves on $`Y`$, $`_{V^{},Y}_{V,Y}(m)`$. Thus we can write

$`0_Y(m)_V(m)`$ $`_{V,Y}(m)`$ $`0`$
$``$
$`0_Y_V^{}`$ $`_{V^{},Y}`$ $`0.`$ (2)
Let $``$ be the fibered sum of $`_V(m)`$ and $`_V^{}`$ over $`_{V^{},Y}`$. Then we have exact sequences

$$0_Y(m)_V^{}0$$
(3)
$$0_Y_V(m)0.$$
(4)
Thus the condition of the theorem is satisfied, with $`,^{}`$ being the rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves $`_Y,_Y(m)`$.

Now suppose that $`V^{}`$ and $`V^{\prime \prime }`$ are related by $`r1`$ elementary biliaisons. By the induction step, there are sequences

$$0^{}𝒩_V^{}(a^{})0$$
(5)
$$0^{\prime \prime }𝒩_{V^{\prime \prime }}(a^{\prime \prime })0$$
(6)
with $`^{},^{\prime \prime }`$ of rank $`r1`$, layered, with isomorphic factors up to twist and order.

Twisting $`(3)`$ by $`a^{}`$ and combining with $`(5)`$, taking fibered sums as above, we get new sequences

$$0_Y(m+a^{})𝒢𝒩0$$
(7)
$$0^{}𝒢(a^{})0.$$
(8)
Now composing with the maps $`𝒩_{V^{\prime \prime }}(a^{\prime \prime })`$ from $`(6)`$ and $`(a^{})_V(m+a^{})`$ from $`(4)`$ and using the snake lemma, we get

$$0^{\prime \prime }𝒢_{V^{\prime \prime }}(a^{\prime \prime })0$$
(9)
$$0𝒢_V(m+a^{})0$$
(10)
where $``$ and $`^{\prime \prime }`$ are extensions

$$0^{}_Y(a^{})0$$
(11)
$$0_Y(m+a^{})^{\prime \prime }^{\prime \prime }0.$$
(12)
Thus $`,^{\prime \prime }`$ are layered ACM sheaves with isomorphic factors, up to twist and order, and so sequences $`(9)`$, $`(10)`$ satisfy the condition of the theorem.

For the reverse implication of the theorem, we will need several lemmas.

Lemma 3.2. Let $`X`$ be an integral projective scheme satisfying the condition $`S_2`$ of Serre. Let $``$ be a torsion-free coherent sheaf on $`X`$, locally free in codimension $`1`$. Let $`WH^0()`$ be a subspace, and let $`_0`$ be the subsheaf generated by $`W`$. Then the following conditions are equivalent.

* There is an $`sW`$ such that $`^{}=/(s)`$ is torsion-free and locally free in codimension $`1`$.
* (a) for all $`xX`$ of codimension $`1`$, $`\text{rank}(_0k(x)\stackrel{\sigma _x}{}k(x))1`$ and
* (b) either $`\text{rank}\text{ }_02`$ or $`_0𝒪_X`$ and $`/_0`$ is torsion-free and locally free in codimension $`1`$.

Proof. \[8, 2.6\].

Lemma 3.3 (The case $`\text{rank }𝒩=2`$). With the hypotheses of the theorem suppose given

$$0𝒩_V(a)0$$
(13)
$$0^{}𝒩_V^{}(a^{})0$$
(14)
with $`\text{rank}\text{ }𝒩=2`$ and $`,^{}`$ ACM sheaves of $`\text{rank}\text{ }1`$, isomorphic up to twist. Then either $`V=V^{}`$ or $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are related by a single elementary biliaison on $`X`$.

Proof. Make a diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & & & 0& & 0& & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & ^{}& =& ^{}& & \\ & & & & & & \alpha & & \\ 0& & & & 𝒩& & _V(a)& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & & & _V^{}(a^{})& & & & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & & & 0& & 0& & \end{array}$$

We start by considering the composed map $`\alpha :^{}_V(a)`$. If $`\alpha =0`$, then $`^{}`$ maps to $``$ with torsion free cokernel, so $`^{}`$, $`a=a^{}`$, $`V=V^{}`$. Otherwise $`\alpha `$ must be injective, and we get the diagram shown. Now the map $`\alpha `$ composed with the inclusion $`_V(a)𝒪_X(a)`$ gives the ideal of an ACM divisor $`Y`$ on $`X`$, so that $`^{}=_Y(a)`$. Then $`V`$ is contained in $`Y`$ and $`_{V,Y}(a)`$. From the bottom row of the diagram we see also that $`=_Y(a^{})`$ and $`_{V^{},Y}(a^{})`$. Thus $`_{V,Y}(a)_{V^{},Y^{}}(a^{})`$, so $`V^{}V+(a^{}a)H`$ on $`Y`$.

Lemma 3.4. Let $`V`$ be a codimension $`2`$ subscheme of the normal ACM scheme $`X`$ and suppose given a sequence

$$0𝒩_V(a)0$$

where $`𝒩`$ is coherent and $``$ is a layered ACM sheaf with $`\text{rank}\text{ }1`$ ACM factors $`_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$. Then for any choice of $`b_i0`$ and $`s_i\text{Hom}(_i,𝒩(b_i))`$ sufficiently general, we will get a sequence

$$0_i(b_i)\stackrel{s_i}{}𝒩_V^{}(a^{})0$$

for some codimension $`2`$ subscheme $`V^{}`$ of $`X`$ in the same $`G`$-biliaison class as $`V`$.

Proof. We will split off the factors of $``$ one by one. Since $``$ is layered, we can write

$$0^{}0$$

where $`^{}`$ is layered of rank $`r1`$, and $``$ is one of the factors. We write a diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & 0& & 0& & & & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & ^{}& =& ^{}& & & & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & & & 𝒩& & _V(a)& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & & & & & _V(a)& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & 0& & 0& & & & \end{array}$$

where $`=𝒩/^{}`$ is of rank $`2`$. Choose $`b0`$ large enough so that the sheaf $`om(,𝒩(b))`$ is generated by global sections, and let $`W=H^0(om(,(b)))`$ be the image of $`H^0(om(,𝒩(b)))`$. There is an exact sequence

$$0om(,^{})om(,𝒩)om(,)xt^1(,^{})\mathrm{}.$$

Since $`X`$ is normal, $``$ is locally free in codimension $`1`$, so the sheaf $`xt^1(,^{})`$ has support in codimension $`2`$. It follows that $`W`$ generates a subsheaf $`_0`$ of $`om(,(b))`$ that is equal to $`om(,(b))`$ in codimension $`1`$ and therefore has rank $`=2`$. Thus we can apply $`(3.2)`$ and find that for any sufficiently general $`s\text{Hom}(,𝒩(b))`$, the composed map $`(b)`$ will have cokernel torsion-free and locally free in codimension $`1`$. Its first Chern class will be $`a+b`$, so we get a sequence

$$0(b)\stackrel{s}{}_V^{}(a+b)0$$

for some codimension $`2`$ subscheme $`V^{}`$. According to $`(3.3)`$, $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are related by a single biliaison.

Let $`𝒩_V^{}(a+b)`$ be the composed map, and let $``$ be the kernel. Then we have a new diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & 0& & 0& & & & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & ^{}& =& ^{}& & & & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & & & 𝒩& & _V^{}(a+b)& & 0\\ & & & {}_{}{}^{s}& & & & & \\ 0& & (b)& \stackrel{s}{}& & & _V^{}(a+b)& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & 0& & 0& & & & \end{array}$$

and since the map $`s`$ lifts to $`𝒩`$ by construction, and its image in $`_V^{}(a+b)`$ is zero, the first column sequence splits, and we find $`^{}(b)`$. Furthermore, the map $`(b)𝒩`$ is the chosen one $`s`$.

We repeat this procedure with a factor of $`^{}`$. Continuing in the same manner, after $`r`$ steps we obtain the result of the statement, each time replacing $`V`$ by something in the same biliaison class.

Proof of $`3.1`$, continued. Suppose given two subschemes $`V,V^{}`$ and sequences

$$0𝒩_V(a)0$$

$$0^{}𝒩_V^{}(a^{})0$$

as in the theorem. Here $``$ and $`^{}`$ are layered ACM sheaves with factors $`_1,\mathrm{},_r`$ isomorphic up to twist and order. Applying $`(3.4)`$ to both of them, we obtain

$$0_i(b_i)\stackrel{s_i}{}𝒩_{V_1}(a_1)0$$

$$0_i^{}(b_i^{})\stackrel{s_i^{}}{}𝒩_{V_1^{}}(a_1^{})0$$

where $`V`$ and $`V_1`$ are biliaison equivalent, and $`V^{},V_1^{}`$ are biliaison equivalent.

But now, since the factors of $``$ and $`^{}`$ were isomorphic up to shift and order, we may assume $`_i=_i^{}`$ for each $`i`$. Also, we can take the $`b_i`$ in $`(3.4)`$ sufficiently large arbitrarily, so we may assume $`b_i=b_i^{}`$ for each $`i`$. And when we choose the section $`s_i^{}`$, we may assume that they are equal to the $`s_i`$. Then $`a_1=a_1^{}`$, $`V_1=V_1^{}`$, and we are done.

## 4 The main theorem

In this section we will show that the property of ACM codimension $`2`$ subschemes of $`X`$ all being in the same biliaison class is equivalent to two statements about the category of ACM sheaves on $`X`$.

Let $`X`$ be a normal ACM scheme in some projective space, of dimension at least $`2`$. Our first condition is

> * Any two ACM subschemes $`V,V^{}`$ of $`X`$ of codimension $`2`$ are equivalent for Gorenstein biliaison.

Our second condition is

> * Every orientable (cf. §2) ACM sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ has a presentation
>
> $$0_2_10$$
>
> where $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are layered ACM sheaves.

To state our third condition we need some notation. Let $``$ be the category of layered ACM sheaves on $`X`$. Let $`G()`$ be the Grothendieck group of the category $``$, generated by the objects of $``$ and with relations $`^{}^{\prime \prime }`$ whenever there is an exact sequence $`0^{}^{\prime \prime }0`$ in $``$. We regard $`G()`$ as a $`[h]`$-module, where $`h=(1)`$ for any $``$. We consider the quotient group $`G^{}=G()/(1h)G()`$. Roughly speaking, $`G^{}`$ is the group generated by the rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves on $`X`$, with relations coming from exact sequences in $``$, and where each sheaf is identified with all of its twists. There is a natural homomorphism $`c_1:G()\text{APic }X`$ obtained by taking the first Chern class. This passes to the quotient to give a map $`c_1:G^{}\text{APic }X/𝒪_X(1)`$. Our third condition is

> * If $``$ is an orientable layered ACM sheaf on $`X`$, then its class in $`G^{}`$ is equal to $`r𝒪`$, where $`r=\text{rank }`$.

Note that (C) is equivalent to saying the kernel of the map $`c_1:G^{}\text{APic }X/𝒪_X(1)`$ is just the subgroup $`𝒪`$ of $`G^{}`$.

Our goal is to prove (A) $``$ (B) $`+`$ (C). We split the proof in several parts.

Lemma 4.1. Let $`X`$ be a normal ACM scheme, and let $`V,V^{}`$ be two codimension $`2`$ subschemes in the same biliaison class. Suppose also given exact sequences

$$0𝒢_V0$$
(1)
$$0^{}𝒢^{}_V^{}0$$
(2)
with $`,^{},𝒢,𝒢^{}`$ coherent sheaves. Then there are other coherent sheaves $`,,𝒮`$, and layered ACM sheaves $`,^{}`$ with the same rank $`1`$ factors up to order and twist, and exact sequences with suitable twists $`a,a^{}`$,

$$0𝒢(a)0$$
(3)
$$0^{}(a^{})0$$
(4)
$$0𝒮𝒢^{}(a^{})0$$
(5)
$$0(a)𝒮^{}0.$$
(6)
Proof. By $`(3.1)`$ there are exact sequences

$$0𝒩_V(a)0$$
(7)
$$0^{}𝒩_V^{}(a^{})0$$
(8)
with the same coherent sheaf $`𝒩`$ in the middle, and layered ACM sheaves $`,^{}`$ with the same rank $`1`$ factors, up to twist. We make fibered sum constructions, as in the proof of $`(3.1)`$.

From $`(1)`$ and $`(7)`$ we obtain

$$0(a)𝒜𝒩0$$
(9)
$$0𝒜𝒢(a)0.$$
(10)
From $`(2)`$ and $`(8)`$ we obtain

$$0^{}(a^{})𝒩0$$
(11)
$$0^{}𝒢^{}(a^{})0.$$
(12)
Then from $`(9)`$ and $`(11)`$ we obtain

$$0(a)0$$
(13)
$$0^{}(a^{})𝒜0.$$
(14)
Now compose the maps $`𝒢^{}(a^{})`$ and let the kernel be $`𝒮`$, to get $`(5)`$. Then because of $`(12)`$ and $`(13)`$ we get $`(6)`$. Similarly, comparing $`𝒜𝒢(a)`$ we get $`(3)`$ and $`(4)`$.

Proposition 4.2. Let $`X`$ be a normal projective ACM scheme. Then (A) $``$ (B) $`+`$ (C).

Proof. To prove (B), let $``$ be any orientable ACM sheaf. Then we can find a dissocié sheaf $``$ and an exact sequence

$$0_V(b)0$$

for some codimension $`2`$ subscheme of $`V`$ \[8, 1.12\]. Furthermore, since $``$ is an ACM sheaf, $`V`$ will be an ACM subscheme. By hypothesis (A) there is a complete intersection $`Z`$ of $`X`$ with two hypersurfaces in the same biliaison class as $`V`$. Let

$$0𝒫_2𝒫_1_Z0$$

be its resolution, where $`𝒫_i`$ are dissocié sheaves.

Now by the lemma, there are sheaves $``$, $``$, $`𝒮`$, $``$, $`^{}`$ and exact sequences $`(3)`$$`(6)`$ in changed notation. Sequence $`(3)`$ gives a resolution

$$0(ab)0.$$

Then sequence $`(4)`$ shows that $``$ is layered, and sequences $`(5)`$, $`(6)`$ show that $``$ is layered. This proves (B).

To prove (C), let $``$ be an orientable layered ACM sheaf. Let $`,V,Z,𝒫_1,𝒫_2`$ be as in the first part of the proof. Then the sequences $`(3)`$$`(6)`$ of the lemma show that in the quotient Grothendieck group $`G^{}`$, we have

$$=+𝒫_2+=𝒫_1++^{}.$$

Since $`𝒫_1`$, $`𝒫_2`$ and $``$ are dissocié, and $``$ and $`^{}`$ have the same rank $`1`$ factors, up to twist, we find $`=r𝒪`$ in $`G^{}`$, where $`r=\text{rank }`$.

Theorem 4.3. Let $`X`$ be a normal ACM projective scheme, and assume furthermore either a) $`X`$ is arithmetically Gorenstein, or b) $`\text{APic}\text{ }X`$ is generated as a monoid by the rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves. Then (B) $`+`$ (C) $``$ (A).

We will need several lemmas before proving the theorem.

Lemma 4.4. Under either hypothesis a) or b) of $`(4.3)`$, the condition (B) implies

> * Every orientable ACM sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ has a resolution
>
> $$0𝒢_1𝒢_20$$
>
> where $`𝒢_1`$ and $`𝒢_2`$ are layered ACM sheaves.

Proof. a) If $`X`$ is arithmetically Gorenstein, then the dual of an orientable ACM sheaf is again an orientable ACM sheaf $`(2.4)`$. So we apply (B) to $`^{}`$ and dualize.

b) Suppose that APic $`X`$ is generated as a monoid by rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves. Then for any ACM sheaf $``$ we can write $`c_1()=\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ in APic $`X`$, where the $`_i`$ are rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves. Then $`^{}=_i`$ is an orientable ACM sheaf. Applying (B) to $`^{}`$ we get

$$0_2_1^{}0$$

with the $`_i`$ layered ACM sheaves. Now composing with the projection $`^{}`$ we get

$$0_10$$

where $``$ is an extension

$$0_2_i0.$$

Thus $``$ has a resolution of the same type, and we have established the stronger condition

> * Every ACM sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ (not necessarily orientable) has a resolution of the type (B).

Now we can apply the functor $`^\omega `$ of $`(2.3)`$ to the category of all ACM sheaves and obtain the condition

> * Every ACM sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ has a resolution of type (B).

Since (B$`{}_{}{}^{}^{}`$) obviously implies (B) we are done.

Lemma 4.5. Let $`X`$ be a normal ACM projective scheme, and suppose given a codimension two subscheme $`V`$ and exact sequences

$$0_0^{}𝒩_V(a)0$$

$$0^{}0$$

with $`_0`$ and $`𝒩`$ coherent, and $`^{},,`$ layered ACM sheaves on $`X`$. Then for any $`b0`$ there exists a sequence

$$0_0^{}(b)𝒩_V^{}(a^{})0$$

with $`V^{}`$ in the same biliaison class as $`V`$, and with the extra property that the map $`^{}(b)𝒩`$ in this sequence extends to a map of $`(b)𝒩`$.

Proof. By induction on the rank of $`^{}`$. If $`^{}`$ has rank $`1`$, we can argue as in the proof of $`(3.4)`$. Consider the sequence of sheaves

$$om(,𝒩)om(^{},𝒩)xt^1(,𝒩).$$

Since $`X`$ is normal, $``$ is locally free in codimension $`1`$, and so the $`xt`$ sheaf has support in codimension $`2`$. Take any $`b0`$ so that $`om(,𝒩(b))`$ is generated by global sections, and let $`WH^0(om(^{},𝒩(b)))`$ be the image of $`H^0(om(,𝒩(b))`$. Then $`W`$ satisfies the conditions of $`(3.2)`$, and so a general $`sW`$ will give the required map of $`^{}(b)𝒩`$.

Now suppose rank $`^{}2`$. Then we can split off a rank $`1`$ factor $``$

$$0^{\prime \prime }^{}0$$

and get

$$0^{\prime \prime }0$$

where

$$00.$$

First apply the splitting technique of $`(3.4)`$ to get

$$0_0^{\prime \prime }(b_1)𝒩_{V_1}(a_1)0$$

for some $`b_10`$ and $`V_1`$ in the same biliaison class as $`V`$. Now apply the induction hypothesis to $`^{\prime \prime }`$ to find a sequence

$$0_0^{\prime \prime }(b_2)(b_1)𝒩_{V_2}(a_2)0$$

for some $`b_20`$, and $`V_2`$ in the same biliaison class as $`V_1`$, where the map $`^{\prime \prime }(b_2)𝒩`$ extends to $`(b_2)`$. We may assume $`b_2b_1`$ and then change the map from $`(b_1)𝒩`$ again so that $`b_1=b_2=b`$.

Consider the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & 0& & 0& & & & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & ^{\prime \prime }& =& ^{\prime \prime }& & & & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & ^{}& & & & & & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & & & & & & & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & 0& & 0.& & & & \end{array}$$
(1)
Consider also the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & 0& & 0\\ & & & & \\ & & _0^{\prime \prime }(b)& =& _0^{\prime \prime }(b)\\ & & & & \\ 0& & _0^{}(b)& & 𝒩\\ & & & & \\ & & (b)& & 𝒢\\ & & & & \\ & & 0& & 0\end{array}$$
(2)
using the map $`^{}(b)`$ to $`𝒩`$ obtained by restricting from $`(b)`$ to $`𝒩`$. We obtain a map $`s_0:(b)𝒢`$ on the quotients with no special property. (Note rank $`𝒢=2`$.)

Taking $`om(,𝒩(b))`$ of the first diagram, and composing with the map $`𝒩𝒢`$ from the second diagram, we get

$$\begin{array}{ccc}om(,𝒩(b))& & om(,𝒩(b))\\ & & \\ om(,𝒩(b))& & om(^{},𝒩(b))\\ & & \\ om(,𝒢(b)).& & \end{array}$$

We may assume that $`b`$ is so large that $`om(,𝒩(b))`$ is generated by global sections.

Let $`WH^0(om(,𝒢(b))`$ be the image of $`H^0(om(,𝒩(b))`$ above. As before, since the sheaves $``$ and $``$ are locally free in codimension $`1`$, the cokernels of these maps of sheaves are $`xt`$ sheaves with support in codimension $`2`$, so $`W`$ will satisfy the conditions of $`(3.2)`$ and generate a subsheaf of rank $`2`$. Therefore a general element $`sW`$ will give a map $`(b)𝒢`$ whose quotient is torsion-free and locally free in codimension $`1`$. However, instead of using this map, we add it to the existing map $`s_0`$ of $`(b)`$ to $`𝒢`$, and the proof of $`(3.2)`$ shows that for general $`sW`$, the sum $`s_0+s`$ will give a good cokernel. Since by construction $`s`$ comes from a map of $``$ to $`𝒩(b)`$, we get maps of $`(b)`$ to $`𝒩`$ and $`^{}(b)`$ to $`𝒩`$, which we add to the existing maps. Thus we get a diagram like $`(2)`$ above, but with new maps, where the cokernel of the bottom two rows is $`_V^{}(a^{})`$, with $`V^{}`$ in the same biliaison class as $`V_2`$, for some $`a^{}`$, and where the map $`^{}(b)`$ to $`𝒩`$ extends to $`(b)`$, as required.

Lemma 4.6. Again with $`X`$ normal ACM, suppose given $`V`$ of codimension $`2`$ and exact sequences

$$0_0^{}𝒩_V(a)0$$

$$0^{}0$$

with $`_0,𝒩`$ coherent, $`^{},`$ layered ACM sheaves and $``$ a rank $`1`$ ACM sheaf. Then for any $`b0`$ there is an exact sequence

$$0_0(b)𝒩_V^{}(a^{})0$$

with $`V^{}`$ in the same biliaison class as $`V`$.

Proof. By $`(4.5)`$ we can find

$$0_0^{}(b_1)𝒩_{V_1}(a_1)0$$

where the map $`^{}(b_1)`$ to $`𝒩`$ extends to a map of $`(b_1)`$ to $`𝒩`$. Next, by the method of $`(3.4)`$ we replace $``$ by $`(b_2)`$, and we may assume $`b_1=b_2=b`$ by taking both sufficiently large. Now the same proof as for the latter part of $`(4.5)`$ shows how to get the desired sequence.

Proof of $`(4.3)`$. Let $`V`$ be a codimension $`2`$ ACM subscheme of $`X`$. Take a set of generators for $`H_{}^0(_V)`$ and thus obtain an $``$-type resolution

$$0_V0$$

with $``$ dissocié and $`H_{}^1()=0`$. Since $`V`$ is ACM, it follows that $``$ is an ACM sheaf on $`X`$.

By $`(4.4)`$, using condition (B) and hence (B), we can find a resolution

$$0𝒢_1𝒢_20$$

with $`𝒢_1,𝒢_2`$ layered ACM sheaves. Taking $``$ to be the fibered sum of $``$ and $`𝒢_1`$ over $``$, we obtain sequences

$$0𝒢_1_V0$$

and

$$0𝒢_20.$$

Thus $``$ is layered, and we have a resolution of $`_V`$ with $`𝒢_1,`$ both layered ACM sheaves. (In fact, since $``$ is dissocié and $`𝒢_2`$ is ACM, this last sequence splits, and $`𝒢_2`$, but we do not need this.)

Let $`V^{}`$ be another codimension $`2`$ ACM subscheme of $`X`$, and let

$$0𝒢_1^{}^{}_V^{}0$$

be a similar sequence for $`V^{}`$. Now adding $`^{}`$ to the sequence for $`V`$ and $``$ to the sequence for $`V^{}`$ we obtain resolutions

$$0𝒢_1^{}^{}_V0$$

$$0𝒢_1^{}^{}_V^{}0$$

by layered ACM sheaves, with the same sheaf in the middle of each. Under hypothesis a) we add $`(^{})^{}`$ to both sequences, or under hypothesis b) we add a suitable sum $`_i`$ of rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves to each, and then we obtain sequences (changing notation)

$$0𝒩_V0$$

$$0^{}𝒩_V^{}0$$

where $`,^{}`$ and $`𝒩`$ are all three orientable layered ACM sheaves on $`X`$.

Next, we invoke condition (C) to tell us that $``$ and $`^{}`$ are both equal to $`r𝒪`$ in the group $`G^{}`$, and hence equal to each other in $`G^{}`$. What does this equality mean? It means that up to twist, we can transform $``$ to $`^{}`$ by a finite number of operations of adding and subtracting expressions $`(^{}^{\prime \prime })`$ whenever $`0^{}^{\prime \prime }0`$ is an exact sequence in the category $``$ of layered ACM sheaves on $`X`$. In fact, it is enough to consider such expressions in which $`^{\prime \prime }`$ has rank $`1`$, because any exact sequence $`0^{}^{\prime \prime }0`$ of layered ACM sheaves can be resolved into a finite number of such sequences whose last term has rank $`1`$, by using the filtration on $`^{\prime \prime }`$. By moving negative terms to the other side of the equation, we find a layered ACM sheaf $`𝒢`$ such that one can transform $`𝒢`$ into $`^{}𝒢`$ by a finite number of substitutions of $``$ for $`^{}^{\prime \prime }`$ or vice versa, when $`0^{}^{\prime \prime }0`$ is an exact sequence as above. All this takes place up to twists.

Now $`(3.4)`$ allows us to replace a layered ACM sheaf by the direct sum of its factors (sufficiently twisted), and $`(4.6)`$ allows us to replace a direct sum $`^{}`$ by an extension $``$ of $``$ by $`^{}`$, sufficiently twisted. By applying these lemmas to the resolution

$$0𝒢𝒩𝒢_V0$$

of $`V`$ we thus obtain a resolution

$$0^{}(b)𝒢_1𝒩𝒢_{V_1}(a_1)0$$

for some $`V_1`$ in the biliaison class of $`V`$, and where $`𝒢`$ is a layered ACM sheaf, and $`𝒢_1`$ differs from $`𝒢`$ only by twists of its direct summands.

We compare this to the resolution

$$0^{}𝒢𝒩𝒢_V^{}0$$

of $`V^{}`$. Note that the sheaves $`^{}(b)𝒢_1`$ and $`^{}𝒢`$ have all the same rank $`1`$ factors up to twist. So from $`(3.1)`$ we conclude that $`V`$, $`V_1`$ and $`V^{}`$ are all in the same biliaison class.

Theorem 4.7. Let $`X`$ be a three-dimensional normal arithmetically Gorenstein projective scheme. Assume condition (C) and the stronger condition (B<sup>′′</sup>): every orientable ACM sheaf on $`X`$ is layered. Then two locally Cohen–Macaulay curves $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ in $`X`$ are in the same Gorenstein biliaison class if and only if their Rao modules $`H_{}^1(_{C_1})`$ and $`H_{}^1(_{C_2})`$ are isomorphic, up to twist.

Proof. One direction is elementary, since we do biliaison on ACM surfaces $`(1.2)`$.

For the other direction, let $`C`$ be any locally Cohen–Macaulay curve on $`X`$, with Rao module $`M=H_{}^1(_C)`$. Take an $`𝒩`$-type resolution of $`C`$, that is, an exact sequence

$$0𝒩_C0$$

with $``$ dissocié, and $`𝒩`$ a locally Cohen–Macaulay sheaf with $`H_{}^1(𝒩)=M`$ and $`H_{}^2(𝒩)=0`$ \[8, 1.12,1.13\]. Let $`N=H_{}^0(𝒩)`$. As in \[8, 3.2\] a two-step resolution of $`N`$

$$0PL_1L_0N0$$

over the homogeneous coordinate ring $`S`$ of $`X`$ gives a maximal Cohen–Macaulay module $`P`$, and dualizing this sequence gives a sequence

$$0N^{}L_0^{}L_1^{}P^{}M^{}0,$$

where $`^{}=\text{Hom}_S(,S)`$ and $`M^{}=\text{Hom}_k(M,k)`$.

Now take a minimal free resolution of $`M^{}`$,

$$0RF_2F_1F_0M^{}0$$

defining a new $`S`$-module $`R`$. Let $`𝒩^{}`$ be the sheaf associated to $`R^{}`$. There is a natural map of the free resolution of $`M^{}`$ into the earlier resolution, and so we get a map $`RN^{}`$ giving rise to a map of sheaves $`𝒩𝒩^{}`$, which induces an isomorphism on the $`H_{}^1`$-modules, both isomorphic to $`M`$. By adding suitable dissocié sheaves to the original $``$ and $`𝒩`$, we may assume that $`𝒩𝒩^{}`$ is surjective also on $`H_{}^0`$, so we get

$$0𝒩𝒩^{}0$$

with $``$ an ACM sheaf on $`X`$.

Let $`^{}`$ be a dissocié sheaf mapping to $`𝒩^{}`$

$$0^{}𝒩^{}_C^{}(a^{})0$$

with cokernel $`_C^{}(a^{})`$ for some curve $`C^{}`$. Composing with the map $`𝒩𝒩^{}`$, we get

$$0^{}𝒩_C^{}(a^{})0$$

where $`^{}`$ is an extension of $`^{}`$ by $``$ (actually a direct sum), hence another ACM sheaf.

Now by hypothesis (B<sup>′′</sup>), $`^{}`$ is a layered ACM sheaf, and it is also orientable, since $`𝒩`$ is.

At this point we can repeat the last part of the proof of $`(4.3)`$, using condition (C), and noting that for that part of the proof, it was not necessary for $`𝒩`$ to be ACM. Thus $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ are in the same Gorenstein biliaison class. Since the biliaison class of $`C^{}`$ depends only on the Rao module, and not on $`C`$, this shows that any two curves with the same Rao module are in the same biliaison class.

## 5 Applications I: Schemes of finite representation type

We say a projective ACM scheme $`X`$ has finite representation type if there are only finitely many isomorphism classes of indecomposable ACM sheaves on $`X`$ up to twist. The projective schemes of finite representation type have been classified by Eisenbud and Herzog, see \[18, 17.10\]. Those of dimension $`2`$ are (i) $`^n`$ for $`n2`$, (ii) a non-singular quadric hypersurface $`Q^n`$ in $`^{n+1}`$ for $`n2`$, (iii) the rational cubic scroll in $`^4`$, and (iv) the Veronese surface in $`^5`$.

If $`X`$ is $`^n`$, our conditions (B) and (C) are trivial, because the only ACM sheaves on $`X`$ are dissocié. Theorem $`(4.3)`$ tells us that all codimension $`2`$ ACM schemes are in the same Gorenstein biliaison class, and $`(4.7)`$ tells us in $`^3`$ that the Gorenstein biliaison class of any curve is determined by its Rao module. Since Gorenstein biliaison in codimension $`2`$ in $`^n`$ is just complete intersection biliaison, we recover the well-known results of Apéry–Gaeta–Peskine–Szpiro  and of Rao . Our proof cannot be considered a new proof, because the methods we use are generalizations of the earlier proofs.

If $`X`$ is a non-singular quadric hypersurface $`Q^n`$ in $`^{n+1}`$, over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic $`2`$, the non-free indecomposable ACM sheaves have been classified by the work of Buchweitz, Eisenbud, and Herzog  and Knörrer , see \[18, 14.10\]. Up to isomorphism and twist there is just one non-free ACM sheaf if $`n`$ is odd, or two if $`n`$ is even. The rank of these sheaves is $`2^m`$ where $`m=\left[\frac{n1}{2}\right]`$.

Proposition 5.1. If $`X`$ is a non-singular quadric surface in $`^3`$, all zero-dimensional subschemes of $`X`$ are in the same Gorenstein biliaison class.

Proof. In this case there are two non-trivial indecomposable ACM sheaves of rank $`1`$, namely $`_L`$ and $`_M`$ where $`L,M`$ represent the two classes of lines on $`X`$. Thus any ACM sheaf is a direct sum of rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves, and condition (B) is trivial.

For condition (C), note that $`L+M=H`$, the hyperplane class, and since two lines in the same family do not meet, there is an exact sequence

$$0_L𝒪^2_M(1)0.$$

If $``$ is an orientable ACM sheaf, it must have the same number of $`L`$’s and $`M`$’s in its direct sum decomposition, so the existence of this sequence proves (C).

We conclude the result from $`(4.3)`$.

Remark 5.2. This generalizes an earlier result \[9, 2.3\] which showed that any set of $`n`$ general points on the quadric surface was in the biliaison class of a point.

Example 5.3. If $`X`$ is a non-singular quadric hypersurface of dimension $`n3`$ in $`^{n+1}`$, then $`\text{Pic }X=`$, generated by $`𝒪(1)`$, and there are no non-trivial extensions, so condition (C) holds trivially. On the other hand, there are indecomposable ACM sheaves of rank $`2`$. Any sequence as in condition (B) would have to split, so condition (B) fails. We conclude there are many inequivalent Gorenstein biliaison classes of codimension $`2`$ subschemes of $`X`$. In fact, since $`\text{Pic }X=`$, Gorenstein biliaison is the same as CI-biliaison, and the biliaison classes are determined by stable equivalence classes (up to twist) of ACM sheaves on $`X`$ \[8, 2.4\].

Proposition 5.4. All zero-dimensional subschemes of the rational cubic scroll $`X`$ in $`^4`$ are in the same Gorenstein biliaison class.

Proof. First recall that $`\text{Pic }X^2`$ and is generated by the hyperplane class $`H`$ and the class of a fiber $`F`$ of the ruled surface. It is well known \[15, 5.10\] that up to twist the only rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves are $`𝒪_X`$, $`_F`$, $`_{HF}`$, $`_{H2F}`$. Here $`HF`$ is a conic, and $`H2F`$ is the exceptional line $`E`$ with $`E^2=1`$.

Looking at the proof \[18, 16.12\] that $`X`$ is of finite representation type, we find that there is just one (up to twist) indecomposable ACM sheaf of rank $`>1`$, it has rank $`2`$, and is obtained as the first syzygy of $`_F`$:

$$0_0𝒪(1)^3_F0.$$

Note that $`c_1(_0)=F3H`$.

First we will show that $`_0`$ is isomorphic to an extension of rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves

$$0_F(1)_{H2F}(1)0.$$
(1)
We compute $`\text{Ext}^2(_{H2F}(1),_F(1))=H^1(_{3F}(1))`$ is of dimension $`1`$, so there exists a non-trivial extension $`(1)`$ and it is an ACM sheaf of rank $`2`$. Next, note that $`h^0((1))=0`$, $`h^0((2))=6`$. So if $``$ were decomposable, then $`=_1_2`$, where $`_1,_2`$ are rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves with $`h^0(_i(1))=0`$, and at least one of $`h^0(_i(2))0`$. The only rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves $``$ with $`h^0((1))=0`$, $`h^0((2))0`$ are $`𝒪(2)`$, $`_F(1)`$, $`_{HF}(1)`$, $`_{H2F}(1)`$. For these sheaves $``$ we have $`h^0((2))=1,3,2,3`$, respectively. Taking into account $`c_1()=F3H`$, the only possibility would be $`_F(1)_{H2F}(1)`$, which is impossible since the sequence $`(1)`$ is non-split.

Therefore $``$ is an indecomposable rank $`2`$ ACM sheaf on $`X`$. Since there is only one such up to twist \[18, 16.12\], we find checking Chern classes that $`_0`$. Thus $`_0`$ is already layered, and condition (B) of $`(4.3)`$ is satisfied.

Note that $`X`$ is not arithmetically Gorenstein, but that the rank $`1`$ ACM divisors $`H`$, $`F`$, $`HF`$ and their twists generate $`\text{Pic }X`$ as a monoid, so condition b) of $`(4.3)`$ is satisfied.

For condition (C), note that since $`FF=0`$, there is an exact sequence

$$0_F𝒪^2_{HF}(1)0,$$
(2)
and since $`F2F=0`$ another sequence

$$0_F𝒪_X_{HF}(1)_{H2F}(1)0.$$
(3)
Now suppose given an orientable ACM sheaf on $`X`$. Up to twists we can write it as a direct sum

$$a_F+b_{HF}+c_{H2F}+d_0+e𝒪$$

with $`a,b,c,d,e0`$.

In the quotient Grothendieck group $`G^{}`$, we use sequence $`(1)`$ to replace $`_0`$ by $`_F+_{H2F}`$ and then we may assume $`d=0`$. Since the sheaf is orientable, if $`c0`$, then also $`a0`$. So we can use sequence $`(3)`$ to replace occurrences of $`_{H2F}+_F`$ by $`_{HF}+𝒪`$ and then assume $`c=0`$. Now if $`b`$ is non-zero, it must be equal to $`a`$, and we use sequence $`(2)`$ to reduce to a multiple of $`𝒪`$. Thus condition (C) is satisfied.

Thus by $`(4.3)`$ every zero-scheme on $`X`$ is in the biliaison class of a point.

Remark 5.5. This generalizes an earlier result \[3, 3.4\] that treated only sets of points in general position.

Proposition 5.6. On the Veronese surface $`X`$ in $`^5`$ there are infinitely many biliaison classes of zero-schemes, indexed by the even integers.

Proof. The Veronese surface is the $`2`$-tuple embedding of $`^2`$ in $`^5`$. Thus $`\text{Pic }X=`$, generated by the image of a line of $`^2`$, which becomes a conic $`CX`$. The hyperplane class is $`H=2C`$. Every curve on $`X`$ is an ACM curve. $`X`$ is not arithmetically Gorenstein, but its Picard group is generated as a monoid by $`C`$ and $`HC`$, which are ACM curves. There are no non-trivial extensions of rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves, so property (C) fails, since $`_C_C`$ is an orientable ACM sheaf not equivalent in the group $`G^{}`$ to $`2𝒪`$.

Following the proof of \[18, 16.10\] we see that there is just one (up to twist) indecomposable ACM sheaf of rank $`>1`$; it has rank $`2`$ and is obtained as the first syzygy of $`_C`$:

$$0_0𝒪(1)^3_C0.$$

Pulling this sequence back to $`^2`$ one recognizes that $`_0\mathrm{\Omega }_^2^1(1)`$. Note that $`H^1(^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_^2^1)0`$, but still $`_0`$ is an ACM sheaf on $`X`$ because twists on $`X`$ correspond to even twists on $`^2`$, and no other twist of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_^2^1`$ has a non-zero $`H^1`$. Now $`_0(2)`$ is the tangent bundle on $`X`$, and transporting a well-known sequence with the tangent bundle from $`^2`$ we find

$$0𝒪(2)_C(1)^3_00,$$

so condition (B) is satisfied.

Since condition (C) fails, $`(4.2)`$ tells us that there is more than one biliaison class of zero-schemes on $`X`$. This is clear anyway, because $`H.Y`$ is even for any curve $`Y`$ on $`X`$, so biliaison preserves the parity of the length of a zero-scheme $`Z`$.

To investigate more exactly what the biliaison classes are, let $`Z,Z^{}`$ be any two zero-schemes in $`X`$. Since condition (B) holds, we can use $`(4.4)`$ and the beginning of the proof of $`(4.3)`$ to find resolutions

$$0𝒩_Z0$$

$$0^{}𝒩^{}_Z^{}0$$

where $`,^{}`$ $`𝒩,𝒩^{}`$ are orientable layered ACM sheaves, and we may even assume $`𝒩=𝒩^{}`$. In our case, this means $`,^{},𝒩,𝒩^{}`$ are each direct sums of copies of $`𝒪(a_i)`$ and $`_C(b_i)`$ for various $`a_i,b_i`$.

Without assuming $`𝒩=𝒩^{}`$, if $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ are in the same biliaison class, then the exact sequences of $`(4.1)`$ show that there are layered ACM sheaves $`,^{}`$ with the same rank $`1`$ factors, up to twist, and an equivalence $`𝒩+^{}+=𝒩^{}++^{}`$ in the Grothendieck group $`G^{}`$. Since $``$ and $`^{}`$ have the same factors, up to twist, we find $`𝒩+^{}=𝒩^{}+`$ in $`G^{}`$.

Let $`m(Z)=`$ the number of copies of $`_C`$ in the direct sum decomposition of $`𝒩`$, minus the number in $``$. Since $`,𝒩`$ are orientable, $`m(Z)`$ is an even integer. What $`(4.1)`$ tells us in this case is that $`m(Z)`$ is an invariant of the biliaison class.

Conversely, if $`Z,Z^{}`$ are two schemes with $`m(Z)=m(Z^{})`$, then as in the proof of $`(4.3)`$, we find the sequences above with $`𝒩=𝒩^{}`$. Then $``$ and $`^{}`$ have the same number of direct summands $`_C(a_i)`$ for various $`a_i`$, and it follows from $`(3.1)`$ that they are in the same biliaison class.

Given $`m>0`$, $`m`$ even, take $`𝒩=_{i=1}^m_C`$, choose a dissocié sheaf $``$ such that

$$0𝒩_Z(a)0$$

for some zero-scheme $`Z`$, and then $`Z`$ will have invariant $`m`$.

If $`m<0`$, $`m`$ even, let $`n=m`$. Take a general $`n\times (n+1)`$ matrix of linear forms on $`^2`$, and let $`Z`$ be the associated determinantal scheme, so that we have a resolution

$$0𝒪_^2(n1)^n𝒪_^2(n)^{n+1}_{Z,^2}0.$$

Transporting this to the Veronese surface gives $`Z`$ with resolution

$$0_C\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)^n𝒪\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)^{n+1}_Z0$$

on the Veronese surface, showing that $`Z`$ has invariant $`n=m`$.

Thus the biliaison classes of zero-schemes on $`X`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the even integers via the invariant $`m(Z)`$.

Example 5.7. Let $`X`$ be the Veronese surface in $`^5`$. If $`Z=P`$ is a single point, there is a resolution

$$0𝒪(1)_C_C_P0,$$

since two lines in $`^2`$ meet in a point. Thus $`m(P)=2`$. It is easy to see that $`Z=`$ three points in general position has $`m(Z)=2`$. On the other hand, the image in $`X`$ of $`3`$ points on a line in $`^2`$ is in the biliaison class of a point, so $`m=2`$.

If $`Z`$ is two points, there is a resolution

$$0_C(1)𝒪(1)_C_Z0$$

since a line and a conic in $`^2`$ meet in $`2`$ points. Hence $`m(Z)=0`$, and we conclude that $`2`$ points are in the biliaison class of a complete intersection. This is not obvious! We leave as an amusing exercise for the reader to find explicit biliaisons (among non-empty zero schemes) that relate $`2`$ points to a complete intersection in $`X`$.

To find a scheme with $`m(Z)=4`$, we use a sequence

$$0𝒪(1)^3_C^4_Z(1)0.$$

Then $`Z`$ is a set of $`6`$ points, which may be taken in general position.

## 6 Applications, II: Quadric cones

In this section we consider some schemes that are not of finite representation type, but on which we can still determine all possible ACM sheaves. We use the matrix factorizations of Eisenbud , see \[18, Ch. 7\] and the periodicity theorems of Knörrer , see \[18, Ch. 12\].

Proposition 6.1. Let $`X`$ be a quadric cone in $`^3`$. Then all zero-schemes on $`X`$ are in the same Gorenstein biliaison class.

Proof. Recall that $`\text{APic }X=`$, generated by a line $`L`$, and $`2L=H`$ is the hyperplane class. The surface is arithmetically Gorenstein, and there is an exact sequence

$$0_L𝒪^2_L(1)0,$$

so condition (C) is satisfied.

To determine ACM sheaves of higher rank, we use a result of Buchweitz, Greuel, and Schreyer \[2, 4.1\]. If $`S=k[x,t]`$ and $`R=S/(x^2)`$, they found that there are three types of indecomposable maximal Cohen–Macaulay modules on $`R`$, given by matrix factorizations $`(\phi ,\psi )`$

* $`((x^2),(1))`$
* $`((x),(x))`$
* $`(\phi _{\mathrm{}},\psi _{\mathrm{}})`$ where $`\phi _{\mathrm{}}=\psi _{\mathrm{}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& x\end{array}\right)`$ for $`\mathrm{}=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$.

The corresponding $`R`$-module will be the cokernel of a map of free $`S`$-modules determined by the first matrix in each pair. Thus (i) gives $`S/(x^2)=R`$, (ii) gives $`S/(x)=R/(x)`$, and (iii) gives a module isomorphic to the ideal $`(x,t^{\mathrm{}})`$ in $`R`$.

By Knörrer’s periodicity theorem \[11, 3.1\], if we let $`S_2=k[x,u,v,t]`$ and $`R_2=S_2/(x^2+uv)`$, then the MCM modules on $`R^{}`$ are given by matrix factorizations

$$(\left(\begin{array}{cc}u& \psi \\ \phi & v\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}v& \psi \\ \phi & u\end{array}\right))$$

for each matrix factorization $`(\phi ,\psi )`$ of an MCM module on $`R`$.

Under this correspondence, type (i) gives us $`R_2`$; type (ii) gives us the ideal $`I_L=(x,u)`$ of a line in $`X`$, and type (iii) gives a module $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$, for $`\mathrm{}=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$, given by a matrix factorization

$$(\left(\begin{array}{cccc}u& 0& x& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& u& 0& x\\ x& t^{\mathrm{}}& v& 0\\ 0& x& 0& v\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}v& 0& x& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& v& 0& x\\ x& t^{\mathrm{}}& u& 0\\ 0& x& 0& u\end{array}\right)).$$

This is equivalent, permuting columns and rows to

$$(\left(\begin{array}{cccc}u& x& 0& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ x& v& t^{\mathrm{}}& 0\\ 0& 0& u& x\\ 0& 0& x& v\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}v& x& 0& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ x& u& t^{\mathrm{}}& 0\\ 0& 0& v& x\\ 0& 0& x& u\end{array}\right)).$$

Thus we see that $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is an extension

$$0I_LM_{\mathrm{}}I_L(\mathrm{}+1)0$$

of rank $`1`$ $`R_2`$-modules. The corresponding ACM sheaf $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`X`$ is therefore an extension

$$0_L_{\mathrm{}}_L(\mathrm{}+1)0$$

of rank $`1`$ ACM sheaves on $`X`$.

Thus every ACM sheaf on $`X`$ is layered, and condition (B) is satisfied.

Now the result follows from $`(4.3)`$.

Theorem 6.2. Let $`X`$ be the singular quadric three-fold in $`^4`$ that is the cone over a non-singular quadric surface in $`^3`$. Two locally Cohen–Macaulay curves on $`X`$ are in the same Gorenstein biliaison class if and only if their Rao modules are isomorphic. In particular, all ACM curves are in the same biliaison class.

Proof. We will show that conditions (B), (C) of $`(4.3)`$ and (B<sup>′′</sup>) of $`(4.7)`$ hold, and conclude by applying those two theorems.

Again we use the result of \[2, 4.1\] mentioned in the previous proof, but in this case we will have to use Knörrer’s double branched covers theorem \[11, 2.5\]: if $`S_1=k[x,y,t]`$ and $`R_1=S_1/(x^2+y^2)`$, then every indecomposable MCM module on $`R_1`$ is a direct summand of a module with matrix factorization

$$(\left(\begin{array}{cc}y& \psi \\ \phi & y\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}y& \psi \\ \phi & y\end{array}\right))$$

for each matrix factorization $`(\phi ,\psi )`$ of an indecomposable MCM module over $`R`$.

From (i) we obtain the ring $`R_1`$. From (ii) we obtain a matrix factorization

$$(\left(\begin{array}{cc}y& x\\ x& y\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}y& x\\ x& y\end{array}\right)).$$

Setting $`a=x+iy`$, $`b=xiy`$, we see this matrix factorization is equivalent to

$$(\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& b\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}b& 0\\ 0& a\end{array}\right)).$$

The corresponding module is a direct sum of $`S_1/(a)`$ and $`S_1/(b)`$.

From type (iii) we obtain a matrix factorization

$$(\left(\begin{array}{cccc}y& 0& x& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& y& 0& x\\ x& t^{\mathrm{}}& y& 0\\ 0& x& 0& y\end{array}\right),\text{ ditto}).$$

Again setting $`x^2+y^2=ab`$, we find this matrix factorization is equivalent to one that corresponds to a direct sum of two modules $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ with matrix factorizations

$$(\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& b\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}b& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& a\end{array}\right))$$

and

$$(\left(\begin{array}{cc}b& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& a\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& b\end{array}\right)).$$

Thus we have shown that indecomposable MCM modules over $`R_1`$ correspond to matrix factorizations of $`5`$ types

* $`((x^2+y^2),(1))`$
* $`((a),(b))`$
* $`((b),(a))`$
* $`(\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& b\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}b& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& a\end{array}\right))`$, $`\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{}`$
* $`(\left(\begin{array}{cc}b& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& a\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& b\end{array}\right))`$, $`\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{}`$.

Now we use Knörrer’s periodicity theorem \[11, 3.1\] to pass to the rings $`S_3=k[x,y,u,v,t]`$ and $`R_3=S_3/(x^2+y^2+uv)`$. Preserving the notation $`ab=x^2+y^2`$, as in the proof of $`(6.1)`$ to each of these matrix factorizations $`(\phi ,\psi )`$ we obtain matrix factorizations

$$(\left(\begin{array}{cc}u& \psi \\ \phi & v\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}v& \psi \\ \phi & u\end{array}\right))$$

over the ring $`S_3`$.

From case (a) we obtain the ring $`R_3`$. From cases (b) and (c) we obtain modules isomorphic to the ideals $`(a,u)`$ and $`(a,v)`$ in $`R_3`$. These correspond to the two families of planes $`D,E`$ passing through the vertex of the cone $`X`$.

From case (d) we obtain a matrix factorization

$$(\left(\begin{array}{cccc}u& 0& a& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& u& 0& b\\ b& t^{\mathrm{}}& v& 0\\ 0& a& 0& v\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cccc}v& 0& a& t^{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& v& 0& b\\ b& t^{\mathrm{}}& u& 0\\ 0& a& 0& u\end{array}\right)).$$

As in the proof of $`(6.1)`$, we rearrange rows and columns, and then observe that the corresponding module $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ is an extension

$$0I_DM_{\mathrm{}}I_E(\mathrm{}+1)0.$$

Similarly in case (e) we obtain a module $`M_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ that is an extension

$$0I_EM_{\mathrm{}}^{}I_D(\mathrm{}+1)0.$$

Translating this in terms of the ACM sheaves on $`X`$, we find that the indecomposable ACM sheaves on $`X`$, up to twist, are $`𝒪_X`$, $`_D`$, $`_E`$, and two infinite sequences $`_{\mathrm{}},_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ for $`\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ that are extensions

$$0_D_{\mathrm{}}_E(\mathrm{}+1)0$$

$$0_E_{\mathrm{}}^{}_D(\mathrm{}+1)0.$$

Thus we see that every ACM sheaf on $`X`$ is layered, so $`X`$ satisfies (B) and (B<sup>′′</sup>). We know that $`\text{APic }X=^2`$, generated by $`D,E`$ and that $`D+E=H.X`$ is arithmetically Gorenstein, and there is an exact sequence

$$0_D𝒪_X^2_E(1)0$$

so condition (C) is satisfied.

Now the result follows from $`(4.3)`$ and $`(4.7)`$.

Remark 6.3. Here is another way to construct the sheaves $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$. Let $`C`$ be a plane curve of degree $`\mathrm{}`$ in the plane $`D`$. Then $`C`$ is arithmetically Gorenstein with $`\omega _C𝒪_C(\mathrm{}3)`$. So by the Serre construction there is an extension

$$0𝒪_X(\mathrm{})_C0,$$

and $``$ will be a rank $`2`$ ACM sheaf. Since $`CD`$, there is an inclusion $`0_D`$, and chasing the corresponding diagram one finds the cokernel is $`_E(\mathrm{}+1)`$. Thus $``$ is the sheaf $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ described above.

Example 6.4. As an application of $`(6.2)`$ we give a new proof and strengthening of a theorem of Lesperance. Let $`D_1,D_2`$ be two planes in the family of planes $`D`$, meeting at the singular point $`P=(0,0,0,0,1)`$ of $`X`$. Let $`C_1D_1`$ and $`C_2D_2`$ be curves of degrees $`d,t`$ respectively, not containing the point $`P`$, with $`2dt`$. Lesperance calls the union $`C=C_1C_2`$ a curve of type $`(P,d,t)`$, and shows that its Rao module is $`M_d=S_3/(x,y,u,v,t^d)`$. Then he shows that two curves $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ of types $`(P,d,t)`$ and $`(P,d,s)`$ with $`2dt,s`$ are in the same $`G`$-liaison class \[12, 4.9\], \[13, 3.6\]. Since they have the same Rao module, we obtain a new proof of this result from $`(6.2)`$, which shows they are also in the same $`G`$-biliaison class.

Next, Lesperance considers a curve $`C^{}=C_1C_2^{}`$ as above, where $`C_1D_1`$ does not contain $`P`$, but where $`C_2^{}D_2`$ does contain $`P`$ as a point of multiplicity $`e`$. This time we assume $`d=\text{deg }D_12`$, but $`te1`$ only. This he calls a curve of type $`(P,d,t,e)`$, and shows it has the same Rao module $`M_d`$. He shows that if $`td+e`$, then curves of type $`(P,d,t)`$ and $`(P,d,t,e)`$ are in the same even $`G`$-liaison class \[12, 4.15\], but he leaves open the question if $`d=t`$, and asks, for example if curves of types $`(P,2,2)`$ and $`(P,2,2,1)`$ are $`G`$-linked. Again, since they have the same Rao modules, our theorem $`(6.2)`$ shows that any curves of types $`(P,d,t)`$ and $`(P,d,t,e)`$ are in the same $`G`$-biliaison class. This answers the question \[12, 4.14\].

Note that our $`G`$-biliaisons take place inside a fixed singular quadric hypersurface $`X`$. But since any three skew lines in $`^3`$ are contained in a non-singular quadric surface, it is easy to see that if $`D_1^{},D_2^{}`$ are any other two planes in $`^4`$ meeting at the same point $`P`$, then we can make $`G`$-biliaisons on different singular quadric hypersurfaces to relate curves of types $`(P,d,t)`$ or $`(P,d,t,e)`$ in $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ to those in $`D_1^{}`$ and $`D_2^{}`$.

Example 6.5. Lesperance also gives an example \[12, 5.7\], \[13, 4.6\] of minimal curves in the same even $`G`$-liaison class, having the same degree and genus, that do not belong to the same irreducible family. His example consists of a curve $`C`$ of type $`(P,2,2,1)`$ on the one hand, and the disjoint union $`D`$ of a line $`L`$ and a twisted cubic curve $`Y`$, where $`L`$ meets the $`^3`$ containing $`Y`$ at the point $`P`$ on the other hand. Both have degree $`4`$, $`p_a=1`$, and Rao module $`M_2`$.

We would like to point out that we can put curves of type $`C`$ and $`D`$ on a singular quadric $`3`$-fold $`X`$, so that they are in the same $`G`$-biliaison class on $`X`$. This will show that minimal curves in a $`G`$-biliaison class on $`X`$, of the same degree and genus, need not form an irreducible family.

To do this, let $`Q`$ be a non-singular quadric surface in $`^3`$. Take a point $`O^4\backslash ^3`$, and let $`X`$ be the cone over $`Q`$ with vertex $`O`$. Now take $`YQ`$ a twisted cubic curve, take $`PQ\backslash Y`$, and let $`L`$ be the line joining $`O`$ to $`P`$. Then $`D=LY`$ has Rao module $`M_2`$ based at $`P`$. Take a plane $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ in $`^3`$ cutting $`Q`$ in a conic $`C_1`$ containing $`P`$. Let $`M`$ be a line in $`Q`$, passing through $`P`$, not in the plane $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ be the plane spanned by $`M`$ and $`O`$. Let $`C_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ be a conic not passing through $`P`$. Then $`C=C_1C_2`$ is a curve of type $`(P,2,2,1)`$. Since $`C`$ and $`D`$ have the same Rao module, they are in the same $`G`$-biliaison class on $`X`$, by $`(6.2)`$.