Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Morse resolutions of monomial ideals and Betti splittings

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that every monomial ideal with linear quotients admits a minimal pruned resolution, unifying two classical explicit resolutions.

desk verdict A worthwhile unification of known minimal resolutions, but the main inductive step in Section 6 depends on an unproven transfer principle and a missing citation. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02122 v1 pith:2IHWHJJF submitted 2025-02-04 math.AC

Josep Àlvarez Montaner , María Lucía Aparicio García , Amir Mafi This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AC MSC 13D0205E4013F55
keywords monomialidealsfreeresolutionsdiscreteMorsetheoryprunedBettisplittingslinearquotientsstableedge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that a broad class of monomial ideals admits a minimal free resolution obtained by a simple "pruning" of the Taylor resolution. The main results are that stable ideals are vertex splittable and that every monomial ideal with linear quotients has an ordering of its generators for which the pruned resolution, formed with the help of Betti splittings, is minimal. If the arguments hold, this unifies two classical constructions, the Eliahou-Kervaire resolution for stable ideals and the Herzog-Takayama resolution for linear quotient ideals, as instances of one Morse-theoretic procedure. The paper also gives recursive criteria that reduce the minimality question for a given ideal to that of a smaller subideal, with concrete applications to edge ideals of graphs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pruned resolution: start with the Taylor simplicial complex whose cells are labelled by the lcms of sets of generators, then prune edges in the coordinate directions (Algorithm 3.1) to obtain a homogeneous acyclic matching, and finally pass to the Morse complex of critical cells. The Betti-splitting variant (Algorithm 5.4) prunes inside the subcomplexes for J, for K, and for the join-type complex representing J∩K separately, so that a Betti splitting I = J + K is compatible with the Morse reduction in the sense that the pruned Betti numbers of I are the sum of those of J, K, and J∩K with a homological shift. Minimality is decided by whether two surviving cells of equal multidegree are connected by a path with nonzero coefficient in the Morse differential. The recursion is carried by the Betti splitting identity β(I) = β(J) + β(K) + β(J∩K) shifted one degree.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 5.4 on a small vertex splittable ideal I = xiJ + K whose pieces J, K, and xiJ∩K individually admit minimal pruned resolutions, and inspect the surviving cells of equal multidegree: if any two surviving cells are connected in the Morse graph by a path with nonzero coefficient, Theorem 6.6 fails. For the linear quotient claim, the same check on any stable ideal, for instance the edge ideal of a complete bipartite graph, would settle it; the paper's Example 6.11 already shows the analogous statement fails for componentwise linear ideals.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that discrete Morse pruning of the Taylor resolution can be made minimal precisely when the ideal can be decomposed recursively by Betti splittings. Theorem 6.9 asserts that for any monomial ideal with linear quotients there exists a generator order such that the pruning Algorithm 3.1 or its Betti-splitting refinement Algorithm 5.4 leaves no two surviving cells of the same multidegree connected by a nonzero differential path, so the resulting Morse complex is a minimal free resolution. Theorem 6.5 proves that stable ideals are vertex splittable, and Theorem 6.6 shows that vertex splittable ideals admit minimal pruned resolutions. Corollaries identify the pruned resolution with the Eliahou-Kervaire resolution for stable ideals and with the Herzog-Takayama resolution for linear quotient ideals. The paper further proves that an ideal obtained by adjoining high variable powers admits a minimal pruned resolution if and only if the original ideal does, and it gives graph-theoretic reduction criteria for edge ideals.

Load-bearing premise

The argument relies on the transfer assumption that if each piece J, K, and J∩K of a Betti splitting I = J + K has a minimal pruned resolution obtained by pruning inside the Taylor complex of I, then the whole ideal I has one too.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every stable monomial ideal and every linear quotient monomial ideal has a minimal free resolution supported on a CW-complex, obtained by pruning the Taylor resolution.
  • The Eliahou-Kervaire and Herzog-Takayama resolutions are isomorphic to the pruned resolution, so two classical constructions are unified in one framework.
  • An ideal of the form J plus high powers of the variables admits a minimal pruned resolution if and only if J does; in particular, lexsegment-plus-powers and stable-plus-powers ideals admit such resolutions.
  • Edge ideals of paths, trees, forests, cycles, wheels, and complete bipartite graphs all admit minimal pruned resolutions.
  • The minimality of a pruned resolution can be reduced recursively to that of smaller subideals via Betti splittings, giving an iterative method that works as long as a splitting tree exists.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the transfer principle behind Algorithm 5.4 is made fully explicit, the same pruning and splitting machinery becomes a constructive recursive algorithm that computes a minimal free resolution for any ideal admitting a Betti splitting tree, not only the named classes.
  • The graph-theoretic reduction theorem suggests a testable extension to other splitting-closed families, such as cover ideals of chordal graphs, which are known to be vertex splittable.
  • Example 3.7 shows that the plain coordinate-order pruning can fail to be minimal for ideals with six generators in characteristic zero, so the linear quotient theorem likely depends on choosing the Betti-splitting order; a computational search could determine exactly where the plain version breaks.
  • A natural generalization to explore is whether every ideal with a Betti splitting tree whose leaves are monomial prime ideals admits a minimal pruned resolution, which would extend the reach of the method beyond stable and linear quotient ideals.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops discrete Morse theory constructions for monomial ideals, extending the first author's earlier pruned resolution framework. The main claims are that every vertex splittable ideal, every linear quotient ideal, and several further classes admit a minimal pruned resolution; that stable ideals are vertex splittable; and that the resulting resolutions are isomorphic to the Eliahou-Kervaire and Herzog-Takayama resolutions in the relevant cases. The authors also introduce a Betti-splitting variant of the pruning algorithm, a pruned resolution for powers of squarefree monomial ideals, recursive criteria for Artinian reductions and graph edge ideals, and several corollaries for paths, trees, cycles, wheels, and complete bipartite graphs. The overall strategy is inductive: decompose an ideal as a Betti splitting, obtain minimal pruned resolutions of the pieces by induction, and then combine them inside the original Taylor complex.

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper gives a useful unifying framework: the Eliahou-Kervaire and Herzog-Takayama resolutions appear as special cases of one pruning construction, and the new class of ideals covered by Theorem 6.12 goes beyond previous cellular-resolution results. The proof that stable ideals are vertex splittable (Theorem 6.5) is a clean structural contribution, and the worked examples, especially Example 3.7 and Example 6.11, show that the authors are attentive to characteristic dependence. The paper is written for an expert audience and the exposition of the pruning algorithms is generally clear. However, the central inductive step is not proved as a formal lemma, and one theorem is stated as an iff but proved only in one direction; these gaps are load-bearing for the main claims and need to be addressed before the results can be accepted.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 6, Theorems 6.6 and 6.9; Algorithm 5.4; Theorem 5.5] The paper relies on an unstated transfer principle: if I=J+K is a Betti splitting and J, K, and J∩K each admit a minimal pruned resolution, then the pruned resolution of I obtained by applying Algorithm 5.4 to the three pieces inside the Taylor complex of I is minimal. Theorem 5.5 proves only that the matching produced by Algorithm 5.4 is a homogeneous acyclic matching and hence gives a cellular resolution; the Betti splitting formula gives the Betti numbers of I, but minimality requires additionally that no degree-equal differential entry connects critical cells coming from different pieces. The proof of Theorem 6.6 invokes this principle at the final line, which reads 'xiJ∩K = xiK and thus it also admits a minimal pruned resolution by .' with the citation missing. Even if one supplies Lemma 6.8, one still needs a proof that the critical cells of Algorithm 5.4 are exactly the disjoint union of the critical cells of the pruned resolutions of J, K, and J∩K and that their ranks equal the corresponding minimal Betti numbers. A formal lemma stating and proving this transfer is necessary before Theorems 6.6 and 6.9 follow from the given arguments.
  2. [Section 6.2.1, Theorem 6.16] Theorem 6.16 is stated as an equivalence: I=J+(x1^{a1},...,xn^{an}) admits a minimal pruned resolution if and only if J does. The proof, however, contains only the forward direction: 'If I admits a minimal pruned resolution, then J also admits a minimal pruned resolution by applying Corollary 3.10 iteratively.' The converse is asserted only in the informal sentence after the proof ('In the setting of Theorem 6.16 we will say that a minimal pruned resolution ideal plus powers also has a minimal pruned resolution'). Since this theorem is announced as Theorem C and is used in Corollary 6.17, the missing converse is load-bearing and needs a proof or an explicit reference.
  3. [Section 6.1.3, Theorem 6.12 and Corollary 6.13] The proof of Theorem 6.12 is a sketch rather than a complete construction. The sentence 'to each cell of the CW-complex associated to the minimal pruned resolution of J we may attach the Taylor graph of I and perform the pruning Algorithm 3.1' describes an idea, but it does not define the resulting acyclic matching on the Taylor complex of IJ, prove that it is acyclic, or prove that the surviving cells have no degree-equal differential entries. Since Corollary 6.13 on p-Borel ideals is a direct consequence, the gap affects a stated contribution. The same criticism applies to Theorem 6.14, which is justified only by 'the same kind of arguments.'
  4. [Section 6.2.2, Theorem 6.18] Theorem 6.18 asserts that I admits a minimal pruned resolution if K and all ideals I(H_{k1,...,km}) do. The proof is a succession of assertions: that xnJ∩K 'admits a splitting' into M1+(M2+...+Ms), that the iterative process has a splitting at each step 'because of the assumption that there are no edges between the neighbors,' and that 'the result follows.' No formal statement or proof is given for the iterated splitting of xnJ∩K, for the minimal pruned resolutions of the pieces M_{k1}∩...∩M_{km}, or for the transfer of these minimalities to I. The corollaries on paths, trees, cycles, wheels, and complete bipartite graphs depend on this theorem and therefore inherit the gap.
  5. [Section 6.1.1, Theorem 6.5] The proof of Theorem 6.5 says that 'G(I) is the disjoint union of G(xiJ) and G(K)' when I=xiJ+K is the xi-partition of a stable ideal. This needs a short justification: one must rule out a minimal generator of xiJ being divisible by a minimal generator of K, and vice versa. The claim is likely true for stable ideals, but it is not proved in the text. Since Theorem 6.5 feeds directly into vertex splittability and hence into Theorem 6.6, the point should be made explicit.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Theorem 6.6] The blank citation 'by .' at the end of the proof must be completed; this is likely the intended reference to Lemma 6.8 or to an earlier minimality result.
  2. [Remark 3.3(v)] The sentence 'This approach will be used in Section .' has a blank section number; it should be filled in, likely with a reference to Section 5.
  3. [Page 25, Example 6.4] The phrase 'thetraedral curves' appears to be a typo; it should probably read 'toroidal curves' or the intended geometric term.
  4. [Section 5, after Equation (5.0.1)] The text says 'It is proved in [AMFRG20] that, applying a partial pruning algorithm to XJ∩K, we obtain X′'; a precise proposition number would help the reader verify the claim.
  5. [Definition 5.6] The phrase 'the iterative version of Theorem 5.5' is not formalized; it would be useful to state the recursive algorithm and prove termination before defining minimality through it.
  6. [Corollaries 6.7 and 6.10] The isomorphisms to the Eliahou-Kervaire and Herzog-Takayama resolutions are stated without proof. If the intended argument is uniqueness of minimal free resolutions up to isomorphism, that should be said explicitly, together with the relevant cellular structures from the literature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pruned-resolution minimality theorems are not fed back as inputs; flagged omissions are proof gaps, not definitional equivalences.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, I find no step where a target claim is assumed as its own input and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The pruned resolution machinery is defined by explicit Algorithms 3.1 and 5.4; the acyclicity statements are quoted from [AMFRG20] (same first author) as Theorem 3.2/5.5, but the algorithms are restated and the cited theorem is a checkable construction, not the conclusion that the paper is trying to prove. The minimality arguments in Section 6 use the literature's Betti splitting formulas [FHVT09, Bol16] and induction, while Lemma 6.8 is an auxiliary monomial-multiplication lemma and Theorem 6.5 is proved from the definition of stability. Corollaries 6.7 and 6.10 assert isomorphisms to the Eliahou-Kervaire and Herzog-Takayama resolutions, which is not a renaming of the target. The only reason I do not score 0 is the minor self-citation in the foundations. I also flag two non-circular rigor gaps. First, in Theorem 6.6 the line 'On the other hand xiJ∩K = xiK and thus it also admits a minimal pruned resolution by .' contains a missing citation, and the resulting conclusion 'Therefore we can conclude that I admits a minimal pruned resolution' invokes an unproved transfer principle: that componentwise minimal pruned resolutions of J, K, and xiK assemble, under Algorithm 5.4, into a minimal pruned resolution of I. Second, Theorem 6.16 is stated as an iff, but its proof only establishes the direction 'I minimal implies J minimal' via Corollary 3.10, leaving the converse asserted. These are omitted proofs that affect the induction's validity, but they are not the circular pattern of defining X via Y or fitting data and then predicting the same data.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on external results: discrete Morse collapse for cellular resolutions (Batzies-Welker), the pruned resolution construction of the first author's prior work, the Cooper et al. simplicial complex for powers, and Bolognini's Betti splitting theorem. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Batzies-Welker theorem: a homogeneous acyclic matching on a regular Zn-graded CW-complex yields a smaller cellular resolution.
    Section 2.2, Theorem 2.2. Foundation of all Morse resolutions.
  • domain assumption The pruned edge set AP from Algorithm 3.1 is a homogeneous acyclic matching, as proved in [AMFRG20].
    Section 3.1, Theorem 3.2. The core construction is taken from the first author's prior paper.
  • domain assumption The simplicial complex L^r_q of Cooper, El Khoury, Faridi, Mayes-Tang, Morey, Sega and Spiroff supports a free resolution of I^r.
    Section 4, Definition 4.1 and Theorem 4.4. Used without reproof.
  • domain assumption Bolognini's theorem: if J and K are componentwise linear monomial ideals, then I = J + K is a Betti splitting.
    Sections 5 and 6.9, used to justify inductive Betti splittings for linear quotient ideals.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Morse resolutions of monomial ideals and Betti splittings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2IHWHJJF

@misc{pith2026250202122,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Morse resolutions of monomial ideals and Betti splittings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2IHWHJJF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02122}
}
read the original abstract

We use discrete Morse theory to study free resolutions of monomial ideals in combination with splitting techniques. We establish the minimality of such pruned resolutions for several classes of ideals, including stable and linear quotient ideals. In particular, we unify classical constructions such as the Eliahou-Kervaire and Herzog-Takayama resolutions within the pruned resolution framework. Additionally, we introduce methods to reduce the minimality study of a pruned resolution for an ideal to that of a smaller subideal and present a variant of our pruned resolution for powers of monomial ideals.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Minimal cellular resolutions of monomial ideals with five generators and their Artinian reductions

    math.AC 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Monomial ideals with at most five generators and their Artinian reductions have minimal generalized Barile-Macchia resolutions, and hence minimal cellular resolutions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Mario Albert, Matthias Fetzer, Eduardo S\'aenz-de Cabez\'on, and Werner M. Seiler. On the free resolution induced by a P ommaret basis. J. Symbolic Comput. , 68:4--26, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Squarefree lexsegment ideals

    Annetta Aramova, J\"urgen Herzog, and Takayuki Hibi. Squarefree lexsegment ideals. Math. Z. , 228(2):353--378, 1998

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Pruned cellular free resolutions of monomial ideals

    Josep \` A lvarez Montaner, Oscar Fern\' a ndez-Ramos, and Philippe Gimenez. Pruned cellular free resolutions of monomial ideals. J. Algebra , 541:126--145, 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Splitting vertices and L yubeznik table of graphs

    Josep \`Alvarez Montaner and Jordi Jofre. Splitting vertices and L yubeznik table of graphs. Preprint , 2025

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Betti splitting from a topological point of view

    Davide Bolognini and Ulderico Fugacci. Betti splitting from a topological point of view. J. Algebra Appl. , 19(6):2050116, 20, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Upper bounds for the B etti numbers of a given H ilbert function

    Anna Maria Bigatti. Upper bounds for the B etti numbers of a given H ilbert function. Comm. Algebra , 21(7):2317--2334, 1993

    work page 1993

  7. [7]

    Minimal cellular resolutions of the edge ideals of forests

    Margherita Barile and Antonio Macchia. Minimal cellular resolutions of the edge ideals of forests. Electron. J. Combin. , 27(2):Paper No. 2.41, 16, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Betti splitting via componentwise linear ideals

    Davide Bolognini. Betti splitting via componentwise linear ideals. J. Algebra , 455:1--13, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Monomial resolutions

    Dave Bayer, Irena Peeva, and Bernd Sturmfels. Monomial resolutions. Math. Res. Lett. , 5(1-2):31--46, 1998

    1998

  2. [10]

    Cellular resolutions of monomial modules

    Dave Bayer and Bernd Sturmfels. Cellular resolutions of monomial modules. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 502:123--140, 1998

    1998

  3. [11]

    Discrete M orse theory for cellular resolutions

    Ekkehard Batzies and Volkmar Welker. Discrete M orse theory for cellular resolutions. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 543:147--168, 2002

    2002

  4. [12]

    Graham Evans, Jr

    Hara Charalambous and E. Graham Evans, Jr. Resolutions obtained by iterated mapping cones. J. Algebra , 176(3):750--754, 1995

    1995

  5. [13]

    Cooper, Sabine El Khoury, Sara Faridi, Sarah Mayes-Tang, Susan Morey, Liana M

    Susan M. Cooper, Sabine El Khoury, Sara Faridi, Sarah Mayes-Tang, Susan Morey, Liana M. S ega, and Sandra Spiroff. Morse resolutions of powers of square-free monomial ideals of projective dimension one. J. Algebraic Combin. , 55(4):1085--1122, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Cooper, Sabine El Khoury, Sara Faridi, Sarah Mayes-Tang, Susan Morey, Liana M

    Susan M. Cooper, Sabine El Khoury, Sara Faridi, Sarah Mayes-Tang, Susan Morey, Liana M. Sega, and Sandra Spiroff. Simplicial resolutions of powers of square-free monomial ideals. Algebr. Comb. , 7(1):77--107, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Cohen-macaulayness of vertex splittable monomial ideals

    Marilena Crupi and Antonino Ficarra. Cohen-macaulayness of vertex splittable monomial ideals. arXiv:2403.14299 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Manoj K. Chari. On discrete M orse functions and combinatorial decompositions. Discrete Math. , 217(1-3):101--113, 2000

    2000

  9. [17]

    Betti tables of p - B orel-fixed ideals

    Giulio Caviglia and Manoj Kummini. Betti tables of p - B orel-fixed ideals. J. Algebraic Combin. , 39(3):711--718, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    Barile- M acchia resolutions

    Trung Chau and Selvi Kara. Barile- M acchia resolutions. J. Algebraic Combin. , 59(2):413--472, 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

    Cellular resolutions from mapping cones

    Anton Dochtermann and Fatemeh Mohammadi. Cellular resolutions from mapping cones. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 128:180--206, 2014

    2014

  12. [20]

    Minimal resolutions of some monomial ideals

    Shalom Eliahou and Michel Kervaire. Minimal resolutions of some monomial ideals. J. Algebra , 129(1):1--25, 1990

    1990

  13. [21]

    Cellular resolutions of powers of monomial ideals

    Alexander Engstr \" o m and Patrik Nor\' e n. Cellular resolutions of powers of monomial ideals. arXiv:1212.2146 , 2012

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    G., Roya Ghorbani, and Ali Akbar Yazdan Pour

    Sara Faridi, Mohammad Farrokhi D. G., Roya Ghorbani, and Ali Akbar Yazdan Pour. Cellular resolutions of monomial ideals and their A rtinian reductions. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 228(6):Paper No. 107608, 28, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Francisco, Huy T\`ai H\`a, and Adam Van Tuyl

    Christopher A. Francisco, Huy T\`ai H\`a, and Adam Van Tuyl. Splittings of monomial ideals. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 137(10):3271--3282, 2009

    2009

  16. [24]

    Morse theory for cell complexes

    Robin Forman. Morse theory for cell complexes. Adv. Math. , 134(1):90--145, 1998

    1998

  17. [25]

    Francisco and Adam Van Tuyl

    Christopher A. Francisco and Adam Van Tuyl. Some families of componentwise linear monomial ideals. Nagoya Math. J. , 187:115--156, 2007

    2007

  18. [26]

    Resolutions of a -stable ideals

    Vesselin Gasharov, Takayuki Hibi, and Irena Peeva. Resolutions of a -stable ideals. J. Algebra , 254(2):375--394, 2002

    2002

  19. [27]

    Cellular structure for the H erzog- T akayama resolution

    Afshin Goodarzi. Cellular structure for the H erzog- T akayama resolution. J. Algebraic Combin. , 41(1):21--28, 2015

    2015

  20. [28]

    Componentwise linear ideals

    J\"urgen Herzog and Takayuki Hibi. Componentwise linear ideals. Nagoya Math. J. , 153:141--153, 1999

    1999

  21. [29]

    Discrete polymatroids

    J\"urgen Herzog and Takayuki Hibi. Discrete polymatroids. J. Algebraic Combin. , 16(3):239--268, 2002

    2002

  22. [30]

    Monomial ideals , volume 260 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

    J\" u rgen Herzog and Takayuki Hibi. Monomial ideals , volume 260 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Heather Hulett and Heath M. Martin. Betti numbers of lex-segment ideals. J. Algebra , 275(2):629--638, 2004

    2004

  24. [32]

    Resolutions by mapping cones

    J\" u rgen Herzog and Yukihide Takayama. Resolutions by mapping cones. Homology Homotopy Appl. , 4(2):277--294, 2002. The Roos Festschrift volume, 2

    2002

  25. [33]

    Maximum betti numbers for a given hilbert function

    Heather Hulett. Maximum betti numbers for a given hilbert function. Communications in Algebra , 21(7):2335--2350, 1993

    1993

  26. [34]

    Cellular structure of the P ommaret- S eiler resolution for quasi-stable ideals

    Rodrigo Iglesias and Eduardo S\'aenz-de Cabez\'on. Cellular structure of the P ommaret- S eiler resolution for quasi-stable ideals. Appl. Algebra Engrg. Comm. Comput. , 35(5):703--724, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    On the multigraded H ilbert and P oincar\'e- B etti series and the G olod property of monomial rings

    Michael J \" o llenbeck. On the multigraded H ilbert and P oincar\'e- B etti series and the G olod property of monomial rings. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 207(2):261--298, 2006

    2006

  28. [36]

    Minimal resolutions via algebraic discrete M orse theory

    Michael J\" o llenbeck and Volkmar Welker. Minimal resolutions via algebraic discrete M orse theory. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 197(923):vi+74, 2009

    2009

  29. [37]

    Arithmetical rank of monomial ideals of deviation two

    Kyouko Kimura, Naoki Terai, and Ken-ichi Yoshida. Arithmetical rank of monomial ideals of deviation two. In Combinatorial aspects of commutative algebra , volume 502 of Contemp. Math. , pages 73--112. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2009

    2009

  30. [38]

    A new explicit finite free resolution of ideals generated by monomials in an R -sequence

    Gennady Lyubeznik. A new explicit finite free resolution of ideals generated by monomials in an R -sequence. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 51(1-2):193--195, 1988

    1988

  31. [39]

    The E liahou- K ervaire resolution is cellular

    Jeffrey Mermin. The E liahou- K ervaire resolution is cellular. J. Commut. Algebra , 2(1):55--78, 2010

    2010

  32. [40]

    On vertex decomposable simplicial complexes and their alexander duals

    Somayeh Moradi and Fahimeh Khosh-Ahang. On vertex decomposable simplicial complexes and their alexander duals. Math. Scand , 118(1):43--56, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Vertex decomposability and weakly polymatroidal ideals

    Amir Mafi, Dler Naderi, and Hero Saremi. Vertex decomposability and weakly polymatroidal ideals. arXiv:2201.06756 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Hop. D. Nguyen. Notes on the linearity defect and applications. Illinois J. Math. , 59(3):637--662, 2015

    2015

  35. [43]

    On CW complexes supporting E liahou- K ervaire type resolutions of B orel fixed ideals

    Ryota Okazaki and Kohji Yanagawa. On CW complexes supporting E liahou- K ervaire type resolutions of B orel fixed ideals. Collect. Math. , 66(1):125--147, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    Nonstandard borel-fixed ideals

    Keith Pardue. Nonstandard borel-fixed ideals . ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 1994. Thesis (Ph.D.)--Brandeis University

    1994

  37. [45]

    Minimal free resolution of a finitely generated module over a regular local ring

    Maria Evelina Rossi and Leila Sharifan. Minimal free resolution of a finitely generated module over a regular local ring. J. Algebra , 322(10):3693--3712, 2009

    2009

  38. [46]

    On B orel fixed ideals generated in one degree

    Achilleas Sinefakopoulos. On B orel fixed ideals generated in one degree. J. Algebra , 319(7):2739--2760, 2008

    2008

  39. [47]

    Morse theory from an algebraic viewpoint

    Emil Sk \" o ldberg. Morse theory from an algebraic viewpoint. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 358(1):115--129, 2006

    2006

  40. [48]

    Ideals generated by monomials in an R -sequence

    Diana Kahn Taylor. Ideals generated by monomials in an R -sequence . ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 1966. Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of Chicago

    1966

  41. [49]

    Minimal free resolutions that are not supported by a CW -complex

    Mauricio Velasco. Minimal free resolutions that are not supported by a CW -complex. J. Algebra , 319(1):102--114, 2008

    2008

  42. [50]

    Sequentially cohen-macaulay bipartite graphs: Vertex decomposability and regularity

    Adam Van Tuyl. Sequentially cohen-macaulay bipartite graphs: Vertex decomposability and regularity. Arch. Math , 93(5):451--459, 2009

    2009

  43. [51]

    Discrete M orse theory and free resolutions

    Volkmar Welker. Discrete M orse theory and free resolutions. In Algebraic combinatorics , Universitext, pages 81--172. Springer, Berlin, 2007

    2007

  44. [52]

    Vertex decomposable graphs and obstructions to shellability

    Russ Woodroofe. Vertex decomposable graphs and obstructions to shellability. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 137(10):3235--3246, 2009

    2009

  45. [53]

    Alexander duality for S tanley- R eisner rings and squarefree N^n -graded modules

    Kohji Yanagawa. Alexander duality for S tanley- R eisner rings and squarefree N^n -graded modules. J. Algebra , 225(2):630--645, 2000

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.