text:
# 1 Neutrino Puzzles and Masses

## 1 Neutrino Puzzles and Masses

The SuperKamiokande atmospheric neutrino data , provide very strong evidence for neutrino conversion, i.e. that neutrinos produced in well defined flavour eigenstates partially convert to different flavour eigenstates at the detection point. A similar conclusion follows from the long standing solar neutrino puzzle  and a number of other atmospheric neutrino experiments . Altogether, solar and atmospheric data indicate the need for $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ conversions, respectively. There are a number of neutrino flavour conversion mechanisms , and the simplest one is that of neutrino oscillations .

Although in some circumstances neutrino oscillations do not imply neutrino masses , typically they do. Due to the fact that neutrino mass and flavour eigenstates should, in general, differ, quantum interference effects can lead to sizeable neutrino conversion rates either from large mixing angles or from resonant matter effects. In this scenario, the solar and atmospheric neutrino puzzles are interpreted as strong evidence for nonzero neutrino masses.

The present data can be summarised as follows: the atmospheric neutrino puzzle is best solved by $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ with close to maximal mixing ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 0.5`$) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^210^310^2`$ (eV)2 . On the other hand the solar neutrino puzzle requires $`\nu _e\nu _x`$ oscillations, where $`\nu _x`$ is some linear combination of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$. While the atmospheric neutrino data indicate large mixing angles, the current solar neutrino data do not indicate a unique solution. The mixing is either very small ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\omega 10^3`$) or quite large ($`0.1\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}\mathrm{sin}^2\omega \begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.5`$), while the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ varies from $`10^4`$ eV2 to $`10^{10}`$ eV2 .

The neutrino oscillation interpretation of the solar and atmospheric data only fixes the mass-squared splittings amongst the the neutrinos, not the overall mass scale. In fact, the data are equally well explained if all neutrino masses were almost degenerate at some arbitrarily large value. There are, however, constraints on neutrino masses from tritium beta decay experiments at the level of 3 eV , while cosmological considerations impose limits on the sum of all stable neutrino species, namely $`_im_\nu ^i\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}30`$ eV. There are also a number of results from the non-observation of neutrinoless double beta decay , which imply that $`M_{ee}=_iU_{ei}^2m_{\nu _i}<0.2`$ eV where $`\nu _i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ are the neutrino mass eigenstates, with masses $`m_{\nu _i}`$, and $`U_{ei}`$ are the components of $`\nu _e`$ in the $`\nu _i`$ basis ($`\nu _e=_iU_{ei}\nu _i`$).

Barring the possibility of quasi-degenerate neutrinos an/or exotic neutrino conversion mechanisms, all existing data***We will neglect throughout the LSND  result which, if confirmed by an independent experiment, would lead to the existence of light sterile neutrinos . We therefore only consider the possibility of 3 light neutrino species. are easily satisfied if one assumes that the heaviest neutrino weighs around $`0.05`$ eV and is an almost fifty-fifty mixture of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, while the second to heaviest neutrino weighs from $`10^2`$ eV to $`10^5`$ eV and is either composed of mostly the orthogonal combination of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ with a very small $`\nu _e`$ component or an almost fifty-fifty mixture of this $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ linear combination and $`\nu _e`$. There is no preferred value for the mass of the lightest mass eigenstate, which can even be massless as far as the experimental constraints are concerned. In this case neutrino masses are very small, with the heaviest neutrino about 107 times lighter than the lightest charged fermion.

What is wrong with neutrino masses? Naïvely, they are not allowed by the Standard Model (SM). This is very easy to see: given the field content and the gauge symmetries of the SM, it is impossible to write down a renormalizable neutrino mass term. However, if the SM is regarded as the effective low-energy limit of some, unknown, higher energy theory, neutrino Majorana masses are not forbidden and do arise after electroweak symmetry breaking. The neutrino Majorana mass comes from a dimension-5 term in the LagrangianAn alternative approach generates Majorana neutrino masses by extending the SM Higgs sector to include exotic representations such as $`SU(2)_L`$ triplets with small vacuum expectation values . We will not consider this approach here.

$$_5=\frac{\lambda ^{ij}}{M}(L^iH)(L^jH),$$
(1.1)
such that, after electroweak symmetry breaking, one generates a neutrino mass matrix, $`m_\nu ^{ij}`$ given by

$$m_\nu ^{ij}=\frac{\lambda ^{ij}v^2}{M}.$$
(1.2)
Here $`L^i`$ is a lepton doublet field ($`i,j=e,\mu ,\tau `$), $`H`$ is the Higgs doublet field and $`M`$ is an arbitrary mass scale. It is somehow related to the unknown high energy theory of which the SM is an effective theory. The $`\lambda ^{ij}`$ are dimensionless couplings and $`v=174`$ GeV is the Higgs vacuum expectation value (vev). Note that Eq. (1.1) leads to a Majorana mass term which explicitly violates the lepton number symmetry, $`L`$. This is not a surprise since both lepton and baryon number ($`B`$) are accidental global symmetries of the SM, and there is no reason they should be conserved by the higher energy theory. As a matter of fact, $`B+L`$ is violated in the SM via electroweak quantum effects, while $`BL`$ is still conserved. Furthermore, if string theory has anything to do with reality, it seems to predict that there are no exactly conserved global symmetries, and the only way to realize $`BL`$ as a conserved symmetry is to assume it is gauged.

Alternatively, renormalizable neutrino Dirac masses are easily allowed within the SM if right-handed fermions uncharged under the SM gauge group exist. These are often referred to as right-handed neutrinos, and, even though they are not present in the SM, they can be added without causing any trouble (as they are SM singlets). Furthermore, their existence is quite natural in the context of a number of extended electroweak models as well as certain grand unified theories (GUTs) . In their presence, the neutrinos acquire a Dirac mass like all the charged fermions, from a Yukawa coupling to the Higgs field

$$_{LNH}=y^{ik}L^iN^kH+h.c.,$$
(1.3)
where $`N^k`$ ($`k=1\mathrm{}n`$, where $`n`$ is the number of right-handed neutrinos) are right-handed fermions. As far as the SM gauge group is concerned, $`n`$ is completely unconstrained, since $`N^k`$ are $`SU(2)_LU(1)`$ singlets . The $`y^{ik}`$ are the couplings of the sterile neutrinos to the lepton and Higgs doublet fields, leading to a neutrino Dirac mass matrix given by $`y^{ik}v`$.

A crucial fact is that right-handed neutrinos can also have Majorana masses, which are unprotected by the gauge symmetry. This means that the right-handed neutrino Majorana mass term comes from a renormalizable term in the Lagrangian (indeed from a relevant operator), which is completely unrelated to the electroweak symmetry breaking scale. The terms involving the right-handed neutrino are

$$V_N=y^{ik}L^iN^kH+\frac{1}{2}M_N^{kl}N^kN^l+h.c.,$$
(1.4)
where $`M_N^{kl}`$ is the right-handed neutrino Majorana mass matrix. The simultaneous presence of $`y^{ik}`$ and $`M_N^{kl}`$ in Eq. (1.4) implies that $`L`$ is violated.

In summary, the presence of right-handed neutrinos not only allows a Dirac mass term for the neutrino sector, but, in general, also violates $`L`$. Most importantly, it introduces a new energy scale into the SM Lagrangian. The task of neutrino mass modeling is then to explain the origin of Eq. (1.1) and of the $`\lambda ^{ij}`$ and $`M`$ values or, alternatively, to determine the $`y^{ik}`$ and $`M_N`$ values in Eq. (1.4).

In this paper, we present a neutrino mass model which combines the above alternatives to generate neutrino masses and contains the least amount of new ingredients added to the SM. In Sec. 2 we define what is meant by “new ingredients” (or physics beyond the SM), and argue in which sense the solar and atmospheric neutrino puzzles imply new physics. In Sec. 3 we present this “minimalistic” model and show how it satisfies the current experimental data. In Sec. 4 we discuss whether the minimalistic model allows for an explanation of the baryon-to-entropy ratio of the universe, via the elegant and economical mechanism of leptogenesis, and in Sec. 5 we conclude.

## 2 “How Much” New Physics?

Generating neutrino masses requires the addition of extra degrees of freedom and/or interactions to the SM , i.e., new physics. New physics is characterized by an energy scale above which the SM (and, perhaps, quantum field theory) is no longer appropriate and a different theory is required to describe physical processes involving this energy scale. This, of course, is what is meant by saying that the SM is the effective theory of some higher energy theory.

New physics usually manifests itself in the SM Lagrangian in the form of irrelevant operators, suppressed by powers of the scale of new physics. The presence of these operators can be detected either via the observation of rare or forbidden processes which are suppressed in the SM thanks to accidental symmetries which need not be preserved by the high energy theory, such as proton decay and $`\mu e\gamma `$, or via precision measurements of SM observables.

Independent of any hint for new physics, it is clear that the SM is an effective theory because it disregards the gravitational force, which certainly exists. This means that, if nothing else happens, the SM has to break down at the energy scale where gravitational effects become relevant, i.e., the Planck scale, $`M_{Pl}10^{18}`$ GeV. This means that, independent of whether there is some “intermediate” new physics, higher dimensional operators suppressed by the Planck scale should be present, unless forbidden by some deep, fundamental reason.

These “$`1/M_{Pl}`$” operators are harmless. For example, a dimension-6 term $`QQQL/M_{Pl}^2`$ violates $`B`$ and $`L`$, and leads to proton decay. However, the expected proton lifetime due to this operator is many orders of magnitude away from the current experimental reach . The same is true of operators which mediate $`\mu e\gamma `$ and other rare/forbidden processes.

As first noted by Barbieri, Ellis, and Gaillard  in the context of $`SU(5)`$ GUTS, and further explored by the authors of  in the case of the SM, “quantum gravity” effects also generate Eq. (1.1), namely,

$$_{QG}=\frac{\lambda ^{ij}}{M_{Pl}}(L^iH)(L^jH),$$
(2.1)
should be considered as a “standard” term of the SM Lagrangian. What is most remarkable is that, for $`\lambda ^{ij}`$ of order 1, the entries of the Majorana neutrino mass matrix are of the order $`\frac{(100)^2}{10^{18}}\times 10^9`$ eV $`=10^5`$ eV. This is in the acceptable mass range which solves the solar neutrino puzzle ! This implies the possibility that the solar neutrino puzzle can be solved without assuming any new physics between the electroweak and the Planck scale. In contrast, the atmospheric neutrino puzzle, when interpreted as evidence for a neutrino mass, is unambiguous proof of new physics, beyond the SM, at some intermediate energy scale.

An elegant way of understanding the smallness of neutrino masses is the seesaw mechanism , which takes advantage of Eq. (1.4). Since the right-handed neutrino mass scale is expected to be much larger than the electroweak scale it can be integrated out at energies smaller than this new mass scale, so that the effective Lagrangian again looks like Eq. (1.1), with

$$m_\nu ^{ij}=y^{ik}(M_N^1)^{kl}(y^T)^{lj}\times v^2.$$
(2.2)
The order of magnitude for the elements of $`M_N`$ required to solve the atmospheric neutrino puzzle is such that $`M_N=O(\frac{(yv)^2}{10^{10}}\mathrm{GeV})`$. For typical values of the Yukawa couplings ($`y`$), one obtains $`10^9`$ GeV$`\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}M_N\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^{14}`$ GeV.

There are many other, indirect, hints for new physics. Most importantly, there is the problem of the stability of the electroweak scale. Solving this so-called hierarchy problem, means, roughly, understanding why the electroweak scale (e.g. the SM Higgs mass) is so much smaller than the Planck scale. Its most popular solutions involve low-energy SUSY, which stabilizes scalar masses by eliminating quadratic divergences or, more recently, the existence of “large” extra dimensions . The latter assumes that the fundamental scale of quantum gravity is indeed the weak scale, and that the apparent weakness of the gravitational force is due to the fact that gravity propagates in a multidimensional space-time, while SM fields are trapped in a four-dimensional space-time.

Other hints of new physics include the apparent unification of gauge couplings at around $`10^{16}`$ GeV, which seems to be an indication that the SM gauge group may be the “left-over” symmetry of some high energy GUT symmetry, and the hierarchy of the charged fermion masses which may be considered as a hint for horizontal flavour symmetries broken at intermediate energy scales.

In summary, there are many “theoretical” hints for new physics at very different energy scales, in particular the weak scale ($`M_W10^{23}`$ GeV) and the GUT scale ($`M_{GUT}10^{16}`$ GeV). All of these energy scales have been used to generate neutrino masses.

First note that one can generate Eq. (1.1) without invoking new mass scales above the weak scale, i.e. using $`M=M_W`$ in such a way that $`\lambda ^{ij}`$ are very small. One example is SUSY with R-parity violation , where $`\lambda ^{ij}`$ are given as a product of very suppressed couplings. Another possibility is to make use of the GUT scale and $`1/M_{Pl}`$ operators to induce right-handed neutrino masses of the order $`M_{GUT}^2/M_{Pl}`$, such that the heaviest neutrino mass is of order $`\frac{m_{top}^2M_{Pl}}{M_{GUT}^2}0.1`$ eV .

In the case of SUSY, it has recently been pointed out that one can generate small Majorana or Dirac neutrino masses from SUSY breaking . In these models, the neutrino masses are small for the same reason that the SUSY-preserving $`\mu `$-term is much smaller than the unknown high energy scale (say $`M_{Pl}`$).

Finally, theories with large extra dimensions can generate very small Dirac neutrino masses (Eq. (1.3)) by assuming that the SM singlet fermions live in the extra dimensions and therefore their couplings in the SM “brane” are volume suppressed . This means that neutrino masses are small for the same reason that the gravitational force is weak. Such theories, however, typically require that $`L`$ be conserved, unless it is broken in distant branes or by a totally different mechanism, such as R-parity violation . This is required in order to forbid terms similar to Eq. (2.1) but with $`M=O(1)`$ TeV, which would lead to unacceptably large neutrino masses.

It is clear that small neutrino masses are “expected” on theoretical grounds. However, the rich variety of theoretical options available illustrates that neither their scale nor the magnitude of neutrino mixing angles can be firmly predicted from first principles . Our goal here is to focus on what appears to be the most economical way to solve the neutrino puzzles through neutrino-mass-induced oscillations, ignoring indirect beyond the SM hints. The motivation for this is two-fold: first, neutrino masses are the only direct experimental hint for beyond the SM physics and second, it is important to establish how contrived the new physics has to be in order to explain the current solar and atmospheric neutrino data.

## 3 The Minimalistic Model

In order to minimize the amount of new physics invoked, we will take advantage of the already present quantum gravity contribution to neutrino masses, which naïvely implies that all three neutrinos weigh around $`10^5`$ eV. Though not the favored solution, this is enough to account for the current solar neutrino data . We need, however, to generate at least one neutrino mass of order $`10^1`$ eV in order to solve the atmospheric neutrino puzzle. The most economical way of doing this is to add one right-handed neutrino, at the appropriate mass scale $`M_N`$ .***The fact that a single right-handed neutrino can solve the neutrino puzzles has been explored in the context of SUSY theories . Since these models also require supersymmetry, they are far from “minimalistic.” This point was also emphasised in , where a single right-handed neutrino is used to explain the atmospheric data, while the solar data was explained by GUT scale effects.

Why one right-handed neutrino, and not three? First of all, in order to stick to the minimalistic approach, the smallest number of right-handed neutrinos is to be added. Second, and most important, there is, a priori, no correct number of right-handed neutrinos since, as gauge singlets, they do not contribute to SM gauge anomalies . It is important to notice that these SM singlet right-handed fermions are very heavy and decouple from the low energy theory. Their only effect in the laboratory is indirect, through the generation of a Majorana neutrino mass, even though, as will be discussed in the next section, they may also play some role in the generation of the baryon number of the universe.

The SM Lagrangian with $`1/M_{Pl}`$ operators and one right-handed neutrino contains

$$\frac{\lambda ^{ij}}{M_{Pl}}(L^iH)(L^jH)+y^iL^iNH+\frac{1}{2}M_NNN+h.c..$$
(3.1)
Integrating out the right handed fermion, the neutrino mass matrix is (after electroweak symmetry breaking)

$$m_\nu ^{ij}=\left(\frac{\lambda ^{ij}}{M_{Pl}}+\frac{y^iy^j}{M_N}\right)v^2M_1+M_3.$$
(3.2)
The parameters $`\frac{y^iy^j}{M_N}`$ and $`\lambda ^{ij}`$, which are of order one, should be determined from the atmospheric and solar data. In order to simplify things, we rewrite $`\frac{y^iy^j}{M_N}v^2`$ as $`m_3U_{i3}U_{j3}`$, where $`U_{e3}\mathrm{sin}\xi `$, $`U_{\mu 3}\mathrm{cos}\xi \mathrm{sin}\theta `$, and $`U_{\tau 3}\mathrm{cos}\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta `$, such that $`_i|U_{i3}|^2=1`$. The reason for this notation will become clear shortly.

Neglecting the $`1/M_{Pl}`$ term, the neutrino mass matrix is

$$\mu _\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}U_{e3}^2& U_{e3}U_{\mu 3}& U_{e3}U_{\tau 3}\\ U_{\mu 3}U_{e3}& U_{\mu 3}^2& U_{\mu 3}U_{\tau 3}\\ U_{\tau 3}U_{e3}& U_{\tau 3}U_{\mu 3}& U_{\tau 3}^2\end{array}\right)m_3.$$
(3.3)
This matrix has a projective structure , giving rise to one nonzero eigenvalue $`m_3`$ and two zero eigenvalues. However, since lepton number has been broken, there is no reason for any of the neutrino masses to be zero. Indeed, it is easy to see that nonzero masses to all neutrinos arise at the two-loop level. However, these are significantly smaller than the contribution from the $`1/M_{Pl}`$ operator we are considering here .

The eigenvector corresponding to the nonzero eigenvalue $`m_3`$ is $`\stackrel{}{v}_3(U_{e3},U_{\mu 3},U_{\tau 3})^{}`$ in the flavour basis which, because of unitarity, is determined by only two mixing angles , which we refer to as $`\xi `$ and $`\theta `$. This nonzero eigenvalue is the one that will be used to solve the atmospheric neutrino puzzle. If we choose $`m_3=0.05`$ eV, $`\mathrm{sin}\xi 0`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta 0.5`$, both the atmospheric neutrino data and the bounds from reactor neutrino experiments  are easily satisfied.

We now proceed to show that the addition of the $`1/M_{Pl}`$ term easily yields the just-so solution to the solar neutrino puzzle. For illustrative purposes, we initially assume that the $`1/M_{Pl}`$ term is “democratic,” i.e.

$$m_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}U_{e3}^2m_3+m& U_{e3}U_{\mu 3}m_3+m& U_{e3}U_{\tau 3}m_3+m\\ U_{\mu 3}U_{e3}m_3+m& U_{\mu 3}^2m_3+m& U_{\mu 3}U_{\tau 3}m_3+m\\ U_{\tau 3}U_{e3}m_3+m& U_{\tau 3}U_{\mu 3}m_3+m& U_{\tau 3}^2m_3+m\end{array}\right),$$
(3.4)
where $`m=\frac{\lambda v^2}{M_{Pl}}=\lambda \times 10^5`$ eV, and $`\lambda `$ is some order one coefficient. It is easy to see that Eq. (3.4) has one zero eigenvalue. This is due to the democratic nature of the $`1/M_{Pl}`$ operator. Note that one can rewrite Eq. (3.4) as

$$m_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}U_{e3}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\\ U_{\mu 3}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\\ U_{\tau 3}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_3& 0\\ 0& 3m\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}U_{e3}& U_{\mu 3}& U_{\tau 3}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right),$$
(3.5)
in such a way that it mimics the mass matrix one obtains in models with two right-handed neutrinos. Furthermore, in the case $`m_3=0`$, the mass matrix has only one massive eigenvalue, $`m^{}3m`$ with corresponding eigenvector $`\stackrel{}{v}_1(1/\sqrt{3},1/\sqrt{3},1/\sqrt{3})^{}`$.

The neutrino mass matrix given by Eq. 3.4 is simple to diagonalize since, as mentioned before, it has a zero eigenvalue and its corresponding eigenvector is trivial to compute. Note that $`m_\nu =M_3+M_1`$, such that $`M_3\stackrel{}{v_3}=m_3\stackrel{}{v_3}`$ and $`M_1\stackrel{}{v_1}=m^{}\stackrel{}{v_1}`$. Furthermore, $`M_i\stackrel{}{v}^{}=0`$, where $`v^{}`$ is any vector orthogonal to $`\stackrel{}{v}_i`$ ($`i=1`$ or 3). Therefore, the massless eigenvector of $`m_\nu `$ is $`\stackrel{}{V}_0\stackrel{}{v}_1\times \stackrel{}{v}_3`$. The remaining eigenvectors are going to be linear combinations of $`\stackrel{}{v}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}_3`$. It remains, therefore, to solve

$$m_\nu \left(A\stackrel{}{v}_1+B\stackrel{}{v}_3\right)=(M_1+M_3)\left(A\stackrel{}{v}_1+B\stackrel{}{v}_3\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(A\stackrel{}{v}_1+B\stackrel{}{v}_3\right),$$
(3.6)
for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`A`$, and $`B`$ (of course, $`A`$ and $`B`$ are related by requiring the eigenvectors to be normalised). Defining $`\stackrel{}{v}_1\stackrel{}{v}_3\mathrm{cos}\zeta `$, the exact solution to Eq. (3.6) is

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{B}}\right)^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pm m_3}{m_3\mathrm{cos}\zeta }},`$ (3.7)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}+m_3}{2}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{m^{}+m_3}{2}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{4m^{}m_3}{(m^{}+m_3)^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\zeta \right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (3.8)
One can see that to first order in $`m^{}/m_3`$ (the limit of interest here) the mass eigenvalues are, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^+=m_3+m^{}\mathrm{cos}^2\zeta `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=m^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\zeta `$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^0=0`$, with corresponding eigenvectors $`\stackrel{}{V}^+(\stackrel{}{v}_3+\frac{m^{}}{m_3}\stackrel{}{v}_1)`$, $`\stackrel{}{V}^{}(\stackrel{}{v}_1\mathrm{cos}\zeta \stackrel{}{v}_3)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}^0(\stackrel{}{v}_1\times \stackrel{}{v}_3)`$.

Finally, we discuss what conditions must be met in order to solve the neutrino puzzles. First, the atmospheric data and the reactor constraints are, as expected, solved by choosing $`\stackrel{}{v}_3`$ and $`m_3`$ as in the previous case where the effect of the $`1/M_{Pl}`$ term was neglected ($`m^{}=0`$). The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ required for the “just-so” solution to the solar neutrino puzzle is also easily obtained for an order one $`\lambda `$: note that $`\mathrm{sin}^2\zeta =1(U_{e3}+U_{\mu 3}+U_{\tau 3})^2/3`$, which only vanishes if all $`U_{i3}=1/\sqrt{3}`$, which is not allowed by the atmospheric data . In the extreme case of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\xi =0.1`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =0.5`$, one has $`\mathrm{sin}^2\zeta 0.1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}0.3\lambda \times 10^5`$ eV, which is $`O(10^5)`$ for an $`O(1)`$ value of $`\lambda `$.

A more serious concern is to guarantee large mixing in the solar sector. This can be read of from $`U_{e1}\mathrm{cos}\xi \mathrm{cos}\omega `$, where $`\omega `$ is the “solar” mixing angle. Ordering the mass eigenstates in the order of increasing mass, $`U_{e1}=(\stackrel{}{V}_0)_1=(U_{\mu 3}U_{\tau 3})/(\sqrt{3}\mathrm{sin}\zeta )`$. This vanishes if $`U_{\mu 3}=U_{\tau 3}`$, which implies $`\mathrm{cos}\omega =0`$, which is unacceptable. The situation is easily remedied, however, by requiring $`U_{\mu 3}`$ and $`U_{\tau 3}`$ to have opposite signs.

Though there are (loose) arguments in favour of a democratic $`1/M_{Pl}`$ contribution to the neutrino Majorana mass matrix, there is no deep reason for it. The agreement between the neutrino puzzles and the model proposed here does not depend on democratic dimension-5 operators, but is a rather generic feature of random $`1/M_{Pl}`$ coefficients. In order to check whether this is really the case, we performed a numerical diagonalization of Eq. (3.2) with random $`\lambda ^{ij}`$ matrices and choosing $`y^i`$ such that the the atmospheric neutrino data is satisfied. Fig. 1 depicts the values obtained for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\omega `$ (where $`\omega `$ is the “solar” angle) for 10000 randomly generated $`\lambda ^{ij}`$ (with elements between -2 and 2), for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =0.5`$, $`m_3=0.05`$ eV and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\xi =0`$ (dark triangles) or $`\mathrm{sin}^2\xi =0.1`$ (light crosses). It should be noted that close to maximal mixing ($`\mathrm{tan}^2\omega 1`$) is preferred, and that the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ obtained agree quite well with the small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ range obtained in . The situation remains the same if extra complex phases are included at random.

One possible criticism to the minimalistic model is the fact that, even though the solar data is naturally satisfied for random “$`1/M_{Pl}`$” operators, we are required to not only choose the mass scale for the right-handed neutrino but also the relative values of the Yukawa couplings in order to satisfy the atmospheric neutrino data. This is not correct, and we proceed to argue that randomly generated $`U_{i3}`$ easily satisfy not only the atmospheric neutrino data but, to some extent, also the reactor bounds . Fig. 2 depicts 10000 values for the two “solar” neutrino oscillation parameters ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\omega `$, as before) and the parameters $`\mathrm{sin}^2\xi `$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ and $`\xi `$ are the “atmospheric” and “reactor” angles, respectively, when not only $`\lambda ^{ij}`$ but also $`U_{e3}`$ and $`U_{\mu 3}`$ and the sign of $`U_{\tau 3}`$ are generated at random (the absolute value of $`U_{\tau 3}`$ is determined by $`_i|U_{i3}|^2=1`$). The only input to the mass matrix is the value of $`m_3=0.05`$ eV, which is chosen such that the atmospheric data is satisfied. The scatter plots in Fig. 2 can be directly compared with the latest global three-neutrino analysis of the neutrino oscillation data . Note that, even though large values for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\xi `$ are preferred, a significant fraction of the points falls within the allowed region $`\mathrm{sin}^2\xi \begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.1`$.

We summarize this section by restating that, as expected, the minimalistic neutrino mass model can easily account for the solar and atmospheric neutrino puzzles. The “light” neutrino masses and the “solar” mixing angle $`\omega `$ come from $`v^2/M_{Pl}`$ and order one coefficients, which can be picked almost at random. The “atmospheric” angle $`\theta `$ and the “reactor” angle $`\xi `$ are related to the Yukawa couplings of the right and left-handed neutrinos. We have shown that, if chosen randomly, these can easily account for the data. The only required input to the model is the value of $`m_3=(yv)^2/M_N`$, which has to be chosen such that the atmospheric neutrino data is satisfied.

## 4 Leptogenesis

One of the exciting feature of models with heavy Majorana fermions is the fact that they potentially contain all the ingredients required to explain the small but nonzero baryon-to-entropy ratio of the universe: $`n_B/s10^{10}`$. This is accomplished by the mechanism of leptogenesis . In a nutshell , because the heavy “right-handed neutrinos” are Majorana particles, their decays violate lepton number. If these decays also violate CP and happen out of thermal equilibrium, a net lepton number for the universe is generated. Later, through sphaleron effects , the net lepton number is partially transformed into a net baryon number, as long as the lepton number is produced before the electroweak phase transition ($`T10^3`$ GeV). If this is the case, the net baryon-to-entropy ratio has been estimated  to be

$$\frac{n_B}{s}=\left(\frac{24+4N_H}{66+13N_H}\right)\frac{n_{BL}}{s},$$
(4.1)
where $`N_H`$ is the number of Higgs doublet and $`n_{BL}`$ is the amount of baryons minus leptons. In the SM, $`N_H=1`$ and $`n_B/s=(28/79)n_{BL}/s`$, or $`n_B/s=(28/79)n_L/s`$, assuming that initially only a net lepton number is generated. In this section, we will discuss whether our minimalistic model is capable of generating the observed baryon-to-entropy ratio.

In order to estimate “how much” lepton number is produced during right-handed neutrino decays, we compute

$$ϵ=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Nl^3H)\mathrm{\Gamma }(N\overline{l^3}H^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(Nl^3H)+\mathrm{\Gamma }(N\overline{l^3}H^{})}.$$
(4.2)
A nonzero value for $`ϵ`$ arises from the interference between the tree-level and the absorptive part of the one-loop diagram in Fig. 3, and is given by

$$ϵ=\frac{\mathrm{}(y_3^2\lambda _{33}^{})}{|y_3|^28\pi }\frac{M_N}{M_{Pl}}\frac{mM_N}{8\pi v^2}\mathrm{sin}\delta ,$$
(4.3)
where $`y_3`$ is defined as the Yukawa coupling between the SM singlet-fermion ($`N`$), and the appropriate linear combination of SM lepton doublets (i.e. $`y_3L_3NH`$), $`\lambda _{33}`$ is the coefficient of the $`1/M_{Pl}`$ operator when the lepton doublets are expressed in a basis which contains $`L_3`$, $`m=O(10^5)`$ eV is the light neutrino mass, $`v`$ is the SM Higgs vev, $`M_N`$ is the Majorana mass of the right-handed state, and $`\delta `$ is the phase of $`y_3^2\lambda _{33}^{}`$. Numerically

$$ϵ=10^7\left(\frac{m}{10^5\mathrm{eV}}\right)\left(\frac{M_N}{10^{13}\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\delta }{1}\right).$$
(4.4)
Note that a nonzero value for $`ϵ`$ is obtained, even though there is only one right-handed neutrino species. It is clear that, within the renormalizable Lagrangian, it is impossible to generate a net lepton number with just one right-handed neutrino species, due to the absence of CP-violation. However, the presence of the dimension-5 operator solves this problem. This is not at all surprising since the situation here is analogous to having two (or more) right-handed neutrinos with hierarchical Majorana masses (see. e.g., Eq. (3.5)). In this case, it is well known that a net lepton number can be generated via the decay of the lightest right-handed neutrino state.

Is Eq. (4.4) enough to generate the observed baryon-to-entropy ratio? Unfortunately, the answer depends on the history of the very early universe. The simplest hypothesis, perhaps, is to assume that below some very high temperature the universe is described by a thermal bath of all SM particles, including the heavy right-handed neutrino. In this case, the question which must be addressed is whether the right-handed neutrino falls out of thermal equilibrium before decaying. Such a condition is (roughly) satisfied if the right-handed neutrino decay width is smaller than the expansion rate of the universe at temperatures $`TM_N`$. From Fig. 3(A), the decay width of the right-handed neutrino is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{y_3^2}{8\pi }M_N\frac{m_3M_N^2}{8\pi v^2}$$
(4.5)
where $`m_3(y_3v)^2/M_N`$ is the heaviest neutrino mass, chosen to account for the atmospheric mass scale. In a radiation dominated universe ($`H1.7g_{}^{1/2}T^2/M_{Pl}`$), the out-of-equilibrium constraint implies

$$m_3\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^3\mathrm{eV}.$$
(4.6)
which is about two orders of magnitude below the required $`m_30.05`$ eV, implying that the right-handed neutrinos do not decay sufficiently out of thermal equilibrium and that the leptogenesis mechanism cannot generate the observed baryon-to-entropy ratio. More detailed estimates reach the same conclusion. For example, the authors of Ref.  estimate that values of $`ϵ10^5`$ are required for values of $`m_3\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^2`$ eV, which cannot be satisfied by our minimalistic model.

One simple way of circumventing this is to assume a different history for the early universe. In particular, if the right-handed neutrinos are never in equilibrium with the thermal bath of light states, the above constraint does not apply. Estimates of the number density of right-handed neutrinos at the time of their decay and the resulting baryon-to-entropy ratio are very model dependent, and require that we go beyond the minimalistic model (indeed, we have nothing to say about inflation, for example). Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning that, for example, in a number of inflationary models, right-handed neutrinos may be produced at the time of reheating even if the reheating temperature $`T_{RH}`$ is (much) lower than its mass (see  and references therein for details). In this case, they are almost always (way) out of equilibrium when they decay, and the estimates for the generated baryon-to-entropy ratio can be drastically different. Two possibilities were analyzed in detail in . First, the right-handed neutrinos may be coupled to the inflaton field and therefore are still produced at the time of reheating even if $`T_{RH}<M_N`$, as long as they are lighter than the inflaton field itself. Second, the right-handed neutrinos may be produced during preheating , even with relatively low reheating temperatures ($`M_NT_{RH}`$) due to the non-perturbative decay of large inflaton oscillations during reheating. This mechanism is particularly efficient for fermions . In both cases it seems plausible that our minimalistic neutrino mass model can generate the observed baryon-to-entropy ratio. According to estimates of , this will happen as long as $`M_N\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^{13}`$ GeV and the reheating temperature is “large” ($`T_{RH}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^{10}`$ GeV).

## 5 Discussions and Conclusions

The SuperKamiokande atmospheric neutrino data strongly suggest that effects beyond the standard model of particle physics are present in the leptonic sector. The simplest extension of the SM which explains the atmospheric neutrino data is to assume that neutrinos are massive, and that they mix. In light of this strong experimental evidence, it is natural to assume that the long standing solar neutrino puzzle is also solved by neutrino oscillations.

In this paper, we have emphasized that nonrenormalizable $`1/M_{Pl}`$ operators provide a solution to solar neutrino puzzle without the addition of any new physics. On the other hand, the atmospheric neutrino puzzle requires the existence of new physics at intermediate energy scales. The most “economical” model requires one new field at this new physics scale, which can be anywhere between $`10^9`$ GeV and $`10^{14}`$ GeV for typical Yukawa coupling values. It is important to note that, as far as solving the neutrino puzzles is concerned, this simple model is just as successful as other more complex models. A potential drawback of the model is that mixing angles are not predicted, so that the required relative magnitudes of the Yukawa coupling has to be put in by hand in order to satisfy the atmospheric neutrino data. In particular the right-handed neutrino needs to couple to $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ with equal strength, while the coupling to $`\nu _e`$ has to be somewhat suppressed. However, as we have shown (Fig. 2), the present experimental constraints on $`|U_{e3}|<0.3`$ can still be accommodated without difficulty by assuming that the Yukawa couplings are picked completely at random, in the spirit of neutrino mass “anarchy” . Within this perspective, all mixing angles easily arise from random Yukawa couplings and random coefficients for the $`1/M_{Pl}`$ operator, and the only input to the model is the value of $`m_3`$. This situation may well change in the near future if $`U_{e3}`$ is constrained to be very small.

The idea that the solar neutrino puzzle may be evidence for “quantum gravity” effects will be severely tested in the near future. The “just-so” solution ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^{10}`$ eV2) is already somewhat disfavoured by the solar neutrino data , while values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}5\times 10^{10}`$ eV2 are still acceptable  in the recently revealed “quasivacuum” region . However, the Borexino experiment, which is to start data taking next year, will thoroughly explore $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}5\times 10^9`$ eV2 and large mixing in a standard solar model independent way . It is safe to say that, after a few years, these values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ will be either confirmed or definitively ruled out. Furthermore, the minimalistic model also predicts hierarchical neutrino masses, such that the sign of the “atmospheric” mass-squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ is positive. This possibility will be definitively tested at a future neutrino factory .

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Martin Hirsch, Steve King, Magda Lola, and Apostolos Pilaftsis for useful and enlightening conversations, while AdG acknowledges the hospitality of IFIC during his stay in València, where this work was initiated. This work was supported by DGICYT under grant PB98-0693 and by the TMR network grants ERBFMRXCT960090 and HPRN-CT-2000-00148 of the European Union.


format: text

text:
# On polytopes simple in edges

## Introduction

In this paper, the word “polytope” refers always to a convex polytope. By $`d`$-polytope we mean a polytope in $`^d`$ with nonempty interior.

Denote by $`f_k`$ the number of $`k`$-faces of a $`d`$-polytope. It is useful to consider another collection of numbers $`\{h_k\}`$ that is obtained from $`\{f_k\}`$ by the linear transformation

$$h_k=\underset{ik}{}f_i(1)^{ik}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i}{k}\right),f_k=\underset{ik}{}h_i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i}{k}\right).$$

The collection of numbers $`f_k`$ is called the $`f`$-vector, the numbers $`h_k`$ constitute the $`h`$-vector.

A vertex of a $`d`$-polytope is said to be simple if exactly $`d`$ facets meet at this vertex. A $`d`$-polytope is called simple if all its vertices are simple. The following relations on the $`h`$-vector (and hence on the $`f`$-vector) hold for a simple polytope

* Dehn-Sommerville equations : $`h_0=h_d=1`$, $`h_k=h_{dk}`$,
* Unimodality condition :

$$h_0h_1\mathrm{}h_{[d/2]}h_{[d/2]+1}\mathrm{}h_{d1}h_d.$$

In this paper, we will study the $`h`$-vectors of a slightly more general class of polytopes.

A $`d`$-polytope is called simple in edges if each its edge is incident exactly to $`d1`$ facets. We will prove that for any polytope simple in edges all numbers $`h_{[d/2]}`$, $`h_{[d/2]+1}`$,$`\mathrm{}`$, $`h_d`$ are nonnegative and $`h_kh_{dk}`$ for $`kd/2`$. Polytopes simple in edges appear for instance as (closures of) fundamental polyhedra of groups generated by reflections in Lobachevskii spaces. A combinatorial study of polytopes simple in edges carried out by Khovanskii  concluded the proof of the following important theorem. In a Lobachevskii space of sufficiently high dimension there are no discrete groups generated by reflections whose fundamental polyhedron has finite volume. This statement was inspired by works of Nikulin and Vinberg and reduced to combinatorics by Prokhorov . We will give another (more direct) combinatorial proof of Khovanskii’s estimate.

Suppose that nonsimple vertices of a polytope simple in edges are located sufficiently far one from another. This means that no facet contains two nonsimple vertices. Such polytopes will be called polytopes with infrequent singularities. Then, as we will show in this paper, the inequalities

$$h_{[d/2]}h_{[d/2]+1}\mathrm{}h_d$$

still hold. Presumably they are true for any polytope simple in edges.

A polytope is said to be integral provided all its vertices belong to the integer lattice. With each integral polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ one associates the toric variety $`X`$ . This is a projective complex algebraic variety, singular in general. It turns out that the intersection cohomology Betti numbers of $`X`$ are combinatorial invariants of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ . Denote them by $`Ih_k(\mathrm{\Delta })=dimIH^k(X,)`$. For definition and basic results on intersection cohomology see .

For example, for a simple polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we have $`Ih_k(\mathrm{\Delta })=h_k`$ (for simple integral polytopes the associated toric varieties are quasi-smooth so the intersection cohomology coincides with ordinary cohomology). From Poincaré duality and the Hard Lefschetz theorem in the intersection cohomology of $`X`$ it follows that for an integral polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$

$$Ih_0(\mathrm{\Delta })=1,Ih_k(\mathrm{\Delta })=Ih_{dk}(\mathrm{\Delta }),$$

$$Ih_0(\mathrm{\Delta })Ih_1(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{}Ih_{[d/2]}(\mathrm{\Delta })Ih_{[d/2]+1}(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{}Ih_d(\mathrm{\Delta }).$$

Stanley defined for an arbitrary polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ a collection of numbers $`Gh_k(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (generalized $`h`$-vector) such that $`Gh_k(\mathrm{\Delta })=Ih_k(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ for an integral polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ . The definition of $`Gh_k`$ was motivated by the calculation of intersection cohomology of toric varieties made by Bernstein, Khovanskii and MacPherson (independently). Stanley proved that $`Gh_k=Gh_{dk}`$ and conjectured that all the inequalities above also hold for arbitrary polytopes (with $`Gh_k`$ instead of $`Ih_k`$). For simple polytopes $`Gh_k=h_k`$ and hence Stanley’s conjecture is true in this case. We will see that Stanley’s conjecture is true also for polytopes with infrequent singularities (in this case $`Gh_k=h_k`$ for $`kd/2`$).

In  there is a combinatorial description of the intersection cohomology of toric varieties. This description makes sense for arbitrary polytopes (not necessarily integral). So for every polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ there is the combinatorial intersection cohomology. Denote the combinatorial Betti numbers in the same way $`Ih_k(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ as in integral case. It is proven in  that $`Ih_k=Ih_{dk}`$ and an analog of Poincaré pairing is constructed. Moreover, there is an analog of the Lefschetz operator that coincides with the ordinary Lefschetz operator in integral case. Presumably a combinatorial analog of the Hard Lefschetz theorem holds in general. It would imply that $`Ih_k=Gh_k`$ so this is a stronger version of Stanley’s conjecture. In this paper, we will prove some variant of the combinatorial Hard Lefschetz theorem for polytopes with infrequent singularities.

Acknowledgements. I am very grateful to V. A. Lunts for the significant help (he has told me the statement of theorem 4.6) and to A. G. Khovanskii for useful discussions.

## 1 Cohomology of simple polytopes

In this section, we recall the geometric definition of the cohomology of simple polytopes given in .

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a $`d`$-polytope. A polytope $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is said to be analogous to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ if there is a one-to-one correspondence between the facets of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ such that corresponding facets have the the same outer normals and become analogous after being shifted to a common hyperplane. By definition any two segments in $``$ are analogous. Analogous polytopes have the same combinatorial type. This means that faces of analogous polytopes satisfy the same inclusion-relations. In particular, a polytope analogous to a simple one is simple.

Fix any simple $`d`$-polytope $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`^d`$. Consider a polytope $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ analogous to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. For each facet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ there is the corresponding (parallel) facet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Let $`\xi _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a linear functional whose maximal value on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is achieved on the facet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Denote by $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ the maximum of $`\xi _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ (of course, this maximum is achieved on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$). The number $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ is called a support number of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$.

Move slightly all the facets of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ so that each remains parallel to itself. Then we get an analogous polytope $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. It follows that we can vary the support numbers independently (at least while the divergences are sufficiently small). On the other hand, the support numbers of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ determine $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. So we can think of the polytope $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ as a function in the independent parameters $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The volume of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ turns out to be a polynomial in $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Denote this polynomial by $`\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Now consider the ring $`\mathrm{Diff}`$ of all differential operators with constant coefficients with respect to the support numbers. Denote by $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the operator of differentiation with respect to $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The ring $`\mathrm{Diff}`$ is nothing more than the polynomial ring in the differentiations $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`J`$ be the ideal in $`\mathrm{Diff}`$ consisting of operators $`\alpha `$ such that $`\alpha \mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$. The ideal $`J`$ is homogeneous, hence the quotient algebra $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\mathrm{Diff}/J`$ inherits the grading. Dimension of the homogeneous component $`A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ equals to $`h_k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ .

The ideal $`J`$ can be described explicitly. It is generated by the following two groups of differential operators :

* $`_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k=\mathrm{}`$,
* $`L_a=H_\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`a^d`$ is a point considered as a limit case of a polytope analogous to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

The second group is responsible for the translation invariance of volume.

The ring $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ models the cohomology ring. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is integral, then $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is indeed isomorphic to the cohomology ring of the corresponding toric variety. The operator of multiplication by $`L_\mathrm{\Sigma }=H_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma })_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ represents the Lefschetz operator (that is dual to the hyperplane section opetator in the homology). The following analog of the Hard Lefschetz theorem holds for simple polytopes.

###### Theorem 1.1

The operator of multiplication by $`L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{d2k}`$ establishes an isomorphism betweeen $`A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`A^{dk}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

The first proof is due to McMullen . He uses another description of cohomology. See also . From this theorem it follows that the $`h`$-vector of a simple polytope is unimodal, i.e., $`h_0h_1\mathrm{}h_{[d/2]}`$. An element $`\alpha A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is called primitive if $`\alpha L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{d2k+1}=0`$ in $`A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ or, equivalently, the polynomial $`\alpha \mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has zero of order $`k`$ at the point with coordinates $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. It is easy to see that the space of all order-$`k`$ primitive elements has dimension $`h_kh_{k1}`$. The following theorem  is an analog of the Hodge–Riemann bilinear relations (and a generalization of the Brunn–Minkowski inequality):

###### Theorem 1.2

For each primitive element $`\alpha A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$

$$(1)^k\alpha ^2L_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{d2k}(\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Sigma })0.$$

Now let us study the relation between $`A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and $`A^k(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a facet of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. First note that the polynomial $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ evaluated at the support numbers of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ gives the $`(d1)`$-volume of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (it is almost obvious). On the other hand, the support numbers of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are certain linear functions of the support numbers of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (that can be written down explicitly, of course). Therefore the polynomial $`\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ differs from $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by a linear (noninvertible) change of variables. Given an element $`\alpha A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ one can find an element $`\alpha _{(\mathrm{\Gamma })}A^k(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ such that $`\alpha _{(\mathrm{\Gamma })}\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ differs from $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by the same change of variables. The map $`\alpha \alpha _{(\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ is a surjective homomorphism from $`A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ to $`A^k(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. It is not hard to show that $`(L_\mathrm{\Sigma })_{(\mathrm{\Gamma })}=L_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

### An analog of Morse theory.

A general linear function on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a linear function on $`^d`$ that is nonconstant on any edge of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Fix a general linear function $`l`$. We will view $`l`$ as a vertical coordinate and will apply to it the words “up” and “down”. Index of a vertex $`v`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the number of edges that go down from $`v`$. It is not difficult to prove that the number of vertices of index $`k`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ equals to $`h_k`$ . In particular, it does not depend on the choice of $`l`$.

Let $`v`$ be a vertex of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The separatrix of $`v`$ is the face of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ spanned by all the edges that go down from $`v`$. There is an explicit description of a basis in the cohomology space $`A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ in terms of differential operators . Let $`F`$ be a face of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ all the facets containing $`F`$ so $`F=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$. Let us define the differential operator $`_F=_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k}`$ associated to the face $`F`$.

###### Theorem 1.3

Fix any general linear function on a simple polytope $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The operators $`_F`$, where $`F`$ is a separatrix of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, constitute a basis in the vector space $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

The decomposition of an element $`\alpha A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ with respect to this basis is called the separatrix decomposition. Let $`\alpha =a_F_F`$ be the separatrix decomposition of $`\alpha `$. A separatrix $`F`$ is called the highest separatrix of $`\alpha `$ if value of $`\mathrm{max}(l|_F)`$ is highest among all the separatrices that enter the decomposition of $`\alpha `$ with nonzero coefficients.

## 2 Polytopes simple in edges

Consider a $`d`$-polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ simple in edges. Let $`v`$ be a nonsimple vertex of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let us “cut off” the vertex $`v`$ from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by a hyperplane $`P`$ sufficiently close to $`v`$. More precisely, we take a hyperplane $`P`$ such that $`v`$ lies on one side with respect to $`P`$ and all other vertices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ lie on the other side. Denote by $`P^+`$ the half-space that does not contain $`v`$. Then we say that $`\mathrm{\Delta }P^+`$ is the polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with the vertex $`v`$ cut off. Now cut off all the nonsimple vertices (clearly the result does not depend on the order of our cut-off processes). We get a simple polytope $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which satisfies the following condition. There is a continuous one-parameter family $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ of analogous simple polytopes such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as $`t0`$ in the Hausdorff metric. The polytope $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will be called the standard resolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Consider a facet of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that comes from a cutting hyperplane. We call such a facet an inserted facet.

Denote by $`L_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the limit of operators $`L_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}`$ in $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. In coordinates, $`L_\mathrm{\Delta }=H_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta })_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where the support numbers $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ are defined as maximal values of the functionals $`\xi _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ restricted to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a facet of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It is included in a one-parameter family $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$ of facets of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. The limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=lim_{t0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$ is a face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For example, for an inserted facet we get just a vertex that was cut off. Note that $`(L_\mathrm{\Delta })_{(\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ coincides with $`L_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0}`$ in $`A(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the inserted facet corresponding to a vertex $`v`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`(L_\mathrm{\Delta })_{(\mathrm{\Gamma })}=L_v=0`$ in $`A(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

###### Lemma 2.1

For $`0<kd`$, we have $`h_k(\mathrm{\Delta })=h_k(\mathrm{\Sigma })h_k(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ where the sum is over all inserted facets $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (we are assuming that $`f_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })=h_d(\mathrm{\Gamma })=0`$).

Proof. This follows from the analogous formula for the $`f`$-vector: $`f_m(\mathrm{\Delta })=f_m(\mathrm{\Sigma })f_m(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2.2

Assume that $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ runs over inserted facets and $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are operators of order $`k<(d1)/2`$ in $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Then $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ for each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Proof. Fix a facet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and multiply the equation $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ by $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Observe that the operator $`_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_2}`$ is nonzero in $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ if and olny if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\mathrm{}`$. Since the inserted facets are disjoint, we get $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}^2\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=0`$.

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ the polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with all nonsimple vertices but that corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ cut off. We are assuming that the inserted facets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ are the same as in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a standard resolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. Then $`L_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}L_\mathrm{\Sigma }=c_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ where $`c`$ is a positive number. We know that $`L_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ descends to a Lefschetz operator on $`A^k(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})`$ and $`L_\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ descends to zero. Therefore $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ represents a negative Lefschetz operator in $`A^k(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})`$.

Thus $`L_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}=0`$. By the Hard Lefschetz theorem 1.1 for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ we conclude that $`(\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}=0`$, i.e., $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\alpha _\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2.3

For $`kd/2`$, we have $`h_k(\mathrm{\Sigma })h_{k1}(\mathrm{\Gamma })0`$.

Proof. Consider the subspace in $`A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ generated by elements $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }\alpha `$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an inserted facet of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\alpha A^{k1}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. By lemma 2.2 we know that dimension of this subspace equals to $`dim(_\mathrm{\Gamma }A^{k1}(\mathrm{\Sigma }))=dim(A^{k1}(\mathrm{\Gamma }))=h_{k1}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Therefore $`h_k(\mathrm{\Sigma })h_{k1}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is nonnegative. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 2.4

The numbers $`h_k(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ are nonnegative for all $`kd/2`$.

Proof. This follows form lemmas 2.1 and 2.3 and the Dehn-Sommerville equations for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that other components of the $`h`$-vector need not to be nonnegative. For example, the icosahedron is simple in egdes (as any 3-dimensional polytope) but $`h_1=7`$.

###### Theorem 2.5

For $`kd/2`$ we have $`h_k(\mathrm{\Delta })h_{dk}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

Proof. For $`k=0`$ this is an equality since $`h_0=h_d=1`$ (it follows from the Euler theorem). Suppose $`k>0`$. Then the inequality follows from lemma 2.1, Dehn-Sommerville equations for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the unimodality condition for the inserted facets $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is known that the Euler theorem $`h_0=1`$ and the trivial equation $`h_d=1`$ (these equations are true for any convex polytope) are the only linear relations on the $`h`$-vector (equivalently, on the $`f`$-vector) of a polytope simple in edges . Theorem 2.4 provides some inequality-type relations. Later on we will prove some more subtle inequalities for polytopes with infrequent singularities.

### Some applications.

A. Khovanskii in  estimated the average number of $`k`$-dimensional subfaces on a $`l`$-dimensional face of a $`d`$-polytope simple in edges ($`1k<ld/2`$). Khovanskii’s estimate generalized the earlier result of Nikulin  (who worked out the case of simple polytopes) and completed the proof of the following: in Lobachevskii space of dimension $`>995`$ there are no discrete groups generated by reflections with fundamental polyhedron of finite volume.

We will deduce the Khovanskii’s estimate from theorems 2.4 and 2.5.

The following lemma is almost obvious (it can be easily proved by induction):

###### Lemma 2.6

Given positive numbers $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$ and $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_n`$ we have

$$\frac{a_1+\mathrm{}+a_n}{b_1+\mathrm{}+b_n}\mathrm{max}\{\frac{a_1}{b_1},\mathrm{},\frac{a_n}{b_n}\}.$$

###### Theorem 2.7

For a $`d`$-polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ simple in edges and for $`1k<ld/2`$ there is the following upper bound for the average number of $`k`$-dimensional faces lying on a $`l`$-dimensional face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$:

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{nl}\right)\frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[d/2]}{k}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[(d+1)/2]}{k}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[d/2]}{l}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[(d+1)/2]}{l}\right)}$$

Proof. First note that for any $`k`$-dimensional face $`F`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`k1`$) there are exactly $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk}{nl}\right)`$ faces of dimension $`l`$ containing $`F`$. Therefore it suffices to estimate the ratio $`f_k/f_l`$. Using theorem 2.5 and the relation between the $`f`$\- and $`h`$-vectors we get

$$f_k\underset{md/2}{}h_m\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{dm}{k}\right)\right].$$

$$f_l\underset{md/2}{}h_m\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{l}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{dm}{l}\right)\right].$$

So we can use lemma 2.6 to estimate $`f_k/f_l`$ from above. We finally get

$$\frac{f_k}{f_l}\frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[d/2]}{k}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[(d+1)/2]}{k}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[d/2]}{l}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[(d+1)/2]}{l}\right)}.\mathrm{}$$

## 3 Polytopes with infrequent singularities

### Single nonsimple vertex.

Consider a polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with only one nonsimple vertex $`v`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a simple polytope obtained from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by cutting off the vertex $`v`$. Denote the only inserted face of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Lemma 3.1

Suppose that an element $`\alpha A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is such that $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\alpha =0`$ for each facet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that does not intersect $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then $`\alpha `$ is divisible by $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

Proof. Introduce a general linear function $`l`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that all vertices of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are lower than all others. Consider the separatrix decomposition of $`\alpha `$ with respect to $`l`$. Let $`F`$ be the highest separatrix. Assume that $`F`$ does not belong to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then there exists a facet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ passes through the top vertex of $`F`$, does not contain $`F`$ and does not intersect $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We know that $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\alpha =0`$ (or, equivalently, $`\alpha _{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}=0`$). On the other hand, it is easy to see that $`(_F)_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}`$ is the highest separatrix operator of $`\alpha _{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}`$ with respect to the general linear function $`l|_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Contradiction.

So any face $`F`$ from the separatrix decomposition of $`\alpha `$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Hence $`\alpha =_\mathrm{\Gamma }\beta `$ for some $`\beta `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 3.2

Suppose $`\alpha L_\mathrm{\Delta }^{d2k}=0`$ where $`\alpha A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Then $`\alpha `$ is divisible by $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

Proof. Place the origin at $`v`$. Then the number $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is nonzero only if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ does not intersect $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Take such a facet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Project the equality $`\alpha L_\mathrm{\Delta }^{d2k}(\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Sigma })=0`$ to the facet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. We will get $`\alpha _{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}L_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}^{d2k}(\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})=0`$ (we know that $`(L_\mathrm{\Delta })_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}=L_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$). But this is the primitivity condition with respect to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. By theorem 1.2, we have

$$(1)^k\alpha _{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}^2L_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}^{d12k}(\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})0.$$

Multiply this inequality by $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })>0`$ and sum up over all facets $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ not intersecting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We get $`(1)^k\alpha ^2L_\mathrm{\Delta }^{d2k}(\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Sigma })0`$. But this is an equality according to our assumption on $`\alpha `$. Therefore for all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ (such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{}`$) we have $`(1)^k\alpha _{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}^2L_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}^{d12k}(\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})=0`$. Since $`\alpha _{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$-primitive, $`\alpha _{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}=0`$ in $`A^k(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})`$ or, equivalently, $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\alpha =0`$. By lemma 3.1, $`\alpha `$ is divisible by $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The method we used in this proof is very similar to those of Aleksandrov  and McMullen .

### Infrequent singularities.

We need the following simple fact:

###### Lemma 3.3

Let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be homogeneous polynomials on the same vector space. A differential operator $`\beta `$ with constant coefficients such that $`P=\beta Q`$ exists if and only if $`\alpha Q=0`$ implies $`\alpha P=0`$ for each differential operator $`\alpha `$ with constant coefficients.

Proof. The part “only if” is obvious. Now assume that from $`\alpha Q=0`$ it always follows that $`\alpha P=0`$. Any operator of order $`>\mathrm{deg}(Q)`$ annihilates $`P`$ so $`\mathrm{deg}(P)\mathrm{deg}(Q)`$. Denote by $`A`$ the quotient of the polynomial algebra with respect to the ideal annihilating $`Q`$. Let $`W`$ be the hyperplane in $`A^{\mathrm{deg}(P)}`$ consisting of all operators $`\alpha `$ such that $`\alpha P=0`$. Denote by $`\beta A^{\mathrm{deg}(Q)\mathrm{deg}(P)}`$ any generator of the one-dimensional orthogonal complement to $`W`$ with respect to the nondegenerate pairing $`(\alpha ,\beta )\alpha \beta Q`$.

The polynomial $`P`$ can be viewed as a linear functional on $`A^{\mathrm{deg}(P)}`$. The functionals $`P`$ and $`\beta Q`$ have the same zero level. Therefore they are proportional. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a simple polytope. Suppose we want to prove that a polynomial $`P`$ in support numbers of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has the form $`\beta \mathrm{Vol}`$ for some $`\beta A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Then by lemma 3.3 it is enough to verify that the ideal $`J=\{\alpha \mathrm{Diff}|\alpha \mathrm{Vol}=0\}`$ annihilates $`P`$. It suffices to check that all the generators of $`J`$ send $`P`$ to zero. Namely, for each collection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ of facets of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with empty intersection we should show that $`_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k}P=0`$, and for each point $`a^d`$ we need to prove that $`L_aP=H_\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)_\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)=0`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a polytope simple in edges such that no its facet contains more than one nonsimple vertex. We call such a polytope a polytope with infrequent singularities. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the standard resolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Define the space $`I^k`$ as the subspace of $`A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ generated by all elements of the form $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }\alpha `$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an inserted facet of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\alpha A^{k1}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

###### Theorem 3.4

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a polytope with infrequent singularities, then the operator (of multiplication by) $`L_\mathrm{\Delta }:A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })A^{k+1}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ has the kernel $`I^k`$ for $`k<(d1)/2`$.

Proof. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an inserted facet. Then $`L_\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ since $`(L_\mathrm{\Delta })_{(\mathrm{\Gamma })}=L_v=0`$. Hence the subspace $`I^k`$ lies in the kernel of $`L_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Let us prove the opposite inclusion. We will carry on the induction on the number of nonsimple vertices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If there is only one nonsimple vertex, then the theorem follows from theorem 3.2. Now let $`v`$ be an arbitrary nonsimple vertex of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Cut it off. We get another polytope $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with infrequent singularities. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the inserted facet of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ corresponding to $`v`$. We can assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ coincides with the corresponding inserted facet of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a standard resolution of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

Let $`\alpha A^k(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ satisfy $`L_\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0`$. Note that $`L_\mathrm{\Delta }L_\mathrm{\Theta }=c_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`c`$ is a positive number. Thus $`L_\mathrm{\Theta }\alpha =c_\mathrm{\Gamma }\alpha `$.

From the equality $`L_\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0`$ we get an analogous relation $`(L_\mathrm{\Delta })_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}\alpha _{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}=0`$ for each non-inserted facet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The operator $`(L_\mathrm{\Delta })_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}`$ corresponds to a facet of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with at most one nonsimple vertex and the standard resolution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. By theorem 3.2 for any facet $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ intersecting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the element $`\alpha _{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}`$ is divisible by $`(_\mathrm{\Gamma })_{(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}`$, i.e. $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\alpha `$ is divisible by $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Set $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\alpha \mathrm{Vol}`$ if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ intersects $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=0`$ otherwise.

It is easy to verify that the polynomials $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ are related as follows: $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}P_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }}=_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\prime \prime }}P_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Therefore there exists a polynomial $`P`$ such that $`P_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}P`$ for all facets $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. We want to prove that $`P=\beta \mathrm{Vol}`$ for some differential operator $`\beta `$ with constant coefficients. By lemma 3.3 it is enough to show that

* $`_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{}}P=0`$ if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{}=\mathrm{}`$,
* $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(a)_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}P=0`$ for each $`a^d`$.

The first condition is obvious. The second condition follows from the equation $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(a)_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\alpha =0`$ in $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Note that by theorem 3.2 each summand $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\alpha `$ is divisible by an operator of some inserted facet. To obtain the second condition on $`P`$ equate to zero the terms with $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ only (using lemma 2.2).

Thus we have $`P=\beta \mathrm{Vol}`$. But $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}P=0`$ for any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ not intersecting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. From lemma 3.1 it follows that $`\beta `$ is divisible by $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and, in particular, $`L_\mathrm{\Delta }\beta =0`$. By definition of $`\beta `$ each derivative of $`\alpha _{(\mathrm{\Gamma })}\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ coincides with the corresponding derivative of $`\beta _{(\mathrm{\Gamma })}\mathrm{Vol}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Therefore $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }\alpha =_\mathrm{\Gamma }\beta `$ and $`L_\mathrm{\Theta }\alpha =L_\mathrm{\Theta }\beta `$.

Now let $`\gamma =\alpha \beta `$. We know that $`L_\mathrm{\Theta }\gamma =0`$. By the induction hypothesis $`\gamma I^k`$. Thus $`\alpha =\beta +\gamma I^k`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Consequences for combinatorial intersection cohomology

In this section, we will give an interpretation of theorem 3.4 in terms of the combinatorial intersection cohomology. First let us recall briefly some basic definitions.

### Fans.

To each face $`F`$ of a $`d`$-polytope associate the normal cone $`C_F^d`$ consisting of linear functionals on $`^d`$ that achieve their maximal values somewhere on $`F`$. The set of normal cones to all the faces of a polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is called the dual fan of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

A fan in a real vector space $`V`$ is a collection $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of convex polyhedral cones with vertex at the origin such that

* for every cone $`\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }`$ all the faces of $`\sigma `$ belong to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$,
* the intersection of two cones in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is their common face.

A fan is said to be simplicial if all its cones are simplicial. A fan is complete if the union of all its cones is the whole space $`V`$.

The dual fan of a polytope in $`^d`$ is a complete fan in $`^d`$. It is simplicial if and only if the corresponding polytope is simple.

### Toric varieties.

Fix a lattice $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in a vector space $`V`$. A fan in $`V`$ is said to be rational if all its rays (i.e., one-dimensional cones) are spanned by lattice vectors. For each rational fan $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ one defines the corresponding toric variety $`X`$. This is a complex algebraic variety with an algebraic action of the complex torus $`𝕋=(V)/i\mathrm{\Omega }`$. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is complete, then $`X`$ is compact; if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is simplicial, then $`X`$ is an orbifold; if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is dual to a polytope, then $`X`$ is projective.

Suppose that the dual fan $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of a polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is rational. Then the intersection cohomology Betti numbers of the corresponding toric variety $`X`$ are combinatorial invariants of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The intersection cohomology of $`X`$ can be described explicitly in terms of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ only . This description makes sense even then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is nonrational and there is no corresponding toric variety.

### Combinatorial intersection cohomology.

Following  we will define the (combinatorial) intersection cohomology of a fan. A fan $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be considered as a finite topological space whose open subsets are subfans. Every cone $`\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }`$ has a unique minimal neighborhood $`[\sigma ]`$ consisting of $`\sigma `$ and all its faces.

Let us define a sheaf of rings $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Sections of $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ over a subfan $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ are continuous functions on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ that are polynomial on each cone of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. It is not hard to verify that $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is flabby if and only if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is simplicial.

A graded sheaf $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Phi }`$-modules is called basic if it satisfies the following conditions:

* Normalization: $`_\mathrm{\Phi }([0])=`$.
* Pointwise freeness: $`_\mathrm{\Phi }[\sigma ]`$ is a free $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Phi }[\sigma ]`$-module for any $`\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }`$.
* Flabbyness: the sheaf $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is flabby. For that it is enough to require that for any cone $`\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }`$ the restriction map $`_\mathrm{\Phi }[\sigma ]_\mathrm{\Phi }(\sigma )`$ be surjective.
* Minimality: the module $`_\mathrm{\Phi }[\sigma ]`$ is a minimal free $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Phi }[\sigma ]`$-module satisfying the previous condition.

It is clear that a basic sheaf exists and is unique up to isomorphism. The space of global sections $`M_\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Phi },_\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is a combinatorial analog of the equivariant intersection cohomology of a toric variety.

Let $`O_\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Phi },𝒪_\mathrm{\Phi })`$ be the space of global continuous piecewise polynomial functions on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The space $`M_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a $`O_\mathrm{\Phi }`$-module. Consider the ideal $`O_\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ in $`O_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ generated by all global linear functions. Denote the quotient module $`M_\mathrm{\Phi }/O_\mathrm{\Phi }^+M_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This is the intersection cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

### An analog of the Hard Lefschetz theorem.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be the dual fan of a polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }^d`$. For any linear functional $`\xi ^d`$ denote by $`S_\mathrm{\Delta }(\xi )`$ the maximum of $`\xi `$ restricted to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The function $`S_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is piecewice linear with respect to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Hence it lies in $`O_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The following analog of the Hard Lefschetz theorem holds for integral polytopes  and is believed to be true for arbitrary polytopes.

###### Conjecture 4.1

For $`k<d/2`$ the operator of multiplication by $`S_\mathrm{\Delta }^{d2k}`$ establishes an isomorphism between $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{\Phi }^k`$ and $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{\Phi }^{dk}`$. In particular, the multiplication by $`S_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is an embedding of $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{\Phi }^k`$ to $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{\Phi }^{k+1}`$.

Denote the combinatorial intersection Betti numbers $`dim\overline{M}_\mathrm{\Phi }^k`$ by $`Ih_k(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. If conjecture 4.1 is true, then

$$Ih_0(\mathrm{\Delta })Ih_1(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{}Ih_{[d/2]}(\mathrm{\Delta }).$$

It is proven in  that $`Ih_k(\mathrm{\Delta })=Ih_{dk}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (an analog of Poincaré duality).

### Cohomology of a simplicial fan.

Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be a simplicial fan. Then the basic sheaf $`_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ coincides with $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Therefore $`M_\mathrm{\Psi }=O_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the space of all piecewise polynomial functions on $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Now assume that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is dual to a simple polytope $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

###### Proposition 4.2

There is a natural isomorphism between $`\overline{O}_\mathrm{\Psi }=O_\mathrm{\Psi }/O_\mathrm{\Psi }^+`$ and $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. This isomorphism takes $`S_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to $`L_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Proof. For a ray $`\rho \mathrm{\Psi }`$ denote by $`\chi ^\rho `$ a piecewise linear function that is zero on all the rays of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ but $`\rho `$. The function $`\chi ^\rho `$ will be called a characteristic function of $`\rho `$. Characteristic function of $`\rho `$ is unique up to constant factor (of course, we assume that $`\chi ^\rho 0`$). Note that if rays $`\rho _1,\mathrm{},\rho _k`$ do not lie in a common cone of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, then $`\chi ^{\rho _1}\mathrm{}\chi ^{\rho _k}=0`$.

Now pass to $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. This algebra is generated by differentiations $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are facets of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The relations in $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ are generated by the following two groups :

* Incidence relations: if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k=\mathrm{}`$, then $`_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k}=0`$,
* Translation invariance: if $`a^d`$ is a point, then $`H_\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)_\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$.

The incidence relations provide the homomorphism $`\phi :O_\mathrm{\Psi }A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ that takes $`\chi ^\rho `$ to $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\rho `$ is the normal cone of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This homomorphism is clearly onto. Translation invariance relations determine the kernel of $`\phi `$. It is generated by all points $`a^d`$ considered as linear functions on $`^d`$. But this is the same as $`O_\mathrm{\Psi }^+`$. Therefore $`\overline{O}_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ are isomorphic. It is easy to see that the isomorphism thus constructed takes $`S_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to $`L_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### Cohomology of a single cone.

Consider a noncomplete fan $`[\sigma ]`$ that consists of a $`d`$-dimensinal cone $`\sigma `$ and all its faces. We will assume that $`\sigma `$ contains no nontrivial vector subspace. The fan $`[\sigma ]`$ corresponds (in the rational case) to an affine toric variety. The ring $`O_{[\sigma ]}`$ consists of all polynomials on $`^d`$.

Let us study the restriction $`M_{[\sigma ]}M_\sigma `$. One can project the fan $`\sigma `$ to a complete fan $`\overline{\sigma }`$ in a proper hyperplane passing through the origin. Clearly, the fan $`\overline{\sigma }`$ is the dual fan of a polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. If $`\sigma `$ is the cone over a polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is dual to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ in combinatorial sense, i.e., there is a one-to-one correspondence between proper faces of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ reversing inclusions. The restriction $`|_\sigma `$ defines a basic sheaf on the fan $`\overline{\sigma }`$ and we have $`M_{\overline{\sigma }}=M_\sigma `$. From the minimality condition for the sheaf $`_{[\sigma ]}`$ and Nakayama’s lemma it follows that the map

$$\overline{M}_{[\sigma ]}=M_{[\sigma ]}/O_{[\sigma ]}^+M_{[\sigma ]}M_\sigma /O_{[\sigma ]}^+M_\sigma $$

is an isomorphism of vector spaces over the field $`\overline{O}_{[\sigma ]}=O_{[\sigma ]}/O_{[\sigma ]}^+=`$.

Let us introduce coordinates $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_d)`$ in the space $`^d`$ so that the fan $`\overline{\sigma }`$ lies in the coordinate hyperplane $`x_d=0`$. Then the linear function $`x_d`$ restricted to $`\sigma `$ and projected to $`\overline{\sigma }`$ acts on the fan $`\overline{\sigma }`$ as the Lefschetz operator of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

###### Proposition 4.3

Suppose the fan $`\overline{\sigma }`$ satisfies conjecture 4.1 (with respect to the function $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). Then the kernel of the restriction map $`M_{[\sigma ]}M_{\overline{\sigma }}`$ contains no elements of degree $`d/2`$.

Proof. Consider the ring $`o=[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d1}]`$ and the maximal ideal $`o^+`$ in it generated by all the degree-one elements (i.e., by all linear functions). The cohomology space of the fan $`\overline{\sigma }`$ is $`\overline{M}_{\overline{\sigma }}=M_{\overline{\sigma }}/o^+M_{\overline{\sigma }}`$.

Let $`\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _s`$ be free generators of the module $`M_{[\sigma ]}`$ over the ring $`O_{[\sigma ]}=[x_1,\mathrm{},x_d]`$. Denote by $`\overline{\phi }_i`$ the image of the element $`\phi _i`$ under the restriction $`M_{[\sigma ]}M_\sigma `$. The elements $`\overline{\phi }_i`$ obviously give rise to a basis in the vector space $`M_\sigma /O_{[\sigma ]}^+M_\sigma \overline{M}_{[\sigma ]}`$.

Now assume that an element $`\phi =a_1\phi _1+\mathrm{}+a_s\phi _s`$ homogeneous of degree $`kd/2`$ restricts to zero, i.e., $`a_1\overline{\phi }_1+\mathrm{}+a_s\overline{\phi }_s=0`$ in $`M_{\overline{\sigma }}`$. Reduce the latter relation modulo the ideal $`o^+`$. After that all the coefficients $`a_i`$ become polynomials in $`x_d`$. Let $`x_d^t`$ be the least power of $`x_d`$ that divides all the polynomials $`a_i`$. As $`kd/2`$, the operator of multiplication by $`x_d^t`$ is an injective map from $`\overline{M}_{\overline{\sigma }}^{kt}`$ to $`\overline{M}_{\overline{\sigma }}^k`$. This follows from conjecture 4.1 for $`\overline{\sigma }`$. Hence it is possible to divide our relation by $`x_d^t`$. We get $`b_1\overline{\phi }_1+\mathrm{}+b_s\overline{\phi }_s=0`$ where at least one coefficient $`b_i`$ is not divisible by $`x_d`$. But then we reduce this relation modulo $`(x_d)`$ to obtain a nontrivial linear combination of the elements $`\overline{\phi }_i`$ in $`M_\sigma /O_{[\sigma ]}^+M_\sigma =\overline{M}_{[\sigma ]}`$ that equals to zero. This contradicts the statement that (the classes of) the elements $`\overline{\phi }_i`$ constitute a basis of the vector space $`\overline{M}_{[\sigma ]}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us point out just another corollary from the Hard Lefschetz theorem for the fan $`\overline{\sigma }`$:

###### Proposition 4.4

Suppose the fan $`\overline{\sigma }`$ satisfies conjecture 4.1. Then $`\overline{M}_{[\sigma ]}^k=0`$ for $`k>d/2`$.

Proof. Indeed, $`\overline{M}_{[\sigma ]}=\overline{M}_{\overline{\sigma }}/(x_d)\overline{M}_{\overline{\sigma }}`$. From the Hard Lefschetz theorem it follows that all the elements of degree $`k>d/2`$ in the space $`\overline{M}_{\overline{\sigma }}`$ lie in the image of the Lefschetz operator, i.e., in $`(x_d)\overline{M}_{\overline{\sigma }}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The same arguments help to compute dimensions of the homogeneous components $`\overline{M}_{[\sigma ]}^k`$ ($`kd/2`$). From the Lefschetz decomposition for the polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we obtain

$$dim(\overline{M}_{[\sigma ]}^k)=Ih_k(\mathrm{\Lambda })Ih_{k1}(\mathrm{\Lambda }),kd/2.$$

We see that dimension of the vector space $`\overline{M}_{[\sigma ]}^k`$ is a combinatorial invariant of the polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Denote this dimension by $`Ig_k(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Thus

$$Ig_k(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\{\begin{array}{cc}Ih_k(\mathrm{\Lambda })Ih_{k1}(\mathrm{\Lambda }),& kd/2,\hfill \\ 0,& k>d/2.\hfill \end{array}$$

### Links and the computaion of $`Ih_k(\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

Let $`F`$ be a face of a polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Denote by $`N(F)`$ the orthogonal complement to the plane of the face $`F`$ passing through an interior point of $`F`$. In a neighborhood of this point the intersection $`N(F)\mathrm{\Delta }`$ looks like a cone over a polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(F)`$. The polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(F)`$ is called the link of the face $`F`$. Let $`\sigma \mathrm{\Phi }`$ be the normal cone of the face $`F`$. Then the dual fan of the polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(F)`$ is $`\overline{\sigma }`$.

Consider the generating function $`IH_\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=Ih_k(\mathrm{\Delta })t^k`$. For a polytope $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denote $`IG_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=Ig_k(\mathrm{\Lambda })t^k`$. In  it is proved that the Hard Lefschetz theorem 4.1 for all links of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ would imply the following formula for the cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$:

$$IH_\mathrm{\Delta }(t)=\underset{F}{}(t1)^{dimF}IG_{\mathrm{\Lambda }(F)}(t)$$
$`()`$
($`F`$ runs over all the faces of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$). The proof of this formula splits naturally into two parts. The first part is the computation of the cohomology for the fan $`[\sigma ]`$. This computation is already done, it relies on the Hard Lefschetz theorem. The second part reduces the global cohomology to the local cohomology, i.e., to the cohomology of the fans $`[\sigma ]`$. This part does not depend on the Hard Lefschetz theorem.

All links of a polytope simple in edges are simple. Therefore for a polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ simple in edges the above formula for $`IH_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is true. It is easy to verify using this formula that for $`k>d/2`$ we have $`Ih_k(\mathrm{\Delta })=h_k(\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

### Stanley’s generalized $`h`$-vector.

For an arbitrary polytope $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ Stanley in  defined the generalized $`h`$-vector $`Gh`$ by the combinatorial recurrent formula $`()`$ (where $`Ih`$-vector is replaced of course by $`Gh`$). As we saw, for rational polytopes, simple polytopes and polytopes simple in edges we have $`Gh=Ih`$. It is believed that this holds in general.

Stanley proved that $`Gh_k(\mathrm{\Delta })=Gh_{dk}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ and conjectured that

$$Gh_0Gh_1\mathrm{}Gh_{[d/2]}.$$

We will see that this is true for polytopes with infrequent singularities.

### Cohomology of polytopes simple in edges.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a $`d`$-polytope simple in edges. The dual fan $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has the following property: its $`(d1)`$-skeleton $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is simplicial. Now consider a standard resolution $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Its dual fan $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a simplicial subdivision of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It an easy exercise to describe this subdivision explicitly. Note that $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is a subfan both in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

We know already how the cohomology $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{\Psi }=\overline{O}_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ looks like. Now we need the following theorem proved in :

###### Theorem 4.5

Let $`j:\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be the natural map that takes each cone $`\sigma \mathrm{\Psi }`$ to the minimal cone of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ where $`\sigma `$ lies. There exists a (noncanonical) embedding $`_\mathrm{\Phi }j_{}𝒪_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ that preserves the structure of $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Phi }`$-modules.

Fix any such embedding. Then $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be viewed as a subspace of $`\overline{O}_\mathrm{\Psi }=A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Denote by $`\overline{N}`$ the kernel of the restriction homomorphism $`\overline{R}:\overline{O}_\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{O}_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

###### Proposition 4.6

For $`kd/2`$ there is the following decomposition

$$\overline{O}_\mathrm{\Psi }=\overline{M}_\mathrm{\Phi }^k\overline{N}^k.$$

Proof. It is enough to prove that on $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{\Phi }^k`$ the operator $`\overline{R}`$ is an isomorphism. Moreover, it is sufficient to prove only injectiveness (surjectiveness is clear).

Take an element $`\overline{\phi }\mathrm{Ker}(\overline{R})`$ of degree $`k`$ and consider its representative $`\phi M_\mathrm{\Phi }^k`$. Then $`\phi `$ restricts to $`O_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^+`$, i.e., $`\phi =l_1\theta _1+\mathrm{}+l_r\theta _r`$ on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ where $`l_i`$ are linear functions on $`^d`$ and $`\theta _iO_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{k1}`$. Since $`_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is flabby each $`\theta _i`$ comes from an element $`\phi _iM_\mathrm{\Phi }^{k1}`$. The function $`\phi ^{}=\phi l_1\phi _1\mathrm{}l_r\phi _rM_\mathrm{\Phi }^k`$ represents $`\overline{\phi }`$ and is zero on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$.

Let $`\sigma `$ be a cone of dimension $`d`$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ such that $`\phi ^{}`$ is nonzero on $`\sigma `$. The restriction of $`\phi ^{}`$ to the subfan $`[\sigma ]`$ is a nonzero element of the kernel of the restriction map $`M_{[\sigma ]}M_\sigma `$. But according to proposition 4.3 the degree of such an element can not be $`d/2`$. Contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 4.7

Under the identification $`\overline{O}_\mathrm{\Psi }=A(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ the subspace $`\overline{N}^k`$ coincides with $`I^k`$.

Proof. We know that $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponds to $`\chi ^\rho `$ where $`\rho `$ is the dual ray of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus it is enough to show that $`\overline{N}`$ is generated (as a $`\overline{O}_\mathrm{\Psi }`$-module) by the characteristic functions of rays $`\rho \mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It is clear that all such functions belong to $`\overline{N}`$.

Now take $`\overline{\phi }\overline{N}`$ and its representative $`\phi O_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that $`\phi =0`$ on $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ (such a representative obviously exists). Let us define an inserted cone as a cone from $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Inserted rays correspond to inserted facets of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Suppose $`\phi `$ is nonzero on an inserted ray $`\rho `$. Then we can subtract from $`\phi `$ an appropriate multiple of $`\chi ^\rho `$ (i.e., a function of the form $`\psi \chi ^\rho `$, $`\psi O_\mathrm{\Psi }`$) so that the result becomes zero on $`\rho `$ and remains the same on all other rays of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Thus we can reduce $`\phi `$ (modulo characteristic functions of inserted rays) to a function $`\phi ^{}`$ that is zero on all the rays of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Now repeat this procedure with 2-dimensional cones. Suppose $`\phi ^{}`$ is nonzero on an inserted 2-dimensional cone $`\tau `$ bounded by rays $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$. One of these rays is inserted. Subtract from $`\phi ^{}`$ an appropriate multiple of $`\chi ^{\rho _1}\chi ^{\rho _2}`$ to obtain a function that is zero on $`\tau `$ and the same as $`\phi ^{}`$ on all other 2-dimensional cones of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Continueing this process we reduce $`\phi `$ to zero modulo characteristic functions of inserted rays. $`\mathrm{}`$

### Hard Lefschetz for polytopes with infrequent singularities

Combining some previous results (theorem 3.4, propositions 4.6, 4.7) we obtain the following theorem:

###### Theorem 4.8

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a polytope with infrequent singularities and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the dual fan of it. The multiplication by $`S_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ establishes an embedding of $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{\Phi }^k`$ to $`\overline{M}_\mathrm{\Phi }^{k+1}`$ for $`k<(d1)/2`$. In particular,

$$Gh_0(\mathrm{\Delta })Gh_1(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{}Gh_{[d/2]}(\mathrm{\Delta }),$$

$$h_{[d/2]}(\mathrm{\Delta })h_{[d/2]+1}(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{}h_d(\mathrm{\Delta }).$$