text:
# Water Masers as Tracers of Protostellar Disks and Outflows in the Intermediate Mass Star Forming Region NGC 2071

## 1 Introduction

The infrared cluster NGC 2071IR lies in the Lynds 1630 dark cloud in Orion at a distance of 390 pc (Anthony-Twarog, 1982). The $`30^{\prime \prime }`$ diameter cluster has been resolved into 8 distinct near infrared sources (Walther et al., 1993) and has a total luminosity of 520 L (Butner et al., 1990), which is suggestive of intermediate mass star formation. Snell & Bally (1986) first detected radio continuum counterparts to the IR sources, specifically IRS1 and IRS3 separated by 6”. While IRS 1 dominates the luminosity at near infrared wavelengths, IRS 3 is a significant contributor at longer wavelengths (Snell & Bally, 1986; Kawabe et al., 1989).

NGC 2071IR also hosts a well-studied molecular outflow that has been mapped in the emission of CO (Scoville et al., 1986; Moriarty-Schieven et al., 1989; Chernin & Masson, 1992), H2 (Garden et al., 1990; Aspin et al., 1992), CS (Zhou et al., 1991; Kitamura et al., 1992), SO and SiO (Chernin & Masson, 1993), HCO+ (Girart et al., 1999) and NH3 (Zhou et al., 1990). The arcsecond-resolution H2 observations of Aspin et al. (1992) indicate IRS 1 is the likely source for the large scale outflow while those of Garden et al. (1990) show elongated molecular emission associated with IRS 3 as well. Images of radio continuum emission, with resolutions as high as $`0\text{.}^{\prime \prime }1`$, show elongated emission from thermal jets coincident with both infrared sources (Torrelles et al., 1998b; Smith & Beck, 1994; Snell & Bally, 1986).

Water maser emission ultimately associated with NGC 2071IR was detected even before the IR cluster and molecular outflows (Schwartz & Buhl, 1975; Pankonin et al., 1977; Campbell, 1978). Both IRS 1 and IRS 3 host the water maser emission (Tofani et al., 1995; Torrelles et al., 1998b), which indicates the presence of substantial columns of dust laden, warm (300 - 1000 K), dense ($`10^8`$ \- $`10^{10}`$ cm-3) gas that is probably shock excited (Elitzur, 1992). Torrelles et al. (1998b) observed the masers using the VLA with resolution of $`0\text{.}^{\prime \prime }1`$. In IRS 1, they observed a distribution of masers elongated parallel to the roughly east-west radio jet. In IRS 3, they observed a distribution more or less perpendicular to the jet and suggestive of a disk. The difference in the structure for the maser sources, supplemented by the higher extinction toward IRS 3, was inferred to indicate IRS 3 is less evolved.

In general, the study of intermediate and high-mass protostars is difficult because examples are hundreds of parsecs away and are contained within crowded fields. As a result, even observations with $`0\text{.}^{\prime \prime }1`$ resolution can be confusion limited. However, long baseline interferometric observations, with milliarcsecond (mas) resolution, can be used to map regions unambiguously (and estimate proper motions) when high brightness temperature emission, such as water maser emission, is present (e.g., Claussen et al., 1998; Moscadelli et al., 2000; Patel et al., 2000; Furuya et al., 2000; Torrelles et al., 2001; Gwinn et al., 1992, and references therein).

The proper motion study of NGC 2071IR presented here concentrates on one of the closest regions of intermediate mass star formation whose structure and dynamics we show have not been fully resolved in previous studies. In Section 2, we present the observations and calibration, followed by a description of how we estimated proper motions in Section 3. In Section 4 we discuss the compact protostellar disk and outflows found in both IRS 1 and IRS 3, and consider how these structures bear upon other lower angular resolution observations of the whole infrared cluster. Conclusions are presented in Section 5.

## 2 Observations and Calibration

We observed the $`6_{16}5_{23}`$ transition of water (rest frequency 22235.080 MHz) toward NGC 2071IR with the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) of the NRAO111The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the U.S. National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. at four epochs in 1996 (see Table 1). A single antenna of the Very Large Array (VLA) augmented the VLBA, which provided improved sensitivity to emission extended on several mas scales. A 16 MHz ($`215`$ km s-1) recording bandwidth, centered on $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}=4.66`$ km s-1 covered the known velocity range of emission. We processed the data with the VLBA correlator, obtaining 512 spectral channels with a separation of $`0.42`$ km s-1.

The data were calibrated and images constructed using the NRAO AIPS package and standard techniques for VLBI. All four data sets were shifted to a common phase center located at the radio continuum peak of IRS 1 (Torrelles et al., 1998b) after correlation. We set the flux density scale with 30% uncertainty by template fitting total-power spectra for each antenna, where the template spectrum was itself calibrated with system temperature and published gain curves. We calibrated interferometric delay and bandpass response using observations of 0234+285, 0528+134, and NRAO150. To remove the effects of atmospheric pathlength fluctuations, we self-calibrated each epoch using the strong, isolated emission at $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}=12.75`$ km s-1, which originates in IRS1. We applied this self-calibration to data for all spectral channels, created synthesis images of the IRS 1 and IRS 3 fields simultaneously, and detected emission between $`2.42`$ and $`27.92`$ km s-1 in IRS 1 and $`8.69`$ and $`27.12`$ km s-1 in IRS 3. No emission was detected in association with other infrared centers in NGC 2071IR, consistent with Torrelles et al. (1998b) and Tofani et al. (1995). The calibration error budget is dominated by a 16 cm uncertainty in the VLA station position (estimated with respect to a USNO geodetic reference frame). This causes a $`<10`$ microarcsecond ($`\mu `$as) position uncertainty for masers in IRS 3, which is small compared to the month-to-month $`220\mu `$as change that corresponds to a modest 5 km s-1 proper motions.

## 3 Identification of Maser Features and Proper Motions

We identified all emission components stronger than $`6\times `$ the RMS noise level in the images for each spectral channel. We fit one or more model elliptical Gaussians as needed to decompose these components into individual maser “spots” each about the same size as the interferometer beam. Position uncertainties for the spots were typically 0.05 mas. Counting all four epochs, 1074 maser spots were detected, with $`40\%`$ in IRS 3 (Table 1).

We grouped the maser spots into emission features with resolved line profiles. Each feature probably represents a distinct clump of gas. Over the four epochs, we detected 269 features (Table 1). To group the spots into features, we selected spots in adjacent channels that lay within one beamwidth of each other. In ambiguous cases (e.g., a close pair of maser spots in a single channel) we selected the closest spot. For each feature, we estimated the position from the flux-weighted mean position of the contributing maser spots. The uncertainty was the greater of the formal error in the mean and the standard deviation of the spot positions.

For each maser feature detected, we also estimated spectral characteristics. We fit Gaussian spectral-line profiles to centrally peaked features comprising three or more channels. For other features we simply adopted the flux-weighted mean velocity and maximum flux density among the contributing channels. Because the (u,v)-coverage of the VLBA is flattened and sparse for sources close to the celestial equator, artifacts were common in a north-south band around bright emission. Features that lay in these bands were discounted unless they were offset in velocity. The final tally of maser features in each channel accounts typically for 50 to 100% of the flux density detected in a total-power spectrum of the NGC 2071IR region (Figure 1), which suggests that most of the maser features are small compared to the $`1`$ mas (0.39 AU) VLBA beam, and that the correct identification of imaging artifacts was largely successful. We present the maser feature line-of-sight velocities, positions, and other characteristics for epochs 1 to 4 in Table 2.

After identifying features, we registered our VLBA map and the VLA map of Torrelles et al. (1998b), which corresponded to an epoch $`4`$ months after the close of the VLBA observations. Using three persistent clumps of maser emission in IRS 1 as reference points, we aligned the maps with an estimated uncertainty of $`0\text{.}^{\prime \prime }01`$ (corresponding primarily to uncertainty in the relative positions estimated with the VLA and proper motions between the VLBA and VLA epochs). This registration enabled us to compare our maser positions in both IRS 1 and IRS 3 with the maser and continuum positions of Torrelles et al. (1998b).

We estimated proper motions via weighted linear least squares fits for (VLBA) features that were (1) present in at least three epochs, (2) stationary to $`<0.5`$ km s-1 along the line-of-sight (LOS), and (3) moving in a straight line at constant velocity. To do this, first, the images for the four epochs were registered by aligning the feature at V$`{}_{\mathrm{LSR}}{}^{}=8.76`$ km s-1 in IRS 1 and then the 3.15 km s-1 feature in IRS 3. The separate registration of features within IRS 3 was necessary due to a $`3`$ mas offset for the first epoch; feature positions for the other epochs were not offset significantly. Second, for features in IRS 1, the mean proper motion was subtracted to compensate for possible motion of the 12.75 km s-1 reference feature. Because positions and motions are measured in a relative sense, any plausible transverse velocity may be subtracted. Subtracting the mean proper motion is the same as assuming that IRS 1 is stationary (as sampled by the available motions). Due to the small number of motions in IRS 3, it was not possible to obtain a meaningful mean proper motion. The IRS 3 proper motions therefore include the motion of the 3.15 km s-1 reference feature located in the disk. The mean formal error in the magnitude and direction of all detected motions were $`9\%`$ and $`5^{}`$, respectively. The medians were $`3\%`$ and $`1^{}`$, respectively. We present the proper motions for 30 maser features in IRS 3 and IRS 1 in Table 3.

## 4 Discussion

The distributions of water maser emission in IRS 3 (Figure 2) and IRS 1 (Figure 3) are complex and difficult to model with absolute certainty. We suggest relatively simple interpretations, in the context of the current star formation paradigm. In each infrared source, the masers trace a compact protostellar disk and a collimated outflow. We suggest this model because each source contains

1. a centrally located, elongated clump of maser features $`9`$ AU (IRS 3) or $`17`$ AU (IRS 1) long, and $`2`$ AU wide, with small internal proper motions, orientation parallel to the known direction of local IR polarization (Walther et al., 1993), and in close proximity to $`\lambda 1.3`$ cm continuum peaks (Torrelles et al., 1998b); and
2. maser features up to $`260`$ AU from the putative disk in which flow is oriented away from the disk and with proper motions of 17 to 42 km s-1.

We refer to these two populations as the “disk masers” and the “peripheral masers,” respectively. Figure 4 outlines the main elements of the models for IRS 3 and IRS 1.

### 4.1 IRS 3

#### 4.1.1 The Disk

The central clump of water maser features in IRS 3, which we propose traces the near side of a roughly edge-on disk, is $`9\times 2`$ AU in size at a position angle (PA) of $`55^{}`$ (Figure 2b). This PA is consistent with the $`66^{}`$ PA for $`2\mu `$m polarization observed toward IRS 3 by Walther et al. (1993), which is suggestive of scattering by material above and below the plane of an obscuring disk. In addition, the clump lies within the $`1\sigma `$ error circle ($`\pm 10`$ mas) of the $`\lambda 1.3`$ cm emission peak of the compact radio jet (PA$`11^{}`$) mapped by Torrelles et al. (1998b), which is suggestive of a physical relationship between the two.

However, no compact distribution of disk masers was detected by Torrelles et al. (1998b). This is probably because the observations were limited by confusion. Nearly all of the IRS 3 maser features lie within $`1`$ VLA beamwidth, $`0\text{.}^{\prime \prime }1`$ (Figure 2a). Because the disk masers are not strong they could easily be blended with stronger masers in the nearby outflow. We note as well that over the $`4`$ months we observed, the maximum flux density of the disk masers decreased with time (Table 2). Since the Torrelles et al. observations trailed our own by another $`4`$ months, the effects of blending may have been accentuated. Nonetheless, we note that although a rich population of disk masers was not visible, Torrelles et al. did detect four masers with velocities close to the LOS velocity of the putative disk ($`4`$ km s-1) and within one VLA beamwidth of its location (Figure 2).

Surprisingly, we do not detect among the disk masers a systematic velocity gradient characteristic of rotation. The mean LOS velocity of the disk masers is $`4.1`$ km s-1 with a range of 3.8 km s-1(Table 2). Hence, any gradient is $`<4`$ km s-1 over 9 AU (i.e., the total range in the Doppler velocities), which is suggestive of an improbably small encircled mass, $`0.1`$ M. We conclude that the maser features lie at radii $`>9`$ AU, where the orbital speed may be expected to be small, and that the masers sample only a confined sector on the front side of the disk. More specifically, rotating edge-on disks display gradients in LOS velocity, $`V_{los}/b=30\sqrt{M/r^3}`$, where $`V_{los}`$ is line-of-sight velocity in km s-1, $`b`$ is impact parameter with respect to the center of the disk measured in AU, $`M`$ is enclosed mass in M, and $`r`$ is disk radius in AU. For $`r=4.5`$ AU and $`M=1`$ M, the observed LOS velocity should change by $`28`$ km s-1 across the IRS 3 clump, a possibility the data exclude. However, if the masers sample a small sector on the near side of a larger disk, then the upper limit on the observed gradient, a $`<4`$ km s-1 shift over $`9`$ AU, constrains the radius of the maser region in the disk to be $`>17M^{1/3}`$ AU. Because the excitation of maser emission requires a balance of physical conditions (i.e., temperature and density), which probably exists only over a narrow range of radius, the disk itself could extend to larger or smaller radii. Maser action also depends on the magnitude of gradients in LOS velocity along the LOS through the disk. These gradients reach a minimum in a small sector along the front side of a disk (e.g., Ponomarev et al., 1994), which is consistent with the suggested placement of maser features.

The disk masers are blueshifted by $`6`$ km s-1(Figure 2b) with respect to the 9.7 km s-1 systemic velocity for NGC 2071IR obtained from CO and HCO+ observations (Moriarty-Schieven et al., 1989; Girart et al., 1999). (We will assume the systemic velocity for both IRS 1 and IRS 3 is 9.7 km s-1.) This Doppler shift is suggestive of expansion, where either (1) the disk is expanding and is warm (and dense) enough to support widespread maser action, or (2) the warm maser-laden surface layers of a cool, optically thick disk, are swept outward by oblique wind-disk collision or by protostellar radiation, as could occur during photo-evaporation (e.g., Hollenbach et al., 1994). The net blueshift of the IRS 3 disk masers is larger than their proper motion (1.8 km s-1) with respect to IRS 1. This lends credibility to the suggestion that the blueshift of the IRS 3 disk masers is internal to IRS 3, e.g., expansion. (To measure the 1.8 km s-1 proper motion, we subtracted the mean motion of IRS 1 (see Section 3) but estimated proper motions in IRS 3 without aligning the maps on the 3.15 km s-1 reference feature. We also used only the last three epochs.)

We note that a small clump of features with a 6 km s-1 redshift (relative to systemic) lies 14 mas northeast of the blueshifted disk features (Figure 2b). We speculate that these could mark outflowing material on the far side of the disk. If in fact we have resolved the separation between approaching (front) and receding (back) sections of the disk, then we can constrain the disk radius (as before) and inclination together. For a 1 M protostar, the radius of the maser region in the disk is $`>16`$ AU, and it is tilted $`<10^{}`$ from edge-on. Greater mass entails larger radii and smaller tilts. We note that in principle these blue and redshifted maser features could also signify infall, but we favor outflow because we expect the more prominent maser emission to be on the nearside of the disk, and we have inferred that the axis of the bipolar outflow is inclined slightly toward us and to the east (see next section).

#### 4.1.2 The Conical Outflow

The peripheral masers are distributed irregularly over a $`230\times 270`$ AU region (Figure 2a) and exhibit proper motions of 22 to 42 km s-1 (Table 3), which are primarily directed away from the disk. These proper motions are large compared to the 5 km s-1 mean proper motion within the disk (Table 3). The magnitude and direction of these masers are strongly suggestive of an outflow. The mean LOS velocity of the peripheral masers is 11 km s-1, in reasonable agreement with the 9.7 km s-1 systemic velocity. The outflow to the north and east of the disk has a mean velocity of $`8`$ km s-1 and is thus slightly blueshifted, while the much more sparsely traced outflow south and west of the disk is redshifted, with a mean velocity of $`19`$ km s-1 (Table 2).

The distribution of the outflowing masers to the north and east is similar in appearance to the limbs of an outflow cone 20 to 90 AU in length, which is seen most clearly in Figure 2b, but also includes the northernmost blue-shifted masers visible in Figure 2a. The cone has a $`110^{}`$ opening angle centered on the disk minor axis (Figure 4a). Based on relative LOS velocities and proper motions it is probably inclined on the order of $`10^{}`$ with respect to the plane of the sky, although uncertainty in the systemic velocity of IRS 3, and sparse sampling of the outflow make the inclination difficult to estimate. The limbs of the proposed outflow cone could mark an interface between infalling and outflowing material, a scenario discussed theoretically by Delamarter et al. (2000). Such an interface would be a natural site of maser emission because of energy deposited locally by shocks (Elitzur, 1992). If the boundary layer is thin, the long velocity-coherent path lengths necessary for maser amplification will lie along the edges of the cone, close to the plane of the sky, giving the impression of limb-brightening. We note a $`11`$ km s-1 difference in Doppler velocity between the two limbs of the cone. This could be attributed to the angular momentum of the infalling material. A rotation velocity on the order of 5 km s-1 is roughly consistent with an enclosed mass of 1 M and radius of 50 AU. The sense of the Doppler shift (blueshift along the northern limb) is the same as the direction of the velocity gradient detected by Torrelles et al. (1998b), which they interpreted as a manifestation of disk rotation, but which we suggest is dominated by the velocity structure of the peripheral masers.

The outflow cone can be traced to within $`20`$ AU of the disk (Figure 2b), which suggests that collimation occurs at or within that radius. On the reverse side of the disk, the sparser appearance of the red-shifted outflow is difficult to explain with certainty. Because maser action requires specific physical and dynamic conditions, the absence of emission does not necessarily imply the absence of warm dense gas, as in an outflow cone. As well, the collimating medium could be asymmetrically distributed about the disk plane, discouraging formation of a sharp cone on one side. Alternatively, a collimated redshifted outflow could exist but be obscured by gas ionized and driven outward by the IRS 3 protostar as the surrounding interstellar medium is heated. Such an uncollimated expansion could be consistent with the two proper motions most widely separated from the disk.

### 4.2 IRS 1

#### 4.2.1 The Disk

The central clump of water masers in IRS 1, which we propose traces the front side of a protostellar disk, is $`17`$ AU long and $`2`$ AU wide, at a PA of $`11^{}`$ (Figure 3b). This PA is similar to the $`19^{}`$ PA of the 2$`\mu `$m polarization vectors observed by Walther et al. (1993), who suggest that the high polarization may be related to an obscuring disk. The peak of the compact radio continuum jet mapped by Torrelles et al. (1998b) lies $`35`$ mas to the east and along the minor axis of the disk. Overall, the distributions of masers detected with the VLA and VLBA agree well (Figure 3a), probably because IRS 1 is extended over many VLA beamwidths, which reduces the impact of the blending of maser features. However, as in IRS 3, only the VLBA detects a compact disk component. Torrelles et al. (1998b) detected only one maser in close proximity to the putative disk, about which we cannot hypothesize.

The disk masers exhibit Doppler velocities of 6.0 to 19 km s-1, with the blueshifted masers lying to the north and the redshifted masers to the south (Figure 3b; Table 2). This velocity gradient may be explicit evidence of rotation. Following an analysis similar to that applied to the data for IRS 3, we infer an enclosed mass of $`0.6(r/10AU)^3`$ M for an edge-on geometry. Independent estimates of mass in IRS 1 are difficult to formulate, but given that IRS 1 is the dominant source of the 520 L radiated by NGC 2071IR (Butner et al., 1990), we assume a mass of a few M. For this mass, the implied radius of the maser emission is $`20`$ AU, which indicates the observed maser emission traces only a limited sector on the nearside of the disk. We note that the mean velocity of the disk is 13 km s-1 (Table 2), a $`3`$ km s-1 redshift from our assumed systemic velocity. Just as the blueshift of maser features in IRS 3 might suggest outflow coupled with rotation, this redshift in IRS 1 may imply that the material being traced by the masers is infalling. However, we treat the possible detection of infall tentatively because the redshift is small and the proper motions of disk masers (see below) are somewhat disordered, given the simple model we propose.

We have detected three proper motions in the disk, two of which have significant southward velocity components of 5 and 21 km s-1(Figure 3b; Table 3). The expected orbital motion is the product of the observed velocity gradient and radius, independent of enclosed mass, and may be expressed as $`8(r/10AU)`$ km s-1 towards the south. For a radius of 20 AU, we would predict a proper motion of 16 km s-1, which is consistent with the observed motions. However, there is significant scatter both in the direction and magnitude of the observed motions, and better data are needed to support a complete analysis. The proper motions could be influenced by turbulence, radial flows, changing orbital velocity along the line of sight, and inclination effects. Relatively few motions were measured in the disk because the lifetimes of many maser features therein were shorter than the length of the proper motion study. In contrast, features in the surrounding outflow were longer lived. This observation should be used to guide the design of future proper motion studies.

#### 4.2.2 The High-Speed Outflow and Surrounding Cavities

The peripheral masers are distributed over a region $`330\times 200`$ AU, elongated more or less east-west (Figure 3a). The average Doppler velocity of these masers is 11 km s-1, in agreement with the assumed systemic velocity of 9.7 km s-1. Based on the distribution and the dynamics of maser features, we suggest that the peripheral masers trace three separate structures (Figure 4b):

1. a narrow high-speed bipolar outflow oriented perpendicular to the disk elongation,
2. four arc-shaped arms extending from the disk that correspond to the limb-brightened edges of two outward facing, funnel-shaped cavities along the disk minor axis, and
3. an arc of masers located 275 mas to the west and 100 mas to the south of the disk (Figure 3c), which may trace a bow shock.

We discuss the high-speed outflow and cavity in this Section and the arc in the next Section.

The high-speed outflow appears to be narrowly collimated and oriented along a PA of $`77^{}`$ (Figure 3a), perpendicular to the disk. Seven proper motions were observed in the flow with velocities ranging from 17 to 25 km s-1. The western outflow is clearly blueshifted (mean Doppler velocity of 6 km s-1), while the eastern outflow is redshifted. The motions are inclined from the plane of the sky by a few degrees closest to the disk, which is consistent with the assumption that the disk is edge-on. Further out, the high-speed motions are inclined by $`30^{}`$, a result of increasing Doppler shift with radius. This may be a signature of precession, however, the most inclined motions also have significantly rotated position angles suggesting that the high-speed outflow may be channeled by the surrounding medium.

When we superpose the VLBA and VLA maps of masers in IRS 1 (Figure 3a), we observe four arcs that extend from the disk and appear to outline the limbs of two outward facing, funnel-shaped cavities roughly centered along the flow axis (Figure 4b). The association of narrowly collimated outflow with wide-angle, possibly wind-blown, cavities is exemplified by some Herbig-Haro flows (e.g., Reipurth et al., 2000) and has been treated theoretically (e.g., Shu et al., 1994). We suggest that in IRS 1 the cavity walls represent an interface between outflowing and infalling material (as discussed earlier for the outflow cone in IRS 3), where collimation occurs at radii on the order of 10 to 50 AU.

We highlight two systematic patterns among the maser features. First, the northern two arcs are blueshifted by a few km s-1 with respect to the assumed systemic velocity while the southern arcs are redshifted by a few km s-1(Figure 3a). The asymmetry is similar to that observed in IRS 3, though it is smaller in IRS 1. It may be attributed to rotation of infalling material, where speeds of a few km s-1 at radii of a few tens to 100 AU is consistent with an enclosed mass of a few M. Second, proper motions along the southern two limbs are directed away from the flow axis and are more or less orthogonal to the limbs, which is suggestive of an expanding cavity. This is in agreement with simulations of wide-angle winds by Delamarter et al. (2000), and the evolution of the cavity might bear some similarity to that discussed by Velusamy & Langer (1998) for the B5 IRS 1 region. We note that although most of the observed proper motions are consistent with an expanding cavity model, two motions on the northern limbs that are not. If expansion has in fact been detected, then the northern motions could be a consequence of localized turbulence and shock substructure along the cavity wall (e.g., Gwinn et al., 1992).

#### 4.2.3 The Arc

Just to the south of the high-speed outflow, about 275 mas west from the disk we detect an arc-shaped clump of masers (Figure 3c). The arc is $`8`$ AU in length, and has 7 to 10 km s-1 Doppler velocities (Table 2). The mean proper motion of the clump is 3 km s-1 to the north (Table 3). However, while a number of proper motions have been measured for the clump, they are small and the addition of small proper motion offsets, consistent with the uncertainty in the mean proper motion of IRS 1, significantly changes their direction.

Due to its shape and proximity to the high-speed outflow, we suggest the arc is a shock, perhaps a bow shock similar to those traced by water masers and observed by Claussen et al. (1998), Furuya et al. (2000) and Torrelles et al. (2001). Shocks are natural sites for water maser emission (Elitzur et al., 1989; Kaufman & Neufeld, 1996), and this one might indicate that the medium around the high-speed outflow is quite inhomogeneous. Alternatively, the shock may be located along the near wall of the wind-blown cavity and its location close to the high-speed outflow is just a chance superposition. Another possibility is that the masers are associated with a second protostellar disk. At the projected separation of $`120`$ AU from the main disk, a space velocity of 4 km s-1 would be consistent with protostellar masses of $`2`$ M.

The 7 to 10 km s-1 Doppler velocities of the arc correspond quite well to the velocities at which the VLBA observations resolve-out most of the maser emission, from which we infer that the resolved maser emission may be associated with the arc (Figure 1). No other single strucuture detected in the images corresponds exclusively to this same range of velocity. The size of the maser spots in this region further support this idea - the 72 spots in the arc are on average 15% larger than those in IRS 1 as a whole. Maser emission extended along a shock front provides a natural explanation for these observations.

### 4.3 Comparison to Other Observations

There are a considerable number of observations of large-scale outflow and the IR and radio continuum emission from NGC 2071IR. The proposed disk-outflow structure for IRS 3 and IRS 1 is supported in part by (1) the near-infrared polarization observations of Walther et al. (1993), as noted previously, and (2) the morphology of high angular resolution radio continuum images (Smith & Beck, 1994; Torrelles et al., 1998b). The radio continuum imaging resolves a roughly east-west structure in IRS 1, consistent with the PA of the high-speed flow reported here. In IRS 3, the continuum is elongated at a PA of $`11^{}`$, which lies within the reported wide-angle outflow cone. Walther et al. (1993) and Garden et al. (1990) find a similar orientation for IRS 3 in broadband near-infrared light, while for IRS 1 the orientation is unclear.

However, the disk-outflow model proposed here for NGC 2071IR agrees less well with maps of molecular outflows on scales $`>1000`$ AU. H2 observations conducted by Aspin et al. (1992) show a bipolar outflow from IRS 1 that seems to dominate the region. It is oriented at PA$`45^{}`$ with blue-shifted emission to the northeast. Lower resolution mm-wave observations in CO, CS and SO (Scoville et al., 1986; Moriarty-Schieven et al., 1989; Zhou et al., 1991; Chernin & Masson, 1992, 1993) all show similar position angles and orientations. This is not in good agreement with the structure of the IRS 1 water masers. Aspin et al. (1992) detect no outflow from IRS 3, however the maps of Garden et al. (1990) clearly show a low level of shocked H2 emission associated with IRS 3 at an orientation similar to the IR and radio continuum.

The apparent differences between the outflow structures on large and small scales may be a consequence of two mechanisms. First, the ambient medium may channel the outflows, an effect seen in other systems (e.g., Reipurth et al., 1996; Bally & Reipurth, 2001). The high-speed water maser flow in IRS 1 shows some evidence for this, executing a bend on the order of $`30^{}`$. Second, it is possible that the outflow observed on large scales is created by a merging of multiple outflows in NGC 2071IR, of which the observed flows from IRS 1 and IRS 3 are but two of many.

## 5 Conclusions and Closing Comments

We have detected 269 water maser features and 30 proper motions around IRS 3 and IRS 1 in NGC 2071IR over four epochs with the VLBA. In both IR sources the maser emission appears to trace a protostellar disk and associated outflow. The disk components comprise centrally located, elongated clumps of masers, with position angles similar to those of local IR polarization and small internal proper motions. As well, the disk components lie in close proximity to peaks in the continuum emission from compact radio jets. In contrast, the outflow components are characterized by larger proper motions directed away from the putative disks. The structures of the outflows are suggestive of a one-sided conical flow (in IRS 3) and a bipolar high-speed flow surrounded by outward-facing, wide-angle cavities (in IRS 1). The limbs of the outflows may mark the interface between outflowing and rotating infalling material.

The gross similarity of structure between IRS 1 and IRS 3 indicates that they are at similar stages of development. In both IR sources, intact protostellar disks may act as reservoirs of warm dense gas that supports maser action. Consequently the inferred disks must be relatively quiescent. In both IR sources, the outflows are richly populated with water masers, which indicates there is substantial ambient or infalling high-density material broadly distributed within $`100`$ AU of the protostars. Although the extinction toward IRS 3 is larger (Walther et al., 1993), the evolution of the embedded protostar therein does not seem markedly less far along.

The detection of water maser emission tracing compact disk components (10 to 20 AU long and $`2`$ AU wide), conical outflow, and wide-angle cavities is unusual. These detections have required observations with the angular resolutions characteristic of VLBI. Disks traced by water masers on larger scales have been inferred from lower angular resolution data (Shepherd & Kurtz, 1999; Torrelles et al., 1997, 1998b), but confusion from blending of maser features is a risk in these cases, and confirmation requires higher angular resolution observations.

The water maser features in IRS 3 and IRS 1 sample the underlying dense gas incompletely, which limits our inferences. In order to solidify the interpretation renewed long baseline interferometric observations are necessary. Water maser emission in regions of low and intermediate mass star formation is highly time variable (e.g., Wilking et al., 1994; Torrelles et al., 1998a), and the accumulation of maps for many epochs, registered and superposed, will better trace the underlying dense gas structures around the protostars.

We thank T. Beasley for his assistance in adjusting the data to a common phase-center through reconstruction of the correlator model. We credit L. Chernin for his initiation of the NGC 2071IR proper motion study. This work was supported in part by the Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Studies Program and Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory R&D funds.

Captions

Figure 1–Comparison of total and imaged power for IRS 1 and IRS 3 together. (bottom) The total power spectrum for a roughly $`\pm 1^{}`$ field around NGC 2071IR (solid line) and a channel-by-channel sum of the peak flux density for each detected and fitted maser feature (dashed line) for 1996 March 24. (top) A ratio of the imaged and total power, which cannot exceed unity.

Figure 2–The distribution of water maser emission features in IRS 3 at four epochs in 1996 (see Table 1) and their proper motions. (a) All features, where color indicates Doppler velocity. Uncertainties in position are typically $`0\text{.}^{\prime \prime }001`$. Arrows indicate measured proper motions. The lengths are scaled to show the expected changes in postion after 9 years. Uncertainties in proper motion magnitude and position angle ($`1\sigma `$) are shown as tails on the arrows, where lengths indicate uncertainty in magnitude and opening angle indicates uncertainty in position angle. The uncertainties are too small to see in most cases. The black cross and filled squares indicate respectively the positions of the $`\lambda 1.3`$ cm radio continuum peak and the water masers detected by Torrelles et al. (1998) with the VLA $`4`$ months after the VLBA observations. The alignment of the VLA and VLBA maps is uncertain by $`0\text{.}^{\prime \prime }01`$, as reflected in the size of the cross. The map origin is $`2\text{.}^{\prime \prime }32`$ west and $`5\text{.}^{\prime \prime }01`$ north of the origin for maps of IRS 1 (see Figure 3). The red box indicates the region plotted on an expanded scale below. (b) An enlargement that better shows the masers associated with the putative protostellar disk and innermost portion of the proposed outflow cone. The arrows correspond to the expected change in feature postions after 1.5 years.

Figure 3–The distribution of water maser emission features in IRS 1. (a) All features, color coded to indicate Doppler velocity. The proper motion arrows show the expected change in feature positions over 9 years. The tails on the proper motions here represent 3$`\sigma `$ uncertainties. The $`\lambda 1.3`$ cm continuum peak (black cross) and maser features (colored squares) measured by Torrelles et al. (1998) with the VLA are shown with $`0\text{.}^{\prime \prime }01`$ uncertainty in alignment relative to the VLBA maps. The origin of the map is $`\alpha _{J2000}=5^h47^m04\text{.}^s7774`$, $`\delta _{J2000}=0^{}21^{}42\text{.}^{\prime \prime }803`$ with an uncertainty of $`0\text{.}^{\prime \prime }05`$ in both coordinates. The red boxes show which fields are shown in the enlargements below. (b) An enlargement that better shows the masers associated with the putative protostellar disk. The arrows correspond to the expected change in feature postions after 1.5 years. (c) The arc of maser features to the west that does not appear to participate in the high-speed outflow, despite its apparent proximity.

Figure 4–Components of our proposed models for (a) IRS 3 and (b) IRS 1.


format: text

text:
# Topological representations of matroids

## 1. Introduction

One of the foundations of oriented matroid theory is the topological representation theorem of Folkman and Lawrence . It says that an oriented (simple) matroid can be realized uniquely as an arrangement of pseudospheres. That there is no similar interpretation for the class of all matroids has been taken for granted. For instance,“A non-coordinatizable matroid of abstract origin may be thought of as a geometric object only in a purely formal way, whereas an oriented matroid may always be thought of as a geometric-topological configuration on the $`d`$-sphere (or in projective space)” \[3, pg. 19\]. Our main theorem is that the class of geometric lattices, which is cryptomorphic to the category of simple matroids, is the same as the class of intersection lattices of arrangements of homotopy spheres.

The interpretation of a geometric lattice as an arrangement of homotopy spheres is a natural generalization of the Folkman-Lawrence theorem. An oriented matroid realizable over $``$ has a representation with geodesic spheres. Allowing pseudospheres i.e., those which are homeomorphic, but possibly not isometric to the unit sphere, leads to the category of (simple) oriented matroids. If we further relax the conditions on the spheres to only homotopy equivalence to the standard sphere, then we are led to the category of all (simple) matroids.

Some of the theory of oriented matroids which only depends on the underlying matroid can be extended to homotopy sphere arrangements. Zaslavsky’s enumerative theory for pseudosphere arrangements can be extended to the homotopy setting. As in the oriented matroid representation theorem, the arrangement can be forced to be antipodal, so a realization as homotopy projective spaces is also possible. The minimal cellular resolutions of orientable matroid ideals developed in  can be extended to arbitrary matroids by using arrangements of homotopy spheres.

Our point of view is primarily through the lens of oriented matroids. Hence the homotopy spheres which represent the atoms of the geometric lattice have codimension one. In the future we hope to examine the point of view of complex hyperplane arrangements and consider spheres of even codimension.

The matroid theory we require is in section 2, while section 3 presents matroid Steiner complexes. We review a very general theory of arrangements of topological subspaces due to Ziegler and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{Z}`$ivaljević in section 4. Arrangements of homotopy spheres and the representation theorems are in sections 5 and 6 respectively. The last section extends the work of  on minimal resolutions of face ideals of independence complexes of matroids to matroid Steiner ideals.

Unlike some authors our homotopy spheres will not in general be manifolds. The rest of our notation from topology is standard. The join of two spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$ is $`XY,`$ their one-point union, or wedge sum is $`XY,`$ while $`XY`$ denotes homotopy equivalence. There are three facts from topology that we will use repeatedly without specific reference. They are immediate consequences of well known theorems of Hurewicz and Whitehead. See, for instance,  for proofs. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be CW-complex.

* If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is acyclic and simply connected, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is contractible.
* If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is simply connected and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_0(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{}=H_{i1}(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\{0\},`$ then $`H_i(\mathrm{\Gamma })\pi _i(\mathrm{\Gamma }).`$
* If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ are homotopy spheres and $`f:\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is a continuous map such that $`f_{}:H_{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })H_{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})`$ is an isomorphism, then $`f`$ is a homotopy equivalence.

## 2. Matroids

In this section we give the basic definitions and results from matroid theory that we will require. Matroid definitions and notation are as in . Geometric semilattices are covered in . The characteristic polynomial and Möbius invariant can be found in . The beta invariant was introduced by Crapo .

There are numerous cryptomorphic definitions of matroids. For us a matroid $`M`$ is a pair $`(E,),E`$ a non-empty finite set and $``$ a distinguished set of subsets of $`E.`$ The members of $``$ are called the independent subsets of $`M`$ and are required to satisfy:

* The empty set is in $`.`$
* If $`B`$ is an independent set and $`AB,`$ then $`A`$ is an independent set.
* If $`A`$ and $`B`$ are independent sets such that $`|A|<|B|,`$ then there exists an element $`xBA`$ such that $`A\{x\}`$ is independent.

Matroid theory was introduced by Whitney . The prototypical example of a matroid is a finite subset of a vector space over a field $`𝐤`$ with the canonical independent sets. Another source of matroids is graph theory. The cycle matroid of a graph is the matroid whose finite set is the edge set of the graph and whose independent sets are the acyclic subsets of edges. Most matroid terminology can be traced back to these two types of examples.

The circuits of a matroid are its minimal dependent sets. If every circuit has cardinality at least three, then the matroid is simple. A maximal independent set is called a basis, and a subset which contains a basis is a spanning subset. The maximal non-spanning subsets are the hyperplanes of $`M.`$ Every basis of $`M`$ has the same cardinality. The rank of $`M,`$ or $`r(M),`$ is that common cardinality. The deletion of $`M`$ at $`e`$ is denoted $`Me.`$ It is the matroid whose ground set is $`E\{e`$} and whose independent sets are simply those members of $``$ which do not contain $`e.`$ The contraction of $`M`$ at $`e`$ is denoted $`M/e.`$ It is a matroid whose ground set is also $`E\{e\}.`$ If $`e`$ is a dependent element of $`M`$ then $`M/e=Me.`$ Otherwise, a subset $`I`$ of $`E\{e\}`$ is independent in $`M/e`$ if and only if $`I\{e\}`$ is independent in $`M.`$ Deletion and contraction for a subset $`A`$ of $`E`$ is defined by repeatedly deleting or contracting each element of $`A.`$ The restriction of $`M`$ to $`A`$ is $`M(EA)`$ which we shorten to $`M|A`$ or frequently just $`A.`$ The rank of $`A`$ is $`r(M|A)`$ which we shorten to $`r(A).`$ Note that $`r(\mathrm{})=0.`$

The dual of $`M`$ is $`M^{}.`$ It is the matroid whose ground set is the same as $`M`$ and whose bases are the complements of the bases of $`M.`$ For example, $`U_{r,n}`$ is the matroid defined by $`E=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`=\{AE:|A|r\}.`$ So, $`U_{r,n}^{}=U_{nr,n}.`$ A circuit of $`M^{}`$ is a cocircuit of $`M.`$ The complement of a cocircuit is a hyperplane.

The free extension of $`M`$ is $`F(M).`$ It is the matroid with ground set $`\stackrel{~}{E}(M)=E(M)\{\stackrel{~}{e}\},`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{e}E(M),`$ and whose independent subsets are all $`A\stackrel{~}{E}(M)`$ such that $`|A|r(M)`$ and $`A\{\stackrel{~}{e}\}`$ is independent in $`M.`$ The free coextension of $`M`$ is $`(F(M^{}))^{}.`$

A subset of $`M`$ is closed if adding any element to the subset increases its rank. The closed subsets of $`M`$ are also called flats. Examples of flats include the hyperplanes, also called the coatoms of $`M.`$ The closed subsets of $`M`$ with their inherited rank function form a ranked partially ordered set under inclusion which we denote by $`L(M).`$ Given two flats $`X`$ and $`Y`$ in $`L(M)`$ their meet is $`XY=XY.`$ The meet of two flats is also their greatest lower bound in $`L(M).`$ The least upper bound of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ is their join, $`XY,`$ and is equal to $`XY\{e:\text{ there is a circuit }C,eC,C\{e\}XY\}.`$ When the elements of a poset are topological spaces we rely on context to clarify whether $`XY`$ is their poset join or one-point union.

###### Definition 2.1.

A finite ranked poset $`L`$ is a geometric lattice if

* $`L`$ is a lattice i.e., every pair of elements have a greatest lower bound and least upper bound. In particular $`L`$ has a least element $`\widehat{0}`$ and greatest element $`\widehat{1}.`$
* Every element of $`L`$ other than $`\widehat{0}`$ is the join of atoms of $`L.`$
* The rank function $`r`$ is semimodular, $`r(X)+r(Y)r(XY)+r(XY).`$

###### Proposition 2.2.

 If $`M`$ is matroid, then $`L(M)`$ is a geometric lattice. Conversely, suppose $`L`$ is a geometric lattice. Let $`E`$ be the atoms of $`L.`$ For any $`AE`$ let $`A`$ be the (poset) join of all the atoms in $`A.`$ Then $`=\{AE:r(A)=|A|\}`$ are the independent subsets of a matroid $`M`$ such that $`L=L(M).`$

The lower interval $`[\widehat{0},X]L(M)`$ is the geometric lattice of $`M|X.`$ An upper interval $`[X,\widehat{1}]`$ is isomorphic to the the geometric lattice of $`M/X.`$ For this reason $`[X,\widehat{1}]`$ is frequently denoted $`L/X.`$

A pointed geometric lattice is a pair $`(L,e)`$ with $`e`$ a specified atom of $`L.`$ An isomorphism of pointed geometric lattices $`\varphi :(L,e)(L^{},e^{})`$ is a lattice isomorphism such that $`\varphi (e)=e^{}.`$ When $`L=L(M)`$ we will write $`L(M,e)`$ for the geometric semilattice $`\{XL:eX\}.`$ (Geometric semilattices are called generalized affine matroids in .) Even with the addition of a maximum element $`L(M,e)`$ is usually not a geometric lattice.

Given any locally finite poset $`L`$ the Möbius function on $`L`$ is the function $`\mu :L\times L`$ which satisfies:

1. If $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are incomparable elements of $`L,`$ then $`\mu (X,Y)=0.`$
2. For any $`X`$ in $`L,\mu (X,X)=1.`$
3. For any $`X,Y`$ in $`L,X<Y,{\displaystyle \underset{XZY}{}}\mu (X,Z)=0.`$

The characteristic polynomial of a geometric lattice $`L`$ is

$$p(L;t)=\underset{XL}{}\mu (\widehat{0},X)t^{r(\widehat{1})r(X)}.$$

The beta invariant of a geometric lattice is

$$\beta (L)=(1)^r\underset{XL}{}r(X)\mu (\widehat{0},X).$$

## 3. Matroid Steiner complexes

Matroid Steiner complexes were introduced in . We follow the presentation in . Let $`M`$ be a matroid and $`eE.`$ The port of $`M`$ at $`e`$ is the set

$$𝒫=\{C\{e\}:C\text{ is a circuit of }M\}.$$

The matroid Steiner complex of $`(M,e)`$ is

$$𝒮(M,e)=\{FE\{e\}:P𝒫,PF\}.$$

Independence complexes of matroids are a subclass of matroid Steiner complexes. If $`M`$ is a matroid, then the independence complex of $`M`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(M)=\{FE:F\text{ is independent}\}.$$

Given a matroid $`M`$ let $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be the free coextension of $`M`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ the extra point. Then $`𝒮(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{e})=\mathrm{\Delta }(M).`$

###### Theorem 3.1.

 Let $`eE,M`$ a rank $`r`$ matroid. Then

$$𝒮(M,e)\underset{i=1}{\overset{\beta (M)}{}}S^{r2}.$$

Note that if $`\beta (M)`$ is zero, then $`𝒮(M,e)`$ is contractible.

## 4. Arrangements of subspaces

The theory of arrangements of subspaces of a topological space as presented in  will play a large part in our theory. Here we present a CW-version of this theory.

Let $`𝒜=\{A_1,\mathrm{},A_m\}`$ be a set of distinct subcomplexes of a finite CW-complex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ Assume that $`𝒜`$ is closed under intersections. Let $`P`$ be the poset $`(𝒜,)`$ where $`A_iA_j`$ if and only if $`A_jA_i.`$ For any $`pP,\mathrm{\Delta }(P_{<p})`$ is the order complex of the poset $`P_{<p}=\{qP:q<p\}.`$

###### Theorem 4.1.

 Let $`𝒱=_{i=1}^mA_i.`$ Suppose that for every $`A_j<A_i,`$ the inclusion map $`A_iA_j`$ is null-homotopic. Also assume that if $`A_j`$ has multiple components, then all non-empty images $`A_iA_j`$ are contained in the same component. Then

(1)
$$𝒱\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(\mathrm{\Delta }(P_{p<A_i})A_i).$$

Note that $`X\mathrm{}=X.`$

## 5. Arrangements of homotopy spheres

A homotopy $`d`$-sphere is a $`d`$-dimensional CW-complex which is homotopy equivalent to $`S^d.`$ It is convenient to let the empty set be a homotopy $`(1)`$-sphere.

###### Definition 5.1.

A $`d`$-arrangement of homotopy spheres  consists of a $`d`$-dimensional homotopy sphere $`S`$ and a finite set of subcomplexes $`𝒜=\{S_1,\mathrm{},S_n\}`$ of $`S`$ each of which is a homotopy $`(d1)`$-sphere. In addition,

1. Every intersection of homotopy spheres in $`𝒜`$ is a homotopy sphere.
2. If $`X`$ is an intersection in $`𝒜`$ which is a $`d^{}`$-dimensional homotopy sphere and $`XS_j,`$ then $`XS_j`$ is a $`(d^{}1)`$-dimensional homotopy sphere.

Arrangements of homotopy spheres are a natural generalization of the arrangements of pseudospheres associated with oriented matroids. Many notions from pseudosphere arrangements can be carried over to the homotopy sphere case. The link of $`𝒜`$ is $`𝒱=_{j=1}^nS_j.`$ If $`X`$ is a non-empty intersection in $`𝒜,`$ the contraction of $`𝒜`$ to $`X`$ is $`𝒜/X.`$ It is the $`(dimX)`$-arrangement of homotopy spheres defined by letting $`X`$ be the ambient homotopy sphere and setting $`𝒜/X`$ equal to the collection of intersections $`XS_j,XS_j.`$ The deletion $`𝒜S_j`$ is the arrangement $`\{S_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{S}_j,\mathrm{},S_n\}.`$ We call $`𝒜`$ essential if $`_{j=1}^nS_j=\mathrm{}.`$ As in the oriented matroid case, the intersection lattice of $`𝒜`$ plays a key role.

###### Definition 5.2.

Let $`𝒜`$ be an arrangement of homotopy spheres. The intersection lattice of $`𝒜`$ is the poset $`L(𝒜)`$ of intersections of elements of $`𝒜`$ ordered by reverse inclusion. By convention, $`SL(𝒜)`$ as the empty intersection.

As usual, $`L(𝒜)/S_jL(𝒜/S_j).`$ We omit the elementary proof of the following.

###### Proposition 5.3.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a $`d`$-arrangement of homotopy spheres. Then $`L(𝒜)`$ is a geometric lattice with rank function $`r(X)=ddimX.`$ If $`𝒜`$ is essential, then the rank of $`L(𝒜)`$ is $`d+1.`$

In section 6 we will prove the converse: every rank $`d+1`$ geometric lattice is isomorphic to $`L(𝒜)`$ for some essential $`d`$-arrangement of homotopy spheres. As with their pseudosphere counterparts, the homotopy type of the link of $`𝒜`$ only depends on $`L(𝒜).`$

###### Proposition 5.4.

If $`𝒜`$ is a $`d`$-arrangement of homotopy spheres, then

$$𝒱\underset{i=1}{\overset{|p(L(𝒜);1)|1}{}}S^{d1}.$$

###### Proof.

We apply 4.1 to all of the subcomplexes in $`L(𝒜)`$ other than $`S.`$ So let $`XL(𝒜),XS`$ and let $`r(X)`$ be the rank of $`X`$ in $`L(𝒜).`$ Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(L(𝒜)_{Y<X})`$ is the order complex of the geometric lattice $`[S,X]L(𝒜).`$ Hence ,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(L(𝒜)_{Y<X})\underset{i=1}{\overset{|\mu (S,X)|}{}}S^{r(X)2}.$$

Since $`XS^{dr(X)}`$ Theorem 4.1 implies

$$𝒱\underset{X>S}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{|\mu (S,X)|}{}}S^{dr(X)}S^{r(X)2}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{|p(L(𝒜);1)|1}{}}S^{d1}.$$

In contrast to pseudosphere arrangements, an arrangement of homotopy spheres may not have a “natural” cell structure. However, if $`S`$ does have a CW-structure which is related to $`𝒜,`$ then many of the enumerative invariants which describe the cell decomposition of a pseudosphere arrangement still hold in this more general situation.

###### Example 5.5.

In figure 1 both $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$ are essential 1-arrangements of homotopy spheres with intersection lattice isomorphic to the three-point line. Only $`𝒜_1`$ has the same number of cells in each dimension as an essential pseudosphere arrangement with the same intersection lattice.

###### Definition 5.6.

An arrangement of homotopy spheres is partitioned if the $`(d1)`$-skeleton of $`S`$ is contained in $`𝒱.`$ If every contraction of $`𝒜`$ is partitioned, then $`𝒜`$ is fully partitioned.

The CW-structure induced by a pseudosphere arrangement is always fully partitioned. Neither the contraction nor the deletion of a partitioned arrangement need be partitioned. For instance, $`𝒜_2`$ in Figure 1 is the deletion of a partitioned homotopy sphere arrangement with the intersection lattice of the 4-point line.

###### Proposition 5.7.

If $`𝒜`$ is a partitioned $`d`$-arrangement of homotopy spheres, then $`S`$ has $`|p(L(𝒜);1)|d`$-dimensional cells.

###### Proof.

The proof is virtually identical to the corresponding statements in . For each cell $`c`$ in $`S`$ let $`\psi (c)=\mathrm{max}\{XL(𝒜):cX\}.`$ For $`XL(𝒜)`$ define

$$\tau (X)=\underset{c\psi ^1(X)}{}(1)^{dimc}.$$

Note that we consider the empty set to be a cell of dimension minus one. Then, since each $`X`$ is a homotopy $`(dr(X))`$-sphere,

$$\underset{YX}{}\tau (Y)=\chi (X)1=(1)^{dr(X)}.$$

Möbius inversion implies that,

$$\tau (X)=\underset{YX}{}\mu (X,Y)(1)^{dr(X)}.$$

Since $`𝒜`$ is partitioned, $`\tau (S)`$ is $`(1)^d`$ times the number of $`d`$-dimensional cells. ∎

###### Corollary 5.8.

If every contraction $`𝒜/X,r(X)i,`$ is partitioned, then the number of $`(di)`$-dimensional cells is

$$\underset{\stackrel{r\left(X\right)=i}{XY}}{}|\mu (X,Y)|.$$

###### Proof.

Under these conditions each $`(di)`$-cell is in exactly one rank-$`i`$ flat and $`\tau (X)`$ is $`(1)^{dr(X)}`$ times the number of $`(di)`$-cells in $`X.`$

Unlike pseudosphere arrangements, $`SS_j`$ need not consist of two contractible components. Yet, under certain conditions, it is possible to recover Zaslavsky’s enumerative results for the complex of bounded cells in a pseudosphere arrangement.

###### Definition 5.9.

An essential arrangement of homotopy spheres $`𝒜`$ is regular with respect to $`S_j𝒜`$ if:

* For every $`XL(𝒜)`$ with $`XS_j,`$ the subcomplex of $`X`$ generated by the vertices in $`XS_j`$ consists of two contractible components.
* For every coatom $`Y>X`$ such that $`XS_j`$ the two vertices of $`Y`$ are in different components of $`XS_j.`$

When $`𝒜`$ is regular with respect to $`S_j`$ a bounded subcomplex of $`(𝒜,S_j)`$ is one of the two components of the subcomplex generated by the vertices in $`SS_j.`$ In this situation we define,

$$L(𝒜,S_j)=\{XL(𝒜):XS_j\}.$$

###### Proposition 5.10.

Suppose $`𝒜`$ is a partitioned $`d`$-arrangement of homotopy spheres which is regular with respect to $`S_j.`$ Then the number of $`d`$-cells of a bounded subcomplex of $`(𝒜,S_j)`$ is

(2)
$$|\underset{XL(𝒜,S_j)}{}\mu (S,X)|=\beta (L(𝒜)).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`B`$ be a bounded subcomplex of $`(𝒜,S_j).`$ For each $`X`$ in $`L(𝒜,S_j)`$ let $`X_B=BX.`$ For each cell $`cB,`$ define $`\psi (c)`$ to be the maximal $`XL(𝒜,S_j)`$ such that $`cX_B.`$ Define

$$\tau (X)=\underset{\stackrel{c\psi ^1\left(X\right)}{c\mathrm{}}}{}(1)^{dimc}.$$

Since each $`X_B`$ is contractible its Euler characteristic is one. Therefore, for any $`XL(𝒜,S_j)`$

$$\underset{\stackrel{YX}{YL(𝒜,S_j)}}{}\tau (Y)=1.$$

Möbius inversion and the fact that $`\tau (S)`$ is $`(1)^d`$ times the number of $`d`$-cells in $`B`$ imply that the number of $`d`$-cells is the left-hand side of (2). That this equals $`\beta (L(𝒜))`$ is \[16, pg. 77\]. ∎

###### Corollary 5.11.

If $`𝒜`$ is a fully partitioned $`d`$-arrangement of homotopy spheres which is regular with respect to $`S_j,`$ then the number of $`(di)`$-cells in a bounded subcomplex of $`S`$ is

$$|\underset{\stackrel{YL(𝒜,S_j)}{r(X)=i}}{}\mu (X,Y)|$$

As is evident from the proofs, the enumerative results in this section only depend on the Euler characteristic of spheres and contractible spaces. Hence these results would apply to arrangements of any spaces with the same Euler characteristics. This idea is explored in much greater generality in .

Not every invariant which only depends on the underlying matroid carries over from pseudosphere arrangements to homotopy sphere arrangements. The flag $`f`$-vector of a pseudosphere arrangement only depends on the intersection lattice . However, as the following example shows, this is not true for homotopy sphere arrangements even if the arrangement is fully partitioned and a combinatorial CW-complex.

###### Example 5.12.

Figure 2 shows the 1-skeleton of the upper hemisphere for a homotopy 2-arrangement of the Boolean algebra with three atoms. If we attach four interior triangles and glue a copy of this 2-complex along the outside boundary, then the resulting arrangement has twenty-four $`0`$-cell $`2`$-cell incidences. Alternatively, we could attach one square along the outside boundary and three interior triangles and then glue a copy of this complex along the outside boundary. Now there are twenty-six $`0`$-cell $`2`$-cell incidences.

## 6. The representation theorem

###### Theorem 6.1.

Let $`(L,e)`$ be a rank $`r`$ pointed geometric lattice. There exists a fully partitioned essential $`(r1)`$-arrangement of homotopy spheres $`𝒜`$ which is regular with respect to $`S_1`$ such that $`(L,e)`$ and $`(L(𝒜),S_1)`$ are isomorphic as pointed lattices. Furthermore, the arrangement can be constructed so that there exists a fixed-point free involution of $`S`$ which preserves $`𝒜.`$

###### Proof.

The proof is by induction on $`r.`$ It will be evident from the construction that $`(𝒜,S_1)`$ has the following additional property. Let $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_m`$ be the coatoms of $`L,`$ and let $`\{x_1,y_1\},\mathrm{},\{x_m,y_m\}`$ be the corresponding zero-spheres in $`𝒜.`$ Then the map which takes $`XL`$ to the subcomplex induced by the vertices $`\{x_i,y_i:Xa_i\}`$ is a lattice isomorphism.

We begin with $`r=2.`$ While simply putting pairs of antipodal points around a circle satisfies the theorem, we prefer to give a procedure which produces all possible arrangements which satisfy the theorem as it is indicative of what happens in higher ranks. Since $`L`$ is rank two it consists of $`\widehat{0},\widehat{1}`$ and coatoms (=atoms) $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_m\},`$ where $`a_1=e.`$ So $`S`$ has $`2m`$ vertices which we label $`x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m`$ where the pair $`\{x_i,y_i\}`$ corresponds to the atom $`a_i.`$ Choose any spanning tree $`D_b`$ of $`\{x_2,\mathrm{},x_m\}`$ and extend it to a spanning tree $`D`$ of $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_1\}.`$ Let $`D^{}`$ be the mirror image of $`D`$ with $`\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_m,x_1\}`$ replacing $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_1\}.`$ Finally, let $`S`$ be $`DD^{}.`$ Now, $`S`$ deformation retracts to the circle formed by the unique path from $`x_1`$ to $`y_1`$ in $`D`$ concatenated with the unique path from $`y_1`$ to $`x_1`$ in $`D^{}.`$ In addition, $`𝒜=\{\{x_1,y_1\},\mathrm{},\{x_m,y_m\}\}`$ is a 1-arrangement of homotopy zero-spheres which satisfies the theorem, where the involution is the one induced by switching $`x_i`$ and $`y_i.`$ We also note that any arrangement which satisfies the theorem must be of this form. Figure 3 shows all three stages of this construction for the five-point line.

Now suppose the rank of $`L`$ is three. Let $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_m`$ be the coatoms of $`L`$ and let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ be the atoms of $`L`$ with $`e_1=e.`$ As above, we choose vertices $`x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m`$ with the pair $`\{x_i,y_i\}`$ corresponding to $`a_i.`$ The interval $`[e_1,\widehat{1}]`$ in $`L`$ is a rank 2 geometric lattice. Therefore, we can use the construction above to obtain an arrangement of zero spheres on a homotopy 1-sphere $`S_1`$ which satisfies the theorem and represents $`[e_1,\widehat{1}]`$ with vertices consisting of all the $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ such that $`e_1<a_i.`$

Let $`e_j`$ be another atom of $`L.`$ Let $`W_j=\{x_i:e_j<a_i\}\{y_i:a_i=e_1e_j\}.`$ As above we choose a spanning tree $`V_j`$ on $`W_j`$ which is also a spanning tree on the vertices of $`W_j`$ which do not represent $`e_1e_j.`$ Let $`𝒱`$ be the union of $`S_1`$ and all the $`V_j.`$ Let $`𝒱_b`$ be the subcomplex of $`𝒱`$ generated by all vertices representing $`\{a_i:e_1a_i.\}`$ Since $`𝒱_b`$ is a connected graph, we can attach $`2`$-cells so that the resulting space, which we call $`D_b,`$ is contractible. The CW-complex $`𝒱D_b`$ is homotopy equivalent to a connected graph, so we can attach 2-cells to it so that the resulting space is contractible. Call this two-dimensional CW-complex $`D.`$ Note that none of the 2-cells attached to $`𝒱D_b`$ have their boundary completely contained in $`D_b.`$ Otherwise $`D`$ would not be acyclic. Let $`D^{}`$ be the mirror image of $`D`$ obtained by switching the roles of $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ and let $`S`$ be the union of $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ glued along $`S_1.`$ The intersection $`DD^{}=S_1,`$ so $`S`$ is a homotopy $`2`$-sphere. For each $`i,1in,`$ let $`S_i`$ be the subcomplex of $`S`$ induced by the all vertices $`x_j,y_j`$ such that $`e_i<a_j.`$ By construction each $`S_i`$ is a homotopy one-sphere and the arrangement $`𝒜=\{S_1,\mathrm{},S_n\}`$ satisfies the theorem.

###### Example 6.2.

Figure 4 shows one possible way of constructing $`𝒱`$ for $`(L,1)`$ where $`L`$ is the Fano plane as pictured. The 1-cells which will be used to form $`S_1,S_2`$ and $`S_3`$ are also labeled. The subcomplex induced by $`\{D,E,F,G\}`$ is $`𝒱_b`$ and is the 1-skeleton of a tetrahedron. Attaching triangles $`EFG,DEF`$ and $`DFG`$ is one of infinitely many ways to construct $`𝒱D_b.`$

For the induction step, assume the rank of $`L`$ is greater than three. As above, let $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_m`$ be the coatoms of $`L`$ and let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ be the atoms of $`L`$ with $`e_1=e.`$ In addition, let $`x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_m,y_m`$ be vertices with the pair $`\{x_i,y_i\}`$ corresponding to $`a_i.`$ The interval $`L_1=[e_1,\widehat{1}]`$ in $`L`$ is a rank $`r1`$ geometric lattice. Using the inductive algorithm we construct an arrangement $`𝒜_1`$ of homotopy $`(r2)`$-spheres which satisfy the theorem for $`(L_1,e^{}),`$ where $`e^{}`$ is any atom of $`L_1.`$

Now consider the codimension-2 flats of $`L.`$ Those which contain $`e_1`$ are already represented in $`𝒜_1.`$ For any other codimension-2 flat $`X,`$ we construct a spanning tree $`V_X`$ on $`W_X=\{x_i:X<a_i\}\{y_i:a_i=Xe_1\}`$ which is also a spanning tree on the vertices of $`W_X`$ which do not represent $`Xe_1.`$

Proceeding inductively on the corank, for each corank-$`k`$ flat $`X\widehat{0},e_1X`$ we construct a contractible space $`V_X`$ on the vertices $`W_X=\{x_i:X<a_i\}\{y_i:Xe_1a_i\}`$ by adding only $`(k1)`$-dimensional cells to the complex determined by flats of lower corank. In addition, we make sure that the subcomplex of $`V_X`$ generated by the vertices $`\{x_i:e_1a_i\}`$ is also contractible. Flats which lie above $`e_1`$ are already represented in $`S_1`$

Let $`𝒱=_{X\widehat{0}}V_X`$ and let $`𝒱_b`$ be the subcomplex of $`𝒱`$ determined by the vertices whose corresponding coatoms do not lie above $`e_1.`$ Consider the covering of $`𝒱_b`$ by the subcomplexes $`U_j=V_{e_j}𝒱_b,2j.`$ By construction, all non-void intersections of the members of the cover are contractible so the classical nerve theorem applies. Since a collection of the $`U_j`$ have void intersection if and only if the poset join of the corresponding atoms contains $`e_1,𝒱_b`$ is homotopy equivalent to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(L,e)=\{F\{e_2,\mathrm{},e_m\}:e_1F\}$$

This complex is just the matroid Steiner complex $`𝒮(M,e)`$ where $`M`$ is the matroid associated to $`L`$ as described in Proposition 2.2. Hence, by Theorem 3.1 it has the homotopy type of a wedge of $`\beta (L)`$ spheres of dimension $`(r2).`$ Now we attach $`\beta (L)`$ cells of dimension $`r1`$ to $`𝒱_b`$ in any way which kills $`H_{r2}(𝒱_b)`$ and call this space $`D_b.`$ Since $`D_b`$ is acyclic and simply connected it is contractible.

Now consider the cover of $`𝒱`$ with the subcomplexes $`V_{e_j}`$ and $`S_1.`$ Apply Theorem 4.1 to the arrangement of subcomplexes consisting of this cover and all of its intersections. Call this arrangement $`.`$ For $`B`$ define $`\varphi (B)`$ to be the flat in $`L`$ which is the intersection of all of the hyperplanes whose corresponding vertices are incident to $`B.`$ Then $`\varphi `$ is a lattice isomorphism from $``$ to $`L.`$ The elements of $``$ are of two types. If $`e_1\varphi (B),`$ then $`B`$ is contractible. Otherwise, if $`e_1\varphi (B),`$ then $`B`$ is a homotopy $`rr(\varphi (B))`$-sphere. As $`\mathrm{\Delta }(_{<B})\mathrm{\Delta }(L_{<\varphi (B)}),`$ every non-contractible term of (1) is a wedge of $`(r2)`$-spheres.

Since $`D_b`$ is contractible and $`D_bD_b𝒱`$ is a cofibration, the reduced homology of $`D_b𝒱`$ is the same as the homology of the pair $`(𝒱,𝒱_b).`$ As $`𝒱`$ is an (r-2)-dimensional CW-complex $`H_{r2}(𝒱,𝒱_b)`$ is torsion-free. This plus the long exact sequence of the pair implies that $`(𝒱,𝒱_b)`$, and hence $`D_b𝒱,`$ has the homology of a wedge of $`(r2)`$-spheres. Let $`D`$ be any $`(r1)`$-dimensional CW-complex obtained by gluing $`(r1)`$-dimensional cells to $`D_b𝒱`$ so that the resulting space is acyclic. As before, none of these cells have their boundary contained in $`D_b.`$ Since $`𝒱`$ is simply connected $`D`$ is simply connected, and hence contractible. Let $`D^{}`$ be the mirror image of $`D`$ induced by switching $`x_i`$ with $`y_i.`$ Finally, let $`S=DD^{}`$ glued along $`S_1.`$ Since $`S`$ is the union of two contractible spaces whose intersection is a homotopy $`(r2)`$-sphere, $`S`$ is a homotopy $`(r1)`$-sphere. Similar reasoning shows that for each flat $`XL`$ the subcomplex of $`S`$ generated by the vertices corresponding to the hyperplanes above $`X`$ in $`L`$ is a homotopy $`(rr(X))`$-sphere and the intersection lattice of the arrangement of homotopy spheres determined by the atoms of $`L`$ is isomorphic to $`L.`$ The involution induced by switching $`x_i`$ and $`y_i`$ for each $`i`$ is fixed-point free and preserves the arrangement. The construction insures that this arrangement is fully partitioned and is also regular with respect to $`S_1.`$

###### Remark 6.3.

The involution means that we can also develop a theory of homotopy projective space arrangements.

###### Definition 6.4.

Let $`𝒜=\{S_1,\mathrm{},S_n\}`$ and $`=\{T_1,\mathrm{},T_n\}`$ be $`d`$-arrangements of homotopy spheres. Then $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are homotopy equivalent arrangements if there exists a lattice isomorphism $`\varphi :L(𝒜)L()`$ and homotopy equivalences $`f:ST,g:TS`$ such that:

1. For each $`XL(𝒜),f(X)\varphi (X),`$ and $`f:X\varphi (X)`$ is a homotopy equivalence.
2. For each $`YL(),g(Y)\varphi ^1(Y)`$ and $`g:Y\varphi ^1(Y)`$ is a homotopy equivalence.

###### Theorem 6.5 (Uniqueness).

Let $`𝒜,`$ be essential $`d`$-arrangements of homotopy spheres such that $`L(𝒜)L().`$ Then $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are homotopy equivalent arrangements.

###### Proof.

Let $`\varphi :L(𝒜)L()`$ be a lattice isomorphism. For every cell of $`S`$ define $`\psi (c)`$ to be $`\mathrm{max}\{XL(𝒜):cX\}.`$ By symmetry it is sufficient to construct $`f`$ in the above definition. We will build up $`f`$ by defining maps $`f_i`$ on the $`i`$-skeletons of $`S`$ inductively which satisfy the following properties:

* The restriction of $`f_{i+1}`$ to the $`i`$-skeleton is $`f_i.`$
* For each corank-$`(i+1)`$ flat $`XL(𝒜),f_i:X\varphi (X)`$ is a homotopy equivalence.
* If $`dimci,`$ then $`f_i(c)\varphi (\psi (c)).`$

Since the arrangements are essential the coatoms are all homeomorphic to two disjoint points. Choose a homeomorphism $`h`$ of the union of the coatoms of $`𝒜`$ to the coatoms of $``$ which preserves $`\varphi .`$ Now extend $`h`$ to $`f_0`$ by arbitrarily choosing any image point in $`\varphi (\psi (v))`$ for any vertex $`v`$ which is not in a coatom of $`𝒜.`$

Now assume that $`f_{i1}`$ has been defined. Let $`X`$ be a corank $`(i+1)`$-flat of $`L(𝒜).`$ Since $`𝒜`$ is essential, $`X`$ is a homotopy $`i`$-sphere. Let $`c`$ be an $`i`$-cell of $`X.`$ The definition of $`f_{i1}`$ insures that $`f_{i1}((c))\varphi (X).`$ As $`\varphi (X)`$ is also a homotopy $`i`$-sphere, there is a map $`f_c:\overline{c}\varphi (X)`$ such that $`f_c`$ equals $`f_{i1}`$ when restricted to $`(c).`$ Putting all of these maps together gives a map $`f_X:X\varphi (X).`$ The induced map in homology, $`(f_X)_{}:H_i(X)H_i(\varphi (X)),`$ is multiplication by $`n_X`$ after choosing generators for the respective homology groups. If $`n_X=\pm 1,`$ then $`f_X`$ is a homotopy equivalence. If not, choose any $`i`$-cell $`c`$ in $`X`$ and redefine $`f_c`$ as follows. Let $`\alpha :(D^i,S^{i1})X`$ be the attaching map for $`c.`$ Let $`D^i(1/2)`$ be the closed ball of radius one-half and let $`S^{i1}(1/2)=D^i(1/2).`$ Replace $`f_c`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{f}_c`$ which satisfies:

* $`\stackrel{~}{f}_c`$ restricted to $`S^{i1}(1/2)`$ is constant and equal to $`f_c(0).`$ The induced map $`(\stackrel{~}{f}_c)_{}:H_i(D^i(1/2),S^{i1}(1/2))H_i(\varphi (X))`$ is multiplication by $`1n_X`$ with respect to the appropriate generators.
* $`\stackrel{~}{f}_c(𝐱)=f_c((2|𝐱|1)𝐱)`$ for $`|𝐱|1/2.`$

The new $`f_X`$ induces an isomorphism on homology and hence is a homotopy equivalence. If an $`i`$-cell $`c`$ is not contained in any corank-$`(i+1)`$ flat, then $`\psi (c)`$ is at least $`i`$ connected, so we define an arbitrary map $`f_c:c\varphi (\psi (c))`$ which equals $`f_{i1}`$ on $`c.`$ Putting all of the $`f_c`$ together gives the required map $`f_i.`$

## 7. Minimal cellular resolutions of matroid Steiner ideals

One approach to finding syzygies of monomial ideals is through minimal cellular resolutions. The following presentation of minimal cellular resolutions is taken from . Let $`𝐤`$ be a field and let $`I`$ be the monomial ideal $`<m_1,\mathrm{},m_s>`$ in the polynomial ring $`𝐤[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ which we denote by $`𝐤[𝐱].`$ Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a CW-complex with $`s`$ vertices $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_s`$ which are labeled with the monomials $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_s.`$ Write $`cc^{}`$ whenever a cell $`c^{}`$ belongs to the closure of another cell $`c.`$ Label each cell $`c`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with the monomial $`m_c=\mathrm{lcm}\{m_i:v_ic\},`$ the least common multiple of the monomials labeling the vertices of $`c.`$ Set $`m_{\mathrm{}}=1`$ for the empty cell of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ The principal ideal $`<m_c>`$ is identified with the free $`^n`$-graded $`𝐤[𝐱]`$-module of rank 1 with generator in degree $`\mathrm{deg}m_c.`$ For a pair of cells $`cc^{},`$ let $`p_c^c^{}:<m_c><m_c^{}>`$ be the inclusion map of ideals. It is a degree-preserving homomorphism of $`^n`$-graded modules.

Fix an orientation of each cell in $`\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ and define the cellular complex $`C_{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },I)`$

$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{_3}{}C_2\stackrel{_2}{}C_1\stackrel{_1}{}C_0\stackrel{_0}{}C_1=𝐤[𝐱]$$

as follows. The $`^n`$-graded $`𝐤[𝐱]`$-module of $`i`$-chains is

$$C_i=\underset{c:dimc=i}{}<m_c>,$$

where the direct sum is over all $`i`$-dimensional cells $`c`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ The differential $`_i:C_iC_{i1}`$ is defined on the component $`<m_c>`$ as the weighted sum of the maps $`p_c^c^{}:`$

$$_i=\underset{\stackrel{c^{}c}{dimc^{}=i1}}{}[c:c^{}]p_c^c^{},$$

where $`[c:c^{}]`$ is the incidence coefficient of the oriented cells $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ in the usual topological sense. The differential $`_i`$ preserves the $`^n`$-grading of $`𝐤[𝐱]`$-modules. Note that if $`m_1=\mathrm{}=m_s=1,`$ then $`C_{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },I)`$ is the usual chain complex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ over $`𝐤[𝐱].`$ For any monomial $`m𝐤[𝐱],`$ define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ to be the subcomplex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consisting of all cells $`c`$ whose label $`m_c`$ divides $`m.`$ We call any such $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ an $`I`$-essential subcomplex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$

###### Proposition 7.1.

\[1, Proposition 1.2\] The cellular complex $`C_{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },I)`$ is exact if and only if every $`I`$-essential subcomplex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is acyclic over $`𝐤.`$ Moreover, if $`m_cm_c^{}`$ for any $`c>c^{},`$ then $`C_{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },I)`$ gives a minimal free resolution of $`I.`$

If both of the conditions of the above proposition are met then we call $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ an $`I`$-complex and $`C_{}(\mathrm{\Gamma },I)`$ a minimal cellular resolution of $`I.`$ Recall that $`\beta _i(I)`$ is the $`𝐤`$-dimension of the $`i^{th}`$ free module in a minimal free resolution of $`I.`$ When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an $`I`$-complex the number of $`i`$-dimensional cells in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is $`\beta _i(I).`$

Given an abstract simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with vertices $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ the face ideal of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`𝐤[𝐱]`$ is

$$I_\mathrm{\Delta }=<\{x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_s}:\{v_{i_1},\mathrm{},v_{i_s}\}\mathrm{\Delta }\}>.$$

When $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a matroid Steiner complex we call $`I_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ a matroid Steiner ideal. As pointed out it section 3.1 independence complexes of matroids are a special subclass of matroid Steiner complexes. The problem of finding minimal resolutions of $`I_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ when $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the independence complex of a matroid $`M`$ was examined in . When $`M`$ is an orientable matroid Novik et al. showed that the bounded subcomplex of any pseudosphere arrangement which realizes $`M^{}`$ extended by a free point is an $`I_\mathrm{\Delta }`$-complex.

Let $`I`$ be a matroid Steiner ideal. The topological representation theorem allows a complete description of all possible equivalence classes of complexes which are $`I`$-complexes for every field $`𝐤.`$ Two $`I`$-complexes are equivalent if they have the same cellular resolution (up to orientation). Acyclic 2-complexes which are not simply connected show that it is possible for two equivalent $`I`$-complexes to be homotopy inequivalent.

###### Theorem 7.2.

Let $`I=I_{𝒮(M,e)}`$ be a matroid Steiner ideal. Let $`(𝒜,S_1),`$ be a fully partitioned arrangement of homotopy spheres which is regular with respect to $`S_1`$ such that $`(L(𝒜),S_1)(L(M^{}),e).`$ Then a bounded subcomplex of $`(𝒜,S_1)`$ is an $`I`$-complex. Conversely, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an $`I`$-complex over every field $`k,`$ then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is such a complex.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a bounded subcomplex of $`L(𝒜,S_1)`$ and let $`\varphi `$ be a pointed lattice isomorphism from $`(L(𝒜),S_1)`$ to $`(L(M^{}),e).`$ For notational simplicity we assme that $`E=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}=[n]`$ and $`e=1.`$ As usual, for each cell $`c`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ let $`\psi (c)=\mathrm{max}\{X𝒜:cX\}.`$ Since $`𝒜`$ is essential $`\psi (c)`$ is the meet of the coatoms of $`L(𝒜)`$ which correspond to the vertices of $`c.`$ If $`v`$ is a vertex in $`\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ then $`\varphi (v)`$ is a coatom of $`L(M^{})`$ which does not contain $`e.`$ Similarly, for each cell $`c`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma },\varphi (\psi (c))`$ is a flat of $`L(M^{})`$ which does not contain $`e.`$ Label each cell $`c`$ with $`m_c,`$ the square-free monomial whose support is $`([n]\varphi (\psi (c)))\{1\}.`$ Matroid duality implies that the support of $`m_c`$ is the union of the circuits of $`M`$ which are the complements of the coatoms corresponding to the vertices incident to $`c.`$ Thus each cell of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is labeled with $`\mathrm{lcm}\{m_i:v_ic\}.`$ As the rank of any flat $`X`$ of $`L(𝒜)`$ is equal to $`ddim(X),\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfies $`m_cm_c^{}`$ whenever $`c>c^{}.`$ Applying matroid duality again, we see that every $`I`$-essential subcomplex is of the form $`\varphi ^1(X)\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ where $`XL(M^{},e).`$ The regularity of $`𝒜`$ with respect to $`S_1`$ guarantees that every $`I`$-essential subcomplex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is contractible, and hence acyclic.

For the converse, assume that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an $`I`$-complex over every field $`k.`$ Then each $`I`$-essential subcomplex of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is acyclic over $`.`$ Relabel each cell $`c`$ with the complement in $`[n]\{1\}`$ of the support of $`m_c`$ i.e., the flat of $`M^{}`$ which does not contain $`e`$ and corresponds by matroid duality to $`\mathrm{lcm}_{vc}m_v.`$ The zero-skeleton of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the same as the zero-skeleton of any bounded subcomplex of $`(𝒜,S_1)`$ where $`𝒜`$ is an essential arrangement of homotopy spheres which is regular with respect to $`S_1`$ and $`(L(𝒜),S_1)(L(M^{}),e).`$ As noted above, all $`I`$-essential subcomplexes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consist of cells whose labels contain a fixed $`XL(M^{},e).`$ Proceeding inductively on the corank of all the flats in $`L(M^{},e)`$ we see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must be equivalent to one constructed in exactly the same fashion as the procedure in the representation theorem for constructing $`D_b`$ for $`L(M^{},e).`$ So, $`D_b`$ and the simultaneously constructed $`(𝒜,S_1)`$ are the required complexes.

###### Corollary 7.3.

Let $`I=I_{𝒮(M,e)}`$ be a matroid Steiner ideal. Then

$$\beta _i(I)=|\underset{\stackrel{r\left(X\right)=nri}{eY}}{}\mu _{L(M^{})}(X,Y)|$$

###### Proof.

Theorem 7.2 and Corollary 5.11

When $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }(M)`$ is the independence complex of a matroid, Corollary 7.3 recovers Stanley’s formula

$$\beta _i(I_\mathrm{\Delta })=|\underset{r(X)=nri}{}\mu _{L(M^{})}(X,\widehat{1})|.$$

In this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=𝒮(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{e}),`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is the free coextension of $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ is the extra point. The poset of flats of $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ which do not lie above $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ is $`L(M^{})`$ with $`\widehat{1}`$ removed. So,

$$\mu _{L(M^{})}(X,\widehat{1})=\underset{\stackrel{YL\left(\stackrel{~}{M}^{}\right)}{\stackrel{~}{e}Y}}{}\mu _{L(\stackrel{~}{M}^{})}(X,Y).$$

The method developed by Novik et al. to construct minimal resolutions for face ideals of independence complexes of matroids can be applied to matroid Steiner ideals. Instead of applying \[10, Corollary 3.10\] to the order dual of $`L(M^{}),`$ we can use the order dual of $`\widehat{L}(M^{},e)=L(M^{},e)\{\widehat{1}\}.`$ The only non-trivial point is that every upper interval of $`\widehat{L}(M^{},e)`$ is Cohen-Macaulay. This follows from the fact that for any $`X\widehat{L}(M^{},e)`$ the upper interval $`[X,\widehat{1}]`$ is isomorphic to $`\widehat{L}(M^{}/X,e)`$ and every geometric semilattice is shellable and hence Cohen-Macaulay .

Equivalence classes of CW-complexes which are $`I`$-complexes over every field can also be parameterized algebraically. Following the notation of \[10, pg. 299\], view the complex $`𝒵(P)`$ as a complex over $`.`$ Use $`P`$ equal to the order dual of $`\widehat{L}(M^{},e).`$ By Theorem 7.2 equivalence classes of such $`I`$-complexes come from all the possible $`D_b`$ constructed in the representation theorem for $`(L(M^{}),e).`$ Every $`D_b`$ corresponds to choosing bases for $`H_{}(𝒱_X)`$ for each $`XL(M^{},e).`$ Working backwards from $`Z_1`$ and using the fact that $`\varphi `$ is an injection when restricted to each direct sum component, this is equivalent to choosing a $``$-basis for every direct sum component which occurs in $`𝒵(P).`$ The only restriction to these bases is that the image under $`\varphi `$ of any basis of a component in $`_{rk(F)=2}Z_0(\mathrm{\Delta }(F))`$ must be the difference of exactly two basis elements of $`_{rk(F)=1}Z_1(\mathrm{\Delta }(F)).`$ This is a reflection of the fact that the boundary of any one-cell is always the difference of two zero-cells.

Acknowledgements: Bernd Sturmfels suggested the problem of determining all $`I`$-complexes when $`I`$ is the face ideal of the independence complex of a matroid. Louis Billera and Tom Zaslavsky helped clear up several points in the exposition and the latter also pointed out the relevance of .