Double, Über and poset homology

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.10424
• Title: Double, Über and poset homology
• Author: Carlos Gabriel Valenzuela Ruiz
• Classification: math.AT (Algebraic Topology)
• Publication Date: October 14, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10424

Abstract

This paper establishes a comparison map between the überhomology of simplicial complexes and the double homology of their associated moment-angle complexes. The research demonstrates that these two homological theories differ at three bidegrees, with these differences depending on whether the complex K is neighbourly.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Background

1. Development of double homological theories: To address stability issues of Tor complexes in topological data analysis, researchers developed the double homology theory DH*,*(ZK) of moment-angle complexes.
2. Rise of überhomology: To categorify the total domination problem in graphs, a triply-graded cohomology theory überhomology Ḧ*,,(K) of simplicial complexes was developed.
3. Need for unified theory: Both homological theories are special cases of more general poset cohomology theories, but their precise relationship has not been fully clarified.

Research Motivation

This paper aims to complete a comprehensive comparison between these two homological theories, particularly by describing the precise map relationships between them and identifying at which bidegrees they differ.

Core Contributions

1. Establishing comparison maps: Constructs the map φl,q : Hl(H̃q(K−)) → Hl(Hq(K−)) and proves it is an isomorphism in most cases.
2. Complete characterization of differences: Proves that the two homological theories differ at only three bidegrees, with differences depending on the complex's neighbourliness.
3. Exact sequences: Provides exact sequences involving these differences, completely characterizing the relationship between the two theories.
4. Poincaré polynomial comparison: Offers concise expressions of differences using bigraded Poincaré polynomials.

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Given a finite simplicial complex K, compare its überhomology B̈q(K) := Ḧ0,(K) with the double homology DH,*(ZK) of the associated moment-angle complex ZK.

Theoretical Framework

Unified Perspective of Poset Cohomology

Both homological theories can be expressed as special cases of poset cohomology:

• DH−k,2l(ZK) ≅ Hl(H̃l−k−1(K−))
• B̈lq(ZK) ≅ Hl(Hq(K−))

where K− denotes the functor mapping each subset J ⊆ m to the corresponding subcomplex KJ.

Key Technical Tools

1. Functor categories: Consider the functor category Fun(2m, A), where A is an abelian category.
2. Cochain complex construction: For each functor F : 2m → A, construct the cochain complex C*(F).
3. Exactness of functors: Prove that the construction C*(−) is an exact functor.

Core Theorem Proof Strategy

Proof Strategy for Theorem 3.1

1. Case q > 0: Directly obtain isomorphism using H̃q(−) = Hq(−).
2. Case q = 0: Construct auxiliary functor A, utilizing the short exact sequence

   0 → H̃0(K−) ↪ H0(K−) → A → 0
   

3. Long exact sequence: Employ the long exact sequence of functors to obtain the desired exact sequence.

Experimental Setup

Theoretical Verification

This paper is primarily theoretical work, with results verified through:

1. Concrete examples: Uses cyclic complexes Cm as examples to verify the effects of neighbourliness.
2. Special case analysis: Separately considers neighbourly and non-neighbourly complexes.
3. Dimension calculations: Verifies differences in Betti numbers through Poincaré polynomials.

Key Lemma Verification

Proof of Lemmas 2.11 and 2.13

• Lemma 2.11: H2(H̃0(K−)) = 0 if and only if K is neighbourly.
• Lemma 2.13: H1(H0(K−)) = 0 if and only if K is not neighbourly.

The proofs of these two lemmas are completed through explicit matrix calculations and homological analysis.

Experimental Results

Main Results

Theorem 3.1 (Main Comparison Theorem)

For a simplicial complex K, there exists a map φl,q : Hl(H̃q(K−)) → Hl(Hq(K−)) satisfying:

• When l > 2 or q > 0, φl,q is an isomorphism.
• There exists an exact sequence:

  0 → H1(H0(K−)) → Z → H2(H̃0(K−)) --φ2,0--> H2(H0(K−)) → 0
  

Theorem 3.3 (Poincaré Polynomial Comparison)

For coefficients over a field F, the differences between the two theories can be expressed using Poincaré polynomials:

(P(H̃*(K−;F)) - P(H*(K−;F)))(x,y) = {
  x^(-1) - y     if K is neighbourly,
  x^(-1) + y^2   otherwise
}

Concrete Case Analysis

Example of Cyclic Complexes

• The 3-cycle C3 is neighbourly, satisfying the first case.
• For cycles Cm with m > 3, since {1,3} ∉ Cm, they are not neighbourly.

Theoretical Findings

1. Locality of differences: The differences between the two homological theories appear only at finitely many bidegrees.
2. Decisive role of neighbourliness: The neighbourliness of the complex completely determines the pattern of differences.
3. Splitting of exact sequences: The key exact sequence is split, providing additional structural information.

Related Work

Main Research Directions

1. Topological data analysis: Double homology theory developed by LPSS23 and others to address stability issues in persistent homology.
2. Categorification theory: Überhomology by Celoria and others, originating from categorification of graph-theoretic problems.
3. Poset cohomology: General theory by Chandler, inspired by Khovanov cohomology.

Innovation of This Paper

1. Complete comparison: First comprehensive comparison between the two theories.
2. Precise characterization of differences: Not only proves isomorphisms in most cases but precisely describes the differences.
3. Geometric intuition: Unifies algebraic differences through the geometric concept of neighbourliness.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Almost everywhere isomorphism: Double homology and überhomology are isomorphic at the vast majority of bidegrees.
2. Precise characterization of differences: Differences exist only at three bidegrees (−1,0), (0,1), (0,2).
3. Critical role of neighbourliness: The neighbourliness of the complex completely determines the specific form of differences.

Theoretical Significance

1. Unified framework: Provides unified understanding of two seemingly different homological theories.
2. Computational tools: Offers effective methods for practical computation of these homology groups.
3. Geometric insight: Reveals deep connections between algebraic invariants and geometric properties.

Limitations

1. Restriction to finite complexes: Results apply only to finite simplicial complexes.
2. Computational complexity: Practical computation remains challenging for large complexes.
3. Generalization issues: Generalization to more general topological spaces remains unresolved.

Future Directions

1. Algorithm implementation: Develop efficient algorithms for computing these homology groups.
2. Application exploration: Concrete applications in topological data analysis.
3. Theoretical generalization: Extension to more general posets and categories.

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical rigor: Complete and rigorous proofs using standard techniques of modern homological algebra.
2. Completeness of results: Not only proves main isomorphisms but precisely characterizes all differences.
3. Geometric intuition: Unifies complex algebraic structures through the simple geometric concept of neighbourliness.
4. Computational feasibility: Provides practically computable criteria.

Weaknesses

1. Limited examples: While theoretically complete, concrete computational examples are relatively sparse.
2. Application orientation: As purely theoretical work, connections to practical applications could be strengthened.
3. Generalization discussion: Discussion of possibilities for generalizing results to more general cases is insufficient.

Impact

1. Theoretical contribution: Provides important theoretical tools for algebraic topology and categorification theory.
2. Cross-disciplinary value: Connects topological data analysis and categorification of graph theory.
3. Computational significance: Offers new approaches for computing related homology groups.

Applicable Scenarios

1. Topological data analysis: Applications in persistent homology and stability analysis.
2. Combinatorial topology: Study of homological properties of simplicial complexes.
3. Categorification theory: Homological categorification of combinatorial problems.

References

The paper cites key literature in the field, including:

• LPSS23 Original work on double cohomology
• Cel23 Definition and basic properties of überhomology
• Cha19 General theory of poset cohomology
• CCC24 Preliminary comparison between the two theories
• Kho00 Classical work on Khovanov cohomology

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality theoretical paper that completes a precise comparison between two important homological theories. The results are theoretically significant and provide valuable tools for practical computation. The paper's proof techniques are modern and rigorous, with clear and complete result statements.