The Cayley-Bacharach Property and the Levinson-Ullery Conjecture

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2511.22113
• Title: The Cayley-Bacharach property and the Levinson-Ullery conjecture
• Authors: Tran N. K. Linh, Le Ngoc Long (Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Education, University of Hue, Vietnam)
• Classification: math.AG (Algebraic Geometry)
• Submission Date: November 27, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.22113

Abstract

This paper investigates the geometric configurations of finite point sets in n-dimensional projective space $\mathbb{P}^n$ possessing the Cayley-Bacharach property. The main contribution establishes the Levinson-Ullery conjecture in a previously unresolved case: $d=4$ and all $r\geq 1$.

Research Background and Motivation

1. Core Problem

This paper studies the Cayley-Bacharach property (CBP) of finite point sets in projective space and their geometric configuration characteristics. Specifically, when a point set $X$ satisfies CBP(r), any r-degree hypersurface containing all but one point must contain the remaining point.

2. Problem Significance

The Cayley-Bacharach property has profound mathematical significance:

• Historical Origins: Rooted in classical projective geometry, the most famous Cayley-Bacharach theorem states that the complete intersection of two plane curves of degrees d and e respectively possesses CBP(d+e-3)
• Algebraic Applications: Used to characterize complete intersections and arithmetic Gorenstein schemes among special 0-dimensional schemes
• Geometric Applications: Plays a role in studying non-rationality measures of projective varieties
• Coding Theory: Has key applications in coding theory

3. Limitations of Existing Research

Theorem 1.1 (Foundational Result) states: If $|X|\leq 2r+1$ and $X$ possesses CBP(r), then $X$ lies on a line.

Building on this, Levinson and Ullery proposed Conjecture 1.2: If $|X|\leq (d+1)r+1$ and $X$ possesses CBP(r), then $X$ lies on a linear configuration of dimension d.

Resolved Cases (Theorem 1.3):

• All $(d,r)$ pairs where $r\leq 2$ and $d\geq 1$
• All $(d,r)$ pairs where $d\leq 3$ and $r\geq 1$
• Special case $(d,r)=(4,3)$

Unresolved Cases: General case where $d\geq 4$ and $r\geq 3$

4. Research Motivation

To fill the gap in the proof of the Levinson-Ullery conjecture for the case $d=4$, which is a critical step in generalizing from low dimensions ($d\leq 3$) to higher dimensions.

Core Contributions

The main contributions of this paper include:

1. Main Theorem (Theorem 1.4): Proves the Levinson-Ullery conjecture for all $(d,r)$ pairs where $d=4$ and $r\geq 1$. That is: if $X\subseteq\mathbb{P}^n$ possesses CBP(r) and $|X|\leq 5r+1$, then $X$ lies on a linear configuration of dimension 4.
2. Technical Tools: Establishes the crucial Proposition 3.1, which provides an inductive framework and technical support for the main theorem's proof.
3. Methodological Contribution: Develops a systematic case analysis method, completing the proof through exhaustive geometric configuration classification and combinatorial arguments.

Detailed Methods

Task Definition

Input:

• Finite point set $X\subseteq\mathbb{P}^n$
• $X$ possesses the Cayley-Bacharach property CBP(r)
• Cardinality constraint: $|X|\leq 5r+1$

Output: Prove the existence of a linear configuration $P$ of dimension 4 such that $X\subseteq P$

Constraints:

• Work over fields of characteristic zero
• Linear configuration $P=\bigcup_{i=1}^k P_i$, where $P_i$ are positive-dimensional linear spaces
• Dimension definition: $\dim(P)=\sum_{i=1}^k\dim(P_i)$

Core Concepts

1. Cayley-Bacharach Property (Definition 2.1)

A point set $X$ possesses CBP(r) if and only if for any $p\in X$ we have $HF_{X\setminus\{p\}}(r)=HF_X(r)$, where $HF_X$ is the Hilbert function.

2. Linear Configuration (Definition 2.5)

• Linear Configuration: Union of positive-dimensional linear spaces $P=\bigcup_{i=1}^k P_i$
• Dimension: $\dim(P)=\sum_{i=1}^k\dim(P_i)$
• Length: $\ell(P)=k$
• Split Configuration: If $P_i\cap\text{span}(P_j|j\neq i)=\emptyset$ for all $i$

3. Algebraic Characterization (Proposition 2.3)

Equivalent conditions for CBP(r):

• (a) Geometric definition
• (b) For each subset $Y$ with $|Y|=|X|-1$, we have $\alpha_{Y/X}\geq r+1$
• (c) No element in $(I_{Y/X})_{r_X}\setminus\{0\}$ is divisible by $x_0^{r_X-r}$
• (d) There exists $\phi\in(\omega_R)_{-r}$ such that $\text{Ann}_R(\phi)=0$

Proof Strategy

Key Lemma: Proposition 3.1

Let $X$ possess CBP(r) with $|X|\leq(d+1)r+1$, $A$ be a k-plane ($k\leq d$), $X_A=X\cap A$, $X_B=X\setminus X_A$.

(a) If the conjecture holds for $(d-1,r)$ and $X$ does not lie on a linear configuration of dimension $d-1$, then $|X|\geq dr+2$.

(b) Assume the conjecture holds for all $(i,j)$ with $i\leq d$ and $j<r$:

• (i) If $|X_A|\geq d+1$, then $X_B$ lies on a linear configuration of dimension d
• (ii) If $X_A$ does not lie on a linear configuration of dimension $(d-1)$ and $X_B$ lies in an $\ell$-plane ($\ell\leq d$, $d\leq r$), then $X=X_A$

Main Theorem Proof Framework (Theorem 1.4)

Inductive Setup:

• Base case: For $r=3$, the result is known from Theorem 1.3
• Inductive step: Assume the result holds for $r-1$, prove it for $r$ ($r\geq 4$)

Proof Structure: Let $A$ be the 4-plane containing the maximum number of points from $X$, with $X_A=X\cap A$ and $X_B=X\setminus X_A$.

If $X_B=\emptyset$ the proof is complete. Otherwise $|X_A|\geq 5$, and by Proposition 3.1(b.i) we know $X_B$ lies on a linear configuration of dimension 4.

Case Analysis (Five Main Cases):

Case 1: $X_B$ lies on a 4-plane

• Subcase 1.1: $X_A$ lies on three skew lines $L_1,L_2,L_3$
  • By Proposition 2.8(b), each line contains at least $r+1$ points
  • Thus $|X_A|\geq 3(r+1)$, implying $|X_B|\leq 2r-2<2(r-1)+1$
  • By Theorem 1.3, $X_B$ lies on a line, conclusion follows
• Subcase 1.2: $X_A$ lies on a split configuration (2-plane $H$ and line $L$)
  • By CBP property and Corollary 2.4: $|X_A\cap L|\geq r+1$, $|X_A\cap H|\geq 2r$
  • Analyze possible configurations of $X_B$ (line, two lines, 2-plane)
  • Eliminate various possibilities through cardinality contradictions

Case 2: $X_B$ lies on the union of a 3-plane $H$ and line $L$ (split)

• $|X_L|\geq r+1$, $|X_H|\geq 2r$
• By maximality of $A$: $|X_A|\geq 2r+1$
• Obtain $|X|\geq 5r+2$, contradiction

Case 3: $X_B$ lies on two 2-planes $K_1,K_2$ (split, each not on a line)

• By Proposition 3.1(a): $|X_B|\geq 4r$
• $|X_A|\geq 2r+2$
• Obtain $|X|\geq 6r+2$, contradiction

Case 4: $X_B$ lies on a 2-plane $K$ and two lines $L_1,L_2$ ($X_K$ not on a line)

• Subcase 4.1: $H=\text{span}(L_1,L_2)$ and $K$ are disjoint
  • Detailed cardinality analysis yields $|X|\geq 6r+5$, contradiction
• Subcase 4.2: $H\cap K=\{p\}$
  • Use Proposition 2.8(c) and CBP hierarchy analysis
  • Obtain $|X|\geq 6r+1$, contradiction

Case 5: $X_B$ lies on $s$ lines ($s=3,4$)

• $s=3$: Reduces to Case 2
• $s=4$:
  • Subcase 5.1: Three lines split, obtain $|X|\geq 5r+2$, contradiction
  • Subcase 5.2: Use cardinality ratio analysis to show $X_B$ must lie on a configuration of dimension 3, contradiction

Technical Innovations

1. Systematic Geometric Classification: Complete geometric classification of 4-dimensional linear configurations, considering all possible intersection patterns (split, skew, intersecting).
2. Recursive CBP Analysis: Skillfully utilize Proposition 2.7 ($X\setminus P$ possesses CBP($r-\ell(P)$)) to establish recursive structure.
3. Fine Control of Cardinality Bounds: Establish precise cardinality lower bounds through Corollary 2.4 and Proposition 3.1(a), combined with the upper bound $|X|\leq 5r+1$ to derive contradictions.
4. Maximality Principle: Use the strategy of selecting "the 4-plane containing the most points" to establish key inequalities in various cases.

Experimental Setup

This is a pure theoretical mathematics paper (algebraic geometry) with no experiments, datasets, or numerical computations. All results are obtained through rigorous mathematical proofs.

Experimental Results

Not applicable (pure theoretical paper).

Related Work

1. Classical Foundations

• Cayley (1887), Bacharach (1886): Established the classical Cayley-Bacharach theorem
• Davis, Geramita, Orecchia (1985): Connected CBP with Gorenstein algebras
• Eisenbud, Green, Harris (1996): Systematic survey of CBP theorems and conjectures

2. Algebraic Characterization

• Geramita, Kreuzer, Robbiano (1993): Established algebraic characterization of CBP and canonical module theory
• Kreuzer (1994): Developed canonical module theory for 0-dimensional schemes
• Kreuzer, Linh, Long series of works: Applied CBP to study Dedekind differents and connection theory

3. Geometric Configurations

• Bastianelli, Cortini, De Poi (2014): Proved Theorem 1.1 (when $|X|\leq 2r+1$, $X$ lies on a line)
• Levinson, Ullery (2022): Proposed Conjecture 1.2 and proved cases with $d\leq 3$ and partial $(d,r)$ cases

4. Application Areas

• Coding Theory: Hansen (1994), Golda, Little, Schenck (2005)
• Non-rationality Measures: Lopez, Pirola (1994), Picoco (2023)

Positioning of This Paper's Contribution

This paper completes the proof of the Levinson-Ullery conjecture for the case $d=4$, filling the critical gap from low dimensions ($d\leq 3$) to higher dimensions, laying the foundation for further research on cases with $d\geq 5$.

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

This paper successfully proves the Levinson-Ullery conjecture for all $(d,r)=(4,r)$ with $r\geq 1$: if a finite point set $X\subseteq\mathbb{P}^n$ possesses CBP(r) and $|X|\leq 5r+1$, then $X$ lies on a linear configuration of dimension 4.

Limitations

1. Dimensional Restriction: Only resolves the case $d=4$; the general case for $d\geq 5$ remains open.
2. Proof Complexity: As dimension increases, the number of geometric configurations to consider grows exponentially, making the current case analysis method potentially difficult to extend directly to higher dimensions.
3. Non-constructive: The proof is existential and does not provide an algorithm for finding such linear configurations.
4. Characteristic Zero Assumption: All results are established over fields of characteristic zero; the positive characteristic case is not addressed.

Future Directions

1. Higher-Dimensional Generalization: Investigate cases with $d\geq 5$, potentially requiring new technical tools or different proof strategies.
2. Computational Methods: Develop algorithms to actually construct linear configurations satisfying the conditions.
3. Optimality of Bounds: Study whether the cardinality bound $(d+1)r+1$ is optimal and whether improvements are possible.
4. Positive Characteristic Generalization: Extend results to fields of positive characteristic.
5. Application Exploration: Apply results to concrete problems in coding theory, geometry of projective varieties, etc.

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Important Theoretical Contribution: Resolves a key unresolved case of the Levinson-Ullery conjecture, advancing theoretical development in the field.
2. Rigor of Proof:
   • Comprehensive case analysis covering all possible geometric configurations
   • Each case includes detailed cardinality calculations and logical reasoning
   • Fully utilizes existing results (Propositions 2.7, 2.8, etc.)
3. Technical Depth:
   • Skillfully combines algebraic tools (Hilbert functions, canonical modules) with geometric intuition
   • Recursive structure demonstrates the problem's essence
   • Effective use of the maximality principle simplifies analysis
4. Clear Structure:
   • Section 2 systematically reviews background knowledge
   • Section 3 establishes key lemmas before proving the main theorem
   • Case analysis is well-organized hierarchically
5. Comprehensive Literature: Adequately cites relevant work and accurately positions the paper's contribution.

Weaknesses

1. Lengthy Proof: The analysis in Cases 4 and 5 is very detailed but also quite lengthy, with potential for simplification.
2. Lack of Geometric Intuition: While the proof is rigorous, it does not sufficiently explain why $d=4$ is a natural boundary or why certain configurations necessarily lead to contradictions.
3. Difficulty of Generalization: The current proof method is highly dependent on specific features of $d=4$, making it unclear how to systematically generalize to $d\geq 5$.
4. Non-constructive Algorithm: Does not provide a practical method for finding the linear configuration.
5. Absence of Examples: No concrete examples of point sets are given to illustrate the theorem's application.

Impact

1. Theoretical Significance:
   • Completes an important step of the Levinson-Ullery conjecture
   • Provides reference for research on $d\geq 5$
   • Enriches the geometric theory of Cayley-Bacharach properties
2. Potential Applications:
   • May apply to classification of complete intersections and Gorenstein schemes
   • Has potential value in studying maximum distance separable codes in coding theory
   • Provides tools for non-rationality measures of projective varieties
3. Methodological Contribution: The systematic geometric configuration analysis method may inspire research on other combinatorial geometry problems.
4. Reproducibility: As a pure mathematical proof, results are completely verifiable and reproducible.

Applicable Scenarios

1. Algebraic Geometry Research: Study of geometric configurations and algebraic properties of point sets in projective space.
2. Commutative Algebra: Research on algebraic invariants of 0-dimensional schemes.
3. Coding Theory: Design and analysis of error-correcting codes with specific properties.
4. Computational Algebraic Geometry: Provides theoretical foundations for symbolic computation systems.
5. Teaching: Serves as a typical case of the combination of algebra and geometry in algebraic geometry.

Selected References

1. 16 J. Levinson, B. Ullery (2022): A Cayley-Bacharach theorem and plane configurations, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 150, 4603-4618. Proposed original conjecture
2. 6 A.V. Geramita, M. Kreuzer, L. Robbiano (1993): Cayley-Bacharach schemes and their canonical modules, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 339, 163-189. Established algebraic characterization
3. 1 F. Bastianelli, R. Cortini, P. De Poi (2014): The gonality theorem of Noether for hypersurfaces, J. Algebraic Geom. 23(2), 313-339. Proved foundational Theorem 1.1
4. 5 D. Eisenbud, M. Green, J. Harris (1996): Cayley-Bacharach theorems and conjectures, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 33, 295-324. Survey literature

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality algebraic geometry theory paper that resolves an important open problem through rigorous mathematical proof. The proof techniques are sophisticated, the structure is clear, and it provides a solid foundation for further research in the field. While the proof is technical and lengthy, this is typical when solving such combinatorial geometry problems. The paper's primary value lies in theoretical breakthrough rather than methodological innovation, and it has significant importance for algebraic geometry and related fields.