alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

Ehrhart positivity of smooth polytopes with few facets

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

For each dimension dd, we determine the minimum number of facets of a smooth dd-dimensional lattice polytope whose Ehrhart polynomial has at least one negative coefficient. This minimum is six in dimension d=3d=3, seven in dimension d=4d=4, and d+2d+2 in every dimension d≥5d\ge 5. The lower bounds follow from the classification of smooth lattice polytopes with at most d+2d+2 facets, together with explicit formulas for Ehrhart polynomials in dimensions at most 44. We also prove that a lattice polytope of dimension at least 33 with a smooth vertex cannot be 22-integral with respect to any ordered lattice basis.

Introduction

A lattice polytope is the convex hull of finitely many points of Zd\mathbb{Z}^d. Throughout this paper, a dd-dimensional lattice polytope is assumed to be full-dimensional in Rd\mathbb{R}^d. Its lattice-point counting function is

LP(t)=∣tP∩Zd∣=∑j=0dej(P)tj,t∈N.L_P(t) = \lvert tP \cap\mathbb{Z}^d \rvert= \sum_{j=0}^{d} e_j(P)t^j,\qquad t \in\mathbb{N}.

Ehrhart [2, 5] proved that the function LP(t)L_P(t) is a polynomial in tt of degree dd. This polynomial is called the Ehrhart polynomial of PP. The leading coefficient is the volume of PP, the coefficient of td−1t^{d-1} is half its lattice boundary volume, and the constant coefficient is one. Our volume convention assigns volume one to a fundamental parallelepiped of the relevant lattice. In particular, the volume of a unimodular jj-simplex is 1/j!1/j!.

A polytope is Ehrhart positive if ej(P)>0e_j(P)>0 for every 0≤j≤d0 \le j \le d. Ehrhart positivity has attracted considerable attention in recent years. We refer the reader to [10] for a survey of this topic.

A nonzero vector of Zd\mathbb{Z}^d is primitive if it is not an integer multiple mumu of another lattice vector with m≥2m \ge2. A vertex vv of a lattice dd-polytope is smooth if exactly dd edges meet at vv and their primitive directions form a basis of Zd\mathbb{Z}^d. A polytope is smooth if all its vertices are smooth. This is also called the Delzant condition. Smooth polytopes occur as moment polytopes of nonsingular projective toric varieties; background on this correspondence is available in [4].

Castillo, Liu, Nill, and Paffenholz [3, Theorem 1.2] proved that in every dimension d≥3d \ge3 a smooth lattice polytope can have negative coefficients in all degrees 1,…,d−21,\ldots,d-2. Their examples arise from repeated vertex truncations followed by products. In [3 Example 1.5], this gave a smooth reflexive polytope of dimension 9 with 12 facets and linear Ehrhart coefficient −6673/630-6673/630. Thus the assertion that every smooth dd-polytope with at most d+3d+3 facets is Ehrhart positive already fails.

This example partially answers the following open problem.

Question 1.1 ([1]). Are dd-dimensional smooth polytopes with ≤d+3\le d+3 facets Ehrhart positive or satisfy the higher integrality condition?

The restriction on the number of facets nevertheless suggests a more precise question:

Question 1.2. How few facets can a smooth polytope with a negative Ehrhart coefficient have?

For d≥1d \ge1, define

md=min⁡{fd−1(P):P is a smooth lattice d-polytope and ej(P)<0 for some 1≤j≤d},m_d = \min\{f_{d-1}(P) : P\text{ is a smooth lattice }d\text{-polytope and }e_j(P)<0\text{ for some }1\le j\le d\},

where fd−1(P)f_{d-1}(P) denotes the number of facets and the minimum of the empty set is +∞+\infty.

Theorem 1.3. The minimum facet numbers are

md={+∞,d=1,2,d+3,d=3,4,d+2,d≥5.m_d = \begin{cases} +\infty, & d=1,2,\\ d+3, & d=3,4,\\ d+2, & d\ge5. \end{cases}

More precisely, every smooth dd-polytope with d+1d+1 facets is Ehrhart positive, and every smooth dd-polytope with d+2d+2 facets is Ehrhart positive when d≤4d\le4. Counterexamples with exactly d+2d+2 facets exist in every dimension d≥5d\ge5.

The lower bounds in Theorem 1.3 use the classification of smooth polytopes with few facets. The case of d+2d+2 facets is due to Kleinschmidt [8]; the corresponding polytopes are described explicitly in [7 §4.1]. The proof of positivity in dimensions at most four reduces to the first two moments of weak compositions and the power sums of degrees at most three. The upper bounds follow from two families whose slices are simplices or products of a simplex and an interval.

Question 1.1 concerns higher integrality in the sense of Liu [9]. After an ordered basis of Zd\mathbb{Z}^d has been chosen, let πj:Rd⟶Rj\pi_j : \mathbb{R}^d \longrightarrow\mathbb{R}^j be projection onto the first jj coordinates. A lattice polytope is kk-integral if

πj(aff⁡(F)∩Zd)=Zj\pi_j(\operatorname{aff}(F)\cap\mathbb{Z}^d)=\mathbb{Z}^j

for every jj-dimensional face FF and every 0≤j≤k0\le j\le k. For d≥2d\ge2, Liu’s coefficient theorem implies that (d−2)(d-2)-integrality is sufficient for Ehrhart positivity. This condition concerns a common ordered lattice basis for all faces; ordinary lattice integrality alone does not imply it. We also obtain the following result.

Theorem 1.4. A lattice polytope of dimension d≥3d\ge3 with a smooth vertex is not 2-integral with respect to any ordered lattice basis. Consequently, a smooth dd-polytope with d≥4d\ge4 is not (d−2)(d-2)-integral with respect to any ordered lattice basis, regardless of its number of facets.

The paper is organized as follows. § 2 records the enumerative results used in the proofs. § 3 proves positivity for smooth polytopes with at most d+2d+2 facets in dimensions at most 4. § 4 and § 5 construct the counterexamples and complete the proof of Theorem 1.3. § 6 proves Theorem 1.4 and discusses its relation to Liu’s condition.

Preliminaries

An affine unimodular transformation of Rd\mathbb{R}^{d} is a map x↦Ux+ax \mapsto Ux+a, where UU is an integer matrix with determinant 11 or −1-1 and a∈Zda \in\mathbb{Z}^{d}. Such a map preserves smoothness, facet numbers, and Ehrhart polynomials. Indeed, for every nonnegative integer tt, the map x↦Ux+tax \mapsto Ux+ta is a bijection between the lattice points of tPtP and those of t(UP+a)t(UP+a).

The standard lattice pp-simplex is

Δp={x∈Rp:xi≥0 (1≤i≤p), x1+⋯+xp≤1}.\Delta_p=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{p}: x_i\geq0\ (1\leq i\leq p),\ x_1+\cdots+x_p\leq1\}.

For every nonnegative integer NN, its dilation contains

∣NΔp∩Zp∣=(N+pp)|N\Delta_p\cap\mathbb{Z}^{p}|=\binom{N+p}{p}

lattice points. This is the standard weak-composition formula: the slack coordinate N−x1−⋯−xpN-x_1-\cdots-x_p gives a bijection with weak compositions of NN into p+1p+1 parts; see [12 Chapter 1].

To check smoothness at a vertex, we shall list all edges through that vertex and calculate their primitive directions. If exactly dd edges meet there, arrange these directions as the columns of an integer d×dd\times d matrix. They form a basis of Zd\mathbb{Z}^{d} precisely when the determinant is 11 or −1-1. Indeed, an integer matrix with either determinant has an integer inverse by the cofactor formula; conversely, a matrix and its integer inverse have integer determinants whose product is one. All coordinates below refer to the displayed standard lattices.

Smooth polytopes with d+1d+1 or d+2d+2 facets

The classification of smooth polytopes with d+2d+2 facets is due to Kleinschmidt [8]. Its explicit description as a convex hull of simplices is given in [7 §4.1]. In the coordinates below, the last qq coordinates range over a dilated simplex, and fixing those coordinates leaves a dilated simplex in the first pp coordinates. This description will allow us to count lattice points by the weak-composition formula.

Theorem 2.1. Let PP be a smooth lattice dd-polytope.

(i) If PP has d+1d+1 facets, then PP is affinely unimodularly equivalent to aΔda\Delta_d for a positive integer aa.

(ii) If PP has d+2d+2 facets, then there are positive integers p,q,a,bp,q,a,b with p+q=dp+q=d and nonnegative integers c1,…,cqc_1,\ldots,c_q such that PP is affinely unimodularly equivalent to

{(x,y)∈Rp×Rq:yj≥0 (1≤j≤q),y1+⋯+yq≤b,xi≥0 (1≤i≤p),x1+⋯+xp≤a+c1y1+⋯+cqyq}.(1)\left\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{p}\times\mathbb{R}^{q}: \begin{aligned} &y_j\geq0\ (1\leq j\leq q),\quad y_1+\cdots+y_q\leq b,\\ &x_i\geq0\ (1\leq i\leq p),\quad x_1+\cdots+x_p\leq a+c_1y_1+\cdots+c_qy_q \end{aligned} \right\}. \tag*{(1)}

Proof of (1). A dd-polytope with d+1d+1 facets is a simplex. Translate one vertex to the origin. The primitive directions of the dd edges from this vertex form a lattice basis, so an integer change of coordinates with determinant 11 or −1-1 sends them to the standard basis vectors e1,…,ede_1,\ldots,e_d. In these coordinates,

P=conv⁡(0,a1e1,…,aded)P=\operatorname{conv}(0,a_1e_1,\ldots,a_de_d)

for positive integers a1,…,ada_1,\ldots,a_d. If d=1d=1, this already gives the required form. Suppose that d≥2d\ge2, and fix i∈{1,…,d}i\in\{1,\ldots,d\}. The primitive edge directions at aieia_i e_i are

−eiandajej−aieigcd⁡(ai,aj)(1≤j≤d, j≠i).-e_i \quad\text{and}\quad\frac{a_j e_j-a_i e_i}{\operatorname{gcd}(a_i,a_j)} \quad(1\le j\le d,\ j\ne i).

The absolute value of their determinant is

∏1≤j≤dj≠iajgcd⁡(ai,aj).\prod_{\substack{1\le j\le d\\j\ne i}}\frac{a_j}{\operatorname{gcd}(a_i,a_j)}.

Smoothness at aieia_i e_i implies that this product equals one. Each factor is a positive integer, so gcd⁡(ai,aj)=aj\operatorname{gcd}(a_i,a_j)=a_j for every j≠ij\ne i. Thus aja_j divides aia_i. Since ii was arbitrary, any two of the aia_i divide one another, and hence a1=⋯=ada_1=\cdots=a_d. Their common value is the required integer aa.

To express the classification in (2) directly in terms of simplices, let e1,…,eqe_1,\ldots,e_q now denote the standard basis of Rq\mathbb{R}^q. The convex-hull description in [7 §4.1], with its integral parameters, is

conv⁡((aΔp×{0})∪⋃j=1q((a+bcj)Δp×{bej})).\operatorname{conv}\left((a\Delta_p\times\{0\})\cup\bigcup_{j=1}^{q}\bigl((a+bc_j)\Delta_p\times\{be_j\}\bigr)\right).

The parameters aa and bb are positive integers, and the cjc_j are nonnegative integers. The simplex in the first pp coordinates has dilation factor aa at y=0y=0 and a+bcja+bc_j at y=bejy=be_j. Thus cjc_j records the increase in the dilation factor per unit change of the coordinate yjy_j.

Here is the equivalence between this convex hull and (1). Every y∈bΔqy\in b\Delta_q has the unique expression

y=∑j=1qθjbej,θj=yjb (1≤j≤q),θ0=1−∑j=1qθj,y=\sum_{j=1}^{q}\theta_jbe_j,\qquad\theta_j=\frac{y_j}{b}\ (1\le j\le q),\qquad\theta_0=1-\sum_{j=1}^{q}\theta_j,

where θ0,…,θq≥0\theta_0,\ldots,\theta_q\ge0 and ∑j=0qθj=1\sum_{j=0}^{q}\theta_j=1. If (x,y)(x,y) belongs to the displayed convex hull, then

x=θ0ξ0+∑j=1qθjξj,ξ0∈aΔp,ξj∈(a+bcj)Δp(1≤j≤q).x=\theta_0\xi_0+\sum_{j=1}^{q}\theta_j\xi_j,\qquad\xi_0\in a\Delta_p,\qquad\xi_j\in(a+bc_j)\Delta_p\quad(1\le j\le q).

Consequently, xi≥0x_i\ge0 for every 1≤i≤p1\le i\le p, and

∑i=1pxi≤θ0a+∑j=1qθj(a+bcj)=a+∑j=1qcjyj.\sum_{i=1}^{p}x_i\le\theta_0a+\sum_{j=1}^{q}\theta_j(a+bc_j)=a+\sum_{j=1}^{q}c_jy_j.

Conversely, suppose that (x,y)(x,y) satisfies (1). Since a+∑j=1qcjyj>0a+\sum_{j=1}^{q}c_jy_j>0, the vector

u=xa+∑j=1qcjyju=\frac{x}{a+\sum_{j=1}^{q}c_jy_j}

belongs to Δp\Delta_p. The identity

(x,y)=θ0(au,0)+∑j=1qθj((a+bcj)u,bej)(x,y)=\theta_0(au,0)+\sum_{j=1}^{q}\theta_j\bigl((a+bc_j)u,be_j\bigr)

places (x,y)(x,y) in the convex hull. This proves the claimed equivalence. In particular, at each fixed y∈bΔqy\in b\Delta_q, the allowed first coordinates form exactly

(a+∑j=1qcjyj)Δp.\left(a+\sum_{j=1}^{q}c_jy_j\right)\Delta_p.

If c1=⋯=cq=0c_1=\cdots=c_q=0, the polytope is the product aΔp×bΔqa\Delta_p\times b\Delta_q.

Power sums

For nonnegative integers m,nm,n, define

Sm(n)=∑j=0njm,S_m(n)=\sum_{j=0}^{n}j^m,

where j0=1j^0=1 also for j=0j=0. In particular, S0(n)=n+1S_0(n)=n+1, S1(n)=n(n+1)2S_1(n)=\frac{n(n+1)}{2} and

S2(n)=n(n+1)(2n+1)6,S3(n)=n2(n+1)24,S4(n)=n(n+1)(2n+1)(3n2+3n−1)30.(2)S_2(n)=\frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6},\quad S_3(n)=\frac{n^2(n+1)^2}{4},\quad S_4(n)=\frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)(3n^2+3n-1)}{30}. \tag*{(2)}

We use these classical identities, and the general power-sum formula, as established results; see [11 §24.4(iii)]. To fix the sign convention, the Bernoulli numbers are defined by

zez−1=∑k=0∞Bkzkk!.\frac{z}{e^z-1}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}B_k\frac{z^k}{k!}.

Thus B0=1B_0=1, B1=−1/2B_1=-1/2, B2=1/6B_2=1/6, B3=0B_3=0, and B4=−1/30B_4=-1/30. For m≥1m\geq1, the required version of the power-sum formula is

Sm(t)=1m+1∑k=0m(−1)k(m+1k)Bktm+1−k.(3)S_m(t)=\frac{1}{m+1}\sum_{k=0}^{m}(-1)^k\binom{m+1}{k}B_k t^{m+1-k}. \tag*{(3)}

Its right-hand side is the polynomial agreeing with Sm(t)S_m(t) for nonnegative integer tt. In particular, for m≥4m\geq4,

[tm−3]Sm(t)=(m+14)B4m+1=−m(m−1)(m−2)720.(4)[t^{m-3}]S_m(t)=\frac{\binom{m+1}{4}B_4}{m+1}=-\frac{m(m-1)(m-2)}{720}. \tag*{(4)}

The upper limit mm in (3) excludes the constant term, which is zero when m≥1m\geq1. The separate formula S0(t)=t+1S_0(t)=t+1 will be used whenever m=0m=0.

Positivity with at most two additional facets

Proposition 3.1. Every smooth lattice dd-polytope with d+1d+1 facets is Ehrhart positive. Every smooth lattice dd-polytope with d+2d+2 facets is Ehrhart positive if d≤4d\leq4.

Proof. The first assertion follows from Theorem 2.1(i). Indeed,

LΔd(t)=(at+dd)=1d!∏i=1d(at+i).L_{\Delta_d}(t)=\binom{at+d}{d}=\frac{1}{d!}\prod_{i=1}^{d}(at+i).

Each factor has positive coefficients, and the product has a positive coefficient in every degree from zero to dd.

For the second assertion, Theorem 2.1(ii) allows us to assume that PP has the form (1). For a fixed lattice point y∈btΔqy\in bt\Delta_q, the allowed xx-coordinates form the simplex (at+c1y1+⋯+cqyq)Δp(at+c_1y_1+\cdots+c_qy_q)\Delta_p. The number of its lattice points is

(at+c1y1+⋯+cqyq+pp).\binom{at+c_1y_1+\cdots+c_qy_q+p}{p}.

All arguments of this binomial coefficient are nonnegative integers because a>0a>0 and cj≥0c_j\ge0. Consequently,

LP(t)=∑y1=0bt∑y2=0bt−y1⋯∑yq=0bt−y1−⋯−yq−1(at+c1y1+⋯+cqyq+pp).(5)L_P(t)=\sum_{y_1=0}^{bt}\sum_{y_2=0}^{bt-y_1}\cdots\sum_{y_q=0}^{bt-y_1-\cdots-y_{q-1}}\binom{at+c_1y_1+\cdots+c_qy_q+p}{p}. \tag*{(5)}

When q=1q=1, this notation means the single sum with 0≤y1≤bt0\le y_1\le bt.

The case p=1p=1. The number of weak compositions of btbt into q+1q+1 parts is (bt+qq)\binom{bt+q}{q}. Their coordinate sums are equal by permutation symmetry. Since the sum of all q+1q+1 coordinates in each composition is btbt, the sum of any specified coordinate over all compositions is

btq+1(bt+qq).\frac{bt}{q+1}\binom{bt+q}{q}.

The summand in (5) is now at+c1y1+⋯+cqyq+1at+c_1y_1+\cdots+c_qy_q+1. Summing its constant and coordinate terms separately gives

LP(t)=(bt+qq)(1+(a+b(c1+⋯+cq)q+1)t).L_P(t)=\binom{bt+q}{q}\left(1+\left(a+\frac{b(c_1+\cdots+c_q)}{q+1}\right)t\right).

The binomial factor has positive coefficients in degrees zero through qq. The second factor has positive constant and linear coefficients. Their product is therefore Ehrhart positive.

The case q=1q=1 and 1≤p≤31\le p\le3. Equation (5) becomes

LP(t)=1p!∑j=0bt∏i=1p(at+c1j+i).L_P(t)=\frac{1}{p!}\sum_{j=0}^{bt}\prod_{i=1}^{p}(at+c_1j+i).

The displayed product, before summation, is a polynomial in tt and jj with nonnegative coefficients. Its degree in jj is at most pp. Every monomial tujvt^u j^v, where 0≤v≤p≤30\le v\le p\le3, contributes tuSv(bt)t^uS_v(bt) after summation. The formulas in (2) show that each of these contributions has nonnegative coefficients as a polynomial in tt.

It remains to verify positivity in every degree. The part of the product independent of jj contributes

bt+1p!∏i=1p(at+i),\frac{bt+1}{p!}\prod_{i=1}^{p}(at+i),

which has positive coefficients in all degrees from zero to p+1=dp+1=d. All the remaining contributions have nonnegative coefficients. Thus every coefficient of LP(t)L_P(t) is positive.

The case p=q=2p=q=2. This is the only case with p+q≤4p+q\le4 not covered above. The pairs (y1,y2)(y_1,y_2) with y1,y2≥0y_1,y_2\ge0 and y1+y2≤bty_1+y_2\le bt correspond to weak compositions (y0,y1,y2)(y_0,y_1,y_2) of btbt into three parts, where y0=bt−y1−y2y_0=bt-y_1-y_2. Their number is (bt+22)\binom{bt+2}{2}. We have

∑y1=0bt∑y2=0bt−y1y1=∑y1=0bt∑y2=0bt−y1y2=bt3(bt+22)\sum_{y_1=0}^{bt}\sum_{y_2=0}^{bt-y_1}y_1 = \sum_{y_1=0}^{bt}\sum_{y_2=0}^{bt-y_1}y_2 = \frac{bt}{3}\binom{bt+2}{2}

and

∑y1=0bt∑y2=0bt−y1y12=bt(bt+1)6(bt+22),∑y1=0bt∑y2=0bt−y1y1y2=bt(bt−1)12(bt+22).(6)\sum_{y_1=0}^{bt}\sum_{y_2=0}^{bt-y_1}y_1^2 = \frac{bt(bt+1)}{6}\binom{bt+2}{2}, \qquad \sum_{y_1=0}^{bt}\sum_{y_2=0}^{bt-y_1}y_1y_2 = \frac{bt(bt-1)}{12}\binom{bt+2}{2}. \tag*{(6)}

The summand in (5) is

at+c1y1+c2y2+22=12((at+1)(at+2)+(2at+3)(c1y1+c2y2)+(c1y1+c2y2)2).\frac{at+c_{1}y_{1}+c_{2}y_{2}+2}{2}=\frac{1}{2}\left((at+1)(at+2)+(2at+3)(c_{1}y_{1}+c_{2}y_{2})+(c_{1}y_{1}+c_{2}y_{2})^{2}\right).

By (6), we obtain

LP(t)=12(bt+22)((at+1)(at+2)+(2at+3)bt(c1+c2)3+(bt)2(c12+c1c2+c22)+n(c12−c1c2+c22)6).L_{P}(t)=\frac{1}{2}\binom{bt+2}{2}\left((at+1)(at+2)+\frac{(2at+3)bt(c_{1}+c_{2})}{3}+\frac{(bt)^{2}(c_{1}^{2}+c_{1}c_{2}+c_{2}^{2})+n(c_{1}^{2}-c_{1}c_{2}+c_{2}^{2})}{6}\right).

The coefficient c12−c1c2+c22=(c1−c2)2+c1c2c_{1}^{2}-c_{1}c_{2}+c_{2}^{2}=(c_{1}-c_{2})^{2}+c_{1}c_{2} is nonnegative. All coefficients of the expression in parentheses, as a polynomial in tt, are consequently nonnegative. Its term (at+1)(at+2)(at+1)(at+2), together with the prefactor, contributes a positive coefficient in every degree from zero to four. Thus PP is Ehrhart positive. The three cases exhaust all positive integers p,qp,q with p+q≤4p+q\leq4.

A construction with three additional facets

For integers r≥1r\geq1 and c≥0c\geq0, consider

Rr,c={(x,y,z)∈Rr×R×R: 0≤z≤1,xi≥0 (1≤i≤r),x1+⋯+xr≤1+cz,0≤y≤c+1−cz}.(7)R_{r,c}=\left\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{R}^{r}\times\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}: \ 0\leq z\leq1,\quad x_i\geq0\ (1\leq i\leq r),\quad x_1+\cdots+x_r\leq1+cz,\quad0\leq y\leq c+1-cz\right\}. \tag*{(7)}

For each fixed z∈[0,1]z\in[0,1], the allowed (x,y)(x,y)-coordinates form the product

(1+cz)Δr×[0,c+1−cz].(1+cz)\Delta_r\times[0,c+1-cz].

As zz increases, the dilation factor of the simplex increases and the length of the interval decreases. Both are at least one throughout [0,1][0,1], so neither factor loses dimension, including at z=0z=0 and z=1z=1.

Proposition 4.1. The polytope Rr,cR_{r,c} has dimension r+2r+2, exactly r+5r+5 facets, and 4(r+1)4(r+1) vertices. It is a smooth lattice polytope. Its Ehrhart polynomial satisfies

LRr,c(t)=∑j=0t(t+cj+rr)((c+1)t−cj+1).(8)L_{R_{r,c}}(t)=\sum_{j=0}^{t}\binom{t+cj+r}{r}\bigl((c+1)t-cj+1\bigr). \tag*{(8)}

Proof. For each fixed z∈[0,1]z\in[0,1], the allowed pairs (x,y)(x,y) form

(1+cz)Δr×[0,c+1−cz].(1+cz)\Delta_r\times[0,c+1-cz].

Both $1+cz$ and c+1−czc+1-cz are at least one. A point with 0<z<10<z<1, all xi>0x_i>0, x1+⋯+xr<1+czx_1+\cdots+x_r<1+cz, and 0<y<c+1−cz0<y<c+1-cz satisfies every defining inequality strictly. Such points exist, so Rr,cR_{r,c} has dimension $r+2.

Each inequality in (7) defines a facet. The faces z=0z=0 and z=1z=1 are products of an rr-simplex and a nondegenerate interval, so each has dimension r+1r+1. On the face y=0y=0, choose 0<z<10<z<1 and choose all xi>0x_i>0 with x1+⋯+xr<1+czx_1+\cdots+x_r<1+cz. Every other defining inequality is then strict, so this face has dimension r+1r+1. The same argument applies to y=c+1−czy=c+1-cz. On xi=0x_i=0, choose the remaining xx-coordinates positive with sum less than 1+cz1+cz, and choose zz and yy in the interiors of their allowed intervals. This again gives a relatively open set of dimension r+1r+1; when r=1r=1, there are no remaining xx-coordinates to choose. Finally, the equation x1+⋯+xr=1+czx_1+\cdots+x_r=1+cz allows all xix_i to be positive, with 0<z<10<z<1 and 0<y<c+1−cz0<y<c+1-cz, and also defines a face of dimension r+1r+1. The r+5r+5 supporting hyperplanes are distinct. Thus there are exactly r+5r+5 facets.

Every vertex has z=0z=0 or z=1z=1. To see this, consider a point (x,y,z)∈Rr,c(x,y,z)\in R_{r,c} with 0<z<10<z<1, and set

u=x1+cz∈Δr,s=yc+1−cz∈[0,1].u=\frac{x}{1+cz}\in\Delta_r,\qquad s=\frac{y}{c+1-cz}\in[0,1].

Then

(x,y,z)=(1−z)(u,(c+1)s,0)+z((c+1)u,s,1).(x,y,z)=(1-z)(u,(c+1)s,0)+z((c+1)u,s,1).

The two points on the right belong to Rr,cR_{r,c} and have different last coordinates. The point (x,y,z)(x,y,z) therefore lies in the interior of a nondegenerate segment contained in Rr,cR_{r,c} and cannot be a vertex. Let e1,…,ere_1,\ldots,e_r be the standard basis of Rr\mathbb{R}^r, and set e0=0e_0=0. The two endpoint faces are products of a simplex and an interval. Their vertices, and hence all the vertices of Rr,cR_{r,c}, are

vi,δ,η=((1+cη)ei,δ(c+1−cη),η),0≤i≤r,δ,η∈{0,1}.v_{i,\delta,\eta}=((1+c\eta)e_i,\delta(c+1-c\eta),\eta),\qquad0\leq i\leq r,\quad\delta,\eta\in\{0,1\}.

Every vertex of an endpoint face is a vertex of the whole polytope. These 4(r+1)4(r+1) points are distinct lattice points.

Fix a vertex vi,δ,ηv_{i,\delta,\eta}. Exactly r+2r+2 facet equations hold at this vertex: rr equations from the simplex inequalities, one equation for yy, and z=ηz=\eta. These equations are independent. Indeed, after zz is fixed, the simplex equations determine xx uniquely as (1+cη)ei(1+c\eta)e_i, and the equation for yy determines y=δ(c+1−cη)y=\delta(c+1-c\eta). The edges incident to this vertex are precisely

[vi,δ,η,vk,δ,η](0≤k≤r, k≠i),[vi,δ,η,vi,1−δ,η],[vi,δ,η,vi,δ,1−η].[v_{i,\delta,\eta},v_{k,\delta,\eta}]\quad(0\leq k\leq r,\ k\ne i),\qquad[v_{i,\delta,\eta},v_{i,1-\delta,\eta}],\qquad[v_{i,\delta,\eta},v_{i,\delta,1-\eta}].

The first rr segments are the simplex edges in the face z=ηz=\eta; the next is the interval edge in that face. For the last segment, retain the rr simplex equations and the equation for yy, and allow zz to vary. These equations give

x=(1+cz)ei,y=δ(c+1−cz),0≤z≤1,x=(1+cz)e_i,\qquad y=\delta(c+1-cz),\qquad0\leq z\leq1,

which describes exactly the segment joining vi,δ,0v_{i,\delta,0} to vi,δ,1v_{i,\delta,1}. Thus each listed segment is a one-dimensional intersection of facets. They exhaust the incident edges: at a vertex where exactly r+2r+2 independent facet equations hold, each incident edge is obtained by retaining r+1r+1 of those equations, and the list above accounts for each possible omitted equation.

The primitive directions of these edges, pointing away from vi,δ,ηv_{i,\delta,\eta}, are

(ek−ei,0,0)(0≤k≤r, k≠i),(0,1−2δ,0),(1−2η)(cei,−cδ,1).(e_k-e_i,0,0)\quad(0\leq k\leq r,\ k\ne i),\qquad(0,1-2\delta,0),\qquad(1-2\eta)(ce_i,-c\delta,1).

For the simplex edges, the difference of the endpoints is (1+cη)(ek−ei,0,0)(1+c\eta)(e_k-e_i,0,0); the vector ek−eie_k-e_i is primitive because one of its coordinates equals 11 or −1-1. For the interval edge, the difference is (c+1−cη)(0,1−2δ,0)(c+1-c\eta)(0,1-2\delta,0). For the edge joining the two endpoint faces, the displayed direction is already the difference of the endpoints and is primitive because its last coordinate is 11 or −1-1.

The rr vectors ek−eie_k-e_i, with k≠ik\ne i, form a basis of Zr\mathbb{Z}^r. For i=0i=0, they are the standard basis. For i≥1i\geq1, they consist of −ei-e_i and ek−eie_k-e_i for 1≤k≤r1\leq k\leq r, k≠ik\ne i. Subtracting −ei-e_i from each of the latter vectors gives eke_k, so these vectors also form an integer basis. Let BiB_i be the matrix with these rr vectors as columns in any fixed order, and set σ=1−2δ\sigma=1-2\delta and τ=1−2η\tau=1-2\eta. The matrix whose columns are the primitive directions listed above is

(Bi0τcei0σ−τcδ00τ)\begin{pmatrix} B_i & 0 & \tau ce_i\\ 0 & \sigma& -\tau c\delta\\ 0 & 0 & \tau \end{pmatrix}

Expansion along the last row, followed by expansion along the row for the yy-coordinate, gives determinant τσdet⁡Bi=1\tau\sigma\det B_i=1 or −1-1. Consequently, the r+2r+2 primitive incident edge directions form a basis of Zr+2\mathbb{Z}^{r+2}. This proves smoothness at every vertex.

For a nonnegative integer tt, the inequalities of tRr,ctR_{r,c} are

0≤z≤t,xi≥0 (1≤i≤r),x1+⋯+xr≤t+cz,0≤y≤(c+1)t−cz.0\le z\le t,\qquad x_i\ge0\ (1\le i\le r),\qquad x_1+\cdots+x_r\le t+cz,\qquad0\le y\le(c+1)t-cz.

At an integer height z=jz=j, there are (t+cj+rr)\binom{t+cj+r}{r} choices for the integer vector xx and (c+1)t−cj+1(c+1)t-cj+1 choices for the integer yy. These choices are independent. Summation over j=0,…,tj=0,\ldots,t gives (8) for every nonnegative integer tt, and hence determines the Ehrhart polynomial.

Proposition 4.2. For every integer c≥0c\ge0,

LR1,c(t)=(c26+c+1)t3+(2c+3)t2+(−c26+c+3)t+1.(9)L_{R_{1,c}}(t)=\left(\frac{c^2}{6}+c+1\right)t^3+(2c+3)t^2+\left(-\frac{c^2}{6}+c+3\right)t+1. \tag*{(9)}

Its linear coefficient is negative precisely when c≥9c\ge9.

Proof. The summand in (8) for r=1r=1 has the identity

(t+cj+1)((c+1)t−cj+1)=(t+1)((c+1)t+1)+c2j(t−j).(t+cj+1)((c+1)t-cj+1)=(t+1)((c+1)t+1)+c^2j(t-j).

The first term is independent of jj, while the second involves only the first two power sums. Thus

LR1,c(t)=(t+1)2((c+1)t+1)+c2(tS1(t)−S2(t))=(t+1)2((c+1)t+1)+c26(t3−t).L_{R_{1,c}}(t)=(t+1)^2((c+1)t+1)+c^2(tS_1(t)-S_2(t))=(t+1)^2((c+1)t+1)+\frac{c^2}{6}(t^3-t).

Expansion gives (9). The condition on the linear coefficient is

−c26+c+3<0⟺c2−6c−18>0.-\frac{c^2}{6}+c+3<0\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad c^2-6c-18>0.

The positive root of the quadratic is 3+333+3\sqrt{3}, which lies between eight and nine. Since cc is a nonnegative integer, the coefficient is negative exactly when c≥9c\ge9.

For c=9c=9, Proposition 4.1 gives a smooth three-dimensional lattice polytope with six facets and eight vertices, and (9) gives

LR1,9(t)=472t3+21t2−32t+1.L_{R_{1,9}}(t)=\frac{47}{2}t^3+21t^2-\frac{3}{2}t+1.

For example, the two integer slices at dilation one each contain 22 lattice points, so LR1,9(1)=44L_{R_{1,9}}(1)=44, in agreement with the polynomial.

Remark 4.3. The polytope R1,cR_{1,c} is the convex hull of

[0,1]×[0,c+1]×{0}and[0,c+1]×[0,1]×{1}.[0,1]\times[0,c+1]\times\{0\}\quad\text{and}\quad[0,c+1]\times[0,1]\times\{1\}.

This construction is called the Cayley sum of the two rectangles. Smooth Cayley sums of boxes and their lattice-point counts are treated in [6 Proposition 2.3 and Theorem 3.1]. The computation above specializes this construction and identifies the sign of each Ehrhart coefficient.

For r=2r=2, the simplex factor in (8) is quadratic. A direct expansion gives

2LR2,c(t)=(t2+3t+2)((c+1)t+1)S0(t)+c((2c+1)t2+(3c+2)t+1)S1(t)+c2((c−1)t−2)S2(t)−c3S3(t).(10)2L_{R_{2,c}}(t)=(t^2+3t+2)((c+1)t+1)S_0(t)+c((2c+1)t^2+(3c+2)t+1)S_1(t)+c^2((c-1)t-2)S_2(t)-c^3S_3(t). \tag*{(10)}

At c=12c=12, the formulas in (2) turn (10) into

2LR2,12(t)=259t4+263t3−9t2−11t+2.(11)2L_{R_{2,12}}(t)=259t^4+263t^3-9t^2-11t+2. \tag*{(11)}

The polytope is smooth and has seven facets by Proposition 4.1. Both coefficients that can be negative in dimension four are negative in this example.

The family Rr,cR_{r,c} also gives counterexamples with exactly d+3d+3 facets in every dimension d≥4d\ge4, with a negative coefficient of td−2t^{d-2}.

Proposition 4.4. For every integer r≥2r\ge2, we have

[tr]LRr,c(t)=−cr+112r!+O(cr)(c⟶+∞).[t^r]L_{R_{r,c}}(t)=-\frac{c^{r+1}}{12r!}+O(c^r)\qquad(c\longrightarrow+\infty).

Thus, for each d≥4d\ge4, the coefficient of td−2t^{d-2} is negative in a smooth dd-polytope with exactly d+3d+3 facets when cc is sufficiently large.

Proof. The binomial polynomial in (8) equals

(t+cj+rr)=1r!∏i=1r(t+cj+i).\binom{t+cj+r}{r}=\frac{1}{r!}\prod_{i=1}^{r}(t+cj+i).

Its coefficient of crc^r is jr/r!j^r/r!. The other factor in the summand is (t+1)+c(t−j)(t+1)+c(t-j), whose coefficient of cc is t−jt-j. Therefore the coefficient of cr+1c^{r+1} in the whole lattice-point count is

1r!∑j=0tjr(t−j)=1r!(tSr(t)−Sr+1(t)).\frac{1}{r!}\sum_{j=0}^{t}j^r(t-j)=\frac{1}{r!}\bigl(tS_r(t)-S_{r+1}(t)\bigr).

Every remaining power of cc has degree at most rr; its coefficient is a polynomial in tt because it is a finite linear combination of power sums. Thus the coefficient of trt^r in the Ehrhart polynomial is itself a polynomial in cc of degree at most r+1r+1.

By Equation (3) with B2=1/6B_2=1/6, we obtain

[tr−1]Sr(t)=r12,[tr]Sr+1(t)=r+112(r≥2).[t^{r-1}]S_r(t)=\frac{r}{12},\qquad[t^r]S_{r+1}(t)=\frac{r+1}{12}\qquad(r\ge2).

The coefficient of trt^r in tSr(t)−Sr+1(t)tS_r(t)-S_{r+1}(t) is consequently −1/12-1/12. This proves the displayed asymptotic formula. Dividing it by cr+1c^{r+1} gives a limit equal to −1/(12r!)-1/(12r!), which is negative. The coefficient is therefore negative for every sufficiently large integer cc. Finally, d=r+2d=r+2 and r+5=d+3r+5=d+3 by Proposition 4.1. □

Two additional facets in dimensions at least five

A related family is obtained by retaining only the simplex coordinates and the height coordinate. For integers r≥1r\ge1 and c≥0c\ge0, define

Qr,c={(x,z)∈Rr×R:0≤z≤1, xi≥0 (1≤i≤r), x1+⋯+xr≤1+cz}.(12)Q_{r,c}=\{(x,z)\in\mathbb{R}^r\times\mathbb{R}:0\le z\le1,\ x_i\ge0\ (1\le i\le r),\ x_1+\cdots+x_r\le1+cz\}. \tag*{(12)}

Proposition 5.1. The polytope Qr,cQ_{r,c} is a smooth lattice polytope of dimension r+1r+1, with exactly r+3r+3 facets and 2(r+1)2(r+1) vertices. Its Ehrhart polynomial is

LQr,c(t)=∑j=0t(t+cj+rr).(13)L_{Q_{r,c}}(t)=\sum_{j=0}^{t}\binom{t+cj+r}{r}. \tag*{(13)}

Proof. For each fixed z∈[0,1]z\in[0,1], the inequalities in (12) allow exactly the xx-coordinates in (1+cz)Δr(1+cz)\Delta_r. Its dilation factor is at least one. There are points with 0<z<10<z<1, all xi>0x_i>0, and x1+⋯+xr<1+czx_1+\cdots+x_r<1+cz. Such points satisfy every defining inequality strictly, so Qr,cQ_{r,c} has dimension r+1r+1.

The faces z=0z=0 and z=1z=1 are rr-dimensional simplices. On a face xi=0x_i=0, choose 0<z<10<z<1 and choose the remaining xx-coordinates positive with sum less than 1+cz1+cz. This gives a relatively open subset of dimension rr; when r=1r=1, the face is the segment x1=0x_1=0, 0≤z≤10\le z\le1. On the face x1+⋯+xr=1+czx_1+\cdots+x_r=1+cz, choose all xi>0x_i>0 and 0<z<10<z<1, again obtaining a relatively open subset of dimension rr. Thus each displayed inequality defines a facet. Their supporting hyperplanes are distinct, so there are exactly r+3r+3 facets.

Suppose that (x,z)∈Qr,c(x,z)\in Q_{r,c} and 0<z<10<z<1. Set u=x/(1+cz)∈Δru=x/(1+cz)\in\Delta_r. The identity

(x,z)=(1−z)(u,0)+z((c+1)u,1)(x,z)=(1-z)(u,0)+z((c+1)u,1)

expresses (x,z)(x,z) as a point in the interior of a segment joining two distinct points of Qr,cQ_{r,c}. It is therefore not a vertex. Let e1,…,ere_1,\ldots,e_r be the standard basis of Rr\mathbb{R}^r, and set e0=0e_0=0. The complete list of vertices is

wi,η=((1+cη)ei,η),0≤i≤r,η∈{0,1}.w_{i,\eta}=((1+c\eta)e_i,\eta),\qquad0\le i\le r,\quad\eta\in\{0,1\}.

Indeed, these are precisely the vertices of the two endpoint faces, and a vertex of either face is a vertex of the whole polytope. The 2(r+1)2(r+1) listed points are distinct lattice points.

At wi,ηw_{i,\eta}, exactly r+1r+1 facet equations hold: the rr simplex equations determining x=(1+cη)eix=(1+c\eta)e_i and the equation z=ηz=\eta. They are independent. The incident edges are

[wi,η,wk,η](0≤k≤r, k≠i),[wi,η,wi,1−η].[w_{i,\eta},w_{k,\eta}]\quad(0\le k\le r,\ k\ne i),\qquad[w_{i,\eta},w_{i,1-\eta}].

The first rr are the edges of the simplex face z=ηz=\eta. For the last edge, retain the rr simplex equations and allow zz to vary. Their solutions in Qr,cQ_{r,c} are exactly

((1+cz)ei,z),0≤z≤1,((1+cz)e_i,z),\qquad0\le z\le1,

so they form the segment joining wi,0w_{i,0} to wi,1w_{i,1}. These are all the incident edges, since each is obtained by omitting one of the r+1r+1 independent facet equations at the vertex. Their primitive directions, pointing away from wi,ηw_{i,\eta}, are

(ek−ei,0)(0≤k≤r, k≠i),(1−2η)(cei,1).(e_k-e_i,0)\quad(0\le k\le r,\ k\ne i),\qquad(1-2\eta)(ce_i,1).

The first rr vectors are primitive because each has a coordinate equal to 1 or −1-1. The difference of the endpoints of the last edge is the final displayed vector; its last coordinate is 1 or −1-1, so it is primitive for every c≥0c\ge0.

The vectors ek−eie_k-e_i, k≠ik\ne i, form a basis of Zr\mathbb{Z}^r. When i=0i=0, they are the standard basis. When i≥1i\ge1, they are −ei-e_i and ek−eie_k-e_i for 1≤k≤r1\le k\le r, k≠ik\ne i; subtracting −ei-e_i from each of the latter vectors produces the remaining standard basis vectors. Let BiB_i be the matrix with these vectors as columns, and set τ=1−2η\tau=1-2\eta. The matrix of all the primitive incident edge directions is

(Biτcei0τ).\begin{pmatrix} B_i & \tau ce_i\\ 0 & \tau \end{pmatrix}.

Its determinant, obtained by expansion along the last row, is τdet⁡Bi=1\tau\det B_i = 1 or −1-1. Thus the r+1r+1 primitive incident edge directions form a basis of Zr+1\mathbb{Z}^{r+1}, proving smoothness at every vertex.

For a nonnegative integer tt, an integer height z=jz=j in tQr,ctQ_{r,c} satisfies 0≤j≤t0 \le j \le t. At this height, the possible integer vectors xx satisfy

xi≥0 (1≤i≤r),x1+⋯+xr≤t+cj.x_i \ge0 \ (1 \le i \le r), \qquad x_1+\cdots+x_r \le t+cj.

The weak-composition formula gives (t+cj+rr)\binom{t+cj+r}{r} such vectors. Summation over j=0,…,tj=0,\ldots,t proves (13).

Theorem 5.2. For each integer r≥4r \ge4, we have

[tr−3]LQr,c(t)=−cr720(r−3)!+O(cr−1)(c⟶+∞).[t^{r-3}]L_{Q_{r,c}}(t)=-\frac{c^r}{720(r-3)!}+O(c^{r-1}) \qquad(c\longrightarrow+\infty).

Consequently, for every d≥5d \ge5, a smooth lattice dd-polytope with exactly d+2d+2 facets can have a negative coefficient of td−4t^{d-4}.

Proof. The product expression

(t+cj+rr)=1r!∏i=1r(t+cj+i)\binom{t+cj+r}{r}=\frac{1}{r!}\prod_{i=1}^{r}(t+cj+i)

shows that the coefficient of crc^r in the summand is jr/r!j^r/r!. Every other term has cc-degree at most r−1r-1. After summation over jj, these terms remain polynomials in tt by (3) and the separate identity S0(t)=t+1S_0(t)=t+1. Hence (13) has the form

LQr,c(t)=crr!Sr(t)+∑k=0r−1ckAr,k(t),L_{Q_{r,c}}(t)=\frac{c^r}{r!}S_r(t)+\sum_{k=0}^{r-1}c^kA_{r,k}(t),

where the polynomials Ar,k(t)A_{r,k}(t) have rational coefficients independent of cc. The coefficient in (4) now gives

[tr−3]LQr,c(t)=crr!(−r(r−1)(r−2)720)+∑k=0r−1ck[tr−3]Ar,k(t)=−cr720(r−3)!+O(cr−1).\begin{aligned} [t^{r-3}]L_{Q_{r,c}}(t)=\frac{c^r}{r!}\left(-\frac{r(r-1)(r-2)}{720}\right)+\sum_{k=0}^{r-1}c^k[t^{r-3}]A_{r,k}(t) \\ &=-\frac{c^r}{720(r-3)!}+O(c^{r-1}). \end{aligned}

The coefficient is a polynomial in cc with negative leading coefficient. Its quotient by crc^r tends to −1/(720(r−3)!)-1/(720(r-3)!), so it is negative for every sufficiently large integer cc. Proposition 5.1 gives dimension d=r+1d=r+1 and facet number r+3=d+2r+3=d+2. The relevant exponent is r−3=d−4≥1r-3=d-4\ge1, as required.

For r=4r=4, an explicit five-dimensional example given

LQ4,c(t)=c4+5c3+10c2+10c+5120t5+c4+9c3+26c2+34c+2248t4+c4+18c3+83c2+150c+13572t3+5(c3+9c2+24c+34)48t2+−c4+175c2+750c+2220720t+1.L_{Q_{4,c}}(t)=\frac{c^4+5c^3+10c^2+10c+5}{120}t^5+\frac{c^4+9c^3+26c^2+34c+22}{48}t^4 +\frac{c^4+18c^3+83c^2+150c+135}{72}t^3+\frac{5(c^3+9c^2+24c+34)}{48}t^2 +\frac{-c^4+175c^2+750c+2220}{720}t+1.

In particular, at c=16c = 16 the polytope

Q4,16={(x,z)∈R4×R:0≤z≤1, xi≥0 (1≤i≤4), x1+x2+x3+x4≤1+16z}Q_{4,16} = \{(x,z) \in\mathbb{R}^{4} \times\mathbb{R} : 0 \le z \le1,\ x_i \ge0\ (1 \le i \le4),\ x_1 + x_2 + x_3 + x_4 \le1 + 16z\}

has seven facets and ten vertices, and its Ehrhart polynomial is

LQ4,16(t)=88741120t5+5481124t4+5434924t3+1704524t2−18120t+1.L_{Q_{4,16}}(t) = \frac{88741}{120}t^{5} + \frac{54811}{24}t^{4} + \frac{54349}{24}t^{3} + \frac{17045}{24}t^{2} - \frac{181}{20}t + 1.

Proof of Theorem 1.3. Every full-dimensional dd-polytope has at least d+1d + 1 facets; this standard fact is discussed in [13 Chapter 2]. In dimensions one and two, the leading, second highest, and constant Ehrhart coefficients account for all coefficients, and they are positive by the basic Ehrhart coefficient formulas. Thus m1=m2=+∞m_1 = m_2 = +\infty.

In dimensions three and four, Proposition 3.1 gives positivity whenever the number of facets is d+1d + 1 or d+2d + 2. Thus md≥d+3m_d \ge d + 3 for d=3,4d = 3, 4. The polytope R1,9R_{1,9} has six facets and negative linear coefficient by Proposition 4.2; hence m3=6m_3 = 6. The polytope R2,12R_{2,12} has seven facets and the negative coefficients displayed in (11); hence m4=7m_4 = 7.

For d≥5d \ge5, Proposition 3.1 gives positivity with d+1d + 1 facets, so md≥d+2m_d \ge d + 2. Theorem 5.2, with r=d−1r = d - 1, supplies a smooth dd-polytope with exactly d+2d + 2 facets and a negative Ehrhart coefficient. Thus md=d+2m_d = d + 2 for every d≥5d \ge5.

Higher integrality and smooth vertices

We use higher integrality in the sense of Liu. Its definition involves an ordered lattice basis, and every face condition must hold with respect to that same basis. The following is the full-dimensional specialization of [9 Definition 1.1].

Definition 6.1. An ordered basis b1,…,bdb_1,\ldots,b_d of Zd\mathbb{Z}^{d} determines coordinate projections πj:Rd⟶Rj\pi_j:\mathbb{R}^{d} \longrightarrow\mathbb{R}^{j} by

πj(∑i=1dxibi)=(x1,…,xj),0≤j≤d.\pi_j\left(\sum_{i=1}^{d} x_i b_i\right) = (x_1,\ldots,x_j), \qquad0 \le j \le d.

Here R0=Z0={0}\mathbb{R}^{0} = \mathbb{Z}^{0} = \{0\}. An affine subspace AA of dimension jj is integral with respect to this basis if

πj(A∩Zd)=Zj.\pi_j(A \cap\mathbb{Z}^{d}) = \mathbb{Z}^{j}.

For an integer 0≤k≤d0 \le k \le d, a lattice polytope PP is kk-integral with respect to this basis if the affine hull of every jj-dimensional face is integral for every 0≤j≤k0 \le j \le k.

The condition for j=0j = 0 says that every vertex is a lattice point. Thus 0-integrality is ordinary lattice integrality, and kk-integrality implies 1-integrality whenever k≥1k \ge1. The existence of an ordered basis satisfying the definition is invariant under affine unimodular transformations: such a transformation transports the lattice basis and the affine lattices of all faces.

We recall only the coefficient consequence of Liu’s theorem that is needed here. For a polytope in Rj\mathbb{R}^{j}, the notation Vol⁡j\operatorname{Vol}_j denotes volume measured so that a fundamental parallelepiped of Zj\mathbb{Z}^{j} has volume one. In particular, a unimodular jj-simplex has volume 1/j!1/j!, and the volume of the point in R0\mathbb{R}^{0} is one.

Theorem 6.2 (Liu; [9 Theorem 1.3]). If a full-dimensional lattice dd-polytope PP is kk-integral with respect to an ordered lattice basis, then

ej(P)=Vol⁡j(πj(P)),0≤j≤k.e_j(P) = \operatorname{Vol}_j(\pi_j(P)), \qquad0 \le j \le k.

For d≥2d \ge2, this formula implies that (d−2)(d-2)-integrality is sufficient for Ehrhart positivity, as observed in [9]. Indeed, all the projected polytopes have their indicated dimensions and positive volumes, and the leading two Ehrhart coefficients are positive for every lattice polytope. In the particular case k=1k=1, the linear Ehrhart coefficient is the length of a lattice interval and is therefore a positive integer. The results below give elementary obstructions that do not require computation of an Ehrhart polynomial.

Lemma 6.3. A lattice polytope PP is 1-integral with respect to an ordered lattice basis having first coordinate functional ℓ\ell if and only if

∣ℓ(u)∣=1|\ell(u)| = 1

for every primitive edge direction uu of PP. Consequently, PP is 1-integral with respect to some ordered lattice basis if and only if an integer linear functional satisfying these equations exists.

Proof. The definition of 1-integrality imposes conditions on the vertices and on the edges. Each zero-dimensional face is a singleton {v}\{v\}, where v∈Zdv \in\mathbb{Z}^{d} because PP is a lattice polytope. Its affine hull is again {v}\{v\}, so

aff⁡({v})∩Zd={v},π0(aff⁡({v})∩Zd)={0}=Z0.\operatorname{aff}(\{v\}) \cap\mathbb{Z}^{d} = \{v\}, \qquad\pi_0\bigl(\operatorname{aff}(\{v\}) \cap\mathbb{Z}^{d}\bigr) = \{0\} = \mathbb{Z}^{0}.

Thus every vertex satisfies the condition required in dimension zero.

Let EE be an edge with lattice endpoint vv and primitive direction uu. Its affine hull is the line v+Ruv+\mathbb{R}u. We claim that the lattice points on this line are exactly v+Zuv+\mathbb{Z}u. Write u=(u1,…,ud)u=(u_1,\ldots,u_d) in standard lattice coordinates. Since uu is primitive, the greatest common divisor of its coordinates is one. Hence there are integers a1,…,ada_1,\ldots,a_d with ∑i=1daiui=1\sum_{i=1}^{d}a_i u_i=1. If v+αu∈Zdv+\alpha u\in\mathbb{Z}^{d} for a real number α\alpha, then αu∈Zd\alpha u\in\mathbb{Z}^{d} and therefore

α=∑i=1dai(αui)∈Z.\alpha= \sum_{i=1}^{d} a_i(\alpha u_i) \in\mathbb{Z}.

Conversely, v+nuv+nu is a lattice point on the line for every n∈Zn\in\mathbb{Z}. Consequently,

aff⁡(E)∩Zd=v+Zu,π1(aff⁡(E)∩Zd)=ℓ(v)+ℓ(u)Z.\operatorname{aff}(E)\cap\mathbb{Z}^{d}=v+\mathbb{Z}u,\qquad\pi_1\bigl(\operatorname{aff}(E)\cap\mathbb{Z}^{d}\bigr)=\ell(v)+\ell(u)\mathbb{Z}.

Both ℓ(v)\ell(v) and ℓ(u)\ell(u) are integers. The last set equals Z\mathbb{Z} if and only if ℓ(u)Z=Z\ell(u)\mathbb{Z}=\mathbb{Z}, or equivalently ∣ℓ(u)∣=1|\ell(u)|=1. The conditions for vertices and edges together prove the first assertion.

The first coordinate functional of any ordered lattice basis is an integer linear functional, so the first assertion gives one direction of the final equivalence. Conversely, suppose that an integer linear functional ℓ\ell satisfies ∣ℓ(u)∣=1|\ell(u)|=1 for every primitive edge direction. Choose one such direction and change its sign if necessary to obtain w∈Zdw\in\mathbb{Z}^{d} with ℓ(w)=1\ell(w)=1. Every x∈Zdx\in\mathbb{Z}^{d} then has the decomposition

x=ℓ(x)w+(x−ℓ(x)w),x−ℓ(x)w∈ker⁡ℓ∩Zd.x=\ell(x)w+(x-\ell(x)w),\qquad x-\ell(x)w\in\ker\ell\cap\mathbb{Z}^{d}.

This decomposition is unique: if nwnw belongs to ker⁡ℓ\ker\ell, then n=ℓ(nw)=0n=\ell(nw)=0. Thus

Zd=Zw⊕(ker⁡ℓ∩Zd).\mathbb{Z}^{d}=\mathbb{Z}w\oplus(\ker\ell\cap\mathbb{Z}^{d}).

The second summand has a lattice basis b2,…,bdb_2,\ldots,b_d, and w,b2,…,bdw,b_2,\ldots,b_d is an ordered basis of Zd\mathbb{Z}^{d}. In this basis, ℓ(w)=1\ell(w)=1 and ℓ(bi)=0\ell(b_i)=0 for 2≤i≤d2\le i\le d, so ℓ\ell is the first coordinate functional. The first assertion now shows that PP is 1-integral with respect to this basis. □

Lemma 6.4. If vv is a smooth vertex of PP, with primitive incident edge directions u1,…,udu_1,\ldots,u_d, then for every pair of distinct indices i,ji,j there is a two-dimensional face FF containing those two edges, with

aff⁡(F)=v+span⁡R{ui,uj},aff⁡(F)∩Zd=v+Zui+Zuj.\operatorname{aff}(F)=v+\operatorname{span}_{\mathbb{R}}\{u_i,u_j\},\qquad\operatorname{aff}(F)\cap\mathbb{Z}^{d}=v+\mathbb{Z}u_i+\mathbb{Z}u_j.

Proof. Orient each uku_k from vv into its incident edge. Since vv is smooth, the vectors u1,…,udu_1,\ldots,u_d form a basis of Zd\mathbb{Z}^d. Let λ1,…,λd\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_d be the corresponding coordinate functionals; explicitly,

λk(ul)={1,k=l,0,k≠l,1≤k,l≤d.\lambda_k(u_l)= \begin{cases} 1, & k=l,\\ 0, & k\ne l, \end{cases} \qquad1\le k,l\le d.

Thus every z∈Rdz\in\mathbb{R}^d has the unique expression z=∑k=1dλk(z)ukz=\sum_{k=1}^{d}\lambda_k(z)u_k, and each λk\lambda_k takes integer values on Zd\mathbb{Z}^d.

The cone consisting of the nonnegative multiples of vectors in P−vP-v is generated by the directions of the edges incident to vv; see [13]. Hence

{α(x−v):α≥0, x∈P}={∑k=1dskuk:sk≥0 (1≤k≤d)}.\{\alpha(x-v):\alpha\ge0,\ x\in P\}=\left\{\sum_{k=1}^{d}s_k u_k:s_k\ge0\ (1\le k\le d)\right\}.

In particular, if x∈Px\in P, then every coordinate λk(x−v)\lambda_k(x-v) is nonnegative. Fix distinct indices i,ji,j, and define the linear functional

f(z)=∑1≤k≤dk∉{i,j}λk(z).f(z)=\sum_{\substack{1\le k\le d\\k\notin\{i,j\}}}\lambda_k(z).

We have f(x−v)≥0f(x-v)\ge0 for all x∈Px\in P and f(v−v)=0f(v-v)=0. Therefore the points at which this functional attains its minimum form a face

F={x∈P:f(x−v)=0}.F=\{x\in P:f(x-v)=0\}.

For x∈Px\in P, all summands in f(x−v)f(x-v) are nonnegative. Their sum is zero precisely when λk(x−v)=0\lambda_k(x-v)=0 for every k∉{i,j}k\notin\{i,j\}. It follows that

F⊆v+span⁡R{ui,uj}.F\subseteq v+\operatorname{span}_{\mathbb{R}}\{u_i,u_j\}.

Each point on the edge from vv in direction uiu_i has the form v+suiv+su_i with s≥0s\ge0 and satisfies f(sui)=0f(su_i)=0. The same argument applies to the edge in direction uju_j. Thus both edges lie in FF. Their directions are linearly independent, so FF has dimension at least two. The displayed containment gives the reverse bound and proves

dim⁡F=2,aff⁡(F)=v+span⁡R{ui,uj}.\dim F=2,\qquad\operatorname{aff}(F)=v+\operatorname{span}_{\mathbb{R}}\{u_i,u_j\}.

When d=2d=2, the sum defining ff is empty and equals zero; in that case F=PF=P, and the same conclusion holds.

Let z∈aff⁡(F)∩Zdz\in\operatorname{aff}(F)\cap\mathbb{Z}^d. Since v∈Zdv\in\mathbb{Z}^d and u1,…,udu_1,\ldots,u_d form a lattice basis, there are unique integers n1,…,ndn_1,\ldots,n_d such that

z−v=∑k=1dnkuk.z-v=\sum_{k=1}^{d}n_k u_k.

On the other hand, the formula for aff⁡(F)\operatorname{aff}(F) gives real numbers s,ts,t with z−v=sui+tujz-v=su_i+tu_j. Uniqueness of coordinates in the real basis u1,…,udu_1,\ldots,u_d implies that nk=0n_k=0 for k∉{i,j}k\notin\{i,j\}, s=nis=n_i, and t=njt=n_j. Therefore z∈v+Zui+Zujz\in v+\mathbb{Z}u_i+\mathbb{Z}u_j. Conversely, for any integers m,nm,n, the point v+mui+nujv+mu_i+nu_j is a lattice point in v+span⁡R{ui,uj}=aff⁡(F)v+\operatorname{span}_{\mathbb{R}}\{u_i,u_j\}=\operatorname{aff}(F). These two inclusions prove

aff⁡(F)∩Zd=v+Zui+Zuj.\operatorname{aff}(F)\cap\mathbb{Z}^d=v+\mathbb{Z}u_i+\mathbb{Z}u_j.

This completes the proof.

Proof of Theorem 1.4. A contradiction follows if an ordered lattice basis makes PP 2-integral. Its first two coordinate functionals will be denoted by ℓ1,ℓ2\ell_1,\ell_2. The primitive incident directions at a smooth vertex vv will be denoted by u1,…,udu_1,\ldots,u_d. The edge criterion gives ℓ1(ui)=±1\ell_1(u_i)=\pm1 for every ii.

For any distinct i,ji,j, the preceding lemma supplies a two-face whose affine lattice is v+Zui+Zujv+\mathbb{Z}u_i+\mathbb{Z}u_j. Its projection onto the first two coordinates must be all of Z2\mathbb{Z}^2. Since the projection of vv is an integer vector, the two projected directions must generate Z2\mathbb{Z}^2. The integer matrix with those directions as columns therefore has determinant 11 or −1-1:

ℓ1(ui)ℓ2(uj)−ℓ1(uj)ℓ2(ui)=±1.\ell_1(u_i)\ell_2(u_j)-\ell_1(u_j)\ell_2(u_i)=\pm1.

Reduction modulo two, using ℓ1(ui)≡1(mod2)\ell_1(u_i)\equiv1\pmod{2}, shows that ℓ2(ui)\ell_2(u_i) and ℓ2(uj)\ell_2(u_j) have opposite parity. This must hold for every pair. Among the three integers ℓ2(u1),ℓ2(u2),ℓ2(u3)\ell_2(u_1),\ell_2(u_2),\ell_2(u_3), however, two have the same parity. The contradiction proves the first assertion for every choice of ordered basis.

When d≥4d\geq4, the inequality d−2≥2d-2\geq2 shows that (d−2)(d-2)-integrality would imply 2-integrality. Every vertex of a smooth polytope is smooth, so the first assertion proves the remaining conclusion.

The three-dimensional polytope R1,9R_{1,9} fails even 1-integrality. Three of its edges are

[(0,0,0),(1,0,0)],[(0,0,0),(0,0,1)],[(1,0,0),(10,0,1)].[(0,0,0),(1,0,0)],\qquad[(0,0,0),(0,0,1)],\qquad[(1,0,0),(10,0,1)].

They are obtained by imposing, respectively, the facet equalities y=z=0y=z=0, x=y=0x=y=0, and y=0y=0, x−9z=1x-9z=1. Their primitive directions are e1e_1, e3e_3, and 9e1+e39e_1+e_3. A functional satisfying the edge criterion would have ℓ(e1),ℓ(e3)∈{1,−1}\ell(e_1),\ell(e_3)\in\{1,-1\} and therefore

ℓ(9e1+e3)∈{−10,−8,8,10},\ell(9e_1+e_3)\in\{-10,-8,8,10\},

contrary to that criterion. Together with its negative linear coefficient, this gives a six-facet example failing both properties in dimension three. The higher-dimensional counterexamples of Theorem 1.3 also fail the sufficient higher integrality condition by Theorem 1.4.

Failure of 1-integrality already occurs for the standard smooth simplex Δd\Delta_d when d≥2d\geq2. Its primitive edge directions include e1e_1, e2e_2, and e2−e1e_2-e_1. If the first two functional values are each 11 or −1-1, their difference belongs to {−2,0,2}\{-2,0,2\}, which excludes the required value on the third direction. This simplex is Ehrhart positive and has d+1d+1 facets, so even the smallest possible facet number does not force 1-integrality.

The order of the obstruction is sharp. For the standard cube [0,1]d[0,1]^d, every primitive edge direction is a coordinate vector or its negative. The integer functional ℓ(x)=∑i=1dxi\ell(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{d}x_i satisfies the edge criterion, and the cube is consequently 1-integral with respect to a suitable ordered lattice basis. In dimensions at least three, Theorem 1.4 prevents it from being 2-integral in any basis.

Acknowledgments: Feihu Liu was partially supported by the Postdoctoral Fellowship Program and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. BX2026002).

References

  1. [1]AimPL, Ehrhart polynomials: inequalities and extremal constructions, available at http://aimpl.org/ehrhartineq. (2026). 2
  2. [2]Matthias Beck and Sinai Robins, Computing the Continuous Discretely: Integer-Point Enumeration in Polyhedra, second edition, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 2015. 1
  3. [3]Federico Castillo, Fu Liu, Benjamin Nill, and Andreas Paffenholz, Smooth polytopes with negative Ehrhart coefficients, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 160 (2018), 316–331. 2arxiv.org/abs/1704.05532
  4. [4]David A. Cox, John B. Little, and Henry K. Schenck, Toric Varieties, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 124, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2011. 2
  5. [5]Eugène Ehrhart, Sur les polyèdres rationnels homothétiques à n dimensions, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris 254 (1962), 616–618. 1
  6. [6]Luis Ferroni, Unimodality shenanigans in Ehrhart theory, preprint, arXiv:2609.10513v1, 2026. 9arxiv.org/abs/2609.10513
  7. [7]Milena Hering, Benjamin Nill, and Hendrik Süß, Stability of tangent bundles on smooth toric Picard-rank-2 varieties and surfaces, in Facets of Algebraic Geometry: A Collection in Honor of William Fulton’s 80th Birthday, vol. II, Paolo Aluffi, David Anderson, Milena Hering, Mircea Mustață, and Sam Payne (eds.), London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 473, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2022, 1–25. 2, 3, 4arxiv.org/abs/1910.08848
  8. [8]Peter Kleinschmidt, A classification of toric varieties with few generators, Aequationes Mathematicae 35 (1988), issues 2–3, 254–266. 2, 3DOI
  9. [9]Fu Liu, Higher integrality conditions, volumes and Ehrhart polynomials, Advances in Mathematics 226 (2011), issue 4, 3467–3494. 2, 13, 14arxiv.org/abs/0911.2051
  10. [10]Fu Liu, On positivity of Ehrhart polynomials, in Recent trends in algebraic combinatorics, Assoc. Women Math Ser., vol. 16, Springer, Cham, (2019), 189–237. 1arxiv.org/abs/1711.09962
  11. [11]National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions, Chapter 24, Bernoulli and Euler Polynomials, §24.4(iii), Sums of Powers. https://dlmf.nist.gov/24.4.iii. 5
  12. [12]Richard P. Stanley, Enumerative Combinatorics, vol. 1, second edition, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 49, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012. 3
  13. [13]Günter M. Ziegler, Lectures on Polytopes, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 152, Springer, New York, 1995. 13, 15

Paper details

vlnc:W_yfbek2y2
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 4

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Mathematics

Not recorded for this paper · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents