An integral degree-three Gersten counterexample
Abstract
We construct a two-dimensional ramified regular local ring A in mixed characteristic for which the integral map has nonzero kernel. This gives a negative answer to the unrestricted integral Gersten conjecture.
Introduction
For a regular local domain with fraction field , the integral Gersten conjecture asks whether, for each , the augmented complex of Quillen groups
is exact. Here is the residue field at a prime, and the later maps are the codimension-residue maps. In particular, exactness requires the first map to be injective. We construct a ring for which this requirement fails in degree three.
Fix a primitive fifth root of unity , and define
Let be the projective hypersurface
On its special fiber take , and set . We use for coherent -theory and for its mod-five coefficient groups.
Theorem 1.1. The ring is a two-dimensional Noetherian regular local domain of mixed characteristic , with . There is an integral class such that
In particular, is not injective.
Thus the unrestricted integral Gersten complex can fail already at its initial injection. The class is not in : any such multiple would have zero coefficient reduction, and hence zero reduction after restriction to . This conclusion does not determine the order of or its image in .
Context and earlier results
Gersten asked, among other questions, whether the transfer from the residue field to a discrete valuation ring vanishes [5] Problem 9]. Localization connects this question to injectivity of restriction to the fraction field: the image of the residue-field transfer is its kernel. Quillen formulated the general regular-local conjecture and proved it for regular semilocalizations of finite-type algebras over a field [11] §7, Conjecture 5.10 and Theorem 5.11]. Sherman established the equicharacteristic DVR case [12] p. 498], and Panin proved the full equicharacteristic case [9] Theorem A]. These results place the remaining integral question in mixed characteristic.
In mixed characteristic, smoothness over a DVR and the choice of coefficients lead to different positive results. Gillet and Levine’s relative theory reduces the smooth-over-DVR setting to the DVR case [6]. Geisser and Levine proved finite-coefficient Gersten exactness for semilocal rings essentially smooth over a DVR, including coefficients of residue-characteristic order [4] Theorem 8.2]. Druzhinin’s preprint states exactness for essentially smooth local Henselian schemes over a DVR [1] Theorem 4.5]. A separate result of Skalit gives finite-coefficient exactness for every unramified regular local ring [13] Corollary 5.7]; in mixed characteristic , unramified here means . His integral result is a reduction to DVRs essentially smooth over [13] Theorem 5.4]. Our ring satisfies , and its special fiber over the chosen is singular at ; it lies outside the unramified and smooth-over- settings just described.
The distinction between integral and coefficient classes governs the proof. A finite-coefficient kernel class may have a nonzero coefficient boundary and hence fail to lift integrally. Even when it lifts, its integral generic restriction may be nonzero but divisible by the coefficient prime. Feld’s mod-three degree-two example and its integral divisibility corollary illustrate this second issue [2] Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 5.1].
Feld’s construction also provides a methodological antecedent: push a Bott-type class from a divisor and detect its image after a flat cyclotomic base change and inversion of three. The symbol sketch in [2] Remark 5.3, footnote 3] gives a related use of symbols. Here we arrange the integral lift on the divisor itself, so support proves integral generic vanishing before the norm test is applied. No result from Feld’s or Druzhinin’s preprint is an input to this proof.
The companion paper An integral counterexample to Gersten’s conjecture [8] Theorem 1.1] gives an integral degree-five counterexample at , where is the ring of integers of the unramified degree-eight extension of . Its integral cyclotomic lift and Picard-valued specialization test form a different proof route. Here the quintic model supports a Steinberg lift and a norm valuation test, proved entirely within this paper. The two results concern different rings and do not determine the smallest degree in which integral Gersten injectivity can fail.
The route through the proof
Write for the projective generic curve. On the chart let and . The divisor in has ring . Section 2 proves that is a DVR with uniformizer , and that its fraction field is a totally ramified degree-five extension of satisfying
For a finite extension , write for the residue field of its valuation ring; its residue degree is . The corresponding closed point has field and specializes to , with but . Every closed point specializing elsewhere satisfies . This difference in residue degrees supplies the nonvanishing test.
Write for the integral class of a nonzero field element. Section 3 chooses a class whose coefficient boundary in is and constructs an integral lift of in two steps, where is the restriction of to . The identity turns the coefficient boundary of into a multiple of the Steinberg symbol in [7]. Hence lifts to an integral class in . Quillen’s finite-field calculation gives [10], so localization then lifts this integral class to . Pushforward from produces , and restriction to kills it because its support is the divisor .
To detect this candidate, Section 4 proves that for every finite extension , multiplication by the restriction identifies with . This calculation combines the multiplicative motivic-to- spectral sequence of Friedlander and Suslin, Suslin’s product-preserving comparison, and the norm-residue comparison [3, 14, 15]. The projection formula identifies field transfer with norm. Normalized valuation modulo five consequently kills every transferred coefficient class from a field of residue degree divisible by five, whereas has transferred valuation one because .
Section 5 proves that this integral class is nonzero. The scheme is an inverse limit of affine opens of with flat transition maps. These opens contain every closed point specializing to , so their omitted points have residue degree divisible by five. If the coefficient reduction of vanished, continuity of coherent -theory would make it vanish on one such open. Localization would then express the supported coefficient class as a sum of classes supported at omitted points. Proper pushforward to and the norm valuation give zero for every term on that side and one for , a contradiction. We work in coherent -theory on , which need not be smooth.
The model and its distinguished divisor
We verify the local ring in Theorem 1.1 and construct the divisor on which the integral class will be lifted. The special fiber forces a factor of five in residue degrees away from , while the divisor through has residue degree one and a uniformizer of norm . These properties will distinguish its class from classes whose supporting points specialize away from . For a finite extension , write for its valuation ring and for its residue field.
Lemma 2.1. The generic fiber is an integral projective curve. The ring is a two-dimensional Noetherian regular local domain of mixed characteristic with . For every closed point with residue field , the -point extends to . If its closed image is not , then .
On the chart , set , , and let be the image of in . Then
is a DVR with uniformizer . Its fraction field is totally ramified of degree five over , and
The equation cuts out a single closed point with residue field .
Proof. The polynomial
is Eisenstein at five. Therefore is a uniformizer of , its residue field is , and for some . The homogeneous equation defining reduces to
If is a root of , then Frobenius sends to . Its orbit has length exactly five: the th iterate is , which first returns at . Thus is irreducible over , and so is its homogenization . This remains irreducible on adjoining the independent variable . A factorization of the primitive homogeneous polynomial over would, by Gauss’ lemma, give primitive positive-degree homogeneous factors over and hence a factorization of . Consequently is integral. It is a projective plane curve, so it has dimension one.
Put
In the regular local ring of dimension three, modulo the square of the maximal ideal. Thus quotienting by gives the regular local ring of dimension two. A regular local ring is a domain. Since is monic in , the ring is free over and hence flat over . Its localization is also -flat, so embeds into . Together with , this proves mixed characteristic . Expanding gives
In particular, and . Since is divisible by , the term is in , as are all remaining terms on the right. Hence . Since , also , so is ramified in the usual mixed-characteristic sense. The reduction of the equation has no linear term at , so the one-dimensional special fiber is singular there; is not smooth over .
Modulo , the equation becomes
This is Eisenstein at . The finite free -algebra is a domain. Every maximal ideal lies over the maximal ideal of , and , so is local. Since implies , its maximal ideal is . Its dimension is one, making it a DVR. The localization defining leaves this local ring unchanged, proving (1). Its fraction field has degree five over and residue degree one, hence total ramification. The constant term gives
The relation also follows from . As , the equation on the generic affine chart gives a single closed point. There is no additional point with on , since substitution in would force . This proves the assertion about on all of .
We have constructed the distinguished point with residue degree one. It remains to establish the residue-degree constraint on points that specialize away from . A closed point of has residue field finite over . Properness of extends its -point to . On the special fiber forces , so is the only point with . If the closed image is elsewhere, in is a root of . Thus contains , and . ∩ევნ
Lifting on the divisor
The divisor now supplies an integral class with zero generic restriction. We first lift a coefficient class to and then extend that lift across the closed point of . Its coefficient image will be tested for nonvanishing only after this construction.
Let be the mod-five Moore spectrum. We use , and the same convention for -theory. The coefficient sequence is
Here denotes coefficient reduction, and denotes the connecting map. Multiplication of a coefficient class by an integral class uses the natural -module structure on .
For an element of a field’s multiplicative group, write for its integral class. Since has order five, exactness permits us to fix
For every finite extension , write for its restriction. The class to be lifted is
Resolution identifies -theory with coherent -theory for the regular rings and ; closed-immersion pushforward is taken in -theory [11].
Proposition 3.1. There exists whose restriction to , followed by coefficient reduction, is . If and , then . Moreover, for and ,
Proof. The coefficient cofiber sequence is a sequence of -modules. Its connecting map is therefore compatible with multiplication by an integral class, up to the suspension sign. By (2), and . Both and are nonzero: the first has fifth power , and the second is the uniformizer of . Matsumoto’s Steinberg relation [7], with the identification of symbols and products in Quillen [16], gives
The sign does not affect the vanishing. Exactness of (3) yields an integral lift of . The boundary of itself is still nonzero, even though . Being a fifth power makes the class of vanish in , not in the integral group . The Steinberg relation is what kills the boundary of the product .
Localization and dévissage for the DVR give [11]
The last group is zero by Quillen’s finite-field computation [10]. We may therefore choose restricting to . This is a second lift, distinct from the coefficient lift to .
Let . Its restriction to is zero because the closed immersion has empty pullback there. The element is nonzero in the domain : its quotient has dimension one, whereas has dimension two. Hence becomes invertible in , and integrally.
Base change of along is , since . Flat base change for coherent pushforward [16] here is the natural isomorphism
for a finite -module , with both sides viewed as -modules. Thus restriction of scalars commutes with localization. Naturality of coefficient reduction gives the commutative diagram
Both vertical arrows mean restriction followed by coefficient reduction. The left arrow sends to , which proves the stated identity.
The field comparison and norm detector
Proposition 3.1 constructs an integral class with zero generic restriction. To prove it nonzero, we will test its coefficient image by proper pushforward to and a valuation. Localization on the projective curve will introduce arbitrary classes in , for finite extensions arising as closed-point fields. We therefore need a description of all these groups that identifies field transfer with norm.
Keep the class and its restrictions fixed as in Section 3. For every finite extension , let be its residue field, and normalize so that a uniformizer has valuation one.
Lemma 4.1 (Multiplicative field comparison). For and the fixed above, every finite extension has an isomorphism
The degree-three motivic edge identifies the target with . Under this edge, the displayed map is Kummer reduction followed by cup product with the nonzero weight-one edge image of .
Proof. We first identify the degree-three group, then locate the image of in degree two, and finally compute multiplication by on integral . The strongly convergent motivic-to- spectral sequence for a characteristic-zero field is
It has a pairing with the integral spectral sequence that induces the integral/coefficient -module product on the abutment [3]. The comparison with motivic complexes preserves products [14]. Write and , so a term has total -degree . Negative weights vanish. For , the field motivic groups vanish for , and the norm-residue and motivic–étale comparison theorems identify them, for every , with
see [15] and [16]. In particular, the groups vanish for . These comparisons apply because 5 is invertible in .
The 5-cohomological dimension of a finite extension of is two [16]. Thus the only potentially nonzero terms satisfy . For a differential changes to , so none can join two nonzero terms. Total degree three has the single term , yielding the natural identification
In particular, this -group is killed by five. In total degree two the weight-one quotient of the filtration is ; the only other possible piece is in weight two.
Let be the weight-one image of . To see that it is nonzero, restrict to an algebraic closure . The same comparison there has only terms, so its total degree-two group has just the weight-one piece . Matsumoto’s presentation of field ([7]; see also [16]) gives : every symbol equals after choosing . The coefficient sequence therefore identifies with through . The restriction of is nonzero, since its boundary is the primitive root . Naturality of the filtration shows that has nonzero image in . It is consequently a generator of ; only this nonvanishing is needed.
It remains to determine the actual product from these filtration pieces. Integral has only the weight-one piece : on the diagonal , weights give and vanish, weight zero gives , and negative weights vanish. The identification identifies reduction of with its Kummer class in .
Write for the decreasing weight filtration. The preceding calculations give
The class lies in and has image in its quotient by . The mixed filtered pairing satisfies
Thus the possible weight-two part of contributes nothing: the product is determined by and the weight-one class of . Product compatibility identifies it, under (7), with . Since generates the constant one-dimensional -module , this cup product is an isomorphism. The product factors through fifth powers because its target is killed by five and . This proves (5) with its asserted multiplicative identification.
In particular, the coefficient class already constructed on the divisor is . We now relate the comparison maps for different extensions of .
Lemma 4.2 (Norm detector). For every finite extension and every ,
Consequently
satisfies
Proof. Restriction of scalars obeys the tensor projection formula at the level of -theory spectra [16]. Smashing its base-field factor with gives the mixed pairing identity
The second equality uses the norm description of field transfer [16] and the following paragraph. This proves (8).
For normalized valuations, the norm of the prime ideal of is the th power of the prime ideal of . Hence
Every has the form by Lemma 4.1. Applying the formula to that proves the assertion for all . The factor is the residue degree, not the total degree .
Detection on the projective curve
Proposition 3.1 has constructed an integral class with and coefficient image on
By Lemma 4.1, . To prove its pushforward nonzero, we extend the supported class to the projective curve , where proper pushforward permits the norm test. The scheme is an inverse limit of affine opens of with flat transition maps, and need not itself be an open subset. The following lemma makes that passage explicit.
Lemma 5.1. Let , where and . For put
Then the refinement maps are affine and flat, and
Every contains . Its complement in is a finite set of closed points , and their residue fields satisfy .
Proof. The multiplicative set is directed by taking products: gives a common refinement of and . Transitivity of localization gives
Each refinement is a principal localization, so the corresponding scheme map is affine and flat. The stages and their limit are affine Noetherian schemes, hence separated. Quillen’s continuity theorem, in its coherent conclusion [11], therefore applies to their integral -groups.
To pass to coefficients, use the natural short exact sequence
for each stage and for . Filtered colimits of abelian groups are exact, and thus commute with the quotient by five and the kernel of multiplication by five. Integral continuity in degrees three and two identifies the outer terms in the resulting comparison of short exact sequences. It consequently identifies the middle terms, proving the coefficient assertion in (9).
Since , its image in the local divisor ring is a unit. Thus belongs to . More generally, consider a closed point with residue field whose extension specializes to . The inverse image of the chart contains the closed point of , and hence is all of . On that chart the reduction of at is nonzero. Its pullback to is therefore a unit, so lies in . It follows that each point omitted from specializes away from . Lemma 2.1 then gives . Finally, is an integral projective curve and is nonempty, so its closed complement consists of finitely many closed points.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. Take the integral class constructed in Proposition 3.1, and put
Coherent -theory provides proper pushforward even when is singular. The point immersion is finite, and the structural map is proper with carrying the ample line bundle . Coherent pushforward and its composition law therefore apply to both maps [11], paragraph 2.7 and the discussion following (2.8)].
Flat base change for the point immersion on each [16], followed by (9), identifies with the pushforward of along . By Proposition 3.1, this is precisely the coefficient reduction of .
Suppose that . The element represents this class in the filtered colimit (9). A zero element in that colimit becomes zero at a finite stage, so for some . Give its reduced closed structure. Apply Moore coefficients to coherent localization and dévissage at these closed points [11]. The resulting exact segment is
Consequently there are classes such that
These are arbitrary coefficient classes supplied by localization. Lemma 4.1 applies to every finite extension , so its surjectivity writes each of them as for some .
Apply the proper pushforward to (10). For every closed point, the composite is the field transfer. Lemma 5.1 gives , and Lemma 4.2 therefore gives
Thus (10) forces . On the other hand, the distinguished point has residue field , and its parameter satisfies . The same transfer formula yields
This contradiction proves . Hence the coefficient reduction of is nonzero, so the integral class is itself nonzero. Its image at the fraction field is zero by Proposition 3.1; together with the properties of in Lemma 2.1, this proves the theorem.
References
- [1]Andrei E. Druzhinin. Gersten conjecture for K-theory on Henselian schemes and φ-motivic localisation, 2025. arXiv:2512.01923v1.arxiv.org/abs/2512.01923
- [2]Niels Feld. Finite-coefficient Gersten injectivity fails in ramified mixed characteristic, 2026. arXiv:2608.05005v2, September 24, 2026.arxiv.org/abs/2608.05005
- [3]Eric M. Friedlander and Andrei Suslin. The spectral sequence relating algebraic K-theory to motivic cohomology. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4), 35:773–875, 2002.DOI
- [4]Thomas Geisser and Marc Levine. The K-theory of fields in characteristic p. Invent. Math., 139:459–493, 2000.DOI
- [5]S. M. Gersten. Problems about higher K-functors. In Algebraic K-theory, I: Higher K-theories, volume 341 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 43–56. Springer, 1973.DOI
- [6]Henri Gillet and Marc Levine. The relative form of Gersten’s conjecture over a discrete valuation ring: The smooth case. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 46:59–71, 1987.DOI
- [7]Hideya Matsumoto. Sur les sous-groupes arithmétiques des groupes semi-simples déployés. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4), 2:1–62, 1969.DOI
- [8]OpenAI. An integral counterexample to Gersten’s conjecture. OpenAI Math Release preprint OAI:An-Integral-Counterexample-to-Gerstens-Conjecture-September-25-2026, 2026.
- [9]I. A. Panin. The equicharacteristic case of the Gersten conjecture. Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklova, 241:169–178, 2003.
- [10]Daniel Quillen. On the cohomology and K-theory of the general linear groups over a finite field. Ann. of Math. (2), 96:552–586, 1972.DOI
- [11]Daniel Quillen. Higher algebraic K-theory: I. In Algebraic K-theory, I: Higher K-theories, volume 341 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 85–147. Springer, 1973.DOI
- [12]C. C. Sherman. The K-theory of an equicharacteristic discrete valuation ring injects into the K-theory of its field of quotients. Pacific J. Math., 74(2):497–499, 1978.DOI
- [13]C. Skalit. Regular morphisms and Gersten’s conjecture, 2017. arXiv:1710.00303v1, October 1, 2017.arxiv.org/abs/1710.00303
- [14]A. A. Suslin. On the Grayson spectral sequence. Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklova, 241:218–253, 2003.
- [15]Vladimir Voevodsky. On motivic cohomology with Z/l-coefficients. Ann. of Math. (2), 174:401–438, 2011.
- [16]Charles A. Weibel. The K-book: An introduction to algebraic K-theory, volume 145 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, 2013.