Representability of Flag Matroids

First assume (E,\mathcal{F}) is a flag matroid. The first condition in Definition 3.4 implies that each \mathcal{B}_i is the set of bases of a matroid M_i. The second condition, together with Proposition 3.2, implies that each M_{i+1} is a lift of M_i.

Now assume each \mathcal{B}_i is the set of bases of a matroid M_i such that (M_1,\dots,M_k) is a flag matroid. If F,G \in \mathcal{F} have the same cardinality then F,G \in \mathcal{B}_i for some i. By the basis exchange axiom, (E,\mathcal{F}) satisfies the first condition of Definition 3.4. Since each M_{i+1} is a lift of M_i, Proposition 3.2 implies the second condition is satisfied as well.

The constant matrix of size 1\times n, with each entry equal to 0 (respectively 1) is a representation of U_{0,n} (respectively U_{1,n}) over any field. Suppose now |\mathbb{K}| \geq n. Let e_1, e_2, \dots, e_n be distinct elements of \mathbb{K} and define

If F \subseteq \{1,\dots,n\} with |F| \le r, then A_{1, 2, \dots, |F|}^F is a Vandermonde matrix and therefore nonsingular. Since A has size r\times n, this implies that \mathfrak{F}(A) = \mathcal{I}(U_{r,n}).

Now assume \mathcal{I}(U_{r,n}) is \mathbb{K}-representable and suppose r > 1. The first row of A cannot contain any zero entries so by appropriately scaling each column we may assume that the first row of A is all ones. Since all subsets of size 2 are feasible in \mathcal{I}(U_{r,n}), all entries of the second row of A must be distinct and so |\mathbb{K}| \ge n.

Let \operatorname{cl}_i and \operatorname{cl}_{i+1} be the closure operators of M(G, \mathcal{P}_i) and M(G, \mathcal{P}_{i+1}) respectively. In light of Proposition 3.2, it suffices to show that for S \subseteq E, \operatorname{cl}_{i+1}(S) \subseteq \operatorname{cl}_i(S). So let e \in \operatorname{cl}_{i+1}(S). Then the graph (\mathcal{P}_{i+1},S^{\mathcal{P}_{i+1}}_{i+1}) has a path L = (e_1^{\mathcal{P}_{i+1}},\dots,e_l^{\mathcal{P}_{i+1}}) connecting the endpoints of e^{\mathcal{P}_{i+1}}. Then e \in \operatorname{cl}_{i}(S) because the path e_1^{\mathcal{P}_{i}},\dots,e_l^{\mathcal{P}_i} in (\mathcal{P}_{i},S^{\mathcal{P}_i}_{i}) connects the endpoints of e^{\mathcal{P}_{i}} as it is obtained from L by contracting edges.

If G is disconnected, let H be a graph obtained from G by choosing a vertex in each connected component of G and identifying them together in a single vertex. Let \mathcal{Q}_i be the partition of the vertices of H obtained from \mathcal{P}_i by making the corresponding identifications. Let E denote the edge set of G. Then each graph (\mathcal{Q}_i,E^{\mathcal{Q}_i}) is obtained from (\mathcal{P}_i,E^{\mathcal{P}_i}) by identifying vertices from different connected components. Then M(G,\mathcal{P}_i) = M(H,\mathcal{Q}_i) for each i because identifying vertices from different connected components does not change the matroid of a graph.

The fourth claim follows immediately from the definition of chopping. The third claim follows immediately from the first two.

For the first claim, note that F is feasible in \mathfrak{F}\setminus e if and only if F is feasible in \mathfrak{F} and F \subseteq E\setminus e, if and only if F is a basis of M_{|F|} in (M_1, M_2, \dots, M_r) and F\subseteq E\setminus e, if and only if F is a basis of M_i\setminus e in (M_1\setminus e, M_2\setminus e, \dots, M_r\setminus e).

For the second claim, note that F is feasible in \mathfrak{F}^* if and only if E\setminus F is feasible in \mathfrak{F}, if and only if E\setminus F is a basis of M_{|E\setminus F|} in (M_1, M_2, \dots, M_r), if and only if F is a basis of M_{|E\setminus F|}^* in (M_r^*, M_{r-1}^*, \dots, M_1^*).

These immediately follow from Theorem 3.5 and Proposition 3.16.

Let \mathfrak{F} be an arbitrary \mathbb{K}-representable flag matroid, then there is some A\in \mathbb{K}^{n\times r} and sequence of integers 1 \le d_1 < \dots < d_k = r so that \mathfrak{F} := \mathfrak{F}(A;d_1,\dots,d_r).

Any chopping of \mathfrak{F} is of the form \mathfrak{F}(A;d_{i_1},\dots,d_{i_k}) and therefore \mathbb{K}-representable. Any deletion of \mathfrak{F} is of the form \mathfrak{F}(B;d_1,\dots,d_r) where B is obtained from A by removing a column.

By definition of contraction, it now suffices to show \mathfrak{F}^* is \mathbb{K}-representable. Since the kernel of each A_{\le d_i} lies in the kernel of A_{\le d_{i-1}}, we can choose x_1,\dots,x_{n-d_1} \in \mathbb{K}^n such that x_1,\dots,x_{n-d_i} is a basis for the kernel of A_{\le d_i} for each i. Let B denote the matrix whose rows are x_1,\dots,x_{n-d_1}. Then A_{\le d_i} (B_{\le n-d_i})^T = 0. It then follows from [oxley, Theorem 2.2.8] that M(A_{\le d_i})^* = M(B_{\le n-d_i}) for each i. Proposition 3.16 then implies that \mathfrak{F}^* = \mathfrak{F}(B;n-d_k,\dots,n-d_1).

Let \mathfrak{F} be a graphic flag matroid. Then there is a graph G = (V,E) and a chain of partitions \mathcal{P}_1 \succ \dots \succ \mathcal{P}_r of V such that the sequential representation of \mathfrak{F} is (M(G, \mathcal{P}_1), \dots, M(G, \mathcal{P}_r)). Let e \in E and let D and T denote the graphs obtained by, respectively, deleting and contracting e in G. We then have the following sequential representations of \mathfrak{F} \setminus e and \mathfrak{F} / e

where \mathcal{Q}_i is the partition of V obtained from \mathcal{P}_i by taking the union of the parts containing the endpoints of e and replacing each such vertex with the new vertex of T. The ith chopping C_{-i}(\mathfrak{F}) has the following sequential representation

See [kung1986strong, Section 8.2].

Let \mathfrak{F} be a \mathbb{K}-representable flag matroid with sequential representation (M_1, \dots, M_k). Let A be its \mathbb{K}-representation. Now, consider the new matrix obtained by adding an identity matrix of size s\times s, where s = \text{rank}(M_k)-\text{rank}(M_1), to the bottom right corner and having a zero matrix in the upper right corner

We now show that the linear matroid of A', which we denote as Q, is a major of \mathfrak{F}. Let E' := \{e_1, \dots, e_s\} be the set of columns on the right side of A'. Then M_1=Q/E' and M_k = Q\setminus E'. For an arbitrary M_i, we have that M_i = Q/K_i\setminus L_i where L_i = \{e_1,\dots,e_{d_i}\} and K_i = \{e_{d_i+1},\dots,e_{d_k}\}.

Now suppose Q is a \mathbb{K}-representable major for the flag matroid \mathbb{K}. We have that M_1 = Q/X and M_k = Q\setminus X for some X \subseteq E(Q). Assuming X is independent, the bottom-right |X| \times |X| submatrix will be nonsingular, and therefore via row operations can be turned into an identity matrix of size s \times s, were s = |X| = \text{rank}(M_k) - \text{rank}(M_1). We can then turn the upper-right corner above the identity matrix into the zero matrix then. As a result, we have a \mathbb{K}-representation of Q that is of form

The matrix C will be the \mathbb{K}-representation of the flag matroid.

Let \mathfrak{F} be a graphic flag matroid with sequential representation (M_1, \dots, M_k). Let G be a graph and let \mathcal{P}_1 \succ \dots \succ \mathcal{P}_k be a chain of partitions of the vertices of G such that M_i = M(G,\mathcal{P}_i). Without loss of generality, assume that each cell of \mathcal{P}_k is a singleton. We will now construct a graph H by adding edges to G so that M(H) is a major of \mathfrak{F}.

For i=2,\dots,k consider the pair ((G, \mathcal{P}_{i-1}), (G, \mathcal{P}_i)). Every cell in \mathcal{P}_{i-1} is either a cell in \mathcal{P}_i, or is obtained by merging some cells in \mathcal{P}_i into one. Let \mathcal{P}_{i-1} = \{P_1, \dots, P_l\} and \mathcal{P}_i = \{P'_1, \dots P'_q\}. For j=1, \dots, l, if P_j is not a cell of \mathcal{P}_{i-1}, let P'_{j_1}, \dots P'_{j_m} be the cells of \mathcal{P}_i whose union is P_j. For each n = 1, \dots, m, choose a single element of P'_{j_n} and call it v_{n,i,j}. Now let H be the graph obtained from G by adding an edge between v_{n-1}^{i,j} and v_n^{i,j} for each n,i,j such that these vertices are defined. Then M_i is obtained from M(H) by contracting each edge v_{n-1}^{a,j}v_n^{a,j} when a > i, and deleting it otherwise. So M(H) is a major of \mathfrak{F}.

Now suppose \mathfrak{F} is a flag matroid with sequential representation (M_1,\dots,M_k) and that G is a graph such that M(G) is a major of \mathfrak{F}. Let X_1,\dots,X_{k-1} be as in Definition 3.20. For i =1,\dots,k, let \mathcal{P}_i be the partition of the vertex set of G such that u and v lie in the same cell if and only if there is a path from u to v using edges from X_{i} \cup \dots \cup X_{k-1}. Then (M(G,\mathcal{P}_1),\dots,M(G,\mathcal{P}_k)) is a sequential representation of \mathfrak{F}.

If a filling of \mathfrak{F} is \mathbb{K}-representable, then Theorem 3.18 implies that \mathfrak{F} is as well. If \mathfrak{F} has \mathbb{K}-representation (A;d_1,\dots,d_k) then \mathfrak{F}(A;d_1,d_1 + 1, \dots, d_k) is a \mathbb{K}-representable filling of \mathfrak{F}.

Let \mathfrak{F} be a full flag matroid with sequential representation (M_1, \dots, M_k) and ground set E. Fix some i \in \{1,\dots,k-1\}. Because M_{i+1} is an elementary lift of M_i, there exists a matroid Q_i with ground set E\sqcup e such that (Q_i/e, Q_i\setminus e) = (M_i,M_{i+1}). Because M_{i+1} \neq M_i, Proposition 4.4 implies that e is not a loop or coloop of Q_i. Thus Proposition 4.5 implies Q_i is the unique matroid such that M_i = Q_i/e and M_{i+1} = Q_i\setminus e. Since this holds for each i \in \{1,\dots,k-1\}, the lift witness sequence (Q_1, \dots, Q_{i-1}) is unique.

Theorem 3.23 implies (M_i,M_{i+1}) is a \mathbb{K}-representable flag matroid for each i, as Q_i is a \mathbb{K}-representable major. By induction, it now suffices to show that given \mathbb{K}-representable flag matroids \mathfrak{F}_1 and \mathfrak{F}_2 with sequential representations (M_1, \dots, M_{k}) and (M_k, M_{k+1}) with k \ge 2, if each M_i \in \mathcal{M}(K), then (M_1, \dots, M_{k+1}) is the sequential representation of a \mathbb{K}-representable flag matroid.

Indeed, let (A;d_1,\dots,d_k) be a \mathbb{K}-representation of \mathfrak{F}_1 and let (B;r_1,r_2) be a \mathbb{K}-representation of \mathfrak{F}_2. Without loss of generality we may assume that d_k = r_1 = \operatorname{rank}(M_k) and that A has r_1 rows. Since all \mathbb{K}-representations of M_k are projectively equivalent, there exists an invertible T \in \mathbb{K}^{r_1\times r_1} matrix such that A = T(B_{\le r_1}). Then if \widehat T is the r_2\times r_2 block diagonal matrix with T in the upper left and the (r_2-r_1)\times (r_2-r_1) identity in the lower right, i.e.

then (\widehat T B)_{\le r_1} = A and (\widehat T B; r_1,r_2) is a \mathbb{K}-representation of \mathfrak{F}_2. Therefore (\widehat T B; d_1,\dots,d_k,r_2) is a \mathbb{K}-representation of (M_1,\dots,M_k,M_{k+1}).

Theorem 3.18 implies the “only if” direction. Let \mathfrak{F} be a full flag matroid on ground set E with sequential representation (M_1,\dots,M_k). Let (Q_1,\dots,Q_{k-1}) be a lift witness sequence for \mathfrak{F} and for each i let X_i be independent in Q_i such that Q_{i} / X_i =M_i and Q_i \setminus X_i = M_{i+1}. Since \mathfrak{F} is full, X_i is a singleton set, so we may denote its unique element by x_i.

Now suppose \mathfrak{F} has no minor of the form (U_{2,4}) or (U_{1,3},U_{2,3}). We will show that each Q_i has no minor of the form U_{2,4}. Theorem 2.7 will then imply that each Q_i is binary. Since taking minors preserves representability, this will imply that each M_i is binary, and therefore M_i \in \mathcal{M}(\mathbb{F}_2) by Proposition 4.7. Thus Lemma 4.9 will imply that \mathfrak{F} is binary.

Indeed, for the sake of contradiction, assume Q_i has a U_{2,4} minor on \{a,b,c,d\} \subseteq E. If x_i \notin \{a,b,c,d\} then \{a,b,c,d\} \subseteq E and M_i has a U_{2,4} minor on \{a,b,c,d\} contradicting our assumption that \mathfrak{F} is free of (U_{2,4}) minors. Now assume without loss of generality that x_i = d. Let T,S be the partition of E \setminus \{a,b,c\} be such that Q_i / T \setminus S is isomorphic to U_{2,4}. Then

contradicting our assumption that \mathfrak{F} is free of (U_{1,3},U_{2,3}) minors.

A similar argument shows that if \mathfrak{F} has no minor of the form (R) or (R/e, R\setminus e) where R \in \{U_{2,5}, U_{3,5}, F_7, F^*_7\}, then each Q_i has no minor isomorphic to U_{2,5}, U_{3,5}, F_7 or F^*_7. As before, Theorem 2.7 then implies that each Q_i is ternary. Then Proposition 4.7 and Lemma 4.9 imply that \mathfrak{F} is ternary.

Let \mathfrak{F} be a regular full flag matroid with sequential representation (M_1, \dots, M_k), and let A be a unimodular matrix such that \mathfrak{F} = \mathfrak{F}(A). For a fixed i, we consider the pair (M_i, M_{i+1}). We consider now the following matrix

where D is obtained by appending the unit column vector with the last entry being 1 onto A_{\leq i+1}. The linear matroid of D, Q_i := M(D), will be the unique lift witness matroid of (M_i, M_{i+1}). It now suffices to show that D is unimodular. Any maximal minor of D that does not involve the new column vector will be in \{-1, 0, 1\}. Any maximal minor that does involve the new column vector will necessarily still have to be in \{-1, 0, 1\}, as performing a Laplace expansion on the 1 in the new unit vector will result in computing a maximal minor of A_{\leq i}, which is a unimodular matrix. Therefore, Q_i is regular.

The other direction follows by Lemma 4.9 using the fact that all representations of a regular matroid are projectively equivalent[oxley, Proposition 6.6.5].

Let A be a unimodular matrix so that \mathfrak{F} = \mathfrak{F}(A). If we consider non-middle choppings, then C_{-1}(\mathfrak{F}) = \mathfrak{F}(A; d_1+1, d_1+2, \dots, d_1+r)-1 and C_{-k}(\mathfrak{F}) = \mathfrak{F}(A; d_1, d_1+1, \dots, d_1+r-2), and so the resulting full flag matroid will remain regular.

Deletions will correspond to removing columns from A, which preserve unimodularity. In order to prove that contractions preserve regularity, it suffices to show that \mathfrak{F}^* will be regular. To do so, using Lemma 4.15, it suffices to show that if (Q_1, \dots, Q_{k-1}) is the lift witness sequence of \mathfrak{F}, then (Q_{k-1}^*, \dots, Q_1^*) is the lift witness sequence of \mathfrak{F}^*, as the dual of a regular matroid will remain regular.

Fix i, and let (M_i, M_{i+1}) be a pair in the sequential representation of \mathfrak{F}. This pair will have Q_i as the unique lift witness matroid, and so we have (M_i, M_{i+1}) = (Q_i/e, Q_i\setminus e) for some e \in E(Q_i). By Proposition 3.16, we obtain the following

Therefore, Q^* is the unique lift witness matroid of (M_{i+1}^*, M_i^*).

(2) immediately implies (3). If we now suppose \mathfrak{F} is binary and ternary, then this implies every matroid in the lift witness sequence is binary and ternary by Lemma 4.9, which implies that every such matroid in the lift witness sequence is regular, which in turn implies (1) by Lemma 4.15.

We now show that (1)\Rightarrow (2). Consider the unique ring homomorphism f : \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{K} for any field \mathbb{K}. For any unimodular representation (A; d_1, d_1+1, \dots, d_1+r-1) of \mathfrak{F}, we have that f(\det(A)) = \det(f(A)) by Lemma 4.18, which tells us that (f(A); d_1, d_1+1, \dots, d_1+r-1) will be a \mathbb{K}-representation of \mathfrak{F}.

Let H_1,H_2,G_2, and G_3 be the graphs shown in Figure ? and observe that G_2 is formed from G_3 by identifying the red vertices of G_3 together, that M(G_2) = M(H_2), and H_1 is formed by identifying the two red vertices of H_2 together.

For the sake of clarity, we will refer to vertices 1 and 2 in H_2 as red vertices, vertices 3 and 4 in G_2 will be referred to as yellow vertices, and vertices 5 and 6 in G_3 will be referred to as red vertices. All other vertices for any graph here will be referred to as a black vertex.

Define M_1 := M(H_1), M_2 := M(H_2) \cong M(G_2), and M_3 := M(G_3). Then (M_1, M_2, M_3) is the sequential representation of a full flag matroid \mathfrak{F}. Let N_1 be the matroid of the graph obtained from H_2 by adding an edge between the red vertices, and let N_2 be the matroid of the graph obtained from G_3 by adding a second edge between the red vertices. Then (N_1,N_2) is the lift witness sequence of \mathfrak{F}.

We now show that \mathfrak{F} is not graphic. Suppose there exists a graph L and a chain of partitions \mathcal{P}_1 \succ \mathcal{P}_2 \succ \mathcal{P}_3 such that M_i = M(L, \mathcal{P}_i) for i = 1,2,3. Because G_3 is 3-connected, it must be the case that (L, \mathcal{P}_3) = G_3 by [oxley, Lemma 5.3.2]. So assume L = G_3 and that \mathcal{P}_3 is the partition of the vertices of G_3 into singletons.

We now show that any other graph formed from G_3 by identifying any two vertices in a way that does not result in G_2 is a graph whose cycle matroid is different from M(G_2), thus implying that (G_3, \mathcal{P}_2) = G_2. Indeed, by symmetry, it suffices to only consider the cases where the top red vertex in G_3 is identified with the left black vertex, and where the left and right black vertices are identified together. Let G_3^{rb} denote the graph obtained from G_3 by identifying the top red vertex with the left black vertex, and let G_3^{bb} denote the graph obtained from G_3 by identifying the two black vertices. These graphs are shown in Figure ?. Indeed, M(G_3^{bb}) has no loops whereas M_2 does, and M(G_3^{rb}) has only two parallel classes whereas M_2 has three. Thus we must have (G_3,\mathcal{P}_2) = G_2.

On the graph level, (G_3, \mathcal{P}_1) is formed from (G_3, \mathcal{P}_2) by identifying two vertices together. If a yellow vertex in G_2 is identified with a black vertex, the resulting graph would have three loops, and so the resulting graphic matroid would not be M_1. A similar situation arises if the two yellow vertices are identified together. If the two black vertices are identified together, then the resulting matroid would have four elements in parallel, whereas M(H_1) does not. Therefore, there is no vertex identification in G_2 that results in a graph whose cycle matroid equals M_1, and so \mathfrak{F} cannot be graphic.