Tjurina spectrum and Hertling conjecture

Abstract.

We present a proof of a conjecture of Q. Shi, Y. Wang and H. Zuo claiming that the maximal spectral number of a hypersurface isolated singularity does not belong to the Tjurina spectrum. This follows from the self-duality of the Jacobian ring, which is compatible with the action of $f$ and also with the $V$-filtration. We also provide a sufficient condition for the generalized Hertling conjecture on the variance of Tjurina spectrum to fail, and calculate some examples using some codes in Singular.

Introduction

Let $f\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{C}}\{x\}$ be a convergent power series of $n$ variables having an isolated singularity at 0, where $x\,{=}\,(x_{1},\dots,x_{n})$ is the coordinate system of $({\mathbb{C}}^{n},0)$ and $f(0)\,{=}\,0$. We may assume that $f$ is a polynomial by the finite determinacy, see for instance [GLS 07]. The spectrum  ${\rm Sp}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}(t)\,{=}\,\hbox{$\sum$}_{i=1}^{\mu}\,t^{\hskip 1.0pt\alpha_{i}}$ can be defined to be the Poincaré polynomial of the $V$-filtration on the Jacobian ring ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f)$, that is,

$(1)$ $$|I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\alpha}|=\dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\rm Gr}^{\alpha}_{V}\bigl{(}{\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f)\bigr{)}\quad\hbox{with}\quad I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\alpha}\,{=}\,\{i\in I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\mid\alpha_{i}\,{=}\,\alpha\}.$$

Here $I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\,{:=}\,\{1,\dots,\mu\}$ with $\mu$ the Milnor number, $(\partial f)\,{\subset}\,{\mathbb{C}}\{x\}$ is the Jacobian ideal, and $V$ is the quotient filtration of the $V$-filtration on the Brieskorn lattice (or the microlocal $V$-filtration on ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}$), see [ScSt 85], [Va 82a] (and also [JKSY 22]). We assume that the $\alpha_{i}$ are weakly increasing.

The Tjurina subspectrum  (or spectrum ) ${\rm Sp}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{f}(t)=\hbox{$\sum$}_{j=1}^{\tau}\,t^{\hskip 1.0pt\alpha^{\rm\hskip-1.0ptTj}_{j}}=\hbox{$\sum$}_{i\in T_{\!f}}\,t^{\hskip 1.0pt\alpha_{i}}$ with $T_{\!f}\,{\subset}\,I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ is defined by

$(2)$ $$|T_{\!f}^{\alpha}|=\dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}\,{\rm Gr}^{\alpha}_{V}\bigl{(}{\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f,f)\bigr{)}\quad\hbox{with}\quad T_{\!f}^{\alpha}\,{=}\,I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\alpha}\cap T_{\!f}\,{=}\,I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\alpha}\cap[1,i_{\alpha}],$$

where $i_{\alpha}\,{\in}\,T_{\!f}^{\alpha}$, and the $\alpha^{\rm\hskip-1.0ptTj}_{j}$ are weakly increasing, see [JKY 18], [JKSY 22]. Note that $|T_{\!f}|\,{=}\,{\rm Sp}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{f}(1)$ is the Tjurina number $\tau$ of $f$. Set $C_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\,{:=}\,I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\,{\setminus}\,T_{\!f}$, and

$${\rm Sp}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{C}(t)\,{:=}\,{\rm Sp}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}(t)\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt{\rm Sp}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{f}\,{=}\,\hbox{$\sum$}_{i\in C_{\hskip-1.0ptf}}\,t^{\hskip 1.0pt\alpha_{i}}\,{=}\,\hbox{$\sum$}_{k=1}^{\mu-\tau}\,t^{\hskip 1.0pt\alpha^{C}_{k}},$$

where the $\alpha^{C}_{j}$ are weakly increasing. This is the Poincaré polynomial of the image of

$$f\,{\in}\,{\rm End}_{{\mathbb{C}}\{x\}}\bigl{(}{\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f)\bigr{)},$$

and is called the complemental part  of the spectrum. We say that the $\alpha^{C}_{k}$ ($k\,{\in}\,[1,\mu{-}\tau]$) and $\alpha_{i}$ ($i\,{\in}\,C_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$) are the missing spectral numbers. The Tjurina spectrum is a very subtle invariant of a non-weighted-homogeneous polynomial having an isolated singularity at 0, and the relation to the Bernstein-Sato polynomials does not seem very clear, see for instance [Sa 23a].

Remark 1. The Tjurina spectrum is unstable under a $\hskip 1.0pt\tau$-constant deformation, for instance, if $f_{u}\,{=}\,x^{6}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pty^{5}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0ptu\hskip 1.0ptx^{4}y^{2}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0ptx^{3}y^{3}$ ($u\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{C}}$), where $C_{\hskip-1.0ptf_{0}}\,{=}\,\{19,20\}$, and $C_{\hskip-1.0ptf_{u}}\,{=}\,\{18,20\}$ ($u\,{\neq}\,0$) with $\mu\,{=}\,20$ using Remark  1.2d below. (Indeed, $f_{u}\,{=}\,u\hskip 1.0ptc\hskip 1.0ptx^{4}y^{2}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0ptc^{\prime}x^{3}y^{3}$ in ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f_{u}$) for some $c,c^{\prime}\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{C}}^{*}$.) So it does not seem easy to determine the minimal stratification of the base space of a miniversal $\mu$-constant deformation of $f$ such that the Tjurina spectrum is constant on each stratum in general.

Remark 2. It is easy to see that the Tjurina spectrum depends only on the hypersurface germ $(f^{-1}(0),0)$ in the case $f$ is semi-weighted-homogeneous or Newton-nondegenerate and convenient (using Remarks  1.2d and 1.2e below) although this seems quite unclear in general.

Remark 3. Some of the missing spectral numbers may belong to the Tjurina spectrum, for instance, if $f\,{=}\,x^{6}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pty^{6}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0ptx^{4}y^{3}$, where $I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{3/2}\,{=}\,\{23,24\}$ and $T_{\!f}^{3/2}\,{=}\,\{23\}$.

Remark 4. The missing spectral numbers $\alpha^{C}_{k}$ ($k\,{\in}\,[1,\mu{-}\tau]$) do not have a symmetry even in a semi-weighted-homogeneous case $f\,{=}\,x^{a}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pty^{b}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0ptx^{p}y^{q}$ $\bigl{(}\tfrac{p}{a}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt\tfrac{q}{b}\,{>}\,1\bigr{)}$ unless $2p\,{\geqslant}\,a{-}1$, $2q\,{\geqslant}\,b{-}1$; for instance if $(a,b,p,q)\,{=}\,(7,6,5,2)$, where $\mu{-}\tau\,{=}\,4\,{\neq}\,(a{-}1{-}p)(b{-}1{-}q)\,{=}\,3$ with missing spectral numbers $\tfrac{57}{42},\tfrac{64}{42},\tfrac{65}{42},\tfrac{71}{42}$, see also Remark  2.3c below. They often have it as a consequence of Theorem  1 just below if the modality is quite small. Here symmetry means that the $\alpha^{C}_{i}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha^{C}_{\mu-\tau+1-i}$ are independent of $i\,{\in}\,[1,\mu{-}\tau]$.

We have the following.

Theorem 1. If $\mu\,{\neq}\,\tau$, the minimal and maximal missing spectral numbers $\alpha^{C}_{1}$ and $\alpha^{C}_{\mu-\tau}$ have both multiplicity one in ${\rm Sp}^{C}_{f}(t)$, and

$(3)$ $$\alpha^{C}_{1}\,{\geqslant}\,\alpha_{1}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt1,\quad\hbox{that is,}\quad C_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\,{\subset}\,I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\geqslant\alpha_{1}+1},$$

with $I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\geqslant\beta}\,{:=}\,\{i\,{\in}\,I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\mid\alpha_{i}\,{\geqslant}\,\beta\}$ for $\beta\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Q}}$. Moreover the strict inequality holds in (3) if the monodromy is semisimple or more generally if ${\rm Gr}_{V}^{\alpha_{1}}[{\rm d}x]\,{\in}\,{\rm Gr}_{V}^{\alpha_{1}}H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ is annihilated by $\partial_{t}t\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha_{1}$. Here $H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ is the Brieskorn lattice, $V$ is the $V\!$-filtration of Kashiwara and Malgrange indexed by ${\mathbb{Q}}$, and ${\rm d}x\,{:=}\,{\rm d}x_{1}{\wedge}\cdots{\wedge}{\rm d}x_{n}$, see 1.1 below.

The first assertion for the maximal one is a corollary of Theorem  2 below. For the minimal one and for the last assertion, we apply the following.

Proposition 1. The $V$-filtration on the Jacobian ring ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f)$ is a filtration by ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}$-submodules, and its graded pieces are annihilated by the maximal ideal.

Proposition 2. We have the inclusions

$(4)$ $$f\hskip 1.0ptV^{\alpha}\bigl{(}{\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f)\bigr{)}\,{\subset}\,V^{\alpha+1}\bigl{(}{\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f)\bigr{)}\quad(\alpha\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Q}}).$$

These two propositions respectively follow from the coincidence of the $V$-filtration with the quotient filtration of the microlocal $V$-filtration on ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}$ (see [Sa 91, Rem. 3.11], [DiSa 14b, Sect. 4.11], [JKSY 22]) and from the property of the $V$-filtration on the Brieskorn lattice (see [ScSt 85], [Va 82a], [Sa 89]). As for the last part of Theorem  1, note that the last assumption implies that the image of $[{\rm d}x]\,{\in}\,H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ by the action of $t\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha_{1}\partial_{t}^{-1}$ belongs to $V^{>\alpha_{1}+1}H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$. In the Newton non-degenerate case, the latter hypothesis is satisfied if the intersection of the diagonal of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ with the boundary of the Newton polytope is contained in the interior of the maximal-dimensional compact face of the Newton polytope.

In this paper we explain a proof of the following, which has been conjectured in [SWZ 23].

Theorem 2. In the case $\mu\,{\neq}\,\tau$, the maximal spectral number $\alpha_{\mu}$ is always a missing spectral number, that is, $\mu\,{\in}\,C_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$, hence $\alpha^{C}_{\mu-\tau}\,{=}\,\alpha_{\mu}\,{=}\,n\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha_{1}$.

This follows from the self-duality of the Jacobian ring ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f)$ which is compatible with the action of $f$ and also with the $V$-filtration, see [Sa 89]. Together with Theorem  1, Theorem  2 seems quite useful to simplify some arguments in [SWZ 23].

In this paper we also provide some counterexamples to the generalized Hertling conjecture on the variance of the Tjurina spectrum in [SWZ 23] claiming that the latter is bounded by the width of the Tjurina spectrum (that is, the difference between the maximal and minimal spectral numbers) divided by 12, see 2.3 below. It seems then interesting to consider their difference $\delta_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\rm Tj}$ as an analytic invariant of a non-weighted-homogeneous polynomial having an isolated singularity at 0, which measures the complexity of singularity  in some sense.

The simplest example (with respect to $\mu$) such that $\delta_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\rm Tj}\,{>}\,0$ may be $f\,{=}\,x^{7}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pty^{7}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0ptx^{5}y^{5}$ with $\mu\,{=}\,36$, $\mu{-}\tau\,{=}\,1$, and modality 10 (combining [Ga 74] and [Va 82c]). It is interesting that any $\mu$-constant deformation of $x^{a}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pty^{b}$ with $a\,{\geqslant}\,b\,{\leqslant}\,7$ and $\mu\,{\neq}\,\tau$ seems to have non-positive $\delta_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\rm Tj}$ except the case $a\,{=}\,b\,{=}\,7$ with $\mu{-}\tau\,{=}\,1$ as far as computed, see Remark  2.3c below. For the moment no counterexample to the generalized Hertling conjecture is known in the non-semi-weighted-homogeneous case (where $\mu{-}\tau$ cannot be very small unless $f$ is rather trivial).

In Section 1 we explain the self-duality of the bifiltered Gauss-Manin system associated with $f$, and prove Theorem  2. In Section 2 we show a sufficient condition for the generalized Hertling conjecture on the variance of Tjurina spectrum to fail, and compute some examples.

1. Self-duality of the bifiltered Gauss-Manin system

In this section we explain the self-duality of the bifiltered Gauss-Manin system associated with $f$, and prove Theorem  2.

1.1. Brieskorn lattice and Gauss-Manin system. Let $f\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{C}}\{x\}$ be a convergent power series of $n$ variables having an isolated singularity at 0. Here $x\,{=}\,(x_{1},\dots,x_{n})$ is the coordinate system of $({\mathbb{C}}^{n},0)$ and $f(0)\,{=}\,0$.

The Brieskorn lattice  (see [Br 70]) is defined by

$$H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\,{:=}\,\Omega_{{\mathbb{C}}^{n},0}^{n}/{\rm d}f{\wedge}\hskip 1.0pt{\rm d}\Omega_{{\mathbb{C}}^{n},0}^{n-2}.$$

This is free of rank $\mu$ over ${\mathbb{C}}\{t\}$ and also over ${\mathbb{C}}\{\!\{\partial_{t}^{-1}\}\!\}$ with $\mu$ the Milnor number and

$${\mathcal{R}}:={\mathbb{C}}\{\!\{\partial_{t}^{-1}\}\!\}=\bigl{\{}\hbox{$\sum$}_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}\,c_{i}\partial_{t}^{-j}\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{C}}[[\partial_{t}^{-1}]]\,\,\big{|}\,\,\hbox{$\sum$}_{j\in{\mathbb{N}}}\,c_{j}t^{j}\!/j!\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{C}}\{t\}\bigr{\}},$$

see for instance [Sa 89], [Sa 94]. The action of $t$ and $\partial_{t}^{-1}$ is defined respectively by the action of $f$ and by

$(\mathrm{1.1.1})$ $$\partial_{t}^{-1}[\omega]\,{=}\,[{\rm d}f{\wedge}\hskip 1.0pt\eta]\quad\hbox{for}\,\,\,\omega\,{\in}\,\Omega_{{\mathbb{C}}^{n},0}^{n},\,\eta\,{\in}\,\Omega_{{\mathbb{C}}^{n},0}^{n-1}\,\,\,\hbox{with}\,\,\,{\rm d}\eta\,{=}\,\omega.$$

Set ${\mathcal{K}}\,{:=}\,{\mathcal{R}}[\partial_{t}]$ (the localization by $\partial_{t}^{-1}$). The Gauss-Manin system  ${\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ is isomorphic to the localization of the Brieskorn lattice $H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ by the action of $\partial_{t}^{-1}$, that is,

$${\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}=H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}[\partial_{t}].$$

This is a free ${\mathcal{K}}$-module of rank $\mu$. It has the $V$-filtration indexed by ${\mathbb{Q}}$ such that the $V^{\alpha}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ are free ${\mathcal{R}}$-modules of rank $\mu$ and

$(\mathrm{1.1.2})$ $\displaystyle t\hskip 1.0ptV^{\alpha}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ $\displaystyle\,{\subset}\,V^{\alpha+1}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf},$

$$\partial_{t}\hskip 1.0ptV^{\alpha}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf} \,{=}\,V^{\alpha-1}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf},$$

$$(\partial_{t}t\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha)^{n} {\rm Gr}_{V}^{\alpha}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\,{=}\,0\quad\quad(\forall\hskip 1.0pt\alpha\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Q}}).$$

We have the Hodge filtration $F$ on ${\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ defined by

$(\mathrm{1.1.3})$ $$F\!_{p}\hskip 1.0pt{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\,{:=}\,\partial_{t}^{\hskip 1.0ptp+n-1}H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\quad(p\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Z}}),$$

see [Sa 89, 2.7] (where $n{+}1$ is $n$ in our paper). This is shifted by $1$ compared with the right ${\mathcal{D}}$-module case as in [Sa 88b] (where one has the shift by $1$ taking ${\rm Gr}_{V}^{\alpha}$ for $\alpha\,{\in}\,(0,1]$). Set

$$\Omega_{f}\,{:=}\,\Omega_{{\mathbb{C}}^{n},0}^{n}/{\rm d}f{\wedge}\Omega_{{\mathbb{C}}^{n},0}^{n-1}.$$

By definition we have the canonical isomorphisms

$(\mathrm{1.1.4})$ $${\rm Gr}^{F}_{1-n}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}=H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}/\partial_{t}^{-1}\hskip-1.0ptH^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}=\Omega_{f}={\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f),$$

where the last isomorphism is given by the generator ${\rm d}x\,{:=}\,{\rm d}x_{1}{\wedge}\cdots{\wedge}{\rm d}x_{n}$ of $\Omega_{{\mathbb{C}}^{n},0}^{n}$.

1.2. Spectrum. With the notation of 1.1, we have the canonical isomorphisms

$(\mathrm{1.2.1})$ $$H^{n-1}(F_{\!f},{\mathbb{C}})_{\lambda}={\rm Gr}_{V}^{\alpha}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\quad(\lambda\,{=}\,e^{-2\pi i\alpha},\,\alpha\in(0,1]),$$

where $F_{\!f}$ is the Milnor fiber of $f$, and _λ denotes the $\lambda$-eigenspace for the action of the monodromy (which is the inverse of the Milnor monodromy, see [DiSa 14a]).

Let $F$ be the Hodge filtration on the vanishing cohomology $H^{n-1}(F_{\!f},{\mathbb{C}})$ (see [St 77]), which is compatible with the decomposition by the eigenvalues of the monodromy. This Hodge filtration coincides with the Hodge filtration on the vanishing cycle Hodge module, which is denoted in this paper by $\varphi_{f}{\mathbb{Q}}_{h,X}[n{-}1]$, see [Sa 90]. This can be verified by taking a compactification of $f$ as in [ScSt 85] (see also [Sa 84]), since the vanishing cycle functor commutes with the cohomological direct image functor by a projective morphism. Using this, it is easy to show for instance the invariance of the spectrum under a $\mu$-constant deformation proved in [Va 82b].

It is quite well known that the isomorphism (1.2.1) induces the isomorphisms

$(\mathrm{1.2.2})$ $$F^{p}\!H^{n-1}(F_{\!f},{\mathbb{C}})_{\lambda}=F\!_{-p}{\rm Gr}_{V}^{\alpha}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\quad(p\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Z}},\,\lambda\,{=}\,e^{-2\pi i\alpha},\,\alpha\,{\in}\,(0,1]),$$

see [ScSt 85], [Va 82a] (and also [Sa 84, Sect. 3.4]).

With the notation of the introduction, the spectrum of $f$ is usually defined by

$(\mathrm{1.2.3})$ $$|I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\alpha}|=\dim_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\rm Gr}_{F}^{p}H^{n-1}(F_{\!f},{\mathbb{C}})_{\lambda}\quad(p\,{=}\,[n{-}\alpha],\,\lambda\,{=}\,e^{-2\pi i\alpha}).$$

This is equivalent to the definition (1) in the introduction by (1.2.2).

We have the symmetry of spectral numbers using Hodge theory (see [St 77]):

$(\mathrm{1.2.4})$ $$\alpha_{i}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha_{j}\,{=}\,n\quad\hbox{if}\,\,\,i{+}j\,{=}\,\mu{+}1.$$

Remark 1.2a. In some papers, the spectrum is shifted by $-1$, see for instance [ScSt 85], [He 00], [DGPS 20]. This comes from the asymptotic expansions of period integrals. It is better to take the unshifted definition when one considers the relation to the multiplier ideals or to the roots of Bernstein-Sato polynomials.

Remark 1.2b. The original definition of spectrum in [St 77, Sect. 5.3] is slightly different, since $q$ is used for the integer part (although it is not shifted by $-1$ as in [ScSt 85]). This comes from a confusion about the monodromy explained in [DiSa 14a, Sect.  2.1].

Remark 1.2c. In the weighted homogeneous case there is an explicit formula for the spectrum

$(\mathrm{1.2.5})$ $${\rm Sp}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}(t)\,{=}\,\hbox{$\prod$}_{i=1}^{n}\,(t^{w_{i}}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0ptt)/(1\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0ptt^{w_{i}}),$$

where the $w_{i}$ are the weights of variables $x_{i}$ such that $\hbox{$\sum$}_{i=1}^{n}\,w_{i}x_{i}\partial_{x_{i}}f\,{=}\,f$. This was found by Steenbrink [St 77], see also [JKY 18], [JKSY 22].

Remark 1.2d. We say that $f$ is semi-weighted-homogeneous polynomial if $f\,{=}\,\hbox{$\sum$}_{\beta\geqslant 1}f_{\beta}$ with $f_{\beta}$ weighted homogenous of degree $\beta$, that is, $\hbox{$\sum$}_{i}w_{i}x_{i}\partial_{x_{i}}f_{\beta}\,{=}\,\beta f_{\beta}$ ($\beta\,{\geqslant}\,1$), and $f_{1}$ has an isolated singularity at 0. In this case we have by [Va 82b]

$(\mathrm{1.2.6})$ $${\rm Sp}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}(t)\,{=}\,{\rm Sp}_{\hskip-1.0ptf_{1}}(t).$$

Moreover the $V$-filtration $V^{\alpha}$ on ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f)$ is generated by the monomials $x^{\nu}$ with

$(\mathrm{1.2.7})$ $$\hbox{$\sum$}_{i}w_{i}(\nu_{i}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt1)\geqslant\alpha.$$

This can be shown easily in the case $f\,{=}\,f_{1}$ using the Euler field, but the argument in the general semi-weighted-homogeneous case does not seem quite trivial, see [Sa 23b, Remark 2.2d] (and also Remark  1.2e below for the convenient weighted-homogeneous case where $1/w_{i}\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Z}}$ for any $i$).

Remark 1.2e. Assume $f$ is Newton non-degenerate and convenient (that is, $f$ contains $x_{i}^{a_{i}}$ for any $i$). We have the Newton filtration $V_{\hskip-1.0ptN}$ on ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}$ consisting of ideals generated by monomials and such that

$(\mathrm{1.2.8})$ $$x^{\nu}\,{\in}\,V_{\hskip-1.0ptN}^{\alpha}{\mathbb{C}}\{x\}\iff\nu{+}{\bf 1}\in\alpha\hskip 1.0pt\Gamma_{\!+}(f)\quad(\forall\,\alpha\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Q}}_{>0}),$$

where $\Gamma_{\!+}(f)$ is the Newton polytope with ${\bf 1}\,{:=}\,(1,\dots,1)\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{R}}^{n}$, see for instance [Sa 88a], [JKSY 24]. This filtration is exhaustive since $f$ is convenient. As a corollary of the proof of the Steenbrink formula in [JKSY 24], we get that

$(\mathrm{1.2.9})$ The quotient filtration of $V_{\hskip-1.0ptN}$ on ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f)$ coincides with the quotient

filtration of the $$V H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$$-filtration on the Brieskorn lattice via (1.1.4).

Here [Sa 88a] does not seem quite sufficient. Indeed, it proves only an assertion on the $V$-filtration on the Gauss-Manin system and some additional argument seems to be actually required, strictly speaking, see [JKSY 24, Remark 2.1f] and also [Sa 23b, Remark 2.2d].

Remark 1.2f. Assume $X\,{=}\,X^{\prime}{\times}X^{\prime\prime}$ and $f\,{=}\,{\rm pr}^{\prime}{}^{*}f^{\prime}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt{\rm pr}^{\prime\prime}{}^{*}f^{\prime\prime}$ with ${\rm pr}^{\prime}\,{:}\,X\,{\to}\,X^{\prime}$ the projection (similarly for ${\rm pr}^{\prime\prime}$). Let $\mu^{\prime},\mu^{\prime\prime}$ and $\tau^{\prime},\tau^{\prime\prime}$ be the Milnor and Tjurina numbers of $f^{\prime},f^{\prime\prime}$ respectively. It is difficult to determine $\tau$ from $\tau^{\prime},\tau^{\prime\prime}$, see [Al 23]. This is the same for the Tjurina spectrum even though we have the compatibility of the following Thom-Sebastiani type isomorphism with the $V$-filtration (see [ScSt 85], [Va 82a]):

$(\mathrm{1.2.10})$ $${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f)=\bigl{(}{\mathbb{C}}\{x^{\prime}\}/(\partial f^{\prime})\bigr{)}{\otimes}\bigl{(}{\mathbb{C}}\{x^{\prime\prime}\}/(\partial f^{\prime\prime})\bigr{)}.$$

This filtered isomorphism however implies the strict compatibility with the $V$-filtration of the canonical surjection

$(\mathrm{1.2.11})$ $${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f,f)\twoheadrightarrow\bigl{(}{\mathbb{C}}\{x^{\prime}\}/(\partial f^{\prime},f^{\prime})\bigr{)}{\otimes}\bigl{(}{\mathbb{C}}\{x^{\prime\prime}\}/(\partial f^{\prime\prime},f^{\prime\prime})\bigr{)}.$$

So ${\rm Sp}^{\hskip-1.0pt\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf^{\prime}}(t)\hskip 1.0pt{\cdot}\hskip 1.0pt{\rm Sp}^{\hskip-1.0pt\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf^{\prime\prime}}(t)$ is a subspectrum of ${\rm Sp}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{f}(t)$, that is, the difference has positive coefficients. We can verify that the monomial whose exponent is the spectral number

$$\max(\alpha^{\prime}_{1}\alpha_{1}^{\prime\prime\hskip 1.0ptC},\alpha^{\prime\prime}_{1}\alpha_{1}^{\prime\hskip 1.0ptC})$$

always belongs to this difference and the minimum of the above two numbers is a missing spectral number of $f$ looking at the maximal number $\alpha$ such that the image of $f$ in the right hand side of (1.2.10) (that is, $f^{\prime}{\otimes}1\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt1{\otimes}f^{\prime\prime}$) is contained in $V^{\alpha}$. Here $\alpha^{\prime}_{1}$ and $\alpha_{1}^{\prime\hskip 1.0ptC}$ are the minimal (missing) spectral number of $f^{\prime}$, and similarly for $f^{\prime\prime}$. In the simplest case with $\mu^{\prime}{-}\tau^{\prime}\,{=}\,\mu^{\prime\prime}{-}\tau^{\prime\prime}\,{=}\,1$, the difference consists only of this monomial.

1.3. Self-duality of the bifiltered Gauss-Manin system. We have the following.

Theorem 1.3 ([Sa 89, 2.7]). There is a canonical pairing

$${\bf S}:{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\otimes_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\to{\mathcal{K}}\,\bigl{(}{=}\,{\mathbb{C}}\{\!\{\partial_{t}^{-1}\}\!\}[\partial_{t}]\bigr{)},$$

such that

$(\mathrm{1.3.1})$ $\displaystyle P\hskip 1.0pt{\bf S}(u,v)$ $\displaystyle\,{=}\,{\bf S}(Pu,v)\,{=}\,{\bf S}(u,P^{*}v),$

$$t\hskip 1.0pt{\bf S}(u,v) \,{=}\,{\bf S}(tu,v)\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt{\bf S}(u,tv),$$

$${\bf S}(F_{p}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}, F_{q}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf})\subset F_{p+q+n-2}\hskip 1.0pt{\mathcal{K}},$$

for any $u,v\,{\in}\,{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$, $P\,{\in}\,{\mathcal{K}}$, $p,q\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Z}}$ with $(\partial_{t}^{j})^{*}\,{:=}\,(-1)^{j}\partial_{t}^{j}$, and the induced pairing

$(\mathrm{1.3.2})$ $${\rm Gr}^{F}{\bf S}:{\rm Gr}^{F}_{p}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\otimes_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\rm Gr}^{F}_{q}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\to{\mathbb{C}}\hskip 1.0pt\partial_{t}^{\hskip 1.0ptp+q+n-2}$$

is non-degenerate, where the filtration $F$ on ${\mathcal{K}}$ is by the order of $\partial_{t}$. Moreover the pairing ${\bf S}$ is strictly compatible with the $V$-filtration so that

$(\mathrm{1.3.3})$ $${\bf S}(V^{\alpha}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf},V^{\beta}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf})\subset{\mathcal{R}}\partial_{t}^{-\lceil\alpha+\beta\rceil}\quad(\forall\,\alpha,\beta\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Q}}),$$

with ${\mathcal{R}}\,{=}\,{\mathbb{C}}\{\!\{\partial_{t}^{-1}\}\!\}$, and the induced pairing

$(\mathrm{1.3.4})$ $${\rm Gr}^{F}{\rm Gr}_{V}{\bf S}:{\rm Gr}^{F}_{p}{\rm Gr}_{V}^{\alpha}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\otimes_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\rm Gr}^{F}_{q}{\rm Gr}_{V}^{\beta}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\to{\mathbb{C}}\hskip 1.0pt\partial_{t}^{-k}$$

for $-p\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0ptq\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0ptn\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt2\,{=}\,\alpha\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt\beta\,{=}\,k$ is non-degenerate.

Remark 1.3a. For the last part of Theorem  1.3, we use the assertion that the canonical pairing induces a polarization of mixed Hodge structures via the isomorphisms (1.2.1). It does not seem quite clear whether the non-degeneracy of (1.3.4) follows from the remaining part, although it does forgetting $F$. Indeed, by (1.3.1) we get

$(\mathrm{1.3.5})$ $$\partial_{t}t\hskip 1.0pt{\bf S}(u,v)\,{=}\,{\bf S}(\partial_{t}tu,v)\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt{\bf S}(u,\partial_{t}tv),$$

(and also $t\partial_{t}\hskip 1.0pt{\bf S}(u,v)\,{=}\,{\bf S}(t\partial_{t}u,v)\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt{\bf S}(u,\partial_{t}tv)\,{=}\,{\bf S}(\partial_{t}tu,v)\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt{\bf S}(u,t\partial_{t}v)$ replacing $u$ with $\partial_{t}u$ or $v$ with $-\partial_{t}v$ in the middle equality of (1.3.1)). In the case the monodromy is semisimple, this implies that

$(\mathrm{1.3.6})$ $${\bf S}({\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\alpha},{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\beta})\,{\subset}\,{\mathbb{C}}\hskip 1.0pt\partial_{t}^{-\alpha-\beta}\,\,\,\hbox{if}\,\,\,\alpha{+}\beta\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Z}},\,\,\,\hbox{and 0 otherwise,}$$

where ${\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\alpha}\,{:=}\,{\rm Ker}(\partial_{t}t\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha)^{k}\,{\subset}\,{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ ($k\,{\gg}\,0$). In general we can use a filtration of ${\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ such that the graded pieces are simple ${\mathcal{K}}\langle t\rangle$-modules together with the assertion that ${\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ is a regular holonomic ${\mathcal{K}}\langle t\rangle$-module, that is, ${\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ is generated over ${\mathcal{K}}$ by the ${\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\alpha}$.

Remark 1.3b. In the case $p\,{=}\,q\,{=}\,1{-}n$, the induced self-pairing on ${\rm Gr}^{F}_{1-n}{\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\,{=}\,\Omega_{f}$ can be identified with the self-pairing defined by using the Grothendieck residue pairing :

$(\mathrm{1.3.7})$ $${\rm Res}_{0}\Bigl{[}\begin{array}[]{c}gh{\rm d}x\\ f_{1}\cdots f_{n}\end{array}\Bigr{]}=\frac{1}{(2\pi i)^{n}}\int_{|f_{1}|\,{=}\,\varepsilon_{1},\,\dots\,,|f_{n}|=\varepsilon_{n}}\frac{gh{\rm d}x}{f_{1}\cdots f_{n}}$$

for $g,h\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{C}}\{x\}$, where $f_{i}\,{:=}\,\partial_{x_{i}}f$ and $0\,{<}\,\varepsilon_{i}\,{\ll}\,1$, see [Ha 66, p. 195], [GrHa 78, p. 659].

Remark 1.3c. It has been conjectured by K. Saito that the difference between the maximal and minimal exponents of a hypersurface isolated singularity is at most 1 if and only if the singularity is rational double or simple elliptic or cusp, see [SWZ 23]. Here the exponents are defined by using “good sections”, and do not necessarily coincide with the spectral numbers defined by Steenbrink [St 77] using Hodge theory, see for instance [Sa 18]. The conjecture does not hold with their formulation in general. (They say that a non-standard order of ${\mathbb{R}}$ is never used. But this denial never follows from their formulation.)

Assume for instance $f\,{=}\,x^{5}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pty^{4}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0ptx^{3}y^{2}$. There are free generators $\eta_{i}$ of ${\mathcal{G}}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ over ${\mathcal{K}}$ such that $\partial_{t}t\eta_{i}\,{=}\,\alpha_{i}\eta_{i}$ and ${\bf S}(\eta_{i},\eta_{j})\,{=}\,\delta_{i,\hskip 1.0pt\mu+1-j}\hskip 1.0pt\partial_{t}^{-n}$ ($i,j\,{\in}\,[1,\mu]$) with $\mu\,{=}\,12$, since $\dim H^{1}(F_{\!f},{\mathbb{C}})_{\lambda}\,{\leqslant}\,1$. Note that (1.2.5) says that the spectral numbers of $f$ are given by

$(\mathrm{1.3.8})$ $$\bigl{\{}\tfrac{4p+5q}{20}\mid(p,q)\,{\in}\,[1,4]{\times}[1,3]\bigr{\}}.$$

The Brieskorn lattice $H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$ is generated over ${\mathcal{R}}$ by the $\omega_{i}$ ($i\,{\in}\,[1,\mu]$) with

$(\mathrm{1.3.9})$ $$\omega_{1}\,{:=}\,\eta_{1}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt\partial_{t}\eta_{\mu},\quad\omega_{i}\,{:=}\,\eta_{i}\,\,\,(i\,{\in}\,[2,\mu]),$$

using the theory of opposite filtrations [Sa 89]. Here $\eta_{1},\eta_{\mu}$ are replaced by $c\hskip 1.0pt\eta_{1},c^{-1}\eta_{\mu}$ for some $c\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{C}}^{*}$. This gives a very good section, since ${\bf S}(\omega_{i},\omega_{j})\,{=}\,\delta_{i,\hskip 1.0pt\mu+1-j}\hskip 1.0pt\partial_{t}^{-n}$, see [Sa 89], [Sa 18]. One can however replace $\omega_{\mu}\,{:=}\,\eta_{\mu}$ with

$(\mathrm{1.3.10})$ $$\omega^{\prime}_{\mu}\,{:=}\,{-}\partial_{t}^{-1}\eta_{1}\,{=}\,\eta_{\mu}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\partial_{t}^{-1}\omega_{1}.$$

Its image in $\Omega_{f}$ is unchanged. Setting $\omega^{\prime}_{i}\,{:=}\,\omega_{i}$ ($i\,{\in}\,[1,\mu{-}1]$), one has ${\bf S}(\omega^{\prime}_{i},\omega^{\prime}_{j})\,{=}\,\delta_{i,\hskip 1.0pt\mu+1-j}\hskip 1.0pt\partial_{t}^{-n}$ up to sign. This gives also a good section, but it is not very good. Indeed, the exponents of the modified section for the ${\mathcal{R}}$-submodule ${\mathcal{R}}\omega^{\prime}_{1}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt{\mathcal{R}}\omega^{\prime}_{\mu}$ are $\alpha_{1}{+}1\,{=}\,\tfrac{29}{20}$ and $\alpha_{\mu}{-}1\,{=}\,\tfrac{11}{20}$, since

$(\mathrm{1.3.11})$ $$\partial_{t}t\omega^{\prime}_{\mu}\,{=}\,\tfrac{29}{20}\omega^{\prime}_{\mu},\quad\partial_{t}t\omega^{\prime}_{1}\,{=}\,\tfrac{11}{20}\omega^{\prime}_{1}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0ptc^{\prime}\eta_{1}\,{=}\,\tfrac{11}{20}\omega^{\prime}_{1}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0ptc^{\prime}\partial_{t}\omega^{\prime}_{\mu},$$

for some $c^{\prime}\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{C}}^{*}$. The minimal and maximal exponents are then $\tfrac{11}{20}$ and $\tfrac{29}{20}$ in view of (1.3.8).

1.4. Proof of Theorem  2. Consider the endomorphism $\rho\,{\in}\,{\rm End}_{{\mathbb{C}}}(\Omega_{f})$ defined by the action of $f$ on $\Omega_{f}$. This is self-dual for the induced perfect self-pairing of $\Omega_{f}$ in (1.3.2) using (1.3.1). (Note that $t\partial_{t}^{-k}=k\hskip 1.0pt\partial_{t}^{-k-1}$ in ${\mathcal{K}}$.) We thus get the induced perfect pairing

$(\mathrm{1.4.1})$ $$(\Omega_{f}/{\rm Ker}\,\rho)\otimes_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\rm Im}\,\rho\to{\mathbb{C}}.$$

This is strictly compatible with the $V$-filtration as a corollary of the non-degeneracy of the induced pairing (1.3.4), where $k\,{=}\,n$ if $p\,{=}\,q\,{=}\,1{-}n$. So we get the induced perfect pairings

$(\mathrm{1.4.2})$ $${\rm Gr}_{V}^{\alpha}(\Omega_{f}/{\rm Ker}\,\rho)\otimes_{{\mathbb{C}}}{\rm Gr}_{V}^{n-\alpha}{\rm Im}\,\rho\to{\mathbb{C}}\quad(\forall\,\alpha\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Q}}).$$

The assertion then follows from Proposition  1. Indeed, ${\rm Ker}\,\rho$ is contained in the maximal ideal using Nakayama’s lemma if $\mu\,{\neq}\,\tau$. This finishes the proof of Theorem  2.

2. Generalized Hertling conjecture on variance

In this section we show a sufficient condition for the generalized Hertling conjecture on the variance of Tjurina spectrum to fail, and compute some examples.

2.1. Hertling conjecture on variance. In the notation of the introduction, the variance  of the spectrum is defined by

$(\mathrm{2.1.1})$ $${\rm Var}\hskip-1.0pt_{f}:=\tfrac{1}{\mu}\,\hbox{$\sum$}_{i\in I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}}\bigl{(}\alpha_{i}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\tfrac{n}{2}\bigr{)}^{2},$$

since ${\rm av}\!_{f}\,{:=}\,\tfrac{1}{\mu}\hbox{$\sum$}_{i\in I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}}\alpha_{i}\,{=}\,\tfrac{n}{2}$ using the symmetry of spectral numbers, see (1.2.4). Hertling’s conjecture asserts the inequality

$(\mathrm{2.1.2})$ $${\rm Var}\hskip-1.0pt_{f}\leqslant\tfrac{1}{12}(\alpha_{\mu}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha_{1}),$$

see [He 00]. This has been shown in the curve case, see [Sa 00] for the irreducible case, [Bré 02] for the non-degenerate case, and [Bré 04] for the general curve case. (The last paper does not seem to be published yet.) Note that the equality holds in the weighted homogeneous case, see [He 00].

2.2. Generalized Hertling conjecture. In the notation of the introduction, the variance of the Tjurina spectrum is defined by

$(\mathrm{2.2.1})$ $${\rm Var}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{f}:=\tfrac{1}{\tau}\,\hbox{$\sum$}_{i\in T_{\!f}}\bigl{(}\alpha_{i}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt{\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\bigr{)}^{2}\quad\hbox{with}\quad{\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}:=\tfrac{1}{\tau}\,\hbox{$\sum$}_{j\in T_{\!f}}\,\alpha_{j}.$$

The generalized Hertling conjecture on the variance of the Tjurina spectrum [SWZ 23] claims the inequality

$(\mathrm{2.2.2})$ $$\delta_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\rm Tj}:={\rm Var}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{f}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\tfrac{1}{12}\bigl{(}\alpha^{\rm\hskip-1.0ptTj}_{\tau}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha^{\rm\hskip-1.0ptTj}_{1}\bigr{)}\leqslant 0,$$

where $\alpha^{\rm\hskip-1.0ptTj}_{\tau}$ is the maximal Tjurina spectral number and $\alpha^{\rm\hskip-1.0ptTj}_{1}\,{=}\,\alpha_{1}$ by Theorem  1.

2.3. Counterexamples. We first prove the proposition below implying that the conjecture fails in certain cases.

Proposition 2.3. Assume $f$ is semi-weighted-homogeneous $($see Remark  1.2d) such that $\mu\,{\neq}\,\tau$ and either $\alpha_{\mu}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha_{1}\,{\leqslant}\,2$ or more generally ${\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\,{\leqslant}\,{\rm av}\!_{f}$. Then the inequality (2.2.2) does not hold if

$(\mathrm{2.3.1})$ $$\tfrac{\mu}{12}(\alpha_{\mu}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha^{\rm\hskip-1.0ptTj}_{\tau})\geqslant(\mu{-}\tau)\alpha_{\mu}^{2}.$$

Proof. Note first that the inequality ${\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\,{\leqslant}\,{\rm av}\!_{f}$ follows from the condition $\alpha_{\mu}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha_{1}\,{\leqslant}\,2$ using the inequality in (3). We have the inequalities

$(\mathrm{2.3.2})$ $\displaystyle\hbox{$\sum$}_{i\in T_{\!f}}\bigl{(}\alpha_{i}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\tfrac{1}{\tau}\hskip 1.0pt\hbox{$\sum$}_{j\in T_{\!f}}\,\alpha_{j}\bigr{)}^{2}$ $\displaystyle=\hbox{$\sum$}_{i\in T_{\!f}}\,\alpha_{i}^{2}-\tau\bigl{(}\hskip 1.0pt\tfrac{1}{\tau}\hskip 1.0pt\hbox{$\sum$}_{j\in T_{\!f}}\,\alpha_{j}\bigr{)}^{2}$

$$>\hbox{$\sum$}_{i\in T_{\!f}}\,\alpha_{i}^{2}-\mu\bigl{(}\hskip 1.0pt\tfrac{1}{\mu}\hskip 1.0pt\hbox{$\sum$}_{j\in I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}}\,\alpha_{j}\bigr{)}^{2}$$

$$\geqslant\tfrac{\mu}{12}(\alpha_{\mu}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha_{1})-(\mu{-}\tau)\alpha_{\mu}^{2}$$

$$>\tfrac{\tau}{12}(\alpha^{\rm\hskip-1.0ptTj}_{\tau}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha_{1})+\tfrac{\mu}{12}(\alpha_{\mu}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha^{\rm\hskip-1.0ptTj}_{\tau})-(\mu{-}\tau)\alpha_{\mu}^{2}.$$

The second inequality follows from the assertion in [He 00] mentioned at the end of 2.1, which implies that the equality holds in (2.1.2) for semi-weighted-homogeneous polynomials (using [Va 82b], see (1.2.6)). So the assertion follows. This finishes the proof of Proposition  2.3.

Remark 2.3a. The condition ${\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\,{\leqslant}\,{\rm av}\!_{f}$ seems to be always satisfied as far as calculated.

Remark 2.3b. Let $f^{\prime}$ be a $($virtual$\hskip 1.0pt)$ $\mu$-constant deformation of $f$ such that its Tjurina number $\tau^{\prime}$ coincides with $\tau$ and ${\rm Sp}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{f}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt{\rm Sp}^{\hskip-1.0pt\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf^{\prime}}\,{=}\,t^{\beta}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0ptt^{\beta^{\prime}}$. Let $\alpha_{\tau}^{\prime\,{\rm Tj}}$ be the maximal Tjurina spectral number of $f^{\prime}$. In the case $\beta\,{>}\,\beta^{\prime}$ and $\alpha^{\rm\hskip-1.0ptTj}_{\tau}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha_{\tau}^{\prime\,{\rm Tj}}\,{=}\,\beta\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\beta^{\prime}$, we have

$(\mathrm{2.3.3})$ $$\delta_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\rm Tj}<\delta_{\hskip-1.0ptf^{\prime}}^{\rm Tj}\quad\hbox{if}\quad\beta\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt\beta^{\prime}\leqslant{\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt{\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf^{\prime}}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt\tfrac{\tau}{12}.$$

On the other hand, if $\beta\,{>}\,\beta^{\prime}$ and $\alpha^{\rm\hskip-1.0ptTj}_{\tau}\,{=}\,\alpha_{\tau}^{\prime\,{\rm Tj}}$, we have

$(\mathrm{2.3.4})$ $$\delta_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\rm Tj}>\delta_{\hskip-1.0ptf^{\prime}}^{\rm Tj}\quad\hbox{if}\quad\beta\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt\beta^{\prime}\geqslant{\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt{\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf^{\prime}}.$$

These follow from the first equality of (2.3.2), since

$(\mathrm{2.3.5})$ $\displaystyle\hbox{$\sum$}_{i\in T_{\!f}}\,\alpha_{i}^{2}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\hbox{$\sum$}_{i\in T_{\!f^{\prime}}}\,\alpha_{i}^{2}$ $\displaystyle=(\beta{-}\beta^{\prime})(\beta{+}\beta^{\prime}),$

$$\tau({\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf})^{2}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\tau({\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf^{\prime}})^{2} =(\beta{-}\beta^{\prime})({\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt{\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf^{\prime}}).$$

By (2.3.4) the proof of the inequality (2.2.2) is reduced  to the case where $T_{\!f}\cap I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\geqslant\alpha_{1}+1}$ is consecutive  (that is, equal to ${\mathbb{Z}}\cap[a,b]$ for some $a,b\in{\mathbb{Z}}$) assuming $\alpha_{\mu}{-}\mu_{1}\,{<}\,2$.

Example 2.3. Assume $f$ defines an ordinary $m$-ple point, that is, the leading term $f_{1}$ of $f\,{=}\,\hbox{$\sum$}_{\beta\geqslant 1}f_{\beta}$ (see Remark  1.2d) is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $m$ having an isolated singularity. We have $\mu\,{=}\,(m{-}1)^{n}$ and $\alpha_{\mu}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\alpha^{\rm\hskip-1.0ptTj}_{\tau}\,{\geqslant}\,\tfrac{1}{m}$. By Proposition  2.3 the inequality (2.2.2) then fails if

$(\mathrm{2.3.6})$ $$(m{-}1)^{n}\,{\geqslant}\,12\hskip 1.0ptm\hskip 1.0ptn^{2}(\mu{-}\tau),$$

assuming ${\rm av}\hskip-1.0pt^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}\,{\leqslant}\,{\rm av}\!_{f}$. In the case $\mu{-}\tau$ is fixed (for instance if $\mu{-}\tau\,{=}\,1$), these conditions are satisfied when $m$ is sufficiently large. In the case $n\,{=}\,2$ with $\mu{-}\tau\,{=}\,1$, the inequality (2.2.2) fails actually for $m\,{\geqslant}\,7$ according to a computation in Remark  2.3c just below.

Remark 2.3c. The situation seems different in the semi-weighted-homogeneous case. Using Singular (see [DGPS 20]), one can examine the inequality (2.2.2) for $n\,{=}\,2$ as follows.

One can change the definitions of the positive integers $a,b,c,d$ as long as they satisfy the conditions: $c\,{<}\,\tfrac{a}{2}$, $d\,{<}\,\tfrac{b}{2}$, and $\tfrac{a-1-c}{a}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt\tfrac{b-1-d}{b}\,{>}\,1$. These conditions should imply the equality $\mu{-}\tau\,{=}\,cd$. Here it is insufficient  to assume only the last inequality, see also Remark  4. The inequality (2.2.2) seems to hold, that is, the last output is a non-positive number, if $7\,{\geqslant}\,b\,{\leqslant}\,a$ except the case $a\,{=}\,b\,{=}\,7$ with $c\,{=}\,d\,{=}\,1$. It may hold for any $a,b$ if $c,d$ are sufficiently large.

Remark 2.3d. In [SWZ 23] the computer program Singular is used for the proof of the inequality (2.2.2) in the case the modality ${\rm mod}_{f}$ is at most 3. Here one has to take a rational point on each connected stratum of a stratification of the base space of the miniversal $\mu$-constant deformation of $f$ such that the Tjurina spectrum is constant on each stratum. This seems very difficult, since the Tjurina spectrum is not stable by $\tau$-constant deformations. It may be simpler to try to prove the inequality (2.2.2) for all the possible candidates  for the Tjurina spectrum for each possible  $\tau$, and show that it does not occur in the case the inequality does not hold. Here Theorems  1 and 2 are useful. However, this method may have some difficulty if $|I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{\geqslant\alpha_{1}+1}|$ is quite big (see the inclusion in (3) of Theorem  1), since one may get many possibilities of missing spectral numbers. In this case the last part of Remark  2.3b is sometimes helpful, and in the case where the last assumption of Theorem  1 is satisfied, one can consider for instance the following.

This computes $\delta^{\rm Tj}_{\hskip-1.0ptg}$ for any possible  $\mu$-constant deformation $g$ of $f$ whose Tjurina number is at least $\tau{-}A$. Here $A$ is a non-negative number, which can be given effectively if one knows the lower bound  of the Tjurina number of all  the (possible) $\mu$-constant deformation $g$ of $f$. If one is not very sure about the lower bound, it is better to set $A$ very large (for instance $\mu$), since it is replaced with a theoretically maximal number by the code. Note that the lower bound is attained on the complement of a closed analytic subset of the $\mu$-constant stratum, and one may examine the lower bound by calculating the Tjurina number at many points of the $\mu$-constant stratum. We compute the case $T_{\hskip-1.0ptg}\cap I_{\hskip-1.0ptf}^{>\alpha_{1}+1}\,{=}\,\emptyset$ at the end if $A$ is sufficiently large. (One can see the spectral numbers by typing “S;”.) If the last outputs of all the lines are non-positive with $A$ sufficiently large, it would mean a positive answer to the conjecture. In the other case, it says nothing about the conjecture unless one can prove the existence of a $\mu$-constant deformation $g$ satisfying the desired properties. These calculations do not seem to produce a counterexample in the case the modality is at most 3 (or perhaps even 4).

It seems very difficult to prove the conjecture in the case the singularities are parametrized by  $k\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{N}}$, since one can prove the conjecture only for each explicitly given  $k$, and never for all  the $k$ in an algebraic way because of the ambiguity of missing spectral numbers.

Remark 2.3e. For Newton non-degenerate convenient polynomials of two variables, we can calculate the spectral numbers as in [St 77], [Ar 80], but it is very difficult to determine the Tjurina spectrum. There is however an exceptional case where $f$ is a linear combination of three monomials. Let $f\,{=}\,x_{1}^{a}x_{2}^{b}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0ptx_{1}^{c}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0ptx_{2}^{d}$ with $\tfrac{a}{c}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt\tfrac{b}{d}\,{<}\,1$ and $2\,{\leqslant}\,a\,{<}\,b$. Set

$$\Lambda_{0}\,{:=}\,\bigl{\{}(i,j)\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\mid 0\,{<}\,\tfrac{i}{a}=\tfrac{j}{b}\,{<}\,2\bigr{\}},$$

$$\Lambda_{1}\,{:=}\,\bigl{\{}(i,j)\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\mid 0\,{<}\,\tfrac{j}{b}\,{<}\,1,\,\tfrac{i}{a}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\tfrac{c}{a}\,{<}\,\tfrac{j}{b}\,{<}\,\tfrac{i}{a}\bigr{\}},$$

$$\Lambda_{2}\,{:=}\,\bigl{\{}(i,j)\,{\in}\,{\mathbb{Z}}^{2}\mid 0\,{<}\,\tfrac{i}{a}\,{<}\,1,\,\tfrac{j}{b}\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\tfrac{d}{b}\,{<}\,\tfrac{i}{a}\,{<}\,\tfrac{j}{b}\bigr{\}},$$

as in a picture written in [Ar 80]. Then the vector space ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f)$ is spanned by the monomials $x^{\nu-{\mathbf{1}}}$ for $\nu\,{=}\,(\nu_{1},\nu_{2})\,{\in}\,\Lambda\,{:=}\,\hbox{$\bigcup$}_{k=0}^{2}\,\Lambda_{k}$ in a compatible way with the $V$-filtration, where $x^{\nu-{\mathbf{1}}}\,{:=}\,x_{1}^{\nu_{1}-1}x_{2}^{\nu_{2}-1}$ with ${\mathbf{1}}\,{:=}\,(1,1)$. This can be proved by an argument similar to the proof of the Steenbrink conjecture in [JKSY 24] using a resolution by a double complex of Koszul complexes as in [Ko 76, Proposition 2.6], see [JKSY 24, Remark 2.1f]. (It is not trivial to generalize this argument using the picture in [Ar 80] to the case $n\,{\geqslant}\,3$, see [JKSY 24].)

We see that the image of the monomial $x^{\nu-{\mathbf{1}}}$ in ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f,f)$ vanishes if $\nu\,{\in}\,\Lambda^{\prime}\,{:=}\,\hbox{$\bigcup$}_{k=0}^{2}\,\Lambda^{\prime}_{k}$ with

$$\Lambda^{\prime}_{0}\,{:=}\,\bigl{\{}\nu\,{\in}\,\Lambda_{0}\mid\nu_{1}\,{>}\,a\bigr{\}},$$

$$\Lambda^{\prime}_{1}\,{:=}\,\bigl{\{}\nu\,{\in}\,\Lambda_{1}\mid\nu_{1}\,{>}\,c\bigr{\}},$$

$$\Lambda^{\prime}_{2}\,{:=}\,\bigl{\{}\nu\,{\in}\,\Lambda_{2}\mid\nu_{2}\,{>}\,d\bigr{\}}.$$

Note that $f$ mod $(\partial f$) is represented by each of $x_{1}^{a}x_{2}^{b}$, $x_{1}^{c}$, $x_{2}^{d}$ up to a nonzero constant multiple using an argument similar to the semi-weighted-homogeneous case (since the number of monomials is three). It is easy to see that $|\Lambda^{\prime}|\,{=}\,(a{-}1)(b{-}1)$.

In the case $2b\,{>}\,d{+}1$, we can also verify that the image of $x^{\nu-{\mathbf{1}}}$ in ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f,f)$ vanishes if $\nu\,{\in}\,\Lambda^{\prime\prime}_{1}$ with

$$\Lambda^{\prime\prime}_{1}\,{:=}\,\bigl{\{}\nu\,{\in}\,\Lambda_{1}\mid\nu_{1}\,{=}\,c,\,\nu_{2}\,{\geqslant}\,d{-}b{+}1\bigr{\}}.$$

Indeed, $x^{\nu-{\mathbf{1}}}$ for $\nu\,{\in}\,\Lambda_{1}$ with $\nu_{1}\,{=}\,c$ can be identified up to a nonzero constant multiple with $x^{\nu+(a-c,b)-{\mathbf{1}}}$ mod $(\partial f)$, and it belongs to $(\partial f,f)$ if $\nu_{2}{+}b{-}1\,{\geqslant}\,d$.

We can then conclude that the monomials $x^{\nu-{\mathbf{1}}}$ for $\Lambda\,{\setminus}\,\bigl{(}\Lambda^{\prime}\cup\Lambda^{\prime\prime}_{1})$ form a filtered basis of the filtered vector space $\bigl{(}{\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f,f),V\bigr{)}$ if

$(\mathrm{2.3.7})$ $$\mu{-}\tau\,{=}\,(a{-}1)(b{-}1)\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt\max(2b\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0ptd\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt1,0).$$

Here we use a well known assertion that a filtered surjection is a filtered isomorphism if it is an isomorphism forgetting the filtration. The condition (2.3.7) seems to be always satisfied as far as computed. Using Singular, the above argument can be implemented as follows.

Here the positive integers $a,b,c,d$ must satisfy the conditions $\tfrac{a}{c}\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0pt\tfrac{b}{d}\,{<}\,1$ and $2\,{\leqslant}\,a\,{<}\,b$. As far as computed, there are no counterexamples to the generalized Hertling conjecture among this type. However this does not imply any information about general $\mu$-constant deformations where the situation is much more complicated.

In the general Newton non-degenerate case it seems very difficult to determine the Tjurina spectrum. Here one has to take a monomial basis of the Jacobian ring such that it defines a section of the surjection ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}\twoheadrightarrow{\mathbb{C}}\{x\}/(\partial f,f)$ which is compatible with the Newton filtration. The last condition is never satisfied for arbitrary monomial bases. (This can be seen in the case where $f$ is a linear combination of three monomials with $n\,{=}\,2$ as in the above code.) It does not seem very clear whether a monomial basis given by a computer always satisfies this condition. The monomial basis given by vfilt in Singular, gmssing.lib seems to be for $H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}/tH^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$, and not for $H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}/\partial_{t}^{-1}\!H^{\prime\prime}_{\hskip-1.0ptf}$, for instance in the irreducible curve case with Puiseux pairs $(3,2),(1,2)$, where the $V$-filtration does not seem to be induced by ideals of ${\mathbb{C}}\{x\}$.

Remark 2.3f. In the irreducible plane curve singularity case, we can determine the spectral numbers from the Puiseux pairs, see [Sa 00]. (Note that a plane curve singularity with Puiseux pairs $(k_{1},n_{1}),(k_{2},n_{2})$ in the sense of [Sa 00] has Puiseux pairs $(k_{1},n_{1}),(k_{1}n_{2}{+}k_{2},n_{2})$ with the definition used in Singular.) Assuming the missing spectral numbers are consecutive, one may examine whether the inequality (2.2.2) holds as follows.

One may replace the positive integers $a,b,d,r$ and the integer $q$ as long as $a\,{>}\,b\,{>}\,r$, $ad\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0ptq\,{>}\,0$, $c\,{:=}\,bq\hskip 1.0pt{+}\hskip 1.0ptar\,{>}\,0$, and ${\rm GCD}(a,b)\,{=}\,{\rm GCD}(c,d)\,{=}\,1$, where $f$ has Puiseux pairs $(a,b),(c,d)$ in the sense of [Sa 00]. (One can see the spectral numbers by typing “S;”.) In the non-consecutive case, one may apply the last part of Remark  2.3b as in Remark  2.3d by replacing the part after “t=tjurina(f);” if it takes very long to apply the code in Remark  2.3d. It is surprising that $\mu\hskip 1.0pt{-}\hskip 1.0pt\tau$ seems to be always $2$ for any large odd number $c$ in the case $(a,b,d)\,{=}\,(3,2,2)$. It is interesting that no trimodal Newton-degenerate singularity seems to appear in [SWZ 23]; for instance the modality seems to be at least 4 if the Puiseux pairs are $(3,2),(1,3)$ with $\mu\,{=}\,42$.