Mathematische Zeitschrift

, Volume 288, Issue 3–4, pp 759–781 | Cite as

Singularities of ordinary deformation rings

  • Andrew Snowden


Let \(R^{\mathrm {univ}}\) be the universal deformation ring of a residual representation of a local Galois group. Kisin showed that many loci in \({{\mathrm{MaxSpec}}}(R^{\mathrm {univ}}[1/p])\) of interest are Zariski closed, and gave a way to study the generic fiber of the corresponding quotient of \(R^{\mathrm {univ}}\). However, his method gives little information about the quotient ring before inverting p. We give a method for studying this quotient in certain cases, and carry it out in the simplest non-trivial case. Precisely, suppose that \(V_0\) is the trivial two dimensional representation and let R be the unique \(\mathbf {Z}_p\)-flat and reduced quotient of \(R^{\mathrm {univ}}\) such that \({{\mathrm{MaxSpec}}}(R[1/p])\) consists of ordinary representations with Hodge–Tate weights 0 and 1. We describe the functor of points of (a slightly modified version of) R and show that the irreducible components of \({{\mathrm{Spec}}}(R)\) are normal and Cohen–Macaulay, but not Gorenstein. As a consequence, we find that certain global deformation rings are torsion-free and Cohen–Macaulay, but not Gorenstein.


Galois representations Deformation rings Modularity lifting 

Mathematics Subject Classification

Primary 11F80 11S23 



I would like to thank Bhargav Bhatt, Brian Conrad and Mark Kisin for useful conversations. I would especially like to thank Frank Calegari and Steven Sam for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.


  1. 1.
    Bruns, W., Herzog, J.: Cohen–Macaulay Rings, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 39. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bărcănescu, Ş., Manolache, N.: Betti numbers of Segre-Veronese singularities. Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 26(4), 549–565 (1981)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Conrad, B.: Structure of ordinary-crystalline deformation ring for \(\ell =p\). Unpublished notes.
  4. 4.
    Calegari, F., Geraghty, D.: Modularity lifting beyond the Taylor-Wiles method, preprintGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dieudonné, J., Grothendieck, A.: Eléments de géométrie algébrique, Publ. Math. IHES, 4, 8, 11, 17, 20, 24, 28, 32, 1960–7Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartshorne, R.: Residues and Duality. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 20. Springer, New York (1966)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kisin, M.: Moduli of finite flat group schemes, and modularity. Ann. Math. 170(3), 1085–1180 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kisin, M.: Modularity of 2-adic Barsotti-Tate representations. Invent. Math. 178(3), 587–634 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kisin, M.: Modularity of 2-dimensional Galois representations. Curr. Dev. Math. 2005, 191–230 (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khare, C., Wintenberger, J.-P.: Serre’s modularity conjecture. II. Invent. Math. 178(3), 505–586 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weyman, J.: Cohomology of Vector Bundles and Syzygies, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 149. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ann ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations