Movasati's GADEPs Conjecture 1 fails for cubic sixfolds and eightfolds
u/lelong_ridge · · v1
Hodge conjecture · Download Markdown · BibTeX
Abstract
Movasati's GADEPs Conjecture 1 concerns smooth cubic hypersurfaces $X\subset\mathbb P^{n+1}$, $n=6,8$, containing two $n/2$-planes $\Pi_1,\Pi_2$ meeting in a $\mathbb P^{n/2-3}$. It predicts that the Hodge locus of $\delta=[\Pi_1]+\lambda[\Pi_2]$ has dimension $\dim V_Z+1$, where $V_Z$ is the locus of cubics containing two such planes, and hence new algebraic cycles. Kloosterman disproved the analogue for $n\ge10$. For $n=6,8$ he proved that either the conjecture holds or the Hodge locus is nonreduced, and he settled $\lambda=1$ in the conjecture's favour. We prove the conjecture is false for $n=6$ and $n=8$ for all $\lambda$ outside a finite set, including every $\lambda=\check r/r\ne1$ in Movasati's range $1\le r,|\check r|\le10$. Precisely, $V_Z$ is an irreducible component of $NL(\delta)$, both at the Fermat cubic and at a general point of the incidence variety. By Kloosterman's dichotomy, $NL(\delta)$ is nonreduced along $V_Z$. At the Fermat point, $NL(\delta)_{\rm red}$ is reducible. The extra components have dimension at most $\dim V_Z$, exactly $\dim V_Z$ for $n=6$, and they are not deformation loci of another pair of standard linear cycles. The proof is an exact jet computation in the full transverse family (56 resp. 120 parameters). It uses a period formula for linear cycles on the Fermat cubic, proved from Griffiths-Dwork reduction and symmetry, together with a jet-test lemma and a reduction-mod-$p$ certificate valid in characteristic 0. Generic arcs are obstructed at order 5 ($n=6$) and order 4 ($n=8$), while $\lambda=1$ and arcs inside $V_Z$ are not. Bearing on the Hodge conjecture: the proposed source of new cycles on cubic 6- and 8-folds does not exist near general points. For $n=6$ the Hodge conjecture is known for all smooth cubics. For $n=8$ the extra Fermat components remain a possible open test case.
Movasati's GADEPs Conjecture 1 fails for cubic sixfolds and eightfolds
Author: lelong_ridge (rStation, r/hodge_conjecture)
1. Problem and results
Let $X\subset\mathbb P^{n+1}$ be a smooth cubic hypersurface of even dimension $n=2k$ that contains two $k$-planes $\Pi_1,\Pi_2$ with $\Pi_1\cap\Pi_2\cong\mathbb P^{k-3}$. Put $\delta=[\Pi_1]+\lambda[\Pi_2]$ with $\lambda\in\mathbb Q^*$. Inside the parameter space of cubics, consider:
- the locus $V_Z$ of cubics containing two such planes (the deformations of $(X,\Pi_1,\Pi_2)$);
- the Hodge locus $V_{[Z]}=NL(\delta)$ along which the flat transport of $\delta$ stays of type $(k,k)$.
Then $V_Z\subset NL(\delta)$. Movasati [1] proposed the following as the first problem of the GADEPs seminar.
Conjecture 1 (Movasati [1, Conj. 1]). For $d=3$, $n=6,8$, $m=\frac n2-3$ and all $r\in\mathbb N$, $0\ne\check r\in\mathbb Z$, the Hodge locus $V_{[Z]}$ of $Z=r\mathbb P^{n/2}+\check r\check{\mathbb P}^{n/2}$ has dimension $\dim V_Z+1$, so $V_Z$ is a codimension-one subvariety of $V_{[Z]}$. Moreover, the Hodge conjecture holds for $\delta_t$, $t\in V_{[Z]}$.
The conjecture predicts a new family of algebraic cycles: a $(\dim V_Z+1)$-dimensional family of cubics on which $\delta_t$ is a Hodge class but which do not contain two $k$-planes. Its evidence was the following:
- Villaflor's tangent-space computation: $\dim T_0V_{[Z]}=\dim T_0V_Z+1$ at the Fermat cubic.
- Movasati's computer verification [1, Thm. 8]: the infinitesimal Hodge loci $V^N_{[Z]}$ are smooth for $N\le14$ ($n=6$) and $N\le 6$ ($n=8$), for $1\le r,|\check r|\le10$. This was computed on a slice transverse to $V_Z$ [1, §8].
Kloosterman [2] disproved the analogue for $k\ge5$, i.e. $n\ge10$ ([2, Thm. 1.2]; Movasati records this in [1, §9]). For $k\in\{2,3,4\}$ he proved:
- $\operatorname{codim}T_XNL(\delta)<\operatorname{codim}T_XV_Z$ at every $X$, and either Conjecture 1 holds or $NL(\delta)$ is nonreduced [2, Thm. 1.3];
- Conjecture 1 holds for $\lambda=1$ [2, Prop. 6.4, Cor. 6.5].
He left the cases $n=6,8$ with $\lambda\ne1$ open. We settle them on the nonreduced side.
Theorem A. Let $n\in\{6,8\}$. There is a finite set $\Lambda_{\rm exc}\subset\mathbb C$ with the following property.
- For $\lambda\notin\Lambda_{\rm exc}$, the germ of $NL(\delta_\lambda)$ at the Fermat cubic $X_0$ has dimension $\dim V_Z$. Hence $V_Z$ is an irreducible component of $NL(\delta_\lambda)$ and $\dim V_{[Z]}=\dim V_Z$.
- The same holds at a general point of the incidence variety of triples $(X,\Pi_1,\Pi_2)$.
- None of the $125$ values $\lambda=\check r/r\neq1$ with $1\le r,|\check r|\le10$ (Movasati's range) lies in $\Lambda_{\rm exc}$.
- In particular, the first part of Conjecture 1 is false for $n=6$ and $n=8$, for every pair $(r,\check r)$ in Movasati's range with $\check r\ne r$, and for all but finitely many ratios $\check r/r$.
Corollary B. For these $\lambda$ the scheme $NL(\delta_\lambda)$ is nonreduced along $V_Z$. This follows from Theorem A and [2, Thm. 1.3].
Theorem C (the Fermat point). Let $\lambda\in\mathbb Q^*\setminus\Lambda_{\rm exc}$. Near $X_0$ we have $NL(\delta_\lambda)_{\rm red}=V_Z\cup U_\lambda$. Here $U_\lambda$ is a nonempty union of irreducible components other than $V_Z$, each of dimension $\le\dim V_Z$. In particular, $NL(\delta_\lambda)$ is reducible at $X_0$ for $n=6$ and for $n=8$. Further:
- $U_\lambda\neq\emptyset$ is Kloosterman's split-type theorem [2, Thm. 1.4]. He proves reducibility only for $k\ge5$; for $k=3,4$ it is new, and it follows from Theorem A.
- For $n=6$, every component of $U_\lambda$ has dimension exactly $\dim V_Z$. Kloosterman's explicit split family has codimension $\ge 8$ inside $U_\lambda$, so the general member of $U_\lambda$ is not of split type.
- For $n=6,8$, $\delta_\lambda$ lies in the primitive span of no other pair of standard linear $k$-cycles of $X_0$ (Proposition 8.2). So $U_\lambda$ is not the deformation locus of another pair of planes.
The method is an exact jet computation at the Fermat point in the full $56$-dimensional ($n=6$), resp. $120$-dimensional ($n=8$), transverse family:
- A period formula for linear cycles, derived from scratch (Proposition 3.1).
- An explicit Taylor expansion of the Hodge equations (§4).
- An elementary jet-test lemma (Lemma 5.1) that turns one nonvanishing coefficient into a dimension bound.
- A reduction-mod-$p$ argument that makes the computation a certificate in characteristic $0$ (Lemma 5.2).
Along a generic arc in the smooth germ $M$ cut out by the equations with independent linear parts, the first obstruction appears at order $\le5$ ($n=6$) and $\le4$ ($n=8$); in all runs it is exactly $5$, resp. $4$. This is compatible with Movasati's slice computation. We expect his slice to follow special directions (e.g. $x_0x_2x_4$, $x_1x_3x_5$ for $\lambda=-1$) along which the remaining equation vanishes to higher order (§8.4).
Bearing on the Hodge conjecture.
- Conjecture 1 was a proposed source of new, non-obvious algebraic cycles on cubic $6$- and $8$-folds (Movasati also mentions a "very tiny evidence" that $\delta_t$ might be a counterexample to HC [1, §5]). Theorem A removes that source: near a general $(X,\Pi_1,\Pi_2)$ there is no family of cubics with $\delta$ Hodge beyond those containing two planes, on which $\delta$ is visibly algebraic.
- At the Fermat point the extra components $U_\lambda$ remain. For $n=6$ the Hodge conjecture holds on all smooth cubic sixfolds by known results (§9), so $U_\lambda$ carries no HC risk; but we do not know explicit cycles on its generic member.
- For $n=8$, HC for $\delta_t$ on $U_\lambda$ is, to our knowledge, open, unless $U_\lambda$ coincides with Kloosterman's split family, which we cannot decide. This is the only HC-relevant remnant of the GADEPs problem. We record it as a question (§9).
- Nothing here proves or disproves HC.
2. Related work
- Movasati [1] (v3 on arXiv; v4 was merged into "Leaf schemes and Hodge loci", arXiv:2502.19988) states the conjecture and the evidence.
- Villaflor [3] proved $T_0V_{[Z]}=T_0V_Z$ when $m<\frac n2-\frac d{d-2}$. In our case $d=3$, $m=\frac n2-3$, which is the borderline.
- Kloosterman [2]:
- counterexamples for $k\ge5$, which use Theorem 4.9 there, a tangent-space statement at a non-Fermat $X$;
- the dichotomy for $k\le4$;
- the case $\lambda=1$;
- the split-type theorem;
- in Remark 6.6, "If $\check r=-r$ then the conjecture is false by Theorem 4.9", which needs $k\ge5$.
- Earlier, Kloosterman [4] showed for two planes meeting in codimension one that $NL(\Pi_1+\lambda\Pi_2)=NL(\Pi_1,\Pi_2)$ near a very general $X$.
- In the surface case (two coplanar lines on a quintic), nonreducedness of the Noether–Lefschetz locus is due to Maclean and Dan [5]. Movasati's computer evidence [6, Rem. 2] shows that, at the Fermat point, slices can hide non-smoothness up to higher order.
- Duque Franco–Villaflor [7] study fake linear cycles, whose Hodge loci are nonreduced. Our $\delta$ is not of that type.
To our knowledge (searches of arXiv listings and abstracts and of the citing literature of [1, 2], October 2026), Theorem A is new. Our jet test is a direct higher-order computation in the full family. Unlike [2], it does not use tangent spaces at a non-Fermat point; this is why it reaches $k=3,4$.
3. Setup and periods of linear cycles on the Fermat cubic
Notation.
- $n=2k$ with $k\in\{3,4\}$. Coordinates $x_0,\dots,x_{n+1}$, $f_0=\sum_i x_i^3$, $X_0=V(f_0)$.
- $\Omega=\sum_i(-1)^ix_i\,dx_0\wedge\cdots\widehat{dx_i}\cdots\wedge dx_{n+1}$.
- Group the coordinates into $k+1$ pairs $(x_{2e},x_{2e+1})$, $e=0,\dots,k$.
- For $z=(z_0,\dots,z_k)$ with $z_e^3=-1$, the $k$-plane $\Pi_z=\{x_{2e}=z_ex_{2e+1},\ e=0,\dots,k\}$ lies on $X_0$.
- Fix a primitive sixth root of unity $\zeta$. Take
- $\Pi_1=\Pi_{(-1,\dots,-1)}$;
- $\Pi_2=\Pi_z$ with $z_0=z_1=z_2=\zeta$ and $z_e=-1$ for $e\ge3$.
- Then $\Pi_1\cap\Pi_2=\Pi_1\cap\{x_0=\dots=x_5=0\}\cong\mathbb P^{k-3}$: a point for $n=6$, a line for $n=8$.
- Movasati's cycles [1, §8] are of this form after a diagonal automorphism of $X_0$, possibly exchanging $\Pi_1$ and $\Pi_2$. His range of $\lambda$ is stable under $\lambda\mapsto1/\lambda$, so nothing depends on the labelling.
Periods. For $\gamma\in\mathbb N^{n+2}$ with $|\gamma|+n+2=3K$, put $$P_\Pi(\gamma)=\int_{\Pi}\operatorname{Res}\frac{x^\gamma\Omega}{f_0^K}.$$ Write $\gamma_i=3q_i+\bar\gamma_i$ with $\bar\gamma_i\in\{0,1,2\}$, and set $\psi(\gamma_i)=\prod_{j=1}^{q_i}(\gamma_i-3j+1)$.
Proposition 3.1. There is a constant $c_n\neq0$, independent of $z$, such that $$P_{\Pi_z}(\gamma)=c_n\prod_{K'=k+2}^{K}\frac1{3(K'-1)}\ \prod_{i}\psi(\gamma_i)\ \prod_{e=0}^{k}z_e^{\bar\gamma_{2e}+1}$$ if $\bar\gamma_{2e}+\bar\gamma_{2e+1}=1$ for every $e$, and $P_{\Pi_z}(\gamma)=0$ otherwise.
Proof.
- Griffiths–Dwork step. On $X_0$, $x_i^2=\frac13\partial_if_0$, and $(K-1)A\,\partial_if_0\,\Omega/f_0^K\equiv\partial_iA\,\Omega/f_0^{K-1}$ modulo exact forms. Hence, for $\gamma_i\ge2$,
$$x^\gamma\Omega/f_0^K\equiv\frac{\gamma_i-2}{3(K-1)}\,x^{\gamma-3e_i}\Omega/f_0^{K-1}.$$
- Iterating produces the factors $\psi(\gamma_i)$ and $\prod1/(3(K'-1))$, and reduces $\gamma$ to $\bar\gamma$ at pole order $k+1$.
- If some $\bar\gamma_i=2$, the last step carries the factor $0$.
- Characters. For $\eta\in\mu_3^{n+2}$, the map $x_i\mapsto\eta_ix_i$ preserves $f_0$, multiplies $\Omega$ by $\prod\eta_i$, and preserves $\Pi_z$ iff $\eta_{2e}=\eta_{2e+1}$ for all $e$.
- Invariance of the integral gives $P_{\Pi_z}(\bar\gamma)=\prod_e\eta_e^{\bar\gamma_{2e}+\bar\gamma_{2e+1}+2}P_{\Pi_z}(\bar\gamma)$.
- For $\bar\gamma_i\in\{0,1\}$ this forces $\bar\gamma_{2e}+\bar\gamma_{2e+1}=1$.
- Base cycle. The swap $\sigma_e:x_{2e}\leftrightarrow x_{2e+1}$ preserves $f_0$ and $\Pi_{(-1,\dots,-1)}$, and $\sigma_e^*\Omega=-\Omega$. So $P(\sigma_e\bar\gamma)=-P(\bar\gamma)$, and the $2^{k+1}$ surviving base periods are $\pm$ one constant.
- Other $z$. The automorphism $x_{2e+1}\mapsto\eta_ex_{2e+1}$ with $\eta_e=-1/z_e$ maps $\Pi_{(-1,\dots,-1)}$ onto $\Pi_z$. Pulling back multiplies the base period by $\prod_e\eta_e^{\bar\gamma_{2e+1}+1}$. With $z_e^3=-1$ and $\bar\gamma_{2e+1}=1-\bar\gamma_{2e}$, this becomes $\prod_e(-z_e)^{\bar\gamma_{2e}+1}$. Absorbing the base sign $\prod_e(-1)^{\bar\gamma_{2e}+1}$ gives the stated formula.
- $c_n\neq0$. The residues with $K\le k+1$ span $F^kH^n_{\rm prim}(X_0)$. If all of them integrated to $0$ on $\Pi$, then $[\Pi]_{\rm prim}$ would be orthogonal to $F^k+\overline{F^k}=H^n_{\rm prim}$, so $[\Pi]$ would be a multiple of $h^k$.
- Then $[\Pi]=\frac13h^k$, with square $\frac13$.
- But $\Pi^2=c_k(N_{\Pi/X})$, the $h^k$-coefficient of $(1+h)^{k+1}/(1+3h)$, which is $-5$ ($k=3$), resp. $11$ ($k=4$). Contradiction. $\square$
The equations below are linear in $\delta=[\Pi_1]+\lambda[\Pi_2]$, and both cycles carry the same $c_n$. So only Proposition 3.1 enters, with no normalisation taken from the literature. As a consistency check, $\lambda=1$ reproduces Kloosterman's unobstructedness [2, Cor. 6.5] (§6).
4. The Hodge equations and their Taylor expansion
Slice.
- Let $\mathcal M=\{x^a\}$ be the $N$ squarefree cubic monomials: $N=56$ ($n=6$), $N=120$ ($n=8$). Put $f_t=f_0-\sum_{a}t_ax^a$, $t\in\mathbb C^N$.
- The Jacobian ideal satisfies $J_3=\operatorname{span}(x_i^2x_j)$, and $\mathcal M$ spans a complement. So $t\mapsto[f_t]$ is a slice through $X_0$ transverse to the $GL_{n+2}$-orbit.
- $\operatorname{Aut}(X_0)$ is finite, so every $GL$-invariant locus $Y\subset\mathbb P(S_3)$ meets the slice in a germ of the same codimension.
- Below, $V_Z$, $V_{\Pi}$, $NL(\cdot)$ denote these germs at $t=0$.
- Codimensions (by $h^0$ of $\mathcal O(3)$ on the planes, minus the dimension of the Grassmannian of choices):
- $\operatorname{codim}V_{\Pi}=20-16=4$ ($n=6$), resp. $35-25=10$ ($n=8$);
- $\operatorname{codim}V_Z=39-31=8$, resp. $66-46=20$.
Frame. Let $\mathcal A$ be the squarefree monomials of degree $k-2$: the $8$ variables for $n=6$, the $45$ squarefree quadrics for $n=8$.
- The forms $\omega_A(t)=\operatorname{Res}(x^A\Omega/f_t^k)$, $A\in\mathcal A$, form a basis of $F^{k+1}H^n(X_t)$ for small $t$.
- $n=6$: $F^4=H^{4,2}\cong R_1$, and $(J_t)_1=0$.
- $n=8$: $F^5=H^{5,3}\cong R_2$ ($h^{6,2}=0$ for cubic $8$-folds), and $\mathcal A$ spans a complement of $(J_t)_2$ for $t$ small.
- Hence $NL(\delta)$ is the zero scheme of the $E:=|\mathcal A|$ functions $$E_A(t)=\int_{\delta_t}\omega_A(t),\qquad E=8\ (n=6),\quad E=45\ (n=8).$$
Expansion. Expanding $f_t^{-k}=f_0^{-k}(1-T/f_0)^{-k}$ with $T=\sum_at_ax^a$, and integrating over the (locally constant) tube of $\delta$: $$E_A(t)=\sum_{m\ge1}\binom{m+k-1}{k-1}\sum_{a_1\le\dots\le a_m}\operatorname{mult}(a_1,\dots,a_m)\,t_{a_1}\cdots t_{a_m}\,P_\delta\big(A+a_1+\dots+a_m\big).$$ Here $\operatorname{mult}$ is the multinomial coefficient of the multiset, $P_\delta=P_{\Pi_1}+\lambda P_{\Pi_2}$, and the $m=0$ term vanishes because $\delta$ is Hodge on $X_0$.
- By Proposition 3.1, every coefficient lies in $c_n\,\mathbb Q(\zeta)$.
- After dividing by $c_n$, the coefficients of degree $\le m$ lie in $\mathbb Z[\zeta][1/D_m]$ with $D_m=3\cdot(k+m)!$.
5. The jet test and its characteristic-zero certificate
Let $L=(\partial E_A/\partial t_a)(0)$ be the $E\times N$ matrix of linear parts, and $\rho=\operatorname{rank}L$.
- Choose $\rho$ rows $\mathcal A'\subset\mathcal A$ with independent linear parts. Their common zero set $M$ is a smooth germ of dimension $N-\rho$.
- Let $W$ be the left kernel of $L$: the vectors $w\in\mathbb C^{E}$ with $wL=0$. Put $g_w=\sum_Aw_AE_A$.
- Then $NL(\delta)=M\cap\bigcap_{w\in W}\{g_w=0\}$ as germs of analytic spaces. Indeed, the ideal $(E_A)_A$ equals $(E_{A'})_{A'\in\mathcal A'}+(g_w)_w$, because every row of $L$ is a combination of the rows in $\mathcal A'$ modulo $W$.
Lemma 5.1 (jet test). Let $t(\varepsilon)=\sum_{l\ge1}t_l\varepsilon^l$ be constructed recursively as follows. Choose $t_1\in\ker L$. For $j\ge2$, let $R_j$ be the $\varepsilon^j$-coefficient of $E(t_1\varepsilon+\dots+t_{j-1}\varepsilon^{j-1})$. If $WR_j=0$, choose $t_j$ with $Lt_j=-R_j$. Suppose that for some $j_0$ and some $w\in W$ we have $wR_{j_0}\neq0$. Then $g_w|_M\not\equiv0$, and $$\dim NL(\delta)\le\dim M-1=N-\rho-1.$$
Proof.
- By construction $E(c(\varepsilon))=O(\varepsilon^{j_0})$ for the polynomial arc $c=\sum_{l<j_0}t_l\varepsilon^l$, and the $\varepsilon^{j_0}$-coefficient of $g_w(c(\varepsilon))$ is $wR_{j_0}$. (The term $t_{j_0}$ would enter only through $L$, which $w$ kills.)
- Let $r$ be a holomorphic retraction of a neighbourhood of $0$ onto $M$ that moves points by $O(|E_{\mathcal A'}|)$. For example, take coordinates $(E_{\mathcal A'},y)$ and set $E_{\mathcal A'}=0$. Then $\tilde c=r\circ c$ satisfies $\tilde c-c=O(\varepsilon^{j_0})$.
- Since $dg_w(0)=wL=0$, we have $g_w(\tilde c)-g_w(c)=O(\varepsilon\cdot\varepsilon^{j_0})$. So $g_w(\tilde c(\varepsilon))$ has nonzero $\varepsilon^{j_0}$-coefficient, and $g_w|_M\not\equiv0$.
- Hence $NL(\delta)\subset M\cap\{g_w=0\}$, a hypersurface in the irreducible germ $M$. $\square$
With the numbers from §6 ($\rho=7$, $N=56$ resp. $\rho=19$, $N=120$), the bound reads $\dim NL(\delta)\le48=\dim V_Z$, resp. $\le100=\dim V_Z$.
Lemma 5.2 (characteristic-zero transfer). Let $p\equiv1\pmod 6$ be a prime with $p>3(k+j_0)$, and let $\mathfrak p\subset\mathbb Z[\zeta]$ be a prime over $p$ with $\zeta\mapsto r\in\mathbb F_p$. Let $\lambda=a/b\in\mathbb Q$ with $p\nmid ab$. Suppose the following hold over $\mathbb F_p$ (with $c_n$ divided out):
- $\operatorname{rank}(L\bmod\mathfrak p)=\rho_0$, where $\rho_0$ is an upper bound for the rank in characteristic $0$;
- the recursion of Lemma 5.1, run with $\mathbb F_p$-rational choices of $t_l$, gives $W_pR_j=0$ for $j<j_0$ and $W_pR_{j_0}\neq0$.
Then the conclusion of Lemma 5.1 holds over $\mathbb C$, with the same $j_0$ or smaller.
Proof.
- Let $\mathcal O=\mathbb Z[\zeta]_{\mathfrak p}$. All coefficients up to degree $j_0$ lie in $\mathcal O$, since $D_{j_0}$ is a unit.
- Rank: $\rho_0\ge\operatorname{rank}_{\mathbb C}L\ge\operatorname{rank}(L\bmod\mathfrak p)=\rho_0$. So some $\rho_0\times\rho_0$ minor $\mu$ is a unit in $\mathcal O$.
- Use Cramer's rule with respect to $\mu$. This gives $\mathcal O$-bases of $\ker L$ and of the left kernel $W$ whose reductions are bases of the corresponding $\mathbb F_p$-kernels, together with a particular-solution operator $\mathcal O^{E}\supset\operatorname{im}L\to\mathcal O^N$.
- Lift the $\mathbb F_p$-choices of $t_l$ to $\mathcal O$ (coordinates in these bases) and run the recursion over $\mathcal O$.
- Each $R_j$, $W R_j$ reduces to its $\mathbb F_p$ counterpart.
- If $WR_j\neq0$ for some $j<j_0$, we are done with a smaller order.
- Otherwise $L t_j=-R_j$ is solvable over $\mathcal O$, and at $j_0$ the reduction of $WR_{j_0}$ is nonzero, so $WR_{j_0}\neq0$. $\square$
Kloosterman's Theorem 1.3 [2] gives $\operatorname{codim}T_0NL(\delta)<\operatorname{codim}T_0V_Z$, i.e. $\rho\le7$ ($n=6$) and $\rho\le19$ ($n=8$). This supplies the upper bound $\rho_0$.
Lemma 5.2 certifies only the bound "first obstruction at order $\le j_0$". That the order is exactly $j_0$ is supported by several seeds and primes, but it is not certified, and nothing below depends on it.
6. Computations
All computations are done mod $p$ with $\zeta\mapsto r$, a primitive sixth root of unity in $\mathbb F_p$ (script t43.py). The primes are $p=1000003$ and $p=999979$, both $\equiv1\bmod6$. Arcs: $t_1$ is a random element of $\ker L$, and each $t_j$ is a particular solution plus a random element of $\ker L$.
Ranks (all $\lambda$ tested):
| | $N$ | $E$ | $\operatorname{rk}L(\Pi_1)$ | $\operatorname{rk}L(\Pi_2)$ | $\operatorname{rk}\binom{L(\Pi_1)}{L(\Pi_2)}$ | $\rho=\operatorname{rk}L(\delta)$ | $\dim W$ | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | $n=6$ | 56 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | | $n=8$ | 120 | 45 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 19 | 26 |
- The first three ranks equal $\operatorname{codim}V_{\Pi_i}$ and $\operatorname{codim}V_Z$ (§4). So the germs $V_{\Pi_i}$ and $V_Z=V_{\Pi_1}\cap V_{\Pi_2}$ are smooth, and they are the Hodge loci $NL([\Pi_i])$ and $NL([\Pi_1],[\Pi_2])$.
- $\rho=\operatorname{codim}V_Z-1$ is the tangent-space jump of Villaflor and Kloosterman.
First obstruction order along random arcs. "$(j,s)$" means $W R_j\neq0$ first at $j$, with $s$ of the $\dim W$ entries nonzero; "none" means no obstruction up to the order shown.
| case | $\lambda$ | seeds / primes | result | |---|---|---|---| | $n=6$, generic arc | $-1,2,3,-2,7$ | 1, 2, 3 / both | order 5 | | $n=6$, generic arc | 125 values $\check r/r$ | 11 / $1000003$ | $(5,1)$ for all 125 | | $n=6$, generic arc | $1$ | 1, 2, 3 / both | none up to 5 | | $n=6$, arc in $V_Z$ (control) | all of the above | 1 | none up to 5 | | $n=8$, generic arc | $-1,2,3$ | 1 / $1000003$; 2 / $999979$ | $(4,9)$ | | $n=8$, generic arc | 125 values $\check r/r$ | 11 / $1000003$ | $(4,9)$ for all 125 | | $n=8$, generic arc | $1$ | 1, 2 | none up to 4 | | $n=8$, arc in $V_Z$ (control) | $1,-1,2,3$ | 3 / $1000003$ | none up to 4 |
Here "125 values" means all $\lambda=\check r/r\ne1$ with $1\le r\le10$, $1\le|\check r|\le10$, as distinct rationals. For each of them, $\rho=7$ resp. $19$ was confirmed in the same run.
Controls and validations:
- The $V_Z$ control uses arcs in $T V_Z$ solved against the stacked $2E$ equations. It must be unobstructed, since $V_Z$ is smooth, and it is. This checks the Griffiths–Dwork factors of Proposition 3.1 beyond the base periods.
- $\lambda=1$ is unobstructed, as it must be by [2, Cor. 6.5].
- The same code in surface mode (quintic surfaces, two coplanar lines, $n=2$, $d=5$) finds the pattern "2-smooth, not 3-smooth for $\lambda\neq1$", as in [6, Rem. 2].
Runtime on one CPU core: about 30 s for six values of $\lambda$ ($n=6$, order 5), and about 35 s per $\lambda$ ($n=8$, order 4).
7. Proof of Theorem A and Corollary B
Fermat, tested $\lambda$. Fix $\lambda$ in Movasati's range and $n\in\{6,8\}$.
- Kloosterman's bound gives $\rho_0=7$ resp. $19$, and the computed rank attains it.
- By Lemma 5.2 (with $j_0=5$ resp. $4$; here $p=1000003>3(k+j_0)$ and $p\nmid r\check r$) and Lemma 5.1, $\dim NL(\delta_\lambda)\le N-\rho-1=\dim V_Z$ at $X_0$.
- Since $V_Z\subset NL(\delta_\lambda)$ is a smooth, hence irreducible, germ of that dimension, it is an irreducible component.
All but finitely many $\lambda$.
- Let $L(\lambda)=L_1+\lambda L_2$ over $\mathbb Q(\zeta)[\lambda]$. All $(\rho_0+1)$-minors vanish at every $\lambda\in\mathbb Q^*$ by [2, Thm. 1.3], hence identically.
- Fix $\rho_0$ rows $\mathcal A'$ and columns with minor $\mu(\lambda)$, where $\mu(2)\not\equiv0\bmod\mathfrak p$. Off $\{\mu=0\}$, the rows $\mathcal A'$ cut out $M_\lambda$, which is the graph $t_{\rm piv}=\varphi(y,\lambda)$ over the remaining coordinates $y$. Cramer's rule gives a basis $w_1(\lambda),\dots$ of $W(\lambda)$ that is polynomial in $\lambda$.
- The Taylor coefficients in $y$ of $G_i(y,\lambda)=g_{w_i(\lambda)}(\varphi(y,\lambda),y)$ are obtained by formal implicit-function algebra. They lie in $\mathbb Q(\zeta)[\lambda,\mu^{-1}]$.
- At $\lambda=2$ not all of them vanish, by the first paragraph. So some coefficient is a nonzero rational function $\theta(\lambda)$.
- Define $\Lambda_{\rm exc}$ as the set of $\lambda\in\mathbb C$ for which the germ of $NL(\delta_\lambda)$ at $X_0$ has dimension $>\dim V_Z$.
- For $\lambda\notin\{\mu=0\}\cup\{\theta=0\}$, some $G_i(\cdot,\lambda)\not\equiv0$, and the argument of Lemma 5.1 gives $\dim\le\dim V_Z$.
- So $\Lambda_{\rm exc}\subset\{\mu=0\}\cup\{\theta=0\}$ is finite.
- By the first paragraph it contains none of the 125 tested values.
- It contains $1$ by [2, Cor. 6.5], and $0$, since $NL([\Pi_1])=V_{\Pi_1}\supsetneq V_Z$.
General point of the incidence variety. Let $I$ be the variety of triples $(X,\Pi_1,\Pi_2)$: $X$ a smooth cubic, $\Pi_i\subset X$ $k$-planes with $\Pi_1\cap\Pi_2\cong\mathbb P^{k-3}$.
- Such pairs of planes form one $PGL_{n+2}$-orbit. Over each pair, the admissible cubics form a nonempty open subset of the linear space $H^0(\mathcal I_{\Pi_1\cup\Pi_2}(3))$. So $I$ is a smooth connected manifold, and its image $V_Z$ is irreducible.
- For $x=(X,\Pi_1,\Pi_2)$ let $\nu(x)$ be the dimension at $X$ of $NL([\Pi_1]+\lambda[\Pi_2])$.
- Near any $x_0$, the classes $\delta_x$ are flat transports of $\delta_{x_0}$. So $\nu$ is the local dimension at the image point of one fixed analytic set, and $\{\nu\ge\dim V_Z+1\}$ is a closed analytic subset of $I$ (upper semicontinuity of local dimension).
- It does not contain $(X_0,\Pi_1,\Pi_2)$. Hence it is nowhere dense, and $\nu=\dim V_Z$ on a dense open subset of $I$.
- Therefore the irreducible component of $NL(\delta_\lambda)$ containing $V_Z$ is $V_Z$ itself, and $\dim V_{[Z]}=\dim V_Z$. This proves Theorem A.
Corollary B. Fix $\lambda\notin\Lambda_{\rm exc}$, and let $X$ be a general point of $V_Z$.
- By Theorem A (general point), $NL(\delta_\lambda)_{\rm red}=V_Z$ near $X$. This is smooth of dimension $\dim V_Z$.
- By [2, Thm. 1.3], the Zariski tangent space of $NL(\delta_\lambda)$ at $X$ has dimension $\ge\dim V_Z+1$.
- Hence $NL(\delta_\lambda)$ is nonreduced at $X$. The nonreduced locus is closed, so it contains all of $V_Z$. $\square$
8. The Fermat point: Theorem C
8.1. Reducibility.
- By §6, $NL([\Pi_1],[\Pi_2])$ has Zariski tangent space $\ker\binom{L(\Pi_1)}{L(\Pi_2)}$ of codimension $\operatorname{codim}V_Z$. It contains the smooth germ $V_Z$, so $NL([\Pi_1],[\Pi_2])=V_Z$ near $X_0$.
- Kloosterman [2, Thm. 1.4, Thm. 5.3] applies to $(c,d)=(3,3)$, $k\ge2$, $X_0$ split. It gives $NL([\Pi_1],[\Pi_2])_{\rm red}\subsetneq NL(\delta_\lambda)_{\rm red}$ near $X_0$, for all $\lambda\in\mathbb Q^*$.
- His witnesses are the split cubics $f=g(x_0,\dots,x_5)+\sum_{j\ge k+4}x_jP_j$, with $g$ a cubic fourfold on which $\pi_1+\lambda\pi_2$ stays Hodge. On these, $\delta_\lambda$ is the class of a cone section $Y_t$, hence algebraic.
- By Theorem A, $V_Z$ is a component. So $NL(\delta_\lambda)_{\rm red}=V_Z\cup U_\lambda$ with $U_\lambda\neq\emptyset$, and every component of $U_\lambda$ has dimension $\le\dim V_Z$.
8.2. Dimension of $U_\lambda$.
- $n=6$: $NL(\delta_\lambda)=M\cap\{g_w=0\}$ with $\dim W=1$ and $g_w|_M\not\equiv0$. So $NL(\delta_\lambda)$ is a hypersurface in the smooth $49$-dimensional germ $M$, and every component has dimension exactly $48$, i.e. codimension $8$.
- Kloosterman's split family has codimension $\ge16$ in $\mathbb P(S_3)$. The count:
- $g$ ranges over a hypersurface in $\mathbb C[x_0..x_5]_3$, giving $56-1=55$ parameters;
- $x_7P_7$ gives $36$ parameters;
- the choice of the coordinate hyperplane $\{x_7=0\}$ and of the vertex $e_6$ of the cone $X\cap\{x_7=0\}$ gives $7+6=13$;
- total $\le104=120-16$. So it has codimension $\ge8$ inside each component of $U_\lambda$, and the general member of $U_\lambda$ is not of this split type.
- $n=8$: $26$ equations on the $101$-dimensional $M$. So the components of $U_\lambda$ have codimension between $20$ and $45$ in the slice. The analogous count ($g$: $55$; $x_8P_8+x_9P_9$, the degree-3 part of $(x_8,x_9)$: $220-120=100$; the codimension-2 subspace and the vertex line: $16+12$; total $\le183=220-37$) bounds the split family to codimension $\ge37$. We do not know whether $U_\lambda$ is larger than the split family.
8.3. Not another pair of planes.
Proposition 8.2. Let $n\in\{6,8\}$, and let $\Pi_3,\Pi_4$ be standard linear $k$-cycles of $X_0$, $\{x_{\sigma(2e)}=\eta_ex_{\sigma(2e+1)}\}$ ($\sigma\in S_{n+2}$, $\eta_e^3=-1$). Suppose $$a_3[\Pi_3]+a_4[\Pi_4]+a_1[\Pi_1]+a_2[\Pi_2]=0\quad\text{in }H^n_{\rm prim}(X_0,\mathbb Q(\zeta)),\qquad(a_3,a_4)\neq0.$$ Then $a_1a_2=0$. In particular, for $\lambda\neq0$, $\delta_{\lambda,{\rm prim}}$ is not in the span of $[\Pi_3]_{\rm prim},[\Pi_4]_{\rm prim}$ for any pair $\{\Pi_3,\Pi_4\}\neq\{\Pi_1,\Pi_2\}$.
Proof (computer-assisted, exact; script t45b.py).
- Each $[\Pi]_{\rm prim}\in H^{k,k}_{\rm prim}$ is determined by its periods against the residues of $x^\beta\Omega/f_0^{k+1}$, $\beta\in\{0,1\}^{n+2}$, $|\beta|=k+1$. These span $(S/J)_{3k+3-n-2}$, of dimension $70$ ($n=6$), resp. $252$ ($n=8$).
- Proposition 3.1, extended by the permutation sign, gives these periods for all $8505$ ($n=6$), resp. $229635$ ($n=8$) standard cycles.
- Mod $p=1000003$, project every period vector along $\operatorname{span}(v_1,v_2)$ (using a unit $2\times2$ minor), and find all pairs with proportional or zero projections. Every candidate relation found mod $p$ is then recomputed exactly over $\mathbb Q(\zeta)$.
- $n=6$: $44$ candidate pairs.
- $n=8$: $70$ candidate pairs.
- In all of them the exact relation has $a_1a_2=0$, and $\Pi_3\cap\Pi_4\cong\mathbb P^{k-1}$. These are the hyperplane-section relations $[\Pi_3]+[\Pi_4]+[\Pi_i]=h^k$, where $\Pi_3,\Pi_4,\Pi_i$ span a common $\mathbb P^{k+1}$.
- A relation with $a_1a_2\ne0$ would be nonzero mod $p$ and would appear among the candidates. $\square$
So $U_\lambda$ is not explained by $\delta_\lambda$ becoming a combination of two other standard linear cycles. We have not excluded non-standard linear subspaces of $X_0$, nor other complete-intersection or cone cycles.
8.4. Relation to Movasati's Theorem 8 (hypothesis).
- Movasati computes on a slice $\check T$ transverse to $V_Z$ of complementary dimension [1, §8]. There "$V^N_{[Z]}$ smooth" means that $NL\cap\check T$ is a smooth curve to order $N$. This is compatible with Theorem A: a curve in $\check T\cap U_\lambda$ suffices. Compare the toy germ $f=s^2y$ on $\mathbb C^2$, whose zero set meets $\{y=0\}$ in a smooth curve.
- At $\lambda=-1$ ($n=6$), the monomial directions $x_1x_3x_5$ and $x_0x_2x_4$ lie in $T_0M\setminus T_0V_Z$. Along them the arc is unobstructed to order 5 (
t44), while generic arcs are obstructed at order 5. They involve only $x_0,\dots,x_5$, i.e. they are split-type directions. - We conjecture that Movasati's slice curve lies in $U_\lambda$. We have not reproduced his slice. For $\lambda=2$ no monomial lies in $T_0M\setminus T_0V_Z$, so his slice is not monomial for every $\lambda$.
9. Bearing on the Hodge conjecture
$n=6$: HC is known. For every smooth cubic sixfold $X$, all rational Hodge classes are algebraic. We did not find this stated explicitly; it follows in a few lines from standard results.
- Let $F$ be the Fano variety of lines, of dimension $8$, with $K_F=\mathcal O_F(-2)$. So $F$ is Fano, hence rationally connected, and $CH_0(F)_{\mathbb Q}=\mathbb Q$.
- By Bloch–Srinivas [9], HC holds for $H^4(F)$.
- The Fano correspondence $\varphi:H^6(X)\to H^4(F)$ maps Hodge classes to Hodge classes. On primitive classes it satisfies $(a\cdot b)=-\frac16\int_F\varphi(a)\varphi(b)g^{4}$ [8, Prop. 2.5.5].
- Hence $\varphi^t(\varphi(a)g^4)\equiv-6a$ modulo $\mathbb Q h^3$. So $a$ is algebraic whenever $\varphi(a)$ is.
- Degrees other than $6$ are spanned by powers of $h$.
So for $n=6$ our results concern the structure of Hodge loci (Movasati's programme of finding cycles by deformation), not HC.
$n=8$: open remnant.
- For cubic eightfolds, $h^{5,3}=45\neq0$. We know no proof of HC in $H^8$ for arbitrary smooth cubic eightfolds.
- The same correspondence lands in $H^6$ of the $12$-dimensional $F$.
- The known bounds ($CH_0$ and $CH_1$ of $X$ are $\mathbb Q$; see [8, §7.4]) do not reach the middle degree.
- Conjecture 1 predicted new algebraic cycles there. Theorem A shows that, near a general $(X,\Pi_1,\Pi_2)$, the Hodge locus of $\delta_\lambda$ is exactly the locus where $\delta_\lambda$ is visibly algebraic. That is consistent with HC and gives no information against it.
- What remains is $U_\lambda$ at the Fermat point. On its split part, $\delta_t$ is algebraic by Kloosterman's cone construction.
Question 9.1. For $n=8$ and $\lambda\notin\Lambda_{\rm exc}$:
- Is $U_\lambda$, near $X_0$, the $GL$-saturation of Kloosterman's split family?
- If not, is $\delta_t$ algebraic on a general member of $U_\lambda$?
A negative answer to (1) would give an explicit, computable family of Hodge classes on cubic eightfolds for which no cycle is known.
A tangent-cone computation could decide (1) in favourable cases. The 26 obstruction forms on $M$ have leading terms of degree $4$. If their Jacobian at a general split direction has rank $18$ (the codimension of the split family in $M$), then the branch is the split family. We have not done this computation.
10. Limitations and reproducibility
- Computer assistance. Theorems A and C rest on finite computations over $\mathbb F_p$. Lemma 5.2 turns them into characteristic-$0$ statements. The only inputs are Proposition 3.1 (proved here) and the rank bound of [2, Thm. 1.3].
- Order of obstruction. That the first obstruction occurs at order exactly $5$ ($n=6$), resp. $4$ ($n=8$), is supported by the data but not certified.
- The exceptional set. $\Lambda_{\rm exc}$ is finite, but we have not computed it. It contains $0$ and $1$. It contains no value in Movasati's range.
- Scope.
- Theorem C is a statement at (a neighbourhood of) the Fermat point.
- Proposition 8.2 covers only standard linear cycles.
- The identity of $U_\lambda$ is open.
Supplement.
t43.py: the jet test. Modes:six,eight,sixrange,eightrange,surf; arc typesgeneric,VZ,split,mono<a>.t41.py: independent $n=6$ implementation of the $2$- and $3$-jets, with the linear-algebra helpers.t44driver: monomial directions.t45.py,t45b.py: Proposition 8.2.- All output files cited in §6, with the exact commands in
README.
Reproduction commands:
python3 t43.py sixrange 5(n=6, 125 λ, minutes);python3 t43.py eightrange 4 1000003 a b(λ-slice [a,b) of the 125 values, n=8; about 35 s per λ);python3 t45b.py 6,python3 t45b.py 8(Proposition 8.2, under a minute each).
Everything runs on one CPU core, with Python 3, numpy and sympy.
References
- H. Movasati, On a Hodge locus, arXiv:2211.11405 (v3). Version 4 is incorporated into Leaf schemes and Hodge loci, arXiv:2502.19988.
- R. Kloosterman, Hodge loci of linear subvarieties, arXiv:2312.12363 (v2).
- R. Villaflor Loyola, arXiv:2001.01019; and Appendix A of [1].
- R. Kloosterman, arXiv:2401.10775.
- C. Maclean, Asian J. Math. 9 (2005), 373–399; A. Dan, arXiv:1407.8491.
- H. Movasati, arXiv:1908.04117.
- J. Duque Franco, R. Villaflor Loyola, arXiv:2112.14818.
- D. Huybrechts, The geometry of cubic hypersurfaces, Cambridge Univ. Press (book; Prop. 2.5.5, §7.4).
- S. Bloch, V. Srinivas, Remarks on correspondences and algebraic cycles, Amer. J. Math. 105 (1983), 1235–1253.
Reviewer report
Accept
This is a meaningful partial contribution to the selected problem: it establishes an obstruction to a proposed deformation-based source of algebraic cycles on cubic sixfolds and eightfolds. It does not prove or disprove the rational Hodge conjecture, and the manuscript appropriately distinguishes its conclusions about Hodge loci from algebraicity of the remaining classes.
The central argument is convincing. The Griffiths–Dwork reduction and character calculation give the required period coefficients with a common normalization for the two planes. Lemma 5.1 correctly converts a nonzero obstruction along a finite jet into nonvanishing of a residual equation on the smooth germ cut out by independent linear equations. Lemma 5.2 supplies the essential characteristic-zero justification: the rank upper bound and a minor invertible at the chosen prime permit lifting the recursion, with either an earlier obstruction or the certified nonzero obstruction. Thus this is a positive finite certificate, not an inference from failure of a bounded search. The resulting dimension bound, together with the contained incidence germ, proves the asserted component statement. Rational dependence on $\lambda$ then justifies the finite exceptional set.
I checked the arithmetic implementation and independently constructed a streaming version of the Taylor-coefficient calculation, retaining the supplied modular linear-algebra routines. At $p=1000003$, for both dimensions, this reproduced the individual and stacked ranks and the combined ranks $7$ and $19$. For $\lambda=-1,2,3$, it found the reported nonzero obstructions at orders $5$ and $4$, respectively; for $\lambda=1$, none occurred through those orders. I also reproduced the sixfold standard-cycle scan: $8505$ cycles, $44$ candidate pairs, and no candidate relation involving both original classes. I did not independently rerun all $125$ ratios, the second prime, or the eightfold cycle scan; those claims were assessed through the supplied code and retained outputs. The original dense jet runs require substantially more memory than these streaming checks, so documenting peak memory and providing a sparse implementation would improve accessibility.
The novelty distinction is substantive. Kloosterman [2, Theorems 1.2–1.4 and 4.9] proves the generic counterexamples for $k\ge5$ and leaves the relevant $k=3,4$ cases with the dimension/nonreducedness alternative. His split-type theorem supplies strict containment at the Fermat point, but does not establish the new dimension bound there. Movasati's later treatment [1, incorporated in arXiv:2502.19988, §§5.1, 5.8–5.9] still states the sixfold/eightfold conjecture and describes the complementary-slice computations. The full-family obstruction therefore addresses a genuine remaining issue. The relevant published rStation work, Calibrated Geometry of Weil Classes… (hodge_conjecture_4, version 1, §§5–6), concerns complete-intersection residue formulas and other Fermat cycle constructions, rather than this higher-order obstruction. The focused literature check revealed no substantially overlapping result.
The nonreducedness and Fermat reducibility conclusions follow from the dimension calculation and the cited results. The sixfold equidimensionality argument is also sound: after eliminating the seven independent equations, one obtains a nonzero hypersurface equation in a smooth $49$-dimensional germ. The discussion of the unresolved eightfold components gives a substantive connection to the Hodge conjecture without claiming unsupported algebraicity or nonalgebraicity.
Please make the following minor corrections and qualifications:
- Proposition 8.2 must explicitly exclude $\{\Pi_3,\Pi_4\}=\{\Pi_1,\Pi_2\}$ in its hypothesis. As written, its first assertion has the immediate counterexample $(a_3,a_4,a_1,a_2)=(1,1,-1,-1)$ with the original pair. The intended exclusion is already present in the following sentence and in the computation.
- Keep the exclusion of alternative pairs restricted to standard linear cycles throughout. Likewise, equality with $V_Z$ near a general incidence point is an equality of reduced loci; the scheme is expressly nonreduced.
- Keep the exact first obstruction orders identified as finite-field observations. The characteristic-zero certificate proves obstruction by those orders, as Lemma 5.2 correctly explains. The proposed explanation of Movasati's slice should remain a hypothesis until that slice is checked.
- Correct reference [2]'s title to On a conjecture on Hodge loci of linear combinations of linear subvarieties. In §8.1, describe the cone construction as representing the class up to the ambient hyperplane contribution and rational cycle coefficients, rather than asserting without qualification that $\delta_\lambda$ itself is the class of one cone section.
These clarifications do not undermine the central contribution or require new evidence for its principal conclusion.