Piecewise-exponential functions and Ehrhart fans

The “if” direction is immediate. To prove the “only-if” direction by contrapositive, suppose that there exists some v\in|\Sigma| such that the two multisets are not equal. Without loss of generality, assume that the elements of the multisets are ordered in nondecreasing order. By successively removing the largest term from each multiset if they agree, one eventually arrives at two new multisets

such that, without loss of generality, f_{k-d}(v)>g_{\ell-d}(v)\geq\dots\geq g_1(v) and

Note that it is possible to have \ell-d=0, in which case the final sum above vanishes. Either way, evaluating at \lambda v for \lambda\gg 0, the term

dominates all other terms, so the difference cannot be zero.

As explained above, the only direction that requires proof is the “only if” direction, so suppose that [e^f] = 1 \in \underline{\mathrm{PE}}(\Sigma). This means that e^f - 1 \in \langle e^\ell - 1 \; | \; \ell \in \mathrm{L}(\Sigma) \rangle, and unpacking the elements of this ideal, we find that

for some f_1, \ldots, f_k \in \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma) and \ell_1, \ldots, \ell_k \in \mathrm{L}(\Sigma). Rearranging and applying Lemma 2.8, there is an equality of multisets

for all v \in |\Sigma|. This, in particular, implies that the sums of the elements in these multisets agree, meaning that

for all v \in |\Sigma|. That is, f = \ell_1 + \cdots + \ell_k, so the lemma is proved.

By definition,

Since

the presentation for \mathrm{PE}(X) given by Proposition 2.20 implies that

Since any two rational fans admit a common rational refinement, we may choose a fan \Sigma with |\Sigma|=X such that f,g\in\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma). For each cone \sigma\in\Sigma, the points

are the intersection of \sigma with a rational hyperplane in \mathrm{span}_\mathbb{R}(\sigma). Upon subdividing each cone \sigma along the corresponding hyperplane, we obtain a new rational fan \Sigma' such that \max(f,g) and \min(f,g) are linear when restricted to each cone of \Sigma'. It then follows that \max(f,g),\min(f,g)\in\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma')\subseteq\mathrm{PL}(X).

Equivalently, we prove that I is the kernel of the surjective homomorphism \tau defined by (?). For one inclusion, note that there is an equality of multisets

for all v \in X. Thus,

from which it follows that I\subseteq\ker(\tau).

To prove the converse, we first prove the following “reordering of values” claim in the quotient ring \mathbb{Z}\{\mathrm{PL}(X)\}/I: given f_1,\ldots, f_m \in \mathrm{PL}(X), there exist \widetilde f_1,\ldots, \widetilde f_m\in \mathrm{PL}(X) such that \sum \{f_i\} = \sum \{\widetilde f_i\} \mod I and such that

This can be proved by induction on the number of i \in \{1, \ldots, m-1\} such that f_i(v) > f_{i+1}(v) for some v\in X. If there are no such i, we are done. Otherwise, let i be as above, and for each k=1,\ldots,m, let

Then \sum \{f_i\} = \sum \{\widetilde f_i\} \mod I and the number of i with \widetilde f_i (v) > \widetilde f_{i+1}(v) for some v\in X has decreased compared to the same quantity for the f’s, proving the claim.

From here, suppose

lies in the kernel of \tau. Then, by Lemma 2.8, there is an equality of multisets

for each v \in X. This implies that k=\ell, but it does not immediately imply that f_i = g_i for each i; it could be the case, for instance, that f_1(v) = g_2(v) and f_2(v) = g_1(v). However, the “reordering of values” claim above shows that, after adding an element of I\subseteq\ker(\tau), we may assume that

Combining this with (?) ensures that f_i = g_i for all i=1,\ldots,k, so F=0, as desired.

The proof is by induction on dimension. When \Sigma is 0-dimensional, \underline{\mathrm{PL}}(\Sigma) = 0 and thus the only function satisfying the conditions of Definition 3.3 is the constant function \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma=1, which agrees with a polynomial function of degree zero, verifying the base case.

Now suppose that the proposition is true for all Ehrhart fans of dimension less than d, and let \Sigma be an Ehrhart fan of dimension d. Let \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma be an Ehrhart function of \Sigma—which may not, a priori, be unique or given by a polynomial.

We first prove that \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma is unique. To prove this, it suffices to observe that repeated applications of the Ehrhart recursion

uniquely determine the value of \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma([f]) for any f\in\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma)=\mathbb{Z}^{\Sigma(1)} from the Ehrhart functions \raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma^\rho} and the initial value \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma(0)=1. Since the Ehrhart functions \raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma^\rho} are all unique, by the induction hypothesis, it follows that \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma is unique.

Now consider the induced function

By the induction hypothesis, for each \rho\in\Sigma(1), there is a polynomial P_\rho\in\mathbb{Q}[x_\tau \; | \; \tau\in\Sigma(1)] of degree \dim(\Sigma^\rho) such that

where P_\rho(f) denotes the evaluation of x_\tau at f(u_\tau) for all \tau\in\Sigma(1). Using that integer-valued polynomials in \mathbb{Q}[x_\tau \; | \; \tau\in\Sigma(1)] have a \mathbb{Z}-basis given by products of univariate polynomials of the form

with \alpha\geq 0 [CahenChabert, Proposition XI.1.12], it follows that there are integers c_\alpha^\rho\in\mathbb{Z} such that

We now claim that the integers c_\alpha^\rho are independent of \rho.

Let us compare coefficients c_\alpha^\rho and c_\alpha^\tau for distinct rays \rho,\tau\in\Sigma(1). Since the \alpha in question appears in a subscript of c_\alpha^\rho, then \alpha_\rho>0 by definition, and similarly, \alpha_\tau>0. Since P_\rho(f)=\raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma^\rho}([f]^\rho) only depends on the values f(u_\tau) for which \tau is a ray in the neighborhood \Sigma^{(\rho)}, and similarly for P_\tau(f), it follows that c_\alpha^\rho=c_\alpha^\tau=0 if \rho and \tau do not lie on a common two-dimensional cone of \Sigma. Thus, suppose that there is a two-dimensional cone \sigma\in\Sigma(2) such that \sigma(1)=\{\rho,\tau\}. Then the Ehrhart recursion applied to \Sigma^\rho and \Sigma^\tau implies that

Using that

this implies that

Thus, we see that c_\alpha^\rho=c_\alpha^\tau for all \alpha with \alpha_\rho,\alpha_\tau>0, as desired.

Now for each \alpha\in\mathbb{N}^{\Sigma(1)}\setminus\{0\}, define c_\alpha\coloneq c_\alpha^\rho where \rho\in\Sigma(1) is any ray for which \alpha_\rho>0. By our argument in the previous paragraph, the definition of c_\alpha does not depend on the choice of \rho. Define the polynomial

which has degree

For any f\in\mathbb{Z}^{\Sigma(1)} and \rho\in\Sigma(1), we compute

and it follows that P-\widehat\raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma is a constant. Since both P and \widehat\raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma take value one at 0, the two functions are thus equal. Therefore, \widehat\raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma=P, completing the proof of the induction step.

Let \Sigma be a one-dimensional fan. Then condition (1) of Ehrharticity is satisfied, because the star fans \Sigma^\rho are all zero-dimensional, and thus Ehrhart. Thus, it remains to study whether the second condition of Ehrharticity holds for \Sigma. Define the function

Notice that G_\Sigma(0)=1, and since the Ehrhart polynomial of \Sigma^\rho is the constant function 1 for every \rho\in\Sigma(1), it follows that G_\Sigma satisfies the Ehrhart recursion:

Thus, \Sigma is Ehrhart if and only if G_\Sigma descends to a well-defined function on the quotient \underline{\mathrm{PL}}(\Sigma). But G_\Sigma is well-defined on \underline{\mathrm{PL}}(\Sigma) if and only if

for all m\in M, which is satisfied if and only if

The first condition of Ehrharticity requires that all one-dimensional star fans \Sigma^\rho are Ehrhart, but by Proposition 3.5, this is equivalent to the existence of integers a_\rho\in\mathbb{Z} for every \rho\in\Sigma(1) such that (3.7) holds. Assuming that this is the case, define the function

Notice that G_\Sigma(0)=1, and for any \rho\in\Sigma(1), a direct computation verifies that

where m is any linear function such that m(u_\rho)=f(u_\rho). Thus, G_\Sigma satisfies the necessary properties of an Ehrhart polynomial, so \Sigma is Ehrhart if and only if G_\Sigma descends to a well-defined function on \underline{\mathrm{PL}}(\Sigma). A direct computation then shows that the quadratic part of G_\Sigma descends if and only if (3.7) holds, while the linear part of G_\Sigma descends if and only if (3.7) holds.

The proof is by induction on d. If d=0, then \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma and V_\Sigma are both the constant function 1, proving the base case. Now suppose that \Sigma has positive dimension d and that the proposition holds for all fans of dimension less than d.

By precomposing the Ehrhart polynomial and the volume polynomial with the quotient map \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma)\rightarrow \underline{\mathrm{PL}}(\Sigma), we obtain polynomials \widehat\raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma and \widehat V_\Sigma from \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma)=\mathbb{Z}^{\Sigma(1)} to \mathbb{Z}. Since a homogeneous polynomial is uniquely determined from its partial derivatives, we consider the partial derivatives of \frac{1}{d!}\widehat V_\Sigma and the partial derivatives of the degree-d homogeneous component of the inhomogeneous polynomial \widehat\raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma.

Denoting elements of \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma) by f=\sum_{\rho}z_\rho\delta_\rho, the chain rule gives

A standard computation (see, for example, Equation (2.6) in [RossLorentzian]) then gives

so that

where m is any linear function that agrees with f at u_\rho. On the other hand, the derivative with respect to z_\rho of the leading term of \widehat \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma(f) is equal to the leading term of

which, by the Ehrhart condition, is equal to the leading term of \widehat\raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma^\rho}((f-m)^\rho). Thus, letting \widehat\raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma^d denote the leading term of \widehat\raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma, we have

Equations (?) and (?), along with the induction hypothesis, prove that \frac{1}{d!}\widehat V_\Sigma and \widehat\raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma^d have the same partial derivatives, and since they are each homogeneous polynomials, Euler’s homogeneous function theorem then implies that they are equal.

Let \Sigma be a complete unimodular fan of dimension n, and define a function \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma\colon \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma)\to \mathbb{Z} by

Note that the outer sum is finite by Lemma 4.3, so \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma(f) is a well-defined integer. Given any m'\in M, observe that

where the final equality uses that \Sigma_{f,m} = \Sigma_{f+m', m+m'} for all m'\in M, which follows directly from the definition of \Sigma_{f,m}. Hence, \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma gives a well-defined function \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma:\underline{\mathrm{PL}}(\Sigma)\to\mathbb{Z}. Moreover, for any convex f\in\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma), Lemma 4.4 implies that

and for any concave f\in\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma), Lemma 4.4 implies that

It remains to prove that \Sigma is Ehrhart with respect to the function \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma.

We prove that \Sigma is Ehrhart by induction on n. First, if \Sigma is complete then so is \Sigma^\rho for all \rho\in \Sigma(1). Since \dim \Sigma^\rho = \dim \Sigma - 1, it follows inductively that \Sigma^\rho is Ehrhart, verifying Property (1) of Ehrharticity.

In order to verify Property (2), we first note that

where the first equality is a special case of (Proof) and the second equality is because P_0=\{0\}. Lastly, we must show that, for any ray \rho\in \Sigma(1), the function \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma satisfies the recursion

The left-hand side above is

where \sigma ranges over cones in \Sigma_{f,m} \setminus \Sigma_{f-\delta_\rho,m}. Note that the expression in parentheses is zero outside a finite subset of M, since it is a difference of two expressions enjoying the same property. Using the definitions of \Sigma_{f,m} and \Sigma_{f-\delta_\rho,m}, the expression (?) is

Now the cones in \Sigma containing \rho are exactly the cones of the star fan \Sigma^\rho, so this expression can be rewritten in terms of \Sigma^\rho. In order to do so, let m_0\in M be any element such that m_0(u_\rho) = f(u_\rho), and substitute m' = m-m_0. Then (?) is

and this expression is exactly \raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma^\rho} ([f]^\rho). This completes the proof of Theorem 4.1, modulo the proofs of Lemmas 4.3 and 4.4, which we provide below.

Given any subfan \Sigma'\subseteq\Sigma, define

We prove that \raisebox{2bp}{}_c(\Sigma')=0 whenever V is unbounded. Since there are finitely-many subfans of \Sigma, this implies that there are finitely-many m\in M such that \raisebox{2bp}{}_c(\Sigma_{f,m})\neq 0. Toward this end, suppose that V is unbounded; we shall show that the link of \Sigma' is contractible, implying that \raisebox{2bp}{}_c(\Sigma') = 0. We begin by studying the structure of the set V.

Given m\in M_\mathbb{R}, the condition on m that \Sigma_{f,m}=\Sigma' is equivalent to the condition that for all ray generators u_\rho of rays \rho\in \Sigma(1),

Therefore, V is the intersection of the closed halfspaces

for each ray generator u_\rho of \rho \in \Sigma'(1), and the open halfspaces

for each ray generator u_\rho of \rho\in\Sigma(1)\setminus\Sigma'(1). In particular, V is an intersection of finitely many closed and open half-spaces. Thus, if V is unbounded, as is assumed, then it must be unbounded in a particular linear direction; that is, there exists v\in M_\mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\} such that v+ V \subseteq V.

Now let H be the hyperplane in N_\mathbb{R} defined by

and let

be the open half-spaces bounded by H. We claim that whether a ray \rho\in \Sigma(1) is in \Sigma'(1) is almost entirely determined by its position relative to the hyperplane H. The precise claim is as follows: let u_\rho denote the primitive ray generator of \rho \in \Sigma(1). Then we claim that if u_\rho \in H^- then u_\rho\in \Sigma', and if u_\rho\in H^+ then u_\rho\not \in \Sigma'. (If u_\rho \in H then we cannot conclude either way, a priori.)

To prove this claim, suppose first that u_\rho\in H^-, so \langle v,u_\rho\rangle < 0. We claim that \rho\in\Sigma'(1). If not, then V\subseteq \{m\in M_\mathbb{R}: \langle m,u_\rho\rangle > f(u_\rho)\}. Since V is unbounded in the direction v, there exists v_0\in V such that \langle v_0+\lambda v, u_\rho \rangle > f(u_\rho) for all \lambda\ge 0. But this contradicts that \langle v, u_\rho\rangle < 0. A similar argument shows that if u_\rho \in H^+ then \rho\not\in\Sigma'(1), proving the claim. The claim implies, in particular, that all rays of \Sigma' are contained in H\cup H^-, and it follows that \Sigma'\subseteq H\cup H^-.

We now prove that the link of \Sigma' is contractible. Here it will be convenient to use the “combinatorial” link of the unimodular fan \Sigma', which is the simplicial complex L\Sigma' glued from the simplices

along faces. Consider the space

The space L\Sigma\cap H^- is homeomorphic an open disk, and the whole space Y is then homeomorphic to a partial closure of this open disk, which is contractible. Note that L\Sigma' is a subset of Y, since \Sigma' \subseteq H \cup H^- as previously shown. We shall construct a deformation retract from Y to L\Sigma'.

We first set notation for certain deformation retracts of subsets of simplices. If T is a finite set, write \Delta^T for the standard simplex of dimension |T|-1 in \mathbb{R}^T, with vertices labeled by T. If S and T are two nonempty sets then there is a canonical homeomorphism of the simplex \Delta^{S\sqcup T} with the topological join \Delta^S \ast \Delta^T, defined as the quotient of \Delta^S \times \Delta^T \times [0,1] by the equivalence relation \sim generated by

whenever x,x'\in \Delta^S, and y,y'\in \Delta^T. Thus there are canonical embeddings \Delta^S \to \Delta^{S\sqcup T} and \Delta^T \to \Delta^{S\sqcup T}. We denote these images \Delta^S, respectively \Delta^T; they are closed faces of \Delta^{S\sqcup T}.

The identification of \Delta^{S\sqcup T} with the join \Delta^S\ast\Delta^T makes evident a deformation retraction of \Delta^{S\sqcup T} \setminus \Delta^S onto \Delta^T. In coordinates, it is the map

It is important to note that these deformation retracts glue along faces: if S'\subseteq S and T'\subseteq T are nonempty subsets, then the following diagram commutes:

Now we return to the main proof. For each cone \sigma\in \Sigma that meets H^-, let \sigma' be the face of \sigma spanned by its rays in \Sigma', and let \sigma'' be the face of \sigma spanned by its rays not in \Sigma'. Then L\sigma \cong L\sigma' \ast L\sigma''. Moreover, the subset

admits a deformation retraction onto L\sigma'. Indeed, the deformation retraction of L\sigma \setminus L\sigma'' onto L\sigma', given in (?), restricts to a deformation retraction of Y_\sigma onto L\sigma'. That is because, under the identification of L\sigma with L\sigma' \ast L\sigma'' = (L\sigma' \times L\sigma'' \times [0,1])/\sim, the set Y_\sigma has the property that if (x,y,a_1)\in Y_\sigma then (x,y,a_2)\in Y_\sigma for all a_2 \in [ a_1, 1].

These deformation retractions are compatible along faces by (?), and so glue to give a deformation retraction of Y onto L\Sigma'. Therefore L\Sigma' is contractible since Y is contractible, and we conclude that \raisebox{2bp}{}_c(L\Sigma') = 0, as desired, concluding the proof of Lemma 4.3.

We focus on the statement regarding convex functions; using that the negation of any concave function is convex, the statement regarding concave functions can then be obtained via appropriate modifications of the arguments. Suppose that f\in\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma) is convex, so that

If m\in P_f, then it follows from definition that \Sigma_{f,m}=\Sigma, and we compute

This proves one case of the statement in the lemma; it remains to prove that \raisebox{2bp}{}_c(\Sigma_{f,m})=0 when m\notin P_f.

Assume that m\in M\setminus P_f, and define the set

The convexity of the piecewise-linear function f implies that U is an open convex polyhedral cone in N_\mathbb{R}, and the assumption that m\notin P_f further implies that U is nonempty. In particular, defining Y as the intersection of L\Sigma with the complement of U

it follows that Y is contractible.

By definition, a cone \sigma\in\Sigma lies in \Sigma_{f,m} if and only if its rays lie in U^c. In particular, \Sigma_{f,m}\subseteq U^c, implying that L\Sigma_{f,m}\subseteq Y. Moreover, an argument similar to that in the proof of Lemma 4.3 shows that Y admits a deformation retract onto L\Sigma_{f,m}. The contractibility of Y then implies the contractibility of L\Sigma_{f,m}, from which we conclude that \raisebox{2bp}{}_c(\Sigma_{f,m})=0, as desired.

Suppose that \Sigma' is complete and that \Sigma is a \Sigma'-bundle over \Sigma''. Throughout this proof, we use the notation of Definition 5.1.

First, let us assume that \Sigma is Ehrhart. Choose any maximal cone \sigma\in\Sigma'\subseteq\Sigma. It follows directly from the definitions of fiber bundles and star fans that \Sigma^\sigma\cong \Sigma''. Since the star fan of \Sigma at an arbitrary cone \sigma can be obtained iteratively from \Sigma by taking star fans at a ray, the assumption that \Sigma is Ehrhart implies that \Sigma'' is Ehrhart.

Conversely, suppose that \Sigma'' is Ehrhart. We use induction on \dim\Sigma to prove that \Sigma is Ehrhart. In other words, we assume that a fiber bundle is Ehrhart whenever it has complete fibers, an Ehrhart base, and dimension less than \dim\Sigma. To check Condition (1) of Ehrharticity, let \rho\in\Sigma(1). Then either \rho\in\Sigma'(1) or \rho\in\widetilde\Sigma(1). In the first case, it follows from the definitions that \Sigma^\rho is a (\Sigma')^\rho-bundle over \Sigma'', and in the second case, \Sigma^\rho is a \Sigma'-bundle over (\Sigma'')^{\pi(\rho)}. In either case, \Sigma^\rho is Ehrhart by induction on \dim\Sigma.

To prove Condition (2) of Ehrharticity for the fiber bundle \Sigma, we define an explicit function \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma:\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma)\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}; to do so, we must first introduce additional notation. Given f\in \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma), define f'\in\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma') as the restriction of f to \Sigma', and define f''\in\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma'') as the unique piecewise-linear function such that

Choose a splitting of the quotient map \pi:N_\mathbb{R}\rightarrow N_\mathbb{R}'', allowing us to write N_\mathbb{R}=N_\mathbb{R}'\oplus N_\mathbb{R}''. Given any m'\in M'—in other words, an integral linear map on N_\mathbb{R}'—we can use the above splitting to view m' to an integral linear map on N_\mathbb{R}. For any f\in\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma), define (using the notation from Section ?)

We first prove that \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma descends to \underline{\mathrm{PL}}(\Sigma). Given any \ell\in M, we compute

where the final equality uses the fact that \Sigma'_{f'+\ell',m'+\ell'}=\Sigma'_{f',m'}, along with the observation that (\ell-\ell')'' is linear on \Sigma''. Thus, \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma descends to a function \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma:\underline{\mathrm{PL}}(\Sigma)\rightarrow\mathbb{Z}.

Next, we observe that

where the second equality uses Lemma 4.4 to conclude that m'=0 is the only element of M' contributing to the sum. To complete the proof that \Sigma is Ehrhart, it now remains to verify that

for all f\in\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma) and \rho\in\Sigma(1). There are two cases to consider, depending on whether \rho\in\Sigma'(1) or \rho\in\widetilde\Sigma(1).

If \rho\in\Sigma'(1), then the left-hand side of (?) can be written as

As in the proof of Theorem 4.1, the cones \sigma appearing in the sum above can be identified with the cones of (\Sigma')^\rho, and then interpreting \Sigma^\rho as a (\Sigma')^\rho-bundle over \Sigma'', it then follows that this difference is equal to \raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma^\rho}([f]^\rho), verifying (?) in this case.

If \rho\in\widetilde\Sigma(1), then the left-hand side of (?) can be written as

Since \Sigma'' is Ehrhart, the final difference in the above expression is equal to

and then the interpretation of \Sigma^\rho as a \Sigma'-bundle over (\Sigma'')^{\pi(\rho)} implies the validity of (?) in this case, finishing the proof.

Let d_i=\dim(\Sigma_i) and \Sigma = \Sigma_1 \times \Sigma_2. We proceed by induction on d_1 + d_2.

The base case is when d_1 +d_2 = 0, and hence both fans as well as their product are zero-dimensional and therefore Ehrhart. For the induction step, suppose products of Ehrhart fans are Ehrhart with the desired Ehrhart polynomial whenever the sum of their dimensions is less than d, and suppose that d_1 + d_2 = d. Given a ray \rho\in\Sigma(1), either \rho\in\Sigma_1(1) or \rho\in\Sigma_2(1). In the first case, we have

and similarly for the second case. It then follows from the induction hypothesis and the assumption that both \Sigma_1 and \Sigma_2 are Ehrhart that \Sigma^\rho is Ehrhart for every \rho\in\Sigma(1). Given a piecewise-linear function f= f_1 \times f_2 on \Sigma, we define

To show that this function satisfies the Ehrhart relation, let \rho \in \Sigma(1), and suppose without loss of generality that \rho\in\Sigma_1(1) so that f-\delta_\rho=(f_1-\delta_\rho) \times f_2. We then compute

where we use the assumption that \Sigma_1 is Ehrhart in the second equality and the induction hypothesis in the third.

To justify the description of the star fan in Case (1), note that, in this case, the neighborhood \Sigma^{(\rho)}—and thus the star fan \Sigma^\rho—is unaffected by stellar subdivision at \tau.

To justify Case (2), note that any cone \sigma in the neighborhood (\Sigma_\tau)^{(\rho)} is either a cone of \Sigma^{(\rho)} (if u_\tau\notin\sigma), or it is a cone of the form

for some \pi\in\Sigma^{(\rho)} such that \pi and u_\tau lie in a common cone of \Sigma^{(\rho)} and u_\tau\notin\pi. Upon projecting these two types of cones to N_\mathbb{R}^\rho, we obtain the two types of cones comprising the stellar subdivision of \Sigma^\rho at \overline\tau.

Lastly, we consider Case (3). In order to describe (\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}\subseteq N_\mathbb{R}^{\rho_\tau} as a fiber bundle, we describe the fiber and the base explicitly. Define \Sigma' to be the image of \Sigma_\tau\cap\tau in the quotient space N_\mathbb{R}^{\rho_\tau}, and define N_\mathbb{R}'=\mathrm{Span}_\mathbb{R}(\Sigma')\subseteq N_\mathbb{R}^{\rho_\tau}. It follows from the definition of stellar subdivisions that \Sigma'=(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}\cap N_\mathbb{R}' is the normal fan of the standard simplex. Let \widetilde\Sigma be the maximal subfan of (\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau} that omits the rays of \Sigma', or in other words, omits the images of rays of \tau. It then follows from the definition of star fans that the natural quotient map

is an injection of the cones of \widetilde\Sigma onto the cones of the star fan \Sigma^\tau. Moreover, by the definition of stellar subdivisions, the cones of (\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau} are in natural bijection with pairs (\sigma',\widetilde\sigma)\in\Sigma'\times\widetilde\Sigma. Putting this all together, it follows that (\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau} is a fiber bundle over \Sigma''=\Sigma^\tau, with fibers \Sigma'=\Pi_{\dim\tau-1}, completing the proof.

We first prove the “only if” direction by induction on dimension. To do so, assume that Ehrharticity is preserved by stellar subdivisions of fans of dimension less than d, and assume that \Sigma is a d-dimensional Ehrhart fan. We aim to prove that \Sigma_\tau is Ehrhart.

By Lemma 5.8, the star fan (\Sigma_\tau)^\rho for any \rho\in\Sigma_\tau(1) is either a star fan of \Sigma, a stellar subdivision of a star fan of \Sigma, or a fiber bundle over a star fan of \Sigma with complete fibers. It follows from the Ehrharticity of \Sigma, the induction hypothesis, and Proposition 5.3 that (\Sigma_\tau)^\rho is Ehrhart for all \rho\in\Sigma_\tau(1). We have thus proven Condition (1) in the definition of Ehrharticity for \Sigma_\tau, and we turn to Condition (2).

Given any \tilde f\in \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma_\tau), there is a unique f\in \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma) and a\in\mathbb{Z} such that

Specifically, the function f takes the same value as \tilde f on all ray generators except u_{\rho_\tau}, whereas

to ensure linearity across \tau; from here, taking a = \tilde f(u_{\rho_\tau}) - f(u_{\rho_{\tau}}) makes (?) hold. The pictorial example in Figure ? may help to clarify the relationship between \tilde f and f.

In the example of Figure ?, one sees that the lattice points of P_f are obtained from the lattice points of P_{\tilde{f}} by adding the lattice points along the “slices” of P_f \setminus P_{\tilde{f}} perpendicular to the ray \rho_\tau. This observation motivates us to define

where the existence of \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma and \raisebox{2bp}{}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}} are ensured by the assumption that \Sigma is Ehrhart and the observation above that \raisebox{2bp}{}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}} is also Ehrhart. (We adopt the standard convention that

when a < 1, for any summands s_i; in particular in the example of Figure ?, there are summands for i=-2, i=-1, and i=0, corresponding to the three perpendicular slices to \rho_\tau along which the circled lattice points lie.) One readily checks that \raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma_\tau}(\tilde f+m)=\raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma_\tau}(\tilde f) for any m\in M, so we obtain a well-defined function \raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma_\tau}:\underline{\mathrm{PL}}(\Sigma_\tau)\rightarrow\mathbb{Z} that agrees with \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma when restricted to \underline{\mathrm{PL}}(\Sigma).

We claim that \raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma_\tau} satisfies the Ehrhart relation

for every \rho\in\Sigma_\tau(1). We consider four possible cases, in order of increasing complexity; for the reader’s convenience, we illustrate the four cases in Figure ?.

1. Case 1: If \rho=\rho_\tau, then \tilde f=f+a\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau} with f\in \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma) implies that \tilde f-\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}=f+(a-1)\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}. Directly from the definition of \raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma_\tau}, we then compute

   \begin{aligned} \raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([\tilde f])-\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([\tilde f-\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}])&=\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}}([f+a\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}]^{\rho_\tau})=\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}}([\tilde f]^{\rho_\tau}), \end{aligned}

   verifying (?) in this case.

2. Case 2: If \rho\notin\Sigma^{(\tau)}, then we observe that

   • \tilde\delta_\rho=\delta_\rho,

   • \tilde f=f+a\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau} with f\in \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma) implies \tilde f-\tilde\delta_\rho=(f-\delta_\rho)+a\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau} with f-\delta_\rho\in \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma),

   • [\tilde f]^\rho=[f]^\rho (since \tilde f agrees with f on the neighborhood of \rho),

   • [f+i\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}]^{\rho_\tau}=[f-\delta_\rho+i\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}]^{\rho_\tau} (for a similar reason).

   It then follows from the definition of \raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma_\tau} and the assumption that \Sigma is Ehrhart that

   \begin{aligned} \raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([\tilde f])-\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([\tilde f-\tilde\delta_\rho])&=\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma}([f])-\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma}([f-\delta_\rho])\\ &=\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma^\rho}([f]^\rho)\\ &=\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^\rho}([\tilde f]^\rho), \end{aligned}

   verifying (?) in this case.

3. Case 3: If \rho\in\Sigma^{(\tau)}\setminus\tau(1), then we observe that

   • \tilde\delta_\rho=\delta_\rho, and

   • \tilde f=f+a\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau} with f\in \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma) implies \tilde f-\tilde\delta_\rho=(f-\delta_{\rho})+a\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau} with f-\delta_\rho\in \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma).

   From the definition of \raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma_\tau}, we then compute

   \begin{aligned} \raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([\tilde f])-\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([\tilde f-\tilde\delta_\rho])&=\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma}([f])-\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma}([f-\delta_\rho])\\ &\hspace{20bp}+\sum_{i=1}^a\Big(\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}}([f+i\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}]^{\rho_\tau})-\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}}([f-\delta_\rho+i\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}]^{\rho_\tau})\Big). \end{aligned}

   Using the Ehrharticity of both \Sigma and (\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}, this expression simplifies to

   \raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma^\rho}([f]^\rho)+\sum_{i=1}^a\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^\pi}([f+i\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}]^\pi),

   where \pi\in\Sigma_\tau(2) is the cone with rays \rho and \rho_\tau. Using that (\Sigma_\tau)^\rho=(\Sigma^\rho)_{\overline\tau}, this final expression is then seen to be equal to \raisebox{2bp}{}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^\rho}([\tilde f]^\rho), verifying (?) in this case.

4. Case 4: If \rho\in\tau(1), then we observe that

   • \tilde\delta_\rho+\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}=\delta_\rho and

   • \tilde f=f+a\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau} with f\in \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma) implies \tilde f-\tilde\delta_\rho=(f-\delta_\rho)+(a+1)\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau} with f-\delta_\rho\in \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma).

   We compute the left-hand side of (?) from the definition of \raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma_\tau}:

   \begin{aligned} \raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma}([f])-\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma}([f-\delta_\rho])+\sum_{i=1}^a\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}}([f+i\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}]^{\rho_\tau})-\sum_{i=1}^{a+1}\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}}([f-\tilde\delta_{\rho}+(i-1)\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}]^{\rho_\tau}). \end{aligned}

   Since \Sigma is Ehrhart, the first difference above is \raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma^\rho}([f]^\rho), and, using the fact that the star fan (\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho _\tau} is Ehrhart, the second difference works out to be

   -\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}}([f-\tilde\delta_\rho]^{\rho_\tau})+\sum_{i=1}^a\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^\pi}([f+i\tilde\delta_{\rho^\tau}]^\pi),

   where \pi\in\Sigma_\tau(2) is the cone with rays \rho and \rho_\tau. In order to verify (?) in this case, it remains to prove that

   \raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma^\rho}([f]^\rho)-\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}}([f-\tilde\delta_\rho]^{\rho_\tau})=\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^\rho}([f]^\rho).

   Since (\Sigma_\tau)^\rho=(\Sigma^\rho)_{\overline\tau} and [f]^\rho is linear on the cones of \Sigma^\rho, it follows that

   \raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^\rho}([f]^\rho)=\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma^\rho}([f]^\rho),

   so it remains to show that \raisebox{2bp}{}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}}([f-\tilde\delta_\rho]^{\rho_\tau})=0. After translating f, we can assume that f vanishes on \tau, so that [f-\tilde\delta_\rho]^{\rho_\tau}=[f-\tilde\delta_\rho]. For notational convenience, set \Sigma'=\Pi_{\dim\tau-1}. Using that (\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau} is a \Sigma'-bundle over \Sigma^\tau, we can use the construction in the proof of Proposition 5.3 to write

   \raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}}([f-\tilde\delta_\rho])=(-1)^{\dim\Sigma'}\sum_{m'\in M'}\Big(\sum_{\sigma\in\Sigma'_{-\tilde\delta_\rho',m'}}(-1)^{\dim(\sigma)}\Big)\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma^\tau}([(f-m')'']),

   where (f-\tilde\delta_\rho)'=-\tilde\delta_\rho' follows from the assumption that f vanishes on \tau. However, noting that the the function -\tilde\delta_\rho'\in\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma') is concave and that the simplex P_{\tilde\delta_\rho'} does not have any interior lattice points, it follows from Lemma 4.4 that the contribution from every m'\in M' to the above sum is zero. Thus,

   \raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}}([f-\tilde\delta_\rho]^{\rho_\tau})=0,

   completing the verification of (?) in this case.

We have now proved that the stellar subdivision of an Ehrhart fan is Ehrhart, and it remains to prove the converse. By induction, assume that the Ehrharticity of a stellar subdivision implies the Ehrharticity of the original fan in all dimensions less than d, and let \Sigma be a unimodular d-dimensional fan such that \Sigma_\tau is Ehrhart for some \tau\in\Sigma. We must prove that \Sigma is Ehrhart.

To verify the first Ehrhart condition for \Sigma, we note that, for any \rho\in\Sigma, the star fan \Sigma^\rho is either equal to a star fan of \Sigma_\tau or has a stellar subdivision that is equal to a star fan of \Sigma_\tau. Using the assumption that \Sigma_\tau is Ehrhart and the induction hypothesis, it follows that \Sigma^\rho is Ehrhart for any \rho\in\Sigma(1).

To verify the second condition of Ehrharticity for \Sigma, start by defining \raisebox{2bp}{}_\Sigma:\underline{\mathrm{PL}}(\Sigma)\rightarrow\mathbb{Z} by

where we are using the assumption that \Sigma_\tau is Ehrhart. Thus, Condition (2) of Ehrharticity is equivalent to proving that

for every f\in \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma) and \rho\in\Sigma(1). We consider two cases.

1. Case 1: If \rho\notin\tau(1), then \delta_\rho=\tilde\delta_\rho, and it follows from the Ehrharticity of \Sigma_\tau that

   \raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([f])-\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([f-\delta_\rho])=\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([f])-\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([f-\tilde\delta_\rho])=\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_ \tau)^\rho}([f]^\rho)

   verifying (?) in this case.

2. Case 2: If \rho\in\tau(1), then we observe that \delta_\rho=\tilde\delta_\rho+\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau} and it follows that

   \raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([f])-\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([f-\delta_\rho])=\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([f])-\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([f-\tilde\delta_\rho-\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}]).

   Ehrharticity of \Sigma_\tau implies that

   \raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([f])-\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{\Sigma_\tau}([f-\tilde\delta_\rho-\tilde\delta_{\rho_\tau}])=\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho}}([f]^\rho)+\raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}}([f-\tilde\delta_\rho]^{\rho_\tau}).

   The argument used in Case 4 above shows that

   \raisebox{2bp}{$\chi$}_{(\Sigma_\tau)^{\rho_\tau}}([f-\tilde\delta_\rho]^{\rho_\tau})=0,

   verifying (?) in this case, and completing the proof of the proposition.

Let \Sigma be a common unimodular refinement of \Sigma_1 and \Sigma_2. Theorem 5.14 implies that there exists a sequence of unimodular fans \Sigma_1',\dots,\Sigma_k' such that

where each \sim denotes that one fan is a stellar subdivision of the other—but is agnostic about which direction the stellar subdivision goes—and where \Sigma_1',\dots,\Sigma_j' all refine \Sigma_1 and \Sigma_{j+1}',\dots,\Sigma_k' all refine \Sigma_2. It then follows from Proposition 5.9 that any fan in this sequence is Ehrhart if and only if any other fan in this sequence is Ehrhart; in particular, \Sigma_1 is Ehrhart if and only if \Sigma_2 is Ehrhart. Morever, if any fan in this sequence is Ehrhart and if f\in\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma_1)\cap \mathrm{PL}(\Sigma_2), then f\in\mathrm{PL}(\Sigma_i') for all i=1,\dots,k, and Proposition 5.9 further implies that the Ehrhart polynomial of any fan in this sequence takes the same value at f; in particular, \raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma_1}([f])=\raisebox{2bp}{}_{\Sigma_2}([f]).

By Theorem 2.18, it suffices to prove that

for all f,g\in\mathrm{PL}(X), and that

for all f\in\mathrm{PL}(X) and \ell\in\mathrm{L}(X), the latter of which is immediate from the observation that [f+\ell]=[f]\in\mathrm{PL}(X). To prove (Proof), start by fixing a unimodular fan \Sigma supported on X such that f, g, \max(f,g), and \min(f,g) are all linear on the cones of \Sigma. Notice that, for each cone \sigma\in\Sigma, it must be the case that f\geq g or f\leq g on all of \sigma. By Definition 5.15, we see that (Proof) is equivalent to the similar relation obtained by replacing X with \Sigma everywhere:

We prove (Proof) by induction on the nonnegative integer

When (Proof) is zero, then f=g=\max(f,g)=\min(f,g), and (Proof) follows immediately, proving the base case. To prove the induction step, suppose that (Proof) is positive and choose any \rho\in\Sigma(1) such that (without loss of generality) f(u_\rho)>g(u_\rho). By our assumption on \Sigma, it follows that f(x)\geq g(x) for all x in the neighborhood of \rho. In particular, it then follows that

and

Applying the Ehrhart recursion to both [f] and [\max(f,g)] at \rho, we then obtain

and

In particular, it then follows that (Proof) is equivalent to

but this new relation has a strictly smaller value of (Proof), and thus follows by the induction hypothesis.

We first note that \raisebox{2bp}{} is well-defined on \underline{\mathrm{PL}}(\Sigma_\mathcal{M}) simply because

where the isomorphism is given by ([CoxLittleSchenck, Theorems 4.2.1 and 4.2.12])

Next, for any ray \rho_F of \Sigma_\mathcal{M} corresponding to a proper flat F of \mathcal{M}, the star fan of \Sigma_\mathcal{M} at \rho_F is isomorphic to a product of Bergman fans,

by [AHK, Proposition 3.5]. Here, \mathcal{M}^F denotes the restriction of \mathcal{M} to F and \mathcal{M}_F denotes the contraction, both of which are themselves loopless matroids. Thus, condition (1) in the definition of Ehrharticity follows by induction on the size of the ground set and the fact that products of Ehrhart fans are Ehrhart (Proposition 5.5), where the base case is given by the (zero-dimensional) Bergman fan of the unique loopless matroid on a one-element ground set.

The fact that \raisebox{2bp}{} satisfies the recursion in condition (2) of the definition of Ehrharticity follows directly from [LLPP, Proposition 8.6] via the identification (?). To help the reader parse notation, we note that [LLPP] uses the notation \mathrm{Snap}_\mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{FY}}(\mathbf{a}) for a tuple \mathbf{a} = (a_F) of nonnegative integers, which is related to the above by

And finally, that \raisebox{2bp}{}(0)=1 follows from setting \mathbf{m}=0 in [LLPP, Theorem 7.2].