This is a sort-of follow up to this question, which I asked before I became confused about if things were reduced.

More specifically, suppose $\varphi:X\to Y$ is a surjective morphism of finite presentation between algebraic varieties (reduced, irreducible, separated schemes, finite type over an algebraically closed field), and furthermore assume that $Y\cong \mathbb{A}^r$ is an affine space.

I am able to show that the underlying reduced schemes of all the fibers $X_y$ for $y\in Y$ are smooth and all equidimensional of dimension $k>0$ (In my case $k=r$, so $\dim(X)=2r$), and also that each fiber is generically reduced. I even know that the generic fiber is reduced, so I know $X_y$ is reduced for $y\in U\subset Y$ in some nonempty open.

Can I conclude that the fibers are reduced?

More generally, under relatively simple circumstances, one can get that fibers over a Zariski-open are reduced. Is there some simple criteria as to when this may be strengthened to all fibers? (short of assuming $\varphi$ is smooth, for example.)

EDIT: As pointed out by Snowball, $X$ being Cohen-Macaulay would suffice. Perhaps a better formulation of the question is

Is $X$ necessarily Cohen-Macaulay, and if not are their known counterexamples?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There are very nice (smooth, projective, rational...) surfaces admitting a fibration over $\Bbb{P}^1$ with some multiple fibers. $\endgroup$
    – abx
    Oct 8, 2018 at 18:24
  • $\begingroup$ This seems to contradict Snowball's answer below, since such a surface is clearly Cohen-Macaulay. Wouldn't such a multiple fiber have to be everywhere non-reduced? $\endgroup$ Oct 8, 2018 at 18:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, of course. So what? $\endgroup$
    – abx
    Oct 8, 2018 at 18:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ When you say "I am able to show that the underlying reduced schemes...", I assume you are using additional assumptions you haven't listed? $\endgroup$
    – Will Chen
    Oct 8, 2018 at 18:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @abx, I have assumed that "each fiber is generically reduced." $\endgroup$ Oct 8, 2018 at 19:01

2 Answers 2


Let me repeat the assumptions to make sure we agree. Say $f : X \to Y$ is a morphism of varieties over an algebraically closed field $k$ such that (a) $Y$ is affine and smooth of dimension $m$, (b) $(X_y)_{red}$ is smooth of fixed dimension $n$ for all $y \in Y(k)$, (c) the maximal open $V_y \subset X_y$ which is a reduced scheme is dense in $X_y$ for all $y \in Y(k)$.

Claim: $f$ is smooth.

Step 1. Let $V \subset X$ be the open locus where the morphism $f$ is smooth. By assumptions (a), (b), (c) we see that $V_y$ is the fibre of $V \to Y$ over $y$. Namely, $f$ is smooth in points of $V_y$ by 2.8 of the paper by de Jong on alterations. The converse inclusion is obvious.

Step 2. Let $\nu : X' \to X$ be the normalization morphism. Then $V$ is an open subscheme of $X'$. For $y \in Y(k)$ we consider $(X'_y)_{red} \to (X_y)_{red}$. This is a finite morphism which is an isomorphism over the dense open $V_y$. Also every irreducible component of $(X'_y)_{red}$ has dimension $n$ by Krull's height theorem. Hence $(X'_y)_{red} \to (X_y)_{red}$ is birational and hence an isomorphism as the target is normal.

Step 3. In particular the assumptions are true for $f' : X' \to Y$. If $Z \subset Y$ is a smooth effective Cartier divisor, then we can consider the morphism $(f')^{-1}(Z) \to Z$. Using that $X'$ is normal, it is straightforward to show that $(f')^{-1}(Z)$ is reduced, using the criterion $(R_0) + (S_1)$ for reducedness. If $m > 1$, then for any $y \in Y(k)$ we can pick $Z$ such that $(f')^{-1}(Z)$ is irreducible by a Bertini theorem (a la Jouanolou).

Step 4. By induction on $m$ we see that $(f')^{-1}(Z) \to Z$ is smooth. Hence all the fibres of $f'$ are smooth. Hence $X'$ is smooth. Since we have seen above that $X' \to X$ is a bijection on closed points, it suffices to show that no tangent vectors get collapsed. Such a tangent vector would have to be vertical. But this would mean that $(X_y)_{red}$ cannnot be smooth.

Answer to first comment: the fibres are nonempty by assumption (b) or they are all empty if $n < 0$ and then the result is true also. Answer to second comment: forgot to say $y \in Z$. The induction works because we've checked (f')^{-1}(Z) is a variety (except in the case $n = 1$ you get that it might be a disjoint union of varieties). Anyway, others can add more details to this answer if they so desire.

  • $\begingroup$ You need to assume $f$ surjective (or dominating). $\endgroup$ Oct 9, 2018 at 7:00
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for the answer! I have a few questions as I try to understand: In step 3, you say ``for any $y\in Y(k)$ we can pick $Z$...'' what is the relation between $y$ and $Z$? Also, in step 4, can you elaborate on the induction argument? $\endgroup$ Oct 9, 2018 at 11:20
  • $\begingroup$ I want to accept this answer. I have been able to understand the entire argument, except for the reference to ``a Bertini theorem (a la Jouanolou).'' I don't have access to his book, and am not sure which result you're referring to. In particular, are you assuming $char(k)=0$? $\endgroup$ Oct 16, 2018 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ Nevermind: Got a copy. The claim follows from Theorem 6.3(4) of Jouanolou's book. $\endgroup$ Oct 16, 2018 at 19:44

If you know that $X$ is Cohen-Macaulay (e.g. if $X$ is smooth or $X$ is a local complete intersection) then you know that each fiber is Cohen-Macaulay (because the fibers are complete intersections in a Cohen-Macaulay scheme). You can check that a Cohen-Macaulay scheme is reduced by checking at the generic point of each component, so you would be done by your assumptions.

This is the best criterion I can imagine, but perhaps there are more creative people out there.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the answer. I have not been able to see that $X$ is Cohen-Macaulay, which is why I did not include that assumption. The question I linked to assumed that the fibers were smooth, and the conclusion was that $X$ was CM. $\endgroup$ Oct 8, 2018 at 17:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.