Sequences of ICE-closed subcategories via preordered $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules

Abstract.

Let $\Lambda$ be a finite-dimensional basic algebra. Sakai recently used certain sequences of image-cokernel-extension-closed (ICE-closed) subcategories of finitely generated $\Lambda$-modules to classify certain (generalized) intermediate $t$-structures in the bounded derived category. We classifying these “contravariantly finite ICE-sequences” using concepts from $\tau$-tilting theory. More precisely, we introduce “cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules” as a generalization of (the dual of) the “TF-ordered $\tau$-rigid modules” of Mendoza and Treffinger. We then establish a bijection between the set of cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules and certain sequences of intervals of torsion-free classes. Combined with the results of Sakai, this yields a bijection with the set of contravariantly finite ICE-sequences (of finite length), and thus also with the set of $(m+1)$-intermediate $t$-structures whose aisles are homology-determined.

1. Introduction

Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an abelian category. In [SvR19, Section 4], Stanley and van Roosmalen introduce narrow sequences (later called ICE-sequences in [Sak] and in the present paper) of subcategories of $\mathcal{A}$ and show that they are in bijection with the set of homology-determined preaisles in the bounded derived category $\mathcal{D}^{b}(\mathcal{A})$. This result generalizes the bijection between the set of torsion classes in $\mathcal{A}$ and the set of intermediate $t$-structures in $\mathcal{D}^{b}(\mathcal{A})$ given by Happel-Reiten-Smalø (HRS) tilting (see [HRS96, BR07, Woo10]). We focus in particular on the setting where $\mathcal{A}=\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda$ is the category of finitely generated (right) modules over a finite-dimensional basic algebra $\Lambda$ over a field $K$ (from here referred to just as a “finite-dimensional algebra”). In this setting, Sakai showed in [Sak, Cor. 5.6] that, for $m$ a positive integer, the bijection of Stanley and van Roosmalen restricts to a bijection between the set of contravariantly finite ICE-sequences of length $m$ and the set of $(m+1)$-intermediate $t$-structures whose aisles are homology-determined. The goal of this paper is to classify contravariantly finite ICE-sequences using concepts from (the dual version of) the $\tau$-tilting theory of [AIR14] (see also [DF15]).

The subcategories comprising an ICE-sequence are ICE-closed subcategories, meaning that they are closed under images, cokernels, and extensions (see Definition 2.4). ICE-closed subcategories were introduced in [Eno22] as a simultaneous generalization of torsion classes and wide subcategories, each of which feature heavily in the study of finite-dimensional algebras (see e.g. [BDH, Sec. 1.2] or [ES22, Sec. 1.1] for lists of references). In fact, while there are many examples of ICE-closed subcategories which are neither torsion classes nor wide subcategories, iterated versions of these definitions capture all ICE-closed subcategories. More precisely, wide subcategories are themselves abelian length categories, and thus come equipped with their own notion of a torsion class. It is shown in [ES22, Thm. A] that a subcategory $\mathcal{C}$ is ICE-closed if and only if there exists a wide subcategory $\mathcal{W}$ such that $\mathcal{C}$ is a torsion class in $\mathcal{W}$.

Related to the above is the study of ICE-closed subcategories via certain intervals of the lattice of torsion classes $\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A}$, and the dual lattice of torsion-free classes $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A},$ of $\mathcal{A}$. (The lattice theory of $\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A}$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ has been the subject of recent intense study, see e.g. [BDH, Sec. 1.2] for a list of references.) To each interval $[\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}]$ in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$, one associates the heart $\mathcal{G}\cap{}^{\perp}\mathcal{F}$, see Notation 2.1 and Definition 3.1. Then $[\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}]$ is called a wide interval (resp. ICE-interval) if its heart is a wide subcategory (resp. ICE-closed subcategory). By [AP22, Thm. 1.6] and [ES22, Thm. B], both wide intervals and ICE-intervals can be characterized in purely lattice-theoretic terms. These characterizations are related to the so-called pop-stack sorting operators (see Remark 3.8), which appear in the context of dynamical algebraic combinatorics.

Now, by [Sak, Thm. 5.12], one obtains a bijection between certain sequences of wide intervals in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ (the “decreasing sequences of maximal join intervals”) and the set of (not necessarily contravariantly finite) ICE-sequences of finite length, see Section 3 for details. For $\mathcal{A}=\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda$, we show in Lemma 3.14 that the contravariantly finite ICE-sequences (of finite length) correspond to those sequences of intervals whose maximal and minimal elements are both functorially finite. Thus the problem of classifying contravariantly finite ICE-sequences of finite length reduces to the problem of classifying decreasing sequences of functorially finite maximal join intervals of torsion-free classes.

As previously mentioned, our goal is to understand contravariantly finite ICE-sequences using the $\tau$-tilting theory of [AIR14] (see also [DF15]). As we recall in Section 4.1, functorially finite torsion and torsion-free classes in $\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda$ can be classified using $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules. By [Jas14, DIR⁺23], one can also associate a functorially finite wide subcategory $\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}(X)$ to each $\tau^{-1}$-rigid module $X$ called the $\tau^{-1}$-perpendicular category, see Definition-Proposition 4.8. Moreover, it follows from [BH24, Prop. 8.4] that $\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}(X)$ arises as the heart of a (functorially finite) maximal join interval precisely when $X$ satisfies a technical condition called cogen-minimality, see Definition 4.4 and Proposition 6.1. The first main contribution of this paper uses the technique of $\tau$-tilting reduction [Jas14, BM21] to extend this into a classification of decreasing sequences of functorially finite maximal join intervals. More preicsely, we introduce cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules (Definition 4.4) as sequences $(X_{1},\ldots,X_{m})$ of modules for which $\bigoplus_{k=1}^{m}X_{k}$ is $\tau^{-1}$-rigid and which satisfy a technical conditon related to cogen-minimality. In case each $X_{k}$ is indecomposable, this coincides with the dual notion of a TF-ordered $\tau$-rigid module from [MT20]. In that paper, TF-ordered $\tau$-rigid modules are shown to induce stratifying systems and to be in bijection with the $\tau$-exceptional sequences of [BM21]. In the present paper, the more general cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules are shown to capture precisely the decreasing sequences of functorially finite maximal join intervals of torsion-free classes:

Theorem 1.1 (see Theorem 6.5 for details).

Let $\Lambda$ be a finite-dimensional algebra and let $m$ be a nonnegative integer. Then there is a bijective correspondence between

• The set of isomorphism classes of cogen-preordered basic $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules of length $m$ in $\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda$, and

• The set of decreasing sequences of functorially finite maximal join intervals of length $m$ in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}(\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda)$.

We note that the forward and reverse bijections in Theorem 1.1 are constructed explicitly in Propositions 6.3 and 6.4.

We then combine Theorem 1.1 with the bijection in [Sak, Thm. 5.12] to prove the following.

Corollary 1.2 (see Corollaries 6.6 and 6.7 for details).

Let $\Lambda$ be a finite-dimensional algebra, and let $m$ be a nonnegative integer. Then there are bijective correspondences between

• The set of isomorphism classes of cogen-preordered basic $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules of length $m$ in $\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda$, and

• the set of contravariantly finite ICE-sequences of length $m+1$ in $\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda$.

Again, we note that both the forward and reverse bijections in Corollary 1.2 are constructed explicitly.

Finally, we combine Corollary 1.2 with [Sak, Thm. 5.5] to obtain our final main result.

Corollary 1.3.

Let $\Lambda$ be a finite-dimensional algebra, and let $m$ be a nonnegative integer. Then there are bijective correspondences between

• The set of isomorphism classes of cogen-preordered basic $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules of length $m$ in $\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda$, and

• the set of $(m+1)$-intermediate $t$-structures in the bounded derived category $\mathcal{D}^{b}(\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda)$ whose aisles are homology-determined.

1.1. Organization

In Section 2, we recall background information about torsion classes, wide subcategories, and ICE-sequences. We then recall background information about wide intervals and their relationship with ICE-sequences in Section 3. Section 4 covers background information about $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules and their perpendicular categories. In Section 5, we introduce cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules, establish some of their basic properties, and explain how they are related to (the dual version of) $\tau$-tilting reduction. Finally, we prove our main results in Section 6.

2. Torsion pairs, wide subcategories, and ICE-sequences

In this section, we recall background information about torsion classes, wide subcategories, and ICE-sequences.

2.1. Conventions and definitions

Let $\Lambda$ be a finite-dimensional algebra and denote $\mathcal{M}:=\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda$. Let $\mathcal{A}$ denote an essentially small abelian length category. We will mostly be interested in the case where $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{M}$ or where $\mathcal{A}$ is an abelian subcategory of $\mathcal{M}$, but we introduce the additional notation to make the hypotheses of each statement more clear. Unless otherwise stated, every named object of $\mathcal{A}$ is assumed to be basic.

We typically consider objects of $\mathcal{A}$ only up to isomorphism. In particular, the word “unique” is used to mean “unique up to isomorphism”. By a subcategory of $\mathcal{A}$, we will always mean a full additive subcategory closed under isomorphisms. Given an object $X\in\mathcal{A}$, we denote by $\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}X$ the additive closure of $X$. Explicitly, $\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}X$ is the subcategory whose objects are the direct summands of the objects $X^{\oplus k}$ for $k\in\mathbb{N}$.

Notation 2.1.

Given a subcategory $\mathcal{C}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$, we define several other subcategories as follows.

• $\mathcal{C}^{\perp}:=\{X\mid\operatorname{\mathrm{Hom}}(-,X)|_{\mathcal{C}}=0\}$.

• ${}^{\perp}\mathcal{C}:=\{X\mid\operatorname{\mathrm{Hom}}(X,-)|_{\mathcal{C}}=0\}$.

• $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(\mathcal{C}):=\{X\mid\exists\text{ a monomorphism }X\hookrightarrow Y\text{ with }Y\in\mathcal{C}\}$.

• $\operatorname{\mathsf{Gen}}(\mathcal{C}):=\{X\mid\exists\text{ an epimorphism }Y\twoheadrightarrow X\text{ with }Y\in\mathcal{C}\}$.

We also apply each of these operators to an object $X\in\mathcal{A}$ by taking $\mathcal{C}=\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}(X)$. The following observation will be useful later.

Remark 2.2.

Let $X,Y\in\mathcal{A}$. If $Y\notin\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X$, then $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X\subsetneq\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(X\oplus Y)$. Likewise if $Y\in\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X$, then $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X=\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(X\oplus Y)$.

We will also need the following.

Notation 2.3.

Let $\mathcal{B},\mathcal{C}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ be subcategories. We denote by $\mathcal{B}*\mathcal{C}$ the subcategory consisting of those objects $X$ for which there exists a short exact sequence $0\rightarrow B\rightarrow X\rightarrow C\rightarrow 0$ with $B\in\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{C}\in\mathcal{C}$.

The following types of subcategories will feature prominently in this paper.

Definition 2.4.

A subcategory $\mathcal{C}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ is said to be

1. closed under extensions if $\mathcal{C}*\mathcal{C}\subseteq\mathcal{C}$.

2. closed under quotients (resp. subobjects) if every epimorphism $Y\twoheadrightarrow Z$ (resp. every monomorphism $X\hookrightarrow Y$) in $\mathcal{A}$ with $Y\in\mathcal{C}$ has $Z\in\mathcal{C}$ (resp. $X\in\mathcal{C}$).

3. closed under images (resp. kernels, cokernels) if every morphism $f:X\rightarrow Y$ in $\mathcal{A}$ with $X,Y\in\mathcal{C}$ has $\operatorname{\mathrm{image}}f\in\mathcal{C}$ (resp. $\ker f\in\mathcal{C}$, $\operatorname{\mathrm{coker}}f\in\mathcal{C}$).

4. a wide subcategory if it is closed under extensions, kernels, and cokernels.

5. a torsion class if it is closed under extensions and quotients.

6. a torsion-free class if it is closed under extensions and subobjects.

7. an ICE-closed subcategory if it is closed under images, cokernels, and extensions.

We denote by $\operatorname{\mathsf{wide}}\mathcal{A},\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A},\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$, and $\operatorname{\mathsf{ice}}\mathcal{A}$ the sets of wide subcategories, torsion classes, torsion-free classes, and ICE-closed subcategories of $\mathcal{A}$, respectively. Each of these is considered as a partially ordered set under the inclusion order. Each of these has the whole category $\mathcal{A}$ as its unique maximal element and the subcategory 0 (consisting of only the zero object) as its unique minimal element.

2.2. Functorial finiteness

Fix $\mathcal{C}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ a subcategory $X\in\mathcal{A}$ an object. A left $\mathcal{C}$-approximation of $X$ is a morphism $h^{\mathcal{C}}:X\rightarrow X^{\mathcal{C}}$ with $X^{\mathcal{C}}\in\mathcal{C}$ such that the map $\operatorname{\mathrm{Hom}}(h^{\mathcal{C}},C)$ is surjective for all $C\in\mathcal{C}$. Given a chain of subcategories $\mathcal{C}\subseteq\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$, we say that $\mathcal{C}$ is contravariantly finite in $\mathcal{B}$ if every object of $\mathcal{B}$ admits a left $\mathcal{C}$-approximation. In case $\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{A}$, we just say that $\mathcal{C}$ is contravariantly finite. The notions of right $\mathcal{C}$-approximations and covariant finiteness (in $\mathcal{B}$) are defined dually. A subcategory $\mathcal{C}$ which is both contravariantly finite and covariantly finite (in $\mathcal{B}$) is said to be functorially finite (in $\mathcal{B}$). The following straightforward lemma will be useful.

Lemma 2.5.

Let $\mathcal{C}\subseteq\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ be a chain of subcategories and suppose that $\mathcal{B}$ is contravariantly finite (resp. covariantly finite, functorially finite). Then $\mathcal{C}$ is contravariantly finite (resp. covariantly finite, functorially finite) in $\mathcal{B}$ if and only if $\mathcal{C}$ is contravariantly finite (resp. covariantly finite, functorially finite).

We denote by $\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{wide}}\mathcal{A}$ the subposet of $\operatorname{\mathsf{wide}}\mathcal{A}$ consisting of the functorially finite wide subcategories. We denote $\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A}$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ analogously.

2.3. Wide subcategories

Fix a wide subcategory $\mathcal{W}\in\operatorname{\mathsf{wide}}\mathcal{A}$ and a subcategory $\mathcal{C}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$. Then $\mathcal{W}$ is itself an abelian length category. Thus one can apply the constructions in Notation 2.1 to $\mathcal{C}$ considered either as a subcategory of $\mathcal{W}$ or considered as a subcategory of $\mathcal{A}$. To avoid notational ambiguity, our convention is that these operators are also applied in the category $\mathcal{A}$. We thus use intersections to apply them in $\mathcal{W}$, for example

$$\mathcal{C}^{\perp}\cap\mathcal{W}=\{X\in\mathcal{W}\mid\operatorname{\mathrm{Hom}}(-,X)|_{\mathcal{C}}=0\}.$$

One can then talk about the wide subcategories, torsion classes, etc. of $\mathcal{W}$.

In case $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{M}$, the functorial finiteness of $\mathcal{W}$ has the following characterization, see [Eno22, Prop. 4.12] for a proof.

Lemma 2.6.

A wide subcategory $\mathcal{W}\in\operatorname{\mathsf{wide}}\mathcal{M}$ is functorially finite if and only if there exists a finite-dimensional algebra $\Lambda_{\mathcal{W}}$ admitting an exact equivalence $\mathcal{W}\simeq\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda_{\mathcal{W}}$.

Lemma 2.6 allows one to freely apply results about the category $\mathcal{M}$ to a functorially finite wide subcategory $\mathcal{W}$. We do this throughout the paper.

In [IT09, MŠ17], the authors consider a map $\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}:\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A}\rightarrow\operatorname{\mathsf{wide}}\mathcal{A}$. It is proved in [Eno22, Prop. 4.2] (see also [Sak, Prop. 2.2]) that one can extend the domain of $\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}$ to $\operatorname{\mathsf{ice}}\mathcal{A}$. This map is defined as follows.

Definition-Proposition 2.7.

For $\mathcal{C}\in\operatorname{\mathsf{ice}}\mathcal{A}$, denote

$$\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}):=\{X\in\mathcal{C}\mid(Y\in\mathcal{C},f:Y\rightarrow X)\implies\ker f\in\mathcal{C}\}.$$

Then $\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C})$ is a wide subcategory.

The following extension of Definition-Proposition 2.7 will also be useful.

Proposition 2.8.

[MŠ17, Lem. 3.8] (see also [ES22, Prop. 4.9]) Let $\mathcal{W}\in\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{wide}}\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{T}\in\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{W}$. Then $\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{T})\in\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{wide}}\mathcal{M}$.

2.4. Torsion pairs

We now recall further details about torsion classes and torsion-free classes. We refer to [ASS06, Sec. VI.1] and [Tho21] for additional background.

A pair of subcategories $(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{F})$ (of $\mathcal{A}$) is called a torsion pair (in $\mathcal{A}$) if $\mathcal{T}={}^{\perp}\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{T}^{\perp}$. It is well-known that a subcategory $\mathcal{T}$ is a torsion class if and only if $(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{T}^{\perp})$ is a torsion pair. Dually, a subcategory $\mathcal{F}$ is a torsion-free class if and only if $({}^{\perp}\mathcal{F},\mathcal{F})$ is a torsion pair. More generally, if $\mathcal{W}\in\operatorname{\mathsf{wide}}\mathcal{A}$ is a wide subcategory and $\mathcal{F}\in\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ is a torsion-free class of $\mathcal{W}$, then $(\mathcal{W}\cap{}^{\perp}\mathcal{F},\mathcal{F})$ is a torsion pair of $\mathcal{W}$.

Each torsion pair $(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{F})$ comes equipped with a pair of additive functors $t:\mathcal{A}\rightarrow\mathcal{T}$ and $f:\mathcal{A}\rightarrow\mathcal{F}$ called the torsion functor and torsion-free functor, respectively. Each object $X$ is then the middle term of a canonical short exact sequence

$$0\rightarrow tX\rightarrow X\rightarrow fX\rightarrow 0.$$

The maps comprising this sequence are a right $\mathcal{T}$-approximation of $X$ and a left $\mathcal{F}$-approximation of $X$, respectively. In particular, torsion classes are always covariantly finite and torsion-free classes are always contravariantly finite.

In this case $\mathcal{A}=\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda$, we also have the following.

Lemma 2.9.

[Sma84, Thm.] Let $(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{F})$ be a torsion pair in $\mathcal{M}$. Then the following are equivalent.

1. $\mathcal{T}$ is contravariantly finite.

2. $\mathcal{T}$ is functorially finite.

3. $\mathcal{F}$ is covariantly finite.

4. $\mathcal{F}$ is contravariantly finite.

The sets $\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A}$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ are both (complete) lattices under the inclusion order [IRTT15]. This means every set $\mathfrak{F}\subseteq\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ has a unique join (least upper bound) $\bigvee\mathfrak{F}$ and a unique meet (greatest lower bound) $\bigwedge\mathfrak{F}$, and likewise for $\mathfrak{F}\subseteq\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A}$. Explicit formulas for $\bigvee\mathfrak{F}$ and $\bigwedge\mathfrak{F}$ will not be needed in this paper.

The lattices $\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A}$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ are related by anti-isomorphisms $(-)^{\perp}:\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A}\rightarrow\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ and ${}^{\perp}(-):\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}\rightarrow\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A}$. We will work mostly with the lattice $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ in this paper, which can also be identified with the lattice of torsion classes of the opposite category $\mathcal{A}^{\mathrm{op}}$. In particular, this allows us to apply several results from the literature stated for $\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A}$ to the lattice $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$.

2.5. ICE-sequences

We recall the definition of an ICE-sequence from [Sak]. As mentioned in the introduction, ICE-sequences coincide with the “narrow sequences” of [SvR19] by [Sak, Prop. 4.2].

Definition 2.10.

[Sak, Sec. 4 and 5] A sequence $(\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is said to

1. be an ICE-sequence if, for any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, $\mathcal{C}(k)\in\operatorname{\mathsf{ice}}\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{C}(k+1)\in\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(k))$.

2. be contravariantly finite if every $\mathcal{C}(k)$ is contravariantly finite.

3. have length $m$ (for $m$ a nonnegative integer) if $\mathcal{C}(1)=0$ and $\mathcal{C}(-m)=\mathcal{A}$.

Remark 2.11.

Note that if an ICE-sequence has length $m$ and only if $\mathcal{C}(k)=0$ for all $k>0$ and $\mathcal{C}(k)=\mathcal{A}$ for all $k\leq-m$. In particular an ICE sequence of length $m$ also has length $m^{\prime}$ for all $m^{\prime}>m$.

In case $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{M}$, we have the following characterization of contravariantly finite ICE-sequences.

Lemma 2.12.

Suppose $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{M}$ and let $(\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}$ be an ICE-sequence of length $m$. Then $(\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is contravariantly finite if and only if $\mathcal{C}(k)\in\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{tors}}\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(k-1))$ for every $-m<k\leq 0$. Moreover, if $(\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is contravariantly finite, then $\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(k))$ and $\mathcal{C}(k)$ are both functorially finite for all $k$.

Proof.

Let $(\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}$ be an ICE-sequence of length $m$. Suppose first that $(\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}$ is contravariantly finite. By definition, this means each $\mathcal{C}(k)$ is contravarianty finite, and thus is also contravariantly finite in $\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(k-1))$. Since $\mathcal{C}(k)\in\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}(\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(k-1)))$, it follows that $\mathcal{C}(k)$ is also covariantly finite in $\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(k-1))$, and thus that $\mathcal{C}(k)\in\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{tors}}(\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(k-1))$.

Now suppose that $\mathcal{C}(k)\in\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{tors}}\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(k-1))$ for every $-m<k\leq 0$. Then, by Lemma 2.5 and Remark 2.11, it suffices to show that $\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(k))$ is functorially finite for all $-m\leq k\leq 0$. We prove this by induction. The base case $k=-m$ follows from the fact that $\mathcal{C}(-m)=\mathcal{M}$, so suppose that $k>-m$ and that $\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(k-1))\in\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{wide}}\mathcal{M}$. Then $\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(k))$ is also functorially finite by Proposition 2.8. ∎

3. Wide intervals and maximal join intervals

Let $\mathsf{L}\in\{\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A},\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}\}$. By an interval in $\mathsf{L}$, we will always mean a closed interval, i.e., a subset of the form $[\mathcal{B},\mathcal{C}]=\{\mathcal{L}\in\mathsf{L}\mid\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{L}\subseteq\mathcal{C}\}$ for some $\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{C}\in\mathsf{L}$. For $\mathsf{I}\subseteq L$ an interval, we denote by $\mathsf{I}^{+}$ and $\mathsf{I}^{-}$ the maximum and minimum elements of $\mathsf{I}$, respectively. We say that $\mathsf{I}$ is functorially finite if both $\mathsf{I}^{+}$ and $\mathsf{I}^{-}$ are functorially finite.

In this section, we study special types of intervals in detail. We first recall the definition of a wide interval and the associated reduction process in Section 3.1. We then recall the definitions of maximal join and meet intervals in Section 3.2. Finally, in Section 3.3, we recall the relationship between maximal join/meet intervals and ICE-sequences established in [Sak]. We also explain how this relationship interacts with the notion of functorial finiteness.

3.1. Wide intervals and reduction

We adopt the following terminology from [AP22, Tat21].

Definition 3.1.

Let $\mathsf{I}$ be an interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ (resp. $\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A}$).

1. The heart of $\mathsf{I}$ is the subcategory $\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{I}}:=\mathsf{I}^{+}\cap{}^{\perp}(\mathsf{I}^{-})$ (resp. $\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{I}}:=(\mathsf{I}^{-})^{\perp}\cap\mathsf{I}^{+}$ ).

2. $\mathsf{I}$ is a wide interval if its heart $\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{I}}$ is a wide subcategory.

Remark 3.2.

Let $\mathsf{I}$ be an interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$. Then $\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{I}}=\mathcal{H}_{[{}^{\perp}(\mathsf{I}^{+}),{}^{\perp}(\mathsf{I}^{-})]}$. In particular, $\mathsf{I}$ is a wide interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ if and only if $[{}^{\perp}(\mathsf{I}^{+}),{}^{\perp}(\mathsf{I}^{-})]$ is a wide interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A}$. Moreover, if $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{M}$, then $\mathsf{I}$ is a functorially finite wide interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{M}$ if and only if $[{}^{\perp}(\mathsf{I}^{+}),{}^{\perp}(\mathsf{I}^{-})]$ is a functorially finite wide interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{M}$ by Lemma 2.9.

The following result will be useful.

Lemma 3.3.

[ES22, Lem. 4.18] Let $\mathsf{I}\subseteq\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{M}$ be an interval. Then:

1. If any two of $\mathsf{I}^{+},\mathsf{I}^{-}$, and $\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{I}}$ are functorially finite, then so is the third.

2. If $\mathsf{I}$ is a wide interval and either of $\mathsf{I}^{+}$ or $\mathsf{I}^{-}$ is functorially finite, then so is the other.

For $\mathsf{I}\subseteq\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ a wide interval, we have the following relationship between the interval $\mathsf{I}$ and the lattice $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{I}}$. Recall the notation $\mathcal{B}*\mathcal{C}$ from Notation 2.3.

Proposition 3.4.

[AP22, Thm. 5.2] Let $\mathsf{I}\subseteq\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ be a wide interval. Then the associations $\mathcal{F}\mapsto\mathcal{H}_{[\mathsf{I}^{-},\mathcal{F}]}=\mathcal{F}\cap{}^{\perp}(\mathsf{I}^{-})=\mathcal{F}\cap\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{I}}$ and $\mathcal{G}\mapsto\mathcal{G}*\mathsf{I}^{-}$ yield inverse order-preserving bijections between $\mathsf{I}$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{I}}$.

Remark 3.5.

Special cases of Proposition 3.4 arising in the context of $\tau$-tilting theory were previously proved in [Jas14, DIR⁺23]. While these special cases constitute the main use of Proposition 3.4 in the present paper, we will also require the more general statement of [AP22] referenced above. Note also that Proposition 3.4 is further generalized in [Tat21, Thm. A], which plays a role in the proof of Lemma 3.6 below.

For use later, we also record the following technical lemma.

Lemma 3.6.

Let $\mathsf{I}\subseteq\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ be a wide interval and let $\mathcal{F}\in\mathsf{I}$. Then

$$\mathcal{F}=\left(\mathcal{H}_{[\mathcal{F},\mathsf{I}^{+}]}^{\perp}\cap\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{I}}\right)*\mathsf{I}^{-}.$$

Proof.

Recall that we have torsion pairs $({}^{\perp}\mathcal{F},\mathcal{F})$, $({}^{\perp}(\mathsf{I}^{-}),\mathsf{I}^{-})$ and $({}^{\perp}(\mathsf{I}^{+}),\mathsf{I}^{+})$ in $\mathcal{A}$. These satisfy ${}^{\perp}(\mathsf{I}^{+})\subseteq{}^{\perp}\mathcal{F}\subseteq{}^{\perp}(\mathsf{I}^{-})$. By [Tat21, Thm. A], it follows that $(\mathcal{H}_{[\mathcal{F},\mathsf{I}^{+}]},\mathcal{H}_{[\mathsf{I}^{-},\mathcal{F}]})$ is a torsion pair in $\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{I}}$. Thus $\mathcal{H}_{[\mathcal{F},\mathsf{I}^{+}]}^{\perp}\cap\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{I}}=\mathcal{H}_{[\mathsf{I}^{-},\mathcal{F}]}$. The result then follows from Proposition 3.4. ∎

3.2. Maximal join intervals

Let $\mathsf{L}\in\{\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A},\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}\}$. For $\mathcal{C}\in\mathsf{L}$, we denote

$$\mathrm{cov}^{\uparrow}(\mathcal{C}) =\{\mathcal{B}\in\mathsf{L}\mid\mathcal{C}\subsetneq\mathcal{B}\text{ and }((\mathcal{C}\subsetneq\mathcal{B}^{\prime}\subseteq\mathcal{B})\implies(\mathcal{B}^{\prime}=\mathcal{B}))\},$$

$$\mathrm{cov}_{\downarrow}(\mathcal{C}) =\{\mathcal{B}\in\mathsf{L}\mid\mathcal{B}\subsetneq\mathcal{C}\text{ and }((\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{B}^{\prime}\subsetneq\mathcal{C})\implies(\mathcal{B}^{\prime}=\mathcal{B}))\}.$$

For an interval $\mathsf{I}\subseteq\mathsf{L}$, we then denote

$$\mathrm{pop}^{\mathsf{I}^{+}}(\mathsf{I}^{-}) =\bigvee\{\mathsf{I}^{-}\}\cup\{\mathcal{C}\in\mathrm{cov}^{\uparrow}(\mathsf{I}^{-})\mid\mathcal{C}\subseteq\mathsf{I}^{+}\},$$

$$\mathrm{pop}_{\mathsf{I}^{-}}(\mathsf{I}^{+}) =\bigwedge\{\mathsf{I}^{+}\}\cup\{\mathcal{C}\in\mathrm{cov}_{\downarrow}(\mathsf{I}^{+}):\mathsf{I}^{-}\subseteq\mathcal{C}\}.$$

Before making a remark about the notation above, we recall the following.

Proposition 3.7.

[AP22, Thm. 1.6] Let $\mathsf{L}\in\{\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A},\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}\}$ and let $\mathsf{I}$ be an interval in $\mathsf{L}$. Then the following are equivalent.

1. $\mathsf{I}$ is a wide interval.

2. $\mathsf{I}^{-}=\mathrm{pop}_{\mathsf{I}^{-}}(\mathsf{I}^{+})$.

3. There exists $\mathcal{C}\in\mathsf{L}$ such that $\mathsf{I}^{-}=\mathrm{pop}_{\mathcal{C}}(\mathsf{I}^{+})$.

4. $\mathsf{I}^{+}=\mathrm{pop}^{\mathsf{I}^{+}}(\mathsf{I}^{-})$.

5. There exists $\mathcal{C}\in\mathsf{L}$ such that $\mathsf{I}^{+}=\mathrm{pop}^{\mathcal{C}}(\mathsf{I}^{-})$.

Remark 3.8.

The notation $\mathrm{pop}^{\mathsf{I}^{+}}(\mathsf{I}^{-})$ and $\mathrm{pop}_{\mathsf{I}^{-}}(\mathsf{I}^{+})$ comes from [Han24, Sec. 2], and is motivated by the connection between these constructions and the so-called “pop-stack sorting operators”. We refer to the introduction of [BDH], and the references therein, for an explanation of the pop-stack sorting operators on the lattice $\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{M}$ and their combinatorial and representation-theoretic significance. We highlight in particular that intervals satisfying the equivalent conditions in Proposition 3.7 have also been called binuclear intervals, join intervals, and meet intervals in the literature, see e.g. [AP22, Han24].

We also consider the following variants of [Sak, Definition 5.10]. Note that two intervals satisfy $\mathsf{J}\subseteq\mathsf{I}$ if and only if $\mathsf{I}^{-}\subseteq\mathsf{J}^{-}\subseteq\mathsf{J}^{+}\subseteq\mathsf{I}^{+}$.

Definition 3.9.

Let $\mathsf{L}\in\{\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A},\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}\}$ and let $\mathsf{I}$ be an interval in $\mathsf{L}$.

1. $\mathsf{I}$ is a maximal join interval in $\mathsf{L}$ (resp. maximal meet interval in $\mathsf{L}$) if $\mathsf{I}^{+}=\mathrm{pop}^{\mathcal{A}}(\mathsf{I}^{-})$ (resp. $\mathsf{I}^{-}=\mathrm{pop}_{0}(\mathsf{I}^{+})$).

2. An interval $\mathsf{J}\subseteq\mathsf{I}$ of $\mathsf{L}$ is a maximal join interval in $\mathsf{I}$ (resp. maximal meet interval in $\mathsf{I}$) if $\mathsf{J}^{+}=\mathrm{pop}^{\mathsf{I}^{+}}(\mathsf{J}^{-})$ (resp. $\mathsf{J}^{-}=\mathrm{pop}_{\mathsf{I}^{-}}(\mathsf{J}^{+})$).

Remark 3.10.

Let $[\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}]$ be an interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$. Then $[\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}]$ is a maximal join (resp. meet) interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ if and only if $[{}^{\perp}\mathcal{G},{}^{\perp}\mathcal{F}]$ is a maximal meet (resp. join) interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A}$. More generally, $[\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}]$ is a maximal join (resp. meet) interval in some $[\mathcal{B},\mathcal{C}]$ if and only if $[{}^{\perp}\mathcal{G},{}^{\perp}\mathcal{F}]$ is a maximal meet (resp. join) interval in $[{}^{\perp}\mathcal{C},{}^{\perp}\mathcal{B}]$.

We are now ready to state the following definition.

Definition 3.11.

Let $m$ be a nonnegative integer, let $\mathsf{L}\in\{\operatorname{\mathsf{tors}}\mathcal{A},\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}\}$, and let $\mathfrak{I}=(\mathsf{I}_{1},\ldots,\mathsf{I}_{m})$ be a sequence of intervals in $\mathsf{L}$. We set $\mathsf{I}_{m+1}=[0,\mathcal{A}]$. We say that $\mathfrak{I}$ is a decreasing sequence of (functorially finite) maximal join (resp. meet) intervals (of length $m$) in $\mathsf{L}$ if, for all $1\leq k\leq m$, we have that $\mathsf{I}_{k}$ is a (functorially finite) maximal join (resp. meet) interval in $\mathsf{I}_{k+1}$.

Remark 3.12.

Note that the indexing of Definition 3.11 differs from that in [Sak, Sec. 5]. This deviation is made in order to simplify the formulas for the bijections in Theorem 6.5.

3.3. ICE-sequences via maximal join intervals

The following combines Remarks 3.2 and 3.10 with [Sak, Thm. 5.12].

Proposition 3.13.

Let $m$ be a nonnegative integer. Then there is a bijection $\nu$ from the set of decreasing sequences of maximal join intervals of length $m$ in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{A}$ to the set of ICE-sequences of length $m+1$ in $\mathcal{A}$ given as follows. Let $\mathfrak{J}=(\mathsf{I}_{1},\ldots,\mathsf{I}_{m})$ be a decreasing sequence of maximal join intervals and denote $\mathsf{I}_{m+1}=[0,\mathcal{A}]$. For $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, denote

$$\mathcal{C}(k)=\begin{cases}0&\text{if $k>0$}\\ \mathcal{H}_{[\mathsf{I}_{1-k}^{-},\mathsf{I}_{2-k}^{+}]}&\text{if $-m<k\leq 0$}\\ \mathcal{A}&\text{if $k\leq-m$}.\end{cases}$$

Then $\nu(\mathfrak{J})=(\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}$. Moreover, we have $\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(k))=\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{I}_{1-k}}$ for $-m\leq k\leq 0$.

Lemma 3.14.

Let $\mathfrak{J}=(\mathsf{I}_{1},\ldots,\mathsf{I}_{m})$ be a decreasing sequence of maximal join intervals in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{M}$. Then $\nu_{\mathcal{M}}(\mathfrak{J})$ is contravariantly finite if and only if $\mathfrak{J}$ is functorially finite.

Proof.

Suppose first that $\mathfrak{J}$ is functorially finite. Then, for $-m<k\leq 0$, the interval $[\mathsf{I}_{1-k}^{-},\mathsf{I}_{2-k}^{+}]$ is functorially finite. Thus $\mathcal{C}(k)=\mathcal{H}_{[\mathsf{I}_{1-k}^{-},\mathsf{I}_{2-k}^{+}]}$ is functorially finite by Lemma 3.3. We conclude that $\nu(\mathfrak{J})$ is contravariantly finite.

Now suppose that $\nu(\mathfrak{J})$ is contravariantly finite. We show that each $\mathsf{I}_{k}$ is functorially finite by reverse induction on $k$. The base case $k=m+1$ holds by the convention that $\mathsf{I}_{m+1}=[0,\mathcal{M}]$. Thus suppose that $k\leq m$ and that $\mathsf{I}_{k+1}$ is functorially finite. Then in particular $\mathsf{I}_{k+1}^{+}$ is functorially finite. Moreover, $\mathcal{C}(1-k)=\mathcal{H}_{[\mathsf{I}_{k}^{-},\mathsf{I}_{k+1}^{+}]}$ is also functorially finite by Lemma 2.12. Thus $\mathsf{I}_{k}^{-}$ and $\mathsf{I}_{k}^{+}$ are both functorially finite by Lemma 3.3. ∎

In lieu of computing the full inverse of $\nu$, we will make use of the following.

Proposition 3.15.

Let $(\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}$ be an ICE-sequence of length $m+1$ in $\mathcal{A}$. Write $\nu^{-1}((\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}})=(\mathsf{I}_{1},\ldots,\mathsf{I}_{m})$ and, for $1\leq k\leq m+1$, reverse-inductively denote

$$\mathcal{F}_{k}=\begin{cases}0&k=m+1\\ \left[(\mathcal{C}(1-k)^{\perp}\cap\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(-k))\right]*\mathcal{F}(k+1)&1\leq k\leq m.\end{cases}$$

Then $\mathsf{I}_{k}^{-}=\mathcal{F}_{k}$ for all $1\leq k\leq m+1$.

Proof.

We prove the result by reverse induction on $k$. The base case $k=m+1$ follows from the convention that $\mathsf{I}_{m+1}=[0,\mathcal{A}]$. Thus suppose that $k\leq m$ and that $\mathsf{I}_{k+1}^{-}=\mathcal{F}_{k+1}$. Now $\mathcal{C}(1-k)=\mathcal{H}_{[\mathsf{I}_{k}^{-},\mathsf{I}_{k+1}^{+}]}$ and $\operatorname{\mathsf{W_{L}}}(\mathcal{C}(-k))=\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{I}_{k+1}}$ by Proposition 3.13. Since $\mathsf{I}_{k}^{-}\in\mathsf{I}_{k+1}$, Lemma 3.6 then implies that $\mathsf{I}^{-}_{k}=\mathcal{F}_{k}$. ∎

4. $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules and $\tau^{-1}$-perpendicular categories

In this section, we recall background information about $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules and their connection to functorially finite torsion pairs and wide intervals. We work exclusively in the category $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{M}$. We denote by $\tau_{\mathcal{M}}$ and $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$ the Auslander-Reiten translate and its dual.

4.1. $\tau^{-1}$-rigid modules

We recall the following.

Definition 4.1.

[AIR14, Sec. 2.2] A module $X\in\mathcal{M}$ is said to be $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid if $\operatorname{\mathrm{Hom}}\left(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X,X\right)=0$.

Functorially finite torsion pairs are related to $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid modules by the following.

Proposition 4.2.

[AIR14, Sec. 2.3][AS81] Let $X$ be a $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module. Then there are functorially finite torsion pairs

$$(\operatorname{\mathsf{Gen}}\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X,\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X^{\perp})\qquad\text{and}\qquad({}^{\perp}X,\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X).$$

Moreover, the association $X\mapsto\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X$ is a surjection from the set of (basic) $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid modules to the set $\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{M}$.

Remark 4.3.

Since our convention is to consider objects only up to isomorphism, we use the terminology “the set of $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid modules” in Proposition 4.2 for what is more precisely the set of isomorphism classes of $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid modules. We adopt similar terminology throughout the paper. Note also that the word “basic” is included in Proposition 4.2 only to remind the reader that all named modules are assumed to be basic throughout this paper.

We introduce some additional terminology in order to define sections of the surjection in Proposition 4.2. For a module $X\in\mathcal{M}$ and a subcategory $\mathcal{C}\subseteq\mathcal{M}$, we denote by $X/\mathcal{C}$ the module obtained by deleting all direct summands of $X$ which lie in $\mathcal{C}$. For example, if $X,Y$, and $Z$ are all indecomposable, then $(X\oplus Y)/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}(Y\oplus Z)=X$. We then recall the following definition.

Definition 4.4.

A module $X$ is cogen-minimal if every indecomposable direct summand $Y$ of $X$ satisfies $Y\notin\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(X/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}(Y))$.

Now fix a subcategory $\mathcal{C}\subseteq\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda$ which is closed under extensions. A module $X\in\mathcal{C}$ is said to be Ext-injective in $\mathcal{C}$ if $\operatorname{\mathrm{Ext}}^{1}(-,X)|_{\mathcal{C}}=0$ and is said to be split injective in $\mathcal{C}$ if every monomorphism $X\hookrightarrow Y$ with $Y\in\mathcal{C}$ is split. We denote by $\operatorname{\mathcal{I}}(\mathcal{C})$ and $\operatorname{\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{s}}}(\mathcal{C})$ the subcategories consisting of the Ext-injective and split injective objects in $\mathcal{C}$, respectively. When they exist, we denote by $I(\mathcal{C})$ and $I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathcal{C})$ the minimal additive generators of $\operatorname{\mathcal{I}}(\mathcal{C})$ and $\operatorname{\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{s}}}(\mathcal{C})$; that is, $I(\mathcal{C})$ is the unique basic module such that $\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}(I(\mathcal{C}))=\operatorname{\mathcal{I}}(\mathcal{C})$, and likewise for $I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathcal{C})$. It is straightforward to show that $\operatorname{\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{s}}}(\mathcal{C})\subseteq\operatorname{\mathcal{I}}(\mathcal{C})$, and thus also that $I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathcal{C})$ is a direct summand of $\operatorname{\mathcal{I}}(\mathcal{C})$ when these generators exist. Note also that the module $I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathcal{C})$ is necessarily cogen-minimal (if it exists).

The above constructions yield the following.

Proposition 4.5.

[AIR14, Sec. 2.3]

1. The association $X\mapsto\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X$ is a bijection from the set of cogen-minimal $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid modules to the set $\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{M}$. Its inverse is given by $\mathcal{F}\mapsto I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathcal{F})$.

2. Let $\mathcal{F}\in\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{M}$. Then $I(\mathcal{F})$ is a $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module which satisfies $\mathcal{F}=\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(I(\mathcal{F}))$.

Remark 4.6.

The module $I(\mathcal{F})$ in Proposition 4.5(2) is a support $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-tilting module, and one can also define a section of the map in Proposition 4.2 by restricting to the support $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-tilting modules. We will not, however, make explicit use of support $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-tilting modules in this paper.

The following is also useful. For the convenience of the reader, we give a short proof deducing this statement from the cited result.

Lemma 4.7.

[AIR14, Prop. 2.9] Let $X$ be a $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module and let $\mathcal{F}\in\operatorname{\mathsf{f}\text{-}\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{M}$ such that $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X\subseteq\mathcal{F}\subseteq(\tau_{\mathcal{M}}^{-1}X)^{\perp}$. Then $X\oplus((I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathcal{F})/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}X))$ is a (basic) $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module which satisfies $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(X\oplus((I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathcal{F})/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}X)))=\mathcal{F}$.

Proof.

Suppose that $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X\subseteq\mathcal{F}\subseteq(\tau_{\mathcal{M}}^{-1}X)^{\perp}$. Then $X\in\operatorname{\mathcal{I}}(\mathcal{F})$ by the dual of [AIR14, Prop. 2.9]. Thus we have a chain $I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathcal{F})\subseteq X\oplus((I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathcal{F})/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}X))\subseteq I(\mathcal{F})$, where each inclusion is as a direct summand. The result then follows from Proposition 4.5 and Remark 2.2. ∎

4.2. $\tau^{-1}$-perpendicular categories

Recall from Proposition 4.2 that every $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module $X$ induces two torsion-free classes: $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X$ and $(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X)^{\perp}$. It follows immediately from the definition of $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid that $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X\subseteq(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X)^{\perp}$; i.e., that $[\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X,(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X)^{\perp}]$ is an interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{M}$. Moreover, we have the following.

Definition-Proposition 4.8.

[Jas14, Thm. 1.4][DIR⁺23, Thm. 4.12] Let $X$ be a $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module. Then $[\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X,(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X)^{\perp}]$ is a functorially finite wide interval whose heart is the $\tau^{-1}$-perpendicular category of $X$:

$$\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X):=\mathcal{H}_{[\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X,(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X)^{\perp}]}=(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X)^{\perp}\cap{}^{\perp}X.$$

Moreover, $\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)$ is exact equivalent to $\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda_{X}$ for some finite-dimensional algebra $\Lambda_{X}$.

Remark 4.9.

Implicit in Definition-Proposition 4.8 is the fact that the $\tau^{-1}$-perpendicular category $\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)$ is functorially finite, see Lemma 2.6.

Notation 4.10.

As a consequence of Definition-Proposition 4.8, one can replace the category $\mathcal{M}=\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda$ with a $\tau^{-1}$-perpendicular subcategory $\mathcal{W}\subseteq\mathcal{M}$ in all of the constructions which have appeared in this section. For example, if $X\in\mathcal{W}$ is a $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{W}}$-rigid module, then its $\tau^{-1}$-perpendicular category is

$$\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{W}}(X)=(\tau_{\mathcal{W}}^{-1}X)^{\perp}\cap({}^{\perp}X)\cap\mathcal{W}.$$

5. Cogen-preorderings

In this section, we introduce cogen-preorderings of $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid modules. These generalize (the dual versions of) TF-orderings of $\tau$-rigid modules from [MT20]. We then restate the (dual version of the) relationship between $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid modules and $\tau^{-1}_{\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)}$-rigid modules from [Jas14, BM21] using this new language.

5.1. Cogen-preorderings

Let $\Delta=(X_{1},X_{2},\ldots,X_{m})$ be a sequence of modules. The length of $\Delta$ is $m$. We allow for the case where $\Delta=()$ is the empty sequence, which corresponds to the case $m=0$.

For $0\leq k\leq m$, we denote $\Delta_{>k}:=\bigoplus_{j>k}X_{j}$ and denote $\Delta_{\geq k}$ analogously. We also denote $\bigoplus\Delta:=\Delta_{>0}$. If $\bigoplus\Delta$ is basic, then we refer to $\Delta$ as a preordered decomposition of $\bigoplus\Delta$. If in addition each $X_{i}$ is indecomposable, we say that $\Delta$ is an ordered decomposition of $\bigoplus\Delta$. In particular, this means that the empty sequence is an ordered decomposition of the zero module.

For a fixed preordered decomposition $\Delta=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{m})$ of a (basic) module $X$ and an indecomposable direct summand $Y$ of $X$, there exists a unique index $\iota_{\Delta}(Y)$ such that $Y$ is a direct summand of $X_{\iota_{\Delta}(Y)}$. We say that an ordered decomposition $\Gamma=(Y_{1},\ldots,Y_{m})$ of $X$ is an ordering of $\Delta$ if $\iota_{\Delta}(Y_{j})\leq\iota_{\Delta}(Y_{k})$ for all $1\leq j<k\leq m$.

Remark 5.1.

For $\Delta$ a preordered decomposition of a module $X$, the relation $Y\leq Y^{\prime}\iff\iota_{\Delta}(Y)\leq\iota_{\Delta}(Y^{\prime})$ is a total preorder on the set of indecomposable direct summands of $X$. This is our justification for the name “preordered decomposition”.

We consider the following generalizations of (the dual of) [MT20, Def. 3.1]. Note that the dual of Definition 5.2(4) coincides with the definition of a “TF-admissible decomposition” given in [MT20, Def. 3.1].

Definition 5.2.

Let $\Delta=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{m})$ be a sequence of modules.

1. We say that $\Delta$ is a preordered (resp. ordered) $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module if $\Delta$ is a preordered (resp. ordered) decomposition of a (basic) $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module $\bigoplus\Delta$.

2. We say that $\Delta$ is a weakly cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module if the following both hold.

   1. $\Delta$ is a preordered $\tau^{-1}$-rigid module.

   2. For every $1\leq k\leq m$ and every indecomposable direct summand $Y$ or $X_{k}$, one has $Y\notin\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\left((\Delta_{>k})/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}Y\right)$.

3. Suppose that $\Delta$ is a weakly cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module. We say that $\Delta$ is a cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module if (2b) above can be strengthened to

   • For every $1\leq k\leq m$ and every indecomposable direct summand $Y$ or $X_{k}$, one has $Y\notin\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\left((\Delta_{\geq k})/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}Y\right)$.

4. Suppose that $\Delta$ is a cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module. We say that $\Delta$ is a cogen-ordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module if $\Delta$ is an ordered decomposition (of $\bigoplus\Delta$). Equivalently, this means each $X_{k}$ is indecomposable.

Remark 5.3.

In the setting of Definition 5.2, we have that $\Delta_{\geq k}/(\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}X_{k})=\Delta_{>k}$. Thus conditions (2b) and (3b’) of Definition 5.2 coincide in the case where each $X_{k}$ is indecomposable.

The following is also clear from the definitions.

Lemma 5.4.

Let $\Delta=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{m})$ be a preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module. Then $\Delta$ is cogen-preordered if and only if every indecomposable ordering of $\Delta$ is cogen-ordered.

The following characterization of cogen-preorderings will also be useful.

Lemma 5.5.

Let $\Delta=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{m})$ be a preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module. Then $\Delta$ is cogen-preordered if and only if $X_{k}=(I_{\mathrm{s}}(\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{\geq k}))/\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{>k}$ for all $1\leq k\leq m$.

Proof.

Suppose first that $\Delta$ is not cogen-preordered. Thus there exists some index $k$ and a direct summand $Y$ of $X_{k}$ such that $Y\in\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(\Delta_{\geq k}/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}Y)$. By Remark 2.2, we then have $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(\Delta_{\geq k}/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}Y)=\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(\Delta_{\geq k})$. Thus $Y$ is not split injective in $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(\Delta_{\geq k})$, and so $X_{k}\neq(I_{\mathrm{s}}(\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{\geq k}))/(\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{>k})$.

Conversely, suppose that there exists some $1\leq k\leq m$ with $X_{k}\neq(I_{\mathrm{s}}(\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{\geq k}))/(\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{>k})$. The definitions of split injective and $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(-)$ imply that $I_{\mathrm{s}}(\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{\geq k})$ is a direct summand of $\Delta_{\geq k}$, see e.g. [BHM, Cor. 1.10b]. Thus there exists a direct summand $Y$ of $X_{k}$ such that $Y$ is not split injective in $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{\geq k}$. By Remark 2.2, this means $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{\geq k}=\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(\Delta_{\geq k}/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}Y)$. Thus $Y\in\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(\Delta_{\geq k}/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}Y)$, and so $\Delta$ is not cogen-preordered. ∎

5.2. Reduction

For use throughout this section, we fix the following notation.

Notation 5.6.

Let $X$ be a $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module. We denote by $t_{X}$ the torsion functor associated with the torsion pair $({}^{\perp}X,\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X)$ from Proposition 4.2.

We recall the following relationship between $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid modules and $\tau^{-1}_{\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)}$-rigid modules. For the convenience of the reader, we outline a proof explaining how to deduce these statements from those in [BM21].

Proposition 5.7.

[BM21, Props. 4.5 and 5.8](see also [Jas14, Thm. 3.14]) Let $X$ be a $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module. Then the association $(Y,X)\mapsto t_{X}Y$ is a bijection from the set of weakly cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid modules of the form $(Y,X)$ to the set of $\tau^{-1}_{\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)}$-rigid modules.

Proof.

The dual of [BM21, Prop. 4.5] says that $t_{X}$ induces a bijection from the set of indecomposable modules $Y$ for which $(Y,X)$ is a weakly cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module to the set of indecomposable $\tau^{-1}_{\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)}$-rigid modules. In the dual of [BM21, Prop. 5.8], this is extended into a direct-sum-preserving bijection $\mathcal{E}^{\mathsf{d}}_{X}$ between the set of objects $Y$ in the bounded derived category $\mathcal{D}^{b}(\mathcal{M})$ for which $X\oplus Y$ is a $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid pair and the set of $\tau^{-1}_{\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)}$-rigid pairs. Now given an object $Y$ in the domain of $\mathcal{E}^{\mathsf{d}}_{X}$, one has that $\mathcal{E}^{\mathsf{d}}_{X}(Y)$ is a module if and only if $(Y,X)$ is a weakly cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module, and that $\mathcal{E}^{\mathsf{d}}_{X}(Y)=t_{X}Y$ in this case. (The last equality uses the additivity of $t_{X}$.) ∎

Propositions 3.4 and 5.7 are related by the following. See the proof of Proposition 5.7 when comparing the notation of Proposition 5.8(2) with that of [BH23, Lem. 6.6].

Proposition 5.8.

Let $(Y,X)$ be a weakly cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module. Then

1. [MT20, Lem. 5.2] $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(X\oplus Y)\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)=\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(t_{X}Y)\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)$.

2. [BH23, Lem. 6.6] $(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}(X\oplus Y))^{\perp}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)=(\tau^{-1}_{\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)}t_{X}Y)^{\perp}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)$.

The following essentially follows from [MT20, Cor. 5.3], but we outline a proof for the convenience of the reader.

Corollary 5.9.

Let $\Delta=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{m})$ be a cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module. Then $t_{\Delta_{>1}}X_{1}$ is a cogen-minimal $\tau^{-1}_{\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(\Delta_{>1})}$-rigid module.

Proof.

We prove the contrapositive. Denote $X=t_{\Delta_{>1}}X_{1}$. We note that $X$ is a $\tau^{-1}_{\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(\Delta_{>1})}$-rigid module by Proposition 5.7. Suppose that $X$ is not cogen-minimal. Then there exists an indecomposable direct summand $Z$ of $X$ such that $Z\in\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(X/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}(Z))\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(\Delta_{>1})$. Equivalently (see Remark 2.2), $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(\Delta_{>1})=\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(X/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}(Z))\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(\Delta_{>1})$. Now by Proposition 5.7, there exists an indecomposable direct summand $Z^{\prime}$ of $X_{1}$ such that $t_{\Delta_{>1}}Z^{\prime}=Z$ and $t_{\Delta_{>1}}(X_{1}/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}Z^{\prime})=X/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}Z$. Proposition 5.8(1) then says that $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(\Delta_{\geq 1})=\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(\Delta_{\geq 1}/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}Z^{\prime})$. Equivalently (see Remark 2.2), $Z^{\prime}\in\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(\Delta_{\geq 1}/\operatorname{\mathsf{add}}Z^{\prime})$. We conclude that $\Delta$ is not cogen-preordered. ∎

6. Main results

We now prove the main results of this paper. We start with the following, which in particular proves the $m=1$ case of Theorem 1.1.

Proposition 6.1.

The association $X\mapsto[\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X,(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X)^{\perp}]$ is a bijection from the set of cogen-minimal $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid modules to the set of functorially finite maximal join intervals in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{M}$. The inverse is given by $\mathsf{I}\mapsto I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathsf{I}^{-})$.

Proof.

[BH24, Prop. 8.4] says that $[\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X,(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X)^{\perp}]$ is a functorially finite maximal join interval for any cogen-minimal $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module $X$. The fact that this association is a bijection with the indicated inverse then follows from Proposition 4.5. ∎

We also need the following refinement of [Sak, Prop. 5.11].

Lemma 6.2.

Let $X$ be a $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module and let $\mathsf{I}\subseteq[\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X,(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X)^{\perp}]$ be an interval. Then the following are equivalent.

1. $\mathsf{I}$ is a functorially finite maximal join interval in $[\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X,(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X)^{\perp}]$.

2. $[\mathsf{I}^{-}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X),\mathsf{I}^{+}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)]$ is a functorially finite maximal join interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)$.

Proof.

We have that $[\mathsf{I}^{-}\cap\mathsf{J}_{\mathcal{M}}(X),\mathsf{I}^{+}\cap\mathsf{J}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)]$ is functorially finite if and only if $\mathsf{I}$ is functorially finite by [Jas14, Thm. 3.13] (see also Lemma 3.3). We have that $[\mathsf{I}^{-}\cap\mathsf{J}_{\mathcal{M}}(X),\mathsf{I}^{+}\cap\mathsf{J}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)]$ is a maximal join interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathsf{J}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)$ if and only if $\mathsf{I}$ is a maximal join interval in $[\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X,(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X)^{\perp}]$ by [Sak, Prop. 5.11]. ∎

We now construct the bijections comprising Theorem 1.1 (restated as Theorem 6.5 below).

Proposition 6.3.

Let $\Delta=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{m})$ be a cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module. For $1\leq j\leq m$, denote $\mathcal{F}_{j}=\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{\geq j}$ and $\mathcal{G}_{j}=(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}\Delta_{\geq j})^{\perp}$. Then $\phi(\Delta):=([\mathcal{F}_{1},\mathcal{G}_{1}],\ldots,[\mathcal{F}_{m},\mathcal{G}_{m}])$ is a decreasing sequence of functorially finite maximal join intervals in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{M}$.

Proof.

We prove the result by induction on $m$. For $m=0$, we have that $\phi$ sends the empty sequence to the empty sequence, so there is nothing to show. Thus suppose $m>0$ and that the result holds for $m-1$. Let $\Delta=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{m})$ be a cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module of length $m$ and denote $X:=\Delta_{>1}$. By the induction hypothesis, we need only show that $[\mathcal{F}_{1},\mathcal{G}_{1}]$ is a functorially finite maximal join interval in $[\mathcal{F}_{2},\mathcal{G}_{2}]$.

By Corollary 5.9, we have that $t_{X}Y$ is a cogen-minimal $\tau^{-1}_{\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)}$-rigid module. Thus, by Proposition 6.1, $[\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}t_{X}Y\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X),(\tau_{\mathcal{M}}^{-1}t_{X}Y)^{\perp}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)]$ is a functorially finite maximal join interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)$. Moreover, we have that $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}t_{X}Y\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)=\mathcal{F}_{1}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)$ and that $(\tau_{\mathcal{M}}^{-1}t_{X}Y)^{\perp}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)=\mathcal{G}_{1}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)$ by Proposition 5.8. Since $[\mathcal{F}_{1},\mathcal{G}_{1}]\subseteq[\mathcal{F}_{2},\mathcal{G}_{2}]$ by construction, it follows from Lemma 6.2 that $[\mathcal{F}_{1},\mathcal{G}_{1}]$ is a functorially finite maximal join interval in $[\mathcal{F}_{2},\mathcal{G}_{2}]$, as desired. ∎

Proposition 6.4.

Let $\mathfrak{J}=(\mathsf{I}_{1},\ldots,\mathsf{I}_{m})$ be a decreasing sequence of functorially finite maximal join intervals in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{M}$, and denote $\mathsf{I}_{m+1}=[0,\mathcal{M}]$. For $1\leq k\leq m$, denote

$$X_{k}=(I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathsf{I}_{k}^{-}))/\mathsf{I}_{k+1}^{-}.$$

Then $\psi(\mathfrak{J}):=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{m})$ is a cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module. Moreover,

$$\mathsf{I}_{k}=\left[\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(\psi(\mathfrak{J})_{\geq k}),\left(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}(\psi(\mathfrak{J})_{\geq k})\right)^{\perp}\right]$$

for all $1\leq k\leq m$.

Proof.

We prove the result by reverse induction on $m$. For $m=0$, we have that $\mathfrak{J}$ and $\psi(\mathfrak{J})$ are both the empty sequence, so there is nothing to show. Thus suppose that $m>0$ and that the result holds for $m-1$.

Let $\mathfrak{J}=(\mathsf{I}_{1},\ldots,\mathsf{I}_{m})$ be a decreasing sequence of functorially finite maximal join intervals in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathcal{M}$ and denote $X:=\psi(\mathfrak{J})_{>1}$. By the induction hypothesis, we have that $X$ is $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid, that $(X_{2},\ldots,X_{m})$ is cogen-preordered, and that $\mathsf{I}_{2}=[\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X,(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X)^{\perp}]$. Now by assumption, we have $\mathsf{I}_{2}^{-}\subseteq\mathsf{I}_{1}^{-}\subseteq\mathsf{I}_{2}^{+}$. Lemma 4.7 thus says that $X\oplus I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathsf{I}_{1}^{-})$ is $\tau_{\mathcal{M}}^{-1}$-rigid and that $\mathsf{I}_{1}^{-}=\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(X\oplus I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathsf{I}_{1}^{-}))$. Moreover, we have that $X_{1}$ is cogen-minimal since it is a direct summand of $I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathsf{I}_{1}^{-})$. Now, by construction, any indecomposable direct summand of $I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathsf{I}_{1}^{-})$ is either a direct summand of $X_{1}$ or lies in $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X$. Thus we have (i) that $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(\bigoplus\psi(\mathfrak{J}))=\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}(X_{1}\oplus X)=\mathsf{I}_{1}^{-}$, and (ii) that $(X_{1},X)$ is cogen-preordered. The induction hypothesis then implies that $\psi(\mathfrak{J})=(X_{m},\ldots,X_{1})$ is cogen-preordered.

It remains only to show that $\mathsf{I}_{1}^{+}=(\tau_{\mathcal{M}}^{-1}(X\oplus X_{1}))^{\perp}$. To see this, note, by Lemma 6.2 (and the induction hypothesis), that $[\mathsf{I}_{1}^{-}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X),\mathsf{I}_{1}^{+}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)]$ is a functorially finite maximal join interval in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)$. Now $t_{X}X_{1}$ is a cogen-minimal $\tau^{-1}_{\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)}$-rigid module by Corollary 5.9, and $\mathsf{I}_{1}^{-}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)=\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}t_{X}X_{1}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)$ by Proposition 5.8(1). Thus, by Proposition 6.1, we have $\mathsf{I}_{1}^{+}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)=(\tau_{\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)}^{-1}t_{X}X_{1})^{\perp}\cap\mathsf{J}^{\mathsf{d}}_{\mathcal{M}}(X)$. Noting that $\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}X=\mathsf{I}_{2}^{-}\subseteq\mathsf{I}_{1}^{+}\subseteq\mathsf{I}_{2}^{+}=(\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}X)^{\perp}$, it then follows from Propositions 5.8(2) and Proposition 3.4 that $\mathsf{I}_{1}^{+}=(\tau_{\mathcal{M}}(X\oplus X_{1}))^{\perp}$. ∎

We are now prepared to prove our main theorem.

Theorem 6.5 (Theorem 1.1).

Let $m$ be a nonnegative integer. Then the maps $\phi$ and $\psi$ from Propositions 6.3 and 6.4 are inverse bijections between

• The set of isomorphism classes of cogen-preordered basic $\tau_{\mathcal{M}}^{-1}$-rigid modules of length $m$, and

• The set of decreasing sequences of maximal join intervals of length $m$ in $\operatorname{\mathsf{torf}}(\operatorname{\mathsf{mod}}\Lambda)$.

Proof.

The fact that the maps are well-defined is contained Propositions 6.3 and 6.4. The fact that $\phi\circ\psi$ is the identity also follows immediately from these propositions. Thus let $\Delta=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{m})$ be a cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module and write $\psi\circ\phi(\Delta)=(Y_{1},\ldots,Y_{m})$. Choose an index $1\leq k\leq m$. Then $Y_{k}=(I_{\mathrm{s}}(\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{\geq k}))/\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{>k}$ by construction and $X_{k}=(I_{\mathrm{s}}(\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{\geq k}))/\operatorname{\mathsf{Cogen}}\Delta_{>k}$ by Lemma 5.5. We conclude that $X_{k}=Y_{k}$. ∎

The next two results use Sakai’s correspondence between ICE-sequences and decreasing sequences of maximal join intervals (see Section 3.3) to recast Theorem 6.5 as a classification of contravariantly finite ICE-sequences via cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid modules.

Corollary 6.6 (Corollary 1.2, part 1).

Let $m$ be a nonnegative integer. Then the map $\nu\circ\phi$ (see Propositions 3.13 and 6.3 for the definitions) is a bijection from the set of isomorphism classes of cogen-preordered basic $\tau_{\mathcal{M}}^{-1}$-rigid modules of length $m$ to the set of contravariantly finite ICE-sequences of length $m+1$. Moreover, let $\Delta=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{m})$ be a cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module. For $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, denote

$$\mathcal{C}(k)=\begin{cases}0&\text{if $k>0$}\\ (\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}\Delta_{>1-k})^{\perp}\cap{}^{\perp}\Delta_{\geq 1-k}&\text{if $-m<k\leq 0$}\\ \mathcal{M}&\text{if $k\leq-m$}.\end{cases}$$

Then $\nu\circ\phi(\Delta)=(\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}$.

Proof.

The explicit formula and the fact $\nu\circ\phi$ is a bijection follow immediately from Proposition 3.13, Lemma 3.14, Proposition 6.3, and Theorem 6.5. ∎

The next result gives the inverse of $\nu\circ\phi$. Recall the definition of the map $\psi$ (which is the inverse of $\phi$) from Proposition 6.4.

Corollary 6.7 (Corollary 1.2, part 2).

Let $m$ be a nonnegative integer and let $(\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}$ be a contravariantly finite ICE-sequence of length $m+1$. For $1\leq k\leq m+1$, let $\mathcal{F}_{k}$ be as in Proposition 3.15. Then $\psi\circ\nu^{-1}((\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}})=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{m})$ where $X_{k}=(I_{\mathrm{s}}(\mathcal{F}_{k}))/\mathcal{F}_{k-1}$ for $1\leq k\leq m$.

Proof.

Write $\nu^{-1}((\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}=(\mathsf{I}_{1},\ldots,\mathsf{I}_{m})$. Then, for $1\leq k\leq m$, we have $\mathsf{I}_{m}^{-}=\mathcal{F}_{k}$ by Proposition 3.15. The result then follows from the definition of $\psi$ (see Proposition 6.4). ∎

We conclude by using [Sak, Cor. 5.6] to recast Corollary 6.6 as a classification of $(m+1)$-intermediate $t$-structures whose aisles are homology determined. We refer to [Sak] for the relevant definitions.

Corollary 6.8 (Corollary 1.3).

Let $m$ be a nonnegative integer. Then there is a bijection $\rho$ from the set of isomorphism classes of cogen-preordered basic $\tau_{\mathcal{M}}^{-1}$-rigid modules of length $m$ to the set of $(m+1)$-intermediate $t$-structures in $\mathcal{D}^{b}(\mathcal{M})$ whose aisles are homology-determined given as follows. Let $\Delta=(X_{1},\ldots,X_{m})$ be a cogen-preordered $\tau^{-1}_{\mathcal{M}}$-rigid module and let $(\mathcal{C}(k))_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}$ be as in Corollary 6.6. Then $\rho(\Delta)=(\mathcal{B}^{\leq 0},\mathcal{B}^{\geq 0})$ where

$$\mathcal{B}^{\leq 0} =\{U\in\mathcal{D}^{b}(\mathcal{M})\mid\forall k\in\mathbb{Z}:H^{k}(U)\in\mathcal{C}(k)\},$$

$$\mathcal{B}^{\geq 0} =\{V\in\mathcal{D}^{b}(\mathcal{M})\mid\forall U\in\mathcal{B}^{\leq 0}:\operatorname{\mathrm{Hom}}(U[1],V)=0\}.$$

Proof.

The formula for $\mathcal{B}^{\leq 0}$ follows from combining the formula for $\nu\circ\phi$ (Corollary 6.6) with the formula for the bijection in [Sak, Cor. 5.6] (given explicitly in [Sak, Prop. 3.7] and [SvR19, Prop. 4.10]). The fact that $\rho(\Delta)$ is an $(m+1)$-intermediate $t$-structure whose aisle is homology determined, and the fact that $\rho$ is a bijection, then follow from [Sak, Cor. 5.6] and Corollary 6.7 (see also [KV88, Sec. 1, Prop.]). ∎