22/02/2026
Some time ago I finally decided to sit down and work through the details of constructing the Hilbert schemes of projective schemes. I figured it would be nice to try to write down some kind of a "road map" for the construction and that is what I will attempt here.
To be clear, the point of this post is not to go into the details of the construction, as there are enough excellent expositions of it written by actual experts. I myself followed the brilliant article titled Elementary introduction to representable functors and Hilbert schemes by Stein Strømme. János Kollár's book Rational Curves on Algebraic Varieties also has a very well written account of the construction. Jarod Alper's notes on moduli theory are highly recommended, too.
The point in this post is instead to try gaining the big picture view by naming the main ingredients that go into the construction and giving a quick overview of how the different pieces fit together. I will also describe the Hilbert schemes of hypersurfaces, which I hope will help with gaining intuition for the steps in the general construction.
Informally, the Hilbert scheme of a scheme is a parameter space, whose (geometric) points correspond to closed subschemes . This is expressed formally by describing the functor of points of . But in order to avoid a parameter space of infinite type, we first break the Hilbert scheme into pieces , where is an integer valued polynomial that dictates what the Hilbert polynomial of a subscheme is. We also pass to the relative setting, where we consider as a scheme over some base scheme . Thus, we define the functor We say a flat morphism is a flat family embedded in , when there is a closed embedding such that the below triangle commutes. Finally, we are ready to state the existence claim.
Theorem. For any projective -scheme and integer-valued polynomial , the Hilbert functor is representable by a projective scheme of finite type over S.
The representability of functors is rather abstract, but the general theory tells us how to make it more concrete: representability is equivalent to the existence of universal elements in the sense of category theory. In the present context it means the following: Say is represented by an -scheme . Then, there is a universal family , which is an element of , such that for any element of , there exists a unique pullback square
Before diving into the general construction, we can look at the case of hypersurfaces as a warm-up. The busy reader can skim this section and move quickly to the following sections. Now, fix and , say. It follows from basic calculations that the Hilbert polynomial of a hypersurface in is where is the degree of the hypersurface. Conversely, any closed subscheme of with this polynomial is a hypersurface of degree . Therefore, the closed points of are precisely the degree hypersurfaces.
Now, there is a very explicit way to define a parameter space for degree hypersurfaces in , which we can prove represents the Hilbert functor: We take the points to be the coefficients of the homogeneous degree polynomials in variables. Since two polynomials define the same hypersurface, if and only if they differ by a constant multiple, we take the parameter space to be the projective space of dimension , where is the number of monomials of degree in variables. It is easy to also define a candidate for the universal family, namely
We can do the construction a bit more concisely, which will help with generalisation. Consider any degree hypersurface . Now, take its closed subscheme exact sequence, twist by , and take global sections to obtain a short exact sequence It is easy to see that the global sections of define a 1-dimensional vector subspace of . Conversely, any 1-dimensional vector subspace generates an ideal sheaf of a degree hypersurface. Therefore, we set Note that this indeed coincides with the projective space .
To show that represents , we show that is a universal family. Thus, fix a flat family of hypersurfaces embedded in . The aim is to find a morphism such that is the pullback of . It is easy to see what this morphism should do to closed points. Given a closed point , we know that should be the projective point with coordinates given by the coefficient of some homogeneous polynomial cutting out the fibre in the family. Now, we need to show that one can choose these coefficients so that they "vary regularly" as we change the point .
Since defining a morphism can be done affine-locally, we can assume for some -algebra . Now, since the family is flat, the scheme is a hypersurface in cut out by some polynomial i.e. a polynomial that is homogeneous of degree in the coordinates on with coefficients in . The coefficients can be thought of as regular functions on , and if we "evaluate them" at closed points, they give the coefficients of the polynomials cutting out the corresponding fibres in the family. Thus, they define a morphism , whose values at the closed points are exactly what we wanted.
To use fancier language again, we can consider taking the pushforward of the twisting of the closed subscheme exact sequence for to obtain where is the projection . While taking pushforwards is not exact in general, it is in this case by cohomology and base change, which is discussed below and which you will meet many times in the course of the proof. Cohomology and base change also tells us that the first map is an inclusion of a line bundle. Then, one obtains from this a morphism after noting that the projective space represents the functor of such line subbundles. It remains to check that is the pullback of the universal family along . This follows quite directly from two applications of cohomology and base change and I leave it as an exercise.
The proof of the representability uses three ingredients that have names outside of the construction:
You can choose to either study them independently before tackling the proof, or taking them as black boxes at first. In any case, I will attempt to give a short description of each ingredient here.
As in the construction in the hypersurface case, we will be considering pushforwards of coherent sheaves on families . Then, there are two basic questions we need to answer for a fixed coherent sheaf on :
Cohomology and base change gives answers to these questions. To set things up, suppose we have a pullback square of schemes, where is proper. Then, for any coherent sheaf on , we have the so-called push-pull morphism Cohomology and base change gives sufficient conditions for when the higher direct image is locally free and the push-pull morphism is an isomorphism.
When studying coherent sheaves, we are interested in when their cohomology vanishes. Regularity quantifies this; We say a coherent sheaf on is -regular, if for all positive . A result of Castelnuovo states that -regularity implies -regularity for all . Thus, one should imagine tabulating all of the cohomology groups of the twists of on a 2-dimensional grid. Then, one can draw a staircase of width and height such that the cohomolgy groups vanish outside it.
The crucial property of -regularity for the construction of the Hilbert scheme is the following theorem of Mumford.
Theorem. For any integer-valued polynomial , there is such that for all closed subschemes with Hilbert polynomial , the ideal sheaves are -regular.
When I heard the name "flattening stratification" for the first time, it sounded scary for some reason. Turns out, it is a very natural concept. Suppose we have a coherent sheaf on projective space over some Noetherian scheme . To put it crudely, a flattening stratification of is a finite "partition" of by locally closed subschemes such that is flat over for all .
The stratification is constructed using the Fitting ideals of twists of . Here is what the Fitting ideals do: They form a sequence of ideals defined by taking minors of a presentation of . These define a corresponding chain of subschemes of . If we define subschemes by taking differences of consecutive subschemes in the chain then restricts to a locally free sheaf of rank on . In conclusion, we can stratify by subschemes, where becomes flat by startifying it into subschemes, where these twists become locally free.
Having named the ingredients, we are ready to move onto the road map for the general construction. We will specialise right away to the case and , since it is not hard to reduce the general statement to this special case. The general construction has similarities with the construction in the case of hypersurfaces. This time, instead of identifying subschemes of by points in some projective space, we identify them with the points in some Grassmannian. Here is the broad overview.
The Grassmannian of a coherent sheaf on is the scheme, whose -points are locally free quotients of of rank for some fixed , where is the pullback along . Thus, we need to find a suitable coherent sheaf such that for each family in , we can define an associated quotient of . To do this, we start with taking the close subscheme exact sequence of , twisting it, and pushing it forward to , like we did in the construction of the Hilbert scheme of hypersurfaces.
In that hypersurface case we twisted by the degree, but in the general situation we twist by the integer from Mumford's theorem applied to the Hilbert polynomial . By taking the derived functor long exact sequence, we get where denotes the projection . The next step is to use -regularity of along with cohomology and base change to show that and that is locally free of rank . Finally, noting , we have obtained a -point of the Grassmannian of of rank quotients. This process defines a morphism once we have shown that this assignment is natural.
We show the above morphism is an embedding by constructing a subscheme of the Grassmannian using flattening strata and showing that the morphism is an isomorphism unto this subscheme. The first step is constructing a coherent sheaf on the Grassmannian, the flattening strata of which we look at later.
To start, denote the Grassmannian by and recall that it carries a universal short exact sequence where is a locally free sheaf on of rank . The goal here is to "realise" the kernel as the ideal sheaf of a closed subscheme of . We do this by considering the composition The image of this morphism is the ideal sheaf of some closed subscheme . Note that this is not necessarily flat over , so we consider the flattening strata of in . Let be the stratum, where the closed fibres of have Hilbert polynomial equal to . Now, it remains to show that the morphism we constructed above maps into and that there is an inverse morphism from . In fact, since is a flat family embedded in , there is a unique morphism by the definition of the Hilbert scheme, and this is precisely the inverse morphism.
Showing projectivity is the easiest step. Since the Grassmannian is projective, it suffices to show that the Hilbert scheme is complete. But this can be checked directly from the definition of the Hilbert scheme by using the valuative criterion of properness. This finishes the proof.