System of Hodge Bundles and Generalized Opers on Smooth Projective Varieties
Suratno Basu, Arjun Paul, Arideep Saha

TL;DR
This paper establishes criteria for the stability of Hodge bundles and introduces generalized opers on smooth projective varieties, proving their associated Higgs bundles are semistable and linking oper structures to bundle stability.
Contribution
It defines generalized opers on smooth projective varieties and proves their associated Higgs bundles are semistable, also connecting partial oper structures with bundle stability.
Findings
Semistability criteria for Hodge bundles established
Generalized opers' associated Higgs bundles are semistable
Partial oper structures imply semistability of (E, ∇) pairs
Abstract
Let be an algebraically closed field of any characteristic. Let be a polarized irreducible smooth projective algebraic variety over . We give criterion for semistability and stability of system of Hodge bundles on . We define notion of generalized opers on , and prove semistability of the Higgs bundle associated to generalized opers. We also show that existence of partial oper structure on a vector bundle together with a connection over implies semistability of the pair .
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
System of Hodge Bundles and Generalized Opers on Smooth Projective Varieties
Suratno Basu
The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, 4th Cross Street, CIT Campus, Taramani, Chennai 600113, Tamil Nadu, India.
,
Arjun Paul
Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, Maharashtra, India.
and
Arideep Saha
The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, 4th Cross Street, CIT Campus, Taramani, Chennai 600113, Tamil Nadu, India.
Abstract.
Let be an algebraically closed field of any characteristic. Let be a polarized irreducible smooth projective algebraic variety over . We give criterion for semistability and stability of system of Hodge bundles on . We define notion of generalized opers on , and prove semistability of the Higgs bundle associated to generalized opers. We also show that existence of partial oper structure on a vector bundle together with a connection over implies semistability of the pair .
Key words and phrases:
Generalized oper, Griffiths transversal filtration, Higgs bundle, system of Hodge bundles, semistable bundle.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
14J60, 70G45
1. Introduction
Let be an algebraically closed field of characteristic . Let be a polarized irreducible smooth projective algebraic variety over . Let be a vector bundle on together with a filtration
[TABLE]
where are subbundles of , for all . Suppose that admits a flat algebraic connection such that the filtration (1.1) is Griffiths transversal with respect to ; meaning that , for all . Then induces a Higgs field on the associated vector bundle , where , for all .
In [Si1], it is shown that given a flat connection on , there exists a Griffiths transversal filtration such that the associated Higgs bundle is semistable. However, given a Griffiths transversal filtration of with respect to , it is not known, in general, whether the associated Higgs bundle is semistable. When is a compact Riemann surface, in [Bi, p. 156], the following possible solution to this problem is proposed:
Let be a holomorphic vector bundle on whose all indecomposable components has degree zero. Let be a filtration of by its subbundles on . Then admits a holomorphic connection such that is Griffiths transversal with respect to if and only if admits a holomorphic Higgs field such that
- •
is semistable, and
- •
, for all .
Note that, the Higgs bundle admits a structure of a system of Hodge bundles on ; meaning that, , for all . Therefore, it is natural to ask, more generally, when does a Higgs bundle (not necessarily of degree zero) on having a structure of a system of Hodge bundles is semistable and when it is stable. We give a criterion for this.
Fix an ample line bundle on . We prove the following results :
Theorem 1.1**.**
Assume that , and is semistable with . Let be a Higgs bundle on having a structure of a system of Hodge bundles: such that is an isomorphism, for all . Then is semistable if is semistable, for all . The converse holds if .
Theorem 1.2**.**
Assume that , and . The Higgs bundle in Theorem 1.1 is stable if is stable, for all . Converse holds if .
We give some examples to show that the isomorphism conditions
[TABLE]
and semistability of , for all , in the Theorem 1.1 are crucial for semistability of .
Finally, we give a criteria on the Griffiths transversal filtration for a flat connection, which we refer to as “generalized oper” so that the associated Higgs bundle becomes semistable. We define notion of semistability of connections, and prove the following :
Theorem 1.3**.**
Let be a polarized smooth projective variety over , and let be semistable of non-negative degree. Let be a vector bundle on together with a connection (not necessarily flat) . Let
[TABLE]
be a -Griffiths transversal filtration of by its subbundles such that the induced –module homomorphism is a Higgs field on (i.e., in ). If the Higgs bundle is semistable (respectively, stable), then the pair is semistable (respectively, stable).
Theorem 1.3 is a sort of converse of [LSYZ, Theorem 2.2] by Lan-Sheng-Yang-Zuo. This also generalize [JP, Proposition 3.4.4] of Joshi-Pauly proved for the case of curve in positive characteristic.
2. Griffiths Transversal Filtration
2.1. Preliminaries
Let be an algebraically closed field of characteristic . Let be an irreducible smooth projective algebraic variety over . Let be the sheaf of regular functions on . Let be the cotangent bundle of . Let be a coherent sheaf of –modules on . The rank of is defined to be the dimension of the generic fiber of . We denote it by . Since is irreducible, this is well-defined. We say that is a vector bundle on if it is locally free and of finite rank on . An –submodule of a vector bundle is said to be a subbundle of if is locally free and the quotient sheaf is torsion free on .
Let be a vector bundle on .
Definition 2.1**.**
A * connection* on is a –linear sheaf homomorphism
[TABLE]
satisfying the following Leibniz rule:
[TABLE]
for every section and regular function , for any open subset .
Let . Given a connection on , we can extend it to a –linear sheaf homomorphism (denoted by the same symbol)
[TABLE]
satisfying , for all local sections and . This defines an element
[TABLE]
called the curvature of . A connection is said to be flat if .
Definition 2.2**.**
Let be a vector bundle on and let
[TABLE]
be a filtration of by its subbundles. The filtration is said to be Griffiths transversal for a flat connection on if it satisfies the following conditions:
[TABLE]
2.2. Associated Higgs Bundle
Definition 2.3**.**
A Higgs sheaf on is a pair , where is a coherent sheaf of –modules on and is an –module homomorphism such that the following composite –module homomorphism vanishes identically:
[TABLE]
Consider a triple , where is a vector bundle on together with a flat connection , and a filtration on , as in (2.3), which is Griffiths transversal for (see (2.4)). Then induces an –linear homomorphism
[TABLE]
where , for all , and ; the –linearity of follows from the Leibniz rule (2.2). Thus we have an –linear homomorphism
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Note that, the flatness of ensures that . Therefore, is a Higgs bundle over . Note that the Higgs field satisfies , and hence is nilpotent in the graded –algebra , where is the sheaf of –module endomorphisms of .
A polarization on is given by choice of an ample line bundle on it. Fix an ample line bundle on . Let be a non-zero coherent sheaf of –modules on . Then the degree of with respect to is defined by
[TABLE]
where is the determinant line bundle of . If , the ratio is called the slope of .
Definition 2.4**.**
A torsion free Higgs sheaf on is said to be semistable (respectively, stable) if for any non-zero proper subsheaf with and , we have
[TABLE]
Remark 2.1**.**
A torsion free coherent sheaf on can be considered as a Higgs sheaf with zero Higgs field on . Then the above notion of semistability and stability coincides with the corresponding notions for torsion free coherent sheaves.
Definition 2.5**.**
Let and be two Higgs sheaves on . A Higgs homomorphism from to is given by an –module homomorphism such that .
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let and be two Higgs bundles on . Let . If is semistable, then both and are semistable. Converse holds if the characteristic of is zero.
Proof.
Suppose that is semistable. If were not semistable, then there is a maximal destabilizing Higgs subsheaf of with . Since the functor is left exact, is a destabilizing subsheaf of , with , contradicting Higgs semistability of . Therefore, both and are semistable. For the converse part, see [Si2, Corollary 3.8, p. 38]. ∎
3. System of Hodge bundles and semistability
Let be an irreducible smooth projective algebraic variety over together with a fixed ample line bundle on it.
Definition 3.1**.**
A Higgs bundle is said to have a structure of a system of Hodge bundles if has a direct sum decomposition by its subbundles such that , for all , with .
3.1. Criterion for semistability of a system of Hodge bundles
Now we give a criterion for semistability of a Higgs bundle having a structure of a system of Hodge bundles.
Theorem 3.1**.**
Assume that . Let be a Higgs bundle on which admits a structure of a system of Hodge bundles . Suppose that, is an isomorphism of –modules, for all . If is semistable, for all , then is a semistable Higgs bundle.
To prove this theorem, we need the following useful inequalities:
Lemma 3.2** (Chebyshev’s sum inequalities).**
Let and be two finite sequence of real numbers.
- (i)
If and , then we have
[TABLE] 2. (ii)
If and , then we have
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let be an integer. Then for any integers and , with , we have
[TABLE]
Proof of Theorem 3.1.
Since , for all , we have,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Now for any integer , by (3.4) and (3.5) we have,
[TABLE]
It follows from (3.6) and Lemma 3.3 that
[TABLE]
Suppose on the contrary that is not semistable. Let be the unique maximal semistable proper Higgs subsheaf of with
[TABLE]
It follows from [LSYZ, Lemma 2.4] that admits a structure of system of Hodge bundle; in particular, , with , for all .
Since is an isomorphism, we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, implies , for all . Let be the largest integer such that . Then . Now from (3.9), we have
[TABLE]
Since and is semistable by assumption, using (3.5), we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, using (3.10) and (3.4), applying Lemma 3.2 (i), from (3.11), we have
[TABLE]
Now from (3.4) and (3.12), applying Lemma 3.2 (ii), we have
[TABLE]
Then from (3.13) and (3.7), we have
[TABLE]
which contradicts (3.8). Therefore, is semistable. ∎
Remark 3.1**.**
Note that, semistability of forces to be semistable. It follows from the relation (3.4) and (3.5) that , in Theorem 3.1, is semistable if and only if . Therefore, we get many examples of semistable Higgs bundles on whose underlying vector bundle is not semistable.
Remark 3.2**.**
If , it is expected that, if and all are strongly semistable, then is strongly semistable; meaning that all the Frobenius pullbacks of are semistable.
We now give an example to show that a semistable Higgs bundle in Theorem 3.1 may not be stable, in general.
Example 3.1**.**
Let be an irreducible smooth complex projective algebraic curve of genus . Then is a line bundle of degree on . Let and set . Then is a rank strictly semistable vector bundle of degree on . Take and define . Clearly, . Fix and consider it as an –module isomorphism . Define an –module homomorphism by the matrix
[TABLE]
Then is a system of Hodge bundles on satisfying all conditions in Theorem 3.1. So is a semistable Higgs bundle on . Since is not stable, there is a line subbundle of with . Let and define . Then and
[TABLE]
Therefore, is not stable.
Unless otherwise mentioned, from now on, we assume that .
Lemma 3.4**.**
Let be an unstable torsion free coherent sheaf of –modules on . Let
[TABLE]
be the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of . Then for any semistable vector bundle on ,
[TABLE]
is the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of .
Proof.
For each , consider the exact sequence of coherent sheaves :
[TABLE]
Since is locally free, tensoring (3.14) with , we get
[TABLE]
Then the result follows from the fact that is semistable (see e.g., [HL]) and , for all . ∎
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let and be two isomorphic unstable torsion free coherent sheaf of –modules on . Let be the maximal destabilizing subsheaf of . Then for any two –module isomorphisms , we have , and this is the maximal destabilizing subsheaf of .
Proof.
This follows from the fact that the maximal destabilizing subsheaf is invariant under all –module automorphisms of the coherent sheaf. ∎
Theorem 3.6**.**
Assume that is semistable with . Let be a Higgs bundle on admitting a structure of a system of Hodge bundles given by with isomorphisms, for all . Then is semistable if and only if is semistable.
Proof.
Since , for all , and is semistable, for any we have, is semistable if and only if is semistable. Therefore, if is semistable, then is semistable by Theorem 3.1. We now show the converse part.
Let be semistable. Tensoring with a sufficiently large degree line bundle, if required, we may assume that , for all . Suppose that, is not semistable. Let be the maximal destabilizing subsheaf of , for all . Since is an isomorphism, it follows from Lemma 3.4 and Lemma 3.5 that , for all . Therefore, we have
[TABLE]
where . Clearly is a Higgs subsheaf of . Now from (3.15) we have,
[TABLE]
Therefore, , which contradicts the fact that is semistable. ∎
3.2. Criterion for stability of a system of Hodge bundles
Let .
Definition 3.2**.**
A Higgs bundle is said to be simple if any non-zero Higgs endomorphism of is an isomorphism.
Proposition 3.7**.**
Assume that . Let be a Higgs bundle on having a structure of a system of Hodge bundles: , with isomorphism, for all . If is stable, for all , then is simple.
Proof.
Since , for all , the matrix of is strictly block-upper triangular and of the form :
[TABLE]
where , for all . Let be a non-zero –module homomorphism with
[TABLE]
For any , let be the composite homomorphism
[TABLE]
where is the projection of onto the -th factor. It follows from (3.16) that the matrix of is block-upper triangular :
[TABLE]
Since , and are stable by assumption, , for some , for all , and , for all . Therefore, is the diagonal matrix . It follows from the relation (3.16) that . Since , we must have , and hence is an isomorphism. ∎
Definition 3.3**.**
A semistable Higgs bundle is said to be polystable if it is a direct sum of stable Higgs bundles.
Every semistable Higgs sheaf contains a unique maximal polystable Higgs subsheaf, called the socle of . The socle of is invariant under all Higgs automorphisms of .
Remark 3.3**.**
Note that, a simple polystable Higgs bundle is necessarily stable.
Theorem 3.8**.**
Assume that , and . Let be a Higgs bundle on having a structure of a system of Hodge bundles: , with isomorphism, for all . If is stable, for each , then is stable.
Proof.
Clearly is semistable by Theorem 3.1. Suppose that is not stable. Then its socle is the unique non-zero proper maximal polystable Higgs subsheaf with . Clearly, is invariant under the –action on . Therefore, admits a structure of a system of Hodge bundles, say , with , for all . It follows from the proof of [LSYZ, Lemma 2.4] that, , for all . Since is an isomorphism, we have , for all . Let be the largest integer such that . Then . Since is a proper subsheaf of , there is at least one such that . Since all are stable, we have,
[TABLE]
and the inequality (3.17) is strict for at least one . Then from (3.17), following the inequality computations as in proof of Theorem 3.1, we have
[TABLE]
which contradicts the fact that . Therefore, is polystable. Then by Proposition 3.7, is stable. ∎
Theorem 3.9**.**
Assume that . Let be an irreducible smooth projective algebraic curve of genus . Let be a Higgs bundle on admitting a structure of a system of Hodge bundles : with an isomorphism, for all . Then is stable if and only if is stable, for all .
Proof.
Suppose that, is stable. It follows from Theorem 3.6 that is semistable, for all . Since is a line bundle on , for any we see that, stable if and only if is stable. Suppose that is not stable. Then there is a non-zero proper stable subsheaf with . Since is an isomorphism of onto , for all , there is a subsheaf such that is isomorphism, for all . Then is a Higgs subsheaf of . Now a similar computation as in the proof of Theorem 3.6 shows that , which contradicts the fact that is stable. ∎
Remark 3.4**.**
It is expected that for with is stable and , if in Theorem 3.9 is stable then all are polystable.
Remark 3.5**.**
Note that, in the proofs of all Theorems in this Section, we have used only semistability (or stability) of and the condition . Therefore, with appropriate notion of semistability and stability of pairs with , all Theorems in this Section 3 hold if we replace with any semistable (or stable) vector bundle on of degree (or, ).
3.3. Examples of unstable system of Hodge bundles
We now give two examples to show that the isomorphism conditions in Theorem 3.1 are crucial.
Example 3.2**.**
Let be a smooth complex projective curve of genus . Let be a line bundle of degree on . Let be a non-trivial extension of and . So we have a short exact sequence of –modules
[TABLE]
Then is semistable, but not necessarily stable. Let , where . Then , and hence . Since , we have . Define a Higgs field by
[TABLE]
Then is a Higgs bundle having a structure of a system of Hodge bundles on . Note that, ** is surjective, but not isomorphism**. Since is a –invariant, is not semistable.
Example 3.3**.**
Let be a smooth projective curve of genus over . Let be a line bundle on of positive degree. Let and . Since , choosing with sufficiently large, we can find a non-zero –module homomorphism . Note that, ** is injective**, because both and are line bundles, but ** is not an isomorphism**. Define an –module homomorphism by
[TABLE]
Then is a Higgs bundle having a structure of a system of Hodge bundles on . Since is a –invariant subbundle of positive degree, is not semistable.
We now shows that, if all are not semistable may fail to be semistable.
Example 3.4**.**
Let be a smooth complex projective curve of genus . Fix a square root of the cotangent bundle on . Let be a positive degree line bundle on . Consider the line bundles and on . Let , where and . Clearly, . Consider the –module homomorphism defined by
[TABLE]
where is the projection homomorphism onto the second factor. Then is a Higgs bundle of degree [math] having a structure of a system of Hodge bundles on . Note that, ** is not semistable**, and is surjective, but not isomorphism. Since is a –invariant subbundle of positive degree, is not semistable.
4. Generalized Oper
4.1. Semistability of generalized oper
It is not know if the Higgs bundle , defined in Section 2.2 associated to a Griffiths transversal filtration with respect to a flat connection on , is semistable or not. In this section, we give a criterion for semistability of .
Definition 4.1**.**
An oper is a triple consists of a vector bundle on together with a flat connection and a Griffiths transversal filtration (see (2.3)) of by its subbundles (see Definition 2.2), such that the quotients are line bundles on and the –linear homomorphisms in (2.6) induced by are isomorphisms, for all .
Let us first recall the following well-known result.
Proposition 4.1**.**
[Si1, p. 186]** Let be a connected smooth complex projective curve of genus . Let be an oper on . Then the associated Higgs bundle on is semistable.
We give a natural generalization of the above result for higher ranks and higher dimensional algebraic varieties.
Definition 4.2**.**
A generalized oper is a triple consists of a vector bundle on together with a flat connection and a Griffiths transversal filtration (see (2.3)) of by its subbundles (see Definition 2.2), such that the quotients are semistable vector bundles on and the –linear homomorphisms in (2.6) induced by are isomorphisms, for all .
Remark 4.1**.**
Note that, if is a generalized oper on and , then is the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of .
Theorem 4.2**.**
Let be a generalized oper on . If , then the associated Higgs bundle on is semistable, where .
Proof.
Since has a structure of a system of Hodge bundles, all are semistable and all are isomorphisms, by Theorem 3.1, is semistable. ∎
Remark 4.2**.**
- (1)
If is a smooth complex projective curve of genus , then we get Proposition 4.1 as a corollary to the Theorem 4.2. 2. (2)
With appropriate notion of logarithmic Higgs semistability, Theorem 4.2 holds for logarithmic connections singular over an effective divisor, using similar techniques.
4.2. Semistability of Connections
As before, let be a smooth polarized projective variety over and algebraically closed field of characteristic , and the cotangent bundle is semistable and of non-negative degree.
Definition 4.3**.**
Let be a torsion free coherent sheaf on together with a connection . Then the pair is said to be semistable (respectively, stable) if for any non-zero proper –submodule with torsion free quotient sheaf on such that , we have (respectively, ).
Definition 4.4**.**
A partial oper is a triple consisting of a vector bundle on together with a flat connection and a filtration of by its subbundles on which is Griffiths transversal with respect to such that the induced Higgs bundle is semistable on .
Given a vector bundle on together with a semistable flat connection on , Lan-Sheng-Yang-Zuo proved that there is a filtration of such that the triple is a partial oper on (see [LSYZ, Theorem 2.2]). We now prove some sort of converse of the above result.
Theorem 4.3**.**
Let be a vector bundle on a smooth projective variety over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic. Let be a connection (not necessarily flat) on . Let
[TABLE]
be a -Griffiths transversal filtration of by its subbundles such that the induced –module homomorphism is a Higgs field on (i.e., in ), and the Higgs bundle is semistable. Then the pair is semistable.
Proof.
If were not semistable, then there is a non-zero proper –submodule such that and
[TABLE]
The filtration induces a filtration on
[TABLE]
where , for all . Since , the injective homomorphisms , induced by the inclusions , fits into the following commutative diagram of –module homomorphisms
[TABLE]
where is the restriction of , for all . So is a non-zero Higgs subsheaf of the semistable Higgs bundle . Now a simple degree rank computation shows that
[TABLE]
which contradicts the inequality (4.1). Therefore, is semistable. ∎
Corollary 4.4**.**
Let be a vector bundle on together with a flat connection . Suppose that admits a filtration by its subbundles
[TABLE]
which is Griffiths transversal with respect to , and the –induced –module homomorphisms are isomorphisms, for all . Then the pair is semistable if is semistable, for all .
Proof.
If is zero, then for any flat connection on , the pair is automatically semistable. This follows from the fact that any non-zero coherent sheaf on admitting a flat connection has zero first Chern class, and hence has zero slope with respect to any polarization on . This is not the case if .
If , since is semistable by Theorem 3.1, we are done by using Theorem 4.3. ∎
Remark 4.3**.**
Corollary 4.4 was proved over smooth projective curve in positive characteristics by Joshi-Pauly (see [JP, Proposition 3.4.4]).
Acknowledgement
This work is supported by the Post-doctoral fellowship of the Institute of Mathematical Sciences (HBNI), Chennai, India.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[Bi] Indranil Biswas, Criterion for connections on principal bundles over a pointed Riemann surface, Complex Manifolds 4 (2017), 155–171 . · doi ↗
- 2[JP] Kirti Joshi and Christian Pauly, Hitchin-Mochizuki morphism, opers and Frobenius-destabilized vector bundles over curves, Adv. Math. 274 (2015) 39–75 . · doi ↗
- 3[HL] Daniel Huybrechts, Manfred Lehn, The geometry of moduli spaces of sheaves . Second edition. Cambridge Mathematical Library. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge , 2010. xviii+325 pp.
- 4[LSYZ] Guitang Lan, Mao Sheng, Yanhong Yang and Kang Zuo, Semistable Higgs bundles of small ranks are strongly Higgs semistable, ar Xiv:1311.2405 .
- 5[Si 1] Carlos Simpson, Iterated destabilizing modifications for vector bundles with connection , Vector bundles and complex geometry , 183–206, Contemp. Math. , 522 , Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI , 2010.
- 6[Si 2] Carlos T. Simpson, Higgs bundles and local systems, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. 75 (1992), 5–95.
