ExcitingAds! Exciting Ads Shopping Search Engine Advanced Online Portal arXiv

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

DENNIS ERIKSSON

Abstract. This article is motivated by the need for better understanding of

refined Riemann-Roch theorems and the behavior of the determinant of the co-

homology. This poses a certain problem of functoriality and can be understood

as that of giving refined constructions of operations in algebraic K-theory. In

this article this is specialized to mean refining the excess formula, which mea-

sures the failure of base change, to the level of Deligne’s virtual category. We

give a natural set of properties for such a refinement, and prove that there

exists a unique family of excess formulas on this refined level satisfying these

properties.

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Preliminaries and conventions

3. A rough excess isomorphism

4. Formulation of the main theorem

5. The case of closed immersions, uniqueness

6. The case of closed immersions, rougher excess and existence

7. Projective bundle projections - uniqueness and existence

8. General excess isomorphism

Appendix A. Deformation to the normal cone

References

Keywords: Virtual categories, Excess formula, K-theory.

AMS 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 14C35, 14C40, 19E08, 19E15.

DENNIS ERIKSSON

1. Introduction

Recall the excess formula in K-theory. It relates the behavior of base change of

pushforward whenever the resulting diagram is not Tor-independent (for example

non-flat base change) and we use the following formulation: For a Cartesian diagram

X g′

f′

X′ g Y′,

where g and g′ are arbitrary morphisms, and f and f ′ are projective local complete

intersection morphisms we have an equality

(

)

λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!(x)

= g!f!(x)

in K0(X′), for x ∈ K0(Y ), at least if the schemes are suitable (having the reso-

lution property, see Section 2). Here E denotes the excess bundle measuring the

difference of the conormal bundles of f and f ′ when they are closed immersions

(see Section 3, Definition 5). A reference is [FL85], chapter VI. The functorial form

of the excess formula is then a construction of a canonical isomorphism of objects

in the virtual category, a certain categorical refinement of K0 introduced in [Del87]

(see below and beginning of section 2), that realizes this formula. Informally, the

main issue of this article is to show that the deformation to the normal cone is

"functorial enough", which forces us to go through a lot of cumbersome notation,

and to give a set of properties that characterize the most obvious candidate for an

excess isomorphism which is obtained by the aforementioned deformation. We solve

this problem and give properties that characteristize the lifting uniquely, up to sign.

The general framework is inspired by Deligne’s article [Del87] where there is a

proposed problem of constructing refinements in terms of "higher equivalences", of

the Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch identity

ch(f!V ) = f∗(ch(V ) Td(Tf )),

which is valid in Chow-theory, for a proper morphism f : X → Y of suitable schemes

and V is a vector bundle on X. Here f! (resp. f∗) is the pushforward in K-theory

(resp. Chow-theory), see [FL85], chapter V, §7 or [SGA6], VIII, Théorème 3.6 for

a precise formulation of the theorem. We insist on the notation f! to distinguish

it from the direct image of a sheaf. The term "higher equivalences" can be inter-

preted as introducing functoriality, i.e. replacing the groups involved by categories,

the maps by functors and the identity by a natural transformation of functors. In

[Del87] it is suggested that there might be a higher categorical framework for this.

As an approximate categorification of the K-theory involved, Deligne introduces the

virtual category, which we can think of as a truncation of some still unknown higher

category. It amounts to the fundamental groupoid of the Quillen Q-construction of

the category of vector bundles on the scheme in question, which has the structure

of a category and satisfies a certain universal property similar to that of K0 (see

beginning of section 2). It is particulary well-suited for studying secondary invari-

ants in K-theory and the degree one part of the above identity, and can be seen to

contain information about the determinant of the cohomology. This is also what is

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

studied in [Del87], in the case of families of smooth curves, where the best possible

results are obtained, completely describing the twelfth power of the determinant

of the cohomology in terms of functorial line bundles corresponding to terms in

Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch (see loc.cit. Théorème 9.9 for a precise statement).

For degenerations of curves this isomorphism was studied by T. Saito and was used

to prove a discriminant-conductor-formula (cf. [Sai88a]).

One of issues encountered when studying the above types of functoriality is re-

lated to the excess formula, the main topic of this article. In [EriA] this formula

will serve as the model for the functorial Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch-theorem in

the case of closed immersions, but should have independent interest. The excess

formula is a case where one can make use of the deformation to the normal cone

which is general enough to go through the main arguments of functorality, and at

the same time an easy enough situation so that the arguments become writable.

It should also be noted that these types of excess formulas are one of the main

ingredients for Lefschetz fixed point formulas in equivariant K-theory (cf. [Tho86],

[Tho93]) whose functorial versions we will also return to in the future article already

mentioned. The main result (Theorem 4.1) is also a K-theoretic version of a result

by Franke in [Fra], which unfortunately remains unpublished, where a functorial

form of the Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch theorem already appears. It is moreover

a slight improvement on Theorem 3.1 in [Tho93], which gives the theorem "up to

homotopy". The present article ameliorates this to give the same type of result but

refined "up to homotopy up to homotopy" (and "up to sign"), when we consider

the virtual category as a truncation of the K-theory space using the description as

a fundamental groupoid mentioned above.

The article is organized as follows. In Section 2 and 3 we establish preliminar-

ies for virtual categories and define a "rough" excess isomorphism. "Rough" here

indicates that it a priori depends on some choices in a model situation. In Section

4 we formulate the main result (Theorem 4.1), which states that given a natural

set of properties of the excess isomorphism, it exists and is uniquely determined

by those properties. This is proved in the sections 5-7. The proof of the main

result proceeds by a deformation to the normal cone argument which we review in

the appendix together with some more or less well-known facts, formulated in the

category of algebraic stacks.

It should finally be noted that one of the main initial motivations for Deligne’s

program was to understand the Quillen metric. From this point of view the de-

formation to the normal cone is quite natural, since it is usually not enough to

compute with Tor-functors as in [SGA6] loc.cit., if one also wants to control met-

rics. This particular application to metrics will be considered in another paper.

Acknowledgements: I’d like to thank Marc Levine, Damian Rössler and Takeshi

Saito for several helpful commentaries and criticisms on an early version of the

material that is in this paper. I also want to thank Joël Riou for pointing out that

an argument in section 8 was insufficient and Lars Halvard Halle for his reading

and comments on the manuscript.

DENNIS ERIKSSON

2. Preliminaries and conventions

In this article all schemes and algebraic spaces are separated and noetherian.

A(n algebraic) stack is an Artin stack X over a basescheme S. Given a smooth pre-

sentation X0 → X it is equivalent to (cf. [LMB00], Proposition 4.3.1) an S-space

in groupoids [X•] = [X1⇒tX0] (see idem, 2.4.3, for the definition), where Xi are S-

algebraic spaces and the two morphisms s and t are smooth and

δ=(s,b):X1 →X0×S X0 isseparatedandquasi-compact. Amorphismofstacks

is a 1-morphism, and we will pretend that there are no issues with 2-morphisms.

For the reader worried about this the results only apply to the case of equivariant

schemes (possibly with trivial group), which is also the main application in mind.

These problems can be circumvented by introducing the appropriate natural trans-

formations corresponding to 2-commutative diagrams. In the same vein, a Cartesian

diagram of morphisms of stacks is a 2-Cartesian diagram. A quasi-coherent sheaf

F on X is a Cartesian quasi-coherent sheaf on the associated simplicial S-space

X• for some smooth presentation X0 → X (see [Ols07] Definition 6.9 for the pre-

cise definition or [LMB00] Définition 13.1.7 and Proposition 13.2.1). Morphisms of

quasi-coherent sheaves are given by morphisms respecting this extra structure. A

representable morphism of stacks f : X → Y gives rise to a commutative diagram

of Cartesian squares

X1 ×X

Y1 ×Y

0 X1

0 Y1

where fi are morphisms of algebraic spaces, and X0 → X is a smooth presentation

and Y0 = Y0 ×Y X → X. We will often implicitly use this diagram to make construc-

tions by a Cech argument. In this article we will basically only be concerned with

representable morphisms. As a guiding word, properties or operations on schemes

which commute with smooth base change or are local for smooth morphisms on al-

gebraic spaces carry over to this situation, and we will assume throughout that this

is so unless explicitly mentioned. We will moreover freely use the results of [LMB00].

We review also the definition of the virtual category V (C) of an exact category C.

Recall first that a Picard category P is a symmetric monoidal groupoid such that for

any object x in the category, x+ : P → x + P is an equivalence of categories. More

informally a "categorical group", or a group object in the category of groupoids,

with sum and associativity-isomorphisms instead of identities (cf.

[Del87], 4.1.

Section 4 of idem is also the main reference for virtual categories used here). An

additive functor of Picard categories is a functor respecting these structures.

Definition 1 ([Del87], 4.3). Denote by (C, iso) the subcategory of C with the same

objects but only isomorphisms as morphisms. Suppose we have functor

[−] : (C, iso) → P

where P is a Picard category, satisfying the following three conditions:

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

(a) Additivity on exact sequences, i.e. for an exact sequence

0→A→B→C →0

we have an isomorphism [B] ≃ [A] + [C], and compatibility with isomor-

phisms of exact sequences.

(b) For a zero-object 0C (resp. 0P ) of C (resp. P ), we are given an isomorphism

[0C ] ≃ 0P in P . If

0→A→B→0→0

is an exact sequence, with the first map being an isomorphism f , then the

induced isomorphism [B] ≃ [A] + [0] ≃ [A] is [f ]. We demand the analogous

statement for an exact sequence 0 → 0 → A → B → 0.

Any such functor is called a determinant functor. The virtual category is a Picard

category V (C), together with a determinant functor [−] : (C, iso) → V (C) such that

any determinant functor [−] : (C, iso) → P factors uniquely up to unique natural

transformation through (C, iso) → V (C).

Theorem 2.1 ([Del87], section 4). The virtual category exists, and moreover, for

any Picard category P , the functor from Hom(V (C), P ) → Hom((C, iso), P ) is an

equivalence of categories on the full subcategories of additive functors and determi-

nant functors.

By idem, the category V (C) also has the description as the fundamental groupoid

of the Quillen Q-construction. Thus the group of isomorphism classes of any object

of the virtual category is usual Grothendieck group, K0(C) and the automorphism

group of any object is isomorphic to Quillen’s K1(C) so the virtual category inter-

polates between the two. From this description it follows that faithfulness (resp.

fullness) of functors between virtual categories can be read from injectivity (resp.

bijectivity) on induced maps on K1. An additive functor between virtual categories

is an equivalence of categories if it induces an isomorphism on K0 and K1.

Definition 2. For an algebraic stack X we denote by V (X) the virtual category of

vector bundles on X. We denote by + : V (X) × V (X) → V (X) the natural direct

sum functor of virtual vector bundles. We denote by ⊗ : V (X) × V (X) → V (X)

the natural tensor product on the virtual category induced by the tensor product

of vector bundles.

Given any morphism f : X → Y , we have functors f ! : V (Y ) → V (X) induced

by pulling back vector bundles. We will sometimes, for a vector bundle V , write

f∗V for the associated object in the virtual category to emphasize that the object

is just the pullback of the vector bundle along f . The association X → V (X) is a

functor from the 2-category of stacks to the 2-category of Picard categories (Picard

categories, additive functors, natural transformation of additive functors).

The following is proved as in [Tho87a], Theorem 3.1, which is by reduction by

naturality to the case considered in [Qui73], Theorem 2.1, p. 58.

Lemma 2.2. [Projective bundle theorem] Let X be an algebraic stack and V be a

isomorphism Ki(X)r ≃ Ki(P(V )) induced by (Vi) → ∑f∗Vi ⊗ O(i)on therlevelaof

vector bundles.

DENNIS ERIKSSON

Definition 3. An algebraic stack X has the resolution property if every coherent

sheaf on X admits a surjection from a vector bundle.

The main theorem is formulated in terms of algebraic stacks (with the resolution

property), but in practical situations it seems one only needs to consider the case of

schemes with the action of an algebraic group. Indeed, the result in [Tot04] states

that noetherian normal algebraic stacks with affine stabilizer groups at closed points

have the resolution property if and only if they are the stack-quotients of a quasi-

affine scheme with the action of GLn, and the reader not familiar with stacks lose

little or nothing in supposing that we are actually even working with schemes. We

refer to [Tho87b] for a detailed study of schemes with the resolution property for

equivariant coherent sheaves. We will need the following two statements:

Lemma 2.3. Suppose X is an algebraic stack which has the resolution property.

Then:

• If i : Z → X is a (representable) closed immersion, then Z has the resolution

property.

• If V is a vector bundle on X, then P(V ) has the resolution property.

Proof. For the first point, if F is a coherent sheaf on Z, then there exists a surjection

E → i∗F for a vector bundle E on X, and thus a surjection i∗E → i∗i∗F = F.

For the second point, denote by p : P(V ) → X the projection. Given a coherent

sheaf on F on P(V ), since X is noetherian, for big enough n, there is a surjection

p∗p∗(F(n)) → F(n) where F(n) = F ⊗ O(n). We conclude since p∗(F(n)) admits

a surjection from a vector bundle.

□

The following is standard:

Corollary 2.4. Suppose that f

: X

→ Y is a (representable) projective local

complete intersection morphism of algebraic stacks, such that Y has the resolu-

tion property. Then there is a direct image functor f! : V (X) → V (Y ). More-

over, given the composition of two projective local complete intersection morphisms

f : X → Y,g : Y → Z, such that Z has the resolution property, then there is a

natural transformation (f g)! = f!g!.

→Y. By the

above, all involved objects have the resolution property. We construct a direct image

for i and p respectively and leave it to the reader to verify that the composition

is independent of factorization, up to canonical natural transformation (this can

be done as in [FL85], chapter V, Proposition 5.1, or what is basically the same,

Section 8 of this article). Suppose first that f is a regular closed immersion. Then

the direct image f∗ is an exact functor from the category of vector bundles on

X to the category of coherent sheaves on Y admitting a finite resolution of vector

bundles, P , and induces an additive functor on the associated virtual categories. By

[Qui73], Corollary 1, p.

25, the natural map Ki(Y ) → Ki(P) is an isomorphism.

In particular for i = 0, 1, so the induced functor on virtual categories V (Y ) →

V ((P, iso)) is an equivalence of categories and we define the functor using this.

Suppose now that f is a projective bundle projection. By Lem0 →∑, there is an

equivalence of categories V (X)r → V (P(V )) induced by (Vi)i

f∗Vi ⊗ O(i)

and we define the direct image component wise by f!(f ∗Vi ⊗ O(i)) = Vi ⊗ Symi V ∨.

This defines the required functor.

□

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

The following statement includes the statement that the projection formula com-

mutes with base change on the level of schemes and algebraic spaces.

Lemma 2.5. Suppose that f : X → Y is a (representable) local complete intersec-

tion projective morphism and that Y has the resolution property. Then there is a

projection formula isomorphism

f!(f!x ⊗ y) ≃ x ⊗ f!y.

This isomorphism also commutes with Tor-independent base change (see next para-

graph) and the composition of two projection formula isomorphisms is the projection

formula isomorphism for the composition.

For the next statement, recall that Tor-independence, or (cohomological) transver-

sality, of two morphisms between schemes, from X′ and X′′ to X means that

the Tor-sheaves ToriX (OX′ , OX′′ ) vanish for i ≥ 1. This is an étale local state-

ment and translates to algebraic spaces, and the same condition for a Carte-

sian diagram of representable morphisms of algebraic stacks has to be interpreted

as Tor-independence on a presentation X0

→ X and the induced morphisms

X′0 = X0 ×X X′ → X0 and X′′0 = X0 ×X X′′ → X0. In this case the con-

struction of the usual base change-isomorphism follows that of the case of algebraic

spaces in [LMB00], Proposition 13.1.9 (i.e. is computed on a Cech cover), and we

obtain:

Lemma 2.6. Suppose that

X g′

f′

X′ g Y′

is a Tor-independent Cartesian diagram of representable morphisms of stacks with

the resolution property, such that f and f ′ are local complete intersection projective

morphisms. Then there is a base change isomorphism

g!f!x ≃ f′!g′!x.

The composition of base change isomorphisms is the base change isomorphism of

the composition.

Finally, we will moreover work with a strictly commutative version of the virtual

category of vector bundles, defined as follows:

Definition

4. The objects of V±(X) and V (X) are the same. We define

HomV

±(X)(A, B) as the quotient of HomV (X)(A, B) by the relation that two mor-

phisms h, h′ : A → B are equal if h ◦ h′−1 = [−1] ∈ Aut(A). Here, for A = O,

[−1] corresponds to the automorphism of the trivial vector bundle sending the unit

section 1 to -1.

Remark 2.6.1. It is not difficult to see ([Del87], 4.9) that the above element is

the automorphism of V deduced from the symmetry V + V ′ ≃ V + V ′ evaluated

at V

= V′ and then subtracting V. So commutativity becomes strict. We also

distributive functor ⊙:V (X) × V (X) → V (X), therehare two waysfoflconstructing

the isomorphism (−V ) ⊙ (−V ′) ≃ V ⊙ V ′. These two isomorphisms are only equal

up to sign, but become completely canonical in the above category.

DENNIS ERIKSSON

We give an important example, for this article, of an operation which becomes

independent of such choices, in this context.

Example 1. Given a vector bundle E, put λ−1(E) := ∑(−1)iΛiE, for exterior

λ−1(E′ +E′′) ≃ λ−1(E′)⊗λ−1(E′′), deduced from Λn(E′ +E′′) ≃ ∑ ΛqE′⊗Λn−qE′′

becomes completely canonical and commutative in the above category. Slightly

more generally, for an exact sequence, 0 → E′ → E → E′′ → 0, there is a canonical

isomorphism

(1)

λ−1(E) ≃ λ−1(E′) ⊗ λ−1(E′′).

The hidden isomorphism Λn(E) ≃ ∑ Λq E′ ⊗ Λn−q E′′ is the one coming from the

filtration

FqΛnE=Im[ΛqE′ ⊗Λn−qE→ΛnE]

on ΛnE, and the isomorphism FqΛnE/Fq+1ΛnE ≃ ΛqE′ ⊗ Λn−qE′′. One verifies

that this is also compatible with admissible filtrations. This isomorphism will be

used repeatedly in what follows suit. If we could write down the isomorphism (1) in

a functorial way with sign the main result of this article could probably be refined

to the virtual category.

3. A rough excess isomorphism

We first give an explicit construction of an excess isomorphism in the special

case that we dispose of compatible Koszul resolutions and the general problem in

the general situation will be to reduce to this case. We also suppose that all the

stacks have the resolution property.

Suppose we are given a Cartesian diagram of representable morphisms,

X g′

f′

X′ g Y′

with f (and thus f ′) is a closed immersion. Let x be a virtual vector bundle on Y .

Suppose we have two morphisms σ : N ∨ → OY ′ , σ′ : N ′∨ → OX′ defining Koszul-

resolutions of OY and OX respectively that are compatible in the sense that we

have a morphism γ : g∗N ∨ → N ′∨ compatible with the resolutions g∗σ and σ′ in

such a way that the natural diagram

g∗N∨ γ N′∨

g∗OY ′

OX′

commutes. This implies that f and f′ are both closed regular immersions.

Writing I and (resp. I′) for the ideals defining the immersions f : X → Y

(resp.

f′ : X′ → Y′) and let

= I/I2 and

= I′/I′2 be the conormal bundles of

f′

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

the immersions. By restricting to X via f ′ we obtain a commutative diagram

f′∗g∗N∨ f′∗γ f′∗N′∨

g′∗

f′

where the vertical morphisms necessarily are isomorphisms. Denote the kernel of

γ by E.

Definition 5. We define the excess bundle E := ker[N

→

(cf.

[Ful98],

f′]

Section 6.3. Our definition is however dual to the one given there).

Then f ′∗E ≃ E so E provides an extension of E to X′. Also, suppose that the

virtual vector bundle x extends to a virtual vector bundle xY ′ on Y ′, i.e. there is

an isomorphism r : f∗xY ′ → x. Then we define an isomorphism by

σ,xY ′ ,r

Ψx

≃

λ−1(g∗N ∨) ⊗ g!(xY ′ )

Y′,σ,σ′,r(x):g!f!(x)

≃

λ−1(E) ⊗ λ−1(N ′∨) ⊗ g!(xY ′ )

σ′

≃

f′! (OX ) ⊗ λ−1(E) ⊗ g!(xY ′ )

≃

f′! (f ′!(λ−1(E) ⊗ g!(xY ′ )))

≃

f′! (λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!x).

The first isomorphism is given by the extension xY ′ together with the resolution

σ and then applying g!. On the second to last line we use the projection formula

once again, and then the definition of f ′! for the last line. We will show that this

isomorphism is independent of the subscripts xY ′ , σ, σ′, r. Actually, assuming addi-

tivity in the data, the obvious comparison immediately gives that the isomorphism

does not depend on the extension.

Definition 6. The above isomorphism is the rough excess isomorphism with re-

spect to xY ′ , σ, σ′, r.

Lemma 3.1. Suppose that the above square is Tor-independent. Then the con-

structed rough excess isomorphism coincides with the base change isomorphism.

→

f′!g′!x the base change isomorphism. The statement of

the lemma is that for an extension xY ′ of x to Y ′, the outer contour of following

DENNIS ERIKSSON

diagram

g!f!(x) σ

g!xY ′ ⊗ g!λ−1N∨ γ

g!xY ′ ⊗ λ−1N′∨

❖

❖❖

❖

❖❖

σ′

❖❖

❖

g!xY ′ ⊗ g!f!OYg!xY′⊗cOYg!xY ′ ⊗

!g′!OY

!g′!x

f′! (f ′!g!xY ′ )

is commutative. Here the outer right contour connecting g!f!x and f!′g′!x is the pro-

posed rough excess isomorphism. First of all, the triangles commute per definition.

The middle horizontal morphism is the base change isomorphism for the trivial

bundle OX tensored with the virtual bundle g!xY ′ . The square commutes since it

is induced by the natural isomorphisms g!λ−1N ∨ → λ−1N ′∨ and the commutative

diagram

g∗I

I′

g∗OY ′

OX′

g∗f∗OY

f′∗OX

f′∗g′∗OY

with exact columns and vertical isomorphisms. To show the large inner contour

commutes, to identify the additive functors we can assume by Theorem 2.1 that

x = f∗V′ for an actual vector bundle V′ on Y′. Then the statement is simply

compatibility of base change with the projection formula.

□

4. Formulation of the main theorem

Let henceforth "virtual category" and "virtual objects" be substitutes for "strictly

commutative virtual category" and "strictly commutative virtual objects" (cf. Def-

inition 4). The main issue is that we want to apply Example 1 above. Also make

the assumption that all the algebraic stacks considered have the resolution property

(cf. Section 2, Definition 3). We will also only consider representable morphisms

except when considering the deformation to the normal cone where a certain mor-

phism to P1 will in general not be representable. The main result of this article is

the following:

Theorem 4.1. Suppose we have a Cartesian square E of S-stacks (for some scheme

S) and representable morphisms

X g′

f′

X′ g Y′,

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

that g and g′ are arbitrary morphisms and that suppose f and f ′ are projective local

complete intersection morphisms. Then there is a family of natural transformations

of additive functors in the virtual category of vector bundles:

(

)

ΨE :

λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!(x)

≃ g!f!(x)

where E is the excess bundle. It is unique if we impose the following properties (or

conditions):

(a)

Stability under Tor-independent base change: Consider the fol-

lowing cubical diagram

g′

⑧

f′

⑧

′

Y′

q′′

q′

g′

q′′′

⑧

f′

⑧

X′

Y′

where the right-hand and left-hand vertical squares are Tor-independent and

Cartesian. The upper and lower diagrams are denoted by

E and E respec-

tively and are supposed to be as in the introduction. Symbolically we sum-

marize the cube by a morphism of diagrams Q : E → E. Then there is a

commutative diagram of natural transformations of additive functors:

E (q! )

g′!q!)

˜i!f˜!q!

! (λ−1( E) ⊗

g′=g′q′′′,q′′∗E= E

base change

g!q′!f!

f′! (λ−1(q′′∗E) ⊗ (q′′!g′!))

iq′′′ =q′ g

f′!q′′!(λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!))

basechange

q′′′!(f!(λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!)) q′′′ ∗ ΨE

q′′′!g!f!.

We will sometimes write this as

E ◦Q∗ ≃Q∗ ◦ΨE. In particular there is

an isomorphism Ψ

E (q∗(x)) ≃ q′′′∗ΨE (x).

DENNIS ERIKSSON

(b) Stability under the projection formula: There is a commutative

diagram

(

)

λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!(x ⊗ f !y)

g!f!(x ⊗ f!y)

(

)

λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!(x)

⊗ g!y

g!f!(x) ⊗ g!y

where the horizontal isomorphisms are given by excess and the vertical ones

are given by the projection formula.

Y in Y ′, and that X = X′. Let

0→O(−Y)→OY′ −σ→ OY → 0

be the canonical Koszul resolution. Then, whenever x extends to a virtual

bundle xY ′ on Y ′, ΨE is given by the rough excess isomorphism:

ΨF

≃

λ−1(g∗O(−Y )) ⊗ g!(xY ′ )

Y′,σ :g!f!(x)

g=f g′ ,f ′ =Id

≃

λ−1(g′∗f ′∗O(−Y )) ⊗ g′!f ′!xY ′

≃

λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!x.

(d) Composition: Suppose we are given the composition of an upper Cartesian

diagram E and a lower Cartesian diagram E′ (giving E′′):

X g

e′

X′ g′

Y′

f′

X ′′ g′′ Y ′′

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

with associated excess-bundles E, E′ and E′′, the following diagram com-

mutes

(f ′ ◦ e′)!(λ−1(E′′) ⊗ g!x)

f′◦e′=f′e′

f′!e!(λ−1(E′′) ⊗ g!x)

ΨE′′

0→E→E′′→e′ ∗ E′→0

f′! (λ−1(E′) ⊗ e!(λ−1(E) ⊗ g!x))

ΨE

f′! (λ−1(E′) ⊗ g′!e!(x))

ΨE′

f ◦e=f e

g′′!f!e!(x)

g′′!(f ◦ e)!(x)

where we use the projection formula on second left up-to-down arrow. This

will be written symbolically as

ΨE′ ΨE = ΨE′′

(e)

Trivialization: Suppose f is a local complete intersection projective mor-

phism a(d let x be a vir)ual vector bundle which admits a trivialization.

Then f!′

λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!(x)

and g!f!(x) are both canonically trivialized. We

demand that the excess isomorphism interchanges these trivializations.

Remark 4.1.1. The last property (e) is a consequence of the constraint that the

excess isomorphism should be a natural transformation of additive functors (thus

in particular respecting trivializations). We state it as a separate property since it

is the only condition in the definition of additive functors which is not trivial to

verify using Theorem 2.1.

It moreover follows (see Proposition 7.1), that if E is trivial, then this isomor-

phism is necessarily given by Tor-independent base change. We also record the

following corollary of the theorem:

Corollary 4.2. [Self-Intersection Formula, compare proof of [Sai88b], Lemma 3.2]

Let i : Y → Y ′ be a regular closed embedding with Y ′ being an algebraic stack with

the resolution property. Then we have a functorial isomorphism

i!i!(x) ≃ λ−1(

Y/Y′) ⊗ x.

Proof. Indeed, take X = X′ = Y , f = g = i, f ′ = g′ = Id and use that the

excess-bundle is just the conormal-bundle.

□

Below we show the uniqueness of the isomorphism in the case of closed immer-

sions. After this we provide a construction suggested by the proof of unicity to con-

struct the isomorphism for closed immersions. We then prove that the isomorphism

is necessarily given by base change in the case of projective bundle projections. One

then needs to show that for general projective morphisms, the excess isomorphism

obtained by a factorization does not depend on choice of factorization and thereby

DENNIS ERIKSSON

define the isomorphism in general.

5. The case of closed immersions, uniqueness

The main object of this section is to prove the following theorem:

Theorem 5.1. If f is a closed immersion, then the excess isomorphism, if it exists,

is uniquely determined by the conditions (a) − (e) in the theorem.

Proof. First of all, denote by E the Cartesian diagram

PX G′

F′

M′ G M

where M ′ and M are the deformations to the normal cone of f ′ and f respectively.

Denote by E0 and E∞ the two following diagrams:

g′

(2)

X g′

f′

X′ g Y′

P(N ′ ⊕ 1)

g P(N ⊕ 1)

where

f,f˜′ arethecanonicalzero-sectionswithprojectionsπ′ andπ, gbeinggiven

by the morphisms induced by an inclusion of vector bundles N ′ ⊆ g′∗N. In the

following we abuse notation a bit to show unicity, but only in the sense that was

used in the formulation of the theorem. Thus, for example, ΨE denotes an excess

isomorphism satisfying the properties of the theorem for the diagram E and for

a functor F , F ΨE denotes the image of the excess isomorphism under F . We

have embeddings i0 : E0 → E and i∞ : E∞ → E and a projection Π : E → E0,

satisfying Π ◦ i0 = Id. By property (a) of the theorem we see that ΨE

0i0

= i0ΨE

and ΨE

∞i∞ = i∞ΨE. Also, applying the natural transformations Id ≃ i0Π! and

Id ≃ Π!Ri0,! one sees that the functor ΨE

0 is determined by the functor i0,!i0ΨE Π!.

Fixing a rational function λ on PZ with divisor (0) − (∞) defines an isomorphism

(3)

≃ O(P(N′ ⊕ 1) ∪ D′) ≃ O(P(N′ ⊕ 1)) ⊗ O(D′)

of line bundles on M′. Here P(N′ ⊕1) and D′ are the two components of the blow-

up at infinity in the deformation to the normal cone, intersecting in P(N ′), and the

image of X does not intersect that of D′ (see Appendix). This rational section is

defined up to sign, which will not be seen on the level of the strictly commutative

virtual category. We have natural Koszul resolutions

0→O(−X′)→O→OX′ →0

0→O(−D′)→O→OD′ →0

0→O(−P(N′ ⊕1))→O→OP(N′⊕1) →0

and a resolution

0→O(−D′)⊗O(−P(N′ ⊕1))→O(−D′)⊕O(−P(N′ ⊕1))→O→OP(N′) →0

which together define an isomorphism, via (3) (see also [FL85], Proposition 4.4)

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

≃

(1 − O(−X′)) − (1 − O(−D′)) − (1 − O(−P(N ′ ⊕ 1))

+(1 − O(−P(N ′ ⊕ 1)) ⊗ (1 − O(−D′))

≃ OX′ − OD′ − OP(N ′⊕1) + OP(N ′)

and hence an isomorphism

OX′ ≃ OD′ + OP(N ′⊕1) − OP(N ′).

Via the projection formula this gives an equality

i0,!ΨE

≃ i0,!i0ΨEΠ! ≃ OX′ ⊗ ΨEΠ!

≃ OP(N ′⊕1) ⊗ ΨE Π! + OD′ ⊗ ΨE Π! − OP(N ′) ⊗ ΨE Π!

Since D′ does not intersect the image of Π∗, the conditions (b) and (e) of the

theorem determine OD′ ⊗ ΨE Π! and OP(N ′) ⊗ ΨE Π! and thus i0,!ΨE

0 is determined

OP(N ′ ⊕1) ⊗ ΨE Π! = i∞,!i∞ΨE Π! = i∞,!ΨE

∞i∞Π!.

We recall from Lemma 4.5, chapter V, [FL85] (see the proof for this slightly more

refined statement):

Lemma 5.2. Let F : P → M be a regular embedding, and let Φ : Y → M be a

representable morphism, and consider the fiber square

X f

P F M

If f is a regular embedding of the same codimension as F , then this square is Tor-

independent.

Note also that by symmetry, the same conclusion holds with Ψ and φ in place

of F and f. Now, the diagrams that arise for application of condition (a) are the

following:

X′

M′

P(N ′ ⊕ 1)

M′

Y′

M P(N ⊕ 1)

The morphisms PX ֒→ M ′, PY ֒→ M are both regular by Theorem 4.5, chapter IV,

[FL85], all diagrams Cartesian and codimension is preserved so we can apply the

above lemma. Hence all diagrams are Tor-independent and we can apply (a).

Thus we are reduced to showing uniqueness for the diagram E∞. We proceed by

induction on the dimension of E. In case the dimension of E is 0, then indeed the

diagram is Tor-independent and the isomorphism is fixed by Tor-independent base

change, which is a consequence of condition (a). In the case rk E > 0, consider

the flag variety p : G = Gr1,m,N → Y parameterizing flags L ⊆ M ⊆ N , with

L, M of rank 1, m and m = rkN′. Then p! : V (Y ) → V (G) is faithful (this follows

from injectivity on the level of K1, which follows as in the classical case from the

projective bundle case, cf.

[SGA6], VI, section 4), and an easy verification shows

DENNIS ERIKSSON

that by the Tor-independent base change property we can assume our diagram is

of the form

Gr1,m,g′ ∗N h′ Gr1,m,N

P(h′∗M)

P(p∗N )

where L ⊂ M ⊂ p∗N is the universal flag on G. Suppose we can filter the vector

bundle p∗N/M by a maximal flag on G which is then in particular a flag of p∗N

including M . Then we can compose our big diagram as a composition of smaller

diagrams which are either Tor-independent or codimension 1-cases like in (c). Here

we notice that P(p∗N ) is a projective bundle over Gr1,m,N and so any virtual bun-

dle actually extends as in (c). By (d) this does not depend on the choice of flag

and the assertion of the splitting principle (cf. Section ?? in [EriB]) is that this

isomorphism descends from a maximal flag variety and we conclude .

6. The case of closed immersions, rougher excess and existence

The previous section gave a recipe for the construction of the

excess isomorphism, which we spell out. Let M (resp. M′) be the deformation to

the normal cone of f (resp. f ′). Denote by iD , iD∩P(N ⊕1) (resp. iD′ , iD′∩P(N ′⊕1))

the closed immersions of D and D ∩ P(N ⊕ 1) (resp. D′ and D′ ∩ P(N ′ ⊕ 1)) in M

(resp. M ′). Also denote by π, π′, π and

π′ the natural projective bundle projections

of the various P(? ⊕ 1), and consider the diagram given by a cubical diagram as

in (a). By the universal property of blow-ups ([Ful98], Appendix B.6.9) we obtain

commutative diagram

G′

P1̃

⑥

⑧

F′

⑥

⑧

⑥

⑧

⑥

⑧

⑥

⑧

⑥

⑧

⑥

⑧

G′

M′

Q′′

Q′

Q′′′

G PY

⑤

⑥

F′

⑤

⑥

⑤

⑥

⑤

⑥

⑤

⑥

⑤

⑥

⑤

⑥

G′

M′

where all the squares are Cartesian, except possibly the front and back vertical

ones. We construct a sort of preliminary excess isomorphism for the diagram E∞

considered in (2). If ξ (resp. ξ′) denote π∗N(1) (resp. π′∗N′(1)) on P(N ⊕1) (resp.

P(N ′ ⊕ 1)), we have a short exact sequence

(4)

0→E→g∗ξ∨ →(ξ′)∨ →0

where E is an extension of the excess bundle of the diagram, more precisely π′∗E(−1).

Then we have a canonical Koszul resolution, obtained from the regular section of ξ

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

determined by O(−1) → π∗(N ⊕ 1) → p∗N ,

(5)

0→∧nξ∨ →...→ξ∨ →OP(N⊕1) →

f∗OY → 0.

For the construction, we work with a vector bundle V first be a vector bundle on

X. Since tensoring with a vector bundle preserves exactness, there is a Koszul

resolution:

(6)

∧• ξ∨ ⊗ π∗x →

f∗OY ⊗ π∗x =

f∗(V ).

Applying g! to this we obtain

(∑

)

(7)

g!f˜!V

(−1)i ∧i ξ∨ ⊗ π!V

(∑

)

(−1)i ∧i g∗ξ∨ ⊗ g!π!V

= λ−1(g∗ξ∨) ⊗ π′!g!V

= λ−1((ξ′)∨) ⊗ λ−1(E) ⊗ π′!g!V

(

λ−1(E) ⊗ g!V ) .

The isomorphism from the third and fourth line comes from (4), the isomorphism

between the fourth and the fifth come from a Koszul-resolution and the projection

formula similar to that of (5). This is the rough excess isomorphism already exhib-

ited in Section 3.

In the case of a general diagram E

X g′

f′

X′ g Y′

the isomorphism ΨE is defined in the following fashion, using the notation of the

previous section:

i0,!g!f!(V )

≃

i0,!g!f!i0Π!(V )

≃

i0,!g!i0F!Π!(V )

≃

i0,!i0G!F!Π!(V )

≃

i∞,!i∞G!F!Π!(V ) +

iD′,!iD′ G!F!Π!(V ) −

iD′∩P(N′⊕1),!iD′∩P(N′⊕1)G!F!Π!(V )

≃

i∞,!i∞G!F!Π!(V )

≃

i∞,! g!f˜!(V )

≃

i∞,!f

! (λ−1(E) ⊗ g!(V ))

The term iD′,!iD′ G!F!Π!(V ) is isomorphic by Tor-independent base change to

iD′,!iD′ Π!g!f!(V ) and is canonically trivialized since the intersection of D′ and

D′ ∩ P(N′ ⊕ 1) with Y is empty. The second isomorphism is the rough excess iso-

morphism of (7). Applying Π! on both sides gives the required isomorphism, since

DENNIS ERIKSSON

Πi∞f˜′ = f ′ and (Πi0)X′ = IdX′ . We claim this "rougher excess isomorphism" sat-

isfies the properties of the theorem. The compatibility with the projection formula

in condition (b) is established in a similar way and essentially follows from the nat-

urality of the construction and compatibility with base change, and the interested

reader will have no problem verifying it with what follows below. We need to verify

the other properties.

Proposition 6.1. Let

g′

⑧

f′

⑧

′

Y′

q′′

q′

g′

q′′′

⑧

f′

⑧

X′

Y′

be a commutative cube as in condition (a) of Theorem 4.1. Then the rougher excess

isomorphism satisfies the conclusion of ibid.

Proof. This will essentially be by functoriality of the blow-up construction. Keep

the notation as introduced. In the cube in the introduction of this section the fiber

over 0 is the diagram we start with, whereas the fiber at ∞ is,

✈

✇

✈

✇

f′

✈✈

✇✇

✈

✇

✈

✇

✈✈

✇✇

✈

✇

g′

P(N′ ⊕1)

P(N ⊕1)

q′′

q′

q′′′

✉

✈✈

✉✉

✈

f′

✉

✈

✉

✈

✉

✈

✉✉

✈✈

✉

✈

g′

P(N ′ ⊕ 1)

P(N ⊕ 1)

minus some unwanted factors. The full fiber over ∞ would include the factors

D, D′, D, D′, which don’t meet the images of Y, X, Y and

respectively. Let’s

denote by i0, i0, i0′′,

i0,

i0′′ the inclusions of Y, Y ′, X′,Y

Y′ and X′ in M′ and M

respectively. Also denote by i∞, i∞, i

i∞,

∞,

∞ (resp. i D and i D′ ) the inclusions

D′

over ∞ of Y, P(N ⊕ 1), P(N ′ ⊕ 1),Y,P

N ⊕1),P(N′ ⊕1) (resp.

and D) in

PY , M, M′, P1

, M, M′ (resp.

and M′). Also introduce, for the purpose of this

section, the natural projections Π : PY → Y and Π : P1

→

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

Then we find that the following diagram is commutative:

base change

q′g=gq′′′

g!f!q!

g!q′!f!

q′′′!g!f!

Πi0 =Id

g!f!i0Π!q!

q′′′!g!f!i0Π!

base change

ΠQ=q Π

g!i0!F!Π!q!

g!i0!F!Q!Π!

q′′′!i!i0!F!Π!

✐✐

Gi0′′ =i0 g

base change

✐✐

Q′ i0 g=i0 gq′′′

✐✐

′′′

!G!F !Π!q!

g!i0!Q′!F!Π!

Gi0′′ =i0

ΠQ=qΠ

base change

i0′′!G!F !Q!Π!

i0′′!G!Q′!F!Π! Q′ Gi0′′ =Gi0′′ q′′′ q′′′!i0′′!G!F!Π!

This follows from Lemma 2.6, which asserts that composition of base changes is

base change itself.

We apply i0,∗ to the above diagram and continue:

see above

′′,∗i0′′!G!F!Π!q!

,!q′′′!i0′′,!G!F!Π!

projection f ormula

base change

OX′ ⊗ G!F !Π!q!

Q′′′!i0

′′,!i0′′!G!F!Π!

λ+projection f ormula

(

)

K⊗G!F!Π!q!

Q′′′! (K ⊗ G!F!Π!)

OP(N ′ ⊕1)) ⊗ G!F !Π!q!

Q′′′! (O

P(N ′ ⊕1)) ⊗ G!F!Π!)

projection f ormula

!G!F !Π!q!

Q′′′!i

!G!F!Π!

∞!i

∞

∞!i

∞

∞!g!f!q!

∞!q′′′!g!f!.

Here K = OP(N ′⊕1) + OD − OP(N ′⊕1)∩D and K = OP(N ′⊕1) + OD − OP(N ′⊕1)∩D .

The upper square in this diagram is commutative by our choice of λ ∈ k(PZ)

and by verifying (cf. Lemma 2.5) that the base changes involved commute with

the projection formula. In the next square, the induced isomorphism induces a

commutative diagram of isomorphisms:

DENNIS ERIKSSON

OX′

Q′′′!OX′

OP(N ′+1) + OD − OP(N ′+1))∩D

Q′′′!(OP(N ′+1) + OD − OP(N ′+1)∩D ).

Moreover, in the second line there is an induced isomorphism

)

OP(N ′+1) ≃ Q′′′! (O

P(N ′+1)

and thus also an induced isomorphism of superfluous terms (see Lemma A.2):

)

OD − OP(N ′+1)∩D ≃ Q′′′! (OD − O

P(N ′+1)∩D

We conclude that the next square is also commutative.

Finally, the lower square is commutative for the same reason as the other first square

above, i.e. by Lemma 2.6 cited. Applying Π! as in the definition of our morphism we

obtain the commutativity, modulo showing commutativity in the model situation.

We are left to consider the cube

g′

✈

✇✇

✈✈

✇

f′

✈

✇

✈

✇

✈✈

✇✇

✈

✇

✈

✇

P(N′ ⊕1)

P(N ⊕1)

q′′

q′

g′

q′′′

✉

✈

✉

✈

f′

✉

✈

✉

✈

✉✉

✈✈

✉

✈

✉

✈

✉

✈

P(N ′ ⊕ 1)

P(N ⊕ 1)

with the notation of the left diagram of (2). Denote by

ξ, ξ′, ξ, ξ′

the analogues of the bundles already introduced on

P(N ⊕ 1), P(N ′ ⊕ 1), P(N⊕1),P

N′ ⊕1)

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

respectively, and let E and E denote the natural extensions of the excess bundles.

The proposition is that

E)⊗g′!(q!x))

g!f˜!(q!(x))

! (λ−1(

g!q′!f!(x)

f′! (λ−1(q′′∗E) ⊗ (q′′!g′!x))

f′!q′′!(λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!x))

q′′′!(f!(λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!x))

q′′′!g!f!(x)

is a commutative diagram, where the horizontal morphisms are the already con-

structed candidates for the excess isomorphisms in (7). We show it is commutative

by breaking it up into smaller pieces. Consider:

base change

q′g=gq′′′

g!f!q!

g!q′!f!

q′′′!g!f!

resolution

g!(λ−1(ξ∨) ⊗ π!q!)

λ−1(g! ξ∨) ⊗ g!π!q!

q′′′!g!(λ−1(ξ∨ ) ⊗ π!)

❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

λ−1(g∗ ξ∨) ⊗ g!π!q!

λ−1(q′′′∗g∗ξ∨) ⊗ q′′′!g!π!

and

λ−1(g∗ ξ∨) ⊗ g!π!q!

λ−1(q′′′∗g∗ξ∨) ⊗ q′′′!g!π!

0→E→g∗ξ∨→ξ′∨→0

0→E→g∗ξ∨→ξ′ ∨ →0

λ−1(ξ′∨) ⊗ λ−1(E) ⊗ g!π!q!

q′′′! (λ−1(ξ′∨) ⊗ λ−1(E) ⊗ g!π!)

projection f ormula

(

)

λ−1(E)⊗

g′!q!)

q′′′!

f!(λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!)

✐✐

base cha✐

✐✐

q′′ ∗ E=E

✐✐✐

✐

(

✐)

λ−1(q′′∗E) ⊗ q′′!g′!

defined in the way indicated. The first lower diagram commutes by general non-

sense; the isomorphisms are just given by certain natural transformations. To see

DENNIS ERIKSSON

why the second upper diagram commutes, consider the diagram

q′′′∗E

q′′′∗g∗ξ∨

q′′′∗(ξ′)∨

g∗ ξ∨

(ξ′)∨

where all the vertical maps are isomorphisms. Indeed, all the maps exist by func-

toriality, and they are isomorphisms by the assumption on Tor-independence. The

remaining diagrams are commutative again by applying Lemma 2.6.

□

Proposition 6.2. Let e : Y → Y ′, f : Y ′ → Y ′′ be two regular closed immersions,

and g : X′′ → Y ′′ an arbitrary representable morphism, with associated diagrams

E,E′ and big diagram E′′,

X g′′

e′

g′

X′

Y′

f′

E′

X ′′ g Y ′′.

We also suppose e′ and f′ are regular closed immersions. Then ΨE′′ is the compo-

sition of ΨE′ and ΨE in the sense of Theorem 4.1, condition (d).

Proof. By a deformation to the normal cone argument, as above, we can suppose

that our immersions are of the form

g′′

e′

PX(N′ ⊕ 1) g′

PY (N ⊕ 1)

f′

PX(M′ ⊕ 1) g PY (M ⊕ 1).

Denote by p : PY (M ⊕ 1) → Y, p′ : PX (M ′ ⊕ 1) → X, π : PY (N ⊕ 1) → Y and

π′ : PX(N′ ⊕ 1) → X the natural projections. Define

N⊥ :=ker[M∨ →N∨]=(M/N)∨,N′⊥ :=ker[M′∨ →N′∨]=(M′/N′)∨.

As before, the morphism O(−1) → p∗M ⊕ 1 → p∗(M ) defines a regular section of

p∗M(1) which vanishes exactly at Y , and in the same way we get a regular section

of the vector bundle p∗(M/N)(1) which vanishes exactly at PY (N ⊕1) (see [Ful98],

Appendix B. 5.6). We have the following commutative diagram with exact columns

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

and lines

(8)

E′

g∗p∗N⊥(−1)

p′∗N′⊥(−1)

E′′

g∗p∗M∨(−1)

p′∗M′∨(−1)

g∗p∗N∨(−1)

p′∗N′∨(−1)

Here E, E′, E′′ denote vector bundles on P(M ′ ⊕ 1) which extend the excess-bundles

E, E′ and E′′ respectively, as before. Using the canonical Koszul resolutions, the

proposition is that the following diagram is commutative:

(f′◦e′)!(λ−1(E′′)⊗g′′!(V ))

λ−1(E′′)⊗λ−1(p′!M′∨(−1))⊗(g′′◦p′)!(V ))

f′! (e!(λ−1(e′!E′)⊗λ−1(E)⊗g′′!(V )))

(A)

λ−1(E′)⊗λ−1(E)⊗λ−1(p′!M′∨(−1))⊗(g′′◦p′)!(V ))

f′! (λ−1(E′)⊗e!(λ−1(E)⊗g′′!(V )))

λ−1(E′)⊗λ−1(p′∗N′⊥(−1))⊗λ−1(p′∗N′∨(−1))⊗λ−1(E)⊗(p′!g′′ !V )

(B)

f′! (λ−1(E′)⊗λ−1(π′∗N′∨(−1))⊗λ−1(π′∗E)⊗π′!g′′!(V ))

(C)

f′! (λ−1(E′)⊗λ−1(g′∗π∗N∨(−1))⊗g′!π!(V ))

(D)

f′! (λ−1(E′)⊗g′!e! (V ))

λ−1(p′∗N′⊥(−1))⊗λ−1(E′)⊗λ−1(g∗p∗N∨(−1))⊗(p′!g′′!V )

(E)

(λ−1(p′∗N′⊥(−1))⊗λ−1(E′)⊗λ−1(g∗p∗N∨(−1))⊗g!p!V )

(F)

(λ−1(g∗p∗N⊥(−1))⊗λ−1(g!p!N∨(−1))⊗g!p!V )

(G)

(λ−1(g!p!M∨(−1))⊗g!p!(V ))

g!(f◦e)!(V )

A few comments are in order. Since there is a Koszul resolution determined by

N∨(−1) → OP

Y (N ⊕1) of Y on PY (N ⊕ 1) the virtual bundle e!(V ) has an extension

to PY (M ⊕ 1) given by λ−1(p∗N ∨(−1)) ⊗ p!V and the left arrow of diagram (E)

is defined using this. The composition of the left arrows of the diagrams (B), (C)

and (D) constitute the isomorphism determined by E and finally the composition

of the leftmost arrows of (E), (F) and (G) give the isomorphism determined by E′.

Moreover (F) commutes since the isomorphism (1) is compatible with filtrations

and the diagram (8) and the composition of all the rightmost downwards arrows

is the isomorphism determined by E′′ for the same reason. The diagrams (C)

and (G) commute because of naturality of the Koszul resolution. We refrain from

DENNIS ERIKSSON

giving all the details of the fact that the other diagrams commute. The interested

reader can however easily verify that they do using that all the Koszul resolutions

involved are compatible in an obvious sense using the below lemma (a version of

this appears already in the Chow-categorical context in [Fra], section 1.3, and the

below is inspired by this), which after an inspection takes care of (A) and (B).

The other diagrams commute for similar, albeit slightly more involved, reasons.

For this, suppose we have vector bundles V ′ ⊆ V ⊆ W (V ′ possibly empty) with

quotient vector bundles and consider the sequence of inclusions

P(V ′ ⊕ 1) → P(V ⊕ 1) → P(W ⊕ 1).

Denote by pV ′ , pV and pW the canonical projections. On P(W ⊕1), we have a regular

section of pW (W/V ′)(1) (resp. pW (W/V )(1)) vanishing on P(V ′⊕1) (resp. P(V ⊕1)

(cf.

[Ful98],

B.5.6)

via

the

natural

surjection

pW (W/V ′)(1) → pW (W/V )(1). On the kernel of this surjection, pW (V/V ′)(1),

restricted to P(V ⊕ 1) we have mutatis mutandis a regular section vanishing on

P(V ′ ⊕ 1). Notice that per definition we have an exact sequence

(9)

0→(W/V)∨ →(W/V′)∨ →(V/V′)∨ →0.

Lemma 6.3. In the above situation we have a commutative diagram

P(V ′ ⊕ 1) i

P(V ⊕ 1) j

P(W ⊕ 1)

pV ′

♣♣♣♣

♣♣♣♣♣♣♣

where i and j are the natural inclusions. Let x be a virtual vector bundle on

P(W ⊕ 1). Then the claim is that the diagram

(9)

λ−1(pW (V /V ′)∨(−1)) ⊗ λ−1(pW (W/V )∨ (−1)) ⊗ x

λ−1(pW (W/V ′)∨ (−1)) ⊗ x

i!(λ−1(pV (V/V ′)∨(−1)) ⊗ i!x)

(ji)!((ji)!x)

commutes. Here Φ denotes the respective isomorphisms determined by the regular

sections described above.

Proof. We can assume the virtual bundles are trivial, the isomorphism is obtained

by tensoring with x and applying the projection formula. Suppose first that W/V

is a line bundle. Then we have exact sequences, for i > 0,

(10)

0→Λi(V/V′)∨(−i)→Λi(W/V′)∨(−i)→Λi−1(V/V′)∨(−i+1)⊗(W/V)∨(−1)→0,

compatible with the various Koszul resolutions. The claim follows from a consid-

eration of these resolutions together with the fact that the isomorphism

λ−1((W/V )∨(−1)) ⊗ λ−1((W/V ′)∨(−1)) ≃ λ−1((V ′/V )∨ (−1))

from Example 1 is induced by (10). The same type of argument applies if V /V ′ is

a line bundle. Suppose now that we are given a vector bundle V ′′ ⊆ V ′ with vector

bundle quotient V ′/V ′′. Then we have a sequence of inclusions

P(V ′′ ⊕ 1) ֒→ P(V ′ ⊕ 1) ֒→ P(V ⊕ 1) ֒→ P(W ⊕ 1).

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

The obvious comparison gives that the statement in the lemma holds for a compo-

sition of inclusions if it holds for the other three pairs of inclusions. By the above

we can thus conclude by the splitting principle (cf. Section ?? in [EriB]).

□

Proposition 6.4. Consider the "rough" excess isomorphism in Section 3, thus

in particular the case in condition (c). Then that isomorphism coincides with the

constructed isomorphism.

Proof. We have already remarked in the definition that it is not difficult to see

the isomorphism does not depend on the extension of the virtual bundle. By the

last point of Proposition A.1 the Koszul resolution given in the construction of the

"rough" excess isomorphism is trivialized on D and D′, and deforms to the Koszul

resolution in the model situation. By the argument of unicity for closed immersions,

together with the established fact that the constructed excess isomorphism is stable

under such transformations, we are done.

□

Proposition 6.5. Condition (e) holds for the rougher excess isomorphism.

Proof. It is not difficult to show that the trivializations interchange if and only if

they interchange in the model situation obtained after a deformation to the normal

cone. Denote i : P(N) → P(N ⊕ 1) and i′ : P(N′) → P(N′ ⊕ 1) the natural

inclusions. Since f !i!OP(N ) is canonically trivialized, we can replace the trivialized

virtual bundle with this one. Since g!i!OP(N ⊕1) ≃ i′!OP(N ′ ⊕1), by condition (b) the

upper square of the diagram of excess isomorphisms

f′!(λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!(x ⊗ f!i!OP(N)))

g!f!(x ⊗ f!i!OP(N))

f′!(λ−1(E) ⊗ g′!(x)) ⊗ i′!OP(N′)

g!f!(x) ⊗ i′!OP(N′)

λ−1(ξ′∨) ⊗ λ−1(π′!E) ⊗ i′!OP(N ′ )g!π!x

λ−1(g∗ξ∨) ⊗ g!π!x ⊗ i′!OP(N ′ )

i′!i′!((λ−1(ξ′∨) ⊗ λ−1(π′∗E)) ⊗ g!π!x)

i′!i′!(λ−1(g∗ξ∨) ⊗ g!π!x)

commutes. Here x is any virtual vector bundle, the lower middle square is by

definition of the excess isomorphism in the model situation, and the lower square is

obtained by applying the projection formula with respect to i′. We show that the

trivializations are interchanged on the level of P(N ′). Since P(N ) (resp. P(N ′))

does not meet the image of Y (resp. X) in P(N ⊕ 1) (resp. P(N ′ ⊕ 1)), the sections

determined by the given Koszul resolutions are everywhere non-vanishing. The

statement now follows from the following claim: Suppose that

0→V′ →V →V′′ →0

is an exact sequence of vector bundles. Also suppose that V ′ (and thus V ) admits an

everywhere non-vanishing section σ. Then λ−1(V ′∨) and λ−1(V ∨) are both canon-

ically trivialized by the Koszul complex and these trivializations are interchanged

DENNIS ERIKSSON

by the isomorphism

λ−1(V ∨) ≃ λ−1(V ′∨) ⊗ λ−1(V ′′∨).

For this claim, consider the following diagram where V ∨ → O and V ′∨ → O are

given by the dual sections,

V ′′∨

(V /O)∨

(V ′/O)∨

V ′′∨

V∨

V′∨

Here by assumption (V /O)∨ and (V ′/O)∨ are vector bundles. Compatibility with

filtration gives a commutative diagram of isomorphisms

λ−1(V ∨)

λ−1(O) ⊗ λ−1((V /O)∨ )

λ−1(V ′∨) ⊗ λ−1(V ′′∨)

λ−1(O)λ−1(V ′∨/O) ⊗ λ−1(V ′′∨)

where the rightmost isomorphism is given by

λ−1((V /O)∨ ) ≃ λ−1((V ′/O)∨) ⊗ λ−1((V ′′)∨)

tensored with the identity morphism between λ−1(O) and itself. But the trivial-

ization of the two objects are given by λ−1(O) ≃ 0, and are thus interchanged.

□

Corollary 6.6. The constructed isomorphism of functors is an isomorphism of

determinant functors, and thus induces an isomorphism of additive functors.

Proof. By Theorem 2.1, we have to verify that the properties of Definition 1 are

interwoven in the above construction. The only non-obvious one is property (b).

But this follows from property (a) and the above proposition.

□

We thus conclude the demonstration in the case of a regular closed immersion.

□

7. Projective bundle projections - uniqueness and existence

The case of projective bundle projections is more elementary. We start with:

Proposition 7.1. Suppose that the diagram in the theorem is Tor-independent.

Then the excess isomorphism is necessarily that of Tor-independent base change.

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

Proof. The excess bundle is trivial and we need to verify that the resulting excess

isomorphism f ′!g′! ≃ g!f! is given by base change. Consider the following cubical

diagram:

⑧

f′

⑧

f′

⑧

X′

g′

g′ Y.

⑧

f′

⑧⑧

⑧

X′

Y′

This satisfies the conditions of (a), and thus interchanges the excess isomorphism of

the upper and lower via the base change isomorphism. The result follows if we can

show that the excess isomorphism given by the upper diagram is the identity. By

(d) and Lemma 2.6 we only need to treat separately the case of f ′ being a regular

closed immersion and that of f ′ being a projective bundle projection. The case of

regular immersions easily follows from the previous section, using Proposition 6.4

and Lemma 3.1. For the projective bundle projection, we state it as a proposition:

Proposition 7.2. Suppose that f is a projective bundle projection. Then the excess

isomorphism associated to f is uniquely determined and is necessarily given by Tor-

independent base change.

Proof. Consider the natural projection f : P(V ) → X for V a vector bundle on X.

We consider again the case when g and g′ are the identity by the reduction above.

Base change with P(V ∨) → X induces by Lemma 2.2 an injection on the level of K1

and thus a faithful functor on the level of virtual categories. We can furthermore

suppose that f : P(V ) → X is such that V has a canonical vector bundle V ′ ⊆ V

defining P(V ′) → P(V ) as a relative divisor over X. The projective bundle formula

again (cf. Lemma 2.2) shows that we only have to evaluate on objects of the form

f!x ⊗ O(i) for different i. Together with compatibility of compositions in (d), the

case of regular closed immersions already considered and compatibility with the

projection formula in (b), we see that the induced map is the identity on the direct

image of P(V ′) → X if and only if it is so for f . By induction we are reduced to

the case when f itself is the identity. But then compatibility with composition in

(d) applied again shows that the induced automorphism on every object x squares

to itself, so it is necessarily the identity and we conclude.

□

We conclude the proposition.

□

This forces us to define the excess isomorphism for projective bundles, and thus

composition of projective bundles, as the base change isomorphism. Moreover, the

base change isomorphism is compatible with base change and composition itself by

Lemma 2.6. The trivialization condition is immediate, and condition (b) follows

from a simple calculation of the cohomology sheaves considered above. We will

return to its compatibility with the rough excess isomorphism in the next section.

DENNIS ERIKSSON

8. General excess isomorphism

In the rest of the paper we will tie together the isomorphisms constructed in the

preceding sections and finally construct the total excess isomorphism.

Suppose first that we have a diagram E and a decomposition of a proper mor-

→Y′ whereiisaregularclosedimmersion,

π is a projective bundle-projection and the subscript τ denotes this choice of fac-

torization. By base change we obtain the composition of two Cartesian diagrams

g′′

i′

PX′ (g∗N) g′

PY ′ (N)

π′

X′

Y′.

Denote by Eτ the associated excess bundle (of the upper square). In general, if we

have two factorizations with a morphism r,

❇

⑥

❇

⑥

❇

⑥

❇

⑥

❇

⑥

❇❇

⑥

❇

⑥

Y′

❅

⑤

❅

⑤

❅

π′

⑤

❅

⑤

❅❅

⑤

❅

⑤⑤

⑤

P′

with π and π′ smooth, we get an isomorphism

φτ,τ ′,r : Eτ → Eτ ′

with the property that

φτ ′,τ ′′,rφτ,τ ′ ,s = φτ,τ ′′,sr .

Now, given two arbitrary factorizations τ, τ ′, we compare them with the diagonal

PY ′ (N)

❦

❖

❦❦

❖❖

❦❦

❖

❦❦

❖❖

❦❦

pr1

❖

❦❦

❖❖

❦❦

❖❖

❦❦

❖

❦

❖

❦

❙❙

PY ′ (N) ×Y ′ PY ′ (M)

Y′

❙❙

♦

❙❙

♦♦

❙❙

♦

❙❙

♦♦

❙

pr2

♦

❙❙

♦♦

❙❙

♦

❙❙

♦

❙

♦♦

PY ′ (M)

and put

(

)−1

φτ,τ ′ = φτ,τ ×τ ′,pr

φτ ′ ,τ ×τ ′,pr

: Eτ ′ → Eτ .

This defines an isomorphism φτ,τ ′ : Eτ ′ → Eτ which satisfies the cocycle condition

φτ,τ ′ φτ ′ ,τ ′′ = φτ,τ ′′ so they glue together to an virtual excess-bundle E, determined

up to canonical isomorphism. We define the excess isomorphism ΨE,τ via the naive

composition of the excess isomorphisms of the two diagrams. Since the isomorphism

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

depends in a weak sense only on f we will sometimes abbreviate it with Ψf,τ . We

give a list of basic compatibilities needed:

Lemma 8.1. We suppose the diagrams E (and thus the various morphisms g)

implicit.

• Let i be a section to a projection bundle-projection π : PY (N ) → Y . Then

ΨπΨi = Id.

• Suppose that we have a Cartesian diagram

i′

PY (i∗N)

PY ′ (N)

π′

Y′

with i a regular immersion. Then ΨiΨπ′ = Ψπ Ψi′ .

• Suppose we have a diagram

PY ′ (N)

①

①①

①

Y′

with i being regular closed immersion and π the projective bundle-projection.

Then Ψi = ΨπΨj .

Proof. In the first case there is no excess and the statement becomes that the com-

position of two base change isomorphisms is the base change of the composition,

which is the identity.

For the second case, we can suppose by additivity and standard reduction that our

bundles are of the form π!F ⊗ O(k) for 0 ≤ k < n = rk N . The argument is now

a lengthy but elementary application of the relationship π!π! = Id together with

stability under base change already established for closed immersions, which we

leave to the interested reader.

For the third point, notice that by [SGA6], VIII, Corollaire 1.2, j (and the cor-

responding implicit j′) is also a regular closed immersion so the statement makes

sense. One uses the Lichtenbaum-trick to reduce to the case of a morphism with

section:

i′

PY (i∗N)

PY ′ (N)

π′

Y′.

Here s is the section determined by j and base change. Then Ψπ Ψj = Ψπ Ψi′ Ψs =

ΨiΨπ′Ψs = Ψi by the preceding statements.

□

Proposition 8.2. With the above virtual excess bundle the Ψf,τ do not depend on

choice of τ .

DENNIS ERIKSSON

Proof. Let τ and τ ′ be two different factorizations as above. Considering again the

diagram

PY ′ (N)

❦❦

❙❙❙

❦❦❦

❙❙❙

❦❦

❙❙

❦❦

q′

❙❙

❦❦

❙❙

❦❦

❙❙

❦❦

❙❙

❦

❙❙

❦❦

i′′

π′′

❙

PY ′ (N) ×Y ′ PY ′ (M)

Y′

❙❙

❦❦

❙❙

❦❦

❙❙

❦

❙❙

❦❦

❙

i❙❙

π❦

❦❦❦

❙

❦

❙❙

❦❦

❙❙

❦

❙

❦❦❦

PY ′ (M).

By Proposition 7.1, the excess isomorphism associated to π′′ is necessarily given

by Tor-independent base change and in particular defined. Put Ψf,τ equal to the

naive composition of the isomorphisms induced by i and π. We obtain equalities of

isomorphisms

Ψf,τ′ = ΨπΨi = ΨπΨq′Ψi′′ = Ψπ′′ Ψi′′ = Ψπ′ ΨqΨi′′ = Ψπ′ Ψi′ = Ψf,τ .

Hence all isomorphisms Ψf,? are in fact one single morphism, defining ΨE .

□

It remains to prove the following composition property, which is the only property

which doesn’t follow immediately from what is already established.

Theorem 8.3. Suppose that we have morphisms

X f Y g Z

with f and g projective local complete intersection morphisms. Then

Ψf ◦ Ψg = Ψfg.

We can factor as follows, for big enough n,

PQ(V )

PZ(q∗(V ∨ ⊗ OQ(n)))

▼

▼▼

▼

▼▼

▼

▼▼

▼

PY (j∗V▲

PZ(V ′) = Q

▲

❙❙

✈

▲

♣♣

❙❙

✈

▲

♣

❙

✈✈

▲▲

♣♣

❙❙❙

✈

▲

♣

❙

✈

▲

♣♣

❙❙

✈

▲▲

♣

❙❙

✈

▲

♣♣

❙❙

✈

♣

❙

where V, V ′ and q∗(V ⊗ OQ(n)) are locally free (for large enough n). This can

be written in this form because Y has the resolution property and both f and g

are supposed to be projective (see the argument in [FL85], chapter IV, Proposition

3.12). Now, we have by Lemma 8.1 and Proposition 8.2:

ΨgΨf = ΨqΨjΨpΨi = ΨqΨtΨkΨi = ΨP ΨrΨkΨi = ΨP Ψrki = Ψgf .

We conclude the proof of the main theorem since the necessary properties are

preserved under the above composition.

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

Appendix A. Deformation to the normal cone

In this section we review for the convenience of the reader some very well-known

facts about the deformation to the normal cone, without proof. A reference for

details of the below is [Ful98], chapter "Deformation to the Normal Cone" and also

[BGS90], Section 4.

First of all, given a section s of a rank r vector bundle E on an algebraic stack

X, one has an induced dual section s∨ : E∨ → OX given by the composition of

OX → E with E ⊗ E∨ → OX . This leads to the Koszul complex

0→ΛrE∨ →Λr−1E∨ →...→Λ2E∨ →E∨ →OX →OZ(s) →0,

which in local coordinates is given by

∑

e1 ∧ . . . ∧ ej →

(−1)is∨(ei)e1 ∧ . . . ∧

ei ∧ . . . ∧ ej

i=0

where Z(s) is the zero-locus of the section s. We say that s is a regular section if

the above complex is exact and that the complex Λ•E∨ is a Koszul resolution of

OZ(s).

Suppose that i : X → Y is a (representable) regular closed immersion of algebraic

stacks, and let N

= NY/X = Ni be the normal bundle to i. We have a map

PX → PY , and we define M as the blow-up of PY in X × {∞} i.e. Proj(⊕n≥0In)

where I is the ideal of the immersion i (see [LMB00], 14.3). We have a natural

morphism π : M → PY → PS , so we have a diagram

❆

⑦⑦⑦

❆

⑦⑦⑦⑦⑦

since by the universal property of blowing up the map PX → PY lifts to M . More-

over, NX×{∞}/P1

≃ NX/Y ⊕ N∞/P1 ≃ N ⊕ 1 (see [Ful98], Appendix B.6.3 and

chapter IV, Proposition 3.6). The last isomorphism N∞/P1 ≃ 1 is non-canonical,

but we fix one once and for all to lax the notation. The exceptional divisor on M is

a Cartier divisor isomorphic to P(N ⊕ 1) and the fiber over ∞ is isomorphic to the

union of this exceptional divisor and BlX Y =

Y, gluing togetheralongasubstack

isomorphic to P(N ) (here we put P(F ) = Proj(SymF ∨) for a coherent sheaf F ).

We have that for s ∈ P1, π−1(s) = Y if s = ∞, and is equal to P(N ⊕ 1) ∪

for s = ∞, and the image of X does not meet

Y. In fact, it is embedded via the

subbundle 1 in N ⊕ 1 where we embed it as x → (0, x). In other words, it embeds

as X = P(1) → P(N ⊕ 1) or as the zero-section X → N followed by the open

immersion N → P(N ⊕ 1). Let p : P(N ⊕ 1) → X be the projection. On P(N ⊕ 1)

we have a universal exact sequence

0→OP(−1)→p∗N⊕1→TP/X(−1)→0

where OP (−1) is the universal sub bundle. By [Ful98], Appendix B. 5.6, we know

that the section determined by

(11)

OP (−1) → p∗N ⊕ 1 → p∗N

is a regular section with zero-locus equal to X = P(1) ⊆ P(N ⊕ 1). We also have

another section defined by 1 → p∗N ⊕ 1 → TP/X (−1) which is also regular with the

DENNIS ERIKSSON

same zero-locus. The reason we use the former in the constructions in the paper

is due to the last point of the following proposition, to which we only indicate

necessary references:

Proposition A.1.

• ([FL85], chapter IV, Proposition 3.4) Suppose that we

have two regular immersions i : X ֒→ Y, j : Y ֒→ Z with normal bundles

Ni, Nj and Nh, where h = j ◦ i. We have an exact sequence, localized on

0→Nj →Nh →Ni →0.

• ([Ful98], Appendix B, B.6.9) Applying the deformation to the normal cone

to i and j ◦ i, the induced morphisms

X ֒→ P(Ni ⊕ 1) ֒→ P(Nh ⊕ 1)

are the natural ones.

• ([Ful98], Appendix B, B.6.9) If we have a Cartesian diagram

X g′

f′

X′ g Y′

where f, f ′ are closed regular embeddings, the two deformations associated

to them are compatible in the sense that over the infinite fiber they restrict

to a Cartesian diagram

g′

f′

P(Nf ′ ⊕ 1) g P(Nf ⊕ 1)

where the morphisms are the natural ones.

• ([BGS90], Theorem 4.8) Let i : X ֒→ Y be a closed regular embedding de-

fined by a regular section of a vector bundle N on Y defining a Koszul res-

olution. Then there is a family of complexes of vector bundles parametrized

by P1 on the total space of the deformation to the normal cone with the fol-

lowing properties: The restriction to fibers over P1 \ ∞ is the given Koszul

resolution. The restriction to P(Ni ⊕ 1) identifies with the Koszul-resolution

π∗

(−1) → OM given by (11), and the restriction to

Y is split acyclic.

Lemma A.2. Let

X g′

f′

X′ g Y′

be a Cartesian diagram. Let M ′ and M be the deformations to the normal cone of

X′ ⊆ Y′ and X ⊆ Y respectively, and G : M → M′ the induced map. Then we

have

PX′ (N′ ⊕ 1) = G−1(PX(N ⊕ 1)), Y′ = G−1

and

P(N ′) = G−1(P(N )).

THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM

Proof. Working on a smooth presentation, it follows from [Ful98], Appendix B,

B.6.9 that G−1 maps the exceptional divisor to the exceptional divisor. Thus

G−1(P(N ⊕ 1)) = P(N ′ ⊕ 1). Pulling back the fiber at infinity we obtain an equality

of Cartier divisors G−1

Y ∪P(N ⊕1)) = Y′ ∪P(N′ ⊕1), so we necessarily have

G−1(Y)=Y′. Thelastpointfollowsfromthesamereasoning,andthecomputation

P(N ′) = Y′ ×

□

Y P(N) = M′ ×M

Y P(N) = M′ ×M P(N) = G−1(P(N)).

References

[BGS90]

J.-M. Bismut, H. Gillet, and C. Soulé, Complex Immersions and Arakelov Geometry,

Grothendieck Festschrift, Volume I, Progr. Math., vol. 86, Birkhäuser Boston, 1990,

pp. 249-331.

[Del87]

, Le déterminant de la cohomologie, Contemp. Math. 67 (1987), 93-177.

[EriA]

Eriksson,

A Deligne-Riemann-Roch

theorem,

preprint,

http://www.math.chalmers.se/∼dener.

[EriB]

Refined operations on K-theory by lifting to the virtual category,

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4059

[FL85]

W. Fulton and S. Lang, Riemann-Roch algebra, Springer Verlag, 1985.

[Fra]

J. Franke, Riemann-Roch in Functorial Form, unpublished manuscript.

[Ful98]

W. Fulton, Intersection theory, 2nd ed., Springer Verlag, 1998.

[LMB00]

G. Laumon and L. Moret-Bailly, Champs algebriques, Springer Verlag, 2000.

[Ols07]

M. Olsson, Sheaves on Artin stacks, J. Reine Angew. Math. (2007), no. 603, 55-112.

[Qui73]

D. Quillen, Higher algebraic K-theory, Algebraic K-theory, I: HigherK-theories (Proc.

Conf., Battelle Memorial Inst., Seattle, Wash.,1972) (Lecture Notes in Mathematics

341), Springer Verlag, . 1973, pp. 85-147.

[Sai88a]

T. Saito, Conductor, Discriminant, and the Noether formula of arithmetic surfaces,

Duke Math. Journal 57 (1988), no. 1, 151-173.

[Sai88b]

, Self-intersection 0-cycles and coherent sheaves on arithmetic schemes, Duke

Math. J. 57 (1988), 555-578.

[SGA6]

A. Grothendieck, P. Berthelot, and L. Illusie, Séminaire de Géométrie Algébrique du

Bois Marie - 1966-67 - Théorie des intersections et théorème de Riemann-Roch (SGA

6), Lecture notes in mathematics, vol. 225, Springer Verlag, 1971.

[Tho86]

R.W. Thomason, Lefschetz-Riemann-Roch theorem and coherent trace formula, Invent.

Math. 85 (1986), no. 3, 515-543.

[Tho87a]

, Algebraic K-theory of group scheme actions, Algebraic topology and algebraic

K-theory, Ann. of Math. Stud. 113 (Princeton, N.J.,1983), Princeton Univ. Press, 1987,

pp. 539-563.

[Tho87b]

, Equivariant resolution, linearization and Hilbert’s fourteenth problem over ar-

bitrary base-schemes, Adv. Math. 65 (1987), 16-34.

[Tho93]

, Les K-groupes d’un schéma éclaté et une formule d’intersection excédentaire,

Invent. Math. 112 (1993), no. 1, 195-215.

[Tot04]

B. Totaro, The resolution property for schemes and stacks, J. Reine Angew. Math. 577

(2004), 1-22.

Mathematical Sciences, University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University Of Tech-

nology, 41296 Gothenburg, Sweden

E-mail address: dener@chalmers.se