@import url(http://www.google.com/cse/api/branding.css); ExcitingAds! Search Directory A-B C-E F-H I-K L-N O-Q R-T U-W X-Z

# arXiv Delivered by FeedBurner SiteMap THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM
DENNIS ERIKSSON
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 Delignes 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
2. Preliminaries and conventions
4
3. A rough excess isomorphism
8
4. Formulation of the main theorem
10
5. The case of closed immersions, uniqueness
14
6. The case of closed immersions, rougher excess and existence
16
7. Projective bundle projections - uniqueness and existence
26
8. General excess isomorphism
28
Appendix A. Deformation to the normal cone
31
References
33
Keywords: Virtual categories, Excess formula, K-theory.
AMS 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 14C35, 14C40, 19E08, 19E15.
1 2
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
Y
f
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
"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 Delignes 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
3
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],
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 Delignes
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: Id 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 4
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] = [X1tX0] (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.
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
f2
X1 ×X
Y1 ×Y
0 X1
0 Y1
f1
X1
Y1
f0
X0
Y0
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
5
(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] +  ≃ [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 Quillens 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
fV 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
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) → ∑fVi ⊗ O(i)on therlevelaof
vector bundles. 6
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 → iF for a vector bundle E on X, and thus a surjection iE → iiF = 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
pp(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
fVi ⊗ O(i)
and we define the direct image component wise by f!(fVi ⊗ O(i)) = Vi ⊗ Symi V.
This defines the required functor. THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM
7
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
Y
f
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. 8
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
Y
f
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 : gN → N ′∨ compatible with the resolutions gσ and σ in
such a way that the natural diagram
gN∨ γ N′∨
gOY
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
f THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM
9
the immersions. By restricting to X via f we obtain a commutative diagram
f′∗gN∨ f′∗γ f′∗N′∨
g′∗
f
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
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 : fxY → x. Then we define an isomorphism by
σ,xY ,r
Ψx
λ−1(gN) ⊗ g!(xY )
Y,σ,σ,r(x):g!f!(x)
γ
λ−1(E) ⊗ λ−1(N ′∨) ⊗ g!(xY )
σ
f′! (OX ) ⊗ λ−1(E) ⊗ g!(xY )
f′! (f ′!−1(E) ⊗ g!(xY )))
f′!−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 10
DENNIS ERIKSSON
diagram
g!f!(x) σ
g!xY ⊗ g!λ−1N∨ γ
g!xY ⊗ λ−1N′∨
❖❖
❖❖
❖❖
σ
σ
❖❖
cx
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
gI
I
gOY
OX
gfOY
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 = fV 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-
the following:
Theorem 4.1. Suppose we have a Cartesian square E of S-stacks (for some scheme
S) and representable morphisms
X g
Y
f
f
X′ g Y, THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM
11
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
X
Y
f
f
g
Y
q
X
q′′
q
g
q′′′
X
Y
f
f
g
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!!q!
!−1( E) ⊗
g=gq′′′,q′′∗E= E
base change
g!q′!f!
f′!−1(q′′∗E) ⊗ (q′′!g′!))
iq′′′ =q g
f′!q′′!−1(E) ⊗ g′!))
basechange
q′′′!(f!−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). 12
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.
(c) Normalization: Suppose that f is a closed embedding of a Cartier divisor
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:
σ
ΨF
λ−1(gO(−Y )) ⊗ g!(xY )
Y :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
Y
e
e
X′ g
Y
f
f
X ′′ g′′ Y ′′ THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM
13
with associated excess-bundles E, E and E′′, the following diagram com-
mutes
(f ◦ e)!−1(E′′) ⊗ g!x)
f◦e=fe
f′!e!−1(E′′) ⊗ g!x)
ΨE′′
0→E→E′′→e′ ∗ E→0
f′!−1(E) ⊗ e!−1(E) ⊗ g!x))
ΨE
f′!−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 14
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
PY
F
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
Y
X
Y
f
f
f
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 = iΨE. 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
15
0
(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
0
≃ 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
by
OP(N ⊕1) ⊗ ΨE Π! = i∞,!iΨE Π! = i∞,!ΨE
iΠ!.
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
Y
φ
Φ
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:
1
X
PX
X
PX
Y
PY
Y
P
Y
X
M
P(N ⊕ 1)
M
Y
M P(N ⊕ 1)
M
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 16
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(pN )
where L ⊂ M ⊂ pN is the universal flag on G. Suppose we can filter the vector
bundle pN/M by a maximal flag on G which is then in particular a flag of pN
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(pN ) 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 , iDP(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
P
P1
X
Y
F
F
G
M
M
Q
Q′′
Q
Q′′′
PX
G PY
F
F
G
M
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 πN(1) (resp. π′∗N(1)) on P(N ⊕1) (resp.
P(N ⊕ 1)), we have a short exact sequence
(4)
0→E→gξ →(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
17
determined by O(−1) → π(N ⊕ 1) → pN ,
(5)
0→∧nξ →...→ξ →OP(N⊕1)
fOY → 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 ⊗ πx →
fOY ⊗ πx =
f(V ).
Applying g! to this we obtain
(∑
)
(7)
g!!V
=
g!
(−1)ii ξ ⊗ π!V
(∑
)
=
(−1)ii gξ ⊗ g!π!V
= λ−1(gξ) ⊗ 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
Y
f
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 )
λ
i∞,!iG!F!Π!(V ) +
iD,!iD G!F!Π!(V ) −
iD∩P(N⊕1),!iDP(N⊕1)G!F!Π!(V )
i∞,!iG!F!Π!(V )
i∞,! g!!(V )
i∞,!f
!−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 18
DENNIS ERIKSSON
Πi = 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
X
Y
f
f
g
Y
q
X
q′′
q
g
q′′′
X
Y
f
f
g
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,
g
X
Y
f
✈✈
f
✇✇
✈✈
✇✇
g
P(N ⊕1)
P(N ⊕1)
q
q′′
q
g
q′′′
X
Y
✈✈
✉✉
f
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 dont meet the images of Y, X, Y and
X
respectively. Lets
denote by i0, 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,
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.
M
and M). Also introduce, for the purpose of this
Y
section, the natural projections Π : PY → Y and Π : P1
Y.
Y THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM
19
Then we find that the following diagram is commutative:
base change
qg=gq′′′
g!f!q!
g!q′!f!
q′′′!g!f!
Πi0 =Id
Πi0 =Id
g!f!i0Π!q!
q′′′!g!f!i0Π!
base change
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′′′
✐✐
′′′
i
!G!F !Π!q!
g!i0!Q′!F!Π!
Gi0′′ =i0
g
0
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
i0
′′,∗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
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
projection f ormula
i
!G!F !Π!q!
Q′′′!i
!G!F!Π!
∞!i
∞!i
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: 20
DENNIS ERIKSSON
OX
Q′′′!OX
λ
λ
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
X
Y
✇✇
✈✈
f
f
✈✈
✇✇
g
q
P(N ⊕1)
P(N ⊕1)
q′′
q
g
q′′′
X
Y
f
f
✉✉
✈✈
g
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
21
respectively, and let E and E denote the natural extensions of the excess bundles.
The proposition is that
E)⊗g′!(q!x))
g!!(q!(x))
!−1(
g!q′!f!(x)
f′!−1(q′′∗E) ⊗ (q′′!g′!x))
f′!q′′!−1(E) ⊗ g′!x))
q′′′!(f!−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
qg=gq′′′
g!f!q!
g!q′!f!
q′′′!g!f!
resolution
resolution
g!−1) ⊗ π!q!)
λ−1(g! ξ) ⊗ g!π!q!
q′′′!g!−1 ) ⊗ π!)
❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦
λ−1(g ξ) ⊗ g!π!q!
λ−1(q′′′∗gξ) ⊗ q′′′!g!π!
and
λ−1(g ξ) ⊗ g!π!q!
λ−1(q′′′∗gξ) ⊗ q′′′!g!π!
0→E→gξ→ξ′∨→0
0→E→gξ→ξ′ ∨ →0
λ−1′∨) ⊗ λ−1(E) ⊗ g!π!q!
q′′′!−1′∨) ⊗ λ−1(E) ⊗ g!π!)
projection f ormula
projection f ormula
(
(
)
f!
λ−1(E)⊗
g′!q!)
q′′′!
f!−1(E) ⊗ g′!)
✐✐
✐✐
base cha
✐✐
q′′ ∗ E=E
✐✐✐
✐✐✐
(
✐)
f!
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 22
DENNIS ERIKSSON
why the second upper diagram commutes, consider the diagram
0
q′′′∗E
q′′′∗gξ
q′′′∗)
0
E
0
g ξ
)
0
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′′
Y
e
E
e
g
X
Y
f
E
f
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′′
X
Y
e
e
PX(N ⊕ 1) g
PY (N ⊕ 1)
f
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) → pM ⊕ 1 → p(M ) defines a regular section of
pM(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
23
and lines
(8)
0
0
0
0
E
gpN(−1)
p′∗N′⊥(−1)
0
0
E′′
gpM(−1)
p′∗M′∨(−1)
0
0
E
gpN(−1)
p′∗N′∨(−1)
0
0
0
0
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)!1(E′′)⊗g′′!(V ))
λ1(E′′)⊗λ1(p!M′∨(−1))⊗(g′′◦p)!(V ))
f! (e!1(e!E)⊗λ1(E)⊗g′′!(V )))
(A)
λ1(E)⊗λ1(E)⊗λ1(p!M′∨(−1))⊗(g′′◦p)!(V ))
f!1(E)⊗e!1(E)⊗g′′!(V )))
λ1(E)⊗λ1(p′∗N′⊥(−1))⊗λ1(p′∗N′∨(−1))⊗λ1(E)⊗(p!g′′ !V )
(B)
f! (λ1(E)⊗λ1′∗N′∨(−1))⊗λ1′∗E)⊗π!g′′!(V ))
(C)
f! (λ1(E)⊗λ1(g′∗πN(−1))⊗g!π!(V ))
(D)
f! (λ1(E)⊗g!e! (V ))
λ1(p′∗N′⊥(−1))⊗λ1(E)⊗λ1(gpN(−1))⊗(p!g′′!V )
(E)
(λ1(p′∗N′⊥(−1))⊗λ1(E)⊗λ1(gpN(−1))⊗g!p!V )
(F)
(λ1(gpN(−1))⊗λ1(g!p!N(−1))⊗g!p!V )
(G)
(λ1(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(pN(−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 24
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)
related
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
♣♣♣♣
pV
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
pW
X
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
Φ
Φ
Φ
i!−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
25
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′!−1(E) ⊗ g′!(x ⊗ f!i!OP(N)))
g!f!(x ⊗ f!i!OP(N))
f′!−1(E) ⊗ g′!(x)) ⊗ i′!OP(N)
g!f!(x) ⊗ i′!OP(N)
λ−1′∨) ⊗ λ−1′!E) ⊗ i′!OP(N )g!π!x
λ−1(gξ) ⊗ g!π!x ⊗ i′!OP(N )
i′!i′!((λ−1′∨) ⊗ λ−1′∗E)) ⊗ g!π!x)
i′!i′!−1(gξ) ⊗ 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 26
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,
0
0
0
0
V ′′∨
(V /O)
(V/O)
0
0
V ′′∨
V
V′∨
0
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
0
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
27
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:
Id
X
X
f
f
Id
X
X
g
Id
g
Id
X
g Y.
f
⑧⑧
f
⑧⑧
g
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. 28
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′′
X
Y
i
i
PX (gN) g
PY (N)
π
π
g
X
Y.
Denote by Eτ the associated excess bundle (of the upper square). In general, if we
have two factorizations with a morphism r,
P
i
❇❇
Y
r
Y
π
❅❅
⑤⑤
P
with π and π smooth, we get an isomorphism
φτ,τ,r : Eτ → Eτ
with the property that
φτ ′′,rφτ,τ ,s = φτ,τ ′′,sr .
Now, given two arbitrary factorizations τ, τ, we compare them with the diagonal
PY (N)
❦❦
❖❖
❦❦
❦❦
❖❖
❦❦
pr1
❦❦
❖❖
❦❦
❖❖
❦❦
Y
❙❙
PY (N) ×Y PY (M)
Y
❙❙
❙❙
♦♦
❙❙
❙❙
♦♦
pr2
❙❙
♦♦
❙❙
❙❙
♦♦
PY (M)
and put
(
)−1
φτ,τ = φτ,τ ×τ,pr
φτ ,τ ×τ,pr
: Eτ → Eτ .
1
2
This defines an isomorphism φτ,τ : Eτ → Eτ which satisfies the cocycle condition
φτ,τ φτ ′′ = 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
29
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 (iN)
PY (N)
π
π
i
Y
Y
with i a regular immersion. Then ΨiΨπ = Ψπ Ψi .
• Suppose we have a diagram
PY (N)
j
①①
π
i
Y
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
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 (iN)
PY (N)
rr
j
r
s
rr
π
π
rr
rr
r
r
i
Y
Y.
Here s is the section determined by j and base change. Then Ψπ Ψj = Ψπ Ψi Ψs =
ΨiΨπΨs = Ψi by the preceding statements.
Proposition 8.2. With the above virtual excess bundle the Ψf,τ do not depend on
choice of τ . 30
DENNIS ERIKSSON
Proof. Let τ and τ be two different factorizations as above. Considering again the
diagram
PY (N)
❦❦
❙❙❙
❦❦❦
❙❙❙
i
❦❦
❙❙
π
❦❦
q
❙❙
❦❦
❙❙
❦❦
❙❙
❦❦
❙❙
❙❙
❦❦
i′′
π′′
Y
PY (N) ×Y PY (M)
Y
❙❙
❦❦
❙❙
❦❦
❙❙
❙❙
❦❦
i❙❙
π
❦❦❦
q
❙❙
❦❦
❙❙
❦❦❦
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 = ΨπΨqΨi′′ = 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
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,
r
PQ(V )
PZ(q(V ⊗ OQ(n)))
s
▼▼
ss
k
s
▼▼
ss
s
▼▼
ss
PY (jV▲
PZ(V) = Q
P
❙❙
♣♣
❙❙
i
j
✈✈
▲▲
♣♣
❙❙❙
♣♣
❙❙
▲▲
❙❙
♣♣
❙❙
f
g
X
Y
Z
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
31
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 ΛE 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
PX
M
⑦⑦⑦
π
⑦⑦⑦⑦⑦
P1
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
Y
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) ∪
Y
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)→pN⊕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) → pN ⊕ 1 → pN
is a regular section with zero-locus equal to X = P(1) ⊆ P(N ⊕ 1). We also have
another section defined by 1 → pN ⊕ 1 → TP/X (−1) which is also regular with the 32
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
X:
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
Y
f
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
X
Y
f
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
i
(−1) → OM given by (11), and the restriction to
Y is split acyclic.
Lemma A.2. Let
X g
Y
f
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
Y)
and
P(N) = G−1(P(N )). THE EXCESS FORMULA IN FUNCTORIAL FORM
33
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)) = YP(N ⊕1), so we necessarily have
G−1(Y)=Y. Thelastpointfollowsfromthesamereasoning,andthecomputation
P(N) = Y ×
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]
D.
Eriksson,
A Deligne-Riemann-Roch
theorem,
preprint,
[EriB]
,
Refined operations on K-theory by lifting to the virtual category,
[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 Hilberts fourteenth problem over ar-
bitrary base-schemes, Adv. Math. 65 (1987), 16-34.
[Tho93]
, Les K-groupes dun schéma éclaté et une formule dintersection 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 Icebreaker Pheromone ColognePrice: 37.95Retail Price: 59.951000ASCENT RESEARCH GROUP LLCAscent Research Group LLC1000CosmeticsColognes1000Cologne for Men - Scientifically Designed to Attract Women Calmovil Hemorrhoid RemedyPrice: 47.95Retail Price: 59.951011ASCENT RESEARCH GROUP LLCSmartLife Labs1011HealthDiseases1011   