A trick and the decomposition theorem

In this post I’ll talk about a really fun trick Bhargav explained to me yesterday.

Let K be a field with separable closure C. Algebraic variety over K means separated K-scheme of finite type. Let \ell be a prime invertible in K. Perverse sheaf means perverse \mathbf{Q}_\ell-sheaf.

If f:X \to Y is a proper map of algebraic varieties over K, the decomposition theorem tells you that after base extension to C there is a direct sum decomposition

Rf_{\ast}IC_{X,\mathbf{Q}_\ell} \simeq \oplus_i IC_{Z_i}(\mathcal{L}_i)[n_i]\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\dagger)

in D^b_c(Y_C,\mathbf{Q}_\ell). Here Z_i \subset Y_{C} is some finite set of closed subvarieties, and \mathcal{L}_i is a lisse \mathbf{Q}_\ell-sheaf on the smooth locus of Z_i. (My convention is that IC_{Z}(\mathcal{L}) = j_{!\ast} (\mathcal{L}[\dim Z]) where j:Z^{sm} \to X is the natural map, so IC_{X,\mathbf{Q}_\ell} = IC_{X}(\mathbf{Q}_\ell). Some people have different conventions for shifts here.)

The decomposition (\dagger) is non-canonical. In particular, it is not \mathrm{Aut}(C/K)-equivariant, so it has no reason to descend to an analogous direct sum decomposition of Rf_{\ast}IC_{X,\mathbf{Q}_\ell} in D^b_c(Y,\mathbf{Q}_\ell). Indeed, typically there is no such decomposition! However, as Bhargav explained to me, one can still descend a certain piece of (\dagger) to D^b_c(Y,\mathbf{Q}_\ell) when f is projective. This turns out to be good enough for some interesting applications.

To present Bhargav’s trick, let me make a definition. (What follows is a slight reinterpretation of what Bhargav told me, all mistakes are entirely due to me.)

Definition. Let \mathcal{F} be a perverse sheaf on a variety X. Let j:U \to X be the inclusion of the maximal dense open subvariety such that j^\ast \mathcal{F} is a (shifted) lisse sheaf. Then we define the generic part of \mathcal{F} as the perverse sheaf \mathcal{F}^{gen} = j_{!\ast} j^{\ast} \mathcal{F}.

Note that \mathcal{F}^{gen} is zero if and only if \mathcal{F} is supported on a nowhere-dense closed subvariety. Also, in general there is no map between \mathcal{F}^{gen} and \mathcal{F}. However, in some cases \mathcal{F}^{gen} is a direct summand of \mathcal{F}:

Proposition. Let \mathcal{F} be a perverse sheaf on a K-variety X, and suppose that the pullback of \mathcal{F} to X_{C} is a direct sum of IC sheaves. Then \mathcal{F}^{gen} is a direct summand of \mathcal{F}.

Proof. Let j:U \to X be as in the definition of the generic part of \mathcal{F}, with closed complement Z \subset X. Our assumptions together with the definition of the generic part guarantee that \mathcal{F}|X_C \simeq \mathcal{F}^{gen}|X_C \bigoplus \oplus_i IC_{Z_i}(\mathcal{L}_i) for some closed subvarieties Z_i \subset X_C contained in Z_C.

Now look at the natural maps \phantom{}^{\mathfrak{p}}j_! j^{\ast} \mathcal{F} \overset{\alpha}{\to} \mathcal{F} \overset{\beta}{\to} \phantom{}^{\mathfrak{p}}j_{\ast} j^{\ast} \mathcal{F}. Set \mathcal{G} = \mathrm{im}\,\alpha and \mathcal{H} = \mathrm{im}\,\beta. Since \phantom{}^{\mathfrak{p}}j_! j^{\ast} \mathcal{F} does not admit any nonzero quotient supported on Z, the composite map \mathcal{G}|X_C \hookrightarrow \mathcal{F}|X_C \to \oplus_i IC_{Z_i}(\mathcal{L}_i) is zero.  Thus \alpha factors over an inclusion \mathcal{G}|X_C \subset \mathcal{F}^{gen}|X_C. Moreover, \mathcal{G} has the same generic part as \mathcal{F}. This is enough to imply that \mathcal{G} = \mathcal{F}^{gen}, so we have a natural inclusion \mathcal{F}^{gen} \simeq \mathcal{G} \subset \mathcal{F}. A dual argument shows that \beta factors over a surjection \mathcal{F} \twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{H} \simeq \mathcal{F}^{gen}. It is now easy to see that the composite map \mathcal{F}^{gen} \hookrightarrow \mathcal{F} \twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{F}^{gen} is an isomorphism, so \mathcal{F}^{gen} is a direct summand of \mathcal{F}. \square

Corollary 0. Let f:X \to Y be a projective map of K-varieties. Then \phantom{}^{\mathfrak{p}}\mathcal{H}^0(Rf_{\ast}IC_{X,\mathbf{Q}_\ell})^{gen} is a direct summand of Rf_{\ast}IC_{X,\mathbf{Q}_\ell}.

Proof. The decomposition theorem and the relative hard Lefschetz theorem give a decomposition Rf_{\ast}IC_{X,\mathbf{Q}_\ell} \simeq \oplus \phantom{}^{\mathfrak{p}}\mathcal{H}^i(Rf_{\ast}IC_{X,\mathbf{Q}_\ell})[-i] in D^b_c(Y,\mathbf{Q}_\ell). Then \phantom{}^{\mathfrak{p}}\mathcal{H}^0(Rf_{\ast}IC_{X,\mathbf{Q}_\ell}) is a direct sum of IC sheaves after pullback to Y_C, so we can apply the previous proposition. \square

Corollary 1. Let f:X \to Y be a projective alteration of K-varieties with X smooth. Then IC_{Y,\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}} is a direct summand of Rf_{\ast}\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}[\dim X].

Proof. Check that IC_{Y,\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}} is a direct summand of \phantom{}^{\mathfrak{p}}\mathcal{H}^0(Rf_{\ast}\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}[\dim X])^{gen} by playing with trace maps. Now apply the previous corollary. \square

Corollary 2. Let K/\mathbf{Q}_p be a finite extension. Then for any K-variety X, the p-adic intersection cohomology IH^{\ast}(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbf{Q}_p) is a de Rham G_K-representation.

Proof. Let X' \to X be a resolution of singularities. The previous corollary shows that IH^{\ast}(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbf{Q}_p) is a direct summand of H^{\ast}(X'_{\overline{K}},\mathbf{Q}_p) compatibly with the G_K-actions. Since H^{\ast}(X'_{\overline{K}},\mathbf{Q}_p) is de Rham and the de Rham condition is stable under passing to summands, we get the result. \square

Note that we can’t prove this corollary by applying the decomposition theorem directly out of the box: the decomposition theorem does immediately give you a split injection IH^{\ast}(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbf{Q}_p) \to H^{\ast}(X'_{\overline{K}},\mathbf{Q}_p), but this map is not guaranteed a priori to be G_K-equivariant!

Corollary 3. Let K be a finite extension of \mathbf{Q}_p or \mathbf{F}_p((t)). If H^{\ast}(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}) satisfies the weight-monodromy conjecture for all smooth projective K-varieties X, then IH^{\ast}(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}) satisfies the weight-monodromy conjecture for all proper K-varieties X. In particular, the weight-monodromy conjecture holds for the \ell-adic intersection cohomology of all proper K-varieties for K/\mathbf{F}_p((t)) finite.

Proof. Entirely analogous to the previous proof. \square

It would be interesting to know whether Corollary 1 has a “motivic” incarnation. Here I will pretend to understand motives for a minute. Suppose we have an assignment X \mapsto D_{mot}(X) on quasi-projective K-varieties, where D_{mot}(X) is a suitable triangulated category of constructible motivic sheaves on X with \mathbf{Q}-coefficients. This should come with the formalism of (at least) the four operations f^{\ast}_{mot}, Rf_{mot\ast}, \otimes, R\mathcal{H}\mathrm{om}, and with faithful exact \ell-adic realization functors \mathcal{R}_{\ell}: D_{mot}(X) \to D^b_c(X,\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}) compatible with the four operations. I think this has all been constructed by Ayoub, maybe with some tiny additional hypothesis on K? Let \mathbf{Q}_{X} \in D_{mot}(X) denote the symmetric monoidal unit. It then makes sense to ask:

Question. In the setting of Corollary 1, is there an idempotent e \in \mathrm{End}_{D_{mot}(Y)}(Rf_{mot \ast} \mathbf{Q}_{X}[\dim X]) such that \mathcal{R}_{\ell}( e Rf_{mot \ast} \mathbf{Q}_{X}[\dim X]) \simeq IC_{Y,\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}} for all \ell?

This would imply that the split injections IH^{\ast}(Y_{\overline{K}},\mathbf{Q}_\ell) \to H^{\ast}(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbf{Q}_\ell) provided by Corollary 1 can be chosen “independently of \ell”, i.e. that they are the \ell-adic realizations of some split injection in D_{mot}(\mathrm{Spec}\,K).

 

 

 

 

3 thoughts on “A trick and the decomposition theorem”

  1. A nice trick by considering the generic part (similar to the proof of 5.3.11 of [BBD])! Theory of weights can be used to show pure perverse sheaf F on X_0 is semisimple after base change to X (but this may not be true over X_0), and Gabber’s purity implies IC sheaves are pure, moreover proper pushforward preserve purity (the reason is like Weil II), so we have the decomposition theorem ([BBD] 5.3.8). Moreover, every simple perverse sheaf is pure ([BBD] 5.3.5).

    But do we have an example where the decomposition doesn’t hold over K? For smooth proper map, it’s canonical by the trick of Lefschetz operator (as in Deligne’s thesis?). And I remember in Springer resolution we also use some invariant property of the decomposition to endow the G-action on each piece, maybe it also holds for semismall map? For K finitely generated over its prime filed, it seems we also have the general decomposition theorem over K, see the introduction theorem 1.8 and section 5 of https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.1292.

    Like

  2. Hi Zhiyu, I might be misunderstanding your question. For any proper morphism f of finite type K-schemes, I think Rf_{\ast} IC_{X,\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}} always splits as the direct sum of its shifted perverse cohomology sheaves, by some combination of the decomposition theorem / relative hard Lefschetz / the splitting criteria in Deligne’s thesis / Chow’s lemma if f is not projective. Are you asking whether each \phantom{}^{\mathfrak{p}}\mathcal{H}^n(Rf_{\ast}IC_{X,\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}}) is semisimple?

    Like

    1. I am interested in a counterexample in “it has no reason to descend to an analogous direct sum decomposition of Rf_{\ast}IC_{X,\mathbf{Q}_\ell} in D^b_c(Y,\mathbf{Q}_\ell)”, by the cited paper above it seems this is always true (so each perverse sheaf {^p}H^n is a direct sum of IC sheaves).

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s