text:
# 𝐷-equivalence and 𝐾-equivalence

## 1 Introduction

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety. We denote by $`D(X)=D^b(\text{Coh}(X))`$ the derived category of bounded complexes of coherent sheaves on $`X`$ (in §6, we shall consider a generalization where $`X`$ has singularities). It is known that $`D(X)`$ has a structure of a triangulated category.

###### Definition 1.1.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be smooth projective varieties. They are called $`D`$-equivalent if their derived categories $`D(X)`$ and $`D(Y)`$ of bounded complexes of coherent sheaves are equivalent as triangulated categories, i.e., there exists an equivalence of categories $`\mathrm{\Phi }:D(X)D(Y)`$ which commutes with the translations and sends any distinguished triangle to a distinguished triangle. They are called $`K`$-equivalent if they are birationally equivalent and if there exists a smooth projective variety $`Z`$ with birational morphisms $`f:ZX`$ and $`g:ZY`$ such that the pull-backs of the canonical divisors are linearly equivalent: $`f^{}K_Xg^{}K_Y`$.

We shall consider the following conjecture which predicts that the $`D`$ and $`K`$-equivalences coincide for birationally equivalent varieties.

###### Conjecture 1.2.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be birationally equivalent smooth projective varieties. Then the following are equivalent.

(1) There exists an equivalence of triangulated categories $`D(X)D(Y)`$.

(2) There exists a smooth projective variety $`Z`$ and birational morphisms $`f:ZX`$ and $`g:ZY`$ such that $`f^{}K_Xg^{}K_Y`$.

The category of coherent sheaves $`\text{Coh}(X)`$ reflects the biregular geometry of $`X`$, but we expect that the derived category $`D(X)`$ captures more essential properties such as its birational geometry.

A derived category is a purely algebraic object. But one can sometimes recover the geometry from it:

###### Theorem 1.3.

 Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety. Assume that $`K_X`$ or $`K_X`$ is ample.

(1) Let $`Y`$ be another smooth projective variety. Assume that there exists an equivalence of categories $`\mathrm{\Phi }:D(X)D(Y)`$ which commutes with the translations. Then there is an isomorphism $`\varphi :XY`$.

(2) The group of isomorphism classes of exact autoequivalences of $`D(X)`$ is isomorphic to the semi-direct product of $`\text{Aut}(X)`$ and $`\text{Pic}(X)`$.

We shall prove a generalization of Bondal-Orlov’s theorem in this paper:

###### Theorem 1.4.

($`=`$ Theorem 2.3) Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be smooth projective varieties. Assume that the bounded derived categories of coherent sheaves on them are equivalent as triangulated categories: $`D(X)D(Y)`$. Then the following hold:

(0) $`dimX=dimY`$. Let $`n`$ be the common dimension.

(1) If $`K_X`$ (resp. $`K_X`$) is nef, then $`K_Y`$ (resp. $`K_Y`$) is also nef, and an equality on the numerical Kodaira dimension $`\nu (X)=\nu (K_Y)`$ (resp. $`\nu (X,K_X)=\nu (Y,K_Y)`$) holds.

(2) If $`\kappa (X)=n`$, i.e., $`X`$ is of general type, or if $`\kappa (X,K_X)=n`$, then $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are birationally equivalent. Moreover, there exist birational morphisms $`f:ZX`$ and $`g:ZY`$ from a smooth projective variety $`Z`$ such that $`f^{}K_Xg^{}K_Y`$.

We also consider the following conjecture:

###### Conjecture 1.5.

For a given smooth projective variety $`X`$, there exist only finitely many smooth projective varieties $`Y`$ up to isomorphisms such that $`D(Y)`$ is equivalent to $`D(X)`$ as a triangulated category.

We shall give an affirmative answer for surfaces in §3 by extending a result of Bridgeland and Maciocia :

###### Theorem 1.6.

($`=`$ Theorems 3.1 and 3.2) Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface. Then there exist at most finitely many smooth projective surfaces $`Y`$ up to isomorphism such that the derived categories $`D(X)`$ and $`D(Y)`$ are equivalent as triangulated categories. Moreover, if $`X`$ contains a $`(1)`$-curve but is not isomorphic to a relatively minimal elliptic rational surface, then any such $`Y`$ is isomorphic to $`X`$.

The above conjecture can be regarded as a generalization of the conjecture which predicts that there exist only finitely many minimal models up to isomorphisms in a fixed birational equivalence class (). Note that we do not assume the minimality of $`X`$ in Conjecture 1.5.

We consider the reverse direction from $`K`$-equivalence to $`D`$-equivalence in the latter half of the paper. We collects some facts from minimal model theory in §4, and we calculate some examples in arbitrary dimension in §5. In the case of dimension $`3`$, we have a complete answer even for the case of singular varieties:

###### Theorem 1.7.

($`=`$ Theorems 4.6 and 6.5) Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be normal projective varieties of dimension $`3`$ having only $``$-factorial terminal singularities, and let $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒴`$ be their canonical covering stacks. Assume that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are $`K`$-equivalent. Then the bounded derived categories of coherent orbifold sheaves $`D(𝒳)`$ and $`D(𝒴)`$ are equivalent as triangulated categories.

Acknowledgement: The author would like to thank Tom Bridgeland, Jiun-Cheng Chen, Akira Ishii, Keiji Oguiso, Burt Totaro and Jan Wierzba for useful discussions or comments and the anonymous referee for suggestions.

## 2 From $`D`$-equivalence to $`K`$-equivalence

We need the concept of Fourier-Mukai transformation:

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be smooth projective varieties, and let $`p_1:X\times YX`$ and $`p_2:X\times YY`$ be projections. For an object $`eD(X\times Y)`$, we define an integral functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^e:D(X)D(Y)`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^e(a)=p_2(p_1^{}(a)e)$$

for $`aD(X)`$, where $`p_1^{}`$ and $``$ are the right derived functors and $`p_2`$ is the left derived functor. An integral functor is said to be a Fourier-Mukai transformation if it is an equivalence.

The following theorem by Orlov is fundamental for the proof of Theorem 2.3.

###### Theorem 2.2.

 Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }:D(X)D(Y)`$ be a functor of bounded derived categories of coherent sheaves which commutes with the translations and sends any distinguished triangle to a distinguished triangle. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is fully faithful and has a right adjoint. Then there exists an object $`eD(X\times Y)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is isomorphic to the integral functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^e`$. Moreover, $`e`$ is uniquely determined up to isomorphisms.

The following theorem guarantees that the $`D`$-equivalence implies the $`K`$-equivalence at least for general type varieties.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be smooth projective varieties. Assume that the bounded derived categories of coherent sheaves on them are equivalent as triangulated categories: $`D(X)D(Y)`$. Then the following hold:

(0) $`dimX=dimY`$. Let $`n`$ be the common dimension.

(1) If $`K_X`$ (resp. $`K_X`$) is nef, then $`K_Y`$ (resp. $`K_Y`$) is also nef, and an equality on the numerical Kodaira dimension $`\nu (X)=\nu (Y)`$ (resp. $`\nu (X,K_X)=\nu (Y,K_Y)`$) holds.

(2) If $`\kappa (X)=n`$, i.e., $`X`$ is of general type, or if $`\kappa (X,K_X)=n`$, then $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are birationally equivalent. Moreover, there exist birational morphisms $`f:ZX`$ and $`g:ZY`$ from a smooth projective variety $`Z`$ such that $`f^{}K_Xg^{}K_Y`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2.2, there exists an object $`eD(X\times Y)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^e:D(X)D(Y)`$ is an equivalence. Let

$$e^{}=RHom_{𝒪_{X\times Y}}(e,𝒪_{X\times Y})$$

the the derived dual object. By the Grothendieck duality, the right and left adjoint functors of $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^e`$ are given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{YX}^{e^{}p_1^{}\omega _X[dimX]}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{YX}^{e^{}p_2^{}\omega _Y[dimY]}`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an equivalence, the right and left adjoint functors of $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^e`$ are isomorphic. By Theorem 2.2 again, we have an isomorphism of objects

$$e^{}p_1^{}\omega _X[dimX]e^{}p_2^{}\omega _Y[dimY].$$

It follows immediately that $`dimX=dimY`$.

Let $`H^i(e^{})`$ be the cohomology sheaves, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the union of the supports of the $`H^i(e^{})`$ for all $`i`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_jZ_j`$ the decomposition to irreducible components, and let $`\nu _j:\stackrel{~}{Z}_jZ_j`$ be the normalizations. We take a $`Z_j`$ and assume that it is an irreducible component of the support of $`H^i(e^{})`$. By taking the determinant of both sides of the isomorphism

$$\nu _j^{}(H^i(e^{})p_1^{}\omega _X)\nu _j^{}(H^i(e^{})p_2^{}\omega _Y)$$

we obtain

$$\nu _j^{}p_1^{}\omega _X^{m_j}\nu _j^{}p_2^{}\omega _Y^{m_j}$$

where $`m_j`$ is the rank of $`\nu _j^{}H^i(e^{})`$.

(1) Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^e`$ is an equivalence, the projections $`p_1|_\mathrm{\Gamma }:\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$ and $`p_2|_\mathrm{\Gamma }:\mathrm{\Gamma }Y`$ are surjective. Let $`Z_1`$ be an irreducible component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which dominates $`Y`$. If $`K_X`$ is nef, then $`m_1\nu _1^{}p_1^{}K_Xm_1\nu _1^{}p_2^{}K_Y`$ is also nef, hence so is $`K_Y`$. We have also $`\nu (X)\nu (\stackrel{~}{Z}_1,\nu _1^{}p_2^{}K_Y)=\nu (Y)`$, thus $`\nu (X)=\nu (Y)`$. The case where $`K_X`$ is nef is proved similarly.

(2) If $`\kappa (X)=n`$, then there exist an ample $``$-divisor $`A`$ and an effective $``$-divisor $`B`$ on $`X`$ such that $`K_X_{}A+B`$ by Kodaira’s lemma. Let $`Z_1`$ be an irreducible component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which dominates $`X`$. Then the projection $`p_2|_{Z_1}:Z_1Y`$ is quasi-finite on $`Z_1p_1^1(\text{Supp}(B))`$. Indeed, if there exists a curve $`C`$ which is contained in $`Z_1p_2^1(y)`$ for a point $`yY`$ but not entirely in $`p_1^1(\text{Supp}(B))`$, then we have $`(p_2^{}K_YC)=0`$ while $`(p_1^{}K_XC)(p_1^{}AC)>0`$, a contradiction. Since $`dimX=dimY=n`$, it follows that $`dimZ_1=n`$ and $`Z_1`$ also dominates $`Y`$.

We claim that the set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }p_1^1(x)`$ consisits of $`1`$ point for a general point $`xX`$. Indeed, the previous argument showed already that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }p_1^1(x)`$ is a finite set. If it is not connected, then the natural map $`\text{Hom}_{D(X)}(𝒪_x,𝒪_x)\text{Hom}_{D(Y)}(\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x),\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x))`$ is not surjective, a contradiction. Therefore, $`Z_1`$ is a graph of a birational map. If we take $`Z`$ to be any resolution of $`Z_1`$, then the conclusion holds.

The case where $`\kappa (X,K_X)=n`$ is proved similarly. ∎

###### Remark 2.4.

(0) The differential geometric picture of the above proof is that the kernel object $`e`$ of the Fourier-Mukai transformation cannot spread itself if the Ricci curvature is non-vanishing.

(1) In the case where $`K_X`$ or $`K_X`$ is ample, we can also reprove Theorem 1.3 (2) by a similar argument as above.

Indeed, if we take $`B=0`$, then $`Z_1`$ becomes a graph of an isomorphism, say $`h`$. Now $`e`$ can be considered as a complex of sheaves on $`X`$ so that we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x)h(e_{𝒪_X}𝒪_x)`$ for any $`xX`$, where the tensor product is taken in $`D(X)`$. Since

$$\text{Hom}_{D(X)}^p(\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x),\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x))=0$$

for any $`p<0`$, it follows that there exists an integer $`i_0`$ such that $`e[i_0]`$ is a sheaf. Since

$$\text{Hom}_{D(X)}(\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x),\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x))=$$

$`e[i_0]`$ is invertible.

We note that we did not assume in Theorem 1.3 that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ sends any distinguished triangle to a distinguished triangle.

(2) We can extend Theorem 1.3 (2) to the case where $`X`$ admits quotient singularities if $`K_X`$ generates the local class group at any point as in . Namely, let $`𝒳`$ be the smooth stack which lies naturally above $`X`$ and let $`D(𝒳)=D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳))`$ be the derived category of bounded complexes of coherent sheaves on $`𝒳`$ (see §6). Then $`\text{Auteq}(D(𝒳))`$ is isomorphic to the semi-direct product of $`\text{Aut}(X)`$ and $`\text{Pic}(𝒳)`$. The proof is the same as in .

On the other hand, if $`K_X`$ does not generate the local class group, then the group of autoequivalences is much larger. For example, if $`Y`$ is a smooth projective minimal surface of general type and $`X`$ is its canonical model, then $`D(𝒳)`$ is equivalent to $`D(Y)`$. If $`C`$ is an exceptional curve of the resolution $`YX`$, then $`𝒪_C(1)`$ is a $`2`$-spherical object in $`D(Y)`$ and generates an autoequivalence of infinite order (, see also §4).

(3) If $`\nu (X)=\nu (Y)=0`$ in Theorem 2.3 (1), then $`K_X0`$ if and only if $`K_Y0`$ because $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ commutes with the Serre functors. More generally, it is known that the orders of the canonical divisors coincide ( Lemma 2.1).

## 3 Fourier-Mukai partners of surfaces

We have a complete picture of $`D`$ and $`K`$-equivalences for surfaces. We start with the case of minimal surfaces:

###### Theorem 3.1.

 Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface. Assume that there is no $`(1)`$-curve on $`X`$. Then there exist at most finitely many smooth projective surfaces $`Y`$ such that the derived categories $`D(X)`$ and $`D(Y)`$ are equivalent as triangulated categories.

We note that there are Fourier-Mukai partners which are not birationally equivalent in the case of abelian or K3 or elliptic surfaces (, , , , , ). It is rather surprising that the existence of a $`(1)`$-curve reduces the symmetry drastically:

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface. Assume that there exists a $`(1)`$-curve on $`X`$. Then there exist at most finitely many smooth projective surfaces $`Y`$ such that the derived categories $`D(X)`$ and $`D(Y)`$ are equivalent as triangulated categories. Moreover, if $`X`$ is not isomorphic to a relatively minimal elliptic rational surface, then any such $`Y`$ is isomorphic to $`X`$.

###### Proof.

We use the notation of the proof of Theorem 2.3. Let $`C`$ be a $`(1)`$-curve and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C=p_1^1(C)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Since $`K_X|_C`$ is ample, the projection $`p_2|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_C}:\mathrm{\Gamma }_CY`$ is a finite morphism. We have two possibilities that $`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }_C=1`$ or $`2`$.

Assume first that $`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }_C=1`$. We take an irreducible component $`Z_1`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which dominates $`X`$, and let $`Z_{1,C}=p_1^1(C)Z_1`$ and $`C^{}=p_2(Z_{1,C})`$. We know that $`dimZ_{1,C}=dimC^{}=1`$. It follows that $`dimZ_1=2`$ and the projection $`p_1|_{Z_1}:Z_1X`$ is generically finite, hence a birational morphism as in the proof of Theorem 2.3.

If $`Z_1`$ dominates $`Y`$, then the other projection $`p_2|_{Z_1}:Z_1Y`$ is also birational, and $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are $`K`$-equivalent through $`Z_1`$. Hence $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are isomorphic (cf. Lemma 4.2).

Otherwise, we have $`p_2(Z_1)=C^{}`$. There exists an open dense subset $`UX`$ such that $`p_1`$ induces an isomorphism $`p_1^1(U)\mathrm{\Gamma }=p_1^1(U)Z_1U`$. Take two distinct points $`x_1,x_2U`$ which correspond to the same point $`yC^{}`$, i.e., $`y=p_2(p_1^1(x_1)\mathrm{\Gamma })=p_2(p_1^1(x_2)\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Then both $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_{x_1})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_{x_2})`$ are supported at $`y`$, hence $`\text{Hom}_{D(Y)}^p(\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_{x_1}),\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_{x_2}))0`$ for some $`p`$, a contradiction.

Assume next that $`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }_C=2`$. Then $`p_2|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_C}:\mathrm{\Gamma }_CY`$ is dominant. Since $`(K_XC)<0`$, we deduce that $`K_Y`$ is nef and $`\nu (Y,K_Y)=1`$. Hence $`K_X`$ is also nef and $`\nu (X,K_X)=1`$ by Theorem 2.3. By the classification of surfaces, such a surface is isomorphic to either a minimal elliptic ruled surface or a rational surface with Euler number $`12`$. Since $`X`$ has a $`(1)`$-curve, $`X`$ is a rational surface. By  Proposition 2.3, $`Y`$ is also a rational surface.

We have the possibilities that $`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$ or $`3`$. If $`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$, then we obtain our result as before. If $`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }=3`$, then $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are dominated by families of curves whose intersection numbers with the canonical divisors vanish. Thus $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are relatively minimal rational elliptic surfaces. By  Proposition 4.4, we obtain our result. Here we note that the proof there works also for relatively minimal elliptic surfaces of negative Kodaira dimension. ∎

We can extend some of the above argument to higher dimensional case:

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be smooth projective varieties. Assume that $`\kappa (X)0`$ but $`K_X`$ is not nef, and that there is an extremal contraction morphism $`\varphi :XW`$ which contracts a prime divisor $`D`$ to a point. Assume that the derived categories $`D(X)`$ and $`D(Y)`$ are equivalent as triangulated categories. Then $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are birational and $`K`$-equivalent.

###### Proof.

We use the notation of the proof of Theorem 2.3. The proof is similar to that of Theorem 3.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_D=p_1^1(D)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }_D=n1`$ for $`n=dimX`$, then there exists an irreducible component $`Z_1`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of dimension $`n`$ which dominates $`X`$. Then it follows that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are birational and $`K`$-equivalent as in the proof of Theorem 3.2.

Assume that $`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }_Dn`$. Since $`K_X|_D`$ is ample, the projection $`p_2|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_D}:\mathrm{\Gamma }_DY`$ is a finite morphism. Hence $`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }_D=n`$, and $`K_Y`$ is nef with $`\nu (Y,K_Y)=n1`$, a contradiction to $`\kappa (X)`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.4.

We cannot expect similar statements for other types of contractions. For example, let $`A`$ be an abelian surface, $`\widehat{A}`$ its dual, and $`S`$ a smooth projective surface which contains a $`(1)`$-curve. Let $`X=A\times S`$ and $`Y=\widehat{A}\times S`$. Then $`X`$ has a divisorial contraction, $`D(X)D(Y)`$, but $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are not birational in general.

## 4 Flops and minimal models

We consider normal varieties which are not necessarily smooth in this section.

###### Definition 4.1.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be normal quasiprojective varieties whose canonical divisors are $``$-Cartier divisors. A birational map $`\alpha :XY`$ is said to be crepant if there exists a smooth quasiprojective variety $`Z`$ with birational projective morphisms $`f:ZX`$ and $`g:ZY`$ such that $`\alpha f=g`$ and $`f^{}K_X_{}g^{}K_Y`$.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`\alpha :XY`$ be a crepant birational map between quasiprojective varieties with only terminal singularities. Then $`\alpha `$ is an isomorphism in codimension $`1`$; i.e., there exist closed subvarieties $`EX`$ and $`FY`$ of codimension at least $`2`$ such that $`\alpha `$ induces an isomorphism $`XEYF`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`X`$ has only terminal singularities, a prime divisor $`D`$ on $`Z`$ is mapped by $`f`$ to a subvariety of codimension at least $`2`$ on $`X`$ if and only if it appears in the relative canonical divisor $`K_{Z/X}=K_Zf^{}K_X`$ as an irreducible component. Since a similar statement holds for $`g`$, our assertion follows from the equality $`K_{Z/X}=K_{Z/Y}`$. ∎

###### Definition 4.3.

A projective variety $`X`$ with only canonical singularities is called minimal if $`K_X`$ is nef.

The minimality of a variety is characterized by the minimality of its canonical divisor:

###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be normal projective varieties whose canonical divisors are $``$-Cartier divisors. Assume that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are birationally equivalent, $`X`$ has only canonical singularities and that $`K_X`$ is nef. Then the inequality $`K_XK_Y`$ holds in the following sense: Let $`Z`$ any smooth projective variety with projective birational morphisms $`f:ZX`$ and $`g:ZY`$. Then there exists a positive integer $`m`$ such that $`m(g^{}K_Yf^{}K_X)`$ is linearly equivalent to an effective divisor. In particular, any birational map between minimal varieties is crepant.

###### Proof.

We write $`f^{}K_X+A=g^{}K_Y+B`$, where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are effective divisors without common irreducible components. Since $`X`$ has only canonical singularities, we may assume that $`\text{codim }g(\text{Supp}(B))2`$.

Assuming that $`B0`$, we shall derive a contradiction. Let $`H`$ and $`M`$ be very ample divisors on $`Y`$ and $`Z`$, respectively, and let $`n=dimY`$ and $`d=dimg(\text{Supp}(B))`$. We consider a generic surface section

$$S=g^{}H_1\mathrm{}g^{}H_dM_1\mathrm{}M_{nd2}$$

for $`H_i|H|`$ and $`M_j|M|`$. By the Hodge index theorem, we have $`(g^{}H^dM^{nd2}B^2)<0`$, while $`(g^{}H^dM^{nd2}B(f^{}K_X+Ag^{}K_Y))0`$ because $`K_X`$ is nef and $`(g^{}H^dg^{}K_YM^{nd2}B)=0`$, a contradiction. ∎

We consider a special kind of crepant birational maps called flops:

###### Definition 4.5.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be quasiprojective varieties with only canonical singularities, and $`D`$ a $``$-Cartier divisor on $`X`$. A birational map $`\alpha :XY`$ is said to be a $`D`$-flop, or simply a flop, if there exist a normal quasiprojective variety $`W`$ and crepant birational projective morphisms $`\varphi :XW`$ and $`\psi :YW`$ which satisfy the following conditions:

(1) $`\varphi =\psi \alpha `$.

(2) $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are isomorphisms in codimension $`1`$.

(3) $`D`$ is $`\varphi `$-ample, and for any $``$-Cartier divisor $`A`$ on $`X`$, there exist a $``$-Cartier divisor $`A_0`$ on $`W`$ and a rational number $`r`$ such that $`A_{}\varphi ^{}A_0+rD`$.

(4) Let $`D^{}`$ be the strict transform of $`D`$ on $`Y`$. Then $`D^{}`$ is $`\psi `$-ample, and for any $``$-Cartier divisor $`B`$ on $`Y`$, there exist a $``$-Cartier divisor $`B_0`$ on $`W`$ and a rational number $`r^{}`$ such that $`B_{}\psi ^{}B_0+r^{}D^{}`$.

We can define flops of complex analytic spaces instead of quasiprojective varieties in a similar way. In this case, $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are complex analytic spaces which are relatively projective over a complex analytic space $`W`$.

Any crepant birational map between projective varieties with only $``$-factorial terminal singularities is expected to be decomposed into a sequence of flops:

###### Theorem 4.6.

Let $`\alpha :XY`$ be a crepant birational map between projective varieties of dimension $`3`$ with only $``$-factorial terminal singularities. Then $`\alpha `$ is decomposed into a sequence of flops.

###### Proof.

We may assume that the subvariety $`E`$ of Lemma 4.2 is purely $`1`$-dimensional. We may also assume that any irreducible component of $`E`$ is the image of a curve on $`Z`$ which is mapped to a point on $`Y`$. Since $`\alpha `$ is crepant, we have $`K_X|_E_{}0`$. Let $`H`$ be an ample Cartier divisor on $`Y`$ such that $`HK_Y`$ is still ample, and let $`H^{}`$ be its strict transform on $`X`$. By construction, any curve $`C`$ such that $`(H^{}C)0`$ is contained in $`E`$. We run the minimal model program with respect to $`K_X+ϵH^{}`$, where $`ϵ`$ is a small positive number, for only those extremal rays on which $`H^{}`$ is non-positive. Then the associated extremal curves are contained in $`E`$, so we obtain an $`H^{}`$-flop. We denote the result after the flop again by the same letters such as $`X,E`$ and $`H^{}`$. After a finite flops, we have no more extremal rays on which $`H^{}`$ is non-positive. Then $`H^{}`$ becomes nef and big. Since $`H^{}`$ is ample outside $`E`$, $`H^{}K_X`$ is also nef and big, By the base point free theorem, we obtain a birational morphism $`XY`$, which should be an isomorphism. ∎

## 5 From $`K`$-equivalence to $`D`$-equivalence

The following is a special case of the implication from (2) to (1) in Conjecture 1.2:

###### Conjecture 5.1.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be smooth projective varieties and $`\alpha :XWY`$ a flop. Then there exists an equivalence of triangulated categories $`\mathrm{\Phi }:D(X)D(Y)`$.

The examples in this section suggest that the integral functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^e`$ for the structure sheaf $`e=𝒪_{X\times _WY}`$ of the subscheme $`X\times _WYX\times Y`$ might work.

We consider the following $`2`$ examples of flops in this section.

###### Example 5.2.

(1) A standard flop. Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety of dimension $`2m+1`$ for some positive integer $`m`$, and $`E`$ a subvariety of $`X`$. Assume that $`E^m`$, and $`N_{E/X}𝒪_^m(1)^{m+1}`$. Let $`f:ZX`$ be the blowing-up with center $`E`$. Then the exceptional divisor $`G`$ is isomorphic to $`^m\times ^m`$ and can be blown-down to another direction, so that we obtain a birational morphism $`g:ZY`$ and a subvariety $`F=g(G)^m`$. There is a projective variety $`W`$ with contraction morphisms $`\varphi :XW`$ and $`\psi :YW`$ whose exceptional loci are $`E`$ and $`F`$, respectively, and such that $`w_0=\varphi (E)=\psi (F)`$ is the only singular point of $`W`$. Then $`\alpha =gf^1=\psi ^1\varphi `$ is a flop.

(2) Mukai’s flop. Let $`W_0`$ be a generic hypersurface section of $`W`$ in (1) through the singular point $`w_0`$. Let $`X_0=\varphi ^1(W_0)`$, $`Y_0=\psi ^1(W_0)`$, $`\varphi _0=\varphi |_{X_0}`$, and $`\psi _0=\psi |_{Y_0}`$. Then $`X_0`$ and $`Y_0`$ are smooth, and $`\alpha _0=\psi _0^1\varphi _0`$ is a flop. The inverse image $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_0=f^1(X_0)=g^1(Y_0)`$ is reducible with $`2`$ irreducible components $`G`$ and $`Z_0`$, where $`Z_0`$ is smooth. The restrictions $`f_0=f|_{Z_0}`$ and $`g_0=g|_{Z_0}`$ are again birational morphisms, and $`\alpha _0=g_0f_0^1`$. We set $`G_0=GZ_0`$. Then $`f_0(G_0)=E`$ and $`g_0(G_0)=F`$.

We need the following concepts:

###### Definition 5.3.

A set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of objects of $`D(X)`$ is said to a spanning class if the following hold for any $`aD(X)`$.

(1) $`\text{Hom}^p(a,\omega )=0`$ for all $`p`$ and all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies that $`a0`$

(2) $`\text{Hom}^p(\omega ,a)=0`$ for all $`p`$ and all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies that $`a0`$.

For example, the set of point sheaves $`\{𝒪_P\}`$ for a smooth projective variety is a spanning class ( Example 2.2).

###### Definition 5.4.

A Serre functor $`S_X:D(X)D(X)`$ is an autoequivalence of triangulated categories which induces bifunctorial isomorphisms

$$\text{Hom}_{D(X)}(a,b)\text{Hom}_{D(X)}(b,S_X(a))^{}$$

for $`a,bD(X)`$.

If a Serre functor exists, then it is unique up to isomorphisms. If $`X`$ is smooth and projective, then $`S_X(a)=a\omega _X[dimX]`$ is a Serre functor.

In order to prove that a functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }:D(X)D(Y)`$ to be fully faithful, it is sufficient to check it for the spanning class ( Theorem 2.3):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:\text{Hom}^p(\omega _1,\omega _2)\text{Hom}^p(\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _1),\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _2))$$

for all $`p`$ and all $`\omega _1,\omega _2\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Moreover, by  Theorem 2.3, provided that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^e`$ is fully faithful, it is an equivalence if and only if it commutes with the Serre functor. Theorefore, in order to prove our conjecture, we may consider locally over an analytic neighborhood of a point of $`W`$ and replace the given flop by any other flop which is analytically isomorphic to the original one. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is proved to be fully faithful, then it is automatically an equivalence in our case.

###### Proposition 5.5.

 In Example 5.2 (1), $`Z`$ is isomorphic to the fiber product $`X\times _WY`$ which is a closed subscheme of $`X\times Y`$, and the functor

$$g_{}f^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^{𝒪_Z}:D(X)D(Y)$$

is an equivalence of triangulated categories.

###### Proof.

We may replace $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ by the total space of the vector bundles $`N_{E/X}`$, $`N_{F/Y}`$ and $`N_{G/Z}`$, respectively. We denote by $`𝒪_X(k)`$, $`𝒪_Y(l)`$ and $`𝒪_Z(k,l)`$ the pull-backs of $`𝒪_E(k)`$, $`𝒪_F(l)`$ and $`𝒪_G(k,l)`$, respectively. The set of objects

$$\{𝒪_X(k)D(X)|k=0,1,\mathrm{},m\}$$

spans $`D(X)`$. Since $`K_{Z/X}mG`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}𝒪_X(k)& \stackrel{f^{}}{}& 𝒪_Z(k,0)𝒪_Z(0,k)(kG)& \stackrel{g_{}}{}& 𝒪_Y(k).\end{array}$$

We have

$$\text{Hom}^p(𝒪_X(k_1),𝒪_X(k_1))\text{Hom}^p(𝒪_Y(k_1),𝒪_Y(k_1))0$$

for $`p0`$ and $`k_1,k_2=0,1,\mathrm{},m`$ by the vanishing theorem, and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^{𝒪_Z}:\text{Hom}(𝒪_X(k_1),𝒪_X(k_1))\text{Hom}(𝒪_Y(k_1),𝒪_Y(k_1))$$

because $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are isomorphic in codimension $`1`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^{𝒪_Z}`$ is an equivalence by the remarks preceding to the proposition. ∎

###### Lemma 5.6.

 Let $`\pi _X:XS`$ and $`\pi _Y:YS`$ be smooth projective morphisms from smooth quasiprojective varieties to a smooth quasiprojective curve. Let $`s_0S`$ be a point, and let $`X_0=\pi _X^1(s_0)`$ and $`Y_0=\pi _X^1(s_0)`$ be fibers. Let $`i_{X_0}:X_0X`$, $`i_{Y_0}:Y_0Y`$ and $`i_{X\times _SY}:X\times _SYX\times Y`$ be the embeddings. Let $`eD(X\times _SY)`$ be an object, and let $`e_0=e𝒪_{X_0\times Y_0}`$ and $`e^{}=i_{X\times _SY}(e)`$. Then there is an isomorphism of functors from $`D(X_0)`$ to $`D(Y)`$:

$$i_{Y_0}\mathrm{\Phi }_{X_0Y_0}^{e_0}\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^e^{}i_{X_0}.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`i_{X_0\times Y_0}:X_0\times Y_0X\times _SY`$ be the embedding. Let $`p_1:X\times _SYX`$, $`p_2:X\times _SYY`$, $`p_{1,0}:X_0\times Y_0X_0`$ and $`p_{2,0}:X_0\times Y_0Y_0`$ be projections. For $`aD(X_0)`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& i_{Y_0}\mathrm{\Phi }_{X_0Y_0}^{e_0}(a)i_{Y_0}p_{2,0}(p_{1,0}^{}(a)e_0)p_2i_{X_0\times Y_0}(p_{1,0}^{}(a)e_0)\hfill \\ & p_2(i_{X_0\times Y_0}p_{1,0}^{}(a)e)p_2(p_1^{}i_{X_0}(a)e)\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^e^{}i_{X_0}(a).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Corollary 5.7.

In Example 5.2 (2), the functor

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{X_0Y_0}^{𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_0}}:D(X_0)D(Y_0)$$

is an equivalence of triangulated categories.

###### Proof.

Since $`Z=X\times _WY`$ is a subscheme of $`X\times _SY`$, we have the following isomorphisms

$$i_{X_0}\mathrm{\Phi }_{Y_0X_0}^{𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_0}(mG)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{X_0Y_0}^{𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_0}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{YX}^{𝒪_Z(mG)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^{𝒪_Z}i_{X_0}i_{X_0}.$$

For any $`aD(X_0)`$, let $`bD(X_0)`$ be the cone of the natural morphism

$$a\mathrm{\Phi }_{Y_0X_0}^{𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_0}(mG)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{X_0Y_0}^{𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_0}}(a).$$

Then $`i_{X_0}(b)0`$, hence $`b0`$. ∎

The following concept is useful for constructing autoequivalences of derived categories.

###### Definition 5.8.

 An object $`sD(X)`$ is called $`n`$-spherical if

$$\text{Hom}_{D(X)}^p(s,s)\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{ if }p=0,n\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The twisting functors $`T_s,T_s^{}:D(X)D(X)`$ are defined such that the following triangles are distinguished:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& R\text{Hom}_X(s,a)saT_s(a)R\text{Hom}_X(s,a)s[1]\hfill \\ & T_s^{}(a)aR\text{Hom}_{}(R\text{Hom}_X(a,s),s)T_s^{}(a)[1]\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`R\text{Hom}_X`$ denotes the derived global Hom. If $`s`$ is $`n`$-spherical for $`n=dimX`$, then $`T_s`$ and $`T_s^{}`$ are equivalences and $`T_sT_s^{}\text{Id}_{D(X)}`$.

###### Example 5.9.

(1) $`𝒪_E`$ in Example 5.2 (1) is a $`(2m+1)`$-sherical object. Indeed, since $`N_{E/X}𝒪_E(1)^{m+1}`$, we have

$$xt_{𝒪_{X_0}}^p(𝒪_E,𝒪_E)\stackrel{p}{}(𝒪_E(1)^{m+1}).$$

Hence

$$\text{Hom}_{D(X)}^p(𝒪_E,𝒪_E)\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{ if }p=0,2m+1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

(2) $`𝒪_E`$ in Example 5.2 (2) is not a $`2m`$-sherical object. Indeed, since $`N_{E/X_0}\mathrm{\Omega }_E^1`$, we have

$$xt_{𝒪_{X_0}}^p(𝒪_E,𝒪_E)\mathrm{\Omega }_E^p.$$

Hence

$$\text{Hom}_{D(X_0)}^p(𝒪_E,𝒪_E)\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{ if }p=0,2,\mathrm{},2m\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

There is some relationship between the flops and the twistings.

###### Example 5.10.

If $`m=1`$ in Example 5.2 (1), then there are isomorphisms

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{YX}^{𝒪_Z}\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^{𝒪_Z}(𝒪_X(k))T_{𝒪_E(1)}^{}(𝒪_X(k))$$

for $`k=0,1`$.

Indeed, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}𝒪_X& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^{𝒪_Z}}{}& 𝒪_Y& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }_{YX}^{𝒪_Z}}{}& 𝒪_X\\ 𝒪_X(1)& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^{𝒪_Z}}{}& 𝒪_Y(1)& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }_{YX}^{𝒪_Z}}{}& _E(1)\end{array}$$

where $`_E`$ is the ideal sheaf of $`E`$ in $`X`$. On the other hand,

$$R\text{Hom}_X(𝒪_X,𝒪_E(1))=0,R\text{Hom}_X(𝒪_X(1),𝒪_E(1))=$$

hence

$$T_{𝒪_E(1)}^{}(𝒪_X)=𝒪_X,T_{𝒪_E(1)}^{}(𝒪_X(1))=_E(1).$$

###### Example 5.11.

In Example 5.2 (2), there are isomorphisms

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{X_0Y_0}^{𝒪_{Z_0}}(\mathrm{\Phi }_{X_0Y_0}^{𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_0}})^1(𝒪_{Y_0}(k))T_{𝒪_F(1)}(𝒪_{Y_0}(k))$$

for $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},m`$.

Indeed, since

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \text{Hom}_{D(Y_0)}^p(𝒪_F(1),𝒪_{Y_0}(k))\text{Hom}_{D(Y_0)}(𝒪_{Y_0}(k),𝒪_F(1)[2mp])^{}\hfill \\ & \{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{ if }k=0,\mathrm{},m1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }k=m\text{ and }pm\hfill \\ \hfill & \text{ if }k=m\text{ and }p=m.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

we have

$$T_{𝒪_F(1)}(𝒪_{Y_0}(k))𝒪_{Y_0}(k)$$

for $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},m1`$, and

$$𝒪_F(1)[m]𝒪_{Y_0}(m)T_{𝒪_F(1)}(𝒪_{Y_0}(m))𝒪_F(1)[m+1]$$

is a distinguished triangle, where the first arrow is non-trivial.

On the other hand, we have an exact sequence

$$0𝒪_X𝒪_X𝒪_{X_0}0$$

where the first arrow is the multiplication by an equation of $`W_0W`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{X_0Y_0}^{𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_0}}(𝒪_{X_0}(k))𝒪_{Y_0}(k)$$

for $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},m`$. If $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},m1`$, then we also have

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}𝒪_{X_0}(k)& \stackrel{f_0^{}}{}& 𝒪_{Z_0}(k,0)𝒪_{Z_0}(0,k)(kG_0)& \stackrel{g_0}{}& 𝒪_{Y_0}(k)\end{array}$$

because $`K_{Z_0/Y_0}=(m1)G_0`$.

For $`k=m`$, we have an exact sequence

$$0𝒪_{Z_0}(0,m)((m1)G_0)𝒪_{Z_0}(0,m)(mG_0)\omega _{G_0}(0,m)0.$$

Since $`g_0(\omega _{G_0})\omega _F[m+1]𝒪_F(m1)[m+1]`$, we obtain a distinguished triangle

$$𝒪_F(1)[m]𝒪_{Y_0}(m)g_0f_0^{}(𝒪_{X_0}(m))𝒪_F(1)[m+1].$$

We claim that the first arrow is non-trivial as an element of

$$\text{Hom}_{D(Y_0)}(𝒪_F(1)[m],𝒪_{Y_0}(m)).$$

Indeed, if not, then we would have

$$\text{Hom}_{D(Y_0)}(𝒪_F(1)[m],𝒪_{Y_0}(m))\text{Hom}_{D(Y_0)}^1(g_0f_0^{}(𝒪_{X_0}(m)),𝒪_{Y_0}(m))$$

but

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \text{Hom}_{D(Y_0)}^1(g_0f_0^{}(𝒪_{X_0}(m)),𝒪_{Y_0}(m))\hfill \\ & \text{Hom}_{D(Z_0)}^1(f_0^{}(𝒪_{X_0}(m)),g_0^!𝒪_{Y_0}(m))\hfill \\ & \text{Hom}_{D(Z_0)}^1(𝒪_{Z_0}(0,m)(mG_0),𝒪_{Z_0}(0,m)((m1)G_0))\hfill \\ & H^1(Z_0,𝒪_{Z_0}(G_0))0\hfill \end{array}$$

a contradiction. Therefore, we have the desired isomorphisms.

###### Proposition 5.12.

In Example 5.2 (2), if $`m2`$, then the functor

$$g_0f_0^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{X_0Y_0}^{𝒪_{Z_0}}:D(X_0)D(Y_0)$$

is not an equivalence.

###### Proof.

Let us write $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{X_0Y_0}^{𝒪_{Z_0}}`$ and $`a=𝒪_{X_0}(m)`$. We consider a spectral sequence

$$E_2^{p,q}=\underset{i}{}\text{Ext}^p(H^i(\mathrm{\Phi }(a)),H^{q+i}(\mathrm{\Phi }(a)))\text{Hom}_{D(Y_0)}^{p+q}(\mathrm{\Phi }(a),\mathrm{\Phi }(a))$$

given by the last line of  4.6.10. We have

$$H^q(\mathrm{\Phi }(a))\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒪_{Y_0}(m)\hfill & \text{ if }q=0\hfill \\ 𝒪_F(1)\hfill & \text{ if }q=m1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \text{Ext}^p(𝒪_{Y_0}(m),𝒪_{Y_0}(m))\text{Ext}^p(𝒪_{X_0}(m),𝒪_{X_0}(m))=0\text{ for }p0\hfill \\ & \text{Ext}^p(𝒪_{Y_0}(m),𝒪_F(1))\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{ if }p=m\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ & \text{Ext}^p(𝒪_F(1),𝒪_{Y_0}(m))\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{ if }p=m\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ & \text{Ext}^p(𝒪_F(1),𝒪_F(1))\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{ if }p=0,2,\mathrm{},2m\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then the terms $`E_2^{p,0}`$ for $`p=2,\mathrm{},2m2`$ survive, hence $`\text{Hom}_{D(X_0)}^p(a,a)`$ and $`\text{Hom}_{D(Y_0)}^p(\mathrm{\Phi }(a),\mathrm{\Phi }(a))`$ are not isomorphic for these $`p`$. ∎

###### Remark 5.13.

After this paper was written, Jan Wierzba informed us that Corollary 5.7 and Proposition 5.12 were already proved by Namikawa , though the proofs are different. Combining with a result in  or  (see also ), we obtain the implication from (2) to (1) in Conjecture 1.2 in the case of symplectic projective manifolds of dimension $`4`$.

## 6 Flops of terminal $`3`$-folds

We shall deal with singular verieties in this section.

The smoothness of the given varieties is an important assumption for the study of derived categories. For example, any coherent sheaf on a smooth projective variety has a finite locally free resolution, hence the Serre functor exists.

We can compare our situation with the deformation theory of maps from curves to varieties. The latter is not applicable to singular varieties because the smoothness assumption is essential for a good obstruction theory. However it provides deep results such as the theory of rationally connected varieties.

We can still deal with singular varieties as if they are smooth in some cases:

(1) If $`X`$ is a variety with only quotient singularities, then we consider a smooth stack $`𝒳`$ above $`X`$ as a natural substitute (cf. ).

(2) If $`X`$ has only hypersurface singularities, then we embed $`X`$ into a smooth variety by deformations (cf. ).

(3) If $`X`$ is a normal crossing variety, then we replace $`X`$ by its smooth hypercovering (cf. ).

We consider a mixture of (1) and (2) in this section.

###### Definition 6.1.

Let $`X`$ be a normal quasiprojective variety such that the canonical divisor $`K_X`$ is a $``$-Cartier divisor. Each point $`xX`$ has an open neighborhood $`U_x`$ such that $`m_xK_X`$ is a principal Cartier divisor on $`U_x`$ for a minimum positive integer $`m_x`$. The canonical covering $`\pi _x:\stackrel{~}{U}_xU_x`$ is a finite morphism of degree $`m_x`$ from a normal variety which is etale in codimension $`1`$ and such that $`K_{\stackrel{~}{U}_x}`$ is a Cartier divisor. The canonical coverings are etale locally uniquely determined, thus we can define the canonical covering stack $`𝒳`$ as the stack above $`X`$ given by the collection of canonical coverings $`\pi _x:\stackrel{~}{U}_xU_x`$.

We denote by $`D(𝒳)=D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳))`$ the derived category of bounded complexes of coherent orbifold sheaves on $`𝒳`$ (cf. ).

The following was suggested by Burt Totaro.

###### Proposition 6.2.

Let $`X`$ be a normal projective variety such that the canonical divisor $`K_X`$ is a $``$-Cartier divisor. Then there exists an embedding

$$\varphi :X(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)$$

to a weighted projective space such that the stack structure on $`X`$ induced from the natural smooth stack structure of $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)`$ coincides with the one defined by the canonical coverings.

###### Proof.

Let $`H`$ be an ample Cartier divisor such that $`K_X+H`$ is still ample as a $``$-Cartier divisor. The ring $`R=_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}H^0(X,m(K_X+H))`$ is a finitely generated algebra over $``$. Let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_N`$ be a set of homogeneous generators of $`R`$ of degree $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_N`$. Then we obtain an embedding of $`X`$ to a weighted projective space

$$\varphi :X(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N).$$

Since $`K_X+H`$ is ample, $`\text{g.c.d.}(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)=1`$.

We claim that

$$\text{g.c.d.}(a_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{a_i},\mathrm{},a_N)=1$$

for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, i.e., the sequence of integers $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)`$ is well-formed. Indeed, suppose that $`(a_2,\mathrm{},a_N)=c1`$. Let $`m`$ be a sufficiently large integer which is not divisible by $`c`$, and consider an exact sequence

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& 𝒪_X((ma_1)(K_X+H))𝒪_X(m(K_X+H))\hfill \\ & _m0\hfill \end{array}$$

given by the multiplication by $`x_1`$, where $`_m`$ is a sheaf on $`X_1=\text{div}(x_1)`$. By assumption, we have $`H^0(X,(ma_1)(K_X+H))H^0(X,m(K_X+H))`$, while $`H^0(X_1,_m)0`$ and $`H^1(X,(ma_1)(K_X+H))=0`$ for large $`m`$, a contradiction.

Let us fix a point $`pX`$. Then there exists a homogeneous coodinate, say $`x_1`$, such that $`x_1(p)0`$. We have a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}U& \stackrel{\varphi }{}& U_{x_1}& \stackrel{}{}& (a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)\\ \pi _U& & \pi _1& & & & \\ \stackrel{~}{U}& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{}& \stackrel{~}{U}_{x_1}& & \end{array}$$

where $`U`$ is a small open neighborhood of $`p`$, $`U_{x_1}`$ is the open subset of $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_N)`$ defined by $`x_10`$, $`\pi _U:\stackrel{~}{U}U`$ is a canonical covering, and $`\pi _1:\stackrel{~}{U}_{x_1}U_{x_1}`$ is the natural covering from an affine space with coordinates

$$x_2x_1^{a_2/a_1},\mathrm{},x_Nx_1^{a_N/a_1}.$$

Note that both $`\pi _U`$ and $`\pi _1`$ are etale in codimension $`1`$.

Since $`x_1(p)0`$, we may choose a branch of $`x_1^{1/a_1}`$ on sufficiently small $`U`$. Then $`\varphi `$ can be lifted to a morphism $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }:\stackrel{~}{U}\stackrel{~}{U}_{x_1}`$ which we can check to be etale. Therefore, the two stack structures coincide. ∎

###### Remark 6.3.

(1) By the proposition, any coherent orbifold sheaf on the canonical covering stack $`𝒳`$ has a surjection from a locally free orbifold sheaf on $`𝒳`$. But the Serre functor for the category $`D(𝒳)`$ does not exist in general.

(2) Totaro () proved the following resolution theorem: on a smooth orbifold whose coarse moduli space is a separated scheme, any coherent orbifold sheaf has a finite resolution by locally free orbifold sheaves.

We still have a good spanning class for terminal $`3`$-folds:

###### Lemma 6.4.

Let $`X`$ be a normal projective variety of dimension $`3`$ with only terminal singularities, $`m_x`$ the index of $`K_X`$ at $`xX`$, and $`𝒳`$ the canonical covering stack of $`X`$. Then the set $`\{𝒪_x(iK_X)|xX,0i<m_x\}`$ is a spanning class of $`D(𝒳)`$.

###### Proof.

(cf.  Example 2.2 and  Lemma 3.4) Let $`a`$ be a non-zero object of $`D(𝒳)`$. Take a point $`x_0`$ in the support of $`a`$, and let $`q_0`$ be the maximal value of $`q`$ such that $`H^q(a)_{x_0}0`$. Then there exists an integer $`i_0`$ such that $`\text{Hom}(H^{q_0}(a),𝒪_{x_0}(i_0K_X))0`$. Then $`\text{Hom}_{D(X)}^{q_0}(a,𝒪_{x_0}(i_0K_X))0`$.

If the support of $`a`$ is not contained in the singular locus of $`X`$, then we take the above point $`x_0`$ from the smooth locus of $`X`$. By the Serre duality, we have $`\text{Hom}^{n+q_0}(𝒪_{x_0},a)0`$, where $`n=dimX`$. Otherwise, let $`q_1`$ be the minimal value of $`q`$ such that $`H^q(a)_{x_0}0`$. Since $`X`$ has only isolated singularities, there exists an integer $`i_1`$ such that $`\text{Hom}(𝒪_{x_0}(i_1K_X),H^{q_1}(a))0`$. Hence $`\text{Hom}_{D(X)}^{q_1}(𝒪_{x_0}(i_1K_X),a)0`$. ∎

###### Theorem 6.5.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be normal quasiprojective varieties of dimension $`3`$ with only $``$-factorial terminal singularities,

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}X& \stackrel{\varphi }{}& W& \stackrel{\psi }{}& Y\end{array}$$

a flop, and $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒴`$ the canonical covering stacks above $`X`$ and $`Y`$, respectively. Then the bounded derived categories of coherent orbifold sheaves $`D(𝒳)`$ and $`D(𝒴)`$ are equivalent as triangulated categories.

###### Proof.

The assertion is already proved in the case where $`K_X`$ is a Cartier divisor by Bridgeland  and Chen  (see also ). Indeed, it is proved that the structure sheaf $`𝒪_Z`$ of the fiber product $`Z=X\times _WY`$ is quasi-isomorphic to a finite complex of sheaves on $`X\times Y`$ flat over $`X`$ so that the integral functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^{𝒪_Z}:D(X)D(Y)`$ is defined and is an equivalence ( Lemma 2.1 and Proposition 4.2).

We shall give a new simpler proof, which is based on  §4.1, that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{XY}^{𝒪_Z}:D(X)D(Y)`$ is an equivalence in the case where $`K_X`$ is a Cartier divisor. We may assume that $`W`$ is a hypersurface singularity of multiplicity $`2`$. Thus $`W`$ has an involution $`\sigma `$ such that $`W/\sigma `$ is smooth. We may take $`Y=X`$ and $`\psi =\sigma \varphi `$.

First we prove that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_X)𝒪_Y`$. Indeed, for any closed point $`yY`$, the scheme theoretic fiber $`g^1(y)`$ is isomorphic to the fiber $`f^1(\psi (y))`$. We have $`H^0(𝒪_{f^1(\psi (y))})`$, hence the natural homomorphism $`𝒪_YR^0g_{}𝒪_Z`$ is an isomorphism.

Any subscheme of $`Z`$ which is mapped by $`g`$ to an infinitesimal subscheme $`\overline{y}`$ of $`Y`$ supported at $`y`$ is isomorphic to a subscheme of the product $`\overline{C}\times \overline{y}`$ for a subscheme $`\overline{C}`$ of $`X`$ which is mapped by $`\varphi `$ to an infinitesimal subscheme $`\overline{w}`$ of $`W`$ supported at $`\varphi (y)`$. Since $`R^1\varphi _{}𝒪_X=0`$, it follows that $`R^1g_{}𝒪_Z=0`$.

Let $`C_j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},t`$) be the exceptional curves of $`\varphi `$, and $`L_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$) invertible sheaves on $`X`$ such that $`(L_iC_j)=\delta _{ij}`$. Then $`L_i`$ are generated by global sections for all $`i`$. We note that $`R^1\varphi _{}L_i^{}`$ may not necessarily vanish.

According to  §4.1, we construct locally free sheaves $`M_i`$ and $`N_i`$ on $`X`$ by the following exact sequences

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 0𝒪_X^{r_i}M_iL_i0\hfill \\ & 0N_i𝒪_X^{s_i}L_i0\hfill \end{array}$$

for some integers $`r_i,s_i`$ such that we have the vanishing higher direct image sheaves $`R^1\varphi _{}M_i^{}=0`$ and $`R^1\varphi _{}N_i=0`$. By  Proposition 4.1.2, if we take $`r_i`$ and $`s_i`$ to be the minimal possible integers under the vanishing conditions, then we have

$$\varphi _{}N_i\sigma _{}\varphi _{}M_i$$

where we note that $`\sigma _{}L_iL_i^{}`$. By construction, $`M_i`$ and $`N_i^{}`$ are generated by global sections.

It follows that $`R^1g_{}f^{}N_i=0`$ from $`R^1\varphi _{}N_i=0`$ as before. We consider an exact sequence

$$0g_{}f^{}N_i𝒪_Y^{s_i}g_{}f^{}L_i0.$$

Since there is a non-natural injection $`g_{}f^{}L_ig_{}𝒪_Z`$, the sheaf $`g_{}f^{}L_i`$ is torsion free. Hence $`g_{}f^{}N_i`$ is a reflexive sheaf. Since $`\psi _{}g_{}f^{}N_i\varphi _{}N_i\psi _{}M_i`$, we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(N_i)M_i`$.

The set of sheaves $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{𝒪_X,N_1,\mathrm{},N_t\}`$ is a spanning class of $`D(X)`$. $`\omega `$ is locally free, $`\omega ^{}`$ is generated by global sections and $`R^1\varphi _{}\omega =0`$ for any $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Hence

$$\text{Hom}_{D(X)}^p(\omega _1,\omega _2)=0$$

for $`p>0`$ and $`\omega _1,\omega _2\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Similarly we have

$$\text{Hom}_{D(Y)}^p(\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _1),\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _2))=0.$$

Since $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are isomorphic in codimension $`1`$, we have

$$\text{Hom}_X(\omega _1,\omega _2)\text{Hom}_Y(\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _1),\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega _2)).$$

Therefore, we have proved that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an equivalence in the case where $`K_X`$ is a Cartier divisor.

Now we consider the general case. Let $`𝒲`$ be the canonical covering stack of $`W`$. Let $`wW`$ be a point, $`W_w`$ its small neighborhood on which $`m_wK_W`$ is a principal Cartier divisor, and $`\pi _w:\stackrel{~}{W}_wW_w`$ a canonical covering. Then $`m_wK_X`$ and $`m_wK_Y`$ are also principal Cartier divisors on $`X_w=\varphi ^1(W_w)`$ and $`Y_w=\psi ^1(W_w)`$, respectively, and we have corresponding canonical coverings $`\pi _X:\stackrel{~}{X}_wX_w`$ and $`\pi _Y:\stackrel{~}{Y}_wY_w`$. Thus there are morphisms of stacks $`\varphi :𝒳𝒲`$ and $`\psi :𝒴𝒲`$. Let

$$𝒵=𝒳\times _𝒲𝒴$$

be the fiber product as a stack. Then it is a stack above $`Z=X\times _WY`$ where local coverings are given by

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}_w=\stackrel{~}{X}_w\times _{\stackrel{~}{W}_w}\stackrel{~}{Y}_wZ_w=X_w\times _{W_w}Y_w.$$

Let $`𝔣:𝒵𝒳`$ and $`𝔤:𝒵𝒴`$ be the induced morphisms.

We claim that the functor

$$𝔤_{}𝔣^{}:D(𝒳)D(𝒴)$$

is defined and is an equivalence. Indeed, over an open subset $`W_w`$, we know already that the integral functor

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\stackrel{~}{X}_w\stackrel{~}{Y}_w}^{𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_w}}:D(\stackrel{~}{X}_w)D(\stackrel{~}{Y}_w)$$

is an equivalence. Let $`𝒳_w=𝒳|_{X_w}=[\stackrel{~}{X}_w/G]`$, $`𝒴_w=𝒴|_{Y_w}=[\stackrel{~}{Y}_w/G]`$, $`𝒵_w=𝒵|_{Z_w}=[\stackrel{~}{Z}_w/G]`$, $`𝔣_w=𝔣|_{𝒵_w}`$ and $`𝔤_w=𝔤|_{𝒵_w}`$. The Galois group $`G=/m_w`$ acts equivariantly so that we have $`D(\stackrel{~}{X}_w)^GD(𝒳_w)`$ and $`D(\stackrel{~}{Y}_w)^GD(𝒳_w)`$ (cf. ). Hence we have a well-defined equivalence

$$𝔤_w𝔣_w^{}:D(𝒳_w)D(𝒴_w).$$

By Lemma 6.4, we conclude the proof. ∎

###### Remark 6.6.

We note that the equivalence $`\mathrm{\Phi }=𝔤_{}𝔣^{}:D(𝒳)D(𝒴)`$ does not induce an equivalence $`D(X)D(Y)`$ of usual derived categories for singular varieties. Indeed, we can construct a similar example as in  Example 5.1. There is a skyscraper sheaf $`aD(𝒳)`$ supported over a non-Gorenstein singular point of $`X`$ such that $`\pi _X(a)=0`$ in $`D(X)`$, but its image $`\mathrm{\Phi }(a)D(𝒴)`$ has a $`1`$-dimensional support so that $`\pi _Y(\mathrm{\Phi }(a))0`$ in $`D(Y)`$.

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Tokyo,

Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo, 153-8914, Japan

kawamata@ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp


format: text

text:
# Connecting nonleptonic and weak radiative hyperon decays

## Abstract

Using the recent measurement of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ asymmetry as an input, we reanalyse nonleptonic and weak radiative hyperon decays in a single symmetry-based framework. In this framework the old S:P problem of nonleptonic decays is automatically resolved when the most important features of weak radiative decays are taken into account as an input. Experimental data require that symmetry between the two types of hyperon decays be imposed at the level of currents, not fields. Previously established connections between hyperon decays and nuclear parity violation imply that the conflict, originally suggested by weak radiative decays, has to surface somewhere.

PACS numbers: 11.40.-q, 11.30.Hv, 13.30.-a, 14.20.Jn
Keywords: weak radiative nonleptonic hyperon decay
E-mail: zenczyko@iblis.ifj.edu.pl
phone: (48-12)662-8273; fax: (48-12)662-8458

For a long time weak hyperon decays have been presenting us with a couple of puzzles (see ). These have been in particular: the question of the S:P ratio in the nonleptonic hyperon decays (NLHD) and the issue of a large negative asymmetry in the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p\gamma `$ weak radiative hyperon decay (WRHD), the latter being indicative of either SU(3) breaking effects much larger than expected, or of Hara’s theorem being violated. Violation of this theorem, although forbidden on the basis of hadron-level arguments, was also suggested by a couple of (technically correct) quark-level calculations (constituent quark model, CQM) . In the CQM calculations the constituent quarks in the intermediate states between the action of weak interaction and the emission of a photon are essentially free. Violation of Hara’s theorem followed also when NLHD and WRHD were connected via the vector-meson dominance (VMD) approach .

Some time ago it was pointed out  that the status of Hara’s theorem can be clarified through the measurement of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ decay asymmetry. By yielding a large and negative value of $`0.65\pm 0.19`$ for this asymmetry, the recent NA48 experiment  has decided very clearly in favour of the theorem. The experimental number disagrees very strongly with the results of the CQM calculations , and with the VMD approach , which both yield large positive value for this asymmetry. Consequently, we are forced to conclude that (a) constituent quark calculations do not provide us with a proper description of weak hyperon decays, and (b) the existing description of NLHD and/or the connection between NLHD and WRHD used in the VMD-based approach of  do not correspond to physical reality.

The aim of this paper is to present a symmetry-based explanation of both the measured S:P ratio in NLHD and the gross structure of the observed pattern of asymmetries and branching ratios in WRHD, an explanation which maintains an intimate connection between NLHD and WRHD, and yet does not lead to the CQM/VMD results of . Fragments of this explanation have been known for over twenty years now , but they have never been presented in a way clearly highlighting the underlying simple symmetry connection.

One generally expects that NLHD and WRHD should be related (see eg. ), and that this should hold both for the parity-conserving (p.c.) and the parity-violating (p.v.) amplitudes. Theoretical and phenomenological analyses of p.c. hyperon decay amplitudes have shown many times that there are no basic problems here, only some numerological differences. The p.c. NLHD amplitudes are sufficiently well described by the pole model, while the p.c. WRHD amplitudes may be estimated from NLHD through $`SU(2)_W`$ spin symmetry with the help of VMD (or in another effectively equivalent way), always leading to qualitatively similar results. Probably the most reliable phenomenological evaluation of p.c. WRHD amplitudes along the symmetry lines was carried out in ref.. The real problem, as troubles with Hara’s theorem indicated, is with the p.v. amplitudes.

In order to connect the asymmetries of NLHD with those of WRHD, we need to be consistent when fixing the relative signs between p.c. and p.v. amplitudes of both NLHD and WRHD. Our conventions are the same as those in ref. (Table IV, Eq. (5.2b)). For the purposes of this paper, it is sufficient to recall the following expressions for the p.c. amplitudes:

$`B(\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}\left[\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{f}{d}}1\right){\displaystyle \frac{F_A}{D_A}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{f}{d}}\right]C`$ (1)
$`B(\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{g_\rho }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3\sqrt{3}}}C\right]`$ (2)
$`B(\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{g_\rho }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}C\right]`$ (3)
where $`g_\rho =5.0`$, $`F_A/D_A0.56`$, and $`f/d1.8`$ or $`1.9`$. The factor of $`\frac{e}{g_\rho }`$, reminiscent of VMD, follows from the replacement of the strong coupling with the electromagnetic one, ie. its appearance does not require VMD (but is consistent with it) . The $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\gamma `$ p.c. amplitudes are of the same sign. Furthermore, the ratio $`B(\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma )/B(\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^0)`$ is around $`3e/g_\rho `$, ie. negative.

For the p.v. amplitudes, with the experiment forcing us to abandon the constituent quark description , we also turn to hadron-level approaches. In the approach of ref., the WRHD p.v. amplitudes were calculated using symmetry from the NLHD p.v. amplitudes through the chain of connections: $`\pi `$ $`\stackrel{SU(6)_W}{}`$ $`\rho `$ ($`\omega ,\varphi `$) $`\stackrel{VMD}{}`$ $`\gamma `$. The basic assumptions were $`VMD`$, $`SU(6)_W`$, and the assumption that the p.v. NLHD amplitudes are well described by the current-algebra (CA) commutator term. In ref. it was proved that the soft meson CA approach and the SU(6)-symmetric quark-line diagram approach are totally equivalent in a group-theoretical sense. The perturbative QCD effects can yield only nonleading corrections to the simple quark-diagram scheme. The confining effects require going from quark to hadron level of description, in which quarks are treated as spin-flavour indices of effectively local hadron fields. This is how the whole $`SU(6)_W`$ quark diagram scheme is understood. Although in principle the nonperturbative effects could affect the simple quark diagram scheme, they are not expected to do so: the quark diagram scheme works well in many places, somehow including all such effects (see also the comment on p.338 of ref.). In conclusion, the quark-diagram approach to NLHD (ref. ) was completely consistent with current algebra. When generalized to WRHD, this approach predicted large positive asymmetry for the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ decay . As this prediction strongly disagrees with the data, the following two questions emerge:
i) Is the input in the chain of connections (ie. the p.v. NLHD amplitudes) understood sufficiently well ? (The S:P puzzle indicates there may be a problem here.)
ii) Is the chain of connections itself correct (ie. are $`SU(6)_W`$ and VMD applied in a proper way), and - if not - how to modify it?

The assumption of $`SU(6)_W`$ relates the relative sizes of contributions to the p.v. amplitudes corresponding to the diagrams shown in Fig.1, but only for contributions from a single class: either $`(b1)`$ or $`(b2)`$, etc. It does not relate $`(b1)`$ to $`(b2)`$ (or to $`(c1)`$ or $`(c2)`$), and it does not connect NLHD with WRHD. Fixing the relative sizes and signs of contributions from these four types of diagrams, both for NLHD and WRHD separately, as well as between NLHD and WRHD, requires additional assumptions that go beyond mere $`SU(6)_W`$. In other words the $`SU(6)_W`$ quark diagram approach has to be properly augmented, so that it indicates not only the contractions of quark indices, but also the way in which various diagrammatic amplitudes are to be combined (ie. what are their relative strengths and sizes). For example, the soft meson term corresponds to a particular combination of diagrammatic amplitudes, as adopted in . However, CA admits a correction to this term (the correction being proportional to meson momentum), which corresponds to a different combination of diagrammatic amplitudes . Similarly, the constituent quark model fixes (in disagreement with experiment ) the relative signs and sizes of all $`(b)`$-type NLHD and WRHD amplitudes.

The $`SU(6)_W`$ coefficients with which different amplitude types contribute to different decays were calculated in the past (see ), and are gathered in Table 1 for NLHD, and in Table 2 for WRHD. Table 2 shows only the coefficients appropriate for $`(b)`$-type diagrams as the smallness of the measured $`\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\gamma `$ branching ratio implies that the total single-quark contribution (which involves $`(c)`$-type diagrams) is negligible.

Experimental p.v. NLHD amplitudes $`A_{NL}(k)`$ are phenomenologically very well described by

$$A_{NL}(k)=b_2(k)b_{NL}+c_1(k)c_{NL}$$
(4)
with

$`b_{NL}`$ $`=`$ $`5`$ (5)
$`c_{NL}`$ $`=`$ $`12`$ (6)
(in units of $`10^7`$), which corresponds to the S-wave SU(3) parameters

$`d_S`$ $`=`$ $`b_{NL}`$ (7)
$`f_S`$ $`=`$ $`b_{NL}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}c_{NL}`$ (8)
satisfying

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_S}{d_S}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{NL}}{b_{NL}}}=2.6`$ (9)
Experimental values of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\gamma `$ branching ratios are well described when, after factorizing the $`b_i`$ coefficients and replacing the electromagnetic couplings in the WRHD amplitudes with their strong counterparts, the moduli of the (rescaled) $`SU(6)_W`$ p.v. WRHD amplitudes for diagrams (b1) and (b2) (Fig. 1) are both numerically (approximately) equal to $`|b_{NL}|`$ :

$$|b_{WR}(b1)|=|b_{WR}(b2)||b_{NL}|$$
(10)
(the two branching ratios in question do $`\mathrm{n}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{t}`$ depend on the signs of $`b_{WR}(b1)`$ and $`b_{WR}(b2)`$, see ). Incidentally, this agreement shows that the effects of SU(3) breaking in these two decays are not large, as discussed in refs.  (the dominant terms in the p.v. amplitudes are SU(3) symmetric). Furthermore, with p.c. amplitudes of these decays being of equal sign (Eqs.(2,3)), it follows from Table 2 that equal signs of their experimental asymmetries require that the total p.v. WRHD amplitudes $`A_{WR}`$ be proportional to the difference $`b_1b_2`$:

$$A_{WR}(k)=\frac{e}{g_\rho }(b_1(k)+b_2(k))b_{WR}$$
(11)
with factor $`\frac{e}{g_\rho }`$ accounting for the replacement of the strong coupling with the electromagnetic one, just as in p.c. amplitudes (Eqs.(2,3)). Finally, with p.c. amplitudes of $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ decays being of opposite signs (Eqs (1,2)), from the equal signs of their experimental asymmetries it follows (using Tables 1 and 2 and Eqs (5,6)) that

$$b_{WR}b_{NL}.$$
(12)
The form of Eq.(11) ensures that Hara’s theorem holds for exact SU(3) since the SU(3)-symmetric $`b_i`$ terms cancel there (Table 2). As proposed in ref., the large value of the experimental $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p\gamma `$ asymmetry is presumably due to a substantial SU(3) breaking effect, expected to be of the order of $`\delta s/\delta \omega `$, with the SU(3) breaking mass difference $`\delta sm_sm_d190MeV`$, and $`\delta \omega 570MeV`$ being the energy difference between the first excited $`1/2^{}`$ state and the ground state.

We now proceed to the question of the theoretical connection between NLHD and WRHD, ie. between Eq.(4) and Eq.(11). Current algebra expresses the p.v. NLHD amplitudes $`A_{NL}(k)`$ in terms of the contribution $`C(k)`$ from the CA commutator and the correction $`q^\mu R_\mu (k)`$ proportional to the momentum of the emitted pion:

$$A_{NL}(k)=C(k)+q^\mu R_\mu (k)$$
(13)
Ref. proves that the $`b`$-diagram-dependent part of $`C(k)`$ is proportional to $`b_1(k)+b_2(k)`$. It may be shown using the derivative form of the strong coupling of $`\pi `$ to baryons (see ), that the $`b`$-diagram-dependent part of the $`q^\mu R_\mu (k)`$ term is proportional to $`b_1(k)+b_2(k)`$. Namely, by CP invariance and hermiticity, in the parity-violating CP-conserving couplings of $`CP=1`$ neutral pseudoscalar mesons to baryons

$$g_{fi}^{(0)}\overline{u}_fu_iP^0+g_{fi}^{(1)}q^\mu \overline{u}_f\gamma _\mu u_iP^0,$$
(14)
in the convention of , the coefficients $`g^{(n)}`$ are imaginary, with $`g_{fi}^{(0)}`$ ($`g_{fi}^{(1)}`$) antisymmetric (symmetric) under $`if`$ interchange. When translated into the language of $`b_i`$ coefficients, this leads to $`b_1+b_2`$ and $`b_1+b_2`$ structures for the $`q`$-independent and $`q`$-dependent terms respectively . $`SU(2)_W`$ spin symmetry relates contributions to NLHD and WRHD from terms proportional to $`b_1(k)+b_2(k)`$. Since experimentally the total contribution of all single-quark diagrams (including the $`(c)`$-type ones) is negligible in WRHD, for NLHD we expect from symmetry with WRHD that a substantial contribution from $`(c)`$-type diagrams arises from the commutator term only.

Thus, the soft-meson CA approach of  is augmented with a correction term, due to a non-zero value of pion momentum and estimated from WRHD by symmetry:

$$A_{NL}(k)=(b_1(k)+b_2(k))b_{com}+(c_1(k)+c_2(k))c_{com}+(b_1(k)+b_2(k))b_{WR}$$
(15)
where the first two terms describe the commutator $`C(k)`$, and the symmetry between NLHD and WRHD is used for the $`b_1+b_2`$ term.

Consequently,

$`b_{NL}`$ $`=`$ $`b_{com}+b_{WR}`$ (16)
$`c_{NL}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{com}`$ (17)
Note that for NLHD all $`b_1(k)`$ are zero and, consequently, without knowing $`b_{WR}`$ we cannot extract $`b_{com}`$ directly from the data. Clearly, we cannot have $`b_{com}=0`$ as suggested by the constituent quark model calculations combined with Hara’s theorem , or else we would have $`b_{NL}=b_{WR}`$, and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0(\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)\gamma `$ asymmetries would be predicted as positive, in disagreement with experiment.

Using Eq.(12) we obtain

$$b_{com}2b_{NL}$$
(18)
and for the commutator we have

$`d_{com}`$ $`=`$ $`2b_{NL}`$ (19)
$`f_{com}`$ $`=`$ $`2b_{NL}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}c_{NL}`$ (20)
Consequently

$`d_{com}/d_S`$ $`=`$ $`2`$ (21)
$`f_{com}/f_S`$ $``$ $`1.4`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{com}}{d_{com}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_{NL}}{b_{NL}}}=1.8.`$ (23)
Thus, the values of $`d_{com}`$ and $`f_{com}`$ (extracted from the S-wave amplitudes) agree with the values of SU(3) parameters $`d_P`$ and $`f_P`$ needed to describe the P-wave amplitudes. The resolution of the S:P problem and the description of WRHD are interconnected. The mechanism by which the $`S`$-wave amplitudes are reduced from their commutator values is closely related to the explanation proposed in ref.. In ref.  the downward correction is due to the $`(70,1^{})`$ intermediate states. In our approach explicit intermediate states are not used. However, the symmetry properties of the correction term in ref. and in this paper are identical in the symmetry limit. The difference is that in this paper, instead of estimating the overall size of the correction in a model as the authors of ref. do, we extract both its size and sign from WRHD.

There still remains a question how to understand the absence in WRHD of a term proportional to $`b_1+b_2`$ (ie. the analogue of the CA commutator term as obtained in the constituent quark model calculations). We observe that if in the presence of weak (p.v.) perturbation $`^{p.v.}`$ the symmetry is imposed between axial and vector currents $`J_A^\mu `$ and $`J_V^\mu `$, the resulting couplings to photons and pions are obtained from

$`A_\mu T(J_V^\mu (x)^{p.v.}(0))`$ (24)
$`_\mu T(J_A^\mu (x)^{p.v.}(0))`$ $`=`$ $`T(_\mu J_A^\mu (x)^{p.v.}(0))+\mathrm{commutator}`$ (25)
with the pion field appearing via PCAC in the first term on the r.h.s. of Eq.(25). As shown in Eqs.(24,25), the symmetry is not between the pion field $`\pi _\mu J_A^\mu `$ and the photon field $`A_\mu `$ (or the vector-meson field through VMD current-field identity $`J_V^\mu V^\mu `$) but rather between the currents $`J_V,J_A`$ appearing on the l.h.s. This bring us back to the original Gell-Mann’s paper .

This identification of symmetry necessary for a successful joint description of nonleptonic and radiative weak hyperon decays leads to problems elsewhere, however. Namely, our present understanding of nuclear parity violation (cf. ref.) is based on symmetry of weak couplings between the fields of pseudoscalar and vector mesons (and not on symmetry between the axial and vector currents). According to refs  the explanation of data on nuclear parity violation requires the dominance of the weak rho-nucleon coupling of the form $`\overline{u}_N\gamma _\mu \gamma _5u_N\rho ^\mu `$. Via the current-field identity (VMD) this leads to photon-nucleon coupling $`\overline{u}_N\gamma _\mu \gamma _5u_NA^\mu `$ and the violation of Hara’s theorem in weak radiative hyperon decays . Since the negative asymmetry of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$ decay means that Hara’s theorem is satisfied, it follows that either the current-field identity is not universal or our present understanding of nuclear parity violation (ie. ) is not fully correct.

In conclusion:
1) The simple constituent quark model may produce unphysical results in higher order calculations if free constituent quarks are used in intermediate states. Consequently, it is an idealization that goes too far, and should be used and interpreted with care. The constituent quark model should better be regarded as a method of evaluating symmetry properties of simplest hadronic couplings and transitions.
2) The connection between nonleptonic and weak radiative hyperon decays should be formulated at the level of hadronic currents $`J_A`$, $`J_V`$ (and not at the level of fields $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$, $`\gamma `$) in agreement with Gell-Mann’s paper .
3) The sizes and signs of the p.v. WRHD amplitudes are correlated with those of the correction to the commutator term in NLHD. When WRHD data are used to estimate this correction, the old S:P problem in NLHD is resolved. The explanation of the large asymmetry in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+p\gamma `$ presumably requires more detailed SU(3)-breaking considerations (eg. ).
4) The current-field identity suggests that vector mesons do not couple to baryons through the $`\overline{u}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5uV^\mu `$ term. This is in conflict with our understanding of nuclear parity violation . Thus, either this understanding is not fully correct, or current-field identity is not universal.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research grant 5 P03B 050 21.

FIGURE CAPTION

Fig.1 $`SU(6)_W`$ diagrams for weak hyperon decays