format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Let $`X`$ be a quasi–projective variety over an algebraically closed field $`\overline{k},`$ $`E`$ a proper subvariety of $`X`$ of codimension $`d`$ (with $`i`$ denoting the closed embedding $`EX`$), and $`q:EZ`$ a flat morphism. We assume that $`X,E`$ and $`Z`$ are smooth varieties of dimensions $`n,nd`$ and $`ndk`$ respectively, as indicated in the diagram below.

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$
(1.1)
We assume that there exists an invertible sheaf $`\theta `$ on $`Z,`$ such that $`q^{}(\theta \stackrel{𝐋}{}\omega _Z^1)𝐋i^{}\omega _X^1,`$ where $`\omega _Z`$ and $`\omega _X`$ are the canonical sheaves of $`Z`$ and $`X,`$ respectively. Note that if $`\omega _X`$ is trivial, then $`\theta =\omega _Z`$ has the required property.

The goal of this note is to construct new classes of automorphisms of the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on $`X,`$ associated with the geometrical context sketched above. An automorphism of a triangulated category is an exact functor which induces a self–equivalence. The automorphisms defined here are determined by the $`EZ`$–spherical objects $``$ (definition 2.1) in the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves of $`E`$ that generalize the spherical objects introduced by Kontsevich , and Seidel and Thomas . The main example and inspiration for this work is the case when $`X`$ is a projective Calabi–Yau variety.

Following the work of Mukai  on actions of functors on derived categories of coherent sheaves, Bondal and Orlov , Orlov  and Bridgeland  established criteria that characterize the equivalences of derived categories of coherent sheaves (see remark 2.12). Their work showed that in many instances the group of derived self–equivalences (automorphisms) captures essential properties of the algebraic variety itself. Quite tellingly, the case of Calabi–Yau varieties turned out to be one of the most interesting and difficult to study. Similar techniques have emerged as useful tools in various other contexts, for example, in the study of the McKay correspondence , birational geometry , heterotic string theory compactifications  and D–branes in string theory , .

The foundation for our line of investigation is provided by the homological mirror symmetry conjecture of Kontsevich  (see  for recent progress in this direction). The conjecture states that mirror symmetry should be viewed an as equivalence between “Fukaya $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ category” of a Calabi–Yau variety $`Y`$ and the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves $`\mathrm{D}(X)`$ of the mirror Calabi–Yau variety $`X.`$ The point of view of the present work stems from some ramifications of the general conjecture as presented by Kontsevich in . Important results in this direction were obtained in the paper of Seidel and Thomas , in which the derived category braided automorphisms represented by Fourier–Mukai functors associated with spherical objects were analyzed and compared with the mirror generalized Dehn twists of Seidel . An investigation (adapted to the toric geometry context) of the correspondence between the expected mirror automorphisms was pursued by the present author in .

In fact, the classes of automorphisms introduced in the present work were obtained with the significant guidance provided by the interpretation of the mirror symmetric calculations presented in . As a general principle, the automorphisms of the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on a Calabi–Yau variety $`X`$ should be be mirrored by some automorphisms of the Fukaya category of the mirror Calabi–Yau variety $`Y.`$ Some of the latter automorphisms are determined by loops in the moduli space of complex structures on $`Y`$ and they will depend on the type of components of the discriminant locus in the moduli space of complex structures on $`Y`$ that are surrounded by the loop. Our proposal states that for each component of the discriminant locus in the moduli space of complex structures on $`Y`$ there is a whole class of automorphisms of the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on $`X`$ induced by the $`EZ`$–spherical objects associated with a diagram of the type (1.1). For example, in the toric case, the so–called “A–discriminantal hypersurface” of  (also called the “principal component” in ,  or the “conifold locus” in physics)111Following a suggestion of Paul Aspinwall , we choose to call it the primary component of the discriminant locus. in the moduli space of complex structures on $`Y`$ corresponds to the class of spherical objects on $`X`$ (in the sense of Seidel and Thomas) which is obtained in our context for $`Z=\mathrm{Spec}(\overline{k})`$ (example 3.1). At least in the Calabi–Yau case, the more general $`EZ`$–spherical objects introduced in the present work and their associated automorphisms are geometric manifestations of the so–called “phase transitions” in string theory , . Elementary contractions in the sense of Mori theory are examples of these (see example 3.5) and, through mirror symmetry, they will correspond to the various other components of the discriminant locus in the moduli space of complex structures on $`Y.`$ A precise statement about how this correspondence should work in the toric case was given in . An analysis of the correspondence in the closely related language of D–branes in string theory has been recently presented by P. Aspinwall .

There are further questions that can be posed in this context. The structure of the group of automorphisms is quite intricate and in general difficult to handle. Nevertheless, it seems that the structure of the discriminant locus in moduli space of complex structures on $`Y`$ encodes a lot of information about the group of automorphisms of the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on $`X.`$ As explained to me by Professors V. Lunts and Y. Manin (see the end of ), the motivic version of the group should be intimately related to the Lie algebra actions studied by Looijenga and Lunts . The relationship has been established in the case of abelian varieties in . A related proposal has been recently analyzed by B. Szendrői .

Another facet of the story concerns the mirror symmetric Fukaya category automorphisms. Are there any “$`EZ`$–generalized Dehn twists” associated to (special) Lagrangian vanishing cycles in $`Y`$ that are not necessarily topological spheres $`S^n`$?

The automorphisms that are introduced in this work are local in the sense that they twist only the “part” of the derived category $`\mathrm{D}(X)`$ that consists of objects supported on the subvariety $`E.`$ The property of $`\mathrm{D}(E)`$ to be $`EZ`$–spherical for a configuration of the type shown in the diagram (1.1) does not depend on the ambient space $`X`$ (with $`\omega _X=0`$), but rather on the normal bundle $`N_{E/X}`$ (remark 3.6). The local character of the picture has direct links with the so–called “local mirror symmetry” frequently invoked by physicists , . By using the theory of $`t`$–structures on triangulated categories , this rough idea of “locality” can be made more precise. There is now a related and very interesting proposal in physics made by Douglas  that inspired a remarkable construction in mathematics by Bridgeland  about how to express the stability of D–branes in string theory using the triangulated structure of derived categories.

Acknowledgments. It is a pleasure to thank P. Aspinwall, D. Morrison, P. Seidel, B. Szendrői and R. Thomas for very useful comments which helped improve this work. Of course, the responsibility for all the statements made in this work rests with me. Some of the results presented here were obtained during my stay at the Max–Planck–Institut für Mathematik in Bonn, Germany. I am grateful to MPIM and IAS for support and hospitality, and to Professor Y. Manin for understanding. The author was supported at the IAS, Princeton by the NSF grant DMS 97-29992.

Addendum. This paper is (hopefully) an improved version of an earlier preprint. I am very grateful to the careful referees who found a gap in the earlier version that led to a major revision. Since the writing of the preprint, the derived category techniques have proved to be very useful in many situations in algebraic geometry and string theory. We make no attempt to relate this work to these developments, although there seem to be many interesting connections. We only mention the papers , , , , which are intimately related to the results of the present work and provide more applications than those presented in the last section of this paper.

### 1.1 Notation and other general considerations

A variety is an integral separated scheme of finite type over an algebraically closed field $`\overline{k}.`$ All the schemes considered in this work are quasi–projective and Gorenstein (section V.9 in ), i.e. the structure sheaf is a dualizing sheaf. For a Gorenstein scheme $`W`$ over $`\overline{k},`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:W\mathrm{Spec}(\overline{k}),`$ of pure dimension $`w,`$ the dualizing sheaf $`\omega _W`$ is invertible and has the property $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^!(k)=\omega _W[w].`$ Proposition V.9.6 in  shows that, if $`E`$ and $`Z`$ are Gorenstein schemes of pure dimensions $`nd`$ and $`ndk,`$ respectively, and $`q:EZ`$ is flat, then the scheme $`E\times _ZE`$ is Gorenstein of pure dimension $`nd+k.`$

For a quasi–projective scheme $`W,`$ we denote by $`\mathrm{D}(W)`$ the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on $`W`$ (see , , , , , for the general theory of derived and triangulated categories and duality theory).

We use the commonly accepted notation for the derived functors between derived categories, and the notation $`[n]`$ for the shift by $`n`$ functor in a triangulated category. The Verdier (derived) dual of an object $`\mathrm{D}(W)`$ will be denoted by $`𝒟_W,`$ with $`𝒟_W\mathrm{D}(W)`$ defined by

$$𝒟_W:=𝐑om_W(,𝒪_W).$$

For a proper morphism of noetherian schemes of finite Krull dimension $`f:WV,`$ the construction of a right adjoint $`f^!`$ for $`𝐑f_{}:\mathrm{D}(W)\mathrm{D}(V)`$ was originally established in the algebraic context by Grothendieck (see , , , ). We will use extensively the properties associated with the triple of adjoint functors $`(𝐋f^{},𝐑f_{},f^!).`$ Given $`\mathrm{D}(W),`$ $`𝒢\mathrm{D}(V),`$ we will also use the natural functorial isomorphisms

$$𝐑f_{}𝐑om_W(𝐋f^{}𝒢,)𝐑om_V(𝒢,𝐑f_{})\text{(}\text{[24]}\text{ II.5.10)}$$
(1.2)
and

$$𝐑f_{}𝐑om_W(,f^!𝒢)𝐑om_V(𝐑f_{},𝒢),$$
(1.3)
with the latter one provided by the Grothendieck duality theorem ( III.11.1).

In the concrete situation presented in the beginning of the introduction (diagram (1.1)), and under the given hypotheses, the functors $`i^!`$ and $`q^!`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i^!()& 𝐋i^{}()\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!(𝒪_X)𝐋i^{}()\stackrel{𝐋}{}(\omega _E\stackrel{𝐋}{}𝐋i^{}\omega _X^1)[d],\hfill \\ \hfill q^!()& q^{}()\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^!(𝒪_Z)=q^{}()\stackrel{𝐋}{}\omega _{E/Z}[k]q^{}()\stackrel{𝐋}{}(\omega _E\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^{}\omega _Z^1)[k].\hfill \end{array}$$

## 2 Main Results

We work under the assumptions presented in the beginning of the introduction. Our particular geometric context leads us to consider the following commutative diagram ($`Y:=E\times _ZE`$). One could say that, in some sense, this note is about understanding the geometry summarized by this diagram.

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$
(2.1)
We assume that there exists an invertible sheaf $`\theta `$ on $`Z`$ such that

$$q^!\theta [dk]i^!𝒪_X\omega _{E/X}[d],$$
(2.2)
which is the same thing as

$$q^{}(\theta \stackrel{𝐋}{}\omega _Z^1)𝐋i^{}\omega _X^1.$$
(2.3)
In other words, the condition says that the pull–back of $`\omega _X`$ to $`E`$ is also the pull-back of an invertible sheaf on $`Z.`$ If $`𝐑q_{}(𝒪_E)𝒪_Z,`$ and $`\theta `$ has the above property, the projection formula implies that $`\theta \omega _Z\stackrel{𝐋}{}𝐑q_{}(𝐋i^{}\omega _X^1).`$

### 2.1 $`EZ`$–spherical objects

Since $`i:EX`$ is a regular embedding of codimension $`d,`$ $`d0,`$ the normal sheaf of $`E`$ in $`X,`$ $`\nu =(𝒥_E/𝒥_E^2)^{},`$ is locally free, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^d\nu [d]\omega _{E/X}[d]i^!𝒪_X.`$

###### Definition 2.1.

An object $`\mathrm{D}(E)`$ is said to be $`EZ`$–spherical if, either,

* $`d=0`$ and there exists a distinguished triangle

$$𝒪_Z𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,)\theta [k]𝒪_Z[1],$$
(2.4)
or,
* $`d>0,`$ and

$$𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,)𝒪_Z,𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu )=0,\text{for}0<c<d.$$
(2.5)

###### Remark 2.2.

Note that, in the case $`d>0,`$ the first condition in $`ii)`$ implies that

$$𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^d\nu )\theta [k].$$
(2.6)
Indeed, if

$$𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,)𝒪_Z,$$

then, Grothendieck duality implies that

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^d\nu )𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\omega _{E/X})\hfill \\ & 𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(𝐑om_E(,),q^!\theta [k])𝐑om_Z(𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,),\theta [k])\theta [k].\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.7)
###### Remark 2.3.

Note also that in the case $`d=0,`$ an object $`\mathrm{D}(X)`$ such that

$$𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,)𝒪_Z\theta [k]$$

is $`EZ`$–spherical. If $`Z=\mathrm{Spec}(k),`$ an $`EZ`$–spherical object is spherical in the sense of . Note also the similarity with the notion of a simple morphism discussed there.

### 2.2 Kernels and Derived Correspondences

Given two schemes $`X_1,X_2,`$ an object $`𝒢\mathrm{D}(X_1\times X_2),`$ with finite Tor-dimension and proper support over both factors, determines an exact functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒢:\mathrm{D}(X_1)\mathrm{D}(X_2)`$ by the formula ( prop. 1.4)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒢(\mathrm{?}):=𝐑p_2_{}(𝒢\stackrel{𝐋}{}p_1^{}(\mathrm{?})),$$

The object $`𝒢\mathrm{D}(X_1\times X_2)`$ is called a kernel. By analogy with the classical theory of correspondences ( chap. 16), a kernel in $`\mathrm{D}(X_1\times X_2)`$ is also said to be a correspondence from $`X_1`$ to $`X_2.`$

In the situation described by diagram (2.1), $`E`$ is proper, so any object $`𝒢^{}\mathrm{D}(E\times E)`$ induces an exact functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒢:\mathrm{D}(X)\mathrm{D}(X)`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒢(\mathrm{?}):=𝐑p_2_{}(𝒢\stackrel{𝐋}{}p_1^{}(\mathrm{?})),$$

where $`𝒢:=l_{}(𝒢^{})\mathrm{D}(X\times X).`$

By the projection formula (II.5.6 in ), we have that

$$i_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒢^{}𝐋i^{}(\mathrm{?})i_{}𝐑r_2_{}(𝒢^{}\stackrel{𝐋}{}r_1^{}𝐋i^{}(\mathrm{?}))𝐑p_2_{}(𝒢\stackrel{𝐋}{}p_1^{}(\mathrm{?}))\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒢(\mathrm{?}).$$

We recall some well–known facts about kernels (correspondences) between bounded derived categories of coherent sheaves and their induced exact/Fourier–Mukai functors in the case of smooth quasi–projective varieties.

All the kernels that appear in this work have proper support over the two factors. The composition of the kernels (correspondences) $`𝒢_{12}\mathrm{D}(X_1\times X_2)`$ and $`𝒢_{23}\mathrm{D}(X_2\times X_3)`$ is defined by

$$𝒢_{23}𝒢_{12}:=𝐑p_{13_{}}\left(p_{12}^{}(𝒢_{12})\stackrel{𝐋}{}p_{23}^{}(𝒢_{23})\right),$$
(2.8)
with $`𝒢_{23}𝒢_{12}\mathrm{D}(X_1\times X_3).`$ In the case $`X_1=X_2=X,`$ the neutral element for the composition of kernels in $`\mathrm{D}(X\times X)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X,`$ where, as before, $`\mathrm{\Delta }:XX\times X`$ is the diagonal morphism. It is well known ( prop. 1.3.) that there is a natural isomorphism of functors

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒢_{23}𝒢_{12}}(\mathrm{?})\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒢_{23}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒢_{12}}(\mathrm{?}).$$

From the formula (2.8), it follows that the functors $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{𝒢_{23}}:\mathrm{D}(X_1\times X_2)\mathrm{D}(X_1\times X_3)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{𝒢_{12}}:\mathrm{D}(X_2\times X_3)\mathrm{D}(X_1\times X_3)`$) defined by

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \mathrm{\Theta }_{𝒢_{23}}(\mathrm{?}):=𝒢_{23}(\mathrm{?}),\mathrm{\Theta }_{𝒢_{12}}(\mathrm{?}):=(\mathrm{?})𝒢_{12},\end{array}$$

are exact functor between triangulated categories and an argument similar to the proof of proposition 16.1.1. in  gives the associativity of the composition of kernels

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝒢_{34}(𝒢_{23}𝒢_{12})(𝒢_{34}𝒢_{23})𝒢_{12}\hfill \\ & 𝐑(p_{14}^{1234})_{}\left((p_{12}^{1234})^{}(𝒢_{12})\stackrel{𝐋}{}(p_{23}^{1234})^{}(𝒢_{23})\stackrel{𝐋}{}(p_{34}^{1234})^{}(𝒢_{34})\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.9)
with $`𝒢_{12}\mathrm{D}(X_1\times X_2),`$ $`𝒢_{23}\mathrm{D}(X_2\times X_3),`$ $`𝒢_{34}\mathrm{D}(X_3\times X_4).`$

We now return to the geometric context of the diagram (2.1). For any objects $`,\mathrm{D}(E),`$ we introduce the following objects in $`\mathrm{D}(X\times X)`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (,)& :=j_{}\left(q_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}()\right),:=(,),\hfill \\ \hfill (,)& :=j_{}\left(q_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^!𝒪_Z)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}()\right),:=(,),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.10)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i^!𝒪_X& =\omega _E\stackrel{𝐋}{}𝐋i^{}\omega _X[d],\hfill \\ \hfill q^!𝒪_Z& =\omega _{E/Z}[k]=\omega _E\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^{}\omega _Z^1[k].\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proposition 2.4.

For any $`,\mathrm{D}(E),`$ there exist functorial isomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i)\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{?}(,),\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?})& \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}(,)),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}((,)\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?})& \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{?},(,)\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}).\hfill \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ii)\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{?}(,),\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?})& \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}(,)),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}((,)\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?})& \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{?},(,)\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

This result is a version of a well known fact in the projective case (see for example Lemma 1.2 in ). In order to be able to use the adjunction theorems in our context, the lack of properness requires more care. We first prove that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X_1\times X_3}(\mathrm{?}(,),\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?})\mathrm{Hom}_{X_2\times X_3}(\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}(,)),$$

where the labels for the different copies of $`X`$ will help with the bookkeeping.

We first note that

$$\mathrm{?}(,)𝐑p_{13_{}}(p_{12}^{}(j_{12_{}}(^{}(,))\stackrel{𝐋}{}p_{23}^{}(\mathrm{?})),$$

with the appropriate object $`^{}(,)\mathrm{D}(Y_{12}),`$ $`^{}(,)=q_1^{}(𝒟_{E_1}\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_{X_1})\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}(),`$ $`Y_{12}=E_1\times _ZE_2.`$

The fiber square

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$
(2.11)
shows that

$$p_{12}^{}j_{12_{}}(j_{12},Id_{X_3})_{}m_{12}^{},$$

where $`m_{12}`$ is the projection map $`Y_{12}\times X_3Y_{12}.`$ By the projection formula, we then obtain that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐑p_{13_{}}(p_{12}^{}(j_{12_{}}(^{}(,))\stackrel{𝐋}{}p_{23}^{}(\mathrm{?}))& 𝐑p_{13_{}}(j_{12},Id_{X_3})_{}\left(m_{12}^{}(^{}(,))\stackrel{𝐋}{}(j_{12},Id_{X_3})^{}p_{23}^{}(\mathrm{?})\right)\hfill \\ & 𝐑k_{13_{}}\left(m_{12}^{}(^{}(,))\stackrel{𝐋}{}k_{23}^{}(\mathrm{?})\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.12)
where the proper maps $`k_{13}:Y_{12}\times X_3X_1\times X_3`$ and $`k_{23}:Y_{12}\times X_3X_2\times X_3`$ are defined as the compositions

$$k_{13}:=p_{13}(j_{12},Id_{X_3}),k_{23}:=p_{23}(j_{12},Id_{X_3}).$$

By adjunction, we obtain that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Hom}_{X_1\times X_3}(\mathrm{?}(,),\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?})& \mathrm{Hom}_{X_1\times X_3}(𝐑k_{13_{}}\left(m_{12}^{}(^{}(,))\stackrel{𝐋}{}k_{23}^{}(\mathrm{?})\right),\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?})\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_{Y_{12}\times X_3}(m_{12}^{}(^{}(,))\stackrel{𝐋}{}k_{23}^{}(\mathrm{?}),k_{13}^!(\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}))\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_{Y_{12}\times X_3}(k_{23}^{}(\mathrm{?}),m_{12}^{}(𝒟_{Y_{12}}^{}(,))\stackrel{𝐋}{}k_{13}^!(\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}))\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_{X_2\times X_3}(\mathrm{?},𝐑k_{23_{}}\left(m_{12}^{}(𝒟_{Y_{12}}^{}(,))\stackrel{𝐋}{}k_{13}^!(\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?})\right)).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.13)
We have also used the fact that, since the projections $`Y_{12}E_1,`$ $`Y_{12}E_2`$ are flat, and $`\mathrm{D}(E_1),`$ $`\mathrm{D}(E_2),`$ the object $`^{}(,)\mathrm{D}(Y_{12})`$ is isomorphic to a bounded complex of locally free sheaves of finite rank (even though $`Y_{12}`$ might be singular). The fiber square

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$
(2.14)
with $`p_1`$ flat and $`u_1`$ proper, and the base change theorem (theorem 2 in , or theorem 5(i) in ) shows that

$$m_{12}^{}u_1^!𝒪_{X_1}k_{13}^!p_1^{}𝒪_{X_1}k_{13}^!𝒪_{X_1\times X_3}.$$

By combining this fact with (2.13) and the adapted version of (2.12), we see that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X_1\times X_3}(\mathrm{?}(,),\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?})\mathrm{Hom}_{X_2\times X_3}(\mathrm{?},𝐑p_{23_{}}(p_{12}^{}\left(j_{12_{}}(𝒟_{Y_{12}}^{}(,)\stackrel{𝐋}{}u_1^!𝒪_X)\right)\stackrel{𝐋}{}p_{13}^{}(\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}))).$$
(2.15)
Recall that $`^{}(,)=q_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}().`$ Hence, we can write that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒟_{Y_{12}}^{}(,)\stackrel{𝐋}{}u_1^!𝒪_X& 𝐑om_{Y_{12}}(q_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}(),𝒪_{Y_{12}})\stackrel{𝐋}{}u_1^!𝒪_{X_1}\hfill \\ & q_1^{}()\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^!𝒪_Z),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.16)
since

$$𝒟_{Y_{12}}\left(q_1^{}(i^!𝒪_X)\right)\stackrel{𝐋}{}u_1^!𝒪_{X_1}q_1^{}(\omega _E^1\stackrel{𝐋}{}𝐋i^{}\omega _X[d])\stackrel{𝐋}{}(\omega _{Y_{12}}\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_1^{}𝐋i^{}\omega _X^1[d+k])q_2^{}(q^!𝒪_Z),$$
(2.17)
where we use proposition II 5.8 in  ($`q_1`$ is flat) and the flat base change theorem quoted above. Combine this fact with (2.15), (2.16), to see that we have proved indeed that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Hom}_{X_1\times X_3}(\mathrm{?}(,),\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?})& \mathrm{Hom}_{X_2\times X_3}(\mathrm{?},𝐑p_{23_{}}(p_{21}^{}(,)\stackrel{𝐋}{}p_{13}^{}(\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?})))\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_{X_2\times X_3}(\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}\mathrm{?}(,)).\hfill \end{array}$$

The proof of the second isomorphism of part $`i)`$ is completely analogous.

The proof of the isomorphisms of part $`ii)`$ is also very similar, but the existence of the invertible sheaf $`\theta `$ on $`Z`$ enters the argument in a crucial way. For the first isomorphism of part $`ii),`$ the only change occurs in formula (2.17) as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒟_{Y_{12}}\left(q_1^{}(q^!𝒪_Z)\right)\stackrel{𝐋}{}u_1^!𝒪_{X_1}& q_2^{}\omega _E[k]\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_1^{}𝐋i^{}\omega _X^1[d+k]q_2^{}\omega _E\stackrel{𝐋}{}t^{}(\theta \stackrel{𝐋}{}\omega _Z^1)[d]\hfill \\ & q_2^{}\left(\omega _E\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^{}(\theta \stackrel{𝐋}{}\omega _Z^1)[d]\right)q_2^{}(i^!𝒪_X).\hfill \end{array}$$

The proof of the second isomorphism of part $`ii)`$ is again analogous. ∎

The following easy result will be essential for our arguments.

###### Lemma 2.5.

Assume that $`𝒦𝒟`$ is an object in a triangulated category $`𝒟`$ such that there exists a collection of distinguished triangles (a “Postnikov system”)

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$
(2.18)
with $`ab,a,b.`$

* If $`T:𝒟𝒟^{}`$ is an exact functor (i.e. triangle preserving and commuting with the translations), with $`𝒟^{}`$ another triangulated category, such that

$$T(^c(𝒦))=0,\text{for}a<c<b,$$

then there exists a distinguished triangle

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$
* If $`H:𝒟𝒜`$ is a cohomological functor (i.e. mapping triangles into long exact sequences), with $`𝒜`$ an Abelian category, such that

$$H(^c(𝒦)[cp])=0,\text{for}a<cb,p=0,1,$$

then

$$H(𝒦)H(^a(𝒦)[a]).$$

The prototype of a Postnikov system associated to an object $`𝒦`$ of a triangulated category $`𝒟`$ endowed with a t-structure (definition 1.3.1 in ) appears as a succession of distinguished triangles of the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$

where $`\tau _{<a},\tau _a`$ are the truncation functors, and $`^a`$ the cohomology functors with values in the heart of the t-structure. We will use this construction in what follows for the case of the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves endowed with the usual t-structure. Some other Postnikov systems to be used in this note are provided by the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.6.

Let $`i:TS`$ be a regular embedding of codimension $`d,`$ with $`T`$ proper, and let $`\nu `$ be the normal sheaf of $`T`$ in $`S.`$

* The exact functor $`𝐋i^{}i_{}:\mathrm{D}(T)\mathrm{D}(T)`$ is induced by the kernel

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23_{}}(𝒪_T)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12_{}}(𝒪_T)\mathrm{D}(T\times T)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}:TT\times S,`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}:TS\times T,`$ the graph (diagonal) embeddings determined by $`i:TS,`$ and there exists a Postnikov system of the type (2.18) with $`a=d,b=0,`$ and

$$𝒦=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23_{}}(𝒪_T)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12_{}}(𝒪_T),^c(𝒦)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{},\text{for }0cd,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }:TT\times T`$ is the diagonal embedding.
* For any object $`𝒢\mathrm{D}(T)`$ there exists a Postnikov system of the type (2.18) with $`a=d,b=0,`$ and

$$𝒦=𝐋i^{}i_{}𝒢,^c(𝒦)𝒢\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{},\text{for }0cd.$$

###### Proof.

The exact functor $`𝐋i^{}i_{}`$ is induced by the kernel

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23_{}}(𝒪_T)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12_{}}(𝒪_T)𝐑p_{13_{}}\left(p_{12}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12_{}}(𝒪_T)\stackrel{𝐋}{}p_{23}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23_{}}(𝒪_T)\right).$$

Consider the fiber square (with $`p_{12}`$ flat)

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$
(2.19)
Therefore $`p_{12}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12_{}}(𝒪_T)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12_{}},Id_T_{})(𝒪_{T\times T}).`$ By the projection formula, we can then write

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23_{}}(𝒪_T)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12_{}}(𝒪_T)𝐑p_{13_{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12_{}},Id_T_{})\left((𝐋\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{},Id_T^{})p_{23}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23_{}}(𝒪_T)\right).$$

But $`p_{13}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12},Id_T)=Id_{T\times T},`$ and $`p_{23}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12},Id_T)=(i,Id_T).`$ Hence

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23_{}}(𝒪_T)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12_{}}(𝒪_T)(𝐋i^{},Id_T^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23_{}}(𝒪_T).$$

Set $`\iota :=(i,Id_T):T\times TS\times T.`$ Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}=\iota \mathrm{\Delta },`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }:TT\times T`$ the diagonal embedding, and it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23_{}}(𝒪_T)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12_{}}(𝒪_T)𝐋\iota ^{}\iota _{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_T).$$

Now note that there exists a Postnikov system in $`\mathrm{D}(T\times T)`$ of the type (2.18) with $`𝒦=𝐋\iota ^{}\iota _{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_T),`$ and $`^c(𝒦)𝐋^c\iota ^{}\iota _{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_T).`$ On $`S\times T`$ these sheaves are the Tor-sheaves $`𝒯or_c^{𝒪_{S\times T}}(\iota _{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_T),\iota _{}𝒪_{T\times T})`$ and can be computed with the help of a local Koszul resolution of $`\iota _{}𝒪_T`$ in $`S\times T`$ (see, for example, VII.2.5 in ). It follows that

$$^c(𝒦)\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{}\hfill & \text{if }0cd,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

The lemma follows, since this Postnikov system on $`T\times T`$ is mapped by an exact functor into the required Postnikov system on $`T.`$

###### Remark 2.7.

By combining the previous two lemmas, it follows that, for an $`EZ`$–spherical object $`\mathrm{D}(E),`$ there exists a distinguished triangle

$$𝒪_Z𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,i^!i_{})\theta [dk]𝒪_Z[1].$$

This remark will not be used in this paper.

###### Proposition 2.8.

If $``$ in $`\mathrm{D}(E)`$ is $`EZ`$–spherical, then:

i) For $`e<d+k,`$

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[e])\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[e],)\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z[e]).$$

In particular,

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[e])\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[e],)\{\begin{array}{cc}\overline{k}\hfill & \text{if }e=0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }e<0.\hfill \end{array}$$

ii) For $`e<2(d+k),`$

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[e])\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[e],)\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\theta [edk]).$$

In particular, for $`e<d+k,`$

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[e])\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[e],)=0.$$

iii) For $`e<d+k,`$

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,[e])\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}([e],)\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z[e]).$$

In particular,

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,[e])\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}([e],)\{\begin{array}{cc}\overline{k}\hfill & \text{if }e=0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }e<0.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Note that the first isomorphisms in each of the three parts of proposition follow directly from proposition 2.4, while the isomorphisms in the second groups of each part follow easily provided we proved the second isomorphisms in each part. The notation follows diagram (2.1).

i) By adjunction, we have that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[e])\mathrm{Hom}_{E\times E}(k_{}\left(q_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}()\right),l^!\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[e]).$$
(2.20)
Since $`q_1=r_1k,`$ $`q_2=r_2k,`$ the projection formula gives

$$k_{}\left(q_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}()\right)\left(r_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X)\stackrel{𝐋}{}r_2^{}()\right)\stackrel{𝐋}{}k_{}𝒪_Y.$$
(2.21)
On the other hand

$$l^!\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X𝐋l^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X\stackrel{𝐋}{}l^!𝒪_{X\times X}.$$
(2.22)
Note that for $`𝐋l^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X,`$ there exists a Postnikov system in $`\mathrm{D}(E\times E)`$ of the type (2.18) with $`𝒦=𝐋l^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X,`$ and $`^c(𝒦)𝐋^cl^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X.`$ Indeed, on $`X\times X,`$ these sheaves are in fact the Tor-sheaves $`𝒯or_c^{𝒪_{X\times X}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X,l_{}𝒪_{E\times E}).`$ Since $`l_{}𝒪_{E\times E}p_1^{}(i_{}𝒪_E)\stackrel{𝐋}{}p_2^{}(i_{}𝒪_E)`$ we have that

$$𝐋\mathrm{\Delta }^{}l_{}𝒪_{E\times E}i_{}𝒪_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i_{}𝒪_Ei_{}(𝐋i^{}i_{}𝒪_E),$$

so $`𝐋^c\mathrm{\Delta }^{}l_{}𝒪_{E\times E}i_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{},`$ for $`0cd.`$ On $`X\times X,`$ these sheaves are again the Tor-sheaves $`𝒯or_c^{𝒪_{X\times X}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X,l_{}𝒪_{E\times E}).`$ Therefore, we see that

$$^c(𝒦)\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{}\hfill & \text{if }0cd,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }:EE\times E`$ is the diagonal embedding.

Our goal is to apply part $`ii)`$ of lemma 2.5 for the cohomological functor $`H:\mathrm{D}(E)\mathrm{𝐀𝐛}`$ induced by the right hand side of (2.20),

$$H(𝒦):=\mathrm{Hom}_{E\times E}(k_{}\left(q_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}()\right),𝒦\stackrel{𝐋}{}l^!𝒪_{X\times X}[e]).$$

where $`𝒦=𝐋l^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X`$ with the Postnikov system described above, and $`a=d,b=0.`$

The hypotheses of part $`ii)`$ of lemma 2.5 require us to show that the group

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{E\times E}(k_{}\left(q_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}()\right),\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{}[cp]\stackrel{𝐋}{}l^!𝒪_{X\times X}[e])$$
(2.23)
is zero for $`0c<d,p=0,1,`$ and $`e<d+k.`$

To prove this claim, note first that the projection formula implies that

$$k_{}\left(q_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}()\right)\left(r_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X)\stackrel{𝐋}{}r_2^{}()\right)\stackrel{𝐋}{}k_{}𝒪_Y,$$

and the already quoted flat base change theorem (theorem 2 in , or theorem 5(i) in ) shows that

$$l^!𝒪_{X\times X}r_1^{}i^!𝒪_X\stackrel{𝐋}{}r_2^{}i^!𝒪_X.$$
(2.24)
We can then apply adjunction for the pair of functors $`(𝐋\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{\Delta }_{})`$ associated to the diagonal of $`E\times E,`$ to obtain that the group (2.23) is isomorphic to

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{Hom}_E(𝐋\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(k_{}𝒪_Y)\stackrel{𝐋}{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}),\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{}[cp]\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X[e])\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_{E\times E}(k_{}𝒪_Y,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dc}\nu [d+cp][e])).\hfill \end{array}$$

Now consider the following commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$
(2.25)
where $`t=q_1q=q_2q.`$ Since $`q\times q:E\times EZ\times Z`$ is flat, the base change theorem for the above fiber square allows us to write

$$k_{}𝒪_Yk_{}t^{}𝒪_Z(q\times q)^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(𝒪_Z).$$
(2.26)
By adjunction, we conclude that the group (2.23) is isomorphic to

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dc}\nu [d+cp][e])).$$
(2.27)
Since $``$ is $`EZ`$–spherical, we have that $`𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dc}\nu )0`$ for $`0<c<d.`$ For $`c=0,`$ remark 2.2 shows that $`𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^d\nu )\theta [k],`$ the group above is zero if

$$dkp+e<0,$$

that is when $`e<d+k.`$ This proves the above claim that the group (2.23) is zero for $`0c<d,p=0,1,`$ and $`e<d+k.`$

Therefore, part $`ii)`$ of lemma 2.5 implies indeed that $`\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[e])`$ is isomorphic to the group obtained by setting $`c=d,p=0`$ in (2.27), that is

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,[e])),$$

which is isomorphic (for an $`EZ`$–spherical object $``$) to

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z[e]).$$

Note that in the case $`d=0,`$ the same conclusion is obtained without having to use lemma 2.5, since in this case the $`EZ`$-condition implies the existence of a distinguished triangle of the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{}\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\theta [k+e1])& \mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z[e])\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,[e]))& \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[e])\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\theta [k+e])& \mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`ii)`$ The proof of the second isomorphism in this part is almost identical to the previous argument; formula (2.24) has to be replaced by

$$l^!𝒪_{X\times X}r_1^{}q^!𝒪_Z\stackrel{𝐋}{}(r_1^{}q^{}\theta [dk]\stackrel{𝐋}{}r_2^{}i^!𝒪_X),$$

since, by (2.2) $`q^!\theta [dk]i^!𝒪_X.`$

$`iii)`$ We now proceed with the proof of the second isomorphism in this part. We have that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,[e])\mathrm{Hom}_{E\times E}(𝒵,l^!l_{}𝒵[e])\mathrm{Hom}_{E\times E}(𝒵,𝐋l^{}l_{}𝒵[e]\stackrel{𝐋}{}l^!𝒪_{X\times X}),$$

with $`𝒵\mathrm{D}(E\times E)`$ defined by

$$𝒵:=\left(r_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X)\stackrel{𝐋}{}r_2^{}()\right)\stackrel{𝐋}{}k_{}𝒪_Y.$$

According to lemma 2.6, there exists a Postnikov system with $`𝒦=𝐋l^{}l_{}𝒵,`$ $`a=2d,b=d`$ and

$$^c(𝒦)𝒵\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{},$$

for $`0c2d.`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ is the normal sheaf of $`E\times E`$ in $`X\times X.`$

In order to use again part $`ii)`$ of lemma 2.5 for the cohomological functor $`H:\mathrm{D}(E\times E)\mathrm{𝐀𝐛},`$ induced by the right hand side of (2.2),

$$H(𝒦):=\mathrm{Hom}_{E\times E}(𝒵,𝒦\stackrel{𝐋}{}l^!𝒪_{X\times X}[e]).$$

with $`𝒦=𝐋l^{}l_{}𝒵,`$ $`a=2d,b=d,`$ we need to show that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{E\times E}(𝒵,𝒵[e]\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{}[cp]\stackrel{𝐋}{}l^!𝒪_{X\times X}),$$
(2.28)
is zero for $`0c<2d,p=0,1,`$ and $`e<d+k.`$ Moreover, the Künneth formula implies that it is enough to show that the groups

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{E\times E}(𝒵,𝒵[e]\stackrel{𝐋}{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{c_1}\stackrel{~}{\nu _1}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{c_2}\stackrel{~}{\nu _2}^{})[c_1+c_2p]\stackrel{𝐋}{}l^!𝒪_{X\times X}),$$
(2.29)
are zero for $`0c_1+c_2<2d,p=0,1,`$ $`e<d+k.`$ Here the normal sheaves $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu _2}`$ give the decomposition of the normal sheaf $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ along the two directions corresponding to the embeddings $`E_iX_i.`$

After regrouping the various tensor products we obtain the the group (2.29) is isomorphic to

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{E\times E}(k_{}𝒪_Y,(r_1^{}𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dc_1}\nu \stackrel{𝐋}{}r_2^{}𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dc_2}\nu )\stackrel{𝐋}{}k_{}𝒪_Y[2d+c_1+c_2p][e]).$$

By (2.26), we have that $`k_{}𝒪_Y(q\times q)^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,`$ so adjunction and the projection formula imply that the group above is isomorphic to

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝐑t_{}\left(q_1^{}𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dc_1}\nu )\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dc_2}\nu )[2d+c_1+c_2p][e]\right).$$

Since $`q`$ is flat, the Künneth formula for the interior fiber square in the diagram (2.1) says that

$$𝐑t_{}\left(q_1^{}𝒢_1\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}𝒢_2\right)𝐑q_{}𝒢_1\stackrel{𝐋}{}𝐑q_{}𝒢_2,$$

for any $`𝒢_1,𝒢_2\mathrm{D}(E).`$ Indeed,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐑q_{}𝒢_1\stackrel{𝐋}{}𝐑q_{}𝒢_2& 𝐑q_{}\left(𝒢_1\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^{}𝐑q_{}𝒢_2\right)𝐑q_{}\left(𝒢_1\stackrel{𝐋}{}𝐑q_1_{}q_2^{}𝒢_2\right)\hfill \\ & 𝐑(qq_1)_{}\left(q_1^{}𝒢_1\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}𝒢_2\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence, we have shown that the group (2.29) is isomorphic to

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\left(𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dc_1}\nu )\stackrel{𝐋}{}𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dc_2}\nu )\right)[2d+c_1+c_2p][e]).$$

Clearly, if $``$ is $`EZ`$–spherical, and $`c_1=c_2=0,`$ the group is

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\theta \theta )[2d2kp][e]),$$

which clearly is zero for $`e<d+k.`$ We also have to consider the case $`c_1+c_2=d.`$ Then the group is

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\theta [dkp][e]),$$

which is again zero for $`e<d+k.`$ In all the other situations with $`0c_1+c_2<2d,`$ the group is zero. It is immediate then that part $`ii)`$ of lemma 2.5 implies the required isomorphism

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,[e])\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z[e]),$$

for $`e<d+k.`$

As in the proof of part $`i),`$ the case $`d=0`$ from the above calculation follows without invoking lemma 2.5. ∎

For an $`EZ`$–spherical object $`\mathrm{D}(E),`$ set $`e=0`$ in the isomorphisms of part $`i)`$ of the above proposition. Denote by $`r_{}`$ and $`l_{}`$ the images of the identity morphism under some choice of isomorphisms at part $`i).`$

$$\stackrel{r_{}}{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{X\times X})_{}(𝒪_X),(\mathrm{\Delta }_{X\times X})_{}(𝒪_X)\stackrel{l_{}}{}.$$

###### Definition 2.9.

If $`\mathrm{D}(E)`$ is $`EZ`$–spherical, the objects $`_R`$ and $`_L`$ in $`\mathrm{D}(X\times X)`$ are defined (up to non–canonical isomorphisms) by the distinguished triangles in $`\mathrm{D}(X\times X)`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \stackrel{r_{}}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X_R[1]\hfill \\ & _L\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X\stackrel{l_{}}{}_L[1].\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.30)
We will need the following corollary of proposition 2.8.

###### Proposition 2.10.

If $`\mathrm{D}(E)`$ is $`EZ`$–spherical, then

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(_L,[1])\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,_R[1])=0.$$

###### Proof.

Apply the cohomological functor $`\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{?},)`$ to the distinguished triangle

$$_L\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X\stackrel{l_{}}{}_L[1],$$

and look at the following piece of the resulting long exact sequence:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{}& \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[1],)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(_L[1],)\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,)\stackrel{l_{}^\%}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X,)\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that, since $``$ is $`EZ`$–spherical, by $`i)`$ and $`iii)`$ of proposition 2.8, the last two groups on the right are isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z)`$ (and in fact to the field $`\overline{k}`$). The morphism $`l_{}`$ was chosen to correspond to the identity in the group $`\mathrm{Hom}_{Z\times Z}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_Z),`$ which shows that the induced homomorphism $`l_{}^\%`$ is in fact an isomorphism. Since part $`i)`$ of the previous proposition shows that the group $`\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[1],)`$ is zero, we obtain indeed that $`\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(_L[1],)`$ is zero. The proof of the other half of the proposition is completely analogous. ∎

The main result of this note is the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.11.

Under the hypotheses of definition 2.1, for any $`EZ`$–spherical object $`\mathrm{D}(E),`$ the exact functors $`\mathrm{\Phi }__R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }__L`$ are inverse automorphisms of $`\mathrm{D}(X),`$ i.e.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }__R\mathrm{\Phi }__LId_{\mathrm{D}(X)},\mathrm{\Phi }__L\mathrm{\Phi }__RId_{\mathrm{D}(X)}.$$

The proof of the theorem will occupy the next section.

###### Remark 2.12.

At least in the projective case, a theorem of Bondal and Orlov (theorem 1.1 in ) and Bridgeland (theorem 5.1 ) provides a clear criterion for the fully faithfulness of the exact functors $`\mathrm{\Phi }__R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }__L.`$ Namely, $`\mathrm{\Phi }__R`$ is fully faithful if and only if, for each point $`xX,`$

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{\Phi }__R(𝒪_x),\mathrm{\Phi }__R(𝒪_x))=\overline{k},$$

and for each pair of points $`x_1,x_2X,`$ and for each integer $`i,`$

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{\Phi }__R(𝒪_{x_1}),\mathrm{\Phi }__R(𝒪_{x_2}))=0,\text{unless }x_1=x_2\text{ and }0in.$$

While this is a very geometrical characterization, the quite convoluted way of defining the objects $`_R`$ and $`_L`$ makes its use rather hard in the given set-up.

###### Remark 2.13.

As it can be seen from the proofs contained in the next section, the smoothness assumptions on $`X,E`$ and $`Z`$ can be relaxed somewhat. Quasi–projectiveness can be replaced by assumptions on the schemes that guarantee that Grothendieck duality theory works. Beyond that, it is enough to assume that the schemes $`X,E,Z`$ as well as the morphism $`q`$ are Gorenstein ( V.9), with $`E`$ proper, and that $`EX`$ is a regular embedding. We would then have to add “by hand” further assumptions on the kernels $`,`$ $`,`$ $`;`$ for example, we could assume that they are perfect, namely that they are isomorphic (in the corresponding derived categories) to bounded complexes of locally free sheaves of finite rank. As it can be seen from the proof of proposition 2.8, we also need to assume that $`Z`$ is connected. The results of this section would remain true. The crucial assumption that the morphism $`q`$ is proper and flat ensures that the considered functors take bounded derived categories of coherent sheaves to bounded derived categories of coherent sheaves.

###### Remark 2.14.

In the case of a smooth Calabi–Yau variety $`X`$ ($`\omega _X=0,\theta =\omega _Z`$), the choice $`=\omega _E`$ gives

$$=j_{}(𝒪_Y[d]\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}\omega _E).$$

The corresponding kernel $`_R`$ is precisely the kernel introduced in section 4.1 of  in the case of a Calabi–Yau complete intersection $`X`$ in a toric variety (that result provided the inspiration for this work). As it is shown there, under the additional hypothesis that $`E`$ is a complete intersection of toric divisors, the action in cohomology of the corresponding Fourier–Mukai functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }__R`$ matches the mirror symmetric monodromy action obtained by analytical computations. It will be seen in the section 3 of this work that, in that context, $`=\omega _E`$ is indeed $`EZ`$–spherical. The invertability of the corresponding exact functor in the case of a type III birational contraction for a Calabi–Yau threefold has been checked by B. Szendrői (see section 6.2 in ). In this special case, the cohomology action induced by the Fourier–Mukai transformation has been written down by P. Aspinwall (section 6.1 in ) based on string theoretic arguments (apparently the formula is a reinterpretation of previous physics results obtained in ). Miraculously (at least from the present author’s point of view), it can be checked that Aspinwall’s formula is in complete agreement with the results of this work.

### 2.3 Proof of the theorem

It is not surprising that in order to prove theorem 2.11 we need to compute the kernels $`_R_L,`$ $`_L_R.`$ As an intermediate step we will study the kernels $``$ and $`.`$ To that end, a few more facts about kernels (or correspondences) in $`\mathrm{D}(Y),`$ $`Y=E\times _ZE`$ are needed.

An object $`𝒢_Y\mathrm{D}(Y)`$ of finite Tor–dimension defines an exact functor from $`\mathrm{D}(E)`$ to $`\mathrm{D}(E)`$ by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒢_Y}(\mathrm{?}):=𝐑q_2_{}(𝒢_Y\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_1^{}(\mathrm{?})).$$

Note that we work under the important assumption that the morphism $`q:EZ`$ is flat. We can define the composition of two kernels $`𝒢_Y`$ and $`_Y`$ by the analog of the formula (2.8)

$$𝒢_Y_Y:=𝐑q_{13_{}}\left(q_{12}^{}(_Y)\right)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_{23}^{}(𝒢_Y),$$

where the projection maps are flat morphisms from $`E\times _ZE\times _ZE`$ to $`E\times _ZE.`$ All the properties mentioned above for the composition of kernels in $`\mathrm{D}(X\times X)`$ continue to hold in this case, most remarkably the associativity (due to the flatness of $`q:EZ`$).

Note also that we made the choice to denote the operation of composition of kernels in $`Y`$ by the same symbol as before. It will be clear from the specific context which composition is meant in a particular formula.

The functors $`i_{}`$ and $`𝐋i^{}`$ determined by the embedding $`i:EX`$ can be expressed as exact functors determined by the kernel $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒪_E)\mathrm{D}(E\times X)`$ viewed as a correspondence from $`E`$ to $`X,`$ or from $`X`$ to $`E,`$ respectively ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }:EE\times X`$ is the graph embedding). It is a nice and easy exercise to check, using (2.9), that any kernel $`l_{}()\mathrm{D}(X\times X)`$ can be decomposed as

$$l_{}()\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒪_E)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒪_E),$$
(2.31)
($`l:E\times EX\times X`$ is the canonical embedding).

###### Lemma 2.15.

If $`_Y,𝒢_Y\mathrm{D}(Y),`$ then

$$k_{}(𝒢_Y)k_{}(_Y)k_{}(𝒢_Y_Y),$$

where $`k:YE\times E`$ is the canonical embedding.

###### Proof.

(of the lemma)

We need to show that

$$k_{}𝐑q_{13_{}}\left(q_{12}^{}(_Y)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_{23}^{}(𝒢_Y)\right)𝐑r_{13_{}}\left(r_{12}^{}(k_{}(_Y))\stackrel{𝐋}{}r_{23}^{}(k_{}(𝒢_Y))\right).$$

Consider the fiber square (with $`r_{12}`$ flat)

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$
(2.32)
where we have used subscripts to distinguish between different copies of $`E.`$ We have that $`r_{12}^{}k_{}(𝐋k^{},Id_{E_3}^{})m_{12}^{}.`$ By the projection formula, we can write

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝐑r_{13_{}}\left(r_{12}^{}(k_{}(_Y))\stackrel{𝐋}{}r_{23}^{}(k_{}(𝒢_Y))\right)\hfill \\ & 𝐑r_{13_{}}(k_{},Id_{E_3})\left(m_{12}^{}(_Y)\stackrel{𝐋}{}(𝐋k^{},Id_{E_3}^{})r_{23}^{}(k_{}(𝒢_Y))\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.33)
By using another fiber square (with $`r_{23}(k,Id_{E_3})`$ flat)

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$
(2.34)
Hence $`(𝐋k^{},Id_{E_3}^{})r_{23}^{}k_{}k_{12_{}}q_{23}^{},`$ and again by the projection formula we obtain that the right hand side of (2.33) is isomorphic to

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝐑r_{13_{}}(m_{12}^{}(_Y)\stackrel{𝐋}{}k_{},Id_{E_3})\left(k_{12_{}}q_{23}^{}(𝒢_Y)\right)\hfill \\ & 𝐑r_{13_{}}(k_{12}^{}m_{12}^{}(_Y)\stackrel{𝐋}{}k_{},Id_{E_3})k_{12_{}}\left(q_{23}^{}(𝒢_Y)\right)k_{}𝐑q_{13_{}}\left(q_{12}^{}(_Y)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_{23}^{}(𝒢_Y)\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

since $`r_{13}(k,Id_{E_3})k_{12}=kq_{13}.`$ This ends the proof of the lemma. ∎

###### Proposition 2.16.

If $`\mathrm{D}(E)`$ is $`EZ`$–spherical, there exist distinguished triangles

$`[1],`$ (2.35)
$`[1].`$ (2.36)
###### Proof.

Write

$$=j_{}_Y,=j_{}_Y,$$

with

$$_Y:=q_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}(),_Y:=q_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^!𝒪_Z)\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}().$$

By (2.31), lemma 2.15 and the associativity of the composition of correspondences we can write that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & =j_{}(_Y)j_{}(_Y)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒪_E)k_{}(_Y)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒪_E)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒪_E)\right)k_{}(_Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒪_E)\hfill \end{array}$$

We can now interpret the last line of the previous formula as an exact functor $`T:\mathrm{D}(E\times E)\mathrm{D}(X\times X)`$ given by

$$T(𝒦):=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒪_E)k_{}(_Y)𝒦k_{}(_Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒪_E).$$

Lemma 2.6 shows that there exists a Postnikov system of the type (2.18) with $`a=d,b=0,𝒦=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒪_E)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒪_E),`$ and $`^c(𝒦)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{},`$ for $`0cd,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }:EE\times E`$ is the diagonal embedding.

In order to apply part $`i)`$ of lemma 2.5, we need to examine the action of the functor $`T`$ on the cohomology sheaves $`^c.`$ We have that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T(^c[c])& =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒪_E)k_{}(_Y)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{}[c]k_{}(_Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(𝒪_E)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒪_Ek_{}\left(_Y\mathrm{\Delta }_Y\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{}[c]_Y\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒪_E,\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have used lemma 2.15, and the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }=k\mathrm{\Delta }_Y`$ (see diagram (2.25)).

We have that

$$(_Y\mathrm{\Delta }_Y\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{}[c])_Y𝐑q_{13_{}}\left(q_{12}^{}_Y\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_{23}^{}_Y\mathrm{\Delta }_Y\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{}[c]\right).$$

But

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill q_{23}^{}_Y\mathrm{\Delta }_Y\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{}[c]& (q_2^{123})^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{}[c]\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X))\stackrel{𝐋}{}(q_3^{123})^{}()\hfill \\ \hfill q_{12}^{}_Y& (q_1^{123})^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^!𝒪_Z)\stackrel{𝐋}{}(q_2^{123})^{}().\hfill \end{array}$$

Since

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{}[c]\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dc}\nu [d+c],$$
(2.37)
after regrouping the terms, we obtain that

$$\begin{array}{cc}& _Y\mathrm{\Delta }_Y\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{}[c]_Y𝐑q_{13_{}}(q_{13}^{}_Y\stackrel{𝐋}{}(q_3^{123})^{}(𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dc}\nu [d+c]))\hfill \\ & _Y\stackrel{𝐋}{}𝐑q_{13_{}}(q_3^{123})^{}(𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^d\nu [d+c])\hfill \\ & _Y\stackrel{𝐋}{}t^{}\left(𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dc}\nu [d+c])\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $``$ is $`EZ`$–spherical, the last line in the above formula is zero unless $`c=0,d.`$ For $`c=d,`$ the last line is $`_Y,`$ and for $`c=0,`$ it is, by remark 2.2,

$$_Y\stackrel{𝐋}{}t^{}\theta [dk]q_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^!𝒪_Z\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^{}\theta [dk])\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}()_Y,$$
(2.38)
since $`q^!𝒪_Z\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^{}\theta [dk]i^!𝒪_X,`$ by the starting assumption (2.2) made on $`\theta .`$ Part $`i)`$ of lemma 2.5 implies then that there exist a distinguished triangle

$$T(^d[d])T(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒪_E\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒪_E)=T(^0)[1].$$

Note that the proof works also in the case $`d=0.`$ In that case, lemma 2.5 is not needed, and the above calculation shows that

$$T(𝒪_X)_Y\stackrel{𝐋}{}t^{}(𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,),$$

and the distinguished triangle (2.4) defining the $`EZ`$–condition in this case finishes the argument.

The proof of the existence of the second distinguished triangle is very similar, and requires the reversals of the roles of $``$ and $`,`$ the replacement of the observation (2.37) by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu ^{}[c]\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^!𝒪_Z\mathrm{\Lambda }^{dc}\nu [d+c]\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^{}\theta ^1[d+k],$$

and the use of the required analog of (2.38), namely

$$_Y\stackrel{𝐋}{}t^{}\theta ^1[d+k]q_1^{}(𝒟_E\stackrel{𝐋}{}i^!𝒪_X\stackrel{𝐋}{}q^{}\theta ^1[d+k])\stackrel{𝐋}{}q_2^{}()_Y.$$

###### Proposition 2.17.

If $`\mathrm{D}(E)`$ is $`EZ`$–spherical, then

$$_L[1]_L[1].$$

###### Proof.

For the first isomorphism, note that the operation $``$ with one argument fixed is an exact functor of triangulated categories, so definition 2.9 provides the triangle

$$_L\stackrel{l_{}^\mathrm{\#}}{}_L[1].$$
(2.39)
We also consider the distinguished triangle of proposition (2.16)

$$\stackrel{g_{}^\mathrm{\#}}{}[1].$$
(2.40)
We start with a lemma.

###### Lemma 2.18.

The morphism $`g_{}^\mathrm{\#}l_{}^\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,)`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

(of the lemma) Since $``$ is $`EZ`$–spherical, proposition 2.8 $`iii)`$ implies that $`\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,)k,`$ so it is enough to show that the morphism $`g_{}^\mathrm{\#}l_{}^\mathrm{\#}`$ is non–zero. In fact, we will show that their composition

$$\stackrel{l_{}^\mathrm{\#}}{}\stackrel{g_{}^\mathrm{\#}}{},$$

induces group homomorphisms of Hom groups (all isomorphic to $`\overline{k}`$) by proposition 2.8 $`i),iii)`$)

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\stackrel{g_{}^\%}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\stackrel{l_{}^\%}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X),$$

that are isomorphisms, where, proposition 2.8 $`i)`$ shows that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\overline{k},$$

and, propositions 2.4 and 2.8 $`iii),`$ imply that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,)\overline{k}.$$

In order to show that the composition $`l_{}^\mathrm{\#}g_{}^\mathrm{\#}`$ is non-zero, we will “probe” it with the help of the cohomological functor $`\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{?},\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X).`$ First, we apply this functor to the distinguished triangle (2.40), and we look at a piece of the resulting long exact sequence of groups.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{}& \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}([1],\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\stackrel{g_{}^\%}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

But by proposition 2.8 $`ii),`$ the leftmost group is zero, hence the morphism $`g_{}^\%`$ is in fact an isomorphism

$$k\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\overline{k}.$$

We now apply the same cohomological functor to the distinguished triangle (2.39) and investigate a piece of the corresponding long exact sequence of groups.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{}& \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(_L[1],\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\stackrel{l_{}^\%}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Proposition 2.4 implies that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(_L[1],\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(_L,[1])$$
(2.41)
and proposition 2.10 shows the the group is zero. Hence the morphism $`l_{}^\%`$ is an isomorphism

$$k\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\overline{k},$$

which finishes the proof of the lemma. ∎

The lemma shows that we can consider the following “9–diagram” (page 24 in ) which is essentially a version of the octahedron axiom in triangulated categories.

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$
(2.42)
The starting point is the commutative square located in the lower left corner. The “9–diagram” proposition (prop. 1.1.11. in ) shows that we can fill in the diagram, so $`_L[2]\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[1].`$ This ends the proof of the first isomorphism of the proposition.

The proof of the second one is very similar. Of course, we have to replace the distinguished triangles (2.39) and (2.40) by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& _L\stackrel{l_{}^\mathrm{\#}}{}_L[1],\hfill \\ & \stackrel{g_{}^\mathrm{\#}}{}[1],\hfill \end{array}$$

and then show that the morphism $`g_{}^\mathrm{\#}l_{}^\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,)`$ is an isomorphism.

Everything works as above– the only modification is that the isomorphism (2.41) has to be replaced by

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(_L[1],\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(_L,[1]),$$

which is true due to proposition 2.4.

We are now in the position to finish the proof of the theorem. The argument is similar to the one used to prove the previous proposition. Consider the distinguished triangle (2.30) defining $`_L`$

$$_L\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X\stackrel{l_{}}{}\stackrel{u_{}}{}_L[1],$$
(2.43)
with a choice of a (non–canonical) morphism $`u_{}.`$ Since $`\mathrm{D}(E)`$ is $`EZ`$–spherical, we apply the cohomological functor $`\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{?})`$ to this distinguished triangle and write a relevant piece of the associated long exact sequence:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{}& \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)\stackrel{l_{}^\%}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,)\stackrel{u_{}^\%}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,_L[1])\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X[1])\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

By proposition 2.8 $`ii),iii),`$ we know that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X)0,\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,)\overline{k},$$

and by propositions 2.4 $`i),`$ 2.17 and 2.8 $`i)`$ (in this order), we have that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,_L[1])\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X,_L[1])\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X,)\overline{k}.$$
(2.44)
We conclude that the morphism $`u_{}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,_L[1])`$ is a generator of this group.

Let’s now look at the distinguished triangle,

$$_L_L_R_L[1]\stackrel{v_{}}{}_L[1],$$
(2.45)
obtained by applying the exact functor $`_L(\mathrm{?})`$ to the distinguished triangle (2.30) defining $`_R.`$ Due to proposition 2.17, we have that $`_L[1],`$ so

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(_L[1],_L[1])\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,_L[1])\overline{k},$$

by (2.44).

We claim that the morphism $`v_{}`$ is a generator of this group (i.e. non–zero). Indeed, after applying the cohomological functor $`\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,\mathrm{?})`$ to the distinguished triangle (2.45), we can write a relevant piece of the resulting long exact sequence as follows:

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,_L_R)\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,_L[1])\stackrel{v_{}^\%}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,_L[1])\mathrm{}.$$

Proposition 2.17 and proposition 2.8 $`iii)`$ show that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,_L[1])\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,))\overline{k}.$$

Moreover, we can write that

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,_L_R)\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X,(_L[1])_R[1])\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪_X,_R[1])\mathrm{Hom}_{X\times X}(,_R[1]),\hfill \end{array}$$

where the first and the last isomorphisms follow from proposition 2.4, and the middle one from proposition 2.17. Proposition 2.10 says that the last group is zero, which proves indeed that $`v_{}`$ is non–zero.

In other words, we have shown that the morphisms $`u_{}`$ and $`v_{}`$ coincide up to an isomorphism. We can then look at the diagram

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \text{}\end{array}$$
(2.46)
We have just argued that the right hand square is commutative. The axiom TR3 of a triangulated category implies the existence of the dotted morphism. Another well known property of triangulated categories (see, for example, corollary 4, page 242 in ) shows that it is also an isomorphism, which concludes the proof of theorem 2.11. ∎

## 3 Applications

In this section, we sample some geometric geometric situations in which $`EZ`$–spherical objects arise. The list has no claims of being exhaustive.

###### Example 3.1.

The case $`Z=\mathrm{Spec}(\overline{k})`$ brings nothing new, namely an object $`\mathrm{D}(E)`$ is $`EZ`$–spherical if and only if $`i_{}\mathrm{D}(X)`$ is spherical, and the functors $`\mathrm{\Phi }__R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }__L`$ are those studied in . This follows immediately by adjunction for the pair $`(i_{},i^!)`$ and by recalling that, in this case, the functors $`𝐑^{}q_{}𝐑om_E`$ are nothing else but the $`\mathrm{Ext}^{}`$ groups on $`E.`$

###### Example 3.2.

Let $`E`$ be a smooth proper divisor in a smooth quasi–projective variety $`X,`$ and $`q=Id:EZ=E.`$ Then $`\theta \omega _E\stackrel{𝐋}{}𝐋i^{}\omega _X^1\omega _{E/X}\nu .`$ In this case $`Y=E\times _ZEE,`$ and any invertible sheaf $``$ is $`EZ`$–spherical, since

$$𝐑q_{}𝐑om_E(,)𝒪_Z$$

The object $`_L`$ in $`\mathrm{D}(X\times X)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}𝒪(E),`$ and the associated Fourier–Mukai functor is the usual

$$\mathrm{\Phi }__L(\mathrm{?})=𝒪(E)\stackrel{𝐋}{}(\mathrm{?}).$$

###### Example 3.3.

Assume that $`E=X.`$ This is the case of the so–called fiberwise Fourier–Mukai functors , , . The typical example is the case of a flat projective Calabi–Yau ($`\omega _X𝒪_X`$) fibration $`q:XZ`$ with a generic Calabi–Yau fiber $`F`$ of dimension $`k.`$ Consider an object $`\mathrm{D}(X)`$ flat over the base $`Z.`$

Assume that the restriction $`_z`$ is a spherical object (in the sense of ) for any generic fiber $`F_z,`$ that the dimensions of $`\mathrm{Ext}^i(_z,_z)(zZ)`$ are constant functions on $`Z`$ for all $`i,`$ and that $`q_{}𝐑om_X(,)𝒪_Z.`$ The Grauert–Grothendieck theorem ( III.12.9) implies that

$$𝐑^iq_{}𝐑om_X(,)=0,\text{for}0<i<k.$$

In this case $`\theta =\omega _Z,`$ and since $`q^!𝒪_Zq^{}\omega _Z[k],`$ the duality theorem (1.3) (or relative Serre duality) gives that $``$ is $`EZ`$–spherical.

When the generic fiber $`F`$ has the property that $`h^{i,0}(F)=0,`$ for $`0<i<k,`$ any invertible sheaf on $`X`$ will be an $`EZ`$–spherical object. For a flat elliptic fibration with a section $`\sigma :ZX,`$ the sheaf $`𝒪_{\sigma (Z)}`$ is also $`EZ`$–spherical.

The next example shows one possible way of relating our results to the theory of exceptional objects .

###### Example 3.4.

Assume that $`E`$ is a proper smooth divisor in $`X`$ such that $`EF\times Z`$ ($`F`$ comes from either fiber, or Fano), $`q:EZ,`$ $`dimF=k.`$ Assume that $`\theta `$ is an invertible sheaf on $`Z`$ such that $`q^!\theta \omega _{E/X}[k]`$ Let $`^{}`$ be an exceptional object in $`\mathrm{D}(F),`$ i.e. $`\mathrm{Hom}_F(^{},^{})=k,`$ and $`\mathrm{Ext}_F^c(^{},^{})=0,`$ for $`c>0.`$ Then the pull-back of $`^{}`$ to $`E`$ by the natural projection is an $`EZ`$–spherical object in $`\mathrm{D}(E).`$

###### Example 3.5.

Let’s also discuss in more detail the example that provided the inspiration for this work. Of course, it can generalized to cover more general situations in birational geometry; however, this example captures the essential features. We study the $`EZ`$–spherical objects that arise when one considers a smooth Calabi–Yau complete intersection $`X`$ in a toric variety $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and a toric elementary contraction $`\stackrel{~}{q}:\stackrel{~}{X}\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ in the sense of Mori theory (as studied by M. Reid in ). As mentioned in the introduction, such transformations provide geometric models for the physical phase transitions. Let $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ represent the loci where $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ is not an isomorphism (the exceptional locus) and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}:=\stackrel{~}{q}(\stackrel{~}{E}).`$ Corollary 2.6 in  shows that $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is a complete intersection of toric Cartier divisors $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_d,`$ and the restriction of $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is a flat morphism whose fibers are weighted projective spaces.

Let $`E`$ denote the exceptional locus of the restriction of the contraction to $`X`$ and $`q:EZ`$ the corresponding morphism. We make the assumption that

$$E=X\stackrel{~}{E},$$

and that $`q`$ is a flat morphism with the fibers $`F`$ (regular) projective spaces of dimension $`k.`$ For more on the geometrical details of the situation, the reader may want to consult section 4.4 in .

According to proposition 2.7 in  we have that

$$D_cC_\sigma <0,$$
(3.1)
for all $`c,1cd,`$ and for any curve $`C_\sigma `$ in the class of the contraction, therefore any rational curve contained in a fiber $`F^k.`$

On the other hand, the adjunction formula implies that

$$\omega _F=𝒪(D_1+\mathrm{}+D_d)_{|_F}.$$
(3.2)
The only way that (3.1) and (3.2) could hold at same time is if all the line bundles of the type $`𝒪(D_{c_1}+\mathrm{}+D_{c_m})_{|_F}`$ on $`F^k`$ with $`0<m<d`$ are negative of the form $`𝒪(l)`$ with $`0<l<k+1.`$

We see that in this case

$$\nu _{|_E}\left(𝒪(D_1)\mathrm{}𝒪(D_d)\right)_{|_E},$$

and

$$\mathrm{H}^l(F,\mathrm{\Lambda }^c\nu _{|_F})=0,\text{for}0<l<k+1,0<c<d.$$

Definition 2.1 and the Grauert–Grothendieck theorem ( III.12.9) imply that any invertible sheaf $``$ on $`E`$ is indeed an $`EZ`$–spherical object, since $`𝐑om_E(,)=𝒪_E`$ and $`𝐑q_{}𝒪_E=𝒪_Z.`$

Note that there is nothing special about the Calabi–Yau condition. To put the $`EZ`$–machinery to work, we only need to know that the restriction to $`E`$ of the canonical bundle of $`X`$ is also the pull–back of an invertible sheaf on $`Z.`$ It should also be noted that, in the course of analyzing this example, the existence of the contraction of $`X`$ is not needed. Presumably, there could be examples with $`E`$ a complete intersection of Cartier divisors $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_d`$ in $`X`$ and $`q:EZ`$ a flat fibration with a Fano fiber $`F.`$ In that case, we would only need to impose as an assumption the analog of (3.1) in order to have that any invertible sheaf on $`E`$ is $`EZ`$–spherical.

###### Remark 3.6.

An $`EZ`$–spherical object $``$ has good “portability” properties. Indeed, definition 2.1 has a local character with respect to the embedding $`EX.`$ Therefore, if $``$ is $`EZ`$–spherical with respect to a configuration described by a diagram such as (1.1), it will continue to be $`EZ`$–spherical if the variety $`X`$ is replaced (analytically) by the “local” variety given by the total space of the normal bundle $`N_{E/X},`$ while $`q:EZ`$ is left unchanged. In fact, $``$ will remain $`EZ`$–spherical if $`X`$ is replaced by any other smooth variety $`X^{}`$ such that $`N_{E/X^{}}N_{E/X}.`$ The explicit passage from $`X`$ to $`X^{}`$ can be realized by using the formal completion of $`X`$ (or $`X^{}`$) along $`E`$ ( II.9), or by the so–called “deformation to the normal cone” ( chap. 5).


text:
# Sub-arcsecond Imaging of SiO in the HH 211 Protostellar Jet

## 1 Introduction

Ever since protostellar outflows were first discovered our understanding of their driving mechanism has been limited by poor spatial resolution. As a consequence, early measurements (e.g., Snell, Loren, & Plambeck 1980; Lada 1985) suggested the flows had relatively small length-to-width ratios, and the first models concentrated on explaining high-velocity molecular gas as being driven by wind-angle protostellar winds (e.g., Barral & Cantó 1981; Königl 1982; Boss 1987; Shu et al. 1991). This ruled out on morphological grounds the possibility that Herbig-Haro (HH) jets, traced by low-excitation optical lines, were responsible for the molecular flows. However, more recent, higher resolution molecular observations made with large single dishes and millimetre-wave interferometers have demonstrated that the molecular flows frequently possess highly-collimated components (e.g., Bachiller & Cernicharo 1990), and that these are often closely associated with HH objects (Richer et al. 1989). A large number of highly-collimated molecular outflows have now been detected, and it is commonly assumed that these flows, at least in the younger sources, are driven by the momentum of a high Mach number, neutral jet (Richer et al. 2000).

The detailed physics of how neutral jets, with densities comparable to that of the surrounding material, accelerate molecular gas to generate the molecular flow remain unclear, although several models have been proposed. Material can in principle be entrained in the leading bowshock (e.g., Raga & Cabrit 1993), internal bowshocks (e.g., Raga et al. 1993), and in a turbulent mixing layer along the edges of the jet (Stahler 1994; Taylor & Raga 1995). In most cases, however, the angular resolution of current observations is insufficient to resolve the details of these processes. What is needed is a shock tracer similar to the molecular hydrogen lines at 2 $`\mu `$m, but which does not suffer the obscuration prevalent at optical and near-infrared wavelengths.

The SiO molecule is a very useful tool for investigating jet-cloud interactions (e.g., Martín-Pintado, Bachiller, & Fuente 1992). It can be observed at high angular resolution in the millimetre wavebands, and it seems to be excited primarily in shocks where silicon is removed from dust grains, significantly increasing its gas phase abundance. Thermal emission from its vibrational ground state lines has been detected in a number of protostellar outflow sources, and it appears to be intimately associated with collimated jets (e.g., L1448: Guilloteau et al. 1992) rather than with the general, low-velocity outflow traced by CO emission. Models suggest that SiO most likely originates from the sputtering of silicon atoms off silicate grains in C-shocks having speeds in the range 10 to 50 km s-1, followed by rapid conversion to SiO in the gas phase (Field et al. 1997; Schilke et al. 1997; Caselli, Hartquist, & Havnes 1997). Abundance enhancements of 4 to 5 orders of magnitude over the very low gas-phase abundance of SiO in the ambient interstellar medium have been observed in some outflows (e.g., Bachiller, Martín-Pintado, & Fuente 1991; Mikami et al. 1992; Bachiller et al. 1994). The lack of foreground extinction at millimetre wavelengths also make the rotational transitions of SiO particularly important for studies of the youngest outflows, which are associated with the most deeply embedded protostars.

The protostar driving the HH 211 system is one of the youngest and most deeply embedded low-mass protostars known. It was discovered serendipitously through its bright, shocked, H2 2-$`\mu `$m emission in an imaging study of the IC348 region (McCaughrean, Rayner, & Zinnecker 1994), and lies at a distance of $`350`$ pc (Herbig & Jones 1983). Although given a Herbig-Haro catalogue number, no optical emission has yet been detected from this object, most likely due to the high obscuration. The H2 image shows a compact, well-collimated flow which is also detected in CO emission (Gueth & Guilloteau 1999). Because of the relatively small projected CO flow speeds ($`<20`$ km s-1), and the high degree of separation of the red and blue lobes, the outflow’s inclination to the plane of the sky is probably small; if the true CO flow speeds are $`>100`$ km s-1 as in other outflows, the implied inclination is less than $`10^{}`$. Between the two lobes, the driving protostar is detected as a millimetre continuum source with no 2-$`\mu `$m or optical counterpart, designated HH 211-mm by Gueth & Guilloteau (1999). The outflow’s age, and hence that of the protostar, can be estimated from the outflow properties, although various assumptions need to be made. The value derived by Gueth & Guilloteau (1999) is only 750 years, suggesting that the embedded protostar has only just entered its main accretion and outflow phase, and making it an ideal object in which to study the early stages of low mass star formation. Here we have taken advantage of the high resolution available with the Very Large Array (VLA) at 43 GHz to study the SiO $`v`$=0, $`J`$=1–0 emission from the HH 211 protostellar jet, and to investigate the entrainment and acceleration of molecular outflows.

## 2 Observations and data reduction

Observations of HH 211 in the $`v`$=0, $`J`$=1–0 transition of SiO at 43.4 GHz were made using 10 antennas of the VLA of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory111The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.. The FWHM of the primary beam of the VLA antennas at this frequency is approximately 1 arcmin. The first observations took place in the compact D configuration, in 1996 August; we re-observed HH 211 using the more extended C configuration in 1997 September to obtain higher resolution images. On each occasion, two circular polarisations were measured each with 16 Hanning-smoothed channels, providing a spectral resolution of 781.25 kHz (5.4 km s-1).

In D configuration two phase centers were observed, one toward the red outflow lobe and one toward the blue. The positions are listed in Table 1. Atmospheric and instrumental phase fluctuations were monitored every 10 minutes by observing the quasar Pks 0333+321, and the pointing was corrected using 8.4 GHz observations of this same quasar at intervals of approximately one hour. The bandpass response was obtained from observations of 3C84. The absolute flux density scale was determined from 3C48, with an assumed 43 GHz flux density of 0.57 Jy, to give a measured 43 GHz flux density for 0333+321 of $`1.40\pm 0.03`$ Jy. The remaining 14 VLA antennas were used to search for 22.2 GHz H2O maser emission within the primary beam of 2 arcmin (FWHM). A single IF with right circular polarisation was used with 64 Hanning-smoothed channels covering a total bandwidth of 6.25 MHz (84.3 km s-1), centered on $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}=0`$ km s-1. A single phase center was observed, and the same quasar was used at 22.2 GHz for the phase, bandpass, and flux density calibration as at 43.4 GHz. The synthesised beam was 3$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$$`\times `$ 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$5 at PA = 73, and the rms noise per channel was 9 mJy per beam. No H2O emission was detected from HH 211.

The C-array observations used a single phase center, at the location of the protostar. The atmospheric phase fluctuations on the longer baselines in C configuration are significantly worse than in D, so we used a much faster switching time between the source and 0333+321, with a total cycle time from source to calibrator to source of 1 min 40 sec. The pointing was checked every hour using 8.4 GHz observations of 0333+321, and the bandpass was obtained from 3C84. The absolute flux density scale was determined from 3C286, with an assumed 43 GHz flux density of 1.45 Jy, to give a 43 GHz flux density for 0333+321 of $`2.08\pm 0.08`$ Jy on this occasion. The uncertainty in the absolute flux density scale for both datasets is approximately 15%.

The data were calibrated, imaged, and CLEANed using the AIPS reduction package, and the synthesised beam, which is intermediate between uniform and natural weighting (“robust” weighting: Briggs 1995), is optimised for a combination of resolution and sensitivity. The CLEAN beam widths and rms noise per channel at the center of each field are listed in Table 1; however, because the two fields in D configuration were corrected for the response of the primary beam and coadded, they have both been restored with the average synthesised beam listed in column 5. All the quantitative results described below are derived from CLEANed images of the data obtained in each VLA configuration separately. However, images have also been made by combining the C and D-array data and carrying out a joint deconvolution of the synthesized beams using the maximum entropy routine UTESS in AIPS. These images are displayed in Figs Acknowledgments and Acknowledgments, but because the resolution is a function of the local signal-to-noise ratio after maximum-entropy processing, the UTESS images have not been used in any of the quantitative analyses.

## 3 Results and discussion

### 3.1 Structure and kinematics

Fig. Acknowledgments shows the integrated red and blueshifted SiO(1–0) emission from HH 211 overlaid on a logarthmic greyscale image of the shocked molecular hydrogen emission from McCaughrean et al. (1994). The SiO is mainly located inside the outer faint shell of H2 emission, is well collimated, and appears to be associated only with the jet from the exciting star. It corresponds closely to the strongest emission peaks in the high-velocity CO(2–1) map of Gueth & Guilloteau (1999). While the SiO emission on the jet axis is generally coincident with regions of shocked H2 (in the case of the redshifted component, even terminating at an H2 knot), no emission is detected at the brightest H2 peaks despite the fact that they fall well inside the 50% response level of the VLA D-array observations (dashed contour, Fig. Acknowledgments). This lack of detailed correlation between the two shock tracers is also seen in other young outflows (e.g., IRAS 03828+3035: Bachiller et al. 1994; L1157: Gueth, Guilloteau, & Bachiller 1998), and possible explanations are discussed further in § 3.2 below.

Between the position of the protostar and a projected angular distance of 15′′ both the red and blue components of the SiO jet gradually widen. Little or no redshifted SiO is detected beyond 15′′, although knots and other features continue out to larger distances on the blueshifted side. The total flux in the blueshifted and redshifted SiO jets of HH 211 is comparable, but Fig. Acknowledgments shows that the blue emission is more diffuse than the red, a feature which is illustrated quite dramatically in maps of the emission made within individual velocity channels (Fig. Acknowledgments). The systemic velocity, $`V_{\mathrm{sys}}`$, of the molecular cloud is at $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}9`$ km s-1 (Gueth & Guilloteau 1999), and at a radial velocity $`|VV_{\mathrm{sys}}|10`$ km s-1 the full width zero intensity of the blueshifted emission is $`4^{\prime \prime }`$, twice that on the redshifted side. A further difference between the structures of the red and blue SiO jets is in their association with infrared H2 emission: the one strong peak in the blueshifted jet, at $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}=0.8`$ km s-1, corresponds closely to a bright H2 knot, while the redshifted SiO is coincident only with very faint H2 emission. These features are most easily explained by the structure of the molecular cloud core in which HH 211 resides. The core exhibits a steep density gradient in the direction of the blueshifted side of the jet, compared with the considerable amounts of dense gas on the redshifted side (traced by H13CO+(1–0) emission: see Gueth & Guilloteau 1999) into which the redshifted jet must penetrate. The decreased pressure of the ambient gas on the blueshifted side may allow the jet to expand more freely perpendicular to the jet direction. Toward the redshifted SiO jet the dense gas results in high foreground extinction for the infrared H2 emission.

In three of the redshifted channels, from $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}`$ = 20.8 to 31.6 km s-1, the SiO emission divides into two streamers separated by $`1^{\prime \prime }`$, and appears to be the limb-brightening of a layer of molecular material around the faint H2 jet. At several locations the bifurcated streamers seem to lie behind (i.e., closer to the protostar) a knot of SiO emission on the jet axis that is at a higher velocity. Such a configuration suggests that the SiO is accelerated at internal bowshocks within the jet, and, indeed, may be formed in these bowshocks. Alternatively, the limb brightening may be the result of laminar entrainment of SiO along the edges of the jet.

The kinematics of the SiO jet matches closely that of the high-velocity CO(2–1) detected by Gueth & Guilloteau (1999). The SiO emission in the images made from only C-array data is very clumpy, and may be missing flux particularly in the blueshifted channels. We therefore use only emission detected at a level of 3$`\sigma `$ or greater in the VLA D configuration in analyzing the overall velocity structure of the SiO jet. Fig. Acknowledgmentsa shows the first moment (intensity-weighted mean velocity) of the SiO(1–0), overlaid with contours of shocked H2 emission. It illustrates that the ends of the jets are the locations of highest radial velocity compared to the ambient cloud. An approximately uniform velocity gradient along the jet (sometimes called a “Hubble-law flow”) can also be seen, and the value of the gradient, $`5\times 10^3`$ km s-1 AU-1, is very similar to that measured from the CO(2–1) emission. The redshifted lobe in particular shows a smooth velocity gradient along the jet, with a maximum at 30 km s-1 away from $`V_{\mathrm{sys}}`$. The second moment map of the SiO emission (Fig. Acknowledgmentsb) shows that the positions of highest velocity dispersion generally coincide with the brightest shocked H2 emission on the jet axis, providing further evidence that the SiO is in some way associated with, or possibly formed in, those jet shocks.

### 3.2 Excitation, abundance, and origin of the SiO

The peak beam-averaged brightness temperature, $`T_\mathrm{B}`$, in the C-array data is 54 K, and occurs in the channel at $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}=26.2`$ km s-1, providing a firm lower limit on the excitation temperature, $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$, within the redshifted gas. In the blueshifted lobe the peak at $`V_{\mathrm{LSR}}=0.8`$ km s-1 corresponds to $`T_\mathrm{B}=47`$ K. Further constraints on $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ can be obtained by comparing the $`J`$=1–0 line with spectra of the SiO(5–4) emission obtained with the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope in a 22′′ beam (Chandler & Richer 1997; Fig. Acknowledgments). The integrated $`J`$=1–0 flux from the C and D-array VLA images are the same to within the calibration uncertainties, and the SiO jet is unresolved laterally in the images made from data obtained only in the VLA D configuration. We therefore assume that the D-array observations did not resolve out any of the 1–0 emission. If all the SiO is at the same temperature and in local thermodynamic equilibrium both the SiO(5–4)/(1–0) line ratio and the peak $`T_\mathrm{B}`$ can therefore be combined to give the line optical depths and a lower limit to $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$. We find for the red jet that the $`J`$=1–0 optical depth, $`\tau _{10}`$, is $`0.28`$, and $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}220`$ K, while for the blue jet $`\tau _{10}0.36`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}155`$ K. These limits do not include uncertainties in the flux calibration of the $`J`$=1–0 and 5–4 spectra, and assuming a 15% uncertainty in both gives strict lower limits to $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}`$ of 185 K (red) and 120 K (blue). Such temperatures are considerably higher than the $`10`$ K expected for the ambient molecular gas and dust. Very high space densities in the emitting gas are also implied by the detection of the SiO(5–4) line, which has a critical density of order $`10^6`$ cm-3. These results confirm that the SiO originates in regions of extreme excitation conditions.

The total mass of the high-velocity CO jet determined assuming a CO abundance of 10-4 is $`2.5\times 10^3(T_{\mathrm{ex}}/50\mathrm{K})`$ M (Gueth & Guilloteau 1999). Assuming the SiO and high-velocity CO(2–1) emission are co-spatial (but do not necessarily have the same excitation temperature) a value $`T_{\mathrm{ex}}=150`$ K for the SiO gives an SiO abundance $`X(\mathrm{SiO})6\times 10^6`$, comparable to that determined for the high-velocity gas in the L1448 jet by Martín-Pintado et al. (1992), who derive $`X(\mathrm{SiO})2\times 10^6`$. In HH 211, however, the SiO emission is not as extended as the high-velocity CO jet, and so our value for $`X`$(SiO) is likely to be a lower limit. The abundance of SiO is therefore enhanced by approximately a factor of $`10^6`$ over that typically observed in quiescent molecular clouds, where $`X(\mathrm{SiO})10^{11}`$ (Ziurys, Friberg, & Irvine 1989). Such a high abundance suggests that at least 10% of all the silicon is in the form of SiO, requiring an extremely efficient mechanism for releasing Si from dust grains into the gas phase, to enable subsequent gas-phase chemistry to produce SiO.

Two mechanisms have been proposed for increasing the amount of gas-phase silicon in shocks. In J-shocks and slow C-shocks grain-grain collisions may be the dominant means of destroying the grains to release refractory elements (Seab & Shull 1983; Jones et al. 1994; Caselli et al. 1997), while in faster C-shocks the sputtering of grain mantles and refractory cores by heavy ions is a more efficient process (Field et al. 1997; Schilke et al. 1997; Caselli et al. 1997). Once produced the SiO may be destroyed in shocks by reactions such as SiO + C $``$ CO + Si, SiO + OH $``$ SiO2 \+ H, and SiO + $`h\nu `$ $``$ SiO+ \+ $`e`$ (e.g., Hartquist, Oppenheimer, & Dalgarno 1980; Neufeld & Dalgarno 1989). It may also be depleted back onto dust grains in the post-shock gas.

Both the extremely localized nature of the SiO emission from the HH 211 jet, and the plausible explanations for producing the observed large abundance enhancements via the destruction of dust grains in shocks, suggest that dust must be located either within the jet itself, or in a cocoon of material surrounding the jet and from which the jet can entrain the dust. However, the separation of the CO(2–1) into two distinct kinematic components by Gueth & Guilloteau (1999) — a low-velocity shell and a high-velocity, highly-collimated jet, with no evidence for molecular material at intermediate velocities or in the cavity between the shell and the jet — makes it seem most likely that the dust originates at the base of the jet, from where the dust is entrained or injected directly into the jet. If the limb-brightened edges of the SiO jet are indicative of lateral entrainment the dust must either be destroyed locally in shocks long the edges of the jet, or the SiO must already be formed at the jet base.

The observed location and velocity of the SiO emission are consistent with its production in C-shocks, with speeds in the range 10–50 km s-1. Such shock conditions are also believed to produce most of the observed H2 emission from outflow sources (e.g., Smith, Brand, & Moorhouse 1991), which would lead us to expect a much better correlation between SiO and H2 emission than is observed. Although the SiO peaks in Fig. Acknowledgments do lie on areas of strong H2 emission, beyond the SiO jet, at distances greater than $`20^{\prime \prime }`$ (7000 AU) from the driving source, the H2 remains strong while there is no detectable SiO emission. A lack of precise correspondence between SiO and H2 emission is also observed in IRAS 03282+3035 and L1157, but for these sources the SiO emission tends to lie downstream from strong H2 emission, and each tracer is assumed to be following different physical and chemical conditions in the evolution of the post-shock gas (Bachiller et al. 1994; Gueth et al. 1998). One possible explanation for the lack of detectable SiO emission near the brightest H2 peaks in HH 211 is that although gas-phase SiO is being produced in the shocks, the post-shock density is insufficient to collisionally excite the rotational lines; such a picture is consistent with the SiO primarily being produced close to the driving source, where the envelope densities are highest. Alternatively, it is possible that one of the two SiO destruction processes referred to above is operating efficiently in the shocks occurring further from the driving protostar.

## 4 Conclusions

The SiO images of the HH 211 jet presented in this paper are among the highest resolution images of a protostellar jet: the resolution of $`0.5^{\prime \prime }`$ corresponds to only 170 AU, and is sufficient to resolve the width of the jet as traced by SiO emission. The SiO emission is extremely clumpy, and arises in multiple compact knots whose scale is much smaller than the coherent shocked structures traced by H2 emission. The most likely origin for these SiO structures is in internal bowshocks generated by a time-dependent jet velocity. The clumpy nature of the SiO emission suggests these shocks have a very complex spatial structure, most likely due to Raleigh-Taylor instabilities in the cooling, post-shock gas. There is also some morphological evidence for limb-brightened SiO emission, which could arise in a hot boundary layer between the jet and the surrounding material, but this pattern of emission could equally well be generated in the tails of an internal bowshock. Although the SiO detected does coincide with the strong H2 peaks close to the driving protostar, no SiO emission is detected at projected distances of more than $`20^{\prime \prime }`$, despite these being the locations of the strongest H2 knots. This result suggests that the shock conditions, perhaps the pre-shock density, vary rapidly along the length of the jet.

## Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to Mark McCaughrean for providing the image of shocked molecular hydrogen emission associated with HH 211, and thank the referee for making useful comments that have helped clarify the paper. CJC was supported by a PPARC Advanced Fellowship during part of this work, and JSR is partially supported by a Royal Society Fellowship.