text:
# Stable tensors and moduli space of orthogonal sheaves

## 1. Stability of tensors

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety over $``$. Fix an ample line bundle $`𝒪_X(1)`$ on $`X`$. Fix a polynomial $`P`$ of degree $`n=dim(X)`$, and integers $`s`$, $`b`$, $`c`$. We will denote by $`r`$ and $`d`$ the rank and degree of a sheaf with Hilbert polynomial $`P`$. Fix a family $`\{D_u\}_{uR}`$ of locally free sheaves $`X`$ parametrized by a scheme $`R`$, i.e. we fix a locally free sheaf $`𝒟`$ on $`X\times R`$, and given a point $`uR`$, we denote by $`D_u`$ the restriction to the slice $`X\times u`$.

###### Definition 1.1 (Tensor).

A tensor is a triple $`(E,\phi ,u)`$, where $`E`$ is a coherent sheaf on $`X`$ with Hilbert polynomial $`P_E=P`$, $`u`$ is a point in $`R`$, and $`\phi `$ is a homomorphism

$$\phi :(E^s)^c(detE)^bD_u,$$

that is not identically zero. Let $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ and $`(F,\psi ,v)`$ be two tensors with $`P_E=P_F`$, $`detEdetF`$, and $`u=v`$. A homomorphism between $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ and $`(F,\psi ,v)`$ is a pair $`(f,\alpha )`$ where $`f:EF`$ is a homomorphism of sheaves, $`\alpha `$, and the following diagram commutes

(1.1)
where $`\widehat{f}:detEdetF`$ is the homomorphism induced by $`f`$. In particular, $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ and $`(E,\lambda \phi ,u)`$ are isomorphic for $`\lambda ^{}`$.

###### Remark 1.2.

We could have defined a more restrictive notion of isomorphism, considering only isomorphisms for which $`\alpha =1`$. If we do this, we obtain a different category: for instance, if $`E`$ is simple, the set of automorphisms of $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ is $`^{}`$, but if we require $`\alpha =1`$, then the set of automorphisms is $`/(rbs)`$ (assuming $`rbs0`$). If $`rbs0`$, even if the categories are not equivalent, the set of isomorphism classes will be the same (because $`\alpha `$ can be absorbed in $`f`$ by changing $`f`$ into $`\alpha ^{1/(rbs)}f`$), and then the moduli spaces will be the same. But if $`rbs=0`$, then $`\alpha `$ cannot be absorbed in $`f`$, and the set of isomorphism classes is not the same.

Let $`\delta `$ be a polynomial with $`\mathrm{deg}(\delta )<n=dim(X)`$

(1.2)
$$\delta =\delta _1t^{n1}+\delta _2t^{n2}+\mathrm{}+\delta _n[t],$$

and $`\delta (m)>0`$ for $`m0`$. We denote $`\tau =\delta _1(n1)!`$. We will define a notion of stability for these tensors, depending on the polarization and $`\delta `$, and we will construct, using geometric invariant theory (GIT), a moduli space for semistable tensors.

A weighted filtration $`(E_{},m_{})`$ of a sheaf $`E`$ is a filtration of sheaves

(1.3)
$$0E_1E_2\mathrm{}E_tE_{t+1}=E,$$

and positive numbers $`m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_t>0`$. Let $`r_i=\mathrm{rk}(E_i)`$. If $`t=1`$ (one step filtration), then we will take $`m_1=1`$. We will denote $`E^i=E/E_i`$ and $`r^i=\mathrm{rk}(E^i)`$. The filtration is called saturated if all sheaves $`E_i`$ are saturated in $`E`$, i.e. if $`E^i`$ is torsion free.

Consider the vector of $`^r`$ defined as $`\gamma =_{i=1}^tm_i\gamma ^{(r_i)}`$, where

(1.4)
$$\gamma ^{(k)}=(\stackrel{k}{\stackrel{}{kr,\mathrm{},kr}},\stackrel{rk}{\stackrel{}{k,\mathrm{},k}})(1kr1).$$

Now let $`=\{1,\mathrm{},t+1\}^{\times s}`$ be the set of all multi-indexes $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_s)`$. Let $`\gamma _j`$ be the $`j`$-th component of the vector $`\gamma `$, and define

(1.5)
$$\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})=\underset{I}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{\gamma _{r_{i_1}}+\mathrm{}+\gamma _{r_{i_s}}:\phi |_{(E_{i_1}\mathrm{}E_{i_s})^c}0\right\}$$

###### Definition 1.3 (Stability).

Let $`\delta `$ be a polynomial as in (1.2). We say that $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ is $`\delta `$-(semi)stable if for all weighted filtrations it is

(1.6)
$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(rP_{E_i}r_iP\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta ()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

Recall that we assume that $`\phi `$ is not identically zero. It is easy to check that if $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ is semistable, then $`E`$ is torsion free. In this definition, it suffices to consider saturated filtrations, and with $`\mathrm{rk}(E_i)<\mathrm{rk}(E_{i+1})`$ for all $`i`$.

###### Lemma 1.4.

There is an integer $`A_1`$ (depending only on $`P`$, $`s`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`𝒟`$) such that it is enough to check the stability condition (1.6) for weighted filtrations with $`m_iA_1`$ for all $`i`$.

###### Proof.

Again, let $`=\{1,\mathrm{},t+1\}^{\times s}`$. Multi-indexes will be denoted $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_s)`$. Note that (1.5) is a piece-wise linear function of $`\gamma 𝒞`$, where $`𝒞^r`$ is the cone defined by $`\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _r`$. This is because it is defined as the minimum among a finite set of linear functions, namely the functions $`\gamma _{r_{i_1}}+\mathrm{}+\gamma _{r_{i_s}}`$ for $`I`$. There is a decomposition of $`𝒞=_I𝒞_I`$ into a finite number of subcones

$$𝒞_I:=\{\gamma 𝒞:\gamma _{r_{i_1}}+\mathrm{}+\gamma _{r_{i_s}}\gamma _{r_{i_1^{}}}+\mathrm{}+\gamma _{r_{i_s^{}}}\text{for all }I^{}\}$$

and (1.5) is linear on each cone $`𝒞_I`$. Choose one vector $`\gamma ^r`$ in each edge of each cone $`𝒞_I`$. Multiply all these vectors by $`r`$, so that all their coordinates are divisible by $`r`$, and call this set of vectors $`S`$. All vectors in $`S`$ come from a collection of weights $`m_i>0`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},t+1`$, given by the formula $`\gamma =_{i=1}^tm_i\gamma ^{(r_i)}`$. Hence to obtain the finite set $`S`$ of vectors it is enough to consider a finite set of values for $`m_i`$, and hence there is a maximum value $`A_1`$.

Finally, it is easy to see that it is enough to check (1.6) for the weights associated to the vectors in $`S`$. Indeed, first note that since the first term in (1.6) is linear on $`𝒞`$, then it is also linear on each $`𝒞_I`$. Then the left hand side of (1.6) is linear on each $`𝒞_I`$, and hence it is enough to check it on all the edges of all the cones $`𝒞_I`$.

###### Definition 1.5 (Slope stability).

We say that $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ is slope-$`\tau `$-(semi)stable if $`E`$ is torsion free, and for all weighted filtrations we have

(1.7)
$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(r\mathrm{deg}E_ir_i\mathrm{deg}E\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\tau ()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

Recall. $`\tau =\delta _1(n1)!`$. As usual, we have the following implications

slope-$`\tau `$-stable $``$ $`\delta `$-stable $``$
$``$ $`\delta `$-semistable $``$ slope-$`\tau `$-semistable
The reason why we have to consider filtrations instead of just subsheaves is that (1.5) is not linear as a function of $`\{m_i\}`$. But we have the following result that will be used in the proof of theorem 2.5.

###### Lemma 1.6.

Let $`(E_{},m_{})`$ be a filtration as above, and let $`𝒯^{}`$ be a subset of $`𝒯=\{1,\mathrm{},t\}`$. Let $`(E_{}^{},m_{}^{})`$ be the subfiltration obtained by considering only those terms $`E_i`$ for which $`i𝒯^{}`$. Then

$$\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\mu (\phi ,E_{}^{},m_{}^{})+\underset{i𝒯𝒯^{}}{}m_isr_i.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`=\{1,\mathrm{},t+1\}^{\times s}`$ be the set of all multi-indexes $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_s)`$. Given a multi-index $`I`$, we have

$$\gamma _{r_{i_1}}+\mathrm{}+\gamma _{r_{i_s}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(sr_i\nu _i(I)r\right),$$

where $`\nu _i(I)`$ is the number of elements $`k`$ of the multi-index $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_s)`$ such that $`r_kr_i`$. If $`I`$ is the multi-index giving minimum in (1.5), we will denote $`ϵ_i(\phi ,E_{},m_{}):=\nu _i(I)`$ (or just $`ϵ_i(E_{})`$ if the rest of the data is clear from the context). Then

(1.8)
$$\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(sr_iϵ_i(E_{})r\right).$$

We index the filtration $`(E_{}^{},m_{}^{})`$ with $`𝒯^{}`$. Let $`I^{}=(i_1^{},\mathrm{},i_s^{})\left\{𝒯^{}\{t+1\}\right\}^{\times s}`$ be the multi-index giving minimum for the filtration $`(E_{}^{},m_{}^{})`$. In particular, we have $`\phi |_{(E_{i_1^{}}\mathrm{}E_{i_s^{}})^c}0`$. Then

$`\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})=\underset{I}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{\gamma _{r_{i_1}}+\mathrm{}+\gamma _{r_{i_s}}:\phi |_{(E_{i_1}\mathrm{}E_{i_s})^c}0\right\}`$
$`\gamma _{r_{i_1^{}}}+\mathrm{}+\gamma _{r_{i_s^{}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}m_i\left(sr_i\nu _i(I^{})r\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}m_i\left(sr_iϵ_i(E_{}^{})r\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i𝒯^{}}{}}m_i\left(sr_iϵ_i(E_{}^{})r\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{i𝒯𝒯^{}}{}}m_i\left(sr_iϵ_i(E_{}^{})r\right)`$
$`\mu (\phi ,E_{}^{},m_{}^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{i𝒯𝒯^{}}{}}m_isr_i.`$
A family of $`\delta `$-(semi)stable tensors parametrized by a scheme $`T`$ is a tuple $`(E_T,\phi _T,u_T,N)`$, consisting of a torsion free sheaf $`E_T`$ on $`X\times T`$, flat over $`T`$, that restricts to a torsion free sheaf with Hilbert polynomial $`P`$ on every slice $`X\times t`$, a morphism $`u_T:TR`$, a line bundle $`N`$ on $`T`$ and a homomorphism $`\phi _T`$

(1.9)
$$\phi _T:(E_T{}_{}{}^{s})^c(detE_T)^b\overline{u_T}^{}𝒟\pi _T^{}N,$$

(recall $`\overline{u_T}=\mathrm{id}_X\times u_T`$) such that if we consider the restriction of this homomorphism on every slice $`X\times t`$

$$\phi _t:(E_t{}_{}{}^{s})^c(detE_t)^bD_{u(t)},$$

the triple $`(E_t,\phi _t,u(t))`$ is a $`\delta `$-(semi)stable tensor for every $`t`$ (in particular, $`\phi _t`$ is not identically zero).

Two families $`(E_T,\phi _T,u_T,N)`$ and $`(E_T^{},\phi _T^{},u_T^{},N^{})`$ parametrized by $`T`$ are isomorphic if $`u_T=u_T^{}`$ and there are isomorphisms $`f:E_TE_T^{}`$, $`\alpha :NN^{}`$ such that the induced diagram

commutes.

Let $`_\delta `$ (respectively $`_\delta ^s`$) be the contravariant functor from the category of complex schemes, locally of finite type, $`(\mathrm{Sch}/)`$ to the category of sets $`(\mathrm{Sets})`$ which sends a scheme $`T`$ to the set of isomorphism classes of families of $`\delta `$-semistable (respectively stable) tensors parametrized by $`T`$, and sends a morphism $`T^{}T`$ to the map defined by pullback (as usual).

###### Definition 1.7.

A scheme $`Y`$ corepresents a functor $`F:(\mathrm{Sch}/)(\mathrm{Sets})`$ if

1. There exists a natural transformation $`f:F\underset{¯}{Y}`$ (where $`\underset{¯}{Y}`$ is the functor of points represented by $`Y`$).
2. For every scheme $`Y^{}`$ and natural transformation $`f^{}:F\underset{¯}{Y^{}}`$, there exists a unique $`g:\underset{¯}{Y}\underset{¯}{Y^{}}`$ such that $`f^{}`$ factors through $`f`$.

If $`Y`$ exists, then it is unique up to unique isomorphism. If furthermore $`f(\mathrm{Spec}):F(\mathrm{Spec})Y`$ is bijective, we say that $`Y`$ is a coarse moduli space.

We will construct schemes $`𝔐_\delta `$, $`𝔐_\delta ^s`$ corepresenting the functors $`_\delta `$ and $`_\delta ^s`$. In general $`𝔐_\delta `$ will not be a coarse moduli space, because nonisomorphic tensors could correspond to the same point in $`𝔐_\delta `$. As usual, we declare two such tensors S-equivalent, and then $`𝔐_\delta `$ becomes a coarse moduli space for the functor of S-equivalence classes of tensors.

###### Theorem 1.8.

Fix $`P`$, $`s`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and a family $`𝒟`$ of locally free sheaves on $`X`$ parametrized by a scheme $`R`$. Let $`d`$ be the degree of a coherent sheaf whose Hilbert polynomial is $`P`$. Let $`\delta `$ be a polynomial as in (1.2).

There exists a coarse moduli space $`𝔐_\delta `$, projective over $`\mathrm{Pic}^d(X)\times R`$, of S-equivalence classes of $`\delta `$-semistable tensors. The closed points of $`𝔐_\delta `$ correspond to S-equivalence classes of $`\delta `$-semistable tensors. There is an open set $`𝔐_\delta ^s`$ corresponding to $`\delta `$-stable tensors. Points in this open set correspond to isomorphism classes of $`\delta `$-stable tensors.

In proposition 4.1 we give a criterion to decide when two tensors are S-equivalent. Theorem 1.8 will be proved in section 4.

###### Remark 1.9.

Note that to define the functors we have used isomorphism classes of families, but usually one uses equivalence classes, declaring two families equivalent if they differ by the pullback of a line bundle $`M`$ on $`T`$. As a result, in general the functors that we have defined will not be sheaves. The sheafified functors will be the same (this follows from the fact that if we shrink $`T`$ then $`M`$ will be trivial), and hence the corresponding moduli spaces are the same, because a scheme corepresents a functor if and only if it corepresents its sheafification (see \[Si, p. 60\]).

## 2. Boundedness

The objective of this section is theorem 2.5, where we reformulate the stability condition for tensors using some boundedness results. We start with some well known results. See \[Si, cor 1.7\] (also \[H-L2, lemma 2.2\]), \[Gr, lemma 2.5\] and \[Ma\].

###### Lemma 2.1 (Simpson).

Let $`r>0`$ be an integer. Then there exist a constant $`B`$ with the following property: for every torsion free sheaf $`E`$ with $`0<\mathrm{rk}(E)r`$, we have

$$h^0(E)\frac{1}{g^{n1}n!}\left(\left(\mathrm{rk}(E)1\right)\left([\mu _{\mathrm{max}}(E)+B]_+\right)^n+\left([\mu _{\mathrm{min}}(E)+B]_+\right)^n\right),$$

where $`g=\mathrm{deg}𝒪_X(1)`$, $`[x]_+=\mathrm{max}\{0,x\}`$, and $`\mu _{\mathrm{max}}(E)`$ (respectively $`\mu _{\mathrm{min}}(E)`$) is the maximum (respectively minimum) slope of the Mumford-semistable factors of the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of $`E`$.

###### Lemma 2.2 (Grothendieck).

Let $`𝒯`$ be a bounded set of sheaves $`E`$. The set of torsion free quotients $`E^{\prime \prime }`$ of the sheaves $`E`$ in $`𝒯`$ with $`|\mathrm{deg}(E^{\prime \prime })|C^{\prime \prime }`$ for some fixed constant $`C^{\prime \prime }`$, is bounded.

###### Theorem 2.3 (Maruyama).

The family of sheaves $`E`$ with fixed Hilbert polynomial $`P`$ and such that $`\mu _{\mathrm{max}}(E)C`$ for a fixed constant $`C`$, is bounded.

###### Corollary 2.4.

The set of $`\delta `$-semistable tensors $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ with fixed Hilbert polynomial is bounded.

###### Proof.

Follows from theorem 2.3 and an easy calculation. ∎

The main theorem of this section is

###### Theorem 2.5.

There is an integer $`N_0`$ such that if $`mN_0`$, the following properties of tensors $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ with $`E`$ torsion free and $`P_E=P`$, are equivalent.

1. $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ is (semi)stable.
2. $`P(m)h^0(E(m))`$ and for every weighted filtration $`(E_{},m_{})`$ as in (1.3)

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(rh^0(E_i(m))r_iP(m)\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta (m)()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$
3. For every weighted filtration $`(E_{},m_{})`$ as in (1.3)

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(r^iP(m)rh^0(E^i(m))\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta (m)()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

Furthermore, for any tensor $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ satisfying these conditions, E is $`m`$-regular.

Recall that a sheaf $`E`$ is called $`m`$-regular if $`h^i(E(mi))=0`$ for $`i>0`$. If $`E`$ is $`m`$-regular, then $`E(m)`$ is generated by global sections, and it is $`m^{}`$-regular for any $`m^{}>m`$. The set of tensors $`(E,\phi ,u)`$, with $`E`$ torsion free and $`P_E=P`$, satisfying the weak version of conditions 1-3 will be called $`𝒮^s`$, $`𝒮_m^{}`$, and $`𝒮_m^{\prime \prime }`$.

###### Lemma 2.6.

There are integers $`N_1`$, $`C`$ such that if $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ belongs to $`𝒮=𝒮^s_{mN_1}𝒮_m^{\prime \prime }`$, then for all saturated weighted filtrations the following holds for all $`i`$:

(2.1)
$$\mathrm{deg}(E_i)r_i\mu _sC,$$

(where $`\mu _s=(ds\tau )/r`$) and either $`C\mathrm{deg}(E_i)r_i\mu _s`$ or

1. $`rh^0(E_i(m))<r_i(P(m)s\delta (m))`$, if $`(E,\phi ,u)𝒮^s`$ and $`mN_1`$.
2. $`r^i(Ps\delta )r(P_{E^i}s\delta )`$, if $`(E,\phi ,u)_{mN_1}𝒮_m^{\prime \prime }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`B`$ be as in lemma 2.1. Choose $`C`$ large enough so that $`C>s\tau `$ and the leading coefficient of $`G(Ps\delta )/r`$ is negative, where

(2.2)
$$G(m)=\frac{1}{g^{n1}n!}\left(\left(1\frac{1}{r}\right)\left(\mu _s+s\tau +mg+B\right)^n+\frac{1}{r}\left(\mu _s\frac{1}{r}C+mg+B\right)^n\right)$$

Choose $`N_1`$ large enough so that for $`mN_1`$,

(2.3) $`\delta (m)`$ $``$ $`0,`$
(2.4) $`\mu _s{\displaystyle \frac{C}{r}}+mg+B`$ $`>`$ $`0,`$
(2.5) $`G(m)(P(m)s\delta (m))/r`$ $`<`$ $`0.`$
Since the filtration is assumed to be saturated, and since $`E`$ is torsion free, we have $`0<r_i<r`$.

Case 1. Suppose $`(E,\phi ,u)𝒮^s`$. For each $`i`$, consider the one step filtration $`E_iE`$. The leading coefficient of the semistability condition applied to this filtration, together with $`C>s\tau `$, implies (2.1).

Let $`E_{i,\mathrm{max}}E_i`$ be the term in the Harder-Narasimhan filtration with maximal slope. Then the same argument applied to $`E_{i,\mathrm{max}}`$ gives

(2.6)
$$\mu _{\mathrm{max}}(E_i)=\mu (E_{i,\mathrm{max}})<\mu _s+s\tau .$$

Now assume that the first alternative does not hold, i.e.

$$C>\mathrm{deg}(E_i)r_i\mu _s.$$

This gives

(2.7)
$$\mu _{\mathrm{min}}(E_i)\mu (E_i)<\mu _s\frac{C}{r}.$$

Combining lemma 2.1 with (2.4), (2.6), (2.7) and (2.5), we have

$$rh^0(E_i(m))<r_i(P(m)s\delta (m)).$$

Case 2. Suppose $`(E,\phi ,u)𝒮_m^{\prime \prime }`$ for some $`mN_1`$. For each $`i`$, consider the quotient $`E^i=E/E_i`$. Let $`E_{\mathrm{min}}^i`$ be the last factor of the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of $`E^i`$ (i.e. $`\mu (E_{\mathrm{min}}^i)=\mu _{\mathrm{min}}(E^i)`$). Let $`E^{}`$ be the kernel

$$0E^{}EE_{\mathrm{min}}^i0,$$

and consider the one step filtration $`E^{}E`$. Equations (2.2) and (2.4) imply that $`0<G(m)`$. Then a short calculation using (2.5), the fact that $`(E,\phi ,u)𝒮_m^{\prime \prime }`$, (2.3) and lemma 2.1 shows

$$G(m)<\frac{h^0(E_{\mathrm{min}}^i(m))}{\mathrm{rk}(E_{\mathrm{min}}^i)}\frac{1}{g^{n1}n!}\left(\mu _{\mathrm{min}}(E^i)+mg+B\right)^n.$$

It can be seen that if this inequality of polynomials holds for some $`mN_1`$, then it holds for all larger values of $`m`$, hence choosing $`m`$ large enough and looking at the coefficients, we have

$$\mu _{\mathrm{min}}(E^i)\mu _s+\left(1\frac{1}{r}\right)s\tau \frac{C}{r^2}.$$

A short calculation using this, $`\mu _{\mathrm{min}}(E^i)\mu (E^i)`$ and $`0<\mathrm{rk}(E^i)<\mathrm{rk}(E)`$ (hence $`\mathrm{rk}(E)>1`$), yields (2.1).

Now assume that the first alternative does not hold, i.e.

$$C>\mathrm{deg}(E_i)r_i\mu _s.$$

It follows that $`r^i\mu _s<\mathrm{deg}(E^i)s\tau `$, and hence

$$r^i(Ps\delta )r(P_{E^i}s\delta ).$$

###### Lemma 2.7.

The set $`𝒮=𝒮^s_{mN_1}𝒮_m^{\prime \prime }`$ is bounded.

###### Proof.

Let $`(E,\phi ,u)𝒮`$. Let $`E^{}`$ be a subsheaf of $`E`$, and $`\overline{E}^{}`$ the saturated subsheaf of $`E`$ generated by $`E^{}`$. Using lemma 2.6

$$\frac{\mathrm{deg}(E^{})}{\mathrm{rk}(E^{})}\frac{\mathrm{deg}(\overline{E}^{})}{\mathrm{rk}(\overline{E}^{})}\mu _s+\frac{C}{\mathrm{rk}(\overline{E}^{})}\mu _s+C.$$

Then by Maruyama’s theorem 2.3, the set $`𝒮`$ is bounded. ∎

###### Lemma 2.8.

Let $`𝒮_0`$ be the set of sheaves $`E^{}`$ such that $`E^{}`$ is a saturated subsheaf of $`E`$ for some $`(E,\phi ,u)𝒮`$, and furthermore

$$|\mathrm{deg}(E^{})r^{}\mu _s|C.$$

Then $`𝒮_0`$ is bounded.

###### Proof.

Let $`E^{}𝒮_0`$. The sheaf $`E^{\prime \prime }=E/E^{}`$ is torsion free, and $`|\mathrm{deg}(E^{\prime \prime })|`$ is bounded because the set $`𝒮`$ is bounded and

$$|\mathrm{deg}(E^{\prime \prime })||\mathrm{deg}(E)|+|\mathrm{deg}(E^{})|\underset{E𝒮}{\mathrm{max}}|\mathrm{deg}(E)|+C+r|\mu _s|.$$

Then by Grothendieck’s lemma 2.2, the set of sheaves $`E^{\prime \prime }`$ obtained in this way is bounded, and hence also $`𝒮_0`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.9.

There is an integer $`N_2`$ such that for every weighted filtration $`(E_{},m_{})`$ as in (1.3) with $`E_i𝒮_0`$, the inequality of polynomials

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(rP_{E_i}r_iP\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta ()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

holds if and only if it holds for a particular value of $`mN_2`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`𝒮_0`$ is bounded, the set that consists of the polynomials $`\delta `$, $`P_0`$, $`r^{}P_0`$ and $`P_E^{}`$ for $`E^{}𝒮_0`$ is finite. On the other hand, lemma 1.4 implies that we only need to consider a finite number of values for $`m_i`$, hence the result follows. ∎

###### Proof of theorem 2.5.

Let $`N_0>\mathrm{max}\{N_1,N_2\}`$ and such that all sheaves in $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒮_0`$ are $`N_0`$-regular, and $`E_1\mathrm{}E_s`$ is $`sN_0`$-regular for all $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_s`$ in $`𝒮_0`$.

2. $``$ 3. Let $`(E,\phi ,u)𝒮_m^{}`$. Consider a weighted filtration $`(E_{},m_{})`$. Then

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}m_i(r^iP(m)rh^0(E^i(m)))\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta (m)`$ $``$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}(rh^0(E_i(m))r_iP(m))\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta (m)`$ $`()`$ $`0`$
1. $``$ 2. Let $`(E,\phi ,u)𝒮^s`$ and consider a saturated weighted filtration as in (1.3). Since $`E`$ is $`N_0`$-regular, $`P(m)=h^0(E(m))`$. If $`E_i𝒮_0`$, then $`P_{E_i}(m)=h^0(E_i(m))`$. If $`E_i𝒮_0`$, then the second alternative of lemma 2.6 holds, and then

$$rh^0(E_i(m))<r_i(P(m)s\delta (m)).$$

Let $`𝒯^{}𝒯=\{1,\mathrm{},t\}`$ be the subset of those $`i`$ for which $`E_i𝒮_0`$. Let $`(E_{}^{},m_{}^{})`$ be the corresponding subfiltration. Lemma 1.6 and a short calculation shows that

(2.8) $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}m_i\left(rh^0(E_i(m))r_iP(m)\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta (m)`$ $``$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i𝒯^{}}{}}m_i\left(rP_{E_i}(m)r_iP(m)\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{}^{},m_{}^{})\delta (m)+`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i𝒯𝒯^{}}{}}m_i\left(rh^0(E_i(m))r_iP(m)sr_i\delta (m)\right)\right)`$ $``$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i𝒯^{}}{}}m_i\left(rP_{E_i}(m)r_iP(m)\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{}^{},m_{}^{})\delta (m)`$ $`()`$ $`0`$
The condition that $`E_i`$ is saturated can be dropped, since $`h^0(E_i(m))h^0(\overline{E}_i(m))`$ and $`\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})=\mu (\phi ,\overline{E}_{},m_{})`$, where $`\overline{E}_i`$ is the saturated subsheaf generated by $`\overline{E}_i`$ in $`E`$.

3. $``$ 1. Let $`(E,\phi ,u)𝒮_m^{\prime \prime }`$ and consider a saturated weighted filtration $`(E_{},m_{})`$. Since $`E`$ is $`N_0`$-regular, $`P(m)=h^0(E(m))`$. If $`E_i𝒮_0`$, then $`P_{E_i}(m)=h^0(E_i(m))`$. Hence hypothesis 3 applied to the subfiltration $`(E_{}^{},m_{}^{})`$ obtained by those terms such that $`E_i𝒮_0`$ implies

$$\left(\underset{E_i𝒮_0}{}m_i\left(r^iP(m)rP_{E^i}(m)\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{}^{},m_{}^{})\delta (m)()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

This is equivalent to

$$\left(\underset{E_i𝒮_0}{}m_i\left(rP_{E_i}(m)r_iP(m)\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{}^{},m_{}^{})\delta (m)()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$

and by lemma 2.9, this is in turn equivalent to

(2.9)
$$\left(\underset{E_i𝒮_0}{}m_i\left(rP_{E_i}r_iP\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{}^{},m_{}^{})\delta ()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

If $`E_i𝒮_0`$, then the second alternative of lemma 2.6 holds, and then

(2.10)
$$rP_{E_i}r_iP+sr_i\delta \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Using lemma 1.6, (2.9) and (2.10)

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(rP_{E_i}r_iP\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta ()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Again, we can drop the condition that the filtration is saturated, and this finishes the proof of theorem 2.5

###### Corollary 2.10.

Let $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ be $`\delta `$-semistable, $`mN_0`$, and assume that there is a weighted filtration $`(E_{},m_{})`$ with

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(rh^0(E_i(m))r_iP(m)\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta (m)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Then $`E_i𝒮_0`$ and $`h^0(E_i(m))=P_{E_i}(m)`$ for all $`i`$.

###### Proof.

By the proof of the part $`(12)`$ of theorem 2.5, if we have this equality then all inequalities in (2.8) are equalities, hence $`𝒯^{}=𝒯`$, $`E_i𝒮_0`$ for all $`i`$, and the result follows. ∎

Note that in theorem 2.5 we are assuming that $`E`$ is torsion free. To handle the general case, we will use the following lemma

###### Lemma 2.11.

Fix $`uR`$. Let $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ be a tensor. Assume that there is a family $`(E_t,\phi _t,u)_{tC}`$ parametrized by a smooth curve $`C`$ such that $`(E_0,\phi _0,u)=(E,\phi ,u)`$ and $`E_t`$ is torsion free for $`t0`$. Then there exists a tensor $`(F,\psi ,u)`$, a homomorphism

$$(E,\phi ,u)(F,\psi ,u)$$

such that $`F`$ is torsion free with $`P_E=P_F`$, and an exact sequence

$$0T(E)E\stackrel{\beta }{}F,$$

where $`T(E)`$ is the torsion subsheaf of $`E`$.

###### Proof.

The family is given by a tuple $`(E_C,\phi _C,u_C,N)`$ as in (1.9), where $`u_C`$ is the constant map from $`C`$ to $`R`$ with constant value $`u`$. Shrinking $`C`$, we can assume that $`N`$ is trivial. Let $`U=(X\times C)\mathrm{Supp}(T(E_0))`$. Let $`F_C=j_{}(E_C|_U)`$. Since it has no $`C`$-torsion, $`F_C`$ is flat over $`C`$. The natural map $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }:E_CF_C`$ is an isomorphism on $`U`$, hence we have a homomorphism $`\psi _U:=\phi _C|_U`$ on $`U`$, and this extends to a homomorphism $`\psi _C`$ on $`X\times C`$ because $`\overline{u_C}^{}𝒟`$ is locally free. Finally define $`(F,\psi )=(F_0,\psi _0)`$, and let $`\beta `$ be the homomorphism induced by $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$. ∎

## 3. GIT construction

Let $`NN_0`$ be large enough so that for all $`i>0`$, all line bundles $`L`$ of degree $`d`$, all locally free sheaves $`D_u`$ in the family parametrized by $`R`$, and all $`m>N`$, we have $`h^i(L^bD_u(sm))=0`$ and $`L^bD_u(sm)`$ is generated by global sections.

Fix $`mN`$ and let $`V`$ be a vector space of dimension $`p=P(m)`$. The choice of $`m`$ implies that if $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ is $`\delta `$-semistable, then $`E(m)`$ is generated by global sections and $`h^i(E(m))=0`$ for $`i>0`$. Let $`(g,E,\phi ,u)`$ be a tuple where $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ is a $`\delta `$-semistable tensor and $`g`$ is an isomorphism $`g:VH^0(E(m))`$. This induces a quotient

(3.1)
$$q:V𝒪_X(m)E.$$

Let $``$ be the Hilbert scheme of quotients of $`V𝒪_X(m)`$ with Hilbert polynomial $`P`$. Let $`l>m`$ be an integer, and $`W=H^0(𝒪_X(lm))`$. The quotient $`q`$ induces homomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill q:& V𝒪_X(lm)& & E(l)\hfill \\ \hfill q^{}:& VW& & H^0(E(l))\hfill \\ \hfill q^{\prime \prime }:& {}_{}{}^{P(l)}(VW)& & {}_{}{}^{P(l)}H_{}^{0}(E(l))\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`l`$ is large enough, these homomorphisms are surjective, and give Grothendieck’s embedding

$$({}_{}{}^{P(l)}(V^{}W^{})),$$

and hence a very ample line bundle $`𝒪_{}(1)`$ on $``$ (depending on $`m`$ and $`l`$).

The tuple $`(g,E,\phi ,u)`$ induces a linear map

(3.2)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }:(V^s)^cH^0((E(m)^s)^c)H^0((detE)^bD_u(sm)).$$

Fix a Poincare bundle $`𝒫`$ on $`J\times X`$, where $`J=\mathrm{Pic}^d(X)`$. Fix an isomorphism

$$\beta :det(E)𝒫|_{\{det(E)\}\times X}.$$

Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ induces a quotient

$$(V^s)^cH^0(𝒫|_{\{det(E)\}\times X}^bD_u(sm))^{}.$$

Choosing a different isomorphism $`\beta `$ will only change this quotient by a scalar, so we get a well defined point $`[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ in $`P`$, where $`P`$ is the projective bundle over $`J\times R`$ defined as

$$P=\left(\left((V^s)^c\right)^{}\pi _{J\times R}\left(\pi _{X\times J}^{}𝒫^b\pi _{X\times R}^{}𝒟(sm)\right)\right)J\times R.$$

where $`\pi _{X\times J}`$ (respectively $`\pi _{J\times R}`$,…) denotes the natural projection from $`X\times J\times R`$ to $`X\times J`$ (respectively $`J\times R`$,…). Recall that $`𝒟(m):=𝒟\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(m)`$. Note that $`\pi _{J\times R}\left(\pi _{X\times J}^{}𝒫^b\pi _{X\times R}^{}𝒟(sm)\right)`$ is locally free because of the choice of $`m`$. Replacing $`𝒫`$ with another Poincare bundle defined by tensoring with the pullback of a sufficiently positive line bundle on $`J`$, we can assume that $`𝒪_P(1)`$ is very ample (this line bundle depends on $`m`$).

A point $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])\times P`$ associated to a tuple $`(g,E,\phi ,u)`$ has the property that the homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (3.2) composed with evaluation factors as

(3.3)
Consider the relative version of the homomorphisms in (3.3), i.e. the commutative diagram on $`X\times \times P`$

(3.4)
where $`p_{X\times J}`$ (respectively $`p_X`$, …) denotes the natural projection from $`X\times \times P`$ to $`X\times J`$ (respectively $`X`$, …), $`E_{}`$ is the tautological sheaf on $`X\times `$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\times P}`$ is the relative version of the composition $`\mathrm{ev}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in diagram (3.3).

The points $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])`$ where the restriction $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\times P}|_{X\times (q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])}`$ factors through $`(E(m)^s)^c`$ (as in 3.3) are the points where $`f|_{X\times (q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])}`$ is identically zero. We will need the following

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`Y`$ be a scheme, and let $`f:𝒢`$ be a homomorphism of coherent sheaves on $`X\times Y`$. Assume that $``$ is flat over $`Y`$. Then there is a unique closed subscheme $`Z`$ satisfying the following universal property: given a Cartesian diagram

$`\overline{h}^{}f=0`$ if and only if $`h`$ factors through $`Z`$.

###### Proof.

Uniqueness is clear. To show existence, assume that $`𝒪_X(1)`$ is very ample (taking a multiple if necessary) and let $`p:X\times YY`$ be the projection to the second factor. Since $``$ is $`Y`$-flat, taking $`m^{}`$ large enough, $`p_{}(m^{})`$ is locally free (recall $`(m^{})=p_X^{}𝒪_X(m^{})`$). The question is local on $`Y`$, so we can assume, shrinking $`Y`$ if necessary, that $`Y=\mathrm{Spec}A`$ and $`p_{}(m^{})`$ is given by a free $`A`$-module. Now, since $`Y`$ is affine, the homomorphism

$$p_{}f(m^{}):p_{}𝒢(m^{})p_{}(m^{})$$

of sheaves on $`Y`$ is equivalent to a homomorphism of $`A`$-modules

$$M\stackrel{(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)}{}A\mathrm{}A$$

The zero locus of $`f_i`$ is defined by the ideal $`I_iA`$ image of $`f_i`$, thus the zero scheme of $`(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)`$ is given by the ideal $`I=I_i`$, hence $`Z_m^{}^{}`$ is a closed subscheme.

Since $`𝒪_X(1)`$ is very ample, if $`m^{\prime \prime }>m^{}`$ we have an injection $`p_{}(m^{})p_{}(m^{\prime \prime })`$ (and analogously for $`𝒢`$), hence $`Z_{m^{\prime \prime }}Z_m^{}`$, and since $`Y`$ is noetherian, there exists $`N^{}`$ such that, if $`m^{}>N^{}`$, we get a scheme $`Z`$ independent of $`m^{}`$.

To check the universal property first we will show that if $`\overline{h}^{}f=0`$ then $`h`$ factors through $`Z`$. Since the question is local on $`S`$, we can take $`S=\mathrm{Spec}(B)`$, $`Y=\mathrm{Spec}(A)`$, and the morphism $`h`$ is locally given by a ring homomorphism $`AB`$. Since $``$ is flat over $`Y`$, for $`m^{}`$ large enough the natural homomorphism $`\alpha :h^{}p_{}(m^{})p_{S}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{h}^{}(m^{})`$ (defined as in \[Ha, Th. III 9.3.1\]) is an isomorphism. Indeed, for $`m^{}`$ sufficiently large, $`H^i(X,_y(m^{}))=0`$ and $`H^i(X,\overline{h}^{}((m^{}))_s)=0`$ for all points $`yY`$, $`sS`$ and $`i>0`$, and since $``$ is flat, this implies that $`h^{}p_{}(m^{})`$ and $`p_{S}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{h}^{}(m^{})`$ are locally free. Then, to prove that the homomorphism $`\alpha `$ is an isomorphism, it is enough to check it at the fiber of every $`sS`$, but this follows from \[Ha, Th. III 12.11\] or \[Mu, II §5 Cor. 3\].

Hence the commutativity of the diagram

implies that $`h^{}p_{}f(m^{})=0`$. This means that for all $`i`$, in the diagram

it is $`f_iB=0`$. Hence the image $`I_i`$ of $`f_i`$ is in the kernel $`J`$ of $`AB`$. Therefore $`IJ`$, hence $`AB`$ factors through $`AA/I`$, which means that $`h:SY`$ factors through $`Z`$.

Now we show that if we take $`S=Z`$ and $`h:ZY`$ the inclusion, then $`\overline{h}^{}f=0`$. By definition of $`Z`$ we have $`h^{}p_{}f(m^{})=0`$ for any $`m^{}`$ with $`m^{}>N^{}`$. Showing that $`\overline{h}^{}f=0`$ is equivalent to showing that

$$\overline{h}^{}f(m^{}):\overline{h}^{}𝒢(m^{})\overline{h}^{}(m^{})$$

is zero for some $`m^{}`$. Take $`m^{}`$ large enough so that $`\mathrm{ev}:p^{}p_{}𝒢(m^{})𝒢(m^{})`$ is surjective. By the right exactness of $`\overline{h}^{}`$ the homomorphism $`\overline{h}^{}\mathrm{ev}`$ is still surjective. The commutative diagram

implies $`\overline{h}^{}f(m^{})=0`$, hence $`\overline{h}^{}f=0`$.

Let $`Z^{}`$ be the scheme given by this lemma for $`Y=\times P`$ and the homomorphism $`f:𝒦𝒜`$. Then $`\overline{i}^{}f=0`$, and there is a commutative diagram on $`X\times Z^{}`$

(3.5)
and hence there is a universal family of based tensors parametrized by $`Z^{}`$

(3.6)
$$\phi _Z^{}:E_Z^{}{}_{}{}^{s}(detE_Z^{})^bp_Z^{}^{}N$$

Given a point $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])`$ in $`Z^{}`$, using the tautological family (3.6) we can recover the tuple $`(q,E,\phi ,u)`$ up to isomorphism, and if $`H^0(q(m)):VH^0(E(m))`$ is an isomorphism, then we recover the tuple $`(g=H^0(q(m)),E,\phi ,u)`$ up to isomorphism, i.e. if $`(g^{},E^{},\phi ^{},u^{})`$ is another tuple corresponding to the same point, then there exists an isomorphism $`(f,\alpha )`$ between $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ and $`(E^{},\phi ^{},u^{})`$ as in (1.1), and $`H^0(f(m))q=q^{}`$.

Let $`ZZ^{}`$ be the closure of the points associated to $`\delta `$-semistable tensors. Let $`p_{}`$ and $`p_P`$ be the projections of $`Z`$ to $``$ and $`P`$, and define a polarization on $`Z`$ by

(3.7)
$$𝒪_Z(n_1,n_2):=p_{}^{}𝒪_{}(n_1)p_P^{}𝒪_P(n_2),$$

where $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are integers with

(3.8)
$$\frac{n_2}{n_1}=\frac{P(l)\delta (m)\delta (l)P(m)}{P(m)s\delta (m)}$$

The projective scheme $`Z`$ is preserved by the natural $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$ action, and this action has a natural linearization on $`𝒪_Z(n_1,n_2)`$, using the natural linearizations on $`𝒪_{}(1)`$ and $`𝒪_P(1)`$.

We have seen that the points of $`Z`$ for which $`H^0(q(m))`$ is an isomorphism correspond (up to isomorphism) to tuples $`(g,E,\phi ,u)`$, where $`g`$ is an isomorphism between $`V`$ and $`H^0(E(m))`$. To get rid of the choice of $`g`$, we have to take the quotient by $`\mathrm{GL}(V)`$, but if $`\lambda ^{}`$, $`(g,E,\phi ,u)`$ and $`(\lambda g,E,\phi ,u)`$ correspond to the same point, and hence it is enough to divide by the action of $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$. In fact, the moduli space will be the GIT quotient of $`Z`$ by $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$.

In proposition 3.4, we will identify the GIT-(semi)stable points in $`Z`$ using the Hilbert-Mumford criterion. In theorem 3.6 we relate filtrations of sheaves with filtrations of the vector space $`V`$ to prove that GIT-(semi)stable points of $`Z`$ coincide with the points associated to $`\delta `$-(semi)stable points.

A nonconstant group homomorphism $`\lambda :^{}\mathrm{SL}(V)`$ is called a one-parameter subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$. If $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$ acts on a projective scheme $`Y`$ with a given linearization, we denote by $`\mu (y,\lambda )`$ the minimum weight of the action of $`\lambda `$ on $`yY`$.

A weighted filtration $`(V_{},m_{})`$ of the vector space $`V`$ is a filtration of vector spaces

(3.9)
$$0V_1V_2\mathrm{}V_tV_{t+1}=V,$$

and positive numbers $`m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_t>0`$. If $`t=1`$ (one step filtration), then we will take $`m_1=1`$. Consider the vector of $`^p`$ defined as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_{i=1}^tm_i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(dim(V_i))}`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(k)}=(\stackrel{k}{\stackrel{}{kp,\mathrm{},kp}},\stackrel{pk}{\stackrel{}{k,\mathrm{},k}})(1k<p).$$

Now let $`=\{1,\mathrm{},t+1\}^{\times s}`$ be the set of all multi-indexes $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_s)`$, and define

(3.10)
$$\mu (\mathrm{\Phi },V_{},m_{})=\underset{I}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dimV_{i_1}}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dimV_{i_s}}:\mathrm{\Phi }|_{(V_{i_1}\mathrm{}V_{i_s})^c}0\right\}$$

As we did in the proof of lemma 1.6, if $`I`$ is the multi-index giving minimum in (3.10), we will denote by $`ϵ_i(\mathrm{\Phi },V_{},m_{})`$ (or just $`ϵ_i(V_{})`$ if the rest of the data is clear from the context) the number of elements $`k`$ of the multi-index $`I`$ such that $`dimV_kdimV_i`$. Then we have, as in (1.8)

(3.11)
$$\mu (\mathrm{\Phi },V_{},m_{})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(sdimV_iϵ_i(V_{})dimV\right).$$

Given a subspace $`V^{}V`$ and a quotient $`q:V𝒪_X(m)E`$, we define the subsheaf $`E_V^{}`$ of $`E`$ as the image of the restriction of $`q`$ to $`V^{}`$

In particular, $`E_V^{}(m)`$ is generated by global sections.

On the other hand, if the quotient $`q:V𝒪_X(m)E`$ induces an injection $`VH^0(E(m))`$ (we will later show that all quotients coming from GIT-semistable points of $`Z`$ satisfy this property), and if $`E^{}E`$ is a subsheaf, we define

$$V_E^{}=VH^0(E^{}(m)).$$

The following two lemmas are easy to check

###### Lemma 3.2.

Given a point $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])Z`$ such that $`q`$ induces an injection $`VH^0(E(m))`$, and a weighted filtration $`(E_{},m_{})`$ of $`E`$, we have:

1. $`E_{V_{E_i}}E_i`$
2. If $`\phi |_{(E_{i_1}\mathrm{}E_{i_s})^c}=0`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_{(V_{E_{i_1}}\mathrm{}V_{E_{i_s}})^c}=0`$
3. $`_{i=1}^tm_iϵ_i(\phi ,E_{},m_{})_{i=1}^tm_iϵ_i(\mathrm{\Phi },V_E_{},m_{})`$

Furthermore, if $`q`$ induces an isomorphism $`VH^0(E(m))`$, all $`E_i`$ are $`m`$-regular and all $`E_{i_1}\mathrm{}E_{i_s}`$ are $`sm`$-regular, then (1) becomes an equality, (2) becomes “if and only if” and (3) an equality.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Given a point $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])Z`$ such that $`q`$ induces an injection $`VH^0(E(m))`$, and a weighted filtration $`(V_{},m_{})`$ of $`V`$, we have:

1. $`V_iV_{E_{V_i}}`$
2. $`\phi |_{(E_{V_{i_1}}\mathrm{}E_{V_{i_s}})^c}=0`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_{(V_{i_1}\mathrm{}V_{i_s})^c}=0`$
3. $`_{i=1}^tm_iϵ_i(\phi ,E_V_{},m_{})=_{i=1}^tm_iϵ_i(\mathrm{\Phi },V_{},m_{})`$

###### Proposition 3.4.

For sufficiently large $`l`$, the point $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])`$ in $`Z`$ is GIT-(semi)stable with respect to $`𝒪_Z(n_1,n_2)`$ if and only if for every weighted filtration $`(V_{},m_{})`$ of $`V`$

(3.12)
$$n_1\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(dimV_iP(l)dimVP_{E_{V_i}}(l)\right)\right)+n_2\mu (\mathrm{\Phi },V_{},m_{})()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Furthermore, there is an integer $`A_2`$ (depending only on $`m`$, $`P`$, $`s`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`𝒟`$) such that it is enough to consider weighted filtrations with $`m_iA_2`$.

###### Proof.

Given $`m`$, the sheaves $`E_V^{}`$ for $`V^{}V`$ form a bounded family, so if $`l`$ is large enough, we will have

$$dimq^{}(VW)=h^0(E_V^{}(l))=P_{E_V^{}}(l)$$

for all subspaces $`V^{}V`$. By the Hilbert-Mumford criterion, a point is GIT-(semi)stable if and only if for all one-parameter subgroups $`\lambda `$ of $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$,

$$\mu ((q,[\mathrm{\Phi }]),\lambda )=n_1\mu (q,\lambda )+n_2\mu ([\mathrm{\Phi }],\lambda )()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

A one-parameter subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$ is equivalent to a basis $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_p\}`$ of $`V`$ and a vector $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_p)^p`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$. This defines a weighted filtration $`(V_{},m_{})`$ of $`V`$ as follows: let $`\lambda _1<\mathrm{}<\lambda _{t+1}`$ be the different values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$, let $`V_i`$ be the vector space generated by all $`e_k`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k\lambda _i`$, and let $`m_i=(\lambda _{i+1}\lambda _i)/p`$. Denote $`^{}=\{1,\mathrm{},t+1\}^{\times P(l)}`$. We have (\[Si\] or \[H-L2\])

$`\mu (q,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{I^{}}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dimV_{i_1}}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dimV_{i_{P(l)}}}:q^{\prime \prime }|_{(V_{i_1}W){\scriptscriptstyle \mathrm{}(V_{i_{P(l)}}W)}}0\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}m_i\left(dimV_iP(l)dimVP_{E_{V_i}}(l)\right)`$
and

$`\mu ([\mathrm{\Phi }],\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{I}{\mathrm{min}}\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dimV_{i_1}}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dimV_{i_s}}:\mathrm{\Phi }|_{(V_{i_1}\mathrm{}V_{i_s})^c}0\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\mu (\mathrm{\Phi },V_{},m_{})`$
The last statement follows from an argument similar to the proof of lemma 1.4, with $`^r`$ replaced by $`^p`$.

###### Proposition 3.5.

The point $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])`$ is GIT-(semi)stable if and only if for all weighted filtrations $`(E_{},m_{})`$ of $`E`$

(3.13)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill _{i=1}^tm_i((dimV_{E_i}ϵ_i(E_{})\delta (m))(Ps\delta )\\ \hfill (P_{E_i}ϵ_i(E_{})\delta )(dimVs\delta (m)))()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\end{array}$$

Furthermore, if $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])`$ is GIT-semistable, then the induced map $`f_q:VH^0(E(m))`$ is injective.

###### Proof.

First we prove that if $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])`$ is GIT-semistable, then the induced linear map $`f_q`$ is injective. Let $`V^{}`$ be its kernel and consider the filtration $`V^{}V`$. We have $`E_V^{}=0`$ and $`\mu (\mathrm{\Phi },V^{}V)=sdimV^{}`$. Applying proposition 3.4 we have

$$n_1dimV^{}P(l)+n_2sdimV^{}0,$$

and hence $`V^{}=0`$.

Using (3.8) and (3.11), the inequality of proposition 3.4 becomes

(3.14)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill _{i=1}^tm_i((dimV_iϵ_i(V_{})\delta (m))(P(l)s\delta (l))\\ \hfill (P_{E_{V_i}}(l)ϵ_i(V_{})\delta (l))(dimVs\delta (m)))()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\end{array}$$

An argument similar to lemma 2.9 (using $`A_2`$ instead of $`A_1`$) shows that we can take $`l`$ large enough (depending only on $`m,s,b,c,P,𝒟`$ and $`\delta `$), so that this inequality holds for $`l`$ if and only if it holds as an inequality of polynomials.

Now assume that $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])`$ is GIT-(semi)stable. Take a weighted filtration $`(E_{},m_{})`$ of $`E`$. Then lemma 3.2 and (3.14) applied to the associated weighted filtration $`(V_E_{},m_{})`$ of $`V`$ give (3.13).

On the other hand, assume that (3.13) holds. Take a weighted filtration $`(V_{},m_{})`$ of $`V`$. Then lemma 3.3 and (3.13) applied to the associated weighted filtration $`(E_V_{},m_{})`$ of $`E`$ give (3.14), and it follows that $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])`$ is GIT-(semi)stable.

###### Theorem 3.6.

Assume $`m>N`$. For $`l`$ sufficiently large, a point $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])`$ in $`Z`$ is GIT-(semi)stable if and only if the corresponding tensor $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ is $`\delta `$-(semi)stable and the linear map $`f_q:VH^0(E(m))`$ induced by $`q`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

We prove this in two steps:

Step 1. $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])`$ GIT-semistable $``$ $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ $`\delta `$-semistable and $`q`$ induces an isomorphism $`VH^0(E(m))`$.

The leading coefficient of (3.13) gives

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(\left(dimV_{E_i}ϵ_i(E_{})\delta (m)\right)rr_i\left(dimVs\delta (m)\right)\right)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Note that even if $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])`$ is GIT-stable, here we only get weak inequality. This implies

(3.15)
$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(r^iP(m)rh^0(E^i(m))\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta (m)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

To be able to apply theorem 2.5, we still need to show that $`E`$ is torsion free. By lemma 2.11, there exists a tensor $`(F,\psi ,u)`$ with $`F`$ torsion free such that $`P_E=P_F`$ and an exact sequence

$$0T(E)E\stackrel{\beta }{}F.$$

Consider a weighted filtration $`(F_{},m_{})`$ of $`F`$. Let $`F^i=F/F_i`$, and let $`E^i`$ be the image of $`E`$ in $`F^i`$. Let $`E_i`$ be the kernel of $`EE^i`$. Then $`\mathrm{rk}(F_i)=rk(E_i)=r_i`$, $`h^0(F^i(m))h^0(E^i(m))`$, and $`\mu (\psi ,F_{},m_{})=\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})`$. Using this and applying (3.15) to $`E_i`$ we get

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(r^iP(m)rh^0(F^i(m))\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,F_{},m_{})\delta (m)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$

and hence theorem 2.5 implies that $`(F,\psi ,u)`$ is $`\delta `$-semistable.

Next we will show that $`T(E)=0`$, and hence, since $`P_E=P_F`$, we will conclude that $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ is isomorphic to $`(F,\psi ,u)`$. Define $`E^{\prime \prime }`$ to be the image of $`E`$ in $`F`$. Then

$$P(m)s\delta (m)=h^0(F(m))s\delta (m)h^0(E^{\prime \prime }(m))s\delta (m)P(m)s\delta (m),$$

where the last inequality follows from (3.15) applied to the one step filtration $`T(E)E`$. Hence equality holds at all places and $`h^0(F(m))=h^0(E^{\prime \prime }(m))`$. Since $`F`$ is globally generated, $`F=E^{\prime \prime }`$, and hence $`T(E)=0`$.

Finally, we have seen that $`f_q`$ is injective, and since $`(E,\phi )`$ is $`\delta `$-semistable, $`dimV=h^0(E(m))`$, hence $`f_q`$ is an isomorphism.

Step 2. $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ $`\delta `$-stable (respectively strictly $`\delta `$-semistable) and $`q`$ induces an isomorphism $`f_q:VH^0(E(m))`$ $``$ $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])`$ GIT-stable (respectively strictly semistable).

Since $`f_q`$ is an isomorphism, we have $`V_E^{}=H^0(E^{}(m))`$ for any subsheaf $`E^{}E`$. Then theorem 2.5 implies that for all weighted filtrations

(3.16)
$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(rdimV_{E_i}r_iP(m)\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta (m)()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

If the inequality is strict, then

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill _{i=1}^tm_i((dimV_{E_i}ϵ_i(E_{})\delta (m))(Ps\delta )\\ \hfill (P_{E_i}ϵ_i(E_{})\delta )(dimVs\delta (m)))\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.\end{array}$$

If $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ is strictly $`\delta `$-semistable, by theorem 2.5 there is a filtration giving equality in (3.16), then corollary 2.10 implies that $`h^0(E_i(m))=P_{E_i}(m)`$, and by lemma 2.9

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i(rP_{E_i}r_iP)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$

and a short calculation using this and (3.16) gives

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill _{i=1}^tm_i((dimV_{E_i}ϵ_i(E_{})\delta (m))(Ps\delta )\\ \hfill (P_{E_i}ϵ_i(E_{})\delta )(dimVs\delta (m)))=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.\end{array}$$

So we finish by using proposition 3.5.

Given a one-parameter subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$, choose a basis $`\{e_j\}`$ of $`V`$ where it has a diagonal form

$$\mathrm{diag}(\stackrel{a_1}{\stackrel{}{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _1}},\stackrel{a_2a_1}{\stackrel{}{\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _2}},\mathrm{},\stackrel{a_{t+1}a_t}{\stackrel{}{\lambda _{t+1},\mathrm{},\lambda _{t+1}}})$$

This gives a weighted filtration $`(V_{},m_{})`$ of $`V=H^0(E(m))`$ (where $`V_i`$ is the linear span of $`\{e_j\}`$ with $`ja_i`$, and $`m_i=(\lambda _{i+1}\lambda _i)/p`$) and a splitting $`V=V^i`$ of this filtration (with $`V^i`$ the linear span of $`\{e_j\}`$ with $`a_{i1}<ja_i`$). Defining $`E_{V_i}=q(V_i𝒪_X(m))`$ we obtain a weigted filtration $`(E_{},m_{})`$ of $`E`$.

Now let $`(E_{},m_{})`$ be a weigted filtration of $`E`$ and $`V=V^i`$ a splitting of the filtration $`V_i=H^0(E(m))`$. This gives a one-parameter subgroup $`\lambda `$ of $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$, defined as $`v^it^{\lambda _i}v^i`$ for $`v^iV^i`$, with $`\lambda _i`$ such that $`m_i=(\lambda _{i+1}\lambda _i)/p`$ and $`\lambda _idimV^i=0`$.

The following proposition will be used to prove the criterion for S-equivalence.

###### Proposition 3.7.

Assume $`m>N`$. Let $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ be a $`\delta `$-semistable tensor, $`f:VH^0(E(m))`$ an isomorphism, and let Let $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])Z`$ be the corresponding GIT-semistable point. The above construction gives a bijection between one-parameter subgroups of $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$ with $`\mu ((q,[\mathrm{\Phi }]),\lambda )=0`$ on the one hand, and weighted filtrations $`(E_{},m_{})`$ of $`E`$ with

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i(rP_{E_i}r_iP)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

together with a splitting of the filtration $`H^0(E_{}(m))`$ of $`V=H^0(E(m))`$ on the other hand.

###### Proof.

Let $`\lambda `$ be a one-parameter subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$ with $`\mu ((q,[\mathrm{\Phi }]),\lambda )=0`$. The proof of proposition 3.4 then gives equality in (3.12). Using (3.8) (relationship between $`n_2/n_1`$ and $`\delta `$), (3.11) (relationship between $`ϵ(V_{})`$ and $`\mu (V_{}`$)) and lemma 3.3 (relationship between $`ϵ(V_{})`$ and $`ϵ(E_V_{})`$), this equality becomes

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill _{i=1}^tm_i((dimV_iϵ_i(E_V_{})\delta (m))(P(l)s\delta (l))\\ \hfill (P_{E_{V_i}}(l)ϵ_i(E_V_{})\delta (l))(dimVs\delta (m)))=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\end{array}$$

We have chosen $`l`$ so large that this holds if and only if it holds as a polynomial in $`l`$, hence taking the leading coefficient in $`l`$ we obtain

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(\left(dimV_iϵ_i(E_V_{})\delta (m)\right)rr_i\left(dimVs\delta (m)\right)\right)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

where $`r_i=\mathrm{rk}E_{V_i}`$ and $`r=\mathrm{rk}E`$. Using (1.8), this is

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(rdimV_ir_iP(m)\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_V_{},m_{})\delta (m)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

By lemma 3.3, $`V_iV_{E_{V_i}}=H^0(E_{V_i}(m))`$, hence

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(rh^0(E_{V_i}(m))r_iP(m)\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_V_{},m_{})\delta (m)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

but by theorem 2.5 this must be nonpositive, hence $`V_i=H^0(E_{V_i}(m))=V_{E_{V_i}}`$, and the last inequality is an equality. By corollary 2.10, $`E_i𝒮_0`$, and hence $`h^0(E_{V_i}(m))=P(E_{V_i}(m))`$ for all $`i`$, and then lemma 2.9 gives

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(rP_{E_{V_i}}r_iP\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_V_{},m_{})\delta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

Conversely, let $`(E_{},m_{})`$ be a filtration with

(3.17)
$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(rP_{E_i}r_iP\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

together with a splitting of the filtration $`H^0(E_i(m))`$ of $`VH^0(E(m))`$, and let $`\lambda `$ be the associated one-parameter subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$. Equation (3.17) gives in particular

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(rP_{E_i}(m)r_iP(m)\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta (m)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

By the proof of implication 3. $``$ 1. in theorem 2.5, since we get an equality, it is $`E_i𝒮_0`$ for all $`i`$, hence $`P_{E_i(m)}=h^0(E_i(m))=dimV_{E_i}`$ for all $`i`$, and the previous equality becomes

(3.18)
$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(rdimV_{E_i}r_idimV\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta (m)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

Furthermore, the strong version of lemma 3.2 gives $`E_i=E_{V_{E_i}}`$. Using (3.18) and (3.17), together with (1.8) and the strong form of lemma 3.2, we obtain

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(\left(dimV_{E_i}ϵ_i(V_E_{})\delta (m)\right)\left(Ps\delta \right)\left(P_{E_i}ϵ_i(V_E_{})\delta \right)\left(dimVs\delta (m)\right)\right)=0$$

Hence, we also get $`0`$ after evaluating this polynomial in $`l`$, but by the proofs of propositions 3.4 and 3.5, this is equal to $`\mu ((q,[\mathrm{\Phi }]),\lambda )`$.

We have seen that $`V_i=V_{E_{V_i}}`$ and $`E_i=E_{V_{E_i}}`$, and it is easy to check that this gives a bijection.

## 4. Proof of theorem 1.8

###### Proof of theorem 1.8.

The main ingredient of the proof is theorem 3.6, showing that GIT-(semi)stable points correspond to $`\delta `$-(semi)stable tensors.

Using the notation of section 3, let $`𝔐_\delta `$ (respectively $`𝔐_\delta ^s`$) be the GIT quotient of $`Z`$ (respectively $`Z^s`$) by $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$. Since $`Z`$ is projective, $`𝔐_\delta `$ is also projective. GIT gives that $`𝔐_\delta ^s`$ is an open subset of the projective scheme $`𝔐_\delta `$. The restriction $`Z^s𝔐_\delta ^s`$ to the stable part is a geometric quotient, i.e. the fibers are $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$-orbits, and hence the points of $`𝔐_\delta ^s`$ correspond to isomorphism classes of $`\delta `$-stable tensors.

It only remains to show that $`𝔐_\delta `$ corepresents the functor $`_\delta `$. We will follow closely \[H-L2, Proof of Main Theorem 0.1, p. 315\]

Let $`(E_T,\phi _T,u_T,N)`$ be a family of $`\delta `$-semistable tensors (cf. (1.9)) parametrized by a scheme $`T`$. Then $`𝒱:=\pi _T(E_T\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(m))`$ is locally free on $`T`$. The family $`E_T`$ gives a map $`\mathrm{\Delta }:T\mathrm{Pic}^d(X)`$, sending $`tT`$ to $`detE_t`$. Cover $`T`$ with small open sets $`T_i`$. For each $`i`$ we can find an isomorphism

$$\beta _{T_i}:detE_{T_i}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}^{}𝒫$$

(where $`𝒫`$ is the Poincare bundle in the definition of $`P`$ at the beginning of section 3), and a trivialization

$$g_{T_i}:V𝒪_{T_i}𝒱|_{T_i}.$$

Using this trivialization we obtain a family of quotients parametrized by $`T_i`$

$$q_{T_i}:V\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(m)E_{T_i},$$

giving a map $`T_i`$. And using the quotient $`q_{T_i}`$ and isomorphism $`\beta _{T_i}`$ we have another family of quotients parametrized by $`T_i`$

$$(V^s)^c\left(\pi _{T_i}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}^{}𝒫^b\overline{u_{T_i}}^{}𝒟\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(sm)\right)\right)^{}N$$

Then, using the representability properties of $``$ and $`P`$, we obtain a morphism to $`\times P`$, and by lemma 3.1 this morphism factors through $`Z^{}`$ and since a $`\delta `$-semistable tensor gives a GIT-semistable point (theorem 3.6), the image is in $`Z^{ss}`$. Composing with the geometric quotient to $`𝔐_\delta `$ we obtain maps

$$\widehat{f}_i:T_i\stackrel{f_i}{}Z^{ss}𝔐_\delta $$

The morphism $`f_i`$ is independent of the choice of isomorphism $`\beta _{T_i}`$. A different choice of isomorphism $`g_{T_i}`$ will change $`f_i`$ to $`h_if_i`$, where $`h_i:T_i\mathrm{GL}(V)`$, so $`\widehat{f}_i`$ is independent of the choice of $`g_{T_i}`$. Then the morphisms $`\widehat{f}_i`$ glue to give a morphism

$$\widehat{f}:T𝔐_\delta ,$$

and hence we have a natural transformation

$$_\delta \underset{¯}{𝔐_\delta }.$$

Recall there is a tautological family (3.6) of tensors parametrized by $`Z^{}`$. By restriction to $`Z^{ss}`$, we obtain a tautological family of $`\delta `$-semistable tensors parametrized by $`Z^{ss}`$. If $`_\delta \underset{¯}{Y}`$ is another natural transformation, this tautological family defines a map $`Z^{ss}Y`$, this factors through the quotient $`𝔐_\delta `$, and it is easy to see that this proves that $`𝔐_\delta `$ corepresents the functor $`_\delta `$.

Note that in \[H-L2\], the moduli space of stable framed modules is a fine moduli space. In our situation this is not true in general, because the analog of the uniqueness result of \[H-L2, lemma 1.6\] does not hold in general for tensors. ∎

Now we will give a criterion for S-equivalence. This is very similar to the criterion given in \[G-S\] for conic bundles. If $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ and $`(F,\psi ,u)`$ are two $`\delta `$-stable tensors then we have seen that they correspond to the same point in the moduli space if and only if they are isomorphic. But if they are strictly $`\delta `$-semistable, it could happen that they are S-equivalent (i.e. they correspond to the same point in the moduli space), even if they are not isomorphic. Given a tensor $`(E,\phi ,u)`$, we will construct a canonical representative of its equivalence class $`(E^S,\phi ^S,u)`$, hence $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ will be S-equivalent to $`(F,\psi ,u)`$ if and only if $`(E^S,\phi ^S,u)`$ is isomorphic to $`(F^S,\psi ^S,u)`$.

Let $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ be strictly $`\delta `$-semistable, and let $`(E_{},m_{})`$ be an admissible weighted filtration, i.e. such that

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i\left(rP_{E_i}r_iP\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

Let $`_0`$ be the set of pairs $`(k,I)`$ where $`1kc`$ is an integer, and $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_s)`$ is a multi-index with $`1i_jt+1`$, such that the restriction of $`\phi `$

$$\phi _{k,I}:\stackrel{k1}{\stackrel{}{0\mathrm{}0}}\left(E_{i_1}\mathrm{}E_{i_s}\right)\stackrel{ck}{\stackrel{}{0\mathrm{}0}}(detE)^bD_u$$

is nonzero, and

$$\gamma _{r_{i_1}}+\mathrm{}+\gamma _{r_{i_s}}=\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{}).$$

If $`(k,I)_0`$ and $`I^{}=(i_1^{},\mathrm{},i_s^{})`$ is a multi-index with $`I^{}I`$ and $`i_j^{}i_j`$ for all $`j`$, then

(4.1)
$$\phi _{k,I^{}}=0,$$

by definition of $`\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})`$. Hence, if $`(k,I)_0`$, the restriction $`\phi _{k,I}`$ defines a homomorphism in the quotient

$$\phi _{k,I}^{}:\stackrel{k1}{\stackrel{}{0\mathrm{}0}}\left(E_{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}E_{i_s}^{}\right)\stackrel{ck}{\stackrel{}{0\mathrm{}0}}(detE)^bD_u,$$

where $`E_i^{}=E_i/E_{i+1}`$. If $`(k,I)_0`$, then define $`\phi _{k,I}^{}=0`$. Finally, we define

$$E^{}=E_1^{}\mathrm{}E_{t+1}^{},\phi ^{}=\underset{(k,I)}{}\phi _{k,I}^{}.$$

In the definition of $`\phi ^{}`$ we are using the fact that $`detEdetE^{}`$, hence $`(E^{},\phi ^{},u)`$ is well-defined up to isomorphism, and it is called the admissible deformation associated to the admissible filtration $`(E_{},m_{})`$ of $`E`$. Note that it depends on the admissible weighted filtration chosen.

###### Proposition 4.1.

The tensor $`(E^{},\phi ^{},u)`$ is strictly $`\delta `$-semistable, and it is S-equivalent to $`(E,\phi ,u)`$. If we repeat this process, after a finite number of iterations the process will stop, i.e. we will obtain tensors isomorphic to each other. We call this tensor $`(E^S,\phi ^S,u)`$

1. The isomorphism class of $`(E^S,\phi ^S,u)`$ is independent of the choices made, i.e. the weighted filtrations chosen.
2. Two tensors $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ and $`(F,\psi ,u)`$ are S-equivalent if and only if $`(E^S,\phi ^S,u)`$ is isomorphic to $`(F^S,\psi ^S,u)`$.

###### Proof.

We start with a general observation about GIT quotients. Let $`Z`$ be a projective variety with an action of a group $`G`$ linearized on an ample line bundle $`𝒪_Z(1)`$. Two points in the open subset $`Z^{ss}`$ of semistable points are GIT-equivalent (they are mapped to the same point in the moduli space) if there is a common closed orbit in the closures (in $`Z^{ss}`$) of their orbits. Let $`zZ^{ss}`$. Let $`B(z)`$ be the unique closed orbit in the closure $`\overline{Gz}`$ in $`Z^{ss}`$ of its orbit $`Gz`$. Assume that $`z`$ is not in $`B(z)`$. There exists a one-parameter subgroup $`\lambda `$ such that the limit $`z_0=lim_{t0}\lambda (t)z`$ is in $`\overline{Gz}Gz`$ (for instance, we can take the one-parameter subgroup given by \[Si, Lemma 1.25\]) . Note that we must have $`\mu (z,\lambda )=0`$ (otherwise $`z_0`$ would be unstable). Conversely, if $`\lambda `$ is a one-parameter subgroup with $`\mu (z,\lambda )=0`$, then the limit is GIT-semistable (\[G-S, Prop. 2.14\]). Note that $`Gz_0\overline{Gz}Gz`$, and then $`dimGz_0<dimGz`$. Repeating this process with $`z_0`$ we then get a sequence of points that eventually stops and gives $`\stackrel{~}{z}B(z)`$. Two points $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ will then be GIT-equivalent if and only if $`B(z_1)=B(z_2)`$.

Let $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ be a $`\delta `$-semistable tensor with an isomorphism $`f:VH^0(E(m))`$, and let $`z=(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }])Z`$ be the corresponding GIT-semistable point. Recall from proposition 3.7 that there is a bijection between one-parameter subgroups of $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$ with $`\mu (z,\lambda )=0`$ on the one hand, and weighted filtrations $`(E_{},m_{})`$ of $`E`$ with

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}m_i(rP_{E_i}r_iP)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

together with a splitting of the filtration $`H^0(E_{}(m))`$ of $`V=H^0(E(m))`$ on the other hand.

The action of $`\lambda `$ on the point $`z`$ defines a morphism $`^{}R_3`$ that extends to

$$h:T=Z,$$

with $`h(t)=\lambda (t)z`$ for $`t0`$ and $`h(0)=lim_{t0}\lambda (t)z=z_0`$.

Pulling back the universal family parametrized by $`Z`$ by $`h`$ we obtain the family $`(q_T,E_T,\phi _T,u)`$

$$E_T=\underset{n}{}E_nt^nE_{}t^N[t]E_{}[t,t^1]$$

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill q_T:V𝒪_X(m)[t]& \stackrel{\gamma }{}& _nV_n𝒪_X(m)t^n& & E_T\\ \hfill v^n1& & v^nt^n& & q(v^n)t^n\end{array}$$

$`\phi _T:(E_T{}_{}{}^{s})^c`$ $``$ $`(detE_T)^b\overline{u_T}^{}𝒟\pi _T^{}N`$
$`(\underset{k1}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},0}},w_{i_1}t^{i_1}\mathrm{}w_{i_s}t^{i_s},\underset{ck}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},0}})`$ $``$ $`\phi (\underset{k1}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},0}},w_{i_1}\mathrm{}w_{i_s},\underset{ck}{\underset{}{0,\mathrm{},0}})t^{i_1+\mathrm{}+i_s}`$
Then, as in \[H-L2, §4.4\], $`(q_t,E_t,\phi _t,u)`$ corresponds to $`h(t)`$ (in particular, if $`t0`$, then $`(E_t,\phi _t,u)`$ is canonically isomorphic to $`(E,\phi ,u)`$), and $`(E_0,\phi _0,u)`$ is the admissible deformation associated to $`(E_{},m_{})`$.

## 5. Orthogonal and symplectic sheaves

In this section we apply the general theory of tensors to construct the moduli space of semistable orthogonal and symplectic sheaves. The only difference between these is whether the bilinear form is symmetric or skewsymmetric, hence we will first consider the orthogonal case, and at the end of the section we will add some comments about the symplectic case. We fix $`D_u`$ to be $`𝒪_X`$ (i.e. $`R`$ is one point and $`𝒟`$ is $`𝒪_{X\times u}`$, and hence we can drop $`u`$ from the notation of tensors).

###### Definition 5.1.

An orthogonal sheaf is a tensor

$$(E,\phi ),\phi :EE𝒪_X$$

such that

* (OS1) $`(detE)^2𝒪_X`$
* (OS2) $`\phi `$ is symmetric
* (OS3) $`E`$ is torsion free
* (OS4) $`\phi `$ induces an isomorphism $`E|_UE|_U^{}`$ on the open subset $`U`$ where $`E`$ is locally free.

An isomorphism of orthogonal sheaves is an isomorphism as tensors.

It is easy to see that, assuming (OS1) and (OS3), the last condition is equivalent to

* (OS4) The induced homomorphism $`detEdetE^{}`$ is nonzero (hence an isomorphism).

The following lemma justifies this definition for orthogonal sheaves.

###### Lemma 5.2.

There is a bijection between the set of isomorphism classes of orthogonal sheaves with $`E`$ locally free and the set of isomorphism classes of principal $`\mathrm{O}(r)`$-bundles.

###### Proof.

The category of principal $`\mathrm{O}(r)`$-bundles is equivalent to the category whose objects are pairs $`(P,\sigma )`$ (where $`\pi :PX`$ is a principal $`\mathrm{GL}(r)`$-bundle, $`\sigma `$ is a section of the associated fiber bundle $`P\times _{\mathrm{GL}(r)}\mathrm{GL}(r)/\mathrm{O}(r)`$) and whose isomorphisms are isomorphisms $`f:PP^{}`$ of principal bundles respecting $`\sigma `$ (i.e. $`\pi ^{}f=\pi `$ and $`(f\times \mathrm{id}_{\mathrm{O}(r)})\sigma =\sigma ^{}`$). Note that this notion of isomorphism is not the same as isomorphism of reductions.

The category of principal $`\mathrm{GL}(r)`$-bundles is equivalent to the category of vector bundles of rank $`r`$. The quotient $`\mathrm{GL}(r)/\mathrm{O}(r)`$ is the set of invertible symmetric matrices (send $`A\mathrm{GL}(r)`$ to $`({}_{}{}^{T}A_{}^{1}A^1)`$). Hence, a section $`\sigma `$ is the same thing as a homomorphism $`\phi `$ as in (OS2). Now it is easy to check that there is a bijection betweeen these sets of isomorphisms classes.

###### Remark 5.3.

Note that the categories are not equivalent: for example, let $`P`$ be a simple principal $`G`$-bundle, i.e. the set of automorphisms of $`P`$ is the center of $`G`$ (a finite group), but the set of automorphisms of the corresponding $`G`$-sheaf is $`^{}`$. We will have an equivalence of categories if we consider only isomorphisms $`(f,\alpha )`$ with $`\alpha =1`$, as in remark 1.2. This would be important if we wanted to construct the moduli stack, but since we are interested in the moduli space this is irrelevant, because the moduli space does not detect the group of automorphisms.

Let $`(E,\phi )`$ be an orthogonal (or symplectic) sheaf. A subsheaf of $`F`$ of $`E`$ is called isotropic if $`\phi |_{FF}=0`$. Given a subsheaf $`i:FE`$, using the bilinear form $`\phi `$ we can associate the perpendicular subsheaf

$$F^{}=\mathrm{ker}(E\stackrel{\overline{\phi }}{}E^{}\stackrel{\overline{i^{}}}{}F^{}),$$

where $`\overline{\phi }:EE^{}`$ is the homomorphism induced by $`\phi `$.

###### Definition 5.4 (Stability).

An orthogonal sheaf $`(E,\phi )`$ is (semi)stable if for all isotropic subsheaves $`FE`$,

(5.1)
$$P_F+P_F^{}()P.$$

An orthogonal sheaf $`(E,\phi )`$ is slope-(semi)stable if for all isotropic subsheaves $`FE`$,

$$\mathrm{deg}(F)()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

As usual, we can assume that $`F`$ is saturated. A family of semistable orthogonal sheaves parametrized by $`T`$ is a family of tensors

(5.2)
$$(E_T,\phi _T,N),\phi _T:E_TE_T\pi _T^{}N,$$

such that $`(detE_T)^2`$ is isomorphic to the pullback of some line bundle on $`T`$, $`\phi _T`$ is symmetric, and $`\phi _T`$ induces an isomorphism $`E_T|_UE_T^{}\pi _T^{}N|_U`$ on the open set $`U`$ where $`E_T`$ is locally free, and such that the restriction to $`X\times t`$ for all closed points $`t`$ is a semistable orthogonal sheaf.

Using this notion of family, we define the functor $`_{\mathrm{O}(r)}`$ of semistable orthogonal sheaves. We will construct a moduli space corepresenting this functor (theorem 5.9).

In proposition 5.7 we show that an orthogonal (or symplectic) sheaf $`(E,\phi )`$ is (semi)stable in this sense if and only if it is $`\delta `$-(semi)stable as a tensor (definition 1.3), provided that $`\delta _1>0`$. Hence, the moduli space of semistable orthogonal (or symplectic) sheaves is a subscheme of the moduli space of $`\delta `$-semistable tensors. In theorem 5.9 we show that it is in fact projective. We can also ask about slope-semistability, and in proposition 5.8 we show that slope-(semi)stability in this sense and slope-$`\tau `$-(semi)stability as a tensor coincide if $`\tau >0`$. If $`\delta _1=0`$, then the notion of $`\delta `$-semistability as a tensor is not equivalent to semistability as an orthogonal sheaf. At the end of the section we give an example of this.

We start with some preliminaries. The intersection $`FF^{}`$ is an isotropic subsheaf of $`F`$. The following lemma gives exact sequences relating these subsheaves.

###### Lemma 5.5.

With the previous notation:

1. Let $`U`$ be the open set where $`F`$, $`E`$ and $`E/F`$ are locally free. There is an exact sequence on $`U`$

$$0F^{}|_UE|_UF^{}|_U0,$$

and hence $`\mathrm{rk}(F^{})=\mathrm{rk}(E)\mathrm{rk}(F)`$. If furthermore $`F`$ is saturated (i.e. $`E/F`$ is torsion free), then $`\mathrm{codim}(XU)2`$ and hence $`\mathrm{deg}(F^{})=\mathrm{deg}(F)`$.
2. If $`F`$ is saturated, then $`FF^{}`$ is also saturated.
3. There is an exact sequence

(5.3)
$$0FF^{}FF^{}F+F^{}0$$
4. $`F+F^{}(FF^{})^{}`$, $`\mathrm{rk}(F+F^{})=\mathrm{rk}((FF^{})^{})`$, and hence $`\mathrm{deg}(F+F^{})\mathrm{deg}((FF^{})^{})`$.
5. Let $`F`$ be a saturated subsheaf. If $`FF^{}0`$, then

(5.4)
$$\mathrm{deg}(F)\mathrm{deg}(FF^{}),$$

and if $`FF^{}=0`$, then

(5.5)
$$\mathrm{deg}(F)0.$$

###### Proof.

Since $`E/F|_U`$ is locally free, the last term in the following exact sequence is zero

$$0(E/F)^{}|_UE^{}|_U\stackrel{i^{}|_U}{}F^{}|_UExt^1((E/F)|_U,𝒪_U)=0,$$

and hence $`i^{}|_U`$ is surjective. Combining this with (OS4) we get the exact sequence

$$0F^{}|_UE|_UE^{}|_U\stackrel{i^{}|_U}{}F^{}|_U0.$$

If $`E/F`$ is torsion free, then $`\mathrm{codim}(XU)2`$ and we can use this sequence to obtain $`\mathrm{deg}(F^{})=\mathrm{deg}(F)`$.

To prove item 2, first we show that $`F^{}`$ is saturated. The composition $`EE^{}F^{}`$ factors as

$$EE/F^{}F^{}.$$

The sheaf $`F^{}`$ is torsion free, and hence also $`E/F^{}`$ is torsion free.

We conclude by showing that the stalk $`(E/(FF^{}))_x=E_x/(F_xF_x^{})`$ is torsion free for all points $`xX`$. Let $`vE_x`$ and let $`0f𝔪_x`$ be a nonzero element in the maximal ideal of the local ring of $`x`$, such that $`fvF_xF_x^{}`$. Since $`fvF_x`$, and $`F_x`$ is saturated, then $`vF_x`$. The same argument applies to $`F_x^{}`$, and hence $`vF_xF_x^{}`$.

Items 3 and 4 are easy to check. To show item 5, if $`FF^{}0`$, use the exact sequence (5.3), together with items 1, 2 and 4. If $`FF^{}=0`$, then $`FF^{}=F+F^{}`$ is a subsheaf of $`E`$ of rank $`r`$, then $`\mathrm{deg}(F)+\mathrm{deg}(F^{})0`$, and hence $`\mathrm{deg}(F)0`$.

The fact that on a generic fiber the quadratic form is nondegenerate has the following useful consequence:

###### Lemma 5.6.

If $`(E,\phi )`$ is an orthogonal or syplectic sheaf, then for all weighted filtrations

(5.6)
$$\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})0.$$

###### Proof.

First we will show that if $`Q:WW`$ is a bilinear nondegenerate form on a vector space $`W`$, then $`\overline{Q}(W^{}W^{})`$ is GIT-semistable under the natural action of $`\mathrm{SL}(W)`$ (with the natural linearization induced on $`𝒪(1)`$). The point $`\overline{Q}`$ is unstable if and only if there is a one-parameter subgroup $`\lambda `$ of $`\mathrm{SL}(W)`$ such that $`lim_{t0}\lambda (t)Q=0`$. But this is impossible because $`det(\lambda (t))=1`$, and then

$$det(\lambda (t)Q)=det(\lambda (t)Q{}_{}{}^{T}\lambda (t))=det(Q)0,$$

hence $`\overline{Q}`$ is semistable. Then, using this and condition (OS4), it follows that

$$\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})0$$

for all weighted filtrations. ∎

###### Proposition 5.7.

Assume $`\delta _1>0`$. An orthogonal sheaf $`(E,\phi )`$ is (semi)stable if and only if it is $`\delta `$-(semi)stable as a tensor.

###### Proof.

To see that $`\delta `$-(semi)stable as a tensor implies (semi)stable as an orthogonal sheaf, we apply the stability condition to the weighted filtration $`FF^{}E`$ with weights $`m_1=m_2=1`$. By lemma 5.5(1), $`r=\mathrm{rk}(F)+\mathrm{rk}(F^{})`$. Since $`F`$ is isotropic, $`\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})=0`$, hence the stability condition (1.6) gives the result:

$$r\left(P_F+P_F^{}P\right)=\left(rP_F\mathrm{rk}(F)P\right)+\left(rP_F^{}\mathrm{rk}(F^{})P\right)()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Now we will show that if $`(E,\phi )`$ is (semi)stable as an orthogonal sheaf, then it is $`\delta `$-(semi)stable as a tensor. We start with a vector space $`W`$ and a nondegenerate bilinear form $`Q:WW`$. Let $`(W_{},m_{})`$ be a weighted filtration with

(5.7)
$$\mu (Q,W_{},m_{})=0.$$

Denote $`r_i=dimW_i`$. Take a basis of $`W`$ adapted to the filtration, and let $`\lambda `$ be the one-parameter subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}(W)`$ associated to this basis and weights $`m_{}`$. Let $`\gamma =_{i=1}^tm_i\gamma ^{(r_i)}`$ as in (1.4). Since $`\mu (Q,W_{},m_{})=0`$, the limit $`Q^{}=lim_{t0}\lambda (t)Q`$ exists, and $`detQ^{}=detQ`$. Furthermore, we also have

(5.8)
$$\mu (Q^{},W_{},m_{})=0.$$

Write $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$ as block matrices

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}Q_{1,1}& Q_{1,2}& \mathrm{}& Q_{1,t+1}\\ Q_{2,1}& Q_{2,2}& \mathrm{}& Q_{2,t+1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ Q_{t+1,1}& Q_{t+1,2}& \mathrm{}& Q_{t+1,t+1}\end{array}\right)$$

Note that if $`\gamma _{r_i}+\gamma _{r_j}<0`$, then $`Q_{i,j}=0`$ because of (5.7). We have

(5.9)
$$Q_{i,j}^{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& ,\gamma _{r_i}+\gamma _{r_j}<0\hfill \\ Q_{i,j}& ,\gamma _{r_i}+\gamma _{r_j}=0\hfill \\ 0& ,\gamma _{r_i}+\gamma _{r_j}>0\hfill \end{array}$$

The weights $`\gamma _{r_i}+\gamma _{r_j}`$ strictly increase with both $`i`$ and $`j`$. Assume $`Q_{i,j}^{}0`$. Then, if $`(a,b)(i,j)`$, and either $`ai`$, $`bj`$, or $`ai`$, $`bj`$, we have $`Q_{a,b}^{}=0`$. In matrix form:

(5.10)
$$Q^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& & \\ 0& Q_{i,j}^{}& 0& 0\\ & 0& 0& 0\\ & 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

Since $`detQ^{}=detQ0`$, in each row of $`Q^{}`$ there must be at least one nonzero block (and the same for columns). This, together with (5.10) implies

(5.11)
$$Q^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& Q_{1,t+1}^{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& Q_{2,t}^{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& Q_{t,2}^{}& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ Q_{t+1,1}^{}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

with nonzero blocks in the second diagonal, and zero everywhere else. Since $`Q^{}`$ is nondegenerate, these blocks give isomorphisms for all $`1it+1`$

$$Q_{i,t+2i}^{}:W_{t+2i}/W_{t+1i}\stackrel{}{}W_i/W_{i1},$$

and a short calculation then gives $`r_i=rr_{t+1i}`$. This, together with (5.11), implies that

(5.12)
$$W_i^{}=W_{t+1i}.$$

Finally (5.9) and (5.11) imply that $`\gamma _{r_i}+\gamma _{r_{t+2i}}=0`$ for all $`1it+1`$. Then, using this and the definition of $`\gamma `$,

$$0=(\gamma _{r_{i+1}}+\gamma _{r_{t+1i}})(\gamma _{r_i}+\gamma _{r_{t+2i}})=r(m_im_{t+1i}).$$

Let $`(E_{},m_{})`$ be a weighted filtration with $`\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})=0`$. We can assume that all subsheaves $`E_i`$ are saturated. Apply the previous argument to $`W=E|_x`$, the fiber over a point where $`E`$ is locally free, and $`Q`$ the bilinear form induced by $`\phi `$ on the fiber. We have $`(\text{5.12})`$, hence it follows that $`E_i^{}E_{t+1i}`$. Furthermore, as we have just seen $`m_i=m_{t+1i}`$ and $`r_i=rr_{t+1i}`$ for all $`i`$. Hence we can write

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}m_i\left(rP_{E_i}r_iP\right)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{[(t+1)/2]}{}}}m_ir\left(P_{E_i}+P_{E_{t+1i}}P\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{[(t+1)/2]}{}}}m_ir\left(P_{E_i}+P_{E_i^{}}P\right)()\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
where the last inequality is given by (5.1).

Let $`(E_{},m_{})`$ be a weighted filtration with $`\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})0`$ . By lemma 5.6, it is strictly negative.

We claim that $`\mathrm{deg}(E_i)0`$ for all $`i`$. Assume that this is not true. Then there is a saturated subsheaf $`FE`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(F)>0`$. By lemma 5.5(5), $`N=FF^{}0`$, and $`0<\mathrm{deg}(F)\mathrm{deg}(N)`$. By lemma 5.5(2), $`N`$ is saturated, and by lemma 5.5(1), $`\mathrm{deg}(N)=\mathrm{deg}(N^{})`$. Consider the weighted filtration $`NN^{}E`$ with weights $`m_1=m_2=1`$. Since $`N`$ is isotropic, $`\mu (\phi ,NN^{})=0`$, and since $`\mathrm{deg}(N)=\mathrm{deg}(N^{})>0`$, this weighted filtration contradicts (5.1).

Hence, using $`\mathrm{deg}(E_i)0`$ together with $`\delta _1>0`$,

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}m_i\left(rP_{E_i}r_iP\right)\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta =`$
$`\left(\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{t}{}}}m_i{\displaystyle \frac{r\mathrm{deg}(E_i)}{(n1)!}}\right)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\delta _1\right)t^{n1}+O(t^{n2})\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$
###### Proposition 5.8.

Assume $`\tau >0`$. An orthogonal sheaf $`(E,\phi )`$ is slope-(semi)stable if and only if it is slope-$`\tau `$-(semi)stable as a tensor.

###### Proof.

The proof of proposition 5.7, replacing the Hilbert polynomials $`P_F`$, $`P_{E_i}`$, $`P`$,… by the degrees $`\mathrm{deg}(F)`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(E_i)`$, $`d`$,… proves that $`(E,\phi )`$ is slope-$`\tau `$-(semi)stable if and only if for all isotropic subsheaves $`FE`$,

$$\mathrm{deg}(F)+\mathrm{deg}(F^{})\mathrm{deg}(E).$$

We can assume that $`F`$ is saturated, hence $`\mathrm{deg}(F)=\mathrm{deg}(F^{})`$ by lemma 5.5(1), and since $`\mathrm{deg}(E)=0`$, the result follows. ∎

Fix a polynomial $`P`$. Recall that $`_{\mathrm{O}(r)}`$ is the functor of families of semistable orthogonal sheaves. Define $`𝔐_{\mathrm{O}(r)}`$ to be the subscheme of the moduli space of $`\delta `$-semistable tensors corresponding to orthogonal sheaves with Hilbert polynomial $`P`$. The notion of S-equivalence for orthogonal sheaves is the same that was described in proposition 4.1.

###### Theorem 5.9.

The scheme $`𝔐_{\mathrm{O}(r)}`$ is a coarse moduli space of S-equivalence classes of semistable orthogonal sheaves. There is an open subscheme $`𝔐_{\mathrm{O}(r)}^0`$ corresponding to semistable orthogonal bundles.

###### Proof.

The proof that $`𝔐_{\mathrm{O}(r)}`$ corepresents the functor $`_{\mathrm{O}(r)}`$ is completely analogous to the proof of theorem 1.8 (see section 4), so we will not repeat it. The subscheme $`𝔐_{\mathrm{O}(r)}^0`$ is open because being locally free is an open condition.

Now we will prove that this moduli space is projective. Conditions (OS1) and (OS2) are closed conditions, so they define a projective subscheme $`𝔐_{1,2}`$ of the moduli space of $`\delta `$-semistable tensors. The lemma will be proved by showing that $`𝔐_{\mathrm{O}(r)}=𝔐_{1,2}`$. If $`(E,\phi )`$ is $`\delta `$-semistable then $`E`$ is torsion free, so it only remains to check that if condition (OS4) does not hold, then $`(E,\phi )`$ is $`\delta `$-unstable.

Assume that the homomorphism $`detEdetE^{}`$ induced by $`\phi `$ is zero. Then the sheaf $`E^{}`$ defined as

$$0E^{}E\stackrel{\overline{\phi }}{}E^{}$$

is nonzero. Let $`C`$ be the cokernel of $`\overline{\phi }`$

$$E\stackrel{\overline{\phi }}{}E^{}C0.$$

Taking the dual of this sequence and restricting to the open subset $`U`$ of $`X`$ where $`E`$ is locally free, we get

$$0C^{}|_UE^{}|_U=E|_U\stackrel{\overline{\phi }|_U^{}}{}E^{}|_U$$

By (OS2) we have $`\overline{\phi }|_U=\overline{\phi }|_U^{}`$, hence $`\mathrm{ker}(\overline{\phi }|_U)\mathrm{ker}(\overline{\phi }|_U^{})`$, and then $`C^{}|_UE^{}|_U`$, and since $`\mathrm{codim}(XU)2`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(C)=\mathrm{deg}(E^{})`$. The exact sequence on $`U`$

$$0E^{}|_UE|_UE^{}|_UC|_U0$$

implies that $`\mathrm{deg}(E^{})=0`$. Consider the weighted filtration $`0E^{}E`$, $`m_1=1`$. We have

$$\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})>0.$$

Recall that $`\tau =\delta _1(n1)!`$. Then

$$r\mathrm{deg}(E^{})\mathrm{rk}(E^{})\mathrm{deg}(E)+\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\tau =\mu (\phi ,E_{},m_{})\tau >0,$$

and hence $`(E,\phi )`$ is slope-$`\tau `$-unstable (definition 1.5), and in particular, $`\delta `$-unstable.

###### Remark 5.10.

The same proof gives that if $`(E,\phi )`$ is a slope-$`\tau `$-semistable tensor with $`\tau >0`$, satisfying conditions (OS1), (OS2) and (OS3), then condition (OS4) holds.

Example. We will give an example showing that, if we do not require $`\delta _1`$ to be positive, the notion of $`\delta `$-stability as a tensor (definition 1.3) is different from the notion of stability as an orthogonal sheaf (definition 5.4). We will check this by showing an example of an orthogonal sheaf whose $`\delta `$-stability really depends on $`\delta `$.

Let $`X=^2`$, let $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$, $`p_3`$ be three different points in $`^2`$, and consider the ideal sheaves $`I_1=I_{p_1}`$ and $`I_2=I_{p_2p_3}`$. Let

$$(E,\phi )=(I_2I_1𝒪_X,\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1/2\\ 0& 1& 1/2\\ 1/2& 1/2& 1\end{array}\right))$$

In particular, the first summand $`I_2`$ of $`E`$ is isotropic, and $`I_2^{}=I_2I_1`$. Let $`\delta =\delta _1t+\delta _2[t]`$ be a polynomial as in (1.2).

###### Lemma 5.11.

If $`\delta _1=0`$ and $`0<\delta _2<3/2`$, then $`(E,\phi )`$ is $`\delta `$-unstable as a tensor. If $`\delta _1>0`$, then $`(E,\phi )`$ is $`\delta `$-stable as a tensor.

###### Proof.

The first claim is proved by considering the filtration $`𝒪_XI_2I_1𝒪_X`$. If $`\delta _1=0`$, then this filtration does not satisfy (1.6), hence contradicts semistability.

Now we will prove that if $`\delta _1>0`$, then $`(E,\phi )`$ is $`\delta `$-stable. Using proposition 5.7, we only have to study filtrations of the form

$$E_1E_2=E_1^{}E,$$

with $`\mathrm{rk}(E_1)=1`$, $`\mathrm{rk}(E_2)=2`$ and $`E_1`$ isotropic and saturated. Using the Riemann-Roch formula we have

$$P_{E_1}+P_{E_2}P=2c_2(E_1)2c_2(E_2)+2c_2(E),$$

so we need to estimate the second Chern classes of $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$.

The sheaf $`E_2=E_1^{}`$ is saturated (see the proof of lemma 5.5(2)). Define the torsion free rank one subsheaf $`J`$

$$0E_2I_2I_1𝒪_X\stackrel{(a,b,c)}{}J0,$$

where $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ are respectively elements of $`\mathrm{Hom}(I_2,J)`$, $`\mathrm{Hom}(I_1,J)`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}(𝒪_X,J)`$. We have $`\mathrm{deg}(J)=0`$, so $`J`$ is the ideal sheaf of a zero-dimensional subscheme of $`^2`$. We distinguish several cases:

* If $`c0`$, then $`J=𝒪_X`$, and $`c_2(E)=3`$.
* If $`a0`$, $`b0`$, then again $`J=𝒪_X`$, and $`c_2(E)=3`$.
* If $`a=0`$, $`b0`$ and $`c=0`$, then $`E_2`$ does not contain a subsheaf $`E_1`$ with $`E_2=E_1^{}`$, hence this cannot happen.
* If $`a0`$, $`b=0`$ and $`c=0`$, then again $`E_2`$ does not contain a subsheaf $`E_1`$ with $`E_2E_1^{}`$, hence this cannot happen.

So we conclude that $`c_2(E_2)=3`$. The sheaf $`E_1`$ is a rank one subsheaf of $`I_2I_1𝒪_X`$, hence $`c_2(E_1)>0`$ unless $`E_1`$ is the third summand $`𝒪_X`$, but this is not possible because the third summand is not isotropic. Putting everything together,

$$P_{E_1}+P_{E_2}P=2c_2(E_1)2c_2(E_2)+2c_2(E)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$

hence $`(E,\phi )`$ is $`\delta `$-stable by proposition 5.7. ∎

###### Remark 5.12.

Note that $`(E,\phi )`$ is stable as an orthogonal sheaf, but $`E`$ is Gieseker-unstable as a sheaf.

On the other hand, an orthogonal sheaf $`(E,\phi )`$ is slope-semistable if and only if $`E`$ is slope-semistable as a sheaf. Indeed, if $`F`$ is a saturated subsheaf of $`E`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(F)>0`$, then lemma 5.5(5) shows that the isotropic subsheaf $`FF^{}`$ is nonzero and has positive degree, hence $`(E,\phi )`$ is slope-unstable.

To obtain symplectic sheaves instead of orthogonal sheaves, we only need to take $`\phi `$ skewsymmetric instead of symmetric. It follows that $`detE=𝒪_X`$ (recall that for orthogonal sheaves we only had $`(detE)^2=𝒪_X`$

There is a bijection between the set of isomorphism classes of symplectic bundles and principal $`\mathrm{Sp}(r)`$-bundles. The proof is the same as with orthogonal bundles, noting that the quotient $`\mathrm{GL}(r)/\mathrm{Sp}(r)`$ is the set of invertible antisymmetric matrices (send $`A\mathrm{GL}(r)`$ to $`({}_{}{}^{T}A_{}^{1}JA^1)`$, where $`J`$ is the matrix representing the standard symplectic structure of $`^r`$).

All the results for orthogonal sheaves hold for symplectic sheaves, and in particular there is a coarse moduli space of S-equivalence classes of semistable symplectic sheaves.

## 6. Special orthogonal bundles

###### Definition 6.1 (Special orthogonal sheaf).

A special orthogonal sheaf is a triple

$$(E,\phi :EE𝒪_X,\psi :detE𝒪_X)$$

such that

* (SOS1) $`\psi `$ is an isomorphism.
* (SOS2) $`\phi `$ is symmetric.
* (SOS3) $`E`$ is torsion free.
* (SOS4) $`\phi `$ induces an isomorphism $`E|_UE|_U^{}`$ on the open subset $`U`$ where $`E`$ is locally free.
* (SOS5) $`det(\phi )=\psi ^2`$. More precisely, let $`\phi ^{}:EE^{}`$ and $`\psi ^{}:𝒪_XdetE^{}`$ be the associated homomorphisms. Then we require $`det(\phi ^{})=\psi \psi ^{}`$.

An isomorphism of special orthogonal sheaves is a pair $`(f,\lambda )`$ such that $`f:EE^{}`$ is an isomorphism, $`\lambda ^{}`$ and the following diagrams commute

(6.1)
It is easy to see that, assuming (SOS1) and (SOS3), condition (SOS4) is equivalent to

* (SOS4) The induced homomorphism $`detEdetE^{}`$ is nonzero (hence an isomorphism).

Condition (SOS5) is equivalent to

* (SOS5). Let $`U`$ be the open subset where $`E`$ is torsion free. For all $`xU`$, fix a basis of the fiber $`E_x`$ of $`E`$ on $`x`$, Using this basis (and the canonical identification $`𝒪_x`$), $`\phi `$ restricted to $`x`$ gives a symmetric matrix $`\phi (x)`$, and $`\psi `$ restricted to $`x`$ gives a complex number $`\psi (x)`$. Then we require $`det(\phi (x))=\psi (x)^2`$.

This definition of special orthogonal sheaf is justified by the following lemma.

###### Lemma 6.2.

There is a bijection between the set of isomorphism classes of special orthogonal sheaves with $`E`$ locally free and the set of isomorphism classes of principal $`\mathrm{SO}(r)`$-bundles.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{SO}(r)`$ act by multiplication on the right on $`\mathrm{GL}(r)`$, and consider the quotient $`\mathrm{GL}(r)/\mathrm{SO}(r)`$. Let $`A\mathrm{GL}(r)`$, and let $`[A]`$ be the class in $`\mathrm{GL}(r)/\mathrm{SO}(r)`$. To this class we associate the pair $`({}_{}{}^{T}A_{}^{1}A^1,det(A^1))`$. This gives a bijection between the set $`\mathrm{GL}(r)/\mathrm{SO}(r)`$ and the set of pairs $`(B,\beta )`$, where $`B`$ is a symmetric invertible matrix and $`\beta `$ is a nonzero complex number such that

$$detB=\beta ^2.$$

Given a principal $`\mathrm{GL}(r)`$-bundle $`P`$ (or equivalently a vector bundle $`E`$), a reduction of structure group to $`\mathrm{SO}(r)`$ is a section $`\sigma `$ of the associated bundle $`P\times _{\mathrm{GL}(r)}\mathrm{GL}(r)/\mathrm{SO}(r)`$, and then this is equivalent to a pair of homomorphisms $`(\phi ,\psi )`$ as in definition 6.1.

The rest of the proof is analogous to the proof of lemma 5.2. ∎

###### Definition 6.3 (Stability).

A special orthogonal sheaf $`(E,\phi ,\psi )`$ is (semi)stable if the associated orthogonal sheaf $`(E,\phi )`$ is (semi)stable.

A family of semistable special orthogonal sheaves parametrized by $`T`$ is a tuple $`(E_T,\phi _T,\psi _T,N)`$ such that $`(E_T,\phi _T,N)`$ is a family of semistable orthogonal sheaves (cf. (5.2)), and $`\psi _T:detE_T\pi _T^{}L`$ is an isomorphism, where $`L`$ is a line bundle on $`T`$. Two families are isomorphic if there is a pair $`(f,\lambda :MM^{})`$ where $`f:E_TE_T^{}`$ is an isomorphism, $`M^2N`$, $`M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}N^{}`$, $`\lambda `$ is an isomorphism, and the relative versions of the diagrams (6.1) commute. In this section (theorem 6.7) we will construct the moduli space of semistable special orthogonal sheaves (with fixed Hilbert polynomial).

There is a map between isomorphism classes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left\{\text{Special orthogonal sheaves}\right\}& \stackrel{f}{}& \left\{\begin{array}{c}\text{Orthogonal sheaves}\\ \text{such that }detE𝒪_X\end{array}\right\}\\ (E,\phi ,\psi )& & (E,\phi )\end{array}$$

This map will induce a morphism between the corresponding moduli spaces.

###### Lemma 6.4.

Let $`(E,\phi )`$ be an orthogonal sheaf such that $`detE𝒪_X`$.

If $`E`$ has an automorphism $`f`$ such that $`ff=\mathrm{id}_{EE}`$ and $`detf=\mathrm{id}_{detE}`$, then the preimage of $`(E,\phi )`$ under the map $`f`$ consists of exactly one isomorphism class.

If $`E`$ does not have such an automorphism, then the preimage consists of exactly two distinct isomorphism classes, represented by two special orthogonal sheaves $`(E,\phi ,\psi )`$ and $`(E,\phi ,\psi )`$, differing in the sign of the isomorphism $`\psi `$.

###### Proof.

Property (SOS5) implies that to obtain the isomorphism $`\psi `$ we have to extract a square root, so we obtain two special orthogonal sheaves $`P=(E,\phi ,\psi )`$ and $`P^{}=(E,\phi ,\psi )`$ mapping to the given orthogonal sheaf. It only remains to check if theses two objects are isomorphic or not.

If there is an automorphism $`f:EE`$ with the above properties, then $`(f,1)`$ is an isomorphism between $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$.

Conversely, assume that there is an isomorphism $`(f,\lambda )`$ between $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$. Then $`f^{}=(1/\lambda )f`$ is an automorphism of $`E`$ with $`f^{}f^{}=\mathrm{id}`$ and $`detf^{}=\mathrm{id}`$. ∎

###### Corollary 6.5.

If $`r`$ is odd, there is a bijection between the set of isomorphism classes of special orthogonal sheaves and the set of isomorphism classes of orthogonal sheaves with $`detE𝒪_X`$.

###### Proof.

Apply lemma 6.4 to $`f=\mathrm{id}_E`$ (multiplication by $`1`$). ∎

In particular, for $`r`$ odd, the moduli space of (semi)stable special orthogonal sheaves consists of the components of the moduli space of (semi)stable orthogonal sheaves with trivial determinant. On the other hand, if $`r`$ is even and $`E`$ is simple, then for each orthogonal sheaf with trivial determinant, we have two nonisomorphic special orthogonal sheaves. From now on we will assume that $`r`$ is even.

Fix a Hilbert polynomial $`P`$. Let $`m`$ be a large integer number as in section 3. Let $`V`$ be a vector space of dimension $`P(m)`$. Let $`(g,E,\phi ,\psi )`$ be a tuple where $`(E,\phi ,\psi )`$ is a semistable special orthogonal sheaf and $`g`$ is an isomorphism between $`H^0(E(m))`$ and $`V`$. As in section 3, the homomorphism $`\phi `$ gives a vector

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(V^2)^{}H^0(𝒪_X(2m))$$

We denote $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s=\mathrm{\Phi }^{r/2}`$ the associated vector

(6.2)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_s\mathrm{Sym}^{r/2}\left((V^2)^{}H^0(𝒪_X(2m))\right).$$

The homomorphism $`\psi `$ induces a linear map

$$\mathrm{\Psi }:{}_{}{}^{r}VH^0(det(E)(rm))H^0(𝒪_X(rm)),$$

and hence a vector (that we denote with the same letter)

$$\mathrm{\Psi }({}_{}{}^{r}V)^{}H^0(𝒪_X(rm)).$$

These two quotients give a point $`[\mathrm{\Phi }_s,\mathrm{\Psi }]`$ in the projective space $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ defined as

$$\left(\mathrm{Sym}^{r/2}\left((V^2)^{}H^0(𝒪_X(2m))\right)\left(({}_{}{}^{r}V)^{}H^0(𝒪_X(rm))\right)\right).$$

It is easy to check that the point only depends on the isomorphism class of the tuple. Here it is crucial that we took the $`r/2`$-symmetric power in (6.2): take the isomorphism $`\lambda \mathrm{id}:EE`$ (multiplication by $`\lambda ^{}`$). It sends $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to $`\lambda ^2\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to $`\lambda ^r\mathrm{\Psi }`$, hence it sends $`[\mathrm{\Phi }_s,\mathrm{\Psi }]`$ to $`[\lambda ^r\mathrm{\Phi }_s,\lambda ^r\mathrm{\Psi }]`$, and this is the same point in the projective space.

Let $``$ be the Hilbert scheme of quotients as in section 3, and then given a tuple $`(g,E,\phi ,\psi )`$ we associate a point $`(q,[\mathrm{\Phi }_s,\mathrm{\Psi }])`$ in $`\times \stackrel{~}{P}`$. The points obtained in this way have the following properties: the vector $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s`$ is of the form $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{r/2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ factors as

the homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ factors as

and $`det(\varphi )=\psi ^2`$ as in (SOS5).

Let $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$ be the closed subset of $`\times \stackrel{~}{P}`$ defined by these properties. Given a point $`z\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$ we can recover the tuple up to isomorphism. Define the parameter space $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ as the closure in $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$ of those points obtained from semistable special orthogonal sheaves.

Let $`\delta `$ be a polynomial as in (1.2) and with $`\delta _1>0`$. Define a polarization on $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ by

$$𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Z}}(n_1,n_2):=p_{}^{}𝒪_{}(n_1)p_P^{}𝒪_P(\frac{2n_2}{r}),$$

where $`n_2`$ is a multiple of $`r/2`$, $`n_1`$ is an integer, and

$$\frac{n_2}{n_1}=\frac{P(l)\delta (m)\delta (l)P(m)}{P(m)2\delta (m)}$$

The projective scheme $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ is preserved by the natural $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$ action, and this action has a natural linearization on $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Z}}(n_1,n_2)`$.

###### Proposition 6.6.

A point $`(g,E,\phi ,\psi )`$ is GIT-(semi)stable if and only if the special orthogonal sheaf $`(E,\phi ,\psi )`$ is (semi)stable (definition 6.3).

###### Proof.

The parameter space $`Z`$ for orthogonal sheaves is a subscheme of $`\times P`$, where

$$P=\left((V^2)^{}H^0(𝒪_X(2m))\right)$$

(this is a particular case of the parameter space defined in section 3). Let $`𝒪_Z(n_1,n_2)`$ be the polarization defined in (3.7), and consider the natural linearization of the action of $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$ on this polarization. There is a morphism

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{Z}& \stackrel{f}{}& Z\\ (g,E,\phi ,\psi )& & (g,E,\phi )\end{array}$$

with $`f^{}𝒪_Z(n_1,n_2)=𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Z}}(n_1,n_2)`$. This morphism is equivariant with respect to $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$, and the linearizations are compatible. Property (SOS5) implies that $`f`$ is finite étale (because $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ is given locally by the equation $`det(\phi (x))=\psi (x)^2`$), and then it follows that a point in $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ is GIT-(semi)stable if and only if its image in $`Z`$ is GIT-(semi)stable. The result follows from theorem 3.6, proposition 5.7, and definition 6.3. ∎

Let $`_{\mathrm{SO}(r)}`$ be the functor of families of semistable special orthogonal sheaves. Let $`𝔐_{\mathrm{SO}(r)}`$ be the GIT quotient of $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ by $`\mathrm{SL}(V)`$. Let $`(E,\phi ,\psi )`$ be a semistable special orthogonal sheaf. Let $`E^S`$ and $`\phi ^S`$ be defined as in section 4. There is a natural isomorphism between $`detE^S`$ and $`detE`$, then composing with $`\psi `$ we obtain an isomorphism $`\psi ^S:detE^S𝒪_X`$.

Let $`(E,\phi ,\psi )`$ and $`(E^{},\phi ^{},\psi ^{})`$ be two semistable special orthogonal sheaves. They are $`S`$-equivalent if and only if $`(E^S,\phi ^S,\psi ^S)`$ is isomorphic to $`(E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{S},\phi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{S},\psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{S})`$.

###### Theorem 6.7.

The projective scheme $`𝔐_{\mathrm{SO}(r)}`$ is the coarse moduli space of S-equivalence classes of semistable special orthogonal sheaves. There is an open subset $`𝔐_{\mathrm{SO}(r)}^0`$ corresponding to semistable special orthogonal bundles.

The proof is completely analogous to the proof of theorem 1.8 (section 4).

## 7. $`\mathrm{GL}(r)`$-representational pairs

Once we have constructed the moduli space of tensors, it is easy to obtain moduli spaces for $`\mathrm{GL}(r)`$-representational pairs. In the case of $`dim(X)=1`$, this is done in \[Sch\], but since it does not depend on the dimension of the base $`X`$, the same arguments apply here. In \[Ba\], Banfield considered pairs $`(P,\sigma )`$, where $`P`$ is a principal $`G`$-bundle ($`G`$ any reductive group), and $`\sigma `$ is a section associated to $`P`$ by a fixed representation $`\rho `$. He defined stability, and proved a Hitchin-Kobayashi correspondence. Now we will construct the moduli space, when $`G=\mathrm{GL}(r)`$.

Fix a polynomial $`\delta `$ as in (1.2). Let $`\rho :\mathrm{GL}(r)\mathrm{GL}(n)`$ be a representation sending the center of $`\mathrm{GL}(r)`$ to the center of $`\mathrm{GL}(n)`$. Consider a triple

(7.1)
$$(E,\psi :E_\rho D_u,u),$$

where $`E`$ is a vector bundle of rank $`r`$ on $`X`$, and $`E_\rho `$ is the vector bundle of rank $`n`$ associated to $`E`$ and $`\rho `$. Using \[F-H, prop. 15.47\], it can be shown that there exist integers $`s>0`$, $`b`$, $`c>0`$, and a vector bundle $`F`$ such that

$$(E^s)^c(detE)^bE_\rho F$$

(see \[Sch, cor 1.1.2\] for details). Then a triple (7.1) is equivalent to a tensor $`(E,\phi ,u)`$ such that

(7.2)
$$\phi |_F=0,$$

and we say that the triple is $`\delta `$-(semi)stable if the corresponding tensor is. Since the condition (7.2) is closed, the moduli space of $`\delta `$-semistable triples is a closed subscheme of $`𝔐_\delta ^0`$, the open subscheme corresponding to tensors with $`E`$ locally free. It is easy to check that the definition of stability in \[Ba\] coincides with our slope-$`\tau `$-stability.

In \[MR\], Mundet generalized Banfield’s work. He fixes a Kaehler manifold $`Y`$ and an action $`\rho `$ of a reductive group $`G`$ on $`Y`$, and considers pairs $`(P,\sigma )`$, where $`\sigma `$ is a section of the associated fiber bundle $`P\times _GY`$. He defined stability and proved a Hitchin-Kobayashi correspondence. Now we will construct the moduli space, for the case when $`G=\mathrm{GL}(r)`$, and $`Y`$ is a projective (or more generally, quasi-projective) scheme.

Consider an action of $`\mathrm{GL}(r)`$ on a projective scheme $`Y`$, together with a linearization of the action on an ample line bundle $`L`$ on $`Y`$. Assume that the center of $`\mathrm{GL}(r)`$ acts trivially on $`Y`$. Consider a pair

(7.3)
$$(P,\sigma :XP\times _{\mathrm{GL}(r)}Y),$$

where $`P`$ is a principal $`\mathrm{GL}(r)`$ bundle on $`X`$, and $`\sigma `$ is a section of the fiber bundle associated to $`P`$ with fiber $`Y`$. We fix the topology type of $`P`$ and the homology class $`[\sigma (X)]`$ of the image. Fix $`k`$ large enough so that we have a natural embedding $`F(H^0(F,L^k)^{})`$. Since the action of the center of $`\mathrm{GL}(r)`$ is trivial on $`Y`$, the induced representation

$$\rho :\mathrm{GL}(r)\mathrm{GL}(H^0(F,L^k))$$

sends the center of $`\mathrm{GL}(r)`$ to the center of $`\mathrm{GL}(H^0(F,L^k))`$. Let $`E`$ be the rank $`r`$ vector bundle corresponding to $`P`$. Since we have fixed the topology type of $`P`$, the Hilbert polynomial $`P_E`$ of $`E`$ is also fixed. The section $`\sigma `$ gives a homomorphism

$$\psi :E_\rho D_u,$$

for some line bundle $`D_u`$, whose degree $`a`$ depends on the homology class $`[\sigma (X)]`$ of the image. Take $`R=\mathrm{Pic}^a(X)`$, and let $`𝒟`$ be a Poincare bundle. We obtain that a pair (7.3) is equivalent to a triple (7.1) with the property that the section $`\psi ^{}:X(E_\rho ^{})`$ factors through $`P\times _{\mathrm{GL}(r)}Y`$. We define a pair (7.3) to be $`\delta `$-semistable if the corresponding triple is, and hence the moduli space of $`\delta `$-semistable pairs (7.3) is a closed subscheme of $`𝔐_\delta ^0`$. We can also take $`Y`$ to be quasi-projective, and the moduli space will also be a subscheme (not necessarily closed) of $`𝔐_\delta ^0`$.