text:
# Frobenius amplitude and strong vanishing theorems for vector bundles

## 1. Frobenius amplitude

In this section, we define the notion of Frobenius (or simply $`F`$-) amplitude. This definition is most natural in positive characteristic, and we start with this case. Let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic $`p>0`$, and let $`X`$ be a variety defined over $`k`$. $`F`$, or sometimes $`F_X`$, will denote the absolute Frobenius of $`X`$ (i.e. the morphism of schemes which is the identity on the set $`X`$ and the $`p`$th power map on $`O_X`$). The absolute Frobenius can be factored as:

where the righthand square is cartesian. $`F^{}`$ is the relative Frobenius. When $`k`$ is perfect, $`F_k:speckspeck`$ and its base change $`X^{}X`$ are isomorphisms of $`/p`$-schemes. In view of this, the relative Frobenius can be replaced by the absolute Frobenius and $`X^{}`$ by $`X`$ in the statements of \[DI, 2.1, 4.2\].

Given a coherent sheaf $``$, denote $`F^n`$ by $`^{(p^n)}`$. For a vector bundle $``$ given by a $`1`$-cocycle $`g_{ij}`$, $`^{(p^n)}`$ is given by $`g_{ij}^{p^n}`$. If $``$ is an ideal sheaf on $`^n`$ generated by polynomials $`f_i`$, then $`^{(p^n)}`$ is the ideal sheaf generated by $`f_i^{p^n}`$. Define the $`F`$-amplitude $`\varphi ()`$ of a coherent sheaf $``$ to be the smallest integer $`l`$ such that for any locally free sheaf $``$, there exists an $`N`$ such that $`H^i(X,^{(p^m)})=0`$ for all $`i>l`$ and $`m>N`$. A few words of caution should be added here. We are purposely using the naive definition, but this has reasonable properties only when $`X`$ is smooth (which implies that $`F`$ is flat) or $``$ is locally free. In more general situations, $`F^n`$ should be replaced by the derived pullback $`LF^n`$, at which point $``$ may as well be replaced by an object in $`D_{coh}(X)`$ (one day, perhaps). We have that $`\varphi ()`$ is less than or equal to the coherent cohomological dimension of $`X`$ which is less than or equal to the $`dimX`$.

Now suppose that $`k`$ is a field of characteristic $`0`$. By a diagram over a scheme $`S`$, we will mean a collection of $`S`$-schemes $`X_i`$, $`S`$-scheme morphisms $`f_{ij}:X_iX_j`$, $`O_{X_i}`$-modules $`_{i,l}`$ and morphisms between the pullbacks and pushforwards of these modules. Given a morphism $`S^{}S`$, and a diagram $`D`$ over $`S`$, we can define its fiber product $`D\times _SS^{}`$ in the obvious way. Given a diagram $`D`$ over $`Speck`$, an arithmetic thickening (or simply just thickening) of it is a choice of a finitely generated $``$-subalgebra $`Ak`$, and a diagram $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ over $`SpecA`$, so that $`D`$ is isomorphic to the fiber product over $`Speck`$. Given two thickenings $`\stackrel{~}{D}_iSpecA_i`$, we will say the second refines the first if there is a homomorphism $`A_1A_2`$, and an isomorphism between $`D_2`$ and $`D_1\times _{SpecA_1}SpecA_2`$.

By standard arguments (e. g. \[I2, sect. 6\]):

###### Lemma 1.1.

Any finite diagram of $`k`$-schemes of finite type and coherent sheaves has an arithmetic thickening. Any two thickenings have a common refinement.

Suppose that $`X`$ is a quasiprojective $`k`$-variety with a coherent sheaf $``$. Given a thickening $`(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{})`$ over $`A`$, we will write $`p(q)=char(A/q)`$, $`X_q`$ for the fiber and $`_q=\stackrel{~}{}|_{X_q}`$ for each closed point $`qSpecA`$. We will say that a property holds for almost all $`q`$ if it holds for all $`q`$ in a nonempty open subset of $`SpecA`$. For each closed point $`qSpecA`$, the fiber $`X_q`$ is defined over the finite field $`A/q`$, so that the $`F`$-amplitude of the restriction $`_q`$ can be defined as before. We say that $`i\varphi ()`$ if and only if $`i\varphi (_q)`$ holds for almost all $`q`$. Equivalently, the $`F`$-amplitude $`\varphi ()`$ is obtained by minimizing $`\mathrm{max}_q\varphi (_q)`$ over all thickenings. Note that there is no (obvious) semicontinuity property for $`\varphi (_q)`$. So it is not clear if this is the optimal definition, but it is sufficient for the present purposes. Any alternative definition should satisfy the following: for any arithmetic thickening of a finite collection of coherent sheaves $`_1,\mathrm{}_N`$, there is a sequence of closed points $`q_j`$ with $`char(A/q_j)\mathrm{}`$ such that $`\varphi (_i)\varphi ((_i)_{q_j})`$.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety over $`k`$. We have an ordering on divisors defined in the usual way: $`DD^{}`$ if and only if the coefficients of $`D`$ are less than or equal to the coefficients of $`D^{}`$. Fix a reduced divisor $`DX`$ with normal crossings. Assume that $`chark=p>0`$, then we define the $`F`$-amplitude of a coherent sheaf $``$ relative to $`D`$ as follows

$$\varphi (,D)=\mathrm{min}\{\varphi (^{(p^n)}(D^{}))|n,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}D^{}(p^n1)D\}.$$

If $`D^{}(p^n1)D`$ is a divisor for which this minimum is achieved, we will refer to the $``$-divisor $`\frac{1}{p^n}D^{}`$ as a critical divisor for $``$ relative to $`D`$. It will be convenient to introduce the relation on divisors, $`A<_{strict}B`$ if the multiplicity of $`A`$ along any irreducible component $`C`$ of the union of their supports is less than the multiplicity of $`B`$ along $`C`$. Then the upper inequality above is just that $`D^{}<_{strict}p^nD`$. When $`chark=0`$, we proceed as above, $`\varphi (,D)`$ is the minimum of $`\mathrm{max}_q\varphi (_q,D_q)`$ over all thickenings of $`(X,D,)`$. We define the generic $`F`$-amplitude $`\varphi _{gen}()`$ of a locally free sheaf $``$ to be the infimum of $`\varphi (f^{},D)`$ where $`f:YX`$ varies over all birational maps $`f`$ with exceptional divisor $`D`$ such that $`Y`$ is smooth and $`D`$ has normal crossings.

In any characteristic, we will define $``$ to be $`F`$-ample if and only if $`\varphi ()=0`$. We will see below that a line bundle is ample if and only if it is $`F`$-ample. However for bundles of higher rank, $`F`$-ampleness is a stronger condition. In positive characteristic, $`F`$-ample vector bundles are the same as cohomologically $`p`$-ample vector bundles as defined in \[G\].

Most of the work below will be in positive characteristic. The proofs in characteristic zero are handled by standard semicontinuity arguments on a thickening.

Throughout the rest of this paper, unless stated otherwise, $`X`$ will denote a projective variety over a field $`k`$, and the symbols $`,,\mathrm{}`$ will denote coherent sheaves on $`X`$.

## 2. Elementary bounds on $`F`$-amplitude

###### Lemma 2.1.

If a sheaf $``$ on a topological space is quasi-isomorphic to a bounded complex $`^{}`$ then $`H^i()=0`$ provided that $`H^a(^b)=0`$ for all $`a+b=i`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from the spectral sequence

$$E_1^{ab}=H^b(^a)^{a+b}(^{})H^{a+b}().$$

###### Lemma 2.2.

Suppose $`chark=p>0`$ and that $``$ is a locally free sheaf on $`X`$. Then for any coherent sheaf $``$,

$$H^i(X,^{(p^m)})=0$$

for $`i>\varphi ()`$ and $`m>>0`$.

###### Proof.

This will be proved by descending induction starting from $`i=dimX+1`$. Choose an ample line bundle $`O(1)`$. We can find an exact sequence

$$0^{\prime \prime }^{}0$$

where $`^{}`$ is a sum of twists of $`O(1)`$ (by Serre’s theorems, we can take $`^{}=H^0((n))O(n)`$ for $`n>>0`$). Tensoring this with $`^{(p^m)}`$ and applying the long exact sequence for cohomology shows that $`H^i(X,^{(p^m)})=0`$ for $`i>\varphi ()`$ and $`m>>0`$. ∎

The proof gives something slightly stronger:

###### Corollary 2.3.

Fix an ample line bundle $`O_X(1)`$. Then $`\varphi ()A`$ if and only if for any $`b`$ there exists $`n_0`$ such that

$$H^i(^{(p^n)}(b))=0$$

for all $`i>A`$, $`nn_0`$.

###### Lemma 2.4.

A line bundle is $`F`$-ample if and only if it is ample.

###### Proof.

First assume that we are over a field of characteristic $`p>0`$. Then we have $`L^{(p^n)}=L^{p^n}`$. Therefore if $`L`$ is ample, it is $`F`$-ample by Serre’s vanishing theorem. Suppose $`L`$ is $`F`$-ample. Choose $`x_0X`$, then by lemma 2.2 $`H^1(X,m_{x_0}L^{n_0})=0`$ for $`x_0`$ and some $`n_0`$ a power of $`p`$. Therefore $`L^{n_0}`$ has a global section $`s_0`$ which is nonzero at $`x_0`$. Let $`U_0`$ be the complement of the zero set of $`s_0`$. If $`U_0X`$, we can choose $`x_1`$ in the complement and arrange that $`H^1(X,m_{x_1}L^{n_1})=0`$ for some power $`n_1`$ of $`p`$. Therefore $`L^{n_1}`$ has a section $`s_1`$ not vanishing at $`x_1`$. If $`U_0U_1X`$, then we can choose $`x_2`$ in the complement and proceed as above. Eventually this process has to stop, because $`X`$ is noetherian. Therefore $`L^{n_0n_1\mathrm{}}`$ is generated by the sections $`s_0^{n_1n_2\mathrm{}},s_1^{n_0n_2\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}`$. Repeating the same line of reasoning with the sheaves $`m_xm_yL^n`$ shows that some power of $`L`$ is very ample.

Choose a thickening of $`(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{L})`$ over $`A`$. If $`L`$ is ample, then we can assume $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is ample by shrinking $`SpecA`$ if necessary. Consequently $`\stackrel{~}{L}_q`$ is $`F`$-ample for each closed point $`qSpecA`$ by the previous paragraph. Therefore $`L`$ is $`F`$-ample. Now suppose that $`L`$ is $`F`$-ample. As above, it suffices to show that for any ideal sheaf $`I`$, $`H^1(IL^n)=0`$ for some $`n>0`$. But this is easily seen by choosing a thickening of $`(X,L,I)`$ applying the previous case on a closed fiber, using semicontinuity to deduce this for the generic fiber, then flat base change to deduce the vanishing for $`X`$. ∎

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`,_0\mathrm{}`$ be coherent sheaves on a projective variety $`X`$. Assume either that $`X`$ is smooth or that these sheaves are locally free. Then the following statements hold.

1. Given an exact sequence $`0_1_2_30`$, $`\varphi (_2)max(\varphi (_1),\varphi (_3))`$.
2. Let

$$0_n_{n1}\mathrm{}_00$$

be an exact sequence such that for each $`i`$, $`\varphi (_i)i+l`$, then $`\varphi ()l`$.
3. Let $`0^0^1\mathrm{}^n0`$ be an exact sequence such that for each $`i`$, $`\varphi (^i)li`$ then $`\varphi ()l`$.
4. Let $`f:YX`$ be a proper morphism of projective varieties such that $`d`$ is the maximum dimension of the closed fibers. If $``$ is locally free then $`\varphi (f^{})\varphi ()+d`$. In particular, if $`f`$ is a closed immersion, then $`\varphi (f^{})\varphi ()`$.
5. If $`f:YX`$ is an étale morphism of smooth projective varieties, then $`\varphi (f_{})=\varphi ()`$.

###### Proof.

The first statement is obvious, and second and third follow from lemma 2.1

For the remaining statements, we will assume that $`chark=p>0`$, the characteristic $`0`$ case is a straightforward semicontinuity argument. There is a commutative diagram

(1)
Suppose that $`f`$ is proper with fibers of dimension $`d`$. If $``$ is a locally free $`O_X`$-module, and $``$ a coherent $`O_Y`$-module, then $`H^i(^{(p^m)}R^jf_{})=0`$ for $`i>\varphi ()`$ and $`m>>0`$. Therefore the Leray spectral sequence implies

$$H^i((f^{})^{(p^m)})=0$$

for $`i>\varphi ()+d`$ and $`m>>0`$.

If $`f:YX`$ is étale, then the above diagram is cartesian. Furthermore, $`F_X`$ and $`F_Y`$ are both flat when $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are smooth. Cohomology commutes with flat base change, therefore for any coherent $`O_Y`$-module $``$ and locally free $`O_X`$-module $``$,

$$H^i(X,(f_{})^{(p^m)})H^i(Y,^{(p^m)}f^{}),$$

and this implies the equality of amplitudes. ∎

These result easily extend to the case of $`F`$-amplititude relative to a divisor. Here we just treat one case that will be needed later.

###### Lemma 2.5.

Let $`YX`$ be a morphism of varieties with $`Y`$ smooth. Suppose that $`D=D_i`$ is a divisor with normal crossings on $`Y`$, such that there exist $`a_i0`$ for which $`L=O_Y(a_iD_i)`$ is relatively ample. Then for any locally free sheaf $``$ on $`X`$, $`\varphi (f^{},D)\varphi ()`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is very similar case (4), of the previous theorem. Assume $`chark=p`$, and choose $`n_0`$ such that $`p^{n_0}>a_i`$. Set $`^{}=f^{}^{(p^{n_0})}L`$ and let $``$ be another coherent sheaf on $`Y`$. Since $`L`$ is relatively ample, the higher direct images of $`L^N`$ vanish for $`N>>0`$. Therefore, the spectral sequence

$$H^a(^{(p^{n+n_0})}R^bf_{}(L^{p^n}))H^i((^{})^{(p^n)})$$

yields the vanishing of the abutment for $`i>\varphi ()`$ and $`n>>0`$. ∎

###### Corollary 2.6.

Suppose that $`k`$ has characteristic $`0`$. If $`f:YX`$ is a resolution of singularities such that the exceptional divisor $`D`$ has normal crossings, then $`\varphi (f^{},D)\varphi ()`$. If $`g:ZX`$ is any resolution of singularities, then $`\varphi _{gen}(g^{})\varphi ()`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`f`$ can be realized as the blow up of $`X`$ along an ideal, it follows that we can find a relatively ample divisor of the form $`a_iD_i`$. with $`a_i0`$ where the $`D_i`$ are the irreducible components of $`D_{red}`$. The first assertion clearly implies that second, since $`Z`$ can be blown up further. ∎

###### Corollary 2.7.

Suppose that $`k`$ has characterisitic $`0`$. If $`g:ZX`$ is a surjective morphism with $`Z`$ smooth, then $`\varphi _{gen}(g^{})\varphi ()+d`$, where $`d`$ is the dimension of the generic fiber.

###### Proof.

Construct the following commutative diagram:

where $`\gamma `$ is a generically finite rational map (which exists by Noether’s normalization lemma), $`\delta `$ is the projection, $`\alpha `$ is a resolution of the indeterminacy locus of $`\gamma `$, and $`YY^{}^d\times X`$ the Stein factorization of $`\beta `$. By theorem 1 (4) and the previous corollary (applied to $`\delta \kappa `$ and $`ϵ`$ respectively),

$$\varphi _{gen}(g^{})\varphi _{gen}(\alpha ^{}g^{})\varphi ((\delta \kappa )^{})\varphi ()+d.$$

## 3. Asymptotic regularity

Fix a very ample line bundle $`O_X(1)`$ on a projective variety $`X`$. Recall that a coherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ is $`m`$-regular \[M\] provided that $`H^i((mi))=0`$ for $`i>0`$. The regularity $`reg()`$ of a sheaf $``$ is the least $`m`$ such that $``$ is $`m`$-regular. Let $`Reg(X)=max(1,reg(O_X))`$. Although we will not need this, it is worth remarking that $`Reg(X)=reg(O_X)`$ unless $`(X,O_X(1))`$ is a projective space with an ample line bundle of degree $`1`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $``$ be $`0`$-regular coherent sheaf, then it is globally generated and

$$ker[H^0()O_X]$$

is $`Reg(X)`$-regular.

###### Proof.

The global generation of $`0`$-regular sheaves is due to \[M, p. 100\]. Let $`R=Reg(X)`$ and $`K=ker[H^0()O_X]`$. By definition $`R1`$. We have an exact sequence

$$0K(Ri)H^0()O_X(Ri)(Ri)0.$$

From the long exact of cohomology groups and $`R+1`$-regularity of $`O_X`$ and the $`R`$-regularity of $``$ \[loc. cit.\], we can conclude that $`H^i(K(Ri))=0`$ for $`i>1`$. As the multiplications

$$H^0()H^0(O_X(i))H^0((i))$$

are surjective for $`i0`$ \[loc. cit.\], $`H^1(K(R1))`$ injects into $`H^1(O_X(R1))=0`$. Therefore $`K`$ is $`R`$-regular. ∎

###### Corollary 3.2.

Let $``$ be $`m`$-regular, then for any $`N0`$, there exist vector spaces $`V_i`$ and a resolution

$$V_NO_X(mNR)\mathrm{}V_1O_X(mR)V_0O_X(m)0$$

where $`R=Reg(X)`$.

###### Proof.

After replacing $``$ by $`(m)`$, we may assume that $`m=0`$. Therefore $``$ is generated by its global sections $`V_0=H^0()`$. Let $`K_0=(R)`$ and $`K_1`$ be the kernel of the surjection $`V_0O_XK_0(R)`$. Then $`K_1(R)`$ is $`0`$-regular, so we can continue the above process indefinitely and define vectors spaces $`V_i`$ and sheaves $`K_i`$ which fit into exact sequences

$$0K_{i+1}V_iO_XK_i(R)0.$$

After tensoring these with $`O_X(iR)`$, we can splice these sequences together to obtain the desired resolution. ∎

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $``$ be a coherent sheaf on $`X`$, and let $`n`$ be the greatest integer strictly less than $`reg()/Reg(X)`$. Then

$$\varphi ()max(dimXn1,0).$$

In particular, $``$ is $`F`$-ample if $`reg()<Reg(X)(dimX1)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`m=reg()`$, $`R=Reg(X)`$ and $`d=dimX`$. We may assume $`dn1>0`$, otherwise the lemma is trivially true. By corollary 3.2, there exists a resolution

$$0_{n+1}_n\mathrm{}_00$$

where $`_i=V_iO_X(miR)`$ for $`in`$, and

$$_{n+1}=ker[V_nO_X(mnR)V_{n1}O_X(m(n1)R)].$$

When $`in`$, we have $`miR>0`$, therefore $`\varphi (_i)=0i+dn1`$ by lemma 2.4. Also $`\varphi (_{n+1})d=(n+1)+dn1`$. Consequently the lemma follows from theorem 1 (2). ∎

Suppose that $`chark=p>0`$. Let

$$minreg()=\underset{n}{inf}\{reg^{(p^n)}\}.$$

###### Corollary 3.4.

For any coherent sheaf $``$,

$$\varphi ()max(dimXn1,0),$$

where $`n`$ is the greatest integer strictly less than $`minreg()/Reg(X)`$.

###### Proof.

Apply the lemma to all powers $`^{(p^n)}`$. ∎

When $`chark=p>0`$, we define the asymptotic regularity

$$areg()=lim\underset{n}{sup}reg^{(p^n)}.$$

Of course $`minreg()areg()`$, but equality will usually fail. For example, $`minreg(O_X(1))<areg(O_X(1))=\mathrm{}`$. When $`chark=0`$, define $`areg()`$ to be the infimum of $`sup_q[areg(_q)]`$ over all thickenings of $`(X,,O_X(1))`$. In other words, $`areg()m`$ if and only if $`areg(_q)m`$ for almost all $`q`$ for a given thickening.

###### Lemma 3.5.

($`chark=p`$) Let $``$ be a coherent sheaf. The following statements are equivalent

1. $``$ is $`F`$-ample.
2. $`areg()=\mathrm{}`$.
3. $`minreg()<Reg(X)(dimX1)`$

###### Proof.

If $``$ is $`F`$-ample, then clearly $`reg(^{(p^n)})\mathrm{}`$ which is the content of 2. The implication $`23`$ follows from the inequality $`minreg()areg()`$. The implication $`31`$ follows from corollary 3.4. ∎

###### Corollary 3.6.

Conditions (1) and (2) are equivalent in characteristic $`0`$.

In any characteristic, call $``$ F-semipositive (with respect to $`O_X(1)`$) if and only if $`areg()<\mathrm{}`$. We will see, shortly, that this notion is independent of the choice of $`O_X(1)`$. The previous lemma shows that an $`F`$-ample sheaf is $`F`$-semipositive.

###### Lemma 3.7.

Let $`N+1d=dimX`$. If

$$_N_{N1}\mathrm{}_00$$

is an exact sequence of coherent sheaves on $`X`$, then

$$reg()\mathrm{max}\{reg(_0),reg(_1)1,\mathrm{}reg(_{d1})d\}$$

###### Proof.

Extend this to a sequence

$$0_{N+1}_N\mathrm{}_00.$$

The regularity estimate follows from lemma 2.1 and the fact that $`m`$-regular sheaves are $`m^{}`$-regular for all $`m^{}m`$ \[M, p. 100\]. ∎

###### Proposition 3.8.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a morphism of projective varieties. Assume that $`Y`$ is equipped with a very ample line bundle $`O_Y(1)`$. Let $``$ be a coherent sheaf on $`Y`$ which is F-semipositive with respect to $`O_Y(1)`$. If $`𝒯or_i^{f^1O_Y}(O_X,)=0`$ for all $`i>0`$ (e. g. if $`f`$ is flat, or $``$ is locally free), then $`f^{}`$ is F-semipositive with respect to $`O_X(1)`$.

###### Proof.

We give the proof in positive characteristic. By hypothesis and corollary 3.2, there exists a resolution.

$$V_NO_Y(mNR)\mathrm{}V_1O_Y(mR)V_0O_Y(m)^{(p^n)}0$$

where the constants $`m,R,N>>0`$ can be chosen independently of $`n`$. This stays exact after applying $`f^{}`$ by our assumptions. Therefore the regularity of $`f^{}(^{(p^n)})=(f^{})^{(p^n)}`$ stays bounded as $`n\mathrm{}`$ by lemma 3.7. ∎

###### Corollary 3.9.

Let $`O_X(1)^{}`$ be another very ample line bundle on $`X`$, then a sheaf $``$ is F-semipositive with respect to $`O_X(1)`$ if and only if it is F-semipositive with respect to $`O_X(1)^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Apply the proposition to the identity map. ∎

Recall that a locally free sheaf $``$ on $`X`$ is nef (or numerically semipositive) if for any curve $`f:CX`$, any quotient of $`f^{}`$ has nonnegative degree. In characteristic $`0`$, it is convenient to introduce an ostensibly stronger property: $``$ is arithmetically nef if there is a thickening $`(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{})`$ over $`SpecA`$ such that the restriction of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ to the fibers are nef. To simplify the statements, we define arithmetically nef to be synonymous with nef in positive characteristic. Further discussion of these matters can be found in the appendix. The name $`F`$-semipositive stems from the following:

###### Lemma 3.10.

If $``$ is an $`F`$-semipositive locally free sheaf, then it is arithmetically nef.

###### Proof.

By definition, we may work over a field of characteristic $`p>0`$. Suppose that $``$ is a quotient of $`f^{}`$ with negative degree. This implies that $`deg(^{(p^n)})\mathrm{}`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. By proposition 3.8, $`f^{}`$ is F-semipositive, which implies that there is a fixed line bundle $`L`$ such that $`^{(p^n)}L`$ is globally generated for all $`n`$. Therefore $`^{(p^n)}L`$ is globally generated for all $`n`$ which implies that $`deg(^{(p^n)})`$ is bounded below. This is a contradiction. ∎

For line bundles, the converse is given by proposition B.1. However, it fails for higher rank (example 5.8).

## 4. Tensor products

###### Theorem 2.

Let $``$ and $``$ be two vector bundles on a smooth projective variety $`X`$, then

$$\varphi ()\varphi ()+\varphi ().$$

###### Proof.

Assume that $`k`$ is a field of characteristic $`p>0`$. Let $`Y=X\times X`$ and let $`p_i:YX`$ denote the projections. Given two coherent sheaves $`_i`$ on $`X`$, let $`_1_2=p_1^{}_1p_2^{}_2`$. Choose a very ample line bundle $`O_X(1)`$ on $`X`$, then $`L=O(1)O(1)`$ is again very ample. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ be the diagonal. Choose $`\nu >>0`$. By corollary 3.2, we can construct a resolution

(2)
$$0𝒢_{\nu +1}𝒢_\nu \mathrm{}𝒢_0O_\mathrm{\Delta }0$$

where $`𝒢_i=V_iL^{a_i}`$ for $`i\nu `$.

The Frobenius map $`F_Y=F_X\times F_X`$. Thus using Künneth’s formula \[EGA, III, 6.7.8\], for any $`b`$ we get

$`H^i(𝒢_jL^bF_Y^N())`$ $`=`$ $`V_jH^i(^{(p^N)}(b+a_j)^{(p^N)}(b+a_j))`$
$`=`$ $`V_j{\displaystyle \underset{c+d=i}{}}H^c(^{(p^N)}(b+a_j))H^d(^{(p^N)}(b+a_j))`$
$`=`$ $`0`$
for $`i>\varphi ()+\varphi ()`$, $`j\nu `$ and $`N>>0`$. Tensoring (2) by $`L^bF_Y^N()`$ and applying lemma 2.1 shows that

$`H^i(()^{(p^N)}(2b))`$ $`=`$ $`H^i(O_\mathrm{\Delta }L^bF_Y^N())`$
$`=`$ $`0`$
for $`i>\varphi ()+\varphi ()`$ and $`N>>0`$. Thus corollary 2.3 gives the desired bound on $`\varphi ()`$.

If $`chark=0`$, then we can carry out the above argument on the fiber of some thickening. ∎

###### Corollary 4.1.

The tensor product of two $`F`$-ample bundles is $`F`$-ample.

###### Corollary 4.2.

Let $`D`$ and $`E`$ be reduced effective divisors such that $`D+E`$ has normal crossings. Suppose that $``$ and $``$ are a pair of vector bundles with critical divisors $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ along $`D`$ and $`E`$ respectively. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is strictly fractional, i.e. has all its multiplicities less then $`1`$, then

$$\varphi (,D+E)\varphi (,D)+\varphi (,E).$$

###### Proof.

We can find $`n,m`$ such that $`\varphi (,D)=\varphi (^{(p^n)}(D^{}))`$ and $`\varphi (,E)=\varphi (^{(p^m)}(E^{}))`$ where $`D^{}=p^n\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`E^{}=p^m\mathrm{\Xi }`$. After replacing $`E^{}`$ by $`p^{nm}E^{}`$, or the other way around, we can assume that $`m=n`$. Therefore

$$()^{(p^n)}(D^{}E^{})=^{(p^n)}(D^{})^{(p^n)}(E^{})$$

has $`F`$-amplitude bounded by the sum. ∎

###### Remark 4.3.

If $`D`$ and $`E`$ are disjoint, then the conditions on the critical divisors are automatic.

###### Theorem 3.

Let $``$ and $``$ be two coherent sheaves on $`X`$ such that one of them is locally free and $``$ is F-semipositive, then

$$\varphi ()\varphi ().$$

###### Proof.

Assume that $`chark=p>0`$. Let $`m=areg()`$, $`N>>0`$ and $`R=Reg(X)`$. Then $`reg(^{(p^\mu )})m`$ for all but finitely many $`\mu `$. Given a locally free sheaf $`𝒢`$, choose $`\mu _0`$, so that

$$H^i(^{(p^\mu )}𝒢(mjR))=0$$

for all $`\mu >\mu _0`$, $`i>\varphi ()`$, and $`j=0,1,\mathrm{}N`$. By increasing $`\mu _0`$, if necessary, we can assume that $`^{(p^\mu )}`$ is $`m`$-regular when $`\mu >\mu _o`$. From corollary 3.2, we obtain a resolution

$$0_{N+1}_N\mathrm{}_00$$

where $`_i=V_iO_X(miR)`$ for $`iN`$. Tensoring this by $`^{(p^\mu )}𝒢`$ and applying lemma 2.1 shows that

$$H^i(()^{(p^\mu )}𝒢)=0$$

when $`\mu >\mu _0`$ and $`i>\varphi ()`$.

If $`chark=0`$, then we can carry out the above argument on the fiber of some thickening. ∎

We can refine corollary 4.1.

###### Corollary 4.4.

The tensor product of an $`F`$-ample vector bundle and an F-semipositive vector bundle is $`F`$-ample .

## 5. Characterization of $`F`$-ample sheaves on special varieties

It is possible to give an elementary characterization of $`F`$-ampleness for curves and projective spaces. Recall that a vector bundle $``$ over a variety $`X`$ defined over a field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p`$ is $`p`$-ample \[H1\] if for any coherent sheaf $``$ there exists $`n_0`$ such that $`^{(p^n)}`$ is globally generated for all $`nn_0`$.

###### Lemma 5.1.

An $`F`$-ample vector bundle $``$ is $`p`$-ample.

###### Proof.

Suppose $``$ is a coherent sheaf. Since the regularity of the sheaves $`^{(p^n)}\mathrm{}`$, these sheaves are globally generated for $`n>>0`$. ∎

###### Corollary 5.2.

An $`F`$-ample vector bundle $``$ is ample.

###### Proof.

\[H1, 6.3\]

As we will see the converse to both statements fail in general.

###### Lemma 5.3.

If $``$ is a $`p`$-ample vector bundle on a projective variety $`X`$, then $`\varphi ()<dimX`$.

###### Proof.

Choose a coherent sheaf $``$. Let $`L`$ to be the $`N`$th power of an ample line bundle, chosen large enough so that $`H^i(L)=0`$ for $`i>0`$. Then for all $`n>>0`$, $`_n=^{(p^n)}L^1`$ is globally generated. Therefore

$$H^0(_n)L^{(p^n)}$$

is surjective. It follows that the top degree cohomology of the right hand vanishes for $`n>>0`$. ∎

This leads to a complete characterization for curves.

###### Proposition 5.4.

Let $``$ be a coherent sheaf over a smooth projective curve $`X`$ defined over a field $`k`$, then the following are equivalent

1. $``$ is $`F`$-ample.
2. $`/torsion`$ is $`p`$-ample when $`chark=p`$.
3. $`/torsion`$ is ample.

###### Proof.

Since $``$ is a direct sum of $`/torsion`$ with the torsion part, we may assume that $``$ is a vector bundle. Suppose $`chark=p`$. Then the equivalence of the first two statements follows from lemmas 5.1 and 5.3. The equivalence of the last two from \[H1, 6.3, 7.3\].

If $`chark=0`$, we can deduce the equivalence of (1) and (3) from the previous cases, because ampleness is an open condition. ∎

Now, we turn to projective space. For integers $`ab`$, let $`[a,b]=\{a,a+1,\mathrm{},b\}`$.

###### Theorem 4.

Let $``$ be a coherent sheaf on the projective space $`_k^n`$, then

$$\varphi ()=min\{i_0|H^i(_k^n,(j))=0,i>i_0,j[n1,0]\}$$

In particular, $``$ is $`F`$-ample if and only if $`H^i((j))=0`$ for all $`j[n1,0]`$ and $`i>0`$.

This leads to a characterization of $`F`$-ample bundles on $`^n=_k^n`$. For a slightly different characterization, see \[Mi, sect. 4\]. The key step in the proof of theorem 4 is the following proposition.

###### Proposition 5.5.

Let $`\pi :^n^n`$ be a finite morphism, and let $`d`$ be the degree of $`\pi ^{}O(1)`$.

1. For each $`i`$, $`\pi _{}O(i)`$ is a direct sum of line bundles.
2. If $`dn1<i<d`$ then $`\pi _{}O(i)`$ is a sum of line bundles of the form $`O(l)`$ with $`l[n1,0]`$.
3. There exists a constant $`C`$ depending only on $`n`$, such that if $`d>C`$, then for each $`O(l)`$ with $`l[n1,0]`$, $`O(l)`$ occurs as a component of $`\pi _{}O(i)`$ for some $`i[n1,0]`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\pi `$ is finite,

$$H^a((\pi _{}O(i))O(j))=H^a(O(i+dj))$$

for all $`a,i`$ and $`j`$. In particular, these groups vanish for all $`0<a<n`$ and all $`j`$. Therefore $`\pi _{}O(i)`$ splits into a sum of line bundles by a theorem of Horrocks \[Ho\].

If $`dn1<i<d`$, then

$$H^n((\pi _{}O(i))O(1))=H^n(O(i+d))=0$$

and

$$H^0((\pi _{}O(i))O(1))=H^0(O(id))=0.$$

This implies the second statement.

Let $`p_m(x)=\left(\begin{array}{c}x+m\\ m\end{array}\right)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_xp)(x,y,\mathrm{})=p(x,y,\mathrm{})p(x1,y,\mathrm{})`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_xp_m(x)=p_{m1}(x)`$.

Choose $`n1i0`$. Let us write

$$\pi _{}O(i)=\underset{l}{}O(l)^{f(l,i)}.$$

By comparing cohomology of $`\pi _{}O(i)`$ and $`O(i)`$, we see that $`S=\{l|f(l,i)0\}`$ is contained in $`[n,0]`$ if $`i=0`$, $`S`$ is contained in $`[n,1]`$ if $`n1<i<0`$, and $`S`$ is contained in $`[n1,1]`$ if $`i=n1`$. Furthermore $`f(0,0)=f(n1,n1)=1`$, and this shows that the proposition holds true for $`l=0,n1`$. We now assume that $`nl0`$. Tensoring $`\pi _{}O(i)`$ by $`O(x)`$ and computing Euler characteristics yields:

(3)
$$\underset{l}{}f(l,i)p_n(x+l)=p_n(dx+i).$$

Setting $`x=0`$ yields

$$f(0,i)=p_n(i).$$

Applying $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ to equation (3) and setting $`x=0`$ yields

$$(1)^{n1}f(n,i)=(p_n(i)f(0,i))p_n(id)$$

hence

$$f(n,i)=(1)^np_n(id).$$

Applying $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2`$ to equation (3) and setting $`x=0`$ yields

$$(1)^{n2}(n1)f(n,i)+(1)^{n2}f(n+1,i)=(p_n(i)f(0,i))2p_n(id)+p_n(i2d)$$

hence

$$f(n+1,i)=(1)^{n1}(n+1)p_n(id)+(1)^{n2}p_n(i2d).$$

Doing this repeatedly gives a formula for each $`f(l,i)`$, with $`n1<l<0`$, which is a nonzero polynomial of degree at most $`n`$ in $`i`$ and $`d`$. Choosing a specific $`d>>0`$ (for $`n`$ fixed) forces $`f(l,i)`$ to be a nonzero polynomial in $`i`$ of degree at most $`n`$. Therefore $`f(l,i)0`$ for some $`i`$ in the range $`ni0`$. ∎

We need the following (presumably well known) version of the projection formula.

###### Lemma 5.6.

If $`\pi :XY`$ is a finite map of quasiprojective schemes, then $`\pi _{}(\pi ^{})\pi _{}`$.

###### Proof.

Choose a resolution $`_1_00`$ by vector bundles $`_i`$. There is a diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}_1\pi _{}& & _0\pi _{}& & \pi _{}& & 0\\ & & & & & & \\ \pi _{}(\pi ^{}_1)& & \pi _{}(\pi ^{}_0)& & \pi _{}(\pi ^{})& & 0\end{array}$$

where the first two vertical arrows are isomorphisms by the usual projection formula. This implies that the third arrow is also an isomorphism. ∎

###### Proof of theorem 4.

As usual, we prove the result in positive characteristic; the characteristic zero case is a formal consequence. To begin with, we show $`H^i((j))=0`$ for $`i>\varphi ()`$ and $`j[n1,0]`$. First assume $`chark=p>0`$. Choose $`m>>0`$, then $`O(j)`$ is a direct summand of some $`F_{}^mO(l)`$ for $`l[n1,0]`$ by the previous proposition. Therefore by the projection formula (lemma 5.6),

$$H^i((j))H^i(F_{}^mO(l))=H^i(^{(p^m)}O(l))=0.$$

Conversely, suppose that $`H^i((j))=0`$ for all $`i>i_0`$ and $`j[n1,0]`$. For any integer $`l`$, we can choose $`m>>0`$ so that $`F_{}^mO(l)`$ is a direct of line bundles $`O(j)`$ with $`j[n1,0]`$. Therefore

$$H^i(^{(p^m)}O(l))=H^i(F_{}^mO(l))=0$$

for $`i>i_0`$. Since any coherent sheaf $``$ on $`^n`$ has a finite resolution by direct sums of line bundles, this shows that $`H^i(^{(p^m)})=0`$ for $`m>>0`$ and $`i>i_0`$ (by the same argument as in the proof of corollary 2.3). ∎

The theorem yields improvements on the regularity estimates of the previous section.

###### Corollary 5.7.

An $`F`$-ample sheaf $``$ on $`^n`$ is $`(1)`$-regular; in particular $`(1)`$ is globally generated.

###### Example 5.8.

The tangent bundle $`T`$ of $`^n`$ is ample and in fact $`p`$-ample in positive characteristic, but $`T`$ is not $`F`$-ample if $`n2`$, because $`H^{n1}(T(n1))=H^1(\mathrm{\Omega }^1)^{}0`$. The bundle $`T(1)`$ is globally generated, and therefore nef. However, it cannot be $`F`$-semipositive, since otherwise $`T`$ would be $`F`$-ample by corollary 4.4.

###### Example 5.9.

Let $`X`$ be a projective variety with an ample line bundle $`L`$. Embed $`i:X^n`$ using a large multiple of $`L`$. Then $`L`$ is $`F`$-ample but $`i_{}L`$ is not, because the conclusion of the above corollary fails. Therefore theorem 1 (5) fails for nonétale finite maps.

###### Corollary 5.10.

A vector bundle on $`^2`$ is $`F`$-ample if and only if it is isomorphic to a sum of the form $`EO(1)^N`$ where $`E`$ is $`(2)`$-regular.

###### Proof.

A direct sum of a $`(2)`$-regular sheaf and a bunch of $`O(1)`$’s satisfies the conditions of the theorem by \[M, p. 100\].

Now suppose that $`V`$ is a $`F`$-ample vector bundle. It is $`(1)`$-regular by the previous corollary, and therefore $`V(1)`$ is generated by global sections. Suppose that $`H^2(V(4))0`$. Then by Serre duality, there is a nonzero morphism $`V(1)O`$ and let $`V^{}`$ be the kernel twisted by $`O(1)`$. Since the map $`H^0(V(1))OO`$ must split, it follows that the map $`V(1)O`$ also splits. Therefore $`V^{}`$ is again $`(1)`$-regular, so we can continue splitting off copies of $`O(1)`$ from $`V`$ until we arrive at a summand $`E`$ with $`H^2(E(4))=0`$. Since we also have $`H^1(E(3))=0`$, it follows that $`E`$ is $`(2)`$-regular. ∎

## 6. $`F`$-amplitude of ample bundles

As we have seen, ample vector bundles need not be $`F`$-ample. However, we do have an estimate on their amplitude, at least in characteristic $`0`$.

###### Theorem 5.

Let $`X`$ be a projective variety over a field of characteristic $`0`$ and let $``$ be an ample vector bundle of rank $`r`$ on $`X`$. Then $`\varphi ()<r`$.

Keeler has found that the inequality $`\varphi ()<dimX`$ also holds for ample vector bundles (proposition D.3).

Before giving the proof, we need to review some results from (modular) representation theory. We will choose our notations consistent with those of \[A2\]. Let $`A`$ be a commutative ring and $`E=A^r`$. Fix a partition $`\lambda =(\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{})`$ of weight $`|\lambda |=_i\lambda _i`$. The Schur power $`𝕊^\lambda (E)`$ can be constructed as the space of global sections of a line bundle associated to $`\lambda `$ over the scheme $`Flag(E)`$ of flags on $`E`$. A more elementary construction is possible; $`𝕊^\lambda (E)`$ can be defined as a quotient of $`^{|\lambda |}`$ by an explicit set of relations involving $`\lambda `$ \[F, 8.1\]. This quotient map can be split using a Young symmetrizer when $`A`$ contains $``$, but not in general. The paper \[CL\] gives essentially a dual construction; their Weyl module $`E_\lambda `$ coincides with our $`𝕊^\lambda ^{}(E)^{}`$ where $`\lambda ^{}`$ is the conjugate partition (see \[J, p 251\] for the comparison with the first construction). We will need to make the initial description more explicit. Let $`\pi _k:Flag(E)Grass_k(E)`$ be the canonical map to the Grassmannian of $`k`$-dimensional quotients of $`E`$, and $`i_k`$ its Plücker embedding. Then

$$𝕊^\lambda (E)=H^0(Flag(E),L_\lambda )$$

where $`a_i=\lambda _i\lambda _{i+1}`$ and

$$L_\lambda =\underset{k}{}\pi _k^{}i_k^{}O_{(^kE)}(a_k).$$

At the two extremes, $`𝕊^{(n)}(E)=S^n(E)`$ and $`𝕊^{(1,1,\mathrm{}1)}(E)=^i(E)`$ where $`i`$ is the length of the string. These Schur powers turn out to be free $`A`$-modules, and since the constructions are functorial, they carry $`GL_r(A)`$ actions. When $`A=k`$ is a field of characteristic $`0`$, the $`GL_r(k)`$-modules $`𝕊^\lambda (E)`$ are all irreducible. This is no longer true when $`A=k`$ is a field of characteristic $`p>0`$. For example, the symmetric power $`S^p(E)`$ contains a nontrivial submodule $`E^{(p)}`$ which is the representation associated to the $`p`$th power map $`GL_r(k)GL_r(k)`$. This inclusion can be extended to a resolution:

###### Theorem 6.

(Carter-Lusztig \[CL, pg 235\]) If $`k`$ is a field of characteristic $`p>0`$. Then there exists an exact sequence of $`GL_r(k)`$-modules

$$0E^{(p)}𝕊^{(p)}(E)𝕊^{(p1,1)}(E)𝕊^{(p2,1,1)}(E)\mathrm{}𝕊^\lambda (E)0$$

where $`\lambda =(p\mathrm{min}(p1,r1),1,1\mathrm{})`$.

These constructions are easy to globalize to the case where $`E`$ is replaced by a vector bundle $``$. In this case, the two meanings of $`^{(p)}`$ agree.

###### Corollary 6.1.

If $``$ is a vector bundle over a scheme $`X`$ defined over a field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p>0`$, then there exists a resolution of $`^{(p)}`$ as above.

Suppose we are in the situation of theorem 5. Choose a line bundle $`M`$ on $`X`$. Let $`(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ be an arithmetic thickening over $`SpecA`$. After shrinking $`SpecA`$ we can assume that $``$ is locally free. Then we have vector bundles $`𝕊^\lambda (\stackrel{~}{})`$ over $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$. Fix a partition $`\lambda `$. Then for any natural number $`N`$, we get a new partition $`(N)+\lambda =(N+\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{})`$.

###### Lemma 6.2.

With notation and assumptions as above (specifically that $``$ is ample), there exists an integer $`N_0`$ such that

$$H^i(\stackrel{~}{X},𝕊^{(N)+\lambda }(\stackrel{~}{})\stackrel{~}{M})=0$$

for $`NN_0`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\pi :Flag()X`$ be the bundle of flags on $``$. To simplify notation, we will write $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ instead of $`\pi ^{}\stackrel{~}{M}`$. The fibers of $`\pi `$ are partial flag varieties. The higher cohomology groups of $`L_{(N)+\lambda }`$ along these fibers are zero by Kempf’s vanishing theorem (see for example \[J, II, 4.5\]). Therefore the higher direct images vanish, and consequently the Leray spectral sequence yields isomorphisms

$$H^i(\stackrel{~}{X},𝕊^{(N)+\lambda }(\stackrel{~}{})\stackrel{~}{M})H^i(Flag(),L_{(N)+\lambda }\stackrel{~}{M}).$$

Let $`\pi _1:Flag()()`$ be the canonical projection. For reasons similar to those above, there are isomorphisms

$$H^i(Flag(),L_{(N)+\lambda }\stackrel{~}{M})H^i((),\pi _1L_{(N)+\lambda }\stackrel{~}{M}).$$

By the projection formula, the right hand side is the cohomology of $`O_{()}(N)\pi _{}(L_\lambda )\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Since $`O(1)`$ is ample, these groups vanish for $`N>>0`$ and $`i>0`$. ∎

###### Corollary 6.3.

With the notation of section 1, given $`a>0`$, there exists $`N_0`$

$$H^i(X_q,𝕊^{(N)+\lambda }(_q)M_q^n)=0$$

for all $`i>0`$ , $`0na`$, $`NN_0`$ and closed points $`qSpecA`$.

###### Proof.

\[H3, III. 12.9\]

###### Proof of theorem 5.

Choose $`M=O_X(1)`$ with $`O_X(1)`$ very ample. Let $`C<<0`$ be a constant. By corollary 6.3, there exists a $`N_0`$ such that the sheaves $`𝕊^{(Ni,1,\mathrm{}1)}(_q))`$ ($`0i<r`$) have regularity less than $`C`$ for all $`NN_0`$ and all closed points $`qSpecA`$. In particular, there exits a nonempty open set $`USpecA`$ such that

$$reg(𝕊^{(p(q)i,1,\mathrm{}1)}(_q))<C$$

for all closed $`qU`$ ($`p(q)=charA/q`$). By lemma 3.3, these sheaves are $`F`$-ample. Then the Carter-Lusztig resolution (which has length bounded by $`r=rank()`$) together with lemma 2.1 shows that $`\varphi ()<r`$. ∎

###### Corollary 6.4.

Let $`_i`$ be ample vector bundles. Then

$$\varphi (_1_2\mathrm{}_m)<rank(_1)+rank(_2)+\mathrm{}rank(_m).$$

The analogue for a pair is the following:

###### Theorem 7.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety defined over a field of characteristic $`0`$, and let $``$ be a vector bundle of rank $`r`$ on $`X`$. Suppose there exists a reduced normal crossing divisor $`D`$, a positive integer $`n`$, and a divisor $`0D^{}<_{strict}nD`$ such that $`S^n()(D^{})`$ is ample. Then $`\varphi (,D)<r`$.

###### Remark 6.5.

The hypothesis amounts to the condition that the “vector bundle” $`(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is ample for some fractional effective $``$-divisor $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{n}D^{}`$ supported on $`D`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is very similar to the previous one, so we will just summarize the main points. Let $`M=O_X(1)`$ with $`O_X(1)`$ very ample. Choose a thickening of $`(X,,D,M)`$. A small modification of corollary 6.3 shows that the regularity of the sheaves

$$𝕊^{(Nn+ji,1,\mathrm{}1)}(_q)(ND_q^{}),\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}i<r,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}<j<n$$

can be made less than a given $`C`$ for all $`N`$ greater than some $`N_0`$ depending on $`C`$. All but finitely primes are of the form $`Nn+j`$ for $`N`$ and $`j`$ as above. Thus the above sheaves will be $`F`$-ample for almost all $`q`$. The Carter-Lusztig resolution shows that $`\varphi (^{(p(q))}(ND^{}))<r`$ which implies the theorem. ∎

## 7. An $`F`$-ampleness criterion

The notion of geometric positivity was introduced in \[A2\]. Although the methods are very different, there appear to be some parallels between $`F`$-ampleness and geometric positivity. The following result is an analogue of \[loc. cit., cor. 3.10\].

###### Theorem 8.

Let $``$ be a rank $`r`$ vector bundle on a smooth projective variety $`X`$ such that $`det()`$ is ample and $`S^{rN}()det()^N`$ is globally generated for some $`N>0`$ prime to $`chark`$. Then $``$ is $`F`$-ample.

###### Remark 7.1.

The hypothesis that $`S^{rN}()det()^N`$ is globally generated implies that $``$ is strongly semistable in the sense of \[A2, p. 247\]. We leave it as an open problem to determine whether $`F`$-ampleness follows only assuming strong semistability of $``$ and ampleness of $`det()`$.

As usual all the work will be in characteristic $`p>0`$. Let $`q=p^n`$ for some $`n>0`$. In this section we will modify our previous conventions, and write $`F_X:XX`$ for the absolute $`q`$th power Frobenius. Let $`=()`$ and $`^{}=(^{(q)})`$ with canonical projections denoted by $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$. Consider the commutative diagram

where the right hand square is cartesian. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the relative $`q`$th power Frobenius associated to $`\pi `$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N=S^{rN}()det()^N`$.

###### Proposition 7.2.

If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{q1}`$ is globally generated, then $`O_{^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}O_{}`$ splits.

###### Proof.

By Grothendieck duality for finite flat maps \[H3, ex.III 6.10, 7.2\], the proposition is equivalent to the splitting of the trace map

(4)
$$tr:\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\omega _/^{}O_{^{}}$$

We have

$$F_{}^{}O_{}(1)=O_{}(q)$$

$$\varphi ^{}O_{}(1)=O_{^{}}(1),$$

therefore

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}O_{^{}}(1)=O_{}(q).$$

Also

$$\omega _{^{}/X}=O_{^{}}(r)(\pi ^{})^{}det(^{(q)})=O_{^{}}(r)(\pi ^{})^{}det()^q$$

$$\omega _{/X}=O_{}(r)\pi ^{}det()$$

\[H3, ex. III 8.4\]. Therefore

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\omega _{^{}/X}=O_{}(qr)\pi ^{}det()^q$$

$$\omega _/^{}=O_{}((q1)r)\pi ^{}det()^{1q}.$$

Observe that

(5)
$$\pi _{}\omega _/^{}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{q1}.$$

Suppose that $`0<i<r`$, then using the projection formula and the previous computations

$`R^i\pi _{}^{}[(\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\omega _/^{})(i)]`$ $`=`$ $`R^i\pi _{}\omega _/^{}(qi)`$
$`=`$ $`R^i\pi _{}O_{}(q(ri)r)\pi ^{}det()^{1q}`$
$`=`$ $`0`$
Thus $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\omega _/^{}`$ is regular relative to $`\pi ^{}`$, and it follows that the canonical map

$$(\pi ^{})^{}\pi _{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\omega _^{}/\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\omega _^{}/$$

is surjective \[FL, V, 2.2\]. By (5), this gives a surjection

(6)
$$(\pi ^{})^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{q1}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\omega _^{}/$$

Composing this with the Grothendieck trace (4), gives a surjection

$$(\pi ^{})^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{q1}O_{^{}}$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{q1}`$ is globally generated, there exists a morphism $`s:O_{^{}}(\pi ^{})^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{q1}`$ such that the composite $`O_{^{}}O_{^{}}`$ is nonzero. This corresponds to an element $`ak^{}=H^0(O_{^{}})\{0\}`$. The composite of $`\frac{1}{a}s`$ with (6) gives a splitting of (4). ∎

###### Corollary 7.3.

With the same assumptions as in the proposition, $`^{(q)}`$ is a direct summand of $`S^q()`$.

###### Proof.

By the projection formula, the canonical map

(7)
$$O_{^{}}(1)\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}O_{^{}}(1)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}O_{}(q)$$

can be identified with

$$O_{^{}}(1)O_{^{}}(1)\mathrm{\Phi }_{}O_{}$$

This splits. Applying $`\pi _{}^{}`$ to (7) yields a split injection $`^{(q)}S^q()`$. ∎

###### Proof of theorem 8.

Choose $`q=p^n1(modN)`$; $`q`$ can be chosen arbitrarily large. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{q1}`$ is globally generated since it is a quotient of $`S^q(\mathrm{\Sigma }_N)`$. It follows that $`^{(q)}`$ is a direct summand of $`S^q()`$. Since $`S^N()=\mathrm{\Sigma }_Ndet()^N`$ is ample, the same is true for $``$. Thus $`reg(^{(q)})=reg(S^q())\mathrm{}`$ as $`q\mathrm{}`$.

This finishes the proof in characteristic $`p`$, the remaining case is handled as usual. ∎

## 8. The main vanishing theorem

As a warm up to the main theorem, we will extend some of the conclusions of theorem 4 to a more general class of spaces called Frobenius split varieties \[MR\]. This means that the map $`O_XF_{}O_X`$ splits (actually, we only need the ostensibly weaker property that this map splits in the derived category). Proposition 7.2 implies that projective spaces are Frobenius split. Other examples of Frobenius split varieties include quotients of semisimple groups by parabolic subgroups \[loc. cit\], and most mod $`p`$ reductions of a smooth Fano variety \[S, 4.11\].

###### Proposition 8.1.

Suppose that $`X`$ is a smooth projective variety such that $`O_XF_{}O_X`$ splits in the derived category of $`O_X`$-modules. Then $`H^i(X,)=0`$ for $`i>\varphi ()`$. If $``$ is locally free, then $`H^i(X,\omega _X)=0`$ for $`i>\varphi ()`$.

###### Proof.

For the first statement, use the fact there is an injection

$$H^i(X,)H^i(X,F_{}O_X)$$

because it splits by hypothesis. On the other hand the projection formula gives

$$H^i(X,F_{}O_X)H^i(X,^{(p)})$$

By iterating we get a sequence of injections

$$H^i()H^i(^{(p)})\mathrm{}H^i(^{(p^n)})=0$$

for $`i>\varphi ()`$ and $`n>>0`$.

We can replace $``$ by $`^{}`$ and $`i`$ by $`dimXi`$ in the above sequence of injections. This together with Serre duality yields the result. ∎

When $``$ is a vector bundle on $`^n`$, the proposition yields the vanishing

$$H^i((jn1))=0$$

for $`j0`$, $`i>\varphi ()\varphi ((j))`$, obtained earlier.

When $`k`$ is a perfect field, let $`W(k)`$ be the ring of Witt vectors over $`k`$, and $`W_2(k)=W(k)/p^2W(k)`$. It is helpful to keep the following example in mind: if $`k=/p`$, then $`W(k)`$ is the ring of $`p`$-adic integers, so that $`W_2(k)/(p^2)`$.

###### Theorem 9.

Let $`k`$ be a perfect field of characteristic $`p>n`$, and let $`X`$ be a smooth $`n`$ dimensional projective $`k`$-variety with a reduced normal crossing divisor $`D`$. Suppose that $``$ is a coherent sheaf on $`X`$. If $`(X,D)`$ can be lifted to a pair over $`SpecW_2(k)`$. Then

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(\mathrm{log}D)(D))=0$$

for $`i+j>n+\varphi (,D)`$.

###### Remark 8.2.

Note that $``$ is not required to lift. It is possible to obtain a weaker statement when $`pn`$, but we won’t need it.

The proof is based on the following lemmas.

###### Lemma 8.3.

Suppose that $`0D^{}pD`$ is a divisor such that

$$H^i(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D^{})^{(p)})=0$$

for all $`i+j>N`$, then

$$H^i(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D_{red}^{}))=0$$

for all $`i+j>N`$.

###### Proof.

Set $`D_1=D_{red}^{}`$ and $`B=pD_1D^{}`$. To avoid confusion, we will say few words about our conventions. The differentials on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{}(logD)(B)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{}(logD)`$ are inherited from the complex of meromorphic forms. All other differentials are induced from these using tensor products and pushforwards. There is a quasi-isomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{}(logD)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{}(logD)(B)$$

where $`B=pD_1D^{}`$ by \[Ha, 3.3\] (see also \[MS, 4.1\]). Tensoring both sides with $`^{(p)}(D^{})`$ yields

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{}(logD)^{(p)}(D^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{}(logD)[(D_1)]^{(p)}.$$

This implies that

$$F_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{}(logD)(D^{})^{(p)})F_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{}(logD)F^{}((D_1))).$$

Lemma 5.6 shows that the right side is quasi-isomorphic to

$$[F_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{}(logD)](D_1)$$

By \[DI, 4.2\] (and the remarks of section 1), this is quasi-isomorphic to

$$\left(\underset{j}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)[j]\right)(D_1).$$

The spectral sequence

$$H^i(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D^{})^{(p)})^{i+j}(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{}(logD)(D^{})^{(p)})$$

together with the hypothesis shows that the abutment vanishes for $`i+j>N`$. Therefore

$$^i(F_{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{}(logD)(D^{})^{(p)}))\underset{j}{}H^{ij}(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D_1))$$

vanishes for $`i>N`$. ∎

###### Lemma 8.4.

Suppose that $`0D^{}p^aD`$ is a divisor such that

$$H^i(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D^{})^{(p^a)})=0$$

for all $`i+j>N`$, then

$$H^i(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D_{red}^{}))=0$$

for all $`i+j>N`$.

###### Proof.

We prove this by induction on $`a`$. The case where $`D^{}=0`$ is straightforward, so we assume that $`D^{}0`$. The initial case $`a=1`$ is the previous lemma. Suppose that the lemma holds for $`a`$, and suppose that $`(,D^{})`$ satisfies the hypothesis of the lemma with $`a`$ replaced by $`a+1`$. Since $`\{1,\mathrm{}p\}`$ forms a set of representatives of $`/p`$, we can decompose $`D^{}=pD_1+D_2`$ such that $`D_{2,red}=D_{red}^{}`$, $`0<D_2pD`$ and $`0D_1<_{strict}p^aD`$. These assumptions guarantee that the divisor $`D_{red}^{}+D_1`$ is less than or equal to $`p^aD`$ and has the same support as $`D^{}`$. Then

$$^{(p^{a+1})}(D^{})=_1^{(p)}(D_2)$$

where $`_1=^{(p^a)}(D_1)`$. By assumption,

$$H^i(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D^{})^{(p^{a+1})})=H^i(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D_2)_1^{(p)})=0$$

for $`i+j>N`$. Lemma 8.3 implies

$$H^i(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D_{red}^{})_1)=H^i(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D_{red}^{}D_1)^{(p^a)})=0$$

for $`i+j>N`$. Induction yields the desired conclusion. ∎

###### Proof of theorem 9.

By definition, $`\varphi (,D)=\varphi (^{(p^a)}(D^{}))`$ for some $`0D^{}<_{strict}p^aD`$. We can assume $`a>>0`$ since we can replace $`^{(p^a)}(D^{})`$ by a Frobenius power. Therefore

$$H^i(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(p^bD^{}D)^{(p^{a+b})})=H^i(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D)(^{(p^a)}(D^{}))^{(p^b)})=0$$

for $`b>>0`$ and all $`i>\varphi (,D)`$ and all $`j`$. Since the support of $`p^bD^{}+D`$ is $`D`$ and the coefficients of this divisor are less than or equal to $`p^{a+b}`$, lemma 8.4 implies the theorem. ∎

###### Corollary 8.5.

Suppose that $`(X,D,)`$ is as above and $`chark=0`$, then

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D))=0$$

for $`i+j>n+\varphi (,D)`$. In particular,

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j)=0$$

for $`i+j>n+\varphi ()`$

###### Proof.

Choose an arithmetic thickening of $`(X,D,)`$. Almost all of the closed fibers satisfies the conditions of the theorem. Therefore the corollary follows by semicontinuity. ∎

###### Corollary 8.6.

Suppose that $`(X,D,,k)`$ is as in theorem or corollary 8.5, and that $`L`$ is an arithmetically nef line bundle on $`X`$. Then

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D)L)=0$$

for $`i+j>n+\varphi (,D)`$.

###### Proof.

By proposition B.1, $`L`$ is $`F`$-semipositive, hence $`\varphi (L,D)=\varphi (,D)`$. So the corollary follows from theorem 9 in positive characteristic, or the previous corollary in characterisitic $`0`$. ∎

###### Corollary 8.7.

Suppose that $`(X,D,,k)`$ satisfy the conditions of the theorem or the corollary 8.5, then

$$Ext^i(,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD))=0$$

for $`i+j<n\varphi (X,D)`$. If $``$ is locally free, then

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)^{})=0$$

for $`i+j<n\varphi (X,D)`$.

###### Proof.

This is a consequence of Serre duality. ∎

###### Corollary 8.8.

(Le Potier) Suppose that $`chark=0`$ and $`_i`$ are ample locally free sheaves on a smooth variety $`X`$, then

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j_1\mathrm{}_m)=0$$

for $`i+jn+rank(_1)+\mathrm{}rank(_m)`$

###### Proof.

Follows from corollary 8.5 and corollary 6.4. ∎

The next result is a generalization of the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem \[Ka, V\]. (To obtain the statement given in the introduction, set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{m}D^{}`$.)

###### Corollary 8.9.

With $`(X,D,,k)`$ as in the corollary 8.5. Suppose that there is a positive integer $`m`$, and a divisor $`0D^{}(m1)D`$ such that $`S^m()(D^{})`$ is ample. Then

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D))=0$$

for $`i+jn+rank()`$. In particular,

$$H^i(X,\omega _X)=0$$

for $`irank()`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from theorem 7 and corollary 8.5. ∎

###### Corollary 8.10.

Suppose that $`chark=0`$ and $``$ is a locally free sheaf on a projective $`k`$-variety $`Z`$ with rational singularities, then

$$H^i(Z,\omega _Z)=0$$

for $`i>\varphi _{gen}()`$.

###### Proof.

By the previous corollary, $`H^i(Y,\omega _Yf^{})`$ vanishes for $`i>\varphi _{gen}()`$, for some resolution of singularities $`f:YZ`$. We have $`f_{}\omega _Y=\omega _Z`$ because $`Z`$ has rational singularities, and so the corollary follows. ∎

###### Corollary 8.11.

Suppose that $`chark=0`$ and $``$ is the pull back of an ample vector bundle under a surjective morphism $`f:XY`$ with $`X`$ smooth, then

$$H^i(X,\omega _X)=0$$

for $`irank()+d`$ where $`d`$ is the dimension of the generic fiber of $`f`$.

###### Proof.

Follows from corollary 2.7 and corollary 8.10. ∎

## 9. Some applications

In this section, we work over $``$. We start with a refinement of the Lefschetz hyperplane theorem (which corresponds to case B with $`=O_X`$ and $`r=m=1`$).

###### Proposition 9.1.

Let $`DX`$ be a smooth divisor on a smooth $`n`$ dimensional projective variety. Suppose that $`m>0`$.

1. If $`S^m()(rD)`$ is ample for some $`m<r0`$, then

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j)H^i(D,\mathrm{\Omega }_D^j)$$

is bijective if $`i+jn+rank()`$ and surjective if $`i+j=n+rank()1`$.
2. If $`S^m()(rD)`$ is ample for some $`0<rm`$, then

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j^{})H^i(D,\mathrm{\Omega }_D^j^{})$$

is bijective if $`i+jnrank()1`$ and injective if $`i+j=nrank()`$.

###### Proof.

We have an exact sequence

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j\mathrm{\Omega }_D^j0.$$

Tensoring this with $``$ and applying corollary 8.9 proves A. For B, tensor this with $`^{}`$ and observe that by Serre duality and corollary 8.9

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D)^{})H^{ni}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{nj}(logD)(D)(D))^{}=0$$

when $`i+jnrank()`$. ∎

Given an algebraic variety $`Y`$ and algebraic coherent sheaf $``$ over $`Y`$, we denote the corresponding analytic objects by $`Y^{an}`$ and $`^{an}`$. Given a closed subvariety $`ZY`$, let

$$codim(Z,Y)=\{\begin{array}{c}\text{ the codimension of }Z\text{ if }Z\mathrm{}\hfill \\ \text{dim\hspace{0.17em} Y + 1}\text{ otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

Our goal is to prove a vanishing theorem for ample vector bundles over quasiprojective varieties. This generalizes some results for line bundles due to Bauer, Kosarew \[BK2\] and the author \[A1\].

###### Theorem 10.

Suppose that $`U`$ is a smooth quasiprojective variety with a possibly singular projective compactification $`Y`$. Let $``$ be the restriction to $`U`$ of an ample vector bundle on some compactification of $`U`$ (possibly other than $`Y`$). Then

$$H^i(U^{an},(\mathrm{\Omega }_U^j^{})^{an})=H^i(U,\mathrm{\Omega }_U^j^{})=0$$

for $`i+jcodim(YU,Y)rank()1`$.

As a first step, we need a generalization of Steenbrink’s vanishing theorem \[St\].

###### Proposition 9.2.

Suppose that $`f:XY`$ is a desingularization of an $`n`$-dimensional projective variety such that $`X`$ possesses a reduced normal crossing divisor $`D`$ containing the exceptional divisor. If $``$ is a nef (e. g. globally generated) vector bundle, then

$$R^if_{}[\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D)]=0$$

for $`i+jn+rank()`$.

###### Proof.

As in the proof of corollary 2.6, we can find a relatively ample divisor $`a_iD_i`$ supported on $`D`$ with $`a_i0`$. Let $`L`$ be a large power of an ample line bundle on $`Y`$. Then $`f^{}L^N(a_iD_i)`$ is ample for all $`N>0`$. Therefore $`S^m(f^{}L^N)(a_iD_i)`$ is ample for all $`m>0`$. Then corollary 8.9 shows that

$$H^i(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D)f^{}L^N)=0$$

for $`i+jn+rank()`$. For $`N>>0`$, the Leray spectral sequence and Serre vanishing yields

$$H^0(R^if_{}[\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)(D)]L^N)=0$$

for $`i+jn+rank()`$. We can assume that these sheaves are all globally generated by increasing $`N`$ if necessary. Thus they must vanish. ∎

###### Corollary 9.3.

Let $`Y`$ be a projective variety, $`ZY`$ a closed subvariety containing the singular locus, and $`f:XY`$ a resolution of singularities which is an isomorphism over $`YZ`$ such that $`D=f^1(Z)_{red}`$ is a divisor with normal crossings. Then for any nef vector bundle $``$ on $`X`$,

$$H_D^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)^{})=0$$

for $`i+jcodim(Y,Z)rank()`$.

###### Proof.

This is a generalization of \[A1, thm 1\]. A proof of this corollary can be obtained by simply replacing Steenbrink’s theorem with proposition 9.2 in the proof given there. ∎

###### Proof of theorem 10.

The groups $`H^i(U,)`$ and $`H^i(U^{an},^{an})`$ are isomorphic for any coherent sheaf $``$ on $`Y`$ and $`i<codim(YU,Y)1`$ by \[H2, IV 2.1\]. So it suffices to prove the vanishing in the algebraic category. Let $`Z=YU`$ and let $`f:XY`$ be a desingularization satisfying the assumptions of corollary 9.3. We can assume that $`X`$ also dominates the compactification where $``$ extends to an ample bundle. We use the same symbol for this extension, and its pullback to $`X`$. Corollary 2.6 and theorem 5 implies that $`\varphi (,D)<rank()`$. Corollary 9.3 shows that

$$H_D^{i+1}(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)^{})=0.$$

Then the exact sequence for local cohomology yields a surjection

$$H^i(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)^{})H^i(U,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^j(logD)^{})=H^i(U,\mathrm{\Omega }_U^j^{}).$$

The cohomology group on the left vanishes as a consequence of corollary 8.7. ∎

## Appendix A Arithmetically nef bundles

Dennis S. Keeler<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 Partially supported by an NSF Postdoctoral Research Fellowship.
Department of Mathematics, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, dskeeler@mit.edu

Let $`Y`$ be a noetherian scheme, let $`f:XY`$ be a proper morphism, and let $``$ be a vector bundle on $`X`$. For each $`yY`$, let $`_y`$ be the restriction of $``$ to the fiber $`X_y`$. Recall that $``$ is *$`f`$-nef* if $`_y`$ is nef for every closed $`yY`$ (see, for instance, \[Ke, Definition 2.9\]). If $`Y`$ is affine, then the property of $``$ being $`f`$-nef does not depend on $`f`$, so we may simply say that $``$ is nef \[Ke, Proposition 2.15\].

###### Definition 1.

Let $`X`$ be a proper scheme over a field $`k`$, and let $``$ be a vector bundle on $`X`$. If $`chark=0`$, then $``$ is *arithmetically nef* if there exists a thickening $`(\stackrel{~}{X}SpecA,\stackrel{~}{})`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is nef. For convenience, if $`chark=p>0`$, we say that $``$ is arithmetically nef if $``$ is nef.

Note that if $``$ is arithmetically nef, then $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ will be nef on every fiber of a certain thickening \[Ke, Lemma 2.18\]. In particular, if $``$ is arithmetically nef, then $``$ is nef.

Like nefness, the property of being arithmetically nef behaves well under pullbacks.

###### Lemma A.1.

Let $``$ be a vector bundle on a proper scheme $`X`$ over a field $`k`$, and let $`f:X^{}X`$ be a proper morphism.

1. If $``$ is arithmetically nef, then $`f^{}`$ is arithmetically nef, and
2. if $`f`$ is surjective and $`f^{}`$ is arithmetically nef, then $``$ is arithmetically nef.

###### Proof.

By replacing $`X`$ with $`()`$ and $`X^{}`$ with $`(f^{})`$, we may assume that $``$ equals a line bundle $`L`$.

If $`chark=0`$, then choose a thickening $`(\stackrel{~}{f}:\stackrel{~}{X^{}}\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{L})`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is proper and also surjective if $`f`$ is surjective \[EGA, $`\mathrm{IV}_3`$, 8.10.5\]. If $`L`$ is arithmetically nef, then upon further shrinking the thickening we may assume $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is nef, and so $`\stackrel{~}{f}^{}\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is nef \[Ke, Lemma 2.17\]. Hence $`f^{}L`$ is arithmetically nef. Now if $`f^{}L`$ is arithmetically nef, then $`L`$ is arithmetically nef by a similar argument \[Ke, loc. cit.\]. If $`chark=p>0`$, then these are just statements about nef line bundles \[Ke, loc. cit.\]. ∎

Being arithmetically nef also behaves well under tensor product.

###### Lemma A.2.

Let $`L`$ and $`M`$ be line bundles on a proper scheme $`X`$. Then

1. $`L`$ is arithmetically nef, if and only if $`L^n`$ is arithmetically nef for all $`n>0`$, if and only if $`L^n`$ is arithmetically nef for some $`n>0`$, and
2. If $`L`$ and $`M`$ are arithmetically nef, then $`LM`$ is arithmetically nef.

###### Proof.

These statements follow immediately from the definition of nef. ∎

It is natural to conjecture that if $`L`$ is nef, then $`L`$ is arithmetically nef, but we have been unable to prove this. However, we do have a non-trivial collection of examples.

###### Proposition A.3.

Let $`L`$ be a line bundle on a proper scheme $`X`$ over a field $`k`$. If $`L`$ is semi-ample (i.e., there exists $`n>0`$ such that $`L^n`$ is generated by global sections) or $`L`$ is numerically trivial, then $`L`$ is arithmetically nef.

###### Proof.

The case $`chark=p>0`$ is trivial, so assume $`chark=0`$. First suppose that $`L`$ is semi-ample. We may replace $`L`$ with $`L^n`$ (A.2) and assume that $`L`$ is generated by global sections. Then $`L`$ defines a $`k`$-morphism $`f:X^m`$ for some $`m`$, and $`L=f^{}O_^m(1)`$ \[H3, II 7.1\]. Now $`f`$ is proper \[H3, II 4.8e\], so we may replace $`L`$ with $`O_^m(1)`$ by lemma A.1. Now since $`O(1)`$ is ample, there exists a thickening such that $`\stackrel{~}{O_^m(1)}`$ is ample \[EGA, $`\mathrm{III}_1`$, 4.7.1\]. Hence $`O_^m(1)`$ is arithmetically nef.

Now suppose that $`L`$ is numerically trivial. Any pullback of $`L`$ is also numerically trivial \[Ke, Lemma 2.17\]. Thus by lemma A.1 we may replace $`X`$ with a Chow cover and thus assume that $`X`$ is projective. We may also replace $`X`$ with the disjoint union $`_iX_i`$, where the $`X_i`$ are the reduced, irreducible components of $`X`$. Thus we may assume that $`X`$ is integral. There exists a projective, surjective morphism $`X^{}X`$ such that $`X^{}`$ is geometrically integral \[Ke, Lemma 3.3\], and thus we may assume that $`X`$ is geometrically integral.

Let $`H`$ be an ample divisor on $`X`$. We may choose a thickening $`(\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{X}SpecA,\stackrel{~}{H},\stackrel{~}{L})`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is ample \[EGA, $`\mathrm{III}_1`$, 4.7.1\] and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is flat \[EGA, $`\mathrm{IV}_3`$, 8.9.4\]. Further, we may assume that all fibers of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ are geometrically integral \[EGA, $`\mathrm{IV}_3`$, 12.2.4\].

For any line bundles $`N,M`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and $`sSpecA`$, let $`N_s,M_s`$ be the restriction of $`N,M`$ to the fiber $`\stackrel{~}{X}_s`$. Then since $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is flat, the intersection numbers $`(N_s^r.M_s^{dimXr})`$ are independent of $`s`$ \[Ke, Remark 3.5\]. Now $`\stackrel{~}{L}_s`$ is numerically trivial if and only if

$$(\stackrel{~}{L}_s.\stackrel{~}{H}_s^{dimX1})=(\stackrel{~}{L}_s^2.\stackrel{~}{H}_s^{dimX2})=0$$

by \[Kl, p. 305, Corollary 3\]. But since these intersection numbers are $`0`$ at the generic point, they are $`0`$ at each $`sSpecA`$. Thus $`L`$ is arithmetically nef. ∎

###### Corollary A.4.

Let $`X`$ be a projective scheme with $`dimX1`$. If $`L`$ is a nef line bundle, then $`L`$ is arithmetically nef.

###### Proof.

Using lemma A.1, we may assume that $`X`$ is integral. Then $`L`$ is either numerically trivial or ample, and hence arithmetically nef by proposition A.3. ∎

We now consider arithmetically nef line bundles on a surface $`X`$, that is, an integral scheme of dimension $`2`$.

###### Corollary A.5.

Let $`X`$ be a projective surface, and let $`L`$ be a nef line bundle such that $`L^n`$ is effective for some $`n>0`$ (for example, if $`L`$ is big). Then $`L`$ is arithmetically nef.

###### Proof.

We assume that the characteristic of the ground field is $`0`$. Let $`H`$ be an ample line bundle. By lemma A.2 we may replace $`L`$ by $`L^n`$ and hence assume that $`LO(D)`$ for an effective divisor $`D`$. Since $`L|_D`$ is arithmetically nef by corollary A.4, we may choose an arithmetic thickening $`(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{H},\stackrel{~}{L}\stackrel{~}{O}(\stackrel{~}{D}))`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{L}|_{\stackrel{~}{D}}`$ is nef and $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is ample \[EGA, $`\mathrm{III}_1`$, 4.7.1\].

Consider the short exact sequences

$$H^i(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{H}^n\stackrel{~}{L}^m)H^i(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{H}^n\stackrel{~}{L}^{m+1})H^i(\stackrel{~}{D},\stackrel{~}{H}|_{\stackrel{~}{D}}^n\stackrel{~}{L}|_{\stackrel{~}{D}}^{m+1})$$

with $`i>0,m0,n>0`$. We may fix $`n`$ sufficiently large so that the leftmost group vanishes for $`m=0`$ and the rightmost vanishes for all $`m0`$ \[Ke, Theorem 1.5\]. But then by induction on $`m`$, the middle vanishes for all $`m0`$. Since any coherent sheaf $``$ on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a quotient of a finite direct sum of $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{\mathrm{}}`$, we have that for any $``$, there exists $`n`$ such that $`H^i(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{H}^n\stackrel{~}{L}^m)=0`$ for $`i>0,m0`$, and so $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is nef \[Ke, Proposition 5.18\]. Thus $`L`$ is arithmetically nef. ∎

## Appendix B Arithmetically nef line bundles are $`F`$-semipositive

In this section, we characterize $`F`$-semipositive line bundles. Lemma 2.4 states that a line bundle $`L`$ is $`F`$-ample if and only if it is ample. We later see in lemma 3.10 that any $`F`$-semipositive vector bundle is arithmetically nef. Given these two facts, it is natural to conjecture that a line bundle $`L`$ is $`F`$-semipositive if and only if it is arithmetically nef, and indeed this is the case.

###### Proposition B.1.

Let $`X`$ be a projective variety over a field $`k`$ and let $`L`$ be a line bundle on $`X`$. Then $`L`$ is $`F`$-semipositive if and only if $`L`$ is arithmetically nef.

###### Proof.

Given lemma 3.10, we need only show that an arithmetically nef line bundle is $`F`$-semipositive. Let $`O_X(1)`$ be a very ample line bundle. If $`chark=p>0`$, there exists $`m`$ such that $`H^i(X,O_X(mi)L^n)=0`$ for $`i>0,n0`$ \[Ke, Theorem 1.5\]. Thus $`areg(L)m`$, so $`L`$ is $`F`$-semipositive.

If $`chark=0`$, then choose a thickening $`(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{O}_X(1),\stackrel{~}{L})`$ over a finitely generated $``$-algebra $`Ak`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{O}_X(1)`$ is very ample \[EGA, $`\mathrm{III}_1`$, 4.7.1\] and $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is nef. Again there exists $`m`$ such that $`H^i(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{O}_X(mi)\stackrel{~}{L}^n)=0`$ for $`i>0,n0`$ \[Ke, loc. cit.\]. So by semicontinuity, for each closed point $`q`$ of $`SpecA`$, we have $`areg(L_q)m`$. Thus $`areg(L)m`$ and $`L`$ is again $`F`$-semipositive. ∎

## Appendix C Base change

Most of the seminal works on ample vector bundles, such as \[H1, B, G\], assumed that the base field $`k`$ was algebraically closed and some of their proofs use this assumption. However, since this paper’s “reduction to characteristic $`p`$” methods require the non-algebraically closed case, we now prove a few standard lemmas which will allow the application of “algebraically closed results” to the general case.

Since we do not assume that our varieties are geometrically integral, we must also allow $`X`$ to be a projective scheme. For a coherent sheaf $``$ we keep the same definitions of $`\varphi ()`$, $`F`$-ample, and $`F`$-semipositive as given in sections 1 and 3, just with $`X`$ as a scheme, projective over a field $`k`$.

###### Lemma C.1.

Let $`X`$ be a projective scheme over a field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p>0`$, let $``$ be a vector bundle on $`X`$, and let $`_{\text{r}ed}`$ be the restriction of $``$ to the reduced scheme $`X_{\text{r}ed}`$. Then $`\varphi ()=\varphi (_{\text{r}ed})`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from a standard argument as in \[H3, ex. III 3.1, 5.7\], using the commutative diagram (1) with $`Y=X_{\text{r}ed}`$. To see this, let $`f:X_{\text{r}ed}X`$ be the natural immersion, let $`𝒩`$ be the nilradical of $`O_X`$, and let $``$ be a coherent sheaf on $`X`$. Then $`𝒩^{r_0}=0`$ for $`r_0`$ sufficiently large and we have short exact sequences

$$0𝒩^{r+1}𝒩^r𝒩^r/𝒩^{r+1}0$$

with $`0r<r_0`$. Since $`f_{}O_{X_{\text{r}ed}}=O_X/𝒩`$, there exist coherent $`𝒢_r`$ on $`X_{\text{r}ed}`$ such that $`f_{}𝒢=𝒩^r/𝒩^{r+1}`$. Thus, if $`i>\varphi (_{\text{r}ed})`$, we have

$$H^i(X_{\text{r}ed},𝒢_rf^{}^{(p^n)})=H^i(X,𝒩^r/𝒩^{r+1}^{(p^n)})=0$$

for $`0r<r_0`$ and $`n0`$. Descending induction on $`r`$ then gives $`H^i(X,^{(p^n)})=0`$ for $`n0`$. ∎

###### Lemma C.2.

Let $`X`$ be a reduced projective scheme over a field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p>0`$, let $`X_i`$ be the irreducible components of $`X`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, let $``$ be a vector bundle on $`X`$, and let $`_i`$ be the restriction of $``$ to $`X_i`$. Then $`\varphi ()=\mathrm{max}_i\varphi (_i)`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from a standard argument as in \[H3, ex. III 3.2, 5.7\], using the commutative diagrams (1) for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$ with $`Y=X_i`$. Let $``$ be a coherent sheaf on $`X`$ and let $`_j`$ be the sheaf of ideals of $`X_j`$. Then $`_j`$ has support on the $`X_i`$ with $`ij`$ and $`/_j`$ has a natural $`O_{X_j}`$-module structure. So by induction on the number of irreducible components $`r`$, for $`i>\mathrm{max}_i\varphi (_i)\varphi (_j)`$, we have short exact sequences

$$0=H^i(_j^{(p^n)})H^i(^{(p^n)})H^i(/_j^{(p^n)})=0$$

for $`n0`$. Thus $`\varphi ()\mathrm{max}_i\varphi (_i)`$, and the reverse inequality is trivial. ∎

###### Lemma C.3.

Let $`f:YX`$ be a finite, surjective morphism (not necessarily a $`k`$-morphism) of projective $`k`$-schemes, and let $``$ be a vector bundle on $`X`$. Then $`\varphi ()=\varphi (f^{})`$.

###### Proof.

When $`chark=p>0`$, this again follows from a standard argument as in \[H3, ex. III 4.2, 5.7\], using the commutative diagram (1). By lemmas C.1 and C.2, we may assume that $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are integral schemes. Then one may follow the argument outlined in \[H3, ex. III 4.2\].

When $`chark=0`$, we can choose a thickening $`(\stackrel{~}{f}:\stackrel{~}{Y}\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{})`$ and assume that $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is finite and surjective \[EGA, $`\mathrm{IV}_3`$, 8.10.5\]. The claim then follows from the positive characteristic case. ∎

###### Corollary C.4.

Let $`X`$ be a projective scheme over a field of arbitrary characteristic. Then the conclusions of lemmas C.1 and C.2 remain true.

###### Proof.

Let $`_iX_i`$ be the disjoint union of the irreducible components of $`X`$ if $`X`$ is reduced. Both claims follow from lemma C.3 because the maps $`X_{\text{r}ed}X`$ and $`_iX_iX`$ are finite and surjective. ∎

We now show that all of our concepts of ampleness behave well under base change.

###### Lemma C.5.

Let $`kk^{}`$ be fields, let $`X`$ be a projective scheme over $`k`$, and let $``$ be a vector bundle on $`X`$. Then $`\varphi ()=\varphi (_kk^{})`$. Also, each of the following properties hold for $``$ if and only if they hold for $`_kk^{}`$ on $`X\times _kk^{}`$:

1. $`F`$-ample,
2. $`F`$-semipositive,
3. $`p`$-ample, if $`chark=p>0`$,
4. ample,
5. nef,
6. arithmetically nef.

###### Proof.

Let $`f:X\times _kk^{}X`$ be the base change, and let $`O_X(1)`$ be a very ample line bundle for $`X`$. Then $`f^{}O_X(1)`$ is very ample on $`X\times k^{}`$ \[EGA, II, 4.4.10\]. If $`chark=p>0`$, then we have a commutative diagram (1) with $`Y=X\times k^{}`$. Note that this diagram is *not* cartesian because $`F_YF_X\times \mathrm{i}d_k^{}`$. However, the commutivity of (1) gives

$$\begin{array}{c}H^i(Y,(f^{})^{(p^n)}f^{}O_X(b))=H^i(Y,F_Y^nf^{}f^{}O_X(b))\hfill \\ \hfill =H^i(Y,f^{}F_X^nf^{}O_X(b))=H^i(Y,f^{}(^{(p^n)})f^{}O_X(b))\end{array}$$

for $`i0,n0,b`$. Now since $`kk^{}`$ is a flat morphism \[H3, III 9.3\],

$$H^i(Y,(f^{})^{(p^n)}f^{}O_X(b))=H^i(X,^{(p^n)}O_X(b))_kk^{}.$$

Then $`\varphi ()=\varphi (f^{})`$ follows by corollary 2.3 since $`kk^{}`$ is faithfully flat. If $`chark=0`$, it is clear by the definition of $`\varphi `$ that $`\varphi ()=\varphi (f^{})`$ because an arithmetic thickening of $`X`$ is an arithmetic thickening of $`X\times k^{}`$. Now (1) is immediate and a similar proof gives (2).

For (3), consider the exact sequence

$$H^0(X,^{(p^n)}O_X(b))_kO_X^{(p^n)}O_X(b)𝒞_n0$$

for fixed $`b`$. Since $`kk^{}`$ is faithfully flat, we obtain a similar map of global sections of $`(f^{})^{(p^n)}f^{}O_X(b)`$ by tensoring the exact sequence with $`_kk^{}`$ (or equivalently, pulling back by $`f`$). Then the cokernel $`𝒞_n=0`$ if and only if $`𝒞_n_kk^{}=0`$, so $``$ is $`p`$-ample if and only if $`f^{}`$ is $`p`$-ample.

Finally, (4)–(6) can be reduced to the case of a line bundle by working on $`()`$ and $`(f^{})`$. The cases (4) and (5) are given by \[EGA, $`\mathrm{IV}_2`$, 2.7.2\] and \[Ke, Lemma 2.18\]. If $`chark=0`$, then (6) is clear because an arithmetic thickening of $`X`$ is an arithmetic thickening of $`X\times k^{}`$. ∎

## Appendix D Dimensional bound on $`F`$-amplitude of ample bundles

Let $``$ be an ample vector bundle. We have seen that if $`chark=0`$, then $`\varphi ()<rank()`$ (theorem 5). We will now derive another bound on $`\varphi ()`$, which is independent of the characteristic of $`k`$. First, we need some lemmas.

###### Lemma D.1.

Let $`X`$ be a projective scheme over a field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p>0`$, let $`O_X(1)`$ be a very ample invertible sheaf, and let $``$ be a vector bundle. Then for any $`b`$, there exists $`n_0`$ such that

$$H^i(O_X(b+m)^{(p^n)})=0$$

for all $`i>\varphi (),nn_0,m0`$.

###### Proof.

We induct on $`dimX`$; the case of $`dimX=0`$ is trivial. Since $`O_X(1)`$ is very ample, we may choose an effective Cartier divisor $`H`$ with $`O_X(H)O_X(1)`$ and $`dimH=dimX1`$. By theorem 1 (4) generalized to the case of schemes, $`\varphi (_H)\varphi ()`$. So the claim follows from the short exact sequences

$$H^i(O_X(b+m)^{(p^n)})H^i(O_X(b+m+1)^{(p^n)})H^i(O_H(b+m+1)_H^{(p^n)}),$$

where the case $`m=0`$ follows from the fact that $`\varphi ()<i`$. ∎

###### Lemma D.2.

Let $`X`$ be a projective scheme, let $`H`$ be a very ample Cartier divisor, and let $``$ be a vector bundle. Then

$$\varphi (_H)\varphi ()\varphi (_H)+1.$$

###### Proof.

The first inequality is just theorem 1 (4), generalized to schemes.

If $`chark=p>0`$, then applying lemma D.1 to $`H`$, for any $`b`$ there exists $`n_0`$ such that there exist exact sequences

$$\begin{array}{c}0=H^i(O_H(b+m+1)_H^{(p^n)})H^{i+1}(O_X(b+m)^{(p^n)})\hfill \\ \hfill H^{i+1}(O_X(b+m+1)^{(p^n)})H^{i+1}(O_H(b+m+1)_H^{(p^n)})=0\end{array}$$

for $`i>\varphi (_H),nn_0,m0`$. By Serre Vanishing, $`H^{i+1}(O_X(b+m+1)^{(p^n)})=0`$ for $`m0`$. So by descending induction on $`m`$ and corollary 2.3, $`\varphi ()\varphi (_H)+1`$. The case of $`chark=0`$ is then immediate. ∎

It is now an easy matter to obtain our bound on $`\varphi ()`$ for ample $``$. This generalizes lemma 5.3 and proposition 5.4.

###### Proposition D.3.

Let $`X`$ be a projective scheme over a field $`k`$ with $`dimX>0`$, and let $``$ be an ample vector bundle. Then $`\varphi ()<dimX`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`k`$ is algebraically closed (C.5) and that $`X`$ is reduced, irreducible (C.4), and normal (C.3). If $`dimX=1`$, then the claim is proposition 5.4. If $`dimX>1`$, then induction on $`dimX`$ and lemma D.2 yields the result. ∎


format: text

text:
# Discovery of four X-ray quasars behind the Large Magellanic CloudBased on observations collected at the Magellan Baade 6.5-m telescope.

## 1 Introduction

There are a number of reasons that make quasars behind the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) — as well as other nearby galaxies — very interesting. Among other, they provide a good inertial reference system (e.g. Anguita, Loyola & Pedreros 2000) to measure proper motion of the LMC. Also, such quasars can provide a line-of-sight probe of the interstellar medium in the LMC (e.g. Bowen, Blades & Pettini 1995; Haberl et al. 2001; Kahabka, de Boer, & Brün 2001). One aspect of such studies is to investigate the dust-to-gas ratio in galaxies (e.g. Fall & Pei 1989).

There are only a dozen or so of publicly known quasars in the general direction of the LMC. All these quasars are located away from the bar of the LMC, in fairly sparse stellar fields. One was found by Blanco & Heathcote (1986) via a grism survey. Crampton et al. (1997; see also Kahabka, de Boer, & Brüns 2001) listed several other. In their analysis of the LMC proper motions, Anguita, Loyola, & Pedreros (2000) show a sample of three quasars, including that of Blanco & Heathcote (1986).

Drake et al. (2001) are currently pursuing a project of the study of the proper motions using quasars found in MACHO data. They quote a sample of $``$30 quasars in the dense stellar regions of the LMC, pre-selected using their variability as observed by the MACHO project, and then confirmed spectroscopically. However, the positions of those quasars are not publicly available.

A good starting point for searching for quasars is to utilize the fact that they are often bright in X-rays, and a considerable number of quasars have been found in that way (including the ones from Crampton et al. 1997). However, the limited spatial resolution of earlier X-ray missions rendered this method impractical for the dense parts of the LMC, where a single X-ray source would have many optical candidates in its error box. The launch of the Chandra X-ray Observatory (Weisskopf et al. 2000) made application of this method to the LMC possible. Chandra’s superb spatial resolution and excellent positional accuracy significantly reduce the source confusion problem.

Another characteristic that was used in quasar searches was their irregular variability. Several quasar surveys utilizing variability were performed or are on-going (e.g. Drake et al. 2001; Meusinger & Brunzendorf 2001; Rengstorf et al. 2001).

Between 1997 and 2001, large parts of the Large Magellanic Cloud were monitored for microlensing events by the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE-II: Udalski, Kubiak & Szymański 1997). Udalski et al. (2000) released photometry and astrometry of more than seven million objects from the central parts of the LMC111Data available from ftp://bulge.princeton.edu/ogle/ogle2/maps/lmc/. In addition, a large catalog of 68,000 variable objects observed by OGLE-II in both the LMC and the SMC was prepared by Żebruń et al. (2001)222Data available from http://bulge.princeton.edu/$``$ogle/ogle2/dia/, based on a version of the image subtraction software (Alard & Lupton 1998) developed by Woźniak (2000).

The availability of Chandra observations of fields in the LMC, combined with the availability of the OGLE database, allow combining the two methods in a search for quasars in the dense regions of the LMC. The Chandra detectors have a relatively large field of view and each pointing yields dozens of serendipitous sources.

## 2 The archival data

We searched the Chandra archive for imaging (i.e. with no grating) observations whose pointings would coincide with OGLE fields. At present, there are three such observations that are publicly available, ObsIDs 118, 125, and 776. A fourth observation fulfilling this criterion, ObsID 1991, was kindly provided to us by the P.I., K. Borkowski. All four observations were done with ACIS as the focal plane detector, in various chip configurations. A single ACIS observation typically covers 0.12 deg2. There was no overlap between the observations.

We reduced and analyzed the X-ray data using tools available in the CIAO 2.2.1 and SHERPA software packages333http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/. We cleaned the electronic streaks in ACIS-S4 chip using destreak, and we searched the data for serendipitous point sources using the sliding cell tool celldetect; of the three detect tools available in CIAO this one is the most robust when it comes to the detection of point sources. We utilized the relation between the off-axis angle and signal-to-noise threshold from Dobrzycki et al. (2000). Overall, we identified 361 X-ray sources in our four Chandra observations. For each source, we then identified both the closest OGLE object and the closest OGLE variable. Some of the data available from the Chandra archive were processed before the best Chandra pointing calibration was available, and we used 5 arcsec as the threshold for the position match. We ended up with a list of 110 OGLE objects meeting those criteria and they formed a list of candidates for followup spectroscopy.

## 3 Observations

The optical spectra were obtained on 2002 January 22-23 with the Magellan Baade 6-5 meter telescope. We observed 35 objects out of 110 available candidates; the observed objects were primarily the brightest in X-rays.

We used the LDSS-2 imaging spectrograph. The instrument uses a 2048$`\times `$2048 SITe#1 CCD with a scale of 0.38 arcsec/pixel, a gain of 1 $`e^{}/`$ADU, and a readout noise of $`7e^{}`$. The slit width was 1.03 arcsec and the grism setting was 300 l/mm, yielding a nominal resolution of 13.3 Å. Exposure times ranged from 300 to 600 seconds. All observations were carried out at the parallactic angle. Additionally, two spectrophotometric standards were observed: LTT 1788 and LTT 4816 (Hamuy et al. 1992). Following each observation, a He–Ne arc lamp spectrum was acquired for wavelength calibration purposes. Spectra were reduced in the standard way using IRAF.

## 4 New quasars

Out of 35 CXO/OGLE objects observed in January 2002, four turned out to be new quasars. In principle, this gives a 11% efficiency for the method for searching for quasars, but this value is, of course, subject to low number statistics. Table 1 contains a summary of the optical properties of the four quasars. We note that during the observation we could clearly identify the host galaxy for OGLE050924.05–672124.1, the one with lowest emission redshift ($`z_{\mathrm{em}}=0.26`$).

We present the optical spectra of our quasars in Figure 1. In all of them, several emission lines are clearly visible, allowing unambiguous determinations of redshifts. All spectra show typical blue continua. One somewhat unusual feature is the apparent lack of \[O iii\] emission lines in OGLE050736.52–684751.7 (upper left panel in Fig. 1), but at $`z_{\mathrm{em}}=0.53`$ they may have been affected by the strong O2 atmospheric band, which is clearly visible in the spectra.

We note that only one of the quasars, OGLE050833.29–685427.5, has been identified by OGLE as a variable. Its light curve clearly shows variability with the amplitude of $``$0.4 mag. Post factum, we examined the light curves (provided to us by A. Udalski) of the other objects. The quasars are relatively faint, and the light curves are rather noisy, although they qualitatively suggest that the objects may be variable.

Table 2 contains a summary of the X-ray properties of the objects. We analyzed the X-ray data using tools from CIAO 2.2 and SHERPA. We reprocessed the observations using Chandra calibration database (CALDB) ver. 2.11. That allowed us to get corrected X-ray positions of sources, and we found them to agree well with the optical positions. We note that the positions of three of the quasars coincide with unidentified X-ray sources in the lists of ROSAT LMC X-ray sources from Haberl & Pietsch (1999) and Sasaki, Haberl, & Pietsch (2000); see Table 2.

The net number of X-ray events collected from four quasars range between $``$100 and $``$900, which is sufficient to establish basic X-ray properties of the sources. In addition to that, one can take advantage of the location of the quasars and — at least for the strongest of our quasars — attempt to estimate the absorbing column in the LMC.

We extracted source and background spectra from regions around the quasars using dmextract and then performed spectral fits with SHERPA. Pile-up in ACIS is not a problem here, both because the source count rates are low and because all sources are far off-axis. We excluded data with $`E<0.4`$ keV, since there are large calibration uncertainties for soft X-rays.

We fitted each spectrum assuming the intrinsic quasar spectrum to be a power law. We assumed fixed Galactic absorption towards the LMC, $`N_H=5.5\times 10^{21}`$ cm-2 (Schwering & Israel 1991), and we allowed for additional absorption from the LMC. In all cases, this model gave adequate fits. The derived spectral X-ray properties (Tab. 2) are within typical ranges for quasars (e.g. Fiore et al. 1998; Reeves & Turner 2000).

We got a meaningful measurement of LMC absorption only for the two strongest X-ray sources among our four quasars. For the two weaker sources, the uncertainty in the LMC absorbing column was larger than the derived value; for those objects we list the $`3\sigma `$ upper limits in Table 2. For comparison, in Table 2 we list the hydrogen column density from the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) 21 cm observations by Kim et al. (1998). The values derived from the X-ray spectral fits are in reasonable agreement with the measurements of the hydrogen content in the LMC. Our value for OGLE050833.29–685427.5 differs from the ATCA result by $`2\sigma `$, but there are several factors that can readily explain the difference. First, the assumed value for the Galactic absorption may be overestimated, resulting in underestimating the LMC component of the absorbing column. Second, it is well established (e.g. Kim et al. 1998) that the distribution of hydrogen in the LMC is far from homogeneous. The measurements from Kim et al. (1998) are effectively averaged over spatial resolution element of $``$1 arcmin (15 pc at the LMC), while the X-ray absorption is probing a specific line of sight.

## 5 Summary and discussion

We identified four previously unknown quasars behind the Large Magellanic Cloud, including one quasar at relatively high redshift, $`z_{\mathrm{em}}=1.63`$, by combining publicly available Chandra and OGLE data and ground-based followup spectroscopy. While the underlying idea in this project was to search for quasars based on both their X-ray positions and variability, we note that only one of our four quasars was positively identified by OGLE as a variable object. The validity of our assumption that the combined Chandra/OGLE pointings are good enough to accurately pinpoint quasar positions is an excellent starting point for future studies of X-ray selected quasars behind the LMC. So far, we have found four quasars in $``$0.5 deg2 covered by the four analyzed Chandra observations, which compares favorably with $``$30 quasars in $``$11 deg2, discovered by the MACHO project on the basis of their variability

The intrinsic X-ray and optical properties of all four quasars are quite typical. All four quasars are relatively faint ($`V=1920`$), which, at least at present, makes them unlikely targets for high-resolution observations, especially with the Hubble Space Telescope. HST observations would be necessary for the analysis of the most important absorption lines, such as Ly-$`\alpha `$, C iv or Mg ii, which for LMC occur in the UV part of the spectrum, below the atmospheric break. However, the quasars will be very attractive targets for the new generation of large telescopes, as well as the NGST.

Three of the quasars are well positioned to become reference points for proper motion studies. They are in dense fields: OGLE050736.52–684751.7 and OGLE050833.29–685427.5 are near the edge of the LMC bar and OGLE051853.19–690217.7 is near the center of the bar. The fourth quasar, OGLE050924.05–672124.1, is outside of the LMC bar, and it is also the one for which the host galaxy is visible, limiting somewhat its application for this type of project.

We add that the followup spectroscopy of the CXO/OGLE candidates revealed several other interesting objects, such as very hot stars, X-ray binaries, etc. We will present the analysis of those objects in a forthcoming paper.

We would like to thank B. Paczyński, A. Siemiginowska and the referee for helpful comments. We would also like to thank K. Borkowski for allowing us to use his Chandra observation prior to it becoming public, S. Kim and A. Udalski for providing us with unpublished data, and T. Anselowitz for help with processing the X-ray observations. We are grateful to the OGLE collaboration for putting their large data sets in public domain. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with NASA, and of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France. AD acknowledges support from NASA Contract No. NAS8-39073 (CXC). PJG was supported by a CfA fellowship.