text:
# Skinner-Rusk approach to time-dependent mechanics

## 1 Introduction

In 1983, it was shown by R. Skinner and R. Rusk that the dynamics of an autonomous classical mechanical system, with configuration space $`Q`$, can be properly represented by a first-order system on the Whitney sum $`T^{}QTQ`$ . If the system under consideration admits a Lagrangian description, with Lagrangian $`LC^{\mathrm{}}(TQ)`$, the corresponding first-order system on $`T^{}QTQ`$ is a Hamiltonian system with respect to a canonical presymplectic structure. The Skinner-Rusk formulation can be briefly summarized as follows. Denoting the projections of $`T^{}QTQ`$ onto $`T^{}Q`$, resp. $`TQ`$, by $`pr_1`$, resp. $`pr_2`$, and putting $`\omega =pr_1^{}\omega _Q`$, with $`\omega _Q`$ the canonical symplectic form on $`T^{}Q`$, one can consider the following equation

$$i_Z\omega =d,$$
(1)
where $`:=pr_1,pr_2Lpr_2`$, and $`,`$ denotes the natural pairing between the dual bundles $`T^{}Q`$ and $`TQ`$. If the given Lagrangian $`L`$ is regular, analysis of (1) shows that there exists a unique solution $`Z`$ which is tangent to the graph of the Legendre map $`Leg_L:TQT^{}Q,(q^A,v^A)(q^A,L/v^A)`$, where the $`q^A`$ are local coordinates on $`Q`$ and $`(q^A,v^A)`$ denote the corresponding bundle coordinates on $`TQ`$.

Remark. Here and in the sequel we will adopt the following definition for the graph of a bundle mapping. Let $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ denote two fibre bundles over the same base space $`M`$, and let $`f:E_1E_2,(m,e)(m,\stackrel{~}{f}_m(e))`$ be a fibre bundle mapping over the identity. Then we define the graph of $`f`$ as the image of the mapping $`f\times _Mid_{E_1}:E_1E_2\times _ME_1,(m,e)E_1(m,\stackrel{~}{f}_m(e),e)`$.

The equations of motion induced by the vector field $`Z`$ are equivalent to the Euler-Lagrange equations for the system under consideration (see ). The important point now is that this equivalence between a Lagrangian system and the corresponding first-order system (1) on $`T^{}QTQ`$ also holds if the given Lagrangian $`L`$ is singular. In that case, in order to extract a consistent system of differential equations from (1), one will have to invoke a constraint algorithm. In fact, one of the main motivations for the work of Skinner and Rusk was precisely to show that the Dirac-Bergmann approach to singular Lagrangian systems can be properly described on the Whitney sum of the tangent and cotangent bundle of the configuration space, thereby avoiding some ambiguities occurring in the literature on the subject.

The Skinner-Rusk formalism has been applied by several authors in various contexts . As one of the benefits of the formalism it turns out that it provides an appropriate setting for a geometric approach to constrained variational optimization problems. The latter are frequently encountered, for instance, in mathematical economics and in engineering. This has been demonstrated, in particular, for some optimal control problems in , and for the so-called vakonomic dynamics in  (see also ). The fact that it would be interesting to extend those results to the time-dependent framework, allowing for systems with an explicit time-dependence of the ‘forces’ and/or the constraints, is the main motivation underlying the present work. More precisely, we will develop here a time-dependent version of the Skinner-Rusk formulation of dynamics, using the language of jet bundle theory  and cosymplectic geometry . Among the virtues of this new formulation of time-dependent mechanics, we would like to stress the possibility it offers to model a large class of systems, also in areas such as economics and control theory. Applications for which this framework seems to be particularly well-suited include stabilization and trajectory tracking of mechanical systems by means of time-dependent transformations (see e.g. ).

Our starting point is a fibre bundle $`\pi :E\text{}`$, with $`E`$ representing the evolution space of a mechanical system. Although it is quite common in treatments of time-dependent mechanics to fix a trivialization of $`\pi `$, i.e. to work on a direct product space $`\text{}\times Q(=E)`$, we will not select such a trivialization here. The natural space to consider then for the treatment of time-dependent Lagrangian mechanics is the first jet space $`J^1\pi `$, with the Lagrangian of the system being given as a function $`LC^{\mathrm{}}(J^1\pi )`$. The immediate candidate for replacing the direct sum $`T^{}QTQ`$ in the Skinner-Rusk model for autonomous systems, seems to be the fibred product $`J^1\pi ^{}\times _EJ^1\pi `$, where $`J^1\pi ^{}`$ is the ‘dual’ of the affine bundle $`J^1\pi `$ (for this notion of dual, see e.g. ). It turns out, however, that this is not an appropriate choice for the following reasons. First, there does not exist a natural pairing between $`J^1\pi `$ and $`J^1\pi ^{}`$, needed for the construction of the time-dependent analogue of the “Hamiltonian” $``$ appearing in (1) and, secondly, there is no canonical 2-form on $`J^1\pi ^{}`$ to take over the role of the symplectic form $`\omega _Q`$ in the autonomous picture. To overcome these difficulties we will show that the appropriate space to consider is the fibred product $`T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi `$.

Two final remarks are in order here. First of all, although we will restrict ourselves to Lagrangian systems, it is clear that, in analogy with the autonomous case (cf. ), the treatment can be easily extended to more general time-dependent mechanical systems, with forces not necessarily derivable from a potential. Secondly, it is interesting to note that the ideas developed here also admit a further extension to classical field theory, as has been demonstrated in a recent paper by M. de León et al. .

The present paper is organized as follows. In the next section we briefly recall the jet bundle approach to time-dependent Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics, including the description of the constraint algorithm in case of a singular Lagrangian. In Section 3 we then develop the Skinner-Rusk formalism for time-dependent systems. We end with some conclusions and an outlook on future work along these lines.

## 2 Non-autonomous Lagrangian systems

### 2.1 The regular case

Let $`\pi :E\text{}`$ be a fibre bundle (the evolution space), with $`\text{dim}E=n+1`$ and local bundle coordinates $`(t,q^A),A=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Consider the corresponding 1-jet space $`J^1\pi `$, with coordinates $`(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)`$ and associated projections $`\pi _1:J^1\pi \text{}`$ and $`\pi _{1,0}:J^1\pi E`$. Given a time-dependent Lagrangian $`L:J^1\pi \text{}`$, the Euler-Lagrange equations read in local coordinates

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{L}{\dot{q}^A}\right)\frac{L}{q^A}=0.$$
(2)
These equations can be rewritten in geometrical terms as follows. Define the Poincaré-Cartan 1-form and 2-form

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_L=L\stackrel{~}{\eta }+\stackrel{~}{S}^{}(dL),\omega _L=d\mathrm{\Theta }_L,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }=\pi _1^{}(dt)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}=(dq^A\dot{q}^Adt){\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{q}^A}}`$ is the canonical vertical endomorphism on $`J^1\pi `$ (see ). The action of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ on 1-forms is denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{}`$. The equations (2) can then be expressed as

$$i_X\omega _L=0,i_X\stackrel{~}{\eta }=1.$$
(3)
If the given Lagrangian is regular, then $`\omega _L`$ has maximal rank and the pair $`(\omega _L,\stackrel{~}{\eta })`$ determines a cosymplectic structure on $`J^1\pi `$, i.e. both forms are closed and satisfy the conditions $`\omega _L^n\stackrel{~}{\eta }0`$, $`\omega _L^{n+1}=0`$ (cf. ). It then follows that (3) admits a unique solution, called the Euler-Lagrange vector field for $`L`$, and which we will denote by $`X_L`$. It is a second-order vector field, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{S}(X_L)=0`$ and $`i_{X_L}\stackrel{~}{\eta }=1`$, and a direct computation shows that integral curves of $`X_L`$ determine solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations (2) and vice-versa.

There also exists an alternative Hamiltonian description of the problem. Consider the Legendre map $`Leg_L:J^1\pi T^{}E`$, defined by $`Leg_L(j_t^1\varphi )(v)=(\mathrm{\Theta }_L)_{j_t^1\varphi }(\stackrel{~}{v})`$ for $`j_t^1\varphi J^1\pi `$, $`vT_{\varphi (t)}E`$ and for any $`\stackrel{~}{v}T_{j_t^1\varphi }J^1\pi `$ such that $`\pi _{1,0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\stackrel{~}{v})=v`$. Let $`V\pi `$ denote the subbundle of $`TE`$ consisting of $`\pi `$-vertical tangent vectors, and denote its annihilator in $`T^{}E`$ by $`(V\pi )^o`$. Consider the quotient bundle $`J^1\pi ^{}=T^{}E/(V\pi )^o`$, which is called the dual of $`J^1\pi `$, with associated projections $`\nu :T^{}EJ^1\pi ^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{1,0}:J^1\pi ^{}E`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_1:J^1\pi ^{}\text{}`$. Finally, denote by $`leg_L:J^1\pi J^1\pi ^{}`$ the composition $`leg_L=\nu Leg_L`$. If $`L`$ is regular, then $`Leg_L`$ is an immersion and $`leg_L`$ is a local diffeomorphism.

Assume now that the Lagrangian $`L`$ is hyperregular, that is, $`leg_L`$ is a global diffeomorphism. Consider then the map $`h=Leg_Lleg_L^1`$. The mapping $`h:J^1\pi ^{}T^{}E`$ is a section of the projection $`\nu `$, i.e. $`\nu h=id_{_{J^1\pi ^{}}}`$ and is called a Hamiltonian of the system. Next, denote by $`\omega _E`$ the canonical symplectic two-form on $`T^{}E`$ and let $`\omega _h=h^{}\omega _E`$ be its pull-back to $`J^1\pi ^{}`$ under $`h`$. If $`\eta _1:=(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_1)^{}dt`$, then $`(\omega _h,\eta _1)`$ defines a cosymplectic structure on $`J^1\pi ^{}`$. In addition, one has that $`leg_L^{}(\omega _h)=\omega _L`$ and $`leg_L^{}\eta _1=\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$. It then easily follows that the solution $`X`$ of (3) is $`leg_L`$-related to the (unique) solution $`Y`$ of the equations

$$i_Y\omega _h=0,i_Y\eta _1=1.$$
(4)
Note that, always under the assumption of (hyper-)regularity of $`L`$, the vector fields $`X_L`$, resp. $`Y`$, are precisely the Reeb vector fields corresponding to the cosymplectic structures $`(\omega _L,\stackrel{~}{\eta })`$, resp. $`(\omega _h,\eta _1)`$.

### 2.2 The singular case: the constraint algorithm

Suppose now that the given Lagrangian $`L`$ is degenerate, in the sense that the Hessian matrix $`(^2L/\dot{q}^A\dot{q}^B)`$ is singular. We confine ourselves to the case where this matrix has constant rank everywhere, say $`r`$. The pair $`(\omega _L,\stackrel{~}{\eta })`$ then satisfies the following relations (cf. ):

$$\omega _L^r\stackrel{~}{\eta }0;,\omega _L^{r+1}\stackrel{~}{\eta }=0,\omega _L^{r+2}=0.$$

It follows that $`2r\text{rank}\omega _L2r+2`$. In general, the equations (3) will not admit a global solution $`X`$. Moreover, if a solution exists it will not be unique. Therefore, in order to determine a consistent dynamics for such a system (if it exists) one has to apply a constraint algorithm which, at least in the case of Lagrangian mechanics, should be supplemented with the “second-order equation condition”. For completeness, we will now briefly sketch the constraint algorithm described in , which is an adaptation to the time-dependent setting of the well-known geometric constraint algorithm for presymplectic systems developed by M. Gotay and J. Nester .

With a view on its application later on, we will describe the constraint algorithm here in the general framework of a structure $`(M,\mathrm{\Omega },\eta )`$ consisting of a smooth manifold $`M`$, a closed 2-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and a closed 1-form $`\eta `$, satisfying

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^r\eta 0,\mathrm{\Omega }^{r+1}\eta =0,\mathrm{\Omega }^{r+2}=0,$$

for some $`r<dimM`$. On $`M`$ we then consider the equations

$$i_X\mathrm{\Omega }=0,i_X\eta =1.$$
(5)
One can prove that there exists a vector $`X_xT_xM`$ satisfying these equations at the point $`x`$ iff $`\text{rank}\mathrm{\Omega }_x=2r`$ (see ). In particular, it follows that (5) admits a global (but not necessarily unique) solution $`X`$ iff $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has constant rank $`2r`$, in which case the given pair $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\eta )`$ defines a so-called precosymplectic structure on $`M`$. If this is not the case, the constraint algorithm proceeds as follows. Put $`P_1:=M`$ and consider the set

$$P_2:=\{xM|X_xT_xM\text{such that}i_{X_x}\mathrm{\Omega }_x=0,i_{X_x}\eta _x=1\}.$$

According to the previous observation, this set can be equivalently characterized by $`P_2=\{xP_1|\text{rank}\mathrm{\Omega }_x=2r\}`$. We then assume that $`P_2`$ is an embedded submanifold of $`P_1(=M)`$ and we denote the natural inclusion by $`j_2:P_2P_1`$. We are then assured that the equations (5) admit a solution $`X`$ defined at all points of $`P_2`$, but $`X`$ need not be tangent to $`P_2`$ and, hence, does not necessarily induce a dynamics on $`P_2`$. We therefore have to continue the constraint algorithm by considering the subset

$`P_3:`$ $`=\{xP_2|X_xT_xP_2\text{such that}i_{X_x}\mathrm{\Omega }(x)=0,i_{X_x}\eta (x)=1\}`$
$`=\{xP_2|\eta _x\mathrm{}(T_xP_2)\},`$
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the bundle morphism defined by

$$\mathrm{}:TMT^{}M,vT_xMi_v\mathrm{\Omega }_x+(i_v\eta _x)\eta _x.$$

Assuming $`P_3`$ is a submanifold of $`P_2`$, with inclusion map $`j_3:P_2P_1`$, it follows that there exists a vector field $`X`$ on $`P_2`$, which satisfies (5) at points of $`P_3`$. Again, however, such an $`X`$ need not be tangent to $`P_3`$, and one may have to repeat the above procedure. In this way, a descending sequence of submanifolds

$$\mathrm{}\stackrel{j_{\mathrm{}+1}}{}P_{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{j_{\mathrm{}}}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{j_4}{}P_3\stackrel{j_3}{}P_2\stackrel{j_2}{}P_1(=M)$$

is generated, with

$$P_{\mathrm{}}:=\{xP_\mathrm{}1|\eta _x\mathrm{}(T_xP_\mathrm{}1\}(\mathrm{}2),$$
(6)
and where $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ is called the $`\mathrm{}`$-ary constraint submanifold. If this sequence terminates at a nonempty set, in the sense that for some finite $`k1`$ we have $`P_{k+1}=P_k`$, but $`P_kP_{k1}`$, then $`P_k`$ is called the final constraint submanifold, which we denote by $`P_f`$. Now, it may still happen that $`dimP_f=0`$ (i.e. $`P_f`$ is a discrete set), in which case the given problem admits no proper dynamics. However, if $`dimP_f>0`$, then we know by construction that there exists a vector field $`X`$ on $`M`$, defined along $`P_f`$, which is tangent to $`P_f`$ and satisfies the equations

$$i_X\mathrm{\Omega }_{|P_f}=0,i_X\eta _{|P_f}=1,$$

i.e. the given dynamical problem admits a consistent solution on $`P_f`$. In general, however, this solution will not be unique: given a solution $`X`$, for any smooth section $`Y`$ of the bundle $`(\text{ker}\mathrm{\Omega }\text{ker}\eta )TP_f`$ over $`P_f`$, $`X+Y`$ is also a solution.

If we are dealing with a time-dependent Lagrangian system, i.e. with $`M=J^1\pi ,\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega _L,\eta =\stackrel{~}{\eta }(=dt)`$, this is not the full story. First of all, we then also have to impose the so-called “second-order differential equation” condition, i.e. we are only interested in a solution $`X`$ which determines a system of second-order ordinary differential equations. Secondly, as in the autonomous case, one can develop a similar constraint algorithm on the Hamiltonian side (i.e. on $`J^1\pi ^{}`$) and, under a suitable assumption regarding the given Lagrangian, one can show that both descriptions are equivalent. For more details, we again refer to .

In the next section we will show how the above can be translated into a Skinner-Rusk type formulation for time-dependent Lagrangian systems.

## 3 Skinner-Rusk formulation

We start again from a fibre bundle $`\pi :E\text{}`$, with $`n`$-dimensional fibre, and its first jet space $`J^1\pi `$. Bundle coordinates on $`E`$ and $`J^1\pi `$ are denoted by $`(t,q^A)`$ and $`(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)`$, respectively. Canonical coordinates on $`T^{}E`$ will be written as $`(t,q^A,\tau ,p_A)`$ and the canonical symplectic form on $`T^{}E`$ then reads $`\omega _E=dq^Adp_A+dtd\tau `$. We now consider the fibred product of the bundles $`T^{}E`$ and $`J^1\pi `$ over $`E`$, i.e. $`T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi `$, with projections $`pr_1:T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi T^{}E`$, $`pr_2:T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi J^1\pi `$ and $`pr:T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi E`$. The natural bundle coordinates on $`T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi `$ are $`(t,q^A,\tau ,p_A,\dot{q}^A)`$.

On $`T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi `$ we define the $`2`$-form $`\omega `$ as the pullback of the canonical symplectic form on $`T^{}E`$, i.e. $`\omega =pr_1^{}\omega _E`$, and the $`1`$-form $`\eta =(\pi pr)^{}(dt)=pr_2^{}\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$. For simplicity we will sometimes write $`\eta =dt`$. Recall that the affine bundle $`J^1\pi `$ can be identified with an affine subbundle of $`TE`$ whose underlying set is given by $`\{vTE|dt,v=1\}`$. In coordinates, the natural embedding $`j:J^1\pi TE`$ reads $`j(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)=(t,q^A,1,\dot{q}^A)`$.

Given a Lagrangian $`LC^{\mathrm{}}(J^1\pi )`$, we can define the following function on $`T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi `$:

$$=pr_1,jpr_2pr_2^{}L,$$

where $`,`$ denotes the natural pairing between vectors and covectors on $`E`$. In coordinates this becomes $`=p_A\dot{q}^A+\tau L(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)`$. Putting

$$\omega _{}=\omega +d\eta ,$$

we can then consider the following equations:

$$i_Z\omega _{}=0,i_Z\eta =1.$$
(7)
Let us try to find out, in coordinates, what kind of dynamics is encoded by (7). For that purpose, we write $`Z`$ as

$$Z=Z_t\frac{}{t}+Z_{q^A}\frac{}{q^A}+Z_\tau \frac{}{\tau }+Z_{p_A}\frac{}{p_A}+Z_{\dot{q}^A}\frac{}{\dot{q}^A}.$$

From the second equation in (7) we deduce that $`Z_t=1`$, and the first equation then becomes:

$`i_Z\omega _{}`$ $`=i_Z\omega +Z()dtd`$
$`=(Z()+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{t}}Z_\tau )dt+({\displaystyle \frac{L}{q^A}}Z_{p_A})dq^A(p_A{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{q}^A}})d\dot{q}^A+(Z_{q^A}\dot{q}^A)dp_A`$
$`=0.`$
This immediately gives $`Z_{q^A}=\dot{q}^A`$ and $`Z_{p_A}={\displaystyle \frac{L}{q^A}}`$, together with the following constraint equations: $`p_A={\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{q}^A}}`$. These constraints determine a submanifold of $`T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi `$ which, for convenience, we will denote by $`M_L`$. With the above expressions for $`Z_{q^A},Z_{p_A}`$ and $`Z_t`$, we see that the remaining condition $`Z()+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{t}}Z_\tau =0`$ is identically satisfied at all points of $`M_L`$, irrespective of the value of the components $`Z_\tau `$ and $`Z_{\dot{q}^A}`$. Note that the relation $`Z_{q^A}=\dot{q}^A`$ reflects the second-order differential equation property.

The previous analysis already shows that (7) locally admits a solution $`Z`$, defined in points of the submanifold $`M_L`$ of $`T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi `$. In fact, we have a whole family of solutions since the components $`Z_\tau `$ and $`Z_{\dot{q}^A}`$ can still be chosen arbitrarily.

In order to obtain consistent equations of motion, however, we have to impose the condition that $`Z`$ be tangent to the submanifold $`M_L`$, that is, the functions $`Z(p_A{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{q}^A}})`$ should vanish at points of $`M_L`$ for all $`A=1,\mathrm{},n`$. We now have that

$`Z(p_A{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{q}^A}})={\displaystyle \frac{L}{q^A}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2L}{t\dot{q}^A}}\dot{q}^B{\displaystyle \frac{^2L}{q^B\dot{q}^A}}Z_{\dot{q}^B}{\displaystyle \frac{^2L}{\dot{q}^A\dot{q}^B}}.`$ (8)
Clearly, if $`L`$ is regular, the vanishing of (8) fixes all the components $`Z_{\dot{q}^A}`$ as functions of $`(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)`$ on $`M_L`$. If not, one will have to apply a constraint algorithm.

### 3.1 The regular case

Let us assume that the given Lagrangian $`L`$ is regular. The previous analysis tells us that the system (7) admits a solution $`Z`$ on $`M_L`$ and it follows from the expression for the components $`Z_t,Z_{q^A},Z_{p_A},Z_{\dot{q}^A}`$ that any integral curve of $`Z`$ on $`M_L`$ determines a solution $`(q^A(t))`$ of the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations of motion

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{L}{\dot{q}^A}\right)\frac{L}{q^A}=0,(A=1,\mathrm{},n).$$

However, the solution $`Z`$ is not unique since the component $`Z_\tau `$ is still undetermined. This, of course, is not surprising since $`/\tau `$ belongs to $`\text{ker}\omega _{}\text{ker}\eta `$, i.e. $`i_\frac{}{\tau }\omega _{}=0`$ and $`i_\frac{}{\tau }\eta =0`$. In order to obtain a unique dynamics, we now impose an additional constraint

$$\tau =L\dot{q}^A\frac{L}{\dot{q}^A}.$$

Together with the constraints $`p_A={\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{q}^A}}`$, these are (locally) the defining equations of a submanifold of $`T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi `$, namely the graph of the (extended) Legendre map

$$Leg_L:J^1\pi T^{}E,(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)(t,q^A,L\dot{q}^A\frac{L}{\dot{q}^A},\frac{L}{\dot{q}^A})$$

(for the intrinsic definition of $`Leg_L`$, see e.g. , and for the notion of graph considered here, see the Remark in the Introduction). We denote the graph of $`Leg_L`$ by $`\text{graph}_L`$. Clearly, $`\text{graph}_LM_L`$ and if we now require that $`Z`$ should be tangent to $`\text{graph}_L`$, it readily follows that

$$Z_\tau =Z(L\dot{q}^A\frac{L}{\dot{q}^A}),$$
(9)
which uniquely fixes $`Z_\tau `$. Note that the differential equation corresponding to the $`\tau `$-component of $`Z`$ represents the so-called “energy-balance” equation from time-dependent mechanics.

The above construction was carried out on an arbitrary natural bundle chart of $`T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi `$. Using a standard argument it then follows that $`Z`$ is in fact well-defined on the whole of $`\text{graph}_L`$. Defining the mapping

$$Leg_L\times _Eid_{J^1\pi }:J^1\pi T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi ,(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)(t,q^A,L\dot{q}^A\frac{L}{\dot{q}^A},\frac{L}{\dot{q}^A},\dot{q}^A),$$

we see that $`\text{Im}(Leg_L\times _Eid_{J^1\pi })=\text{graph}_L`$ and it is not difficult to verify that the unique solution $`Z`$ of (7), defined on $`\text{graph}_L`$, and the Euler-Lagrange vector field $`X_L`$ on $`J^1\pi `$ are related by

$$(Leg_L\times _Eid_{J^1\pi })_{}(X_L)_x=Z_{\overline{x}},$$

where $`\overline{x}=(Leg_L\times _Eid_{J^1\pi })(x)`$, for all $`xJ^1\pi `$.

The previous discussion can now be summarized by the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.1

For a regular Lagrangian $`L`$, the system (7) admits a unique solution $`Z`$ defined on, and tangent to, $`\text{graph}_L`$, and the induced vector field on $`\text{graph}_L`$ is $`(Leg_L\times _Eid_{J^1\pi })`$-related to the Euler-Lagrange vector field on $`J^1\pi `$.

Recall that there exists a canonical projection $`\nu :T^{}EJ^1\pi ^{}(=T^{}E/(V\pi )^0)`$ which, in coordinates, reads $`\nu (t,q^A,\tau ,p_A)=(t,q^A,p_A)`$ (cf. Section 2.1 and ). Let us assume that $`L`$ is hyperregular such that the mapping $`leg_L:=\nu Leg_L`$ is a global diffeomorphism. Consider the fibred product $`J^1\pi ^{}\times _EJ^1\pi `$, with associated projections $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ onto $`J^1\pi ^{}`$ and $`J^1\pi `$, respectively. We can then define the following projection

$$\nu \times _Eid_{J^1\pi }:T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi J^1\pi ^{}\times _EJ^1\pi ,(t,q^A,\tau ,p_A,\dot{q}^A)(t,q^A,p_A,\dot{q}^A).$$

From the discussion above we deduce that, along $`\text{graph}_L`$, the vertical distribution determined by the projection $`\nu \times _Eid_{J^1\pi }`$, i.e. $`\text{ker}(\nu \times _Eid_{J^1\pi })_{}`$, is invariant under $`Z`$ in the sense that

$$[Z,\text{ker}(\nu \times _Eid_{J^1\pi })_{}]\text{ker}(\nu \times _Eid_{J^1\pi })_{}.$$

Hence, in the hyperregular case, the solution vector field $`Z`$ is projectable onto $`J^1\pi ^{}\times _EJ^1\pi `$. Its projection locally reads

$$(\nu \times _Eid_{J^1\pi })_{}(Z)=\frac{}{t}+\dot{q}^A\frac{}{q^A}+Z_{\dot{q}^A}(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)\frac{}{\dot{q}^A}+\frac{L}{q^A}(t,q^A,\dot{q}^A)\frac{}{p_A}.$$

This is the unique vector field on $`J^1\pi ^{}\times _EJ^1\pi `$ determined by the equations

$$i_{\stackrel{~}{Z}}(\lambda _1^{}\omega _h)=0,i_{\stackrel{~}{Z}}(\lambda _1^{}\eta _1)=1,$$

where we recall that $`h=Leg_Lleg_L^1`$ and $`\omega _h=h^{}\omega _E`$ (cf. Section 2.1).

In the general case, however, it is not possible to represent the dynamics of the non-autonomous problem corresponding to $`L`$ by a first-order system on $`J^1\pi ^{}\times _EJ^1\pi `$.

### 3.2 The singular case

Returning to the beginning of this section, let us now assume that $`L`$ is not regular. Observe that, with $`\omega :=pr_1^{}\omega _E`$, we have

$$\omega _{}^2(=\omega _{}\omega _{})=\omega \omega +2\omega d\eta ,$$

and, in general,

$$\omega _{}^k=\omega ^k+k\omega ^{k1}d\eta ,k.$$

Herewith, it is straightforward to check that the pair $`(\omega _{},\eta )`$ satisfies the following relations:

$$\omega _{}^n\eta 0,\omega _{}^{n+1}\eta =0,\omega _{}^{n+2}=0.$$

Indeed, we have

$`\omega _{}^n\eta `$ $`=\omega ^n\eta =(1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}n!dq^1\mathrm{}dq^ndp_1\mathrm{}dp_n\eta 0,`$
$`\omega _{}^{n+1}\eta `$ $`=(1)^{\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}}(n+1)!dtdq^1\mathrm{}dq^nd\tau dp_1\mathrm{}dp_n\eta =0,`$
$`\omega _{}^{n+2}`$ $`=\omega ^{n+2}+(n+2)\omega ^{n+1}ddt=0.`$
This implies, in particular, that $`2n\text{rank}\omega _{}2(n+1)`$, where we recall that $`\text{dim}E=n+1`$.

Putting $`M_1:=T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi `$, we can now apply the constraint algorithm described in Section 2.2 to the triplet $`(M_1,\omega _{},\eta )`$. First of all, we consider the set

$$M_2=\{xM_1|Z_xT_xM_1\text{such that}i_{Z_x}\omega _{}(x)=0,i_{Z_x}\eta (x)=1\},$$

which can be equivalently characterized by $`M_2=\{xM_1|\text{rank}\omega _{}(x)=2n\}`$. In local coordinates we find

$`\omega _{}^{n+1}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^{n+1}(x)+(n+1)\omega ^nd\eta (x)`$
$`=`$ $`\omega ^{n+1}(x)(n+1)\omega ^n{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}d\tau \eta (x)+(n+1){\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{q}^A}}\omega _E^nd\dot{q}^A\eta (x)`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}(n+1)!{\displaystyle \frac{}{\dot{q}^A}}dq^1\mathrm{}dq^ndp_1\mathrm{}dp_nd\dot{q}^A\eta (x),`$
such that $`xM_2`$ if and only if

$$\frac{}{\dot{q}^A}_{|x}(p_A\frac{L}{\dot{q}^A})_{|x}=0,A=1,\mathrm{}n.$$

Observe that $`M_2`$ coincides with the submanifold $`M_L`$ introduced at the beginning of this section. By construction, there exists a vector field $`Z`$ on $`M_1`$, defined along $`M_2`$, which verifies equations (7) at points of $`M_2`$. But in general $`Z`$ will not be tangent to $`M_2`$ and so we then have to proceed with the constraint algorithm by considering the set

$$M_3=\{xM_2|Z_xT_xM_2\text{such that}i_{Z_x}\omega _{}(x)=0,i_{Z_x}\eta (x)=1\}.$$

Assuming that $`M_3`$ is a smooth submanifold, there will be a vector field $`Z`$ defined along $`M_3`$ and tangent to $`M_2`$, satisfying (7) at each point of $`M_3`$. Continuing this way, we obtain a descending sequence of submanifolds of $`M_1`$ that, in the favorable case, will stop at a final constraint submanifold $`M_f`$ on which there exists a consistent solution of the given dynamical problem (cf. Section 2.2). The constraint submanifolds $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$ can still be characterized in an algebraic way similar to (6), with the map $`\mathrm{}:TM_1T^{}M_1`$ being induced here by the pair $`(\omega _{},\eta )`$.

As in the autonomous case, we thus see that the constraint algorithm for time-dependent singular Lagrangian systems can be properly developed in terms of the structure $`(T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi ,\omega _{},\eta )`$. To complete the picture, we have the following result which shows that this description is equivalent to the standard one based on the structure $`(J^1\pi ,\omega _L,\stackrel{~}{\eta })`$.

###### Proposition 3.2

Let $`\{P_{\mathrm{}}\}_\mathrm{}1`$, resp. $`\{M_{\mathrm{}}\}_\mathrm{}1`$, denote the sequence of constraint submanifolds generated by applying the constraint algorithm to $`(J^1\pi ,\omega _L,\stackrel{~}{\eta })`$, resp. $`(T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi ,\omega _{},\eta )`$. Then, for each $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, we have that $`\phi _{i+1}pr_{2}^{}{}_{|M_{i+1}}{}^{}:M_{i+1}P_i`$ is a surjective submersion such that the following diagram commutes

(where $`j_{\mathrm{}}:P_{\mathrm{}}P_\mathrm{}1`$ and $`j_{\mathrm{}}^{}:M_{\mathrm{}}M_\mathrm{}1`$ are the natural embeddings of the respective constraint submanifolds). Moreover, if there is a final constraint submanifold $`M_f:=M_kM_1`$ (for some $`k2`$) on which there exists a consistent solution $`Z`$ of (7), then $`Z`$ projects under $`\phi _k`$ onto a solution of (3) on the final constraint submanifold $`P_f:=P_{k1}`$ in $`J^1\pi `$ and, conversely, any solution of (3), defined on $`P_f`$, is the projection of a vector field on $`M_f`$ which is a solution of (7).

The proof of this proposition essentially relies on the following two facts. First of all, the projection $`pr_2:T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi J^1\pi `$ has the appropriate “almost regularity” properties, that is: (i) $`pr_2`$ is a surjective submersion and (ii) the fibres of this submersion are connected submanifolds of $`T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi `$, being diffeomorphic to $`\text{}^{n+1}`$. And, secondly, a straightforward computation shows that

$`(pr_2^{}\omega _L)(x)`$ $`=\left(dq^Ad\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{q}^A}}\right)+dE_Ldt\right)(x)`$
$`=\left(dq^Ad\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{q}^A}}\right)+\dot{q}^Ad\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{q}^A}}\right)dt\left({\displaystyle \frac{L}{q^A}}\right)dq^Adt\right)(x)`$
$`=\omega _{}(x),`$
and, clearly, we also have $`pr_2^{}\stackrel{~}{\eta }=\eta `$. Herewith, the proof of Proposition 3.2 can be easily completed, following the same reasoning as in the autonomous case .

The solution generated by the constraint algorithm (if it exists) is not unique. On the other hand, we may observe that if the given dynamical problem (7) admits a consistent solution $`Z`$ on a final constraint submanifold $`M_f`$ then, by construction, its projection onto $`J^1\pi `$ will automatically verify the second-order equation condition along a submanifold of $`P_f`$. This is again in full analogy with the situation encountered in the autonomous case.

Next, assume that the given Lagrangian $`LC^{\mathrm{}}(J^1\pi )`$ is almost regular in the following sense: (i) $`Leg_L(J^1\pi )`$ is a submanifold of $`T^{}E`$, (ii) $`Leg_L`$, regarded as a map from $`J^1\pi `$ onto its image, is a submersion with connected fibres, (iii) $`leg_L^1(leg_L(x))`$ is a connected set for all $`xJ^1\pi `$. In  it has been shown that, with these assumptions, one can develop a constraint algorithm on $`J^1\pi ^{}`$ which is equivalent to the one on $`J^1\pi `$. Again as in the autonomous case (see ), one can demonstrate that a solution of the constrained analysis on $`J^1\pi ^{}`$ can be related to a solution $`Z`$ of (7), defined on the final constraint submanifold $`M_f`$. This connection is established by choosing a suitable (local) section $`\sigma `$ of the projection $`\nu pr_1:T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi J^1\pi ^{}`$ and restricting $`Z`$ to $`\text{Im}(\sigma )M_f`$ (recall that $`\nu `$ is the canonical projection of $`T^{}E`$ onto $`J^1\pi ^{}`$).

## 4 Conclusions

We have developed a non-autonomous version of the Skinner-Rusk approach to (Lagrangian) mechanics and have shown that, both in the regular and in the singular case, this yields a first-order system on the fibred product $`T^{}E\times _EJ^1\pi `$ which encodes all the information of the dynamics of the system under consideration. This approach to time-dependent mechanics possesses the same virtues as in the autonomous case, such as the fact that the ‘Hamiltonian’ $``$ is defined without having to solve the relations $`p_A=L/\dot{q}^A`$ for (some of) the velocities.

Within the above framework for the description of time-dependent mechanics, there are several lines of investigation that seem to be worth pursuing, such as: the role and the nature of gauge transformations in the case of singular Lagrangians and the general study of symmetries of (time-dependent) mechanical systems. In addition, it would certainly be of interest to use this formalism for establishing a geometric formulation of optimal control problems with an explicit time-dependence, such as in the case of time-dependent vakonomic dynamics, thereby generalizing the work presented in .

Acknowledgements
This research has been partially supported by a FPI grant from the Spanish MCYT, by grant DGICYT PGC2000-2191-E and by the European Union through the Training and Mobility of Researchers Program ERB FMRXCT-970137. FC also wishes to acknowledge support from a research grant of the “Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds” of Ghent University.


format: text

text:
# The Rational Cohomology Ring of the Moduli Space of Abelian 3-folds

## 1. Introduction

Suppose that $`R`$ is a commutative ring with unit. Denote by $`Sp_n(R)`$ the group of automorphisms of $`R^{2n}`$ that preserve the unimodular alternating form given by the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I_n\\ I_n& 0\end{array}\right)$$

In this note we compute the rational cohomology ring of $`Sp_3()`$, or equivalently, of $`𝒜_3`$, the moduli space of principally polarized abelian 3-folds.

Denote the $``$-Hodge structure of dimension 1 and weight $`2n`$ by $`(n)`$. (For those not interested in Hodge theory, just interpret this as one copy of $``$.) Denote by $`\lambda `$ the first Chern class in $`H^{}(𝒜_3;)`$ of the Hodge bundle $`det\pi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$ associated to the projection $`\pi `$ of the universal abelian 3-fold to $`𝒜_3`$.

###### Theorem 1.

The cohomology groups of $`𝒜_3`$ are given by

$$H^j(𝒜_3;)H^j(Sp_3();)\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & j=0;\hfill \\ (1)\hfill & j=2;\hfill \\ (2)\hfill & j=4;\hfill \\ E\hfill & j=6;\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`E`$ is a two-dimensional mixed Hodge structure which is an extension

$$0(3)E(6)0.$$

The ring structure is determined by the condition that $`\lambda ^30`$.

I do not know whether the mixed Hodge structure (MHS) $`E`$ on $`H^6`$ is split. Since $`𝒜_3`$ is a smooth stack over $`\mathrm{Spec}`$, I expect it to be a multiple (possibly trivial) of the class

$$\zeta (3)/i\pi ^3\mathrm{Ext}_{}^1(,(3))$$

given by the value of the Riemann zeta function at 3. Determining this class would be interesting.

As a corollary, we deduce the rational cohomology of $`\overline{𝒜}_3`$, the Satake compactification of $`𝒜_3`$.

###### Theorem 2.

The rational cohomology ring of $`\overline{𝒜}_3`$ is given by

$$H^j(𝒜_3;)\{\begin{array}{cc}(n)\hfill & j=2n,n\{0,1,2,4,5,6\};\hfill \\ B\hfill & j=6;\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`B`$ is a 3-dimensional mixed Hodge structure which is an extension

$$0(0)B(3)^20.$$

The ring structure is determined by the condition that the cohomology ring contain the graded ring $`[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^7)`$, where $`\lambda `$ has degree 2 and type $`(1,1)`$.

Along the way, we compute the rational cohomology of $`\overline{𝒜}_2`$, the Satake compactification of $`𝒜_2`$ as well.

###### Proposition 3.

The rational cohomology ring of $`\overline{𝒜}_2`$ is given by

$$H^{}(\overline{𝒜}_2;)[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^4).$$

where $`\lambda `$ is the first Chern class of the Hodge bundle

Denote the moduli space of smooth projective curves over the complex numbers by $`_g`$. Another consequence of the proof is the surjectivity of the homomorphism

$$H^{}(𝒜_3;)H^{}(_3;)$$

induced by the period mapping $`_3𝒜_3`$.

The computation of the rational cohomology of $`𝒜_1`$ is classical111It is trivial except in degree 0. and follows from the fact that the quotient of the upper half plane by $`Sp_1()=SL_2()`$ is a copy of the affine line. The computation of the rational cohomology of $`𝒜_2`$ is (essentially) due to Igusa .222It is 1-dimensional in degrees 0 and 2, and trivial elsewhere. Brownstein and Lee  have computed the integral cohomology of $`Sp_2()`$.

Suppose that $`g2`$. Recall that that the mapping class group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ in genus $`g`$ is the group of isotopy classes of orientation preserving diffeomorphisms of a closed, oriented surface $`S`$ of genus $`g`$. Its rational cohomology is isomorphic to that of $`_g`$. The Torelli group $`T_g`$ is defined to be the kernel of the natural homomorphism

(1)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_gSp(H_1(S;))$$

where $`Sp`$ denotes the symplectic group, and where $`H_1(S;)`$ is regarded as a symplectic module via its intersection form. Choosing a symplectic basis of $`H_1(S;)`$ gives an isomorphism $`Sp_g()Sp(H_1(S;))`$. One then obtains the well known extension

(2)
$$1T_g\mathrm{\Gamma }_gSp_g()1.$$

The extended Torelli group $`\widehat{T}_g`$ is the preimage of the center $`\{\pm I\}`$ of $`Sp(H_1(S;))`$ under (1). Equivalently, it is the group of isotopy classes of diffeomorphisms of $`S`$ that act as $`\pm I`$ on $`H_1(S)`$. One has the extensions

$$1T_g\widehat{T}_g\{\pm I\}1$$

and

(3)
$$1\widehat{T}_g\mathrm{\Gamma }_gPSp_g()1$$

where $`PSp_g()`$ denotes the integral projective symplectic group $`Sp_g()/\{\pm I\}`$.

Our approach to computing the cohomology of $`Sp_3()`$ is to analyse the spectral sequence of the extension (3). This entails knowing the cohomology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ (or equivalently, $`_3`$) and of $`\widehat{T}_3`$. Looijenga  computed the cohomology of $`_3`$ using the theory of Del-Pezzo surfaces:

$$H^j(_3;)\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & j=0;\hfill \\ (1)\hfill & j=1;\hfill \\ (6)\hfill & j=6;\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

The cohomology of $`\widehat{T}_3`$ is computed in Section 3 using the stratified Morse Theory of Goresky and MacPherson . We use their theory of non-proper Morse functions (see their Part II, Chapter 10) applied to the square of the distance to a point function restricted to the jacobian locus. This is an elaboration of a trick of Geoff Mess  which he used to show that the Torelli group in genus 2 is free of countable rank, and which was also used by Johnson and Millson (cf. ) to show that Torelli space in genus 3 does not have the homotopy type of a finite complex. Our use of Morse theory is analogous to Goresky and MacPherson’s treatment \[7, Part III\] of complements of affine subspaces of euclidean spaces. \[Look at Mess’s paper.\]

It seems to be a curious fact that in low genus ($`g=2,3`$ so far), it is easier to compute the rational cohomology groups of $`_g`$ than of $`𝒜_g`$. This is perhaps a reflection of the richness of curve theory — that it is a more powerful tool for understanding the geometry of $`_g`$ than the theory of abelian varieties is as a tool for understanding the geometry of $`𝒜_g`$. It will be interesting to know if this trend persists when $`g4`$, when $`_g`$ is no longer dense in $`𝒜_g`$. The cohomology of $`_4`$ is not yet know, nor does it seem tractable to compute the cohomology of the extended Torelli group in genus 4.

## 2. Preliminaries

General references for this section are \[8, Chapt. 3\] and .

A polarized abelian variety is a compact complex torus $`A`$ together with a cohomology class

$$\theta H^{1,1}(A)H^2(A;)$$

whose translation invariant representative is positive. The corresponding complex line bundle is ample. The polarization $`\theta `$ can be regarded as a skew symmetric bilinear form on $`H_1(A;)`$. The polarization is principal if this form is unimodular.

Jacobians of curves are polarized by the intersection pairing on $`H_1(C;)H_1(\mathrm{Jac}C;)`$. This form is unimodular, and so jacobians are canonically principally polarized abelian varieties.

A framed principally polarized abelian variety is a principally polarized abelian variety $`A`$ together with a symplectic basis of $`H_1(A;)`$ with respect to the polarization $`\theta `$.

Suppose that $`g1`$. The maximal compact subgroup of $`Sp_g()`$ is $`U(g)`$. The symmetric space $`Sp_g()/U(g)`$ is isomorphic to the rank $`g`$ Siegel upper half space

$$𝔥_g=\left\{\text{symmetric }g\times g\text{ complex matrices with positive definite imaginary part}\right\}$$

(See, , for example.) It has dimension $`g(g+1)/2`$. Taking a framed principally polarized abelian variety $`(A;a_1,\mathrm{},a_g,b_1,\mathrm{},b_g)`$ to the corresponding period matrix gives a bijection

(4)
$$𝔥_g\left\{\text{isomorphism classes of framed principally polarized abelian varieties}\right\}$$

We will regard $`𝔥_g`$ as the (fine) moduli space of framed principally polarized abelian varieties of dimension $`g`$.

Changing symplectic bases gives a natural left action of $`Sp_g()`$ on the moduli space of framed principally polarized abelian varieties. There is clearly a natural left $`Sp_g()`$ action on $`𝔥_g=Sp_g()/U(g)`$. The bijection (4) is equivariant with respect to these actions.

The moduli space $`𝒜_g`$ of principally polarized abelian varieties of dimension $`g`$ is the quotient $`Sp_g()\backslash 𝔥_g`$. Since $`𝔥_g`$ is contractible and since $`Sp_g()`$ acts discontinuously and virtually freely on $`𝔥_g`$, it follows that there is a natural isomorphism

$$H^{}(Sp_g();)H^{}(𝒜_g;).$$

Taking a curve $`C`$ to its jacobian $`\mathrm{Jac}C`$ defines a morphism $`_g𝒜_g`$ which is called the period mapping.

Now suppose that $`g2`$. Denote Teichmüller space in genus $`g`$ by $`𝒳_g`$. The mapping class group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$ acts properly discontinuously and virtually freely on $`𝒳_g`$ with quotient $`_g`$. It follows that there is a natural isomorphism

$$H^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_g;)H^{}(_g;).$$

We shall need several moduli spaces that sit between $`𝒳_g`$ and $`_g`$. Denote the quotient of $`𝒳_g`$ by $`T_g`$ by $`𝒯_g`$. This space is known as Torelli space. Since $`𝒳_g`$ is contractible and $`T_g`$ is torsion free, $`T_g`$ acts freely on $`𝒳_g`$ and Torelli space is an Eilenberg-MacLane space with fundamental group $`T_g`$. Consequently,

$$H^{}(T_g;)H^{}(𝒯_g;).$$

By a framed Riemann surface of genus $`g`$ we shall mean a compact Riemann surface $`C`$ together with a symplectic basis $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_g,b_1,\mathrm{},b_g`$ of $`H_1(C;)`$ with respect to the intersection form. Torelli space $`𝒯_g`$ is the moduli space of framed Riemann surfaces of genus $`g`$; its points correspond to isomorphism classes of framed, genus $`g`$ Riemann surfaces. The symplectic group $`Sp_g()`$ acts on the framings in the natural way; the quotient $`Sp_g()\backslash 𝒯_g`$ is $`_g`$.

Denote the locus in $`𝔥_g`$ consisting of jacobians of smooth curves by $`𝒥_g`$. (Note that this is not closed in $`𝒜_g`$.) The period mapping $`𝒯_g𝒥_g`$ is surjective by definition. Since minus the identity is an automorphism of every polarized abelian variety $`A`$,

$$(A;a_1,\mathrm{},b_g)(A;a_1,\mathrm{},b_g).$$

But if $`C`$ is a genus $`g`$ curve, then

$$(C;a_1,\mathrm{},b_g)(C;a_1,\mathrm{},b_g)$$

if and only if $`C`$ is hyperelliptic. It follows that, when $`g3`$, the period mapping

$$𝒯_g𝒥_g$$

that takes a framed curve to its jacobian with the same framing is surjective and 2:1 except along the hyperelliptic locus, where it is 1:1. It follows that, when $`g3`$,

$$𝒥_g=\widehat{T}_g\backslash 𝒳_g\text{ and }_g=PSp_g()\backslash 𝒥_g.$$

The following diagram shows the coverings and their Galois group when $`g3`$:

(5)
###### Lemma 4.

If $`1/2EG1`$ is a group extension, then the projection $`EG`$ induces an isomorphism on homology and cohomology with 2-divisible coefficients. In particular

$$H^{}(PSp_g();[1/2])H^{}(Sp_g();[1/2])$$

is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

This follows from the fact that

$$H^j(/2;[1/2])=0j>0$$

using the Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence of the group extension. ∎

###### Proposition 5.

For all $`g2`$, there is a natural isomorphism

$$H_{}(𝒥_g;[1/2])H_{}(\widehat{T}_g;[1/2])H_{}(T_g;[1/2])^{/2}.$$

There are similar isomorphisms for cohomology.

###### Proof.

Since $`T_g`$ is torsion free, $`T_g`$ acts fixed point freely on Teichmüller space, and $`𝒯_g`$ is a model of the classifying space of $`T_g`$. Recall that if $`X`$ is a simplicial complex on which $`/2`$ acts simplicially (but not necessarily fixed point freely), then the map

$$p_{}:H_{}(X/(/2);[1/2])H_{}(X;[1/2])^{/2}$$

induced by the projection $`p`$ is an isomorphism, whose inverse is half the pullback map $`p^{}`$. Applying this twice gives isomorphisms

$$H^{}(𝒥_g;[1/2])H^{}(𝒯_g;[1/2])^{/2}H^{}(T_g;[1/2])^{/2}H^{}(\widehat{T}_g;[1/2]).$$

A theta divisor of a principally polarized abelian variety $`A`$ is a divisor $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ whose Poincaré dual is the polarization and which satisfies $`i^{}\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta }`$, where $`i:xx`$. Any two such divisors differ by translation by a point of order 2, and can be given as the zero locus of a theta function associated to a period matrix of $`A`$. A principally polarized abelian variety $`A`$ is reducible if it is isomorphic (as a polarized variety) to the product of two proper abelian subvarieties. If $`A=A_1\times A_2`$, then any theta divisor of $`A`$ is reducible:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_A=\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_{A_1}\times A_2\right)\left(A_1\times \mathrm{\Theta }_{A_2}\right).$$

Denote the locus of reducible abelian varieties in $`𝒜_g`$ by $`𝒜_g^{\mathrm{red}}`$ and in $`𝔥_g`$ by $`𝔥_g^{\mathrm{red}}`$. Elements of $`𝔥_g^{\mathrm{red}}`$ are precisely those period matrices $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that can be written as a direct sum of two smaller period matrices.

###### Proposition 6.

Denote the closure of $`𝒥_g`$ in $`𝔥_g`$ by $`\overline{𝒥}_g`$. If $`g2`$, then $`𝒥_g=\overline{𝒥}_g(\overline{𝒥}_g𝔥_g^{\mathrm{red}})`$.

###### Proof.

The period mapping $`_g𝒜_g`$ extends to a morphism $`\overline{}_g\overline{𝒜}_g`$ from the Deligne-Mumford compactification of $`_g`$ to the Satake compactification of $`𝒜_g`$. The inverse image of the boundary $`\overline{𝒜}_g𝒜_g`$ of $`\overline{𝒜}_g`$ is the boundary divisor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ of $`\overline{}_g`$, whose generic point is an irreducible stable curve of genus $`g`$ with one node. Denote the moduli space of curves of compact type $`\overline{}_g\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{}_g`$. Since $`\overline{}_g`$ is complete, it follows that the period mapping $`\stackrel{~}{}_g𝒜_g`$ is proper and therefore has closed image in $`𝒜_g`$. Since $`_g`$ is dense in $`\overline{}_g`$ and has image $`Sp_g()\backslash 𝒥_g`$ under the period mapping, it follows that the image of $`\stackrel{~}{}_g`$ in $`𝒜_g`$ is $`Sp_g()\backslash \overline{𝒥}_g`$.

Recall that the theta divisor $`\mathrm{\Theta }_C\mathrm{Jac}C`$ of a smooth genus $`g`$ curve $`C`$ is (up to a translate by a point of order 2) the image of mapping

$$C^{g1}\mathrm{Pic}^{g1}C\mathrm{Jac}C$$

that takes $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{g1})`$ to $`x_1+\mathrm{}+x_{g1}\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ is a square root of the canonical bundle of $`C`$. (See, for example, \[8, p. 338\].) It follows that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_C`$ is irreducible. On the other hand, if $`C`$ is a reducible, stable, curve of compact type, its jacobian is the product of the components of its irreducible components, and is therefore reducible. The result follows. ∎

###### Corollary 7.

We have $`𝒥_3=𝔥_3𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$.

###### Proof.

Both $`_3`$ and $`𝒜_3`$ have dimension 6. Since the period mapping $`_3𝒜_3`$ is generically of maximal rank, $`\stackrel{~}{}_3𝒜_3`$ is surjective. This implies that $`\overline{𝒥}_3=𝔥_3`$, from which the result follows. ∎

## 3. The Homology of $`𝒥_3`$ and $`\widehat{T}_3`$

Denote the singular locus of an analytic variety $`Z`$ by $`Z^{\mathrm{sing}}`$. We shall compute the homology of $`𝒥_3`$ by applying stratified Morse theory to the the stratification

(6)
$$𝔥_3𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}$$

of $`𝔥_3`$. The top stratum is, by Corollary 7, $`𝒥_3`$. Note that there are natural inclusions

$$𝔥_1\times 𝔥_2𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}\text{ and }𝔥_1\times 𝔥_1\times 𝔥_1𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}$$

defined by

$$(\tau ,\mathrm{\Omega })\left(\begin{array}{cc}\tau & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Omega }\end{array}\right)\text{ and }(\tau _1,\tau _2,\tau _3)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\tau _1& 0& 0\\ 0& \tau _2& 0\\ 0& 0& \tau _3\end{array}\right)$$

respectively. Note that the image of $`𝔥_1\times 𝔥_2`$ is stabilized in $`Sp_3()`$ by $`SL_2()\times Sp_2()`$, and the image of $`(𝔥_1)^3`$ by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3SL_2()^3`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ is identified with the subgroup

$$\{a_ja_{\sigma (j)}\text{ and }b_jb_{\sigma (j)}:\sigma \text{ is a permutation of }\{1,2,3\}\}$$

of $`Sp_3()`$. Here $`a_1,\mathrm{},b_6`$ is the distinguished framing of the first homology of the corresponding abelian variety.

###### Proposition 8.

The stratification (6) satisfies Whitney’s conditions (A) and (B) (cf. \[7, p. 37\]). Moreover

(7)
$$𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}=\underset{gSp_3()}{}g(𝔥_1\times 𝔥_2)=\underset{gSp_3()/\left(SL_2()\times Sp_2()\right)}{}g(𝔥_1\times 𝔥_2)$$

and

(8)
$$𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}=\underset{gSp_3()}{}g(𝔥_1\times 𝔥_1\times 𝔥_1)=\underset{gSp_3()/\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }_3(SL_2())^3\right)}{}g(𝔥_1\times 𝔥_1\times 𝔥_1)$$

In particular, $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$ is a locally finite union of totally geodesic complex submanifolds of $`𝔥_3`$ of complex codimension $`2`$ and $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{sing},\mathrm{red}}`$ is a countable disjoint union of totally geodesic complex submanifolds of $`𝔥_3`$ of complex codimension $`3`$.

###### Proof.

Since every reducible abelian variety is the product (as polarized varieties) of an elliptic curve and an abelian surface, $`𝒜_1\times 𝒜_2𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$ is surjective. Lifting to $`𝔥_3`$, this implies that the $`Sp_3()`$ acts transitively on the components of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$, and that $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$ is the $`Sp_3()`$-orbit of $`𝔥_1\times 𝔥_2`$ in $`𝔥_3`$. Since $`SL_2()\times Sp_2()`$ acts transitively on $`𝔥_1\times 𝔥_2`$, the stabilizer in $`Sp_3()`$ of $`𝔥_1\times 𝔥_2`$ is $`SL_2()\times Sp_2()`$. Assertion (8) follows.

The components of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$ are smooth, so the $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ is the locus where two or more components of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$ intersect. This is precisely the preimage of the locus in $`𝒜_3`$ of products of 3 elliptic curves. Since this locus is irreducible (it is the image of $`(𝒜_1)^3𝒜_3`$), $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ is the $`Sp_3()`$-orbit of $`(𝔥_1)^3`$. By the semi-simplicity of polarized abelian varieties, there is a unique way to decompose an element of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ as a product of three elliptic curves. This, and the fact that $`SL_2()^3`$ acts transitively on $`(𝔥_1)^3`$, imply the stabilizer in $`Sp_3()`$ of $`(𝔥_1)^3`$ is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3SL_2()^3`$ and that each component of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ is smooth. This proves (7).

Whitney’s condition (A) is automatic as each component of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ is a homogeneous submanifold of the closure of each component of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$. Condition (B) is well known to be a consequence of condition (A). ∎

Integrating the Riemannian metric along geodesics gives an $`Sp_g()`$-invariant distance function $`d`$ on $`X`$. For a point $`pX`$, let $`D_p:X`$ be the square of the distance to $`p`$:

$$D_p(x)=d(x,p)^2.$$

The following result can be proved, either by appealing to \[7, I.2.2.3\] or by an elementary and direct argument.

###### Proposition 9.

There is an open dense subset $`U`$ of $`X`$ such that for all $`pU`$, $`D_p:X`$ is a Morse function in the sense of Goresky and MacPherson \[7, p. 52\], all of whose critical points are “nondepraved.” ∎

Since each stratum is a union of totally geodesic subspaces, and since the symmetric space metric is complete with non-positive curvature it follows that there is a unique critical point on each component of each stratum. Since the Morse data for each critical point is a product of the normal and tangential Morse data \[7, p. 61\], we only need compute the normal Morse data at each critical point. There are two types of these: those that lie on a translate of $`𝔥_1\times 𝔥_2`$ and those that lie on a translate of $`(𝔥_1)^3`$. The Morse data at each depends only on its type.

###### Proposition 10.

If $`x𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ is a critical point of $`D_p`$, then the normal Morse data at $`x`$ is homotopy equivalent to $`(S^3,)`$. In particular, $`D_p`$ is perfect at such critical points.

###### Proof.

Since the normal slice at a smooth point of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$ is a complex 2-ball, the normal Morse data at $`x`$ is $`(S^3,)`$. Since $`H_{}(S^3)H_{}(S^3,)`$ is surjective, $`D_p`$ is perfect at $`x`$. ∎

###### Lemma 11.

At each point of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$, there is a normal slice with coordinates $`(z_1,z_2,z_3)`$ such that $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$ has three components with equations

$$z_2=z_3=0,z_1=z_3=0,z_1=z_2=0.$$

###### Proof.

There are three obvious ways to deform the product $`A=E\times E^{}\times E^{\prime \prime }`$ of three elliptic curves, preserving the polarization, into $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$. Namely, one can deform one of the elliptic curves in $`𝔥_1`$, and deform the product of the other two into $`𝔥_2𝔥_2^{\mathrm{red}}`$. The semi-simplicity of abelian varieties implies that each component of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ is smooth and there are no other ways to deform $`A`$ into $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$. It follows that 3 components of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$ intersect at each point of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$.

Since each component of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ is locally homogeneous, and since all are conjugate under the action of $`Sp_3()`$, to determine the local structure of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$ near $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$, it suffices to write down local equations along the component $`(𝔥_1)^3`$ of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$. Here we can use the coordinates

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\tau _1& z_3& z_2\\ z_3& \tau _2& z_1\\ z_2& z_1& \tau _3\end{array}\right)$$

where each $`\tau _j𝔥_1`$, and $`(z_1,z_2,z_3)`$ lies in a neighbourhood of the origin in $`^3`$ small enough to guarantee that this matrix has positive definite imaginary part. In these coordinates, the three components of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$ have equations:

$$z_2=z_3=0,z_1=z_3=0,z_1=z_2=0.$$

View $`S^5`$ as the unit sphere in $`^3`$. The intersection of each coordinate axis with $`S^5`$ is a linearly imbedded $`S^1`$. Together these give an imbedding

$$k:S^1S^1S^1S^5$$

where $``$ denotes disjoint union. The boundary of a small tubular neighbourhood of each $`S^1`$ is a trivial $`S^3`$ bundle over $`S^1`$. Taking one fiber of each and connecting them to an arbitrary point of $`S^5\left(S^1S^1S^1\right)`$ gives an imbedding

$$i:S^3S^3S^3S^5.$$

###### Proposition 12.

If $`x𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ is a critical point of $`D_p`$, then the normal Morse data at $`x`$ is homotopy equivalent to

$$(S^5k(S^1S^1S^1),i((S^3S^3S^3)).$$

###### Proof.

By the previous Lemma, the normal Morse data is the same as that for the distance squared to a point function for

$$^3\text{ the union of the 3 coordinate axes. }$$

This is computed using \[7, I.3.11.2)\] as explained in \[7, III.3.3)\]. ∎

To compute the homology of $`𝒥_3`$, we need to compute the homology of each kind of Morse data. Denote the quotient of $`^3`$ by the diagonal subgroup by $`V`$. It is isomorphic to $`^2`$.

###### Proposition 13.

The homology of the Morse data at a critical point of $`𝔥_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ is

$$H_j(S^5k\left(S^1S^1S^1\right),i\left(S^3S^3S^3\right);)=\{\begin{array}{cc}V\hfill & j=4;\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The homology is generated by the boundaries of tubular neighbourhoods of the three imbedded $`S^1`$s, which are subject to the relation that their sum is zero. In particular, $`D_p`$ is perfect at such critical points.

###### Proof.

The computation is elementary. The Morse function is perfect at such critical points because the relative homology is generated by absolute cycles. ∎

The natural action of the symmetric group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ on $`^3`$ (by permuting the coordinates) preserves the diagonal subgroup and therefore descends to an action on $`V`$. We view $`V`$ as a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3SL_2()^3`$-module via the projection $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3SL_2()^3\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$.

Recall that if $`R`$ is a commutative ring, $`K`$ a subgroup of $`G`$, and $`M`$ a $`RK`$ module, then the $`G`$-module induced from $`M`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{Ind}_K^GM:=RG_{RK}M.$$

###### Theorem 14.

We have,

$$H_j(𝒥_3;)\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & j=0;\hfill \\ \mathrm{Ind}_{SL_2()\times Sp_2()}^{Sp_3()}\hfill & j=3;\hfill \\ \mathrm{Ind}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3SL_2()^3}^{Sp_3()}V\hfill & j=4;\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Each critical point has trivial tangential Morse data, as the critical points are minima on each stratum. It follows from \[7, I.3.7\] that the Morse data at each critical point is homotopy equivalent to its normal Morse data. Since the Morse function is perfect, the homology of $`𝒥_3`$ is the sum of the relative homologies of the normal Morse data at each critical point. The action of $`Sp_3()`$ follows from the description of the $`Sp_3()`$ action on the strata in Proposition 8. ∎

For a subgroup $`G`$ of $`Sp_g()`$ that contains $`I`$, define $`PG`$ to be the subgroup $`G/(\pm I)`$ of $`PSp_g()`$.

###### Corollary 15.

For all $`j0`$,

$`H_j(\widehat{T}_3;[1/2])H_k(T_3;[1/2])^{/2}`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}[1/2]\hfill & j=0;\hfill \\ \mathrm{Ind}_{SL_2()\times Sp_2()}^{Sp_3()}[1/2]\hfill & j=3;\hfill \\ \mathrm{Ind}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_3SL_2()^3}^{Sp_3()}V[1/2]\hfill & j=4;\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise;}\hfill \end{array}`$
$`\{\begin{array}{cc}[1/2]\hfill & j=0;\hfill \\ \mathrm{Ind}_{P(SL_2()\times Sp_2())}^{PSp_3()}[1/2]\hfill & j=3;\hfill \\ \mathrm{Ind}_{P(\mathrm{\Sigma }_3SL_2()^3)}^{PSp_3()}V[1/2]\hfill & j=4;\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}`$
## 4. The Spectral Sequence

We shall compute the homology spectral sequence

(9)
$$H_i(PSp_3();H_j(\widehat{T}_3;))H_{i+j}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_3;).$$

Thanks to Shapiro’s Lemma (see, for example, ) the $`E^2`$ term of the spectral sequence can be computed.

###### Lemma 16.

We have

$$H_i(PSp_3();H_j(\widehat{T}_3;))\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & i=0,2\text{ and }j=3;\hfill \\ 0\hfill & j>0\text{ and }j3.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Applying Shapiro’s Lemma, Lemma 4, the Kunneth Theorem, and the fact that the rational homology of $`SL_2()`$ is that of a point, we have:

$`H_i(PSp_3();\mathrm{Ind}_{P(SL_2()\times Sp_2())}^{PSp_3()})`$ $`H_i(P(SL_2()\times Sp_2());)`$
$`H_i(SL_2()\times Sp_2();)`$
$`H_i(Sp_2();).`$
This is $``$ in when $`i=0,2`$ and 0 otherwise by Igusa’s computation.

Let $`V_{}=V_{}`$. This is the unique 2-dimensional irreducible represention of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$. Since $`V_{}`$ is divisible and has no coinvariants, $`H_{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_3;V_{})`$ vanishes in all degrees. Arguing as above, we have

$`H_i(PSp_3();\mathrm{Ind}_{P(\mathrm{\Sigma }_3SL_2()^3)}^{PSp_3()}V_{})`$ $`H_i(P(\mathrm{\Sigma }_3SL_2()^3);V_{})`$
$`H_i(\mathrm{\Sigma }_3SL_2()^3;V_{})`$
$`H_i(\mathrm{\Sigma }_3;V_{})`$
$`0.`$
###### Proposition 17.

For $`2r4`$, the $`E^r`$-term of the spectral sequence (9) is

| $`4`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`3`$ | $``$ | $`0`$ | $``$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`2`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`1`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`0`$ | $``$ | $`0`$ | $``$ | $`0`$ | $``$ | $`0`$ | $`^2`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`\mathrm{deg}`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`2`$ | $`3`$ | $`4`$ | $`5`$ | $`6`$ | $`7`$ |

(All terms not shown are zero.) In addition, the differentials

$$d^4:E_{4,0}^4E_{0,3}^4\text{ and }d^4:E_{6,0}^4E_{2,3}^4$$

are both surjective, and $`E^5=E^{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Proof.

The computation of $`E_{s,t}^2`$ for $`t>0`$ follows from the previous lemma. It implies that $`d^r=0`$ when $`2r<4`$ and $`E^5=E^{\mathrm{}}`$. By Looijenga’s computation of the rational homology of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ we know that $`H_3(\mathrm{\Gamma }_3;)`$ and $`H_5(\mathrm{\Gamma }_3;)`$ both vanish. This implies that the differentials

$$d^4:E_{4,0}^4E_{0,3}^4\text{ and }d^4:E_{6,0}^4E_{2,3}^4$$

must be surjective. Since $`H_4(\mathrm{\Gamma }_3;)=0`$, and since $`H_6(\mathrm{\Gamma }_3;)`$ is one dimensional, the first of these is an isomorphism and the second has one dimensional kernel. The result follows. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

The computation of the rational homology (and therefore the rational cohomology) of $`𝒜_3`$ follows from Proposition 17.

Denote the first Chern class in $`H^2(𝒜_3;)`$ of the Hodge bundle by $`\lambda `$. It is the class of an ample line bundle. A standard argument, that uses the fact that the Satake compactification of $`A_3`$ has boundary of codimension 3, shows that there is a complete surface in $`A_3`$. This implies that $`\lambda ^20`$ in $`H^4(𝒜_g;)`$.

The proof that $`\lambda ^3`$ does not vanish in $`H^6(𝒜_3;)`$ is more subtle, and is due to van der Geer . We will give a topological proof of this fact in the next section. The key point in van der Geer’s argument is that there is a complete subvariety of the characteristic $`p`$ version $`𝒜_{3/\overline{𝔽}_p}`$ of $`𝒜_3`$. This implies that $`\lambda ^3`$ is not zero in $`H_{\text{ét}}^6(𝒜_{3/\overline{𝔽}_p};_{\mathrm{}})`$, where $`p`$ is a prime where $`𝒜_3`$ has good reduction and $`\mathrm{}`$ is a prime distinct from $`p`$. Standard comparison theorems imply that this last group is isomorphic to $`H^6(𝒜_3;_{\mathrm{}})`$, which gives the desired non-vanishing of $`\lambda ^3`$.

The statement about weights follows as $`\lambda `$ is of type $`(1,1)`$. Since $`\lambda ^30`$, this implies that $`H^4(𝒜_3;)`$ is generated by $`\lambda ^2`$ and has type $`(2,2)`$, and that $`H^6(𝒜_3;)`$ contains a copy of $`(3)`$ spanned by $`\lambda ^3`$. On the other hand, the spectral sequence in Proposition 17 implies that the restriction mapping

$$H^6(𝒜_3;)H^6(_3;)(6)$$

is surjective, which completes the proof. ∎

## 5. Cycles

In this section, we give a topological proof that $`\lambda ^3`$ is non-zero in $`H^6(𝒜_3;)`$. The approach is to construct a topological 6-cycle in $`𝒜_3`$ and then show that the value of $`\lambda ^3`$ on it is non-zero.

Fix an imbedding of the Satake compactification $`\overline{𝒜}_3`$ of $`𝒜_3`$ in some projective space. Take a generic codimension 3 linear section of $`\overline{𝒜}_3`$ that avoids the boundary $`\overline{𝒜}_3^{\mathrm{red}}𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$, is transverse to $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$, and intersects $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ transversally. This section is a complete curve $`X`$ in $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$, smooth (in the orbifold sense) away from its intersection with $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$. At each point $`x`$ where it intersects $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$, it has three branches. Set $`X^{}=X(X𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}})`$.

The next step is to construct a 5-cycle in $`_3`$ which is an $`S^3`$ bundle over $`X`$ away from the triple points, and where the three branches of this bundle at each triple point $`x`$ are plumbed together using the normal Morse data at $`x`$.

Denote the moduli space of principally polarized abelian 3-folds with a level $`\mathrm{}`$ structure by $`𝒜_3[\mathrm{}]`$. This is the quotient of $`𝔥_3`$ by the level $`\mathrm{}`$ subgroup $`Sp_3()[\mathrm{}]`$ of $`Sp_3()`$, and is smooth when $`\mathrm{}3`$. Fix an $`\mathrm{}3`$. The symmetric space metric on $`𝔥_3`$ descends to $`𝒜_3[\mathrm{}]`$. With the help of the metric, the normal bundle of any stratum can be viewed as a subbundle of the tangent bundle of $`𝒜_3[\mathrm{}]`$. Using the exponential mapping, we can identify a neighbourhood of the zero section of the normal bundle as being imbedded in $`𝒜_3[\mathrm{}]`$. Let $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ be the inverse images of $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ in $`𝒜_3[\mathrm{}]`$.

Choose a positive real number $`ϵ`$ such that the exponential mapping is an imbedding on the $`ϵ/4`$-ball $`B`$ of the normal bundle of $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red}}[\mathrm{}]`$ restricted to $`Y^{}`$, and also on the $`ϵ`$-ball $`B^{}`$ of the normal bundle of $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}[\mathrm{}]`$ at each point of $`YY^{}`$. Set $`\stackrel{~}{D}=BB^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{W}=\stackrel{~}{D}`$. Denote their pushforwards to $`𝒜_3`$ by $`D`$ and $`W`$. Then $`W`$ is a 5-cycle in $`_3`$ which is generically an $`S^3`$-bundle over $`X^{}`$. Note that $`D`$ is a 6-chain in $`𝒜_3`$ with $`D=W`$.

On the other hand, Looijenga’s computation of the rational homology of $`_3`$, implies that $`W`$ bounds a rational 6-chain $`E`$ in $`_3`$. Set $`Z=DE`$. This is a rational 6-cycle in $`𝒜_3`$. By construction, we have:

###### Proposition 18.

The cycle $`Z`$ intersections $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ transversally (in the orbifold sense), and the intersection number of $`Z`$ with $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ is non-zero. ∎

###### Corollary 19.

The class of $`Z`$ is non-trivial in $`H_6(𝒜_3;)`$ and the class of $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ is non-trivial in $`H^6(𝒜_3;)`$. ∎

The proof of the non-triviality of $`\lambda ^3`$ is completed by the following result.

###### Proposition 20.

The class of $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ in $`H^6(𝒜_3;)`$ is a non-zero multiple of $`\lambda ^3`$.

###### Proof.

Denote the closure in $`\overline{𝒜}_3`$ of a subvariety $`X`$ of $`𝒜_3`$ by $`\overline{X}`$. Set $`X=\overline{X}X`$. Since $`𝒜_3`$ is a rational homology manifold, the sequence

$$H_8(\overline{𝒜}_3^{\mathrm{red}},𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red}};)H^4(𝒜_3;)H^4(_3;)$$

is exact. Since $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$ is irreducible of dimension 4, the left hand group is one-dimensional and spanned by the fundamental class of $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$. Since the middle group is one-dimensional and the right hand group trivial, we see that the class of $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$ spans $`H^4(𝒜_3;)`$. On the other hand, since $`\lambda `$ is ample, and $`𝒜_3`$ contains a complete surface, $`\lambda ^2`$ also spans $`H^4(𝒜_3;)`$. It follows that there is a non-zero rational number $`c`$ such that

$$\lambda ^2=c[𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red}}]\text{ in }H^4(𝒜_3;).$$

Denote the determinant of the Hodge bundle by $``$. The class $`\lambda ^3`$ is represented by the divisor of a section of the restriction of $``$ to $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$. This can be computed by pulling back along the mapping $`𝒜_1\times 𝒜_2𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red}}`$. Since the Picard group of $`𝒜_1`$ is torsion, we see that the pullback of $``$ is represented mod-torsion by $`𝒜_1\times D`$, where $`D`$ is a cycle representing $`\lambda `$ on $`𝒜_2`$. But the cusp form $`\chi _{10}`$ of weight 10 on $`𝒜_2`$ is a section of $`^{10}`$, and has divisor supported on $`𝒜_2^{\mathrm{red}}`$, we see that $`\lambda `$ is represented by a non-zero rational multiple of the cycle $`𝒜_1\times 𝒜_2^{\mathrm{red}}`$ on $`𝒜_1\times 𝒜_2`$, and by a non-zero multiple of $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ in $`H^4(𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red}};)`$. This implies that $`\lambda ^3`$ is represented by a non-zero rational multiple of $`𝒜_3^{\mathrm{red},\mathrm{sing}}`$ in $`H^4(𝒜_3;)`$.

## 6. The rational cohomology of $`\overline{𝒜}_2`$ and $`\overline{𝒜}_3`$

Note that $`\overline{𝒜}_0`$ is just a point. Suppose now that $`g>0`$. Then

$$\overline{𝒜}_g=𝒜_g\overline{𝒜}_{g1}.$$

Choose a triangulation of $`\overline{𝒜}_g`$ such that $`\overline{𝒜}_{g1}`$ is a subcomplex. Let $`U_g`$ be a regular PL neighbourhood of $`\overline{𝒜}_{g1}`$ in $`\overline{𝒜}_g`$. Set $`U_g^{}=U_g\overline{𝒜}_{g1}`$. This has the homotopy type of $`U_g`$, which is a rational homology manifold (as $`\overline{𝒜}_g[3]`$ is smooth) of dimension $`2d_g1`$, where $`d_g=g(g+1)/2`$ is the dimension of $`𝒜_g`$. The cohomology of $`U_g^{}`$ has a mixed Hodge structure and the cup product

$$H^{k1}(U_g^{};)H^{2d_gk}(U_g^{};)H^{2d_g1}(U_g^{};)(d_g)$$

is a perfect pairing of mixed Hodge structures (MHSs) (see , for example).

Since $`𝒜_g`$ is a rational homology manifold, Lefschetz duality gives an isomorphism

$$H_c^k(𝒜_g,)\mathrm{Hom}(H^{2d_gk}(𝒜_g),(d_g)).$$

The standard long exact sequence

(10)
$$\mathrm{}H^{k1}(U_g^{})H_c^k(𝒜_g;)H^k(𝒜_g;)H^k(U_g^{};)\mathrm{}$$

is exact in the category of MHSs. These facts will allow us to compute the cohomology of $`U_2^{}`$ and $`U_3^{}`$.

The second step in the computation will be to use the Mayer-Vietoris sequence associated to the covering $`\overline{𝒜}_g=𝒜_gU_g`$

(11)
$$\mathrm{}H^k(\overline{𝒜}_g)H^k(𝒜_g)H^k(\overline{𝒜}_{g1})H^k(U_g^{})H^{k+1}(\overline{𝒜}_g)\mathrm{}$$

associated to the covering $`\overline{𝒜}_g=𝒜_gU_g`$, which is exact in the category of MHS, to compute the cohomology of $`\overline{𝒜}_2`$ and $`\overline{𝒜}_3`$.

For determining the ring structure and also for seeing that some maps in these long exact sequences are non-trivial, it is useful to note that since $`\lambda `$ is the class of an ample line bundle on $`\overline{𝒜}_g`$, the rational cohomology ring of $`\overline{𝒜}_g`$ contains the ring $`[\lambda ]/(\lambda ^{d_g+1})`$.

### 6.1. Proof of Proposition 3

Since $`H^{}(𝒜_2;)`$ is $``$ in degree 0, $`(1)`$ in degree 2, and 0 otherwise, $`H_c^{}(𝒜_2;)`$ is $`(2)`$ in degree 4, $`(3)`$ in degree 6, and 0 otherwise. Using the sequence (10) and the fact that the cohomology of $`U_2^{}`$ satisfies Poincaré duality, we have

$$H^j(U_2^{};)\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & j=0;\hfill \\ (1)\hfill & j=2;\hfill \\ (2)\hfill & j=3;\hfill \\ (3)\hfill & j=5.\hfill \end{array}$$

Putting this into the Mayer-Vietoris sequence (11), and using the fact that $`\overline{𝒜}_1`$ is $`^1`$, we obtain the result.

### 6.2. Proof of Proposition 2

By duality, $`H_c^{}(𝒜_3;)`$ is an extension of $`(3)`$ by $`(0)`$ in degree 6, $`(4)`$ in degree 8, $`(5)`$ in degree 10, and $`(6)`$ in degree 12. Using the sequence (10) and the facts that $`H^j(𝒜_3;)`$ vanishes when $`j7`$ and $`H_c^j(𝒜_3;)`$ vanishes when $`j5`$, we have

$$H^j(U_3^{};)\{\begin{array}{cc}H^j(𝒜_3;)\hfill & j<5;\hfill \\ H_c^{j+1}(𝒜_3;)\hfill & j7.\hfill \end{array}$$

In degrees 5 and 6 we have the exact sequence

$$0H^5(U_3^{};)H_c^6(𝒜_3;)\stackrel{\alpha }{}H^6(𝒜_3;)H^6(U_3^{};)0.$$

It follows from \[4, 8.2.2\] that the image of $`\alpha `$ is all of $`W_6H^6(𝒜_3;)`$, so that $`\alpha `$ is non-zero. Since the sequence is exact in the category of MHSs, it follows that $`H^5(U_3^{};)`$ is $`(0)`$ and $`H^6(U_3^{};)`$ is $`(6)`$.

Since $`\overline{𝒜}_3`$ is projective and $`\lambda `$ is the class of a projective imbedding, the restriction of $`\lambda ^j`$ to $`U_3`$ is non-zero when $`j=1,2,3`$. It follows from this and the computations above that $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^2`$ restrict to non-trivial classes in the rational cohomology of $`U_3^{}`$.

Putting all of this into the Mayer-Vietoris sequence (11), easily gives the computation of $`H^j(\overline{𝒜}_3;)`$ when $`j6`$. The computation of $`H^6(\overline{𝒜}_3;)`$ follows as the sequence

$$0H^5(U_3^{};)H^6(\overline{𝒜}_3;)H^6(𝒜_3;)H^6(\overline{𝒜}_2;)H^6(U_3^{};)0$$

is exact in the category of MHSs.