format: text

text:
# Construction of 𝑡-structures and equivalences of derived categories

## Introduction

One important observation in modern homological algebra is that sometimes, equivalences of derived categories do not come from equivalences of the initial abelian categories. A remarkable example of this situation is that of complexes of holonomic regular $`𝒟`$-modules and complexes of locally constructible finite type sheaves of vector spaces over an analytic variety. In fact, to a single regular holonomic $`𝒟`$-module corresponds a full complex of constructible sheaves which are called “perverse sheaves”. In turn, these sheaves are connected with intersection cohomology that allows to recover Poincaré duality for singular analytic spaces.

It is a crucial fact that a (bounded) derived category $`𝗗^𝖻`$ may contain as full subcategories abelian categories that are not isomorphic to the initial one but whose (bounded) derived category is isomorphic to $`𝗗^𝖻`$. These facts have been systematized by Beilinson, Bernstein, Deligne and Gabber in the work \[BBD\] through the concept of $`t`$-*structure*. A $`t`$-structure in a triangulated category $`𝗧`$ is given by functors which resemble the usual truncation functors in derived categories and provide as a by-product an abelian full subcategory $`𝒞`$ of $`𝗧`$, its *heart*, together with a homological functor on $`𝗧`$ with values in $`𝒞`$.

A derived category carries a natural $`t`$-structure but also can carry others. It is clear that the construction of a $`t`$-structure without recourse to an equivalence of derived categories is an important question. In fact, this is how perverse sheaves are transposed to the *étale* context where it is not possible to define them through an equivalence.

But, up to now, there was no general method available to construct $`t`$-structures, save for the glueing method of \[BBD, 1.4\] whose main application is to certain categories of sheaves over a site. In this paper, we give such a general method for the derived category of a Grothendieck abelian category (i.e. an abelian category with a generator and exact direct limits). These categories arise often in representation theory and algebraic geometry. Our method parallels the fruitful method of localization used frequently in homotopy theory and algebra.

We believe our result is widely applicable. In this paper we will start exploring these possibilities. We show that the remarkable theorem of Rickard, that characterizes when two bounded derived categories of rings are equivalent, can be deduced from our construction and standard facts on $`t`$-structures. Moreover, we show that Rickard’s result in \[R\] can be extended to certain schemes. Precisely, the bounded derived category of quasi-coherent sheaves on a divisorial scheme is equivalent to the bounded derived categories of modules over a certain ring if there exists a special kind of “tilting complex” of sheaves. This generalizes Beilinson’s equivalence in \[B1\] and \[B2\], in the sense that such equivalence follows from this result.

Let us discuss now the contents of the paper. The first section recalls the basic notions of $`t`$-structures and highlights the observation by Keller and Vossieck that to give a $`t`$-structure $`(𝗧^0,𝗧^0)`$ is enough to have the subcategory $`𝗧^0`$ and a right adjoint for the canonical inclusion functor $`𝗧^0𝗧`$. This has led us to seek for a proof in the spirit of Bousfield localization, using techniques similar to those in \[AJS\]. We will need to work in the *unbounded* derived category because the existence of coproducts is essential for our arguments.

For a triangulated category $`𝗧`$, a suspended subcategory stable for coproducts is called a cocomplete pre-aisle. In the second section we prove that these subcategories are stable for homotopy direct limits. In the next section we prove that if a cocomplete pre-aisle is generated by a set of objects, then it is in fact a aisle, i.e. a subcategory similar to $`𝗧^0`$. As in the case of Bousfield localizations, we proceed in two steps. First, we deal with the case of derived categories of modules over a ring, and next we treat the general case using the derived version of Gabriel-Popescu embedding.

In the fourth section, we investigate the important question of whether the $`t`$-structures previously defined restrict to the bounded derived category of modules over a ring. Restriction to the upper-bounded category is easy, however for the lower-bounded case some extra work is needed. We obtain this restriction when the $`t`$-structure is generated by a compact object that also generates the derived category in the sense of triangulated categories.

In the fifth section we deal with the analogous question in the context of schemes. This section may be skipped if the reader is only interested in the ring case. Trying to extend the arguments that work for rings in this context, we need a condition on compatibility with tensor products in order to localize to open subsets. This condition led us to define *rigid aisles* for which we give in Proposition 5.1 a criterion useful in practice.

In the sixth section we see that the functor “real” defined in \[BBD, Chap. III\] induces an equivalence of categories between the bounded derived category of the heart of a $`t`$-structure and the bounded derived category of modules over a ring precisely when the $`t`$-structure is generated by a tilting object. The heart is equivalent to a category of rings in this case —recovering Rickard’s equivalence theorem. The generalization to the bounded derived category of quasi-coherent sheaves gives a similar equivalence when the $`t`$-structure is rigid and generated by a tilting object, thus making it equivalent to a bounded derived category of modules over a ring. We explain how this result is related to Beilinson’s description of the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on projective space as a bounded derived category of modules over a finite dimensional algebra.

We thank Amnon Neeman for discussions about these topics.

## 1. Preliminaries on $`t`$-structures

Let us begin fixing the notation and conventions. Let $`𝗧`$ be a triangulated category whose translation autoequivalence is denoted by $`()[1]`$ and its iterates by $`()[n]`$, with $`n`$. A $`t`$-*structure* on $`𝗧`$ in the sense of Beĭlinson, Bernstein, Deligne and Gabber (\[BBD, Définition 1.3.1\]) is a couple of full subcategories $`(𝗧^0,𝗧^0)`$ such that, denoting $`𝗧^n:=𝗧^0[n]`$ and $`𝗧^n:=𝗧^0[n]`$, the following conditions hold:

1. For $`X𝗧^0`$ and $`Y𝗧^1`$, $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(X,Y)=0`$.
2. $`𝗧^0𝗧^1`$ and $`𝗧^0𝗧^1`$.
3. For each $`X𝗧`$ there is a distinguished triangle

$$AXB\stackrel{+}{}$$

with $`A𝗧^0`$ and $`B𝗧^1`$.

The subcategory $`𝗧^0`$ is called the *aisle* of the $`t`$-structure, and $`𝗧^0`$ is called the *co-aisle*. As usual for a subcategory $`𝒞𝗧`$ we denote the associated orthogonal subcategories as $`𝒞^{}=\{Y𝗧/\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(Z,Y)=0,Z𝒞\}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞=\{Z𝗧/\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(Z,Y)=0,Y𝒞\}`$. Let us recall some immediate formal consequences of the definition.

###### Proposition 1.1.

Let $`𝗧`$ be a triangulated category, $`(𝗧^0,𝗧^0)`$ a $`t`$-structure in $`𝗧`$, and $`n`$, then

1. $`(𝗧^0,𝗧^1)`$ is a pair of *orthogonal* subcategories of $`𝗧`$, i.e. $`𝗧^1=𝗧_{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and $`𝗧^0={}_{}{}^{}𝗧_{}^{1}`$.
2. The subcategories $`𝗧^n`$ are stable for positive translations and the subcategories $`𝗧^n`$ are stable for negative translations.
3. The canonical inclusion $`𝗧^n𝗧`$ has a right adjoint denoted $`\tau ^n`$, and $`𝗧^n𝗧`$ a left adjoint denoted $`\tau ^n`$. Moreover, $`X𝗧^n`$ if, and only if, $`\tau ^{n+1}(X)=0`$, similarly for $`𝗧^n`$.
4. For $`X`$ in $`𝗧`$ there is a distinguished triangle

$$\tau ^0XX\tau ^1X\stackrel{+}{}.$$
5. The subcategories $`𝗧^n`$ and $`𝗧^n`$ are stable for extensions, i.e. given a distinguished triangle $`XYZ\stackrel{+}{}`$, if $`X`$ and $`Z`$ belong to one of these categories, so does $`Y`$.

###### Proof.

The statement $`(i)`$ follows easily from the axioms and $`(ii)`$ a restatement of (t2). The statements $`(iii)`$ and $`(iv)`$ are proved in \[BBD, Prop. 1.3.3\]. Finally, let’s sketch a proof of $`(v)`$ for $`𝗧^n`$, the one for $`𝗧^n`$ is dual. By translation, we can even restrict to $`𝗧^0`$. Apply $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(,\tau ^1Y)`$ to the triangle and get the long exact sequence of abelian groups:

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(Z,\tau ^1Y)\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(Y,\tau ^1Y)\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(X,\tau ^1Y)\mathrm{}$$

where $`X`$ and $`Z`$ belong to $`𝗧^0={}_{}{}^{}𝗧_{}^{1}`$. Therefore both extreme homs are zero and by exactness

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(\tau ^1Y,\tau ^1Y)\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(Y,\tau ^1Y)=0$$

which means that $`\tau ^0Y=Y`$, i.e. $`Y𝗧^0`$. ∎

The interest of this notion lies in the fact that a $`t`$-structure $`(𝗧^0,𝗧^0)`$ in a triangulated category $`𝗧`$ provides a full abelian subcategory of $`𝗧`$, its *heart*, defined as $`𝒞:=𝗧^0𝗧^0`$ and a homological functor, namely $`H^0:=\tau ^0\tau ^0`$, with values in $`𝒞`$, *cfr.* \[BBD, Thm. 1.3.6\]. One would like to know natural conditions that guarantee the existence of a $`t`$-structure in a triangulated category. We will show how to transpose homotopical techniques to get means of constructing $`t`$-structures.

A fundamental observation is to use the structure of the subcategories $`𝗧^n`$ and $`𝗧^n`$. It is clear that, in general, they are not triangulated subcategories but they come close. In fact, each subcategory $`𝗧^n`$ has the structure of *suspended category* in the sense of Keller and Vossieck \[KV1\]. Let us recall this definition.

An additive category $`𝒰`$ is suspended if and only if is graded by an additive translation functor $`T`$ (sometimes called *shifting*) and there is class of diagrams of the form $`XYZTX`$ (often denoted simply $`XYZ\stackrel{+}{}`$) called *distinguished triangles* such that the following axioms, analogous to those for triangulated categories in Verdier’s \[V, p. 266\] hold:

1. Every triangle isomorphic to a distinguished one is distinguished. For $`X𝒰`$, $`0X\stackrel{id}{}X0`$ is a distinguished triangle. Every morphism $`u:XY`$ can be completed to a distinguished triangle $`X\stackrel{𝑢}{}YZTX`$
2. If $`X\stackrel{𝑢}{}YZTX`$ is a distinguished triangle in $`𝒰`$ then so is $`YZTX\stackrel{Tu}{}TY`$.
3. = (TR3) in Verdier’s *loc. cit*.
4. = (TR4) in Verdier’s *loc. cit*.

The main difference with triangulated categories is that the translation functor in a suspended category may not have an inverse and therefore some objects can not be shifted back. The formulation of axioms (SP1) and (SP2) reflect this fact.

In this paper, we will only consider suspended subcategories of a triangulated category $`𝗧`$ and we implicitly assume that they are full and that the translation functor is the same of $`𝗧`$. If $`(𝗧^0,𝗧^0)`$ is a $`t`$-structure, the aisle $`𝗧^0`$ is a suspended subcategory of $`𝗧`$ whose distinguished triangles are diagrams in $`𝗧^0`$ that are distinguished triangles in $`𝗧`$ (Proposition 1.1). Moreover, the aisle $`𝗧^0`$ determines the $`t`$-structure because the co-aisle $`𝗧^0`$ is recovered as $`(𝗧^0)^{}[1]`$. The terminology “aisle” and “co-aisle” comes from \[KV2\].

The following observation that sent us towards the right direction for our objective is the following result, due to Keller and Vossieck:

###### Theorem 1.2.

(\[KV2, Section 1\]) A suspended subcategory $`𝒰`$ of a triangulated category $`𝗧`$ is an aisle (i.e. $`(𝒰,𝒰^{}[1])`$ is a $`t`$-structure on $`𝗧`$) if and only if the canonical inclusion functor $`𝒰𝗧`$ has a right adjoint.

Our arguments, however, are logically independent of this fact. The knowledgeable reader will recognize a localization situation: to construct a $`t`$-structure, one basically looks for a right adjoint to the inclusion of a subcategory. In the case of triangulated localizations a basic concept is *localizing* subcategories: those triangulated subcategories stable for coproducts. We will use the analogous concept in the context of $`t`$-structures.

To respect Keller and Vossieck’s terminology we will call *pre-aisle* a suspended subcategory $`𝒰`$ of a triangulated category $`𝗧`$ where the triangulation in $`𝒰`$ is given by the triangles which are distinguished in $`𝗧`$ and the shift functor is induced by the one in $`𝗧`$. We see easily that to check that a full subcategory $`𝒰`$ of $`𝗧`$ is a pre-aisle, it is enough to verify that

* For any $`X`$ in $`𝒰`$, $`X[1]`$ is also in $`𝒰`$.
* Given a distinguished triangle $`XYZX[1]`$, if $`X`$ and $`Z`$ belong to $`𝒰`$, then so does $`Y`$.

Once these two facts hold for $`𝒰`$, the verification of axioms (SP1)–(SP4) is immediate.

Let $`𝒰`$ be an aisle, i.e. a suspended subcategory of $`𝗧`$ such that $`(𝒰,𝒰^{}[1])`$ is a $`t`$-structure. We will denote by $`\tau _𝒰^n`$ and $`\tau _𝒰^n`$ ($`n`$) the truncation functors associated to this $`t`$-structure, i.e. the corresponding adjoints to the canonical inclusions $`𝒰[n]𝗧`$ and $`𝒰^{}[1n]𝗧`$, respectively.

###### Lemma 1.3.

Let $`𝗧`$ be a triangulated category and let $`𝒰`$ be an aisle. If a family of objects of $`𝒰`$ has a coproduct in $`𝗧`$, then it already belongs to $`𝒰`$.

###### Proof.

For $`Y`$ in $`𝗧`$,

$$\mathrm{Hom}(X_i,\tau _𝒰^1Y)=\mathrm{Hom}(X_i,\tau _𝒰^1Y);$$

so if $`\tau _𝒰^1X_i=0`$ for every $`i`$, then $`\tau _𝒰^1(X_i)=0`$, so $`X_i`$ is in $`𝒰`$. ∎

The following fact was observed first in the case of localizing subcategories by Bökstedt and Neeman in \[BN\].

###### Corollary 1.4.

A direct summand of an object in a aisle $`𝒰`$ belongs to $`𝒰`$.

###### Proof.

Use the argument in *loc. cit.* or, alternatively, Eilenberg’s swindle, as in \[AJS, footnote, p. 227\].

If $`𝒰`$ is a pre-aisle in $`𝗧`$ stable for (arbitrary) coproducts in $`𝗧`$, then it will be called *cocomplete*. From the previous discussion, we see that in triangulated categories in which coproducts exist, aisles are cocomplete pre-aisles. Specifically, we try to address the following:

###### Problem.

For a triangulated category $`𝗧`$, give conditions that guarantee that a cocomplete pre-aisle is an aisle.

In this paper, we will solve this problem in two cases. Let $`𝒜`$ be a Grothendieck category, that means $`𝒜`$ is an abelian category with a generator $`U`$ and exact (set-indexed) filtered direct limits. We will give a sufficient condition for a cocomplete pre-aisle to be an aisle for the derived category of $`𝒜`$. This will be that there is a set (as opposed to a class) of objects that “generates” the pre-aisle. To fix notation, denote by $`𝗖(𝒜)`$ the category of complexes of objects of $`𝒜`$ (also a Grothendieck category). Denote by $`𝗞(𝒜)`$ and $`𝗗(𝒜)`$ the homotopy and derived categories of $`𝒜`$, with their usual structure of triangulated categories. The proof will rely in a construction by homotopy limits of diagrams made by maps in $`𝗖(𝒜)`$ rather that in $`𝗗(𝒜)`$, so it can not be transposed to a general triangulated category. However if the set that “generates” the cocomplete pre-aisle is made of *compact* objects (see below) then by a similar but simpler argument (possibly well-known), the analogous result is obtained for any triangulated category. We will treat this case in an appendix.

## 2. Cocomplete pre-aisles and homotopy colimits

In this section we will show that homotopy colimits of objects in a cocomplete pre-aisle $`𝒰`$ of $`𝗗(𝒜)`$ belong to $`𝒰`$. We will follow the strategy in \[AJS\] for localizing subcategories, so the proofs will be only sketched as briefly as possible.

For convenience of the reader, let us recall the construction of the homotopy colimit of a diagram of complexes as used in \[AJS\]. Let $`G=\{G_s,\mu _{st}/st\mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ be a filtered directed system of $`𝗖(𝒜)`$. Let $`r>0`$ and $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`W_s^r`$ is the set of chains in the ordered set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of length $`r`$ which start in $`s`$. Define a bicomplex $`B(G)`$ by: $`B(G)^{kj}:=0`$ if $`k>0`$, $`B(G)^{0j}:=_{s\mathrm{\Gamma }}G_s^j`$ and $`B(G)^{kj}:=_{s\mathrm{\Gamma },wW_s^k}G_{s,w}^j`$ if $`k<0`$, where by $`G_{s,w}^j`$ we denote $`G_s^j`$ indexed by a (fixed) chain $`w`$ of $`W_s^k`$. If $`k<0`$, we will denote a map from the generator $`x:UG_{s,w}^jB(G)^{kj}`$ by $`(x;s<s_1<\mathrm{}<s_k)`$ where $`w`$ is the chain $`s<s_1<\mathrm{}<s_k`$ and then the horizontal differential $`d_1`$ is defined by the following formula:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& d_1^{kj}\left(x;s<s_1<\mathrm{}<s_k\right):=\hfill \\ & =\left(\mu _{ss_1}\left(x\right);s_1<\mathrm{}<s_k\right)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\left(1\right)^ix;s<\mathrm{}<\stackrel{ˇ}{s_i}<\mathrm{}<s_k\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

where the symbol $`\stackrel{ˇ}{s_i}`$ means that $`s_i`$ is suppressed from the chain. If $`k0`$ then $`d_1`$ is 0. The differential $`d_2`$ is induced by the one of the complexes $`G_s`$. The homotopy direct limit of the system is defined as the totalization (by coproducts) of the bicomplex $`B(G)`$, and we denote it by $`\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{holim}\\ \\ s\mathrm{\Gamma }\end{array}G_s`$.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`G=\{G_n/n\}`$ be a directed system in $`𝗖(𝒜)`$. Let $`𝒰`$ be a cocomplete pre-aisle of $`𝗗(𝒜)`$. If $`G_n𝒰`$, for every $`n`$, then

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ n\end{array}G_n𝒰,$$

where the limit is taken in $`𝗖(𝒜)`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the Milnor distinguished triangle in $`𝗗(𝒜)`$ (\[AJS, 3.3\])

$$\underset{n}{}G_n\stackrel{1\mu }{}\underset{n}{}G_n\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ n\end{array}G_n\stackrel{+}{}.$$

Being $`𝒰`$ cocomplete, every $`G_n`$ is in $`𝒰`$, so the first two objects in this triangle are in $`𝒰`$ and therefore the third, because a pre-aisle is stable for mapping cones. ∎

###### Remark.

For a directed system $`\{G_n/n\}`$ in a triangulated category $`𝗧`$, there is a construction of a homotopy direct limit by Bökstedt and Neeman that makes sense for any triangulated category (see \[BN\]). It is defined by the triangle

$$\underset{n}{}G_n\stackrel{1\mu }{}\underset{n}{}G_nC(1\mu )\stackrel{+}{},$$

where $`C(1\mu )`$ denotes the mapping cone of $`1\mu `$. It is clear that given a cocomplete pre-aisle $`𝒰`$ in $`𝗧`$, if every $`G_n𝒰`$, then $`C(1\mu )𝒰.`$ Moreover, by \[AJS, Theorem 2.2\], we have the isomorphism in $`𝗗(𝒜)`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{holim}\\ \\ n\end{array}G_n\stackrel{~}{}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ n\end{array}G_n.$$

Also is is clear that

$$C(1\mu )\stackrel{~}{}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ n\end{array}G_n.$$

Thus, it will do no harm to identify these three objects if one is working inside $`𝗗(𝒜)`$.

###### Proposition 2.2.

Let $`𝒰`$ be a cocomplete pre-aisle of $`𝗗(𝒜)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a filtered ordered set and $`G=\{G_s,\mu _{st}/st\mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ be a directed system in $`𝗖(𝒜)`$ such that $`G_s`$ belongs to $`𝒰`$ for every $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{holim}\\ \\ s\mathrm{\Gamma }\end{array}G_s$$

also belongs to $`𝒰`$.

###### Proof.

By definition,

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{holim}\\ \\ s\mathrm{\Gamma }\end{array}G_s=\mathrm{Tot}(B(G)^{}),$$

where $`B(G)^{}`$ is a bicomplex whose columns $`B(G)^i`$ are coproducts of the objects in the system, so they belong to $`𝒰`$. By \[AJS, Lemma 3.2\], there is sequence $`F_n`$ of subcomplexes of $`\mathrm{Tot}(B(G)^{})`$ such that

$$\mathrm{Tot}(B(G)^{})=\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ n\end{array}F_n$$

in $`𝗖(𝒜)`$. So by the previous lemma we only have to show that every $`F_n`$ is in $`𝒰`$ for every $`n`$. Indeed, $`F_0=B(G)^0`$, a coproduct of objects of $`𝒰`$. For $`n>0`$, take $`\nu _n`$ a graded splitting of the inclusion $`F_{n1}B(G)^{n+1}[n1]`$. The composition

$$B^n[n1]\stackrel{d_1[n1]}{}B^{n+1}[n1]\stackrel{\nu _n}{}F_{n1}^{}$$

defines a map of complexes $`h_n`$ and it can be completed to a triangle

$$B^n[n1]\stackrel{h_n}{}F_{n1}^{}F_n^{}\stackrel{+}{}.$$

So, $`F_n`$ is the cone of a map from a *positive* shift of a column of $`B(G)^{}`$ to $`F_{n1}`$, which belongs to $`𝒰`$ by induction, therefore $`F_n𝒰`$ by Lemma 2.1. ∎

## 3. Construction of $`t`$-structures

Let $`R`$ be a ring. In this paper, we will only consider associative rings with unit. Denote by $`R\text{-}\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}`$ the category of left $`R`$-modules. As usual, we abbreviate $`𝗖(R\text{-}\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽})`$, $`𝗞(R\text{-}\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽})`$ and $`𝗗(R\text{-}\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽})`$, by $`𝗖(R)`$, $`𝗞(R)`$ and $`𝗗(R)`$, respectively. We denote by $`Q_R:𝗞(R)𝗗(R)`$ the canonical functor.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`𝒮=\{E_\alpha /\alpha A\}`$ be a set of objects of a triangulated category $`𝗧`$ with coproducts. Let $`𝒰`$ be the smallest cocomplete pre-aisle that contains the objects in $`𝒮`$. The groups $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E_\alpha [j],B)=0`$ for every $`j0`$ and $`\alpha A`$ if, and only if, $`B`$ is in $`𝒰^{}`$.

###### Proof.

The “if” part is trivial. Let us prove the “only if” part. Suppose that $`B𝗧`$ is such that $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E_\alpha [j],B)=0`$ for every $`j0`$ and $`\alpha A`$, we have to show that $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(X,B)=0`$ for every $`X𝒰`$. Let $`𝒱`$ be the full subcategory of $`𝒰`$ whose objects $`X`$ are such that $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(X[j],B)=0`$, for every $`j0`$. $`𝒱`$ is clearly stable for positive shiftings and for extensions. Finally, $`𝒱`$ is stable for coproducts, because

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(\underset{iI}{}X_i[j],B)\underset{iI}{}\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(X_i[j],B)$$

Now, $`𝒮`$ is contained in $`𝒱`$, therefore $`𝒱=𝒰`$. ∎

###### Proposition 3.2.

Let $`𝒰`$ the smallest cocomplete pre-aisle of $`𝗗(R)`$ which contains an object $`E𝗖(R)`$. Then $`𝒰`$ is an aisle in $`𝗗(R)`$.

###### Proof.

First, we can assume that the complex $`E`$ is K-projective by the well-known existence of resolutions (see, for instance, \[AJS, Proposition 4.3\]). Therefore, for $`k`$ every $`E[k]`$ is also K-projective and maps from $`E[k]`$ in the derived category are represented by actual maps of complexes. Observe that the conditions (t1) and (t2) of the definition of $`t`$-structure hold automatically for $`(𝒰,𝒰^{}[1])`$, therefore it is enough to prove (t3), i.e. to construct for any $`M𝗖(R)`$ a distinguished triangle $`NMB\stackrel{+}{}`$ with $`N𝒰`$ and $`B𝒰^{}`$.

The construction of $`B`$ is by a transfinite induction and is parallel to the construction given in the proof of \[AJS, Proposition, 4.5\]. Let $`\gamma `$ be the least ordinal such that $`\mathrm{\#}(\gamma )>\mathrm{\#}_pE^p`$ and let $`I`$ be a set of ordinals that contains $`\gamma `$.

Let 0 be the minimum of $`I`$, we define $`B_0:=M`$.

If $`sI`$ has a predecessor $`s1`$, suppose by induction that $`B_{s1}`$ is already constructed. Take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{s1}:=_k\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗖(R)}(E[k],B_{s1})`$, and let $`\alpha _{s1}:_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{s1}}E[k]B_{s1}`$ be given by the universal property of the coproduct. We define $`\mu _{s1s}:B_{s1}B_s`$ by the canonical distinguished triangle:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{s1}}E[k]& \stackrel{\alpha _{s1}}{}& B_{s1}& \stackrel{\mu _{s1s}}{}& B_s& & \left(_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{s1}}E[k]\right)[1]\end{array},$$

where $`B_s`$ is the mapping cone of $`\alpha _{s1}`$. For any $`i<s`$, let $`\mu _{is}:=\mu _{s1s}\mu _{is1}`$.

If $`sI`$ has no predecessor, take

$$B_s:=\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ i<s\end{array}B_i\text{ and for }i<s\text{ , }\mu _{is}=\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ i<j<s\end{array}\mu _{ij},$$

both limits constructed as objects and maps in $`𝗖(R)`$.

We have got a directed a system in $`𝗖(R)`$, $`\{B_s,\mu _{st}/stI\}`$, such that every $`\mu _{st}`$ is semi-split and if $`f\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗖(R)}(E[k],B_s)`$, where $`s<t`$ and $`k`$, then $`\mu _{st}f`$ is homotopic to zero.

We have to show that $`B:=B_\gamma `$ belongs to $`𝒰^{}`$. By the previous lemma ($`𝒮=\{E\}`$) it is enough to show that $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(R)}(E[k],B)=0`$, for each $`k`$. Let $`g:E[k]B`$ be a map of complexes, we will show that $`g`$ is homotopic to zero. Let $`B_i^{}:=B_i\mathrm{Im}(g)`$. The ordinal $`\gamma `$ is a cardinal, so it has no predecessor and

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ i<\gamma \end{array}B_i^{}=\mathrm{Im}(g)$$

We claim that there is an index $`s_0<\gamma `$ such that

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ i<s_0\end{array}B_i^{}=B_{s_0}^{}.$$

Thus, there is a $`s_0I`$ such that $`g`$ factors through $`\mu _{s_0\gamma }`$, and by the properties of our directed system $`g`$ is homotopic to zero.

Let us show the claim now. Arguing by contradiction, suppose that for every $`sI`$, there is a $`t>s`$ such that the map $`B_s^{}B_t^{}`$ is not an epimorphism. Define sets $`J_s:=\{rs/B_r^{}B_{r+1}^{}\text{is not an epimorphism}\}`$. Each $`J_s`$ is not empty, so $`J:=J_0`$ is a cofinal subset of $`I`$. But $`\gamma `$ is a regular ordinal by Hausdorff’s theorem (\[L, 3.11 Proposition, p. 135\]) and therefore, $`\mathrm{\#}(J)=\mathrm{\#}(\gamma )`$.

On the other hand, we can define a map

$$\varphi :J_p\mathrm{Im}(g)^p$$

by $`\varphi (s)=\alpha _s`$ where $`\alpha _s_pB_{}^{}{}_{s+1}{}^{p}`$ but $`\alpha _s_pB_{}^{}{}_{s}{}^{p}`$. The map $`\varphi `$ is injective and $`\mathrm{Im}(g)`$ is a quotient of $`E[k]`$, therefore, $`\mathrm{\#}(J)\mathrm{\#}(_p\mathrm{Im}(g)^p)<\mathrm{\#}(\gamma ),`$ a contradiction.

The only thing left to prove is that in the triangle $`NMB\stackrel{+}{}`$ we have that $`N𝒰`$. For each $`i<\gamma `$, it is clear that defining $`N_i`$ by the distinguished triangle

$$N_iM\stackrel{\mu _{0i}}{}B_iN_i[1]$$
(1)
we can take $`N_i[1]=\mathrm{Coker}(\mu _{0i})`$ (in $`𝗖(R)`$) and that we have $`N=\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ i<\gamma \end{array}N_i`$, where for $`st`$ the transition maps $`N_sN_t`$ of this system are induced by $`\mu _{st}:B_sB_t`$. We will check that $`N_i𝒰`$ for every $`iI`$ and this will finish the proof.

First, $`N_0=0`$, so it belongs to $`𝒰`$. If $`i`$ has a predecessor, consider the triangles like (1) whose second maps are $`\mu _{0i1}`$ and $`\mu _{0i}`$. Consider also the distinguished triangle:

$$_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{i1}}E[k]B_{i1}\stackrel{\mu _{i1i}}{}B_i\left(_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{i1}}E[k]\right)[1].$$

We have $`\mu _{i1i}\mu _{0i1}=\mu _{0i}`$. we can apply the octahedral axiom which gives us a distinguished triangle

$$N_{i1}N_i_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{i1}}E[k]N_{i1}[1],$$

where $`N_{i1}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{i1}}E[k]`$ belong to $`𝒰`$. This implies $`N_i`$ is also in $`𝒰`$. Finally, if $`i`$ has no predecessor, $`N_i`$ is a direct limit of complexes $`N_s`$ that belong to $`𝒰`$ by induction.

Applying \[AJL, Theorem 2.2\] we have that

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{holim}\\ \\ s<i\end{array}N_s\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ s<i\end{array}N_s$$

and by Proposition 2.2, the homotopy limit belongs to $`𝒰`$, so we reach the desired conclusion. ∎

Given an aisle $`𝒰`$ defined as the smallest that contains an object $`E`$, we will denote the truncation functors associated to the $`t`$-structure $`(𝒰,𝒰^{}[1])`$ by $`\tau _E^n=\tau _𝒰^n`$ and $`\tau _E^n=\tau _𝒰^n`$ ($`n`$).

###### Remark.

The hypothesis of the previous result is extended immediately to several generators, the smallest cocomplete pre-isle that contains a *set* of objects agrees with the one that contains its coproduct because being cocomplete implies being stable for direct summands (Corollary 1.4).

###### 3.3.

Our next step is to generalize the previous result to the derived category of a Grothendieck category $`𝒜`$. By Gabriel-Popescu embedding (\[GP\], see also \[St, Ch. X, Theorem 4.1\]), $`𝒜`$ is a quotient (in the sense of Abelian categories) of $`R\text{-}\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}`$ by a thick subcategory whose objects are the *torsion objects* of a hereditary torsion theory, where $`R`$ is $`\mathrm{End}_𝒜(U)`$ and $`U`$ denotes a generator of $`𝒜`$. This means there is a couple of functors

$$R\text{-}\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}\underset{𝑖}{\overset{𝑎}{}}𝒜$$
(2)
where $`a`$ is an exact functor and $`i`$ is left-exact full, faithful and right adjoint to $`a`$. The torsion objects are those $`R`$-modules that are sent to zero by $`a`$.

By the existence of Bousfield localization in the derived category of a ring (\[AJS, Proposition 4.5\]), the situation extends to derived categories. Precisely, there is a diagram of triangulated functors:

$$𝗗(R)\underset{𝐢}{\overset{𝐚}{}}𝗗(𝒜).$$
(3)
The functor $`a`$ is exact, therefore it has a canonical extension to the derived category, which we denote $`𝐚`$. This functor has a right adjoint $`𝐢`$ which extends $`i`$ whose existence is not immediate but follows from \[AJS, Proposition 5.1\]. This says that there is a localizing subcategory $`_𝒜`$ of $`𝗗(R)`$ generated by a set of complexes such that the quotient $`𝗗(R)/_𝒜`$ is equivalent to $`𝗗(𝒜)`$ and the associated localization functor is identified with $`𝐢𝐚`$. Note that $`𝐚𝐢=\mathrm{id}_{𝗗(𝒜)}`$. Let $`F`$ be a generator of the localizing subcategory $`_𝒜`$. Using Lemma 3.1 we can check that the smallest cocomplete pre-aisle that contains the set of objects $`\{F[n]/n\}`$ is in fact $`_𝒜`$. This is an essential point for the proof of the next result.

###### Theorem 3.4.

Let $`𝒰`$ the smallest cocomplete pre-aisle of $`𝗗(𝒜)`$ which contains an object $`E𝗖(𝒜)`$. Then $`𝒰`$ is an aisle in $`𝗗(𝒜)`$.

###### Proof.

Keeping the notation of the previous discussion let $`𝒰^{}`$ the smallest cocomplete pre-aisle in $`𝗗(R)`$ that contains $`𝐢E`$ and $`F[n]`$ for all $`n`$. Then by Proposition 3.2 it is an aisle. Consequently for an object $`M𝗗(𝒜)`$, there is a distinguished triangle in $`𝗗(R)`$,

$$N_0𝐢(M)B_0\stackrel{+}{},$$

where $`N_0𝒰^{}`$ and $`B_0𝒰_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}_𝒜^{}`$. This gives a triangle in $`𝗗(𝒜)`$:

$$𝐚(N_0)M𝐚(B_0)\stackrel{+}{}.$$

The pre-aisle $`𝒰`$ is the essential image by $`𝐚`$ of $`𝒰^{}`$, so it is clear that $`𝐚(N_0)`$ belongs to $`𝒰`$. Let us check that $`𝐚(B_0)`$ is in $`𝒰^{}`$. Let $`j0`$, using the fact that $`E`$ comes from $`𝗗(𝒜)`$ and $`B_0`$ is $`_𝒜`$-local, we see that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E[j],𝐚B_0)\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(R)}(𝐢E[j],\mathrm{𝐢𝐚}B_0))=0$$

Applying Lemma 3.1 again, we conclude. ∎

## 4. Boundedness and $`t`$-structures

From here on, we will apply our method of construction of $`t`$-structures to the problem of characterizing equivalences of bounded derived categories. In this section and the next we will deal with the issue of when a $`t`$-structure defined on the full category $`𝗗(𝒜)`$, restricts to a subcategory defined through a boundedness condition.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`E𝗗^{}(𝒜)`$. The $`t`$-structure defined by $`E`$ restricts to $`𝗗^{}(𝒜)`$, in other words, the associated truncation functors, $`\tau _E^n`$ and $`\tau _E^n`$ ($`n`$) take upper bounded objects to upper bounded objects.

###### Proof.

It is enough to check the assertion for $`\tau _E^0`$ and $`\tau _E^1`$. Note that the aisle $`𝒰`$ generated by $`E`$ is such that $`𝒰𝗗^{}(𝒜)`$, because the operations that allow us to construct $`𝒰`$ from $`E`$ —translation and extension— preserve this condition, therefore, for every $`M𝗗^{}(𝒜)`$, $`\tau _E^0(M)𝒰𝗗^{}(𝒜)`$. Now considering the triangle,

$$\tau _E^0MM\tau _E^1M\stackrel{+}{}$$

$`M`$ and $`\tau _E^0M`$ are in $`𝗗^{}(𝒜)`$, therefore, $`\tau _E^1M𝗗^{}(𝒜)`$. ∎

Our next task will be to get conditions for the restriction of a $`t`$-structure to $`𝗗^+(𝒜)`$. In the rest of this section we will treat the case of derived categories of modules.

###### 4.2.

We need a standard definition in the theory of triangulated categories. Let $`𝗧`$ be a triangulated category. An object $`E`$ of $`𝗧`$ is called *compact* if the functor $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E,)`$ commutes with arbitrary coproducts. Another way of expressing the condition is that a map from $`E`$ to a coproduct factors through a finite subcoproduct.

The following is Rickard’s criterion for compact objects in derived categories over rings. See \[R, Proposition 6.3 and its proof\]. Using results of Neeman, we are able to give a simpler proof.

Let $`𝗧`$ be a triangulated category. A triangulated subcategory $`𝒮𝗧`$ is called *thick* if a direct summand of an object of $`𝒮`$, also belongs to $`𝒮`$. Observe that a localizing subcategory is thick, because being closed for coproducts implies being closed for direct summands, as follows form Corollary 1.4.

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`R`$ be a ring. In $`𝗗(R)`$ the compact objects are those isomorphic to bounded complex of finite-type projective modules.

###### Proof.

The triangulated category $`𝗗(R)`$ is generated by $`R`$ that is trivially compact and bounded. We apply Neeman’s result (\[N, Lemma 2.2\]) that says that the smallest thick subcategory of a compactly generated triangulated category that contains all the translations of a compact generator is the full subcategory whose objects are the compact ones. Therefore the full subcategory of compact objects is the smallest thick subcategory of $`𝗗(R)`$ that contains $`R`$. Now the full subcategory of bounded complexes of projectives is thick because it is stable for triangles and direct summands, and all of its objects are compact as can be checked easily, therefore it agrees with the subcategory of compact objects. ∎

###### 4.4.

In a triangulated category $`𝗧`$, a family of objects $`\{E_\alpha \}_{\alpha A}`$ is called a *generating family* if for every $`M𝗧`$, $`M0`$ there is a $`j`$ and an $`\alpha A`$ such that $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E_\alpha [j],M)0`$. If the family is formed by a single object, then this object is usually called a generator.

The following result will be key for applications.

###### Proposition 4.5.

Let $`R`$ be a ring. Let $`E`$ be a compact generator of $`𝗗(R)`$, and denote by $`𝒰`$ the aisle generated by $`E`$. Then every object $`M𝒰^{}`$ belongs to $`𝗗^+(R)`$.

###### Proof.

Fix $`M𝒰^{}`$. Let $`𝒮_M`$ be the full subcategory of $`𝗗(R)`$ whose objects are those $`N`$ in $`𝗗(R)`$ such that $`𝗥\mathrm{Hom}_R^{}(N,M)𝗗^+()`$.

The subcategory $`𝒮_M`$ is a thick subcategory of $`𝗗(R)`$. Indeed, it is clearly triangulated and a direct summand $`N^{}`$ of an object $`N`$ of $`𝒮_M`$, also belongs to $`𝒮_M`$ because $`𝗥\mathrm{Hom}_R^{}(N^{},M)`$ is a direct summand of $`𝗥\mathrm{Hom}_R^{}(N,M)`$. The object $`E`$ and all of its translations $`E[k]`$ ($`k`$) belong to $`𝒮_M`$ because $`M𝒰^{}`$ which implies that for all $`j0`$

$$H^j(𝗥\mathrm{Hom}_R^{}(E,M))=\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(R)}(E[j],M)=0,$$

so $`𝗥\mathrm{Hom}_R^{}(E,M)𝗗^1()`$.

We have shown that $`𝒮_M`$ is a thick subcategory of $`𝗗(R)`$ that contains all translations of a compact generator. We apply again Neeman’s result (\[N, Lemma 2.2.\]). It follows that all the compact objects are contained in $`𝒮_M`$, in particular $`R𝒮_M`$. But this means that $`𝗥\mathrm{Hom}_R^{}(R,M)𝗗^+()`$, in other words, $`H^j(M)=H^j(𝗥\mathrm{Hom}_R^{}(R,M))=0`$, for $`j0`$, i.e. $`M𝗗^+(R)`$, as desired. ∎

###### Theorem 4.6.

Let $`R`$ be a ring and $`E`$ a compact generator of $`𝗗(R)`$. The $`t`$-structure defined in $`𝗗(R)`$ by $`𝒰`$, the smallest aisle that contains $`E`$, restricts to a $`t`$-structure on $`𝗗^𝖻(R)`$.

###### Proof.

Consider again the triangle associated to $`M𝗗(R)`$

$$\tau _E^0MM\tau _E^1M\stackrel{+}{}.$$

By Lemma 4.3 we can assume that $`E`$ is bounded, in particular, $`E𝗗^{}(R)`$ and, by Proposition 4.1, the $`t`$-structure defined by $`E`$ restricts to $`𝗗^{}(R)`$. This means that when $`M𝗗^𝖻(R)`$, then both $`\tau _E^0M`$ and $`\tau _E^1M𝗗^{}(R)`$.

On the other hand, by Proposition 4.5, we always have that $`\tau _E^1M𝗗^+(R)`$, therefore if $`M𝗗^𝖻(R)`$, $`\tau _E^0M𝗗^+(R)`$ also. Putting all this together, $`\tau _E^0M`$ and $`\tau _E^1M𝗗^𝖻(R)`$. ∎

## 5. Boundedness for quasi coherent sheaves

The previous result can be extended for sheaves on separated divisorial schemes. Recall that a scheme $`(X,𝒪_X)`$ is called divisorial if it is quasi-compact and quasi-separated and has an ample family of line bundles, see \[I\]. An illuminating example is given by a quasi-projective variety (over a field, say).

Denote by $`\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X)`$ the category of quasi-coherent sheaves on a scheme $`X`$. If $`X`$ is separated, the category $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$ has an internal tensor functor $`_{𝒪_X}^𝗟`$ that can be computed by quasi-coherent flat resolutions in either variable, see \[AJL, 1.1\].

Let $`d`$, an aisle $`𝒰`$ in $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$ is called $`d`$-*rigid* if for every $`𝒢𝒰`$ and $`𝗗^0(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$ we have that $`_{𝒪_X}^𝗟𝒢𝒰[d]`$. If $`𝒰`$ is $`d`$-*rigid* for some $`d`$, we will say simply that $`𝒰`$ is rigid. The next result gives a useful characterization of rigid aisles in $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$ when $`X`$ is a divisorial scheme.

###### Proposition 5.1.

Let $`(X,𝒪_X)`$ be a divisorial separated scheme. Let $`𝒰`$ be an aisle of $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$ and $`d`$. The following are equivalent:

1. $`𝒰`$ is $`d`$-rigid.
2. For every $`𝒢𝒰`$ and $`\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X)`$ we have that $`_{𝒪_X}^𝗟𝒢𝒰[d]`$.
3. For every $`𝒢𝒰`$ and $``$ a locally free sheaf in $`\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X)`$ we have that $`_{𝒪_X}𝒢=_{𝒪_X}^𝗟𝒢𝒰[d]`$.
4. For every $`𝒢𝒰`$, every invertible sheaf $``$ from the ample family of sheaves in $`\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X)`$, there is a $`k_0`$ such that $`^k_{𝒪_X}𝒢𝒰[d]`$ if $`k<k_0`$.

###### Proof.

The assertions $`(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)`$ are trivial. To prove $`(iv)(i)`$ take a complex $`𝗗^0(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$. The complex $`_{𝒪_X}^𝗟𝒢`$ can be computed by means of a flat resolution $``$, where each component $`^i`$ is an arbitrary coproduct of sheaves $`^k`$ where $``$ is an invertible sheaf from the ample family and $`k0`$. Therefore we have the quasi-isomorphism $`_{𝒪_X}𝒢_{𝒪_X}^𝗟𝒢`$. The complex $`_{𝒪_X}𝒢`$ is defined as the totalization of the bicomplex $`^{}_{𝒪_X}𝒢^{}`$. Fix $`i0`$, the complex $`^i_{𝒪_X}𝒢^{}`$ belongs to $`𝒰[d]`$, by $`(iv)`$ and the previous observation using that an aisle is stable for coproducts and the derived tensor product of sheaves commutes with coproducts. This allows us to apply the same argument as in Proposition 2.2. We define a filtration $`_n`$ of $`_{𝒪_X}𝒢`$ such that $`_0=^0_{𝒪_X}𝒢^{}`$. For $`n>0`$, there is a map $`\nu _n`$ from which we define $`_n`$ inductively by the triangle:

$$(^n_{𝒪_X}𝒢^{})[n1]\stackrel{\nu _n}{}_{n1}^{}_n^{}\stackrel{+}{}.$$

Thus every $`_n𝒰[d]`$ by induction. Clearly, in $`𝗖(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ n\end{array}_n=_{𝒪_X}𝒢,$$

and it follows that $`_{𝒪_X}𝒢𝒰[d]`$ by Lemma 2.1. ∎

###### Corollary 5.2.

In the previous situation, if $`X`$ is affine, then every aisle in $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$ is rigid.

###### Proof.

In this case $`\{𝒪_X\}`$ is an ample family. ∎

###### 5.3.

Let $`(X,𝒪_X)`$ be a scheme. Let $``$ be an invertible sheaf on $`X`$ and $`s:𝒪_X`$ a global section. For any $`n`$, there is a map $`^n^{n+1}`$ defined by $`tts`$. These maps form a directed system of $`𝒪_X`$-modules whose limit we will denote

$$𝒪_X[s^1]:=\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ n\end{array}^n.$$

The notation is explained by the fact that if $`X`$ is affine, say $`X=\mathrm{Spec}(R)`$, and $`sR`$ is identified with a global section of the sheaf $`𝒪_X=\stackrel{~}{R}`$, then $`𝒪_X[s^1]=\stackrel{~}{R_s}`$.

###### Lemma 5.4.

Let $`(X,𝒪_X)`$ be a divisorial separated scheme and $``$ be an invertible sheaf from the given ample family. Let $`X_s`$ be the open set whose complementary set is the set of zeros of a global section $`s:𝒪_X`$. Denote by $`j:X_sX`$ the canonical inclusion map. Let $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$, then we have an isomorphism (in $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$):

$$𝗥j_{}j^{}\stackrel{~}{}𝒪_X[s^1]_{𝒪_X}.$$

###### Proof.

By \[I, Lemme 2.2.3.1\] the morphism $`j:X_sX`$ is affine, therefore $`j_{}:\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X_s)\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X)`$ is exact. Being an open embedding, $`j`$ is flat, so $`j^{}`$ is exact, too. Therefore, we have the isomorphism $`𝗥j_{}j^{}\stackrel{~}{}j_{}j^{}`$ for every $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$. So, it is enough to treat the case in which $``$ is a single quasi-coherent sheaf. In fact, this is a restatement of \[EGA I, 6.8.1\].

Consider the canonical commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & 𝒪_X[s^1]_{𝒪_X}\\ & & \beta & & \\ j_{}j^{}& \stackrel{\alpha }{}& 𝒪_X[s^1]_{𝒪_X}j_{}j^{}\end{array}$$

The maps $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are isomorphisms. Indeed, consider a covering of $`X`$ made up by affine trivialization open subsets, i.e. every $`U=\mathrm{Spec}(R)`$ in the covering is such that $`|_U\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{R}`$, and the section $`s|_U`$ is identified with a certain $`fR`$. Suppose also that $`|_U\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ for a certain $`R`$-module $`M`$. Observe that the open set $`X_sU`$ is identified with $`\mathrm{Spec}R_f`$. With this identifications $`\alpha |_U`$ corresponds to the canonical isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{M_f}\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{R_f}_{𝒪_X|_U}\stackrel{~}{M_f}`$ and $`\beta |_U`$ corresponds to $`\stackrel{~}{R_f}_{𝒪_X|_U}\stackrel{~}{M}\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{R_f}_{𝒪_X|_U}\stackrel{~}{M_f}`$

For divisorial schemes there is a characterization of compact objects in $`𝗗_{\mathrm{𝗊𝖼}}(X)`$, the category of complexes of sheaves of $`𝒪_X`$-modules with quasi-coherent homology, due to Thomason and Trobaugh, see \[TT, Theorem 2.4.3.\]. On the other hand, it is well-known that for a quasi-compact separated scheme we have an equivalence $`𝗗_{\mathrm{𝗊𝖼}}(X)𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$, see, for instance \[BN, Corollary 5.5\] or, for a different proof, \[AJL, Proposition 1.3\]. We give here a proof of this criterion for $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$.

###### Lemma 5.5.

Let $`(X,𝒪_X)`$ be a divisorial, separated scheme. In $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$ the compact objects are those isomorphic to bounded complexes of locally free, finite type sheaves.

###### Proof.

We apply again Neeman’s result (\[N, Lemma 2.2.\]) to $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$ and an ample family of invertible sheaves as compact generators. Then we mimic the procedure of Lemma 4.3. ∎

###### Proposition 5.6.

Let $`(X,𝒪_X)`$ be a divisorial, separated scheme. Let $``$ be a compact generator of $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$, and denote by $`𝒰`$ the aisle generated by $``$. Suppose that $`𝒰`$ is rigid. Then every object $`𝒰^{}`$ belongs to $`𝗗^+(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$.

###### Proof.

As in the case of Proposition 4.5 we only need to check that

$$^q()=\mathrm{𝑥𝑡}_{𝒪_X}^q(𝒪_X,)$$

vanishes for $`q0`$. But this is a local question, therefore we can cover $`X`$ by a finite family of open affines, $`U_\lambda =\mathrm{Spec}(R_\lambda )`$, where $`\lambda \{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Denote by $`j_\lambda :U_\lambda X`$ the canonical inclusion. We choose these open affines as complementary sets of zeros of sections $`s_\lambda :𝒪_X_\lambda `$ of invertible sheaves $`_\lambda `$ from the ample family: $`U_\lambda `$ will be the locus where $`s_\lambda `$ does not vanish. The complex $``$ restricted to each $`\mathrm{Spec}(R_\lambda )`$ can be represented by a bounded complex of free $`R_\lambda `$-modules (after refining the covering, if necessary). Define complexes $`E_\lambda `$ and $`F_\lambda `$ of $`R_\lambda `$ modules by $`\stackrel{~}{E_\lambda }=|_{\mathrm{Spec}(R_\lambda )}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F_\lambda }=|_{\mathrm{Spec}(R_\lambda )}`$.

The complex $`E_\lambda `$ is a compact generator in $`𝗗(R_\lambda )`$. Indeed, by Lemma 5.5 the covering by open affines can be chosen in such a way that $`E_\lambda `$ are bounded complexes of projective modules of finite type which are compact as objects of $`𝗗(R_\lambda )`$. Let us check that $`E_\lambda `$ is a generator of $`𝗗(R_\lambda )`$. For a non zero object $`M`$ of $`𝗗(R_\lambda )`$, its derived extension $`𝗥j_\lambda \stackrel{~}{M}`$ is again non zero because $`j_\lambda ^{}𝗥j_\lambda \stackrel{~}{M}=\stackrel{~}{M}0`$. Therefore, there is a non zero map $`[r]𝗥j_\lambda \stackrel{~}{M}`$, for some $`r`$ which, by adjunction, gives a non zero map $`E_\lambda [r]M`$.

Suppose that $`𝒰`$ is $`d`$-rigid. Let $`𝒰_\lambda `$ be the aisle of $`𝗗(R_\lambda )`$ generated by $`E_\lambda [d]`$. We will see that $`F_\lambda 𝒰_\lambda ^{}`$. We have to check that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(R_\lambda )}(E_\lambda [r],F_\lambda )=0$$

for every $`rd`$. First, using once more \[AJS, Theorem 2.2\] we have that

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{holim}\\ \\ n\end{array}^n\stackrel{~}{}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ n\end{array}^n=𝒪_X[s^1]$$

Now we have the following chain of isomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(R_\lambda )}(E_\lambda [r],F_\lambda )& \stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(U_\lambda ))}(j_\lambda ^{}[r],j_\lambda ^{})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))}([r],𝗥j_\lambda j_\lambda ^{})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))}([r],𝒪_X[s_\lambda ^1])\hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))}([r],(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{holim}\\ \\ n\end{array}^n))\hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ n\end{array}\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))}([r],^n)\hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{}\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ n\end{array}\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))}([r]^n,)\hfill \\ & =0,\hfill \end{array}$$

where the first isomorphism holds because $`U_\lambda `$ is affine, the third using Lemma 5.4, the fourth, following the previous remark, the fifth, using that $``$ is a compact object in $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$ and the rest are the usual adjunction maps. The last equality follows from the fact that $`𝒰`$ is $`d`$-rigid.

Now, given $`\lambda \{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, Proposition 4.5 gives us a bound on $`q`$ for the vanishing of $`\mathrm{Ext}_R^q(R_\lambda ,F_\lambda )`$. As these bounds are in finite quantity, we take the minimum and conclude. ∎

###### Theorem 5.7.

Let X be a separated divisorial scheme $`X`$. If $``$ is compact and generator in $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$, the $`t`$-structure defined by $``$ in $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$ restricts to a $`t`$-structure on $`𝗗^𝖻(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$.

###### Proof.

Mimic the proof of Theorem 4.6, using Proposition 5.6 instead of Proposition 4.5 and that $`𝗗^{}(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$ by Lemma 5.5. ∎

## 6. Derived equivalences and $`t`$-structures

First, we need the following easy Lemma.

###### Lemma 6.1.

Let $`𝗧`$ be a triangulated category and $`𝒰`$ be the smallest cocomplete pre-aisle in $`𝗧`$ that contains an object $`E`$. If $`E`$ is *compact* then $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E,X[j])=0`$ for all $`j>0`$ and all $`X𝒰`$ if, and only if, $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E,E[j])=0`$ for all $`j>0`$.

###### Proof.

We will use again an idea from a previous Lemma. Consider the full subcategory $`𝒮`$ whose objects are those $`X𝒰`$ such that $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E,X[j])=0`$ for every $`j>0`$. Clearly, $`𝒮𝒰`$ is suspended and stable for coproducts ($`E`$ is compact), therefore if $`E𝒮`$, necessarily $`𝒮=𝒰`$. ∎

###### 6.2.

In a triangulated category $`𝗧`$, an object $`X`$ is called *exceptional* if, and only if,

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(X,X[j])=0\text{, for all }j0.$$

E. g., an object $`M`$ in $`𝗗(R)`$ ($`R`$ a ring) is exceptional if $`\mathrm{Ext}_R^j(M,M)=0`$ for all $`j0`$. In the literature, an exceptional compact generator is often called a *tilting* object.

###### Proposition 6.3.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a Grothendieck category. Let $`𝒰`$ be the smallest aisle in $`𝗗(𝒜)`$ which contains an object $`E`$. If $`E`$ is compact and exceptional, then it belongs to the heart $`𝒞=𝒰^{}[1]𝒰`$ of the $`t`$-structure $`(𝒰,𝒰^{}[1])`$. The category $`𝒞`$ is abelian, cocomplete and $`E`$, as an object of $`𝒞`$, is *small*, *projective* and *generator*.

###### Proof.

First, $`E`$ belongs to $`𝒰`$ and to $`𝒰^{}[1]`$ because it is exceptional, therefore $`E𝒞`$. The category $`𝒞`$ is abelian by \[BBD, Théorème 1.3.6\]. To see that it is cocomplete it is enough to see that it has coproducts. This is true for $`𝒰`$ and to $`𝒰^{}[1]`$ by Proposition A.2 and therefore also for $`𝒞`$.

Take now any object $`Y`$ in $`𝒞`$. It belongs to $`𝒰`$ by definition. If we have also that $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(E,Y)=\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E,Y)=0`$ then it already belongs to $`𝒰^{}`$, therefore to $`𝒰𝒰^{}`$, so $`Y=0`$, this shows that $`E`$ is a generator in $`𝒞`$ (in the sense of abelian categories).

Let $`0XYZ0`$ be an exact sequence in $`𝒞`$. It comes from a triangle in $`𝗗(𝒜)`$, namely, $`XYZ\stackrel{+}{}.`$ As $`Z𝒰^{}[1]`$, we have that $`Z[1]𝒰^{}`$. But then $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E,Z[1])=0`$. The complex $`E`$ is exceptional, then by Lemma 6.1, $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E,X[1])=0`$ because $`X`$ belongs to $`𝒰`$. Taking these facts into account, we apply $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(E,)=\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E,)`$ to the triangle and obtain an exact sequence:

$$0\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(E,X)\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(E,Y)\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(E,Z)0,$$

therefore $`E`$ is a projective object of $`𝒞`$. The object $`E`$ is compact in $`𝗗(𝒜)`$, thus it is small in $`𝒞`$ because the functor $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(E,)`$ commutes with coproducts. ∎

For the next results, we need some notation. Let $`𝗧`$ be a triangulated category and $`𝒰`$ an aisle in $`𝗧`$. The bounded part of $`𝗧`$ with respect to $`𝒰`$ is the full subcategory defined by:

$$𝗧_𝒰^𝖻:=\underset{a,b}{}𝒰[a]𝒰^{}[b]$$

The following Lemma is similar to \[BBD, Proposition 3.1.16\].

###### Lemma 6.4.

Let $`(𝒰,𝒰^{}[1])`$ be a $`t`$-structure in $`𝗗(𝒜)`$ and $`𝒞`$ its heart. The functor $`\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅}:𝗗^𝖻(𝒞)𝗗(𝒜)_𝒰^𝖻`$, defined in \[BBD, 3.1.10\], is an equivalence of categories if, and only if, for every objects $`A`$ and $`B`$ in $`𝒞`$, $`n>0`$ and $`f\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(A,B[n])`$, there is an epimorphism $`A^{}A`$ in $`𝒞`$ that erases $`f`$.

###### Proof.

To check that $`\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅}`$ is fully faithful, we modify slightly the first part of the proof in *loc. cit.* The functor $`\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅}`$ induces a map

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗^𝖻(𝒞)}(A,B[n])\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(A,B[n])$$

that is an isomorphism for $`n=0`$. For $`n>0`$, the functors $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗^𝖻(𝒞)}(,B[n])`$ are Yoneda’s Ext in $`𝒞`$, therefore make part of a (contravariant) universal $`\delta `$-functor. And the same is true for $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(,B[n])`$, because the conditions of Grothendieck’s characterization of universal $`\delta `$-functors (\[Gr, Proposition 2.2.1\]) hold by hypothesis.

The essential image of $`\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅}`$ is $`𝗗(𝒜)_𝒰^𝖻`$ by the same argument as in \[BBD, Proposition 3.1.16\]. ∎

For convenience, for a separated divisorial scheme $`X`$, let us say that a tilting complex of quasi-coherent sheaves $``$ is *special* if the aisle generated by $``$ in $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$ is rigid.

###### Proposition 6.5.

Let the category $`𝒜`$ be either $`R\text{-}\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}`$ for an arbitrary ring $`R`$ or $`\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X)`$ for a separated divisorial scheme $`X`$. Let $`E`$ be a tilting object of $`𝗗(𝒜)`$, which we suppose special in the scheme case. Let $`𝒞`$ be the heart of the $`t`$-structure that $`E`$ defines in $`𝗗(𝒜)`$. Then, $`𝗗^𝖻(𝒞)`$ is equivalent to $`𝗗^𝖻(𝒜)`$

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒰`$ denote the aisle determined by $`E`$. The object $`E𝗗^{}(𝒜)`$, because it is bounded (Lemma 4.3 and Lemma 5.5), therefore, we have that $`𝒰[a]𝗗^{}(𝒜)`$ for every $`a`$. Using Proposition 4.5 for $`𝒜=R\text{-}\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}`$ and Proposition 5.6 for $`𝒜=\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X)`$ we see that $`𝒰^{}[b]𝗗^+(𝒜)`$ for every $`b`$. As a consequence $`𝗗(𝒜)_𝒰^𝖻𝗗^𝖻(𝒜)`$.

Let us show that $`𝗗(𝒜)_𝒰^𝖻=𝗗^𝖻(𝒜)`$. Given $`M𝗗^𝖻(𝒜)`$, we will find $`a,b`$ such that $`M𝒰[a]`$ and $`M𝒰^{}[b]`$. Let us check first that $`𝗥\mathrm{Hom}^{}(E,M)`$ is a bounded complex. Indeed, in the case that $`𝒜=R\text{-}\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}`$ the compact object $`E`$ can be represented by a bounded complex of projective modules (Lemma 4.3) and therefore $`𝗥\mathrm{Hom}^{}(E,M)\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{Hom}^{}(E,M)`$ which is clearly bounded. In case $`𝒜=\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X)`$, the compact complex $`E`$ can be represented by a bounded complex of locally free finite-type modules (Lemma 5.5) and we have that $`𝗥\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}^{}(E,M)\stackrel{~}{}\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}^{}(E,M)`$, because locally free modules are acyclic for $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}^{}(,M)`$ from which it follows that $`𝗥\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}^{}(E,M)`$ is bounded. Now, $`X`$ being separated, the derived functor $`𝗥\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,)`$ can be computed via Čech resolutions (\[EGA III, 1.4.1\]) and these resolutions are bounded because $`X`$ is quasi-compact. Therefore $`𝗥\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,)`$ takes bounded complexes in $`𝒜`$ to bounded complexes of abelian groups and

$$𝗥\mathrm{Hom}^{}(E,M)𝗥\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,𝗥\mathrm{𝑜𝑚}^{}(E,M))$$

is a bounded complex as claimed. Then there exist $`a,b`$ such that $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E[j],M)=H^j𝗥\mathrm{Hom}^{}(E,M)=0`$ for all $`jb`$ and $`j<a`$.

Note that $`𝒰^{}[b]=𝒰[b]^{}`$ and the aisle $`𝒰[b]`$ is generated by $`E[b]`$. We apply Lemma 3.1 and conclude that $`M𝒰^{}[b]`$ because $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E[j],M)=0`$ for all $`jb`$.

To see that $`M𝒰[a]`$, we prove that in the distinguished triangle

$$\tau _𝒰^aMM\tau _𝒰^{1a}M\stackrel{+}{},$$

the object $`B:=\tau _𝒰^{1a}M`$ is $`0`$. The aisle $`𝒰[a]`$ is generated by $`E[a]`$, that is a tilting complex, and then

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E[a+j],E[a])=\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E[j],E)=0,$$

for $`j<0`$. By Lemma 6.1, if $`N𝒰[a]`$ we have that $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E[a+j],N)=0`$ for all $`j<0`$. Also, $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E[a+j],M)=0`$ for all $`j<0`$. Applying the cohomological functor $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E,)`$ to the distinguished triangle above we obtain an exact sequence from which it follows that $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E[a+j],B)=0`$ for $`j<0`$. On the other hand, we have that $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(𝒜)}(E[a+j],B)=0`$ for $`j0`$ because $`B𝒰[a]^{}`$. Summing up, as $`E`$ is a generator, $`B=0`$.

Finally, consider the functor $`\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅}:𝗗^𝖻(𝒞)𝗗(𝒜)_𝒰^𝖻`$. To see that it is an equivalence, it is only left to check that the hypothesis of the previous Lemma hold. Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ in $`𝒞`$, $`n>0`$ and $`f\mathrm{Hom}(A,B[n])`$. By Proposition 6.3, $`E`$ is projective and a generator in $`𝒞`$. We can take an epimorphism $`A^{}A`$, where $`A^{}`$ is a direct sum of copies of $`E`$. And this epimorphism erases $`f`$, as required. ∎

###### Theorem 6.6.

Let $`R`$ and $`S`$ be rings. We have an equivalence:

1. The categories $`𝗗^𝖻(S)`$ and $`𝗗^𝖻(R)`$ are equivalent.
2. There is a tilting object $`E`$ in $`𝗗(R)`$, such that $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(R)}(E,E)=S`$

###### Proof.

$`(i)(ii)`$ The object of $`𝗗^𝖻(R)`$ corresponding to $`S`$ by the equivalence is clearly tilting.

$`(ii)(i)`$ Consider the $`t`$-structure generated by the tilting object $`E`$ in $`𝗗(R)`$. Let $`𝒞`$ be its heart. By Proposition 6.5, $`𝗗^𝖻(R)`$ is equivalent to $`𝗗^𝖻(𝒞)`$. Also, by Proposition 6.3, the object $`E`$ belongs to $`𝒞`$ and it is a small projective generator. But an abelian category with a small projective generator is a module category by \[M, Chap. IV, Theorem 4.1 p. 104\]. Then the ring $`S:=\mathrm{Hom}_𝒞(E,E)`$ is such that $`S\text{-}\mathrm{𝖬𝗈𝖽}`$ is equivalent to $`𝒞`$ and consequently, $`𝗗^𝖻(S)`$ is equivalent to $`𝗗^𝖻(R)`$. ∎

###### Remark.

The previous theorem gives another proof of (b) $``$ (e) in \[R, Theorem 6.4.\]. We have to say that Rickard was also inspired in the construction given in \[BBD\] to get a totalization of bicomplexes “up to homotopy”. The difference is our explicit use of the functor $`\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅}`$. This shows that constructing a $`t`$-structure is a general means for establishing an equivalence.

We also point out that some technicalities from sections 4 and 5 could be avoided if we had an analogous of the functor $`\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅}`$ for unbounded derived categories. This construction would be feasible once we had a satisfactory theory of totalization for unbounded bicomplexes which, at present, does not seem obvious to get.

###### Theorem 6.7.

Let $`X`$ be a separated divisorial scheme. If there is a special tilting object $``$ in $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$, then the ring $`R=\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))}(,)`$ is such that $`𝗗^𝖻(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(X))`$ is equivalent to $`𝗗^𝖻(R)`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from Proposition 6.5, using again the characterization of module categories in \[M\] as in the previous Theorem. ∎

###### 6.8.

Let us see now how Beilinson’s equivalence can be interpreted under the light of the previous results. Let $`𝐏_K^d`$ be the $`d`$-dimensional projective space over a field $`K`$. Denote by $`𝒪(1)`$ the canonical ample invertible sheaf and by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐏^1`$ the sheaf of differential forms. Consider the families of locally free sheaves $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Lambda }:=\{𝒪_𝐏,\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐏^1(1),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐏^d(d)\}`$ and $`𝒮_S:=\{𝒪_𝐏,𝒪_𝐏(1),\mathrm{},𝒪_𝐏(d)\}`$. They are obviously made of compact objects in $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(𝐏_K^d))`$. From \[B1, Lemma 2\], the objects

$`_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`:=𝒪_𝐏\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐏^1(1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐏^d(d)`$
$`_S`$ $`:=𝒪_𝐏𝒪_𝐏(1)\mathrm{}𝒪_𝐏(d)`$
are exceptional. Also, from the proof of \[B1, Theorem, p. 215\] they are generators of $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(𝐏_K^d))`$. Let

$`R_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`:=\mathrm{End}_{𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(𝐏_K^d))}(_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$`R_S`$ $`:=\mathrm{End}_{𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(𝐏_K^d))}(_S).`$
Denote simply by $`R`$ either $`R_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`R_S`$, and, analogously, let $``$ be either $`_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`_S`$, respectively. For a triangulated category $`𝗧`$, denote by $`𝗧_{\mathrm{𝖼𝗉}}`$ the full subcategory of compact objects in $`𝗧`$. We have the following.

###### Corollary 6.9.

There is an equivalence between the categories $`𝗗^𝖻(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(𝐏_K^d))`$ and $`𝗗^𝖻(R)`$. Moreover, this equivalence induces one between $`𝗗_𝖼^𝖻(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(𝐏_K^d))`$ and $`𝗗(R)_{\mathrm{𝖼𝗉}}`$.

###### Proof.

In view of Theorem 6.7, the only thing left to check is that $``$ is special in either case, in other words, that the aisle $`𝒰`$ generated by $``$ (or equivalently, by the families $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`𝒮_S`$) is rigid.

The key argument in Beilinson’s papers is that one can express every coherent sheaf $``$ over $`𝐏_K^d`$ as the 0-th homology of a complex concentrated in degrees from $`d`$ to $`d`$ (denoted $`L_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ and $`L_S^{}`$ in \[B2, Lemma 3\]) whose components are formed by coproducts of the objects in the families $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`𝒮_S`$, respectively. These resolutions are called the *Beilinson monads* of the sheaf $``$. It follows that $``$ can be obtained by a process of producing mapping cones, coproducts and *positive* translations up to $`d`$ of objects in the families and therefore $`𝒰[d]`$.

It follows that, for $`k0`$ and $`i\{0,\mathrm{}d\}`$, the objects $`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐏^i(i+k)`$, twists of the generators of the aisle $`𝒰_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, belong to $`𝒰_\mathrm{\Lambda }[d]`$; and analogously for the sheaves $`𝒪(i+k)`$ and the aisle $`𝒰_S`$. Now it is easy to see that, once this fact holds for the generators of an aisle $`𝒰`$, it holds also for all the objects in $`𝒰`$. Therefore we can apply Proposition 5.1 to $`𝒰_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`𝒰_S`$, respectively, and conclude that they are both rigid.

Finally, the object $``$ is projective and generator viewed as $`R`$-module, and therefore is a compact generator of $`𝗗(R)`$. By \[N, Lemma 2.2\] $`𝗗(R)_{\mathrm{𝖼𝗉}}`$ is the smallest thick subcategory of $`𝗗^𝖻(R)`$ that contains $``$. The functor $`\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅}`$ extends the inclusion of the heart to a map between derived categories, so it takes $``$ to itself. But $``$ is also a compact generator of $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(𝐏_K^d))`$ and by the cited Lemma, the smallest thick subcategory of $`𝗗^𝖻(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(𝐏_K^d))`$ containing $``$ is $`𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(𝐏_K^d))_{\mathrm{𝖼𝗉}}`$. The functor $`\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖺𝗅}`$ preserves thick subcategories and therefore both are equivalent. Finally, $`𝗗_𝖼^𝖻(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(𝐏_K^d))=𝗗(\mathrm{𝖰𝖼𝗈}(𝐏_K^d))_{\mathrm{𝖼𝗉}}`$ by Auslander–Buchsbaum–Serre theorem, because $`𝐏_K^d`$ is a regular scheme. ∎

## Appendix: Compactly generated $`t`$-structures

In this section we will give a solution to the Problem in page Problem of Section 1 for general triangulated categories under the hypothesis that the generating objects for the complete pre-aisle are compact. This gives a criterion for the existence of $`t`$-structures applicable in very general settings. Also, the good behavior of these kind of objects will allow us to get information about the $`t`$-structure already in the case of a derived category, as treated in the main text.

###### Theorem A.1.

Let $`𝒮=\{E_\alpha /\alpha A\}`$ a *set* of compact objects in a triangulated category $`𝗧`$. Let $`𝒰`$ the smallest cocomplete pre-aisle of $`𝗧`$ which contains the family $`𝒮`$. Then $`𝒰`$ is an aisle in $`𝗧`$.

###### Proof.

This argument is inspired in \[N, Lemma 1.7, p. 554\]. Let $`M𝗧`$, let us show how to construct a distinguished triangle $`NMB\stackrel{+}{}`$ with $`N𝒰`$ and $`B𝒰^{}`$.

This time ordinary induction will do. Let $`B_0:=M`$. Suppose $`B_{n1}`$ is already constructed. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}:=_{\alpha A,k}\mathrm{Hom}_{𝗖(R)}(E_\alpha [k],B_{n1})`$ and define $`B_n`$ by the triangle

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}}{}E_\alpha [k]\stackrel{𝜌}{}B_{n1}\stackrel{𝜇}{}B_n\stackrel{+}{},$$
(4)
where $`\rho `$ is defined by the universal property of the coproduct, as in Proposition 3.2. Let $`B=\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{holim}\\ \\ n\end{array}B_n`$ which, by the remark after Lemma 2.1, may be defined by the distinguished triangle

$$\underset{n}{}B_n\stackrel{1\mu }{}\underset{n}{}B_nB\stackrel{+}{}.$$

The object $`B`$ belongs to $`𝒰^{}`$. Indeed, using Lemma 3.1 it is enough to check that for any $`\alpha A`$ and $`k0`$, $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E_\alpha [k],B)=0`$. But, applying the functor $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E_\alpha [k],)`$ to the previous triangle,

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E_\alpha [k],\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{holim}\\ \\ n\end{array}B_n)\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{lim}\\ \\ n\end{array}\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E_\alpha [k],B_n).$$

But this limit is $`0`$ because the image of the map

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E_\alpha [k],B_{n1})\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E_\alpha [k],B_n)$$

is formed by maps that factor through $`\mu `$ in triangle (4) and two successive maps in a triangle are $`0`$ whence the claim.

The object $`N`$ belongs to $`𝒰`$ copying the argument in Proposition 3.2. ∎

###### Remark.

Observe that we cannot simplify and take $`E_i`$ as the generator of the aisle because this object does not need to be compact when the family is not finite.

###### Proposition A.2.

Keeping the notations as in the previous Theorem, the associated functors $`\tau _𝒰^n,\tau _𝒰^n:𝗧𝗧`$ preserve coproducts with $`n`$.

###### Proof.

It is obviously enough to treat the case $`\tau _𝒰^1`$. But then it is enough to see that its essential image, $`𝒰^{}`$, is closed under the formation of coproducts in $`𝗧`$. Let $`\{G_i/iI\}`$ a family of objects in $`𝒰^{}`$. By using Lemma 3.1 once again we have to check that:

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E_\alpha [k],_{iI}G_i)=0$$

for every $`\alpha A`$ and $`k0`$. But each $`E_\alpha [k]`$ is compact and therefore,

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E_\alpha [k],_{iI}G_i)=_{iI}\mathrm{Hom}_𝗧(E_\alpha [k],G_i)=0$$

as wanted. ∎

###### Remark.

This result is an adaptation of Neeman-Ravenel’s argument for compactly generated localizing subcategories to aisles (See \[N, Proposition 1.9\]).


text:
# Quantum-optical communication rates through an amplifying random medium

## Abstract

We study the competing effects of stimulated and spontaneous emission on the information capacity of an amplifying disordered waveguide. At the laser threshold the capacity reaches a “universal” limit, independent of the degree of disorder. Whether or not this limit is larger or smaller than the capacity without amplification depends on the disorder, as well as on the input power. Explicit expressions are obtained for heterodyne detection of coherent states, and generalized for arbitrary detection scheme.

PACS numbers: 89.70.+c, 42.50.Ar, 42.50.Lc, 42.25.Dd

To faithfully transmit information through a communication channel, the rate of transmission should be less than the capacity of the channel . Although current technology is still far from the quantum limit, there is an active scientific interest in the fundamental limitations to the capacity imposed by quantum mechanics . Ultimately, these limitations originate from the uncertainty principle, which is the source of noise that remains when all external sources have been eliminated.

An important line of investigation deals with strategies to increase the capacity. One remarkable finding of recent years has been the beneficial role of multiple scattering by disorder, which under some circumstances can increase the capacity by increasing the number of modes (scattering channels) that effectively carry the information . Quite generally, the capacity increases with increasing signal-to-noise ratio, so that amplification of the signal is a practical way to increase the capacity. When considering the quantum limits, however, one should include not only the amplification of the signal (e.g. by stimulated emission), but also the excess noise (e.g. due to spontaneous emission). The two are linked at a fundamental level by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, which constrains the beneficial effect of amplification on the capacity .

While the effects of disorder and amplification on communication rates have been considered separately in the past, their combined effects are still an open problem. Even the basic question “does the capacity go up or down with increasing gain?” has not been answered. We were motivated to look into this problem by the recent interest in so called “random lasers” . These are optical media with gain, in which the feedback is provided by disorder instead of by mirrors (as it is in a conventional laser). Below the laser threshold these materials behave like linear amplifiers with strong intermode scattering, and this results in some unusual noise properties . As we will show here, the techniques developed in connection with random lasers can be used to predict under what circumstances the capacity is increased by amplification.

We consider the transmission of information through a linear amplifier consisting of an $`N`$-mode waveguide that is pumped uniformly over a length $`L`$ (see Fig. 1). We will refer to amplification by stimulated emission, but one can equally well assume other gain mechanisms (for example, stimulated Raman scattering ). The amplification occurs at a rate $`1/\tau _a`$. The waveguide also contains passive scatterers, with a transport mean free path $`l`$. The combined effects of scattering and amplification are described by a $`2N\times 2N`$ scattering matrix $`S`$ which is super-unitary ($`SS^{}𝟙`$ positive definite).

We assume that the information itself is of a classical nature (without entanglement of subsequent inputs), but fully account for the quantum nature of the electromagnetic field that carries the information. The quantized radiation is described by a vector $`a^{\mathrm{in}}`$ of bosonic annihilation operators for the incoming modes and a vector $`a^{\mathrm{out}}`$ for the outgoing modes. The two vectors are related by the input-output relation

$$a^{\mathrm{out}}=Sa^{\mathrm{in}}+Ub^{}.$$
(1)
The vector of bosonic creation operators $`b^{}`$ describes spontaneous emission by the amplifying medium. The fluctuation-dissipation theorem relates the matrix $`U`$ to $`S`$ by

$$UU^{}=SS^{}𝟙.$$
(2)
The first communication channel that we examine is heterodyne detection of coherent states . The sender uses a single narrow-band mode $`\alpha `$ (with frequency $`\omega _0`$ and band width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$), to transmit a complex number $`\mu `$ by means of a coherent state $`|\mu `$ (such that $`a_\alpha ^{\mathrm{in}}|\mu =\mu |\mu `$). The receiver measures a complex number $`\nu `$ by means of heterodyne detection of mode $`\beta `$. Two sources of noise may cause $`\nu `$ to differ from $`\mu `$: Non-orthogonality of the two coherent states $`|\mu `$ and $`|\nu `$; and spontaneous emission by the amplifying medium.

The a priori probability $`p(\mu )`$ that the sender transmits the number $`\mu `$, and the conditional probability $`𝒫(\nu |\mu )`$ that the receiver detects $`\nu `$ if $`\mu `$ is transmitted, determine the mutual information

$$I=\mathrm{d}^2\nu \mathrm{d}^2\mu 𝒫(\nu |\mu )p(\mu )\mathrm{log}_2\left(\frac{𝒫(\nu |\mu )}{\stackrel{~}{p}(\nu )}\right).$$
(3)
We have defined $`\stackrel{~}{p}(\nu )=\mathrm{d}^2\mu 𝒫(\nu |\mu )p(\mu )`$. The channel capacity $`C`$ (measured in bits per use of the channel) is obtained by maximizing $`I`$ over the a priori distribution $`p(\mu )`$, under the constraint of fixed input power $`P=P_0\mathrm{d}^2\mu |\mu |^2p(\mu )`$ (with $`P_0=\mathrm{}\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }\omega /2\pi `$). As argued in Ref., any randomness in the scattering medium that is known to the receiver but not to the sender can be incorporated by averaging $`I`$ before maximizing, hence

$$C=\underset{p(\mu )}{\mathrm{max}}I.$$
(4)
The brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ indicate an average over different positions of the scatterers.

The calculation of the capacity is greatly simplified by the fact that the spontaneous emission noise is a Gaussian superposition of coherent states. This is expressed by the density matrix of the amplifying medium,

$$\rho _{\mathrm{medium}}\mathrm{d}^2\stackrel{}{\beta }\mathrm{exp}(|\stackrel{}{\beta }|^2/f)|\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{\beta }|,$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ is a vector of $`2N`$ complex numbers and $`|\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ is the corresponding coherent state (such that $`b_n|\stackrel{}{\beta }=\beta _n|\stackrel{}{\beta }`$). The variance $`f=N_{\mathrm{upper}}(N_{\mathrm{upper}}N_{\mathrm{lower}})^1`$ depends on the degree of population inversion of the upper and lower atomic levels that generate the stimulated emission. Minimal noise requires a complete population inversion: $`N_{\mathrm{lower}}=0`$ $``$ $`f=1`$. We will consider that case in what follows.

We will similarly assume that the heterodyne detection adds the minimal amount of noise to the signal. (This requires that the image band is in the vacuum state .) The conditional probability is then given simply by a projection,

$$𝒫(\nu |\mu )=\nu |\rho _{\mathrm{out}}(\mu )|\nu ,$$
(6)
of the density matrix $`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}(\mu )`$ of the outgoing mode $`\beta `$ onto the coherent state $`|\nu `$ (for an incoming coherent state $`|\mu `$ in mode $`\alpha `$). In view of Eqs. (1) and (5) we have (for $`f=1`$)

$$\rho _{\mathrm{out}}(\mu )d^2\nu ^{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|\nu ^{}S_{\beta \alpha }\mu |^2}{_n|U_{\beta n}|^2}\right)|\nu ^{}\nu ^{}|.$$
(7)
This is again a Gaussian superposition of coherent states, but now the variance is related by Eq. (2) to the scattering matrix of the medium: $`_n|U_{\beta n}|^2=_n|S_{\beta n}|^21`$.

Substituting $`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}`$ into Eq. (6), and using $`|\nu |\nu ^{}|^2=\pi ^1\mathrm{exp}(|\nu \nu ^{}|^2)`$, we arrive at

$$𝒫(\nu |\mu )\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|\nu S_{\beta \alpha }\mu |^2}{_n|S_{\beta n}|^2}\right).$$
(8)
This expression for the conditional probability has the same Gaussian form as in previous studies  of communication channels degraded by Gaussian noise, but the essential difference is that in our case the noise strength is not independent of the transmitted power, but related to it by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (2).

The calculation of the capacity proceeds as in Refs.. The optimum a priori distribution $`p(\mu )\mathrm{exp}(|\mu |^2P_0/P)`$ is independent of the scattering matrix $`S`$, so the maximization and disorder average in Eq. (4) may be interchanged. The result is

$$C=\mathrm{log}_2\left(1+\right),=\frac{(P/P_0)|S_{\beta \alpha }|^2}{_{n=1}^{2N}|S_{\beta n}|^2}.$$
(9)
The quantity $``$ is the signal-to-noise ratio at the receiver’s end. We can write $``$ equivalently in terms of the transmission matrix $`t`$ (from sender to receiver) and the reflection matrix $`r`$ (from receiver to receiver):

$$=\frac{(P/P_0)|t_{\beta \alpha }|^2}{_{n=1}^N(|t_{\beta n}|^2+|r_{\beta n}|^2)}.$$
(10)
In the absence of intermode scattering one has $`|t_{nm}|^2=\delta _{nm}`$ and $`r_{nm}=0`$, hence $`=\delta _{\alpha \beta }P/P_0`$ and $`C=\mathrm{log}_2(1+\delta _{\alpha \beta }P/P_0)`$, independent of the amount of amplification. The increase in capacity by stimulated emission is canceled by the extra noise from spontaneous emission . In the absence of amplification, but in the presence of scattering, one has $`_n|S_{\beta n}|^2=1`$, hence $`C=\mathrm{log}_2(1+|t_{\beta \alpha }|^2P/P_0)`$. The capacity is reduced by inter-mode scattering in the same way as for the lossy channel studied in Ref..

The average over the scatterers can be done analytically in the limit $`N1`$ of a large number of modes in the waveguide. Sample-to-sample fluctuations in the denominator $`\sigma =_n(|t_{\beta n}|^2+|r_{\beta n}|^2)`$ are smaller than the average by an order $`N`$, so these fluctuations may be neglected and we can replace the denominator by its average $`\overline{\sigma }`$. The fluctuations in the numerator $`\tau =|t_{\beta \alpha }|^2`$ can not be ignored. These are described (for $`N1`$) by the Rayleigh distribution $`𝒫(\tau )=\overline{\tau }^1e^{\tau /\overline{\tau }}`$. Integrating $`\mathrm{log}_2(1+(P/P_0)\tau /\overline{\sigma })`$ over $`\tau `$ with distribution $`𝒫(\tau )`$ we arrive at

$$C=e^{_{\mathrm{eff}}^1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(0;_{\mathrm{eff}}^1)/\mathrm{ln}2,_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{P\overline{\tau }}{P_0\overline{\sigma }},$$
(11)
with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(0;x)`$ the incomplete gamma function. The dependence of the capacity $`C`$ on the effective signal-to-noise ratio $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is plotted in Fig. 2. It lies always below the capacity $`C_0=\mathrm{log}_2(1+_{\mathrm{eff}})`$ which one would obtain by ignoring fluctuations in $`\tau `$. For $`_{\mathrm{eff}}1`$ the two capacities approach each other, $`CC_0_{\mathrm{eff}}/\mathrm{ln}2`$, while for $`_{\mathrm{eff}}1`$ one has $`C_0\mathrm{log}_2_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ versus $`C\mathrm{log}_2_{\mathrm{eff}}\gamma /\mathrm{ln}2`$ (with $`\gamma 0.58`$ Euler’s constant).

The quantity $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ depends on three length scales, the length $`L`$ of the amplifying region, the mean free path $`l`$, and the amplification length $`l_a=\sqrt{D\tau _a}`$ (with $`D`$ the diffusion constant). The two averages $`\overline{\tau }`$, $`\overline{\sigma }`$ can be calculated from the diffusion equation in the regime $`ll_a,L`$. There is a weak dependence on the mode indices $`\alpha ,\beta `$ in this diffusive regime, which we ignore for simplicity. The result is

$$\overline{\tau }=\frac{4l/3l_a}{N\mathrm{sin}(L/l_a)},\overline{\sigma }=1+(4l/3l_a)\frac{1\mathrm{cos}(L/l_a)}{\mathrm{sin}(L/l_a)}.$$
(12)
The effective signal-to-noise ratio becomes

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{P}{NP_0}\left[1\mathrm{cos}(L/l_a)+(3l_a/4l)\mathrm{sin}(L/l_a)\right]^1.$$
(13)
Without amplification, for $`l_aL`$, one has $`_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{4}{3}(l/NL)P/P_0`$. Amplification increases $`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, up to the limit $`_{\mathrm{eff}}P/2NP_0`$ that is reached upon approaching the laser threshold $`l_aL/\pi `$.

We conclude that amplification in a disordered waveguide increases the capacity for heterodyne detection of coherent states, up to the limit

$$C_{\mathrm{}}=e^{2NP_0/P}\mathrm{\Gamma }(0;2NP_0/P)/\mathrm{ln}2$$
(14)
at the laser threshold. This limit is “universal”, in the sense that it is independent of the degree of disorder (as long as we remain in the diffusive regime). We have $`C_{\mathrm{}}P/2NP_0\mathrm{ln}2`$ for $`PNP_0`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{log}_2(P/2NP_0)\gamma /\mathrm{ln}2`$ for $`PNP_0`$. The increase in the capacity by amplification in the diffusive regime is therefore up to a factor $`3L/8l`$ for $`PNP_0`$ and up to a factor $`1+(\mathrm{ln}L/l)(\mathrm{ln}P/NP_0)^1`$ for $`PNP_0(L/l)`$. All this is in contrast to the case of a waveguide without disorder, where the capacity is independent of the amplification.

We now relax the requirement of heterodyne detection and instead consider the maximum communication rate for any physically possible detection scheme . We still assume that the information is encoded in coherent states, and use the same Gaussian a priori distribution $`p(\mu )\mathrm{exp}(|\mu |^2P_0/P)`$ as before. It has been conjectured  that an input of coherent states with this Gaussian distribution actually maximizes the information rate for any method of non-entangled input with a fixed mean power (the so called one-shot unassisted classical capacity).

The capacity for arbitrary detection scheme is given by the Holevo formula

$`C_\mathrm{H}=H\left({\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2\mu p(\mu )\rho _{\mathrm{out}}(\mu )}\right){\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^2\mu p(\mu )H\left[\rho _{\mathrm{out}}(\mu )\right]},`$

where $`H(\rho )=\mathrm{Tr}\rho \mathrm{log}_2\rho `$ is the von Neumann entropy. For a Gaussian density matrix $`\rho \mathrm{d}^2\mu \mathrm{exp}(|\mu \mu _0|^2/x)`$ one has

$$H(\rho )=(x+1)\mathrm{log}_2(x+1)x\mathrm{log}_2xg(x).$$
(15)
Applying this formula to the Gaussian $`\rho _{\mathrm{out}}(\mu )`$ in Eq. (7) and the Gaussian $`p(\mu )`$, we arrive at the capacity

$$C_\mathrm{H}=g(\tau P/P_0+\sigma 1)g(\sigma 1).$$
(16)
For a channel without amplification $`\sigma 1`$ and so $`C_\mathrm{H}=g(\tau P/P_0)`$, which lies above the capacity for heterodyne detection considered earlier. At the other extreme, upon approaching the laser threshold, $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$ and we have $`C_\mathrm{H}\mathrm{log}_2(\tau P/\sigma P_0)`$, which is the same limiting expression as for heterodyne detection.

The average over disorder can be carried out as before by replacing $`\sigma `$ by $`\overline{\sigma }`$ and averaging over $`\tau `$ with the Rayleigh distribution $`𝒫(\tau )`$. The result is

$`C_\mathrm{H}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\tau }P}{P_0}}\mathrm{log}_2{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }}{\overline{\sigma }1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\tau }P}{P_0\mathrm{ln}2}}`$ $`[e^{_{\mathrm{eff}}^1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(0;_{\mathrm{eff}}^1)`$ (18)
$`e^{_{\mathrm{eff}}^1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(0;_{\mathrm{eff}}^1)],`$
where $`_{\mathrm{eff}}/_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=11/\overline{\sigma }`$.

As shown in Fig. 3, the dependence of $`C_\mathrm{H}`$ on the amount of amplification is non-monotonic — in contrast to the monotonically increasing $`C`$. Weak amplification reduces the capacity $`C_\mathrm{H}`$, while stronger amplification causes $`C_\mathrm{H}`$ to rise again to the limit $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ at the laser threshold. The initial decrease for $`l_aL`$ is described by

$$C_\mathrm{H}(L/l_a)C_\mathrm{H}(0)(4lL^2/3l_a^2)\mathrm{log}_2(\pi l_a/L).$$
(19)
Whether or not amplification ultimately increases $`C_\mathrm{H}`$ depends on the degree of disorder and on the input power. We indicate by A the region in parameter space where $`C_{\mathrm{}}>C_\mathrm{H}(0)`$ and by B the region where $`C_{\mathrm{}}<C_\mathrm{H}(0)`$. In region A strong amplification increases $`C_\mathrm{H}`$ while in region B it does not. The separatrix is plotted in Fig. 4. For $`P/NP_01`$ the analytical expression for this curve separating regions A and B is $`P/NP_0=(3L/4l)\mathrm{exp}(3L/8l+\gamma )`$, while for $`P/NP_01`$ we find a saturation at $`l/L=3/8e0.14`$. This means that for $`P/NP_01`$ strong amplification increases the capacity $`C_\mathrm{H}`$ provided $`l<0.14L`$.

At the laser threshold both $`C`$ and $`C_\mathrm{H}`$ reach the same “universal” limit $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ given by Eq. (14), which depends only on the dimensionless input power per mode $`P/NP_0`$ and not on the degree of disorder. This remarkably rich interplay of multiple scattering and amplification is worth investigating experimentally, for example in the context of a random laser .

In conclusion, we have investigated the effect of amplification on the information capacity of a disordered waveguide, focusing on the competing effects of stimulated and spontaneous emission. We have compared the capacity $`C`$ for heterodyne detection of coherent states with the Holevo bound $`C_\mathrm{H}`$ for arbitrary detection scheme. While amplification increases $`C`$ for any magnitude of disorder and input power, the effect on $`C_\mathrm{H}`$ can be either favorable or not, as is illustrated by the “phase diagram” in Fig. 4.

This research was supported by the Dutch Science Foundation NWO/FOM and by the RTN program of the European Community.