format: text

text:
# New, Efficient and Robust, Fiber-Based Quantum Key Distribution Schemes

## Abstract

We present a new fiber based quantum key distribution (QKD) scheme which can be regarded as a modification of an idea proposed by Inoue, Waks and Yamamoto (IWY) . The scheme described here uses a single phase modulator and two differential delay elements in series at the transmitter that form an interferometer when combined with a third differential delay element at the receiver. The protocol is characterized by a high efficiency, reduced exposure to an attack by an eavesdropper, and higher sensitivity to such an attack when compared to other QKD schemes. For example, the efficiency with which transmitted data contribute to the private key is $`3/4`$ compared with $`1/4`$ for BB84 . Moreover, an eavesdropper can aquire a maximum of $`1/3`$ of the key which leads to an error probability in the private key of $`1/3`$. This can be compared to $`1/2`$ and $`1/4`$ for these same parameters in both BB84 and IWY. The combination of these considerations should lead to increased range and key distribution rate over present fiber-based QKD schemes.

The quantum key distribution (QKD) scheme recently proposed by Inoue, Waks and Yamamoto  represents a new concept that should prove to be a significant advance for fiber-based QKD. Their scheme, which we label IWY, is sketched in Fig. 1 for the case of a two delay-element transmitter. Essentially, a single pulse entering the transmitter leaves as a superposition of three pulses, the last two of which have been given a random phase shift of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \{0,\pi \}`$ relative to the first in addition to a fixed time delay of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ relative the time associated with the input state: The photon pulse is superposed in time and phase. The receiver effects a time delay of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and causes the superposed pulses to overlap and hence interfere in the same manner as superposed pulses in the standard Franson interferometer  used in BB84-like fiber QKD as shown in Fig. 3. (The transmitter and receiver are typically referred to as Alice (A) and Bob (B) within the quantum information community.)

The advantages of this new scheme are numerous: (I) the efficiency with which transmitted data contribute to the private key, which we label $`\eta _p`$ the “protocol efficiency,” is increased to $`\eta _p=11/N`$, where $`N`$ is the number of temporal superpositions leaving the transmitter; (II) the amount of information an eavesdropper (E, usually Eve) can acquire on the key is reduced as $`N`$ increases; (III) the maximum error probability caused by eavesdropping, which we name “disturbance” and label as $`p_d`$, increases with $`N`$ and allows error reconciliation to be performed on data with a higher initial error probability; and (IV) B does not need a phase-modulator (PM).

The implications of these advantages, relating to the points raised above, are that A and B generate more key and can tolerate and correct for higher error rates because: (i) qubits accumulate at a higher rate; (ii) the fraction of key leaked during eavesdropping, $`\eta _e`$, that must be discarded to ensure the privacy is reduced with increasing $`N`$ ($`\eta _e`$ relates the maximum amount of information E can acquire on the quantum key in a specified attack on the quantum channel); (iii) the liklihood of detecting E’s attacks on the quantum channel is increased as her eavesdropping creates a larger disturbance within the qubits; and (iv) the random choice of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ by B necessary in other schemes is eliminated in IWY and yields an increase in $`\eta _p`$ over these other schemes ($`\eta _p`$ increases more than $`300`$% for the case of the typical, or current, implementations of fiber based BB84, e.g. as shown in Fig. 3).

A further consequence of removing the PM from the receiver is that the typical $`3`$-$`6`$ dB loss in PMs is removed from B’s receiver. Thus, the key rate, robustness against errors, and distance over which qubits can be transmitted can be enhanced over currently realized fiber based QKD systems.

The scheme we introduce here, and labelled BLT and shown in Fig. 2 for two transmitter delay elements, improves upon IWY in several significant ways while retaining all of IWY’s advantages over other schemes. First, BLT is simpler to implement because the series-element construction of BLT can be achieved with simple $`50/50`$ beamsplitters (BSs), while the parallel construction of IWY requires more specialized BSs to balance the output pulses’ intensities. Second, the efficiency ($`\eta _p`$), potential eavesdropper knowledge ($`\eta _e`$) and disturbance ($`p_d`$) all favor BLT over IWY for the same number of delay elements in the transmitter. In BLT, the number $`N`$ of superposed pulses increases as $`N=2^m`$ where $`m`$ is the number of delay elements at the transmitter; in IWY $`N`$ increases as $`N=m+1`$. For example, the serial scheme of BLT yields $`\eta _{p+}3/4`$ while for the parallel scheme of IWY $`\eta _p2/3`$ with the lower bound given by $`m=2`$ in each case. Moreover, the eavedropper’s potential information $`\eta _e`$ is less in BLT than in IWY, and the disturbance $`p_d`$ is greater in BLT than in IWY, regardless of the type of attack employed by E. Third, a single PM outside the transmitter delay elements further reduces the complexity and expense of the system and can increase its efficiency. For example, it is well-known that QKD is more secure and more efficient if each superposition of pulses contains exactly one photon. This would most likely be realized with a single photon source  before the delay elements and appropriately modified optics as discussed below. A single PM outside the transmitter delay elements dramatically increases the receiver efficiency in this situation, again due to the typical $`3`$-$`6`$ dB loss of PMs.

Consider a fiber BB84 system as shown in Fig. 3 in which A sends single, or weak coherent, photon states to B . For each input pulse the phase of A’s PM is randomly toggled among a choice of four phases: $`\varphi _A\{0,\pi /2,\pi ,3\pi /2\}`$. As the pulses arrive at B, the PM at that end is toggled randomly between $`\varphi _B\{0,\pi /2\}`$ for each superposition of pulses to select the measurement basis for that superposition. (B’s delay element is adjusted so that a phase difference $`\varphi _A\varphi _B=0`$ causes always a photodetection at the same detector and $`\varphi _A\varphi _B=\pi `$ causes always a photodetection at the other detector.) After the weak pulses are exchanged B reveals the times when photodetections were observed and the measurement bases chosen at those times. A notes when their phases satisfied $`\varphi _A\varphi _B\{0,\pi \}`$, and tells B to discard measurement results which were not collected when this condition was satified. What remains is potentially secret key in which $`\varphi _A\varphi _B\{0,\pi \}`$ correspond to binary values $`\{0,1\}`$.

The exchanged qubits will undoubtedly contain errors which must be eliminated through an appropriate error reconciliation protocol . After error reconciliation, privacy amplification  — which is linked to the error rate — must be applied to the remaining error-free key to reduce E’s information to an acceptable level. If the error rate is too high all of the remaining key bits may be eliminated during this phase. In addition, the channel must be authenticated ; authentication represents an additional protocol expense.

It is worthwhile to note the fraction of key sent by A which remains after error reconciliation and privacy amplification for each of the schemes discussed here. We label this fraction $`R_k`$  and find

$$R_k=\eta _p(\mu _r\eta _e\frac{p_o}{p_d})\text{,}$$
(1)
where $`p_o`$ is the measured error probability per bit in the key (before error reconciliation), and $`\mu _r`$ is the fraction of B’s key material that remains after error reconciliation, and depends on $`p_o`$. The fraction of the distributed key that must be discarded through privacy maintenance is given by $`\eta _ep_o/p_d`$. Although an additional amount of key must be discarded if weak coherent states of light are used, this issue is disregarded in the discussion because $`\overline{n}`$ can be made arbitrarily small (in theory at least), and because other states of light can be employed that are not susceptible to this type of attack (e.g, entangled photon sources , or other single-photon states ).

Consider the (typical) fiber based BB84 implementation described above, and assume that the PM transmission is unity. This implementation has a receiver efficiency $`\eta _{p(bb84)}=1/4`$ : $`1/2`$ from the $`50`$:$`50`$ BS at the input of B’s delay element and $`1/2`$ due to the random bases choice that is crucial to BB84 security. The $`\eta _e`$ and $`p_d`$ depend on the type of attack used by E. The most powerful, and yet realistic, attack that has been devised for this scheme is for E to intercept and resend the photon pulses in the Breidbart Basis . With this type of attack, $`\eta _e0.585`$ and $`p_d=1/4`$. If weak coherent pulses were used to transmit the key, another fraction $`\overline{n}/4`$ of the key is also potentially compromised to E, where $`\overline{n}1`$ is the average number of photons per superposition.

The IWY and BLT schemes accomplish key exchange in a similar manner. That is, superposed photon pulses (single-photon or weak-coherent states) are transmitted from A to B. B’s delay element is adjusted so that a phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi \{0,\pi \}`$ between adjacent pulses in a superposition always cause a photodetection at a particular detector. After photodetections are observed, B tells A at what times they were observed relative to an accepted time standard. Because A knows what the phases of each superposition were, A knows which of B’s detectors registered a photodetection.

As mentioned previously, $`\eta _p=2/3`$ while $`\eta _{p+}=3/4`$ for the implementations of BLT and IWY sketched in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively. The strongest attack that can be employed by E is likely an intercept/resend attack. However, unlike BB84, a Breidbart-like attack is not possible in IWY or BLT as the measurements are made in orthogonal bases. For these schemes, the strongest intercept/resend strategy is to build a receiver much like B, but to replace the first BS with a fast switch (we do not specify the switch technology, but merely state it is possible). In this manner, adjacent pulses can be made to overlap without loss of signal due to the first or last pulse in the superposition contributing less to the interference than the central pulses. If exactly one photon exists in the superposition E will measure one superposition phase difference ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$), but have no knowledge of the other remaining phase difference(s). Thus E’s knowledge of the key for the superpositions that are intercepted and resent, and hence $`\eta _e`$ can be calculated as $`\eta _e=1/2`$ and $`\eta _{e+}=1/3`$ for the IWY and BLT respectively. The corresponding disturbances are $`p_d=1/4`$ and $`p_{d+}=1/3`$. If the effect of multiple photons in a superposition from the use of weak coherent states is included, E can know another fraction of the key equal to $`\overline{n}/4`$ or $`\overline{n}/6`$ for IWY or BLT respectively.

An important variation to either the IWY or BLT scheme is to add a BS and an extra delay element at the receiver as shown in (Fig. 4). For this system (denoted with $``$), $`\eta _p=5/8`$ while $`\eta _e=1/5`$ is significantly reduced, and E’s disturbance to the final key is increased to as much as $`p_d=2/5`$, if the additional BS is equally reflecting and transmitting.

With these considerations, $`\eta _p\{1/4,2/3,3/4,5/8\}`$ and $`\eta _e/p_d\{2.34,2,1,1/2\}`$ for {BB84, IWY, BLT and BLT$``$} respectively. The rate at which key is generated is proportional to $`R_k`$ and can be approximated from Fig. 5 where $`R_k`$ is plotted for the case of $`\mu _r=1+(1p_o)\mathrm{log}_2(1p_o)+p_o\mathrm{log}_2(p_o)`$: $`1`$ minus the Shannon entropy.

In any case, in a practical QKD system, $`R_k`$ will be bounded by the values plotted in Fig. 5 for the four schemes at the same $`p_o`$. Figure 5 highlights the value of the relative schemes presented here. For $`p_o0.13`$, it is clear that BLT has a great advantage over the other three schemes: qubits are collected at a higher rate than for the other $`3`$ schemes. For $`p_o0.13`$, BLT$``$ retains a significant advantage due to its reduced leakage of $`\eta _e=1/5`$, and disturbance $`p_d=2/5`$. These facts do not consider the added complexity of BLT$``$ at B which includes the second delay element and additional detectors. For simplicity, efficiency, and protection against an intercept/resend attack by E, BLT offers great advantages over BB84, IWY and BLT$``$.

In conclusion, we have introduced two new quantum key distribution schemes for optical fiber systems based on the recently presented idea of Inoue, Waks and Yamamoto . Our new schemes are more efficient and robust against eavesdropping than other schemes proposed to date (BLT$``$ is more efficient than IWY for error rates $`2`$-$`3`$%). In particular, BLT also has the advantage of being relatively easy and inexpensive to implement.


text:
# Mukai flops and derived categories

Introduction

Derived categories possibly give a new significant invariant for algebraic varieties. In particular, when the caninical line bundle is trivial, there are varieties which are not birationally equivalent, but have equivalent derived categories. The most typical example can be found in the original paper \[Mu\]. On the other hand, for such varieties, it is hoped that the birationally equivalence should imply the equivalence of derived categories. One of the important classes for testing this question is the class of complex symplectic manifolds (for varieties in other classes, see \[B2, Ka 1, Ch\]). A Mukai flop is a typical birational map between complex symplectic manifolds. In this note, we shall prove that two smooth projective varieties of $`dim2n`$ connected by a Mukai flop have equivalent bounded derived categories of coherent sheaves. More precisely, let $`X`$ and $`X^+`$ be smooth projective varieties of dimension $`2n`$ such that there is a birational map $`\varphi :XX^+`$ obtained as the Mukai flop along a subvariety $`YX`$ which is isomorphic to $`^n`$. By definition, $`\varphi `$ is decomposed into the blowing-up $`p:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ along $`Y`$ and the blowing down $`p^+:\stackrel{~}{X}X^+`$ contracting the $`p`$-exceptional divisor $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ to the subvariety $`Y^+^n`$ of $`X^+`$. On the other hand, there are birational morphisms $`X\overline{X}`$ and $`X^+\overline{X}`$ which contract $`Y`$ and $`Y^+`$ to points respectively. We put $`\widehat{X}:=X\times _{\overline{X}}X^+`$ and let $`q:\widehat{X}X`$ and $`q^+:\widehat{X}X^+`$ be the natural projections. Note that $`\widehat{X}`$ is a normal crossing variety with two irreducible components $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and $`^n\times ^n`$.

Let $`D(X)`$ (resp. $`D(X^+)`$) be the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on $`X`$ (resp. $`X^+`$).

We shall consider natural two functors

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:=(p^+)_{}𝕃p^{}:D(X)D(X^+)$$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }:=(q^+)_{}𝕃q^{}:D(X)D(X^+).$$

In this note, we first take, as $`X`$ and $`Y`$, the $`^n`$ bundle $`(𝒪_^n\mathrm{\Theta }_^n)`$ over $`^n`$ and its negative section. In this case, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not a fully-faithful functor even when $`n=2`$ (§2), but $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an equivalence of triangulated categories for any $`n2`$ (§3). In §4 we prove in a general case that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an equivalence of triangulated categories (Theorem (4.4)) 111Szendroi pointed out to me that a similar phenomenon to ours actually occurs in Calabi-Yau threefolds with type III contractions \[Sz, Theorem 6.5\].. Theorem (4.4) holds for a Mukai flop in a more general sense. This generalization is done in §5.

Our result should be compared with elementary flops studied in Bondal-Orlov \[B-O, Theorem 3.6\]. For these flops, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ becomes an equivalence of triangulated categories. But, in our case, since $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the proof there can not be directly applied. Instead, we shall use Bridgeland’s criteria \[B 1, Theorem 2.3\], \[B-K-K, Theorem 2.4\] for exact functors of triangulated categories to be fully-faithful and to be an equivalence. A Mukai flop is of particular importance when $`X`$ is a complex irreducible symplectic manifold ; in this case, it is conjectured that the birationally equivalence implies the equivalence of bounded derived categories of coherent sheaves. This conjecture is also related with a question of Torelli type \[Na, Question\]. By a recent result of Wierzba and Wisniewski \[W-W, Theorem 1.2\](see also \[W\]), one can prove that, birationally equivalent complex projective symplectic 4-folds have equivalent derived categories (Corollary (4.5)).

This is a revised version of the paper with the same title appeared in math.AG/0203287. Recently, Kawamata has independently proved the similar results in \[Ka 2, $`\mathrm{\S }5`$\]. In \[Ka 2\] the equivalence for Mukai flops is redued to the one for the elementary flops in \[B-O\]. But our proof here depend on direct calculations using an explicit model.

§1.

(1.1) Fix an integer $`n2`$, and denote by $`X`$ the projective space bundle $`(𝒪_^n\mathrm{\Theta }_^n)`$ over $`^n`$ in the sense of Grothendieck (cf. \[Ha, p.162\]). We put $`M=^n`$ and let $`\pi :XM`$ be the bundle map. Denote by $`𝒪_X(1)`$ the tautological line bundles on $`X`$. Let $`YX`$ be the section of $`\pi `$ defined by the surjection $`𝒪_^n\mathrm{\Theta }_^n𝒪_^n`$.

The normal bundle $`N_{Y/X}`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1`$. Let $`p:\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be the blowing-up of $`X`$ along $`Y`$. The exceptional divisor $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ of $`p`$ is isomorphic to $`(\mathrm{\Theta }_^n)`$. $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ has a $`^{n1}`$-bundle structure which is different from the bundle structure $`\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$. One can contract $`\stackrel{~}{Y}\stackrel{~}{X}`$ along this another ruling to $`Y^+X^+`$. We call this birational contraction map $`p^+`$. Let $`\varphi :XX^+`$ be the birational map defined as the composite $`p^+(p^1)`$. $`Y^+`$ is isomorphic to $`^n`$ and $`N_{Y^+/X^+}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y^+}^1`$.

Lemma (1.2). $`X^+`$ is isomorphic to the projective space bundle $`(𝒪_^n\mathrm{\Theta }_^n)`$ over $`^n`$.

Proof. Let $`H`$ be a hyperplane of $`M`$. Then $`\pi ^1(H)=_H(𝒪_H\mathrm{\Theta }_M|_H)`$. Let $`V_H`$ be the projective space subbundle of $`\pi ^1(H)H`$ defined by the surjection $`𝒪_H\mathrm{\Theta }_M|_H𝒪_HN_{H/M}`$. $`V_HH`$ has a negative section and the variety obtained by contracting it to a point becomes $`^n`$. Let $`M^+`$ be the dual projective space of $`M`$. Now $`\{V_H\}_{HM^+}`$ is a flat family of subvarieties of $`X`$. Let $`V_H^+`$ be the proper transform of $`V_H`$ by $`\varphi `$. Then $`\{V_H^+\}_{HM^+}`$ is a flat family of subvarieties of $`X^+`$. Under the birational transformation $`\varphi `$, the negative section of $`V_HH`$ is contracted to a point; hence each $`V_H^+`$ is isomorphic to $`^n`$. Moreover, one can check that $`V_H^+`$ and $`V_H^{}^+`$ are disjoint if $`HH^{}`$. This implies that $`X^+`$ has a $`^n`$-bundle structure with the section $`Y^+`$. Let $`X_{\mathrm{}}X`$ be the projective space subbundle defined by the surjection $`𝒪_M\mathrm{\Theta }_M\mathrm{\Theta }_M`$. $`X_{\mathrm{}}`$ is disjoint from $`Y`$. We see that the proper transform $`X_{\mathrm{}}^+`$ also becomes a projective space subbundle of $`X^+`$ disjoint from $`Y^+`$. Since $`N_{Y^+/X^+}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y^+}^1`$, we have the result.

We denote by $`\pi ^+:X^+M^+`$ the bundle structure introduced in (1.2) and denote by $`𝒪_{X^+}(1)`$ the tautological line bundle.

Lemma (1.3). The birational map $`\varphi `$ induces an isomorpshism

$$\varphi ^{}:\mathrm{P}ic(X^+)\mathrm{P}ic(X)$$

such that $`\varphi ^{}(𝒪_{X^+}(1))=𝒪_X(1)`$ and $`\varphi ^{}((\pi ^+)^{}𝒪_{M^+}(1))=𝒪_X(1)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1)`$.

Proof. Since $`\varphi `$ is an isomorphism in codimension 1, there is a natural isomorphism $`\varphi ^{}`$ between $`\mathrm{P}ic(X^+)`$ and $`\mathrm{P}ic(X)`$. By (1.2) we see that $`\varphi ^{}((\pi ^+)^{}𝒪_{M^+}(1))=𝒪_X(1)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(a)`$ for some $`a`$. Since $`h^0(𝒪_X(1)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(a))=h^0((\pi ^+)^{}𝒪_{M^+}(1))=n+1`$, we conclude that $`a=1`$.

The birational transformation $`\varphi `$ is symmetric with respect to $`X`$ and $`X^+`$; hence, we should have $`(\varphi ^1)^{}((\pi )^{}𝒪_M(1))=𝒪_{X^+}(1)(\pi ^+)^{}𝒪_{M^+}(1)`$ for $`\varphi _{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}:\mathrm{P}ic(X)\mathrm{P}ic(X^+)`$.

Then we have $`\varphi ^{}(\varphi ^1)^{}((\pi )^{}𝒪_M(1))=\varphi ^{}(𝒪_{X^+}(1))𝒪_X(1)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1)`$. Since $`\varphi ^{}(\varphi ^1)^{}=id`$, $`\varphi ^{}(𝒪_{X^+}(1))=𝒪_X(1)`$.

(1.4) For $`k`$, let $`D(X)_k`$ be the full subcategory of $`D(X)`$ whose objects are of the form $`𝒪_X(k)𝕃\pi ^{}(F)`$ with $`FD(M)`$. As a triangulated category, $`D(X)`$ is generated by $`D(X)_n`$, …, $`D(X)_1`$, $`D(X)_0`$ by \[O 1, Theorem 2.6\]. Since $`D(M)`$ is generated by the objects $`𝒪_M(n+1)`$, …, $`𝒪_M`$, and $`𝒪_M(1)`$, we see that $`D(X)`$ is generated by the set of objects $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=\{𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k)\}`$ with $`nj0`$ and $`n+1k1`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a spanning class for $`D(X)`$. Here, by definition of the spanning class, if an object $`aD(X)`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{H}om^i(\omega ,a)=0`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and for all $`i`$, then $`a0`$. Similarly, if $`\mathrm{H}om^i(a,\omega )=0`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and for all $`i`$, then $`a0`$.

(1.5) Define functors $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:=(p^+)_{}𝕃p^{}():D(X)D(X^+).$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}:=p_{}(𝕃(p^+)^{}()\omega _{\stackrel{~}{X}/X}):D(X^+)D(X),$$

where $`\omega _{\stackrel{~}{X}/X}:=\omega _{\stackrel{~}{X}}p^{}\omega _X^1`$.

Lemma (1.6). Assume that $`j`$ is an integer such that $`nj0`$.

(1) When $`n+1k0`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k))=𝒪_{X^+}(j+k)\pi ^{}𝒪_{M^+}(k)`$.

When $`k=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1))=𝒪_{X^+}(j+1)\pi ^{}𝒪_{M^+}(1)I_{Y^+}`$, where $`I_{Y^+}`$ is the ideal sheaf of $`Y^+`$ in $`X^+`$.

(2) When $`n+1k0`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k))=𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k)`$.

Proof. (1): At first, we have $`𝒪_X(1)|_Y𝒪_Y`$, hence, for $`y^+Y^+`$, $`(p^{}(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k)))|_{p_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{1}(y^+)}`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒪_{^{n1}}(k)`$. Therefore, $`p^{}(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k))`$ is $`p_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}`$-acyclic for $`kn+1`$. If $`k0`$, then $`p_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}(p^{}(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k)))`$ is a line bundle on $`X^+`$. If $`k=1`$, then $`p_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{}(p^{}(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1)))`$ is a line bundle outside $`Y^+`$ but not a line bundle on $`Y^+`$. Finally, by (1.3) we conclude that, if $`k0`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k))=𝒪_{X^+}(j+k)\pi ^{}𝒪_{M^+}(k)`$, and that if $`k=1`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1))=𝒪_{X^+}(j+1)\pi ^{}𝒪_{M^+}(1)I_{Y^+},`$ where $`I_{Y^+}`$ is the ideal sheaf of $`Y^+`$ in $`X^+`$.

(2): For $`yY`$, $`(p^+)^{}(𝒪_{X^+}(j+k)(\pi ^+)^{}𝒪_{M^+}(k))\omega _{\stackrel{~}{X}/X}|_{p^1(y)}`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒪_{^{n1}}(kn+1)`$ because $`\omega _{\stackrel{~}{X}/X}|_{p^1(y)}𝒪_{^{n1}}(n+1)`$. By the same argument as (1), we conclude that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(𝒪_{X^+}(j+k)(\pi ^+)^{}𝒪_{M^+}(k))=𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k).$$

(1.7) We shall construct a locally free resolution of the ideal sheaf $`I_{Y^+}`$.

Put $`E:=𝒪_{M^+}\mathrm{\Theta }_{M^+}`$. Let

$$0𝒪_{X^+}(1)(\pi ^+)^{}E^{}Q0$$

be the universal exact sequence, where $`E^{}`$ is the dual of $`E`$. Let us consider the fiber product $`X^+\times _{M^+}X^+`$ and denote by $`p_1:X^+\times _{M^+}X^+X^+`$ and $`p_2:X^+\times _{M^+}X^+X^+`$ the first projection and the second projection respectively. One has an isomorphism (\[O 1, p.136\])

$$H^0(X^+\times _{M^+}X^+,p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝒪_{X^+}(1)p_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}Q)H^0(M^+,EE^{}).$$

Corresponding to the identity map $`id:EE`$, one has a section $`sH^0(X^+\times _{M^+}X^+,p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝒪_{X^+}(1)p_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}Q)`$. Then the set of zeros of $`s`$ coincides with the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }X^+\times _{M^+}X^+`$ (cf. \[O 1, p.136\]). Hence, we have the following Koszul complex which becomes a resolution of the $`𝒪_{X^+\times _{M^+}X^+}`$ module $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }`$:

$`0^n(p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝒪_{X^+}(1)p_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}Q^{})^{n1}(p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝒪_{X^+}(1)p_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}Q^{})\mathrm{}`$

$`p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝒪_{X^+}(1)p_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}Q^{}𝒪_{X^+\times _{M^+}X^+}𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }0.`$

By the projection $`p_2:X^+\times _{M^+}X^+X^+`$, each term becomes a flat $`𝒪_{X^+}`$ module. Thus, by taking the tensor product of the complex with the $`𝒪_{X^+}`$ module $`𝒪_{Y^+}`$, we get the exact sequence

$`()`$

$`0^n(𝒪_{X^+}(1)(\pi ^+)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{M^+})^{n1}(𝒪_{X^+}(1)(\pi ^+)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{M^+})\mathrm{}`$

$`𝒪_{X^+}(1)(\pi ^+)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{M^+})I_{Y^+}0.`$

Here we have used the fact that $`\mathrm{Ker}[𝒪_{X^+}𝒪_{Y^+}]=I_{Y^+}`$ and $`Q^{}|_{Y^+}\mathrm{\Theta }_{Y^+}`$.

§2.

In this section, we observe that the functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not fully faithful.

Lemma (2.1). Assume that $`n=2`$, that is, $`dimX=dimX^+=4`$. Then $`\mathrm{E}xt^2(\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1)),\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1))0`$.

Proof. By (1.6) we have

$`\mathrm{E}xt^2(\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1)),\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1))=`$

$`\mathrm{E}xt^2(𝒪_{X^+}(1)\pi ^{}𝒪_{M^+}(1)I_{Y^+},𝒪_{X^+}(1)\pi ^{}𝒪_{M^+}(1)I_{Y^+})=`$

$`\mathrm{E}xt^2(I_{Y^+},I_{Y^+}).`$

By (\*) in §1, we have an exact sequence

$$0^2(𝒪_{X^+}(1)(\pi ^+)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{M^+})𝒪_{X^+}(1)(\pi ^+)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{M^+}I_{Y^+}0.$$

This exact sequence yields the exact sequence

$`\mathrm{E}xt^1(𝒪_{X^+}(1)(\pi ^+)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{M^+},I_{Y^+})\mathrm{E}xt^1(^2(𝒪_{X^+}(1)(\pi ^+)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{M^+},I_{Y^+})`$

$`\mathrm{E}xt^2(I_{Y^+},I_{Y^+})\mathrm{E}xt^2(𝒪_{X^+}(1)(\pi ^+)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{M^+},I_{Y^+}).`$

Note that, since $`𝒪_{X^+}(1)(\pi ^+)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{M^+}`$ and $`^2(𝒪_{X^+}(1)(\pi ^+)^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{M^+}`$ are both locally free sheaves, the first, second and fourth terms are identified with suitable cohomology groups. Then, by a direct calculation one can check that the first and fourth term vanish but the second one is not zero.

Corollary (2.2). When $`n=2`$, the functor $`\mathrm{\Phi }:D(X)D(X^+)`$ is not fully faithful.

Proof. One has

$`\mathrm{H}om(\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1),\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1)[2])=\mathrm{E}xt^2(\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1),\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1))=`$

$`H^2(X,𝒪_X)=0`$.

On the other hand, by (2.1)

$`\mathrm{H}om(\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1)),\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1)[2]))=\mathrm{H}om(\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1)),\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1))[2])=`$

$`\mathrm{E}xt^2(\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1)),\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1)))0.`$

We shall give a more intrinsic proof to Corollary (2.2).

For this we need a lemma.

Lemma (2.3). Notation being the same as $`\mathrm{\S }1`$. Then, $`\mathrm{E}xt^i(𝒪_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+})=`$ if $`i`$ is an even integer with $`0i2n`$, and otherwise $`\mathrm{E}xt^i(𝒪_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+})=0.`$

Proof. By the exact sequence

$$0I_{Y^+}𝒪_{X^+}𝒪_{Y^+}0$$

one has the exact sequence

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{H}om}(𝒪_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+})\underset{¯}{\mathrm{H}om}(𝒪_{X^+},𝒪_{Y^+})`$

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{H}om}(I_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+})\underset{¯}{\mathrm{E}xt}^1(𝒪_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+})0.`$

Since the first map is an isomorphism, $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{H}om}(I_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+})\underset{¯}{\mathrm{E}xt}^1(𝒪_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+})`$. Here the left hand side is the normal bundle $`N_{Y^+/X^+}`$ which is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y^+}^1`$. Hence, we have

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{E}xt}^1(𝒪_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+})\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y^+}^1.$$

Now, by taking $`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{H}om}(,𝒪_{Y^+})`$ of the Koszul complex (\*) in (1.7) we see that

$$\underset{¯}{\mathrm{E}xt}^i(𝒪_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+})^i\underset{¯}{\mathrm{E}xt}^1(𝒪_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+})\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y^+}^i.$$

Therefore, in the spectral sequence

$$E_2^{p,q}:=H^p(X^+,\underset{¯}{\mathrm{E}xt}^q(𝒪_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+}))=>\mathrm{E}xt^{p+q}(𝒪_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+}),$$

$`E_2^{p,q}=0`$ if $`pq`$. This implies that this spectral sequence degenerates at $`E_2`$-terms; hence we have the result.

(2.4)(Another proof of (2.2)): For simplicity, put $`L:=\pi ^{}𝒪_M(1)`$ and $`L^+:=𝒪_{X^+}(1)(\pi ^+)^{}𝒪_{M^+}(1)`$. Then, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(L)=L^+I_{Y^+}`$. We have $`\mathrm{E}xt^2(L,L)=H^2(X,𝒪_X)`$. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{E}xt^2(L^+I_{Y^+},L^+I_{Y^+})=\mathrm{E}xt^2(I_{Y^+},I_{Y^+})`$. Take $`\mathrm{H}om(.,I_{Y^+})`$ of the exact sequence $`0I_{Y^+}𝒪_{X^+}𝒪_{Y^+}0`$. Here $`\mathrm{E}xt^2(𝒪_{Y^+},I_{Y^+})=0`$ because, in the exact sequence

$$\mathrm{E}xt^1(𝒪_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+})\mathrm{E}xt^2(𝒪_{Y^+},I_{Y^+})\mathrm{E}xt^2(𝒪_{Y^+},𝒪_{X^+})=0,$$

the first term vanish by Lemma (2.3). Moreover, we calculate

$`\mathrm{E}xt^3(𝒪_{X^+},I_{Y^+})=H^3(X^+,I_{Y^+})H^3(X^+,𝒪_{X^+})=0.`$

Therefore, we have an exact sequence

$$0\mathrm{E}xt^2(𝒪_{X^+},I_{Y^+})\mathrm{E}xt^2(I_{Y^+},I_{Y^+})\mathrm{E}xt^3(𝒪_{Y^+},I_{Y^+})0.$$

The first term is isomorphic to $`H^2(X^+,I_{Y^+})H^2(X^+,𝒪_{X^+})`$. Note that, $`h^2(X^+,𝒪_{X^+})=h^2(X,𝒪_X)`$. The third term is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{E}xt^2(𝒪_{Y^+},𝒪_{Y^+}).`$ By Lemma (2.3) this is a one dimensional $``$-vector space. Therefore,

$$dim\mathrm{E}xt^2(L,L)=dim\mathrm{E}xt^2(\mathrm{\Phi }(L),\mathrm{\Phi }(L))1.$$

§3.

There are birational morphisms $`X\overline{X}`$ and $`X^+\overline{X}`$ which contract $`Y`$ and $`Y^+`$ to points respectively. We put $`\widehat{X}:=X\times _{\overline{X}}X^+`$ and let $`q:\widehat{X}X`$ and $`q^+:\widehat{X}X^+`$ be the natural projections. Note that $`\widehat{X}`$ is a normal crossing variety with two irreducible components $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and $`Y\times Y^+`$. Define a functor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }:=(q^+)_{}𝕃q^{}:D(X)D(X^+).$$

Theorem (3.1). The functor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an equivalence of triangulated categories.

The remainder consists of the proof of this theorem.

(3.1)Outline of the Proof: We define a suitable spanning class $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ for $`D(X)`$. We shall prove that, for any $`a`$, $`b\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{H}om^i(a,b)\mathrm{H}om^i(\mathrm{\Psi }(a),\mathrm{\Psi }(b))`$ for all $`i`$. Then, by \[B 1, Theorem 2.3\] we see that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is fully-faithful.

Finally, apply Theorem 2.4. in \[B-K-R\] to $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the spanning class $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ to conclude that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an equivalence.

(3.2) For $`k`$, let $`D(X)_k`$ be the full subcategory of $`D(X)`$ whose objects are of the form $`𝒪_X(k)𝕃\pi ^{}(F)`$ with $`FD(M)`$. As a triangulated category, $`D(X)`$ is generated by $`D(X)_n`$, …, $`D(X)_1`$, $`D(X)_0`$ by \[O, Theorem 2.6\]. Since $`D(M)`$ is generated by the objects $`𝒪_M(n)`$, …, $`𝒪_M`$, we see that $`D(X)`$ is generated by the set of objects $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}:=\{𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k)\}`$ with $`nj0`$ and $`nk0`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is a spanning class of $`D(X)`$.

In the remainder, $`j`$ is an integer such that $`nj0`$, and $`k`$ is an integer such that $`nk0`$.

(3.3) Let $`f:Y\times Y^+Y`$ and $`f^+:Y\times Y^+Y^+`$ be the natural projections, respectively. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is a subvariety of $`Y\times Y^+`$. For an $`𝒪_Y`$ module $`F`$ and for an $`𝒪_{Y^+}`$ module $`G`$, write $`FG`$ for $`f^{}F(f^+)^{}G`$. We write $`F_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}G`$ for $`f^{}F(f^+)^{}G|_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}`$.

We have an exact sequence (cf. \[Fr\])

$$0𝒪_{\widehat{X}}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}𝒪_{Y\times Y^+}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}0.$$

Taking the tensor product of this sequence with $`q^{}(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k))`$, we get the exact sequence

$`0q^{}(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k))p^{}(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k))(𝒪_Y(k)𝒪_{Y^+})`$

$`𝒪_Y(k)_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}𝒪_{Y^+}0.`$

Here we have used the fact that $`𝒪_X(1)|_Y𝒪_Y`$.

When $`kn+1`$, the second (non-zero) term and the third one are both $`q_{}^+`$-acyclic. Moreover, the maps $`\alpha _k:q_{}^+(𝒪_Y(k)𝒪_{Y^+})q_{}^+(𝒪_Y(k)_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}𝒪_{Y^+})`$ are surjective; hence the first (non-zero) term of the exact sequence is also $`q_{}^+`$-acyclic. When $`k=n`$, $`R^{n1}q_{}^+(p^{}(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(n))R^{n1}q_{}^+(𝒪_Y(n)_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}𝒪_{Y^+})`$. Moreover, $`𝒪_Y(n)𝒪_{Y^+}`$ is $`q_{}^+`$-acyclic. So, in this case, the first (non-zero) term of the exact sequence is $`q_{}^+`$-acyclic. Therefore, when $`nk0`$, we have

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k))=q_{}^+q^{}(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k))=p_{}^+p^{}(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k)).`$ By the same calculation as the proof of Lemma (1.6), (1), $`p_{}^+p^{}(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k)=𝒪_{X^+}(j+k)(\pi ^+)^{}𝒪_{M^+}(k)`$ because $`k0`$. As a consequence, we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒪_X(j)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(k))𝒪_{X^+}(j+k)(\pi ^+)^{}𝒪_{M^+}(k).$$

Lemma (3.4) Let $`\pi :XM`$ be the same as $`\mathrm{\S }1`$. Let $`l`$ and $`m`$ be integers such that $`nln`$ and $`nmn`$. Then we have:

(1) $`H^i(X,𝒪_X(l)𝒪_M(m))=0`$ for $`i>0`$.

(2) $`H^i(X,𝒪_X(l+m)𝒪_M(m))=0`$ for $`i>0`$.

Proof. (1): Since $`ln`$, $`H^i(X,𝒪_X(l)𝒪_M(m))=H^i(M,\pi _{}𝒪_X(l)𝒪_M(m))`$. We only have to consider the case where $`l0`$. In this case $`\pi _{}𝒪_X(l)𝒪_M(m)\mathrm{Sym}^l(𝒪_M\mathrm{\Theta }_M)𝒪_M(m)`$. Now (1) follows from the fact that $`mn`$.

(2): When $`l+mn`$, $`H^i(X,𝒪_X(l+m)𝒪_M(m))=H^i(M,\pi _{}(𝒪_X(l+m)𝒪_M(m)))`$. Since $`mn`$, (2) is verified by the same argument as (1). When $`l+m<n`$, we use the Serre duality. Note that $`\omega _X𝒪_X(n1)`$. We have to prove that $`H^{2ni}(X,𝒪_X(lmn1)\pi ^{}𝒪_M(m))=0`$ when $`i>0`$. Since $`lmn10`$, we must show that $`H^{2ni}(M,\pi _{}𝒪_X(lmn1)𝒪_M(m))=0`$ Since $`mn`$, this is true for $`i2n`$. When $`i=2n`$, this is proved by a case-by-case checking. For example, when $`l+m=2n`$, we must have $`l=n`$ and $`m=n`$. But, then $`\pi _{}𝒪_X(n1)𝒪_M(n)=\mathrm{Sym}^{n1}(𝒪_M\mathrm{\Theta }_M)𝒪_M(n)`$ has no global sections.

Proposition (3.5) Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be elements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. Then, for all $`i`$, $`\mathrm{H}om^i(a,b)\mathrm{H}om^i(\mathrm{\Psi }(a),\mathrm{\Psi }(b))`$.

Proof. By Lemma (3.4),(1), we have $`\mathrm{H}om^i(a,b)=0`$ for $`i>0`$. By (3.3) and Lemma (3.4),(2), we have $`\mathrm{H}om^i(\mathrm{\Psi }(a),\mathrm{\Psi }(b))=0`$ for $`i>0`$. Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be reprenented by the line bundles $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ on $`X`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Psi }(a)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(b)`$ are represented by the proper transform $`\varphi (L)`$ and $`\varphi (L^{})`$ where $`\varphi :XX^+`$ is the Mukai flop. Therefore, $`\mathrm{H}om^0(a,b)\mathrm{H}om^0(\mathrm{\Psi }(a),\mathrm{\Psi }(b))`$.

(3.6). By (3.5), for any $`a`$, $`b\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, and for all $`i`$, $`\mathrm{H}om^i(a,b)\mathrm{H}om^i(\mathrm{\Psi }(a),\mathrm{\Psi }(b))`$. $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has a left adjoint and a right adjoint; in fact, let $`p_1:X\times X^+X`$ and $`p_2:X\times X^+X^+`$ be the first and second projections. Then

$$\mathrm{\Psi }()=(p_2)_{}(𝒪_{\widehat{X}}_{𝒪_{X\times X^+}}^𝕃p_2^{}()).$$

Now, put $`Q:=\mathrm{H}om_{D(X\times X^+)}(𝒪_{\widehat{X}},𝒪_{X\times X^+})(p_2)^{}\omega _{X^+}[2n]`$. Then,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{}():=(p_1)_{}(Q^𝕃(p_2)^{}()):D(X^+)D(X)$$

becomes the left adjoint of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (cf. \[B-K-R, §6, Step 1\]). Let $`S_X:D(X)D(X)`$ be a Serre functor defined as $`S_X()=\omega _X[2n]`$. Similary, we define $`S_{X^+}:D(X^+)D(X^+)`$. Then $`S_X\mathrm{\Psi }^{}S_{X^+}^1`$ becomes a right adjoint of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a spanning class, we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is fully-faithful by \[B 1, Theorem 2.3\]. By \[B-K-R, Theorem 2.4\], in order to prove that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an equivalence of triangulated categories, we have to check that $`\mathrm{\Psi }S_X(c)=S_{X^+}\mathrm{\Psi }(c)`$ for all $`c\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. Since $`\omega _X𝒪_X(n1)`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }S_X(c)=\mathrm{\Psi }(c)𝒪_{X^+}(n1)[2n]`$. This coincides with $`S_{X^+}\mathrm{\Psi }(c)`$ because $`\omega _{X^+}𝒪_{X^+}(n1)`$.

§4.

The result in the previous section was concerned with a special example. In this section we prove that the same holds in a general situation.

(4.1) Let $`Z`$ and $`Z^+`$ be birationally equivalent smooth projective varieties of dimension $`2n`$ with $`n2`$. Assume that there are subvarieties $`WZ`$ and $`W^+Z^+`$ which are isomorphic to $`^n`$. Assume that $`N_{W/Z}\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1`$, $`N_{W^+/Z^+}\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1`$ and that $`Z^+`$ (resp. $`Z`$) is the Mukai flop of $`Z`$ (resp. $`Z^+`$) along $`W`$ (resp. $`W^+`$). Let $`Z\overline{Z}`$ and $`Z^+\overline{Z}`$ be the birational morphisms which contract $`W`$ and $`W^+`$ to points respectively. We put $`\widehat{Z}:=Z\times _{\overline{Z}}Z^+`$, and denote by $`u:\widehat{Z}Z`$ and $`u^+:\widehat{Z}Z^+`$ the natural projections. We define the functor

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_Z:=(u^+)_{}𝕃u^{}:D(Z)D(Z^+).$$

(4.2) Let $`X`$, $`X^+`$ and others be the same as the previous sections. Define a set of objects $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }:=\{𝒪_x\}_{xX}`$, where $`𝒪_x`$ is the structure sheaf of a point $`x`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\prime \prime }`$ becomes a spanning class for $`D(X)`$. Since the functor $`\mathrm{\Psi }:D(X)D(X^+)`$ is an equivalence of triangulated categories, for any points $`x`$, $`x^{}X`$, $`\mathrm{H}om^i(𝒪_x,𝒪_x^{})\mathrm{H}om^i(\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒪_x),\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒪_x^{}))`$, $`i`$. Let $`X_Y`$ (resp. $`X_{Y^+}^+`$) be the formal completion of $`X`$ (resp. $`X^+`$) along $`Y`$ (resp. $`Y^+`$). Now assume that $`xY`$ and $`x^{}Y`$. Since the supports of $`𝒪_x`$ and $`𝒪_x^{}`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒪_x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒪_x^{})`$ ) are in $`Y`$ (resp. $`Y^+`$), we have

$$\mathrm{H}om^i(𝒪_x,𝒪_x^{})=\mathrm{H}om_{D(X_Y)}^i(𝒪_x,𝒪_x^{}),$$

and

$$\mathrm{H}om^i(\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒪_x),\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒪_x^{}))=\mathrm{H}om_{D(X_{Y^+}^+)}^i(\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒪_x),\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒪_x^{})).$$

(4.3) Let $`Z_W`$ (resp. $`Z_{W^+}^+`$) be the formal completion of $`Z`$ (resp. $`Z^+`$) along $`W`$ (resp. $`W^+`$). We have $`Z_WX_Y`$ and $`Z_{W^+}^+X_{Y^+}^+`$. By these identifications, we regard a point $`xY`$ as a point on $`W`$. Now, by (4.2), if $`xW`$ and $`x^{}W`$, then we have

$$\mathrm{H}om^i(𝒪_x,𝒪_x^{})\mathrm{H}om^i(\mathrm{\Psi }_Z(𝒪_x),\mathrm{\Psi }_Z(𝒪_x^{})).$$

When one of $`xZ`$ and $`x^{}Z`$ is not in $`W`$, it is clear that both spaces are isomorphic. Therefore, by \[B 1, Theorem 2.3\] $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Z`$ is fully-faithful. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^{\prime \prime }`$ be the spanning class for $`D(Z)`$ consisting of the objects $`𝒪_x`$ with $`xZ`$, and let $`S_Z`$ (resp. $`S_{Z^+}`$) be the Serre functor defined in (3.10). Since $`\omega _{Z^+}`$ is trivial along $`W^+`$, it is easily checked that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_ZS_Z(c)=S_{Z^+}\mathrm{\Psi }_Z(c)`$ for all $`c\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^{\prime \prime }`$. Hence, by \[B-K-R, Theorem 2.4\], $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Z`$ is an equivalence of triangulated categories. As a consequence, we have proved that

Theorem (4.4). Let $`Z`$, $`Z^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Z`$ be the same as (4.1). Then

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_Z:D(Z)D(Z^+)$$

is an equivalence of triangulated categories.

Corollary (4.5). Let $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ be birationally equivalent, complex projective symplectic 4-folds. Then $`D(Z)`$ and $`D(Z^{})`$ are equivalent.

Proof. By Wierzba and Wisniewski \[W-W, Theorem 1.2\](see also \[W\]), $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ are connected by a finite sequence of Mukai flops. Theorem (4.4) together with this implies that $`D(Z)`$ and $`D(Z^{})`$ are equivalent.

§5.

Theorem (4.4) holds for a Mukai flop in a more general sense. Namely, let $`Z`$ be a smooth projective variety of dim $`2n`$. Let $`f:Z\overline{Z}`$ be a projective birational morphism which contarcts a smooth subvariety $`WZ`$ of dim $`n+r`$ ($`0rn2`$) to a smooth subvariety $`S\overline{Z}`$ of dim $`2r`$. Assume that $`WS`$ is a $`^{nr}`$ bundle and assume that, for all $`sS`$, $`N_{W/Z}|_{W_s}\mathrm{\Omega }_{W_s}^1`$. Then we can perform Mukai flops in a family to get a new variety $`Z^+`$. Let us consider $`Z\times _{\overline{Z}}Z^+`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Z:D(Z)D(Z^+)`$ be the corresponding functor. Then we have the following.

Theorem (5.1). $`\mathrm{\Psi }_Z`$ is an equivalence of triangulated categories.

(5.2) Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be smooth projective varieties. For an object $`D(X\times Y)`$, let $`F_{XY;}:D(X)D(Y)`$ be the Fourier-Mukai functor defined as $`F_{}():=(p_Y)_{}(𝕃(p_X)^{}()^𝕃)`$. Here $`p_X`$ (resp. $`p_Y`$) is the first projection (resp. the second projection) of $`X\times Y`$. If there is an object $`𝒢D(Y\times X)`$ such that $`F_{YX;𝒢}F_{XY;}id_X`$ and $`F_{XY;}F_{YX;𝒢}id_Y`$, then $`F_{XY;}`$ is called an equivalence as a Fourier-Mukai transform. Note that the functor $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in §4 is an equivalence as a Fourier-Mukai transform.

Let $`S`$ be a (not necesarily projective) smooth algebraic variety.

Let $`p_{X\times Y\times SX\times Y}:X\times Y\times SX\times Y`$ be the projection to the first and second factors (similarly, we define projections $`p_{X\times Y\times SX\times S}`$ and $`p_{X\times Y\times SY\times S}`$). Put $`S:=𝕃(p_{X\times Y\times SX\times Y})^{}D(X\times Y\times S)`$. Define a functor

$`F_{X\times SY\times S;S}:D(X\times S)D(Y\times S)`$ as

$$(p_{X\times Y\times SY\times S})_{}(𝕃(p_{X\times Y\times SX\times S})^{}()(S)).$$

Let $`Z`$ be a smooth projective variety. Let $`𝒢`$ be an object of $`D(Y\times Z)`$. By a similar argument as \[Mu, Proposition 1.3\], we have

$`F_{Y\times SZ\times S;𝒢S}F_{X\times SY\times S;S}`$

$`F_{X\times SZ\times S;<𝒢,>S}.`$

Here

$`<𝒢,>:=(p_{X\times Y\times ZX\times Z})_{}(𝕃(p_{X\times Y\times ZX\times Y})^{}𝕃(p_{X\times Y\times ZY\times Z})^{}𝒢).`$

Proposition (5.3). Assume that $`F_{XY;}:D(X)D(Y)`$ is an equivalence as a Fourier-Mukai transform. Then $`F_{X\times SY\times S;S}:D(X\times S)D(Y\times S)`$ is also an equivalence.

Proof of (5.3). Since $`F_{XY;}`$ is an equivalence as a Fourier-Mukai transform, one can find $`𝒢D(Y\times X)`$ such that $`F_{YX;𝒢}F_{XY;}id_X`$ and $`F_{XY;}F_{YX;𝒢}id_Y`$. This means that $`F_{XX;<𝒢,>}F_{XX,𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_X}}`$ and $`F_{YY;<,𝒢>}F_{YY;𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_Y}}`$. By a theorem of Orlov \[O 2, Theorem 2.2\], we conclude that $`<𝒢,>𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_X}`$ in $`D(X\times X)`$ and $`<,𝒢>𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_Y}`$ in $`D(Y\times Y)`$. Therefore, we have

$`F_{Y\times SX\times S;𝒢S}F_{X\times SY\times S;S}`$

$`F_{X\times SX\times S;<𝒢,>S}`$

$`F_{X\times SX\times S;𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_X}S}id_X.`$

Similarly, we have

$$F_{X\times SY\times S;S}F_{Y\times SX\times S;𝒢S}id_Y.$$

(5.4)(Proof of (5.1)): It is sufficient to show that, for $`z,z^{}Z`$ and for $`i`$, $`\mathrm{H}om^i(𝒪_z,𝒪_z^{})\mathrm{H}om^i(\mathrm{\Psi }_Z(𝒪_z),\mathrm{\Psi }_Z(𝒪_z^{}))`$. Let $`g:WS`$ be the natural map induced by $`f:Z\overline{Z}`$. We only have to consider the case where $`g(z)=g(z^{})`$. We put $`s:=g(z)`$. Let $`sU(s)`$ be an open set of $`S`$ such that $`g^1(U(s))^r\times U(s)`$. Under this identification, let $`(y,s)`$ and $`(y^{},s)`$ be the points which correspond to $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$ respectively. Put $`X:=(𝒪_^r\mathrm{\Theta }_^r)`$. Then $`^r\times U(s)`$ can be identified with the (negative) section of $`X\times U(s)^r\times U(s)`$. Now, the Mukai flop $`XX^+`$ induces a birational map $`X\times U(s)X^+\times U(s)`$. Put $`\widehat{X}:=X\times _{\overline{X}}X^+`$ as in §1. Then we have an equivalence $`F_{𝒪_{\widehat{X}}U(s)}:D(X\times U(s))D(X^+\times U(s))`$ (cf. (5.3)). Note that, the formal completion of $`Z`$ along $`g^1(U(s))`$ is isomorphic to the formal completion of $`X\times U(s)`$ along $`^r\times U(s)`$. By the same argument as (4.2) and (4.3), the homomorphism

$$\mathrm{H}om_{D(Z)}^i(𝒪_z,𝒪_z^{})\mathrm{H}om_{D(Z^+)}^i(\mathrm{\Psi }_Z(𝒪_z),\mathrm{\Psi }_Z(𝒪_x^{}))$$

can be identified with

$$\mathrm{H}om_{D(X\times U(s))}^i(𝒪_{(y,s)},𝒪_{(y^{},s)})\mathrm{H}om_{D(X^+\times U(s))}^i(F_{𝒪_{\widehat{X}}U(s)}(𝒪_{(y,s)}),F_{𝒪_{\widehat{X}}U(s)}(𝒪_{(y^{},s)})).$$

This homomorphism is an isomorphism by (5.3).

Acknowledgement: The author thanks J. Sawon, B. Szendroi and R. Yoshizawa for useful comments.

Department of Mathematics, Graduate School of Sience, Osaka University,

Toyonaka, Osaka 560, Japan