format: text

text:
# Ideals of the cohomology rings of Hilbert schemes and their applications

## 1. Introduction

This is a sequel to \[LQW1-4\] and \[QW\]. We continue the study of the cohomology rings of the Hilbert schemes $`X^{[n]}`$ of $`n`$ points on a smooth surface $`X`$ and the Chen-Ruan orbifold cohomology rings of the symmetric products $`X^n/S_n`$. In this paper, the surface $`X`$ is allowed to be projective as well as quasi-projective (our usage of the terminology “quasi-projective” excludes “projective”).

In \[Lehn\] \[LQW1-4\] \[LS2\] which were in turn built on the earlier works \[Got, VW, Na1, Na2, Gro\] and others, the connections between vertex operators and the multiplicative structure of the rational cohomology group $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ when $`X`$ is projective have been developed. These connections have been successfully applied to unravel various structures on the cohomology ring of $`X^{[n]}`$. However, the situation changes dramatically when $`X`$ is quasi-projective. To date, the understanding of the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ for $`X`$ quasi-projective has been rather limited with the exception of the affine plane \[ES, Lehn, LS1, Vas\] and the minimal resolution of a simple singularity $`^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a finite group of $`SL_2()`$ (cf. \[Wa\]).

Besides the minimal resolutions just mentioned above, typical important examples of quasi-projective surfaces include the cotangent bundle of a smooth projective curve and the surface obtained from a smooth projective surface by deleting a point. All these surfaces are among a class of quasi-projective surfaces which satisfy what we call the S-property (see Definition 4.2). One of the goals of the present paper is to establish some general results of the cohomology rings of the Hilbert schemes of points for such a large class of quasi-projective surfaces. These results are in general not valid for projective surfaces, and conjecturally, they hold for every quasi-projective surface (without the S-property assumption).

We begin with a study of the ideals $`^{[n]}`$ of the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ for a smooth projective surface $`X`$, which are induced from ideals $``$ of the cohomology ring of $`X`$ (see Definition 2.6). We prove that part of the cup product structure constants for the cohomology rings of the Hilbert schemes $`X^{[n]}`$ with respect to the Nakajima-Grojnowski’s Heisenberg monomial linear basis is independent of $`n`$. This part of the cup product structure constants can be regarded as coming from the complement to the ideal $`^{[n]}`$. The methods used in establishing the above results follow the techniques developed in \[LQW3, LQW4\].

While the results on the ideals $`^{[n]}`$ are of independent interest, they are developed with applications to smooth quasi-projective surfaces in mind. As the first application, we prove the following result (Theorem 4.3).

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface with the S-property. Then, all the cup product structure constants of $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ are independent of $`n`$.

The precise definition of the structure constants is given by (4.3). The $`n`$-independence has been conjectured in \[Wa\] to be true for every smooth quasi-projective surface, and has its counterpart in the framework of the class algebras of the wreath products. It allows us to introduce a universal ring $`𝒢_X`$ for a smooth quasi-projective surface $`X`$ with the S-property, which governs the cohomology rings $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ for a fixed $`X`$ and all $`n`$. This ring $`𝒢_X`$ will be called the FH ring associated to $`X`$ as it is analogous to the one arising in the framework of symmetric groups and wreath products \[FH, Wa\]. We further determine the ring structure of $`𝒢_X`$, and obtain two sets of ring generators of $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ which are the quasi-projective counterparts of the main results in \[LQW1, LQW2\]. We remark that a universal ring termed as the Hilbert ring was introduced in \[LQW3\] which governs the cohomology rings $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ for a fixed projective $`X`$ and all $`n`$. These two universal rings reflect distinct structures of the corresponding cohomology rings.

Observe that a distinguished Heisenberg generator (i.e. the first annihilation operator) $`𝔞_1([x]_c)`$ is cohomology degree-preserving, where $`[x]_cH_c^4(X)`$ denotes the Poincaré dual of the homology class in $`H_0(X)`$ represented by a point in $`X`$. It turns out that Theorem 1.1 admits the following equivalent reformulation.

###### Corollary 1.2.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface with the S-property. Then $`𝔞_1([x]_c):H^{}(X^{[n+1]})H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ is a surjective ring homomorphism.

Recall a well-known fact that the Hilbert-Chow morphism from the Hilbert schemes $`X^{[n]}`$ to the symmetric product $`X^n/S_n`$ is a resolution of singularity. In \[CR\], Chen and Ruan introduced the notion of the orbifold cohomology ring $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(Y)`$ for an orbifold $`Y`$. Following the general machinery developed in \[QW\], we automatically establish results parallel to those stated in the previous paragraphs for the orbifold cohomology rings $`H_{\mathrm{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)`$ of the symmetric products $`X^n/S_n`$. We further prove the following result (Theorem 5.4 and Remark 5.6).

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface with the S-property and a numerically trivial canonical class. Then, the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X^{[n]};)`$ is isomorphic to the orbifold cohomology ring $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n;)`$.

A conjecture of Ruan \[Ru1, Ru2\] states that the cohomology ring $`H^{}(Z;)`$ with $``$-coefficient is isomorphic to the orbifold cohomology ring $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(Y;)`$ with $``$-coefficient for any hyperkahler resolution $`Z`$ of an orbifold $`Y`$. In light of this conjecture, it is a very interesting question for which surfaces satisfying the assumption in Theorem 1.3 the corresponding Hilbert schemes of points carry a hyperkahler structure, (and Theorem 1.3 for these surfaces confirms Ruan’s conjecture). For example, the Hilbert scheme of points on the minimal resolution of a simple singularity carries a hyperkahler structure \[Na2\]. We remark that Theorem 1.3 holds when the surface $`X`$ is the cotangent bundle of a smooth projective curve, or the minimal resolution of a simple singularity $`^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In the special case when $`X`$ is the affine plane (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is trivial), we recover the main results of \[LS1, Vas\] (also cf. \[Ru1\]). An isomorphism as in Theorem 1.3 when $`X`$ is projective with a numerically trivial canonical class was earlier established by various authors \[LS2, FG, Uri, QW\], which also supported Ruan’s conjecture.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we study the ideals in $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ for a smooth projective surface $`X`$. In Sect. 3, we verify the partial $`n`$-independence of the cup product structure constants for the cohomology rings of $`X^{[n]}`$ when $`X`$ is a smooth projective surface. In Sect. 4, we prove Theorem 1.1, and construct as well as study the FH ring $`𝒢_X`$. In Sect. 5, for a smooth quasi-projective surface $`X`$ with the S-property, we formulate the analogous results for the orbifold cohomology ring of the symmetric product $`X^n/S_n`$. Furthermore, we establish Theorem 1.3.

Conventions: All cohomology groups are in $``$-coefficients unless otherwise indicated. The cup product of two cohomology classes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ is denoted by $`\alpha \beta `$ or simply by $`\alpha \beta `$. For a continuous map $`p:Y_1Y_2`$ between two smooth compact manifolds and for $`\alpha _1H^{}(Y_1)`$, let $`p_{}(\alpha _1)=\text{PD}^1p_{}(\text{PD}(\alpha _1))`$ where PD stands for the Poincaré duality. For a smooth projective surface $`X`$, let $`1_XH^0(X)`$ be the fundamental cohomology class of $`X`$, and $`[x]H^4(X)`$ be the Poincaré dual of the homology class represented by a point $`xX`$.

Acknowledgment. We thank M. Lehn and Y. Ruan for helpful discussions.

## 2. Ideals in $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ for $`X`$ projective

### 2.1. Preliminaries

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective complex surface with the canonical class $`K`$ and the Euler class $`e`$, and $`X^{[n]}`$ be the Hilbert scheme of points in $`X`$. It is known that $`X^{[n]}`$ is a desingularization of the symmetric product $`X^n/S_n`$. Let $`𝒵_nX^{[n]}\times X`$ be the universal subscheme, and $`_X=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}H^{}(X^{[n]})`$. Recall that a Heisenberg algebra was defined in \[Na2\] acting on $`_X`$. In this paper we follow the notations and conventions in \[LQW3, LQW4\] for the Heisenberg algebra generators however. Namely, we have the operators $`𝔞_n(\alpha )\mathrm{End}(_X)`$ with $`\alpha H^{}(X)`$ and $`n`$ which satisfy the following Heisenberg algebra commutation relation:

$`[𝔞_m(\alpha ),𝔞_n(\beta )]=m\delta _{m,n}{\displaystyle _X}(\alpha \beta )\mathrm{Id}__X.`$ (2.1)
Here and throughout the paper, the Lie brackets are understood in the super sense according to the parity of the cohomology degrees of the cohomology classes involved. When $`n>0`$, we often refer to $`𝔞_n(\alpha )`$ (resp. $`𝔞_n(\alpha )`$) as the creation (resp. annihilation) operator. The space $`_X`$ is an irreducible module over the Heisenberg algebra generated by the operators $`𝔞_n(\alpha )`$ with a highest weight vector $`|0=1H^0(X^{[0]})`$. It follows that $`_X`$ is linearly spanned by all the Heisenberg monomials $`𝔞_{n_1}(\alpha _1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_k}(\alpha _k)|0`$ where $`k0`$ and $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_k>0`$.

For $`n>0`$ and a homogeneous class $`\gamma H^{}(X)`$, let $`|\gamma |=s`$ if $`\gamma H^s(X)`$, and let $`G_i(\gamma ,n)`$ be the homogeneous component in $`H^{|\gamma |+2i}(X^{[n]})`$ of

$`G(\gamma ,n)=p_1(\text{ch}(𝒪_{𝒵_n})p_2^{}\mathrm{td}(X)p_2^{}\gamma )H^{}(X^{[n]})`$
where $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ be the projections of $`X^{[n]}\times X`$ to $`X^{[n]}`$ and $`X`$ respectively. We extend the notion $`G_i(\gamma ,n)`$ linearly to an arbitrary $`\gamma H^{}(X)`$, and set $`G(\gamma ,0)=0`$. The Chern character operator $`𝔊_i(\gamma )\mathrm{End}(_X)`$ is defined to be the operator acting on the component $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ by the cup product with $`G_i(\gamma ,n)`$. It was proved in \[LQW1\] that the cohomology ring of $`X^{[n]}`$ is generated by the classes $`G_i(\gamma ,n)`$ where $`0i<n`$ and $`\gamma `$ runs over a linear basis of $`H^{}(X)`$.

For $`k1`$, let $`\tau _k:H^{}(X)H^{}(X^k)`$ be the map induced by the diagonal embedding $`\tau _k:XX^k`$, and let $`𝔞_{m_1}\mathrm{}𝔞_{m_k}(\tau _k(\alpha ))`$ denote $`_j𝔞_{m_1}(\alpha _{j,1})\mathrm{}𝔞_{m_k}(\alpha _{j,k})`$ when $`\tau _k\alpha =_j\alpha _{j,1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{j,k}`$ via the Künneth decomposition of $`H^{}(X^k)`$.

The following two lemmas were proved in \[LQW3\], where $`\tau _0(\alpha )`$ denotes $`_X\alpha `$.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`k,s1`$, $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_k,m_1,\mathrm{},m_s`$, and $`\alpha ,\beta H^{}(X)`$.

1. The commutator $`[𝔞_{n_1}\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_k}(\tau _k\alpha ),𝔞_{m_1}\mathrm{}𝔞_{m_s}(\tau _s\beta )]`$ is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{t=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}}n_t\delta _{n_t,m_j}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{j1}{}}}𝔞_m_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{1uk,ut}{}}𝔞_{n_u}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=j+1}{\overset{s}{}}}𝔞_m_{\mathrm{}}\right)(\tau _{(k+s2)}(\alpha \beta ));`$
2. Let $`j`$ satisfy $`1j<k`$. Then, $`𝔞_{n_1}\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_k}(\tau _k\alpha )`$ is equal to

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{1s<j}{}}𝔞_{n_s}𝔞_{n_{j+1}}𝔞_{n_j}{\displaystyle \underset{j+1<sk}{}}𝔞_{n_s}\right)(\tau _k\alpha )n_j\delta _{n_j,n_{j+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1sk}{sj,j+1}}{}}𝔞_{n_s}(\tau _{(k2)}(e\alpha )).`$

###### Lemma 2.2.

Fix $`k0`$ and $`b1`$. Let $`𝔤\mathrm{End}()`$ be of bi-degree $`(\stackrel{~}{s},s)`$ satisfying

$`[[\mathrm{}[𝔤,𝔞_{m_1}(\beta _1)],\mathrm{}],𝔞_{m_{k+2}}(\beta _{k+2})]=0`$ (2.2)
whenever $`m_i<0`$ and $`\beta _iH^{}(X)`$ for each $`i`$. Let $`A=𝔞_{n_1}(\alpha _1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_b}(\alpha _b)|0`$ where $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_b>0`$ and $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _bH^{}(X)`$. Then, $`𝔤(A)`$ is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{k+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _i}{}}(1)^{s\underset{\mathrm{}\sigma _i^0}{}|\alpha _{\mathrm{}}|+\underset{j=1}{\overset{i}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}\sigma _i^0,\mathrm{}>\sigma _i(j)}{}|\alpha _{\sigma _i(j)}||\alpha _{\mathrm{}}|}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\sigma _i^0}{}}𝔞_n_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha _{\mathrm{}})\right)[[\mathrm{}[𝔤,𝔞_{n_{\sigma _i(1)}}(\alpha _{\sigma _i(1)})],\mathrm{}],𝔞_{n_{\sigma _i(i)}}(\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)})]|0`$
where $`0ik+1`$, $`\sigma _i`$ runs over all the maps $`\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},i\}\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},b\}`$ satisfying $`\sigma _i(1)<\mathrm{}<\sigma _i(i)`$, and $`\sigma _i^0=\{\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{}b,\mathrm{}\sigma _i(1),\mathrm{},\sigma _i(i)\}`$.

###### Definition 2.3.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface.

1. Let $`\alpha H^{}(X)`$, and $`\lambda =(\mathrm{}(2)^{m_2}(1)^{m_1}1^{m_1}2^{m_2}\mathrm{})`$ be a generalized partition of the integer $`n=_iim_i`$ whose part $`i`$ has multiplicity $`m_i`$. Define $`\mathrm{}(\lambda )=_im_i`$, $`|\lambda |=_iim_i=n`$, $`s(\lambda )=_ii^2m_i`$, $`\lambda ^!=_im_i!`$, and

$`𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}\alpha )=\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(𝔞_i)^{m_i}\right)(\tau _{\mathrm{}(\lambda )}\alpha )`$
where the product $`_i(𝔞_i)^{m_i}`$ is understood to be $`\mathrm{}𝔞_2^{m_2}𝔞_1^{m_1}𝔞_1^{m_1}𝔞_2^{m_2}\mathrm{}.`$ Let $`\lambda `$ be the generalized partition whose multiplicity of $`i`$ is $`m_i`$.
2. A generalized partition becomes a partition in the usual sense if the multiplicity $`m_i=0`$ for every $`i<0`$. A partition $`\lambda `$ of $`n`$ is denoted by $`\lambda n`$.
3. We let $`\mathrm{𝟏}_n`$ denote $`𝔞_1(1_X)^n/n!`$ when $`n0`$ and $`0`$ when $`n<0`$.

When $`n0`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏}_n|0`$ is the fundamental cohomology class of the Hilbert scheme $`X^{[n]}`$. The following theorem was one of the main results proved in \[LQW4\].

###### Theorem 2.4.

Let $`k0`$ and $`\alpha H^{}(X)`$. Then, $`𝔊_k(\alpha )`$ is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}(\lambda )=k+2,|\lambda |=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^!}}𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}\alpha )+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}(\lambda )=k,|\lambda |=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{s(\lambda )2}{24\lambda ^!}}𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}(e\alpha ))`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ϵ\{K,K^2\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}(\lambda )=k+2|ϵ|/2,|\lambda |=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_ϵ(\lambda )}{\lambda ^!}}𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}(ϵ\alpha ))`$
where all the numbers $`g_ϵ(\lambda )`$ are independent of $`X`$ and $`\alpha `$.

### 2.2. Ideals in $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ for $`X`$ projective

###### Lemma 2.5.

Let $``$ be an ideal in the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X)`$. Let $`\alpha `$ and $`k2`$. Then, the pushforward $`\tau _k\alpha `$ can be written as $`_j\alpha _{j,1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{j,k}H^{}(X^k)`$ such that for each fixed $`j`$, there exists some $`\mathrm{}`$ with $`\alpha _{j,\mathrm{}}`$.

Proof. First of all, note that if $`\tau _k\alpha =_j\alpha _{j,1}\alpha _{j,2}\mathrm{}\alpha _{j,k}`$, then $`\tau _{(k+1)}\alpha =_j(\tau _2\alpha _{j,1})\alpha _{j,2}\mathrm{}\alpha _{j,k}`$. Therefore, by induction, it suffices to prove the lemma for $`k=2`$. Now the case $`k=2`$ follows from the observation that if we write $`\tau _2(1_X)=_i\alpha _i\beta _i`$, then $`\tau _2(\alpha )=_i(\alpha \alpha _i)\beta _i`$ with $`(\alpha \alpha _i)`$. ∎

In view of the preceding lemma, we introduce the following important definition.

###### Definition 2.6.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface, and $``$ be an ideal in the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X)`$. For $`n1`$, define $`^{[n]}`$ to be the subset of $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ consisting of the linear spans of Heisenberg monomials of the form $`𝔞_{n_1}(\alpha _1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_b}(\alpha _b)|0`$ where $`\alpha _i`$ for some $`i`$, and $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_b`$ are positive with $`_{\mathrm{}}n_{\mathrm{}}=n`$.

###### Lemma 2.7.

Let $``$ be an ideal in the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X)`$. Then,

1. the linear subspace $`^{[n]}`$ in $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ is an ideal.
2. $`G_k(\alpha ,n)^{[n]}`$ if $`\alpha `$.

Proof. (i) Recall from \[LQW1\] that the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ is generated by the cohomology classes $`G_k(\alpha ,n)`$. So it suffices to prove

$`𝔊_k(\alpha )𝔞_{n_1}(\alpha _1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_b}(\alpha _b)|0^{[n]}`$ (2.3)
whenever $`\alpha _1`$, and $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_b`$ are positive with $`_{\mathrm{}}n_{\mathrm{}}=n`$. For simplicity, put $`𝔤=𝔊_k(\alpha )`$. Then, the operator $`𝔤`$ is of bi-degree $`(0,2k+|\alpha |)`$, and satisfies (2.2) by Theorem 2.4. Now we see from Lemma 2.2 that $`𝔊_k(\alpha )𝔞_{n_1}(\alpha _1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_b}(\alpha _b)|0`$ is a linear combination of expressions of the form

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\sigma _i^0}{}}𝔞_n_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha _{\mathrm{}})\right)[[\mathrm{}[𝔤,𝔞_{n_{\sigma _i(1)}}(\alpha _{\sigma _i(1)})],\mathrm{}],𝔞_{n_{\sigma _i(i)}}(\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)})]|0`$ (2.4)
where $`0ik+1`$, $`\sigma _i`$ maps the set $`\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},i\}`$ to the set $`\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},b\}`$ with $`\sigma _i(1)<\mathrm{}<\sigma _i(i)`$, and $`\sigma _i^0=\{\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{}b,\mathrm{}\sigma _i(1),\mathrm{},\sigma _i(i)\}`$.

If $`1\sigma _i^0`$, then (2.4) is contained in $`^{[n]}`$. In the following, we assume $`1\sigma _i^0`$. So $`1=\sigma _i(1)`$ since $`\sigma _i(1)<\mathrm{}<\sigma _i(i)`$. By Theorem 2.4 and Lemma 2.1 (i), (2.4) is a linear combination of expressions of the form

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\sigma _i^0}{}}𝔞_n_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha _{\mathrm{}})\right)𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}(ϵ\alpha \alpha _{\sigma _i(1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)}))|0`$ (2.5)
where $`ϵ\{1_X,e,K,K^2\}`$, $`\lambda _{j=1}^in_{\sigma _i(j)}`$ and $`\mathrm{}(\lambda )=k+2|ϵ|/2i`$. By Lemma 2.5, the expression (2.5) is contained in $`^{[n]}`$ since $`\alpha _{\sigma _i(1)}=\alpha _1`$. It follows that (2.4) is contained in $`^{[n]}`$. This proves (2.3).

(ii) Recall from the Corollary 4.8 in \[LQW4\] that $`G_k(\alpha ,n)`$ is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{0jk}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda (j+1)}{\mathrm{}(\lambda )=kj+1}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{|\lambda |1}}{\lambda ^!|\lambda |!}}\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nj1)}𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}\alpha )|0`$ (2.6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0jk}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda (j+1)}{\mathrm{}(\lambda )=kj1}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{|\lambda |}}{\lambda ^!|\lambda |!}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda |+s(\lambda )2}{24}}\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nj1)}𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}(e\alpha ))|0`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ϵ\{K,K^2\}}{0jk}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda (j+1)}{\mathrm{}(\lambda )=kj+1|ϵ|/2}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{|\lambda |}g_ϵ(\lambda +(1^{j+1}))}{\lambda ^!|\lambda |!}}\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nj1)}𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}(ϵ\alpha ))|0`$
where $`g_ϵ`$ is from Theorem 2.4, and $`\lambda +(1^{j+1})`$ is the partition obtained from $`\lambda `$ by adding $`(j+1)`$ to the multiplicity of $`1`$. So $`G_k(\alpha ,n)^{[n]}`$ if $`\alpha `$. ∎

The following technical definition will be used throughout the paper.

###### Definition 2.8.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface, $`s1`$, and $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_s1`$. Fix $`m_{i,j}0`$ and $`\beta _{i,j}H^{}(X)`$ for $`1is`$ and $`1jt_i`$. Then, a universal linear combination of $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t_i}{}}}G_{m_{i,j}}(\beta _{i,j},n)`$, $`1is`$ is a linear combination of the form $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}}f_i{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t_i}{}}}G_{m_{i,j}}(\beta _{i,j},n)`$ where the coefficients $`f_i`$ are independent of $`X`$ and $`n`$. A universal linear combination of $`𝔞_{n_{i,1}}(\beta _{i,1})\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_{i,t_i}}(\beta _{i,t_i})|0`$, $`1is`$ with $`n_{i,j}1`$ and $`n_{i,1}+\mathrm{}+n_{i,t_i}=n`$ is defined in a similar way.

###### Theorem 2.9.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface, and $``$ be an ideal in the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X)`$. If $``$ is homogeneous (i.e., $`=_{i=0}^4(H^i(X))`$), then the ideal $`^{[n]}`$ is generated by the classes $`G_k(\alpha ,n)`$ with $`\alpha `$.

Proof. Note that every Heisenberg monomial in the ideal $`^{[n]}`$ can be written as $`A=\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nn_0)}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}}𝔞_{n_i}(\alpha _i)\right)|0`$ where $`s1`$, $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_s1`$, $`n_0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}n_i`$, and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$ is contained in $``$ and homogeneous for some $`\mathrm{}`$. By Lemma 2.7 (ii), it suffices to show that $`A^{[n]}`$ is a universal finite linear combination of expressions of the form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}}G_{m_j}(\beta _j,n)`$ (2.7)
where $`\underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}(m_j+1)n_0`$, and $`\beta _{\mathrm{}}`$ for some $`\mathrm{}`$.

Use induction on $`n_0`$. When $`n_0=1`$, $`s=n_1=1`$. So $`A=\mathrm{𝟏}_{(n1)}𝔞_1(\alpha _1)|0=G_0(\alpha _1,n)`$ by (2.6). Hence the statement in the previous paragraph holds for $`n_0=1`$.

Next assume $`n_0>1`$. Let $`k_i=n_i1`$ for $`1is`$. Then, $`k_i0`$ for every $`i`$. By the Theorem 4.1 and Lemma 5.1 in \[LQW3\], the cup product $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}}G_{k_i}(\alpha _i,n)`$ is equal to $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{k_i}}{(k_i+1)!}}\right)A`$ (defined to be the leading term) plus a universal finite linear combination of expressions $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(n\stackrel{~}{n}_0)}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{\stackrel{~}{s}}{}}𝔞_{\stackrel{~}{n}_i}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i)\right)|0`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{}}`$ for some $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{s}1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{n}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{n}_{\stackrel{~}{s}}1`$, and $`_{i=1}^{\stackrel{~}{s}}\stackrel{~}{n}_i=\stackrel{~}{n}_0<_{i=1}^s(k_i+1)=n_0`$. By induction, $`A`$ is a universal finite linear combination of expressions of the form (2.7). ∎

###### Remark 2.10.

The assumption in Theorem 2.9 that the ideal $`H^{}(X)`$ is homogeneous can be dropped when the surface $`X`$ is simply connected.

### 2.3. Relation with the affine plane

In the following, we study the quotient ring $`H^{}(X^{[n]})/^{[n]}`$ when $`=_{\mathrm{}=1}^4H^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$. Note that $`H^{}(X^{[n]})/^{[n]}`$ has a linear basis consisting of Heisenberg monomials of the form $`𝔞_{n_1}(1_X)^{r_1}\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_k}(1_X)^{r_k}|0`$ where $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_k1`$, and $`0<n_1<\mathrm{}<n_k`$ with $`_{\mathrm{}=1}^kr_{\mathrm{}}n_{\mathrm{}}=n`$. So we have an isomorphism of vector spaces:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }:{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}H^{}(X^{[n]})/^{[n]}[q_1,q_2,\mathrm{}]`$ (2.8)
where $`[q_1,q_2,\mathrm{}]`$ is the polynomial ring in countably infinitely many variables. Setting the degree of the variable $`q_i`$ to be $`i`$, we see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ maps $`H^{}(X^{[n]})/^{[n]}`$ to the homogeneous component of $`[q_1,q_2,\mathrm{}]`$ of degree $`n`$.

###### Lemma 2.11.

Let $`=_{\mathrm{}=1}^4H^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$. Then, the quotient ring $`H^{}(X^{[n]})/^{[n]}`$ is generated by the classes $`G_k(1_X,n)`$, $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$. Moreover,

$`G_k(1_X,n){\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{(k+1)!}}\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nk1)}𝔞_{(k+1)}(1_X)|0(mod^{[n]}).`$ (2.9)
Proof. Since the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ is generated by the classes $`G_k(\alpha ,n)`$ with $`0k<n`$ and $`\alpha H^{}(X)`$, the first statement follows from Lemma 2.7 (ii). To prove (2.9), we note from (2.6) that the leading term in $`G_k(1_X,n)`$ is $`\frac{(1)^k}{(k+1)!}\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nk1)}𝔞_{(k+1)}(\alpha )|0`$ corresponding to $`j=k`$, $`\lambda (j+1)=k+1`$ and $`\mathrm{}(\lambda )=kj+1=1`$. The other terms in $`G_k(1_X,n)`$ contain $`\tau _i(ϵ)`$ with either $`i2`$ or $`ϵ=e,K,K^2`$, and hence are contained in $`^{[n]}`$. This proves (2.9). ∎

###### Theorem 2.12.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface, and $`=_{\mathrm{}=1}^4H^{\mathrm{}}(X)`$. Then, the quotient $`H^{}(X^{[n]})/^{[n]}`$ is isomorphic to the cohomology ring $`H^{}((^2)^{[n]})`$.

Proof. By Lemma 2.11, the quotient ring $`H^{}(X^{[n]})/^{[n]}`$ is generated by the classes $`G_k(1_X,n)`$, $`k=0,1,\mathrm{},n1`$. So by the Theorem 4.10 in \[Lehn\], it suffices to show that via the isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (2.8), the linear operator $`𝔤_k`$ on $`[q_1,q_2,\mathrm{}]`$ induced by the operator $`𝔊_k(1_X)`$ on $`{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ is given by

$`𝔤_k={\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{(k+1)!}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,\mathrm{},n_{k+1}>0}{}}q_{n_1+\mathrm{}+n_{k+1}}_{n_1}\mathrm{}_{n_{k+1}}`$ (2.10)
where $`_i=i\frac{}{q_i}`$. Indeed, let $`A=𝔞_{n_1}(1_X)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_b}(1_X)|0H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ where $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_b>0`$ with $`_{\mathrm{}}n_{\mathrm{}}=n`$. By Lemma 2.2, $`𝔊_k(1_X)(A)`$ is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{k+1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _i}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\sigma _i^0}{}}𝔞_n_{\mathrm{}}(1_X)\right)[[\mathrm{}[𝔊_k(1_X),𝔞_{n_{\sigma _i(1)}}(1_X)],\mathrm{}],𝔞_{n_{\sigma _i(i)}}(1_X)]|0`$ (2.11)
where for each fixed $`i`$, $`\sigma _i`$ runs over all the maps $`\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},i\}\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},b\}`$ satisfying $`\sigma _i(1)<\mathrm{}<\sigma _i(i)`$, and $`\sigma _i^0=\{\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{}b,\mathrm{}\sigma _i(1),\mathrm{},\sigma _i(i)\}`$. Note from Lemma 2.1 that $`[[\mathrm{}[𝔞_{t_1}\mathrm{}𝔞_{t_r}(\tau _r\alpha ),𝔞_{n_{\sigma _i(1)}}(1_X)],\mathrm{}],𝔞_{n_{\sigma _i(i)}}(1_X)]|0^{[n]}`$ if $`ir2`$ or $`\alpha `$. Hence by (2.11) and Theorem 2.4, $`𝔊_k(1_X)(A)`$ equals

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _{k+1}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+1}^0}{}}𝔞_n_{\mathrm{}}(1_X)\right)`$
$`[[\mathrm{}[{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}(\lambda )=k+2,|\lambda |=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^!}}𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}1_X),𝔞_{n_{\sigma _{k+1}(1)}}(1_X)],\mathrm{}],𝔞_{n_{\sigma _{k+1}(k+1)}}(1_X)]|0`$
modulo $`^{[n]}`$. By Lemma 2.1 (i) again, the preceding expression is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _{k+1}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}}(n_{\sigma _{k+1}(\mathrm{})})\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+1}^0}{}}𝔞_n_{\mathrm{}}(1_X)\right)𝔞_{n_{\sigma _{k+1}(1)}\mathrm{}n_{\sigma _{k+1}(k+1)}}(1_X)|0.`$
Therefore, we conclude that for the induced operator $`𝔤_k`$,

$`𝔤_k(q_{n_1}\mathrm{}q_{n_b})`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^k{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _{k+1}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}}n_{\sigma _{k+1}(\mathrm{})}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+1}^0}{}}q_n_{\mathrm{}}\right)q_{n_{\sigma _{k+1}(1)}+\mathrm{}+n_{\sigma _{k+1}(k+1)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^k}{(k+1)!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{k+1}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k+1}{}}}n_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{k+1}(\mathrm{})}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{k+1}^0}{}}q_n_{\mathrm{}}\right)q_{n_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{k+1}(1)}+\mathrm{}+n_{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{k+1}(k+1)}}`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{k+1}`$ runs over all injective maps $`\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},k+1\}\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},b\}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{k+1}^0=\{\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{}b,\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{k+1}(1),\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{k+1}(k+1)\}`$ (so the only difference between $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{k+1}`$ and $`\sigma _{k+1}`$ is that we have dropped the condition $`\sigma _{k+1}(1)<\mathrm{}<\sigma _{k+1}(k+1)`$). Finally, the above formula for $`𝔤_k(q_{n_1}\mathrm{}q_{n_b})`$ is equivalent to (2.10). ∎

## 3. Partial $`n`$-independence of structure constants for $`X`$ projective

Given a finite set $`S`$ which is a disjoint union of subsets $`S_0`$ and $`S_1`$, we denote by $`𝒫(S)`$ the set of partition-valued functions $`\rho =(\rho (c))_{cS}`$ on $`S`$ such that for every $`cS_1`$, the partition $`\rho (c)`$ is required to be strict in the sense that $`\rho (c)=(1^{m_1(\rho (c))}2^{m_2(\rho (c))}\mathrm{})`$ with $`m_r(\rho (c))=0`$ or $`1`$ for all $`r1`$.

Now let us take a linear basis $`S=S_0S_1`$ of $`H^{}(X)`$ such that $`1_X,[x]S_0`$, $`S_0H^{\mathrm{even}}(X)`$ and $`S_1H^{\mathrm{odd}}(X)`$. If we write $`\rho =(\rho (c))_{cS}`$ and $`\rho (c)=(r^{m_r(\rho (c))})_{r1}=(1^{m_1(\rho (c))}2^{m_2(\rho (c))}\mathrm{})`$, then we put $`\mathrm{}(\rho )=_{cS}\mathrm{}(\rho (c))=_{cS,r1}m_r(\rho (c))`$ and

$`\rho ={\displaystyle \underset{cS}{}}|\rho (c)|={\displaystyle \underset{cS,r1}{}}rm_r(\rho (c)).`$
Given $`\rho 𝒫(S)`$ and $`n\rho +\mathrm{}(\rho (1_X))`$, we define $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }𝒫(S)`$ by putting $`m_r(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(c))=m_r(\rho (c))`$ for $`cS\{1_X\}`$, $`m_1(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(1_X))=n\rho \mathrm{}(\rho (1_X))`$, and $`m_r(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(1_X))=m_{r1}(\rho (1_X))`$ for $`r2`$. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=n`$. We define $`𝔟_\rho (n)H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ by

$`𝔟_\rho (n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{r1}(r^{m_r(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(1_X))}m_r(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(1_X))!)}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{cS}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r1}{}}𝔞_r(c)^{m_r(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(c))}\right)|0`$ (3.1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}_{(n\rho \mathrm{}(\rho (1_X)))}}{_{r2}(r^{m_r(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(1_X))}m_r(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(1_X))!)}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{cS,r1}{c1_X\text{or }r>1}}{}}𝔞_r(c)^{m_r(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(c))}\right)|0.`$ (3.2)
where we fix the order of the elements $`cS_1`$ appearing in the product $`{\displaystyle \underset{cS}{}}`$ once and for all. For $`0n<\rho +\mathrm{}(\rho (1_X))`$, we set $`𝔟_\rho (n)=0`$. This is consistent with (3.2) and Definition 2.3 (iii). We remark that the only part in $`𝔟_\rho (n)`$ involving $`n`$ is the factor $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(n\rho \mathrm{}(\rho (1_X)))}`$ in (3.2) when $`n\rho +\mathrm{}(\rho (1_X))`$.

As a corollary to the theorem of Nakajima and Grojnowski \[Gro, Na1, Na2\], $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ has a linear basis consisting of the classes:

$`𝔟_\rho (n),\rho 𝒫(S)\text{and }\rho +\mathrm{}(\rho (1_X))n.`$ (3.3)
Fix a positive integer $`n`$ and $`\rho ,\sigma 𝒫(S)`$ satisfying $`\rho +\mathrm{}(\rho (1_X))n`$ and $`\sigma +\mathrm{}(\sigma (1_X))n`$. Then we can write the cup product $`𝔟_\rho (n)𝔟_\sigma (n)`$ as

$`𝔟_\rho (n)𝔟_\sigma (n)={\displaystyle \underset{\nu 𝒫(S)}{}}a_{\rho \sigma }^\nu (n)𝔟_\nu (n)`$ (3.4)
where we have used $`a_{\rho \sigma }^\nu (n)`$ to denote the structure constants.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface. The structure constants $`a_{\rho \sigma }^\nu (n)`$ of the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ are polynomials in $`n`$ of degree at most

$`(\rho +\mathrm{}(\rho (1_X)))+(\sigma +\mathrm{}(\sigma (1_X)))(\nu +\mathrm{}(\nu (1_X))).`$ (3.5)
###### Proof.

This is a consequence of the much more powerful Theorem 5.1 in \[LQW3\]. More explicitly, let $`f(\rho )=_{r2}(r^{m_r(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(1_X))}m_r(\stackrel{~}{\rho }(1_X))!)`$. Then, $`f(\rho )`$ is independent of $`n`$. By the Theorem 5.1 in \[LQW3\], the cup product $`f(\rho )𝔟_\rho (n)f(\sigma )𝔟_\sigma (n)`$ is a linear combination of expressions of the form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(n\nu \mathrm{}(\nu (1_X)))!}{(n\nu \mathrm{}(\nu (1_X))i)!}}f(\nu )𝔟_\nu (n),`$
such that $`i0`$, $`(\nu +\mathrm{}(\nu (1_X))+i)(\rho +\mathrm{}(\rho (1_X)))+(\sigma +\mathrm{}(\sigma (1_X)))`$, and all the coefficients in this linear combination are independent of $`n`$. It follows that all the structure constants $`a_{\rho \sigma }^\nu (n)`$ are polynomials in $`n`$ of degree at most (3.5). ∎

To state our main result in this section, let $`=H^4(X)`$ and $`S_{}=\{[x]\}S`$. Regard $`𝒫(SS_{})𝒫(S)`$. Then, (3.4) implies that

$`𝔟_\rho (n)𝔟_\sigma (n){\displaystyle \underset{\nu 𝒫(SS_{})}{}}a_{\rho \sigma }^\nu (n)𝔟_\nu (n)(mod^{[n]}).`$ (3.6)
###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface, and $`=H^4(X)`$. Then, all the structure constants $`a_{\rho \sigma }^\nu (n)`$ in (3.6) are independent of $`n`$.

To prove this theorem, we need to establish four technical lemmas first.

###### Lemma 3.3.

If $`k2`$ and $`\alpha `$ is homogeneous, then $`\tau _k\alpha =_j\alpha _{j,1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{j,k}`$ where for each $`j`$, either $`|\alpha _{j,\mathrm{}}|=4`$ for some $`\mathrm{}`$, or $`0<|\alpha _{j,\mathrm{}}|<4`$ for every $`\mathrm{}`$.

Proof. Assume $`|\alpha _{j,\mathrm{}}|<4`$ for every $`\mathrm{}`$. If $`|\alpha _{j,\mathrm{}}|=0`$ for some $`\mathrm{}`$, then $`4(k1)+|\alpha |=|\tau _k\alpha |=_{i=1}^k|\alpha _{j,i}|3(k1)`$. So $`(k1)+|\alpha |0`$, contradicting to $`k2`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.4.

Let $`=H^4(X)`$, $`s0`$, $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_s>0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{n}=_{\mathrm{}=1}^sn_{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`n\stackrel{~}{n}`$. Let $`\alpha ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _sH^{}(X)`$ be homogeneous. Assume $`k+|\alpha |1`$ and $`n_{\mathrm{}}+|\alpha _{\mathrm{}}|2`$ for every $`\mathrm{}`$. Then modulo $`^{[n]}`$, the cup product $`G_k(\alpha ,n)\left(\mathrm{𝟏}_{(n\stackrel{~}{n})}𝔞_{n_1}(\alpha _1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_s}(\alpha _s)|0\right)`$ is a universal linear combination of the basis (3.3).

Proof. By Lemma 2.7 (i) and (ii), the statement is trivial if one of the classes $`\alpha ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _sH^{}(X)`$ is contained in $``$. So in the rest of the proof, we assume that none of the classes $`\alpha ,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _s`$ is contained in $``$.

Our argument is similar to the proof of Lemma 2.7 (i). Put $`𝔤=𝔊_k(\alpha )`$. Then, $`B\stackrel{def}{=}G_k(\alpha ,n)\mathrm{𝟏}_{(n\stackrel{~}{n})}𝔞_{n_1}(\alpha _1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_s}(\alpha _s)|0`$ is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n\stackrel{~}{n})!}}𝔤𝔞_1(1_X)^{n\stackrel{~}{n}}𝔞_{n_1}(\alpha _1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_s}(\alpha _s)|0.`$
By Lemma 2.2, $`B`$ is a universal finite linear combination of expressions of the form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n\stackrel{~}{n})!}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\stackrel{~}{n}}{j}}\right)𝔞_1(1_X)^{n\stackrel{~}{n}j}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\sigma _i^0}{}}𝔞_n_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha _{\mathrm{}})\right)`$
$`[[\mathrm{}[[[[𝔤,\underset{j\text{times}}{\underset{}{𝔞_1(1_X)],\mathrm{}],𝔞_1(1_X)]}},𝔞_{n_{\sigma _i(1)}}(\alpha _{\sigma _i(1)})],\mathrm{}],𝔞_{n_{\sigma _i(i)}}(\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)})]|0`$ (3.7)
where $`0jn\stackrel{~}{n}`$, $`0is`$, $`0j+ik+1`$, $`\sigma _i`$ maps the set $`\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},i\}`$ to the set $`\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},s\}`$ with $`\sigma _i(1)<\mathrm{}<\sigma _i(i)`$, and $`\sigma _i^0=\{\mathrm{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{}s,\mathrm{}\sigma _i(1),\mathrm{},\sigma _i(i)\}`$. By Theorem 2.4 and Lemma 2.1 (i), we conclude that

$`[[\mathrm{}[[[[𝔤,\underset{j\text{times}}{\underset{}{𝔞_1(1_X)],\mathrm{}],𝔞_1(1_X)]}},𝔞_{n_{\sigma _i(1)}}(\alpha _{\sigma _i(1)})],\mathrm{}],𝔞_{n_{\sigma _i(i)}}(\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)})]|0`$
is a universal finite linear combination of expressions $`𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}(ϵ\alpha \alpha _{\sigma _i(1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)}))|0`$, where $`ϵ\{1_X,e,K,K^2\}`$, $`\lambda j+n_{\sigma _i(1)}+\mathrm{}+n_{\sigma _i(i)}`$ and $`\mathrm{}(\lambda )=k+2|ϵ|/2(j+i)`$. So $`B`$ is a universal finite linear combination of expressions

$`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(n\stackrel{~}{n}j)}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\sigma _i^0}{}}𝔞_n_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha _{\mathrm{}})\right)𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}(ϵ\alpha \alpha _{\sigma _i(1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)}))|0`$ (3.8)
where $`\lambda j+n_{\sigma _i(1)}+\mathrm{}+n_{\sigma _i(i)}`$ and $`\mathrm{}(\lambda )=k+2|ϵ|/2(j+i)`$.

To prove our lemma, we see from (3.2) that it suffices to show that modulo $`^{[\stackrel{~}{n}+j]}`$, the part $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}\sigma _i^0}{}}𝔞_n_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha _{\mathrm{}})\right)𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}(ϵ\alpha \alpha _{\sigma _i(1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)}))|0`$ in (3.8) does not contain $`𝔞_1(1_X)`$. Since $`n_{\mathrm{}}+|\alpha _{\mathrm{}}|2`$ for every $`\mathrm{}`$, this is equivalent to show that modulo $`^{[\mathrm{}(\lambda )]}`$, the part $`𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}(ϵ\alpha \alpha _{\sigma _i(1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)}))|0`$ in (3.8) does not contain $`𝔞_1(1_X)`$. By Lemma 3.3, this is true if $`\mathrm{}(\lambda )2`$. So let $`\mathrm{}(\lambda )=1`$. Then, we have

$`𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}(ϵ\alpha \alpha _{\sigma _i(1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)}))|0=𝔞_t(ϵ\alpha \alpha _{\sigma _i(1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)})|0`$
where $`t=|\lambda |=j+n_{\sigma _i(1)}+\mathrm{}+n_{\sigma _i(i)}`$ and $`k+2|ϵ|/2(j+i)=1`$.

If $`𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}(ϵ\alpha \alpha _{\sigma _i(1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)}))|0`$ contains $`𝔞_1(1_X)`$, then we must have $`t=1`$ and $`|ϵ\alpha \alpha _{\sigma _i(1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)}|=0`$. So $`j+n_{\sigma _i(1)}+\mathrm{}+n_{\sigma _i(i)}=1`$, $`ϵ=1_X`$, and $`|\alpha |=|\alpha _{\sigma _i(1)}|=\mathrm{}=|\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)}|=0`$. Thus, either $`j=0`$, $`i=1`$, $`n_{\sigma _1(1)}=1`$ and $`|\alpha _{\sigma _1(1)}|=0`$, or $`j=1`$ and $`i=0`$. The first case contradicts to $`n_{\sigma _1(1)}+|\alpha _{\sigma _1(1)}|2`$. In the second case, we see from $`k+2|ϵ|/2(j+i)=1`$ that $`k=0`$, contradicting to $`k+|\alpha |1`$. So $`𝔞_\lambda (\tau _{}(ϵ\alpha \alpha _{\sigma _i(1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{\sigma _i(i)}))|0`$ can not contain $`𝔞_1(1_X)`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.5.

Let $`=H^4(X)`$, $`s1`$, $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_s0`$, $`k_i+|\alpha _i|1`$ for every $`i`$.

1. Modulo $`^{[n]}`$, $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}}G_{k_i}(\alpha _i,n)`$ is a universal linear combination of (3.3).
2. When $`nn_0\stackrel{def}{=}\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}(k_i+1)`$, the leading term in the cup product $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}}G_{k_i}(\alpha _i,n)`$ is equal to $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{k_i}}{(k_i+1)!}}\right)\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nn_0)}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}}𝔞_{(k_i+1)}(\alpha _i)\right)|0`$, which is equal to a universal multiple of $`𝔟_\nu (n)`$ for some $`\nu 𝒫(S)`$.

Proof. (i) Use induction on $`s`$. When $`s=1`$, our statement follows from Lemma 3.4 (take the integer $`s`$ there to be $`0`$). Now, assume that the statement is true for $`s1`$ with $`s2`$, i.e., $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s1}{}}}G_{k_i}(\alpha _i,n)`$ is a universal finite linear combination of the basis classes $`𝔟_\nu (n)`$, $`\nu 𝒫(S)`$ and $`\nu +\mathrm{}(\rho (1_X))n`$. Note from (3.2) that up to some universal factor, every basis class $`𝔟_\nu (n)`$ is of the form $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(n\stackrel{~}{n})}𝔞_{n_1}(\beta _1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_s}(\beta _s)|0`$, where $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_s>0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{n}=n_1+\mathrm{}+n_s`$, $`n\stackrel{~}{n}`$, and $`n_{\mathrm{}}+|\beta _{\mathrm{}}|2`$ for every $`\mathrm{}`$. So by Lemma 3.4, our statement for $`s`$ follows.

(ii) The statement about the leading term comes from the proof of Theorem 2.9, while the other statement about the universal multiple follows from (3.2). ∎

###### Lemma 3.6.

Let $`=H^4(X)`$. Then modulo $`^{[n]}`$, the basis element $`𝔟_\rho (n)`$ is a universal finite linear combination of products of the form $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}}G_{m_j}(\beta _j,n)`$ where $`m_j+|\beta _j|1`$ for each $`j`$, and $`_{j=1}^t(m_j+1)\rho +\mathrm{}(\rho (1_X))`$.

Proof. By (3.2), up to some universal factor, the basis class $`𝔟_\rho (n)`$ is of the form $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nn_0)}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}}𝔞_{(k_i+1)}(\alpha _i)\right)|0`$, where $`nn_0\stackrel{def}{=}\rho +\mathrm{}(\rho (1_X))=_{i=1}^s(k_i+1)`$, and $`k_i0`$ and $`k_i+|\alpha _i|1`$ for every $`i`$. Now our result follows from an induction on $`n_0`$ the same way as in the proof of Theorem 2.9, and Lemma 3.5 (i) and (ii). ∎

Proof of Theorem 3.2. By Lemma 3.6, $`𝔟_\rho (n)`$ is a universal finite linear combination of expressions of the form $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t_1}{}}}G_{m_{1,j}}(\beta _{1,j},n)`$ where $`m_{1,j}+|\beta _{1,j}|1`$ for every $`j`$. Similarly, $`𝔟_\sigma (n)`$ is a universal finite linear combination of expressions of the form $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t_2}{}}}G_{m_{2,j}}(\beta _{2,j},n)`$ where $`m_{1,j}+|\beta _{1,j}|1`$ for every $`j`$. Therefore, $`𝔟_\rho (n)𝔟_\sigma (n)`$ is a universal finite linear combination of expressions of the form $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}}G_{m_j}(\beta _j,n)`$ where $`m_j+|\beta _j|1`$ for every $`j`$. Now our result follows from Lemma 3.5 (i). ∎

We end this section with a lemma to be used in the next section. For convenience, when $`\mathrm{}(\rho )=1`$, i.e., when the partition $`\rho (c)`$ is a one-part partition $`(r)`$ for some $`cS`$ and is empty for all the other elements in $`S`$, we will simply write $`𝔟_\rho (n)=𝔟_{r,c}(n)`$.

###### Lemma 3.7.

Let $`=H^4(X)`$. Then modulo $`^{[n]}`$, the basis class $`𝔟_\rho (n)`$ is a universal finite linear combination of products of the form $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}}𝔟_{r_j,c_j}(n)`$.

Proof. Note from (3.2) that $`𝔟_{r,c}(n)=\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nr)}𝔞_r(c)|0`$ if $`c1_X`$, while $`𝔟_{r,c}(n)=\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nr1)}𝔞_{(r+1)}(c)|0`$ if $`c=1_X`$. So by Lemma 3.6, it suffices to show that if $`cS`$ and $`k+|c|1`$, then modulo $`^{[n]}`$, $`G_k(c,n)`$ is a universal finite linear combination of products of the form $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}}\left(\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nr_j)}𝔞_{r_j}(c_j)|0\right)`$ where $`r_j1`$, $`c_jS`$ and $`r_j+|c_j|2`$.

Use induction on $`k`$. When $`k=0`$, we have $`G_0(c,n)=\mathrm{𝟏}_{(n1)}𝔞_1(c)|0`$ by formula (2.6). Next, we prove that the statement in the preceding paragraph holds for $`k1`$ by assuming that it is true for $`0,\mathrm{},k1`$. By Lemma 3.5 (i) and (ii), modulo $`^{[n]}`$, $`G_k(c,n)(1)^k/(k+1)!\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nk1)}𝔞_{(k+1)}(c)|0`$ is a universal linear combination of the basis elements $`𝔟_\rho (n)`$ satisfying $`\rho +\mathrm{}(\rho (1_X))<(k+1)`$. By Lemma 3.6, modulo $`^{[n]}`$, each $`𝔟_\rho (n)`$ is a universal finite linear combination of products of the form $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}}G_{k_j}(\gamma _j,n)`$ where $`\gamma _jS`$, $`k_j+|\gamma _j|1`$, and $`\underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}(k_j+1)\rho +\mathrm{}(\rho (1_X))`$. Note that $`k_j<k`$ for every $`j`$. So by induction, we conclude that modulo $`^{[n]}`$, $`G_k(c,n)`$ is a universal finite linear combination of products of the form $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}}\left(\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nr_j)}𝔞_{r_j}(c_j)|0\right)`$ where $`r_j1`$, $`c_jS`$ and $`r_j+|c_j|2`$. ∎

## 4. The cohomology ring $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ for $`X`$ quasi-projective

In this section, we will apply our results in previous sections to smooth quasi-projective surfaces. Our terminology “quasi-projective” means “quasi-projective but not projective”. Recall from \[Na1\] that for a smooth quasi-projective surface $`X`$, the creation operators are modelled on the Borel-Moore homology $`H_{}^{BM}(X)`$, while the annihilation operators are modelled on the ordinary homology $`H_{}(X)`$. Then the Fock space of the Heisenberg algebra is taken to be the direct sum over all $`n`$ of the Borel-Moore homology groups $`H_{}^{BM}(X^{[n]})`$ \[Na1\]. Let $`H_c^{}(X)`$ be the cohomology with compact support. Using the the Poincaré dualities $`\text{PD}:H^{4i}(X)H_i^{BM}(X)`$ and $`\text{PD}:H_c^{4i}(X)H_i(X)`$, we can regard the creation operators $`𝔞_n(\alpha )`$ with $`n>0`$ as being modelled on $`H^{}(X)`$ (i.e., $`\alpha H^{}(X)`$), while we can regard the annihilation operators $`𝔞_n(\beta )`$ with $`n>0`$ as being modelled on $`H_c^{}(X)`$ (i.e., $`\beta H_c^{}(X)`$). Accordingly, with the help of the Poincaré duality $`\text{PD}:H^{4ni}(X^{[n]})H_i^{BM}(X^{[n]})`$, from now on we can take the Fock space to be the direct sum of the ordinary cohomology groups $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$.

### 4.1. The $`n`$-independence of the structure constants

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface embedded in a smooth projective surface $`\overline{X}`$, and let $`\iota :X\overline{X}`$ be the inclusion map. Then we have induced embeddings $`\iota _n:X^{[n]}\overline{X}^{[n]}`$ for $`n0`$, and induced ring homomorphisms $`\iota _n^{}:H^{}(\overline{X}^{[n]})H^{}(X^{[n]})`$. The maps $`\iota ^{}`$ and $`\iota _n^{}`$ are related by the following.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let notations be as in the preceding paragraph. Then,

$`\iota _n^{}(𝔞_{n_1}(\overline{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_k}(\overline{\alpha }_k)|0)=𝔞_{n_1}(\iota ^{}\overline{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_k}(\iota ^{}\overline{\alpha }_k)|0`$ (4.1)
where $`k0`$, $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_k>0`$, and $`n_1+\mathrm{}+n_k=n`$.

Proof. For $`n0`$, let $`(\iota _n^{})^{BM}:H_i^{BM}(\overline{X}^{[n]})H_i^{BM}(X^{[n]})`$ be the natural map induced by the embedding $`\iota _n:X^{[n]}\overline{X}^{[n]}`$. Then, it is well-known that $`(\iota _n^{})^{BM}\text{PD}=\text{PD}(\iota _n^{})^{BM}`$ (see \[Na2\]). Combining with Nakajima’s constructions in \[Na1\], we obtain $`\iota _{m_1+m_2}^{}𝔞_{m_2}(\overline{\alpha })(A)=𝔞_{m_2}(\iota ^{}\overline{\alpha })\iota _{m_1}^{}(A)`$ for $`m_1>0`$, $`m_2>0`$ and $`AH^{}(\overline{X}^{[m_1]})`$. Applying this repeatedly, we obtain (4.1). ∎

Next, assume that $`\iota ^{}:H^{}(\overline{X})H^{}(X)`$ is surjective. Let $`=\mathrm{ker}(\iota ^{})`$. Fix a linear basis $`S`$ of $`H^{}(\overline{X})`$ as in Sect. 3 such that $`S`$ contains a linear basis $`S_{}`$ of $``$ and $`S_X\stackrel{def}{=}\iota ^{}(SS_{})`$ is a linear basis of $`H^{}(X)`$. By Lemma 4.1, $`\mathrm{ker}(\iota _n^{})=^{[n]}`$ which is defined in Definition 2.6. Also, a linear basis of $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ is given by

$`𝔟_{\rho _X}(n),\rho _X𝒫(S_X)\text{and }\rho _X+\mathrm{}(\rho _X(1_X))n`$ (4.2)
where $`𝔟_{\rho _X}(n)`$ is defined in a similar way as in (3.1) and (3.2). So for $`\rho _X,\sigma _X𝒫(S_X)`$, we can write the cup product $`𝔟_{\rho _X}(n)𝔟_{\sigma _X}(n)`$ as

$`𝔟_{\rho _X}(n)𝔟_{\sigma _X}(n)={\displaystyle \underset{\nu _X𝒫(S_X)}{}}a_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}(n)𝔟_{\nu _X}(n)`$ (4.3)
where $`a_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}(n)`$ stands for the structure constants.

###### Definition 4.2.

A smooth quasi-projective surface $`X`$ satisfies the S-property if it can be embedded in a smooth projective surface $`\overline{X}`$ such that the induced ring homomorphism $`H^{}(\overline{X})H^{}(X)`$ is surjective.

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface satisfying the S-property. Then all the structure constants $`a_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}(n)`$ in (4.3) are independent of $`n`$.

Proof. Let notations be as above. Note that $`\iota ^{}:(SS_{})S_X`$ is bijective. Define $`\rho ,\sigma 𝒫(S)`$ by putting $`m_r(\rho (\overline{c}))=m_r(\rho _X(\iota ^{}\overline{c}))`$ and $`m_r(\sigma (\overline{c}))=m_r(\sigma _X(\iota ^{}\overline{c}))`$ when $`\overline{c}(SS_{})`$, and $`m_r(\rho (\overline{c}))=0=m_r(\sigma (\overline{c}))`$ when $`\overline{c}S_{}`$. By Theorem 3.2,

$`𝔟_\rho (n)𝔟_\sigma (n){\displaystyle \underset{\nu 𝒫(S\{[x]\})}{}}a_{\rho \sigma }^\nu (n)𝔟_\nu (n)(mod\overline{}^{[n]})`$
where $`\overline{}=H^4(\overline{X})`$ and all the $`a_{\rho \sigma }^\nu (n)`$ are independent of $`n`$. Since $`\overline{}`$,

$`𝔟_\rho (n)𝔟_\sigma (n){\displaystyle \underset{\nu 𝒫(SS_{})}{}}a_{\rho \sigma }^\nu (n)𝔟_\nu (n)(mod^{[n]})`$ (4.4)
where all the structure constants $`a_{\rho \sigma }^\nu (n)`$ are independent of $`n`$. By Lemma 4.1, $`\iota _n^{}(𝔟_\rho (n))=𝔟_{\rho _X}(n)`$ and $`\iota _n^{}(𝔟_\sigma (n))=𝔟_{\sigma _X}(n)`$. Therefore, applying $`\iota _n^{}`$ to (4.4), we see that all the structure constants $`a_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}(n)`$ in (4.3) are independent of $`n`$. ∎

Thanks to Theorem 4.3, we will simply denote the structure constants $`a_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}(n)`$ in (4.3) by $`a_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}`$. Next, we study ring generators for the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ when $`X`$ is a smooth quasi-projective surface satisfying the S-property. For $`\alpha H^{}(X)`$, define $`G_k(\alpha ,n)=\iota _n^{}G_k(\overline{\alpha },n)`$ where $`\overline{\alpha }H^{}(\overline{X})`$ satisfies $`\iota ^{}\overline{\alpha }=\alpha `$. This is independent of the choice of $`\overline{\alpha }`$ by Theorem 2.9 and the linearity of $`G_k(\overline{\alpha },n)`$ in $`\overline{\alpha }`$.

###### Theorem 4.4.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface embedded in a smooth projective surface $`\overline{X}`$ such that the induced map $`H^{}(\overline{X})H^{}(X)`$ is surjective. Then, the cohomology classes $`G_k(\alpha ,n)`$, as $`0k<n`$ and $`\alpha `$ runs over a linear basis of $`H^{}(X)`$, form a set of ring generators of $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$.

Proof. Let notations be as above. By Lemma 4.1, $`H^{}(X^{[n]})H^{}(\overline{X}^{[n]})/^{[n]}`$. Recall that the classes $`G_k(\overline{\alpha },n)`$, $`0k<n`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }SH^{}(\overline{X})`$, form a set of ring generators of $`H^{}(\overline{X}^{[n]})`$. It follows from Theorem 2.9 that the classes $`\iota _n^{}G_k(\overline{\alpha },n)`$, $`0k<n`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }(SS_{})`$, form a set of ring generators of $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$. In other words, the classes $`G_k(\alpha ,n)`$, $`0k<n`$ and $`\alpha S_X=\iota ^{}(SS_{})`$, form a set of ring generators of $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$. Finally, note that $`S_X`$ is a linear basis of $`H^{}(X)`$. ∎

### 4.2. A universal ring

Let $`𝔄=𝔞_1([x]_c)`$ where $`[x]_cH_c^4(X)`$ is the Poincaré dual of the homology class in $`H_0(X)`$ represented by a point in $`X`$.

###### Lemma 4.5.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface. Then the linear map $`𝔄:H^{}(X^{[n+1]})H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ is surjective. In fact, it sends $`𝔟_{\rho _X}(n+1)`$ to $`𝔟_{\rho _X}(n)`$.

###### Proof.

Follows from the definition of the cohomology classes $`𝔟_{\rho _X}(n)`$. ∎

###### Corollary 4.6.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface which satisfies the S-property. Then $`𝔄:H^{}(X^{[n+1]})H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ is a surjective ring homomorphism.

###### Proof.

Follows immediately from Lemma 4.5 and Theorem 4.3. ∎

###### Remark 4.7.

We conjecture that the surjective linear map $`𝔄:H^{}(X^{[n+1]})H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ is a ring homomorphism for an arbitrary smooth quasi-projective surface $`X`$. By Lemma 4.5, this is equivalent to the Constant Conjecture in \[Wa\].

###### Definition 4.8.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface satisfying the S-property. We define the FH ring $`𝒢_X`$ associated to $`X`$ to be the ring with a linear basis given by the symbols $`𝔟_{\rho _X}`$, $`\rho _X𝒫(S_X)`$, with the multiplication given by

$`𝔟_{\rho _X}𝔟_{\sigma _X}={\displaystyle \underset{\nu _X𝒫(S_X)}{}}a_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}𝔟_{\nu _X}.`$
where the structure constants $`a_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}`$ come from (4.3).

For a smooth quasi-projective surface $`X`$ satisfying the S-property, define a linear map $`𝔄_n:𝒢_XH^{}(X^{[n]})`$ by sending $`𝔟_{\rho _X}`$ to $`𝔟_{\rho _X}(n)`$. By the definition of $`𝒢_X`$ and Theorem 4.3, $`𝔄_n`$ is a surjective ring homomorphism. We can illustrate Theorem 4.3 in terms of the following commutative diagram of surjective ring homomorphisms:

$`\begin{array}{ccccccc}\mathrm{}& \stackrel{=}{}& 𝒢_X& \stackrel{=}{}& 𝒢_X& \stackrel{=}{}& \mathrm{}\\ & & 𝔄_{n+1}& & 𝔄_n& & & & \\ \mathrm{}& \stackrel{𝔄}{}& H^{}(X^{[n+1]})& \stackrel{𝔄}{}& H^{}(X^{[n]})& \stackrel{𝔄}{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}`$ (4.5)
Next, we study the structure of the FH ring $`𝒢_X`$. For fixed $`r1`$ and $`cS_X`$, we use $`𝔟_{r,c}`$ to denote $`𝔟_{\rho _X}`$ where $`\rho _X𝒫(S_X)`$ is defined by taking $`\rho _X(c)`$ to be the one-part partition $`(r)`$ and $`\rho _X(c^{})`$ to be empty for each $`c^{}c`$.

###### Theorem 4.9.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface which satisfies the S-property. Then the FH ring $`𝒢_X`$ is isomorphic to the tensor product $`PE`$, where $`P`$ is the polynomial algebra generated by $`𝔟_{r,c},cS_XH^{\mathrm{even}}(X),r1`$ and $`E`$ is the exterior algebra generated by $`𝔟_{r,c},cS_XH^{\mathrm{odd}}(X),r1`$.

###### Proof.

Let notations be as above. First of all, we see from Lemma 3.7 that the FH ring $`𝒢_X`$ is generated by the elements $`𝔟_{r,c}`$ with $`r1`$ and $`cS_X`$. Also, note that $`𝒢_X`$ is super-commutative and $`𝔟_{r,c}^2=0`$ for $`cS_XH^{\mathrm{odd}}(X)`$.

It remains to show that as $`\rho =(r^{m_r(c)})_{cS_X,r1}`$ runs over $`𝒫(S_X)`$, the monomials $`{\displaystyle \underset{cS_X,r1}{}}𝔟_{r,c}^{m_r(c)}`$ are linearly independent in $`𝒢_X`$. Assume

$`{\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}d_i{\displaystyle \underset{cS_X,r1}{}}𝔟_{r,c}^{m_r^i(c)}=0`$
where $`d_i`$ and $`\rho _i=(r^{m_r^i(c)})_{cS_X,r1}`$ runs over a finite set $`I`$ of distinct elements in $`𝒫(S_X)`$. By (3.2), we have $`𝔟_{r,c}(n)=\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nr\delta _c)}𝔞_{(r+\delta _c)}(c)|0`$ where $`\delta _c=0`$ if $`c1_X`$ and $`\delta _c=1`$ if $`c=1_X`$. So we conclude that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}d_i{\displaystyle \underset{cS_X,r1}{}}\left(\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nr\delta _c)}𝔞_{(r+\delta _c)}(c)|0\right)^{m_r^i(c)}={\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}d_i{\displaystyle \underset{cS_X,r1}{}}𝔟_{r,c}(n)^{m_r^i(c)}=0.`$
Since $`H^{}(X^{[n]})H^{}(\overline{X}^{[n]})/^{[n]}`$, we see from Lemma 4.1 that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}d_i{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{c}SS_{},r1}{}}\left(\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nr\delta _{\iota ^{}\overline{c}})}𝔞_{(r+\delta _{\iota ^{}\overline{c}})}(\overline{c})|0\right)^{m_r^i(\iota ^{}\overline{c})}=w^{[n]}.`$ (4.6)
Take an integer $`n`$ large enough such that $`nn_i\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}_{r,\overline{c}SS_{}}(r+\delta _{\iota ^{}\overline{c}})m_r^i(\iota ^{}\overline{c})`$ for all $`iI`$. By the Theorem 5.1 in \[LQW3\], Eq. (4.6) can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{iI}{}}d_i\left(\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nn_i)}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\overline{c}SS_{},r1}{}}(𝔞_{(r+\delta _{\iota ^{}\overline{c}})}(\overline{c}))^{m_r^i(\iota ^{}\overline{c})}\right)|0+w_i\right)=w^{[n]}`$ (4.7)
where each $`w_i`$ is a universal finite linear combination of $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nm)}_{p=1}^N𝔞_{m_p}(\gamma _p)|0`$ with $`m=_{p=1}^Nm_p<n_i`$ and $`\gamma _pS`$ for every $`p`$. Write $`w`$ and every $`w_i`$ as linear combinations of the basis (3.3). Since $`(SS_{})S_{}=\mathrm{}`$, we see from (4.7) that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}d_i\mathrm{𝟏}_{(nn_i)}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\overline{c}SS_{},r1}{}}(𝔞_{(r+\delta _{\iota ^{}\overline{c}})}(\overline{c}))^{m_r^i(\iota ^{}\overline{c})}\right)|0=0`$ (4.8)
where $`i`$ satisfies $`n_i=\mathrm{max}\{n_j|jI\}`$. Since the partitions $`\rho _i=(r^{m_r^i(c)})_{cS_X,r1}𝒫(S_X)`$ are distinct, all the coefficients $`d_i`$ in (4.8) must be zero. By repeating the above argument, we see that $`d_i=0`$ for all $`iI`$. ∎

###### Corollary 4.10.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface which satisfies the S-property. Then for $`n1`$, the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ is generated by the classes $`𝔟_{r,c}(n)`$ where $`1rn`$ and $`c`$ runs over a linear basis of $`H^{}(X)`$.

###### Proof.

Follows from Theorem 4.9 and the observation that the ring homomorphism $`𝔄_n`$ in the commutative diagram (4.5) is surjective. ∎

We remark that Theorem 4.4 provides a set of ring generators for $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$. So Corollary 4.10 gives us a second set of ring generators for $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$, which is parallel to the set of ring generators for $`H^{}(\overline{X}^{[n]})`$ found in \[LQW2\].

### 4.3. Examples of quasi-projective surfaces with the S-property

###### Example 4.11.

Let $`\overline{X}`$ be a projective surface and let $`X`$ be the quasi-projective surface obtained from $`X`$ with a point removed. It is easy to see that this smooth quasi-projective surface $`X`$ satisfies the S-property.

###### Example 4.12.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a finite subgroup of $`SL_2()`$. Let $`X`$ be the minimal resolution of the simple singularity $`^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It is known that this smooth quasi-projective surface $`X`$ satisfies the S-property. Moreover, $`K_X=0`$.

###### Example 4.13.

(The cotangent bundle of a smooth projective curve) Consider the ruled surface $`\overline{X}=(𝒪_C(K_C)𝒪_C)`$ where $`C`$ is a smooth projective curve. Let $`\sigma `$ be the section (to the projection $`\overline{X}C`$) corresponding to the natural surjection $`𝒪_C(K_C)𝒪_C𝒪_C(K_C)0`$, and put $`X=\overline{X}\sigma `$. Then, $`X`$ is the total space of the cotangent bundle of $`C`$, and $`K_X=0`$.

We claim that $`X`$ satisfies the S-property. In fact, the following general statement is true. Let $`\overline{X}=(_1_2)`$ where $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are two invertible sheaves over $`C`$. Let $`\sigma `$ (resp. $`\sigma ^{}`$) be the section of $`\overline{X}C`$ corresponding to the natural surjection $`_1_2_10`$ (resp. $`_1_2_20`$). Put $`X=\overline{X}\sigma `$. Then $`X`$ satisfies the S-property. To see this, let $`X^{}=\overline{X}\sigma ^{}`$, and notice that $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ are affine bundles over $`C`$. Hence $`X`$ is homotopic to $`C`$, and $`H^i(X)H^i(C)`$ for every $`i`$. Therefore, to verify the S-property of $`X`$, it remains to verify the surjectivities of the induced homomorphisms $`r_i:H^i(\overline{X})H^i(X)`$ for $`i=1,2`$. Consider the relative cohomology group $`H^2(\overline{X},X)`$. By the excision theorem, we obtain $`H^2(\overline{X},X)H^2(\overline{X}\sigma ^{},X\sigma ^{})=H^2(X^{},X^{}\sigma )`$. By the Thom isomorphism, since $`X^{}`$ is an affine bundle over $`C`$ with $`\sigma `$ being the zero section, we have $`H^2(X^{},X^{}\sigma )H^0(C)`$. Hence $`H^2(\overline{X},X)`$. Now consider the exact sequence

$`H^1(\overline{X})\stackrel{r_1}{}H^1(X)\stackrel{\delta }{}H^2(\overline{X},X)H^2(\overline{X})\stackrel{r_2}{}H^2(X).`$
Since $`H^2(X)H^2(C)`$ and $`H^2(\overline{X})`$, we conclude that the map $`\delta `$ must be zero and the map $`r_2`$ must be surjective. Therefore, $`r_1`$ is also surjective.

## 5. Orbifold cohomology rings of symmetric products

The orbifold cohomology ring of an orbifold was introduced in \[CR\]. Given an even-dimensional compact complex manifold $`X`$, the orbifold cohomology rings $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)`$ of symmetric products $`X^n/S_n`$ were studied in \[FG, QW, Uri\] (also cf. \[LS2, Ru1\]). The axiomatic approach in \[QW\] is self-contained within the framework of the symmetric products, while it is parallel to the study of the cohomology rings of Hilbert schemes $`X^{[n]}`$ when $`X`$ is a smooth projective surface. The results obtained in the previous sections for the cohomology rings of $`X^{[n]}`$ when $`X`$ is a smooth quasi-projective surface are built on the works \[LQW3, LQW4\] (also cf. \[Lehn, LQW1\]). As observed in \[QW\], all the results in \[LQW3, LQW4\] admit exact counterparts in the orbifold cohomology rings of symmetric products. This allows us to obtain readily the results on $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)`$ when $`X`$ is an even-dimensional non-compact complex manifold, which are the counterparts of those on the cohomology rings of $`X^{[n]}`$ when $`X`$ is a smooth quasi-projective surface.

In this section, we will formulate and sketch these analogous results for the orbifold cohomology rings $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)`$ when $`X`$ is non-compact. We will not repeat the proofs for these analogous results since the proofs are the same as in the Hilbert scheme setup. For notational simplicity, we will assume below that $`X`$ is a smooth quasi-projective surface which satisfies the S-property (the assumption on the dimension of $`X`$ can be relaxed without extra difficulty). We will use the results of \[QW\] freely and refer the reader to loc. cit. for details.

Let $`\overline{X}`$ be a smooth projective surface which contains $`X`$ such that the pullback map $`\iota ^{}:H^{}(\overline{X})H^{}(X)`$ is surjective, where $`\iota :X\overline{X}`$ is the inclusion map. Recall from Sect. 5.1 in \[QW\] that there exists a family of ring products, denoted by $`_t`$, on $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(\overline{X}^n/S_n)`$ depending on a rational (or complex) parameter $`t`$. When $`t=1`$, this coincides with the original definition of orbifold product \[CR\] and when $`t=1`$, this coincides with the modified product in \[LS2, FG, Uri\]. Put

$`_{\overline{X}}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}H_{\text{orb}}^{}(\overline{X}^n/S_n).`$
We can define the Heisenberg algebra acting irreducibly on $`_{\overline{X}}`$ with linear basis $`{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n}^{}(\gamma )`$, where $`n`$ and $`\gamma H^{}(\overline{X})`$. The elements in this linear basis satisfy the commutation relation (cf. Sections 3.2 and 5.2 in \[QW\]):

$`[{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{m}^{}(\alpha ),{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n}^{}(\beta )]=t^{1/3}m\delta _{m,n}{\displaystyle _{\overline{X}}}(\alpha \beta )\text{Id}_{_{\overline{X}}}.`$ (5.1)
When $`t=1`$, this matches with the commutation relation of the Heisenberg algebra associated to the Hilbert schemes (compare with (2.1)).

The above definitions of the Fock space and of Heisenberg algebra readily extends to $`X`$. Set $`_X=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n).`$ The creation operators $`{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n}^{}(\gamma )`$, where $`n>0`$ and $`\gamma H^{}(X)`$, are defined in the same way as before, while the annihilation operators $`{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n}^{}(\gamma )`$, where $`n>0`$, are modelled on $`\gamma H_c^{}(X)`$.

The definition in Sections 3.4 and 5.2 of \[QW\] of the cohomology classes $`\eta _n(\alpha )`$ and $`O^k(\alpha ,n)`$ in $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)`$ remain to be valid for $`X`$ quasi-projective without any change. We further define $`O_k(\alpha ,n)=O^k(\alpha ,n)/k!`$. In the same way, we define the operator $`{}_{}{}^{t}𝔒_{}^{k}(\alpha )`$ (resp. $`{}_{}{}^{t}𝔒_{k}^{}(\alpha )`$) in $`\mathrm{End}(_X)`$ to be the orbifold product $`_t`$ with the class $`O^k(\alpha ,n)`$ (resp. with the class $`O_k(\alpha ,n)`$) in $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)`$ for every $`n0`$.

The inclusion map $`\iota :X\overline{X}`$ induces an evident surjective ring homomorphism $`ȷ_n^{}:H_{\text{orb}}^{}(\overline{X}^n/S_n)H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)`$ (note that $`ȷ_1^{}=\iota ^{}`$ is surjective by assumption). We have the analogue of Lemma 4.1, namely,

$`ȷ_n^{}(𝔭_{n_1}(\overline{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_s}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_s)|0)={}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_1}^{}(\iota ^{}\overline{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_s}^{}(\iota ^{}\overline{\alpha }_s)|0`$ (5.2)
where $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_s>0`$, and $`n_1+\mathrm{}+n_s=n`$, and $`\overline{\alpha }_iH^{}(\overline{X})`$. Here $`|0`$ denotes $`1H_{\text{orb}}^{}(pt)`$ as usual. Given $`\overline{\alpha }H^{}(\overline{X})`$, we have by construction

$`ȷ_n^{}(O_k(\overline{\alpha },n))=O_k(\iota ^{}\overline{\alpha },n).`$ (5.3)
The following is the counterpart of Theorem 4.4.

###### Proposition 5.1.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface embedded in a smooth projective surface $`\overline{X}`$ such that the induced map $`H^{}(\overline{X})H^{}(X)`$ is surjective. Then, the cohomology classes $`O_k(\alpha ,n)`$, as $`0k<n`$ and $`\alpha `$ runs over a linear basis of $`H^{}(X)`$, form a set of ring generators of $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)`$.

Apparently, we can introduce a linear basis $`𝔮_{\rho _X}(n)`$ of $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)`$ in terms of the Heisenberg generators $`{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n}^{}(\alpha )`$, where $`\rho _X𝒫(S_X)`$ such that $`\rho _X+\mathrm{}(\rho _X(1_X))n`$, which is the counterpart of the linear basis $`𝔟_{\rho _X}`$ for $`H^{}(X^{[n]})`$. We write

$`𝔮_{\rho _X}(n)_t𝔮_{\sigma _X}(n)={\displaystyle \underset{\nu _X}{}}p_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}(n)𝔮_{\nu _X}(n)`$ (5.4)
where $`p_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}(n)`$ denotes the structure constants for the orbifold product. The following proposition is the counterpart of Theorem 4.3.

###### Proposition 5.2.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface which satisfies the S-property. Then all the structure constants $`p_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}(n)`$ are independent of $`n`$.

###### Remark 5.3.

Thanks to Proposition 5.2, we will denote $`p_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}(n)`$ simply by $`p_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}`$. It follows from Proposition 5.2 that we can introduce a universal ring $`𝒰_X`$ (referred to as the FH ring again) with a linear basis given by the symbols $`𝔮_{\rho _X}`$ and multiplication given by $`𝔮_{\rho _X}𝔮_{\sigma _X}=_{\nu _X}p_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}𝔮_{\nu _X}`$. This FH ring $`𝒰_X`$ governs the orbifold cohomology ring $`(H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n),_t)`$ for a fixed smooth quasi-projective surface with the S-property and for every $`n`$. Similarly, we have a second set of ring generators for $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)`$ which is the counterpart of Corollary 4.10.

We introduce the linear isomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Theta }:_X_X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n:H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ by sending $`{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_1}^{}(\alpha _1)\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_s}^{}(\alpha _s)|0`$ to $`𝔞_{n_1}(\alpha _1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_s}(\alpha _s)|0`$. Similarly, we define the linear isomorphisms $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}:_{\overline{X}}_{\overline{X}}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_n:H_{\text{orb}}^{}(\overline{X}^n/S_n)H^{}(\overline{X}^n/S_n)`$. We have the following commutative diagram by definitions:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}H_{\text{orb}}^{}(\overline{X}^n/S_n)& \stackrel{ȷ_n^{}}{}& H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)\\ \overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_n& & \mathrm{\Theta }_n& & \\ H^{}(\overline{X}^{[n]})& \stackrel{\iota _n^{}}{}& H^{}(X^{[n]})\end{array}`$ (5.5)
###### Theorem 5.4.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasi-projective surface with the S-property and numerically trivial canonical class. Then the linear map $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n:H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)H^{}(X^{[n]})`$ is a ring isomorphism, if we use the product $`_1`$ on $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)`$.

###### Proof.

Set $`t=1`$. However, for notational convenience, we will keep writing $`{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭`$ instead of $`{}_{}{}^{1}𝔭`$, etc. The axiomatic approach in \[QW\] shows that the operator $`𝔒_k(\overline{\alpha })\mathrm{End}(_{\overline{X}})`$, where $`\overline{\alpha }H^{}(\overline{X})`$, is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}(\lambda )=k+2,|\lambda |=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda ^!}}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{\lambda }^{}(\tau _{}\overline{\alpha })+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}(\lambda )=k,|\lambda |=0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{s(\lambda )2}{24\lambda ^!}}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{\lambda }^{}(\tau _{}(e_{\overline{X}}\overline{\alpha }))`$ (5.6)
where $`e_{\overline{X}}`$ is the Euler class of $`\overline{X}`$. We remark that no term in (5.6) involves the canonical class $`K_{\overline{X}}`$ of $`\overline{X}`$ in contrast to the formula for $`𝔊_k(\overline{\alpha })`$ in Theorem 2.4.

Let $`ϵ\{K_{\overline{X}},(K_{\overline{X}})^2\},\mathrm{}(\lambda )=k+2|ϵ|/2`$ and $`|\lambda |=0`$. Let $`\overline{\alpha }_iH^{}(\overline{X})`$, $`n_i>0`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$), and $`n_1+\mathrm{}+n_s=n`$. Applying the analogues of Lemma 2.1 (i) to $`{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭`$, we see that the expression $`{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{\lambda }^{}(\tau _{}(ϵ\overline{\alpha })){}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_1}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_s}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_s)|0`$ is a linear combination of Heisenberg monomials of the form

$`{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_1^{}}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_1^{})\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_u^{}}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_u^{})({}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_{u+1}^{}}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_{u+v}^{}}^{})(\tau _v(K_{\overline{X}}\overline{\alpha }^{}))|0`$
where $`v>0`$, $`n_1^{},\mathrm{},n_{u+v}^{}>0`$, and $`n_1^{}+\mathrm{}+n_{u+v}^{}=n`$. From the proof of Lemma 2.5, $`\tau _v(K_{\overline{X}}\overline{\alpha }^{})=_j(K_{\overline{X}}\overline{\alpha }_{1,j}^{\prime \prime })\overline{\alpha }_{2,j}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}\overline{\alpha }_{v,j}^{\prime \prime }`$. Since $`\iota ^{}K_{\overline{X}}=K_X=0`$ by assumption, $`\iota ^{}(K_{\overline{X}}\overline{\alpha }_{1,j}^{\prime \prime })=0`$. By Lemma 4.1, we conclude that

$`\iota _n^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_n\left({}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{\lambda }^{}(\tau _{}(ϵ\overline{\alpha })){}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_1}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_s}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_s)|0\right)=0.`$ (5.7)
Now consider a given Heisenberg monomial $`A=𝔞_{n_1}(\alpha _1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_s}(\alpha _s)|0H^{}(X^{[n]})`$, where $`\alpha _iH^{}(X)`$, $`n_i>0`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$), and $`n_1+\mathrm{}+n_s=n`$. Fix $`\overline{\alpha }_iH^{}(\overline{X})`$ such that $`\iota ^{}(\overline{\alpha }_i)=\alpha _i`$. Put $`P={}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_1}^{}(\alpha _1)\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_s}^{}(\alpha _s)|0`$. Given $`\alpha H^{}(X)`$, we choose $`\overline{\alpha }H^{}(\overline{X})`$ such that $`\iota ^{}(\overline{\alpha })=\alpha `$. We have

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_n(O_k(\alpha ,n)_tP)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_nȷ_n^{}(O_k(\overline{\alpha },n)_t{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_1}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_s}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_s)|0)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }_nȷ_n^{}(𝔒_k(\overline{\alpha }){}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_1}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_s}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_s)|0)`$
$`=`$ $`\iota _n^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_n(𝔒_k(\overline{\alpha }){}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_1}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_s}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_s)|0)`$
where we have used (5.5) and the fact that $`ȷ_n^{}`$ is a ring homomorphism. By (5.6), (5.7) and Theorem 2.4, we get $`\iota _n^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}_n(𝔒_k(\overline{\alpha }){}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_1}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{t}𝔭_{n_s}^{}(\overline{\alpha }_s)|0)=\iota _n^{}(𝔊_k(\overline{\alpha })𝔞_{n_1}(\overline{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_s}(\overline{\alpha }_s)|0)`$. Since $`\iota _n^{}`$ is a ring homomorphism, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_n(O_k(\alpha ,n)_tP)=\iota _n^{}(𝔊_k(\overline{\alpha })𝔞_{n_1}(\overline{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_s}(\overline{\alpha }_s)|0)`$ (5.8)
$`=`$ $`\iota _n^{}(G_k(\overline{\alpha },n)𝔞_{n_1}(\overline{\alpha }_1)\mathrm{}𝔞_{n_s}(\overline{\alpha }_s)|0)=G_k(\alpha ,n)A`$
noting that $`\iota _n^{}G_k(\overline{\alpha },n)=G_k(\alpha ,n)`$ by definition. Letting $`P`$ be the unit of the cohomology ring $`H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n)`$, we obtain from (5.8) that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_n(O_k(\alpha ,n))=G_k(\alpha ,n)`$. Now our theorem follows from (5.8), Theorem 4.4 and Proposition 5.1. ∎

###### Corollary 5.5.

With the same assumptions as in Theorem 5.4, then the structure constant $`a_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}`$ in (4.3) and the structure constant $`p_{\rho _X\sigma _X}^{\nu _X}`$ in (5.4) are equal.

###### Proof.

Follows immediately from (4.3), (5.4) and Theorem 5.4. ∎

###### Remark 5.6.

The analogue to Theorem 5.4 for smooth projective surfaces with numerically trivial canonical class was established in \[LS2, FG, Uri\] and \[QW\]. As pointed out in \[QW\], when the coefficient is taken to be $``$ instead of $``$, there exist explicit ring isomorphisms among the rings $`(H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n;),_t)`$ for nonzero $`t`$. In particular, when combined with Theorem 5.4, this implies that the cohomology ring $`H^{}(X^{[n]};)`$ is isomorphic to the original orbifold cohomology ring $`(H_{\text{orb}}^{}(X^n/S_n;),_1)`$ for smooth quasi-projective surfaces $`X`$ satisfying the S-property and having numerically trivial canonical classes. This further supports Ruan’s conjecture in \[Ru1, Ru2\]. Finally, we notice that there are many examples of smooth quasi-projective surfaces with the S-property and numerically trivial canonical classes, including Example 4.12 and Example 4.13.


text:
# Complete Two Loop Bosonic Contributions to the Muon Lifetime in the Standard Model

## Abstract

The last missing correction to the muon lifetime in the Standard Model at $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$ coming from gauge and Higgs boson loops is presented. The associated contribution to the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ in the on-shell scheme ranges from $`6\times 10^5`$ to $`4\times 10^5`$ for Higgs boson masses from 100 GeV to 1 TeV. This result translates into a shift of the $`W`$ boson mass which does not exceed $`\pm 1`$ MeV in the same range and amounts in particular to approximately $`0.8`$ MeV for a 115 GeV Higgs boson.

The muon decay lifetime ($`\tau _\mu `$) has long been used as an input parameter for high precision predictions of the Standard Model (SM). It allows for an indirect determination of the mass of the $`W`$ boson ($`M_W`$), which suffers currently from a large experimental error of 39 MeV Hagiwara:pw , one order of magnitude worse than that of the $`Z`$ boson mass ($`M_Z`$). A reduction of this error by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to 15 MeV lhctdr  and by a future linear collider to 6 MeV tesla-tdr  would provide a stringent test of the SM by confronting the theoretical prediction with the experimental value.

The extraction of $`M_W`$ with an accuracy matching that of next experiments, i.e. at the level of a few MeV necessitates radiative corrections beyond one loop order. Large two loop contributions from fermionic loops have been calculated in Freitas:2000gg . The current prediction is affected by two types of uncertainties. First, apart from the still unknown Higgs boson mass, two input parameters introduce large errors. The current knowledge of the top quark mass results in an error of about 30 MeV Freitas:2002ja , which should be reduced by LHC to 10 MeV and by a linear collider even down to 1.2 MeV. The inaccuracy of the knowledge of the running of the fine structure constant up to the $`M_Z`$ scale, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (M_Z)`$, introduces a further $`6.5`$ MeV error. Second, several higher order corrections are unknown, of which only one at the $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$ order. This lacking contribution comes from diagrams with no closed fermion loops. It has been previously estimated to be of the order of the square of the one loop bosonic correction Freitas:2000gg . This, however, is unjustified since both have a different dependence on the Higgs boson mass (logarithmic vs. quadratic). In this Letter, the question of the exact size of this contribution is finally settled.

The muon decay is naturally described in the language of effective field theory. The process’ dynamics are driven by the leptons, the five light quarks, and the two massless gauge bosons. Even then the momentum scale set by the muon mass leads to a strong decoupling of the $`\tau `$ lepton and of the heavier of the five quarks vanRitbergen:1998hn . The heavy particles $`W`$, $`Z`$, the Higgs boson and the top quark generate point interactions. A general effective lagrangian assumes the form

$$_{\text{eff}}=_{\text{QED}}+_{\text{QCD}}^{(5)}+\underset{n,i}{}\frac{𝒞_n^i}{(M_W^2)^n}𝒪_n^i,$$
(1)
where $`_{QED}`$ and $`_{QCD}^{(5)}`$ are the bare QED and the five flavour QCD lagrangians, $`𝒪_n^i`$ are composite operators of the light fields and $`𝒞_n^i`$ are the respective dimensionless matching coefficients, obtained by comparing the Green functions of the full theory with those of the effective one. The mass of the $`W`$ boson has been chosen as the heavy scale.

Due to the left-handed nature of the charged current in the SM, the only operator of dimension six relevant to muon decay is the four-fermion interaction of the Fermi model

$$𝒪_F=\overline{e}\gamma ^\alpha (1\gamma _5)\mu \overline{\nu _\mu }\gamma _\alpha (1\gamma _5)\nu _e,$$
(2)
with $`\mu `$, $`e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\nu _e`$ denoting the spinors of the muon, electron and their neutrinos. Here the so called charge-conserving form has been used (Fierz transformed SM amplitude). The respective matching coefficient is traditionally parametrised as

$$𝒞_F=M_W^2\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}=\frac{\pi \alpha }{2s_W^2}(1+\mathrm{\Delta }r),$$
(3)
where $`G_F`$ is known as the Fermi constant, whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ represents the higher order corrections and vanishes at the Born level. The one loop corrections in the effective theory given by Eqs. 12 and 3 have been calculated in Berman:1958ti  and Kinoshita:1958ru , while the two loop in vanRitbergen:1998yd .

The framework for construction of effective lagrangians together with a proof has been given in Gorishnii:dd . It is based on expansions of individual Feynman diagrams. The method is presented on the example of a specific graph contributing to bosonic corrections to muon decay at two loop order in Fig. 1. The terms in the large mass expansion can be classified according to the scale of the loop momenta. When both momenta are “soft” ($`M_W`$), as in b), the propagators of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons are expanded leading to a correction of order $`\alpha /M_W^4`$ in the effective theory. For one momentum “soft” and one “hard” ($`M_W`$), as in c) and d), corrections of either order, $`\alpha /M_W^2`$ or $`1/M_W^4`$ in the effective theory, are generated. The contribution to the matching coefficient comes only from the region where both momenta are hard, as in e). In this case all of the light particle masses and momenta should be put to zero. By these arguments it can be shown that $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ can be obtained by simply taking the sum of all the diagrams and putting all external momenta and light masses to zero. The procedure should generate no spurious infrared divergences, while the physical divergences connected with the photon should be contained in the corrections of the effective theory. As known the Fermi theory corrections are finite, therefore the $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ correction obtained as above should also be finite.

Previous calculations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ have been based on a different method of factorisation originally devised in Sirlin:1980nh . This procedure consists of subtracting from the infrared divergent SM diagrams the respective Fermi theory diagrams in Pauli-Villars regularisation. The difference is well defined in the limit of zero light masses and external momenta. It turns out, however, that the QED Ward identity, which is responsible for the finiteness of the corrections in the Fermi theory, implies in this case the vanishing of the sum of the subtracted diagrams. This proves that both procedures are equivalent.

The evaluation of two loop corrections to a four-fermion process requires the full second order renormalisation of the SM lagrangian in all but the Higgs sector, where first order suffices. The comparison with experiment imposes the use of on-shell parameters for the final result. Throughout this work the on-shell scheme was used, with a procedure similar to the one described in Freitas:2002ja . The only substantial difference concerns the treatment of tadpoles.

It is known that gauge invariance of mass counter-terms requires inclusion of tadpoles appelquist ; tadpole  (at the two loop level this has been explicitely shown in Jegerlehner:2001fb ). In this case, however, one cannot use one-particle-irreducible (1PI) Green functions. In order to have gauge invariant counter-terms and 1PI Green functions only, a special procedure was designed. An additional renormalisation constant for the bare vacuum expectation value $`v_0`$, denoted $`Z_v`$, has been introduced and explicitely split from the bare masses

$`v_0`$ $``$ $`v_0Z_v^{1/2},`$ (4)
$`M_{W,Z}^0`$ $``$ $`M_{W,Z}^0Z_v^{1/2}.`$ (5)
The term linear in the Higgs field $`H`$ in the lagrangian

$$T^0H^0=\frac{M_W^0s_W^0}{e_0}(M_H^0)^2Z_v^{1/2}(Z_v1)H^0,$$
(6)
is then used to determine $`Z_v`$, through the requirement that tadpoles are canceled. It can be proved appelquist ; awramik  that the bare masses are gauge invariant in this case (an equivalent procedure which makes use of the effective potential has been used in bochkarev ).

The calculation of the two loop bosonic contributions to muon decay was performed by means of a completely automated system. The diagram generation stage was done by the C++ library DiaGen czakon . The tensor reduction of two loop propagator diagrams was accomplished with the algorithm described in Weiglein:hd , whereas vacuum diagrams were treated with integration by parts identities Chetyrkin:qh . For algebraic manipulations, the program FORM Vermaseren:2000nd  was used. The two loop two-point integrals were numerically evaluated with single integral representations of the package S2LSE Bauberger:1994by . The latter was modified for quadruple precision, which was needed due to large cancellations (independent terms grow as $`M_H^8`$, while the result behaves as $`M_H^2`$).

The size of the software required several tests. The following algebraic checks were performed

* ultraviolet and infrared finiteness, by cancellation of poles in dimensional regularisation,
* gauge invariance, by independence of the three gauge parameters of the general $`R_\xi `$ gauge for the SM,
* Slavnov-Taylor identities for two-point functions, as given in Weiglein:hd , both for on-shell integrals and by expansion in the external momentum to second order.

Several numerical tests were also done

* all of the master integrals were evaluated independently by means of deep mass difference and large mass expansions,
* each of the two-point on-shell diagrams was calculated separately with the help of small-momentum and different large-mass expansions,
* the result of Jegerlehner:2001fb  for the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ mass counter-terms was reproduced to precision dictated by the order of the expansions contained therein.

A detailed description of the methods used is relegated to a subsequent publication awramik .

The variation of the bosonic contribution with $`M_H`$ subtracted at $`M_H=100`$ GeV has also been compared with the one presented in Freitas:2002ja . A discrepancy which grows up to $`16\%`$ for $`M_H=1`$ TeV, has been found.

All the numerical values have been obtained for the following coupling and mass parameters Hagiwara:pw

$`\alpha ^1=137.03599976(50),`$ (7)
$`G_F=1.16639(1)\times 10^5\text{ GeV}^2,`$
$`M_W=80.423(39)\text{ GeV},`$
$`M_Z=91.1876(21)\text{ GeV}.`$
The two loop bosonic correction to $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$, denoted $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{bos}^{(2)}`$, is shown in Fig. 2 as function of the Higgs boson mass $`M_H`$. Its behaviour is very smooth apart from the range between 150 GeV and 190 GeV, where two peaks are located. Their positions at $`161`$ GeV and $`182`$ GeV correspond to the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ pair production thresholds introduced through the on-shell definition of the Higgs boson mass.

It is interesting to study the correction for large values of $`M_H`$. In fact, two different leading $`M_H^2`$ terms have been given in Halzen:1991ik  and Jegerlehner:1991ed , both based on the same results of vanderBij:1983bw . In this last work a renormalisation scheme has been used in which $`M_H^2`$ terms occur only in two-point functions. The leading behaviour can then be obtained from the formula

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r_{\text{Higgs}}^{(2)}=2\frac{\delta e}{e}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_W^2}{M_W^2}+\frac{c_W^2}{s_W^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_Z^2}{M_Z^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M_W^2}{M_W^2}\mathrm{\Delta }\rho \right),$$
(8)
where $`\delta e`$ is the charge renormalisation and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{W,Z}`$ represent the shift of the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ self energies from zero external momentum up to the on-shell value. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ has been introduced in Ross:1975fq . With the help of vanderBij:1983bw , the result reads

$`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{\text{Higgs}}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi s_W^2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_H^2}{8M_W^2}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left(9\sqrt{3}\text{ Cl}_2({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3}})+{\displaystyle \frac{49}{72}}{\displaystyle \frac{11\pi \sqrt{3}}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{25\pi ^2}{108}}\right),`$
where Cl2 is the Clausen function and Cl$`{}_{2}{}^{}(\pi /3)=1.0149416`$. Eq. Complete Two Loop Bosonic Contributions to the Muon Lifetime  in the Standard Model is in agreement with Halzen:1991ik , whereas in Jegerlehner:1991ed  the charge renormalisation has not been included. The leading Higgs mass dependence is depicted in Fig. 2. The difference between the full result and Eq. Complete Two Loop Bosonic Contributions to the Muon Lifetime  in the Standard Model for values below 1 TeV shows the importance of subleading corrections. It has been checked that for $`M_H>5`$ TeV both functions agree very well.

With the help of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ the $`W`$ boson mass can be estimated by inverting Eq. 3

$$M_W=M_Z\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}\frac{\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}G_FM_Z^2}(1+\mathrm{\Delta }r)}}.$$
(10)
This equation should be solved recursively, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ also depends on $`M_W`$. In the case of small corrections one can, however, obtain the additional mass shift by means of an expansion. For parameters’ values given in Eq. 7, a second order Taylor series yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_W=(1.491+1.779\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }r})\times 10^4\mathrm{\Delta }r_{bos}^{(2)}\text{ [MeV]},$$
(11)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }r}`$ represents the dominating correction, which is composed of one loop electroweak, two loop fermionic and $`𝒪(\alpha \alpha _S)`$ QCD contributions. Since $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }r}`$ does not exceed 5% Freitas:2002ja , the third order in the Taylor series would contribute less than a percent which is comparable to the inaccuracy induced by the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{bos}^{(2)}`$ on the $`W`$ mass.

The $`W`$ mass shift, Eq. 11, with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }r}`$ neglected, is plotted in Fig. 3. The dropped term implies an error of less than 6%, which is, however, completely negligible in view of the size of the total effect, which does never exceed $`\pm 1`$ MeV.

In conclusion, the complete $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$ bosonic contributions to muon decay have been calculated in the on-shell scheme, and shown to lead to a small $`W`$ boson mass shift below 1 MeV. A framework for evaluation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ which does not explicitely refer to the QED corrections in the Fermi theory has been presented and its equivalence to the method based on subtraction of Pauli-Villars regulated diagrams demonstrated. A procedure of obtaining gauge invariant mass counter-terms without explicitely including tadpole graphs has been developed.

The authors would like to thank K. Chetyrkin, O. Veretin and A. Onishchenko for fruitful discussions and A. Freitas for providing the results of Freitas:2002ja . M. A. would like to thank the “Marie Curie Programme” of the European Commission for a stipend. M. C. would like to thank the Alexander von Humboldt foundation for fellowship. This work was supported in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149 Physics at Colliders, and by the KBN Grants 5P03B09320 and 2P03B05418.