text:
# A geometric interpretation and a new proof of a relation by Cornalba and Harris

## 1. Introduction

###### 1.1.

*Mumford’s relation and Faber’s idea.* Let $`\overline{M}_g`$ be the moduli space of (Deligne-Mumford) stable curves of genus $`g`$, and $`\text{Pic}(\overline{M}_g)`$ its Picard group; see  and . Natural classes of $`\text{Pic}(\overline{M}_g)`$ are the Hodge class $`\lambda `$ and the boundary classes $`\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _{[g/2]}`$; see . It is a fundamental result by J. Harer, E. Arbarello and M. Cornalba that the above classes freely generate $`\text{Pic}(\overline{M}_g)`$ for each $`g3`$; see  and . However, for $`g=2`$ there is the relation below, proved by D. Mumford in his fundamental paper ,

(1)
$$10\lambda \delta _02\delta _1=0.$$

Mumford’s relation (1) was recovered by S. Diaz and F. Cukierman in  and , though they do not observe it there. In fact, Diaz considers the locus $`D_{g1,g1}\overline{M}_g`$ of smooth curves having a (Weierstrass) point whose first non-zero non-gap is at most $`g1`$, and computes the class of its closure in $`\text{Pic}(\overline{M}_g)`$ (, Thm. (7.4), p. 40). Similarly, Cukierman computes the class of the closure of the locus $`\overline{}_{}`$ of smooth curves having a global holomorphic 1-form vanishing at a (Weierstrass) point with order at least $`g+1`$ (, Eq. (5.5), p. 344 and Rmk. (b) thereafter). Both Diaz and Cukierman claim their formulas hold for $`g3`$. However, we observed that their formulas hold for $`g=2`$ as well, and give Mumford’s relation (1). Indeed, for $`g=2`$ both $`D_{1,1}`$ and $``$ are empty, and so the formulas given by Diaz and Cukierman express the class of the empty set, 0, as a linear combination of $`\lambda `$, $`\delta _0`$ and $`\delta _1`$. In both cases, this linear combination is a non-zero multiple of that in (1).

Therefore, Mumford’s relation (1) fits perfectly in C. Faber’s philosophy to finding relations among tautological classes in Chow rings of moduli spaces of curves by writing down classes of “appropriate” empty sets; see . The beauty in Faber’s idea is that relations discovered by his approach are endowed with geometric interpretations.

Now, let $`H_g\overline{M}_g`$ be the locus of smooth, hyperelliptic curves, and $`\overline{H}_g\overline{M}_g`$ its closure. A stable curve represented in $`\overline{H}_g`$ is also called hyperelliptic. Of course, each smooth curve of genus 2 is hyperelliptic, hence $`\overline{H}_2=\overline{M}_2`$. So we may view Mumford’s relation as one in $`\text{Pic}(\overline{H}_2)`$. In general, M. Cornalba and J. Harris proved in  the theorem below; see also Subsection 6C of .

###### Theorem 1.2.

(Cornalba-Harris) The following relation holds in $`\text{Pic}(\overline{H}_g)`$:

(2)
$$(8g+4)\lambda g\xi _0\underset{i=1}{\overset{[(g1)/2]}{}}2(i+1)(gi)\xi _i\underset{j=1}{\overset{[g/2]}{}}4j(gj)\delta _j=0.$$

In the above statement, $`\xi _0,\mathrm{},\xi _{[(g1)/2]}`$ are boundary classes satisfying the relation below; see Sections 3 and 4.

(3)
$$\delta _0\xi _02(\xi _1+\mathrm{}+\xi _{[(g1)/2]})=0.$$

For $`g=2`$, Cornalba’s and Harris’ relation (2) coincides with Mumford’s (1).

Cornalba and Harris found (2) by computing the degree of $`\lambda `$ for one-parameter families of admissible covers. Now, our observation above suggests that, like Mumford’s, also Cornalba’s and Harris’ relation might be obtained by expressing the class of an “appropriate” empty set, thus shedding light on its geometric significance. As in the works by Diaz and Cukierman, the “appropriate” empty set might be the locus of curves having a certain type of Weierstrass point. Indeed, the goal of the present article is to show that *a non-zero multiple of the left-hand side of (2) expresses the class in $`\text{Pic}(\overline{H}_g)`$ of the closure $`\overline{W}_{g,2}`$ of the locus $`W_{g,2}\overline{H}_g`$ of smooth, hyperelliptic curves for which the unique $`g_2^1`$ has a special ramification point*.

###### 1.3.

*An overview.* As Cornalba and Harris in , we will rather work with the moduli stack $`\overline{}_g`$ of stable, hyperelliptic curves of genus $`g`$, and show relation (2) in $`\text{Pic}(\overline{}_g)`$. In other words, we will consider a family $`\pi :CS`$ of stable, hyperelliptic curves and show that the induced classes $`\lambda _\pi `$, $`\xi _{1,\pi },\mathrm{},\xi _{[(g1)/2],\pi }`$ and $`\delta _{1,\pi },\mathrm{},\delta _{[g/2],\pi }`$ in $`\text{Pic}(S)`$ satisfy the relation

(4)
$$(8g+4)\lambda _\pi g\xi _{0,\pi }\underset{i=1}{\overset{[(g1)/2]}{}}2(i+1)(gi)\xi _{i,\pi }\underset{j=1}{\overset{[g/2]}{}}4j(gj)\delta _{j,\pi }=0.$$

We will see that it is sufficient to consider a particular family $`\pi :CS`$ where $`S`$ is a smooth, projective curve, the general fiber of $`\pi `$ is smooth and admits a $`g_2^1`$, and the singular fibers are “general enough”; see Section 4. So let us assume $`\pi `$ is this family.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{C}S`$ be the semi-stable reduction of $`\pi `$. In Section 5 we consider the wronskian determinant $`w`$ of a certain relative $`g_2^1`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$, and use the theory of limit linear series developed in  to compute the orders of vanishing of $`w`$ on the irreducible components of the singular fibers of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$. Subtracting these irreducible components with the computed multiplicities, we obtain a section $`\overline{w}`$ of a line bundle on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ cutting out a relative Cartier divisor $`\overline{W}`$ over $`S`$. Now, as in  (see also ), we consider in Section 6 the degeneracy locus $`Z`$ of the derivative $`D\overline{w}`$ of $`\overline{w}`$. This locus is empty, as we show that $`\overline{W}`$ is unramified over $`S`$ for the particular family $`\pi `$ we consider. Since $`Z`$ has the expected dimension, the class of $`[Z]`$ coincides with the degeneracy class of $`D\overline{w}`$, what allows us to compute an expression for $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}[Z]`$ in terms of $`\lambda _\pi `$, $`\xi _{1,\pi },\mathrm{},\xi _{[(g1)/2],\pi }`$ and $`\delta _{1,\pi },\mathrm{},\delta _{[g/2],\pi }`$. This expression is the class in $`\text{Pic}(S)`$ of the closure of the set of points $`sS`$ for which the fiber $`C_s`$ is smooth and has a special ramification point for its unique $`g_2^1`$. This set is empty, and the expression is a multiple of the left-hand side of (4). Thus (4) is proved.

In Section 2 we exemplify our method by showing (1). This is simpler than showing (2), because all the singular curves we have to deal with are either irreducible or of compact type, and hence we may apply results by Diaz and Cukierman in  and . So, not only are the technical tools kept to a minimum, but also are available in the literature. To conform to the technical tools available, the proof in Section 2 is just slightly different from the one laid out above.

###### 1.4.

*Acknowledgements.* This collaboration began during the second author’s visit to IMPA in February, 2000, and was concluded during the first author’s visit to UFPe in June of the same year. Both institutions are warmly thanked.

## 2. Mumford’s relation

###### 2.1.

*Reduction.* Let $`\pi :CS`$ be a family of stable curves of genus $`g`$. Denote by $`𝜔_\pi `$ its relative dualizing sheaf. The direct image $`E_\pi :=\pi _{}𝜔_\pi `$ is called the *Hodge bundle* of $`\pi `$. Let $`\lambda _\pi :=c_1(E_\pi )`$ in $`\text{Pic}(S)`$. For each invertible sheaf $``$ on $`C`$, let $`J_\pi ^1()`$ be the *sheaf of relative jets*, or principal parts of order 1 of $``$; see Section 2 of  or . As for families of smooth curves, there is a natural exact sequence,

(5)
$$0𝜔_\pi 𝒥_\pi ^\mathcal{1}()\mathcal{0}.$$

If $`S`$ and the general fiber of $`\pi `$ are smooth curves then the singularities of the total space $`C`$ of $`\pi `$ are concentrated at the nodes of the singular fibers and are mild. More precisely, the surface $`C`$ has at each node $`P`$ of each singular fiber of $`\pi `$ a singularity of type $`A_k`$ for a certain integer $`k`$, called the *singularity type of $`P`$ in $`C`$*. Then $`C`$ is smooth if and only if the singularity type in $`C`$ of every node of every singular fiber of $`\pi `$ is 1.

Using level structures, one can show that there is a family of stable curves over a smooth base $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ represented by a finite and surjective map $`\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{M}_g`$; see  or . Hence, to show a relation among classes in $`\text{Pic}(\overline{M}_g)`$, it is enough to prove that for a “sufficiently general” one-parameter family of stable curves the induced classes satisfy the corresponding relation.

Assume $`g=2`$ for the rest of Section 2. Let $`\pi :CS`$ be an one-parameter family of stable curves of genus 2. Assume $`\pi `$ is “sufficiently general”. More precisely, assume $`S`$ and the general fiber of $`\pi `$ are smooth curves, and each of the singular fibers of $`\pi `$ is a general uninodal curve; in particular, each fiber of $`\pi `$ has at most two irreducible components. To prove (1) we need only show that the classes $`\lambda _\pi ,\delta _{0,\pi },\delta _{1,\pi }`$ in $`\text{Pic}(S)`$ induced by $`\lambda ,\delta _0,\delta _1`$ satisfy

(6)
$$10\lambda _\pi \delta _{0,\pi }2\delta _{1,\pi }=0.$$

For each $`sS`$ such that $`C_s`$ is singular, let $`k_s`$ be the singularity type in $`C`$ of the unique node of $`C_s`$. For each $`i=0,1`$, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,\pi }`$ be the set of points $`sS`$ for which the fiber $`C_s`$ is singular with $`i+1`$ irreducible components. Then $`\delta _{i,\pi }`$ is the divisor class of points $`s\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,\pi }`$ counted each with multiplicity $`k_s`$; see Section 3D of .

###### 2.2.

*Computation.* Let $`w`$ be the section of the line bundle $`𝜔_\pi ^3\pi ^{}^2E_\pi ^{}`$ obtained by taking determinants in the natural map of vector bundles $`\pi ^{}E_\pi J_\pi ^1(𝜔_\pi )`$. The zero scheme $`W`$ of $`w`$ cuts each smooth fiber of $`\pi `$ in the scheme of Weierstrass points of that fiber. Using the local computations by Cukierman for Prop. (2.0.8) on p. 325 of , we see that $`w`$ vanishes along each irreducible component of $`C_s`$ for each $`s\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,\pi }`$ with order $`k_s`$. Let $`\overline{w}`$ be the induced section of $`𝜔_\pi ^3\pi ^{}(^2E_\pi ^{}(D))`$, where $`D:=_{s\mathrm{\Delta }_1}k_s[s]`$. Let $`\overline{W}`$ be the zero scheme of $`\overline{w}`$. Then $`\overline{W}`$ is a relative Cartier divisor on $`C`$ over $`S`$. By considerations of degree, away from possible nodes the divisor $`\overline{W}`$ cuts each fiber $`C_s`$ for each $`sS`$ transversally. By Theorem (A2.4) on page 64 of , for each $`s\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,\pi }`$ the divisor $`\overline{W}`$ cuts the fiber $`C_s`$ away from the node. In contrast, by Theorem (A2.1) on page 60 of , the divisor $`\overline{W}`$ cuts the fiber $`C_s`$ for each $`s\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,\pi }`$ with multiplicity 2 at the node.

Let $`Z`$ be the degeneracy locus of the derivative $`D\overline{w}`$ of $`\overline{w}`$. Here $`D\overline{w}`$ is the section of

(7)
$$J_\pi ^1(𝜔_\pi ^3\pi ^{}(^2E_\pi ^{}(D)))$$

induced by $`\overline{w}`$ (see  or  for this construction). Since $`\overline{W}`$ is a Cartier divisor cutting the fiber $`C_s`$ for each $`s\mathrm{\Delta }_{0,\pi }`$ with multiplicity 2 at the node, a local computation shows that the length of $`Z`$ at the node is $`k_s`$. As $`Z`$ is supported in the union of these nodes, we have $`\pi _{}[Z]=\delta _{0,\pi }`$. Now, as the degeneracy locus of $`D\overline{w}`$ has the expected dimension zero, the class of $`[Z]`$ is the second Chern class of the bundle in (7). So

$`\pi _{}[Z]=`$ $`\pi _{}[(3c_1(𝜔_\pi )\pi ^{}(\lambda _\pi +\delta _{\pi ,1}))(4c_1(𝜔_\pi )\pi ^{}(\lambda _\pi +\delta _{\pi ,1}))]`$
$`=`$ $`\pi _{}[12c_1(𝜔_\pi )^27c_1(𝜔_\pi )\pi ^{}(\lambda _\pi +\delta _{1,\pi })].`$
By Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch, $`\pi _{}(c_1(𝜔_\pi )^2)=12\lambda _\pi \delta _{0,\pi }\delta _{1,\pi }`$; see Section 3E of  or Theorem 5.10 on page 100 of . By the projection formula, $`\pi _{}(c_1(𝜔_\pi )\pi ^{}\mu )=2\mu `$ for every $`\mu \text{Pic}(S)`$. Hence,

$$\pi _{}[Z]=12(12\lambda _\pi \delta _{0,\pi }\delta _{1,\pi })14(\lambda _\pi +\delta _{1,\pi })=130\lambda _\pi 12\delta _{0,\pi }26\delta _{\pi ,1},$$

and thus the difference $`\pi _{}[Z]\delta _{0,\pi }`$ is a multiple of the left-hand side of (6). Since $`\pi _{}[Z]=\delta _{0,\pi }`$ we get (6), thus proving Mumford’s relation (1).

## 3. The Picard group

###### 3.1.

*The Picard group of $`\overline{M}_g`$.* (See  or .) Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\overline{M}_g`$ be the closure of the locus of irreducible, uninodal, stable curves. For each $`i=1,\mathrm{},[g/2]`$, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i\overline{M}_g`$ be the closure of the locus of uninodal, stable curves with two irreducible components, one of them of genus $`i`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_{[g/2]}`$ are divisors of $`\overline{M}_g`$ covering $`\overline{M}_gM_g`$.

Let $`\overline{}_g`$ be the moduli stack of stable curves and $`\text{Pic}(\overline{}_g)`$ its group of divisor classes. Each divisor class on $`\overline{M}_g`$ defines, by pullback, one on $`\overline{}_g`$. So, there is a well-defined homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }:\text{Pic}(\overline{M}_g)\text{Pic}(\overline{}_g)`$. Moreover, one can show that $`\mathrm{\Psi }1_{}`$ is an isomorphism.

There is a class $`\lambda \text{Pic}(\overline{}_g)`$ whose pullback to $`\text{Pic}(S)`$ for each family $`\pi :CS`$ of stable curves is the class $`\lambda _\pi `$ defined in Subsection 2.1. We call $`\lambda `$ the *Hodge class*. In addition, as the universal deformation space of a stable curve is smooth, for each $`i=0,\mathrm{},[g/2]`$ the divisor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ induces a divisor class $`\delta _i`$ in $`\text{Pic}(\overline{}_g)`$. We call $`\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _{[g/2]}`$ the *boundary classes*. Denote also by $`\lambda ,\delta _0,\mathrm{}\delta _{[g/2]}`$ the corresponding classes in $`\text{Pic}(\overline{M}_g)`$ under the isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }1_{}`$.

###### 3.2.

*The Picard group of $`\overline{H}_g`$.* (See  or Section 6C of .) The locus $`\overline{H}_g`$ is the quotient of the Hurwitz scheme of admissible covers of degree 2 by the action of the symmetric group on $`2g+2`$ letters. Moreover, the latter scheme is the same thing as the moduli space $`\overline{M}_{0,2g+2}`$ of stable $`(2g+2)`$-pointed rational curves. The moduli space $`\overline{M}_{0,2g+2}`$ is fine, smooth and projective.

The above description of $`\overline{H}_g`$ implies that $`\overline{H}_gH_g`$ has exactly $`g`$ irreducible components $`\mathrm{\Xi }_0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Xi }_{[(g1)/2]}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Theta }_{[g/2]}`$, all of them divisors of $`\overline{H}_g`$, given as follows:

1. The component $`\mathrm{\Xi }_0`$ is the closure of the locus of curves obtained from a smooth, hyperelliptic curve of genus $`g1`$ by identifying two distinct points conjugated by the hyperelliptic involution.
2. For each $`i=0,\mathrm{},[(g1)/2]`$, the component $`\mathrm{\Xi }_i`$ is the closure of the locus of curves with just two irreducible components of genera $`i`$ and $`g1i`$ which are smooth, hyperelliptic, and intersect transversally at just two distinct points conjugated by the hyperelliptic involution on each curve.
3. For each $`j=1,\mathrm{},[g/2]`$, the component $`\mathrm{\Theta }_j`$ is the closure of the locus of curves with just two irreducible components of genera $`j`$ and $`gj`$ which are smooth, hyperelliptic, and intersect transversally at a unique point fixed by the hyperelliptic involution on each curve.

As for stable curves, there is a natural isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\text{Pic}(\overline{H}_g)\text{Pic}(\overline{}_g)`$, where $`\overline{}_g`$ is the moduli stack of stable, hyperelliptic curves of genus $`g`$. As pointed out on page 469 of , since the universal deformation space of a stable, hyperelliptic curve within hyperelliptic curves is smooth, for each $`i=0,\mathrm{},[(g1)/2]`$ the divisor $`\mathrm{\Xi }_i`$ induces a divisor class $`\xi _i`$ in $`\text{Pic}(\overline{}_g)`$. Denote also by $`\xi _i`$ the corresponding rational divisor class in $`\overline{H}_g`$ under the isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Though improperly, we shall also denote by $`\lambda ,\delta _0,\mathrm{},\delta _{[g/2]}`$ the pullbacks to $`\overline{H}_g`$ or $`\overline{}_g`$ of the corresponding classes in $`\overline{M}_g`$ or $`\overline{}_g`$. Then relation (3) is simply a restatement of the identity (4.6) on page 469 of . Relation (3) is also recovered in Section 4 below.

## 4. Reduction

The natural map $`\overline{M}_{0,2g+2}\overline{H}_g`$ is finite and surjective. So, the pullback homomorphism,

$$\text{Pic}(\overline{H}_g)\text{Pic}(\overline{M}_{0,2g+2}),$$

is injective. Since $`\overline{M}_{0,2g+2}`$ is smooth and projective, there is a smooth curve $`T\overline{M}_{2g+2}`$ such that the left-hand sides of (2) and (3) pull back to zero on $`\overline{M}_{0,2g+2}`$ only if they pull back to zero on $`T`$. Since $`\overline{M}_{0,2g+2}`$ is a fine moduli space, there are a family $`R/T`$ of rational, nodal curves and sections $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _{2g+2}`$ of the smooth locus of $`R/T`$ representing the inclusion $`T\overline{M}_{0,2g+2}`$. The curve $`T`$ may be chosen “general enough” so that $`R`$ is smooth and each singular fiber of $`R/T`$ is uninodal.

Let $`T_0`$ (resp. $`T_1`$, resp. $`T_2`$) be the subset of points $`tT`$ for which $`R_t`$ is singular and one of its irreducible components contains two (resp. an odd number, resp. an even number) of the points $`\zeta _1(t),\mathrm{},\zeta _{2g+2}(t)`$. We can construct a smooth curve $`S`$ and a finite covering $`\gamma :ST`$ of degree 2 ramified along $`T_1`$ but unramified along $`T_0T_2`$; see Lecture 3 in  for the theory of cyclic coverings. Put $`Q:=R\times _TS`$ and $`S_i:=\gamma ^1(T_i)`$ for each $`i=0,1,2`$. Let $`B`$ be the blow-up of $`Q`$ along the nodes of the fibers $`Q_s`$ for all $`sS_1`$. Then $`B`$ is smooth. For each $`sS_1`$, let $`E_s`$ be the rational curve on $`B`$ contracting to a point on the fiber $`Q_s`$. For each $`i=1,\mathrm{},2g+2`$, as $`\zeta _i`$ is a section of $`Y/T`$ through its smooth locus, $`\zeta _i\times 1_S:SQ`$ factors through the blow-up map $`BQ`$; let $`\tau _i`$ denote this section of $`B/S`$. Note that $`\tau _i(S)E_s=\mathrm{}`$ for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},2g+2`$ and each $`sS_1`$. So the divisor $`D`$ defined below is reduced.

$$D:=\underset{i=0}{\overset{2g+2}{}}\tau _i(S)+\underset{sS_1}{}E_s.$$

Moreover, $`D`$ is smooth, and its restriction to each irreducible component of each fiber of $`B/S`$ has even degree. So, we can construct a smooth surface $`M`$ and a finite covering $`MB`$ of degree 2 ramified along $`D`$. For each $`sS_1`$, let $`F_s`$ be the rational curve on $`M`$ lying over $`E_s`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ be the surface obtained from $`M`$ by contracting $`F_s`$ for all $`sS_1`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{C}S`$ the induced map. Since $`F_s`$ has self-intersection $`1`$, the surface $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is smooth. Finally, let $`C`$ be the surface obtained from $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ by contracting all rational curves contained in the fibers over $`S_0`$. Then the induced map $`\pi :CS`$ is a family of stable, hyperelliptic curves representing the composition $`\beta :ST\overline{M}_{0,2g+2}\overline{H}_g`$.

For each $`i=1,\mathrm{},2g+2`$, the section $`\tau _i`$ factors through the covering $`MB`$ because the latter is ramified along $`\tau _i(S)`$; let $`\sigma _i`$ denote this section of $`M/S`$. Then $`\sigma _i`$ induces a section of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$; let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ denote the image of this section in $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. It follows from our construction that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ is contained in the smooth locus of $`\stackrel{~}{C}/S`$.

Put $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`:=𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒞}}(\mathcal{2}\mathcal{\Sigma })`$. Let $`\overline{W}:=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2g+2}`$. Then $`\overline{W}`$ is flat over $`S`$, and intersects each smooth fiber of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ in the ramification scheme of the complete linear system of sections of the restriction of $``$ to that fiber.

From now on to the end of the article, fix $`\pi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ as above. Since $`\gamma :ST`$ is finite and surjective, the pullback map $`\gamma ^{}:\text{Pic}(T)\text{Pic}(S)`$ is injective. Hence, (2) holds only if (4) holds, whereas (3) holds only if

(8)
$$\delta _{0,\pi }\xi _{0,\pi }2(\xi _{1,\pi }+\mathrm{}+\xi _{[(g1)/2],\pi })=0.$$

For each $`i=0,\mathrm{},[(g1)/2]`$ and each $`j=1,\mathrm{},[g/2]`$, denote $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{i,\pi }:=\beta ^1(\mathrm{\Xi }_i)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,\pi }:=\beta ^1(\mathrm{\Theta }_j)`$ with their reduced induced structures. Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi :=\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,\pi }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{[g/2],\pi }\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Xi }_\pi :=\mathrm{\Xi }_{0,\pi }\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Xi }_{[(g1)/2],\pi }.$$

Put $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi :=\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi \mathrm{\Xi }_\pi `$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$ consists of the points $`sS`$ for which the fiber $`C_s`$ is singular. By construction, $`C`$ is smooth everywhere but at the nodes of the fibers of $`\pi `$ over $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{0,\pi }`$, where $`C`$ has singularities of type $`A_2`$. It follows that

(9) $`\xi _{0,\pi }=`$ $`2[\mathrm{\Xi }_{0,\pi }]\text{and}\xi _{i,\pi }=[\mathrm{\Xi }_{i,\pi }]\text{for }i=1,\mathrm{},[(g1)/2],`$
(10) $`\delta _{0,\pi }=`$ $`2[\mathrm{\Xi }_\pi ]\text{and}\delta _{j,\pi }=[\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,\pi }]\text{for }j=1,\mathrm{},[g/2].`$
Relation (8) follows immediately from the above expressions. Hence (3) holds.

## 5. Limit linear systems and ramification divisors

###### 5.1.

*Limit linear systems.* For each $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$, let $`X_s`$ and $`Y_s`$ be the irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_s`$, chosen such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_sX_s`$. Let $`a_s`$ and $`b_s`$ be the genera of $`X_s`$ and $`Y_s`$, respectively.

By  or , there are unique (mod $`\mathrm{Pic}(S)`$) invertible sheaves $``$ and $`𝒦`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ which agree with $``$ on the generic fiber of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ and satisfy the properties below for each $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$:

1. The natural maps $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(𝓈)^\mathcal{0}(|𝒳_𝓈)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒦(𝓈)^\mathcal{0}(𝒦|𝒴_𝓈)`$ are injective.
2. The natural maps $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(𝓈)^\mathcal{0}(|𝒴_𝓈)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒦(𝓈)^\mathcal{0}(𝒦|𝒳_𝓈)`$ are non-zero.

The sheaves $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒦`$ are generically of rank 2. Moreover, they are torsion-free because $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is flat. So, they are locally free of rank 2 because $`S`$ is smooth.

Let $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$. By Properties 1 and 2 above, the restriction of $``$ to either $`X_s`$ or $`Y_s`$ has non-negative degree. Suppose first that $`X_s`$ is not rational. Then $`\mathrm{deg}|𝒳_𝓈\mathcal{2}`$ because $`dim\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(𝓈)=\mathcal{2}`$. Now, $``$ has total degree 2, as it agrees with $``$ on the generic fiber of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{deg}|𝒳_𝓈=\mathcal{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}|𝒴_𝓈=\mathcal{0}`$.

Now, suppose $`X_s`$ is rational. Then $`Y_s`$ is not rational, and hence $`\mathrm{deg}𝒦|𝒳_𝓈=\mathcal{0}`$ by analogy with the case above. Since $``$ and $`𝒦`$ agree on the generic fiber of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$, there is an integer $`\mathrm{}`$ such that $``$ agrees with $`𝒦(\mathrm{}𝒴_𝓈)`$ on a neighborhood of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_s`$. Since $`\mathrm{deg}𝒦|𝒳_𝓈=\mathcal{0}`$, it follows from Property 1 that $`\mathrm{}>0`$. Now, since $`X_s`$ is rational, we have $`s\mathrm{\Xi }_{0,\pi }`$ and, in particular, $`X_sY_s=2`$. So $`\mathrm{deg}|𝒳_𝓈\mathcal{2}`$ because $`\mathrm{}>0`$. As before, $`\mathrm{deg}|𝒳_𝓈=\mathcal{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}|𝒴_𝓈=\mathcal{0}`$.

By analogy, $`\mathrm{deg}𝒦|𝒳_𝓈=\mathcal{0}`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}𝒦|𝒴_𝓈=\mathcal{2}`$.

Since $``$ and $``$ agree on the generic fiber of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$, and restrict to sheaves of equal degree on each irreducible component of each singular fiber, $``$ and $``$ agree mod $`\text{Pic}(S)`$. We may assume that $`=`$. By the same reason, we may assume that

(11)
$$𝒦=(\underset{𝓈\mathcal{\Xi }_\pi }{}𝒴_𝓈\mathcal{2}\underset{𝓈\mathcal{\Delta }_\pi }{}𝒴_𝓈).$$

If $`sS`$ is such that $`C_s`$ is smooth, then $`_𝓈^\mathcal{1}=𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi },𝓈}`$. Now, for each $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$,

$$\mathrm{deg}𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}|Y_s=\{\begin{array}{cc}2b_s\hfill & \text{if }s\mathrm{\Xi }_\pi ,\hfill \\ 2b_s1\hfill & \text{if }s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi .\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`\mathrm{deg}|𝒴_𝓈=\mathcal{0}`$, by considerations of degree,

(12)
$$^{g1}=𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}(\underset{s\mathrm{\Xi }_\pi }{}b_sY_s+\underset{s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi }{}(2b_s1)Y_s)\text{(mod }\text{Pic}(S)\text{)}.$$

###### 5.2.

*Ramification divisors.* Let $`W`$ be the ramification divisor associated to $``$ and $`W^{}`$ that associated to $`𝒦`$. In other words, $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$ are the degeneracy schemes of the natural maps $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^\mathcal{1}()`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒦𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^\mathcal{1}(𝒦)`$, respectively. Then $`\overline{W}`$ agrees with $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$ away from the singular fibers of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$. Moreover, by Property 1 of Subsection 5.1, neither $`X_s`$ is contained in the support of $`W`$, nor $`Y_s`$ is contained in the support of $`W^{}`$.

###### Proposition 5.3.

The following expression holds:

(13)
$$\overline{W}=W\underset{s\mathrm{\Xi }_\pi }{}Y_s2\underset{s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi }{}Y_s.$$

###### Proof.

Let

(14)
$$𝒥:=(\underset{𝓈\mathcal{\Gamma }_\pi }{}𝒴_𝓈).$$

Let $`w`$, $`w^{}`$ and $`w^{}`$ be the respective determinants of the natural maps,

$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^\mathcal{1}(),\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒥𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^\mathcal{1}(𝒥)\text{and}\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒦𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^\mathcal{1}(𝒦).$$

The zero scheme of $`w`$ is $`W`$ and that of $`w^{}`$ is $`W^{}`$. Let $`W^{}`$ be the zero scheme of $`w^{}`$.

As observed in Subsection 5.1, we have $`=`$. By (11) and (14), there is a sequence of inclusions $`𝒦𝒥`$, which induces the commutative diagram below.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}det\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒦& & \stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}det\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒥& & \stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}det\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}\\ w^{}& & w^{}& & w& & \\ 𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}𝒦^2& \stackrel{2_{s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi }Y_s}{}& 𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}𝒥^2& \stackrel{2_{s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi }Y_s}{}& 𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^2.\end{array}$$

The horizontal maps above are injective, so we will view them as inclusions. By Property 2 of Subsection 5.1, there is a local section of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}`$ that is not zero on $`Y_s`$. Now, $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}`$ has rank 2. Since $`\mathrm{deg}|𝒴_𝓈=\mathcal{0}`$, there is also a local section of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}`$ that vanishes on $`Y_s`$. So

(15)
$$det\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒥=(det\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{})(\mathcal{\Gamma }_\pi ).$$

Now, by (11) and (14),

$$𝒥\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}𝒪_𝒮(\mathcal{\Delta }_\pi )=𝒦(\underset{𝓈\mathcal{\Delta }_\pi }{}𝒳_𝓈).$$

Hence, by analogy with (15),

(16)
$$det\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒦=(det\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒥)(\mathcal{\Delta }_\pi ).$$

Since the two squares in the above diagram are commutative, (15) and (16) imply

$$W+\underset{s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi }{}X_s=W^{}+\underset{s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi }{}Y_s\text{and}W^{}+\underset{s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi }{}X_s=W^{}+\underset{s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi }{}Y_s,$$

and hence

(17)
$$W\underset{s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi }{}Y_s\underset{s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi }{}Y_s=W^{}\underset{s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi }{}X_s\underset{s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi }{}X_s$$

as divisors on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Both sides of (17) are effective because $`X_s`$ and $`Y_s`$ are distinct for each $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$. Moreover, since $`X_s`$ is not in the support of $`W`$ and $`Y_s`$ is not in the support of $`W^{}`$ for each $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$, neither $`X_s`$ nor $`Y_s`$ is in the support of either side of (17). So the right-hand side of (13) is a relative Cartier divisor on $`\stackrel{~}{C}/S`$. As both sides of (13) are relative Cartier divisors and agree on the generic fiber of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$, they agree everywhere. ∎

## 6. Proof of the theorem

###### 6.1.

*Preliminaries.* Let $`D\overline{w}:𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}J_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^1(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\overline{W}))`$ be the derivative of the section $`\overline{w}`$ of $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\overline{W})`$ given by $`\overline{W}`$. Since $`\overline{W}`$ is the disjoint union of subschemes isomorphic to $`S`$, the zero scheme $`Z`$ of $`D\overline{w}`$ is empty. Since $`Z`$ has the expected dimension, $`[Z]=c_2(J_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^1(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\overline{W})))`$. From exact sequence (5) with $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ for $`\pi `$ and $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\overline{W})`$ for $``$ we get

$$c_2(J_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^1(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\overline{W})))=c_1(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\overline{W}))c_1(𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\overline{W})).$$

Let $`K:=c_1(𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }})`$. Since $`W`$ is the zero scheme of a map $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}det\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^\mathcal{2}`$, we have $`W=K+2c_1()\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}𝒸_\mathcal{1}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{})`$. From (13) we get

(18)
$$\overline{W}=K+D\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}c_1(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}),\text{where}𝒟:=\mathcal{2}𝒸_\mathcal{1}()\underset{𝓈\mathcal{\Xi }_\pi }{}𝒴_𝓈\mathcal{2}\underset{𝓈\mathcal{\Delta }_\pi }{}𝒴_𝓈.$$

By (12), there is an invertible sheaf $`N`$ on $`S`$ such that

(19)
$$(g1)c_1()=𝒦+\underset{𝓈\mathcal{\Xi }_\pi }{}𝒷_𝓈𝒴_𝓈+\underset{𝓈\mathcal{\Delta }_\pi }{}(\mathcal{2}𝒷_𝓈\mathcal{1})𝒴_𝓈+\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}𝒸_\mathcal{1}(𝒩).$$

###### 6.2.

*Computing $`c_1(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{})`$.* By definition, $`=𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒞}}(\mathcal{2}\mathcal{\Sigma })`$. We claim that $`(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(s),_s)`$ has no base points for any $`sS`$. This is well-known for $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$. Let now $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$. Since $`\overline{M}_{0,2g+2}`$ parameterizes *stable* $`2g+2`$-pointed rational curves, there is an integer $`i>1`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i,s}X_s`$. As $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(2\mathrm{\Sigma }_i)`$ and $``$ agree on the generic fiber of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$, and restrict to sheaves of equal degree on the irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_s`$, they agree on a neighborhood of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_s`$. So $`2\mathrm{\Sigma }_s`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i,s}`$ are divisors of the linear system $`(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(s),_s)`$, which has therefore no base points.

It follows from our claim above that the natural sequence below is exact.

$$0\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\mathrm{\Sigma })\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(2\mathrm{\Sigma })\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(2\mathrm{\Sigma })|\mathrm{\Sigma }0.$$

So $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is invertible on $`S`$. Now, the natural inclusion $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒞}}(\mathcal{\Sigma })`$ pushes down to a map $`𝒪_S\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ whose restriction to each point of $`S`$ is injective. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is invertible, $`𝒪_S=\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. So, it follows from the above exact sequence that

$$c_1(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{})=𝒸_\mathcal{1}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒞}}(\mathcal{2}\mathcal{\Sigma })|\mathcal{\Sigma })=\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(\mathcal{2}\mathcal{\Sigma }^\mathcal{2}).$$

Since $`c_1()=\mathcal{2}\mathcal{\Sigma }`$, it follows that

(20)
$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(c_1()^\mathcal{2})=\mathcal{2}𝒸_\mathcal{1}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}).$$

###### 6.3.

*Conclusion.* For each $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$, we have

(21)
$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(KY_s)=\{\begin{array}{cc}2b_s[s]\hfill & \text{if }s\mathrm{\Xi }_\pi ,\hfill \\ (2b_s1)[s]\hfill & \text{if }s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi .\hfill \end{array}$$

Now, since $`X_s+Y_s=\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}[s]`$, using the projection formula we get

(22)
$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}Y_s^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}2[s]\hfill & \text{if }s\mathrm{\Xi }_\pi ,\hfill \\ [s]\hfill & \text{if }s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi .\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`\kappa _{1,\stackrel{~}{\pi }}:=\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}K^2`$. Since $`[Z]=\overline{W}(K+\overline{W})`$, it follows from (18) that

(23)
$$[Z]=(K+D\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}c_1(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}))(\mathcal{2}𝒦+𝒟\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}𝒸_\mathcal{1}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{})).$$

Expanding, we get

$$[Z]=2K^2+3KD+D^23K\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}c_1(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{})\mathcal{2}𝒟\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}𝒸_\mathcal{1}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{})+(\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}𝒸_\mathcal{1}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}))^\mathcal{2}.$$

Pushing down to $`S`$, and using the projection formula, we get

$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}[Z]=2\kappa _{1,\stackrel{~}{\pi }}+\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(3KD+D^2)6(g1)c_1(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{})\mathcal{2}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒟𝒸_\mathcal{1}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}).$$

Now, $`c_1()𝒴_𝓈=\mathcal{0}`$ for every $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$, because $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_sX_s`$. Thus, using the expression for $`D`$ in (18), we get

$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}[Z]=`$ $`2\kappa _{1,\stackrel{~}{\pi }}+6\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(Kc_1())\mathcal{6}(\mathcal{1})𝒸_\mathcal{1}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{})+\mathcal{4}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(𝒸_\mathcal{1}()^\mathcal{2})\mathcal{8}𝒸_\mathcal{1}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{s\mathrm{\Xi }_\pi }{}}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(3KY_sY_s^2){\displaystyle \underset{s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi }{}}\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(6KY_s4Y_s^2).`$
Using (20), (21) and (22), the right-hand side of the above expression becomes

$$2\kappa _{1,\stackrel{~}{\pi }}+6\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(Kc_1())\mathcal{3}(\mathcal{1})\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(𝒸_\mathcal{1}()^\mathcal{2})\underset{𝓈\mathcal{\Xi }_\pi }{}(\mathcal{6}𝒷_𝓈+\mathcal{2})[𝓈]\underset{𝓈\mathcal{\Delta }_\pi }{}(\mathcal{12}𝒷_𝓈\mathcal{2})[𝓈].$$

Using (19), we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}[Z]=2\kappa _{1,\stackrel{~}{\pi }}+3\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}(Kc_1())\mathcal{6}𝒸_\mathcal{1}(𝒩)\underset{𝓈\mathcal{\Xi }_\pi }{}(\mathcal{6}𝒷_𝓈+\mathcal{2})[𝓈]\underset{𝓈\mathcal{\Delta }_\pi }{}(\mathcal{12}𝒷_𝓈\mathcal{2})[𝓈].$$

Multiplying by $`g1`$, and using (19) again, the right-hand side of the above equation becomes

$$(2g+1)\kappa _{1,\stackrel{~}{\pi }}+\underset{x\mathrm{\Xi }_\pi }{}(6b_s(b_sg+1)2(g1))[s]+\underset{s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi }{}(12b_s(b_sg)+2g+1)[s].$$

Since $`a_s+b_s=g1`$ if $`s\mathrm{\Xi }_\pi `$ and $`a_s+b_s=g`$ if $`s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi `$, we get

$$(g1)\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}[Z]=(2g+1)\kappa _{1,\stackrel{~}{\pi }}\underset{s\mathrm{\Xi }_\pi }{}(6a_sb_s+2(g1))[s]\underset{s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi }{}(12a_sb_s2g1)[s].$$

Now, by Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch,

$$\kappa _{1,\stackrel{~}{\pi }}=12\lambda _{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}2\underset{s\mathrm{\Xi }_\pi }{}[s]\underset{s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi }{}[s].$$

Moreover, since $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}=\pi _{}𝜔_\pi `$, we have $`\lambda _{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}=\lambda _\pi `$. Thus

$`(g1)\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}[Z]=`$ $`12(2g+1)\lambda _\pi 6{\displaystyle \underset{x\mathrm{\Xi }_\pi }{}}(a_sb_s+g)[s]12{\displaystyle \underset{s\mathrm{\Delta }_\pi }{}}a_sb_s[s]`$
$`=`$ $`12(2g+1)\lambda _\pi 6{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{[(g1)/2]}{}}}(i+1)(gi)[\mathrm{\Xi }_{i,\pi }]12{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{[g/2]}{}}}j(gj)[\mathrm{\Delta }_{j,\pi }].`$
Using (9) and (10) we get

$$(g1)\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}[Z]=12(2g+1)\lambda _\pi 3g\xi _{0,\pi }6\underset{i=1}{\overset{[(g1)/2]}{}}(i+1)(gi)\xi _{\pi ,i}12\underset{j=1}{\overset{[g/2]}{}}j(gj)\delta _{\pi ,j}.$$

Then $`(g1)\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}[Z]`$ is a multiple of the left-hand side of (4). Since $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}[Z]=0`$, we get (4), thus proving Cornalba’s and Harris’ relation (2).

## 7. A variant

There is yet another way to obtain relation (2), still inspired by Faber’s general philosophy of writing down the class of the empty set. We present here just a rough account of this different approach, as we intend to give details in a forthcoming article.

Keep the notation used so far in the article. The particular empty set we will consider is the closure $`\overline{R}_{1,2}`$ of the locus $`R_{1,2}\stackrel{~}{C}\times _S\stackrel{~}{C}`$ of pairs $`(P,Q)`$ of points of a smooth fiber $`\stackrel{~}{C}_s`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ for which $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_𝓈}(𝒫+\mathcal{2}𝒬)|\stackrel{~}{𝒞}_𝓈`$. This set is clearly empty, as $``$ has relative degree 2 over $`S`$. On the other hand, we can express the class of $`\overline{R}_{1,2}`$ in $`A^2(\stackrel{~}{C}\times _S\stackrel{~}{C})`$ as the product,

(24)
$$(L_1+L_2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{}c_1(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}))(𝒦_\mathcal{2}+_\mathcal{1}+_\mathcal{2}\mathcal{\Delta }\rho ^{}𝒸_\mathcal{1}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{})),$$

where $`\rho :\stackrel{~}{C}\times _S\stackrel{~}{C}S`$ is the natural map, $`K_i:=p_i^{}c_1(𝜔_\pi )`$ and $`L_i:=p_i^{}c_1()`$ for $`i=1,2`$, where $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are the projections of $`\stackrel{~}{C}\times _S\stackrel{~}{C}`$ onto the indicated factors, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the diagonal of $`\stackrel{~}{C}\times _S\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`F`$ is a correction term supported in the singular fibers of $`\rho `$. The computation of $`F`$ is similar to that which leads to relation (13).

Being (24) zero, we obtain a relation in $`A^2(\stackrel{~}{C}\times _S\stackrel{~}{C})`$. By reason of dimension, this relation does not yield immediately a relation in $`\text{Pic}(S)`$. However, using Faber’s recipe in , “once zero always zero”, we multiply (24) by divisor classes on $`\stackrel{~}{C}\times _S\stackrel{~}{C}`$, and then push down the ensuing products to $`S`$ in order to get relations in $`\text{Pic}(S)`$. There are two natural divisor classes on $`\stackrel{~}{C}\times _S\stackrel{~}{C}`$: the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`K_1`$. Hence we get two relations in $`\text{Pic}(S)`$:

(25) $`\rho _{}((L_1+L_2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{}c_1(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}))(𝒦_\mathcal{2}+_\mathcal{1}+_\mathcal{2}\mathcal{\Delta }\rho ^{}𝒸_\mathcal{1}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}))`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta })=0,`$
(26) $`\rho _{}((L_1+L_2\mathrm{\Delta }\rho ^{}c_1(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}))(𝒦_\mathcal{2}+_\mathcal{1}+_\mathcal{2}\mathcal{\Delta }\rho ^{}𝒸_\mathcal{1}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}))`$ $`K_1)=0.`$
The left-hand side of (25) is simply $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}[Z]`$, for $`[Z]`$ expressed as in (23). We use (26) to find an expression for $`c_1(\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{})`$ which, when used in (25), yields (4) after a few computations, as in Subsection 6.3.

The main difficulty in the above alternative proof of (2) is that $`\stackrel{~}{C}\times _S\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is not smooth. More precisely, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the irreducible components of the singular fibers of $`\rho `$ are singular in $`\stackrel{~}{C}\times _S\stackrel{~}{C}`$, and hence equations (24)-(26) don’t make immediate sense. This difficulty can be overcome because the singular locus of $`\stackrel{~}{C}\times _S\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is finite, of codimension 3.

Instituto de Matemática Pura e Aplicada

Estrada Dona Castorina, 110

22460-320 Rio de Janeiro RJ (BRAZIL)

esteves@impa.br

Departamento de Matemática

Universidade Federal de Pernambuco

Av. Prof. Luiz Freire S/N

Cidade Universitária

50540-740 Pernambuco PE (BRAZIL)

taggo@dmat.ufpe.br

Dipartimento di Matematica

Politecnico di Torino

C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24

10129 Torino (ITALY)

lgatto@polito.it