text:
# CERN-TH/2000-203, UPR-894T, RU-00-5B Spectral involutions on rational elliptic surfaces

## 1 Introduction

Let $`ZS`$ be an elliptic fibration on a smooth variety $`Z`$, i.e. a flat morphism whose generic fiber is a curve of genus one, and which has a section $`SZ`$. The choice of such a section defines a Poincare sheaf $`𝒫`$ on $`Z\times _SZ`$. The corresponding Fourier-Mukai transform $`𝑭𝑴:D^b(Z)D^b(Z)`$ is then an autoequivalence of the derived category $`D^b(Z)`$ of complexes of coherent sheaves on $`Z`$. It sets up an equivalence between $`SL(r,)`$-bundles on $`Z`$ and spectral data consisting of line bundles (and their degenerations) on spectral covers $`CZ`$ which are of degree $`r`$ over $`S`$. This equivalence has been used extensively to construct vector bundles on elliptic fibrations and to study their moduli \[FMW97, Don97, BJPS97\].

For many applications it is important to remove the requirement of the existence of a section, i.e. to allow genus one fibrations. This could be done in two ways.

The ‘spectrum’ of a degree zero semistable rank $`r`$ bundle on a genus one curve $`E`$ consists of $`r`$ points in the Jacobian $`\mathrm{Pic}^0(E)`$, rather than in $`E=\mathrm{Pic}^1(E)`$ itself. So one approach is to consider spectral covers $`C`$ contained in the relative Jacobian $`\mathrm{Pic}^0(Z/S)`$. But the spectral data in this case no longer involves a line bundle on $`C`$; instead, it lives in a certain non-trivial gerbe, or twisted form of $`\mathrm{Pic}(C)`$. So the essential problem becomes the analysis of this gerbe.

The second approach is to find an elliptic fibration $`\pi :XB`$ together with a group $`G`$ acting compatibly on $`X`$ and $`B`$ (but not preserving the section of $`\pi `$) such that the action on $`X`$ is fixed point free and the quotient is the original $`ZS`$. One can then use the Fourier-Mukai transform to construct vector bundles on $`X`$. The problem becomes the determination of conditions for such a bundle on $`X`$ to be $`G`$-equivariant, hence to descend to $`Z`$. Equivalently we need to know the action of each $`gG`$ on spectral data. This is the restriction of the action on $`D^b(X)`$ of the Fourier-Mukai conjugate $`𝑭𝑴^1g^{}𝑭𝑴`$ of $`g^{}`$. This will be referred to as the spectral action of $`g`$. Unfortunately, the spectral action can be quite complicated: both global vector bundles on $`X`$ and sheaves supported on $`C`$ can go to complexes on $`X`$ of amplitude greater than one.

In this paper, we work out such a spectral action in one class of examples consisting of special rational elliptic surfaces. In the second part \[DOPWa\] of this paper we use this analysis to construct special bundles on certain non-simply connected smooth Calabi-Yau threefolds. These special bundles in turn are the main ingredient for the construction of Heterotic M-theory vacua having the Standard Model symmetry group $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ and three generations of quarks and leptons. The physical significance of such vacua is explained in \[DOPWb\] and was the original motivation of this work.

Here is an outline of the paper. We begin in section 2 with a review of the basic properties of rational elliptic surfaces. Within the eight dimensional moduli space of all rational elliptic surfaces we focus attention on a five dimensional family of rational elliptic surfaces admitting a particular involution $`\tau `$, and then we restrict further to a four dimensional family of surfaces with reducible fibers. This seems to be the simplest family of surfaces for which one needs the full force of Theorem 7.1: for general surfaces in the five dimensional family, the spectral involution $`𝑻:=𝑭𝑴^1\tau ^{}𝑭𝑴`$ of $`\tau `$ takes line bundles to line bundles, while in the four dimensional subfamily it is possible for $`𝑻`$ to take a line bundle to a complex which can not be represented by any single sheaf. We study the five dimensional family in section 3 and the four dimensional subfamily in section 4. This section concludes, in subsection 4.3, with a synthetic construction of the surfaces in the four dimensional subfamily. This construction maybe less motivated than the original a priori analysis we use, but it is more concise and we hope it will make the exposition more accessible.

In the remainder of the paper we work out the actions of $`\tau `$, $`𝑭𝑴`$, $`𝑻`$, first at the level of cohomology in sections 5 and 6, and then on the derived category in section 7. The main result is Theorem 7.1, which says that $`𝑻`$ behaves like a fairly simple affine transformation away from the union of those fiber components which do not intersect the zero section. A corollary is that for spectral curves which do not intersect the extra vertical components, all the complications disappear. This fact together with the cohomological formulas from sections 5 and 6 will be used in \[DOPWa\] to build invariant vector bundles on a family of Calabi-Yau threefolds constructed from the rational elliptic surfaces in our four dimensional subfamily.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Ed Witten, Dima Orlov, and Richard Thomas for valuable conversations on the subject of this work.

R. Donagi is supported in part by an NSF grant DMS-9802456 as well as a UPenn Research Foundation Grant. B. A. Ovrut is supported in part by a Senior Alexander von Humboldt Award, by the DOE under contract No. DE-AC02-76-ER-03071 and by a University of Pennsylvania Research Foundation Grant. T. Pantev is supported in part by an NSF grant DMS-9800790 and by an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship. D. Waldram would like to thank Enrico Fermi Institute at The University of Chicago and the Physics Department of The Rockefeller University for hospitality during the completion of this work.

## 2 Rational elliptic surfaces

A rational elliptic surface is a rational surface $`B`$ which admits an elliptic fibration $`\beta :B^1`$. It can be described as the blow-up of the plane $`^2`$ at nine points $`A_1,\mathrm{},A_9`$ which are the base points of a pencil $`\{f_t\}_{t^1}`$ of cubics. The map $`\beta `$ is recovered as the anticanonical map of $`B`$ and the proper transform of $`f_t`$ is $`\beta ^1(t)`$.

In particular the topological Euler characteristic of $`B`$ is $`\chi (B)=\chi (^2)+9=12`$. For a generic $`B`$ the map $`\beta `$ has twelve distinct singular fibers each of which has a single node. For future use we denote by $`B^\mathrm{\#}B`$ the open set of regular points of $`\beta `$ and we set $`\beta ^\mathrm{\#}:=\beta _{|B^\mathrm{\#}}`$.

Under mild general position requirements \[DPT80\] each subset of eight of these points determines the pencil of cubics and hence the ninth point. In particular we see that the rational elliptic surfaces depend on $`28dimGL(3,)=8`$ parameters.

Let $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_9`$ be the exceptional divisors in $`B`$ corresponding to the $`A_i`$’s. Let $`\mathrm{}`$ be the preimage of the class of a line in $`^2`$ and let $`f:=\beta ^{}𝒪_^1(1)`$. Note that

$$f=K_B=3\mathrm{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{9}{}}e_i$$

and that $`\mathrm{},e_1,\mathrm{},e_9`$ form a basis of $`H^2(B,)`$.

The curves $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_9`$ are sections of the map $`\beta :B^1`$. Choosing a section $`e:^1B`$ determines a group law on the fibers of $`\beta ^\mathrm{\#}`$. The inversion for this group law is an involution on $`B^\mathrm{\#}`$ which for a general $`B`$ extends to a well defined involution $`(1)_{B,e}:BB`$. When $`B`$ or $`e`$ are understood from the context we will just write $`(1)_B`$ or $`(1)`$. The involution $`(1)_{B,e}`$ fixes the section $`e`$ as well as a tri-section of $`\beta `$ which parameterizes the non-trivial points of order two. The quotient $`W_\beta /(1)_{B,e}`$ is a smooth rational surface which is ruled over the base $`^1`$. For a general $`B`$ this quotient is the Hirzebruch surface $`𝔽_2`$ and the image of $`e`$ is the exceptional section of $`𝔽_2`$. This gives yet another realization of $`B`$ as a branched double cover of $`𝔽_2`$.

A convenient way to describe the involution $`(1)_{B,e}`$ is through the Weierstrass model $`w:W_\beta ^1`$ of $`\text{}.`$

The model $`W_\beta `$ is described explicitly as follows. By relative duality $`R^1\beta _{}𝒪_B𝒪_^1(1)`$. This implies that $`\beta _{}𝒪_B(3e)=(𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(2)𝒪_^1(3))^{}`$. Let

$$p:P:=(𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(2)𝒪_^1(3))^1.$$

be the natural projection. The linear system $`𝒪_B(3e)`$ defines a map $`\nu :BP`$ compatible with the projections. The Weierstrass model $`W_\beta `$ is defined to be the image of this map. It is given explicitly by an equation

$$y^2z=x^3+(p^{}g_2)xz^2+(p^{}g_3)z^3$$

where $`g_2H^0(𝒪_^1(4))`$ and $`g_3H^0(𝒪_^1(6))`$ and $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$ are the natural sections of $`𝒪_P(1)p^{}𝒪_^1(2)`$, $`𝒪_P(1)p^{}𝒪_^1(3)`$ and $`𝒪_P(1)`$ respectively.

In terms of $`W_\beta `$ the section $`e`$ is given by $`x=z=0`$ and the involution $`(1)_{B,e}`$ sends $`y`$ to $`y`$. The tri-section of fixed points of $`(1)_{B,e}`$ is given by $`y=0`$.

The Mordell-Weil group $`𝕄𝕎=𝕄𝕎(B,e)`$ is the group of sections of $`\beta `$. As a set $`𝕄𝕎`$ is the collection of all sections of $`\beta :B^1`$ or equivalently all sections of $`\beta ^\mathrm{\#}:B^\mathrm{\#}^1`$. The group law on $`𝕄𝕎`$ is induced from the addition law on the group scheme $`\beta ^\mathrm{\#}:B^\mathrm{\#}^1`$ and so $`e`$ corresponds to the neutral element in $`𝕄𝕎(B,e)`$. For a section $`\xi B`$ we will put $`[\xi ]`$ for the corresponding element of $`𝕄𝕎`$. Note that the natural map

$$c_1:𝕄𝕎(B,e)\mathrm{Pic}(B),[\xi ]𝒪_B(\xi ).$$

is not a group homomorphism. When written out in coordinates, it involves both a linear part and a quadratic term (see e.g. \[Man64\]). However, when $`B`$ is smooth the map $`c_1`$ induces a linear map to a quotient of $`\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ which describes $`𝕄𝕎(B,e)`$ completely. Indeed, let $`B`$ be smooth and let $`𝒯\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ be the sublattice generated by $`e`$ and all the components of the fibers of $`\beta `$. Then $`c_1`$ induces a map

$$\overline{c}_1:𝕄𝕎(B,e)\mathrm{Pic}(B)/𝒯,[\xi ](𝒪_B(\xi )mod𝒯)$$

which is a linear isomorphism \[Shi90, Theorem 1.3\]

There is a natural group homomorphism $`t:𝕄𝕎\mathrm{BirAut}(B)`$ assigning to each section $`\xi 𝕄𝕎`$ the birational automorphism $`t_\xi :BB`$, which on the open set $`B^\mathrm{\#}`$ is just translation by $`\xi `$ with respect to the group law determined by $`e`$. When $`\beta :B^1`$ is relatively minimal the map $`t_\xi `$ extends canonically to a biregular automorphism of $`B`$ \[Kod63, Theorem 2.9\].

## 3 Special rational elliptic surfaces

In the second part of this paper \[DOPWa\] we will work with Calabi-Yau threefolds $`X`$ which are elliptically fibered over a rational elliptic surface $`B`$. Any involution $`\tau _X`$ on an elliptic CY $`\pi :XB`$ commuting with $`\pi `$ induces (either the identity or) an involution $`\tau _B`$ on the base $`B`$. In order for $`\tau _X`$ to act freely on $`X`$ we need the fixed points of $`\tau _B`$ to be disjoint from the discriminant of $`\pi `$. If $`B`$ is a rational elliptic surface, then the discriminant of $`\pi `$ is a section in $`K_B^{12}=𝒪_B(12f)`$ and so $`(1)_B`$ will not do. We want to describe some special rational elliptic surfaces which admit additional involutions. Within the $`8`$ dimensional family of rational elliptic surfaces we describe first a $`5`$ dimensional family of surfaces which admit an involution $`\alpha _B`$. The fixed locus of $`\alpha _B`$ has the right properties but it turns out that $`\alpha _B`$ does not lift to a free involution on $`X`$. However, one can easily show that each $`\alpha _B`$ can be corrected by a translation $`t_\zeta `$ (for a special type of section $`\zeta `$) to obtain an additional involution $`\tau _B`$ which does the job. Unfortunately the general member of the $`5`$ dimensional family leads to a Calabi-Yau manifold which does not admit any bundles satisfying all the constraints required by the Standard Model of particle physics (see \[DOPWa\]). We therefore specialize further to a $`4`$ dimensional family of surfaces for which the extra involution $`\tau _B`$ can be constructed in an explicit geometric way. This provides some extra freedom which enables us to carry out the construction. The involution $`\alpha _B`$ fixes one fiber of $`\beta `$ and four points in another fiber. The involution $`\tau _B`$ fixes only four points in one fiber. A special feature of the $`4`$ dimensional family is that it consists of $`B`$’s for which $`\beta `$ has at least two $`I_2`$ fibers. This translates into a special position requirement on the nine points in $`^2`$. Another special feature of the $`4`$ dimensional family is seen in the double cover realization of $`B`$ where the quotient $`B/(1)`$ becomes $`𝔽_0=^1\times ^1`$ instead of $`𝔽_2`$.

We thank Chad Schoen for pointing out that essentially the same surfaces and threefolds were constructed in section 9 of \[Sch88\]. The explicit example he gives there for what he calls the “$`m=2`$ case” happens to exactly coincide with our four-dimensional family of rational elliptic surfaces. With small modifications, his construction could have given our full five-dimensional family as well. Schoen’s construction technique is rather different than ours. He constructs the equivalent of our rational elliptic surface $`B`$ and involution $`\alpha _B`$ directly (the surfaces we call $`B,B/\alpha _B`$ are called $`Y_0,T_0`$ in \[Sch88\]); then he invokes a general result of Ogg and Shafarevich for the existence of a logarithmic transform $`Y`$ with quotient $`T`$; and finally, results from classification theory are used to deduce existence of an abstract isomorphism of $`Y`$ with $`Y_0`$ such that his $`T`$ becomes our $`B/\tau _B`$.

In the next several sections we will describe the structure of the rational elliptic surfaces that admit additional involutions. This rather extensive geometric analysis is ultimately distilled into a fairly simple synthetic construction of our surfaces which is explained in section 4.3. The impatient reader who is interested only in the end result of the construction and wants to avoid the tedious geometric details is advised to skip directly to section 4.3.

### 3.1 Types of involutions on a rational elliptic surfaces

Consider a smooth rational elliptic surface with a fixed section. For any automorphism $`\tau _B`$ of $`B`$ we have $`\tau _B^{}K_BK_B`$. Since $`K_B^1=\beta ^{}𝒪_^1(1)`$ this implies that $`\tau _B`$ induces an automorphism $`\tau _^1:^1^1`$. If $`\tau _B`$ is an involution we have two possibilities: either $`\tau _^1=\mathrm{id}_^1`$ or $`\tau _^1`$ is an involution of $`^1`$.

Both of these cases occur and lead to Calabi-Yau manifolds with freely acting involutions. For concreteness here we only treat the case when $`\tau _^1`$ is an involution. The case $`\tau _^1=\mathrm{id}_^1`$ can be analyzed easily in a similar fashion.

If $`\tau _^1`$ is an involution, then $`\tau _^1`$ will have two fixed points on $`^1`$ which we will denote by $`0,\mathrm{}^1`$. Note that every involution on $`^1`$ is uniquely determined by its fixed points and so specifying $`\tau _^1`$ is equivalent to specifying the points $`0,\mathrm{}^1`$. Next we classify the types of involutions on $`B`$ that lift a given involution $`\tau _^1`$.

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $`\beta :B^1`$ be a rational elliptic surface and let $`\tau _^1:^1^1`$ be a fixed involution. There is a canonical bijection

{Involutions τB:BB, satisfying τ1β=βτB.}{

Pairs (αB,ζ) consisting of:

An involution :αBBB, satisfying
=τP1ββαB which leaves the zero
section invariant, i.e. =αB(e)e.

A section ζ of β satisfying =αB(ζ)(-1)B(ζ).

}Involutions τB:BB, satisfying τ1β=βτB.

Pairs (αB,ζ) consisting of:

An involution :αBBB, satisfying
=τP1ββαB which leaves the zero
section invariant, i.e. =αB(e)e.

A section ζ of β satisfying =αB(ζ)(-1)B(ζ).

\left\{\begin{minipage}[c]{180.67499pt}
Involutions $\tau_{B}:B\to B$, satisfying $\tau_{{\mathbb{P}}^{1}}\circ\beta=\beta\circ\tau_{B}$.
\end{minipage}\right\}\leftrightarrow\left\{\begin{minipage}[c]{180.67499pt}
Pairs $(\alpha_{B},\zeta)$ consisting of:
\begin{itemize}
\par\itemize@item@An involution $\alpha_{B}:B\to B$, satisfying
$\tau_{{\mathbb{P}}^{1}}\circ\beta=\beta\circ\alpha_{B}$ which leaves the zero
section invariant, i.e. $\alpha_{B}(e)=e$.
\par\itemize@item@A section $\zeta$ of $\beta$ satisfying $\alpha_{B}(\zeta)=(-1)_{B}(\zeta)$.
\par\end{itemize}
\end{minipage}\right\}
Proof. Let $`\tau _B:BB`$ be such that $`\tau _^1\beta =\beta \tau _B`$. Put $`\zeta =\tau _B(e)`$ for the image of the zero section under $`\tau _B`$ and let $`\alpha _B=t_\zeta \tau _B`$.

Then $`\alpha _B`$ is an automorphism of $`B`$ which induces $`\tau _^1`$ on $`^1`$ and preserves the zero section $`eB`$. So $`\alpha _B^2:BB`$ will be an automorphism of $`B`$ which acts trivially on $`^1`$. But

$$t_\zeta \tau _B=\tau _Bt_{\tau _{B/^1}^1(\zeta )}$$

where $`\tau _{B/^1}^{}:\mathrm{Pic}^0(B/^1)\mathrm{Pic}^0(B/^1)`$ is the involution on the relative Picard scheme induced from $`\tau _B`$. In particular we have that $`\alpha _B^2`$ must be a translation by a section. Indeed we have

(3.1)
$$\alpha _B^2=t_\zeta \tau _B\tau _Bt_{\tau _{B/^1}^1(\zeta )}=t_{\zeta \tau _{B/^1}^1(\zeta )}.$$

Combined with the fact that $`\alpha _B^2`$ preserves $`e`$ (3.1) implies that $`\alpha _B^2=\mathrm{id}_B`$. On the other hand, if we use the zero section $`e`$ to identify $`\mathrm{Pic}^0(B/^1)^1`$ with $`\beta ^\mathrm{\#}:B^\mathrm{\#}^1`$, then $`\tau _{B/^1}^{}=\alpha _B`$. Indeed, let $`\xi \mathrm{Pic}^0(B/^1)`$ and let $`x^1`$ be the projection of the point $`\xi `$. Let $`f_xB`$ be the fiber of $`\beta `$ over $`x`$. Denote by $`m_\xi f_x`$ the unique smooth point in $`f_x`$ for which $`𝒪_{f_x}(m_\xi )=\xi 𝒪_{f_x}(e(x))`$. Then by definition $`\tau _B^{}(\xi )`$ is a line bundle of degree zero on $`f_x`$ such that

$$𝒪_{f_x}(\tau _B(m_\xi ))=\tau _B\xi 𝒪_{f_x}(\tau _B(e(x)))=\tau _B\xi 𝒪_{f_x}(\zeta (x)).$$

In other words under the identification of $`\mathrm{Pic}^0(f_x)`$ with the smooth locus of $`f_x`$ via $`e(x)`$ the line bundle $`\tau _B^{}\xi f_x`$ corresponds to the unique point $`p_\xi `$ of $`f_x`$ such that

$$𝒪_{f_x}(p_\xi )=𝒪_{f_x}(\tau _B(m_\xi ))𝒪_{f_x}(e(x)\zeta (x)).$$

But the right hand side of this identity equals $`𝒪_{f_x}(\alpha _B(m_\xi ))`$ by definition and so $`p_\xi =\alpha _B(m_\xi )`$.

Combined with the identity (3.1) and the fact that $`t:𝕄𝕎(B)\mathrm{Aut}(B)`$ is injective this yields

$$\alpha _B(\zeta )=(1)_B(\zeta ).$$

Conversely, given a pair $`(\alpha _B,\zeta )`$ we set $`\tau _B=t_\zeta \alpha _B`$. Clearly $`\tau _B`$ is an automorphism of $`B`$ which induces $`\tau _^1`$ on $`^1`$. Furthermore we calculate $`\tau _B^2=t_\zeta \alpha _Bt_\zeta \alpha _B=t_\zeta \alpha _B\alpha _Bt_\zeta =\mathrm{id}_B`$. The lemma is proven. $`\mathrm{}`$

The above lemma implies that in order to understand all involutions $`\tau _B`$ it suffices to understand all pairs $`(\alpha _B,\zeta )`$. Since the involutions $`\alpha _B`$ stabilize $`e`$ it follows that $`\alpha _B`$ will have to necessarily act on the Weierstrass model of $`B`$. In the next section we analyze this action in more detail.

### 3.2 The Weierstrass model of $`B`$

Let as before $`\tau _^1:^1^1`$ be an involution and let $`(t_0:t_1)`$ be homogeneous coordinates on $`^1`$ such that $`\tau _^1((t_0:t_1))=(t_0:t_1)`$ and $`0=(1:0)`$ and $`\mathrm{}=(0:1)`$. Since $`t_0`$ and $`t_1`$ are a basis of $`H^0(^1,𝒪_^1(1))`$ and since $`𝒪_^1(1)`$ is generated by global sections we can lift the action of $`\tau _^1`$ to $`𝒪_^1(1)`$. For concreteness choose the lift $`t_0t_0`$, $`t_1t_1`$. Since $`H^0(^1,𝒪_^1(k))=S^kH^0(^1,𝒪_^1(1))`$ we get a lift of the action of $`\tau _^1`$ to the line bundles $`𝒪_^1(k)`$ for all $`k`$. We will call this action the standard action of $`\tau _^1`$ on $`𝒪_^1(k)`$. Via the standard action the involution $`\tau _^1`$ acts also on the vector bundle $`𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(2)𝒪_^1(3)`$ and hence we get a standard lift $`\tau _P:PP`$ of $`\tau _^1`$ satisfying $`\tau _P^{}𝒪_P(1)𝒪_P(1)`$.

Assume that we are given an involution $`\alpha _B:BB`$ which induces $`\tau _^1`$ on $`^1`$ and preserves the section $`e`$. We have the following

###### Lemma 3.2

* There exists a unique involution $`\alpha _{W_\beta }:W_\beta W_\beta `$ such that the natural map $`\nu :BW_\beta `$ satisfies $`\alpha _{W_\beta }\nu =\nu \alpha _B`$.
* Let $`WP`$ be a Weierstrass rational elliptic surface. Then the involution $`\tau _^1`$ lifts to an involution on $`W`$ which preserves the zero section if and only if $`\tau _P(W)=W`$.
* If $`w:W_\beta ^1`$ is not isotrivial, then $`\alpha _{W_\beta }`$ is either $`\tau _{P|W_\beta }`$ or $`\tau _{P|W_\beta }(1)_{W_\beta }`$.

Proof. Since $`\alpha _B^{}(𝒪_B(e))𝒪_B(e)`$, there exists an involution on the total space of the bundle $`𝒪_B(e)`$ which acts linearly on the fibers and induces the involution $`\alpha _B`$ on $`B`$. Indeed - the square $`\gamma \alpha _B^{}\gamma `$ of the isomorphism $`\gamma :\alpha _B^{}(𝒪_B(e))\stackrel{~}{}𝒪_B(e)`$ is a bundle automorphism of $`𝒪_B(e)`$ (acting trivially on the base) and so is given by multiplication by some non-zero complex number $`\lambda `$. Rescaling the isomorphism $`\gamma `$ by $`\sqrt{\lambda ^1}`$ then gives the desired lift.

In this way the involution $`\alpha _B`$ induces an involution on $`𝒪_e(e)=𝒪_^1(1)`$ which lifts the action of $`\tau _^1`$. Let us normalize the lift of $`\alpha _B`$ to $`𝒪_B(e)`$ so that the induced action on $`𝒪_e(e)=𝒪_^1(1)`$ coincides with the standard action of $`\tau _^1`$. Thus the Weierstrass model $`W_\beta P`$ must be stable under the corresponding $`\tau _P`$ and the restriction of $`\tau _P`$ to $`W_\beta `$ is an involution that preserves the zero section of $`w`$ and induces $`\tau _^1`$ on the base. By construction $`\tau _{P|W_\beta }`$ coincides with the involution induced from $`\alpha _B`$ up to a composition with $`(1)_{W_\beta }`$. This finishes the proof of the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now ready to construct the Weierstrass models of all surfaces $`B`$ that admit an involution $`\alpha _B`$. Similarly to the proof of Lemma 3.2, the fact that $`\tau _P^{}𝒪_P(1)𝒪_P(1)`$ implies that the action of $`\tau _P`$ can be lifted to an action on $`𝒪_P(1)`$. Since there are two possible such lifts and they differ by multiplication by $`\pm 1^\times `$ we can use the identification $`𝒪_P(1)_{|B}=𝒪_B(3e)`$ to choose the unique lift that will induce the standard action of $`\tau _^1`$ on $`𝒪_^1(3)=𝒪_e(3e)`$. With these choices we define an action

$$\tau _P^{}:H^0(P,𝒪_P(r)p^{}𝒪_P(s))H^0(P,𝒪_P(r)p^{}𝒪_P(s))$$

of $`\tau _P`$ on the global sections of any line bundle on $`P`$. Note that by construction we have $`\tau _P^{}x=x`$, $`\tau _P^{}y=y`$ and $`\tau _P^{}z=z`$.

Consider the general equation of the Weierstrass model $`W_\beta `$ of $`B`$:

(3.2)
$$y^2z=x^3+(p^{}g_2)xz^2+(p^{}g_3)z^3.$$

Here $`g_2H^0(𝒪_^1(4))`$ and $`g_3H^0(𝒪_^1(6))`$. The fact $`W_\beta P`$ is stable under $`\tau _P`$ implies that the image of the Weierstrass equation (3.2) under $`\tau _P^{}`$ must be a proportional Weierstrass equation. In particular we ought to have $`\tau _^1^{}g_2=g_2`$ and $`\tau _^1^{}g_3=g_3`$.

Conversely, for any $`g_2H^0(𝒪_^1(4))`$ and $`g_3H^0(𝒪_^1(6))`$ which are invariant for the standard action of $`\tau _^1`$ it follows that $`\tau _P`$ will preserve the Weierstrass surface $`W`$ given by the equation (3.2). Note that for a generic choice of $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ the surface $`W`$ will be smooth and so $`B=W`$, $`\alpha _B=\tau _{P|W}`$. When $`W`$ is singular, the surface $`B`$ is the minimal resolution of singularities of $`W`$ and hence $`\alpha _W=\tau _{P|W}`$ determines uniquely $`\alpha _B`$ by the universal property of the minimal resolution.

Next we describe the fixed locus of $`\alpha _B`$. Note that since $`\alpha _B`$ induces $`\tau _^1`$ on $`^1`$ the fixed points of $`\alpha _B`$ will necessarily sit over the two fixed points of $`\tau _^1`$. So in order to understand the fixed locus of $`\alpha _B`$ it suffices to understand the action of $`\alpha _B`$ on the two $`\alpha _B`$-stable fibers of $`\beta `$ \- namely $`f_0=\beta ^1(0)`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{}}=\beta ^1(\mathrm{})`$.

###### Lemma 3.3

Let $`\alpha _B`$ be the involution on $`B`$ induced from $`\tau _{P|W_\beta }`$ (with the above normalizations). Then $`\alpha _B`$ fixes $`f_0`$ pointwise and has four isolated fixed points on $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$, namely the points of order two.

Proof. The curve $`f_0`$ is a smooth cubic in the projective plane

$$P_0=(𝒪_0𝒪(2)_0𝒪(3)_0),$$

Where $`𝒪(k)_0`$ denotes the fiber of the line bundle $`𝒪_^1(k)`$ at the point $`0^1`$. Note that $`1`$, $`t_0(0)^2`$ and $`t_0(0)^3`$ span the lines $`𝒪_0`$, $`𝒪(2)_0`$ and $`𝒪(3)_0`$ respectively and so $`\tau _^1`$ acts trivially on those lines via its standard action. So if we identify those lines with $``$ via the basis $`1`$, $`t_0(0)^2`$ and $`t_0(0)^3`$, then $`X_0:=x_{|P_0}`$, $`Y_0:=y_{|P_0}`$ and $`Z_0:=z_{|P_0}`$ become identified with sections of the line bundle $`𝒪_{P_0}(1)`$ and can be used as homogeneous coordinates on $`P_0`$ in which $`\tau _{P|P_0}:P_0P_0`$ is given by $`(X_0:Y_0:Z_0)(X_0:Y_0:Z_0)`$. In other words $`\tau _{P|P_0}`$ acts as the identity on $`P_0`$ and hence $`\alpha _B`$ preserves pointwise the cubic

$$f_0:Y_0^2Z_0=X_0^3+g_2(1:0)X_0Z_0^2+g_3(1:0)Z_0^3B.$$

In a similar fashion $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a cubic in the projective plane

$$P_{\mathrm{}}=(𝒪_{\mathrm{}}𝒪(2)_{\mathrm{}}𝒪(3)_{\mathrm{}}).$$

In this case the lines $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`𝒪(2)_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`𝒪(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ have frames $`1`$, $`t_1^2`$ and $`t_1^3`$ respectively and so $`\tau _^1`$ acts trivially on $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`𝒪(2)_{\mathrm{}}`$ and by multiplication by $`1`$ on $`𝒪(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$. This means that if we use these frames to identify $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`𝒪(2)_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`𝒪(3)_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $``$ we get projective coordinates $`X_{\mathrm{}}:=x_{|P_{\mathrm{}}}`$, $`Y_{\mathrm{}}:=y_{|P_{\mathrm{}}}`$ and $`Z_{\mathrm{}}:=z_{|P_{\mathrm{}}}`$ in which $`\tau _{P|P_{\mathrm{}}}`$ acts as $`(X_{\mathrm{}}:Y_{\mathrm{}}:Z_{\mathrm{}})(X_{\mathrm{}}:Y_{\mathrm{}}:Z_{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ has equation

$$Y_{\mathrm{}}^2Z_{\mathrm{}}=X_{\mathrm{}}^3+g_2(0:1)X_{\mathrm{}}Z_{\mathrm{}}^2+g_3(0:1)Z_{\mathrm{}}^3.$$

In other words $`\alpha _{B|f_{\mathrm{}}}=(1)_{B|f_{\mathrm{}}}`$ and so $`\alpha _B`$ has four isolated fixed points on $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ coinciding with the points of order two on $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that if we consider the involution $`\alpha _B(1)_B`$ instead of $`\alpha _B`$ we will get the same distribution of fixed points with $`f_0`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ switched, i.e. we will get four isolated fixed points on $`f_0`$ and a trivial action on $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$.

### 3.3 The quotient $`B/\alpha _B`$.

Let $`\beta :B^1`$ be a rational elliptic surface whose Weierstrass model is given by (3.2), with $`g_2H^0(𝒪_^1(4))`$ and $`g_3H^0(𝒪_^1(6))`$ being invariant for the standard action of $`\tau _^1`$. For the time being we will assume that $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ are chosen generically so that $`B=W`$ is smooth and $`\beta `$ has twelve $`I_1`$ fibers necessarily permuted by $`\tau _^1`$.

We have a commutative diagram

where $`\mathrm{sq}:^1^1`$ is the squaring map $`(t_0:t_1)(t_0^2:t_1^2)`$.

Now by the analysis of the fixed points of $`\alpha _B`$ above we have that $`B/\alpha _B^1`$ is a genus one fibration which has six $`I_1`$ fibers. Furthermore we saw that the only singularities of $`B/\alpha _B`$ are four singular points of type $`A_1`$ sitting on the fiber over $`\mathrm{}=(0:1)^1`$.

###### Lemma 3.4

Assume that $`B`$ is Weierstrass.

* The minimal resolution $`\widehat{B/\alpha _B}`$ of $`B/\alpha _B`$ is a rational elliptic surface with a $`6I_1+I_0^{}`$ configuration of singular fibers and $`B/\alpha _B^1`$ is its Weierstrass model.
* The surface $`B`$ is the unique double cover of $`B/\alpha _B`$ whose branch locus consists of the fiber of $`B/\alpha _B^1`$ over $`0=(1:0)^1`$ and the four singular points of $`B/\alpha _B`$.

Proof. By construction $`\widehat{B/\alpha _B}^1`$ is a genus one fibered surface with seven singular fibers - six fibers of type $`I_1`$ (i.e. the images of the twelve $`I_1`$ fibers of $`\beta `$ under the quotient map $`BB/\alpha _B`$) and one $`I_0^{}`$ fiber (i.e. the fiber of $`\widehat{B/\alpha _B}^1`$ over $`\mathrm{}^1`$). Moreover since the section $`e:^1B`$ is stable under $`\alpha _B`$ we see that $`e(^1)/\alpha _BB/\alpha _B`$ will again be a section of the genus one fibration that passes through one of the singular points. So the proper transform of $`e(^1)/\alpha _B`$ in $`\widehat{B/\alpha _B}`$ will be a section of $`\widehat{B/\alpha _B}^1`$ which intersects the $`I_0^{}`$ fiber at a point on one of the four non-multiple components. $`\mathrm{}`$

In fact the quotient $`BB/\alpha _B`$ can be constructed directly as a double cover of the quadric $`Q𝔽_0=^1\times ^1`$. In particular this gives a geometric construction of $`B`$ as an iterated double cover of $`Q`$.

###### Lemma 3.5

Every rational elliptic surface with $`6I_1+I_0^{}`$ configuration of singular fibers can be obtained as a minimal resolution of a double cover of the quadric $`Q`$ branched along a curve $`M𝒪_Q(2,4)`$ which splits as a union of two curves of bidegrees $`(1,4)`$ and $`(1,0)`$ respectively.

Proof. Indeed consider a curve $`TQ`$ of bidegree $`(1,4)`$ and a ruling $`rQ`$ of type $`(1,0)`$. Assume for simplicity that $`T`$ is smooth and that $`T`$ and $`r`$ intersect transversally. The double cover $`W_M`$ of $`Q`$ branched along $`M:=Tr`$ is singular at the ramification points sitting over the four points in $`Tr`$. The curve $`T`$ is of genus zero and so for a general $`T`$ the four sheeted covering map $`p_{1|T}:T^1`$ will have six simple ramification points. Thus

$$W_MQ\stackrel{p_1}{}^1$$

has six singular fibers of type $`I_1`$ and one fiber passing trough the four singularities of $`W_M`$.

Let $`sQ`$ be any ruling of type $`(0,1)`$ that passes trough one of the points in $`Tr`$. Then $`s`$ intersects $`M`$ at one double point and so the preimage of $`s`$ in $`W_M`$ splits into two sections of the elliptic fibration $`W_M^1`$ that intersect at one of the singular points of $`W_M`$. This implies (as promised) that the minimal resolution $`\widehat{W}_M`$ of $`W_M`$ is a rational elliptic surface of type $`6I_1+I_0^{}`$ and that $`W_M`$ is its Weierstrass form.

Alternatively we can construct $`\widehat{W}_M`$ as follows. Label the four points in $`Tr`$ as $`\{P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4\}`$. Consider the blow-up $`\varphi :\widehat{Q}Q`$ of $`Q`$ at the points $`\{P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4\}`$ and let $`\widehat{T}`$ and $`\widehat{r}`$ be the proper transforms of $`T`$ and $`r`$ under $`\varphi `$. We have

$$𝒪_{\widehat{Q}}(\widehat{T}+\widehat{r})=\varphi ^{}𝒪_Q(T+r)𝒪_{\widehat{Q}}\left(2\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}E_i\right)$$

where $`E_i\widehat{Q}`$ is the exceptional divisor corresponding to the point $`P_i`$. This shows that the line bundle $`𝒪_{\widehat{Q}}(\widehat{T}+\widehat{r})`$ is uniquely divisible by two in $`\mathrm{Pic}(\widehat{Q})`$ and so we may consider the double cover of $`\widehat{Q}`$ branched along $`\widehat{T}+\widehat{r}`$. Since each of the rational curves $`E_i`$ intersects the branch divisor $`\widehat{T}\widehat{r}`$ at exactly two points it follows that the preimage $`D_i`$ of $`E_i`$ in the double cover of $`\widehat{Q}`$ is a smooth rational curve of self-intersection $`2`$. But if we contract the curves $`D_i`$ we will obtain a surface with four $`A_1`$ singularities which doubly covers $`Q`$ with branching along $`M=Tr`$, i.e. we will get the surface $`W_M`$. In other words the double cover of $`\widehat{Q}`$ branched along $`\widehat{T}+\widehat{r}`$ must be the surface $`\widehat{W}_M`$. Let $`\psi :W_MQ`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }:\widehat{W}_M\widehat{Q}`$ denote the covering maps and let $`\widehat{\varphi }:\widehat{W}_MW_M`$ be the blow-up that resolves the singularities of $`W_M`$. Hence the elliptic fibrations on $`W_M`$ and $`\widehat{W}_M`$ are given by the composition maps $`\omega :=p_1\psi :W_M^1`$ and $`\widehat{\omega }:=p_1\psi \widehat{\varphi }:\widehat{W}_M^1`$ respectively.

Finally to write $`W_M`$ as a quotient $`W_M=B/\alpha _B`$ (respectively $`\widehat{W}_M`$ as a quotient $`\widehat{W}_M=\widehat{B/\alpha _B}`$ we proceed as follows. If there exists a Weierstrass rational elliptic surface $`\beta :B^1`$ so that $`W_M=B/\alpha _B`$, then $`\kappa :BW_M`$ will be the unique double cover of $`W_M`$ branched along the fiber $`(W_M)_0:=\omega ^1(0)`$ and at the four singular points of $`W_M`$. In view of the universal property of the blow-up we may instead consider the unique double cover $`\widehat{\kappa }:\widehat{B}\widehat{W}_M`$ which is branched along the divisor $`(\widehat{W}_M)_0+_{i=1}^4D_i`$. To see that such a cover exists observe that $`\widehat{\omega }^1(\mathrm{})`$ is a Kodaira fiber of type $`I_0^{}`$ and we have $`\widehat{\omega }^1(\mathrm{})=2V+_{i=1}^4D_i`$, where $`2V=\widehat{\psi }^{}(\widehat{r})`$ is the double component of $`\widehat{\omega }^1(\mathrm{})`$. This yields

$$𝒪_{\widehat{W}_M}\left((\widehat{W}_M)_0+\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}D_i\right)=\widehat{\omega }^{}𝒪_^1(2)𝒪_{\widehat{W}_M}(2V)$$

and so $`𝒪_{\widehat{W}_M}((\widehat{W}_M)_0+_{i=1}^4D_i)`$ is divisible by two in $`\mathrm{Pic}(\widehat{W}_M)`$. But from the construction of $`\widehat{W}_M`$ it follows immediately that $`\pi _1(\widehat{W}_M)=0`$ and so $`\mathrm{Pic}(\widehat{W}_M)`$ is torsion-free. Due to this there is a unique square root of the line bundle $`𝒪_{\widehat{W}_M}((\widehat{W}_M)_0+_{i=1}^4D_i)`$ and we get a unique root cover $`\widehat{\kappa }:\widehat{B}\widehat{Q}`$ as desired.

Let $`\widehat{D}_i\widehat{B}`$ denote the component of the ramification divisor of $`\widehat{\kappa }`$ which maps to $`D_i`$. Note that each $`\widehat{D}_i`$ is a smooth rational curve and that since $`\widehat{\kappa }^{}D_i=2\widehat{D}_i`$ we have

$$\widehat{D}_i\widehat{D}_i=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{\kappa }^{}(D_i^2)=\frac{1}{4}2D_i^2=\frac{1}{4}2(2)=1.$$

Therefore we can contract the disjoint $`(1)`$ curves $`\{\widehat{D}_i\}_{i=1}^4`$ to obtain a smooth surface $`B`$ which covers $`W_M`$ two to one with branching exactly along $`(W_M)_0`$ and the the four singular points of $`W_M`$. If we now denote the covering involution of $`\kappa :BW_M`$ by $`\alpha _B`$ we have $`W_M=B/\alpha _B`$ and $`\widehat{W}_M=\widehat{B/\alpha _B}`$. This construction is clearly invertible, so the lemma a is proven. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3.6

All rational elliptic surfaces $`\beta :B^1`$ which admit an involution $`\alpha _B`$, which preserves the zero section $`e`$ of $`\beta `$ and induces an involution on $`^1`$, form a five dimensional irreducible family.

Proof. According to lemma 3.5 every such surface $`B`$ determines and is determined by the curve $`M=TrQ`$ and by the choice of a smooth fiber $`(W_M)_0`$ of $`W_M`$. The curve $`M`$ depends on $`dim|𝒪_Q(1,4)|+dim|𝒪_Q(1,0)|dim\mathrm{Aut}(Q)=9+16=4`$ parameters. Adding one more parameter for the choice of $`(W_M)_0`$ we obtain the statement of the corollary. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is convenient to assemble all the surfaces and maps described above in the following commutative diagram:

where the maps $`\varphi `$, $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ and $`\epsilon `$ are blow-ups. The maps $`\psi `$, $`\widehat{\psi }`$, $`\kappa `$ and $`\widehat{\kappa }`$ are double covers and $`\omega `$, $`\widehat{\omega }`$, $`\beta `$ and $`\widehat{\beta }`$ are elliptic fibrations.

Now we are ready to look for the involutions $`\tau _B`$.

Let $`B`$ and $`\alpha _B`$ be as in the previous section. As explained in Section 3.1, in order to describe all possible involutions $`\tau _B`$ we need to describe all sections $`\zeta :^1B`$ such that $`\alpha _B^{}\zeta =(1)_B^{}\zeta `$.

###### Remark 3.7

The existence of such a section $`\zeta `$ can be shown by solving an equation in the group $`𝕄𝕎`$. For this, observe that since $`\alpha _B`$ preserves the fibers of $`\beta `$ it must send a section to a section. Thus $`\alpha _B`$ induces a bijection $`\alpha _{𝕄𝕎}:𝕄𝕎𝕄𝕎`$, which is uniquely characterized by the property

$$c_1(\alpha _{𝕄𝕎}([\xi ]))=𝒪_B(\alpha _B(\xi )).$$

Also, by the definition of $`(1)_B`$ we know that $`c_1([\xi ])=(1)_B(\xi )`$ and hence we need to show the existence of a section $`\zeta `$, such that $`\alpha _{𝕄𝕎}([\zeta ])=[\zeta ]`$.

The first step is to observe that since the isomorphism $`\tau _^1^{}B\stackrel{~}{}B`$ preserves the group structure on the fibers, the induced bijection $`\alpha _{𝕄𝕎}`$ on sections is actually a group automorphism.

Next note that for the general $`B`$ in the five dimensional family from Corollary 3.6, the lattice $`𝒯`$ has rank two since the general such $`B`$ has only singular fibers of type $`I_1`$ and so $`𝒯=ef`$. Moreover $`\alpha _{B|𝒯}=\mathrm{id}_𝒯`$, and so the space of anti-invariants of $`\alpha _B^{}`$ acting on $`\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ injects into the space of anti-invariants of $`\alpha _{𝕄𝕎}`$. But in Section 3.3 we showed that $`B/\alpha _B`$ is again a rational elliptic surface which has four $`A_1`$ singularities. In particular $`\mathrm{rk}(\mathrm{Pic}(B/\alpha _B))=6`$ and so there is a $`4`$-dimensional space of anti-invariants for the $`\alpha _B^{}`$ action on $`\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$.

This implies that $`\alpha _{𝕄𝕎}`$ has a $`4`$ dimensional space of anti-invariants on $`𝕄𝕎`$ and hence we can find a section $`\zeta e`$ with $`\alpha _{𝕄𝕎}([\zeta ])=[\zeta ]`$. The involution $`\tau _B`$ corresponding to $`(\alpha _B,\zeta )`$ will have only four isolated fixed points.

## 4 The four dimensional subfamily of special rational elliptic surfaces

From now on we will restrict our attention to a 4-dimensional subfamily of the 5-dimensional family of surfaces of Corollary 3.6. We do this for two reasons:

* Mathematically, this seems to be the simplest family where the full range of possible behavior of the spectral involution $`𝑻=𝑭𝑴^1\tau _B^{}𝑭𝑴`$ is present, see Proposition 7.1. Indeed, for a generic surface in the five dimensional family, $`𝑻`$ takes line bundles to line bundles, so everything can be rephrased without the use of the derived category.
* In terms of our motivation from the physics, this specialization is needed for the construction of the Standard Model bundles. By taking fiber products of surfaces from the five dimensional family one indeed gets a smooth Calabi-Yau with a freely acting involution. However, it turns out that for a generic such $`B`$, the cohomology of the resulting Calabi-Yau is not rich enough to lead to invariant vector bundles satisfying the Chern class constraints from \[DOPWa\].

### 4.1 The quotient $`B/\tau _B`$

The starting point of the construction of the four dimensional family is the following simple observation: since $`\zeta `$ must satisfy $`\alpha _B^{}(\zeta )=(1)_B^{}(\zeta )`$ it will help to work with rational elliptic surfaces $`B`$ for which we know the geometric relationship between the two involutions $`\alpha _B`$ and $`(1)_B`$. In the previous section we interpreted the involution $`\alpha _B`$ as the covering involution of the map $`\kappa `$. On the other hand the involution $`(1)_B`$ was the group inversion along the fibers of $`\beta `$ corresponding to a zero section $`e:^1B`$ which was chosen to be one of the two components of the preimage in $`B`$ of a ruling of type $`(0,1)`$ in $`Q`$ which passes trough one of the four points in $`Tr`$. Since in this setup the involutions $`\alpha _B`$ and $`(1)_B`$ are generically unrelated it is natural to look for a special configuration of the curves $`T`$ and $`r`$ for which $`(1)_B`$ can be related to the maps $`\kappa `$ and $`\psi `$.

###### Lemma 4.1

Consider the family of rational elliptic surfaces $`B`$ obtained as an iterated double cover $`BW_MQ`$ for which the component $`T`$ of the branch curve $`M`$ is split further into a union $`T=s𝔗`$ where $`s`$ is a ruling of $`Q`$ of type $`(0,1)`$ and $`𝔗`$ is a curve of type $`(1,3)`$. Let as before $`e`$ be the section of $`B`$ mapping to $`sQ`$. Then we have:

* The involution $`(1)_{B,e}`$ is a lift of the covering involution of the double cover $`\psi :W_M^1`$.
* For a general pair $`(B,\alpha _B)`$ corresponding to a branch curve $`M=s𝔗r`$ there exist three pairs of sections of $`\beta `$ labeled by the non-trivial points of order two on $`f_0`$ and such that the two members of each pair are interchanged both by $`\alpha _B`$ and $`(1)_B`$.

Proof. If the curve $`𝔗`$ is chosen to be general and smooth, then the branch curve $`M`$ has five nodes $`\{P,P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4\}`$. Here as before $`\{P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4\}=Tr`$ and the extra point $`P`$ is the intersection point of the curves $`𝔗`$ and $`s`$.

Let $`\{p,p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4\}W_M`$ denote the corresponding singularities of $`W_M`$. Observe that for a general choice of the curve $`𝔗`$ and the point $`0^1`$ the singularity $`pW_M`$ is not contained in the branch locus $`(W_M)_0\{p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4\}`$ of the map $`\kappa `$. In particular the double cover of $`W_M`$ branched along $`(W_M)_0\{p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4\}`$ will have two $`A_1`$ singularities at the two preimages $`\overline{p}_1`$ and $`\overline{p}_2`$ of the point $`p`$. In order to get a smooth rational elliptic surface we have to to blow up this two points. Abusing slightly the notation we will denote by $`B`$ the resulting smooth surface and by $`\kappa :BW_M`$ the composition of the blow-up map with the double cover of $`W_M`$ branched along $`(W_M)_0\{p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4\}`$. Let $`n_1,n_2B`$ denote the exceptional curves corresponding to $`\overline{p}_1`$ and $`\overline{p}_2`$ and let $`o_1,o_2`$ denote proper transforms in $`B`$ of the two preimages of the fiber $`\omega ^1(\omega (p))`$ in the double cover of $`W_M`$ branched along $`(W_M)_0\{p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4\}`$. Here we have labeled $`o_1`$ and $`o_2`$ so that $`\overline{p}_1o_1`$ and $`\overline{p}_2o_2`$. From this picture it is clear that $`\beta :B^1`$ is a smooth rational elliptic surface with a $`8I_1+2I_2`$ configuration of singular fibers which is symmetric with respect to the involution $`\tau _^1`$. Furthermore the two $`I_2`$ fibers of $`\beta `$ are just the curves $`o_1n_1`$ and $`o_2n_2`$ and the two fixed points $`\{0,\mathrm{}\}`$ of $`\tau _^1`$ correspond to two smooth fibers $`f_0`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`\beta `$. Note also that the proper transform of the section $`sQ`$ via the generically finite map $`\psi \kappa :BQ`$ is an irreducible rational curve $`eB`$ which is a section of $`\beta :B^1`$. Moreover the inversion $`(1)_B`$ with respect to $`e`$ commutes with the covering involution $`\alpha _B`$ for the map $`\kappa `$ and descends to an inversion $`(1)_{W_M}`$ along the fibers of the elliptic fibration $`\omega :W_M^1`$ which fixes the image of $`e`$ pointwise. But by construction the image of $`e`$ in $`W_M`$ is just the component of the ramification divisor of the cover $`\psi :W_MQ`$ sitting over $`sQ`$. In particular $`(1)_{W_M}`$ is just the covering involution for the map $`\psi `$.

We are now ready to construct a section $`\zeta :^1B`$ of $`\beta `$ satisfying $`\alpha _B^{}(\zeta )=(1)_B(\zeta )`$. Indeed, assume that such a section exists.

Due to the fact that $`\alpha _{B|f_0}=\mathrm{id}_{f_0}`$ we have $`\zeta (0)=\zeta (0)`$ i.e. $`\zeta (0)`$ is a point of order two on $`f_0`$. Now from the Weierstrass equation (3.2) of $`B`$ it is clear that the general $`B`$ cannot have monodromy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(2)`$ and so without a loss of generality we may assume that $`\zeta \zeta =\alpha _B^{}\zeta `$. Consider now the image $`\kappa (\zeta )W_M=B/\alpha _B`$ of $`\zeta `$ in $`W_M`$. We have $`\kappa ^1(\kappa (\zeta ))=\zeta \alpha _B^{}\zeta `$. On the other hand the preimage of the general elliptic fiber of $`\omega :W_M^1`$ via $`\kappa `$ splits as a disjoint union of two fibers of $`\beta `$ and so $`\alpha _{B|f_0}=\mathrm{id}_{f_0}`$ we have $`\zeta (0)=\zeta (0)`$ i.e. $`\zeta (0)`$ is a point of order two on $`f_0`$. Consider now the image $`\kappa (\zeta )W_M=B/\alpha _B`$ of $`\zeta `$ in $`W_M`$. We have $`\kappa ^1(\kappa (\zeta ))=\zeta \alpha _B^{}\zeta `$. On the other hand the preimage of the general elliptic fiber of $`\omega :W_M^1`$ via $`\kappa `$ splits as a disjoint union of two fibers of $`\beta `$ and so

$$\kappa (\zeta )\omega ^1(\mathrm{pt})=\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^{}(\kappa (\zeta )\omega ^1(\mathrm{pt}))=\frac{1}{2}(\zeta +\alpha ^{}\zeta )(2\beta ^1(\mathrm{pt}))=2$$

i.e. the smooth rational curve $`\kappa (\zeta )`$ is a double section of $`\omega `$. Moreover the condition $`\alpha _B^{}\zeta =\zeta `$ combined with the property $`\alpha _{B|B_{\mathrm{}}}=(1)_B_{\mathrm{}}`$ implies that $`(\alpha _B^{})\zeta (\mathrm{})=\zeta (\mathrm{})`$ and so the double cover $`\omega _{|\kappa (\zeta )}:\kappa (\zeta )^1`$ is branched exactly over the points $`0,\mathrm{}`$. Furthermore since $`\zeta (0)`$ is a point of order two on $`f_0`$ it must lie on the preimage of $`T`$ in $`B`$ and so the two ramification points of the cover $`\omega _{|\kappa (\zeta )}:\kappa (\zeta )^1`$ must both lie on the ramification divisor of the double cover $`\psi :W_MQ`$ as depicted on Figure 1.

Also note that if we pullback to $`B`$ the involution of $`W_M`$ acting along the fibers of $`\psi `$ we will get precisely $`(1)_B`$. Combined with the fact that $`\alpha _B^{}\zeta =(1)_B^{}\zeta `$ this shows that $`\kappa (\zeta )`$ is stable under the involution of $`W_M`$ acting along the fibers of $`\psi `$ and so $`\psi ^1(\psi (\kappa (\zeta )))=\kappa (\zeta )`$. Put $`q:=\psi (\kappa (\zeta ))`$. Then $`q`$ is a smooth rational curve which intersects each of the curves $`T`$ and $`r`$ at a single point so that the double cover $`\psi _{|\kappa (\zeta )}:\kappa (\zeta )q`$ is branched exactly at $`q(Tr)`$. So $`q`$ is the unique ruling of type $`(0,1)`$ on $`Q`$ which passes trough the point $`\psi (\kappa (\zeta (0)))TQ_0`$.

Conversely if we start with any ruling $`q`$ of type $`(0,1)`$ that passes trough one of the four points in $`Tf_0`$ we see that $`\psi ^1(q)`$ is a smooth rational curve which is a double cover of $`q`$ with branch divisor $`q(Tr)`$. Since the rulings of type $`(1,0)`$ pull back to a single fiber of $`\omega `$ via $`\psi `$ we see that

$$\psi ^1(q)\omega ^1(\mathrm{pt})=\psi ^{}(qp_1^1(\mathrm{pt}))=2qp_1^1(\mathrm{pt})=2,$$

and so $`q`$ is a double section of the elliptic fibration $`\omega :W_M^1`$ which is tangent to the fibers $`(W_M)_0`$ and $`(W_M)_{\mathrm{}}`$. Also it is clear that for $`T`$ and $`r`$ in general position the point $`qr`$ is not one of the four points in $`Tr`$ and so the point of contact of $`\psi ^1(q)`$ and $`(W_M)_{\mathrm{}}`$ is not one of the four isolated branch points of the covering $`\kappa :BW_M`$. So $`\psi ^1(q)`$ intersects the branch locus of $`\kappa `$ at a single point with multiplicity two - namely the point of contact of $`(W_M)_0`$ and $`\psi ^1(q)`$. This implies that the preimage of $`\psi ^1(q)`$ in $`B`$ splits into two sections of $`\beta `$ that intersect at a point on the fiber $`f_0`$ and are exchanged both by $`\alpha _B`$ and $`(1)_B`$. The lemma is proven. $`\mathrm{}`$

Finally, let $`\tau _B`$ be the involution of $`B`$ corresponding to the pair $`(\alpha _B,\zeta )`$ constructed in the previous lemma. Then the quotient $`B/\tau _B`$ is again a genus one fibered rational surface which similarly to $`B/\alpha _B`$ has four $`A_1`$ singularities all sitting on fiber over $`\mathrm{}^1`$. However $`B/\tau _B`$ has also a smooth double fiber and so is only genus one fibered. The minimal resolution of $`B/\tau _B`$ in this case has a $`4I_1+I_2+I_0^{}+_2I_0`$ configuration of singular fibers.

### 4.2 The basis in $`H^2(B,)`$

In order to describe an integral basis of the cohomology of $`B`$ we need to find a description of our $`B`$ as a blow-up of $`^2`$ in the base points of a pencil of cubics.

To achieve this we will use a different fibration on $`B`$, namely the fibration

induced from the projection of the quadric $`Q`$ onto its second factor. The fibers of $`\delta `$ can be studied directly in terms of the degree four map $`\psi \kappa :BQ`$ but it is much more instructive to use instead an alternative description of $`B`$ as a double cover of a quadric.

In section 4.1 we saw that the description of $`B`$ as an iterated double cover

$$B\stackrel{\kappa }{}W_M\stackrel{\psi }{}Q$$

of the quadric $`Q`$ yields two commuting involutions $`\alpha _B`$ and $`(1)_B`$ on $`B`$. By construction the quotient $`B/\alpha _B`$ can be identified with the blow-up of the rational elliptic surface $`W_M`$ at the $`A_1`$ singularity $`pW_M`$ sitting over the unique intersection point $`\{P\}=s𝔗`$. In particular if we consider the Stein factorization of the generically finite map $`\kappa :BW_M`$ we get

$$BW_\beta W_M.$$

Here $`W_\beta `$ is the Weierstrass model of $`\beta :B^1`$ and $`BW_\beta `$ is the blow-up the two $`A_1`$ singularities of $`W_\beta `$ and the map $`W_\beta W_M`$ is the double cover branched at $`(W_M)_0\{p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4\}`$.

Similarly we can describe the quotients $`B/(1)_B`$ and $`B/((1)_B\alpha _B)`$ as blow-ups of appropriate double covers of $`Q`$. Indeed the curves on $`Q`$ that play a special role in the description of $`B`$ as an iterated double cover are: the $`(1,3)`$ curve $`𝔗`$, the $`(0,1)`$ ruling $`s`$ and the $`(1,0)`$ rulings $`r=r_{\mathrm{}}=p_1^1(\mathrm{})`$ and $`r_0=p_1^1(0)`$.

Consider the double cover $`\omega ^{}:W_M^{}Q`$ branched along the curve $`M^{}=Tr_0=s𝔗r_0`$ and the double cover $`\mathrm{Sq}:\stackrel{~}{Q}Q`$ branched along the union of rulings $`r_0r_{\mathrm{}}`$. Clearly $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is again a quadric which is just a the fiber product of $`p_1:Q^1`$ with the squaring map $`\mathrm{sq}:^1^1`$, i.e. we have a fiber-square

The preimage $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}:=\mathrm{Sq}^1(𝔗)\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ of $`𝔗`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is a genus two curve doubly covering $`𝔗`$ with branching at the six points $`𝔗(r_0r_{\mathrm{}})`$. Also, the preimage $`\stackrel{~}{s}=\mathrm{Sq}^1(s)`$ is a rational curve doubly covering the ruling $`s`$ branched at the two points $`s(r_0r_{\mathrm{}})`$. In particular, $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ is a ruling of type $`(0,1)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$. Similarly, if we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{r}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{}}`$ the two components of the ramification divisor of $`\mathrm{Sq}:\stackrel{~}{Q}Q`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{r}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{}}`$ are rulings of type $`(1,0)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$.

Now it is clear that the Weierstrass model $`W_\beta `$ of $`B`$ can be described as either of the following

* $`W_\beta W_M`$ is the double cover branched at the fiber $`(W_M)_0`$ and the four points $`\{p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4\}`$ of order two of the fiber $`(W_M)_{\mathrm{}}`$.
* $`W_\beta W_M^{}`$ is the double cover branched at the fiber $`(W_M)_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the four points of order two of the fiber $`(W_M)_0`$.
* $`W_\beta \stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is the double cover branched at the curve $`\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$.

Furthermore

* The quotient $`B/\alpha _BW_M`$ is the blow-up of $`W_M`$ at the $`A_1`$ singularity $`p`$ sitting over the point $`PQ`$ of intersection of $`s`$ and $`𝔗`$. The map $`BB/\alpha _B`$ is the double cover of $`B/\alpha _B`$ branched at the fiber $`(B/\alpha _B)_0`$ and the four points of order two of $`(B/\alpha _B)_{\mathrm{}}`$.
* The quotient $`B/(\alpha _B(1)_B)W_M^{}`$ is the blow-up of $`W_M^{}`$ at the $`A_1`$ singularity sitting over the point of intersection of $`s`$ and $`𝔗`$. The map $`BB/(\alpha _B(1)_B)`$ is the double cover of $`B/(\alpha _B(1)_B)`$ branched at the fiber $`(B/\alpha _B)_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the four points of order two of $`(B/\alpha _B)_0`$.
* The quotient $`B/(1)_B`$ is the blow-up of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ at the two intersection points of $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$. The map $`BB/(1)_B`$ is the double cover branched at the strict transform of $`\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$.

The action of the Klein group $`\alpha _B,(1)_B`$ on $`B`$ and all of the above maps are most conveniently recorded in the commutative diagram

(4.1)
where the solid arrows in the first and third rows are all double covers, the solid arrows in the middle row are blow-ups and the dotted arrows are Stein factorization maps.

In order to visualize the system of maps (4.1) better it is instructive to label all the double cover maps appearing in (4.1) by a picture of their branch loci. This is recorded in the diagram in Figure 2.

There is a definite advantage in interpreting geometric questions on $`B`$ or $`W_\beta `$ on all three surfaces $`W_M`$, $`W_M^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$. For example, by viewing $`W_\beta `$ as a double cover of the quadric $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ we can easily describe the fibers of the rational curve fibration $`\delta :B^1`$ defined in the beginning of the section. Indeed, due to the commutativity of (4.1) the map $`\delta =p_2\psi \kappa `$ decomposes also as

where $`\stackrel{~}{p}_2:\stackrel{~}{Q}^1`$ is the projection onto the ruling of type $`(1,0)`$. In particular we can view each fiber $`\delta ^1(x)`$ of the map $`\delta :B^1`$ as the double cover of the fiber $`\stackrel{~}{p}_2^1(x)`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{p}_2:\stackrel{~}{Q}^1`$ branched along the degree two divisor $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}\stackrel{~}{p}_2^1(x)\stackrel{~}{p}_2^1(x)`$. This shows that the singular fibers of $`\delta `$ are precisely the preimages under the map $`B\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ and of those $`(0,1)`$ rulings of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ which happen to be tangent to the curve $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$.

Since the curve $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ is of type $`(2,3)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ we see by adjunction that $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ must have genus two and so by the Hurwitz formula the double cover map $`\stackrel{~}{p}_2:\stackrel{~}{𝔗}^1`$ will have six ramification points. This means that there are six rulings of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ of type $`(0,1)`$ which are tangent to $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$, i.e. generically $`\delta `$ will have seven singular fibers (see Figure 3). Six of those will be unions of two rational curves meeting at a point and the seventh one will have one rational component occurring with multiplicity two (the preimage in $`B`$ of the strict transform of $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ in $`B/(1)_B`$) and two reduced rational components $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ (the exceptional divisors of the blow-up $`BW_\beta `$). Notice moreover that (4.1) implies that the preimage in $`B`$ of the strict transform of $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ in $`B/(1)_B`$ is precisely the zero section $`e`$ of the elliptic fibration $`\beta :B^1`$ and so the non-reduced fiber of $`\delta `$ is just the divisor $`2e+n_1+n_2`$ on $`B`$.

In fact, one can describe explicitly the $`(0,1)`$ rulings of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ that are tangent to the curve $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$. Indeed let $`\mathrm{pt}r_0𝔗`$ be one of the three intersection points of $`r_0`$ and $`𝔗`$. Choose (analytic) local coordinates $`(x,y)`$ on a neighborhood $`\mathrm{pt}UQ`$ so that $`\mathrm{pt}=(0,0)`$, $`r_0`$ has equation $`x=0`$ in $`U`$ and the $`(0,1)`$ ruling through $`\mathrm{pt}Q`$ has equation $`y=0`$ in $`U`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{U}\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ be the preimage of $`U`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$. Then there are unique coordinates $`(u,v)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ such that the double cover $`\stackrel{~}{U}U`$ is given by $`(u,v)(u^2,v)=(x,y)`$. Due to our genericity assumption<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1We are assuming that $`𝔗`$ meets $`r_0`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$ transversally. the local equation of $`𝔗`$ in $`U`$ will be $`x=ay+(\text{higher order terms})`$ for some number $`a`$. Thus the pullback of $`r_0`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ will be given by $`u=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ will have equation $`u^2=av+(\text{higher order terms})`$. Since by construction $`v=0`$ is the local equation of a $`(0,1)`$ ruling of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ is tangent to the three $`(0,1)`$ rulings of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ passing through the three intersection points in $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}\stackrel{~}{r}_0`$. In the same way one sees that $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ is tangent to the three $`(0,1)`$ rulings of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ passing through the three intersection points in $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}\stackrel{~}{r}_{\mathrm{}}`$. This accounts for all six $`(0,1)`$ rulings of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ that are tangent to $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$.

We are now ready to describe $`B`$ as the blow-up of $`^2`$ at the base locus of a pencil of cubics. Each component of a reduced singular fiber of $`\delta `$ is a curve of self-intersection $`(1)`$ on $`B`$. For every such fiber choose one of the components and label it by $`e_i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},6`$ (see Figure 3). Now $`e,e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_6`$ is a collection of seven disjoint $`(1)`$ curves on the rational elliptic surface $`B`$. The curves $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are rational $`(2)`$ curves on $`B`$ and so if we contract $`e`$ each of them will become a $`(1)`$ curve. So if we contract $`e,e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_6`$ and after that we contract $`n_1`$ we will end up with a Hirzebruch surface. Moreover numerically $`e,e+n_1,e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_6`$ behave like eight disjoint $`(1)`$ curves on $`B`$ and so the result of the contraction of $`e,n_1,e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_6`$ should be $`𝔽_1`$. Contracting the infinity section of $`𝔽_1`$ we will finally obtain $`^2`$ as the blow down of nine $`(1)`$ divisors on $`B`$. Let $`e_7`$ denote the infinity section of $`𝔽_1`$. To make things explicit let us identify $`e_7`$ as a curve coming from $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$. Denote by $`𝔢\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ the image of $`e_7`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$. Then $`𝔢`$ is an irreducible curve which intersects the generic $`(0,1)`$ ruling at one point. This implies that $`𝔢`$ is of type $`(1,k)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ and so $`𝔢`$ must be a rational curve. In particular the map $`e_7𝔢`$ ought to be an isomorphism and $`e_7(1)_B^{}(e_7)`$ is the preimage in $`B`$ of the strict transform of $`𝔢`$ in $`B/(1)_B`$. Equivalently $`e_7(1)_B^{}(e_7)`$ is the strict transform in $`B`$ of the preimage of $`𝔢`$ in $`W_\beta `$. This implies that the preimage of $`𝔢`$ in $`W_\beta `$ is reducible and so $`𝔢`$ must have order of contact two with the branch divisor $`\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ of the covering $`W_\beta \stackrel{~}{Q}`$ at each point where $`𝔢`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ meet. Since $`𝔢\stackrel{~}{s}=(1,k)(0,1)=1`$ this implies that $`𝔢`$ must pass through one of the two intersection points of $`\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ and be tangent to $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ at $`(𝔢\stackrel{~}{𝔗}1)/2`$ points. But

$$\frac{𝔢\stackrel{~}{𝔗}1}{2}=\frac{(1,k)(2,3)1}{2}=k+1$$

and so $`e_7(1)_B^{}e_7=k+1`$. From here we can calculate $`k`$. Indeed, on one hand we know that $`e_7^2=1`$ and so

$$(e_7+(1)_B^{}e_7)^2=2+2+2k=2k.$$

On the other hand $`e_7+(1)_B^{}e_7`$ is the preimage in $`B`$ of the strict transform of $`𝔢`$ in $`B/(1)_B`$. But $`B/(1)_B`$ is simply the blow-up of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ at the two intersection points of $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ and $`𝔢`$ passes trough only one of those points and so the strict transform of $`𝔢`$ in $`B/(1)_B`$ has self-intersection $`𝔢^21`$. In other words

$$(e_7+(1)_B^{}e_7)^2=2(𝔢^21)=2(2k1)=4k2,$$

and so $`k=1`$.

Therefore, in order to reconstruct $`e_7`$ starting from $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ we need to find a $`(1,1)`$ curve $`𝔢`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ which passes through one of the two points in $`\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ and tangent to $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ at two extra points. But curves like that always exist. Indeed, the linear system $`|𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Q}}(1,1)|`$ embeds $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ in $`^3`$. Pick a point $`J\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ and let $`j:\stackrel{~}{Q}^2`$ be the linear projection of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ from that point. Now the $`(1,1)`$-curves passing through $`J`$ are precisely the preimages via $`j`$ of all lines in $`^2`$ and so the curve $`𝔢`$ will be just the preimage under $`j`$ of a line in $`^2`$ which is bitangent to $`j(\stackrel{~}{𝔗})`$. To understand better the curve $`j(\stackrel{~}{𝔗})^2`$ note that it has degree $`(1,1)(2,3)1=4`$ and that the map $`j:\stackrel{~}{𝔗}j(\stackrel{~}{𝔗})`$ is a birational morphism. Furthermore any $`(1,1)`$-curve passing trough $`J`$ and another point on the $`(1,0)`$ ruling through $`J`$ will have to contain the whole $`(1,0)`$ ruling. Since the $`(1,0)`$ ruling trough $`J`$ intersects $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ at $`J`$ and two extra points$`J^{}`$ and $`J^{\prime \prime }`$, it follows that $`j(J^{})=j(J^{\prime \prime })`$. Therefore $`j(\stackrel{~}{𝔗})`$ is a nodal quartic in $`^2`$ and the curve $`𝔢\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ corresponds to a bitangent line of this nodal quartic. The normalization of this nodal quartic is just the genus two curve $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ and the lines in $`^2`$ correspond just to sections in the canonical class $`\omega _{\stackrel{~}{𝔗}}`$ that have poles at the two preimages of the node. But a linear system of degree $`4`$ on a genus two curve is always two dimensional and so the space of lines in $`^2`$ is canonically isomorphic with $`|\omega _{\stackrel{~}{𝔗}}(J^{}+J^{\prime \prime })|`$. In other words, finding the bitangent lines to $`j(\stackrel{~}{𝔗})`$ in $`^2`$ is equivalent to finding all divisors in $`|\omega _{\stackrel{~}{𝔗}}(J^{}+J^{\prime \prime })|`$ of the form $`2𝒟`$ where $`𝒟`$ is an effective divisor of degree two on $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$. Since every degree two line bundle on a genus two curve is effective we see that finding $`𝔢`$ just amounts to choosing a non-trivial square root of the degree four line bundle $`\omega _{\stackrel{~}{𝔗}}(J^{}+J^{\prime \prime })`$.

Going back to the description of $`B`$ as the blow-up of $`^2`$ at the base points of a pencil of cubics assume for concreteness that $`J`$ is the point in $`\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ corresponding to the exceptional curve $`n_1B`$. Let $`𝔢\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ be a $`(1,1)`$ curve which passes trough $`J`$ and is bitangent to $`\stackrel{~}{𝔗}`$ at two extra points. Let $`e_7B`$ be one of the components of the preimage in $`B`$ of the strict transform of $`e_7`$ in $`B/(1)_B`$. Label by $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_6`$ the components of the reduced singular fibers of $`\delta :B^1`$ which do not intersect $`e_7`$. Then $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_6`$ and $`e`$ and $`e_7`$ are disjoint $`(1)`$ curves on $`B`$. After contracting these eight curves and the image of the curve $`n_1`$ we will get a $`^2`$.

Let $`c:B^2`$ denote this contraction map and let $`\mathrm{}=c^{}𝒪_^2(1)`$ be the pullback of the class of a line via $`c`$. Thus $`\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ is generated over $``$ by the classes of the curves $`\mathrm{}`$, $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_6`$, $`e`$, $`e_7`$ and $`n_1`$. In particular, if we put

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e_9& :=e\hfill \\ \hfill e_8& :=e+n_1\hfill \end{array}$$

we see that

$$H^2(B,)=\mathrm{}(_{i=1}^9e_i),$$

with $`\mathrm{}^2=1`$, $`\mathrm{}e_i=0`$ and $`e_ie_j=\delta _{ij}`$.

Note that in this basis we have

(4.2)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill n_1& =e_8e_9\hfill \\ \hfill o_1& =fe_8+e_9\hfill \\ \hfill n_2& =\mathrm{}e_7e_8e_9\hfill \\ \hfill o_2& =2\mathrm{}e_1e_2e_3e_4e_5e_6.\hfill \end{array}$$

### 4.3 A synthetic construction

Before we proceed with the calculation of the action of $`\tau _B`$ on $`H^2(B,)`$ it will be helpful to analyze how the surface $`B`$ and the map $`c:B^2`$ can be reconstructed synthetically from geometric data on $`^2`$.

First we will need a general lemma describing a birational involution of $`^2`$ fixing some smooth cubic pointwise.

###### Lemma 4.2

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ be a smooth cubic and let $`b\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. There exists a unique birational involution $`\alpha :^2^2`$ which preserves the general line through $`b`$ and fixes the general point of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the four ramification points for the linear projection of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from $`b`$. Then

$`\alpha `$ sends a general line to a cubic which is nodal at $`b`$ and passes through the $`b_i`$’s.

$`\alpha `$ sends the net of conics through $`b_1,b_2,b_3`$ to the net of cubics that are nodal at $`b_4`$ and pass through $`b,b_1,b_2,b_3`$.

Proof. Let $`\alpha :^2^2`$ be a birational involution which fixes the general point of the cubic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and preserves the general line through $`b\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`bL^2`$ is a general line, then $`L\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consists of three distinct points $`\{b,0_L,\mathrm{}_L\}`$. Since $`\alpha `$ preserves $`L`$ it follows that $`\alpha _{|L}`$ is a birational involution of $`L`$ which fixes the points $`0_L`$ and $`\mathrm{}_L`$. But any birational involution of $`^1`$ is biregular, has exactly two fixed points and is uniquely determined by its fixed points. Thus the restriction of $`\alpha `$ on the generic line through $`b`$ is uniquely determined and so there can be at most one such $`\alpha `$. Conversely we can use this uniqueness to show the existence of $`\alpha `$. Indeed, choose coordinates $`(x:y:z)`$ in $`^2`$ so that $`b=(0:0:1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given by the equation $`F(x,y,z)=0`$ with $`F`$ a homogeneous cubic polynomial. Since $`b\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we can write $`F=F_1z^2+F_2z+F_3`$ with $`F_d`$ a homogeneous polynomial in $`(x,y)`$ of degree $`d`$. Let $`(x:y:z)`$ be a point in $`^2`$ and let $`L=\{(x:y:z+t)\}_{t^1}`$ be the line through $`b`$ and $`(x:y:z)`$. The involution $`\alpha _{|L}`$ will have to fix the two additional (besides $`b`$) intersection points of $`L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The values of $`t`$ corresponding to these points are just the roots of the equation $`F(x,y,z+t)=0`$, that is the solutions to

(4.3)
$$F_1(x,y)t^2+F_z(x,y,z)t+F(x,y,z)=0.$$

On the other hand since $`t`$ is the affine coordinate on $`L`$ the involution $`\alpha _{|L}:^1^1`$ will be given by a fractional linear transformation

$$t\frac{at+b}{ct+d}$$

for some complex numbers $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$. The condition that $`\alpha _{|L}\mathrm{id}_L`$ but $`\alpha _{|L}^2=\mathrm{id}_L`$ is equivalent to $`d=a`$.

In these terms the fixed points of $`\alpha _{|L}`$ correspond to the values of $`t`$ for which

(4.4)
$$ct^22atb=0.$$

Comparing (4.3) with (4.4) we conclude that $`a=(1/2)F_z(x,y,z)`$, $`b=F(x,y,z)`$ and $`c=F_1(x,y)`$ and so

$$\alpha _{|L}((x:y:z+t))=(x:y:z\frac{F_z(x,y,z)t+2F(x,y,z)}{2F_1(x,y)t+F_z(x,y,z)}).$$

In particular for $`t=0`$ we must have

(4.5)
$$\alpha ((x:y:z))=\alpha _{|L}((x:y:z))=(x:y:z2\frac{F(x,y,z)}{F_z(x,y,z)}).$$

Now the formula (4.5) clearly defines a birational automorphism $`\alpha `$ of $`^2`$ and it is straightforward to check that $`\alpha ^2=\mathrm{id}_^2`$. This shows the existence and uniqueness of $`\alpha `$.

To prove the remaining statements note that the $`\alpha `$ that we have just defined lifts to a biregular involution $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ on the blow-up $`g:\widehat{^2}^2`$ of $`^2`$ at the points $`b,b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,\mathrm{\Sigma }_3,\mathrm{\Sigma }_4\widehat{^2}`$ denote the corresponding exceptional divisors and let $`\mathrm{}=g^{}𝒪_^2(1)`$ be the class of a line. By definition $`\alpha `$ preserves the general line through $`b`$ and the cubic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Hence $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ will preserve the proper transforms of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the general line through $`b`$, i.e.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\alpha }(\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma })& =\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{\alpha }\left(3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\right)& =3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i.\hfill \end{array}$$

Also it is clear (e.g. from (4.5)) that $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ identifies the proper transform of the line through $`b`$ and $`b_i`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ and so

$$\widehat{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i)=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_i$$

for $`i=1,2,3,4`$. Therefore we get two equations for $`\widehat{\alpha }(\mathrm{})`$ and $`\widehat{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\alpha }(\mathrm{})\widehat{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Sigma })& =\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }\hfill \\ \hfill 3\widehat{\alpha }(\mathrm{})\widehat{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Sigma })& =7\mathrm{}5\mathrm{\Sigma }2\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_i,\hfill \end{array}$$

which yield $`\widehat{\alpha }(\mathrm{})=3\mathrm{}2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ and $`\widehat{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Sigma })=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$.

If now $`L`$ is a line not passing through any of the points $`b,b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4`$ we see that the proper transform $`\widehat{L}`$ of $`L`$ in $`\widehat{^2}`$ is an irreducible curve such that $`\widehat{\alpha }(\widehat{L})`$ is in the linear system $`|3\mathrm{}2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^4\mathrm{\Sigma }_i|`$. In particular $`\widehat{\alpha }(\widehat{L})`$ intersects $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at two points and intersects each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ at a point. So $`\alpha (L)=g(\widehat{\alpha }(\widehat{L}))`$ is a cubic which is nodal at $`b`$ and passes through each of the $`b_i`$’s. This proves part (i) of the lemma.

Similarly if $`C`$ is a conic through $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$ and $`b_3`$, then $`\widehat{C}`$ is an irreducible curve in the linear system $`|2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_3|`$ on $`\widehat{^2}`$. Hence $`\widehat{\alpha }(\widehat{C})`$ is an irreducible curve in the linear system $`|3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_32\mathrm{\Sigma }_4|`$ and so $`\alpha (C)=g(\widehat{\alpha }(\widehat{C}))`$ is a cubic passing through $`b,b_1,b_2,b_3`$ which is nodal at $`b_4`$. The lemma is proven. $`\mathrm{}`$

For our synthetic construction of $`B`$ we will start with a nodal cubic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^2`$ and will denote its node by $`A_8\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. Pick four other points on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and label them $`A_1,A_2,A_3,A_7`$. For generic such choices there is a unique smooth cubic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which passes through the points $`A_1,A_2,A_3,A_7,A_8`$ and is tangent to the line $`A_7A_i`$ at the point $`A_i`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`8`$. Consider the pencil of cubics spanned by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. All cubics in this pencil pass through $`A_1,A_2,A_3,A_7,A_8`$ and are tangent to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at $`A_8`$. Let $`A_4,A_5,A_6`$ be the remaining three base points. Each cubic in the pencil intersects the line $`N_2:=A_7A_8`$ in the same divisor $`A_7+2A_8\mathrm{Div}(N_2)`$. Therefore there is a reducible cubic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=N_2O_2`$ in the pencil. Generically $`O_2`$ will be a smooth conic as depicted on Figure 4.

By Lemma 4.2 there is a birational involution $`\alpha `$ of $`^2`$ corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`b=A_7`$. Note that by construction $`b_i=A_i`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`b_4=A_8`$. By Lemma 4.2(ii) we know that $`\alpha (O_2)`$ is a nodal cubic with a node at $`A_8`$ which passes through $`A_1,A_2,A_3`$ and $`A_7`$. Since the involution $`\alpha `$ fixes $`A_4,A_5,A_6\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ it also follows that $`\alpha (O_2)`$ contains $`A_4,A_5,A_6`$. The intersection number $`\alpha (O_2)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ is therefore at least $`6+22=10`$ and so $`\alpha (O_2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. Moreover $`\alpha `$ collapses $`N_2`$ to $`A_8`$. This shows that $`\alpha `$ preserves the pencil.

We define $`B`$ to be the blow-up of $`^2`$ at the points $`A_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},8`$ and the point $`A_9`$ which is infinitesimally near to $`A_8`$ and corresponds to the tangent direction $`N_2`$. The pencil of cubics becomes the anticanonical map $`\beta :B^1`$. The reducible fibers are $`f_i=n_io_i`$, $`i=1,2`$ where $`n_2,o_2`$ are the proper transforms of $`N_2,O_2`$, $`o_1`$ is the proper transform of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`n_1`$ is the proper transform of the exceptional divisor corresponding to $`A_8`$. In order to conform with the notation in Section 2 we denote by $`e_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},7`$ and $`9`$ the exceptional divisors corresponding to $`A_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},7`$ and $`9`$ and by $`e_8`$ the reducible divisor $`e_9+n_1`$.

The involution $`\alpha :^2^2`$ lifts to a biregular involution $`\alpha _B:BB`$. The induced involution $`\tau _^1`$ of $`^1`$ has two fixed points $`0,\mathrm{}^1`$. One of them, say $`0`$, will be the image $`\beta (\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. We will use $`e_9`$ as the zero section $`e:^1B`$. Note that $`(1)_B^{}e_i=\alpha _B^{}e_i`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ and so we can take $`\zeta =e_1`$.

## 5 Action on cohomology

First we describe the action of the automorphisms $`(1)_B`$, $`\alpha _B`$, $`t_\zeta `$ and $`\tau _B`$ on $`H^{}(B,)`$.

### 5.1 Action of $`(1)_B`$

From the discussion in section 4.2 it is clear that $`(1)_B`$ preserves the fibers of $`\delta :B^1`$ and exchanges the two components of the six singular fibers of $`\delta `$ which are unions of two rational curves meeting at a point. Furthermore from the description of $`B`$ as a blow-up of $`^2`$ at nine points (see section 4.2) it follows that the class of the fiber of $`\delta `$ is $`\mathrm{}e_7`$. Hence $`(1)_B(\mathrm{}e_7)=\mathrm{}e_7`$ and $`(1)_B(e_i)+e_i=\mathrm{}e_7`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},6`$. Also, by the same analysis we see that $`(1)_B`$ preserves $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ and since $`(1)_B`$ preserves $`f`$ by definition, it follows that $`(1)_B`$ preserves $`o_1`$ and $`o_2`$ as well. Similarly $`(1)_B`$ preserves $`e_9`$ by definition and so $`(1)_B^{}(e_8)=(1)_B^{}(e_9+n_1)=e_9+n_1=e_8`$. Finally we can solve the equations $`(1)_B^{}(\mathrm{}e_7)=\mathrm{}e_7`$ and $`(1)_B^{}(o_2)=o_2`$ to get $`(1)_B(\mathrm{})=f+\mathrm{}2e_7+e_8+e_9`$ and $`(1)_B^{}(e_7)=fe_7+e_8+e_9`$.

### 5.2 Action of $`\alpha _B`$

Again from the analysis in section 4.2 and the geometric description of $`B/\alpha _B`$ and its Weierstrass model $`W_M`$ we see that $`\alpha _B`$ preserves the classes of the fibers of the two fibrations $`\beta :B^1`$ and $`\delta :B^1`$. In particular we have $`\alpha _B^{}(f)=f`$, $`\alpha _B^{}(\mathrm{}e_7)=\mathrm{}e_7`$ and $`\alpha _B^{}(e_9)=e_9`$. Also $`\alpha _B`$ interchanges $`o_1`$ and $`o_2`$ and hence interchanges $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$. From the relationship between the ramification divisors defining $`W_M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ we see that $`\alpha _B`$ will exchange the two components of the three singular fibers of $`\delta `$ corresponding to the three intersection points in $`𝔗r_0`$, i.e. $`\alpha _B^{}(e_j)+e_j=\mathrm{}e_7`$ for $`j=1,2,3`$. Similarly $`\alpha _B`$ will preserve the two components of the singular fibers of $`\delta `$ corresponding to the three intersection points in $`𝔗r_{\mathrm{}}`$, that is $`\alpha _B^{}(e_i)=e_i`$ for $`i=4,5,6`$. Finally, solving the equations $`\alpha _B^{}(\mathrm{}e_7)=\mathrm{}e_7`$ and $`\alpha _B^{}(o_1)=o_2`$ we get $`\alpha _B^{}(\mathrm{})=3\mathrm{}e_1e_2e_32e_7e_8`$ and $`\alpha _B^{}(e_7)=2\mathrm{}e_1e_2e_3e_7e_8`$.

### 5.3 Action of $`t_\zeta ^{}`$

By definition we have $`t_\zeta ^{}(f)=f`$. In order to find the action of $`t_\zeta `$ on the classes $`e_i`$ we will use the fact that $`t_\zeta `$ is defined in terms of the addition law on $`\beta ^\mathrm{\#}:B^\mathrm{\#}^1`$.

Since $`t_\zeta `$ preserves each fiber of $`\beta :B^1`$, the curve $`t_\zeta ^{}(n_1)`$ will have to be either $`n_1`$ or $`o_1`$. But $`\zeta =e_1`$ and so $`\zeta n_1=0`$ and $`\zeta o_1=1`$, so since $`n_1^\mathrm{\#}`$ is the identity component of the disconnected group $`n_1^\mathrm{\#}o_1^\mathrm{\#}=(n_1o_1)(n_1o_1)`$, we must have $`t_\zeta ^{}(n_1)=o_1`$. In the same way one can argue that $`t_\zeta ^{}(n_2)=o_2`$ and $`t_\zeta ^{}(o_i)=n_i`$ for $`i=1,2`$.

Next note that since $`t_\zeta `$ is compatible with the group scheme structure of $`B^\mathrm{\#}`$ we must have $`t_\zeta ^{}(\xi )=c_1([\xi ][\zeta ])`$ for any section $`\xi `$ of $`\beta `$. Using this relation we calculate:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill t_\zeta ^{}(e_1)& =c_1([e_1][e_1])=e_9,\hfill \\ \hfill t_\zeta ^{}(e_9)& =c_1([e_9][e_1])=(1)_B([e_1])=\mathrm{}e_1e_7,\hfill \end{array}$$

which in turn implies $`t_\zeta ^{}(e_8)=t_\zeta ^{}(e_9+n_1)=\mathrm{}e_1e_7+o_1=f+\mathrm{}e_1e_7e_8+e_9`$.

The previous formulas identify cohomology classes in $`H^2(B,)`$ or equivalently line bundles on $`B`$. However observe that the above formulas can also be viewed as equality of divisors, due to the fact that the line bundles in question correspond to sections of $`\beta `$, and so each of these is represented by a unique (rigid) effective divisor.

Also since the addition law on an elliptic curve is defined in terms of the Abel-Jacobi map we see that for a section $`\xi `$ of $`\beta `$, the restriction of the line bundle $`c_1([\xi ][e_1])𝒪_B(e_9)`$ to the generic fiber of $`\beta `$ will be the same as the restriction of $`𝒪_B(\xi e_1)`$. By the see-saw principle the difference of these two line bundles will have to be a combination of components of fibers of $`\beta `$, i.e.

$$t_\zeta ^{}(\xi )=c_1([\xi ][e_1])=\xi e_1+e_9+a_1^\xi n_1+a_2^\xi n_2+a^\xi f.$$

Intersecting both sides with $`n_1`$ and taking into account that $`(t_\zeta ^1)^{}(n_1)=o_1`$ we get $`o_1\xi =\xi n_1+12a_1^\xi `$. Similarly when we intersect with $`n_2`$ we get $`o_2\xi =\xi n_2+12a_2^\xi `$. In particular since for $`i=2,\mathrm{},6`$ we have $`e_in_1=e_in_2=0`$ and $`e_io_1=e_io_2=1`$ we get $`a_1^{e_i}=a_2^{e_i}=0`$ and so $`t_\zeta ^{}(e_i)=e_ie_1+e_9+a^{e_i}f`$. Using the fact that $`(t_\zeta ^{}(e_i))^2=1`$ we find that $`a^{e_i}=1`$ and thus

$$t_\zeta ^{}(e_i)=e_ie_1+e_9+f$$

for $`i=2,\mathrm{},6`$.

Finally, for $`e_7`$ we have $`e_7n_1=e_7o_2=0`$ and $`e_7n_2=e_7o_1=1`$ and so $`t_\zeta ^{}(e_7)=e_7e_1+e_9+n_2+a^{e_7}f`$. From $`(t_\zeta ^{}(e_7))^2=1`$ we find $`a^{e_7}=0`$ and therefore $`t_\zeta ^{}(e_7)=e_7e_1+e_9+n_2`$.

This completes the calculation of the action of $`t_\zeta ^{}`$ on $`H^2(B,)`$. The action of $`\tau _B^{}`$ is easily obtained since by definition we have $`\tau _B^{}=\alpha _B^{}t_\zeta ^{}`$.

All these actions are summarized in Table 1 below.

## 6 The cohomological Fourier-Mukai transform

For the purposes of the spectral construction we will need also the action of the relative Fourier-Mukai transform for $`\beta :B^1`$ on the cohomology of $`B`$. By definition the Fourier-Mukai transform is the exact functor on the bounded derived category $`D^b(B)`$ of $`B`$ given by the formula

Here $`p_1,p_2`$ are the projections of $`B\times _^1B`$ to its two factors, and $`𝒫_B`$ is the Poincare sheaf:

$$𝒫_B:=𝒪_B(\mathrm{\Delta }e\times _^1BB\times _^1eq^{}𝒪_^1(1)),$$

with $`q=\beta p_1=\beta p_2`$. Using the zero section $`e:^1B`$ we can identify $`B`$ with the relative moduli space $`(B/^1)`$ of semistable (w.r.t. to a suitable polarization), rank one, degree zero torsion free sheaves along the fibers of $`\beta :B^1`$. Under this identification, the sheaf $`𝒫_BB\times _^1B=B\times _^1(B/^1)`$ becomes the universal sheaf. This puts us in the setting of \[BM, Theorem 1.2\] and implies that $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ is an autoequivalence of $`D^b(B)`$. In particular we can view any vector bundle $`VB`$ in two different ways - as $`V`$ and as the object $`𝑭𝑴_B(V)D^b(B)`$.

The cohomological Fourier-Mukai transform is defined as the unique linear map

$$𝒇𝒎_B:H^{}(B,)H^{}(B,)$$

satisfying:

(6.1)
$$𝒇𝒎_Bch=ch𝑭𝑴_B.$$

Explicitly,

$$𝒇𝒎_B(x)=\mathrm{pr}_2(\mathrm{pr}_1^{}(x)ch(j_{}𝒫)td(B\times B))td(B)^1,$$

where $`\mathrm{pr}_i`$ are the projections of $`B\times B`$ to its factors and $`j:B\times _^1BB\times B`$ is the natural inclusion.

We will need an explicit description of the cohomological spectral involution

$$𝒕_B:=𝒇𝒎_B^1\tau _B^{}𝒇𝒎_B.$$

For this we proceed to calculate the action of $`𝒇𝒎_B`$ and $`𝒇𝒎_B^1`$ in the obvious basis in cohomology.

Let $`\mathrm{pt}H^4(B,)`$ denote the class Poincare dual to the homology class of a point in $`B`$ and let $`1H^0(B,)`$ be the class which is Poincare dual to the fundamental class of $`B`$. The classes $`1`$, $`f`$, $`e_1`$, …, $`e_9`$, $`\mathrm{pt}`$ constitute a basis of $`H^{}(B,)`$.

To calculate $`𝒇𝒎_B`$ we will use the identity (6.1) together with a calculation of the action of $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ on certain basic sheaves, which is carried out in Lemma 6.1 below.

The first observation is that there are two ways to lift a sheaf $`G`$ on $`^1`$ to a sheaf on $`B`$. First we may consider the pullback $`\beta ^{}(G)`$. Second, for any section $`\xi :^1B`$ of $`\beta `$ we may form the push-forward $`\xi _{}G`$. These two lifts behave quite differently. For example, if $`G`$ is a line bundle, then $`\beta ^{}G`$ is a line bundle on $`B`$, whereas $`\xi _{}G`$ is a torsion sheaf on $`B`$ supported on $`\xi `$. The action of $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ interchanges these two types of sheaves (up to a shift):

###### Lemma 6.1

For any sheaf $`G`$ on $`^1`$ and any section $`\xi `$ of $`\beta `$ we have:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝑭𝑴_B(\beta ^{}G)& =e_{}(G𝒪_^1(1))[1]\hfill \\ \hfill 𝑭𝑴_B(\xi _{}G)& =\beta ^{}G𝒪_B(\xi e)\beta ^{}𝒪_^1(e\xi 1),\hfill \end{array}$$

where as usual for a complex $`K^{}=(K^i,d_K^i)`$ and an integer $`n`$ we put $`K^{}[n]`$ for the complex having $`(K[n])^i=K^{n+i}`$ and $`d_{K[n]}=(1)^nd_K`$.

Proof. By definition we have $`𝑭𝑴_B(\beta ^{}G)=Rp_2(p_1^{}\beta ^{}G_B)`$. But $`\beta p_1=\beta p_2`$ and so by the projection formula we get $`𝑭𝑴_B(\beta ^{}G)=Rp_2(p_2^{}\beta ^{}G_B)=\beta ^{}GRp_2𝒫_B`$. In order to calculate $`Rp_2𝒫_B`$, note first that $`Rp_2𝒫_B`$ is a complex concentrated in degrees zero and one since $`p_2`$ is a morphism of relative dimension one. Next observe that $`R^0p_2𝒫_B=0`$. Indeed, by definition $`𝒫_B`$ is a rank one torsion free sheaf on $`B\times _^1B`$, and so $`R^0p_2𝒫_B`$ must be a torsion free sheaf on $`B`$. On the other hand, from the definition of $`𝒫_B`$ we see that both $`R^0p_2𝒫_B`$ and $`R^1p_2𝒫_B`$ are torsion sheaves on $`B`$ whose reduced support is precisely $`eB`$. Therefore $`R^0p_2𝒫_B`$ is torsion and torsion free at the same time and so $`R^0p_2𝒫_B=0`$ . This implies that $`Rp_2𝒫_B=R^1p_2𝒫_B[1]`$. Now, since $`R^2p_2𝒫_B=0`$ we can apply the cohomology and base change theorem \[Har77, Theorem 12.11\] to conclude that $`R^1p_2𝒫_B`$ has the base change property for arbitrary (i.e. not necessarily flat) morphisms. In particular considering the base change diagram

we have that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e^{}R^1p_2𝒫_B& =R^1\beta _{}(𝒫_{B|B\times _^1e})=R^1\beta _{}𝒪_B=(\beta _{}\omega _{B/^1})^{}\hfill \\ & =(\beta _{}(𝒪_B(f)\beta ^{}𝒪(2)))^{}=𝒪_^1(1).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`eB`$ is the reduced support of $`R^1p_2𝒫_B`$ and $`(R^1p_2𝒫_B)_{|e}`$ is a line bundle, it follows that $`eB`$ is actually the scheme theoretic support of $`R^1p_2𝒫_B`$ and so $`R^1p_2𝒫_B=e_{}𝒪_^1(1)`$, which finishes the proof of the first part of the lemma.

Let now $`\xi :^1B`$ be a section of $`\beta `$. Then $`𝑭𝑴_B(\xi _{}G)=Rp_2(p_1^{}\xi _{}G𝒫_B)`$. But $`p_1^{}\xi _{}G`$ is a sheaf on $`B\times _^1B`$ supported on $`\xi \times _^1BB\times _^1B`$ and is in fact the extension by zero of the sheaf $`\beta ^{}G`$ on $`B=\xi \times _^1B`$. Moreover by definition we have $`_{B|\xi \times _^1B}=𝒪_B(\xi e(e\xi +1)f)`$. Taking into account that $`p_2:\xi \times _^1BB`$ is an isomorphism, we get the second statement of the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

With all of this said we are now ready to derive the explicit formulas for $`𝒇𝒎_B`$. First, observe that $`ch(𝒪_B)=1`$ and so by (6.1) and Lemma 6.1 we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒇𝒎_B(1)& =ch(𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B))=ch(𝑭𝑴_B(\beta ^{}𝒪_^1))\hfill \\ & =ch(e_{}(𝒪_^1(1))[1])=ch(e_{}(𝒪_^1(1)).\hfill \end{array}$$

But from the short exact sequence of sheaves on $`B`$

$$0𝒪_B(ef)𝒪_B(f)e_{}𝒪_^1(1)0$$

we calculate

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ch(e_{}(𝒪_^1(1))& =ch(𝒪_B(f))ch(𝒪_B(ef))\hfill \\ & =(1f+0\mathrm{pt})\left(1+(ef)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{pt}\right)\hfill \\ & =e\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{pt}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In other words $`𝒇𝒎_B(1)=e+(1/2)\mathrm{pt}=e_9+(1/2)\mathrm{pt}`$.

Next we calculate $`𝒇𝒎_B(\mathrm{pt})`$. Let $`t^1`$ be a fixed point. Then $`\mathrm{pt}=ch(𝒪_{e(t)})=ch(e_{}𝒪_t)`$ and so

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒇𝒎_B(\mathrm{pt})& =ch(𝑭𝑴_B(e_{}𝒪_t))\hfill \\ & =ch(𝒪_f)=ch(𝒪_B)ch(𝒪_B(f))\hfill \\ & =1(1f+0\mathrm{pt})=f.\hfill \end{array}$$

To calculate $`𝒇𝒎_B(f)`$ note that $`ch(𝒪_B(f))=1+f`$ and so

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒇𝒎_B(f)& =ch(𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B(f)))𝒇𝒎_B(1)\hfill \\ & =ch(𝑭𝑴_B(\beta ^{}𝒪_^1(1)))𝒇𝒎_B(1)\hfill \\ & =ch(e_{}𝒪_^1[1])\left(e+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{pt}\right)\hfill \\ & =[ch(𝒪_B)ch(𝒪_B(e))]+e\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{pt}\hfill \\ & =\left[1\left(1e\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{pt}\right)\right]+e\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{pt}\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{pt}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Finally we calculate $`𝒇𝒎_B(e_i)`$. If $`i=1,\mathrm{},7`$, the class $`e_i`$ is a class of a section $`e_i:^1B`$ of $`\beta `$ and so we can apply Lemma 6.1 to $`𝒪_{e_i}`$. We have $`ch(𝒪_{e_i})=e_i+(1/2)\mathrm{pt}`$ and hence

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒇𝒎_B(e_i)& =ch(𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_{e_i}))\frac{1}{2}𝒇𝒎_B(\mathrm{pt})\hfill \\ & =ch(𝑭𝑴_B(e_i𝒪_^1))\frac{1}{2}𝒇𝒎_B(\mathrm{pt})\hfill \\ & =ch(𝒪_B(e_ie_9f))\frac{1}{2}f\hfill \\ & =1+(e_ie_9f)\mathrm{pt}\frac{1}{2}f\hfill \\ & =1+(e_ie_9\frac{3}{2}f)\mathrm{pt}.\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`e_9`$ we get in the same way

$$𝒇𝒎_B(e_9)=ch(𝒪_B)\frac{1}{2}f=1\frac{1}{2}f,$$

and so it only remains to calculate $`𝒇𝒎_B(e_8)`$.

Unfortunately we can not use the same method for calculating $`𝒇𝒎_B(e_8)`$ since $`e_8`$ is only a numerical section of $`\beta `$ and splits as a union of two irreducible curves $`e_8=e_9+n_1`$. However, recall that the automorphism $`\alpha _B:BB`$ moves a section to a section. Consequently $`\alpha _B(e_7)`$ will be another section of $`\beta `$. Let $`a:^1B`$ denote the map corresponding to $`\alpha _B(e_7)`$. Then

$$ch(𝒪_{\alpha _B(e_7)})=ch(𝒪_B)ch(𝒪_B(\alpha _B(e_7))=\alpha _B(e_7)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{pt}.$$

Thus

$$𝒇𝒎_B(\alpha _B(e_7))=ch(𝑭𝑴_B(a_{}𝒪_^1))\frac{1}{2}f=ch(𝒪_B(\alpha _B(e_7)e_9(e_9\alpha _B(e_7)+1)f)\frac{1}{2}f.$$

But according to Table 1 we have $`e_9\alpha _B(e_7)=e_9(2\mathrm{}e_1e_2e_3e_7e_8)=0`$ and so

$$𝒇𝒎_B(\alpha _B(e_7))=1+\alpha _B(e_7)e_9\frac{3}{2}f\mathrm{pt}.$$

In terms of $`e_8`$ this reads

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 2𝒇𝒎_B(\mathrm{})𝒇𝒎_B(e_8)& =1+2\mathrm{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}e_ie_7e_8e_9\frac{3}{2}f\mathrm{pt}+𝒇𝒎_B(\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}e_i+e_7)\hfill \\ & =1+2\mathrm{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}e_ie_7e_8e_9\frac{3}{2}f\mathrm{pt}+\hfill \\ & +\left(4+\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}e_i+e_74e_96f4\mathrm{pt}\right)\hfill \\ & =5+(2\mathrm{}\frac{15}{2}fe_85e_9)5\mathrm{pt}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Also from $`𝒇𝒎_B(f)=\mathrm{pt}`$ we get

$$3𝒇𝒎_B(\mathrm{})𝒇𝒎_B(e_8)=8+(3\mathrm{}12fe_88e_9)8\mathrm{pt}.$$

Solving these two equations for $`𝒇𝒎_B(e_8)`$ results in

$$𝒇𝒎_B(e_8)=1+(e_8e_9\frac{3}{2}f)\mathrm{pt},$$

which completes the calculation of $`𝒇𝒎_B`$.

In summary, the action of $`𝒕`$ and the auxiliary actions of $`𝒇𝒎_B`$ and $`𝒇𝒎_B^1`$ are recorded in tables 3 and 2 respectively.

## 7 Action on bundles

In this section we show how the cohomological computations in the previous section lift to actions of the Fourier-Mukai transform $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ and the spectral involution $`𝑻_B:=𝑭𝑴_B^1\tau _B^{}𝑭𝑴_B`$ on (complexes of) sheaves on $`B`$. Recall that the Chern character intertwines $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ and $`𝒇𝒎_B`$: $`𝒇𝒎_Bch=ch𝑭𝑴_B`$. Similarly, it intertwines $`𝑻_B`$ and $`𝒕_B`$: $`𝒕_Bch=ch𝑻_B`$.

Note that the Fourier-Mukai transform of a general sheaf $``$ on $`B`$ is a complex of sheaves, not a single sheaf. Nevertheless, all the sheaves we are interested in are taken by $`𝑻_B`$ again to sheaves. To explain what is going on exactly we will need to introduce some notation first. Put $`c_1:D^b(B)\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ for the first Chern class map in Chow cohomology. In combination with $`𝑻_B`$, the map $`c_1`$ induces a well defined map

(7.1)
$$𝒫\mathrm{ic}(B)\mathrm{Coh}(B)D^b(B)\stackrel{𝑻_B}{}D^b(B)\stackrel{c_1}{}\mathrm{Pic}(B),$$

where $`𝒫\mathrm{ic}(B)`$ denotes the Picard category whose objects are all line bundles on $`B`$ and whose morphisms are the isomorphisms of line bundles. Since $`𝑻_B`$ is an autoequivalence, the map (7.1) descends to a well defined map of sets

$$\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B:\mathrm{Pic}(B)=\pi _0(𝒫\mathrm{ic}(B))\mathrm{Pic}(B).$$

If we identify $`\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ and $`H^2(B,)`$ via the first Chern class map, we can describe $`\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B`$ alternatively as $`\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B()=[𝒕_B(\mathrm{exp}(c_1()))]_2H^2(B,)`$.

Denote by $`\mathrm{Pic}^W(B)\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ the subgroup generated by $`f`$ and the classes of all sections of $`\beta `$ that meet the neutral component of each fiber. A straightforward calculation shows that $`\mathrm{Pic}^W(B)=\mathrm{Span}(f,e_9,\{f+e_ie_1+e_9\}_{i=2}^6,2e_7e_8+2f)`$ (note that $`f+e_ie_1+e_9`$ is the class of the section $`[e_i][e_1]`$ and $`2e_7e_8+2f`$ is the class of the section $`2[e_7]`$) and that $`\mathrm{Span}(o_1,o_2)^{}=\mathrm{Span}(e_9,\{e_ie_1\}_{i=2}^6,\mathrm{}e_72e_1,2\mathrm{}e_84e_1)`$. In particular $`\mathrm{Pic}^W(B)`$ is a sublattice of index $`3`$ in $`\mathrm{Span}(o_1,o_2)^{}`$. With this notation we have:

###### Theorem 7.1

Let $`L`$ be a line bundle on $`B`$. Then

* The complex $`𝑻_B(L)D^{[0,1]}(B)`$ becomes a line bundle when restricted on the open set $`B(o_1o_2)`$. More precisely, the zeroth cohomology sheaf $`^0(𝑻_B(L))`$ is a line bundle on $`B`$ and the first cohomology sheaf $`^1(𝑻_B(L))`$ is supported on the divisor $`o_1+o_2`$.
* The map $`\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B`$ satisfies

$$\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)=\tau _B^{}(L)𝒪_B((c_1(L)(e\zeta ))f+(c_1(L)f+1)(e\zeta +f)).$$
* For every $`L\mathrm{Pic}^W(B)`$ the image $`𝑻_B(L)`$ is a line bundle on $`B`$ and so

$$𝑻_B(L)=\tau _B^{}(L)𝒪_B((c_1(L)(e\zeta ))f+(c_1(L)f+1)(e\zeta +f)).$$

In particular $`𝑻_B:\mathrm{Pic}^W(B)(\mathrm{Pic}^W(B)+(e\zeta +f))\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ is an affine isomorphism.

Proof. The proof of this proposition is rather technical and involves some elementary but long calculations in the derived category $`D^b(B)`$.

Since $`𝑻_B=𝑭𝑴_B^1\tau _B^{}𝑭𝑴_B`$ we need to understand $`𝑭𝑴_B^1`$. The following lemma is standard.

###### Lemma 7.2

The inverse $`𝐅𝐌_B^1`$ of the Fourier-Mukai functor $`𝐅𝐌_B`$ is isomorphic to the functor

$$𝑫_B𝑭𝑴_B𝑫_B:D^b(B)D^b(B),$$

where $`𝐃_B`$ is the (naive) Serre duality functor $`𝐃_B(F):=R^{}om(F,\omega _B)`$ with $`\omega _B`$ being the canonical line bundle on $`B`$.

Proof. It is well known (see e.g. \[Orl97, Section 2\]) that $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ has left and right adjoint functors $`𝑭𝑴_B^{}`$ and $`𝑭𝑴_B^!`$ which are both isomorphic to $`𝑭𝑴_B^1`$. Furthermore, these adjoint functors can be defined by explicit formulas, see \[Orl97, Section 2\], e.g. the right adjoint is given by:

$$𝑭𝑴_B^!(F)=R\mathrm{pr}_1(\mathrm{pr}_2^{}F\stackrel{L}{}𝒫^{}))\omega _B[2].$$

Here $`\mathrm{pr}_i:B\times BB`$ are the projections onto the two factors, $`𝒫B\times B`$ is the extension by zero of $`𝒫_B`$ and $`K^{}:=R^{}om(K,𝒪_{B\times B})`$. Using e.g. the formula for the right adjoint functor, the relative duality formula \[Har66\] and the fact that $`\omega _B`$ is a line bundle, one calculates

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝑭𝑴_B^!(F)& =R\mathrm{pr}_1(\mathrm{pr}_2^{}F\stackrel{L}{}𝒫^{})\omega _B[2]\hfill \\ & =R\mathrm{pr}_1((\mathrm{pr}_2^{}F\stackrel{L}{}𝒫^{})\mathrm{pr}_2^{}\omega _B[2]\mathrm{pr}_2^{}\omega _B^1)\omega _B\hfill \\ & =R\mathrm{pr}_1(\mathrm{pr}_2^{}(F\omega _B^1)\stackrel{L}{}𝒫^{}\mathrm{pr}_2^{}\omega _B[2])\omega _B\hfill \\ & =(R\mathrm{pr}_1(\mathrm{pr}_2^{}(F^{}\omega _B)\stackrel{L}{}𝒫)^{}\omega _B\hfill \\ & =(𝑭𝑴_B(𝑫_B(F)))^{}\omega _B\hfill \\ & =𝑫_B𝑭𝑴_B𝑫_B(F).\hfill \end{array}$$

which proves the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Next observe that $`\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ is generated by all sections of $`\beta `$. Indeed $`\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ is generated by $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_9`$. The divisor classes $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_7`$ and $`e_9`$ are already sections of $`\beta `$. Also $`\alpha _B(e_1)=\mathrm{}e_1e_9`$ is a section and so $`\mathrm{}`$ is contained in the group generated by all sections. Furthermore, $`\alpha _B(e_7)=2\mathrm{}e_1e_2e_3e_7e_8`$ is a section and so $`e_8`$ is contained in the group generated by all sections.

In view of this it suffices to prove parts (i) and (ii) of the theorem for line bundles of the form $`L=𝒪_B(a_i\xi _i)`$ where $`a_i`$ and $`\xi _i`$ are sections of $`\beta `$.

Put $`𝒱_0:=e_{}𝒪_^1(1)`$. Consider the group $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(𝒱_0,𝒪_B)`$ of extensions of $`𝒱_0`$ by $`𝒪_B`$.

Since $`e^2=1`$ we have $`𝒱_0=e_{}e^{}𝒪_B(e)`$ and so $`𝒱_0`$ fits in a short exact sequence

(7.2)
$$0𝒪_B𝒪_B(e)𝒱_00.$$

In particular we have a quasi-isomorphism $`[𝒪_B𝒪_B(e)]\stackrel{~}{}𝒱_0`$ where in the complex

$$[𝒪_B𝒪_B(e)],$$

the sheaf $`𝒪_B`$ is placed in degree $`1`$ and $`𝒪_B(e)`$ is placed in degree $`0`$. Thus we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Ext}^1(𝒱_0,𝒪_B)& =\mathrm{Hom}_{D^b(B)}(𝒱_0,𝒪_B[1])=\mathrm{Hom}_{D^b(B)}([𝒪_B𝒪_B(e)],𝒪_B[1])\hfill \\ & =^0(B,[𝒪_B𝒪_B(e)]^{}[1])=^0(B,[𝒪_B(e)𝒪_B]),\hfill \end{array}$$

where in the complex $`[𝒪_B(e)𝒪_B]`$ the sheaf $`𝒪_B`$ is placed in degree zero. In particular we have a quasi-isomorphism $`[𝒪_B(e)𝒪_B]\stackrel{~}{}e_{}𝒪_^1`$ and hence $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(𝒱_0,𝒪_B)=H^0(B,e_{}𝒪_^1)=`$. This shows that there is a unique (up to isomorphism) sheaf $`𝒱_1`$ which is a non-split extension of $`𝒱_0`$ by $`𝒪_B`$. But from (7.2) we see that the line bundle $`𝒪_B(e)`$ is one such extension, i.e. we must have $`𝒱_1𝒪_B(e)`$.

Next consider the group of extensions $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(𝒱_1,𝒪_B(f))=H^1(B,𝒱_1^{}𝒪(f))`$. By the Leray spectral sequence we have a short exact sequence

$$0H^1(^1,(\beta _{}𝒱_1^{})𝒪(1))H^1(B,𝒱_1^{}𝒪(f))H^0(^1,(R^1\beta _{}𝒱_1^{})𝒪(1))0.$$

But $`\beta _{}(𝒱_1^{})=\beta _{}𝒪(e)=0`$ and $`R^1\beta _{}(𝒱_1^{})=R^1\beta _{}𝒪(e)=𝒪(1)`$. Thus $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(𝒱_1,𝒪_B(f))=H^0(^1,𝒪)=`$ and so there is a unique (up to isomorphism) non-split extension

$$0𝒪_B(f)𝒱_2𝒱_10.$$

Arguing by induction we see that for every $`a1`$ there is a unique up to isomorphism vector bundle $`𝒱_aB`$ of rank $`a`$ on $`B`$ satisfying $`\beta _{}(𝒱_a^{})=0`$, $`R^1\beta _{}(𝒱_a^{})=𝒪(a)`$ and $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(𝒱_a,𝒪_B(af))=`$ is generated by the non-split short exact sequence

$$0𝒪_B(af)𝒱_{a+1}𝒱_a0.$$

Alternatively, for each positive integer we can consider the vector bundle $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ of rank $`a`$ which is defined recursively as follows:

* $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1:=𝒪_B`$, and
* $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{a+1}`$ is the unique non-split extension

$$0𝒪_B(af)\mathrm{\Psi }_{a+1}\mathrm{\Psi }_a0.$$

The fact that the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$’s are correctly defined can be checked exactly as above. Moreover for each $`a1`$ $`𝒱_a`$ can be identified with the unique non-split extension

$$0\mathrm{\Psi }_a𝒱_ae_{}𝒪_^1(1)0.$$

Let now $`\xi :^1B`$ be a section of $`\beta `$. The first step in calculating $`𝑻_B`$ is given in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 7.3

For any integer $`a`$ we have

$$𝑭𝑴(𝒪_B(a\xi ))=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒱_a𝒪_B(\xi e(\xi e+1)f)[1],\hfill & \text{ for }a0\hfill \\ 𝒱_a^{}𝒪_B(f)𝒪_B(\xi e(\xi e+1)f),\hfill & \text{ for }a>0\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. By Lemma 6.1 we know that $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B)=e_{}𝒪(1)[1]`$ which gives the statement of the lemma for $`a=0`$. To prove the statement for $`a=1`$ consider the short exact sequence

(7.3)
$$0𝒪_B(\xi )𝒪_B\xi _{}𝒪_^10$$

of sheaves on $`B`$. For an object $`KD^b(B)`$ let $`𝑭𝑴_B^i(K)`$ denote the $`i`$-th cohomology sheaf of the complex $`𝑭𝑴_B(K)`$. Since $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ is an exact functor on $`D^b(B)`$ it sends any short exact sequence to a long exact sequence of cohomology sheaves. Applying $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ to (7.3) and using Lemma 6.1 we get

Thus $`𝑭𝑴_B^0(𝒪_B(\xi ))=0`$ and $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒪_B(\xi ))`$ fits in a short exact sequence

(7.4)
$$0𝒪_B(e)𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒪_B(\xi ))𝒪(\xi +(1+\xi e)f)e_{}𝒪_^10.$$

Since (7.3) is non-split and $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ is an additive functor, it follows that (7.4) will not split. But $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(e_{}𝒪_^1,𝒪_B(e))=\mathrm{Ext}^1(e_{}𝒪_^1(e),𝒪_B)=`$ as we saw above and therefore we must have

$$𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B(\xi ))𝒪_B(\xi (1+\xi e)f)[1]=𝒱_1𝒪_B(\xi e(1+\xi e)f)[1].$$

Assume that the Lemma is proven for $`𝒪_B(a\xi )`$ for some positive $`a`$. Then we have a short exact sequence of sheaves on $`B`$

(7.5)
$$0𝒪_B((a+1)\xi )𝒪_B(a\xi )\xi _{}𝒪_^1(a)0.$$

Applying $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ to (7.5) and using Lemma 6.1 we get

and so again $`𝑭𝑴_B^0(𝒪_B((a+1)\xi ))=0`$. Furthermore, by the inductive hypothesis we have $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒪(a\xi ))=𝒱_a𝒪_B(\xi e(1+\xi e)f)`$ and so by the same reasoning as above the short exact sequence

$$0𝒪_B(af)𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒪_B((a+1)\xi ))𝒪(e\xi +(1+\xi e)f)𝒱_a0$$

must be non-split. Since $`𝒱_{a+1}`$ is the only such non-split extension, we must have

$$𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B((a+1)\xi ))=𝒱_{a+1}𝒪_B(\xi e(1+\xi e)f)[1].$$

This completes the proof of the lemma for all $`a0`$. The argument for $`a>0`$ is exactly the same and is left as an exercise. $`\mathrm{}`$

The next step is to calculate the action of $`𝑻_B`$ on line bundles of the form $`𝒪_B(a\xi )`$.

Due to Lemma 7.2 we have $`𝑻_B=𝑫_B𝑭𝑴_B𝑫_B\tau _B^{}𝑭𝑴_B`$. Since $`\tau _B`$ is an automorphism of $`B`$ we have $`𝑫_B\tau _B^{}=\tau _B^{}𝑫_B`$ and so

(7.6)
$$𝑻_B=(𝑫_B𝑭𝑴_B)\tau _B^{}(𝑫_B𝑭𝑴_B).$$

To calculate $`𝑫_B(𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B(a\xi ))`$ we need to distinguish two cases: $`a=0`$ and $`a0`$. When $`a=0`$, we have $`𝑫_B((𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B))=𝑫_B(e_{}𝒪(1)[1])`$. But as we saw above the short exact sequence (7.2) induces a quasi-isomorphism

$$[\begin{array}{c}𝒪_B\\ \\ 𝒪_B(e)\end{array}]\begin{array}{c}0\\ \\ 1\end{array}\stackrel{\mathrm{q}.\mathrm{i}.}{}e_{}𝒪(1)[1].$$

Applying duality one gets

$$𝑫_B(e_{}𝒪(1)[1])=[\begin{array}{c}𝒪_B(e)\\ \\ 𝒪_B\end{array}]\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ 0\end{array}𝒪_B(f)=[\begin{array}{c}𝒪_B(ef)\\ \\ 𝒪_B(f)\end{array}]\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ 0\end{array}=e_{}𝒪_^1(1).$$

But for $`a0`$ the sheaves $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B(a\xi ))`$ are locally free and so we get

$$𝑫_B𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B(a\xi ))=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒱_a^{}𝒪_B(e\xi +(\xi e)f)[1],\hfill & \text{ for }a<0\hfill \\ 𝒱_0,\hfill & \text{ for }a=0\hfill \\ 𝒱_a𝒪_B(e\xi +(1+\xi e)f),\hfill & \text{ for }a>0.\hfill \end{array}$$

To apply $`\tau _B^{}`$ next we need to calculate $`\tau _B^{}𝒱_a`$. For this recall that $`𝒱_a`$ is isomorphic to the unique non-split extension

$$0\mathrm{\Psi }_a𝒱_ae_{}𝒪_^1(1)0.$$

Since $`\tau _B(f)=f`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ is built by successive extensions of multiples of $`f`$, it follows that $`\tau _B^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_a\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ for every $`a`$. So $`𝒲_a:=\tau _B^{}𝒱_a`$ is the unique non-split extension

$$0\mathrm{\Psi }_a𝒲_a\zeta _{}𝒪_^1(1)0,$$

where as before $`\zeta =\tau _B^{}(e)`$. With this notation we have

$$\tau _B^{}𝑫_B𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B(a\xi ))=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒲_a^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \tau _B^{}(\xi )+(\xi e)f)[1],\hfill & \text{ for }a<0\hfill \\ \zeta _{}𝒪_^1(1),\hfill & \text{ for }a=0\hfill \\ 𝒲_a𝒪_B(\zeta \tau _B^{}(\xi )+(1+\xi e)f),\hfill & \text{ for }a>0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now to finish the calculation of $`𝑻_B(𝒪_B(a\xi ))`$ we have to work out $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒲_a𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))`$ and $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒲_a^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))`$ for all $`a>0`$ and all sections $`\varphi :^1B`$ of $`\beta `$. Again we proceed by induction in $`a`$.

Let $`a=1`$. By definition $`𝒲_1`$ is the unique non-split extension

$$0𝒪_B𝒲_1\zeta _{}𝒪(1)0,$$

and hence $`𝒲_1=𝒪_B(\zeta )`$ and $`𝒲_1^{}=𝒪_B(\zeta )`$. In particular $`𝒲_1^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi )=𝒪_B(\varphi )`$. Consequently by Lemma 7.3 we get

$$𝑭𝑴_B(𝒲_1^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))=𝒱_1𝒪_B(\varphi e(1+\varphi e)f)[1]=𝒪_B(\varphi (1+\varphi e)f)[1].$$

Substituting $`\varphi =\tau _B^{}(\xi )`$ we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝑭𝑴\tau _B^{}𝑫_B𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B(\xi ))& =𝒪_B(\tau _B^{}(\xi )(1+\tau _B^{}(\xi )e\xi e)f)\hfill \\ & =𝒪_B(\tau _B^{}(\xi )(1+\xi \zeta \xi e)f).\hfill \end{array}$$

Let now $`a=2`$. We have a short exact sequence

$$0𝒪_B(f)𝒲_2𝒪_B(\zeta )0$$

and so

(7.7)
$$0𝒪_B(\varphi )𝒲_2^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi )𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi f)0.$$

In particular we need to calculate $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))`$. For this note that since $`𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi )`$ is a line bundle which has degree zero on the fibers of $`\beta `$, the sheaf $`𝑭𝑴_B^0(𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))`$ will have to be torsion free and torsion at the same time and so $`𝑭𝑴_B^0(𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))=0`$ (see the argument on p. 6.1). Consequently if we apply $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ to the exact sequence

$$0𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi )𝒪_B(\zeta )\varphi _{}𝒪_^1(\zeta \varphi )0,$$

we will get a short exact sequence of sheaves

$$0𝒪_B(\zeta 2e2f)𝒪_B(\varphi e(1+\varphi e\varphi \zeta )f)𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))0.$$

In other words $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))𝒪_B(e\varphi +(1+\varphi e\varphi \zeta )f)=𝒪_D`$, where $`D`$ is an effective divisor in the linear system $`|𝒪_B(\varphi \zeta +e+(1\varphi e+\varphi \zeta )f)|`$.

To understand this linear system better consider the section $`\mu :^1B`$ for which $`[\mu ]=[\varphi ][\zeta ]`$ in $`𝕄𝕎(B,e)`$. Then as in section 5 we can write

$$𝒪_B(\varphi \zeta )=𝒪_B(\mu e+af+bn_1+cn_2).$$

Taking into account that $`\mu n_i=1\varphi n_i`$ and that $`\mu ^2=1`$ we can solve for $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ to get

$$a=1+\varphi e\varphi \zeta +\varphi n_1+\varphi n_2,b=\varphi n_1,c=\varphi n_2,$$

which yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒪_B(\varphi \zeta +e+(1\varphi e+\varphi \zeta )f)& =𝒪_B(\mu +(\varphi n_1)o_1+(\varphi n_2)o_2)\hfill \\ & =𝒪_B(\mu +(\mu o_1)o_1+(\mu o_2)o_2).\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, the numerical section $`\mu +(\varphi n_1)o_1+(\varphi n_2)o_2`$ is the only effective divisor in the linear system $`|𝒪_B(\varphi \zeta +e+(1\varphi e+\varphi \zeta )f)|`$ and so $`D=\mu +(\varphi n_1)o_1+(\varphi n_2)o_2`$ as divisors. Note that the fact that $`\varphi `$ is a section implies that $`\varphi n_i`$ is either zero or one, and so $`D`$ is always reduced.

This implies $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))=i_D𝒪_D𝒪_B(\varphi e(1+\varphi e\varphi \zeta )f)[1]`$, where $`i_D:DB`$ is the natural inclusion. Next note that by definition of $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ we have $`𝑭𝑴_B(K\beta ^{}M)=𝑭𝑴_B(K)\beta ^{}M`$ for any locally free sheaf $`M^1`$. Thus

$$𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi f))=i_D𝒪_D𝒪_B(\varphi e(2+\varphi e\varphi \zeta )f)[1].$$

We are now ready to apply $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ to (7.7). The result is

where $`𝒮^i:=𝑭𝑴_B^i(𝒲_2^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))`$.

Writing $`:=𝒪_B(e(1\varphi \zeta )f)`$ and $`:=𝒮^1𝒪_B(\varphi +(1+\varphi e)f)`$, we find a non-split short exact sequence

(7.8)
$$0𝒪_Bi_Di_D^{}0.$$

Next we analyze the space of such extensions. We want to calculate

$$\mathrm{Ext}^1(i_Di_D^{},𝒪_B)=Hom_{D^b(B)}(i_Di_D^{},𝒪_B[1])=^0(B,(i_Di_D^{})^{}[1]).$$

As before, after tensoring the short exact sequence

$$0𝒪_B(D)𝒪_Bi_D𝒪_D0$$

of the effective divisor $`D`$ by $``$ we get a quasi-isomorphism

$$[\begin{array}{c}(D)\\ \\ \end{array}]\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ 0\end{array}\stackrel{\mathrm{q}.\mathrm{i}.}{}i_Di_D^{},$$

and so

$$(i_Di_D^{})^{}[1]=[\begin{array}{c}^{}\\ \\ ^{}(D)\end{array}]\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ 0\end{array}=i_Di_D^{}(^{}(D)).$$

In particular $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(i_Di_D^{},𝒪_B)=H^0(B,i_Di_D^{}(^{}(D)))=H^0(D,i_D^{}(^{}(D)))`$. Since $`D`$ is a tree of smooth rational curves, the dimension of the space of global sections of the line bundle $`i_D^{}(^{}(D))`$ will depend only on the degree of $`^{}(D)`$ on each component of $`D`$. But $`D=\mu +(\varphi n_1)o_1+(\varphi n_2)o_2=\mu +(\mu o_1)o_1+(\mu o_2)o_2`$ and since $`\mu `$ is a section of $`\beta `$ we know that $`\mu o_i`$ is either $`0`$ or $`1`$. We can distinguish three cases:

* $`\mu o_1=\mu o_2=0`$, i.e. $`\mu \mathrm{Pic}^W(B)`$ and $`D=\mu `$;
* $`\mu `$ intersects only one of the $`o_i`$’s, i.e. $`D`$ is the union of $`\mu `$ and that $`o_i`$;
* $`\mu o_1=\mu o_2=1`$ and so $`D=\mu +o_1+o_2`$.

Also since $`D`$ is linearly equivalent to $`\varphi \zeta +e+(1\varphi e+\varphi \zeta )f`$ we find

$$\mu =1,o_1=o_2=0.$$

This gives the following answers for $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(i_Di_D^{},𝒪_B)`$:

in case (a): Since $`D=\mu `$ we have $`(^{}(D))_{|D}=(^{}(\mu ))_{|\mu }=𝒪_\mu (1)𝒪_\mu (1)=𝒪_\mu `$ and so $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(i_Di_D^{},𝒪_B)=H^0(\mu ,𝒪_\mu )=`$.

in case (b): Say for concreteness $`\mu o_1=1`$ and $`\mu o_2=0`$. Then $`D=\mu +o_1`$ is a normal crossing divisor with a single singular point $`\{x\}=\mu o_1`$. Then $`(^{}(D))_{|\mu }=𝒪_\mu (1)𝒪_\mu =𝒪_\mu (1)`$ and $`(^{}(D))_{|o_1}=𝒪_{o_1}𝒪_{o_1}(1)=𝒪_{o_1}(1)`$. Hence $`(^{}(D))_{|D}`$ is the line bundle on $`D`$ obtained by identifying the fiber $`(𝒪_\mu (1))_x`$ with the fiber $`(𝒪_{o_1}(1))_x`$. Since $`H^0(𝒪_{o_1}(1))=0`$ it follows that $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(i_Di_D^{},𝒪_B)=H^0(D,(^{}(D))_{|D})`$ can be identified with the space of all sections of $`𝒪_\mu (1)`$ that vanish at $`x\mu `$, i.e. we again have $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(i_Di_D^{},𝒪_B)=`$.

in case (c): The divisor $`D=\mu +o_1+o_2`$ is again a normal crossings divisor but has now two singular points $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, where $`\{x_i\}=\mu o_i`$ for $`i=1,2`$. In this case we have $`(^{}(D))_{|\mu }=𝒪_\mu (2)`$ and $`(^{}(D))_{|o_i}=𝒪_{o_i}(1)`$. Hence $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(i_Di_D^{},𝒪_B)`$ gets identified with the space of all sections in $`𝒪_\mu (2)`$ vanishing at the points $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ and is therefore one dimensional.

In other words we always have a unique (up to isomorphism) choice for the sheaf $``$. In fact, it is not hard to identify the middle term of the non-split extension (7.8). Indeed, let $`o:=D\mu `$ be the union of the vertical components of $`D`$. We have a short exact sequence:

$$0𝒪_o(\mu )H^0(o,𝒪_o(\mu ))𝒪_o𝒪_o(\mu )0.$$

When we pull it back via

$$𝒪_B(\mu )𝒪_o(\mu )$$

we get a non-split sequence

$$0𝒪_o(\mu )^{}𝒪_B(\mu )0.$$

Since we have already seen that such an extension is unique, we conclude that $`^{}=`$.

We have shown that $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒲_2^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))[1]`$ is a rank one sheaf on $`B`$ such that:

* The torsion in $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒲_2^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))[1]`$ is $`𝒪_o(\mu )`$.
* $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒲_2^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))/(\mathrm{torsion})=𝒪_B(2\varphi \zeta +e+(\varphi \zeta 2\varphi e)fo)`$.
* The sheaf $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒲_2^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))[1]`$ is the unique non-split extension of the line bundle $`𝒪_B(2\varphi \zeta +e+(\varphi \zeta 2\varphi e)fo)`$ by the torsion sheaf $`𝒪_o(\mu )`$.

Let $`a=3`$. Then the short exact sequence

$$0𝒪_B(2f)𝒲_3𝒲_20$$

induces a short exact sequence

$$0𝒲_2^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi )𝒲_3^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi )𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi 2f)0.$$

Applying $`𝑭𝑴_B`$ one gets again that $`𝑭𝑴_B^0(𝒲_3^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))=0`$ and $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))`$ fits in the non-split short exact sequence

(7.9)
$$0𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_2^{}(\zeta \varphi ))𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}(\zeta \varphi ))𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒪(\zeta \varphi ))𝒪(2f)0.$$

Now recall that

$$𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))=i_Di_D^{}𝒪_B(\varphi e(1+\varphi e\varphi \zeta )f),$$

where $`D=\mu +(\mu o_1)o_1+(\mu o_2)o_2`$ is the unique effective divisor in the linear system $`|𝒪_B(\varphi \zeta +e+(1\varphi e+\varphi \zeta )f)|`$.

In particular we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mu e& =\varphi e1+1\varphi e+\varphi \zeta =\varphi \zeta \hfill \\ \hfill \mu \zeta & =\varphi \zeta +1+1\varphi e+\varphi \zeta \mu o_1\mu o_2=2\varphi e+2\varphi \zeta \mu o_1\mu o_2\hfill \\ \hfill \mu \varphi & =1\varphi \zeta +\varphi e+1\varphi e+\varphi \zeta (\mu o_1)(\varphi o_1)(\mu o_2)(\varphi o_2)=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

and hence

$$i_\mu ^{}𝒪_B(\varphi e(1+\varphi e\varphi \zeta )f)=𝒪_\mu (1\varphi e).$$

We are now ready to calculate $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))𝒪(2f)`$ for the three possible shapes of the divisor $`D`$.

Case (a)$`D=\mu `$ and so $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))𝒪(2f)=𝒪_\mu (3\varphi e)`$. Furthermore we showed that in this case we have $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_2^{}(\zeta \varphi ))=𝒪_B(2\varphi \zeta +e+(\varphi \zeta 2\varphi e)f)`$ and so after twisting (7.9) by $`𝒪_B(2\varphi \zeta +e+(\varphi \zeta 2\varphi e)f)^1`$ we get a non-split short exact sequence

$$0𝒪_B\mathrm{?}𝒪_\mu (a)0,$$

where

$$\mathrm{?}=𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}(\zeta \varphi ))𝒪_B(2\varphi \zeta +e+(\varphi \zeta 2\varphi e)f)^1,$$

and

$$a=3\varphi e+\mu (2\varphi +\zeta e(\varphi \zeta 2\varphi e)f)=1.$$

Therefore we must have $`\mathrm{?}=𝒪_B(\mu )=𝒪_B(\varphi \zeta +e+(1\varphi e+\varphi \zeta )f)`$ and so

$$𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}(\zeta \varphi ))=𝒪_B(3\varphi 2\zeta +2e+(13\varphi e+2\varphi \zeta )f).$$

Case (b) In this case $`\mu `$ intersects exactly one of the $`o_i`$, say $`o_1`$. Then $`D=\mu +o_1`$ and so $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))𝒪_B(2f)=𝒪_\mu (3\varphi e)_x𝒪_{o_1}`$ Moreover the torsion in $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_2^{}(\zeta \varphi ))`$ is $`𝒪_{o_1}(1)`$ and $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_2^{}(\zeta \varphi ))/(\mathrm{torsion})=𝒪_B(2\varphi \zeta +e+(\varphi \zeta 2\varphi e)fo_1)`$. Tensoring (7.9) with $`𝒪_{o_1}`$ and taking into account the fact that $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_2^{}(\zeta \varphi ))_{|o_1}=^2𝒪_{o_1}`$ we get a long exact sequence of $`𝒯or`$ sheaves

Next we calculate $`𝒯or_1^{𝒪_B}(𝒪_\mu (3\varphi e)_x𝒪_{o_1},𝒪_{o_1})`$.

###### Lemma 7.4

$`𝒯or_1^{𝒪_B}(𝒪_\mu (3\varphi e)_x𝒪_{o_1},𝒪_{o_1})=0`$

Proof. Recall that for any integer $`a`$ we have the following short exact sequence of sheaves on $`B`$:

$$0𝒪_{o_1}(1)𝒪_\mu (a)_x𝒪_{o_1}𝒪_\mu (a)0.$$

Tensoring this sequence with $`𝒪_{o_1}`$ we obtain a long exact sequence of $`𝒯or`$ sheaves:

In order to calculate the sheaves $`𝒯or_1^{𝒪_B}(𝒪_{o_1}(1),𝒪_{o_1})`$ and $`𝒯or_1^{𝒪_B}(𝒪_\mu (a),𝒪_{o_1})`$ recall that we have $`𝒯or_i^{𝒪_B}(K,M)=^i(K\underset{𝒪_B}{\overset{L}{}}M)`$ for any two objects $`K,MD^b(B)`$. Now note that $`𝒪_{o_1}(1)=𝒪_{o_1}𝒪_B(\mu )`$ and that

$$𝒪_{o_1}\stackrel{\text{q.i.}}{=}[\begin{array}{c}𝒪_B(o_1)\\ \\ 𝒪_B\end{array}]\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ 0\end{array},𝒪_\mu (a)\stackrel{\text{q.i.}}{=}[\begin{array}{c}𝒪_B(af\mu )\\ \\ 𝒪_B(af)\end{array}]\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ 0\end{array},$$

and so

$$𝒪_\mu (a)\stackrel{L}{}𝒪_{o_1}\stackrel{\text{q.i.}}{=}[\begin{array}{c}𝒪_B(\mu o_1)\\ \\ 𝒪_B(\mu )𝒪_B(o_1)\\ \\ 𝒪_B\end{array}]\begin{array}{c}2\\ \\ 1\\ \\ 0\end{array}𝒪_B(af).$$

Similarly

$$𝒪_{o_1}(1)\stackrel{L}{}𝒪_{o_1}\stackrel{\text{q.i.}}{=}[\begin{array}{c}𝒪_B(2o_1)\\ \\ 𝒪_B(o_1)𝒪_B(o_1)\\ \\ 𝒪_B\end{array}]\begin{array}{c}2\\ \\ 1\\ \\ 0\end{array}𝒪_B(\mu ).$$

Consequently $`𝒯or_i^{𝒪_B}(𝒪_{o_1}(1),𝒪_{o_1})=𝒯or_i^{𝒪_B}(𝒪_\mu (a),𝒪_{o_1})=0`$ for all $`i0`$. This proves the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

The previous lemma implies that $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}(\zeta \varphi ))_{|o_1}=^3𝒪_{o_1}`$ and that $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}(\zeta \varphi ))`$ fits in the commutative diagram

where ? is a non-split extension of $`𝒪_\mu (4\varphi e)`$ by $`𝒪_B(2\varphi \zeta +e+(\varphi \zeta 2\varphi e)f2o_1)`$. This implies that $`\mathrm{?}=𝒪_B(2\varphi \zeta +e+(\varphi \zeta 2\varphi e)f3o_1)`$ and that $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}(\zeta \varphi ))`$ fits in a short exact sequence

$$0𝒪_B(3\varphi 2\zeta +2e+(1+2\varphi \zeta 3\varphi e)f3o_1)𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}(\zeta \varphi ))^3𝒪_{o_1}0.$$

In particular we see that the torsion in $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}(\zeta \varphi ))`$ is supported on $`o_1`$.

The same reasoning applied to the restriction of (7.9) to $`\mu `$ instead of $`o_1`$ implies that $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}(\zeta \varphi ))/(\mathrm{torsion})`$ is isomorphic to the line bundle $`𝒪_B(3\varphi 2\zeta +2e+(1+2\varphi \zeta 3\varphi e)f2o_1)`$. Since $`𝒪_B(3\varphi 2\zeta +2e+(1+2\varphi \zeta 3\varphi e)f2o_1)_{|o_1}=𝒪_{o_1}(2)`$ we conclude that the torsion in $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}(\zeta \varphi ))`$ is isomorphic to the kernel of the natural map $`^3𝒪_{o_1}H^0(o_1,𝒪_{o_1}(2x))𝒪_{o_1}𝒪_{o_1}(2x)𝒪_{o_1}(2)`$. In particular we see that the torsion in $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}(\zeta \varphi ))`$ is a rank two vector bundle on $`o_1`$, which has no sections and is of degree $`2`$, i.e. is isomorphic to $`𝒪_{o_1}(1)𝒪_{o_1}(1)`$.

Case (c) In this case $`D=\mu +o_1+o_2`$. An analysis, analogous to the one used in case (b), now shows that the torsion in $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}(\zeta \varphi ))`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒪_{o_1}(1)^2𝒪_{o_2}(1)^2`$ and that $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(𝒲_3^{}(\zeta \varphi ))/(\mathrm{torsion})`$ is isomorphic to the line bundle $`𝒪_B(3\varphi 2\zeta +2e+(1+2\varphi \zeta 3\varphi e)f2o_12o_2)`$.

Continuing inductively we get that for every $`a1`$ the object $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒲_a^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))[1]`$ is a rank one sheaf on $`B`$ such that

* The torsion in $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒲_a^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))[1]`$ is isomorphic to

$$𝒪_{o_1}^{(a1)(\varphi n_1)}(1)𝒪_{o_2}^{(a1)(\varphi n_2)}(1).$$

(In this formula it is tacitly understood that the direct sum of zero copies of a sheaf is the zero sheaf.)
* The sheaf $`𝑭𝑴_B(𝒲_a^{}𝒪_B(\zeta \varphi ))[1]/(\mathrm{torsion})`$ is isomorphic to the line bundle

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒪_B(a\varphi & (a1)\zeta +(a1)e+((a2)+(a1)\varphi \zeta a\varphi e)f\hfill \\ & (a1)(\varphi n_1)o_1(a1)(\varphi n_2)o_2).\hfill \end{array}$$

Now by substituting $`\varphi =\tau _B^{}(\xi )`$ in the above formula and by noticing that $`D(𝒪_{o_i}(1))=𝒪_{o_i}(1)[1]`$ we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ^0𝑻_B(& 𝒪_B(a\xi ))=\hfill \\ & =𝒪_B(\tau _B^{}(a\xi )+((a\xi )(e\zeta ))f+(1a)(e\zeta +f)\hfill \\ & +(a1)(\xi o_1)o_1+(a1)(\xi o_2)o_2),\hfill \\ \hfill ^1𝑻_B(& 𝒪_B(a\xi ))=𝒪_{o_1}^{(a1)(\xi o_1)}(1)𝒪_{o_2}^{(a1)(\xi o_2)}(1),\hfill \end{array}$$

for all $`a1`$. We have already analyzed the case $`a=0`$ above and so this proves the theorem for $`L=𝒪_B(a\xi )`$ and $`a0`$. The cases $`L=𝒪_B(a\xi )`$ with $`a>0`$ or $`L=𝒪_B(a_i\xi _i)`$ with different $`\xi _i`$’s are analyzed in exactly the same way. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 7.5

(i) The calculation of $`𝑻_B(L)`$ in the proof of Theorem 7.1 works equally well on a rational elliptic surface in the five dimensional family from Corollary 3.6 (with the choice of $`\zeta `$ as in Remark 3.7). Since in this case $`\mathrm{Pic}^W(B)=\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$, we see that for a general $`B`$ in the five dimensional family we have $`𝑻_{B|\mathrm{Pic}(B)}=\stackrel{~}{T}_B`$. In particular $`𝑻_B`$ sends all line bundles to line bundles and induces an affine automorphism on $`\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$.

(ii) In the proof of Theorem 7.1 we also showed that the statement of Theorem 7.1(iii) admits a partial inverse. Namely, we showed that if $`L`$ is a multiple of a section, then $`𝑻_B(L)`$ is a line bundle if and only if $`L\mathrm{Pic}^W(B)`$.

The previous theorem shows that the $`𝑻_B`$ action on $`\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ is somewhat complicated. If we work modulo the exceptional curves $`o_1,o_2`$, the formulas simplify considerably. (Working modulo $`o_1,o_2`$ amounts to contracting these two curves.)

###### Corollary 7.6

The action of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}_B`$ induces an affine automorphism of $`\mathrm{Pic}(B)/(o_1o_2)`$, namely:

$$\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)=\alpha _B^{}(L)𝒪_B(e\zeta +f)mod(o_1,o_2).$$

Proof. Apply Theorem 7.1 together with (4.2). $`\mathrm{}`$

Using these two results we can now describe the action of $`𝑻_B`$ on sheaves supported on curves in $`B`$. Let $`CB`$ be a curve which is finite over $`^1`$. Denote by $`i_C:CB`$ the inclusion map. For the purposes of the spectral construction we will need to calculate the action of the spectral involution $`𝑻_B`$ on sheaves of the form $`i_Ci_C^{}L`$ for some $`L\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$:

###### Proposition 7.7

Let $`CB`$ be a curve which is finite over $`^1`$ and such that $`𝒪_B(C)\mathrm{Pic}^W(B)`$ (for example we may take $`C`$ in the linear system $`|re+kf|`$ for some integers $`r`$, $`k`$). Let $`L\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$. Put $`D:=\alpha _B(C)`$. Then

* $`𝑻_B(i_Ci_C^{}L)=i_Di_D^{}(𝑻_B(L))`$.
* $`𝑻_B(i_Ci_C^{}L)=i_Di_D^{}(\alpha _B^{}(L)𝒪_B(e\zeta +f))`$.

Proof. Since $`C`$ is assumed to be finite over $`^1`$ it follows that $`i_C^{}L`$ will be flat over $`^1`$ and so $`V=𝑭𝑴_B(L)`$ will be a vector bundle on $`B`$ of rank $`r=Cf`$, which is semistable and of degree zero on every fiber of $`\beta `$. But then $`\tau _B^{}V`$ will be again a vector bundle of this type. Moreover if $`f_t`$ is a general fiber of $`\beta `$ then we can write $`V_{|f_t}a_1\mathrm{}a_r`$, where $`a_i`$ are line bundles of degree zero on $`f_t`$. In fact if we put $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_r\}=Cf_t`$ for the intersection points of $`C`$ and $`f_t`$ we have $`a_i=𝒪_{f_t}(p_ie(t))`$. Now $`\tau _B`$ induces an isomorphism $`\tau _B:f_{\tau _^1(t)}f_t`$ and

$$(\tau _B^{}V)_{|f_{\tau _^1(t)}}=\tau _B^{}a_1\mathrm{}\tau _B^{}a_r.$$

By definition $`\tau _B=t_\zeta \alpha _B`$. Since every translation on an elliptic curve induces the identity on $`\mathrm{Pic}^0`$ it follows that $`\tau _B^{}a_i=\alpha _B^{}a_i=𝒪_{f_{\tau _^1(t)}}(\alpha _B(p_i)e(f_{\tau _^1(t)}))`$. This shows that $`𝑭𝑴_B^1(\tau _B^{}V)`$ will be a line bundle supported on $`D=\alpha _B(C)`$ and so to prove (a) we only need to identify this line bundle explicitly.

Consider the short exact sequence

$$0L(C)Li_Ci_C^{}L0.$$

Applying the exact functor $`𝑻_B`$ we get a long exact sequence of sheaves

However, by parts (i) and (iii) of Theorem 7.1 we have

$$^1𝑻_B(L(C))=^1𝑻_B(L)$$

and so $`𝑻_B(i_Ci_C^{}L)`$ fits in a short exact sequence

$$0^0𝑻_B(L(C))^0𝑻_B(L)𝑻_B(i_Ci_C^{}L)0.$$

But in the proof of Theorem 7.1 we showed that for any line bundle $`K\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ one has

$$^0𝑻_B(K)=\stackrel{~}{T}_B(K)𝒪_B((c_1(K)o_1)o_1+(c_1(K)o_2)o_2).$$

Taking into account that $`𝒪(o_i)_{|C}=𝒪_C`$ we can twist the above exact sequence by

$$𝒪_B((c_1(K)o_1)o_1(c_1(K)o_2)o_2)$$

to obtain

$$0\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L(C))\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)𝑻_B(i_Ci_C^{}L)0.$$

To calculate $`\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L(C))`$ let $`\mathrm{\Omega }:\mathrm{Pic}(B)\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ denote the linear part of the affine map $`\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B`$. In other words $`\mathrm{\Omega }(L)=\tau _B^{}(L)+(c_1(L)(e\zeta ))f+(c_1(L)f)(e\zeta +f)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)=\omega (L)+(e\zeta +f)`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L(C))=\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)𝒪_B(\mathrm{\Omega }(C))`$.

Using the formula describing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ one checks immediately that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a linear involution of $`\mathrm{Pic}(B)`$ which preserves the intersection pairing. Also we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }(o_1)=o_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(o_2)=o_2`$ and so $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ preserves $`\mathrm{Span}(o_1,o_2)^{}`$. But according to Corollary 7.6 the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to $`\mathrm{Span}(o_1,o_2)^{}\mathrm{Pic}^W(B)`$ coincides with the restriction of $`\alpha _B^{}`$, which yields

$$\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L(C))=\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)𝒪_B(\mathrm{\Omega }(C))=\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)𝒪_B(\alpha _B^{}(C))=\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)𝒪_B(D).$$

Consequently $`𝑻_B(i_Ci_C^{}L)`$ fits in the exact sequence

$$0\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)𝒪_B(D)\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)𝑻_B(i_Ci_C^{}L)0.$$

But as we saw above $`𝑻_B(i_Ci_C^{}L)`$ is the extension by zero of some line bundle on $`D`$ and so we must have $`𝑻_B(i_Ci_C^{}L)=i_Di_D^{}\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)`$. Finally note that $`\alpha _B^{}`$ preserves $`\mathrm{Pic}^W(B)`$ since $`\alpha _B^{}(o_1)=o_2`$. Therefore $`D`$ is disjoint from $`o_1`$ and $`o_2`$ and so the restriction of $`\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)`$ to $`D`$ will be the same as the restriction of the projection of $`\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)`$ onto $`\mathrm{Span}(o_1,o_2)^{}`$. Applying again Corollary 7.6 we get that $`i_Di_D^{}\stackrel{~}{𝑻}_B(L)=i_Di_D^{}𝒪_B(\alpha _B^{}L+(e\zeta +f))`$. The Proposition is proven. $`\mathrm{}`$