text:
# 1 A brief tour and literature-guide on stacks for physicists.

## 1 A brief tour and literature-guide on stacks for physicists.

Basic definitions on stacks needed for the discussions are collected in this section for introduction of notations and physicists’ convenience.

$``$ Grothendieck topology and site. Let $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ be the category of schemes over a base scheme $`S_0`$ (\[Ha1\]). See \[G-M : Sec. II.4\], \[Kr\], and \[L-MB : Chapter 9\] for the definition - and \[Mu1\] for why they are needed - of the following :

* Topology = covering system.

+ étale topology.
    + fppf topology; fppf = faithfully flat (=flat+surjective), \+ locally of finite presentation.
    + fpqc topology; fpqc = faithfully flat + quasi-compact
* Site on $`\left(Sch/S_0\right)`$ = usual $`\left(\text{Sch}/S_0\right)`$ \+ covering systems.

Notation. Let $`f:U^{}U`$ be a covering of $`U`$ in the site $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$. We shall adopt the following notations for the projection maps from fibered products :

$$U^{\prime \prime \prime }:=U^{}\times _UU^{}\times _UU^{}\stackrel{\pi _{12},\pi _{13},\pi _{23}}{\text{—————}}U^{\prime \prime }:=U^{}\times _UU^{}\stackrel{p_1,p_2}{\text{———}}U^{}.$$

Such compact notations are particularly useful for diagram-chasings.

$``$ Grothendieck’s theory of descent. Given a covering morphism $`f:U^{}U`$ in the site $`(Sch/S_0)`$, Grothendieck’s theory of descent studies (1) when and how a geometric object (e.g. a coherent sheaf) on $`U^{}`$ can be descended to a geometric object of the same kind on $`U`$ and (2) when and how a morphism between descendable geometric objects on $`U^{}`$ descends to a morphism between the descent geometric objects on $`U`$. This is a big generalization of the local-to-global constructions in geometry. See \[Kr : Lecture 4 and Lecture 5\] for an introduction and references.

$``$ Stacks. While varieties contain only closed points (= the usual geometric points when the ground field $`k`$ is ), schemes (e.g. \[E-H\] and \[Mu4\]) contain also nonclosed points to make doing geometry more natural. Stacks go one step further to contain “points” with nontrivial automorphisms. A “space” with such a feature is needed to parameterize geometric objects that can have nontrivial automorphisms, e.g. curves and coherent sheaves. Assuming the background on algebraic geometry in \[Ha1\], then \[Mu1\], \[D-M\], \[Gó\], and \[Ed\] (in suggested reading order) together give a concrete and solid introduction of algebraic stacks and their natural appearance in moduli problems in algebraic geometry; \[L-MB\] gives the final up-to-date polishment. See also \[Art1\], \[Art2\], \[Be2\], \[Bry\], \[Gil\], \[H-M\], \[Mu3\], and \[Vi\] for more details. Recall that a groupoid is a category in which all the morphisms are isomorphisms.

Definition 1.1 \[(pre-)stack\]. (Cf. \[D-M\], \[Gó\], and \[Kr\].) A stack $``$ over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ is a category fibered in groupoids $`p_{}:(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ such that the assignment of the fiber $`(U):=p_{}^1(U)`$ to each $`U(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ is a sheaf of groupoids. I.e. it is an assignment of groupoids

$$U(\text{Sch}/S_0)(U)$$

that satisfies the following sheaf axioms : Let $`f:U^{}U`$ be a covering of $`U`$ in the site $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$.

* (Gluing of morphisms ) Let $`_1`$, $`_2`$ be objects in $`(U)`$ and $`\phi ^{}:f^{}_1f^{}_2`$ be a morphism in $`(U^{})`$ such that there exists an isomorphism $`\tau :p_1^{}f^{}_1p_2^{}f^{}_2`$ in $`(U^{\prime \prime })`$. Then there exists a morphism $`\phi :_1_2`$ in $`(U)`$ such that $`f^{}\phi =\phi ^{}`$.
* (Monopresheaf ) Let $`_1`$, $`_2`$ be objects in $`(U)`$ and $`\phi `$, $`\psi :_1_2`$ be morphisms in $`(U)`$ such that $`f^{}\phi =f^{}\psi `$. Then $`\phi =\psi `$.
* (Gluing of objects) Let $`^{}`$ be an object in $`(U^{})`$ and $`\tau :p_1^{}^{}p_2^{}^{}`$ be an isomorphism in $`(U^{\prime \prime })`$ such that $`\pi _{23}^{}\tau \pi _{12}^{}\tau =\pi _{13}^{}\tau `$ in $`(U^{\prime \prime \prime })`$. Then there exists an object $``$ in $`(U)`$ and an isomorphism $`\sigma :f^{}^{}`$ in $`(U^{})`$ such that $`p_2^{}\sigma =\tau p_1^{}\sigma `$.

If $``$ satisfies only (1) and (2), then it is called a prestack over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$. In this case, sheafification (official term : stackification) of $``$ gives a stack canonically associated to a prestack (cf. \[Ha1 : II. Proposition-Definition 1.2\], \[Kr : Lecture 7\], and \[L-MB : Lemma 3.2\].)

Remark 1.1.1 \[category fibered in groupoids\]. (\[D-M : Sec. 4\] and \[Kr : Lecture 6\].) Given a category $``$ over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$, $`p_{}:(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$, it is fibered in groupoids over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ if it satisfies the following morphism-lifting properties :

* For any $`\phi :UV`$ in $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ and $`y(V)`$ there is a map $`f:xy`$ in $``$ with $`p_{}(f)=\phi `$.
* Given a diagram $`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x& & \\ & f& \\ & & z\hfill \\ & g& \\ \hfill y& & \end{array}`$ in $``$ with its image $`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill U& & \\ & \phi & \\ & & W\hfill \\ & \psi & \\ \hfill V& & \end{array}`$ in $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$. Then for all $`\chi :UV`$ such that $`\phi =\psi \chi `$, there is a unique $`h:xy`$ such that $`f=gh`$ and $`p_{}(h)=\chi `$.

Such lifting properties in many moduli problems, including the one studied in the notes, follow automatically by base-change or fibered products. Hence we will omit mentioining them.

Remark 1.1.2 \[algebraic $`S_0`$-spaces\]. For technical reasons in algebro-geometric study of moduli problems, it is natural to introduce the notion of algebraic $`S_0`$-spaces and use them, instead of schemes, to define atlas and representability of morphisms between stacks, cf. \[L-MB : chapters 1 and 10\]. Such spaces may be thought of as a collection of étale (instead of Zariski) local charts for a would-be (generally non-existing) scheme. To keep things down to earth, we do not adapt this convention in the notes.

$``$ Morphisms between stacks. Let $`p_{}:(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ and $`p_𝒢:𝒢(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ be stacks over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$. A morphism from $``$ to $`𝒢`$ is a functor $`F:𝒢`$ between the two categories such that $`p_𝒢F=p_{}`$. Explicitly for moduli stacks, this means that $`F`$ sends a flat family of one class of geometric objects to a flat family of another class of geometric objects in a way that commutes with base change. $`F`$ is representable if for all $`X(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ and morphism $`x:X𝒢`$, the fibered product (cf. next item) $`\times _{F,𝒢,x}X`$ is also in $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$. Properties of schemes (e.g. proper, separated, smooth, etc.) that are stable under base change and of a local nature on the target can be defined for representable morphisms of stacks via fibered products with schemes : \[D-M : Sec. 4\], \[Gó : Sec. 2\], and \[L-MB : Definitions (3.9) and (3.10.1)\].

$``$ Fibered product. \[Be2 : Lecture 1, Groupoids\], \[Gó : Sec. 2.2\], and \[L-MB : Sec. (2.2.2)\]. Given two morphisms $`F:𝒳𝒵`$ and $`G:𝒴𝒵`$ of stacks over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$, their fibered product $`𝒳\times _{F,𝒵,G}𝒴`$ (or denoted $`𝒳\times _𝒵𝒴`$ when $`F`$ and $`G`$ are clear from the text) is defined to be the stack over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ with

* Objects :  Triples $`(X,Y,\alpha )`$, where $`X𝒳`$, $`Y𝒴`$, and $`\alpha :F(X)G(Y)`$ is an isomorphism in $`𝒵`$.
* Morphisms :  A morphism from $`(X_1,Y_1,\alpha _1)`$ to $`(X_2,Y_2,\alpha _2)`$ is a pair $`(\phi _𝒳,\phi _𝒴)`$ of morphisms $`\phi _𝒳:X_1X_2`$, $`\phi _𝒴:Y_1Y_2`$ over the same morphism $`f:UV`$ of schemes in $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ such that the following diagram commutes
$$\begin{array}{cccc}F(X_1)& \stackrel{F(\phi _𝒳)}{}& F(X_2)& \\ \alpha _1& & \alpha _2& \\ G(Y_1)& \stackrel{G(\phi _𝒴)}{}& G(Y_2)& .\hfill \end{array}$$

$``$ $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}`$ and Isom . (Cf. \[D-M : Definition (I.10)\], \[Gro : Sec. 4\], and \[Mu1: Sec. 3\].) Given a pair of families of geometric objects, e.g. stable curves, $`\pi _i:X_iS_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$, then each induces a family of geometric object, still denoted by $`\pi _i`$, over $`S_1\times _{S_0}S_2`$ via pullback. Let $`(\text{Sets})`$ be the category of sets. Then $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}(\pi _1,\pi _2)`$ is the functor

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}(\pi _1,\pi _2)& :& (\text{Sch}/S_0)& & (\text{Sets})\\ & & S& & \{(\alpha ,\beta )|\alpha Hom(S,S_1\times _{S_0}S_2),\beta :\alpha ^{}\pi _1\alpha ^{}\pi _2\}.\end{array}$$

In case $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}(\pi _1,\pi _2)`$ is a representable functor, the scheme that represents $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}(\pi _1,\pi _2)`$ will be denoted by $`\text{Isom}(\pi _1,\pi _2)`$. Representability of Isom in many moduli problems boils down to the representability of the Hilbert functor or the Quot functor (\[Gro\]). When the moduli problem is described by a stack $`𝒳`$ over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$, then $`\pi _i`$ correspond to morphisms $`F_i:S𝒳`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}(\pi _1,\pi _2)=S_1\times _{F_1,𝒳,F_2}S_2`$. Similarly for $`\underset{¯}{\text{Hom}}`$ and Hom that replace isomorphisms in the definition of $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}`$ and Isom by morphisms.

Definition 1.2 \[Artin stack\]. (\[Gó : Definition 2.22\].) An Artin stack $``$ over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ is stack $``$ over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ that satisfies additional conditions :

* The diagonal morphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\times _{\text{(}\text{Sch}/S_0)}`$ is representable, quasi-compact, and separated.
* There exists a scheme $`U`$ \- called an atlas \- and a smooth and surjective morphism $`u:U`$.

See \[L-MB : Definition (5.2)\] for the definition of the set of points $`||`$ of a stack $``$.

Definiton 1.3 \[coarse moduli space\]. (Cf. \[Gó : Definition 2.6\] and \[Vi : (2.1) Definition\].) A coarse moduli space for a stack $``$ is a scheme $`Z`$ together with a morphism $`\varphi :Z`$ such that

* if $`Z^{}`$ is another scheme that admits a morphism $`\varphi ^{}:Z^{}`$ then there is a unique morphism of schemes $`\eta :ZZ^{}`$ with $`\varphi ^{}=\eta \varphi `$, (i.e. $`Z`$ coreprsents $``$).
* for any algebraically closed field $`k`$, the induecd map on $`k`$-points $`|\varphi |:|F|(k)Z(k)`$ is bijective.

(Thus, when exists, $`Z`$ is unique up to a canonical isomorphism.)

$``$ Quotient stack. \[Be2 : Lecture 1, Example 18.3 and Example 20.4 \], \[Gó : Example 2.14\], and \[L-MB : Sec. (2.4.2)\]. For $`S_0=\text{Spec}k`$, where $`k`$ is a ground field, let $`G`$ be an algebraic group over $`k`$. The quotient stack of a $`G`$-action on a $`k`$-scheme $`X`$ is denoted by $`[X/G]`$. It is the stackification of the prestack $`\text{pre}[X/G]`$ over $`(\text{Sch}/k)`$. An object of the groupoid $`\text{pre}[X/G](U)`$, $`U(\text{Sch}/k)`$, is a diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}P& \stackrel{f}{}& X\\ & & \\ U& & ,\end{array}$$

where $`P`$ is a principal $`G`$-bundle over $`U`$ and $`f`$ is a $`G`$-equivariant $`k`$-morphism.

## 2 From Cox functor to Witten’s A-twisted moduli stack.

Notations and terminologies of toric geometry used here follow mainly \[Fu\], see also \[Oda\].

### 2.1 The A-twisted moduli stack $`𝒜_g(X)`$.

Let $`N\text{}^n`$ be a lattice, $`M`$ be its dual lattice, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a fan in $`N_{\text{}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$ be the $`1`$-dimensional cones of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`n_\rho `$ be the generator of $`\rho N`$ for $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$. Let $`X`$ be the smooth toric variety associated to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`Y`$ be a scheme over $`S`$. Recall the following definition from \[Cox2\] :

Definition 2.1.1 \[$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection\]. A $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $`(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}`$ on $`Y/S`$ consists of line bundles $`L_\rho `$ on $`Y`$ flat over $`S`$, sections $`u_\rho H^0(Y,L_\rho )`$ indexed by $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$, and a collection of isomorphisms $`c_m:_\rho L_\rho ^{m,n_\rho }𝒪_Y`$ indexed by $`mM`$ such that

* Compatibility$`:`$

$`c_mc_m^{}=c_{m+m^{}}`$ for all $`m,m^{}M`$.
* Nondegeneracy$`:`$

The map $`_{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{max}}_{\rho \sigma }u_\rho ^{}:_{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{max}}_{\rho \sigma }L_\rho ^1𝒪_Y`$ is surjective, where $`u_\rho ^{}:L_\rho ^1𝒪_Y`$ is the dual morphism of $`u_\rho :𝒪_YL_\rho `$.

An isomorphism $`(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}\stackrel{}{}(L_\rho ^{},u_\rho ^{},c_m^{})_{\rho ,m}`$ consists of isomorphisms $`\gamma _\rho :L_\rho \stackrel{}{}L_\rho ^{}`$ which carry $`u_\rho `$ to $`u_\rho ^{}`$ and $`c_m`$ to $`c_m^{}`$.

Explanation/Fact 2.1.2 \[Cox\]. For the application in this article, we will consider only the case when the set $`\{n_\rho \}_\rho `$ spans $`N_{\text{}}`$. In this case $`X=(\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}V(I))/G`$, where $`\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}=\text{Spec}\text{}[x_\rho :\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(1)]`$, $`I`$ is the ideal generated by $`_{\rho \sigma }x_\rho `$, $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{max}`$, and $`G=\text{Hom}_{\text{}}(\text{Pic}(X),\text{}^\times )`$ acts on $`\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }((1)}`$ via the exact sequence

$$1G\text{Hom}_{\text{}}(\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)},\text{}^\times )T_N\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}.$$

The following statements either are explicitly in or follow immediately from \[Cox2\].

* The isomorphisms $`c_m`$.

+ $`L_\rho `$ are unrelated abstract line bundles on $`Y/S`$. To relate the collection of sections $`u_\rho `$ to a map from $`Y`$ to $`\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}`$, some data is needed that enables one to compare sections in different $`L_\rho `$ \- more precisely, the induced sections from $`u_\rho `$ on isomorphic tensor products of $`L_\rho `$ -. The data $`c_m`$ gives exactly this information up to the $`G`$-action. Condition $`(i)`$ (Compatibility) is the cocycle conditions that make sure this comparison of sections on different $`L_\rho `$ is consistent among themselves.
    + Given $`\{L_\rho \}_\rho `$ and two choices $`\{c_m\}_m`$ and $`\{c_m^{}\}_m`$, there exist automorphisms $`\gamma _\rho `$ on $`L_\rho `$ that carry $`\{c_m\}_m`$ to $`\{c_m^{}\}_m`$. Thus, up to isomorphisms, there is exactly one way to compare the line bundles $`L_\rho `$.
    + Reason. (Cf. \[Cox2 : Theorem 1.1, proof\].) A pair of collections of isomorphisms $`(\{c_m\}_m,\{c_m^{}\}_m)`$ determines a morphism $`\alpha :MH^0(Y,𝒪_Y^{})`$. From the long exact sequence
    + $$\begin{array}{c}0\text{Hom}(\text{Pic}X,H^0(Y,𝒪_Y^{}))\text{Hom}(\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\left(1\right)},H^0(Y,𝒪_Y^{}))\text{Hom}(M,H^0(Y,𝒪_Y^{}))\hfill \\ \text{Ext}^1(\text{Pic}X,H^0(Y,𝒪_Y^{}))\left(=0\right)\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$

    induced from the short exact sequence $`0M\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}\text{Pic}X0`$, one concludes that $`\alpha `$ can be lifted to a morphism $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }:\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}H^0(Y,𝒪_Y^{})`$. The morphism $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ defines then a collection of automorphisms $`\gamma _\rho `$ on $`L_\rho `$, $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$, that carry $`\{c_m\}_m`$ to $`\{c_m^{}\}_m`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

* The nondegeneracy condition. Recall (e.g. \[Ha1: Appendix A.3\]) that, given a section $`u_\rho :𝒪_YL_\rho `$, the zero-sheme of $`u_\rho `$ is defined by the ideal sheaf $`u_\rho ^{}(L_\rho ^1)`$. Thus, Condition $`(ii)`$ (Nondegeneracy) of a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection means exactly that the image of the map $`U\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}`$ in Item (2) above lies completely in $`\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}V(I)`$.

Explanation/Fact 2.1.2 : Item (2), \[Wi1\] and \[M-P\] together lead to the following definitions.

Definition 2.1.3 \[weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection\]. (1) A weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`Y/S`$ is a set of data $`(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}`$ as in Definition 2.1.1 with Condition $`(ii)`$ (Nondegeneracy) replaced by

* Nonvanishing$`:`$

The map $`_{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{max}}_{\rho \sigma }u_\rho ^{}:_{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{max}}_{\rho \sigma }L_\rho ^1𝒪_Y`$ is not a zero-morphism when restricted to each irreducible component of fibers $`Y_s`$ over $`sS`$.

Isomorphisms of such data are defined the same as in Definition 2.1.1.

(2) Let $`(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)`$ (resp. $`(L_\rho ^{},u_\rho ^{},c_m^{})`$) be a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`Y/S`$ (resp. $`Y^{}/S^{}`$). Then a morphism from $`(Y/S,(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m))`$ to $`(Y^{}/S^{},(L_\rho ^{},u_\rho ^{},c_m^{}))`$ is a pair $`(f,\gamma )`$, where $`f:YY^{}`$ fits into a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Y& \stackrel{f}{}& Y^{}\\ & & \\ S& \stackrel{\overline{f}}{}& S^{}\end{array}$$

and $`\gamma :(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)\stackrel{}{}f^{}(L_\rho ^{},u_\rho ^{},c_m^{})`$ on $`Y/S`$.

Definition 2.1.4 \[quasistable curves over $`S`$\]. (Cf. \[Ca\].) A prestable (i.e. reduced connected nodal) curve is called quasistable if all its destabilizing chains have length $`1`$. A quasistable curve over $`S`$ is a flat family $`\pi :𝒞S`$ of quasistable curves over $`S`$. Define $`𝒬_g`$ to be the category fibered in groupoids of quasistable curves over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$.

Definition/Lemma 2.1.5 \[$`𝒜_g(X)`$ stack\]. Let $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ be equipped with the fpqc or the fppf topology. Define $`𝒜_g(X)`$ to be the category over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ whose fiber over $`U(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ is given by the groupoid

$$𝒜_g(X)(U)=\{\text{weak }\mathrm{\Delta }\text{-collections on quasistable curves }𝒞\text{ over }U\}.$$

Then $`𝒜_g(X)`$ is a stack. We shall call it the A-twisted moduli stack associated to $`X`$ for genus $`g`$ curves.

Remark 2.1.6. Compared with \[Wi1 : Sec. 3.4\] and \[M-P : Sec. 3.7\] summarized in Appendix, $`𝒜_g(X)`$ is related to the moduli space of the A-twisted gauged linear model in the higher genus case.

Definition/Lemma 2.1.5 follows from the proof of the effectiveness of a descent datum in the case of quasi-coherent sheaves on schemes in $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$, which we recall from \[Kr\]. See also \[SGA1\].

Fact 2.1.7 \[descent of quasi-coherent sheaves\]. Let $`f:U^{}U`$ be a fpqc or fppf morphism in $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$. Recall the projection maps from Sec. 1

$$U^{\prime \prime \prime }:=U^{}\times _UU^{}\times _UU^{}\stackrel{\pi _{12},\pi _{13},\pi _{23}}{\text{—————}}U^{\prime \prime }:=U^{}\times _UU^{}\stackrel{p_1,p_2}{\text{———}}U^{}.$$

* Descent of quasi-coherent sheaves. Let $`^{}`$ be a quasi-coherent $`𝒪_U^{}`$-module and $`\tau :p_1^{}^{}p_2^{}^{}`$ be an isomorphism that satisfies $`\pi _{23}^{}\tau \pi _{12}^{}\tau =\pi _{13}^{}\tau `$. Then there exists a quasi-coherent $`𝒪_U`$-module $``$ on $`U`$ together with an isomorphism $`\sigma :f^{}^{}`$ such that $`p_2^{}\sigma =\tau p_1^{}\sigma `$. The sheaf $``$ is unique up to a canonical isomorphism.
* Descent of morphisms. Let $`(^{},\tau )`$ and $`(^{},\upsilon )`$ be descent data and $`(,\sigma )`$ and $`(,\rho )`$ be their respective descent as in Item (a). Let $`h^{}:^{}^{}`$ be a morphism that satisfies $`p_2^{}h^{}\tau =\upsilon p_1^{}h^{}`$. Then there exists a unique morphism $`h:`$ such that $`\rho f^{}h=h^{}\sigma `$.

Sketch of proof. Consider the following stricter version of Statement (b) :

* Let $``$ and $``$ be quasi-coherent sheaves on $`U`$ and $`h^{}:f^{}f^{}`$ be a morphism of $`𝒪_U^{}`$-modules such that $`p_1^{}h^{}=p_2^{}h^{}`$. Then there exists a unique morphism $`h:`$ such that $`f^{}h=h^{}`$.

Via diagram chasings, Statement $`(b)`$ follows from Statement $`(b^{})`$ and the existence part of Statement $`(a)`$. The proof now consists of three steps.

(1) Case : $`f=`$ faithfully flat morphism between affine schemes.

$`(1.a)`$ Descent of quasi-coherent sheaves.

Define $`\overline{f}:=fp_1`$ ($`=fp_2`$) and let $`p_1^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`p_2^{\mathrm{}}:𝒪_U^{}𝒪_{U^{\prime \prime }}`$ be the defining ring morphism of structure sheaves associated to $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ respectively. Then their difference $`p_1^{\mathrm{}}p_2^{\mathrm{}}`$ defines an $`𝒪_U`$-module morphism $`q:f_{}𝒪_U^{}\overline{f}_{}𝒪_{U^{\prime \prime }}`$. These morphisms induce natural morphisms $`\widehat{p_1}:^{}p_1^{}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{p_2}:^{}p_2^{}^{}`$ by pulling back global sections.

Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }:=\tau \widehat{p_1}\widehat{p_2}:^{}p_2^{}^{}`$. Then the descent $``$ of the descent datum $`(^{},\tau )`$ is given by $`=f_{}\text{Ker}\mathrm{\Theta }`$. By definition $``$ fits into the following exact sequence of $`𝒪_U`$-modules

$$0\stackrel{\iota }{}f_{}^{}\stackrel{\mathrm{\Theta }}{}\overline{f}_{}(p_2^{}^{}).$$

$`\tau `$ determines an isomorphism $`k:f^{}\overline{f}_{}p_2^{}^{}p_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{f}^{}f_{}^{}`$ and an automorphism $`h`$ on $`f^{}f_{}^{}`$. These fit into a commutative square of $`𝒪_U^{}`$-modules

$$\begin{array}{cccccccc}0& & f^{}& \stackrel{f^{}\iota }{}& f^{}f_{}^{}& \stackrel{f^{}\mathrm{\Theta }}{}& f^{}\overline{f}_{}p_2^{}^{}& \\ & & & & h& & k& \\ 0& & ^{}& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{f}}{}& f^{}f_{}^{}& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{q}}{}& p_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\overline{f}^{}f_{}^{}& ,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ are natural morphisms induced by $`f`$ and $`q`$ respectively and both horizontal complexes are exact. This determines an isomorphism $`\sigma :f^{}^{}`$ that satisfies the conditions in Statement (a). It has the property that if $`s^{}`$ is a global section in $`\text{Ker}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`s`$ is its corresponding global section in $``$, then $`\sigma (f^{}s)=s^{}`$. Uniqueness of $``$ up to a canonical isomorphism follows from Item (1.b) below.

$`(1.b^{})`$ Descent of morphisms.

The following natural sequence of $`𝒪_U`$-modules induced by $`f`$ and $`q`$ is exact

$$0\stackrel{\widehat{f}}{}f_{}f^{}\stackrel{\widehat{q}}{}\overline{f}_{}\overline{f}^{}.$$

Hence for any global section $`s`$ in $``$, let $`f^{}(s)`$ be the corresponding global section in $`f^{}`$, then $`h^{}(f^{}(s))=f^{}(t)`$ for a unique global section in $``$.

One can now define the descent morphism $`h:`$ by setting $`h(s)=t`$. By definition $`f^{}h=h^{}`$. Since $`f^{}`$ is an exact and faithful functor, such $`h`$ is unique.

(2) Statements for reductions.

Let $`R\stackrel{f_1}{}S\stackrel{f_2}{}T`$ be a chain of morphisms of schemes in $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$. By chasing the following two diagrams :

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}R\times _SR\times _SR& & R\times _TR\times _TR& & S\times _TS\times _TS& & \\ & & & & & & \\ R\times _SR& & R\times _TR& & S\times _TS& & \\ & & & & & & \\ & & R& \stackrel{f_1}{}& S& \stackrel{f_2}{}& T\end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(R\times _SR)\times _T(R\times _SR)& & (R\times _TR)\times _{S\times _TS}(R\times _TR)\\ & & \\ R\times _SR& & R\times _TR,\end{array}$$

where all the morphisms are natural projection maps from fibered products, one concludes the following statements for reduction :

Reduction (2.1). Suppose that $`(b^{})`$ holds for $`f_1`$ and that for any quasi-coherent sheaves $`𝒜`$, $``$ on $`S\times _TS`$, the map $`\eta ^{}:\text{Hom}_{S\times _TS}(𝒜,)\text{Hom}_{R\times _TR}(\eta ^{}𝒜,\eta ^{})`$ is injective, then $`(b^{})`$ holds for $`f_2`$ if and only if $`(b^{})`$ holds for $`f_2f_1`$.

Reduction (2.2). Suppose that $`(b^{})`$ hold for $`f_1`$ as well as any pull-back of $`f_1`$. Suppose also that $`(a)`$ and $`(b)`$ hold for $`f_1`$, then $`(a)`$ and $`(b)`$ hold for $`f_2`$ if and only if $`(a)`$ and $`(b)`$ hold for $`f_2f_1`$.

(3) General case by reductions.

For a general fpqc or fppf morphism $`f:U^{}U`$ between $`S_0`$-schemes, let $`\{V_i\}_{iI}`$ be a Zariski affine cover of $`U`$ and for each $`iI`$ let $`\{V_{i,j}^{}\}_{jJ_i}`$ be a Zariski affine cover of $`f^1(V_i)`$. If $`f`$ is fpqc, then $`J_i`$ can be assumed to be a finite set. Then for each $`i`$ the map $`f_i:_jV_{i,j}^{}V_i`$ is a faithfully flat affine morphism and hence $`(a)`$ and $`(b)`$ hold for $`f_i`$. Applying Reduction (2.1) and Reduction (2.2) to chains of morphisms

$$\underset{i,j}{}V_{i,j}^{}\stackrel{_if_i}{}\underset{i}{}V_iU\text{and}\underset{i,j}{}V_{i,j}^{}U^{}\stackrel{f}{}U,$$

one concludes that $`(a)`$ and $`(b)`$ hold for $`f`$. If $`f`$ is fppf, then $`V_{i,j}:=f(V_{i,j}^{})`$ are open in $`U`$. For each $`i`$, $`\{V_{i,j}\}_j`$ is a Zariski open cover of $`V_i`$ and each morphism $`V_{i,j}^{}V_{i,j}`$ is fpqc. Applying Reduction (2.1) and Reduction to $`(2.2)`$ to chains of morphisms

$$\underset{j}{}V_{i,j}^{}\underset{j}{}V_{i,j}V_i,\underset{i,j}{}V_{i,j}^{}\underset{i}{}V_iU,\text{and}\underset{i,j}{}V_{i,j}^{}U^{}\stackrel{f}{}U,$$

one concludes that $`(a)`$ and $`(b)`$ hold for $`f`$. This concludes the sketch.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Recall that $`𝒬_g`$ is the category fibered in groupoids of quasistable curves over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$.

Fact 2.1.8 \[$`𝒬_g`$ Artin\]. (\[Be1\].) $`𝒬_g`$ is an Artin stack for all $`g0`$.

Explanation. This follows from \[Be1 : Preliminaries on prestable curves\] since $`𝒬_g`$ is an open substack of the Artin stack of prestable curves.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 2.1.9 \[line bundle with a section\]. The category fibered in groupoids of line bundles with a section on quasistable curves over $`S_0`$-schemes is a stack.

Proof. Since $`𝒬_g`$ is an Artin stack, a descent datum for quasistable curves descends effectively. If $`\underset{¯}{f}:S_1S_2`$ is a fppf morphism and $`𝒞_2`$ is a quasistable curve over $`S_2`$, then $`𝒞_1:=\underset{¯}{f}^{}𝒞_2=S_1\times _{S_2}𝒞_2`$ is a quasistable curve over $`S_1`$ and the morphism $`f:𝒞_1𝒞_2`$ from fibered product is also fppf. We shall apply Fact 2.1.7 and its proof to $`f:𝒞_1𝒞_2`$.

Given a descent data $`(^{},\tau )`$ on $`𝒞_1`$ with $`^{}`$ invertible, let $``$ be its descent on $`𝒞_2`$. Since $`f^{}^{}`$ and $`f`$ is fppf, $``$ must be invertible as well.

$$\begin{array}{cccc}𝒞_1& \stackrel{f}{}& 𝒞_2& \\ \pi _1& & \pi _2& \\ S_1& \stackrel{\underset{¯}{f}}{}& S_2& \end{array}$$

Thus Fact 2.1.7 remains true if quasi-coherent sheaves are replaced by invertible sheaves (cf. \[Mu1 : Theorem 90 (Hilbert-Grothendieck)\]).

In the construction of the descent of quasi-coherent sheaves and their morphisms for the affine case in the proof of Fact 2.1.7, one observes that if a global section $`s^{}`$ is added to a descent datum $`(^{},\tau )`$ that satisfies the gluing condition given by $`\tau `$, then it must lies in $`\text{Ker}\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and hence descends to a global section $`s`$ in $``$. Furthermore, the statements in Item $`(1.b^{})`$ in that proof imply that such $`s`$ is unique. I.e. the descent remains effective with a section added to the data. Consequently, Statement (a) and Statement (b) in Fact 2.1.7 hold for descent data of invertible sheaves with a section when $`f`$ is a faithfully flat morphism between affine schemes. Now observe that in the remaining part of the proof of Fact 2.1.7, precisely two things are used repeatedly :

* going-down$`:`$

effective descent by a morphism, for which Statement (a) and Statement (b) are known to hold,
* going-up$`:`$

pulling back a descent datum.

Whenever a going-down is employed, the existence and uniqueness of descent global section are known to hold by earlier reductions from the affine case while a going-up takes any part of descent data to the unique corresponding part of descent data automatically. Thus the whole proof of Fact 2.1.7 goes through without change. This proves the lemma.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Definition/Lemma 2.1.5. Continuing the notations from previous discussions. Since the nonvanishing condition of weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collections is an open condition, we only need to show that the data without this condition give a stack.

$`(a)`$ Descent of weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collections. For each $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$ the existence and uniqueness of descent of the descent data $`(L_\rho ^{},u_\rho ^{};\tau _\rho )`$ on $`𝒞_1`$ to $`(L_\rho ,u_\rho ;\sigma _\rho )`$ on $`𝒞_2`$ follow from Corollary 2.1.9. Similarly for morphisms between two such descent data. Each $`(_\rho L_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{m,n_\rho },_\rho \tau _{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{m,n_\rho })`$, as well as $`(𝒪_{𝒞_1},\text{Id})`$, is a descent datum of line bundles on $`𝒞_1`$. Their descent on $`𝒞_2`$ are given by $`(_\rho L_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{m,n_\rho },_\rho \sigma _{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{m,n_\rho })`$ and $`(𝒪_{𝒞_2},\text{Id})`$ respectively. Thus $`c_m^{}:_\rho L_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{m,n_\rho }𝒪_{𝒞_1}`$, as an isomorphism between two descent data of line bundles, descends to a unique isomorphism $`c_m:_\rho L_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{m,n_\rho }𝒪_{𝒞_2}`$. This shows that a descent datum of weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on quasistable curves descends effectively.

$`(b)`$ Descent of morphisms. Since a descent datum of isomorphisms from a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection to another is really that for line bundles. It descends uniquely.

This concludes the proof.

$`\mathrm{}`$

### 2.2 $`𝒜_g(X)`$ is an Artin stack.

Proposition 2.2.1 \[$`𝒜_g(X)`$ Artin\]. The A-twisted moduli stack $`𝒜_g(X)`$ for genus $`g`$ quasistable curves is an Artin stack.

Proof. We check the properties that the diagonal morphism needs to satisfy and construct an atlas for $`𝒜_g(X)`$ via a relative construction.

$`(a)`$ Representability, quasi-compactness, and separatedness of the diagonal morphism.

These properties are reflected in the corresponding properties of the $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}`$-functor (cf. \[Gó : Sec. 2.2\]), which we will now check.

$`(a.1)`$ Representability of $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}_U(_1,_2)`$. Let $`U(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ and $`_1`$, $`_2𝒜_g(X)(U)`$ with the underlying quasistable curves over $`U`$ denoted by $`\pi _1:𝒞_1U`$, $`\pi _2:𝒞_2U`$ respectively. Let $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}_U(_1,_2)`$ be the functor on $`(\text{Sch}/U)`$ associating to each $`U`$-scheme $`f:U^{}U`$ the set of $`U^{}`$-isomorphisms from $`f^{}_1`$ to $`f^{}_2`$. By passing through a standard limit, one may assume that the base schemes $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ are Noetherian and of finite type over $`S_0`$ (cf. \[L-MB : Théorème (4.6.2.1), proof\]). There is a natural morphism of functors $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}_U(_1,_2)\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}_U(𝒞_1,𝒞_2)`$, whose fiber over an isomorphism $`\phi :f^{}𝒞_1f^{}𝒞_2`$ over $`f:U^{}U`$ is the set of isomorphisms from $`f^{}_1`$ to $`\phi ^{}f^{}_2`$ on $`f^{}𝒞_1`$. From \[Gro\] and Fact 2.1.8 the functor $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}_U(𝒞_1,𝒞_2)`$ is represented by a scheme $`\text{Isom}_U(𝒞_1,𝒞_2)`$ quasi-compact and separated over $`U`$. Let $`h_0:\text{Isom}_U(𝒞_1,𝒞_2)U`$ be the natural morphism, then there is a canonical isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:h_0^{}𝒞_1\stackrel{}{}h_0^{}𝒞_2`$. Denote $`h_0^{}𝒞_1`$ over $`Y_0:=\text{Isom}_U(𝒞_1,𝒞_2)`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞_1}`$. Consider the functor $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}_{\stackrel{~}{𝒞_1}/Y_0}(h_0^{}_1,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}h_0^{}_2)`$. From \[Gro : Sec. 4\] (also \[L-MB : Théorème (4.6.2.1), proof\]), if one just focuses on the part of collections of line bundles $`\{L_\rho \}_\rho `$ in weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collections, then the $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}`$-functor is represented by an open subscheme $`Y_2`$ of a scheme $`Y_1`$ that is affine and of finite type over $`Y_0`$. The additional data : sections $`u_\rho `$ and trivialization isomorphisms $`c_m`$ of $`_\rho L_\rho ^{m,n_\rho }`$, specify a locally closed subscheme $`Y_3`$ of $`Y_2`$. Thus $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}_{\stackrel{~}{𝒞_1}/Y_0}(h_0^{}_1,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}h_0^{}_2)`$ is represented by $`Y_3`$ over $`Y_0`$. In summary,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}Y_3& \stackrel{h_3}{}& Y_2& \stackrel{h_2}{}& Y_1& \stackrel{h_1}{}& Y_0=\text{Isom}_U(𝒞_1,𝒞_2)& \stackrel{h_0}{}& U.\\ & \text{locally}\text{}\text{closed }\text{}\text{immersion}& & \text{open }\text{}\text{immersion}& & \text{affine, }\text{}\text{of finite }\text{}\text{type}& & \text{quasi-compact,}\text{}\text{separated}& \text{Noetherian}\end{array}$$

Let $`p:Y_3Y_0`$ be the composition $`h_1h_2h_3`$, then there is a canonical isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }:p^{}_1p^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_2`$ over $`p^{}h_0^{}𝒞_1/Y_0`$.

Claim. The functor $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}_U(_1,_2)`$ is represented by $`Y_3`$.

Proof. One checks the functorial properties for a scheme that represents an $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}`$-functor. Let $`g:U^{}U`$ be a $`U`$-scheme and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }:g^{}_1g^{}_2`$ be an isomorphism. Let $`\gamma :g^{}𝒞_1g^{}𝒞_2`$ be the underlying isomorphism of quasistable curves over $`U^{}`$. Then one may rewrite $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ as an isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }:g^{}_1\gamma ^{}g^{}_2`$ on $`g^{}𝒞_1`$. Since $`Y_0`$ represents the functor $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}_U(𝒞_1,𝒞_2)`$, there is a unique $`U`$-morphism $`h:U^{}Y_0`$ such that $`(\gamma :g^{}𝒞_1g^{}𝒞_2)`$ is the pullback of the canonical isomorphism $`(\mathrm{\Phi }:h_0^{}𝒞_1h_0^{}𝒞_2)`$ over $`Y_0`$. Since $`h_0h=g`$, the data $`(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }:g^{}_1\gamma ^{}g^{}_2)`$ is the same as $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }:h^{}h_0^{}_1h^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}h_0^{}_2`$. Since $`Y_3`$ is the scheme that represents the functor $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}_{\stackrel{~}{𝒞_1}/Y_0}(h_0^{}_1,\mathrm{\Phi }^{}h_0^{}_2)`$, there is a unique $`Y_0`$-morphism $`\stackrel{~}{h}:U^{}Y_3`$ (i.e. a lifting of $`h`$) such that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ is the pullback of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ via $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$. This shows that $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}_U(_1,_2)=\text{Hom}(,Y_3)`$ and hence $`Y_3`$ represents $`\underset{¯}{\text{Isom}}_U(_1,_2)`$.

$`(a.2)`$ Separatedness. Recall the schemes $`Y_i`$ and the morphisms $`h_i`$ between them from the discussion in Part $`(a.1)`$. From Hartshorne \[Ha\] : $`(i)`$ affine morphisms (cf. $`h_1`$) are separated \[Ha : II. Exercise 5.17(b)\], $`(ii)`$ open and closed - and hence locally closed - immersions (cf. $`h_2`$, $`h_3`$) are separated \[Ha : II. Corollary 4.6(a)\], and $`(iii)`$ composition of separated morphisms is separated, it follows that $`Y_3U`$ is separated since $`h_0`$ is separated.

$`(a.3)`$ Quasi-compactness. Recall again from Hartshorne \[Ha : II. Exercise 3.3(a)\] that a morphism of schemes is of finite type if and only if it is locally of finite type and quasi-compact. Since all the morphisms $`h_i`$ are of finite type, so do their composition $`Y_3U`$, which then must be quasi-compact.

These together justify that the diagonal morphism is representable, quasi-compact, and separated.

$`(b)`$ Construction of an atlas.

We follow a relative construction, which is completed in three steps.

$`(b.1)`$ Atlas $`U_0`$ for $`𝒬_g`$. It follows from the discussion in \[Be1\] that an atlas for $`𝒬_g`$ can be chosen as follows. Observe that for $`C`$ a quasistable curve of genus $`g0`$, the number of unstable components of $`C`$ is bounded strictly by $`1`$, for $`g=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ and $`3g3`$, for $`g2`$, and the number of marked points on $`C`$ needed to stabilize all these components is bounded by $`n_0=3`$ for $`g=0`$, $`1`$ for $`g=1`$, and $`3g3`$ for $`g2`$. Let $`\overline{}_{g,n_0}^q`$ be the open substack of the Deligne-Mumford stack $`\overline{}_{g,n_0}`$ that consists of stable curves of genus $`g`$ with $`n_0`$ marked points such that when these marked points are forgotten, the underlying curves are quasistable. Then $`\overline{}_{g,n_0}^q`$ is a Deligne-Mumford stack and the morphism $`F:\overline{}_{g,n_0}^q𝒬_g`$ induced by forgetting the marked points is representable, smooth, and surjective. Indeed if $`V(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ and $`(\pi :𝒞V)𝒬_g(V)`$, then the fibered-product morphism $`\overline{}_{g,n_0}^q\times _{F,𝒬_g,\pi }VV`$ is the morphism of $`S_0`$-schemes

$$(\underset{n_0\text{-many times}}{\underset{}{𝒞\times _V\mathrm{}\times _V𝒞}})^{(0)}V,$$

where $`(𝒞\times _V\mathrm{}\times _V𝒞)^{(0)}`$ is the fibered product $`𝒞\times _V\mathrm{}\times _V𝒞`$ with all the diagonals of the fibered product $`\times _V`$ and the locus of nodes of fibers of $`𝒞V`$ removed. This re-justifies that $`𝒬_g`$ is an Artin stack. Recall the Hilbert scheme construction in \[ F-P : Sec. 2 \] (with $`\text{}^r`$ therein set to $`\text{}^0=\{\text{pt}\}`$) that realizes $`\overline{}_{g,n_0}`$ as a quotient stack of a quasi-projective variety $`U`$ acted on by an algebraic group. (Caution that a “quasistable curve” in \[F-P\] is a “prestable curve” in \[Be1\] and the current article.) There is an open subset $`U_0`$ in $`U`$ whose geometric points corresponds to quasistable curves. This $`U_0`$ is then an atlas for $`𝒬_g`$. Since it comes from a Hilbert scheme construction, the associated flat family of quasistable curves $`\pi :𝒞_0U_0`$ is projective. We shall fix a relative very ample line bundle on $`𝒞_0/U_0`$.

$`(b.2)`$ Atlas $`U_1`$ for $`𝒲𝒟_{𝒞_0/U_0}^X`$. Consider now the stack $`𝒲𝒟_{𝒞_0/U_0}^X`$ over $`(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ of weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collections on $`𝒞_0/U_0`$. Define an atlas $`V`$ for a stack $`𝒮`$ in the same way as that for an Artin stack, namely a morphism $`V𝒮`$ that is representable, smooth, and surjective. Then an atlas for $`𝒲𝒟_{𝒞_0/U_0}^X`$ can be constructed by a sequence of relative constructions given in the following steps.

* ($`b\mathrm{.2.1}`$)

The Quot-scheme construction for an atlas $`V_1`$ for the Artin stack $`\text{Bun}_1(𝒞_0/U_0)`$ of line bundles on $`𝒞_0`$ flat over $`U_0`$ (cf. \[Gómez : Sec. 2.3, Example 2.24\] and \[L-MB : Example (4.6.2)\]). $`V_1`$ can be decomposed into a disjoint union of components labelled by the degree of the line bundles on fiber of $`𝒞_0U_0`$ since the degree determines the Hilbert polynomial of line bundles on curves of fixed genus. By construction there are a natural quasi-projective morphism $`V_1U_0`$ and a tautological line bundle $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ on $`V_1\times _{U_0}𝒞_0`$ over $`V_1`$.
* ($`b\mathrm{.2.2}`$)

An atlas $`V_2`$ for the stack $`\text{Bun}_{1,s}(𝒞_0/U_0)`$ of line bundles with a section on $`𝒞_0/U_0`$ is given by the scheme $`V_2:=\text{Hom}_{(V_1\times _{U_0}𝒞_0)/V_1}(𝒪_{V_1\times _{U_0}𝒞_0},\stackrel{~}{})`$. It is affine and surjective over $`V_1`$, (\[Gro : Sec. 4\] and \[L-MB : Sec. (4.6.2)\]). The fibered product

$$V_3:=\underset{|\mathrm{\Delta }(1)|\text{-many times}}{\underset{}{V_2\times _{U_0}\mathrm{}\times _{U_0}V_2}}$$

gives an atlas for the stack of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }(1)|`$-tuple of lines with a section on the same quasistable curves.
* ($`b\mathrm{.2.3}`$)

The tensor product conditions $`_\rho L_\rho ^{m,n_\rho }𝒪_C`$ in a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on a quasistable curve $`C`$ are locally closed conditions. Together they determine a locally closed subscheme $`V_4`$ in $`V_3`$. Fix a basis for the $`M`$-lattice, then over $`V_4\times _{U_0}𝒞_0`$ there is a $`\text{rank}M`$-tuple of line bundles $`(\stackrel{~}{}_m)_m`$ defined by $`(_\rho L_\rho ^{m,n_\rho })_m`$, where $`m`$ runs over the fixed basis. To add in the data of the choices of trivialization $`c_m:_\rho L_\rho ^{m,n_\rho }𝒪_C`$, one takes the scheme $`V_5:=_{m\mathrm{basis}}\text{Isom}_{(V_4\times _{U_0}𝒞_0)/V_4}(\stackrel{~}{}_m,𝒪_{V_4\times _{U_0}𝒞_0})`$, which is an affine bundle over $`V_4`$ with fiber the abelian group $`^{\mathrm{𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘}M}\text{Spec}k[t,t^1]`$.
* ($`b\mathrm{.2.4}`$)

Finally, let $`U_1`$ be the open subscheme in $`V_5`$ that corresponds to the nonvanishing condition of a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection. Note that we start with $`V_1`$ that is smooth and surjective over the stack $`\text{Bun}_1(𝒞_0/U_0)`$. As we start to enlarge $`\text{Bun}_1(𝒞_0/U_0)`$ to tuples of line bundles, choice of sections, and so on or doing restriction by imposing open, closed or locally closed conditions, these extra data or restrictions do not have nontrivial automorphisms. Thus they do not influence the representability and the smoothness of the morphism of resulting $`V_i`$ to the related stack in the discussion. Also, by construction they are surjective. Thus $`U_1`$ is an atlas for the stack $`𝒲𝒟_{𝒞_\mathcal{0}/U_0}^X`$. By construction there is a natural morphism $`U_1U_0`$.

$`(b.3)`$ $`U_1`$ as an atlas for $`𝒜_g(X)`$. By construction there is a relative weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $`_1`$ on the quasistable curve $`𝒞_1/U_1`$. This gives a morphism $`f_1:U_1𝒜_g(X)`$. Let $``$ be a relative weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on a quasistable curve $`𝒞_W`$ over $`W(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$. This specifies a morphism $`f_W:W𝒜_g(X)`$. By the functorial properties of Isom and the morphism $`U_1U_0`$, one has the following natural morphisms

$$\text{Isom}(𝒞_1/U_1,𝒞_W/W)=U_1\times _{U_0}\text{Isom}(𝒞_0/U_0,𝒞_W/W)\stackrel{\pi }{}\text{Isom}(𝒞_0/U_0,𝒞_W/W)$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}\pi _1^{}𝒞_1\pi ^{}\pi _{10}^{}𝒞_0\stackrel{\stackrel{\alpha :=\pi ^{}\left(\alpha _0\right)}{}}{}\pi _2^{}𝒞_W\pi ^{}\pi _{20}^{}𝒞_W\\ /\\ \text{Isom}(𝒞_1/U_1,𝒞_W/W)\\ \pi _1\pi _2\\ U_1W\end{array}\stackrel{\pi }{}\begin{array}{c}\pi _{10}^{}𝒞_0\stackrel{\stackrel{\alpha _0}{}}{}\pi _{20}^{}𝒞_W\\ /\\ \text{Isom}(𝒞_0/U_0,𝒞_W/W).\\ \pi _{10}\pi _{20}\\ U_0W\end{array}$$

It follows that

$`U_1\times _{f_1,𝒜_g(X),f_W}W=\text{Isom}(_{𝒞_1/U_1},_{𝒞_W/W})`$
$`=\text{Isom}_{\pi _1^{}𝒞_1/\mathrm{𝐈𝐬𝐨𝐦}(𝒞_1/U_1,𝒞_W/W)}(\pi _1^{}_1,\alpha ^{}\pi _2^{}_W)`$
$`=\text{Isom}((_1)_{𝒞_1/U_1/U_0},(\alpha _0^{}\pi _{20}^{}_W)_{(\pi _{10}^{}𝒞_0)/U_0})`$
$`=U_1\times _{𝒲𝒟_{𝒞_0/U_0}^X}\text{Isom}(𝒞_0/U_0,𝒞_W/W)`$
$`\stackrel{\text{smooth and surjective}}{}\text{Isom}(𝒞_0/U_0,𝒞_W/W)=U_0\times _{𝒬_g}W`$
$`\stackrel{\text{smooth and surjective}}{}W.`$
This shows that $`U_1`$ is an atlas for $`𝒜_g(X)`$ and we conclude the proof.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 2.2.2. The above type of relative construction can be found also in the study of relative GIT construction of universal moduli spaces, e.g., \[Hu\] and \[Pa\].

## 3 The $`g=0`$ case.

Since $`\text{}\text{P}^1`$ is rigid, the problem may be treated as in the study of bundles on a fixed variety. $`𝒜_0(X)`$ is then the stackification of the prestack $`\text{pre}𝒜_0(X)`$, whose fiber $`\text{pre}𝒜_0(X)`$ over $`S(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$ is the groupoid

$$\text{pre}𝒜_0(X)(S)=\{\text{weak }\mathrm{\Delta }\text{-collections on }S\times \text{}\text{P}^1\text{ over }S\}.$$

On the other hand one has the construction of Morrison-Plesser \[M-P : Sec. 3.7\], as is used in \[L-L-Y : II, Sec. 2.4, Example 4\]. In this section we shall discuss how Morrison-Plesser’s construction is related to Cox’s work and the stack $`𝒜_0(X)`$ adapted from Sec. 2. We shall assume that $`X=X_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is convex throughout this section. In particular, this implies that every entry $`d_\rho `$ of a multi-degree $`d=(d_\rho )_\rho `$ in the discussions are all nonnegative integers.

The small universal weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection à la Morrison-Plesser.

Fix a presentation : $`\text{}^1=\text{Proj}\text{}[z_0,z_1]`$, $`\text{}[z_0,z_1]=_{l0}M_l,`$ $`𝒪_\text{}^1(l)=\text{}[z_0,z_1](l)^{}`$ and $`H^0(\text{}^1,𝒪_\text{}^1)(l)=M_l`$ for $`l0`$, cf. \[Ha1\]. Then the graded -algebra structure $`M_{l_1}M_{l_2}M_{l_1+l_2}`$ induces a set of canonical isomorphisms of sheaves $`𝒪_\text{}^1(l_1)𝒪_\text{}^1(l_2)𝒪_\text{}^1(l_1+l_2)`$. Since multiplication among $`M_l`$’s is associative with respect to these isomorphisms, one has also canonical isomorphisms $`𝒪(l_1)\mathrm{}𝒪(l_s)𝒪(l_1+\mathrm{}+l_s)`$. This implies that if let $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1)=\{\rho _{1i}\}_i\{\rho _{2j}\}_j`$ such that $`_im_{1i}d_{\rho _{1i}}=_jm_{2j}d_{\rho _{2j}}`$ for some $`m_{1i}`$, $`m_{2j}0`$, then there is a canonical isomorphism $`_i𝒪_\text{}^1(d_{\rho _{1i}})^{m_{1i}}_j𝒪_\text{}^1(d_{\rho _{2j}})^{m_{2j}}`$. (Cf. \[Cox1 : Proposition 1.1\].)

Definition 3.1 \[set of canonical isomorphisms\]. We shall call the above set of isomorphisms the set of canonical isomorphisms among tensor products of $`𝒪_\text{}^1(l)`$’s with respect to the fixed presentation.

Let $`d=(d_\rho )_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(1)}`$, with $`d_\rho `$ nonnegative integers, be a multi-degree and define

$$Y_d:=_\rho H^0(\text{}^1,𝒪(d_\rho ))\text{with the above fixed presentation}.$$

Recall the abelian group $`G`$ and the quotient $`X=(\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}V(I))/G`$ from Explanation/Fact 2.1.2. Then each element of $`Y_d`$ corresponds to a morphism $`\text{}^1\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}`$ up to a $`\text{}^\times `$-action on $`\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}`$ by $`t(x_\rho )_\rho =(t^{d_\rho }x_\rho )_\rho `$. Define $`F_d`$ to be the subvariety of $`Y_d`$ that consists of elements whose corresponding map $`\text{}^1\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}`$ has image contained in $`V(I)`$. Since $`V(I)`$ is a union of coordinate subspaces in $`\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}`$ and hence invariant under the above $`\text{}^\times `$-action, $`F_d`$ is well-defined. The $`G`$-action on $`\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}`$ induces a $`G`$-action on $`Y_d`$ that leaves $`F_d`$ invariant. Thus, one can define the quotient

$$W_d=_d:=(Y_dF_d)/G.$$

Cf. Appendix, \[M-P : Sec. 3.7\]; also \[L-L-Y : II, Sec. 2.4, Example 4\].

Let $`:=(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}`$ be a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`\text{}^1`$ of multi-degree $`d`$. Then $`(c_m)_m`$ determines isomorphisms $`L_\rho 𝒪_\text{}^1(d_\rho )`$, compatible with the set of canonical isomorphisms, up to an ambiguity parameterized by $`G`$. Thus $``$ corresponds to a $`G`$-orbit $`O_{}`$ in $`Y_d`$. The nonvanishing condition for $``$ is that $`_{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{max}}_{\rho \sigma }u_\rho ^{}:_{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{max}}_{\rho \sigma }L_\rho ^1𝒪_\text{}^1`$ is not a zero-morphism. Since $`V(I)`$ is defined by the ideal $`I=(_{\rho \sigma }x_\rho |\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{𝑚𝑎𝑥}})`$ and the divisor on $`\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}`$ defined by $`x_\rho `$ corresponds to the subscheme on $`\text{}^1`$ defined by $`u_\rho `$, the nonvanishing condition means precisely that $`O_{}Y_dF_d`$.

Regard the sections of $`𝒪_\text{}^1(d_\rho )`$ as subschemes of the total space $`\text{Spec}\text{Sym}^{}(𝒪_\text{}^1(d_\rho )^{})`$ of $`𝒪_\text{}^1(d_\rho )`$. Then as in the case of Hilbert schemes one obtains the universal tuple of sections $`(\stackrel{~}{u}_\rho )_\rho `$ of the line bundles $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(d_\rho ))_\rho `$ over $`(Y_dF_d)\times \text{}^1`$ from the pullback of the projection map $`(Y_dF_d)\times \text{}^1\text{}^1`$. The set of canonical isomorphisms in Definition 3.1 gives a canonical set of isomorphisms $`(\stackrel{~}{c}_m)_m`$. Since $`Y_dF_d`$ corresponds to tuples $`(u_\rho )_\rho `$ of sections that satisfy the nonvanishing condition, $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(d_\rho ),\stackrel{~}{u}_\rho ,\stackrel{~}{c}_m)_{\rho ,m}`$ is a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`(Y_dF_d)\times \text{}^1`$ over $`Y_dF_d`$.

Definition 3.2 \[universal weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection\]. $`\stackrel{~}{}_d:=(\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(d_\rho ),\stackrel{~}{u}_\rho ,\stackrel{~}{c}_m)_{\rho ,m}`$ is called the universal weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`(Y_dF_d)\times \text{}^1`$ over $`Y_dF_d`$.

Remark 3.3 \[universal property\]. Since the line bundles $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(d_\rho )`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{}_d`$ are fixed and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_m`$ is determined once a presentation of $`\text{}^1`$ is chosen, $`\stackrel{~}{}_d`$ indeed comes from a restriction of the universal subscheme over a Hilbert scheme. It thus inherits a similar universal property as Hilbert schemes.

The $`(\text{}^\times )^{|\mathrm{\Delta }(1)|}`$-action on $`Y_dF_d`$ lifts to a $`(\text{}^\times )^{|\mathrm{\Delta }(1)|}`$-action on $`(Y_dF_d)\times \text{}^1`$ by acting on $`\text{}^1`$ by the identity. The latter then lifts to an action on each $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(d_\rho )`$ that leaves $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ invariant. This is the unique lift that has this property. Since $`G`$ is a subgroup of $`(\text{}^\times )^{|\mathrm{\Delta }(1)|}`$, $`G`$ lifts to a unique action on $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(d_\rho ),\stackrel{~}{u}_\rho )_\rho `$ as well. By the very definition of $`G`$, this $`G`$-action commutes with $`(\stackrel{~}{c}_m)_m`$.

Definition 3.4 \[canonical $`G`$-action\]. The above $`G`$-action on $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(d_\rho ),\stackrel{~}{u}_\rho ,\stackrel{~}{c}_m)_{\rho ,m}`$ is called the canonical lifting of the $`G`$-action on $`Y_dF_d`$.

The (big) universal weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection à la Cox.

Continuing the notations in the previous theme. Fix a basis of the $`M`$-lattice. Define

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_d=_m\text{Isom}_{𝒪_\text{}^1}(_\rho 𝒪_\text{}^1(d_\rho )^{m,n_\rho },𝒪_\text{}^1)\text{and}\widehat{Y}_d:=Y_d\mathrm{\Xi }_d,$$

where $`m`$ runs over the fixed basis of $`M`$. Let $`\kappa :\widehat{Y}_d\mathrm{\Xi }_d`$ be the natural projection. Then, similar to the discussion in the previous theme, one has the $`(\text{}^\times )^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}:=\text{Hom}_{\text{}}(\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)},\text{}^\times )`$-action on $`\widehat{Y}_d`$ induced from that on $`\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}`$. Recall $`T_N`$ from Definition/Fact 2.1.2, then $`T_N`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Xi }_d`$ freely and transitively and in such a way that $`\kappa `$ is $`((\text{}^\times )^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)},T_N)`$-equivariant and that the $`G`$-subaction on $`\widehat{Y}_d`$ leaves each preimage of $`\kappa `$ invariant. Since the nonvanishing condition in a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection has nothing to do with the isomorphism data $`(c_m)_m`$, it specifies the open $`(\text{}^\times )^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}`$-invariant subvariety $`\widehat{Y}_d\widehat{F}_d`$, where $`\widehat{F}_d:=F_d\times \mathrm{\Xi }_d`$.

Following the same construction as in the previous theme, one has a universal weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection

$$\stackrel{~}{}_d^{\mathrm{big}}:=(\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(d_\rho )^{\mathrm{big}},\stackrel{~}{u}_\rho ^{\mathrm{big}},\stackrel{~}{c}_m^{\mathrm{big}})_{\rho ,m}$$

on $`((\widehat{Y_d}\widehat{F}_d)\times \text{}^1)/(\widehat{Y}_d\widehat{F}_d)`$ and the canonical lifting of the $`(\text{}^\times )^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}`$-action on the total space of line bundles $`(\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(d_\rho )^{\mathrm{big}})_\rho `$.

Remark 3.5 \[Morrison-Plesser v.s. Cox \]. From these very explicit constructions, one observes that a fixed presentation as in the previous theme selects a distinguished point $`(c_m^{\mathrm{can}})_m`$ in $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`Y_dF_d=\kappa ^1((c_m^{\mathrm{can}})_m)`$. The universal weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $`\stackrel{~}{}_d`$ on $`((Y_dF_d)\times \text{}^1)/(Y_dF_d)`$ is the restriction of $`\stackrel{~}{}_d^{\mathrm{big}}`$ on $`((\widehat{Y}_d\widehat{F}_d)\times \text{}^1)/(\widehat{Y}_d\widehat{F}_d)`$ to $`((Y_dF_d)\times \text{}^1)/(Y_dF_d)`$. The Isom construction in Sec. 2.2, adjusted for the fixed $`\text{}^1`$, gives $`\widehat{Y}_d\widehat{F}_d`$.

Relation with $`𝒜_0(X)`$.

The two quotient stacks $`[(\widehat{Y}_d\widehat{F}_d)/(\text{}^\times )^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}]`$ and $`[(Y_dF_d)/G]`$ are isomorphic since the $`T_N`$-action on $`\mathrm{\Xi }_d`$ is transitive and free. The following lemma relates this quotient stack with $`𝒜_0(X)`$.

Lemma 3.6 \[$`𝒜_0(X)`$\]. The Artin stack $`𝒜_0(X)`$ is the quotient stack $`_d\left[(Y_dF_d)/G\right]`$, for which $`_d(Y_dF_d)`$ is an atlas and $`_dW_d`$ is the coarse moduli space. In particular, $`𝒜_0(X)`$ is a smooth Artin stack.

We check this at the prestack level. The statement then follows upon stackification.

Proof. The proof is divided in two parts.

$`(a)`$ $`𝒜_0(X)`$ as a quotient stack. Let $`\text{pre}𝒜_0(X)=_d\text{pre}𝒜_0(X)_d`$, where $`d`$ runs over all the admissible multi-degrees. We shall construct morphisms of prestacks

$$J_d^{(1)}:\text{pre}𝒜_0(X)_d\text{pre}[(Y_dF_d)/G]$$

and

$$J_d^{(2)}:\text{pre}[(Y_dF_d)/G]\text{pre}𝒜_0(X)_d$$

so that $`J_d^{(2)}J_d^{(1)}`$ and $`J_d^{(1)}J_d^{(2)}`$ induce auto-equivalences of related fiber groupoids. (In other words, $`J_d^{(1)}`$ is an isomorphism of prestacks with inverse given by $`J_d^{(2)}`$.)

$`(a.1)`$ Construction of $`J_d^{(1)}`$. Given a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $`=(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}`$ on $`(S\times \text{}^1)/S`$, each $`L_\rho `$ defines a principal $`\text{}^\times `$-bundle $`L_\rho ^\times `$ over $`S\times \text{}^1`$ by deleting the zero-section of $`L_\rho `$. The isomorphism of line bundles $`c_m:_\rho L_\rho ^{m,n_\rho }𝒪_{S\times \text{}^1}`$ induces an isomorphism of principal $`\text{}^\times `$-bundles over $`S\times \text{}^1`$ by the restriction $`_\rho (L_\rho ^\times )^{m,n_\rho }𝒪_{S\times \text{}^1}^\times =(\text{𝔾}_m)_{S\times \text{}^1}`$ of $`c_m`$. This then induces a morphism, still denoted by $`c_m`$, from the composition

$$c_m:_\rho L_\rho ^\times _\rho (L_\rho ^\times )^{m,n_\rho }𝒪_{S\times \text{}^1}^\times .$$

This gives rise to a principal $`G`$-bundle on $`S\times \text{}^1`$ defined by the kernel (i.e. the preimage of the section $`(1,\mathrm{},1)`$) of the morphism $`(c_m)_m`$ over $`S\times \text{}^1`$:

$$\text{Ker}((c_m)_m:_\rho L_\rho ^\times (𝒪_{S\times \text{}^1}^\times )^n=(T_N)_{S\times \text{}^1}),$$

where $`m`$ runs over elements in a fixed basis of $`M`$ and $`n`$ is the rank of $`M`$. A principal $`G`$-bundle over $`S`$, $`p:P_S^GS`$, is obtained by restricting the above principal $`G`$-bundle over $`S\times \text{}^1`$ to a horizontal slice, e,g. $`S\times \{0\}`$. (Note that any two such restrictions are isomorphic. The inverse of any such restriction of $`L_\rho `$ gives the line bundles on $`S`$ needed to twist $`L_\rho `$ so that the result is a pullback line bundle from that on $`\text{}^1`$.) Consider the pullback weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $`p^{}`$ on $`(P_S^G\times \text{}^1)/P_S^G`$. The identity morphism of line bundles $`(L_\rho |_{S\times \{0\}})_\rho (L_\rho |_{S\times \{0\}})_\rho `$ specifies a canonical trivialization $`p^{}(L_\rho |_{S\times \{0\}})𝒪_{P_S^G\times \{0\}}`$ on the horizontal slice $`P_S^G\times \{0\}`$ of $`P_S^G\times \text{}^1`$ over $`P_S^G`$. This implies that $`p^{}(L_\rho )_\rho `$ is isomorphic to the pullback of $`(𝒪_\text{}^1(d_\rho ))_\rho `$ by the projection map $`P_S^G\times \text{}^1\text{}^1`$.

Furthermore, a generalization of the following standard constructions :

* Let $`L^\times `$ be the principal $`\text{}^\times `$-bundle on $`S`$ from deleting the zero-section of a line bundle $`L`$ on $`S`$. The projection map $`L^\times S`$ pulls back $`L`$ to a line bundle $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ on the total space $`\text{Tot}(L^\times )`$ of $`L^\times `$. The natural inclusion map $`L^0L`$ gives rise to a nowhere-zero global section in $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ over $`\text{Tot}(L^\times )`$ and hence a canonical trivialization of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$.

to the tuple of line bundles $`(L_\rho |_{S\times \{0\}})_\rho `$, its associated principal $`(\text{}^\times )^n`$-bundles and its sub $`G`$-bundle, one deduces that the above trivialization over the slice $`P_S^G\times \{0\}`$ fixes an isomorphism $`(p^{}L_\rho )_\rho (𝒪_\text{}^1(d_\rho ))_\rho `$.

Pulling back now the sections $`u_\rho `$ of $`L_\rho `$, one thus obtains a $`P_S^G`$-family $`p^{}(L_\rho ,u_\rho )_\rho `$ of line bundles on $`\text{}^1`$ with a section. It follows from the universal property of $`Y_dF_d`$ inherited from that of Hilbert schemes that there exists a unique morphism $`\zeta _{}:P_S^G(Y_dF_d)`$ with $`p^{}(L_\rho ,u_\rho )_\rho =\zeta _{}^{}\stackrel{~}{}_d`$. By construction $`\zeta _{}`$ is $`G`$-equivariant and $`p^{}(c_m)_m=\zeta _{}^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_m`$. The correspondence $`\zeta _{}`$ gives a morphism of prestacks

$$J_d^{(1)}:\text{pre}𝒜_0(X)_d\text{pre}[(Y_dF_d)/G].$$

$`(a.2)`$ Construction of $`J_d^{(2)}`$. To construct $`J_d^{(2)}:\text{pre}[(Y_dF_d)/G]\text{pre}𝒜_0(X)`$, observe that if $`P_S^G`$ is a principal $`G`$-bundle on $`S`$ with a $`G`$-equivariant morphism $`\zeta :P_S^G(Y_dF_d)`$, (i.e. an object in the groupoid $`\text{pre}[(Y_dF_d)/G](S)`$) then $`\zeta ^{}\stackrel{~}{}_d`$ is a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`(P_S^G\times \text{}^1)/P_S^G`$. Since there is a canonical $`G`$-action on $`\stackrel{~}{}_d`$, the $`G`$-action on $`P_S^G`$ also lifts canonically to $`\zeta ^{}\stackrel{~}{}_d`$. The quotient by this action gives then a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $``$ on $`(S\times \text{}^1)/S`$. i.e. an object in $`\text{pre}𝒜_0(X)_d(S)`$. This gives a morphism $`J_d^{(2)}:\text{pre}[(Y_dF_d)/G]\text{pre}𝒜_0(X)_d`$.

$`(a.3)`$ Isomorphisms of stacks. It remains to show that $`J_d^{(1)}`$ (or $`J_d^{(2)}`$) is an isomorphism of stacks. This means that $`J^{(2)}J^{(1)}`$ sends a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`(S\times \text{}^1)/S`$ to an isomorphic weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`(S\times \text{}^1)/S`$, which follows from the very explicit construction of $`J_d^{(1)}`$ and $`J_d^{(2)}`$. Similarly for $`J_d^{(1)}J_d^{(2)}`$.

$`(b)`$ $`W_d`$ as the coarse moduli space.

$`(b.1)`$ Construction of a morphism $`𝒜_0(X)_dW_d`$. A morphism $`\text{pre}𝒜_0(X)_dW_d`$ is already given/hidden in \[L-L-Y : II. Sec. 2.5, Lemma 2.7, proof\] as follows. Let $`𝒪(d_\rho )`$ be the pullback of $`𝒪_\text{}^1(d_\rho )`$ to $`S\times \text{}^1`$ via the projection map. Given a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $`=(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}`$ on $`S\times \text{}^1`$ over $`S`$ of multi-degree $`d`$, the data $`(L_\rho ,u_\rho )_\rho `$ determines non-uniquely a $`(u_\rho ^{})_\rho _\rho H^0(S\times \text{}^1,𝒪(d_\rho ))`$ by looking at the zero-divisor/locus of $`u_\rho `$ on $`S\times \text{}^1`$. The ambiguities are parameterized by $`(t_\rho )_\rho (\text{}^\times )^{|\mathrm{\Delta }(1)|}`$ that satisfy $`_\rho t_\rho ^{m,n_\rho }=1`$ for all $`mM`$. Thus $`(u_\rho ^{})_\rho `$, though nonunique, determines a unique $`S`$-family of $`G`$-orbits on $`_\rho H^0(\text{}^1,𝒪(d_\rho ))`$. The nonvanishing condition on $`(u_\rho ^{})_\rho `$ inherits from that of $``$. Thus one obtains a morphism $`SW_d`$. Another construction can be obtained from the discussion of Part (a) as follows. $``$ determined a principal $`G`$-bundle $`P_S^G`$ on $`S`$ with a unique $`G`$-equivariant morphism $`P_S^GY_dF_d`$. Taking quotient by $`G`$ on both sides, one then obtains a morphism $`SW_d`$ determined by $``$. Either way, one obtains a morphism

$$\text{pre}\varphi :\text{pre}𝒜_0(X)_dW_d$$

and hence a morphism

$$\varphi :𝒜_0(X)_dW_d$$

since for any $`S(\text{Sch}/S_0)`$, $`\text{pre}\varphi (S)`$ depends only on the isomorphism class of the weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on each fiber $`\text{}^1`$ of $`S\times \text{}^1`$ over $`S`$.

$`(b.2)`$ The coarse moduli space conditions. From the definition of $`W_d`$ and points of a stack, $`|\varphi |(k):|𝒜_0(X)_d|(k)W_d(k)`$ is bijective for all algebraically closed field $`k`$.

To see that $`W_d`$ corepresents $`𝒜_0(X)_d`$, observe that there is a distinguished weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`(W_d\times \text{}^1)/W_d`$ constructed as follows. Consider the diagonal action of $`G`$ on $`(Y_dF_d)\times (Y_dF_d)`$. The diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(Y_dF_d)}`$ of $`(Y_dF_d)\times (Y_dF_d)`$ is invariant under this $`G`$-action. The quotient gives a fibration of $`\left((Y_dF_d)\times (Y_dF_d)\right)/GW_d`$ with generic fiber $`Y_dF_d`$. The diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(Y_dF_d)}`$ descends to a section of this fibration, which corresponds to a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ on $`W_d\times \text{}^1`$. By construction $`\varphi (\stackrel{~}{})=\text{Id}_{W_d}`$. Suppose that $`W_d^{}`$ is another scheme with a morphism $`\varphi ^{}:𝒜_0(X)_dW_d^{}`$. Define $`\eta :\text{Hom}(,W_d)\text{Hom}(,W_d^{})`$ by the composition

$$(f:SW_d)f^{}\stackrel{~}{}𝒜_0(X)_d(S)(\varphi ^{}(f^{}\stackrel{~}{}):SW_d^{}).$$

Now given $`𝒜_0(X)_d(S)`$, let $`f=\varphi ()\text{Hom}(S,W_d)`$ and $`f^{}=\varphi ^{}()\text{Hom}(S,W_d^{})`$. Then

$$\eta (f)=\eta (\varphi (f^{}\stackrel{~}{}))=\varphi ^{}(f^{}\stackrel{~}{})=\varphi ^{}(),$$

where we have used the observation that $``$ and $`f^{}\stackrel{~}{}`$ are fiberwise isomorphic weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collections on $`(S\times \text{}^1)/S`$ and since $`\varphi ^{}`$ induces $`|\varphi ^{}|`$ that sends points of $`|𝒜_0(X)_d|`$ to closed points of $`W_d^{}`$ that corresponds to $`\text{Spec}kW_d^{}`$, where $`k`$ is an algebraically closed field, any such morphism $`\varphi ^{}`$ must send fiberwise isomorphic weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collections on $`(S\times \text{}^1)/S`$ to the same element in $`\text{Hom}(S,W_d^{})`$. This shows that $`W_d`$ corepresents $`𝒜_0(X)_d`$.

(b.1) and (b.2) together show that $`_dW_d`$ is the coarse moduli space for $`𝒜_0(X)`$ and we conclude the proof.

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 The collapsing morphism.

In this section, we re-run the proof of Jun Li of Lemma 2.7 in Mirror Principle II, with the A-twisted moduli stack $`𝒜_0(X)`$ of Sec. 3 soldered into the discussion. All the schemes in the discussion are over .

Background.

Fact 4.1 \[rank $`1`$ sheaf\]. (\[Ha2\]; also \[Fr\], \[Huy-L\], and \[Od-S\].) Any rank $`1`$ torsion-free coherent sheaf on a locally factorial scheme $`Y`$ must be of the form $`_Z`$, where $`_Z`$ is the ideal sheaf of a subscheme $`Z`$ of codimension $`2`$ in $`Y`$ and $``$ is a line bundle on $`Y`$. Such a decomposition is unique up to isomorphisms of $`𝒪_Y`$-modules.

Fact 4.2 \[Hartogs extension theorem\]. (\[Ii\].) Let $`Y`$ be a Noetherian normal scheme and $`Z`$ be a closed subset of codimension $`2`$ in $`Y`$. Then $`H^0(YZ,𝒪_Y)=H^0(Y,𝒪_Y)`$.

Corollary 4.3 \[determinant\]. Let $``$ be a rank $`1`$ coherent sheaf on a locally factorial scheme $`Y`$. Then there exists a canonical morphism $`\text{det}`$ of $`𝒪_Y`$-modules.

Proof. Recall the definition and the relations of det and $`Div`$ in \[K-M\]. From the exact sequence $`0\text{Tor}/\text{Tor}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$, one has $`\text{det}=\text{det}(\text{Tor})\text{det}\left(/\text{Tor}\right)`$. Since $`/\text{Tor}`$ is torsion-free, $`/\text{Tor}=_𝒵\widehat{}`$ canonically, where $`_Z`$ is the ideal sheaf of the subscheme of codimension $`2`$ in $`Y`$ (from the flattening stratification, cf. \[Mu3\], of $`/\text{Tor}`$) on which the fiber dimensions of $`/\text{Tor}`$ jump up and $`\widehat{L}`$ is a line bundle on $`Y`$. These give rise to a sequence of canonical morphisms/identifications of $`𝒪_Y`$-modules :

$$/\text{Tor}=_𝒵\widehat{}\widehat{}=\text{det}\left(_𝒵\widehat{}\right)\text{det}\left(_𝒵\widehat{}\right)\text{det}\text{Tor}\text{det},$$

where we have used the facts : (i) $`\text{det}_Z=𝒪_Y`$, (ii) $`\text{det}\text{Tor}=𝒪(\text{Div}\text{Tor})`$ and $`\text{Div}\text{Tor}0`$, and (iii) there are canonical inclusions $`𝒪_Y𝒪_Y(D)𝒦_Y`$ for $`D0`$, where $`𝒦_Y`$ is the sheaf of total quotient rings of $`Y`$. The composition of this sequence of canonical morphisms gives the canonical morphism of $`𝒪_Y`$-modules $`\text{det}`$ claimed.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 4.4 \[push-pull of weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection\]. (1) Let $`f:YY^{}`$ be a dominant morphism that does not map an irreducible component of $`Y`$ to a point in $`Y^{}`$, then the pull-back of a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`Y^{}`$ is a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`Y`$.

(2) Let $`f:YY^{}`$ be a projective birational morphism between schemes of the same uniform dimension. Assume that $`Y^{}`$ is irreducible and that $`f`$ is an isomorphism outside a closed subscheme of codimension $`2`$ in $`Y^{}`$ \- in notation, $`f|_U:U\stackrel{}{}U^{}`$ -. Let $`(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}`$ be a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`Y`$ and define $`L_\rho ^{}:=\text{det}f_{}L_\rho `$. Then there exists a unique weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $`(L_\rho ^{},u_\rho ^{},c_m^{})`$ on $`Y^{}`$ that extends the weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $`(f|_U)_{}(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}|_U`$ on $`U^{}`$.

(3) Let $`f:Y=Y_0Y_1\mathrm{}Y^{}`$ be a projective morphism between schemes of the same uniform dimension that satisfies

* $`Y^{}`$ is a Noetherian integral (separated ) scheme which is regular in codimension-$`1`$ (cf. \[Ha1 : II.6\]),
* the restriction $`f:Y_0Y^{}`$ is an isomorphism outside a closed subscheme of codimension $`2`$ in $`Y^{}`$ \- in notation, $`f|_U:U\stackrel{}{}U^{}`$ -, and
* each $`Y_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}`$, is mapped to a codmension-$`1`$ subscheme $`D_i^{}`$ in $`Y^{}`$, whose corresponding divisor is also denoted by $`D_i^{}`$ , (i.e. $`Y_iD_i^{}`$ is a flat family of curves).

Let $`(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}`$ be a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`Y`$ such that none of $`u_\rho |_{Y_i}`$ are zero-sections, where $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{}`$, and let $`L_\rho ^{}:=\text{det}f_{}L_\rho `$. Then there exists a canonically constructed weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $`(L_\rho ^{},u_\rho ^{},c_m^{})_{\rho ,m}`$ on $`Y^{}`$ that extends the weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $`(f|_{UY_1\mathrm{}})_{}(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}|_{UY_1\mathrm{}}`$ on $`U^{}D_1\mathrm{}`$.

Remark 4.5. In Item (1), any condition that prevents mapping an irreducible component of $`Y`$ to the variety $`V(I)`$ in $`\text{}^{\mathrm{\Delta }(1)}`$ will do. The condition stated here gives the kind of morphisms that appear in Jun Li’s proof. Note that in Item (2) it is allowed that some $`u_\rho `$ are zero-sections while in Item (3) it is required that none of $`u_\rho |_{Y_i}`$, where $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{}`$, are zero-sections.

Proof. Statement (1) is clear and its counter statement for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collections over Spec is stated in \[Cox2\].

For Statement (2), observe that $`_\rho L_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{m,n_\rho }𝒪_Y^{}`$ as abstract $`𝒪_Y^{}`$-modules since the former is an invertible $`𝒪_Y^{}`$-module that is free outside a locus of codimension $`2`$ in $`Y^{}`$. The isomorphisms $`(f|_U)_{}c_m`$ extend to unique isomorphisms $`_\rho L_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{m,n_\rho }𝒪_Y^{}`$ by Hartogs extension theorem since, once fixing a trivialization of the two rank-$`1`$ globally free $`𝒪_Y^{}`$-modules in question, $`(f|_U)_{}c_m`$ is given by multiplication of a regular function. The sections $`u_\rho ^{}`$ are given by the canonical morphism $`H^0(Y,L_\rho )H^0(Y^{},L_\rho ^{})`$ arising from the combination of the definition of $`f_{}`$ and the canonical morphism $`f_{}L_\rho L_\rho ^{}=\text{det}f_{}L_\rho `$. The cocycle conditions $`c_{m_1}^{}c_{m_2}^{}=c_{m_1+m_2}^{}`$ follow by continuity.

For Statement (3), let us first show that $`_\rho L_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{m,n_\rho }𝒪_Y^{}`$ as abstract $`𝒪_Y^{}`$-modules. By the assumption in Statement (3), $`Y_iD_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},`$ are flat families of curves and the relative degree of $`\text{rel-deg}_{D_i}(L_\rho |_{Y^i})`$ is well-defined. Moreover, recalling the definition of Div, one concludes that

$$L_\rho ^{}=\text{det}f_{}L_\rho =\text{det}\left(\text{}(f|_{Y_0})_{}(L_\rho |_{Y_0})\right)𝒪_Y^{}\left(\underset{i=1,\mathrm{}}{}\text{rel-deg}_{D_i}(L_\rho |_{Y_i})D_i\right)$$

since all $`u_\rho |_{Y_i}`$ are non-zero sections. By definition, the restriction $`(L_\rho |_{Y_i},u_\rho |_{Y_i},c_m|_{Y_i})_{\rho ,m}`$ of $`(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}`$ to each component $`Y_i`$ of $`Y`$ is a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`Y_i`$. In particular, $`c_m|_{Y_i}:_\rho L_\rho |_{Y_i}^{m,n_\rho }𝒪_{Y_i}`$ and

$$\underset{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(1)}{}m,n_\rho \text{rel-deg}_{D_i}(L_\rho |_{Y_i})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Furthermore, the restriction $`f|_{Y_0}:Y_0Y^{}`$ is in the situation of Statement (2) and one can define the weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $`(L_{\rho ,0}^{},u_{\rho ,0}^{},c_{m,0}^{})_{\rho ,m}`$ on $`Y^{}`$ as in Statement (2) as the push-forward of $`(L_\rho ,u_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}|_{Y_0}`$ via $`f|_{Y_0}`$ . It follows that

$$_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(1)}L_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{m,n_\rho }=_{\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(1)}L_{\rho ,0}^{}{}_{}{}^{m,n_\rho }\stackrel{c_{m,0}^{}}{}𝒪_Y^{}.$$

This defines also the sought-for $`c_m^{}`$. The sections $`u_\rho ^{}`$ and the cocycle conditions on $`c_m^{}`$ follow by the same reasoning as in the case of Statement (2). This concludes the proof.

$`\mathrm{}`$

The collapsing morphism.

Proposition 4.6. Let $`X`$ be a convex smooth toric variety and $`M_d(X)`$ be the moduli stack $`\overline{}_{0,0}(\text{}^1\times X,(1,d))`$ of genus $`0`$ stable map into $`\text{}^1\times X`$ of degree $`(1,d)`$. Then there exists a natural morphism $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}:M_d(X)𝒜_0(X)_d`$ of stacks.

Remark 4.7. Composition of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ with the morphism $`\varphi :𝒜_0(X)_dW_d`$ in the proof of Lemma 3.6 gives the morphism $`\phi :M_d(X)W_d`$ in \[L-L-Y : II, Sec. 2.5, Lemma 2.7\].

Proof of Proposition. We split the discussions to two cases.

Case $`(1):`$  $`M_d(X)`$ is a compactification of the component of $`\text{Hom}(\text{}^1,\text{}^1\times X)`$ that corresponds to genus $`0`$ curves in $`\text{}^1\times X`$ of degree $`(1,d)`$.

Let $`(\text{Sch}/\text{})`$ be the category of Noetherian schemes of finite type over  and $`\xi `$ be an object in $`M_d(X)(S)`$ given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill F:𝒳& & \hfill S\times \text{}^1\times X\\ & & \\ & S& \hfill .\end{array}$$

Let $`p_i`$ (resp. $`p_{ij}`$) be the composition of $`F`$ with the projection of $`S\times \text{}^1\times X`$ to its $`i`$-th component (resp. the product of its $`i`$-th and $`j`$-th components).

Assume first that $`(S,\xi )`$ is an atlas of $`M_d(X)`$, then $`S`$ is smooth and outside a divisor $`D_S`$ of $`S`$ (i.e. the boundary locus of $`S`$) the defining family of stable maps over $`S`$ parameterizes morphisms from $`\text{}^1`$ into $`\text{}^1\times X`$. The map

$$p_{12}:𝒳S\times \text{}^1$$

is a projective birational morphism that is an isomorphism outside a locus of codimension $`2`$ in $`S\times \text{}^1`$. Let $`(L_\rho ,z_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}`$ be the universal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`X`$ and

$$(L_{\rho ,\xi },u_{\rho ,\xi },c_{m,\xi })_{\rho ,m}=p_3^{}(L_\rho ,z_\rho ,c_m)_{\rho ,m}.$$

Then $`(L_{\rho ,\xi },u_{\rho ,\xi },c_{m,\xi })_{\rho ,m}`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`𝒳`$ over $`S`$. The construction satisfies the base change property that, if $`f:TS`$ be a morphism of -schemes, then there is a canonical isomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collections

$$(L_{\rho ,f^{}\xi },u_{\rho ,f^{}\xi },c_{m,f^{}\xi })_{\rho ,m}(f\times \text{Id}_\text{}^1)^{}(L_{\rho ,\xi },u_{\rho ,\xi },c_{m,\xi })_{\rho ,m}.$$

In particular, if one equips $`M_d(X)`$ with the étale topology, then one obtains a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on the stack $`M_d(X)`$ by considering the étale morphisms among atlases.

Let $`_{\rho ,\xi }=p_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{}L_{\rho ,\xi }`$. Since $`p_{12}`$ is an isomorphism over the complement $`U^{}`$ of a codimension $`2`$ locus in $`S\times \text{}^1`$, by Lemma 4.4 (2) there exists a unique weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection of the form $`(\text{det}_{\rho ,\xi },\sigma _{\rho ,\xi },c_{m,\xi }^{})`$ on $`S\times \text{}^1`$ (over Spec) such that the restriction of $`p_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ over $`U^{}`$ is an isomorphism of weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collections on $`U^{}`$ (over Spec). Since each fiber $`\text{}^1`$ of $`S\times \text{}^1`$ over $`S`$ comes from pinching rational subcurves of the corresponding fiber of $`𝒳`$ over $`S`$ and the restriction of $`(\text{det}_{\rho ,\xi },\sigma _{\rho ,\xi },c_{m,\xi }^{})`$ to a fiber $`\text{}^1`$ defines a morphism from $`\text{}^1`$ to $`X`$ (of possibly lower multi-degrees), $`(\text{det}_{\rho ,\xi },\sigma _{\rho ,\xi },c_{m,\xi }^{})`$ must satisfy the nonvanishing condition of Definition 2.1.3 when restricted to each fiber $`\text{}^1`$ of $`S\times \text{}^1`$ over $`S`$. Consequently, $`(\text{det}_{\rho ,\xi },\sigma _{\rho ,\xi },c_{m,\xi }^{})`$ is a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`S\times \text{}^1`$ over $`S`$ as well and one obtains a map

$$\mathrm{\Omega }:\{\text{atlases }(S,\xi )\text{ of }M_d(X)\}𝒜_0(X)_d$$

that commutes with the étale base change among atlases of $`M_d(X)`$.

Fix now an atlas $`(T,\xi _T)`$ for $`M_d(X)`$ and let $`\xi M_d(X)(S)`$ for a general $`S(\text{Sch}/\text{})`$. Since $`M_d(X)`$ is a smooth Deligne-Mumford stack, the pair $`(\xi _T,\xi )`$ determines a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}S^{}:=\text{Isom}(\xi _T,\xi )& \stackrel{\alpha }{}& S\\ \beta & & \\ T& & M_d(X),\end{array}$$

where $`\alpha `$ is étale and surjective. The canonical isomorphism $`\alpha ^{}\xi \beta ^{}\xi _T`$ induces a canonical isomorphism $`\alpha ^{}(L_{\rho ,\xi },u_{\rho ,\xi },c_{m,\xi })_{\rho ,m}\beta ^{}(L_{\rho ,\xi _T},u_{\rho ,\xi _T},c_{m,\xi _T})_{\rho ,m}`$. The weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection $`\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }(T,\xi _T)`$ on $`(S^{}\times \text{}^1)/S^{}`$ is a descent datum with respect to $`\alpha `$ and hence descends to a weak $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-collection on $`(S\times \text{}^1)/S`$. One can check that different choices of atlases $`(T,\xi _T)`$ give rise to the same descent on $`(S\times \text{}^1)/S`$, thus one obtains a well-defined morphism of stacks from $`M_d(X)`$ to $`𝒜_0(X)_d`$. This concludes the proof for Case (1).

Case $`(2):`$  General $`M_d(X)`$.

Again, let $`S`$ be an atlas of $`M_d(X)`$, which is smooth. Then there is a stratification of $`S`$ labelled by the dual graphs of the prestable domain curves of stable maps in question. We shall assume that the graph for the maximal stratum is not a point, i.e. we are not in Case (1). Then the projective morphism $`p_{12}`$ are now in the situation of Statement (3) of Lemma 4.4. Convexity of $`X`$ implies that the restriction of $`u_{\rho ,\xi }`$, as defined analogous to the discussion in Case (1), to each component of $`𝒳`$ is not a zero-section. The proposition now follows from Lemma 4.4 (3) and the same argument as in Case (1) above.

$`\mathrm{}`$

We conclude the notes with three themes along the line for further study.

Theme 1. Further properties and details of the A-twisted moduli stack $`𝒜_g(X)`$.

Theme 2. Construction of natural morphisms between the moduli stack of stable maps and the A-twisted moduli stack that generalize the construction in \[L-L-Y\].

Theme 3. Generalization of the twisted moduli stack $`𝒜_g(X)`$ to the case of open strings, e.g. \[G-J-S\].

Appendix. Witten’s gauged linear sigma models for mathematicians.

Witten’s gauged linear sigma model (GLSM) \[Wi1\] is one of the universal frameworks or structures that lie behind stringy dualities (e.g. \[Gre\]). A mathematical review of the related part of \[Wi1\] (cf. also \[M-P\]) to the current work is given in this subsection.

$``$ Introduction to the superland. \[Po2 : vol. II. Appendix B\] (resp. \[Fr\]) gives a concise introduction of spinor representations, supersymmetry (SUSY), supermultiplets, and superfields and their component fields from a string theorist’s (resp. mathematician’s) aspect. A formulation of superspaces/manifolds/schemes that is close in spirit to Grothendieck’s formulation of algebraic geometry is given in \[Ma : Chapter 4\]. This formulation provides a geometry behind the standard text \[W-B\] on supersymmetry. Kähler differentials and tangent vectors can be defined as in \[Ha1\]. Fermionic integration is discussed in \[We : Sec. 26.6\] and \[W-B : IX\], whose mathematical formulation Berezin integral is discussed in \[Fr\] and \[Ma\]. R-symmetry is discussed in \[Fr : Lecture 3\] and \[We\]. Central extensions of a supersymmetry algebra and its BPS representations are discussed in \[Fr\], \[Po2 : vol II\], and \[We\]. Super linear algebra, in particular the parity change functor $``$, is discussed in \[Fr : Lectures 1 and 2\] and \[Ma : Chaper 3\]. See also \[Arg\] and \[DEFJKMMW\].

$``$ Supermanifolds and line bundles. For the purpose of this article we have reduced the role played by the parity change functor $``$ in the description as much as possible.

* (\[Ma : Sec. 4.1\]; also \[Ha1\].) A supermanifold $`X=(X,𝒪_X)`$ (in smooth, analytic, or algebraic category) is a $`\text{}/2\text{}`$-graded ringed topological space $`(X,𝒪_X)`$ such that

+ The stalk $`𝒪_{X,x}`$ of $`𝒪_X`$ at any point $`xX`$ is a local ring.
    + $`X`$ is covered by a collection of open sets $`\{U_\alpha \}_{\alpha I}`$ such that each $`(U_\alpha ,𝒪_M|_{U_\alpha })`$ is isomorphic to $`(U_\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}},\text{Sym}_{𝒪_{U_\alpha ^0}}^{}(_\alpha ))`$, where $`U_\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ is an ordinary manifold (in the corresponding category), $`_\alpha `$ is an ordinary locally free coherent $`𝒪_{U_\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}}`$-module, and $`_\alpha `$ is the $`𝒪_{U_\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}}`$-module $`_\alpha `$ with odd parity.
    + $`X_{\mathrm{rd}}`$ is a manifold (in the corresponding category), cf. Remark below.

Remark. Let $`𝒪_X=𝒪_X^{(0)}𝒪_X^{(1)}`$ be the decomposition of $`𝒪_X`$ into the even (i.e. grade $`0`$) and the odd (i.e. grade $`1`$) component and $`J_X:=𝒪_X^{(1)}+(𝒪_X^{(1)})^2`$ (the ideal of “superfuzz”, cf. \[Fr : Lecture 1\]). Then $`X_{\mathrm{rd}}`$ is by definition the submanifold of $`X`$ associated to $`J_X`$. Note also that $`\text{Sym}^{}(_\alpha )^{}_\alpha `$ as $`𝒪_{U_\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}}`$-modules with all the parities after tensor products erased. $`X`$ is called decomposable if in Condition (b) one can choose $`U_\alpha =X`$ for some $`\alpha `$. In this case there is a surjective affine morphism $`XX_{\mathrm{rd}}`$ such that the composition $`X_{\mathrm{rd}}XX_{\mathrm{rd}}`$ is the identity map.
* A line bundle $``$ on $`X`$ is a locally free rank $`1`$ $`𝒪_X`$-module. Associated to $``$ is a finite filtration of $`𝒪_X`$-modules : $`J_XJ_X^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Global sections of the associated graded object $`\text{Gr}:=_i(J_X^i/J_X^{i+1})`$ are called component sections of $``$. The restriction $`_{\mathrm{rd}}`$ of $``$ to $`X_{\mathrm{rd}}`$ is a usual line bundle on $`X_{\mathrm{rd}}`$. When $`X`$ is decomposable, $`\text{Gr}𝒪_M_{\mathrm{rd}}`$ as $`𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{rd}}}`$-modules with all the parities erased. One may define also the Picard group $`\text{Pic}(X)`$ of $`X`$.

$``$ $`N`$: the count of minimal collections. (\[Fr : Lecture 3\] and \[Po2 : vol. II, Appendix B\].) The real dimension of a minimal real spin representation at $`d`$-dimensional Minkowski space is given by

d123456789101112dim112488161616163264 .
d123456789101112dim112488161616163264 \mbox{
\begin{tabular}[]{c|cccccccccccc}$d$&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9&10&11&12\\
\hline\cr$\mbox{\it dim}\,_{\hbox{\scriptsizebbfont R}}$&1&1&2&4&8&8&16&16&16&16&32&64\end{tabular}
}\,.
In even dimensions, there are two such irreducible representations, distinguished by left and $`\mathrm{𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡}`$. The $`N`$ that appears in every SUSY literatures counts the number of collections of the odd generators of a SUSY algebra with each collection in a minimal spinor representation of the Lorentz subalgebra of the SUSY algebra.

Example A.1 \[$`d=4,N=2`$\]. The complexified $`d=4,N=2`$ SUSY algebra (as in the Seiberg-Witten theory) contains $`8`$ odd generators in collections of $`4`$. Each collection of odd generators spans an irreducible represenation, $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ or $`\mathrm{𝟐}^{}`$, of $`\text{Spin}(1,3)\text{SL}(2,\text{})`$. For $`d=4`$, though there are two different minimal spinor representations, they give the same complexification $`\mathrm{𝟐}+\mathrm{𝟐}^{}`$. In physics literature SUSY algebras are ususally complexified; thus it is not necessary to distinguish whether it is $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ or $`\mathrm{𝟐}^{}`$ that appears in the SUSY algebra at $`d=4`$. In contrast, at $`d=2`$, complexifications of $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}^{}`$ give inequivalent representations of $`\text{Spin}(1,1)`$ and the distinction of left and right is necessary. E.g. $`N=(1,1)`$ and $`N=(0,2)`$ label different complexified SUSY algebras at $`d=2`$ with $`2`$ odd generators. The distinction is also needed at $`d=10`$, cf. the mod-$`8`$ periodicity of many properties of spinor representations.

$``$ Physical supermanifolds. For simplicity and sufficiency of this paper, we shall assume that the supermanifold $`X`$ is decomposable, i.e. $`𝒪_X=\text{Sym}_{𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{rd}}}}^{}()`$ for some locally free $`𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{rd}}}`$-module $``$. To link $`X`$ with supersymmetry from physics, it is then required that $`X_{\mathrm{rd}}`$ is a Lorentzian manifold and $``$ is a spinor bundle on $`X_{\mathrm{rd}}`$. Superfields on $`X`$ are defined to be global sections of locally free sheaves, e.g. $`𝒪_X=\text{Sym}_{𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{rd}}}}^{}()`$, on $`X`$.

Example A.2 \[$`d=4`$, $`N=1`$\]. (1) The supergeometry. $`X_{\mathrm{rd}}=`$ the Minkowski space (with coordinates $`x=(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)`$) equipped with the standard metric of signature $`(1,1,1,1)`$ and $`=(𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{rd}}}\mathrm{𝟐})_{\text{}}=(𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{rd}}})_{\text{}}_{\text{}}(\mathrm{𝟐}+\mathrm{𝟐}^{})`$, the complexified spinor bundle on $`X_{\mathrm{rd}}`$. Fix a set of (anticommuting) generators $`\theta ^\alpha `$, $`\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$, $`\alpha =1,2`$, for $``$ as an $`(𝒪_{X_{\mathrm{rd}}})_{\text{}}`$-module. Recall the decomposition $`(\mathrm{𝟐}+\mathrm{𝟐}^{})(\mathrm{𝟐}+\mathrm{𝟐}^{})=\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟒}`$, where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the (complexified) $`1`$-dimensional trivial representation and $`\mathrm{𝟒}`$ is the (complexified) vector represenattion of $`\text{SO}(1,3)`$, the Pauli matrices $`\sigma ^m`$, $`m=0,1,2,3`$ and the $`\epsilon `$ matrices (cf. \[W-B : Appendix B\] and \[Fr : Lecture 3\]). Then a superfield from $`(𝒪_X)_{\text{}}`$ can be expressed as (cf. \[W-B : Appendix A\] for summation conventions)

$`F(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })=f(x)+\theta \varphi (x)+\overline{\theta }\overline{\chi }(x)+\theta \theta m(x)+\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }n(x)+\theta \sigma ^m\overline{\theta }v_m(x)`$
$`+\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\lambda }(x)+\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }\theta \psi (x)+\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }d(x)`$
with the component fields from representations of $`\text{SO}(1,3)`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}1& \theta & \overline{\theta }& \theta \theta & \overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }& \theta \sigma ^m\overline{\theta }& \theta \theta \overline{\theta }& \overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }\theta & \theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }\\ f(x)& \varphi (x)& \overline{\chi }(x)& m(x)& n(x)& v_m(x)& \overline{\lambda }(x)& \psi (x)& d(x)\\ \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟐}& \mathrm{𝟐}^{}& \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟒}& \mathrm{𝟐}^{}& \mathrm{𝟐}& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}$$

(cf. \[W-B : Eq.(4.9)\]). The $`d=4`$, $`N=1`$ SUSY algebra can be realized as an algebra of (differential) operators acting an $`F(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$. In particular the four odd generators are realized as : (This is what physicists call SUSY generators of the SUSY algebra.)

$$Q_\alpha =\frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }\sqrt{1}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^m\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}\frac{}{x_m}\text{and}\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}}+\sqrt{1}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^m\theta ^\alpha \frac{}{x_m},\alpha ,\dot{\alpha }=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},$$

(\[Wi1 : Eq.(2.1)\] and \[W-B : Eq.(4.4)\]).

(2) Chiral superfields and chiral multiplets. A superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (resp. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$) that satisfies

$$\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}(\text{resp.}D_\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}),$$

where

$$D_\alpha =\frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }+\sqrt{1}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^m\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}\frac{}{x_m}\text{and}\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}}\sqrt{1}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^m\theta ^\alpha \frac{}{x_m},$$

is called chiral superfield (resp. antichiral superfield). In terms of $`y^m=x^m+\sqrt{1}\theta \sigma ^m\overline{\theta }`$ in the coordinate ring of $`X`$, such $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (resp. $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$) can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(y,\theta )=\varphi (y)+\sqrt{2}\theta \psi (y)+\theta \theta F(y)$$

(resp.

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\overline{y},\overline{\theta })=\overline{\varphi }(\overline{y})+\sqrt{2}\overline{\theta }\overline{\psi }(\overline{y})+\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }\overline{F}(\overline{y}),$$

) in component fields. The part $`(\varphi ,\psi )`$ is a section of the vector bundle associated to a $`d=4`$, $`N=1`$ chiral multiplet representation (cf. \[Fr : Lecture 5, Table 7\]). When the Lagrangian for $`d=4,N=1`$ SUSY quantum field theory (SQFT) is considered, the equation of motion for $`(\varphi ,\psi )`$ will involve differential operators while that for $`F`$ will be purely algebraic. We say that $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are dynamical component fields and $`F`$ auxiliary component field in the chiral multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

(3) Vector superfields and vector multiplets. A superfield $`V`$ that satisfies the reality condition

$$V=V^{},$$

where $`V^{}`$ is the Hermitian conjugate of $`V`$ (\[W-B : Appendix A\]), is called a vector superfield. In the Wess-Zumino gauge, its component field expansion is

$$V=\theta \sigma ^m\overline{\theta }v_m+\sqrt{1}\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\lambda }\sqrt{1}\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }\theta \lambda +\frac{1}{2}\theta \theta \overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }D,$$

(\[W-B : Eq.(6.6)\] and \[Wi1 : Eq.(2.11)\]). The dynamical components $`(\lambda ,\overline{\lambda },v_m)`$ is a section of the vector bundle associated to the $`d=4`$, $`N=1`$ massless vector multiplet representation (cf. \[Fr : Lecture 5, Table 7\]) while $`D`$ is an auxiliary component, which plays an important role in defining the vacuum manifolds in each phase of a gauged linear sigma model \[Wi1\].

$``$ Dimensional reduction $`(d=4,N=1)(d=2,N=(2,2))`$ and R-symmetry. (Cf. \[DEFJKMMW\], \[H-V\], \[We\], and \[Wi1\].)

* The $`d=4,N=1`$ SUSY algebra is given by generators with (anti-)commutation relations : ($`(\eta _{mn})=\text{Diag}(1,1,1,1)`$.)
* $$\begin{array}{cc}[L_{mn},L_{m^{}n^{}}]=\eta _{nm^{}}L_{mn^{}}\eta _{mn^{}}L_{nn^{}}\eta _{n^{}m}L_{m^{}n}+\eta _{n^{}n}L_{m^{}m},\hfill & \hfill \left(\text{Lorentz algebra}\right)\\ [L_{mn},P_m^{}]=\eta _{m^{}n}P_m\eta _{m^{}m}P_n\hfill & \hfill \left(\text{vector representation}\right)\\ [L_{mn},Q_\alpha ]=\left(\sigma _{mn}\right)_\alpha ^\beta Q_\beta ,[L_{mn},Q_{\dot{\alpha }}]=Q_{\dot{\beta }}\left(\overline{\sigma }_{mn}\right)_{\dot{\alpha }}^{\dot{\beta }},\hfill & \hfill \left(\text{spinor representation}\right)\\ \{Q_\alpha ,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}\}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^mP_m\hfill & \hfill \left(\text{Clifford-type algebra}\right)\\ \{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}=\{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},\overline{Q}_{\dot{\beta }}\}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\hfill & \\ [J,Q_\alpha ]=Q_\alpha ,[J,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}]=\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}\hfill & \hfill \left(\text{R-symmetry }U\left(1\right)\right)\\ [P_m,P_n]=[J,P_m]=[J,L_{mn}]=0.\hfill & \\ (m,n,m^{},n^{}=0,1,2,3;\alpha ,\beta =1,2;\dot{\alpha },\dot{\beta }=\dot{1},\dot{2},\text{[W-B : Eq.(A.14)]}.)\hfill & \end{array}$$

It is customary to call $`Q_\alpha `$, $`\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ the SUSY generators of the SUSY algebra.
* The dimensional reduction of the $`d=4,N=1`$ SUSY algebra to $`d=2`$ is obtained by considering the subalgebra that leaves a specified $`\text{}^{1+1}`$ subspace, e.g. the $`(x^0,x^3)`$-coordinate plane, in $`\text{}^{1+3}`$ invariant. This corresponds to setting the extra conditions

$$P_1=P_2=L_{01}=L_{02}=L_{13}=L_{23}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

to the $`d=4,N=1`$ SUSY algebra since these generators generate Lorentz transformations that do not leave the $`(x^0,x^3)`$-coordinate plane invariant. The resulting algebra is the $`d=2,N=(2,2)`$ SUSY algebra. Its generators with renamings are
* $$\begin{array}{c}L:=L_{03},H:=P_0,P:=P_3,Q_{}:=Q_1,Q_+:=Q_2,\overline{Q}_{}:=\overline{Q}_{\dot{1}},\overline{Q}_+:=\overline{Q}_{\dot{2}},\hfill \\ J_1:=J,J_2:=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\sqrt{1}L_{12},\hfill \end{array}$$

with commutation relations :

$$\begin{array}{c}[L,H]=P,[L,P]=H,\hfill \\ [L,Q_+]=\frac{1}{2}Q_+,[L,Q_{}]=\frac{1}{2}Q_{},[L,\overline{Q}_+]=\frac{1}{2}\overline{Q}_+,[L,\overline{Q}_{}]=\frac{1}{2}\overline{Q}_{},\hfill \\ \{Q_+,\overline{Q}_+\}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\left(HP\right),\{Q_{},\overline{Q}_{}\}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\left(H+P\right),\hfill \\ [J_1,Q_+]=Q_+,[J_1,Q_{}]=Q_{},[J_1,\overline{Q}_+]=\overline{Q}_+,[J_1,\overline{Q}_{}]=\overline{Q}_{}\hfill \\ [J_2,Q_+]=Q_+,[J_2,Q_{}]=Q_{},[J_2,\overline{Q}_+]=\overline{Q}_+,[J_2,\overline{Q}_{}]=\overline{Q}_{}\hfill \\ Q_+^2=Q_{}^2=\overline{Q}_+^2=\overline{Q}_{}^2=\{Q_{},Q_+\}=\{\overline{Q}_{},\overline{Q}_+\}=\{Q_+,\overline{Q}_{}\}=\{Q_{},\overline{Q}_+\}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill \\ [H,P]=[J_1,H]=[J_1,P]=[J_1,L]=[J_2,H]=[J_2,P]=[J_2,L]=[J_1,J_2]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`Q_{}`$ and $`\overline{Q}_{}`$ (resp. $`Q_+`$ and $`\overline{Q}_+`$) are the $`d=2,N=(2,0)`$ (resp. $`N=(0,2)`$) SUSY generators and the Lorentz generator $`L_{12}`$ in the original algebra has now become the second R-symmetry generator $`J_2`$ of the new SUSY algebra.
* Define

$$\begin{array}{cc}J_L=\frac{1}{2}(J_2J_1),\hfill & (\text{left-moving R-symmetry generator})\hfill \\ J_R=\frac{1}{2}(J_2+J_1).\hfill & (\text{right-moving R-symmetry generator})\hfill \end{array}$$

Then

$$\begin{array}{cccc}[J_L,Q_{}]=Q_{},\hfill & [J_L,\overline{Q}_{}]=\overline{Q}_{},\hfill & [J_L,Q_+]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & [J_L,\overline{Q}_+]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\hfill \\ [J_R,Q_{}]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & [J_R,\overline{Q}_{}]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.\hfill & [J_R,Q_+]=Q_+,\hfill & [J_R,\overline{Q}_+]=\overline{Q}_+,\hfill \end{array}$$
* The dimensional reduction of a superfield on $`d=4`$ Minkowski space-time to $`d=2`$ superfields is obtained by setting two spatial directions, say $`x^1`$ and $`x^2`$, to be constant and take fields to depend only on $`x^0`$ and $`x^3`$. Recall Example A.2. Then the rule of conversion of fields from $`d=4,N=1`$ to $`d=2,N=(2,2)`$ are given by :
* $$\begin{array}{cc}y^0:=x^0,y^1:=x^3,\hfill & \hfill \text{(for space-time coordinates)}\\ \sigma :=\left(v_1\sqrt{1}v_2\right)/\sqrt{2},\overline{\sigma }:=\left(v_1+\sqrt{1}v_2\right)/\sqrt{2}\hfill & \hfill \text{(reduced vector components in }d=4\text{ }\text{}\text{ complex scalors in }d=2\text{)}\\ \{\begin{array}{cc}(\psi ^{},\psi ^+):=(\psi ^1,\psi ^2),& (\psi _{},\psi _+):=(\psi _1,\psi _2),\\ (\overline{\psi }^{},\overline{\psi }^+):=(\psi ^{\dot{1}},\psi ^{\dot{2}}),& (\overline{\psi }^{},\overline{\psi }^+):=(\psi ^{\dot{1}},\psi ^{\dot{2}}).\end{array}\hfill & \hfill \text{(for spinorial components)}\end{array}$$

The $`d=2N=(2,2)`$ chiral superfields and vector superfields can be obtained from $`d=4,N=1`$ ones via these conversions, cf. Example A.2 and the next item.

$``$ Gauged linear sigma models. (\[Wi1 : Sec. 2\].) Given $`d=2,N=(2,2)`$ chiral superfields ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ here is the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ in \[Wi1 : Eq.(2.13)\])

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i=\varphi _i+\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\psi _{i,+}+\sqrt{2}\theta ^{}\psi _{i,}+\theta ^2F_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n,$$

in $`d=2,N=(2,2)`$ chiral coordinates ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ here is the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ in \[Wi1 : Eq.(2.13)\])

$$(y^0\sqrt{1}(\theta ^{}\overline{\theta }^{}+\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^+),y^1+\sqrt{1}(\theta ^{}\overline{\theta }^{}\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^+)),$$

vector superfields, in Wess-Zumino gauge, (cf. connections)

$`V_a=\sqrt{2}\left(\theta ^{}\overline{\theta }^+\sigma _a+\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^{}\overline{\sigma }_a\right)+\left(\theta ^{}\overline{\theta }^{}+\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^+\right)v_{a,0}\left(\theta ^{}\overline{\theta }^{}\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^+\right)v_{a,1}`$
$`+\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\theta ^{}\left(\overline{\theta }^+\overline{\lambda }_{a,+}+\overline{\theta }^{}\overline{\lambda }_{a,}\right)\sqrt{2}\overline{\theta }^+\overline{\theta }^{}\left(\theta ^{}\lambda _{a,}+\theta ^+\lambda _{a,+}\right)2\theta ^+\theta ^{}\overline{\theta }^+\overline{\theta }^{}D_a,`$
$`a=1,\mathrm{},nd,`$
gauge group $`U(1)^{nd}`$ (parameterized by $`(t_1,\mathrm{},t_{nd})`$), and a $`U(1)^{nd}`$-action on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i\left(\underset{a=1}{\overset{nd}{}}t_a^{Q_{i,a}}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_i.$$

Define (\[Wi1 : Eq.(2.16)\]), (cf. curvatures)

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_a:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{D}_+D_{}V_a`$
$`=\sigma _a\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\overline{\lambda }_{a,+}\sqrt{2}\overline{\theta }^{}\lambda _{a,}+\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^{}\left(D_a\sqrt{1}v_{a,01}\right)`$
$`\sqrt{1}\overline{\theta }^{}\theta ^{}\left(_0_1\right)\sigma _a\sqrt{1}\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^+\left(_0+_1\right)\sigma _a`$
$`+\sqrt{2}\overline{\theta }^{}\theta ^+\theta ^{}\left(_0_1\right)\overline{\lambda }_{a,+}+\sqrt{2}\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^{}\overline{\theta }^+\left(_0+_1\right)\lambda _{a,}\theta ^+\overline{\theta }^{}\theta ^{}\overline{\theta }^+\left(_0^2_1^2\right)\sigma _a,`$
where $`v_{a,01}=_0v_{a,1}_1v_{a,0}`$. The associated gauged linear sigma model is a $`2`$-dimensional supersymmetric quantum field theory (SQFT) with action

$$L=L_{\text{kinetic}}+L_W+L_{\text{gauge}}+L_{D,\theta },$$

where

$$L_{\mathrm{kinetic}}=d^2yd^4\theta \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i\mathrm{exp}\left[2\underset{a=1}{\overset{nd}{}}Q_{i,a}V_a\right]\mathrm{\Phi }_i,$$

$$L_W=d^2y𝑑\theta ^+𝑑\theta ^{}W(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)|_{\overline{\theta }^+=\overline{\theta }^{}=0}(\text{Hermitian conjugate}),$$

$$L_{\text{gauge}}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{nd}{}}\frac{1}{4e_a^2}d^2yd^4\theta \overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_a\mathrm{\Sigma }_a,$$

and

$$L_{D,\theta }=\underset{a=1}{\overset{nd}{}}d^2y(r_aD_a+\frac{\theta _a}{2\pi }v_{a,01})$$

$$=\frac{\sqrt{1}t_a}{2\sqrt{2}}d^2y𝑑\theta ^+𝑑\overline{\theta }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }|_{\theta ^{}=\overline{\theta }^+=0}\frac{\sqrt{1}\overline{t_a}}{2\sqrt{2}}d^2y𝑑\theta ^{}𝑑\overline{\theta }^+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}|_{\theta ^+=\overline{\theta }^{}=0}$$

with

$$t_a=\sqrt{1}r_a+\frac{\theta _a}{2\pi }.$$

The real-valued numerical parameters $`e_a`$, $`r_a`$, and $`\theta _a`$ are called the coupling constants of the theory.

Performing the Fermionic integrations $`d^4\theta `$, $`𝑑\theta ^+𝑑\theta ^{}`$, and $`𝑑\overline{\theta }^+𝑑\overline{\theta }^{}`$ renders $`L`$ a complicated expression in terms of component fields on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ and $`V_a`$ (\[Wi1 : Eq.(2.19), Eq.(2.21), and Eq.(2.23)\]). The $`d=2,N=(2,2)`$ SUSY algebra without R-symmetry generators can be realized as an algebra of derivations acting on $`V_a`$ and on $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ with gauge transformations taken into account while the R-symmetry acts on fields via global abelian transformations on the fields. In particular, the SUSY transformations in terms of component fields are given in \[Wi1 : Eq.(2.12) and Eq.(2.14)\] (Cf. Example A.2 (1), \[W-B Chapters III-VII\], and \[We : Sec. 2.7.8\]). The action $`L`$ is invariant under these transformations (and hence supersymmetric).

$``$ Wick rotation. Field theories on Riemannian manifolds behave better than those on Lorentzian manifolds. A Wick rotation is meant to be an analytic continuation between theories in the two categories (e.g. \[P-S\]). Some of its geometry is studied in \[Liu\]. In the current case of flat space-times, such an analytic continuation is realized by setting $`y^0=iy^2`$ and taking $`(y^1,y^2)`$ as the coordinates of the Wick rotated $`d=2`$ space-time. The latter has the Euclidean metric $`(dy^0)^2+(dy^1)^2=(dy^2)^2+(dy^1)^2`$ and the tangent bundle group $`\text{SO}(1,1)`$ now becomes $`\text{SO}(2)`$.

$``$ The A-twist and the B-twist. (\[Wi2\], \[Wi1\], \[DEFJKMMW : vol. 2, Witten’s lecture, Sec. 14.3\], and \[F-S : Chapter 7\].) Consider the two different twisted embeddings of the $`d=2`$ rotation algebra, generated by $`L`$, into the $`d=2,N=(2,2)`$ SUSY algebra :

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{A-twist}:\hfill & LL^A:=L\frac{1}{2}J_L+\frac{1}{2}J_R\hfill \\ \text{B-twist}:\hfill & LL^B:=L+\frac{1}{2}J_L+\frac{1}{2}J_R.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since both $`J_L`$ and $`J_R`$ commute with all the SUSY algebra generators except $`Q_\pm `$ and $`\overline{Q}_\pm `$, the commutation relation of $`L^A`$ and $`L^B`$ with SUSY algebra generators are the same as those for $`L`$ except the following ones :

$$\begin{array}{cccc}[L^A,Q_+]=Q_+,\hfill & [L^A,Q_{}]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & [L^A,\overline{Q}_+]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & [L^A,\overline{Q}_{}]=\overline{Q}_{},\hfill \\ [L^B,Q_+]=Q_+,\hfill & [L^B,Q_{}]=Q_{},\hfill & [L^B,\overline{Q}_+]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\hfill & [L^B,\overline{Q}_{}]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.\hfill \end{array}$$

This implies that all the SUSY generators are now of integral spin with respect to either of the twisted tangent bundle groups.

From the commutation relations of the Lorentz generator with SUSY generators, the supermanifolds associated to the Wick-rotated $`d=2,N=(2,2)`$ SUSY algebra are

$$X=(C,\text{Sym}^{}\left((K_C^{\frac{1}{2}})^2(K_C^{\frac{1}{2}})^2\right)),$$

where $`C`$ is a Riemann surface and $`K_C`$ is the canonical line bundle of $`C`$ while the supermanifolds associated to either A-twisted or B-twisted SUSY algebra are

$$X^{\text{twist}}=(C,\text{Sym}^{}\left(𝒪_C^2K_CK_C^1\right)).$$

When $`C`$ is the complex plane, a cylinder, or an elliptic curve, $`K_C^{\pm \frac{1}{2}}𝒪_C`$ admit nontrivial global sections. Thus both SQFT and its twists can be built on such $`C`$. For general $`C`$, $`K_C^{\pm \frac{1}{2}}`$ have no global sections except the zero-section and, hence, only twisted SQFT can be defined on $`C`$.

$``$ Phase structure. (\[Wi1\] and \[M-P\] for GLSM; \[Al\], \[Arg\], \[Po1\], \[R-S-Z\], and \[W-K\] for general field-theoretical aspects.) When the coupling constants $`(e_a,r_a,\theta _a)_a`$ in the action $`L`$ of the gauged linear model given earlier vary, the nature of the field theories may also vary. Thus $`(e_a,r_a,\theta _a)_a`$ can be thought of as the coordinates for a space $`_{GLSM}`$ that parameterizes a family of $`d=2`$ field theories. $`_{GLSM}`$ is called the (Wilson’s) theory space of the model. Quantities (e.g. $`2`$-point functions) of the field theories may be turned into defining geometric data (e.g. Zamolodchikov metric) on $`_{GLSM}`$. There exists a stratification of $`_{GLSM}`$ according to the nature of the field theory a point in $`_{GLSM}`$ parameterizes. Each stratum of this stratification is called a phase of the GSLM. In general, for quantum considerations of the theory, cutoffs (e.g. of energy) may have to be introduced. These cutoff parameters may also be added in to enlarge the theory space. (Cf. The recent work of Borchard \[Bo\] enlarges Wilson’s theory space by adding also the space of renormalization prescriptions. His work should be important to understanding the quantum phase structure on the theory space.)

$``$ The moduli space of the A-twisted theory in the geometric phase. Either twist breaks half of the $`4`$ supersymmetries in general. The resulting $`d=2`$ SQFT has the same expression as the action $`L`$ but each of the component fields in the superfield involved lives in a new bundle determined by the twisted spin discussed in Item (The A-twist and the B-twist) above. For the $`A`$-twist, the remaining supersymmetries of the twisted gauged linear sigma model are generated by $`Q_{}`$ and $`\overline{Q}_+`$. These are the SUSY generators that are of A-twisted spin $`0`$. Recall the realization of SUSY algebra with R-symmetry generators removed as an algebra of derivations acting on fields. A field configuration that is annihilated by both $`Q_{}`$ and $`\overline{Q}_+`$ is called a supersymmetric field configuration of the twisted gauged linear sigma model. When the gauge coupling constants $`e_a`$ are all set equal to some $`e`$ and the superpotential $`W`$ is set to zero, the bosonic part of SUSY configurations for the A-twisted theory are given explicitly by the solutions to the following system of equations (\[Wi1 : Eq.(3.33), Eq.(3.34), Eq.(3.35)\] and \[M-P : Eq.(3.54 a-d)\])

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill d\sigma _a& =& 0,\hfill & a=1,\mathrm{},nd,\hfill & \\ \hfill _{a=1}^{nd}Q_i^a\sigma _a\varphi _i& =& 0,\hfill & i=1,\mathrm{},n,\hfill & \\ \hfill D_{\overline{z}}\varphi _i& =& 0,\hfill & i=1,\mathrm{},n,\hfill & (1)\hfill \\ \hfill D_a+v_{a,12}& =& 0,\hfill & a=1,\mathrm{},nd,\hfill & (2)\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`D_{\overline{z}}`$ a covariant derivative constructed from the $`U(1)^{nd}`$ gauge connection $`(v_{a,1},v_{a,2})_a`$ and

$$D_a=e^2\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}Q_i^a|\varphi _i|^2r_a\right)$$

from the equation of motion for $`D_a`$.

When $`(r_a)_a`$ is in the geometric phase, for which the solution set to the subsystem $`\{\text{Eq.(}1\text{), Eq.(}2\text{)}\}`$ is non-empty, the only solution for $`\sigma _a`$ is $`\sigma _a=0`$ for all $`a`$. Following the study in \[Brad\], \[B-D\], and \[GP\] on vortex-type equations, Witten and Morrison-Plesser thus conclude that the moduli space of the A-twisted theory for $`(r_a)_a`$ in this phase is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _\stackrel{}{d}_\stackrel{}{d}& =& \left\{\text{common solutions to }\text{}\text{Eq. }(1)\text{ and Eq. }(2)\right\}/\left\{\text{unitary abelian gauge transformations }\text{}\text{and global complex abelian transformations}\right\}\hfill \\ & =& \left\{\text{solutions to Eq. }(1)\text{ that satisfy }\text{}\text{appropriate stability condition}\right\}/\left\{\text{complex abelian gauge}\text{}\text{transformations}\right\}\hfill \\ & =& \text{the toric variety}_\stackrel{}{d}\left(Y_\stackrel{}{d}F_\stackrel{}{d}\right)/G,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`Y_\stackrel{}{d}`$, $`F_\stackrel{}{d}`$, and $`G`$ are explained in Explanation/Fact 2.1.2 and Sec. 3 in terms of toric geometry (\[M-P : Sec. 3.1\]). (Cf. See also \[Fr : Lecture 4 and Lecture 5\] on the moduli space of vacua of a SQFT.)

As already mentioned in \[M-P : Sec. 3.7\], the above construction, in particular the moduli space $`_\stackrel{}{d}_\stackrel{}{d}`$, has a generalization to higher genus Riemann surfaces as well, following \[Cox2\]. The main theme of this paper is the study of this generalization of $`_\stackrel{}{d}_\stackrel{}{d}`$ to higher genus.