format: text

text:
# Formal deformation of curves with group scheme action

## Introduction

Let $`Y`$ be a (not necessarily smooth) projective curve over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p>0`$. Let $`W`$ be a complete local ring with residue field $`k`$. Furthermore, let $`G`$ be a finite flat group scheme over $`W`$ which acts faithfully on $`Y`$. We denote by $`Def(Y,G)`$ the functor which associates to a local Artinian $`W`$-algebra $`R`$ with residue field $`k`$ the set of isomorphism classes of $`G`$-equivariant deformations of $`Y`$ to $`R`$. The present paper is concerned with a study of the functor $`Def(Y,G)`$, using cohomological methods. The special case where $`Y`$ is smooth and $`G`$ is a constant group scheme has been studied previously by Bertin and Mézard .

One of the motivations for studying the functor $`Def(Y,G)`$ is the lifting problem. Suppose that $`Y`$ is smooth and that $`G`$ is a finite abstract group which acts faithfully on the curve $`Y`$. Let $`W`$ be the ring of Witt vectors over $`k`$, and consider $`G`$ as a constant group scheme over $`W`$. In this situation, the lifting problem ask the following question. Does there exist a finite extension $`R/W`$ of complete discrete valuation rings and a $`G`$-equivariant lift of $`Y`$ over $`R`$? For instance, if the deformation functor $`Def(Y,G)`$ is unobstructed then the answer to this question is positive.

A conjecture of Oort predicts that the lifting problem has a positive solution if the group $`G`$ is cyclic. However, even in the simplest nontrivial case $`G=/p`$ (where Oort’s conjecture is proved, see  and ) the functor $`Def(Y,G)`$ is obstructed. In  these obstructions are identified as elements in a certain Galois cohomology group. However, they remain a bit mysterious. One of the motivations for generalizing the approach of Bertin–Mézard is the author’s hope that this will lead to new insight into the nature of these obstruction, and the lifting problem in general.

Another (related) motivation comes from the study of the stable reduction of Galois covers of curves. Let $`R`$ be a complete discrete valuation ring, with algebraically closed residue field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p`$ and fraction field $`K`$ of characteristic $`0`$. Let $`Y_KX_K`$ be a Galois cover of smooth projective curves over $`K`$, with Galois group $`G`$. After a finite extension of $`K`$, there exists a certain natural $`R`$-model $`Y_RX_R`$ of $`Y_KX_K`$, called the stable model, see  or  for a precise definition. The problem we are interested in is to understand this model and in particular its relation with the ramification of the prime $`p`$ in the field $`K`$. It has become clear from recent work of several authors (e.g. , , ) that this problem naturally leads to the study of singular curves with an action of an infinitesimal group scheme, and of the deformation theory of such objects.

This paper is divided into two main parts. The first part (§1–3) is an exposition of certain cohomological methods for studying equivariant deformations of (not necessarily smooth) curves with group scheme action. Although the guiding principles are the same as in , we have to use much heavier technical machinery. For instance, it does not suffice to look at the equivariant cohomology of the tangent bundle of $`Y`$ over $`k`$, as in . Instead, one has to consider certain hyperext groups with values in the equivariant cotangent complex of $`Y`$ over $`k`$. The latter is an object in the derived category of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules, and was first introduced by Grothendieck in .

In principal, everything one might want to known about the equivariant cotangent complex and its role in deformation theory can be found in Illusie’s book . However, the generality in which  is written makes it difficult to read and to work with in a concrete situation (at least for the author of this paper). In the literature there are a number of excellent and readable accounts of certain special cases (see e.g.  or , §2-3) but none seems to be sufficiently general to deal with the case we need. To improve this situation, the present paper contains a self-contained exposition of a special case of Illusie’s theory, which should nevertheless be sufficiently general for the applications we have in mind.

In the second part of this paper (§4–5) we apply the general theory to a special case which is relevant for the study of three point covers with bad reduction. In particular, we prove a certain result which is a key ingredient for the main theorem of .

We start in §4 with a multiplicative deformation datum. To give an idea what this is, fix a smooth projective curve $`X`$ over $`k`$. Then a multiplicative defirmation datum over $`X`$ is a pair $`(Z,V)`$, where $`ZX`$ is a Galois cover of smooth projective curves over a field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p>0`$, with Galois group $`H`$ of order prime-to-$`p`$, and $`V\mathrm{\Omega }_{k(Z)/k}`$ is an $`H`$-stable $`𝔽_p`$-vector space of logarithmic differential forms. To $`(Z,V)`$ we associate a finite flat group scheme $`G`$ over $`W(k)`$ and a (singular) curve $`Y`$ over $`k`$ with an action of $`G`$ such that $`X=Y/G`$. Briefly, the group scheme $`G`$ is of the form $`𝝁_p^sH`$ and $`YZ`$ is the $`𝝁_p^s`$-cover locally given by $`s`$ Kummer equations $`y_i^p=u_i`$, where $`\varphi _i=\mathrm{d}u_i/u_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$, form a basis of $`V`$.

We study the deformation functor $`Def(Y,G)`$ which classifies equivariant formal deformations of $`Y`$ and exhibit a number of its properties which are, in general, very different from the properties enjoyed by the deformation functor studied in . For instance, there is in general no such thing as a local-global principle, because the ‘local contribution’ to the tangent space of the functor $`Def(Y,G)`$ is not concentrated in a finite number of closed points. However, from another point of view things are really much easier than in , due to the fact that the ‘$`p`$-Sylow’ of $`G`$ is a multiplicative group scheme. Since multiplicative group schemes have trivial cohomology, the general machinery developed in the first sections shows that the deformation functor $`Def(Y,G)`$ is unobstructed. Another nice property of $`Def(Y,G)`$ is the existence of a natural morphism of deformation functors

(1)
$$Def(Y,G)Def(X;\tau _j)$$

which sends an equivariant deformation of $`Y`$ to its quotient by $`G`$. (Here we regard $`X`$ as a marked curve, the marked points being the ‘branch points’ $`\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _n`$ of the $`G`$-cover $`YX`$.) In this respect, the $`G`$-cover $`YX`$ behaves like a tamely ramified Galois cover. However, unlike in the case of tamely ramified Galois covers, the functor (1) is in general not an isomorphism.

In §5 we assume in addition that the curve $`X`$ is the projective line and that the vector space $`V`$ is an irreducible $`𝔽_p[H]`$-module which decomposes, after tensoring with $`\overline{𝔽}_p`$, into the direct sum of one dimensional modules. Among all the multiplicative deformation data $`(Z,V)`$ of this type, there are some which we call special. The definition of specialty is given in terms of certain numerical invariants attached to $`(Z,V)`$. But philosophically, special deformation data are attached to three point Galois covers of the projective line with bad reduction to characteristic $`p`$. We refer to  and  for details on the case $`dim_{𝔽_p}V=1`$ and for a more satisfactory explanation of the connection to three point covers. Let us only mention that the deformation theory of the $`G`$-cover $`YX`$ attached to a special deformation datum has a number of very nice and surprising properties:

* The lifting property: the morphism of deformation functors (1) is an isomorphism. In this respect, the $`G`$-cover $`YX`$ behaves just like a tamely ramified Galois cover.
* The local-global principle: local deformations in formal neighborhoods of the ramification points (which satisfy a certain condition) can be interpolated by a unique global deformation of $`Y`$.
* Rigidity: If an equivariant deformation of $`Y`$ in equal characteristic (i.e. over a local $`k`$-algebra) is again special then it is the trivial deformation. Therefore, there exist at most a finite number of special deformation data of a given type (up to isomorphism), and every special deformation datum can be defined over a finite field.

These properties are very particular to special deformation data. They reflect, in a rather subtle way, the connection to three point covers with bad reduction and in particular to the fact that three point covers are ‘rigid’ objects.

At the end of the paper, the reader will find three appendices containing background material which the author found difficult to extract from the literature. This includes Picard stacks, the cohomology of affine group schemes, and two spectral sequences which are useful to compute equivariant hyperext groups.

## 1 The equivariant cotangent complex

In  Illusie defines, for any morphism of schemes $`YS`$, the cotangent complex $`_{Y/S}`$. This is a complex of flat $`𝒪_Y`$-modules, well defined up to canonical quasi-isomorphism, such that $`H^0(_{Y/S})=\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y/S}`$. If $`YS`$ is smooth then $`_{Y/S}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y/S}`$. Moreover, if $`GS`$ is a group scheme acting on $`Y`$, Illusie defines the equivariant cotangent complex as an object of the derived classifying topos $`𝔇^+(BG_{/X})`$ whose underlying complex of $`𝒪_Y`$-modules is $`_{Y/S}`$.

In this section we give a more down-to-earth definition of the equivariant cotangent complex which, however, works well only if $`YS`$ and the $`G`$-action on $`Y`$ have certain good properties. We follow the original approach of Grothendieck . This gives the ‘correct’ cotangent complex only if $`YS`$ is a local complete intersection morphism. We assume that $`Y`$ admits locally an equivariant embedding into a formally smooth $`S`$-scheme with $`G`$-action. Under this assumption, it is much easier to endow the cotangent complex with a natural $`G`$-action.

### 1.1

Let $`S=SpecR`$ be an affine scheme, $`GS`$ a flat affine group scheme and $`YS`$ an $`S`$-scheme with an action of $`G`$. By a $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module we mean a sheaf of $`𝒪_Y`$-modules $``$, together with a lift of the $`G`$-action from $`Y`$ to $``$. A homomorphism between two $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules $``$ and $`𝒢`$ is a sheaf homomorphism which is both $`𝒪_Y`$-linear and $`G`$-equivariant. The group of such homomorphisms is denoted by $`Hom_G(,𝒢)`$. We denote by $`𝔐(Y,G)`$ the corresponding category of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules. See Appendix C.1 for more details on the category $`𝔐(Y,G)`$. For $`\{+,,b\}`$, we denote by $`𝔎^{}(Y,G)`$ the category of cochain complexes in $`𝔐(Y,G)`$, up to homotopy, which are bounded from below ($`=+`$), bounded from above ($`=`$) or bounded in both directions ($`=b`$). We write $`𝔇^{}(Y,G)`$ for the derived category of $`𝔎^{}(Y,G)`$.

In this section we define the equivariant cotangent complex $`_{Y/S}`$ of the morphism $`YS`$ as an object of $`𝔇^+(Y,G)`$, assuming:

###### Assumption 1.1

Every point of $`Y`$ is contained in an affine and $`G`$-stable open neighborhood $`UY`$ such that the following holds. There exists a formally smooth affine $`S`$-scheme $`PS`$ with $`G`$-action and a $`G`$-equivariant closed immersion $`\phi :UP`$.

###### Remark 1.2

It is not clear to the author how restrictive Assumption 1.1 is. We expect that it can be verified in any concrete situation where one actually wants to apply our theory. For instance, in §4 we use the case where $`G`$ is an extension of a constant by a multiplicative group scheme and acts freely on a dense open subset of $`Y`$. In this situation, Assumption 1.1 is easy to verify.

### 1.2

A triple $`(U,P,\phi )`$ as in Assumption 1.1 is called a local chart for $`YS`$. Often we will simply write $`\phi `$ instead of $`(U,P,\phi )`$. Given such a local chart, we denote by $`𝒪_P`$ the sheaf of ideals defining the image of $`\phi `$. We define the cotangent complex of the chart $`\phi `$ as the following complex of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules:

(2)
$$_\phi :=(/^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{P/S}𝒪_Y).$$

The two nontrivial terms of $`_\phi `$ lie in degree $`1`$ and $`0`$. Note that there is a natural augmentation $`_\phi \mathrm{\Omega }_{Y/S}`$ which identifies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y/S}`$ with $`H^0(_\phi )`$.

###### Remark 1.3

1. If $`Y/S`$ is of finite type, then we may take $`P/S`$ to be smooth. In this case, $`_\phi ^0=\mathrm{\Omega }_{P/S}𝒪_Y`$ is a locally free $`𝒪_Y`$-module of finite rank.
2. If, moreover, $`YS`$ is a local complete intersection (in the sense of , VIII.1.1) then the embedding $`\phi `$ is regular. Recall that this means the following. For every point $`yU`$ the stalk $`_y`$ is an ideal generated by a regular sequence of the local ring $`𝒪_{P,y}`$. It follows that $`_\phi ^1=/^2`$ is a locally free $`𝒪_Y`$-module of finite rank, too.

Let $`(U,P,\phi )`$ and $`(V,Q,\psi )`$ be two local charts, and assume that $`VU`$. A morphism from $`\psi `$ to $`\phi `$ is a $`G`$-equivariant morphism of $`S`$-schemes $`u:QP`$ such that the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}V& \stackrel{\psi }{}& Q\\ & & u& & \\ U& \stackrel{\phi }{}& P\end{array}$$

commutes. We use the notation $`u:\psi \phi `$. Note that $`u`$ induces a morphism of complexes of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules

$$u^{}:_\phi |_V_\psi .$$

###### Lemma 1.4

1. The homotopy class of $`u^{}`$ is independent of the morphism $`u`$.
2. The morphism $`u^{}`$ is a quasi-isomorphism.

###### Proof.

It is no restriction to assume that $`U=V`$. We may also assume that $`U`$ is affine. Let $`P^{}`$ denote the second infinitesimal neighborhood of $`U`$ in $`P`$, i.e. the closed subscheme of $`P`$ defined by the sheaf of ideals $`^2`$. Similarly, $`Q^{}`$ denotes the second infinitesimal neighborhood of $`Y`$ in $`Q`$. It is defined by $`𝒥^2`$, where $`𝒥𝒪_Q`$ is the sheaf of ideals defining the image of $`\psi `$. Let $`v:QP`$ be another morphism of local charts, and set $`u^{}:=u|_Q^{}`$ and $`v^{}:=v|_Q^{}`$. It is clear that $`u^{}`$ (resp. $`v^{}`$) only depends on the restriction $`u^{}`$ (resp. on $`v^{}`$). An easy computation shows that the difference of the two pullback maps

$$(u^{})^{}(v^{})^{}:𝒪_P𝒥/𝒥^2$$

is an $`R`$-linear derivation. Hence it gives rise to an $`𝒪_Y`$-linear map $`s:\mathrm{\Omega }_P𝒪_Y𝒥/𝒥^2`$, and one checks that $`s`$ is the desired homotopy between $`u^{}`$ and $`v^{}`$:

This proves (i).

By assumption $`QS`$ is formally smooth and $`U`$ is affine. Hence there exists a morphism $`w^{}:P^{}Q`$ lifting $`\psi :YQ`$. As in the proof of (i), one shows that there are homotopies

$$(w^{})^{}u^{}Id__\phi ,u^{}(w^{})^{}Id__\psi .$$

This proves (ii). $`\mathrm{}`$

### 1.3

We are now ready to define the equivariant cotangent complex. By Assumption 1.1 there exists a covering $`(U_i)_{iI}`$ of $`Y`$ by affine and $`G`$-stable opens $`U_iY`$, each admitting a local chart $`\phi _i:U_iP_i`$. We choose, once and for all, a well-ordering on the set of indices of the covering $`(U_i)`$. The datum $`(U_i,\phi _i)`$ is called an atlas.

For any $`(n+1)`$-tuple $`\underset{¯}{i}=(i_0,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ we set

$$U_{\underset{¯}{i}}:=U_{i_0}\mathrm{}U_{i_n},P_{\underset{¯}{i}}:=P_{i_0}\times _S\mathrm{}\times _SP_{i_n},\phi _{\underset{¯}{i}}:=\phi _{i_0}\times \mathrm{}\times \phi _{i_n}:U_{\underset{¯}{i}}P_{\underset{¯}{i}}.$$

Clearly, $`\phi _{\underset{¯}{i}}`$ is a local chart and gives rise to a complex of $`G`$-$`𝒪_{U_{\underset{¯}{i}}}`$-modules $`_{\phi _{\underset{¯}{i}}}`$. We denote by $`_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$ the push-forward of $`_{\phi _{\underset{¯}{i}}}`$ to $`Y`$. Thus, $`_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$ is a flat and quasi-coherent $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module such that $`_{\underset{¯}{i}}|_{U_i}=_{\phi _{\underset{¯}{i}}}`$.

For $`\underset{¯}{i}=(i_0,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ as above and $`0\nu n`$, let $`p_{\underset{¯}{i}}^\nu :P_{\underset{¯}{i}}P_{\underset{¯}{i}^{}}`$ denote the projection which leaves out the $`\nu `$th component (i.e. $`\underset{¯}{i}^{}=(i_0,\mathrm{},\widehat{i_\nu },\mathrm{},i_n)`$); it is a morphism $`\phi _{\underset{¯}{i}}\phi _{\underset{¯}{i}^{}}`$ of local charts. The resulting morphism $`(p_{\underset{¯}{i}}^\nu )^{}:_{\phi _{\underset{¯}{i}^{}}}|_{U_{\underset{¯}{i}}}_{\phi _{\underset{¯}{i}}}`$ extends in a canonical way to a morphism of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules $`_{\underset{¯}{i}}^\nu :_{\underset{¯}{i}^{}}_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$. Note that

(3)
$$_{\underset{¯}{i}}^\nu _{\underset{¯}{i}^{}}^\mu =_{\underset{¯}{i}}^\mu _{\underset{¯}{i}^{\prime \prime }}^{\nu 1}$$

holds for $`\mu <\nu `$, if we set $`\underset{¯}{i}^{}:=(\mathrm{},\widehat{i_\nu },\mathrm{})`$ and $`\underset{¯}{i}^{\prime \prime }:=(\mathrm{},\widehat{i_\mu },\mathrm{})`$.

###### Definition 1.5

The equivariant cotangent complex of the morphism $`YS`$ (relative to the open covering $`(U_i)`$ and the local charts $`\phi _i`$) is the total complex

$$_{Y/S}:=\mathrm{Tot}(𝒦)$$

of the following double complex of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules:

$$𝒦:\{\begin{array}{ccc}\underset{i}{}_i^1& \stackrel{d}{}& \underset{i}{}_i^0\\ & & \\ \underset{i<j}{}_{i,j}^1& \stackrel{d}{}& \underset{i<j}{}_{i,j}^0\\ & & \\ \underset{i<j<k}{}_{i,j,k}^1& \stackrel{d}{}& \underset{i<j<k}{}_{i,j,k}^0\\ & & \\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

The vertical differentials are defined as $`:=_{\nu =0}^p(1)^\nu _{\underset{¯}{i}}_{\underset{¯}{i}}^\nu :𝒦^{p,q}𝒦^{p+1,q}`$. The horizontal differentials are induced from the differentials of the complexes $`_{\underset{¯}{i}}`$. The columns of $`𝒦`$ start with degree $`0`$, so $`_{Y/S}`$ starts with degree $`1`$. Note that $`_{Y/S}`$ consists of flat and quasi-coherent sheaves.

###### Proposition 1.6

For all $`i`$ there exist a quasi-isomorphism $`\beta _i:_{Y/S}|_{U_i}_{\phi _i}`$. Moreover, for all $`i<j`$ we have a homotopy

$$s_{i,j}:_{i,j}^1\beta _i_{i,j}^0\beta _j.$$

which satisfies the cocycles relation

(4)
$$_{i,j,k}^0s_{j,k}_{i,j,k}^1s_{i,k}+_{i,j,k}^2s_{i,j}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

###### Proof.

The natural projections $`𝒦^{0,q}|_{U_i}_i^q`$ induce a morphism $`\beta _i:_{Y/S}|_{U_i}_{\phi _i}`$. We define the homotopy $`s_{i,j}`$ as follows:

$$s_{i,j}^0:\{\begin{array}{ccc}(_{Y/S})^0& & _{i,j}^1\\ (f_k;g_{k,l})& & g_{i,j}\end{array},s_{i,j}^1:\{\begin{array}{ccc}(_{Y/S})^1& & _{i,j}^0\\ (f_{k,l};g_{k,l,m})& & f_{i,j}\end{array}.$$

We leave it to the reader to check that $`s_{i,j}`$ is indeed a homotopy from $`_{i,j}^1\beta _i`$ to $`_{i,j}^0\beta _j`$ and satisfies the cocycle relation (4).

It remains to show that $`\beta _i`$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Let $`i,j`$ be a pair of indices. By definition and by Lemma 1.4 (ii) the restriction of $`_{i,j}^0:_j_{i,j}`$ to $`U_{i,j}`$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Therefore, for $`q=1,0`$ we may define

$$\alpha _{i,j}^q:=H^q(_{i,j}^0)^1H^q(_{i,j}^1):H^q(_i)|_{U_{i,j}}\stackrel{}{}H^q(_j)|_{U_{i,j}}.$$

One checks that the cocycle relation $`\alpha _{j,k}^q\alpha _{i,j}^q=\alpha _{i,k}^q`$ holds. Therefore, there exists a $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module $`𝒯^q`$ together with isomorphisms $`\gamma _i^q:𝒯^q|_{U_i}\stackrel{}{}H^q(_i)`$ such that $`\alpha _{i,j}^q=\gamma _j^q(\gamma _i^q)^1`$. It is a bit tedious but elementary to define, for each $`(n+1)`$-tuple $`\underset{¯}{i}=(i_0,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ an isomorphism $`\gamma _{\underset{¯}{i}}^q:𝒯^q|_{U_{\underset{¯}{i}}}\stackrel{}{}H^q(_{\underset{¯}{i}})`$ which identifies the complex

(5)
$$H^q(𝒦)=(\underset{i}{}H^q(_i)\underset{i<j}{}H^q(_{i,j})\mathrm{})$$

with the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$ech-resolution of the sheaf $`𝒯^q`$. We conclude that the complex (5) is exact. Now the spectral sequence $`H^p(H^q(𝒦))H^{p+q}(_{Y/S})`$ identifies $`𝒯^q`$ with $`H^q(_{Y/S})`$ in such a way that $`\gamma _i^q`$ is identified with $`H^q(\beta _i)`$. In particular, $`H^q(\beta _i)`$ is an isomorphism, which is what we wanted to show. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 1.7

Let $`(U_i,\phi _i)`$ and $`(U_i^{},\phi _i^{})`$ be two atlases and $`_{Y/S}`$ and $`_{Y/S}^{}`$ the corresponding complexes, as defined above. Then the disjoint union of $`(U_i,\phi _i)`$ and $`(U_i^{},\phi _i^{})`$ is again an atlas and gives rise to a third complex $`_{Y/S}^{\prime \prime }`$, canonically equipped with quasi-isomorphisms $`_{Y/S}^{\prime \prime }_{Y/S}`$ and $`_{Y/S}^{\prime \prime }_{Y/S}^{}`$. In other words: the cotangent complex $`_{Y/S}`$, considered as an object of the derived category $`𝔇^+(Y,G)`$, does not depend on the choice of the atlas $`(U_i,\phi _i)`$.

###### Remark 1.8

By definition we have $`H^0(_{Y/S})=\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y/S}`$ and $`H^q(_{Y/S})=0`$ for $`q\{1,0\}`$. It is also clear that $`_{Y/S}`$ has functorial properties similar to the sheaf of differentials $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y/S}`$. Namely, if

(6)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}Y^{}& \stackrel{u}{}& Y\\ & & & & \\ S^{}=SpecR^{}& & S=SpecR\end{array}$$

is a commutative and $`G`$-equivariant diagram of schemes (where $`Y/S`$ and $`Y^{}/S^{}`$ satisfy Assumption 1.1), then we have a natural homomorphism

(7)
$$u^{}_{Y/S}_{Y^{}/S^{}}$$

in $`𝔇^+(Y^{},G)`$. The morphism (7) is an isomorphism in each of the following two cases:

1. We have $`S=S^{}`$ and $`Y^{}Y`$ is an open immersion.
2. The diagram (6) is Cartesian and either $`YS`$ or $`S^{}S`$ is flat.

###### Remark 1.9

If $`YS`$ is a local complete intersection, then $`_{Y/S}`$ agrees with Illusie’s equivariant cotangent complex, up to canonical quasi-isomorphism. In general, $`_{Y/S}`$ is quasi-isomorphic to Illusie’s equivariant cotangent complex, truncated at degree $`1`$. In particular, if $``$ is a $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module then the $`n`$th hyperext group $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^n(_{Y/S},)`$ is the ‘correct’ one only for $`n1`$. See , Chapitre III, Corollaire 1.2.9.1.

## 2 Extensions

In this section we prove that $`G`$-equivariant extensions of the morphism $`YS`$ by a quasi-coherent $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module $``$ are classified by the group $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/S},)`$. See Corollary 2.3. This result will be the basis for the results on equivariant deformations of $`YS`$ in §3. Actually, instead of working with extensions of the scheme $`Y`$, we prefer to work with the opposite category of extensions of the sheaf $`𝒪_Y`$.

### 2.1

Let $`GS=SpecR`$ and $`YS`$ be as in §1.1. We also fix a $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module $``$ which is a quasi-coherent $`𝒪_Y`$-module.

###### Definition 2.1

An equivariant extension of $`𝒪_Y`$ by $``$ is given by a short exact sequence of sheaves of $`R`$-modules on $`Y`$, of the form

$$0𝒪_Y\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},$$

together with a $`G`$-action and a structure of sheaf of $`R`$-algebras on $``$ such that the following holds:

1. The maps $``$ and $`𝒪_Y`$ are $`G`$-equivariant.
2. The map $`𝒪_Y`$ is an $`R`$-algebra morphism.
3. The sheaf $``$, considered as a subsheaf of $``$, is a sheaf of ideals with square zero. Moreover, the induced structure of sheaf of $`𝒪_Y`$-modules is the canonical one.

We denote by $`𝔈𝔵𝔱_G(𝒪_Y,)`$ the category of all such extensions. Morphisms between extensions are defined in the obvious manner. (The Five Lemma shows that all morphisms are in fact isomorphisms.)

Given an extension $``$ of $`𝒪_Y`$ by $``$, we get a morphism of $`S`$-schemes $`Y^{}Y`$ (which is a homeomorphism on the underlying topological spaces) such that $`=𝒪_Y^{}`$. The scheme $`Y^{}`$ is called an extension of $`Y`$ by $``$.

By taking Baer sums of short exact sequences, one defines a bifunctor $`(_1,_2)_1+_2`$. Together with certain natural transformations $`(_1+_2)+_3_1+(_2+_3)`$ and $`_1+_2_2+_1`$, it gives $`𝔈𝔵𝔱_G(𝒪_Y,)`$ the structure of a (strictly commutative) Picard category, see Appendix A.

###### Theorem 2.2

Let $``$ be a coherent sheaf of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules. We denote by $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Hom}_G(_{Y/S},))`$ the Picard category associated to the derived complex $`\mathrm{Hom}_G(_{Y/S},)`$, see Appendix A.1 and C.3. Then there exists a natural isomorphism of Picard categories

$$𝔈𝔵𝔱_G(𝒪_Y,)𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Hom}_G(_{Y/S},)).$$

We will sketch a proof of Theorem 2.2 in the rest of this section. The following corollary corresponds to Theorem 1.5.1 of . It follows from Theorem 2.2, using Proposition A.2.

###### Corollary 2.3

The group of isomorphism classes of equivariant extensions of $`Y`$ by $``$ is canonically isomorphic to $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/S},)`$. Moreover, the group of automorphisms of any fixed equivariant extension of $`Y`$ by $``$ is canonically isomorphic to $`Hom_G(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y/S},)`$.

### 2.2

In the following three subsections we prove a non-equivariant version of Theorem 2.2. To this end, we denote by $`𝔈𝔵𝔱(𝒪_Y,)`$ the Picard category of (non-equivariant) extensions of $`𝒪_Y`$ by $``$.

###### Proposition 2.4

Suppose that $`Y`$ is affine and admits a global chart $`\phi :YP`$. Let $`_\phi `$ be the cotangent complex of $`\phi `$, see §1.2. Then there exists an isomorphism of Picard categories

$$F_\phi :𝔈𝔵𝔱(𝒪_Y,)\stackrel{}{}𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Hom}_Y(_\phi ,)).$$

Given a morphism $`u:\psi \phi `$ of global charts, let $`\stackrel{~}{u}:𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Hom}_Y(_\psi ,))𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Hom}_Y(_\phi ,))`$ denote the isomorphism of Picard categories induced from the quasi-isomorphism $`u^{}:_\phi _\psi `$. There exists an isomorphism of additive functors

$$t_u:\stackrel{~}{u}F_\psi \stackrel{}{}F_\phi $$

such that the following holds. If $`\chi \stackrel{v}{}\psi \stackrel{u}{}\phi `$ is the composition of two morphisms of global charts, then

(8)
$$t_{uv}=t_u\stackrel{~}{u}(t_v).$$

###### Proof.

Using that $`Y`$ is affine and that $`P/S`$ is formally smooth one shows that $`_\phi ^0=\mathrm{\Omega }_{P/S}𝒪_Y`$ is a projective $`𝒪_Y`$-module. This implies that

$$\mathrm{Hom}_Y(_\phi ,)^{[0,1]}Hom_Y^{}(_\phi ,)^{[0,1]}.$$

Therefore, we may replace $`\mathrm{Hom}_Y(_\phi ,)`$ in the statement of the proposition by the complex $`Hom_Y^{}(_{Y/S},)`$. We write $`Y=SpecA`$ and $`P=SpecB`$. Then $`\phi `$ corresponds to an ideal $`IB`$ such that $`A=B/I`$. We also write $`=\stackrel{~}{M}`$ for some $`A`$-module $`M`$. With this notation, we have

$$Hom_Y^{}(_\phi ,)=(Hom_A(\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/R}A,M)\stackrel{d}{}Hom_A(I/I^2,M)).$$

An object of $`𝔈𝔵𝔱(𝒪_Y,)`$ is given by an extension of $`R`$-modules $`0MEA0`$, where $`E`$ carries in addition the structure of an $`R`$-algebra such that the following holds. Firstly, $`EA`$ is a homomorphism of $`R`$-algebras; secondly, $`M^2=0`$, considered as ideal of $`E`$. In the rest of the proof, we shall refer to such an object simply as an extension. Since $`B`$ is formally smooth, there exists a homomorphism of $`R`$-algebras $`\lambda :BE`$ lifting the canonical map $`BA`$. Set $`\nu :=\lambda |_ImodI^2`$. It is clear that $`\nu `$ is an $`A`$-linear morphism $`I/I^2M`$. We consider $`\nu `$ as an object of $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(Hom_Y^{}(_\phi ,))`$ and set

$$F_\phi (E):=\nu .$$

Let $`0ME^{}A0`$ be another extension and $`f:E\stackrel{}{}E^{}`$ an isomorphism of extensions. Let $`\lambda ^{}:BE^{}`$ be an $`R`$-algebra morphism lifting $`BA`$ and set $`\nu ^{}:=\lambda ^{}|_ImodI^2`$. Then the map $`\lambda ^{}f\lambda :BM`$ is easily seen to be an $`R`$-linear derivation which vanishes on $`I^2`$. It corresponds to an $`A`$-linear homomorphism $`\theta :\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/R}AM`$ such that $`\theta d=\nu ^{}\nu `$. In other words, $`\theta `$ is a homomorphism $`\nu \nu ^{}`$ in $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(Hom_Y^{}(_\phi ,))`$. We set

$$F_\phi (f)=\theta .$$

One checks that $`F_\phi `$ is a faithful additive functor.

Given an arbitrary $`A`$-linear map $`\nu :I/I^2M`$, we define the extension $`E_\nu `$ as the pushout of $`B/I^2`$ along $`\nu `$:

(9)
$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}0& I/I^2& & B/I^2& & A& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\\ & \nu & & \lambda & & =& \\ 0& M& & E_\nu & & A& \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}\end{array}$$

It is easy to see that $`E_\nu `$ carries a unique $`R`$-algebra structure such that $`M^2=0`$ and $`\lambda `$ is an $`R`$-algebra morphism. Moreover, we have $`F_\phi (E_\nu )=\nu `$ by construction. Hence $`F_\phi `$ is essentially surjective.

Let $`\theta :\nu \nu ^{}`$ be an isomorphism in $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(Hom_Y^{}(_\phi ,))`$. This means that $`\nu ^{}:I/I^2M`$ and $`\theta :\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/R}AM`$ are $`A`$-linear maps such that $`\theta d=\nu ^{}\nu `$. We may identify $`\theta `$ with the corresponding derivation $`B/I^2M`$; then $`\theta |_{I/I^2}=\nu ^{}\nu `$. The universal property of the push-forward shows that there exists a unique $`R`$-linear map $`f:E_\nu E_\nu ^{}`$ such that $`f\lambda =\lambda ^{}`$. By construction we have $`F_\phi (f)=\theta `$. Hence $`F_\phi `$ is fully faithful and even an isomorphism of Picard categories.

Now let $`\psi :YQ`$ be another global chart and $`u:\psi \phi `$ a morphism of charts. We write $`Q=SpecB^{}`$, $`A=B^{}/I_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and consider $`u`$ as a morphism of $`R`$-algebras $`BB^{}`$. Let $`E`$ be an extension and $`\lambda :B/I^2E`$ (resp. $`\lambda ^{}:B^{}/I_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}E`$) a lift of $`B/I^2A`$ (resp. of $`B^{}/I_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}A`$). By definition we have

$$F_\phi (E)=\lambda |_I(modI^2),\stackrel{~}{u}F_\psi (E)=\lambda ^{}u|_I(modI^2).$$

Again it is clear that $`\lambda \lambda ^{}u(modI^2)`$ is a derivation $`B/I^2M`$, corresponding to an $`A`$-linear map $`\theta :\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/R}AM`$ and representing a homomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{u}F_\psi (E)F_\phi (E)`$. We set

$$t_u(E)=\theta .$$

A formal verification shows that $`t_u`$ is a morphism of additive functors $`\stackrel{~}{u}F_\psi F_\phi `$ and that (8) holds. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 2.3

Let $`\underset{¯}{𝔈𝔵𝔱}(𝒪_Y,)`$ denote the $`Y`$-stack whose fiber over a given open subset $`UY`$ is the Picard category $`𝔈𝔵𝔱(𝒪_U,|_U)`$ (here $`Y`$-stack means a stack over the Zariski site of $`Y`$). It is clear that $`\underset{¯}{𝔈𝔵𝔱}(𝒪_Y,)`$ is a Picard stack, see Appendix A.2.

###### Proposition 2.5

We assume that $`Y`$ is affine and admits a global chart $`\phi :YP`$.

1. Let $`UY`$ be an affine open. Then the natural functor

(10)
$$𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Hom}_U(_\phi |_U,|_U))\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(om_Y(_\phi ,))(U)$$

is an isomorphism.
2. There exists a unique isomorphism of Picard stacks

$$\underset{¯}{F}_\phi :\underset{¯}{𝔈𝔵𝔱}(𝒪_Y,)\stackrel{}{}\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(om_Y(_\phi ,))$$

such that for each affine open $`UY`$ the restriction of $`\underset{¯}{F}_\phi `$ to the fiber $`\underset{¯}{𝔈𝔵𝔱}(𝒪_Y,)(U)=𝔈𝔵𝔱(U,|_U)`$ is equal (up to canonical isomorphism) to the composition of $`F_{\phi |_U}`$ with (10).

###### Proof.

Part (i) follows from Proposition A.2 and the fact that the cohomology of the complex $`om_Y(_\phi ,)`$ consists of quasi-coherent sheaves. Part (ii) is a formal consequence of (i) and is left to the reader. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 2.4

We will now globalize the isomorphism of Picard stacks constructed in the previous two subsections. To this end, we will use the notation introduced in §1.3. In particular, $`(U_i)_{iI}`$ is a covering of $`Y`$ by affine opens, admitting local charts $`\phi _i:U_iP_i`$. By Proposition 1.6 we obtain, for each ordered pair $`i<j`$, an essentially commutative square of quasi-isomorphisms

(11)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{Y/S}|_{U_{i,j}}& \stackrel{\beta _i}{}& _{\phi _i}|_{U_{i,j}}\\ \beta _j& & _{i,j}^1& & \\ _{\phi _j}|_{U_{i,j}}& \underset{_{i,j}^0}{}& _{\phi _{i,j}},\end{array}$$

i.e. a homotopy $`s_{i,j}:_{i,j}^1\beta _i_{i,j}^0\beta _j`$ such that the cocycle relation (4) holds. Set

$$\underset{¯}{𝔓}:=\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(om_Y(_{Y/S},)),\underset{¯}{𝔓}_{\underset{¯}{i}}=\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(om_Y(_{\phi _{\underset{¯}{i}}},)).$$

The diagram (11) yields an essentially commutative square of isomorphisms of Picard stacks

(12)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\underset{¯}{𝔓}_{i,j}& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{}_{i,j}^1}{}& \underset{¯}{𝔓}_i|_{U_{i,j}}\\ \stackrel{~}{}_{i,j}^0& & \stackrel{~}{\beta }_i& & \\ \underset{¯}{𝔓}_j|_{U_{i,j}}& \underset{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_j}{}& \underset{¯}{𝔓}|_{U_{i,j}},\end{array}$$

i.e. an isomorphism of additive functors $`\stackrel{~}{s}_{i,j}:\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\stackrel{~}{}_{i,j}^1\stackrel{~}{\beta }_j\stackrel{~}{}_{i,j}^0`$ such that

(13)
$$\stackrel{~}{}_{i,j,k}^0(\stackrel{~}{s}_{j,k})\stackrel{~}{}_{i,j,k}^2(\stackrel{~}{s}_{i,j})=\stackrel{~}{}_{i,j,k}^1(\stackrel{~}{s}_{i,k})$$

for all triples $`i<j<k`$.

###### Proposition 2.6

There exists an isomorphism of Picard stacks

$$\underset{¯}{F}:\underset{¯}{𝔈𝔵𝔱}(𝒪_Y,)\stackrel{}{}\underset{¯}{𝔓}=\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(om_Y(_{Y/S},))$$

and for each index $`i`$ an isomorphism of additive functors $`u_i:\underset{¯}{F}|_{U_i}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\underset{¯}{F}_{\phi _i}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`i<j`$. By Proposition 2.4 we obtain two natural isomorphisms of additive functors

$$F_{\phi _i}|_{U_{i,j}}\stackrel{~}{}_{i,j}^1F_{\phi _{i,j}},F_{\phi _j}|_{U_{i,j}}\stackrel{~}{}_{i,j}^0F_{\phi _{i,j}}.$$

Using the essentially commutative square (12) they can be extended to an isomorphism

$$u_{i,j}:\stackrel{~}{\beta }_jF_{\phi _j}|_{U_{i,j}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_j\stackrel{~}{}_{i,j}^0F_{\phi _{i,j}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\stackrel{~}{}_{i,j}^1F_{\phi _{i,j}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_iF_{\phi _i}|_{U_{i,j}}.$$

A tedious but elementary verification, using (8) and (13), shows that $`u_{i,j}`$ satisfies the obvious cocycle relation. The proposition follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

Using the canonical isomorphism

$$\mathrm{Hom}_Y(_{Y/S},))\mathrm{\Gamma }(Y,om_Y(_{Y/S},))$$

and Proposition A.2, we obtain a non-equivariant version of Theorem 2.2:

###### Corollary 2.7

There is a natural isomorphism of Picard categories

$$F:𝔈𝔵𝔱(𝒪_Y,)\stackrel{}{}𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Hom}_Y(_{Y/S},)).$$

### 2.5

We are now going to prove Theorem 2.2 in full generality. In the sequel, $`R^{}`$ will always denote a flat $`R`$-algebra, and a prime stands for base change with respect to $`RR^{}`$; for instance $`Y^{}:=Y_RR^{}`$. By Remark 1.8 we have natural isomorphisms

(14)
$$_{Y/S}_RR^{}_{Y^{}/S^{}}.$$

and

(15)
$$\mathrm{Hom}_Y(_{Y/S},)_RR^{}\mathrm{Hom}_Y^{}(_{Y^{}/S^{}},^{}).$$

To simplify the notation, we will henceforth write

$$A:=\mathrm{Hom}_Y(_{Y/S},)^{[0,1]}.$$

Note that $`A`$ is a complex of $`G`$-$`R`$-modules of amplitude $`[0,1]`$, well defined up to canonical isomorphism in $`𝒟^{[0,1]}(Y,G)`$.

Let $`R^{}`$ be a flat $`R`$-algebra and $`\sigma G(R^{})`$. The automorphism $`A^{}\stackrel{}{}A^{}`$, $`aa^\sigma `$ induces an isomorphism of Picard categories $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }:𝔓𝔦𝔠(A^{})\stackrel{}{}𝔓𝔦𝔠(A^{})`$. Given an extension $`0^{}^{}𝒪_Y^{}0`$ (i.e. an object of $`𝔈𝔵𝔱(𝒪_Y^{},)`$), let $`^\sigma `$ be the extension

$$0^{}\sigma ^{}\sigma ^{}\sigma ^{}𝒪_Y^{}𝒪_Y^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

Here the isomorphisms $`^{}\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\sigma ^{}𝒪_Y^{}𝒪_Y^{}`$ come from the $`G`$-action on $``$ and $`𝒪_Y`$. Given an isomorphism $`f:_1\stackrel{}{}_2`$ of extensions, then $`f^\sigma `$, as defined in §C.1, is an isomorphism $`_1^\sigma \stackrel{}{}_2^\sigma `$. One checks that the association $`^\sigma `$ is an automorphism of Picard categories

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }:𝔈𝔵𝔱(𝒪_Y^{},^{})\stackrel{}{}𝔈𝔵𝔱(𝒪_Y^{},^{}).$$

One checks:

###### Lemma 2.8

We have an essentially commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝔓𝔦𝔠(A^{})& \stackrel{F^{}}{}& 𝔈𝔵𝔱(𝒪_Y^{},)\\ \stackrel{~}{\sigma }& & \stackrel{~}{\sigma }& & \\ 𝔓𝔦𝔠(A^{})& \stackrel{F^{}}{}& 𝔈𝔵𝔱(𝒪_Y^{},)\end{array}$$

(the isomorphism $`F^{}`$ is given by Corollary 2.7).

It follows from Proposition B.2 that

(16)
$$\mathrm{Hom}_G(_{Y/S},)^{[0,1]}\mathrm{Tot}(K)^{[0,1]},$$

where $`K`$ is the double complex

$$K:\{\begin{array}{ccc}A^0& \stackrel{d}{}& A^1\\ & & \\ C^1(G,A^0)& \stackrel{d}{}& C^1(G,A^1)\\ & & \\ C^2(G,A^0)& \stackrel{d}{}& C^2(G,A^1)\\ & & \\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

We are now going to construct an isomorphism of Picard categories

(17)
$$F^G:𝔈𝔵𝔱_G(𝒪_Y,)\stackrel{}{}𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Tot}(K)).$$

Together with (16), this will complete the proof of Theorem 2.2.

An object of $`𝔈𝔵𝔱_G(𝒪_Y,)`$ is an object $``$ of $`𝔈𝔵𝔱(𝒪_Y,)`$, together with an action of $`G`$ on $``$ such that the maps $``$ and $`𝒪_Y`$ are $`G`$-equivariant. Such an action is determined by the following data. For each flat $`R`$-algebra $`R^{}`$ and group element $`\sigma `$ we get an isomorphism $`f_\sigma :^{}\stackrel{}{}^\sigma `$ in $`𝔈𝔵𝔱(𝒪_Y,)`$ such that

(18)
$$f_{\sigma \tau }=f_\sigma ^\tau f_\tau $$

holds for all pairs $`\sigma ,\tau G(R^{})`$. Let $`F`$ be the isomorphism of Corollary 2.7 and set $`\nu :=F()A^1`$, $`\theta _\sigma :=F(f_\sigma )(A^0)^{}`$. By Lemma 2.8, $`\theta _\sigma `$ is an isomorphism $`\nu ^{}\stackrel{}{}\nu ^\sigma `$, i.e.

(19)
$$d(\theta _\sigma )=\nu ^\sigma \nu ^{}.$$

Equation (18) shows that

$$\theta _{\sigma \tau }=\theta _\sigma ^\tau +\theta _\tau .$$

In other words, the association $`\sigma \theta _\sigma `$ corresponds to a $`1`$-cocycle $`\theta `$, i.e. an element of $`Z^1(G,A^0)=Ker(C^1(G,A^0)\stackrel{}{}C^2(G,A^0))`$, see §B.3. Also, Equation (19) means that $`d(\theta )=(\nu )`$. We have shown that the pair $`(\nu ,\theta )`$ lies in $`Z^1(\mathrm{Tot}(K))`$, i.e. represents an object of $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Tot}(K))`$. We set

$$F^G():=(\nu ,\theta ).$$

Now let $`g:_1\stackrel{}{}_2`$ be an isomorphism in $`𝔈𝔵𝔱_G(Y,)`$. Set $`F^G(_1):=(\nu _1,\theta _1)`$, $`F^G(_2):=(\nu _2,\theta _2)`$ and $`\eta :=F(g)`$. Then $`d(\eta )=\nu _2\nu _1`$. By definition, $`g`$ is $`G`$-equivariant, so the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_1^{}& \stackrel{g^{}}{}& _2^{}\\ f_{1,\sigma }& & f_{2,\sigma }& & \\ _1^\sigma & \stackrel{g^\sigma }{}& _2^\sigma \end{array}$$

commutes for all $`\sigma G(R^{})`$. By Lemma 2.8 this means that

(20)
$$\theta _{2,\sigma }\theta _{1,\sigma }=\eta ^\sigma \eta ^{},$$

or, equivalently, $`\theta _2\theta _1=(\eta )`$. It follows that $`\eta `$ corresponds to an isomorphism $`(\nu _1,\theta _1)\stackrel{}{}(\nu _2,\theta _2)`$ in $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Tot}(K))`$. We set

$$F^G(g):=\eta .$$

We leave it to the reader to check that $`F^G`$ is indeed an isomorphism of Picard categories. Now the proof of Theorem 2.2 is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Deformations

In this section we show how one can classify equivariant deformations of $`YS`$ along an infinitesimal extension $`SS^{}`$, using the equivariant cotangent complex. The main result is Theorem 3.3. In §3.3 we discuss how this result behaves under localization to a formal neighborhood of a point (Theorem 3.11).

### 3.1

Let $`R^{}`$ be a commutative ring and $`𝔞R^{}`$ an ideal with $`𝔞^2=0`$. We set $`R:=R^{}/𝔞`$, $`S^{}:=SpecR^{}`$ and $`S:=SpecR`$. Furthermore, let $`G^{}S^{}`$ be a flat affine group scheme and $`YS`$ a flat morphism together with an $`S`$-linear action of $`G:=G^{}\times _S^{}S`$ on $`Y`$.

###### Definition 3.1

An equivariant deformation of $`YS`$ to $`S^{}`$ is a flat morphism $`Y^{}S^{}`$ together with an $`S^{}`$-linear action of $`G^{}`$ on $`Y^{}`$ and a $`G`$-equivariant isomorphism of $`S`$-schemes $`YY^{}\times _S^{}S`$. An isomorphism of deformations is a $`G^{}`$-equivariant isomorphism of $`S^{}`$-schemes $`Y_1^{}Y_2^{}`$ which induces the identity on $`Y`$.

Theorem 3.3 below shows how to classify isomorphism classes of equivariant deformations of $`YS`$ using the equivariant cotangent complex $`_{Y/S}`$. However, in the proof of Theorem 3.3 we will also use the cotangent complex of the composed morphism $`YSS^{}`$. Therefore, to be able to use the definition of $`_{Y/S^{}}`$ in §1, we make the following assumption.

###### Assumption 3.2

Every point of $`Y`$ is contained in an affine and $`G`$-stable open $`UY`$ such that the following holds. There exists a smooth affine $`S^{}`$-scheme $`P^{}S^{}`$, an $`S^{}`$-linear action of $`G^{}`$ on $`P^{}`$ and a $`G`$-equivariant closed immersion $`\phi :UP^{}`$. In other words, Assumption 1.1 holds for the composed morphism $`YS^{}`$ and the group scheme $`G^{}`$.

Under this assumption we can prove:

###### Theorem 3.3

1. There exists an element (called the obstruction)

$$\omega =\omega (Y/S,S^{})𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^2(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)_R𝔞,$$

depending functorially on $`YSS^{}`$, whose vanishing is necessary and sufficient for the existence of an equivariant deformation of $`YS`$ to $`S^{}`$.
2. Suppose that $`\omega =0`$. Then the set of isomorphism classes of deformations of $`YS`$ to $`S^{}`$ is, in a natural way, a principal homogeneous space under the abelian group

$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)_R𝔞.$$

This corresponds to Proposition 2.3 of . However, if $`YS`$ is not a local complete intersection, then our definition of $`_{Y/S}`$ does not always give the same hyperext group $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^2(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)`$ as in  and . In particular, our obstruction does not necessarily agree with the obstruction constructed in  and , simply because it does not lie in the same group. See also Remark 3.6 below.

### 3.2 Proof of Theorem 3.3

Let $`:=𝒪_Y_R𝔞`$. Since $`YS`$ is flat we have natural isomorphisms

(21)
$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^n(_{Y/S},)𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^n(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)_R𝔞$$

for all $`n`$. By Assumption 3.2 and Definition 1.5, the equivariant cotangent complexes $`_{Y/S}`$ and $`_{Y/S^{}}`$ are defined as complexes of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules and we have a natural $`G`$-equivariant morphism $`_{Y/S^{}}_{Y/S}`$.

###### Lemma 3.4

There is a natural exact sequence in $`𝔇^+(Y,G)`$

(22)
$$0[1]_{Y/S^{}}_{Y/S}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

More precisely, the natural morphism $`_{Y/S^{}}_{Y/S}`$ is surjective in all degrees, and there exists a $`G`$-equivariant quasi-isomorphism $`[1]Ker(_{Y/S^{}}_{Y/S})`$. (Recall that $`[1]`$ denotes the complex where $``$ is placed in degree $`1`$.)

###### Proof.

Let $`\phi ^{}:UP^{}`$ be a local chart for the morphism $`YS^{}`$ and $`^{}𝒪_P^{}`$ the corresponding sheaf of ideals. Then $`\phi ^{}`$ gives rise to a local chart $`\phi :UP:=P\times _S^{}S`$ for the morphism $`YS`$. The corresponding sheaf of ideals is $`:=^{}/`$. It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{P^{}/S^{}}𝒪_Y\mathrm{\Omega }_{P/S}𝒪_Y`$. Moreover, we have a short exact sequence

(23)
$$0^{}/_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Hence it follows from Definition 1.5 that $`_{Y/S^{}}_{Y/S}`$ is surjective in all degrees and that its kernel is isomorphic to the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$ech-resolution of $`[1]`$ (with respect to the open covering $`(U_i)`$ used to define $`_{Y/S}`$). This proves the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`𝒢`$ be a $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module. The short exact sequence (22) gives rise to the following long exact sequence

(24)
$$0𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/S},𝒢)𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/S^{}},𝒢)Hom_G(,𝒢)\stackrel{}{}𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^2(_{Y/S},𝒢).$$

This applies in particular to the case $`𝒢:=`$. We define the obstruction $`\omega :=\omega (Y/S,S^{})`$ as the image of the identity map $`Id:`$ under the boundary map $``$ in (24). Now Theorem 3.3 follows from Corollary 2.3, the exactness of (24) and the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.5

There is a natural bijection between

* deformations of $`YS`$ to $`S^{}`$, up to isomorphism, and
* elements of $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/S^{}},)`$ which are mapped to $`Id_{}`$ (by the middle arrow in (24)).

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒢`$ be a quasi-coherent $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module. By Corollary 2.3, an element of $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/S^{}},𝒢)`$ corresponds to an equivariant extensions of $`Y`$ by $`𝒢`$, i.e. a closed equivariant embedding $`YY^{}`$ of $`S^{}`$-schemes defined by an ideal $`𝒥𝒪_Y^{}`$, together with an isomorphism $`𝒢𝒥`$ of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules. We obtain a morphism of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules

(25)
$$=𝒪_Y_R𝔞𝒥𝒢.$$

By reexamination of the proof of Theorem 2.2 one shows that the middle arrow of the sequence (24) maps the element of $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/S^{}},𝒢)`$ corresponding to the extension $`Y^{}`$ to the morphism (25). Also, the local criterion of flatness (see , Theorem 49) shows that the morphism $`Y^{}S^{}`$ is flat if and only if (25) is an isomorphism.

The proposition follows easily from these arguments. First, an equivariant extension of $`Y`$ by $``$ for which (25) is the identity on $``$ gives rise to an equivariant deformation of $`YS`$ to $`S^{}`$. Conversely, let $`Y^{}S^{}`$ be an equivariant deformation of $`YS`$, and let $`𝒥𝒪_Y^{}`$ be the sheaf of ideals corresponding to the embedding $`YY^{}`$. Since $`Y^{}S^{}`$ is flat by assumption, the natural map $`𝒥`$ is an isomorphism. Using this isomorphism, we can see $`Y^{}`$ as an equivariant extension of $`Y`$ by $``$ for which (25) is the identity on $``$. This concludes the proof of the proposition and hence of Theorem 3.3. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.6

The short exact sequence of Lemma 3.4 should be compared with the transitivity triangle attached to the composition of morphisms $`YSS^{}`$ in :

(26)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & _{Y/S}^I& & \\ & & & & \\ _{S/S^{}}^I𝒪_Y& & & & _{Y/S^{}}^I\end{array}$$

Here $`_{Y/S}^I`$ denotes the cotangent complex in the sense of Illusie.

Now suppose that $`YS`$ is a local complete intersection. Then $`_{Y/S}_{Y/S}^I`$. We also have natural morphisms $`_{Y/S^{}}^I_{Y/S^{}}`$ and $`_{S/S^{}}^I𝒪_Y[1]`$, but they are quasi-isomorphisms only if $`SS^{}`$ is a local complete intersection (which is typically not the case). Nevertheless, one can show that the obstruction $`\omega `$ in Theorem 3.3 is the same as the obstruction obtained by Illusie’s theory (via the canonical isomorphism $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^2(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^2(_{Y/S}^I,𝒪_Y)`$).

### 3.3 Localization

Keeping the notation introduced before, we now impose the following finiteness conditions.

###### Assumption 3.7

1. The affine scheme $`S=SpecR`$ is local, Artinian and Noetherian.
2. The group scheme $`G`$ is finite and flat over $`S`$.
3. The scheme $`Y`$ is either of finite type over $`S`$ or the localization of something of finite type over $`S`$.

It follows from Part (i) and (iii) of the assumption that $`Y`$ is Noetherian.

By Assumption 1.1 the action of $`G`$ on $`Y`$ is admissible; hence the quotient scheme $`X:=Y/G`$ exists. It follows from Assumption 3.7 (ii) that the projection $`\pi :YX`$ is finite. Let $`xX`$ be a point. Let $`\widehat{X}=Spec\widehat{𝒪}_{X,x}`$ denote the completion of $`X`$ at $`x`$ and set $`\widehat{Y}:=Y\times _X\widehat{X}`$. Since $`\pi :YX`$ is finite, $`\widehat{Y}`$ is naturally isomorphic to the completion of $`Y`$ along the fiber $`\pi ^1(x)`$. The action of $`G`$ on $`Y`$ induces an action of $`G`$ on $`\widehat{Y}`$. Since $`\widehat{X}X`$ is flat, we have $`\widehat{Y}/G=\widehat{X}`$.

Let $`u:\widehat{Y}Y`$ denote the canonical map. By Remark 1.8 we have a canonical morphism of complexes of $`G`$-$`𝒪_{\widehat{Y}}`$-modules

(27)
$$u^{}_{Y/S}_{\widehat{Y}/S}.$$

A technical complication arises from the fact that (27) is in general not a quasi-isomorphism. However, the next proposition shows that this does not really matter to us.

###### Proposition 3.8

Let $``$ be a coherent sheaf of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules. There exists an isomorphism of Picard categories

$$F_x:𝔈𝔵𝔱_G(𝒪_{\widehat{Y}},u^{})\stackrel{}{}𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Hom}_G(u^{}_{Y/S},u^{}))$$

such that the following diagram commutes:

(28)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝔈𝔵𝔱_G(𝒪_Y,)& & 𝔈𝔵𝔱_G(𝒪_{\widehat{Y}},u^{})\\ F& & F_x& & \\ 𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Hom}_G(_{Y/S},))& & 𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Hom}_G(u^{}_{Y/S},u^{})).\end{array}$$

Here the upper horizontal arrow is the functor which sends an extension $`Y^{}`$ of $`Y`$ by $``$ to the completion of $`Y^{}`$ along the fiber $`\pi ^1(x)`$. The left vertical arrow is the isomorphism from Theorem 2.2. The lower horizontal arrow is the natural pullback map.

###### Proof.

The construction of the equivalence $`F_x`$ is very similar to the construction of $`F`$ in the proof of Theorem 2.2. An essential difference appears only in the first step, see §2.2. We will therefore assume for the rest of the proof that $`Y`$ is affine and that $`G=1`$.

Replacing $`Y`$ by its localization at any point $`y\pi ^1(x)`$ we may assume that $`Y=SpecA`$ is local. We have $`\widehat{Y}=Spec\widehat{A}`$, where $`\widehat{A}`$ is the completion of $`A`$. The coherent sheaf $``$ is given by a finite $`A`$-module $`M`$; the pullback $`u^{}`$ corresponds to the $`\widehat{A}`$-module $`\widehat{M}:=M_A\widehat{A}`$. Since $`M`$ is a finite $`A`$-module, $`\widehat{M}`$ is the $`𝔪_A`$-adic completion of $`M`$. By Assumption 3.7 (iii) we can write $`A=B/I`$, where $`B`$ is the localization of a polynomial ring over $`R`$ and $`IB`$ is an ideal. By Assumption 3.7 (i) the ring $`B`$ is Noetherian and hence $`I`$ is finitely generated. Moreover, $`\widehat{A}=\widehat{B}/\widehat{I}`$, where $`\widehat{B}`$ is the completion of $`B`$ at its maximal ideal and $`\widehat{I}:=I\widehat{B}`$. The ring $`\widehat{B}`$ is a power series ring over $`R`$. In general, $`B`$ is not formally smooth over $`R`$ but only $`𝔪_B`$-smooth (see ; note that ‘formal smoothness’ is called ‘$`0`$-smoothness’ in loc.cit.).

The complex $`u^{}_{Y/S}`$ corresponds to the complex of $`\widehat{A}`$-modules

$$\widehat{L}:=(\widehat{I}/\widehat{I}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/R}_B\widehat{A}).$$

The canonical map $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/R}_B\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{B}/R}_{\widehat{B}}\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is injective but in general not surjective. However, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/R}\widehat{A}`$ is mapped isomorphically onto $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{B}/R}^{\mathrm{cont}}\widehat{A}`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{B}/R}^{\mathrm{cont}}:=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{B}/R}/(_n𝔪_{\widehat{B}}^n\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{B}/R})$$

denotes the module of continuous differentials. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/R}\widehat{A}`$ is a free $`\widehat{A}`$-module, we have

(29)
$$\mathrm{Hom}_Y(u^{}_{Y/S},u^{})^{[0,1]}=(Hom_{\widehat{A}}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/R}\widehat{A},\widehat{M})Hom_{\widehat{A}}(\widehat{I}/\widehat{I}^2,\widehat{M})).$$

An object of the Picard category $`𝔈𝔵𝔱(𝒪_{\widehat{Y}},u^{})`$ is given by an extension $`\widehat{M}E\widehat{A}`$ of $`R`$-modules, with $`\widehat{M}^2=0`$. In what follows we will refer to such an object simply as an extension.

###### Lemma 3.9

Let $`\widehat{M}E\widehat{A}`$ be an extension and let $`𝔪_EE`$ denote the inverse image of the maximal ideal $`𝔪_{\widehat{A}}`$ of $`\widehat{A}`$.

1. The ring $`E`$ is complete with respect to the ideal $`𝔪_E`$.
2. There exists a continuous lift $`\lambda :\widehat{B}E`$ of the canonical map $`\widehat{B}\widehat{A}`$.

###### Proof.

Look at the following ladder with exact rows:

(30)
$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & \widehat{M}& & E& & \widehat{A}& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & \underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}\widehat{M}/(𝔪_E^n\widehat{M})& & \underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}E/𝔪_E^n& & \underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}\widehat{A}/\widehat{𝔪}^n& & 0.\end{array}$$

The vertical arrow on the right is an isomorphism by definition. An argument similar to the one used in the proof of the Artin–Rees Lemma (see , Theorem 8.5) shows that there exists a constant $`c>0`$ such that

$$𝔪_E^n\widehat{M}𝔪_{\widehat{A}}^{nc}\widehat{M}$$

for all $`nc`$ (here we use that $`A`$ and hence $`\widehat{A}`$ is Noetherian). Therefore, the vertical arrow in (30) on the left is an isomorphism. Now the Five-Lemma implies that the vertical arrow in the middle is an isomorphism, too. This proves (i). Part (ii) of the lemma follows from Part (i) and the $`𝔪_B`$-smoothness of $`\widehat{B}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Using this lemma, the construction of the equivalence $`F_x`$ is essentially the same as in the proof of Proposition 2.5. It is also clear from this construction that the diagram (28) commutes. There are two points one has to pay attention to. The first is to consider only continuous lifts $`\lambda :\widehat{B}E`$. The second is this: if $`E^{}`$ is another extension, $`\lambda ^{}:\widehat{B}E^{}`$ a lift and $`f:E\stackrel{}{}E^{}`$ an isomorphism of extensions, then $`\lambda ^{}f\lambda :\widehat{B}\widehat{M}`$ is a continuous $`R`$-linear derivation which vanishes on $`\widehat{I}^2`$; it therefore corresponds to an $`\widehat{A}`$-linear map $`\theta :\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/R}\widehat{A}\widehat{M}`$. Moreover, any $`R`$-linear derivation $`\widehat{B}\widehat{M}`$ is automatically continuous because $`\widehat{M}`$ is complete and hence separated with respect to the $`𝔪_A`$-adic topology. This completes the proof of the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.10

The proposition is essentially equivalent with the statement that the homomorphism

$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^n(_{\widehat{Y}/S},u^{})𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^n(u^{}_{\widehat{Y}/S},u^{})$$

induced by (27) is an isomorphism for $`n=0,1`$. I suspect that this is true for $`n>1`$ as well, but I don’t know how to prove this.

For $`n0`$ we write $`xt_G^n(_{Y/S},)_x^\mathrm{^}`$ for the $`\widehat{𝒪}_{X,x}`$-module $`xt_G^n(_{Y/S},)_x\widehat{𝒪}_{X,x}`$. It follows from flatness of $`\widehat{X}X`$ that

$$xt_G^n(_{Y/S},)_x^\mathrm{^}=𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^n(u^{}_{Y/S},u^{}).$$

The local-global spectral sequence from §C.4 gives rise to a localization map

$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^n(_{Y/S},)xt_G^n(_{Y/S},)_x^\mathrm{^}.$$

###### Theorem 3.11

Let $`SS^{}=SpecR^{}`$ be a small extension, with $`R=R^{}/𝔞`$. Let $`\omega `$ be the obstruction for lifting $`Y`$ to $`S^{}`$. Also, let $`\omega _x`$ denote the image of $`\omega `$ under the localization map

$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^2(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)𝔞xt_G^2(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)_x^\mathrm{^}𝔞.$$

1. There exists an equivariant deformation of $`\widehat{Y}`$ to $`S^{}`$ if and only if $`\omega _x=0`$.
2. If $`\omega _x=0`$ then the set of isomorphism classes of deformations of $`\widehat{Y}`$ to $`S^{}`$ is a principal homogeneous space under the group $`xt_G^1(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)_x^\mathrm{^}𝔞`$.
3. If $`\omega =0`$ then the action of $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/S},)`$ on the set of isomorphism classes of deformations of $`Y`$ to $`S^{}`$ is compatible with the action of $`xt_G^1(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)_x^\mathrm{^}𝔞`$ on deformations of $`\widehat{Y}`$, with respect to the localization map

$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)𝔞xt_G^1(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)_x^\mathrm{^}𝔞.$$

###### Proof.

This is proved in the same way as Theorem 3.3, except that the exact sequence (24) is replaced by the sequence

(31)
$$0xt_G^1(_{Y/S},)_x^\mathrm{^}xt_G^1(_{Y/S^{}},)_x^\mathrm{^}om_G(,)_x^\mathrm{^}\stackrel{}{}xt_G^2(_{Y/S},)_x^\mathrm{^}$$

and we use Proposition 3.8 in addition to Theorem 2.2. The compatibility statement (iii) follows from the commutativity of the diagram (28) and the fact that the localization maps define a homomorphism between the exact sequences (24) and (31). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Multiplicative deformation data

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective curve, defined over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p>0`$. A multiplicative deformation datum over $`X`$ is a pair $`(Z,V)`$, where $`ZX`$ is a Galois cover, with Galois group $`H`$ of order prime to $`p`$, and an $`H`$-stable $`𝔽_p`$-vector space $`V`$ of logarithmic differential forms on $`Z`$. In §4.1, we associate to the pair $`(Z,V)`$ a singular curve $`Y`$ together with an action of a finite group scheme $`G`$ such that $`X=Y/G`$. Essentially, $`G`$ is a semi-direct product $`𝝁_p^sH`$ (where $`s:=dim_{𝔽_p}V`$) and $`YZ`$ is generically a $`𝝁_p^s`$-torsor determined by a basis $`\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _s`$ of $`V`$.

As an application of the general theory developed in the previous sections, we study equivariant deformations of $`Y`$. Even though the cover $`YX`$ is inseparable, its deformation theory is in some sense similar to the deformation theory of a tame cover. For instance, we get a morphism of deformation functors

$$Def(Y,G)Def(X;\tau _j),$$

see §4.2 for a precise definition. In §4.3 we give a criterion when this morphism is an isomorphism. The reason for this relatively nice behavior of $`Def(Y,G)`$ is that the ‘$`p`$-Sylow subgroup’ of $`G`$ is a multiplicative group scheme, whose cohomology is trivial. Thus, all the contribution to the hyperext groups $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^n(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)`$ comes from the cohomology of a certain coherent sheaf on $`X`$, and there is no group cohomology involved.

### 4.1 The $`G`$-cover associated to a deformation datum

Fix an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p>0`$ and a smooth $`k`$-curve $`X`$. Let $`H`$ be a finite group of prime-to-$`p`$ order and $`\chi `$ a character of $`H`$ with values in $`𝔽_p`$.

###### Definition 4.1

A (multiplicative) deformation datum on $`X`$ of type $`(H,\chi )`$ is a pair $`(Z,V)`$, where

* $`\pi :ZX`$ is a finite, tamely ramified Galois cover with Galois group $`H`$, and
* $`V\mathrm{\Omega }_{k(Z)/k}`$ is an $`H`$-stable and finite dimensional $`𝔽_p`$-vector space consisting of logarithmic differential forms on $`Z`$. Let $`V_k`$ denote the $`k`$-linear hull of $`V`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{k(Z)/k}`$. We demand that $`dim_kV_k=dim_{𝔽_p}V`$ and that $`H`$ acts on $`V`$ with character $`\chi `$.

Recall that a differential form $`\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }_{k(Z)/k}`$ is called logarithmic if it can be written as $`\varphi =\mathrm{d}u/u`$ for some rational function $`uk(Z)`$.

If $`dim_{𝔽_p}V=1`$ then Definition 4.1 agrees with Definition 1.5 of . In this paper we shall only consider multiplicative deformation data (as opposed to additive deformation data), so we omit from now on the adjective ‘multiplicative’.

Let us fix a deformation datum $`(Z,V)`$ of type $`(H,\chi )`$. For the moment, we will consider $`V`$ simply as a (right) $`𝔽_p[H]`$-module. Let $`W(k)`$ denote the ring of Witt vectors over $`k`$ and $`W(k)[V]`$ the group ring of $`V`$ over $`W(k)`$ (here we consider $`V`$ as an abelian group). Then

$$G_0:=SpecW(k)[V]$$

is a finite flat and commutative group scheme over $`W(k)`$. In fact, $`G_0`$ represents the group functor (on the category of $`W(k)`$-algebras)

$$RG_0(R)=Hom_{\mathrm{gr}}(V,R^\times ).$$

Groups schemes of this form are called diagonalizable in , Exposé I. We shall write $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }=(\zeta _\varphi )_{\varphi V}`$ for an element of $`G_0(R)`$. Here $`\zeta _\varphi R^\times `$ such that $`\zeta _{\varphi _1}\zeta _{\varphi _2}=\zeta _{\varphi _1+\varphi _2}`$. In particular, $`\zeta _\varphi ^p=1`$. Therefore, the choice of an $`𝔽_p`$-basis of $`V`$ gives rise to an isomorphism $`G_0𝝁_p^n`$, where $`n=dim_{𝔽_p}V`$.

An element $`\beta H`$ induces an automorphism $`G_0\stackrel{}{}G_0`$ of group schemes which sends $`\underset{¯}{\zeta }=(\zeta _\varphi )_{\varphi V}G_0(R)`$ to

$$\beta (\underset{¯}{\zeta }):=(\varphi \zeta _{\beta ^{}\varphi })G_0(R).$$

This gives an action of $`H`$ on $`G_0`$ from the left. We define the group scheme $`G`$ as the semidirect product $`G_0H`$; it represents the group functor

$$RG(R):=G_0(R)H.$$

The multiplication on the right hand is determined by the rule

$$(\underset{¯}{\zeta }_1,\beta _1)(\underset{¯}{\zeta }_2,\beta _2):=(\underset{¯}{\zeta }_1\beta _1(\underset{¯}{\zeta }_2),\beta _1\beta _2).$$

Note that the subgroup scheme $`G_0G`$ is equal to the local part of $`G`$.

Let $`R`$ be a $`W(k)`$-algebra and $`M`$ a $`G`$-$`R`$-module. The induced action of $`G_0`$ on $`M`$ is given by a map $`\mu :MR[V]_RM`$. It gives rise to a $`V`$-grading, i.e. a direct sum decomposition

$$M=\underset{\varphi V}{}M_\varphi ,M_\varphi :=\{mM\mu (m)=\varphi m\}.$$

One checks that a $`G`$-$`R`$-module is the same as an $`R`$-module together with a $`V`$-grading and an $`R`$-linear action of $`H`$ from the right such that $`M_\varphi ^\beta =M_{\beta ^{}\varphi }`$ for all $`\beta H`$ and $`\varphi V`$. See also , Exposé I. Using the assumption that the order of $`H`$ is prime to $`p`$ one shows:

###### Lemma 4.2

Let $`R`$ be a $`W(k)`$-algebra and $`M`$ a $`G`$-$`R`$-module. Then

$$H^n(G,M)=\{\begin{array}{cc}M_0^H\hfill & \text{for }n=0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{for }n>0.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Construction 4.3

Let $`(Z,V)`$ be a deformation datum of type $`(H,\chi )`$ over $`X`$. We shall construct a curve $`Y`$ over $`k`$ and a $`G`$-action on $`Y`$ such that $`Z=Y/G_0`$ and $`X=Y/G`$. The definition of $`Y`$ and the $`G`$-action will depend, up to canonical isomorphism, only on the deformation datum $`(Z,V)`$ but not on the choices we make during the construction. Therefore, it suffices to give the construction locally on $`X`$. Hence, we may assume that $`Z=SpecA`$ is affine. Let us also choose an $`𝔽_p`$-basis $`\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _s`$ of $`V`$. Since $`\varphi _i`$ is logarithmic, we have $`\varphi _i=\mathrm{d}u_i/u_i`$ for some rational function $`u_i`$ on $`Z`$. After shrinking $`Z`$ and replacing $`\varphi _i`$ by a suitable $`𝔽_p`$-multiple of itself, we may assume that $`u_i`$ lies in $`A`$ and has at most simple zeros on $`Z`$. Set

$$B:=A[y_1,\mathrm{},y_sy_i^p=u_i],Y:=SpecB.$$

The $`A`$-algebra $`B`$ has a unique $`V`$-grading such that $`B_0=A`$ and $`y_iB_{\varphi _i}`$. It gives rise to an action of $`G_0`$ on $`Y`$ such that $`Z=Y/G_0`$. One checks that there is a unique way to extend the action of $`H`$ on $`A`$ to an action on $`B`$ such that $`\beta ^{}B_\varphi =B_{\beta ^{}\varphi }`$. Whence an action of $`G`$ on $`Y`$ such that $`Z=Y/G_0`$ and $`X=Y/G`$. This finishes the construction of $`Y`$.

###### Definition 4.4

Let $`(Z,V)`$ be a deformation datum of type $`(H,\chi )`$, and let $`Y`$ be the $`k`$-curve with $`G`$-action from Construction 4.3. Let $`\tau X`$ be a closed point and choose a point $`\xi Z`$ above $`\tau `$. We say that $`\tau `$ is

1. a tame branch point if it is a branch point of the tame cover $`ZX`$,
2. a wild branch point if there exists $`\varphi V`$ such that $`ord_\xi \varphi =1`$,
3. a critical point if it is a branch point (tame or wild) or if

$$\underset{\varphi V}{\mathrm{min}}(ord_\xi \varphi )\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Note that these conditions do not depend on the choice of $`\xi `$ and that a branch point can be wild and tame at the same time.

###### Notation 4.5

Let $`(\tau _j)_{jB}`$ denote the set of critical points for $`(Z,V)`$, indexed by the finite set $`B`$. Let $`B_{\mathrm{tame}}`$ (resp. $`B_{\mathrm{wild}}`$) denote the subset of $`B`$ corresponding to the tame (resp. wild) branch points; set $`B_{\mathrm{ram}}:=B_{\mathrm{tame}}B_{\mathrm{wild}}`$. We have a divisor on $`Z`$

$$D:=\underset{\xi Z}{}(\underset{\varphi V}{\mathrm{min}}ord_\xi \varphi )\xi .$$

We can write $`D`$ as the difference of two disjoint effective divisors in a unique way:

$$D=D_0D_{\mathrm{}}.$$

Note that the image of $`D`$ (resp. of $`D_{\mathrm{}}`$) on $`X`$ has support in the set of critical points (resp. in the set of wild branch points).

###### Remark 4.6

1. The map $`YX`$ is finite and flat. It is a $`G`$-torsor precisely outside the set of branch points.
2. The curve $`Y`$ is generically smooth over $`k`$ if and only if $`dim_{𝔽_p}V=1`$. If this is the case then the singular points of $`Y`$ are precisely the points lying over a critical point which is not a wild branch point.

### 4.2 Equivariant deformations of $`Y`$

Let $`_k`$ denote the category of local Artinian $`W(k)`$-algebras. A $`G`$-equivariant deformation of $`Y`$ over $`R_k`$ is a flat $`R`$-scheme $`Y_R`$ together with an action of $`G`$ and a $`G`$-equivariant isomorphism $`YY_Rk`$ (compare with Definition 3.1). We are concerned with the deformation functor

$$RDef(Y,G)(R)$$

which sends $`R_k`$ to the set of isomorphism classes of $`G`$-equivariant deformations of $`Y`$ over $`R`$. The next lemma follows easily from Construction 4.3:

###### Lemma 4.7

Let $`Y_R`$ be an equivariant deformation of $`Y`$ over $`R`$. Furthermore, let $`R^{}R`$ be a small extension, i.e. $`R=R^{}/𝔞`$ for an ideal $`𝔞R^{}`$ such that $`𝔞𝔪_R^{}=0`$. Then the morphism $`Y_RSpecR^{}`$ satisfies Assumption 1.1.

The lemma shows that the equivariant cotangent complex $`_{Y/k}`$ is defined and that we can apply Theorem 3.3 to classify the set of liftings of the deformation $`Y_R`$ to $`R^{}`$. Let $`k[ϵ]`$ denote the ring of dual numbers. We call $`T^1(Y,G):=Def(Y,G)(k[ϵ])`$ the tangent space of the deformation functor $`Def(Y,G)`$. Theorem 3.3 says in particular that there is a canonical isomorphism

(32)
$$T^1(Y,G)𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y).$$

Moreover, Theorem 3.3 together with standard arguments (see e.g.  or ) implies:

###### Theorem 4.8

Suppose that $`n:=dim_k𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)`$ is finite (this holds, for instance, if $`X`$ is projective). Then $`Y`$ admits a versal deformation over a ring of the form

$$R_{\mathrm{univ}}=W(k)[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]]/f_1,\mathrm{},f_m.$$

If, moreover, $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^2(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)=0`$ then $`Def(Y,G)`$ is formally smooth and we have $`R_{\mathrm{univ}}=W(k)[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]]`$.

Let $`Y_R`$ be an equivariant deformation of $`Y`$ over $`R`$. Then the quotient schemes $`Z_R:=Y_R/G`$ and $`X_R:=Y_R/G`$ are deformations of $`Z`$ and $`X`$, respectively. Let $`Def(X;\tau _j)`$ denote the functor which classifies deformations of the marked curve $`(X;\tau _jjB_{\mathrm{ram}})`$, i.e. deformations $`X_R`$ of $`X`$ together with sections $`\tau _{j,R}:SpecRX_R`$ lifting the points $`\tau _j`$.

We claim that the association $`Y_RX_R:=Y_R/G`$ gives rise to a morphism of deformation functors

(33)
$$Def(Y,G)Def(X;\tau _jjB_{\mathrm{ram}}).$$

To prove the claim we have to endow the curve $`X_R`$ with sections $`\tau _{j,R}:SpecRX_R`$ lifting the branch points $`\tau _j`$, for all $`jB_{\mathrm{ram}}`$. This is obvious for $`jB_{\mathrm{tame}}`$: the $`G`$-action on $`Y_R`$ induces an action of $`H`$ on $`Z_R`$ such that $`X_R=Z_R/H`$ and such that the map $`Z_RX_R`$ is a tame $`H`$-cover lifting $`ZX`$. It follows that the branch locus of $`Z_RX_R`$ is the disjoint union of sections $`\tau _{j,R}:SpecRX_R`$ lifting the tame branch points $`\tau _j`$ (for $`jB_{\mathrm{tame}}`$). Now let $`jB_{\mathrm{wild}}`$ and let $`\xi Z`$ be a point above the wild branch point $`\tau _j`$. Let $`\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _s`$ be a basis of $`V`$. We can choose this basis in such a way that $`\varphi _1`$ has a simple pole in $`\xi `$ and that $`\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _s`$ generate the kernel of the residue map $`\mathrm{res}_\xi :V𝔽_p`$. If we further replace $`\varphi _i`$ by a multiple of itself then we may assume that $`\varphi _i=\mathrm{d}u_i/u_i`$, with $`ord_\xi u_1=1`$ and $`ord_\xi u_i=0`$ for $`i>1`$. In a neighborhood of $`\xi `$, the cover $`YZ`$ is (locally at $`\xi `$) given by $`s`$ Kummer equations $`y_i^p=u_i`$, see Construction 4.3. Hence the deformation $`Y_RZ_R`$ of $`YZ`$ is (locally at $`\xi `$) given by $`s`$ Kummer equations $`y_i^p=u_{i,R}`$, where $`u_{i,R}`$ lifts $`u_i`$. The equation $`u_{1,R}=0`$ defines a section $`\xi _R:SpecRZ_R`$ which lifts the point $`\xi `$. We define $`\tau _{j,R}:SpecRX_R`$ to be the image of $`\xi _R`$. Using the $`H`$-action, one also checks that the definition of $`\tau _{j,R}`$ for $`jB_{\mathrm{wild}}`$ agrees with the definition of $`\tau _{j,R}`$ for $`jB_{\mathrm{tame}}`$, in case that $`jB_{\mathrm{tame}}B_{\mathrm{wild}}`$. This proves the claim.

It is well known (see e.g. ) that the tangent space of the deformation functor $`Def(X;\tau _j)`$ is given by

$$T^1(X;\tau _jjB_{\mathrm{ram}})H^1(X,𝒯_X(\underset{jB_{\mathrm{ram}}}{}\tau _j)).$$

Here $`𝒯_X`$ is the sheaf of tangent vectors of $`X`$. Hence the morphism (33) induces a $`k`$-linear map

(34)
$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)H^1(X,𝒯_X(\underset{jB_{\mathrm{ram}}}{}\tau _j)).$$

In the next subsection we will analyze this map in more detail.

### 4.3 Analysis of $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)`$

By Lemma 4.2 and the spectral sequence (79) we have

(35)
$$xt_G^n(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)=xt_{G_0}^n(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)^H=xt_Y^n(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)^G.$$

The analogous statement for $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^n`$ holds as well. In other words, we do not have to worry about group cohomology. In the following, we shall use this sort of argument over and over again, sometimes without mentioning it explicitly.

A $`V`$-derivation is an $`𝔽_p`$-linear function $`\theta :Vk(Z)`$. We say that $`\theta `$ is integral at a point $`\xi Z`$ if $`\theta (\varphi )𝒪_{Z,\xi }`$ for all $`\varphi V`$. Let $``$ be the sheaf of integral $`V`$-derivations; for an open subset $`UZ`$ the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,)`$ of sections over $`U`$ is the set of $`V`$-derivations $`\theta `$ which are integral at each point $`\xi U`$. Obviously, $``$ is a locally free $`𝒪_Z`$-module whose rank is equal to $`s=dim_{𝔽_p}V`$. There is a natural $`H`$-action on $``$, i.e. a structure of $`H`$-$`𝒪_Z`$-module, such that $`^H`$ is the sheaf of $`H`$-equivariant $`V`$-derivations on $`X`$.

Let $`𝒯_Z=Hom_Z(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/k},𝒪_Z)`$ denote the sheaf of tangent vectors on $`Z`$. We write $`𝒯_Z(D):=𝒯_Z𝒪_Z(D)`$ etc. There is a natural injection of $`H`$-$`𝒪_Z`$-modules

$$𝒯_Z(D)$$

which sends a vector field $`\theta `$ to its restriction to $`V`$. From the definition of the divisor $`D`$ it is clear that this is well defined and that the quotient $`/𝒯_Z(D)`$ is torsion free.

###### Lemma 4.9

There is a natural isomorphism of $`H`$-$`𝒪_Z`$-modules

(36)
$$\stackrel{}{}Hom_{G_0}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y/k},𝒪_Y):=𝒯_Y^{G_0}.$$

Furthermore, we have a short exact sequence of $`H`$-$`𝒪_Z`$-modules

(37)
$$0𝒯_Z(D_{\mathrm{}})xt_{G_0}^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

###### Proof.

It suffices to prove this locally on $`Z`$. Hence we may assume that $`Z=SpecA`$ is affine and that there is a basis $`\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _s`$ of $`V`$ such that $`\varphi _i=\mathrm{d}u_i/u_i`$ with $`u_iA`$ and such that $`u_i`$ has at most simple zeros. By construction we have

$$Y=SpecB,B=C/I,$$

where $`C=A[y_1,\mathrm{},y_s]`$ is the polynomial algebra over $`A`$ in $`s`$ variables (with $`V`$-grading such that $`y_iC_{\varphi _i}`$) and $`I`$ is generated by the polynomials $`u_iy_i^p`$. One checks that the $`B`$-module $`I/I^2`$ is free, with $`G_0`$-invariant generators $`[u_iy_i^p]`$.

The cotangent complex $`_{Y/k}`$ may be identified with the complex of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules associated to the complex $`L:=(I/I^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{C/k}B)`$ of $`V`$-graded $`B`$-modules with $`H`$-action. The differential of this complex sends the generator $`[u_iy_i^p]`$ to the $`1`$-form $`\mathrm{d}u_i`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/k}=H^0(L)`$ is the direct sum of the free $`B`$-module generated by $`\mathrm{d}y_i`$ and the torsion module

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/k})_{\mathrm{tors}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{A/k}}{\mathrm{d}u_i}_AB.$$

Let $`\theta :VA`$ be an everywhere integral $`V`$-derivation. It gives rise to a $`G_0`$-equivariant derivation $`\eta :\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/k}B`$ which is zero on $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{B/k})_{\mathrm{tors}}`$ and such that

$$\eta (\mathrm{d}y_i):=\theta (\varphi _i)y_i.$$

One checks that the association $`\theta \eta `$ defines an isomorphism of $`H`$-$`𝒪_Z`$-modules (36).

Since both nontrivial terms of the complex $`L`$ are locally free $`B`$-modules, we have

$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_{G_0}^n(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)=H^n(Hom_{G_0}^{}(L,B)).$$

For $`n=1`$ this gives the exact sequence

(38)
$$Hom_{G_0}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{C/k},B)Hom_{G_0}(I/I^2,B)𝔼\mathrm{xt}_{G_0}^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Let $`\theta :VA`$ be a global section of $``$. There exists a unique $`B`$-linear and $`G_0`$-equivariant map $`\nu :I/I^2B`$ such that

$$\nu ([u_iy_i^p])=u_i\theta (\varphi _i)$$

for all $`i`$. This defines an $`A`$-linear map

(39)
$$H^0(Z,)Hom_{G_0}(I/I^2,B).$$

From (38) and (39) we obtain the sequence (37). It is easy to see that this sequence is $`H`$-equivariant and does not depend on the choice of the basis of $`V`$. It remains to show that (37) is exact.

Exactness on the left is obvious; exactness in the middle follows easily from the exactness of (38). To prove exactness on the right, let $`\nu :I/I^2B`$ be a $`B`$-linear and $`G_0`$-equivariant homomorphism. We can define a $`V`$-derivation $`\theta :Vk(Z)=\mathrm{Frac}(A)`$ by setting

$$\theta (\varphi _i)=\frac{\nu ([u_iy_i^p])}{u_i}.$$

By construction the images of $`\theta `$ and of $`\nu `$ in $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_{G_0}^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)`$ are equal. If $`\theta `$ was integral everywhere then we would be done. However, if $`\xi Z`$ is a point in the support of $`D_{\mathrm{}}`$ then $`\theta `$ may not be integral at $`\xi `$. In this case we may suppose that $`ord_\xi u_1=1`$ and that $`ord_\xi u_i=0`$ for $`i>1`$. After shrinking $`Z`$ to a sufficiently small neighborhood of $`\xi `$ we may suppose that

$$\theta ^{}=\theta \nu ([u_1y_1^p])/u_1|_V$$

is integral everywhere. But since (38) is exact in the middle, the image of $`\theta ^{}`$ in $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_{G_0}^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)`$ is the same as the image of $`\theta `$. This finishes the proof of the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Applying the exact functor $`^H`$ to (37) we obtain a short exact sequence of $`𝒪_X`$-modules

(40)
$$0𝒯_Z(D_{\mathrm{}})^H^Hxt_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

The following proposition identifies the first boundary map associated to (40) with the differential of the morphism of deformation functors (33).

###### Proposition 4.10

The following diagram commutes:

(41)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)& & H^0(X,xt_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y))\\ & & & & \\ H^1(X,𝒯_X(_{jB_{\mathrm{ram}}}\tau _j))& \stackrel{}{}& H^1(X,𝒯_Z(D_{\mathrm{}})^H)\end{array}$$

Here the upper horizontal arrow is deduced from the local-global spectral sequence (82). The left vertical arrow is the tangent map of the morphism (33). The right vertical arrow is the boundary map of the short exact sequence (40). The lower horizontal arrow comes from the canonical isomorphism

$$𝒯_Z(D_{\mathrm{}})^H𝒯_X(\underset{jB_{\mathrm{ram}}}{}\tau _j).$$

###### Proof.

Let us denote by $`Def(Z,H,D_{\mathrm{}})`$ the functor which classifies $`H`$-equivariant deformations of the marked curve $`(Z,D_{\mathrm{}})`$ (here we identify $`D_{\mathrm{}}`$ with its support, which consists of the points of $`Z`$ lying above the wild branch points). By  the tangent space of $`Def(Z,H,D_{\mathrm{}})`$ is canonically isomorphic to

$$H^1(Z,𝒯_Z(D_{\mathrm{}})^H)H^1(X,𝒯_X(\underset{jB_{\mathrm{ram}}}{}\tau _j)).$$

Using this fact, the proposition is easily reduced to the case $`H=1`$ and $`Z=X`$.

Let $`Y^{}`$ be a $`G`$-equivariant deformation of $`Y`$ over $`R=k[ϵ]`$ and $`Z^{}:=Y^{}/G`$ the induced deformation of $`Z`$. We have seen in the last subsection that $`Z^{}`$ is naturally endowed with a lift $`D_{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ of the divisor $`D_{\mathrm{}}`$. We denote by $`e(Y^{})`$ the global section of $`xt_{G_0}^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)`$ corresponding to $`Y^{}`$, see §2 and §3. Similarly, we denote by $`e(Z^{},D_{\mathrm{}}^{})H^1(Z,𝒯_Z(D_{\mathrm{}}))`$ the cohomology class representing $`(Z^{},D_{\mathrm{}}^{})`$. We have to show that $`e(Z^{})`$ is the image of $`e(Y^{})`$ under the boundary map $``$.

To prove this, we will first recall the definition of $`e(Y^{})`$ and $`e(Z^{},D_{\mathrm{}}^{})`$. Let $`(U_\mu )`$ be a covering of $`Z`$ by sufficiently small affine open subsets $`U_\mu =SpecA_\mu `$. Let $`W_\mu =SpecB_\mu Y`$ be the inverse image of $`U_\mu `$. Also, let $`U_\mu ^{}=SpecA_\mu ^{}Z^{}`$ (resp. $`W_\mu ^{}=SpecB_\mu ^{}Y^{}`$) be the induced deformation of $`U`$ (resp. the induced $`G`$-equivariant deformation of $`W`$).

Since $`Z`$ is smooth over $`k`$ there exists, for all $`\mu `$, a (non-canonical) isomorphism of $`R`$-algebras

$$\sigma _\mu :A_\mu ^{}\stackrel{}{}A_\mu _kR$$

which lifts the identity on $`A_\mu `$. For each pair of indices $`\mu ,\lambda `$ we set $`U_{\mu ,\lambda }:=U_\mu U_\lambda =SpecA_{\mu ,\lambda }`$. Then the equality

$$\sigma _\lambda \sigma _\mu ^1=Id_{A_{\mu ,\lambda }}+ϵ\theta _{\mu ,\lambda }$$

defines a vector field $`\theta _{\mu ,\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_{\mu ,\lambda },𝒯_Z)`$. The $`1`$-cocycle $`(\theta _{\mu ,\lambda })`$ represents the cohomology class $`e(Z^{},D_{\mathrm{}}^{})`$.

We may assume that

$$B_\mu =A[y_iu_{\mu ,i}y_{\mu ,i}^p],$$

with $`u_{\mu ,i}A_\mu `$ such that $`\varphi _i=\mathrm{d}u_{\mu ,i}/u_{\mu ,i}`$. There is a $`V`$-grading on $`B_\mu `$ such that $`y_{\mu ,i}(B_\mu )_{\varphi _i}`$. Let $`y_{\mu ,i}^{}(B_\mu ^{})_{\varphi _i}`$ be a lift of $`y_{\mu ,i}`$. Then $`u_{\mu ,i}^{}:=(y_{\mu ,i}^{})^pA_\mu `$. Note that $`u_{\mu ,i}^{}`$ is independent of the choice of the lift $`y_{\mu ,i}^{}`$. Set

$$\sigma _\mu (u_{\mu ,i}^{})=u_{\mu ,i}+ϵv_{\mu ,i}.$$

Let $`\nu _\mu `$ be the section of the sheaf $``$ over $`U_\mu `$ such that

$$\nu _\mu (\varphi _i)=v_{\mu ,i}.$$

Using the definition of $`e(Y^{})`$ via Theorem 3.3, together with the proof of Proposition 4.10, one checks that the image of $`\nu _\mu `$ under the second map in (39) is equal to the restriction of $`e(Y^{})`$ to $`U_\mu `$.

A straightforward computation shows that

$$\theta _{\mu ,\lambda }(\varphi _i)=\frac{\theta _{\mu ,\lambda }(u_{\lambda ,i})}{u_{\lambda ,i}}=v_{\mu ,i}v_{\lambda ,i}$$

for all $`\mu ,\lambda ,i`$. This means that $`\theta _{\mu ,\lambda }`$ is mapped to $`\nu _\mu \nu _\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }(U_{\mu ,\lambda },)`$ under the first map in (39). Therefore, $`e(Z^{},D_{\mathrm{}}^{})`$ is the image of $`e(Y^{})`$ under the boundary map $``$. This is what we wanted to prove. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 4.11

Suppose $`H^n(X,^H)=0`$ for $`n=0,1`$. Then the morphism

$$Def(Y,G)Def(X;\tau _j)$$

is an isomorphism. In particular, the deformation functor $`Def(Y,G)`$ is unobstructed.

###### Proof.

The hypothesis implies that the boundary map

(42)
$$:H^0(X,xt_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y))\stackrel{}{}H^1(X,𝒯_Z(D_{\mathrm{}})^H)$$

deduced from the short exact sequence (40) is an isomorphism. The local-global spectral sequence for $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^n`$ gives rise to a short exact sequence

$$0H^1(X,𝒯_Y^G)𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)H^0(X,xt_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y))\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

But (36) and the hypothesis show that $`H^1(X,𝒯_Y^G)=0`$. Therefore, it follows from Proposition 4.10 that the morphism $`Def(Y,G)Def(X;\tau _j)`$ induces an isomorphism on tangent spaces. The theorem would follow if we knew that $`Def(Y,G)`$ is unobstructed.

The local global spectral sequence for $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^n`$ also shows that

(43)
$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^2(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)=H^1(X,xt_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)).$$

Using again the long exact cohomology sequence deduced from (42) and the hypothesis we see that (40) is zero. Hence $`Def(Y,G)`$ is unobstructed by Theorem 3.3. This concludes the proof of the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.12

Suppose that all elements of $`V`$ are regular, i.e. $`B_{\mathrm{wild}}=\mathrm{}`$. Then we may regard $`V`$ as an $`𝔽_p`$-subvector space of the $`\chi `$-isotypical part of $`J_Z[p](k)`$. It can be shown that the hypothesis $`H^n(X,^H)=0`$ of Theorem 4.11 is equivalent to the condition that the $`\chi `$-isotypical part of the group scheme $`J_Z[p]`$ is étale. Using this fact one can give a different proof of Theorem 4.11. In the special case $`dim_{𝔽_p}V=1`$ this is the approach taken in .

## 5 Special deformation data

In this section we suppose that $`X=_k^1`$. We begin by defining a certain class of multiplicative deformation data over $`X`$, which we call special. The definition of speciality may seem a little bit ad hoc. However, we show that the deformation functor $`Def(Y,G)`$ associated to $`(Z,V)`$ in the last section has some very nice properties if $`(Z,V)`$ is special. These are the lifting property (Theorem 5.7), the local-global principle (Theorem 5.11) and rigidity (Theorem 5.14). At a deeper level, these properties are explained by the way special deformation data arise in the study of three point covers with bad reduction, see  and .

We also prove a technical result (Proposition 5.15) which is used in .

### 5.1

Let $`p`$ be a prime, $`H`$ a finite group of order prime to $`p`$ and $`\chi _0:H\overline{𝔽}_p^\times `$ a one dimensional character on $`H`$ with values in the algebraic closure of $`𝔽_p`$. The values of $`\chi _0`$ generate a finite field $`𝔽_q`$ with $`q=p^s`$ elements. Set

$$\chi _i:=\chi _0^{p^i},\chi =\underset{i=0}{\overset{s1}{}}\chi _i.$$

Then $`\chi `$ is an irreducible $`𝔽_p`$-valued character.

Let $`k`$ be an algebraically closed field of characteristic $`p`$ and set $`X:=_k^1`$. Let $`(Z,V)`$ be a (multiplicative) deformation datum of type $`(H,\chi )`$ over $`X`$. Choose a basis $`\omega _0,\mathrm{},\omega _{s1}`$ of $`V_{𝔽_p}\overline{𝔽}_p`$ consisting of eigenvectors, such that

(44)
$$\alpha ^{}\omega _i=\chi _i(\alpha )\omega _i,$$

for all $`\alpha H`$ and $`i=0,\mathrm{},s1`$. Let $`𝒞`$ denote the Cartier operator. Since $`𝒞`$ is $`p^1`$-linear and is the identity on $`V`$, we have

(45)
$$𝒞(\omega _{i+1})=c_i\omega _i$$

for a constant $`c_i0`$ in $`\overline{𝔽}_p`$. (Here and for the rest of this section we will consider the index $`i`$ modulo $`s`$.) After multiplying the $`\omega _i`$ with a constant in $`\overline{𝔽}_p`$ we may assume that $`c_i=1`$.

As in the previous section, we denote by $`\tau _j`$, $`jB`$, the critical points on $`X`$. Choose $`jB`$ and a point $`\xi Z`$ above $`\tau _j`$, and set

$$m_j:=|\mathrm{Stab}_H(\xi )|,h_j^{(i)}:=ord_\xi \omega _i+1,\sigma _j^{(i)}:=\frac{h_j^{(i)}}{m_j}.$$

The tuple $`(\sigma _j^{(i)})_{i,j}`$ is called the signature of the deformation datum $`(Z,V)`$. For a rational number $`w`$, we let $`w`$ denote the fractional part of $`w`$ (such that $`0w<1`$ and $`ww`$).

###### Lemma 5.1

For all $`i`$ we have

1. $`_{jB}(\sigma _j^{(i)}1)=2`$,
2. $`\sigma _j^{(i)}=p^i\sigma _j^{(0)}`$.

###### Proof.

Part (i) follows from a straightforward computation using the Riemann–Hurwitz formula. To prove (ii), let $`\xi Z`$ be a point above $`\tau _j`$ and $`z`$ a local coordinate at $`\xi `$. The inertia character $`\psi _\xi :H_\xi k^\times `$ is determined by the congruence

(46)
$$\alpha ^{}z\psi _\xi (\alpha )z(modz^2)$$

for all $`\alpha H_\xi :=\mathrm{Stab}_H(\xi )`$. Now (44) and the definition of $`h_j^{(i)}`$ imply that

$$\chi _0^{p^i}=\psi _\xi ^{h_j^{(i)}}.$$

Part (ii) of the lemma follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 5.2

The deformation datum $`(Z,V)`$ is called pure if for all $`i`$ we have

$$\underset{jB}{}\sigma _j^{(i)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}.$$

###### Lemma 5.3

Let $``$ be the sheaf of $`H`$-$`𝒪_Z`$-modules defined in §4.3. The deformation datum $`(Z,V)`$ is pure if and only if $`H^n(X,^H)=0`$ for $`n=0,1`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒪_{Z,\chi _i}`$ denote the $`\chi _i`$-isotypical part of the sheaf $`\pi _{}𝒪_Z`$. Let $`\theta :Vk(Z)`$ be an $`H`$-equivariant $`V`$-derivation and extend it $`k`$-linearly to $`V_k`$. Then $`f_i:=\theta (\omega _i)`$ is a meromorphic section of $`𝒪_{Z,\chi _i}`$; it is holomorphic at $`\tau X`$ if and only if $`\theta `$ is integral at all points $`\xi Z`$ above $`\tau `$. Therefore, the rule $`\theta (f_i)`$ defines an isomorphism

$$^H\stackrel{}{}\underset{i=0}{\overset{s1}{}}𝒪_{Z,\chi _i}$$

of $`𝒪_X`$-modules. A local calculation as in the proof of Lemma 5.1 shows that

$$\mathrm{deg}𝒪_{Z,\chi _i}=\underset{jB}{}\sigma _j^{(i)}.$$

Hence the lemma follows from the Riemann–Roch formula. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 5.2

In order to discuss special deformation data we need some more notation:

###### Notation 5.4

Let $`(Z,V)`$ be a deformation datum of type $`(H,\chi )`$ and signature $`(\sigma _j^{(i)})`$. Set

$$\nu _j^{(i)}:=\sigma _j^{(i)}=\sigma _j^{(i)}\sigma _j^{(i)},\nu _j:=\underset{i}{\mathrm{min}}\nu _j^{(i)},$$

and

$$a_j^{(i)}:=m_j\sigma _j^{(i)},a_j:=\underset{i}{\mathrm{min}}a_j^{(i)}.$$

###### Definition 5.5

The deformation datum $`(Z,V)`$ is called special if $`\sigma _j^{(i)}1`$ for all $`i`$ and $`j`$ and if the following holds. There exists a subset $`B_0B`$ with exactly three elements such that

$$\nu _j=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & jB_0\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & jB_0.\hfill \end{array}$$

A special deformation datum $`(Z,V)`$ is called normalized if $`\{\tau _jjB_0\}=\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}X=^1`$.

For the rest of this section we assume that the deformation datum $`(Z,V)`$ is special. Whenever it is convenient, we may also assume that $`(Z,V)`$ is normalized. (However, sometimes it more convenient to have $`\tau _j\mathrm{}`$ for all $`jB`$.) Since $`\sigma _j^{(i)}1`$ we conclude that $`B_{\mathrm{wild}}B_0`$ and that $`B_{\mathrm{ram}}=B`$. We set

$$B_{\mathrm{new}}:=BB_0,B_{\mathrm{prim}}:=B_0B_{\mathrm{wild}}.$$

For an explanation of the terminology, see .

###### Lemma 5.6

Suppose $`(Z,V)`$ is special. Then the following holds.

1. The deformation datum $`(Z,V)`$ is pure.
2. We have $`\nu _j^{(i)}=\nu _j`$ for all $`jB`$.
3. Let $`jBB_{\mathrm{wild}}`$ and let $`\xi Z`$ be a point above $`\tau _j`$. Then for all $`\varphi V`$ we have

$$ord_\xi \varphi =\nu _jm_j+a_j1.$$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 5.1 (i) we have

(47)
$$1=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}3}+\underset{jB}{}(\nu _j^{(i)}1)+\underset{jB}{}\sigma _j^{(i)}\underset{jB}{}\sigma _j^{(i)}.$$

Suppose that $`_j\sigma _j^{(i)}=0`$. Since $`\sigma _j^{(i)}1`$, it would follow that $`B=B_0`$ and $`\sigma _j^{(i)}=0`$ for all $`i`$ and $`j`$. But then $`_j(\sigma _j^{(i)}1)=3`$, contradicting Lemma 5.1. We conclude that $`_j\sigma _j^{(i)}=1`$, proving (i). We also conclude that the inequality (47) is an equality, which means that $`\nu _j^{(i)}=\nu _j`$, proving (ii).

It follows from Lemma 5.1 (ii) that $`ord_\xi \omega _i=m_j\sigma _j^{(i)}1`$ takes pairwise distinct values for all $`i`$. Every element $`\varphi V`$ can be written as $`_ic_i\omega _i`$, with $`c_ik`$. Using $`𝒞(\varphi )=\varphi `$ and Equations (44) and (45), one shows that $`c_i0`$ for all $`i`$. Therefore,

$$ord_\xi \varphi =\underset{i}{\mathrm{min}}(ord_\xi \omega _i)=\underset{i}{\mathrm{min}}(m_j\nu _j^{(i)}+a_j^{(i)}1).$$

Now (iii) follows from (ii). $`\mathrm{}`$

Putting Theorem 4.11, Lemma 5.3 and Lemma 5.6 (i) together, we get:

###### Theorem 5.7 (Lifting property)

Let $`Y`$ be the curve with $`G`$-action corresponding to the special deformation datum $`(Z,V)`$, as defined in §4. The homomorphism of deformation functors

$$Def(Y,G)Def(X;\tau _j)$$

is an isomorphism.

###### Problem 5.8

Let $`(H,\chi )`$ be as in the beginning of this section. Let $`(\sigma _j^{(i)})`$ be a tuple of rational numbers (indexed by $`jB`$ and $`i/s`$) such that the statements of Lemma 5.1 and of Definition 5.5 hold. Furthermore, let $`(\tau _j)_{jB}`$ be a $`B`$-tuple of closed points of $`X=_k^1`$. Does there exists a special deformation datum $`(Z,V)`$ of type $`(H,\chi )`$ with signature $`(\sigma _j^{(i)})`$ and critical points $`(\tau _j)`$?

###### Proposition 5.9

With assumptions as in Problem 5.8:

1. Suppose that the character $`\chi _0:H𝔽_q^\times `$ is injective. Then if it exists, the special deformation datum $`(Z,V)`$ is uniquely determined (up to isomorphism) by the datum $`(H,\chi ,\sigma _j^{(i)},\tau _j)`$.
2. Fix $`(H,\chi ,\sigma _j^{(i)})`$. The set of all tuples $`(\tau _j)`$ such that there exists a special deformation datum $`(Z,V)`$ with critical points $`(\tau _j)`$ is a locally closed subset of $`(_{𝔽_p}^1)^B`$.

We will see later (Theorem 5.14) that the set of tuples $`(\tau _j)`$ in (ii) is actually finite.

###### Proof.

(Compare with , §3.5) Suppose that $`(Z,V)`$ exists. Let $`\overline{H}:=H/Ker(\chi _0)`$, $`\overline{Z}:=Z/Ker(\chi _0)`$ and $`\overline{\chi }`$ the restriction of $`\chi `$ to $`\overline{H}`$. The subvector space $`V\mathrm{\Omega }_{k(Z)/k}`$ descends to a subvector space $`\overline{V}\mathrm{\Omega }_{k(\overline{Z})/k}`$. One checks that $`(\overline{Z},\overline{V})`$ is again a special deformation datum, of type $`(\overline{H},\overline{\chi })`$. The signature $`(\sigma _j^{(i)})`$ and the set $`(\tau _j)`$ of critical points remain unchanged during this descent. Therefore, we may assume that $`\chi _0`$ is injective, even for the proof of (ii). (For (i) the assumption of injectivity is necessary because the cover $`Z\overline{Z}`$ is not unique if $`Ker(\chi _0)1`$.)

If $`\chi _0`$ is injective then $`H`$ is cyclic of order $`m`$ where $`m`$ is a positive integer such that $`𝔽_q=𝔽_p[\zeta _m]`$; in particular, $`m|q1`$. Set $`a_j^{(i)}:=m\sigma _j^{(i)}`$. Then the $`a_j^{(i)}`$ are integers with $`0a_j^{(i)}<m`$, $`_ja_j^{(i)}=m`$ and $`a_j^{(i+1)}p^ia_j^{(i)}(modm)`$. The proof of Lemma 5.1 shows that the $`a_j^{(i)}`$ determine the ramification type of the $`m`$-cyclic cover $`\pi :ZX=_k^1`$. This can be made more explicit with Kummer theory. In fact, for all $`i`$ there exists a rational section $`z_i`$ of $`𝒪_{Z,\chi _i}`$ which satisfies the equation

(48)
$$z_i^m=\underset{jB}{}(x\tau _j)^{a_j^{(i)}}.$$

Here $`x`$ denotes the standard coordinate on $`X=^1`$ and we assume, without loss of generality, that $`\tau _j\mathrm{}`$. The curve $`Z`$ is the smooth projective model of the plane curve with equation (48) (for any $`i`$).

We claim that the eigenvector $`\omega _i`$ of $`V_k`$ is of the form

(49)
$$\omega _i=ϵ_i\frac{z_i\mathrm{d}x}{_{jB_0}(x\tau _j)}$$

for some constant $`ϵ_ik`$. Indeed, a local calculation shows that the right hand side of (49) has everywhere the right order of poles and zeros compatible with the signature $`(\sigma _j^{(i)})`$ and the set of critical points $`(\tau _j)`$. This proves the claim. If we plug in (49) into the equation

(50)
$$𝒞(\omega _{i+1})=c_i\omega _i$$

and look at Taylor series (say in $`x`$) on both sides, we obtain a set of algebraic equations with coefficients in $`𝔽_p`$ which are satisfied by the tuple $`(\tau _j)`$. These equations define a Zariski closed subset of $`(_{𝔽_p}^1)^B`$. The conditions $`c_i0`$ define an open subset of this closed subset. We have shown that the set of tuples $`(\tau _j)`$ coming from a special deformation datum with given type and signature are contained in a certain locally closed subset of $`(_{𝔽_p}^1)^B`$. It is clear that $`(Z,V)`$ is uniquely determined by the datum $`(H,\chi ,\sigma _j^{(i)},\tau _j)`$.

Conversely, let $`(\tau _j)`$ be a $`B`$-tuple of $`k`$-rational points of $`^1`$ which is contained in the locally closed subset constructed above. This means that if we define an $`H`$-cover $`\pi :ZX=^1`$ by equation (48) and define differentials $`\omega _i`$ on $`Z`$ by equation (49) then (50) holds with certain constants $`c_i0`$. After multiplying the $`\omega _i`$ by suitable constants we may assume that $`c_i=1`$. Let $`V^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{k(Z)/k}`$ be the $`𝔽_q`$-linear subspace spanned by the $`\omega _i`$. The Cartier operator $`𝒞`$ stabilizes $`V^{}`$ and acts semi-simply on it. A well known lemma in $`p^1`$-linear algebra shows that the stabilizer $`V`$ of $`𝒞`$ inside $`V^{}`$ is an $`𝔽_p`$-vector space of dimension $`s=dim_{𝔽_q}V^{}`$. Here we can be more explicit: if $`\alpha H`$ is an element such that $`\chi _0(\alpha )`$ generates $`𝔽_q`$ then

(51)
$$\varphi _l:=\underset{i}{}\chi _{i+l}(\alpha )\omega _i,l=0,\mathrm{},s1$$

gives a basis for $`V`$. By construction, $`(Z,V)`$ is a special deformation datum of type $`(H,\chi )`$, signature $`(\sigma _j^{(i)})`$ and with critical points $`(\tau _j)`$. This concludes the proof of the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 5.3 The local-global principle

For $`jB`$, let $`\widehat{Y}_j`$ denote the completion of $`Y`$ at the critical point $`\tau _j`$, see §3.3. Given an equivariant deformation $`Y_R`$ of $`Y`$, we denote by $`\widehat{Y}_{j,R}`$ the completion of $`Y_R`$ at $`\tau _j`$; this is an equivariant deformation of $`\widehat{Y}_j`$. We obtain a morphism

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:Def(Y,G)\underset{jB}{}Def(\widehat{Y}_j,G)$$

which maps a deformation $`Y_R`$ to the tuple $`(\widehat{Y}_{j,R})_j`$. Following , we call $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the local-global morphism. By the results of §3.3 we can identify the natural morphism arising from the local-global spectral sequence

(52)
$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)\underset{jB}{}xt_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)_{\tau _j}^\mathrm{^}$$

with the differential of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In contrast to the situation studied in , $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not formally smooth unless $`s=1`$. In fact, if $`s>1`$ then the groups $`xt_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)_{\tau _j}^\mathrm{^}`$ are not finite-dimensional over $`k`$. However, if we restrict our attention to the image of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, then we obtain a local-global-principle, comparable to , Théorème 3.3.4.

###### Lemma 5.10

The map (52) is injective. Its image is the direct sum

$$\underset{jB_{\mathrm{new}}}{}𝒯_{X,\tau _j}k(\tau _j)\underset{jB}{}xt_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)_{\tau _j}^\mathrm{^}.$$

###### Proof.

We have already seen in the proof of Theorem 4.11 that the natural map

$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)H^0(X,xt_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y))$$

is an isomorphism. (Note that the hypothesis of Theorem 4.11 is verified by Lemma 5.6 (i).) Furthermore, we have an isomorphism

(53)
$$H^0(X,xt_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y))H^1(X,𝒯_X(\underset{jB}{}\tau _j)).$$

The $`k`$-dimension of (53) is $`|B|3=|B_{\mathrm{new}}|`$ by Riemann-Roch.

Let $`_{\mathrm{tor}}xt_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)`$ be the maximal sub-$`𝒪_X`$-module which is torsion. The sequence (40) and a local computation shows

$$_{\mathrm{tor}}\frac{𝒯_Z(D)^H}{𝒯_Z(D_{\mathrm{}})^H}\frac{𝒯_X(_{jB}(1\nu _j)\tau _j)}{𝒯_X(_{jB}\tau _j)}.$$

Therefore,

(54)
$$H^0(X,_{\mathrm{tor}})\underset{jB_{\mathrm{new}}}{}𝒯_{X,\tau _j}k(\tau _j).$$

Comparing dimensions, we find that $`H^0(X,_{\mathrm{tor}})H^0(X,xt_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y))`$ is an isomorphism. This proves the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`Def(\widehat{Y}_j,G)^{}Def(\widehat{Y}_j,G)`$ denote the image of $`Def(Y,G)`$ under the localization map. In other words, $`Def(\widehat{Y}_j,G)^{}`$ classifies those equivariant deformations of $`\widehat{Y}_j`$ which arise as the completion of a global deformation of $`Y`$. We denote by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}:Def(Y,G)Def(Y,G)^{\mathrm{loc}}:=\underset{jB}{}Def(\widehat{Y}_j,G)^{}$$

the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ onto its image. By Lemma 5.10, the differential of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ is the isomorphism

$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)\stackrel{}{}\underset{jB_{\mathrm{new}}}{}𝒯_{X,\tau _j}k(\tau _j).$$

###### Theorem 5.11 (Local-global principle)

1. The functor $`Def(\widehat{Y}_j,G)^{}`$ admits a versal deformation over the ring

$$\stackrel{~}{R}_j:=\{\begin{array}{cc}W(k),\hfill & \text{for }jB_0\text{,}\hfill \\ W(k)[[t_j]],\hfill & \text{for }jB_{\mathrm{new}}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
2. The functor $`Def(Y,G)`$ admits an effective universal deformation. Let $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ be the universal deformation ring.
3. The restricted local-global morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ is an isomorphism. Therefore, we have

$$\stackrel{~}{R}\widehat{}_{W(k)}\stackrel{~}{R}_j=W(k)[[t_jjB_{\mathrm{new}}]].$$

###### Proof.

By Theorem 4.8 the functor $`Def(Y,G)`$ admits a versal deformation. By Theorem 4.11 it is unobstructed. The space of ‘infinitesimal automorphisms’ of $`Def(Y,G)`$ is isomorphic to $`H^0(X,𝒯_Y^G)`$. By Lemma 4.9 we have

$$H^0(X,𝒯_Y^G)H^0(X,^H)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

Therefore, the versal deformation of $`Def(Y,G)`$ is also universal, see . It is effective by Grothendieck’s existence theorem. This proves (ii). The functors $`Def(\widehat{Y}_j,G)^{}`$ are unobstructed, because the same holds for $`Def(Y,G)`$. Using Theorem 3.11 and Lemma 5.10, it is easy to verify Schlessinger’s axioms , showing that $`Def(\widehat{Y}_j,G)^{}`$ admits a versal deformation over the ring $`\stackrel{~}{R}_j`$, as claimed in (i). Finally, Lemma 5.10 (i) together with the argument used in the proof of , Théorème 3.3.4, shows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ is an isomorphism. This finishes the proof of the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 5.12

If $`s=dim_{𝔽_p}V=1`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

### 5.4 Rigidity

In this subsection $`(Z,V)`$ and $`Y`$ will be as before. Let $`R`$ be an Artinian local $`k`$-algebra with residue field $`k`$. Since $`R`$ has characterisitc $`p`$, an equivariant deformation of $`Y`$ over $`R`$ corresponds to a deformation datum $`(Z_R,V_R)`$ over $`R`$ which lifts $`(Z,V)`$. By this we mean that $`\pi _R:Z_RX_R=_R^1`$ is a tamely ramified $`H`$-Galois cover lifting $`\pi :ZX`$ and $`V_RH^0(Z_R,\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z_R/R}(D_{\mathrm{},R}))`$ is an $`H`$-stable $`𝔽_p`$-vector space of logarithmic differentials lifting $`V`$ (here $`D_{\mathrm{},R}Z_R`$ is a relative Cartier divisor lifting $`D_{\mathrm{}}`$).

Let $`Y_R`$ be an equivariant deformation of $`Y`$ and $`(Z_R,V_R)`$ the corresponding deformation datum. Choose $`jB_{\mathrm{new}}`$ and a point $`\xi Z`$ lying above $`\tau _j`$. By the theory of tame ramification, there exists a local parameter $`z`$ for $`Z_R`$ at $`\xi `$ such that $`𝒪_{Z_R,\xi }=R[[z]]`$ and $`\alpha ^{}z=\psi (\alpha )z`$ for some character $`\psi :H_\xi R^\times `$. We say that the deformation $`Y_R`$ is $`j`$-special if every element $`\varphi V_R`$ is of the form

$$\varphi =z^{m_j+a_j1}(c_0+c_1z+\mathrm{})\mathrm{d}z$$

with $`c_iR`$ and $`c_0R^\times `$. Note that this condition is independent of the choice of $`z`$.

###### Lemma 5.13

The equivariant deformation $`Y_R`$ is trivial (i.e. isomorphic to $`Y_kR`$) if and only if it is $`j`$-special for all $`jB_{\mathrm{new}}`$.

###### Proof.

One direction of the claim follows immediately from Lemma 5.6 (iii). To prove the other direction, suppose that $`Y_R`$ is $`j`$-special for every $`jB_{\mathrm{new}}`$. We have to show that $`Y_R`$ is the trivial deformation. By Theorem 5.11 (iii) it suffices to show that the completion $`\widehat{Y}_{j,R}`$ of $`Y_R`$ at $`\tau _j`$ is the trivial deformation of $`\widehat{Y}_j`$, for all $`jB_{\mathrm{new}}`$. Fix one index $`j`$. Since $`R`$ is Artinian, we may prove triviality of $`\widehat{Y}_{j,R}`$ by induction: suppose that $`\widehat{Y}_{j,R^{}}:=\widehat{Y}_{j,R}_RR^{}`$ is trivial, where $`R^{}:=R/𝔪_R^n`$ for some $`n1`$. Then we want to conclude that $`\widehat{Y}_{j,R^{\prime \prime }}`$ is trivial, where $`R^{\prime \prime }:=R/𝔪_R^{n+1}`$. To simplify the notation, we may even assume that $`R=R^{\prime \prime }`$.

The ‘difference’ between $`\widehat{Y}_{j,R}`$ and the trivial deformation $`\widehat{Y}_j_kR`$, considered as lifts of the trivial deformation $`\widehat{Y}_j_kR^{}`$, is measured by an element $`\overline{\theta }_j`$ in

$$xt_G^1(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)_{\tau _j}^\mathrm{^}_k𝔪_R^n(^H/𝒯_Z(D_{\mathrm{}})^H)_{\tau _j}^\mathrm{^}_k𝔪_R^n,$$

see Theorem 3.11 (ii). Since $`\widehat{Y}_{j,R}`$ lies in the image of the local-global morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the element $`\overline{\theta }_j`$ lies in the subspace

$$(𝒯_Z(D)^H/𝒯_Z(D_{\mathrm{}})^H)_{\tau _j}^\mathrm{^}_k𝔪_R^n𝒯_{X,\tau _j}k(\tau _j)_k𝔪_R^n,$$

see the proof of Lemma 5.10. In other words, we may regard $`\overline{\theta }_j`$ as a tangent vector at $`\tau _j`$, with values in the $`k`$-vector space $`𝔪_R^n`$. We have to show that $`\overline{\theta }_j=0`$.

Choose a point $`\xi Z`$ above $`\tau _j`$. Let $`z`$ be a local parameter of $`Z_R`$ at $`\xi `$ such that $`\widehat{𝒪}_{Z_R,\xi }=R[[z]]`$ and $`\alpha ^{}z=\psi _\xi (\alpha )z`$ for a character $`\psi _\xi :H_\xi R^\times `$. It follows that $`\widehat{𝒪}_{X_R,\tau _j}=R[[x]]`$, where $`x:=z^{m_j}`$ and $`m_j:=|H_\xi |`$. Note that the fiber product $`\widehat{Y}_{\xi ,R}:=Y_R\times _{Z_R}SpecR[[z]]`$ is a connected component of $`\widehat{Y}_{j,R}`$. Let $`\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _s`$ be a basis of $`V_R`$. We have $`\varphi _i=\mathrm{d}u_i/u_i`$ for a unit $`u_iR[[z]]^\times `$ which is unique up to multiplication by a $`p`$th power. The $`G_0`$-torsor $`\widehat{Y}_{\xi ,R}SpecR[[z]]`$ is given by the Kummer equations

$$y_i^p=u_i,i=1,\mathrm{},s.$$

By our induction hypothesis, the induced deformation $`\widehat{Y}_{j,R^{}}`$ is trivial. This means that, for a suitable choice of the parameter $`z`$ and the units $`u_i`$, the image of $`u_i`$ in $`R^{}[[z]]`$ actually lies in the subalgebra $`k[[z]]R^{}[[z]]`$. In other words, we have

$$u_i=\overline{u}_i+v_i,\overline{u}k[[z]]^\times ,v_ik[[z]]_k𝔪_R^n.$$

Claim: The tangent vector $`\overline{\theta }_j`$ extends to a vector field $`\theta _j𝒯_{X,\tau _j}𝔪_R^n`$ in a neighborhood of $`\tau _j`$, with values in $`𝔪_R^n`$, such that

(55)
$$v_i=\theta _j(\mathrm{d}\overline{u}_i),$$

for $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$.

Let us prove this claim. The class in $`xt_G^1(_{Y/S},𝒪_Y)_{\tau _j}^\mathrm{^}_k𝔪_R^n`$ corresponding to $`\overline{\theta }_j`$ lifts to a local section $`\theta _j^{}`$ of the sheaf $`^H`$ in a neighborhood of $`\tau _j`$, via the exact sequence (40). We consider $`\theta _j^{}`$ as an $`𝔽_p`$-linear and $`H`$-equivariant map $`\theta _j:Vk[[z]]𝔪_R^n`$. By the definition of $`\overline{\theta }_j`$ in terms of the deformation $`\widehat{Y}_{j,R}`$, we have $`\theta _j^{}(\overline{\varphi }_i)=v_i/\overline{u}_i`$ (compare with the proof of Proposition 4.10). But since $`\widehat{Y}_{j,R}`$ lies in the image of the local-global morphism, $`\theta _j^{}`$ is actually the restriction to $`V`$ of a vector field $`\theta _j`$ on $`X`$ which is regular in a neighborhood of $`\tau _j`$ (compare with the proof of Lemma 5.10). The claim follows.

We can now finish the proof of the lemma. The vector field $`\theta _j`$ appearing in the claim we have just proved can be written as follows:

$$\theta _j=(b_0+b_1x+\mathrm{})\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}=\frac{1}{m_j}(b_0z^{1m_j}+b_1z+\mathrm{})\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}z},$$

with $`b_\mu 𝔪_R^n`$. Since by assumption the deformation $`Y_R`$ is $`j`$-special we have $`\mathrm{d}u_i=z^{m_j+a_j1}(c_0+c_1z+\mathrm{})\mathrm{d}z`$ with $`\overline{c}_00`$. From (55) we get

(56)
$$v_i=\frac{z^{a_j}}{m_j}(\overline{c}_0b_0+(\overline{c}_0b_1+\overline{c}_1b_0)z^{m_j}+\mathrm{}).$$

But since $`\mathrm{d}u_i=\mathrm{d}\overline{u}_i+\mathrm{d}v_i`$ is divisible by $`z^{m_j+a_j1}`$ it follows that

$$a_j\overline{c}_0b_0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$

But $`a_j`$ is prime to $`p`$ and $`\overline{c}_00`$, hence $`b_0=0`$. We conclude that $`\overline{\theta }_j=0`$, which completes the proof of the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 5.14 (Rigidity)

There exist, up to isomorphism, at most a finite number of special deformation data of given type $`(H,\chi )`$. Moreover, every special deformation datum can be defined over a finite field.

###### Proof.

For a fixed type $`(H,\chi )`$ there exists at most a finite number of possibilities for the signature $`(\sigma _j^{(i)})`$ of a special deformation datum. Therefore, we may also fix the signature $`(\sigma _j^{(i)})`$. Let $`U(^1)^B`$ be the locally closed subset from Proposition 5.9 (ii). Let $`U^{}(^1)^{B_{\mathrm{new}}}`$ denote the intersection of $`U`$ with the closed subset $`\{(0,1,\mathrm{})\}\times (^1)^{B_{\mathrm{new}}}(^1)^B`$. Thus, a point on $`U^{}`$ corresponds to the branch locus of a normalized special deformation datum. To prove the corollary, it suffices to show that $`U^{}`$ has pure dimension $`0`$. Suppose that $`U^{}`$ has an irreducible component of dimension $`>0`$. Then there exists an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p`$ and a nonconstant morphism $`\phi :SpecRU^{}`$, with $`R=k[[t]]`$. We will show that $`\phi `$ is constant, which gives a contradiction.

Going again through the proof of Proposition 5.9, we see that $`\phi `$ corresponds to a deformation datum $`(Z_R,V_R)`$ defined over $`R`$. Moreover, the special and the generic fiber of $`(Z_R,V_R)`$ are special deformation data. Applying Lemma 5.6 to the generic fiber of $`(Z_R,V_R)`$, we see that the pullback $`(Z_R^{},V_R^{})`$ of $`(Z_R,V_R)`$ over $`R^{}:=R/t^n`$ is a deformation of its special fiber which is $`j`$-special, for all $`jB_{\mathrm{new}}`$ and for all $`n`$. Hence it follows from Lemma 5.13 that the curve $`Y_R^{}`$ corresponding to $`(Z_R^{},V_R^{})`$ is the trivial deformation of its special fiber. By Theorem 5.7, this implies that the branch locus of the induced $`G`$-cover $`Y_R^{}X_R^{}=_R^{}^1`$ is constant, for all $`n`$. We conclude that $`\phi :SpecRU^{}`$ is constant, which proves the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 5.5

In this last section we prove a proposition which links two of our previous results on special deformation data: the lifting property (Theorem 5.7) and the local-global principle (Theorem 5.11). This proposition is a key ingredient for the proof of the main result of .

Let $`𝒴`$ be the universal equivariant deformation of $`Y`$ over $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$, see Theorem 5.11. The quotient scheme $`𝒳:=𝒴/G`$ is naturally equipped with sections $`\tau _{j,\stackrel{~}{R}}:Spec\stackrel{~}{R}𝒳`$ lifting the critical points $`\tau _j`$. We may suppose that $`𝒳=_{\stackrel{~}{R}}^1`$ and that $`\{\tau _{j,\stackrel{~}{R}}jB_0\}=\{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$. With this normalization, we may regard the sections $`\tau _{j,\stackrel{~}{R}}`$ for $`jB_{\mathrm{new}}`$ simply as elements of the ring $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$. Let $`[\tau _j]W(k)`$ denote the Teichmüller lift of $`\tau _jk`$ and set $`T_j:=\tau _{j,\stackrel{~}{R}}[\tau _j]`$. By the lifting property (Theorem 5.7) we have

$$\stackrel{~}{R}=W(k)[[t_jjB_{\mathrm{new}}]]=W(k)[[T_jjB_{\mathrm{new}}]].$$

A priori, it is not clear that these two sets of coordinates of $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ are in any way related. However, we have:

###### Proposition 5.15

For all $`jB_{\mathrm{new}}`$ there exists a unit $`w_j\stackrel{~}{R}^\times `$ such that

$$T_jw_jt_j(modp).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`R:=k[ϵ]`$ denote the ring of dual numbers. Fix some $`j_0B_{\mathrm{new}}`$ and let $`\kappa :\stackrel{~}{R}R`$ be the unique $`W(k)`$-algebra morphism which sends $`t_{j_0}`$ to $`ϵ`$ and $`t_j`$ to $`0`$ for $`jj_0`$. Set $`\tau _{j,R}:=\kappa (\tau _{j,\stackrel{~}{R}})`$. Then $`\tau _{j,R}=\tau _j+ϵ\delta _j`$ for an element $`\delta _jk`$. To prove the proposition it suffices to show that

(57)
$$\delta _j0\text{if and only if}j=j_0.$$

Let $`Y_R`$ denote the equivariant deformation of $`Y`$ obtained from pulling back the universal deformation $`𝒴`$ along $`\kappa `$. The isomorphism class of $`Y_R`$ corresponds to a class in $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)`$. Via the isomorphism

$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^1(_{Y/k},𝒪_Y)\stackrel{}{}\underset{jB_{\mathrm{new}}}{}𝒯_{X,\tau _j}k(\tau _j),$$

this class may be represented by a tuple $`(\overline{\theta }_j)`$, where $`\overline{\theta }_j`$ is a tangent vector in $`\tau _j`$ (see the proof of Proposition 5.10). By the choice of the indeterminates $`t_j`$ and the homomorphism $`\kappa `$ we have

(58)
$$\overline{\theta }_j0\text{if and only if}j=j_0.$$

On the other hand, it follows from Proposition 4.10 that the tuple $`(\overline{\theta }_j)`$, considered as a class in

$$H^1(X,𝒯_X(\underset{jB}{}\tau _j))H^0(X,\frac{𝒯_X(_{jB_0}\tau _j)}{𝒯_X(_{jB}\tau _j)})\underset{jB_{\mathrm{new}}}{}𝒯_{X,\tau _j}k(\tau _j),$$

represents the isomorphism class of the deformation $`(X_R;\tau _{j,R})`$. Therefore,

(59)
$$\overline{\theta }_j=\delta _j\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}|_{x=\tau _j}.$$

Now (58) and (59) together imply (57). The proposition is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

To finish, let us explain briefly the motivation behind Proposition 5.15. Let $`R`$ be a complete discrete valuation ring of mixed characteristic $`(0,p)`$. Let $`k`$ be the residue field of $`R`$ (which we assume algebraically closed) and $`K`$ its fraction field. Let $`(Z,V)`$ be a special deformation datum over $`X=_k^1`$ and $`YX`$ the associated $`G`$-cover. Furthermore, let $`\tau _{j,R}R`$ be points on $`X_R=_R^1`$ which lift the branch points $`(\tau _j)`$ of $`YX`$. By the lifting property, there exists a unique lift $`Y_RX_R`$ of $`YX`$ with branch points $`(\tau _{j,R})`$. Assuming that $`\zeta _pR`$, the generic fiber $`Y_KX_K=_K^1`$ is a tame Galois cover with Galois group

$$G(K)(/p)^sH.$$

By construction, the cover $`Y_KX_K`$ has bad reduction: the special fiber $`Y`$ is singular and the induced map $`YX`$ is not separable. However, after some blowing up we can find a certain nice model $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_R\stackrel{~}{X}_R`$ over $`R`$ of $`Y_KX_K`$, called the stable model, see  and .

What can we say about the stable model, and how does it depend on the choice of the branch points $`\tau _{j,R}`$? Let us say that the stable reduction of $`Y_KX_K`$ is nice if the vanishing cycles of $`Y_R`$ are resolved by blowing up $`X_R=_R^1`$ in certain disjoint closed disks with center $`\tau _{j,R}`$, for $`jBB_{\mathrm{wild}}`$ (in  this property is called special). If the stable reduction is nice, then the special fiber $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_R`$ is a comb. More precisely, $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a semistable curve consisting of the central component $`X`$ and, for each index $`jBB_{\mathrm{new}}`$, a tail $`X_j`$ meeting $`X`$ in $`\tau _j`$. Using Proposition 5.15 one can show the following.

###### Result 5.16

The stable reduction of $`Y_KX_K`$ is nice if and only if the branch points $`\tau _{j,R}R`$ are ‘sufficiently close’ to the Teichmüller lift $`[\tau _j]W(k)R`$.

In the case $`s=dim_{𝔽_p}V=1`$ the ‘if’-direction of this result was proved in , using a very different kind of argument. In  and still under the condition $`s=1`$, both directions of the above result are proved, using Proposition 5.15. The case $`s>1`$ is similar but a bit more involved and will be dealt with in a subsequent paper.

Roughly speaking, the singularities of $`Y_R`$ can be described in terms of the image of the parameters $`t_j`$ in $`R`$ (under the classifying map $`\stackrel{~}{R}R`$ of the deformation $`Y_R`$). Therefore, Proposition 5.15 provides a link between the singularities of $`Y_R`$ and the position of the branch points of $`Y_RX_R`$. It is somewhat surprising that such a relation exists at all, because the dependence of the cover $`Y_RX_R`$ on the branch points $`\tau _{j,R}`$ seems to be of a more global nature.

## Appendix A Picard categories and Picard stacks

In this first appendix we recall some basic facts about Picard categories and Picard stacks. The main result we need is Proposition A.2. References are , Exposé XVIII and .

### A.1

A (strictly commutative) Picard category is a nonempty monoid $`𝔓`$, together with a functor

$$+:𝔓\times 𝔓𝔓,(x,y)x+y$$

and two functorial isomorphisms

$$\sigma :(x+y)+zx+(y+z),\tau :x+yy+x$$

such that the following holds.

1. The isomorphisms $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ make $`+`$ an associative and strictly commutative functor, in the sense of , Exposé XVIII, §1.4.1.
2. For any object $`y`$ of $`𝔓`$, the functor $`xx+y`$ is an equivalence of categories.

Given two Picard categories $`𝔓_1,𝔓_2`$, an additive functor from $`𝔓_1`$ to $`𝔓_2`$ is a functor $`F:𝔓_1𝔓_2`$ together with a functorial isomorphism

$$F(x+y)\stackrel{}{}F(x)+F(y)$$

which is compatible with the associativity and the commutativity laws, see , Exposé XVIII, §1.4.6. Given two additive functors $`F,G:𝔓_1𝔓_2`$, a morphism of additive functors $`u:FG`$ is a morphism of functors (automatically an isomorphism) such that the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F(x+y)& \stackrel{u_{x+y}}{}& G(x+y)\\ & & & & \\ F(x)+F(y)& \stackrel{u_x+u_y}{}& G(x)+G(y)\end{array}$$

commutes. We denote by $`𝔬𝔪(𝔓_1,𝔓_2)`$ the corresponding category of additive functors and by $`Hom(𝔓_1,𝔓_2)`$ its set of isomorphism classes. One can show that $`𝔬𝔪(𝔓_1,𝔓_2)`$ carries a natural structure of Picard category.

Let $`A`$ be a complex of abelian groups. We define a Picard category $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(A)`$ as follows. Objects of $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(A)`$ are $`1`$-cocycles, i.e. elements of $`Z^1(A)=Ker(A^1\stackrel{d}{}A^2)`$. Given two objects $`x,yZ^1(A)`$, the set of morphisms $`Hom(x,y)`$ is the set of elements $`fA^0`$ such that $`d(f)=yx`$, modulo $`0`$-coboundaries, i.e. elements of $`B^0(A)=Im(A^1\stackrel{d}{}A^0)`$. The composition of two morphisms $`f:xy`$ and $`g:yz`$ is the sum $`f+g`$. The functor $`+`$ is induced from the addition law of $`A^1`$. It follows immediately from this definition that the group of automorphisms of the ‘neutral object’ of $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(A)`$ is identified with $`H^0(A)`$, whereas the group of isomorphism classes of $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(A)`$ is identified with $`H^1(A)`$. Note also that $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(A)=𝔓𝔦𝔠(A^{[0,1]})`$, where $`A^{[0,1]}`$ denotes the complex of amplitude $`[0,1]`$ deduced from $`A`$ such that $`H^n(A^{[0,1]})=H^n(A)`$ for $`n=0,1`$.

Given two complexes of abelian groups $`A,B`$, a homomorphism of complexes $`\phi :AB`$ gives rise to an additive functor $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(\phi ):𝔓𝔦𝔠(A)𝔓𝔦𝔠(B)`$. The functor $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(\phi )`$ is an equivalence of categories if and only if $`H^n(\phi )`$ is an isomorphism for $`n=0,1`$. Given two homomorphisms $`\phi ,\psi :AB`$, a homotopy $`\phi \psi `$ gives rise to an isomorphism of additive functors $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(\phi )𝔓𝔦𝔠(\psi )`$. Therefore, the association $`A𝔓𝔦𝔠(A)`$ gives rise to a functor from the derived category $`𝔇^0(𝔄𝔟)`$ to the category of all (small) Picard categories (morphisms in the latter category are isomorphism classes of additive functors). It is shown in , Exposé XVIII, that this functor becomes an equivalence of categories when restricted to the full subcategory $`𝔇^{[0,1]}(𝔄𝔟)`$ of complexes of amplitude $`[0,1]`$.

###### Remark A.1

Our definition of $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(A)`$ is a bit different from the definition used in , Exposé XVIII. In loc.cit., $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(A)`$ is only defined for a complex of amplitude $`[1,0]`$. For the application of Picard categories in this paper, it seemed more convenient to to shift degrees by $`1`$ and to allow arbitrary complexes.

### A.2

Let $`X`$ be a topological space. (Actually, without changing anything essential, we could let $`X`$ be an arbitrary site.) We denote by $`𝔄𝔟(X)`$ the category of sheaves of abelian groups on $`X`$. The total right derived functor of the global section functor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,)`$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,)`$. For generalities about stacks, see  or .

A Picard stack over $`X`$ is a stack $`\underset{¯}{𝔓}`$ over $`X`$, together with a morphism of $`X`$-stacks

$$+:\underset{¯}{𝔓}\times _X\underset{¯}{𝔓}\underset{¯}{𝔓},(x,y)x+y$$

and two functorial isomorphisms

$$\sigma :(x+y)+zx+(y+z),\tau :x+yy+x$$

such that the following holds.

1. For each open subset $`UX`$, the fiber $`\underset{¯}{𝔓}(U)`$, together with the restrictions of $`+`$, $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ to $`U`$, is a (strictly commutative) Picard category.
2. For each inclusion $`UV`$ of open subsets, the restriction functor $`\underset{¯}{𝔓}(U)\underset{¯}{𝔓}(V)`$ is a morphism of Picard categories.

Given two Picard stacks $`\underset{¯}{𝔓}_1,\underset{¯}{𝔓}_2`$, an additive functor from $`\underset{¯}{𝔓}_1`$ to $`\underset{¯}{𝔓}_2`$ is an $`X`$-functor $`F:\underset{¯}{𝔓}_1\underset{¯}{𝔓}_2`$ together with functorial isomorphisms $`F(x+y)\stackrel{}{}F(x)+F(y)`$ whose restriction to each fiber is an additive functor. Given two additive functors $`F,G:\underset{¯}{𝔓}_1\underset{¯}{𝔓}_2`$, a morphism of additive functors is a morphism of $`X`$-functors $`u:FG`$ (automatically an isomorphism) whose restriction to all fibers is a morphism of additive functors. We denote by $`𝔬𝔪(\underset{¯}{𝔓}_1,\underset{¯}{𝔓}_2)`$ the corresponding category of additive functors and by $`Hom(\underset{¯}{𝔓}_1,\underset{¯}{𝔓}_2)`$ its set of isomorphism classes. It is easy to equip $`𝔬𝔪(\underset{¯}{𝔓}_1,\underset{¯}{𝔓}_2)`$ with a natural structure of a Picard category. Moreover, one can show that the $`X`$-groupoid

$$U𝔬𝔪(\underset{¯}{𝔓}_1|_U,\underset{¯}{𝔓}_2|_U)$$

is itself a Picard stack, see , Exposé XVIII.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a complex of abelian sheaves on $`X`$. The association

$$U𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,𝒜))$$

(where $`UX`$ runs over all open subsets of $`X`$) gives rise to a prestack $`\underset{¯}{𝔓}^{}(𝒜)`$ over $`X`$. Let $`\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)`$ be the stack over $`X`$ associated to this prestack, see e.g. , Lemme (3.2). One checks that $`\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)`$ is a Picard stack, in a natural way. For each open subset $`UX`$, the natural functor

(60)
$$𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{\Gamma }(U,𝒜))\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)$$

is an additive functor. In general, it is not an isomorphism.

A homomorphism $`\phi :𝒜`$ of abelian sheaves gives rise to a morphism $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(\phi ):\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}()`$ of Picard stacks. Moreover, a homotopy $`\phi \psi `$ gives rise to a isomorphism of additive functors $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(\phi )𝔓𝔦𝔠(\psi )`$. Therefore, the association $`𝒜\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)`$ gives rise to a functor from the derived category $`𝔇(X)`$ to the category of all (small) Picard stacks on $`X`$ (morphisms in the latter category are isomorphism classes of additive functors).

###### Proposition A.2

Let $`X`$ be a topological space and $`𝒜`$ a sheaf of abelian groups on $`X`$ such that $`H^n(𝒜)=0`$ for $`n<0`$. Then we have a natural equivalence of Picard categories

$$\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)(X)𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,𝒜)).$$

This proposition seems to be well known. Since it is an important step in the proof of Theorem 2.2 and we could not find a suitable reference, we give a proof.

###### Proof.

The hyper-cohomology spectral sequence and the assumption $`H^n(𝒜)=0`$ for $`n<0`$ show that

$$^n(X,𝒜^{[0,1]})=^n(X,𝒜)\text{for }n=0,1\text{.}$$

We may therefore assume that $`𝒜=𝒜^{[0,1]}`$. Let $`𝒰=(U_i)_{iI}`$ be an open covering of $`X`$. We choose a well-ordering on the index set $`I`$. Let $`K_𝒰:=C^{}(𝒰,𝒜)`$ be the double complex whose $`n`$th column (for $`n=0,1`$) is the $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$ech cochain complex of $`𝒜^n`$ with respect to $`𝒰`$:

$$K_𝒰:\{\begin{array}{ccc}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_i,𝒜^0)& \stackrel{d}{}& \underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_i,𝒜^1)\\ & & \\ \underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_{i,j},𝒜^0)& \stackrel{d}{}& \underset{i<j}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_{i,j},𝒜^1)\\ & & \\ \underset{i<j<k}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_{i,j,k},𝒜^0)& \stackrel{d}{}& \underset{i<j<k}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_{i,j,k},𝒜^1)\\ & & \\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

We define a morphism of Picard categories

(61)
$$𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Tot}(K_𝒰))\stackrel{}{}\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)(X),$$

as follows. An object of $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Tot}(K_𝒰))`$ is a datum $`(f_i;g_{i,j})`$, with $`f_i\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_i,Z^1(𝒜))`$ and $`g_{i,j}\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_{i,j},𝒜^0)`$, such that

(62)
$$d(g_{i,j})=f_j|_{U_{i,j}}f_i|_{U_{i,j}}$$

for all $`i<j`$ and

(63)
$$g_{i,j}g_{i,k}+g_{j,k}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}$$

for all $`i<j<k`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$ denote the object of $`\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)(U_i)`$ corresponding to $`f_i`$. By (62), $`g_{i,j}`$ corresponds to an isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{i,j}:\stackrel{~}{f}_i|_{U_{i,j}}\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{f}_j|_{U_{i,j}}`$. Now (63) means that these isomorphisms satisfy the cocycle relation $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{j,k}\stackrel{~}{g}_{i,j}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{i,k}`$. In other words, $`(\stackrel{~}{f}_i;\stackrel{~}{g}_{i,j})`$ is a patching datum with values in $`\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)`$. Since $`\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)`$ is a stack, there exists an object $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ of $`\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)(X)`$ together with isomorphisms $`\alpha _i:\stackrel{~}{f}|_{U_i}\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{f}_i`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{i,j}=\alpha _j\alpha _i^1`$. By definition, $`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ is the image of $`(f_i,g_{i,j})`$ under (61).

Let $`(f_i^{},g_{i,j}^{})`$ be another object of $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Tot}(K_𝒰))`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{f}^{}`$ be the corresponding object of $`\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)(X)`$. A homomorphism from $`(f_i,g_{i,j})`$ to $`(f_i^{},g_{i,j}^{})`$ is a datum $`(h_i)`$, with $`h_i\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_i,𝒜^0)`$, such that

(64)
$$d(h_i)=f_i^{}f_i$$

for all $`i`$ and

(65)
$$h_j|_{U_{i,j}}h_i|_{U_{i,j}}=g_{i,j}^{}g_{i,j}$$

for all $`i<j`$. Equation (64) shows that $`h_i`$ corresponds to an isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{h}_i:\stackrel{~}{f}_i\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{f}_j`$. Moreover, by (65) the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{f}_i|_{U_{i,j}}& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{h}_i}{}& \stackrel{~}{f}_i^{}|_{U_{i,j}}\\ \stackrel{~}{g}_{i,j}& & \stackrel{~}{g}_{i,j}^{}& & \\ \stackrel{~}{f}_j|_{U_{i,j}}& \stackrel{\stackrel{~}{h}_j}{}& \stackrel{~}{f}_j^{}|_{U_{i,j}}\end{array}$$

commutes for all $`i<j`$. In other words, $`(\stackrel{~}{h}_i)`$ is an isomorphism of patching data. Using again that $`\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)`$ is a stack, we see that there exists a unique isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{h}:\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{f}^{}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{h}_i\alpha _i=\alpha _i^{}\stackrel{~}{h}|_{U_i}`$. By definition, $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ is the image of $`(h_i)`$ under (61). This finishes the definition of (61) as a functor. We leave it to the reader to check that (61) is indeed a morphism of Picard categories.

Clearly, the definition of (61) is compatible with taking refinements of the covering $`𝒰`$. Therefore, we obtain a morphism of Picard categories

(66)
$$\underset{\underset{𝒰}{}}{lim}𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Tot}(K_𝒰))\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)(X).$$

We claim that (66) is an isomorphism. Indeed, the discussion of the previous paragraph, leading to the definition of (61), shows that $`𝔓𝔦𝔠(\mathrm{Tot}(K_𝒰))`$ is isomorphic to the category of patching data for the covering $`𝒰`$, with values in the prestack $`\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)^{}`$. On the other hand, the category $`\underset{¯}{𝔓𝔦𝔠}(𝒜)(X)`$ is the direct limit over the categories of such patching data, where the limit is taken over all possible coverings $`𝒰`$; this follows from the construction of a stack associated to a prestack, see e.g. , §3. This proves the claim.

To finish the proof of the proposition, it suffices to show that the natural morphisms

$$\mathrm{Tot}(K_𝒰)\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,𝒜)$$

induces isomorphisms on cohomology

$$\underset{\underset{𝒰}{}}{lim}H^n(\mathrm{Tot}(K_𝒰))\stackrel{}{}^n(X,𝒜)$$

for $`n=0,1`$. This is proved in two steps. First, one compares the two spectral sequences which compute the cohomology of $`\mathrm{Tot}(K_𝒰)`$ on the one hand and the hyper-cohomology groups $`^n(X,𝒜)`$ on the other hand. Then one uses the well known fact that $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{C}}`$ech-cohomology agrees with ordinary sheaf cohomology in degree $`n=0,1`$ (see e.g. , Ex. III.4.4). We omit the details. $`\mathrm{}`$

## Appendix B Group cohomology for affine flat group schemes

We show how to compute the cohomology of an affine group flat group scheme in terms of cocycles and coboundaries, just as for abstract groups. Reference is , Exposé I.

### B.1

Throughout this section, we fix a commutative ring and an affine flat $`R`$-group scheme $`G=Spec𝒪_G`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }:𝒪_G𝒪_G_R𝒪_G`$ the comultiplication and by $`e:𝒪_GR`$ the counit of $`G`$.

A (right) $`G`$-$`R`$-module is an $`R`$-module $`M`$ together with an $`R`$-linear morphism $`\mu _M:M𝒪_G_RM`$ such that $`(Id_{𝒪_G}\mu _M)\mu _M=(\mathrm{\Delta }Id_M)\mu _M`$ and $`(eId_M)\mu _M=Id_M`$. For each $`R`$-algebra $`R^{}`$ and $`\sigma G(R^{})`$ we obtain an $`R^{}`$-linear automorphism $`mm^\sigma `$ of $`M^{}:=M_RR^{}`$ such that $`m^{\sigma \tau }=(m^\sigma )^\tau `$. We shall denote by $`𝔐(R,G)`$ the category of $`G`$-$`R`$-modules, by $`𝔎^+(R,G)`$ the (triangulated) category of bounded below cochain complex in $`𝔐(R,G)`$ (modulo homotopy) and by $`𝔇^+(R,G)`$ the derived category of $`𝔎^+(R,G)`$.

Given a $`G`$-$`R`$-module $`M`$, the invariant $`R`$-submodule $`M^G`$ is the set of all $`mM`$ such that $`\mu _M(m)=1m`$, or, what is equivalent, $`m^\sigma =m`$ for all $`R^{}`$ and $`\sigma G(R^{})`$. The functor $`MM^G`$ from $`𝔐(R,G)`$ to the category of abelian groups is obviously additive and left exact. We denote its $`n`$th right derived functor by $`H^n(G,)`$ and its total right derived functor by $`^G`$. (For the existence of enough injectives in $`𝔐(G,R)`$, see the proof of Lemma B.1 below.)

### B.2

Given an $`R`$-module $`M`$, we set

$$\stackrel{~}{M}:=𝒪_G_RM.$$

The map $`\mathrm{\Delta }Id_M:\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪_G_R\stackrel{~}{M}`$ gives $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ the structure of a (right) $`G`$-$`R`$-module. A $`G`$-$`R`$-module which is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ for some $`R`$-module $`M`$ is called coinduced. If $`G`$ is a finite group then this agrees with the usual definition of coinduced modules.

Let $`M`$ be an $`R`$-module $`M`$, $`P`$ a $`G`$-$`R`$-module and $`\phi :PM`$ an $`R`$-linear morphism. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }:=(Id_{𝒪_G}\phi )\mu _P:P\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is easily checked to be $`G`$-equivariant. One checks that this construction yields a natural isomorphism

(67)
$$Hom_R(P,M)\stackrel{}{}Hom_G(P,\stackrel{~}{M}).$$

(The inverse of (67) is defined as follows: given a $`G`$-equivariant homomorphism $`\psi :P\stackrel{~}{M}`$, $`\phi :=(eId_M)\psi :PM`$ is an $`R`$-linear morphism such that $`\psi =\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$.) Moreover, the isomorphism (67) makes the functor $`M\stackrel{~}{M}`$ a right adjoint of the forgetful map from $`𝔐(R,G)`$ to $`𝔐(R)`$.

###### Lemma B.1

For any $`R`$-module $`M`$ we have

$$H^n(G,\stackrel{~}{M})=\{\begin{array}{cc}M\hfill & \text{for }n=0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}\hfill & \text{for }n>0.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

For $`n=0`$, the lemma is equivalent to the exactness of the sequence

(68)
$$0M\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪_G_R\stackrel{~}{M}$$

(the first arrow sends $`m`$ to $`1m`$ and the second $`am`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }(a)m1am`$). Now (68) is exact on the left because $`R𝒪_G`$ is flat, by assumption. Exactness in the middle is proved using the properties of the counit $`e:𝒪_GR`$. Hence the lemma holds for $`n=0`$.

Choose an injective resolution $`MI^0I^1\mathrm{}`$ of the $`R`$-module $`M`$. The functor $`M\stackrel{~}{M}`$, being the right adjoint of an exact functor, preserves injectives, see e.g. , Proposition 2.3.11. Therefore, $`\stackrel{~}{M}\stackrel{~}{I}^0\stackrel{~}{I}^1\mathrm{}`$ is an injective resolution of the $`G`$-$`R`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Now the general case of the lemma follows from the case $`n=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### B.3

Let $`M`$ be a $`G`$-$`R`$-module. In order to compute the cohomology groups $`H^n(G,M)`$, it suffices to write down a resolution of $`M`$ by coinduced $`G`$-$`R`$-modules. We do this as follows. Set $`B^1(G,M):=M`$ and define inductively $`B^n(G,M):=(B^{n1}(M))^{}`$ for all $`n0`$. As $`R`$-modules, we simply get

$$B^n(G,M)=\underset{(n+1)\times }{\underset{}{𝒪_G_R\mathrm{}_R𝒪_G}}_RM.$$

We define differentials $`:B^n(G,M)B^{n+1}(G,M)`$ by setting

$`(a_0\mathrm{}a_nm):=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^\nu a_0\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }(a_\nu )\mathrm{}a_nm`$
$`+(1)^{n+1}a_0\mathrm{}a_n\mu _M(m).`$
Note that $`:M=B^1(G,M)\stackrel{~}{M}=B^0(G,M)`$ equals $`\mu _M`$. It is easy to check that

(69)
$$M\stackrel{\mu _M}{}B^0(G,M)\stackrel{}{}B^1(G,M)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{}$$

is an (augmented) complex a $`G`$-$`R`$-modules. (In fact, (69) is the (augmented) cochain complex associated to $`M`$ and the pair of adjoint functors $`𝔐(G,R)𝔐(R)`$, see , §8.6.) Moreover, (69) is exact. This follows immediately from the existence of the homotopy

$$s:\{\begin{array}{ccc}B^{n+1}(G,M)& & B^n(G,M)\\ a_0\mathrm{}a_nm& & e(a_0)a_1\mathrm{}a_nm\end{array}.$$

Applying the functor $`MM^G`$ to the resolution (69) defines an augmented complex of $`R`$-modules

(70)
$$M^GC^0(G,M)\stackrel{}{}C^1(G,M)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{}$$

Elements of $`C^n(G,M)`$ are called $`n`$-cochains with values in $`M`$. Likewise, elements of $`Z^n(G,M):=Ker()`$ (resp. of $`B^n(G,M):=Im()`$) are called cocycles (resp. coboundaries). Note that we have an isomorphism of $`R`$-modules

$$C^n(G,M)\underset{n\times }{\underset{}{𝒪_G_R\mathrm{}_R𝒪_G}}_RM,$$

such that the canonical injection $`C^n(G,M)B^n(G,M)`$ sends the element $`a_1\mathrm{}a_nm`$ to the element $`1a_1\mathrm{}a_nm`$. Given an $`R`$-algebra $`R^{}`$, an $`n`$-cochain $`\phi C^n(G,M)`$ gives rise to a function

$$G(R^{})\times \mathrm{}\times G(R^{})M^{}=M_RR^{},\underset{¯}{\sigma }=(\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _n)\phi _{\underset{¯}{\sigma }}.$$

Now $`\phi `$ is a cocycles (resp. a coboundary) if and only if this function is a cocycle (resp. a coboundary) in the traditional sense, for all $`R`$-algebras $`R^{}`$ (again, it suffices to take $`R^{}`$ flat over $`R`$). For instance, a $`1`$-cochain $`\phi `$ is a cocycle if and only if

$$\phi _{\sigma ,\tau }=\phi _\sigma ^\tau +\phi _\tau $$

holds for all $`\sigma ,\tau G(R^{})`$. It is a coboundary if and only if for all $`R^{}`$ there exists an element $`mM^{}`$ such that $`\phi _\sigma =m^\sigma m`$ holds for all $`\sigma G(R^{})`$.

It follows from Lemma B.1 that

(71)
$$H^n(G,M)=H^n(C^{}(G,M))$$

for all $`G`$-$`R`$-modules $`M`$ and all $`n0`$. The next proposition is a slight generalization of (71).

###### Proposition B.2

Let $`M^{}𝔎^+(R,G)`$ be a bounded below complex of $`G`$-$`R`$-modules. Then we have a natural isomorphism of derived complexes

$$^G(M^{})\mathrm{Tot}(C^{}(G,M^{})).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`K`$ denote the double complex $`B^{}(G,M^{})`$. The $`q`$th row of $`K`$ is exact except at degree $`p=0`$, where the cohomology is $`M^q`$. Therefore, the spectral sequence associated to $`K`$ (filtered by rows) shows that the augmentation $`M^{}K`$ gives rise to a quasi-isomorphism

$$M^{}\mathrm{Tot}(K).$$

By definition, the complex $`\mathrm{Tot}(K)`$ consists entirely of coinduced $`G`$-$`R`$-modules, which are acyclic with respect to taking $`G`$-invariants, by Lemma B.1. Therefore, , Theorem 10.5.9 implies

$$^G(M^{})=\mathrm{Tot}(K)^G=\mathrm{Tot}(C^{}(G,M^{})).$$

This finishes the proof of the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

## Appendix C Sheaves of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules

The goal of this last appendix is to review the definition of equivariant hyperext groups and the construction of the two spectral sequences (79) and (82). The standard reference is .

### C.1

Let $`GS`$ and $`YS`$ be as in §1. Let $`\lambda :G\times _SYY`$ (resp. $`p:G\times _SYY`$) denote the morphism defining the action of $`G`$ on $`Y`$ (resp. the second projection). Given a sheaf of $`𝒪_Y`$-modules $``$, a lift of the $`G`$-action from $`Y`$ to $``$ is given by an isomorphism $`\lambda ^{}p^{}`$ which satisfies certain obvious axioms, see e.g. , §III.12.

Let $``$ and $`𝒢`$ be $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules. Let $`Hom_Y(,𝒢)`$ denote the $`R`$-module of $`𝒪_Y`$-linear (but not necessarily $`G`$-equivariant) homomorphisms from $``$ to $`𝒢`$. It carries a natural structure of $`G`$-$`R`$-module, defined as follows. Let $`R^{}`$ be a flat $`R`$-algebra and $`\sigma G(R^{})`$. Since $`R^{}`$ is flat over $`R`$ we have a natural isomorphism

$$Hom_Y(,𝒢)_RR^{}Hom_Y^{}(^{},𝒢^{}).$$

Given $`f:^{}𝒢^{}Hom_Y^{}(^{},𝒢^{})`$, we define $`f^\sigma `$ via the following commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}^{}& \stackrel{f^\sigma }{}& 𝒢^{}\\ \phi _\sigma & & \phi _\sigma & & \\ \sigma ^{}^{}& \underset{\sigma ^{}f}{}& \sigma ^{}𝒢^{}\end{array}$$

Note that an $`𝒪_Y`$-linear morphism $`f:𝒢`$ is $`G`$-equivariant if and only if it is invariant under the $`G`$-action just defined, i.e.

$$Hom_G(,𝒢)=Hom_Y(,𝒢)^G.$$

### C.2

Let $``$ be an $`𝒪_Y`$-module. We set $`\stackrel{~}{}:=\mu _{}p^{}`$ and claim that $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ carries a natural structure of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module. To define a $`G`$-action on $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, let $`S^{}=SpecR^{}`$ be an affine $`S`$-scheme and $`\sigma G(S^{})`$. As usual, we indicate base change to $`S^{}`$ with a prime (e.g. $`Y^{}=Y\times _SS^{}`$) and identify $`\sigma `$ with the automorphism of $`Y^{}`$ induced from $`\sigma `$ via the action of $`G`$ on $`Y`$. Also, we let $`t_\sigma :G^{}\times _S^{}Y^{}\stackrel{}{}G^{}\times _S^{}Y^{}`$ denote the automorphism induced from left translation by $`\sigma `$ on the first factor. Since $`p^{}t_\sigma =p^{}`$, we have a natural isomorphism

(72)
$$p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}^{}\stackrel{}{}t_\sigma ^{}p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}^{}.$$

Using the commutative diagram

(73)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}G^{}\times _S^{}Y^{}& \stackrel{t_\sigma }{}& G^{}\times _S^{}Y^{}\\ \mu ^{}& & \mu ^{}& & \\ Y^{}& \stackrel{\sigma }{}& Y^{}\end{array}$$

we obtain an isomorphism $`\phi _\sigma :\stackrel{~}{}^{}\stackrel{}{}\sigma ^{}\stackrel{~}{}^{}`$ as follows:

(74)
$$\stackrel{~}{}^{}=\mu _{}^{}p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}^{}\stackrel{}{}\mu _{}^{}t_\sigma ^{}p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}^{}\stackrel{}{}\sigma ^{}\mu _{}^{}p_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}^{}=\sigma ^{}\stackrel{~}{}^{}.$$

One checks that the definition of $`\phi _\sigma `$ is functorial in $`S^{}`$ and satisfies the rule $`\phi _{\sigma \tau }=(\tau ^{}\phi _\sigma )\phi _\tau `$. This defines a lift of the $`G`$-action from $`Y`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. we may therefore regard $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ as a $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module. A $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ for some $`𝒪_Y`$-module $``$ is called coinduced. Compare with §B.2.

###### Proposition C.1

1. Given an $`𝒪_Y`$-module $``$ and a $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module $`𝒢`$, we have a natural isomorphism of $`G`$-$`R`$-modules

$$Hom_Y(𝒢,\stackrel{~}{})\stackrel{~}{Hom_Y(𝒢,)}$$

(the right hand side is the $`G`$-$`R`$-module coinduced from the $`R`$-module $`Hom_Y(𝒢,)`$).
2. The functor $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is the right adjoint of the forgetful functor $`𝔐(Y,G)𝔐(Y)`$.

###### Proof.

Given a $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module $`𝒢`$, we have natural isomorphisms of $`R`$-modules

(75)
$$Hom_Y(𝒢,)Hom_{G\times Y}(\mu ^{}𝒢,p^{})Hom_{G\times Y}(p^{}𝒢,p^{})\stackrel{~}{Hom_Y(𝒢,)}.$$

Here the first isomorphism is obtained from the adjointness of $`\mu _{}`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$, the second isomorphism from the $`G`$-action on $`𝒢`$ and the third isomorphism exists because $`GS`$ is flat. Note that both the first and the last term in (75) carry a natural structure of $`G`$-$`R`$-module. One checks that (75) defines an isomorphism of $`G`$-$`R`$-modules. This proves (i). Taking $`G`$-invariants and using Lemma B.1 for $`n=0`$, we obtain an isomorphism of $`R`$-modules

(76)
$$Hom_G(𝒢,\stackrel{~}{})Hom_Y(𝒢,).$$

A tedious but elementary verification shows that this isomorphism makes $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ the right adjoint of the forgetful functor $`𝔐(Y,G)𝔐(Y)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary C.2

1. The category $`𝔐(Y,G)`$ has enough injectives.
2. Given a $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module $`𝒢`$, the functor

$$Hom_Y(𝒢,):𝔐(Y,G)𝔐(R,G)$$

sends injective $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules to $`G`$-$`R`$-modules which are acyclic with respect to the functor $`MM^G`$.

### C.3

Let $`𝒜,`$ be complexes of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules. We assume that $`𝒜`$ is bounded below and that $``$ is bounded in both directions. Then the total Hom complex $`Hom_G^{}(𝒜,)`$ is a (bounded above) complex of abelian groups whose $`n`$th cohomology group is isomorphic to the group of homomorphisms $`𝒜[n]`$ up to homotopy, i.e.

$$H^n(Hom_G^{}(𝒜,))=Hom_{𝔎^+(Y,G)}(𝒜,[n]).$$

See e.g. , 2.7.4. Let $`𝔎^{}(𝔄𝔟)`$ denote the category of bounded above complexes of abelian groups, up to homotopy, and $`𝔇^{}(𝔄𝔟)`$ its derived category. The functor $`Hom_G^{}(𝒜,):𝔎^b(G,Y)𝔎^{}(𝔄𝔟)`$ is a morphism of triangulated categories and has a total right derived functor, which we denote by $`\mathrm{Hom}_G(𝒜,):𝔇^b(Y,G)𝔇^{}(𝔄𝔟)`$. The $`n`$th hyperext of $`𝒜`$ and $``$ is defined as

$$𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^n(𝒜,):=H^n(\mathrm{Hom}_G(𝒜,))$$

see e.g. , §10.7. It follows from standard arguments that the functor $`\mathrm{Hom}_G(,):𝔇^+(Y,G)𝔇^{}(𝔄𝔟)`$ is a morphism of triangulated categories.

Ignoring the $`G`$-action, we may as well define the total Hom complex $`Hom_Y^{}(𝒜,)`$. By §C.1, the terms of $`Hom_Y^{}(𝒜,)`$ carry a natural structure of $`G`$-$`R`$-modules such that

(77)
$$Hom_G^{}(𝒜,)=Hom_Y^{}(𝒜,)^G.$$

This formula displays the functor $`Hom_G^{}(𝒜,)`$ as the composition of two morphisms of triangulated categories

$$𝔎^b(Y,G)𝔎^{}(R,G)𝔎^{}(𝔄𝔟).$$

It follows from Corollary C.2 and , Theorem 10.8.2 that

(78)
$$\mathrm{Hom}_G(𝒜,)^G(\mathrm{Hom}_Y(𝒜,)).$$

Therefore, the hyperext group $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^n(𝒜,)`$ can be computed via the Grothendieck spectral sequence

(79)
$$E_2^{p,q}:=H^p(G,𝔼\mathrm{xt}_Y^q(𝒜,))𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^{p+q}(𝒜,).$$

### C.4

Now assume that $`GS`$ is finite and that $`Y`$ can be covered by affine $`G`$-stable open subsets. Then by , Theorem 12.1, the quotient scheme $`X:=Y/G`$ exists and the natural projection $`\pi :YX`$ is finite. Given a $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module $``$, one defines a sheaf of $`𝒪_X`$-modules $`^G`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(V,^G)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi ^1(V),)^G.$$

Let $``$, $`𝒢`$ be two $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules. In view of §C.1 it is clear that the sheaf $`om_Y(,𝒢)`$ is endowed with a natural action of $`G`$, i.e. with a structure of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-module. We set

$$om_G(,𝒢):=om_Y(,𝒢)^G.$$

By definition, we have

(80)
$$Hom_G(,𝒢)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,om_G(,𝒢)).$$

###### Lemma C.3

The additive functor $`om_G(,)`$ sends injective $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,)`$-acyclic $`𝒪_X`$-modules.

###### Proof.

By the construction of injective objects of $`𝔐(Y,G)`$ in §C.2, it suffices to proof the lemma for $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules of the form $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, where $``$ is an injective $`𝒪_Y`$-module. Using Proposition C.1 (ii) one shows that

$$om_G(,\stackrel{~}{})=\pi _{}om_Y(,).$$

It is well known that $`om_Y(,)`$ sends injective to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Y,)`$-acyclic $`𝒪_Y`$-modules. But since $`\pi `$ is finite the functor $`\pi _{}`$ is exact and so $`\pi _{}om_Y(,)`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,)`$-acyclic. This proves the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Given two complexes of $`G`$-$`𝒪_Y`$-modules $`𝒜`$ and $``$ (with $`𝒜`$ bounded below and $``$ bounded), one defines the (bounded above) complex of $`𝒪_X`$-modules $`om_G^{}(𝒜,)`$. We let $`om_G(𝒜,)`$ denote the total right derived functor of $`om_G^{}(𝒜,)`$, evaluated at $``$, and set

$$xt_G^n(𝒜,):=H^n(om_G(𝒜,)).$$

As in the previous subsection, it follows from (80) and Lemma C.3 that

(81)
$$\mathrm{Hom}_G(𝒜,)\mathrm{\Gamma }(X,om_G(𝒜,)).$$

In particular, there exists a spectral sequence

(82)
$$H^p(X,xt_G^q(𝒜,))𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^{p+q}(𝒜,).$$

Following , we call (82) the local-global spectral sequence for $`𝔼\mathrm{xt}_G^{}`$.

Mathematisches Institut

Universität Bonn

Beringstr. 1

53115 Bonn, Germany

wewers@math.uni-bonn.de