format: text

text:
# Higher genus curves on toric varieties

## Introduction

This article is intended to be an application to the case of toric varieties of the ideas developed in my paper , where I have studied the problem of computing the Gromov-Witten invariants of quotient varieties.

The quantum cohomology ring of toric varieties was studied in , where is given an explicit formula for the quantum multiplication on Fano toric varieties, and also in , where the virtual localization technique is used in order to compute genus zero invariants of toric varieties. For the higher genus invariants, the combinatorics which appears makes the application of the virtual localization formula difficult.

The aim of this article is less ambitious, we just want to have an as neat as possible description of the space of morphisms from a fixed curve into a smooth and projective toric variety, provided the degree of these morphisms is sufficiently large. We impose the restriction on the degree because it turns out that in this case the space of morphisms in question is smooth and has the expected dimension. Eventually, we will compute intersection numbers on a certain natural smooth and projective compactification of it. As a disclaimer, we should say from the very beginning that we do not pretend to describe the stable map compactification à la Kontsevich-Manin, which is hard to grasp, but instead what we find is birational to an irreducible component of this space of stable maps.

The article begins with an introductory section whose purpose is that of fixing the notations and recalling generalities on toric varieties. The study actually starts with the second section which treats the problem of compactifying the space of morphisms from a smooth and projective curve into a smooth and projective toric variety; the conclusions in this direction are contained in proposition 2.2 and corollary 2.4. After the description of the generators of the cohomology ring and the relations among them, we apply in the last section the localization method for computing intersection products on our space of morphisms. The general formula given in theorem 4.5, which is the main result of the present article, has the shortcoming of being too combinatorial and therefore not explicit enough. Neverthless, using it we are able to give in proposition 4.7 explicit formulae for certain intersection products on one hand and, on the other hand, to derive in proposition 4.8 vanishings induced by the primitive collections of the fan defining the toric variety we start with.

Acknowledgment This study was done during my stay at the Maths Department of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum, and I take the opportunity to thank Prof. H. Flenner and Prof. A. Huckleberry for their hospitality.

## 1. Setting up the problem

Toric varieties are studied in great detail in , but I shall prefer the very nice synthesis of the topic which can be found in the third chapter of . We are starting with the notations: $`X=X_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ stands for a smooth and projective toric variety defined by the fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M_{}^{}:=𝖧𝗈𝗆_{}(M,)`$, with $`M^n`$, whose one dimensional faces are denoted $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$; we let $`r:=\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ and $`l:=rn`$. The assumptions on $`X`$ imply that the integral generators of any $`n`$-dimensional cone of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ form a $``$-basis of $`M^{}`$. We denote $`e^1,\mathrm{},e^l,e^{l+1},\mathrm{},e^r`$ the integral generators of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$, and we are further assuming that $`(e^{l+1},\mathrm{},e^r)`$ actually generate an $`n`$-dimensional cone. Since they form a $``$-basis of $`M^{}`$, there are integers $`a_\nu ^\lambda `$ such that

(1.1) $`e^\lambda +a_\nu ^\lambda e^{l+\nu }=0.`$
Here we are using the usual summing convention over the indices; in the whole paper we let $`\lambda \{1,\mathrm{},l\}`$, $`\nu \{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`\rho \{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$. We have the exact sequence of tori

(1.2) $`1T\stackrel{\epsilon }{}(^{})^{\mathrm{\Sigma }(1)}S1,`$
where $`T:=𝖧𝗈𝗆_{}(A^1(X);^{})`$ and $`S:=M^{}_{}^{}`$, which in the basis $`(e^{l+1},\mathrm{},e^r)`$ takes the form

(1.3) $`1T\stackrel{\epsilon }{}(^{})^rS1,`$
with the homomorphism $`\epsilon `$ defined by the characters $`(\chi _\rho )_\rho `$ as follows:

(1.4) $`\chi _\lambda (t)=t_\lambda \text{and}\chi _{l+\nu }(t)=t^{\underset{¯}{a}_\nu }=t_1^{a_\nu ^1}\mathrm{}t_l^{a_\nu ^l}.`$
We should keep in mind that this last description depends on the choice of a $`n`$-dimensional cone of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and this remark will be used over and over in the paper. The homomorphism $`\epsilon `$ induces a $`T`$-action on $`^r`$, and $`X`$ is simply the quotient for this action. More precisely, there is a $`T`$-invariant open subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }^r`$ whose complement $`Z_X:=^r\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has codimension at least two, such that $`X=\mathrm{\Omega }/T`$. In fact $`Z_X`$ is a union of linear subspaces of $`^r`$,

(1.5) $`Z_X={\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{}}𝔸(\pi ),`$
where $`\pi `$ runs over the set of so-called primitive collections of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (see sections 1 and 2 of  for definition and proof).

The generators $`(e^\rho )_\rho `$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ define respectively the divisors $`(D_\rho )_\rho `$ on $`X`$ which, as elements of $`A^1(X)`$, satisfy the linear relations

(1.6) $`D_{l+\nu }a_\nu ^\lambda D_\lambda =0,\text{ for all }\nu =1,\mathrm{},n.`$
In this way we get an isomorphism $`A^1(X)D_1\mathrm{}D_l`$, determined by the choice of the $`n`$-dimensional cone $`(e^{l+1},\mathrm{},e^r)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

* For $`C`$ a smooth and projective curve of genus $`g`$, we say that a morphism $`u:CX`$ has multi-degree $`\underset{¯}{d}=(d_\rho )_\rho `$ if $`d_\rho =D_\rho u_{}C`$ for $`\rho =1,\mathrm{},r`$.

Of course, in definition above the integers $`d_\rho `$ are not independent but are related by $`d_{l+\nu }=a_\nu ^\lambda d_\lambda `$ for all $`\nu `$.

The following well-known ‘Euler sequence’ on $`X`$,

(1.7) $`0𝒪_X^l{\displaystyle \underset{\rho }{}}𝒪(D_\rho )𝖳_X0,`$
and the Riemann-Roch theorem immediately implies the

###### Lemma 1.2.

The space $`𝖬𝗈𝗋_{\underset{¯}{d}}(C,X)`$ of morphisms from $`C`$ to $`X`$ having multi-degree $`\underset{¯}{d}`$ is smooth as soon as $`d_\rho >2g1`$ for all $`\rho =1,\mathrm{},r`$. In this case, it is also irreducible and has the expected dimension

(1.8) $`dim𝖬𝗈𝗋_{\underset{¯}{d}}(C,X)={\displaystyle \underset{\rho }{}}d_\rho n(g1).`$
###### Proof.

All the statements are obvious except the one concerning the irreducibility of $`𝖬𝗈𝗋_{\underset{¯}{d}}(C,X)`$ which will be proved in corollary 2.4. ∎

As this first section is devoted to set up the stage, let us mention a probably well-known generality about toric varieties which will be needed in the proof of proposition 2.2.

###### Proposition 1.3.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth and projective toric variety as before. There is an ample line bundle $`A^r`$ having the properties:

(i)  it linearizes the standard $`(^{})^r`$-action on $`^r`$;

(i)  the corresponding set of $`T`$-semi-stable points is precisely $`\mathrm{\Omega }^r`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`X`$ is projective, there are characters $`\beta `$ of $`T`$ such that the associated line bundles $`A_\beta :=\mathrm{\Omega }\times _\beta X`$ are very ample. Sections of $`A_\beta `$ can be naturally identified with $`T`$-equivariant holomorphic functions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and a fortiori on $`^r`$ because $`Z_X=^r\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has codimension at least two. We say that $`f:^r`$ is $`T`$-equivariant if

$$f\left(\epsilon (t^{})\times z\right)=\beta (t^{})f(z),t^{}T\text{ and }z^r,$$

and denote $`𝒪(^r)_\beta `$ the (finite dimensional) vector space of such functions. There is a natural map

$$\begin{array}{c}F:^r𝒪(^r)_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{},\hfill \\ zF(z):F(z),f=f(z),\hfill \end{array}$$

having the properties:

$``$ it covers the projective embedding of $`X`$ defined by the linear system of $`A_\beta `$;

$``$ $`F(z)=0`$ for all $`zZ_X`$ and $`F(z)0`$ for all $`z\mathrm{\Omega }`$;

$``$ $`F\left(\epsilon (t^{})\times z\right)=\beta (t^{})F(z)`$ for all $`t^{}T`$ and $`z^r`$.

In a certain basis of $`𝒪(^r)_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, the $`(^{})^r`$-action can be diagonalized, and we denote $`\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _\omega `$ the corresponding characters; they have the property that $`\mu _k\epsilon =\beta `$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},\omega `$. With respect to this basis, we are defining the $`(^{})^r`$-action on $`\left(𝒪(^r)_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)`$, together with a linearization in the standard ample line bundle over this projective space as follows: $`(^{})^r`$ acts on $`𝒪(^r)_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ by the characters $`1,\mu _1^1\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _1^1\mu _\omega `$ and on the $``$-term by $`\mu _1^1`$. Similarly, we let $`(^{})^r`$ act on $`^{r+1}=^r`$, in the standard fashion on $`^r`$ and trivially on the last component.

The ample line bundle $`A^r`$ we are looking for is obtained by restricting via

$$^r\mathrm{Graph}(F)\left(^r\right)\times \left(𝒪(^r)_{\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)$$

the natural (tensor product) ample line bundle on the product of these projective spaces. After replacing $`\beta `$ with a sufficiently large power of it, one may check that the points $`(z,1)\times (0,1)`$, $`z^r`$, are $`T`$-unstable, while the points $`(z,1)\times (y,1)`$, $`y0`$, are $`T`$-semi-stable. Consequently the $`T`$-semi-stable set of $`^r`$ is precisely $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. ∎

We continue the preparatory material by fixing once for all a point $`\zeta _0C`$ and we consider the Poincaré bundle $`_0𝒥\times C`$ whose restriction $`_0|_{𝒥\times \{\zeta _0\}}=𝒪_𝒥`$; for $`d`$, we define $`_d:=_0pr_C^{}𝒪(d\zeta _0)`$. As one expects, $`𝒥`$ denotes the Jacobian variety of $`C`$ and, for all integers $`d`$, $`_d`$ parameterizes line bundles of degree $`d`$ over the curve $`C`$.

The topological type of a holomorphic principal $`T`$-bundle over $`C`$ is determined by its multi-degree $`\underset{¯}{d}^{}=(d_1,\mathrm{},d_l)`$; holomorphic principal $`T`$-bundles over $`C`$ with fixed multi-degree, are parameterized by the $`l^{\mathrm{th}}`$ power of the Jacobian of $`C`$. We denote

$$𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}^{}}𝒥^l\times C$$

the universal principal $`T`$-bundle parameterizing principal $`T`$-bundles over $`C`$ with multi-degree $`\underset{¯}{d}^{}`$, trivialized at $`\zeta _0`$. The bundle $`𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}^{}}`$ is uniquely determined by the choice of the Poincaré bundles $`_d`$ above.

Later on we will see that is useful to consider the principal bundle

$$𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}𝒥^r\times C$$

which parameterizes $`(^{})^r`$-bundles over $`C`$ having multi-degree $`\underset{¯}{d}=(d_1,\mathrm{},d_r)`$. For

(1.11) $`\begin{array}{c}\psi :𝒥^l𝒥^r\text{defined by}\hfill \\ (L_1,\mathrm{},L_l)(L_1,\mathrm{},L_l,a_1^\lambda L_\lambda ,\mathrm{},a_n^\lambda L_\lambda ),\hfill \end{array}`$
we get the commutative diagram

(1.16)
Shortly, the reason for introducing this new ingredient is that for writing the left-hand-side of (1.16) we have chosen a cone of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, while the right-hand-side is symmetric, the information on the structure of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ being encoded in the map $`\psi `$.

## 2. Description of the space of morphisms

All the subsequent constructions are motivated by the following very simple remark: given a morphism $`u:CX`$ having multi-degree $`\underset{¯}{d}`$, the pull-back $`P:=u^{}\mathrm{\Omega }C`$ is a holomorphic principal $`T`$-bundle whose multi-degree is $`\underset{¯}{d}^{}`$ (this is easy to see). The morphism $`C=P/TP\times _T^r`$ is just a section of a rank $`r`$ vector bundle over $`C`$ in which the torus $`T`$ still acts, covering the identity of $`C`$. Any two sections which are in the same $`T`$-orbit give rise to the same morphism from $`C`$ into $`X`$ (some care is actually required at this point). This is the sort of correspondence which will be exploited in this section. The inequalities $`d_\rho >2g1`$ appearing in lemma 1.2 will be assumed in the rest of the paper.

We start with the vector bundles associated to (1.16)

(2.5)
and notice that $`\psi ^{}_\rho =𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}^{}}\times _{\chi _\rho }=:L_\rho `$ (the characters $`\chi _\rho `$ are defined by (1.4)). Taking the direct images

(2.10)
we recognize in $`W_\rho `$ the Picard vector bundles associated respectively to the Poincaré bundles $`_\rho `$; the rank of $`W`$ is given by the formula

$$\mathrm{rk}W=\underset{\rho }{}d_\rho r(g1).$$

The action of $`T`$ on $`^r`$ induces actions on $`_\rho L_\rho `$ and $`_\rho _\rho `$ covering respectively the identities of $`𝒥^l\times C`$ and $`𝒥^r\times C`$ and, a fortiori, there are natural $`T`$-actions on $`V`$ and $`W`$ which cover respectively the identities of $`𝒥^l`$ and $`𝒥^r`$ and moreover preserve the decompositions $`V=_\rho V_\rho `$ and $`W=_\rho W_\rho `$.

The remark at the beginning of this section tells that the space of morphisms from $`C`$ to $`X`$ should be the quotient ‘$`V/T`$’. Of course, this should not be taken ad litteram but in the spirit of geometric invariant theory. What we shall actually construct is the quotient of $`W`$ for the $`T`$-action, and $`V//T`$ will be just its pull-back by $`\psi `$.

One can spot at the first glance a ‘nice’ Zariski open subset of $`W`$ on which $`T`$ acts freely

(2.11) $`W^o:=\{sW\mathrm{Image}s𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}Z_X\}.`$
As the closed subvariety $`Z_X^r`$ which had to be ‘thrown away’ for obtaining $`X`$ was a union of coordinate subspaces,

(2.12) $`Z_W:=\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}Z_X)={\displaystyle \underset{\pi }{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}𝔸(\pi ))`$
is still a union of subvector bundles of $`W`$, and $`W^o=WZ_W`$. Even if $`T`$ is acting freely on $`W^o`$, it is possibly not so clear that the quotient $`W^o/T`$ exists as a complex manifold.

###### Lemma 2.1.

$`W^o/T`$ has a natural structure of a Hausdorff complex analytic variety.

###### Proof.

As expected, we put on $`W^o/T`$ the final topology for the projection $`W^oW^o/T`$; we must prove that the quotient is Hausdorff when we consider on $`W^o`$ the analytic topology given by small balls. For two sections $`s,s^{}W^o`$ lying over the same point in $`𝒥^r`$, which are not in the same $`T`$-orbit, we want to prove that there are neighborhoods $`𝒰s`$ and $`𝒰^{}s^{}`$ such that $`T𝒰T𝒰^{}=\mathrm{}`$ (when $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ lie above two different points of $`𝒥^r`$ everything is clear). From the very definition of $`W^o`$ we deduce that

$$s_\zeta ,s_\zeta ^{}\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta C^o,$$

with $`CC^o`$ a finite set. We are distinguishing two cases:

Case (1) When there is a point $`\zeta C^o`$ such that $`s_\zeta `$ and $`s_\zeta ^{}`$ are not in the same $`T`$-orbit in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the existence of the two disjoint $`T`$-invariant neighborhoods of $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ is immediate;

Case (2) It might happen that for any $`\zeta C^o`$, the evaluations $`s_\zeta `$ and $`s_\zeta ^{}`$ are in the same $`T`$-orbit (such a situation does appear in the simple case when we projectivize the space of sections of a line bundle). In this case, since $`T`$ acts freely on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, there is a morphism $`\tau :C^oT`$ such that $`s_\zeta ^{}=\tau _\zeta s_\zeta `$. If there are no neighborhoods $`𝒰`$ and $`𝒰^{}`$ as wanted, we deduce the existence of sequences $`(s_k)_kW^o`$ and $`(t_k)_kT`$ such that $`s_k\stackrel{}{}s`$ and $`t_ks_k\stackrel{}{}s^{}`$, where the norm $``$ on $`W`$ is defined by

$$s:=\underset{\zeta C}{\mathrm{max}}s_\zeta .$$

Let us fix a closed disk $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}C^o`$. For positive $`ϵ`$, there is a rank $`k_ϵ`$ such that for $`kk_ϵ`$,

$$s_{k,\zeta }\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\text{and}s_\zeta ^{}t_ks_k<ϵ.$$

It follows that $`|\tau _\zeta s_\zeta t_ks_{k,\zeta }|<ϵ,\zeta \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, which in turn implies that $`|s_\zeta \tau _\zeta ^1t_ks_{k,\zeta }|<ϵ`$ for a possibly different choice of $`ϵ`$ (this is because we have restricted ourselves to the compact $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$). Since for $`\zeta \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ the $`s_k`$’s take values in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we deduce that $`t_k\stackrel{k\mathrm{}}{}\tau _\zeta `$ for all $`\zeta \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$; but this means that $`\tau :C^oT`$ is constant when restricted to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and consequently is constant everywhere. We conclude that $`s`$ and $`s^{}`$ are in the same $`T`$-orbit in $`W`$, which contradicts our assumption. ∎

This lemma solves the problem of the $`T`$-action on $`W^o`$, but one would like to work with compact manifolds, and no one guarantees that $`W^o/T`$ is so. The purpose of the next proposition is to prove that $`W^o/T`$ is actually a projective, and not just an analytic variety.

###### Proposition 2.2.

The $`T`$-action on $`W`$ can be linearized in an ample line bundle over it, such that the semi-stable set for this action coincides with $`W^o`$ defined by (2.11). Moreover, the invariant quotient $`W:=W//T`$ is a smooth and projective variety of dimension

$$dimW=\underset{\rho }{}d_\rho +n.$$

###### Proof.

According to proposition 1.3 there is an ample line bundle on $`A^r`$ which linearizes the $`(^{})^r`$-action on $`^r`$, such that the corresponding $`T`$-semi-stable set is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and consequently $`X=^r//T`$. This one induces the relatively ample line bundle

$$\overline{A}:=𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}A𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}^r,$$

and the action of $`T`$ is still linearized in $`\overline{A}`$. Tensoring $`\overline{A}`$ with a sufficiently ample line bundle on $`𝒥^r\times C`$ we obtain an ample line bundle on $`𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}^r`$, together with a linearization of the $`T`$-action in it, which has the additional property that the $`T`$-semi-stable locus is precisely $`𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Identifying $`W=p_{}\left(𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}^r\right)`$ with the space of morphisms from $`C`$ into $`𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}^r`$ which represent the class of a section, we find ourselves in the situation studied in section 2 of , where is shown that in this case is possible to linearize (rather canonically) the $`T`$-action on $`W`$ in an ample line bundle such that the corresponding semi-stable points have the property that their image is not completely contained in the unstable locus of $`𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}^r`$ (according to corollary 2.4 loc.cit.). Denoting $`W^s`$ the set of $`T`$-semi-stable points of $`W`$, we have found that $`W^sW^o`$.

We want to prove now that $`W=W^s/T`$ is projective; quasi-projectivity comes for free from the very construction, so that remains to prove the compactness (completeness). Since the $`T`$-action on $`W`$ covers the identity of $`𝒥^r`$, $`W^s/T`$ comes with the projection

$$q:W^s/T𝒥^r.$$

The first claim is that this map is surjective: indeed, according to theorem 2.5 in , points $`sW`$ whose image is contained in $`𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are $`T`$-semi-stable. Since the ‘bad’ set $`Z_X^r`$ has codimension at least two and because the line bundles $`_\rho `$ are globally generated, we deduce that for any $`j𝒥^r`$ there is a section $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}^r|_j)`$ having the property that its image is disjoint from $`𝒫\times _{(^{})^r}Z_X`$. This proves the claim.

Consequently is enough to prove the compactness of the fibres of the projection $`q`$. The following lemma describes the fibrewise situation.

###### Lemma 2.3.

Suppose we are given a torus action on $`^r`$ as described at the beginning of section 1, so that the quotient is a smooth and projective toric variety. Let us consider now the action $`T\times ^R^R`$, where

$$^R:=^{N_1}\mathrm{}^{N_r}$$

and the torus $`T`$ acts on the direct summands of $`^R`$ respectively by the same characters $`(\chi _\rho )_\rho `$ as on $`^r`$. Then the quotient is a smooth, compact toric variety.

###### Proof.

The compactness of the quotient can be easily seen using the moment map description of toric varieties. In coordinates, the moment map corresponding to the $`T`$-action on $`^r`$ is (see section 3.3 in ):

(2.16) $`m:^{n+l}^l,m(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}|z^1|^2+a_\nu ^1|z^{l+\nu }|^2\\ \mathrm{}\\ |z^l|^2+a_\nu ^l|z^{l+\nu }|^2\end{array}\right).`$
Then $`X`$ can be described as $`X=m^1(a)/T_{}`$ for (a well chosen) $`a^l`$, where $`T_{}=(S^1)^l`$ denotes the real torus. Since $`X`$ is compact, $`m^1(a)`$ is still compact and $`T_{}`$ acts freely on it.

Let us move now to the new situation and denote $`\underset{¯}{z}^\rho `$ the points of $`^{N_\rho }`$. The moment map in this case has the form

(2.20) $`M:^R^l,M(\underset{¯}{z})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}|\underset{¯}{z}^1|^2+a_\nu ^1|\underset{¯}{z}^{l+\nu }|^2\\ \mathrm{}\\ |\underset{¯}{z}^l|^2+a_\nu ^l|\underset{¯}{z}^{l+\nu }|^2\end{array}\right)`$
and we want to prove that the quotient $`Y:=M^1(a)/T_{}`$ is smooth and compact. It is easy to see that the maps

$$m^1(a)(z^1,\mathrm{},z^r)(|z^1|,\mathrm{},|z^r|)^r$$

and

$$M^1(a)(\underset{¯}{z}^1,\mathrm{},\underset{¯}{z}^r)(|\underset{¯}{z}^1|,\mathrm{},|\underset{¯}{z}^r|)^r.$$

have the same image, which is compact since $`m^1(a)`$ is so. The compactness of $`M^1(a)`$ is implied now by the compactness of standard spheres. The action of $`T_{}`$ on $`M^1(a)`$ is free because for any point $`\underset{¯}{z}_o`$ which solves the equation $`M(\underset{¯}{z})=a`$, is possible to find a $`(^{})^r`$-equivariant embedding $`^r^R`$ which pass through $`\underset{¯}{z}_o`$. The conclusion follows now from the fact that $`T_{}`$ acts freely on $`m^1(a)`$. ∎

Coming back to our proposition, we deduce from the lemma that the fibres of $`q`$ are smooth and compact toric varieties, all isomorphic to $`Y=M^1(a)/T_{}`$. Since $`W^s/T`$ is quasi-projective, it follows that $`Y`$ is actually projective and so is the invariant quotient $`W=W^s/T`$.

Remains to prove that $`W^s=W^o`$: the natural inclusion $`W^s/TW^o/T`$ being an open map, its image is both open and closed in $`W^o/T`$, so that $`W^s/T=W^o/T`$ and therefore $`W^s=W^o`$. ∎

According to (2.20), the moment map induced by the $`T_{}`$-action on $`W`$ is given by

(2.24) $`M(s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}{\displaystyle _C}\left(|s_\zeta ^1|^2+a_\nu ^1|s_\zeta ^{l+\nu }|^2\right)d\gamma (\zeta )\\ \mathrm{}\\ {\displaystyle _C}\left(|s_\zeta ^l|^2+a_\nu ^l|s_\zeta ^{l+\nu }|^2\right)d\gamma (\zeta )\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle _C}m(s_\zeta )d\gamma (\zeta ),`$
where $`s=(s^\rho )_\rho W`$ and $`\mathrm{d}\gamma `$ denotes a volume form on $`C`$. This formula is in agreement with the computations done in section 3 of , namely with equation (3.3) in there. Actually, this is the reason why we consider the level set $`\{M=a\}W`$, and not another one, for describing the invariant quotient $`W//T`$.

We recall now that what we are actually interested in is a compactification of the space $`𝖬𝗈𝗋_{\underset{¯}{d}}(C,X)`$. The reason for introducing the variety $`W`$ was to have a ‘symmetric object’ in our hands, in the sense that it does not depend on the choice of some particular cone of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The compactification we are looking for is $`V:=V//T`$ (see (2.10)), which can be now easily described as $`V=\psi ^{}W=𝒥^l\times _{𝒥^r}W`$. It is a fibre space over $`𝒥^l`$, with all the fibres isomorphic to the toric variety $`Y`$ constructed in lemma 2.3. We collect this information in the

###### Corollary 2.4.

The space of morphisms $`𝖬𝗈𝗋_{\underset{¯}{d}}(C,X)`$ is irreducible and the variety $`V:=\psi ^{}W`$ is a smooth and projective compactification of it.

Now becomes clear our statement in the introduction, that $`V`$ is definitely not the stable map compactification of the space of morphisms from $`C`$ to $`X`$, but is only birational to an irreducible component of this later. Indeed, the space of stable maps whose stabilized domain is $`C`$ contains, when $`g2`$, the component whose points correspond to the following morphisms: the domain of definition is the singular curve consisting of $`C`$ with $`^1`$ attached at some point; the map is constant on $`C`$ and has multi-degree $`\underset{¯}{d}`$ on $`^1`$. Is also true that this component has strictly larger dimension than the expected one, and therefore is not clear how does it contribute to the Gromov-Witten invariants.

## 3. Cohomology of the space of morphisms

Since the projection $`q:W𝒥^r`$ is a fibre bundle, the Leray-Hirsch theorem says that the cohomology of $`W`$ is generated by the the cohomology of $`𝒥^r`$ and the cohomology of the fibre $`Y`$ (a similar remark applies to $`q:V𝒥^l`$). Let us define now the line bundles

(3.1) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho :=W^o\times _{\chi _\rho }W,\rho =1,\mathrm{},r.`$
on $`W`$. The interest comes from the fact that there is a rational evaluation map

(3.2) $`ev:V\times C\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }X,`$
and the $`\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$’s coincide respectively with the pull-backs under $`ev`$ of the line bundles $`𝒪(D_\rho )`$ on $`X`$, at least on the domain of definition of $`ev`$. Since the classes $`D_\rho `$ generate the cohomology of $`X`$, we may hope that integrals as $`_V_\rho (\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho )^{m_\rho }`$ are related to enumerative invariants of $`X`$. Morally, they should count the number of morphisms from $`C`$ to $`X`$ satisfying certain incidence conditions.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The integral cohomology of $`W`$ is generated as a ring by the integral cohomology of $`𝒥^r`$ and the classes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_r`$.

###### Proof.

The statement follows from the fact that when restricted to the fibres of $`q`$, the classes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_r`$ generate the integral cohomology ring of $`Y`$ (recall that $`Y`$ is a toric variety). ∎

For making computations, we must find the relations among the classes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$. The obvious relations are the linear ones like

(3.3) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{l+\nu }=a_\nu ^\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_\lambda ,\nu \{1,\mathrm{},n\}.`$
and the others corresponding to the remaining $`n`$-dimensional cones of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In analogy with the case of toric varieties, we are going to describe the non-linear relations among the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$’s which arise from the primitive collections of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We start noticing that the ‘bad’ sets which must be removed for constructing the quotients $`X`$ and $`W`$ behave in a rather functorial way: indeed, according to (2.12)

$$Z_W=\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}Z_X)=\underset{\pi }{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}𝔸(\pi )),$$

which is a union of linear subvector bundles of $`W`$; as usual, $`\pi \{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$ runs over the primitive collections of the fan defining $`X`$. This means that the primitive collections of $`W`$, more precisely the primitive collections of the fan defining the toric fibre $`Y`$ of $`q:W𝒥^r`$, are simply $`\mathrm{ker}(pr_\pi )`$, for $`pr_\pi :W_{\rho \pi }W_\rho `$. We deduce that for any primitive collection $`\pi `$ of the fan defining $`X`$,

(3.4) $`ȷ_Y^{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\rho \pi }{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{N_\rho }\right)=0,\text{ for }N_\rho :=\mathrm{rk}W_\rho =d_\rho (g1).`$
However, we would like to have expressions for the products $`_{\rho \pi }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{N_\rho }`$ as elements of $`H^{}(W)H^{}(𝒥^r)H^{}(Y)`$. To begin with, we observe that for each $`\rho `$ there is a sheaf monomorphism

$$0\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^1q^{}W_\rho \text{given by}[s,z]zpr_\rho s,sW^o\text{ and }z.$$

Equivalently, one can say that for each $`\rho `$ there is a canonical non-zero section $`0𝒪_Wq^{}W_\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$. From the description of $`Z_W`$ it follows that for every primitive collection $`\pi `$,

(3.5) $`0𝒪_W{\displaystyle \underset{\rho \pi }{}}q^{}W_\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$
is a monomorphism of vector bundles, and consequently

###### Proposition 3.2.

For any primitive collection $`\pi `$ of the fan defining $`X`$, the Euler class

$$e\left(_{\rho \pi }q^{}W_\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho \right)=0.$$

The vanishing (3.4) is an immediate consequence, and when $`X`$ is a projective space, so that $`W=(W)`$, proposition 3.2 reduces to the standard Grothendieck relation for $`𝒪_{(W)}(1)W`$. It is probably true that the linear relations (3.3) and the non-linear ones in proposition 3.2 generate the ideal of all the relations among the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$’s.

## 4. Localization

In this section we will apply the localization method developed in  for computing intersection products of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$’s on $`W`$, the ultimate goal being to compute intersection numbers on $`V`$. We will apply the localization formula in cohomology with respect to the action of the torus $`S`$ defined by the exact sequence (1.2).

First of all we have to make explicit the $`S`$-action on $`W`$ and to describe the corresponding fixed point set $`W^S`$. Since $`Z_W`$ defined by (2.12) is $`(^{})^r`$-invariant, its complement $`W^o`$ is still $`(^{})^r`$-invariant and therefore $`S=(^{})^r/T`$ acts on $`W=W^o/T`$ and moreover the evaluation map (3.2) is $`S`$-equivariant. This remark implies that if $`[s]W^S`$, then for all $`\zeta C`$ such that $`s(\zeta )Z_W`$, $`ev_{[s]}(\zeta )X^S`$. But $`X^S`$ consists of finitely many points: they correspond in a bijective fashion to the $`n`$-dimensional cones of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and their number equals the Euler characteristic of $`X`$. For $`xX^S`$, we shall denote $`\sigma _n(x)`$ the corresponding $`n`$-dimensional cone of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and by $`\overline{O}_x^r`$ the closure of the $`T`$-orbit above $`x`$. In fact $`\overline{O}_x`$ is the linear $`l`$-dimensional subspace of $`^r`$ defined by the equations

$$\overline{O}_x=\{z^\rho =0\rho \sigma _n(x)\}.$$

Our discussion implies that for any $`[s]W^S`$ the image of the evaluation $`ev_{[s]}`$ is a point $`xX^S`$, and this in turn means that $`s\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}\overline{O}_x)`$. What we have obtained so far is that

$$W^S\underset{xX^S}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}\overline{O}_x)^o/T=:\underset{xX^S}{}W(x),$$

and our goal is to show that this inclusion is in fact an equality.

We are going to check that the component $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}\overline{O}_{x_0})^o/T`$ is fixed by $`S`$, for $`x_0X^S`$ the point corresponding to the cone $`\sigma _n(x_0)=e_{l+1},\mathrm{},e_r`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. With respect to this choice of coordinates, the $`T`$-action on $`^r`$ is given by (1.4) and

$$[t_1,\mathrm{},t_l,t_{l+1},\mathrm{},t_r]=[1,\mathrm{},1,\chi _1^1(t^{})t_{l+1},\mathrm{}\chi _l^1(t^{})t_r]\text{ in }S,$$

for $`t^{}=(t_1,\mathrm{},t_l)`$. Now is clear that any point $`[s]W(x_0)`$ is fixed because $`\overline{O}_{x_0}=\{z^\rho =0\rho =l+1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, so that $`W(x_0)W^S`$. But we could have described the action of $`T`$ on $`^r`$ using the coordinates furnished by any other $`n`$-dimensional cone of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the conclusion would have been the same.

###### Proposition 4.1.

The fixed point set of the $`S`$-action on $`W`$ is

$$W^S=\underset{xX^S}{}W(x),\text{ with }W(x):=\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}\overline{O}_x)^o/T.$$

Moreover, for any $`xX^S`$, $`W(x)`$ is defined by the fibre product

Before proceeding we notice that the $`W(x)`$’s are smooth and disjoint subvarieties of $`W`$, which is in agreement with the general result obtained in .

###### Proof.

The first part of the proposition being already proved, we are left with the second claim. Again, we are going to check it only for $`x_0X^S`$, the general statement coming from the symmetry of the problem. We observe that $`Z_X\overline{O}_{x_0}=\overline{O}_{x_0}O_{x_0}=_\lambda (\{z^\lambda =0\}\overline{O}_{x_0})`$, because $`O_{x_0}`$ is the locus where $`T`$ acts freely. Therefore

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}\overline{O}_{x_0})^o& =\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}\overline{O}_{x_0})\mathrm{\Gamma }(C,𝒫_{\underset{¯}{d}}\times _{(^{})^r}(Z_X\overline{O}_{x_0}))\hfill \\ & =_{\lambda =1}^lW_\lambda _{\lambda =1}^l\{spr_{W_\lambda }s=0\},\hfill \end{array}$$

and the statement follows because $`T(^{})^l`$ acts componentwise. ∎

From the proposition we see that no matter what $`W`$ looks like, its fixed point set for the torus action has a very down-to-earth description. A first byproduct is an explicit formula for the Euler number of the fibre $`Y`$.

###### Corollary 4.2.

$$\chi (Y)=\underset{xX^S}{}\underset{\rho \sigma _n(x)}{}N_\rho .$$

###### Proof.

This equality is just a rewriting of the main result in , but it can be proved in a more elementary way as follows: $`Y`$ being a toric variety, its Euler characteristic coincides with the number fixed points under the $`(^{})^R/T`$-action. Since this big torus contains $`S`$, the fixed point set is contained in the union of the $`S`$-fixed subvarieties. But fibrewise these are just products of projective spaces on which $`(^{})^R`$ acts in standard fashion. ∎

For applying the localization formula we must know the action of $`S`$ on the normal bundles to the fixed subvarieties.

###### Lemma 4.3.

For any $`xX^S`$, the normal bundle of the fixed component $`W(x)`$ of $`W`$ fits in the following diagram:

(4.11)
For the trivial action of $`S`$ on $`W_\rho `$ and for the action

(4.14) $`\begin{array}{c}S\times \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho \text{ given by}\hfill \\ [t]\times [s,a]:=[t\times s,t_\rho a],[t]S\text{ and }[s,a]\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ,\hfill \end{array}`$
all the homomorphisms in the diagram above are $`S`$-equivariant.

###### Proof.

Since $`W^oW`$ is a principal $`T`$-bundle, we have the following $`S`$-equivariant exact sequence on $`W`$

(4.15) $`0𝒪(ieT)𝖳_{W^o/𝒥^r}^{\mathrm{inv}}𝖳_{W/𝒥^r}0,`$
where $`𝖳_{W^o/𝒥^r}^{\mathrm{inv}}`$ denotes the $`S`$-invariant relative tangent bundle to the total space of $`W^o`$. But $`W^o`$ is an open subset in a vector bundle over $`𝒥^r`$, so that the relative tangent bundle is canonically isomorphic to $`Q^{}W=_\rho Q^{}W_\rho `$, for $`Q:W𝒥^r`$ the projection. As $`T`$ preserves the decomposition of $`W`$,

$$𝖳_{W^o/𝒥^r}^{\mathrm{inv}}Q^{}W/T=\underset{\rho =1}{\overset{r}{}}Q^{}W_\rho /T.$$

We observe now that $`Q^{}W_\rho /Tq^{}W_\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$, the isomorphism being given by

(4.16) $`[s,w_\rho ]w_\rho [s,1].`$
This proves the exactness of the middle row in the diagram (4.11). A similar argument proves the exactness of the first horizontal sequence, and the last row is now a simple consequence.

The very important thing which must be clarified yet is the way how $`S`$ acts on $`q^{}W_\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$. The sequence (4.15) being $`S`$-equivariant, we have to describe the induced action on $`q^{}W_\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$ under the isomorphism (4.16). For $`[t]S`$,

$$[t]\times [s,w_\rho ]=[t\times s,t_\rho w_\rho ]t_\rho w_\rho [t\times s,1]=w_\rho [t\times s,t_\rho ],$$

so that we can see that indeed the $`S`$-action on $`W_\rho `$ is trivial while the action on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$ is as in (4.14). ∎

The next step is the computation of the equivariant first Chern classes for the restrictions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho `$ to the fixed components $`W(x)`$. Before proceeding we notice that since $`S=M^{}_{}^{}`$, there is a natural ring isomorphism $`H^{}(BS)\mathrm{Sym}^{}M`$, where $`BS`$ denotes as usual the classifying space for $`S`$.

###### Lemma 4.4.

For $`xX^S`$, denote $`(u_\rho (x))_{\rho \sigma _n(x)}M`$ the dual basis to $`(e^\rho )_{\rho \sigma _n(x)}M^{}`$ formed by the integral generators of $`\sigma _n(x)`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}c_1^S(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho |_{W(x)})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho |_{W(x)}+u_\rho (x),\rho \sigma _n(x),\hfill \\ c_1^S(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho |_{W(x)})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho |_{W(x)},\rho \sigma _n(x).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

It is clear that $`c_1^S(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho |_{W(x)})=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho |_{W(x)}+u`$, for some $`uH^{}(BS)`$, and this element is precisely the weight of the action of $`S`$ on the stalk $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho |_{[s]}`$ at some point $`[s]W(x)`$. Again, we shall make the computations for $`x_0`$ only: in this case the assignment $`(\tau _{l+1},\mathrm{},\tau _r)[1,\mathrm{},1,\tau _{l+1},\mathrm{},\tau _r]`$ gives an isomorphism $`(^{})^n\stackrel{}{}S`$ and is easy to see that

$$(^{})^n\text{ acts on }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho \{\begin{array}{c}\text{trivially, for }\rho =1,\mathrm{},l\text{ }\text{i.e. }\rho \sigma _n(x_0),\hfill \\ \text{by }\tau _\rho ,\text{ for }\rho =l+1,\mathrm{},r\text{ }\text{i.e. }\rho \sigma _n(x_0).\hfill \end{array}$$

A short computation shows that the above isomorphism is induced precisely by the choice of the dual basis to $`(e^{l+1},\mathrm{},e^r)`$, and the conclusion follows. ∎

We are finally in position to apply the localization formula for computing intersection numbers. For positive integers $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_r`$, we want is to compute the push-forward $`q_{}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^{m_r}\right)H^{}(𝒥^r)`$; for shorthand, we write $`\varphi `$ for this product so that we must compute $`q_{}\varphi `$. The case of interest for us is when

$$m_1+\mathrm{}+m_r=dimV=N_1+\mathrm{}+N_r+l(g1).$$

We denote $`\stackrel{~}{e}(𝖭_x)`$ the equivariant Euler characteristic of $`𝖭_xW(x)`$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ to be the equivariant analog of $`\varphi `$. If $`ȷ_x:W(x)W`$ is the inclusion, the localization formula for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ reads

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\underset{xX^S}{}(ȷ_x)_{}\frac{ȷ_x^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{\stackrel{~}{e}(𝖭_x)}.$$

Since $`S`$ acts trivially on $`𝒥^r`$, composing with the projection $`q:W𝒥^r`$ we obtain

(4.17) $`q_{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }={\displaystyle \underset{xX^S}{}}(q_x)_{}{\displaystyle \frac{ȷ_x^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{\stackrel{~}{e}(𝖭_x)}}H_S^{}(𝒥^r)=H^{}(BS)H^{}(𝒥^r),`$
for $`q_x:=qȷ_x`$, so that $`q_{}\varphi `$ is the $`H^{}(BS)`$-free term in $`q_{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. Lemmas 4.3 and 4.4 imply that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{e}(𝖭_x)& =\underset{\rho \sigma _n(x)}{}\left((u_\rho (x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho )^{N_\rho }\theta _\rho (u_\rho (x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho )^{N_\rho 1}+\frac{\theta _\rho ^2}{2!}(u_\rho (x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho )^{N_\rho 2}\mathrm{}\right)\hfill \\ & \stackrel{_{N_\rho >g}}{=}\underset{\rho \sigma _n(x)}{}(u_\rho (x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho )^{N_\rho }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\theta _\rho }{u_\rho (x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho }\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

where we are using the fact (see for instance page 336 in ) that the total Chern class of the Picard bundle $`W_\rho 𝒥`$ is $`c(W_\rho )=\mathrm{exp}(\theta _\rho )`$, with $`\theta _\rho `$ the class of the theta divisor (the lower index $`\rho `$ indicates that we are on the $`\rho ^{\mathrm{th}}`$ copy of $`𝒥`$ in $`𝒥^r`$). As a consequence,

(4.20) $`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill {\displaystyle \frac{ȷ_x^{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{\stackrel{~}{e}(𝖭_x)}}& ={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \underset{\rho \sigma _n(x)}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{m_\rho }{\displaystyle \underset{\rho \sigma _n(x)}{}}(u_\rho (x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho )^{m_\rho }}{{\displaystyle \underset{\rho \sigma _n(x)}{}}(u_\rho (x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho )^{N_\rho }\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _\rho }{u_\rho (x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho }}\right)}}\hfill \\ & ={\displaystyle \underset{\rho \sigma _n(x)}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{m_\rho }{\displaystyle \underset{\rho \sigma _n(x)}{}}(u_\rho (x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho )^{m_\rho N_\rho }\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _\rho }{u_\rho (x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho }}\right).\hfill \end{array}`$
Plugging this into equality (4.17) we find the formula for the push forward of the class $`\varphi `$.

###### Theorem 4.5.

For any positive integers $`m_\rho `$, $`q_{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^{m_r})`$ is the constant term of the polynomial

(4.21) $`{\displaystyle \underset{xX^S}{}}(q_x)_{}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\rho \sigma _n(x)}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{m_\rho }{\displaystyle \underset{\rho \sigma _n(x)}{}}(u_\rho (x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho )^{m_\rho N_\rho }\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta _\rho }{u_\rho (x)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho }}\right)\right].`$
It is certainly not apparent that this sum is a polynomial expression in the formal variables $`u_\rho (x_0)=:u_\rho `$, and computing its constant term is not an easy task (we must chose a basis of $`M`$ for writing (4.21) as an element of $`\mathrm{Sym}^{}M`$, and $`x_0X`$ is already our favorite fixed point in $`X`$). In most cases it is not true that the constant term of the whole sum is the sum of the individual constant terms. The question we are going to discuss is how to apply the result in concrete situations? Expanding the terms in (4.21) is a straightforward computation, but requires a little patience.

###### Lemma 4.6.

For $`p0`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}(u+\mathrm{\Lambda })^p\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\theta }{u+\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)\hfill & =\underset{0kp}{}\left[\underset{0ak}{}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{pa}{ka}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{ka}\frac{\theta ^a}{a!}\right]u^{pk}\hfill \\ & +\theta ^{p+1}\underset{0k}{}\left[\underset{0bk}{}(1)^{kb}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{kb}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{kb}\frac{\theta ^b}{(p+1+b)!}\right]\frac{1}{u^{k+1}},\hfill \end{array}$$

while for $`p1`$,

$$\frac{1}{(u+\mathrm{\Lambda })^p}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\theta }{u+\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)=\underset{0k}{}\left[\underset{0bk}{}(1)^{kb}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p+k1}{kb}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{kb}\frac{\theta ^b}{b!}\right]\frac{1}{u^{p+k}}.$$

The lemma implies that the expression (4.21) is a sum of rational functions, which are quotients of homogeneous polynomials in the $`u_\rho (x)`$’s. Its constant term is obtained by adding the functions having total degree zero (the total degree is the difference between the degrees of the nominator and the denominator).

For every $`xX^S`$, the coefficients of these functions are products in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho |_{W(x)}`$, and their push-forward by $`q_x`$ can be easily computed because, for $`\rho \sigma _n(x)`$, the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho |_{W(x)}`$ is simply (the pull-back of) the usual relatively ample line bundle $`𝒪_{(W_\rho )}(1)(W_\rho )`$ while the remaining line bundles $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho |_{W(x)}`$, $`\rho \sigma _n(x)`$, are linear combinations of the previous ones (see equation (3.3)).

The integrals which appear are of the type $`(q_x)_{}\left(_{\rho \sigma _n(x)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{k_\rho }\right),`$ and is quite known that

(4.22) $`(q_x)_{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\rho \sigma _n(x)}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{k_\rho }\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho \sigma _n(x)}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _\rho ^{k_\rho N_\rho +1}}{(k_\rho N_\rho +1)!}}\hfill & \text{if }N_\rho 1k_\rho N_\rho +g1\rho \text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}`$
Now we recall that we are actually interested in computing integrals on $`V`$, the compactification of the space $`𝖬𝗈𝗋_{\underset{¯}{d}}(C,X)`$, so that we must pull-back to $`𝒥^l`$ the class $`q_{}\varphi H^{}(𝒥^r)`$, using the morphism $`\psi `$ defined by (1.11). But $`\psi `$ is explicitely given in terms of the combinatorics of the fan $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

The difficulty in applying formula (4.21) relies in the fact that we are not allowed to set to zero the variables $`\{u_\rho (x)\}_{\rho ,x}`$. However, as we will see in a moment, for special choices of the exponents $`(m_\rho )_\rho `$ this is possible, and in this cases we obtain very explicit formulae for the corresponding intersection products.

Let us consider positive integers $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_r`$ with the property that $`a_1+\mathrm{}+a_{r1}a_r=0`$ and take

(4.25) $`\begin{array}{c}m_\rho =N_\rho +g+a_\rho =d_\rho +1+a_\rho ,\text{ for }\rho =1,\mathrm{},r1,\text{ and}\hfill \\ m_r=N_r(n1)gla_r=d_rng(l+a_r1).\hfill \end{array}`$
Of course, such a choice is possible only when $`d_r`$ is large enough for $`m_r`$ to be positive. For such a choice, the total degree of the functions which appear in the products corresponding to the fixed points $`xX^S`$ with $`r\sigma _n(x)`$ is strictly negative; therefore these terms do not contribute to the intersection product. On the other hand, the products corresponding to $`xX^S`$ with $`r\sigma _n(x)`$ are honest polynomials, so that we are allowed to set the variables to zero.

###### Proposition 4.7.

For integers $`(m_\rho )_\rho `$ as in (4.25),

$$q_{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^{m_r})=\underset{xX^S,r\sigma _n(x)}{}(q_x)_{}\left[\underset{\rho \mathit{\sigma ̸}_n(x)}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{m_\rho }\underset{\rho \sigma _n(x)}{}\left(\underset{b=0}{\overset{m_\rho N_\rho }{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho ^{m_\rho N_\rho b}\frac{\theta _\rho ^b}{b!}\right)\right].$$

Analogous formulae can be obtained for any other $`k\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$ or, when it is possible, by taking several $`k`$’s such that $`m_kN_k<0`$ in a suitable way.

We conclude this section with a vanishing result, which is a direct consequence of theorem 4.5.

###### Proposition 4.8.

Consider $`J\mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ such that the vectors $`(e^\rho )_{\rho J}`$ do not generate a cone of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (the primitive collections are the smallest subsets of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ with this property). If $`(m_\rho )_\rho `$ are positive integers such that $`m_\rho N_\rho +g`$ for all $`\rho J`$, then

$$_V\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_r^{m_r}=0.$$

###### Proof.

Indeed, for such a set $`_{\rho J}D_\rho =\mathrm{}`$ and consequently $`J\sigma _n(x)\mathrm{}`$ for any $`xX^S`$ (otherwise $`x_{\rho J}D_\rho `$, a contradiction). The conclusion follows now from the relations (4.22). ∎

We should point out that it is not always possible to chose integers with the property above: examples in this sense are the projective spaces. On the other hand, when there are primitive collections with less than $`l=\mathrm{rank}T`$ elements, there are integers having the desired property.

The conclusion of this article is that we were able to translate the integration problem on the space of morphisms from the curve $`C`$ into the toric variety $`X`$ in an integration problem on a power of the Picard torus of $`C`$. Interestingly enough, these integrals depend only on the combinatorics of the fan defining $`X`$ and on the theta classes of the Picard varieties.


text:
# Doi-Koppinen modules for quantum groupoids

## 1. Introduction

Doi-Koppinen modules introduced in   as a generalisation of (co)modules or Hopf modules studied in Hopf algebra theory can be viewed as a representation of a triple comprising an algebra, a coalgebra and a bialgebra which satisfy certain compatibility conditions. Recently these have been generalised to the case in which a bialgebra is replaced by a weak Hopf algebra . It is known  that weak Hopf algebras are an example of a generalisation of a bialgebra known as an $`R`$-bialgebroid  or $`\times _R`$-bialgebra  (and leading to the notion of a Hopf algebroid or a quantum groupoid), introduced in the context of Poisson geometry, algebraic topology and classification of algebras. It seems therefore natural to ask whether a definition of a Doi-Koppinen datum in which a bialgebra is replaced by an $`R`$-bialgebroid is possible. In this paper we propose such a definition and by this means introduce the notion of a Doi-Koppinen module over a noncommutative algebra $`R`$. We show that Doi-Koppinen modules for a weak Hopf algebra are a special case thus providing a new, more general point of view on weak Doi-Koppinen data and modules.

On the other hand it has been realised in  that a natural point of view on Doi-Koppinen data is provided by entwining structures introduced in . The same point of view was adopted in , where weak entwining structures were introduced in order to describe Doi-Koppinen data for a weak Hopf algebra. Later on it has been shown in  that both entwined modules and weak entwined modules are simply comodules of certain corings. Thus various properties of entwined modules such as Frobenius and separability properties discussed first in the case of Doi-Koppinen modules in  and , can be derived from the properties of comodules over a coring. In the present paper we show that a Doi-Koppinen datum for an $`R`$-bialgebroid leads to a certain coring whose comodules are precisely the Doi-Koppinen modules over $`R`$.

## 2. Preliminaries

### 2.1. Notation

We use the following conventions. For an object $`V`$ in a category, the identity morphism $`VV`$ is denoted by $`V`$. All rings in this paper have 1, a ring map is assumed to respect 1, and all modules over a ring are assumed to be unital. For a ring $`R`$, $`_R`$ (resp. $`{}_{R}{}^{}`$, $`{}_{R}{}^{}_{R}^{}`$) denotes the category of right $`R`$-modules (resp. left $`R`$-modules, $`R`$-bimodules). The action of $`R`$ is denoted by a dot between elements.

Throughout the paper $`k`$ denotes a commutative ring with unit. We assume that all the algebras are over $`k`$ and unital, and coalgebras are over $`k`$ and counital. Unadorned tensor product is over $`k`$. For a $`k`$-coalgebra $`C`$ we use $`\mathrm{\Delta }_C`$ to denote the coproduct and $`ϵ_C`$ to denote the counit (we skip subscripts if no confusion is possible). Notation for comodules is similar to that for modules but with subscripts replaced by superscripts, i.e. $`{}_{}{}^{C}`$ is the category of left $`C`$-comodules etc. We use the Sweedler notation for coproducts and coactions, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }(c)=c{}_{(1)}{}^{}c_{(2)}`$ for a coproduct, and $`\rho (m)=m_{<1>}m_{<0>}`$ for a left coaction (summation understood).

Let $`R`$ be a $`k`$-algebra. Recall from  that an $`R`$-coring is a coalgebra in the monoidal category of $`R`$-bimodules $`({}_{R}{}^{}_{R}^{},_R,R)`$, i.e., it is an $`(R,R)`$-bimodule $`𝒞`$ together with $`(R,R)`$-bimodule maps $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞:𝒞𝒞_R𝒞`$ called a coproduct and $`ϵ_𝒞:𝒞R`$ called a counit, such that

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞_R𝒞)\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞=(𝒞_R\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞)\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞,(ϵ_𝒞_R𝒞)\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞=(𝒞_Rϵ_𝒞)\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞=𝒞.$$

We use the Sweedler notation for the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$ too. A left $`R`$-module $`M`$ together with a left $`R`$-module map $`{}_{}{}^{M}\rho :M𝒞_RM`$ such that

$$(𝒞_R{}_{}{}^{M}\rho )\rho =(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞_RM){}_{}{}^{M}\rho ,(ϵ_𝒞_RM){}_{}{}^{M}\rho =M$$

is called a left comodule of the coring $`𝒞`$ or, simply, a left $`𝒞`$-comodule, and $`{}_{}{}^{M}\rho `$ is called a left coaction. A map between left $`𝒞`$-comodules is a left $`R`$-module map $`f:MN`$ such that $`{}_{}{}^{N}\rho f=(𝒞_Rf){}_{}{}^{M}\rho `$. The category of left $`𝒞`$-comodules is denoted by $`{}_{R}{}^{𝒞}`$.

### 2.2. $`R`$-rings and bialgebroids

Let $`R`$ be a $`k`$-algebra. Recall from ,  that an $`R`$-ring is a pair $`(U,i)`$, where $`U`$ is a $`k`$-algebra and $`i:RU`$ is an algebra map. If $`(U,i)`$ is an $`R`$-ring then $`U`$ is an $`(R,R)`$-bimodule with the structure provided by the map $`i`$, $`rur^{}:=i(r)ui(r^{})`$.

Let $`R`$ be an algebra and $`\overline{R}=R^{op}`$ the opposite algebra, and let $`R^e=R\overline{R}`$ be the enveloping algebra of $`R`$. In case $`(H,i)`$ is an $`R^e`$-ring, the map $`i`$ is necessarily of the form $`i=m_H(s_Ht_H)`$, where $`s_H:RH`$, $`t_H:\overline{R}H`$ are algebra maps such that $`s_H(a)t_H(\overline{b})=t_H(\overline{b})s_H(a)`$, for all $`aR`$, $`\overline{b}\overline{R}`$, and $`m_H`$ is the product in $`H`$. In this case $`s_H`$ is called the source map and $`t_H`$ the target map. $`(H,i=m_H(s_Ht_H))`$ is denoted by $`(H,s_H,t_H)`$.

Let $`(H,s_H,t_H)`$ be an $`R^e`$-ring and $`(A,s_A)`$ an $`R`$-ring. We view $`H`$ as an $`R`$-bimodule, via $`rhr^{}=s_H(r)t_H(r^{})h`$, and $`A`$ as an $`R`$-bimodule via $`s_A`$, and define

$$H\times _RA=\{\underset{i}{}h^i_Ra^iH_RA|rR,\underset{i}{}h^it_H(r)_Ra^i=\underset{i}{}h^i_Ra^is_A(r)\}.$$

$`H\times _RA`$ is an $`R`$-ring with product

$$(\underset{i}{}h^i_Ra^i)(\underset{j}{}\stackrel{~}{h}^j_R\stackrel{~}{a}^j)=\underset{i,j}{}h^i\stackrel{~}{h}^j_Ra^i\stackrel{~}{a}^j,$$

the unit $`1_H_R1_A`$ and the algebra map $`RH\times _RA`$, $`as_H(a)_R1_A`$ (cf. ). Taking $`(A,s_A)=(H,s_H)`$ we can define $`H\times _RH`$ which is not only an $`R`$-ring but also an $`R^e`$-ring via $`R\overline{R}H\times _RH`$, $`a_R\overline{b}s_H(a)_Rt_H(\overline{b})`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`(H,s_H,t_H)`$ be an $`R^e`$-ring. We say that $`(H,s_H,t_H,\mathrm{\Delta },ϵ)`$ is an $`R`$-bialgebroid iff $`(H,\mathrm{\Delta },ϵ)`$ is an $`R`$-coring such that $`\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Delta })H\times _RH`$ and the corestriction of the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }:HH\times _RH`$ is an algebra map, $`ϵ(1_H)=1_R`$, and for all $`g`$, $`hH`$

(1)
$$ϵ(gh)=ϵ(gs_H(ϵ(h)))=ϵ(gt_H(ϵ(h))).$$

It is shown in  that this is equivalent both to the definition of a bialgebroid in  and that of $`\times _R`$-bialgebra in .

Szlachányi  has reformulated the definition of bialgebroid in terms of monoidal categories and monoidal functors: if $`H`$ is an $`R^e`$-ring, then we have the restriction of scalars functor $`F:{}_{H}{}^{}{}_{R}{}^{}_{R}^{}`$. $`H`$ is an $`R`$-bialgebroid if and only if there exists a monoidal structure on $`{}_{H}{}^{}`$ such that $`F`$ is a strict monoidal functor. If $`(H,s_H,t_H,\mathrm{\Delta },ϵ)`$ is as in Definition 2.1, then the corresponding monoidal structure on $`{}_{H}{}^{}`$ is given by

$$h(m_Rn)=h_{(1)}m_Rh_{(2)}n;ha=\epsilon (hs(a))=\epsilon (ht(a))$$

for all $`mM{}_{H}{}^{}`$, $`nN{}_{H}{}^{}`$, $`aR`$.

Basic examples of $`R`$-bialgebroids are provided by $`R^e`$ and $`\mathrm{End}(R)`$, in the case $`R`$ is finitely generated projective over $`k`$ (see , ). In particular any matrix algebra $`M_n(k)`$ has a structure of an $`R`$-bialgebroid with an antipode over any $`n`$-dimensional algebra $`R`$. We believe, this gives a nice motivation for studying bialgebroids from an algebraic point of view.

### 2.3. Doi-Koppinen datum over a weak Hopf algebra

A weak bialgebra is an algebra and a coalgebra $`H`$ with multiplicative (but non-unital) coproduct such that for all $`x,y,zH`$, $`ϵ(xyz)=ϵ(xy{}_{(1)}{}^{})ϵ(y{}_{(2)}{}^{}z)=ϵ(xy{}_{(2)}{}^{})ϵ(y{}_{(1)}{}^{}z)`$, and

(2)
$$(\mathrm{\Delta }H)\mathrm{\Delta }(1)=(\mathrm{\Delta }(1)1)(1\mathrm{\Delta }(1))=(1\mathrm{\Delta }(1))(\mathrm{\Delta }(1)1).$$

A weak Hopf algebra is a weak bialgebra $`H`$ with an antipode, i.e., a linear map $`S:AA`$ such that for all $`hH`$, $`h{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})=ϵ(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h)1_{(2)}`$, $`S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}ϵ(h1{}_{(2)}{}^{})`$, and $`S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})h{}_{(2)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(3)}{}^{})=S(h)`$. Weak Hopf algebras have been introduced in   and studied in connection to integrable models and classification of subfactors of von Neumann algebras. Given a weak Hopf algebra $`H`$ with bijective antipode, define the maps,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^L,\mathrm{\Pi }^R:HH,\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g)=ϵ(1_{(1)}g)1_{(2)},\mathrm{\Pi }^R(g)=ϵ(g1_{(2)})1_{(1)}.$$

Then  $`R:=\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Pi }^L)`$ is a subalgebra of $`H`$, separable and Frobenius as a $`k`$-algebra with the separability idempotent $`e=S(1_{(1)})1_{(2)}RR`$ and the Frobenius pair $`(e,\phi )`$, where $`\phi :=ϵ|_R`$. The fact that $`e`$ is a separability idempotent means explicitly

(3)
$$gH,\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g)S(1_{(1)})1_{(2)}=S(1_{(1)})1_{(2)}\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g).$$

Numerous useful formulae for a weak Hopf algebra were proven in . Although some of them, such as (3), were obtained using duality arguments valid only in the finite dimensional case, one can also prove them directly using the axioms of a weak Hopf algebra. The proofs are not always obvious, but quite straightforward once one becomes familiar with these axioms.

Finally, recall from  the following

###### Definition 2.2.

A left-left weak Doi-Koppinen datum is a triple $`(H,A,C)`$, where $`H`$ is a weak Hopf algebra and

(1) $`(A,{}_{}{}^{A}\rho )`$ is a left weak $`H`$-comodule algebra, i.e., $`A`$ is an algebra and a left $`H`$-comodule such that $`{}_{}{}^{A}\rho (a){}_{}{}^{A}\rho (b)={}_{}{}^{A}\rho (ab)`$, and $`(H{}_{}{}^{A}\rho ){}_{}{}^{A}\rho (1)=1_{(1)}1_{<1>}1_{(2)}1_{<0>}`$, for all $`a,bA`$;

(2) $`C`$ is a left weak $`H`$-module coalgebra, i.e., $`C`$ is a coalgebra with counit $`ϵ_C`$ and a left $`H`$-module such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_C(hc)=h_{(1)}c_{(1)}h_{(2)}c_{(2)}`$, and $`ϵ_C(hgc)=ϵ_H(hg_{(2)})ϵ_C(g_{(1)}c)`$ for all $`cC`$ and $`h,gH`$.

A (left-left) weak Doi-Koppinen module associated to a weak Doi-Koppinen datum $`(H,A,C)`$ is a triple $`(M,,{}_{}{}^{M}\rho )`$, where $`(M,)`$ is a left $`A`$-module, $`(M,{}_{}{}^{M}\rho )`$ is a left $`C`$-comodule, and

$${}_{}{}^{M}\rho (am)=a_{<1>}m_{<1>}a_{<0>}m_{<0>}.$$

Note that here $`{}_{}{}^{A}\rho (a)=a{}_{<1>}{}^{}a{}_{<0>}{}^{}HC`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{M}\rho (m)=m{}_{<1>}{}^{}m{}_{<0>}{}^{}CM`$. The category of (left-left) weak Doi-Koppinen modules is denoted by $`{}_{A}{}^{C}(H)`$.

Morphisms between left weak $`H`$-comodule algebras (resp. left weak $`H`$-module coalgebras) are defined in the obvious way: they are $`k`$-linear maps that are $`H`$-colinear (resp. $`H`$-linear) algebra (resp. coalgebra) maps. Thus we can consider the categories of left weak $`H`$-comodule algebras, left weak $`H`$-module coalgebras and left-left weak Doi-Koppinen data over $`H`$. The latter is denoted by $`𝒲𝒟𝒦(H)`$.

## 3. Doi-Koppinen modules over algebras

In this section we define the notion of a Doi-Koppinen datum over a noncommutative algebra and we relate it to a weak Doi-Koppinen datum. Our definition is in part motivated by the following important observation \[12, Proposition 2.3.1\].

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`H`$ be a weak Hopf algebra with coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, counit $`ϵ`$, and bijective antipode $`S`$, and let $`R=\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Pi }^L)`$. Then $`H`$ is an $`R`$-bialgebroid with the source and target $`s_H`$, $`t_H:RH`$ given by

$$s_H(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g))=\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g),t_H(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g))=S^1(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g))=ϵ(1_{(2)}g)1_{(1)},$$

and the comultiplication $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}:HH_RH`$ and the counit $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}:HR`$ given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(h)=(can\mathrm{\Delta })(h)=h_{(1)}_Rh_{(2)},\stackrel{~}{ϵ}(h)=\mathrm{\Pi }^L(h)$$

for all $`hH`$, where $`can:HHH_RH`$ is the canonical projection.

Proof.  For the details we refer to , we only remark that $`\mathrm{Im}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }})H\times _RH`$ can be established from the separability of $`R`$ as follows. Apply $`S^1H`$ to (3), for an arbitrary $`hH`$ write $`h=h1_H`$, and use that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is multiplicative to obtain

(4)
$$h_{(1)}h_{(2)}\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g)=h_{(1)}1_{(1)}h_{(2)}1_{(2)}\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g)=h_{(1)}S^1(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g))h_{(2)}.$$

We also note that in  the conditions (1) are not required for an $`R`$-bialgebroid. However it can be easily seen that $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ as defined above satisfies equations (1). $``$$``$

There is also a partial converse to Proposition 3.1 (cf. \[19, Proposition 1.6\]). Suppose $`H`$ is an $`R`$-bialgebroid, where $`R`$ is a Frobenius and separable $`k`$-algebra. Let $`e=e{}_{}{}^{(1)}e^{(2)}`$ (summation understood) be a separability idempotent and let $`\phi :Rk`$ be the Frobenius map such that $`(e,\phi )`$ is a Frobenius pair. Then $`H`$ is a weak bialgebra with the coproduct $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}:HHH`$, $`hh_{(1)}e{}_{}{}^{(1)}e{}_{}{}^{(2)}h_{(2)}`$, and the counit $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=\phi ϵ:Hk`$, where $`ϵ:HR`$ is the counit of the $`R`$-coring $`H`$.

###### Definition 3.2.

Let $`(H,s_H,t_H)`$ be an $`R`$-bialgebroid. Then a left $`H`$-module coalgebra is a coalgebra $`C`$ in the monoidal category $`(_H,_R,R)`$ of left $`H`$-modules.

Recall from  that $`{}_{H}{}^{}`$ has a monoidal structure defined as follows. For all $`M,N{}_{H}{}^{}`$, $`M_RN{}_{H}{}^{}`$ via $`h(m_Rn)=h_{(1)}m_Rh_{(2)}n`$. $`R`$ is the unit object, when viewed in $`{}_{H}{}^{}`$ via the action

(5)
$$ha=ϵ(hs_H(a))=ϵ(ht_H(a)).$$

Thus, $`C`$ is a left $`H`$-module coalgebra if and only if $`(C,)`$ is a left $`H`$-module and $`(C,\mathrm{\Delta }_C,ϵ_C)`$ is an $`R`$-coring, where $`C`$ is viewed as an $`R`$-bimodule via $`rcr^{}=s_H(r)t_H(r^{})c`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_C`$, $`ϵ_C`$ are left $`H`$-modules maps, i.e., for all $`hH`$ and $`cC`$,

(6)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }_C(hc)=h_{(1)}c_{(1)}_Rh_{(2)}c_{(2)},ϵ_C(hc)=hϵ_C(c)=ϵ_H(hs_H(ϵ_C(c))).$$

A morphism between two $`H`$-module coalgebras is an $`H`$-linear map of $`R`$-corings. We can then consider the category of $`H`$-module coalgebras.

###### Example 3.3.

(1) $`(H,\mathrm{\Delta }_H,ϵ_H)`$ is a left $`H`$-module coalgebra with the left $`H`$-action provided by the left multiplication.

(2) View $`R`$ as an $`R`$-coring in the trivial way, i.e., both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ and $`ϵ_R`$ are identity maps. Then $`(R,)`$ is a left $`H`$-module coalgebra. Indeed, note that for all $`rR`$ and $`hH`$ we have that $`s_H(h_{(1)}r)h_{(2)}=hs_H(r)`$ , and then apply the left $`R`$-module map $`ϵ_H`$ to obtain that $`ϵ_H(hs_H(r))=ϵ_H(h_{(1)}s_H(r))ϵ_H(h_{(2)})`$. This is equivalent to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$ is a left $`H`$-linear map.

(3) $`C=R^e`$ is an $`R`$-coring with the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{R^e}(r\overline{r})=r1_{\overline{R}}_R1_R\overline{r}`$ and the counit $`ϵ_{R^e}(r\overline{r})=r\overline{r}`$, and it can be made into a left $`H`$-module coalgebra by the $`H`$-action $`h(r\overline{r})=ϵ_H(hs_H(r)t_H(\overline{r})).`$

###### Definition 3.4.

Let $`(H,s_H,t_H)`$ be an $`R`$-bialgebroid. A left $`H`$-comodule algebra is a triple $`(A,s_A,{}_{}{}^{A}\rho )`$ where

(1) $`(A,s_A)`$ is an $`R`$-ring.

(2) $`(A,{}_{}{}^{A}\rho )`$ is a left comodule of the $`R`$-coring $`H`$.

(3) $`\mathrm{Im}({}_{}{}^{A}\rho )H\times _RA`$ and its corestriction $`{}_{}{}^{A}\rho :AH\times _RA`$ is an algebra map.

A morphism between two $`H`$-comodule algebras is a left $`H`$-colinear map that is also a morphism of $`R`$-rings. A morphism of $`R`$-rings is defined in the obvious way. Thus we can consider the category of $`H`$-comodule algebras.

###### Example 3.5.

(1) $`(H,s_H,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a left $`H`$-comodule algebra.

(2) $`(R,s_R=R,{}_{}{}^{R}\rho )`$, where $`{}_{}{}^{R}\rho :RH_RR`$, $`rs_H(r)_R1_R`$ is a (trivial) left $`H`$-comodule algebra

(3) $`A=R^e`$ is a left $`H`$-comodule algebra via $`s_{R^e}=R1_R`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{R^e}\rho (r\overline{r})=s_H(r)_R1_R\overline{r}`$.

(4) Example (3) can be generalised as follows. For an $`H`$-comodule algebra $`A`$ and an algebra $`B`$, $`AB`$ is a left $`H`$-comodule algebra with the structures arising from those of $`A`$.

(5) An interesting nontrivial example of a comodule algebra of a bialgebroid is constructed in \[16, Theorem 6.3, Lemma 6.7\]. Let $`H`$ be a Hopf algebra and let $`A/B`$ be an $`H`$-Galois extension, i.e., $`A`$ be a right $`H`$-comodule algebra with a right coaction $`\rho ^A:AAH`$, $`aa{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{<1>}`$, $`B=A^{coH}`$, and the canonical map $`\chi :A_BAAH`$, $`a_Ba^{}aa^{}{}_{<0>}{}^{}a^{}_{<1>}`$ be bijective. Suppose $`H`$ is $`k`$-flat and $`A`$ is a faithfully flat left $`B`$-module. View $`A^e`$ as a right $`H`$-comodule via $`a\overline{a}a{}_{<0>}{}^{}\overline{a}{}_{<0>}{}^{}a{}_{<1>}{}^{}\overline{a}_{<1>}`$. Then the $`k`$-module of coinvariants $`G=(A^e)^{coH}`$ is a subalgebra of $`A^e`$ and a $`B`$-bialgebroid via $`s_G:bb1`$, $`t_G:b1b`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_G:_ia^i\overline{a}^i_ia^i{}_{<0>}{}^{}\chi ^1(1a^i{}_{<1>}{}^{})\overline{a}^i`$, and $`ϵ_G:_ia^i\overline{a}^i_ia^i\overline{a}^i`$. Furthermore $`A`$ is a left comodule algebra of the $`B`$-bialgebroid $`G`$ with a left coaction $`{}_{}{}^{A}\rho :AG_BA`$, $`aa{}_{<0>}{}^{}\chi ^1(1a{}_{<1>}{}^{})`$.

Note that the definition of a left $`H`$-comodule algebra is not dual to that of a left $`H`$-module coalgebra. The reason is that, although the category of left $`H`$-modules is monoidal, the category $`{}_{R}{}^{H}`$ of left comodules of an $`R`$-coring $`H`$ is not. Thus there is no way of defining a left $`H`$-module algebra as an algebra in the category $`{}_{R}{}^{H}`$. However one can consider more restrictive definition of a left $`H`$-comodule $`M`$ (cf. \[16, Definition 5.5\]) by requiring it to be an $`R`$-bimodule with an $`R`$-bimodule coaction $`{}_{}{}^{M}\rho :MH_RM`$ such that $`\mathrm{Im}({}_{}{}^{M}\rho )H\times _RM`$, where

$$H\times _RM=\{\underset{i}{}h^i_Rm^iH_RM|rR,\underset{i}{}h^it_H(r)_Rm^i=\underset{i}{}h^i_Rm^ir\}.$$

The subcategory $`{}_{R}{}^{H}_{R}^{}{}_{R}{}^{H}`$ of all such comodules is monoidal. For all $`M`$, $`N{}_{R}{}^{H}_{R}^{}`$, $`M_RN{}_{R}{}^{H}_{R}^{}`$ via $`{}_{}{}^{M_RN}\rho (m_Rn)=m_{<1>}n_{<1>}_Rm_{<0>}_Rn_{<0>}`$. Note that the right hand side is well defined because $`\mathrm{Im}({}_{}{}^{M}\rho )H\times _RM`$. $`R`$ is the unit in $`{}_{R}{}^{H}_{R}^{}`$ with the trivial coaction $`{}_{}{}^{R}\rho (r)=s_H(r)_R1_R`$. Furthermore the forgetful functor $`F:{}_{R}{}^{H}_{R}^{}{}_{R}{}^{}_{R}^{}`$ is strict monoidal. Now, one could define a left $`H`$-comodule algebra as an algebra in the monoidal category $`({}_{R}{}^{H}_{R}^{},_R,R)`$. It appears, however, that this definition is too restrictive to cover the case of a weak Doi-Koppinen datum.

###### Definition 3.6.

Let $`(H,s_H,t_H,\mathrm{\Delta },ϵ)`$ be an $`R`$-bialgebroid. Then $`(H,A,C)`$ is called a (left-left) Doi-Koppinen datum over (an algebra) $`R`$ if $`A`$ is a left $`H`$-comodule algebra and $`C`$ is a left $`H`$-module coalgebra. Such a datum is denoted by $`(H,A,C)_R`$. The category of Doi-Koppinen data with $`H`$ over $`R`$ is denoted by $`𝒟𝒦_R(H)`$.

A (left-left) Doi-Koppinen module over $`R`$ (associated to $`(H,A,C)_R`$) is a triple $`(M,,{}_{}{}^{M}\rho )`$, where $`(M,)`$ is a left $`A`$-module (hence $`M`$ is a left $`R`$-module via $`s_A`$), $`(M,{}_{}{}^{M}\rho )`$ is a left comodule of the $`R`$-coring $`C`$, and for all $`aA`$ and $`mM`$,

(7)
$${}_{}{}^{M}\rho (am)=a_{<1>}m_{<1>}_Ra_{<0>}m_{<0>}.$$

The category of Doi-Koppinen modules associated to $`(H,A,C)_R`$ is denoted by $`{}_{A}{}^{C}(H;R)`$. Note that the right hand side of (7) is well defined since $`\mathrm{Im}({}_{}{}^{A}\rho )H\times _RA`$.

###### Example 3.7.

There are various examples of special cases of the category $`{}_{A}{}^{C}(H;R)`$ obtained by setting $`A=H,R,R^e`$ and $`C=H,R,R^e`$. In particular, the category of left $`H`$-modules, the category of left $`H`$-comodules or the category of (generalised) relative Hopf modules $`{}_{A}{}^{H}(H;R)`$ and its dual $`{}_{H}{}^{C}(H;R)`$ are all special cases of the category $`{}_{A}{}^{C}(H;R)`$.

The main aim of this section is to show that a weak Doi-Koppinen datum in Definition 2.2 is a special case of a Doi-Koppinen datum over a noncommutative algebra. This provides one with a new point of view on weak Doi-Koppinen modules. In the proof of the next two Propositions, we will make use of the following remark.

###### Remark 3.8.

If $`S`$ is a separable $`k`$-algebra with an idempotent $`e=e{}_{}{}^{(1)}e^{(2)}`$ (summation understood), and $`M`$ and $`N`$ are $`S`$-bimodules then the canonical projection $`MNM_SN`$ has a section

$$\sigma :M_SNMN,\sigma (m_Sn)=me{}_{}{}^{(1)}e{}_{}{}^{(2)}n.$$

If $`H`$ is a weak Hopf algebra, then $`H`$ is a bialgebroid over a separable (and Frobenius) algebra $`R`$ with idempotent $`e=S(1_{(1)})1_{(2)}`$ and the Frobenius map $`\phi :Rk`$, $`\phi :=ϵ|_R`$, the restriction of a weak counit of $`H`$ to $`R`$.

###### Proposition 3.9.

Let $`H`$ be a weak Hopf algebra viewed as an $`R`$-bialgebroid as in Proposition 3.1. Then the category of left weak $`H`$-comodule algebras (in the sense of Definition 2.2) and of left comodule algebras over the bialgebroid $`H`$ (in the sense of Definition 3.4) are isomorphic to each other.

Proof.  1) Let $`A`$ be a left $`H`$-comodule algebra. We will show that $`A`$ is then a left comodule algebra over the $`R`$-bialgebroid $`H`$. Note that

$$s_A:RA,s_A(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(h))=ϵ(1_{<1>}h)1_{<0>},$$

where $`ϵ:Hk`$ is a weak counit, is a well-defined algebra map. Indeed, suppose $`r=\mathrm{\Pi }^L(h)=0`$. This means that $`ϵ(1_{(1)}h)1_{(2)}=0`$, and therefore

$$s_A(r)=ϵ(1_{<2>}h)ϵ(1_{<1>})1_{<0>}=ϵ(1_{(1)}h)ϵ(1_{(2)}1_{<1>})1_{<0>}=0.$$

Note that the second equality was obtained by using the following observation made in \[8, Proposition 4.11\]. The unit property of a coaction of a weak comodule algebra in Definition 2.2(1) is equivalent to

(8)
$$1{}_{<2>}{}^{}1{}_{<1>}{}^{}1{}_{<0>}{}^{}=1_{(1)}1_{(2)}1_{<1>}1_{<0>}.$$

This proves that $`s_A`$ is well-defined. To prove that $`s_A`$ is an algebra map we require the following two equalities (cf. \[3, Eq. (2.9b)\] and \[1, Eq. (2.1b)\] respectively). For all $`g,hH`$ and $`aA`$,

(9)
$$\mathrm{\Pi }^R(g)h=h{}_{(1)}{}^{}ϵ(gh{}_{(2)}{}^{}),\mathrm{\Pi }^R(a_{<1>})a_{<0>}=1_{<1>}a1_{<0>}.$$

Now for all $`r=\mathrm{\Pi }^L(h)`$, $`s=\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g)`$ we have

$`s_A(rs)`$ $`=`$ $`s_A(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(h)\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g))`$
$`=`$ $`s_A(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(h)g))=ϵ(1_{<1>}ϵ(1_{(1)}h)1_{(2)}g)1_{<0>}`$
$`=`$ $`ϵ(1_{<2>}h)ϵ(1_{<1>}g)1_{<0>}=ϵ(1_{<2>}h)ϵ(g_{(1)})ϵ(1_{<1>}g_{(2)})1_{<0>}`$
(by Eqs (9)) $`=`$ $`ϵ(1_{<2>}h)ϵ(\mathrm{\Pi }^R(1_{<1>})g)1_{<0>}=ϵ(1_{<1>}h)ϵ(1_{<1^{}>}g)1_{<0>}1_{<0^{}>}`$
$`=`$ $`s_A(r)s_A(s),`$
where $`1{}_{<1^{}>}{}^{}1_{<0^{}>}`$ denotes another copy of $`1{}_{<1>}{}^{}1_{<0>}`$, and \[3, Lemma 2.5\] has been used to derive the second equality and the unit property in Definition 2.2 (1) to obtain the fourth one. This proves that $`s_A`$ is an algebra map and hence $`(A,s_A)`$ is an $`R`$-ring.

Next, using the canonical projection $`can:HAH_RA`$ define a map $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=can{}_{}{}^{A}\rho `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:AH_RA`$, where $`{}_{}{}^{A}\rho :AHA`$ is the left coaction of a weak Hopf algebra. Explicitly, $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(a)=a_{<1>}_Ra_{<0>}`$. The map $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is left $`R`$-linear since using equation (8) and the fact that $`A`$ is a comodule algebra we have for all $`r=\mathrm{\Pi }^L(h)R`$ and $`aA`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(ra)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(ϵ(1{}_{<1>}{}^{}h)1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a)=ϵ(1{}_{<2>}{}^{}h)1{}_{<1>}{}^{}a{}_{<1>}{}^{}_{R}^{}1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{<0>}`$
$`=`$ $`ϵ(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h)1{}_{(2)}{}^{}1{}_{<1>}{}^{}a{}_{<1>}{}^{}_{R}^{}1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a{}_{<0>}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Pi }^L(h)a{}_{<1>}{}^{}_{R}^{}a{}_{<0>}{}^{}.`$
Then it is clear that $`(A,\stackrel{~}{\rho }){}_{R}{}^{H}`$. We prove now that $`\mathrm{Im}(\stackrel{~}{\rho })H\times _RA`$. Equation (4) implies that for all $`gH`$ and $`aA`$

$$a_{<2>}a_{<1>}\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g)a_{<0>}=a_{<2>}S^1(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g))a_{<1>}a_{<0>}.$$

Apply $`HϵA`$ to the last equality to obtain

$$a_{<2>}ϵ(a_{<1>}\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g))a_{<0>}=a_{<1>}S^1(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g))a_{<0>}$$

Using equations (2.2a),(2.2b) in  which, put together, state that for all $`g,hH`$, $`ϵ(g\mathrm{\Pi }^L(h))=ϵ(\mathrm{\Pi }^R(g)h)`$ we compute

$`a_{<2>}ϵ(a_{<1>}\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g))a_{<0>}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{<2>}ϵ(\mathrm{\Pi }^R(a_{<1>})g)a_{<0>}`$
(by Eq. (9)) $`=`$ $`a_{<1>}ϵ(1_{<1>}g)a_{<0>}1_{<0>}`$
$`=`$ $`a_{<1>}a_{<0>}s_A(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g)).`$
Hence we have proved that

(10)
$$a_{<1>}S^1(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g))a_{<0>}=a_{<1>}a_{<0>}s_A(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g)).$$

In particular, $`\mathrm{Im}(\stackrel{~}{\rho })H\times _RA`$ as required. It remains to be proven that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(1_A)=1_H_R1_A`$. Using the unit property of a comodule algebra of a weak Hopf algebra in Definition 2.2(1) we compute

$$\rho (1_A)=1_{<2>}ϵ(1_{<1>})1_{<0>}=1_{(1)}ϵ(1_{<1>}1_{(2)})1_{<0>}=1_{(1)}s_A(1_{(2)}).$$

Since $`A`$ is a left $`R`$-module via $`s_A`$ we obtain

$$1_{<1>}_R1_{<0>}=1_{(1)}_Rs_A(1_{(2)})=1_{(1)}1_{(2)}_R1_A=S^1(1_{(2)})1_{(1)}_R1_A=1_H_R1_A.$$

This completes the proof that $`(A,s_A,\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ is a left $`H`$-comodule algebra over the $`R`$-bialgebroid $`H`$.

If $`f:(A,{}_{}{}^{A}\rho )(B,{}_{}{}^{B}\rho )`$ is a morphism of left $`H`$-comodule algebras, then $`f:(A,s_A,\stackrel{~}{\rho })(B,s_B,\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ is also a morphism of left $`H`$-comodule algebras over the $`R`$-bialgebroid $`H`$. In view of the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$, the left $`H`$-colinearity is obvious. We also know that $`f`$ is an algebra map, so $`f`$ is a map of $`R`$-rings if $`s_B=fs_A`$. Using the $`H`$-colinearity of $`f`$ and the fact that $`f(1_A)=1_B`$, we find

$`f(s_A(\pi ^L(h))`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ(1_{A<1>}h)f(1_{A<0>})=ϵ(f(1_A)_{<1>}h)f(1_A)_{<0>}`$
$`=`$ $`ϵ(1_{B<1>}h)f(1_{B<0>})=s_B(\pi ^L(h))`$
2) Conversely, let $`(A,s_A,{}_{}{}^{A}\rho )`$ be a left comodule algebra over the bialgebroid $`H`$ as in Definition 3.4. We prove that $`A`$ is a weak left $`H`$-comodule algebra with coaction given by $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\sigma {}_{}{}^{A}\rho `$. Explicitly

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(a)=a_{<1>}S(1_{(1)})1_{(2)}a_{<0>}=1_{(1)}a_{<1>}1_{(2)}a_{<0>}=1_{(1)}a_{<1>}s_A(1_{(2)})a_{<0>},$$

where we used that $`H`$ is a right $`R`$-module via the target map $`t_H=S^1_R`$. The fact that $`(A,\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ is a left comodule of a weak Hopf algebra $`H`$ can easily be established with the help of equations (2). We prove now that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is an algebra map. First, since $`\mathrm{Im}({}_{}{}^{A}\rho )H\times _RA`$ we have for all $`rR`$ and $`aA`$,

$$a_{<1>}t_H(r)_Ra_{<0>}=a_{<1>}_Ra_{<0>}s_A(r).$$

Applying the section $`\sigma `$ we obtain

(11)
$$1_{(1)}a_{<1>}t_H(r)s_A(1_{(2)})a_{<0>}=1_{(1)}a_{<1>}s_A(1_{(2)})a_{<0>}s_A(r).$$

On the other hand, application of $`\sigma `$ to an expression reflecting the fact that $`{}_{}{}^{A}\rho :AH\times _RA`$ is an algebra map leads to equality

(12)
$$1_{(1)}(ab)_{<1>}s_A(1_{(2)})(ab)_{<0>}=1_{(1)}a_{<1>}b_{<1>}s_A(1_{(2)})a_{<0>}b_{<0>}$$

Noting that $`t_H=S^1_R`$ and writing $`1{}_{(1^{})}{}^{}1_{(2^{})}`$ for another copy of $`1{}_{(1)}{}^{}1_{(2)}`$ we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(a)\stackrel{~}{\rho }(b)`$ $`=`$ $`1_{(1)}a_{<1>}1_{(1^{})}b_{<1>}s_A(1_{(2)})a_{<0>}s_A(1_{(2^{})})b_{<0>}`$
(by Eq. (11)) $`=`$ $`1_{(1)}a_{<1>}S^1(1_{(2^{})})1_{(1^{})}b_{<1>}s_A(1_{(2)})a_{<0>}b_{<0>}`$
(by Eq. (12)) $`=`$ $`1_{(1)}(ab)_{<1>}s_A(1_{(2)})(ab)_{<0>}=\stackrel{~}{\rho }(ab),`$
i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is multiplicative as required. It remains to prove the unit property of the weak coaction $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }(1)=1_{(1)}1_{<1>}1_{(2)}1_{<0>}`$ we obtain that

$$(H\stackrel{~}{\rho })\stackrel{~}{\rho }(1)=1_{(1)}1_{<2>}1_{(2)}1_{<1>}1_{(3)}1_{<0>},$$

hence the unit property of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is equivalent to the following equation

$$1_{(1^{})}1_{(1)}1_{<1>}1_{(2^{})}1_{(2)}1_{<0>}=1_{(1)}1_{<2>}1_{(2)}1_{<1>}1_{(3)}1_{<0>}.$$

It is known, however, that

(13)
$$1_{<1>}_R1_{<0>}=1_H_R1_A$$

for $`(A,{}_{}{}^{A}\rho )`$ is a comodule algebra of an $`R`$-bialgebroid. Application of $`f`$ yields

(14)
$$1_{(1)}1_{<1>}1_{(2)}1_{<0>}=1_{(1)}s_A(1_{(2)}).$$

Next apply $`\mathrm{\Delta }A`$ to the preceding equality to obtain

$$1_{(1)}1_{<2>}1_{(2)}1_{<1>}1_{(3)}1_{<0>}=1_{(1)}1_{(2)}s_A(1_{(3)}).$$

Now the required condition follows from these two equations, and equation (2). Thus we conclude that $`(A,\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ is a left weak $`H`$-comodule algebra.

Suppose now that $`f:(A,s_A,{}_{}{}^{A}\rho )(B,s_B,{}_{}{}^{B}\rho )`$ is a morphism of left $`H`$-comodule algebras over the $`R`$-bialgebroid $`H`$. Then $`f`$ is an algebra map, and

$$a_{<1>}_Rf(a_{<0>})=f(a)_{<1>}_Rf(a)_{<0>}.$$

Applying $`\sigma `$ to both sides, we obtain

$$a_{<1>}S(1_{(1)})1_{(2)}f(a_{<0>})=f(a)_{<1>}S(1_{(1)})1_{(2)}f(a)_{<0>}.$$

$`f`$ is a map of left $`R`$-modules, so the left hand side equals $`a_{<1>}S(1_{(1)})f(1_{(2)}a_{<0>})`$, and this means that $`f:(A,\stackrel{~}{\rho })(B,\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ is left $`H`$-colinear, and $`f`$ is a morphism of left $`H`$-comodule algebras.

3) We still need to show that the functors constructed in parts 1) and 2) of the proof are inverses to each other. First, let $`(A,\rho )`$ be a left weak $`H`$-comodule algebra. It is first transformed into a left $`H`$-comodule algebra $`(A,\stackrel{~}{\rho },s_A)`$ over the bialgebroid $`R`$, and then into a left weak $`H`$-comodule algebra $`(A,\overline{\rho })`$. We easily compute that

$`\overline{\rho }(a)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{<1>}S(1_{(1)})1_{(2)}a_{<0>}=1_{(1)}a_{<1>}s_A(1_{(2)})a_{<0>}`$
$`=`$ $`1_{(1)}a_{<1>}ϵ(1_{<1>}1_{(2)})1_{<0>}a_{<0>}=1_{<2>}a_{<1>}ϵ(1_{<1>})1_{<0>}a_{<0>}`$
$`=`$ $`1_{<1>}a_{<1>}1_{<0>}a_{<0>}=a_{<1>}a_{<0>}=\rho (a),`$
as needed. We used Definition 2.2 (1).

Conversely, we start with a left $`H`$-comodule algebra $`(A,\rho ,s_A)`$ over the bialgebroid $`R`$, transform it into a weak left $`H`$-comodule algebra $`(A,\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ using part 2), and then back into $`(A,\overline{\rho },\overline{s}_A)`$ over $`R`$. We have to show that $`\rho =\overline{\rho }`$ and $`s_A=\overline{s}_A`$. We write $`\rho (a)=a_{<1>}_Ra_{<0>}`$, and then easily find that

$`\overline{\rho }(a)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{<1>}S(1_{(1)})_R1_{(2)}a_{<0>}`$
$`=`$ $`a_{<1>}(S(1_{(1)})1_{(2)})_Ra_{<0>}=a_{<1>}_Ra_{<0>}=\rho (a).`$
Using equation (14), we obtain

$$\overline{s}_A(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(h))=ϵ(1_{(1)}1_{<1>}h)s_A(1_{(2)})1_{<0>}=s_A(ϵ(1_{(1)}h)1_{(2)})=s_A(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(h)).$$

$``$$``$

###### Proposition 3.10.

Let $`H`$ be a weak Hopf algebra viewed as an $`R`$-bialgebroid as in Proposition 3.1. The categories of left weak $`H`$-module coalgebras (in the sense of Definition 2.2) and of left module coalgebras over the bialgebroid $`H`$ (in the sense of Definition 3.2) are isomorphic to each other.

Proof.  1) Let $`(C,\mathrm{\Delta }_C,ϵ_C)`$ be a left weak $`H`$-module coalgebra and define $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C:CC_RC`$, $`cc_{(1)}_Rc_{(2)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C:CR`$, $`cϵ_C(1_{(1)}c)1_{(2)}`$. We will show that these maps make $`C`$ into a left module coalgebra of the $`R`$-bialgebroid $`H`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_C`$ is left $`H`$-linear, so is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C`$. This implies that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C`$ is an $`R`$-bimodule map. Next we prove that $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C`$ is left $`H`$-linear. First note that setting $`g=1_H`$ in Definition 2.2 (2) one immediately obtains $`ϵ_C(hc)=ϵ_H(h1{}_{(2)}{}^{})ϵ_C(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}c)`$ for all $`hH`$, $`cC`$. In particular

$`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C(hc)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_C(1_{(1^{})}c)ϵ_H(1_{(1)}h1_{(2^{})})1_{(2)}=\mathrm{\Pi }^L(h1_{(2)})ϵ_C(1_{(1)}c)`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_H(h1_{(2)})ϵ_C(1_{(1)}c)=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_H(h\mathrm{\Pi }^L(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C(c)))=h\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C(c),`$
where $`1{}_{(1^{})}{}^{}1_{(2^{})}`$ is another copy of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1_H)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_H:HR`$ is the counit of $`H`$ as an $`R`$-bialgebroid. This implies that $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C`$ is an $`R`$-bimodule map. Clearly, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C`$ is a coproduct and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C`$ is a counit of an $`R`$-coring $`C`$. The compatibility of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C`$ with the left action of $`H`$ on $`C`$ follows immediately from the fact that $`C`$ is a weak module coalgebra. Thus we conclude that $`C`$ is a left module coalgebra over the $`R`$-bialgebroid $`H`$ as claimed.

Let $`f:(C,\mathrm{\Delta }_C,ϵ_C)(D,\mathrm{\Delta }_D,ϵ_D)`$ be a morphism of left weak $`H`$-module coalgebras. Then $`f`$ is left $`H`$-linear, and it clearly preserves the comultiplication over $`R`$. Furthermore

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_D(f(c))=ϵ_D(1_{(1)}f(c))1_{(2)}=ϵ_D(f(1_{(1)}c))1_{(2)}=ϵ_C(1_{(1)}c)1_{(2)}=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C(c)$$

and we conclude that $`f:(C,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C)(D,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_D,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_D)`$ is a morphism of left $`H`$-module coalgebras over the $`R`$-bialgebroid $`H`$.

2) Conversely, assume that $`C`$ is a left module coalgebra over the $`R`$-bialgebroid $`H`$, in the sense of Definition 3.2. We claim that $`C`$ is a left weak $`H`$-module coalgebra with the coproduct

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C:CCC,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C(c)=c_{(1)}S(1_{(1)})1_{(2)}c_{(2)}=1_{(1)}c_{(1)}1_{(2)}c_{(2)}$$

(note that here $`1{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }(1_H)`$ while $`c{}_{(1)}{}^{}_{R}^{}c{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_C(c)`$), and the counit $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C:Ck`$, $`c\phi (ϵ_C(c))`$, where $`ϵ_C:CR`$ is the counit of the $`R`$-coring $`C`$ and $`\phi :Rk`$ is the Frobenius map $`\phi :=ϵ|_R`$, the restriction of the counit of a weak Hopf algebra $`H`$ to the Frobenius algebra $`R`$. This claim can be proven by a fairly straightforward calculation and hence details of the proof are left to the reader.

Let $`f:(C,\mathrm{\Delta }_C,ϵ_C)(D,\mathrm{\Delta }_D,ϵ_D)`$ be a morphism of left $`H`$-module coalgebras over the bialgebroid $`H`$. Then $`f`$ is left $`H`$-linear and

$$(ff)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C(c)=f(c_{(1)}S(1_{(1)}))f(1_{(2)}c_{(2)})=f(c_{(1)})S(1_{(1)})1_{(2)}f(c_{(2)})=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_D(f(c))$$

and

$$\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_D(f(c))=\phi (ϵ_D(f(c)))=\phi (ϵ_C(c))=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C(c),$$

so that $`f`$ is also a morphism in the category of weak left $`H`$-module coalgebras.

3) We finally prove that the functors constructed in parts 1 and 2 of the proof are inverses to each other. First we take a left weak $`H`$-module coalgebra $`(C,\mathrm{\Delta }_C,ϵ_C)`$, turn it into a left module coalgebra $`(C,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C)`$ over the bialgebroid $`H`$, and then back into a left weak $`H`$-module coalgebra $`(C,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C,\overline{ϵ}_C)`$. Using Remark 3.8, we find

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C(c)=c_{(1)}S(1_{(1)})1_{(2)}c_{(2)}=(\sigma \mathrm{can})(c_{(1)}c_{(2)})=\mathrm{\Delta }_C(c)$$

and

$$\overline{ϵ}_C(c)=ϵ(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C(c))=ϵ_C(1_{(1)}c)ϵ(1_{(2)})=ϵ_C(c).$$

Finally take a left module coalgebra $`(C,\mathrm{\Delta }_C,ϵ_C)`$ over the bialgebroid $`H`$, make it into a weak left $`H`$-module coalgebra $`(C,\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C)`$, and then back into a left module coalgebra $`(C,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C,\overline{ϵ}_C)`$ over the bialgebroid $`H`$. Obviously

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_C(c)=c_{(1)}S(1_{(1)})_R1_{(2)}c_{(2)}=\mathrm{\Delta }_C(c).$$

Proving $`\overline{ϵ}=ϵ`$ is slightly more complicated. Recall that $`ϵ:Hk`$ is the counit of the weak Hopf algebra $`H`$, and $`ϵ_H=\mathrm{\Pi }^L:HR`$ is the counit of the $`R`$-bialgebroid $`H`$. Take $`cC`$, and write $`ϵ_C(c)=\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g)R`$, for some $`gH`$. Observe that $`ϵ(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g))=ϵ(g)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C(c)=ϵ(ϵ_C(c))`$, and compute

$`\overline{ϵ}_C(c)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_C(1_{(1)}c)1_{(2)}=ϵ(ϵ_C(1_{(1)}c))1_{(2)}`$
$`(\mathrm{by}\mathrm{Eq}.(\text{6}))`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ(1_{(1)}ϵ_C(c))1_{(2)}`$
$`(\mathrm{by}\mathrm{Eq}.(\text{5}))`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ(ϵ_H(1_{(1)}s_H(ϵ_C(c))))1_{(2)}`$
$`=`$ $`ϵ(\mathrm{\Pi }^L(1_{(1)}ϵ_C(c)))1_{(2)}=ϵ(1_{(1)}ϵ_C(c))1_{(2)}`$
$`=`$ $`ϵ(1_{(1)}\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g))1_{(2)}=ϵ(1_{(1)}ϵ(1_{(1)}^{}g)1_{(2)}^{})1_{(2)}`$
$`(\mathrm{by}\mathrm{Eq}.(\text{2}))`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ(ϵ(1_{(1)}g)1_{(2)})1_{(3)}`$
$`=`$ $`ϵ(1_{(1)}g)1_{(2)}=\mathrm{\Pi }^L(g)=ϵ_C(c)`$
this completes the proof. $``$$``$

Combining Propositions 3.9 and 3.10, we immediately obtain the following theorem, which is the main result of this Section. We leave it to the reader to define morphisms between left-left weak Doi-Koppinen data, and between left-left Doi-Koppinen data over an algebra $`R`$.

###### Theorem 3.11.

Let $`H`$ be a weak Hopf algebra, and view it also as an $`R`$-bialgebroid, as in Proposition 3.1. Then there is an isomorphism of categories $`𝒲𝒟𝒦(H)𝒟𝒦_R(H)`$. Furthermore, the corresponding categories of Doi-Koppinen modules are isomorphic.

## 4. A coring associated to a Doi-Koppinen datum over $`R`$ and applications

In this section we construct an $`A`$-coring corresponding to a given Doi-Koppinen datum $`(H,A,C)_R`$ over $`R`$. This allows one to use methods employed in  to derive various properties of Doi-Koppinen modules over an algebra.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`(H,A,C)_R`$ be a Doi-Koppinen datum over $`R`$. Then $`𝒞=C_RA`$ is an $`A`$-bimodule with the right action given by the multiplication in $`A`$ and the left action $`a(c_Ra^{})=a{}_{<1>}{}^{}c_Ra{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{}`$, for all $`a,a^{}A`$, $`cC`$. Furthermore $`𝒞`$ is an $`A`$-coring with comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞=\mathrm{\Delta }_C_RA`$ and the counit $`ϵ_𝒞=ϵ_C_RA`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_C`$, $`ϵ_C`$ are the coproduct and the counit of the $`R`$-coring $`C`$. In this case the categories of left $`𝒞`$-comodules and of left-left Doi-Koppinen modules over $`R`$ are isomorphic to each other.

Proof.  First note that the left action of $`A`$ on $`𝒞`$ is well-defined since the image of the left $`H`$-coaction of $`A`$ is required to be in $`A\times _RH`$. The fact that it is an action indeed follows from the fact that $`A`$ is a left $`H`$-comodule algebra. Note also that in the definitions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$ and $`ϵ_𝒞`$ we used the natural isomorphisms $`C_RA_AC_RAC_RC_RA`$ and $`R_RAA`$ respectively. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$ is a right $`A`$-module map. To prove that it is a left $`A`$-module map as well take any $`a,a^{}A`$ and $`cC`$ and compute

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(a(c_Ra^{}))`$ $`=`$ $`(a{}_{<1>}{}^{}c){}_{(1)}{}^{}_{R}^{}(a{}_{<1>}{}^{}c){}_{(2)}{}^{}_{R}^{}a{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`a{}_{<2>}{}^{}c{}_{(1)}{}^{}_{R}^{}a{}_{<1>}{}^{}c{}_{(2)}{}^{}_{R}^{}a{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{},`$
where we used that $`C`$ is a left $`H`$-module coalgebra. On the other hand

$`a\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(c_Ra^{})`$ $`=`$ $`a(c{}_{(1)}{}^{}_{R}^{}1)_A(c{}_{(2)}{}^{}_{R}^{}a^{})=a{}_{<1>}{}^{}c{}_{(1)}{}^{}_{R}^{}a{}_{<0>}{}^{}(c{}_{(2)}{}^{}_{R}^{}a^{})`$
$`=`$ $`a{}_{<2>}{}^{}c{}_{(1)}{}^{}_{R}^{}a{}_{<1>}{}^{}c{}_{(2)}{}^{}_{R}^{}a{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{}.`$
This proves that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$ is right $`A`$-linear, hence it is an $`A`$-bimodule map as required. Directly from the definition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞`$ it follows that it is coassociative.

It is clear that $`ϵ_𝒞`$ is right $`A`$-linear. To prove that it is also a left $`A`$-module morphism take any $`a,a^{}A`$, $`cC`$ and compute

$`ϵ_𝒞(a(c_Ra^{}))`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_C(a{}_{<1>}{}^{}c)(a{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{})=ϵ_H(a{}_{<1>}{}^{}s_{H}^{}(ϵ_C(c)))(a{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{})`$
$`=`$ $`ϵ_H(a{}_{<1>}{}^{}t_{H}^{}(ϵ_C(c)))(a{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{})=ϵ_H(a{}_{<1>}{}^{})(a{}_{<0>}{}^{}s_{A}^{}(ϵ_C(c))a^{})`$
$`=`$ $`a{}_{<0>}{}^{}s_{A}^{}(ϵ_C(c))a^{}=aϵ_𝒞(c_Ra^{}),`$
where we used that $`C`$ is a left $`H`$-module coalgebra to obtain the second equality, then equation (1) to derive the third one and the fact that the image of the left coaction of $`H`$ on $`A`$ is in $`H\times _RA`$ to obtain the fourth equality. This proves that $`ϵ_𝒞`$ is left $`A`$-linear hence it is $`A`$-bilinear. The fact that $`ϵ_𝒞`$ is a counit of $`𝒞`$ follows directly from the definition of $`ϵ_𝒞`$. Thus we conclude that $`𝒞`$ is an $`A`$-coring as stated.

To prove the isomorphism of categories, take any left $`𝒞`$-comodule $`(M,\rho )`$ and view it as a Doi-Koppinen module via the same coaction $`\rho :MC_RA_AMC_RM`$. Conversely, any Doi-Koppinen module $`(M,,\rho )`$ can be viewed as a left $`𝒞`$ comodule via $`\rho :MC_RMC_RA_AM=𝒞_AM`$. $``$$``$

One can now use the general results about corings in <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Note, however, that some care has to be taken when applying  since this paper is formulated in the right-right module convention. combined with Proposition 4.1 to derive various properties of Doi-Koppinen modules over a noncommutative algebra $`R`$. For example \[5, Lemma 3.1\] implies that the forgetful functor $`F:{}_{A}{}^{C}(H;R){}_{A}{}^{}`$ is the left adjoint of the induction functor $`G=C_R:{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{C}(H;R)`$. Furthermore by \[5, Theorems 3.3, 3.5\] one has

###### Corollary 4.2.

Let $`(H,A,C)_R`$ be a left-left Doi-Koppinen datum over $`R`$.

(1) The induction functor $`G=C_R:{}_{A}{}^{}{}_{A}{}^{C}(H;R)`$ is separable if and only if there exists $`e=_ic^i_Ra^iC_RA`$ such that $`_iϵ_C(c^i)a^i=1_A`$ and for all $`aA`$, $`_ia{}_{<1>}{}^{}c^i_Ra{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{i}=_ic^i_Ra^ia`$.

(2) The forgetful functor $`F:{}_{A}{}^{C}(H;R){}_{A}{}^{}`$ is separable if and only if there exists a right $`R`$-bimodule map $`\gamma :C_RCA`$ such that for all $`aA`$ and $`c,c^{}C`$,

* $`\gamma (c{}_{(1)}{}^{}_{R}^{}c{}_{(2)}{}^{})=ϵ_C(c)1_A`$,
* $`\gamma (a{}_{<2>}{}^{}c_Ra{}_{<1>}{}^{}c^{})a{}_{<0>}{}^{}=a\gamma (c_Rc^{})`$,
* $`c{}_{(1)}{}^{}_{R}^{}\gamma (c{}_{(2)}{}^{}_{R}^{}c^{})=\gamma (c_Rc^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{<1>}{}^{}c^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}_{R}^{}\gamma (c_Rc^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})_{<0>}`$.

Finally, it has been observed in \[5, Proposition 2.3\], that given a weak entwining structure $`(A,C,\psi )`$, and hence a weak Doi-Koppinen datum in particular, one can construct a coring obtained as an image of certain projection in $`CA`$. Since a weak Doi-Koppinen datum is a special case of a Doi-Koppinen datum over $`R`$ it is important to study the relationship of this coring to $`C_RA`$.

###### Proposition 4.3.

Let $`(H,A,C)`$ be weak Doi-Koppinen datum. Define the corresponding $`A`$-coring $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}=\{_i1{}_{<1>}{}^{}c^i1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{i}|a^iA,c^iC\}`$, with the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{𝒞}}=(\mathrm{\Delta }_CA)_{\stackrel{~}{𝒞}}`$ and the counit $`ϵ_{\stackrel{~}{𝒞}}=(ϵ_CA)_{\stackrel{~}{𝒞}}`$. View $`(H,A,C)`$ as a Doi-Koppinen datum over $`R=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^L`$ in Theorem 3.11. Then $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}𝒞=C_RA`$ as $`A`$-corings.

Proof.  Consider two maps $`\theta :𝒞\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$, $`c_Ra1{}_{<1>}{}^{}c1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }:\stackrel{~}{𝒞}𝒞`$, $`_i(c^ia^i)_ic^i_Ra^i`$. The map $`\theta `$ is well-defined because using equation (10) we have for all $`aA`$, $`cC`$ and $`rR=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }^L`$,

$`\theta (cr_Ra)`$ $`=`$ $`1{}_{<1>}{}^{}(cr)1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a=1{}_{<1>}{}^{}t_{H}^{}(r)c1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a`$
$`=`$ $`1{}_{<1>}{}^{}c1{}_{<0>}{}^{}s_{A}^{}(r)a=\theta (c_Rra).`$
Clearly, $`\theta `$ is a right $`A`$-module map. Recall from \[5, Proposition 2.3\] that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$ is a left $`A`$-module via $`a(_i1{}_{<1>}{}^{}c^i1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{i})=_ia{}_{<1>}{}^{}c^ia{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{i}`$. Now, the fact that $`A`$ is a weak left $`H`$-comodule algebra implies that $`\theta `$ is a left $`A`$-module map. Thus $`\theta `$ is an $`A`$-bimodule map. To prove that $`\theta `$ is a coring map take any $`aA`$, $`cC`$ and use the fact that $`A`$ is an $`H`$-comodule algebra to compute

$`(\theta _A\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞(c_Ra)`$ $`=`$ $`1{}_{<2>}{}^{}c{}_{(1)}{}^{}(1{}_{<1>}{}^{}1{}_{<1^{}>}{}^{})c{}_{(2)}{}^{}1{}_{<0>}{}^{}1{}_{<0^{}>}{}^{}a`$
$`=`$ $`1{}_{<2>}{}^{}c{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{<1>}{}^{}c{}_{(2)}{}^{}1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a,`$
where $`1{}_{<1^{}>}{}^{}1_{<0^{}>}`$ is another copy of $`1{}_{<1>}{}^{}1_{<0>}`$. On the other hand, using the fact that $`C`$ is a left $`H`$-module coalgebra we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{𝒞}}(\theta (c_Ra))=(1{}_{<1>}{}^{}c){}_{(1)}{}^{}(1{}_{<1>}{}^{}c){}_{(2)}{}^{}1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a=1{}_{<2>}{}^{}c{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{<1>}{}^{}c{}_{(2)}{}^{}1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a,$$

as required. Thus we have proven that $`\theta `$ is a map of $`A`$-corings. We now prove that $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ is an inverse of $`\theta `$. For a typical element $`x=_i1{}_{<1>}{}^{}c^i1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{i}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒞}`$ we have

$$\theta \stackrel{~}{\theta }(x)=\underset{i}{}1{}_{<1^{}>}{}^{}1{}_{<1>}{}^{}c^i1{}_{<0^{}>}{}^{}1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{i}=\underset{i}{}1{}_{<1>}{}^{}c^i1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a_{}^{i}=x,$$

for $`A`$ is a weak $`H`$-module algebra. On the other hand, since $`1{}_{<1>}{}^{}1{}_{<0>}{}^{}=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}s_A(1{}_{(2)}{}^{})`$ (cf. proof of Theorem 3.11) we have for all $`aA`$, $`cC`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\theta }\theta (c_Ra)`$ $`=`$ $`1{}_{<1>}{}^{}c_R1{}_{<0>}{}^{}a=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}c_Rs_A(1{}_{(2)}{}^{})a`$
$`=`$ $`(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}c)1{}_{(2)}{}^{}_{R}^{}a=S^1(1{}_{(2)}{}^{})1{}_{(1)}{}^{}c_Ra=c_Ra.`$
This completes the proof that $`\theta `$ is an isomorphism of $`A`$-corings. $``$$``$

Acknowledgements

T. Brzeziński thanks EPSRC for an Advanced Research Fellowship, S. Caenepeel thanks Department of Mathematics, University of Wales Swansea for hospitality, and G. Militaru thanks the Royal Society for a visiting fellowship.