text:
# framed hitchin pairs

## Introduction

The theory of stable vector bundles on complex projective manifolds has two completely different aspects: The algebro-geometric part of the construction of their moduli spaces by GIT, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the theory of Hermitian-Einstein bundles which is differential geometry. The two theories are related by the famous Kobayashi-Hitchin correspondence. Using this, one could compute Donaldson invariants with the help of algebraic geometry. Now, Kobayashi-Hitchin type correspondences occur in many other places, e.g., for Bradlow pairs, Higgs pairs, and oriented pairs. Thus, it is desirable to have algebraic moduli spaces for the respective objects. For the above examples, the moduli spaces of the corresponding stable objects in algebraic geometry have been constructed (see, e.g., , , , , , ).

In this paper, we study framed Hitchin pairs and oriented framed Hitchin pairs from the algebro-geometric viewpoint. Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective curve and fix line bundles $`L`$, $`M`$, and a vector bundle $`H`$ on $`X`$. Then a framed Hitchin pair consists of a vector bundle $`E`$ with $`det(E)M`$, a complex number $`\epsilon `$, a twisted endomorphism $`\phi :EEL`$, and a framing $`\psi :EH`$, and an oriented framed Hitchin pair consists of $`(E,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ as before, and an orientation $`\delta :det(E)M`$. The motivation to study these objects comes from non-abelian Seiberg-Witten theory as explained in the recent thesis of M.-S. Stupariu . He starts with the U$`(2)`$\- and $`PU(2)`$-monopole equations on a hermitian rank two vector bundle on a Kähler surface and then applies the method of dimensional reduction to get new equations in complex dimension one. These are certain vortex-type equations coupled with Higgs fields. In the algebro-geometric setting, the U$`(2)`$\- and $`PU(2)`$-monopole equations correspond to Bradlow pairs and oriented pairs, respectively, and — as in Hitchin’s work — the process of dimensional reduction has the effect of ”adding” a trace-free twisted endomorphism $`\phi :EEK_X`$ (see , p.29ff). In the spirit of the theory of complex vector bundles, one must now generalize the concept of Einstein-metrics to the respective differential-geometric objects, introduce a suitable stability concept for (oriented) framed Hitchin pairs, and then relate both sides by a Kobayashi-Hitchin correspondence. For framed Hitchin pairs, this was carried out by Lin . The corresponding results for oriented framed Hitchin pairs are the content of Stupariu’s thesis which also contains a discussion of Lin’s results.

It is therefore important to construct the algebraic models for the moduli spaces of stable (oriented) framed Hitchin pairs together with their Gieseker compactifications. This will be the main concern of our note. We will define a very general notion of framed Hitchin pairs over arbitrary base manifolds, explain the correct notions of semistability, and carry out a construction of the moduli spaces, using Geometric Invariant Theory, restricting ourselves to the case of curves in the case of oriented framed Hitchin pairs. In contrast to other constructions of very similar moduli spaces (, ), for framed Hitchin pairs, we will follow a Simpson-type construction, generalizing the one in . The advantage of this approach is twofold. First, one immediately obtains projective moduli spaces, and second, the symmetricity condition that the induced homomorphism $`^2𝒢`$ be zero, usually appearing in this context, can be suppressed.

## Preliminaries

We work over $``$. Here is a list of data which have to be fixed. We will refer to this list without further notice.

* $`X`$, a smooth, projective scheme over the complex numbers,
* an ample sheaf $`𝒪_X(1)`$,
* a Hilbert polynomial $`P`$, $`r`$ and $`d`$ will denote the rank and the degree w.r.t. $`𝒪_X(1)`$ which this polynomial determines, $`\mu :=d/r`$,
* a locally free sheaf $`𝒢`$ on $`X`$,
* a torsion free sheaf $``$ on $`X`$,
* a Poincaré line bundle $`𝒩`$ on $`PicX\times X`$.

For any coherent sheaf $``$ on $`X`$, $`P_{}`$ and $`P()`$ stand for its Hilbert polynomial w.r.t. $`𝒪_X(1)`$. For any scheme $`S`$ and any $`S`$-flat coherent sheaf $`𝔈_S`$ on $`S\times X`$, there exists a morphism $`d(𝔈_S):SPicX`$, associated to the line bundle $`det(𝔈_S)`$ on $`S\times X`$. We write $`𝒩[𝔈_S]:=(d(𝔈_S)\times id_X)^{}𝒩`$.

### A universal construction

Remember the following standard construction which will be used frequently in our note:

###### Proposition 0.1.

Let $`T`$ be a noetherian scheme, $`𝔈_T^1`$ and $`𝔈_T^2`$ $`T`$-flat coherent sheaves on $`T\times X`$, and $`\phi _T:𝔈_T^1𝔈_T^2`$ a homomorphism. Then there is a closed subscheme $`𝔙T`$ whose closed points are those $`tT`$ for which $`\phi _{T|\{t\}\times X}0`$.

### The commutation principle

Let us recall two results from  which will be used in the second part of our paper.

###### Theorem 0.2.

Let $`G`$ be a reductive group without characters, and suppose we are given a $`(^{}\times G)`$-action on the projective scheme $`𝔛`$ which is linearized in, say, $`𝔐`$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

1. The point $`x`$ is $`G`$-semistable w.r.t. the given linearization.
2. There exists a linearization $`l`$ of the $`^{}`$-action in some power $`𝔐^m`$ such that $`x`$ is $`l`$-semistable, and the image of $`x`$ in $`𝔛//_l^{}`$ is a $`G`$-semistable point w.r.t. the induced linearization.

Proof. , Thm.1.4.1. & Rem.1.1.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 0.3.

Note that the same statement holds for polystable points but not for stable points.

###### Proposition 0.4.

Let $`^{}`$ act on a vector space $`W_1W_2`$ with weights $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$, $`e_1<e_2`$. Then, for the linearization of the $`^{}`$-action given by $`k_{>0}`$, $`e`$, with $`e_1<e/k<e_2`$, of the resulting $`^{}`$-action on $`(W_1^{}W_2^{})`$ in $`𝒪(k)`$, the quotient is $`(W_1^{})\times (W_2^{})`$, and $`𝒪(k(e_2e_1))`$ descends to $`𝒪(ke_2e,ke_1+e)`$. Futhermore, the linearizations with $`e/k=e_i`$ yield as quotients $`(W_i^{})`$, $`i=1,2`$, $`𝒪(k(e_2e_1))`$ descending to $`𝒪(k(e_2e_1))`$.

Proof. , Example 1.2.5. $`\mathrm{}`$

### The problem of non-commuting matrices

Denote by $`M_r`$ the vector space of complex $`(r\times r)`$-matrices, and by $`SL_rM_r`$ the special linear group. We are interested in the right action of $`SL_r`$ on $`W:=M_r^u`$ by conjugation, i.e., $`(m_1,\mathrm{},m_u)g=(g^1m_1g,\mathrm{},g^1m_ug)`$, for $`(m_1,\mathrm{},m_u)W`$ and $`gSL_r`$. First of all, it is very easy to describe the (semi)stable points:

###### Lemma 0.5.

A point $`\underset{¯}{m}:=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_u)`$ in $`W`$ is unstable if and only if the $`m_i`$’s can be simultaneously triangularized, and $`\underset{¯}{m}`$ fails to be semistable, if, in addition, all the $`m_i`$’s are nilpotent.

###### Remark 0.6.

We can formulate the condition of being a nullform in another way. For this, we think of $`\underset{¯}{m}`$ as a linear map from $`^r`$ to $`^r^u`$. Then, $`\underset{¯}{m}`$ is a nullform if and only if $`(\underset{¯}{m}id_{_{}^{u}{}_{}{}^{r1}})\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{m}=0`$. When the latter happens, we call $`\underset{¯}{m}`$ nilpotent.

For us, it will be important to know the ring of invariants $`[W]^{SL_r}=[W]^{GL_r}`$. From a technical point of view, the above problem is just a matrix problem associated with a quiver, namely with the one consisting of one vertex and $`u`$ arrows, connecting the vertex to itself. Coordinate rings of general quiver varieties have been explicitly determined by Le Bruyn and Procesi , and Lusztig . First, let us define some invariants. For this, let $`𝔽_u`$ be the free group in $`u`$ generators $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_u`$. We think of the elements of $`𝔽_u`$ as words in $`u`$ letters. An element $`\omega 𝔽_u`$ and an element $`(m_1,\mathrm{},m_u)M_r^u`$ define a matrix $`m_\omega `$ which is obtained by substituting $`m_i`$ for the indeterminate $`x_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},u`$, and we associate to $`\omega `$ the invariant $`T_\omega `$ which assigns to $`(m_1,\mathrm{},m_u)`$ the Trace of $`m_\omega `$. Theorem 1 of  can be stated as follows in our context.

###### Theorem 0.7.

The algebra $`[W]^{SL_r}`$ is generated by the elements $`T_\omega `$ belonging to words $`\omega `$ of length at most $`r^2`$.

###### Remark 0.8.

As a dimension count shows, the number of invariants $`s`$ is much bigger than the dimension of the quotient, whence a lot of relations must hold. These follow all from the Cayley-Hamilton theorem.

###### Example 0.9 (The case $`r=2=u`$).

For $`(m_1,m_2)M_2M_2=:W`$, we define the invariants

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_1(m_1,m_2)`$ $`:=`$ $`Trace(m_1),\stackrel{~}{T}_2(m_1,m_2):=det(m_1),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{T}_3(m_1,m_2)`$ $`:=`$ $`Trace(m_2),\stackrel{~}{T}_4(m_1,m_2):=det(m_2),`$
$`\text{and}\stackrel{~}{T}_5(m_1,m_2)`$ $`:=`$ $`Trace(m_1m_2).`$
One can then verify that $`[W]^{SL_2}=[\stackrel{~}{T}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{T}_5]`$ and that this ring is isomorphic to the polynomial ring in five variables.

Let $`s`$ be the number of (non-empty) words of length at most $`r^2`$ in $`u`$ letters, $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_s`$ be the generating invariants from Thm. 0.7, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }:=𝔸^s`$. Thus, we can associate to any $`\underset{¯}{m}`$ the element $`\xi (\underset{¯}{m}):=(T_1(\underset{¯}{m}),\mathrm{},T_s(\underset{¯}{m}))\mathrm{\Xi }`$ which we call the characteristic vector of $`\underset{¯}{m}`$. This is the replacement for the charateristic polynomials in the case of commuting matrices. The results of this paragraph can be elegantly stated as

$`\underset{¯}{m}`$ is not nilpotent if and only if its characteristic vector is non-zero.

## 1. Framed Hitchin pairs

### Definitions

We will now introduce framed Hitchin pairs. They form a large class of objects which comprises all the objects studied in , , , and .

#### Framed Hitchin pairs

A framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ is a quadruple $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ composed of the following ingredients

* a torsion free coherent sheaf $``$ with $`P_{}=P`$,
* a complex number $`\epsilon `$,
* a twisted endomorphism $`\phi :𝒢`$,
* a non-zero framing $`\psi :`$,

such that $`\phi `$ is not nilpotent, i.e., $`(\phi id_{𝒢^{i1}})\mathrm{}\phi 0`$, for all $`i`$, when $`\epsilon =0`$. To make the condition of nilpotency a bit more transparent, we state the following

###### Lemma 1.1.

Let $``$ be a torsion free sheaf of rank $`r`$ and $`\phi :𝒢`$ a twisted endomorphism. Then $`\phi `$ is nilpotent in the above sense if and only if $`(\phi id_{𝒢^{r1}})\mathrm{}\phi =0`$.

Proof. One direction is trivial. Suppose $`\phi `$ is nilpotent and set $`_i:=\mathrm{ker}\left((\phi id_{𝒢^{i1}})\mathrm{}\phi \right)`$, $`i`$, so that we get a filtration $`0_1\mathrm{}_s=`$. Now, the $`_i`$’s are saturated subsheaves of $``$. Hence, all the inclusions above are either equalities or the rank jumps by one. Thus, the assertion follows from the obvious fact $`\phi (_i)_{i1}𝒢`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The equivalence relation $``$ on framed Hitchin pairs is the one generated by

$$\begin{array}{c}(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )(^{},\epsilon ,(\rho id_𝒢)\phi \rho ^1,\psi \rho ^1),\rho :^{}\text{iso}.,\hfill \\ (,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )(,z\epsilon ,z\phi ,\psi ),z^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Remark 1.2.

Applying the above definition to the automorphism $`\lambda id`$, $`\lambda ^{}`$, one sees that $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is always equivalent to $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\lambda \psi )`$.

A family of framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ parametrized by the (noetherian) scheme $`S`$ is a quintuple $`(𝔈_S,\epsilon _S,\phi _S,\psi _S,𝔑_S)`$. Here, $`𝔈_S`$ is an $`S`$-flat family of torsion free coherent sheaves on $`S\times X`$ with Hilbert polynomial $`P`$, $`𝔑_S`$ is a line bundle on $`S`$, $`\epsilon _SH^0(𝔑_S)`$, $`\phi _S:𝔈_S𝔈_S\pi _S^{}𝔑_S\pi _X^{}𝒢`$ is a twisted endomorphism, and $`\psi _S:𝔈_S\pi _X^{}`$ is a framing. We say that the family $`(𝔈_S,\epsilon _S,\phi _S,\psi _S,𝔑_S)`$ is equivalent to the family $`(𝔈_S^{},\epsilon _S^{},\phi _S^{},\psi _S^{},𝔑_S^{})`$, if we find isomorphisms $`\rho _S:𝔈_S𝔈_S^{}`$ and $`\eta _S:𝔑_S𝔑_S^{}`$, such that

$$\epsilon _S^{}=\eta _S\epsilon _S,\phi _S^{}=(\rho _S\pi _S^{}\eta _S\underset{\pi _X^{}𝒢}{id})\phi _S\rho _S^1,\psi _S^{}=\psi _S\rho _S^1.$$

#### Symmetric framed Hitchin pairs and characteristic polynomials

Let $``$ be a torsion free coherent sheaf and $`\phi :𝒢`$ be a twisted endomorphism. We call $`\phi `$ symmetric, if the induced homomorphism $`T^{}(𝒢^{})`$ factors through $`S^{}(𝒢^{})`$.

###### Remark 1.3.

Since the symmetric algebra $`S^{}(𝒢^{})`$is generated over $`𝒪_X`$ by $`𝒢^{}`$ it is sufficient to have that the map from $`𝒢^{}𝒢^{}`$ vanishes on $`(^2𝒢^{})`$. Moreover, if $`𝒢=𝒪_X(m)^u`$ for some $`m`$ and $`u`$, we can decompose $`\phi `$ into its components $`(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _u)`$. The condition of symmetricity means that the $`\phi _i`$ commute, i.e., for all $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},u`$, $`(\phi _iid_𝒢)\phi _j(\phi _jid_𝒢)\phi _i=0`$.

As Yokogawa explains in , p.495, we can associate to a symmetric twisted endomorphism $`\phi `$ its characteristic polynomial in $`H^0(S^{}(𝒢)[t])`$. This provides us, in particular, with an element in the vector space $`_𝒢:=_{i=1}^rH^0(S^i(𝒢))`$ which we call abusively the characteristic polynomial of $`\phi `$, too. Note that $`\phi `$ is not nilpotent if and only if its characteristic polynomial in $`_𝒢`$ is not zero.

A framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ will be called symmetric, if $`\phi `$ is symmetric. A symmetric framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ defines an element in $`_𝒢`$. Now, let $`^{}`$ act on $`H^0(S^i(𝒢))`$ through multiplication by $`z^i`$. This yields a $`^{}`$-action on $`_𝒢`$, and the quotient $`\widehat{}_𝒢`$ is a weighted projective space. Thus, $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ defines an element $`\widehat{\chi }(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )\widehat{}_𝒢`$ which depends only on its equivalence class. It will be referred to as the characteristic polynomial of $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$.

#### Characteristic vectors for framed Hitchin pairs

Let $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ be a framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ with $`𝒢=𝒪_X(m)^u`$. Let $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_s`$ be the generators of the ring $`[M_r^u]^{SL_r}`$, belonging to the words $`\omega _1,\mathrm{}.,\omega _s`$. For a given $`l`$, consider the homomorphism $`\phi _l:=(\phi id_{𝒢^{l1}})\mathrm{}\phi :𝒢^l`$. Now, a word $`\omega `$ of length $`l`$ singles out a component of $`\phi _l`$, i.e., a homomorphism $`\phi _\omega :𝒪_X(lm)`$, and the trace of $`\phi _\omega `$ gives a section in $`H^0(𝒪_X(lm))`$. For $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$, let $`l_s`$ be the length of the word $`\omega _s`$, and set $`𝕂_𝒢:=_{i=1}^sH^0(𝒪_X(l_im))`$. So, we can associate to $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ in a natural way an element in $`𝕂_𝒢`$. As before, we let $`^{}`$ act on $`H^0(𝒪_X(l_im))`$ through multiplication by $`z^{l_i}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$, in order to obtain a $`^{}`$-action on $`𝕂_𝒢`$. The quotient $`(𝕂_G)//^{}`$ will be denoted by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_𝒢`$. Thus, we can assign to any framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ its characteristic vector $`\widehat{\xi }(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_𝒢`$. The characteristic vector clearly depends only on the equivalence class of $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$.

### Semistability and sectional semistability

Fix a polynomial $`\sigma [t]`$ with positive leading coefficient of degree at most $`dimX1`$ and call a framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ $`\sigma `$-(semi)stable, if for any proper, non-zero subsheaf $``$ of $``$ which is invariant under $`\phi `$, i.e., $`\phi ()𝒢`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}}{rk}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{rk}}`$ $`()`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}}{rk}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{rk}},\text{and}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}}{rk}}`$ $`()`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}}{rk}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{rk}},\text{if, furthermore, }\mathrm{ker}\psi .`$
###### Remark 1.4.

i) Given two locally free sheaves $`𝒢𝒢^{}`$ and a framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$, we can form the framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ^{},\psi )`$ of type $`(P,𝒢^{},)`$ by defining $`\phi ^{}`$ as the composition of $`\phi `$ with the inclusion $`𝒢𝒢^{}`$. Since for any $`\phi ^{}`$-invariant subsheaf $``$ of $``$, the map $`𝒢^{}(𝒢^{}/𝒢)`$ is zero, it will also be $`\phi `$-invariant. Therefore, $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ^{},\psi )`$ will be $`\sigma `$-(semi)stable if and only if $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is $`\sigma `$-(semi)stable. In particular, since we can embed $`𝒢`$ in $`𝒪_X(m)^u`$ for some large $`m`$ and $`u`$, we can and will always assume that $`𝒢`$ is of that simple form.

ii) A $`\sigma `$-stable framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ has no automorphisms $`\rho `$ besides the identity which satisfy

$$(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )=(,\epsilon ,(\rho \underset{𝒢}{id})\phi \rho ^1,\psi \rho ^1).$$

Next, fix a positive rational number $`\overline{\sigma }`$. A framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ will be called $`\overline{\sigma }`$-sectional (semi)stable, if there is a subspace $`VH^0()`$ of dimension $`\chi ()`$, s. th. for any non-trivial $`\phi `$-invariant proper subsheaf $``$ of $``$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dim(VH^0())}{rk}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }}{rk}}`$ $`()`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ()}{rk}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }}{rk}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dim(VH^0())}{rk}}`$ $`()`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ()}{rk}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }}{rk}},\text{if}\mathrm{ker}\psi .`$
The usual arguments — assuming boundedness — then show:

###### Proposition 1.5.

There is a natural number $`n_0`$ such that for all $`nn_0`$ and all framed Hitchin pairs $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ the following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is $`\sigma `$-(semi)stable.
2. $`((n),\epsilon ,\phi id_{𝒪_X(n)},\psi id_{𝒪_X(n)})`$ is $`\sigma (n)`$-sectional (semi)stable.
3. $`((n),\epsilon ,\phi id_{𝒪_X(n)},\psi id_{𝒪_X(n)})`$ satisfies the condition of $`\sigma (n)`$-sectional (semi)stability for globally generated subsheaves.

###### Remark 1.6.

If $`X`$ is curve and some positive rational number $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, then — as will follow from the results of the section about boundedness in the second chapter — one can choose $`n_0`$ such that the above proposition holds true for all positive rational numbers $`\sigma <\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$.

### Jordan-Hölder Filtrations and S-equivalence

Let $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ be a $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ which is not $`\sigma `$-stable. Let $`_1`$ be a proper, $`\phi `$-invariant, destabilizing subsheaf which is maximal w.r.t. inclusion. The homomorphisms $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ can be restricted to $`_1`$, and $`(_1,\epsilon ,\phi _{|_1},\psi _{|_1})`$ will be again $`\sigma `$-semistable. If it is not $`\sigma `$-stable, pick a maximal destabilizing $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaf $`_2`$ and so on in order to get a so called Jordan-Hölder filtration

$$0=:_{m+1}_m\mathrm{}_1_0:=.$$

Then, we can define the associated graded object

$$gr(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi ):=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m+1}{}}(_{i1}/_i,\epsilon ,\overline{\phi }_i,\overline{\psi }_i).$$

As usual, this is well-defined up to equivalence. Two $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pairs are called S-equivalent if their associated graded objects are equivalent, and a framed Hitchin pair is said to be $`\sigma `$-polystable, if it is equivalent to its associated graded object.

### The main result

Let $`FH_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma (s)s}`$ ($`FH_{P/𝒢//\text{symm}}^{\sigma (s)s}`$) be the functors assigning to each noetherian scheme the set of equivalence classes of families of $`\sigma `$-(semi)stable (symmetric) framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$.

###### Theorem 1.7.

i) There are a quasi-projective scheme $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}`$ and a natural transformation $`\vartheta `$ of $`FH_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}`$ into the functor of points of $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}`$, s. th. for any scheme $``$ and any natural transformation $`\vartheta ^{}:FH_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}h_{}`$, there is a unique morphism $`\tau :_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}`$ with $`\vartheta ^{}=h(\tau )\vartheta `$.

ii) The space $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}`$ contains an open subscheme $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma s}`$ which is a fine moduli space for the functor $`FH_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma s}`$.

iii) The closed points of $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}`$ naturally correspond to the set of S-equivalence classes of $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$.

iv) There is a proper morphism $`\widehat{\xi }:_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_𝒢`$ — called the generalized Hitchin map — which maps a $`\sigma `$-polystable framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ to its characteristic vector. In particular, $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}`$ is a projective scheme.

v) There is a closed subscheme $`_{P/𝒢//\text{symm}}^{\sigma ss}`$ of $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}`$, such that the schemes $`_{P/𝒢//\text{symm}}^{\sigma ss}`$ and $`_{P/𝒢//\text{symm}}^{\sigma s}:=_{P/𝒢//\text{symm}}^{\sigma ss}_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma s}`$ enjoy the analogous properties to i) \- iii) w.r.t. functors $`FH_{P/𝒢//\text{symm}}^{\sigma (s)s}`$. Moreover, there is a proper morphism $`\widehat{\chi }:_{P/𝒢//\text{symm}}^{\sigma ss}\widehat{}_𝒢`$, the Hitchin map, which maps a $`\sigma `$-polystable symmetric framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ to its characteristic polynomial.

### Proof of Theorem 1.7 with GIT

We will follow the usual pattern of a GIT construction.

#### Boundedness

For a torsion free coherent sheaf $``$, let $`0=_0_1\mathrm{}_l=`$ be its (slope) Harder-Narasimhan filtration. Set $`\mu _{\mathrm{max}}():=\mu (_1)`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{min}}():=\mu (/_{l1})`$. The proof of Nitsure , Proposition 3.2, can be easily extended to give the following

###### Proposition 1.8.

Let $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ be a framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ with $`𝒢=𝒪_X(m)^u`$, such that there is a constant $`C0`$ such that $`\mu ()\mu ()+[C(rrk)/(rrk)]`$ for any non-trivial $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaf $``$ of $``$. Then

$$\mu _{\mathrm{max}}()\mathrm{max}\{\mu +C,\mu +\frac{(r1)^2}{r}\mathrm{deg}𝒪_X(m)\}.$$

###### Remark 1.9.

As explained in , p.111, one can formulate a “polynomial” analogon to Proposition 1.8, namely, there is a constant $`C^{}`$ such that for any subsheaf $``$ of $``$ one has $`P()/rk<P()/rk+C^{}x^{dimX1}`$.

Since every $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ satisfies the assumption of the above proposition with $`C=`$ leading coefficient of $`\sigma `$, Maruyama’s boundedness result  yields

###### Corollary 1.10.

The isomorphy classes of torsion free coherent sheaves occuring in $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ form a bounded family.

Let $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ be a framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ and set $`_i:=\mathrm{ker}\left((\phi id_{𝒢^{i1}})\mathrm{}\phi \right)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$.

###### Lemma 1.11.

The set of isomorphy classes of $`_i`$’s coming from $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ is also bounded.

Proof. The proof of this lemma will be given below. $`\mathrm{}`$

#### Some assumptions

As observed in Remark 1.4, we can assume that $`𝒢`$ is of the form $`𝒪_X(m)^u`$ where $`𝒪_X(m)`$ is globally generated, and, by Corollary 1.10 and Lemma 1.11, the following can be required.

###### Assumptions 1.12.

Let $`n_1`$ be a natural number such that for all $`nn_1`$ and every $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ the following holds

* $`(n)`$ is globally generated and without higher cohomology.
* $`(n)`$ is globally generated and without higher cohomology.
* For $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, the sheaf $`_i(n)`$ is globally generated and without higher cohomology.

An additional hypothesis on $`n_1`$ will be explained later. Now, we have to make a ”logical loop”. Indeed, the last assumption makes use of 1.11 which we have not yet proved. Therefore, we won’t use this assumption in the following construction, prove Lemma 1.11, and then re-enter at the beginning of this section. Suppose also that $`n_1`$ is greater than the constant $`n_0`$ in Proposition 1.5. We may clearly assume that $`n_1=0`$.

#### The parameter space

Let $`V`$ be a complex vector space of dimension $`p:=P(0)`$. By Assumption 1.12, every torsion free sheaf $``$ occuring in a $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ can be written as a quotient $`q:V𝒪_X`$ where $`H^0(q)`$ is an isomorphism. These quotients are parametrized by a quasi-projective scheme $`𝔔_0`$ which is an open subscheme of $`𝔔`$, the projective quot scheme of quotients of $`V𝒪_X`$ which have Hilbert polynomial $`P`$. Let $`𝔮_𝔔:V𝒪_{𝔔\times X}𝔈_𝔔`$ be the universal quotient on $`𝔔\times X`$. We can choose a $`\nu _0`$ meeting the following requirements:

###### Assumptions 1.13.

For any $`\nu \nu _0`$, any subspace $`U`$ of $`V`$, any $`[q:V𝒪_X]𝔔`$, and $`_U:=q(U𝒪_X)`$:

* $`𝒪_X(\nu )`$ is globally generated and without higher cohomology.
* The map $`H^0(𝒪_X(\nu ))H^0(𝒪_X(m))H^0(𝒪_X(\nu +m))`$ is surjective.
* $`H^i(_U(\nu ))=0`$, $`i>0`$, and $`U𝒪_X(\nu )H^0(_U(\nu ))`$ is surjective.

Hence, $`\pi _𝔔(𝔈\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(\nu _0))`$ and $`\pi _𝔔(𝔈\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(\nu _0+m))`$ are locally free. Define

$$\widehat{𝔓}:=\left(𝒪_𝔔\pi _𝔔(𝔈\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(\nu _0+m))_{}^{u}{}_{}{}^{}\pi _𝔔(𝔈\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(\nu _0))\right).$$

There is a tautological line bundle $`𝔑_{\widehat{𝔓}}`$ on $`\widehat{𝔓}`$, and the tautological surjection provides us, on $`\widehat{𝔓}\times X`$, with a homomorphism

$$V\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(\nu _0)(𝔈_{\widehat{𝔓}}\pi _{\widehat{𝔓}}^{}𝔑_{\widehat{𝔓}}\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(\nu _0+m))^u\pi _{\widehat{𝔓}}^{}𝔑_{\widehat{𝔓}}.$$

Here, $`𝔮_{\widehat{𝔓}}:V𝒪_{\widehat{𝔓}\times X}𝔈_{\widehat{𝔓}}`$ is the pullback of the universal quotient. Define $`𝔓`$ as the closed subscheme of $`\widehat{𝔓}`$ where this homomorphism factorizes through $`𝔈_{\widehat{𝔓}}\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(\nu _0)`$. Let

$$\phi _𝔓:𝔈_𝔓(𝔈_𝔓\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(m))^u\pi _𝔓^{}𝔑_𝔓$$

be the induced homomorphism and $`𝔑_𝔓`$ the restriction of $`𝔑_{\widehat{𝔓}}`$ to $`𝔓`$. By Assumption 1.12, for any $`\sigma `$-(semi)stable framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$, the homomorphism $`\psi :`$ is determined by the homomorphism $`H^0(\phi ):H^0()H^0()`$. Define the space $`𝐑:=(Hom(V,H^0())^{})`$. It is now clear how to construct the parameter space $``$ as a closed subscheme of $`𝔓\times 𝐑`$, and that, on $`\times X`$, there is a universal family $`(𝔈_{},\epsilon _{},\phi _{},\psi _{},𝔑_{})`$, such that any family of $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pairs can locally be obtained as the pullback of this universal family. $`_0`$ will be the open subscheme sitting over $`𝔔_0`$, and $`_0^{\sigma (s)s}`$ will be the — a posteriori — open subscheme parametrizing $`\sigma `$-(semi)stable framed Hitchin pairs.

#### Ample line bundles on $`\widehat{𝔓}`$

For the moment, write $`𝔚_𝔔`$ for the vector bundle $`\pi _𝔔(𝔈_𝔔\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(\nu _0+m))`$. Note $`𝔚_𝔔^{}^{P(\nu _0+m)1}𝔚_𝔔det𝔚_𝔔^{}`$. In particular, there is a surjection

$$\stackrel{P(\nu _0+m)1}{}(VNM)det𝔚_𝔔^{}𝔚_𝔔^{}.$$

The line bundle $`𝔏_𝔔:=det𝔚_𝔔`$ on $`𝔔`$ is very ample. Therefore, we see that $`𝒪_{\widehat{𝔓}}(a_1,a_2):=\pi ^{}𝔏_𝔔^{a_1}𝔑_{\widehat{𝔓}}^{a_2}`$ is globally generated for $`a_1a_2>0`$ and very ample for $`a_1>a_2>0`$.

#### The group actions

There are natural right actions of $`SL(V)`$ on the schemes $`𝔔`$ and $`𝐑`$, and the locally free sheaves $`\pi _𝔔(𝔈_𝔔\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(\nu _0))`$ and $`\pi _𝔔(𝔈_𝔔\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(\nu _0+m))`$ are naturally linearized w.r.t. the group action on $`𝔔`$. Thus, there is a natural $`SL(V)`$-action from the right on $`\widehat{𝔓}\times 𝐑`$. This leaves the schemes $``$ and $`_0`$ invariant. Moreover, the equivalence relation on the closed points of $`_0`$ induced by this group action is just the relation $``$ on framed Hitchin pairs. More precisely,

###### Proposition 1.14.

For any noetherian scheme $`S`$ and any two morphisms $`\beta _i:S_0`$, $`i=1,2`$, such that the pullbacks of the universal family via $`(\beta _1\times id_X)`$ and $`(\beta _2\times id_X)`$ are equivalent, there exist an étale covering $`\tau :TS`$ and a morphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:TSL(V)`$ with $`\beta _1\tau =(\beta _2\tau )\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Remark 1.15.

Using the universal properties, it is easy to see that the universal family on $`\times X`$ can be equipped with an $`SL(V)`$-linearization. Now, restrict everything to $`_0^{\sigma s}`$. Then, by Remark 1.4 ii), the $`SL(V)`$-linearization induces a $`PGL(V)`$-linearization of the universal family. Since all the $`PGL(V)`$-stabilizers are trivial, the universal family descends to the quotient $`_0^{\sigma s}//SL(V)=_0^{\sigma s}//PGL(V)`$ provided the latter space exists. For the necessary descent theory, the reader is referred to , p.87.

#### The semistable points in the closure of $`_0`$ and the proof of the main theorem

Fix the polarization $`𝒪(2,1,a)`$ (compare , p.309) on $``$ with

$$\frac{a}{2}:=\left(P(\nu _0+m)\sigma (\nu _0+m)\right)\frac{\sigma (0)}{p\sigma (0)}\sigma (\nu _0+m).$$

The group action will be linearized in that line bundle.

###### Theorem 1.16.

Let $`r:=([q:V𝒪_X],[\epsilon ,\phi ],[\psi ])`$ be a point in the parameter space $`_0`$. Then, $`r`$ is (semi/poly)stable in $``$ (w.r.t. the chosen linearization) if and only if $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is a $`\sigma `$-(semi/poly)stable framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$. Moreover, if $`X`$ is a curve, and $`r`$ is a point in the closure of the parameter space $`_0`$, then $`r`$ is (semi/poly)stable in $``$ if and only if $`r`$ lies in $`_0`$ and $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is a $`\sigma `$-(semi/poly)stable framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$.

Proof. This theorem will be proved below. $`\mathrm{}`$

If $`X`$ is a curve, then Theorem 1.16 shows that $`_0^{\sigma (s)s}`$ is exactly the set of (semi)stable points in the closure of $`_0`$. Thus, the good quotients $`_0^{\sigma (s)s}//SL(V)`$ do exist, the space $`_0^{\sigma ss}//SL(V)`$ is a projective scheme, and $`_0^{\sigma s}//SL(V)`$ is a geometric quotient. In case $`X`$ is higher dimensional, Theorem 1.16 shows that $`_0^{\sigma (s)s}`$ is a saturated open subet of the semistable points in $`\overline{_0}`$, i.e., the closure in $`\overline{_0}^{ss}`$ of the orbit of a point in $`_0^{ss}`$ still lies in $`_0^{ss}`$. Therefore, the good (geometric) quotient $`_0^{\sigma (s)s}//SL(V)`$ exists as a quasi-projective scheme. Defining $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma (s)s}:=_0^{\sigma (s)s}//SL(V)`$ gives our moduli spaces. The first assertion of Theorem 1.7 is then — as usual — a direct consequence of the local universal property of $``$, Proposition 1.14, and the universal property of the categorical quotient. As we have already remarked in 1.15, the universal family on $`_0^{\sigma s}\times X`$ descends to $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma s}\times X`$, whence $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma s}`$ is a fine moduli space. The identification of the closed points follows from the assertion about the polystable points in Theorem 1.16. Thus, i) - iii) in 1.7 are settled. For point v), we define $`_{P/𝒢//\text{symm}}^{\sigma ss}`$ as the image of $`_{0,\text{symm}}^{\sigma ss}`$ in $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}`$. This space clearly has the desired properties and coincides with $`_{0,\text{symm}}^{\sigma ss}//SL(V)`$. To define the generalized Hitchin map, let $`\widehat{}`$ be the geometric vector bundle associated to the locally free sheaf

$$\pi _𝔔(𝔈\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(\nu _0))^{}\pi _𝔔(𝔈\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(\nu _0+m))^u.$$

The induced map $`\left([\times \widehat{}]\{\text{zero section}\}\right)\times 𝐑\widehat{𝔓}\times 𝐑`$ is a good $`^{}`$-quotient. Let $`𝔎_0^{\sigma ss}`$ be the preimage of $`_0^{\sigma ss}`$ under the above map. Then, $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}=𝔎_0^{\sigma ss}//(^{}\times SL(V))`$ is also a good quotient. Copying the construction of , p.496, we obtain a morphism $`𝔎_0^{\sigma ss}\times 𝕂_𝒢\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_𝒢`$ which is $`(^{}\times SL(V))`$-invariant and, thus, descends to a morphism

$$\widehat{\xi }:_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_𝒢.$$

This is the generalized Hitchin map. To see that it is proper, let $`(C,0)`$ be the spectrum of a discrete valuation ring $`R`$ with field of fractions $`K`$. Suppose there is a map $`C\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_𝒢`$ which lifts via $`\widehat{\xi }`$ over $`C0`$ to $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}`$. Since there are no non-trivial line bundles on $`C`$, the morphism from $`C`$ to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_𝒢`$ lifts to $`𝕂_𝒢`$. After possibly passing to a finite extension of $`K`$, we may assume that the map from $`C0_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}`$ comes from a family of $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ and that the induced map to $`𝕂_𝒢`$ is just the characteristic vector of that family. This follows from Luna’s étale slice theorem and our definition of equivalence of families. It is not hard to see that the arguments used by Yokogawa (, p.487ff) or Nitsure  can be adapted to our situation. We omit this here, because it does not involve any new idea. $`\mathrm{}`$

#### Proof of Theorem 1.16

First, we prove the statement about the (semi)stable points, using the Hilbert-Mumford criterion. For this, we recall that a one parameter subgroup of $`SL(V)`$ is determined by giving a basis $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_p`$ of $`V`$ and weights $`\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _p`$, satisfying $`_i\gamma _i=0`$. Moreover, a weight vector $`(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p)`$ with $`\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _p`$ and $`_i\gamma _i=0`$ can be written as

$$(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p1}{}}\frac{\gamma _{i+1}\gamma _i}{p}\gamma ^{(i)}$$

with $`\gamma ^{(i)}=(ip,\mathrm{},ip,i,\mathrm{},i)`$ where $`ip`$ occurs $`i`$ times. Let us first make some preliminary remarks.

#### The weights of the $`𝐑`$-component

Let $`\lambda `$ be the one parameter subgroup which is determined by the basis $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_p`$ and the weight vector $`(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p)`$. Let $`[h]𝐑`$ be a point. It follows that $`\mu _𝐑([h],\lambda )=\mathrm{min}\{\gamma _i|h(v_i)0\}`$. In particular, if $`\lambda ^{(i)}`$ is the one parameter subgroup defined by $`\gamma ^{(i)}`$, then $`\mu _𝐑([h],\lambda ^{(i)})=i`$ or $`pi`$, depending on whether $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_i`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{ker}(h)`$ or not. Observe that $`\mu _𝐑([h],\lambda _1\lambda _2)=\mu _𝐑([h],\lambda _1)+\mu _𝐑([h],\lambda _2)`$ for any two one parameter subgroups given w.r.t. above basis by the weights $`\gamma _1^i\mathrm{}\gamma _p^i`$, $`i=1,2`$.

#### The weights of $`𝔏_𝔔`$

Let $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_p`$ be a basis for $`V`$ and $`[q]𝔔`$. Define $`Q_i:=H^0(qid_{𝒪_X(\nu _0+m)})(v_1,\mathrm{},v_iNH^0(𝒪_X(m)))`$, and $`\delta (i):=dimQ_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},p`$. For a one parameter subgroup given w.r.t. the above basis by the weights $`\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _p`$, we obtain

$$\mu _𝔔([q],\lambda )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{}}\left(\delta (i)\delta (i1)\right)\gamma _i,$$

in particular, $`\mu _𝔔([q],\lambda ^{(i)})=\left(p\delta (i)iP(\nu _0+m)\right)`$. Again, $`\mu _𝔔([q],\lambda _1\lambda _2)=\mu _𝔔([q],\lambda _1)+\mu _𝔔([q],\lambda _2)`$.

#### The global sections of $`𝒪_𝔓(1,1)`$

All the assertions about the weights of one parameter subgroups will rely on a good understanding of the global sections of the line bundle $`𝒪_𝔓(1,1)`$ over $`𝔓`$. Therefore, we will now give an explicit description of them. Let $`[q:V𝒪_X]`$ be a point in $`𝔔`$. The points of $`\widehat{𝔓}`$ in the fibre over $`[q]`$ can then be written as classes $`[\epsilon ,f]`$, $`\epsilon `$, $`fH:=Hom(H^0((\nu _0)),H^0((\nu _0+m))^u)`$, and $`[\epsilon ,f]=[z\epsilon ,zf]`$, $`z^{}`$. Now, fix bases $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_p`$ of $`V`$, $`n_1,\mathrm{},n_\nu `$ of $`N`$, and $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_\mu `$ of $`H^0(𝒪_X(m))`$. Using the lexicographic order, we get ordered bases for $`VN`$ and $`VNH^0(𝒪_X(m))`$. Set $`p^{}:=P(\nu _0)`$ and $`p^{\prime \prime }:=P(\nu _0+m)`$. Let $``$ be the set of all $`p^{}`$-tuples of elements of the form $`v_\iota n_\kappa `$ whose images in $`H^0((\nu _0))`$ form a basis. Likewise $`𝔍`$ is defined as the set of $`p^{\prime \prime }`$-tuples of the form $`v_\iota n_\kappa m_\lambda `$ which induce a basis for $`H^0((\nu _0+m))`$. Observe that specifying an element in $`J𝔍`$ is the same as specifying an element $`S_J`$ in $`^{p^{\prime \prime }}VNH^0(𝒪_X(m))`$ which, viewed as a global section of $`𝔏_𝔔`$, does not vanish in $`[q]`$. Pick elements $`I`$ and $`J𝔍`$, and let $`u_1,\mathrm{}.,u_p^{}`$ and $`w_1,\mathrm{}.,w_{p^{\prime \prime }}`$ be the induced bases of $`H^0((\nu _0))`$ and $`H^0((\nu _0+m))`$, respectively. We, thus, obtain a basis $`w_1^1,\mathrm{},w_{p^{\prime \prime }}^1,\mathrm{},w_1^u,\mathrm{},w_{p^{\prime \prime }}^u`$ for $`H^0((\nu _0+m))^u`$. The $`f_{ij}^k:=u_i^{}w_j^k`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},p^{}`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},p^{\prime \prime }`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},u`$, form a basis for $`H`$. As one knows from linear algebra, $`w_j^k`$ can be identified — up to a sign — with $`(w_1^k\mathrm{}\widehat{w}_j^k\mathrm{}w_p^{}^k)/(w_1^k\mathrm{}w_p^{}^k)`$. Thus, $`u_iw_j^k`$ defines a rational section $`\sigma _{IJ}^{ijk}`$ of $`VN^{p^{\prime \prime }1}(VNM)𝔏_𝔔^{}`$. Therefore, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{IJ}^{ijk}:=\sigma _{IJ}^{ijk}S_J`$ is a global section of $`VN^{p^{\prime \prime }1}(VNM)𝒪_𝔔`$. Denote the induced section of $`𝒪_{\widehat{𝔓}}(1,1)`$ by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{IJ}^{ijk}`$. From the construction, it is clear that the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{IJ}^{ijk}`$ generate $`𝒪_{\widehat{𝔓}}(1,1)`$ everywhere and that they are eigenvectors for the action of the maximal torus defined by the basis $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_p`$. Let’s return to the original setting. Let $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ be a framed Hitchin pair. Call a subsheaf $``$ of $``$ $`\phi `$-superinvariant, if $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ and the induced homomorphism $`/(/)𝒢`$ is also zero. As an immediate consequence of the previous discussion, we note

###### Lemma 1.17.

Fix a basis $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_p`$ for $`V`$. Then one obtains the following values for the action of $`\lambda ^{(i)}`$ on the fibre of $`𝔑_𝔓`$ over $`lim_{z0}𝐩\lambda ^{(i)}(z)`$ with $`𝐩=([q:V𝒪_X],[\epsilon ,\phi ])`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},p`$: i) $`p`$ if $`_{v_1,\mathrm{},v_i}`$ is not $`\phi `$-invariant; ii) $`p`$ if $`\epsilon =0`$ and $`_{v_1,\mathrm{},v_i}`$ is $`\phi `$-superinvariant; and iii) $`0`$ in all the other cases.

The above description of the weights and a standard argument in Simpson-type constructions —  being closest to our situation — lead to the following conclusion:

###### Proposition 1.18.

Let $`r=([q:V𝒪_X],[\epsilon ,\phi ],[\psi ])`$ be in the closure of $`_0`$. Then the following assertions are equivalent:

1. For any basis $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_p`$ of $`V`$ and any one parameter subgroup $`\lambda ^{(i)}`$, such that the sheaf $`_{v_1,\mathrm{},v_i}`$ is $`\phi `$-invariant but not $`\phi `$-superinvariant when $`\epsilon =0`$, $`\mu (r,\lambda ^{(i)})()0.`$
2. For all subspaces $`UV`$ such that $`_U`$ is $`\phi `$-invariant but not $`\phi `$-superinvariant when $`\epsilon =0`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dimU}{rk_U}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (0)}{rk_U}}`$ $`()`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (0)}{r}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dimU}{rk_U}}`$ $`()`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (0)}{r}},\text{if}_U\mathrm{ker}\phi .`$

Now, we proceed to the proof of Theorem 1.16. Let’s start with the following obvious

###### Corollary 1.19.

Suppose $`X`$ is a curve and $`r`$ lies in $`\overline{_0}`$. Then $`H^0(q)`$ must be an isomorphism and $``$ must be torsion free.

###### Remark 1.20.

In the higher dimensional cases, one cannot adapt the proof for the moduli spaces of semistable sheaves. First, one can copy the proof of Proposition 4.4.2 in  to get a homomorphism $`\kappa :^{}`$. One can even equip $`^{}`$ with the structure of a framed Hitchin pair such that $`\kappa `$ becomes a homomorphism between framed Hitchin pairs. But unfortunately, it is not clear whether $`\mathrm{ker}(VH^0(^{}))`$ generates a $`\phi `$-invariant (torsion) subsheaf of $``$.

We will apply the Criterion iii) of Proposition 1.5. First, assume that $`r`$ is a (semi)stable point. Then, by Proposition 1.18, we only have to show that $`\phi `$ can’t be nilpotent when $`\epsilon =0`$. If $`\epsilon =0`$ and $`\phi `$ is nilpotent, then there is a filtration

$$0_1\mathrm{}_s$$

such that $`\phi (_i)_{i1}𝒢`$ and the $`_i`$ are globally generated, $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$ (Assumption 1.12). Choose a basis $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_p`$ such that there are indices $`\iota _1<\mathrm{}<\iota _s`$ with $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_{\iota _i}=H^0(_i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},s`$. Let $`\lambda `$ be given w.r.t. that basis by $`_{i=1}^s\gamma ^{(\iota _i)}`$. Then, semistability and Assumption 1.12 yield

$$p+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}\left(ph^0(_i(\nu _0+m))h^0(_i)P(\nu _0+m)+\frac{a}{2}(ph^0(_s))\right)0.$$

Plugging in our formula for $`a/2`$, viewing everything as polynomials in $`\nu _0`$ and taking leading coefficients gives

$$p+\sigma (0)+2\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}\left(prk_ih^0(_i)r+\sigma (0)(rrk_i)\right)0.$$

If we have chosen $`n_1`$ in 1.12 big enough, then this is not a possibility. Indeed, $`P+\sigma `$ — as a function of $`n`$ — is a polynomial of degree $`dimX`$ with negative leading coefficient whereas the polynomial corresponding to the sum has at most degree $`dimX1`$. Since, by Corollary 1.10, there can occur only finitely many such polynomials, we are done.

To see the converse, let $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ satisfy Condition iii) of Prop. 1.5. Then, the second condition in Proposition 1.18 is satisfied. Let $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_p`$ be any basis and $`\lambda `$ be a one parameter subgroup given by, say, $`_{i=1}^{p1}\alpha _i\gamma ^{(i)}`$, $`\alpha _i[(1/p)]_0`$. Note that, if $`\phi `$ is not nilpotent, there is a non-zero global section of $`𝒪(2,1,a)`$ on which every one parameter subgroup $`\lambda `$ acts with weight $`2\mu _𝔔([q],\lambda )a\mu _𝐑([\psi ],\lambda )`$. Therefore, if $`_{v_1,\mathrm{},v_i}`$ is $`\phi `$-invariant for every $`i`$ with $`\alpha _i0`$, there is nothing to show. Otherwise let $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_s`$ be the indices belonging to non-invariant subsheaves. For each $`j=1,\mathrm{},s`$, let $`_{i_j}`$ be the saturation of $`_{V_{i_j}}`$. We then find indices $`\iota _1,\mathrm{},\iota _t`$ among $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_s`$ such that $`_{V_{i_j}}_{\iota _\kappa }`$ if and only if $`i_j\iota _\kappa `$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},s`$, $`\kappa =1,\mathrm{},t`$. For $`\iota _{\kappa 1}<i_j\iota _\kappa `$, the induced homomorphism $`_{V_{i_j}}/_{\iota _\kappa }𝒢`$ will be non-zero. Therefore, we find a section $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\kappa `$ in $`H^0(𝔓,𝒪_𝔓(1,1))`$ among the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{IJ}^{ijk}`$ such that $`\lambda ^{(i_j)}`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\kappa `$ with weight $`p\mu _𝔔([q],\lambda ^{(i_j)})`$ for every $`j`$ with $`\iota _{\kappa 1}<i_j\iota _\kappa `$ and any other one parameter group $`\lambda ^{(i)}`$ with weight $`\mu _𝔔([q],\lambda ^{(i)})`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }:=\mathrm{\Theta }_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }_t`$ be the corresponding section of $`𝒪_𝔓(t,t)`$. Then $`\lambda `$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with weight $`p_{j=1}^s\alpha _{i_j}t_{i=1}^p\alpha _i\mu _𝔔([q],\lambda ^{(i)})`$. Therefore, the assertion $`\mu (r,\lambda )()0`$ can be reduced to

$$p+2t\left(\mu _𝔔([q],\lambda ^{(i_j)})+\frac{a}{2}\mu _𝐑([\psi ],\lambda ^{(i_j)})\right)>0,j=1,\mathrm{},s.$$

Now, only those $`i_j`$ matter for which $`\mu _𝔔([q],\lambda ^{(i_j)})+(a/2)\mu _𝐑([\psi ],\lambda ^{(i_j)})`$ is negative. But then, $`_{V_{i_j}}`$ can be assumed to be globally generated and without higher cohomology, and replacing this sheaf with its saturation, we are left to show

$$p\sigma (0)+2t\left(rk_{\iota _\tau }(p\sigma (0))rh^0(_{\iota _\tau })\right)>0,\tau =1,\mathrm{},t.$$

We view this again as an inequality between polynomials in $`n`$. By Remark 1.9, the second term is then $`2t(r1)[rC^{}n^{dimX1}+\sigma (n)]`$, i.e., bounded from below by a polynomial of degree $`dimX1`$, and $`P(n)\sigma (n)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`dimX`$ with positive leading coefficient, whence the claim.

For the assertion about the polystable points, let the one parameter subgroup $`\lambda `$ be given by $`_{i=1}^{p1}\alpha _i\gamma ^{(i)}`$, $`\alpha _i[(1/p)]_0`$, w.r.t. the basis $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_p`$ of $`V`$. Observe that the above proof shows that $`\mu (\lambda ,r)=0`$ can only occur if for each $`\alpha _i0`$, $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_i=:V_i=H^0(_{V_i})`$, $`_{V_i}`$ is $`\phi `$-invariant and destabilizes the framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$. So, $`r`$ will be a fixed point for the action of any such $`\lambda `$ if and only if $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is a $`\sigma `$-polystable framed Hitchin pair. $`\mathrm{}`$

### Some variations and examples

In this section, let $`X`$ be a curve, and $`L=𝒢`$ a line bundle. The type will be written as $`(d,r,L,)`$.

#### Framed Hitchin pairs with fixed determinant

Fix a line bundle $`M`$ of degree $`d`$. A framed Hitchin pair of type $`(M,r,L,)`$ is a framed Hitchin pair $`(E,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(d,r,L,)`$ with $`det(E)M`$. The equivalence relation is the same as for framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(d,r,L,)`$. Observe that the sheaf $`𝔈_{}`$ on $``$ provides us with a morphism $`d(𝔈_{}):PicX`$. Since this morphism is $`SL(V)`$-invariant, it descends to a map $`𝔡:_{d/r/L/}^{\sigma ss}PicX`$. Define $`_{M/r/L/}^{\sigma ss}`$ as the scheme theoretic fibre of $`𝔡`$ over $`[M]`$.

#### The condition $`Im(\phi )\mathrm{ker}(\psi )L`$

Stupariu looks at framed Hitchin pairs which satisfy $`(\psi id_L)\phi =0`$, i.e.,

$$Im\phi (\mathrm{ker}\psi )L.$$

Let us call these objects framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(d,r,L,,)`$. The definitions of equivalence, $`\sigma `$-(semi)stability, and so on carry over. Note that the above condition forces $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ to be $`\phi `$-invariant. We can also construct moduli spaces for those objects: Consider, on $`\times X`$,

$$\pi _X^{}^{}\stackrel{\psi _{}^{}}{}𝔈_{}^{}\stackrel{\phi _{}^{}id_{\pi _{}^{}𝔑_{}}id_{\pi _X^{}L}}{}𝔈_{}^{}\pi _{}^{}𝔑_{}\pi _X^{}L.$$

Define $`^{}`$ as the closed subscheme of $``$ whose closed points are the points $`r`$ such that the above homomorphism becomes zero when restricted to $`\{r\}\times X`$. One can now go on as before. We denote the resulting moduli spaces by $`_{d/r/L//}^{\sigma (s)s}`$. Moreover, we can fix a line bundle $`M`$ and define the moduli spaces $`_{M/r/L//}^{\sigma (s)s}`$.

#### Some observations

Let $`(E,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ be of type $`(d,2,L,𝒪_X(m_0),)`$, $`m_0`$. The image of $`\psi `$ is of the form $`𝒪_X(m_0)(D)`$ for some effective divisor $`D`$, and we get an extension

$$(e):0det(E)(D)(m_0)E𝒪_X(m_0)(D)0.$$

###### Lemma 1.21.

i) If $`\sigma >2m_0d`$, then there are no $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(d,2,L,𝒪_X(m_0),)`$.

ii) If $`(E,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is a $`\sigma `$-(semi)stable Hitchin pair of type $`(d,2,L,𝒪_X(m_0),)`$, then there exists a $`\sigma ^{}_{>0}`$ such that $`(E,\psi )`$ is a $`\sigma ^{}`$-(semi)stable framed module in the sense of .

Proof. i) Indeed, if $`E`$ is given as an extension $`(e)`$ as before, then $`\sigma `$-semistability implies $`dm_0(d\sigma )/2`$, because $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ is $`\phi `$-invariant. We also see that we must choose $`m_0>d/2`$.

ii) Again, let $`(E,\psi )`$ be given by the extension $`(e)`$. We know $`d+\mathrm{deg}(D)m_0(d\sigma )/2`$. Set $`\sigma ^{}:=d2\mathrm{deg}(D)+2m_0.`$ Then $`d+\mathrm{deg}(D)m_0=(d\sigma ^{})/2`$, and for any line subbundle $`F\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ of $`E`$ we have $`\mathrm{deg}(F)\mathrm{deg}(D)+m_0=(d+\sigma ^{})/2`$. If the extension is non-split, then we can choose $`\sigma ^{}`$ slightly smaller, so that $`(E,\psi )`$ is even $`\sigma ^{}`$-stable. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 1.22.

The analogous statement of 1.21 i) for framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(d,2,L,)`$ is false. Indeed, consider, e.g., $`X=_1`$, $`L==𝒪__1`$, $`E=𝒪__1^2`$, $`\epsilon :=1`$, let $`\psi `$ be the projection onto the first factor and $`\phi `$ be given by the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Then $`(E,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is $`\sigma `$-stable for any $`\sigma >0`$. We will come back to this in the section about boundedness in the next chapter.

###### Example 1.23.

We look at the situation $`X=_1`$, $`d=0`$, $`r=2`$, $`L==𝒪__1`$. Then, for a $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pair $`(E,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$, we will have $`E𝒪__1𝒪__1`$, and $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ can’t be $`\phi `$-invariant. Thus, $`(E,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is $`\sigma `$-semistable if and only if $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ is not $`\phi `$-invariant and either $`\epsilon 0`$ or $`\phi ^20`$. In particular, $`(E,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is then stable for any $`\sigma >0`$, and $`(E,\epsilon ,\phi )`$ is a semistable Hitchin pair. Denote by $``$ the moduli space, and by $``$ the moduli space of semistable Hitchin pairs. There is a natural map $`\pi :`$. The space $``$ is isomorphic to $`_2`$ with coordinates, say, $`[l_0,l_1,l_2]`$. Here, the point $`[l_0,l_1,l_2]`$ represents the class of the Hitchin pair $`(𝒪__1𝒪__1,\epsilon ,\phi )`$ with

$$\epsilon =l_0,\phi =\left(\begin{array}{cc}l_1& 0\\ 0& l_2\end{array}\right).$$

It is easy to describe the fibres of $`\pi `$: The preimage of $`[l_0,l_1,l_2]`$ with $`l_1l_2`$ consists just of the class of $`(𝒪__1𝒪__1,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ with

$$\epsilon =l_0,\phi =\left(\begin{array}{cc}l_1& 0\\ 0& l_2\end{array}\right),\psi =(1,1);$$

and the preimage of $`[l_0,l,l]`$ of the class of $`(𝒪__1𝒪__1,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ with

$$\epsilon =l_0,\phi =\left(\begin{array}{cc}l& 1\\ 0& l\end{array}\right),\psi =(1,0).$$

Hence, $`\pi `$ is an isomorphism. It is possible to give explicit coordinates for $``$. For this, we write $`=(M_1^{}M_2^{})//(^{}\times SL_2())`$, where $`M_1=^{(2,2)}`$ and $`M_2=_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{}`$, and $`^{}`$ acts with weights $`1`$ and $`2`$, so that the induced polarization on $`(M_1^{})\times (M_2^{})`$ is $`𝒪(2,1)`$. We choose coordinates $`(l_0,l_{1,1},l_{1,2},l_{2,1},l_{2,2},s_1,s_2)`$. Observe, that a $`(2\times 2)`$-matrix is nilpotent if and only its determinant and its trace are both $`=0`$. Moreover, “$`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ is $`\phi `$-invariant” can be expressed as

$`D`$ $`:=`$ $`det\left(\begin{array}{cc}l_{1,1}s_2l_{2,1}s_1& s_2\\ l_{2,1}s_2l_{2,2}s_1& s_1\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`s_1s_2(l_{1,1}+l_{2,2})s_2^2l_{2,1}s_1^2l_{1,2}=0.`$
Thus, the $`SL_2()`$-nullforms are the common zeroes of the polynomials $`H_0:=l_0`$, $`H_1:=l_{1,1}+l_{2,2}`$, $`H_2:=l_{1,1}l_{2,2}l_{1,2}l_{2,1}`$, and $`H_3:=D`$. We have to find those homogeneous polynomials in $`H_0,\mathrm{},H_3`$ which are $`^{}`$-invariant. The weights of $`H_0`$, $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$, and $`H_3`$ w.r.t. the $`^{}`$-action are $`1`$, $`1`$, $`2`$ and $`2`$. Hence, the coordinates are given by $`h_0=H_0^2H_4`$, $`h_1=H_1^2H_4`$, and $`h_3=H_3H_4`$.

## 2. Oriented framed Hitchin pairs

We will first discuss the notion of oriented framed Hitchin pairs and introduce the — parameter independent — semistability concept for them. Then we will proceed to construct the moduli spaces of semistable oriented framed Hitchin pairs over curves. There are some intricate technical points such as the behaviour of $`\sigma `$-semistability when $`\sigma `$ becomes large.

### Oriented (symmetric) framed Hitchin pairs

An oriented framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$ is a quintuple $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ where $``$, $`\epsilon `$, $`\phi `$, and $`\psi `$ have the same meaning as before, only that $`\psi =0`$ is now allowed, and $`\delta :det𝒩[]`$ is a homomorphism. An isomorphism between oriented framed Hitchin pairs $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ and $`(^{},\epsilon ^{},\delta ^{},\phi ^{},\psi ^{})`$ of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$ is an isomorphism $`\rho :^{}`$ such that there exist numbers $`w,z^{}`$ such that

$$\epsilon ^{}=z\epsilon ,\delta ^{}=w^r\delta (det\rho )^1,\phi ^{}=z\left((\rho \underset{𝒢}{id})\phi \rho ^1\right),\text{}\psi ^{}=w\psi \rho ^1.$$

An isomorphism $`\rho `$ as above will be called a proper isomorphism, if $`w=1`$. Note that both notions of isomorphism yield the same equivalence relation on the set of all oriented framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$. We will call an oriented framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$ symmetric, if $`\phi `$ is symmetric. As before, any symmetric oriented framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$ defines an element $`\widehat{\chi }(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )\widehat{}_𝒢`$. This depends only on its equivalence class and is called the characteristic polynomial of $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$. In general. we can assign to every oriented framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ its characteristic vector in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_𝒢`$.

###### Remark 2.1.

i) The automorphisms of the oriented framed Hitchin pairs living in the universal family which will be constructed below coming from actions of the stabilizers are only automorphisms in the weaker sense. Thus, one should adopt this notion of isomorphism in order to avoid confusion when trying to make the universal family descend. The above notion of isomorphism is also the one which extends to families. This situation is unlike the situation for framed Hitchin pairs! Note that $`\lambda id`$, $`\lambda ^{}`$, is always an automorphism. Moreover, if $`\rho `$ is an isomorphism with constant $`w`$, then $`w^1\rho `$ will be a proper isomorphism.

ii) If $`X`$ is a curve and $`L=𝒢`$ is a line bundle, we can also extend the definitions of Chapter 1, i.e., we can define the notion of an oriented framed Hitchin pair of type $`(d,r,L,,𝒩,)`$, of type $`(M,r,L,)`$ and $`(M,r,L,,)`$. In the latter two cases we mean $`det(E)M`$, and $`\delta :det(E)M`$.

A family of oriented framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$ parametrized by the noetherian scheme $`S`$ is defined to be a seventuple $`(𝔈_S,\epsilon _S,\delta _S,\phi _S,\widehat{\psi }_S,𝔐_S,𝔑_S)`$ consisting of line bundles $`𝔐_S`$ and $`𝔑_S`$ on $`S`$, an $`S`$-flat family of torsion free coherent sheaves $`𝔈_S`$ with Hilbert polynomial $`P`$ on $`S\times X`$, a section $`\epsilon _SH^0(𝔑_S)`$, a homomorphism $`\delta _S:det(𝔈_S)𝒩[𝔈_S]\pi _S^{}𝔐_S`$, a twisted endomorphism $`\phi _S:𝔈_S𝔈_S\pi _S^{}𝔑_S\pi _X^{}𝒢`$, and a homomorphism $`\widehat{\psi }:S^r𝔈_S\pi _X^{}S^r\pi _S^{}𝔐_S`$ which is outside the closed subscheme $`S_0:=\{sS|\widehat{\psi }_{S|\{s\}\times X}=0\}`$ a symmetric power, i.e., there is a line bundle $`𝔐^{}`$ on $`SS_0`$ with $`𝔐^r=𝔐_{S|SS_0}`$, and $`\widehat{\psi }_{S|SS_0}`$ is the symmetric power of a homomorphism $`\psi ^{}:𝔈_{S|(SS_0)\times X}\pi _X^{}\pi _{SS_0}^{}𝔐^{}`$. We leave it to the reader to define equivalence of families.

### Semistability

The definition of semistability will be made in analogy to the definition of semistability for oriented pairs in . We need a preparatorial result.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ be a framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$, possibly with $`\psi =0`$. Suppose there are non-trivial $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaves in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$. Then there exists a uniquely determined non-trivial $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaf $`𝒦_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{ker}\psi `$, such that for all other $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaves $`𝒦\mathrm{ker}\psi `$, one has $`(P(𝒦)/rk𝒦)(P(𝒦_{\mathrm{max}})/rk𝒦_{\mathrm{max}})`$, and, if equality occurs, $`𝒦𝒦_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

Proof. Indeed, since, by assumption, the set of non-trivial $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaves in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ is not empty and the sum and the intersection of two $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaves in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ is again a $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaf in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$, to get the result, one merely needs to copy the proof of Lemma 1.3.5 in . $`\mathrm{}`$

Set $`\sigma _{,\phi ,\psi }:=P()(rk/rk𝒦_{\mathrm{max}})P(𝒦_{\mathrm{max}}).`$ Let $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ be an oriented framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$. We call it semistable, if and only if either there are no $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaves in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$, or $`\delta `$ is an isomorphism and there are $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaves in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$, $`\sigma _{,\phi ,\psi }0`$ and for all non-trivial $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaves $``$

$$\frac{P_{}}{rk}\frac{\sigma _{,\phi ,\psi }}{rk}\frac{P_{}}{rk}\frac{\sigma _{,\phi ,\psi }}{rk}.$$

And we call $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ stable, if and only if either there are no $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaves in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$, or $`\delta `$ is an isomorphism and there are $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaves in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$, $`\sigma _{,\phi ,\psi }>0`$, and one of the following two possibilities holds:

1. For all non-trivial $`\phi `$-invariant proper subsheaves $``$

$$\frac{P_{}}{rk}\frac{\sigma _{,\phi ,\psi }}{rk}<\frac{P_{}}{rk}\frac{\sigma _{,\phi ,\psi }}{rk}.$$
2. $`\psi 0`$, $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ splits as $`(𝒦_{\mathrm{max}},\epsilon ,\phi _{|𝒦_{\mathrm{max}}},0)(^{},\epsilon ,\phi _|^{},\psi )`$, the triple $`(𝒦_{\mathrm{max}},\epsilon ,\phi _{|𝒦_{\mathrm{max}}})`$ is a stable Hitchin pair, and $`(^{},\epsilon ,\phi _|^{},\psi )`$ is a $`\sigma _{,\phi ,\psi }`$-stable framed Hitchin pair, such that $`P(𝒦_{\mathrm{max}})/rk𝒦_{\mathrm{max}}=(P(^{})\sigma _{,\phi ,\psi })/rk^{}`$.

For our constructions, we have to restate the semistability concept in terms of the semistability concepts for framed Hitchin pairs of Chapter 1.

###### Lemma 2.3.

i) An oriented framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$ is semistable, if and only if it satisfies one of the following three conditions:

1. There are no $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaves in the kernel of $`\psi `$.
2. $`\delta `$ is an isomorphism, and $`(,\epsilon ,\phi )`$ is a semistable Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢)`$.
3. $`\psi 0`$, $`\delta `$ is an isomorphism, and there is a polynomial $`\sigma [t]`$ of degree less than $`dimX`$ with positive leading coefficient s. th. $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is a $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$.

ii) $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is stable, if and only if satisfies one of the conditions listed below.

1. There are no $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaves in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$.
2. $`\delta `$ is an isomorphism, and $`(,\epsilon ,\phi )`$ is a stable Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢)`$.
3. $`\psi 0`$, $`\delta `$ is an isomorphism, and there is a polynomial $`\sigma [t]`$ of degree less than $`dimX`$ with positive leading coefficient s. th. $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is a $`\sigma `$-stable framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$.
4. $`\psi 0`$, $`\delta `$ is an isomorphism, and there is a polynomial $`\sigma [t]`$ of degree less than $`dimX`$ with positive leading coefficient s. th. $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is a $`\sigma `$-polystable framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ of the form $`(^{},\epsilon ,\phi ^{},0)(^{\prime \prime },\epsilon ,\phi ^{\prime \prime },\psi )`$.

###### Remark 2.4.

In the case the base $`X`$ is a curve, $`L=𝒢`$ a line bundle, and $`r=2`$, then, by Lemma 1.21, for any (semi)stable oriented framed Hitchin pair $`(E,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(d,2,L,,𝒩,)`$, then either $`(E,\epsilon ,\phi )`$ is a (semi)stable Hitchin pair of type $`(d,2,L)`$, or the triple $`(E,\delta ,\psi )`$ is a (semi)stable oriented pair of type $`(d,2,𝒩)`$ in the sense of .

Let $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ be a semistable oriented framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$ which is not stable. This occurs if and only if there is either a $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaf in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ which destabilizes $`(,\epsilon ,\phi )`$ as a Hitchin pair — in which case $`(,\epsilon ,\phi )`$ must be a semistable Hitchin pair — or there are a $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaf $`𝒦`$ of $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ and a $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaf $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ with

$$\frac{P_{}}{rk}\frac{\sigma _𝒦}{rk}=\frac{P_{}}{rk}\frac{\sigma _𝒦}{rk},$$

where $`\sigma _𝒦:=P()(rk/rk𝒦)P(𝒦)`$. Note that in this case $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is $`\sigma _𝒦`$-semistable but not $`\sigma `$-semistable for every polynomial $`\sigma \sigma _𝒦`$. Let $`0_m\mathrm{}_1`$ be either the Jordan-Hölder filtration of the semistable Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi )`$ or the Jordan-Hölder filtration of the $`\sigma _𝒦`$-semistable framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$. Note that such a filtration induces a canonical isomorphism between $`det(_{i=1}^{m+1}_{i1}/_i)`$ and $`det()`$. Hence, we obtain an associated graded object $`gr(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ — well-defined up to equivalence —, and we call $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ polystable, if it is equivalent to its associated graded object. Furthermore, two semistable oriented framed Hitchin pairs are said to be S-equivalent, if and only if their associated graded objects are equivalent.

###### Remark 2.5.

i) At this moment, one could get the impression that a stable oriented framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ where $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ splits into two components $`(^{},\epsilon ,\phi ^{},0)`$ and $`(^{\prime \prime },\epsilon ,\phi ^{\prime \prime },\psi )`$ might not be stable at all, because there might be another semistable oriented framed Hitchin pair degenerating to it. This is, of course, not the case. Let $`\sigma _0`$ be the unique polynomial w.r.t. which $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is semistable. Suppose $`(\stackrel{~}{},\epsilon ,\stackrel{~}{\psi },\stackrel{~}{\psi })`$ is a $`\sigma _0`$-semistable pair whose associated graded object is equivalent to $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$. Then it is easy to see that either it is itself equivalent to $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ or it is $`\sigma `$-stable w.r.t. some polynomial $`\sigma `$ which is ”close” to $`\sigma _0`$.

ii) If $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is properly semistable and $`(,\epsilon ,\phi )`$ is not a semistable Hitchin pair, then $`m`$ in the above Jordan-Hölder filtration must be at least two.

iii) One checks that the stable oriented framed Hitchin pairs are precisely the polystable oriented framed Hitchin pairs which have only finitely many proper automorphisms.

### Boundedness

In this section, we prove the boundedness of the set of isomorphy classes of torsion free coherent sheaves occuring in semistable oriented framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$ and carefully examine how the notion of $`\sigma `$-semistability behaves when $`\sigma `$ becomes in a certain sense large. Invoking Maruyama’s boundedness result  again, the boundedness will follow from

###### Proposition 2.6.

Suppose $`𝒢=𝒪_X(m)^u`$ and $`𝒪_X(m)`$ is globally generated. Then, there is a constant $`C`$ such that, for any semistable oriented framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$, the condition

$$\mu _{\mathrm{max}}()C$$

holds true.

Proof. For $`\psi =0`$, this is Proposition 2.2.2 in . Thus, we can assume $`\psi 0`$. Any subsheaf $``$ of $``$ can be written as an extension

$$0\mathrm{ker}\psi \psi ()0.$$

Since $`\mu (\psi ())`$ is bounded by $`\mu _{\mathrm{max}}()`$, it suffices to bound $`\mu _{\mathrm{max}}(\mathrm{ker}\psi )`$. Recall the following

###### Lemma 2.7.

Given torsion free coherent sheaves $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ with $`\mu _{\mathrm{min}}(_1)>\mu _{\mathrm{max}}(_2)`$. Then there does not exist any non-trivial homomorphism from $`_1`$ to $`_2`$.

Set $`\mu _0:=\mathrm{max}\{\mu ,\mu _{\mathrm{max}}()\}`$. We will derive a contradiction from the following assumption:

$$\mu _{\mathrm{max}}(\mathrm{ker}\psi )>\mu _0+r\mathrm{deg}𝒪_X(m).$$

Suppose this was true and let $`0=𝒦_0𝒦_1\mathrm{}𝒦_\kappa =\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ be the slope Harder-Narasimhan filtration.

###### Claim 1.

For $`i=1,\mathrm{},\kappa 1`$, the following inequality is satisfied:

$$\mu (𝒦_i/𝒦_{i1})\mu (𝒦_{i+1}/𝒦_i)+\mathrm{deg}𝒪_X(m),$$

in particular,

$$\mu _{\mathrm{max}}(\mathrm{ker}\psi )\mu _{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{ker}\psi )+(r1)\mathrm{deg}𝒪_X(m).$$

Therefore, $`\mu (\mathrm{ker}\psi )>\mu `$, so that $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ cannot be $`\phi `$-invariant. On the other hand,

$`\mu _{\mathrm{min}}(\mathrm{ker}\psi )`$ $`>`$ $`\mu _{\mathrm{max}}()+\mathrm{deg}𝒪_X(m)=\mu _{\mathrm{max}}(𝒪_X(m)^u)`$
$``$ $`\mu _{\mathrm{max}}((/\mathrm{ker}\psi )𝒪_X(m)^u).`$
In view of Lemma 2.7, this means that $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ must be $`\phi `$-invariant.

To see the claim, first note that $`\phi (𝒦_1)\mathrm{ker}\psi 𝒪_X(m)^u`$, again by 2.7. By semistability, $`𝒦_1`$ cannot be $`\phi `$-invariant. Hence, there is an index $`i^{}>1`$, s. th. $`\phi (𝒦_1)𝒦_i^{}𝒪_X(m)^u`$ and $`\phi (𝒦_1)𝒦_{i^{}1}𝒪_X(m)^u`$. Thus, there is a non-trivial homomorphism $`f:𝒦_1(𝒦_i^{}/𝒦_{i^{}1})𝒪_X(m)^u`$, whence

$$\mu (𝒦_1)\mu (𝒦_i^{}/𝒦_{i^{}1})+\mathrm{deg}𝒪_X(m)\mu (𝒦_1/𝒦_2)+\mathrm{deg}𝒪_X(m).$$

Next, suppose the claim is true for $`i=1,\mathrm{},j`$. Since $`\mu _{\mathrm{min}}(𝒦_{j+1})=\mu (𝒦_{j+1}/𝒦_j)\mu (𝒦_1)j\mathrm{deg}𝒪_X(m)`$, again $`\phi (𝒦_{j+1})\mathrm{ker}\psi 𝒪_X(m)^u`$, so that the same argumentation as before goes through, and we settle the case $`j+1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.8.

Let $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ be a framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$, such that there is no $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaf which is contained in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$, then $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ will be $`\sigma `$-stable for all polynomials $`\sigma [t]`$ of degree $`dimX1`$ with sufficiently positive leading coefficient.

Proof. In the above proof, we have ruled out that one of the $`𝒦_i`$ be $`\phi `$-invariant by the semistability condition, here, we do it by assumption. Thus, the same conclusion as in Theorem 2.6 — with the same constant $`C`$ — holds for framed Hitchin pairs $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ with non-trivial framing and no $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaves in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$. So, any polynomial $`\sigma [t]`$ of degree $`dimX1`$ with leading coefficient $`>r(r1)C(r1)d`$ will do the trick. $`\mathrm{}`$

We also have the converse

###### Proposition 2.9.

For all polynomials $`\sigma `$ of degree $`dimX1`$ whose leading coefficient is sufficiently large and all $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pairs $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$, there will be no $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaf in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$.

Proof. Let $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ be a framed Hicthin pair, set $`_0:=\mathrm{ker}\psi `$, and for $`i1`$, $`_i:=\mathrm{ker}\left(_{i1}(/_{i1})𝒪_X(m)^u\right)`$. This yields a decreasing chain of saturated submodules

$$0\mathrm{}_{i+1}_i\mathrm{}_0.$$

By definition, a $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaf $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ is contained in all the $`_i`$. Therefore, such a subsheaf exists if and only if one of the $`_i`$ is $`\phi `$-invariant. But, by construction, the $`_i`$’s coming from framed Hitchin pairs which are $`\sigma `$-semistable for some polynomial $`\sigma `$ form bounded families. This means, if $`[d`$(leading coefficient of $`\sigma `$)$`]/r`$ is smaller than every possible $`\mu (_i)`$, then a $`\sigma `$-semistable framed Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$ has no non-trivial $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaves which are contained in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

### Flips between the moduli spaces of framed Hitchin pairs

We will now carry out a discussion of this topic which makes the phenomenon completely transparent, and which is independent of the existence of master spaces.

Let $`[t]_{dimX1,+}`$ be the set of all polynomials of degree at most $`dimX1`$ which have positive leading coefficient. This set is totally ordered by the lexicographic order. Let $`𝔒FH_{P/𝒢//𝒩}^{ss}`$ be the set of equivalence classes of semistable oriented framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(P,𝒢,,𝒩)`$. Given the equivalence class of a semistable framed oriented Hitchin pair $`(,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$, then a non-trivial $`\phi `$-invariant saturated subsheaf $`𝒦\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ of $``$ defines a polynomial $`\sigma _𝒦[t]_{dimX1,+}`$. Let $`Q_{\text{dest}}`$ be the subset of $`[t]_{dimX1,+}`$ of polynomials arising in that way. Pick a polynomial $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ for which the conclusion of Proposition 2.9 holds.

###### Lemma 2.10.

The set $`Q_{\text{dest}}\{\sigma [t]_{dimX1,+}|\sigma \sigma _{\mathrm{}}\}`$ is finite.

Proof. The assumption $`\sigma _𝒦\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ provides a lower bound for $`\mu (𝒦)`$. Since the possible coherent sheaves $``$ vary in a bounded family, by Proposition 2.6, i.e., they are all quotients of the sheaf $`𝒪_X(n)^v`$, for some large $`n`$ and $`v`$, the lemma follows from a result of Grothendieck’s (, Lemma 1.7.9). $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`\sigma _1^{}<\mathrm{}<\sigma _t^{}`$ be the polynomials in $`Q_{\text{dest}}`$ which are smaller than $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. This gives rise to ”open intervals” $`I_0:=\{\sigma |\sigma <\sigma _1^{}\}`$, $`I_i:=\{\sigma |\sigma _i^{}<\sigma <\sigma _{i+1}^{}\}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},t1`$, and $`I_t:=\{\sigma |\sigma _t^{}<\sigma \}`$.

###### Lemma 2.11.

Let $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ be two polynomials in $`[t]_{dimX1,+}Q_{\text{dest}}`$. If $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ lie both in one of the $`I_i`$, then $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma _1ss}_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma _2ss}`$.

Proof. By the assumption that $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ do not lie in $`Q_{\text{dest}}`$, we have $`_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma _iss}=_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma _is}`$, $`i=1,2`$. Therefore, it is enough to show that a framed Hitchin pair of type $`(P,𝒢,)`$ is $`\sigma _1`$-stable if and only if it is $`\sigma _2`$-stable. First, let $`i<t`$. Suppose $`\sigma _1<\sigma _2`$. If $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is $`\sigma _1`$-stable but not $`\sigma _2`$-stable, then there must be a $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaf $`𝒦\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ with $`\sigma _1<\sigma _𝒦<\sigma _2`$. The saturation of $`𝒦`$ has the same property. But since there is no such polynomial, by assumption, $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is also $`\sigma _2`$-stable. Next, let $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ be $`\sigma _2`$-stable. If it was not $`\sigma _1`$-stable, there would be a saturated $`\phi `$-invariant subsheaf $``$ which is not contained in $`\mathrm{ker}\psi `$ which $`\sigma _1`$-destabilizes $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$. Define $`\sigma _{}[t]_{dimX1,+}`$ by the condition

$$\frac{P_{}}{rk}\frac{\sigma _{}}{rk}=\frac{P_{}}{rk}\frac{\sigma _{}}{rk}.$$

Then $`\sigma _1<\sigma _{}<\sigma _2`$. If we choose $``$ such that $`\sigma _{}`$ becomes maximal, then $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ will be properly $`\sigma _{}`$-semistable. Its associated graded object possesses a $`\overline{\phi }`$-invariant saturated subsheaf $`𝒦\mathrm{ker}\overline{\psi }`$ with $`\sigma _𝒦=\sigma _{}`$. This is again an impossibility. In the remainning case $`i=t`$, we may assume that either $`\sigma _1`$ or $`\sigma _2`$ agrees with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. In the former case, i.e., $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}<\sigma _2`$, the assertion follows from Proposition 2.9. If $`\sigma _1<\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, then the same argumentation as before can be applied. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now, pick for each $`i\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{},t\}`$ a polynomial $`\sigma _iI_i`$. Observe that every $`(,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ which is $`\sigma _i`$-stable is also $`\sigma _{i1}^{}`$\- and $`\sigma _i^{}`$-semistable. Therefore, we obtain a diagram

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccc}_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma _0s}& & & & _{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma _ts}& & & & & \\ & & & & id& & & & & \\ _{P/𝒢}^{ss}_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma _1^{}ss}& & & & _{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma _t^{}ss}_{P/𝒢/}^{\sigma _ts}.& & & & & \end{array}$$

Here, $`_{P/𝒢}^{ss}`$ is the moduli space of semistable Hitchin pairs.

### The parameter space and the group actions

To avoid further technicalities, we will from now on assume that $`X`$ is a curve.

###### Assumptions 2.12.

For any $`nn_2`$, and any semistable oriented framed Hitchin pair $`(E,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ of type $`(d,r,𝒢,,𝒩)`$:

* $`(n)`$ is globally generated.
* $`E(n)`$ is globally generated, and the first cohomology group of $`E(n)`$ vanishes.
* The conclusion of Proposition 1.5 holds for all positive rational numbers $`\sigma `$, and also the analogous assertion for semistable Hitchin pairs of type $`(d,r,𝒢)`$.
* Fix a positive rational number $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, for which the conclusion of Proposition 2.9 holds. Then, $`[d+r(n+1g)]/2\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$.

Again, $`n_2=0`$ is assumed. We also adopt 1.13. We start as in the construction of the parameter space for framed Hitchin pairs. As explained in the Preliminaries, the universal quotient $`𝔮_𝔓:V𝒪_{𝔓\times X}𝔈_𝔓`$ defines a morphism $`d(𝔈_𝔓):𝔓PicX`$. By the universal property of the Picard scheme, $`𝒟_𝔓:=\pi _𝔓\left(\underset{¯}{Hom}(det(𝔈_𝔓),𝒩[𝔈_𝔓])\right)`$ is invertible, and for any point $`𝐩𝔓`$,

$$𝒟_𝔓𝐩Hom(det(𝔈_{𝔓|\{𝐩\}\times X}),𝒩[𝔈_{𝔓|\{𝐩\}\times X}]).$$

Set $`\widehat{𝔗}:=\left(𝒟_𝔓^{}S^rHom(V,H^0())^{}𝒪_𝔓\right)`$. Then, we can construct our parameter space as a closed subscheme $`𝔗`$ of $`\widehat{𝔗}`$. Note that, outside the closed subscheme $`(𝒟_𝔓^{})`$ of $`\widehat{𝔗}`$, we can extract the $`r`$-th root of the tautological line bundle. From this, it is clear that there is a universal family $`(𝔈_𝔗,\epsilon _𝔗,\delta _𝔗,\phi _𝔗,\widehat{\psi }_𝔗,𝔐_𝔗,𝔑_𝔗)`$ on $`𝔗\times X`$ which has the local universal property. $`𝔗_0`$ is the open subscheme mapping to $`𝔔_0`$, and $`𝔗_0^{(s)s}`$ is the open subscheme parametrizing the (semi)stable oriented framed Hitchin pairs.

###### Remark 2.13.

Since $`X`$ curve, the quasi-projective scheme $`𝔔_0`$ is smooth. Therefore, the restriction of the universal quotient to $`𝔔_0\times X`$ is locally free of rank $`r`$.

There is a natural right action by $`SL(V)`$ on $`𝔗`$, and the universal family on $`𝔗\times X`$ comes again with an $`SL(V)`$-linearization. Remark 2.1 i) and 2.5 iii) show that all the stabilizers of points in $`𝔗_0`$ which are represented by stable oriented framed Hitchin pairs are indeed finite. This is because there are only finitely multiples of $`id_V`$ in $`SL(V)`$. We must construct the good (geometric) quotient $`𝔗_0^{(s)s}//SL(V)`$.

#### The Gieseker map

We let $`𝒥PicX`$ be the Jacobian of degree $`d`$ line bundles on $`X`$ and $`𝒩_𝒥`$ be the restriction of $`𝒩`$ to $`𝒥\times X`$. If $`d>2g2`$, then $`𝔄_𝒥:=\pi _𝒥𝒩_𝒥`$ and $`𝔄_𝒥^{}:=\pi _𝒥(𝒩_𝒥\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(m))^u`$ are locally free. From the universal family, we get, on $`𝔗_0\times X`$, homomorphisms

$`𝔈_{𝔗_0}𝔈_{𝔗_0}^{}`$ $``$ $`\pi _{𝔗_0}^{}𝔑_{𝔗_0}\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(m)^u`$
$`𝒪_{𝔗_0\times X}`$ $``$ $`\pi _{𝔗_0}^{}𝔑_{𝔗_0}.`$
Observe $`𝔈_{𝔗_0}^{}^{r1}𝔈_{𝔗_0}det(𝔈_{𝔗_0})^{}`$, because $`𝔈_{𝔗_0}`$ is locally free. Using the surjection $`V𝒪_{𝔗_0\times X}𝔈_{𝔗_0}`$, we obtain

$`V{\displaystyle \stackrel{r1}{}}V𝒪_{𝔗_0\times X}`$ $``$ $`det(𝔈_{𝔗_0})\pi _{𝔗_0}^{}𝔑_{𝔗_0}\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(m)^u`$
$`{\displaystyle \stackrel{r}{}}V\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(m)^u`$ $``$ $`det(𝔈_{𝔗_0})\pi _{𝔗_0}^{}𝔑_{𝔗_0}\pi _X^{}𝒪_X(m)^u.`$
Now, project all this to $`𝔗_0`$, so that you get

$`V{\displaystyle \stackrel{r1}{}}V𝒪_{𝔗_0}`$ $``$ $`𝔄_{𝔗_0}^{}𝔑_{𝔗_0}_{𝔗_0}`$
$`{\displaystyle \stackrel{r}{}}VM𝒪_{𝔗_0}`$ $``$ $`𝔄_{𝔗_0}^{}𝔑_{𝔗_0}_{𝔗_0}.`$
Here, $`𝔄_{𝔗_0}^{}`$ is the pullback of $`𝔄_𝒥^{}`$ under the map $`d(𝔈_{𝔗_0})`$, and $`_{𝔗_0}`$ is some linearized line bundle. These data define an $`SL(V)`$-equivariant morphism

$$𝐭_1:𝔗_0𝐏_1:=\left(Hom(\stackrel{r}{}VM𝒪_𝒥V\stackrel{r1}{}V𝒪_𝒥,𝔄_𝒥^{})^{}\right)$$

which factorizes over an injective morphism $`𝔓_0𝐏_1`$, and $`𝐭_1^{}𝒪_{𝐏_1}(1)=𝔑_{𝔗_0}_{𝔗_0}`$. Next, we have a look at the data defined by the orientation and the framing, i.e., at

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill ^rV𝒪_{𝔗_0}& & det(𝔈_{𝔗_0})& & 𝒩[𝔈_{𝔗_0}]\pi _{𝔗_0}^{}𝔐_{𝔗_0}\hfill \\ \hfill S^rV𝒪_{𝔗_0}& & S^r𝔈_{𝔗_0}& & \pi _X^{}S^r\pi _{𝔗_0}^{}𝔐_{𝔗_0}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Projecting these to $`𝔗_0`$, provides us with

$`{\displaystyle \stackrel{r}{}}V𝒪_{𝔗_0}`$ $``$ $`𝔄_{𝔗_0}𝔐_{𝔗_0}`$
$`S^rHom(V,H^0())𝒪_{𝔗_0}`$ $``$ $`𝔐_{𝔗_0},`$
and, thus, with a morphism

$$𝐭_2:𝔗_0𝐏_2:=\left(Hom(\stackrel{r}{}V𝒪_𝒥,𝔄_𝒥)^{}S^rHom(V,H^0())^{}𝒪_𝒥\right),$$

such that $`𝐭_2^{}𝒪_{𝐏_2}(1)=𝔐_{𝔗_0}`$. The resulting $`SL(V)`$-equivariant and injective homomorphism

$$𝐭:𝔗_0𝐏_1\times _𝒥𝐏_\mathrm{𝟐}𝕋:=𝐏_1\times 𝐏_2$$

is our Gieseker map. We linearize the $`SL(V)`$-action on $`𝕋`$ in a very ample line bundle of the form $`𝒪_𝕋(1,1)`$(pullback of a very ample line bundle on $`𝒥`$).

#### The semistable points in $`𝕋`$

The key step to the construction of the moduli spaces is

###### Theorem 2.14.

Let $`t=([q:V𝒪_XE],[\epsilon ,\phi ],[\delta ,\psi ])`$ be a point in $`𝔗_0`$. Then the associated point $`𝐭(r)𝕋`$ is (semi/poly)stable w.r.t. the given linearization if and only $`(E,\epsilon ,\delta ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is a (semi/poly)stable oriented framed Hitchin pair of type $`(d,r,𝒢,,𝒩)`$.

First, observe that the action on $`𝒥`$ is trivial, so that $`𝐭(t)`$ will be (semi)stable if and only it is (semi)stable in $`𝕋_t:=𝐏_{1,t}\times 𝐏_{2,t}`$ w.r.t. the linearization in $`𝒪(1,1)`$ where

$`𝐏_{1,t}`$ $`:=`$ $`\left(Hom({\displaystyle \stackrel{r}{}}VMV{\displaystyle \stackrel{r1}{}}V,H^0(det(E)(m))^u)^{}\right);`$
$`𝐏_{2,t}`$ $`:=`$ $`\left(Hom({\displaystyle \stackrel{r}{}}V,H^0(det(E)))^{}S^rHom(V,H^0())^{}\right).`$
Next, we introduce on $`𝐏_{2,t}`$ the $`^{}`$-action which multiplies the second component by $`z`$. Then, there is a family of linearizations of the $`^{}`$-action in $`𝒪_{𝐏_{2,t}}`$ parametrized by natural numbers $`e,k`$ with $`0ek`$ . We look at the quotients of $`𝐏_{1,t}\times 𝐏_{2,t}`$ by these linearized $`^{}`$-actions. If $`e=0`$, then the quotient is $`𝐓_t^0:=𝐏_{1,t}\times \left(Hom(^rV,H^0(det(E)))^{}\right)`$ with induced polarization $`𝒪(1,1)`$. If $`e=k`$, then the quotient is

$$𝐓_t^{\mathrm{}}:=𝐏_{1,t}\times \left(S^rHom(V,H^0())^{}\right)$$

with induced polarization $`𝒪(1,1)`$. In the other cases, the quotient is

$$𝐓_t:=𝐏_{1,t}\times \left(Hom(\stackrel{r}{}V,H^0(det(E)))^{}\right)\times \left(S^rHom(V,H^0())^{}\right)$$

with induced polarization $`L_k^e:=𝒪(k,ke,e).`$ Define

$$\sigma _k^e:=\frac{p}{2}\frac{e}{k}.$$

Note that, by 2.12, for a given (positive) $`\sigma <\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, we can find $`0<e<k`$ satisfying $`\sigma =(p/2)(e/k)`$. By the Preliminaries and Remark 2.5 iii), Theorem 2.14 now reduces to the following

###### Theorem 2.15.

i) The associated point in $`𝐓_t^0`$ is (semi/poly)stable if and only $`(E,\epsilon ,\phi )`$ is a (semi/poly)stable Hitchin pair of type $`(d,r,𝒢)`$.

ii) The associated by point in $`𝐓_t^{\mathrm{}}`$ is (semi/poly)stable if and only if there are no $`\phi `$-invariant subbundles $`F`$ of $`E`$ which are contained in the kernel of $`\psi `$.

iii) The associated point in $`𝐓_t`$ is (semi/poly)stable w.r.t. the linearization $`L_k^e`$ if and only if $`(E,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is a $`\sigma _k^e`$-(semi/poly)stable framed Hitchin pair of type $`(d,r,𝒢,)`$.

#### The $`\left(S^rHom(V,H^0())^{}\right)`$-component

By definition, the image of the point $`𝐭(t)`$ in that space lies in the image of $`𝐑`$ under the $`r`$-th Veronese map. Therefore, the weights are those in $`𝐑`$ multplied by $`r`$.

#### The $`(Hom(^rV,H^0(det(E))^{})`$-component

Let $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_p`$ be a basis for $`V`$. Set $`E_i:=q(v_1,\mathrm{},v_i𝒪_X)`$. For a one parameter subgroup $`\lambda `$ of $`SL(V)`$ which is given w.r.t. that basis by weights $`\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _p`$, one computes $`\mu ([q],\lambda )=_{i=1}^p(rkE_irkE_{i1})\gamma _i,`$ in particular, $`\mu ([q],\lambda ^{(i)})=prkE_iir`$.

#### The $`𝐏_{1,t}`$-component

Fix basess $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_p`$ of $`V`$ and $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_\mu `$ of $`H^0(𝒪_X(m))`$, let $`m_1^1,\mathrm{},m_\mu ^1,\mathrm{},m_1^u,\mathrm{},m_\mu ^u`$ be the resulting basis for $`M`$, and $`ev:^rVMH^0(det(E)(m))`$ is the natural map. Let’s look at some special elements in the space $`Hom(^rVMV^{r1}V,H^0(det(E)(m)^u))`$. For each ordered set $`I`$ of $`r`$ elements in $`\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},p\}`$, each $`k\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},\mu \}`$, $`l\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},u\}`$, we define $`S_{I,k,l}`$ as the element which maps $`(v_{\iota _1}\mathrm{}v_{\iota _r})m_k^l`$ to $`ev((v_{\iota _1}\mathrm{}v_{\iota _r})m_k^l)`$ and is zero on all other basis elements of $`^rVM`$ and also zero on $`V^{r1}V`$. This element is an eigenvector for the action of the maximal torus defined by $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_p`$. Indeed, if $`\lambda `$ is given by weights $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _p`$, then it acts on $`S_{I,k,l}`$ with weight $`\gamma _{\iota _1}+\mathrm{}+\gamma _{\iota _r}`$. In the same way, for $`I,k,l`$ as before and $`i,j\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},r\}`$, we define $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{I,k,l}^{ij}`$ as the element which maps $`v_{\iota _i}(v_{\iota _1}\mathrm{}\widehat{v}_{\iota _j}\mathrm{}v_{\iota _r})m_k^l`$ to $`ev((v_{\iota _1}\mathrm{}v_{\iota _r})m_k^l)`$ and is zero on $`^rVM`$ and all other basis vectors of $`V^{r1}V`$. These are also eigenvectors, and $`\lambda `$ as above acts with weight $`\gamma _{\iota _1}+\mathrm{}+\gamma _{\iota _r}\gamma _{\iota _j}+\gamma _{\iota _i}`$. By definition, for any $`t𝔗_0`$, the component $`𝐭_1(t)`$ lies in the linear subspace of $`𝐏_{1,t}`$ which is spanned by the $`S_{I,k,l}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{I,k,l}^{ij}`$, and thus the computation of weights is analogous to that in the first part of this paper.

After these preparations, it is clear that i) and iii) in Theorem 2.15 can be proved in exactly the same way as Theorem 1.16 in the first part of this paper. In order to see also ii), we first observe that computations in the space $`𝐓_t^{\mathrm{}}`$ give that the point $`𝐭_1(t)`$ is (semi/poly)stable if and only if $`(E,\epsilon ,\phi ,\psi )`$ is $`\sigma ^{}`$-(semi/poly)stable where $`\sigma ^{}=p/2`$. By Assumption 2.12, $`\sigma ^{}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, so that we can conclude by Proposition 2.9. Finally, a standard argument shows

###### Proposition 2.16.

The map $`𝐭_{𝔗_0^{ss}}:𝔗_0^{ss}𝕋^{ss}`$ is a finite morphism.

#### The outcome

The summary of the results of the previous paragraphs is given by

###### Theorem 2.17.

The good quotient $`𝔗_0^{ss}//SL(V)`$ exists. It is a projective scheme, and the open subscheme $`𝔗_0^s//SL(V)`$ is a geometric quotient.

### The moduli spaces

Let $`OFH_{d/r/𝒢//𝒩}^{(s)s}`$ be the functor which assigns to each noetherian scheme $`S`$ the set of equivalence classes of families of (semi)stable oriented framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(d,r,𝒢,,𝒩)`$ which are parametrized by $`S`$, and define the closed subfunctor $`OFH_{d/r/𝒢//𝒩/\text{symm}}^{(s)s}`$ of (semi)stable symmetric oriented framed Hitchin pairs. Finally, we set $`𝒪_{d/r/𝒢//𝒩}^{(s)s}:=𝔗_0^{(s)s}//SL(V)`$.

###### Theorem 2.18.

i) There is a natural transformation $`\vartheta ^{(s)s}`$ of $`OFH_{d/r/𝒢//𝒩}^{(s)s}`$ into the functor of points of $`𝒪_{d/r/𝒢//𝒩}^{(s)s}`$ which is minimal in the usual sense (see i) of Thm. 1.7), so that $`𝒪_{d/r/𝒢//𝒩}^s`$ is a coarse moduli scheme for stable oriented framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(d,r,𝒢,,𝒩)`$. The map $`\vartheta ^{ss}()`$ induces a bijection between the set of $`S`$-equivalence classes of semistable oriented framed Hitchin pairs of type $`(d,r,𝒢,,𝒩)`$ and the set of closed points of $`𝒪_{d/r/𝒢//𝒩}^{ss}`$. There is also a proper generalized Hitchin map

$$\widehat{\xi }:𝒪_{d/r/𝒢//𝒩}^{ss}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_𝒢.$$

ii) There is a closed subscheme $`𝒪_{d/r/𝒢//𝒩/\text{symm}}^{(s)s}`$ of $`𝒪_{d/r/𝒢//𝒩}^{(s)s}`$ such that the analogues to i) w.r.t. the functor $`OFH_{d/r/𝒢//𝒩/\text{symm}}^{(s)s}`$ hold true. Furthermore, there is a Hitchin map

$$\widehat{\chi }:𝒪_{d/r/𝒢//𝒩/\text{symm}}^{ss}\widehat{}_𝒢,$$

mapping a closed point of the moduli space to the characteristic polynomial of a representing oriented framed Hitchin pair. The Hitchin map clearly is proper.

###### Example 2.19.

We return to the setting of Example 1.23. Let $`𝒪`$ be the master space. This time, we have to determine the quotient $`(M_1^{}M_2^{})//(^{}\times SL(V))`$. Denote the coordinates by $`(l_0,l_{1,1},l_{1,2},l_{2,1},l_{2,2},s_1,s_2,s_3)`$. The $`SL(V)`$-nullforms are cut out by the equations $`H_i=0`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},4`$, where $`H_0`$, $`H_1`$, $`H_2`$, and $`H_3`$ are as before, and $`H_4:=s_3`$. Set $`g_0:=H_0^2`$, $`g_1:=H_1^2`$, and $`g_2:=H_2`$. It follows easily that the master space $`𝒪`$ is isomorphic to $`_2\times _1`$ with coordinates $`([g_0:g_1:g_2],[H_3:H_4])`$. The Hitchin space $``$ is the $`^{}`$-quotient of the open subset $`H_40`$, and the space $``$ is the $`^{}`$-quotient of the open subset $`H_30`$.

### The $`(^{}\times ^{})`$-action on the moduli space

On $`𝒪:=𝒪_{d/r/L//𝒩}^{ss}`$, there are two $`^{}`$-actions which commute with each other: First, there is the $`^{}`$-action which comes from multiplying the twisted endomorphism by a scalar factor. Second, we can multiply the framing by a non-zero complex number, this yields the second $`^{}`$-action. As explained in , it is important to study the fixed point sets of those $`^{}`$-actions, the so-called varieties of reductions. The fixed point set of the first $`^{}`$-action contains two obvious components. The first one is $`_{d/r//𝒩}^{ss}`$, the master space of semistable oriented framed bundles as constructed in , corresponding to the points with $`\phi =0`$. The second one is $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}:=𝒪_0//^{}`$, where $`𝒪_0`$ is the open subset where $`\epsilon 0`$.

The fixed point set of the second $`^{}`$-action looks as follows: First, there is $`_{d/r/𝒢}^{ss}=\{\psi =0\}`$, the moduli space of semistable Hitchin pairs of type $`(d,r,𝒢)`$. Second, there is $`_{d/r/L/}^{\sigma _{\mathrm{}}ss}`$ embedded as the part $`\{\delta =0\}`$. Third, there is the set of the stable points of the form $`((E^{},\epsilon ,\phi ^{},0)(E^{\prime \prime },\epsilon ,\phi ^{\prime \prime },\psi ),\delta )`$ which has $`t`$ components. From the GIT-process, these $`^{}`$-actions come with natural linearizations in an ample line bundle on $`𝒪`$, let $`l`$ be the one of the second $`^{}`$-action, then, as in , one can now conclude

###### Theorem 2.20.

For $`k>0`$ and $`e`$, let $`l_k^e`$ be the modification of the linearization $`l`$ as described in Part I of . Then the GIT-quotients $`𝒪//_{l_k^e}^{}`$ run through the moduli spaces $`_{d/r/𝒢}^{ss}`$, and $`_{d/r/𝒢/}^{\sigma ss}`$, $`\sigma _{>0}`$. In particular, the chain of flips described in a previous section is a chain of $`^{}`$-flips.

#### Acknowledgements

Starting point of this paper was the suggestion of Professor Okonek to study the objects of Stupariu’s thesis from the algebraic viewpoint. The final form of the paper was worked out during my stays in Barcelona and Ramat Gan. The author acknowledges support by AGE — Algebraic Geometry in Europe, contract No. ER-BCHRXCT 940557 (BBW 93.0187), by SNF, Nr. 2000 – 045209.95/1, by a grant of the Generalitat de Catalunya (#1996SGR00060), and by a grant of the Emmy Noether Institute.

Bar-Ilan University

Department of Mathematics

and Computer Science

Ramat-Gan, 52900

Israel

and

Universität GH Essen

FB 6 Mathematik und Informatik

D-45117 Essen

Deutschland

E-mail address: schmitt1@@cs.biu.ac.il


format: text

text:
# RESULTS FROM THE PHOBOS EXPERIMENT ON Au+Au COLLISIONS AT RHIC

## 1 Introduction

In June 2000 the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in Brookhaven National Laboratory became operational and delivered first collisions of gold nuclei at the center of mass energy several times larger than that available from accelerators so far. This opened a new frontier in particle physics, with a potential to study the behavior of strongly interacting matter under the conditions of extreme energy densities. Theoretical predictions of creation of the Quark-Gluon Plasma (QGP) define the main goal for all RHIC experiments: search for this new state of matter.

PHOBOS experiment was designed to measure global properties of the Au+Au interactions (multiplicity and angular distribution of charged particles in almost full solid angle) and combine them with detailed data on particles emitted at large angles, which may carry information on the early stage of the interaction. This enables to correlate the total multiplicity and centrality of the collision with several proposed QGP signals (particles ratios, transverse momentum distribution, fluctuations).

## 2 The PHOBOS experiment

The PHOBOS detector $`^\mathrm{?}`$ consists of three main subsystems: the multiplicity detector, the spectrometer extended by a time of flight wall (TOF) and the trigger system (Fig. 1).

The multiplicity detector, covering almost full solid angle, is divided into octagonal, barrel like, part surrounding the nominal interaction point and six rings placed along the beam pipe on both sides of the interaction point. Above and below the nominal interaction point a part of the octagonal multiplicity detector is substituted by top and bottom vertex detectors used to precise measure the interaction point.

The two arm spectrometer consists of several layers of silicon sensors placed inside a conventional magnet (2 Tesla field). It covers pseudorapidity range approximately between 0 and 2 and about 10 in azimuth (each arm). Using the information from the spectrometer on particles trajectories and the ionization energy losses we can measure momenta of charged particles and identify them.

The trigger system consists of two identical sets of counters placed on both sides of the interaction point. The scintillator paddle counters (PP and PN) detect charged particles emitted in pseudorapidity range 3-4.5 and the Zero Degree Calorimeters (ZDCP and ZDCN) measure the energy deposited by spectator neutrons from the colliding nuclei.

During the first few weeks of RHIC running only a part of the PHOBOS detector was installed and the magnet was switched off. Trigger system was operational from the very beginning but only a small fraction of silicon sensors was present (Fig. 1a). As the highest luminosity was achieved at the end of the RHIC run, almost all of 3.5 million events collected by PHOBOS were measured with the later detector set-up.

## 3 Selection of central events

The PHOBOS trigger is sensitive both to neutral fragments of interacting projectile nuclei registered in ZDC and to produced charged particles detected by paddle trigger counters. To reject the background, mostly from the beam-gas interactions, we require coincidence of the signals from at least one particle in each of the two paddle counters. For the events with low or moderate number of hits in paddle counters a coincidence of the signals in the ZDC counters is also demanded.

Each of 16 scintillator counters in PP and PN registers also the energy deposited by charged particles and the total signal in paddle trigger counters is proportional to the number of particles produced in the Au+Au collision. We extract the most central events by selecting 6% of the events with largest total signal in PP and PN. For the first physics analysis $`^\mathrm{?}`$ we used only the data measured with the initial detector setup. Two samples of central events, 382 events at $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$ = 56 GeV and 724 events at $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$ = 130 GeV were analyzed.

The centrality of the nucleus-nucleus collision can be characterized by the number of nucleons participating in the interactions. Using detailed description of the detector and GEANT based simulation program we are able to reproduce satisfactorily the detector response for the generated Au+Au collisions (from HIJING generator $`^\mathrm{?}`$). The MC events with largest simulated signal in the paddle counters selected by 6% cut are indeed the most central ones. The distribution of the number of participating nucleons, $`N_{part}`$, for MC events is restricted to highest values (Fig. 2). We can estimate the mean number of participating nucleons with about 5% systematic uncertainty (Table 1).
Figure 2. Distribution of the number of nucleons participating in the Au+Au collisions for inclusive (histogram) and central HIJING events (shaded area).    Figure 3. Charged particles pseudorapidity density normalized per participant pair. For PHOBOS systematic uncertainties are shown as boxes around data points.

## 4 Charged particle multiplicity near mid-rapididty

For both central event samples we performed reconstruction of the straight line tracks passing at least 4 layers of the spectrometer. The position of the primary collision vertex was then determined as the point of closest approach of the found tracks. We further restricted our analysis to the events with reconstructed vertex positions within -25$`<z_{vtx}<`$15 cm from the nominal collision point along the beam direction.

To measure the charged particle multiplicity, pairs of hits in two consecutive layers of spectrometer or vertex detector, consistent with a track emitted from the collision vertex, were formed (tracklets). The relation between the number of tracklets and the number of primary charged particles is approximately linear and was derived applying the same reconstruction procedure to the MC events processed by GEANT based simulations of PHOBOS detector. The proportionality factors $`\alpha (z_{vtx})`$ agree better than 5% for the MC events obtained from HIJING and VENUS $`^\mathrm{?}`$, eventhough the total multiplicities in these models differ by a factor 2-3. The extracted values of $`\alpha (z_{vtx})`$ contain corrections for the tracklets finding inefficiency, contributions from secondary particles, decay products and noise hits, stopping of primary particles in the beam pipe and, the most important, geometrical acceptance. Overall systematic uncertainty of $`\alpha (z_{vtx})`$ is less than 8%. Integrated values of the charged particle pseudorapidity density in the $`\eta `$ range -1 to 1, $`dN/d\eta |_{|\eta |<1}`$, are given in Table 1. The densities normalized per pair of participant nucleons, $`(dN/d\eta |_{|\eta |<1})/(0.5<N_{part}>)`$ are directly compared to results obtained in other experiments $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ (Fig. 3). For central Au+Au collisions we observe a significantly larger particle density per participant pair than for $`pp`$ or $`p\overline{p}`$ interactions at similar energies. The increase of the particle density in nucleus-nucleus collisions with energy is also faster than in elementary interactions. At RHIC energies, $`\sqrt{s_{nn}}`$ = 56 GeV and 130 GeV, this increase is 31%. The presented results impose restrictions on particle production models, ruling out simple superposition models $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

## 5 Work in progress

The first results presented in the previous section were obtained using only a small fraction of the data collected by PHOBOS. Analysis of the full data set collected later with the complete detector set-up will provide much more detailed information on the properties of Au+Au collisions. The normalized charged particle densities can be measured in a wide range of $`N_{part}`$, also for semi-peripheral collisions for which some models give significantly different predictions $`^\mathrm{?}`$ (Fig. 4). With a complete arm N of spectrometer placed in the magnetic field we can measure particle momenta and identify them (Fig. 5) and thus obtain anti-particles to particles ratios. Using full multiplicity detector we can measure pseudorapidity density of primary particles in 11 rapidity units. Data from multiplicity detector will be used to study elliptic flow of charged particles and fluctuations in angular distribution.
Figure 4. Dependence of the charged particle pseudorapidity density on the centrality of the Au+Au collision for HIJING model and EKRT saturation model.   Figure 5. Identification of the particles in PHOBOS spectrometer. Proton and kaon bands start to separate from horizontal pions band at about 1.1 and 0.6 GeV/c respectively.

## Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the generous support of the entire RHIC project personnel, C-A and Chemistry Departments at BNL. We thank Fermilab and CERN for help in silicon detector assembly. We thank the MIT School of Science and LNS for financial support. This work was partially supported by US DoE grants DE-AC02-98CH10886, DE-FG02-93ER40802, DE-FC02-94ER40818, DE-FG0294ER40865, DE-FG02-99ER41099, W-31-109-ENG-38. NSF grants 9603486, 9722606 and 0072204. The Polish group from INP was partially supported by KBN grant 2 P03B 04916. The NCU group was partially supported by NSC of Taiwan under contract NSC 89-2112-M-008-024.

## References