text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

The purpose of this work is to construct actions of finite type Artin groups on derived categories of coherent sheaves of complex threefolds. The construction is motivated by a correspondence between Calabi–Yau threefolds containing ruled surfaces and Lie algebras, which arises in Type II string theory; see  and references in these works, as well as  which also considers some of the geometries studied in this paper. I explain the connection further in ; suffice it to say here that the threefolds I consider are of the most simple kind for which the physics correspondence works, and the main theorem of this paper says that in these cases the derived category of coherent sheaves of the threefold is acted on by an Artin group which covers the Weyl group of the corresponding Lie algebra.

The main result of this paper can also be viewed in the context of homological mirror symmetry, representing a generalization of a result of Seidel and Thomas . They construct representations of the classical (Type $`A`$) braid group on derived categories of coherent sheaves of a much larger class of varieties than those considered here. However, their construction is more algebraic in flavour, whereas the Artin group actions in this paper are governed in a very precise geometric way by deformation theory. As explained in , the two constructions coincide in dimension two; the braid group actions on derived categories of threefolds obtained in this paper are new even in the Type $`A`$ case.

Autoequivalences of derived categories for threefolds containing ruled surfaces were first constructed by Horja in . In  it was observed that these equivalences are essentially given by classical correspondences (structure sheaves of subschemes in the product), and also that they deform to derived equivalences given by flops first found by Bondal and Orlov . The proof of the braid relations uses in an essential way both of these facts.

In certain cases, the Artin group acts faithfully on the derived category. The proof of this statement will be reduced to the injectivity statement of Seidel–Thomas  for Type $`A`$, using a hyperplane section argument.

Structure of the paper Section 1 deals with Dynkin diagrams, reflection groups and braid groups. In Section 2 I first recall some results about resolutions of Kleinian surface singularities, and then turn to the construction of certain quasiprojective threefolds and their deformations. Section 3 discusses generalities about families of Fourier–Mukai functors. Section 4 contains the main results. Families of Fourier–Mukai functors constructed in Section 4.1 are shown to satisfy braid relations in Section 4.2, where faithfulness is also proved in some cases. The paper is concluded in Section 4.3 by a brief discussion of the projective case.

Conventions A smooth family means a smooth morphism $`e:𝒳S`$ of smooth varieties over $``$ with $`𝒳`$ quasiprojective over $`S`$. The base $`S`$ will always be very simple in this paper, typically affine space $`𝔸^r`$ or an open set thereof. For a brief period in Section 2, $`r`$ can be infinite, but this will cause no complications. The fiber $`e^1(s)`$ over $`sS`$ will be denoted by $`X_s`$. By definition a Dynkin diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ means an irreducible diagram of finite type $`A_n\mathrm{}G_2`$. Nodes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ will be denoted $`i,j,\mathrm{}`$; for $`ij`$, $`m_{ij}=m_{ji}\{2,3,4,6\}`$ is the label associated to the pair of nodes $`(i,j)`$. As usual, the pair $`(i,j)`$ is said to span an edge if $`m_{ij}>2`$. The diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is simply laced (type $`ADE`$) if $`m_{ij}\{2,3\}`$.

Acknowledgement I thank Roger Carter, Mark Gross, Sheldon Katz and János Kollár for helpful remarks and correspondence. I especially thank Ian Grojnowski for his help in clarifying old ideas and coming up with new ones, during many conversations on a joint project which grew out of the present paper. Finally I wish to acknowledge that I learned the importance of structure sheaves from Tom Bridgeland’s beautiful paper .

## 1. Dynkin diagrams and Artin groups

### 1.1. The reflection group and the Artin group

Take an arbitrary Dynkin diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`n`$ nodes. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }𝔥_{\mathrm{\Delta },}`$ be the corresponding root system, where $`(𝔥_{\mathrm{\Delta },},,)`$ is a Euclidean inner product space of dimension $`n`$. Fix sets of simple and positive roots

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }^0=\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n\}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

The reflections $`r_i:𝔥_{\mathrm{\Delta },}𝔥_{\mathrm{\Delta },}`$ $`(1in)`$ defined by the simple roots generate a finite reflection group

$$W_\mathrm{\Delta }=r_i<\mathrm{GL}(𝔥_{\mathrm{\Delta },}).$$

As an abstract group,

$$W_\mathrm{\Delta }r_i:i\mathrm{Nodes}(\mathrm{\Delta })/r_i^2=1,(r_ir_j)^{m_{ij}}=1$$

with one relation for every node $`i`$ and one for every pair of different nodes $`(i,j)`$ with label $`m_{ij}`$. The set of reflections in $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is in one-to-one correspondence with the set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. The group $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ also acts on the complex vector space $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }=𝔥_{\mathrm{\Delta },}`$; for a reflection $`wW_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, let $`\mathrm{\Pi }_w𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denote the fixed hyperplane of $`w`$.

Define the Artin group (also called generalized braid group) $`B_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by generators and relations as

(1)
$$B_\mathrm{\Delta }=R_i:i\mathrm{Nodes}(\mathrm{\Delta })/\underset{m_{ij}}{\underset{}{R_iR_j\mathrm{}}}=\underset{m_{ij}}{\underset{}{R_jR_i\mathrm{}}}$$

with one relation for every pair of different nodes $`(i,j)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the braid relation. There is a group homomorphism $`B_\mathrm{\Delta }W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ sending $`R_i`$ to $`r_i`$.

### 1.2. Quotiens of Dynkin diagrams

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a simply laced Dynkin diagram and $`A`$ a non-trivial subgroup of its automorphism group $`Aut(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, excluding the case $`(\mathrm{\Delta },A)=(A_{2n},/2)`$. Then $`A`$ permutes the set of simple roots in $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which forms a basis; hence $`A`$ also acts on $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Xi }=(𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta })^A`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }𝔥_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ be the set of invariant roots. It is well known that, as the notation suggests, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is a root system for a Dynkin diagram $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, the “quotient” diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }/A`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }=A_{2n1},D_n,E_6`$$`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is the non-simply laced diagram of type $`C_n,B_{n1},F_4`$ respectively; in the case $`\mathrm{\Delta }=D_4`$$`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is either $`G_2`$ or $`C_3`$ according to whether $`A`$ acts transitively on the outer nodes of $`D_4`$ or not. The set of nodes of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of orbits of nodes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ under the action of $`A`$; there is a corresponding set of simple and positive roots

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Xi }^0=\{\mu _1,\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Xi }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Xi }$$

and a reflection group

$$W_\mathrm{\Xi }=\rho _i:i\mathrm{Nodes}(\mathrm{\Xi })$$

acting on $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Xi }`$. Finally $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ also defines an Artin group $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }`$.

###### Lemma 1.1.

The group $`A`$ acts naturally on the Artin group $`B_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the reflection group $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ equivariantly with respect to the map $`B_\mathrm{\Delta }W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The fixed subgroups are isomorphic to $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ respectively.

Proof For $`aA`$, the action is defined on generators of $`B_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by $`R_iR_{a(i)}`$. This action clearly leaves the relations invariant and descends to an action on $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If $`\{k_j\}`$ is an $`A`$-orbit of nodes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ corresponding to a node $`k`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, then $`R_{k_j}B_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ commute by the braid relations and their product $`R_k=R_{k_j}`$ is invariant under the action. It is an easy check to show that the $`R_k`$ satisfy the braid relations of the group $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }`$. By \[13, Corollary 4.4\], these elements generate the fixed subgroup and they do not satisfy any further relations. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 1.2.

The proof also shows that the action of $`A`$ on the reflection group $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is simply the conjugation action of $`A<\mathrm{GL}(𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta })`$ on $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{GL}(𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta })`$.

## 2. Surfaces, threefolds and deformations

### 2.1. Finite subgroups of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$

Fix a finite subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$ together with its canonical two-dimensional representation $`\rho _c`$. Following McKay, consider the diagram $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ consisting of a node for every irrep (irreducible representation) $`\rho _j`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and an edge between irreps $`\rho _j`$$`\rho _k`$ whenever $`\rho _j`$ is a direct summand of $`\rho _k\rho _c`$. It is well known that this defines a symmetric relation and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is an affine Dynkin diagram of type $`\stackrel{~}{A}_n,\stackrel{~}{D}_n`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{E}_n`$ with distinguished affine node corresponding to the trivial rep $`\rho _0`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\{\rho _0\}`$ be the corresponding finite diagram.

###### Lemma 2.1.

There exists an exact sequence of groups

(2)
$$1C_\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{\gamma }{}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }\stackrel{\delta }{}Aut(\mathrm{\Delta })1,$$

where $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }=N_{\mathrm{GL}(2,)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }=C_{\mathrm{GL}(2,)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })/Z_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are the normalizer of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`\mathrm{GL}(2,)`$ modulo $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the centralizer of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ modulo the center $`Z_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ respectively, and $`Aut(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is the automorphism group of the diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Proof For an irrep $`\rho :\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{GL}(V)`$ and an element $`gN_{\mathrm{GL}(2,)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, define a new irrep $`\rho ^g`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by $`\rho ^g(h)=\rho (g^1hg)`$. The isomorphism class of the irrep $`\rho ^g`$ only depends on the class of $`g`$ in $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For all $`gN_{\mathrm{GL}(2,)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$$`\rho _0^g`$ is isomorphic to $`\rho _0`$ and $`\rho _c^g`$ to $`\rho _c`$, so the diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is mapped to itself by the action of $`g`$. So $`\rho \rho ^g`$ defines a map $`\delta :N_\mathrm{\Gamma }Aut(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. The proof of the surjectivity of this map as well as the computation of its kernel are easy on a case-by-case basis. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 2.2. The surface $`Y`$

For a finite subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$, let $`g:Y^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the minimal resolution of the Kleinian quotient singularity with exceptional locus $`E=_{j=1}^nE_j`$. The incidence graph of the components of $`E`$ can be identified with the (simply laced) McKay diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ defined by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in 2.1; fix such an identification.

###### Proposition 2.2.

There is an injection $`j:N_\mathrm{\Gamma }Aut(Y)`$. The composite

$$N_\mathrm{\Gamma }Aut(Y)Aut(\mathrm{\Delta }),$$

where the latter is the map given by permuting exceptional divisors, coincides with the map $`\delta `$ of Lemma 2.1. In particular, an element of $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ fixes all the exceptional divisors if and only if it is in $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Proof By definition, an element $`hN_{\mathrm{GL}(2,)}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ induces an automorphism of $`^2`$ normalizing the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; hence this automorphism descends to the quotient $`^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and only depends on the class of $`h`$ in $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The resolution $`f`$ is the unique minimal model of $`^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, hence every automorphism of $`^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ lifts to a unique automorphism of $`Y`$. This defines the injection $`j:N_\mathrm{\Gamma }Aut(Y)`$. The last statement follows from an explicit computation on the resolution. $`\mathrm{}`$

Next I collect information about the cohomology and deformations of the surface $`Y`$. The first statement is well known.

###### Proposition 2.3.

The second cohomology $`H^2(Y,)`$ of the surface $`Y`$ is a free $``$-module of rank $`n`$, with dual $`H_c^2(Y,)`$ which has a natural $``$-basis consisting of the classes $`\{[E_j]\}`$ of the exceptional divisors. Every exceptional divisor $`E_jY`$ gives rise to a reflection

$$\omega \omega +\left([E_j]\omega \right)c_1(𝒪_Y(E_j)).$$

on $`H^2(Y,)`$. These reflections generate a finite reflection group.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.4.

The data in this proposition can be identified with the Dynkin diagram data as follows. Mapping the class $`[E_j]H_c^2(Y,)`$ to the simple root $`\lambda _j`$ gives an isomorphism between the lattice $`H_c^2(Y,)`$ and the root lattice $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _r`$. Dually, $`H^2(Y,)𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the reflection defined by $`E_j`$ is the reflection $`r_j`$ associated to the simple root $`\lambda _j`$. Hence the reflection group in (ii) is isomorphic to the reflection group $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Note also that the group $`Aut(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ acts both on $`H^2(Y,)`$ (by acting on a basis) and on $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (as defined in Section 1.2) and these actions are obviously compatible.

Recall the hyperplanes $`\mathrm{\Pi }_w𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which are the fixed loci of reflections of $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$; in particular, these include the fixed hyperplanes $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{r_j}=\{\omega 𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }|\omega ,\lambda _i=0\}`$ of $`r_j`$.

###### Proposition 2.5.

1. The universal deformation space of $`Y`$ is a smooth family $`d:𝒴Z`$ with central fiber $`d^1(0)Y`$. There is a simultaneous contraction $`G:𝒴\overline{𝒴}`$ over $`Z`$ with central fiber $`g:Y\overline{Y}`$. More generally, for any subset $`I=\{E_{j_i}\}`$ of the exceptional curves, there exists a contraction $`G_I:𝒴\overline{𝒴}_I`$ over $`Z`$ contracting curves in $`I`$ in the central fiber and giving an isomorphism on fibers $`Y_t`$ to which none of the curves in $`I`$ deform.
2. Choosing a generator of the relative canonical bundle $`\omega _{𝒴/Z}`$ over $`Z`$ gives rise to a period map

$$\phi :ZH^2(Y,)𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }$$

which is an isomorphism. Different choices of the generator give rise to the same isomorphism up to multiplication by a nonzero constant on $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.
3. The group $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts naturally on the base $`Z`$ and compatibly on the total space of the family $`𝒴Z`$ by automorphisms. There is an induced action of $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ via $`\phi `$. This action factors via the morphism

$$(\delta ,det):N_\mathrm{\Gamma }Aut(\mathrm{\Delta })\times ^{}$$

with $`^{}`$ acting on $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with weight one.
4. The action of the reflection group $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ induces, via the period map $`\phi `$, a $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$-action on $`Z`$. This extends compatibly to an action on the total space $`\overline{𝒴}Z`$ by automorphisms. More generally, if $`wW`$ is a reflection and $`I`$ denotes the set of nodes corresponding to positive roots mapped to negative roots by $`w`$, then there is a diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{𝒴}_I& \stackrel{}{}& \overline{𝒴}_I\\ & & \\ Z& \stackrel{w}{}& Z.\end{array}$$

There is no $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$-action by automorphisms on the total space $`𝒴Z`$, but for $`wW_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`tZ`$ the fibers $`g^1(t)`$$`g^1(tw)`$ are isomorphic.
5. For a point $`s𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the fiber $`g^1\phi ^1(s)=Y_s`$ contains projective curves if and only if $`s_{w\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Pi }_w`$; otherwise it is affine. For $`w\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ corresponding to the positive root $`\lambda `$, write $`\lambda =_ja_j\lambda _j`$. Then $`s\mathrm{\Pi }_w`$ if and only if $`Y_s`$ contains a rational (possibly reducible) curve which is a flat deformation of the effective rational curve $`_ja_jE_j`$ on $`Y`$. If $`s\mathrm{\Pi }_w_{w^{}w}\mathrm{\Pi }_w^{}`$ then this curve is smooth and it is the unique projective curve in $`Y_s`$.

Proof (i) is well known. (ii) is proved for example in \[17, Section 4\]. For (iii), note that by universality, $`Aut(Y)`$ and hence its subgroup $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ act on the family $`𝒴Z`$, and in particular on its base $`Z`$. By \[18, Proposition 8.6ii\], the determinant acts by weight one in the induced action on $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The action of the reflection group $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`Z`$ and its properties stated in (iv) go back to Brieskorn, see e.g. . Finally (v) is spelled out in \[11, Theorem 1\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.6.

Using (ii), I will identify $`Z`$ with $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ everywhere below. The space $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ carries actions of both $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

### 2.3. The group cohomology class $`\alpha `$ and related constructions

Let $`B`$ be a smooth, not necessarily projective curve over $``$. Fix a cohomology class

$$\alpha H^1(B_{\text{ét}},N_\mathrm{\Gamma })$$

in the nonabelian group cohomology set $`H^1(B_{\text{ét}},N_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ in the étale topology (compare \[14, p.122\]). All constructions below depend on this class $`\alpha `$; for ease of reading, this dependence is dropped from the notation.

The exact sequence (2) of Lemma 2.1 gives rise to an exact sequence of pointed sets (\[14, Proposition 4.5\]):

$$H^1(B_{\text{ét}},C_\mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{\gamma }{}H^1(B_{\text{ét}},N_\mathrm{\Gamma })\stackrel{\delta }{}H^1(B_{\text{ét}},Aut(\mathrm{\Delta })).$$

Consider the class $`\delta (\alpha )H^1(B_{\text{ét}},Aut(\mathrm{\Delta }))`$; let $`A`$ be the minimal subgroup of $`Aut(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ such that $`\delta (\alpha )`$ is in the image of

$$H^1(B_{\text{ét}},A)H^1(B_{\text{ét}},Aut(\mathrm{\Delta })).$$

The preimage of $`\delta (\alpha )`$ in $`H^1(B_{\text{ét}},A)`$ defines a finite étale cover $`b:\stackrel{~}{B}B`$. Since the cocycle cannot be reduced to a smaller subgroup, $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is connected.

For the rest of this paper, I fix the type of the simply laced diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (equivalently the finite subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) and the cohomology class $`\alpha `$; hence also $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Delta }/A`$ are fixed. By the exact sequence above, $`A`$ is trivial if and only if $`\alpha `$ takes values in $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{SL}(2,)`$, there is a map $`det:N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Hence $`\alpha `$ gives rise to an induced cocycle

$$det(\alpha )H^1(B_{\text{ét}},^{})Pic(B);$$

I will denote by $``$ the corresponding line bundle on $`B`$. Recall also that Proposition 2.5(iii) defines a map $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{GL}(𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta })`$. The image of the cohomology class $`\alpha H^1(B_{\text{ét}},N_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ in $`H^1(B_{\text{ét}},\mathrm{GL}(𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }))H^1(B,\mathrm{GL}(𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }))`$ induces a locally free sheaf $``$ of rank $`r`$ on $`B`$.

If $`A`$ is trivial, this construction gives a class in

$$H^1(B,^{})H^1(B,\mathrm{GL}(𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta })),$$

and in this case $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. A positive root $`\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }^+𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ defines a map $`\lambda :𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ using the inner product, which globalizes to a map of bundles $`\lambda :`$ over $`B`$ and hence to a map on sections

(3)
$$m_\lambda :H^0(B,)H^0(B,).$$

If $`A`$ is nontrivial, there is an isomorphism $`b^{}b^{}𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on the étale cover $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ of $`B`$. On the other hand, by Leray

$$H^0(\stackrel{~}{B},b^{})H^0(B,b_{}b^{})H^0(B,b_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{B}})$$

and taking $`A`$-invariants,

$`H^0(B,)`$ $``$ $`H^0(\stackrel{~}{B},b^{})^A`$
$``$ $`H^0(\stackrel{~}{B},b^{})^A𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }^AH^0(\stackrel{~}{B},b^{})^A𝔥_\mathrm{\Xi }.`$
Hence if $`\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Xi }^+`$ is a positive root in the root system of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, there is an induced map

(4)
$$m_\mu :H^0(B,)H^0(\stackrel{~}{B},b^{})^A.$$

### 2.4. The threefold $`X`$

Represent the group cohomology element $`\alpha H^1(B_{\text{ét}},N_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ by a Čech cocycle $`\{\alpha _{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }(B_{ij},N_\mathrm{\Gamma })\}`$ with respect to an étale covering $`\{B_l\}`$ of $`B`$. Consider the product $`^2\times B_l`$, its quotient $`\overline{X}_l=^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }\times B_l`$ and resolution $`X_l=Y\times B_l\overline{X}_l`$ over $`B_l`$. By étale descent, I can glue the morphisms $`X_l\overline{X}_l`$ over $`B`$ using the cocyle $`\alpha `$ with values in $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }Aut(Y)`$ (Proposition 2.2) to get a diagram of quasiprojective varieties

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X& \stackrel{f}{}& \overline{X}\hfill \\ & \pi & \overline{\pi }\hfill \\ & & B\hfill \end{array}$$

which up to isomorphism only depends on the cohomology class of $`\alpha `$.

###### Proposition 2.7.

1. The singular locus of $`\overline{X}`$ is a section of $`\overline{\pi }`$ and is a curve of cDV singularities of the type of the diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The morphism $`f`$ is a crepant resolution of singularities. The canonical bundle of $`X`$ is

$$\omega _X\pi ^{}(\omega _B^1)$$

and $`H^2(X,𝒪_X)=0`$.
2. Assume that $`(\mathrm{\Delta },A)(A_{2n},/2)`$ as usual. The exceptional locus of $`f`$ is a union of irreducible divisors $`D_j`$ indexed by the nodes of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$; every such divisor is a smooth geometrically ruled surface $`\pi _j:D_jB_j`$. If $`j`$ is a node of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ representing an $`A`$-orbit of size one then $`B_jB`$, otherwise $`B_j\stackrel{~}{B}`$. Two divisors $`D_i,D_j`$ intersect if and only if the corresponding nodes $`i,j`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ are connected by an edge ($`m_{ij}>2`$).
3. For every subset $`I`$ of the nodes of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, there exists a morphism

$$f_I:X\overline{X}_I$$

which contracts the divisors $`D_j`$ for $`jI`$ along their rulings and is an isomorphism on $`X_{jI}D_j`$.

Proof The first statement of (i) is clear. The statement that $`f`$ is a crepant resolution is local and hence follows from the fact that $`Y^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a crepant resolution. To compute the canonical bundle of $`X`$, note that with $`\pi _j:X_j=Y\times B_jB_j`$, $`\omega _{X_j}=\pi _j^{}(\omega _{B_j})`$, and these line bundles glue together after a twisting by the inverse of the determinant cocycle. $`H^2(X,𝒪_X)=0`$ follows from the Leray spectral sequence for $`\pi `$ and well-known properties of $`Y`$.

For (ii), recall that $`X`$ was glued together from étale open subsets $`X_l=Y\times B_l`$. If $`\alpha `$ can be represented by a cocycle with values in $`C_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, in other words if $`A`$ is trivial, then the glueing process will not permute the exceptional divisors $`\{E_j\}`$ in $`Y`$ by Proposition 2.2. Hence $`\{E_j\times B_l\}`$ will glue for every $`j`$ to a smooth exceptional divisor $`D_j`$ ruled over the curve $`B`$, and these surfaces will intersect as dictated by the diagram $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If $`A`$ is nontrivial, then the set of exceptional lines $`\{E_j\}`$ is acted on by monodromy over $`B`$, this action being given by the cocyle $`\delta (\alpha )`$ with values in $`A`$. The lines $`E_i`$ corresponding to nodes fixed by the action of $`A`$ can still be glued globally over $`B`$, leading to exceptional divisors in $`X`$ ruled over $`B`$. However, nontrivial orbits $`\{E_{j_i}\}`$ of exceptional curves under the $`A`$-action are glued together to an irreducible exceptional divisor, where the glueing is governed by the cohomology class $`\delta (\alpha )`$; hence the corresponding surfaces are ruled over the étale cover $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ of $`B`$. Finally the morphism $`f_I:X\overline{X}_I`$ can be glued over $`B`$ from the morphism $`G_J:Y\overline{Y}_J`$, contracting the exceptional curves on $`Y`$ given by the $`A`$-invariant set $`J`$ of nodes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ lying over $`I`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.8.

In the special case $`(\mathrm{\Delta },A)=(A_{2n},/2)`$ the exceptional divisors $`D_i`$ are still indexed by nodes of the quotient diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }/A`$, defined to be the $`A_n`$-diagram with a marked node at one end corresponding to the adjacent $`Aut(\mathrm{\Delta })`$-orbit of nodes. However, the marked node $`n`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ corresponds to a singular exceptional surface. It is an irreducible non-normal surface $`\pi _n:D_nB`$ whose double locus is a section and whose fiber over any point $`bB`$ is a line pair. The main results of this paper do not apply in this special case; see \[21, Remark 4.5\] for further discussion.

### 2.5. A family of deformations of $`X`$

Representing the cohomology class $`\alpha `$ as a Čech cocyle again with respect to an étale covering $`\{B_l\}`$ of $`B`$, there are isomorphisms $`|_{B_l}𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }\times B_l`$. Using these isomorphisms, pull back the universal deformation space $`𝒴𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`Y`$ from Proposition 2.5 to a family of surfaces $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_l|_{B_l}`$. Glue these families over $`B`$ using the identification given by the cocyle with values in $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }<Aut(𝒴)`$ (compare Proposition 2.5(iii)) to get a global family of surfaces $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}`$ over the total space of the vector bundle $``$. Finally use the tautological map $`B\times H^0(B,)`$ to pull back $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}`$ to a family $`𝒳`$ over $`B\times H^0(B,)`$. This leads to a diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒳& & \stackrel{~}{𝒳}\\ & & \\ B\times T& & \\ & & \\ T& & \end{array}$$

with $`T=H^0(B,)`$. The composite of the left-hand vertical maps gives rise to a morphism $`e:𝒳T`$, which is a smooth family of threefolds by construction. Using the projection to $`B`$ shows that for $`sT`$, the fiber $`X_s=e^1(s)`$ admits a smooth map $`\pi _s:X_sB`$. The central fiber $`e^1(0)`$ corresponds to the zero section of the bundle $``$; it is obtained by glueing varieties $`Y\times B_l`$, coming from the central fiber of $`𝒴𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, over the curve $`B`$ as dictated by the cohomology class $`\alpha `$. Thus $`e^1(0)X`$. Note that at this point $`T`$ may well be infinite dimensional, but the meaning of the following statements should be obvious also in this case.

###### Proposition 2.9.

The family $`e:𝒳T`$ with central fiber $`Xe^1(0)`$ has the following properties:

1. The Kodaira–Spencer map of the family is injective at $`0T`$.
2. For any set $`I`$ of nodes of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, there is a contraction morphism $`F_I:𝒳\overline{𝒳}_I`$ over $`T`$ with central fiber $`f_I:X\overline{X}_I`$.
3. The group $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ acts on the base $`T`$ with the following properties:

1. for $`i`$ a node of the Dynkin diagram $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, the fixed locus $`T_i=\mathrm{Fix}(\rho _i)`$ of the reflection $`\rho _iW_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ acting on $`T`$ is exactly the locus of points $`sT`$ for which the map $`f_{i,s}:X_sX_{i,s}`$ (the fiber of $`F_i`$ at $`sT`$) contracts a surface;
    2. for a reflection $`wW_\mathrm{\Xi }`$, if $`I`$ is the set of simple roots reflected by $`w`$, there exists a diagram

    $$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒳& \stackrel{\theta _w}{}& 𝒳\\ & & \\ \overline{𝒳}_I& \stackrel{}{}& \overline{𝒳}_I\\ & & \\ T& \stackrel{w}{}& T.\end{array}$$

    The relative birational morphism $`\theta _w:𝒳𝒳`$ over $`T`$ restricts to a birational morphism $`\theta _{w,s}:X_sX_{w(s)}`$ on fibers.

Proof The Kodaira–Spencer map of the family $`e:𝒳T`$ at $`0T`$ is a map

$$\phi :\mathrm{\Theta }_{T,0}H^0(B,)H^1(X,\mathrm{\Theta }_X)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{T,0}`$ is the holomorphic tangent space of $`T`$ at $`0T`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_X`$ is the holomorphic tangent bundle of $`X`$. This map sits in a composition

(5)
$$H^0(B,)H^1(X,\mathrm{\Theta }_X)H^0(B,R^1\pi _{}\mathrm{\Theta }_X)H^0(B,R^1\pi _{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{X/B})$$

where the second map comes from the Leray spectral sequence, and the last map comes from the natural map of sheaves $`\mathrm{\Theta }_X\mathrm{\Theta }_{X/B}`$ on $`X`$. On the other hand, it is easy to check from the construction that the Kodaira–Spencer map $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{}H^1(Y,\mathrm{\Theta }_Y)`$ for $`Y`$ globalizes to an isomorphism between the sheaf $``$ and the sheaf $`R^1\pi _{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{X/B}`$ on $`B`$, and the composite $`H^0(B,)H^0(B,R^1\pi _{}\mathrm{\Theta }_{X/B})`$ of the maps in (5) is the induced isomorphism. Hence the Kodaira–Spencer map of $`e:𝒳T`$ is injective.

For (ii), let $`J`$ be the subset of exceptional curves in $`Y`$ corresponding to the set of nodes $`I`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, and let $`G_J:𝒴𝒴_J`$ be the corresponding contraction from Proposition 2.5(vi). $`J`$ is fixed under the monodromy action by $`A`$, so I can glue $`G_J`$ over $`B`$ according to the cocycle $`\alpha `$ to get a morphism $`F_I:𝒳\overline{𝒳}_I`$ with central fiber $`f_I`$.

For (iii), note that $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }<W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ acts on $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and by Remark 1.2 on p. 1.2 this action commutes with that of $`A`$ and of course the scalars. Hence it acts on the vector bundle $``$ over $`B`$ (trivial action on $`B`$) and so on $`T=H^0(B,)`$.

To show property (a) of this action, assume first that $`A`$ is trivial. Fix a section $`sT`$ of $``$ and a node $`i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Note that by Proposition 2.5(v), the surface $`X_{s,p}=\pi _s^1(p)`$ over $`pB`$ contains a deformation of the rational curve $`E_iY`$ if and only if $`m_{r_i}(s)`$ vanishes at $`pB`$, where $`m_{r_i}`$ is the map in (3). The contraction $`f_{i,s}`$ contracts a surface if and only if this happens at every point $`pB`$, in other words if $`m_{r_i}(s)=0`$. However, this simply says that in every fiber $`s(p)`$ is on the reflection hyperplane $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{r_i}𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or equivalently that it is fixed by $`r_i`$. Hence the fixed locus of $`r_i`$ acting on $`T`$ is exactly the locus where $`f_{i,s}`$ contracts a surface.

If $`A`$ is nontrivial, the node $`i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ corresponds to an $`A`$-orbit $`\{i_j\}`$ of nodes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For $`sT`$, the surface fiber $`X_{s,p}`$ over $`pB`$ will contain deformations of the exceptional curves $`E_{i_j}`$ of $`Y`$ if and only if $`m_{\rho _i}(s)`$ vanishes at the preimages $`b^1(p)\stackrel{~}{B}`$ of $`pB`$, where $`m_{\rho _i}`$ is the map in 4. Hence $`f_{i,s}`$ contracts a surface if and only if $`m_{\rho _i}(s)=0`$; equivalently, if in every fiber $`s(p)_p𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ lies on all reflection hyperplanes $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{r_{i_j}}𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This however happens if and only if the section $`s`$ is fixed by $`\rho _i=r_{i_j}W_\mathrm{\Xi }W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The isomorphism $`\overline{𝒳}_I\stackrel{}{}\overline{𝒳}_I`$ fitting into the diagram of (b) for a reflection $`wW_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is the pullback of the diagram of Proposition 2.5(iv) and it naturally induces a birational map between resolutions; the details are left to the reader. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.10.

The $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$-action on $`T`$ will be essential in what follows. I continue calling an element $`wW_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ a reflection if it is a reflection on $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Xi }`$, that is if it corresponds to a positive root in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Xi }^+`$. Of course in general the fixed locus of $`w`$ on $`T`$ is not a hyperplane.

If the linear system $``$ on $`B`$ is small, then the family $`e:𝒳T`$ can be rather uninteresting (for example, $`T`$ could be a point). Under an extra assumption, a lot more geometry emerges.

###### Proposition 2.11.

Assume that $``$ is a moving linear system on $`B`$.

1. For a general point $`sT`$, the exceptional locus of $`f_s:X_s\overline{X}_s`$ consists of a finite number of disjoint smooth rational curves, naturally indexed by positive roots $`\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Xi }^+`$, with normal bundle $`𝒪_^1(1,1)`$.
2. For such general $`sT`$ and a reflection $`wW_\mathrm{\Xi }`$, the birational map $`\theta _{w,s}:X_sX_{w(s)}`$ is a flop, flopping exactly those $`(1,1)`$-curves which are indexed by positive roots mapped to negative roots by $`w`$.
3. For $`w=\rho _i`$ with $`i`$ a node of the Dynkin diagram $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, there are two possibilities: either $`sT_i`$ and $`\theta _{\rho _i,s}:X_sX_{\rho _i(s)}`$ is the identity isomorphism, or $`sTT_i`$ and the birational map $`\theta _{\rho _i,s}:X_sX_{\rho _i(s)}`$ flops a disjoint union of rational curves indexed by the simple root $`\mu _i`$, with normal bundle $`𝒪_^1(1,1)`$ or $`𝒪_^1(0,2)`$.

Proof To prove (i), assume first that $`A`$ is trivial. Let $`pB`$ a closed point and $`X_{s,p}=\pi _s^1(p)`$ the corresponding surface. According to Proposition 2.5, the surface $`X_{s,p}`$ is affine if and only if $`s(p)𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }=_s`$ does not lie on any reflection hyperplane $`\mathrm{\Pi }_w`$, and it contains a single smooth rational curve if it lies in a unique such hyperplane. Said invariantly, using the map (3), $`X_{s,p}`$ is affine if and only if $`m_\lambda (s)`$ does not vanish at $`p`$ for any $`\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, and it contains a unique curve if $`m_\lambda (s)`$ vanishes at $`p`$ for a unique $`\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$.

I claim that for general $`sT`$, there is a finite set of $`pB`$ such that $`m_\lambda (s)`$ vanishes at $`p`$ for some positive root $`\lambda `$, and at such a $`p`$ there is a unique $`\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ with $`m_\lambda (s)(p)=0`$. This shows that for such $`s`$ there is a finite number of disjoint rational curves in $`X_s`$, which are indexed by positive roots.

To show the claim, take two sections $`t,t^{}H^0(B,)`$ which have a disjoint set of simple zeroes; as $`||`$ has no base points, this is possible. Choose also $`h,h^{}𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ so that for $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ different positive roots,

(6)
$$\lambda ,h\lambda ^{},h^{}\lambda ,h^{}\lambda ^{},h0.$$

Setting $`s=ht+h^{}t^{}`$, the section $`m_\lambda (s)`$ of $``$ vanishes only at finitely many points of $`B`$ for any positive root $`\lambda `$. Also, if $`m_\lambda (s)`$ vanishes at the same point $`pB`$ for two different roots, then by condition (6), I get that $`t(p)=t^{}(p)=0`$ which contradicts the choice of $`t,t^{}`$.

The proof in the general case, when $`A`$ is nontrivial, is similar. In this case, the claim is that for general $`sT`$ there is a finite number of points $`pB`$ such that $`m_\lambda (s)H^0(\stackrel{~}{B},b^{})`$ vanishes at a point $`q\stackrel{~}{B}`$ lying over $`pB`$ and for a positive root $`\mu \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Xi }^+`$, and at such points $`p`$, vanishing happens for a unique $`\mu `$. The claim follows by considering

$$b^{}th+b^{}t^{}h^{}H^0(\stackrel{~}{B},b^{})^A𝔥_\mathrm{\Xi }H^0(B,)$$

for sufficiently general $`h,h^{}𝔥_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`t,t^{}H^0(B,)`$ with no common zeros.

By construction and the discussion above, a small analytic neighbourhood of every rational curve on the general fiber $`X_s`$ looks like the standard one-dimensional deformation of a $`(2)`$-curve in a surface, the deformation direction being transversal to the hyperplane along which the curve deforms. In other words, locally near the curve, the threefold looks like a small resolution of the ordinary threefold double point $`\{xy=z^2t^2\}`$. It is well known that the normal bundle of such a curve is $`𝒪_^1(1,1)`$. This also proves statement (ii): by Proposition 2.9(iii), the birational map $`\theta _{w,s}`$ factors as $`X_s\overline{X}_{I,s}X_{w(s)}`$, where the first map contracts exactly those $`(1,1)`$-curves which are indexed by positive roots mapped to negative ones by $`w`$; locally analytically the two maps give the two small resolutions of the resulting ordinary double points, in other words the flop.

To prove (iii), note that one possibility is $`m_{\rho _i}(s)=0`$, hence $`sT_i`$ and the birational map $`\theta _{\rho _i,s}`$ is the identity. Otherwise $`m_{\rho _i}(s)`$ vanishes at a finite set of points $`\{p_l\}B`$, and the map $`X_s\overline{X}_{i,s}`$ contracts a finite number of disjoint rational curves contained in the surfaces $`X_{s,p_l}`$. If at $`p_l`$ the section $`m_{\rho _i}(s)`$ meets the zero-section of $``$ transversally, then the singularity on $`\overline{X}_{i,s}`$ is analytically isomorphic to $`\{xy=z^2t^2\}`$ and the corresponding rational curve has normal bundle $`𝒪_^1(1,1)`$. If the intersection of the two sections is tangential of order $`n>1`$ then the singularity on $`\overline{X}_{i,s}`$ is analytically isomorphic to $`\{xy=z^2t^{2n}\}`$ and the normal bundle is $`𝒪_^1(0,2)`$. In any case, $`\theta _{\rho _i,s}`$ flops all these curves (compare ). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.12.

Points $`sT`$ in the base with $`f_s`$ having an exceptional locus consisting of a disjoint union of smooth $`(1,1)`$-curves as in (i) will be called sufficiently general; on Figure 2, $`sT`$ is a sufficiently general point but $`tT`$ is not. As the proof shows, the locus of sufficiently general points is a non-empty Zariski open subset of $`T`$.

Note also that it can perfectly well happen that $``$ is the trivial line bundle on $`B`$ and its only sections are the constants. All the statements of the above discussion remain true, with the small proviso that the maps $`\theta _{w,s}`$ flop an empty set of curves, in other words they are isomorphisms for all $`s`$. This phenomenon (in the projective case) is well known in the literature; the nontrivial birational contraction $`f:X\overline{X}_i`$ on the central fiber deforms to an isomorphism $`f_s:X_s\stackrel{}{}\overline{X}_{i,s}`$, hence the cone of ample divisors jumps in the family. The variety $`X`$ is Calabi–Yau if and only if $`\omega _B`$ by Proposition 2.7(i), hence such surfaces are elliptic ruled surfaces in Calabi–Yau threefolds. Compare .

## 3. Derived categories and equivalences in families

### 3.1. Kernels and Fourier–Mukai functors

If $`X`$ is a smooth quasiprojective variety, let $`D^b(X)`$ denote the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on $`X`$. A kernel (derived correspondence) between smooth quasiprojective varieties $`X_i`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ is an object $`UD^b(X_1\times X_2)`$, whose support is proper over both factors. There is a composition product on kernels given for $`UD^b(X_1\times X_2)`$ and $`VD^b(X_2\times X_3)`$ by the standard formula

$$UV=𝐑p_{13}\left(p_{23}^{}(V)^𝐋p_{12}^{}(U)\right)D^b(X_1\times X_3);$$

here $`p_{ij}:X_1\times X_2\times X_3X_i\times X_j`$ are the projection maps and the pullbacks are ordinary pullbacks since $`p_{ij}`$ is flat. A kernel $`UD^b(X_1\times X_2)`$ is invertible, if there is a kernel $`VD^b(X_2\times X_1)`$ such that the products $`UV`$ and $`VU`$ are isomorphic in $`D^b(X_i\times X_i)`$ to $`𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{X_i}}`$, the (complexes consisting of) the structure sheaves of the diagonals. A kernel $`UD^b(X_1\times X_2)`$ defines a functor

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^U:D^b(X_2)D^b(X_1)$$

by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^U()=𝐑p_1(U^𝐋p_2^{}()),$$

with $`p_i:X_1\times X_2X_i`$ the projections. If $`U`$ is invertible then $`\mathrm{\Psi }^U`$ is a Fourier–Mukai functor, an equivalence of triangulated categories. Let $`\mathrm{Auteq}(X)`$ denote the group of invertible kernels on $`X`$.

### 3.2. Kernels in families

Suppose that $`\pi _i:𝒳_iS_i`$$`i=1,2`$ are smooth families. A relative kernel for $`(\pi _1,\pi _2)`$ is a pair $`(U,\phi )`$, where

* $`\phi :S_1S_2`$ is a isomorphism, giving rise to the fiber product diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒳_1\times _\phi 𝒳_2& \stackrel{p_2}{}& 𝒳_2\\ p_1& \stackrel{\pi _{12}}{}& \phi ^1\pi _2\\ 𝒳_1& \stackrel{\pi _1}{}& S_1\end{array}$$

and
* $`UD^b(𝒳_1\times _\phi 𝒳_2)`$, whose derived restriction to the fiber of $`\pi _{12}`$ over every $`sS_1`$ is isomorphic to an object in $`D^b(X_{1,s}\times X_{2,\phi (s)})`$ with proper support over both factors.

If $`\pi _i:𝒳_iS_i`$$`i=1,2,3`$ are smooth families and $`(U,\phi ),(V,\psi )`$ relative kernels for $`(\pi _1,\pi _2),(\pi _2,\pi _3)`$, then there is a composition on kernels defined as follows. Let $`\chi =\psi \phi :S_1S_3`$, and let

(7)
$$\pi _{123}:\stackrel{~}{𝒳}=(𝒳_1\times _\phi 𝒳_2)\times _\chi 𝒳_3S_1$$

be the twice-fiber product. There are maps $`p_{12}:\stackrel{~}{𝒳}𝒳_1\times _\phi 𝒳_2`$ and $`p_{13}:\stackrel{~}{𝒳}𝒳_1\times _\chi 𝒳_3`$ which commute with the maps to $`S_1`$. On the other hand, it is easy to check that $`(𝒳_1\times _\phi 𝒳_2)\times _\chi 𝒳_3𝒳_1\times _\phi (𝒳_2\times _\psi 𝒳_3)`$ hence there is a map $`p_{23}:\stackrel{~}{𝒳}𝒳_2\times _\psi 𝒳_3`$ which satisfies $`\pi _{23}p_{23}=\phi \pi _{123}`$. Hence finally I can put

$$W=𝐑p_{13}(p_{23}^{}(V)^𝐋p_{12}^{}(U))$$

and set

$$(V,\psi )(U,\phi )=(W,\chi ).$$

It is easy to see that $`(W,\chi )`$ is a relative kernel for $`(\pi _1,\pi _3)`$.

For reference I record the composition of three kernels, leaving the obvious generalization to the reader. Let $`\pi _i:𝒳_iS_i`$ be families for $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$, and $`(U,\phi ),(V,\psi ),(T,\eta )`$ relative kernels for $`(\pi _1,\pi _2)`$, $`(\pi _2,\pi _3)`$ and $`(\pi _3,\pi _4)`$. Let

$$\widehat{𝒳}=𝒳_1\times _\phi (𝒳_2\times _\psi (𝒳_3\times _\eta 𝒳_4))$$

with maps $`s_{12}:\widehat{𝒳}𝒳_1\times _\phi 𝒳_2,s_{23}:\widehat{𝒳}𝒳_2\times _\psi 𝒳_3,s_{34}:\widehat{𝒳}𝒳_3\times _\eta 𝒳_4`$ and $`s_{14}:\widehat{𝒳}𝒳_1\times _{\eta \psi \phi }𝒳_4`$. Then

###### Lemma 3.1.

$$(T,\eta )(V,\psi )(U,\phi )(\stackrel{~}{U},\eta \psi \phi ),$$

where

$$\stackrel{~}{U}=𝐑s_{14}(s_{34}^{}(T)^𝐋s_{23}^{}(V)^𝐋s_{12}^{}(U)).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

A relative kernel $`(U,\phi )`$ for $`(\pi _1,\pi _2)`$ is called invertible, if there is a relative kernel $`(V,\phi ^1)`$ for $`(\pi _2,\pi _1)`$, with the property that the compositions $`(U,\phi )(V,\phi ^1)`$ and $`(V,\phi ^1)(U,\phi )`$ are isomorphic to the relative kernels $`(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒳_i}},\mathrm{id})`$.

Let $`U_sD^b(X_{1,s}\times X_{2,\phi (s)})`$ denote the derived restriction of the relative kernel $`U`$ to fibers of $`\pi _{12}`$.

###### Proposition 3.2.

If a relative kernel $`UD^b(𝒳_1\times _\phi 𝒳_2)`$ for $`(\pi _1,\pi _2)`$ is invertible then the restricted kernel $`U_sD^b(X_{1,s}\times X_{2,\phi (s)})`$ is invertible for every $`sS_1`$. Conversely if the restricted kernel is invertible for every $`sS_1`$, then every $`sS_1`$ has a neighbourhood $`sTS_1`$ such that the relative kernel restricted to the families $`\pi _1^1(T)T`$ and $`\pi _2^1(\phi (T))\phi (T)`$ is invertible.

Proof If $`x_{i,s}:X_{i,s}𝒳_i`$ denotes the inclusion, then

$$𝐋x_{i,s}^{}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝒳_i}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{X_{i,s}}}$$

as the maps $`\pi _i`$ are flat. Hence if $`U`$ is invertible with inverse $`V`$, then $`U_s`$ is invertible with inverse $`V_s`$.

Conversely, take a relative kernel $`UD^b(𝒳_1\times _\phi 𝒳_2)`$ and suppose that the restrictions are all invertible. Let

$$V=𝐑\text{om}(U,𝒪_{𝒳_1\times _\phi 𝒳_2})p_1^{}\omega _{𝒳_1/S_1}[n]D^b(𝒳_2\times _\phi 𝒳_1)$$

where $`n`$ is the dimension of the fibers $`X_{i,s}`$. Then by standard adjunctions the functor $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(V,\phi ^1)}`$ is right adjoint to the functor $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{(U,\phi )}`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{V_s}`$ is right adjoint to $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{U_s}`$ on the fibers. However, adjoints are unique, so $`V_s`$ is the inverse of the kernel $`U_s`$. In other words,

$$𝐋z_{1,s}^{}\left(UV\right)U_sV_s𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{X_{1,s}}}D^b(X_{1,s}\times X_{1,s}),$$

where $`z_{1,s}:X_{1,s}\times X_{1,s}𝒳_1\times _S𝒳_1`$ is the inclusion. By \[3, Lemma 4.3\], this implies that $`UV`$ is a sheaf on $`𝒳_1\times _S𝒳_1`$, flat over $`S`$. Take $`sS_1`$, then the natural map

$$H^0(𝒳_1\times _S𝒳_1,UV)H^0(X_{1,s}\times X_{1,s},U_sV_s)$$

is surjective, hence there is a map of sheaves

$$𝒪_{𝒳_1\times _S𝒳_1}UV$$

which is surjective at $`sS_1`$. So this map is surjective over a neighbourhood $`T`$ of $`sS_1`$ and restricted to that neighbourhood, $`UV`$ is a structure sheaf of a subscheme, fiberwise isomorphic to the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{X_{1,s}}X_{1,s}\times X_{1,s}`$. By Lemma 3.5 below, $`UV`$ restricted over $`T`$ is isomorphic to the structure sheaf of the relative diagonal in the fiber product $`𝒳_1\times _S𝒳_1`$. To conclude, repeat the argument with $`VU`$ and take the intersection of the resulting open sets. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let now $`\pi :𝒳S`$ be a fixed smooth family, and consider relative kernels $`(U,\phi )`$ where $`\phi :SS`$ is an automorphism of the base. Let $`M(𝒳/S)`$ be the set of such pairs up to isomorphism. $`M(𝒳/S)`$ has a monoid multiplication given by composition with a two-sided unit $`(\mathrm{id}_S,𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒳})`$. Let $`\mathrm{Auteq}(𝒳/S)`$ be the group of invertible elements of the monoid $`M(𝒳/S)`$, the group of relative equivalences of the family $`𝒳S`$.

### 3.3. Three lemmas

I record some auxiliary results on sheaves and kernels.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Suppose that $`\pi :𝒳S`$ is a smooth family,

$$(U,\phi ),(V,\psi )M(𝒳,S)$$

are relative kernels with composite $`(W,\chi )`$ and assume further that the sheaf $`V`$ is isomorphic to the structure sheaf $`i_{}𝒪_Y`$ of a subscheme $`i:𝒴𝒳\times _\psi 𝒳`$. Then every map $`𝒪_{𝒳\times _\phi 𝒳}U`$ in $`D^b(𝒳\times _\phi 𝒳)`$ induces a map $`𝒪_{𝒳\times _\chi 𝒳}W`$ in $`D^b(𝒳\times _\chi 𝒳)`$.

Proof Since $`V`$ is the structure sheaf of a subscheme, $`p_{23}^{}(V)j_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒴}}`$ is also the structure sheaf of the subscheme $`j:\stackrel{~}{𝒴}\stackrel{~}{𝒳}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}`$ is the fiber product of (7). But by the projection formula

$$p_{23}^{}(V)^𝐋p_{12}^{}(U)j_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒴}}^𝐋p_{12}^{}(U)j_{}(𝐋j^{}p_{12}^{}(U)).$$

On the other hand, by functoriality, a map $`𝒪_{𝒳\times _\phi 𝒳}U`$ induces a map $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒳}}p_{12}^{}(U)`$, hence a map $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒴}}𝐋j^{}p_{12}^{}(U)`$ and hence a map $`j_{}(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒴}})j_{}(𝐋j^{}p_{12}^{}(U))`$. Composing this with the natural map $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒳}}j_{}(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒴}})`$ I get a map $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒳}}p_{23}^{}(V)^𝐋p_{12}^{}(U)`$. But $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒳}}p_{13}^{}(𝒪_{𝒳\times _\chi 𝒳})`$, so by adjointness I finally get a map

$$𝒪_{𝒳\times _\chi 𝒳}𝐑p_{13}(p_{23}^{}(V)^𝐋p_{12}^{}(U))=W.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.4.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a projective morphism of quasiprojective varieties. Let $`i:ZX`$ be a reduced subscheme of $`X`$ and $`j:TY`$ its reduced image under $`f`$. Assume that all fibers of $`f|_Z:ZT`$ are projective spaces. Then $`𝐑f_{}(i_{}𝒪_Z)j_{}𝒪_T`$.

Proof As $`i`$ and $`j`$ are closed immersions, the Grothendieck spectral sequences for $`𝐑(fi)_{}`$ and $`𝐑(jf|_Z)_{}`$ degenerate, hence

$$𝐑f_{}(i_{}𝒪_Z)𝐑(fi)_{}(𝒪_Z)𝐑(jf|_Z)_{}(𝒪_Z)j_{}(𝐑f|_Z𝒪_Z).$$

On the other hand, $`f|_Z𝒪_Z𝒪_T`$ since fibers of $`f|_Z`$ are connected, and $`R^if|_Z𝒪_Z=0`$ for $`i>0`$ by the Theorem on Formal Functions and the fact that the higher cohomologies of $`𝒪`$ on projective spaces vanish. This proves the statement. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.5.

Let $`e:𝒳S`$ be a smooth family. Assume that $`U_1`$$`U_2`$ are sheaves on $`𝒳`$, flat over $`S`$, with surjective maps $`g_i:𝒪_XU_i`$ for $`i=1,2`$ (i.e. the $`U_i`$ are structure sheaves of subschemes). Suppose further that for some dense open $`S^0S`$, if $`sS^0`$ then there is an isomorphism $`U_{1,s}U_{2,s}`$ which is compatible with the maps $`g_{i,s}:𝒪_{X_s}U_{i,s}`$. Then $`U_1U_2`$ as sheaves on $`𝒳`$, compatibly with the maps $`g_i`$.

Proof For $`i=1,2`$ the structure sheaves $`U_i`$ of subschemes of $`𝒳`$ give rise to morphisms

$$\phi _i:S\mathrm{Hilb}(𝒳/S)$$

over $`S`$, where $`\mathrm{Hilb}(𝒳/S)S`$ represents the Hilbert functor of the quasiprojective morphism $`𝒳S`$ (this is constructed using a projective completion $`𝒳\overline{𝒳}S`$ along the fibers), such that the morphisms $`g_i`$ are pullbacks of a universal surjection $`𝒪_{𝒳\times _S\mathrm{Hilb}(𝒳/S)}𝒰`$. By the condition on restrictions, $`\phi _1|_{S^0}=\phi _2|_{S^0}`$. But the Hilbert scheme is separated, so the maps $`\phi _1`$ and $`\phi _2`$ coincide. Hence $`U_1U_2`$ compatibly with the maps $`g_i`$, since they are pullbacks of $`𝒰`$ along the same map. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4. Artin group actions on derived categories

### 4.1. Relative equivalences for threefolds containing ruled surfaces

Recall the family of threefolds $`e:𝒳T`$ constructed in Section 2.4 together with the action of the reflection group $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ on the base $`T`$. Note that $`T`$ can a priori be infinite dimensional. For any finite dimensional $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$-invariant vector subspace $`QT`$, I can consider the restricted family $`e_Q:𝒳_QQ`$ which I will simply denote by $`e:𝒳Q`$. The central fiber of this family is still $`e^1(0)X`$. Restrict all contractions and the $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$-action to $`Q`$.

For every node $`i`$ of the diagram $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ there is a contraction $`F_i:𝒳𝒳_i`$ and a map $`\rho _i:QQ`$ fitting into a diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & 𝒳\times _{\overline{𝒳}_i,\rho _i}𝒳& & \\ & & & & \\ \hfill 𝒳& & \stackrel{\theta _{\rho _i}}{}& & 𝒳\hfill \\ & & & & \\ \hfill & & \overline{𝒳}_i& & \hfill \\ & & & & \\ \hfill Q& & \stackrel{\rho _i}{}& & Q\hfill \end{array}$$

which is just the diagram from Proposition 2.11(iii) re-drawn and completed to a fiber product on the top. Let

$$U_i=𝒪_{𝒳\times _{\overline{𝒳}_i,\rho _i}𝒳}D^b(𝒳\times _{\rho _i}𝒳)$$

be the structure sheaf of this fiber product.

###### Theorem 4.1.

There is a $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$-invariant open subset $`0SQ`$, such that the restriction of each pair $`(U_i,\rho _i)`$ to the pullback family $`e_S:𝒳_SS`$ is in the group of relative equivalences $`\mathrm{Auteq}(𝒳_S/S)`$.

The proof of this theorem relies on the following fact, which will be very important also later.

###### Proposition 4.2.

The morphism $`e_i:𝒳\times _{\overline{𝒳}_i,\rho _i}𝒳Q`$ is flat and has reduced fibers.

Proof Using the notation and constructions of Section 2.5, $`𝒳Q`$ factors through a morphism $`𝒳B\times Q`$. Hence $`e_i`$ factors through $`𝒳\times _{\overline{𝒳}_i,\rho _i}𝒳B\times Q`$ which is the pullback of a morphism $`\stackrel{~}{𝒳}\times _{\stackrel{~}{𝒳}_i,\rho _i}\stackrel{~}{𝒳}`$ along the natural map $`B\times Q`$. It is clearly enough to prove that this latter morphism is flat with reduced fibers. However, this statement is (étale) local over the base, hence it suffices to prove it over the étale open set $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }\times B_l`$ of $``$; recall that $`\{B_l\}`$ is an étale open covering of the curve $`B`$. Over $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }\times B_l`$, everything is a pullback along the map $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }\times B_l𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, so finally it is enough to show that the morphism

$$d_I:𝒴\times _{\overline{𝒴}_I,r_I}𝒴𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }$$

has the stated properties. Here $`I`$ is the $`A`$-orbit of nodes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ corresponding to the node $`i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, and $`r_I`$ is the corresponding $`A`$-fixed element of $`W_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Since the morphism $`d_I`$ is surjective with smooth target $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, by \[7, 15.2.3 and Remark (v)\], using also \[7, 14.4.2\], it is flat once its fibers are reduced and its domain $`𝒴\times _{\overline{𝒴}_I,r_I}𝒴`$ irreducible and equidimensional over $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Equidimensionality is clear, so the issue is to prove that the fibers are reduced and the domain irreducible.

Assume first that $`I=i`$ is a single node of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then the central fiber $`\overline{Y}_I`$ of $`\overline{𝒴}_I𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a surface with an ordinary surface double point, and the total family is a deformation family of this surface, where the double point survives on a codimension one subspace $`\mathrm{\Pi }𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The map $`r_i:𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the reflection in $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Finally the family $`𝒴𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a simultaneous resolution of $`\overline{𝒴}_I𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, constructed simply by blowing up the singular locus. Hence near the singularity, up to a local analytic change in coordinates I can simply write

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\overline{𝒴}_i& & \{xy=z^2t_1^2\}& & 𝔸_{x,y,z,t_1,\mathrm{},t_n}^{n+3}\hfill \\ & & & & \hfill \\ 𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }& & =& & 𝔸_{t_1,\mathrm{},t_n}^n\hfill \end{array}$$

with singular locus $`\mathrm{Sing}(\overline{𝒴}_i)=\{x=y=z=t_1=0\}`$ mapping to $`\mathrm{\Pi }=\{t_1=0\}𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the fixed locus of $`r_i:t_1t_1`$. The resolution $`𝒴`$ can be constructed explicitly as the graph of the rational map $`\overline{𝒴}_i^1`$ defined by $`(x,y,z,t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)(x:(zt_1))`$. Using the affine variable $`s=x/(zt_1)`$, one affine piece of this graph is

$$𝒴^{(1)}\{ys=z+t_1\}𝔸_{y,z,s,t_1,\mathrm{},t_n}^{n+3}.$$

Hence the fiber product has an affine open piece

$$(𝒴\times _{\overline{𝒴}_i,r_i}𝒴)^{(1,1)}=\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ys_1& =& z+t_1\hfill \\ \hfill ys_2& =& zt_1\hfill \\ \hfill s_2(z+t_1)& =& s_1(zt_1)\hfill \end{array}\right\}𝔸_{y,z,s_1,s_2,t_1,\mathrm{},t_n}^{n+4}$$

which is isomorphic to the hypersurface

(8)
$$\left\{y(s_1s_2)=2t_1\right\}𝔸_{y,s_1,s_2,t_1,\mathrm{},t_n}^{n+3}.$$

The map to $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is still given by projection to the $`t_i`$ coordinates. The equation in (8), together with similar equations for the other affine pieces, show that $`𝒴\times _{\overline{𝒴}_i,r_i}𝒴`$ is irreducible, and the map to $`𝔥_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has reduced fibers. This concludes the proof for the case when $`i=I`$ is a single node of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The other cases reduce to this, since locally the morphism $`Y\overline{Y}_I`$ contracts a union of disjoint rational curves to ordinary double points. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 4.1 By Proposition 3.2, it is enough to show that the fiberwise restricted kernels

$$U_{i,s}=𝐋y_s^{}U_iD^b(X_s\times X_{\rho _i(s)})$$

are invertible, where $`y_s:X_s\times X_{\rho _i(s)}𝒳\times _{\rho _i}𝒳`$ is fiber inclusion. By Proposition 4.2, $`U_i`$ is a flat family of structure sheaves over $`Q`$, and hence the derived restriction $`𝐋y_s^{}U_i`$ is isomorphic to the ordinary restriction $`y_s^{}U_i`$, which in turn is isomorphic to the structure sheaf $`𝒪_{X_s\times _{\overline{X}_s}X_{\rho _i(s)}}`$. The statement that this sheaf defines an invertible kernel is already contained in the literature. There are two cases.

Suppose first that $`sQT_i`$. Then by Proposition 2.9(iii), $`s`$ is a fixed point of $`\rho _i`$, hence

$$U_{i,s}𝒪_{X_s\times _{\overline{X}_{i,s}}X_s}D^b(X_s\times X_s).$$

On the other hand, the contraction $`f_{i,s}:X_s\overline{X}_{i,s}`$ contracts a single ruled surface $`D_{i,s}`$ inside $`X_s`$ to a smooth curve $`B_{i,s}`$ (which is either $`B`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$). There is an exact sequence of sheaves on $`X_s\times X_s`$

$$0U_{i,s}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{X_s}}𝒪_{D_{i,s}\times _{B_{i,s}}D_{i,s}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{D_{i,s}}}0,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{X_s}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{D_{i,s}}`$ are respective diagonals in $`X_s\times X_s`$. Hence the kernel $`U_{i,s}`$ is isomorphic to the kernel

(9)
$$\left(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{X_s}}𝒪_{D_{i,s}\times _{B_{i,s}}D_{i,s}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{D_{i,s}}}\right)D^b(X_s\times X_s).$$

This kernel was introduced in \[9, (4.31)\] and its invertibility proved in \[10, Theorem 2.9 and Remark 2.12\].

Next suppose that $`sQ(TT_i)`$. Then by Proposition 2.11(iii), the birational map

$$\theta _{\rho _i,s}:X_sX_{\rho _i(s)}$$

is a flop of a disjoint union of smooth rational curves with normal bundle $`𝒪_^1(1,1)`$ or $`𝒪_^1(0,2)`$. The kernel $`U_s`$ is the structure sheaf of the graph of this flop. This kernel was shown to be invertible in \[2, Theorem 3.6 and Remark\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.3.

I sketch an alternative proof of the invertibility of the kernel $`U_{i,s}`$, which avoids a case division and also throws some light on the origin of this kernel. The claim is that $`U_{i,s}`$ is the universal perverse coherent point sheaf on $`X_s\times X_{r_i(s)}`$ with respect to the contraction $`f_{i,s}:X_s\overline{X}_{i,s}`$, and hence it is invertible. In particular, the variety $`X_{r_i(s)}`$ is the fine moduli space of perverse point sheaves on $`X_s`$ for the contraction $`f_{i,s}`$. Here I am using the terminology of ; the essential point is that $`f_{i,s}`$ has fibers of dimension at most one, so Bridgeland’s theory applies. The proof of the claim is not very difficult given the machinery of .

For purposes of brevity I will denote the family over the open set $`SQ`$ also by $`𝒳S`$, and restrict all contractions, the $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$-action and the relative kernels $`(U_i,\rho _i)`$ to this family without further notice. The properties spelled out in Propositions 2.92.11 continue to hold; the latter of course under the assumption that $`S`$ contains a sufficiently general point of $`T`$.

### 4.2. The main results

The first main result of the paper is that the derived category of the threefold $`X`$ and that of its deformation space carry an action of an Artin group.

###### Theorem 4.4.

Let $`𝒳S`$ be a finite-dimensional deformation space of the threefold $`X`$ satisfying the conclusion of Theorem 4.1. Then there are homomorphisms

(10)
$$B_\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{Auteq}(𝒳/S)$$

and

(11)
$$B_\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{Auteq}(X).$$

Proof Define the map (10) by mapping the generators $`\rho _i`$ of the Artin group $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ to the element $`(U_i,\rho _i)`$ of Theorem 4.1. Since $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ fixes $`0S`$, I can define (11) by restricting these kernels to the central fiber. The point is to prove that the braid relations of (1) defining $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ are satisfied for these kernels. Since (derived) restriction commutes with kernel composition in smooth families, it is enough to show that (10) is a group homomorphism.

Take a pair of nodes $`(i,j)`$ of the Dynkin diagram $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. Set

$$(V_l,\phi _l)=\underset{m_{ij}}{\underset{}{(U_i,\rho _i)(U_j,\rho _j)\mathrm{}}}$$

for the left hand side of the braid relation of (1) for the pair of nodes $`i,j`$ and similarly $`(V_r,\phi _r)`$ for the right hand side. One part is easy: the automorphisms $`\rho _i`$ and $`\rho _j`$ of the base $`S`$ satisfy the relations of the Coxeter group $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$, and consequently also the braid relation; hence $`\phi _l=\phi _r`$ which I will denote simply by $`\phi `$.

Next note that for $`k=i,j`$, the sheaf $`U_k`$ is the structure sheaf of a subscheme of $`𝒳\times _{\rho _k}𝒳`$, in other words there is a surjective morphism $`𝒪_{𝒳\times _{\rho _k}𝒳}U_k`$. By a repeated use of Lemma 3.3, this implies that there are induced arrows

(12)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & 𝒪_{𝒳\times _\phi 𝒳}& & \\ & & & & \\ \hfill V_l& & & & V_r\hfill \end{array}$$

in $`D^b(𝒳\times _\phi 𝒳)`$.

To continue, assume that $`m_{ij}=3`$; this will only simplify notation, the other cases being identical. Let $`\rho _{ij}=\rho _j\rho _i`$. Let also

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒳}=𝒳\times _{\rho _i}(𝒳\times _{\rho _j}(𝒳\times _{\rho _i}𝒳))$$

with maps $`p_{12}:\stackrel{~}{𝒳}𝒳\times _{\rho _i}𝒳`$ etc. For $`sS`$, let

$$x_s:\stackrel{~}{X}_s=X_s\times X_{\rho _i(s)}\times X_{\rho _{ij}(s)}\times X_{\phi (s)}\stackrel{~}{𝒳}$$

and

$$y_s:X_s\times X_{\phi (s)}𝒪_{𝒳\times _\phi 𝒳}$$

be inclusion maps of fibers, with projection maps $`p_{14s}:\stackrel{~}{X}_sX_s\times X_{\phi (s)}`$ etc. The derived restriction of diagram (12) is a diagram

(13)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & 𝒪_{X_s\times X_{\phi (s)}}& & \\ & & & & \\ \hfill V_{l,s}& & & & V_{r,s}\hfill \end{array}$$

in $`D^b(X_s\times X_{\phi (s)})`$. Now compute:

(14)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill V_{l,s}& & 𝐋y_s^{}\left(𝐑p_{14}(p_{34}^{}(U_i)^𝐋p_{23}^{}(U_j)^𝐋p_{12}^{}(U_i))\right)\hfill \\ & & 𝐑p_{14s}\left(𝐋x_s^{}(p_{34}^{}(U_i)^𝐋p_{23}^{}(U_j)^𝐋p_{12}^{}(U_i))\right)\hfill \\ & & 𝐑p_{14s}(𝒪_{X_s\times X_{\rho _i(s)}\times X_{\rho _{ij}(s)}\times _{\overline{X}_{i,\rho _{ij}(s)}}X_{\phi (s)}}\hfill \\ & & ^𝐋𝒪_{X_s\times X_{\rho _i(s)}\times _{\overline{X}_{j,\rho _i(s)}}X_{\rho _{ij}(s)}\times X_{\phi (s)}}\hfill \\ & & ^𝐋𝒪_{X_s\times _{\overline{X}_{j,s}}X_{\rho _i(s)}\times X_{\rho _{ij}(s)}\times X_{\phi (s)}}).\hfill \end{array}$$

The first isomorphism uses Lemma 3.1, the second follows from a slight generalization of \[2, Lemma 1.3\] to the quasiprojective case, and the last uses the flatness result Proposition 4.2. There is a similar computation for $`V_{r,s}`$.

I now distinguish two cases. First assume that $`sS`$ is sufficiently general. It is easy to see that the three subschemes of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_s`$ appearing in the last expression of (14) are transversal, so the (derived) tensor product of their intersections is isomorphic in $`D^b(\stackrel{~}{X}_s)`$ to the structure sheaf of their intersection

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{l,s}=X_s\times _{\overline{X}_{i,s}}X_{\rho _i(s)}\times _{\overline{X}_{j,\rho _i(s)}}X_{\rho _{ij}(s)}\times _{\overline{X}_{i,\rho _{ij}(s)}}X_{\phi (s)}$$

in $`\stackrel{~}{X}_s`$. To understand this intersection, consider the diagram

(15)
$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}X_s& & & & X_{\rho _i(s)}& & & & X_{\rho _{ij}(s)}& & & & X_{\phi (s)}\\ & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & \overline{X}_{i,s}& & & & \overline{X}_{j,\rho _i(s)}& & & & \overline{X}_{i,\rho _{ij}(s)}& & \end{array}$$

The support of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{l,s}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{X}_s`$ is the set of quadruples $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_4)\stackrel{~}{X}_s`$ such that $`p_i,p_{i+1}`$ have the same images under appropriate arrows in the diagram (15).

Since $`s`$ is sufficiently general, the variety $`X_s`$ contains a disjoint union of $`(1,1)`$ curves indexed by positive roots. The chain of birational maps in (15) flops, consequtively, the disjoint rational curves on $`X_s`$ indexed by the positive roots $`\mu _i,\mu _i+\mu _j,\mu _j\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Xi }^+`$. In other words, the composition of the three flops, the map $`X_sX_{\phi (s)}`$, is the flop of the disjoint set of all these curves. Hence a quadruple $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_4)`$ is determined by the pair $`(p_1,p_4)`$, and in particular $`p_{14s}`$ restricted to the reduced subscheme $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{l,s}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_s`$ is an isomorphism onto its image in $`X_s\times X_{\phi (s)}`$.

On the other hand, the set of positive roots $`\{\mu _i,\mu _i+\mu _j,\mu _j\}`$ is exactly the set of all positive roots of the sub-root system of type $`A_2`$ of the root system of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ spanned by the nodes $`(i,j)`$ (remember $`m_{ij}=3`$). The reflection $`\phi W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ maps exactly these roots to negative roots. So the map $`X_sX_{\phi (s)}`$ factors as $`X_s\overline{X}_{ij,s}X_{\phi (s)}`$ in the notation of Proposition 2.11(iiib). Hence the image of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{l,s}`$ under $`p_{14s}`$ is the reduced subscheme

$$C_{l,s}=X_s\times _{\overline{X}_{ij,s}}X_{\phi (s)}X_s\times X_{\phi (s)}.$$

So finally

$$V_{l,s}p_{14s}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}_{l,s}}𝒪_{C_{l,s}}$$

and the argument also shows that the map on the left hand side of diagram (13) is just the natural surjection $`𝒪_{X_s\times X_{\phi (s)}}𝒪_{C_{l,s}}`$.

Repeating this argument also for $`V_{r,s}`$, I obtain that in this case the diagram (13) is isomorphic to the diagram

(16)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & 𝒪_{X_s\times X_{\phi (s)}}& & \\ & & & & \\ \hfill 𝒪_{X_s\times _{\overline{X}_{ij,s}}X_{\phi (s)}}& & \stackrel{}{}& & 𝒪_{X_s\times _{\overline{X}_{ij,s}}X_{\phi (s)}}\hfill \end{array}$$

of sheaves on $`X_s\times X_{\phi (s)}`$, with the vertical arrows being surjective.

The other case is when $`sS`$ is not sufficiently general. Transversality of the subschemes in (14) still holds, hence the tensor product in the last expression of (14) is isomophic to the structure sheaf of a subscheme $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{l,s}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{X}_s`$, a correspondence subscheme with respect to the diagram (15). It is no longer true that the horizontal birational maps in (15) modify $`X_s`$ on a set of disjoint loci, but in any case $`p_{14s}`$ restricted to $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{l,s}`$ factors as

$$p_{14s}|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_{l,s}}:\stackrel{~}{C}_{l,s}C_{l,s}X_s\times X_{\phi (s)}.$$

The fibers of $`p_{14s}|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_{l,s}}`$ are quadruples $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_4)`$ mapping to a given pair $`(p_1,p_4)X_s\times X_{\phi (s)}`$ and $`p_i,p_{i+1}`$ mapping to the same image under the appropriate maps in (15). There are several possible configurations, depending on $`s`$ and the exceptional loci; for example if $`sT_iT_j`$ then one possibility is that $`p_1`$$`p_2=p_3`$ and $`p_4`$ all lie in the same fiber of $`f_{i,s}`$. However, it is easy to check that in all cases when the reduced fiber of $`p_{14s}|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_{l,s}}`$ is not a point, it is isomorphic to a fiber of either $`f_{i,s}`$ or $`f_{j,s}`$, in other words to a projective line. Hence by Lemma 3.4,

$$V_{l,s}𝐑p_{14s}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}_{l,s}}𝒪_{C_{l,s}}D^b(X_s\times X_{\phi (s)}).$$

Using the same reasoning also for $`V_{r,s}`$, the diagram (13) is isomorphic to a diagram of sheaves on $`X_s\times X_{\phi (s)}`$

(17)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & 𝒪_{X_s\times X_{\phi (s)}}& & \\ & & & & \\ \hfill 𝒪_{C_{l,s}}& & & & 𝒪_{C_{r,s}}\hfill \end{array}$$

with surjective arrows.

Diagrams (16) and (17) imply by \[3, Lemma 4.3\] that $`V_l`$ and $`V_r`$ are sheaves on $`𝒳\times _\phi 𝒳`$, flat over $`S`$. Moreover, since pullback is right exact, the arrows in diagram (12) are necessarily surjective maps of sheaves; in other words, $`V_l`$ and $`V_r`$ are structure sheaves of subschemes of $`𝒳\times _\phi 𝒳`$. If I further assume that

$`()`$ $``$ is a moving linear system on $`B`$, and the finite-dimensional family $`e:𝒳S`$ contains sufficiently general deformations of $`X`$,

then sufficiently general points form an open dense subset of $`S`$. Hence Lemma 3.5, together with (16), allows me to conclude that (12) can be extended to a diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & 𝒪_{𝒳\times _\phi 𝒳}& & \\ & & & & \\ \hfill V_l& & \stackrel{}{}& & V_r.\hfill \end{array}$$

So composition of the relative kernels $`(U_i,\rho _i)`$ and $`(U_j,\rho _j)`$ in the two different ways gives isomorphic relative kernels; hence, assuming $`()`$, the braid relation holds up to isomorphism.

To remove assumption $`()`$, let $`B=B_\beta `$ be a finite decomposition into quasiprojective (e.g. affine) curves so that the restriction $`_\beta =|_{B_\beta }`$ moves on $`B_\beta `$. For every $`\beta `$, let $`\pi _\beta :X_\beta B_\beta `$ be the restriction of $`\pi `$ over $`B_\beta `$, and let $`e_\beta :𝒳_\beta H^0(B_\beta ,_\beta )`$ be the family of deformations of $`X_\beta `$ constructed in Proposition 2.9. There is a $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$-equivariant natural injection

$$n_\beta :H^0(B,)H^0(B_\beta ,_\beta ).$$

Let $`S_\beta `$ be a $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$-invariant finite-dimensional subspace of $`H^0(B_\beta ,_\beta )`$ containing both the image of $`S`$ under the injection $`n_\beta `$ and a sufficiently general point of $`H^0(B_\beta ,_\beta )`$. There is an induced family $`e_\beta :𝒳_\beta S_\beta `$ with central fiber $`X_\beta `$.

By construction, the family $`e_\beta :𝒳_\beta S_\beta `$ satisfies assumption $`()`$ for each $`\beta `$. On the other hand, the natural injection $`n_\beta |_S:SS_\beta `$ is $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$-equivariant by construction, so if I restrict to families $`e_{\beta ,S}:𝒳_{\beta ,S}S`$ then the above discussion applies to these families. In particular, the restriction of diagram (12) to $`𝒳_{\beta ,S}\times _\phi 𝒳_{\beta ,S}`$ can be extended to a diagram of sheaves

(18)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & 𝒪_{𝒳_{\beta ,S}\times _\phi 𝒳_{\beta ,S}}& & \\ & & & & \\ \hfill V_{l,\beta ,S}& & \stackrel{}{}& & V_{r,\beta ,S}\hfill \end{array}$$

with the vertical maps being surjective. The horizontal isomorphisms in (18) are compatible with surjections from a fixed sheaf, so they can be glued to an isomorphism

(19)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & 𝒪_{𝒳\times _\phi 𝒳}& & \\ & & & & \\ \hfill V_l& & \stackrel{}{}& & V_r\hfill \end{array}$$

of sheaves on $`𝒳\times _\phi 𝒳`$ extending (12). Hence the braid relation holds between $`(U_i,\rho _i)`$ and $`(U_j,\rho _j)`$ with no extra assumption.

The proofs in the cases $`m_{ij}=4,6`$ are, up to writing out longer expressions, identical. The proof for $`m_{ij}=2`$ is in fact easier, since the exceptional loci of $`f_{i,s}`$ and $`f_{j,s}`$ are disjoint for all $`s`$, hence there is no need for a case distinction and assumption $`()`$. These cases correspond to sub-digrams of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ type $`B_2`$, $`G_2`$ and $`A_1\times A_1`$ respectively. The proof of Theorem 11 is complete. $`\mathrm{}`$

The next result shows that in certain cases, the Artin group action on the derived category of $`X`$ is faithful.

###### Theorem 4.5.

Assume that the diagram $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ describing the configuration of exceptional surfaces in $`X`$ is of type $`A_n`$ or $`C_n`$. Then the map $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{Auteq}(X)`$ is injective.

Proof Take any point $`bB`$ and let $`j_b:Y_bX`$ be the fiber of $`\pi :XB`$ over $`b`$. Rational exceptional curves $`E_{j,b}`$ in the surface $`Y_b`$ are indexed by nodes $`j`$ of the simply laced Dynkin diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ lying over $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$.

Let $`k_b:Y_b\times Y_bX\times X`$; for nodes $`i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, let $`U_{i,b}=𝐋k_b^{}(U_{i,0})`$ be the restriction to $`Y_b\times Y_b`$ of the kernel $`U_{i,0}`$ (note $`X=X_0`$ for $`0S`$). By standard arguments, there is a commutative diagram of functors

$$\begin{array}{ccc}D^b(X)& \stackrel{𝐋k_b^{}}{}& D^b(Y_b)\\ \mathrm{\Psi }^{U_{i,0}}& & \mathrm{\Psi }^{U_{i,b}}\\ D^b(X)& \stackrel{𝐋k_b^{}}{}& D^b(Y_b)\end{array}$$

and maps

$$B_\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{Auteq}(X)\mathrm{Auteq}(Y_b)$$

where the second arrow is restriction to the fiber over $`b`$.

Suppose now that $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is of type $`A_n`$. Then the following holds (for a proof, see below):

###### Lemma 4.6.

The kernel $`U_{i,b}D^b(Y_b\times Y_b)`$ is isomorphic to the kernel defining the (inverse) twist functor $`T__i^{}`$ of  for the sheaf $`_i=𝒪_{E_{i,b}}(1)`$, where $`E_{i,b}Y_b`$ is the exceptional rational curve corresponding to the node $`i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The map $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{Auteq}(Y_b)`$ defined by mapping the Artin group generators to the twist functors $`T__i`$ is injective by \[16, Theorem 2.18\]. Hence the map $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{Auteq}(X)`$ must be injective as well.

If $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is of type $`C_n`$, then it has two kinds of nodes: one representing a single node of the simply laced diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and the others representing an orbit $`\{i_1,i_2\}`$ of nodes. For the first type of node, Lemma 4.6 continues to hold; for the second, it gets replaced by

###### Lemma 4.7.

The kernel $`U_{i,b}D^b(Y_b\times Y_b)`$ is the composite of the commuting kernels defining the (inverse) twist functors $`T_{_{i_1}}^{}`$ and $`T_{_{i_2}}^{}`$.

Hence, recalling the proof of Lemma 1.1, in this case there is a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B_\mathrm{\Xi }& & \mathrm{Auteq}(X)\\ & & \\ B_\mathrm{\Delta }& & \mathrm{Auteq}(Y_b).\end{array}$$

The bottom horizontal arrow is injective by \[16, Theorem 2.18\] again; the left hand vertical arrow is injective by Lemma 1.1. Hence the composite is injective; so $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{Auteq}(X)`$ must be injective as well. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Lemmas 4.6 and 4.7 Suppose first that $`A`$ is trivial. Since all sheaves appearing in (9) are flat with respect to the projection $`X\times XB`$, the kernel $`U_{i,b}`$ on $`Y`$ is isomorphic to the kernel

$$\left(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{Y_b}}𝒪_{E_{i,b}\times E_{i,b}}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{E_{i,b}}}\right)D^b(Y_b\times Y_b)$$

where recall $`E_{i,b}Y_b`$ is one of the exceptional rational curves. Let $`y:E_{i,b}Y_b`$ denote the inclusion of the rational curve in the surface, and let $`x:E_{i,b}\times E_{i,b}Y_b\times Y_b`$ be the induced inclusion. Then up to isomorphism in $`D^b(Y_b\times Y_b)`$,

$`U_{i,b}`$ $``$ $`Cone\left\{𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{Y_b}}\left(x_{}𝒪_{E_{i,b}\times E_{i,b}}x_{}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{E_{i,b}}}\right)\right\}`$
$``$ $`Cone\left\{𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{Y_b}}x_{}\left(𝒪_{E_{i,b}\times E_{i,b}}(1,1)\right)\right\}`$
$``$ $`Cone\{𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{Y_b}}`$
$`x_{}\left(q_2^{}\left(𝐑\text{om}_{𝒪_{E_{i,b}}}(𝒪_{E_{i,b}}(1),\omega _{E_{i,b}})\right)^𝐋q_1^{}\left(𝒪_{E_{i,b}}(1)\right)\right)\}`$
where $`q_1,q_2:E_{i,b}\times E_{i,b}E_{i,b}`$ are projections. It is easiest to conclude now using results of . Comparing the above expression with \[10, (2.7) and (2.23)\] shows that $`U_{i,b}`$ is isomorphic to the invertible kernel on $`Y_b`$ defined by the relatively spherical sheaf $`𝒪_{E_{i,b}}(1)`$ with respect to the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}E_{i,b}& \stackrel{y}{}& Y_b\\ & & \\ & & \end{array}$$

a kernel which by \[10, Example 4.1\] is isomorphic to the kernel which gives rise to the (inverse) twist functor of  defined by the spherical sheaf $`y_{}𝒪_{E_{i,b}}(1)`$. This proves Lemma 4.6. Lemma 4.7 follows also on noting that in that case the contraction $`f_i`$ restricts to $`Y_b`$ as the contraction of two disjoint exceptional curves. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.3. Projective examples

Let $`\overline{X}`$ be a projective threefold with a curve of singularities

$$B=\mathrm{Sing}(X)\overline{X},$$

such that along the curve, $`\overline{X}`$ has compound du Val singularities of uniform $`ADE`$ type. The iterated blowup of the singular locus $`f:X\overline{X}`$ is a resolution of singularities, cf. , and the exceptional locus consists of a set of geometrically ruled surfaces $`\{\pi _j:D_jB_j\}`$ intersecting in one of the configurations $`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Delta }/A`$ described in Section 2.4.

###### Theorem 4.8.

Assume as usual that $`(\mathrm{\Delta },A)(A_{2n},/2)`$. The derived category $`D^b(X)`$ carries an action of the Artin group $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }`$. In case $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is of type $`A_n`$ or $`C_n`$, this action is faithful.

Proof For $`j`$ a node of the diagram $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, define a kernel $`U_j`$ on $`X`$ by

$$U_j=\left(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_X}𝒪_{D_j\times _{B_j}D_j}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }_{D_j}}\right)D^b(X\times X);$$

this is just the kernel of \[9, (4.31)\], proved to be invertible in . The point is that this definition makes sense whether or not there is a contraction morphism on $`X`$ contracting $`D_j`$ alone. Define the map

$$B_\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{Auteq}(X)$$

by mapping the generator $`R_j`$ of $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ to the kernel $`U_j`$ on $`X`$. The issue is again to prove the braid relations. As before, take a pair of nodes $`(i,j)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and let $`V_l,V_rD^b(X\times X)`$ be the composite kernels on the two sides of the braid relation for the pair $`(i,j)`$. Note that the interesting part of the computation of all these kernels takes place in an étale neighbourhood of the exceptional set; away from such a neighbourhood, $`V_l`$ and $`V_r`$ are obviously isomorphic to the structure sheaf of the diagonal. There is an étale open covering of a neighbourhood of $`B\overline{X}`$, such that on the inverse image of this covering on $`X`$ the restrictions of $`V_l`$ and $`V_r`$ are isomorphic by the proof of Theorem 11, these isomorphisms being compatible on intersections. Hence by descent, there is an isomorphism $`V_lV_r`$ on $`X\times X`$, and so the braid relations hold up to isomorphism.

To prove faithfulness, argue as in the proof of Theorem 4.5: take a quasiprojective surface $`\overline{Y}_s\overline{X}`$ intersecting the singular locus $`B\overline{X}`$ transversally at $`pB`$ and in no other points, let $`Y_sX`$ be its resolution, restrict the kernels $`U_i`$ to $`Y_s`$ using Lemmas 4.6 and 4.7 and appeal to the faithfulness result of . $`\mathrm{}`$

Examples of varieties $`\overline{X}`$ with a curve of singularities of uniform type $`A_n`$ can be found among hypersurfaces or complete intersections in weighted projectice spaces; compare for example . The resolution $`X`$ is then embedded in a (partial) resolution of the ambient space, typically with $`n`$ distinct divisors over the relevant singular locus; hence the configuration in $`X`$ is still of type $`A_n`$. Such varieties can be found and in low codimension classified using the graded ring method pioneered by Reid; see the (from the present point of view not very interesting) $`A_1`$ case in  and the general case in . Examples of type $`(A_n,/2)`$ can be constructed as quotients; see \[21, Examples 4.3\] for an explicit example. In favourable cases, the local deformations described in Proposition 2.11 are realized as actual projective deformations. In such cases, the action of the Artin group on $`D^b(X)`$ can be extended to an action by relative equivalences over its local universal family, in an analogous way to the statement of Theorem 11. I leave it to the reader to formulate the precise statement.

###### Remark 4.9.

The action of the Artin group $`B_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ on the derived category of the threefold $`X`$ gives rise to actions on even and odd cohomology, using the Chern class map. In the case when $`X`$ has trivial canonical bundle, $`H^{2,1}(X)H^1(X,\mathrm{\Theta }_X)`$ is a direct summand of odd cohomology, and it is preserved by the action. Hence the braid group acts on the tangent space to the deformation space, and it is easy to see that this action factors through the reflection group $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$. The action on even cohomology can in turn be restricted to the Picard group to get an action of $`W_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ there. Some of these actions were known before; e.g.  discusses the case of elliptic ruled surfaces, whereas  has a symmetric group action in the case of Type $`A`$. The action of the Artin group on the derived category shows the uniform origin of all these actions.

Department of Mathematics, Utrecht University, PO. Box 80010, NL-3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands

and

Alfréd Rényi Institute of Mathematics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, PO. Box 127, H-1364 Budapest, Hungary

E-mail address: szendroi@math.uu.nl


format: text

text:
# Disentangling and broadcasting an entangled state simultaneously by asymmetric cloning

## I  Introduction

Quantum entanglement plays an important role in quantum information field. And the manipulation of entanglement, such as purification , broadcasting , is an intriguing issue in the research for entanglement. Recently disentanglement attracts a lot of attention. Disentanglement is a process in which an initial entangled state of composite system can be transformed into separable state with unaffecting the reduced density matrices of subsystems. However like other ”no-going” theorems ( e.g., the no-cloning theorem, no-deleting theorem, no-broadcasting theorem ), the perfect disentanglement also is prohibited by elementary rules of quantum mechanics . But dropping the constraint that the reduced density matrices of subsystems is perfectly unaffected, the approximate disentanglement can be realized by local operation , for example, by local cloning and by teleportation via separable channels. In other words, for a two-qubit entangled state, the transformation can be achieved:

$$\rho ^{ent}\rho ^{disent}$$
(1)
together with

$$Tr_j(\rho ^{disent})=s_iTr_j(\rho ^{ent})+(\frac{1s_i}{2})I,ij;i,j=1,2$$
(2)
for all $`\rho ^{ent}`$, where $`s_i`$ ($`0<s_i<1`$ for $`i=1,2`$) is a scaling parameter independent of $`\rho ^{ent}`$, standing as a measure of closeness of the $`ith`$ reduced density matrix before and after the transformation. The attainable values of $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ satisfies the inequality $`s_1s_2\frac{1}{3}`$. More explicitly, if only one party undergoes local operation, i.e., $`s_1=1`$ (or $`s_2=1`$), the maximum value of $`s_2`$ (or $`s_1`$) is $`\frac{1}{3}`$; if both two parties undergo the same local operation separately, the maximum value of $`s_2`$ (or $`s_1`$) is $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}`$.

On the other hand, the connection between copying (cloning and broadcasting) and disentanglement is noted. It is found that the conditions of perfect disentanglement into product states corresponds to cloning of one of the subsystems while the conditions of perfect disentanglement into separable states corresponds to broadcasting of one of the subsystems. And comparing the schemes of disentanglement and broadcasting entanglement by local symmetric cloning, one can notice that for disentanglement the reduction factor $`\eta `$ describing the quality of symmetric cloner satisfies $`\eta \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}`$, whereas for broadcasting it needs $`\eta \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}`$ ($`\eta =\frac{2}{3}`$ for the optimal quantum cloner). In the meantime, disentanglement erases the quantum correlation (inseparability) between subsystems as broadcasting needs to retain the quantum correlation between subsystems, except that in both process the output reduced density matrix of each subsystem is as close as possible to the corresponding input reduced density matrix. There is an intuitive understanding that the disentangling state of an entangled state can be viewed as a separable copy of it. This suggests that it is possible to look for a unified way of dealing with broadcasting and disentangling an entangled state simultaneously.

In this short note, we substitute asymmetric (isotropic) cloner for the symmetric (isotropic) cloner in the schemes of broadcasting entanglement and disentanglement by local cloning . Therefore a quantum machine is constructed, which can implement the broadcasting and disentanglement of an entangled state in a single unitary evolution. In Section II we first discuss the mechanics of the quantum machine in the method similar to entanglement splitting , then consider its functions in the framework of entanglement broadcasting . Finally, the conclusions is given in Section III.

## II Disentangling and broadcasting by asymmetric cloning

In this section we will analyze the actions of the quantum machine which deals with disentangling and broadcasting an entangled state simultaneously. The mechanics of the quantum machine is discussed in the method similar to entanglement splitting. Then the functions of the quantum is considered in the framework of entanglement broadcasting. That is, the discussion is divided into two cases, using the cloner on only one party and on both parties separately. For simplicity, the discussion focuses on the case of qubit, and only 1$``$2 asymmetric (isotropic) cloner is exploited.

The actions of asymmetric cloner in general is described by a Pauli channel. But, for convenience, here the actions of asymmetric cloner is specified by a particular unitary transformation on the state $`|\phi =\alpha |0+\beta |1`$ of the input qubit $`a`$, where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are unknown real parameters, $`\alpha ^2+\beta ^2=1`$ and $`0\alpha ,\beta 1`$. From orthogonality, unitarity and isotropy, this transformation can be presented as:

$$|0_a|\xi _b|Q_c\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}|00_{ab}|_c+(\frac{p}{\sqrt{N}}|01_{ab}+\frac{q}{\sqrt{N}}|10_{ab})|_c$$
(3)
$$|1_a|\xi _b|Q_c\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}|11_{ab}|_c+(\frac{p}{\sqrt{N}}|10_{ab}+\frac{q}{\sqrt{N}}|01_{ab})|_c,$$
(4)
where $`N`$ is a normalization factor given by $`N=1+p^2+q^2`$, $`q=1p,`$ $`p>q`$. $`|Q_c`$ describes the initial state of the cloner, $`|\xi _b`$ is an arbitrary initial state of qubit $`b`$, and $`|_c`$ and $`|_c`$ are two orthonormal vectors in the Hilbert space of the cloner. The asymmetric cloning transformation outputs two copies of the state $`|\phi `$ on the qubits$`a`$ and $`b,`$

$$\rho _a=\frac{2p}{N}|\phi \phi |+(1\frac{2p}{N})\frac{I}{2}\text{,}$$
(5)
$$\rho _b=\frac{2q}{N}|\phi \phi |+(1\frac{2q}{N})\frac{I}{2}\text{,}$$
(6)
where $`I`$ is unitary matrix. So for the qubits $`a`$ and $`b`$, the reduction factors by which the cloner shrinks the vector characterizing the input state in the Bloch sphere are $`\eta _a=\frac{2p}{N}`$ and $`\eta _b=\frac{2q}{N}`$, respectively. Now that $`pq`$, the asymmetric cloner outputs two copies with different fidelities for all input states. And

$$\eta _a^2+\eta _b^2+\eta _a\eta _b\eta _a\eta _b=0,$$
(7)
which satisfies the no-cloning inequality deduced from Eq.  in . Therefore the distribution of information at the outputs of the cloner is controlled via changing the value of $`p`$.

In the following this family of asymmetric cloners will be used to obtain a disentangling state and a broadcasting state of an entangled state simultaneously.

### A only copying one qubit asymmetrically

We first discuss why the asymmetric cloner can be used to disentangle and broadcast entanglement. The discussion is in the method similar to entanglement splitting, i.e., only one qubit is copied by asymmetric cloning.

Suppose qubits $`a_I`$ and $`a_{II}`$ share an entangled state

$$\begin{array}{c}|\chi =\alpha |00_{a_Ia_{II}}+\beta |11_{a_Ia_{II}},\end{array}$$
(8)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are defined as before. Let the asymmetric cloner copy one qubit (say, qubit $`a_{II}`$) as doing in entanglement splitting and output two copies on the qubits $`a_{II}`$ and $`b_{II}`$. Then the original state $`|\chi `$ is splitted into two branches. To the purpose of dealing with disentanglement and entanglement broadcasting simultaneously, the quantum correlation in one branch is erased whereas that in another needs to be partially retained. The state of each branch can be described as:

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _{a_Ia_{II}}^{out}=\frac{(1+p^2)}{N}\alpha ^2|0000\left|+\frac{(1+p^2)}{N}\beta ^2\right|1111\left|+\frac{q^2}{N}\alpha ^2\right|0101|\\ +\frac{q^2}{N}\beta ^2|1010\left|+2\frac{p}{N}\alpha \beta \right|0011\left|+2\frac{p}{N}\alpha \beta \right|1100|\end{array}$$
(9)
$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _{a_Ib_{II}}^{out}=\frac{(1+q^2)}{N}\alpha ^2|0000\left|+\frac{(1+q^2)}{N}\beta ^2\right|1111\left|+\frac{p^2}{N}\alpha ^2\right|0101|\\ +\frac{p^2}{N}\beta ^2|1010\left|+2\frac{q}{N}\alpha \beta \right|0011\left|+2\frac{q}{N}\alpha \beta \right|1100|.\end{array}$$
(10)
By applying the Peres-Horodeck theorem to test the inseparability of $`\rho _{a_Ia_{II}}^{out}`$ and $`\rho _{a_Ib_{II}}^{out}`$, it turns out that if we require that $`\rho _{a_Ia_{II}}^{out}`$ is inseparable while $`\rho _{a_Ib_{II}}^{out}`$ is separable for any input pure two-qubit entangled state, the values of $`p`$ must satisfy $`\sqrt{3}1p1`$. That is, $`\rho _{a_Ia_{II}}^{out}`$ is a copying state of the initial entangled state $`|\chi `$ while $`\rho _{a_Ib_{II}}^{out}`$ is a disentangling state of it when the parameter $`p`$ specifying the asymmetric cloning takes value between $`\sqrt{3}1`$ and$`1`$.

When $`\alpha =\beta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}`$, two output density matrices can be rewritten as:

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _{a_Ia_{II}}^{out}=\frac{1}{2}[\frac{(1+p^2)}{N}|0000|+\frac{(1+p^2)}{N}|1111|+\frac{q^2}{N}|0101|\\ +\frac{q^2}{N}|1010|+2\frac{p}{N}|0011|+2\frac{p}{N}|1100|]\\ =\frac{(1+p)^2}{2N}|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+\left|+\frac{(1p)^2}{2N}\right|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|\\ +\frac{(1p)^2}{2N}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+\left|+\frac{(1p)^2}{2N}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|,\end{array}$$
(11)
$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _{a_Ib_{II}}^{out}=\frac{1}{2}[\frac{(1+q^2)}{N}|0000|+\frac{(1+q^2)}{N}|1111|+\frac{p^2}{N}|0101|\\ +\frac{p^2}{N}|1010|+2\frac{q}{N}|0011|+2\frac{q}{N}|1100|]\\ =\frac{(2p)^2}{2N}|\mathrm{\Phi }^+\mathrm{\Phi }^+\left|+\frac{p^2}{2N}\right|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|\\ +\frac{p^2}{2N}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+\mathrm{\Psi }^+\left|+\frac{p^2}{2N}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|.\end{array}$$
(12)
According to the viewpoint in , it is clear that the qubits $`a_{II}`$ and $`b_{II}`$ emerge from depolarizing channels of probability $`P=3\frac{(1p)^2}{2N}`$ and $`P^{^{}}=3\frac{p^2}{2N}`$, respectively. Hence the variation of the parameter $`p`$ changes the capacities of two quantum channels such that the quantum correlation of the initial entangled state $`|\chi `$ is filtered in the branch $`a_Ib_{II}`$ but partially transferred to the branch $`a_Ia_{II}`$. And it is noted that the cloner of $`\sqrt{3}1p1`$ corresponds to the case of $`x^{^{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}`$ in Fig.2 in Ref. .

Hence the flow of information in the asymmetric cloning is controlled by varying the value of $`p`$ of the cloner. Because of this ability, disentangling and broadcasting an entangled state is possible to be achieved in a single unitary evolution.

### B copying both qubits separately

In the previous subsection we have discussed the mechanics of the quantum machine which does with disentangling and broadcasting an entangled state in a single unitary evolution, and checked the features of the asymmetric cloner employed. In this subsection we consider how the quantum machine achieves the goal of combining disentanglement and broadcasting in a united way. The goal is achieved by copying both qubits separately.

Now both two qubits in the state $`|\chi `$ are cloned according to the transformation defined by Eqs. (3) and (4) separately. Then two copies $`\rho _{a_Ia_{II}}^{out}`$ and $`\rho _{b_Ib_{II}}^{out}`$ of the entangled state $`|\chi `$ are produced. What we want to do is to obtain a disentangling state and a copying state of the state $`|\chi `$. We check the inseparability of two copies $`\rho _{a_Ia_{II}}^{out}`$ and $`\rho _{b_Ib_{II}}^{out}`$. The output density matrices $`\rho _{a_Ia_{II}}^{out}`$ and $`\rho _{b_Ib_{II}}^{out}`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _{a_Ia_{II}}^{out}=(\frac{(1+p^2)^2}{N^2}\alpha ^2+\frac{q^4}{N^2}\beta ^2)|0000\left|+(\frac{(1+p^2)^2}{N^2}\beta ^2+\frac{q^4}{N^2}\alpha ^2)\right|1111|\\ +\frac{(1+p^2)q^2}{N^2}|0101\left|+\frac{(1+p^2)q^2}{N^2}\right|1010|\\ +4\frac{p^2}{N^2}\alpha \beta |0011\left|+4\frac{p^2}{N^2}\alpha \beta \right|1100|\end{array}$$
(13)
$$\begin{array}{c}\rho _{b_Ib_{II}}^{out}=(\frac{(1+q^2)^2}{N^2}\alpha ^2+\frac{p^4}{N^2}\beta ^2)|0000\left|+(\frac{(1+q^2)^2}{N^2}\beta ^2+\frac{p^4}{N^2}\alpha ^2)\right|1111|\\ +\frac{(1+q^2)p^2}{N^2}|0101\left|+\frac{(1+q^2)p^2}{N^2}\right|1010|\\ +4\frac{q^2}{N^2}\alpha \beta |0011\left|+4\frac{q^2}{N^2}\alpha \beta \right|1100|.\end{array}$$
(14)
Again, it follows from Peres -Horodecki theorem that if $`\frac{1\sqrt{3}+\sqrt{2\sqrt{3}}}{2}p1`$, $`\rho _{a_Ia_{II}}^{out}`$ is inseparable for

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}(\frac{(1+p^2)(1p)^2}{4p^2})^2}\alpha ^2\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}(\frac{(1+p^2)(1p)^2}{4p^2})^2},\end{array}$$
(15)
however $`\rho _{b_Ib_{II}}^{out}`$ is separable for any values of $`\alpha ^2`$. So by choosing appropriate value of $`p`$ of the asymmetric cloner, the copying state $`\rho _{a_Ia_{II}}^{out}`$ and the disentangling state $`\rho _{b_Ib_{II}}^{out}`$ can be obtained in a single evolution.

For the copying state $`\rho _{a_Ia_{II}}^{out}`$, the fidelity with respect to the original entangled state $`|\chi `$ is examined. The fidelity is defined as

$$F=\chi \left|\rho _{a_Ia_{II}}^{out}\right|\chi =\frac{(1+p^2)^2}{N^2}\frac{8pq^2}{N^2}\left|\alpha \right|^2\left|\beta \right|^2.$$
(16)
Obviously, the fidelity $`F`$ is dependent on the input entangled state $`|\chi `$. For the disentangling state $`\rho _{b_Ib_{II}}^{out}`$, the factors $`s_i`$ of qubits $`b_I`$ and $`b_{II}`$ are inspected.

$`\rho _{b_I}^{out}`$ $`=`$ $`Tr_{b_{II}}(\rho _{b_Ib_{II}}^{out})`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2q}{N}}(\alpha ^2|00\left|+\beta ^2\right|11|)+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{N}}(|00|+|11|)`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2q}{N}}Tr_{a_{II}}(|\chi \chi |)+{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{N}}I,`$ (19)
$$\rho _{b_{II}}^{out}=\frac{2q}{N}Tr_{a_I}(|\chi \chi |)+\frac{p^2}{N}I.$$
(20)
It follows that $`s_{b_I}=`$ $`s_{b_{II}}=\frac{2(1p)}{N}`$ (p=1-q). In the range of $`\frac{1\sqrt{3}+\sqrt{2\sqrt{3}}}{2}p1`$, $`s_{b_I}=`$ $`s_{b_{II}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}`$. So the maximum value of closeness which can be achieved by this process is $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}`$ as in . Of course, the maximum value $`\frac{1}{3}`$ of $`s`$ can be achieved in the quantum machine by copying only one qubit.

Moreover it is worthwhile to notice that, the range of value of $`p`$ in the case of copying two qubits separately is not simply equal to that in the case of copying only one qubit as a result of the lost of quantum information when the entanglement is broadcasted by local cloning.

Therefore by copying both two qubits asymmetrically it is possible to combine disentanglement and broadcasting of entanglement in a single unitary evolution. The fidelity of the output copying state with respect to the input entangled state is state-dependent. While the scaling parameter $`s`$, which can be achieved by the proposed quantum machine, has the same range as in the work .

## III Conclusion

We have proposed a quantum machine, which for an input entangled state produces a disentangling state and a copying state in a single unitary evolution. The machine is based on the asymmetric cloner. The flow of information in the cloning process is controlled by varying the parameter $`p`$ so that the quantum entanglement is partially retained in one copy of the entangled state but erased in another. If using the 1$``$2 asymmetric telecloning in the quantum machine, we can distantly send a copying state of the entangled state to a receiver and a disentangling state of it to another according to the requirement of information distribution.

To conclude, in this short note the disentanglement and broadcasting is combined in a single evolution. We hope that it is helpful for understanding entanglement and useful for further studying quantum information and quantum computation.

Acknowledgements

This work has been financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the Grant No.10074072.