format: text

text:
# Euivalences of derived catgories of sheaves on smooth stacks

## 1 Introduction

Orlov’s representability theorem  is of fundamental importance in the study of derived categories of sheaves on smooth projective varieties. It says that any equivalence of derived categories for such varieties is representable as a Fourier-Mukai functor. The purpose of this paper is to extend this theorem to the case of projective orbifolds.

To any normal projective variety $`X`$ which has only quotient singularities, we can attach naturally a smooth stack (or an orbifold) $`𝒳`$. Many results on smooth varieties are expected to extend to such stacks. For example, any coherent sheaf on a smooth stack has a finite locally free resolution provided that the stack has a trivial stabilizer group at the generic point and the coarse moduli space is a separated scheme (). On the other hand, if we allow quotient singularities on varieties, then there are a lot more possibility of interesting examples such as flops than the case of smooth varieties. Note that there are more sheaves on the stack $`𝒳`$ than the underlying variety $`X`$, and as was shown in , the correct category which should be considered is that of the stacky sheaves, not the ordinary sheaves.

For a smooth stack $`𝒳`$, we denote by $`D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳))`$, or sometimes simply $`D^b(𝒳)`$, the derived category of bounded complexes of coherent sheaves. If $`eD^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳\times 𝒴))`$ is an object on the product stack, the integral functor

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e:D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳))D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒴))$$

between such categories is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e(a)=p_2(ep_1^{}a)$$

for $`aD^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳))`$, where $`p_1^{}`$ and $``$ are the left derived functors and $`p_2`$ is the right derived functor. An integral functor is called a Fourier-Mukai functor if it is an equivalence.

The main result of this paper is the following extension of  Theorem 2.2:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be normal projective varieties with only quotient singularities and let $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒴`$ be smooth stacks naturally associated to them. Let

$$F:D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳))D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒴))$$

be an exact functor which is fully faithful and has a left adjoint functor. Then there exist an object $`eD^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳\times 𝒴))`$ and an isomorphism of functors

$$F\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e$$

Moreover, the object $`e`$ is uniquely determined up to isomorphism.

In §2 we review the way to attach a single object to a complex of objects. There are two different ways of construction, the left and right convolutions, which are both used in the proof of Theorem 1.1.

In §3 we construct an infinite left resolution of the structure sheaf of the diagonal of the self product for any projective variety (Theorem 3.2). The construction is based on a theorem of Backelin  which says that the Veronese subring of the homogeneous coordinate ring of sufficiently high degree becomes a Koszul algebra.

In §4 we extend the construction of §3 to smooth stacks by taking the invariant part under a group action (Theorem 4.1). We also prove that for any coherent sheaf on our stack, there exists a surjective morphism from a locally free sheaf of special type (Theorem 4.2). This gives an alternative proof of Totaro’s theorem () for our stack. As an example, we describe the resolution of the diagonal explicitly in the case of weighted projective spaces using Canonaco’s formula  in §5.

We prove the main theorem in §6. The proof is partly parallel to that of , but we also need different arguments because there are more sheaves on the stacks. Indeed, we need both left and right convolutions, an infinite resolution of the diagonal and a special locally free sheaf, which are explained in previous sections.

§7 is devoted to similar applications to those appearing in . We consider the consequences of “$`D`$-equivalence” in Theorem 7.1, and for the group of autoequivalences in Theorem 7.2.

We work over $``$, but most of our results hold for arbitrary fields.

The author would like to thank Keiji Oguiso for pointing out the reference . He would also like to thank the referee for many valuable comments.

## 2 Convolution

We sometimes have to deal with a complex of objects in a derived category. But we cannot associate a single object to it in a similar way as a single complex associated to a double complex, because quasi-isomorphisms are inverted in the derived category.

We recall the theory of convolutions from . Let $`𝒟`$ be a triangulated category, and let

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}0& & a_m& \stackrel{d_m}{}& a_{m1}& \stackrel{d_{m1}}{}& \mathrm{}& & a_1& \stackrel{d_1}{}& a_0& & 0\end{array}$$
(2.1)
be a bounded complex of objects in $`𝒟`$, that is, we assume that $`d_id_{i+1}=0`$ for $`1i<m`$. Assume the condition

$$\text{Hom}_𝒟(a_p[r],a_q)=0\text{ for any }p>q,r>0.$$
(2.2)
Then the right convolution is defined to be a morphism $`d_0:a_0a`$ to an object in $`𝒟`$ which is uniquely constructed inductively on the length $`m`$ in the following way. (We would like to call this “right” convolution instead of “left” as in  because the direction of the convolution is to the right.)

If $`m=0`$, then $`a=a_0`$ and $`d_0=\text{Id}`$. If $`m1`$, then let $`a_{m1}^{}`$ be the cone of the morphism $`a_ma_{m1}`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}a_m& & a_{m1}& \stackrel{j_{m1}}{}& a_{m1}^{}& & a_m[1]\end{array}$$

is a distinguished triangle. We have an exact sequence

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \text{Hom}_𝒟(a_m[1],a_{m2})\text{Hom}_𝒟(a_{m1}^{},a_{m2})\hfill \\ & \text{Hom}_𝒟(a_{m1},a_{m2})\text{Hom}_𝒟(a_m,a_{m2}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since the first term as well as the image of $`d_{m1}`$ in the last term vanishes, there exists a unique morphism $`d_{m1}^{}:a_{m1}^{}a_{m2}`$ such that $`d_{m1}^{}j_{m1}=d_{m1}`$. Moreover, we deduce that $`d_{m2}d_{m1}^{}=0`$ by a similar diagram chasing.

Thus we obtain a new complex

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}0& & a_{m1}^{}& \stackrel{d_{m1}^{}}{}& a_{m2}& \stackrel{d_{m2}}{}& \mathrm{}& & a_1& \stackrel{d_1}{}& a_0& & 0\end{array}$$
(2.3)
for which we can check condition $`(\text{2.2})`$.

The right convolution $`d_0:a_0a`$ is obtained as that of the complex $`(\text{2.3})`$. Note that the object $`a_0`$ is unchanged during the above process. Thus we obtained:

###### Lemma 2.1 ( Lemma 1.5).

Let $`(\text{2.1})`$ be a complex of objects in a triangulated category $`𝒟`$ which satisfies condition $`(\text{2.2})`$. Then there exists a right convolution $`d_0:a_0a`$ which is uniquely determined up to isomorphism.

###### Example 2.2.

(1) If all the $`a_p`$ are sheaves, then the right convolution is nothing but the complex itself with an obvious morphism $`a_0a_{}`$. Indeed, we can take the intermediate objects $`a_p^{}`$ to be the complex

$$a_p^{}=\{a_ma_{m1}\mathrm{}a_p\}$$

where $`a_p`$ is at degree $`0`$.

(2) If $`d_0:a_0a`$ is the right convolution of the complex $`(\text{2.1})`$ and $`F`$ is a fully faithful exact functor, then $`F(d_0):F(a_0)F(a)`$ is the right convolution of the complex

$$0F(a_m)F(a_{m1})\mathrm{}F(a_1)F(a_0)0.$$

Indeed, the assumption is preserved by $`F`$ and the objects of intermediate steps are given by $`F(a_p^{})`$.

###### Lemma 2.3 (cf.  Lemma 1.6).

Let

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}0& & a_m& \stackrel{d_m}{}& a_{m1}& \stackrel{d_{m1}}{}& \mathrm{}& & a_1& \stackrel{d_1}{}& a_0& & 0\\ & & f_m& & f_{m1}& & & & f_1& & f_0& & & & \\ 0& & b_m& \stackrel{e_m}{}& b_{m1}& \stackrel{e_{m1}}{}& \mathrm{}& & b_1& \stackrel{e_1}{}& b_0& & 0\end{array}$$
(2.4)
be a morphism between complexes which satisfy condition $`(\text{2.2})`$. Let $`d_0:a_0a`$ and $`e_0:b_0b`$ be the right convolutions of these complexes, and $`ϵ:bb^{}`$ a morphism. Assume in addition that

$$\text{Hom}_𝒟(a_p[r],b_q)=0\text{ for any }p>q,r>0.$$
(2.5)
Then there exists a morphism $`f:ab^{}`$ in $`𝒟`$ satisfying the commutativity $`fd_0=ϵe_0f_0`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}a_0& \stackrel{d_0}{}& a& \stackrel{=}{}& a\\ f_0& & & & f& & \\ b_0& \stackrel{e_0}{}& b& \stackrel{ϵ}{}& b^{}.\end{array}$$
(2.6)
Moreover, this morphism is unique with this property if

$$\text{Hom}_𝒟(a_p[r],b^{})=0\text{ for any }p,r>0.$$
(2.7)
###### Proof.

In order to find $`f`$, we proceed by induction on the length $`m`$. If $`m=0`$, then $`f=ϵf_0`$. If $`m1`$, then we construct $`a_{m1}^{}`$ and $`b_{m1}^{}`$ as before. The morphisms $`f_m`$ and $`f_{m1}`$ induce a morphism $`f_{m1}^{}:a_{m1}^{}b_{m1}^{}`$ between the cones. We note that the existence of the morphism $`f_{m1}^{}`$ is guaranteed by the axiom of triangulated categories such that the following diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}a_m& & a_{m1}& \stackrel{j_{m1}}{}& a_{m1}^{}& & a_m[1]\\ f_m& & f_{m1}& & f_{m1}^{}& & f_m\left[1\right]& & \\ b_m& & b_{m1}& \stackrel{k_{m1}}{}& b_{m1}^{}& & b_m[1].\end{array}$$

is commutative, but it is not uniquely determined in general.

We have

$$e_{m1}^{}f_{m1}^{}j_{m1}=e_{m1}^{}k_{m1}f_{m1}=e_{m1}f_{m1}=f_{m2}d_{m1}=f_{m2}d_{m1}^{}j_{m1}.$$

Hence $`e_{m1}^{}f_{m1}^{}=f_{m2}d_{m1}^{}`$ by condition $`(\text{2.5})`$. By diagram chasing, we can check that condition $`(\text{2.5})`$ is satisfied by the new morphism of complexes

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}0& & a_{m1}^{}& \stackrel{d_{m1}^{}}{}& a_{m2}& \stackrel{d_{m2}}{}& \mathrm{}& & a_1& \stackrel{d_1}{}& a_0& & 0\\ & & f_{m1}^{}& & f_{m2}& & & & f_1& & f_0& & & & \\ 0& & b_{m1}^{}& \stackrel{e_{m1}^{}}{}& b_{m2}& \stackrel{e_{m2}}{}& \mathrm{}& & b_1& \stackrel{e_1}{}& b_0& & 0\end{array}$$
(2.8)
from which we obtain the morphism $`f:ab^{}`$ by the induction hypothesis.

We note that $`f_0:a_0b_0`$ remains unchanged in the above process. By condition $`(\text{2.7})`$, $`f`$ is uniquely determined by the commutativity of $`(\text{2.6})`$. ∎

In the dual way, we define the left convolutions of complexes of objects. We consider a bounded complex of objects $`(\text{2.1})`$ which satisfies condition $`(\text{2.2})`$. The left convolution is a morphism $`d:aa_m`$ from an object in $`𝒟`$ which is uniquely constructed inductively on the length $`m`$ in the following way.

If $`m=0`$, then $`a=a_0`$ and $`d=\text{Id}`$. If $`m1`$, then let $`a_1^{}[1]`$ be the cone of the morphism $`a_1a_0`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}a_1^{}& \stackrel{j_1}{}& a_1& \stackrel{d_1}{}& a_0& & a_1^{}[1]\end{array}$$

is a distinguished triangle. There exists a unique morphism $`d_2^{}:a_2a_1^{}`$ such that $`j_1d_2^{}=d_2`$ and $`d_2^{}d_3=0`$ as before.

Thus we obtain a new complex

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}0& & a_m& \stackrel{d_m}{}& a_{m1}& \stackrel{d_{m1}}{}& \mathrm{}& & a_2& \stackrel{d_2^{}}{}& a_1^{}& & 0\end{array}$$
(2.9)
which satisfies condition $`(\text{2.2})`$. The left convolution $`d:aa_m`$ of the complex $`(\text{2.1})`$ is defined to be that of the new complex $`(\text{2.9})`$.

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`(\text{2.1})`$ be a complex of objects in a triangulated category $`𝒟`$ which satisfies condition $`(\text{2.2})`$. Then there exists a left convolution $`d:aa_m`$ which is uniquely determined up to isomorphism.

###### Example 2.5.

(1) If all the $`a_p`$ are sheaves, then the left convolution is nothing but the complex itself with an obvious morphism $`a_{}[m]a_m`$, where the term $`a_m`$ of $`a_{}[m]`$ is at degree $`0`$. Indeed, we can take inductively

$$a_p^{}=\{a_pa_{p1}\mathrm{}a_1a_0\}$$

where $`a_p`$ is at degree $`0`$.

(2) If $`d:aa_m`$ is the left convolution of the complex $`(\text{2.1})`$ and $`F`$ is a fully faithful exact functor, then $`F(d):F(a)F(a_m)`$ is the left convolution of the complex

$$0F(a_m)F(a_{m1})\mathrm{}F(a_1)F(a_0)0.$$

###### Lemma 2.6.

Let $`(\text{2.4})`$ be a morphism between complexes which satisfy condition $`(\text{2.2})`$. Let $`d:aa_m`$ and $`e:bb_m`$ be the left convolutions of these complexes, and $`ϵ:a^{}a`$ a morphism. Assume in addition that

$$\text{Hom}_𝒟(a_p[r],b_q)=0\text{ for any }p>q,r>0$$

Then there exists a morphism $`f:a^{}b`$ in $`𝒟`$ satisfying the commutativity $`ef=f_mdϵ`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}a^{}& \stackrel{ϵ}{}& a& \stackrel{d}{}& a_m\\ f& & & & f_m& & \\ b& \stackrel{=}{}& b& \stackrel{e}{}& b_m.\end{array}$$

Moreover, this morphism is unique with this property if

$$\text{Hom}_𝒟(a^{}[r],b_q)=0\text{ for any }q,r>0.$$

###### Proof.

The proof is similar to that of Lemma 2.3. ∎

## 3 Resolution of the diagonal

For a projective space $``$, there is a standard resolution of the structure sheaf of the diagonal subvariety $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the self-product $`\mathrm{\Delta }\times `$ by locally free sheaves of Künneth type (, see also $`(\text{5.1})`$). We extend this in a weaker sense for general projective varieties.

Let $`X`$ be a projective algebraic variety, $`L`$ an ample line bundle, and let

$$A=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_m=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}H^0(X,mL)$$

be the homogeneous coordinate ring. We define vector spaces $`B_m`$ ($`m0`$) by $`B_0=A_0`$, $`B_1=A_1`$ and

$$B_m=\text{Ker}(B_{m1}_{}A_1B_{m2}_{}A_2)$$

for $`m2`$, where the homomorphism is induced from the multiplication in $`A`$. We set $`A_m=B_m=0`$ for $`m<0`$.

The graded $``$-algebra $`A`$ is said to be a Koszul algebra if the sequence of natural homomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{}B_m_{}A(m)B_{m1}_{}A(m+1)\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & B_1_{}A(1)A0\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.1)
is exact, where the shifted module $`A(j)`$ is defined by $`A(j)_k=A_{j+k}`$. In other words, $`A`$ is Koszul if the minimal $`A`$-free resolution of its residue field consists of homomorphisms of degree $`1`$.

By  Theorem 2, the subring $`A^{(d)}=_{m=0}^{\mathrm{}}A_{dm}`$ of $`A`$ is a Koszul algebra for a sufficiently large integer $`d`$, i.e., $`A`$ becomes Koszul if we replace $`L`$ by its tensor power $`L^d`$. We assume that $`L`$ is already replaced so that $`A`$ is Koszul in the following.

We define sheaves $`R_m`$ ($`m0`$) on $`X`$ by $`R_0=𝒪_X`$ and

$$R_m=\text{Ker}(B_m_{}𝒪_XB_{m1}_{}L)$$

for $`m1`$, where the homomorphism is induced from the natural homomorphisms $`B_mB_{m1}_{}A_1`$ and $`A_1_{}𝒪_XL`$. We set $`R_m=0`$ for $`m<0`$.

If we take the sequence of associated sheaves to the tensor product of $`(\text{3.1})`$ with $`A(m)`$, we obtain an exact sequence

$$0R_mB_m_{}𝒪_XB_{m1}_{}L\mathrm{}B_1_{}L^{m1}L^m0.$$
(3.2)
###### Lemma 3.1.

There is an exact sequence

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 0A_0_{}R_mA_1_{}R_{m1}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}A_{m1}_{}R_1A_m_{}R_0L^m0.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

We consider a double complex of sheaves

$$C^{i,j}=\{\begin{array}{cc}A_iB_{mij}L^j\hfill & \text{ for }i,j,mij0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise }\hfill \end{array}$$

where the differentials

$$\begin{array}{cc}& d_1^{i,j}:A_iB_{mij}L^jA_{i+1}B_{mij1}L^j\hfill \\ & d_2^{i,j}:A_iB_{mij}L^jA_iB_{mij1}L^{j+1}\hfill \end{array}$$

are induced from the homomorphisms in $`(\text{3.1})`$ and $`(\text{3.2})`$. The condition $`d_1^{i,j+1}d_2^{i,j}=\pm d_2^{i+1,j}d_1^{i,j}`$ is satisfied, because both are obtained as a composition of natural homomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{cc}& A_iB_{mij}L^jA_iB_{mij2}A_1A_1L^j\hfill \\ & A_{i+1}B_{mij2}L^{j+1}.\hfill \end{array}$$

If we take the cohomologies of $`C^{i,j}`$ with respect to the differential $`d_1`$ first, then we obtain $`0`$’s except $`L^m`$ at $`(i,j)=(0,m)`$. On the other hand, if we take the cohomologies with respect to $`d_2`$ first, then we obtain $`A_iR_{mi}`$ at $`j=0`$ and $`0`$ elsewhere by $`(\text{3.2})`$. Therefore, we obtain our exact sequence. ∎

Now we consider sheaves on the product $`X\times X`$. By Lemma 3.1, we obtain a homomorphism $`L^mR_mL^{m+1}R_{m1}`$ as a composition of the following homomorphisms

$$L^mR_mA_1_{}(L^mR_{m1})L^{m+1}R_{m1}.$$
(3.3)
###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`X`$ be a projective algebraic variety, $`L`$ an ample line bundle, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }XX\times X`$ the diagonal subvariety of the direct product. If $`L`$ is replaced by a sufficiently high power $`L^d`$, then the complex of sheaves on $`X\times X`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{}L^mR_mL^{m+1}R_{m1}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & L^1R_1𝒪_X𝒪_X𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }X}0\hfill \end{array}$$

is exact.

###### Proof.

Let $`D^{}`$ denote the given complex, where we set $`D^m=L^{m+1}R_{m1}`$ for $`m1`$ and $`D^0=𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }X}`$. Assume that $`H^{m_0}(D^{})0`$ for some non-positive integer $`m_0`$. We take a sufficiently large integer $`k`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{cc}& R^pp_2(H^q(D^{})p_1^{}L^k)=0\text{ for }p>0,qm_0dimX\hfill \\ & H^p(X,L^{k+q})=0\text{ for }p>0,qm_0dimX\hfill \\ & R^0p_2(H^{m_0}(D^{})p_1^{}L^k)0.\hfill \end{array}$$

We consider a spectral sequence

$${}_{}{}^{^{}}E_{2}^{p,q}=R^pp_2(H^q(D^{})p_1^{}L^k)R^{p+q}p_2(D^{}p_1^{}L^k).$$

By the assumption, we have $`{}_{}{}^{^{}}E_{2}^{p,q}=0`$ for $`p>0`$ and $`qm_0dimX`$ while $`{}_{}{}^{^{}}E_{2}^{0,m_0}0`$, hence $`R^{m_0}p_2(D^{}p_1^{}L^k)0`$.

On the other hand, we consider another spectral sequence

$${}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}E_{1}^{p,q}=R^qp_2(D^pp_1^{}L^k)R^{p+q}p_2(D^{}p_1^{}L^k).$$

We have

$${}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}E_{1}^{p,q}=\{\begin{array}{cc}L^k\hfill & \text{ for }p=0\text{ and }q=0\hfill \\ H^q(X,L^{k+p+1})R_{p1}\hfill & \text{ for }p1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus $`{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}E_{1}^{p,0}=A_{k+p+1}R_{p1}`$ for $`p1`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}E_{1}^{p,q}=0`$ for $`p+1m_0dimX`$ and $`q>0`$. By Lemma 3.1, we obtain that $`{}_{}{}^{^{\prime \prime }}E_{2}^{p,q}=0`$ for $`p+q=m_0`$, a contradiction. ∎

###### Corollary 3.3.

Assume the conditions of Theorem 3.2. Define an object $`eD^{}(X\times X)`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e=\{& \mathrm{}L^mR_mL^{m+1}R_{m1}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & L^1R_1𝒪_X𝒪_X\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then for any object $`aD^{}(X)`$, there are isomorphisms in $`D^{}(X)`$

$$ap_1(ep_2^{}a)p_2(ep_1^{}a)$$

where $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are right derived functors and $``$, $`p_1^{}`$ and $`p_2^{}`$ are left derived functors.

###### Proof.

We have $`p_1(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }X}p_2^{}a)p_2(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }X}p_1^{}a)a`$. ∎

## 4 Smooth stack

We refer to  and  for readable account on Deligne-Mumford stacks.

Let $`X`$ be a normal projective variety with only quotient singularities. Then there exists an etale covering $`\{U_i\}`$ of $`X`$ with finite Galois coverings $`\sigma _i:𝒰_iU_i`$ from smooth varieties $`𝒰_i`$ which are etale in codimension $`1`$. The data $`\{U_i,𝒰_i,\sigma _i\}`$ defines a smooth stack $`𝒳`$. Let $`\sigma :𝒳X`$ denote the natural morphism.

Let $`X^\mathrm{\#}`$ be the normalization of $`X`$ in a common Galois extension of the fields $`(𝒰_i)`$. Then we have a morphism $`\pi :X^\mathrm{\#}𝒳`$. Denote $`G=\text{Gal}(X^\mathrm{\#}/X)`$ and $`G_i=\text{Gal}(𝒰_i/U_i)`$. We have the following diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}U_i^\mathrm{\#}& \stackrel{\pi _i}{}& 𝒰_i& \stackrel{\sigma _i}{}& U_i\\ \text{open}& & \text{etale}& & \text{etale}& & \\ X^\mathrm{\#}& \stackrel{\pi }{}& 𝒳& \stackrel{\sigma }{}& X.\end{array}$$

where $`U_i^\mathrm{\#}`$ is an open subset of $`X^\mathrm{\#}`$ such that the induced morphism $`\pi _i:U_i^\mathrm{\#}𝒰_i`$ is finite.

Let $`a`$ be a sheaf on $`X^\mathrm{\#}`$. Then the direct image sheaf $`\pi _{}a`$ on $`𝒳`$ is given by the following collection of $`G_i`$-equivariant sheaves $`(\pi _{}a)_i`$ on the $`𝒰_i`$. Let $`X_i^\mathrm{\#}=(X^\mathrm{\#}\times _X𝒰_i)^\nu `$ be the normalization of the fiber product with natural morphisms $`p_1:X_i^\mathrm{\#}X^\mathrm{\#}`$ and $`p_2:X_i^\mathrm{\#}𝒰_i`$. Then

$$(\pi _{}a)_i=p_2p_1^{}a.$$

We note that $`p_1`$ is etale. Indeed, the normalization of the fiber product $`𝒰_{ij}=(𝒰_i\times _X𝒰_j)^\nu `$ is etale over $`𝒰_j`$, and $`X_i^\mathrm{\#}p_1^1(U_j^\mathrm{\#})=U_j^\mathrm{\#}\times _{𝒰_j}𝒰_{ij}`$.

If $`b`$ is a sheaf on $`𝒳`$ given by the collection of $`G_i`$-equivariant sheaves $`b_i`$ on the $`𝒰_i`$, then the inverse image sheaf $`\pi ^{}b`$ on $`X^\mathrm{\#}`$ is obtained as the etale descent of the collection of sheaves $`p_2^{}b_i`$ on the $`X_i^\mathrm{\#}`$.

Since

$$(\pi _{}\pi ^{}b)_i=p_2p_2^{}b_i$$

the Galois group $`G`$ acts on the sheaf $`\pi _{}\pi ^{}b`$, and we have

$$(\pi _{}\pi ^{}b)^Gb.$$

Let $`G=\text{Gal}(X^\mathrm{\#}/X)\mathrm{\Delta }GG\times G`$ act diagonally on the product $`X^\mathrm{\#}\times X^\mathrm{\#}`$.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`X`$ be a normal projective variety with only quotient singularities, $`\sigma :𝒳X`$ the natural morphism from the associated smooth stack, $`L`$ an ample line bundle, $`=\sigma ^{}L`$, and $`\pi :X^\mathrm{\#}𝒳`$ a finite Galois morphism from a projective variety as above. Define the sheaves $`R_m`$ on $`X^\mathrm{\#}`$ from $`\pi ^{}`$ as before. Define an object $`e^{}D^{}(\text{Coh}(𝒳\times 𝒳))`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e^{}=\{& \mathrm{}(\pi _{}\pi ^{}^m\pi _{}R_m)^{\mathrm{\Delta }G}(\pi _{}\pi ^{}^{m+1}\pi _{}R_{m1})^{\mathrm{\Delta }G}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & (\pi _{}\pi ^{}^1\pi _{}R_1)^{\mathrm{\Delta }G}(\pi _{}\pi ^{}𝒪_𝒳\pi _{}\pi ^{}𝒪_𝒳)^{\mathrm{\Delta }G}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.1)
If $`L`$ is replaced by a sufficiently high power $`L^d`$, then there are isomorphisms in $`D^{}(\text{Coh}(𝒳))`$

$$ap_1(e^{}p_2^{}a)p_2(e^{}p_1^{}a).$$

for any object $`aD^{}(\text{Coh}(𝒳))`$

###### Proof.

Let

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e^\mathrm{\#}=\{& \mathrm{}\pi ^{}^mR_m\pi ^{}^{m+1}R_{m1}\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \pi ^{}^1R_1\pi ^{}𝒪_𝒳\pi ^{}𝒪_𝒳\}D^{}(X^\mathrm{\#}\times X^\mathrm{\#}).\hfill \end{array}$$

The homomorphisms are equivariant with respect to the action of $`G`$. Indeed, we have a commutative diagram of injective homomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{ccc}R_m& & B_m𝒪_{X^\mathrm{\#}}\\ & & & & \\ A_1R_{m1}& & A_1B_{m1}𝒪_{X^\mathrm{\#}}.\end{array}$$

Since the multiplication $`A_{}AA`$ is $`G`$-equivariant with respect to the diagonal action, so is the right vertical arrow, hence the left. The homomorphism $`A_1\pi ^{}^m\pi ^{}^{m+1}`$ is similarly $`G`$-equivariant. Therefore, the homomorphisms in $`(\text{3.3})`$ are equivariant with respect to the diagonal $`G`$-actions.

We have $`G`$-equivariant isomorphisms

$$\pi ^{}ap_1(e^\mathrm{\#}p_2^{}\pi ^{}a)p_2(e^\mathrm{\#}p_1^{}\pi ^{}a)$$

by Corollary 3.3. Thus

$$\begin{array}{cc}& a(\pi _{}\pi ^{}a)^G(\pi _{}p_1(e^\mathrm{\#}p_2^{}\pi ^{}a))^G(p_1(\pi \times \pi )_{}(e^\mathrm{\#}p_2^{}\pi ^{}a))^G\hfill \\ & (p_1((\pi \times \pi )_{}e^\mathrm{\#}p_2^{}a))^Gp_1(((\pi \times \pi )_{}e^\mathrm{\#})^Gp_2^{}a)p_1(e^{}p_2^{}a).\hfill \end{array}$$

The second isomorphism is obtained similarly. ∎

Since there are more sheaves on the stack $`𝒳`$ than the underlying variety $`X`$, the existence of a surjective homomorphism from a locally free sheaf as in the following is non-trivial. This gives an alternative proof of a theorem by Totaro  which says that there exists a finite locally free resolution for any coherent sheaf on $`𝒳`$.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Let $`X`$ be a normal quasi-projective variety with only quotient singularities, $`L`$ a very ample invertible sheaf, $`\sigma :𝒳X`$ the morphism from the associated smooth stack, and $`=\sigma ^{}L`$. Then there exists a locally free sheaf $`𝒜_0`$ on $`𝒳`$ such that, for any coherent sheaf $`𝒞`$ on $`𝒳`$, there exist positive integers $`k,l`$ and a surjective homomorphism $`(𝒜_0^k)^l𝒞`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`T`$ be the tangent sheaf of $`𝒳`$. There exists a positive integer $`j_0`$ such that any irreducible representation of the stabilizer group $`G_x`$ of any point $`x𝒳`$ appears in the representation $`(_{j=0}^{j_0}T^j)𝒪_x`$ of $`G_x`$ ( Problem 2.37).

We set $`𝒜_0=(_{j=0}^{j_0}T^j)`$. Let $`𝒞`$ be any non-zero coherent sheaf on $`𝒳`$, and $`x𝒳`$ a point in its support. Then there is a non-trivial homomorphism $`𝒜_0𝒪_x𝒞𝒪_x`$. Hence the sheaf $`\sigma _{}om(𝒜_0,𝒞)`$ on $`X`$ is non-trivial, and there exists a positive integer $`k`$ such that $`\text{Hom}(𝒜_0^k,𝒞)0`$. Let

$$𝒞^{}=\text{Im}(\text{Hom}(𝒜_0^k,𝒞)𝒜_0^k,𝒞).$$

If $`𝒞/𝒞^{}0`$, then there exists an integer $`k^{}k`$ such that $`\text{Hom}(𝒜_0^k^{},𝒞/𝒞^{})0`$ and $`\text{Hom}(𝒜_0^k^{},𝒞^{}[1])=0`$. By Neotherian induction, we obtain our result. ∎

## 5 An example: weighted projective space

In this section, we consider the special case where $`X`$ is a weighted projective space as an example of the general construction. The results will not be used in later sections.

Let $`(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ be a sequence of positive integers which is well formed, that is, any subset consisting of $`n`$ integers from these $`n+1`$ is coprime. Let a finite group $`G=\mu _{a_0}\times \mathrm{}\times \mu _{a_n}`$ act on $`^\mathrm{\#}=^n`$ with homogeneous coordinates $`(x_0^\mathrm{\#},\mathrm{},x_n^\mathrm{\#})`$ diagonally so that $`=^\mathrm{\#}/G(a_0,\mathrm{},a_n)`$. Let $`\pi ^{}:^\mathrm{\#}`$ be the projection.

The weighted projective space $``$ has only quotient singularities. Let $`𝒫`$ be the smooth stack associated to $``$, and $`\pi :^\mathrm{\#}𝒫`$ the morphism induced by $`\pi ^{}`$. The stack $`𝒫`$ is described as follows. Let $`D_i^\mathrm{\#}=\text{div}(x_i^\mathrm{\#})`$, $`U_i^\mathrm{\#}=^\mathrm{\#}D_i^\mathrm{\#}`$, and $`U_i=U_i^\mathrm{\#}/G`$. Then we have a factorization of $`\pi _i^{}=\pi ^{}|_{U_i^\mathrm{\#}}`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\pi _i^{}:U_i^\mathrm{\#}& \stackrel{\pi _i}{}& 𝒰_i& \stackrel{\sigma _i}{}& U_i=𝒰_i/\mu _{a_i}\end{array}$$

where $`𝒰_i`$ is smooth and $`\sigma _i`$ is etale in codimension $`1`$. Thus the set of coverings $`\{\sigma _i\}`$ define the stack $`𝒫`$.

For $`ij`$, if we set $`U_{ij}^\mathrm{\#}=U_i^\mathrm{\#}U_j^\mathrm{\#}`$ and $`U_{ij}=U_{ij}^\mathrm{\#}/G`$, then $`\pi _{ij}^{}=\pi ^{}|_{U_{ij}^\mathrm{\#}}`$ is factorized as

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\pi _{ij}^{}:U_{ij}^\mathrm{\#}& \stackrel{\pi _{ij}}{}& 𝒰_{ij}& \stackrel{\sigma _{ij}}{}& U_{ij}=𝒰_{ij}/(\mu _{a_i}\times \mu _{a_j})\end{array}$$

where $`𝒰_{ij}=𝒰_i\times _𝒫𝒰_j`$.

We have

$$\pi ^{}𝒪_𝒫(1)𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}(1).$$

The images $`𝒟_i=\pi (D_i^\mathrm{\#})`$ are prime divisors on $`𝒫`$ such that $`\pi ^{}𝒟_i=a_iD_i^\mathrm{\#}`$ and

$$𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}(D_i^\mathrm{\#})𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}(1),𝒪_𝒫(𝒟_i)𝒪_𝒫(a_i).$$

The dualizing invertible sheaf is given by

$$\omega _𝒫𝒪_𝒫(\underset{i}{}a_i).$$

We have the following resolution of the structure sheaf of the diagonal in $`^\mathrm{\#}\times ^\mathrm{\#}`$ due to Beilinson . From a tautological exact sequence on $`^\mathrm{\#}`$

$$0𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}(1)𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}^{n+1}T_^\mathrm{\#}(1)0$$

we obtain a homomorphism of sheaves on $`^\mathrm{\#}\times ^\mathrm{\#}`$

$$s:𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}(1)𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}T_^\mathrm{\#}(1)$$

given by

$$s(P,Q)(v)=v\text{ mod }w\text{ if }[v]=P\text{ and }[w]=Q$$

where $`v,wV`$ for $`^\mathrm{\#}=(V^{})`$. We can also write

$$s=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}x_i^\mathrm{\#}\frac{}{y_i^\mathrm{\#}}.$$

The cokernel of the homomorphism

$$s^{}:𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}(1)\mathrm{\Omega }_^\mathrm{\#}^1(1)𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}$$

induced by $`s`$ is the structure sheaf of the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{\#}^\mathrm{\#}\times ^\mathrm{\#}`$. We note that $`s^{}`$ is equivariant under the action of the diagonal subgroup $`\mathrm{\Delta }GG\times G`$.

Therefore, we obtain an exact sequence called Beilinson resolution of the diagonal as a Koszul complex

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 0𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}(n)\mathrm{\Omega }_^\mathrm{\#}^n(n)𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}(n+1)\mathrm{\Omega }_^\mathrm{\#}^{n1}(n1)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}(1)\mathrm{\Omega }_^\mathrm{\#}^1(1)𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{\#}}0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.1)
We note that the homomorphisms are $`\mathrm{\Delta }G`$-equivariant.

We extend the Beilinson resolution for the stacky sheaves on weighted projective spaces according to the description by Canonaco , where he considered the sheaves on $``$ instead of $`𝒫`$.

The group of characters $`G^{}`$ of $`G`$ is isomorphic to $`_{a_0}\times \mathrm{}_{a_n}`$. For a character $`\chi =(\chi _0,\mathrm{},\chi _n)G^{}`$, we take representatives of the $`\chi _i`$ such that $`0\chi _i<a_i`$, and define $`|\chi |=_{i=0}^n\chi _i`$.

Since $`\pi `$ is ramified along the $`𝒟_i`$ with ramification indices $`a_i`$, we have a decomposition of the direct image sheaf into eigenspaces according to the $`G`$-action:

$$\pi _{}𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}\underset{\chi }{}(\pi _{}𝒪_^\mathrm{\#})^\chi ,(\pi _{}𝒪_^\mathrm{\#})^\chi 𝒪_𝒫(|\chi |).$$

By , we have also

$$\pi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_^\mathrm{\#}^p\underset{\chi }{}(\pi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_^\mathrm{\#}^p)^\chi ,(\pi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_^\mathrm{\#}^p)^\chi \mathrm{\Omega }_𝒫^p(\mathrm{log}𝒟_\chi )(|\chi |)$$

where $`𝒟_\chi =_{\chi _i0}𝒟_i`$.

Let $`a`$ be a coherent sheaf on $`𝒫`$, and consider the Beilinson resolution of the pull-back $`a^\mathrm{\#}=\pi ^{}a`$, where we note that $`\pi `$ is a flat morphism because we consider the stack $`𝒫`$ instead of the variety $``$. We have a quasi-isomorphism

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{\#}}p_2^{}a^\mathrm{\#}\{0𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}(n)(\mathrm{\Omega }_^\mathrm{\#}^n(n)a^\mathrm{\#})\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}(1)(\mathrm{\Omega }_^\mathrm{\#}^1(1)a^\mathrm{\#})𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}a^\mathrm{\#}0\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.2)
Since

$$p_1(𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{\#}}p_2^{}a^\mathrm{\#})a^\mathrm{\#}$$

we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& a^\mathrm{\#}\text{sg}\{0𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}(n)_{}R\mathrm{\Gamma }(^\mathrm{\#},\mathrm{\Omega }_^\mathrm{\#}^n(n)a^\mathrm{\#})\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}(1)_{}R\mathrm{\Gamma }(^\mathrm{\#},\mathrm{\Omega }_^\mathrm{\#}^1(1)a^\mathrm{\#})𝒪_^\mathrm{\#}_{}R\mathrm{\Gamma }(^\mathrm{\#},a^\mathrm{\#})0\}\hfill \end{array}$$

where sg stands for the associated single complex and

$$R\mathrm{\Gamma }(^\mathrm{\#},\mathrm{\Omega }_^\mathrm{\#}^p(p)a^\mathrm{\#})=\underset{q}{}H^q(^\mathrm{\#},\mathrm{\Omega }_^\mathrm{\#}^p(p)a^\mathrm{\#})[q].$$

Since the group $`G\mathrm{\Delta }G`$ acts equivariantly on $`(\text{5.2})`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& a\text{sg}\{0\underset{\chi }{}𝒪_𝒫(n|\chi |)R\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒫^n(\mathrm{log}𝒟_\chi )(n|\chi |)a)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\underset{\chi }{}𝒪_𝒫(1|\chi |)R\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒫^1(\mathrm{log}𝒟_\chi )(1|\chi |)a)\hfill \\ & \underset{\chi }{}𝒪_𝒫(|\chi |)R\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒫,a(|\chi |))0\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In particular, we have a spectral sequence of Beilinson type

$$E_1^{p,q}=\underset{\chi }{}𝒪_𝒫(p|\chi |)H^q(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒫^p(\mathrm{log}𝒟_\chi )(p|\chi |)a)a$$

where the right hand side is at degree $`0`$.

If $`H^q(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒫^p(\mathrm{log}𝒟_\chi )(p|\chi |)a)=0`$ for $`q>0`$ and all $`p`$ and $`\chi `$, then we obtain an exact sequence

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 0\underset{\chi }{}𝒪_𝒫(n|\chi |)H^0(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒫^n(\mathrm{log}𝒟_\chi )(n|\chi |)a)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\underset{\chi }{}𝒪_𝒫(1|\chi |)H^0(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒫^1(\mathrm{log}𝒟_\chi )(1|\chi |)a)\hfill \\ & \underset{\chi }{}𝒪_𝒫(|\chi |)H^0(𝒫,a(|\chi |))a0.\hfill \end{array}$$

We call this the left resolution of $`a`$, because the direction of the resolution is to the left.

On the other hand, if $`H^q(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒫^p(\mathrm{log}𝒟_\chi )(p|\chi |)a)=0`$ for $`q<n`$ and all $`p`$ and $`\chi `$, then we obtain an exact sequence called the right resolution of $`a`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 0a\underset{\chi }{}𝒪_𝒫(n|\chi |)H^n(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒫^n(\mathrm{log}𝒟_\chi )(n|\chi |)a)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\underset{\chi }{}𝒪_𝒫(1|\chi |)H^n(𝒫,\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒫^1(\mathrm{log}𝒟_\chi )(1|\chi |)a)\hfill \\ & \underset{\chi }{}𝒪_𝒫(|\chi |)H^n(𝒫,a(|\chi |))0.\hfill \end{array}$$

We note that the left and right resolutions are related by the shift.

If we define an object $`eD^b(\text{Coh}(𝒫\times 𝒫))`$ by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& e=\{0\underset{\chi }{}𝒪_𝒫(n|\chi |)\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒫^n(\mathrm{log}𝒟_\chi )(n|\chi |)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\underset{\chi }{}𝒪_𝒫(1|\chi |)\mathrm{\Omega }_𝒫^1(\mathrm{log}𝒟_\chi )(1|\chi |)\hfill \\ & \underset{\chi }{}𝒪_𝒫(|\chi |)𝒪_𝒫(|\chi |)0\}\hfill \end{array}$$

then we have

$$ap_1(ep_2^{}a)p_2(ep_1^{}a).$$

## 6 Proof of Theorem 1.1

The proof of the theorem is partly parallel to the original proof in . But we cannot use an embedding in a projective space because $`𝒳`$ has more sheaves than $`X`$.

We denote by $`\sigma :𝒳X`$ the natural morphism, and $`\pi :X^\mathrm{\#}𝒳`$ the covering considered in the last section. We fix a very ample line bundle $`L`$ on $`X`$ such that the pull-back $`\pi ^{}`$ for $`=\sigma ^{}L`$ on the covering $`X^\mathrm{\#}`$ has the property described in Theorem 3.2.

### 6.1 Step 1

We prove the boundedness of the functor $`F`$ ( Lemma 2.4), that is, there exists a fixed interval of integers such that $`H^k(F(𝒜))=0`$ for any integer $`k`$ outside this interval and for any coherent sheaf $`𝒜`$ on $`𝒳`$.

Let $`F^{}`$ be the left adjoint functor of $`F`$. Fix an embedding $`Y^M`$ into some projective space. By pulling back the Beilinson resolution to $`𝒴`$, we obtain right resolutions

$$𝒪_𝒴(j)\{V_M^j_{}𝒪_𝒴V_{M1}^j_{}𝒪_𝒴(1)\mathrm{}V_0^j_{}𝒪_𝒴(M)\}$$

for integers $`j>0`$, where $`V_p^j=H^M(^M,\mathrm{\Omega }^p(pjM))`$ ($`0pM`$).

Let $`_0`$ be a locally free sheaf on $`𝒴`$ obtained in Theorem 4.2. We choose integers $`k_1<k_2`$ such that

$$H^k(F^{}(_0(j)))=0$$

for $`k[k_1,k_2]`$ and $`0jM`$. Then

$$H^k(F^{}(_0(j)))=0$$

for $`k[k_1,k_2+M]`$ and any $`j>0`$.

For any coherent sheaf $`𝒜`$ on $`𝒳`$, we have

$$\text{Hom}^k(_0(j),F(𝒜))\text{Hom}^k(F^{}(_0(j)),𝒜)0$$

for $`k[k_2M,k_1+dimX]`$ and for any $`j>0`$. If we take $`j`$ sufficiently large, then we have

$$\text{Hom}^p(_0(j),H^q(F(𝒜)))0$$

for $`p>0`$ and any $`q`$. Hence $`H^k(F(𝒜))=0`$ for $`k[k_2M,k_1+dimX]`$.

By replacing $`F`$ by its shift, we assume from now on that there exists an integer $`k_0`$ such that $`H^k(F(𝒜))=0`$ for $`k[k_0,0]`$ and any sheaf $`𝒜`$ on $`𝒳`$.

### 6.2 Step 2

We shall define an object $`eD^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳\times 𝒴))`$.

We fix an integer $`m`$ such that $`m>dimX+dimY+k_0`$, where the length $`k_0`$ is given in Step 1, and let $`c_{}`$ be the complex defined by

$$c_p=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\pi _{}\pi ^{}^pF(\pi _{}R_p))^{\mathrm{\Delta }G}\hfill & \text{ for }0pm\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.1)
with the morphisms $`\delta _p:c_pc_{p1}`$ induced from $`(\text{3.3})`$.

We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \text{Hom}(\pi _{}\pi ^{}^pF(\pi _{}R_p)[r],\pi _{}\pi ^{}^qF(\pi _{}R_q))\hfill \\ & \underset{r_1+r_2=r}{}\text{Hom}(\pi _{}\pi ^{}^p[r_1],\pi _{}\pi ^{}^q)\text{Hom}(F(\pi _{}R_p)[r_2],F(\pi _{}R_q))\hfill \\ & \underset{r_1+r_2=r}{}\text{Hom}(\pi _{}\pi ^{}^p[r_1],\pi _{}\pi ^{}^q)\text{Hom}(\pi _{}R_p[r_2],\pi _{}R_q)\hfill \\ & 0\hfill \end{array}$$

if $`r>0`$. Thus there exists a right convolution $`\delta _0:c_0e^{}D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳\times 𝒴))`$.

###### Lemma 6.1.

$`H^p(e^{})=0`$ unless $`p[mk_0,m][k_0,0]`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that there exists $`p_0[mk_0,m][k_0,0]`$ such that $`H^{p_0}(e^{})0`$. For a locally free sheaf $`𝒜`$ on $`𝒳`$, we have a spectral sequence

$$E_2^{p,q}=R^pp_2(H^q(e^{})p_1^{}𝒜)H^{p+q}(p_2(e^{}p_1^{}𝒜)).$$

Hence there exists $`𝒜`$ such that $`H^{p_0}(p_2(e^{}p_1^{}𝒜))0`$ by Theorem 4.2. We may also assume that

$$H^p(𝒳,𝒜\pi _{}\pi ^{}^q)=0\text{ for }p>0,0qm+dimX.$$
(6.2)
We consider a complex of sheaves $`a_{}`$ given by

$$a_p=\{\begin{array}{cc}(H^0(𝒳,𝒜\pi _{}\pi ^{}^p)\pi _{}R_p)^{\mathrm{\Delta }G}\hfill & \text{ for }0pm\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

This coincides with $`p_2(e^{}p_1^{}𝒜)`$ up to degree $`m`$ for $`e^{}`$ given in Theorem 4.1.

If we denote $`U(𝒜)=\text{Ker}(a_ma_{m1})`$, then there is a distinguished triangle

$$U(𝒜)[m]a_{}𝒜U(𝒜)[m+1].$$

Since $`\text{Hom}_{D^b(𝒳)}(𝒜,U(𝒜)[m+1])=0`$, we have a right convolution $`d_0:a_0U(𝒜)[m]𝒜`$ of $`a_{}`$. Hence $`F(d_0):F(a_0)F(U(𝒜)[m]𝒜)`$ is also a right convolution of the complex of objects $`F(a_{})`$.

On the other hand, since we have

$$p_2(c_pp_1^{}𝒜)=F(a_p)$$

$`\delta _0`$ induces a right convolution $`\delta _0:F(a_0)p_2(e^{}p_1^{}𝒜)`$ of the complex $`F(a_{})`$.

Since both $`F(U(𝒜)[m]𝒜)`$ and $`p_2(e^{}p_1^{}𝒜)`$ are right convolutions of the same complex, there exists an isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{f}(𝒜)`$, which is not uniquely determined, making the following diagram commutative

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F(a_0)& \stackrel{\overline{d}_0}{}& p_2(e^{}p_1^{}𝒜)\\ =& & \stackrel{~}{f}\left(𝒜\right)& & \\ F(a_0)& \stackrel{F(d_0)}{}& F(U(𝒜)[m]𝒜).\end{array}$$

Therefore, we obtain a contradiction by Step 1. ∎

It follows that there exist objects $`e,e^{\prime \prime }D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳\times 𝒴))`$ and a distinguished triangle

$$e^{\prime \prime }e^{}ee^{\prime \prime }[1]$$

such that $`H^p(e)=0`$ (resp. $`H^p(e^{\prime \prime })=0`$) unless $`p[k_0,0]`$ (resp. $`[mk_0,m]`$). Since $`\text{Hom}_{D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳\times 𝒴))}(e,e^{\prime \prime }[1])=0`$, we have $`e^{}ee^{\prime \prime }`$.

### 6.3 Step 3

We construct a functorial isomorphism from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e`$ to $`F`$ for a certain set of locally free sheaves.

###### Lemma 6.2.

Let $`𝒜`$ be any locally free coherent sheaf on $`𝒳`$ such that

$$H^p(𝒳,𝒜\pi _{}\pi ^{}^q)=0$$

for any $`p>0`$ and $`0qm+dimX`$. Then there exists an isomorphism

$$f(𝒜):\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e(𝒜)F(𝒜)$$

which is functorial in the sense that, for any homomorphism $`\alpha :𝒜`$ to another locally free coherent sheaf $``$ which satisfies the same condition, the following diagram is commutative

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e(𝒜)& \stackrel{f(𝒜)}{}& F(𝒜)\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e\left(\alpha \right)& & F\left(\alpha \right)& & \\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e()& \stackrel{f()}{}& F().\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

We define $`a_{}`$, $`U(𝒜)`$, $`d_0:a_0U(𝒜)[m]𝒜`$, $`\delta _0:F(a_0)p_2(e^{}p_1^{}𝒜)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e^{}(𝒜)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}(A)`$ as in Lemma 6.1.

The isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{f}(𝒜)`$ induces an isomorphism $`p_2(ep_1^{}𝒜)F(𝒜)`$ by Steps 1 and 2. But we note that it is not sufficient, because $`\stackrel{~}{f}(𝒜)`$ is not uniquely determined.

Let $`ϵ(𝒜):F(U(𝒜)[m]𝒜)F(𝒜)`$ be the projection. Since

$$\text{Hom}(F(a_p)[r],F(𝒜))\text{Hom}(a_p[r],𝒜)0$$

for any $`p`$ and $`r>0`$, $`ϵ(𝒜)`$ is the only morphism which makes the following diagram commutative by Lemma 2.3:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F(a_0)& \stackrel{F(d_0)}{}& F(U(𝒜)[m]𝒜)\\ =& & ϵ\left(𝒜\right)& & \\ F(a_0)& \stackrel{ϵ(𝒜)F(d_0)}{}& F(𝒜).\end{array}$$

By the same reason as above, the projection $`ϵ^{}(𝒜):p_2(e^{}p_1^{}𝒜)p_2(ep_1^{}𝒜)`$ is the only morphism making the following diagram commutative

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F(a_0)& \stackrel{\delta _0}{}& p_2(e^{}p_1^{}𝒜)\\ =& & ϵ^{}\left(𝒜\right)& & \\ F(a_0)& \stackrel{ϵ^{}(𝒜)\delta _0}{}& p_2(ep_1^{}𝒜).\end{array}$$

Therefore, there exists a uniquely determined isomorphism $`f(𝒜):p_2(ep_1^{}𝒜)F(𝒜)`$ such that the following diagram is commutative

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F(a_0)& \stackrel{ϵ^{}(𝒜)\delta _0}{}& p_2(ep_1^{}𝒜)\\ =& & f\left(𝒜\right)& & \\ F(a_0)& \stackrel{ϵ(𝒜)F(d_0)}{}& F(𝒜).\end{array}$$

Next, we consider a complex of sheaves $`b_{}`$ given by

$$b_p=\{\begin{array}{cc}(H^0(𝒳,\pi _{}\pi ^{}^p)\pi _{}R_p)^{\mathrm{\Delta }G}\hfill & \text{ for }0pm\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The homomorphism $`\alpha :𝒜`$ induces a morphism of complexes $`\alpha _{}:a_{}b_{}`$. Let $`e_0:b_0U()[m]`$ be the right convolution.

There exists a uniquely determined morphism $`g`$ to make the following diagram commutative

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F(a_0)& \stackrel{\delta _0}{}& p_2(e^{}p_1^{}𝒜)\\ F\left(\alpha _0\right)& & g& & \\ F(b_0)& \stackrel{ϵ()F(e_0)}{}& F().\end{array}$$

It follows that

$$g=f()\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e(\alpha )ϵ^{}(𝒜)=F(\alpha )f(𝒜)ϵ^{}(𝒜)$$

hence $`f()\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e(\alpha )=F(\alpha )f(𝒜)`$. ∎

### 6.4 Step 4

We extend the functorial isomorphism from $`F`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e`$ to an ample set of objects.

A sequence of objects $`\{P_k\}_k`$ in an abelian category $`𝒞`$ is said to be ample if for any object $`C𝒞`$, there exists an integer $`k_0(C)`$ such that the following conditions are satisfied for any $`k<k_0(C)`$ ( Definition 2.12).

(1) The canonical morphism $`\text{Hom}(P_k,C)P_kC`$ is surjective.

(2) $`\text{Hom}(P_k,C[r])=0`$ if $`r0`$.

(3) $`\text{Hom}(C,P_k)=0`$.

We note that the set $`\{P_k\}_k`$ becomes a spanning class of the derived category $`D^b(𝒞)`$ if it has a Serre functor (cf. ).

By Theorem 4.2, we obtain the following:

###### Lemma 6.3.

There exists a locally free sheaf $`𝒜_0`$ on $`𝒳`$ such that the sequence $`\{𝒜_0^k\}`$ is ample in the category of coherent sheaves $`\text{Coh}(𝒳)`$.

###### Lemma 6.4.

There exist isomorphisms $`f_k:F(𝒜_0^k)\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e(𝒜_0^k)`$ for any integers $`k`$ which are functorial in the sense that, for any homomorphism $`\alpha :𝒜_0^k𝒜_0^k^{}`$, the following diagram is commutative

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F(𝒜_0^k)& \stackrel{f_k}{}& \mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e(𝒜_0^k)\\ F\left(\alpha \right)& & \mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e\left(\alpha \right)& & \\ F(𝒜_0^k^{})& \stackrel{f_k^{}}{}& \mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e(𝒜_0^k^{}).\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

We denote $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e`$. By Lemma 6.2, there exists an integer $`k_1`$ such that our assertion holds if $`k,k^{}k_1`$. We proceed by the descending induction on such $`k_1`$.

Let us fix an embedding $`X^N`$ such that $`L=𝒪_X(1)`$. We have an exact sequence

$$0𝒪_𝒳V_NV_{N1}^2\mathrm{}V_0^{N+1}0$$
(6.3)
for $`V_p=H^N(^N,\mathrm{\Omega }_^N^p(pN1))`$.

For any integer $`k`$, we consider a complex of objects $`a_{}^{(k)}`$ and $`b_{}^{(k)}`$ defined by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& a_p^{(k)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}F(V_p𝒜_0^{k+N+1p})\hfill & \text{ for }0pN\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ & b_p^{(k)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Phi }(V_p𝒜_0^{k+N+1p})\hfill & \text{ for }0pN\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`kk_11`$, then there is an isomorphism of complexes $`f_{}^{(k)}:a_{}^{(k)}b_{}^{(k)}`$ by the induction hypothesis, where

$$f_p^{(k)}=\text{Id}_{V_p}f_{k+N+1p}.$$

We have the left convolutions $`d^{(k)}:F(𝒜_0^k)a_N^{(k)}`$ and $`e^{(k)}:\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒜_0^k)b_N^{(k)}`$, and there is a uniquely determined isomorphism $`f_k:F(𝒜_0^k)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒜_0^k)`$ such that $`e^{(k)}f_k=f_N^{(k)}d^{(k)}`$. Note that if $`kk_1`$, then the morphism $`f_k`$ which we already have satisfies this condition thanks to the functoriality of the $`f_k`$.

Let $`k,k^{}k_11`$. Then the homomorphism $`\alpha `$ induces a homomorphism of complexes $`\alpha _{}:a_{}^{(k)}b_{}^{(k^{})}`$ given by

$$\alpha _p=\text{Id}_{V_p}f_{k^{}+N+1p}F(\alpha \text{Id}_{^{N+1p}}).$$

Therefore, we have a uniquely determined homomorphism $`g:F(𝒜_0^k)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒜_0^k^{})`$ by the condition that $`e^{(k^{})}g=\alpha _Nd^{(k)}`$. Since both $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\alpha )f_k`$ and $`f_k^{}F(\alpha )`$ satisfiy this condition, they coincide. ∎

### 6.5 Step 5

By  Proposition 2.16, we obtain an isomorphism of functors $`f:F\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e`$ by extending the $`f_k`$:

###### Lemma 6.5.

Let $`𝒞`$ be an abelian category, $`D^b(𝒞)`$ its derived category, and $`𝒟`$ another triangulated category. Let $`F:D^b(𝒞)𝒟`$ be a fully faithful exact functor which has a left adjoint, and $`G:D^b(𝒞)𝒟`$ another exact functor which has a left adjoint. Assume that $`D^b(𝒞)`$ and $`𝒟`$ have Serre functors and that there is an ample sequence $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{P_k\}`$ in $`𝒞`$ with an isomorphism of functors $`f_\mathrm{\Omega }:F|_\mathrm{\Omega }G|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ when restricted to the full subcategory $`\mathrm{\Omega }D^b(𝒞)`$. Then there exists an isomorphism of functors $`f:FG`$ which is an extension of $`f_\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`F^{}`$ and $`F^!`$ (resp. $`G^{}`$ and $`G^!`$) be the left and right adjoint functors of $`F`$ (resp. $`G`$). Since $`F`$ is fully faithful, the natural morphism of functors $`\text{Id}_{D^b(𝒞)}F^!F`$ is an isomorphism, because

$$\text{Hom}(a,b)\text{Hom}(a,F^!Fb)$$

is an isomorphism for any objects $`a`$ and $`b`$.

Since $`G`$ is isomorphic to $`F`$ when restricted to a spanning class $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, it is also fully faithful, hence the natural morphism of functors $`G^{}G\text{Id}_{D^b(𝒞)}`$ is an isomorphism.

$`G^{}F`$ is the left adjoint functor of $`F^!G`$. Since they are isomorphic to the identity functor when restricted to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, it follows that they are fully faithful, hence they are quasi-inverses of each other. Thus $`F^!G`$ is an autoequivalence of $`D^b(𝒞)`$, and there exists an extended isomorphism of functors $`f^{}:\text{Id}_{D^b(𝒞)}F^!G`$ by  Proposition 2.16. By adjunction, we obtain a morphism of functors $`f:FG`$.

We prove that $`f`$ is an isomorphism. For any object $`a`$, let

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}F(a)& \stackrel{f(a)}{}& G(a)& & c& & F(a)[1]\end{array}$$

be a distinguished triangle. Since $`F^!(f(a))`$ is an isomorphism, we have $`F^!(c)0`$. From

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \text{Hom}(\omega ,G^!(c))\text{Hom}(G(\omega ),c)\hfill \\ & \text{Hom}(F(\omega ),c)\text{Hom}(\omega ,F^!(c))0\hfill \end{array}$$

for any $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, we deduce that $`G^!(c)0`$. Hence $`\text{Hom}(G(a),c)0`$, thus $`F(a)G(a)c[1]`$. But

$$\text{Hom}(F(a),c[1])\text{Hom}(a,F^!(c)[1])0$$

hence $`c=0`$. ∎

### 6.6 Step 6

Let $`e_1D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳\times 𝒴))`$ be any object such that there is an isomorphism of functors $`F\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^{e_1}`$. We shall prove that $`e_1e`$.

Let $`(c_{},\delta _{})`$ be the complex of objects considered in Step 2. We consider a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}c_1& & c_{10}& & c_0\\ & & & & & & \\ \overline{c}_1& & \overline{c}_{10}& & \overline{c}_0\\ & & & & & & \\ p_1^{}^1e_1p_1^{}\pi _{}R_1& & A_{}(p_1^{}^1e_1)& & e_1\end{array}$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}& c_1=(p_1^{}\pi _{}\pi ^{}^1p_2^{}p_2(e_1p_1^{}\pi _{}R_1))^{\mathrm{\Delta }G}\hfill \\ & c_{10}=A_1_{}(p_1^{}\pi _{}\pi ^{}^1p_2^{}p_2(e_1p_1^{}\pi _{}\pi ^{}𝒪_𝒳))^{\mathrm{\Delta }G}\hfill \\ & c_0=(p_1^{}\pi _{}\pi ^{}𝒪_𝒳p_2^{}p_2(e_1p_1^{}\pi _{}\pi ^{}𝒪_𝒳))^{\mathrm{\Delta }G}\hfill \\ & \overline{c}_1=p_1^{}\pi _{}\pi ^{}^1e_1p_1^{}\pi _{}R_1\hfill \\ & \overline{c}_{10}=A_1_{}(p_1^{}\pi _{}\pi ^{}^1e_1p_1^{}\pi _{}\pi ^{}𝒪_𝒳)\hfill \\ & \overline{c}_0=p_1^{}\pi _{}\pi ^{}𝒪_𝒳e_1p_1^{}\pi _{}\pi ^{}𝒪_𝒳.\hfill \end{array}$$

We define a morphism $`\overline{\delta }_0:c_0e_1`$ as the composition of the arrows in the last column. Since the composition of the last row is zero, we have $`\overline{\delta }_0\delta _1=0`$.

We have

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \text{Hom}(\pi _{}\pi ^{}^kF(\pi _{}R_k)[r],e_1)\text{Hom}(p_2^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{e_1}(\pi _{}R_k)[r],e_1p_1^{}\pi _{}\pi ^{}^k)\hfill \\ & \text{Hom}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{e_1}(\pi _{}R_k)[r],\mathrm{\Phi }^{e_1}(\pi _{}\pi ^{}^k))\text{Hom}(\pi _{}R_k[r],\pi _{}\pi ^{}^k)0\hfill \end{array}$$

for any $`r>0`$. If we apply the argument of the proof of Lemma 2.1 to a longer complex

$$0c_m\mathrm{}c_0e_10$$

we deduce that there exists a uniquely determined morphism $`ϵ:e^{}e_1`$ such that $`ϵ\delta _0=\overline{\delta }_0`$. Composing with the natural morphism $`ee^{}`$, we obtain a morphism $`ee_1`$.

Let $`c`$ be the cone of this morphism and assume that $`c\cong ̸0`$:

$$ee_1ce[1].$$

We use the notation of Lemma 6.1, where we assume additionally that $`p_2(cp_1^{}𝒜)0`$. If we apply the functor $`p_2(p_1^{}𝒜)`$ to the complex $`c_{}`$ with the morphism $`\overline{\delta }_0:c_0e_1`$, then we obtain a complex $`F(a_{})`$ with a morphism $`\overline{\delta }_0:F(a_0)\mathrm{\Phi }^{e_1}(𝒜)`$, and a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F(a_0)& \stackrel{\delta _0}{}& F(U(𝒜)[m]𝒜)\mathrm{\Phi }^e^{}(𝒜)\\ =& & ϵ\left(𝒜\right)& & \\ F(a_0)& \stackrel{\overline{\delta }_0}{}& F(𝒜)\mathrm{\Phi }^{e_1}(𝒜).\end{array}$$

Therefore, the induced morphism $`p_2(ep_1^{}𝒜)p_2(e_1p_1^{}𝒜)`$ is an isomorphism, hence $`p_2(cp_1^{}𝒜)0`$, a contradiction.

This is the end of the proof of Theorem 1.1.

## 7 Applications

The following theorem is a generalization of  Theorem 2.3 to the case of varieties with quotient singularities.

###### Theorem 7.1.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be normal projective varieties with only quotient singularities, and $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒴`$ the associated smooth stacks. Assume that the bounded derived categories of coherent sheaves are equivalent as triangulated categories: $`D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳))D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒴))`$. Then the following hold:

(0) $`dimX=dimY`$.

(1) If $`K_X`$ (resp. $`K_X`$) is nef, then $`K_Y`$ (resp. $`K_Y`$) is also nef, and an equality on the numerical Kodaira dimension $`\nu (X)=\nu (Y)`$ (resp. $`\nu (X,K_X)=\nu (Y,K_Y)`$) holds.

(2) If $`\kappa (X)=dimX`$, i.e., $`X`$ is of general type, or if $`\kappa (X,K_X)=dimX`$, then $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are birationally equivalent. Moreover, there exist birational morphisms $`f:ZX`$ and $`g:ZY`$ from a smooth projective variety $`Z`$ such that the canonical divisors are $``$-linearly equivalent: $`f^{}K_X_{}g^{}K_Y`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is parallel to that of  Theorem 2.3, and we only explain the outline.

By Theorem 1.1, there exists an object $`eD^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳\times 𝒴))`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e:D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳))D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒴))`$ is an equivalence. Considering the right and left adjoint functors, we obtain an isomorphism of objects

$$e^{}p_1^{}\omega _𝒳[dimX]e^{}p_2^{}\omega _𝒴[dimY].$$

Part (0) follows immediately.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the union of the supports of the cohomology sheaves $`H^i(e^{})`$ for all $`i`$, and let $`\widehat{\nu }_1:\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_1𝒵_1`$ be the normalization of an irreducible component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which is at the same time an irreducible component of the support of some $`H^i(e^{})`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝒳𝒴}^e`$ is an equivalence, there exists $`𝒵_1`$ such that the projection $`𝒵_1𝒴`$ is surjective and that

$$\widehat{\nu }_1^{}p_1^{}\omega _𝒳^{m_1}\widehat{\nu }_1^{}p_2^{}\omega _𝒴^{m_1}$$

where $`m_1`$ is the rank of $`\widehat{\nu }_1^{}H^i(e^{})`$. Let $`Z_1`$ be the image of $`𝒵_1`$ on $`X\times Y`$ and $`\nu _1:\stackrel{~}{Z}_1Z_1`$ the normalization.

If $`K_X`$ is nef or anti-nef, then $`\nu _1^{}p_1^{}K_X_{}\nu _1^{}p_2^{}K_Y`$ is also nef or anti-nef, hence so is $`K_Y`$. We have also $`\nu (X,\pm K_X)\nu (\stackrel{~}{Z}_1,\pm \nu _1^{}p_2^{}K_Y)=\nu (Y,\pm K_Y)`$, thus $`\nu (X,\pm K_X)=\nu (Y,\pm K_Y)`$ by symmetry.

If $`\kappa (X,\pm K_X)=dimX`$, then there exist an ample $``$-Cartier divisor $`A`$ and an effective $``$-Cartier divisor $`B`$ on $`X`$ such that $`\pm K_X_{}A+B`$ by Kodaira’s lemma. We take $`𝒵_1`$ which dominates $`𝒳`$ instead of $`𝒴`$. Then the projection $`p_2|_{Z_1}:Z_1Y`$ is quasi-finite on $`Z_1p_1^1(\text{Supp}(B))`$. It follows that $`dimZ_1=dimX`$ and $`Z_1`$ also dominates $`Y`$. The set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }p_1^1(x)`$ consisits of a single point for a general point $`xX`$, and $`Z_1`$ becomes a graph of a birational map. If we take $`Z`$ to be its resolution of singularities, then the conclusion holds. ∎

We consider a generalization of a result in  on the autoequivalence group:

###### Theorem 7.2.

Let $`X`$ be a normal projective variety with only quotient singularities, and $`𝒳`$ the associated smooth stack. Assume that $`K_X`$ or $`K_X`$ is ample and that $`K_X`$ generates the local divisor class group at each point $`xX`$. Then the group of autoequivalences $`\text{Autoeq}(D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳)))`$ is isomorphic to the semidirect product of the automorphism group $`\text{Aut}(X)`$ and the trivial factor $`\text{Pic}(𝒳)\times `$.

###### Proof.

The theorem can be proved in the same way as in . But we present here an alternative proof using Theorem 1.1 as in  Remark 2.4 (1).

We use the notation of the proof of Theorem 7.1. Since we can take $`B=0`$, $`Z_1`$ becomes a graph of an automorphism of $`X`$, which induces an automorphism $`h`$ of $`𝒳`$. We have that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(a(jK_𝒳))\mathrm{\Phi }(a)(jK_𝒳)$$
(7.1)
for any object $`a`$ and integer $`j`$.

We claim that the support of $`e`$ coincides with the graph of $`h`$. Indeed, if not, then there exists a point $`x𝒳`$ such that the support of $`ep_1^{}𝒪_x`$ is not connected. Since $`K_X`$ generates the local class groups, it follows that the support of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x)`$ is not connected by $`(\text{7.1})`$, a contradiction.

Let $`x𝒳`$ be any point, $`r_x`$ the index of $`K_X`$ at $`\sigma (x)`$, and $`j`$ an integer such that $`0j<r_x`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x)`$ is a shift of a sheaf, because we have otherwise $`\text{Hom}_{D^b(𝒳)}^p(\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x),\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x(jK_X)))0`$ for some $`p<0`$ and $`j`$. Moreover, since

$$\text{Hom}_{D^b(𝒳)}(\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x),\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x(jK_X)))\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill & \text{ if }j=0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }0<j<r_x\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x)`$ is a shift of a skyscraper sheaf of length $`1`$.

Assume that $`e`$ is not a shift of a sheaf, and let $`i_1`$ be the maximum of the integers $`i`$ such that $`H^i(e)0`$. We consider a spectral sequence

$$E_2^{p,q}=\text{Tor}_p(H^q(e),p_1^{}𝒪_x)ep_1^{}𝒪_x.$$

Take a general point $`x`$ of the support of $`p_1H^{i_1}(e)`$ which is also contained in the support of $`p_1H^{i_2}(e)`$ for some $`i_2<i_1`$. We assume that $`i_2`$ is the largest such integer. If the support of $`p_1H^{i_1}(e)`$ is a proper subvariety of $`𝒳`$, then both $`E_2^{0,i_1}`$ and $`E_2^{1,i_1}`$ do not vanish, and they survive at $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$. Otherwise, both $`E_2^{0,i_1}`$ and $`E_2^{0,i_2}`$ do not vanish and survive at $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$. In any case, we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒪_x)`$ is not a shift of a skyscraper sheaf of length $`1`$, a contradiction. Hence $`e[i_1]`$ is a sheaf. Moreover, there exists an invertible sheaf $``$ on $`𝒳`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^e(a)h_{}(a)[i_1]`$ for any $`aD^b(𝒳)`$. ∎

###### Remark 7.3.

Let $`Y`$ be a minimal algebraic surface of general type, and $`X`$ its canonical model.

(1) By , the derived categories $`D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳))`$ and $`D^b(\text{Coh}(Y))`$ are equivalent. Though $`K_X`$ is ample, $`X`$ and $`Y`$ may not be isomorphic. This is a difference from the case of smooth varieties (); if $`X`$ is smooth and $`\pm K_X`$ is ample, then any variety $`Y`$ with an equivalent derived category is isomorphic to $`X`$. The reason is that, there is no crepant birational map, which is not an isomorphism, from a smooth projective variety whose canonical or anti-canonical divisor is ample.

(2) The condition on the local class groups in Theorem 7.2 cannot be removed. For example, assume that $`X`$ has an ordinary double point $`x_0X`$. Let $`𝒪_{x_0}(1)`$ be a skyscraper stacky sheaf over $`x_0`$ which has a non-trivial action of the stabilizer group, and $`𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }𝒳}`$ the object on the product $`𝒳\times 𝒳`$ corresponding to the identity functor. Then the object

$$e=\text{cone}\{𝒪_{x_0}(1)^{}𝒪_{x_0}(1)𝒪_{\mathrm{\Delta }𝒳}\}$$

corresponds to the twisting $`T\text{Autoeq}(D^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳)))`$ defined by

$$T:a\text{cone}\{\text{Hom}(𝒪_{x_0}(1),a)𝒪_{x_0}(1)a\}$$

for $`aD^b(\text{Coh}(𝒳))`$ (). We note that

$$𝒪_{x_0}(1)^{}𝒪_{x_0}(1)[2].$$

###### Remark 7.4.

The main results of this paper hold without change for more general situation where the stabilizer groups of the smooth stacks have fixed loci of codimension $`1`$. This extended version will be used in a forthcoming paper.

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Tokyo,

Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo, 153-8914, Japan

kawamata@ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp


text:
# The mass of the graviton and the cosmological constant

## I Introduction

The mass of the graviton and the cosmological constant have been seen, historically and conceptually, as two entirely different quantities. Nevertheless, we shall prove in this letter that there is a very precise relation between these quantities, expressed mathematically by the equation $`m_g^2=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$

This result follows from the study of the propagation of spin-2 fields in curved spacetime. The construction of a coherent and self-consistent theory for the spin-2 field in the general case of curved riemannian spacetimes was, for a long time, thought to be problematic Aragone-Deser-1 ; Aragone-Deser-2 . There were difficulties related to the number of degrees of freedom, causality of propagation and compatibility with the Einstein equations. All these problems have a common origin in an apparent ambiguity: since the covariant derivatives do not comute in the curved spacetime, the generalization of the equation of motion for the spin-2 field from flat to curved spacetime seems to involve an arbitrary choice of the order of the derivatives.

In a recent paper Novello-Neves , we showed that the generalization of the Fierz variables Fierz-Pauli  to curved spacetime avoids this ambiguity, leading to a unique, well-defined equation of motion. The theory thus obtained is completely self-consistent, without the need of any ad hoc hypothesis. The difficulties cited above turned out to be a consequence of a bad choice for the equation of motion, and have nothing to do with some anomaly in the physical world.

In this work, we will concentrate our analysis in the special case of a massive spin-2 field propagating in de Sitter $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }>0)`$ or anti-de Sitter $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }<0)`$ spacetimes. We will show that, when the mass of the field has the peculiar value $`m^2=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ which can be positive only in AdS, the action has a gauge symmetry analogous to that of the massless field in Minkowski spacetime, and, as a consequence of this symmetry, the field has only two degrees of freedom. This situation reproduces precisely what happens with the perturbations of the Einstein equations in an AdS background: the perturbed gravitons are shown to have a mass with exactly this peculiar value. We will also show that an ”effective” mass, $`M,`$ can be defined so that the field has two degrees of freedom only when $`M`$ vanishes. Otherwise, it has five degrees of freedom. Our interpretation of $`M`$ as only an effective mass, and not the real one (which we call $`m`$), is deeply rooted in the Fierz formalism.

A special value for the mass has also appeared in a recent paper by Deser and Waldron Deser-Waldron . They studied the behavior of a spin-2 field in dS and AdS backgrounds and showed that ”the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the mass parameter define a phase plane in which partially massless gauge invariant lines separate allowed regions from forbidden, non-unitary ones”. The crucial result rests on the existence of a spin-2 massive field that separates the two regions, the mass of which is $`m^2=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ They argue that at this particular value a novel symmetry appears that is responsible for the elimination of the 0 helicity excitation. In their approach, when the field has a mass with this value, it has four degrees of freedom; it has two degrees of freedom only when $`m=0.`$ In the interval $`0<m^2<\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ the theory is unstable. In the Minkowski and AdS geometries the theory is always stable and the field has five degrees of freedom, unless it is massless.

Although some of their results agree with ours there are some differences. First of all, we note that what they call the mass should be compared with our effective mass, $`M.`$ We found that the field has two degrees of freedom only when $`M=0.`$ The interval $`0<M^2<\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$) is forbidden, since the real mass would have to be imaginary. In AdS, $`M`$ can take any value (but the real mass should satisfy $`m^2>\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for it not to be imaginary) and $`M=m`$ in Minkowski. The main difference is that, as we have already pointed out, the spin-2 field has either two or five degrees of freedom, never four. The distinction between real and effective masses is also a novelty. It makes it possible for us to state that the real mass of the field does not vanish when it has two degrees of freedom in the AdS geometry. These differences are certainly related to the choice of the equation of motion for the spin-2 field in a curved spacetime. Our point of view is that the use of the Fierz formalism leads to the best choice, as is extensively discussed in Novello-Neves .

It follows from all this that the real mass of the graviton is related to a negative cosmological constant, even though its effective mass vanishes. So, the anti-de Sitter spacetime replaces the Minkowski spacetime as the basic vacuum solution of the Einstein equations if the mass of the graviton is not null.

Finally, let us remark that it is quite an interesting property that $`\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a critical value in both treatments. One should ask if very fine-tuning mass such as this exists among all the spectrum of known particles. We shall prove in this paper that the particle which displays such special mass is precisely what is called the graviton.

## II
The Fierz formalism in curved spacetime

The Fierz formalism is an alternative way to describe a spin-2 field, characterized by the use of a three-index tensor $`F_{\alpha \beta \mu },`$ which is anti-symmetric in the first pair of indices and obeys the cyclic identity, that is

$$F_{\alpha \beta \mu }+F_{\beta \alpha \mu }=0,$$
(1)
$$F_{\alpha \beta \mu }+F_{\beta \mu \alpha }+F_{\mu \alpha \beta }=0.$$
(2)
Since such an object has $`20`$ independent components, we must impose an additional condition that eliminates $`10`$ of them, otherwise it will describe two spin-2 fields. We set111We define the symmetrization symbol by $`A_{(\mu \nu )}A_{\mu \nu }+A_{\nu \mu }.`$:

$$\stackrel{}{F}{}_{}{}^{\alpha (\mu \nu )}{}_{,\alpha }{}^{}=0,$$
(3)
in which the asterisk represents the dual operator.

Condition (3) implies that there exists a symmetric second order tensor $`\phi _{\mu \nu }`$ such that we can write

$$2F_{\alpha \beta \mu }=\phi _{\mu \alpha ,\beta }\phi _{\mu \beta ,\alpha }+F_\alpha \eta _{\beta \mu }F_\beta \eta _{\alpha \mu },$$
(4)
where $`F_\alpha =F_{\alpha \beta \mu }\eta ^{\beta \mu }=\phi _{,\alpha }\phi _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }{}_{,\beta }{}^{}.`$

We call $`F_{\alpha \beta \mu }`$ a Fierz tensor. It satisfies the identity

$$F^\alpha {}_{(\mu \nu ),\alpha }{}^{}2G^{(\mathrm{})}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{},$$
(5)
where $`G^{(\mathrm{})}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the linearized Einstein operator, defined in terms of the symmetric tensor $`\phi _{\mu \nu }`$ by

$$G^{(\mathrm{})}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{}\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi ^\alpha {}_{(\mu ,\nu ),\alpha }{}^{}+\phi _{,\mu \nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{}\phi \phi ^{\alpha \beta }{}_{,\alpha \beta }{}^{})].$$
(6)
This tensor222We changed the notation used in our previous quoted paper introducing a factor $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in the definition of $`G^{(\mathrm{})}_{\mu \nu }`$ that makes it better suited for applications in the general relativity context. has the important property of being divergence-free.

The generalization of the Fierz formalism to a curved riemannian background is made through the use of the minimal coupling principle, replacing $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ by $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and the simple derivatives by covariant ones in equation (4):

$$2F_{\alpha \beta \mu }=\phi _{\mu \alpha ;\beta }\phi _{\mu \beta ;\alpha }+F_\alpha g_{\beta \mu }F_\beta g_{\alpha \mu }.$$
(7)
As a direct consequence of the fact that the covariant derivatives do not comute in a curved spacetime, condition (3) becomes

$$\stackrel{\alpha }{\stackrel{}{F}}{}_{(\mu \nu );\alpha }{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}R_{\alpha (\mu \nu )\beta }^\text{ }\phi ^{\alpha \beta }.$$
(8)
In the special cases of de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetimes, we recover the result $`\stackrel{\alpha (\mu \nu )}{\stackrel{}{F}}{}_{;\alpha }{}^{}=0.`$ The role of $`G^{(\mathrm{})}_{\mu \nu }`$ is now played by the tensor $`\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu },`$ defined so that

$$F^\alpha {}_{(\mu \nu );\alpha }{}^{}2\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }.$$
(9)
A straightforward calculation shows that

$$\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}[G^{(a)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}+G^{(b)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}]$$
(10)
where

$$G^{(a)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{}\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi _{\alpha (\mu ;\nu )}{}_{}{}^{;\alpha }+\phi _{;\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{}\phi \phi ^{\alpha \beta }{}_{;\alpha \beta }{}^{})]$$
(11)
and

$$G^{(b)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{}\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi _{\alpha (\mu }{}_{}{}^{;\alpha }{}_{;\nu )}{}^{}+\phi _{;\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{}\phi \phi ^{\alpha \beta }{}_{;\alpha \beta }{}^{})].$$
(12)
## III The massive spin-2 field in a de Sitter background

### III.1 The equation of motion

In the Minkowski spacetime, the equation of motion for a massive spin-2 field is

$$G^{(\mathrm{})}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}+\frac{1}{2}m^2(\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi \eta _{\mu \nu })=0.$$
(13)
Taking the divergence of this equation and inserting it back in its trace, we find that we must have

$$\phi =0,\text{ }\phi _\mu ^{\text{ }\nu }{}_{,\nu }{}^{}=0,$$
(14)
so that the field has five degrees of freedom.

When we pass from flat to curved spacetime, the generalization of equation (13) is not trivial. Thanks to the fact that the covariant derivatives no longer comute, we could make different choices for the order in which they appear. We could use either $`G^{(a)}_{\mu \nu }`$ or $`G^{(b)}_{\mu \nu }`$ to replace $`G^{(\mathrm{})}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{},`$ or even any combination of both. Since the fundamental work of Aragone and Deser Aragone-Deser-1 , it has become a tradition the use of $`G^{(a)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}.`$ However, there is no solid motivation for this particular choice. In a recent work, we showed that the extension of the Fierz formalism to curved spacetime provides a well motivated choice, once it is completely unambiguous. Using Fierz variables, we arrive at the following equation of motion:

$$F^\alpha {}_{(\mu \nu );\alpha }{}^{}m^2(\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi g_{\mu \nu })=0$$
(15)
or, equivalently:

$$\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}m^2\left(\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi g_{\mu \nu }\right)=0.$$
(16)
Its divergence yields

$$Z^\mu m^2F^\mu =0,$$
(17)
where we define $`Z^\mu F^{\alpha (\mu \nu )}{}_{;\alpha \nu }{}^{}=2\widehat{G}^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\nu }{}^{}.`$ It is not difficult to show that $`Z^\mu `$ is given by

$$Z^\mu =R^{\alpha \beta \lambda \mu }F_{\alpha \beta \lambda }\frac{1}{2}\left(R_\epsilon {}_{}{}^{[\lambda }\phi _{}^{\mu ]\epsilon }\right)_{;\lambda }.$$
(18)
In the Minkowski spacetime, $`Z^\mu `$ vanishes identically, but this is no longer true in the curved spacetime. When (17) is not an identity, we impose the following conditions, in order to have a consistent system of equations:

$$\phi =0,$$
(19)
$$F^\mu =0,$$
(20)
$$Z^\mu =0.$$
(21)
The vanishing of $`Z^\mu `$ should be seen as four conditions to be satisfied by the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }.`$

When the background is a de Sitter spacetime, in which $`R_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\left(g_{\alpha \mu }g_{\beta \nu }g_{\alpha \nu }g_{\beta \mu }\right),`$ equation (18) becomes

$$Z^\mu =\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }F^\mu ,$$
(22)
and we see that the conditions (19), (20) and (21) are self-consistent.

### III.2 The fine-tuning mass

Equation (16) is derived from the action

$$S=\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{g}\left[AB\frac{m^2}{2}\left(\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi ^{\mu \nu }\phi ^2\right)\right]d^4x,$$
(23)
where

$`AF_{\alpha \mu \nu }F^{\alpha \mu \nu }`$ and $`BF_\mu F^\mu .`$

In the flat Minkowski background (where $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$) the massless field equation is invariant under the transformation $`\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi _{\mu \nu }+\delta \phi _{\mu \nu }`$ given by

$$\delta \phi _{\mu \nu }=\xi _{\mu ;\nu }+\xi _{\nu ;\mu }.$$
(24)
In a curved spacetime the same transformation causes the action (23) to change according to

$$\delta S=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}\left(Z^\mu m^2F^\mu \right)\xi _\mu d^4x.$$
(25)
In general, this action will not be invariant under such a transformation. However when the background is a de Sitter spacetime, equations (22) and (25) tell us that in the very particular case when the mass of the spin-2 field has the special value $`m^2=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ the action recovers a gauge invariance333Note that the gauge invariance of the massless field in Minkowski spacetime is correctly contained in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0.`$ . The surprising feature of this result is that the action invariance, in a de Sitter background, does not occur for the massless field, but for the field that satisfies $`m^2=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ For any other value of the mass, the conditions (19),(20) and (21) must be imposed.

In section IV we shall prove that the particle which displays such special mass is precisely what we could call the graviton.

### III.3 The effective mass

When the field is massless, the equation of motion reduces to $`\widehat{G}^{\mu \nu }=0.`$ Taking the divergence of this equation, in a de Sitter spacetime, we see from equation (22) and the definition of $`Z^\mu `$ that we must have $`F^\mu =0.`$ Besides, in this particular geometry the following identity holds:

$$\widehat{G}^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\mu \nu }{}^{}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\widehat{G}^{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(26)
This eliminates a further degree of freedom, which we can conveniently choose to be given by $`\phi =0.`$ So, the conditions (19), (20) and (21) are satisfied, and we can see that the field has five degrees of freedom.

This is a rather curious result. Indeed, the massless field has the properties we would expect from a massive field, while the special features that we usually associate to the massless field occurs when the mass has the fine-tuning value $`m_g^2=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ This suggests that we define an effective mass for the spin-2 field in a de Sitter spacetime, given by

$$M^2=m^2+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(27)
Then, the field has two degrees of freedom only when $`M=0.`$ For any other value of $`M,`$ it has five degrees of freedom.

It is important to notice that, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0,`$ the interval $`0<M^2<\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is forbidden, since the real mass, $`m,`$ cannot be imaginary. Similarly, the interval $`0<m^2<\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ renders an imaginary effective mass when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0.`$ It seems, thus, that $`m^2=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a lower bound for the real mass in the AdS geometry, corresponding to the situation in which the field has only two degrees of freedom. The real mass is not restricted in dS, but the effective mass is. Inversely, it is the effective mass that is not restricted in AdS. Note that $`M=0`$ is forbidden in the case in which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0,`$ so that the field cannot have two degrees of freedom in dS.

## IV The fine-tuning mass of the graviton

Let us perturb the Einstein equations of motion (with the cosmological term),

$$G_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{ }g_{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(28)
around the de Sitter solution $`\underset{\mu \nu .}{\overset{\text{o}}{g}}`$ Using the notation $`\delta g_{\mu \nu }=\phi _{\mu \nu },`$ the equation for the perturbed field is

$$\delta G_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }\phi _{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(29)
where $`\delta G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the perturbation of the Einstein tensor. A direct calculation yields

$$\delta G_{\mu \nu }=G^{(a)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}+A_{\mu \nu },$$
(30)
where

$$A_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}(\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{\text{o}}{g}}\stackrel{\alpha \beta }{\stackrel{\text{o}}{R}}\phi _{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{\text{o}}{R}\phi _{\mu \nu }).$$
(31)
Manipulating equations (10), (11) and (12), we arrive at

$$G^{(a)}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}R_{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }\phi ^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{1}{4}R_{\alpha (\mu }\phi _{\nu )}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }.$$
(32)
In the de Sitter background, equation (29) becomes

$$\widehat{G}_{\mu \nu }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}(\phi _{\mu \nu }\phi \underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{\text{o}}{g}})=0.$$
(33)
Comparing with equation (16), one recognizes that the graviton has a mass $`m_g^2=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ In the anti-de Sitter spacetime, according to our previous discussion, this is the real value for the graviton mass, which in turn is associated with a null effective mass, so that the field has only two degrees of freedom, as we showed above.

## V Conclusion

The use of the Fierz formalism leads to a well-defined equation of motion for the spin-2 field, avoiding all the arbitrariness present in other approaches. Using this equation, we analysed the case of a massive spin-2 field propagating in a de Sitter or in anti-de Sitter background, and showed that, when the mass has the special value $`m_g^2=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ \- the fine-tuning mass\- which can be positive only in anti-de Sitter, the action has a gauge symmetry analogous to the one present in Minkowski spacetime, and the field has only two degrees of freedom. For any other mass value, including $`m=0,`$ the field has five degrees of freedom. This led us to define an effective mass $`M`$ such that the field has two degrees of freedom whenever it vanishes and five otherwise.

We were also able to show that a perturbation of the Einstein equations (with the cosmological constant term), in a de Sitter or anti-de Sitter background, produces exactly the equation we obtained from the Fierz formalism for the massive spin-2 field. The graviton mass is related to the cosmological constant by precisely the fine-tuning value described above - a relation that makes sense only when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0.`$ So, although not strictly massless, the graviton, in an anti-de Sitter background, keeps the same number of degrees of freedom it has in the Minkowski spacetime, since its effective mass vanishes. Inverting the argument, we may say that if the graviton has a real mass that is not null, then the cosmological constant should be negative.

## VI Acknowledgement

This work was partially supported by the Brazilian agency Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq).