format: text

text:
# Elliptic Curves and Class Field Theory

## 1. Introduction

Eighty years have passed since Mordell proved that the (Mordell-Weil) group of rational points on an elliptic curve $`E`$ is finitely generated, yet so limited is our knowledge that we still have no algorithm guaranteed to compute the rank of this group. If we want to ask even more ambitious questions about how the rank of the Mordell-Weil group $`E(F)`$ varies as $`F`$ varies, it makes sense to restrict attention only to those fields for which we have an explicit construction, such as finite abelian extensions of a given imaginary quadratic field $`K`$. Taking our lead from the profound discovery of Iwasawa that the variational properties of certain arithmetic invariants are well-behaved if one restricts to subfields of $`𝐙_p^d`$-extensions of number fields, we will focus on the following Mordell-Weil variation problem:

> Fixing an elliptic curve $`E`$ defined over $`𝐐`$, an imaginary quadratic field $`K`$, and a prime number $`p`$, study the variation of the Mordell-Weil group of $`E`$ over finite subfields of the (unique) $`𝐙_p^2`$-extension of $`K`$ in $`\overline{K}`$.

This problem was the subject of some conjectures formulated by the first author at the 1983 ICM , conjectures which have recently been largely settled by work of Vatsal  and Cornut  building on work of Kolyvagin and others.

###### Example.

Let $`E`$ be the elliptic curve $`y^2+y=x^3x`$, $`p=5`$, and let $`K=𝐐(\sqrt{7})`$. If $`F`$ is a finite extension of $`K`$, contained in the $`𝐙_5^2`$ extension of $`K`$, then $`\mathrm{rank}E(F)=[FK_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}:K]`$ where $`K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}`$ is the anticyclotomic $`𝐙_5`$-extension of $`K`$ (see §2 for the definition). One only has an answer like this in the very simplest cases.

Now with the same $`E`$ and $`p`$, take $`K=𝐐(\sqrt{26})`$. A guess here would be that $`\mathrm{rank}E(F)=[FK_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}:K]+2`$, but this seems to be beyond present technology.

The object of this article is to sketch a package of still-outstanding conjectures in hopes that it offers an even more precise picture of this piece of arithmetic. These conjectures are in some cases due to, and in other cases build on ideas of, Bertolini & Darmon, Greenberg, Gross & Zagier, Haran, Hida, Iwasawa, Kolyvagin, Nekovár̆, Perrin-Riou, and the authors, among others.

In sections 3 through 5 we describe the three parts of our picture: the arithmetic theory (the study of the Selmer modules over Iwasawa rings that contain the information we seek), the analytic theory (the construction and study of the relevant $`L`$-functions, both classical and $`p`$-adic), and the universal norm theory which arises from purely arithmetic considerations, but provides analytic invariants.

In the final section we suggest the beginnings of a new algebraic structure to organize these conjectures. This structure should not be viewed as a conjecture, but rather as a mnemonic to collect our conjectures and perhaps predict new ones.

More details and proofs will appear in a forthcoming paper.

## 2. Running hypotheses and notation

Fix a triple $`(E,K,p)`$ where $`E`$ is an elliptic curve of conductor $`N`$ over $`𝐐`$, $`K`$ is an imaginary quadratic field of discriminant $`D<4`$, and $`p`$ is a prime number. To keep our discussion focused and as succinct as possible, we make the following hypotheses and conventions.

Assume that $`p`$ is odd, that $`N`$, $`p`$ and $`D`$ are pairwise relatively prime, and that if $`E`$ has complex multiplication, then $`K`$ is not its field of complex multiplication. Let $`𝒪_KK`$ denote the ring of integers of $`K`$. Assume further that there exists an ideal $`𝒩𝒪_K`$ such that $`𝒪_K/𝒩`$ is cyclic of order $`N`$ (this is sometimes called the Heegner Hypothesis), and that $`p`$ is a prime of ordinary reduction for $`E`$. For simplicity we will assume throughout this article that the $`p`$-primary subgroups of the Shafarevich-Tate groups of $`E`$ over the number fields we consider are all finite.

###### Proposition 1.

Under the assumptions above, $`\mathrm{rank}E(K)`$ is odd.

###### Proof.

This follows from the Parity Conjecture recently proved by Nekovár̆ .

Let $`𝐊_{\mathrm{}}`$ denote the (unique) $`𝐙_p^2`$-extension of $`K`$ and $`𝚪:=\mathrm{Gal}(𝐊_{\mathrm{}}/K)`$, so $`𝚪𝐙_p^2`$. We define the Iwasawa ring

$$𝚲:=𝐙_p[[𝚪]]_{𝐙_p}𝐐_p.$$

(To simplify notation and to avoid some complications, we will often work with $`𝐐_p`$-vector spaces instead of natural $`𝐙_p`$-modules; in particular we have tensored the usual Iwasawa ring with $`𝐐_p`$.) For every (finite or infinite) extension F of K in $`𝐊_{\mathrm{}}`$ we also define

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_F:=𝐙_p[[\mathrm{Gal}(F/K)]]_{𝐙_p}𝐐_p,𝐈_F:=\mathrm{ker}\{𝚲\mathrm{\Lambda }_F\}.$$

Then $`𝐈_K`$ is the augmentation ideal of $`𝚲`$, and if $`[F:K]`$ is finite then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$ is just the group ring $`𝐐_p[\mathrm{Gal}(F/K)]`$. If $`\mathrm{Gal}(F/K)`$ is $`𝐙_p`$ or $`𝐙_p^2`$, and $`M`$ is a finitely generated torsion $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$-module, then $`\mathrm{char}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_F}(M)`$ will denote the characteristic ideal of $`M`$. In particular $`\mathrm{char}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_F}(M)`$ is a principal ideal of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$.

There is a $`𝐐_p`$-projective line of $`𝐙_p`$-extensions of $`K`$, all contained in $`𝐊_{\mathrm{}}`$. Among these are two distinguished $`𝐙_p`$-extensions:

* the cyclotomic $`𝐙_p`$-extension $`K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{cycl}}`$, the compositum of $`K`$ with the unique (cyclotomic) $`𝐙_p`$-extension of $`𝐐`$ (write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}=\mathrm{Gal}(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{cycl}}/K)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{cycl}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{cycl}}}`$),
* the anticyclotomic $`𝐙_p`$-extension $`K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}`$, the unique $`𝐙_p`$-extension of $`K`$ that is Galois over $`𝐐`$ with non-abelian, and in fact dihedral, Galois group (write $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{anti}}=\mathrm{Gal}(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}/K)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}}`$).

Then $`𝚪=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$ and $`𝚲=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{cycl}}_{𝐙_p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$.

Complex conjugation $`\tau :KK`$ acts on $`𝚪`$, acting as $`+1`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}`$ and $`1`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$. This induces nontrivial involutions of $`𝚲`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$, which we also denote by $`\tau `$. If $`M`$ is a module over $`𝚲`$ (or similarly over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$), let $`M^{(\tau )}`$ denote the module whose underlying abelian group is $`M`$ but where the new action of $`\gamma 𝚪`$ on $`mM^{(\tau )}`$ is given by the old action of $`\gamma ^\tau `$ on $`m`$.

Our $`𝚲`$-modules will usually come with a natural action of $`\mathrm{Gal}(𝐊_{\mathrm{}}/𝐐)`$. These actions are continuous and $`𝐙_p`$-linear, and satisfy the formula $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }(\gamma m)=\gamma ^\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }(m)`$ for every lift $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ of $`\tau `$ to $`\mathrm{Gal}(𝐊_{\mathrm{}}/𝐐)`$. Thus the action of any lift $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ induces an isomorphism $`M\stackrel{}{}M^{(\tau )}`$. We will refer to such $`𝚲`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$-modules as semi-linear $`\tau `$-modules. If $`M`$ is a semi-linear $`\tau `$-module and is free of rank one over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$, we define the sign of $`M`$ to be the sign $`\pm 1`$ of the action of $`\tau `$ on the one-dimensional $`𝐐_p`$-vector space $`M_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_K`$. Such an $`M`$ is completely determined (up to isomorphism preserving its structure) by its sign.

###### Definition 2.

If $`M`$ and $`A`$ are semi-linear $`\tau `$-modules, then a ($`𝚲`$-bilinear) $`A`$-valued $`\tau `$-Hermitian pairing $`\pi `$ is a $`𝚲`$-module homomorphism $`\pi :M_𝚲M^{(\tau )}A`$ such that for every lift $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ of $`\tau `$ to $`\mathrm{Gal}(𝐊_{\mathrm{}}/𝐐)`$

$$\pi (mn)=\pi (nm)^{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}=\pi (\stackrel{~}{\tau }n\stackrel{~}{\tau }m).$$

## 3. Universal norms

###### Definition 3.

If $`KF𝐊_{\mathrm{}}`$, the universal norm module $`U(F)`$ is the projective limit

$$U(F):=𝐐_p\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_{KLF}(E(L)𝐙_p)$$

(projective limit with respect to traces, over finite extensions $`L`$ of $`K`$ in $`F`$) with its natural $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$-structure. If $`F`$ is a finite extension of $`K`$, then $`U(F)`$ is simply $`E(F)𝐐_p`$.

If $`F`$ is a $`𝐙_p`$-extension of $`K`$, then $`U(F)`$ is a free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_F`$-module of finite rank, and is zero if and only if the Mordell-Weil ranks of $`E`$ over subfields of $`F`$ are bounded (cf.  §18 or  §2.2). The first author conjectured some time ago  that for $`𝐙_p`$-extensions $`F/K`$, and under our running hypotheses, $`U(F)=0`$ if $`FK_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}`$ and $`U(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})`$ is free of rank one over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$. The following theorem follows from recent work of Kato  for $`K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{cycl}}`$ and Vatsal  and Cornut  for $`K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}`$.

###### Theorem 4.

$`U(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{cycl}})=0`$ and $`U(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})`$ is free of rank one over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$.

For the rest of this paper we will write $`𝒰`$ for the anticyclotomic universal norm module $`U(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})`$. Complex conjugation gives $`𝒰`$ a natural semi-linear $`\tau `$-module structure. Since $`𝒰`$ is free of rank one over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$, we conclude that $`𝒰`$ is completely determined (up to isomorphism preserving its $`\tau `$-structure) by its sign.

Let $`r^\pm `$ be the rank of the $`\pm 1`$ eigenspace of $`\tau `$ acting on $`E(K)`$, so $`\mathrm{rank}E(𝐐)=r^+`$ and $`\mathrm{rank}E(K)=r^++r^{}`$. By Proposition 1, $`\mathrm{rank}E(K)`$ is odd so $`r^+r^{}`$.

###### Conjecture 5 (Sign Conjecture).

The sign of the semi-linear $`\tau `$-module $`𝒰`$ is $`+1`$ if $`r^+>r^{}`$, and is $`1`$ if $`r^{}>r^+`$.

###### Remark.

Equivalently, the Sign Conjecture asserts that the sign of $`𝒰`$ is $`+1`$ if twice $`\mathrm{rank}E(𝐐)`$ is greater than $`\mathrm{rank}E(K)`$, and $`1`$ otherwise.

As we discuss below in §4, the Sign Conjecture is related to the nondegeneracy of the $`p`$-adic height pairing (see the remark after Conjecture 11).

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$-module $`𝒰`$ comes with a canonical Hermitian structure. That is, the canonical (cyclotomic) $`p`$-adic height pairing (see  and  §2.3)

$$\mathrm{h}:𝒰_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}𝒰^{(\tau )}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}_{𝐙_p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}$$

is a $`\tau `$-Hermitian pairing in the sense of Definition 2.

###### Conjecture 6 (Height Conjecture).

The homomorphism $`\mathrm{h}`$ is an isomorphism of free $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$-modules of rank one

$$\mathrm{h}:𝒰_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}𝒰^{(\tau )}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}_{𝐙_p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}.$$

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$-module $`𝒰`$ has an important submodule, the Heegner submodule $`𝒰`$. Fix a modular parameterization $`X_0(N)E`$. The Heegner submodule $``$ is the cyclic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$-module generated by a trace-compatible sequence $`c=\{c_L\}`$ of Heegner points $`c_LE(L)𝐙_p`$ for finite extensions $`L`$ of $`K`$ in $`K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}`$. See for example  §19 or  §3. Call such a $`c`$ a Heegner generator. The Heegner generators of $``$ are well-defined up to multiplication by an element of $`\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}})^\times `$. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$-submodule $`𝒰`$ is stable under the semi-linear $`\tau `$-structure of $`𝒰`$, so the action of $`\tau `$ gives an isomorphism $`𝒰/\stackrel{}{}(𝒰/)^{(\tau )}𝒰^{(\tau )}/^{(\tau )}`$.

Let $`c^{(\tau )}`$ denote the element $`c`$ viewed in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$-module $`^{(\tau )}`$. Since

$$(\pm \gamma c)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}(\pm \gamma c)^{(\tau )}=c_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}c^{(\tau )}$$

for every $`\pm \gamma \pm \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the element $`cc^{(\tau )}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}^{(\tau )}`$ is independent of the choice of Heegner generator, and is therefore a totally canonical generator of the free, rank one $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$-module $`_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}^{(\tau )}`$.

###### Definition 7.

The Heegner $`L`$-function (for the triple $`(E,K,p)`$ satisfying our running hypotheses) is the element

$$:=\mathrm{h}(cc^{(\tau )})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}_{𝐙_p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}.$$

###### Conjecture 8.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}\mathrm{char}(𝒰/)^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$ inside $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$.

One sees easily that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}\mathrm{char}(𝒰/)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$, and that Conjecture 8 is equivalent to the Height Conjecture (Conjecture 6).

## 4.  The analytic theory

The (“two-variable”) $`p`$-adic $`L`$-function for $`E`$ over $`K`$ is an element $`𝐋𝚲`$ constructed by Haran  and by a different, more general, method by Hida  (see also the papers of Perrin-Riou ). The $`L`$-function $`𝐋`$ is characterized by the fact that it interpolates special values of the classical Hasse-Weil $`L`$-function of twists of $`E`$ over $`K`$. More precisely, embedding $`\overline{𝐐}`$ both in $`𝐂`$ and $`\overline{𝐐}_p`$, if $`\chi :𝚪\overline{𝐙}^\times \overline{𝐙}_p^\times `$ is a character of finite order then

$$\chi (𝐋)=c(\chi )\frac{L_{\mathrm{classical}}(E_{/K},\chi ,1)}{8\pi ^2f_E^2}$$
(4.1)
where $`L_{\mathrm{classical}}(E_{/K},\chi ,s)`$ is the Hasse-Weil $`L`$-function of the twist of $`E_{/K}`$ by $`\chi `$, $`c(\chi )`$ is an explicit algebraic number (cf.  Théorème 1.1), $`f_E`$ is the modular form on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N)`$ corresponding to $`E`$, and $`f_E`$ is its Petersson norm.

Projecting $`𝐋𝚲`$ to the cyclotomic or the anticyclotomic line via the natural projections $`𝚲\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{cycl}}`$ and $`𝚲\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$, we get “one-variable” $`p`$-adic $`L`$-functions

$$𝐋L_{\mathrm{cycl}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{cycl}}\text{and}𝐋L_{\mathrm{anti}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}.$$

It follows from the functional equation satisfied by $`𝐋`$ ( Théorème 1.1) and the Heegner Hypothesis that $`L_{\mathrm{anti}}=0`$. In other words, viewing $`𝚲=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}[[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}]]`$ as the completed group ring of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}`$ with coefficients in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$, we have that the “constant term” of $`𝐋\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}[[\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}]]`$ vanishes. We now consider its “linear term.”

There is a canonical isomorphism of (free, rank one) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$-modules

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}_{𝐙_p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}𝐈_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}}/𝐈_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}}^2$$

which sends $`\gamma 1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}_{𝐙_p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$ to $`\gamma 1𝐈_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}}/𝐈_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}}^2`$.

###### Conjecture 9 ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-adic Gross-Zagier Conjecture).

Let $`L^{}`$ denote the image of $`𝐋`$ under the map $`𝐈_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}}/𝐈_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}}^2\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}_{𝐙_p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$. Then

$$L^{}=d^1$$

where $`d`$ is the degree of the modular parametrization $`X_0(N)E`$.

###### Remark.

Perrin-Riou  proved that if $`p`$ splits in $`K`$ and the discriminant $`D`$ of $`K`$ is odd, then $`L^{}`$ and $`d^1`$ have the same image under the projection $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_K=𝐐_p.`$

Let $`𝐈:=𝐈_K`$, the augmentation ideal of $`𝚲`$. For every integer $`r0`$ we have $`𝐈^r/𝐈^{r+1}\mathrm{Sym}_{𝐙_p}^r(𝚪)𝐐_p.`$ Using the direct sum decomposition $`𝚪=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$ we get a canonical direct sum decomposition

$$\mathrm{Sym}_{𝐙_p}^r(𝚪)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{r}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{rj,j}\text{where }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i,j}:=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}})^i_{𝐙_p}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{anti}})^j.$$
(4.2)
Consider the canonical (two-variable) $`p`$-adic height pairing

$$,:E(K)\times E(K)𝚪𝐐_p.$$
(4.3)
Set $`r=\mathrm{rank}E(K)`$, which is odd by Proposition 1. Define the two-variable $`p`$-adic regulator $`R_p(E,K)`$ to be the discriminant of this pairing:

$$R_p(E,K):=t^2detP_i,P_j\mathrm{Sym}_{𝐙_p}^r(𝚪)𝐐_p𝐈^r/𝐈^{r+1},$$

where $`\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_r\}`$ generates a subgroup of $`E(K)`$ of finite index $`t`$. For each integer $`j=0,\mathrm{},r`$ let $`R_p(E,K)^{rj,j}`$ be the projection of $`R_p(E,K)`$ into $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{rj,j}𝐐_p`$ under (4.2), so that

$$R_p(E,K)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{r}{}}R_p(E,K)^{rj,j}.$$

Recall that $`r^\pm `$ is the rank of the $`\pm 1`$-eigenspace $`E(K)^\pm `$ of $`\tau `$ acting on $`E(K)`$.

###### Proposition 10.

$`R_p(E,K)^{rj,j}=0`$ unless $`j`$ is even and $`j2\mathrm{min}(r^+,r^{})`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from the fact that the height pairing (4.3) is $`\tau `$-Hermitian, so $`\tau x,\tau y=x,y^\tau `$, and therefore the induced height pairings

$$E(K)^\pm \times E(K)^\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{anti}}𝐐_p,E(K)^+\times E(K)^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}𝐐_p$$

vanish.

###### Conjecture 11 (Maximal nondegeneracy of the height pairing).

If $`j`$ is even and $`0j2\mathrm{min}(r^+,r^{})`$ then $`R_p(E,K)^{rj,j}0`$.

###### Remark.

Conjecture 11, or more specifically the nonvanishing of $`R_p(E,K)^{rj,j}`$ when $`j=2\mathrm{min}(r^+,r^{})`$, implies the Sign Conjecture (Conjecture 5). This is proved in the same way as Proposition 10, using the additional fact that the anticyclotomic universal norms in $`E(K)𝐙_p`$ are in the kernel of the anticyclotomic $`p`$-adic height pairing $`(E(K)𝐙_p)\times (E(K)𝐙_p)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{anti}}𝐐_p`$.

## 5. The arithmetic theory

For every algebraic extension $`F`$ of $`K`$, let $`\mathrm{Sel}_p(E_{/F})`$ denote the $`p`$-power Selmer group of $`E`$ over $`F`$, the subgroup of $`H^1(G_F,E[p^{\mathrm{}}])`$ that sits in an exact sequence

$$0E(F)𝐐_p/𝐙_p\mathrm{Sel}_p(E_{/F})\text{Sh}(E_{/F})[p^{\mathrm{}}]0$$

where $`\text{Sh}(E_{/F})`$ is the Shafarevich-Tate group of $`E`$ over $`F`$. Also write

$$𝒮_p(E_{/F})=\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Sel}_p(E_{/F}),𝐐_p/𝐙_p)𝐐_p$$

for the tensor product of $`𝐐_p`$ with the Pontrjagin dual of the Selmer group.

The following theorem is proved using techniques which go back to ; see  and  Lemme 5, §2.2.

###### Theorem 12 (Control Theorem).

Suppose $`KF𝐊_{\mathrm{}}`$.

1. The natural restriction map $`H^1(F,E[p^{\mathrm{}}])H^1(𝐊_{\mathrm{}},E[p^{\mathrm{}}])`$ induces an isomorphism $`𝒮_p(E_{/𝐊_{\mathrm{}}})_𝚲\mathrm{\Lambda }_F\stackrel{}{}𝒮_p(E_{/F}).`$
2. There is a canonical isomorphism $`U(F)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_F}(𝒮_p(E_{/F}),\mathrm{\Lambda }_F)`$.

###### Conjecture 13 (Two-variable main conjecture ).

The two-variable $`p`$-adic $`L`$-function $`𝐋`$ generates the ideal $`\mathrm{char}_𝚲(𝒮_p(E_{/𝐊_{\mathrm{}}}))`$ of $`𝚲`$.

Restricting the two-variable main conjecture to the cyclotomic and anticyclotomic lines leads to the following “one-variable” conjectures originally formulated in  and , respectively. Let $`L^{}`$ denote the image of $`𝐋`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}_{𝐙_p}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$ as in Conjecture 9, and $`𝒮_p(E_{/K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}})_{\mathrm{tors}}`$ the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$-torsion submodule of $`𝒮_p(E_{/K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}})`$).

###### Conjecture 14 (Cyclotomic and anticyclotomic main conjectures).

1. $`L_{\mathrm{cycl}}`$ generates the ideal $`\mathrm{char}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{cycl}}}(𝒮_p(E_{/K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{cycl}}}))`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{cycl}}`$.
2. $`L^{}`$ generates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}\mathrm{char}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}(𝒮_p(E_{/K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}})_{\mathrm{tors}})`$ inside $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$.

###### Remark.

Using Euler systems, Kato  and Howard  have proved (under some mild additional hypotheses) divisibilities related to the cyclotomic and anticyclotomic main conjectures, respectively, namely

$$L_{\mathrm{cycl}}\mathrm{char}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{cycl}}}(𝒮_p(E_{/K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{cycl}}})),\mathrm{char}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}(𝒰/)^2\mathrm{char}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}(𝒮_p(E_{/K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{cycl}}})_{\mathrm{tors}})$$

(note that Conjectures 8 and 9 predict that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}\mathrm{char}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}(𝒰/)^2=L^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$).

###### Conjecture 15 (Two-variable $`p`$-adic BSD conjecture).

Let $`r=\mathrm{rank}E(K)`$. The two-variable $`p`$-adic $`L`$-function $`𝐋𝚲`$ is contained $`𝐈^r`$ and

$$𝐋c(\chi _{\mathrm{triv}})\mathrm{\#}(\text{Sh}(E_{/K}))\underset{v}{}c_vR_p(E,K)(mod𝐈^{r+1})$$

where $`c(\chi _{\mathrm{triv}})`$ is the rational number in the interpolation formula (4.1) for the trivial character, $`\text{Sh}(E_{/K})`$ is the Shafarevich-Tate group of $`E`$ over $`K`$, and the $`c_v`$ are the Tamagawa factors in the (usual) Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture for $`E`$ over $`K`$.

## 6. Orthogonal $`𝚲`$-modules

In this final section we introduce a purely algebraic template which, when it “fits”, gives rise to many of the properties conjectured in the previous sections.

Keep the notation of the previous sections. In particular $`\tau :𝚲𝚲`$ is the involution of $`𝚲`$ induced by complex conjugation on $`K`$, and if $`V`$ is a $`𝚲`$-module, then $`V^{(\tau )}`$ denotes $`V`$ with $`𝚲`$-module structure obtained by composition with $`\tau `$. Let $`V^{}=\mathrm{Hom}_𝚲(V,𝚲)`$. If $`V`$ is a free $`𝚲`$-module of rank $`r`$, then $`det_𝚲(V^\tau )`$ will denote the $`r`$-th exterior power of $`V`$ and a $`\tau `$-gauge on $`V`$ is a $`𝚲`$-isomorphism between the free $`𝚲`$-modules of rank one

$$t_V:det_𝚲(V^{})det_𝚲(V^{(\tau )})$$

or equivalently an isomorphism $`det_𝚲(V)det_𝚲(V^{(\tau )})\stackrel{}{}𝚲`$.

By an orthogonal $`𝚲`$-module we mean a free $`𝚲`$-module $`V`$ with semi-linear $`\tau `$-structure endowed with a $`\tau `$-gauge $`t_V`$ and a $`𝚲`$-bilinear $`\tau `$-Hermitian pairing (Definition 2)

$$\pi :V_𝚲V^{(\tau )}𝚲.$$

Viewing $`\pi `$ as a $`𝚲`$-linear map $`V^{(\tau )}V^{}`$, the composition

$$t_Vdet_𝚲(\pi ):det_𝚲(V^{(\tau )})det_𝚲(V^{})det_𝚲(V^{(\tau )})$$

must be multiplication by an element $`\mathrm{disc}(V)𝚲`$ that we call the discriminant of the orthogonal $`𝚲`$-module $`V`$. We further assume that $`\mathrm{disc}(V)0`$, and we define $`M=M(V,\pi )`$ to be the cokernel of the (injective) map $`\pi :V^{(\tau )}V^{}`$, so we have

$$0V^{(\tau )}V^{}M0.$$
(6.1)
If $`KF𝐊_{\mathrm{}}`$, recall that $`𝐈_F=\mathrm{ker}\{𝚲\mathrm{\Lambda }_F\}`$ and define

$$V(F):=\{xV:\pi (x,V^{(\tau )})𝐈_F\}/𝐈_FV=\mathrm{ker}\{V_𝚲\mathrm{\Lambda }_F\stackrel{\pi 1}{}(V^{(\tau )})^{}_𝚲\mathrm{\Lambda }_F\}$$

and similarly $`V^{(\tau )}(F):=\mathrm{ker}\{V^{(\tau )}\mathrm{\Lambda }_FV^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_F\}`$. Any lift $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ of $`\tau `$ to $`\mathrm{Gal}(𝐊_{\mathrm{}}/𝐐)`$ induces an isomorphism $`V(F)V^{(\tau )}(F)`$. From (6.1) we obtain

$$0V^{(\tau )}(F)V^{(\tau )}_𝚲\mathrm{\Lambda }_FV^{}_𝚲\mathrm{\Lambda }_FM_𝚲\mathrm{\Lambda }_F0$$
(6.2)
and (applying $`\mathrm{Hom}(,\mathrm{\Lambda }_F)`$ and using the Hermitian property of $`\pi `$)

$$V(F)\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_F}(M_𝚲\mathrm{\Lambda }_F,\mathrm{\Lambda }_F).$$
(6.3)
We have an induced pairing

$$\pi _F:V^{(\tau )}(F)_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_F}V(F)𝐈_F/𝐈_F^2,$$

which we call the $`F`$-derived pairing. If $`F`$ is stable under complex conjugation then $`V^{(\tau )}(F)`$ is canonically isomorphic to $`V(F)^{(\tau )}`$ and $`\pi _F`$ is $`\tau `$-Hermitian.

Now suppose $`F=K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}`$. By (6.3), $`V(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})`$ is free over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$. Applying the determinant functor to (6.2), the $`\tau `$-gauge $`t_V`$ induces an isomorphism

$$det_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}V(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})^{(\tau )}=det_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}V^{(\tau )}(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{Hom}(det_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}(M_𝚲\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}),\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}).$$

If $`V(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})`$ has rank one over $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$, then $`V(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})`$ contains a unique maximal $`\tau `$-stable submodule $`H`$ such that the map

$$\begin{array}{c}V(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})^{(\tau )}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{Hom}(det_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}(M\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}),\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}})\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Hom}(M\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}})V(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})\end{array}$$

sends $`H^{(\tau )}`$ into $`H`$. (Namely, $`H=JV(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})`$ where $`J`$ is the largest ideal of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$ such that $`J^\tau =J`$ and $`J^2\mathrm{char}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}}(M\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}})_{\mathrm{tors}}`$.)

Recall that $`\mathrm{Sel}_p(E_{/F})`$ denotes the $`p`$-power Selmer group of $`E`$ over $`F`$ and $`𝒮_p(E_{/F})=\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Sel}_p(E_{/F}),𝐐_p/𝐙_p)𝐐_p`$.

###### Proposition 16.

With notation as above, suppose that $`V`$ is an orthogonal $`𝚲`$-module and $`\phi _V:M\stackrel{}{}𝒮_p(E_{/𝐊_{\mathrm{}}})`$ is an isomorphism. Then for every extension $`F`$ of $`K`$ in $`𝐊_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\phi _V`$ induces an isomorphism

$$V(F)\stackrel{}{}U(F)$$

where $`U(F)`$ is the universal norm module defined in §3.

proof. This follows directly from Theorem 12 and (6.3).

###### Definition 17.

We say that the orthogonal $`𝚲`$-module $`V`$ organizes the anticyclotomic arithmetic of $`(E,K,p)`$ if the following three properties hold.

1. $`\mathrm{disc}(V)=𝐋`$, the two-variable $`p`$-adic $`L`$-function of $`E`$.
2. There is an isomorphism $`\phi _V:M\stackrel{}{}𝒮_p(E_{/𝐊_{\mathrm{}}}).`$
3. The isomorphism $`V(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})𝒰`$ of Proposition 16 identifies $`HV(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})`$ with the Heegner submodule $`𝒰`$, and identifies the $`K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}`$-derived pairing with the canonical $`p`$-adic height pairing into $`𝐈_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}}/𝐈_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$.

###### Question.

Given $`E`$, $`K`$, and $`p`$ satisfying our running hypotheses, is there an orthogonal $`𝚲`$-module $`V`$ that organizes the anticyclotomic arithmetic of $`(E,K,p)`$?

If one is not quite so (resp., much more) optimistic one could formulate an analogous question with the ring $`𝚲`$ replaced by the localization of $`𝚲`$ at $`𝐈`$ (resp., with $`𝚲`$ replaced by $`𝐙_p[[𝚪]]`$).

###### Question.

If $`V`$ is an orthogonal $`𝚲`$-module $`V`$ which organizes the anticyclotomic arithmetic of $`(E,K,p)`$, then for every finite extension $`F`$ of $`K`$ in $`𝐊_{\mathrm{}}`$, we have an isomorphism $`E(F)𝐐_p=U(F)V(F)`$ as in Proposition 16, a $`p`$-adic height pairing on $`E(F)𝐐_p`$, and the $`F`$-derived pairing on $`V(F)`$. How are these pairings related?

When $`F=K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}`$ condition (c) says that the two pairings are the same, but it seems that in general they cannot be the same for finite extensions $`F/K`$.

###### Theorem 18.

Suppose that there is an orthogonal $`𝚲`$-module $`V`$ that organizes the anticyclotomic arithmetic of $`(E,K,p)`$. Then Conjectures 13 (the 2-variable main conjecture), and 14(i) (the cyclotomic main conjecture) hold.

If further the induced pairing $`V(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})V(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})^{(\tau )}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$ is surjective, then Conjectures 6 (the Height Conjecture), 8, 9 (the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-adic Gross-Zagier conjecture), and 14(ii) (the anticyclotomic main conjecture) also hold.

###### Brief outline of the proof of Theorem 18.

Since $`\mathrm{disc}(V)`$ is a generator of $`\mathrm{char}_𝚲(M)`$, the two-variable main conjecture follows immediately from (a) and (b) of Definition 17. The cyclotomic main conjecture follows from the two-variable main conjecture.

Now suppose that the induced pairing $`V(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})V(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})^{(\tau )}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cycl}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$ is surjective. By (c) of Definition 17 this is equivalent to the Height Conjecture, which in turn is equivalent to Conjecture 8.

Howard proved in  that $`𝒮_p(E_{/K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}})`$ is pseudo-isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}B^2`$ where $`B`$ is a $`\tau `$-stable torsion $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$-module. By Theorem 12(i) the same is true of $`M\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{anti}}`$, and so the remark at the end of the definition of $`H`$ shows that $`H=\mathrm{char}(B)V(K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}})`$. Using (6.2), (6.3), and our assumption that the induced pairing is surjective, one can show that the image of $`𝐋`$ in $`𝐈_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}}/𝐈_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}}^2`$ generates $`\mathrm{char}(B)^2𝐈_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}}/𝐈_{K_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{anti}}}^2`$. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-adic Gross-Zagier conjecture and the anticyclotomic main conjecture follow from these facts and (c). ∎


text:
# The Tate Conjecture for Powers of Ordinary Cubic Fourfolds Over Finite Fields

## 1. Introduction.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective variety over a finite field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p`$. We write $`X_a`$ for $`X\times k(a)`$ where $`k(a)`$ is an algebraic closure of $`k`$. For each non-negative integer $`m`$ and each rational prime $`l`$ different from $`p`$ let us consider the $`2m`$th twisted $`\mathrm{}`$-adic cohomology group $`H^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)`$ of $`Y_a`$. The Galois group $`G(k)`$ of $`k`$ acts on $`H^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)`$ in a natural way. In  Tate conjectured that the subspace fixed under the Galois action is spanned by cohomology classes of codimension $`m`$ algebraic cycles on $`X`$. The famous conjecture of Serre and Grothendieck  asserts that the action of $`G(K)`$ on $`H^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)`$ is semisimple, i.e., the Frobenius automorphism acts on $`H^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)`$ as a semisimple linear operator.

The Tate conjecture is known to be true in certain cases, e.g., Fermat varieties satisfying certain numerical conditions ; abelian varieties for $`m=1`$ , certain classes of abelian varieties with arbitrary $`m`$ , , “almost all” K3 surfaces .

Let $`Y`$ be a cubic fourfold, i.e., a smooth projective hypersurface of degree $`3`$ in $`𝐏^5`$ defined over $`k`$. It is well-known that all odd $`\mathrm{}`$-adic Betti numbers of $`Y_a`$ do vanish; it is also known that the second and sixth Betti numbers of $`Y_a`$ are equal to $`1`$ while its fourth Betti number is $`23`$ . Let $`𝔩H^2(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1)`$ be the class of a hyperplane section of $`Y`$. One may easily check that

$$H^2(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1)=𝐐_{\mathrm{}}𝔩=H^2(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1)^{G(k)};H^6(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1)=𝐐_{\mathrm{}}𝔩^3=H^6(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1)^{G(k)}.$$

It was proven by Rapoport  that the Frobenius automorphism acts on $`H^4(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2)`$ as a semisimple linear operator.

Recently N. Levin  proved the Tate conjecture when $`X=Y`$ is an ordinary cubic fourfold. In this case the only non-trivial case is $`m=2`$ and the theorem of Levin asserts that $`H^4(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2)^{G(k)}`$ is generated as $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}`$-vector subspace by algebraic classes of codimension $`2`$ (defined over $`k`$).

The aim of the present paper is to prove the Tate conjecture for self-products $`X=Y^r`$ of an ordinary K3 cubic fourfold $`Y`$. For example, if $`r=2`$ and $`X=Y^2`$ then the most interesting case is $`m=8`$ and we prove, assuming $`k`$ “sufficiently large”, that $`H^8(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2)^{G(k)}`$ is generated as a $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}`$-vector subspace by algebraic classes of the following four types: 1) products of codimension $`2`$ algebraic cycles on factors $`Y`$ of $`Y^2`$; 2) the classes of graphs of Frobenius and its iterates; 3) the classes of $`Y\times \{\text{point}\}`$ and $`\{\text{point}\}\times Y`$; 4)$`𝔩\times 𝔩^3`$ and $`𝔩^3\times 𝔩`$. The proofs are based on results and ideas of our previous papers  where the Tate conjecture was proven for self-products of ordinary K3 surfaces .

The article is organized as follows. In Section 2 we discuss tensor invariants of certain $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representations of $`G(k)`$. Section 3 treats cohomological $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representations. The Tate conjecture is discussed in Section 4. In Section 5 we will prove the Tate conjecture for powers of an ordinary cubic fourfold.

We write $`𝐙_+`$ for the set $`\{0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ of non-negative integers. Recall that $`G(k)`$ is procyclic and has a canonical generator, namely, the arithmetic Frobenius automorphism

$$\sigma _k:k(a)k(a),xx^q$$

where $`q`$ is the number of elements of $`k`$. Clearly, $`q`$ is an integral power of $`p`$. Another canonical generator of $`G(k)`$ is the geometric Frobenius automorphism $`\phi _k=\sigma _k^1`$.

## 2. Finite fields and $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representations

Let $`k`$ be a finite field of characteristic $`p`$ consisting of $`q`$ elements. We keep all notations of the Introduction connected with $`k`$. If $`k^{}k(a)`$ is a finite overfield of $`k`$, then $`k^{}(a)=k(a)`$, the Galois group $`G(k^{})`$ of $`k^{}`$ is an open subgroup of finite index $`[k^{}:k]`$ in $`G(k)`$ and $`\phi _k^{}=\phi _k^{[k^{}:k]}`$.

Let $`\mathrm{}`$ be a rational prime different from $`p`$. We refer to  for the definition of the one-dimensional $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}`$-vector space $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$ and the corresponding cyclotomic character

$$\chi _{\mathrm{}}:G(k)𝐙_{\mathrm{}}^\times 𝐐_{\mathrm{}}^\times =\text{Aut}𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(1).$$

This character defines the Galois action on $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$. Notice, that

$$\chi _{\mathrm{}}(\sigma _k)=q,\chi _{\mathrm{}}(\phi _k)=q^1,.$$

We write $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(1)`$ for the one-dimensional dual vector space $`\text{Hom}_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(1),𝐐_{\mathrm{}})`$ with a natural structure of the dual Galois module defined by the character $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}^1`$. To each integer $`i`$ one may attach a certain one-dimensional $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}`$-vector space $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(i)`$ with Galois action defined by $`\chi _l^i`$. Namely, $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(0)=𝐐_{\mathrm{}},𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(i)=𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(1)^i`$ if $`i`$ is positive and $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(i)=𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(1)^{(i)}`$ if $`i`$ is negative.

For all integers $`i,j`$ there are natural isomorphisms of Galois modules

$$𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(i)=\text{Hom}_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(i),𝐐_{\mathrm{}}),𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(i)_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(j)=𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(i+j).$$

Let

$$\rho :G(k)\text{Aut}(V)$$

be an $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representation of $`G(k)`$, i.e., $`V`$ is a finite-dimensional $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}`$-vector space and $`\rho `$ is a continuous homomorphism . Clearly,

$$V^{G(k)}=V^{\rho (\phi _k)}.$$

To each integer $`i`$ one may attach the twisted $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representation

$$\rho [i]:G(k)\text{Aut}(V(i))$$

where

$$V(i)=V_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(i),\rho [i](\sigma )(va)=\chi _l^i(\sigma )((\sigma v)a).$$

For example,

$$\rho [i](\sigma _k)(va)=q^i(\rho (\sigma _k)(v)a),\rho [i](\phi _k)(va)=q^i(\rho (\phi _k)(v)a).$$

We have $`V(0)=V,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(i)(j)=𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(i+j).`$ If $`\rho ^{}:G(K)\text{Aut}(V^{})`$ is the dual $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representation then there are natural isomorphisms of Galois modules $`(V(i))^{}=V^{}(i)`$.

###### Remark 2.1.

Let $`\rho ^{}:G(k)\text{Aut}(W)`$ be (may be, another) $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representation of $`G(K)`$. Then we obtain natural isomorphisms of Galois modules

$$V(i)_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}W(j)=(V_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}W)(i+j),\rho [i]\rho ^{}[j]=(\rho \rho ^{})(i+j),$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{Hom}_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}(V,W)& =V^{}_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}W=V^{}(i)_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}W(i)\hfill \\ & =V(i)^{}_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}W(i)=\text{Hom}_{𝐐_l}(V(i),W(i)).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Example 2.2.

If $`u=\rho (\sigma )`$ for some $`\sigma G(k)`$ then one may easily check that

$$u_{[i]}=\chi _l^i(\sigma )\rho [i](\sigma )\text{End}_{𝐐_l}(V(i)).$$

In particular, if $`u=\rho (\sigma _k)`$ then $`u_{[i]}=q^i\rho [i](\sigma _k)`$. If $`u=\rho (\phi _k)`$ then $`u_{[i]}=q^i\rho [i](\phi _k)`$.

###### Theorem 2.3 (Theorem 3.1.4 of ).

Let us assume that the $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representation $`\rho [i]`$ is semisimple and consider the characteristic polynomial

$$P_{\rho [i]}(t)=\text{det}(\text{id}t\rho [i](\phi _k),V(i)).$$

Let $`R`$ be the set of reciprocal roots of $`P_{\rho [i]}(t)`$. Assume that either $`1`$ is the unique element of $`R`$, i.e., $`R=\{1\}`$ is the one-element set or there exists a non-empty subset $`BR`$ such that:

1. $`B`$ consists of multiplicatively independent elements; in particular, it does not contain 1 and does not meet $`B^1=\{\alpha ^1\alpha B\};`$
2. Either $`R`$ coincides with the disjoint union of $`B`$ and $`B^1`$ or $`R`$ coincides with the disjoint union of $`B`$, $`B^1`$ and the one-element set $`\{1\}`$.

Then for each even natural number $`2n`$ all elements of $`(V(i)^{2n})^{G(k)}`$ can be presented as a linear combination of tensor products of $`n`$ elements of $`(V(i)^2)^{G(k)}.`$ Each element of $`(V(i)^{(2n+1)})^{G(k)}`$ can be presented as a linear combination of tensor products of an element of $`V(i)^{G(k)}`$ and $`n`$ elements of $`(V(i)^2)^{G(k)}.`$

###### Definition 2.4.

Recall \[29, 3.2\] that $`\rho `$ is called semistable if it enjoys the following property. If $`u=\rho (\sigma )\text{Aut}(V)`$ for some $`\sigma G(k)`$ and an eigenvalue $`\alpha `$ of $`u`$ is a root of unity, then $`\alpha =1.`$ In fact, in order to make sure that $`\rho `$ is semistable, it suffices to inspect the eigenvalues only for $`u=\rho (\phi _k)`$ \[29, 3.2.1\].

###### Remark 2.5.

If $`\rho `$ is semistable and $`k^{}`$ is a finite overfield of $`k`$ then the restriction of $`\rho `$ to $`G(k^{})`$ is also a semistable $`\mathrm{}`$-adic representation of $`G(k^{})`$ and the invariants of $`G(k)`$ and $`G(k^{})`$ coincide, i.e., $`V^{G(k)}=V^{G(k^{})}.`$

Conversely, for each $`\rho `$ there exists a positive integer $`r`$ such that if an eigenvalue $`\alpha `$ of $`\rho (\phi _k)`$ is a root of unity then $`\alpha ^r=1`$. Now if $`k_rk(a)`$ is the degree $`r`$ extension of $`k`$ then every eigenvalue $`\beta `$ of $`\rho (\phi _{k_r})=\rho (\phi _k)^r`$ that is a root of unity is equal to $`1`$. This means that the restriction of $`\rho `$ to $`G(k_r)`$ is semistable.

## 3. $`\mathrm{}`$-adic cohomology

Let $`Y`$ be a smooth projective variety over $`k`$ and $`Y_a=Y\times k(a)`$. Let $`\mathrm{}`$ be a rational prime $`p`$. The Galois group $`G(k)`$ acts on $`Y_a=Y\times _kk(a)`$ through the second factor. For each non-negative integer $`i`$ this action induces by functoriality the Galois action on the $`i`$th $`\mathrm{}`$-adic étale cohomology group $`H^i(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})`$. We write $`\rho _{Y,i}`$ for the corresponding cohomological $`l`$-adic representation

$$\rho _{Y,i}:G(k)\text{Aut}(H^i(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})).$$

Let $`F_{Y/k}:YY`$ be the Frobenius endomorphism of the $`k`$-scheme $`Y`$ , . It is defined as the identity map on points, together with the map $`ff^q`$ in the structure sheaf. Let $`\text{Frob}_Y=F_{Y/k}\times \text{id}_{k(a)}`$ be the corresponding $`k(a)`$-endomorphism of $`Y_a`$. We write $`(\text{Frob}_Y)_i`$ for the endomorphism of $`H^i(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})`$ induced by $`\text{Frob}_Y`$.

###### Remark 3.1.

If $`k^{}k(a)`$ is a finite overfield of $`k`$ and $`Y^{}=Y\times _kk^{}`$ is the corresponding smooth projective variety over $`k^{}`$, then

$$Y_a^{}=Y_a,H^i(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})=H^i(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})$$

and $`\rho _{Y^{},i}`$ coincides with the restriction of $`\rho _{Y,i}`$ to $`G(k^{})`$. In particular,

$$\rho _{Y^{},i}(\phi _k^{})=\rho _{Y,i}(\phi _k)^{[k^{}:k]}.$$

###### Remark 3.2.

It is well-known  that

$$(\text{Frob}_Y)_i=\rho _{Y,i}(\phi _k).$$

Let us consider the characteristic polynomial

$$P_{Y,i}(t)=\text{det}(\text{id}t\rho _{Y,i}(\phi _k),H^i(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})).$$

A famous theorem of Deligne  (conjectured by Weil) asserts that $`P_{Y,i}(t)`$ lies in $`1+t𝐙[t]`$, does not depend on the choice of $`l`$ and all its (complex) reciprocal roots have absolute values equal to $`q^{i/2}`$.

Notice, that in the case of cubic fourfolds this result was proven earlier than the general case by Rapoport  (inspired by ideas of ). His paper also contain the proof of semisimplicity of the action of Frobenius in the case of cubic fourfolds. For Abelian varieties the semisimplicity was proven by Weil (see ).

Let $`i=2m`$ be an even non-negative integer. Let us consider the twisted cohomological $`l`$-adic representation

$$\rho _{Y,2m}[m]:G(k)\text{Aut}(H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)).$$

One may easily check (, 4.2) that

$$P_{Y,[m]}(t)=\text{det}(\text{id}t\rho _{Y,2m}[m](\phi _k),H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m))=P_{Y,2m}(t/q^m).$$

Now, the theorem of Deligne implies that $`P_{Y,[m]}(t)`$ lies in $`1+t𝐙[1/q][t]`$, does not depend on the choice of $`l`$ and all its (complex) reciprocal roots have absolute values equal to 1. In other words, $`P_{Y,[m]}(t)`$ is a $`q`$-admissible polynomial in the sense of . In particular, if $`\alpha `$ is a (reciprocal) root of $`P_{Y,[m]}(t)`$ then $`\alpha ^1`$ is also one.

###### Remark 3.3.

Clearly, there exists a positive integer $`r`$ such for all roots $`\alpha `$ of $`P_{Y,[m]}(t)`$ we have $`\alpha ^r=1`$ if $`\alpha `$ is a root of unity. It follows from Remarks 2.5 and 3.1 that if $`k^{}`$ is the degree $`r`$ extension $`k_r`$ of $`k`$ and $`Y^{}=Y\times _kk^{}`$ then $`\rho _{Y^{},2m}[m]`$ is semistable for all $`\mathrm{}p`$.

Let $`d=dim(Y)`$. Let us consider the Künneth decomposition

$$H^{2d}(Y_a\times Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(d)=_{i=0}^{i=2d}H^{2di}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(d)H^i(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})$$

of the $`d`$-twisted middle $`l`$-adic cohomology group of $`Y_a\times Y_a=(Y\times Y)_a`$. Clearly, each element $`cH^{2d}(Y_a\times Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(d)`$ can be presented uniquely as a sum

$$c=_{i=0}^{i=2d}c_i\text{with }c_iH^{2di}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(d)H^i(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}).$$

Notice that the Künneth decomposition is $`G(k)`$-equivariant. In particular, $`cH^{2d}(Y_a\times Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(d)`$ is a $`G(k)`$-invariant if and only if all $`c_i`$ are $`G(k)`$-invariant.

###### Remark 3.4.

Let $`cH^{2d}(Y_a\times Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(d)`$ be an algebraic cohomology class, i.e., a linear combination of cohomology classes of closed irreducible codimension $`d`$ subvarieties on $`Y_a\times Y_a`$ . It follows from results of  that all $`c_i`$ are also algebraic cohomology classes.

Let $`𝔲`$ be a $`k(a)`$-endomorphism of $`Y(a)`$. We write $`\text{Graph}_𝔲`$ for the graph of $`𝔲`$; it is a $`d`$-dimensional irreducible closed subvariety of $`Y_a\times Y_a`$. We write $`\text{cl}(\text{Graph}_𝔲)`$ for its $`\mathrm{}`$-adic cohomology class: it is an element of $`H^{2d}(Y_a\times Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(d)`$. By functoriality, $`𝔲`$ induces an endomorphism of $`H^i(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})`$ which will be denoted by

$$𝔲_i\text{End}(H^i(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}))=\text{End}(V_i).$$

###### Example 3.5.

If $`𝔲=\text{id}`$ then its graph is the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and therefore $`\text{id}_i`$ is the identity endomorphism of $`H^i(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})`$.

###### Example 3.6.

If $`𝔲=\text{Frob}_Y`$ then according to 3.2

$$𝔲_i=(\text{Frob}_Y)_i=\rho _{Y,i}(\phi _k).$$

For each positive $`j`$ the $`j`$th power $`\text{Frob}_Y^j`$ of $`\text{Frob}_Y`$ is defined. As usual, if $`j=0`$, we put $`\text{Frob}_Y^j=\text{id}`$. Let us put

$$𝔣r_i=(\text{cl}(\text{Graph}_{\text{Frob}_Y})_i).$$

It is known  that $`𝔣r_i`$ can be presented as a linear combination of $`\text{cl}(\text{Graph}_{\text{Frob}_Y^j})`$ with rational coefficients ($`j𝐙_+`$). Notice, that it is well-known  that all $`\text{cl}((\text{Graph}_{\text{Frob}_Y})_i)`$ are $`G(k)`$-invariants.

###### Remark 3.7.

If $`d=dim(Y)=2m`$ is even then there is the canonical isomorphism

$$H^d(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(d)H^d(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})=H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}))(m).$$

###### Remark 3.8.

If $`d=dim(Y)=2m`$ is even then one may easily deduce from 2.1, 2.2 and 3.2 that $`q^m\rho _{Y,2m}[m](\phi _k)=((\text{Frob}_Y)_i)_{[m]}`$, i.e.,

$$g:=\rho _{Y,2m}[m](\phi _k)=q^m((\text{Frob}_Y)_i)_{[m]}.$$

###### Theorem 3.9 (Theorem 4.4 of ).

Assume that $`d=dim(Y)=2m`$ is even, $`g=\rho _{Y,2m}[m](\phi _k)`$ is a semisimple linear operator and all its eigenvalues different from 1 are simple. Then the vector subspace of Galois invariants

$$(H^d(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(d)H^d(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}))^{G(k)}H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}))(m)$$

is generated by $`(H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m))^{G(k)}(H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}))(m))^{G(k)}`$ and all $`(cl(Graph_{\text{Frob}_Y^j}))_d`$ with $`j𝐙_+`$. In particular, $`(H^d(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(d)H^d(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}))^{G(k)}`$ is contained in the vector subspace of $`H^{2d}(Y_a\times Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(d)^{G(k)}`$ generated by

$$(H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m))^{G(k)}(H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}))(m))^{G(k)}$$

and all $`\text{cl}(\text{Graph}_{\text{Frob}_Y^j})`$ with $`j𝐙_+`$.

## 4. The Tate conjecture

We write $`\text{Al}^m(Y)`$ for the $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}`$-vector subspace of $`H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m))`$ spanned by the cohomology classes of all algebraic cycles of codimension $`m`$ on $`Y`$. It is well-known  that

$$\text{Al}^m(Y)H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m))^{G(k)}.$$

Elements of $`H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m))^{G(k)}`$ are called Tate classes on $`Y`$.

Tate  conjectured that the following assertion holds true.

$`T(Y,m,k,l):`$
$$\text{Al}^m(Y)=H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m))^{G(k)}.$$

###### Remark 4.1.

Let $`k^{}`$ be a finite algebraic extension of $`k`$ and $`Y^{}:=Y\times _kk^{}`$. It is known  that if the assertion $`T(Y^{},m,k^{},l)`$ holds true then the assertion $`T(Y,m,k,l)`$ also holds true.

Recall , that $`Y`$ is called to be of K3 type in dimension $`2m`$ if the characteristic polynomial $`P_{Y,[m]}(t)`$ is of K3 type, i.e. its $`p`$-adic Newton polygon  enjoys the following properties. There exists a non-zero rational number $`c`$ such that the set of slopes is either $`\{c,c\}`$ or $`\{c,c,0\}`$. In both cases slopes $`c`$ and $`c`$ must have length 1.

For example, a K3 surface is of K3 type in dimension 2 if and only if it is ordinary . An ordinary Abelian surface is of K3 type in dimension 2.

An ordinary cubic fourfold $`Y`$ is of K3 type in dimension 4. Indeed, the Hodge numbers of a cubic fourfold (in dimension $`4`$) are as follows .

$$h^{4,0}=h^{0,4}=0,h^{3,1}=h^{1,3}=1,h^{2,2}=21.$$

Since the Hodge polygon of an ordinary cubic fourfold coincides with the Newton polygon, the $`p`$-adic Newton polygon of $`P_{Y,4}(t)`$ admits the following description. Its set of slopes is $`\{1,2,3\}`$; the length of both slopes $`1`$ and $`3`$ is $`1`$ while the length of slope $`2`$ is $`21`$. This implies easily that the Newton polygon of $`P_{Y,[4]}(t)`$ is of K3 type with the set of slopes $`\{1,0,1\}`$. (The length of its slopes $`1`$ and $`1`$ is $`1`$ while the length of slope $`0`$ is $`21`$. )

###### Remark 4.2.

One may easily define motives of K3 type. The paper  contains examples of motives of K3 type arising from Fermat varieties.

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`d=dim(Y)=2m`$ is even. Assume that $`\rho _{Y,2m}[m]`$ is semistable. Assume also $`Y`$ is of K3 type in dimension $`2m`$. We write $`a(m,Y)`$ for the multiplicity of $`1`$ viewed as a root of $`P_{Y,[m]}(t)`$. Then

$$P_{Y,[m]}(t)=(1t)^{a(m,Y)}P_{Y,\text{tr}}(t)$$

where the polynomial $`P_{Y,\text{tr}}(t)𝐐[t]`$ enjoys the following properties:

1. $`P_{Y,\text{tr}}(t)`$ is irreducible over $`𝐐`$;
2. The the set $`R_{Y,\text{tr}}`$ of reciprocal roots of $`P_{Y,\text{tr}}(t)`$ enjoys the following properties: if $`\alpha R_{Y,\text{tr}}`$ then $`\alpha ^1`$(= complex conjugate of $`\alpha `$) also belongs to $`R_{Y,\text{tr}}`$. In addition, $`R_{Y,tr}`$ does not contain roots of unity.
3. One may choose a subset $`BR_{Y,\text{tr}}`$ such that $`B`$ does not meet $`B^1:=\{\alpha ^1\alpha B\}`$ and $`R_{Y,\text{tr}}`$ is the (disjoint) union of $`B`$ and $`B^1`$.
4. In addition, the set $`B`$ consists of multiplicatively independent elements.

###### Proof.

The semistability means that none of the roots of $`P_{Y,\text{tr}}(t)`$ is a root of unity. Taking into account, that all the coefficients of $`P_{Y,\text{tr}}(t)`$ are real, we obtain (ii). Now the assertion (iii) follows readily.

Recall that $`P_{Y,[m]}(t)`$ is of K3 type. It follows easily that $`P_{Y,\text{tr}}(t)`$ is also of K3 type. Recall that none of roots of $`P_{Y,\text{tr}}(t)`$ is a root of unity. Now the assertions (i) and (iv) follow easily from general results about polynomials of K3 type \[29, th. 2.4.3 and 2.4.4\]. ∎

###### Theorem 4.4 (Theorem 5.3.1 of ).

Let $`d=dim(Y)=2m`$ is even. Assume that $`\rho _{Y,2m}[m]`$ is semistable and semisimple. If $`Y`$ is of K3 type in dimension $`2m`$ then $`(H^d(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(d)H^d(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}))^{G(k)}`$ is generated as a vector subspace of $`H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}))(m)`$ by $`(H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m))^{G(k)}(H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}))(m))^{G(k)}`$ and all $`(\text{cl}(\text{Graph}_{\text{Frob}_Y^j}))_d`$ with $`j𝐙_+`$. In particular, $`(H^d(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(d)H^d(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}))^{G(k)}`$ is contained in the vector subspace of $`H^{2d}(Y_a\times Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(n)^{G(k)}`$ generated by

$$(H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m))^{G(k)}(H^{2m}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}))(m))^{G(k)}$$

and all $`\text{cl}(Graph_{Frob_Y^j})`$ with $`j𝐙_+`$.

###### Corollary 4.5.

Let $`Y`$ be an ordinary cubic fourfold over a finite field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p`$. Then there exists a finite overfield $`k^{}k`$ such that the ordinary cubic fourfold $`Y^{}=Y\times _kk^{}`$ over $`k^{}`$ enjoys the following properties for all primes $`\mathrm{}p`$:

1. $`\rho _{Y^{},4}[2]`$ is semistable;
2. $`(H^4(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2)_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}H^4(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2))^{G(k^{})}`$ is contained in the $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}`$-vector subspace of $`H^8(Y_a^{}\times Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(4)^{G(k^{})}`$ generated by $`\text{Al}^2(Y^{})_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}\text{Al}^2(Y^{})`$ and all $`\text{cl}(Graph_{Frob_Y_{}^{j}{}_{}{}^{}})`$ with $`j𝐙_+`$.
3. Let $`𝔩H^2(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1)`$ be the class of a hyperplane section. Let $`𝔞`$ be an effective 0-cycle on $`Y^{}`$. (For instance, if $`Y^{}(k^{})=Y(k^{})`$ is non-empty then one may take as $`𝔞`$ any $`k^{}`$-rational point on $`Y`$.) Then $`H^8(Y_a^{}\times Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(4)^{G(k)}`$ is generated as a $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}`$-vector subspace by $`\text{Al}^2(Y_a^{})_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}\text{Al}_2(Y_a^{})`$, $`𝔩𝔩^3`$, $`𝔩^3𝔩`$, $`\text{cl}(\text{Graph}_{\text{Frob}_Y^j})(j𝐙_+)`$ and the classes of $`Y^{}\times 𝔞`$ and $`𝔞\times Y^{}`$. In particular, the Tate conjecture holds true for for $`Y^{}\times Y^{}`$ and therefore also for $`Y\times Y`$.

###### Proof.

Let us choose a finite overfield $`k^{}`$ of $`k`$ such that all $`\rho _{Y^{},4}[2]`$ are semistable: its existence follows from Remark 3.3.

It was already mentioned that, thanks to the theorem of Rapoport , $`\rho _{Y^{},4}[2]`$ is semisimple. Since, thanks to the theorem of Levine , $`H^4(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2))^{G(k^{})}=\text{Al}^2(Y^{})`$, the assertion (ii) follows from Theorem 4.4.

The assertion (iii) follows from (ii) combined with the Galois-invariance of the Künneth decomposition for $`H^8(Y_a^{}\times Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2)`$ and obvious equalities

$$H^8(Y^{}a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(4)=H^8(Y^{}a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(4)^{G(k^{})}=𝐐_{\mathrm{}}\text{cl}(𝔞),$$

$$H^2(Y^{}a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1)=H^2(Y^{}a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1)^{G(k^{})}=𝐐_{\mathrm{}}𝔩,$$

$$H^6(Y^{}a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(3)=H^6(Y^{}a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(3)^{G(k^{})}=𝐐_{\mathrm{}}𝔩^3$$

(where $`\text{cl}(𝔞)`$ is the cohomology class of $`𝔞`$). ∎

###### Remark 4.6.

If $`Y`$ is an ordinary cubic fourfold over a finite field $`k`$ then the already mentioned results of Levin and Rapoport imply that

$$Al^2(Y)=\text{Num}_2(Y)𝐐_{\mathrm{}}$$

where $`\text{Num}_2(Y)`$ is the group of numerical equivalence classes of cycles of codimension $`2`$ on $`Y`$. In particular, the rank of $`\text{Num}_2(Y)`$ coincides with the multiplicity of $`1`$ viewed as a root of $`P_{Y,[2]}(t)`$ \[24, Th. 2.9, pp. 74–75\]. Clearly, if $`\rho _{Y_1,4}[2]`$ if semistable then the rank of $`\text{Num}_2(Y)`$ is $`a(2,Y)=23\mathrm{deg}(P_{Y,tr}(t))`$.

###### Corollary 4.7.

Let $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ be ordinary cubic fourfolds over a finite field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p`$, enjoying the following properties:

1. $`\rho _{Y,4}[2]`$ and $`\rho _{Z,4}[2]`$ are semistable;
2. $`a(2,Y)a(2,Z)`$.

Let $`𝔩_YH^2(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1)`$ and $`𝔩_ZH^2(Z_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1)`$ are classes of hyperplane sections of $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ respectively. Let $`𝔞_Y`$ and $`𝔞_Z`$ be effective zero cycles on $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ respectively.

Let us put $`W=Y\times Z`$. Then $`(H^8(W_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(4))^{G(k)}`$ is generated as a $`𝐐_{\mathrm{}}`$-vector subspace by $`\text{Al}^2(Y_a)_𝐐_{\mathrm{}}\text{Al}_2(Z_a)`$, $`𝔩_Y𝔩_Z^3`$, $`𝔩_Y^3𝔩_Z`$ and the classes of $`Y\times 𝔞_Z`$ and $`𝔞_Y\times Z`$. In particular, the Tate conjecture holds true for for $`Y\times Z`$.

###### Proof.

It suffices to check that

$$(H^4(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2)H^4(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2)))^{G(k)}=(H^4(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2))^{G(k)}(H^4(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2)))^{G(k)}.$$

In order to do that it suffices to check that if $`\alpha `$ is a root of $`P_{Y,[2]}(t)`$ and $`\beta `$ is a root of $`P_{Z,[2]}(t)`$ then $`\alpha \beta =1`$ if and only if

$$\alpha =1,\beta =1.$$

Let us prove it. Suppose $`\alpha 1`$ and $`\beta 1`$. Then $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta ^1`$ are roots of $`P_{Y,tr}(t)`$ and $`P_{Z,tr}`$ respectively. But $`P_{Y,tr}(t)`$ and $`P_{Z,tr}`$ are $`𝐐`$-irreducible polynomials with different degrees and therefore cannot have common roots. Hence $`\alpha \beta ^1`$, i.e., $`\alpha \beta 1`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.8.

Similar arguments prove the Tate conjecture for $`Y\times S`$ where $`S`$ is an ordinary K3 surface over $`k`$ with semistable $`\rho _{Y,2}[1]`$ and $`a(2,Y)a(1,S)+1`$. (The second Betti number of a K3 surface is $`22`$ while the fourth Betti number of a cubic fourfold is $`23`$.) Also by the same token one may prove the Tate conjecture for the product of two ordinary K3 surfaces with different Picard numbers.

## 5. Powers of fourfolds

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`Y`$ be a smooth geometrically irreducible $`4`$-dimensional projective variety over $`k`$ such that the first and third Betti numbers of $`Y_a`$ are zero and the second Betti number of $`Y_a`$ is $`1`$. Let us assume that $`\rho _{Y,4}[2]`$ is semisimple and semistable. Assume, in addition, that $`Y`$ is of K3 type in dimension $`4`$. Let $`r>1`$ be an integer and let us put $`X:=Y^r`$. Then each cohomology class in $`(H^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m))^{G(k)}`$ can be presented as a linear combination of products of pullbacks of Tate classes on $`Y`$ and $`Y^2`$ with respect to the projection maps $`X=Y^rY,X=Y^rY^2`$. In particular, if for some prime $`\mathrm{}`$ the Tate conjecture holds true for $`Y`$ and $`Y^2`$ then it is also true for $`X`$ with the same $`\mathrm{}`$.

###### Corollary 5.2.

Let $`Y`$ is an ordinary cubic fourfold over a finite field $`k`$. Let $`r>1`$ be an integer and let us put $`X:=Y^r`$. Then the Tate conjecture holds true for $`X`$.

###### Proof of Corollary 5.2.

According to Corollary 4.5 there exists a finite overfield $`k^{}k`$ such that if $`Y^{}=Y\times k^{}`$ then $`\rho _{Y^{},4}[2]`$ is semistable and the Tate conjecture is true for $`Y^2`$. Recall  that the Tate conjecture is valid for $`Y^{}`$. Applying Theorem 5.1 to $`Y^{}/k^{}`$, we conclude that the Tate conjecture is valid for $`Y^r`$. Since $`Y^r=(Y\times k^{})^r=Y^r\times k^{}`$, we conclude that the Tate conjecture is valid for $`Y^r=X`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 5.1.

Let $`𝔩H^2(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})`$ be the class of a hyperplane section of $`Y`$. Clearly,

$$H^8(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(4)=(H^8(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(4))^{G(k^{})}=𝐐_{\mathrm{}}\text{cl}(𝔞),$$

$$H^2(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1)=(H^2(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1))^{G(k^{})}=𝐐_{\mathrm{}}𝔩,$$

$$H^6(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(3)=(H^6(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(3))^{G(k^{})}=𝐐_{\mathrm{}}𝔩^3$$

(where $`\text{cl}(𝔞`$ is the cohomology class of an effective $`0`$-cycle $`𝔞`$) on $`Y`$. In particular, the cohomology spaces $`H^2(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1),H^6(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(3),H^8(Y_a^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(4)`$ consist of Tate classes.

We say that $`cH^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)`$ is a decomposable cohomology class if it can be presented as a linear combination of products of pullbacks of Tate classes on $`Y`$ and $`Y^2`$ with respect to the projection maps

$$X=Y^rY,X=Y^rY^2.$$

Clearly, linear combinations and $``$products of decomposable cohomology classes are also decomposable one.

Let $`r^{}<r`$ be a positive integer, $`Y^rY^r^{}`$ any projection map. If $`cH^{2m}(Y_a^r^{},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)`$ is a decomposable cohomology class on $`Y_a^r^{}`$ then its pullback is a decomposable cohomology class in $`H^{2m}(Y_a^r,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)=H^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)`$. If $`r=1`$ or $`r=2`$ then each Tate class on $`X_a=Y_a^r`$ is decomposable by obvious reasons. Clearly, in order to prove Theorem 5.1, we have to check that each Galois-invariant cohomology class in $`H^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)`$ is decomposable.

Let us look more thoroughly at the cohomology of $`X_a=Y_a^r`$. First, notice that the Künneth formula combined with Poincaré duality  implies that under our assumptions all odd-dimensional cohomology groups of $`X_a`$ vanish. In order to describe explicitly the even-dimensional cohomology groups of $`X_a`$ let us fix a non-negative integer $`m`$ and consider the set $`(r,m)`$ of maps

$$j:\{1,2\mathrm{},r\}\{0,1,2,3,4\}\text{with }\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}j(i)=m.$$

Then the Künneth formula for $`X_a=Y_a^r`$ implies easily that

$$H^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})=\underset{j(r,m)}{}_{i=1}^rH^{2j(i)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}}).$$

After the proper twist we obtain a canonical isomorphism of Galois modules

$$H^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)=\underset{j(r,m)}{}_{i=1}^rH^{2j(i)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(i))$$

compatible with $``$products. In particular,

$$(H^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m))^{G(k)}=\underset{j(r,m)}{}H_j^{G(k)}\text{where }H_j:=_{i=1}^rH^{2j(i)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(i)).$$

The symmetric group $`𝐒_r`$ of permutation in $`r`$ letters acts on $`X=Y^r`$ in a natural way. By functoriality, it acts on $`H^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)`$ and this action commutes with Galois action. Clearly, if $`s𝐒_r`$ and $`cH^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)`$ then the cohomology class $`c`$ is decomposable if and only if $`s^{}c`$ is decomposable. Notice also that

$$s^{}H_j=H_{js^1}j(r,m)$$

with the map $`js^1:\{1,2\mathrm{},r\}\{0,1,2,3,4\},js^1(i):=j(s^1(i))`$. Of course, the latter formula defines an obvious action of $`𝐒_r`$ on $`(r,m)`$. It follows that $`s^{}(H_j^{G(k)})=(H_{js^1})^{G(k)}`$ for all $`j(r,m)`$; in particular, all Galois-invariant cohomology classes in $`H_j`$ are decomposable if and only if all Galois-invariant cohomology classes in $`H_{js^1}`$ are decomposable. This implies that in order to prove Theorem 5.1, it suffices to check that all Galois-invariant cohomology classes in $`H_j`$ are decomposable for each non-decreasing maps $`j:\{1,2\mathrm{},r\}\{0,1,2,3,4\}`$ from $`(r,m)`$.

So, Theorem 5.1 follows from the following assertion.

###### Lemma 5.3.

Let $`j`$ be a non-decreasing map

$$j:\{1,2\mathrm{},r\}\{0,1,2,3,4\}\text{with }\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}j(i)=m.$$

Let $`H_j=_{i=1}^rH^{2j(i)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(i))`$ be the correspondent Künneth chunk of $`H^{2m}(X_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m)=H^{2m}(Y_a^r,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(m).`$ Then each Galois-invariant cohomology class in $`H_j`$ is decomposable.

###### Proof of Lemma 5.3.

We use induction by $`r`$. We already know that the Lemma is true for $`r=1`$ and $`r=2`$ . So, we may assume that $`r>2`$.

Case 1. Assume that $`j(1)<2`$, i.e., $`j(1)=0`$ or $`1`$. Let us consider the the projection map $`\varphi _1:X=Y^rY`$ on the first factor, the projection map $`\varphi :X=Y^rY^{r1}`$ onto the product of last $`(r1)`$ factors and a non-decreasing map

$$j^{}:\{1,2\mathrm{},r1\}\{0,1,2,3,4\},j^{}(i):=j(i+1)\text{with }\underset{i=1}{\overset{r1}{}}j^{}(i)=mj(1).$$

Notice that $`H^{2j(1)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(1))`$ consists of Tate classes and therefore $`\varphi _1^{}(H^{2j(1)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(1))`$ consists of decomposable classes. Clearly,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_j& =H^{2j(1)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(1))_{i=2}^rH^{2j(i)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(i))\hfill \\ & =H^{2j(1)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(1))H_j^{}=\varphi ^{}(H_j^{}),\hfill \end{array}$$

$$H_j^{G(k)}=H^{2j(1)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(1))(H_j^{})^{G(k)}=\varphi ^{}((H_j^{})^{G(k)})$$

where $`H_j^{}=_{i=1}^{r1}H^{2j^{}(i)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j^{}(i))`$ is a Künneth chunk of $`H^{2m2j(1)}(Y_a^{r1},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(mj(1))`$. By induction assumption, all cohomology classes in $`(H_j^{})^{G(k)}`$ are decomposable and, therefore, their pullbacks with respect to $`\varphi `$ are also decomposable. Recall that $`\varphi _1^{}(H^{2j(1)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(1))`$ consists of decomposable classes. This ends the proof of the Lemma in the case of $`j(1)<2`$.

Case 2. Assume that $`j(r)>2`$, i.e. $`j(r)=3`$ or $`4`$. Let us consider the projection map $`\varphi :X=Y^rY^{r1}`$ onto the product of first $`(r1)`$ factors, the projection map $`\varphi _r:X=Y^rY`$ on the last factor and a non-decreasing map

$$j^{}:\{1,2\mathrm{},r1\}\{0,1,2,3,4\},j^{}(i):=j(i)\text{with }\underset{i=1}{\overset{r1}{}}j^{}(i)=mj(r).$$

Notice that $`H^{2j(r)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(r))`$ consists of Tate classes and therefore $`\varphi _r^{}(H^{2j(r)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2j(r)))`$ consists of decomposable classes. This implies that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_j& =_{i=1}^{r1}H^{2j(i)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(i))H^{2j(i)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(r))\hfill \\ & =\varphi ^{}(H_j^{})\varphi _r^{}(H^{2j(r)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2j(r))),\hfill \end{array}$$

$$H_j^{G(k)}=(H_j^{})^{G(k)}H^{2j(r)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(4)=\varphi ^{}((H_j^{})^{G(k)})\varphi _r^{}(H^{2j(r)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(r)))$$

where $`H_j^{}=_{i=1}^{r1}H^{2j^{}(i)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j^{}(i))`$ is a Künneth chunk of $`H^{2m2j(r)}(Y_a^{r1},𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(mj(r))`$. By induction assumption, all cohomology classes in $`(H_j^{})^{G(k)}`$ are decomposable and, therefore, their pullbacks with respect to $`\varphi `$ are also decomposable. Recall that $`\varphi _r^{}(H^{2j(r)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2j(r)))`$ consists of decomposable classes. This ends the proof of the Lemma in the case of $`j(r)>2`$.

Case 3. Assume that $`j(1)>1`$ and $`j(r)<3`$. Since $`j`$ is non-decreasing and may take on only values $`0,1,2,3,4`$, this implies that $`j(i)=2`$ for all $`i`$ and, therefore,

$$H_j=_{i=1}^rH^{2j(i)}(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(j(i))=_{i=1}^rH^4(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2).$$

So, we have to prove that all cohomology classes in

$$H_j^{G(k)}=(_{i=1}^rH^4(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(2))^{G(k)}$$

are decomposable. Notice that semistability of $`\rho _{Y,2}[1]`$ implies that each (reciprocal) root of $`P_{Y,[1]}(t)`$ which is a root of unity must be equal to 1. Now, the decomposabilty property of elements of $`(_{i=1}^rH^2(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})(1))^{G(k)}`$ follows from the combination of Theorem 4.3 applied to $`Y`$ and $`m=2`$ and Theorem 2.3 applied to $`V=H^4(Y_a,𝐐_{\mathrm{}})`$, $`\rho =\rho _{Y,2}`$ and $`i=2`$. ∎

This ends the proof of Theorem 5.1. ∎