A note on Fourier-Mukai partners of abelian varieties over positive characteristic fields

Zhiyuan Li Shanghai Center for Mathematical Science
2005 Songhu Road 200438, Shanghai
zhiyuan_li@fudan.edu.cn
 and  Haitao Zou Shanghai Center for Mathematical Science
2005 Songhu Road 200438, Shanghai
htzou17@fudan.edu.cn
Abstract.

Over complex numbers, the Fourier-Mukai partners of abelian varieties are well-understood. A celebrated result is Orlov’s derived Torelli theorem. In this note, we study the FM-partners of abelian varieties in positive characteristic. We notice that, in odd characteristics, two abelian varieties of odd dimension are derived equivalent if their associated Kummer stacks are derived equivalent, which is Krug and Sosna’s result over complex numbers. For abelian surfaces in odd characteristic, we show that two abelian surfaces are derived equivalent if and only if their associated Kummer surfaces are isomorphic. This extends the result [7] to odd characteristic fields, which solved a classical problem originally from Shioda. Furthermore, we establish the derived Torelli theorem for supersingular abelian varieties and apply it to characterize the quasi-liftable birational models of supersingular generalized Kummer varieties.

Key words and phrases:
Fourier-Mukai partner, abelian variety, derived Torelli Theorem, Kummer variety
2021 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 14F08; Secondary 14K05

1. Introduction

Let A be an abelian variety over an algebraically closed field k. It is desirable to have a description of the derived category of A via its associated Kummer stack K(A)[A/ι], where ι acts on A by the involution 1:AA. When A is an abelian surface, the singular Kummer variety A/ι admits a crepant resolution, denoted by Km(A). A classical problem raised by Shioda is

Question 1.1 ([23]).

For two abelian surfaces A1 and A2, if Km(A1)Km(A2), then can we conclude that A1A2?

Over complex numbers, Question 1.1 was solved in [7, 18]: two abelian surfaces have isomorphic Kummer surfaces if and only if they are derived equivalent. Their proof relies on the use of Hodge theory and global Torelli theorem for abelian surfaces, which are missing in positive characteristic fields. More generally, Stellari has investigated this problem for abelian varieties of arbitrary dimension in [26].

In this paper, we are interested in above questions over positive characteristic fields. In particular, we would like to extend the result of [7] and [26] to fields with odd characteristic. The following result gives an answer of Shioda’s question over positive characteristic fields.

Theorem 1.2.

Assume char(k)2. Let A1 and A2 be abelian varieties of dimension n over k. Then the following holds:

  1. (i)

    If A1 is derived equivalent to A2, then Kummer stack K(A1) is derived equivalent to K(A2).

  2. (ii)

    If n is odd, then the converse of (i) holds.

  3. (iii)

    If n=2, then A1 and A2 are derived equivalent if and only if Km(A1)Km(A2). If A1 is supersingular, then A2 is derived equivalent to A1 if and only if A2A1.

The statements (i) and (ii) will be proved with techniques around equivariant derived categories, which is already known in [9, 20] with k=. In the same way, we will generalize them to the case that char(k)>2 .

The proof of statement (iii) will be divided into two cases.

  • For the finite height case, we can prove a lifting theorem for Kummer structures (see §3.3). Then the specialization argument of derived equivalences will imply this statement.

  • For the supersingular case, it can be concluded by supersingular Torelli theorem for abelian varieties (see §4.2).

Notice that Theorem 1.2 shows that supersingular abelian surfaces do not have any non-trivial Fourier-Mukai partners. We expect that there is a similar characterization for higher dimension supersingular abelian varieties.

As an application, we can characterize the quasi-liftably birational class (cf. [6, Definition 3.3]) of irreducible symplectic varieties which come from the moduli space of sheaves on supersingular abelian surfaces. Consider the moduli space of Gieseker-Maruyama H-stable sheaves on A with Mukai vector v such that pv2, denoted by MH(A,v). Recall that the fiber Kv(A) of the Albanese morphism

(det,c2):MH(A,v)Pic0(A)×A,

is an irreducible symplectic variety of dimension v22 in the sense of loc.cit. . A consequence in loc.cit. asserts that the generalized Kummer type variety Kv(A) is quasi-liftably birational to some generalized Kummer variety Kn(A), where A is a Fourier-Mukai partner of A. Here we verify that AA.

Theorem 1.3.

Let n=v22. Suppose that pn and pn+1. Let A be a supersingular abelian surface and let Kv(A) be the generalized Kummer type variety. Then

  1. (i)

    Kv(A) is quasi-liftably birational equivalent to Kn(A).

  2. (ii)

    if Kv(A) is quasi-liftably birational to Kv(A) for some abelian surface A and v, then AA.

Acknowledgement: We are grateful to Lie Fu for helpful discussions and comments. We also want to thank the referee for several useful comments. The authors are supported by NKRD Program of China (No. 2020YFA0713200), NSFC General Program (No. 11771086) and Shanghai Pilot Program for Basic Research (No. 21TQ00).

2. Equivariant derived category of schemes

2.1. Equivariant quasi-coherent sheaves

Let G be a constant finite group scheme over k and let X be a quasi-compact and quasi-separated scheme over a field k with a G-action

μ:G×kXX.

A G-equivariant quasi-coherent sheaf on X is a pair (,λ) such that is a quasi-coherent sheaf on X and λ is a family {λg:g}gG of isomorphisms satisfying the following cocycle condition:

λfg=λfλg:g(fg). (2.1.1)

We call λ a G-linearization of . For instance, 𝒪Xcan=(𝒪X,id𝒪X×G) is a G-equivariant quasi-coherent sheaf. In this paper, we denote by QCohG(X) the category of G-equivariant quasi-coherent 𝒪X-modules.

Remark 2.1.

If the cocyle condition (2.1.1) for γ is missing, then will be called G-invariant.

Let [X/G] be the quotient stack given by the G-action on X and denote by QCoh([X/G]) the category of quasi-coherent sheaves on [X/G] (cf. [15, §9]). There is a well-known stacky description for G-equivariant quasi-coherent sheaves on X as follows.

Lemma 2.2.

There is a canonical equivalence of categories

QCoh([X/G])QCohG(X).

Moreover, if X is locally noetherian, then we also have Coh([X/G])CohG(X).

Proof.

Assume that X is locally noetherian. Consider the functor

Φ:QCohG(X) QCoh([X/G])
(,λ) ~

where ~ is the sheaf on [X/G] defined as follows. For any object

𝒫XTTπ

lying on a k-scheme T, the pull-back πT is a G-equivariant quasi-coherent sheaf on 𝒫 as π is G-equivariant. The descent theory along G-torsor for the stack QCohk of quasi-coherent sheaves establishes a canonical equivalence:

QCoh(T)QCohG(𝒫), (2.1.2)

see [27, Theorem 4.46] for example. Take F~(T,𝒫,π) to be one in the isomorphism class in QCoh(T) corresponding to πT. It remains to show that F~ is quasi-coherent (resp. coherent).

Consider the smooth covering (GX,μ):X[X/G] where GX is the trivial torsor on X defined by pX:X×kGX and μ is the group action of G on X. Since the λ is an isomorphism

pXμ,

we can see ~(X,GX,μ) by the previous construction, which is quasi-coherent (resp. coherent). Thus by [15, Proposition 9.1.15], we can see ~ is quasi-coherent (resp. coherent).

The converse is similar. We just take Φ1~ to be the quasi-coherent sheaf (resp. coherent sheaf) ~(X,GX,μ). The linearization λ is from the definiton of quasi-coherent sheaves (resp. coherent sheaves) on [X/G]. ∎

The Lemma 2.2 implies that the category QCohG(X) is a Grothendieck category (cf. [25, Tag 0781]). This promises a nice homological algebraic theory on G-equivariant quasi-coherent sheaves. In the following literature, the G-equivariant derived category of X means the bounded derived category of CohG(X), denoted by DGb(X). A useful fact for G-equivariant derived category is the derived McKay correspondence established by Bridgeland–King–Reid [3]. The restriction of the Hilbert–Chow morphism X[n]X(n) gives a morphism

τ:XGX/G.

under the natural inclusion XGX[n].

Theorem 2.3 (Bridgeland–King–Reid).

Assume that (|G|,p)=1. Suppose the following two conditions hold

  1. (BKR1)

    ωX is locally trivial as a G-bundle,

  2. (BKR2)

    XG×τXG has dimension ddimX+1.

Then there is a derived equivalence between Db(XG) and DGb(X).

Proof.

The original proof in loc.cit. is for k=. However, this also proceeds for general case that (|G|,p)=1 (cf. [4, Theorem 2.4.5]). ∎

The following consequence is well-known over complex numbers (cf. [3, §10.2] or [20, §3.2]).

Corollary 2.4.

Suppose char(k)2. Let A be an abelian surface over k. Let ι be the involution on A and ι the finite group scheme over k generated by ι. Then Db([A/ι])Db(Km(A)).

Proof.

We can view Km(A) as the closure of the subset of reduced ι-clusters in the Hilbert scheme Hilb2(A) of two points on A. In this case (BKR2) is satisfied and the canonical sheaf is trivial as an ι-bundle. Thus Theorem 2.3 implies that there is a Fourier-Mukai transform

ΦP:Db(Km(A))Dιb(A)Db([A/ι])

as char(k)2. ∎

Let us recall some general duality theorem for the G-equivariant derived category. The G-action on X also induces G-action on the triangulated category Db(X). Thus we can also consider the G-equivariant category Db(X)G (cf. [5, §2]). Under the assumption that (|G|,p)=1, we have an exact equivalence

Db(X)GDGb(X) (2.1.3)

by loc.cit. Theorem 7.1. Therefore, we will not distinguish DGb(X) and Db(X)G in the rest of the paper if G acts on X and (|G|,p)=1.

Let G^=Hom(G,k) be the character group of G. There exists an induced G^-action on the G-equivariant derived category DGb(X) as follows. For each χG^, one can define a line bundle on [X/G] twisted by χ as

χ𝒪Xcankχ(𝒪X,id𝒪G×Xχ) for χG^ .

The action of χ on Db([X/G]) is given by tensoring χ.

Definition 2.5.

For any G-equivariant object (E,λ) in DGb(X), the G^-action on a (E,λ) is given by twisting the linearization:

λkχ{Eλgχ(g)gE}gG for any χG^.

This gives a G^-action on the triangulated categories DGb(X)Db(X)G.

Consider the identification Db([X/G])Db(X)G.

Proposition 2.6 (A. Elagin).

Assume X is noetherian. There are exact equivalences

DGb(X)G^(Db(X)G)G^Db(X).
Proof.

The first exact equivalence is given by (2.1.3). For the second exact equivalence, we shall note that DGb(X) is idempotent complete for any noetherian scheme or algebraic stack X as Coh(X) is a Grothendieck category and admits all products. Now we can apply the duality theorem [5, Theorem 4.2] to conclude it. ∎

Remark 2.7.

The Proposition 2.6 is also referred for idempotent complete -linear triangulated categories in [9] as a crucial fact (cf. Proposition 2.2 loc.cit. ). We use the slightly general form for field k with (|G|,char(k))=1.

With the same notations in Corollary 2.4, we have ι^ι, where ι is the character dual to ι, acting naturally on Db([A/ι]).

Corollary 2.8.

If char(k)>2, then Db([A/ι])ιDb(A). In particular, if A is an abelian surface, then Db(Km(A))ιDb(A). ∎

3. Lifting of derived equivalences

3.1. Equivariant derived equivalences

In this part, we will recollect some preliminary facts on lifting theory and descent theory of equivariant equivalences in [9, 20] and extend them to all algebraically closed fields. With the notations as in §2, we will always assume the order of |G| is coprime to p. Let X1 and X2 be two projective k-schemes or quotient stacks equipped with G actions. Let Φ:Db(X1)Db(X2) be an exact functor.

Definition 3.1.

An exact functor Φ~:DGb(X1)DGb(X2) is called a descent of Φ if it fits into the following 2-commutative diagrams

Db(X1)Db(X2)DGb(X1)DGb(X2)Φπ1,π2,Φ~   DGb(X1)DGb(X2)Db(X1)Db(X2),Φ~π1π2Φ

where πi:Xi[Xi/G] are structure morphisms of quotients. We may also call Φ a lift of Φ~.

Remark 3.2.

The push-forward and pull-back functors πi,πi, are both exact under the assumption that (|G|,p)=1 (cf. [5, Lemma 3.8]). Thus the functors in Definition 3.1 are all exact.

Consider the k-linear triangluated category 𝒯=DGb(X). The non-trivial line bundles χ on [X/G] induce a natural G^-action on 𝒯 by taking tensor product (cf. Definition 2.5). This leads to the following definition.

Definition 3.3.

Let 𝒯1 and 𝒯2 be two k-linear triangulated categories with G1 and G2 actions respectively. Let γ:G1G2 be a group isomorphism. An exact functor Φ:𝒯1𝒯2 is called γ-twisted equivariant if

Φgγ(g)Φfor all gG1.

When γ=idG, the Φ will be called G-equivariant for simplicity. If a descent Φ~ of Φ is G^-equivariant as an exact functor, then it will be called a G^-equivariant descent of Φ.

The following examples of equivariant functors is the most frequently used throughout this paper. Let γ:GG be an abstract group isomorphism, then there is an action of G on X1×kX2 (or Db(X1×X2)) by

g(x1,x2)=(gx1,γ(g)x2).

For instance, if γ=id, then this action is just the diagonal action of G. The G-equivariant derived category of X1×kX2 under the action given by γ is denoted by DGγb(X1×X2). If there is an object 𝒫=(P,λ) in DGγb(X1×X2) such that

Φ𝐑p2,(p1()𝒫),

then Φ is a γ-twisted G-equivariant exact functor. A γ-twisted G-equivariant functor of this form is called integral and will be denoted by Φ𝒫, where the object 𝒫 is called its kernel. In this case, we can forget the linearization of the kernel 𝒫, which will defines an integral functor

ΦP:Db(X1)Db(X2).

It is not hard to check that ΦP is a lift of Φ𝒫.

A well-known fact is that a G-equivariant descent of a Fourier-Mukai transform is still an exact equivalence (cf. [9, Proposition 3.10] or [20, Lemma 5]).

Proposition 3.4.

Let 𝒫=(P,λ) be a Gγ-equivariant object in DGγb(X1×X2) for some abstract isomorphism γ:GG. If ΦX1X2P is an exact equivalence, then the integral functor

ΦΦ𝒫:DGb(X1)DGb(X2)

will also be an exact equivalence.

The proof in loc.cit. also works for any algebraically closed field k such that (|G|,p)=1. We sketch it here for reader’s convenience.

Proof.

Take the kernel of right adjoint inverse of Φ:

Q=PpX1ωX1[dimX1].

It admits a natural G-lineaization λ induced by λ. Denote (Q,λ) by 𝒬. Note that the pull-back functor π is just the forgetful functor of linearization. Therefore π(𝒬𝒫)QP𝒪ΔX1. On the other hand, we have Aut(𝒪ΔX1)=k in Db(X1×X1). Via computing the cohomology of G, we can show that the set of linearizations of 𝒪ΔX1 forms a principal homogeneous space under the action of G^=Hom(G,k) (cf. [20, Lemma 1]). In particular, since 𝒪ΔX1 admits the trivial linearization, the set of its linearizations is equal to G^. It means that there is some χG^ such that 𝒬𝒫Δχ. Since tensoring line bundles will induce a derived equivalence, we can conclude that Φ is an exact equivalence. ∎

Suppose G is a cyclic group. Then H2(G,k)=H2(G^,k)=0 by a direct computation. This implies that any Fourier-Mukai kernel P (resp. 𝒫=(P,λ)) admits a G-linearization (resp. G^-linearization). Now we can lift a G-equivariant derived equivalence along cyclic Galois coverings, i.e. morphisms of smooth k-stacks YiXi=Yi/G111The quotient here is in stack-theoretical sense (cf. [22])..

Corollary 3.5 ([9, Proposition 4.3]).

Let Y1X1 and Y2X2 be two cyclic Galois coverings. Suppose that there is an isomorphism γ:G^G^ . Then any γ-twisted equivariant Fourier-Mukai transform

Φ𝒫:Db(X1)Db(X2)

lifts to a derived equivalence

Φ~:Db(Y1)Db(Y2).

3.2. Proof of Theorem 1.2 (i) and (ii)

Proposition 3.6 (Proposition 3.1, [26]).

If there is a Fourier-Mukai transform

ΦP:Db(A1)Db(A2),

then Db([A1/ι])Db([A2/ι]).

Proof.

We repeat Stellari’s proof for this statement here. Let γ be the abstract isomorphism [1]A1[1]A2. Let τ be the generator of Gγ. Let T(x,y) be the translation of a point (x,y) on A1×A2. As ΦτPEq(Db(A1),Db(A2)), by [19, Corollary 3.4], we have

τPT(a,0),PpA1α

for some aA1(k), line bundle αPic0(A1)A^1.

It is well-known that the Fourier-Mukai kernel P is isomorphic to [i] for some semi-homogeneous sheaf on A1×A2, which implies

T(a,0),PT(a,0),[i]Pβ

for some βPic0(A1×A2)(k). Thus τPP, where =βpAα[i] . As Pic0(A1×A2)(k) is divisible, we can find a line bundle 𝒩 on A1×A2 such that 𝒩2=. Let P~=P𝒩. We can see

τP~τPτNPNP~. (3.2.1)

On the other hand, since P~ is obtained from P by tensoring line bundles, it also induces a Fourier-Mukai transform from A1 to A2. The isomorphism (3.2.1) ensures that P~ is GΔ-invariant, which also implies P~ admits a Gγ linearization λ as H2(Gγ,k)=0. Therefore Db([A/ι])Db([B/ι]) by Proposition 3.4. ∎

Combining the identification in Corollary 2.4, the statement (i) in Theorem 1.2 can be concluded.

Krug and Sosna proved the converse direction for odd dimensional abelian varieties (cf. [9, Proposition 5.13]). Their statement there is over , while we extend it to algebraically closed fields in positive characteristic.

Proposition 3.7.

Let A1 and A2 are two abelian varieties in dimension 2n+1, n>0. Any Fourier-Mukai transform between Kummer stacks

Φ𝒫:Db([A1/ι])Db([A2/ι])

has a lift

Φ~:Db(A1)Db(A2).
Proof.

The stack [A/ι] has non-trivial torsion canonical bundle when dimA is odd (cf. [9]). Let Xi=[Ai/ι]. We can take the abstract isomorphism KX1𝛾KX2, whose actions are given by tensoring. Notice that KXi() is just the shift of Serre functor Si[dimXi] on Db(Xi). Therefore Φ𝒫 is γ-twisted equivariant as Serre functor commutes with all Fourier-Mukai transforms. Thus any Db([A1/ι])Db([A2/ι]) can be lifted to an exact equivalence Db(A1)Db(A2) by the Corollary 3.5. ∎

This proves Theorem 1.2 (ii).

Remark 3.8.

We wonder if the Kummer stacks [A1/ι][A2/ι] will imply Db(A1)Db(A2) or not. The same question can be asked for two pairs (X1,G) and (X2,G) satisfying (BKR1) and (BKR2) such that their quotients have isomorphic crepant resolution.

3.3. Lifting Kummer structures

To prove the Theorem (iii), we need to use the lifting of Kummer surfaces. A technical lemma is

Lemma 3.9.

Let X be a K3 surface over k. Suppose 𝒳 is a relative K3 surface, lifting X to some finite extension V of the ring of Witt vectors W(k), such that the specialization map is an isomorphism

NS(𝒳F)NS(X). (3.3.1)

For any abelian surface A satisfying Km(A)X, there is an abelian scheme 𝒜 over V such that 𝒜kA and 𝒳Km(𝒜).

Proof.

We may follow the idea of [24, Proposition 1.1] to prove the existence of the lifting. Let Ea be the exceptional curve on X with respect to the 2-torsion point aA[2]. It has a unique Cartier divisor extension aPic(𝒳) by the construction. Moreover, the divisor

aA[2]aPic(𝒳)

is 2-divisible as is equal to the extension of 12aA[2]EaNS(X) via (3.3.1). Therefore, we have a double covering of V-schemes

π:𝒴𝒳,

which is branched along 𝒳. We can contract the curves 𝒞a𝒴 lying over a to points:

f:𝒴𝒜,

where 𝒜 is a smooth proper scheme over V. Thus we can see 𝒜 is the required abelian scheme since 𝒳𝒴/ιKm(𝒜) where ι is the involution of 𝒴 induced by the double covering π. ∎

3.4. Derived Torellli theorem and specialization

Let A1 and A2 be two abelian varieties. Consider the set of symplectic isomorphisms

U(A1,A2)={f=(f1f2f3f4):A1×A^1A2×A^2|f1=f~(f4^f2^f3^f1^)}.

Let Eq(Db(A1),Db(A2)) be the set of exact equivalences from Db(A1) to Db(A2). Then the derived Torelli theorem for abelian varieties asserts

Theorem 3.10 (Orlov–Polishchuk).

There is a morphism

γA1,A2:Eq(Db(A1),Db(A2))U(A1,A2). (3.4.1)

If U(A1,A2), then A1 and A2 are Fourier-Mukai partners (cf. [19] or [21]).

The following lemma shows that derived equivalence is preserved under smooth specialization.

Lemma 3.11.

For two abelian schemes 𝒜1 and 𝒜2 over V, any derived equivalence Db(𝒜1,F)Db(𝒜2,F) has a specialization Db(𝒜1,k)Db(𝒜2,k), which is also a derived equivalence.

Proof.

It is known that any derived equivalence Db(𝒜1,F)Db(𝒜2,F) induces a symplectic isomorphism fF:𝒜1,F×𝒜^1,F𝒜2,F×𝒜^2,F. By using the Matsusaka-Mumford theorem (cf. [13, Chapter I. Corollary 1]), fF can be extended to an isomorphism f:𝒜1×𝒜^1𝒜2×𝒜2^ such that the restriction fk is a specialization of fF. On the other hand, we can also take the specialization of f~F. As (f~f)F=f~FfF=id𝒜1,F×𝒜^1,F. The graph of f~f is the diagonal of 𝒜×𝒜^. Thus the specialization fk is also a symplectic isomorphism. Hence the derived equivalence Db(𝒜1,k)Db(𝒜2,k) is from Theorem 3.10. ∎

3.5. Proof of Theorem 1.2 (iii): finite height case

Given two abelian surfaces A1 and A2, if there is an exact derived equivalence Db(A1)Db(A2), then we have Db(Km(A1))Db(Km(A2)) by Proposition 3.6. Then we have

Km(A1)Km(A2)

because the Kummer surface does not have non-trivial Fourier-Mukai partners (cf. [12, Theorem 1.1]).

Recall that an abelian surface is called of finite height if it is not supersingular. Assume that A1 and A2 are of finite heights. In this case, if X is a Kummer surface isomorphic to Km(A1)Km(A2), then X is a K3 surface with finite height. There is a Néron-Severi lattice preserving lifting 𝒳 of X over some V (cf. [11, Corollary 4.2]). By Lemma 3.9, there exist relative abelian surfaces 𝒜1 and 𝒜2 over V such that

Km(𝒜1)𝒳Km(𝒜2).

Due to [7, Theorem 0.1 (1)], the generic fibers of 𝒜1 and 𝒜2 are geometrically derived equivalent. By using the standard spreading out argument and [19, Lemma 2.12], we can find a finite extension V of V such that Db(A1,F)Db(A2,F), where F is the fraction field of V. The assertion follows from Lemma 3.11.

4. Supersingular derived Torelli theorem

In this section, we will focus on derived categories of supersingular abelian varieties. There is a cohomological realization of the derived Torelli theorem for supersingular abelian varieties using supersingular abelian crystals and supersingular K3 crystals.

Throughout the rest part, we fix an algebraically closed field k in characteristic p. We also denote W=W(k) for the ring of Witt vectors of k and σ:WW for the Frobenius morphism.

4.1. Abelian crystals and K3 crystals

For supersingular abelian varieties, we can give a cohomological realization of Theorem 3.10 via Ogus’ supersingular Torelli theorem ([14]).

Let A be an abelian variety of dimension g over k. Recall that A is supersingular if the crystalline cohomology Hcrys1(A/W) is purely of slope 12 as a weight one F-crystal with natural Frobenius. Over an algebraically closed field, it is also equivalent to say that A is isogenous to a g-fold product of supersingular elliptic curves (cf. [16, Theorem (4.2)]).

Definition 4.1.

An abelian crystal of genus g is a F-crystal (H,φ) of rank 2g endowed with an isomorphism between F-crystals tr:Λ2gHW(n), whose Hodge numbers of Hodge polygon are both equal to g. The isomorphism tr is called the trace of abelian crystal (H,φ).

As its name indicates, for a g-dimensional abelian variety A, the F-crystal Hcrys1(A/W) is an example of abelian crystal. The trace map of Hcrys1(A/W) is given by

Λ2gHcrys1(A/W)Hcrys2g(A/W)W(n).

Here the first isomorphism is coming from the multiplication of A and the cup-product of its crystalline cohomology.

The crystalline Torelli theorem of supersingular abelian varieties states that, for any integer g2, there is a bijection

{isomorphism classes of  supersingular abelian varietiesof genus g}Hcrys1(/W){isomorphism classes ofsupersingular abelian crystals of genus g}. (4.1.1)

See [14, Theorem 6.2].

The second crystalline cohomology of an abelian surface is also equipped with a structure called K3-crystal which is defined as follows.

Definition 4.2.

We say a F-crystal (H,φ) is K3-crystal with rank n, if there is a symmetric bilinear form ,H on H, satisfying:

  1. (i)

    H is of weight 2, that means p2HIm(φ);

  2. (ii)

    the Hodge number h0(H)=1, that means φidk is of rank 1;

  3. (iii)

    ,H is perfect;

  4. (iv)

    φx,φyH=p2σx,yH for any x,yH.

Inside a K3-crystal (H,φ), there is a natural p-lattice defined as

THHφ=p={xH|φ(x)=px}

equipped with bilinear form ,TH induced from H. A K3-crystal is called supersinguar if it is purely of slope 1. If (H,φ) is supersingular of rank n, then its Tate module TH is a free p-module of rank n, which comes from the definition of pure of slope 1. Its discriminant is equal to p2σ0 for some integer σ01, which is called the Artin invariant of H.

Let A be an abelian surface over k. Then Hcrys2(A/W) is naturally endowed with a K3-crystal structure. Consider the canonical isomorphism

Hcrys2(A/W)Λ2Hcrys1(A/W),

one can see that A is supersingular if and only if Hcrys2(A/W) is supersingular as a K3-crystal. An important observation due to Ogus is that the functor Λ2 forms an equivalence from the category of supersingular abelian crystals of genus 2 to the category of supersingular K3 crystals of rank 6 (cf. [14, Proposition 6.9]). Thus the crystalline Torelli theorem for supersingular abelian surfaces can be rephrased in terms of K3-crystals, that means two supersingular abelian surfaces A1 and A2 are isomorphic if and only if

Hcrys2(A1/W)Hcrys2(A2/W).
Remark 4.3.

This also implies that any supersingular abelian surface A is principal polarized, since there is a natural isomorphism of K3-crystals Hcrys2(A/W)Hcrys2(A^/W). This can also deduced from the classification of Néron-Severi lattices of supersingular abelian surfaces (cf. [6, Lemma 6.2]).

One can characterize K3-crystals via the characteristic space. Let H be a supersingular K3 crystal with Artin invariant σ0. We have the an orthogonal decomposition (not unique!) for its Tate module:

(TH,,TH)(T0,p,T0)(T1,,T1), (4.1.2)

such that T0 is of rank 2σ0, ,T0 and ,T1 are both perfect, since the cokernel of THTH is killed by p. The kernel

H¯ker(THpkHWk)

forms a σ0-dimensional 𝔽p-vector space which is totally isotropic with respect ot ,TH and it is isomorphic to the image of

HHTHpW

It also forms a strictly characteristic subspace of T0pk (cf. [14, Definition 3.19] for the definition and loc.cit.  Remark 3.16 for the explanation). Let 𝕂H=φ1(H¯)T0pk, which is another strictly characteristic subspace of T0pk. We also call it the characteristic space of the K3-crystal H.

The classification of K3-crystals (see [14, Theorem 3.20]) asserts that

Theorem 4.4 (Ogus).

For two supersingular K3-crystals H and H of the same rank, HH if and only if there is an isomorphism of pairs (T0k,𝕂H)(T0k,𝕂H).

4.2. Supersingular derived Torelli theorem

Let 𝒫 be the Poincaré line bundle on A×A^ associated to the polarization φ. There is a canonical isomorphism between Dieudonné modules:

ΦA:Hcrys1(A/W)Hcrys1(A^/W), (4.2.1)

which corresponds to the first crystalline Chern class

c1(𝒫)Hcrys1(A/W)WHcrys1(A^/W)Hcrys2(A×A^/W);

see [1, Théorèm 5.1.2]. We have a natural quadratic form on the F-crystal Hcrys1(A×A^):

qA(a,α)=2ΦA1(α)(a)for (a,α)Hcrys1(A/W)Hcrys1(A^/W)

With abelian crystals, we are able to provide a cohomological description of Theorem 3.10 for supersingular abelian varieties.

It is clear that any symplectic isomorphism f:A1×A^1A2×A^2 will induce an isomorphism of abelian crystals

φ:Hcrys1(A1/W)Hcrys1(A^1/W)Hcrys1(A2/W)Hcrys1(A^2/W),

by taking Künneth decomposition.

Conversely, we can write the isomorphism φ into a 2×2-matrix

Hcrys1(A1/W)Hcrys1(A^1/W)(φ1φ2φ3φ4)Hcrys1(A2/W)Hcrys1(A^2/W)

in which φi are all morphisms between F-crystals. Then φ being isometry in terms of the quadratic form qA is equivalent to satisfying matrix equation

(φ1tφ3tφ2tφ4t)(0110)(φ1φ2φ3φ4)=(0110).

It implies that

φ1=(0110)(φ1tφ3tφ2tφ4t)(0110)=(φ4tφ2tφ3tφ1t)

Now suppose A1 or A2 is supersingular. By Ogus’s crystalline Torelli theorem for supersinsgular abelian varieties (cf. [14, Theorem 6.2]), we can find an isomorphism fHom(A1×A^1,A2×A^2) such that Hcrys1(f)=φ . It also satisfies Hcrys1(fi)=φi if we rewrite f into the following matrix form uniquely:

f=(f1f2f3f4).

Note that

c1(𝒫^)=c1(𝒫)Hcrys1(A^/W)Hcrys1(A/W)

by the identification Hcrys1(A^^/W)Hcrys1(A/W). Thus we have

φ1t=Hcrys1(f^1)φ2t=Hcrys1(f^2)φ3t=Hcrys1(f^3)φ4t=Hcrys1(f^4).

Thus fU(A1,A2). Therefore, we have the following

Proposition 4.5.

For arbitrary supersingular abelian varieties A1 and A2 over k, the following statements are equivalent.

  1. (i)

    Db(A1)Db(A2).

  2. (ii)

    There is a isometry of abelian crystals

    Hcrys1(A1×A^1/W)Hcrys1(A2×A^2/W).

    with respect to qAi.

For supersingular abelian surfaces, we have the following consequence via K3-crystals.

Theorem 4.6.

Let A1 and A2 be two supersingular abelian surfaces over k. Then Db(A1)Db(A2) if and only if A1A2.

Proof.

It is clear that when dimA1=2 then dimA2=2 if they are derived equivalent. The given derived equivalence ΦP induces an isometry between K3 crystals H~(A1/W)H~(A2/W), where

H~(Ai/W)W(1)Hcrys2(Ai/W)W(1)

is the Mukai K3-crystal of Ai equipped with the Mukai pairing. Since Hcrys2(Ai/W)φi=pNS(Ai)p (cf. [14, (1.6)]), we have

H~(Ai/W)φi=pp2NS(Ai)p.

Therefore, the characteristic subspace of H~(Ai/W) is equal to

ker(NS(Ai)kHdR2(Ai/k)),

which is isomorphic to the characteristic subspace of Hcrys2(Ai/W). Let

NS(Ai)p(T0(i),p,)(T1(i),,)

be decomposition of p-lattice as in (4.1.2). Then there is a decomposition of the Tate module of H~(Ai/W):

(T0(i),p,)(T1(i)p2,,),

where the second inner product is from the restriction of Mukai pairing. Therefore

(T0(1),𝕂A1)(T0(2),𝕂A2),

which implies an isomorphism between K3-crystals:

Hcrys2(A1/W)Hcrys2(A2/W).

Then the isomorphism A1A2 follows from the crystalline Torelli theorem. ∎

Now we can give a summary of the known equivalence relations between supersingular abelian surfaces.

Corollary 4.7.

Let A1,A2 be two abelian surfaces. If A1 is supersingular, then the following statements are equivalent:

  1. (a)

    There is an isomorphism A1A2;

  2. (b)

    There is an isomorphism between K3-crystals Hcrys2(A1/W)Hcrys2(A2/W);

  3. (c)

    There is an isomorphism between Kummer surfaces Km(A1)Km(A2);

  4. (d)

    There is a derived equivalence Db(Km(A1))Db(Km(A2));

  5. (e)

    There is a derived equivalence Db(A1)Db(A2).

Proof.

We firstly note that the supersingularity is invariant under the relations listed in the statements. Hence A2 is supersingular in each statement.

Then the equivalence between (a), (b) is just the Ogus’s crysalline Torelli theorem for supersingular abelian surfaces. The statements (c), (d) and (e) are equivalent by the Theorem 1.2. The (a) and (e) are equivalent by Theorem 4.6. ∎

Therefore, the statement (iii) in Theorem 1.2 is true for supersingular abelian surfaces.

Remark 4.8.

We suspect whether every supersingular abelian variety A has only trivial (in the strong sense) Fourier-Mukai partners, i.e. FM(A)={A}. This requires that A admits a principal polarization, which holds if dimA=2 (cf. Remark 4.3). But it may fail in higher dimensional case. See [10, §10] for the discussion of non-principal polarizations on supersingular abelian varieties of any genus. It will be very interesting to know if FM(A)={A,A^}.

4.3. Proof of Theorem 1.3

We can see there is a quasi-liftably birational map

Kv(A)Kn(A), (4.3.1)

with n=v221, pn and some (supersingular) abelian surface A derived equivalent to A (cf. [6, Theorem 6.12]). Then (i) follows from the fact A does not have non-trivial Fourier-Mukai partners (cf. 4.7).

To prove (ii), our strategy is to endow Hcrys2(Kn(A)/W) with a natural222Here the “natural” means the structure should be at least functorial with respect to algebraic correpsondences. K3-crystal structure, which is closely related to that of A. Combining the algebraic correspondence given by the birational map (4.3.1), one can show that there is an isomorphism between K3-crystals of A and A. In fact,

Lemma 4.9.

Assume that pn+1.

  1. (i)

    For any abelian surface A and positive integer n, we can endow the F-crystal Hcrys2(Kn(A)/W) with the Beauville-Bogomolov form q, which makes (Hcrys2(Kn(A)/W),q) a K3 crystal of rank 7.

  2. (ii)

    There is an orthogonal decomposition with respect to q:

    Hcrys2(Kn(A)/W)Hcrys2(A/W)W(1). (4.3.2)
Proof.

Let 𝒜 be a lifting of abelian surface A to the Witt vector ring W, which is an abelian scheme over W (cf. [17, (11.1)]). Consider the summation of points s:𝒜[n]𝒜. The fiber of s at the origin point Spec(W)𝒜 is a lifting of generalized Kummer variety Kn(A), which will be denoted by 𝒦n(𝒜) as a W-scheme. For the geometric generic fiber 𝒦n(𝒜)K¯, we have the Beauville-Bogomolov form qK¯ on p-adic étale cohomology Hét2(𝒦n(𝒜)K¯,p). There is an orthogonal decomposition

Hét2(𝒦n(𝒜)K¯,p)Hét2(𝒜K¯,p)pδ, (4.3.3)

such that qK¯(δ)=2(n+1). The Beauville-Bogomolov form on Hcrys2(Kn(A)/W) can be defined by applying integral crystalline-étale comparison (cf. [2, Theorem 1]) and denoted by q. It is followed by a decomposition of F-crystals

Hcrys2(Kn(A)/W)Hcrys2(A/W)W(1),

with respect to q.

The bilinear form induced by q is perfect since pn+1. A direct computation shows that

q(φα)=p2σq(α).

The canonical decomposition (4.3.2) implies the Hodge number h0(Hcrys2(Kn(A)/W))=1. Therefore, (Hcrys2(Kn(A)/W),q) is a K3-crystal. ∎

By the decomposition (4.3.2), we have

Hcrys2(Kn(A)/W)φ=pHcrys2(A/W)φ=ppδ.

Thus there is an isomorphism between Tate modules (as p-lattices)

NS(Kn(A))p(NS(A)p)2(n+1). (4.3.4)
Lemma 4.10.

Under the same assumption in 4.9, if A is supersingular, then we have an isomorphism of characteristic subspaces

𝕂Hcrys2(A/W)𝕂Hcrys2(Kn(A)/W).
Proof.

Consider the following commutative diagram

NS(A)pHcrys2(A/W)NS(Kn(A))pHcrys2(Kn(A)/W)c1c1

The horizontal injective morphisms are isometric embeddings from (4.3.4). Thus it is not hard to see that they induces isomorphic characteristic subspaces. ∎

Remark 4.11.

The Lemma 4.10 can be viewed as a higher dimensional analogue to the relationship between supersingular abelian surfaces and their associated supersingular Kummer surfaces, which is a miracle used in Ogus’s proof of crystalline Torelli theorem for supersingular Kummer surfaces.

Lemma 4.12.

If Kn(A) and Kn(A) are quasi-liftably birational equivalent, then there is an isomorphism of F-crystals Hcrys2(Kn(A)/W)Hcrys2(Kn(A)/W) preserving Beauville-Bogomolov forms.

Proof.

We may assume that Kn(A) and Kn(A) are liftable as 𝒦 and 𝒦 over some finite extension V of W, whose geometric generic fibers are birational equivalent irreducible symplectic varieties. Then there is a correspondence ZF(𝒦F×𝒦F) for some totally ramified finite field extension F of K=Frac(V), such that [ZF]:Hét2(𝒦K¯,p)Hét2(𝒦K¯,p) is a GF-equivariant isomorphism, compatible with Beauville-Bogomolov forms (cf. [8, Lemma 2.6]). The construction in Lemma 4.9 implies that there is an isomorphism of F-crystals as we required. ∎

If Kv(A) and Kv(A) are quasi-liftably birational equivalent, then Kn(A) and Kn(A) are also quasi-liftably birational equivalent by combining (4.3.1). This implies that there exists isomorphisms between characteristic subspaces

𝕂ALemma 4.10𝕂Kn(A)Lemma 4.12𝕂Kn(A)Lemma 4.10𝕂A.

Therefore, by Theorem 4.4 there is an isomorphism of K3-crystals

Hcrys2(A/W)Hcrys2(A/W).

Now we can conclude that AA by Ogus’s crystalline Torelli theorem for supersingular abelian surfaces.

References

  • [1] P. Berthelot, L. Breen, and W. Messing (1982) Théorie de Dieudonné cristalline. II. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 930, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. External Links: ISBN 3-540-11556-0, Document, Link, MathReview (Lucile Bégueri) Cited by: §4.2.
  • [2] B. Bhatt, M. Morrow, and P. Scholze (2018) Integral p-adic Hodge theory. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. 128, pp. 219–397. External Links: ISSN 0073-8301, Document, Link, MathReview (Daniel Robert Gulotta) Cited by: §4.3.
  • [3] T. Bridgeland, A. King, and M. Reid (2001) The McKay correspondence as an equivalence of derived categories. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (3), pp. 535–554. External Links: ISSN 0894-0347, Document, Link, MathReview (Ana Jeremías López) Cited by: §2.1, §2.1.
  • [4] I. V. Dolgachev Derived categories. Note: www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~idolga/derived9.pdf Cited by: §2.1.
  • [5] A. Elagin (2014) On equivariant triangulated categories. arXiv:1403.7027. Cited by: §2.1, §2.1, Remark 3.2.
  • [6] L. Fu and Z. Li (2021) Supersingular irreducible symplectic varieties. In Rationality of Algebraic Varieties, Progress in Mathematics, Vol. 342, pp. 191–244. Cited by: §1, §4.3, Remark 4.3.
  • [7] S. Hosono, B. H. Lian, K. Oguiso, and S. Yau (2003) Kummer structures on K3 surface: an old question of T. Shioda. Duke Math. J. 120 (3), pp. 635–647. External Links: ISSN 0012-7094, Document, Link, MathReview (Trygve Johnsen) Cited by: A note on Fourier-Mukai partners of abelian varieties over positive characteristic fields, §1, §1, §3.5.
  • [8] D. Huybrechts (1999) Compact hyper-Kähler manifolds: basic results. Invent. Math. 135 (1), pp. 63–113. External Links: ISSN 0020-9910, Document, MathReview (I. Dolgachev) Cited by: §4.3.
  • [9] A. Krug and P. Sosna (2015) Equivalences of equivariant derived categories. J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 92 (1), pp. 19–40. External Links: ISSN 0024-6107, Document, Link, MathReview (Jon Eivind Vatne) Cited by: §1, Remark 2.7, §3.1, §3.1, §3.2, §3.2, Corollary 3.5.
  • [10] K. Li and F. Oort (1998) Moduli of supersingular abelian varieties. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1680, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. External Links: ISBN 3-540-63923-3, Document, MathReview (Ben Moonen) Cited by: Remark 4.8.
  • [11] M. Lieblich and D. Maulik (2018) A note on the cone conjecture for K3 surfaces in positive characteristic. Math. Res. Lett. 25 (6), pp. 1879–1891. External Links: ISSN 1073-2780, Document, Link, MathReview (Junmyeong Jang) Cited by: §3.5.
  • [12] M. Lieblich and M. Olsson (2015) Fourier-Mukai partners of K3 surfaces in positive characteristic. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 48 (5), pp. 1001–1033. External Links: ISSN 0012-9593, Document, Link, MathReview (Christian Liedtke) Cited by: §3.5.
  • [13] T. Matsusaka and D. Mumford (1964) Two fundamental theorems on deformations of polarized varieties. Amer. J. Math. 86, pp. 668–684. External Links: ISSN 0002-9327, Document, MathReview (R. C. Hartshorne) Cited by: §3.4.
  • [14] A. Ogus (1979) Supersingular K3 crystals. In Journées de Géométrie Algébrique de Rennes (Rennes, 1978), Vol. II, Astérisque, Vol. 64, pp. 3–86. External Links: MathReview (G. Horrocks) Cited by: §4.1, §4.1, §4.1, §4.1, §4.1, §4.2, §4.2.
  • [15] M. Olsson (2016) Algebraic spaces and stacks. American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, Vol. 62, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI. External Links: ISBN 978-1-4704-2798-6, Document, Link, MathReview (Stefan Schröer) Cited by: §2.1, §2.1.
  • [16] F. Oort (1974) Subvarieties of moduli spaces. Invent. Math. 24, pp. 95–119. External Links: ISSN 0020-9910, Document, MathReview (H. Popp) Cited by: §4.1.
  • [17] F. Oort (1987) Lifting algebraic curves, abelian varieties, and their endomorphisms to characteristic zero. In Algebraic geometry, Bowdoin, 1985 (Brunswick, Maine, 1985), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Vol. 46, pp. 165–195. External Links: Document, MathReview (Tsutomu Sekiguchi) Cited by: §4.3.
  • [18] D. O. Orlov (1997) Equivalences of derived categories and K3 surfaces. J. Math. Sci. (New York) 84 (5), pp. 1361–1381. Note: Algebraic geometry, 7 External Links: ISSN 1072-3374, Document, Link, MathReview (Jong Hae Keum) Cited by: §1.
  • [19] D. O. Orlov (2002) Derived categories of coherent sheaves on abelian varieties and equivalences between them. Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. 66 (3), pp. 131–158. External Links: ISSN 1607-0046, Document, MathReview (Alexander E. Polishchuk) Cited by: §3.2, §3.5, Theorem 3.10.
  • [20] D. Ploog (2007) Equivariant autoequivalences for finite group actions. Adv. Math. 216 (1), pp. 62–74. External Links: ISSN 0001-8708, Document, Link, MathReview (Alessio Del Padrone) Cited by: §1, §2.1, §3.1, §3.1, §3.1.
  • [21] A. Polishchuk (2003) Abelian varieties, theta functions and the Fourier transform. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, Vol. 153, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. External Links: ISBN 0-521-80804-9, Document, Link, MathReview (Balázs Szendrői) Cited by: Theorem 3.10.
  • [22] M. Romagny (2005) Group actions on stacks and applications. Michigan Math. J. 53 (1), pp. 209–236. External Links: ISSN 0026-2285, Document, Link, MathReview (Ivan S. Kausz) Cited by: footnote 1.
  • [23] T. Shioda (1977) Some remarks on Abelian varieties. J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math. 24 (1), pp. 11–21. External Links: ISSN 0040-8980, MathReview (Jacques Vélu) Cited by: Question 1.1.
  • [24] T. Shioda (1979) Supersingular K3 surfaces. In Algebraic geometry (Proc. Summer Meeting, Univ. Copenhagen, Copenhagen, 1978), Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 732, pp. 564–591. External Links: MathReview (Piotr Blass) Cited by: §3.3.
  • [25] T. Stacks project authors (2022) The stacks project. Note: https://stacks.math.columbia.edu Cited by: §2.1.
  • [26] P. Stellari (2007) Derived categories and Kummer varieties. Math. Z. 256 (2), pp. 425–441. External Links: ISSN 0025-5874, Document, Link, MathReview (Emanuele Macrí) Cited by: §1, §1, Proposition 3.6.
  • [27] A. Vistoli (2005) Grothendieck topologies, fibered categories and descent theory. In Fundamental algebraic geometry, Math. Surveys Monogr., Vol. 123, pp. 1–104. External Links: Document, MathReview Entry Cited by: §2.1.