The birational geometry of moduli spaces of sheaves on the projective plane (Q476380)

In order to state properly the results of the paper under review we need to recall some (actually, quite a lot of) definitions and facts. Let \(X\) denote complex projective plane \({\mathbb P}^2\), \(\text{D}^b(X)\) the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on \(X\) and \(\text{K}(X)\) the Grothendieck group of \(X\) (which becomes a ring with \(1 = [{\mathcal O}_X]\) and \([F_1]\cdot [F_2] = [F_1\otimes^{\text{L}} F_2]\); recall, also, that the pairing \((u,v) \mapsto \chi(u\cdot v)\) is nondegenerate on \(\text{K}(X)_{\mathbb Q}\)). The Chern character\(\, :\) \[ \text{ch} = (r,\, c_1,\, \text{ch}_2 = \frac{1}{2}c_1^2 - c_2) : \text{K}(X)_{\mathbb Q} \rightarrow \text{H}^\ast(X,{\mathbb Q}) \] is, in our case, an isomorphism of rings. Fix a primitive element \(v = (r,\, c_1,\, \text{ch}_2)\) of the lattice \({\mathbb Z} \oplus \text{NS}(X) \oplus \frac{1}{2}{\mathbb Z}\), with \(r > 0\), and let \(M(v)\) denote the moduli space of Gieseker semistable torsion free sheaves on \(X\) of topological type \(v\) (with respect to the polarization \(H\) defined by the class of a line). If non-empty, \(M(v)\) is smooth and irreducible and the anti-canonical bundle \(-K_{M(v)}\) is nef and big , hence \(M(v)\) is a \textit{Mori dream space} and there is a finite rational polyhedra decomposition into \textit{Mori chambers and walls} of the pseudo-effective cone \({\overline{\text{NE}}}^1(M(v))\) according to the stable base locus of the divisors by \textit{C. Birkar} et al. [J. Am. Math. Soc. 23, No. 2, 405--468 (2010; Zbl 1210.14019)]. Moreover, by the work of \textit{J. M. Drezet} and \textit{J. Le Potier} [Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 18, 193--243 (1985; Zbl 0586.14007)] and \textit{J.-M. Drezet} [Ann. Inst. Fourier 38, No. 3, 105--168 (1988; Zbl 0616.14006)], \(M(v)\) has Picard number 2, in general, and 1 for some particular \(v\)'s. On the other hand, for every \((s,t) \in {\mathbb R}\times {\mathbb R}_+\) one defines a \textit{Bridgeland stability condition} (see \textit{T. Bridgeland} [Duke Math. J. 141, No. 2, 241--291 (2008; Zbl 1138.14022)]) \(({\mathcal A}_s \subset \text{D}^b(X),\, Z_{s,t} : \text{K}(\text{D}^b(X)) \rightarrow {\mathbb C})\) as follows\(\, :\) let \({\mathcal Q}_s\) be the full subcategory of \(\text{Coh}(X)\) consisting of sheaves \(Q\) which are either torsion or with \(\mu_{\text{min}}(Q/Q_{\text{tors}}) > s\) and let \({\mathcal F}_s\) consists of the torsion free coherent sheaves \(F\) with \(\mu_{\text{max}}(F) \leq s\). Here \(\mu := c_1\cdot H/r\) is the \textit{Mumford slope} and \(\mu_{\text{min}}\) and \(\mu_{\text{max}}\) are defined with respect to the Harder-Narasimhan filtration. Then\(\, :\) \[ \begin{gathered} {\mathcal A}_s := \{E \in \text{D}^b(X)\, | \, {\mathcal H}^{-1}(E) \in {\mathcal F}_s, \, {\mathcal H}^0(E) \in {\mathcal Q}_s,\, {\mathcal H}^i(E) = 0\;\text{otherwise}\}\\ Z_{s,t}(E) := - \text{deg}\left(e^{-(s+it)H}\text{ch}(E)\right)_2 \end{gathered} \] and the associated slope function is \[ \mu_{s,t}(E) = \frac{\text{ch}_2 - sc_1 + \frac{1}{2}r(s^2 - t^2)}{t(c_1 - rs)} \] (identifying \(c_1 \in \text{NS}(X)\) with \(c_1 \cdot H \in {\mathbb Z}\)). By \textit{D. Abramovich} and \textit{A. Polishchuk} [J. Reine Angew. Math. 590, 89--130 (2006; Zbl 1093.14026)] the moduli stack \(M_{s,t}(v)\) of \(\mu_{s,t}\)-stable objects of \({\mathcal A}_s\) is proper (recall that \(v\) is primitive). \textit{D. Arcara} et al. [Adv. Math. 235, 580--626 (2013; Zbl 1267.14023)] showed that there exists an integer \(k\) such that, for any \(\mu_{s,t}\)-stable object \(E\) of \({\mathcal A}_s\), either \(E\) or \(E[1]\) is of the form\(\, :\) \[ {\mathbb C}^{n_0}\otimes{\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(k-2) \longrightarrow {\mathbb C}^{n_1}\otimes{\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(k-1) \longrightarrow {\mathbb C}^{n_2}\otimes{\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(k)\, . \] Moreover, in the case where \(E\) is of that form, there exists \(\vec{a} = (a_0,a_1,a_2) \in {\mathbb Z}^3\) with \(a_0n_0 + a_1n_1 + a_2n_2 = 0\) such that a complex of the above form is a \(\mu_{s,t}\)-stable object of \({\mathcal A}_s\) if and only if it is \textit{quiver stable} with respect to \(\vec{a}\) which means that for every proper subcomplex \[ {\mathbb C}^{d_0}\otimes{\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(k-2) \longrightarrow {\mathbb C}^{d_1}\otimes{\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(k-1) \longrightarrow {\mathbb C}^{d_2}\otimes{\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(k)\, . \] one has \(a_0d_0 + a_1d_1 + a_2d_2 < 0\). Then, by work of \textit{A. D. King} [Q. J. Math., Oxf. II. Ser. 45, No. 180, 515--530 (1994; Zbl 0837.16005)], \(M_{s,t}(v)\) is projective. Arcara et al. [Zbl 1267.14023] also show that if \(s < \mu\) and \(t \gg 0\) then \(M_{s,t}(v)\) is isomorphic to \(M(v)\). Now, there exists a decomposition of \({\mathbb R} \times {\mathbb R}_+\) into \textit{Bridgeland chambers and walls} such that, in the same chamber, the moduli spaces \(M_{s,t}(v)\) are isomorphic, while crossing a wall means that \(M_{s,t}(v)\) changes. More precisely, if \(v^\prime\) is another element of \({\mathbb Z} \oplus \text{NS}(X) \oplus \frac{1}{2} {\mathbb Z}\), not proportional to \(v\), then one defines, in \({\mathbb R} \times {\mathbb R}_+\), the \textit{potential wall}\(\, :\) \[ W_{v,v^\prime} := \{(s,t) \, | \, \mu_{s,t}(v) = \mu_{s,t}(v^\prime)\}\, . \] Potential walls are nested semicircles. A potential wall \(W_{v,v^\prime}\) is an \textit{actual wall} if there exist \(\mu_{s,t}\)-semistable objects \(A \subset E\) of \({\mathcal A}_s\) with \(\text{ch}(E) = v\) and \(\text{ch}(A) = v^\prime\). Choose an integral element \(w_{s,t}\) of \(\text{H}^\ast(X,{\mathbb R})_{\text{alg}}\), perpendicular to \(v\) and \(v^\prime\) under the non-degenerate pairing defined by \(\chi\) and oriented such that \(\chi(w_{s,t} \cdot \text{ch}(C)) > 0\), \(\forall \, C \in {\mathcal A}_s\) with \(\mu_{s,t}(C) < \mu_{s,t}(v)\). Choose, also, a complex \(F_{s,t}\) such that \(\text{ch}(F_{s,t}) = w_{s,t}\). First of all, the authors of the paper under review provide a formula for the quiver polarization \(\vec{a}\), referred to above, namely they show that one can take \(a_i = (-1)^i\chi(F_{s,t}(k-2+i))\), \(i = 0,\, 1,\, 2\). Then they show that if \[ {\mathcal E}\, :\, {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(k-2) \boxtimes U \longrightarrow {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(k-1) \boxtimes V \longrightarrow {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}^2}(k) \boxtimes W \] is a flat family of \(\mu_{s,t}\)-stable objects of \({\mathcal A}_s\) of topological type \(v\) on \({\mathbb P}^2 \times S\) then\(\, :\) \[ \text{det}\text{R}p_{2\ast}(p_1^\ast F_{s,t}\otimes {\mathcal E}) \simeq (\overset{n_0}{ \bigwedge} U)^{\otimes \, a_0} \otimes (\overset{n_1}{ \bigwedge} V)^{\otimes \, a_1} \otimes (\overset{n_2}{ \bigwedge} W)^{\otimes \, a_2} \, . \] One gets, in this way, an ample line bundle \(\lambda_{s,t}\) on \(M_{s,t}(v)\). On the other hand, if \({\mathcal E}_{\text{univ}}\) is the universal family on \({\mathbb P}^2 \times M(v)\) then one can consider the line bundle \[ \lambda(w_{s,t}) := \text{det}\text{R}p_{2\ast}(p_1^\ast F_{s,t}\otimes {\mathcal E}_{\text{univ}}) \] on \(M(v)\). Let \(M_{s,t}^P(v)\) denote the main component of \(M_{s,t}(v)\) whose generic point corresponds to a sheaf (not to a complex of sheaves). For \(s < \mu\) and \(t \gg 0\) one has \(M_{s,t}^P(v) \simeq M(v)\) and the restriction of \(\lambda_{s,t}\) to \(M_{s,t}^P(v)\) is isomorphic to \(\lambda(w_{s,t})\). Choose an \(s < \mu\) such that the ray \(\{s\} \times {\mathbb R}_+\) intersects all actual walls. The authors of the paper under review assert that if one decreases \(t\) then \(\lambda(w_{s,t})\) moves in \(\text{N}^1(M(v))_{\mathbb R}\) ``toward the side of the nef cone opposite to \(-K_{M(v)}\). This corresponds to running a directed MMP on \(M(v)\) and we get \(M_{s,t}^P(v)\) as birational models of \(M(v)\)''. Then they analyse what happens when an actual wall is crossed. Assume that the ray \(\{s\} \times {\mathbb R}_+\) hits an actual wall at \((s,t_0)\) and choose \(t_0^- < t_0 < t_0^+\) such that \((s,t_0^-)\) and \((s,t_0^+)\) belong to adjacent chambers. The main technical tool used by the authors in their analysis of wall crossings is a lemma asserting that the dimension of the exceptional locus of the contraction \(\pi_0^- : M_{s,t_0^-}(v) \rightarrow M_{s,t_0}(v)\) is strictly less than the dimension of the exceptional locus of the contraction \(\pi_0^+ : M_{s,t_0^+}(v) \rightarrow M_{s,t_0}(v)\). Most of the above results work, also, for moduli spaces of torsion sheaves of pure dimension 1 on \({\mathbb P}^2\). Using the results of \textit{J.-M. Drézet} and \textit{M. Maican} [Geom. Dedicata 152, 17--49 (2011; Zbl 1236.14012)] and of \textit{M. Maican} [Ill. J. Math. 55, No. 4, 1467--1532 (2011; Zbl 1273.14027)], the authors of the paper under review describe explicitly the flips that appear in the above described process for the topological types \(v = (0,\, 4,\, -4)\) and \(v = (0,\, 5,\, -\frac{15}{2})\). One should also mention that the case \(v = (1,\, 0,\, -n)\), corresponding to the Hilbert scheme \({\mathbb P}^{2[n]}\), has been extensively studied in the paper of Arcara et al. [Zbl 1267.14023].