5
$\begingroup$

This question is about the status of the following.

Meta-hypothesis. Let $X$ be an irreducible component of an eigenvariety. Then there exist: (a) a pseudo-representation/character $\psi$ along $X$, specializing to what it should at classical points; (b) a "cover" $f\colon X' \rightarrow X$, a locally free sheaf $V$ on $X'$, and an ${\scr O}_{X'}$-linear Galois action on $V$, such that that $f^*\psi$ is the pseudocharacter associated with $V$.

Questions:

  1. What instances of this statement are known, and with what constructions?
  2. In what generality do we expect the hypothesis to hold, and under what meaning of "cover" (and "eigenvariety")?
  3. What about the Coleman-Mazur-Buzzard eigencurve of tame level $N$? Can one take $X'$ to be the normalization of $X$, and if so, are the details written anywhere?

Some remarks. There are quite general results on (a) by Chenevier, Bellaiche-Chenevier,...; the less clear part (to me) is (b). Two constructions which come to mind and work "on the nose" ($X'=X$) in special cases are the following: (1) for the eigencurve of level 1, take (the Jacquet module of) completed cohomology; (2) if the mod $p$ reduction $\overline{\psi}$ of the universal $\psi$ on $X$ corresponds to an irreducible mod $p$ Galois representation $\overline{\rho}$, then the generic fibre of the Spf of the universal deformation ring $T_{\overline{\psi}}=T_{\overline{\rho}}$ admits a map from $X$ and carries a universal Galois-sheaf $W$, which can then be pulled back to a Galois-sheaf $V$ on $X$.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

The answer depends what kind of "cover" you need down the road. For a strong definition of cover, like a "Zariski cover", the answer is no in general. I believe it is still no for an "étale cover" or "fpqc cover".

Now if you ready to consider as covers not only Zariski covers but any proper and birational map $X' \rightarrow X$, then the answer is yes in full generality, and for general reasons which have not much to do with eigenvarieties. See Lemma 3.4.2 in my book with Chenevier (Astérisque 324) and how it is used in the proof of Theorem 3.4.1. (I can give more details if needed).

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Joel (if I may), thanks for your answer. Two questions come to mind: 1. (just a clarification, out of ignorance:) is the answer "yes in full generality for proper birational covers" because we can construct a pseudocharacter in full generality, and attach to it a torsion-free Galois-sheaf in full generality? 2. Any pointers to examples or heuristics for the answer being "no in general, for a strong def. of cover"? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 23, 2016 at 6:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 1. Yes, for what you say, plus the fact that after a blow-up you can make your torsion-free sheaf locally free. 2. My paper at Duke "non-smooth classical point on eigenvarieties", contains an example of a point on eigenvariety where the pseudo-character is proven not to come from a representation over a locally-free sheaf, even Zariski-locally around this point, and even after restriction to an irreducible component. The heuristics seems to be that when the geometry of the eigenvariety is too nasty (typically, not locally UFD), the pseudo-characters tends not to come with a loc.-free sheaf. $\endgroup$
    – Joël
    Commented Feb 26, 2016 at 15:03
3
$\begingroup$

Are you familiar with the paper "Overconvergent Eichler--Shimura isomorphisms" by Andreatta--Iovita--Stevens? In section 3 of this paper they give a variant of the "modular symbol" construction of the Coleman--Mazur eigencurve, which naturally gives rise to a coherent sheaf of Galois representations. They only give the argument locally over small affinoid patches in weight space; but Shanwen Wang and (independently) David Hansen have checked that the argument globalises to the cuspidal eigencurve.

In more general settings, you have to decide two things: firstly, what kind of eigenvariety machine you want to use; secondly, what kind of Galois representations you want to see. For instance, if you throw Emerton's machine at $GL_2$ over a totally real field, you'll get an eigenvariety with a coherent sheaf of Galois representations, and (assuming the degeneration of Emerton's spectral sequence) this will interpolate the Galois representations appearing in the etale cohomology of Hilbert modular varieties. But these aren't the "standard" Galois representations of Hilbert eigenforms; they're the tensor inductions of these to $G_\mathbf{Q}$. If you use a quaternion algebra split at all finite places and ramified at all but one infinite place, you'll get essentially the same eigenvariety, but with a different sheaf of Galois representations -- this will give you the standard 2-dimensional reps.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Dear David, it seems to me that you're answering a slightly different question than the one the OP asked -- but perhaps you're answering what he really meant. The OP writes he wants a locally-free sheaf on a cover (with a Galois action) and doesn't say he want them canonical. It seems that your answer aims at giving a canonical coherent sheaf with a Galois action, which is a different (and quite interesting) question. $\endgroup$
    – Joël
    Commented Feb 22, 2016 at 14:29
  • $\begingroup$ Dear David, thanks for your answer. Yes, I did want locally free; my motivation coming from the fact that ('covers' of) eigenvarieties should carry not just some Galois-sheaves but refined families of Galois representations (a notion that, on its face, requires local freeness). I didn't ask for $V$ to be natural/canonical since I figured that would be too much, however that question is indeed interesting (and one may try to get the 'best of both worlds' by applying the lemma in BC to some 'natural' torsion-free $V$, as S.Wang and D.Hansen do). $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 23, 2016 at 6:13
  • $\begingroup$ Completed cohomology, which is one suggestion, has of course at least all the drawbacks of classical cohomology (including the fact that the quaternion algebra trick doesn't work if the tot. real field is of even degree). What are the drawbacks, if any, of modular symbols? Also (casting doubt on my 'construction (1)'): is the Jacquet module of Emerton's completed cohomology known/expected to be or not to be already locally free over an irreducible component of the eigencurve? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 23, 2016 at 6:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .