Let $\mathcal{X}$ be an Artin stack. In "Abramovich, Graber, Vistoli - Twisted bundles and admissible covers", the authors describe a procedure to rigidify $\mathcal{X}$ by a central subgroup $H$ of the generic stabilizer and obtain an Artin stack $\mathcal{X}^H$. Roughly speaking, the objects of $\mathcal{X}^H$ are the same of $\mathcal{X}$ and the automorphism groups of each object in $\mathcal{X}^H$ is the quotient of the automorphism groups of the corresponding object in $\mathcal{X}$ by $H$. One of the properties of the rigidification is that it preserves the coarse moduli space, i.e., if $\mathcal{X}$ has coarse moduli space $X$, also $\mathcal{X}^H$ has coarse moduli space $X$.

In the following, I shall ask if the rigidification preserves also the good moduli space (morphism) in the sense of Alper (Alper - Good moduli spaces for Artin stacks).

Definition. Let $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ be Artin stacks. Assume that $\mathcal{Y}$ has quasi-affine diagonal. Let $\phi\colon \mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ be a quasi-compact mophism. We say that $\phi$ is a good moduli space morphism if the following properties are satisfied:

  • the functor $\phi_*\colon QCoh(\mathcal{X})\to QCoh(\mathcal{Y})$ is exact,
  • the natural morphism $O_{\mathcal{Y}}\to\phi_* (O_{\mathcal{X}})$ is an isomorphism.

If $\mathcal{Y}=Y$ is an algebraic space, we say that $\phi$ is a good moduli space.

Question. Let us consider an Artin stack $\mathcal{X}$ which admits a good moduli space $\pi\colon \mathcal{X}\to X$. Is $X$ also the good moduli space of the rigidification $\mathcal{X}^H$? Is the natural morphism $\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{X}^H$ a good moduli space morphism?

  • $\begingroup$ won't in general the rigidification morphism have higher pushforwards? (so that $\phi_*$ fails to be exact) I guess in characteristic zero this won't happen if you're killing off a finite group. $\endgroup$ – Jacob Bell May 15 '13 at 17:29

It is certainly not true that $\mathcal X \to \mathcal X^H$ is a good moduli morphism, unless $H$ is linearly reductive, because when you push forward the cohomology of $H$ will come into play.

On the other hand $\mathcal X^H \to X$ is a good moduli space, because the pushforward $QCoh(\mathcal X^H) \to QCoh(X)$ can be factored as the pullback $QCoh(\mathcal X^H) \to QCoh(\mathcal X)$ followed by the pushforward $QCoh(\mathcal X) \to QCoh(X)$, and both are exact.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.