5
$\begingroup$

Given a totally degenerated abelian variety $A_K$ (to make it easier) over a complete discrete valuation field $K$ with $R$, $\pi$ and $k$ the corresponding discrete valuation ring, uniformiser and residue field. Let $S=\mathrm{Spec}R$ and $S_n=\mathrm{Spec} R/(\pi)^{n+1}$. For any $S$-scheme $V$ we denote the scheme $V\times_S S_n$ as $V_n$.

In particular, $A_K$ has semistable reduction, $A_K$ extends to a semiabelian scheme $G$ over $S=\mathrm{Spec} R$, and the corresponding Raynaud extension is just a torus $T$ over $S$, analytically $A_K=T_K/Y_K$, and we have a pairing $Y_K\times X_K\rightarrow \mathbb{G}_{m,K}$, where $Y_K$ is the periods lattice and $X$ is the character group of $T$. Moreover, we assume both $X$ and $Y$ (the character group of the Raynaud extension associated to the dual abelian variety $A_K^{\vee}$ which gives $Y_K$) are free $\mathbb{Z}$-modules.

Starting from this, we can construction lots of projective models of $A_K$ by using Mumford's construction, see Mumford compositio 1972, Faltings-Chai's book, the 1999 Tohoku paper of Aleexev and Nakamura. Given a nice (being nice see [Mum1973]section 6) $Y_K$-invariant polyhedral decomposition $\Sigma$ of the affine space $E=\mathrm{Hom}(X,\mathbb{Q})$, we can construct a projective model $P_{\Sigma}$ of $A_K$ and cut out the semiabelian scheme $G$ from $P_{\Sigma}$. Over $S_n$ we have group action $G_n\times_{S_n} P_{\Sigma,n}\rightarrow P_{\Sigma,n}$.

Now the question is: could we have an action of $G$ on $P_{\Sigma}$ which extends the group operation on $G$ and the actions on the infinitesimal fibres? It seems to me in Aleexev's 2002 Annals paper, the answer is yes, at least for certain canonical models obtained from a given theta divisor of some ample line bundle (since $A_K$ extends to a stable semiabelic scheme over $S$ once you are given a ample line bundle on $A_K$, and being a stable semiabelic scheme implies you have an action on the model, see Theorem 5.7.1 case 2 in that paper), but I couldn't find a concrete argument for this in the paper.

Could anyone help me point out where the hidden argument is? Or give me some other reference. I know in dimension $1$ case, the paper by Deligne and Rapoport describes this action in order to define generalised elliptic curves via a different approach (using $\mathrm{Pic}^0$), but seems not easy to generalise to hight dimensional case.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ nobody is interested in this? $\endgroup$ – Heer Jul 28 '13 at 12:25

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.