6
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ be an abelian variety over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$ and assume that $A$ has complex multiplication by the ring of integers of a CM field $K$. Then $A$ has potentially good reduction, that is: there exists a number field $F$ and an abelian scheme $\mathcal{A} \to \mathrm{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_F)$ whose generic fiber is isomorphic $A$ after extending the scalars from $F$ to $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$.

The question is: how to determine $F$ in terms of $K$?

[EDIT: The following is false: I'm more familiar with the case of elliptic curve, in which case one can choose $F$ to be the Hilbert class field of $K$, that is, the maximal abelian unramified extension]

Does something similar hold for higher dimensional abelian varieties?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ See Serre-Tate, "Good reduction of abelian varieties", (Annals of Math. 88, no. 3 (1968)), Th. 7, p. 505. $\endgroup$ – Damian Rössler Jan 25 '14 at 20:25
  • $\begingroup$ What you say in the elliptic curve case is false, since the CM order might not be maximal (so the $j$-invariant might generate over $K$ a much bigger class field). $\endgroup$ – user76758 Jan 25 '14 at 20:41
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, the statement for elliptic curves isn't even true for maximal orders. Consider the case that $\text{End}(E)=\mathbb{Z}[i]$, so in the OP's notation, $F=K=\mathbb{Q}(i)$. But $E:y^2=x^3+x$ doesn't acquire good reduction over $\mathbb{Q}(i)$. As Damian has said, you can get an answer from Serre-Tate; roughly speaking, if you take a minimal field of definition for $A$ and then adjoin some torsion, you'll get $F$. $\endgroup$ – Joe Silverman Jan 25 '14 at 22:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Joe: There is a hidden subtlety in the formulation of the question which "rules out" twisting counterexamples (which is why I focused on non-maximal orders): the OP is beginning with an abelian variety over $\overline{\mathbf{Q}}$ and seems to allow the option to choose whatever descent to a number field we like best. So your (natural) viewpoint of first fixing a descent and then going up from there is sort of "opposite" to how the question is posed. Though I really have no idea if the OP recognizes the subtlety of this aspect of how the question was posed, and whether it is intended. $\endgroup$ – user76758 Jan 25 '14 at 22:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @conduc Even for elliptic curves with CM by the maximal order, you generally can't take $F$ to be the Hilbert class field of $K$ and acquire everywhere good reduction. Also, you ask "how to determine $F$ in terms of $K$"? You do realize that there may not be a unique minimal $F$. Indeed, abelian varieties of dim $\ge2$ often have many different minimal fields of definition, since the field of moduli may not itself be a field of definition. $\endgroup$ – Joe Silverman Jan 25 '14 at 23:16

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.