Let $\mathcal X$ be a smooth proper finite type Deligne-Mumford stack over $\mathbb C$ that is generically a scheme. Let $X$ be its coarse moduli space.

If $\mathcal X$ can be defined over $\overline{\mathbb Q}$, then $X$ can be defined over $\overline{\mathbb Q}$. This is because "the base-change of the coarse moduli space is the coarse moduli space of the base-change".

Does the converse hold?

What if we drop the properness condition?

My motivation is mere curiosity.


2 Answers 2


No. Even if $X$ is "defined over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$" in the sense that $X$ is isomorphic to $X_0\otimes_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}} \mathbb{C}$ for some variety $X_0$ over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$, nonetheless the stack $\mathcal{X}$ may not be defined over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$.

For instance, let $X_0$ be $\mathbb{P}^1_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}$ so that $X$ is $\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}}$. Now let $t_0,t_1,t_2\in \mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}}(\mathbb{C})\setminus\{0,1,\infty\}$ be three distinct points such that at least one is transcendental, e.g., $2$, $3$, $\pi$. Denote by $$f:Y\to X,$$ the genus $2$, hyperelliptic curve branched over $$\{0,1,\infty,t_0,t_1,t_2\}.$$ There is an action of $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ on $Y$ via the hyperelliptic involution. Let $\mathcal{X}$ be the quotient Deligne-Mumford stack, $$\mathcal{X} = [Y /(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})].$$ The coarse moduli space is $X$, via the unique morphism $\pi: \mathcal{X}\to X$ that factors $f$. Of course $X$ is defined over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$. However, the branch divisor of the morphism $\pi$ is not defined over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$ as a subscheme of $X$. Thus, also $\mathcal{X}$ is not defined over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$.

Added by OP:

It might be useful to (slightly) generalize the above construction.

Let $X=\mathbb P^1_{\mathbb C}$ and let $f:Y\to X$ be a hyperelliptic curve with branch locus $D$ (and $Y$ of positive genus). Write $U=X\backslash D$. Let $\mathcal X$ be the stack $[Y/G]$. Then the unique morphism $\pi:\mathcal X \to X$ that factors $f:Y\to X$ is the coarse moduli space of $\mathcal X$. Suppose that $U$ can't be defined over Qbar. Then $Y\to X$ (and $Y$) can't be defined over $\overline{\mathbb Q}$ (as the hyperelliptic involution is unique). Therefore, $\mathcal X\to X$ and $\mathcal X$ can't be defined over Qbar.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems to me that hyperelliptic is overkill and you could do exactly the same thing in the elliptic case, ramified at $0,1,\infty,\pi$. $\endgroup$ May 12, 2014 at 0:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Ari: What you added contains a mistake. "Bonus: we can find $\mathcal{X}$ such that $Y$ and $X$ are defined over $\mathbb{Q}$, but $\mathcal{X}$ isn't. (Just take $Y = X = \mathbb{P}^1$)". That is impossible. This is the reason that I chose the example I chose, where the morphism $\pi$ is "characteristic". $\endgroup$ May 12, 2014 at 12:58
  • $\begingroup$ I suppose the characteristic aspect of the hyperelliptic involution is the answer to my question: while it marginally complicates the construction, it simplifies the proof. $\endgroup$ May 12, 2014 at 21:51
  • $\begingroup$ A cheaper example would be to take (a non-trivial) root stack of an effective divisor on $\mathbb{P}^1$ corresponding to a transcendental point. This stack would not be defined over $\bar{\mathbb{Q}}$ since its non-stacky locus isn't. $\endgroup$ Aug 14, 2014 at 8:23
  • $\begingroup$ @DanielBergh. "A cheaper example ..." Since $\text{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^1)$ acts triply transitively, you would need to use at least 4 points. $\endgroup$ Aug 14, 2014 at 9:48

Let $\mathcal{X}$ be an algebraic stack over $k$. A coarse moduli space for $\mathcal{X}$ over $k$ is a morphism $\pi:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow X$, where $X$ is a scheme such that:

  • the morphism $\pi$ is universal for morphisms to schemes;
  • $\pi$ induces a bijection between $|\mathcal{X}|$ and the closed points of $X$, where $|\mathcal{X}|$ denotes the set of isomorphism classes in $\mathcal{X}$.

If $\mathcal{X}$ admits a coarse moduli space $\pi:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow X$ then this is unique up to unique isomorphism. A separated algebraic stack has a coarse moduli space which is a separated algebraic space.

Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a separated stack admitting a scheme $X$ as coarse moduli space $\pi:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow X$. The map $\pi$ is universal for morphisms in schemes, that is for any morphism $f:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow Y$, with $Y$ scheme, there exists a unique morphisms of schemes $g:X\rightarrow Y$ such that $f = g\circ\pi$.

Now, if $\mathcal{X}$ is defined over $k$ we have a morphism $f:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow Spec(k)$. By universality there is a morphism of schemes $g:X\rightarrow Spec(k)$ such that $g\circ\pi = f$. In particular $X$ is defined over $k$.

Conversely, if $X$ is defined over $k$ then there is a morphism $g:X\rightarrow Spec(k)$. By composition we get a morphism $f:=g\circ\pi:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow X$. Therefore $\chi$ is defined over $k$.

For instance both the stack $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,n}$ and its coarse moduli space $\overline{M}_{g,n}$ parametrizing Deligne-Mumford stable curves are defined over $\mathbb{Z}$. In particular over any commutative ring and hence over any field.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think I'm missing the argument. Assume that the coarse moduli space $X$ has a model $X_0$ over $\overline{\mathbb {Q}}$. Where exactly do you show that $\mathcal X$ has a model over $\overline{\mathbb {Q}}$? $\endgroup$ May 10, 2014 at 23:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @CamSar your definition of "$X$ is defined over $\overline{\mathbb Q}$" is not correct. $\endgroup$ May 10, 2014 at 23:48
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Indeed, every $X$ over $\mathbb C$ has a morphism to $\operatorname{Spec}\overline{\mathbb Q}$ since there is a morphism $\operatorname{Spec}\mathbb C\to\operatorname{Spec}\overline{\mathbb Q}$. $\endgroup$ May 10, 2014 at 23:49
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ If $X$ is a scheme over $\mathbb C$, then "$X$ is defined over $\overline{\mathbb Q}$" means there exists a scheme $Y$ over $\overline{\mathbb Q}$ and an isomorphism $X\cong Y\times_{\overline{\mathbb Q}}\mathbb C$ (and similarly for stacks, etc.). $\endgroup$ May 10, 2014 at 23:51

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.