4
$\begingroup$

Let $f: X\to \text{Spec}(R)$ be a proper and smooth morphism, with $R$ a strictly henselian dvr. Call $s = \overline{s}$ the closed point and $\eta$ the geometric point of $\text{Spec}(R)$.

Call $i_s : X_{\overline{s}}\to X$ the closed immersion and $h : X_{\overline{\eta}}\to X$ the inclusion of the geometric generic fiber.

The proper base change theorem and universal local acyclicity of smooth morphisms give an isomorphism

$$(*)\ \ \ \ H^p(X_{\overline{s}},F)\xrightarrow{\simeq} H^p(X_{\overline{\eta}},F),$$

where $F$ is a locally constant constructible $\ell$-adic sheaf.

Suppose that $f$ is not proper anymore but affine of finite type and separated. We still assume that $f$ is smooth.

Do we still have an isomorphism between $\ell$-adic cohomologies with proper supports:

$$H^p_c(X_{\overline{s}},\mathbf{Q}_{\ell})\xrightarrow{\simeq} H^p_c(X_{\overline{\eta}},\mathbf{Q}_{\ell})\ ?$$

ATTEMPTED SOLUTION:

The main idea I have in mind is as follows.

Choose a proper $g : \overline{X}\to \text{Spec}(R)$ that compactifies $f$.

Although $g$ may not be smooth, the inclusion $j : X\to \overline{X}$ is quasi-compact by the assumptions, and $j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}$ is constructible on $\overline{X}$. Proper base change still applies to $j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}$.

Call $j_s$ the base change of $j$ along $s\to\text{Spec}(R)$, and same for $j_{\eta}$.

Call $i_s$ and $h$ still the maps $\overline{X}_s\to \overline{X}$ and $\overline{X}_{\overline{\eta}}\to \overline{X}$ by abuse of notation.

I want to show that $i_s^*\Psi_g(j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}) = 0$, for $\Psi_g$ the nearby cycles functor. If this is true, then the natural map

$$(j_s)_!\Psi_f(\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}) \to \Psi_g(j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell})$$ is an isomorphism, since its cofiber is $(i_s)_*i_s^*\Psi_g(j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell})$ (shifted). This is because $j_s^*\Psi_g = \Psi_f$ (where I use that $j$, an open immersion, is smooth).

In other words the question has a positive answer if the nearby cycles functor commutes with extension by zero.

Suppose that this is true. By properness of $g$, we have

$$R\Gamma(\overline{X}_{\overline{s}}, \Psi_g(j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell})) = R\Gamma(\overline{X}_{\overline{\eta}}, j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}).$$

By the claim we have $R\Gamma(\overline{X}_{\overline{s}}, \Psi_g(j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell})) = R\Gamma(\overline{X}_{\overline{s}}, (j_s)_!\Psi_f(\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}))$. By smoothness of $f$ we have $\Psi_f(\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}) = \mathbf{Q}_{\ell}[0]$.

Putting everything together we have an isomorphism

$$R\Gamma(\overline{X}_{\overline{s}},j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}) = R\Gamma(\overline{X}_{\overline{\eta}},j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell})$$ which gives what we want.

So the question really is:

do we have $(j_s)_!\Psi_f(\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}) =\Psi_g(j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell})$?

For every closed geometric point $\overline{x}\to \overline{X}_{\overline{s}}$, we call $\overline{X}_{\overline{s}}(\overline{x})$ the strict henselianization of $\overline{X}_{\overline{s}}$ at $\overline{x}$ and $\overline{X}_{\overline{s}}(\overline{x})_{\overline{\eta}}$ its generic fiber.

Call $t_x : \overline{X}_{\overline{s}}(\overline{x})\to \overline{X}_{\overline{s}}$ the obvious map.

If $\overline{x}\to \overline{X}_{\overline{s}}$ does not factor through $X_{\overline{s}}$, then $t_x^*j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell} = 0$. Right?

In particular the stalk $\Psi_g(j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell})_{\overline{x}}$ is zero and so $i_s^*\Psi_g(j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}) = 0$ and we're done.

Am I correct?

SUMMARY OF THE ANSWER BELOW: the answer is no, and below there is an example of a smooth $X$ of dimension $1$ for which $H^1_c(X_{\overline{s}},\mathbf{Q}_{\ell})\to H^1_c(X_{\overline{\eta}},\mathbf{Q}_{\ell})$ is not an isomorphism.

This also gives an explicit example for which formation of the nearby cycles complex does not commute with extension by zero. My argument above breaks down when I say "$t_x^*j_!\mathbf{Q}_{\ell} = 0$".

However, if $X$ is of dimension $d$, smooth and with geometrically connected fibers, the specialization map is indeed an isomorphism in degree $0$ and $2d$ even though $X$ is not proper.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

The statement is false without proper assumption.

Consider any "degeneration of a smooth elliptic curve to a nodal curve" and delete a singular point in a special fibre. This will give you a counterexample for the dimension reasons.

Details: Start with any proper morphism $f: \mathcal E' \to \operatorname{Spec}R$ such that its generic fibre is an elliptic curve (smooth geometrically connected curve of genus $1$ with a fixed section) and its special fibre is a nodal curve. For example, take $R=\overline{\mathbf F_p}[[t]]$ and consider a curve $\mathcal E'\subset \mathbf P^2_{R}$ given by the equation $$Y^2Z-X^3-X^2Z-t^3=0. $$

This curve has exactly one singular point in a special fibre given by $p=[0:0:1] \subset \mathbf P^2_{R}(\overline{\mathbf F_p})$. Define $$ \mathcal E:=\mathcal E' \setminus {p}. $$ By the construction $\mathcal E'$ is a smooth $R$-scheme of relative dimension one, but it is not proper. Let us compute cohomology with compact support of the geometric fibres of this curve.

Geometric generic fibre: We know $\mathcal E_{\overline{\eta}}$ is a connected proper smooth curve of genus 1, so $$ \mathrm{H}^1_{c}(\mathcal E_{\overline{\eta}}, \mathbf Q_l)=\mathrm{H}^1(\mathcal E_{\overline{\eta}}, \mathbf Q_l)=\mathbf Q_l^2. $$

Geometric special fibre: Here we see that $\mathcal E_{\overline{s}}$ is a nodal cubic $Y^2Z-X^3-X^2Z=0$ minus one point $[0:0:1]$. It is a standard computation to show that this scheme is actually isomorphic to $\mathbf G_m$. We know that $$ \mathrm{H}^1(\mathbf G_m, \mathbf Q_l)=\mathbf Q_l. $$

And finally using Poincare duality between usual cohomology and cohomology with compact support (using that $\mathbf G_m$ is smooth) we conclude that $$ \mathrm{H}^1_{c}(\mathcal E_{\overline{s}}, \mathbf Q_l) = \mathrm{H}^1_{c}(\mathbf G_m, \mathbf Q_l)=\mathrm{H}^1(\mathbf G_m, \mathbf Q_l)^{\vee}=\mathbf Q_l. $$

So, just for dimension reasons we can't have an isomorphism

$$ \mathrm{H}^1_{c}(\mathcal E_{\overline{s}}, \mathbf Q_l) \to \mathrm{H}^1_{c}(\mathcal E_{\overline{\eta}}, \mathbf Q_l). $$

Remark 1: I assume everywhere that $\ell$ is coprime with $p$.

Remark 2: This example may be a little bit misleading. Actually the failure of a specialization map to be an isomorphism has nothing to do with singularities of the "compactified family". You can produce a lot of examples by deleting points from a special fibre of smooth proper families of curves as well. But I think that this example is easier to visualize.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OK excellent. Thanks. I’m wondering if, however, if my $X$ is smooth as in the question, and in addition connected of pure dimension $d$, the specialization map in top degree is indeed an isomorphism. It should be, since we have trace maps $H^{2d}_c(X_{\overline{s}},\mathbf{Q}_{\ell})\to\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}$ and $H^{2d}_c(X_{\overline{\eta}},\mathbf{Q}_{\ell})\to\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}$, and both trace maps are isomorphisms. Also, traces are compatible with base change so they fit into a commutative square with the specialization map on top and the identity on $\mathbf{Q}_{\ell}$ at the bottom $\endgroup$ – Ari Feb 20 at 2:21
  • $\begingroup$ Am I right at least in this special case when $p = 2d$? Thanks a lot $\endgroup$ – Ari Feb 20 at 2:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It seems reasonable to me. But there is an issue with twists, so things should work well once you assume that $\mu_{l^{\infty}}$ lie inside $R$. Part of the Poincare duality says that Trace map $R^{2d}f_!\mathbf Q_l(d) \to \mathbf Q_l$ is an isomorphism for smooth $R$-schemes with geometrically connected fibres of dimension $d$. Since formation of $R^i f_!$ commutes with base change by the Proper Base Change Theorem you get your statement (since it holds for $\mathbf Q_l$). $\endgroup$ – gdb Feb 20 at 2:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ok, sorry, my comment about twists was rather dumb. It works well for $\mathbf Q_l$ just because $R^{2d}f_! \mathbf Q_l \cong \mathbf Q_l(-d)$. So there is no need to make any assumption about roots of unity. $\endgroup$ – gdb Feb 20 at 2:45
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I agree. Excellent. Great answer too. $\endgroup$ – Ari Feb 20 at 3:33

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.