Let $\pi:Y\to X$ be a finite morphism of smooth projective geometrically connected curves over a number field $K$.

Question. Does there exist a finite field extension $L/K$ and a regular model $\mathcal{X}/O_L$ for $X_L/L$ such that the minimal resolution of singularities of the normalization of $\mathcal{X}$ in $Y_L$ is semi-stable over $O_L$?

The answer to this question is yes if $X=\mathbf{P}^1_K$. (Take $\mathcal{X} = \mathbf{P}^1_{O_L}$, where $L/K$ can be chosen using Corollary 2.8 in Liu's Stable reduction of finite covers of curves. ) More generally, if $X$ has potentially good reduction over $K$, the same argument works.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to make this work for higher genus curves. What am I missing?

  • $\begingroup$ Why not just compose with a morphism $g:X\to \mathbb{P}^1_K$? By what you say, there is a field extension $L/K$ such that the minimal resolution of a proper model of $X_L$ is semistable, and there also exists such a field extension $F/K$ for $Y_F$. It seems that on the compositum, the base changes of both these models are semistable. $\endgroup$ Nov 30, 2011 at 1:07
  • $\begingroup$ How does the morphism $\pi$ (after base changing to the compositum) extend to a morphism of the above kind? In fact, in general what you get is an extension $\mathcal{Y} \longrightarrow \mathcal{X}$ of $\pi_L$ (for some suitable $L/K$) with $\mathcal{X}$ normal, $\mathcal{Y}$ normal and the min resolution of $\mathcal{Y}$ semi-stable over the base. What I'm looking for is a way to get $\mathcal{X}$ to be regular. Let me explain a bit more carefully that your strategy leads to the statement above. In fact, let $M$ be the compositum of $L$ and $F$ in your comment, and..................... $\endgroup$ Nov 30, 2011 at 1:34
  • $\begingroup$ ... normalize $\mathbf{P}^1_{O_M}$ in $Y$. This gives a sequence of finite morphisms $\mathcal{Y}\to \mathcal{X} \to \mathbf{P}^1_{O_M}$ with $\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{X}$ normal, the min resolution of $\mathcal{Y}$ semi-stable and the min res. of $\mathcal{X}$ semi-stable. We would be done if we could factor $\mathcal{Y}\to \mathcal{X}$ through the min res of $\mathcal{X}$, but this should not be possible in general. $\endgroup$ Nov 30, 2011 at 1:34

1 Answer 1


If $X$ has no (potentially) good reduction, then the answer to your question is no. More precisely, there always exists a finite cover $Y\to X$ such that for any finite extension $L/K$, no regular semi-stable model of $Y_L$ dominates a regular semi-stable model of $X_L$.

Suppose we are given a finite morphism of semi-stable models $\mathcal Y\to\mathcal X$ with $\mathcal Y$ regular but $\mathcal X$ is singular. I claim that in this case, no semi-stable regular model of $Y$ can dominate a semi-stable regular model of $X$ dominating $\mathcal X$.

For simplicity, I will work over a strictly henselian DVR. Let $x_0$ be a singular point of $\mathcal X$ and let $y_0$ be a point of $\mathcal Y$ lying over $x_0$. Then $x_0$ is a double point in its fiber $\mathcal X_s$ and similarly for $y_0$. Let $\mathcal Y'$ be a regular semi-stable model dominating $\mathcal Y$ and dominating a desingularization of $\mathcal X$. As $\mathcal X'\to \mathcal X$ is not an isomorphism above $x_0$, $\mathcal Y'\to\mathcal Y$ is not an isomorphism above $y_0$. So some irreducible component $\Gamma$ of $\mathcal Y'_s$ must be contracted to $y_0$ in $\mathcal Y$. A smooth point $\mathcal Y'$ contained in $\Gamma$ lifts to a section of $\mathcal Y'$. This section is mapped to a section of $\mathcal Y$ passing through $y_0$. But as $\mathcal Y$ is regular, its sections are contained in its smooth locus. Contradiction because $y_0$ is not a smooth point.

With some extra work, one can show that the same property holds over any finite extension $L/K$ (one has to desingularize first the singular points of $\mathcal Y_{\mathcal O_L}$.).

Finally, for any $X$ with potentially bad reduction at a prime $\mathfrak p$ and for any integer $n\ge 2$ prime to $\mathfrak p$, there exists (after enlarging $K$) a cyclic étale cover $Y\to X$ of degree $n$ with the required property on the double points. See §6.3 and especially Prop. 6.6 in this paper.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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