text:
# Confined Quantum Time of Arrivals

## Abstract

We show that formulating the quantum time of arrival problem in a segment of the real line suggests rephrasing the quantum time of arrival problem to finding states that evolve to unitarily collapse at a given point at a definite time. For the spatially confined particle, we show that the problem admits a solution in the form of an eigenvalue problem of a compact and self-adjoint time of arrival operator derived by a quantization of the classical time of arrival, which is canonically conjugate with the Hamiltonian in closed subspace of the Hilbert space.

time operator, quantum canonical pairs, confined particle

The incorporation of time as a dynamical observable in quantum mechanics remains controversial gen . And there is still no general consensus on how to do so, much less on what constitutes a meaningful quantum representation of time. This problem is widely known as the quantum-time-problem, and it takes on different facets. One of these is the question whether time observables, such as time of arrivals, can be meaningfully represented by a self-adjoint operator or not, i.e. by a time operator. The basic requirement for a time operator is conjugacy with the Hamiltonian, in keeping with quantum dynamics. However, the search for such an operator has been obstructed by nearly seven decades by Pauli’s well-known theorem: No such self-adjoint operator exists for semibounded Hamiltonians pauli ; forpauli . Thus it has been the consensus that one cannot introduce time operators without a compromise—Either self-adjointness or conjugacy but not both. The former, for example, has been advocated in constructing self-adjoint time of arrival operators self . In recent years, the problem of introducing time in quantum mechanics has taken the latter route, which required time operators to be POVMs that transform covariantly under time translations povm .

However, one of us has recently demonstrated that Pauli’s theorem does not hold in a Hilbert space, and has proved the existence of self-adjoint characteristic time operators for semibounded Hamiltonians with compact inverses galapon . These settle the question of the existence of self-adjoint operators canonically conjugate with a semibounded Hamiltonian. But addressing the existence issue has raised more issues. For example, these time operators may be canonically conjugate with the Hamiltonian in a closed subspace of the Hilbert space (a non-dense subspace, i.e. there exists a non-zero vector orthogonal to the subspace), and they can be bounded and compact, possessing a complete (normalizable) eigenfunctions with discrete (bounded) eigenvalues. The former property goes counter with the prevailing idea that a canonical pair must at least be canonical in a dense subspace to be meaningful. While the latter conflicts with the generally acknowledged basic covariance property of a meaningful time operator. The questions then arise as to what occasions these time operators appear and as to how we should interpret their eigenfunctions and eigenvalues.

To address these issues, we tackle in this Letter the free quantum time of arrival (QTOA) problem toa  anew. And we do so for two reasons. Firstly, the problem has been serving as the archetype of the perceived gross inability of standard quantum mechanics to accommodate the quantum aspects of time which has been traditionally attributed to Pauli’s theorem. Secondly, the same problem provides us, ironically, with a perfect example of the existence of a self-adjoint, compact time operator, which is canonically conjugate with the Hamiltonian in a closed subspace. In this Letter, we show that formulating the QTOA-problem in a segment of the real line suggests rephrasing the problem to finding states that collapse at a given point, say at the origin, at a definite time. We show that, for a spatially confined particle, the problem admits a solution in the form of an eigenvalue problem of a compact and self-adjoint time of arrival operator derived by a quantization of the classical time of arrival.

The QTOA-problem is traditionally the problem of finding the time of arrival (TOA) distribution of a structureless particle prepared in some initial state. This operator is presumed to be the quantized classical-TOA in unbounded free space. That is, if a classical free particle, of mass $`\mu `$ in one dimension at location $`q`$ with momentum $`p`$, will arrive, say, at the origin at the time $`T(q,p)=\mu qp^1`$, then the quantum TOA-distribution must be derivable from the quantization of $`T(q,p)`$, from the operator $`𝖳=\mu (\mathrm{𝗊𝗉}^\mathrm{𝟣}+𝗉^\mathrm{𝟣}𝗊)/2`$. Formally the time of arrival operator $`𝖳`$ is canonically conjugate to the free Hamiltonian, $`𝖧=(2\mu )^1𝗉^2`$, i.e. $`[𝖧,𝖳]=i\mathrm{}`$. It is well-known though that the resulting TOA-operator $`𝖳`$ is maximally symmetric and non-self-adjoint in unbounded space toa . For a long time the non-self-adjointness of the quantized classical-TOA has been construed as a consequence of Pauli’s theorem forpauli .

First, let us show that the non-self-adjointness of $`𝖳`$ can be addressed by spatial confinement. Let the particle be confined between two points with length $`2l`$. This assumption is natural because all experiments are essentially bounded in space. If $`p0`$ and $`\left|q\right|<l`$, the classical time of arrival at the origin (the first time of arrival, i.e. arrival without reflection from the boundaries) and the Hamiltonian are still given by $`T=\mu qp^1`$ and $`H=(2\mu )^1p^2`$, respectively; moreover, $`T`$ remains canonically conjugate with the Hamiltonian. Then $`𝖳`$ is still the totally symmetric quantized form of $`T`$ even when the particle is confined, and it likewise remains canonically conjugate with the Hamiltonian.

To give meaning to $`𝖳`$, we attach the Hilbert space $`=L^2[l,l]`$ to the system. The position operator is unique and is given by the bounded operator $`𝗊`$, $`(𝗊\phi )(q)=q\phi (q)`$ for all $`\phi (q)`$ in $``$. On the other hand, the momentum operator and the Hamiltonian are not unique, and have to be considered carefully. Our choice is dictated by the assumption of closedness of the system and the requirement of consistency with quantization: We assume the system to be conservative and we require that the evolution of the system be generated by a purely kinetic Hamiltonian. The former requires a self-adjoint Hamiltonian to ensure that time evolution is unitary. The later requires a self-adjoint momentum operator commuting with the Hamiltonian to ensure that the quantum Hamiltonian is the quantization of the purely kinetic Hamiltonian of the freely evolving classical particle between the boundaries. Now for every $`\left|\gamma \right|<\pi `$, there exists a self-adjoint momentum operator given by the operator $`𝗉_\gamma =i\mathrm{}_q`$ whose domain consists of those vectors $`\varphi (q)`$ in $``$ such that $`\left|\varphi ^{}(q)\right|^2𝑑q<\mathrm{}`$, satisfying the boundary condition $`\varphi (l)=\text{e}^{2i\gamma }\varphi (l)`$. With $`𝗉_\gamma `$ self-adjoint, the kinetic energy operator $`𝖪_\gamma =\frac{1}{2\mu }𝗉_\gamma ^2`$ is consequently self-adjoint. Thus the Hamiltonian is purely kinetic, i.e. $`𝖧_\gamma =𝖪_\gamma `$. The momentum and the Hamiltonian then commute and have the common set of plane wave eigenvectors.

Now let us consider $`𝖳`$ for $`\gamma 0`$. Since $`𝗊`$ appears in first power in $`𝖳`$, $`𝖳`$ is an operator if the inverse of $`𝗉_\gamma `$ exists. Since zero is not an eigenvalue of $`𝗉_\gamma `$, the inverse $`𝗉_\gamma ^\mathrm{𝟣}`$ exists, and is in fact bounded and self-adjoint. Then it follows that, for every $`\left|\gamma \right|<\pi `$, $`𝖳`$ is a bounded, symmetric operator. Thus $`𝖳`$ is self-adjoint. For a given $`\gamma `$, we identify $`𝖳`$ with the operator $`𝖳_\gamma =\mu (\mathrm{𝗊𝗉}_\gamma ^\mathrm{𝟣}+𝗉_\gamma ^\mathrm{𝟣}𝗊)2^1`$ derived from the formal operator $`𝖳`$ by replacing $`𝗉`$ with $`𝗉_\gamma `$. We shall refer to $`𝖳_\gamma `$ as the non-periodic confined time of arrival (CTOA) operator for a given $`\left|\gamma \right|<\pi `$. In coordinate representation, $`𝖳_\gamma `$ becomes the Fredholm integral operator $`(𝖳_\gamma \phi )(q)=_l^lT_\gamma (q,q^{})\phi (q^{})𝑑q^{},`$ for all $`\phi (q)`$ in $``$, where the kernel is given by

$$T_\gamma (q,q^{})=\mu \frac{(q+q^{})}{4\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}\gamma }\left(e^{i\gamma }\text{H}(qq^{})+e^{i\gamma }\text{H}(q^{}q)\right),$$
(1)
in which H$`(qq^{})`$ is the Heaviside function.

For $`\gamma =0`$, we face a different problem. Because zero is now an eigenvalue of the momentum operator $`𝗉_\mathrm{𝟢}`$, $`𝗉_{\mathrm{𝟢}}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ does not exist, and operator $`𝖳`$ is meaningless. But this pathology can be rigorously treated by projecting $`𝗉_0`$ onto the subspace orthogonal to its null subspace, as discussed in galapon . Following galapon , $`𝖳`$ corresponds to a compact, self-adjoint integral operator $`𝖳_0`$ whose kernel is

$$T_0(q,q^{})=\frac{\mu }{4i\mathrm{}}(q+q^{})\text{sgn}(qq^{})\frac{\mu }{4i\mathrm{}l}\left(q^2q^2\right).$$
(2)
We shall refer to this as the periodic CTOA operator.

With the above representation, one can show that $`𝖧_\gamma `$ and $`𝖳_\gamma `$ form a canonical pair in a closed subspace of $``$ for every $`\gamma `$. Moreover, the kernel $`T_\gamma (q,q^{})`$ of $`𝖳_\gamma `$ is square integrable, i.e. $`_l^l_l^l\left|T_\gamma (q,q^{})\right|^2𝑑q𝑑q^{}<\mathrm{}`$. This means that $`𝖳_\gamma `$ is compact: it has a complete set of (square integrable) eigenfunctions and its spectrum is discrete.

For the $`\gamma 0,\frac{\pi }{2}`$ CTOA-operators, it can be shown that to every positive integer $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ there is a pair of eigenfunctions $`\phi _{n,\gamma }^\pm (q)`$, with equal magnitudes of eigenvalues and of opposite signs, i.e. $`\tau _{n,\gamma }^+=\tau _{n,\gamma }^{}`$; the sign indicates the sign of the eigenvalue. The number $`n`$ corresponds to the $`n`$-th positive root, $`r_n`$, of $`J_{\frac{3}{4}}(x)J_{\frac{1}{4}}(x)\mathrm{cot}^2\gamma J_{\frac{3}{4}}(x)J_{\frac{1}{4}}(x)=0`$, where $`J_\nu (x)`$ is the Bessel function of the first kind. The eigenfunctions are given by

$`\phi _{n,\gamma }^\pm `$ $`(q)=A_ne^{ir_n\frac{q^2}{l^2}}[J_{\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{4}}^{}(r_n{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{l^2}})(J_{\frac{1}{4}}(r_n)\mathrm{cot}\gamma J_{\frac{3}{4}}(r_n))`$ (3)
$`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2q\sqrt{r_n}}{l}}J_{\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4}}^{}(r_n{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{l^2}})(J_{\frac{3}{4}}(r_n)\mathrm{cot}\gamma J_{\frac{1}{4}}(r_n))],`$
where $`J_{\nu ,\rho }^{}(x)=x^\nu (J_\nu (x)iJ_\rho (x))`$, and $`A_n`$ is the normalization constant. The corresponding eigenvalues are $`\tau _{n,\gamma }^\pm =\pm (\mu l^2/4\mathrm{})r_n^1`$. We shall call those that do not vanish anywhere in $`[l,+l]`$ as nonnodal-eigenfunctions; otherwise, as nodal eigenfunctions. The non-nodal (nodal) eigenfunctions correspond to those with even (odd) quantum number $`n`$. A nodal is zero at some single point $`q_0`$.

The eigenfunctions for $`𝖳_{\frac{\pi }{2}}`$ can be derived directly from equation-(3). In this case, the eigenfunctions bifurcate into odd and even eigenfunctions. The even and non-nodal eigenfunctions are $`\phi _{s,\frac{\pi }{2},e}^\pm (q)=\phi _{s,\frac{\pi }{2}}^\pm (q)`$, with the eigenvalues given by $`\tau _{s,\frac{\pi }{2},e}^\pm =\pm (\mu l^2/4\mathrm{})r_s^1`$, and the $`r_s`$’s are the positive roots of $`J_{\frac{3}{4}}(x)=0`$, with $`s=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. And the odd and nodal eigenfunctions are $`\phi _{u,\frac{\pi }{2},o}^\pm (q)=\phi _{u,\frac{\pi }{2}}^\pm (q)`$, with the eigenvalues given by $`\tau _{u,\frac{\pi }{2},o}^\pm =\pm (\mu l^2/4\mathrm{})r_u^1`$, and the $`r_u`$’s are the positive roots of $`J_{\frac{1}{4}}(x)=0`$, with $`u=1,2,\mathrm{}`$.

The eigenfunctions of $`𝖳_0`$ are likewise either even or odd. The even and non-nodal eigenfunctions are given by

$$\phi _{s,0,e}^\pm (q)=B_se^{i\frac{q^2}{l^2}r_s}J_{\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{4}}^{}\left(\frac{q^2}{l^2}r_s\right)+\frac{4B_se^{ir_s}J_{\frac{1}{4}}(r_s)}{(4r_s)^{\frac{1}{4}}}$$

where $`B_s`$ is the normalization constant. The corresponding eigenvalues are $`\tau _{n,0}^\pm =\pm (\mu l^2/4\mathrm{})r_s^1`$, where the $`r_s`$’s are roots of the equation $`J_{\frac{3}{4}}(x)+\frac{2}{3}J_{\frac{5}{4}}(x)+\frac{1}{x}J_{\frac{1}{4}}(x)=0`$, with $`s=1,2,\mathrm{}`$. The odd and nodal eigenfunctions, $`\phi _{u,0,o}^\pm (q)`$, together with their corresponding eigenvalues, coincide with those of $`\phi _{u,\frac{\pi }{2},o}^\pm (q)`$.

Now we turn to the dynamics of the above eigenfunctions. Using symmetry arguments, it can be established that the negative eigenvalue-eigenfunctions have exactly the same dynamics as those of the positive eigenvalue-eigenfunctions in the time reversed direction. It is then sufficient for us to consider in detail the dynamical behaviors of the positive eigenvalue eigenfunctions. Our analysis is based on the numerical evaluation of the evolution law $`\phi (t)=e^{i𝖧_\gamma t/\mathrm{}}\phi (0)`$ in energy representation.

Figure-1.a shows the general features of the non-nodal eigenfunctions for every $`\gamma `$. The probability density $`\left|\phi _{n,\gamma }^+(q,t)\right|^2`$ collapses with non-vanishing width at the origin, obtaining its maximum value there at the time equal to the eigenvalue $`\tau _{n,\gamma }^+`$ (within numerical accuracy). Moreover, the variance of the position operator in the eigenfunction $`\phi _{n,\gamma }^+(q,t)`$, $`\sigma _{\phi _{n,\gamma }}^2(t)=\phi _{n,\gamma }^+(t)\left|𝗊^2\right|\phi _{n,\gamma }^+(t)\phi _{n,\gamma }^+(t)\left|𝗊\right|\phi _{n,\gamma }^+(t)^2`$, is minimum at the eigenvalue $`\tau _{n,\gamma }^+`$. On the other hand, Figure-1.b shows the general features of an evolving nodal eigenfunction. The probability density of a nodal eigenfunction collapses towards the origin, its zero being at the orgin at the eigenvalue, i.e. $`\left|\phi _{n,\gamma }^+(0,\tau _{n,\gamma }^+)\right|^2=0`$. In contrast to non-nodals with one peak at the origin, nodals evolve to have two peaks approaching the origin. In both cases, the minimum variance of each eigenfunction asymptotically decreases as $`n^v`$ for some $`1<v<2`$. The eigenfunctions then become arbitrarily localized at the origin at their eigenvalues for arbitrarily large $`n`$.

The eigenfunctions for $`\gamma 0,\frac{\pi }{2}`$, non-nodal or nodal, are non-parity eigenfunctions so that they exhibit assymetry in their probability densities. For these eigenfunctions, the expectation value of the position operator with respect to them, i.e. $`𝗊(t)_{\phi _{n,\gamma }}=\phi _{n,\gamma }^+(t)\left|𝗊\right|\phi _{n,\gamma }^+(t)`$, follows the classical trajectory, at least in the time interval $`0t\tau _{n,\gamma }^+`$, and assumes the value zero at the eigenvalue $`\tau _{n,\gamma }^+`$ ex . It can be established that these non-parity eigenfunctions are the quantum analogues of the classical case where the initial position and momentum are non-vanishing. Figure-2 shows the general features of the position expectation value and variance as a function of time for non-parity eigenfunctions. On the other hand, the expectation value of the position and momentum operators in the eigenfunctions for $`\gamma =0,\frac{\pi }{2}`$vanishes. This shows that the $`𝖳_{\gamma =0,\frac{\pi }{2}}`$ CTOA-operators are quantizations of the classically indeterminate case where the initial position and momentum are vanishing.

Our numerical results then strongly support the following interpretation for the confined-TOA eigenfunctions and their corresponding eigenvalues: A CTOA eigenfunction is a state that evolves to unitarily collapse or to arrive at the origin at its eigenvalue along a classical trajectory, i.e. a state in which the events of the centroid being at the origin and the position distribution width being minimum occur at the same instant of time equal to the eigenvalue, with the centroid following the classical trajectory. But there is one thing more fundamental about these eigenfunctions—they are purely geometrical. The parameters of the eigenfunctions are only $`l`$ and $`\gamma `$, which are geometrical in origin: $`l`$ determines the volume of the configuration space; $`\gamma `$, the translation property. In particular, they do not depend on $`\mathrm{}`$ and on the mass $`\mu `$ of the particle, only the eigenvalues depend on them. This means that the CTOA-eigenfunctions are universal, applying to all massive particles. On first thought this is unexpected, but it may in fact be a physical necessity. In classical mechanics, the initial position of the particle can be chosen independent of its mass; the choice of the initial position is only dictated by the geometry of the configuration space, i.e. where the particle is only possible to place. And so may be in quantum mechanics. This is reflected in the pure geometric nature of the CTOA-eigenfunctions that assumes the initial “position” of the quantum particle, which is everywhere at once in the entire length $`2l`$. We point out that the eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the CTOA-operators are tied with the dynamics of the system; hence, they acquire interpretation independent from the quantum measurement postulate. Moreover, the dicreteness and boundedness of the eigenvalues indicate that covariance, which implies the eigenvalues of a time operator to be the entire real line, is not necessary for a time operator to be meaningful.

Our results suggest introducing the concept of ideal time of arrival states in a given Hilbert $`_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ over some configuration space $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and rephrasing the time of arrival problem in terms of these states. For a fixed initial time $`t_0=0`$, let us define the subspace, $`_x`$, of $`_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ characterized by the point $`x`$ interior to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. A vector $`\phi `$ in $`_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is in $`_x`$ if (a) there exists a time $`\tau >0`$ such that $`\sigma _\phi ^2(\tau )<\sigma _\phi ^2(t)`$ for all $`t\tau `$; if (b) $`𝗊(\tau )_\phi =x`$; if (c) $`𝗊(t)_\phi `$ follows the classical trajectory at least within the time interval $`0t\tau `$; and if (d) $`\phi `$ is purely geometrical. We refer to these states as the ideal time of arrival states of the system $`_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to the driving Hamiltonian $`𝖧`$, and the associated times $`\{\tau \}`$ as their respective times of arrivals at the point $`x`$. If there is perfect recurrence, then we refer to $`\tau `$ as the first arrival time. Now we can pose the problem: Given the system $`_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ driven by the Hamiltonian $`𝖧`$ and given a point $`x`$ interior to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, what are the ideal time of arrival states $`_x`$ and their corresponding arrival times? Because the wavefunction has a definite trajectory dictated by the Schrödinger equation in the Hilbert space, this is a well defined quantum mechanical problem.

And this problem may or may not have a solution depending on the given $`_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`𝖧`$. The confined time of arrival problem we have considered here is a benchmark problem having a solution in the form of the standard quantum mechanical eigenvalue problem of the quantized classical time of arrival. However, the solution we have obtained here need not be the only solution because other means of quantizing the classical time of arrival may lead to a different set of solutions. On the other hand, the unconfined time of arrival problem is a benchmark problem that does not posses a solution in the form of an eigenvalue problem of the quantized classical time of arrival—the eigenfunctions are non-square integrable and non-geometrical because of their dependence on the mass of the particle toa . It is of fundamental significance to understand why these two related problems have divergent characteristics. An understanding may lead us to a deeper insight into the quantum time problem, and into the foundations of quantum mechanics itself. The confined quantum time of arrival problem has already tought us one lesson—Quantum mechanics is not at all inept at addressing the quantum aspects of time if only we knew what question to ask.

This work has been supported by the National Research Council of the Philippines through grant number I-81-NRCP, and partially supported by the “Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología” and FEDER (Grant BFM2003-01003). EAG is by the University of the Philippines System through the U.P. Creative and Research Scholarship Program. This paper has benefited from discussions with A. M. Steinberg, S. Jhingan, R. de la Madrid, I. Egusquiza, and J.G. Muga.


format: text

text:
# Decomposition of the diagonal and eigenvalues of Frobenius for Fano hypersurfaces.

## 1. Introduction

If $`X`$ is a variety defined over a finite field $`k=𝔽_q`$, one encodes the number of its rational points over all finite extensions $`𝔽_{q^s}𝔽_q`$ in the zeta function, defined by its logarithmic derivative

(1.1)
$$\frac{\zeta ^{}(X,t)}{\zeta (X,t)}=\underset{s1}{}|X(𝔽_{q^s})|t^{s1}.$$

By the theorem of Dwork , we know that $`\zeta (t)`$ is a rational function

(1.2)
$$\zeta (X,t)(t).$$

We assume that $`X`$ is projective and we denote by $`U=^nX`$ the complement of a projective embedding. The Grothendieck-Lefschetz trace formula  gives a cohomological formula for the numerator and the denominator of the rational function

(1.3)
$$\zeta (U,t)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{2\mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{U})}{}}\mathrm{det}(1F_it)^{(1)^{i+1}},$$

where $`F_i`$ is the arithmetic Frobenius acting on the compactly supported $`\mathrm{}`$-adic cohomology $`H_c^i(\overline{U},_{\mathrm{}})`$. Letting $`H_{\mathrm{prim}}^i(\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})`$ denote the primitive cohomology $`H^i(\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})/H^i(\overline{}^n,_{\mathrm{}})`$ of $`X`$, we have

(1.4)
$$H_c^i(\overline{U},_{\mathrm{}})\{\begin{array}{cc}H_{\mathrm{prim}}^{i1}(\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})\hfill & \text{ for }(i1)2\mathrm{dim}(X),\hfill \\ H^i(\overline{^n},_{\mathrm{}})\hfill & \text{ for }i2\mathrm{dim}(X).\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`X`$ smooth and complete, the Weil conjectures  assert that the the eigenvalues of $`F_i`$ in any complex embedding $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ have absolute values $`q^{\frac{(i1)}{2}}`$. In particular, there is no possible cancellation of eigenvalues between the numerator and the denominator of the zeta function. Consequently, the property

(1.5)
$$|X(𝔽_{q^s})||^n(𝔽_{q^s})|\text{mod}q^\kappa $$

for all $`s1`$, and some $`\kappa \{0\}`$, is equivalent to the property that

(1.6)
$$\text{the  eigenvalues  of }F_i\text{ are divisible  by }q^\kappa ,$$

as algebraic integers.
However, if $`X`$ is singular, one does not have in general the purity of weights of Frobenius on $`H_c^i`$. Thus, a cancellation between the numerator of the zeta function and its denominator is at least in principle possible, and the property (1.5) is no longer a priori equivalent to the property (1.6). The purpose of this article is to study the relation between (1.5) and (1.6) in the case of hypersurfaces of degree $`dn`$.

Let $`X`$ be a complete intersection in $`^n`$ defined by $`r`$ equations of degrees $`d_1d_2\mathrm{}d_r`$ with the property

(1.7)
$$1\kappa =[\frac{nd_2\mathrm{}d_r}{d_1}].$$

The theorem of Ax and Katz says precisely that (1.5) holds true. On the other hand, we also know by , , , that if the finite field is replaced by a field of characteristic 0, the Hodge type of $`X`$ is $`\kappa `$ for all cohomology groups of $`X`$. (See  for a more precise discussion of those theorems). This gives a strong indication that (1.6) should be true as well. Indeed, as explained to us by Daqing Wan, (1.6) is true for $`\kappa =1`$. One knows by , Theorem 5.5.3, that $`q`$ divides the eigenvalues of Frobenius acting on $`H^a(\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})`$ for $`a>\mathrm{dim}(X)`$, and since this cohomology vanishes for complete intersections for $`a<\mathrm{dim}(X)`$, the theorem of Ax and Katz implies divisibility by $`q`$ for $`a=\mathrm{dim}(X)`$ as well. Similarly, using vanishing and Ax-Katz’s result, and replacing , Theorem 5.5.3 by the corresponding statement for the slopes of the Frobenius action on rigid cohomology (, p. 820), one obtains that the slopes of the Frobenius action on rigid cohomology are $`1`$.

The purpose of this note is to give a motivic interpretation for Fano hypersurfaces and $`\kappa =1`$ of the divisibility result, which does not use the theorem by Ax and Katz.

We now describe our method. Let us first assume that $`X`$ is smooth. By Roitman’s theorem , we know that $`CH_0(X\times _kK)=`$ for any field extension $`Kk`$ which is algebraically closed. By \[2, appendix to lecture 1\], this implies that the class of the diagonal in $`CH_{n1}(X\times X)`$ goes to zero in $`CH_{n1}((X\times X(\xi \times XX\times A))_{}`$ for some divisor $`A`$ on $`X`$ and some 0-cycle $`\xi `$. Letting this class act as a correspondence, it follows that the restriction map $`H^i(\overline{X},_{\mathrm{}})H^i(\overline{XA},_{\mathrm{}})`$ is zero for $`i1`$. This shows divisibility, as in , lemma 2.1.

For singular varieties, the proof of the Hodge-type statement in the complete intersection singular case () shows that the cohomology with compact support $`H_c^i(U)=:H^i(^n,X)`$ carries the necessary information, and is easier to deal with than its dual $`H^j(U)`$. To carry out the argument used in the smooth case, one needs a version of the Chow groups which is related to compactly supported cohomology. If $`X`$ is a strict normal crossing divisor, one can use the relative motivic cohomology $`H_M^{2n}(^n\times U,X\times U,(n))`$, as defined in , chapter 4, 2.2 and p. 209; this relative motivic cohomology acts as correspondences on $`H_c^{}(\overline{U},_{\mathrm{}})`$. Due to the lack of resolution of singularities in positive characteristic, we will in general need an alteration $`\pi :(,Y)(^n,X)`$ of $`(^n,X)`$, that is, a projective, generically finite morphism $`\pi :^n`$, with $``$ smooth, such that $`Y:=\pi ^1(X)`$ is a strict normal crossing divisor. We then use the relative motivic cohomology $`H_M^{2n}(\times U,Y\times U,(n))`$.

Recall that $`H_M^m(\times U,Y\times U,(n))`$ is the homology $`H_{2nm}(𝒵^n(\times U,Y\times U,))`$, where $`𝒵^n(\times U,Y\times U,)`$ is the single complex associated to the double higher Chow cycle complex

(1.8)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ & & & & & & \\ 𝒵^n(\times U,1)& \stackrel{\mathrm{rest}}{}& 𝒵^n(Y^{(1)}\times U,1)& \stackrel{\mathrm{rest}}{}& 𝒵^n(Y^{(2)}\times U,1)\\ & & & & & & \\ 𝒵^n(\times U,0)& \stackrel{\mathrm{rest}}{}& 𝒵^N(Y^{(1)}\times U,0)& \stackrel{\mathrm{rest}}{}& 𝒵^n(Y^{(2)}\times U,0).\end{array}$$

Here $`Y^{(a)}`$ is the normalization of all the strata of codimension $`a`$, $`𝒵^n(Y^{(a)}\times U,b)`$ is a group of cycles on $`Y^{(a)}\times U\times S^b`$ where $`S^{}`$ is the cosimplicial scheme $`S^n=\mathrm{Spec}(k[t_0,\mathrm{},t_n]/(t_i1))`$ with face maps $`S^nS^{n+1}`$ defined by $`t_i=0`$. More precisely, $`𝒵^n(Y^{(a)}\times U,b)`$ is generated by the codimension $`n`$ subvarieties $`ZY^{(a)}\times U\times S^b`$ such that, for each face $`F`$ of $`S^b`$, and each irreducible component $`F^{}Y^{(a)}`$ of the strata of $`Y`$ we have $`\mathrm{codim}_{F^{}\times U\times F}(Z(F^{}\times U\times F))n.`$ The horizontal restriction maps are the intersection with the smaller strata, the vertical $``$’s are the boundary maps.

For technical reasons, we find it convenient to use a subcomplex $`𝒵^n(\times U,(Y\times U),)`$ of $`𝒵^n(\times U,Y\times U,)`$. For $`T`$ a smooth $`k`$-scheme of finite type, and $`A`$ a closed subset, let $`𝒵^n(T,(A),m)`$ be the subgroup of $`𝒵^n(T,m)`$ consisting of the cycles $`W𝒵^n(T,m)`$ with $`\text{Supp}(W)(A\times S^m)=\mathrm{}`$. The $`𝒵^n(T,(A),m)`$ evidently form a subcomplex $`𝒵^n(T,(A),)`$ of $`𝒵^n(T,)`$, functorial for flat pull-back and proper push-forward. Set

(1.9)
$$H_M^m(T,(A),(n)):=H_{2nm}(𝒵^n(T,(A),)).$$

The inclusion $`𝒵^n(\times U,(Y\times U),)𝒵^n(\times U,)`$ extends to a map of complexes $`𝒵^n(\times U,(Y\times U),)𝒵^n(\times U,Y\times U,)`$. We call $`H_M^m(T,(A),(n))`$ the motivic cohomology with modulus.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }\times U`$ be the inverse image of the diagonal $`^n\times U`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the graph of the alteration $`\pi `$ restricted to $`\times U`$. Since $`\mathrm{rest}(\mathrm{\Delta })=0`$,$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ yields a class

(1.10)
$$[\mathrm{\Delta }]H_M^{2n}(\times U,(Y\times U),(n)).$$

We show

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`X^n`$ be a hypersurface of degree $`dn`$ over a field $`k`$. Then there is an alteration $`\pi :(,Y)(^n,X)`$ and a divisor $`A`$ which cuts all the strata of $`Y`$ in codimension $`1`$ and such that the image of $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ in $`H_M^{2n}((A)\times U,((YA)\times U),(n))`$ is zero.

The main idea behind this geometric statement relies on the following. By a counting argument, Roitman  shows that, for a hypersurface $`X^n`$ of degree $`dn`$, the correspondence

(1.11)
$$\{(x,\mathrm{})X\times \mathrm{Grass}(1,n)|\mathrm{}X\text{ or }\mathrm{}X=\{x\}\text{ for some }xX\}$$

dominates $`X`$. It follows that the map $`CH_1(^n)CH_0(X)`$ has cokernel killed by multiplication by $`d=\mathrm{deg}X`$, where $`CH_0(X)`$ is Fulton’s homological Chow group (). This implies $`CH_0(X)=.`$

We replace Roitman’s correspondence by

(1.12)
$$P:=\{(y,\mathrm{})\times \mathrm{Grass}(1,n)|\pi (y)\mathrm{},\text{and either }$$

$$\mathrm{}X\text{ or }\mathrm{}X=\{x\}\text{for  some}xX\}.$$

We show that $`P`$ dominates $``$, and then use the technique of blowing up strata of $`Y`$ introduced in  to find the rational equivalence relation which holds on the complement of some good divisor $`A`$. Finally, we show

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`X^n`$ be a projective variety over a field $`k`$, and let $`U=^nX`$. Suppose there is an alteration $`\pi :(,Y)(^n,X)`$ and a divisor $`A`$ which cuts all strata of $`Y`$in codimension $`1`$, such that the image of $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ in $`H_M^{2n}((A)\times U,((YA)\times U),(n))`$ is zero.

1. If the characteristic of the ground field $`k`$ is 0, then $`\mathrm{gr}_0^FH^i(X)=0`$ for all $`i1`$.
2. If $`k=𝔽_q`$ is a finite field, then the eigenvalues of the arithmetic Frobenius $`F_i`$ acting on the compactly supported $`\mathrm{}`$-adic cohomology $`H_c^i(\overline{U},_{\mathrm{}})`$ are all divisible by $`q`$ as algebraic integers for all $`i1`$.
3. If $`k`$ is a perfect field of characteristic $`p`$, then the slopes of the Frobenius operator acting on the rigid cohomology $`H_c^i(U/K)`$ are all $`1`$ for all $`i1`$.

To conclude, we remark that this article solves the natural question posed in the introduction of , but only in the case $`\kappa =1`$. Thinking of the discussion developed in , (5.2) for $`\kappa 2`$ in the smooth case, it is not entirely clear what the substitute would be for 1.1. One may also try to generalize these results for $`\kappa =1`$, replacing the hypersurface $`X`$ with a more general singular Fano variety. A singular Fano variety $`X`$ over a field is a gometrically connected, projective, Cohen-Macaulay variety such that the reflexive hull of $`\omega _{X_{\mathrm{reg}}}^N`$ is invertible and ample for some $`N`$. Examples are hypersurfaces of degree $`dn`$. The question is then whether a Fano variety fulfills Theorem 1.1. If yes, as in , this would show that a singular Fano variety over a finite field has a rational point.

Acknowledgements. We thank Pierre Berthelot, Pierre Deligne, V. Srinivas and in particular Daqing Wan for interesting discussions on topics related to this work.

## 2. The proof of Theorem 1.1

This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.1. We fix a base-field $`k`$ and write $`^n`$ for $`_k^n`$. We want to show that a certain class $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ in motivic cohomology with modulus is trivial. Suppose for a moment we know this vanishing for $`k`$ an infinite field. If $`k`$ is a finite field, there exist Galois extensions $`k_{\mathrm{}}/k`$ with Galois group $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ for any prime $`\mathrm{}`$. In particular, $`k_{\mathrm{}}`$ is infinite, so $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_k_{\mathrm{}}]=0`$ by hypothesis. Since the motivic cohomology with modulus over $`k_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a direct limit over motivic cohomology with modulus over finite subfields $`k^{}k_{\mathrm{}}`$, and since motivic cohomology with modulus admits a norm, we conclude $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ is killed by some power of $`\mathrm{}`$. Since this is true for two different $`\mathrm{}`$, and the union of Galois translates of $`A`$ in good position with respect to $`Y`$ is still in good position, the theorem follows. Thus, we may assume $`k`$ is infinite. In particular, we will use without comment various general position arguments.

Fix $`X^n`$ a hypersurface of degree $`dn`$. We want to define a closed subvariety $`Z`$ inside the Grassmann of lines $`\mathrm{Grass}(1,n)`$ consisting of lines “maximally tangent” to $`X`$. We have the incidence correspondence $`𝒰:=\{(z,\mathrm{})|z\mathrm{}\mathrm{Grass}(1,n)\}`$. Define

(2.1)
$$𝒱:=𝒰\times _{\mathrm{Grass}(1,n)}𝒰=\{(y,\mathrm{},z)|y,z\mathrm{}\}.$$

The $`^1`$-bundle $`\mathrm{pr}_2:𝒱𝒰,(y,\mathrm{},z)(z,\mathrm{})`$ has a section $`(x,\mathrm{})(x,\mathrm{},x)`$. Locally on $`𝒰`$ we may identify $`𝒱^1\times 𝒰`$ with homogeneous coordinates $`s,t`$ in such a way that the section is given by $`t=0`$. The section $`𝒪_^n\stackrel{𝑋}{}𝒪_^n(d)`$ pulls back to a section of $`p^{}𝒪(d)_^n`$ under the projection $`p:𝒱^n,(y,\mathrm{},z)y`$, and the section $`X`$ restricts to an equation $`F(s,t)=F_0s^d+F_1s^{dt}t+\mathrm{}+F_dt^d`$, where the $`F_i`$ are (local) functions on $`𝒰`$. Note $`F_0`$ is a local defining equation of $`𝒰\times _^nX𝒰`$. We are interested in the closed sets defined locally by $`F_0=\mathrm{}=F_{d1}=0(\text{ resp. }F_0=\mathrm{}=F_d=0)`$. Denote by

(2.2)
$$Z_X^{}Z^{}\mathrm{Grass}(1,n)$$

the projection on the Grassmannian of these sets. Intuitively, an open set $`Z^0:=Z^{}Z_X^{}`$ consists of lines $`d`$-fold tangent to $`X`$ at a point. Define $`ZZ^{}`$ to be the closure of $`Z^0`$, and let $`Z_X:=Z_X^{}Z`$.

###### Proposition 2.1.

The projection

$$p_2:Z\times _{\mathrm{Grass}(1,n)}𝒰^n$$

is surjective. Intuitively, a general point on $`^n`$ has a line through it maximally tangent to $`X`$.

###### Proof.

It suffices to consider geometric points. Let $`y^nX`$ be a geometric point. There is a linear transformation of $`^n`$ such that the equation of $`X`$ is $`x_0^d+x_0^{d1}f_1(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)+\mathrm{}+f_d(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$, with $`f_ik[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ homogeneous of degree $`i`$, and such that $`y`$ has homogeneous coordinates $`(1:0:\mathrm{}:0)`$. Thus a line passing through $`y`$ has parametrization $`(s:tu_1:\mathrm{}:tu_n)^n`$, for $`(s:t)^1`$ and $`(u_1:\mathrm{}:u_n)^{n1}`$. The intersection of this line with $`X`$ has equation $`s^d+s^{d1}tf_1(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)+\mathrm{}+t^df_d(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)`$ and its intersection with $`X`$ will be $`d`$-tangent if and only if this equation has the shape $`(s+tu)^d`$ with $`(u:u_1:\mathrm{}:u_n)^n`$. This is equivalent to the $`d`$ homogeneous equations $`f_i=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{i}\right)u^i,i=1,\mathrm{},d`$ in $`(u:u_1:\mathrm{}u_n)^n`$. Since $`dn`$ there exists a homogeneous solution. ∎

###### Example 2.2.

Let $`(T_0:T_1:T_2)`$ be homogeneous coordinates on $`^2`$, and let $`X:T_0T_1=0`$, so $`d=n=2`$. Clearly in this case $`Z`$ is simply the variety of lines through $`(0:0:1)`$, and $`Z_XZ`$ is the two points corresponding to the components of $`X`$.

It follows from proposition 2.1 that $`dimZn1`$. Let $`𝒵Z`$ be a general linear section of dimension $`n1`$, and write $`𝒬:=𝒵\times _{\mathrm{Grass}(1,n)}𝒰`$. Recall that an alteration $`\pi :(,Y)(^n,X)`$ of $`(^n,X)`$ is a projective, generically finite morphism $`\pi :^n`$, with $``$ smooth, such that $`Y:=\pi ^1(X)`$ is a strict normal crossing divisor.

###### Lemma 2.3.

There exists a commutative diagram of schemes

satisfying the following conditions:

1. $`𝒬`$ and $`𝒵`$ are as above, and $`\overline{p}`$ and $`\overline{r}`$ are the natural maps. In particular, $`\overline{p}`$ is a $`^1`$-bundle and $`\overline{r}`$ is surjective.
2. $`𝒫`$ is irreducible and normal.
3. $`f:𝒫`$ is projective, generically finite and surjective.
4. $`q:𝒫𝒵`$ is surjective.
5. There exists a normal crossings divisor $`Y`$ such that $`\pi :(,Y)(^n,X)`$ is an alteration.
6. There exists a divisor $`A`$ such that $`A`$ meets all the strata of $`Y`$ properly, and such that $`𝒫f^1(A)A`$ is finite.

Given a surjection of projective $`k`$-schemes $`𝒬^{}𝒬`$, the map $`g`$ can be taken to factor $`𝒫𝒬^{}𝒬`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`k`$ is infinite and $`𝒵Z`$ is a general linear space section, the map $`\overline{r}`$ in 1) is surjective. Let $`\pi `$ be an alteration. Then there will be an irreducible component of $`\times _^n𝒬`$ dominating both $`𝒬`$ and $``$. Taking $`𝒫`$ to be the normalization of this component gives 2), 3), and 4). (To see the final assertion, one can replace $`𝒬^{}`$ by a plane section and assume $`𝒬^{}𝒬`$ has finite degree. Then substitute $`\times _^n𝒬^{}`$ in the above.) Condition 5) comes from the work of de Jong .

To prove 6), we use the following result (, Theorem 2.1.2):

###### Theorem 2.4.

Let $`Y`$ be a normal crossings divisor in a smooth variety. Let $`f:W`$ be a finite type morphism, and assume that $`Wf^1(Y)W`$ is dense. Given $`p:^{}`$ the blowup of a face (stratum) of $`Y`$, let $`Y^{}=p^{}(Y)_{\mathrm{red}}`$ be the reduced pullback, and let $`f^{}:W^{}^{}`$ be the strict transform of $`f`$. Then $`(^{},Y^{},f^{})`$ satisfy the same hypotheses as $`(,Y,f)`$. There exists a composition of such blowups, $`(_N,Y_N)\mathrm{}(,Y)`$ such that the strict transform morphism $`f_N:W_N_N`$ meets the faces of $`Y_N`$ properly, i.e. for $`Z_N`$ a face of codimension $`r`$, $`f_N^1(Z)W_N`$ has codimension $`r`$.

Replacing the alteration $`^n`$ with a composition $`_N\mathrm{}^n`$ and changing notation, we may assume $`f:𝒫`$ meets faces properly. Since $`f`$ has finite degree, this amounts to saying that the fibre of $`f`$ over the generic point of any face is finite. The existence of a divisor $`A`$ as in 6) is now clear.∎

###### Lemma 2.5.

Let $`p:QB`$ be a smooth projective morphism of $`k`$-schemes, with geometrically connected fibers of dimension one. Let $`s_0,s_{\mathrm{}}:BQ`$ be sections, take $`\stackrel{~}{t}H^0(Q,𝒪_Q(s_{\mathrm{}}(B)s_0(B)))`$ and suppose that the rational function $`t`$ on $`Q`$ determined by $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ satisfies

$$\mathrm{div}(t)=s_0(B)s_{\mathrm{}}(B).$$

Let $`\overline{B}B`$ be the closed subscheme of $`B`$ defined by the equation $`s_0=s_{\mathrm{}}`$. Then the restriction $`\overline{t}`$ of $`t`$ to $`p^1(\overline{B})`$ is a unit, and there is a unit $`\overline{u}`$ on $`\overline{B}`$ with $`\overline{t}=p^{}(\overline{u})`$.

###### Proof.

The hypotheses imply $`p_{}𝒪_Q^\times =𝒪_B^\times `$ and this continues to hold after pullback. Smoothness of $`p`$ implies that $`s_i(B)Q`$ are Cartier divisors. We view $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ as an isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{t}:𝒪(s_{\mathrm{}}(B))𝒪(s_0(B))`$. By definition, the Cartier divisors agree over $`\overline{B}`$, so there is a tautological identification $`\tau :𝒪(s_0(B))_{p^1(\overline{B})}𝒪(s_{\mathrm{}}(B))_{p^1(\overline{B})}`$. The composition

$$\stackrel{~}{t}\tau \mathrm{\Gamma }(p^1(\overline{B}),\text{Aut}\left(𝒪(s_0(B))\right))=\mathrm{\Gamma }(p^1(\overline{B}),𝒪_{p^1(\overline{B})}^\times )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B},𝒪_{\overline{B}}^\times )$$

yields the desired unit $`\overline{u}`$. ∎

Recall $`𝒵Z`$ is a general linear section, where $`Z`$ is a space of lines in $`^n`$ which are maximally tangent to our given hypersurface $`X`$. We have removed from $`Z`$ any possible irreducible components consisting entirely of lines on $`X`$, so the subset $`Z_XZ`$ of lines on $`X`$ is nowhere dense. We define $`𝒵_X=𝒵Z_X`$ and $`𝒵^0=𝒵𝒵_X`$. By generality, $`𝒵^0𝒵`$ is dense. Define $`𝒬^0=\overline{p}^1𝒵^0`$ (resp. $`𝒫^0=\pi ^1(𝒵^0)`$). The $`^1`$-bundle $`𝒬^0𝒵^0`$ has a set-theoretic section $`\overline{s}_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ associating to a line $`\mathrm{}`$ the unique point in $`\mathrm{}X`$.

Consider the diagram

(2.7)
Here the section $`s_0`$ corresponds to the map $`g`$. Similarly, the set-theoretic section $`\overline{s}_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ gives rise to a set-theoretic section $`s_{\mathrm{}}^0:𝒫^0𝒫^0\times _𝒵𝒬`$. By making a further blow-up of faces of $`Y`$, enlarging $`A`$ and changing notation (cf. the last part of lemma 2.3), we may assume that the closure $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ of $`s_{\mathrm{}}^0(𝒫^0)`$ in $`𝒫\times _𝒵𝒬`$ is finite over $`A`$, hence finite over $`𝒫f^1(A)`$. Replacing $`𝒫`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ and changing notation, we may assume $`s_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ gives rise to another section $`s_{\mathrm{}}:𝒫𝒫\times _𝒵𝒬`$. The picture is now

(2.14)
Let $`\overline{𝒫}𝒫`$ be the closed subscheme where $`s_0=s_{\mathrm{}}`$. Then

(2.15)
$$(𝒫^0f^1(Y))_{\mathrm{red}}\overline{𝒫}.$$

Indeed, we can check this down on $`^n`$, i.e. we can ignore the alteration $`\pi `$. Points in $`𝒫^0`$ map to pairs consisting of a line $`\mathrm{}`$ maximally tangent to $`X`$ but not lying on $`X`$, together with a point $`y\mathrm{}`$. The fibre $`p^1(\mathrm{},y)=\{(\mathrm{},y,z)|z\mathrm{}\}`$. The sections $`s_0`$ and $`s_{\mathrm{}}`$ are given respectively by $`s_0(\mathrm{},y)=(\mathrm{},y,y)`$ and $`s_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{},y)=(\mathrm{},y,\mathrm{}X)`$. Since $`Y=\pi ^1(X)`$, we get the desire inclusion (2.15) after alteration.

###### Lemma 2.6.

Possibly enlarging the divisor $`A`$ (preserving the hypothesis that $`A`$ meets faces of $`Y`$ properly), there exists a rational function $`t`$ on $`𝒫\times _𝒵𝒬`$ such that

(2.16)
$$(\mathrm{div}t)(fp)^1(A)=(s_0s_{\mathrm{}})(fp)^1(A),$$

and such that further, $`t|((fp)^1(Y))_{\mathrm{red}}(𝒫^0\times _𝒵𝒬)1`$.

###### Proof.

By assumption, the map $`𝒫f^1(A)A`$ is finite. There are thus a finite set of points of $`𝒫`$ lying over generic points of faces of $`Y`$.

Let $`L=p_{}(𝒪(s_{\mathrm{}}s_0))`$. As $`R^ip_{}(𝒪(s_{\mathrm{}}s_0))=0`$ for $`i>0`$, $`L`$ is an invertible sheaf on $`𝒫`$; adding divisors to $`A`$ meeting faces properly, we can assume that $`L`$ is trivial on $`𝒫f^1A`$. A generating section of $`L`$ thus gives a generating section $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ of $`𝒪(s_{\mathrm{}}s_0)`$ over $`𝒫\times _𝒵𝒬(fp)^1(A)`$. We let $`t`$ be the corresponding rational function on $`𝒫\times _𝒵𝒬`$.

Clearly $`t`$ satisfies (2.16). The fact that $`t`$ can be taken to be $`1`$ on the indicated divisor follows from (2.15) and lemma 2.5. Indeed, the lemma shows that the restriction of $`t`$ comes from a unit on $`f^1Y𝒫^0`$. Enlarging $`A`$, this unit lifts to a unit on $`𝒫f^1A`$. Normalizing $`t`$, we can assume this unit is $`1`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1..

We use lemma 2.6 to construct an effective cycle $`𝒟𝒵^n((A)\times U,1)`$ with

(2.17)
$$\text{Supp}(𝒟)(YA)\times U\times S^1=\mathrm{},$$

$$(𝒟)=N\mathrm{\Delta }𝒵^n((A)\times U,0)$$

for some integer $`N0`$. This suffices to prove the theorem.

To construct $`𝒟`$, we have the closed embedding $`i:𝒫\times _𝒵𝒬𝒫\times ^n`$. Let

(2.18)
$$𝒫\times _𝒵𝒬^\mathrm{\#}=i^1((𝒫f^1(A))\times U),$$

and let

(2.19)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}𝒫\times _𝒵𝒬^\mathrm{\#}\times ^1$$

be the closure of the graph of $`t`$. Let

(2.20)
$$\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}:=i_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}(𝒫f^1(A))\times U\times ^1$$

be the image of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mathrm{\#}`$, and let

(2.21)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝒫f^1(A))\times U\times S^1;S^1=\mathrm{Spec}k[t_0,t_1]/(t_0+t_11)$$

be the pull-back of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ via $`(t_0,t_1)(t_0:t_1)`$. We let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒫\times ^n\times ^1`$ be the closure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

By lemma 2.6, we have

(2.22)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(f^1(YA)\times ^n\times ^1(f^1(YA)\times X\times ^1)\hfill \\ \hfill (f^1(YA)\times ^n\times \{1\}).\end{array}$$

Thus

(2.23)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(f^1(YA)\times U\times S^1)=\mathrm{}.$$

Also we have

(2.24)
$$(\mathrm{\Gamma })=(f\times \mathrm{id})^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })𝒵^n((𝒫f^1(A))\times U,0).$$

Thus, setting

(2.25)
$$𝒟:=(f\times \mathrm{id})_{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })𝒵^n((A)\times U,1),$$

we have

(2.26)
$$\text{rest}(𝒟)=0,(𝒟)=(f\times \mathrm{id})_{}(f\times \mathrm{id})^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })=N\mathrm{\Delta },$$

where $`N=\mathrm{deg}(f)0`$. This completes the proof. ∎

## 3. The proof of Theorem 1.2

This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.2.

In what follows, we write simply $`H^a(X,b)`$ to denote either geometric étale cohomology (viz. $`X/𝔽_q,H^a(X,b):=H_{\text{ét}}^a(X\times _{𝔽_q}\overline{𝔽}_q,_{\mathrm{}})`$ for $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{char}(𝔽_q))=1`$), or de Rham cohomology $`H_{DR}^a(X)`$ for $`X`$ over a field of characteristic $`0`$ (thus $`b`$ plays no rôle here), or rigid cohomology with the Frobenius action multiplied by $`p^b`$ for $`X`$ over a perfect field of characteristic $`p`$. On de Rham cohomology we denote by $`F`$ the Hodge filtration ().

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $``$ be smooth and le $`A`$ be a divisor meeting faces of $`Y`$ properly, where $`Y`$ is a normal crossing divisor. Let $`s:H_A^a(,Y;0)H^a(,Y;0)`$. Then

1. In the de Rham case, $`\mathrm{Image}(s)F^1H^a(,Y;0)`$.
2. In the étale case, the eigenvalues of Frobenius $`F_a`$ on $`\mathrm{Image}(s)`$ are all divisible by $`q`$.
3. In the rigid case, the slopes of $`F_a`$ on $`\mathrm{Image}(s)`$ are all divisible by $`q`$.

###### Proof.

We have a diagram

(3.1)
The assertion for the middle vertical arrow reduces to the comparable assertions for the left and right hand vertical arrows. (In the de Rham case, one must use the fact that $`\mathrm{gr}_F`$ is an exact functor.) Then the spectral sequences

(3.2)
$$E_1^{s,t}=H_{AY^{(s)}}^t(Y^{(s)},0)H_A^{s+t}(Y,0)$$

$$E_1^{s,t}=H^t(Y^{(s)},0)H^{s+t}(Y,0)$$

reduce the problem to the case where the relative divisor $`Y`$ is smooth. Thus it suffices to consider the right hand vertical arrow.

Suppose for a while we work with étale cohomology. We mimic Berthelot’s method as in , Lemma 2.1. Let $`\mathrm{}A_jA_{j1}\mathrm{}A_0=A`$ be a finite stratification by closed subsets such that $`A_{i1}A_i`$ is smooth. The localization sequence

(3.3)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}H_{A_j}^b(\overline{},_{\mathrm{}})\hfill \\ \hfill H_{A_{j1}}^b(\overline{},_{\mathrm{}})H_{(A_{j1}A_j)}^a(\overline{A_j},_{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{}\end{array}$$

commutes with the Frobenius action. Therefore we may assume that both $`A`$ and $``$ are smooth, but no longer projective. We consider an affine covering $`=_{i=0}^NU_i`$. The spectral sequence

(3.4)
$$\begin{array}{c}E_2^{ab}=H^b(\mathrm{}H_A^b(\overline{U^{a1}},_{\mathrm{}})H_A^b(\overline{U^a},_{\mathrm{}})\hfill \\ \hfill H_A^b(\overline{U^{a+1}},_{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{})H^{a+b}_A(\overline{},_{\mathrm{}})\end{array}$$

allows us to reduce to the case where $``$ is smooth affine, $`A`$ is smooth, where $`r=\mathrm{codim}(A)1`$. By purity, we have a functorial Gysin isomorphism

(3.5)
$$H^{a2r}(\overline{A},_{\mathrm{}})\stackrel{Gysin}{}H_A^a(\overline{},_{\mathrm{}}(r))$$

By functoriality, this commutes with Frobenius, and we know that the eignevalues of Frobenius acting on the left term are algebraic integers (use duality with $`H_c^{}`$ and e.g. corollary 5.5.3(iii) in ). But this is equivalent to saying that the Frobenius eigenvalues on $`H_A^a(\overline{},_{\mathrm{}})`$ are all divisible by $`q^r`$, finishing the proof when $`k=𝔽_q`$.

The same sort of argument in the de Rham case reduces us to showing

(3.6)
$$\mathrm{Image}(H_{DR}^b(A)H_{DR}^{b+2r}())F^rH_{DR}^{b+2r}())$$

when $`A`$ is a smooth codimension $`r`$ subvariety of the smooth affine $``$. Blowing up $`A`$ in $``$ we may assume that $`A`$ has codimension 1. We take a smooth compactification $`^{}`$ such that $`A`$ has a smooth compactification $`AA^{}`$ and the divisor $`A^{}W,W=(^{})`$ is a normal crossing divisor. Then the Gysin map is the connecting homomorphism of the residue sequence

(3.7)
$$0\mathrm{\Omega }_{^{}}^{}(\mathrm{log}(W))\mathrm{\Omega }_{^{}}^{}(\mathrm{log}(W+A^{}))\mathrm{\Omega }_A^{}^1(\mathrm{log}(WA^{}))0.$$

Since one has the exact subsequence

(3.8)
$$\begin{array}{c}0\mathrm{\Omega }_{^{}}^{(p+1)}(\mathrm{log}(W))\mathrm{\Omega }_{^{}}^{(p+1)}(\mathrm{log}(W+A^{}))\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Omega }_A^{}^p(\mathrm{log}(WA^{}))0,\end{array}$$

one sees that $`F^pH_{DR}^b(A)`$ cobounds to $`F^{p+1}H_{DR}^{b+2}()`$. This finishes the proof when $`k`$ has charateristic 0. Finally, when $`k`$ is perfect of characteristic $`p`$, we use a similar argument, replacing étale cohomology by rigid cohomology and then applying , Lemma 2.1. This finishes the proof of the lemma. ∎

###### proof of theorem 1.2.

$``$ will be a smooth, projective variety of dimension $`n`$, $`Y`$ is a normal crossings divisor, and $`U:=Y`$. Consider the diagonal (1.10). Using the cycle class map from motivic cohomology (cf.  section 4), we view the diagonal as being a class in our theory

(3.9)
$$\begin{array}{c}[\mathrm{\Delta }]H^{2n}((,Y)\times U,n)\underset{a+b=2n}{}H^b(U,b)H^a(,Y;a)\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{a+b=2n}{}\text{Hom}(H^a(,Y;0),H^a(,Y;0)).\end{array}$$

(The isomorphism on the right uses the existence of a good theory of compactly supported cohomology in our cohomology. Of course, the homomorphism on the right is the identity.) By the hypotheses of theorem 1.2, $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ dies in $`H^{2n}((A,YYA)\times U,n)`$, which means that the map $`s`$ below is onto:

(3.10)
$$H_A^a(,Y;0)\stackrel{s}{}H^a(,Y;0)H^a(A,YYA;a).$$

The assertions of the theorem are now consequences of lemma 3.1 above. ∎

## 4. Cycle maps

Let $`H_\mathrm{?}^{}`$ be one of the cohomology theories used above: étale cohomology with relevant twists and Galois action (), de Rham cohomology with Hodge filtration () or rigid cohomology with Frobenius action (). We explain how to define cycle maps

(4.1)
$$\text{cl}^n:H_M^{2n}(T,(A),(n))H_\mathrm{?}^{2n}(T,A),$$

natural with respect to smooth pull-back and projective push-forward, where $`H_\mathrm{?}^{2n}(T,A)`$ denotes the theory on $`T`$ with compact supports relative to $`A`$; if $`\overline{T}`$ is a compactification of $`T`$, we have the usual compactly supported cohomology $`H_{\mathrm{?},c}^{}(T):=H_\mathrm{?}^{}(\overline{T},\overline{T}T)`$, which is canonically defined independent of the choice of $`\overline{T}`$.

For $`T`$ smooth over $`k`$ and $`W`$ a closed subset, we have the cohomology with supports $`H_{\mathrm{?},W}^{}(T)`$. We have as well the relatively compact version $`H_{\mathrm{?},W}^{}(T,A)`$ and the natural commutative diagram

(4.6)
If $`WA=\mathrm{}`$, the map

(4.7)
$$H_{\mathrm{?},W}^{}(T,A)H_{\mathrm{?},W}^{}(T)$$

is an isomorphism. $`H_\mathrm{?}^{}`$ satisfies the homotopy property: the map

(4.8)
$$p^{}:H_\mathrm{?}^{}(T,A)H_\mathrm{?}^{}(T\times 𝔸^1,A\times 𝔸^1)$$

is an isomorphism.

Let $`R`$ be the coefficient ring $`H_\mathrm{?}^0(k)`$. We have the group of codimension $`n`$ cycles $`𝒵^n(T)=𝒵^n(T,0)`$. For $`WT`$ a closed subset, we let $`𝒵_W^n(T)𝒵^n(T)`$ be the subgroup of cycles with support on $`W`$. If $`\text{codim}_TWn`$, we have the purity isomorphism

(4.9)
$$\mathrm{cl}_W^n:𝒵_W^n(T)RH_{\mathrm{?},W}^{2n}(T),$$

which is natural with respect to maps $`f:(T^{},W^{})(T,W)`$, $`f^1(W)W^{}`$, with $`\text{codim}_T^{}W^{}n`$. Taking the limit over $`W`$ and forgetting supports defines the map

(4.10)
$$\mathrm{cl}^n:𝒵^n(T)H_\mathrm{?}^{2n}(T)$$

with $`\mathrm{cl}^n(f^{}Z)=f^{}\mathrm{cl}^n(Z)`$ for $`Z𝒵^n(T)`$, and $`f:T^{}T`$ with $`\text{codim}_T^{}f^1(\text{Supp}(Z))n`$. The maps $`\mathrm{cl}^n`$ are also natural with respect to projective push-forward and products.

Now let $`A`$ be a closed subset of some smooth $`T`$, and let $`W`$ be a closed subset of $`T`$ with $`\text{codim}_TWn`$ and $`WA=\mathrm{}`$. Via the isomorphisms (4.7), (4.9), we have the isomorphism

(4.11)
$$\mathrm{cl}_W^n:𝒵_W^n(T)RH_{\mathrm{?},W}^{2n}(T,A)$$

Taking the limit of such $`W`$ and forgetting supports gives us the natural map

(4.12)
$$\mathrm{cl}_A^n(0):𝒵^n(T,(A),0)H_\mathrm{?}^{2n}(T,A).$$

Similarly, we have the natural map

(4.13)
$$\mathrm{cl}_A^n(1):𝒵^n(T,(A),1)H_\mathrm{?}^{2n}(T\times S^1,A\times S^1).$$

This yields the commutative diagram

(4.18)
By the homotopy property (4.8), the right-hand vertical arrow is zero, so $`\mathrm{cl}_A^n(0)`$ descends to the desired map

(4.19)
$$\mathrm{cl}_A^n:H_M^{2n}(T,(A),(n))H_\mathrm{?}^{2n}(T,A).$$

The naturality of $`\mathrm{cl}_A^n`$ with respect to flat pull-back, projective pushforward and products follows from that of the cycle-classes with support.